https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1VeWnpuCWuQ

On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 11:08:05 AM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1VeWnpuCWuQ

Breaking: QED based on fraud!

On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 11:13:24 AM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 11:08:05 AM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1VeWnpuCWuQ
>
> Breaking: QED based on fraud!

Breaking: Coulomb Force superluminal...instantaneous!

On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 11:14:46 AM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 11:13:24 AM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> > On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 11:08:05 AM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1VeWnpuCWuQ
> >
> > Breaking: QED based on fraud!
> Breaking: Coulomb Force superluminal...instantaneous!

Can you summarize that a bit more, please, or provide a link to what
is something in arxiv or in Phys.Rev. somewhere, thanks.

Anything "new" theoretically is of course subject to probably
all sorts of empirical factors or "the fudge factors", today,
if you might relate how such effects you say are not falsified
down in an expansion of the theoretical model, or that the
current one is, relate to the existing terms for same, it could help.

On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 5:23:04 PM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 11:14:46 AM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> > On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 11:13:24 AM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> > > On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 11:08:05 AM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1VeWnpuCWuQ
> > >
> > > Breaking: QED based on fraud!
> > Breaking: Coulomb Force superluminal...instantaneous!
> Can you summarize that a bit more, please, or provide a link to what
> is something in arxiv or in Phys.Rev. somewhere, thanks.
>
> Anything "new" theoretically is of course subject to probably
> all sorts of empirical factors or "the fudge factors", today,
> if you might relate how such effects you say are not falsified
> down in an expansion of the theoretical model, or that the
> current one is, relate to the existing terms for same, it could help.

Well they start off talking down QED and renormalization, or the usual quantum technique
as to arrive at discrete sums, then hop right off from Higgs field (which is _not_ a field but an
interface), then mention Jefimenko then drop those, then happily posit a scalar field and get
into "superluminal Coulomb force", then explain a sort of junction effect according to Casimir,
talk about Zero-Point energy and vacuum fluctuation, which of course must be ultimately parasitic,
then quite agree that there are physics beyond the standard, but aren't quite willing to address
deficiencies in the model, but add more.

Seems they've almost caught up with Weber's law and 1948.
(Weber's law is mentioned and discussed.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weber_electrodynamics

I've only watched about an hour of it but it's pretty good and I enjoy it, but would mostly be
telling them no and that if they want something that isn't a hodge-podge or extra fudge,
they need to actually start beneath the bananas and with a sort of super-classical dish.

Mentioning Jefimenko isn't so unusual as it once was, but still they only sort of pick
it up and put it down, as it were.

Jefimenko gets associated with Popov-Fadeev and the de Broglie ghost wave, or pilot wave, here as
that they relate it to skin effect and "potentials". Then, their "infinite" is just "instantaneous"
or sometimes "infinite velocity", but it would be better perhaps to frame it instead in terms
of finite regions and instantaneous transitions.

On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 7:08:48 PM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 5:23:04 PM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> > On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 11:14:46 AM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> > > On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 11:13:24 AM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 11:08:05 AM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> > > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1VeWnpuCWuQ
> > > >
> > > > Breaking: QED based on fraud!
> > > Breaking: Coulomb Force superluminal...instantaneous!
> > Can you summarize that a bit more, please, or provide a link to what
> > is something in arxiv or in Phys.Rev. somewhere, thanks.
> >
> > Anything "new" theoretically is of course subject to probably
> > all sorts of empirical factors or "the fudge factors", today,
> > if you might relate how such effects you say are not falsified
> > down in an expansion of the theoretical model, or that the
> > current one is, relate to the existing terms for same, it could help.
> Well they start off talking down QED and renormalization, or the usual quantum technique
> as to arrive at discrete sums, then hop right off from Higgs field (which is _not_ a field but an
> interface), then mention Jefimenko then drop those, then happily posit a scalar field and get
> into "superluminal Coulomb force", then explain a sort of junction effect according to Casimir,
> talk about Zero-Point energy and vacuum fluctuation, which of course must be ultimately parasitic,
> then quite agree that there are physics beyond the standard, but aren't quite willing to address
> deficiencies in the model, but add more.
>
>
> Seems they've almost caught up with Weber's law and 1948.
> (Weber's law is mentioned and discussed.)
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weber_electrodynamics
>
>
> I've only watched about an hour of it but it's pretty good and I enjoy it, but would mostly be
> telling them no and that if they want something that isn't a hodge-podge or extra fudge,
> they need to actually start beneath the bananas and with a sort of super-classical dish.
>
> Mentioning Jefimenko isn't so unusual as it once was, but still they only sort of pick
> it up and put it down, as it were.
>
> Jefimenko gets associated with Popov-Fadeev and the de Broglie ghost wave, or pilot wave, here as
> that they relate it to skin effect and "potentials". Then, their "infinite" is just "instantaneous"
> or sometimes "infinite velocity", but it would be better perhaps to frame it instead in terms
> of finite regions and instantaneous transitions.
I knew you would enjoy the conference, Ross.

On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 7:12:37 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 7:08:48 PM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> > On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 5:23:04 PM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> > > On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 11:14:46 AM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 11:13:24 AM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> > > > > On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 11:08:05 AM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> > > > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1VeWnpuCWuQ
> > > > >
> > > > > Breaking: QED based on fraud!
> > > > Breaking: Coulomb Force superluminal...instantaneous!
> > > Can you summarize that a bit more, please, or provide a link to what
> > > is something in arxiv or in Phys.Rev. somewhere, thanks.
> > >
> > > Anything "new" theoretically is of course subject to probably
> > > all sorts of empirical factors or "the fudge factors", today,
> > > if you might relate how such effects you say are not falsified
> > > down in an expansion of the theoretical model, or that the
> > > current one is, relate to the existing terms for same, it could help.
> > Well they start off talking down QED and renormalization, or the usual quantum technique
> > as to arrive at discrete sums, then hop right off from Higgs field (which is _not_ a field but an
> > interface), then mention Jefimenko then drop those, then happily posit a scalar field and get
> > into "superluminal Coulomb force", then explain a sort of junction effect according to Casimir,
> > talk about Zero-Point energy and vacuum fluctuation, which of course must be ultimately parasitic,
> > then quite agree that there are physics beyond the standard, but aren't quite willing to address
> > deficiencies in the model, but add more.
> >
> >
> > Seems they've almost caught up with Weber's law and 1948.
> > (Weber's law is mentioned and discussed.)
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weber_electrodynamics
> >
> >
> > I've only watched about an hour of it but it's pretty good and I enjoy it, but would mostly be
> > telling them no and that if they want something that isn't a hodge-podge or extra fudge,
> > they need to actually start beneath the bananas and with a sort of super-classical dish.
> >
> > Mentioning Jefimenko isn't so unusual as it once was, but still they only sort of pick
> > it up and put it down, as it were.
> >
> > Jefimenko gets associated with Popov-Fadeev and the de Broglie ghost wave, or pilot wave, here as
> > that they relate it to skin effect and "potentials". Then, their "infinite" is just "instantaneous"
> > or sometimes "infinite velocity", but it would be better perhaps to frame it instead in terms
> > of finite regions and instantaneous transitions.
> I knew you would enjoy the conference, Ross.

Like I said, they're piling on deviations to the standard model instead of fixing it
underneath, that it's still a space-time thing, and makes for more of a "bubble metric"
or "moving metric" than "wavy bits on top", i.e. it seems a bit "hand-wavy, fudgy".

On Saturday, 7 October 2023 at 18:23:33 UTC+2, Ross Finlayson wrote:

> Like I said, they're piling on deviations to the standard model instead of fixing it

ESAD, you and the whole nazi retarded bandwagon.

*Agent of the enemy alert*

Julio

On Thursday, 5 October 2023 at 20:08:05 UTC+2, patdolan wrote:

> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1VeWnpuCWuQ>

Thanks: not that I need to be told how fraudulent and deadly
our science has become together with everything else in this
hemisphere, but great to see not everything is lost yet...

Julio

Le 08/10/2023 à 15:42, Julio Di Egidio a écrit :
> On Thursday, 5 October 2023 at 20:08:05 UTC+2, patdolan wrote:
>
>> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1VeWnpuCWuQ>
>
> Thanks: not that I need to be told how fraudulent and deadly
> our science has become together with everything else in this
> hemisphere, but great to see not everything is lost yet...

So now you are making friends with notorious cranks Julio... Oh
wait, you are a kind of crank yourself.

This video is ridiculous (again, an "electrical engineer" ! Seriously
what's wrong with these guys ?)

On Sunday, 8 October 2023 at 16:11:30 UTC+2, Python wrote:
> Le 08/10/2023 à 15:42, Julio Di Egidio a écrit :
> > On Thursday, 5 October 2023 at 20:08:05 UTC+2, patdolan wrote:
> >
> > > <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1VeWnpuCWuQ>
> >
> > Thanks: not that I need to be told how fraudulent and deadly
> > our science has become together with everything else in this
> > hemisphere, but great to see not everything is lost yet...
>
> So now you are making friends with notorious cranks Julio... Oh
> wait, you are a kind of crank yourself.

Typical ad hominem retort from yet another resident abusive
spamming cunt.

> This video is ridiculous (again, an "electrical engineer" ! Seriously
> what's wrong with these guys ?)

For your info, "engineers" are the only reason why we are not all
already dead, you piece(s) of nazi-retarded shit.

Indeed, you too do humanity a favour and jump off a bridge.

*Plonk*

Julio

Le 08/10/2023 à 16:40, Stronzo Julio Di Egidio a écrit :
> On Sunday, 8 October 2023 at 16:11:30 UTC+2, Python wrote:
>> Le 08/10/2023 à 15:42, Julio Di Egidio a écrit :
>>> On Thursday, 5 October 2023 at 20:08:05 UTC+2, patdolan wrote:
>>>
>>>> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1VeWnpuCWuQ>
>>>
>>> Thanks: not that I need to be told how fraudulent and deadly
>>> our science has become together with everything else in this
>>> hemisphere, but great to see not everything is lost yet...
>>
>> So now you are making friends with notorious cranks Julio... Oh
>> wait, you are a kind of crank yourself.
>
> Typical ad hominem retort from yet another resident abusive
> spamming cunt.
>
>> This video is ridiculous (again, an "electrical engineer" ! Seriously
>> what's wrong with these guys ?)
>
> For your info, "engineers" are the only reason why we are not all
> already dead,

I am an engineer, Julio. I'm just not a cray "electrical engineer" who
pretend to refute Einstein. That's quite a difference, isn't it?

> you piece(s) of nazi-retarded shit.

How come you are seeing "nazis" everywhere Julio? Seriously what's
wrong with you?

> Indeed, you too do humanity a favour and jump off a bridge.

There is a platform in Italy where I may signal this kind of
criminal abuse on your part, you know?

> *Plonk*

ah ah, you'll never understand what "plonk" means, will you?

Le 08/10/2023 à 15:42, Stronzo Julio Di Egidio a écrit :
> On Thursday, 5 October 2023 at 20:08:05 UTC+2, crank patdolan wrote:
>
>> <snip idiotic yt video>
>
> Thanks

you'd better watch this Julio, it's about your kind of people:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11lPhMSulSU

On Sunday, 8 October 2023 at 16:46:43 UTC+2, Python wrote:
> Le 08/10/2023 à 16:40, Stronzo Julio Di Egidio a écrit :
> > On Sunday, 8 October 2023 at 16:11:30 UTC+2, Python wrote:
> >> Le 08/10/2023 à 15:42, Julio Di Egidio a écrit :
> >>> On Thursday, 5 October 2023 at 20:08:05 UTC+2, patdolan wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1VeWnpuCWuQ>
> >>>
> >>> Thanks: not that I need to be told how fraudulent and deadly
> >>> our science has become together with everything else in this
> >>> hemisphere, but great to see not everything is lost yet...
> >>
> >> So now you are making friends with notorious cranks Julio... Oh
> >> wait, you are a kind of crank yourself.
> >
> > Typical ad hominem retort from yet another resident abusive
> > spamming cunt.
> >
> >> This video is ridiculous (again, an "electrical engineer" ! Seriously
> >> what's wrong with these guys ?)
> >
> > For your info, "engineers" are the only reason why we are not all
> > already dead,
> I am an engineer, Julio. I'm just not a cray "electrical engineer" who
> pretend to refute Einstein. That's quite a difference, isn't it?
> > you piece(s) of nazi-retarded shit.
> How come you are seeing "nazis" everywhere Julio? Seriously what's
> wrong with you?
> > Indeed, you too do humanity a favour and jump off a bridge.
> There is a platform in Italy where I may signal this kind of
> criminal abuse on your part, you know?
>
> > *Plonk*
>
> ah ah, you'll never understand what "plonk" means, will you?

I won't indulge in publishing *your* personal details, you
piece of nazi-retarded abusive shit and the true author
of several and not just virtual abusive campaigns...

So wake the fuck up as sooner than later justice and
possibly a psychiatrist might indeed knock at your
door... and at that of whomever is paying your bills.

EOD.

*Here be nazi-retarded dragons*

Julio

Le 08/10/2023 à 17:05, Julio Di Egidio a écrit :
> On Sunday, 8 October 2023 at 16:46:43 UTC+2, Python wrote:
>> Le 08/10/2023 à 16:40, Stronzo Julio Di Egidio a écrit :
>>> On Sunday, 8 October 2023 at 16:11:30 UTC+2, Python wrote:
>>>> Le 08/10/2023 à 15:42, Julio Di Egidio a écrit :
>>>>> On Thursday, 5 October 2023 at 20:08:05 UTC+2, patdolan wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1VeWnpuCWuQ>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks: not that I need to be told how fraudulent and deadly
>>>>> our science has become together with everything else in this
>>>>> hemisphere, but great to see not everything is lost yet...
>>>>
>>>> So now you are making friends with notorious cranks Julio... Oh
>>>> wait, you are a kind of crank yourself.
>>>
>>> Typical ad hominem retort from yet another resident abusive
>>> spamming cunt.
>>>
>>>> This video is ridiculous (again, an "electrical engineer" ! Seriously
>>>> what's wrong with these guys ?)
>>>
>>> For your info, "engineers" are the only reason why we are not all
>>> already dead,
>> I am an engineer, Julio. I'm just not a cray "electrical engineer" who
>> pretend to refute Einstein. That's quite a difference, isn't it?
>>> you piece(s) of nazi-retarded shit.
>> How come you are seeing "nazis" everywhere Julio? Seriously what's
>> wrong with you?
>>> Indeed, you too do humanity a favour and jump off a bridge.
>> There is a platform in Italy where I may signal this kind of
>> criminal abuse on your part, you know?
>>
>>> *Plonk*
>>
>> ah ah, you'll never understand what "plonk" means, will you?
>
> I won't indulge in publishing *your* personal details, you
> piece of nazi-retarded abusive shit and the true author
> of several and not just virtual abusive campaigns...
>
> So wake the fuck up as sooner than later justice and
> possibly a psychiatrist might indeed knock at your
> door... and at that of whomever is paying your bills.
>
> EOD.
>
> *Here be nazi-retarded dragons*
>
> Julio

Seriously, Julio, you need help, fast.

I'll make sure the Italian police knows about your posts btw.

On Sunday, October 8, 2023 at 6:36:53 AM UTC-7, Julio Di Egidio wrote:
> On Saturday, 7 October 2023 at 18:23:33 UTC+2, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>
> > Like I said, they're piling on deviations to the standard model instead of fixing it
> ESAD, you and the whole nazi retarded bandwagon.
>
> *Agent of the enemy alert*
>
> Julio

It's a lot like mathematics and logic, where there are paradoxes, and instead of resolving
them up-front, then try to tack on a needful later, which results the enterprise is hypocritical.

Mathematics needs more and better proper definitions of continuity, then that it owes physics,
what these are, then with regards to physics, that it has proper definitions of totality, more and better,
and this basically involves a foundations and a foundations and a foundations.

(I rather reject any association with socialist progressives. I've been reading Polybius recently
about his studies of the constitutions of governments, and his insights into individual and
collective behavior. It's rather similar with Kant's "On the old saw ...", they're both meritocrats
and civil egalitarians but appreciate tragedy of the commons.)

Then so far as that goes, indeed I do claim to appropriate all what's good in philosophy or
"the canon", while at the same time demanding a "conscientious mathematics, logic, and
physics". Also these days I am sort of putting mathematics back in front of logic again,
though from the ab initio it's still often enough axiomatics, it still rather results a coherent
and unified exercise, the body of a foundations.

With "Existentialism" sort of being put down as that it was a dummy put in for "Theology",
that's because the canon like Kant already had the notions of object-sense and the sublime,
what makes for either that infinity, really, is a thing, available to object-sense as the sublime,
vis-a-vis the other and empirical senses, there's that either Theology or Existentialism is held
up for the utter and eminent placement for that which is above the sublime, that still it's the
very fact of reason that humans can utter "0, 1, and Infinity", and mean a well-defined thing.

Then these fellows discussing things like "inrush current" and "skin effect" and such, in terms
of the fluid models all classical that they have of electrical circuits, these are already in a world
of superclassical models or "flux" models above "flow" models, for the reciprocal contexts, and,
complementary duals, of oscillation/restitution and attenuation/dissipation..

So, what I'm saying is that physics deserves "revisit Hubble, Heisenberg, Higgs", because otherwise
it's only wall-papering and results a secondary empirical regime, eventually non-mathematical,
thus eventually non-scientific, in the sense of that it's a mathematical science.

(Then that Theology and Existentialism are still just super-scientific and mostly due an object-sense.)

I don't keep enemies.