On Sunday, July 4, 2021 at 6:13:55 AM UTC-7, hit...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Friday, July 2, 2021 at 6:25:19 PM UTC-6, Dono. wrote:
> >
> > On Friday, July 2, 2021 at 3:37:48 PM UTC-7, hit...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > >
> > > On Friday, July 2, 2021 at 9:36:31 AM UTC-6, Dono. wrote:
> > > >
> > > > To expose cranks like Gary Harnagel >
> > >
> > > You're certainly incompetent at doing that,
> <
> > Not true,

> > I pointed out that your carnk paper will be rejected. And it was.
> That was an opinion.

Nope, it was based on the imbecilities you wrote. And you still write.

On Friday, June 25, 2021 at 5:34:31 PM UTC-7, fujim wrote:
> Relativity arises from the symmetry of spacetime.The principle of relativity and the con

For there to be symmetry there is no space contraction...
The universe and atom do not contract lopsided...
and light and atom have their own motions...

Mitchell Raemsch

Am 03.07.2021 um 17:23 schrieb Michael Moroney:
> On 7/3/2021 2:45 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>> Am 02.07.2021 um 20:48 schrieb Loyd Migan:
>>> Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>
>>>> If you scare every real scientist away, this forum is doomed to decay.
>>>> But in fact this group was not meant as 'kook trap' or similar.
>>>> This is a group, which belongs to the UseNet.
>>>> The Usenet is actually a procol, that belongs to the internet protocol
>>>> stack and is as ancient as the e-mail system.
>>>
>>> Thanks for clarifying matter. However, as different from SR, the GR
>>> version of relativity was written by Einstine without any errors and
>>> misunderstanding.
>>>
>> Well, he wrote also the SRT version, which is FULL of errors.
>
> Except there weren't any errors in SR.

I counted about four hundred errors in Einstein's text.

> I suppose you could claim the bit about time dilation on the equator vs.
> north pole was wrong, but that was because of knowledge that nobody had
> at the time.

I left the relativity theory itself out of my error-counting. Instead I
counted as an error only things, which weren't allowed for a student in
physics.

These were: bad writing style, formal issues, wrong math, inconsisted
assumptions, incomprehensable statements, missing quotes, bad variable
names and so forth.

In my opinnion the text was just terrible and would have not been
accepted as homework of a student.

TH

On Monday, July 5, 2021 at 1:19:16 AM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:

> I counted about four hundred errors in Einstein's text.

There are no errors. The only errors are in your demented brain.

On 7/5/2021 4:19 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 03.07.2021 um 17:23 schrieb Michael Moroney:
>> On 7/3/2021 2:45 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>> Am 02.07.2021 um 20:48 schrieb Loyd Migan:
>>>> Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> If you scare every real scientist away, this forum is doomed to decay.
>>>>> But in fact this group was not meant  as 'kook trap' or similar.
>>>>> This is a group, which belongs to the UseNet.
>>>>> The Usenet is actually a procol, that belongs to the internet protocol
>>>>> stack and is as ancient as the e-mail system.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for clarifying matter. However, as different from SR, the GR
>>>> version of relativity was written by Einstine without any errors and
>>>> misunderstanding.
>>>>
>>> Well, he wrote also the SRT version, which is FULL of errors.
>>
>> Except there weren't any errors in SR.
>
> I counted about four hundred errors in Einstein's text.
>

It doesn't matter what your kook brain counted. After 100+ years of
many physicists studying it, there aren't any errors in the SR paper.

The errors you counted are your own errors. As you have been told
repeatedly.

Am 05.07.2021 um 16:46 schrieb Michael Moroney:

>>>>>> If you scare every real scientist away, this forum is doomed to
>>>>>> decay.
>>>>>> But in fact this group was not meant as 'kook trap' or similar.
>>>>>> This is a group, which belongs to the UseNet.
>>>>>> The Usenet is actually a procol, that belongs to the internet
>>>>>> protocol
>>>>>> stack and is as ancient as the e-mail system.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for clarifying matter. However, as different from SR, the GR
>>>>> version of relativity was written by Einstine without any errors and
>>>>> misunderstanding.
>>>>>
>>>> Well, he wrote also the SRT version, which is FULL of errors.
>>>
>>> Except there weren't any errors in SR.
>>
>> I counted about four hundred errors in Einstein's text.
>>
>
> It doesn't matter what your kook brain counted. After 100+ years of
> many physicists studying it, there aren't any errors in the SR paper.
>
> The errors you counted are your own errors. As you have been told
> repeatedly.

Well, you told me and several others. But there are MANY people, who
found tons of errors, too.

I guess it started very early, that people critizised Einstein's paper.
And the number of critical papers is just enormous.

Even in this forum there is not too much consensus about the validity of
SRT.

For instance 'Androcles' was a harsh critic, like several others.

TH

On Monday, July 5, 2021 at 11:12:10 AM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:

> For instance 'Androcles' was a harsh critic, like several others.
>
Crank citing crank....

Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
> Am 03.07.2021 um 17:23 schrieb Michael Moroney:
>> On 7/3/2021 2:45 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>> Am 02.07.2021 um 20:48 schrieb Loyd Migan:
>>>> Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> If you scare every real scientist away, this forum is doomed to decay.
>>>>> But in fact this group was not meant as 'kook trap' or similar.
>>>>> This is a group, which belongs to the UseNet.
>>>>> The Usenet is actually a procol, that belongs to the internet protocol
>>>>> stack and is as ancient as the e-mail system.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for clarifying matter. However, as different from SR, the GR
>>>> version of relativity was written by Einstine without any errors and
>>>> misunderstanding.
>>>>
>>> Well, he wrote also the SRT version, which is FULL of errors.
>>
>> Except there weren't any errors in SR.
>
> I counted about four hundred errors in Einstein's text.

Not so. You made 400 comments and considered them all Einstein’s errors,
though every single one discussed with you in detail has been shown to be
either your error, your misinterpretation of what was said (where no
physicist has ever made that misinterpretation), or your false expectations
of what a paper should include (like a table of variables and their
meanings).

These are all YOUR errors and all that you have documented in your pdf is
the 400 ways you can make mistakes reading a professional physics paper.

>
>> I suppose you could claim the bit about time dilation on the equator vs.
>> north pole was wrong, but that was because of knowledge that nobody had
>> at the time.
>
> I left the relativity theory itself out of my error-counting. Instead I
> counted as an error only things, which weren't allowed for a student in
> physics.

You are in NO position to declare what is or was allowed or not allowed in
a paper. No position whatsoever. This is all your fantasy construct.

>
> These were: bad writing style, formal issues, wrong math, inconsisted
> assumptions, incomprehensable statements, missing quotes, bad variable
> names and so forth.
>
> In my opinnion the text was just terrible and would have not been
> accepted as homework of a student.
>
> TH
>

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
> Am 05.07.2021 um 16:46 schrieb Michael Moroney:
>
>>>>>>> If you scare every real scientist away, this forum is doomed to
>>>>>>> decay.
>>>>>>> But in fact this group was not meant as 'kook trap' or similar.
>>>>>>> This is a group, which belongs to the UseNet.
>>>>>>> The Usenet is actually a procol, that belongs to the internet
>>>>>>> protocol
>>>>>>> stack and is as ancient as the e-mail system.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks for clarifying matter. However, as different from SR, the GR
>>>>>> version of relativity was written by Einstine without any errors and
>>>>>> misunderstanding.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Well, he wrote also the SRT version, which is FULL of errors.
>>>>
>>>> Except there weren't any errors in SR.
>>>
>>> I counted about four hundred errors in Einstein's text.
>>>
>>
>> It doesn't matter what your kook brain counted. After 100+ years of
>> many physicists studying it, there aren't any errors in the SR paper.
>>
>> The errors you counted are your own errors. As you have been told
>> repeatedly.
>
> Well, you told me and several others. But there are MANY people, who
> found tons of errors, too.
>
> I guess it started very early, that people critizised Einstein's paper.
> And the number of critical papers is just enormous.
>
> Even in this forum there is not too much consensus about the validity of
> SRT.

This forum is a concentrator of debris and kookery. There are about a score
of active posters here and we’ll over half are those attracted by an
unmoderated forum to vent their spleen and their uneducated doubts and
their rants that physics should be left to engineers like them. This group
is not at all representative of what the physics community thinks about
relativity or even what people at large think about relativity. It’s like
looking in the P-trap under the kitchen sink and declaring that the tap
water is obviously contaminated based on what you see there.

Just to put this in perspective, there are fewer critics of relativity than
there are members of the Flat Earth Society. What does that tell you?

>
> For instance 'Androcles' was a harsh critic, like several others.

And he was a kook who made mistake after mistake after mistake, a retired
engineer who thought physics should be left to engineers. Like Ralph
Rabbidge, like Pentcho Valev, like Maciej Wozniak, like Ken Seto, like a
half dozen others.

>
> TH
>

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On Sunday, July 4, 2021 at 7:23:09 AM UTC-6, Dono. wrote:
>
> On Sunday, July 4, 2021 at 6:13:55 AM UTC-7, hit...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >
> > On Friday, July 2, 2021 at 6:25:19 PM UTC-6, Dono. wrote:
> > >
> > > On Friday, July 2, 2021 at 3:37:48 PM UTC-7, hit...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Friday, July 2, 2021 at 9:36:31 AM UTC-6, Dono. wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > To expose cranks like Gary Harnagel >
> > > >
> > > > You're certainly incompetent at doing that,
> > <
> > > Not true,
> >
> > > I pointed out that your carnk paper will be rejected. And it was.
>
> > That was an opinion.
>
> Nope, it was based on the imbecilities you wrote. And you still write.

You are wrong, Imbecile-breath. It was an unsupported opinion based on
your prejudices, just like your baseless (and incorrect) opinion that KATRIN
measures the differences in the squares of the flavor masses of the
neurinos. That's a boneheaded stupid opinion the you n-tuple down on
time after time after time. It means that you don't understand the physics,
and it implies that you don't understand physics at all.

On Monday, July 5, 2021 at 1:29:24 PM UTC-7, hit...@yahoo.com wrote:
) opinion that KATRIN
> measures the differences in the squares of the flavor masses of the
> neurinos.

This is what KATRIN measures, it is explained right at the beginning of the paper. Too bad that the explanation flies right over your bald spot.

On Monday, July 5, 2021 at 2:54:06 PM UTC-6, Dono. babbled:
>
> On Monday, July 5, 2021 at 1:29:24 PM UTC-7, hit...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >
> > Exposing DON'tknOw's ridiculous opinion that KATRIN measures the
> > differences in the squares of the flavor masses of the neurinos.
>
> This is what KATRIN measures, it is explained right at the beginning of
> the paper. Too bad that the explanation flies right over your bald spot.

All this proves is that, besides being an ignoramus, you can't parse an
English sentence correctly. Besides, we already KNOW the differences
between the squares of the flavor masses. You've quoted them many
times.
m21^2 = 0.000074 eV^2
m32^2 = 0.0257 eV^2

So far, the central value from KATRIN is -1.0 eV^2, which would be a
BIG waste of resouces if they were actually measuring m23^2, as you
stupidly insist. Furthermore, the PHYSICS of the experiment, and the
derivation from principles, refutes your egregiously asinine assertion.
Your opinions are baseless baloney.

On Monday, July 5, 2021 at 4:34:50 PM UTC-7, hit...@yahoo.com wrote:

> So far, the central value from KATRIN is -1.0 eV^2,

This is exactly the imbecility you wrote in your shit paper, your justfication that the neutrino is "tachyonic". It is this exact imbecility that I exposed at the first reading of your shit paper. It is this imbecility that makes your paper totally crackpot.

On Monday, July 5, 2021 at 5:53:26 PM UTC-6, Dono. wrote:
>
> On Monday, July 5, 2021 at 4:34:50 PM UTC-7, hit...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > So far, the central value from KATRIN is -1.0 eV^2,
>
> This is exactly the imbecility you wrote in your shit paper,

Yep, and it's EXACTLY the "inbecility" reported in the KATRIN paper :-)))

> your justfication that the neutrino is "tachyonic".

> It is this exact imbecility that I exposed at the first reading of your shit paper.

The only thing you exposed is your total ignorance of physics.

> It is this imbecility that makes your paper totally crackpot.

The only example of "imbecility" is your n-tupling down on an amazingly
absurd opinion which, if true, would reflect badly on all involved in the
KATRIN experiment.

I'm afraid that you're merely an extremely ignorant troll.

On Monday, July 5, 2021 at 5:44:22 PM UTC-7, hit...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Monday, July 5, 2021 at 5:53:26 PM UTC-6, Dono. wrote:
> >
> > On Monday, July 5, 2021 at 4:34:50 PM UTC-7, hit...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >
> > > So far, the central value from KATRIN is -1.0 eV^2,
> >
> > This is exactly the imbecility you wrote in your shit paper,
> Yep, and it's EXACTLY the "inbecility" reported in the KATRIN paper

You are incapable of reading, let alone quoting the KATRIN paper. This is just one of the many things that make you a certified crank.

On Monday, July 5, 2021 at 5:46:46 PM UTC-7, Dono. wrote:
> On Monday, July 5, 2021 at 5:44:22 PM UTC-7, hit...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > On Monday, July 5, 2021 at 5:53:26 PM UTC-6, Dono. wrote:
> > >
> > > On Monday, July 5, 2021 at 4:34:50 PM UTC-7, hit...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > >
> > > > So far, the central value from KATRIN is -1.0 eV^2,
> > >
> > > This is exactly the imbecility you wrote in your shit paper,
> > Yep, and it's EXACTLY the "inbecility" reported in the KATRIN paper
> You are incapable of reading, let alone quoting the KATRIN paper. This is just one of the many things that make you a certified crank.

Here is a class on the neutrino, I suggest that you try to read it : https://cds.cern.ch/record/677618/files/p115.pdf

I am glad to see that you removed you crank references to the KATRIN experiment in the intro of your crank paper after I repeatedly kicked your ass on this issue. But you still slipped towards the end the crank claim that KATRIN would indicate an imaginary mas for the nutrino, they don't.

On Saturday, June 26, 2021 at 1:34:31 AM UTC+1, fujim wrote:
> Relativity arises from the symmetry of spacetime.The principle of relativity and the constancy of the speed of light are its conclusion.
> Please look my YouTube (13 minutes) with English subtitles.
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FQVuoYeu9i0
>
> Hiroaki Fujimori

Lots of people have already looked into this including Einstein as you've noted. Personally, I find the single axiom of there being an invariant universal maximum velocity c, which is also the speed of light, the most elegant way of deriving the Lorentz transformations. But if this is your way of gaining a sense of well-being and purpose to your life, then I understand where you're coming from.

Larry Harson

Am 05.07.2021 um 21:30 schrieb Odd Bodkin:
> Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
>> Am 05.07.2021 um 16:46 schrieb Michael Moroney:
>>
>>>>>>>> If you scare every real scientist away, this forum is doomed to
>>>>>>>> decay.
>>>>>>>> But in fact this group was not meant as 'kook trap' or similar.
>>>>>>>> This is a group, which belongs to the UseNet.
>>>>>>>> The Usenet is actually a procol, that belongs to the internet
>>>>>>>> protocol
>>>>>>>> stack and is as ancient as the e-mail system.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks for clarifying matter. However, as different from SR, the GR
>>>>>>> version of relativity was written by Einstine without any errors and
>>>>>>> misunderstanding.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well, he wrote also the SRT version, which is FULL of errors.
>>>>>
>>>>> Except there weren't any errors in SR.
>>>>
>>>> I counted about four hundred errors in Einstein's text.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It doesn't matter what your kook brain counted. After 100+ years of
>>> many physicists studying it, there aren't any errors in the SR paper.
>>>
>>> The errors you counted are your own errors. As you have been told
>>> repeatedly.
>>
>> Well, you told me and several others. But there are MANY people, who
>> found tons of errors, too.
>>
>> I guess it started very early, that people critizised Einstein's paper.
>> And the number of critical papers is just enormous.
>>
>> Even in this forum there is not too much consensus about the validity of
>> SRT.
>
> This forum is a concentrator of debris and kookery. There are about a score
> of active posters here and we’ll over half are those attracted by an
> unmoderated forum to vent their spleen and their uneducated doubts and
> their rants that physics should be left to engineers like them. This group
> is not at all representative of what the physics community thinks about
> relativity or even what people at large think about relativity. It’s like
> looking in the P-trap under the kitchen sink and declaring that the tap
> water is obviously contaminated based on what you see there.
>
> Just to put this in perspective, there are fewer critics of relativity than
> there are members of the Flat Earth Society. What does that tell you?
>
>>
>> For instance 'Androcles' was a harsh critic, like several others.
>
> And he was a kook who made mistake after mistake after mistake, a retired
> engineer who thought physics should be left to engineers. Like Ralph
> Rabbidge, like Pentcho Valev, like Maciej Wozniak, like Ken Seto, like a
> half dozen others.
>

There were about two thousand papers and books printed, which were
critical of SRT.

These were all swept under the rug, which has now a huge bulge.

Occasionally this is 'flattened', but bad things have a tendency to
resurface.

I had actually avoided any critic for many years, but started after
being attacked by 'Dono'.

So I went through the paper very carefully and found hundreds of errors.

I can show them and already did. But still you insist, that there are
absolutely no errors.

Well, ...

What I still do not understand, that is the reason. I mean, you may
eventually think, that people are too stupid to look at the paper
themselves. But it would be better to remain silent in this case and let
grass grow over SRT.

TH

Am 05.07.2021 um 20:36 schrieb Dono.:
> On Monday, July 5, 2021 at 11:12:10 AM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
>
>> For instance 'Androcles' was a harsh critic, like several others.
>>
> Crank citing crank....
>

As you may have noticed, I have not quoted anything of 'Androcles'.

I have only mentioned his name (actually a pseudonym).

TH

On 7/5/2021 2:12 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 05.07.2021 um 16:46 schrieb Michael Moroney:
>
>>>>>>> If you scare every real scientist away, this forum is doomed to
>>>>>>> decay.
>>>>>>> But in fact this group was not meant  as 'kook trap' or similar.
>>>>>>> This is a group, which belongs to the UseNet.
>>>>>>> The Usenet is actually a procol, that belongs to the internet
>>>>>>> protocol
>>>>>>> stack and is as ancient as the e-mail system.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks for clarifying matter. However, as different from SR, the GR
>>>>>> version of relativity was written by Einstine without any errors and
>>>>>> misunderstanding.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Well, he wrote also the SRT version, which is FULL of errors.
>>>>
>>>> Except there weren't any errors in SR.
>>>
>>> I counted about four hundred errors in Einstein's text.
>>>
>>
>> It doesn't matter what your kook brain counted.  After 100+ years of
>> many physicists studying it, there aren't any errors in the SR paper.
>>
>> The errors you counted are your own errors.  As you have been told
>> repeatedly.
>
> Well, you told me and several others.

MANY people told you that the mistakes were yours, not Einstein's.

> But there are MANY people, who
> found tons of errors, too.

References? (not crank references, actual peer reviewed mistakes noted)
>
> I guess it started very early, that people critizised Einstein's paper.
> And the number of critical papers is just enormous.

References? (again, real papers)
>
> Even in this forum there is not too much consensus about the validity of
> SRT.

Not much consensus among crackpots, not even with each other.
>
> For instance 'Androcles' was a harsh critic, like several others.

A fine example of a crackpot. A poor example of your point.

Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
> Am 05.07.2021 um 21:30 schrieb Odd Bodkin:
>> Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
>>> Am 05.07.2021 um 16:46 schrieb Michael Moroney:
>>>
>>>>>>>>> If you scare every real scientist away, this forum is doomed to
>>>>>>>>> decay.
>>>>>>>>> But in fact this group was not meant as 'kook trap' or similar.
>>>>>>>>> This is a group, which belongs to the UseNet.
>>>>>>>>> The Usenet is actually a procol, that belongs to the internet
>>>>>>>>> protocol
>>>>>>>>> stack and is as ancient as the e-mail system.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks for clarifying matter. However, as different from SR, the GR
>>>>>>>> version of relativity was written by Einstine without any errors and
>>>>>>>> misunderstanding.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Well, he wrote also the SRT version, which is FULL of errors.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Except there weren't any errors in SR.
>>>>>
>>>>> I counted about four hundred errors in Einstein's text.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It doesn't matter what your kook brain counted. After 100+ years of
>>>> many physicists studying it, there aren't any errors in the SR paper.
>>>>
>>>> The errors you counted are your own errors. As you have been told
>>>> repeatedly.
>>>
>>> Well, you told me and several others. But there are MANY people, who
>>> found tons of errors, too.
>>>
>>> I guess it started very early, that people critizised Einstein's paper.
>>> And the number of critical papers is just enormous.
>>>
>>> Even in this forum there is not too much consensus about the validity of
>>> SRT.
>>
>> This forum is a concentrator of debris and kookery. There are about a score
>> of active posters here and we’ll over half are those attracted by an
>> unmoderated forum to vent their spleen and their uneducated doubts and
>> their rants that physics should be left to engineers like them. This group
>> is not at all representative of what the physics community thinks about
>> relativity or even what people at large think about relativity. It’s like
>> looking in the P-trap under the kitchen sink and declaring that the tap
>> water is obviously contaminated based on what you see there.
>>
>> Just to put this in perspective, there are fewer critics of relativity than
>> there are members of the Flat Earth Society. What does that tell you?
>>
>>>
>>> For instance 'Androcles' was a harsh critic, like several others.
>>
>> And he was a kook who made mistake after mistake after mistake, a retired
>> engineer who thought physics should be left to engineers. Like Ralph
>> Rabbidge, like Pentcho Valev, like Maciej Wozniak, like Ken Seto, like a
>> half dozen others.
>>
>
> There were about two thousand papers and books printed, which were
> critical of SRT.

I think you are being generous as to what counts as a “paper”.
Usenet posts are not papers. Vanity publishers who publish anything the
author will pay for are not papers.

>
> These were all swept under the rug, which has now a huge bulge.
>
> Occasionally this is 'flattened', but bad things have a tendency to
> resurface.
>
> I had actually avoided any critic for many years, but started after
> being attacked by 'Dono'.
>
> So I went through the paper very carefully and found hundreds of errors.

As mentioned already by lots of people, all you have found is over four
hundred ways you can make mistakes, falsely claim that your expectations of
a paper are “required”, and misinterpret things that no physicist ever
misinterprets. Congrats — you’re a very prolific mistake-maker.

>
> I can show them and already did. But still you insist, that there are
> absolutely no errors.
>
> Well, ...
>
> What I still do not understand, that is the reason. I mean, you may
> eventually think, that people are too stupid to look at the paper
> themselves. But it would be better to remain silent in this case and let
> grass grow over SRT.

Many, many, many people look at the paper and do not see the “mistakes” you
claim are there. This suggests nothing to you.

>
>
> TH
>
>

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On 7/6/2021 3:19 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 05.07.2021 um 21:30 schrieb Odd Bodkin:
>> Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:

>>> For instance 'Androcles' was a harsh critic, like several others.
>>
>> And he was a kook who made mistake after mistake after mistake, a retired
>> engineer who thought physics should be left to engineers. Like Ralph
>> Rabbidge, like Pentcho Valev, like Maciej Wozniak, like Ken Seto, like a
>> half dozen others.
>>
>
> There were about two thousand papers and books printed, which were
> critical of SRT.
>
References?

> These were all swept under the rug, which has now a huge bulge.

Or ignored for being the crank squeals they are.
>
> Occasionally this is 'flattened', but bad things have a tendency to
> resurface.
>
> I had actually avoided any critic for many years, but started after
> being attacked by 'Dono'.
>
> So I went through the paper very carefully and found hundreds of errors.

All of which are your own.
>
> I can show them and already did. But still you insist, that there are
> absolutely no errors.
>
> Well, ...

Well, they are all YOUR errors, misunderstandings etc.
>
> What I still do not understand, that is the reason. I mean, you may
> eventually think, that people are too stupid to look at the paper
> themselves. But it would be better to remain silent in this case and let
> grass grow over SRT.

SR, with later followons, is one of the most successful theories of all
times.

On Monday, July 5, 2021 at 7:19:05 PM UTC-6, Dono. wrote:
>
> Here is a class on the neutrino, I suggest that you try to read it :
> https://cds.cern.ch/record/677618/files/p115.pdf

Perhaps YOU should try to read it:

"A direct measurement of the neutrino masses is in principle possible,
with kinematical methods, determining the momentum and energy of a
neutrino." -- p.121

And what are those "direct measurements"? They list the Mainz and Troitsk
experiments, but they only give early results because the paper appears to
have been published 19 years ago. KATRIN is the same type of experiment
with the promise of improved accuracy. In fact, KATRIN has already tightened
up the error bars by a factor of two.

But the important point is that the paper you suggest confirms that your
interpretation of what the experiments measure is dead wrong.

BTW, the paper is wrong here: "These methods have only produced upper
limits for the neutrino masses"

All three reports now have upper and lower bounds for the neutrino mass.
This is one problem with relying on papers on neutrinos that are two decades
old, but at least they demonstrate your totally clueless opinion about WHAT
is being measured.

> I am glad to see that you removed you crank references to the KATRIN
> experiment in the intro of your crank paper

Actually, I'm thinking about putting it more to the front of my new paper :-)

> after I repeatedly kicked your ass on this issue.

I'm afraid you totally misunderstand: you only repeatedly kicked your own ass :-))

> But you still slipped towards the end the crank claim that KATRIN would indicate
> an imaginary mas for the nutrino, they don't.

Says the physics-challenged incompetent :-))

On Tuesday, July 6, 2021 at 6:40:09 AM UTC-7, hit...@yahoo.com wrote:

> BTW, the paper is wrong here: "These methods have only produced upper
> limits for the neutrino masses"
Once a crank, always a crank, Gary.

> > I am glad to see that you removed you crank references to the KATRIN
> > experiment in the intro of your crank paper
> Actually, I'm thinking about putting it more to the front of my new paper :-)

You already did that, in the earlier versions of your utter crankery.

On 7/6/21 2:19 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> There were about two thousand papers and books printed, which were
> critical of SRT. These were all swept under the rug, which has now a
> huge bulge.

None of them displayed actual problems or errors in SR. Like your list,
they demonstrate misconceptions or errors on the part of the author, not
problems in SR.

What you don't seem to understand is that if anybody actually pointed
out an error or problem in SR, they would become FAMOUS within the
physics community, and would have strong standing to receive a Nobel
Prize. But you and those "two thousand papers" have failed to do so.
Moreover, you have made so many errors and stupid statements that I see
no point in reading the drivel you write.

Tom Roberts