On Tuesday, July 6, 2021 at 6:40:09 AM UTC-7, hit...@yahoo.com wrote:
> 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
>
From: https://www.washington.edu/news/2019/09/16/katrin-neutrino-mass-estimate-in-half/

"KATRIN scientists CANNOT DIRECTLY measure the neutrinos (because, as I explained to you many times, neutrino oscillate amongst their 3 flavors), but they can measure electrons, and try to CALCULATE neutrino properties based on electron properties."

Gary,

You are a crank, a very stubborn one. This will not change and the shit you call your paper will not be published. Ever.

Gary Harnagel wrote:

> 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

ohh boy, Dr. Harnagel et al doesn't know yet the meaning of the term
*in_principle_possible*.

Hmm, this is especially amusing when the violent empire decays from
inside. In their self-declared greatness time they could not handle half
a Vietnam. Their threats became empty bluffing and pretense from fear of
losing.

On Tuesday, July 6, 2021 at 8:34:00 AM UTC-6, DON'tknOw physics wrote:
>
> On Tuesday, July 6, 2021 at 6:40:09 AM UTC-7, hit...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >
> > 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
>
> From: https://www.washington.edu/news/2019/09/16/katrin-neutrino-mass-estimate-in-half/
>
> "KATRIN scientists CANNOT DIRECTLY measure the neutrinos (because, as I explained to you
> many times, neutrino oscillate amongst their 3 flavors), but they can measure electrons, and
> try to CALCULATE neutrino properties based on electron properties."

Of COURSE, they don't measure it "directly" AS I'VE EXPLAINED TO YOU!!!

(1) They measure the properties of the electron resulting from the decay process and infer the
properties of the neutrino from the same process. PHYSICISTS assume (1) that the decay
process releases the same amount of energy each time and (2) energy and momentum are
conserved. Thus they KNOW the properties of the neutrino, too.

(2) The masses of the neutrino flavors are very close to each other, as PHYSICISTS KNOW, and
as the Wikipedia page reads: IF the lightest has zero mass then the heaviest has 0.05 eV.

(3) So KATRIN preliminary result says the neutrino MASS is less than 1.1 eV, but the "effective"
[most-likely] value for m² is -1.0 with error bars of (+0.9, -1.0) eV². They intend that the error
will be reduced to 0.2 eV² in the future. Where the most likely value will go, no one knows, BUT

(4) The final results from the Mainz experiment phase II (arXiv 1909.06048) was m² = -0.6 eV²
(± 2.2 ± 2.1), the most-likely value slipping from -0.6 eV² to -1.0 eV² for KATRIN. So why would
a more accurate measurement move the MLV more negative?

> Gary,
>
> You are a crank, a very stubborn one. This will not change and the shit you call your paper will
> not be published. Ever.

Nobody cares about the opinion of a physics-incompetent like yourself.

On Wednesday, July 7, 2021 at 5:53:03 AM UTC-7, hit...@yahoo.com wrote:

> (2) The masses of the neutrino flavors are very close to each other, as PHYSICISTS KNOW, and
> as the Wikipedia page reads: IF the lightest has zero mass then the heaviest has 0.05 eV.
>
> (3) So KATRIN preliminary result says the neutrino MASS is less than 1.1 eV, but the "effective"
> [most-likely] value for m² is -1.0 with error bars of (+0.9, -1.0) eV².
>

Your crank statement at point (3) is contradicted by point (2).

Gary Harnagel wrote:

>> 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 )

and how would you translate your logorrhea into parsable *punycode*, the
new internet standard?? Let me see your tensor, the magnitude and the
dimension of it.

Gary Harnagel wrote:

> (3) So KATRIN preliminary result says the neutrino MASS is less than 1.1
> eV, but the "effective" [most-likely] value for m² is -1.0 with error
> bars of (+0.9, -1.0) eV². They intend that the error will be reduced to
> 0.2 eV² in the future. Where the most likely value will go, no one
> knows, BUT

if you run this on your arduino your color LCD display will crash. You
can't have errorbars larger than the sampled value. Never. Read my lips.

On Wednesday, July 7, 2021 at 2:05:07 PM UTC-7, hit...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 7, 2021 at 9:09:29 AM UTC-6, Dono. babbled:
> >
> > On Wednesday, July 7, 2021 at 5:53:03 AM UTC-7, hit...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > >
> > > (2) The masses of the neutrino flavors are very close to each other, as PHYSICISTS KNOW, and
> > > as the Wikipedia page reads: IF the lightest has zero mass then the heaviest has 0.05 eV.
> > >
> > > (3) So KATRIN preliminary result says the neutrino MASS is less than 1.1 eV, but the "effective"
> > > [most-likely] value for m² is -1.0 with error bars of (+0.9, -1.0) eV².
> > >
> > Your crank statement at point (3) is contradicted by point (2).
> You are wrong, contradiction-breath. The difference between the masses cannot be greater than
> However, IF m1² = -1.0 eV². then m3² = -0.9743, or m3 = i0.99 eV.
> That would make all three neutrinos tachyons.
>

Crank,

You. Do. Not. Know. What. "Effective mass" means. Like i pointed out to you many times, You. Have. No. Clue.
You never will.

On Wednesday, July 7, 2021 at 3:47:47 PM UTC-6, Dono. prevaricated:
>
> On Wednesday, July 7, 2021 at 2:05:07 PM UTC-7, hit...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >
> > On Wednesday, July 7, 2021 at 9:09:29 AM UTC-6, Dono. babbled:
> > >
> > > On Wednesday, July 7, 2021 at 5:53:03 AM UTC-7, hit...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > >
> > > > (2) The masses of the neutrino flavors are very close to each other, as PHYSICISTS KNOW, and
> > > > as the Wikipedia page reads: IF the lightest has zero mass then the heaviest has 0.05 eV.
> > > >
> > > > (3) So KATRIN preliminary result says the neutrino MASS is less than 1.1 eV, but the "effective"
> > > > [most-likely] value for m² is -1.0 with error bars of (+0.9, -1.0) eV².
> > >
> > > Your crank statement at point (3) is contradicted by point (2).
> >
> > You are wrong, contradiction-breath. The difference between the masses cannot be greater than
> > However, IF m1² = -1.0 eV². then m3² = -0.9743, or m3 = i0.99 eV.
> > That would make all three neutrinos tachyons.
>
> Crank,
>
> You. Do. Not. Know. What. "Effective mass" means.

I know it certainly doesn't mean "the differences between the squares of the mass flavors :-)))

Like I pointed out to you many times, You. Have. No. Clue. You never will.

On Wednesday, July 7, 2021 at 3:50:59 PM UTC-7, hit...@yahoo.com wrote:

> > Crank,
> >
> > You. Do. Not. Know. What. "Effective mass" means.
> I know it certainly doesn't mean "the differences between the squares of the mass flavors :-)))
>
You will never know, crank

On Wednesday, July 7, 2021 at 5:38:15 PM UTC-6, Dono. wrote:
> > >
> > > You. Do. Not. Know. What. "Effective mass" means.
> > I know it certainly doesn't mean "the differences between the squares of the mass flavors :-)))
>
> You will never know, crank

Neither will you, ignoramus.

On Wednesday, July 7, 2021 at 6:34:59 PM UTC-7, hit...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 7, 2021 at 5:38:15 PM UTC-6, Dono. wrote:
> > > >
> > > > You. Do. Not. Know. What. "Effective mass" means.
> > > I know it certainly doesn't mean "the differences between the squares of the mass flavors :-)))
> >
> > You will never know, crank
> Neither will you

Unlike you, I KNOW

Am 06.07.2021 um 14:31 schrieb Michael Moroney:

>>>>>>> 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.

Well, many people wrote many things. But its not the amount of people or
the number of their messages, what makes a good text, but the content.

>> 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)

There were people like Herbert Dingle, who supplied extensive lists of
papers critical to SRT.

I have not written any list like this and have actually not read more
than a few of these papers and not even entirely.

I have based my critique on my own ideas and that on general knowledge
of math, pyhsics, chemistry, electronics or engineering.

>> 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.

EVERY critic of Einstein is called 'crackpot'.

But still his paper is FULL of mistakes.

So, people are not allowed to criticise errors, hence have to swallow
what they are supposed to believe.

But that is unscientific as it can possibly get.

>>
>> For instance 'Androcles' was a harsh critic, like several others.
>
> A fine example of a crackpot. A poor example of your point.

Ok...He was strange, but certainly smart.

TH

On Wednesday, July 7, 2021 at 11:39:15 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
>
> There were people like Herbert Dingle, who supplied extensive lists of
> papers critical to SRT.
Dingle was shown to be wrong, he died insane, just like you.

Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
> Am 06.07.2021 um 14:31 schrieb Michael Moroney:
>
>>>>>>>> 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.
>
>
> Well, many people wrote many things. But its not the amount of people or
> the number of their messages, what makes a good text, but the content.
>
>>> 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)
>
> There were people like Herbert Dingle, who supplied extensive lists of
> papers critical to SRT.
>
> I have not written any list like this and have actually not read more
> than a few of these papers and not even entirely.

And so you don’t have this list of thousands of papers critical of SR, do
you? That was just a fabrication.

>
> I have based my critique on my own ideas and that on general knowledge
> of math, pyhsics, chemistry, electronics or engineering.
>
>
>>> 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.
>
> EVERY critic of Einstein is called 'crackpot'.

It’s the other way around. Crackpots are people who haven’t bothered to
learn a subject but are opinionated about it anyway. It so happens that
there are a lot of crackpots who have uninformed opinions about Einstein.
The only fix for having an uninformed opinion is to become informed.

>
> But still his paper is FULL of mistakes.

No, this is incorrect, as has been pointed out to you many, many, many
times. The errors are yours and not in the paper. You do not want to hear
that, this I understand. This isn’t about being disallowed to criticize a
paper. It’s about you being uninformed to the point where your opinions
about what the paper should be like is *worthless*. Uninformed opinions are
not worth much attention because they are usually a collection of mistakes,
as your bundle of comments attests.

Let me reiterate, every time you repeat the claim that his paper is “FULL
of mistakes”, you are only demonstrating your own inability to learn from
your own mistakes.

>
> So, people are not allowed to criticise errors, hence have to swallow
> what they are supposed to believe.
>
> But that is unscientific as it can possibly get.
>
>>>
>>> For instance 'Androcles' was a harsh critic, like several others.
>>
>> A fine example of a crackpot. A poor example of your point.
>
> Ok...He was strange, but certainly smart.

No, sorry, he was not very smart. He tried to be a clever correspondent,
but in terms of actual knowledge of the subject, he was pretty deficient.
Do not confuse repartee with being smart.

>
>
>
> TH
>

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

How is your local motion going to
take away distance of the universe?
How could the spatial universe
as a whole get changed by all
different sub motions?

No. That is dumb...

Mitchell Raemsch

On 7/8/2021 2:39 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 06.07.2021 um 14:31 schrieb Michael Moroney:
>
>>>>>>>> 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.
>
>
> Well, many people wrote many things. But its not the amount of people or
> the number of their messages, what makes a good text, but the content.

And many people have pointed out how the content of your "mistakes" were
all yours and not Einstein's. You just ignored them and still count
them on your list of "errors".
>
>>> But there are MANY people, who found tons of errors, too.
>>
>> References?  (not crank references, actual peer reviewed mistakes noted)

No response?
>>>
>>> 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)
>
> There were people like Herbert Dingle, who supplied extensive lists of
> papers critical to SRT.

And Dingle was shown to be wrong. (and went insane).
>
> I have not written any list like this and have actually not read more
> than a few of these papers and not even entirely.
>
> I have based my critique on my own ideas and that on general knowledge
> of math, pyhsics, chemistry, electronics or engineering.

Yet you ignore responses to your "critique"...
>
>
>>> 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.
>
> EVERY critic of Einstein is called 'crackpot'.

Nope. Only those who claim he's wrong but with no evidence. And insist
he's wrong despite being corrected.
>
> But still his paper is FULL of mistakes.

Nope. None noted by 100 years of real physicists.
>
> So, people are not allowed to criticise errors, hence have to swallow
> what they are supposed to believe.
>
> But that is unscientific as it can possibly get.

It would be if true, but it isn't. All of your found "mistakes"
analyzed so far have been YOUR mistakes, not Einstein's.
>
>>>
>>> For instance 'Androcles' was a harsh critic, like several others.
>>
>> A fine example of a crackpot. A poor example of your point.
>
> Ok...He was strange, but certainly smart.

No, he wasn't that smart, even if he could argue well.

Am 08.07.2021 um 18:05 schrieb Odd Bodkin:
> Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
>> Am 06.07.2021 um 14:31 schrieb Michael Moroney:
>>
>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>
>>
>> Well, many people wrote many things. But its not the amount of people or
>> the number of their messages, what makes a good text, but the content.
>>
>>>> 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)
>>
>> There were people like Herbert Dingle, who supplied extensive lists of
>> papers critical to SRT.
>>
>> I have not written any list like this and have actually not read more
>> than a few of these papers and not even entirely.
>
> And so you don’t have this list of thousands of papers critical of SR, do
> you? That was just a fabrication.
>
>>
>> I have based my critique on my own ideas and that on general knowledge
>> of math, pyhsics, chemistry, electronics or engineering.
>>
>>
>>>> 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.
>>
>> EVERY critic of Einstein is called 'crackpot'.
>
> It’s the other way around. Crackpots are people who haven’t bothered to
> learn a subject but are opinionated about it anyway. It so happens that
> there are a lot of crackpots who have uninformed opinions about Einstein.
> The only fix for having an uninformed opinion is to become informed.

Humans have a strange ability: kind of 'swarm inetelligance'.

This was demonstrated several times.

E.g. people should estimate the number of small balls in a huges glass jar.

The individual estimates were often seriously wrong, but the total
average mostly correct.

This seems to be a human habbit. This would have an inpact on science,
since in this case the true value of something, which is researched in a
cooperative manner, will be the average in the sum of ALL the estimates.

This would require to take extreme positions into the 'soup', too,
because a prejustice about the validity of certain positions could
result in a serious bias towards mainstream positions and away from the
true value, which is the desired result.

>>
>> But still his paper is FULL of mistakes.
>
> No, this is incorrect, as has been pointed out to you many, many, many
> times. The errors are yours and not in the paper. You do not want to hear
> that, this I understand. This isn’t about being disallowed to criticize a
> paper. It’s about you being uninformed to the point where your opinions
> about what the paper should be like is *worthless*. Uninformed opinions are
> not worth much attention because they are usually a collection of mistakes,
> as your bundle of comments attests.
>
> Let me reiterate, every time you repeat the claim that his paper is “FULL
> of mistakes”, you are only demonstrating your own inability to learn from
> your own mistakes.
>

You actually forced me to write my annotations more carefully than what
I actually wanted.

So I went through the text word for word and equation after equation
amny times.

I wrote several versions of my 'annotated version of SRT', removed many
of my own errors and found new one in the text. But this had only
intensified adverse reaction.

But you don't know my latest version, which I would regard as finished now.

As you insist, I have to publish that, too, even if that was not my plan.

This is actually the result of pressure, which is applied to critics.
Once you dare to question certain ideas or papers, there is kind of
'Wolf pack' which starts to insult and attack.

I have actually managed to get involved in a number of such fields,
because I had no knowledge of restrictions in science, which are
apparently imposed on physicists by unknown forces.

This is 'bad luck', but fortunately my latest version is finished and I
can upload it soon.

As soon as that is uploaded, you could try to rip that apart.

>> So, people are not allowed to criticise errors, hence have to swallow
>> what they are supposed to believe.
>>
>> But that is unscientific as it can possibly get.
>>
>>>>
>>>> For instance 'Androcles' was a harsh critic, like several others.
>>>
>>> A fine example of a crackpot. A poor example of your point.
>>
>> Ok...He was strange, but certainly smart.
>
> No, sorry, he was not very smart. He tried to be a clever correspondent,
> but in terms of actual knowledge of the subject, he was pretty deficient.
> Do not confuse repartee with being smart.
>

Androcles was a long term regular here and had a lot of knowledge in
physics. But he was a rather strange person, too, as far as I can tell.

I personally didn't like him too much, but had a number of interesting
discussions with him

TH
>
>

Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
> Am 08.07.2021 um 18:05 schrieb Odd Bodkin:
>> Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
>>> Am 06.07.2021 um 14:31 schrieb Michael Moroney:
>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>
>>>
>>> Well, many people wrote many things. But its not the amount of people or
>>> the number of their messages, what makes a good text, but the content.
>>>
>>>>> 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)
>>>
>>> There were people like Herbert Dingle, who supplied extensive lists of
>>> papers critical to SRT.
>>>
>>> I have not written any list like this and have actually not read more
>>> than a few of these papers and not even entirely.
>>
>> And so you don’t have this list of thousands of papers critical of SR, do
>> you? That was just a fabrication.
>>
>>>
>>> I have based my critique on my own ideas and that on general knowledge
>>> of math, pyhsics, chemistry, electronics or engineering.
>>>
>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> EVERY critic of Einstein is called 'crackpot'.
>>
>> It’s the other way around. Crackpots are people who haven’t bothered to
>> learn a subject but are opinionated about it anyway. It so happens that
>> there are a lot of crackpots who have uninformed opinions about Einstein.
>> The only fix for having an uninformed opinion is to become informed.
>
>
> Humans have a strange ability: kind of 'swarm inetelligance'.
>
> This was demonstrated several times.
>
> E.g. people should estimate the number of small balls in a huges glass jar.
>
> The individual estimates were often seriously wrong, but the total
> average mostly correct.
>
> This seems to be a human habbit. This would have an inpact on science,
> since in this case the true value of something, which is researched in a
> cooperative manner, will be the average in the sum of ALL the estimates.
>
> This would require to take extreme positions into the 'soup', too,
> because a prejustice about the validity of certain positions could
> result in a serious bias towards mainstream positions and away from the
> true value, which is the desired result.
>
>>>
>>> But still his paper is FULL of mistakes.
>>
>> No, this is incorrect, as has been pointed out to you many, many, many
>> times. The errors are yours and not in the paper. You do not want to hear
>> that, this I understand. This isn’t about being disallowed to criticize a
>> paper. It’s about you being uninformed to the point where your opinions
>> about what the paper should be like is *worthless*. Uninformed opinions are
>> not worth much attention because they are usually a collection of mistakes,
>> as your bundle of comments attests.
>>
>> Let me reiterate, every time you repeat the claim that his paper is “FULL
>> of mistakes”, you are only demonstrating your own inability to learn from
>> your own mistakes.
>>
>
>
> You actually forced me to write my annotations more carefully than what
> I actually wanted.
>
> So I went through the text word for word and equation after equation
> amny times.
>
> I wrote several versions of my 'annotated version of SRT', removed many
> of my own errors and found new one in the text. But this had only
> intensified adverse reaction.
>
> But you don't know my latest version, which I would regard as finished now.
>
> As you insist, I have to publish that, too, even if that was not my plan.
>
> This is actually the result of pressure, which is applied to critics.
> Once you dare to question certain ideas or papers, there is kind of
> 'Wolf pack' which starts to insult and attack.
>
> I have actually managed to get involved in a number of such fields,
> because I had no knowledge of restrictions in science, which are
> apparently imposed on physicists by unknown forces.
>
> This is 'bad luck', but fortunately my latest version is finished and I
> can upload it soon.
>
> As soon as that is uploaded, you could try to rip that apart.
>
>>> So, people are not allowed to criticise errors, hence have to swallow
>>> what they are supposed to believe.
>>>
>>> But that is unscientific as it can possibly get.
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> For instance 'Androcles' was a harsh critic, like several others.
>>>>
>>>> A fine example of a crackpot. A poor example of your point.
>>>
>>> Ok...He was strange, but certainly smart.
>>
>> No, sorry, he was not very smart. He tried to be a clever correspondent,
>> but in terms of actual knowledge of the subject, he was pretty deficient.
>> Do not confuse repartee with being smart.
>>
>
> Androcles was a long term regular here and had a lot of knowledge in
> physics. But he was a rather strange person, too, as far as I can tell.
>
> I personally didn't like him too much, but had a number of interesting
> discussions with him
>
>
> TH
>>
>>
>
>

--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
>> Am 08.07.2021 um 18:05 schrieb Odd Bodkin:
>>> Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
>>>> Am 06.07.2021 um 14:31 schrieb Michael Moroney:
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Well, many people wrote many things. But its not the amount of people or
>>>> the number of their messages, what makes a good text, but the content.
>>>>
>>>>>> 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)
>>>>
>>>> There were people like Herbert Dingle, who supplied extensive lists of
>>>> papers critical to SRT.
>>>>
>>>> I have not written any list like this and have actually not read more
>>>> than a few of these papers and not even entirely.
>>>
>>> And so you don’t have this list of thousands of papers critical of SR, do
>>> you? That was just a fabrication.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I have based my critique on my own ideas and that on general knowledge
>>>> of math, pyhsics, chemistry, electronics or engineering.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> EVERY critic of Einstein is called 'crackpot'.
>>>
>>> It’s the other way around. Crackpots are people who haven’t bothered to
>>> learn a subject but are opinionated about it anyway. It so happens that
>>> there are a lot of crackpots who have uninformed opinions about Einstein.
>>> The only fix for having an uninformed opinion is to become informed.
>>
>>
>> Humans have a strange ability: kind of 'swarm inetelligance'.
>>
>> This was demonstrated several times.
>>
>> E.g. people should estimate the number of small balls in a huges glass jar.
>>
>> The individual estimates were often seriously wrong, but the total
>> average mostly correct.

And please note that you are in the class of the most seriously wrong. Note
that the bulk of scientists are in the class of mostly correct.

>>
>> This seems to be a human habbit. This would have an inpact on science,
>> since in this case the true value of something, which is researched in a
>> cooperative manner, will be the average in the sum of ALL the estimates.
>>
>> This would require to take extreme positions into the 'soup', too,
>> because a prejustice about the validity of certain positions could
>> result in a serious bias towards mainstream positions and away from the
>> true value, which is the desired result.

The true value of the balls in the glass jar, notice, aligns with the peak
in the middle of the distribution of guesses, what you call the mainstream.

It’s been your hope that the true value lies outside the mainstream band,
that it’s the outliers that are mote likely to be closer to the truth. This
is historically, factually mistaken.

>>
>>>>
>>>> But still his paper is FULL of mistakes.
>>>
>>> No, this is incorrect, as has been pointed out to you many, many, many
>>> times. The errors are yours and not in the paper. You do not want to hear
>>> that, this I understand. This isn’t about being disallowed to criticize a
>>> paper. It’s about you being uninformed to the point where your opinions
>>> about what the paper should be like is *worthless*. Uninformed opinions are
>>> not worth much attention because they are usually a collection of mistakes,
>>> as your bundle of comments attests.
>>>
>>> Let me reiterate, every time you repeat the claim that his paper is “FULL
>>> of mistakes”, you are only demonstrating your own inability to learn from
>>> your own mistakes.
>>>
>>
>>
>> You actually forced me to write my annotations more carefully than what
>> I actually wanted.
>>
>> So I went through the text word for word and equation after equation
>> amny times.
>>
>> I wrote several versions of my 'annotated version of SRT', removed many
>> of my own errors and found new one in the text. But this had only
>> intensified adverse reaction.

They are all your errors. Your hope is that for any errors of your own you
have to remove, you will find two more errors by Einstein. But again these
new errors are your own and so your venture is futile. Is it any wonder
that the adverse reaction intensifies? Your efforts to swarm with volume
are simply demonstrations of the many ways you are willing to be silly. I’d
be surprised if at some point you complained about the shape of the dots
over lowercase “i”s in the paper.

>>
>> But you don't know my latest version, which I would regard as finished now.
>>
>> As you insist, I have to publish that, too, even if that was not my plan.
>>
>> This is actually the result of pressure, which is applied to critics.
>> Once you dare to question certain ideas or papers, there is kind of
>> 'Wolf pack' which starts to insult and attack.

Don’t flatter yourself. You are not arousing the rancor of a defensive pack
by pointing out flaws. You are arousing the ridicule of an audience by
making a fool of yourself.

>>
>> I have actually managed to get involved in a number of such fields,
>> because I had no knowledge of restrictions in science, which are
>> apparently imposed on physicists by unknown forces.
>>
>> This is 'bad luck', but fortunately my latest version is finished and I
>> can upload it soon.
>>
>> As soon as that is uploaded, you could try to rip that apart.

There is no need to rip it apart. It is dust and chaff from the outset.

>>
>>>> So, people are not allowed to criticise errors, hence have to swallow
>>>> what they are supposed to believe.
>>>>
>>>> But that is unscientific as it can possibly get.
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For instance 'Androcles' was a harsh critic, like several others.
>>>>>
>>>>> A fine example of a crackpot. A poor example of your point.
>>>>
>>>> Ok...He was strange, but certainly smart.
>>>
>>> No, sorry, he was not very smart. He tried to be a clever correspondent,
>>> but in terms of actual knowledge of the subject, he was pretty deficient.
>>> Do not confuse repartee with being smart.
>>>
>>
>> Androcles was a long term regular here and had a lot of knowledge in
>> physics.

No he did not. He was remarkable out of date. Of course, to someone with no
education in the subject, Androcles might have seemed to be conversant in
physics, but he really had no grasp of anything beyond first year physics
and often got that wrong as well.

Am 09.07.2021 um 14:50 schrieb Odd Bodkin:
...
>>>>> EVERY critic of Einstein is called 'crackpot'.
>>>>
>>>> It’s the other way around. Crackpots are people who haven’t bothered to
>>>> learn a subject but are opinionated about it anyway. It so happens that
>>>> there are a lot of crackpots who have uninformed opinions about Einstein.
>>>> The only fix for having an uninformed opinion is to become informed.
>>>
>>>
>>> Humans have a strange ability: kind of 'swarm inetelligance'.
>>>
>>> This was demonstrated several times.
>>>
>>> E.g. people should estimate the number of small balls in a huges glass jar.
>>>
>>> The individual estimates were often seriously wrong, but the total
>>> average mostly correct.
>
> And please note that you are in the class of the most seriously wrong. Note
> that the bulk of scientists are in the class of mostly correct.

This is what you think.

But people are not grouped in classes.

If you want to reject something, than you need to adress this something
directly and not because a promoter of that idea belongs to some sort of
class.

>>>
>>> This seems to be a human habbit. This would have an inpact on science,
>>> since in this case the true value of something, which is researched in a
>>> cooperative manner, will be the average in the sum of ALL the estimates.
>>>
>>> This would require to take extreme positions into the 'soup', too,
>>> because a prejustice about the validity of certain positions could
>>> result in a serious bias towards mainstream positions and away from the
>>> true value, which is the desired result.
>
> The true value of the balls in the glass jar, notice, aligns with the peak
> in the middle of the distribution of guesses, what you call the mainstream.

I don't actually know, how the average was calculated, but it is not
necessarily the median.
>
> It’s been your hope that the true value lies outside the mainstream band,
> that it’s the outliers that are mote likely to be closer to the truth. This
> is historically, factually mistaken.

You have missed my point entirely.

I wanted to adress the problem, that the average (which should be close
to the true value) has to include all guesses.

You wanted to 'sieve' the results prior to building the average.

But that would be a mistake, because in this case the average of the
remainder is somewhere else than where it should be.

This was, of course, an example. But I wanted to reject your claim, that
there is no discussion necessary with 'cooks'.

The problem is, that you don't know in advance, who is a nutcase and who
isn't.

You repeatedly insist on your 'class', because they build the mainstream
and are so numerous.

But numbers, fame and prestigious prices are no guarantee for truth and
the validity of assumptions.

...

>>> I wrote several versions of my 'annotated version of SRT', removed many
>>> of my own errors and found new one in the text. But this had only
>>> intensified adverse reaction.
>
> They are all your errors. Your hope is that for any errors of your own you
> have to remove, you will find two more errors by Einstein. But again these
> new errors are your own and so your venture is futile. Is it any wonder
> that the adverse reaction intensifies? Your efforts to swarm with volume
> are simply demonstrations of the many ways you are willing to be silly. I’d
> be surprised if at some point you complained about the shape of the dots
> over lowercase “i”s in the paper.

This is simply wrong.

I wrote about four-hundred annotations and described hundreds of errors.

Some are very small, some formal, but some are very obvious mathematical
errors.

Therefore I think, that the paper is FULL of errors, which spread all
over the text and which make that text essentially useless.

>>>
>>> But you don't know my latest version, which I would regard as finished now.
>>>
>>> As you insist, I have to publish that, too, even if that was not my plan.
>>>
>>> This is actually the result of pressure, which is applied to critics.
>>> Once you dare to question certain ideas or papers, there is kind of
>>> 'Wolf pack' which starts to insult and attack.
>
> Don’t flatter yourself. You are not arousing the rancor of a defensive pack
> by pointing out flaws. You are arousing the ridicule of an audience by
> making a fool of yourself.

I had the same experience with a large number of topics.

For instance I assumed, that autism is caused by a bacterium in the
guts, which is a close cousin of 'Clostridia thetanii'.

I also thought, that homeopathy could actually function and how.

I thought, that Earthquakes are 'electric' and are powered by the sun.

I still think, that the Earth would grow.

I all cases and several others, I was rudely attacked.

So I have a personal experience and that is being attacked for whatever
I write.

>>>
>>> I have actually managed to get involved in a number of such fields,
>>> because I had no knowledge of restrictions in science, which are
>>> apparently imposed on physicists by unknown forces.
>>>
>>> This is 'bad luck', but fortunately my latest version is finished and I
>>> can upload it soon.
>>>
>>> As soon as that is uploaded, you could try to rip that apart.
>
> There is no need to rip it apart. It is dust and chaff from the outset.

Well, maybe I don't publish my new version, if you don't like to
disprove something in it.

I wanted to sell it as e-book, anyhow.

....

TH

Thomas Heger wrote:
....
> I had the same experience with a large number of topics.
>
> For instance I assumed, that autism is caused by a bacterium in the
> guts, which is a close cousin of 'Clostridia thetanii'.
>
> I also thought, that homeopathy could actually function and how.
>
> I thought, that Earthquakes are 'electric' and are powered by the sun.
>
> I still think, that the Earth would grow.
>
> I all cases and several others, I was rudely attacked.
>
> So I have a personal experience and that is being attacked for whatever
> I write.

There is definitely a pattern here. You are a psychopathic crank Thomas.

Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
> Am 09.07.2021 um 14:50 schrieb Odd Bodkin:
> ..
>>>>>> EVERY critic of Einstein is called 'crackpot'.
>>>>>
>>>>> It’s the other way around. Crackpots are people who haven’t bothered to
>>>>> learn a subject but are opinionated about it anyway. It so happens that
>>>>> there are a lot of crackpots who have uninformed opinions about Einstein.
>>>>> The only fix for having an uninformed opinion is to become informed.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Humans have a strange ability: kind of 'swarm inetelligance'.
>>>>
>>>> This was demonstrated several times.
>>>>
>>>> E.g. people should estimate the number of small balls in a huges glass jar.
>>>>
>>>> The individual estimates were often seriously wrong, but the total
>>>> average mostly correct.
>>
>> And please note that you are in the class of the most seriously wrong. Note
>> that the bulk of scientists are in the class of mostly correct.
>
> This is what you think.
>
> But people are not grouped in classes.
>
> If you want to reject something, than you need to adress this something
> directly and not because a promoter of that idea belongs to some sort of
> class.

That’s not so, Thomas. Uninformed opinions are worth less than informed
opinions, and the need to rebut uninformed claims is also minimal.

>
>>>>
>>>> This seems to be a human habbit. This would have an inpact on science,
>>>> since in this case the true value of something, which is researched in a
>>>> cooperative manner, will be the average in the sum of ALL the estimates.
>>>>
>>>> This would require to take extreme positions into the 'soup', too,
>>>> because a prejustice about the validity of certain positions could
>>>> result in a serious bias towards mainstream positions and away from the
>>>> true value, which is the desired result.
>>
>> The true value of the balls in the glass jar, notice, aligns with the peak
>> in the middle of the distribution of guesses, what you call the mainstream.
>
>
> I don't actually know, how the average was calculated, but it is not
> necessarily the median.
>>
>> It’s been your hope that the true value lies outside the mainstream band,
>> that it’s the outliers that are mote likely to be closer to the truth. This
>> is historically, factually mistaken.
>
>
> You have missed my point entirely.
>
> I wanted to adress the problem, that the average (which should be close
> to the true value) has to include all guesses.

No, that’s not really the case. Outliers are outliers not just because of
statistical fluctuations but because people like you are a little crazy and
have no relation to the truth.

>
> You wanted to 'sieve' the results prior to building the average.
>
> But that would be a mistake, because in this case the average of the
> remainder is somewhere else than where it should be.

I think statistics is also an area where you suffer from being grossly
uninformed.

>
> This was, of course, an example. But I wanted to reject your claim, that
> there is no discussion necessary with 'cooks'.
>
> The problem is, that you don't know in advance, who is a nutcase and who
> isn't.

This isn’t in advance. You have demonstrated over and over again that you
are a nutcase. Once that is established, there is no discussion necessary
with you, other than to point out that you are a kook and this is why your
notions are not worth rebutting.

>
> You repeatedly insist on your 'class', because they build the mainstream
> and are so numerous.
>
> But numbers, fame and prestigious prices are no guarantee for truth and
> the validity of assumptions.
>
> ..
>
>
>>>> I wrote several versions of my 'annotated version of SRT', removed many
>>>> of my own errors and found new one in the text. But this had only
>>>> intensified adverse reaction.
>>
>> They are all your errors. Your hope is that for any errors of your own you
>> have to remove, you will find two more errors by Einstein. But again these
>> new errors are your own and so your venture is futile. Is it any wonder
>> that the adverse reaction intensifies? Your efforts to swarm with volume
>> are simply demonstrations of the many ways you are willing to be silly. I’d
>> be surprised if at some point you complained about the shape of the dots
>> over lowercase “i”s in the paper.
>
>
> This is simply wrong.
>
> I wrote about four-hundred annotations and described hundreds of errors.

Yes, you did. Your errors.

>
> Some are very small, some formal, but some are very obvious mathematical
> errors.

Again, your errors.

>
> Therefore I think, that the paper is FULL of errors, which spread all
> over the text and which make that text essentially useless.

No, the text doesn’t have errors. Your annotations are the errors.

Furthermore, you are an uninformed kook. There is no need, now that it’s
been established this is the case, to comb through each and every one of
your erroneous annotations and show why it is erroneous. You’re simply not
worth that effort.

>
>>>>
>>>> But you don't know my latest version, which I would regard as finished now.
>>>>
>>>> As you insist, I have to publish that, too, even if that was not my plan.
>>>>
>>>> This is actually the result of pressure, which is applied to critics.
>>>> Once you dare to question certain ideas or papers, there is kind of
>>>> 'Wolf pack' which starts to insult and attack.
>>
>> Don’t flatter yourself. You are not arousing the rancor of a defensive pack
>> by pointing out flaws. You are arousing the ridicule of an audience by
>> making a fool of yourself.
>
>
> I had the same experience with a large number of topics.

Exactly. You seem to thrive on taking ridiculous positions for attention.
And you seem to be proud of each and every one of these uninformed ideas.

Electric earthquakes, powered by the sun, indeed. Ha.

>
> For instance I assumed, that autism is caused by a bacterium in the
> guts, which is a close cousin of 'Clostridia thetanii'.
>
> I also thought, that homeopathy could actually function and how.
>
> I thought, that Earthquakes are 'electric' and are powered by the sun.
>
> I still think, that the Earth would grow.
>
> I all cases and several others, I was rudely attacked.
>
> So I have a personal experience and that is being attacked for whatever
> I write.
>
>>>>
>>>> I have actually managed to get involved in a number of such fields,
>>>> because I had no knowledge of restrictions in science, which are
>>>> apparently imposed on physicists by unknown forces.
>>>>
>>>> This is 'bad luck', but fortunately my latest version is finished and I
>>>> can upload it soon.
>>>>
>>>> As soon as that is uploaded, you could try to rip that apart.
>>
>> There is no need to rip it apart. It is dust and chaff from the outset.
>
>
> Well, maybe I don't publish my new version, if you don't like to
> disprove something in it.
>
> I wanted to sell it as e-book, anyhow.
>
> ...
>
>
> TH
>

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

Am 10.07.2021 um 13:57 schrieb Python:
> Thomas Heger wrote:
> ...
>> I had the same experience with a large number of topics.
>>
>> For instance I assumed, that autism is caused by a bacterium in the
>> guts, which is a close cousin of 'Clostridia thetanii'.
>>
>> I also thought, that homeopathy could actually function and how.
>>
>> I thought, that Earthquakes are 'electric' and are powered by the sun.
>>
>> I still think, that the Earth would grow.
>>
>> I all cases and several others, I was rudely attacked.
>>
>> So I have a personal experience and that is being attacked for
>> whatever I write.
>
> There is definitely a pattern here. You are a psychopathic crank Thomas.
>
>

I recognized a pattern, too:

who ever dared to criticise Einstein or any of his papers was called a
'crank'.

I had was the same experience with 'Growing Earth' and several other of
my ideas.

People like you do not even discuss such topics, but reject them and the
promoter right away, without even looking at the idea or the arguments.

That is a pathelogical pattern, from which the entire system of science
currently suffers.

There are also some kind of 'insiders', which are allowed to speak
and/or publish, while critics are herassed (and worse).

This set of insiders are apparently initiates to a hidden cult ('druid
class'), who have all the priviledges and know everything.

Who is not a member of that club is a 'cook' by defintion.

That is, how 'science' looks today to an outsider.

But scientific truth is not true, because the promoter belongs to a
secret cult, but because that truth is actually true.

TH

Am 10.07.2021 um 16:42 schrieb Odd Bodkin:
> Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
>> Am 09.07.2021 um 14:50 schrieb Odd Bodkin:
>> ..
>>>>>>> EVERY critic of Einstein is called 'crackpot'.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It’s the other way around. Crackpots are people who haven’t bothered to
>>>>>> learn a subject but are opinionated about it anyway. It so happens that
>>>>>> there are a lot of crackpots who have uninformed opinions about Einstein.
>>>>>> The only fix for having an uninformed opinion is to become informed.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Humans have a strange ability: kind of 'swarm inetelligance'.
>>>>>
>>>>> This was demonstrated several times.
>>>>>
>>>>> E.g. people should estimate the number of small balls in a huges glass jar.
>>>>>
>>>>> The individual estimates were often seriously wrong, but the total
>>>>> average mostly correct.
>>>
>>> And please note that you are in the class of the most seriously wrong. Note
>>> that the bulk of scientists are in the class of mostly correct.
>>
>> This is what you think.
>>
>> But people are not grouped in classes.
>>
>> If you want to reject something, than you need to adress this something
>> directly and not because a promoter of that idea belongs to some sort of
>> class.
>
> That’s not so, Thomas. Uninformed opinions are worth less than informed
> opinions, and the need to rebut uninformed claims is also minimal.

You do not need to reject or disprove anything.

Fell free to believe, what ever you like.

You don't need to listen to uninformed outsiders neither, if you don't want.

That is absolutely your own decision, for which you alone are responsible.

>>
>>>>>
>>>>> This seems to be a human habbit. This would have an inpact on science,
>>>>> since in this case the true value of something, which is researched in a
>>>>> cooperative manner, will be the average in the sum of ALL the estimates.
>>>>>
>>>>> This would require to take extreme positions into the 'soup', too,
>>>>> because a prejustice about the validity of certain positions could
>>>>> result in a serious bias towards mainstream positions and away from the
>>>>> true value, which is the desired result.
>>>
>>> The true value of the balls in the glass jar, notice, aligns with the peak
>>> in the middle of the distribution of guesses, what you call the mainstream.
>>
>>
>> I don't actually know, how the average was calculated, but it is not
>> necessarily the median.
>>>
>>> It’s been your hope that the true value lies outside the mainstream band,
>>> that it’s the outliers that are mote likely to be closer to the truth. This
>>> is historically, factually mistaken.
>>
>>
>> You have missed my point entirely.
>>
>> I wanted to adress the problem, that the average (which should be close
>> to the true value) has to include all guesses.
>
> No, that’s not really the case. Outliers are outliers not just because of
> statistical fluctuations but because people like you are a little crazy and
> have no relation to the truth.

What you wrote is not exactly how such discussions function.

I wrote my 'annotated version of SRT', which contains more than four
hundred annotations and what took me two years to write.

Now you reject my arguments by calling me a nutcase.

That is more of less all you have to say.

But what do you hope to achieve this way?

Do you really think, this would help Einstein's text?

....

TH

Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
> Am 10.07.2021 um 16:42 schrieb Odd Bodkin:
>> Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
>>> Am 09.07.2021 um 14:50 schrieb Odd Bodkin:
>>> ..
>>>>>>>> EVERY critic of Einstein is called 'crackpot'.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It’s the other way around. Crackpots are people who haven’t bothered to
>>>>>>> learn a subject but are opinionated about it anyway. It so happens that
>>>>>>> there are a lot of crackpots who have uninformed opinions about Einstein.
>>>>>>> The only fix for having an uninformed opinion is to become informed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Humans have a strange ability: kind of 'swarm inetelligance'.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This was demonstrated several times.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> E.g. people should estimate the number of small balls in a huges glass jar.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The individual estimates were often seriously wrong, but the total
>>>>>> average mostly correct.
>>>>
>>>> And please note that you are in the class of the most seriously wrong. Note
>>>> that the bulk of scientists are in the class of mostly correct.
>>>
>>> This is what you think.
>>>
>>> But people are not grouped in classes.
>>>
>>> If you want to reject something, than you need to adress this something
>>> directly and not because a promoter of that idea belongs to some sort of
>>> class.
>>
>> That’s not so, Thomas. Uninformed opinions are worth less than informed
>> opinions, and the need to rebut uninformed claims is also minimal.
>
>
> You do not need to reject or disprove anything.
>
> Fell free to believe, what ever you like.
>
>
> You don't need to listen to uninformed outsiders neither, if you don't want.

That’s right.

>
> That is absolutely your own decision, for which you alone are responsible.

And this is a commonly shared practice. Uninformed outsiders with opinions
are not valued for those opinions.

>
>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This seems to be a human habbit. This would have an inpact on science,
>>>>>> since in this case the true value of something, which is researched in a
>>>>>> cooperative manner, will be the average in the sum of ALL the estimates.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This would require to take extreme positions into the 'soup', too,
>>>>>> because a prejustice about the validity of certain positions could
>>>>>> result in a serious bias towards mainstream positions and away from the
>>>>>> true value, which is the desired result.
>>>>
>>>> The true value of the balls in the glass jar, notice, aligns with the peak
>>>> in the middle of the distribution of guesses, what you call the mainstream.
>>>
>>>
>>> I don't actually know, how the average was calculated, but it is not
>>> necessarily the median.
>>>>
>>>> It’s been your hope that the true value lies outside the mainstream band,
>>>> that it’s the outliers that are mote likely to be closer to the truth. This
>>>> is historically, factually mistaken.
>>>
>>>
>>> You have missed my point entirely.
>>>
>>> I wanted to adress the problem, that the average (which should be close
>>> to the true value) has to include all guesses.
>>
>> No, that’s not really the case. Outliers are outliers not just because of
>> statistical fluctuations but because people like you are a little crazy and
>> have no relation to the truth.
>
>
> What you wrote is not exactly how such discussions function.
>
> I wrote my 'annotated version of SRT', which contains more than four
> hundred annotations and what took me two years to write.
>
> Now you reject my arguments by calling me a nutcase.
>
> That is more of less all you have to say.

You being a nutcase was established first, after which point it was easy to
dismiss your uninformed opinions.

>
>
> But what do you hope to achieve this way?
>
> Do you really think, this would help Einstein's text?

Einstein’s text does not need saving. It’s fine the way it is, as is
recognized broadly by informed people.

The fact that you took a couple of years to make over 400 mistakes with
your annotations does nothing to the text either way. It just establishes
that you don’t know what you’re talking about, but you enjoy talking a lot
about it anyway.

Electrical earthquakes caused by the sun, indeed.

>
> ...
>
>
> TH
>

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