On Monday, 2 August 2021 at 14:46:26 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:

> Ah, the engineer’s complaint, where “science” here is conflated with
> technology.
> Quantum mechanics did indeed have deep ramifications for consumer devices
> and applications. Then again, so did lasers, and Einstein’s paper on A and
> B coefficients was the ground work for that.

In the meantime in the real world, real GPS has ignored
mad "science's" screams of being FORCED and made clocks
violating the Holiest Postulate; "science" has answerred with
some roars that they're broken, they're not real, they're not clocks
at all or that the numbers they indicate aren't their indications.

On Monday, August 2, 2021 at 9:36:32 AM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Sunday, August 1, 2021 at 8:56:09 PM UTC-3, Python wrote:
> >> Richard Hertz wrote:
> >> ...
> >>> The heavy hand of Planck and Willy Wien (in charge of the journal
> >>> Annalen der Physik) can't be explained,. because they allowed all of
> >>> the 1905 papers, at which he barely credited someone (except his friend Besso).
> >>>
> >>> These papers are as if written by a childish person, willing to take
> >>> readers as idiots. Circular argument, fallacies, ERRORS,
> >>> contradictions, etc., make them a joke on us (under the historical
> >>> perspective, after a century of multimedia bombarding us with the "genius" figure.
> >> Point ONE error then.
> >
> > On the March 1905 paper: Concerning an Heuristic Point of View Toward the
> > Emission and Transformation of Light.
> >
> > It has 9 points, on which he wrote as if he was some reincarnation of
> > Maxwell with his Treatise. He pretend to develop his "own"
> > theory of Black Body Radiation, negating Planck's "h" constant even when
> > he cited his Jan. 1901 paper. Instead he keeps praising
> > Willy Wien prior theory, which Planck proved incomplete for large wavelengths.
> >
> > Instead, he state that such a theory can be developed by other means
> > using 16 pages (in english version).
> >
> > in the point "1. Concerning a Difficulty with Regard to the Theory of
> > Blackbody Radiation" he wrote such amount of crap that it's
> > difficult to chose between cry or laugh. NOT EVEN WRONG, as Pauli would say.
> >
> > In the rest of the document, he ignores completely the "h" Planck's
> > constant and introduces in the exponent the constant BETA.
> >
> > Actually BETA is h/k, so he ignores Boltzmann's constant likewise.
> >
> > Don't forget that Willy Wien, the Chief Editor of Annalen der Physik, was
> > still hurt by Planck's refutation of his theory in 1900 and,
> > even with his Nobel Prize, the pain was still there.
> >
> > Einstein, along the entire document, assign to BETA a value of a
> > fundamental constant. Actually it had two of them:
> >
> > BETA = h/k (Einstein's dirty trick to negate Planck).
> >
> > In the point "8. Concerning the Emission of Cathode Rays Through
> > Illumination of Solid Bodies", the truth is forced to emerge
> > when he writes:
> >
> > "The kinetic energy of such electrons is given by
> >
> > R.BETA.f/N
> > "
> > But BETA is h/k and also k = R/N (R is the Regnault’s constant and N the
> > Avogadro’s number). All of this is in Planck's 1901 paper.
> >
> > So, it comes to be that
> >
> > R.BETA.f/N = R.h/k.f/N = R.N/R.h.f/N = h.f (pure Planck)
> >
> > So, such were the dirty "mathemagical" tricks performed by Einstein, even
> > to hide the truth at plain sight.
> >
> > Now, sheer ignorance written there:
> >
> > "An electron to which kinetic energy has been imparted in the interior of
> > the body will have lost some of this energy by the time it reaches the surface."
> >
> > and
> >
> > " PI.E = R.BETA.f - P'
> >
> > where E is the charge of a gram equivalent of a monovalent ion and P´ is
> > the potential of this quantity of negative electricity relative to the body"
> >
> > Note: PI represent a positive potential.
> >
> > This is enough for me to show to you all. If anyone want more, read the paper.
> >
> > There is a lot of crap on this paper. A lot!
> >
> > But he got the 1922 Nobel Prize for it.
> >
> I’ll note that you did not cite an error. What you cited was a perceived
> injustice, where you’d have PREFERRED that greater credit been given to
> contemporaries and predecessors, both by explicit naming and notational
> nods. You’d have PREFERRED that Planck’s constant, Boltzmann’s constant
> have appeared more explicitly, and that most of the credit had been
> shuttled their way.
> --
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Bodkin, you didn't read properly my post about the 1905 paper. Einstein did make many mistakes,
due to his ignorance about the works performed at the Berlin PTR and the nature of atoms,
which by then was about the "Thomson's pudding".

I quote this part of my 2019 blog: https://physictheories.blogspot.com/2019/04/thermal-radiation-black-body-theory-and.html

"It was evident the rol of experimental findings when criticism arose around the use of empiricism in Wien and Planck theories. Wien worked with Lummer (1894), and Planck used the findings of Lummer-Pringsheim (1900) and Rubens-Kurlbaum (1899-1900), performed at the same Berlin PTR (Physical-Technical Reichsanstalt) laboratory. Wein lost interest on the discussion when Planck pulled the card "empirical vs. theoretical" approach to a research, as he was a firm believer that a physicist should have skills at experimental and theoretical physics simultaneously. "

Such empirical findings and the Planck's theory were widely used at the industry, worldwide.
Planck's theory was also proved beyond doubt by the COBE satellite measurements, between
1989 and 1992, about the Cosmic Background Radiation (CBR). This radiation has been found
to be the ultimate proof of the Big Bang.

In the first point, Einstein rejects Planck's theory, stating that there was some facts that made it
invalid and that it would render infinite energy in black body radiation if electrons were accounted.
This is enough to render the paper as useless, but there is much more.

In the point 9, Einstein give more proofs of his ignorance when he stated:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"An electron to which kinetic energy has been imparted in the interior of
the body will have lost some of this energy by the time it reaches the surface."
and
" PI.E = R.BETA.f - P'
where E is the charge of a gram equivalent of a monovalent ion and P´ is
the potential of this quantity of negative electricity relative to the body"
-------------------------------------------------------
Note: PI represent a positive potential.

So, he believes that UV radiation PENETRATES metallic bodies until it reach a "pudding atom",
extracting from it a "poor" electron, which has to struggle to reach the surface, losing
some kinetic energy on its way out. He uses an arbitrary variable P for the work
performed by the electron, which includes an arbitrary amount of KE lost on his way out.

And more sheer ignorance or childish thinking: He states that the WHOLE gram of monovalent ion
can be forced to render an incredible amount of electrons, when irradiated by UV.

If you take the job of reading, critically, his first 1905 paper, you'd to concede that the paper is crap.

It is a frontal attack over Planck, allowed by Wien (the CHIEF editor of the Annalen der Physik).

If you want to know more about the Wien-Planck fight, years before 1905, read my
2019 blog: https://physictheories.blogspot.com/2019/04/thermal-radiation-black-body-theory-and.html

from where I extract this paragraph:

"Using the recolection of results of the work with Lummer, Wien developed his theory in 1896, and published the paper "About the energy distribution in the emission spectrum of a black body" at the Annalen der Physik. Wien was inspired by Maxwell and Boltzmann's works on electromagnetism and statistical mechanics, and merged both fields. He entered in a public dispute with Planck around 1900, about the origin of both theories and its true validity, due to Planck approach criticizing Wien's work. It was evident the rol of experimental findings when criticism arose around the use of empiricism in Wien and Planck theories. Wien his work with Lummer (1894), and Planck used the findings of Lummer-Pringsheim (1900) and Rubens-Kurlbaum (1899-1900), performed at the same Berlin PTR (Physical-Technical Reichsanstalt) laboratory. Wein lost interest on the discussion when Planck pulled the card "empirical vs. theoretical" approach to a research, as he was a firm believer that a physicist should have skills at experimental and theoretical physics simultaneously. "

Clearly, for anybody with a bit of analytical capabiliities, the paper can be read in the proper context
of those years, and find out that THIS FIRST PAPER of the "miraculous year" is more a job
payed by Wien, who supply Einstein with ammo to demote Planck. Not for
nothing, the 1896 theory of Wien is named all along the paper.

On Monday, August 2, 2021 at 10:01:32 AM UTC-3, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, 2 August 2021 at 14:46:26 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > Ah, the engineer’s complaint, where “science” here is conflated with
> > technology.
> > Quantum mechanics did indeed have deep ramifications for consumer devices
> > and applications. Then again, so did lasers, and Einstein’s paper on A and
> > B coefficients was the ground work for that.
> In the meantime in the real world, real GPS has ignored
> mad "science's" screams of being FORCED and made clocks
> violating the Holiest Postulate; "science" has answerred with
> some roars that they're broken, they're not real, they're not clocks
> at all or that the numbers they indicate aren't their indications.

I recommend these books, which shed some light on the XX century developments:

- Inventing the Electronic Century. The Epic Story of the Consumer Electronics and Computer Industries, with a new preface (Harvard Studies in Business History)
- Niels Bohr Atomic Theorist (Makers of Modern Science)
- Ernest Rutherford And the Explosion of Atoms (Oxford Portraits in Science)
- A Short History of Physics in the American Century

I some many more to cite. Very insightful view of science, technology and personas.

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, August 2, 2021 at 9:36:32 AM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Sunday, August 1, 2021 at 8:56:09 PM UTC-3, Python wrote:
>>>> Richard Hertz wrote:
>>>> ...
>>>>> The heavy hand of Planck and Willy Wien (in charge of the journal
>>>>> Annalen der Physik) can't be explained,. because they allowed all of
>>>>> the 1905 papers, at which he barely credited someone (except his friend Besso).
>>>>>
>>>>> These papers are as if written by a childish person, willing to take
>>>>> readers as idiots. Circular argument, fallacies, ERRORS,
>>>>> contradictions, etc., make them a joke on us (under the historical
>>>>> perspective, after a century of multimedia bombarding us with the "genius" figure.
>>>> Point ONE error then.
>>>
>>> On the March 1905 paper: Concerning an Heuristic Point of View Toward the
>>> Emission and Transformation of Light.
>>>
>>> It has 9 points, on which he wrote as if he was some reincarnation of
>>> Maxwell with his Treatise. He pretend to develop his "own"
>>> theory of Black Body Radiation, negating Planck's "h" constant even when
>>> he cited his Jan. 1901 paper. Instead he keeps praising
>>> Willy Wien prior theory, which Planck proved incomplete for large wavelengths.
>>>
>>> Instead, he state that such a theory can be developed by other means
>>> using 16 pages (in english version).
>>>
>>> in the point "1. Concerning a Difficulty with Regard to the Theory of
>>> Blackbody Radiation" he wrote such amount of crap that it's
>>> difficult to chose between cry or laugh. NOT EVEN WRONG, as Pauli would say.
>>>
>>> In the rest of the document, he ignores completely the "h" Planck's
>>> constant and introduces in the exponent the constant BETA.
>>>
>>> Actually BETA is h/k, so he ignores Boltzmann's constant likewise.
>>>
>>> Don't forget that Willy Wien, the Chief Editor of Annalen der Physik, was
>>> still hurt by Planck's refutation of his theory in 1900 and,
>>> even with his Nobel Prize, the pain was still there.
>>>
>>> Einstein, along the entire document, assign to BETA a value of a
>>> fundamental constant. Actually it had two of them:
>>>
>>> BETA = h/k (Einstein's dirty trick to negate Planck).
>>>
>>> In the point "8. Concerning the Emission of Cathode Rays Through
>>> Illumination of Solid Bodies", the truth is forced to emerge
>>> when he writes:
>>>
>>> "The kinetic energy of such electrons is given by
>>>
>>> R.BETA.f/N
>>> "
>>> But BETA is h/k and also k = R/N (R is the Regnault’s constant and N the
>>> Avogadro’s number). All of this is in Planck's 1901 paper.
>>>
>>> So, it comes to be that
>>>
>>> R.BETA.f/N = R.h/k.f/N = R.N/R.h.f/N = h.f (pure Planck)
>>>
>>> So, such were the dirty "mathemagical" tricks performed by Einstein, even
>>> to hide the truth at plain sight.
>>>
>>> Now, sheer ignorance written there:
>>>
>>> "An electron to which kinetic energy has been imparted in the interior of
>>> the body will have lost some of this energy by the time it reaches the surface."
>>>
>>> and
>>>
>>> " PI.E = R.BETA.f - P'
>>>
>>> where E is the charge of a gram equivalent of a monovalent ion and P´ is
>>> the potential of this quantity of negative electricity relative to the body"
>>>
>>> Note: PI represent a positive potential.
>>>
>>> This is enough for me to show to you all. If anyone want more, read the paper.
>>>
>>> There is a lot of crap on this paper. A lot!
>>>
>>> But he got the 1922 Nobel Prize for it.
>>>
>> I’ll note that you did not cite an error. What you cited was a perceived
>> injustice, where you’d have PREFERRED that greater credit been given to
>> contemporaries and predecessors, both by explicit naming and notational
>> nods. You’d have PREFERRED that Planck’s constant, Boltzmann’s constant
>> have appeared more explicitly, and that most of the credit had been
>> shuttled their way.
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>
> Bodkin, you didn't read properly my post about the 1905 paper. Einstein
> did make many mistakes,
> due to his ignorance about the works performed at the Berlin PTR and the nature of atoms,
> which by then was about the "Thomson's pudding".
>
> I quote this part of my 2019 blog:
> https://physictheories.blogspot.com/2019/04/thermal-radiation-black-body-theory-and.html
>
> "It was evident the rol of experimental findings when criticism arose
> around the use of empiricism in Wien and Planck theories. Wien worked
> with Lummer (1894), and Planck used the findings of Lummer-Pringsheim
> (1900) and Rubens-Kurlbaum (1899-1900), performed at the same Berlin PTR
> (Physical-Technical Reichsanstalt) laboratory. Wein lost interest on the
> discussion when Planck pulled the card "empirical vs. theoretical"
> approach to a research, as he was a firm believer that a physicist should
> have skills at experimental and theoretical physics simultaneously. "
>
> Such empirical findings and the Planck's theory were widely used at the
> industry, worldwide.
> Planck's theory was also proved beyond doubt by
> the COBE satellite measurements, between
> 1989 and 1992, about the Cosmic Background Radiation (CBR). This radiation has been found
> to be the ultimate proof of the Big Bang.
>
> In the first point, Einstein rejects Planck's theory, stating that there
> was some facts that made it
> invalid and that it would render infinite energy in black body radiation
> if electrons were accounted.
> This is enough to render the paper as useless, but there is much more.
>
> In the point 9, Einstein give more proofs of his ignorance when he stated:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> "An electron to which kinetic energy has been imparted in the interior of
> the body will have lost some of this energy by the time it reaches the surface."
>
> and
>
> " PI.E = R.BETA.f - P'
>
> where E is the charge of a gram equivalent of a monovalent ion and P´ is
> the potential of this quantity of negative electricity relative to the body"
> -------------------------------------------------------
> Note: PI represent a positive potential.
>
> So, he believes that UV radiation PENETRATES metallic bodies until it
> reach a "pudding atom",
> extracting from it a "poor" electron, which has to struggle to reach the surface, losing
> some kinetic energy on its way out. He uses an arbitrary variable P for the work
> performed by the electron, which includes an arbitrary amount of KE lost on his way out.
>
> And more sheer ignorance or childish thinking: He states that the WHOLE
> gram of monovalent ion
> can be forced to render an incredible amount of electrons, when irradiated by UV.
>
> If you take the job of reading, critically, his first 1905 paper, you'd
> to concede that the paper is crap.
>
> It is a frontal attack over Planck, allowed by Wien (the CHIEF editor of
> the Annalen der Physik).
>
> If you want to know more about the Wien-Planck fight, years before 1905, read my
> 2019 blog:
> https://physictheories.blogspot.com/2019/04/thermal-radiation-black-body-theory-and.html
>
> from where I extract this paragraph:
>
> "Using the recolection of results of the work with Lummer, Wien developed
> his theory in 1896, and published the paper "About the energy
> distribution in the emission spectrum of a black body" at the Annalen der
> Physik. Wien was inspired by Maxwell and Boltzmann's works on
> electromagnetism and statistical mechanics, and merged both fields. He
> entered in a public dispute with Planck around 1900, about the origin of
> both theories and its true validity, due to Planck approach criticizing
> Wien's work. It was evident the rol of experimental findings when
> criticism arose around the use of empiricism in Wien and Planck theories.
> Wien his work with Lummer (1894), and Planck used the findings of
> Lummer-Pringsheim (1900) and Rubens-Kurlbaum (1899-1900), performed at
> the same Berlin PTR (Physical-Technical Reichsanstalt) laboratory. Wein
> lost interest on the discussion when Planck pulled the card "empirical
> vs. theoretical" approach to a research, as he was a firm believer that a
> physicist should have skills at experimental and theoretical physics simultaneously. "
>
> Clearly, for anybody with a bit of analytical capabiliities, the paper
> can be read in the proper context
> of those years, and find out that THIS FIRST PAPER of the "miraculous year" is more a job
> payed by Wien, who supply Einstein with ammo to demote Planck. Not for
> nothing, the 1896 theory of Wien is named all along the paper.
>
> It's worth the work to compare the grammatical structure of the paper, compared with
> the other three in the same year. This is an alien paper, very fishy.
>
> And, by the way, Lenard did the original study and found the exact
> relationship between UV energy
> and current. He was quite aware of KE involved, atom structure (by then) and many more
> things, as he had been working on the subject for several years before 1905. I could find
> his publications, to make a comparison.
>
>

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, August 2, 2021 at 10:01:32 AM UTC-3, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Monday, 2 August 2021 at 14:46:26 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> Ah, the engineer’s complaint, where “science” here is conflated with
>>> technology.
>>> Quantum mechanics did indeed have deep ramifications for consumer devices
>>> and applications. Then again, so did lasers, and Einstein’s paper on A and
>>> B coefficients was the ground work for that.
>> In the meantime in the real world, real GPS has ignored
>> mad "science's" screams of being FORCED and made clocks
>> violating the Holiest Postulate; "science" has answerred with
>> some roars that they're broken, they're not real, they're not clocks
>> at all or that the numbers they indicate aren't their indications.
>
> I recommend these books, which shed some light on the XX century developments:
>
> - Inventing the Electronic Century. The Epic Story of the Consumer
> Electronics and Computer Industries, with a new preface (Harvard Studies
> in Business History)
> - Niels Bohr Atomic Theorist (Makers of Modern Science)
> - Ernest Rutherford And the Explosion of Atoms (Oxford Portraits in Science)
> - A Short History of Physics in the American Century
>
> I some many more to cite. Very insightful view of science, technology and personas.
>

Indeed, and these are all Barnes&Noble pop-sci books, which should tell you
that your perception that everything in 20th century physics has Einstein’s
name on it is just bullshit.

There are certainly people who get a disproportionate share of newspaper
and magazine attention, including the likes of Hawking, Einstein, Feynman —
for obvious reasons: speech synthesizer and fatal disease, absence of socks
and comb, hanging out in strip bars and playing bongos.

There are others who have taken it upon themselves to BE voices of science
to the populace: the Brian Greene’s, the Michio Kaku’s, the Carl Sagan’s,
the Neil deGrasse Tyson’s. They get a lot of goggle-eyed attention too
because they are promoting physics and do best among a horde of fans.

But the reality is that Einstein won only ONE of the Nobel prizes in
physics in the 20th century, and there were of course a bunch of others,
all hugely deserved. Whether the general population follows that news or
not is a separate matter. Physicists care as much about Burt Richter as
they do about Hawking.

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

On Monday, August 2, 2021 at 4:48:40 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Monday, August 2, 2021 at 10:01:32 AM UTC-3, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> On Monday, 2 August 2021 at 14:46:26 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>
> >>> Ah, the engineer’s complaint, where “science” here is conflated with
> >>> technology.
> >>> Quantum mechanics did indeed have deep ramifications for consumer devices
> >>> and applications. Then again, so did lasers, and Einstein’s paper on A and
> >>> B coefficients was the ground work for that.
> >> In the meantime in the real world, real GPS has ignored
> >> mad "science's" screams of being FORCED and made clocks
> >> violating the Holiest Postulate; "science" has answerred with
> >> some roars that they're broken, they're not real, they're not clocks
> >> at all or that the numbers they indicate aren't their indications.
> >
> > I recommend these books, which shed some light on the XX century developments:
> >
> > - Inventing the Electronic Century. The Epic Story of the Consumer
> > Electronics and Computer Industries, with a new preface (Harvard Studies
> > in Business History)
> > - Niels Bohr Atomic Theorist (Makers of Modern Science)
> > - Ernest Rutherford And the Explosion of Atoms (Oxford Portraits in Science)
> > - A Short History of Physics in the American Century
> >
> > I some many more to cite. Very insightful view of science, technology and personas.
> >
> Indeed, and these are all Barnes&Noble pop-sci books, which should tell you
> that your perception that everything in 20th century physics has Einstein’s
> name on it is just bullshit.
>
> There are certainly people who get a disproportionate share of newspaper
> and magazine attention, including the likes of Hawking, Einstein, Feynman —
> for obvious reasons: speech synthesizer and fatal disease, absence of socks
> and comb, hanging out in strip bars and playing bongos.
>
> There are others who have taken it upon themselves to BE voices of science
> to the populace: the Brian Greene’s, the Michio Kaku’s, the Carl Sagan’s,
> the Neil deGrasse Tyson’s. They get a lot of goggle-eyed attention too
> because they are promoting physics and do best among a horde of fans.
>
> But the reality is that Einstein won only ONE of the Nobel prizes in
> physics in the 20th century, and there were of course a bunch of others,
> all hugely deserved. Whether the general population follows that news or
> not is a separate matter. Physicists care as much about Burt Richter as
> they do about Hawking.
> --
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Bodkin, you have to recognize that physics as an evolution of natural philosophy is dying.

Today is so highly departamentalized and owned by corpos (MIC), and the breakthroughs are so scarce
in the theoretical and public field, specially since the dawn of XXI century, that it can't move forward.

The first 30 years of XX century generated incredible amounts of knowledge, a learning base that has feed
further developments into the micro and macrocosmos, until it reached HUMAN limits to go any further. You
have a scenario where almost all branches of physics reached an ending point. It's almost impossible to make
advances in particle physics and cosmology, leaving only applied physics to further advances in technology.

Theoretical physics has reached a mathematical limit, and require new tools, which are not easy to develop or apply.
Maxwell had his quaternions, Einstein had his tensors and Newtonian physics and astronomy had differential calculus.

Now, the only tool available to describe complex processes is computer simulation which, by the way, requires more and
more computing power as theories go crazier.

I believe that the human being will never reach the understanding of the inner depths of matter or the outer vastness of
the universe.

I suggest that you read this book, which describe very well the current struggles in physics. Maybe it's time to start from zero
by using statistical models to describe micro and macro behaviors, reinventing quantum physics and astronomy under a new light.

For the rest, it seems that mankind is happy with Apple or Samsung and their Apps.

Book: The 4 Percent Universe Dark Matter, Dark Energy, and the Race to Discover the Rest of Reality.

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, August 2, 2021 at 4:48:40 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Monday, August 2, 2021 at 10:01:32 AM UTC-3, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> On Monday, 2 August 2021 at 14:46:26 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Ah, the engineer’s complaint, where “science” here is conflated with
>>>>> technology.
>>>>> Quantum mechanics did indeed have deep ramifications for consumer devices
>>>>> and applications. Then again, so did lasers, and Einstein’s paper on A and
>>>>> B coefficients was the ground work for that.
>>>> In the meantime in the real world, real GPS has ignored
>>>> mad "science's" screams of being FORCED and made clocks
>>>> violating the Holiest Postulate; "science" has answerred with
>>>> some roars that they're broken, they're not real, they're not clocks
>>>> at all or that the numbers they indicate aren't their indications.
>>>
>>> I recommend these books, which shed some light on the XX century developments:
>>>
>>> - Inventing the Electronic Century. The Epic Story of the Consumer
>>> Electronics and Computer Industries, with a new preface (Harvard Studies
>>> in Business History)
>>> - Niels Bohr Atomic Theorist (Makers of Modern Science)
>>> - Ernest Rutherford And the Explosion of Atoms (Oxford Portraits in Science)
>>> - A Short History of Physics in the American Century
>>>
>>> I some many more to cite. Very insightful view of science, technology and personas.
>>>
>> Indeed, and these are all Barnes&Noble pop-sci books, which should tell you
>> that your perception that everything in 20th century physics has Einstein’s
>> name on it is just bullshit.
>>
>> There are certainly people who get a disproportionate share of newspaper
>> and magazine attention, including the likes of Hawking, Einstein, Feynman —
>> for obvious reasons: speech synthesizer and fatal disease, absence of socks
>> and comb, hanging out in strip bars and playing bongos.
>>
>> There are others who have taken it upon themselves to BE voices of science
>> to the populace: the Brian Greene’s, the Michio Kaku’s, the Carl Sagan’s,
>> the Neil deGrasse Tyson’s. They get a lot of goggle-eyed attention too
>> because they are promoting physics and do best among a horde of fans.
>>
>> But the reality is that Einstein won only ONE of the Nobel prizes in
>> physics in the 20th century, and there were of course a bunch of others,
>> all hugely deserved. Whether the general population follows that news or
>> not is a separate matter. Physicists care as much about Burt Richter as
>> they do about Hawking.
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>
> Bodkin, you have to recognize that physics as an evolution of natural philosophy is dying.
>
> Today is so highly departamentalized and owned by corpos (MIC), and the
> breakthroughs are so scarce
> in the theoretical and public field, specially since the dawn of XXI
> century, that it can't move forward.
>
> The first 30 years of XX century generated incredible amounts of
> knowledge, a learning base that has feed
> further developments into the micro and macrocosmos, until it reached
> HUMAN limits to go any further. You
> have a scenario where almost all branches of physics reached an ending
> point. It's almost impossible to make
> advances in particle physics and cosmology, leaving only applied physics
> to further advances in technology.
>
> Theoretical physics has reached a mathematical limit, and require new
> tools, which are not easy to develop or apply.
> Maxwell had his quaternions, Einstein had his tensors and Newtonian
> physics and astronomy had differential calculus.
>
> Now, the only tool available to describe complex processes is computer
> simulation which, by the way, requires more and
> more computing power as theories go crazier.
>
> I believe that the human being will never reach the understanding of the
> inner depths of matter or the outer vastness of
> the universe.
>
> I suggest that you read this book, which describe very well the current
> struggles in physics. Maybe it's time to start from zero
> by using statistical models to describe micro and macro behaviors,
> reinventing quantum physics and astronomy under a new light.
>
> For the rest, it seems that mankind is happy with Apple or Samsung and their Apps.
>
> Book: The 4 Percent Universe Dark Matter, Dark Energy, and the Race to
> Discover the Rest of Reality.
>

Well, I personally think you’re barking up the wrong tree. Natural
philosophy hasn’t been viable for a very long time, though the separate
disciplines are doing fine, because they overlap: physical chemistry,
chemical aquatic ecology, planetary geology, etc.

The great strides made in the early 1900s was mostly because of a great
advance in the range of experimental observation — atomic and nuclear
scattering, radio telescopy, radiation detectors, fast processes aided by
electronics. Another huge cause was the blooming of what had been a rare
field with World War II and the impact of science on that, leading to
everything from space exploration to massive computation to large
government-funded laboratories (Argonne, LBL, Los Alamos, Brookhaven).

Since those days, the investment in science has drifted (appropriately) to
biology and medicine, ranging from genomics to CRISPR.

The experiments in physics are now limited by size (gravity wave
telescopes, ring accelerators) and aggregation of large collaborations.
Without experiment to guide theory, theory founders — exactly as it did at
the end of the 18th century when Kelvin thought it was all done except for
details.

What is needed now is the creative experiments that can suss out the little
surprises that feed frenzies to explain them. Like what atomic spectroscopy
and blackbody radiation did for the advent of quantum mechanics. Like what
Hertz’s experiments did for Maxwellian electrodynamics and relativity.

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

On 8/2/2021 1:28 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Monday, 2 August 2021 at 07:01:34 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> On 8/2/2021 12:44 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>> On Monday, 2 August 2021 at 06:43:05 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>> On 8/2/2021 12:26 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, 2 August 2021 at 04:14:57 UTC+2, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>>>> You seem to have the notion that this is some kind of cult of the
>>>>>> personality.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yet what matters to most people here is the theory itself.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sorry, lady, it's a lie.
>>>>>
>>>> She said to most people, not to retarded drunk janitors.
>>>
>>> And it's still a lie. At least not as impudent as "retarded
>>> drunk janitor", of course.
>>>
>> What's impudent about that? [Impudence is about not showing deserved respect, and you deserve none, since all your posts appear as written by a retarded drunk janitor.]
>
> You're too stupid to ever understand, stupid Mike.
>

No, impudence implies deserved respect. You deserve none, not in a
science group deliberately showing no use of science.

Maybe you can get those toilets sparkling clean really quickly. You do
deserve some respect for that ability.

On Monday, 2 August 2021 at 23:27:35 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 8/2/2021 1:28 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > On Monday, 2 August 2021 at 07:01:34 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >> On 8/2/2021 12:44 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >>> On Monday, 2 August 2021 at 06:43:05 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >>>> On 8/2/2021 12:26 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >>>>> On Monday, 2 August 2021 at 04:14:57 UTC+2, Sylvia Else wrote:
> >>>>>> You seem to have the notion that this is some kind of cult of the
> >>>>>> personality.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Yet what matters to most people here is the theory itself.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Sorry, lady, it's a lie.
> >>>>>
> >>>> She said to most people, not to retarded drunk janitors.
> >>>
> >>> And it's still a lie. At least not as impudent as "retarded
> >>> drunk janitor", of course.
> >>>
> >> What's impudent about that? [Impudence is about not showing deserved respect, and you deserve none, since all your posts appear as written by a retarded drunk janitor.]
> >
> > You're too stupid to ever understand, stupid Mike.
> >
> No, impudence implies deserved respect.

Stupid Mike has imagined, must be true.

On Friday, July 30, 2021 at 9:57:31 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> For those willing to analyze things differently from the indoctrinated herd of worshippers,

Gobbledygook.

--
Jan

On Tuesday, August 3, 2021 at 3:38:07 AM UTC-3, JanPB wrote:
> On Friday, July 30, 2021 at 9:57:31 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > For those willing to analyze things differently from the indoctrinated herd of worshippers,
>
> Gobbledygook.
>
> --
> Jan

Hi Jan. Concise and to the point as usual.
Good for you and your "analytical" mind!

On Sunday, August 1, 2021 at 4:34:21 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Sunday, August 1, 2021 at 6:54:52 PM UTC-3, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Saturday, July 31, 2021 at 4:10:57 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > > On Saturday, July 31, 2021 at 4:43:23 PM UTC-3, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > Einstein was the first of his kind.
> > > > He did not need relativity.
> > > > He did not need to steal...
> > > >
> > > > Mitchell Raemsch
> > > Newton, Gauss and Maxwell are the greatest intellects that Earth has witnessed.
> > > True polymaths and honest minds who properly credited their sources.
> > >
> > You don't have to believe the man. But you don't have to doubt him either...
> > Who are you to judge the genius?
> >
> > Mitchell Raemsch
> I don´t believe his intellectual capability as a physicist or as a mathematician.

Who said you are a genius?
Where are you to judge something you don't have?

Mitchell Raemsch

On Tuesday, August 3, 2021 at 3:25:02 PM UTC-3, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, August 1, 2021 at 4:34:21 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > On Sunday, August 1, 2021 at 6:54:52 PM UTC-3, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Saturday, July 31, 2021 at 4:10:57 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, July 31, 2021 at 4:43:23 PM UTC-3, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > Einstein was the first of his kind.
> > > > > He did not need relativity.
> > > > > He did not need to steal...
> > > > >
> > > > > Mitchell Raemsch
> > > > Newton, Gauss and Maxwell are the greatest intellects that Earth has witnessed.
> > > > True polymaths and honest minds who properly credited their sources..
> > > >
> > > You don't have to believe the man. But you don't have to doubt him either...
> > > Who are you to judge the genius?
> > >
> > > Mitchell Raemsch
> > I don´t believe his intellectual capability as a physicist or as a mathematician.
>
> Who said you are a genius?
> Where are you to judge something you don't have?
>
> Mitchell Raemsch

I'm not a genius, you are a genius, Raemsch!

If not, how come you can post three times or more everyday which such powerful, deep
and astonishing clear topics for years?

You're the man!

On Friday, July 30, 2021 at 9:57:31 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> For those willing to analyze things differently from the indoctrinated herd of worshippers,

Stop fantasising. Setting up strawmen is a valid method of debate only in kindergarten.

In the real world on the other hand:

1. nobody "worships" Einstein,
2. nobody who understands relativity (and includes its limitations which are well-known) is "indoctrinated".

The reasons for the theory and what it can and cannot do are understood and there is no need for this Marx Brothers comedy you've posted here. It's laughable and sort of entertaining but has no connection to reality, it's a fantasy that you've concocted just to boost your ego.

I suggest you pick a different hobby. Something you may actually be good at, so at least you'll feel better about yourself.

--
Jan

JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Friday, July 30, 2021 at 9:57:31 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
>> For those willing to analyze things differently from the indoctrinated
>> herd of worshippers,
>
> Stop fantasising. Setting up strawmen is a valid method of debate only in kindergarten.
>
> In the real world on the other hand:
>
> 1. nobody "worships" Einstein,

Some journalists and laypeople “worship” Einstein. Cult of personality and
all. Physicists don’t.

> 2. nobody who understands relativity (and includes its limitations which
> are well-known) is "indoctrinated".

People who are not equipped to understand relativity think the choice is to
reject it or just swallow it on authority. No one who learns it is doing
either of those things.

>
> The reasons for the theory and what it can and cannot do are understood
> and there is no need for this Marx Brothers comedy you've posted here.
> It's laughable and sort of entertaining but has no connection to reality,
> it's a fantasy that you've concocted just to boost your ego.
>
> I suggest you pick a different hobby. Something you may actually be good
> at, so at least you'll feel better about yourself.

The relativity bitching is done by those who simply are unwilling to spend
the energy to study it.

>
> --
> Jan
>

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

On Wednesday, August 4, 2021 at 10:56:15 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:

----------------------------------
> > 2. nobody who understands relativity (and includes its limitations which
> > are well-known) is "indoctrinated".
> People who are not equipped to understand relativity think the choice is to
> reject it or just swallow it on authority. No one who learns it is doing
> either of those things.

The last part is a fallacy, which you like very much to do. Also, the first part is a
circular thought.

Your binary position implies that either one reject because it is not understood or accept it by force, just to belong to the herd.
In the development and use of knowledge at any person (at any branch) there are several other postures:

1 - Cynically, accept theories to belong and profit from belonging (as a priest who don't believe in God and yet...)
2 - Understand and accept, but later start to renegade from such knowledge (doubts, very valid human value).
3 - Understand the theoretical development but reject its conclusions (also very valid).
4 - Understand the theoretical development AND reject the premises under which it's built (also very valid).
5 - Reject the basic postulates, or one or many of them, and consider that the final stage is flawed (in part or completely).
6 - Accept some postulates but decline to continue because predict utter bullshit as a final product.
7 - Reject postulates, development and results and drop the subject, looking for something valuable at which invest his life.
8 - Reject postulates, development and results and, outraged, start a career or a hobby criticizing it.
9 - Reject postulates, development and results and, early or later in life, have some fun trolling believers in public forums.
10 - Other combinations exist.

> The relativity bitching is done by those who simply are unwilling to spend
> the energy to study it.

Read the 10 points.

You think that I didn't study or understood the purposes of relativity. I can resume SR in a short paragraph,
which is based on the real father or relativity, Woldemar Voigt, and is as follows:

*******************************************************************************************
"Which is the group of transform coordinates that make Maxwell equations valid there, since Galileo's one don't work."
*******************************************************************************************

The rest is pure crap (in Einstein's 1905 paper). What I wrote above contain the essence of the two postulates, specially
the polemic second one: that the speed of light is a fundamental constant (in vacuum) and independent of the motion of
the body that emits it.

This is an obvious result of Maxwell's equations, which contain the two parameters (also universal) that gives the speed
of light in vacuum. If the transforms fail to provide a correct set of maxwellian equations at any inertial frame, then the
second (and unnecessary) postulate would fail along with the entire framework.

It's not rocket's science to understand this vital point.

The problem with special relativity it that it opens a Pandora's Box, full of paradoxes, which have consumed mental
power, during a century, that if could have been harnessed and distributed, would render useless all of the nuclear
centrals built around the globe.

Now, chew up the former paragraph, digest them and only then start to post your usual bitchiness.

On Thursday, 5 August 2021 at 02:43:54 UTC+2, JanPB wrote:

> In the real world on the other hand:
>
> 1. nobody "worships" Einstein,
> 2. nobody who understands relativity (and includes its limitations which are well-known) is "indoctrinated".

Poor idiot Jan has said, must be true.

On Thursday, 5 August 2021 at 03:56:15 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:

> Some journalists and laypeople “worship” Einstein. Cult of personality and
> all. Physicists don’t.

Like other religions, yours has different levels of initiation.
But worshipping your idiot guru BEFORE you started to study
his mumble has determined the approach you took.

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 4, 2021 at 10:56:15 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> ----------------------------------
>>> 2. nobody who understands relativity (and includes its limitations which
>>> are well-known) is "indoctrinated".
>> People who are not equipped to understand relativity think the choice is to
>> reject it or just swallow it on authority. No one who learns it is doing
>> either of those things.
>
> The last part is a fallacy, which you like very much to do. Also, the first part is a
> circular thought.
>
> Your binary position implies that either one reject because it is not
> understood or accept it by force, just to belong to the herd.

No, you did not pay attention to what I said. The binary position is the
one held by most cranks. They think that if they do not reject it, then
they just have to swallow it. Since they do not want to swallow it, they
simply reject it.

> In the development and use of knowledge at any person (at any branch)
> there are several other postures:
>
> 1 - Cynically, accept theories to belong and profit from belonging (as a
> priest who don't believe in God and yet...)

That is worse than swallowing. That is pretending to swallow.

> 2 - Understand and accept, but later start to renegade from such
> knowledge (doubts, very valid human value).

And on what BASIS would one start to “renegade”? Just doubting for the sake
of doubt? Or on the basis of evidence that drives the doubt?

> 3 - Understand the theoretical development but reject its conclusions (also very valid).

That depends on what basis the conclusions are rejected. If you understand
the theoretical development, this means you follow the logic to the
inevitable conclusions that are deduced in that development, and in
rejecting those conclusions you are rejecting the power of the deductive
logic to make any conclusions. If you reject the conclusions on the basis
of comparison with observational data, then the presumption is that you
HAVE such conflicting data; if you don’t, then you’re rejecting it out of
capriciousness, and that is NOT valid.

> 4 - Understand the theoretical development AND reject the premises under
> which it's built (also very valid).

That is just rejecting. Already covered. Note that this also implies
IGNORING any experimental evidence that validates the theoretical
development and therefore validates the premises. It is just a conscious
decision to thumb the nose at the theory without regard for evidence.

> 5 - Reject the basic postulates, or one or many of them, and consider
> that the final stage is flawed (in part or completely).

Again, in science, the test of the basic postulates is the comparison with
observational data against the conclusions from the postulates. Without
that comparison with data, then rejection of postulates is premature and
capricious — that’s not a valid scientific position.

> 6 - Accept some postulates but decline to continue because predict utter
> bullshit as a final product.

That depends on how “bullshit” is determined. The ONLY test of “bullshit”
is comparison with observational results. If “bullshit” is called based on
common experience or intuition, without regard for observational data, then
this is a bad call.

> 7 - Reject postulates, development and results and drop the subject,
> looking for something valuable at which invest his life.

And that is a declination of interest in science in general. This is a
stance sometimes taken by engineers, who simply want to build things of
practical value and don’t really care about science that has no practical
value.

> 8 - Reject postulates, development and results and, outraged, start a
> career or a hobby criticizing it.

Yes, indeed, that’s an anti-science crank stance.

> 9 - Reject postulates, development and results and, early or later in
> life, have some fun trolling believers in public forums.

Yes, indeed, that’s an anti-science crank stance.

> 10 - Other combinations exist.
>
>
>> The relativity bitching is done by those who simply are unwilling to spend
>> the energy to study it.
>
> Read the 10 points.
>
> You think that I didn't study or understood the purposes of relativity. I
> can resume SR in a short paragraph,
> which is based on the real father or relativity, Woldemar Voigt, and is as follows:
>
> *******************************************************************************************
> "Which is the group of transform coordinates that make Maxwell equations
> valid there, since Galileo's one don't work."
> *******************************************************************************************

Which isn’t a bad statement.

>
> The rest is pure crap (in Einstein's 1905 paper).

The rest of the 1905 paper is a) derivation of which group of transforms
that make the above true, b) elaboration of the consequences of that group
of transforms. In what way would that be crap?

> What I wrote above contain the essence of the two postulates, specially
> the polemic second one: that the speed of light is a fundamental constant
> (in vacuum) and independent of the motion of
> the body that emits it.
>
> This is an obvious result of Maxwell's equations, which contain the two
> parameters (also universal) that gives the speed
> of light in vacuum. If the transforms fail to provide a correct set of
> maxwellian equations at any inertial frame, then the
> second (and unnecessary) postulate would fail along with the entire framework.
>
> It's not rocket's science to understand this vital point.

Good, then you agree on the validity of the postulates and the deductive
consequences of them, many of which are elaborated even in this initial
paper.

>
> The problem with special relativity it that it opens a Pandora's Box, full of paradoxes,

There are no logical inconsistencies (one meaning of “paradox”) in
relativity. There are many teaching puzzles (another meaning of “paradox”)
that are built to explain the difference between a) a solid understanding
of relativity and a shallow understanding of relativity, and b) relativity
and common intuition.

> which have consumed mental
> power, during a century, that if could have been harnessed and
> distributed, would render useless all of the nuclear
> centrals built around the globe.

Bullshit. Scientific exploration and the teaching of science is different
than technology and the applications of technology. It’s a common mistake
that engineers conflate the two. Relativity in 1905 and continuing on for
some time was pure science, not applied science.

>
> Now, chew up the former paragraph, digest them and only then start to
> post your usual bitchiness.
>
>

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

On Thursday, 5 August 2021 at 16:16:58 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:

> There are no logical inconsistencies (one meaning of “paradox”) in
> relativity.

Assertion is not a valid argument, poor halfbrain.

On Wednesday, August 4, 2021 at 6:56:15 PM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> JanPB <fil...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Friday, July 30, 2021 at 9:57:31 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> >> For those willing to analyze things differently from the indoctrinated
> >> herd of worshippers,
> >
> > Stop fantasising. Setting up strawmen is a valid method of debate only in kindergarten.
> >
> > In the real world on the other hand:
> >
> > 1. nobody "worships" Einstein,
> Some journalists and laypeople “worship” Einstein. Cult of personality and
> all. Physicists don’t.
> > 2. nobody who understands relativity (and includes its limitations which
> > are well-known) is "indoctrinated".
> People who are not equipped to understand relativity think the choice is to
> reject it or just swallow it on authority. No one who learns it is doing
> either of those things.
> >
> > The reasons for the theory and what it can and cannot do are understood
> > and there is no need for this Marx Brothers comedy you've posted here.
> > It's laughable and sort of entertaining but has no connection to reality,
> > it's a fantasy that you've concocted just to boost your ego.
> >
> > I suggest you pick a different hobby. Something you may actually be good
> > at, so at least you'll feel better about yourself.
> The relativity bitching is done by those who simply are unwilling to spend
> the energy to study it.

Relativity is notorious for being a formidable trap for uncritical amateurs due to its
reliance on VERY simple mathematics. To an unskilled, the theory looks whimsical and
"obviously" absurd, with "nothing" preceding it "seemingly" pointing in its direction.

The very fast acceptance of the theory after 1905 by the scientific establishment seems
likewise "suspect" to those in the "little knowledge is a dangerous thing" category. They
would rather confabulate the most contrived conspiracy theories to "explain" that.

This is nothing new, the world is full of arrogant ignoramuses.

--
Jan

JanPB wrote:

> Relativity is notorious for being a formidable trap for uncritical
> amateurs due to its reliance on VERY simple mathematics. To an
> unskilled,
> the theory looks whimsical and "obviously" absurd, with "nothing"
> preceding it "seemingly" pointing in its direction.
>
> The very fast acceptance of the theory after 1905 by the scientific
> establishment seems likewise "suspect" to those in the "little knowledge
> is a dangerous thing" category. They would rather confabulate the most
> contrived conspiracy theories to "explain" that.
>
> This is nothing new, the world is full of arrogant ignoramuses.

not you of course. Nobody makes money on relativity, everybody are
amateurs. Secondly, the biggest problem relativity is the lack of
mechanism explaining it, especially GR (gravitons) but SR as well
(constancy of the speed of light).

JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 4, 2021 at 6:56:15 PM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> JanPB <fil...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Friday, July 30, 2021 at 9:57:31 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
>>>> For those willing to analyze things differently from the indoctrinated
>>>> herd of worshippers,
>>>
>>> Stop fantasising. Setting up strawmen is a valid method of debate only in kindergarten.
>>>
>>> In the real world on the other hand:
>>>
>>> 1. nobody "worships" Einstein,
>> Some journalists and laypeople “worship” Einstein. Cult of personality and
>> all. Physicists don’t.
>>> 2. nobody who understands relativity (and includes its limitations which
>>> are well-known) is "indoctrinated".
>> People who are not equipped to understand relativity think the choice is to
>> reject it or just swallow it on authority. No one who learns it is doing
>> either of those things.
>>>
>>> The reasons for the theory and what it can and cannot do are understood
>>> and there is no need for this Marx Brothers comedy you've posted here.
>>> It's laughable and sort of entertaining but has no connection to reality,
>>> it's a fantasy that you've concocted just to boost your ego.
>>>
>>> I suggest you pick a different hobby. Something you may actually be good
>>> at, so at least you'll feel better about yourself.
>> The relativity bitching is done by those who simply are unwilling to spend
>> the energy to study it.
>
> Relativity is notorious for being a formidable trap for uncritical amateurs due to its
> reliance on VERY simple mathematics. To an unskilled, the theory looks whimsical and
> "obviously" absurd, with "nothing" preceding it "seemingly" pointing in its direction.

Interestingly, this is why we don’t see much crackpot activity questioning
quantum mechanics — because the mathematics is more involved and so it
doesn’t pretend to be within the reach of the Everyman.

The other false expectation you mentioned is the Everyman’s expectation
that science should march deductively to the future, so that it becomes
“logically sensible” why relativity should naturally follow from the
information known at the time. It’s a great shock, apparently, that some of
the best ideas come from unexpected syntheses of seemingly unrelated ideas,
from the esthetics of mathematical form, or from sheer hunch. That makes
what the good physicist do seem like magic, and therefore not followable by
the Everyman, and therefore to be regarded with suspicion. It does not
occur to these people that physicists might get an instantaneous Aha! from
the new idea, even if the Everyman does not experience the same thing. This
is where the “they just bought it because Einstein said it” nonsense comes
from. The arrogance of the crank that he should see it as immediately as a
physicist does, is fairly astounding, frankly.

This is I think why so many cranks are retired engineers. In talking with
engineers, I find an unusually common trait of unshakeable overconfidence
that there is nothing they cannot understand without a few minute’s
thought. When something comes up that challenges that self-assessment, they
take it personally, and that’s where things start to go bad.

>
> The very fast acceptance of the theory after 1905 by the scientific establishment seems
> likewise "suspect" to those in the "little knowledge is a dangerous thing" category. They
> would rather confabulate the most contrived conspiracy theories to "explain" that.
>
> This is nothing new, the world is full of arrogant ignoramuses.
>
> --
> Jan
>

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

On Thursday, 5 August 2021 at 20:10:15 UTC+2, JanPB wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 4, 2021 at 6:56:15 PM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> > JanPB <fil...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Friday, July 30, 2021 at 9:57:31 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > >> For those willing to analyze things differently from the indoctrinated
> > >> herd of worshippers,
> > >
> > > Stop fantasising. Setting up strawmen is a valid method of debate only in kindergarten.
> > >
> > > In the real world on the other hand:
> > >
> > > 1. nobody "worships" Einstein,
> > Some journalists and laypeople “worship” Einstein. Cult of personality and
> > all. Physicists don’t.
> > > 2. nobody who understands relativity (and includes its limitations which
> > > are well-known) is "indoctrinated".
> > People who are not equipped to understand relativity think the choice is to
> > reject it or just swallow it on authority. No one who learns it is doing
> > either of those things.
> > >
> > > The reasons for the theory and what it can and cannot do are understood
> > > and there is no need for this Marx Brothers comedy you've posted here..
> > > It's laughable and sort of entertaining but has no connection to reality,
> > > it's a fantasy that you've concocted just to boost your ego.
> > >
> > > I suggest you pick a different hobby. Something you may actually be good
> > > at, so at least you'll feel better about yourself.
> > The relativity bitching is done by those who simply are unwilling to spend
> > the energy to study it.
> Relativity is notorious for being a formidable trap for uncritical amateurs due to its
> reliance on VERY simple mathematics.

No, it's due to its inconsistency with VERY basic definitions.

> To an unskilled, the theory looks whimsical and
> "obviously" absurd

No, for an unskilled it looks like some divine revelations;
you're an example, Jan.

, with "nothing" preceding it "seemingly" pointing in its direction.
>
> The very fast acceptance of the theory after 1905 by the scientific establishment seems

seems an obvious lie, admitted by your idiot guru himself.

On Thursday, August 5, 2021 at 11:41:38 AM UTC-7, Kolijn Sneijers wrote:
> JanPB wrote:
>
> > Relativity is notorious for being a formidable trap for uncritical
> > amateurs due to its reliance on VERY simple mathematics. To an
> > unskilled,
> > the theory looks whimsical and "obviously" absurd, with "nothing"
> > preceding it "seemingly" pointing in its direction.
> >
> > The very fast acceptance of the theory after 1905 by the scientific
> > establishment seems likewise "suspect" to those in the "little knowledge
> > is a dangerous thing" category. They would rather confabulate the most
> > contrived conspiracy theories to "explain" that.
> >
> > This is nothing new, the world is full of arrogant ignoramuses.
> not you of course.

Not as far as relativity is concerned, no. I can prove it but the nature of knowledge
in general (not necessarily scientific) is such that it requires a certain amount
of prerequisites on the part of the challenger.

This is how the real world is and I cannot change it.

> Nobody makes money on relativity, everybody are
> amateurs.

You are projecting again. Get real, stop acting like a child, look reality inthe face,
even if it means you'd have to admit you don't know something. Act like an adult.
Be a master, regain your ability to walk free, stop relying on silly fantasies as a crutch.

> Secondly, the biggest problem relativity is the lack of
> mechanism explaining it,

All theories in physics are without explanation. Relativity is no different.

> especially GR (gravitons)

GR has no gravitons. Only a certain related theory allows it (the first-order
approximation of GR).

> but SR as well
> (constancy of the speed of light).

Again, all physics theories are like that. You seem to think that the rest of
physics is different in that sense. It is not. You are again being deceived by
the illusion of understanding this subject simply because you have mastered its
very easy mathematical part (high school math is only required for the
purely technical manipulation within SR).

Stop daydreaming, it's bad for you.

--
Jan