Einstein was free to use science like everyone is...
This is the math science acceptance principle.

On Monday, August 9, 2021 at 3:21:58 PM UTC-3, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> Einstein was free to use science like everyone is...
> This is the math science acceptance principle.

Einstein was free to use physics ..... to twist facts, plagiarize, plague it with fallacies
and unobservable outcomes (like in both relativities).

Try to use relativity one or two billion light-years from Earth and prove some of it.

Wait! You can't, so relativity is safe. You can't even try it at Alpha Centaury, which is so close!

On Monday, August 9, 2021 at 12:23:15 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Monday, August 9, 2021 at 3:21:58 PM UTC-3, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Einstein was free to use science like everyone is...
> > This is the math science acceptance principle.
> Einstein was free to use physics ..... to twist facts, plagiarize, plague it with fallacies

Believe the believable. You are not it.

Richard Hertz wrote:

> On Monday, August 9, 2021 at 3:21:58 PM UTC-3, mitchr...@gmail.com
wrote:
>> Einstein was free to use science like everyone is...
>> This is the math science acceptance principle.
>
> Einstein was free to use physics ..... to twist facts, plagiarize,
plague
> it with fallacies and unobservable outcomes (like in both relativities).

One has to read and understand what to plagiarize first. A huge
accomplishment. Those days no internet no anything. What can you do?

On Monday, August 9, 2021 at 4:36:30 PM UTC-3, Breda Haanrade wrote:
> Richard Hertz wrote:
>
> > On Monday, August 9, 2021 at 3:21:58 PM UTC-3, mitchr...@gmail.com
> wrote:
> >> Einstein was free to use science like everyone is...
> >> This is the math science acceptance principle.
> >
> > Einstein was free to use physics ..... to twist facts, plagiarize,
> plague
> > it with fallacies and unobservable outcomes (like in both relativities).
> One has to read and understand what to plagiarize first. A huge
> accomplishment. Those days no internet no anything. What can you do?

Think without indoctrination.

There is a world full of answers for the curious and inquiring mind, with some
intellectual capabilities not contaminated with doctrines of ANY kind, at any
field (physics, politics, economy, social sciences, cosmology, medical sciences, etc.)

Richard Hertz wrote:

>> > Einstein was free to use physics ..... to twist facts, plagiarize,
>> plague
>> > it with fallacies and unobservable outcomes (like in both
>> > relativities).
>> One has to read and understand what to plagiarize first. A huge
>> accomplishment. Those days no internet no anything. What can you do?
>
> Think without indoctrination.
>
> There is a world full of answers for the curious and inquiring mind,
> with some intellectual capabilities not contaminated with doctrines of
> ANY kind, at any field (physics, politics, economy, social sciences,
> cosmology, medical sciences, etc.)

your point?

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, August 9, 2021 at 4:36:30 PM UTC-3, Breda Haanrade wrote:
>> Richard Hertz wrote:
>>
>>> On Monday, August 9, 2021 at 3:21:58 PM UTC-3, mitchr...@gmail.com
>> wrote:
>>>> Einstein was free to use science like everyone is...
>>>> This is the math science acceptance principle.
>>>
>>> Einstein was free to use physics ..... to twist facts, plagiarize,
>> plague
>>> it with fallacies and unobservable outcomes (like in both relativities).
>> One has to read and understand what to plagiarize first. A huge
>> accomplishment. Those days no internet no anything. What can you do?
>
> Think without indoctrination.

LOL. This means, “think without bothering to become educated in the
subject.” After all, education breeds nothing abut indoctrination.

>
> There is a world full of answers for the curious and inquiring mind, with some
> intellectual capabilities not contaminated with doctrines of ANY kind, at any
> field (physics, politics, economy, social sciences, cosmology, medical sciences, etc.)
>

What the world needs — I hear you saying — is a safe place for anyone
regardless of background or knowledge of the subject to dream wildly,
speculate freely, and share openly anything that happens across his mind,
all on a level-playing field free of judgment or criticism. Because the
internet is supposed to be EASY and FUN.

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

On Monday, August 9, 2021 at 12:45:21 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:

> There is a world full of answers for the curious and inquiring mind, with some
> intellectual capabilities not contaminated with doctrines of ANY kind, at any
> field (physics, politics, economy, social sciences, cosmology, medical sciences, etc.)

Think how much more knowledge would have accumulated by now if you had never attended school at all!

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so sure of themselves and wiser people so full of doubt."
- Author: Leah Wilson

Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, August 9, 2021 at 12:45:21 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
>
>> There is a world full of answers for the curious and inquiring mind, with some
>> intellectual capabilities not contaminated with doctrines of ANY kind, at any
>> field (physics, politics, economy, social sciences, cosmology, medical sciences, etc.)
>
> Think how much more knowledge would have accumulated by now if you had
> never attended school at all!
>
> "The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always
> so sure of themselves and wiser people so full of doubt."
> - Author: Leah Wilson
>

He’s as clear minded as an empty plastic water bottle.

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

On Thursday, August 5, 2021 at 9:32:13 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> I wrote this on another post, with more than 50 replies.
>
> As this is at the bottom of the thread, I consider it is worth to post separately.
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> Thief and plagiarist. I affirm that. Watch the writings of Lorentz (1904) and Einstein (1905).
> First, some adjusts between the cgs and MKS units systems:
>
> In the cgs system (used by Lorentz), the electron mass is defined by:
>
> m = e^2/(6.PI.c^2.R)
>
> where R is the electron radius as defined in that epoch. This is the only subatomic radius accepted and validated by NIST, as classical electron radius: 2.8179403262 x 10^-15 meters.
>
> https://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Constants/index.html (search classical electron radius).
>
> In the current MKS system, the permittivity Epsilon_0 adopt a value different from 1 (like in cgs), so
>
> m = e^2/(4.PI.Epsilon_0.c^2.R)
>
> The classical electron radius is sometimes known as the Lorentz radius or the Thomson scattering length. (Wiki).
>
> Attempts to model the electron as a non-point particle have been described as ill-conceived and counter-pedagogic.(Wiki)
>
> Still, a value of 10^-18 mt. is widely used (read about LIGO).
>
> Comparing one section on both papers:
>
> Physics. - "Electromagnetic phenomena in a system moving with any velocity smaller than that of light." By Prof. H. A. LORENTZ (1904)
>
> Excerpt:
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> " m1= e^2/(6.PI.c^2.R) , d(k.l.w)/dw and m2 = e^2/(6.PI.c^2.R).k.l
>
> Hence, in phenomena in which there is an acceleration in the direction of motion, the electron behaves as if it had a mass m1, in which the acceleration is normal to the path, as if the mass were m2. These quantities m1 and m2, may therefore properly be called the "longitudinal" and "transverse" electromagnetic masses of the electron. I shall suppose
> that there is no other, no "true" or "material" mass.°
>
> Note: Lorentz used here the moment of the electron in only the X direction. The value of l=1 (Lorentz-Poincaré) and k is the gamma factor Gamma (I'll use Y).
>
> So, by solving the derivation and using the value m for very low speeds (as stated by Lorentz in the next page), it comes to be that
>
> m1 = m.Y^3 and m2 = m.Y (Y = (1-v^2/c^2)^-1/2)
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Now, in Einstein's "ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES" (section § 10. Dynamics of the Slowly Accelerated Electron):
>
> "Now if we call this force simply “the force acting upon the electron,” and maintain the equation—mass × acceleration = force—and if we also decide that the accelerations are to be measured in the stationary system K, we derive from the above equations
>
> Longitudinal mass = m.Y^3
>
> Transverse mass = m.Y^2 (an error, corrected by Planck the next year. The same values as Lorentz's, and also same names)."
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Einstein's paper appeared more than one year after Lorentz one.
>
> And THIS is what I call the job of a plagiarist, a thief, a deceiver and also an idiot. This is not the only one mistake in the paper.

No, Einstein is correct. You merely don't understand neither Lorentz nor Einstein. BTW, Einstein is not "plagiarizing"
either, one of the goals of his paper is to *reproduce* (i.e., *re-derive by different means*) Lorentz's results, presumed
known and correct to the reader, like the Lorentz transformation itself.

For example, his method of derivation obtains the global numerical factor equal to 1 very quickly, unlike Lorentz's method
which is spread over several pages. Einstein also obtains in this section one new result using his approach: the transverse
Doppler effect.

> Is anyone willing to challenge this? It's obvious the manner he disguises Lorentz work in his formulation, only to arrive to the same formulae, NAMES and overall concepts.

Yes, this is intentional. It was one of the goals of the paper to demonstrate that the stuff-known-so-far could be
re-derived using the new framework AND THEN that this new framework could go *further* and demonstrate
that Lorentz's "abstract time parameter" and "transformed E and B fields" could be endowed with a physical
interpretation which yielded an explanation of the magnet-and-coil experiment Einstein mentions in the introduction to his paper.

This was what Einstein apparently considered at the time the paper's most important conclusion, hence
the title given to it (that title appears odd to the modern reader since we know things developed later!).
Very soon, however, everybody and his mother noticed the alteration of the laws of mechanics implied in the
FIRST part of the paper ("kinematical part") was a much bigger cheese than their application to Maxwell's equations.

The paper's title should have been something like "On the physical aspects of time" or some such had Einstein not
been in such an enthusiastic mad rush to publish it.

--
Jan

On Saturday, August 7, 2021 at 1:34:11 AM UTC-5, Thomas Heger wrote:

> Wikipedia on the other hand is a user-maintained system. And any user
> can eventually remove or edit, what you have written so carefully.

I've found rapid change and overwrites to occur when I contribute to a
politically charged topic, such as "Needle and syringe programmes"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Needle_and_syringe_programmes
where I can barely discern anything that I contributed eight years ago.

To a lesser extent, this has occurred to me in fields of science where
there is much controversy, such as "Hologenome theory of evolution"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hologenome_theory_of_evolution

But for more stable subjects such as Special Relativity, Einstein's
Thought Experiments, Spacetime and so forth, the rate of erosion in
the sections that I've contributed is much less, I would guess less
than 1% per year. A half-century after I'm dead, people should still
be reading what are recognizably my words, and perusing illustrations
that I created.

On Monday, August 9, 2021 at 4:49:37 PM UTC-3, Breda Haanrade wrote:

-----------------------------------------
> Richard Hertz wrote:

> >> > Einstein was free to use physics ..... to twist facts, plagiarize, plague it with fallacies and unobservable outcomes
(like in both relativities).

> >> One has to read and understand what to plagiarize first. A huge
> >> accomplishment. Those days no internet no anything. What can you do?

Interesting observations. I can say:

1) internet is derived from internetworking, which comes from "multiple interactions to share thoughts,
gossip, personal relationships and other things like bartering". You need a source or supplier, a sink or
a receiver and a channel (bilateral or multilateral) to convey material or immaterial things. Also you would
need to have resource for storage: personal and public libraries, warehouses, etc.
Finally, you would need channels: mail, rivers and oceans where ships carried goods, roads, etc.

As you can see, no difference (besides the speed for immaterial things to be spread) than in these days. And this
internetworking is the basis of our civilization.

On Einstein's days, mail was the only (and major) channel to share thoughts, feelings, news. Libraries existed everywhere
and journals on a huge amount of subjects proliferated all over Europe and the rest of the world. Also, public lectures by
scholars brought opportunities to enhance social networking, as well as specialized meetings on any scientific topic.

2) Poincaré's genius had spreaded all over the world and, as a last polymath, he was respected and also revered.
His thoughts about the need of a new physics, after the denial of Kelvin about further advancements on physics,
shed a new light that resounded all around. His book Science and Hypothesis and his lectures on relativity reached
Einstein through several channels (he and his buddies devoured a copy of this book in 1904).

The controversies about absolute references in space and the existence of the ether were well known in physics
since Maxwell in 1865/1873. The outcome of MM experiment in 1887 sparked the controversies that led to
theories and proposals like Voigt (an early bird, in 1887), and FitzGerald proposal of length contraction, which drove
further developments by many (Larmor, Lorentz, Poincaré and many others who were forgotten) about relativity of motion
and behavior of light in such contexts.

Also, Planck's final theory about BB radiation and his quantum of action, plus the works of Hertz and
Lenard on the effect of UV radiation on metals, the developed current plus the action of the
J.J. Thomson about the electron and cathode rays caused sensation, as well as Becquerel discovery
of radioactivity and fast emerging works of the Curies and many others..

So, historically speaking, Poincaré threw out the challenge for the development of a new physics.
Others contributed by opening new doors to present actions of nature, and the seed of a
discrete and fundamental level of energy in EM radiation opened the door to question about everything.

3) Einstein had an enormous body of ideas and written theories to choose from. And he was
"subscribed" to the "internet of that epoch" in terms of information sources, network
of relationships (Olympia Academy and else), libraries full of books and journals. Also he,
as many by then, knew which were the hot topics to choose from.

> > There is a world full of answers for the curious and inquiring mind,
> > with some intellectual capabilities not contaminated with doctrines of
> > ANY kind, at any field (physics, politics, economy, social sciences,
> > cosmology, medical sciences, etc.)

> your point?

My point is that anyone should be free to question whatever he/she want, and think
out of the box (dogmas). Even if it's an exercise just to confirm one's credence's or
modify them a little bit or entirely.

On Monday, August 9, 2021 at 5:47:09 PM UTC-3, JanPB wrote:

<snip>

> > Einstein's paper appeared more than one year after Lorentz one.
> >
> > And THIS is what I call the job of a plagiarist, a thief, a deceiver and also an idiot. This is not the only one mistake in the paper.
>
> No, Einstein is correct. You merely don't understand neither Lorentz nor Einstein. BTW, Einstein is not "plagiarizing"
> either, one of the goals of his paper is to *reproduce* (i.e., *re-derive by different means*) Lorentz's results, presumed
> known and correct to the reader, like the Lorentz transformation itself.

Incredible what you are willing to pull out to defend Einstein. So, *re-derive by different means* mechanism is not to *re-invent*
as Dirac did with his spinors (introduced in mathematics by W. C. Clifford circa 1876) or having *a synchronicity event* like
happened with Leibnitz, co-living with Newton in the same epoch.

> For example, his method of derivation obtains the global numerical factor equal to 1 very quickly, unlike Lorentz's method
> which is spread over several pages. Einstein also obtains in this section one new result using his approach: the transverse
> Doppler effect.

Maybe he had a *a synchronicity event* with Poincaré, who had corrected Lorentz transforms derivation months before and
wrote back to Lorentz, attaching Lorentz name to the transforms.
> > Is anyone willing to challenge this? It's obvious the manner he disguises Lorentz work in his formulation, only to arrive to the same formulae, NAMES and overall concepts.
>
> Yes, this is intentional. It was one of the goals of the paper to demonstrate that the stuff-known-so-far could be
> re-derived using the new framework AND THEN that this new framework could go *further* and demonstrate
> that Lorentz's "abstract time parameter" and "transformed E and B fields" could be endowed with a physical
> interpretation which yielded an explanation of the magnet-and-coil experiment Einstein mentions in the introduction to his paper.

Then you accept that he was completely aware of Lorentz 1904 paper. Yet, your defense make me wonder how did you obtain
such noble explanation about Einstein's purposes when every single written proof of his drafts for his "annus mirabilis" production
vanished from existence, like a thief do with the proofs of his robbery.

> This was what Einstein apparently considered at the time the paper's most important conclusion, hence
> the title given to it (that title appears odd to the modern reader since we know things developed later!).
> Very soon, however, everybody and his mother noticed the alteration of the laws of mechanics implied in the
> FIRST part of the paper ("kinematical part") was a much bigger cheese than their application to Maxwell's equations.

But but, this was a pursuit of many contemporaries of Einstein (Lorentz, Larmor, etc.): to develop a new mechanics that
could contain solutions to "action at a distance" effects on gravity (like Gerber's 1898 paper about Mercury's perihelion)
or the work of Lorentz and others on length contraction to explain null effects on 1887 MM experiment, or J.J.Thomson
observing increase of electron's mass under varying accelerating potentials on his famous tubes.
> The paper's title should have been something like "On the physical aspects of time" or some such had Einstein not
> been in such an enthusiastic mad rush to publish it.

Such show of fanaticism, no matter what, should be awarded with a prize from the Albert Einstein Institution, for the least.

https://www.aeinstein.org/

On Monday, August 9, 2021 at 7:53:38 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Monday, August 9, 2021 at 5:47:09 PM UTC-3, JanPB wrote:
>
> <snip>
> > > Einstein's paper appeared more than one year after Lorentz one.
> > >
> > > And THIS is what I call the job of a plagiarist, a thief, a deceiver and also an idiot. This is not the only one mistake in the paper.
> >
> > No, Einstein is correct. You merely don't understand neither Lorentz nor Einstein. BTW, Einstein is not "plagiarizing"
> > either, one of the goals of his paper is to *reproduce* (i.e., *re-derive by different means*) Lorentz's results, presumed
> > known and correct to the reader, like the Lorentz transformation itself..
> Incredible what you are willing to pull out to defend Einstein. So, *re-derive by different means* mechanism is not to *re-invent*
> as Dirac did with his spinors (introduced in mathematics by W. C. Clifford circa 1876) or having *a synchronicity event* like
> happened with Leibnitz, co-living with Newton in the same epoch.

Why do you make such a big drama out of this? Lorentz derived a certain transformation and proved
it kept Maxwell's equations invariant provided E and B were changed in a certain way AND time was
also changed. He treated both changes as mere mathematical properties of Maxwell's equations,
without direct physical meaning. Einstein then noticed that by adding a certain postulate he could
also: (1) derive Lorentz's transformation directly and (2) provide a justification to treat as physically
real both the transformed time and the transformed E and B.

> > For example, his method of derivation obtains the global numerical factor equal to 1 very quickly, unlike Lorentz's method
> > which is spread over several pages. Einstein also obtains in this section one new result using his approach: the transverse
> > Doppler effect.
> Maybe he had a *a synchronicity event* with Poincaré, who had corrected Lorentz transforms derivation months before and
> wrote back to Lorentz, attaching Lorentz name to the transforms.

It's not a correction. Lorentz got this coefficient right, it's just that his proof is very clumsy compared
to Einstein's.

> > > Is anyone willing to challenge this? It's obvious the manner he disguises Lorentz work in his formulation, only to arrive to the same formulae, NAMES and overall concepts.
> >
> > Yes, this is intentional. It was one of the goals of the paper to demonstrate that the stuff-known-so-far could be
> > re-derived using the new framework AND THEN that this new framework could go *further* and demonstrate
> > that Lorentz's "abstract time parameter" and "transformed E and B fields" could be endowed with a physical
> > interpretation which yielded an explanation of the magnet-and-coil experiment Einstein mentions in the introduction to his paper.
> Then you accept that he was completely aware of Lorentz 1904 paper.

Of course! The reader of Einstein's paper is PRESUMED to have read Lorentz's paper, Einstein
constantly alludes to it (not always explicitly as he presumes a reader who is competent).

> Yet, your defense make me wonder how did you obtain
> such noble explanation about Einstein's purposes when every single written proof of his drafts for his "annus mirabilis" production
> vanished from existence, like a thief do with the proofs of his robbery.

I'm not interested in conspiracy theories, esp. when the evidence is in plain view.

> > This was what Einstein apparently considered at the time the paper's most important conclusion, hence
> > the title given to it (that title appears odd to the modern reader since we know things developed later!).
> > Very soon, however, everybody and his mother noticed the alteration of the laws of mechanics implied in the
> > FIRST part of the paper ("kinematical part") was a much bigger cheese than their application to Maxwell's equations.
> But but, this was a pursuit of many contemporaries of Einstein (Lorentz, Larmor, etc.): to develop a new mechanics that
> could contain solutions to "action at a distance" effects on gravity (like Gerber's 1898 paper about Mercury's perihelion)
> or the work of Lorentz and others on length contraction to explain null effects on 1887 MM experiment, or J.J.Thomson
> observing increase of electron's mass under varying accelerating potentials on his famous tubes.

Developing new mechanics was not (initially) Einstein's goal either.

> > The paper's title should have been something like "On the physical aspects of time" or some such had Einstein not
> > been in such an enthusiastic mad rush to publish it.
> Such show of fanaticism, no matter what, should be awarded with a prize from the Albert Einstein Institution, for the least.

You are throwing a tantrum again. If you have no substantive arguments, don't post.

--
Jan

On Monday, 9 August 2021 at 22:39:25 UTC+2, Paul Alsing wrote:

> "The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so sure of themselves and wiser people so full of doubt."

Said one of these wise ones so full of doubt.

On Monday, 9 August 2021 at 22:47:09 UTC+2, JanPB wrote:
> On Thursday, August 5, 2021 at 9:32:13 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > I wrote this on another post, with more than 50 replies.
> >
> > As this is at the bottom of the thread, I consider it is worth to post separately.
> >
> > -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >
> > Thief and plagiarist. I affirm that. Watch the writings of Lorentz (1904) and Einstein (1905).
> > First, some adjusts between the cgs and MKS units systems:
> >
> > In the cgs system (used by Lorentz), the electron mass is defined by:
> >
> > m = e^2/(6.PI.c^2.R)
> >
> > where R is the electron radius as defined in that epoch. This is the only subatomic radius accepted and validated by NIST, as classical electron radius: 2.8179403262 x 10^-15 meters.
> >
> > https://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Constants/index.html (search classical electron radius).
> >
> > In the current MKS system, the permittivity Epsilon_0 adopt a value different from 1 (like in cgs), so
> >
> > m = e^2/(4.PI.Epsilon_0.c^2.R)
> >
> > The classical electron radius is sometimes known as the Lorentz radius or the Thomson scattering length. (Wiki).
> >
> > Attempts to model the electron as a non-point particle have been described as ill-conceived and counter-pedagogic.(Wiki)
> >
> > Still, a value of 10^-18 mt. is widely used (read about LIGO).
> >
> > Comparing one section on both papers:
> >
> > Physics. - "Electromagnetic phenomena in a system moving with any velocity smaller than that of light." By Prof. H. A. LORENTZ (1904)
> >
> > Excerpt:
> > -----------------------------------------------------------
> > " m1= e^2/(6.PI.c^2.R) , d(k.l.w)/dw and m2 = e^2/(6.PI.c^2.R).k.l
> >
> > Hence, in phenomena in which there is an acceleration in the direction of motion, the electron behaves as if it had a mass m1, in which the acceleration is normal to the path, as if the mass were m2. These quantities m1 and m2, may therefore properly be called the "longitudinal" and "transverse" electromagnetic masses of the electron. I shall suppose
> > that there is no other, no "true" or "material" mass.°
> >
> > Note: Lorentz used here the moment of the electron in only the X direction. The value of l=1 (Lorentz-Poincaré) and k is the gamma factor Gamma (I'll use Y).
> >
> > So, by solving the derivation and using the value m for very low speeds (as stated by Lorentz in the next page), it comes to be that
> >
> > m1 = m.Y^3 and m2 = m.Y (Y = (1-v^2/c^2)^-1/2)
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Now, in Einstein's "ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES" (section § 10. Dynamics of the Slowly Accelerated Electron):
> >
> > "Now if we call this force simply “the force acting upon the electron,” and maintain the equation—mass × acceleration = force—and if we also decide that the accelerations are to be measured in the stationary system K, we derive from the above equations
> >
> > Longitudinal mass = m.Y^3
> >
> > Transverse mass = m.Y^2 (an error, corrected by Planck the next year. The same values as Lorentz's, and also same names)."
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Einstein's paper appeared more than one year after Lorentz one.
> >
> > And THIS is what I call the job of a plagiarist, a thief, a deceiver and also an idiot. This is not the only one mistake in the paper.
>
> No, Einstein is correct.

His moronic mumble wasn't even consistent, however.

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, August 9, 2021 at 5:47:09 PM UTC-3, JanPB wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>> Einstein's paper appeared more than one year after Lorentz one.
>>>
>>> And THIS is what I call the job of a plagiarist, a thief, a deceiver
>>> and also an idiot. This is not the only one mistake in the paper.
>>
>> No, Einstein is correct. You merely don't understand neither Lorentz nor
>> Einstein. BTW, Einstein is not "plagiarizing"
>> either, one of the goals of his paper is to *reproduce* (i.e.,
>> *re-derive by different means*) Lorentz's results, presumed
>> known and correct to the reader, like the Lorentz transformation itself.
>
> Incredible what you are willing to pull out to defend Einstein. So,
> *re-derive by different means* mechanism is not to *re-invent*
> as Dirac did with his spinors (introduced in mathematics by W. C.
> Clifford circa 1876) or having *a synchronicity event* like
> happened with Leibnitz, co-living with Newton in the same epoch.
>
>> For example, his method of derivation obtains the global numerical
>> factor equal to 1 very quickly, unlike Lorentz's method
>> which is spread over several pages. Einstein also obtains in this
>> section one new result using his approach: the transverse
>> Doppler effect.
>
> Maybe he had a *a synchronicity event* with Poincaré, who had corrected
> Lorentz transforms derivation months before and
> wrote back to Lorentz, attaching Lorentz name to the transforms.
>
>>> Is anyone willing to challenge this? It's obvious the manner he
>>> disguises Lorentz work in his formulation, only to arrive to the same
>>> formulae, NAMES and overall concepts.
>>
>> Yes, this is intentional. It was one of the goals of the paper to
>> demonstrate that the stuff-known-so-far could be
>> re-derived using the new framework AND THEN that this new framework
>> could go *further* and demonstrate
>> that Lorentz's "abstract time parameter" and "transformed E and B
>> fields" could be endowed with a physical
>> interpretation which yielded an explanation of the magnet-and-coil
>> experiment Einstein mentions in the introduction to his paper.
>
> Then you accept that he was completely aware of Lorentz 1904 paper. Yet,
> your defense make me wonder how did you obtain
> such noble explanation about Einstein's purposes when every single
> written proof of his drafts for his "annus mirabilis" production
> vanished from existence, like a thief do with the proofs of his robbery.
>
>> This was what Einstein apparently considered at the time the paper's
>> most important conclusion, hence
>> the title given to it (that title appears odd to the modern reader since
>> we know things developed later!).
>> Very soon, however, everybody and his mother noticed the alteration of
>> the laws of mechanics implied in the
>> FIRST part of the paper ("kinematical part") was a much bigger cheese
>> than their application to Maxwell's equations.
>
> But but, this was a pursuit of many contemporaries of Einstein (Lorentz,
> Larmor, etc.): to develop a new mechanics that
> could contain solutions to "action at a distance" effects on gravity
> (like Gerber's 1898 paper about Mercury's perihelion)
> or the work of Lorentz and others on length contraction to explain null
> effects on 1887 MM experiment, or J.J.Thomson
> observing increase of electron's mass under varying accelerating
> potentials on his famous tubes.
>
>> The paper's title should have been something like "On the physical
>> aspects of time" or some such had Einstein not
>> been in such an enthusiastic mad rush to publish it.
>
> Such show of fanaticism, no matter what, should be awarded with a prize
> from the Albert Einstein Institution, for the least.
>
> https://www.aeinstein.org/
>
>

It’s very amusing to me for you to complain on the one hand that all of the
pieces were there for the picking in 1905 and that it was relatively easy
for Einstein to just make a tiny little step, and then on the other hand to
insist that physics would have been substantially different had Einstein
never lived, probably for the better.

Hertz: “All of the ills of the world are attributable to this one guy
Einstein holding back progress! And yet he did NOTHING, as all of his
contemporaries had done all the important work.”

Gotta find SOME way to eliminate hero-worship among the masses, no?

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

On Tuesday, August 10, 2021 at 5:46:37 AM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Monday, August 9, 2021 at 5:47:09 PM UTC-3, JanPB wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> >>> Einstein's paper appeared more than one year after Lorentz one.
> >>>
> >>> And THIS is what I call the job of a plagiarist, a thief, a deceiver
> >>> and also an idiot. This is not the only one mistake in the paper.
> >>
> >> No, Einstein is correct. You merely don't understand neither Lorentz nor
> >> Einstein. BTW, Einstein is not "plagiarizing"
> >> either, one of the goals of his paper is to *reproduce* (i.e.,
> >> *re-derive by different means*) Lorentz's results, presumed
> >> known and correct to the reader, like the Lorentz transformation itself.
> >
> > Incredible what you are willing to pull out to defend Einstein. So,
> > *re-derive by different means* mechanism is not to *re-invent*
> > as Dirac did with his spinors (introduced in mathematics by W. C.
> > Clifford circa 1876) or having *a synchronicity event* like
> > happened with Leibnitz, co-living with Newton in the same epoch.
> >
> >> For example, his method of derivation obtains the global numerical
> >> factor equal to 1 very quickly, unlike Lorentz's method
> >> which is spread over several pages. Einstein also obtains in this
> >> section one new result using his approach: the transverse
> >> Doppler effect.
> >
> > Maybe he had a *a synchronicity event* with Poincaré, who had corrected
> > Lorentz transforms derivation months before and
> > wrote back to Lorentz, attaching Lorentz name to the transforms.
> >
> >>> Is anyone willing to challenge this? It's obvious the manner he
> >>> disguises Lorentz work in his formulation, only to arrive to the same
> >>> formulae, NAMES and overall concepts.
> >>
> >> Yes, this is intentional. It was one of the goals of the paper to
> >> demonstrate that the stuff-known-so-far could be
> >> re-derived using the new framework AND THEN that this new framework
> >> could go *further* and demonstrate
> >> that Lorentz's "abstract time parameter" and "transformed E and B
> >> fields" could be endowed with a physical
> >> interpretation which yielded an explanation of the magnet-and-coil
> >> experiment Einstein mentions in the introduction to his paper.
> >
> > Then you accept that he was completely aware of Lorentz 1904 paper. Yet,
> > your defense make me wonder how did you obtain
> > such noble explanation about Einstein's purposes when every single
> > written proof of his drafts for his "annus mirabilis" production
> > vanished from existence, like a thief do with the proofs of his robbery..
> >
> >> This was what Einstein apparently considered at the time the paper's
> >> most important conclusion, hence
> >> the title given to it (that title appears odd to the modern reader since
> >> we know things developed later!).
> >> Very soon, however, everybody and his mother noticed the alteration of
> >> the laws of mechanics implied in the
> >> FIRST part of the paper ("kinematical part") was a much bigger cheese
> >> than their application to Maxwell's equations.
> >
> > But but, this was a pursuit of many contemporaries of Einstein (Lorentz,
> > Larmor, etc.): to develop a new mechanics that
> > could contain solutions to "action at a distance" effects on gravity
> > (like Gerber's 1898 paper about Mercury's perihelion)
> > or the work of Lorentz and others on length contraction to explain null
> > effects on 1887 MM experiment, or J.J.Thomson
> > observing increase of electron's mass under varying accelerating
> > potentials on his famous tubes.
> >
> >> The paper's title should have been something like "On the physical
> >> aspects of time" or some such had Einstein not
> >> been in such an enthusiastic mad rush to publish it.
> >
> > Such show of fanaticism, no matter what, should be awarded with a prize
> > from the Albert Einstein Institution, for the least.
> >
> > https://www.aeinstein.org/
> >
> >
> It’s very amusing to me for you to complain on the one hand that all of the
> pieces were there for the picking in 1905 and that it was relatively easy
> for Einstein to just make a tiny little step, and then on the other hand to
> insist that physics would have been substantially different had Einstein
> never lived, probably for the better.
>
> Hertz: “All of the ills of the world are attributable to this one guy
> Einstein holding back progress! And yet he did NOTHING, as all of his
> contemporaries had done all the important work.”
>
> Gotta find SOME way to eliminate hero-worship among the masses, no?
> --
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

That's because many hobbyists cannot detach themselves from the
Hollywood view of science. For an expert the subject itself is interesting,
for a well-meaning but ignorant amateur the interest has to be supported
by... something, and the usual naive fantasies along the
Hollywood/conspiracy/etc. lines fits the bill, esp. if the self-critical
faculties are atrophied (as is common, at least on this NG). Those
faculties normally protect one from falling off the intellectual cliff, even
in the absence of expert knowledge. That's because one of the signs
of wisdom is *knowing what you don't know*, or *where the boundaries
of your knowledge lie*. The lack of this kind of awareness is one of
THE defining characteristics of this forum.

--
Jan

JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 10, 2021 at 5:46:37 AM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Monday, August 9, 2021 at 5:47:09 PM UTC-3, JanPB wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>>> Einstein's paper appeared more than one year after Lorentz one.
>>>>>
>>>>> And THIS is what I call the job of a plagiarist, a thief, a deceiver
>>>>> and also an idiot. This is not the only one mistake in the paper.
>>>>
>>>> No, Einstein is correct. You merely don't understand neither Lorentz nor
>>>> Einstein. BTW, Einstein is not "plagiarizing"
>>>> either, one of the goals of his paper is to *reproduce* (i.e.,
>>>> *re-derive by different means*) Lorentz's results, presumed
>>>> known and correct to the reader, like the Lorentz transformation itself.
>>>
>>> Incredible what you are willing to pull out to defend Einstein. So,
>>> *re-derive by different means* mechanism is not to *re-invent*
>>> as Dirac did with his spinors (introduced in mathematics by W. C.
>>> Clifford circa 1876) or having *a synchronicity event* like
>>> happened with Leibnitz, co-living with Newton in the same epoch.
>>>
>>>> For example, his method of derivation obtains the global numerical
>>>> factor equal to 1 very quickly, unlike Lorentz's method
>>>> which is spread over several pages. Einstein also obtains in this
>>>> section one new result using his approach: the transverse
>>>> Doppler effect.
>>>
>>> Maybe he had a *a synchronicity event* with Poincaré, who had corrected
>>> Lorentz transforms derivation months before and
>>> wrote back to Lorentz, attaching Lorentz name to the transforms.
>>>
>>>>> Is anyone willing to challenge this? It's obvious the manner he
>>>>> disguises Lorentz work in his formulation, only to arrive to the same
>>>>> formulae, NAMES and overall concepts.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, this is intentional. It was one of the goals of the paper to
>>>> demonstrate that the stuff-known-so-far could be
>>>> re-derived using the new framework AND THEN that this new framework
>>>> could go *further* and demonstrate
>>>> that Lorentz's "abstract time parameter" and "transformed E and B
>>>> fields" could be endowed with a physical
>>>> interpretation which yielded an explanation of the magnet-and-coil
>>>> experiment Einstein mentions in the introduction to his paper.
>>>
>>> Then you accept that he was completely aware of Lorentz 1904 paper. Yet,
>>> your defense make me wonder how did you obtain
>>> such noble explanation about Einstein's purposes when every single
>>> written proof of his drafts for his "annus mirabilis" production
>>> vanished from existence, like a thief do with the proofs of his robbery.
>>>
>>>> This was what Einstein apparently considered at the time the paper's
>>>> most important conclusion, hence
>>>> the title given to it (that title appears odd to the modern reader since
>>>> we know things developed later!).
>>>> Very soon, however, everybody and his mother noticed the alteration of
>>>> the laws of mechanics implied in the
>>>> FIRST part of the paper ("kinematical part") was a much bigger cheese
>>>> than their application to Maxwell's equations.
>>>
>>> But but, this was a pursuit of many contemporaries of Einstein (Lorentz,
>>> Larmor, etc.): to develop a new mechanics that
>>> could contain solutions to "action at a distance" effects on gravity
>>> (like Gerber's 1898 paper about Mercury's perihelion)
>>> or the work of Lorentz and others on length contraction to explain null
>>> effects on 1887 MM experiment, or J.J.Thomson
>>> observing increase of electron's mass under varying accelerating
>>> potentials on his famous tubes.
>>>
>>>> The paper's title should have been something like "On the physical
>>>> aspects of time" or some such had Einstein not
>>>> been in such an enthusiastic mad rush to publish it.
>>>
>>> Such show of fanaticism, no matter what, should be awarded with a prize
>>> from the Albert Einstein Institution, for the least.
>>>
>>> https://www.aeinstein.org/
>>>
>>>
>> It’s very amusing to me for you to complain on the one hand that all of the
>> pieces were there for the picking in 1905 and that it was relatively easy
>> for Einstein to just make a tiny little step, and then on the other hand to
>> insist that physics would have been substantially different had Einstein
>> never lived, probably for the better.
>>
>> Hertz: “All of the ills of the world are attributable to this one guy
>> Einstein holding back progress! And yet he did NOTHING, as all of his
>> contemporaries had done all the important work.”
>>
>> Gotta find SOME way to eliminate hero-worship among the masses, no?
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>
> That's because many hobbyists cannot detach themselves from the
> Hollywood view of science.

Exactly. And part of this is the limitation of what they feel comfortable
reading, which is unfortunately saturated with this Hollywood view of
science.

> For an expert the subject itself is interesting,
> for a well-meaning but ignorant amateur the interest has to be supported
> by... something, and the usual naive fantasies along the
> Hollywood/conspiracy/etc. lines fits the bill, esp. if the self-critical
> faculties are atrophied (as is common, at least on this NG).

I’ll also suppose that, at least among those hobbyists that post to this
newsgroup, there is a mindset of “how hard can this be to figure out?” I
think that a lot of more regular folk say things like, “yeah, all very
interesting but over my head and that’s ok.” Why it is that the former seem
to be drawn to say something here is an interesting pathology.

> Those
> faculties normally protect one from falling off the intellectual cliff, even
> in the absence of expert knowledge. That's because one of the signs
> of wisdom is *knowing what you don't know*, or *where the boundaries
> of your knowledge lie*. The lack of this kind of awareness is one of
> THE defining characteristics of this forum.

Exactly.

>
> --
> Jan
>

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

On Tuesday, August 10, 2021 at 3:53:19 PM UTC-3, JanPB wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 10, 2021 at 5:46:37 AM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Monday, August 9, 2021 at 5:47:09 PM UTC-3, JanPB wrote:
> > >
> > > <snip>
> > >
> > >>> Einstein's paper appeared more than one year after Lorentz one.
> > >>>
> > >>> And THIS is what I call the job of a plagiarist, a thief, a deceiver
> > >>> and also an idiot. This is not the only one mistake in the paper.
> > >>
> > >> No, Einstein is correct. You merely don't understand neither Lorentz nor
> > >> Einstein. BTW, Einstein is not "plagiarizing"
> > >> either, one of the goals of his paper is to *reproduce* (i.e.,
> > >> *re-derive by different means*) Lorentz's results, presumed
> > >> known and correct to the reader, like the Lorentz transformation itself.
> > >
> > > Incredible what you are willing to pull out to defend Einstein. So,
> > > *re-derive by different means* mechanism is not to *re-invent*
> > > as Dirac did with his spinors (introduced in mathematics by W. C.
> > > Clifford circa 1876) or having *a synchronicity event* like
> > > happened with Leibnitz, co-living with Newton in the same epoch.
> > >
> > >> For example, his method of derivation obtains the global numerical
> > >> factor equal to 1 very quickly, unlike Lorentz's method
> > >> which is spread over several pages. Einstein also obtains in this
> > >> section one new result using his approach: the transverse
> > >> Doppler effect.
> > >
> > > Maybe he had a *a synchronicity event* with Poincaré, who had corrected
> > > Lorentz transforms derivation months before and
> > > wrote back to Lorentz, attaching Lorentz name to the transforms.
> > >
> > >>> Is anyone willing to challenge this? It's obvious the manner he
> > >>> disguises Lorentz work in his formulation, only to arrive to the same
> > >>> formulae, NAMES and overall concepts.
> > >>
> > >> Yes, this is intentional. It was one of the goals of the paper to
> > >> demonstrate that the stuff-known-so-far could be
> > >> re-derived using the new framework AND THEN that this new framework
> > >> could go *further* and demonstrate
> > >> that Lorentz's "abstract time parameter" and "transformed E and B
> > >> fields" could be endowed with a physical
> > >> interpretation which yielded an explanation of the magnet-and-coil
> > >> experiment Einstein mentions in the introduction to his paper.
> > >
> > > Then you accept that he was completely aware of Lorentz 1904 paper. Yet,
> > > your defense make me wonder how did you obtain
> > > such noble explanation about Einstein's purposes when every single
> > > written proof of his drafts for his "annus mirabilis" production
> > > vanished from existence, like a thief do with the proofs of his robbery.
> > >
> > >> This was what Einstein apparently considered at the time the paper's
> > >> most important conclusion, hence
> > >> the title given to it (that title appears odd to the modern reader since
> > >> we know things developed later!).
> > >> Very soon, however, everybody and his mother noticed the alteration of
> > >> the laws of mechanics implied in the
> > >> FIRST part of the paper ("kinematical part") was a much bigger cheese
> > >> than their application to Maxwell's equations.
> > >
> > > But but, this was a pursuit of many contemporaries of Einstein (Lorentz,
> > > Larmor, etc.): to develop a new mechanics that
> > > could contain solutions to "action at a distance" effects on gravity
> > > (like Gerber's 1898 paper about Mercury's perihelion)
> > > or the work of Lorentz and others on length contraction to explain null
> > > effects on 1887 MM experiment, or J.J.Thomson
> > > observing increase of electron's mass under varying accelerating
> > > potentials on his famous tubes.
> > >
> > >> The paper's title should have been something like "On the physical
> > >> aspects of time" or some such had Einstein not
> > >> been in such an enthusiastic mad rush to publish it.
> > >
> > > Such show of fanaticism, no matter what, should be awarded with a prize
> > > from the Albert Einstein Institution, for the least.
> > >
> > > https://www.aeinstein.org/
> > >
> > >
> > It’s very amusing to me for you to complain on the one hand that all of the
> > pieces were there for the picking in 1905 and that it was relatively easy
> > for Einstein to just make a tiny little step, and then on the other hand to
> > insist that physics would have been substantially different had Einstein
> > never lived, probably for the better.
> >
> > Hertz: “All of the ills of the world are attributable to this one guy
> > Einstein holding back progress! And yet he did NOTHING, as all of his
> > contemporaries had done all the important work.”
> >
> > Gotta find SOME way to eliminate hero-worship among the masses, no?
> > --
> > Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> That's because many hobbyists cannot detach themselves from the
> Hollywood view of science. For an expert the subject itself is interesting,
> for a well-meaning but ignorant amateur the interest has to be supported
> by... something, and the usual naive fantasies along the
> Hollywood/conspiracy/etc. lines fits the bill, esp. if the self-critical
> faculties are atrophied (as is common, at least on this NG). Those
> faculties normally protect one from falling off the intellectual cliff, even
> in the absence of expert knowledge. That's because one of the signs
> of wisdom is *knowing what you don't know*, or *where the boundaries
> of your knowledge lie*. The lack of this kind of awareness is one of
> THE defining characteristics of this forum.
>
> --
> Jan

I think that you, Bodkin, Dono and many others are full of shitty superiority complex,
which serves only to conceal your failures in life and actual feelings of inferiority.

You all should learn from the life and achievements of the great physicist, Dr. Sheldon Cooper,
and try to emulate some of his warm, sensitive and supportive attitude toward others. Of course,
none of you will be able, in your wildest dreams, to reach the heights of his supreme intellect.

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 10, 2021 at 3:53:19 PM UTC-3, JanPB wrote:
>> On Tuesday, August 10, 2021 at 5:46:37 AM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Monday, August 9, 2021 at 5:47:09 PM UTC-3, JanPB wrote:
>>>>
>>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>>>> Einstein's paper appeared more than one year after Lorentz one.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And THIS is what I call the job of a plagiarist, a thief, a deceiver
>>>>>> and also an idiot. This is not the only one mistake in the paper.
>>>>>
>>>>> No, Einstein is correct. You merely don't understand neither Lorentz nor
>>>>> Einstein. BTW, Einstein is not "plagiarizing"
>>>>> either, one of the goals of his paper is to *reproduce* (i.e.,
>>>>> *re-derive by different means*) Lorentz's results, presumed
>>>>> known and correct to the reader, like the Lorentz transformation itself.
>>>>
>>>> Incredible what you are willing to pull out to defend Einstein. So,
>>>> *re-derive by different means* mechanism is not to *re-invent*
>>>> as Dirac did with his spinors (introduced in mathematics by W. C.
>>>> Clifford circa 1876) or having *a synchronicity event* like
>>>> happened with Leibnitz, co-living with Newton in the same epoch.
>>>>
>>>>> For example, his method of derivation obtains the global numerical
>>>>> factor equal to 1 very quickly, unlike Lorentz's method
>>>>> which is spread over several pages. Einstein also obtains in this
>>>>> section one new result using his approach: the transverse
>>>>> Doppler effect.
>>>>
>>>> Maybe he had a *a synchronicity event* with Poincaré, who had corrected
>>>> Lorentz transforms derivation months before and
>>>> wrote back to Lorentz, attaching Lorentz name to the transforms.
>>>>
>>>>>> Is anyone willing to challenge this? It's obvious the manner he
>>>>>> disguises Lorentz work in his formulation, only to arrive to the same
>>>>>> formulae, NAMES and overall concepts.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, this is intentional. It was one of the goals of the paper to
>>>>> demonstrate that the stuff-known-so-far could be
>>>>> re-derived using the new framework AND THEN that this new framework
>>>>> could go *further* and demonstrate
>>>>> that Lorentz's "abstract time parameter" and "transformed E and B
>>>>> fields" could be endowed with a physical
>>>>> interpretation which yielded an explanation of the magnet-and-coil
>>>>> experiment Einstein mentions in the introduction to his paper.
>>>>
>>>> Then you accept that he was completely aware of Lorentz 1904 paper. Yet,
>>>> your defense make me wonder how did you obtain
>>>> such noble explanation about Einstein's purposes when every single
>>>> written proof of his drafts for his "annus mirabilis" production
>>>> vanished from existence, like a thief do with the proofs of his robbery.
>>>>
>>>>> This was what Einstein apparently considered at the time the paper's
>>>>> most important conclusion, hence
>>>>> the title given to it (that title appears odd to the modern reader since
>>>>> we know things developed later!).
>>>>> Very soon, however, everybody and his mother noticed the alteration of
>>>>> the laws of mechanics implied in the
>>>>> FIRST part of the paper ("kinematical part") was a much bigger cheese
>>>>> than their application to Maxwell's equations.
>>>>
>>>> But but, this was a pursuit of many contemporaries of Einstein (Lorentz,
>>>> Larmor, etc.): to develop a new mechanics that
>>>> could contain solutions to "action at a distance" effects on gravity
>>>> (like Gerber's 1898 paper about Mercury's perihelion)
>>>> or the work of Lorentz and others on length contraction to explain null
>>>> effects on 1887 MM experiment, or J.J.Thomson
>>>> observing increase of electron's mass under varying accelerating
>>>> potentials on his famous tubes.
>>>>
>>>>> The paper's title should have been something like "On the physical
>>>>> aspects of time" or some such had Einstein not
>>>>> been in such an enthusiastic mad rush to publish it.
>>>>
>>>> Such show of fanaticism, no matter what, should be awarded with a prize
>>>> from the Albert Einstein Institution, for the least.
>>>>
>>>> https://www.aeinstein.org/
>>>>
>>>>
>>> It’s very amusing to me for you to complain on the one hand that all of the
>>> pieces were there for the picking in 1905 and that it was relatively easy
>>> for Einstein to just make a tiny little step, and then on the other hand to
>>> insist that physics would have been substantially different had Einstein
>>> never lived, probably for the better.
>>>
>>> Hertz: “All of the ills of the world are attributable to this one guy
>>> Einstein holding back progress! And yet he did NOTHING, as all of his
>>> contemporaries had done all the important work.”
>>>
>>> Gotta find SOME way to eliminate hero-worship among the masses, no?
>>> --
>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>> That's because many hobbyists cannot detach themselves from the
>> Hollywood view of science. For an expert the subject itself is interesting,
>> for a well-meaning but ignorant amateur the interest has to be supported
>> by... something, and the usual naive fantasies along the
>> Hollywood/conspiracy/etc. lines fits the bill, esp. if the self-critical
>> faculties are atrophied (as is common, at least on this NG). Those
>> faculties normally protect one from falling off the intellectual cliff, even
>> in the absence of expert knowledge. That's because one of the signs
>> of wisdom is *knowing what you don't know*, or *where the boundaries
>> of your knowledge lie*. The lack of this kind of awareness is one of
>> THE defining characteristics of this forum.
>>
>> --
>> Jan
>
> I think that you, Bodkin, Dono and many others are full of shitty superiority complex,
> which serves only to conceal your failures in life and actual feelings of inferiority.
>
> You all should learn from the life and achievements of the great
> physicist, Dr. Sheldon Cooper,
> and try to emulate some of his warm, sensitive and supportive attitude
> toward others. Of course,
> none of you will be able, in your wildest dreams, to reach the heights of
> his supreme intellect.
>
>

This was one of your weaker attempts to bait.

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

On Tuesday, August 10, 2021 at 5:15:26 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:

> > I think that you, Bodkin, Dono and many others are full of shitty superiority complex,
> > which serves only to conceal your failures in life and actual feelings of inferiority.
> >
> > You all should learn from the life and achievements of the great
> > physicist, Dr. Sheldon Cooper,
> > and try to emulate some of his warm, sensitive and supportive attitude
> > toward others. Of course,
> > none of you will be able, in your wildest dreams, to reach the heights of
> > his supreme intellect.
> >
> >
> This was one of your weaker attempts to bait.

I don't see a reason for you to post that.

You should revere him in due form. Don't be a denier as some anti-Einstein people.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheldon_Cooper

On Tuesday, August 10, 2021 at 1:11:49 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
>
> I think that I am full of shit.

Agreed

Dono. <eggy20011951@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 10, 2021 at 1:11:49 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
>>
>> I think that I am full of shit.
>
> Agreed
>

It’s obvious that he’s willing to fling useless shit, evidenced by all
these Sheldon Cooper litter-posts.
Once that’s established, then there’s a general continuum where he may be
completely serious with one post and completely not serious in another
post, and his audience will be convinced that he’s in the habit of flinging
shit at every opportunity, regardless. And that’s how he earns the
reputation he has.

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

On Tuesday, August 10, 2021 at 2:47:16 PM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Dono. <eggy20...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Tuesday, August 10, 2021 at 1:11:49 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> >>
> >> I think that I am full of shit.
> >
> > Agreed
> >
> It’s obvious that he’s willing to fling useless shit, evidenced by all
> these Sheldon Cooper litter-posts.
> Once that’s established, then there’s a general continuum where he may be
> completely serious with one post and completely not serious in another
> post, and his audience will be convinced that he’s in the habit of flinging
> shit at every opportunity, regardless. And that’s how he earns the
> reputation he has.
> --
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Yes, he's full of it.