First, a recap of the scenario at which we live in.

1) The structure of modern physics is built with a vital dependence about
the certainty of "universal properties" of three fundamental constants,
which are c, h and G.
Any failure of their universal character would completely ruin the physics
developments of the last 100 years, forcing to establish their reach as local.

2) So far, the known "visible" universe (Hubble's one) has a radius of about
13.5 bly (1.28×10^23 km) and involves a linear backward timeline of about
13,500 millions of years (1.35×10^13 years), all of this referenced to the
Earth. These are distances and age in the macro-cosmos (since us).

In the world of the micro-cosmos, depth challenging our observational
power, start at 10^-10 mt (used as average size of atoms), continues
down to 10^-15 mt (the only accepted size for the classical radius of
the electron, not the real as a particle), and goes down hundred of
thousand of times for "elementary particles and sub-particles".

3) The old methods for measuring the three constants have evolved
substantially in the last 100 years. Now, national organizations like
NIST at US, have developed techniques similar to those used in other
countries to measure them, and the results are accepted as universal
by a worldwide accepted organization BIPM (Bureau International des
Poids et Mesures), with more than 63 member states (like US).
The MKS system of units (SI) is maintained at BIPM, with member's
agreement.

Besides many other units of measures and values, values of constants
like c, h, e, k, NA, cesium clock preferred resonant frequency and many
others are displayed at the BIMP site for everyone who want to check them.

https://www.bipm.org/en/measurement-units/si-defining-constants

With the above background, now to the point.

**************************************************************************
Chapter 1: the measure of the value of c.

The last (1983) and currently accepted value of c is 299792458 mt/sec,
with ZERO ERROR, as it was accepted to write it into stone.

And it has to be exact, with zero error, because the SI meter unit is valued
as the path traveled in euclidean space during 1/299792458 seconds.

Do you see a circular method here? In similar ways, other values of
constants in the MKS SI standard are developed.

Now, the preferred method to measure c is laser interferometry, measuring
null results of interferometry between two paths of a laser beam (one direct
and the other diverged and refocused using mirrors).
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light#Electromagnetic_constants

Now, the centuries old method of measure one way velocity, V=X/T, has been
abandoned in this method, as X is replaced by N wavelengths and T by the
multiple ticks of an atomic clock.

The problem here is recursion, and always has been. There are no independent
sources of length and time to measure c. Time unit of 1 second is tied to the
measurement of the frequency of a cesium atomic clock (10^-12 stability), but
there is not a source of higher quality to clock the frequency meter. So, a time
unit is WHAT IT IS, as defined at BIMP, and unquestionable by any mortal.

The problem with distance X is that its measurement is poisoned by the null
results at the detector in the interferometer. There is not a way to account
how many wavelengths have been skipped to get a null result, and the error
is contained in the range of one part in 10^10.
And I quote BIMP:

"The metre, symbol m, is the SI unit of length. It is defined by taking the fixed numerical value of the speed of light in vacuum c to be 299 792 458 when expressed in the unit m s–1, where the second is defined in terms of the caesium frequency ΔνCs."

And this is a blatant recursion, a loop. The meter is defined by the speed of
light c, which is defined by the value of one meter, obtained by multiple wavelengths of a cesium clock, which is used to time the value of c, etc......

So, no direct and one-way measurement of the speed of light has been performed and its value is settled as exact, without chances to dispute it.

I wonder what would happen with a measurement made 1bly far away. Would
it give the same value? And 10 bly far away? And, also, how would we know
the results? Waiting billion of years till they arrive at Earth? Nonsense.

So, the unobservability of such UNIVERSAL CONSTANT put its value in the
realm of fairies and their tells.

***************************************************************************

Chapter 2: the measure of the value of h.

The current accepted value of h is 6.62607015 x 10^–34 J/s (BIMP, NIST).

Leaving behind the century old value determined by Planck, relating it to a
relationship between NA and R (R is the Regnault’s constant), whom also
found the value of kB, the latest method involves several values of constants
within the MKS SI. Of course, c is one of them.

I quote, for the sake of brevity, this article:

Measurement of the Planck constant at the National Institute of Standards and Technology from 2015 to 2017
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1681-7575/aa7bf2

"This article summarizes measurements that were carried out with the Kibble balance, NIST-4, at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) from December 22, 2015 to April 30, 2017. A detailed description of NIST-4 and a first determination of the Planck constant h with a relative standard uncertainty of 34x10^{-9} can be found in [1]."
.....................
"The result is based on over 10,000 weighings of masses with nominal values ranging from 0.5 kg to 2 kg with the Kibble balance NIST-4.."
....................
"Common to NIST-1 through NIST-4 is that a wheel is used for both the balancing and moving mechanisms. The wheel pivots about a knife edge collinear with the wheel's central axis. A measurement coil and test mass are suspended from one side of the wheel while a tare mass is suspended from the other via multi-filament bands. The tare mass includes a small motor consisting of a coil in a permanent magnet system, similar in design but much smaller than the main magnet, for generating a force to rotate the wheel. The benefit of a wheel versus a traditional balance beam is that the former prescribes a pure vertical motion for the suspended coil whereas the latter traces an arc.

The measurement is performed in two modes: force and velocity mode. In force mode, a current I in a coil with a wire length l immersed in a radial magnetic field with magnetic flux density B is controlled such that the balance wheel remains at a constant angle chosen by the operator. While the balance wheel is servo controlled, a mass standard with a mass m, typically 1 kg, can be placed on or removed from the mass pan."
..........................
"Three mounting plates made from $25.4~$ mm thick aluminium, each supporting one interferometer and turning mirrors, were mated to the base plate through kinematic mounts."
-------------------------------------------------------------------

So, laser wavelengths, newtonian mechanics and maxwellian electromagnetic
forces and else are used in this complex arrangement.

Once again, recursive methods are at plain sight and the questions about how
it would perform very, very far from here are the same as with c.

Universal constants? I highly doubt it.

*******************************************************************************
Chapter 3: the measure of the value of G.

G and c are vital values for relativity. Any fail of its universal constancy makes
the theory collapse.

I'm using this article, very new, among many available:

Precision measurement of the Newtonian gravitational constant
https://academic.oup.com/nsr/article/7/12/1803/5874900

"The latest recommended value for G published by the Committee on Data for Science and Technology (CODATA) is (6.67408 ± 0.00031) × 10^−11 m^3 kg^−1 s^−2 with a relative uncertainty of 47 parts per million."
......................
"The Newtonian gravitational constant G, which is one of the most important fundamental physical constants in nature, plays a significant role in the fields of theoretical physics, geophysics, astrophysics and astronomy. Although G was the first physical constant to be introduced in the history of science, it is considered to be one of the most difficult to measure accurately so far."
....................
"To date, there is no quantitatively theoretical relationship between the Newtonian gravitational constant and other fundamental constants. Scientists can only measure the gravitational constant through Newton’s law of universal gravitation. One of the greatest difficulties in any G measurement is determining with sufficient accuracy of the dimensions and density distribution of the test mass and attractor mass."
.........................
"The phenomenon of inconsistent measurements of G makes many scientists puzzled [45–49]. It is most likely that there might be some undiscovered systematic errors in some or all the G measurements. Our group has been dedicated to the precise measurement of G for over thirty years. In 2018, G values measured with two independent methods, the time-of-swing (ToS) method and angular acceleration feedback (AAF) method, were obtained with the smallest uncertainty reported to date and both agreed with the CODATA 2014 recommended value to within two standard deviations [50]. The thirteen values of the Newtonian gravitational constant [30–44,50,51] measured after 2000 are listed in Table 3 and shown in Fig. 2."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Monday, August 9, 2021 at 10:20:47 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
>
> And it has to be exact, with zero error, because the SI meter unit is valued
> as the path traveled in euclidean space during 1/299792458 seconds.
>
> Do you see a circular method here? In similar ways, other values of
> constants in the MKS SI standard are developed.
>

There is nothing "circular", utter imbecile. The second is defined, so is the speed of light and the meter is derived from the first two. You are just a sad sack cretin. Your only consolation is that you will die this way.

On Tuesday, August 10, 2021 at 2:52:25 AM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:

> There is nothing "circular", utter imbecile. The second is defined, so is the speed of light and the meter is derived from the first two. You are just a sad sack cretin. Your only consolation is that you will die this way.

Read again what you wrote, fucking piece of genetical mutation from human to slug.

You can't even count 1, 2, 3,..

Which two, retarded? "The second is defined, so is the speed of light and the meter is derived from the first TWO."

What comes first to you: chicken or egg?

Idiot!

On 10-Aug-21 3:20 pm, Richard Hertz wrote:
> First, a recap of the scenario at which we live in.
>
> 1) The structure of modern physics is built with a vital dependence about
> the certainty of "universal properties" of three fundamental constants,
> which are c, h and G.
> Any failure of their universal character would completely ruin the physics
> developments of the last 100 years, forcing to establish their reach as local.
>
> 2) So far, the known "visible" universe (Hubble's one) has a radius of about
> 13.5 bly (1.28×10^23 km) and involves a linear backward timeline of about
> 13,500 millions of years (1.35×10^13 years), all of this referenced to the
> Earth. These are distances and age in the macro-cosmos (since us).
>
> In the world of the micro-cosmos, depth challenging our observational
> power, start at 10^-10 mt (used as average size of atoms), continues
> down to 10^-15 mt (the only accepted size for the classical radius of
> the electron, not the real as a particle), and goes down hundred of
> thousand of times for "elementary particles and sub-particles".
>
> 3) The old methods for measuring the three constants have evolved
> substantially in the last 100 years. Now, national organizations like
> NIST at US, have developed techniques similar to those used in other
> countries to measure them, and the results are accepted as universal
> by a worldwide accepted organization BIPM (Bureau International des
> Poids et Mesures), with more than 63 member states (like US).
> The MKS system of units (SI) is maintained at BIPM, with member's
> agreement.
>
> Besides many other units of measures and values, values of constants
> like c, h, e, k, NA, cesium clock preferred resonant frequency and many
> others are displayed at the BIMP site for everyone who want to check them.
>
> https://www.bipm.org/en/measurement-units/si-defining-constants
>
> With the above background, now to the point.
>
> **************************************************************************
> Chapter 1: the measure of the value of c.
>
> The last (1983) and currently accepted value of c is 299792458 mt/sec,
> with ZERO ERROR, as it was accepted to write it into stone.
>
> And it has to be exact, with zero error, because the SI meter unit is valued
> as the path traveled in euclidean space during 1/299792458 seconds.
>
> Do you see a circular method here? In similar ways, other values of
> constants in the MKS SI standard are developed.
>
> Now, the preferred method to measure c is laser interferometry, measuring
> null results of interferometry between two paths of a laser beam (one direct
> and the other diverged and refocused using mirrors).
> See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light#Electromagnetic_constants
>
> Now, the centuries old method of measure one way velocity, V=X/T, has been
> abandoned in this method, as X is replaced by N wavelengths and T by the
> multiple ticks of an atomic clock.
>
> The problem here is recursion, and always has been. There are no independent
> sources of length and time to measure c. Time unit of 1 second is tied to the
> measurement of the frequency of a cesium atomic clock (10^-12 stability), but
> there is not a source of higher quality to clock the frequency meter. So, a time
> unit is WHAT IT IS, as defined at BIMP, and unquestionable by any mortal.
>
> The problem with distance X is that its measurement is poisoned by the null
> results at the detector in the interferometer. There is not a way to account
> how many wavelengths have been skipped to get a null result, and the error
> is contained in the range of one part in 10^10.
> And I quote BIMP:
>
> "The metre, symbol m, is the SI unit of length. It is defined by taking the fixed numerical value of the speed of light in vacuum c to be 299 792 458 when expressed in the unit m s–1, where the second is defined in terms of the caesium frequency ΔνCs."
>
> And this is a blatant recursion, a loop. The meter is defined by the speed of
> light c, which is defined by the value of one meter, obtained by multiple wavelengths of a cesium clock, which is used to time the value of c, etc.....
>
> So, no direct and one-way measurement of the speed of light has been performed and its value is settled as exact, without chances to dispute it.
>
> I wonder what would happen with a measurement made 1bly far away. Would
> it give the same value? And 10 bly far away? And, also, how would we know
> the results? Waiting billion of years till they arrive at Earth? Nonsense.
>
> So, the unobservability of such UNIVERSAL CONSTANT put its value in the
> realm of fairies and their tells.
>
> ***************************************************************************
>
> Chapter 2: the measure of the value of h.
>
> The current accepted value of h is 6.62607015 x 10^–34 J/s (BIMP, NIST).
>
> Leaving behind the century old value determined by Planck, relating it to a
> relationship between NA and R (R is the Regnault’s constant), whom also
> found the value of kB, the latest method involves several values of constants
> within the MKS SI. Of course, c is one of them.
>
> I quote, for the sake of brevity, this article:
>
> Measurement of the Planck constant at the National Institute of Standards and Technology from 2015 to 2017
> https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1681-7575/aa7bf2
>
> "This article summarizes measurements that were carried out with the Kibble balance, NIST-4, at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) from December 22, 2015 to April 30, 2017. A detailed description of NIST-4 and a first determination of the Planck constant h with a relative standard uncertainty of 34x10^{-9} can be found in [1]."
> ....................
> "The result is based on over 10,000 weighings of masses with nominal values ranging from 0.5 kg to 2 kg with the Kibble balance NIST-4."
> ...................
> "Common to NIST-1 through NIST-4 is that a wheel is used for both the balancing and moving mechanisms. The wheel pivots about a knife edge collinear with the wheel's central axis. A measurement coil and test mass are suspended from one side of the wheel while a tare mass is suspended from the other via multi-filament bands. The tare mass includes a small motor consisting of a coil in a permanent magnet system, similar in design but much smaller than the main magnet, for generating a force to rotate the wheel. The benefit of a wheel versus a traditional balance beam is that the former prescribes a pure vertical motion for the suspended coil whereas the latter traces an arc.
>
> The measurement is performed in two modes: force and velocity mode. In force mode, a current I in a coil with a wire length l immersed in a radial magnetic field with magnetic flux density B is controlled such that the balance wheel remains at a constant angle chosen by the operator. While the balance wheel is servo controlled, a mass standard with a mass m, typically 1 kg, can be placed on or removed from the mass pan."
> .........................
> "Three mounting plates made from $25.4~$ mm thick aluminium, each supporting one interferometer and turning mirrors, were mated to the base plate through kinematic mounts."
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> So, laser wavelengths, newtonian mechanics and maxwellian electromagnetic
> forces and else are used in this complex arrangement.
>
> Once again, recursive methods are at plain sight and the questions about how
> it would perform very, very far from here are the same as with c.
>
> Universal constants? I highly doubt it.
>
> *******************************************************************************
> Chapter 3: the measure of the value of G.
>
> G and c are vital values for relativity. Any fail of its universal constancy makes
> the theory collapse.
>
> I'm using this article, very new, among many available:
>
> Precision measurement of the Newtonian gravitational constant
> https://academic.oup.com/nsr/article/7/12/1803/5874900
>
> "The latest recommended value for G published by the Committee on Data for Science and Technology (CODATA) is (6.67408 ± 0.00031) × 10^−11 m^3 kg^−1 s^−2 with a relative uncertainty of 47 parts per million."
> .....................
> "The Newtonian gravitational constant G, which is one of the most important fundamental physical constants in nature, plays a significant role in the fields of theoretical physics, geophysics, astrophysics and astronomy. Although G was the first physical constant to be introduced in the history of science, it is considered to be one of the most difficult to measure accurately so far."
> ...................
> "To date, there is no quantitatively theoretical relationship between the Newtonian gravitational constant and other fundamental constants. Scientists can only measure the gravitational constant through Newton’s law of universal gravitation. One of the greatest difficulties in any G measurement is determining with sufficient accuracy of the dimensions and density distribution of the test mass and attractor mass."
> ........................
> "The phenomenon of inconsistent measurements of G makes many scientists puzzled [45–49]. It is most likely that there might be some undiscovered systematic errors in some or all the G measurements. Our group has been dedicated to the precise measurement of G for over thirty years. In 2018, G values measured with two independent methods, the time-of-swing (ToS) method and angular acceleration feedback (AAF) method, were obtained with the smallest uncertainty reported to date and both agreed with the CODATA 2014 recommended value to within two standard deviations [50]. The thirteen values of the Newtonian gravitational constant [30–44,50,51] measured after 2000 are listed in Table 3 and shown in Fig. 2."
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> So, science doesn't know the real value of G and, even more, if it poses universal constancy (within error margins).
>
> The same questions about its value very, very far from here, remains as with
> the first two.
>
> So, I wonder. How solid is the building of physics upon these facts of dubious
> universality of the three major constants in physics?
>

On Tuesday, 10 August 2021 at 08:18:17 UTC+2, Sylvia Else wrote:

> Physics is not built on units.

Oh yes, lady, it is.
> But a system of of units is convenient to have. With all the evidence
> pointing to the speed of light in a vacuum being a constant, it makes
> sense to use it as a starting point.

For Your armchair gurus; not for GPS staff.

On Tuesday, August 10, 2021 at 3:18:17 AM UTC-3, Sylvia Else wrote:

<snip>

> The only people who worry about the whole edifice collapsing are those
> who do not understand how it was constructed.

Specially the new kids in the block of physics since the '60s, like Gell-Man, Hawkings, Susskind,
Guth and many others, in particular Sheldon Cooper.

On Tuesday, August 10, 2021 at 3:18:17 AM UTC-3, Sylvia Else wrote:

<snip>

> As for G, if it turned out not to be a constant over time or space, that
> would not make relativity "collapse". It would merely mean that some
> additional terms were required, terms which become negligible over
> smaller times and distances. This would be analogous to the
> modifications to Newtonian mechananics that give special relativity.

But the insistence with applying GR and derivates to analyze the universe, its "evolution
from a Big Bang", singularities of GR approximate solutions to "create" black holes and
the hype behind them, among many other things, is appalling.

Never surrender, because Einstein is always proven right even when wrong! What a dogma!

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
> First, a recap of the scenario at which we live in.
>
> 1) The structure of modern physics is built with a vital dependence about
> the certainty of "universal properties" of three fundamental constants,
> which are c, h and G.
> Any failure of their universal character would completely ruin the physics
> developments of the last 100 years, forcing to establish their reach as local.
>
> 2) So far, the known "visible" universe (Hubble's one) has a radius of about
> 13.5 bly (1.28×10^23 km) and involves a linear backward timeline of about
> 13,500 millions of years (1.35×10^13 years), all of this referenced to the
> Earth. These are distances and age in the macro-cosmos (since us).
>
> In the world of the micro-cosmos, depth challenging our observational
> power, start at 10^-10 mt (used as average size of atoms), continues
> down to 10^-15 mt (the only accepted size for the classical radius of
> the electron, not the real as a particle), and goes down hundred of
> thousand of times for "elementary particles and sub-particles".
>
> 3) The old methods for measuring the three constants have evolved
> substantially in the last 100 years. Now, national organizations like
> NIST at US, have developed techniques similar to those used in other
> countries to measure them, and the results are accepted as universal
> by a worldwide accepted organization BIPM (Bureau International des
> Poids et Mesures), with more than 63 member states (like US).
> The MKS system of units (SI) is maintained at BIPM, with member's
> agreement.
>
> Besides many other units of measures and values, values of constants
> like c, h, e, k, NA, cesium clock preferred resonant frequency and many
> others are displayed at the BIMP site for everyone who want to check them.
>
> https://www.bipm.org/en/measurement-units/si-defining-constants
>
> With the above background, now to the point.
>
> **************************************************************************
> Chapter 1: the measure of the value of c.
>
> The last (1983) and currently accepted value of c is 299792458 mt/sec,
> with ZERO ERROR, as it was accepted to write it into stone.
>
> And it has to be exact, with zero error, because the SI meter unit is valued
> as the path traveled in euclidean space during 1/299792458 seconds.
>
> Do you see a circular method here? In similar ways, other values of
> constants in the MKS SI standard are developed.
>
> Now, the preferred method to measure c is laser interferometry, measuring
> null results of interferometry between two paths of a laser beam (one direct
> and the other diverged and refocused using mirrors).
> See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light#Electromagnetic_constants
>
> Now, the centuries old method of measure one way velocity, V=X/T, has been
> abandoned in this method, as X is replaced by N wavelengths and T by the
> multiple ticks of an atomic clock.
>
> The problem here is recursion, and always has been. There are no independent
> sources of length and time to measure c. Time unit of 1 second is tied to the
> measurement of the frequency of a cesium atomic clock (10^-12 stability), but
> there is not a source of higher quality to clock the frequency meter. So, a time
> unit is WHAT IT IS, as defined at BIMP, and unquestionable by any mortal.
>
> The problem with distance X is that its measurement is poisoned by the null
> results at the detector in the interferometer. There is not a way to account
> how many wavelengths have been skipped to get a null result, and the error
> is contained in the range of one part in 10^10.
> And I quote BIMP:
>
> "The metre, symbol m, is the SI unit of length. It is defined by taking
> the fixed numerical value of the speed of light in vacuum c to be 299 792
> 458 when expressed in the unit m s–1, where the second is defined in
> terms of the caesium frequency ΔνCs."
>
> And this is a blatant recursion, a loop. The meter is defined by the speed of
> light c, which is defined by the value of one meter, obtained by multiple
> wavelengths of a cesium clock, which is used to time the value of c, etc.....
>
> So, no direct and one-way measurement of the speed of light has been
> performed and its value is settled as exact, without chances to dispute it.

Well, it is true that the speed of light can no longer be measured with the
current units standards in place. That is because it was measured PRIOR to
that definition of the meter to sufficient reliability that no one on the
international panel of scientists, metrologists, and engineers thought it
necessary to measure it further. The fact that you are unconvinced is
completely irrelevant.

As for the statement about there being no one-way measurement of light
speed, that is simply untrue. As for high precision measurements, however,
the one-way measurement is decidedly not the best approach and so is not
needed.

>
> I wonder what would happen with a measurement made 1bly far away. Would
> it give the same value? And 10 bly far away? And, also, how would we know
> the results? Waiting billion of years till they arrive at Earth? Nonsense.
>
> So, the unobservability of such UNIVERSAL CONSTANT put its value in the
> realm of fairies and their tells.
>
> ***************************************************************************
>
> Chapter 2: the measure of the value of h.
>
> The current accepted value of h is 6.62607015 x 10^–34 J/s (BIMP, NIST).

Note that this one is not taken as exact.

>
> Leaving behind the century old value determined by Planck, relating it to a
> relationship between NA and R (R is the Regnault’s constant), whom also
> found the value of kB, the latest method involves several values of constants
> within the MKS SI. Of course, c is one of them.
>
> I quote, for the sake of brevity, this article:
>
> Measurement of the Planck constant at the National Institute of Standards
> and Technology from 2015 to 2017
> https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1681-7575/aa7bf2
>
> "This article summarizes measurements that were carried out with the
> Kibble balance, NIST-4, at the National Institute of Standards and
> Technology (NIST) from December 22, 2015 to April 30, 2017. A detailed
> description of NIST-4 and a first determination of the Planck constant h
> with a relative standard uncertainty of 34x10^{-9} can be found in [1]."
> ....................
> "The result is based on over 10,000 weighings of masses with nominal
> values ranging from 0.5 kg to 2 kg with the Kibble balance NIST-4."
> ...................
> "Common to NIST-1 through NIST-4 is that a wheel is used for both the
> balancing and moving mechanisms. The wheel pivots about a knife edge
> collinear with the wheel's central axis. A measurement coil and test mass
> are suspended from one side of the wheel while a tare mass is suspended
> from the other via multi-filament bands. The tare mass includes a small
> motor consisting of a coil in a permanent magnet system, similar in
> design but much smaller than the main magnet, for generating a force to
> rotate the wheel. The benefit of a wheel versus a traditional balance
> beam is that the former prescribes a pure vertical motion for the
> suspended coil whereas the latter traces an arc.
>
> The measurement is performed in two modes: force and velocity mode. In
> force mode, a current I in a coil with a wire length l immersed in a
> radial magnetic field with magnetic flux density B is controlled such
> that the balance wheel remains at a constant angle chosen by the
> operator. While the balance wheel is servo controlled, a mass standard
> with a mass m, typically 1 kg, can be placed on or removed from the mass pan."
> .........................
> "Three mounting plates made from $25.4~$ mm thick aluminium, each
> supporting one interferometer and turning mirrors, were mated to the base
> plate through kinematic mounts."
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> So, laser wavelengths, newtonian mechanics and maxwellian electromagnetic
> forces and else are used in this complex arrangement.
>
> Once again, recursive methods are at plain sight and the questions about how
> it would perform very, very far from here are the same as with c.
>
> Universal constants? I highly doubt it.

Well, who cares what you doubt? I gather. Your argument is that as long as
there is uncertainty about what the value of a physical number is
waaaaaaaaay beyond our range of observability, we should not assume or
claim it is a constant at all. For what purpose? Just to pose the question?

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 10, 2021 at 3:18:17 AM UTC-3, Sylvia Else wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>
>> As for G, if it turned out not to be a constant over time or space, that
>> would not make relativity "collapse". It would merely mean that some
>> additional terms were required, terms which become negligible over
>> smaller times and distances. This would be analogous to the
>> modifications to Newtonian mechananics that give special relativity.
>
> But the insistence with applying GR and derivates to analyze the universe, its "evolution
> from a Big Bang", singularities of GR approximate solutions to "create" black holes and
> the hype behind them, among many other things, is appalling.

I’m not sure what is appalling to you. Is it the popular hype and the
layman’s sense of mystique about these things? Or is what’s appalling to
you the thought of even entertaining the idea that black holes exist?

If it’s the former, then blame laypeople for being interested in things
that don’t interest you.

If it’s the latter, then the question of existence is settled just by
observational evidence. If the evidence supports the existence of black
holes, then it’s simply silly to insist that they are nonsense and should
not be even considered possible. Or maybe you are saying that no one should
even attempt to COLLECT the observational evidence, as it’s a waste of time
to look for evidence of new and surprising things.

>
> Never surrender, because Einstein is always proven right even when wrong! What a dogma!
>
>
>
>

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

On Monday, August 9, 2021 at 11:11:06 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 10, 2021 at 2:52:25 AM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
>
>
> > There is nothing "circular", utter imbecile. The second is defined, so is the speed of light and the meter is derived from the first two. You are just a sad sack cretin. Your only consolation is that you will die this way.
> Read again what you wrote

Cretinoid,

1. The "second" is defined as function of the oscillation of the Cesium isotope
2. The speed of light is also defined
3. So, the meter results from the definitions of the items at pits 1 and 2

Richard Hertz gets to swallow another ladle of shit. Bon apetit, crank!

On Tuesday, August 10, 2021 at 7:13:54 AM UTC-7, Dono. wrote:
> On Monday, August 9, 2021 at 11:11:06 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > On Tuesday, August 10, 2021 at 2:52:25 AM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
> >
> >
> > > There is nothing "circular", utter imbecile. The second is defined, so is the speed of light and the meter is derived from the first two. You are just a sad sack cretin. Your only consolation is that you will die this way.
> > Read again what you wrote
> Cretinoid,
>
> 1. The "second" is defined as function of the oscillation of the Cesium isotope
> 2. The speed of light is also defined
> 3. So, the meter results from the definitions of the items at points 1 and 2 above
>
> Richard Hertz gets to swallow another ladle of shit. Bon apetit, crank!

On Tuesday, August 10, 2021 at 1:17:10 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:

< snip>

> > Cretinoid,
> >
> > 1. The "second" is defined as function of the oscillation of the Cesium isotope
> > 2. The speed of light is also defined
> > 3. So, the meter results from the definitions of the items at points 1 and 2 above
> >
> > Richard Hertz gets to swallow another ladle of shit. Bon apetit, crank!

The value of c has been defined by consensus and adopted as if it has ZERO ERROR. The value of the measured frequency f is derived from measurements with a frequency meter, which has a timing reference LINKED to the BIMP standard (caesium --> rubidium --> quartz TCXO --> ceramic oscillator --> other LC circuits).

Cesium- based atomic clock frequency of 9.192631770 Gigahertz corresponds to the transition between
two energy levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom. The adoption of the cesium oscillator the primary standard for
time and frequency measurements was defined in 1997, the International Committee for Weights and Measures (CIPM), which is
a section of the BIMP. It was added that this choice refers to a cesium atom at rest at a temperature of absolute zero.

The frequency uncertainty of this clock has been measured as lower than 2×10^−16 (NIST, CIPM), for which it is expected for the
standard caesium clock to neither gain nor lose a second in about 138 million years.

https://www.bipm.org/en/si-base-units/second
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-does-one-arrive-at-th/

IN CONTRAST, the speed of light in vacuum has been settled (BIMP, NIST) as EXACT (this means NO ERROR) and written into stone
as 299792458 mt/sec, averaging different results and bringing peace to a dilemma in science. And this is ARBITRARY, just defined
by consensus among peers. No errors allowed for the universal speed of light in vacuum. It is what it is, and that's it.

As shown in Wikipedia, the modern history of measurements of the speed of light had a WIDE RANGE of uncertainty on its value,
as a result of different techniques being used looking for a better value (interferometry, cavity resonance, electromagnetic constants).
Due to the lack of confidence on such values, a decision was made by BIMP and other bodies of standards, to adopt WITHOUT ERRORS,
the current value as an average of measurements using interferometry.

Here are different values, commonly used at each recent epoch:

1950 Essen and Gordon-Smith, cavity resonator 299792.5±3.0 +0.14 ppm error
1958 K.D. Froome, radio interferometry 299792.50±0.10 +0.14 ppm error
1972 Evenson et al., laser interferometry 299792.4562±0.0011 ‒0.006 ppm error
1983 17th CGPM, definition of the metre 299792.458 (exact) exact, as defined

So, due to the impossibility to find a value of c within acceptable margins of errors, an average was ADOPTED BY FORCE,
with zero error, and settling that matter for the years to come.

But this value IS NOT A CONSTANT, it is AN AXIOMATIC DEFINITION, because it's impossible for humans to get the exact
value of c in vacuum. So, this axiom helps to preserve modern physics results at any experiment but creates justified doubts
about its constancy at any place in the universe.

Having settled the value of c (by law), the whole body of MKS SI constants is easily calculated.

See, Dono?

What you posted is false, as well as the values of "UNIVERSAL" constants. Now, do your usual charade, ranting over this.

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 10, 2021 at 1:17:10 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
>
> < snip>
>
>>> Cretinoid,
>>>
>>> 1. The "second" is defined as function of the oscillation of the Cesium isotope
>>> 2. The speed of light is also defined
>>> 3. So, the meter results from the definitions of the items at points 1 and 2 above
>>>
>>> Richard Hertz gets to swallow another ladle of shit. Bon apetit, crank!
>
> The value of c has been defined by consensus and adopted as if it has
> ZERO ERROR. The value of the measured frequency f is derived from
> measurements with a frequency meter, which has a timing reference LINKED
> to the BIMP standard (caesium --> rubidium --> quartz TCXO --> ceramic
> oscillator --> other LC circuits).
>
> Cesium- based atomic clock frequency of 9.192631770 Gigahertz corresponds
> to the transition between
> two energy levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom. The
> adoption of the cesium oscillator the primary standard for
> time and frequency measurements was defined in 1997, the International
> Committee for Weights and Measures (CIPM), which is
> a section of the BIMP. It was added that this choice refers to a cesium
> atom at rest at a temperature of absolute zero.
>
> The frequency uncertainty of this clock has been measured as lower than
> 2×10^−16 (NIST, CIPM), for which it is expected for the
> standard caesium clock to neither gain nor lose a second in about 138 million years.
>
> https://www.bipm.org/en/si-base-units/second
> https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-does-one-arrive-at-th/
>
> IN CONTRAST, the speed of light in vacuum has been settled (BIMP, NIST)
> as EXACT (this means NO ERROR) and written into stone
> as 299792458 mt/sec, averaging different results and bringing peace to a
> dilemma in science.

What dilemma. A desire on your part that c have an error associated with it
and the lack of interest in others to have that?

> And this is ARBITRARY, just defined
> by consensus among peers.

Yes, exactly. A consensus among scientists, metrologists, and engineers.
And you are raising your hand to say you object? Why?

> No errors allowed for the universal speed of light in vacuum. It is what
> it is, and that's it.
>
> As shown in Wikipedia, the modern history of measurements of the speed of
> light had a WIDE RANGE of uncertainty on its value,
> as a result of different techniques being used looking for a better value
> (interferometry, cavity resonance, electromagnetic constants).
> Due to the lack of confidence on such values, a decision was made by BIMP
> and other bodies of standards, to adopt WITHOUT ERRORS,
> the current value as an average of measurements using interferometry.
>
> Here are different values, commonly used at each recent epoch:
>
> 1950 Essen and Gordon-Smith, cavity resonator
> 299792.5±3.0 +0.14 ppm error
> 1958 K.D. Froome, radio
> interferometry 299792.50±0.10 +0.14 ppm error
> 1972 Evenson et al., laser
> interferometry 299792.4562±0.0011 ‒0.006 ppm error
> 1983 17th CGPM, definition of the
> metre 299792.458 (exact) exact, as defined
>
> So, due to the impossibility to find a value of c within acceptable
> margins of errors, an average was ADOPTED BY FORCE,
> with zero error, and settling that matter for the years to come.
>
> But this value IS NOT A CONSTANT, it is AN AXIOMATIC DEFINITION, because
> it's impossible for humans to get the exact
> value of c in vacuum.

Of course they can’t, especially if the standards for the units have an
uncertainty that is as large as the measured speed. This should make sense
to you. If the unit used only has a certain precision, then the best you’re
EVER going to do in measuring a quantity dependent on those units is an
error that arises dominantly from the error in those units.

So what? This then says that it is IMPOSSIBLE to do better with the
measurement of c with units that have a certain precision, and that the
ONLY recourse is to define c and determine the units in terms of that, in
particular so that the unit with the best precision is the only limiting
factor.

This seems to elude you. Why?

> So, this axiom helps to preserve modern physics results at any experiment
> but creates justified doubts
> about its constancy at any place in the universe.
>
> Having settled the value of c (by law), the whole body of MKS SI
> constants is easily calculated.
>
> See, Dono?
>
> What you posted is false, as well as the values of "UNIVERSAL" constants.
> Now, do your usual charade, ranting over this.
>
>

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

On 8/10/2021 3:54 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 10, 2021 at 1:17:10 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
>
> < snip>
>
>>> Cretinoid,
>>>
>>> 1. The "second" is defined as function of the oscillation of the Cesium isotope
>>> 2. The speed of light is also defined
>>> 3. So, the meter results from the definitions of the items at points 1 and 2 above
>>>
>>> Richard Hertz gets to swallow another ladle of shit. Bon apetit, crank!
>
> The value of c has been defined by consensus and adopted as if it has ZERO ERROR.

Given length, constant speed of light and time, any two of these can be
defined "arbitrarily" and the third must be defined in terms of the
other two. ("Arbitrarily" means physics places no restrictions on the
definitions of the units, however we humans do have other restrictions)

For example, we can define the meter however we want, then define the
speed of light how we want, but doing so defines the second. This hasn't
happened.

Or we can define the meter, define the second and from this the speed of
light gets defined for us. This is what was done before 1983.

Or we can define the second, define the speed of light and this defines
the meter. This is what happens after 1983.

It is fairly obvious that it's better that units of measurement should
be fundamentally derivable from physics alone rather than some rod or
weight in Paris somewhere. It also makes sense that fundamental
constants of physics should be exactly known, and physicists have been
trying to do this. This can't be done by measurement as there is always
an error in measurement. It can only be done by redefining a measurement
unit. This was most recently done in redefining the kilogram in terms
of fundamental constants. So it makes sense that if c is a fundamental
constant of physics, either the meter should be defined in terms of the
speed of light and the second, or the second redefined in terms of the
speed of light and the meter. The second has a very good definition,
the meter not so much so, so it was chosen to redefine the meter in
terms of c and the second for better accuracy.

Although I said the choices for two were arbitrary, in reality the
change shouldn't be disruptive. That is, the "new" meter should be as
close as possible to the "old" meter so that old measurements can be
used with the new definition without problems For that reason, the
then-best estimate of the speed of light using the then-best estimate of
the meter (so many wavelengths of a krypton light frequency) which is
how the magic number 299792458 came to be. Since we humans can measure
frequency more accurately than wavelength, this made the meter itself
more accurate. Laser light comparison by wavelength became 5 times more
accurate just by this definition.

Richard, before you go off with a foaming-at-the-mouth anti-Einstein
rant, remember that Einstein didn't decide the speed of light was a
constant, he just used the existing science of his day where it was
measured to be constant, and declared that to be a postulate.

So now instead of an error in the length of the meter based on our
ability to measure a wavelength and a measured error in the speed of
light, we have only a meter error based on our ability to measure
frequency (much better than measuring length itself) and an EXACT
CONSTANT. Since, unlike yourself, physics doesn't have a hard-on
regarding Einstein, this is considered much better. They just did the
same regarding the kilogram and kg-derived units, too. I didn't see ONE
SINGLE POST in here complaining about that. The anti-Einstein nazis
didn't care.

On Tuesday, August 10, 2021 at 12:54:56 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 10, 2021 at 1:17:10 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
>
> < snip>
> > > Cretinoid,
> > >
> > > 1. The "second" is defined as function of the oscillation of the Cesium isotope
> > > 2. The speed of light is also defined
> > > 3. So, the meter results from the definitions of the items at points 1 and 2 above
> > >
> > > Richard Hertz gets to swallow another ladle of shit. Bon apetit, crank!
> The value of c has been defined by consensus and adopted as if it has ZERO ERROR.

Because it DOES Have zero error , imbecile.

> Cesium- based atomic clock frequency of 9.192631770 Gigahertz corresponds to the transition between
> two energy levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom. The adoption of the cesium oscillator the primary standard for
> time and frequency measurements was defined in 1997, the International Committee for Weights and Measures (CIPM), which is
> a section of the BIMP. It was added that this choice refers to a cesium atom at rest at a temperature of absolute zero.
>
> The frequency uncertainty of this clock has been measured as lower than 2×10^−16 (NIST, CIPM), for which it is expected for the
> standard caesium clock to neither gain nor lose a second in about 138 million years.
>

///and this defined the "second", stubborn imbecile.

> https://www.bipm.org/en/si-base-units/second
> https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-does-one-arrive-at-th/
>
> IN CONTRAST, the speed of light in vacuum has been settled (BIMP, NIST) as EXACT (this means NO ERROR) and written into stone
> as 299792458 mt/sec, averaging different results and bringing peace to a dilemma in science. And this is ARBITRARY, just defined
> by consensus among peers. No errors allowed for the universal speed of light in vacuum. It is what it is, and that's it.

It is what it is so you can continue to eat shit. <shrug>

> But this value IS NOT A CONSTANT, it is AN AXIOMATIC DEFINITION, because it's impossible for humans to get the exact
> value of c in vacuum.

So , live with it, stubborn imbecile.

> Having settled the value of c (by law), the whole body of MKS SI constants is easily calculated.

Yep, mainstream physicists are smart, while you are a sad sack crank. Swallow some more shit while I pinch your nose.

On Tuesday, August 10, 2021 at 6:24:53 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:

<snip hideous and smelling shit from Dono>

Time ago I was wondering about how come physics and engineering of electricity and magnetism
managed to get out of the darkness that these nascent disciplines had to go through, without any
available means to measure and quantify what explorers were observing in the first decades of XIX century.

I started with the galvanometer, developed since Ørsted observed, in 1820, the deflection of a magnetic compass's
needle near a wire having electric current, and Ampere give mathematical explanations of this phenomenon, naming
the crude developed instrument after Galvani discovery of the effect of electricity on the muscles of a dead frog.

The first generation was extremely sensitive and had to be modified to tolerate higher currents, but there were no
standards for what was being measured. After Ohm's work with hundred of elements, in 1827 he published his findings,
coining the term "resistance" in what's called now Ohm's law (V=I.R). The need to measure in a standard way values
of resistance, voltage and current and, also, the need to have more exact, sensitive and portable instruments generated
advances in electrical instrumentation, which reached an incredible accuracy and ability to measure magnitudes within
ratios of one billion to one by the end of XIX century.

Controversies about adopting a standard for the value of the Ohm, between industrialists like von Siemens and physicists,
lasted several years, until Cambridge physicists came up with a definition of 1 Ohm, based on other magnitudes. Siemens
had proposed to adopt the resistance of a given column of mercury as a standard, which was rejected because it was
unscientific. Several systems (cgs, Gauss) were used, which contained magnitudes developed from values of mechanics.

For instance, the charge of one electron (1e) in Planck's time was valued in electrostatic units as 4.69x10^-10 g^1/2.cm^3/2.s^-1,
and so were valued the rest of electromagnetic standards. The introduction of the MKS system normalized this scenario by
the introduction of Coulombs, Amperes, Volts, Watts, Joules, etc. By then, the value of 1e of charge was changed to
1.565.10^-19 Coulombs (1.602.10^-19 C as of today).

So, never before, the value of the magnitude of one constant WAS FIXED.

By then, interested in the evolution of the science of instrumentation, I read several books on the history of its development and,
in particular, this one:

Measurement, Instrumentation, and Sensors Handbook, Second Edition Spatial, Mechanical, Thermal, and Radiation Measurement

I quote this excerpt from it:

"At one time, the basis for length was supposed to be a fraction of the circumference of the earth, but it was “maintained” by the
use of a platinum/iridium bar. Time was maintained by a pendulum clock but was defined as a fraction of the day and so on.
Today, the meter is no longer defined by an artifact. Now, the meter is the distance that light travels in an exactly defined
fraction of a second.

Since the speed of light in a vacuum ********* is now defined as a constant of nature with a specified numerical value**********
(299,792,458 m/s), the definition of the unit of length is no longer independent of the definition of the unit of time."

Do you get it? FIXED as a constant of nature, not measured.

Problem solved, troubles swept under the carpet, and let's continue.

But the speed of light, c, has not been adopted as a measured standard, which poses many problems.

About 8 years ago, a news from CERN hit the front pages: °the speed of light has been broken in an experiment !"
A difference in the order of nanoseconds less than the expected delay was later attributed to a faulty connector, but
even such a minuscule difference shocked scientists.

So, as long as the value of c is FIXED and not derived from the correct design of the experiments to measure it for good,
things will remain confuse, when working on the limits of accuracy at physics or engineering.

I stand in my position of recursion and floppiness in the adoption of an arbitrary value for c (within ranges of previous
measurements).

On Tuesday, August 10, 2021 at 4:13:50 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
>
> So, never before, the value of the magnitude of one constant WAS FIXED.
>

False, imbecile, the values of the void permeability and permitivity were fixed just the same. Swallow some more shit.

>
> Since the speed of light in a vacuum ********* is now defined as a constant of nature with a specified numerical value**********
> (299,792,458 m/s), the definition of the unit of length is no longer independent of the definition of the unit of time."
>

This is true, the meter is defined as the distance traveled by light in void in 1/299792458 of a second. There are many other units in physics that are dependent on other units. Have another spoonful of shit.

> Problem solved, troubles swept under the carpet, and let's continue.

Professional physicists ignored the Richard Hertz crank <shrug>

On Tuesday, August 10, 2021 at 8:29:57 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:

<snip>

> > So, never before, the value of the magnitude of one constant WAS FIXED.
> >
> False, imbecile, the values of the void permeability and permitivity were fixed just the same. Swallow some more shit.

What an imbecile, liar, cretin and fallacious you are.

Maxwell himself, along with a colleague, used the biggest voltaic pile existing in UK (Scotland), to measure them in
earlier 1870's. There was a pile with more than 2,000 elements providing about 3,600, in possession of a wealthy merchant
who was a hobbyist.

There, after several days, he found values that allowed to calculate the speed of light close to 270000 Km/sec. More advanced
measuring instruments were used later, by others, to replicate the experiment and obtain better values.

Read this book, without moving your lips, retarded:

The man who changed everything. The life of James Clerk Maxwell
Basil Mahon
Published in the UK in 2003 by John Wiley & Sons Ltd, The Atrium, Southern Gate

On Tuesday, August 10, 2021 at 4:54:02 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 10, 2021 at 8:29:57 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
>
> <snip>
> > > So, never before, the value of the magnitude of one constant WAS FIXED.
> > >
> > False, imbecile, the values of the void permeability and permitivity were fixed just the same. Swallow some more shit.
> What an imbecile, liar, cretin and fallacious you are.
>
> Maxwell himself,

Err, 160 years passed since Maxwell, you are showing your ignorance. Again. Have another spoonful, crank.

On Tuesday, August 10, 2021 at 8:54:02 PM UTC-3, Richard Hertz wrote:

<snip>

> Maxwell himself, along with a colleague, used the biggest voltaic pile existing in UK (Scotland), to measure them in
> earlier 1870's. There was a pile with more than 2,000 elements providing about 3,600, in possession of a wealthy merchant
> who was a hobbyist.
>
> There, after several days, he found values that allowed to calculate the speed of light close to 270000 Km/sec. More advanced
> measuring instruments were used later, by others, to replicate the experiment and obtain better values.
>
> Read this book, without moving your lips, retarded:
>
> The man who changed everything. The life of James Clerk Maxwell
> Basil Mahon
> Published in the UK in 2003 by John Wiley & Sons Ltd, The Atrium, Southern Gate

And this is really the second greatest mind in science, after Newton. A truly polymath.

The third place is for the Prince of Mathematics, Gauss.
The fourth place goes to Euler, the father of modern mathematics.

No place for Einstein among the first ten.

On Tuesday, August 10, 2021 at 4:59:47 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 10, 2021 at 8:54:02 PM UTC-3, Richard Hertz wrote:
>
> <snip>
> > Maxwell himself, along with a colleague, used the biggest voltaic pile existing in UK (Scotland), to measure them in
> > earlier 1870's. There was a pile with more than 2,000 elements providing about 3,600, in possession of a wealthy merchant
> > who was a hobbyist.
> >
> > There, after several days, he found values that allowed to calculate the speed of light close to 270000 Km/sec. More advanced
> > measuring instruments were used later, by others, to replicate the experiment and obtain better values.
> >
> > Read this book, without moving your lips, retarded:
> >
> > The man who changed everything. The life of James Clerk Maxwell
> > Basil Mahon
> > Published in the UK in 2003 by John Wiley & Sons Ltd, The Atrium, Southern Gate
> And this is really the second greatest mind in science, after Newton. A truly polymath.

No one denies it. Point was that you were exposed as being full of shit. Once again: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_permeability#The_ampere-defined_vacuum_permeability.

On 10-Aug-21 4:41 pm, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 10, 2021 at 3:18:17 AM UTC-3, Sylvia Else wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>
>> As for G, if it turned out not to be a constant over time or space, that
>> would not make relativity "collapse". It would merely mean that some
>> additional terms were required, terms which become negligible over
>> smaller times and distances. This would be analogous to the
>> modifications to Newtonian mechananics that give special relativity.
>
> But the insistence with applying GR and derivates to analyze the universe, its "evolution
> from a Big Bang", singularities of GR approximate solutions to "create" black holes and
> the hype behind them, among many other things, is appalling.
>
> Never surrender, because Einstein is always proven right even when wrong! What a dogma!
>
>
>

What would you prefer? That we shouldn't have a theory at all?

The theory is constantly being tested. There are certainly objects out
that that have characteristics consistent with their being black-holes.
If no such objects had been found, the question "why not?" would
certainly have been asked, with the associated suggestion that GR was
wrong in this respect. But they were found.

Or is your objection really that it's associated with Einstein?

Sylvia.

On Tuesday, August 10, 2021 at 6:06:32 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 10-Aug-21 4:41 pm, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > On Tuesday, August 10, 2021 at 3:18:17 AM UTC-3, Sylvia Else wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> >
> >> As for G, if it turned out not to be a constant over time or space, that
> >> would not make relativity "collapse". It would merely mean that some
> >> additional terms were required, terms which become negligible over
> >> smaller times and distances. This would be analogous to the
> >> modifications to Newtonian mechananics that give special relativity.
> >
> > But the insistence with applying GR and derivates to analyze the universe, its "evolution
> > from a Big Bang", singularities of GR approximate solutions to "create" black holes and
> > the hype behind them, among many other things, is appalling.
> >
> > Never surrender, because Einstein is always proven right even when wrong! What a dogma!
> >
> >
> >
> What would you prefer? That we shouldn't have a theory at all?
>
> The theory is constantly being tested. There are certainly objects out
> that that have characteristics consistent with their being black-holes.
> If no such objects had been found, the question "why not?" would
> certainly have been asked, with the associated suggestion that GR was
> wrong in this respect. But they were found.
>
> Or is your objection really that it's associated with Einstein?
>
> Sylvia.

The latter. Richard Hertz is a nazi-worshipping kapo fueled by antisemitism and self-hate.

C is a collective measurement making light speed known only as an average.
How do you measure G? Where has that been done?
Continuity is better than h... EM waves have single energies...

Mitchell Raemsch

On Tuesday, August 10, 2021 at 10:06:32 PM UTC-3, Sylvia Else wrote:

<snip>

> What would you prefer? That we shouldn't have a theory at all?
>
> The theory is constantly being tested. There are certainly objects out
> that that have characteristics consistent with their being black-holes.
> If no such objects had been found, the question "why not?" would
> certainly have been asked, with the associated suggestion that GR was
> wrong in this respect. But they were found.
>
> Or is your objection really that it's associated with Einstein?
>
> Sylvia.

Sylvia, when Einstein's GR was published early in 1916, the Universe was believed
to be (by most scientists) our Milky Way galaxy. His size, earlier determined by the
genius of Schwartschild (the very first cosmology in history) in 1900 was thought
to be no as no more than 8,000 lightyears (or 1.6x10^8 au. In that foundational paper,
Schwartschild studied chances for the "world" to be Euclidean and elliptic or hyperbolic.

`On the permissible curvature of space' by K Schwarzschild'
http://staff.ustc.edu.cn/~jmy/documents/publications/On%20the%20permissible%20curvature%20of%20space.pdf

Einstein believed that such universe was static, euclidean and flat. So, when Schwartschild
wrote to him by the end of 1915 about his famous solution for the gravitational field in GR, and
applied it to Mercury's perihelion, Einstein was shocked that an exact analytical solution of his equations
could be obtained, specially in the very short time that it took to Schwartschild to develop it.

Nor him neither Einstein paid any attention to the additional singularity far from the origin. After Schwartschild
death, only four months later, this thing was forgotten until 1917, when a colleague of him took the
published paper to Hilbert, at Göttingen, where Schwartschild had studied. Hilbert found one mistake about
the alleged coordinates of origin, made a correction and re-published the solution naming them after Schwartschild,
in tribute to him.

Nothing happened with this solution for more than 40 years, when the 2nd. singularity caught the attention of an
american physicist, who believed that it represented something else than infinity. In 1963, Kerr found a second exact
solution while theories about black holes started to gain momentum and involve people like Hawkings. By the late '70s,
the name "black holes" and its alleged properties started to abound in many papers. By 1978, Disney launched a film
with the name "The black hole", premiered in London which expanded the concept within scify writers and laymen.
The rest is history.

Some comparisons between Schwartschild and Kerr metrics are here:
https://academicjournals.org/journal/IJPS/article-full-text-pdf/AEE776964987

So, whether I believe or not in the re-normalization of these singularities, it's at the same level of re-normalization in QFT,
to get rid its infinities BY FORCE.

If I have some objections on these theories about BH or the BBT, are in the
aspects of the re-normalization of the 2nd singularity or the universal constancy
of G and c. And that's why I wrote the post about the universal validity of c, h and G.

Nothing related to Einstein himself, but to those who inherited his GR theory
for generations, right now, and started to apply it everywhere.

But it doesn't work very well today, even with the forced patch of dark matter
and dark energy, etc.

I disagree with the applicability of G and c billions of ly from here, and time ago.

Nothing else.