On Tuesday, August 10, 2021 at 10:27:38 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:

<snip previous speech of hate>

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

Listen, bastard. I live in a very sane society here where nothing like what you wrote is allowed or
gain the interest of citizens, except a small group of no more than 1,000 people who formed a political party.

Stop talking like that, showing your hate. Don't blame me if your society, there where you live, is full of racism,
antisemitism, minorities discrimination, inequalities and blood-suckers.

You would love to live here, in peace, even when this is a developing country. But, at least, our health system and
education at universities is FREE, while you there have to live in debt forever. So, fuck off, Dono.

And stop with the shit of religion and politics. This is not a place for your antisemitism. Or do you want me to
republish your old posts, full of speechs of hate and antisemitism against some members with arabic names?

On Tuesday, August 10, 2021 at 11:56:18 PM UTC-3, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> 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

Please, read my original post here, which focuses on these subjects.

On Tuesday, August 10, 2021 at 5:57:50 PM UTC-3, Michael Moroney wrote:
> 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.

Nice post, Moroney, except the part about anti-Einstein rant (it wasn't meant nor I did such a thing here)
and the part where you start cloning Dono's speech of hate, with antisemitism and nazism shit. Stop it.

On Tuesday, August 10, 2021 at 9:31:03 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 10, 2021 at 10:27:38 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
>
> <snip previous speech of hate>
> > The latter. Richard Hertz is a nazi-worshipping kapo fueled by antisemitism and self-hate.
> I live in lunatic asylum surrounded by my fellow neo-nazis.

On Wednesday, 11 August 2021 at 03:06:32 UTC+2, Sylvia Else wrote:

> The theory is constantly being tested. There are certainly objects out
> that that have characteristics consistent with their being black-holes.

Yeah, they have a big mass!

mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:

> 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...

Not even Dr. Mitchell believe in the manned moon landing anymore.

Sylvia Else wrote:

>> 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?

When they faked the manned moon landing they used Newtone, not Einstine.
Live TV broadcasting from moon's surface 1969?? That broke my bulshitmeter
in a microsecond.

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.

That’s right.

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

What problems?

Is the problem you imagine that until ALL the universe must be fully
explored, even outside the bounds of observability, to painstakingly check
that the speed of light is constant before it can be even provisionally
presumed to be a constant of nature? Do you also say we should check every
damn hydrogen atom in the universe to make sure the Rydberg number is a
constant, before we should presume to call it a constant? Is it a fool’s
errand to build a theory that models certain numbers as constants until you
have verified beyond ALL POSSIBLE DOUBT that it is in fact a constant?

>
> 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.

Note that this did NOT imply that the value of the constant c was wrong.
What it DID imply is that there appeared to be the possibility of a
particle moving faster than that constant, which would have posed a problem
for a presumed Lorentz symmetry in the universe but nothing whatsoever
about the value of c. It’s not like c is defined as “that speed which lies
just outside the speed of anything we have ever observed.”

>
> 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).
>
>
>
>
>
>

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

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> 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.

Ah, you mean Newton, who — what was your term? — plagiarized his first law
of motion from Galilei, was practically sued by Hooke about the inverse
square law in Newton’s theory of gravitation, and who just happened to
stumble on the calculus at the same time as Leibniz (changing the notation
somewhat to mask the similarities)? Is this the bar that puts Newton head
and shoulders above Einstein’s use of other people’s ideas?

And Maxwell’s great contribution, for whom three of the four laws in his
famous set, are actually named for other people (Gauss, Ampere, Faraday)?

>
> 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.
>
>
>
>

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

On Tuesday, August 10, 2021 at 9:32:49 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 10, 2021 at 11:56:18 PM UTC-3, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > 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

Measurements can never be completely accurate.
Science measures light speed by a collective average.
How would science know how accurate their G or h is?

On Wednesday, August 11, 2021 at 2:54:23 PM UTC-3, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 10, 2021 at 9:32:49 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > On Tuesday, August 10, 2021 at 11:56:18 PM UTC-3, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > 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
> Measurements can never be completely accurate.
> Science measures light speed by a collective average.
> How would science know how accurate their G or h is?

As I remember, Feynman said that QFT-QED produced the MOST exact results on experimental
physics, up to the tenth decimal value. And without "h", this line of physics wouldn't have existed.

So, is "h" is valid here as well as on a civilization that may exist on a planet orbiting on a star at
the M31 Andromeda galaxy (2.5 Mly far away) or at the GN-z11 galaxy (13,400 Mly far away)?

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 11, 2021 at 2:54:23 PM UTC-3, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Tuesday, August 10, 2021 at 9:32:49 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, August 10, 2021 at 11:56:18 PM UTC-3, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> 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
>> Measurements can never be completely accurate.
>> Science measures light speed by a collective average.
>> How would science know how accurate their G or h is?
>
> As I remember, Feynman said that QFT-QED produced the MOST exact results on experimental
> physics, up to the tenth decimal value. And without "h", this line of
> physics wouldn't have existed.
>
> So, is "h" is valid here as well as on a civilization that may exist on a
> planet orbiting on a star at
> the M31 Andromeda galaxy (2.5 Mly far away) or at the GN-z11 galaxy (13,400 Mly far away)?
>
>

Two things.

Note that the spectral patterns from distant galaxies is no different than
they are here, indicating that the laws of physics are the same here as
there. As are the stellar compositions of those galaxies, which would not
be the case if the constants were sufficiently different, impacting star
formation and development. Faraway galaxies are not nearly the practically
unknown black boxes you are trying to make them out to be.

Secondly, I’m sure you’re aware that there are perfectly good systems of
units where space and time are measured with the same unit rather than the
arbitrarily different ones that history saddled us with. In such natural
systems of units, c has the value 1. Exactly 1. As does h-bar. Exactly 1.
And so one might ask, in such natural units, would you be fussing over
whether 1 is exactly 1 or something just close to 1?

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

On Wednesday, August 11, 2021 at 5:21:30 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:

<snip>

> Two things.
>
> Note that the spectral patterns from distant galaxies is no different than
> they are here, indicating that the laws of physics are the same here as
> there. As are the stellar compositions of those galaxies, which would not
> be the case if the constants were sufficiently different, impacting star
> formation and development. Faraway galaxies are not nearly the practically
> unknown black boxes you are trying to make them out to be.

I note here how, very deep inside you, the phantom of Newton emerges with
his "action at a distance" or infinite speed of gravity.

Also, I'm delighted to observe how your mind rationalize things.

- There is not action of time upon matter or energy.
- Some things happens either on the Moon or on a galaxy that existed 10,000,000,000 years ago.
- The computers which extract patterns of light wavelength shifting are absolutely accurate, even
when humans who observe the pictures of collected data CAN'T see a fucking thing at the Rorschach 's
like patterns.

> Secondly, I’m sure you’re aware that there are perfectly good systems of
> units where space and time are measured with the same unit rather than the
> arbitrarily different ones that history saddled us with. In such natural
> systems of units, c has the value 1. Exactly 1. As does h-bar. Exactly 1.
> And so one might ask, in such natural units, would you be fussing over
> whether 1 is exactly 1 or something just close to 1?

Whatever takes to fix the cracks in the building of physics. Ultimate dogma..

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

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 11, 2021 at 5:21:30 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> Two things.
>>
>> Note that the spectral patterns from distant galaxies is no different than
>> they are here, indicating that the laws of physics are the same here as
>> there. As are the stellar compositions of those galaxies, which would not
>> be the case if the constants were sufficiently different, impacting star
>> formation and development. Faraway galaxies are not nearly the practically
>> unknown black boxes you are trying to make them out to be.
>
> I note here how, very deep inside you, the phantom of Newton emerges with
> his "action at a distance" or infinite speed of gravity.
>
> Also, I'm delighted to observe how your mind rationalize things.
>
> - There is not action of time upon matter or energy.
> - Some things happens either on the Moon or on a galaxy that existed
> 10,000,000,000 years ago.
> - The computers which extract patterns of light wavelength shifting
> are absolutely accurate, even
> when humans who observe the pictures of collected data CAN'T see a
> fucking thing at the Rorschach 's
> like patterns.
>
>
>> Secondly, I’m sure you’re aware that there are perfectly good systems of
>> units where space and time are measured with the same unit rather than the
>> arbitrarily different ones that history saddled us with. In such natural
>> systems of units, c has the value 1. Exactly 1. As does h-bar. Exactly 1.
>> And so one might ask, in such natural units, would you be fussing over
>> whether 1 is exactly 1 or something just close to 1?
>
> Whatever takes to fix the cracks in the building of physics. Ultimate dogma.

It’s interesting to me that the gaps in your awareness of physics is where
you claim that there are huge holes in the physics story. When someone
points out what actually does lie in the gap, something you were unaware
of, you proclaim: “Somebody papered over the huge hole that I surmised was
here!”

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

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

Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote:
> Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wednesday, August 11, 2021 at 5:21:30 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> Two things.
>>>
>>> Note that the spectral patterns from distant galaxies is no different than
>>> they are here, indicating that the laws of physics are the same here as
>>> there. As are the stellar compositions of those galaxies, which would not
>>> be the case if the constants were sufficiently different, impacting star
>>> formation and development. Faraway galaxies are not nearly the practically
>>> unknown black boxes you are trying to make them out to be.
>>
>> I note here how, very deep inside you, the phantom of Newton emerges with
>> his "action at a distance" or infinite speed of gravity.
>>
>> Also, I'm delighted to observe how your mind rationalize things.
>>
>> - There is not action of time upon matter or energy.
>> - Some things happens either on the Moon or on a galaxy that existed
>> 10,000,000,000 years ago.
>> - The computers which extract patterns of light wavelength shifting
>> are absolutely accurate, even
>> when humans who observe the pictures of collected data CAN'T see a
>> fucking thing at the Rorschach 's
>> like patterns.
>>
>>
>>> Secondly, I’m sure you’re aware that there are perfectly good systems of
>>> units where space and time are measured with the same unit rather than the
>>> arbitrarily different ones that history saddled us with. In such natural
>>> systems of units, c has the value 1. Exactly 1. As does h-bar. Exactly 1.
>>> And so one might ask, in such natural units, would you be fussing over
>>> whether 1 is exactly 1 or something just close to 1?
>>
>> Whatever takes to fix the cracks in the building of physics. Ultimate dogma.
>
> It’s interesting to me that the gaps in your awareness of physics is where
> you claim that there are huge holes in the physics story. When someone
> points out what actually does lie in the gap, something you were unaware
> of, you proclaim: “Somebody papered over the huge hole that I surmised was
> here!”
>
>>
>>> --
>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>
>
>
>

I honestly do not understand why someone (again, usually an engineer) with
a barely passable familiarity with physics feels confident in claiming a
long-overlooked fatal flaw.

When asked why it is this purported flaw was not discovered within a dozen
months after the theory first came out, that’s when all sorts of weird
rationalizations come out:

“Physicists are naturally stupid, individually and collectively, and it
takes the mental discipline of an engineer to ferret out flaws, which is
easy for them.”

“Physicists know about the flaw and have known about it from the very
beginning, but for some reason chose to cover it up just so that some
junior member among their ranks might become famous.”

“Physicists took twenty years to find the flaw I found in a few weeks, and
by that time they were too embarrassed, one and all, to admit that it
existed. So they had a secret meeting with tens of thousands attending a
sacred ceremony with an oath to cover it up for all time.”

“Physicists are too close to the subject and mired in the details of the
subject, and do not have the liberty of an outsider with very little
exposure to the subject to be able to step back and see the forest rather
than the trees.”

“All these things that are built based on relativistic design principles
just work by accident, as all things properly engineered do.”

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

On Wednesday, August 11, 2021 at 10:54:23 AM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 10, 2021 at 9:32:49 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > On Tuesday, August 10, 2021 at 11:56:18 PM UTC-3, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > 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
> Measurements can never be completely accurate.
> Science measures light speed by a collective average.
> How would science know how accurate their G or h is?

Doubt about what is real does not belong.
But hypocrites will be hypocrites.
Roy Masters was one. Thank God
he is not around anymore...

On Thursday, August 12, 2021 at 3:28:29 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:

<snip>

> I honestly do not understand why someone (again, usually an engineer) with
> a barely passable familiarity with physics feels confident in claiming a
> long-overlooked fatal flaw.

Of course you don't. You have not a practical, rational and analytic mind as an engineer has.
The "highly radioactive dogmas" of the new physics have poisoned your body, mind and soul.
You lack the capability to use a different "thinking hat" to analyze things, detached from previous positions.

If you were a judge of law, I'm sure that the list of "convicted to death penalty" by you would be colossal.

> When asked why it is this purported flaw was not discovered within a dozen
> months after the theory first came out, that’s when all sorts of weird
> rationalizations come out:
>
> “Physicists are naturally stupid, individually and collectively, and it
> takes the mental discipline of an engineer to ferret out flaws, which is
> easy for them.”
>
> “Physicists know about the flaw and have known about it from the very
> beginning, but for some reason chose to cover it up just so that some
> junior member among their ranks might become famous.”
>
> “Physicists took twenty years to find the flaw I found in a few weeks, and
> by that time they were too embarrassed, one and all, to admit that it
> existed. So they had a secret meeting with tens of thousands attending a
> sacred ceremony with an oath to cover it up for all time.”
>
> “Physicists are too close to the subject and mired in the details of the
> subject, and do not have the liberty of an outsider with very little
> exposure to the subject to be able to step back and see the forest rather
> than the trees.”
>
> “All these things that are built based on relativistic design principles
> just work by accident, as all things properly engineered do.”

Well, what an act of self contrition. Now you are getting closer to the Truth.

Keep going on your findings.

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, August 12, 2021 at 3:28:29 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> I honestly do not understand why someone (again, usually an engineer) with
>> a barely passable familiarity with physics feels confident in claiming a
>> long-overlooked fatal flaw.
>
> Of course you don't. You have not a practical, rational and analytic mind
> as an engineer has.
> The "highly radioactive dogmas" of the new physics have poisoned your body, mind and soul.
> You lack the capability to use a different "thinking hat" to analyze
> things, detached from previous positions.
>
> If you were a judge of law, I'm sure that the list of "convicted to death
> penalty" by you would be colossal.
>
>> When asked why it is this purported flaw was not discovered within a dozen
>> months after the theory first came out, that’s when all sorts of weird
>> rationalizations come out:
>>
>> “Physicists are naturally stupid, individually and collectively, and it
>> takes the mental discipline of an engineer to ferret out flaws, which is
>> easy for them.”
>>
>> “Physicists know about the flaw and have known about it from the very
>> beginning, but for some reason chose to cover it up just so that some
>> junior member among their ranks might become famous.”
>>
>> “Physicists took twenty years to find the flaw I found in a few weeks, and
>> by that time they were too embarrassed, one and all, to admit that it
>> existed. So they had a secret meeting with tens of thousands attending a
>> sacred ceremony with an oath to cover it up for all time.”
>>
>> “Physicists are too close to the subject and mired in the details of the
>> subject, and do not have the liberty of an outsider with very little
>> exposure to the subject to be able to step back and see the forest rather
>> than the trees.”
>>
>> “All these things that are built based on relativistic design principles
>> just work by accident, as all things properly engineered do.”
>
> Well, what an act of self contrition. Now you are getting closer to the Truth.

!!

Well, I’m not sure whether to take this as an even feebler attempt to bait
than ever before, or a confession of your mental collapse. And it may be
worth noting that with you, it’s difficult to judge.

>
> Keep going on your findings.
>

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

On 8/12/2021 3:03 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thursday, August 12, 2021 at 3:28:29 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:

>>> “All these things that are built based on relativistic design principles
>>> just work by accident, as all things properly engineered do.”
>>
>> Well, what an act of self contrition. Now you are getting closer to the Truth.
>
> !!
>
> Well, I’m not sure whether to take this as an even feebler attempt to bait
> than ever before, or a confession of your mental collapse. And it may be
> worth noting that with you, it’s difficult to judge.

Richard, I knew you were dumb, but I didn't think you were THAT dumb!
And you claim to be an engineer??? Or is your mind rotting, like Ken
Seto's mind. He was once an engineer with a couple of patents, but look
at him now.

And why such a hard-on for Einstein?

Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote:
> On 8/12/2021 3:03 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Thursday, August 12, 2021 at 3:28:29 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>>> “All these things that are built based on relativistic design principles
>>>> just work by accident, as all things properly engineered do.”
>>>
>>> Well, what an act of self contrition. Now you are getting closer to the Truth.
>>
>> !!
>>
>> Well, I’m not sure whether to take this as an even feebler attempt to bait
>> than ever before, or a confession of your mental collapse. And it may be
>> worth noting that with you, it’s difficult to judge.
>
> Richard, I knew you were dumb, but I didn't think you were THAT dumb!
> And you claim to be an engineer??? Or is your mind rotting, like Ken
> Seto's mind. He was once an engineer with a couple of patents, but look
> at him now.
>
> And why such a hard-on for Einstein?
>

With Seto, you know you’re going to see a long series of phenomenally
stupid statements said with all earnestness.

With Hertz, you’re going to see a mixture of phenomenally stupid statements
said with earnestness and phenomenally stupid statements said in jest.

Hard to say which is more pitiable.

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

On Thursday, August 12, 2021 at 4:43:42 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:

To Bodkin and Moroney:

I sense.... butthurt. Are your synchronized?
Because it happens with other physiological manifestations in humans.

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, August 12, 2021 at 4:43:42 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> To Bodkin and Moroney:
>
> I sense.... butthurt. Are your synchronized?
> Because it happens with other physiological manifestations in humans.
>
>

I’ve been standing all day, so no, my butt doesn’t hurt. My feet are a
little tired, though. Thanks for your expression of misplaced empathy.

Meanwhile, you have a little foam on your chin, next to your mouth….. No,
on the other side … Lower…. There, you got it.

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

On Thursday, August 12, 2021 at 5:36:17 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Thursday, August 12, 2021 at 4:43:42 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > To Bodkin and Moroney:
> >
> > I sense.... butthurt. Are your synchronized?
> > Because it happens with other physiological manifestations in humans.
> >
> >
> I’ve been standing all day, so no, my butt doesn’t hurt. My feet are a
> little tired, though. Thanks for your expression of misplaced empathy.
>
> Meanwhile, you have a little foam on your chin, next to your mouth….. No,
> on the other side … Lower…. There, you got it.
> --
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Poor Bodkin!

Why don't you create an absolute scale of discomfort and shove it into everyone's ass,
as others did with the fixation of "c"?

After all, standards are there to be fixed at convenience by law and supported by collusion.

You can be rich by selling "Discomfort Measurement App" to every sucker in the world, so they
can compare their feelings based on a single standard. Grade it to zero to ten, with one decimal or two.
You decide, as your belong to the "snowflake" generation, isn't it?

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, August 12, 2021 at 5:36:17 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Thursday, August 12, 2021 at 4:43:42 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>> To Bodkin and Moroney:
>>>
>>> I sense.... butthurt. Are your synchronized?
>>> Because it happens with other physiological manifestations in humans.
>>>
>>>
>> I’ve been standing all day, so no, my butt doesn’t hurt. My feet are a
>> little tired, though. Thanks for your expression of misplaced empathy.
>>
>> Meanwhile, you have a little foam on your chin, next to your mouth….. No,
>> on the other side … Lower…. There, you got it.
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>
> Poor Bodkin!
>
> Why don't you create an absolute scale of discomfort and shove it into everyone's ass,
> as others did with the fixation of "c"?
>
> After all, standards are there to be fixed at convenience by law and
> supported by collusion.
>
> You can be rich by selling "Discomfort Measurement App" to every sucker
> in the world, so they
> can compare their feelings based on a single standard. Grade it to zero
> to ten, with one decimal or two.
> You decide, as your belong to the "snowflake" generation, isn't it?
>

You sound bitter

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