On Tuesday, 14 September 2021 at 15:58:55 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Monday, September 13, 2021 at 9:18:45 PM UTC-3, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> >>> Tom, I respect your involvement with relativity as well as Paul's and JanPB's, so far.
> >>> Each one of you are professionals and work/worked in the physics world.
> >>>
> >>> But, of course, I do not adhere to such credences, as it's notorious.
> >
> >> What, are you saying that relativity works fine for Tom, Paul and JanPB,
> >> but it doesn't work for you? Now that is a rather bizarre violation of
> >> the first postulate.
> >
> > No, it doesn't. I firmly believe that SR is a mathematical framework NOT
> > LINKED with the real world
> > that I inhabit, in any possible way. Why?. Because it's a final stage of
> > a movement within SOME
> > physicists that were shocked by the outcome of the Michelson experiment in 1881 and the
> > Michelson-Morley experiments between 1885 and 1887. FitzGerald (1889) and
> > Lorentz (since 1892)
> > introduced the hypothesis of length contraction, by which Lorentz finally
> > got a MATHEMATICAL
> > EXPRESSION by 1904 (corrected by Poincaré). The final stroke of a 25
> > years contest (a game) was
> > done by Einstein in 1905. ONLY MATHEMATICAL ABSTRACTIONS without
> > connections with the real world.
> >
> > But when the mathematical framework of that relativity started to gain
> > acceptance within the physics
> > community in the next 20-25 years and was believed to BE THE REAL DEAL
> > about how nature works,
> The rationale for that acceptance was continued agreement with further
> experimental tests. This IS the defining metric form validity in physics.
> > then it became dangerous for any rational and logic mind outside of the
> > metaphysical and philosophical
> > world. When MATHEMATICS displace PHYSICS, things turn ugly, weird.
> What you are bemoaning is that the mathematics (which agreed with
> experiment) conflicted with a previous Newtonian worldview. That is NOT
> displacing physics. It is how physics actually works. Your desire that
> physics be Newtonian physics is not allegiance to physics at all. To say
> that this physics is ugly and weird is simply cerebral ossification on your
> part, something you plainly do not want to confess. Nature IS weird. That’s
> what makes it interesting.

Your Shit is weird, that's all; and that makes it rather boring.

On Tuesday, 14 September 2021 at 16:45:54 UTC+2, Dono. wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 14, 2021 at 1:11:31 AM UTC-7, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Tuesday, 14 September 2021 at 07:24:06 UTC+2, Dono. wrote:
> > > On Monday, September 13, 2021 at 10:12:55 PM UTC-7, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > snip cretinisms<
> > >
> > > Maciej
> > >
> > > You need to stop licking toilets while drunk. Which is pretty much all the time.
> You are licking the toilets. Again.

See, Dono: I'm one of the best logicians the humanity ever had and
you're just an insane religious maniac. Of course, you can't discuss
against me, you can only rave, spit and slander; but you do what you
can.

On Tuesday, September 14, 2021 at 9:16:41 AM UTC-7, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, 14 September 2021 at 16:45:54 UTC+2, Dono. wrote:
> > On Tuesday, September 14, 2021 at 1:11:31 AM UTC-7, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, 14 September 2021 at 07:24:06 UTC+2, Dono. wrote:
> > > > On Monday, September 13, 2021 at 10:12:55 PM UTC-7, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > snip cretinisms<
> > > >
> > > > Maciej
> > > >
> > > > You need to stop licking toilets while drunk. Which is pretty much all the time.
> > You are licking the toilets. Again.
> See, Dono: I'm one of the best logicians the humanity ever had
But you are not supposed to drink from the toilets you are supposed to clean

On Tuesday, 14 September 2021 at 18:35:24 UTC+2, Dono. wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 14, 2021 at 9:16:41 AM UTC-7, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Tuesday, 14 September 2021 at 16:45:54 UTC+2, Dono. wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, September 14, 2021 at 1:11:31 AM UTC-7, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, 14 September 2021 at 07:24:06 UTC+2, Dono. wrote:
> > > > > On Monday, September 13, 2021 at 10:12:55 PM UTC-7, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > snip cretinisms<
> > > > >
> > > > > Maciej
> > > > >
> > > > > You need to stop licking toilets while drunk. Which is pretty much all the time.
> > > You are licking the toilets. Again.
> > See, Dono: I'm one of the best logicians the humanity ever had
> But you are not supposed to drink from the toilets you are supposed to clean

See, Dono: I'm one of the best logicians the humanity ever had and
you're just an insane religious maniac. Of course, you can't discuss
against me, you can only rave, spit and slander; but you do what you
can.

Den 14.09.2021 07:51, skrev Richard Hertz:
> On Monday, September 13, 2021 at 9:18:45 PM UTC-3, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> What, are you saying that relativity works fine for Tom, Paul and JanPB,
>> but it doesn't work for you? Now that is a rather bizarre violation of
>> the first postulate.
>
> No, it doesn't. I firmly believe that SR is a mathematical framework NOT LINKED with the real world
> that I inhabit, in any possible way. Why?. Because it's a final stage of a movement within SOME
> physicists that were shocked by the outcome of the Michelson experiment in 1881 and the
> Michelson-Morley experiments between 1885 and 1887. FitzGerald (1889) and Lorentz (since 1892)
> introduced the hypothesis of length contraction, by which Lorentz finally got a MATHEMATICAL
> EXPRESSION by 1904 (corrected by Poincaré). The final stroke of a 25 years contest (a game) was
> done by Einstein in 1905. ONLY MATHEMATICAL ABSTRACTIONS without connections with the real world.
>
> But when the mathematical framework of that relativity started to gain acceptance within the physics
> community in the next 20-25 years and was believed to BE THE REAL DEAL about how nature works,
> then it became dangerous for any rational and logic mind outside of the metaphysical and philosophical
> world. When MATHEMATICS displace PHYSICS, things turn ugly, weird. More than 116 years after that
> end of contest, people is bombarded with paradoxes, incoherence and permanent indoctrination since
> early age to accept these dogmas without questioning them (or you are a cranck, a weirdo, ignorant, etc.).

A couple of facts which should be elementary knowledge
for anybody interested in physics:

SR and GR are mathematically consistent theories.
SR and GR are falsifiable theories.

To test a theory, you must calculate what the theory predicts
will be measured in an experiment, perform the experiment,
and compare the predicted values with the measured values.
The experiment must have the potential to falsify the theory
if it is wrong.

If the predictions are not in accordance with the measurements,
then the theory is falsified.
If the predictions are in accordance with the measurements,
then the theory is not falsified. It is not proved.

SR and GR are tested by a vast number of experiments
and falsified by none.
All competing theories which are not equivalent to SR or GR,
are falsified.

Her are some of the experiments which test SR and GR:

https://paulba.no/paper/index.html

Your opinion about SR and GR is worth nothing.
If you can not refer to an experiment which
falsifies SR or GR, SR and GR remain the only
valid theories within their domain.

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

On Tuesday, September 14, 2021 at 5:50:28 PM UTC-3, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

<snip>

> Your opinion about SR and GR is worth nothing.
Thanks!

> If you can not refer to an experiment which falsifies SR or GR, SR and GR remain the only
> valid theories within their domain.

SR domain of applicability: Abstract Euclidean world void of any trace of matter or energy.
SR main driving force behind its development: Lorentz quest to find a formula to postulate length contraction.
SR experimental tests: None valid, as violate it's domain of applicability. Yet, any attempt on real world FAILED
to detect any length contraction down to atomic interspace.

GR domain of applicability: Einstein's universe or world (actually the Milky Way).
GR main driving force behind its development: to extend applicability of SR in a world with traces of energy and matter.
GR real applicability: NONE, unless a severe mutilation of the GFE is performed, as non linearity prevent analytical solutions.
Only partial, very limited approximations can be extracted for further analysis.
GR experimental tests: NONE, as far as the original theory is fully used.
Some results with severely crippled metrics for only one point-like mass (rotating or not, charged or not).
On very few cases, same results as with modified newtonian theories (much simpler), with delayed potentials.

If the most advanced supercomputer in the world, powered with the most advanced AI software is fed with GR equations,
such entity, after a few microseconds, would activate the "SkyNet Procedure" to solve the main problem: relativists.

On Tuesday, September 14, 2021 at 2:52:21 PM UTC-7, crank Richard Hertz brainfarted:
> On Tuesday, September 14, 2021 at 5:50:28 PM UTC-3, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>
> <snip>
> > Your opinion about SR and GR is worth nothing.
> Thanks!
> > If you can not refer to an experiment which falsifies SR or GR, SR and GR remain the only
> > valid theories within their domain.
> SR domain of applicability: Abstract Euclidean world void of any trace of matter or energy.

False.
> SR main driving force behind its development: Lorentz quest to find a formula to postulate length contraction.

False
> SR experimental tests: None valid, as violate it's domain of applicability. Yet, any attempt on real world FAILED
> to detect any length contraction down to atomic interspace.
>

False

You were born a cretin, you are a cretin, your only consolation is that you are dying a cretin.

On 9/14/21 3:50 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> SR and GR are tested by a vast number of experiments and falsified by
> none. All competing theories which are not equivalent to SR or GR,
> are falsified.

.... within their respective domains.

In particular, QM is not equivalent to SR or GR, yet QM is not falsified
(within its domain). But QM's domain is disjoint from that of GR, and
its domain partly overlaps with that of SR, with both being valid there.

[Here I'm using "QM" to include QFT.]

I grant that QM does not really "compete" with either SR or GR. My point
is that every theory has a domain of applicability, and that domain is
an essential aspect of its validity, and should not be omitted in such
statements as above.

Tom Roberts

Den 15.09.2021 04:58, skrev Tom Roberts:
> On 9/14/21 3:50 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>> SR and GR are tested by a vast number of experiments and falsified by
>> none. All competing theories which are not equivalent to SR or GR, are
>> falsified.
>
> ... within their respective domains.
>
> In particular, QM is not equivalent to SR or GR, yet QM is not falsified
> (within its domain). But QM's domain is disjoint from that of GR, and
> its domain partly overlaps with that of SR, with both being valid there.
>
>     [Here I'm using "QM" to include QFT.]
>
> I grant that QM does not really "compete" with either SR or GR. My point
> is that every theory has a domain of applicability, and that domain is
> an essential aspect of its validity, and should not be omitted in such
> statements as above.
>
> Tom Roberts

Right.
That's why I said:
"SR and GR remain the only valid theories within their domain."

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

Den 14.09.2021 23:52, skrev Richard Hertz:
> On Tuesday, September 14, 2021 at 5:50:28 PM UTC-3, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> Your opinion about SR and GR is worth nothing.
> Thanks!
>
>> If you can not refer to an experiment which falsifies SR or GR, SR and GR remain the only
>> valid theories within their domain.
>
> SR domain of applicability: Abstract Euclidean world void of any trace of matter or energy.
> SR main driving force behind its development: Lorentz quest to find a formula to postulate length contraction.
> SR experimental tests: None valid, as violate it's domain of applicability. Yet, any attempt on real world FAILED
> to detect any length contraction down to atomic interspace.
>
> GR domain of applicability: Einstein's universe or world (actually the Milky Way).
> GR main driving force behind its development: to extend applicability of SR in a world with traces of energy and matter.
> GR real applicability: NONE, unless a severe mutilation of the GFE is performed, as non linearity prevent analytical solutions.
> Only partial, very limited approximations can be extracted for further analysis.
> GR experimental tests: NONE, as far as the original theory is fully used.
> Some results with severely crippled metrics for only one point-like mass (rotating or not, charged or not).
> On very few cases, same results as with modified newtonian theories (much simpler), with delayed potentials.
>
> If the most advanced supercomputer in the world, powered with the most advanced AI software is fed with GR equations,
> such entity, after a few microseconds, would activate the "SkyNet Procedure" to solve the main problem: relativists.
>
>

As I said:
Your opinion about SR and GR is worth nothing.
If you can not refer to an experiment which
falsifies SR or GR, SR and GR remain the only
valid theories within their domain.

Can you refer to such an experiment?
It takes but one experiment to falsify a theory.

What do you have to say about these experiments?

https://paulba.no/paper/index.html

Nothing?

Do you think that experimental evidence has no place in physics?

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

On Tuesday, 14 September 2021 at 22:50:28 UTC+2, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Den 14.09.2021 07:51, skrev Richard Hertz:
> > On Monday, September 13, 2021 at 9:18:45 PM UTC-3, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >> What, are you saying that relativity works fine for Tom, Paul and JanPB,
> >> but it doesn't work for you? Now that is a rather bizarre violation of
> >> the first postulate.
> >
> > No, it doesn't. I firmly believe that SR is a mathematical framework NOT LINKED with the real world
> > that I inhabit, in any possible way. Why?. Because it's a final stage of a movement within SOME
> > physicists that were shocked by the outcome of the Michelson experiment in 1881 and the
> > Michelson-Morley experiments between 1885 and 1887. FitzGerald (1889) and Lorentz (since 1892)
> > introduced the hypothesis of length contraction, by which Lorentz finally got a MATHEMATICAL
> > EXPRESSION by 1904 (corrected by Poincaré). The final stroke of a 25 years contest (a game) was
> > done by Einstein in 1905. ONLY MATHEMATICAL ABSTRACTIONS without connections with the real world.
> >
> > But when the mathematical framework of that relativity started to gain acceptance within the physics
> > community in the next 20-25 years and was believed to BE THE REAL DEAL about how nature works,
> > then it became dangerous for any rational and logic mind outside of the metaphysical and philosophical
> > world. When MATHEMATICS displace PHYSICS, things turn ugly, weird. More than 116 years after that
> > end of contest, people is bombarded with paradoxes, incoherence and permanent indoctrination since
> > early age to accept these dogmas without questioning them (or you are a cranck, a weirdo, ignorant, etc.).
> A couple of facts which should be elementary knowledge
> for anybody interested in physics:
>
> SR and GR are mathematically consistent theories.
> SR and GR are falsifiable theories.

A couple of lies by a piece of fanatic shit.

On Wednesday, 15 September 2021 at 09:54:37 UTC+2, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Den 14.09.2021 23:52, skrev Richard Hertz:
> > On Tuesday, September 14, 2021 at 5:50:28 PM UTC-3, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> >> Your opinion about SR and GR is worth nothing.
> > Thanks!
> >
> >> If you can not refer to an experiment which falsifies SR or GR, SR and GR remain the only
> >> valid theories within their domain.
> >
> > SR domain of applicability: Abstract Euclidean world void of any trace of matter or energy.
> > SR main driving force behind its development: Lorentz quest to find a formula to postulate length contraction.
> > SR experimental tests: None valid, as violate it's domain of applicability. Yet, any attempt on real world FAILED
> > to detect any length contraction down to atomic interspace.
> >
> > GR domain of applicability: Einstein's universe or world (actually the Milky Way).
> > GR main driving force behind its development: to extend applicability of SR in a world with traces of energy and matter.
> > GR real applicability: NONE, unless a severe mutilation of the GFE is performed, as non linearity prevent analytical solutions.
> > Only partial, very limited approximations can be extracted for further analysis.
> > GR experimental tests: NONE, as far as the original theory is fully used.
> > Some results with severely crippled metrics for only one point-like mass (rotating or not, charged or not).
> > On very few cases, same results as with modified newtonian theories (much simpler), with delayed potentials.
> >
> > If the most advanced supercomputer in the world, powered with the most advanced AI software is fed with GR equations,
> > such entity, after a few microseconds, would activate the "SkyNet Procedure" to solve the main problem: relativists.
> >
> >
>
> As I said:
> Your opinion about SR and GR is worth nothing.
> If you can not refer to an experiment which
> falsifies SR or GR, SR and GR remain the only
> valid theories within their domain.
> Can you refer to such an experiment?
> It takes but one experiment to falsify a theory.
>
> What do you have to say about these experiments?
>
> https://paulba.no/paper/index.html

In the meantime in the real world, the clocks of GPS keep
indicating t'=t, just like all serious clocks always did. Common
sense was warning your idiot guru.