Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
> Am 29.09.2021 um 17:56 schrieb Odd Bodkin:
> ...
>>>
>>> Why would anybody want to 'dethrone' Newton?
>>>
>>> Newton was actually more like a druid and his main interests were
>>> witchcraft and alchemy.
>>>
>>> Whoever wrote 'Principia' was most likely not Newton.
>>>
>>> This is a similar phenomenon as Shakespeare. He wrote simply too many
>>> books in too few years and too early in life. So, possibly somethings
>>> wrong with the entire story...
>>
>> You have a real problem believing that some people are extraordinarily
>> capable in ways that you cannot produce yourself.
>
> I have absolutely no problem with the idea of extraordinarily capable
> people.
>
> For instance Nicola Tesla was such a guy or Henry Poincare.
>
> But Newton was IMHO not and most likely he did not write 'Principia',
> but only borrowed his name.
>
> The things which 'smells' about Newton's story is this:
>
> usually the good work of a theoretical physicist come late in life and
> not in the middle (much less as a twen). But Newton alledgely wrote the
> Principia with about fourty and that was simply it with his productivity.

I don’t know where you ever got that idea. It’s widely known in physics
that theoreticians usually make their mark early in their careers. Feynman
did his strongest work on QED at the age of 32. Weinberg made his main
breakthrough at 34. Two thirds of Nobel Prize winners did their work before
the age of 40, and one-fifth did their work before the age of 30.

>
> But if you are so smart as Newton, you do not simply stop to become
> smarter, if you're not even fifty.
>
> The reason for the need of age is, that some kind of wisdom needs time
> to develop and that in turn needs a large number of lived years.
>
> All knowledge is not aquired by sleeping on books, but by reading them.
> You need to think about things, before you unstand them. And to
> understand current knowledge is a requirement, before you can build new
> ideas.

I just want to remind you that what you think works for YOU is not a good
model for what works for successful people. Again, this goes to your habit
of looking at the accomplishments of important people, noting that there is
no way that you could have done the same thing, therefore casting doubt
that those people could actually have done the work claimed. That is an
idiotic and egocentrically biased view.

This leads to the crazy, conspiracy-theory bullshit like what follows
below.

>
> So, the good guys in theoretical physics are old.
>
> If someone pops up and presents something revolutionary without being
> even thirty, than we can be almost certain, that he (most likely, but
> there were a few shes) was not the author.
>
> It makes sense to assume, that ill paid homeworkers are the actual
> sources of most famed products of arts, literature and music, while the
> fame was harvested by those, who paid them.
>
> In Germany we had a very famous case like this, which was the band
> 'Milli Vanilly'.
>
> But my gues, we find that scheme all over the place.
>
> Another reason for doubts: if the education was unusually fast.
>
> A typical example: Werher von Braun.
>
> He was simply too fast for what he had allegedly done. So I think, that
> absolutely everything of is CV was a fake.
>
> And we know from historical records, that he was a top-Nazi, SS-officer
> and part of the management of the worst of all concentration-camps in
> Germany. It's name was 'Dora-Mittelbau' and was regarded as hell on Earth.
>
>
> TH
>

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

On 10/1/2021 5:47 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 29.09.2021 um 17:56 schrieb Odd Bodkin:
> ...
>> You have a real problem believing that some people are extraordinarily
>> capable in ways that you cannot produce yourself.
>
> I have absolutely no problem with the idea of extraordinarily capable
> people.
>
> For instance Nicola Tesla was such a guy or Henry Poincare.

Or Einstein, right? :-)
>
> But Newton was IMHO not and most likely he did not write 'Principia',
> but only borrowed his name.
>
> The things which 'smells' about Newton's story is this:
>
> usually the good work of a theoretical physicist come late in life and
> not in the middle (much less as a twen). But Newton alledgely wrote the
> Principia with about fourty and that was simply it with his productivity.
>
> But if you are so smart as Newton, you do not simply stop to become
> smarter, if you're not even fifty.

So many reasons why this is wrong. Many successful scientists were
successful when young. One possibility possibly relevant for Newton
because of when he lived, was a mildish disease or whatever slowed him
down mentally just enough so he was not able to outdo himself.
>
<snip more of the same>

> In Germany we had a very famous case like this, which was the band
> 'Milli Vanilly'.

Weren't they a "manufactured" group caught out as phony by lip synching
their own concerts? ("manufactured" meaning produced by the industry to
sell, a group of good looking performers who can dance + another group
does the music == lots of sales to tweens)

> Another reason for doubts: if the education was unusually fast.
>
> A typical example: Werher von Braun.
>
> He was simply too fast for what he had allegedly done. So I think, that
> absolutely everything of is CV was a fake.

Yet he kept producing good rockets for the Americans. Regardless of how
fast, he actually did what he claimed he could do.
>
> And we know from historical records, that he was a top-Nazi, SS-officer
> and part of the management of the worst of all concentration-camps in
> Germany.

Part of the management or simply an engineer who took advantage of the
evil of concentration camps and their slave labor?

> It's name was 'Dora-Mittelbau' and was regarded as hell on Earth.

A dark stain on top of a dark stain, the US grabbing Nazi rocket
scientists. The Soviets did exactly the same. The space race became a
contest of "Our Nazis are better than your Nazis!"

On Friday, October 1, 2021 at 1:14:54 PM UTC-3, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 10/1/2021 5:47 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> > Am 29.09.2021 um 17:56 schrieb Odd Bodkin:
> > ...
> >> You have a real problem believing that some people are extraordinarily
> >> capable in ways that you cannot produce yourself.
> >
> > I have absolutely no problem with the idea of extraordinarily capable
> > people.
> >
> > For instance Nicola Tesla was such a guy or Henry Poincare.
> Or Einstein, right? :-)
> >
> > But Newton was IMHO not and most likely he did not write 'Principia',
> > but only borrowed his name.
> >
> > The things which 'smells' about Newton's story is this:
> >
> > usually the good work of a theoretical physicist come late in life and
> > not in the middle (much less as a twen). But Newton alledgely wrote the
> > Principia with about fourty and that was simply it with his productivity.
> >
> > But if you are so smart as Newton, you do not simply stop to become
> > smarter, if you're not even fifty.
> So many reasons why this is wrong. Many successful scientists were
> successful when young. One possibility possibly relevant for Newton
> because of when he lived, was a mildish disease or whatever slowed him
> down mentally just enough so he was not able to outdo himself.
> >
> <snip more of the same>
> > In Germany we had a very famous case like this, which was the band
> > 'Milli Vanilly'.
> Weren't they a "manufactured" group caught out as phony by lip synching
> their own concerts? ("manufactured" meaning produced by the industry to
> sell, a group of good looking performers who can dance + another group
> does the music == lots of sales to tweens)
> > Another reason for doubts: if the education was unusually fast.
> >
> > A typical example: Werher von Braun.
> >
> > He was simply too fast for what he had allegedly done. So I think, that
> > absolutely everything of is CV was a fake.
> Yet he kept producing good rockets for the Americans. Regardless of how
> fast, he actually did what he claimed he could do.
> >
> > And we know from historical records, that he was a top-Nazi, SS-officer
> > and part of the management of the worst of all concentration-camps in
> > Germany.
> Part of the management or simply an engineer who took advantage of the
> evil of concentration camps and their slave labor?
> > It's name was 'Dora-Mittelbau' and was regarded as hell on Earth.
> A dark stain on top of a dark stain, the US grabbing Nazi rocket
> scientists. The Soviets did exactly the same. The space race became a
> contest of "Our Nazis are better than your Nazis!"

Newton invented GRAVITY as a word and stated it's a FORCE. He wrote a mathematical theory which proved its existence.
Remains undisputed. Ask NASA, ESA, China's and several other country's space agencies.

Einstein stained Newton's legacy by changing FORCE with maxwellian fields, and was given a theory to be published on his
name, which fails within a wide domain of applicability (say more than 40 A.U. or less than 1um radius). Still disputed
within this restricted domain of applicability and fails MISERABLY in the Milky Way, not to mention the ENTIRE universe.

Richard Hertz wrote:

>> A dark stain on top of a dark stain, the US grabbing Nazi rocket
>> scientists. The Soviets did exactly the same. The space race became a
>> contest of "Our Nazis are better than your Nazis!"
>
> Newton invented GRAVITY as a word and stated it's a FORCE. He wrote a
> mathematical theory which proved its existence. Remains undisputed. Ask
> NASA, ESA, China's and several other country's space agencies.

they cant send motion pictures from Mars now. They could 1969 from the
fake moon landing.

Am 01.10.2021 um 15:33 schrieb Odd Bodkin:
> Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
>> Am 29.09.2021 um 17:56 schrieb Odd Bodkin:
>> ...
>>>>
>>>> Why would anybody want to 'dethrone' Newton?
>>>>
>>>> Newton was actually more like a druid and his main interests were
>>>> witchcraft and alchemy.
>>>>
>>>> Whoever wrote 'Principia' was most likely not Newton.
>>>>
>>>> This is a similar phenomenon as Shakespeare. He wrote simply too many
>>>> books in too few years and too early in life. So, possibly somethings
>>>> wrong with the entire story...
>>>
>>> You have a real problem believing that some people are extraordinarily
>>> capable in ways that you cannot produce yourself.
>>
>> I have absolutely no problem with the idea of extraordinarily capable
>> people.
>>
>> For instance Nicola Tesla was such a guy or Henry Poincare.
>>
>> But Newton was IMHO not and most likely he did not write 'Principia',
>> but only borrowed his name.
>>
>> The things which 'smells' about Newton's story is this:
>>
>> usually the good work of a theoretical physicist come late in life and
>> not in the middle (much less as a twen). But Newton alledgely wrote the
>> Principia with about fourty and that was simply it with his productivity.
>
> I don’t know where you ever got that idea. It’s widely known in physics
> that theoreticians usually make their mark early in their careers. Feynman
> did his strongest work on QED at the age of 32. Weinberg made his main
> breakthrough at 34. Two thirds of Nobel Prize winners did their work before
> the age of 40, and one-fifth did their work before the age of 30.

My hypothesis, if you will, was, that the famed authors were not the
authors themselves. So: 'Newton' was printed on a book called 'Principia
....'.

There existed also a guy named 'Newton'. But that guy was mainly
concerned with witchcraft and alchemy and didn't write any word of the
book, which bears his name.

The reason to think so (besides: it is a very old assumption) is, that
the 'live-productivity-curve', which you usually have with highly
intetelligent people, did not match to the curve of Newton's productivity.

Newton wrote millions of words about alchemy, but not that many about
standard physics.

His famous book had also no successor. That is very unusual, because you
do not just stop being smart with fourty-five and then do absolutely
nothing of public interest any more, after you have written a
world-class best-seller.

This is not, how people behave.

A very similar pattern occured with Shakespear. He wrote simply to much
and too young.

Another strange story is that of Steven Hawking.

My impression (what my subconcious tells me about the pictures) always
was, that the poor man was sedated and the wheel chair remote controlled
and the speach from the 'voice syntheciser' came by wireless connection.

IOW: I personally think, that physics is manipulated to the worse by
British Intelligence (and others, of course), to keep usefull secrets
secret.

But that is just a guess.

....

TH

Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
> Am 01.10.2021 um 15:33 schrieb Odd Bodkin:
>> Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
>>> Am 29.09.2021 um 17:56 schrieb Odd Bodkin:
>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>> Why would anybody want to 'dethrone' Newton?
>>>>>
>>>>> Newton was actually more like a druid and his main interests were
>>>>> witchcraft and alchemy.
>>>>>
>>>>> Whoever wrote 'Principia' was most likely not Newton.
>>>>>
>>>>> This is a similar phenomenon as Shakespeare. He wrote simply too many
>>>>> books in too few years and too early in life. So, possibly somethings
>>>>> wrong with the entire story...
>>>>
>>>> You have a real problem believing that some people are extraordinarily
>>>> capable in ways that you cannot produce yourself.
>>>
>>> I have absolutely no problem with the idea of extraordinarily capable
>>> people.
>>>
>>> For instance Nicola Tesla was such a guy or Henry Poincare.
>>>
>>> But Newton was IMHO not and most likely he did not write 'Principia',
>>> but only borrowed his name.
>>>
>>> The things which 'smells' about Newton's story is this:
>>>
>>> usually the good work of a theoretical physicist come late in life and
>>> not in the middle (much less as a twen). But Newton alledgely wrote the
>>> Principia with about fourty and that was simply it with his productivity.
>>
>> I don’t know where you ever got that idea. It’s widely known in physics
>> that theoreticians usually make their mark early in their careers. Feynman
>> did his strongest work on QED at the age of 32. Weinberg made his main
>> breakthrough at 34. Two thirds of Nobel Prize winners did their work before
>> the age of 40, and one-fifth did their work before the age of 30.
>
>
> My hypothesis, if you will, was, that the famed authors were not the
> authors themselves. So: 'Newton' was printed on a book called 'Principia
> ...'.

Yes, I know that’s your hypothesis. It’s crazy talk.

So then the issue is why you would come up with such a crazy idea.

It’s not hard to figure out. You do not like the prospect of feeling
incapable compared to very bright people who accomplish much more than you.
So you insist that’s not possible. You would rather believe that there is a
vast conspiracy afoot to make some select people look very good than to
believe that you are not nearly as capable as they are.

>
> There existed also a guy named 'Newton'. But that guy was mainly
> concerned with witchcraft and alchemy and didn't write any word of the
> book, which bears his name.
>
> The reason to think so (besides: it is a very old assumption) is, that
> the 'live-productivity-curve', which you usually have with highly
> intetelligent people, did not match to the curve of Newton's productivity.
>
> Newton wrote millions of words about alchemy, but not that many about
> standard physics.
>
> His famous book had also no successor. That is very unusual, because you
> do not just stop being smart with fourty-five and then do absolutely
> nothing of public interest any more, after you have written a
> world-class best-seller.

Happens all the time in physics. I mentioned the statistics about Nobel
Prize winners. You say that’s not possible.

>
> This is not, how people behave.
>
> A very similar pattern occured with Shakespear. He wrote simply to much
> and too young.
>
> Another strange story is that of Steven Hawking.
>
> My impression (what my subconcious tells me about the pictures) always
> was, that the poor man was sedated and the wheel chair remote controlled
> and the speach from the 'voice syntheciser' came by wireless connection.
>
> IOW: I personally think, that physics is manipulated to the worse by
> British Intelligence (and others, of course), to keep usefull secrets
> secret.
>
> But that is just a guess.
>
>
> ...
>
> TH
>

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

On Friday, October 1, 2021 at 9:27:51 AM UTC-7, crank Richard Hertz nannled:

> Einstein stained Newton's legacy by changing FORCE with maxwellian fields, and was given a theory to be published on his
> name, which fails within a wide domain of applicability (say more than 40 A.U. or less than 1um radius). Still disputed
> within this restricted domain of applicability and fails MISERABLY in the Milky Way, not to mention the ENTIRE universe.

Making up stuff again, Dick?

On 10/1/2021 12:27 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:

> Einstein stained Newton's legacy

Einstein did no such thing. Newton's legacy is still as a great in
science. Einstein simply used information that Newton had no way of
knowing. Newtonian mechanics remains an excellent approximation for low
speed (compared to light) motion.

> Still disputed
> within this restricted domain of applicability and fails MISERABLY in the Milky Way, not to mention the ENTIRE universe.

No, it doesn't "fail miserably". What "fails", if such can be called
failure, is that much of the matter and energy of the universe can't be
observed other than by gravitational effects. That is why sane
scientists say 'there must be some sort of dark matter' rather than
'SR/GR fail!'.

On Sunday, October 3, 2021 at 11:22:47 PM UTC-3, Michael Moroney wrote:

<snip>

> > within this restricted domain of applicability and fails MISERABLY in the Milky Way, not to mention the ENTIRE universe.

> No, it doesn't "fail miserably". What "fails", if such can be called failure, is that much of the matter and energy of
> the universe can't be observed other than by gravitational effects. That is why sane scientists say 'there must be
> some sort of dark matter' rather than 'SR/GR fail!'.

SOPHISTRY: The deliberate use of a false argument with the intent to trick someone or a false or untrue argument.
An example of sophistry is when you use a fact in an argument to make your point even though you know the point is false.
Unsound or misleading but clever, plausible, and subtle argument or reasoning.

FALLACY: A fallacy is a misleading argument or belief based on a falsehood. A fallacious argument may be deceptive by appearing
to be better than it really is. Example: saying that "GR fails miserably explaining the universe" statement MUST BE WRONG, because
sane scientists say 'there must be some sort of dark matter' rather than a 'SR/GR fail!'. (Going back to Schwarzschild's 1900 paper).

CIRCULAR ARGUMENT (Petitio Principii): In classical rhetoric and logic, begging the question or assuming the conclusion is an informal
fallacy that occurs when an argument's premises assume the truth of the conclusion, instead of supporting it.
Example: Dark matter exists to prove GR gravitation in cosmology even when much of the matter and energy of the universe can't be
observed other than by gravitational effects in GR.

Moroney: Sophistry, fallacies, and circular arguments are the only "rhetorical tools" by which SR/GR are justified in science. Einstein started it.

On 10/3/2021 11:11 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Sunday, October 3, 2021 at 11:22:47 PM UTC-3, Michael Moroney wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>> within this restricted domain of applicability and fails MISERABLY in the Milky Way, not to mention the ENTIRE universe.
>
>> No, it doesn't "fail miserably". What "fails", if such can be called failure, is that much of the matter and energy of
>> the universe can't be observed other than by gravitational effects. That is why sane scientists say 'there must be
>> some sort of dark matter' rather than 'SR/GR fail!'.
>
> SOPHISTRY: The deliberate use of a false argument with the intent to trick someone or a false or untrue argument.
> An example of sophistry is when you use a fact in an argument to make your point even though you know the point is false.
> Unsound or misleading but clever, plausible, and subtle argument or reasoning.
>
> FALLACY: A fallacy is a misleading argument or belief based on a falsehood. A fallacious argument may be deceptive by appearing
> to be better than it really is.
>
> CIRCULAR ARGUMENT (Petitio Principii): In classical rhetoric and logic, begging the question or assuming the conclusion is an informal
> fallacy that occurs when an argument's premises assume the truth of the conclusion, instead of supporting it.

And you use all three in your pathetic attempts at discrediting
relativity/Einstein.

Real scientists use real science to validate or disprove theories. So
far, GR and SR has never been disproven in their realms of
applicability. That's all that counts in science.

Face it. Both SR and GR are 100+ year old settled science.
Too bad for you. Seek a medical professional to treat your obsession.

On Monday, 4 October 2021 at 05:21:19 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:

> Face it. Both SR and GR are 100+ year old settled science.
> Too bad for you. Seek a medical professional to treat your obsession.

In the meantime in the real world, however, GPS clocks keep indicating
t'=t, just like all serious clocks always did.
Too bad for you. Seek a medical professional to treat your obsession.

On Monday, October 4, 2021 at 12:21:19 AM UTC-3, Michael Moroney wrote:

<snip>

> > SOPHISTRY: The deliberate use of a false argument with the intent to trick someone or a false or untrue argument.
> > An example of sophistry is when you use a fact in an argument to make your point even though you know the point is false.
> > Unsound or misleading but clever, plausible, and subtle argument or reasoning.
> >
> > FALLACY: A fallacy is a misleading argument or belief based on a falsehood. A fallacious argument may be deceptive by appearing
> > to be better than it really is.
> >
> > CIRCULAR ARGUMENT (Petitio Principii): In classical rhetoric and logic, begging the question or assuming the conclusion is an informal
> > fallacy that occurs when an argument's premises assume the truth of the conclusion, instead of supporting it.

> And you use all three in your pathetic attempts at discrediting relativity/Einstein.
>
> Real scientists use real science to validate or disprove theories. So far, GR and SR has never been disproven in their realms of
> applicability. That's all that counts in science.
>
> Face it. Both SR and GR are 100+ year old settled science.
> Too bad for you. Seek a medical professional to treat your obsession.

I never used any of those three "mechanisms" of pseudo-philosophy, Moroney. I'm an honest person, so I don't need any of them. Ever!

You have to separate my ridiculous posts, which are a joke (and you are entitled to dislike them) from my serious posts, when I analyze
historical documents or present modern documents. I always post a link, for others to fact-check, and it's not an obsession, just a hobby.

I like to analyze documents being unbiased. It means not buying something because it's written by a famous person, and it goes to any
person or history. It can be Einstein today, Planck tomorrow (seriously) or even Maxwell or Newton.

I'm not sold to anyone nor anything. I find very entertaining to analyze old things under new light (my own).

BUT, when I find something that is WRONG under ANY circumstances AND, posting my analysis, people REACT like crazy religious
fanatics as if I had insulted their religion, THEN I got MAD!

And the more crazy they act (you are the low end in the range of reactions) the more stubborn I become by presenting facts after facts.

You see? Action vs. reaction. As simple as that.

And I don't need anyone's APPROVAL, I don't have any problem facing a 1000:1 actor's relationship (I'm 1).

I did it before, I never gave up and I won every single time.

In this case, I know that the ratio (counting people with right tools to debate) is about 2,000:1,000,000 (or, a ratio 1:500) but I don't care.

And, for instance, I don't start with Planck and the period 1859-2021 (1900, 1964, COBE, etc.) it's because most people here don't give a
shit about such issue. I tried it here, in the past.

Or I could go over the SMEP and Gell-Man, but once again, this is not the place (as I was told: address only relativity).

So, don't rush into an incorrect image of me for my serious posts. Discard those were I mock or I'm just being stupid on purpose.
Go to the bone in these topics:

1) E=mc2 was never proved. It was ADOPTED as a convenient relationship between mass and matter. Same thing with "c" and BIMP.
2) Relativity (SR) is pseudo-science, based on perception of space and time DUE TO a mathematical transformation. It's pure geometry,
as Poincaré defined in a single phrase by 1906.
3) Length contraction formula's search is the ONLY basis behind the development of relativity. And this search has been a failure.
4) Time dilation is an abuse of methaphysics. Discarded by Lorentz and Poincaré as having physical meaning and the flagship of Einstein's SR.
5) Gravitational blue shifting of light is a sophist assertion of Einstein in 1911. I really admire how he mastered the three tools that I've quoted.
6) Light bending under gravity is another sophism (1911, 1915) based on a variable speed of light under gravity. Refraction in the atmosphere
of the Sun, which expand to several radii, is a simpler explanation of what happens when light pass by at atmosphere at 1 million degrees.
I quote this: "The temperature in the corona is more than a million degrees, surprisingly much hotter than the temperature at the Sun's surface
which is around 5,500° C (9,940° F or 5,780 kelvins).". It only takes a refraction index of 1.000004 to explain the 1.75 arcseconds.
7) Mercury's perihelion shift is 100% explained in Gerber's 1898 paper using retarded potentials.
8) Among several competing theories, many of them simpler, a complex mathematical structure based on Riemann-Ricci-Levi-Civita was chosen,
even when barely produce 3 or 4 solutions out of hundred which can be used with SOME physical meaning. GR is mathematics, not physics,
so it doesn't have any value under my eyes. In particular, I strongly reject that SPACE can be twisted as it is VOID of any physical meaning.
Space is a human construct, that started with ancient geometry and followed with cartesian coordinates by Descartes. Time, as measured
by CLOCKS, is another human construct (because even today, time remains undefined by any other HUMAN means).

And, as I wrote, GR fails in its applicability beyond the Solar System. No other theory was accepted (scalar or not) so it was GR which had to
deal with the original BBT and current degenerations like inflation, dark matter, dark energy, relativistic Hubble variable (not constant anymore)
and many other weird interpretations of FOUR ELEMENTARY SOLUTIONS of GR (only that). Then, the fashion of black holes, gravity waves, etc.

9) Another nonsense is relativity brought to the quantum world, with relativistic electron orbitals for inner electrons in heavy atoms, E=mc2 in
nuclear forces, etc. Electrostatic models of the nucleus perfectly explain the energy liberated in nuclear fission, as it was taught to the
scientists recruited for the Manhattan Project (Los Alamos Primer booklet, by Oppenheimer and Serber).

10) The 9 previous points paint a picture of a SIMPLE SCENARIO (not a complex one): Relativity, since 1905-1908-1911-1915 is about the
build-up of an alternate reality based on simple pseudo-physical premises: constancy of c, Minkowski's Lorentz compatible spacetime
and the FORCED MARRIAGE with gravity (which still remains unexplained, either force or field).

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, October 4, 2021 at 12:21:19 AM UTC-3, Michael Moroney wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>> SOPHISTRY: The deliberate use of a false argument with the intent to
>>> trick someone or a false or untrue argument.
>>> An example of sophistry is when you use a fact in an argument to make
>>> your point even though you know the point is false.
>>> Unsound or misleading but clever, plausible, and subtle argument or reasoning.
>>>
>>> FALLACY: A fallacy is a misleading argument or belief based on a
>>> falsehood. A fallacious argument may be deceptive by appearing
>>> to be better than it really is.
>>>
>>> CIRCULAR ARGUMENT (Petitio Principii): In classical rhetoric and logic,
>>> begging the question or assuming the conclusion is an informal
>>> fallacy that occurs when an argument's premises assume the truth of the
>>> conclusion, instead of supporting it.
>
>> And you use all three in your pathetic attempts at discrediting relativity/Einstein.
>>
>> Real scientists use real science to validate or disprove theories. So
>> far, GR and SR has never been disproven in their realms of
>> applicability. That's all that counts in science.
>>
>> Face it. Both SR and GR are 100+ year old settled science.
>> Too bad for you. Seek a medical professional to treat your obsession.
>
> I never used any of those three "mechanisms" of pseudo-philosophy,
> Moroney. I'm an honest person, so I don't need any of them. Ever!

So. Much. Self-unaware. Bullshit.

>
> You have to separate my ridiculous posts, which are a joke (and you are
> entitled to dislike them) from my serious posts, when I analyze
> historical documents or present modern documents. I always post a link,
> for others to fact-check, and it's not an obsession, just a hobby.

The problem, you see, is that you are the only one that can tell the
difference between your joke posts and your serious posts. What you come
across as instead is a mishmash of ranting and factually off-track
propaganda.

You are not nearly as coherent as you think you are.

>
> I like to analyze documents being unbiased. It means not buying something
> because it's written by a famous person, and it goes to any
> person or history. It can be Einstein today, Planck tomorrow (seriously)
> or even Maxwell or Newton.
>
> I'm not sold to anyone nor anything. I find very entertaining to analyze
> old things under new light (my own).
>
> BUT, when I find something that is WRONG under ANY circumstances AND,
> posting my analysis, people REACT like crazy religious
> fanatics as if I had insulted their religion, THEN I got MAD!
>
> And the more crazy they act (you are the low end in the range of
> reactions) the more stubborn I become by presenting facts after facts.
>
> You see? Action vs. reaction. As simple as that.
>
> And I don't need anyone's APPROVAL, I don't have any problem facing a
> 1000:1 actor's relationship (I'm 1).
>
> I did it before, I never gave up and I won every single time.
>
> In this case, I know that the ratio (counting people with right tools to
> debate) is about 2,000:1,000,000 (or, a ratio 1:500) but I don't care.
>
> And, for instance, I don't start with Planck and the period 1859-2021
> (1900, 1964, COBE, etc.) it's because most people here don't give a
> shit about such issue. I tried it here, in the past.
>
> Or I could go over the SMEP and Gell-Man, but once again, this is not the
> place (as I was told: address only relativity).
>
> So, don't rush into an incorrect image of me for my serious posts.
> Discard those were I mock or I'm just being stupid on purpose.
> Go to the bone in these topics:
>
> 1) E=mc2 was never proved. It was ADOPTED as a convenient relationship
> between mass and matter. Same thing with "c" and BIMP.
> 2) Relativity (SR) is pseudo-science, based on perception of space and
> time DUE TO a mathematical transformation. It's pure geometry,
> as Poincaré defined in a single phrase by 1906.
> 3) Length contraction formula's search is the ONLY basis behind the
> development of relativity. And this search has been a failure.
> 4) Time dilation is an abuse of methaphysics. Discarded by Lorentz and
> Poincaré as having physical meaning and the flagship of Einstein's SR.
> 5) Gravitational blue shifting of light is a sophist assertion of
> Einstein in 1911. I really admire how he mastered the three tools that I've quoted.
> 6) Light bending under gravity is another sophism (1911, 1915) based on a
> variable speed of light under gravity. Refraction in the atmosphere
> of the Sun, which expand to several radii, is a simpler explanation
> of what happens when light pass by at atmosphere at 1 million degrees.
> I quote this: "The temperature in the corona is more than a million
> degrees, surprisingly much hotter than the temperature at the Sun's surface
> which is around 5,500° C (9,940° F or 5,780 kelvins).". It only takes
> a refraction index of 1.000004 to explain the 1.75 arcseconds.
> 7) Mercury's perihelion shift is 100% explained in Gerber's 1898 paper
> using retarded potentials.
> 8) Among several competing theories, many of them simpler, a complex
> mathematical structure based on Riemann-Ricci-Levi-Civita was chosen,
> even when barely produce 3 or 4 solutions out of hundred which can be
> used with SOME physical meaning. GR is mathematics, not physics,
> so it doesn't have any value under my eyes. In particular, I strongly
> reject that SPACE can be twisted as it is VOID of any physical meaning.
> Space is a human construct, that started with ancient geometry and
> followed with cartesian coordinates by Descartes. Time, as measured
> by CLOCKS, is another human construct (because even today, time
> remains undefined by any other HUMAN means).
>
> And, as I wrote, GR fails in its applicability beyond the Solar
> System. No other theory was accepted (scalar or not) so it was GR which had to
> deal with the original BBT and current degenerations like inflation,
> dark matter, dark energy, relativistic Hubble variable (not constant anymore)
> and many other weird interpretations of FOUR ELEMENTARY SOLUTIONS of
> GR (only that). Then, the fashion of black holes, gravity waves, etc.
>
> 9) Another nonsense is relativity brought to the quantum world, with
> relativistic electron orbitals for inner electrons in heavy atoms, E=mc2 in
> nuclear forces, etc. Electrostatic models of the nucleus perfectly
> explain the energy liberated in nuclear fission, as it was taught to the
> scientists recruited for the Manhattan Project (Los Alamos Primer
> booklet, by Oppenheimer and Serber).
>
> 10) The 9 previous points paint a picture of a SIMPLE SCENARIO (not a
> complex one): Relativity, since 1905-1908-1911-1915 is about the
> build-up of an alternate reality based on simple pseudo-physical
> premises: constancy of c, Minkowski's Lorentz compatible spacetime
> and the FORCED MARRIAGE with gravity (which still remains
> unexplained, either force or field).
>
>

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

On Sunday, October 3, 2021 at 10:54:21 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> I'm a dishonest person

Agreed

On Friday, October 1, 2021 at 2:47:43 AM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
>
> In Germany we had a very famous case like this, which was the band
> 'Milli Vanilly'.

Oddly enough their producer, Frank Farian, was IIRC responsible in the
1970s for Boney M. which were *extremely* popular everywhere except
in the US (like real football and the metric system :-) )

--
Jan

On Sunday, October 3, 2021 at 8:11:35 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Sunday, October 3, 2021 at 11:22:47 PM UTC-3, Michael Moroney wrote:
>
> <snip>
> > > within this restricted domain of applicability and fails MISERABLY in the Milky Way, not to mention the ENTIRE universe.
>
> > No, it doesn't "fail miserably". What "fails", if such can be called failure, is that much of the matter and energy of
> > the universe can't be observed other than by gravitational effects. That is why sane scientists say 'there must be
> > some sort of dark matter' rather than 'SR/GR fail!'.
> SOPHISTRY: The deliberate use of a false argument with the intent to trick someone or a false or untrue argument.
> An example of sophistry is when you use a fact in an argument to make your point even though you know the point is false.
> Unsound or misleading but clever, plausible, and subtle argument or reasoning.
>
> FALLACY: A fallacy is a misleading argument or belief based on a falsehood. A fallacious argument may be deceptive by appearing
> to be better than it really is. Example: saying that "GR fails miserably explaining the universe" statement MUST BE WRONG, because
> sane scientists say 'there must be some sort of dark matter' rather than a 'SR/GR fail!'. (Going back to Schwarzschild's 1900 paper).
>
> CIRCULAR ARGUMENT (Petitio Principii): In classical rhetoric and logic, begging the question or assuming the conclusion is an informal
> fallacy that occurs when an argument's premises assume the truth of the conclusion, instead of supporting it.
> Example: Dark matter exists to prove GR gravitation in cosmology even when much of the matter and energy of the universe can't be
> observed other than by gravitational effects in GR.
>
>
> Moroney: Sophistry, fallacies, and circular arguments are the only "rhetorical tools" by which SR/GR are justified in science. Einstein started it.

No. You are just inventing drama to keep your ego happy. The truth is,
as always, slightly boring and devoid of Hollywood fireworks and CGI:
Einstein's theory is classical (i.e., non-quantum), everyone knows that,
and nobody has figured out a theory that would put together gravity
and particle physics, and everyone knows that too.

--
Jan

Op 04-okt.-2021 om 19:02 schreef JanPB:
> On Friday, October 1, 2021 at 2:47:43 AM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>
>> In Germany we had a very famous case like this, which was the band
>> 'Milli Vanilly'.
>
> Oddly enough their producer, Frank Farian, was IIRC responsible in the
> 1970s for Boney M. which were *extremely* popular everywhere except
> in the US (like real football and the metric system :-) )
>
> --
> Jan
>

The Very Worst of the Seventies: Boney M.
And Middle of the Road.
And glamrock --*YUCK!*-- all over the place.

Dirk Vdm

On Monday, October 4, 2021 at 11:37:34 AM UTC-7, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
> Op 04-okt.-2021 om 19:02 schreef JanPB:
> > On Friday, October 1, 2021 at 2:47:43 AM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
> >>
> >> In Germany we had a very famous case like this, which was the band
> >> 'Milli Vanilly'.
> >
> > Oddly enough their producer, Frank Farian, was IIRC responsible in the
> > 1970s for Boney M. which were *extremely* popular everywhere except
> > in the US (like real football and the metric system :-) )
> >
> > --
> > Jan
> >
> The Very Worst of the Seventies: Boney M.
> And Middle of the Road.
> And glamrock --*YUCK!*-- all over the place.

It's like the 1970s clothes :-)

--
Jan

Am 03.10.2021 um 14:55 schrieb Odd Bodkin:
....
>>
>> My hypothesis, if you will, was, that the famed authors were not the
>> authors themselves. So: 'Newton' was printed on a book called 'Principia
>> ...'.
>
> Yes, I know that’s your hypothesis. It’s crazy talk.
>
> So then the issue is why you would come up with such a crazy idea.
>
> It’s not hard to figure out. You do not like the prospect of feeling
> incapable compared to very bright people who accomplish much more than you.
> So you insist that’s not possible. You would rather believe that there is a
> vast conspiracy afoot to make some select people look very good than to
> believe that you are not nearly as capable as they are.

It was not my hypothesis.

Actually Keynes bought Newtons memories and found, it contained only
alchemy and similar.

>>
>> There existed also a guy named 'Newton'. But that guy was mainly
>> concerned with witchcraft and alchemy and didn't write any word of the
>> book, which bears his name.
>>
>> The reason to think so (besides: it is a very old assumption) is, that
>> the 'live-productivity-curve', which you usually have with highly
>> intetelligent people, did not match to the curve of Newton's productivity.
>>
>> Newton wrote millions of words about alchemy, but not that many about
>> standard physics.
>>
>> His famous book had also no successor. That is very unusual, because you
>> do not just stop being smart with fourty-five and then do absolutely
>> nothing of public interest any more, after you have written a
>> world-class best-seller.
>
> Happens all the time in physics. I mentioned the statistics about Nobel
> Prize winners. You say that’s not possible.

If all the scientific papers are written by underpaid homeworkers and
presented by former spies and people high in the ranks of secret
societies, the real authors would be the smart guys, while the famed
presenters are on their own, once they do something themselves.

So it would be kind of natural, if the 'afterlife' of famed people gets
strange.

....

TH

Am 04.10.2021 um 19:02 schrieb JanPB:
> On Friday, October 1, 2021 at 2:47:43 AM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>
>> In Germany we had a very famous case like this, which was the band
>> 'Milli Vanilly'.
>
> Oddly enough their producer, Frank Farian, was IIRC responsible in the
> 1970s for Boney M. which were *extremely* popular everywhere except
> in the US (like real football and the metric system :-) )
>
I heard this: The band were mainly dancers, while the voice was mainly
Frank Farian himself, assisted by studio musicians.

TH

Thomas Heger wrote:

> Am 04.10.2021 um 19:02 schrieb JanPB:
>> On Friday, October 1, 2021 at 2:47:43 AM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>
>>> In Germany we had a very famous case like this, which was the band
>>> 'Milli Vanilly'.
>>
>> Oddly enough their producer, Frank Farian, was IIRC responsible in the
>> 1970s for Boney M. which were *extremely* popular everywhere except in
>> the US (like real football and the metric system )
>>
> I heard this: The band were mainly dancers, while the voice was mainly
> Frank Farian himself, assisted by studio musicians.

what do you mean "hear", you have to listen at, not hear. ABBA was a zero
compared to Boney M. You young people don't even know what disco is all
about.

Thomas Heger wrote:

>> Happens all the time in physics. I mentioned the statistics about Nobel
>> Prize winners. You say that’s not possible.
>
> If all the scientific papers are written by underpaid homeworkers and
> presented by former spies and people high in the ranks of secret
> societies, the real authors would be the smart guys, while the famed
> presenters are on their own, once they do something themselves.
> So it would be kind of natural, if the 'afterlife' of famed people gets
> strange.

so true. Good papers never gets published, they are coming and "offer"
you a job, then you are history.

On Saturday, October 9, 2021 at 10:42:49 AM UTC-3, Ilya Boon wrote:

> Thomas Heger wrote:
>
> >> Happens all the time in physics. I mentioned the statistics about Nobel
> >> Prize winners. You say that’s not possible.
> >
> > If all the scientific papers are written by underpaid homeworkers and
> > presented by former spies and people high in the ranks of secret
> > societies, the real authors would be the smart guys, while the famed
> > presenters are on their own, once they do something themselves.
> > So it would be kind of natural, if the 'afterlife' of famed people gets
> > strange.

> so true. Good papers never gets published, they are coming and "offer" you a job, then you are history.

One of the best comments summarizing modern corporate physics (R&D) for the last 50 years (MIC).

Before the '70s, and since the 10's, Corp. Physics was proud to let researchers to publish some papers,
like AT&T Bell Labs and corporate funded universitary R&D, either in pure or applied physics, chemistry, etc.

These days are gone forever, and secrecy is an edge in a competition for profits, either with .gov contracts
or civilian market. Money is the driving force.+

On 10/4/2021 1:54 AM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Monday, October 4, 2021 at 12:21:19 AM UTC-3, Michael Moroney wrote:
>
>> Face it. Both SR and GR are 100+ year old settled science.
>> Too bad for you. Seek a medical professional to treat your obsession.
>
> I never used any of those three "mechanisms" of pseudo-philosophy, Moroney. I'm an honest person, so I don't need any of them. Ever!

So you weren't involved with designing particle accelerators, GPS type
systems, Sagnac gyroscopes, or precision timing systems, so traditional
Newtonian and Maxwellian approximations are fine. That's fine, most EEs
don't.
>
> You have to separate my ridiculous posts, which are a joke (and you are entitled to dislike them) from my serious posts,

A ready made excuse when you post something seriously, and someone spots
a flaw with it.

> when I analyze
> historical documents or present modern documents.

Something you do poorly.

> I always post a link, for others to fact-check, and it's not an obsession, just a hobby.

It's an obsession, going well beyond hobby.
>
> I like to analyze documents being unbiased.

Something else you do poorly.

> BUT, when I find something that is WRONG under ANY circumstances AND, posting my analysis, people REACT like crazy religious
> fanatics as if I had insulted their religion, THEN I got MAD!

What you misinterpret as 'crazy religious fanatics' are simply people
reacting to an obvious falsehood which you defend as truth.
>
> And the more crazy they act (you are the low end in the range of reactions) the more stubborn I become by presenting facts after facts.

You mean the more people try to correct you (often showing frustration)
the more you double down to defend your beliefs. Typical crank
reaction. Look at an extreme case, Plutonium defending his 'ellipse
isn't a conic section' belief.
>
> You see? Action vs. reaction. As simple as that.

Yes, typical crank behavior.
>
> And I don't need anyone's APPROVAL, I don't have any problem facing a 1000:1 actor's relationship (I'm 1).

Cranks have no problems with being outnumbered, or as being some 'hero'
to save the world or something.

> And, for instance, I don't start with Planck and the period 1859-2021 (1900, 1964, COBE, etc.) it's because most people here don't give a
> shit about such issue. I tried it here, in the past.

Although Odd and others have offered explanations, I still wonder why
Einstein is such a crank magnet.
>
> Or I could go over the SMEP and Gell-Man, but once again, this is not the place (as I was told: address only relativity).
>
> So, don't rush into an incorrect image of me for my serious posts. Discard those were I mock or I'm just being stupid on purpose.
> Go to the bone in these topics:
>
> 1) E=mc2 was never proved. It was ADOPTED as a convenient relationship between mass and matter.

Yet it is used by many physicists (in its more general form, of course)
daily.

> 2) Relativity (SR) is pseudo-science, based on perception of space and time DUE TO a mathematical transformation. It's pure geometry,
> as Poincaré defined in a single phrase by 1906.

Yet time dilation is frequently used by those same physicists daily.

> 3) Length contraction formula's search is the ONLY basis behind the development of relativity. And this search has been a failure.

Many indirect successes. No actual 'failure', since it has never been
disproven.

> 4) Time dilation is an abuse of methaphysics. Discarded by Lorentz and Poincaré as having physical meaning and the flagship of Einstein's SR.

Yet time dilation is frequently used by physicists daily.

> 5) Gravitational blue shifting of light is a sophist assertion of Einstein in 1911.

a) 1911 relativity is wrong. Use the 1915 paper and followons.
b) Pound-Rebka and the GPS system prove you wrong.

I really admire how he mastered the three tools that I've quoted.
> 6) Light bending under gravity is another sophism (1911, 1915) based on a variable speed of light under gravity.

Nope. Look at the math.

> Refraction in the atmosphere
> of the Sun, which expand to several radii, is a simpler explanation of what happens when light pass by at atmosphere at 1 million degrees.

Yet the Kepler satellite used the light bending formula for observations
at 90 degrees to the sun. Or does the solar atmosphere extend to
earth's orbit?

> I quote this: "The temperature in the corona is more than a million degrees, surprisingly much hotter than the temperature at the Sun's surface
> which is around 5,500° C (9,940° F or 5,780 kelvins).". It only takes a refraction index of 1.000004 to explain the 1.75 arcseconds.

And it just so happens to match the GR predictions exactly! At all
different distances, too! What a coincidence!!!

> 7) Mercury's perihelion shift is 100% explained in Gerber's 1898 paper using retarded potentials.

Gerber's paper is incorrect.

> 8) Among several competing theories, many of them simpler, a complex mathematical structure based on Riemann-Ricci-Levi-Civita was chosen,
> even when barely produce 3 or 4 solutions out of hundred which can be used with SOME physical meaning. GR is mathematics, not physics,

Physics is loaded with mathematics. Sorry, but that's the nature of the
beast.

> so it doesn't have any value under my eyes. In particular, I strongly reject that SPACE can be twisted as it is VOID of any physical meaning.

Nobody cares what you do or don't reject. Science will continue on
without you, using GR's predictions.

> And, as I wrote, GR fails in its applicability beyond the Solar System.

Really? It is used to make predictions about neutron stars and black
holes, which somehow seem to match observations.

> No other theory was accepted (scalar or not) so it was GR which had to
> deal with the original BBT [...]

Because no other theory worked as well as GR.

> 9) Another nonsense is relativity brought to the quantum world, with relativistic electron orbitals for inner electrons in heavy atoms, E=mc2 in
> nuclear forces, etc. Electrostatic models of the nucleus perfectly explain the energy liberated in nuclear fission, as it was taught to the
> scientists recruited for the Manhattan Project (Los Alamos Primer booklet, by Oppenheimer and Serber).

Yet electrostatics cannot explain how 92 protons, all repelling each
other, and all crammed into a uranium nucleus, manage to stay together.

Is Einstein using the relativity to justify the ether composed of matter?