On 10/7/2021 2:34 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Thursday, 7 October 2021 at 01:02:50 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> On 10/6/2021 5:22 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>
>>> To the point about mental health, a clinical psychologist friend tells me
>>> that people who have mental issues are attracted to Internet forums for a
>>> variety of reasons.
>>>
>>> It helps to vent all the internal noise and chatter.
>>>
>>> There is no eye contact and so you don’t get that look from others when you
>>> say something that’s a little nuts, at least not while you’re saying it.
>>>
>>> There’s a buffer period where people’s assessment of you is delayed and you
>>> can feel normal and healthy for a while, which can be a breath of fresh
>>> air.
>>>
>>>
>> Very Interesting.
>
> Well, stupid Mike, of course you're too dumb to notice that
> "attracted to Internet forums" describes you as well as your
> opponents here?

Logical fallacy.

Mentally ill --> attracted to internet forums does NOT mean
attracted to internet forums --> mentally ill.

Besides, I am not here for the reasons Odd gives. I come here to watch
the crackpots, such as yourself, demonstrate their mental illnesses
here. Of course, as crackpots go, you are very boring and repetitious.
(another mental illness symptom).

On Thursday, 7 October 2021 at 16:30:21 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 10/7/2021 2:34 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > On Thursday, 7 October 2021 at 01:02:50 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >> On 10/6/2021 5:22 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >>
> >>> To the point about mental health, a clinical psychologist friend tells me
> >>> that people who have mental issues are attracted to Internet forums for a
> >>> variety of reasons.
> >>>
> >>> It helps to vent all the internal noise and chatter.
> >>>
> >>> There is no eye contact and so you don’t get that look from others when you
> >>> say something that’s a little nuts, at least not while you’re saying it.
> >>>
> >>> There’s a buffer period where people’s assessment of you is delayed and you
> >>> can feel normal and healthy for a while, which can be a breath of fresh
> >>> air.
> >>>
> >>>
> >> Very Interesting.
> >
> > Well, stupid Mike, of course you're too dumb to notice that
> > "attracted to Internet forums" describes you as well as your
> > opponents here?
> Logical fallacy.

Where, stupid Mike?

> Besides, I am not here for the reasons Odd gives. I come here to watch
> the crackpots, such as yourself, demonstrate their mental illnesses
> here.

Neither am I, stupid Mike. I come here to watch
fanatic idiots, such as yourself, demonstrate their
mental illnesses here.
And to remind that GPS clocks keep measuring t'=t,
just like all serious clocks always did.

On Thursday, October 7, 2021 at 7:18:59 AM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> On Thursday, October 7, 2021 at 5:18:10 AM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Thursday, 7 October 2021 at 01:02:50 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > >> On 10/6/2021 5:22 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> To the point about mental health, a clinical psychologist friend tells me
> > >>> that people who have mental issues are attracted to Internet forums for a
> > >>> variety of reasons.
> > >>>
> > >>> It helps to vent all the internal noise and chatter.
> > >>>
> > >>> There is no eye contact and so you don’t get that look from others when you
> > >>> say something that’s a little nuts, at least not while you’re saying it.
> > >>>
> > >>> There’s a buffer period where people’s assessment of you is delayed and you
> > >>> can feel normal and healthy for a while, which can be a breath of fresh
> > >>> air.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >> Very Interesting.
> > >
> > > Well, stupid Mike, of course you're too dumb to notice that
> > > "attracted to Internet forums" describes you as well as your
> > > opponents here?
> > >
> > O greatest logician of modern times, the mentally ill being attracted to
> > Internet forums does not logically imply that all that are attracted to
> > Internet forums are mentally ill.
> >
> > --
> > Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> That's funny, many people are put off my Internet forae,
> because they get attacked by random a-noms.
>
> In fact it takes a sort of stubborn-ness to weary out an
> unmoderated forum with its usual pathologies, and,
> moderated forums are often boring.
>
> It's much easier to feel the like minded with no dissent.
>
> This though basically is for comment on "sci.physics.relativity".
>
> Reputation of course is a critical asset in many people's lives.
>
> Also it's often the basis of trust.
>
> Or lack thereof....
>
> ("... Or lack thereof.")
>
> If we might agree the matter then here it's outright -
> physics is all quite well held up by mathematics,
> theories in the modern are profound and exquisite,
> the new renaissance of theory is making way for
> the super-classical, neatly, quantum mechanics and
> relativity together, modern theory collected
> is the matter. "Foundations".
>
>
> Let's agree that "moderated forums, of, only a
> once-off chop of spew and one-rule deletes,
> resulting in a feed", are different than "moderated
> and unmoderated forums, cultivated vote-down".
>
> Now, you three men, Maciej, Mike, and the OB,
> and myself, Ross, or here Ross Finlayson, let's
> say we all "claim" to understand physics, the comment,
> to understand physics enough, that it's de rigeur
> that it's _right_, it's correct, to be both competent
> and also direct, any comment, on physics.
>
> [Here that 'any at least one' is not 'any and all'.]
>
> Or not.
>
> This is basically that comment, thanks to etiquette,
> can be correct.
>
> Now, this is Rich's thread, constants are constants,
> and in theory there's only one object that reflects
> both what is constant and variable, monism, directly,
> let's agree that "running constants" are for reference,
> that, NIST CODATA and SI, constants and units, these
> are as they are and correct under definition, that in
> the terms, about the potential fields of course for these
> measured definitions from inside the classical fields
> and our theories, that parastatistics for string theory,
> is on its way in, that really most the symmetry-flex,
> has at least a way to explain to individual people,
> enough of the mathematics of all the theory, what
> results a combined fundamental theory, that reflects
> most all the science of the day.
>
>
>
> "Reputation, or lack thereof, the basis of trust, or not."
>
> If you'd please excuse me most all the reason that
> I post to usenet is a letter-writing campaign what to
> have fulfilled a modern rhetoric on foundations.
>
> Usually there's _no possible chance of that_ but I
> was let to put the countable and continuous together
> and here physics for its part after that.

It's pretty nuts....

One reason why zero, infinity, and one, are the constants,
is that in mathematics, having zero, infinity, and one,
makes for 1/oo = 0 and 1/0 = oo where 0*oo = 1.

Of course, zero is the multiplicative annihilator,
and, infinity times any positive value isn't finite,
what results from 1 = 0 * oo.

Now, clearly these are only labels, because 0 the usual
label is the additive identity and multiplicative annihiliator
in the usual rings and fields of numbers, and oo doesn 't
exist among finite rings and fields except here it first defines
a simple algebra where there's _only in this context_ a 0
and an infinity oo, that results 0 * oo = 1.

Basically then this zero is an iota or non-zero, here strictly positive.
And, the infinity is only what makes for that the iota-values, have
at least one operation, that underdefines or undefines otherwise
usual operations of the numbers, it makes for why then in all the
other systems that as soon as admit infinity: it results that the
particular operation of what results for a "largest finite" and "atom",
that that many atoms is the entire whole.

That of course is only a simple classical linearity, established defining division.

But, in the sense of also being non-standard or infinitary,
also it's the classical linear infinitary and continuous. I.e.,
the "classical continuity" is as of the constant meter of a ray
of time, and, is infinitely divisible, and, is whole and parts,
with, constancy in parts.

So, Zeno's paradoxes and so on are built right down into defining
intuitively and also semi-formally an infinity in numbers, and that so
everywhere in equations according to what with these labels and
any others that their operations are defined (resp. not defined or
undefined, underdefined).

Then, about countability, which I studied quite some time, is that
this also is the only form or model of a "continuous domain", that,
also, is "countable". We know in the space of functions or the Cartesian,
that that Complete Ordered Field which can also be identified with
Cantor space 2^w or the powerset of integers, the real numbers are
uncountable with respect to all the Cartesian functions, here then
that as you'll notice, above in the underdefined is defined a non-Cartesian
function, so, unique among all the functions infinite integers to elements
of a continuous domain [0,1] with all what completeness implies, a
continuous domain, then this simplest classical line-drawing in time
has a solid foundation then for definitions of continuity in mathematics.

Which I found and read and put through the establishment of modern
mathematics and set theory in foundations, into an extra-ordinary theory
of ubiquitous ordinals including all the uncountable and also having neat
simple resolutions of all the logical paradoxes, what so result "A Theory".

Lets assume that the transformation is valid, what is Einstein and Lorentz doing with the transformation? Can you think forward and not keep spinning in the same circle around and around so that I do not have to or do you want more stories of my cat?

carl eto wrote:

> Lets assume that the transformation is valid, what is Einstein and Lorentz
> doing with the transformation?

Lorentz:

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Lorentz_transformations#Lorentz_(1892,_1895)>
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Lorentz_transformations#Lorentz_(1899,_1904)>

Einstein showed important consequences of the transformation, starting in
the very same paper (“On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies”, 1905) where
he derived it (different from Lorentz: *without* assuming a luminiferous
aether): "Length contraction", the speed of light as a "speed limit", the
relativity of simultaneity (all in §4); the actual (relativistic)
composition of velocities (§5), and Doppler redshift/blueshift and stellar
aberration (§6). In the next paper, in the same year (“Does the Inertia of
a Body Depend on its Energy Content?”), he concludes the equivalence of mass
and energy. And so on.

> Can you think forward and not keep spinning in the same circle around and
> around so that I do not have to or do you want more stories of my cat?

If only you would read what people here and elsewhere are writing:

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Lorentz_transformations#Einstein_(1905)_%E2%80%93_Special_relativity>

<https://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol2-trans/165> pp.

PointedEars
--
Q: What happens when electrons lose their energy?
A: They get Bohr'ed.

(from: WolframAlpha)

On 10/5/21 2:33 PM, dlzc wrote:
> The Higgs boson does no longer couple Standard particles to the Higgs
> field (the boson found was too energetic / massive, could not fit the
> theory).

I have no idea where you got that, and suspect you just made it up.
It is WRONG.

> The Higgs field gives mass to Standard particles directly.

Well DUH! That's what it does.

But when you actually calculate something, the Higgs boson appears as a
line in the Feynman diagrams, just like any other particle (= excitation
of the corresponding field).

> Experiment has shown a 1:1 correspondence between the Higgs field and
> spacetime.

NONSENSE! This you clearly just made up (or believed someone else who
just made it up).

Tom Roberts

On 10/5/21 12:01 PM, Volney wrote:
> Also I noticed one possible decay of Higgs is to 2 photons. But the
> Higgs doesn't couple to the photon (otherwise the photon would have
> mass, correct?) so shouldn't it be unable to decay into 2 photons?

The Higgs does not couple to photons, and does not decay DIRECTLY to 2
photons. But it does couple to intermediaries that can result in 2 photons:
"One of the primary ways to search for the Higgs boson
at the CERN Large Hadron Collider is via its decay to
two photons. That decay is induced by quantum loop
corrections involving the W boson and fermions, primarily
the top quark."
-- https://arxiv.org/abs/1109.5304

> Can the decays all be classified as "strong decays" and "weak
> decays" depending on the decay products?

No. Intermediaries matter. The above quote cites both weak and strong
intermediaries, with just two photons in the final state.

BTW they search for the Higgs using two photons because that is an
excellent signature that can be easily identified experimentally. Having
just two particles in the final state reduces the effects of
combinatorics in high energy p-p interactions with dozens to hundreds of
particles in the final state.

Tom Roberts

On 10/7/2021 10:38 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Thursday, 7 October 2021 at 16:30:21 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> On 10/7/2021 2:34 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>> On Thursday, 7 October 2021 at 01:02:50 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>> On 10/6/2021 5:22 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> To the point about mental health, a clinical psychologist friend tells me
>>>>> that people who have mental issues are attracted to Internet forums for a
>>>>> variety of reasons.
>>>>>
>>>>> It helps to vent all the internal noise and chatter.
>>>>>
>>>>> There is no eye contact and so you don’t get that look from others when you
>>>>> say something that’s a little nuts, at least not while you’re saying it.
>>>>>
>>>>> There’s a buffer period where people’s assessment of you is delayed and you
>>>>> can feel normal and healthy for a while, which can be a breath of fresh
>>>>> air.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Very Interesting.
>>>
>>> Well, stupid Mike, of course you're too dumb to notice that
>>> "attracted to Internet forums" describes you as well as your
>>> opponents here?
>> Logical fallacy.
>
> Where, stupid Mike?

In the part of my post you cut out.

Talk about a short attention span! You cut part of my post and then
completely forget about what you cut and think I forgot to include it!
>
>
>> Besides, I am not here for the reasons Odd gives. I come here to watch
>> the crackpots, such as yourself, demonstrate their mental illnesses
>> here.
>
> Neither am I, stupid Mike. I come here to watch
> fanatic idiots, such as yourself, demonstrate their
> mental illnesses here.
> And to remind that GPS clocks keep measuring t'=t,
> just like all serious clocks always did.

Well, keep pretending that 1/9,192,631,770 = 1/9,192,631,774.1 if you
want. As long as it doesn't interfere with keeping those toilets clean.
>

dlzc wrote:

> On Tuesday, October 5, 2021 at 10:01:32 AM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
>> Also I noticed one possible decay of Higgs is to 2 photons. But the
>> Higgs doesn't couple to the photon (otherwise the photon would have
>> mass, correct?) so shouldn't it be unable to decay into 2 photons?
>>
>> What am I missing?
>
> The Higgs boson does no longer couple Standard particles to the Higgs
> field

How did you get the idea that it was ever supposed to?

> (the boson found was too energetic / massive, could not fit the
> theory).

How did you get that idea?

> The Higgs field gives mass to Standard particles directly.

To standard _model_ particles that interact with it, namely the W and Z
bosons.

> Experiment has shown a 1:1 correspondence between the Higgs field and
> spacetime.

I think that is simply word salad. Cite evidence.

PointedEars
--
Q: What happens when electrons lose their energy?
A: They get Bohr'ed.

(from: WolframAlpha)

On Wednesday, October 6, 2021 at 6:23:02 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:

<snip>

> To the point about mental health, a clinical psychologist friend tells me that people who have mental issues
> are attracted to Internet forums for a variety of reasons.
>
> It helps to vent all the internal noise and chatter.
>
> There is no eye contact and so you don’t get that look from others when you say something that’s a little nuts,
> at least not while you’re saying it.
>
> There’s a buffer period where people’s assessment of you is delayed and you can feel normal and healthy for a
> while, which can be a breath of fresh air.

Oh my! Bodkin, why did you ruin the fun of decoding you? Such open and deep confession is very telling, but let
something out for me or any other, please.

What moves you to post about 100 posts a month on OTHER PEOPLE'S threads, but you produce no OP?

What moves you to come here and talk as an erudite on ANY subject. ANY! It can be:

- Quantum physics
- Cosmology and BBT
- Black holes
- Relativity (SR and GR)
- Differential geometry and Riemann
- Tensors, Ricci, Levi-Civita, etc.
- Evolution
- History of PCs
- History of birth and death of workstations
- History of Science (whichever)
- Psychology
- Philosophy
- Achievements and failures in life of many.
- GPS
- Electronic Engineering
- Software
- CERN and particle accelerators
- The scientific method
- Gravitational waves, LIGO
- Radar guns
- String theory
- Cranks, crackpots
- Atomic clocks
- Chemistry
- Photons, nature of mass, virtual photons, quantum fields, Higgs field
- Kepler, Galileo, Descartes, Newton, Hamilton, Lagrange, Laplace, etc.
- Retired engineers (you really have an issue with them. Really.)
- Astronomy
- Theoretical physics
- Applied physics
- Particle physics
- Lorentz: theory and practice
- E = mc2
- t' = t
- Maxwell's equations
- Planck theory of quantum of action
- Cosmic Background Radiation
- Minkowski theory of space-time
- Nuclear physics
- Subnuclear theoretical physics
- etc, etc, etc.

But, barely once a year, you make an OP.

Why do you fear to voice your opinion strong enough to put a topic under discussion?

It has to tell you something. Stop fearing and start doing new, innovative OP threads.

After all, you are the Supreme Thinker. Honor that.

El sábado, 9 de octubre de 2021 a las 20:42:42 UTC-3, Richard Hertz escribió:
> On Wednesday, October 6, 2021 at 6:23:02 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> <snip>
> > To the point about mental health, a clinical psychologist friend tells me that people who have mental issues
> > are attracted to Internet forums for a variety of reasons.
> >
> > It helps to vent all the internal noise and chatter.
> >
> > There is no eye contact and so you don’t get that look from others when you say something that’s a little nuts,
> > at least not while you’re saying it.
> >
> > There’s a buffer period where people’s assessment of you is delayed and you can feel normal and healthy for a
> > while, which can be a breath of fresh air.
> Oh my! Bodkin, why did you ruin the fun of decoding you? Such open and deep confession is very telling, but let
> something out for me or any other, please.
>
> What moves you to post about 100 posts a month on OTHER PEOPLE'S threads, but you produce no OP?
>
> What moves you to come here and talk as an erudite on ANY subject. ANY! It can be:
>

This group was created to give a space for all the crackpots and ignorant people that were infesting several serious physics groups, such as sci.physics.research.
So in this group here, most of the people that post OPs are those wackos (like you). All the knowledgeable people around, just enjoy the nonsense those people post here. Examples of those wackos are people like Seto, Wilson, Androcles, Winn, Valev, Lake, Mitch, Wozniak and the nameshifting troll, among many others.

So it should be clear that all your lengthy posts here just serve, as their only purpose, to amuse us to wonder how a person can derail himself to post such amount of nonsensical stuff.

On Saturday, October 9, 2021 at 9:59:31 PM UTC-3, Paparios wrote:

<snip>

> This group was created to give a space for all the crackpots and ignorant people that were infesting several serious
> physics groups, such as sci.physics.research.
> So in this group here, most of the people that post OPs are those wackos (like you). All the knowledgeable people around,
> just enjoy the nonsense those people post here. Examples of those wackos are people like Seto, Wilson, Androcles, Winn,
> Valev, Lake, Mitch, Wozniak and the nameshifting troll, among many others..
>
> So it should be clear that all your lengthy posts here just serve, as their only purpose, to amuse us to wonder how a person
> can derail himself to post such amount of nonsensical stuff.

Miguel, sos tan conocedor de la física como Sebastián Piñera.

No vengas a hacerte el superado conmigo, Sr. DiffServ. No sos más que un Profesor Asociado de Ing. Eléctrica desde que te
recibiste, 44 años atrás. Que tengas un master y un doctorado en ingeniería eléctrica (Ottawa) no significa gran cosa. Acá hay
como 500 pelotudos que tienen lo mismo en Canadá, USA, Inglaterra, Alemania, España, Italia, Japón, etc.

Incluso conozco un idiota que se hizo una tarjetita con el título Dr. Ingeniero nnnnnn, y no se dá cuenta de que TODOS se le
ríen por detrás, pero el idiota no se da cuenta de lo presuntuoso que es. Encima reclama que lo llamen Doctor nnnnnn. Apuesto
a que vos tenés una tarjetita parecida.

Ojo, que vos sos el mono en la jaula y yo te miro desde afuera. Mono que vé, mono que hace.

Saludos desde Argentina. Las Malvinas son argentinas, no inglesas.

On Saturday, October 9, 2021 at 8:03:42 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:

> Saludos desde Argentina. Las Malvinas son argentinas, no inglesas.

Delusional idiot. The Brits stuck it to you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands

On Sunday, 10 October 2021 at 02:59:31 UTC+2, Paparios wrote:
> El sábado, 9 de octubre de 2021 a las 20:42:42 UTC-3, Richard Hertz escribió:
> > On Wednesday, October 6, 2021 at 6:23:02 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> > > To the point about mental health, a clinical psychologist friend tells me that people who have mental issues
> > > are attracted to Internet forums for a variety of reasons.
> > >
> > > It helps to vent all the internal noise and chatter.
> > >
> > > There is no eye contact and so you don’t get that look from others when you say something that’s a little nuts,
> > > at least not while you’re saying it.
> > >
> > > There’s a buffer period where people’s assessment of you is delayed and you can feel normal and healthy for a
> > > while, which can be a breath of fresh air.
> > Oh my! Bodkin, why did you ruin the fun of decoding you? Such open and deep confession is very telling, but let
> > something out for me or any other, please.
> >
> > What moves you to post about 100 posts a month on OTHER PEOPLE'S threads, but you produce no OP?
> >
> > What moves you to come here and talk as an erudite on ANY subject. ANY! It can be:
> >
> This group was created to give a space for all the crackpots and ignorant people that were infesting several serious physics groups, such as sci.physics.research.
> So in this group here, most of the people that post OPs are those wackos (like you). All the knowledgeable people around, just enjoy the nonsense those people post here. Examples of those wackos are people like Seto, Wilson, Androcles, Winn, Valev, Lake, Mitch, Wozniak and the nameshifting troll, among many others.

In the meantime in the real world, GPS clocks keep measuring t'=t,
just like all serious clocks always did; ignoring wackos like Paparios,
Roberts, JanPB, PointedEars among many others.

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 6, 2021 at 6:23:02 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> To the point about mental health, a clinical psychologist friend tells
>> me that people who have mental issues
>> are attracted to Internet forums for a variety of reasons.
>>
>> It helps to vent all the internal noise and chatter.
>>
>> There is no eye contact and so you don’t get that look from others when
>> you say something that’s a little nuts,
>> at least not while you’re saying it.
>>
>> There’s a buffer period where people’s assessment of you is delayed and
>> you can feel normal and healthy for a
>> while, which can be a breath of fresh air.
>
> Oh my! Bodkin, why did you ruin the fun of decoding you? Such open and
> deep confession is very telling, but let
> something out for me or any other, please.
>
> What moves you to post about 100 posts a month on OTHER PEOPLE'S threads,
> but you produce no OP?
>
> What moves you to come here and talk as an erudite on ANY subject. ANY! It can be:
>
> - Quantum physics
> - Cosmology and BBT
> - Black holes
> - Relativity (SR and GR)
> - Differential geometry and Riemann
> - Tensors, Ricci, Levi-Civita, etc.
> - Evolution
> - History of PCs
> - History of birth and death of workstations
> - History of Science (whichever)
> - Psychology
> - Philosophy
> - Achievements and failures in life of many.
> - GPS
> - Electronic Engineering
> - Software
> - CERN and particle accelerators
> - The scientific method
> - Gravitational waves, LIGO
> - Radar guns
> - String theory
> - Cranks, crackpots
> - Atomic clocks
> - Chemistry
> - Photons, nature of mass, virtual photons, quantum fields, Higgs field
> - Kepler, Galileo, Descartes, Newton, Hamilton, Lagrange, Laplace, etc.
> - Retired engineers (you really have an issue with them. Really.)
> - Astronomy
> - Theoretical physics
> - Applied physics
> - Particle physics
> - Lorentz: theory and practice
> - E = mc2
> - t' = t
> - Maxwell's equations
> - Planck theory of quantum of action
> - Cosmic Background Radiation
> - Minkowski theory of space-time
> - Nuclear physics
> - Subnuclear theoretical physics
> - etc, etc, etc.
>
> But, barely once a year, you make an OP.

Which seems an appropriate pace. In a group like this, what is typically
signified by making an OP? Describe if you will the attitude of OPers.
Hint: most, if not all, are mumbling whackos or retired engineers, no? And
other than your own posts, what is the content you find interesting in
other OPs?

>
> Why do you fear to voice your opinion strong enough to put a topic under discussion?
>
> It has to tell you something. Stop fearing and start doing new, innovative OP threads.
>
> After all, you are the Supreme Thinker. Honor that.
>
>
>

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

Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> wrote:
> El sábado, 9 de octubre de 2021 a las 20:42:42 UTC-3, Richard Hertz escribió:
>> On Wednesday, October 6, 2021 at 6:23:02 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>> To the point about mental health, a clinical psychologist friend tells
>>> me that people who have mental issues
>>> are attracted to Internet forums for a variety of reasons.
>>>
>>> It helps to vent all the internal noise and chatter.
>>>
>>> There is no eye contact and so you don’t get that look from others when
>>> you say something that’s a little nuts,
>>> at least not while you’re saying it.
>>>
>>> There’s a buffer period where people’s assessment of you is delayed and
>>> you can feel normal and healthy for a
>>> while, which can be a breath of fresh air.
>> Oh my! Bodkin, why did you ruin the fun of decoding you? Such open and
>> deep confession is very telling, but let
>> something out for me or any other, please.
>>
>> What moves you to post about 100 posts a month on OTHER PEOPLE'S
>> threads, but you produce no OP?
>>
>> What moves you to come here and talk as an erudite on ANY subject. ANY! It can be:
>>
>
> This group was created to give a space for all the crackpots and ignorant
> people that were infesting several serious physics groups, such as sci.physics.research.
> So in this group here, most of the people that post OPs are those wackos
> (like you). All the knowledgeable people around, just enjoy the nonsense
> those people post here. Examples of those wackos are people like Seto,
> Wilson, Androcles, Winn, Valev, Lake, Mitch, Wozniak and the nameshifting
> troll, among many others.
>
> So it should be clear that all your lengthy posts here just serve, as
> their only purpose, to amuse us to wonder how a person can derail himself
> to post such amount of nonsensical stuff.
>

It’s pretty easy to see the motivations of the OPs here. And then they say,
Come join in on the fun I’m having making a fool of myself!

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

El domingo, 10 de octubre de 2021 a las 0:03:42 UTC-3, Richard Hertz escribió:
> On Saturday, October 9, 2021 at 9:59:31 PM UTC-3, Paparios wrote:
>
> <snip>
> > This group was created to give a space for all the crackpots and ignorant people that were infesting several serious
> > physics groups, such as sci.physics.research.
> > So in this group here, most of the people that post OPs are those wackos (like you). All the knowledgeable people around,
> > just enjoy the nonsense those people post here. Examples of those wackos are people like Seto, Wilson, Androcles, Winn,
> > Valev, Lake, Mitch, Wozniak and the nameshifting troll, among many others.
> >
> > So it should be clear that all your lengthy posts here just serve, as their only purpose, to amuse us to wonder how a person
> > can derail himself to post such amount of nonsensical stuff.
> Miguel, sos tan conocedor de la física como Sebastián Piñera.
>
> No vengas a hacerte el superado conmigo, Sr. DiffServ. No sos más que un Profesor Asociado de Ing. Eléctrica desde que te
> recibiste, 44 años atrás. Que tengas un master y un doctorado en ingeniería eléctrica (Ottawa) no significa gran cosa. Acá hay
> como 500 pelotudos que tienen lo mismo en Canadá, USA, Inglaterra, Alemania, España, Italia, Japón, etc.
>
> Incluso conozco un idiota que se hizo una tarjetita con el título Dr.. Ingeniero nnnnnn, y no se dá cuenta de que TODOS se le
> ríen por detrás, pero el idiota no se da cuenta de lo presuntuoso que es. Encima reclama que lo llamen Doctor nnnnnn. Apuesto
> a que vos tenés una tarjetita parecida.
>
> Ojo, que vos sos el mono en la jaula y yo te miro desde afuera. Mono que vé, mono que hace.
>
> Saludos desde Argentina. Las Malvinas son argentinas, no inglesas.

Real funny and, of course, quite appropiate to the subject. Keep up doing the funny clown.

On Sunday, 10 October 2021 at 16:26:18 UTC+2, Paparios wrote:
> El domingo, 10 de octubre de 2021 a las 0:03:42 UTC-3, Richard Hertz escribió:
> > On Saturday, October 9, 2021 at 9:59:31 PM UTC-3, Paparios wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> > > This group was created to give a space for all the crackpots and ignorant people that were infesting several serious
> > > physics groups, such as sci.physics.research.
> > > So in this group here, most of the people that post OPs are those wackos (like you). All the knowledgeable people around,
> > > just enjoy the nonsense those people post here. Examples of those wackos are people like Seto, Wilson, Androcles, Winn,
> > > Valev, Lake, Mitch, Wozniak and the nameshifting troll, among many others.
> > >
> > > So it should be clear that all your lengthy posts here just serve, as their only purpose, to amuse us to wonder how a person
> > > can derail himself to post such amount of nonsensical stuff.
> > Miguel, sos tan conocedor de la física como Sebastián Piñera.
> >
> > No vengas a hacerte el superado conmigo, Sr. DiffServ. No sos más que un Profesor Asociado de Ing. Eléctrica desde que te
> > recibiste, 44 años atrás. Que tengas un master y un doctorado en ingeniería eléctrica (Ottawa) no significa gran cosa. Acá hay
> > como 500 pelotudos que tienen lo mismo en Canadá, USA, Inglaterra, Alemania, España, Italia, Japón, etc.
> >
> > Incluso conozco un idiota que se hizo una tarjetita con el título Dr. Ingeniero nnnnnn, y no se dá cuenta de que TODOS se le
> > ríen por detrás, pero el idiota no se da cuenta de lo presuntuoso que es. Encima reclama que lo llamen Doctor nnnnnn. Apuesto
> > a que vos tenés una tarjetita parecida.
> >
> > Ojo, que vos sos el mono en la jaula y yo te miro desde afuera. Mono que vé, mono que hace.
> >
> > Saludos desde Argentina. Las Malvinas son argentinas, no inglesas.
> Real funny and, of course, quite appropiate to the subject. Keep up doing the funny clown.

And, of course, in the meantime in the real
world real GPS clocks will keep measuring
t'=t, just like all serious clocks always did.

On Saturday, October 9, 2021 at 10:13:18 AM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> On Thursday, October 7, 2021 at 7:18:59 AM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> > On Thursday, October 7, 2021 at 5:18:10 AM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, 7 October 2021 at 01:02:50 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > > >> On 10/6/2021 5:22 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>> To the point about mental health, a clinical psychologist friend tells me
> > > >>> that people who have mental issues are attracted to Internet forums for a
> > > >>> variety of reasons.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> It helps to vent all the internal noise and chatter.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> There is no eye contact and so you don’t get that look from others when you
> > > >>> say something that’s a little nuts, at least not while you’re saying it.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> There’s a buffer period where people’s assessment of you is delayed and you
> > > >>> can feel normal and healthy for a while, which can be a breath of fresh
> > > >>> air.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >> Very Interesting.
> > > >
> > > > Well, stupid Mike, of course you're too dumb to notice that
> > > > "attracted to Internet forums" describes you as well as your
> > > > opponents here?
> > > >
> > > O greatest logician of modern times, the mentally ill being attracted to
> > > Internet forums does not logically imply that all that are attracted to
> > > Internet forums are mentally ill.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> > That's funny, many people are put off my Internet forae,
> > because they get attacked by random a-noms.
> >
> > In fact it takes a sort of stubborn-ness to weary out an
> > unmoderated forum with its usual pathologies, and,
> > moderated forums are often boring.
> >
> > It's much easier to feel the like minded with no dissent.
> >
> > This though basically is for comment on "sci.physics.relativity".
> >
> > Reputation of course is a critical asset in many people's lives.
> >
> > Also it's often the basis of trust.
> >
> > Or lack thereof....
> >
> > ("... Or lack thereof.")
> >
> > If we might agree the matter then here it's outright -
> > physics is all quite well held up by mathematics,
> > theories in the modern are profound and exquisite,
> > the new renaissance of theory is making way for
> > the super-classical, neatly, quantum mechanics and
> > relativity together, modern theory collected
> > is the matter. "Foundations".
> >
> >
> > Let's agree that "moderated forums, of, only a
> > once-off chop of spew and one-rule deletes,
> > resulting in a feed", are different than "moderated
> > and unmoderated forums, cultivated vote-down".
> >
> > Now, you three men, Maciej, Mike, and the OB,
> > and myself, Ross, or here Ross Finlayson, let's
> > say we all "claim" to understand physics, the comment,
> > to understand physics enough, that it's de rigeur
> > that it's _right_, it's correct, to be both competent
> > and also direct, any comment, on physics.
> >
> > [Here that 'any at least one' is not 'any and all'.]
> >
> > Or not.
> >
> > This is basically that comment, thanks to etiquette,
> > can be correct.
> >
> > Now, this is Rich's thread, constants are constants,
> > and in theory there's only one object that reflects
> > both what is constant and variable, monism, directly,
> > let's agree that "running constants" are for reference,
> > that, NIST CODATA and SI, constants and units, these
> > are as they are and correct under definition, that in
> > the terms, about the potential fields of course for these
> > measured definitions from inside the classical fields
> > and our theories, that parastatistics for string theory,
> > is on its way in, that really most the symmetry-flex,
> > has at least a way to explain to individual people,
> > enough of the mathematics of all the theory, what
> > results a combined fundamental theory, that reflects
> > most all the science of the day.
> >
> >
> >
> > "Reputation, or lack thereof, the basis of trust, or not."
> >
> > If you'd please excuse me most all the reason that
> > I post to usenet is a letter-writing campaign what to
> > have fulfilled a modern rhetoric on foundations.
> >
> > Usually there's _no possible chance of that_ but I
> > was let to put the countable and continuous together
> > and here physics for its part after that.
> It's pretty nuts....
>
> One reason why zero, infinity, and one, are the constants,
> is that in mathematics, having zero, infinity, and one,
> makes for 1/oo = 0 and 1/0 = oo where 0*oo = 1.
>
> Of course, zero is the multiplicative annihilator,
> and, infinity times any positive value isn't finite,
> what results from 1 = 0 * oo.
>
> Now, clearly these are only labels, because 0 the usual
> label is the additive identity and multiplicative annihiliator
> in the usual rings and fields of numbers, and oo doesn 't
> exist among finite rings and fields except here it first defines
> a simple algebra where there's _only in this context_ a 0
> and an infinity oo, that results 0 * oo = 1.
>
> Basically then this zero is an iota or non-zero, here strictly positive.
> And, the infinity is only what makes for that the iota-values, have
> at least one operation, that underdefines or undefines otherwise
> usual operations of the numbers, it makes for why then in all the
> other systems that as soon as admit infinity: it results that the
> particular operation of what results for a "largest finite" and "atom",
> that that many atoms is the entire whole.
>
> That of course is only a simple classical linearity, established defining division.
>
> But, in the sense of also being non-standard or infinitary,
> also it's the classical linear infinitary and continuous. I.e.,
> the "classical continuity" is as of the constant meter of a ray
> of time, and, is infinitely divisible, and, is whole and parts,
> with, constancy in parts.
>
> So, Zeno's paradoxes and so on are built right down into defining
> intuitively and also semi-formally an infinity in numbers, and that so
> everywhere in equations according to what with these labels and
> any others that their operations are defined (resp. not defined or
> undefined, underdefined).
>
> Then, about countability, which I studied quite some time, is that
> this also is the only form or model of a "continuous domain", that,
> also, is "countable". We know in the space of functions or the Cartesian,
> that that Complete Ordered Field which can also be identified with
> Cantor space 2^w or the powerset of integers, the real numbers are
> uncountable with respect to all the Cartesian functions, here then
> that as you'll notice, above in the underdefined is defined a non-Cartesian
> function, so, unique among all the functions infinite integers to elements
> of a continuous domain [0,1] with all what completeness implies, a
> continuous domain, then this simplest classical line-drawing in time
> has a solid foundation then for definitions of continuity in mathematics.
>
> Which I found and read and put through the establishment of modern
> mathematics and set theory in foundations, into an extra-ordinary theory
> of ubiquitous ordinals including all the uncountable and also having neat
> simple resolutions of all the logical paradoxes, what so result "A Theory".

But, isn't, in a sense, the crank besides believing ... also dis-believing, ...?

Then, you might wonder, what does in the theory it mean to make the continuity,
with this simple infinity in front, then all of modern mathematics and usually the
common delta-epsilonics which results for triangle inequality all what's useful in
physics, what is real analysis, calculus, and so on.

]

n the meantime in the real world, GPS clocks keep measuring t'=t,
just like all serious clocks always did; ignoring wackos like Paparios,
Roberts, JanPB, PointedEars among many others.

This statement is patently incorrect since time cannot be measured using a GPS. Gps is based on the intensity difference of three satellite radio signals similar to FCC pirate radio triangularization capture.

On Sunday, 10 October 2021 at 18:28:34 UTC+2, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:

>
>
> So, when I hear about constants or constancy, they're defined terms in theories.
>
> And mathematics works out great to explain everything fundamentally for science.

Speaking of mathematics, it's always good to remind
that your idiot guru had to announce its oldest, very
successful and important part false - as it didn't
want to cooperate with his madness.

On Sunday, October 10, 2021 at 9:52:12 AM UTC-7, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, 10 October 2021 at 18:28:34 UTC+2, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > So, when I hear about constants or constancy, they're defined terms in theories.
> >
> > And mathematics works out great to explain everything fundamentally for science.
> Speaking of mathematics, it's always good to remind
> that your idiot guru had to announce its oldest, very
> successful and important part false - as it didn't
> want to cooperate with his madness.

I don't know what you're talking about.

Unless maybe it's "non-Euclidean", about how physics has to
model continuous deformations in the Euclidean including what
make the higher-order or resultingly "non-Euclidean", while still
having for Minkowski that has 3+1 is the same as the Euclidean 4.

That the higher-order to non-linear establishes or results regime
of surfaces or models of transport, ..., about the linear and Euclidean.

There's a geometry before Euclid's of points and spaces vis-a-vis
points and lines: of course that a plane is parallel lines, ....

High order space dimensions as a realm for thrust makes a simple model.

Though, it's expected that "the entire mathematical model" also contains
throughout "the physical interpretation is also established throughout,
as with respect to branches in the complex or negative for example,
and their physical interpretations".

Or, "the three space dimensions" is just about all the modeled space
dimensions, where their infinities and infinitesimals about rotations
fit in one hologram dimension, which is why there are three space dimensions
as a mostly simple "conservation of numbers".

Which is mostly usual for Minkowski 3+1 and for a ray of time.

The time-like-space-like-light-like, in dimensional analysis, is
mostly after reflexions and rotations for Elie Cartan.
(As a model of the moments....)

On Sunday, October 10, 2021 at 11:26:18 AM UTC-3, Paparios wrote:
> El domingo, 10 de octubre de 2021 a las 0:03:42 UTC-3, Richard Hertz escribió:
> > On Saturday, October 9, 2021 at 9:59:31 PM UTC-3, Paparios wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> > > This group was created to give a space for all the crackpots and ignorant people that were infesting several serious
> > > physics groups, such as sci.physics.research.
> > > So in this group here, most of the people that post OPs are those wackos (like you). All the knowledgeable people around,
> > > just enjoy the nonsense those people post here. Examples of those wackos are people like Seto, Wilson, Androcles, Winn,
> > > Valev, Lake, Mitch, Wozniak and the nameshifting troll, among many others.
> > >
> > > So it should be clear that all your lengthy posts here just serve, as their only purpose, to amuse us to wonder how a person
> > > can derail himself to post such amount of nonsensical stuff.
> > Miguel, sos tan conocedor de la física como Sebastián Piñera.
> >
> > No vengas a hacerte el superado conmigo, Sr. DiffServ. No sos más que un Profesor Asociado de Ing. Eléctrica desde que te
> > recibiste, 44 años atrás. Que tengas un master y un doctorado en ingeniería eléctrica (Ottawa) no significa gran cosa. Acá hay
> > como 500 pelotudos que tienen lo mismo en Canadá, USA, Inglaterra, Alemania, España, Italia, Japón, etc.
> >
> > Incluso conozco un idiota que se hizo una tarjetita con el título Dr. Ingeniero nnnnnn, y no se dá cuenta de que TODOS se le
> > ríen por detrás, pero el idiota no se da cuenta de lo presuntuoso que es. Encima reclama que lo llamen Doctor nnnnnn. Apuesto
> > a que vos tenés una tarjetita parecida.
> >
> > Ojo, que vos sos el mono en la jaula y yo te miro desde afuera. Mono que vé, mono que hace.
> >
> > Saludos desde Argentina. Las Malvinas son argentinas, no inglesas.

> Real funny and, of course, quite appropiate to the subject. Keep up doing the funny clown.

Muy apropiado.

> > > This group was created to give a space for all the crackpots and ignorant people that were infesting several serious
> > > physics groups, such as sci.physics.research. .................... All the knowledgeable people around,
> > > just enjoy the nonsense those people post here. ..................................... So it should be clear that all your lengthy posts
> > > here just serve, as their only purpose, to amuse US ..............................

Te das cuenta de lo idiota que sonás, siendo solamente un ingeniero?

Porqué te la das de físico, si lo único que hiciste en tu vida fue enseñar ingeniería y dirigir algunos proyectitos de QoS?

Aflojá con pretender lo que no sos, solo porque leíste algunos libros/artículos de física en tu vida.

Lo de ingeniero no te lo sacás más de encima. Dejá de juzgar a la gente que postea aquí, idiota.

Ya he visto tu actitud en años aquí, y lo que te salva es que nadie sabe quien sos en realidad.

Acá agarramos a los forros como vos, los emplumamos y los mandamos a la calle, sea en el trabajo ó la universidad.

Voy a leer tu historial para ver los temas en los que opinaste como un sabelotodo, y te voy a desenmascarar como un farsante.

Arrogante clasista de mierda!

On Sunday, October 10, 2021 at 10:20:59 AM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> On Sunday, October 10, 2021 at 9:52:12 AM UTC-7, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Sunday, 10 October 2021 at 18:28:34 UTC+2, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > So, when I hear about constants or constancy, they're defined terms in theories.
> > >
> > > And mathematics works out great to explain everything fundamentally for science.
> > Speaking of mathematics, it's always good to remind
> > that your idiot guru had to announce its oldest, very
> > successful and important part false - as it didn't
> > want to cooperate with his madness.
> I don't know what you're talking about.
>
> Unless maybe it's "non-Euclidean", about how physics has to
> model continuous deformations in the Euclidean including what
> make the higher-order or resultingly "non-Euclidean", while still
> having for Minkowski that has 3+1 is the same as the Euclidean 4.
>
> That the higher-order to non-linear establishes or results regime
> of surfaces or models of transport, ..., about the linear and Euclidean.
>
> There's a geometry before Euclid's of points and spaces vis-a-vis
> points and lines: of course that a plane is parallel lines, ....
>
> High order space dimensions as a realm for thrust makes a simple model.
>
> Though, it's expected that "the entire mathematical model" also contains
> throughout "the physical interpretation is also established throughout,
> as with respect to branches in the complex or negative for example,
> and their physical interpretations".
>
> Or, "the three space dimensions" is just about all the modeled space
> dimensions, where their infinities and infinitesimals about rotations
> fit in one hologram dimension, which is why there are three space dimensions
> as a mostly simple "conservation of numbers".
>
> Which is mostly usual for Minkowski 3+1 and for a ray of time.
>
>
> The time-like-space-like-light-like, in dimensional analysis, is
> mostly after reflexions and rotations for Elie Cartan.
> (As a model of the moments....)

You should understand it's with respect to co-ordinates this "co-ordinate free".