El domingo, 10 de octubre de 2021 a las 14:22:54 UTC-3, Richard Hertz escribió:
> On Sunday, October 10, 2021 at 11:26:18 AM UTC-3, Paparios wrote:

> > > 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!

It is clear that this character is argentinian (probably from nazi origin). It is amazing how he insults people who correct his multiple nonsensical posts.

Probably the guy is pissed off with one more of the corrupt argentinian goverments of the last 50 years, which have made his country suffer while the rich take out all the money out of Argentina.

carl eto wrote:

> 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.

Please learn to post. The statement above was (which I recognize easily)
written by someone else in another subthread. Reply in the subthread, and
use quotation prefixes (as you can see here) to quote the minimum of what
you are replying to.
> 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.

Not at all. GPS (there is only one, _the_ GPS) *is* based on timekeeping,
and comparing time differences, NOT intensity differences, to obtain the
distance between satellite and receiver. The used method of geopositioning
is _trilateration_, NOT triangulation.

PointedEars
--
Q: What did the nuclear physicist post on the laboratory door
when he went camping?
A: 'Gone fission'.
(from: WolframAlpha)

Paparios wrote:

> This group was created to give a space for all the crackpots and ignorant
> people that were infesting several serious physics groups,

How did you get that idea?

PointedEars
--
Q: What did the nuclear physicist post on the laboratory door
when he went camping?
A: 'Gone fission'.
(from: WolframAlpha)

On Sunday, 10 October 2021 at 19:20:59 UTC+2, 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.

As usual, you know very little. No surprise.

On Sunday, 10 October 2021 at 20:39:38 UTC+2, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Paparios wrote:
>
> > This group was created to give a space for all the crackpots and ignorant
> > people that were infesting several serious physics groups,
> How did you get that idea?

Asking a physicist how he gets his ideas?
Fabricating, what else?

On 10/10/2021 2:39 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Paparios wrote:
>
>> This group was created to give a space for all the crackpots and ignorant
>> people that were infesting several serious physics groups,
>
> How did you get that idea?
>

It's true. At the time (around 1995 I think) sci.physics was still
relatively useful other than being overrun by anti-relativity cranks.
s.p.r was and proposed for relativity discussion, but the real reason
was to get the largest noise contributor out.

On Sunday, October 10, 2021 at 3:32:48 PM UTC-3, Paparios wrote:

<snip>

> It is clear that this character is argentinian (probably from nazi origin). It is amazing how he insults people who correct his multiple nonsensical posts.
>
> Probably the guy is pissed off with one more of the corrupt argentinian goverments of the last 50 years, which have made his country suffer while the rich take out all the money out of Argentina.

https://www.elperiodico.com/es/internacional/20181004/incautados18-millones-dolares-herencia-augusto-pinochet-7069837

The Chilean Justice seized 17.8 million dollars from the inheritance of the dictator Augusto Pinochet, after the Seventh Civil Court of Santiago granted the request of the State Defense Council (CDE), to retain almost all of the inherited assets, as well as a prohibition of entering into contracts linked to them.

The millionaire inheritance of the former dictator Augusto Pinochet, had been received by his widow, Lucía Hirart and his children and grandchildren, but within the framework of the "Riggs case", which investigated the embezzlement of public funds during his administration, they reached the decision of the judge to seize these amounts.

https://www.elmostrador.cl/noticias/opinion/2021/08/26/corrupcion-en-chile-una-realidad-ante-la-que-necesitamos-penas-ejemplificadoras/

Corruption in Chile: a reality in the face of which we need exemplary penalties

Based on these facts, there are several concerns that we must address, since it is not just another case of corruption, but rather mechanisms that are already known and used, which continue to function without any real control to prevent them from happening. Already in 2015 we learned about the fraud of the Army and in 2016 that of the Carabineros, both investigated for the appropriation of reserved expenses, and in 2021 we see the same act again, this time in the PDI.

https://www.lavanguardia.com/hemeroteca/20130911/54380173263/golpe-militar-chile-salvador-allende-augusto-pinochet-dictaduras-latinoamerica.html

45 YEARS AGO - CHILEAN 9/11

The coup led by General Pinochet ended the "Chilean road to socialism." The bombing of the Palacio de la Moneda, where
President Salvador Allende was, and his decision to die rather than hand over command to the coup plotters, became a
symbol of the recent history of Chile.

The business of privatization

It is possibly the largest case of corruption during the military dictatorship. As a way to remedy the economic crisis that Chile had reached after the same coup in 1973, a process of reduction of State services began, privatizing them to lower their maintenance costs. However, the same ones in charge of supervising the sales and values ​​of the different organizations were in turn the buyers. Thus, politicians and businessmen became rich buying large service companies at undervalued prices, even without having enough money to do so at the time, but doing so through loans provided by banks.20 24

One of the beneficiaries of these privatizations was Pinochet's son-in-law, Julio Ponce Lerou, who became a millionaire from a public official in a few years, being in the 2010s a world leader in the lithium market.

---------------------------

You better shut the fuck up, when talking about corrupt governments.

On Sunday, October 10, 2021 at 12:08:10 PM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 10/10/2021 2:39 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> > Paparios wrote:
> >
> >> This group was created to give a space for all the crackpots and ignorant
> >> people that were infesting several serious physics groups,
> >
> > How did you get that idea?
> >
> It's true. At the time (around 1995 I think) sci.physics was still
> relatively useful other than being overrun by anti-relativity cranks.
> s.p.r was and proposed for relativity discussion, but the real reason
> was to get the largest noise contributor out.

I posted on sci.physics.foundations then it shut down.

I posted on sci.math.moderated then it shut down.

.....

"Not at all. GPS (there is only one, _the_ GPS) *is* based on timekeeping,
and comparing time differences, NOT intensity differences,

This is patently incorrect since electrons of the GPS are propagating at the maximum velocity of 10^6 m/s cannot be used to measure a time difference of an radio signals that are propagating at the velocity of light. Have you ever heard of a measurement uncertainty? Example, you cannot see an electron of a atom using an optical microscope.

On 10/10/21 1:39 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Paparios wrote:
>> This group was created to give a space for all the crackpots and ignorant
>> people that were infesting several serious physics groups,
>
> How did you get that idea?

It's well known, and supported by the USENET discussions leading to the
creation of sci.physics.relativity, back in the 1990s.

Tom Roberts

El lunes, 11 de octubre de 2021 a las 9:06:33 UTC-3, tjrob137 escribió:
> On 10/10/21 1:39 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> > Paparios wrote:
> >> This group was created to give a space for all the crackpots and ignorant
> >> people that were infesting several serious physics groups,
> >
> > How did you get that idea?
> It's well known, and supported by the USENET discussions leading to the
> creation of sci.physics.relativity, back in the 1990s.
>
> Tom Roberts

Yes, I have been in this group for more than 20 years. In all that period there has been only one serious (and very long) debate, which resulted in some ISI publications, regarding the "speed of gravity". Tom, Chris Hillman, Steve Carlip and Tom Van Flandern (who proposed that gravity propagates much faster than the speed of light).

Serious physics topics are treated in moderate groups, such as physics.research.

If anyone thinks this is a place to learn relativity, it has a serious problem of sight.

On Monday, 11 October 2021 at 15:39:49 UTC+2, Paparios wrote:
> El lunes, 11 de octubre de 2021 a las 9:06:33 UTC-3, tjrob137 escribió:
> > On 10/10/21 1:39 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> > > Paparios wrote:
> > >> This group was created to give a space for all the crackpots and ignorant
> > >> people that were infesting several serious physics groups,
> > >
> > > How did you get that idea?
> > It's well known, and supported by the USENET discussions leading to the
> > creation of sci.physics.relativity, back in the 1990s.
> >
> > Tom Roberts
> Yes, I have been in this group for more than 20 years. In all that period

the clocks of GPS were measuring t'=t, just like
all serious clocks always did.

On Monday, October 11, 2021 at 6:39:49 AM UTC-7, Paparios wrote:
> El lunes, 11 de octubre de 2021 a las 9:06:33 UTC-3, tjrob137 escribió:
> > On 10/10/21 1:39 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> > > Paparios wrote:
> > >> This group was created to give a space for all the crackpots and ignorant
> > >> people that were infesting several serious physics groups,
> > >
> > > How did you get that idea?
> > It's well known, and supported by the USENET discussions leading to the
> > creation of sci.physics.relativity, back in the 1990s.
> >
> > Tom Roberts
> Yes, I have been in this group for more than 20 years. In all that period there has been only one serious (and very long) debate, which resulted in some ISI publications, regarding the "speed of gravity". Tom, Chris Hillman, Steve Carlip and Tom Van Flandern (who proposed that gravity propagates much faster than the speed of light).
>
> Serious physics topics are treated in moderate groups, such as physics.research.
>
> If anyone thinks this is a place to learn relativity, it has a serious problem of sight.

It seems like learning relativity besides usual instruction is
much a matter of reading enough science to understand the
definitions and resulting derivations, with respect to not only
the theories of GR and SR but also particle-physics/quantum-mechanics.

Of course one would be expected to be familiar with classical
mechanics or the Newtonian, equations of motion and usual
notions of states of matter, i.e. with the usual background of
chemistry and mechanics then electromagnetism. Then, there's
basically the path to <bra|ket>, and bracket and c, and the notion
of the tensor formalisms and various conventions what result
(or the summation conventions).

It's kind of like Pertti Louenesto once put it "sci.math is not a
place to learn", but, at some point one would expect any actual
advances, to arrive at the common knowledge, where one could
expect "even in sci.physics such modern advances are de rigeur".

Then, for what those are, or about the crisis in physics between
functional freedom and, Pauli, that relativity and QM cross about
120 orders of magnitude off each other, is for what approaches
to suffice "this is a theory and a physics, too", about one theory
altogether.

I have more than a hundred books in physics so reading them has
been a path to understanding the scope of derivation, then to finish
I'd compliment the Wikipedia in its state, which has arrived in about
the same time, to have a more-than-less wonderful front page to knowledge.

On Monday, 11 October 2021 at 16:51:02 UTC+2, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> On Monday, October 11, 2021 at 6:39:49 AM UTC-7, Paparios wrote:
> > El lunes, 11 de octubre de 2021 a las 9:06:33 UTC-3, tjrob137 escribió:
> > > On 10/10/21 1:39 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> > > > Paparios wrote:
> > > >> This group was created to give a space for all the crackpots and ignorant
> > > >> people that were infesting several serious physics groups,
> > > >
> > > > How did you get that idea?
> > > It's well known, and supported by the USENET discussions leading to the
> > > creation of sci.physics.relativity, back in the 1990s.
> > >
> > > Tom Roberts
> > Yes, I have been in this group for more than 20 years. In all that period there has been only one serious (and very long) debate, which resulted in some ISI publications, regarding the "speed of gravity". Tom, Chris Hillman, Steve Carlip and Tom Van Flandern (who proposed that gravity propagates much faster than the speed of light).
> >
> > Serious physics topics are treated in moderate groups, such as physics.research.
> >
> > If anyone thinks this is a place to learn relativity, it has a serious problem of sight.
> It seems like learning relativity besides usual instruction is
> much a matter of reading enough science to understand the
> definitions and resulting derivations

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

Paparios wrote:

>> Tom Roberts
>
> Yes, I have been in this group for more than 20 years. In all that
> period there has been only one serious (and very long) debate, which
> resulted in some ISI publications, regarding the "speed of gravity".
> Tom, Chris Hillman, Steve Carlip and Tom Van Flandern (who proposed that
> gravity propagates much faster than the speed of light).

no shit, and you didn't purposed anything?? And I was about to be cited
in relativity papers, without intending it.

Dear tjrob137:

On Saturday, October 9, 2021 at 3:10:57 PM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote:
> 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.

I attended a lecture by one of the researchers, and that is what a large audience was told. You may have other knowledge this LHC researcher is unaware of.

> > The Higgs field gives mass to Standard particles directly.

> Well DUH! That's what it does.
....
> > 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).

That was the clearest statement yet. Sorry, but that is what was stated.

David A. Smith

Dear Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn:

On Saturday, October 9, 2021 at 3:43:47 PM UTC-7, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> dlzc wrote:
....
> > 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?

Back when it was originally formulated, and called the "God particle".

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

> How did you get that idea?

Experimental result.

> > The Higgs field gives mass to Standard particles directly.

> [Two] 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.

I cannot recall the researcher's name, that made a presentation at ASU, about 2019, female. These were what she had said.

David A. Smith

On Monday, October 11, 2021 at 2:50:18 PM UTC-3, Ilya Boon wrote:

<snip>

> Paparios wrote:
>
> >> Tom Roberts
> >
> > Yes, I have been in this group for more than 20 years. In all that period there has been only one serious (and very long) debate, which
> > resulted in some ISI publications, regarding the "speed of gravity".
> > Tom, Chris Hillman, Steve Carlip and Tom Van Flandern (who proposed that gravity propagates much faster than the speed of light).

> no shit, and you didn't purposed anything?? And I was about to be cited in relativity papers, without intending it.

Purpose fulfilled years ago.

http://repositorio.conicyt.cl/bitstream/handle/10533/182004/1060695-IF.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

After such achievement on IP networks, Paparios can write as an EE, erudite in relativity and atomic clocks, like in here:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You continue to put lies, which come from your very sick mind.

The physical process a Cesium atomic clock uses is the following:

"The second, symbol s, is the SI unit of time. It is defined by taking the fixed numerical value of the caesium frequency ∆νCs, the unperturbed ground-state hyperfine transition frequency of the caesium 133 atom, to be 9192631770 when expressed in the unit Hz, which is equal to s−1."

The atomic clock uses a feedback system, where the frequency of an oscillator istuned to the frequency where the "unperturbed ground-state hyperfine transition frequency" is maximized. If the oscillator is not at precisely 9192631770 Hz, those transitions do not occur.

Inside the GPS satellite a Cesium atomic clock uses the same physical process (as per Einstein first principle, "The laws by which the states of physical systems undergo change are not affected, whether these changes of state be referred to the one or the other of two systems of co-ordinates in uniform translatory motion" dictates.

So the GPS atomic clock is running precisely at 9192631770 Hz, the same frequency a similar clock runs on the ground.

What the GPS electronics do is to modify the frequency used to transmit the GPS signal to the ground, by using counters. The frequency rate of those signals is 10.2299999954326 MHz (much lower frequency than the 9.192631770 GHz of the clock). See section 3.3.1.1 Frequency Plan of the GPS-200J document for details.

Stop telling lies and being a crackpot!!!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

See? He witnessed when they did that, in person. That's why he makes such assertions.
Also, can tell if your mind is sick or not.

Einstein is structurally unifying an electromagnetic field with a mass (m) using the inertial mass Eo/c2 (equ 52) since the formation of a light wave requires a medium (ether) composed of matter yet the ether does not physically exist (vacuum) and Einstein describes and electromagnetic ether but the inertial mass (m = Eo/c2) is massless since Eo represents the energy of an electromagnetic photon since experimentally, a 3 W laser beam does not displace a gold foil which invalids Einstein inertial mass.

carl eto wrote:

> "Not at all. GPS (there is only one, _the_ GPS) *is* based on timekeeping,
> and comparing time differences, NOT intensity differences,

Once again: Learn to post.

[> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: ]
>> Not at all. GPS (there is only one, _the_ GPS) *is* based on timekeeping,
>> and comparing time differences, NOT intensity differences,
>
> This is patently incorrect since electrons of the GPS are propagating at
> the maximum velocity of 10^6 m/s cannot be used to measure a time
> difference of an radio signals that are propagating at the velocity of
> light.

GPS is NOT based on the propagation of electrons, and the maximum _speed_
(NOT: velocity) of electrons is NOT 10⁶ m/s.

> Have you ever heard of a measurement uncertainty? Example, you
> cannot see an electron of a atom using an optical microscope.

Non sequitur.

PointedEars
--
“Nature uses only the longest threads to weave her patterns
so that each small piece of her fabric reveals the organization
of the entire tapestry.”
—Richard Feynman, theoretical physicist, “Messenger Lecture” 1 (1964)

Paparios wrote:

> If anyone thinks this is a place to learn relativity, it has a serious
> problem of sight.

Apparently “it” rather has a serious problem of not knowing English very
well in the first place. “It” also appears to have an identity crisis :->

FWIW, I have learned concepts of relativity and related concepts from e.g.
Tom Roberts and Paul B. Andersen here.

PointedEars
--
«Nec fasces, nec opes, sola artis sceptra perennant.»
(“Neither high office nor power, only the scepters of science survive.”)

—Tycho Brahe, astronomer (1546-1601): inscription at Hven

Tom Roberts wrote:

> On 10/10/21 1:39 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> Paparios wrote:
>>> This group was created to give a space for all the crackpots and
>>> ignorant people that were infesting several serious physics groups,
>> How did you get that idea?
>
> It's well known, and supported by the USENET discussions leading to the
> creation of sci.physics.relativity, back in the 1990s.

Interesting; I will check that.

Anyhow, regardless of the original intention for its creation, I for one do
not care what it was, and I am not willing to cede this newsgroup to “all
the crackpots and ignorant people”.

PointedEars
--
Q: How many theoretical physicists specializing in general relativity
does it take to change a light bulb?
A: Two: one to hold the bulb and one to rotate the universe.
(from: WolframAlpha)

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> wrote:
> Tom Roberts wrote:
>
>> On 10/10/21 1:39 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>> Paparios wrote:
>>>> This group was created to give a space for all the crackpots and
>>>> ignorant people that were infesting several serious physics groups,
>>> How did you get that idea?
>>
>> It's well known, and supported by the USENET discussions leading to the
>> creation of sci.physics.relativity, back in the 1990s.
>
> Interesting; I will check that.
>
> Anyhow, regardless of the original intention for its creation, I for one do
> not care what it was, and I am not willing to cede this newsgroup to “all
> the crackpots and ignorant people”.
>
>
> PointedEars

Nor should you have to. But also understand that the noise level here is
very, very high.

There are some people, of course, that are attracted to noise because they
want to contribute to it.

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

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

>> It's well known, and supported by the USENET discussions leading to the
>> creation of sci.physics.relativity, back in the 1990s.
>
> Interesting; I will check that.
> Anyhow, regardless of the original intention for its creation, I for one
> do not care what it was, and I am not willing to cede this newsgroup to
> “all the crackpots and ignorant people”.

then piss off, fucking stupid. Not even now you know what physics is all
about. What an impertinent *homepage_designer*.

On Monday, October 11, 2021 at 1:33:31 PM UTC-7, carl eto wrote:
> Einstein is structurally unifying an electromagnetic field with a mass (m) using the inertial mass Eo/c2 (equ 52) since the formation of a light wave requires a medium (ether) composed of matter yet the ether does not physically exist (vacuum) and Einstein describes and electromagnetic ether but the inertial mass (m = Eo/c2) is massless since Eo represents the energy of an electromagnetic photon since experimentally, a 3 W laser beam does not displace a gold foil which invalids Einstein inertial mass.

How you say!

Carl Seto is no Ben Ito.