A Fairy Tail, called "Modern Cosmology" is based on General Relativity
derivations called:

- Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker metric
- Friedmann equations
- Cosmological equations of state

ONLY VALID to describe the observable universe for Absolute Time T
after T = 10E−32 seconds (inflationary epoch) up to present and future.

Between Absolute Time T = 0 (when the DOT exploded) and
T = 10E−36 seconds, when Absolute Space (centered at X,Y,Z = 0,0,0)
expanded from a fucking DOT to an sphere with radius < 1cm, GR is not
valid and offer no explanations.

And when, all of the sudden and between Absolute Time T = 10E−36 sec.
to Time T = 10E−32 sec, when the "universe INFLATED" about 10E+20
times, to reach a radius of about 100,000 ly (with our ADOPTED value
for c), what happened CAN'T BE EXPLAINED by ANY theory. It's just
ACCEPTED by the entire community of cosmologists (about 14,000
retarded out there, draining money from your pocket one way or another).

So, GR has applicability since Absolute Time T > 10E−32 sec, but there
is another catch plus an unsolved problem:

1) Absolute Time T ceases to exist by CONSENSUS, as well as Absolute
SPACE, centered at X,Y,Z = 0,0,0.

Relative spacetime (x,y,z,t) as a four dimensional unit replaces the
separate absolute T and absolute X,Y,Z.

Catch: As it "works" for the next 4 billion years, and then it doesn't, YOU
have to accept that a curious substance called "Dark Matter" has to be
included, to account for the 95% of the missing matter-energy that GR
DEMANDS to exist, in order to function (more LESS than more).

2) Unsolved problem: Cosmologist have realized that another phenomena
started to happen 4 or 5 billion years ago (timing from T=0), which is that
the expansion is ACCELERATING (or it seems so). In order to adequate the
sacred GR formulae and "aggiornamentos" (updates) to still be useful,
ANTIGRAVITY forces A.K.A. "Dark Energy" has to be introduced in the
ΛCDM model to fit the fudged computations one more time. In this case,
antigravitational energy pull out one galaxy from each other, causing the
acceleration of the expansion.

But, no matter what's is going on with cosmology and their schizo world,
Einstein's GR is ALWAYS PROVEN RIGHT.

It doesn't matter that Absolute Time had an start T=0 almost 14 billion
years ago and that Absolute Space could be traced to X,Y,Z = 0,0,0.

Now, it only applies relative spacetime and ZILLIONS of possible origins.
The trace to Absolute Time, Space and Motion when T < 1 second is lost.

And don't dare to ask what happened when T < 0 seconds. This is heresy.

Also, don't try to put God into the picture or question the BBT. It's heresy too.

So, questioning God is a scientific heresy in the church of relativism (the
cult). But questioning science under God is not. Heresy or controlled
dementia?

Then you wonder why there is so much perversion and degeneracy in this world, starting about 30 years ago. Maybe we should start with SCIENCE
as a true source of most evils on this world. The entire science, I mean, and
their partners in crime: Mainstream Media and derivates for not-laymen.

I almost forgot this link. Enjoy!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambda-CDM_model

On Thursday, October 14, 2021 at 3:48:55 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz mused:
>
> Then you wonder why there is so much perversion and degeneracy in Richard Hertz.

On Thursday, October 14, 2021 at 8:17:29 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:

> On Thursday, October 14, 2021 at 3:48:55 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz mused:
> >
> > Then you wonder why there is so much perversion and degeneracy in Richard Hertz.

Fucking reptilian lifeform, perversion and degeneracy is embedded into your beloved General Relativity. It took me a while but
then, the truth stroke me like a lightning bolt. In the words of the physicist J.A. Wheeler:

------ "Matter tell space how to bent and space tell matter how to move". ------

I fully understood that GR is a metaphor for sexual deviants, as well as the entire background based on Riemann, Ricci, Minkowski,
and all the rest of partners that fabricated the theory using analogies to represent sexual acts. The saying is correctly translated
in this way:

-- "Matter tell space how to bent over, and space tell matter how to move gently"--- It's disguised within GR, and I never noticed.

But, there is more:

-- "Space tell time to stick together and to time it, as if they were one entity. Time me, please, while matter moves gently".

And even more:

-- "Space tell matter to behave smoothly or it will create shock waves of pain. Meanwhile, time tell space not to worry, as
there are limits (c)". ----

See? GR is a "ménage à trois" between space, time and matter!

Explained in this way, even your "one month old" egg born descendants can understand GR, fucking giant lizard.

I have just one single doubt: How many eggs do you put and incubate in a given period of breeding time, reptilian lifeform?

On Thursday, October 14, 2021 at 7:41:16 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz went balllistic:

> > On Thursday, October 14, 2021 at 3:48:55 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz mused:
> > >
> > > Then you wonder why there is so much perversion and degeneracy in Richard Hertz.

> I fully understood that GR is a metaphor for sexual deviants, as well as the entire background based on Riemann, Ricci, Minkowski,
> and all the rest of partners that fabricated the theory using analogies to represent sexual acts. The saying is correctly translated

Nurse,

Please restrain patient Richard Hertz, he has gone completely wacko.

This is how delusional indoctrinated journalists, physicists and cosmologists deal with the FAILURE of GR, as I wrote at the OP.

Article: Probing the cosmos for flaws in Einstein's general relativity
By Tom Siegfried | Published: Thursday, January 9, 2020

https://astronomy.com/news/2020/01/probing-the-cosmos-for-flaws-in-einsteins-general-relativity

----------------------------------------------------------------- Excerpts -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"After Einstein proposed his new theory, it was mostly ignored for a few decades.

But in the last half of the 20th century, general relativity became the theory of the universe. Its equations DESCRIBE the expansion
of the cosmos from its initial high-density, hot big-bang beginning to its CURRENT RAPIDLY ACCELERATING EXPANSION. And today
general relativity HAS EARNED increasing popular NOTORIETY as scientists have verified its more exotic PREDICTIONS, including black
holes and the vibrations in space known as gravitational waves.

But general relativity’s STRING OF SUCCESSES may not be endless."
...........
"It’s true that the theory (along with the theory for nature’s three other fundamental forces) describes the observable universe quite well.
That description includes massive amounts of invisible mass, known as dark matter, along with a peculiar repulsive force, called dark
energy, perfusing all of space.

But the dark stuff’s existence is deduced from the ASSUMPTION THAT GENERAL RELATIVITY IS CORRECT."
..........................
"In other words, it’s conceivable that there is no dark stuff. If that’s the case, apparent evidence for its existence might actually be
a sign that the true cosmic theory of gravity differs from Einstein’s. If so, the current picture of the cosmos would have to be
drastically redrawn."
.......................
Einstein’s key to solving the Mercury mystery was conceiving gravity as an effect of the geometry of space (or technically, space-time,
since his earlier work had shown space and time to be inseparable).
.....................
Gravity as geometry led to the famous prediction verified in the 1919 eclipse. Einstein pointed out that the curvature of space-time near
the Sun would cause light from distant stars to bend when passing nearby, changing the stars’ apparent positions as seen from Earth.
...................
In the century since, Einstein’s gravity has passed many additional tests, such as the spectacular detection of gravitational waves,
reported in 2016.
...................
At the center of a black hole, for instance, the theory’s equations no longer make sense, because they imply that matter density would
become infinite.
..................
If general relativity ever fails, multiple competing gravity theories proposed in recent decades would be waiting in the wings. Most of
them boil down to adding a new force to nature’s repertoire of gravity, electromagnetism, and the strong and weak nuclear forces.
..................
Some theorists have proposed instead that an additional source of spacetime warping — an extra layer of geometry — might be a more
fruitful approach. Still other proposals, such as superstring theory, could modify general relativity by allowing more dimensions of space
than the three commonly encountered. With some mathematical manipulations, all these approaches amount to adding a fifth force.
..................
Further such tests, and more refined observations of other cosmological features (such as the remnant microwave background radiation
generated when the universe was young), might still someday find flaws in general relativity. If so, some Einstein fans may be
disappointed, but most physicists won’t be. They’d relish the excitement of opening a new chapter in the history of physics.
..................
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ End of excerpts ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TO SAY IN WITH DIFFERENT WORDING: We, the fucking relativists, are in despair because NOTHING WORKS with GR. But we are
"die-hard motherfuckers and we invested too much money, time and too many retarded pawns to get here, so we ARE NOT GOING
TO CONCEDE DEFEAT until we wasted and dried every resource available to us. And, as we ARE THE TRUTH, whatever we cook up
to replace GR, we'll name it GR 2.0 (because the credo "Einstein proven right once again" has to be maintained at any cost).

After all, our pagan god spent 35 years searching for an unified theory, so whatever comes out, we'll call it an Einstein's success.

El jueves, 14 de octubre de 2021 a las 19:48:55 UTC-3, Richard Hertz escribió:

> But, no matter what's is going on with cosmology and their schizo world,
> Einstein's GR is ALWAYS PROVEN RIGHT.
>
> It doesn't matter that Absolute Time had an start T=0 almost 14 billion
> years ago and that Absolute Space could be traced to X,Y,Z = 0,0,0.
>
> Now, it only applies relative spacetime and ZILLIONS of possible origins.
> The trace to Absolute Time, Space and Motion when T < 1 second is lost.
>
> And don't dare to ask what happened when T < 0 seconds. This is heresy.
>
> Also, don't try to put God into the picture or question the BBT. It's heresy too.
>
> So, questioning God is a scientific heresy in the church of relativism (the
> cult). But questioning science under God is not. Heresy or controlled
> dementia?
>
> Then you wonder why there is so much perversion and degeneracy in this world, starting about 30 years ago. Maybe we should start with SCIENCE
> as a true source of most evils on this world. The entire science, I mean, and
> their partners in crime: Mainstream Media and derivates for not-laymen.
>

Physics is based on building MODELS which, somehow, try to explain how Nature behaves. All models are human constructs and as such are as good as our human thoughts can be.
Our human thoughts can not wholy understand how Nature does what it does. Therefore, all our physics models can only approximate what Nature does. In other words, a physic model is not Nature, nor the world, as many here think.
Every physic model always has a domain of applicability, where its formulation is more or less close to what Nature does. For example, the Newtonian Model serves us quite well when speeds and gravity are low. General Relativity works fine for large speeds and high gravity situations. Neither of those models work well for atomic sizes, etc, etc.
Every living physicist hopes to find new models which better explain how Nature works. There are thousands of physicists trying to extend or find new models of Nature.

Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> wrote:
> El jueves, 14 de octubre de 2021 a las 19:48:55 UTC-3, Richard Hertz escribió:
>
>> But, no matter what's is going on with cosmology and their schizo world,
>> Einstein's GR is ALWAYS PROVEN RIGHT.
>>
>> It doesn't matter that Absolute Time had an start T=0 almost 14 billion
>> years ago and that Absolute Space could be traced to X,Y,Z = 0,0,0.
>>
>> Now, it only applies relative spacetime and ZILLIONS of possible origins.
>> The trace to Absolute Time, Space and Motion when T < 1 second is lost.
>>
>> And don't dare to ask what happened when T < 0 seconds. This is heresy.
>>
>> Also, don't try to put God into the picture or question the BBT. It's heresy too.
>>
>> So, questioning God is a scientific heresy in the church of relativism (the
>> cult). But questioning science under God is not. Heresy or controlled
>> dementia?
>>
>> Then you wonder why there is so much perversion and degeneracy in this
>> world, starting about 30 years ago. Maybe we should start with SCIENCE
>> as a true source of most evils on this world. The entire science, I mean, and
>> their partners in crime: Mainstream Media and derivates for not-laymen.
>>
>
> Physics is based on building MODELS which, somehow, try to explain how
> Nature behaves. All models are human constructs and as such are as good
> as our human thoughts can be.
> Our human thoughts can not wholy understand how Nature does what it does.
> Therefore, all our physics models can only approximate what Nature does.
> In other words, a physic model is not Nature, nor the world, as many here think.
> Every physic model always has a domain of applicability, where its
> formulation is more or less close to what Nature does. For example, the
> Newtonian Model serves us quite well when speeds and gravity are low.
> General Relativity works fine for large speeds and high gravity
> situations. Neither of those models work well for atomic sizes, etc, etc.
> Every living physicist hopes to find new models which better explain how
> Nature works. There are thousands of physicists trying to extend or find
> new models of Nature.
>
>

That’s right. There is not one single model that purports to work at all
energy scales, all size scales, or all temperatures. Perceptions otherwise
about what physics claims are artifacts of popularizations.

The response by propagandists like Hertz are, “Well, if it falls short of
being a theory of the whole range of everything, then it is no better than
the Newtonian/Maxwellian description of the world that I found useful as an
engineer.”

This is of course silly and well as pointless pot-stirring, just to pass
the time. One might as well spend all day filling crossword puzzles with
random letters and claim subversive victory in doing that.

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

On Friday, 15 October 2021 at 17:13:30 UTC+2, Paparios wrote:
> El jueves, 14 de octubre de 2021 a las 19:48:55 UTC-3, Richard Hertz escribió:
>
> > But, no matter what's is going on with cosmology and their schizo world,
> > Einstein's GR is ALWAYS PROVEN RIGHT.
> >
> > It doesn't matter that Absolute Time had an start T=0 almost 14 billion
> > years ago and that Absolute Space could be traced to X,Y,Z = 0,0,0.
> >
> > Now, it only applies relative spacetime and ZILLIONS of possible origins.
> > The trace to Absolute Time, Space and Motion when T < 1 second is lost.
> >
> > And don't dare to ask what happened when T < 0 seconds. This is heresy.
> >
> > Also, don't try to put God into the picture or question the BBT. It's heresy too.
> >
> > So, questioning God is a scientific heresy in the church of relativism (the
> > cult). But questioning science under God is not. Heresy or controlled
> > dementia?
> >
> > Then you wonder why there is so much perversion and degeneracy in this world, starting about 30 years ago. Maybe we should start with SCIENCE
> > as a true source of most evils on this world. The entire science, I mean, and
> > their partners in crime: Mainstream Media and derivates for not-laymen.
> >
> Physics is based on building MODELS which, somehow, try to explain how Nature behaves.

In the meantime in the real world, however, GPS
clocks keep measuring t'-t, just like all serious
clocks always did.

Let's assume that Lorentz invariant works, then What? Lorentz (1899) uses the invariant to reverse the negative result of Michelson experiment to justify the ether, composed of matter, and, Einstein (1917) uses the reversal of MMX to justify the ether yet vacuum proves the ether does not exist. Also, both Lorentz and Einstein use relativity (coordinate system transformation) to justify Maxwell theory but Maxwell equations are derived using Faraday induction effect that is not luminous. Using mumble jumble mathematical gymnastics cannot be used to justify the wave theory of light and modern theoretical physics (QM, QED, string theory, QFT,......etc. etc. that are based on the gauge since an electromagnetic wave (quantized or not) is based on a wave formed by the motion of an ether, composed of matter, where the physical structure (ether) has predencence before any abstract mathematical formulation.

On Friday, October 15, 2021 at 12:26:28 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:

<snip>

> The response by propagandists like Hertz are, “Well, if it falls short of
> being a theory of the whole range of everything, then it is no better than
> the Newtonian/Maxwellian description of the world that I found useful as an
> engineer.”
>
> This is of course silly and well as pointless pot-stirring, just to pass
> the time. One might as well spend all day filling crossword puzzles with
> random letters and claim subversive victory in doing that.

Retired Electronic engineers (Hertz, Paparios), failed philosopher-mathematicians (Bodkin), reptilian mathematician lifeforms (Dono), etc.
are just a sample of professionals in hard sciences that are peeking at the stupid world of physics on the edge.

Some, while persists peeking mounted on fanatic relativist bias, have a limited view of what is to be the "frontiers of physics". These
indoctrinated and presumptuous creatures believe that such frontiers have to be pushed to the limits of absurdity, because in their
godless world, there are no limits.

Others, like me, understand and comprehend why humans do have a limit for explanations to be obtained. And that limit is based on
reason, logic and moral reject of sophistry, fallacy and vanity.

The cosmology, as a pseudoscience, was created overnight on July 1900 by a gifted astronomer-mathematician (Karl Schwartzschild),
when he decided that it was time to introduce mathematics to explain what observational astronomy was positing, with data about the
increasing number of far-away stars and nebulae within the historical catalogue of celestial bodies and their observed behavior.

On the Permissible Numerical Value of the Curvature of Space
Karl Schwarzschild
The presentation held at the German Astronomical Society
Annual Meeting in Heidelberg, July 8–11, 1900

In this paper, 15 years before the "crime of thought" that GR is, Schwarzschild wondered if the universe (Milky Way by then) had a
curvature, what type of curvature and within which limits it existed. He risked a size of about 10,000 ly for such universe.

Cosmology moved since then without a mathematical framework to play with, until the non-linear stupid model of GR provided a
single, compact tool to hallucinate with. It's not a coincidence that Schwarzschild, along with Planck, was the main influencer to
obtain funds to pay Einstein's salary to work at Berlin University in 1914 (after the GR Entwurf). Also, it's NOT a coincidence that
Schwarzschild provided the first analytical solution for a restricted GR just 1 month after Einstein's Nov 1914 presentation.

I'm convinced that Schwarzschild had been working with Entwurf math for long time (1 year, to the least) and that he played a major
role, as "ghost advisor" to Einstein and his teamwork. This "ghost" intervention was, along with Hilbert's one, the reason behind
Einstein (the proxy) to suddenly throw away years of work and, in two months, generate the field equations.

Note that Schwarzschild (the patriotic and brave WWI warrior) was quite acquainted with Hilbert, because of Gottingen.
Note, also, that Schwarzschild had TWO PAPERS, not one, waiting for Einstein's collusion to succeed at the Prussian Academy
of Science by Nov. 1915. The 2nd. paper, conveniently forgotten, dealt with the Sun treated as an sphere, not a point-like mass:
On the Gravitational Field of a Sphere of Incompressible Liquid, According to Einstein’s Theory
Karl Schwarzschild
Submitted on February 24, 1916

which was a breakthrough by then.

The few cosmologists that existed in that epoch, like Friedmann in 1923, dealt with primitive interpretations of what the
universe was until that, around 1923, the word spread that other nebulae were distant galaxies. By 1926, after Hubble's first
steps about "evidence" that galaxies were receding from us, Le Maitre conceptualized a concept of a "primordial atom", based
on religious, jesuistic biased ideas, that such a "primordial atom" was the seed of God, which created the universe overnight.

In the next 90 years after the Hubble-Le Maitre ideas and fight for priority, observational and experimental astronomy provided
"data after data" to sustain the adoption of an observable radius of the universe, with increasing distances based on c/Ho.

Some other cosmologists, like Hoyle, thought the universe as pseudo-static and infinite in size and age, until that time in 1964,
when Penzias and Wilson observation of SPATIAL NOISE was adopted as the ultimate proof of the BBT, "confirmed" by NASA COBE
measurements of a perfect Planck's distribution of such noisy background, alleging that it had its origin as remnant of an
explosion of a singularity almost 14 billion years ago.

By that recent epoch, cosmologist's community was growing due to the incorporation of unemployed physicists and
mathematicians, who raised the schizo bar year after year trying to posit grasped interpretations of a fucking mathematical body.

And, more or less, we reach these days where scientists, PLAYING TO DECODE GOD'S PURPOSES (but being godless themselves)
play games/contests about who's the one who mathematically justified the best stupidity that anyone can imagine.

And, in this way, any attempt to regain reason is lost, because these retarded HAVE NO LIMITS on their imagination to beat each other.

This is not science, not even pseudoscience. This cosmology is metaphysics, well apart from what physics is and should be.

ZERO PROOFS, ZERO EVIDENCES besides imagination, ZERO CAPABILITIES to fact-check any proposal.

It's, on the upper limit of distances and time, the same case as what happens in the lower limits of distance and time (sub-sub atomic
particles): a world of fairy tails, protected by the impossibility to experimentally fact-check theories at any of those extremes.

And, as nobody come out to call this game off (within the MSM), these degeneracies of thought (with zero practical values),
will continue, because the establishment is happy putting brilliant but useless minds IN CAGES, so they don't break balls elsewhere.

On Friday, October 15, 2021 at 12:10:43 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Friday, October 15, 2021 at 12:26:28 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> <snip>
> > The response by propagandists like Hertz are, “Well, if it falls short of
> > being a theory of the whole range of everything, then it is no better than
> > the Newtonian/Maxwellian description of the world that I found useful as an
> > engineer.”
Let's assume that Lorentz invariant works, then What? Lorentz (1899) uses the invariant to reverse the negative result of Michelson experiment to justify the ether, composed of matter, and, Einstein (1917) uses the reversal of MMX to justify the ether yet vacuum proves the ether does not exist. Also, both Lorentz and Einstein use relativity (coordinate system transformation) to justify Maxwell theory but Maxwell equations are derived using Faraday induction effect that is not luminous. Using mumble jumble mathematical gymnastics cannot be used to justify the wave theory of light and modern theoretical physics (QM, QED, string theory, QFT,......etc. etc. that are based on the gauge since an electromagnetic wave (quantized or not) is based on a wave formed by the motion of an ether, composed of matter, where the physical structure (ether) has precedence before any abstract mathematical formulation.

On Friday, October 15, 2021 at 12:10:43 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
>
> The cosmology, as a pseudoscience, was created overnight on July 1900 by a gifted astronomer-mathematician (Karl Schwartzschild),

Schwarzschild.

> when he decided that it was time to introduce mathematics to explain what observational astronomy was positing, with data about the
> increasing number of far-away stars and nebulae within the historical catalogue of celestial bodies and their observed behavior.

The obligatory "I don't know mathematics, therefore it's irrelevant."

> On the Permissible Numerical Value of the Curvature of Space
> Karl Schwarzschild

Thank you.

> The presentation held at the German Astronomical Society
> Annual Meeting in Heidelberg, July 8–11, 1900
>
> In this paper, 15 years before the "crime of thought" that GR is,

What "crime of thought"? Are you sure you are not mentally ill? You
have many imaginary friends perhaps? Something of that nature?

> Schwarzschild wondered if the universe (Milky Way by then) had a
> curvature, what type of curvature and within which limits it existed. He risked a size of about 10,000 ly for such universe.
>
> Cosmology moved since then without a mathematical framework to play with, until the non-linear stupid model of GR

"Stupid model of GR"? Another instance of the obsessive-compulsive syndrome..

> provided a
> single, compact tool to hallucinate with.

"Hallucinate with"? You think by piling invective you accomplish anything?

> I'm convinced that Schwarzschild had been working with Entwurf math for long time (1 year, to the least) and that he played a major
> role, as "ghost advisor" to Einstein and his teamwork.

Which means that it's false. Pretty much anything you say here is gobbledygook.

> This "ghost" intervention was, along with Hilbert's one, the reason behind
> Einstein (the proxy) to suddenly throw away years of work and, in two months, generate the field equations.

"Einstein the proxy". I think practically all relativity doodlers on this NG since
1995 suffer from a monomania or some other mental or emotional problem.
Interestingly, they are all male. Obviously something gender-related.

> Note that Schwarzschild (the patriotic and brave WWI warrior) was quite acquainted with Hilbert, because of Gottingen.
> Note, also, that Schwarzschild had TWO PAPERS, not one, waiting for Einstein's collusion to succeed at the Prussian Academy
> of Science by Nov. 1915. The 2nd. paper, conveniently forgotten, dealt with the Sun treated as an sphere, not a point-like mass:
>
> On the Gravitational Field of a Sphere of Incompressible Liquid, According to Einstein’s Theory
> Karl Schwarzschild
> Submitted on February 24, 1916
>
> which was a breakthrough by then.

It's not "forgotten".

The rest of your post is similar worthless junk. Get a different hobby.
This one just turns your brain into mush.

--
Jan

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Friday, October 15, 2021 at 12:26:28 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> The response by propagandists like Hertz are, “Well, if it falls short of
>> being a theory of the whole range of everything, then it is no better than
>> the Newtonian/Maxwellian description of the world that I found useful as an
>> engineer.”
>>
>> This is of course silly and well as pointless pot-stirring, just to pass
>> the time. One might as well spend all day filling crossword puzzles with
>> random letters and claim subversive victory in doing that.
>
> Retired Electronic engineers (Hertz, Paparios), failed
> philosopher-mathematicians (Bodkin), reptilian mathematician lifeforms (Dono), etc.
> are just a sample of professionals in hard sciences that are peeking at
> the stupid world of physics on the edge.
>
> Some, while persists peeking mounted on fanatic relativist bias, have a
> limited view of what is to be the "frontiers of physics". These
> indoctrinated and presumptuous creatures believe that such frontiers have
> to be pushed to the limits of absurdity, because in their
> godless world, there are no limits.

Oh good grief. And frontiers that lie outside your comfort zone are
festering with dragons.

>
> Others, like me, understand and comprehend why humans do have a limit for
> explanations to be obtained. And that limit is based on
> reason, logic and moral reject of sophistry, fallacy and vanity.

And some self-assured satisfaction that what you were trained on should be
sufficient for anybody.

Or alternatively, that which lies outside your training and sensibilities
is deemed to be without reason, illogical, and laced with immodesty and
pretension. Because if any of it were valid, you would already know it. And
anything that is outside the engineer’s purview is reserved for God and God
alone to understand, not intended for man to know.

You may be joking here with this whole verbose post. I hope so, because
otherwise you are a real basket case.

>
> The cosmology, as a pseudoscience, was created overnight on July 1900 by
> a gifted astronomer-mathematician (Karl Schwartzschild),
> when he decided that it was time to introduce mathematics to explain what
> observational astronomy was positing, with data about the
> increasing number of far-away stars and nebulae within the historical
> catalogue of celestial bodies and their observed behavior.
>
> On the Permissible Numerical Value of the Curvature of Space
> Karl Schwarzschild
> The presentation held at the German Astronomical Society
> Annual Meeting in Heidelberg, July 8–11, 1900
>
> In this paper, 15 years before the "crime of thought" that GR is,
> Schwarzschild wondered if the universe (Milky Way by then) had a
> curvature, what type of curvature and within which limits it existed. He
> risked a size of about 10,000 ly for such universe.
>
> Cosmology moved since then without a mathematical framework to play with,
> until the non-linear stupid model of GR provided a
> single, compact tool to hallucinate with. It's not a coincidence that
> Schwarzschild, along with Planck, was the main influencer to
> obtain funds to pay Einstein's salary to work at Berlin University in
> 1914 (after the GR Entwurf). Also, it's NOT a coincidence that
> Schwarzschild provided the first analytical solution for a restricted GR
> just 1 month after Einstein's Nov 1914 presentation.
>
> I'm convinced that Schwarzschild had been working with Entwurf math for
> long time (1 year, to the least) and that he played a major
> role, as "ghost advisor" to Einstein and his teamwork. This "ghost"
> intervention was, along with Hilbert's one, the reason behind
> Einstein (the proxy) to suddenly throw away years of work and, in two
> months, generate the field equations.
>
> Note that Schwarzschild (the patriotic and brave WWI warrior) was quite
> acquainted with Hilbert, because of Gottingen.
> Note, also, that Schwarzschild had TWO PAPERS, not one, waiting for
> Einstein's collusion to succeed at the Prussian Academy
> of Science by Nov. 1915. The 2nd. paper, conveniently forgotten, dealt
> with the Sun treated as an sphere, not a point-like mass:
>
> On the Gravitational Field of a Sphere of Incompressible Liquid,
> According to Einstein’s Theory
> Karl Schwarzschild
> Submitted on February 24, 1916
>
> which was a breakthrough by then.
>
> The few cosmologists that existed in that epoch, like Friedmann in 1923,
> dealt with primitive interpretations of what the
> universe was until that, around 1923, the word spread that other nebulae
> were distant galaxies. By 1926, after Hubble's first
> steps about "evidence" that galaxies were receding from us, Le Maitre
> conceptualized a concept of a "primordial atom", based
> on religious, jesuistic biased ideas, that such a "primordial atom" was
> the seed of God, which created the universe overnight.
>
> In the next 90 years after the Hubble-Le Maitre ideas and fight for
> priority, observational and experimental astronomy provided
> "data after data" to sustain the adoption of an observable radius of the
> universe, with increasing distances based on c/Ho.
>
> Some other cosmologists, like Hoyle, thought the universe as
> pseudo-static and infinite in size and age, until that time in 1964,
> when Penzias and Wilson observation of SPATIAL NOISE was adopted as the
> ultimate proof of the BBT, "confirmed" by NASA COBE
> measurements of a perfect Planck's distribution of such noisy background,
> alleging that it had its origin as remnant of an
> explosion of a singularity almost 14 billion years ago.
>
> By that recent epoch, cosmologist's community was growing due to the
> incorporation of unemployed physicists and
> mathematicians, who raised the schizo bar year after year trying to
> posit grasped interpretations of a fucking mathematical body.
>
> And, more or less, we reach these days where scientists, PLAYING TO
> DECODE GOD'S PURPOSES (but being godless themselves)
> play games/contests about who's the one who mathematically justified the
> best stupidity that anyone can imagine.
>
> And, in this way, any attempt to regain reason is lost, because these
> retarded HAVE NO LIMITS on their imagination to beat each other.
>
> This is not science, not even pseudoscience. This cosmology is
> metaphysics, well apart from what physics is and should be.
>
> ZERO PROOFS, ZERO EVIDENCES besides imagination, ZERO CAPABILITIES to
> fact-check any proposal.
>
> It's, on the upper limit of distances and time, the same case as what
> happens in the lower limits of distance and time (sub-sub atomic
> particles): a world of fairy tails, protected by the impossibility to
> experimentally fact-check theories at any of those extremes.
>
> And, as nobody come out to call this game off (within the MSM), these
> degeneracies of thought (with zero practical values),
> will continue, because the establishment is happy putting brilliant but
> useless minds IN CAGES, so they don't break balls elsewhere.
>
>
>

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

El viernes, 15 de octubre de 2021 a las 16:10:43 UTC-3, Richard Hertz escribió:
> On Friday, October 15, 2021 at 12:26:28 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> <snip>
> > The response by propagandists like Hertz are, “Well, if it falls short of
> > being a theory of the whole range of everything, then it is no better than
> > the Newtonian/Maxwellian description of the world that I found useful as an
> > engineer.”
> >
> > This is of course silly and well as pointless pot-stirring, just to pass
> > the time. One might as well spend all day filling crossword puzzles with
> > random letters and claim subversive victory in doing that.
> Retired Electronic engineers (Hertz, Paparios), failed philosopher-mathematicians (Bodkin), reptilian mathematician lifeforms (Dono), etc.
> are just a sample of professionals in hard sciences that are peeking at the stupid world of physics on the edge.
>

I'm a retired Associate Professor of Electrical Engineering, which in the late 60's studied relativity and quantum mechanics, by using the Lev Landou books Volume 2: The Classical Theory of Fields and Volume 3: Quantum Mechanics non Relativistic as part of my basic training in Modern Physics.
Those are graduate level books which are used by current physicists, such as Leonard Susskind, to teach modern physics. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JRZgW1YjCKk&t=1059s and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JzhlfbWBuQ8&t=1611s.

> Some, while persists peeking mounted on fanatic relativist bias, have a limited view of what is to be the "frontiers of physics". These
> indoctrinated and presumptuous creatures believe that such frontiers have to be pushed to the limits of absurdity, because in their
> godless world, there are no limits.
>

The real value of new models is provided by predicting experiments results. Some of the new models do not have provided the necessary predictive resuts from experiments, and therefore those models can not be falsified.

> Others, like me, understand and comprehend why humans do have a limit for explanations to be obtained. And that limit is based on
> reason, logic and moral reject of sophistry, fallacy and vanity.
>

The real problem is you are not a physicist (I'm also not a physisist) so you have not a clue about how a physics model is built.

On Friday, October 15, 2021 at 7:59:25 PM UTC-3, Paparios wrote:
> El viernes, 15 de octubre de 2021 a las 16:10:43 UTC-3, Richard Hertz escribió:
> > On Friday, October 15, 2021 at 12:26:28 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> > > The response by propagandists like Hertz are, “Well, if it falls short of
> > > being a theory of the whole range of everything, then it is no better than
> > > the Newtonian/Maxwellian description of the world that I found useful as an
> > > engineer.”
> > >
> > > This is of course silly and well as pointless pot-stirring, just to pass
> > > the time. One might as well spend all day filling crossword puzzles with
> > > random letters and claim subversive victory in doing that.
> > Retired Electronic engineers (Hertz, Paparios), failed philosopher-mathematicians (Bodkin), reptilian mathematician lifeforms (Dono), etc.
> > are just a sample of professionals in hard sciences that are peeking at the stupid world of physics on the edge.
> >
> I'm a retired Associate Professor of Electrical Engineering, which in the late 60's studied relativity and quantum mechanics, by using the Lev Landou books Volume 2: The Classical Theory of Fields and Volume 3: Quantum Mechanics non Relativistic as part of my basic training in Modern Physics.
> Those are graduate level books which are used by current physicists, such as Leonard Susskind, to teach modern physics. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JRZgW1YjCKk&t=1059s and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JzhlfbWBuQ8&t=1611s.
> > Some, while persists peeking mounted on fanatic relativist bias, have a limited view of what is to be the "frontiers of physics". These
> > indoctrinated and presumptuous creatures believe that such frontiers have to be pushed to the limits of absurdity, because in their
> > godless world, there are no limits.
> >
> The real value of new models is provided by predicting experiments results. Some of the new models do not have provided the necessary predictive resuts from experiments, and therefore those models can not be falsified.
> > Others, like me, understand and comprehend why humans do have a limit for explanations to be obtained. And that limit is based on
> > reason, logic and moral reject of sophistry, fallacy and vanity.

Paparios, about your final comment:

> The real problem is you are not a physicist (I'm also not a physisist) so you have not a clue about how a physics model is built.

is fallacious, because it ties physics with a diploma and not with inquisitive minds in whichever field they decide to get involved.

The fallacy is (IMO): Today, very physicist has a diploma. So everyone with a diploma in physics is a physicist, therefore those who
don't have a physicist diploma IS NOT a physicist. (The fallacy is just at plain sight).

The denomination of physicist only took place around 1850 (I don't know why, besides the fact that universities started with this).
Before that time, physicists were called natural philosophers (like Galileo, Newton, Kelvin, Kirchoff, Joule, Ohm, Faraday and so many
others that 200 famous names can be collected within an hour using Google). They were living along with pure philosophers,
mathematicians and astronomers, having mutual respect for each other and a belief in cross-fertilization within sciences.

You are not going to find, before XX century, personal positions on territoriality and criticism to adventurers of thought who crossed
boundaries with freedom. Attacks like: "you're not a mathematician, so shut up" or "you're not a philosopher, so shut up" were
unthinkable on XVII to XIX centuries, because (and due to a severe degree of illiteracy in that society), intelligent and inquiring minds
were treated as national treasures and a source of pride and joy by the ruling classes at EVERY country.

There was not so much competence for such specific jobs, because education in higher degrees was expensive to establish within
those establishments. Only careers for different crafts existed, as that is what those societies needed to prosper (including the
forefathers of modern engineers). After 1850-1860, when technology and science became a source of abundant money, the need
for more formally developed technicians and engineers became clear. Also, it was proven in practice that physics had became a
serious matter and should be differentiated from any other technical or pure philosophical formation. Then, the need for physicists
with a good background on mathematics, philosophy and practical abilities in the laboratory was clearly designed. My best example
for that epoch is James Clerk Maxwell, who had that all plus an immense intellect beyond this world.

When Planck decided to study physics by 1877, he wanted to follow the lead that Maxwell (and others) had established just 15 years
before, only that he didn't like experimental physics AT ALL. Not that he didn't believe in such career. Just that he wanted to work ONLY
with his mind as a tool, and became a theoretical physicist.

Being a theoretical physicist by 1880 wasn't seen as a promising career for parents (who had to pay the bills and wanted the best for
their sons), but Planck insisted with his father and got what he wanted: to be a theoretical physicist, view the world through the power
of mathematics and align his work with the output of laboratories, which produced tons of empirical data waiting for a formal body of
mathematical framework. He loved his work, and succeeded by 1900 with his theory of the BBC and E=hf, which was only possible
because he had INTIMATE CONTACT with german laboratories and experimental physicists with which he socialized. Actually, it was
at a dinner at his house with Rubens from the PTR (two months before his breakthrough) that he was informed that Wien's 1896 theory
failed at long wavelengths. You can read the whole history of BB at my only paper summarizing 40 years quest on such topic here:

https://physictheories.blogspot.com/2019/04/thermal-radiation-black-body-theory-and.html

The amount of theoretical physicists skyrocketed after Maxwell, and by 1900 such career was firmly established. Only that, by then,
it had lost his SOUL (natural philosophy) and was only based on mathematics (increasingly complex for its use at physics), data fed
from laboratories and conjectures/propositions replacing philosophy as a source (in the dreamed stroke of genius).

But, in parallel way to the development of R&D in technology, new discoveries in experimental physics and chemistry and some new
tools derived from applied mathematics, physicists dig deeper and deeper in secrets of nature, with the support of increasing accuracy
in lab and outdoor experiments. THEN, in such a short lapse, and with an increasing population of theoretical physicists, things turned
nasty for everyone within the community and outside it. Every stupid human flaw was/is displayed to support "belonging" and to reject
intro-mission from outsiders. Today, such community (even highly compartmentalized) is a closed system.

Every human outside such system is an IGNORANT. And every human who question the community's credos and methods is, to the
least, a crank. And, don't even try to question relativity, because then you're a threat to the system.

But this only applies to WESTERN SCIENCE. Eastern science (centered at China) is developing a DIFFERENT VIEW for physics, which is
believed THERE to be born with Newton. In these days, relativity is questioned at China by many scientists and engineers as the root
of all evil in modern physics and cosmology.

A movement, which seems to have 2,000 members in China alone, is challenging relativity claiming that it's wrong, false and void
of philosophical coherence. These groups claim that a return to the "old methods" in physics is required to regain reason, because
the current status of physics is full of nonsensical and nonphysical meanings. And this is related with the incorrect manipulation of
the concepts of time, space, matter and energy.

Here are some links, with the very recent news:

https://inf.news/en/science/60a6e27f304ce0383070565dbbdfdbec.html

https://inf.news/en/science/6e931e6788d3cd82c8fb94ac8e34e32f.html

---------------------------------------- I quote here some excerpts: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

"As we all know, time and space are the two most basic concepts of physics. Einstein regarded time and space as completely relative concepts, which would lead to endless logical contradictions and cause huge confusion and trouble to physics. Einstein's general theory of relativity is going to extremes. It regards gravity as the curvature of time and space. According to general relativity, gravity does not exist, only the bending of time and space is left. This kind of theory is extremely weird, leading to distortions in time and space, strange black holes, white holes and wormholes, dark matter and dark energy, and other inexplicable concepts that bring physics into the ditch. There are a lot of difficulties in modern astrophysics and cosmology, all of which are rooted in Einstein's general theory of relativity."
................
"At present, more and more people in the field of physics believe that the theory of relativity is not valid. Physics needs a revolution, which has gradually become a consensus in the scientific community. It's just that ordinary media people and the public don't understand the truth and still regard Einstein as a god. Some people have already formed a conditioned reflex. Hearing that some people are opposed to the theory of relativity, they are furious, as if digging their ancestral graves. They habitually believe that those who oppose the theory of relativity are purely ignorant, lack common knowledge in physics, have low intelligence, and cannot understand advanced science. They collectively refer to those who oppose the theory of relativity as "minke"."
...................
"Since the theory of relativity is wrong, why is Einstein sought after by the scientific community and the general public, and even regarded as a physicist greater than Newton? This involves very complicated sociological and political factors. Mr. Cao Guangjun, a Chinese scholar studying and working in Canada , wrote a long article to analyze this issue in detail.

On Friday, October 15, 2021 at 5:32:37 PM UTC-7, crank Richard Hertz had yet another wet dream:
>
> Cao Guangjun <snip imbecilities>
>
He's a crank. Just like you.

Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Friday, October 15, 2021 at 12:26:28 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> The response by propagandists like Hertz are, “Well, if it falls short of
>> being a theory of the whole range of everything, then it is no better than
>> the Newtonian/Maxwellian description of the world that I found useful as an
>> engineer.”
>>
>> This is of course silly and well as pointless pot-stirring, just to pass
>> the time. One might as well spend all day filling crossword puzzles with
>> random letters and claim subversive victory in doing that.
>
> Retired Electronic engineers (Hertz, Paparios), failed philosopher-mathematicians (Bodkin), reptilian mathematician lifeforms (Dono), etc.
> are just a sample of professionals in hard sciences that are peeking at the stupid world of physics on the edge.
>
> Some, while persists peeking mounted on fanatic relativist bias, have a limited view of what is to be the "frontiers of physics". These
> indoctrinated and presumptuous creatures believe that such frontiers have to be pushed to the limits of absurdity, because in their
> godless world, there are no limits.
>
> Others, like me, understand and comprehend why humans do have a limit for explanations to be obtained. And that limit is based on
> reason, logic and moral reject of sophistry, fallacy and vanity.
>
> The cosmology, as a pseudoscience, was created overnight on July 1900 by a gifted astronomer-mathematician (Karl Schwartzschild),
> when he decided that it was time to introduce mathematics to explain what observational astronomy was positing, with data about the
> increasing number of far-away stars and nebulae within the historical catalogue of celestial bodies and their observed behavior.
>
> On the Permissible Numerical Value of the Curvature of Space
> Karl Schwarzschild
> The presentation held at the German Astronomical Society
> Annual Meeting in Heidelberg, July 8–11, 1900
>
> In this paper, 15 years before the "crime of thought" that GR is, Schwarzschild wondered if the universe (Milky Way by then) had a
> curvature, what type of curvature and within which limits it existed. He risked a size of about 10,000 ly for such universe.
>
> Cosmology moved since then without a mathematical framework to play with, until the non-linear stupid model of GR provided a
> single, compact tool to hallucinate with. It's not a coincidence that Schwarzschild, along with Planck, was the main influencer to
> obtain funds to pay Einstein's salary to work at Berlin University in 1914 (after the GR Entwurf). Also, it's NOT a coincidence that
> Schwarzschild provided the first analytical solution for a restricted GR just 1 month after Einstein's Nov 1914 presentation.
>
> I'm convinced that Schwarzschild had been working with Entwurf math for long time (1 year, to the least) and that he played a major
> role, as "ghost advisor" to Einstein and his teamwork. This "ghost" intervention was, along with Hilbert's one, the reason behind
> Einstein (the proxy) to suddenly throw away years of work and, in two months, generate the field equations.
>
> Note that Schwarzschild (the patriotic and brave WWI warrior) was quite acquainted with Hilbert, because of Gottingen.
> Note, also, that Schwarzschild had TWO PAPERS, not one, waiting for Einstein's collusion to succeed at the Prussian Academy
> of Science by Nov. 1915. The 2nd. paper, conveniently forgotten, dealt with the Sun treated as an sphere, not a point-like mass:
>
> On the Gravitational Field of a Sphere of Incompressible Liquid, According to Einstein’s Theory
> Karl Schwarzschild
> Submitted on February 24, 1916
>
> which was a breakthrough by then.
>
> The few cosmologists that existed in that epoch, like Friedmann in 1923, dealt with primitive interpretations of what the
> universe was until that, around 1923, the word spread that other nebulae were distant galaxies. By 1926, after Hubble's first
> steps about "evidence" that galaxies were receding from us, Le Maitre conceptualized a concept of a "primordial atom", based
> on religious, jesuistic biased ideas, that such a "primordial atom" was the seed of God, which created the universe overnight.
>
> In the next 90 years after the Hubble-Le Maitre ideas and fight for priority, observational and experimental astronomy provided
> "data after data" to sustain the adoption of an observable radius of the universe, with increasing distances based on c/Ho.
>
> Some other cosmologists, like Hoyle, thought the universe as pseudo-static and infinite in size and age, until that time in 1964,
> when Penzias and Wilson observation of SPATIAL NOISE was adopted as the ultimate proof of the BBT, "confirmed" by NASA COBE
> measurements of a perfect Planck's distribution of such noisy background, alleging that it had its origin as remnant of an
> explosion of a singularity almost 14 billion years ago.
>
> By that recent epoch, cosmologist's community was growing due to the incorporation of unemployed physicists and
> mathematicians, who raised the schizo bar year after year trying to posit grasped interpretations of a fucking mathematical body.
>
> And, more or less, we reach these days where scientists, PLAYING TO DECODE GOD'S PURPOSES (but being godless themselves)
> play games/contests about who's the one who mathematically justified the best stupidity that anyone can imagine.
>
> And, in this way, any attempt to regain reason is lost, because these retarded HAVE NO LIMITS on their imagination to beat each other.
>
> This is not science, not even pseudoscience. This cosmology is metaphysics, well apart from what physics is and should be.
>
> ZERO PROOFS, ZERO EVIDENCES besides imagination, ZERO CAPABILITIES to fact-check any proposal.
>
> It's, on the upper limit of distances and time, the same case as what happens in the lower limits of distance and time (sub-sub atomic
> particles): a world of fairy tails, protected by the impossibility to experimentally fact-check theories at any of those extremes.
>
> And, as nobody come out to call this game off (within the MSM), these degeneracies of thought (with zero practical values),
> will continue, because the establishment is happy putting brilliant but useless minds IN CAGES, so they don't break balls elsewhere.

Richard you are the most demented person I've ever met on the Internet.

On Friday, October 15, 2021 at 5:32:37 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Friday, October 15, 2021 at 7:59:25 PM UTC-3, Paparios wrote:
> > El viernes, 15 de octubre de 2021 a las 16:10:43 UTC-3, Richard Hertz escribió:
> > > On Friday, October 15, 2021 at 12:26:28 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > > <snip>
> > > > The response by propagandists like Hertz are, “Well, if it falls short of
> > > > being a theory of the whole range of everything, then it is no better than
> > > > the Newtonian/Maxwellian description of the world that I found useful as an
> > > > engineer.”
> > > >
> > > > This is of course silly and well as pointless pot-stirring, just to pass
> > > > the time. One might as well spend all day filling crossword puzzles with
> > > > random letters and claim subversive victory in doing that.
> > > Retired Electronic engineers (Hertz, Paparios), failed philosopher-mathematicians (Bodkin), reptilian mathematician lifeforms (Dono), etc.
> > > are just a sample of professionals in hard sciences that are peeking at the stupid world of physics on the edge.
> > >
> > I'm a retired Associate Professor of Electrical Engineering, which in the late 60's studied relativity and quantum mechanics, by using the Lev Landou books Volume 2: The Classical Theory of Fields and Volume 3: Quantum Mechanics non Relativistic as part of my basic training in Modern Physics.
> > Those are graduate level books which are used by current physicists, such as Leonard Susskind, to teach modern physics. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JRZgW1YjCKk&t=1059s and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JzhlfbWBuQ8&t=1611s.
> > > Some, while persists peeking mounted on fanatic relativist bias, have a limited view of what is to be the "frontiers of physics". These
> > > indoctrinated and presumptuous creatures believe that such frontiers have to be pushed to the limits of absurdity, because in their
> > > godless world, there are no limits.
> > >
> > The real value of new models is provided by predicting experiments results. Some of the new models do not have provided the necessary predictive resuts from experiments, and therefore those models can not be falsified.
> > > Others, like me, understand and comprehend why humans do have a limit for explanations to be obtained. And that limit is based on
> > > reason, logic and moral reject of sophistry, fallacy and vanity.
> Paparios, about your final comment:
> > The real problem is you are not a physicist (I'm also not a physisist) so you have not a clue about how a physics model is built.
> is fallacious, because it ties physics with a diploma and not with inquisitive minds in whichever field they decide to get involved.
>
> The fallacy is (IMO): Today, very physicist has a diploma. So everyone with a diploma in physics is a physicist, therefore those who
> don't have a physicist diploma IS NOT a physicist. (The fallacy is just at plain sight).
>
> The denomination of physicist only took place around 1850 (I don't know why, besides the fact that universities started with this).
> Before that time, physicists were called natural philosophers (like Galileo, Newton, Kelvin, Kirchoff, Joule, Ohm, Faraday and so many
> others that 200 famous names can be collected within an hour using Google). They were living along with pure philosophers,
> mathematicians and astronomers, having mutual respect for each other and a belief in cross-fertilization within sciences.
>
> You are not going to find, before XX century, personal positions on territoriality and criticism to adventurers of thought who crossed
> boundaries with freedom. Attacks like: "you're not a mathematician, so shut up" or "you're not a philosopher, so shut up" were
> unthinkable on XVII to XIX centuries, because (and due to a severe degree of illiteracy in that society), intelligent and inquiring minds
> were treated as national treasures and a source of pride and joy by the ruling classes at EVERY country.
>
> There was not so much competence for such specific jobs, because education in higher degrees was expensive to establish within
> those establishments. Only careers for different crafts existed, as that is what those societies needed to prosper (including the
> forefathers of modern engineers). After 1850-1860, when technology and science became a source of abundant money, the need
> for more formally developed technicians and engineers became clear. Also, it was proven in practice that physics had became a
> serious matter and should be differentiated from any other technical or pure philosophical formation. Then, the need for physicists
> with a good background on mathematics, philosophy and practical abilities in the laboratory was clearly designed. My best example
> for that epoch is James Clerk Maxwell, who had that all plus an immense intellect beyond this world.
>
> When Planck decided to study physics by 1877, he wanted to follow the lead that Maxwell (and others) had established just 15 years
> before, only that he didn't like experimental physics AT ALL. Not that he didn't believe in such career. Just that he wanted to work ONLY
> with his mind as a tool, and became a theoretical physicist.
>
> Being a theoretical physicist by 1880 wasn't seen as a promising career for parents (who had to pay the bills and wanted the best for
> their sons), but Planck insisted with his father and got what he wanted: to be a theoretical physicist, view the world through the power
> of mathematics and align his work with the output of laboratories, which produced tons of empirical data waiting for a formal body of
> mathematical framework. He loved his work, and succeeded by 1900 with his theory of the BBC and E=hf, which was only possible
> because he had INTIMATE CONTACT with german laboratories and experimental physicists with which he socialized. Actually, it was
> at a dinner at his house with Rubens from the PTR (two months before his breakthrough) that he was informed that Wien's 1896 theory
> failed at long wavelengths. You can read the whole history of BB at my only paper summarizing 40 years quest on such topic here:
>
> https://physictheories.blogspot.com/2019/04/thermal-radiation-black-body-theory-and.html
>
> The amount of theoretical physicists skyrocketed after Maxwell, and by 1900 such career was firmly established. Only that, by then,
> it had lost his SOUL (natural philosophy) and was only based on mathematics (increasingly complex for its use at physics), data fed
> from laboratories and conjectures/propositions replacing philosophy as a source (in the dreamed stroke of genius).
>
> But, in parallel way to the development of R&D in technology, new discoveries in experimental physics and chemistry and some new
> tools derived from applied mathematics, physicists dig deeper and deeper in secrets of nature, with the support of increasing accuracy
> in lab and outdoor experiments. THEN, in such a short lapse, and with an increasing population of theoretical physicists, things turned
> nasty for everyone within the community and outside it. Every stupid human flaw was/is displayed to support "belonging" and to reject
> intro-mission from outsiders. Today, such community (even highly compartmentalized) is a closed system.
>
> Every human outside such system is an IGNORANT. And every human who question the community's credos and methods is, to the
> least, a crank. And, don't even try to question relativity, because then you're a threat to the system.
>
> But this only applies to WESTERN SCIENCE. Eastern science (centered at China) is developing a DIFFERENT VIEW for physics, which is
> believed THERE to be born with Newton. In these days, relativity is questioned at China by many scientists and engineers as the root
> of all evil in modern physics and cosmology.
>
> A movement, which seems to have 2,000 members in China alone, is challenging relativity claiming that it's wrong, false and void
> of philosophical coherence. These groups claim that a return to the "old methods" in physics is required to regain reason, because
> the current status of physics is full of nonsensical and nonphysical meanings. And this is related with the incorrect manipulation of
> the concepts of time, space, matter and energy.
>
> Here are some links, with the very recent news:
>
> https://inf.news/en/science/60a6e27f304ce0383070565dbbdfdbec.html
>
> https://inf.news/en/science/6e931e6788d3cd82c8fb94ac8e34e32f.html
>
> ---------------------------------------- I quote here some excerpts: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> "As we all know, time and space are the two most basic concepts of physics. Einstein regarded time and space as completely relative concepts, which would lead to endless logical contradictions and cause huge confusion and trouble to physics. Einstein's general theory of relativity is going to extremes. It regards gravity as the curvature of time and space. According to general relativity, gravity does not exist, only the bending of time and space is left. This kind of theory is extremely weird, leading to distortions in time and space, strange black holes, white holes and wormholes, dark matter and dark energy, and other inexplicable concepts that bring physics into the ditch. There are a lot of difficulties in modern astrophysics and cosmology, all of which are rooted in Einstein's general theory of relativity."
> ...............
> "At present, more and more people in the field of physics believe that the theory of relativity is not valid. Physics needs a revolution, which has gradually become a consensus in the scientific community. It's just that ordinary media people and the public don't understand the truth and still regard Einstein as a god. Some people have already formed a conditioned reflex.. Hearing that some people are opposed to the theory of relativity, they are furious, as if digging their ancestral graves. They habitually believe that those who oppose the theory of relativity are purely ignorant, lack common knowledge in physics, have low intelligence, and cannot understand advanced science. They collectively refer to those who oppose the theory of relativity as "minke"."
> ..................
> "Since the theory of relativity is wrong, why is Einstein sought after by the scientific community and the general public, and even regarded as a physicist greater than Newton? This involves very complicated sociological and political factors. Mr. Cao Guangjun, a Chinese scholar studying and working in Canada , wrote a long article to analyze this issue in detail.
>
> Cao Guangjun pointed out that although Einstein's theory of relativity is full of loopholes and is an out-and-out fallacy, the reason why it has not been criticized for a hundred years is that it is no longer a purely scientific issue, but a combination of political, social, cultural, and ethnic factors. The complex phenomenon of the body."
> .................
> "Since the Western world has always held the right to speak in science for hundreds of years, Einstein has become the incarnation and pronoun of science. In physics, anyone who dares to question Einstein's theory of relativity is an enemy of the scientific community. Anyone who opposes the theory of relativity cannot survive in this system.
>
> The attitude towards the theory of relativity has become a watershed. Anyone who opposes Einstein will be dubbed the so-called "minke". Under the banner of Einstein, science has become a religion, because the question of faith is beyond doubt.
>
> The question of truth is clear, but the question of attitude is unclear. Academic issues can be explained clearly, but interest issues cannot be explained. Therefore, despite the fact that the theory of relativity is wrong, many physicists who take the theory of relativity as their profession prefer to defend the theory of relativity unswervingly, because their jobs are more important than truth."
> ...................
> "For the rise of the Chinese nation in the world of science, Einstein's theory of general relativity is a mountain that must be overthrown. It is the most direct, effective and most advanced way to gain scientific discourse power for the Chinese people in the world, break through Einstein's theoretical system, establish a new theoretical system and replace it.
>
> If we don't break the mainstream physics world's worship of foreigners and foreigners, scientific research will always follow foreigners and dare not cross the Lei Chi step, we can only be a follower forever. The original innovation and revival of China's basic sciences is impossible to talk about, and it is simply impossible to achieve.
>
> Therefore, both in physics and philosophy, the theory of relativity must be overthrown. To overthrow the theory of relativity is to overthrow idealism, nothing is impossible, and it is necessary. Professor Li Zifeng's actions are not what some people think, he wants to gain fame through this action. Rather, it is hoped that through this move, the public can understand the truth of the matter and care about and support the research of non-mainstream physics who question the theory of relativity."
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> In the end, these chinese scientists are claiming that natural philosophy be reincorporated in physics as its natural source of questions
> and answers, and that mathematics should be applied carefully to avoid ABSTRACT derivations that mislead the reason of the enquirer.
>
> And YOU, as well I, can be those inquirers in physics (without a diploma).. What it takes is the curiosity of inquiring minds, education to
> search, find and use proper mathematical tools and a good formation in HISTORY OF PHYSICS, NOT MATHEMATICS.
>
> So, be free to think about what a physical model is or could be. There ARE NO RECIPES more than care, logic and intelligence.
>
> And, again, I invite you to read my old blog (only 1 article) and find out which was the methods used by Kirchoff to propose his theorem
> on thermodynamics and radiant heat by 1860. You'll be surprised.

On Friday, October 15, 2021 at 10:22:06 PM UTC-3, Python wrote:

<snip>

> Richard you are the most demented person I've ever met on the Internet.

I think that you should try and write something more than your usual one-liner derogatory comments (all the time).

Maybe you have some problems in text comprehension and lack of coherence to produce any post longer than one line,
or you just have not a fucking idea of anything of value to post here. Only critics.

Why don't you write something that, without taking the job of replying any sentence of my post, just let me to know what
is modern physics for you and which branches are useful and why. Can you or you just don't give a fuck about it, and come
here just to troll people?

Come on, Python, show us some intellectual muscle in terms of narratives. Or you prefer the language of mathematics only?

On Friday, 15 October 2021 at 23:05:42 UTC+2, JanPB wrote:

> "Einstein the proxy". I think practically all relativity doodlers on this NG since
> 1995 suffer from a monomania or some other mental or emotional problem.
> Interestingly, they are all male. Obviously something gender-related.

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

On Saturday, 16 October 2021 at 00:59:25 UTC+2, Paparios wrote:

> The real value of new models is provided by predicting experiments results. Some of the new models do not have provided the necessary predictive resuts from experiments, and therefore those models can not be falsified.

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

On Friday, October 15, 2021 at 5:32:37 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Friday, October 15, 2021 at 7:59:25 PM UTC-3, Paparios wrote:
> > El viernes, 15 de octubre de 2021 a las 16:10:43 UTC-3, Richard Hertz escribió:
> > > On Friday, October 15, 2021 at 12:26:28 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > > <snip>
> > > > The response by propagandists like Hertz are, “Well, if it falls short of
> > > > being a theory of the whole range of everything, then it is no better than
> > > > the Newtonian/Maxwellian description of the world that I found useful as an
> > > > engineer.”
> > > >
> > > > This is of course silly and well as pointless pot-stirring, just to pass
> > > > the time. One might as well spend all day filling crossword puzzles with
> > > > random letters and claim subversive victory in doing that.
> > > Retired Electronic engineers (Hertz, Paparios), failed philosopher-mathematicians (Bodkin), reptilian mathematician lifeforms (Dono), etc.
> > > are just a sample of professionals in hard sciences that are peeking at the stupid world of physics on the edge.
> > >
> > I'm a retired Associate Professor of Electrical Engineering, which in the late 60's studied relativity and quantum mechanics, by using the Lev Landou books Volume 2: The Classical Theory of Fields and Volume 3: Quantum Mechanics non Relativistic as part of my basic training in Modern Physics.
> > Those are graduate level books which are used by current physicists, such as Leonard Susskind, to teach modern physics. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JRZgW1YjCKk&t=1059s and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JzhlfbWBuQ8&t=1611s.
> > > Some, while persists peeking mounted on fanatic relativist bias, have a limited view of what is to be the "frontiers of physics". These
> > > indoctrinated and presumptuous creatures believe that such frontiers have to be pushed to the limits of absurdity, because in their
> > > godless world, there are no limits.
> > >
> > The real value of new models is provided by predicting experiments results. Some of the new models do not have provided the necessary predictive resuts from experiments, and therefore those models can not be falsified.
> > > Others, like me, understand and comprehend why humans do have a limit for explanations to be obtained. And that limit is based on
> > > reason, logic and moral reject of sophistry, fallacy and vanity.
> Paparios, about your final comment:
> > The real problem is you are not a physicist (I'm also not a physisist) so you have not a clue about how a physics model is built.
> is fallacious, because it ties physics with a diploma and not with inquisitive minds in whichever field they decide to get involved.

It's fine for the inquisitive minds to get involved. What's not fine is assuming everyone
is wrong all the time about stuff you don't understand even.

> The fallacy is (IMO): Today, very physicist has a diploma.

Another standard crank "complaint". "I don't have the relevant credentials, so I'm going
to get around it by declaring them irrelevant/evil/tool-of-the-establishment [choose one]".

> So everyone with a diploma in physics is a physicist, therefore those who
> don't have a physicist diploma IS NOT a physicist. (The fallacy is just at plain sight).

The question here is not the label "physicist" but whether what you claim is right
or wrong. So far your claims about relativity's faults have been wrong about 100% of the time.

--
Jan

On Saturday, 16 October 2021 at 12:54:59 UTC+2, JanPB wrote:
> On Friday, October 15, 2021 at 5:32:37 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > On Friday, October 15, 2021 at 7:59:25 PM UTC-3, Paparios wrote:
> > > El viernes, 15 de octubre de 2021 a las 16:10:43 UTC-3, Richard Hertz escribió:
> > > > On Friday, October 15, 2021 at 12:26:28 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > >
> > > > <snip>
> > > > > The response by propagandists like Hertz are, “Well, if it falls short of
> > > > > being a theory of the whole range of everything, then it is no better than
> > > > > the Newtonian/Maxwellian description of the world that I found useful as an
> > > > > engineer.”
> > > > >
> > > > > This is of course silly and well as pointless pot-stirring, just to pass
> > > > > the time. One might as well spend all day filling crossword puzzles with
> > > > > random letters and claim subversive victory in doing that.
> > > > Retired Electronic engineers (Hertz, Paparios), failed philosopher-mathematicians (Bodkin), reptilian mathematician lifeforms (Dono), etc.
> > > > are just a sample of professionals in hard sciences that are peeking at the stupid world of physics on the edge.
> > > >
> > > I'm a retired Associate Professor of Electrical Engineering, which in the late 60's studied relativity and quantum mechanics, by using the Lev Landou books Volume 2: The Classical Theory of Fields and Volume 3: Quantum Mechanics non Relativistic as part of my basic training in Modern Physics.
> > > Those are graduate level books which are used by current physicists, such as Leonard Susskind, to teach modern physics. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JRZgW1YjCKk&t=1059s and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JzhlfbWBuQ8&t=1611s.
> > > > Some, while persists peeking mounted on fanatic relativist bias, have a limited view of what is to be the "frontiers of physics". These
> > > > indoctrinated and presumptuous creatures believe that such frontiers have to be pushed to the limits of absurdity, because in their
> > > > godless world, there are no limits.
> > > >
> > > The real value of new models is provided by predicting experiments results. Some of the new models do not have provided the necessary predictive resuts from experiments, and therefore those models can not be falsified.
> > > > Others, like me, understand and comprehend why humans do have a limit for explanations to be obtained. And that limit is based on
> > > > reason, logic and moral reject of sophistry, fallacy and vanity.
> > Paparios, about your final comment:
> > > The real problem is you are not a physicist (I'm also not a physisist) so you have not a clue about how a physics model is built.
> > is fallacious, because it ties physics with a diploma and not with inquisitive minds in whichever field they decide to get involved.
> It's fine for the inquisitive minds to get involved. What's not fine is assuming everyone
> is wrong all the time about stuff you don't understand even.
> > The fallacy is (IMO): Today, very physicist has a diploma.
> Another standard crank "complaint". "I don't have the relevant credentials, so I'm going
> to get around it by declaring them irrelevant/evil/tool-of-the-establishment [choose one]".
> > So everyone with a diploma in physics is a physicist, therefore those who
> > don't have a physicist diploma IS NOT a physicist. (The fallacy is just at plain sight).
> The question here is not the label "physicist" but whether what you claim is right
> or wrong. So far your claims about relativity's faults have been wrong about 100% of the time.

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

El viernes, 15 de octubre de 2021 a las 21:32:37 UTC-3, Richard Hertz escribió:
> On Friday, October 15, 2021 at 7:59:25 PM UTC-3, Paparios wrote:

> Paparios, about your final comment:

> > The real problem is you are not a physicist (I'm also not a physisist) so you have not a clue about how a physics model is built.

> is fallacious, because it ties physics with a diploma and not with inquisitive minds in whichever field they decide to get involved.
>

In most universities, physicists work associated to a Physics college, school, faculty or department. In my university, the Faculty of Physics has two institutes:
Institute of Physics (https://fisica.uc.cl/)
Institute of Astrophysics (https://astro.uc.cl/en/investigation)

Both institutes graduate students at the PhD level that will go to perform physics reasearch at the several physics laboratories and astronoica observatories, around the world.

For sure, there are many people, like me, which loves physics and astronomy but that loving of science does not make me a physicists or astronomer.

One of my colleages, an electrical engineer with a PhD from Stanford, which designs microchips, works with physicists designing the International Linear Collider (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Linear_Collider). That work does not make him a phycisist!!

> The fallacy is (IMO): Today, very physicist has a diploma. So everyone with a diploma in physics is a physicist, therefore those who
> don't have a physicist diploma IS NOT a physicist. (The fallacy is just at plain sight).
>

That is complete nonsense. For instance, a physician, medical practitioner, or medical doctor, is a professional who practices medicine. For sure, some guy who presumes to know medicine but it has not a diploma certifying his formal studies, IS NOT a physician and he can go to prison for the ilegal practice of the profession.

On Saturday, 16 October 2021 at 16:00:25 UTC+2, Paparios wrote:
> El viernes, 15 de octubre de 2021 a las 21:32:37 UTC-3, Richard Hertz escribió:
> > On Friday, October 15, 2021 at 7:59:25 PM UTC-3, Paparios wrote:
>
> > Paparios, about your final comment:
>
> > > The real problem is you are not a physicist (I'm also not a physisist) so you have not a clue about how a physics model is built.
>
> > is fallacious, because it ties physics with a diploma and not with inquisitive minds in whichever field they decide to get involved.
> >
> In most universities, physicists work associated to a Physics college, school, faculty or department. In my university, the Faculty of Physics has two institutes:
> Institute of Physics (https://fisica.uc.cl/)
> Institute of Astrophysics (https://astro.uc.cl/en/investigation)
>
> Both institutes graduate students at the PhD level that will go to perform physics reasearch at the several physics laboratories and astronoica observatories, around the world.

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