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), In addition, the inertial mass is used to justify the electromagnetic ether but the inertial mass (m = Eo/c2) is massless since Eo represents the energy of an electromagnetic photon. Compton photon momentum (p = λ/h) is used to justify the inertial mass but experimentally, a 3 W laser beam or 1 W X-ray (dt = .1s) does not displace a gold foil which invalids Einstein concept the photon inertial mass.

On Saturday, October 16, 2021 at 11:00:25 AM UTC-3, Paparios wrote:

<snip>

> > > 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.
<snip>

> 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.

Of course not, because they decided to pursue a CAREER as physicists and astronomers, as scientists with a DIPLOMA. That diploma
makes them PROFESSIONALS. There is a lot of people in the world (maybe ten of thousands) who love physics and astronomy as
much as professionals, but they don't have a DIPLOMA. They are called AMATEURS, and their contribution is RESPECTED within
scientific circles, being in astronomy where they reach the newspapers with some findings (either observational or experimental).

A very different specie are opinionated lovers of science (like you, me, Bodkin, Dono, JanPB, Moroney, etc..) who ONLY read, digest
and write here or at another site. They don't work actively in any field related to physics or astronomy, but their HOBBY is to learn
something and have an opinion (either supported by mathematics or just by a logical construction based on words).

So, you have PROFESSIONALS, AMATEURS and HOBBYISTS (the last being to lazy or cheap to do something during extended
periods of time). But NONE, NONE, of them OWN the truth (if there is a single one). Everyone can contribute to knowledge.

And any retarded here that negate such evident fact is just a jealous jerk, even when he/she is a professional, an amateur or a
hobbyist. And I call them RETARDED because of their intellectual RACISM, which causes them to put themselves above others
(without any merit) and are willing to defend their positions to death. It's like a fight between social classes (rich, poor and pretenders).

Physics is the field of free thoughts, not bounded to handbooks with formulae and examples of applied physics-math-chemistry and
engineering formulae and methodologies. This is what most technicians and engineers do in their entire lives, IF they work in the
experimental side of science and technology. MOST OF THEM are just technical bureaucrats, dealing with papers in a desk. If you
take any given big corporation (say Raytheon) and analyze the distribution of employees in fields of direct R&D, support to R&D,
documentation and presentation of R&D, and administrative support, you will find a ratio of 1:4:15:80.

You can have a fucking genius without a diploma working in the (1) zone, and a physicist with a BsC and two Masters working in the
(15) zone as a bureaucrat working with papers only. Not to mention many physicists working in the (4) zone, and even engineers and
physicists that got a job in the (80) zone. REALITY IS A BITCH.

On the other side, you are just a technician (not an engineer) but you couldn't afford to get a higher degree. Yet, you some an amazing
mind and you are curious. One day, you decide to study the efficiency of the use of energy in a SIMPLE AC MOTOR. You know basic
physics, math and EE and, being smart and after spending hundred of hours studying how it REALLY works, you find out that a lot of
energy is wasted without producing WORK. And you find that with a different re-wiring plus a capacitor in the right place, you raise
the efficiency of such motor from 85% to 95%. Are you an experimental physicist? Of course you are!

Only that, without a diploma, you are in the category of AMATEUR (Faraday and Tesla were, as an example).

Now, take such example of an amateur but physicist by heart, and apply it to the following fields:

- Sound
- Optics
- Electromagnetism
- Mechanics
- Heat and thermodynamics
- Astrophysics
- Quantum and nuclear physics
- Relativity
- Solid state physics and condensed matter

OF COURSE, the money involved to do something experimental is much higher in quantum and nuclear physics than in sound physics.
But INTELLIGENCE is something that money CAN'T BUY (not even lend). So, it's possible that a genius, being an amateur in 2021,
still can make contributions WITHOUT A DIPLOMA.

Because, at the root of it, physics is about HOW AND WHY nature works in any given way, either at an amateur lab or outdoors.

But, to make real contributions at any level (professional, amateur, hobbyist) requires commitment and hard and long work besides
the spark that intelligence provides (1% inspiration, 99% perspiration). You can do it on an improvised lab or on paper, and still apply.

What is VOID OF VALUE is to have the 1% inspiration and LET IT THERE, because you are not committed. Millions and millions of
events like this happens EVERY DAY, but we'll never know.

> 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!!

READ THE ABOVE COMMENTS.

> > 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.

FALLACIOUS. READ THE ABOVE COMMENTS.

El sábado, 16 de octubre de 2021 a las 14:51:56 UTC-3, Richard Hertz escribió:
> On Saturday, October 16, 2021 at 11:00:25 AM UTC-3, Paparios wrote:
>
> <snip>
> > > > 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.
> <snip>
> > 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..

> Of course not, because they decided to pursue a CAREER as physicists and astronomers, as scientists with a DIPLOMA. That diploma
> makes them PROFESSIONALS. There is a lot of people in the world (maybe ten of thousands) who love physics and astronomy as
> much as professionals, but they don't have a DIPLOMA. They are called AMATEURS, and their contribution is RESPECTED within
> scientific circles, being in astronomy where they reach the newspapers with some findings (either observational or experimental).
>

Very few of amateurs astronomers actually do physics. Shoemaker-Levy did contribute by discovering Comet Shoemaker–Levy 9, which later crashed into Jupiter and made them famous. But Eugene Shoemaker was a geologist, his wife Caroline had degrees in Literature and political science and David Levy was also an amateur astronomer.

Astronomers use parallax to determine the distance to a star using the earth orbital diameter as the parallax reference distance but the distance to a 4.22 light year star (4 x 1016 m) is more than 105 times larger than the earth orbital diameter (2.99 x 1011 m). The earth orbital diameter is too short of a distance to produce a change in the angular position θ that can be measured using a telescope. The telescopic resolution θ required to determine the distance to a stationary 4.22 ly star is calculated using,

A/B = cos θ...........................................................................................................................................83

when A/B → 0, equation 81 becomes,

A/B = θ.................................................................................................................................................84

Using A as the earth orbital diameter, B is the distance to a 4.22 ly star, and θ represents the change in the angular displacement of the star, the telescopic resolution (power) required to determine the distance to a 4..22 ly (4 x 1016 meters) star is calculated,

θ = A/B = (2.99 x 1011 m) / (4 x 1016 meters) = 7.475 x 10-6 degrees or 0.027 arcsec....................85

To measure the distance to a 4.22 ly star using the earth orbital diameter as the parallax reference distance requires a telescopic resolution of 0.027 arcsec (equ 83) which is 3.7 times more power than the Hubble (.1 arcsec).. Using equation 82, the maximum parallax distance to a star calculated using the Hubble is calculated,

B = A/θ = (2.99 x 1011 m) x (3600o) / arcec) x (.1 arcsec)-1 = 1..0764 x 1015 m = 0.114 light years..............86

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 but the inertial mass (m = Eo/c2) is massless since Eo represents the energy of an electromagnetic photon. Compton photon momentum (p = λ/h) is used to justify the inertial mass but experimentally, a 3 W laser beam does not displace a gold foil which invalids Einstein concept the photon inertial mass.

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> 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.

Intelligence and inquisitiveness are not enough. They aren’t in any field
where professional credentials are important. They aren’t in law, or in
medicine, in architecture, or for that matter in engineering.

There are lots of pretenders who would LOVE to self-declare as physicists
just because they have a fascination with the subject. That’s not enough. I
have a fascination with the subject. I have intelligence and
inquisitiveness. I am not a physicist.

>
> 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.

There is still cross-fertilization. But to go back to 1850, when most
dental care was performed by barbers, doesn’t seem to be the answer. If
you’d like to pine away for the days of yore, then perhaps the best thing
you could advocate for is the restoration of the
apprentice/journeyman/master model, which was the nearest thing to
credentialing back in the era you are nostalgic for. And if you wish to
return to the days of “natural philosophy”, then you’ll also return to the
days where the only practitioners were independently wealthy or could find
a wealthy patron to fund them.

All of this is self-serving faux-nostalgia on your part anyway, since
you’re only advocating it to defend yourself as an interested (but woefully
uninformed) amateur in physics, and you’d like to argue that you’re on a
level playing field. That’s a delusion you can feed yourself, but no one
else is swallowing.

>
> 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:

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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?
>

You cannot sense a dismissive comment? You think verbosity should be met
with verbosity?

And as for “which branches are useful and why”, how many times have you
been reminded that the difference between fundamental (not applied) science
and engineering is that the former is not based on practical usefulness?
When are you going to get that through your head?

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

JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> 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.

And the REASON his claims are false is because he is unwilling and unable
to learn the subject. It is not unreasonable to anticipate that uninformed
ranting has no actual basis with merit. He’d like his verbose diatribes
just to be treated seriously regardless of his background, and he just
doesn’t get that this is foolish.

>
> --
> Jan
>

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

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, October 16, 2021 at 11:00:25 AM UTC-3, Paparios wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>>> 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.
>
> <snip>
>
>> 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.
>
> Of course not, because they decided to pursue a CAREER as physicists and
> astronomers, as scientists with a DIPLOMA. That diploma
> makes them PROFESSIONALS.

No, that makes them TRAINED. Whether they go on to be a PROFESSIONAL is a
further choice. I am TRAINED in mathematics, and I was a professional
mathematician at one time, and I am no longer a professional mathematician
though I am still trained and qualified as a mathematician.

What is true is that becoming a professional physicist has training as a
prerequisite. And in fact, to be a physicist of any sort, professional or
not, requires that training.

> There is a lot of people in the world (maybe ten of thousands) who love
> physics and astronomy as
> much as professionals, but they don't have a DIPLOMA. They are called
> AMATEURS, and their contribution is RESPECTED within
> scientific circles, being in astronomy where they reach the newspapers
> with some findings (either observational or experimental).

Not in physics. Can you name any amateur physicist who has made the papers
with an accomplishment recognized by physicists? Any in the last 100 years?
Any?

Now, you may ask, but WHY can physics not be like astronomy? Well, because
it’s not. Sorry, fact of life.

>
> A very different specie are opinionated lovers of science (like you, me,
> Bodkin, Dono, JanPB, Moroney, etc..) who ONLY read, digest
> and write here or at another site. They don't work actively in any field
> related to physics or astronomy, but their HOBBY is to learn
> something and have an opinion (either supported by mathematics or just by
> a logical construction based on words).

Opinions come in informed and uninformed varieties. Those varieties are not
equal.

>
> So, you have PROFESSIONALS, AMATEURS and HOBBYISTS (the last being to
> lazy or cheap to do something during extended
> periods of time). But NONE, NONE, of them OWN the truth (if there is a
> single one). Everyone can contribute to knowledge.

Much as you’d like this to be the case, this just isn’t true in physics. It
also isn’t true in immunology, or in orchestral composition, or in organic
chemistry, or in aeronautical engineering.

You are being self-serving and childish.

>
> And any retarded here that negate such evident fact is just a jealous
> jerk, even when he/she is a professional, an amateur or a
> hobbyist. And I call them RETARDED because of their intellectual RACISM,
> which causes them to put themselves above others
> (without any merit) and are willing to defend their positions to death.
> It's like a fight between social classes (rich, poor and pretenders).
>
> Physics is the field of free thoughts, not bounded to handbooks with
> formulae and examples of applied physics-math-chemistry and
> engineering formulae and methodologies. This is what most technicians and
> engineers do in their entire lives, IF they work in the
> experimental side of science and technology. MOST OF THEM are just
> technical bureaucrats, dealing with papers in a desk. If you
> take any given big corporation (say Raytheon) and analyze the
> distribution of employees in fields of direct R&D, support to R&D,
> documentation and presentation of R&D, and administrative support, you
> will find a ratio of 1:4:15:80.
>
> You can have a fucking genius without a diploma working in the (1) zone,
> and a physicist with a BsC and two Masters working in the
> (15) zone as a bureaucrat working with papers only. Not to mention many
> physicists working in the (4) zone, and even engineers and
> physicists that got a job in the (80) zone. REALITY IS A BITCH.
>
> On the other side, you are just a technician (not an engineer) but you
> couldn't afford to get a higher degree. Yet, you some an amazing
> mind and you are curious. One day, you decide to study the efficiency of
> the use of energy in a SIMPLE AC MOTOR. You know basic
> physics, math and EE and, being smart and after spending hundred of hours
> studying how it REALLY works, you find out that a lot of
> energy is wasted without producing WORK. And you find that with a
> different re-wiring plus a capacitor in the right place, you raise
> the efficiency of such motor from 85% to 95%. Are you an experimental
> physicist? Of course you are!
>
> Only that, without a diploma, you are in the category of AMATEUR (Faraday
> and Tesla were, as an example).
>
> Now, take such example of an amateur but physicist by heart, and apply it
> to the following fields:
>
> - Sound
> - Optics
> - Electromagnetism
> - Mechanics
> - Heat and thermodynamics
> - Astrophysics
> - Quantum and nuclear physics
> - Relativity
> - Solid state physics and condensed matter
>
> OF COURSE, the money involved to do something experimental is much higher
> in quantum and nuclear physics than in sound physics.
> But INTELLIGENCE is something that money CAN'T BUY (not even lend). So,
> it's possible that a genius, being an amateur in 2021,
> still can make contributions WITHOUT A DIPLOMA.

Examples? Anyone from the last 100 years who has made a sizeable
contribution to physics, recognized by physicists, without training in
physics? Any?

>
> Because, at the root of it, physics is about HOW AND WHY nature works in
> any given way, either at an amateur lab or outdoors.
>
> But, to make real contributions at any level (professional, amateur,
> hobbyist) requires commitment and hard and long work besides
> the spark that intelligence provides (1% inspiration, 99% perspiration).
> You can do it on an improvised lab or on paper, and still apply.
>
> What is VOID OF VALUE is to have the 1% inspiration and LET IT THERE,
> because you are not committed. Millions and millions of
> events like this happens EVERY DAY, but we'll never know.
>
>> One of my colleages, an electrical engineer with a PhD from Stanford,
>> which designs microchips, works with physicists designing the
>> International Lin
>> ar Collider (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Linear_Collider). That work does
>> not make him a phycisist!!
>
> READ THE ABOVE COMMENTS.
>
>>> 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.
>
> FALLACIOUS. READ THE ABOVE COMMENTS.
>

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

On Saturday, October 16, 2021 at 1:31:23 PM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:

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.

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 but the inertial mass (m = Eo/c2) is massless since Eo represents the energy of an electromagnetic photon. Compton photon momentum (p = λ/h) is used to justify the inertial mass but experimentally, a 3 W laser beam does not displace a gold foil which invalids Einstein concept the photon inertial mass.

This is the twilight zone-----imagine every time someone searches for "special relativity" there is a possibility that they will find this posts--------- would that make your nappies alittle tighter around your butt? or make you scream? Maybe you can use time-space to make it disappear........cheers..

On Saturday, October 16, 2021 at 5:31:23 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:

<snip irrelevant mumble posted as a coherent reply>

> Not in physics. Can you name any amateur physicist who has made the papers
> with an accomplishment recognized by physicists? Any in the last 100 years?
> Any?

<snip>

In the fields of sound, mechanics, electromagnetism, solid state physics, information coding, optics, etc.:

Nikola Tesla: contactless AC motor; full theory of tuned radio transmitters and receivers; wireless remote control; etc.
Lee de Forest: Three-electrode vacuum-tube (Audion); sound-on-film recording (Phonofilm); etc.
Reginald Fessenden: radio broadcasting, first two-way transatlantic transmission, etc.
Philo Farnsworth: first all-electronic picture pickup device (or video camera tube); first fully functional complete TV system.
Hedy Lamarr: co-inventor of frequency-hopping spread spectrum communication systems (profession: Actress).
Robert H. Goddard: First liquid fuel rocket.
Frank Whittle: Inventor of jet engine (was initially laughed at).
Charles Lindbergh: Inventions for flight navigation and heart surgery.
Les Paul: inventions of the field of sound and music, as multitrack recording, the eight-track tape recorder, and overdubbing.
Edwin H. Land: Co-founder of Polaroid. A college dropout, invented polarized sheets, improved long-distance photography, etc.
Paul Winchell: first person to build and patent a mechanical artificial heart (actor).
Robert Watson-Watt: pioneer of radio direction finding and radar technology, with many inventions on this field.
Wilson Greatbatch: Lithium-iodide battery cell; peacemaker and 325 patents.
H. J. Round: LED diode, based on his research on electroluminescence from solid state diode.
Erasto Mpemba: The Mpemba effect, when was a teenager in Tanzania, in 1963.

plus hundred or thousand persons in theoretical or applied physics, not properly recognized by the establishment fortress. Many
discoveries in the last 60 years are related to bio-physics, physics of the sound and vision, applied mechanics, electricity
and magnetism. These fields require a lot less capital investments in laboratories or outdoors, and are far from the 12 decimal
digits sciences, which has become a habit with the advent of modern computers and instrumentation (1980-2021).

I didn't mention hundred, if not thousands of contributions in computer sciences, without which modern physics worth ZERO. Also,
it worth mention an entire body of knowledge in the SCIENCE of systems isolation from external perturbations due to heat,
electricity, magnetism, structural vibrations, humidity, gases and liquids pressure, gravitational effects (gyroscopes), etc.

And many forgotten/buried contributions can be found on arxiv/vixra/blogs (maybe after discarding 95 % of them, or more). But
even a ratio of 1:99 (right:wrong) is valid.

I forgot this one:

Amateur makes fools of the experts
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg14719952-200-amateur-makes-fools-of-the-experts/

Excerpt: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

However, Pellegrini’s insistence that there was something amiss with a classic 1913 experiment eventually persuaded Swift to take a closer look at the theory behind the original experiment. This experiment, reported in the Proceedings of the Royal Society A, was an attempt by the husband-and-wife team Marjorie Wilson and H. A. Wilson of Rice University in Houston to measure the electric field created in a magnetised nonconducting material moving at high speed through a uniform magnetic field. Five years earlier, Einstein had used his special theory of relativity to predict that such an electric field would be stronger than that predicted using the classical theory devised by the Dutch physicist Hendrik Lorentz.

Confirming the existence of this enhanced electric field proved difficult, however, as an object moving at high speed in a straight line would almost immediately shoot out of the confines of a laboratory. But in the early part of this century, physicists assumed that rotation was a good approximation to linear motion. So the Wilsons spun a hollow cylinder of magnetic nonconducting material at high speed in a uniform magnetic field and measured the voltage between the cylinder’s inner and outer surfaces. This appeared to confirm Einstein’s prediction.
..............

But physicists now know that there is a fundamental difference between rotation and linear motion. This can be shown, says Swift, by imagining a series of initially synchronised clocks arranged around the edge of a rotating turntable. Special relativity says that an observer sitting on one clock and looking at each of the rest in turn should find that they seem to run progressively slower in the direction of rotation. But this causes a problem when the observer comes back round to look at the clock on which he or she is sitting. “It leads to the nonsensical idea of a clock actually running slower than itself,” says Swift. “Special relativity is an entirely inappropriate theory to apply to a rotating body.”

Nevertheless, many researchers have continued to cite the Wilsons’ experiment as a confirmation of special relativity, not realising that this interpretation depends on the flawed assumption now spotted by Pellegrini.

The correct theory to apply to rotating bodies is the general theory of relativity, which Einstein did not publish until 1915. And when Pellegrini and Swift used general relativity to predict the electric field generated inside the Wilsons’ apparatus, it was much closer to the result predicted by classical physics (American Journal of Physics, vol 63, p 694).

End of excerpts -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Saturday, October 16, 2021 at 5:08:42 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> I forgot this one:

> The correct theory to apply to rotating bodies is the general theory of relativity, which Einstein did not publish until 1915. And when Pellegrini and Swift used general relativity to predict the electric field generated inside the Wilsons’ apparatus, it was much closer to the result predicted by classical physics (American Journal of Physics, vol 63, p 694).
>
So, you are eating shit. Again.

On Saturday, 16 October 2021 at 22:31:23 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Saturday, October 16, 2021 at 11:00:25 AM UTC-3, Paparios wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> >>>> 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.
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> >> 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.
> >
> > Of course not, because they decided to pursue a CAREER as physicists and
> > astronomers, as scientists with a DIPLOMA. That diploma
> > makes them PROFESSIONALS.
> No, that makes them TRAINED. Whether they go on to be a PROFESSIONAL is a
> further choice. I am TRAINED in mathematics

Stop fucking, Bod, you neither knew Pythagorean theorem
nor the definition of triangle.
And being a PROFESSIONAL mystical mumbler isn't any
reason for glory. Particularly - when PROFESSIONAL
measurement staff (GPS) keep measuring t'=t, against
the screams of your PROFESSIONAL morons.

In article <f44e9a8a-e6d8-462b-b4e3-eea3d9a7b294n@googlegroups.com>,
Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:

> So, you have PROFESSIONALS, AMATEURS and HOBBYISTS (the last being to lazy or
> cheap to do something during extended
> periods of time). But NONE, NONE, of them OWN the truth (if there is a single
> one). Everyone can contribute to knowledge.

However, only the professionals can determine whether an amateur or a
hobbyist has actually contributed to the science.

Mikko

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, October 16, 2021 at 5:31:23 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> <snip irrelevant mumble posted as a coherent reply>
>
>> Not in physics. Can you name any amateur physicist who has made the papers
>> with an accomplishment recognized by physicists? Any in the last 100 years?
>> Any?
>
> <snip>
>
> In the fields of sound, mechanics, electromagnetism, solid state physics,
> information coding, optics, etc.:

And with the list below, you once again show that you cannot tell the
difference between and advance in physics and an advance in engineering or
invention.

None of the below are advances in physics. They are the APPLICATION of
existing physics to produce a new device or technology. Technology and
science are two different things.

So I ask you again, can you name an amateur, untrained in physics, who has
made an advance in PHYSICS (not engineering, not inventions, not practical
applications) recognized by physicists, from the last 100 years?

>
> Nikola Tesla: contactless AC motor; full theory of tuned radio
> transmitters and receivers; wireless remote control; etc.
> Lee de Forest: Three-electrode vacuum-tube (Audion); sound-on-film
> recording (Phonofilm); etc.
> Reginald Fessenden: radio broadcasting, first two-way transatlantic transmission, etc.
> Philo Farnsworth: first all-electronic picture pickup device (or video
> camera tube); first fully functional complete TV system.
> Hedy Lamarr: co-inventor of frequency-hopping spread spectrum
> communication systems (profession: Actress).
> Robert H. Goddard: First liquid fuel rocket.
> Frank Whittle: Inventor of jet engine (was initially laughed at).
> Charles Lindbergh: Inventions for flight navigation and heart surgery.
> Les Paul: inventions of the field of sound and music, as multitrack
> recording, the eight-track tape recorder, and overdubbing.
> Edwin H. Land: Co-founder of Polaroid. A college dropout, invented
> polarized sheets, improved long-distance photography, etc.
> Paul Winchell: first person to build and patent a mechanical artificial heart (actor).
> Robert Watson-Watt: pioneer of radio direction finding and radar
> technology, with many inventions on this field.
> Wilson Greatbatch: Lithium-iodide battery cell; peacemaker and 325 patents.
> H. J. Round: LED diode, based on his research on electroluminescence from
> solid state diode.
> Erasto Mpemba: The Mpemba effect, when was a
> teenager in Tanzania, in 1963.
>
>
> plus hundred or thousand persons in theoretical or applied physics, not
> properly recognized by the establishment fortress.

Those people are trained in physics. Again, the question is about amateurs
untrained in physics.

Recall that you said that physics should be open and receptive to all who
are inquisitive and intelligent, regardless of training or background.

> Many
> discoveries in the last 60 years are related to bio-physics, physics of
> the sound and vision, applied mechanics, electricity
> and magnetism. These fields require a lot less capital investments in
> laboratories or outdoors, and are far from the 12 decimal
> digits sciences, which has become a habit with the advent of modern
> computers and instrumentation (1980-2021).
>
> I didn't mention hundred, if not thousands of contributions in computer
> sciences, without which modern physics worth ZERO. Also,
> it worth mention an entire body of knowledge in the SCIENCE of systems
> isolation from external perturbations due to heat,
> electricity, magnetism, structural vibrations, humidity, gases and
> liquids pressure, gravitational effects (gyroscopes), etc.
>
> And many forgotten/buried contributions can be found on arxiv/vixra/blogs
> (maybe after discarding 95 % of them, or more). But
> even a ratio of 1:99 (right:wrong) is valid.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

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

Mikko <mikko.levanto@outlook.com> wrote:
> In article <f44e9a8a-e6d8-462b-b4e3-eea3d9a7b294n@googlegroups.com>,
> Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> So, you have PROFESSIONALS, AMATEURS and HOBBYISTS (the last being to lazy or
>> cheap to do something during extended
>> periods of time). But NONE, NONE, of them OWN the truth (if there is a single
>> one). Everyone can contribute to knowledge.
>
> However, only the professionals can determine whether an amateur or a
> hobbyist has actually contributed to the science.
>
> Mikko
>

That is also true.

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

Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote:
> Mikko <mikko.levanto@outlook.com> wrote:
>> In article <f44e9a8a-e6d8-462b-b4e3-eea3d9a7b294n@googlegroups.com>,
>> Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> So, you have PROFESSIONALS, AMATEURS and HOBBYISTS (the last being to lazy or
>>> cheap to do something during extended
>>> periods of time). But NONE, NONE, of them OWN the truth (if there is a single
>>> one). Everyone can contribute to knowledge.
>>
>> However, only the professionals can determine whether an amateur or a
>> hobbyist has actually contributed to the science.
>>
>> Mikko
>>
>
> That is also true.
>

There are many here though that detest that idea. “That’s elitism,” they
cry. Yes, it is. Some subjects require more than interest and intelligence.
Some require dedicated study and practice.

Someone interested in medicine cannot declare himself a practitioner of
medicine without the approval of professionals. Same is true for
engineering, and it is ironic that engineers complain that this should not
be true for physics. The hubris is extraordinary, but (given the behavior
exhibited by retired engineers here) unsurprising.

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

On Sunday, 17 October 2021 at 14:25:00 UTC+2, Mikko wrote:
> In article <f44e9a8a-e6d8-462b...@googlegroups.com>,
> Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > So, you have PROFESSIONALS, AMATEURS and HOBBYISTS (the last being to lazy or
> > cheap to do something during extended
> > periods of time). But NONE, NONE, of them OWN the truth (if there is a single
> > one). Everyone can contribute to knowledge.
> However, only the professionals can determine whether an amateur or a
> hobbyist has actually contributed to the science.

They can also construct clocks measuring t'=t, against
raving fanatics screaming that they're FORCED to THE BEST
WAY of your idiot guru.

On Sunday, 17 October 2021 at 14:56:38 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:

> Someone interested in medicine cannot declare himself a practitioner of
> medicine without the approval of professionals. Same is true for
> engineering,

Yet there is an idiot woodworker trying to teach engineers
about their standards.

On 10/16/2021 1:51 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Saturday, October 16, 2021 at 11:00:25 AM UTC-3, Paparios wrote:

>> 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.
>
> Of course not, because they decided to pursue a CAREER as physicists and astronomers, as scientists with a DIPLOMA. That diploma
> makes them PROFESSIONALS. There is a lot of people in the world (maybe ten of thousands) who love physics and astronomy as
> much as professionals, but they don't have a DIPLOMA. They are called AMATEURS,

No, amateurs are people who are not paid for their work. Professionals
have as their PROFESSION to do the work. They get paid for it; it's
their job.

> and their contribution is RESPECTED within scientific circles,

Of course. Many amateurs have degrees or other relevant education or
experience. Making positive contributions without being paid for it
deserves respect.

It used to be that the Olympics required all their participants be
amateurs, that is not paid to be an athlete in their sport. Clearly,
Olympians were the best of the best in their fields, but, for example,
basketball players for the NBA could not participate on an Olympic
basketball team because they were professionals. They were paid to be
basketball players.

(I don't know their current rules but professionals can now participate)

<snip remainder of crap>