Michael Moroney wrote:

>> Moroney. I'm an honest person, so I don't need any of them. Ever!
>
> So you weren't involved with designing particle accelerators, GPS type
> systems, Sagnac gyroscopes, or precision timing systems, so traditional
> Newtonian and Maxwellian approximations are fine. That's fine, most EEs
> don't.

where is your whistleblower, why don't you blow in your whistle? They
faked the moon landing to force the eastern block to decay.

Am 09.10.2021 um 15:23 schrieb Ilya Boon:

>>> Oddly enough their producer, Frank Farian, was IIRC responsible in the
>>> 1970s for Boney M. which were *extremely* popular everywhere except in
>>> the US (like real football and the metric system )
>>>
>> I heard this: The band were mainly dancers, while the voice was mainly
>> Frank Farian himself, assisted by studio musicians.
>
> what do you mean "hear", you have to listen at, not hear. ABBA was a zero
> compared to Boney M. You young people don't even know what disco is all
> about.
>

I meant 'heard' as 'kind of rumors'.

btw: I knew Boney M. from my own experience and never liked it.

I'm not at all against Disco music. But certain kinds were not really my
taste.

TH

On Saturday, 9 October 2021 at 18:11:23 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 10/4/2021 1:54 AM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > On Monday, October 4, 2021 at 12:21:19 AM UTC-3, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >
> >> Face it. Both SR and GR are 100+ year old settled science.
> >> Too bad for you. Seek a medical professional to treat your obsession.
> >
> > I never used any of those three "mechanisms" of pseudo-philosophy, Moroney. I'm an honest person, so I don't need any of them. Ever!
> So you weren't involved with designing particle accelerators, GPS type
> systems, Sagnac gyroscopes, or precision timing systems, so traditional
> Newtonian and Maxwellian approximations are fine. That's fine, most EEs
> don't.

Neither you were, stupid Mike. Of course, all of these systems
have clocks measuring t'=t and ignoring your idiot gurus
screaming that they are broken.

> What you misinterpret as 'crazy religious fanatics' are simply people
> reacting to an obvious falsehood which you defend as truth.

Obvious only for them, stupid Mike.
In the meantime in the real world, however, GPS clocks
keep measuring t'=t, just like all serious clocks always
did.

Am 29.09.2021 um 14:39 schrieb Python:
> Thomas Heger wrote:
> ...
>> Whoever wrote 'Principia' was most likely not Newton.
>>
>> This is a similar phenomenon as Shakespeare. He wrote simply too many
>> books in too few years and too early in life. So, possibly somethings
>> wrong with the entire story...
>
> *LOL*

It is entirely possible, that the literature written by Shakespeare was
in fact written by others and only presented as works of Shakespeare.

We have this problem of authorship in many cases :

is this piece of art, music, science or literature actually produced by
the famed creator himself (personally)?

Did the Beatles (for instance) actually wrote their songs themselves?
Did they play the intruments on the recordings and do we hear their real
voices?

How could we possibly know?

It is not too far fetched to assume, that a number of works attributed
to certain artists were actually created by unknown others.

We know, for instance, that Andy Warhol had a study called 'factory',
where he had friends working, who created 'his' silk screen prints.

We 'Milli Vanilli', too.

But how far does this go? IOW: how many books were in fact written by
ghost-writers and music performed by casted dancers, who dance to the
sound of unknown studio musicians, while they pretend to sing own songs???

TH

Am 09.10.2021 um 15:42 schrieb Ilya Boon:
> Thomas Heger wrote:
>
>>> Happens all the time in physics. I mentioned the statistics about Nobel
>>> Prize winners. You say that’s not possible.
>>
>> If all the scientific papers are written by underpaid homeworkers and
>> presented by former spies and people high in the ranks of secret
>> societies, the real authors would be the smart guys, while the famed
>> presenters are on their own, once they do something themselves.
>> So it would be kind of natural, if the 'afterlife' of famed people gets
>> strange.
>
> so true. Good papers never gets published, they are coming and "offer"
> you a job, then you are history.
>

If you have something to tell, you could simply create a website and
present, what you think, the world should know.

Also the UseNet is still a possibility to say something.

Another possible solution is self-publishing of e-books on platforms
like e-bay or Amazon (and several others).

A good choice is also the production of videos about the subject and to
present them on YouTube (or similar).

Also print-on-demand publishing is a new possibility for unknown authors.

My crude method is to create a pdf, put it on google docs and paste the
link to it into forums on the UseNet.

The efficiency is next to zero. But at least my stuff is public.

See here:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-G80iC-D-Qs6nH_Skdy7vxJ9faoW20Hc/view?usp=sharing

and here

https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6

TH

On Wednesday, October 20, 2021 at 2:23:48 AM UTC-3, Thomas Heger wrote:

<snip>

> See here:
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-G80iC-D-Qs6nH_Skdy7vxJ9faoW20Hc/view?usp=sharing

In this 1905 paper on electrodynamics, the opening formulae of his THOUGHT EXPERIMENT were:

tB - tA = rAB/(c - v)
tA' - tB = rAB/(c + v)
tB - tA = tA' -tB

used to describe what imaginary 1-dimensional ghost observers watched in a imaginary train, were an imaginary beam of
light was emitted from A to B and bounced back in a mirror towards A.

assuming that rAB was about 12 meters (a wagon at the train), timing involved was about 40 nanoseconds (avg).

If the speed of the train was 100 Km/Hr = 0.0278 Km/sec

then, tB - tA = 40.02769513 nsec
and
tA' - tB = 40.02768771 nsec

with a difference of about 7.41767 femtoseconds.

Nanosecond was introduced 1947 (at 14th conference of the Union Internationale de Chimie) as a prefix for units of one
thousand-millionth part (now "one-billionth"), from Greek nanos "a dwarf." It was possible, only at the end of WWII, to design
digital counters that could approach to measure 100s of nanoseconds, using thermionic tubes with 10 digits within. You
may saw it, probably, in scifi movies from the '50s.

Femtoseconds were possible to be measured at the beggining of this century, 55 years after nanosecond first measurements.

I say: Nobody said that Einstein's thought experiment was out of this world and any possible conceivable reality? Really?

And, due to omission of criticism about rationality, things started to degrade at physics in the next 116 years. And here we are.

They should have forbidden such ridiculous paper, but Drude (Annalen Chief Editor) and others had an agenda.

On Wednesday, October 20, 2021 at 12:24:47 AM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 20, 2021 at 2:23:48 AM UTC-3, Thomas Heger wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > See here:
> >
> > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-G80iC-D-Qs6nH_Skdy7vxJ9faoW20Hc/view?usp=sharing
>
> In this 1905 paper on electrodynamics, the opening formulae of his THOUGHT EXPERIMENT were:
>
> tB - tA = rAB/(c - v)
> tA' - tB = rAB/(c + v)
> tB - tA = tA' -tB
>
> used to describe what imaginary 1-dimensional ghost observers watched in a imaginary train, were an imaginary beam of
> light was emitted from A to B and bounced back in a mirror towards A.
>
> assuming that rAB was about 12 meters (a wagon at the train), timing involved was about 40 nanoseconds (avg).
>
> If the speed of the train was 100 Km/Hr = 0.0278 Km/sec
>
> then, tB - tA = 40.02769513 nsec
> and
> tA' - tB = 40.02768771 nsec
>
> with a difference of about 7.41767 femtoseconds.
>
> Nanosecond was introduced 1947 (at 14th conference of the Union Internationale de Chimie) as a prefix for units of one
> thousand-millionth part (now "one-billionth"), from Greek nanos "a dwarf." It was possible, only at the end of WWII, to design
> digital counters that could approach to measure 100s of nanoseconds, using thermionic tubes with 10 digits within. You
> may saw it, probably, in scifi movies from the '50s.
>
> Femtoseconds were possible to be measured at the beggining of this century, 55 years after nanosecond first measurements.
>
> I say: Nobody said that Einstein's thought experiment was out of this world and any possible conceivable reality? Really?
>
> And, due to omission of criticism about rationality, things started to degrade at physics in the next 116 years. And here we are.
>
> They should have forbidden such ridiculous paper, but Drude (Annalen Chief Editor) and others had an agenda.

Everything you say here is incorrect or a non-sequitur.

--
Jan

Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
> Am 29.09.2021 um 14:39 schrieb Python:
>> Thomas Heger wrote:
>> ...
>>> Whoever wrote 'Principia' was most likely not Newton.
>>>
>>> This is a similar phenomenon as Shakespeare. He wrote simply too many
>>> books in too few years and too early in life. So, possibly somethings
>>> wrong with the entire story...
>>
>> *LOL*
>
> It is entirely possible, that the literature written by Shakespeare was
> in fact written by others and only presented as works of Shakespeare.
>
> We have this problem of authorship in many cases :
>
> is this piece of art, music, science or literature actually produced by
> the famed creator himself (personally)?
>
> Did the Beatles (for instance) actually wrote their songs themselves?
> Did they play the intruments on the recordings and do we hear their real
> voices?
>
> How could we possibly know?

Good grief.

>
> It is not too far fetched to assume, that a number of works attributed
> to certain artists were actually created by unknown others.
>
>
> We know, for instance, that Andy Warhol had a study called 'factory',
> where he had friends working, who created 'his' silk screen prints.
>
> We 'Milli Vanilli', too.
>
> But how far does this go? IOW: how many books were in fact written by
> ghost-writers and music performed by casted dancers, who dance to the
> sound of unknown studio musicians, while they pretend to sing own songs???
>
> TH
>

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

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 20, 2021 at 2:23:48 AM UTC-3, Thomas Heger wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> See here:
>>
>> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-G80iC-D-Qs6nH_Skdy7vxJ9faoW20Hc/view?usp=sharing
>
> In this 1905 paper on electrodynamics, the opening formulae of his THOUGHT EXPERIMENT were:
>
> tB - tA = rAB/(c - v)
> tA' - tB = rAB/(c + v)
> tB - tA = tA' -tB
>
> used to describe what imaginary 1-dimensional ghost observers watched in
> a imaginary train, were an imaginary beam of
> light was emitted from A to B and bounced back in a mirror towards A.

There was no train in the 1905 paper. There was a train in a later
published popularization. Your habitual confusion between popularizations
and real science leads to rightfully earned mockery.

>
> assuming that rAB was about 12 meters (a wagon at the train), timing
> involved was about 40 nanoseconds (avg).
>
> If the speed of the train was 100 Km/Hr = 0.0278 Km/sec
>
> then, tB - tA = 40.02769513 nsec
> and
> tA' - tB = 40.02768771 nsec
>
> with a difference of about 7.41767 femtoseconds.
>
> Nanosecond was introduced 1947 (at 14th conference of the Union
> Internationale de Chimie) as a prefix for units of one
> thousand-millionth part (now "one-billionth"), from Greek nanos "a
> dwarf." It was possible, only at the end of WWII, to design
> digital counters that could approach to measure 100s of nanoseconds,
> using thermionic tubes with 10 digits within. You
> may saw it, probably, in scifi movies from the '50s.
>
> Femtoseconds were possible to be measured at the beggining of this
> century, 55 years after nanosecond first measurements.
>
> I say: Nobody said that Einstein's thought experiment was out of this
> world and any possible conceivable reality? Really?
>
> And, due to omission of criticism about rationality, things started to
> degrade at physics in the next 116 years. And here we are.
>
> They should have forbidden such ridiculous paper, but Drude (Annalen
> Chief Editor) and others had an agenda.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

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

On 10/20/2021 3:24 AM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 20, 2021 at 2:23:48 AM UTC-3, Thomas Heger wrote:
>
> In this 1905 paper on electrodynamics, the opening formulae of his THOUGHT EXPERIMENT were:
>
> tB - tA = rAB/(c - v)
> tA' - tB = rAB/(c + v)
> tB - tA = tA' -tB
>
> used to describe what imaginary 1-dimensional ghost observers watched in a imaginary train, were an imaginary beam of
> light was emitted from A to B and bounced back in a mirror towards A.
>
> assuming that rAB was about 12 meters (a wagon at the train), timing involved was about 40 nanoseconds (avg).

This is nonsense of your own creation, not Einstein's.
>
> If the speed of the train was 100 Km/Hr = 0.0278 Km/sec

What train? The one you just made up?
>
> then, tB - tA = 40.02769513 nsec
> and
> tA' - tB = 40.02768771 nsec
>
> with a difference of about 7.41767 femtoseconds.
>
> Nanosecond was introduced 1947 (at 14th conference of the Union Internationale de Chimie) as a prefix for units of one
> thousand-millionth part (now "one-billionth"), from Greek nanos "a dwarf."

Irrelevant.

> It was possible, only at the end of WWII, to design
> digital counters that could approach to measure 100s of nanoseconds, using thermionic tubes with 10 digits within. You
> may saw it, probably, in scifi movies from the '50s.

Irrelevant. Even if something couldn't be measured doesn't mean that it
couldn't exist. Besides, the distance and relative speed of A and B is
never specified, nor should it be, it could involve a distance of many
light years. Regardless, the math is the same, whether the time
involved is femtoseconds or centuries.

You are as bad as Wozniak, thinking that the 1905 definition of second
invalidates relativity because, well who knows, maybe just because.

> I say: Nobody said that Einstein's thought experiment was out of this world and any possible conceivable reality? Really?

Yes, really. Why would they?

That's a strawman argument.
When technology could measure nanoseconds or femtoseconds is irrelevant
since the math is the same regardless of scale, and no scale was even
mentioned.
>
> And, due to omission of criticism about rationality, things started to degrade at physics in the next 116 years. And here we are.

Your bizarre conclusion doesn't follow from Einstein's paper, only from
your bizarre restrictions on it and then-current technology.

> They should have forbidden such ridiculous paper, but Drude (Annalen Chief Editor) and others had an agenda.

I smell (again) paranoid schizophrenia.

Op 20-okt.-2021 om 09:24 schreef Richard Hertz:
> On Wednesday, October 20, 2021 at 2:23:48 AM UTC-3, Thomas Heger
> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> See here:
>>
>> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-G80iC-D-Qs6nH_Skdy7vxJ9faoW20Hc/view?usp=sharing
>
>>
> In this 1905 paper on electrodynamics, the opening formulae of his
> THOUGHT EXPERIMENT were:
>
> tB - tA = rAB/(c - v) tA' - tB = rAB/(c + v) tB - tA = tA' -tB
>
> used to describe what imaginary 1-dimensional ghost observers watched
> in a imaginary train, were an imaginary beam of light was emitted
> from A to B and bounced back in a mirror towards A.
>
> assuming that rAB was about 12 meters (a wagon at the train), timing
> involved was about 40 nanoseconds (avg).
>
> If the speed of the train was 100 Km/Hr = 0.0278 Km/sec
>
> then, tB - tA = 40.02769513 nsec and tA' - tB = 40.02768771 nsec
>
> with a difference of about 7.41767 femtoseconds.
>
> Nanosecond was introduced 1947 (at 14th conference of the Union
> Internationale de Chimie) as a prefix for units of one
> thousand-millionth part (now "one-billionth"), from Greek nanos "a
> dwarf." It was possible, only at the end of WWII, to design digital
> counters that could approach to measure 100s of nanoseconds, using
> thermionic tubes with 10 digits within. You may saw it, probably, in
> scifi movies from the '50s.
>
> Femtoseconds were possible to be measured at the beggining of this
> century, 55 years after nanosecond first measurements.
>
> I say: Nobody said that Einstein's thought experiment was out of this
> world and any possible conceivable reality? Really?
>
> And, due to omission of criticism about rationality, things started
> to degrade at physics in the next 116 years. And here we are.
>
> They should have forbidden such ridiculous paper, but Drude (Annalen
> Chief Editor) and others had an agenda.

Of course they had an agenda: to annoy the living shit out
of a bunch of future retired engineers with nothing better
to do than spend the rest of their miserable days on some
obscure soapbox forum serving as a stage for village idiots.

Dirk Vdm

On Wednesday, October 20, 2021 at 12:24:47 AM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 20, 2021 at 2:23:48 AM UTC-3, Thomas Heger wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > See here:
> >
> > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-G80iC-D-Qs6nH_Skdy7vxJ9faoW20Hc/view?usp=sharing
>
> In this 1905 paper on electrodynamics, the opening formulae of his THOUGHT EXPERIMENT were:
>
> tB - tA = rAB/(c - v)
> tA' - tB = rAB/(c + v)
> tB - tA = tA' -tB
>
> used to describe what imaginary 1-dimensional ghost observers watched in a imaginary train, were an imaginary beam of
> light was emitted from A to B and bounced back in a mirror towards A.
>
> assuming that rAB was about 12 meters (a wagon at the train), timing involved was about 40 nanoseconds (avg).
>
> If the speed of the train was 100 Km/Hr = 0.0278 Km/sec
>
> then, tB - tA = 40.02769513 nsec
> and
> tA' - tB = 40.02768771 nsec
>
> with a difference of about 7.41767 femtoseconds.
>
> Nanosecond was introduced 1947 (at 14th conference of the Union Internationale de Chimie) as a prefix for units of one
> thousand-millionth part (now "one-billionth"), from Greek nanos "a dwarf." It was possible, only at the end of WWII, to design
> digital counters that could approach to measure 100s of nanoseconds, using thermionic tubes with 10 digits within. You
> may saw it, probably, in scifi movies from the '50s.
>
> Femtoseconds were possible to be measured at the beggining of this century, 55 years after nanosecond first measurements.
>
> I say: Nobody said that Einstein's thought experiment was out of this world and any possible conceivable reality? Really?
>

Imbecile,

You totally missed the principle of the method, the important part is that once the signal is received in B, B resets his clock. Once the signal bounces back at A, A halves his elapsed time , thus making his clock synchronous with B. Einstein was a genius, you are just a piece of shit. You were born a piece of shit, your only consolation is that you will die one.

Thomas Heger wrote:

>> so true. Good papers never gets published, they are coming and "offer"
>> you a job, then you are history.
>
> A good choice is also the production of videos about the subject and to
> present them on YouTube (or similar).
> Also print-on-demand publishing new possibility for unknown
> authors.
> My crude method is to create a pdf, put it on google docs and paste the
> link to it into forums on the UseNet.
> The efficiency is next to zero. But at least my stuff is public.

if you think you have something on your PC they don't know about, you are
a new beginner. And therefore you are using Windoze.

On Wednesday, October 20, 2021 at 7:16:22 AM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:

<snip train wagons or rod lengths>

AGAIN:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this 1905 paper on electrodynamics, the opening formulae of his THOUGHT EXPERIMENT were:

tB - tA = rAB/(c - v)
tA' - tB = rAB/(c + v)
tB - tA = tA' -tB

used to describe what imaginary 1-dimensional ghost observers watched in a imaginary train, were an imaginary beam of
light was emitted from A to B and bounced back in a mirror towards A.

assuming that rAB was about 12 meters (a wagon at the train), timing involved was about 40 nanoseconds (avg).

If the speed of the train was 100 Km/Hr = 0.0278 Km/sec

then, tB - tA = 40.02769513 nsec
and
tA' - tB = 40.02768771 nsec

with a difference of about 7.41767 femtoseconds.

Nanosecond was introduced 1947 (at 14th conference of the Union Internationale de Chimie) as a prefix for units of one
thousand-millionth part (now "one-billionth"), from Greek nanos "a dwarf." It was possible, only at the end of WWII, to design
digital counters that could approach to measure 100s of nanoseconds, using thermionic tubes with 10 digits within. You
may saw it, probably, in scifi movies from the '50s.

Femtoseconds were possible to be measured at the beggining of this century, 55 years after nanosecond first measurements.

I say: Nobody said that Einstein's thought experiment was out of this world and any possible conceivable reality? Really?

And, due to omission of criticism about rationality, things started to degrade at physics in the next 116 years. And here we are.

They should have forbidden such ridiculous paper, but Drude (Annalen Chief Editor) and others had an agenda.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For the idiots questioning the above line of reasoning:

You can't do theoretical physics without thinking in the magnitudes involved in what you are proposing.
The values involved in the 1905 electrodynamics paper concerning time (nsec, fsec) are as ridiculous for that
epoch or the next 50 years as the papers concerning time (10E-32 sec) that Alan Guth conceived in a nightmare
for the duration of the BB blast and further inflation: STUPID SCIFI ASSERTIONS, IMPOSSIBLE TO BE MEASURED IN AGES.

So, both retarded, protected by inability to fact-check and complicity from other co-living parasites, postulated fairy tails that
only children and children-minded colleagues could swallow.

I don´t see any change that relevant physicists of that epoch (Rutherford, Thomson, Larmor, Bohr, etc.) could accept such
stupidity (and they DIDN'T). I can't imagine Poincaré, one of the greatest mind living by then, could also accept it. Any rational
physicist knew that the measurement of 1 nsec in that epoch was IMPOSSIBLE. Not to mention 1 fsec, 1 million times shorter.

Science was quite advanced with measurement capabilities by 1905, to verify values like:

1) Temperature differences of 0.004 Kelvin (Germany, 1900).
2) 1 uA, 1 uV or 1 uOhm (England, 1900).
3) Differences of less than 0.1 arcsec in observational astronomy (1 coin at 10 Km).
4) Sizes below 1 um (three or four countries like in Germany, France).
5) Differences of fraction of 1 wavelength in visible light, through interferometry and L = 500 nm.
6) Approximations to the speed of light, c, using 5).

But the measurement of time, at the heart of relativity, was another completely different history, due to
the dependence on mechanical clocks. State of the art chronometers could resolve time with 1/60
seconds precision (and accuracy), due to differential wheels that provided ticking in 16.7 msec steps.

And this capability to measure lapses of time was 10,000,000 times lower than what was needed to
fact-check partially some assertions of 1905 electrodynamics.

TIME MEASUREMENT would require to wait 35 years to enter in the usec region and another 15 years
to enter in the nsec region. Quartz oscillators and the nascent digital electronics, based on thermionic
tubes would provide the 1 million times increase in precision in a 10 years learning curve. It will take
maybe 1,000 years or the help of advanced space aliens visiting Earth to provide the technology to
measure (if possible) time in the region that Alan Guth dreamed, but sold to everyone in the field.

And this degeneracy of thought (with the help of imbeciles like Moroney) that keep alive parasites who
enjoy mathturbation daily and yet make a living, is what has brought theoretical physics to its current
market value: ALMOST ZERO, like the value of shares of dot.com companies after 1999 implosion.

Because you can fool people who provide funds and establishment one, two or three times but, eventually,
they will realize that they were robbed and will correct that.

Einstein's papers and relativity (both SR and GR) is a huge deceiving movement, sold to the general public
and to establishment in times when faith in human endeavors was weak (WWI, the great pandemic, revolutions, etc.).

And science and technology looked like the sources of greater quality in the life of most (what would they know).
After ages of stagnation, and even decline, in solutions for a better life, they provided at an accelerated pace (Bell, Edison,
Tesla, Westinghouse, Marconi, etc.) great improvements. So science and technology seemed to be the source of all solutions
above political, social and economical mumble.

In particular, physics and chemistry were kings. And relativity fit very well in the collective mind as a transformation of millennial
understanding of nature: THINGS ARE NOT WHAT THEY APPEARS TO BE. We've been blind since Copernico's times, but now WE
ARE TOLD BY SCIENTISTS that we are not blind anymore. We can appreciate nature in full colors, and it's RELATIVE.

So, we have to WASTE 120 years of deception to come to a road end and, bitterly, realize that we were cheated, deceived.

If you just eliminate cars, TV, Internet, smartphones and PCs, society is not better than at the beginning of XX century (penicillin
and dental care apart). And theoretical physics can't wake up from a deep sleep for the last 50 years, because there are LIMITS!

And relativity has to end as it started, as a deceiving pseudo-science (aligned with others like psychology and economy).

And a return to pure newtonian-maxwellian world of deductive analysis has to prevail over the stupid world of inductive reasoning,
which is one of the causes of the plagues that sweep this world, devastating chances to progress.

So, Moroney, Bodkin, Dono, JanPB: you are the carriers of the viruses that make this current world corrupt and worthless in the
field of physics. You all are the obstacle, the disseminators of false theories with ZERO practical value.

Go and make a monument to ENGINEERS, who did their best to provide whatever poses any value to enhance your comfort,
entertainement, health (assisting real medical sciences), education, communication means and normal pleasures (like tourism).

Stop protecting the legacy of a fucking liar, plagiarist, cheater, deceiver and theft, who was created overnight by Germany and UK.

On Wednesday, 20 October 2021 at 16:13:05 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 10/20/2021 3:24 AM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > On Wednesday, October 20, 2021 at 2:23:48 AM UTC-3, Thomas Heger wrote:
> >
> > In this 1905 paper on electrodynamics, the opening formulae of his THOUGHT EXPERIMENT were:
> >
> > tB - tA = rAB/(c - v)
> > tA' - tB = rAB/(c + v)
> > tB - tA = tA' -tB
> >
> > used to describe what imaginary 1-dimensional ghost observers watched in a imaginary train, were an imaginary beam of
> > light was emitted from A to B and bounced back in a mirror towards A.
> >
> > assuming that rAB was about 12 meters (a wagon at the train), timing involved was about 40 nanoseconds (avg).
> This is nonsense of your own creation, not Einstein's.
> >
> > If the speed of the train was 100 Km/Hr = 0.0278 Km/sec
> What train? The one you just made up?
> >
> > then, tB - tA = 40.02769513 nsec
> > and
> > tA' - tB = 40.02768771 nsec
> >
> > with a difference of about 7.41767 femtoseconds.
> >
> > Nanosecond was introduced 1947 (at 14th conference of the Union Internationale de Chimie) as a prefix for units of one
> > thousand-millionth part (now "one-billionth"), from Greek nanos "a dwarf."
> Irrelevant.
> > It was possible, only at the end of WWII, to design
> > digital counters that could approach to measure 100s of nanoseconds, using thermionic tubes with 10 digits within. You
> > may saw it, probably, in scifi movies from the '50s.
> Irrelevant. Even if something couldn't be measured doesn't mean that it
> couldn't exist. Besides, the distance and relative speed of A and B is
> never specified, nor should it be, it could involve a distance of many
> light years. Regardless, the math is the same, whether the time
> involved is femtoseconds or centuries.

In the meantime in the real world, however,
GPS clocks keep measuring t'=t, just like all serious
clocks always did. And, speaking of math, it's
always good to remind that you had to announce
its oldest part false, as it didn't want to fit your
idiocies.

> You are as bad as Wozniak, thinking that the 1905 definition of second
> invalidates relativity because

Because your idiot guru was too dumb to keep his
moronic mumble consistent with his definitions.

On Wednesday, 20 October 2021 at 16:20:26 UTC+2, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:

> Of course they had an agenda: to annoy the living shit out
> of a bunch of future retired engineers with nothing better
> to do than spend the rest of their miserable days on some
> obscure soapbox forum serving as a stage for village idiots.

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

On Wednesday, 20 October 2021 at 16:55:50 UTC+2, Dono. wrote:

> You totally missed the principle of the method, the important part is that once the signal is received in B, B resets his clock. Once the signal bounces back at A, A halves his elapsed time , thus making his clock synchronous with B. Einstein was a genius, you are just a piece of shit. You were born a piece of shit, your only consolation is that you will die one.

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

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 20, 2021 at 7:16:22 AM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> <snip train wagons or rod lengths>
>
> AGAIN:
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> In this 1905 paper on electrodynamics, the opening formulae of his THOUGHT EXPERIMENT were:
>
> tB - tA = rAB/(c - v)
> tA' - tB = rAB/(c + v)
> tB - tA = tA' -tB
>
> used to describe what imaginary 1-dimensional ghost observers watched in
> a imaginary train,

Not in the 1905 paper. You choose to repeat an idiocy? Why?

> were an imaginary beam of
> light was emitted from A to B and bounced back in a mirror towards A.
>
> assuming that rAB was about 12 meters (a wagon at the train), timing
> involved was about 40 nanoseconds (avg).
>
> If the speed of the train was 100 Km/Hr = 0.0278 Km/sec
>
> then, tB - tA = 40.02769513 nsec
> and
> tA' - tB = 40.02768771 nsec
>
> with a difference of about 7.41767 femtoseconds.
>
> Nanosecond was introduced 1947 (at 14th conference of the Union
> Internationale de Chimie) as a prefix for units of one
> thousand-millionth part (now "one-billionth"), from Greek nanos "a
> dwarf." It was possible, only at the end of WWII, to design
> digital counters that could approach to measure 100s of nanoseconds,
> using thermionic tubes with 10 digits within. You
> may saw it, probably, in scifi movies from the '50s.
>
> Femtoseconds were possible to be measured at the beggining of this
> century, 55 years after nanosecond first measurements.
>
> I say: Nobody said that Einstein's thought experiment was out of this
> world and any possible conceivable reality? Really?
>
> And, due to omission of criticism about rationality, things started to
> degrade at physics in the next 116 years. And here we are.
>
> They should have forbidden such ridiculous paper, but Drude (Annalen
> Chief Editor) and others had an agenda.
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> For the idiots questioning the above line of reasoning:
>
> You can't do theoretical physics without thinking in the magnitudes
> involved in what you are proposing.
> The values involved in the 1905 electrodynamics paper concerning time
> (nsec, fsec) are as ridiculous for that
> epoch or the next 50 years as the papers concerning time (10E-32 sec)
> that Alan Guth conceived in a nightmare
> for the duration of the BB blast and further inflation: STUPID SCIFI
> ASSERTIONS, IMPOSSIBLE TO BE MEASURED IN AGES.
>
> So, both retarded, protected by inability to fact-check and complicity
> from other co-living parasites, postulated fairy tails that
> only children and children-minded colleagues could swallow.
>
> I don´t see any change that relevant physicists of that epoch
> (Rutherford, Thomson, Larmor, Bohr, etc.) could accept such
> stupidity (and they DIDN'T). I can't imagine Poincaré, one of the
> greatest mind living by then, could also accept it. Any rational
> physicist knew that the measurement of 1 nsec in that epoch was
> IMPOSSIBLE. Not to mention 1 fsec, 1 million times shorter.
>
> Science was quite advanced with measurement capabilities by 1905, to verify values like:
>
> 1) Temperature differences of 0.004 Kelvin (Germany, 1900).
> 2) 1 uA, 1 uV or 1 uOhm (England, 1900).
> 3) Differences of less than 0.1 arcsec in observational astronomy (1 coin at 10 Km).
> 4) Sizes below 1 um (three or four countries like in Germany, France).
> 5) Differences of fraction of 1 wavelength in visible light, through
> interferometry and L = 500 nm.
> 6) Approximations to the speed of light, c, using 5).
>
> But the measurement of time, at the heart of relativity, was another
> completely different history, due to
> the dependence on mechanical clocks. State of the art chronometers could
> resolve time with 1/60
> seconds precision (and accuracy), due to differential wheels that
> provided ticking in 16.7 msec steps.
>
> And this capability to measure lapses of time was 10,000,000 times lower
> than what was needed to
> fact-check partially some assertions of 1905 electrodynamics.
>
> TIME MEASUREMENT would require to wait 35 years to enter in the usec
> region and another 15 years
> to enter in the nsec region. Quartz oscillators and the nascent digital
> electronics, based on thermionic
> tubes would provide the 1 million times increase in precision in a 10
> years learning curve. It will take
> maybe 1,000 years or the help of advanced space aliens visiting Earth to
> provide the technology to
> measure (if possible) time in the region that Alan Guth dreamed, but sold
> to everyone in the field.
>
> And this degeneracy of thought (with the help of imbeciles like Moroney)
> that keep alive parasites who
> enjoy mathturbation daily and yet make a living, is what has brought
> theoretical physics to its current
> market value: ALMOST ZERO, like the value of shares of dot.com companies
> after 1999 implosion.
>
> Because you can fool people who provide funds and establishment one, two
> or three times but, eventually,
> they will realize that they were robbed and will correct that.
>
> Einstein's papers and relativity (both SR and GR) is a huge deceiving
> movement, sold to the general public
> and to establishment in times when faith in human endeavors was weak
> (WWI, the great pandemic, revolutions, etc.).
>
> And science and technology looked like the sources of greater quality in
> the life of most (what would they know).
> After ages of stagnation, and even decline, in solutions for a better
> life, they provided at an accelerated pace (Bell, Edison,
> Tesla, Westinghouse, Marconi, etc.) great improvements. So science and
> technology seemed to be the source of all solutions
> above political, social and economical mumble.
>
> In particular, physics and chemistry were kings. And relativity fit very
> well in the collective mind as a transformation of millennial
> understanding of nature: THINGS ARE NOT WHAT THEY APPEARS TO BE. We've
> been blind since Copernico's times, but now WE
> ARE TOLD BY SCIENTISTS that we are not blind anymore. We can appreciate
> nature in full colors, and it's RELATIVE.
>
> So, we have to WASTE 120 years of deception to come to a road end and,
> bitterly, realize that we were cheated, deceived.
>
> If you just eliminate cars, TV, Internet, smartphones and PCs, society is
> not better than at the beginning of XX century (penicillin
> and dental care apart). And theoretical physics can't wake up from a
> deep sleep for the last 50 years, because there are LIMITS!
>
> And relativity has to end as it started, as a deceiving pseudo-science
> (aligned with others like psychology and economy).
>
> And a return to pure newtonian-maxwellian world of deductive analysis has
> to prevail over the stupid world of inductive reasoning,
> which is one of the causes of the plagues that sweep this world,
> devastating chances to progress.
>
> So, Moroney, Bodkin, Dono, JanPB: you are the carriers of the viruses
> that make this current world corrupt and worthless in the
> field of physics. You all are the obstacle, the disseminators of false
> theories with ZERO practical value.
>
> Go and make a monument to ENGINEERS, who did their best to provide
> whatever poses any value to enhance your comfort,
> entertainement, health (assisting real medical sciences), education,
> communication means and normal pleasures (like tourism).
>
> Stop protecting the legacy of a fucking liar, plagiarist, cheater,
> deceiver and theft, who was created overnight by Germany and UK.
>
>

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

On Wednesday, October 20, 2021 at 9:59:13 AM UTC-7, crank Richard Hertz brainfarted:

>
> Posting the same imbecilities AGAIN:
>

Yep. once a cretin, always a cretin, Dick. I explained how Einstein synchronization method works (not how you claim) and it flew right over your bald spot.

On Wednesday, October 20, 2021 at 5:14:00 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Wednesday, October 20, 2021 at 7:16:22 AM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > <snip train wagons or rod lengths>
> >
> > AGAIN:
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > In this 1905 paper on electrodynamics, the opening formulae of his THOUGHT EXPERIMENT were:
> >
> > tB - tA = rAB/(c - v)
> > tA' - tB = rAB/(c + v)
> > tB - tA = tA' -tB
> >
> > used to describe what imaginary 1-dimensional ghost observers watched in
> > a imaginary train,
> Not in the 1905 paper. You choose to repeat an idiocy? Why?
> > were an imaginary beam of
> > light was emitted from A to B and bounced back in a mirror towards A.
> >
> > assuming that rAB was about 12 meters (a wagon at the train), timing
> > involved was about 40 nanoseconds (avg).
> >
> > If the speed of the train was 100 Km/Hr = 0.0278 Km/sec
> >
> > then, tB - tA = 40.02769513 nsec
> > and
> > tA' - tB = 40.02768771 nsec
> >
> > with a difference of about 7.41767 femtoseconds.
> >
> > Nanosecond was introduced 1947 (at 14th conference of the Union
> > Internationale de Chimie) as a prefix for units of one
> > thousand-millionth part (now "one-billionth"), from Greek nanos "a
> > dwarf." It was possible, only at the end of WWII, to design
> > digital counters that could approach to measure 100s of nanoseconds,
> > using thermionic tubes with 10 digits within. You
> > may saw it, probably, in scifi movies from the '50s.
> >
> > Femtoseconds were possible to be measured at the beggining of this
> > century, 55 years after nanosecond first measurements.
> >
> > I say: Nobody said that Einstein's thought experiment was out of this
> > world and any possible conceivable reality? Really?
> >
> > And, due to omission of criticism about rationality, things started to
> > degrade at physics in the next 116 years. And here we are.
> >
> > They should have forbidden such ridiculous paper, but Drude (Annalen
> > Chief Editor) and others had an agenda.
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > For the idiots questioning the above line of reasoning:
> >
> > You can't do theoretical physics without thinking in the magnitudes
> > involved in what you are proposing.
> > The values involved in the 1905 electrodynamics paper concerning time
> > (nsec, fsec) are as ridiculous for that
> > epoch or the next 50 years as the papers concerning time (10E-32 sec)
> > that Alan Guth conceived in a nightmare
> > for the duration of the BB blast and further inflation: STUPID SCIFI
> > ASSERTIONS, IMPOSSIBLE TO BE MEASURED IN AGES.
> >
> > So, both retarded, protected by inability to fact-check and complicity
> > from other co-living parasites, postulated fairy tails that
> > only children and children-minded colleagues could swallow.
> >
> > I don´t see any change that relevant physicists of that epoch
> > (Rutherford, Thomson, Larmor, Bohr, etc.) could accept such
> > stupidity (and they DIDN'T). I can't imagine Poincaré, one of the
> > greatest mind living by then, could also accept it. Any rational
> > physicist knew that the measurement of 1 nsec in that epoch was
> > IMPOSSIBLE. Not to mention 1 fsec, 1 million times shorter.
> >
> > Science was quite advanced with measurement capabilities by 1905, to verify values like:
> >
> > 1) Temperature differences of 0.004 Kelvin (Germany, 1900).
> > 2) 1 uA, 1 uV or 1 uOhm (England, 1900).
> > 3) Differences of less than 0.1 arcsec in observational astronomy (1 coin at 10 Km).
> > 4) Sizes below 1 um (three or four countries like in Germany, France).
> > 5) Differences of fraction of 1 wavelength in visible light, through
> > interferometry and L = 500 nm.
> > 6) Approximations to the speed of light, c, using 5).
> >
> > But the measurement of time, at the heart of relativity, was another
> > completely different history, due to
> > the dependence on mechanical clocks. State of the art chronometers could
> > resolve time with 1/60
> > seconds precision (and accuracy), due to differential wheels that
> > provided ticking in 16.7 msec steps.
> >
> > And this capability to measure lapses of time was 10,000,000 times lower
> > than what was needed to
> > fact-check partially some assertions of 1905 electrodynamics.
> >
> > TIME MEASUREMENT would require to wait 35 years to enter in the usec
> > region and another 15 years
> > to enter in the nsec region. Quartz oscillators and the nascent digital
> > electronics, based on thermionic
> > tubes would provide the 1 million times increase in precision in a 10
> > years learning curve. It will take
> > maybe 1,000 years or the help of advanced space aliens visiting Earth to
> > provide the technology to
> > measure (if possible) time in the region that Alan Guth dreamed, but sold
> > to everyone in the field.
> >
> > And this degeneracy of thought (with the help of imbeciles like Moroney)
> > that keep alive parasites who
> > enjoy mathturbation daily and yet make a living, is what has brought
> > theoretical physics to its current
> > market value: ALMOST ZERO, like the value of shares of dot.com companies
> > after 1999 implosion.
> >
> > Because you can fool people who provide funds and establishment one, two
> > or three times but, eventually,
> > they will realize that they were robbed and will correct that.
> >
> > Einstein's papers and relativity (both SR and GR) is a huge deceiving
> > movement, sold to the general public
> > and to establishment in times when faith in human endeavors was weak
> > (WWI, the great pandemic, revolutions, etc.).
> >
> > And science and technology looked like the sources of greater quality in
> > the life of most (what would they know).
> > After ages of stagnation, and even decline, in solutions for a better
> > life, they provided at an accelerated pace (Bell, Edison,
> > Tesla, Westinghouse, Marconi, etc.) great improvements. So science and
> > technology seemed to be the source of all solutions
> > above political, social and economical mumble.
> >
> > In particular, physics and chemistry were kings. And relativity fit very
> > well in the collective mind as a transformation of millennial
> > understanding of nature: THINGS ARE NOT WHAT THEY APPEARS TO BE. We've
> > been blind since Copernico's times, but now WE
> > ARE TOLD BY SCIENTISTS that we are not blind anymore. We can appreciate
> > nature in full colors, and it's RELATIVE.
> >
> > So, we have to WASTE 120 years of deception to come to a road end and,
> > bitterly, realize that we were cheated, deceived.
> >
> > If you just eliminate cars, TV, Internet, smartphones and PCs, society is
> > not better than at the beginning of XX century (penicillin
> > and dental care apart). And theoretical physics can't wake up from a
> > deep sleep for the last 50 years, because there are LIMITS!
> >
> > And relativity has to end as it started, as a deceiving pseudo-science
> > (aligned with others like psychology and economy).
> >
> > And a return to pure newtonian-maxwellian world of deductive analysis has
> > to prevail over the stupid world of inductive reasoning,
> > which is one of the causes of the plagues that sweep this world,
> > devastating chances to progress.
> >
> > So, Moroney, Bodkin, Dono, JanPB: you are the carriers of the viruses
> > that make this current world corrupt and worthless in the
> > field of physics. You all are the obstacle, the disseminators of false
> > theories with ZERO practical value.
> >
> > Go and make a monument to ENGINEERS, who did their best to provide
> > whatever poses any value to enhance your comfort,
> > entertainement, health (assisting real medical sciences), education,
> > communication means and normal pleasures (like tourism).
> >
> > Stop protecting the legacy of a fucking liar, plagiarist, cheater,
> > deceiver and theft, who was created overnight by Germany and UK.
> >
> >
> --
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 20, 2021 at 5:14:00 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, October 20, 2021 at 7:16:22 AM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip train wagons or rod lengths>
>>>
>>> AGAIN:
>>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> In this 1905 paper on electrodynamics, the opening formulae of his
>>> THOUGHT EXPERIMENT were:
>>>
>>> tB - tA = rAB/(c - v)
>>> tA' - tB = rAB/(c + v)
>>> tB - tA = tA' -tB
>>>
>>> used to describe what imaginary 1-dimensional ghost observers watched in
>>> a imaginary train,
>> Not in the 1905 paper. You choose to repeat an idiocy? Why?
>>> were an imaginary beam of
>>> light was emitted from A to B and bounced back in a mirror towards A.
>>>
>>> assuming that rAB was about 12 meters (a wagon at the train), timing
>>> involved was about 40 nanoseconds (avg).
>>>
>>> If the speed of the train was 100 Km/Hr = 0.0278 Km/sec
>>>
>>> then, tB - tA = 40.02769513 nsec
>>> and
>>> tA' - tB = 40.02768771 nsec
>>>
>>> with a difference of about 7.41767 femtoseconds.
>>>
>>> Nanosecond was introduced 1947 (at 14th conference of the Union
>>> Internationale de Chimie) as a prefix for units of one
>>> thousand-millionth part (now "one-billionth"), from Greek nanos "a
>>> dwarf." It was possible, only at the end of WWII, to design
>>> digital counters that could approach to measure 100s of nanoseconds,
>>> using thermionic tubes with 10 digits within. You
>>> may saw it, probably, in scifi movies from the '50s.
>>>
>>> Femtoseconds were possible to be measured at the beggining of this
>>> century, 55 years after nanosecond first measurements.
>>>
>>> I say: Nobody said that Einstein's thought experiment was out of this
>>> world and any possible conceivable reality? Really?
>>>
>>> And, due to omission of criticism about rationality, things started to
>>> degrade at physics in the next 116 years. And here we are.
>>>
>>> They should have forbidden such ridiculous paper, but Drude (Annalen
>>> Chief Editor) and others had an agenda.
>>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>>
>>> For the idiots questioning the above line of reasoning:
>>>
>>> You can't do theoretical physics without thinking in the magnitudes
>>> involved in what you are proposing.
>>> The values involved in the 1905 electrodynamics paper concerning time
>>> (nsec, fsec) are as ridiculous for that
>>> epoch or the next 50 years as the papers concerning time (10E-32 sec)
>>> that Alan Guth conceived in a nightmare
>>> for the duration of the BB blast and further inflation: STUPID SCIFI
>>> ASSERTIONS, IMPOSSIBLE TO BE MEASURED IN AGES.
>>>
>>> So, both retarded, protected by inability to fact-check and complicity
>>> from other co-living parasites, postulated fairy tails that
>>> only children and children-minded colleagues could swallow.
>>>
>>> I don´t see any change that relevant physicists of that epoch
>>> (Rutherford, Thomson, Larmor, Bohr, etc.) could accept such
>>> stupidity (and they DIDN'T). I can't imagine Poincaré, one of the
>>> greatest mind living by then, could also accept it. Any rational
>>> physicist knew that the measurement of 1 nsec in that epoch was
>>> IMPOSSIBLE. Not to mention 1 fsec, 1 million times shorter.
>>>
>>> Science was quite advanced with measurement capabilities by 1905, to verify values like:
>>>
>>> 1) Temperature differences of 0.004 Kelvin (Germany, 1900).
>>> 2) 1 uA, 1 uV or 1 uOhm (England, 1900).
>>> 3) Differences of less than 0.1 arcsec in observational astronomy (1 coin at 10 Km).
>>> 4) Sizes below 1 um (three or four countries like in Germany, France).
>>> 5) Differences of fraction of 1 wavelength in visible light, through
>>> interferometry and L = 500 nm.
>>> 6) Approximations to the speed of light, c, using 5).
>>>
>>> But the measurement of time, at the heart of relativity, was another
>>> completely different history, due to
>>> the dependence on mechanical clocks. State of the art chronometers could
>>> resolve time with 1/60
>>> seconds precision (and accuracy), due to differential wheels that
>>> provided ticking in 16.7 msec steps.
>>>
>>> And this capability to measure lapses of time was 10,000,000 times lower
>>> than what was needed to
>>> fact-check partially some assertions of 1905 electrodynamics.
>>>
>>> TIME MEASUREMENT would require to wait 35 years to enter in the usec
>>> region and another 15 years
>>> to enter in the nsec region. Quartz oscillators and the nascent digital
>>> electronics, based on thermionic
>>> tubes would provide the 1 million times increase in precision in a 10
>>> years learning curve. It will take
>>> maybe 1,000 years or the help of advanced space aliens visiting Earth to
>>> provide the technology to
>>> measure (if possible) time in the region that Alan Guth dreamed, but sold
>>> to everyone in the field.
>>>
>>> And this degeneracy of thought (with the help of imbeciles like Moroney)
>>> that keep alive parasites who
>>> enjoy mathturbation daily and yet make a living, is what has brought
>>> theoretical physics to its current
>>> market value: ALMOST ZERO, like the value of shares of dot.com companies
>>> after 1999 implosion.
>>>
>>> Because you can fool people who provide funds and establishment one, two
>>> or three times but, eventually,
>>> they will realize that they were robbed and will correct that.
>>>
>>> Einstein's papers and relativity (both SR and GR) is a huge deceiving
>>> movement, sold to the general public
>>> and to establishment in times when faith in human endeavors was weak
>>> (WWI, the great pandemic, revolutions, etc.).
>>>
>>> And science and technology looked like the sources of greater quality in
>>> the life of most (what would they know).
>>> After ages of stagnation, and even decline, in solutions for a better
>>> life, they provided at an accelerated pace (Bell, Edison,
>>> Tesla, Westinghouse, Marconi, etc.) great improvements. So science and
>>> technology seemed to be the source of all solutions
>>> above political, social and economical mumble.
>>>
>>> In particular, physics and chemistry were kings. And relativity fit very
>>> well in the collective mind as a transformation of millennial
>>> understanding of nature: THINGS ARE NOT WHAT THEY APPEARS TO BE. We've
>>> been blind since Copernico's times, but now WE
>>> ARE TOLD BY SCIENTISTS that we are not blind anymore. We can appreciate
>>> nature in full colors, and it's RELATIVE.
>>>
>>> So, we have to WASTE 120 years of deception to come to a road end and,
>>> bitterly, realize that we were cheated, deceived.
>>>
>>> If you just eliminate cars, TV, Internet, smartphones and PCs, society is
>>> not better than at the beginning of XX century (penicillin
>>> and dental care apart). And theoretical physics can't wake up from a
>>> deep sleep for the last 50 years, because there are LIMITS!
>>>
>>> And relativity has to end as it started, as a deceiving pseudo-science
>>> (aligned with others like psychology and economy).
>>>
>>> And a return to pure newtonian-maxwellian world of deductive analysis has
>>> to prevail over the stupid world of inductive reasoning,
>>> which is one of the causes of the plagues that sweep this world,
>>> devastating chances to progress.
>>>
>>> So, Moroney, Bodkin, Dono, JanPB: you are the carriers of the viruses
>>> that make this current world corrupt and worthless in the
>>> field of physics. You all are the obstacle, the disseminators of false
>>> theories with ZERO practical value.
>>>
>>> Go and make a monument to ENGINEERS, who did their best to provide
>>> whatever poses any value to enhance your comfort,
>>> entertainement, health (assisting real medical sciences), education,
>>> communication means and normal pleasures (like tourism).
>>>
>>> Stop protecting the legacy of a fucking liar, plagiarist, cheater,
>>> deceiver and theft, who was created overnight by Germany and UK.
>>>
>>>
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>
> From pages 896, 897 in the original paper:
>
> "Wir denken uns ferner, daB sich bei jeder Uhr ein mit ihr bewegter
> ***Beobachter*** befinde, und daB diese ***Beobachter***
> auf die beiden Uhren das im § 1 aufgestellte Kriterium fiir den
> synchronen Gang zweier Uhren anwenden. Zur Zeit tA gehe ein
> Lichtstrahl von A aus, werde zur Zeit tB in B reflektiert und gelange zur
> Zeit t'A zuriick. Unter Beriicksichtigung des Prinzipes von
> der Konstanz der Lichtgeschwindigkeit finden wir:
>
> tB - tA = rAB/(V - v)
>
> und
>
> tA' - tB = rAB/(V + v)"
>
>
> Beobachter: Observer(s).
>
> Forget the train.

On Wednesday, October 20, 2021 at 5:53:04 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Wednesday, October 20, 2021 at 5:14:00 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, October 20, 2021 at 7:16:22 AM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>
> >>> <snip train wagons or rod lengths>
> >>>
> >>> AGAIN:
> >>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>
> >>> In this 1905 paper on electrodynamics, the opening formulae of his
> >>> THOUGHT EXPERIMENT were:
> >>>
> >>> tB - tA = rAB/(c - v)
> >>> tA' - tB = rAB/(c + v)
> >>> tB - tA = tA' -tB
> >>>
> >>> used to describe what imaginary 1-dimensional ghost observers watched in
> >>> a imaginary train,
> >> Not in the 1905 paper. You choose to repeat an idiocy? Why?
> >>> were an imaginary beam of
> >>> light was emitted from A to B and bounced back in a mirror towards A.
> >>>
> >>> assuming that rAB was about 12 meters (a wagon at the train), timing
> >>> involved was about 40 nanoseconds (avg).
> >>>
> >>> If the speed of the train was 100 Km/Hr = 0.0278 Km/sec
> >>>
> >>> then, tB - tA = 40.02769513 nsec
> >>> and
> >>> tA' - tB = 40.02768771 nsec
> >>>
> >>> with a difference of about 7.41767 femtoseconds.
> >>>
> >>> Nanosecond was introduced 1947 (at 14th conference of the Union
> >>> Internationale de Chimie) as a prefix for units of one
> >>> thousand-millionth part (now "one-billionth"), from Greek nanos "a
> >>> dwarf." It was possible, only at the end of WWII, to design
> >>> digital counters that could approach to measure 100s of nanoseconds,
> >>> using thermionic tubes with 10 digits within. You
> >>> may saw it, probably, in scifi movies from the '50s.
> >>>
> >>> Femtoseconds were possible to be measured at the beggining of this
> >>> century, 55 years after nanosecond first measurements.
> >>>
> >>> I say: Nobody said that Einstein's thought experiment was out of this
> >>> world and any possible conceivable reality? Really?
> >>>
> >>> And, due to omission of criticism about rationality, things started to
> >>> degrade at physics in the next 116 years. And here we are.
> >>>
> >>> They should have forbidden such ridiculous paper, but Drude (Annalen
> >>> Chief Editor) and others had an agenda.
> >>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> For the idiots questioning the above line of reasoning:
> >>>
> >>> You can't do theoretical physics without thinking in the magnitudes
> >>> involved in what you are proposing.
> >>> The values involved in the 1905 electrodynamics paper concerning time
> >>> (nsec, fsec) are as ridiculous for that
> >>> epoch or the next 50 years as the papers concerning time (10E-32 sec)
> >>> that Alan Guth conceived in a nightmare
> >>> for the duration of the BB blast and further inflation: STUPID SCIFI
> >>> ASSERTIONS, IMPOSSIBLE TO BE MEASURED IN AGES.
> >>>
> >>> So, both retarded, protected by inability to fact-check and complicity
> >>> from other co-living parasites, postulated fairy tails that
> >>> only children and children-minded colleagues could swallow.
> >>>
> >>> I don´t see any change that relevant physicists of that epoch
> >>> (Rutherford, Thomson, Larmor, Bohr, etc.) could accept such
> >>> stupidity (and they DIDN'T). I can't imagine Poincaré, one of the
> >>> greatest mind living by then, could also accept it. Any rational
> >>> physicist knew that the measurement of 1 nsec in that epoch was
> >>> IMPOSSIBLE. Not to mention 1 fsec, 1 million times shorter.
> >>>
> >>> Science was quite advanced with measurement capabilities by 1905, to verify values like:
> >>>
> >>> 1) Temperature differences of 0.004 Kelvin (Germany, 1900).
> >>> 2) 1 uA, 1 uV or 1 uOhm (England, 1900).
> >>> 3) Differences of less than 0.1 arcsec in observational astronomy (1 coin at 10 Km).
> >>> 4) Sizes below 1 um (three or four countries like in Germany, France)..
> >>> 5) Differences of fraction of 1 wavelength in visible light, through
> >>> interferometry and L = 500 nm.
> >>> 6) Approximations to the speed of light, c, using 5).
> >>>
> >>> But the measurement of time, at the heart of relativity, was another
> >>> completely different history, due to
> >>> the dependence on mechanical clocks. State of the art chronometers could
> >>> resolve time with 1/60
> >>> seconds precision (and accuracy), due to differential wheels that
> >>> provided ticking in 16.7 msec steps.
> >>>
> >>> And this capability to measure lapses of time was 10,000,000 times lower
> >>> than what was needed to
> >>> fact-check partially some assertions of 1905 electrodynamics.
> >>>
> >>> TIME MEASUREMENT would require to wait 35 years to enter in the usec
> >>> region and another 15 years
> >>> to enter in the nsec region. Quartz oscillators and the nascent digital
> >>> electronics, based on thermionic
> >>> tubes would provide the 1 million times increase in precision in a 10
> >>> years learning curve. It will take
> >>> maybe 1,000 years or the help of advanced space aliens visiting Earth to
> >>> provide the technology to
> >>> measure (if possible) time in the region that Alan Guth dreamed, but sold
> >>> to everyone in the field.
> >>>
> >>> And this degeneracy of thought (with the help of imbeciles like Moroney)
> >>> that keep alive parasites who
> >>> enjoy mathturbation daily and yet make a living, is what has brought
> >>> theoretical physics to its current
> >>> market value: ALMOST ZERO, like the value of shares of dot.com companies
> >>> after 1999 implosion.
> >>>
> >>> Because you can fool people who provide funds and establishment one, two
> >>> or three times but, eventually,
> >>> they will realize that they were robbed and will correct that.
> >>>
> >>> Einstein's papers and relativity (both SR and GR) is a huge deceiving
> >>> movement, sold to the general public
> >>> and to establishment in times when faith in human endeavors was weak
> >>> (WWI, the great pandemic, revolutions, etc.).
> >>>
> >>> And science and technology looked like the sources of greater quality in
> >>> the life of most (what would they know).
> >>> After ages of stagnation, and even decline, in solutions for a better
> >>> life, they provided at an accelerated pace (Bell, Edison,
> >>> Tesla, Westinghouse, Marconi, etc.) great improvements. So science and
> >>> technology seemed to be the source of all solutions
> >>> above political, social and economical mumble.
> >>>
> >>> In particular, physics and chemistry were kings. And relativity fit very
> >>> well in the collective mind as a transformation of millennial
> >>> understanding of nature: THINGS ARE NOT WHAT THEY APPEARS TO BE. We've
> >>> been blind since Copernico's times, but now WE
> >>> ARE TOLD BY SCIENTISTS that we are not blind anymore. We can appreciate
> >>> nature in full colors, and it's RELATIVE.
> >>>
> >>> So, we have to WASTE 120 years of deception to come to a road end and,
> >>> bitterly, realize that we were cheated, deceived.
> >>>
> >>> If you just eliminate cars, TV, Internet, smartphones and PCs, society is
> >>> not better than at the beginning of XX century (penicillin
> >>> and dental care apart). And theoretical physics can't wake up from a
> >>> deep sleep for the last 50 years, because there are LIMITS!
> >>>
> >>> And relativity has to end as it started, as a deceiving pseudo-science
> >>> (aligned with others like psychology and economy).
> >>>
> >>> And a return to pure newtonian-maxwellian world of deductive analysis has
> >>> to prevail over the stupid world of inductive reasoning,
> >>> which is one of the causes of the plagues that sweep this world,
> >>> devastating chances to progress.
> >>>
> >>> So, Moroney, Bodkin, Dono, JanPB: you are the carriers of the viruses
> >>> that make this current world corrupt and worthless in the
> >>> field of physics. You all are the obstacle, the disseminators of false
> >>> theories with ZERO practical value.
> >>>
> >>> Go and make a monument to ENGINEERS, who did their best to provide
> >>> whatever poses any value to enhance your comfort,
> >>> entertainement, health (assisting real medical sciences), education,
> >>> communication means and normal pleasures (like tourism).
> >>>
> >>> Stop protecting the legacy of a fucking liar, plagiarist, cheater,
> >>> deceiver and theft, who was created overnight by Germany and UK.
> >>>
> >>>
> >> --
> >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >
> > From pages 896, 897 in the original paper:
> >
> > "Wir denken uns ferner, daB sich bei jeder Uhr ein mit ihr bewegter
> > ***Beobachter*** befinde, und daB diese ***Beobachter***
> > auf die beiden Uhren das im § 1 aufgestellte Kriterium fiir den
> > synchronen Gang zweier Uhren anwenden. Zur Zeit tA gehe ein
> > Lichtstrahl von A aus, werde zur Zeit tB in B reflektiert und gelange zur
> > Zeit t'A zuriick. Unter Beriicksichtigung des Prinzipes von
> > der Konstanz der Lichtgeschwindigkeit finden wir:
> >
> > tB - tA = rAB/(V - v)
> >
> > und
> >
> > tA' - tB = rAB/(V + v)"
> >
> >
> > Beobachter: Observer(s).
> >
> > Forget the train.
> Well, you insisted on it. Twice.
>
> > It's invisible here.
>
> Ah, so it’s there, but it’s invisible and unmentioned. Maybe you know it’s
> there because you hear the whistle?
> > The rod moves inertially in k respect to K.
> >
> > Read the paper and don't TROLL/SHILL. You are a grown up, not a child.
> > And you know what I'm writing about.
> >
> > Or are you an idiot, ready to use any excuse to derail the fundamental
> > concepts that I posted? Yes, it's your way of doing.
> >
> >
> Anybody who posts about fundamental concepts but can’t be bothered with
> simple facts is going to have an uphill battle.
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On Wednesday, October 20, 2021 at 3:39:56 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz repeated his cretinisms:
> FUNDAMENTALS, BODKIN, FUNDAMENTALS!

What I like about you, Dick, is that you are unable to learn anything, thus repeating your cretinisms over and over.

On Wednesday, 20 October 2021 at 22:39:35 UTC+2, Dono. wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 20, 2021 at 9:59:13 AM UTC-7, crank Richard Hertz brainfarted:
>
> >
> > Posting the same imbecilities AGAIN:
> >
>
> Yep. once a cretin, always a cretin, Dick. I explained how Einstein synchronization method works (not how you claim) and it flew right over your bald spot.

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

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 20, 2021 at 5:53:04 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, October 20, 2021 at 5:14:00 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, October 20, 2021 at 7:16:22 AM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> <snip train wagons or rod lengths>
>>>>>
>>>>> AGAIN:
>>>>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> In this 1905 paper on electrodynamics, the opening formulae of his
>>>>> THOUGHT EXPERIMENT were:
>>>>>
>>>>> tB - tA = rAB/(c - v)
>>>>> tA' - tB = rAB/(c + v)
>>>>> tB - tA = tA' -tB
>>>>>
>>>>> used to describe what imaginary 1-dimensional ghost observers watched in
>>>>> a imaginary train,
>>>> Not in the 1905 paper. You choose to repeat an idiocy? Why?
>>>>> were an imaginary beam of
>>>>> light was emitted from A to B and bounced back in a mirror towards A.
>>>>>
>>>>> assuming that rAB was about 12 meters (a wagon at the train), timing
>>>>> involved was about 40 nanoseconds (avg).
>>>>>
>>>>> If the speed of the train was 100 Km/Hr = 0.0278 Km/sec
>>>>>
>>>>> then, tB - tA = 40.02769513 nsec
>>>>> and
>>>>> tA' - tB = 40.02768771 nsec
>>>>>
>>>>> with a difference of about 7.41767 femtoseconds.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nanosecond was introduced 1947 (at 14th conference of the Union
>>>>> Internationale de Chimie) as a prefix for units of one
>>>>> thousand-millionth part (now "one-billionth"), from Greek nanos "a
>>>>> dwarf." It was possible, only at the end of WWII, to design
>>>>> digital counters that could approach to measure 100s of nanoseconds,
>>>>> using thermionic tubes with 10 digits within. You
>>>>> may saw it, probably, in scifi movies from the '50s.
>>>>>
>>>>> Femtoseconds were possible to be measured at the beggining of this
>>>>> century, 55 years after nanosecond first measurements.
>>>>>
>>>>> I say: Nobody said that Einstein's thought experiment was out of this
>>>>> world and any possible conceivable reality? Really?
>>>>>
>>>>> And, due to omission of criticism about rationality, things started to
>>>>> degrade at physics in the next 116 years. And here we are.
>>>>>
>>>>> They should have forbidden such ridiculous paper, but Drude (Annalen
>>>>> Chief Editor) and others had an agenda.
>>>>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> For the idiots questioning the above line of reasoning:
>>>>>
>>>>> You can't do theoretical physics without thinking in the magnitudes
>>>>> involved in what you are proposing.
>>>>> The values involved in the 1905 electrodynamics paper concerning time
>>>>> (nsec, fsec) are as ridiculous for that
>>>>> epoch or the next 50 years as the papers concerning time (10E-32 sec)
>>>>> that Alan Guth conceived in a nightmare
>>>>> for the duration of the BB blast and further inflation: STUPID SCIFI
>>>>> ASSERTIONS, IMPOSSIBLE TO BE MEASURED IN AGES.
>>>>>
>>>>> So, both retarded, protected by inability to fact-check and complicity
>>>>> from other co-living parasites, postulated fairy tails that
>>>>> only children and children-minded colleagues could swallow.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don´t see any change that relevant physicists of that epoch
>>>>> (Rutherford, Thomson, Larmor, Bohr, etc.) could accept such
>>>>> stupidity (and they DIDN'T). I can't imagine Poincaré, one of the
>>>>> greatest mind living by then, could also accept it. Any rational
>>>>> physicist knew that the measurement of 1 nsec in that epoch was
>>>>> IMPOSSIBLE. Not to mention 1 fsec, 1 million times shorter.
>>>>>
>>>>> Science was quite advanced with measurement capabilities by 1905, to
>>>>> verify values like:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1) Temperature differences of 0.004 Kelvin (Germany, 1900).
>>>>> 2) 1 uA, 1 uV or 1 uOhm (England, 1900).
>>>>> 3) Differences of less than 0.1 arcsec in observational astronomy (1 coin at 10 Km).
>>>>> 4) Sizes below 1 um (three or four countries like in Germany, France).
>>>>> 5) Differences of fraction of 1 wavelength in visible light, through
>>>>> interferometry and L = 500 nm.
>>>>> 6) Approximations to the speed of light, c, using 5).
>>>>>
>>>>> But the measurement of time, at the heart of relativity, was another
>>>>> completely different history, due to
>>>>> the dependence on mechanical clocks. State of the art chronometers could
>>>>> resolve time with 1/60
>>>>> seconds precision (and accuracy), due to differential wheels that
>>>>> provided ticking in 16.7 msec steps.
>>>>>
>>>>> And this capability to measure lapses of time was 10,000,000 times lower
>>>>> than what was needed to
>>>>> fact-check partially some assertions of 1905 electrodynamics.
>>>>>
>>>>> TIME MEASUREMENT would require to wait 35 years to enter in the usec
>>>>> region and another 15 years
>>>>> to enter in the nsec region. Quartz oscillators and the nascent digital
>>>>> electronics, based on thermionic
>>>>> tubes would provide the 1 million times increase in precision in a 10
>>>>> years learning curve. It will take
>>>>> maybe 1,000 years or the help of advanced space aliens visiting Earth to
>>>>> provide the technology to
>>>>> measure (if possible) time in the region that Alan Guth dreamed, but sold
>>>>> to everyone in the field.
>>>>>
>>>>> And this degeneracy of thought (with the help of imbeciles like Moroney)
>>>>> that keep alive parasites who
>>>>> enjoy mathturbation daily and yet make a living, is what has brought
>>>>> theoretical physics to its current
>>>>> market value: ALMOST ZERO, like the value of shares of dot.com companies
>>>>> after 1999 implosion.
>>>>>
>>>>> Because you can fool people who provide funds and establishment one, two
>>>>> or three times but, eventually,
>>>>> they will realize that they were robbed and will correct that.
>>>>>
>>>>> Einstein's papers and relativity (both SR and GR) is a huge deceiving
>>>>> movement, sold to the general public
>>>>> and to establishment in times when faith in human endeavors was weak
>>>>> (WWI, the great pandemic, revolutions, etc.).
>>>>>
>>>>> And science and technology looked like the sources of greater quality in
>>>>> the life of most (what would they know).
>>>>> After ages of stagnation, and even decline, in solutions for a better
>>>>> life, they provided at an accelerated pace (Bell, Edison,
>>>>> Tesla, Westinghouse, Marconi, etc.) great improvements. So science and
>>>>> technology seemed to be the source of all solutions
>>>>> above political, social and economical mumble.
>>>>>
>>>>> In particular, physics and chemistry were kings. And relativity fit very
>>>>> well in the collective mind as a transformation of millennial
>>>>> understanding of nature: THINGS ARE NOT WHAT THEY APPEARS TO BE. We've
>>>>> been blind since Copernico's times, but now WE
>>>>> ARE TOLD BY SCIENTISTS that we are not blind anymore. We can appreciate
>>>>> nature in full colors, and it's RELATIVE.
>>>>>
>>>>> So, we have to WASTE 120 years of deception to come to a road end and,
>>>>> bitterly, realize that we were cheated, deceived.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you just eliminate cars, TV, Internet, smartphones and PCs, society is
>>>>> not better than at the beginning of XX century (penicillin
>>>>> and dental care apart). And theoretical physics can't wake up from a
>>>>> deep sleep for the last 50 years, because there are LIMITS!
>>>>>
>>>>> And relativity has to end as it started, as a deceiving pseudo-science
>>>>> (aligned with others like psychology and economy).
>>>>>
>>>>> And a return to pure newtonian-maxwellian world of deductive analysis has
>>>>> to prevail over the stupid world of inductive reasoning,
>>>>> which is one of the causes of the plagues that sweep this world,
>>>>> devastating chances to progress.
>>>>>
>>>>> So, Moroney, Bodkin, Dono, JanPB: you are the carriers of the viruses
>>>>> that make this current world corrupt and worthless in the
>>>>> field of physics. You all are the obstacle, the disseminators of false
>>>>> theories with ZERO practical value.
>>>>>
>>>>> Go and make a monument to ENGINEERS, who did their best to provide
>>>>> whatever poses any value to enhance your comfort,
>>>>> entertainement, health (assisting real medical sciences), education,
>>>>> communication means and normal pleasures (like tourism).
>>>>>
>>>>> Stop protecting the legacy of a fucking liar, plagiarist, cheater,
>>>>> deceiver and theft, who was created overnight by Germany and UK.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>>
>>> From pages 896, 897 in the original paper:
>>>
>>> "Wir denken uns ferner, daB sich bei jeder Uhr ein mit ihr bewegter
>>> ***Beobachter*** befinde, und daB diese ***Beobachter***
>>> auf die beiden Uhren das im § 1 aufgestellte Kriterium fiir den
>>> synchronen Gang zweier Uhren anwenden. Zur Zeit tA gehe ein
>>> Lichtstrahl von A aus, werde zur Zeit tB in B reflektiert und gelange zur
>>> Zeit t'A zuriick. Unter Beriicksichtigung des Prinzipes von
>>> der Konstanz der Lichtgeschwindigkeit finden wir:
>>>
>>> tB - tA = rAB/(V - v)
>>>
>>> und
>>>
>>> tA' - tB = rAB/(V + v)"
>>>
>>>
>>> Beobachter: Observer(s).
>>>
>>> Forget the train.
>> Well, you insisted on it. Twice.
>>
>>> It's invisible here.
>>
>> Ah, so it’s there, but it’s invisible and unmentioned. Maybe you know it’s
>> there because you hear the whistle?
>>> The rod moves inertially in k respect to K.
>>>
>>> Read the paper and don't TROLL/SHILL. You are a grown up, not a child.
>>> And you know what I'm writing about.
>>>
>>> Or are you an idiot, ready to use any excuse to derail the fundamental
>>> concepts that I posted? Yes, it's your way of doing.
>>>
>>>
>> Anybody who posts about fundamental concepts but can’t be bothered with
>> simple facts is going to have an uphill battle.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>
> Being fallacious will not help you. It doesn't matter if there was a
> train with 12 meters long wagon or a fantastic marvel
> like a rod moving by magic with an OBSERVER MOUNTED ON IT.