On Thursday, October 21, 2021 at 12:23:59 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:

> Tell that to Najmzadeh, Sallese, Berthomé, Grabinski, and Ionescu (all of them EE and members of the IEEE)
> Local Volume Depletion/Accumulation in GAA Si Nanowire Junctionless nMOSFETs
> https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Cross-sectional-QED-at-the-middle-of-a-GAA-15-nm-wide-Si-NW-JL-MOSFET-for-three-operation_fig4_253329734

The village clown (Richard Hertz) just quoted another paper that refutes his imbecillic beliefs. Done in by his own references, the ultimate example of cretinism

Michael Moroney wrote:

> On 10/20/2021 12:10 AM, Richard Hertz wrote:
>
>> But your stupid mind can't understand how such evolution was achieved
>> in the last 50 years of applied engineering, to increase ICs power by
>> 1,000,000 times and decrease sizes and power consumption by the same
>> factor.
>
> Thanks to the ability of good engineers to apply QFT successfully!

america is sponsored by Pfizer. My gosh what more proof you want IG_Farben
want to kill you??

JanPB wrote:

>> Now you correct Feynman? How deep are you willing to fall spiraling
>> down to full dementia?
>
> I'm not correcting Feynman, only pointing out that what you quoted was a
> pop-sci text or some sort of summary by Feynman. You cannot use that
> sort of thing to form any valid opinion on the subject's correctness.
>
>> Hubris too much!
>
> No, just pointing out the obvious.

also your counry is sponsored by Pfizer. My gosh what more proof you ask
for IG_Farben want to kill you??

JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 19, 2021 at 3:56:23 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
>>
>> I quote Feynman's statement:
>>
>> "The complete quantum mechanics ... works as follows: The probability
>> that a particle starting at point 1 at the time t1 will arrive
>> at point 2 at time t2 is the SQUARE OF PROBABILITY AMPLITUDE.
>
> Square of the absolute value of the amplitude.

Well, no. The amplitude is typically a complex function, and so the
probability is the square-norm of the amplitude. (Norm is a
context-variable term, so I explicitly call out the square norm.)

>
>> The TOTAL amplitude can be written as the sum of the amplitudes
>> for each possible path [worldline] for each way of arrival.
>
> It's not just a sum, it's a very carefully weighted sum. It looks like you are quoting from
> a pop-sci text that Feynman wrote, or some sort of summary.
>
>> For every x(t) ... we have to calculate an amplitude. Then we add them all together.
>
> You don't just add them, it's far more subtle than that. It's so
> idiosyncratic, in fact, that
> it cannot be mimicked by the standard measure theory approach to integrals.
>
>> The amplitude is proportional to some constant times exp(iS/h_bar),
>> where S is action for that path."
>
> Yes. Except, again, it's far more subtle. Feynman is flying high here
> over the details of the terrain.
>
>> And all of this shit is derived from de Broglie's assumption that mc² =
>> hf (a marriage between relativity output and classic interpretation
>> of quantums of action by Planck in the BBC problem).
>
> Well, you are not qualified to call it "shit" or "perfection", sorry.
>
>> So, with these undulatory and probabilistic behavior of particles, in
>> the quantum world, the degeneracy of thought begin.
>
> Again, you are just fantasising here if you think even for a fraction of a second that
> you can say anything regarding the quality of the theory. Just pick a different hobby.
>
> --
> Jan
>

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

On Thursday, October 21, 2021 at 4:35:56 PM UTC-3, JanPB wrote:
> On Thursday, October 21, 2021 at 12:26:48 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > On Thursday, October 21, 2021 at 2:41:55 PM UTC-3, JanPB wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, October 19, 2021 at 3:56:23 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I quote Feynman's statement:
> > > >
> > > > "The complete quantum mechanics ... works as follows: The probability that a particle starting at point 1 at the time t1 will arrive
> > > > at point 2 at time t2 is the SQUARE OF PROBABILITY AMPLITUDE.
> > > Square of the absolute value of the amplitude.
> > > > The TOTAL amplitude can be written as the sum of the amplitudes
> > > > for each possible path [worldline] for each way of arrival.
> > > It's not just a sum, it's a very carefully weighted sum. It looks like you are quoting from
> > > a pop-sci text that Feynman wrote, or some sort of summary.
> > > > For every x(t) ... we have to calculate an amplitude. Then we add them all together.
> > > You don't just add them, it's far more subtle than that. It's so idiosyncratic, in fact, that
> > > it cannot be mimicked by the standard measure theory approach to integrals.
> > > > The amplitude is proportional to some constant times exp(iS/h_bar), where S is action for that path."
> > > Yes. Except, again, it's far more subtle. Feynman is flying high here over the details of the terrain.
> > > > And all of this shit is derived from de Broglie's assumption that mc² = hf (a marriage between relativity output and classic interpretation
> > > > of quantums of action by Planck in the BBC problem).
> > > Well, you are not qualified to call it "shit" or "perfection", sorry.
> > > > So, with these undulatory and probabilistic behavior of particles, in the quantum world, the degeneracy of thought begin.
> > > Again, you are just fantasising here if you think even for a fraction of a second that
> > > you can say anything regarding the quality of the theory. Just pick a different hobby.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Jan
> > Now you correct Feynman? How deep are you willing to fall spiraling down to full dementia?
> I'm not correcting Feynman, only pointing out that what you quoted was
> a pop-sci text or some sort of summary by Feynman. You cannot use that
> sort of thing to form any valid opinion on the subject's correctness.
>
> > Hubris too much!
>
> No, just pointing out the obvious.
>
> --
> Jan

Once again, JanPB is an opinionated IDIOT!

Read the source. I don't invent shit like you.
And if you had a functioning brain, you would have find my post with this in this thread!

Simple derivation of Newtonian mechanics from the principle of least action
Jozef Hanc, Slavomir Tuleja, Martina Hancova

Paper published in American Journal of Physics, April 2003, Volume 71, Issue 4, pp. 386-391

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
https://www.eftaylor.com/pub/ActionFINAL.pdf

The authors state: "We also briefly discuss the origin of the principle of least action in Feynman’s sum over paths
formulation of quantum mechanics".

I quote Feynman's statement:

"The complete quantum mechanics ... works as follows: The probability that a particle starting at point 1 at the time t1 will arrive
at point 2 at time t2 is the SQUARE OF PROBABILITY AMPLITUDE. The TOTAL amplitude can be written as the sum of the amplitudes
for each possible path [worldline] for each way of arrival. For every x(t) .... we have to calculate an amplitude. Then we add them all together. The amplitude is proportional to some constant times exp(iS/h_bar), where S is action for that path."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You have to stop jumping with remarks, instead of following the entire thread, imbecile.

On 10/21/2021 3:23 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Thursday, October 21, 2021 at 3:43:08 PM UTC-3, Michael Moroney wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>> How the fuck would you know?
>> Perhaps he has an EE degree, or was working toward one?
>
> LOL! Dono the engineer? Give me a break, please!

Well, you allegedly have an EE degree, and Dono is obviously smarter
than you are, so it must be possible.
>
>> For my degree, I had to take a course where I had to learn the electron
>> band gap theory and enough QFT to support it, what makes materials
>> conductors, semiconductors or insulators, why doping affects
>> semiconductors etc. The theory behind enhancement mode and depletion
>> mode FETs, bipolar transistors, diodes and so forth. I didn't care for
>> that course, as I was more interested in learning how to design circuits
>> from transistors rather than design transistors from sand.
>
> Stop lying and stop googling shit just to learn what to post. You are not an EE!

My university will disagree. As would my previous employer who wanted
someone with an EE degree, not someone pretending to be an EE.

> Not even a technician, for sure. The comment "rather than design transistors from sand" pictures you entirely.

That was a running joke with me and some future EEs commenting on that
course. Sand is silicon dioxide in most places, often quite pure. The
most common semiconductor is extremely pure silicon, refined from
silicon dioxide and dopants (impurities) deliberately added. So yes,
transistors are made from sand.

> And yet, instead of sand, you choose to became an advocate of the mud that relativity is. Embarrassing.

I follow science and believe in the scientific method. Since SR and GR
match reality better than any other theory so far, SR and GR are
certainly on to something.
>
> You couldn't differentiate a transistor from a diode, even if I guide you by telling "one has two and the other has three".

You are projecting your own failures onto me.
>
>>> Semiconductors knowledge has been developed since 1880.
>> And now explained by QFT.
>
> Tell that to Najmzadeh, Sallese, Berthomé, Grabinski, and Ionescu (all of them EE and members of the IEEE)
>
> Local Volume Depletion/Accumulation in GAA Si Nanowire Junctionless nMOSFETs
>
> https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Cross-sectional-QED-at-the-middle-of-a-GAA-15-nm-wide-Si-NW-JL-MOSFET-for-three-operation_fig4_253329734

No references to QFT; "QED" refers to quantum electron density instead.
>

On 10/21/2021 3:26 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:

>
> Now you correct Feynman? How deep are you willing to fall spiraling down to full dementia?

Correcting your misunderstanding of what Feynman wrote is not correcting
Feynman.

> Hubris too much!

THAT describes yourself!

On Thursday, October 21, 2021 at 7:42:00 PM UTC-3, Michael Moroney wrote:

<snip>

> I follow science and believe in the scientific method. Since SR and GR match reality better than any other theory so far, SR and GR are
> certainly on to something.

LOL! You made to spit my coffee!

Einstein (Moroney) scientific method:

In the silence of the night, in 1905, a mentally disturbed imbecile is figuring out how to make money with thought experiments,
because he has proved himself many times that he's completely inept to do any experiment in the lab of the college.

There, at the cheese nation, he's in some hypnotic trance due to the comfortable tic-tac of a mechanical clock and thinking in the
dark room, barely illuminated by a candlestick, because he's too cheap to pay for that new invention called electric light.

He's dreaming with unreal worlds where there is only one dimension, yet ghost observers can appreciate distant events in 3D. His
dream includes mechanical clocks that are set or reset by planckian quantums of actions, and that are capable of measure nanoseconds.

It's unreal, but the fucker don't care. He imagine that if one ghost observer is mounting in an imaginary rod that moves inertially, and
play with quantum of actions that bounce forth and back on mirrors mounted at the ends of the road, another ghost observer who's
is standing watching him traveling, perceive time and lengths differently than the first one.

The thinker, a wannabe physicist, write some equations relating such behaviors. Then grab a paper authored by Lorentz and wonder
how to transform his thought experiment into the equations of Lorent's paper, disguising any traceable evidence of plagiarism.

The imbecile is trapped into mathematical dilemmas but, luckily, has a friend who's an engineer, Michele Besso.

The next day he asked his friend, the engineer, how to develop the math and Besso agree to help him.

Nobody will ask for times involved he said. As a thought experiment, I have the freedom to not provide any substantiation. Only fallacies.

Then, the fucker invest the next months engineering the math and text to disguise his Lorentz's copycat, invent some shit about constancy
of the speed of light, simultaneity and shit, and bring his paper to the office of Drude, at the Annalen der Physik, asking help once again.

Drude feel pity for the fucker and tell him that let the paper on his desk. Once alone, Drude realize that it's a crude plagiarism of Lorentz
and invest time to rewrite it, polishing and erasing the trail of proofs that point to Lorentz, except the Lorentz transforms and the entire
work over the new particle called electron.

Then, he published the paper under Einstein's name. One year after, full of guilt, Drude kill himself, but the paper is out there.

****************

This is your science Moroney? Your scientific method that you worship?

And your fucker was just warming up. In the next decade, he replicated this method with dozens of "friends", sponsors and "ghost
writers". It was Germany against France and everyone else, so "everything is valid in love and war" it's said.

That is your scientific method? Go back to college and ask for refund, because you are a damaged product of a damaged education.

On Thursday, October 21, 2021 at 4:30:34 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz frothed at the mouth.....:
> ....and ate shit by the excavator<

Well Einstein is the greatest physicist of all times while you are just a sad sack of shit. Because of your internet postings, now you are a well known sad sack of shit. Congratulations!

On Thursday, October 21, 2021 at 1:00:28 PM UTC-7, Dono. wrote:
> On Thursday, October 21, 2021 at 12:23:59 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
>
> > Tell that to Najmzadeh, Sallese, Berthomé, Grabinski, and Ionescu (all of them EE and members of the IEEE)
> > Local Volume Depletion/Accumulation in GAA Si Nanowire Junctionless nMOSFETs
> > https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Cross-sectional-QED-at-the-middle-of-a-GAA-15-nm-wide-Si-NW-JL-MOSFET-for-three-operation_fig4_253329734
> The village clown (Richard Hertz) just quoted another paper that refutes his imbecillic beliefs. Done in by his own references, the ultimate example of cretinism

Pentcho does it all the time.

--
Jan

On Thursday, October 21, 2021 at 2:28:05 PM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> JanPB <fil...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Tuesday, October 19, 2021 at 3:56:23 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> >>
> >> I quote Feynman's statement:
> >>
> >> "The complete quantum mechanics ... works as follows: The probability
> >> that a particle starting at point 1 at the time t1 will arrive
> >> at point 2 at time t2 is the SQUARE OF PROBABILITY AMPLITUDE.
> >
> > Square of the absolute value of the amplitude.
> Well, no. The amplitude is typically a complex function, and so the
> probability is the square-norm of the amplitude. (Norm is a
> context-variable term, so I explicitly call out the square norm.)

Yes, probability density I should have said. Point is, we don't just
square the amplitudes.

--
Jan

On Thursday, October 21, 2021 at 2:43:26 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Thursday, October 21, 2021 at 4:35:56 PM UTC-3, JanPB wrote:
> > On Thursday, October 21, 2021 at 12:26:48 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > > On Thursday, October 21, 2021 at 2:41:55 PM UTC-3, JanPB wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, October 19, 2021 at 3:56:23 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I quote Feynman's statement:
> > > > >
> > > > > "The complete quantum mechanics ... works as follows: The probability that a particle starting at point 1 at the time t1 will arrive
> > > > > at point 2 at time t2 is the SQUARE OF PROBABILITY AMPLITUDE.
> > > > Square of the absolute value of the amplitude.
> > > > > The TOTAL amplitude can be written as the sum of the amplitudes
> > > > > for each possible path [worldline] for each way of arrival.
> > > > It's not just a sum, it's a very carefully weighted sum. It looks like you are quoting from
> > > > a pop-sci text that Feynman wrote, or some sort of summary.
> > > > > For every x(t) ... we have to calculate an amplitude. Then we add them all together.
> > > > You don't just add them, it's far more subtle than that. It's so idiosyncratic, in fact, that
> > > > it cannot be mimicked by the standard measure theory approach to integrals.
> > > > > The amplitude is proportional to some constant times exp(iS/h_bar), where S is action for that path."
> > > > Yes. Except, again, it's far more subtle. Feynman is flying high here over the details of the terrain.
> > > > > And all of this shit is derived from de Broglie's assumption that mc² = hf (a marriage between relativity output and classic interpretation
> > > > > of quantums of action by Planck in the BBC problem).
> > > > Well, you are not qualified to call it "shit" or "perfection", sorry.
> > > > > So, with these undulatory and probabilistic behavior of particles, in the quantum world, the degeneracy of thought begin.
> > > > Again, you are just fantasising here if you think even for a fraction of a second that
> > > > you can say anything regarding the quality of the theory. Just pick a different hobby.
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Jan
> > > Now you correct Feynman? How deep are you willing to fall spiraling down to full dementia?
> > I'm not correcting Feynman, only pointing out that what you quoted was
> > a pop-sci text or some sort of summary by Feynman. You cannot use that
> > sort of thing to form any valid opinion on the subject's correctness.
> >
> > > Hubris too much!
> >
> > No, just pointing out the obvious.
> >
> > --
> > Jan
> Once again, JanPB is an opinionated IDIOT!
>
> Read the source. I don't invent shit like you.

Whatever you quoted was simply incorrect, most likely a summary or
a popular presentation of some sort which omits the important details.

> And if you had a functioning brain, you would have find my post with this in this thread!
>
> Simple derivation of Newtonian mechanics from the principle of least action
> Jozef Hanc, Slavomir Tuleja, Martina Hancova
>
> Paper published in American Journal of Physics, April 2003, Volume 71, Issue 4, pp. 386-391

I haven't read it (just glanced at it) but if it's correct, then I'm 100% certain they
take the square norm of the amplitude, not the square of the amplitude.

> https://www.eftaylor.com/pub/ActionFINAL.pdf
>
> The authors state: "We also briefly discuss the origin of the principle of least action in Feynman’s sum over paths
> formulation of quantum mechanics".

Sure, it's a common summary way of putting it. Science papers would be completely
unreadable if their authors insisted on writing exact definitions of everything at
every rhetorical turn.

> I quote Feynman's statement:
>
> "The complete quantum mechanics ... works as follows: The probability that a particle starting at point 1 at the time t1 will arrive
> at point 2 at time t2 is the SQUARE OF PROBABILITY AMPLITUDE.

This is incorrect, again, Feynman is obviously writing this as a summary, not
as the actual description of what's going on.

> The TOTAL amplitude can be written as the sum of the amplitudes

True.

> for each possible path [worldline] for each way of arrival. For every x(t) ... we have to calculate an amplitude. Then we add them all together.

No, just adding them wouldn't work. You have to do at least two things to make this
work:

1. you have to set up the limiting process in a particular way in which you
write the paths as limits of finite-segmented piecewise-linear (non-physical) paths,
2. you have weigh each amplitude (for each path) by a certain factor.

Both (1) and (2) are designed to make the result convergent AND convergent
to the right thing. For example, one can show that the above limit satisfies
the Schrödinger equation (it's not trivial).

This limiting process seems like it should be describable as an integral of
some sort on the space of paths but someone proved (Wiener? I forget) that
on no "reasonable" space of paths no "reasonable" measure can exist that
would reproduce Feynman's limit.

> The amplitude is proportional to some constant times exp(iS/h_bar), where S is action for that path."

Yes.
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> You have to stop jumping with remarks, instead of following the entire thread, imbecile.

I'll do whatever I please to correct you. You can leave if you don't like it. Open
your own web site which you can fully control instead.

--
Jan

On 10/21/2021 7:30 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Thursday, October 21, 2021 at 7:42:00 PM UTC-3, Michael Moroney wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> I follow science and believe in the scientific method. Since SR and GR match reality better than any other theory so far, SR and GR are
>> certainly on to something.
>
> LOL! You made to spit my coffee!
>
> Einstein (Moroney) scientific method:
>
<snip what looks like an excerpt from some bad novel>

> ****************
>
> This is your science Moroney?

No, that is from some work of fiction that should never be written. Your
fiction.

> Your scientific method that you worship?

The scientific method doesn't come from works of badly written fiction.
Neither reading them nor writing them.

> That is your scientific method? Go back to college and ask for refund, because you are a damaged product of a damaged education.

Don't project your own failures onto me or anyone else.

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, October 21, 2021 at 7:42:00 PM UTC-3, Michael Moroney wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> I follow science and believe in the scientific method. Since SR and GR
>> match reality better than any other theory so far, SR and GR are
>> certainly on to something.
>
> LOL! You made to spit my coffee!
>
> Einstein (Moroney) scientific method:

What is the point of inventing history?

>
> In the silence of the night, in 1905, a mentally disturbed imbecile is
> figuring out how to make money with thought experiments,
> because he has proved himself many times that he's completely inept to do
> any experiment in the lab of the college.
>
> There, at the cheese nation, he's in some hypnotic trance due to the
> comfortable tic-tac of a mechanical clock and thinking in the
> dark room, barely illuminated by a candlestick, because he's too cheap to
> pay for that new invention called electric light.
>
> He's dreaming with unreal worlds where there is only one dimension, yet
> ghost observers can appreciate distant events in 3D. His
> dream includes mechanical clocks that are set or reset by planckian
> quantums of actions, and that are capable of measure nanoseconds.
>
> It's unreal, but the fucker don't care. He imagine that if one ghost
> observer is mounting in an imaginary rod that moves inertially, and
> play with quantum of actions that bounce forth and back on mirrors
> mounted at the ends of the road, another ghost observer who's
> is standing watching him traveling, perceive time and lengths differently
> than the first one.
>
> The thinker, a wannabe physicist, write some equations relating such
> behaviors. Then grab a paper authored by Lorentz and wonder
> how to transform his thought experiment into the equations of Lorent's
> paper, disguising any traceable evidence of plagiarism.
>
> The imbecile is trapped into mathematical dilemmas but, luckily, has a
> friend who's an engineer, Michele Besso.
>
> The next day he asked his friend, the engineer, how to develop the math
> and Besso agree to help him.
>
> Nobody will ask for times involved he said. As a thought experiment, I
> have the freedom to not provide any substantiation. Only fallacies.
>
> Then, the fucker invest the next months engineering the math and text to
> disguise his Lorentz's copycat, invent some shit about constancy
> of the speed of light, simultaneity and shit, and bring his paper to the
> office of Drude, at the Annalen der Physik, asking help once again.
>
> Drude feel pity for the fucker and tell him that let the paper on his
> desk. Once alone, Drude realize that it's a crude plagiarism of Lorentz
> and invest time to rewrite it, polishing and erasing the trail of proofs
> that point to Lorentz, except the Lorentz transforms and the entire
> work over the new particle called electron.
>
> Then, he published the paper under Einstein's name. One year after, full
> of guilt, Drude kill himself, but the paper is out there.
>
> ****************
>
> This is your science Moroney? Your scientific method that you worship?
>
> And your fucker was just warming up. In the next decade, he replicated
> this method with dozens of "friends", sponsors and "ghost
> writers". It was Germany against France and everyone else, so "everything
> is valid in love and war" it's said.
>
> That is your scientific method? Go back to college and ask for refund,
> because you are a damaged product of a damaged education.
>
>
>

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

On Friday, October 22, 2021 at 1:44:35 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:

<snip>

> What is the point of inventing history?

It´s a poetic license that I indulged myself using it to present, as a fairy tail, an approximation of how the mind of an imbecile, yet
ambitious and with no moral sophist, wanted to make a career on physics after years of being rejected from any academic position
for not having the required intelligence, respect for others and mathematical and experimental abilities for achieving any success in
physics, either experimental or theoretical. So, the imbecile found a hiding in the most remote and impossible to be proven corners
of modern physics, which was stalling in the fields of dynamics and thermodynamics.

The people's smart, yet not intellectually gifted fucker, found that sophistry and philosophy were the right tools for deception and
introduction of fallacies IN SUCH CORNERS, to which 99% of physicists didn't give a flying fuck in that epoch. So, his metaphysics
found a fertile ground to grow: THE LAND OF THE UNOBSERVABLE AND THE UNVERIFIABLE.

Compare his "scientific methods", as a 25 y.o. clerk in a patent office, with what Newton had conceived being the same age (1668):

A. RULES OF REASONING IN PHILOSOPHY (NEWTON SCIENTIFIC METHOD)

Newton introduced a methodology for handling unknown phenomena in nature and how to develop explanations for them.

1) We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances.
2) Therefore to the same natural effects we must, as far as possible, assign the same causes.
3) The qualities of bodies, which admit neither intensification nor remission of degrees, and which are found to belong to all
bodies within the reach of our experiments, are to be esteemed the universal qualities of all bodies whatsoever.
4) In experimental philosophy we are to look upon propositions inferred by general induction from phenomena as accurately or
very nearly true, not withstanding any contrary hypothesis that may be imagined, till such time as other phenomena occur, by
which they may either be made more accurate, or liable to exceptions.

With this rules for REASONING within limits of OBSERVATION (“hypotheses non fingo”, the famous Newton's remark to his critics),
230 years of scientific method applications created the modern world, which surrounded Einstein by 1905. And is as simple as:

1) Use observations, documented by your experiment or other people's experiments (i.e.: Gauss, Maxwell, Planck, Thomson, Rutherford,..)
2) Ask questions and develop TESTABLE explanations (same examples as above)..
3) Make predictions based on such TESTABLE explanations (same examples as above).
4) Get experimental tests of such predictions (either done by you or other scientists, as the names provided above)
5) If the outcome of testing is successful, write and publish a documented presentation of the findings, REFERENCING any help
obtained by collaborators or previous works in that area of knowledge (AGAIN: Gauss, Maxwell, Planck, Thomson, Rutherford,..).

The damn plagiarist and pretender FAILED IN 5 OUT OF 5 rules (100%), and yet was ALLOWED TO PUBLISH HIS SR and E=mc² shit!

In the year of 1905, EXACTLY 184 papers were published at the Annalen der Physik, comprising EXACTLY 3,017 pages.

ALL OF THEM, in Volumes 321 to 323 and Issues 1 to 15, are available online at Wiley database.

There are:

- 139 papers on experimental physics.
- 28 papers on theoretical physics, mostly supported by experimental physics.
- 17 papers on comments or remarks about other papers published at the ADP.

ALL OF THEM, except 3, present one or more references to others in the footprint of the first page or within the body of the paper.

- 2 papers from Einstein, having the second (E=mc²) a self reference to the first (Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper).
- 1 paper from Fritz Hasenöhrl ("On the theory of radiation in moving bodies. Rectification"), referencing his previous paper, which
curiously presented m=4/3.E/c², months BEFORE Einstein's paper. Hasenöhrl was well known 31 y.o. physicist and professor at the
University of Vienna as Boltzmann's successor as the head of the Department of Theoretical Physics. He was credited by Planck
asserting that "That the black body radiation possesses inertia was first pointed out by F. Hasenöhrl". Since J. J. Thomson in 1881,
many physicists like Wilhelm Wien (1900), Max Abraham (1902), and Hendrik Lorentz (1904) used equations equivalent to m=4/3.E/c².

So, it's easy to understans that Einstein WAS CREATED BY Annalen der Physik in 1905, under Drude's direction. Also, that Drude gave
Einstein 19 PAPERS to comment about them at the Beiblätter zu den Annalen der Physik in 1905 HAS NO RATIONAL EXPLANATION.

His very strange paper "Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper", without any references and credentials for the author, was ignored in
the first years, until Planck (nobody will know why, but it started after gaining ADP command, along with Wien) started to talk about
it AT EVERY MEETING with known physicists. The physics community rejected the paper's content as presumptuous in the first part,
REDEFINING space and time as relative, and a copycat of 1904 Lorentz in the second part.

Well into 1910, such paper was known as Lorentz-Einstein relativity EVERYWHERE. Only after Lorentz (aging and vanishing rapidly)
mounted on the hype of relativity, prompted by Einstein, choose sides with him and brought him to the 1911 Solvay's conference.

The rest of the script is well known.

I'll make a new thread based on this post, as it is lost in the stack at this thread.

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Friday, October 22, 2021 at 1:44:35 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> What is the point of inventing history?
>
> It´s a poetic license that I indulged myself using it to present, as a fairy tail,

Alrighty then. You just felt like writing fiction.

> an approximation

No, sorry, that’s not an approximation at all. It’s a fiction.

The rest of what you posted is still more fiction.

> of how the mind of an imbecile, yet
> ambitious and with no moral sophist, wanted to make a career on physics
> after years of being rejected from any academic position
> for not having the required intelligence, respect for others and
> mathematical and experimental abilities for achieving any success in
> physics, either experimental or theoretical. So, the imbecile found a
> hiding in the most remote and impossible to be proven corners
> of modern physics, which was stalling in the fields of dynamics and thermodynamics.
>
> The people's smart, yet not intellectually gifted fucker, found that
> sophistry and philosophy were the right tools for deception and
> introduction of fallacies IN SUCH CORNERS, to which 99% of physicists
> didn't give a flying fuck in that epoch. So, his metaphysics
> found a fertile ground to grow: THE LAND OF THE UNOBSERVABLE AND THE UNVERIFIABLE.
>
> Compare his "scientific methods", as a 25 y.o. clerk in a patent office,
> with what Newton had conceived being the same age (1668):
>
> A. RULES OF REASONING IN PHILOSOPHY (NEWTON SCIENTIFIC METHOD)
>
> Newton introduced a methodology for handling unknown phenomena in nature
> and how to develop explanations for them.
>
> 1) We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are
> both true and sufficient to explain their appearances.
> 2) Therefore to the same natural effects we must, as far as possible,
> assign the same causes.
> 3) The qualities of bodies, which admit neither intensification nor
> remission of degrees, and which are found to belong to all
> bodies within the reach of our experiments, are to be esteemed the
> universal qualities of all bodies whatsoever.
> 4) In experimental philosophy we are to look upon propositions inferred
> by general induction from phenomena as accurately or
> very nearly true, not withstanding any contrary hypothesis that may
> be imagined, till such time as other phenomena occur, by
> which they may either be made more accurate, or liable to exceptions.
>
> With this rules for REASONING within limits of OBSERVATION (“hypotheses
> non fingo”, the famous Newton's remark to his critics),
> 230 years of scientific method applications created the modern world,
> which surrounded Einstein by 1905. And is as simple as:
>
> 1) Use observations, documented by your experiment or other people's
> experiments (i.e.: Gauss, Maxwell, Planck, Thomson, Rutherford,..)
> 2) Ask questions and develop TESTABLE explanations (same examples as above).
> 3) Make predictions based on such TESTABLE explanations (same examples as above).
> 4) Get experimental tests of such predictions (either done by you or
> other scientists, as the names provided above)
> 5) If the outcome of testing is successful, write and publish a
> documented presentation of the findings, REFERENCING any help
> obtained by collaborators or previous works in that area of knowledge
> (AGAIN: Gauss, Maxwell, Planck, Thomson, Rutherford,..).
>
> The damn plagiarist and pretender FAILED IN 5 OUT OF 5 rules (100%), and
> yet was ALLOWED TO PUBLISH HIS SR and E=mc² shit!
>
> In the year of 1905, EXACTLY 184 papers were published at the Annalen der
> Physik, comprising EXACTLY 3,017 pages.
>
> ALL OF THEM, in Volumes 321 to 323 and Issues 1 to 15, are available
> online at Wiley database.
>
> There are:
>
> - 139 papers on experimental physics.
> - 28 papers on theoretical physics, mostly supported by experimental physics.
> - 17 papers on comments or remarks about other papers published at the ADP.
>
> ALL OF THEM, except 3, present one or more references to others in the
> footprint of the first page or within the body of the paper.
>
> - 2 papers from Einstein, having the second (E=mc²) a self reference to
> the first (Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper).
> - 1 paper from Fritz Hasenöhrl ("On the theory of radiation in moving
> bodies. Rectification"), referencing his previous paper, which
> curiously presented m=4/3.E/c², months BEFORE Einstein's paper.
> Hasenöhrl was well known 31 y.o. physicist and professor at the
> University of Vienna as Boltzmann's successor as the head of the
> Department of Theoretical Physics. He was credited by Planck
> asserting that "That the black body radiation possesses inertia was
> first pointed out by F. Hasenöhrl". Since J. J. Thomson in 1881,
> many physicists like Wilhelm Wien (1900), Max Abraham (1902), and
> Hendrik Lorentz (1904) used equations equivalent to m=4/3.E/c².
>
> So, it's easy to understans that Einstein WAS CREATED BY Annalen der
> Physik in 1905, under Drude's direction. Also, that Drude gave
> Einstein 19 PAPERS to comment about them at the Beiblätter zu den Annalen
> der Physik in 1905 HAS NO RATIONAL EXPLANATION.
>
> His very strange paper "Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper", without any
> references and credentials for the author, was ignored in
> the first years, until Planck (nobody will know why, but it started after
> gaining ADP command, along with Wien) started to talk about
> it AT EVERY MEETING with known physicists. The physics community rejected
> the paper's content as presumptuous in the first part,
> REDEFINING space and time as relative, and a copycat of 1904 Lorentz in the second part.
>
> Well into 1910, such paper was known as Lorentz-Einstein relativity
> EVERYWHERE. Only after Lorentz (aging and vanishing rapidly)
> mounted on the hype of relativity, prompted by Einstein, choose sides
> with him and brought him to the 1911 Solvay's conference.
>
> The rest of the script is well known.
>
> I'll make a new thread based on this post, as it is lost in the stack at this thread.
>
>
>

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

On Friday, October 22, 2021 at 5:39:23 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Friday, October 22, 2021 at 1:44:35 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:

<snip>

> >> What is the point of inventing history?
> >
> > It´s a poetic license that I indulged myself using it to present, as a fairy tail,
> Alrighty then. You just felt like writing fiction.

IS THIS FICTION, BODKIN?
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN A GENIUS AND A RETARDED THIRSTY OF FAME AND GLORY, 230 YEARS AFTER.

Newton's "Hypotheses non fingo" or "I don't invent hypotheses":

* Kepler's three laws, verified by himself.
* Galileo's concepts of inertia and action of gravity on parabolic trajectories of projectiles.
* Gravity (he invented the term) is a force, and fits very well with Galileo's experiments.
* The force of gravity is proportional to the rate of change of "vis viva", from Galileo's experiments.
* The force of gravity decreases with the inverse square of the distance (from Galileo's and others experiments, and his own), is
a better approximation that the inverse of the distance.
* The force of gravity is independent of the weight of bodies, and is related to their inertia.
* Inertial motion holds if no change in the rate of "vis viva" is present (Galileo and others experiments).
* Action and reaction are equal but opposite forces.
* Etc. (all proposals based on his concepts of the scientific method, later spread all over the world).

Einstein's "I'll postulate absurd crap and I'll fit mathematics to contain it"

* Time is relative

* Time is relative and depends on the observer frame of reference. Lorentz shows 1 nanosecond difference between clocks in a
train at 100 Km/Hr and clocks at rest. Go and CHECK IT, experimental physicists!

* Space is relative and depends on the observer frame of reference, which change behaviors upon selection. Lorentz shows 10E-18 m
length contraction between difference between distances in a train at 100 Km/Hr and lengths at rest. Go and CHECK IT, experimental
physicists!

* Space non-euclidean and its form depend on proximity to bodies with mass, as well as origin coordinates. Go and CHECK IT,
experimental physicists!

* Gravity is an illusion caused by the curvature of spacetime due to massive bodies nearby. Go and CHECK IT, experimental physicists!

* Gravitational waves exists and have speed, which is c, even when they are so faint that bursts of deformations around 10E-18 m can
reach us if an star explodes. Go and CHECK IT, experimental physicists!

* Gravitational fields have inertia, which relates to E/c2 and height. Go and CHECK IT, experimental physicists!

* Gravitational fields change frequency of light, proportionally to the height of the light-generator. Time go slower as GF increases.
Go and CHECK IT, experimental physicists!

* The proof of GR being correct is that Mercury's perihelion advance 43"/century with my Gerber's formula and that light is deflected
twice my von Soldner solution from 1911, when passing by the surface of the Sun. Disprove me, experimental physicists.

* My loss of mass E/c2 is better in my thought experiment with open systems than the GAIN OF 4/3 E/c2 mass in the closed system's
thought experiment that Hasenhorl published in this same ADP months ago. It's even much shorter derivation, and simpler.

On Friday, October 22, 2021 at 9:19:27 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Friday, October 22, 2021 at 5:39:23 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Friday, October 22, 2021 at 1:44:35 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > >> What is the point of inventing history?
> > >
> > > It´s a poetic license that I indulged myself using it to present, as a fairy tail,
> > Alrighty then. You just felt like writing fiction.
> IS THIS FICTION, BODKIN?
> DIFFERENCES BETWEEN A GENIUS AND A RETARDED THIRSTY OF FAME AND GLORY, 230 YEARS AFTER.
>
> Newton's "Hypotheses non fingo" or "I don't invent hypotheses":
>
> * Kepler's three laws, verified by himself.
> * Galileo's concepts of inertia and action of gravity on parabolic trajectories of projectiles.
> * Gravity (he invented the term) is a force, and fits very well with Galileo's experiments.
> * The force of gravity is proportional to the rate of change of "vis viva", from Galileo's experiments.
> * The force of gravity decreases with the inverse square of the distance (from Galileo's and others experiments, and his own), is
> a better approximation that the inverse of the distance.
> * The force of gravity is independent of the weight of bodies, and is related to their inertia.
> * Inertial motion holds if no change in the rate of "vis viva" is present (Galileo and others experiments).
> * Action and reaction are equal but opposite forces.
> * Etc. (all proposals based on his concepts of the scientific method, later spread all over the world).
>
>
> Einstein's "I'll postulate absurd crap and I'll fit mathematics to contain it"
>
> * Time is relative
>
> * Time is relative and depends on the observer frame of reference. Lorentz shows 1 nanosecond difference between clocks in a
> train at 100 Km/Hr and clocks at rest. Go and CHECK IT, experimental physicists!
>
> * Space is relative and depends on the observer frame of reference, which change behaviors upon selection. Lorentz shows 10E-18 m
> length contraction between difference between distances in a train at 100 Km/Hr and lengths at rest. Go and CHECK IT, experimental
> physicists!
>
> * Space non-euclidean and its form depend on proximity to bodies with mass, as well as origin coordinates. Go and CHECK IT,
> experimental physicists!
>
> * Gravity is an illusion caused by the curvature of spacetime due to massive bodies nearby. Go and CHECK IT, experimental physicists!
>
> * Gravitational waves exists and have speed, which is c, even when they are so faint that bursts of deformations around 10E-18 m can
> reach us if an star explodes. Go and CHECK IT, experimental physicists!
>
> * Gravitational fields have inertia, which relates to E/c2 and height. Go and CHECK IT, experimental physicists!
>
> * Gravitational fields change frequency of light, proportionally to the height of the light-generator. Time go slower as GF increases.
> Go and CHECK IT, experimental physicists!
>
> * The proof of GR being correct is that Mercury's perihelion advance 43"/century with my Gerber's formula and that light is deflected
> twice my von Soldner solution from 1911, when passing by the surface of the Sun. Disprove me, experimental physicists.
>
> * My loss of mass E/c2 is better in my thought experiment with open systems than the GAIN OF 4/3 E/c2 mass in the closed system's
> thought experiment that Hasenhorl published in this same ADP months ago. It's even much shorter derivation, and simpler.

You have it bad, man. As usual, despite all your posts, you are left with nothing.

--
Jan

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Friday, October 22, 2021 at 5:39:23 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Friday, October 22, 2021 at 1:44:35 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>>> What is the point of inventing history?
>>>
>>> It´s a poetic license that I indulged myself using it to present, as a fairy tail,
>> Alrighty then. You just felt like writing fiction.
>
> IS THIS FICTION, BODKIN?

Well, it’s certainly screwed up in your head. Next question.

> DIFFERENCES BETWEEN A GENIUS AND A RETARDED THIRSTY OF FAME AND GLORY, 230 YEARS AFTER.
>
> Newton's "Hypotheses non fingo" or "I don't invent hypotheses":
>
> * Kepler's three laws, verified by himself.
> * Galileo's concepts of inertia and action of gravity on parabolic
> trajectories of projectiles.
> * Gravity (he invented the term) is a force, and fits very well with Galileo's experiments.
> * The force of gravity is proportional to the rate of change of "vis
> viva", from Galileo's experiments.
> * The force of gravity decreases with the inverse square of the distance
> (from Galileo's and others experiments, and his own), is
> a better approximation that the inverse of the distance.
> * The force of gravity is independent of the weight of bodies, and is
> related to their inertia.
> * Inertial motion holds if no change in the rate of "vis viva" is present
> (Galileo and others experiments).
> * Action and reaction are equal but opposite forces.
> * Etc. (all proposals based on his concepts of the scientific method,
> later spread all over the world).
>
>
> Einstein's "I'll postulate absurd crap and I'll fit mathematics to contain it"
>
> * Time is relative
>
> * Time is relative and depends on the observer frame of reference.
> Lorentz shows 1 nanosecond difference between clocks in a
> train at 100 Km/Hr and clocks at rest. Go and CHECK IT, experimental physicists!
>
> * Space is relative and depends on the observer frame of reference, which
> change behaviors upon selection. Lorentz shows 10E-18 m
> length contraction between difference between distances in a train at
> 100 Km/Hr and lengths at rest. Go and CHECK IT, experimental
> physicists!
>
> * Space non-euclidean and its form depend on proximity to bodies with
> mass, as well as origin coordinates. Go and CHECK IT,
> experimental physicists!
>
> * Gravity is an illusion caused by the curvature of spacetime due to
> massive bodies nearby. Go and CHECK IT, experimental physicists!
>
> * Gravitational waves exists and have speed, which is c, even when they
> are so faint that bursts of deformations around 10E-18 m can
> reach us if an star explodes. Go and CHECK IT, experimental physicists!
>
> * Gravitational fields have inertia, which relates to E/c2 and height. Go
> and CHECK IT, experimental physicists!
>
> * Gravitational fields change frequency of light, proportionally to the
> height of the light-generator. Time go slower as GF increases.
> Go and CHECK IT, experimental physicists!
>
> * The proof of GR being correct is that Mercury's perihelion advance
> 43"/century with my Gerber's formula and that light is deflected
> twice my von Soldner solution from 1911, when passing by the surface
> of the Sun. Disprove me, experimental physicists.
>
> * My loss of mass E/c2 is better in my thought experiment with open
> systems than the GAIN OF 4/3 E/c2 mass in the closed system's
> thought experiment that Hasenhorl published in this same ADP months
> ago. It's even much shorter derivation, and simpler.
>
>
>
>
>

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