On Thursday, 14 October 2021 at 20:55:00 UTC+2, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> carl eto wrote:
>
> > "I have shown how to obtain field equations of gravitation that comply
> > with the postulate of general relativity" (Einstein, p. 117).
> >
> > "dh/dt + rot e = 0...............................................76
> >
> > div h = 0...........................................................77
> >
> > rot h - de'/dt = i................................................78
> >
> > div e' = p"........................................................79
> >
> > (Einstein5, § 20). Einstein states that he has "shown how to obtain field
> > equations of gravitation" then presents Maxwell equations (equ 76-79).
> > Therefore, it is absolutely CLEAR that GR is based on electromagnetic
> > gravitational waves.
> What is absolutely clear now is that
>
> 1. You do not know what you are talking about.
> 2. You cannot cite evidence to back up your outlandish claims.
> 3. You ignore careful refutations of your claims.
4. in the meantime in the real world, GPS clocks
keep measuring t'=t, just like all serious clocks
always did.

Dear RichD:

On Thursday, October 14, 2021 at 6:55:46 PM UTC-7, RichD wrote:
> On October 13, dlzc wrote:
> >>> Experiment has shown a 1:1 correspondence between the
> >>> Higgs field and spacetime.

> I don't know how to parse that.
> Can you explain what it means?

Not to Tom's satisfaction for sure. But I think it is quantum confirmation that spacetime is emergent, from mass and the laws of physics.
https://arxiv.org/abs/1610.00012

Of course that means the "sea of photons" that turns magnetic moment into mass, must have preceded "gravity". Which is not the sequence most Big Bang theorists infer.

> > Boy was I wrong about when that lecture occurred:
> > https://news.asu.edu/content/beyond-lecture-features-theoretical-physicist-popular-author-lisa-randall
> > I am not wrong about she said in the lecture.
>
> Did you ever play the party game of telephone?

No. Never comfortable at parties, and hate most games.

She may be LHC's version of von Daniken, she may be an accountant at a supplier to the LHC, and 8 years is a long time for any such simple "it seems like" to stand. So even if I heard it right, and remembered it right, it might be other than how I have presented it here.

David A. Smith

dlzc wrote:

>> I don't know how to parse that. Can you explain what it means?
>
> Not to Tom's satisfaction for sure. But I think it is quantum
> confirmation that spacetime is emergent, from mass and the laws of
> physics. https://arxiv.org/abs/1610.00012
> Of course that means the "sea of photons" that turns magnetic moment
> into mass, must have preceded "gravity". Which is not the sequence most
> Big Bang theorists infer.

nonsense. It stays in the Bible. First was it dark, not good, then the
light was released. You only have that when matter releases in the dark.

On Friday, October 15, 2021 at 9:22:54 AM UTC-7, Kendale Gross wrote:
> dlzc wrote:
>

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

dlzc wrote:

> On Thursday, October 14, 2021 at 6:55:46 PM UTC-7, RichD wrote:
>> On October 13, dlzc wrote:
>> >>> Experiment has shown a 1:1 correspondence between the
>> >>> Higgs field and spacetime.
>
>> I don't know how to parse that.
>> Can you explain what it means?
>
> Not to Tom's satisfaction for sure. But I think it is quantum
> confirmation that spacetime is emergent, from mass and the laws of
> physics. https://arxiv.org/abs/1610.00012

You have no clue what you are talking about and citing.
> Of course that means the "sea of photons" that turns magnetic moment into
> mass, must have preceded "gravity". Which is not the sequence most Big
> Bang theorists infer.

Pseudo-scientific word salad.
>> > Boy was I wrong about when that lecture occurred:
>> > https://news.asu.edu/content/beyond-lecture-features-theoretical-physicist-popular-author-lisa-randall
>> > I am not wrong about she said in the lecture.
>> Did you ever play the party game of telephone?
>
> No. Never comfortable at parties, and hate most games.
>
> She may be LHC's version of von Daniken, she may be an accountant at a
> supplier to the LHC, and 8 years is a long time for any such simple "it
> seems like" to stand. So even if I heard it right, and remembered it
> right, it might be other than how I have presented it here.

It is very easy to find out how very wrong you are in all respects, as she
gave a similar talk that year, just a few months later, which was recorded:

<https://youtu.be/0eaWHUMjgqk?t=1130>

PointedEars
--
Q: What did the female magnet say to the male magnet?
A: From the back, I found you repulsive, but from the front
I find myself very attracted to you.
(from: WolframAlpha)

carl eto wrote:

> Let's assume that Lorentz invariant works, then What? Lorentz (1899) uses
> the invariant to reverse the negative result of Michelson experiment to
> justify the ether, composed of matter, and, Einstein (1917) uses the
> reversal of MMX to justify the ether […]

Repeating nonsense does not make it true. Go away.

PointedEars
--
Q: What happens when electrons lose their energy?
A: They get Bohr'ed.

(from: WolframAlpha)

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

Is it OK with you if I give it a try?

On Saturday, October 16, 2021 at 10:19:01 AM UTC-7, carl eto wrote:
> Let's assume that Lorentz invariant works, then What? Lorentz (1899) uses the invariant to reverse the negative result of Michelson experiment to justify the ether, composed of matter, and, Einstein (1917) uses the reversal of MMX to justify the ether yet vacuum proves the ether does not exist. Also, both Lorentz and Einstein use relativity (coordinate system transformation) to justify Maxwell theory but Maxwell equations are derived using Faraday induction effect that is not luminous. Using mumble jumble mathematical gymnastics cannot be used to justify the wave theory of light and modern theoretical physics (QM, QED, string theory, QFT,......etc. etc. that are based on the gauge since an electromagnetic wave (quantized or not) is based on a wave formed by the motion of an ether, composed of matter, where the physical structure (ether) has precedence before any abstract mathematical formulation.\
>
>
>
> Is it OK with you if I give it a try?

Lorentz invariance is purely mathematical, thus "always works",
and is usually attached to a physical interpretation, here for example
for how well it's held up by the Galilean the classical for example,
then with respect to invariance, symmetry, and Noether's theorem,
and, Shech's spherical cows and phase transitions, about the
quasi-invariant or symmetry-flex, or restitutive in the total, as
what defines conservation law which is about the most usual thing
for physics besides equipartitions or the uniformity of mathematical
objects.

Because mathematics needs super-models to model things like
"infinite surface tension" or otherwise origins and asymptotics as
singularities, having those first then makes for having physical
interpretations of them, which otherwise are often couched in terms
of regimes of running constants, locally, with respect to a usual
kind of "point, local, global, total" model of things like the universe.
(Mathematical or physical.)

Also "Carl Seto is no Ben Ito".

Really it's that mathematics owes physics better and more mathematics
of "real infinities/infinitesimals", what result for singularity theory the
solutions of what are all the potential fields, or the one potential field,
as the real field, while classically we can all perceive the same image
in the local, our perceptive view of things to what we attach science.

Most people think of singularity theory as the asymptotes what go
from the finite to infinity, but it's also about the infinitesimals that
build the finite, for origin singularities and asymptote singularities.

On Saturday, October 16, 2021 at 10:53:54 AM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:

Lorentz invariance is purely mathematical, thus "always works",

Is 2 + 2 mathematical? since 2 + 2 is mathematical does 2 + 2 = 1?

On Saturday, October 16, 2021 at 11:00:24 AM UTC-7, veria buty wrote:
> On Saturday, October 16, 2021 at 10:53:54 AM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
>
> Lorentz invariance is purely mathematical, thus "always works",
> Is 2 + 2 mathematical? since 2 + 2 is mathematical does 2 + 2 = 1?

You seem to have confused an arithmetic expression
with an invalidity.

Systems of units in systems of measurement largely make for
physical interpretations of mathematical models of physical theories.

On Saturday, October 16, 2021 at 11:30:28 AM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> On Saturday, October 16, 2021 at 11:00:24 AM UTC-7, veria buty wrote:
> > On Saturday, October 16, 2021 at 10:53:54 AM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> >
> > Lorentz invariance is purely mathematical, thus "always works",
> > Is 2 + 2 mathematical? since 2 + 2 is mathematical does 2 + 2 = 1?
> You seem to have confused an arithmetic expression
> with an invalidity.
>
> Systems of units in systems of measurement largely make for
> physical interpretations of mathematical models of physical theories.

Is 2 m + 2 m mathematical? since 2 m + 2 m is mathematical does 2 m + 2 m = 1 m?

On Saturday, October 16, 2021 at 12:50:05 PM UTC-7, veria buty wrote:
> On Saturday, October 16, 2021 at 11:30:28 AM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> > On Saturday, October 16, 2021 at 11:00:24 AM UTC-7, veria buty wrote:
> > > On Saturday, October 16, 2021 at 10:53:54 AM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> > >
> > > Lorentz invariance is purely mathematical, thus "always works",
> > > Is 2 + 2 mathematical? since 2 + 2 is mathematical does 2 + 2 = 1?
> > You seem to have confused an arithmetic expression
> > with an invalidity.
> >
> > Systems of units in systems of measurement largely make for
> > physical interpretations of mathematical models of physical theories.
> Is 2 m + 2 m mathematical? since 2 m + 2 m is mathematical does 2 m + 2 m = 1 m?

No, but 1/2 m + 1/2 m = 1m.

Morons both ways = idiocy

On Saturday, October 16, 2021 at 2:11:35 PM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:

Einstein is structurally unifying an electromagnetic field with a mass (m) using the inertial mass Eo/c2 (equ 52) since the formation of a light wave requires a medium (ether) composed of matter but the inertial mass (m = Eo/c2) is massless since Eo represents the energy of an electromagnetic photon. Compton photon momentum (p = λ/h) is used to justify the inertial mass but experimentally, a 3 W laser beam does not displace a gold foil which invalids Einstein concept the photon inertial mass.

I hope I gave you had an orgasm this time. If I didn't maybe Bolkin can get you with his enormous hot wheels and Wobbly dance.

Go Dodgers

On Saturday, October 16, 2021 at 2:35:58 PM UTC-7, veria buty wrote:
> On Saturday, October 16, 2021 at 2:11:35 PM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
>
> Einstein is structurally unifying an electromagnetic field with a mass (m) using the inertial mass Eo/c2 (equ 52) since the formation of a light wave requires a medium (ether) composed of matter but the inertial mass (m = Eo/c2) is massless since Eo represents the energy of an electromagnetic photon. Compton photon momentum (p = λ/h) is used to justify the inertial mass but experimentally, a 3 W laser beam does not displace a gold foil which invalids Einstein concept the photon inertial mass.
>
>
>
> I hope I gave you had an orgasm this time. If I didn't maybe Bolkin can get you with his enormous hot wheels and Wobbly dance.
>
> Go Dodgers

Mis-attributing people is considered offensive as misrepresentation in some places.

What's interesting about gold foil and spallation and such is probably the chromatic,
also besides what's the usual nuclear atomic model what instead is really a model
of that there aren't ever collisions so much as slings.

Anyways you misquoted and seem wrong.

On Saturday, October 16, 2021 at 2:45:30 PM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> On Saturday, October 16, 2021 at 2:35:58 PM UTC-7, veria buty wrote:
> > On Saturday, October 16, 2021 at 2:11:35 PM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> >
> > Einstein is structurally unifying an electromagnetic field with a mass (m) using the inertial mass Eo/c2 (equ 52) since the formation of a light wave requires a medium (ether) composed of matter but the inertial mass (m = Eo/c2) is massless since Eo represents the energy of an electromagnetic photon. Compton photon momentum (p = λ/h) is used to justify the inertial mass but experimentally, a 3 W laser beam does not displace a gold foil which invalids Einstein concept the photon inertial mass.
> >
> >
> >
> > I hope I gave you had an orgasm this time. If I didn't maybe Bolkin can get you with his enormous hot wheels and Wobbly dance.
> >
> > Go Dodgers
> Mis-attributing people is considered offensive as misrepresentation in some places.
>
> What's interesting about gold foil and spallation and such is probably the chromatic,
> also besides what's the usual nuclear atomic model what instead is really a model
> of that there aren't ever collisions so much as slings.
>
> Anyways you misquoted and seem wrong.

Which seems wrong!

There is for the particles this way as that surfaces collect, what make
for that the usual surface interactions are as according to the atomic
structure of matter in its elements and compounds and materials.

I.e., that instead of collision, it's do-si-do as it were or sling, what
results though the network of the surface bounces, what results
the action, for the counting argument on the action, what is a
simple "surface potential", in surfaces.

That though is unfalsifiable as "which just cancels to usual classical
transfer of momentum, in the kinetic". Here the point is for gold and
other foils the spallation target the neutron beams which are making
the gold foil, is a surface. The neutron beam to it is also a surface,
as what under deposition of spallation what results neutrons or gold
atom neutrons what are neutrons the other side the spallation target.

No, it's not so wrong to say "what I make of this, you can", here for
example that from some papers there is like this (and I am quoting) :

"As far as the area monitoring is concerned, instru-
ments with reasonably flat dose equivalent response
have been developed (9) , but only within a restricted
energy sub-interval."

'3 GeV electrons Cu target, unit spectra over Neutron Energy (MeV)'

The the chromatic bit is that the optical component the "neutron beam",
or chargeless here or with respect to the surface electro-optical or spallative,
is what would be some perfect surface condition, the neutron beam face
and linear optical surface foil, or surface, what results for faces, what
results for surfaces.

I.e. lensing over is chromatic, as what is optical, what is monochrome.

(What's preserved in the image according to conservation.)

Then, what is falsifiable in that, is, that, the free particle model the
high energy or for imaging, what it can make of that for the statistics
of the depth of the particles in the foil, and under charge conditions
what result "slinging, not slinging" metals in their nuclei with respect
to the atomic, what results for example under meson pressure, what can
define in a triangle for the triple point in constants, to then resulting use a
standard defined water triple-point table, as for that, in the numerical methods.

For example....

Here for example I have invented "meson pressure" what is a usual
idea that mesons after hadrons, are fluid, in the sense together. Then
here the idea is for example "shrinking the nuclei or pulling them together",
results in what field conditions under resonances, establish standing waves..

Which are high energy irradiating elements for conditions to determine
what under their conditions, is for example tractor beams and matter transport.

Thanks, though, though you quoted it to me which was wrong that though
the quote about the target, is mostly my comment, though I don't know
who wrote it or though I know the account who wrote it, I have no reason to
believe that it is anything but a temporary, anonymous, other or real name,
to anyone else or whoever in sci.physics.relativity or sci.physics would
for example write as guy and exhort the Dodgers, which isn't wrong itself,
though only has this in the vagrant sense what is a club room.

Then the idea of "the only perfect fluid phase transition regime we know is
water and as about the triple point of water", in longstanding established
tables what so altogether and according to gallons result the longstanding
gamut of a table, sufficient for reference, to solve in the equations "triple point
reference frame triangles their running constants", by referring to copies of tables,
here the point "for example", is, that this meson pressure, fluid, is as simply
"lifting" an object by pointing a ray at it.

Which is effectively "fiction".

Tractor beams, lift rays (and maybe even shrink rays), matter imaging and
"teleportation from neutron beams", ..., "fiction".

Annihilators, disruptors, plasma disruptors, melters, dis-integrate,
spallation and ablation are mostly destructive.

But of course nobody needs a monkey wrench to build a light saber....

The for example that under the conditions that varied, the usual apparatus,
is wide, in the subject, the "neutron beams as for scattering densities",
wide in the experiment sense that many labs as had it set up, under each the
conditions they set make for what and why results condition.

So, by now I am talking about neutron beams as optical besides
"of course these neutron beams are kinetic".

And what what might work, some, neutron confinement,
beam-shaping though usually or the wave-guide as much,
forming the beam of neutrons what result these kinetic effects
themselves, usually, is interesting as of itself for matter science.

This is all inspired by the comment about gold who I don't know who wrote.

carl eto wrote:

> The LIGO gravitational wave interaction with the interferometer mirror
> produces a 10-18 m mirror displacement

Copy and pray. It most definitely does not. The displacement is 10⁻¹⁸ m
(10^-18 m), less than the charge radius of a proton.

> but massless electromagnetic gravitational waves […]

Gravitational waves are not electromagnetic waves.

PointedEars
--
Q: Where are offenders sentenced for light crimes?
A: To a prism.

(from: WolframAlpha)

From aaa@aaa Mon Jan 01 00:00:00 1997
X-KNode-Overview: Re: Clock Synchonization sci.physics.relativity 12
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Message-ID: <1790387.atdPhlSkOF@PointedEars.de>
From: Thomas 'PointedEars' L

carl eto wrote:

> Einstein is structurally unifying an electromagnetic field with a mass (m)

No.

> using the inertial mass Eo/c2 (equ 52)

To what are you referring with “equ 52”?

> since the formation of a light wave requires a medium (ether)

It doesn’t. And Einstein never claimed that it would; in fact, he shows in
his very first paper on the subject (which *obviously* you *still* have not
read) that the ether, that previously was thought to exist, is a superfluous
assumption.

PointedEars
--
Heisenberg is out for a drive when he's stopped by a traffic cop.
The officer asks him "Do you know how fast you were going?"
Heisenberg replies "No, but I know where I am."
(from: WolframAlpha)

From aaa@aaa Mon Jan 01 00:00:00 1997
X-KNode-Overview:

On Thursday, October 21, 2021 at 2:00:58 PM UTC-7, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> carl eto wrote:
>
> > Einstein is structurally unifying an electromagnetic field with a mass (m)
> No.
> > using the inertial mass Eo/c2 (equ 52)
> To what are you referring with “equ 52”?
> > since the formation of a light wave requires a medium (ether)
> It doesn’t. And Einstein never claimed that it would; in fact, he shows in
> his very first paper on the subject (which *obviously* you *still* have not
> read) that the ether, that previously was thought to exist, is a superfluous
> assumption.
>
>
> PointedEars
> --
> Heisenberg is out for a drive when he's stopped by a traffic cop.
> The officer asks him "Do you know how fast you were going?"
> Heisenberg replies "No, but I know where I am."
> (from: WolframAlpha)
>
> From aaa@aaa Mon Jan 01 00:00:00 1997
> X-KNode-Overview:

Because photons are massless (though they follow the geodesy.)

veria buty wrote:

> Is 2 + 2 mathematical?

Yes.

> since 2 + 2 is mathematical does 2 + 2 = 1?

In ℤ/3ℤ: yes.

HTH

PointedEars
--
Q: Why is electricity so dangerous?
A: It doesn't conduct itself.

(from: WolframAlpha)

On Tuesday, October 5, 2021 at 11:42:59 PM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 5, 2021 at 3:50:40 PM UTC-7, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> > Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> >
> > > On Monday, October 4, 2021 at 8:27:24 PM UTC-7, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
> > > wrote:
> > >> Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> > >> > Sorry, Lahn, I'm a hyper-mind.
> > >> No, you are mentally ill.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> PointedEars
> > >> --
> > >> A neutron walks into a bar and inquires how much a drink costs.
> > >> The bartender replies, "For you? No charge."
> > >>
> > >> (from: WolframAlpha)
> > You should trim your quotes to the parts that you are referring to.
> > You have not referred to my signature, so it is pointless to quote it.
> >
> > > How sick am I?
> >
> > I am somewhat glad that you are asking.
> >
> > I presume that you are mentally very ill. But I am not a doctor, so I leave
> > the final assessment of your condition to your psychologist/psychotherapist
> > to find out, for whom I hope (for you and the newsgroup) that you will
> > eventually, and soon, make an appointment.
> >
> > I only know that something is very much not right with your mind as you are
> > putting words together without regard to their meaning (i.e. word salad),
> > and you are posting a lot of that without there being a reason for it. And
> > you are following up to postings, but actually you are talking *to yourself*
> > only.
> >
> > And that *cannot* be explained by the assumption that English would not be
> > your native language (as your name might suggest: Finlayson is a name of
> > Scandinavian origin). It is an issue with regard to *behavior*, of
> > psychology, instead.
> >
> > Most recent example: <news:8e812c92-a033-422f-
> > ac05-8a9d...@googlegroups.com>
> >
> > In reply to the statement “Your idiot guru was an unique case, sure.” you
> > wrote: “I.e. sometimes when theories talk about what happened in what
> > epoch, for example inflationary theories which these days are less held as
> > absolute and more describable as about the limits of energy and
> > configuration in experiment, […]”
> >
> > Notice firstly that you did not address the statement that you replied to
> > *at all*. You simply kept on talking *to yourself* (just in writing).
> >
> > Notice secondly that you wrote *word salad*:
> >
> > “I.e. sometimes when theories talk about what happened in what epoch, for
> > example […], as we learn more about the theory and modern experiment, is for
> > a re-interpretation of the mathematical with respect to the physical
> > interpretation they have and vice-versa: […]”
> >
> > This is not a proper sentence as there is no sentence structure (and the
> > structure is not revealed in the omitted parts either): There is no clear
> > subject, predicate, or object to be found anywhere that *belong together*
> > to form a *coherent* statement or question.
> >
> > The phrase “i.e.” (standing for «id est», Latin for “that is”) that you are
> > using in the beginning ought to refer to something that had been said
> > immediately before; but what had been said immediately before – “Your idiot
> > guru was an unique case, sure.” – has *nothing* to do with what you are
> > replying.
> >
> > It all looks like a live reproduction of the randomly and rapidly changing
> > thoughts of a person, with none of them having run to its completion. IOW,
> > it looks as if you have not thought through any of which you are writing.
> > You may call that a “hyper-mind” (see below); I call it a very disturbed,
> > *dysfunctional* mind.
> >
> > Notice thirdly that what you are saying is factually complete nonsense that
> > is very easily disproved. In the omitted part you claimed:
> >
> > “inflationary theories which these days are less held as absolute
> > and more describable as about the limits of energy and configuration in
> > experiment”
> >
> > That is plain not true. First of all, the term is not “inflationary
> > theory”, but “inflation theory” (such a theory postulates an inflationary
> > _model_ of our universe). Second, inflation theory as a general concept is
> > to date the most successful addition to the Big Bang theory as it can
> > explain both the near-isotropy of the CMB, and the flatness of the space of
> > the observable universe as obtained from CMB observations:
> >
> > Don Lincoln et al. (2020): What really happened at the Big Bang?
> > YouTube: Fermilab. <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZdvSJyHvUU>
> >
> > See also:
> > Planck Collaboration (2020): “Planck 2018 results: X. Constraints on
> > inflation”
> >
> > <https://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/full_html/2020/09/aa33887-18/aa33887-18.html>
> >
> > The abstract ends with: “All these findings support the key predictions of
> > the standard single-field inflationary models, which will be further
> > tested by future cosmological observations.”
> >
> > Inflation theory has absolutely nothing to do with any “limits of energy in
> > experiment”.
> >
> > You also claimed:
> >
> > “or the real wave-function as "revisit Heisenberg" and about the "mass" of
> > the Higgs boson or "revisit Higgs"”
> >
> > That the wave function (of a quantum-mechanical system) would be real is
> > your *fantasy*. It is *complex*-valued instead.
> >
> > That there would be a “revisiting Heisenberg” is your *fantasy*.
> >
> > That there would be something wrong with the mass of the Higgs boson is
> > apparently your *fantasy*. (Because you wrote word salad, it is unclear
> > what you are arguing.)
> >
> > That there would be a “revisiting Higgs” is your *fantasy*.
> >
> > And the name is “(Georges) Lemaître”, not “Le Maitre”.
> >
> >
> > So what you are posting exhibits all the signs of logorrhea, if you compare
> > it with the description and the examples in the Wikipedia article that I
> > referred to. It also exhibits all the signs of a disconnection of the
> > author from reality.
> >
> > All of this together with you seriously calling yourself a “hyper-mind”, and
> > professing to be able to write about a unified field theory even though you
> > clearly do not know what you are writing *about* – let alone what you are
> > *writing* – suggests (to me) a serious mental disorder on your part as the
> > underlying reason for your logorrhea (which is apparently a common symptom
> > then).
> >
> > I also know that therefore it is probably impossible to convince you of that
> > fact using a textual medium such as Usenet, and futile for me to try it –
> > which is actually a sad thing. But at least now the truth is where it needs
> > to be.
> >
> >
> > HTH
> > PointedEars
> > --
> > A neutron walks into a bar and inquires how much a drink costs.
> > The bartender replies, "For you? No charge."
> >
> > (from: WolframAlpha)
> Since Hubble was mostly the notion "everywhere redshift". But, these days, it's not
> so, since the configuration of experiment (the sky survey for 2MASS and outside
> Laniakea the local supercluster), is much closer "even redshift/blueshift". If you
> didn't know that, then you would have no context that "revisit Hubble" meant that
> "since Hubble's old observation was long-standing but it's been falsified, now all
> the derivations in the development of theory, basically have to be revisited with
> respect to that while our local supercluster is a large feature and much expanding
> or with apparent redshift, now it's known instead that models of inflation, or,
> "what explains why the universe appears to be expanding, with usual models of
> a Big Bang and then heat/cold/death/crunch", that they are just a form of extrapolation,
> theories of inflation, and that furthermore after "revisit Hubble" is for Lemaitre (corr.) or
> Big Bang Theory, also thusly to revisit Bondi/Hoyle and Steady State theory.
>
> So, you see, according to configuration of experiment, what over time we know
> sees that in ergy of experiment as primary configuration that atoms look smaller
> and the universe looks bigger, that again with respect to these running constants,
> what I wrote above is validated again here.
>
> If you didn't know that then you would've had no context, to make sense of things,
> but also you should check that in case you're not infallible, maybe you just don't
> have enough context to be making sense of the extra pieces I've put here for my
> foundational approach, for a usual suggestion that there is extra context to
> make sense of it.
>
>
> Also my form and style though long-winded is grammatical and I'm also opinionated,
> grammatically.
>
>
> About the "real wave-function" of course I meant "wave-function collapse is real",
> if you'll please excuse that "wave-function" is as usually arrives at "what solves
> the wave function in configuration space as it were is its 'collapse' and is real
> with respect to Boehm over Copenhagen and a usual 'statistical' interpretation".
> I.e., again that my extra opinion isn't necessarily usual, but, once again it's totally
> usual in a theory of a "real wave-function" as it were. (Revisit Heisenberg.)
>
>
> So, I hope you'll consider that this extra context provides instead what you
> would find without it, not sense, instead, not non-sense. I.e. "everywhere
> red-shift isn't a fact means revisit Hubble, theories of inflation, ...", "wave-function
> is real besides statistical means revisit Heisenberg, what means Pauli, ....". The
> Bohm-deBroglie theory or varieties are having made quite a renaissance in
> some recent years, for example that "revisit Heisenberg" is _well underway_.
>
>
> About Higgs then and what generates mass is a notion of a unified field theory
> what has the strong nuclear force, which Lahn you may recall from our earlier
> discussion is a usual force, same as "fall gravity", which is a type of a "shadow
> gravity" theory or so and besides a quantum theory because it's based in continuum
> mechanics, is again for "revisit Hubble, Heisenberg, Higgs", which is among my
> usual refrains on sci.physics and sci.physics.relativity for some time.
>
> I.e., as an individual with my own content and context, in this forum of opinions
> in physics, mathematical, it is an extra burden both to read the posts, then what
> results as that the work of explaining these ... theories in physics, lightens the
> burden, from that for a theory of Foundations there's only one, and that I
> happen to have one, here, and by here I mean in 10,000 posts on mathematics,
> logic, and physics.
>
>
> So, "Well-order the reals", and, "revisit Hubble, Heisenberg, Higgs".
>
>
> (Sometimes it might help where I write "what" that you should read it as "that what"
> instead, if it's not a question word.)
>
>
>
> About Higgs then
> and [that]
> what generates mass
> is a notion of a unified field theory
> what has the strong nuclear force,
> which Lahn you may recall from our earlier discussion is a usual force,
> same as "fall gravity",
> which is a type of a "shadow gravity" theory or so
> and besides a quantum theory because it's based in continuum mechanics,
> [About Higgs then] is again for "revisit Hubble, Heisenberg, Higgs",
> which is among my usual refrains on sci.physics and sci.physics.relativity for some time.
>
>
> Also nobody has any retorts anymore for my mathematical theory or
> "line continuity, field continuity, and signal continuity are three replete
> models of continuous domains besides the usual field continuity".
> (Or they don't know them.)
>
>
> So, thank you for pointing out "item A here makes no sense in this context which is so",
> that's much better than "item A here requires a context not present, it's insane".
> Then, please consider as above here directly addressing your points, why I have put
> it as so, and will continue to do so, as I have already done so, that I hope it does so, thank you.
>
>
> (My usual only style in replies is to quote the entirety and post a contiguous
> following reply: it helps keep the context in context. Also my usual style is that
> as soon as I post a definition or refer to a fact at all, it's integrated to the context,
> as I should be so happy to explain, even if I already did.)
>
>
> Ah, then back to constants: let's feel free to get back to this thread's
> topic of why c is "normalized" in some theories interpreting SR, to 1, unity.
> (...For example as I have explained above and what it means in theories
> where c_g >= c.)
>
> Basically my conversation to usenet is a monolog, but please feel free
> to expect that somewhere its entirety is as well, transparent and
> self-contained, in definition.
>
> ... And that it's to my dear readers primarily me.

Ross A. Finlayson wrote:

> "Re-visit Hubble, Heisenberg, Higgs...":
> https://science.slashdot.org/story/21/11/06/0320252/the-problem-with-
the-big-bang-theory#comments

or try this

SMOKING GUN !!
https://www.bitchute.com/video/gDC8DNlTadWs/

from Bayer, the covid_19 mRNA "vaccines" are experimental gene or cell
therapy, years before the covid, 95% of people would say NO to.