Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, 29 December 2021 at 18:42:12 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, 29 December 2021 at 17:04:50 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, 29 December 2021 at 16:35:55 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wednesday, 29 December 2021 at 15:41:36 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>> Python <pyt...@example.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvand...@notmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I’ve noticed that there are some people here on a science newsgroup who
>>>>>>>>>>>> have little regard for science. It’s a little like people going to an
>>>>>>>>>>>> acupuncture newsgroup to spend a lot of time just to say “Pbflppflpt!” Or
>>>>>>>>>>>> to an economics group to say the same thing. Or a math group. Why they
>>>>>>>>>>>> would waste their time doing that is frankly beyond me.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Come on.
>>>>>>>>>>> They don't waste their time. Their goal is to make you waste yours.
>>>>>>>>>>> And they are extremely successful at it.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Dirk Vdm
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> But if they are bored and are trying to waste some time, why do they feel
>>>>>>>>>> the need to waste others’ time as well? I mean, who does that? What’s the
>>>>>>>>>> motive? What’s the desired outcome?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This is the result of mixing high delusions (Wozniak considering to be
>>>>>>>>> "one of the best logicians Humanity ever had", Lengrand (Hachel), Seto,
>>>>>>>>> etc. are all on the same track) and a sheer stupidity preventing them
>>>>>>>>> to realize they are only making fools of themselves.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Plus there is some inherent dishonesty about their motives. Hachel and
>>>>>>>> Hertz and Dolan and Seto and Wozniak would not honestly say that astrology
>>>>>>>> is an activity that yields practical, technological value to humanity and
>>>>>>>> that it respects common sense. Yet they do not hover in astrology forums
>>>>>>>> with their usual “pfblffbpt!” comments. Why not? What is it about their
>>>>>>>> disrespect for PHYSICS, compared to their disrespect for astrology
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Well, they're a bunch of cheaters, you're a bunch of cheaters,
>>>>>>> but they don't cheat the officials to give them my money,
>>>>>> Well, it’s not your money. It’s public money, collected from national
>>>>>> citizens as a tax in exchange for the citizens’ benefitting from the funded
>>>>>> services like public education, healthcare, police, military defense,
>>>>>> retirement support, support for the poor, and so on. I don’t see you
>>>>>> ranting on forums about Polish officials and how they misspend public
>>>>>> money.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's not their fault that wise faces and insane lies of your insane
>>>>> gurus has made fools of them.
>>>> Oh, so let’s see. There are physicists fools and officials fools, but one
>>>> is to be blamed for foolishness and the other is not. Hmmm. Seems you are
>>>> not being honest.
>>>
>>> Of course I'm not.
>> Yes, I know you’re not being honest. I’m wondering why you cannot be
>> honest.
>>> And if our officials casted tons of lies
>>> and slanders on me for 30 years - I would surely start
>>> blaming them also for their foolishness.
>> Well, maybe if you visited forums about Polish public officials and
>> expressed your scorn at them for 30 years, you would have received “tons of
>> lies and slanders on [you]” from them as well. You see, the physicists did
>> not start the pattern of what you call “tons of lies and slanders on
>> [you]”.
>
> Well, unfortunately, that's just another lie, as expected from a
> relativistic stinker. They absolutely did.

Tell me how that interaction started, Woz. When you first joined the group
in around 1991, what were you talking about and what was the response?

> Like any other insane
> ideology, The Shit is training its doggies to hurl tons of shit
> on any opposition it's meeting, and my ability of demonstrating
> them how little they know didn't help.
>
>
>> Oh…… see, there’s the part you can’t be honest about. Are you saying that
>> you blame physicists for foolishness because of the “tons of lies and
>> slanders” that have been heaped on you? You consider physics to be fools
>> because they’ve hurt your feelings? Can you be honest about that?
>
> Odd, poor stinker, it's really funny when such a piece of shit is
> talking about honesty, but you're mistaken again. I consider
> physicists to be idiots because they are idiots and I consider
> them to be lying stinkers because they are lying stinkers.

Well, what about Polish officials who manage public funds? You’ve already
said they are fools, and yet you don’t call them out for it. The only
difference, when I asked you about it, was the “tons of lies and slanders”
heaped on you by people on a physics group. So it was how you were treated
that was the difference.

> And honestly - I could tolerate both their stupidity and their
> smell if I wanted to - but why would I want to?
>

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

On Wednesday, December 29, 2021 at 2:52:53 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:

<snip>

> Einstein realized shortly AFTER publishing the paper in 1905 that in fact
> the Newtonian laws of gravity would not hold under special relativity. So,
> it was at THAT point that he began to call out that the ideas from the
> first paper described a special case. He did not call it Special relativity
> from the get-go. He called it that AFTER he made the realization about
> Newtonian gravity needing work.

See, Bodkin? By writing this imbecility in a disgusting attempt to RE-WRITE history of the fucker plagiarist,
you INVENT this shit!

The cretin didn't realized ANYTHING. Once his plagiarized papers were published (written by OTHERS), the
fucker thought: WHAT CAN I DO NOW? I NEED TO MOVE ONE OR MANY ECHELONS UP.

And his society invested the next 10 years in two main directions: 1) PR at the limit and 2) Subtlest and
difficult to prove modifications of Newton's theories about gravitation, in the same degree that SR is.

A pile of metaphysics crap, IMPOSSIBLE TO PROVE by ANY METHOD.

But you glorify the cretin, giving IT the credit of knowing what he didn't know. The imbecile didn't know even
how to tie their shoe laces, but you give him capability of AWARENESS AND PREDICTION.

I don't blame Einstein. I blame ASSHOLES like you, with your EVIDENT AGENDA since you landed here, MOLE.

On Wednesday, 29 December 2021 at 19:18:15 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Wednesday, 29 December 2021 at 18:42:12 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, 29 December 2021 at 17:04:50 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> On Wednesday, 29 December 2021 at 16:35:55 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Wednesday, 29 December 2021 at 15:41:36 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Python <pyt...@example.invalid> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvand...@notmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> I’ve noticed that there are some people here on a science newsgroup who
> >>>>>>>>>>>> have little regard for science. It’s a little like people going to an
> >>>>>>>>>>>> acupuncture newsgroup to spend a lot of time just to say “Pbflppflpt!” Or
> >>>>>>>>>>>> to an economics group to say the same thing. Or a math group.. Why they
> >>>>>>>>>>>> would waste their time doing that is frankly beyond me.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Come on.
> >>>>>>>>>>> They don't waste their time. Their goal is to make you waste yours.
> >>>>>>>>>>> And they are extremely successful at it.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Dirk Vdm
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> But if they are bored and are trying to waste some time, why do they feel
> >>>>>>>>>> the need to waste others’ time as well? I mean, who does that? What’s the
> >>>>>>>>>> motive? What’s the desired outcome?
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> This is the result of mixing high delusions (Wozniak considering to be
> >>>>>>>>> "one of the best logicians Humanity ever had", Lengrand (Hachel), Seto,
> >>>>>>>>> etc. are all on the same track) and a sheer stupidity preventing them
> >>>>>>>>> to realize they are only making fools of themselves.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Plus there is some inherent dishonesty about their motives. Hachel and
> >>>>>>>> Hertz and Dolan and Seto and Wozniak would not honestly say that astrology
> >>>>>>>> is an activity that yields practical, technological value to humanity and
> >>>>>>>> that it respects common sense. Yet they do not hover in astrology forums
> >>>>>>>> with their usual “pfblffbpt!” comments. Why not? What is it about their
> >>>>>>>> disrespect for PHYSICS, compared to their disrespect for astrology
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Well, they're a bunch of cheaters, you're a bunch of cheaters,
> >>>>>>> but they don't cheat the officials to give them my money,
> >>>>>> Well, it’s not your money. It’s public money, collected from national
> >>>>>> citizens as a tax in exchange for the citizens’ benefitting from the funded
> >>>>>> services like public education, healthcare, police, military defense,
> >>>>>> retirement support, support for the poor, and so on. I don’t see you
> >>>>>> ranting on forums about Polish officials and how they misspend public
> >>>>>> money.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> That's not their fault that wise faces and insane lies of your insane
> >>>>> gurus has made fools of them.
> >>>> Oh, so let’s see. There are physicists fools and officials fools, but one
> >>>> is to be blamed for foolishness and the other is not. Hmmm. Seems you are
> >>>> not being honest.
> >>>
> >>> Of course I'm not.
> >> Yes, I know you’re not being honest. I’m wondering why you cannot be
> >> honest.
> >>> And if our officials casted tons of lies
> >>> and slanders on me for 30 years - I would surely start
> >>> blaming them also for their foolishness.
> >> Well, maybe if you visited forums about Polish public officials and
> >> expressed your scorn at them for 30 years, you would have received “tons of
> >> lies and slanders on [you]” from them as well. You see, the physicists did
> >> not start the pattern of what you call “tons of lies and slanders on
> >> [you]”.
> >
> > Well, unfortunately, that's just another lie, as expected from a
> > relativistic stinker. They absolutely did.
> Tell me how that interaction started, Woz. When you first joined the group
> in around 1991, what were you talking about and what was the response?

Odd, poor halfbrain, take a look at your fellows -
Dono, Moroney, Python. You doubt? You're an
odious capo, a drunken toilet licking janitor.
It was not this group that shaped me, but followers
of The Shit are similiar everywhere.

Yes, that's what you are. You're not any better.
Nor your gurus are. They're just more
cautious - a bit.

Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, 29 December 2021 at 18:52:53 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, 29 December 2021 at 18:27:09 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, December 29, 2021 at 8:26:48 AM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
>>>>>> On Wednesday, December 29, 2021 at 5:42:35 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>> Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvand...@notmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I’ve noticed that there are some people here on a science newsgroup who
>>>>>>>>> have little regard for science. It’s a little like people going to an
>>>>>>>>> acupuncture newsgroup to spend a lot of time just to say “Pbflppflpt!” Or
>>>>>>>>> to an economics group to say the same thing. Or a math group. Why they
>>>>>>>>> would waste their time doing that is frankly beyond me.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Come on.
>>>>>>>> They don't waste their time. Their goal is to make you waste yours.
>>>>>>>> And they are extremely successful at it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Dirk Vdm
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But if they are bored and are trying to waste some time, why do they feel
>>>>>>> the need to waste others’ time as well? I mean, who does that? What’s the
>>>>>>> motive? What’s the desired outcome?
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>>>>> I think it's one of those "speaking truth to power" things in my case,
>>>>>> Bodkin. Or it could be just the ying and yang of the twin human drives
>>>>>> for creation and destruction. Look, Einstein is arguably the biggest
>>>>>> cock on the block. So with what joy does a close reader of him explode
>>>>>> with joy when he finds a logical or mathematical vulnerability. Who
>>>>>> could resist the temptation to throw a pie in the face of the guy they
>>>>>> always superimpose on the star field with the symphonic music playing in
>>>>>> the background. Lighten up Bodkin. Here, take this pie and have a go at
>>>>>> him. You might like it.
>>>>>
>>>>> An interesting forensic question is how did Einstein manage to survive
>>>>> falsification by gravity?
>>>> I don’t understand this statement. SR is not invalidated by gravity,
>>>> because SR stands for Special relativity, namely those cases where the
>>>> precision needed gravity can be ignored.
>>>
>>> Quoting your idiot guru:
>>> "Let us have a co-ordinate system, in which the Newtonian equations hold."
>>>
>>> Odd, you will probably try to persuade that Newtonian equations don't
>>> hold under gravity?
>> Einstein realized shortly AFTER publishing the paper in 1905 that in fact
>
> Sure. So he shouted "I meant no gravity!!"

Well, he didn’t shout. And he did modify the statements of special
relativity to apply in cases where the effects of gravity could be
neglected to the precision required. (That’s different than saying no
gravity.) And you think that discovering that later shouldn’t be allowed?

> and idiots like you have
> bought it.
>

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

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
> Schwarzenegger's Predator movie catch phrase:
>
> 5. "If it bleeds, we can kill it." ...
>
> And the suckers here are "bleeding", as we hurt their fucking relativist feelings.
>
>

You give yourself WAY too much credit for hurting anybody’s feelings,
Richard. The reason you get responses is that you are happy to make a
string of stupid statements, one after the other, without embarrassment,
and it’s pretty amusing. Like your statement that dinosaurs were
cold-blooded reptiles. Pretty funny. No embarrassment on your part. AND you
think you make someone bleed when you say something stupid.

I also raise an eyebrow at anyone who whiles away his retirement fancying
to make some people bleed, in the hopes that they can be killed. That
doesn’t make your own eyebrow go up?

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

patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 29, 2021 at 9:45:57 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, December 29, 2021 at 5:42:35 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvand...@notmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I’ve noticed that there are some people here on a science newsgroup who
>>>>>> have little regard for science. It’s a little like people going to an
>>>>>> acupuncture newsgroup to spend a lot of time just to say “Pbflppflpt!” Or
>>>>>> to an economics group to say the same thing. Or a math group. Why they
>>>>>> would waste their time doing that is frankly beyond me.
>>>>>
>>>>> Come on.
>>>>> They don't waste their time. Their goal is to make you waste yours.
>>>>> And they are extremely successful at it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Dirk Vdm
>>>>>
>>>> But if they are bored and are trying to waste some time, why do they feel
>>>> the need to waste others’ time as well? I mean, who does that? What’s the
>>>> motive? What’s the desired outcome?
>>>> --
>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>>
>>> I think it's one of those "speaking truth to power" things in my case, Bodkin.
>> I’m not following. What power are you referring to? In what way does
>> physics research exert any power at all over your existence?
>>> Or it could be just the ying and yang of the twin human drives for
>>> creation and destruction. Look, Einstein is arguably the biggest cock on the block.
>> Again, I don’t follow. Newton is arguably a much bigger rooster here, and
>> yet you do not feel the need to take home down a peg.
>>
>> Secondly, if the aim is to de-sanctify or de-mystify ONE PERSON of fame
>> (out of many possible candidates), then why suddenly swipe the brush
>> broadly over all of fundamental physics, including all those who will never
>> have a biography or even a magazine article written about them?
>>> So with what joy does a close reader of him explode with joy when he
>>> finds a logical or mathematical vulnerability. Who could resist the
>>> temptation to throw a pie in the face of the guy they always superimpose
>>> on the star field with the symphonic music playing in the background.
>>> Lighten up Bodkin. Here, take this pie and have a go at him. You might like it.
>>>
>> Yet you do not do this with superhero adulation in other fields. You don’t
>> go after Darwin. You don’t go after Musk. You don’t go after Curie. You
>> don’t go after Goodall. You don’t go after Hawking. No, the lust fever is
>> only with Einstein. Why?
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> Bodkin, I am an equal opportunity basher of chump science. I'll prove it.
>
> 1) Newton: when it comes to gravitation, F=ma appears to be a happy
> happenchance wherein two bodies obey that law. But add an additional
> body and Newton is out the door. The rings of Saturn are utterly un-Newtonian.

I have no idea what you mean by utterly in-Newtonian. Does “Newtonian” mean
to you that an analytic solution to the differential equation can be found,
like what’s practiced in a first year book?

> So are galactic arms. The n-body problem puts the lie to the universal
> law of gravitation. It should be called the Special Law of Gravitation.

Yes, the n-body problem can’t be solved analytically and numerical methods
need to be used. You’d have a cow over fluid dynamics and the Navier-Stokes
equation. Think that’s a failure?

>
> 2) Darwin: for at least 10,000 years that we know of, every culture in
> every corner of the world has vigorously applied artificial selection in
> the pasture, in the crop field, in the pen, the garden, the kernel &
> coup; for the past 150 years academic and industrial lab around the world
> have practiced intense artificial selection on every form of life from
> single cell to humans--this must be the equivalent of 150 billion years
> of natural selection--and yet not one single new clad has ever evolved,
> not a single one. Lots of anagenesis but not one single instance of
> cladogenesis. How many time do you have to schlep two cannon balls to
> the top of the Tower of Pisa before you declare the null hypothesis is false???
>

Ah, so you also believe that Darwin was also full of shit. And he’s got a
pretty big footprint in the scientific world. Why aren’t you over in the
biology groups, poking them about the obvious falseness of evolution? Why
just here in physics?

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

On Wednesday, December 29, 2021 at 10:25:52 AM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 29, 2021 at 2:52:53 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> <snip>
> > Einstein realized shortly AFTER publishing the paper in 1905 that in fact
> > the Newtonian laws of gravity would not hold under special relativity. So,
> > it was at THAT point that he began to call out that the ideas from the
> > first paper described a special case. He did not call it Special relativity
> > from the get-go. He called it that AFTER he made the realization about
> > Newtonian gravity needing work.
> See, Bodkin? By writing this imbecility in a disgusting attempt to RE-WRITE history of the fucker plagiarist,
> you INVENT this shit!
>
> The cretin didn't realized ANYTHING. Once his plagiarized papers were published (written by OTHERS), the
> fucker thought: WHAT CAN I DO NOW? I NEED TO MOVE ONE OR MANY ECHELONS UP..
>
> And his society invested the next 10 years in two main directions: 1) PR at the limit and 2) Subtlest and
> difficult to prove modifications of Newton's theories about gravitation, in the same degree that SR is.

Yes Richard, this is also my sense of the situation. I would be grateful if you could steer me to some of your source material. The progressive movement needed content in every sector of society. Science was a very big sector for the turn of the century progressives. A fame-thirsty and malleable 26 year old with nothing to lose would seem to fit the bill nicely.
>
> A pile of metaphysics crap, IMPOSSIBLE TO PROVE by ANY METHOD.
>
> But you glorify the cretin, giving IT the credit of knowing what he didn't know. The imbecile didn't know even
> how to tie their shoe laces, but you give him capability of AWARENESS AND PREDICTION.
>
> I don't blame Einstein. I blame ASSHOLES like you, with your EVIDENT AGENDA since you landed here, MOLE.

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 29, 2021 at 2:52:53 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> Einstein realized shortly AFTER publishing the paper in 1905 that in fact
>> the Newtonian laws of gravity would not hold under special relativity. So,
>> it was at THAT point that he began to call out that the ideas from the
>> first paper described a special case. He did not call it Special relativity
>> from the get-go. He called it that AFTER he made the realization about
>> Newtonian gravity needing work.
>
> See, Bodkin? By writing this imbecility in a disgusting attempt to
> RE-WRITE history of the fucker plagiarist,
> you INVENT this shit!

Oh heck no. I didn’t invent anything. This is well known scientific
history.

Oh I see, you’re saying that the published history is all fabricated, just
out of misanthropic principle, and so you’re going to just fabricate
another for the hell of it.

>
> The cretin didn't realized ANYTHING. Once his plagiarized papers were
> published (written by OTHERS), the
> fucker thought: WHAT CAN I DO NOW? I NEED TO MOVE ONE OR MANY ECHELONS UP.
>
> And his society invested the next 10 years in two main directions: 1) PR
> at the limit and 2) Subtlest and
> difficult to prove modifications of Newton's theories about gravitation,
> in the same degree that SR is.
>
> A pile of metaphysics crap, IMPOSSIBLE TO PROVE by ANY METHOD.
>
> But you glorify the cretin, giving IT the credit of knowing what he
> didn't know. The imbecile didn't know even
> how to tie their shoe laces, but you give him capability of AWARENESS AND PREDICTION.
>
> I don't blame Einstein. I blame ASSHOLES like you, with your EVIDENT
> AGENDA since you landed here, MOLE.
>
>
>

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

On Wednesday, 29 December 2021 at 19:32:50 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Wednesday, 29 December 2021 at 18:52:53 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, 29 December 2021 at 18:27:09 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>>>> On Wednesday, December 29, 2021 at 8:26:48 AM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
> >>>>>> On Wednesday, December 29, 2021 at 5:42:35 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail..com wrote:
> >>>>>>> Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvand...@notmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> I’ve noticed that there are some people here on a science newsgroup who
> >>>>>>>>> have little regard for science. It’s a little like people going to an
> >>>>>>>>> acupuncture newsgroup to spend a lot of time just to say “Pbflppflpt!” Or
> >>>>>>>>> to an economics group to say the same thing. Or a math group. Why they
> >>>>>>>>> would waste their time doing that is frankly beyond me.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Come on.
> >>>>>>>> They don't waste their time. Their goal is to make you waste yours.
> >>>>>>>> And they are extremely successful at it.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Dirk Vdm
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> But if they are bored and are trying to waste some time, why do they feel
> >>>>>>> the need to waste others’ time as well? I mean, who does that? What’s the
> >>>>>>> motive? What’s the desired outcome?
> >>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >>>>>> I think it's one of those "speaking truth to power" things in my case,
> >>>>>> Bodkin. Or it could be just the ying and yang of the twin human drives
> >>>>>> for creation and destruction. Look, Einstein is arguably the biggest
> >>>>>> cock on the block. So with what joy does a close reader of him explode
> >>>>>> with joy when he finds a logical or mathematical vulnerability. Who
> >>>>>> could resist the temptation to throw a pie in the face of the guy they
> >>>>>> always superimpose on the star field with the symphonic music playing in
> >>>>>> the background. Lighten up Bodkin. Here, take this pie and have a go at
> >>>>>> him. You might like it.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> An interesting forensic question is how did Einstein manage to survive
> >>>>> falsification by gravity?
> >>>> I don’t understand this statement. SR is not invalidated by gravity,
> >>>> because SR stands for Special relativity, namely those cases where the
> >>>> precision needed gravity can be ignored.
> >>>
> >>> Quoting your idiot guru:
> >>> "Let us have a co-ordinate system, in which the Newtonian equations hold."
> >>>
> >>> Odd, you will probably try to persuade that Newtonian equations don't
> >>> hold under gravity?
> >> Einstein realized shortly AFTER publishing the paper in 1905 that in fact
> >
> > Sure. So he shouted "I meant no gravity!!"
> Well, he didn’t shout. And he did modify the statements of special
> relativity to apply

Exactly, poor halfbrain. That's how a theory survives your
precious falsification. If your bunch of idiots wants it to
survive, of course.

patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 29, 2021 at 10:25:52 AM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
>> On Wednesday, December 29, 2021 at 2:52:53 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>> Einstein realized shortly AFTER publishing the paper in 1905 that in fact
>>> the Newtonian laws of gravity would not hold under special relativity. So,
>>> it was at THAT point that he began to call out that the ideas from the
>>> first paper described a special case. He did not call it Special relativity
>>> from the get-go. He called it that AFTER he made the realization about
>>> Newtonian gravity needing work.
>> See, Bodkin? By writing this imbecility in a disgusting attempt to
>> RE-WRITE history of the fucker plagiarist,
>> you INVENT this shit!
>>
>> The cretin didn't realized ANYTHING. Once his plagiarized papers were
>> published (written by OTHERS), the
>> fucker thought: WHAT CAN I DO NOW? I NEED TO MOVE ONE OR MANY ECHELONS UP.
>>
>> And his society invested the next 10 years in two main directions: 1) PR
>> at the limit and 2) Subtlest and
>> difficult to prove modifications of Newton's theories about gravitation,
>> in the same degree that SR is.
>
> Yes Richard, this is also my sense of the situation. I would be grateful
> if you could steer me to some of your source material.

LOL, good luck with that.

> The progressive movement needed content in every sector of society.
> Science was a very big sector for the turn of the century progressives.
> A fame-thirsty and malleable 26 year old with nothing to lose would seem
> to fit the bill nicely.

The “progressive movement” and the sciences’ participation is what you’re
ranting about? I seem to recall that progressives were mostly Christian
clergy and women, and their focus was on righting the ills brought on by
industrialization, steep urban growth, and high immigration, the kind of
technological advancement wonders that Richard Hertz has been extolling as
the heartbeat of the modern world.

>>
>> A pile of metaphysics crap, IMPOSSIBLE TO PROVE by ANY METHOD.
>>
>> But you glorify the cretin, giving IT the credit of knowing what he
>> didn't know. The imbecile didn't know even
>> how to tie their shoe laces, but you give him capability of AWARENESS AND PREDICTION.
>>
>> I don't blame Einstein. I blame ASSHOLES like you, with your EVIDENT
>> AGENDA since you landed here, MOLE.
>

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

Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, 29 December 2021 at 19:32:50 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, 29 December 2021 at 18:52:53 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, 29 December 2021 at 18:27:09 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wednesday, December 29, 2021 at 8:26:48 AM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, December 29, 2021 at 5:42:35 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvand...@notmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I’ve noticed that there are some people here on a science newsgroup who
>>>>>>>>>>> have little regard for science. It’s a little like people going to an
>>>>>>>>>>> acupuncture newsgroup to spend a lot of time just to say “Pbflppflpt!” Or
>>>>>>>>>>> to an economics group to say the same thing. Or a math group. Why they
>>>>>>>>>>> would waste their time doing that is frankly beyond me.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Come on.
>>>>>>>>>> They don't waste their time. Their goal is to make you waste yours.
>>>>>>>>>> And they are extremely successful at it.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Dirk Vdm
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> But if they are bored and are trying to waste some time, why do they feel
>>>>>>>>> the need to waste others’ time as well? I mean, who does that? What’s the
>>>>>>>>> motive? What’s the desired outcome?
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>>>>>>> I think it's one of those "speaking truth to power" things in my case,
>>>>>>>> Bodkin. Or it could be just the ying and yang of the twin human drives
>>>>>>>> for creation and destruction. Look, Einstein is arguably the biggest
>>>>>>>> cock on the block. So with what joy does a close reader of him explode
>>>>>>>> with joy when he finds a logical or mathematical vulnerability. Who
>>>>>>>> could resist the temptation to throw a pie in the face of the guy they
>>>>>>>> always superimpose on the star field with the symphonic music playing in
>>>>>>>> the background. Lighten up Bodkin. Here, take this pie and have a go at
>>>>>>>> him. You might like it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> An interesting forensic question is how did Einstein manage to survive
>>>>>>> falsification by gravity?
>>>>>> I don’t understand this statement. SR is not invalidated by gravity,
>>>>>> because SR stands for Special relativity, namely those cases where the
>>>>>> precision needed gravity can be ignored.
>>>>>
>>>>> Quoting your idiot guru:
>>>>> "Let us have a co-ordinate system, in which the Newtonian equations hold."
>>>>>
>>>>> Odd, you will probably try to persuade that Newtonian equations don't
>>>>> hold under gravity?
>>>> Einstein realized shortly AFTER publishing the paper in 1905 that in fact
>>>
>>> Sure. So he shouted "I meant no gravity!!"
>> Well, he didn’t shout. And he did modify the statements of special
>> relativity to apply
>
> Exactly, poor halfbrain.

Yes, and you think that this kind of realization should not be allowed?

> That's how a theory survives your
> precious falsification. If your bunch of idiots wants it to
> survive, of course.
>

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

On Wednesday, 29 December 2021 at 19:48:39 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Wednesday, 29 December 2021 at 19:32:50 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, 29 December 2021 at 18:52:53 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> On Wednesday, 29 December 2021 at 18:27:09 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Wednesday, December 29, 2021 at 8:26:48 AM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Wednesday, December 29, 2021 at 5:42:35 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvand...@notmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> I’ve noticed that there are some people here on a science newsgroup who
> >>>>>>>>>>> have little regard for science. It’s a little like people going to an
> >>>>>>>>>>> acupuncture newsgroup to spend a lot of time just to say “Pbflppflpt!” Or
> >>>>>>>>>>> to an economics group to say the same thing. Or a math group. Why they
> >>>>>>>>>>> would waste their time doing that is frankly beyond me.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Come on.
> >>>>>>>>>> They don't waste their time. Their goal is to make you waste yours.
> >>>>>>>>>> And they are extremely successful at it.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Dirk Vdm
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> But if they are bored and are trying to waste some time, why do they feel
> >>>>>>>>> the need to waste others’ time as well? I mean, who does that? What’s the
> >>>>>>>>> motive? What’s the desired outcome?
> >>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >>>>>>>> I think it's one of those "speaking truth to power" things in my case,
> >>>>>>>> Bodkin. Or it could be just the ying and yang of the twin human drives
> >>>>>>>> for creation and destruction. Look, Einstein is arguably the biggest
> >>>>>>>> cock on the block. So with what joy does a close reader of him explode
> >>>>>>>> with joy when he finds a logical or mathematical vulnerability. Who
> >>>>>>>> could resist the temptation to throw a pie in the face of the guy they
> >>>>>>>> always superimpose on the star field with the symphonic music playing in
> >>>>>>>> the background. Lighten up Bodkin. Here, take this pie and have a go at
> >>>>>>>> him. You might like it.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> An interesting forensic question is how did Einstein manage to survive
> >>>>>>> falsification by gravity?
> >>>>>> I don’t understand this statement. SR is not invalidated by gravity,
> >>>>>> because SR stands for Special relativity, namely those cases where the
> >>>>>> precision needed gravity can be ignored.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Quoting your idiot guru:
> >>>>> "Let us have a co-ordinate system, in which the Newtonian equations hold."
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Odd, you will probably try to persuade that Newtonian equations don't
> >>>>> hold under gravity?
> >>>> Einstein realized shortly AFTER publishing the paper in 1905 that in fact
> >>>
> >>> Sure. So he shouted "I meant no gravity!!"
> >> Well, he didn’t shout. And he did modify the statements of special
> >> relativity to apply
> >
> > Exactly, poor halfbrain.
> Yes, and you think that this kind of realization should not be allowed?

I think and I know that theories your idiot gurus dislike
are not getting such a chance. And I also think and know
that your falsification bullshit is just an enormous bullshit.

Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, 29 December 2021 at 19:48:39 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, 29 December 2021 at 19:32:50 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, 29 December 2021 at 18:52:53 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wednesday, 29 December 2021 at 18:27:09 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, December 29, 2021 at 8:26:48 AM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, December 29, 2021 at 5:42:35 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvand...@notmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I’ve noticed that there are some people here on a science newsgroup who
>>>>>>>>>>>>> have little regard for science. It’s a little like people going to an
>>>>>>>>>>>>> acupuncture newsgroup to spend a lot of time just to say “Pbflppflpt!” Or
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to an economics group to say the same thing. Or a math group. Why they
>>>>>>>>>>>>> would waste their time doing that is frankly beyond me.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Come on.
>>>>>>>>>>>> They don't waste their time. Their goal is to make you waste yours.
>>>>>>>>>>>> And they are extremely successful at it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Dirk Vdm
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> But if they are bored and are trying to waste some time, why do they feel
>>>>>>>>>>> the need to waste others’ time as well? I mean, who does that? What’s the
>>>>>>>>>>> motive? What’s the desired outcome?
>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>>>>>>>>> I think it's one of those "speaking truth to power" things in my case,
>>>>>>>>>> Bodkin. Or it could be just the ying and yang of the twin human drives
>>>>>>>>>> for creation and destruction. Look, Einstein is arguably the biggest
>>>>>>>>>> cock on the block. So with what joy does a close reader of him explode
>>>>>>>>>> with joy when he finds a logical or mathematical vulnerability. Who
>>>>>>>>>> could resist the temptation to throw a pie in the face of the guy they
>>>>>>>>>> always superimpose on the star field with the symphonic music playing in
>>>>>>>>>> the background. Lighten up Bodkin. Here, take this pie and have a go at
>>>>>>>>>> him. You might like it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> An interesting forensic question is how did Einstein manage to survive
>>>>>>>>> falsification by gravity?
>>>>>>>> I don’t understand this statement. SR is not invalidated by gravity,
>>>>>>>> because SR stands for Special relativity, namely those cases where the
>>>>>>>> precision needed gravity can be ignored.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Quoting your idiot guru:
>>>>>>> "Let us have a co-ordinate system, in which the Newtonian equations hold."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Odd, you will probably try to persuade that Newtonian equations don't
>>>>>>> hold under gravity?
>>>>>> Einstein realized shortly AFTER publishing the paper in 1905 that in fact
>>>>>
>>>>> Sure. So he shouted "I meant no gravity!!"
>>>> Well, he didn’t shout. And he did modify the statements of special
>>>> relativity to apply
>>>
>>> Exactly, poor halfbrain.
>> Yes, and you think that this kind of realization should not be allowed?
>
> I think and I know that theories your idiot gurus dislike
> are not getting such a chance.

Like what, for example?

> And I also think and know
> that your falsification bullshit is just an enormous bullshit.
>

Doesn’t answer my question. Do you think that modification of theories
after initial presentation should be rightfully disallowed?

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

On Wednesday, 29 December 2021 at 19:59:39 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Wednesday, 29 December 2021 at 19:48:39 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, 29 December 2021 at 19:32:50 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> On Wednesday, 29 December 2021 at 18:52:53 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Wednesday, 29 December 2021 at 18:27:09 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, December 29, 2021 at 8:26:48 AM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, December 29, 2021 at 5:42:35 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvand...@notmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I’ve noticed that there are some people here on a science newsgroup who
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> have little regard for science. It’s a little like people going to an
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> acupuncture newsgroup to spend a lot of time just to say “Pbflppflpt!” Or
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> to an economics group to say the same thing. Or a math group. Why they
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> would waste their time doing that is frankly beyond me.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Come on.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> They don't waste their time. Their goal is to make you waste yours.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> And they are extremely successful at it.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Dirk Vdm
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> But if they are bored and are trying to waste some time, why do they feel
> >>>>>>>>>>> the need to waste others’ time as well? I mean, who does that? What’s the
> >>>>>>>>>>> motive? What’s the desired outcome?
> >>>>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >>>>>>>>>> I think it's one of those "speaking truth to power" things in my case,
> >>>>>>>>>> Bodkin. Or it could be just the ying and yang of the twin human drives
> >>>>>>>>>> for creation and destruction. Look, Einstein is arguably the biggest
> >>>>>>>>>> cock on the block. So with what joy does a close reader of him explode
> >>>>>>>>>> with joy when he finds a logical or mathematical vulnerability.. Who
> >>>>>>>>>> could resist the temptation to throw a pie in the face of the guy they
> >>>>>>>>>> always superimpose on the star field with the symphonic music playing in
> >>>>>>>>>> the background. Lighten up Bodkin. Here, take this pie and have a go at
> >>>>>>>>>> him. You might like it.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> An interesting forensic question is how did Einstein manage to survive
> >>>>>>>>> falsification by gravity?
> >>>>>>>> I don’t understand this statement. SR is not invalidated by gravity,
> >>>>>>>> because SR stands for Special relativity, namely those cases where the
> >>>>>>>> precision needed gravity can be ignored.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Quoting your idiot guru:
> >>>>>>> "Let us have a co-ordinate system, in which the Newtonian equations hold."
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Odd, you will probably try to persuade that Newtonian equations don't
> >>>>>>> hold under gravity?
> >>>>>> Einstein realized shortly AFTER publishing the paper in 1905 that in fact
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Sure. So he shouted "I meant no gravity!!"
> >>>> Well, he didn’t shout. And he did modify the statements of special
> >>>> relativity to apply
> >>>
> >>> Exactly, poor halfbrain.
> >> Yes, and you think that this kind of realization should not be allowed?
> >
> > I think and I know that theories your idiot gurus dislike
> > are not getting such a chance.
> Like what, for example?

Like Newton's dynamics, for example.

> > And I also think and know
> > that your falsification bullshit is just an enormous bullshit.
> >
> Doesn’t answer my question. Do you think that modification of theories
> after initial presentation should be rightfully disallowed?

I don't. Neither you do. You just disallow it when it's comfortable
for you to disallow and allow it when it's comfortable for you
to allow. As expected from a fanatic stinker.

Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, 29 December 2021 at 19:59:39 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, 29 December 2021 at 19:48:39 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, 29 December 2021 at 19:32:50 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wednesday, 29 December 2021 at 18:52:53 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, 29 December 2021 at 18:27:09 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, December 29, 2021 at 8:26:48 AM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, December 29, 2021 at 5:42:35 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvand...@notmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I’ve noticed that there are some people here on a science newsgroup who
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have little regard for science. It’s a little like people going to an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> acupuncture newsgroup to spend a lot of time just to say “Pbflppflpt!” Or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to an economics group to say the same thing. Or a math group. Why they
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would waste their time doing that is frankly beyond me.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Come on.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> They don't waste their time. Their goal is to make you waste yours.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And they are extremely successful at it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dirk Vdm
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> But if they are bored and are trying to waste some time, why do they feel
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the need to waste others’ time as well? I mean, who does that? What’s the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> motive? What’s the desired outcome?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>>>>>>>>>>> I think it's one of those "speaking truth to power" things in my case,
>>>>>>>>>>>> Bodkin. Or it could be just the ying and yang of the twin human drives
>>>>>>>>>>>> for creation and destruction. Look, Einstein is arguably the biggest
>>>>>>>>>>>> cock on the block. So with what joy does a close reader of him explode
>>>>>>>>>>>> with joy when he finds a logical or mathematical vulnerability. Who
>>>>>>>>>>>> could resist the temptation to throw a pie in the face of the guy they
>>>>>>>>>>>> always superimpose on the star field with the symphonic music playing in
>>>>>>>>>>>> the background. Lighten up Bodkin. Here, take this pie and have a go at
>>>>>>>>>>>> him. You might like it.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> An interesting forensic question is how did Einstein manage to survive
>>>>>>>>>>> falsification by gravity?
>>>>>>>>>> I don’t understand this statement. SR is not invalidated by gravity,
>>>>>>>>>> because SR stands for Special relativity, namely those cases where the
>>>>>>>>>> precision needed gravity can be ignored.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Quoting your idiot guru:
>>>>>>>>> "Let us have a co-ordinate system, in which the Newtonian equations hold."
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Odd, you will probably try to persuade that Newtonian equations don't
>>>>>>>>> hold under gravity?
>>>>>>>> Einstein realized shortly AFTER publishing the paper in 1905 that in fact
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sure. So he shouted "I meant no gravity!!"
>>>>>> Well, he didn’t shout. And he did modify the statements of special
>>>>>> relativity to apply
>>>>>
>>>>> Exactly, poor halfbrain.
>>>> Yes, and you think that this kind of realization should not be allowed?
>>>
>>> I think and I know that theories your idiot gurus dislike
>>> are not getting such a chance.
>> Like what, for example?
>
> Like Newton's dynamics, for example.

What makes you think it wasn’t given a chance?

MOND was an example of a seriously treated attempt to modify Newtonian
gravity to match data.

Oh wait, I forgot. You don’t think modifications to Newtonian dynamics
after initial presentation should be allowed.

>
>>> And I also think and know
>>> that your falsification bullshit is just an enormous bullshit.
>>>
>> Doesn’t answer my question. Do you think that modification of theories
>> after initial presentation should be rightfully disallowed?
>
> I don't.

Why not? You think forward progress on scientific ideas, including
modifications of previous ideas, is a bad idea for humans?

> Neither you do. You just disallow it when it's comfortable
> for you to disallow and allow it when it's comfortable for you
> to allow. As expected from a fanatic stinker.
>
>

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

On Wednesday, December 29, 2021 at 4:19:51 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:

<snip>

> Why not? You think forward progress on scientific ideas, including
> modifications of previous ideas, is a bad idea for humans?

Just saying: Electricity, magnetism and electromagnetism provided formulae UNCHALLENGED for 200 years,
starting with Ohm's Law, following with vector based expressions of Maxwell's equations. These simple equations
have helped to develop the modern world, and are INTACT for more than 150 years and counting.

Newton's theories, after enhancements done by Euler, Laplace, Lagrange, Gauss, Fourier and many others in the first
100 years after Newton, remain INTACT and helped to develop the modern world for more than 200 years and counting.

The relativity theories of a bunch of ambitious cretins have suffered 100,000 modifications since the imbecile and his society
put them out. Even Schwarzschild's solution for GR in a void universe (from a pure breed polymath) suffered 10,000 different
ADAPTATIONS which lead to NOWHERE in cosmology.

Tell me WHAT REMAINS from the theories of the utter cretin and fraudster? NOTHING!!

Am 28.12.2021 um 10:55 schrieb Athel Cornish-Bowden:
> The launch of the James Webb telescope led me to make a comparison
> between the practical achievements of those whose work is rooted in
> physics and those who reject modern physics.
>
> First the real physicists and those who apply their discoveries (not
> just physicists, but also engineers, who don't necessarily understand
> the physics but apply it anyway):
>
> Electronic computers (and electronics in general)
> Nuclear power
> GPS technology
> Placing satellites in predetermined orbits
> Landing space vehicles on distant planets
> Radiocommunication and television
> X-ray crystallography
> Development of vaccines that work
> Trains that travel at 300 km/h or more
> Airliners that criss-cross the world
> Floating hotels ("cruise ships") that clog up the ports
> Nuclear weapons
> ... Too many others to list them all. One doesn't need to think of each
> of these as a Good Thing to recognize the expertise that went into its
> production.
>
> Now the practical achievements of Pentcho Valev, Richard Hertz and other
> crackpots:
>
> I haven't been able to think of anything to put here: can anyone help?
>

Almost everything important was invented by enigneers (and by
'crackpots' of various branches.)

Physicists have next to never invented anything.

For instance Tesla was an engineer, as were Konrad Zuse (inventor of the
computer) or the inventors of the transistor.

Einstein was also an inventor and invented a device, which is used in
fast breeding reactors. He patented it together with Leo Szillard, who
was also the inventor of the atomic bomb.

So, even if both were partially physicists, they were mainly engineers,
who lived from a patent, which patented a device useful for atomic weapons.

Einstein's achievements in physics were imho rather questionable, even
if he's famous for them.

E.g. I have found about four hundred errors in his famous paper 'On the
electrodynamics of moving bodies'.

But fast breaders and atomic bombs apparently work, hence Szillard and
Einstein were mainly engineers, not physicists.

TH

On Wednesday, 29 December 2021 at 20:19:51 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Wednesday, 29 December 2021 at 19:59:39 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, 29 December 2021 at 19:48:39 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> On Wednesday, 29 December 2021 at 19:32:50 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Wednesday, 29 December 2021 at 18:52:53 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, 29 December 2021 at 18:27:09 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail..com wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, December 29, 2021 at 8:26:48 AM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, December 29, 2021 at 5:42:35 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvand...@notmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I’ve noticed that there are some people here on a science newsgroup who
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have little regard for science. It’s a little like people going to an
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> acupuncture newsgroup to spend a lot of time just to say “Pbflppflpt!” Or
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to an economics group to say the same thing. Or a math group. Why they
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would waste their time doing that is frankly beyond me.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Come on.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> They don't waste their time. Their goal is to make you waste yours.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> And they are extremely successful at it.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dirk Vdm
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> But if they are bored and are trying to waste some time, why do they feel
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> the need to waste others’ time as well? I mean, who does that? What’s the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> motive? What’s the desired outcome?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >>>>>>>>>>>> I think it's one of those "speaking truth to power" things in my case,
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Bodkin. Or it could be just the ying and yang of the twin human drives
> >>>>>>>>>>>> for creation and destruction. Look, Einstein is arguably the biggest
> >>>>>>>>>>>> cock on the block. So with what joy does a close reader of him explode
> >>>>>>>>>>>> with joy when he finds a logical or mathematical vulnerability. Who
> >>>>>>>>>>>> could resist the temptation to throw a pie in the face of the guy they
> >>>>>>>>>>>> always superimpose on the star field with the symphonic music playing in
> >>>>>>>>>>>> the background. Lighten up Bodkin. Here, take this pie and have a go at
> >>>>>>>>>>>> him. You might like it.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> An interesting forensic question is how did Einstein manage to survive
> >>>>>>>>>>> falsification by gravity?
> >>>>>>>>>> I don’t understand this statement. SR is not invalidated by gravity,
> >>>>>>>>>> because SR stands for Special relativity, namely those cases where the
> >>>>>>>>>> precision needed gravity can be ignored.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Quoting your idiot guru:
> >>>>>>>>> "Let us have a co-ordinate system, in which the Newtonian equations hold."
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Odd, you will probably try to persuade that Newtonian equations don't
> >>>>>>>>> hold under gravity?
> >>>>>>>> Einstein realized shortly AFTER publishing the paper in 1905 that in fact
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Sure. So he shouted "I meant no gravity!!"
> >>>>>> Well, he didn’t shout. And he did modify the statements of special
> >>>>>> relativity to apply
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Exactly, poor halfbrain.
> >>>> Yes, and you think that this kind of realization should not be allowed?
> >>>
> >>> I think and I know that theories your idiot gurus dislike
> >>> are not getting such a chance.
> >> Like what, for example?
> >
> > Like Newton's dynamics, for example.
> What makes you think it wasn’t given a chance?

Because it's VERY easy to make a version compatibile
with all SR gedankens.

> MOND was an example of a seriously treated attempt to modify Newtonian
> gravity to match data.

How about Newton's dynamics?

> > I don't.
> Why not?

Because so.

> You think forward progress on scientific ideas, including
> modifications of previous ideas, is a bad idea for humans?

See, poor idiot - a modification of [anything] can be a good
idea and can be a bad one. But good, bad - aren't exact terms.
It's common sense deciding what is good and what is bad.
And when it was warning your idiot guru that his modifications
are a bad idea - it was announced a collection of prejudices.
Well, your idiot guru has chosen.
Now, forbidden by your moronic religion TAI and GPS keep
measuring t'=t; we have chosen too. Poor idiot Tom only
imagines we're FORCED.

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 29, 2021 at 4:19:51 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> Why not? You think forward progress on scientific ideas, including
>> modifications of previous ideas, is a bad idea for humans?
>
> Just saying: Electricity, magnetism and electromagnetism provided
> formulae UNCHALLENGED for 200 years,
> starting with Ohm's Law, following with vector based expressions of
> Maxwell's equations. These simple equations
> have helped to develop the modern world, and are INTACT for more than 150
> years and counting.

Well, except that they have been superseded with QED. The fact that the
older equations can still be used effectively is irrelevant to that fact. I
think the misperception you have here is that when a superior theory comes
along, the prior formulation would be abandoned and no longer used. That’s
silly.

>
> Newton's theories, after enhancements done by Euler, Laplace, Lagrange,
> Gauss, Fourier and many others in the first
> 100 years after Newton, remain INTACT and helped to develop the modern
> world for more than 200 years and counting.

The “enhancements” were substantial. The force-momentum picture of Newton
shifted to a deeper understanding of stationary principles, which led to
both Lagrangian and Hamiltonian mechanics, and to the pre-eminence of
conservation laws including conservation of energy as well as conservation
of momentum, these not becoming mature until the middle 1800s. These, by
the way, were critical for the development of fluid mechanics and
thermodynamics, neither of which were supportable with the Newtonian
formulation, but were THE most important technological enablers of the 19th
century. The bottom line here is that the industrial revolution would not
have happened if mechanics were not significantly developed well past
Newton’s formulation.

As for Newton’s gravitational law, notice please that the first significant
PREDICTION (as opposed to a postdiction) from that theory was that of
Uranus, in the middle 1800s. So it took quite a while for Newton’s theory
to be validated in true scientific fashion.

>
> The relativity theories of a bunch of ambitious cretins have suffered
> 100,000 modifications since the imbecile and his society
> put them out. Even Schwarzschild's solution for GR in a void universe
> (from a pure breed polymath) suffered 10,000 different
> ADAPTATIONS which lead to NOWHERE in cosmology.

So, just sayin’: it’s interesting that you note that Newtonian mechanics
was “enhanced” for 100 years after he published “Principia” (well, 150
years, but we can let that slide) and you have no problems with that, but
let enhancements proceed for a 100 years after Einstein published GR and
you have a cow.

>
> Tell me WHAT REMAINS from the theories of the utter cretin and fraudster? NOTHING!!
>
>
>

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

Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
> Am 28.12.2021 um 10:55 schrieb Athel Cornish-Bowden:
>> The launch of the James Webb telescope led me to make a comparison
>> between the practical achievements of those whose work is rooted in
>> physics and those who reject modern physics.
>>
>> First the real physicists and those who apply their discoveries (not
>> just physicists, but also engineers, who don't necessarily understand
>> the physics but apply it anyway):
>>
>> Electronic computers (and electronics in general)
>> Nuclear power
>> GPS technology
>> Placing satellites in predetermined orbits
>> Landing space vehicles on distant planets
>> Radiocommunication and television
>> X-ray crystallography
>> Development of vaccines that work
>> Trains that travel at 300 km/h or more
>> Airliners that criss-cross the world
>> Floating hotels ("cruise ships") that clog up the ports
>> Nuclear weapons
>> ... Too many others to list them all. One doesn't need to think of each
>> of these as a Good Thing to recognize the expertise that went into its
>> production.
>>
>> Now the practical achievements of Pentcho Valev, Richard Hertz and other
>> crackpots:
>>
>> I haven't been able to think of anything to put here: can anyone help?
>>
>
> Almost everything important was invented by enigneers (and by
> 'crackpots' of various branches.)
>
> Physicists have next to never invented anything.

There is a difference in role between physics and engineering. Fundamental
physics is not intended for direct production of inventions. It is for
discovery of rules and principles of nature. Engineering, on the other
hand, is not intended to be for the discovery of rules and principles of
nature. Engineering is around the APPLICATION of already-discovered rules
and principles of nature to design and implement practical inventions.

Engineers who see no value in what physicists do, and physicists who see no
value in what engineers do, are myopic and parochial.

>
> For instance Tesla was an engineer, as were Konrad Zuse (inventor of the
> computer) or the inventors of the transistor.
>
> Einstein was also an inventor and invented a device, which is used in
> fast breeding reactors. He patented it together with Leo Szillard, who
> was also the inventor of the atomic bomb.
>
> So, even if both were partially physicists, they were mainly engineers,
> who lived from a patent, which patented a device useful for atomic weapons.
>
> Einstein's achievements in physics were imho rather questionable, even
> if he's famous for them.
>
> E.g. I have found about four hundred errors in his famous paper 'On the
> electrodynamics of moving bodies'.
>
> But fast breaders and atomic bombs apparently work, hence Szillard and
> Einstein were mainly engineers, not physicists.
>
>
> TH
>

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

Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, 29 December 2021 at 20:19:51 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, 29 December 2021 at 19:59:39 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, 29 December 2021 at 19:48:39 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wednesday, 29 December 2021 at 19:32:50 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, 29 December 2021 at 18:52:53 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, 29 December 2021 at 18:27:09 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, December 29, 2021 at 8:26:48 AM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, December 29, 2021 at 5:42:35 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvand...@notmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I’ve noticed that there are some people here on a science newsgroup who
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have little regard for science. It’s a little like people going to an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> acupuncture newsgroup to spend a lot of time just to say “Pbflppflpt!” Or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to an economics group to say the same thing. Or a math group. Why they
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would waste their time doing that is frankly beyond me.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Come on.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> They don't waste their time. Their goal is to make you waste yours.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And they are extremely successful at it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dirk Vdm
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But if they are bored and are trying to waste some time, why do they feel
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the need to waste others’ time as well? I mean, who does that? What’s the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> motive? What’s the desired outcome?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think it's one of those "speaking truth to power" things in my case,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bodkin. Or it could be just the ying and yang of the twin human drives
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for creation and destruction. Look, Einstein is arguably the biggest
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cock on the block. So with what joy does a close reader of him explode
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with joy when he finds a logical or mathematical vulnerability. Who
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could resist the temptation to throw a pie in the face of the guy they
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> always superimpose on the star field with the symphonic music playing in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the background. Lighten up Bodkin. Here, take this pie and have a go at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> him. You might like it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> An interesting forensic question is how did Einstein manage to survive
>>>>>>>>>>>>> falsification by gravity?
>>>>>>>>>>>> I don’t understand this statement. SR is not invalidated by gravity,
>>>>>>>>>>>> because SR stands for Special relativity, namely those cases where the
>>>>>>>>>>>> precision needed gravity can be ignored.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Quoting your idiot guru:
>>>>>>>>>>> "Let us have a co-ordinate system, in which the Newtonian equations hold."
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Odd, you will probably try to persuade that Newtonian equations don't
>>>>>>>>>>> hold under gravity?
>>>>>>>>>> Einstein realized shortly AFTER publishing the paper in 1905 that in fact
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Sure. So he shouted "I meant no gravity!!"
>>>>>>>> Well, he didn’t shout. And he did modify the statements of special
>>>>>>>> relativity to apply
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Exactly, poor halfbrain.
>>>>>> Yes, and you think that this kind of realization should not be allowed?
>>>>>
>>>>> I think and I know that theories your idiot gurus dislike
>>>>> are not getting such a chance.
>>>> Like what, for example?
>>>
>>> Like Newton's dynamics, for example.
>> What makes you think it wasn’t given a chance?
>
> Because it's VERY easy to make a version compatibile
> with all SR gedankens.

Ah, wonderful! So you have produced this version! Where is it?
And, by the way, not just matching gedankens but matching the results of
real experiments done in the lab.

>
>> MOND was an example of a seriously treated attempt to modify Newtonian
>> gravity to match data.
>
> How about Newton's dynamics?

Newton’s dynamics were also heavily modified. Newton’s force/momentum view
did not do fluids very well, and so two significant outgrowths were needed:
1) reformulations by D’Alembert, Lagrange, and Hamilton around stationary
principles, and 2) the deeper fundamentality of conservation of momentum
and conservation of energy. Both of these led the way to statistical
mechanics and the huge blossoming of thermodynamics in the 19th century.

>
>
>>> I don't.
>> Why not?
>
> Because so.
>
>> You think forward progress on scientific ideas, including
>> modifications of previous ideas, is a bad idea for humans?
>
> See, poor idiot - a modification of [anything] can be a good
> idea and can be a bad one. But good, bad - aren't exact terms.
> It's common sense deciding what is good and what is bad.

Since WHEN? Bacon and Galileo and Da Vinci showed waaay early that the
modification of ideas is not guided by common sense. That was 400 years
ago. Where have you been?

> And when it was warning your idiot guru that his modifications
> are a bad idea - it was announced a collection of prejudices.
> Well, your idiot guru has chosen.
> Now, forbidden by your moronic religion TAI and GPS keep
> measuring t'=t; we have chosen too. Poor idiot Tom only
> imagines we're FORCED.
>
>

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

On Thursday, 30 December 2021 at 15:59:53 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Wednesday, 29 December 2021 at 20:19:51 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, 29 December 2021 at 19:59:39 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> On Wednesday, 29 December 2021 at 19:48:39 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Wednesday, 29 December 2021 at 19:32:50 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, 29 December 2021 at 18:52:53 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail..com wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, 29 December 2021 at 18:27:09 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, December 29, 2021 at 8:26:48 AM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, December 29, 2021 at 5:42:35 AM UTC-8, bodk....@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvand...@notmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I’ve noticed that there are some people here on a science newsgroup who
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have little regard for science. It’s a little like people going to an
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> acupuncture newsgroup to spend a lot of time just to say “Pbflppflpt!” Or
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to an economics group to say the same thing. Or a math group. Why they
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would waste their time doing that is frankly beyond me.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Come on.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> They don't waste their time. Their goal is to make you waste yours.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And they are extremely successful at it.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dirk Vdm
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But if they are bored and are trying to waste some time, why do they feel
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the need to waste others’ time as well? I mean, who does that? What’s the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> motive? What’s the desired outcome?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think it's one of those "speaking truth to power" things in my case,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bodkin. Or it could be just the ying and yang of the twin human drives
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> for creation and destruction. Look, Einstein is arguably the biggest
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> cock on the block. So with what joy does a close reader of him explode
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> with joy when he finds a logical or mathematical vulnerability. Who
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> could resist the temptation to throw a pie in the face of the guy they
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> always superimpose on the star field with the symphonic music playing in
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the background. Lighten up Bodkin. Here, take this pie and have a go at
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> him. You might like it.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> An interesting forensic question is how did Einstein manage to survive
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> falsification by gravity?
> >>>>>>>>>>>> I don’t understand this statement. SR is not invalidated by gravity,
> >>>>>>>>>>>> because SR stands for Special relativity, namely those cases where the
> >>>>>>>>>>>> precision needed gravity can be ignored.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Quoting your idiot guru:
> >>>>>>>>>>> "Let us have a co-ordinate system, in which the Newtonian equations hold."
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Odd, you will probably try to persuade that Newtonian equations don't
> >>>>>>>>>>> hold under gravity?
> >>>>>>>>>> Einstein realized shortly AFTER publishing the paper in 1905 that in fact
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Sure. So he shouted "I meant no gravity!!"
> >>>>>>>> Well, he didn’t shout. And he did modify the statements of special
> >>>>>>>> relativity to apply
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Exactly, poor halfbrain.
> >>>>>> Yes, and you think that this kind of realization should not be allowed?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I think and I know that theories your idiot gurus dislike
> >>>>> are not getting such a chance.
> >>>> Like what, for example?
> >>>
> >>> Like Newton's dynamics, for example.
> >> What makes you think it wasn’t given a chance?
> >
> > Because it's VERY easy to make a version compatibile
> > with all SR gedankens.
> Ah, wonderful! So you have produced this version! Where is it?
> And, by the way, not just matching gedankens but matching the results of
> real experiments done in the lab.
> >
> >> MOND was an example of a seriously treated attempt to modify Newtonian
> >> gravity to match data.
> >
> > How about Newton's dynamics?
> Newton’s dynamics were also heavily modified. Newton’s force/momentum view
> did not do fluids very well, and so two significant outgrowths were needed:
> 1) reformulations by D’Alembert, Lagrange, and Hamilton around stationary
> principles, and 2) the deeper fundamentality of conservation of momentum
> and conservation of energy. Both of these led the way to statistical
> mechanics and the huge blossoming of thermodynamics in the 19th century.
> >
> >
> >>> I don't.
> >> Why not?
> >
> > Because so.
> >
> >> You think forward progress on scientific ideas, including
> >> modifications of previous ideas, is a bad idea for humans?
> >
> > See, poor idiot - a modification of [anything] can be a good
> > idea and can be a bad one. But good, bad - aren't exact terms.
> > It's common sense deciding what is good and what is bad.
> Since WHEN?

Odd, poor idiot, do you have a mathematical formula
for calculating what is good and what is bad?
Do you have a measuring procedure for measuring
what is good and what is bad?
And what do you have for that? How do you determine
it?

> Bacon and Galileo and Da Vinci showed waaay early that the
> modification of ideas is not guided by common sense.

No, they didn't. You're imagining they showed what you
like to see. Like always.

On Thursday, December 30, 2021 at 11:25:27 AM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:

<snip>

> > Just saying: Electricity, magnetism and electromagnetism provided
> > formulae UNCHALLENGED for 200 years, starting with Ohm's Law, following with vector based expressions of
> > Maxwell's equations. These simple equations have helped to develop the modern world, and are INTACT for
> > more than 150 years and counting.

> Well, except that they have been superseded with QED. The fact that the older equations can still be used effectively
> is irrelevant to that fact. I think the misperception you have here is that when a superior theory comes along,
> the prior formulation would be abandoned and no longer used. That’s silly.

Bodkin, Bodkin, you really kill me with your parade of posts defending post-Einstein physics. Your use of fallacies and
sophistry (to hide and deceive) is difficult for anyone, without the drive to repeat things forever, to refute.

I'll give a try with the most obvious deception that you wrote: "The fact that the older equations can still be used effectively
is IRRELEVANT to that fact". It's clear that you INVENT assertions, as you really bought the shit that you are the Supreme Thinker.

You CAN'T come with such idiocy without any substantiation. "Older equations" are not older, ignorant, they are THE ONLY ONES
used in this XXI century, expanded to solve even the most complex aspect of "near EM fields" just close to the antennae.

Hertz's dipoles ARE THE HEART of mobile networks, WiFi, Bluetooth, GPS receivers, etc. That it evolved to FRACTAL dipoles has
to be more with the danger of whip antennae close to your ear than the gain in bandwidth, but still a fucking broadband dipole.
Maxwell's equations were, are and will be the HEART of RF Engineering (and this field is HUGE). It only takes to cite the existence,
within the UN, a standard body ITU-R (formerly CCIR), EXCLUSIVELY DEVOTED to set standards around RF communications for
the ENTIRE WORLD! And it rules EVERYTHING, from terrestrial to satellite communications. And in the more than 2,000 standards,
there is not A FUCKING TERM QED (not only once).

Transmitters, receivers, antennae, propagation of EM waves on Earth, space and using WAVEGUIDES are the norm.

Try, if you are suicidal, to go to a meeting of RF Engineers and try to start with "because photons and QED", and they will BEAT THE
CRAP OUT OF YOU. Not because they took offense, but because they'll think that you ARE A FUCKING RETARDED who doesn't
deserve less than a severe beat (in the head better, so your shitty thoughts are crushed).

Try to talk about photons or QED in smartphones operations within Motorola, Apple, Samsung, etc. Good luck with that.

Your fucking QED died with Feynman.

One more thing. Buy 500+ more books, so you can EDUCATE YOURSELF BETTER. But bought ONLY those written before 1960.
Stinky relativists deformed everything in the last 60 years. You'll find the role of RESEARCH ENGINEERS!

Who the fuck do you believe that developed the mathematical background upon which field engineers work? Dirac? Fermi? Einstein?

Don't show your blatant ignorance with such despise for others. It hurts. I probably will ignore your posts since now.

And about Newton enhancements, it took almost 40 years after his Principia for scientists to take it seriously, starting with Euler and F=ma

The concept of ENERGY took 100 years to MATURE, and it wasn't until HEAT was included that the scenario was complete by 1820.

For the single man that INVENTED the theory AND THE MATH that changed the world, it's enough as a SUPREME ACHIEVEMENT in
human history.

And about Einstein, it was the result of an spermatozoa that took the wrong ovum to fertilize: GENETIC GARBAGE.

On Thursday, December 30, 2021 at 7:58:51 AM UTC-8, crank Richard Hertz frothed at the mouth and choked on his bile:
>nothing but crankeries<

On Thursday, December 30, 2021 at 7:58:51 AM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Thursday, December 30, 2021 at 11:25:27 AM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> <snip>
> > > Just saying: Electricity, magnetism and electromagnetism provided
> > > formulae UNCHALLENGED for 200 years, starting with Ohm's Law, following with vector based expressions of
> > > Maxwell's equations. These simple equations have helped to develop the modern world, and are INTACT for
> > > more than 150 years and counting.
>
> > Well, except that they have been superseded with QED. The fact that the older equations can still be used effectively
> > is irrelevant to that fact. I think the misperception you have here is that when a superior theory comes along,
> > the prior formulation would be abandoned and no longer used. That’s silly.
> Bodkin, Bodkin, you really kill me with your parade of posts defending post-Einstein physics. Your use of fallacies and
> sophistry (to hide and deceive) is difficult for anyone, without the drive to repeat things forever, to refute.
>
> I'll give a try with the most obvious deception that you wrote: "The fact that the older equations can still be used effectively
> is IRRELEVANT to that fact". It's clear that you INVENT assertions, as you really bought the shit that you are the Supreme Thinker.
>
> You CAN'T come with such idiocy without any substantiation. "Older equations" are not older, ignorant, they are THE ONLY ONES
> used in this XXI century, expanded to solve even the most complex aspect of "near EM fields" just close to the antennae.
>
> Hertz's dipoles ARE THE HEART of mobile networks, WiFi, Bluetooth, GPS receivers, etc. That it evolved to FRACTAL dipoles has
> to be more with the danger of whip antennae close to your ear than the gain in bandwidth, but still a fucking broadband dipole.
> Maxwell's equations were, are and will be the HEART of RF Engineering (and this field is HUGE). It only takes to cite the existence,
> within the UN, a standard body ITU-R (formerly CCIR), EXCLUSIVELY DEVOTED to set standards around RF communications for
> the ENTIRE WORLD! And it rules EVERYTHING, from terrestrial to satellite communications. And in the more than 2,000 standards,
> there is not A FUCKING TERM QED (not only once).
>
> Transmitters, receivers, antennae, propagation of EM waves on Earth, space and using WAVEGUIDES are the norm.
>
> Try, if you are suicidal, to go to a meeting of RF Engineers and try to start with "because photons and QED", and they will BEAT THE
> CRAP OUT OF YOU. Not because they took offense, but because they'll think that you ARE A FUCKING RETARDED who doesn't
> deserve less than a severe beat (in the head better, so your shitty thoughts are crushed).
>
> Try to talk about photons or QED in smartphones operations within Motorola, Apple, Samsung, etc. Good luck with that.
>
> Your fucking QED died with Feynman.
>
> One more thing. Buy 500+ more books, so you can EDUCATE YOURSELF BETTER. But bought ONLY those written before 1960.
> Stinky relativists deformed everything in the last 60 years. You'll find the role of RESEARCH ENGINEERS!
>
> Who the fuck do you believe that developed the mathematical background upon which field engineers work? Dirac? Fermi? Einstein?
>
> Don't show your blatant ignorance with such despise for others. It hurts. I probably will ignore your posts since now.
>
> And about Newton enhancements, it took almost 40 years after his Principia for scientists to take it seriously, starting with Euler and F=ma
>
> The concept of ENERGY took 100 years to MATURE, and it wasn't until HEAT was included that the scenario was complete by 1820.
>
> For the single man that INVENTED the theory AND THE MATH that changed the world, it's enough as a SUPREME ACHIEVEMENT in
> human history.
>
> And about Einstein, it was the result of an spermatozoa that took the wrong ovum to fertilize: GENETIC GARBAGE.
I shall have this post framed!