I have always thought that the very common term "length contraction" was
incorrect, and that it could lead to relativistic misunderstandings.
The student is taught that the lengths contract.
It would be better to be more specific, and say that "lengths and
distances are elastic". It's not quite the same thing anymore, because not
only lengths can expand depending on how you look at them, but also
distances. These things are difficult to get across. For example, I have
had all the trouble in the world, for decades, to make admit that if I
send a rocket towards a star placed at 12 light years, the rocket will
hardly have reached the enormous speed of 0.8c (240,000 km/s), the star to
be joined will be located 36 light years away (three times farther).
This is however what the Lorentz transformations say (and with perfect
reason) if we understand them and apply them well. But in a world that is
stupid to cry, it is to me that one advises to read pages dealing with the
principles of relativity. We think, by that, that it is I who am stupid
and that does not understand.
The illusion between scientific truth and public belief is then total.

R.H.

Richard Hachel wrote:

> I have always thought that the very common term "length contraction" was
> incorrect, and that it could lead to relativistic misunderstandings. The
> student is taught that the lengths contract.
> It would be better to be more specific, and say that "lengths and
> distances are elastic".

your understanding of relativity is buttfuck manure.

Le 03/01/2022 à 17:22, Scot Dino a écrit :
> Richard Hachel wrote:
>
>> I have always thought that the very common term "length contraction" was
>> incorrect, and that it could lead to relativistic misunderstandings. The
>> student is taught that the lengths contract.
>> It would be better to be more specific, and say that "lengths and
>> distances are elastic".
>
> your understanding of relativity is buttfuck manure.

T'es aussi con que ça, toi?

Ou alors t'es un pseudo de plus de Jean-Pierre Messager?

R.H.

Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> wrote:
> I have always thought that the very common term "length contraction" was
> incorrect, and that it could lead to relativistic misunderstandings.
> The student is taught that the lengths contract.
> It would be better to be more specific, and say that "lengths and
> distances are elastic".

Richard, the difficulty is not the label. The difficulty is that you are
trying to capture all the meaning in simple phrases like “elastic lengths
and distances” or “length contraction”. A real student does not try to read
all the information just through buzzwords, but instead READS surrounding
context to understand what the term “length contraction” means.

For example, you do not understand what most relativity students know, that
“length contraction” inherently depends on frame dependency of
simultaneity, because the operational definition of length requires
tracking time with separate clocks in two different locations. That is
wholly lost on you, though it is not for the student who READS.

> It's not quite the same thing anymore, because not
> only lengths can expand depending on how you look at them, but also
> distances. These things are difficult to get across. For example, I have
> had all the trouble in the world, for decades, to make admit that if I
> send a rocket towards a star placed at 12 light years, the rocket will
> hardly have reached the enormous speed of 0.8c (240,000 km/s), the star to
> be joined will be located 36 light years away (three times farther).
> This is however what the Lorentz transformations say (and with perfect
> reason) if we understand them and apply them well. But in a world that is
> stupid to cry, it is to me that one advises to read pages dealing with the
> principles of relativity. We think, by that, that it is I who am stupid
> and that does not understand.
> The illusion between scientific truth and public belief is then total.
>
>
> R.H.
>

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

Richard "Hachel" Lengrand wort:
> Le 03/01/2022 à 17:22, Scot Dino a écrit :
>> Richard Hachel wrote:
>>
>>> I have always thought that the very common term "length contraction" was
>>> incorrect, and that it could lead to relativistic misunderstandings. The
>>> student is taught that the lengths contract.
>>> It would be better to be more specific, and say that "lengths and
>>> distances are elastic".
>>
>> your understanding of relativity is buttfuck manure.
>
> T'es aussi con que ça, toi?
> Ou alors t'es un pseudo de plus ...

Idiot, I'm not using pseudos except that one.

You are, again, arguing with the "nym-shifting troll"... How come
you cranks down here are basically unable to recognize when a troll
makes fun of you? Even when it is every single week the same guy
just shifting his name...

On Monday, 3 January 2022 at 18:33:43 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Richard Hachel <r.ha...@tiscali.fr> wrote:
> > I have always thought that the very common term "length contraction" was
> > incorrect, and that it could lead to relativistic misunderstandings.
> > The student is taught that the lengths contract.
> > It would be better to be more specific, and say that "lengths and
> > distances are elastic".
> Richard, the difficulty is not the label. The difficulty is that you are
> trying to capture all the meaning in simple phrases like “elastic lengths
> and distances” or “length contraction”. A real student does not try to read
> all the information just through buzzwords, but instead READS surrounding
> context to understand what the term “length contraction” means.

Like poor idiot Bodkin did with the definition of "work".

Python wrote:
>>>> I have always thought that the very common term "length contraction"
>>>> was incorrect, and that it could lead to relativistic
>>>> misunderstandings. The student is taught that the lengths contract.
>>>> It would be better to be more specific, and say that "lengths and
>>>> distances are elastic".
>>>
>>> your understanding of relativity is buttfuck manure.
>>
>> T'es aussi con que ça, toi? Ou alors t'es un pseudo de plus ...
>
> Idiot, I'm not using pseudos except that one.
> You are, again, arguing with the "nym-shifting troll"... How come you
> cranks down here are basically unable to recognize when a troll makes
> fun of you? Even when it is every single week the same guy just shifting
> his name...

you frogs buttfuck manure are stupid in physics like hell. Unemployable.
No contracts with you. All goes to america. Fuck, the stupidest country
in the world. You frogs are gypsies.

Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, 3 January 2022 at 18:33:43 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Richard Hachel <r.ha...@tiscali.fr> wrote:
>>> I have always thought that the very common term "length contraction" was
>>> incorrect, and that it could lead to relativistic misunderstandings.
>>> The student is taught that the lengths contract.
>>> It would be better to be more specific, and say that "lengths and
>>> distances are elastic".
>> Richard, the difficulty is not the label. The difficulty is that you are
>> trying to capture all the meaning in simple phrases like “elastic lengths
>> and distances” or “length contraction”. A real student does not try to read
>> all the information just through buzzwords, but instead READS surrounding
>> context to understand what the term “length contraction” means.
>
> Like poor idiot Bodkin did with the definition of "work".
>

Well, I certainly did READ what physicists say “work” means in the context
of physics. I did not ignore them and look in a dictionary instead. This
made it easier to understand why if I carry a heavy box horizontally at the
same speed from one room to another, there is no mechanical work done.
That’s because I understand the meaning of work as physicists define that
word.

Now, some idiots might say, “But I don’t want to respect the physicists
definition of work, and so if they say there is zero mechanical work, it’s
just bullshit.” But that’s idiocy and refusal to communicate that some
people like Wozniak are perfectly happy to indulge.

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

TO: Odd Bodkin who wrote:

> For example, you do not understand what most relativity students know, that
> “length contraction” inherently depends on frame dependency of
> simultaneity, because the operational definition of length requires
> tracking time with separate clocks in two different locations.
> >
> --
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Nope, the definition of Length does not depend on "clocks or frames", you are making a new definition that allows you to have a variable length for a solid object, based on irrational claims. The length of a solid ruler that is one meter long is always one meter long regardless of its velocity relative to me. Einsteins claims are pure fantasy and contain errors on rational thought, Logic and Math.
Everything you need to know about motion can be most easily calculated from the ONE location. Adding a second observer PLUS several quack claims about how to synchronise their clocks, is only useful if you want to deceive people. There is no such thing in reality as shrinking distances or TIme, or growing Mass just because someone is watching you move really fast. That's just irrational nonsense. I cant help it if you don't have the brain power to figure this out, and cant understand straight forward Physics. You prefer pseudo science or Einstein to reality.

On Monday, 3 January 2022 at 21:56:46 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Monday, 3 January 2022 at 18:33:43 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Richard Hachel <r.ha...@tiscali.fr> wrote:
> >>> I have always thought that the very common term "length contraction" was
> >>> incorrect, and that it could lead to relativistic misunderstandings.
> >>> The student is taught that the lengths contract.
> >>> It would be better to be more specific, and say that "lengths and
> >>> distances are elastic".
> >> Richard, the difficulty is not the label. The difficulty is that you are
> >> trying to capture all the meaning in simple phrases like “elastic lengths
> >> and distances” or “length contraction”. A real student does not try to read
> >> all the information just through buzzwords, but instead READS surrounding
> >> context to understand what the term “length contraction” means.
> >
> > Like poor idiot Bodkin did with the definition of "work".
> >
> Well, I certainly did READ what physicists say “work” means in the context
> of physics.

Well, they're certainly a bunch of mumbling morons, like you.
But it's still a lie. Asked for a definition you've chosen
a standard dictionary one. And asked what is the function
required by this definition and what is the plan/design also
required - you simply run away. For sure you realize Ken S
would do exactly the same?

everything isalllies <itsalllieseverything@gmail.com> wrote:
> TO: Odd Bodkin who wrote:
>
>> For example, you do not understand what most relativity students know, that
>> “length contraction” inherently depends on frame dependency of
>> simultaneity, because the operational definition of length requires
>> tracking time with separate clocks in two different locations.
>>>
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>
>
> Nope, the definition of Length does not depend on "clocks or frames", you
> are making a new definition that allows you to have a variable length for
> a solid object, based on irrational claims. The length of a solid ruler
> that is one meter long is always one meter long regardless of its
> velocity relative to me. Einsteins claims are pure fantasy and contain
> errors on rational thought, Logic and Math.

Well.

It’s fascinating to me when someone new here (at least new to me and I’ve
been here 8 years or so), comes in an pronounces that something
demonstrated in real life cannot possibly be correct because it conflicts
with “Logic” (capital L) or “Math” (capital M) or “rational thought”.

I think you might be confused about what logic actually is, or what math
is, or what rational thought actually means. I fully understand that this
does not jive with your ideas of how the world works. That doesn’t make it
irrational. It just means that you have some expectations about how the
world works that might or might not be true. What is also likely true is
that you CHOOSE not to believe something is true unless you already believe
it to be true. That just means that you cannot learn anything new and are
calcified between the ears.

> Everything you need to know about motion can be most easily calculated
> from the ONE location. Adding a second observer PLUS several quack claims
> about how to synchronise their clocks, is only useful if you want to
> deceive people. There is no such thing in reality as shrinking distances
> or TIme, or growing Mass just because someone is watching you move really
> fast. That's just irrational nonsense. I cant help it if you don't have
> the brain power to figure this out, and cant understand straight forward
> Physics. You prefer pseudo science or Einstein to reality.
>

While we’re at it, I’m curious about what your background is in
“straightforward Physics”. How did you learn physics?

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

Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, 3 January 2022 at 21:56:46 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Monday, 3 January 2022 at 18:33:43 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Richard Hachel <r.ha...@tiscali.fr> wrote:
>>>>> I have always thought that the very common term "length contraction" was
>>>>> incorrect, and that it could lead to relativistic misunderstandings.
>>>>> The student is taught that the lengths contract.
>>>>> It would be better to be more specific, and say that "lengths and
>>>>> distances are elastic".
>>>> Richard, the difficulty is not the label. The difficulty is that you are
>>>> trying to capture all the meaning in simple phrases like “elastic lengths
>>>> and distances” or “length contraction”. A real student does not try to read
>>>> all the information just through buzzwords, but instead READS surrounding
>>>> context to understand what the term “length contraction” means.
>>>
>>> Like poor idiot Bodkin did with the definition of "work".
>>>
>> Well, I certainly did READ what physicists say “work” means in the context
>> of physics.
>
> Well, they're certainly a bunch of mumbling morons, like you.
> But it's still a lie. Asked for a definition you've chosen
> a standard dictionary one. And asked what is the function
> required by this definition and what is the plan/design also
> required - you simply run away. For sure you realize Ken S
> would do exactly the same?
>
>

Woz, if you are telling me you don’t remember the physics definition of
work and are demanding that someone trot it out for you here, don’t you
feel a little stupid for not being able to cut your own meat?

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

On Tuesday, January 4, 2022 at 8:41:23 AM UTC+11, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:

> >
> While we’re at it, I’m curious about what your background is in
> “straightforward Physics”. How did you learn physics?
> --
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
I replied, but my reply has been removed.

Forget about evaluating my background, we are discussing the errors of Einstein, and I made some comments, but you have not replied with any counter.
Did you not understand what I said?
Nothing that Einstein claims has been actually demonstrated in real life as you suggest.
Not Time dilation, (experiments are not conclusive and have other explanations) not E=mc2, or even photoelectric being caused by tiny balls called Photons. As for curved spacetime, well that's really way out there in fantasy land of mere mathematicians. They should really check in with people who study Physics before they make silly claims based on math alone.

But I really am only wanting to discuss the glaring errors of Special Relativity.

On Monday, 3 January 2022 at 22:41:23 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> everything isalllies <itsalllies...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > TO: Odd Bodkin who wrote:
> >
> >> For example, you do not understand what most relativity students know, that
> >> “length contraction” inherently depends on frame dependency of
> >> simultaneity, because the operational definition of length requires
> >> tracking time with separate clocks in two different locations.
> >>>
> >> --
> >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >
> >
> > Nope, the definition of Length does not depend on "clocks or frames", you
> > are making a new definition that allows you to have a variable length for
> > a solid object, based on irrational claims. The length of a solid ruler
> > that is one meter long is always one meter long regardless of its
> > velocity relative to me. Einsteins claims are pure fantasy and contain
> > errors on rational thought, Logic and Math.
> Well.
>
> It’s fascinating to me when someone new here (at least new to me and I’ve
> been here 8 years or so), comes in an pronounces that something
> demonstrated in real life cannot possibly be correct because it conflicts
> with “Logic” (capital L) or “Math” (capital M) or “rational thought”.
>
> I think you might be confused about what logic actually is, or what math
> is, or what rational thought actually means. I fully understand that this
> does not jive with your ideas of how the world works. That doesn’t make it
> irrational. It just means that you have some expectations about how the
> world works that might or might not be true.

Unlike the ideas of poor idiot woodworker, which always
have to be true because of context.

On Monday, 3 January 2022 at 22:41:23 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Monday, 3 January 2022 at 21:56:46 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Monday, 3 January 2022 at 18:33:43 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> Richard Hachel <r.ha...@tiscali.fr> wrote:
> >>>>> I have always thought that the very common term "length contraction" was
> >>>>> incorrect, and that it could lead to relativistic misunderstandings..
> >>>>> The student is taught that the lengths contract.
> >>>>> It would be better to be more specific, and say that "lengths and
> >>>>> distances are elastic".
> >>>> Richard, the difficulty is not the label. The difficulty is that you are
> >>>> trying to capture all the meaning in simple phrases like “elastic lengths
> >>>> and distances” or “length contraction”. A real student does not try to read
> >>>> all the information just through buzzwords, but instead READS surrounding
> >>>> context to understand what the term “length contraction” means.
> >>>
> >>> Like poor idiot Bodkin did with the definition of "work".
> >>>
> >> Well, I certainly did READ what physicists say “work” means in the context
> >> of physics.
> >
> > Well, they're certainly a bunch of mumbling morons, like you.
> > But it's still a lie. Asked for a definition you've chosen
> > a standard dictionary one. And asked what is the function
> > required by this definition and what is the plan/design also
> > required - you simply run away. For sure you realize Ken S
> > would do exactly the same?
> >
> >
> Woz, if you are telling me you don’t remember the physics definition of
> work

Bod, poor stinker, you've pointed YOURSELF another definition.

everything isalllies <itsalllieseverything@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 4, 2022 at 8:41:23 AM UTC+11, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
>>>
>> While we’re at it, I’m curious about what your background is in
>> “straightforward Physics”. How did you learn physics?
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> I replied, but my reply has been removed.
>
> Forget about evaluating my background, we are discussing the errors of
> Einstein, and I made some comments, but you have not replied with any counter.
> Did you not understand what I said?
> Nothing that Einstein claims has been actually demonstrated in real life as you suggest.
> Not Time dilation, (experiments are not conclusive and have other
> explanations) not E=mc2, or even photoelectric being caused by tiny balls
> called Photons. As for curved spacetime, well that's really way out there
> in fantasy land of mere mathematicians. They should really check in with
> people who study Physics before they make silly claims based on math alone.
>
> But I really am only wanting to discuss the glaring errors of Special Relativity.
>

Well, I completely disagree that time dilation has not been actually
demonstrated in real life. Particles that have a known lifetime before
decaying at rest, do not decay at the same time when they are moving. Now
you can splutter that there are alternate explanations for why that
happens, but the reality is that HOW MUCH the decay time is lengthened is
completely in line with what relativity says it should be. There is no
alternative explanation that gets the HOW MUCH right. If you think you have
an alternative, go for it.

I also completely disagree that E=mc^2 has not been actually demonstrated
in real life. When a neutron decays into a proton, an electron, and a
neutrino, you can measure the speed and kinetic energies of all the
products. Because energy has been known to be conserved since the 1700s
(this is certainly not an Einstein thing), it had to come from someplace.
The MEASURED sum of the energy exactly matches the amount you get by
looking at the mass difference between the parent and children particles in
that reaction, multiplied by c^2. Again, it’s not just the qualitative
verification, but the QUANTITATIVE one that is compelling.

As for the existence of photons, you may be interested to know that you can
buy devices called single-photon counters. They perform exactly as
advertised, which is more than what you could say if you purchased a
single-unicorn counter or a single-alien-in-a-UFO counter.

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

On Tuesday, 4 January 2022 at 16:21:25 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> everything isalllies <itsalllies...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Tuesday, January 4, 2022 at 8:41:23 AM UTC+11, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >>>
> >> While we’re at it, I’m curious about what your background is in
> >> “straightforward Physics”. How did you learn physics?
> >> --
> >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> > I replied, but my reply has been removed.
> >
> > Forget about evaluating my background, we are discussing the errors of
> > Einstein, and I made some comments, but you have not replied with any counter.
> > Did you not understand what I said?
> > Nothing that Einstein claims has been actually demonstrated in real life as you suggest.
> > Not Time dilation, (experiments are not conclusive and have other
> > explanations) not E=mc2, or even photoelectric being caused by tiny balls
> > called Photons. As for curved spacetime, well that's really way out there
> > in fantasy land of mere mathematicians. They should really check in with
> > people who study Physics before they make silly claims based on math alone.
> >
> > But I really am only wanting to discuss the glaring errors of Special Relativity.
> >
> Well, I completely disagree that time dilation has not been actually
> demonstrated in real life.

Uninformed opinion doesn't matter, poor halfbrain

Bodkin wrote:
> Uninformed opinion doesn't matter, poor halfbrain

So your uninformed opinion beats my uninformed opinion? How so?
I see no application of that enormous brain that you claim to possess, compared to my half brain.
Where's the rational detailed arguments of your opinions?
I was expecting at least a half hearted rebuttal of my statements but not just this flipping off attitude based on nothing at all.

everything isalllies wrote:
> Bodkin wrote:
>> Uninformed opinion doesn't matter, poor halfbrain

You are not quoting Odd Bodkin but Maciej Wozniak.

> So your uninformed opinion beats my uninformed opinion? How so?
> I see no application of that enormous brain that you claim to possess, compared to my half brain.
> Where's the rational detailed arguments of your opinions?
> I was expecting at least a half hearted rebuttal of my statements but not just this flipping off attitude based on nothing at all.

Odd didn't call you a "poor halfbrain".

everything isalllies <itsalllieseverything@gmail.com> wrote:
> Bodkin wrote:
>> Uninformed opinion doesn't matter, poor halfbrain
>
> So your uninformed opinion beats my uninformed opinion? How so?

I didn’t say the above. Please learn to use your usenet reader properly.

I’m expressing the opinion of physicists. They are more informed than you.
You have not read physics textbooks, as far as I can tell. I’ve read 90 and
have 30 more in my library I’ll be getting to.

This isn’t about intelligence or how big your brain is. It’s about
EDUCATION on the subject. If you are talking about a subject you know
nothing about, how much intelligence you have is irrelevant. You’re still
operating from a position of ignorance. Ignorance is fixable, if you choose
to do it. Stupidity is not fixable. Right now, you’re aiming for both.

> I see no application of that enormous brain that you claim to possess,
> compared to my half brain.
> Where's the rational detailed arguments of your opinions?
> I was expecting at least a half hearted rebuttal of my statements but not
> just this flipping off attitude based on nothing at all.
>

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

Bodkin wrote:
> Well, I completely disagree that time dilation has not been actually
> demonstrated in real life. Particles that have a known lifetime before
> decaying at rest, do not decay at the same time when they are moving. Now
> you can splutter that there are alternate explanations for why that
> happens, but the reality is that HOW MUCH the decay time is lengthened is
> completely in line with what relativity says it should be. There is no
> alternative explanation that gets the HOW MUCH right. If you think you have
> an alternative, go for it.

These claims are based on dubious results from "particle accelerators" which themselves have been questioned as to whats actually being observed in the first place. Something is going on, but its all about the interpretation that matters. And all interpretation is a subjective thing. The whole notion that its "Particles all the way down" that Atoms are made of smaller particles, which are in turn made of even smaller particles is pure conjecture, speculation by believers of a certain model. Its not even possible to demonstrate the actual existence of a simple Electron, let alone a Quark. All you get in the end is the assumption that your observation indicates that you have seen the effects of an electron. Not actually isolated and measured an Electron. Measurements you make all rely on prior assumptions and their math equations based on even more assumptions, and some claimed universal constants such as Planck length, ( a mathematically calculated constant, not a measured constant) Cavendish's improbable Gravitation Constant measure, and more.
You "getting it right" statement only means that they have set up their house of cards so that each card leans on the previous one and some other neighbour. But the whole structure can be flawed yet still seem ok because they process of checking the next card, relies on comparing to the cards you already believe in. But there is no way to step outside this construct, and take a critical look from any other standpoint. You MUST stay inside your house of cards for the next card to make sense.
>
> I also completely disagree that E=mc^2 has not been actually demonstrated
> in real life. When a neutron decays into a proton, an electron, and a
> neutrino, you can measure the speed and kinetic energies of all the
> products. Because energy has been known to be conserved since the 1700s
> (this is certainly not an Einstein thing), it had to come from someplace.
> The MEASURED sum of the energy exactly matches the amount you get by
> looking at the mass difference between the parent and children particles in
> that reaction, multiplied by c^2. Again, it’s not just the qualitative
> verification, but the QUANTITATIVE one that is compelling.

More "house of cards" results here. Based on prior assumptions.
You are talking about IMAGINED particles, as none have actually been observed directly, they are ALL the results of mathematical calculation. And that requires an equation, and equations are not necessarily formulated to mimic reality. You claim that a molecule is made from Atoms, and atoms made of protons, etc, that their energies all add up to their Mass times the speed of light squared..... and most suggest that its been demonstrated in Atomic decay process, the Atom Bomb example where the tiny Mass releases enormous energy....
but I say if you are correct that Energy is Mass times light speed squared, then there is no difference between the Energy in One Kilogram of enriched Plutonium, and the Energy in one kilo Mas of Duck Feathers.
Am I correct? Einsteins equation does not state that we only get to use Enriched Plutonium, the equation only stipulates MASS. So according to Einstein, one kilo of duck feathers in a bomb will give exactly the same results as one kilo of plutonium. Right? Whats that? the feathers do have the same energy potential, but we cant get it out? Surely we should be trying, as it would be great and cheaper to run power plants on duck feathers or common MUD or dog shit, rather than expensive and rare Uranium .....

>
> As for the existence of photons, you may be interested to know that you can
> buy devices called single-photon counters. They perform exactly as
> advertised, which is more than what you could say if you purchased a
> single-unicorn counter or a single-alien-in-a-UFO counter.

What makes you believe that they are counting PARTICLES?
You really think that a light sensitive chemical surface made from MOLECULES of various light sensitive substances, (thus being enormous compared to the claimed size of a photon- comparable to a single drop of water in the entire ocean...) is going to be able to react to a single photon, like a single drop of red die would turn the whole ocean red? Nope, why not consider that you never fired any "particle photon" in the first place, instead you fired a succession of short pulses of light energy, and gradually one of those globs of molecular light sensitive material reacted, a bit before its neighbour. In photography its common knowledge that each grain of the film has a different response rate, so some are exposed before the others. You observe one grain react, and claim its due to a single Photon striking it. This is irrational when you consider the claimed Photon size, compared to the size of the exposed spot.
So in the "Photon multiplier" you are probable not observing anything particle like, but observing the gradual accumulation of energy from wave pulses.. The fact that the Photomultiplier is powered by external energy is also not good. The value of this equipment is in comparison, not definitive.
> --
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On Wednesday, January 5, 2022 at 8:56:55 AM UTC+11, Python wrote:
> everything isalllies wrote:
> > Bodkin wrote:
> >> Uninformed opinion doesn't matter, poor halfbrain
> You are not quoting Odd Bodkin but Maciej Wozniak.
> > So your uninformed opinion beats my uninformed opinion? How so?
> > I see no application of that enormous brain that you claim to possess, compared to my half brain.
> > Where's the rational detailed arguments of your opinions?
> > I was expecting at least a half hearted rebuttal of my statements but not just this flipping off attitude based on nothing at all.
> Odd didn't call you a "poor halfbrain".
No telling who said what, I still cant "Reply to Author" so its hard keeping track of whats what, stupid google.
Anyway, none of you are responding with decent arguments, all are sidetracking the issues.

everything isalllies <itsalllieseverything@gmail.com> wrote:
> Bodkin wrote:
>> Well, I completely disagree that time dilation has not been actually
>> demonstrated in real life. Particles that have a known lifetime before
>> decaying at rest, do not decay at the same time when they are moving. Now
>> you can splutter that there are alternate explanations for why that
>> happens, but the reality is that HOW MUCH the decay time is lengthened is
>> completely in line with what relativity says it should be. There is no
>> alternative explanation that gets the HOW MUCH right. If you think you have
>> an alternative, go for it.
>
> These claims are based on dubious results from "particle accelerators"
> which themselves have been questioned as to whats actually being observed
> in the first place. Something is going on, but its all about the
> interpretation that matters.

Sorry but that’s all just bullshit. There’s not ambiguity among physicists
about what the measurements mean. Your response is, “Yeah, well, *I* don’t
believe the results say what they claim to say,” and my answer to that is,
“Who cares whether you believe them or not?”

The scientific method is based on verification of scientific ideas by
experimental measurement. If you’re going to be one of the people that just
feels that experimental measurement means nothing because it’s all just
tainted by interpretation, then you’ve just pointed out that you’re
basically anti-science. You don’t believe the scientific method works. You
don’t trust the method to produce good results.

OK, then, you don’t like science or how it’s done. Then why are you
spending time on a science newsgroup?

If all you’re going to do is say that your compass about what’s true is
based on your internal intuition and that’s it, then there’s really nothing
more to converse about.

> And all interpretation is a subjective thing. The whole notion that its
> "Particles all the way down" that Atoms are made of smaller particles,
> which are in turn made of even smaller particles is pure conjecture,
> speculation by believers of a certain model. Its not even possible to
> demonstrate the actual existence of a simple Electron, let alone a Quark.
> All you get in the end is the assumption that your observation indicates
> that you have seen the effects of an electron. Not actually isolated and
> measured an Electron. Measurements you make all rely on prior
> assumptions and their math equations based on even more assumptions, and
> some claimed universal constants such as Planck length, ( a
> mathematically calculated constant, not a measured constant) Cavendish's
> improbable Gravitation Constant measure, and more.
> You "getting it right" statement only means that they have set up their
> house of cards so that each card leans on the previous one and some other
> neighbour. But the whole structure can be flawed yet still seem ok
> because they process of checking the next card, relies on comparing to
> the cards you already believe in. But there is no way to step outside
> this construct, and take a critical look from any other standpoint. You
> MUST stay inside your house of cards for the next card to make sense.
>
>>
>> I also completely disagree that E=mc^2 has not been actually demonstrated
>> in real life. When a neutron decays into a proton, an electron, and a
>> neutrino, you can measure the speed and kinetic energies of all the
>> products. Because energy has been known to be conserved since the 1700s
>> (this is certainly not an Einstein thing), it had to come from someplace.
>> The MEASURED sum of the energy exactly matches the amount you get by
>> looking at the mass difference between the parent and children particles in
>> that reaction, multiplied by c^2. Again, it’s not just the qualitative
>> verification, but the QUANTITATIVE one that is compelling.
>
> More "house of cards" results here. Based on prior assumptions.
> You are talking about IMAGINED particles, as none have actually been
> observed directly, they are ALL the results of mathematical calculation.
> And that requires an equation, and equations are not necessarily
> formulated to mimic reality. You claim that a molecule is made from
> Atoms, and atoms made of protons, etc, that their energies all add up to
> their Mass times the speed of light squared..... and most suggest that
> its been demonstrated in Atomic decay process, the Atom Bomb example
> where the tiny Mass releases enormous energy....
> but I say if you are correct that Energy is Mass times light speed
> squared, then there is no difference between the Energy in One Kilogram
> of enriched Plutonium, and the Energy in one kilo Mas of Duck Feathers.
> Am I correct? Einsteins equation does not state that we only get to use
> Enriched Plutonium, the equation only stipulates MASS. So according to
> Einstein, one kilo of duck feathers in a bomb will give exactly the same
> results as one kilo of plutonium. Right? Whats that? the feathers do
> have the same energy potential, but we cant get it out? Surely we should
> be trying, as it would be great and cheaper to run power plants on duck
> feathers or common MUD or dog shit, rather than expensive and rare Uranium .....
>
>>
>> As for the existence of photons, you may be interested to know that you can
>> buy devices called single-photon counters. They perform exactly as
>> advertised, which is more than what you could say if you purchased a
>> single-unicorn counter or a single-alien-in-a-UFO counter.
>
> What makes you believe that they are counting PARTICLES?
> You really think that a light sensitive chemical surface made from
> MOLECULES of various light sensitive substances, (thus being enormous
> compared to the claimed size of a photon- comparable to a single drop of
> water in the entire ocean...) is going to be able to react to a single
> photon, like a single drop of red die would turn the whole ocean red?
> Nope, why not consider that you never fired any "particle photon" in the
> first place, instead you fired a succession of short pulses of light
> energy, and gradually one of those globs of molecular light sensitive
> material reacted, a bit before its neighbour. In photography its common
> knowledge that each grain of the film has a different response rate, so
> some are exposed before the others. You observe one grain react, and
> claim its due to a single Photon striking it. This is irrational when you
> consider the claimed Photon size, compared to the size of the exposed spot.
> So in the "Photon multiplier" you are probable not observing anything
> particle like, but observing the gradual accumulation of energy from wave
> pulses. The fact that the Photomultiplier is powered by external energy
> is also not good. The value of this equipment is in comparison, not definitive.
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>

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

everything isalllies <itsalllieseverything@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 5, 2022 at 8:56:55 AM UTC+11, Python wrote:
>> everything isalllies wrote:
>>> Bodkin wrote:
>>>> Uninformed opinion doesn't matter, poor halfbrain
>> You are not quoting Odd Bodkin but Maciej Wozniak.
>>> So your uninformed opinion beats my uninformed opinion? How so?
>>> I see no application of that enormous brain that you claim to possess,
>>> compared to my half brain.
>>> Where's the rational detailed arguments of your opinions?
>>> I was expecting at least a half hearted rebuttal of my statements but
>>> not just this flipping off attitude based on nothing at all.
>> Odd didn't call you a "poor halfbrain".
> No telling who said what, I still cant "Reply to Author" so its hard
> keeping track of whats what, stupid google.
> Anyway, none of you are responding with decent arguments, all are sidetracking the issues.
>

It appears that you do not come here with knowledge of physics. You come
here with intent to have a debate, for the sake of debating, and are pissed
off when people don’t rise to your dare.

Piss off.

Take it to alt.arguing.forthehellofit.

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

everything isalllies wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 5, 2022 at 8:56:55 AM UTC+11, Python wrote:
>> everything isalllies wrote:
>>> Bodkin wrote:
>>>> Uninformed opinion doesn't matter, poor halfbrain
>> You are not quoting Odd Bodkin but Maciej Wozniak.
>>> So your uninformed opinion beats my uninformed opinion? How so?
>>> I see no application of that enormous brain that you claim to possess, compared to my half brain.
>>> Where's the rational detailed arguments of your opinions?
>>> I was expecting at least a half hearted rebuttal of my statements but not just this flipping off attitude based on nothing at all.
>> Odd didn't call you a "poor halfbrain".
> No telling who said what, I still cant "Reply to Author" so its hard keeping track of whats what, stupid google.
> Anyway, none of you are responding with decent arguments, all are sidetracking the issues.

You misquote someone, this is big stuff, especially you acted as if
Odd insulted you. He didn't. This is NOT sidetracking.

You should consider that you are too dumb to properly use a computer
if you cannot understand how quoting is working here.

And concerning "Reply to Author", it's a good thing that you cannot do
that, it would send an e-mail (NOT a Usenet message) to the author
(well, almost nobody provide a valid e-mail in Usenet message these
days anyway). Coming from you it would be a spam.

You clearly don't know what is this place. This is not really "Google
Groups", it is Usenet. Google Group just provide a interface to it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usenet

You are also completely illiterate in physics by the way.