On Sunday, 16 January 2022 at 22:54:20 UTC+1, Python wrote:
> Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > On Sunday, 16 January 2022 at 22:34:08 UTC+1, Python wrote:
> >> Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >>> On Sunday, 16 January 2022 at 21:22:09 UTC+1, Python wrote:
> >>>> Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >>>> ...
> >>>>> Being a mumbling moron is no tactic.
> >>>> If it "is no tactic", why are acting like one? Maybe because
> >>>> you ARE one, Maciej.
> >>>
> >>> In the meantime in the real world, however, forbidden
> >>> by your moronic religion TAI keep measuring t'=t, just
> >>> like all serious clocks always did.
> >> You've just done it again.
> >
> > And I will do it many, many times more
> No doubt about that. Fortunately soon you'll die and all
> the nonsense you've been posting will only be of some
> interest for historians looking for information on fools
> and cranks.

Possibly; and forbidden by your Shit TAI will keep
measuring t'=t - definitely, poor stinker.

On Sunday, 16 January 2022 at 23:09:13 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Python <pyt...@example.invalid> wrote:
> > Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >> On Sunday, 16 January 2022 at 22:34:08 UTC+1, Python wrote:
> >>> Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >>>> On Sunday, 16 January 2022 at 21:22:09 UTC+1, Python wrote:
> >>>>> Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >>>>> ...
> >>>>>> Being a mumbling moron is no tactic.
> >>>>> If it "is no tactic", why are acting like one? Maybe because
> >>>>> you ARE one, Maciej.
> >>>>
> >>>> In the meantime in the real world, however, forbidden
> >>>> by your moronic religion TAI keep measuring t'=t, just
> >>>> like all serious clocks always did.
> >>> You've just done it again.
> >>
> >> And I will do it many, many times more
> >
> > No doubt about that. Fortunately soon you'll die and all
> > the nonsense you've been posting will only be of some
> > interest for historians looking for information on fools
> > and cranks.
> >
> That won’t happen either.
>
> There have been many cranks on this group over the years, and most are gone
> or dead. Who has looked up these people and what they had to say? Anyone?
> Was it worth them saying it then?

And in the meantime in the real world, poor halfbrain,
forbidden by your moronic Shit TAI keep measuring
t'=t, just like all serious clocks always did.

On Sunday, January 16, 2022 at 11:25:54 AM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Sunday, January 16, 2022 at 3:40:25 PM UTC-3, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> > On Thursday, January 13, 2022 at 8:42:51 AM UTC-8, Python wrote:
> > > I wonder if you realize: you, who consider yourself as "one of the best
> > > logicians Humanity ever had", are exposing how dumb as a rock, not
> > > bolted down too tight, neither the sharpest knife in the drawer, you
> > > are, etc. in your daily shitstorm of posts inhere.
> > >
> > > Just think about people reading Usenet archives in a dozen years or
> > > so...
> > >
> > > What is the purpose of all of this?
> > I think that all he knows is that the giant space rock he is piloting,
> > for whatever reason has always been according to what results in
> > the model whatever absolute term, what otherwise is entirely supported
> > in the theory by the relativistic calculation, of course what also would
> > be dynamical, here as with respect to space-time being current.
> >
> > I.e., I imagine this attitude as from each day "for whatever reason,
> > all I can explain this is all built from one theory, I need a redundant
> > theory that for whatever reason, explains how to keep the giant space
> > rock, piloted."
> >
> > Then, some mental pathology or personal reason has made it to be
> > where the simplest way to relay this generally, is to result that he
> > had offered himself even as wrong, that it's steadfast the rejection
> > or denial, because it's so inherent in the actual concern, that _at
> > least one thing is wrong with it_, it is the rhetorical, that he can simply
> > maintain "because of this 'belief' if unstated that more or less I believe
> > in a Newtonian space-time, that others have also as an Einsteinian
> > space-time, the extent of the theory on the geodesy must reconcile
> > with my static concerns, if it is to be a Newtonian and Einsteinian
> > space-time together", then though without having a solution then it's
> > pointing to that it's the status quo, then hating on the status quo,
> > is as where the hating is in a sense, "purely rhetorical outrage",
> > though that is the critical theory is reduced to irrelevance because
> > that makes it "the cause of opinion" or "theory of opinion",
> > then he is reduced to his authority at mission control, which we
> > don't know, that all there is time for each day is "damn".
> >
> > Which for me as having Newtonian and Einsteinian space-time together,
> > as a result to say "for the theory everything at mission control is fine
> > and for that matter it even results there's a theory now that from
> > the status quo at least we'll have a theory that was can use to
> > explain these mission control programs from the 1970's", still
> > then is for "great now make it status quo so when a crew shows
> > up they actually have a clue because otherwise neither of us might
> > push the button".
> >
> > So, I approach ignoring it as an exercise in underestimation.
> >
> > I.e., in usual cases where people put down guy in rejection,
> > when they are wrong, I can add that, then, mostly fully
> > depend that guy on the thus gaining side, who is usually losing,
> > will stay on that side.
> >
> > That though is the difference between a crank and the
> > guy who can only explain by consistent rejection.
> >
> > I.e. it's kinds of polite to consider he might be a deaf-mute.
> >
> > Then, as a tool in rhetoric, it's as simple as dissent,
> > that a lack of dissent doesn't always reflect a consensus.
> >
> > It's though boring or not effective plain dissent or consistent rejection,
> > that a consensus itself isn't not plural.
> >
> > Instead is for putting space-time together with a potential theory,
> > helping to illustrate freedom in boost, kinetics will keep us together.
> Bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, ........
>
> I've followed some of your posts for a while but I never WANTED to meddle with you, Ross.
>
> And the mean reason for me is that you shield your thoughts with a thick wall of words, which is, somehow,
> your automatized tactic to hide behind too extensive mental drift. It may be that you have mental itches, so
> you have to scratch your brain until you deplete it of ideas OR that you are just a charlatan.
>
> I knew for long that there are two ways to hide any truth:
>
> 1. Talk too much about it, and multiply any simple explanation into several threads of thought, trying to be coherent.
> 2. Say too little about the issue, and avoid expanding any point with further explanations.
>
> Both are common practices in any activity by persons with some degree of intellectual coherence.
>
> But you, a number 1 type, carry things to an extreme that indicates a severe mental pathology.
>
> It's not that your mind is itching, so you need to scratch it by writing massive posts. It's that you are scratching your BRAIN, physically,
> until exhaustion. To the eyes of some, you seem to be a tortured techno-intellectual guy.
>
> But for others, like me, you are just a narcissist who think that fool people with your verbose posts.
>
> At any case, I want you to know that your posts DISTILL NOTHINGNESS.
>
> So, stop pretending or, if you are not, just double the dosage of your red pills.
>
> Also, you could enter in a contest with Bodkin, who use similar tactics, even when more aggressive and with more ramifications.
>
> Stop trying to sell the relativity shit, disguised as if you was Freud+Kant+Popper+Einstein reincarnated.

Yeah, I make sure to always empty my head.

No, I am though separating Freud, and, Kant, Popper,and Einstein, that, no, mostly,
I only talk at Einstein about cosmological constant, that, seeing Freud as a psychiatrist,
has that I have a copy here of Jung not Freud.

Not that there's anything wrong with that....

It's not so much I'm seling as I already bought it.

I.e. you might imagine I'm free in my opinion.

Then for not disagreeing with you, is for relativity its parts.

No, excuse, me, please, I wouldn't want you to get that opinion about
"priority and Kant, Popper, and Einstein", instead if you would and
"priority, and Cantor, Goedel".

As much as you care to frame into the Lagrangian, I'd be happy
to hear about it, point saying is that I'll agree with the Lagrangian.

I.e. that's where I would leave off.

On Sunday, January 16, 2022 at 1:54:20 PM UTC-8, Python wrote:
> Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > On Sunday, 16 January 2022 at 22:34:08 UTC+1, Python wrote:
> >> Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >>> On Sunday, 16 January 2022 at 21:22:09 UTC+1, Python wrote:
> >>>> Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >>>> ...
> >>>>> Being a mumbling moron is no tactic.
> >>>> If it "is no tactic", why are acting like one? Maybe because
> >>>> you ARE one, Maciej.
> >>>
> >>> In the meantime in the real world, however, forbidden
> >>> by your moronic religion TAI keep measuring t'=t, just
> >>> like all serious clocks always did.
> >> You've just done it again.
> >
> > And I will do it many, many times more
> No doubt about that. Fortunately soon you'll die and all
> the nonsense you've been posting will only be of some
> interest for historians looking for information on fools
> and cranks.

One thing I don't get about cranks is that they always try to fight
the status quo, but never try to repair and join together the contra quo,

I.e. shouldn't skeptics have some crank saint -
yeah and now I expect everyone to say I was right all along.

As to how I "win arguments, in physics, mathematics, ...,
on sci.physics, sci.math, ..." is a matter of opinion.

When trying to make an advance in science it's still necessary
to lionize the backward and wrong standing up as it,
surely I can expect to look as if hiding behind the shoulders of others.

I think you can tell me though that we can sweep the table off
and what's left is what I wrote there.

I.e. trying to make an agreeable "advance" in science is an apologetics.

It's an "apologetics", it has to explain all science.

Thanks, for whatever reason now that I am right in 2022, in science,
and mathematics, generally, even if it wasn't clear how not wrong
the same thing I was saying was, in, 1997, thusly, results 25 years
of 'I told you so'.

Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Sunday, 16 January 2022 at 22:54:20 UTC+1, Python wrote:
>> Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>> On Sunday, 16 January 2022 at 22:34:08 UTC+1, Python wrote:
>>>> Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>>>> On Sunday, 16 January 2022 at 21:22:09 UTC+1, Python wrote:
>>>>>> Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>> Being a mumbling moron is no tactic.
>>>>>> If it "is no tactic", why are acting like one? Maybe because
>>>>>> you ARE one, Maciej.
>>>>>
>>>>> In the meantime in the real world, however, forbidden
>>>>> by your moronic religion TAI keep measuring t'=t, just
>>>>> like all serious clocks always did.
>>>> You've just done it again.
>>>
>>> And I will do it many, many times more
>> No doubt about that. Fortunately soon you'll die and all
>> the nonsense you've been posting will only be of some
>> interest for historians looking for information on fools
>> and cranks.
>
> Possibly;

Certainly. People interesting in mental illness in Eastern
Europe at the beginning of XXIth century could then check
how many times you've posted lies like this, below:

> and forbidden by your Shit TAI will keep
> measuring t'=t - definitely, [snip profanity]

Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> On Sunday, January 16, 2022 at 1:54:20 PM UTC-8, Python wrote:
>> Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>> On Sunday, 16 January 2022 at 22:34:08 UTC+1, Python wrote:
>>>> Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>>>> On Sunday, 16 January 2022 at 21:22:09 UTC+1, Python wrote:
>>>>>> Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>> Being a mumbling moron is no tactic.
>>>>>> If it "is no tactic", why are acting like one? Maybe because
>>>>>> you ARE one, Maciej.
>>>>>
>>>>> In the meantime in the real world, however, forbidden
>>>>> by your moronic religion TAI keep measuring t'=t, just
>>>>> like all serious clocks always did.
>>>> You've just done it again.
>>>
>>> And I will do it many, many times more
>> No doubt about that. Fortunately soon you'll die and all
>> the nonsense you've been posting will only be of some
>> interest for historians looking for information on fools
>> and cranks.
>
>
> One thing I don't get about cranks is that they always try to fight
> the status quo, but never try to repair and join together the contra quo,
>
> I.e. shouldn't skeptics have some crank saint -
> yeah and now I expect everyone to say I was right all along.
>
> As to how I "win arguments, in physics, mathematics, ...,
> on sci.physics, sci.math, ..." is a matter of opinion.
>
>
> When trying to make an advance in science it's still necessary
> to lionize the backward and wrong standing up as it,
> surely I can expect to look as if hiding behind the shoulders of others.
>
> I think you can tell me though that we can sweep the table off
> and what's left is what I wrote there.
>
> I.e. trying to make an agreeable "advance" in science is an apologetics.
>
> It's an "apologetics", it has to explain all science.
>
> Thanks, for whatever reason now that I am right in 2022, in science,
> and mathematics, generally, even if it wasn't clear how not wrong
> the same thing I was saying was, in, 1997, thusly, results 25 years
> of 'I told you so'.
>

Ross, did you even try to make sense ONCE?

On Sunday, January 16, 2022 at 3:26:42 PM UTC-8, Python wrote:
> Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> > On Sunday, January 16, 2022 at 1:54:20 PM UTC-8, Python wrote:
> >> Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >>> On Sunday, 16 January 2022 at 22:34:08 UTC+1, Python wrote:
> >>>> Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >>>>> On Sunday, 16 January 2022 at 21:22:09 UTC+1, Python wrote:
> >>>>>> Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >>>>>> ...
> >>>>>>> Being a mumbling moron is no tactic.
> >>>>>> If it "is no tactic", why are acting like one? Maybe because
> >>>>>> you ARE one, Maciej.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> In the meantime in the real world, however, forbidden
> >>>>> by your moronic religion TAI keep measuring t'=t, just
> >>>>> like all serious clocks always did.
> >>>> You've just done it again.
> >>>
> >>> And I will do it many, many times more
> >> No doubt about that. Fortunately soon you'll die and all
> >> the nonsense you've been posting will only be of some
> >> interest for historians looking for information on fools
> >> and cranks.
> >
> >
> > One thing I don't get about cranks is that they always try to fight
> > the status quo, but never try to repair and join together the contra quo,
> >
> > I.e. shouldn't skeptics have some crank saint -
> > yeah and now I expect everyone to say I was right all along.
> >
> > As to how I "win arguments, in physics, mathematics, ...,
> > on sci.physics, sci.math, ..." is a matter of opinion.
> >
> >
> > When trying to make an advance in science it's still necessary
> > to lionize the backward and wrong standing up as it,
> > surely I can expect to look as if hiding behind the shoulders of others.
> >
> > I think you can tell me though that we can sweep the table off
> > and what's left is what I wrote there.
> >
> > I.e. trying to make an agreeable "advance" in science is an apologetics.
> >
> > It's an "apologetics", it has to explain all science.
> >
> > Thanks, for whatever reason now that I am right in 2022, in science,
> > and mathematics, generally, even if it wasn't clear how not wrong
> > the same thing I was saying was, in, 1997, thusly, results 25 years
> > of 'I told you so'.
> >
> Ross, did you even try to make sense ONCE?

Is infinity a thing?

On Sunday, January 16, 2022 at 3:29:49 PM UTC-8, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> On Sunday, January 16, 2022 at 3:26:42 PM UTC-8, Python wrote:
> > Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> > > On Sunday, January 16, 2022 at 1:54:20 PM UTC-8, Python wrote:
> > >> Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > >>> On Sunday, 16 January 2022 at 22:34:08 UTC+1, Python wrote:
> > >>>> Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > >>>>> On Sunday, 16 January 2022 at 21:22:09 UTC+1, Python wrote:
> > >>>>>> Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > >>>>>> ...
> > >>>>>>> Being a mumbling moron is no tactic.
> > >>>>>> If it "is no tactic", why are acting like one? Maybe because
> > >>>>>> you ARE one, Maciej.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> In the meantime in the real world, however, forbidden
> > >>>>> by your moronic religion TAI keep measuring t'=t, just
> > >>>>> like all serious clocks always did.
> > >>>> You've just done it again.
> > >>>
> > >>> And I will do it many, many times more
> > >> No doubt about that. Fortunately soon you'll die and all
> > >> the nonsense you've been posting will only be of some
> > >> interest for historians looking for information on fools
> > >> and cranks.
> > >
> > >
> > > One thing I don't get about cranks is that they always try to fight
> > > the status quo, but never try to repair and join together the contra quo,
> > >
> > > I.e. shouldn't skeptics have some crank saint -
> > > yeah and now I expect everyone to say I was right all along.
> > >
> > > As to how I "win arguments, in physics, mathematics, ...,
> > > on sci.physics, sci.math, ..." is a matter of opinion.
> > >
> > >
> > > When trying to make an advance in science it's still necessary
> > > to lionize the backward and wrong standing up as it,
> > > surely I can expect to look as if hiding behind the shoulders of others.
> > >
> > > I think you can tell me though that we can sweep the table off
> > > and what's left is what I wrote there.
> > >
> > > I.e. trying to make an agreeable "advance" in science is an apologetics.
> > >
> > > It's an "apologetics", it has to explain all science.
> > >
> > > Thanks, for whatever reason now that I am right in 2022, in science,
> > > and mathematics, generally, even if it wasn't clear how not wrong
> > > the same thing I was saying was, in, 1997, thusly, results 25 years
> > > of 'I told you so'.
> > >
> > Ross, did you even try to make sense ONCE?
> Is infinity a thing?

How about, after Einstein, there's Fritz London. It's figured out how
for the operator region, that the potential theory of Fritz London in
superconductors and the mathematics, has what results for Einstein
and what is for the Fitzgerald, makes for an all-potential field theory,
or true potential field theory, that is basically organized with respect
to the next lionized giant, Fritz London.

On 1/16/2022 4:41 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Sunday, 16 January 2022 at 22:34:08 UTC+1, Python wrote:
>> Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>> On Sunday, 16 January 2022 at 21:22:09 UTC+1, Python wrote:
>>>> Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>>> ...
>>>>> Being a mumbling moron is no tactic.
>>>> If it "is no tactic", why are acting like one? Maybe because
>>>> you ARE one, Maciej.
>>>
>>> In the meantime in the real world, however, forbidden
>>> by your moronic religion TAI keep measuring t'=t, just
>>> like all serious clocks always did.
>> You've just done it again.
>
> And I will do it many, many times more, poor stinker;
> and all you can do about it is some furious barking
> and spitting, together with your fellow stinkers.

So your goal in life is to be a mumbling moron? And you're actually
proud of that?

On 1/16/2022 4:44 PM, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
> Op 16-jan.-2022 om 21:55 schreef Odd Bodkin:
>> Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> wrote:
>>> Op 16-jan.-2022 om 20:25 schreef Richard Hertz:
>>>> On Sunday, January 16, 2022 at 3:40:25 PM UTC-3, Ross A. Finlayson
>>>> wrote:
> (>>>> Seto of Lake should be here)
>
>>> [snip ross rant]
>>>
>>>>> Instead is for putting space-time together with a potential theory,
>>>>> helping to illustrate freedom in boost, kinetics will keep us
>>>>> together.
>>>>
>>>> Bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, ........
>>>>
>>>> I've followed some of your posts for a while but I never WANTED to
>>>> meddle with you, Ross.
>>>
>>> Paradoxically, it takes a big idiot to recognize a small one.
>>>
>>> Dirk Vdm
>>>
>>
>> Class I: “Physics is too hard to leave to physicists, and it should be
>> left
>> to engineers. Sure, engineers chose to be engineers and not
>> physicists, but
>> that’s only after they realized how much bullshit physics is, which is
>> why
>> engineers understand it better than physicists.”
>>
>> Class II: “Physics is cool and it’s fun to talk about, which is why I’m
>> asking whether there’s a possible inter-dimensional conformal mapping
>> that
>> explains baryon masses. No, I’ve not formally studied physics, since you
>> ask, but I take lots of notes about cool words. Can I play?”
>>
>> Class III: “Physicists just say stuff to sound smarter than everyone else
>> and make the common man feel stupid. Well, this common man is not
>> going to
>> take that lying down. This common man is going to show that my book is
>> better at doing physics than their stupid books, because it’s going to
>> explain things so simply and without using any math or arcane jargon.”
>>
>
> Totally nailed that :-)
>
> Dirk Vdm

Yes, he sure did.

Bodkin is quite good at remote crankology, in addition to other things.

Michael there is a question for you at:

Does not ISS exist?

just in case you didn't see it.

On Sunday, January 16, 2022 at 8:36:26 PM UTC-3, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:

<snip>

> How about, after Einstein, there's Fritz London. It's figured out how
> for the operator region, that the potential theory of Fritz London in
> superconductors and the mathematics, has what results for Einstein
> and what is for the Fitzgerald, makes for an all-potential field theory,
> or true potential field theory, that is basically organized with respect
> to the next lionized giant, Fritz London.

So, in your twisted, non coherent mental drift over everything, you're trying
to say that London is the Einstein of quantum gravity, isn't it?

But, as nobody care about tiny, tiny things, his work was not recognized by MSM?

Maybe London should have teamed with Einstein, to complete the unified field theory.

But Einstein run to USA and London to UK, later to France. What a pity. We could have
solved the failed string theory with their contributions. What difference makes adding 7 more dimensions to spacetime?

Still, 8 "dimensions" are in excess for describing REAL THINGS!

But wait! Both were working with non observable and difficult to prove things. One on the outer limits of space
and distances and the other on the inner limits, including electric fields and shit.

Both were cranks in their way, only that the first was lucky and gained heavy support. Isn't it, Ross?

On Monday, 17 January 2022 at 00:12:10 UTC+1, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> On Sunday, January 16, 2022 at 1:54:20 PM UTC-8, Python wrote:
> > Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > > On Sunday, 16 January 2022 at 22:34:08 UTC+1, Python wrote:
> > >> Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > >>> On Sunday, 16 January 2022 at 21:22:09 UTC+1, Python wrote:
> > >>>> Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > >>>> ...
> > >>>>> Being a mumbling moron is no tactic.
> > >>>> If it "is no tactic", why are acting like one? Maybe because
> > >>>> you ARE one, Maciej.
> > >>>
> > >>> In the meantime in the real world, however, forbidden
> > >>> by your moronic religion TAI keep measuring t'=t, just
> > >>> like all serious clocks always did.
> > >> You've just done it again.
> > >
> > > And I will do it many, many times more
> > No doubt about that. Fortunately soon you'll die and all
> > the nonsense you've been posting will only be of some
> > interest for historians looking for information on fools
> > and cranks.
> One thing I don't get about cranks is that they always try to fight
> the status quo, but never try to repair and join together the contra quo,

Well, you, Python, Odd - are just some of many
examples that they're joining their forces to
defend status quo; but, of course; you're too dumb
to work some common ground and the only thing
you agree is that The Shit is ingenious.

On Monday, 17 January 2022 at 01:22:27 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 1/16/2022 4:44 PM, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
> > Op 16-jan.-2022 om 21:55 schreef Odd Bodkin:
> >> Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvand...@notmail.com> wrote:
> >>> Op 16-jan.-2022 om 20:25 schreef Richard Hertz:
> >>>> On Sunday, January 16, 2022 at 3:40:25 PM UTC-3, Ross A. Finlayson
> >>>> wrote:
> > (>>>> Seto of Lake should be here)
> >
> >>> [snip ross rant]
> >>>
> >>>>> Instead is for putting space-time together with a potential theory,
> >>>>> helping to illustrate freedom in boost, kinetics will keep us
> >>>>> together.
> >>>>
> >>>> Bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, ........
> >>>>
> >>>> I've followed some of your posts for a while but I never WANTED to
> >>>> meddle with you, Ross.
> >>>
> >>> Paradoxically, it takes a big idiot to recognize a small one.
> >>>
> >>> Dirk Vdm
> >>>
> >>
> >> Class I: “Physics is too hard to leave to physicists, and it should be
> >> left
> >> to engineers. Sure, engineers chose to be engineers and not
> >> physicists, but
> >> that’s only after they realized how much bullshit physics is, which is
> >> why
> >> engineers understand it better than physicists.”
> >>
> >> Class II: “Physics is cool and it’s fun to talk about, which is why I’m
> >> asking whether there’s a possible inter-dimensional conformal mapping
> >> that
> >> explains baryon masses. No, I’ve not formally studied physics, since you
> >> ask, but I take lots of notes about cool words. Can I play?”
> >>
> >> Class III: “Physicists just say stuff to sound smarter than everyone else
> >> and make the common man feel stupid. Well, this common man is not
> >> going to
> >> take that lying down. This common man is going to show that my book is
> >> better at doing physics than their stupid books, because it’s going to
> >> explain things so simply and without using any math or arcane jargon.”
> >>
> >
> > Totally nailed that :-)
> >
> > Dirk Vdm
> Yes, he sure did.
>
> Bodkin is quite good at remote crankology, in addition to other things.

And his strawmen have got a heavy flogging, as usual.

On Monday, January 17, 2022 at 4:02:30 AM UTC-3, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:

<snip>

> > Bodkin is quite good at remote crankology, in addition to other things.
> And his strawmen have got a heavy flogging, as usual.

But but Paudkin is a "woodworker" that barely can count from 21 to 22 (almost 1 sec).

What the fuck can he know about nanoseconds and nanometers?

Unless he's making furniture for microbes, which I wouldn't believe.

He will explain that he read about time dilation and length contraction in many of his 100+ books and totally bought it.

Easy to convince this chap Paudkin.

Maybe he learnt from his great grand grand grand father, who made wood clocks for Einstein (which ticked by the minute), but
the genius was able to count up to 60 billions in between ticks. Who knows, nature is wonderful.

Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> wrote:
> Op 16-jan.-2022 om 21:55 schreef Odd Bodkin:
>> Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> wrote:
>>> Op 16-jan.-2022 om 20:25 schreef Richard Hertz:
>>>> On Sunday, January 16, 2022 at 3:40:25 PM UTC-3, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> (>>>> Seto of Lake should be here)
>
>>> [snip ross rant]
>>>
>>>>> Instead is for putting space-time together with a potential theory,
>>>>> helping to illustrate freedom in boost, kinetics will keep us together.
>>>>
>>>> Bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, ........
>>>>
>>>> I've followed some of your posts for a while but I never WANTED to
>>>> meddle with you, Ross.
>>>
>>> Paradoxically, it takes a big idiot to recognize a small one.
>>>
>>> Dirk Vdm
>>>
>>
>> Class I: “Physics is too hard to leave to physicists, and it should be left
>> to engineers. Sure, engineers chose to be engineers and not physicists, but
>> that’s only after they realized how much bullshit physics is, which is why
>> engineers understand it better than physicists.”
>>
>> Class II: “Physics is cool and it’s fun to talk about, which is why I’m
>> asking whether there’s a possible inter-dimensional conformal mapping that
>> explains baryon masses. No, I’ve not formally studied physics, since you
>> ask, but I take lots of notes about cool words. Can I play?”
>>
>> Class III: “Physicists just say stuff to sound smarter than everyone else
>> and make the common man feel stupid. Well, this common man is not going to
>> take that lying down. This common man is going to show that my book is
>> better at doing physics than their stupid books, because it’s going to
>> explain things so simply and without using any math or arcane jargon.”
>>
>
> Totally nailed that :-)
>
> Dirk Vdm
>

Well, as you can see, it’s not that hard to figure them out.

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

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, January 16, 2022 at 7:09:13 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Python <pyt...@example.invalid> wrote:
>>> Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>>> On Sunday, 16 January 2022 at 22:34:08 UTC+1, Python wrote:
>>>>> Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>>>>> On Sunday, 16 January 2022 at 21:22:09 UTC+1, Python wrote:
>>>>>>> Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>> Being a mumbling moron is no tactic.
>>>>>>> If it "is no tactic", why are acting like one? Maybe because
>>>>>>> you ARE one, Maciej.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In the meantime in the real world, however, forbidden
>>>>>> by your moronic religion TAI keep measuring t'=t, just
>>>>>> like all serious clocks always did.
>>>>> You've just done it again.
>>>>
>>>> And I will do it many, many times more
>>>
>>> No doubt about that. Fortunately soon you'll die and all
>>> the nonsense you've been posting will only be of some
>>> interest for historians looking for information on fools
>>> and cranks.
>>>
>> That won’t happen either.
>>
>> There have been many cranks on this group over the years, and most are gone
>> or dead. Who has looked up these people and what they had to say? Anyone?
>> Was it worth them saying it then?
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>
> I do that, either for living or dead people, showing some respect for the
> last (fucking faggot Phyton).
>
> I read everything, and I don't care their current biological status.
> Idiocy can be detected without that knowledge.

Oh, bullshit. You don’t “read everything”. You’re too busy opening your
yap.

Granted, you have waaaaaay too much time on your hands, spent on completely
pointless ventures.

>
> For instance, I read vin Muuurtel posts and I don't know if he's alive or
> dead and commissioned an stupid non-AI bot
> to reply to any post against his fucking gay pagan god, Einstein.
>
> Probably the same non-AI bot that's policing Wikipedia reposting what was
> changed, time and time again.
>
> Nice way for vin Muuurtel to transcend time, perpetuating him as an idiot
> and the champion of the assholes.
>
> You too, Paudkin. I'm starting to be suspicious with a repetition pattern
> along your 5,000 posts/year. Maybe you're a fucking bot too.
>
>

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

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, January 17, 2022 at 4:02:30 AM UTC-3, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>> Bodkin is quite good at remote crankology, in addition to other things.
>> And his strawmen have got a heavy flogging, as usual.
>
> But but Paudkin is a "woodworker" that barely can count from 21 to 22 (almost 1 sec).
>
> What the fuck can he know about nanoseconds and nanometers?

Because I’m not an engineer, what could I possibly know about these? Is
that what you’re saying?

>
> Unless he's making furniture for microbes, which I wouldn't

Ah, so people can only know about what they do for a living?

>
> He will explain that he read about time dilation and length contraction
> in many of his 100+ books and totally bought it.
>
> Easy to convince this chap Paudkin.
>
> Maybe he learnt from his great grand grand grand father, who made wood
> clocks for Einstein (which ticked by the minute), but
> the genius was able to count up to 60 billions in between ticks. Who
> knows, nature is wonderful.
>
>

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

On Sunday, January 16, 2022 at 4:49:52 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Sunday, January 16, 2022 at 8:36:26 PM UTC-3, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
>
> <snip>
> > How about, after Einstein, there's Fritz London. It's figured out how
> > for the operator region, that the potential theory of Fritz London in
> > superconductors and the mathematics, has what results for Einstein
> > and what is for the Fitzgerald, makes for an all-potential field theory,
> > or true potential field theory, that is basically organized with respect
> > to the next lionized giant, Fritz London.
> So, in your twisted, non coherent mental drift over everything, you're trying
> to say that London is the Einstein of quantum gravity, isn't it?
>
> But, as nobody care about tiny, tiny things, his work was not recognized by MSM?
>
> Maybe London should have teamed with Einstein, to complete the unified field theory.
>
> But Einstein run to USA and London to UK, later to France. What a pity. We could have
> solved the failed string theory with their contributions. What difference makes adding 7 more dimensions to spacetime?
>
> Still, 8 "dimensions" are in excess for describing REAL THINGS!
>
> But wait! Both were working with non observable and difficult to prove things. One on the outer limits of space
> and distances and the other on the inner limits, including electric fields and shit.
>
> Both were cranks in their way, only that the first was lucky and gained heavy support. Isn't it, Ross?

Most people have heard of Einstein, then there's Feynman, now Fritz London.

"Yes, we are pink sub-creatures, thank you, robot overlords".

I think the phenomenon of superconductivity and all the various ways it
reflects transition changes in regime transitions, in physics, makes for
directly that much after relativity and energy is so explained, that so simply,
for models of London dispersal or along transforms exactly for
"Lorentz-London" transforms: is generally it would suffice to help make
for science, that all sorts of new science can be written in it.

The symplectic for the meromorphic, these days is the framework,
to get what builds the symplectic and projects the meromorphic,
a usual notion of overpressure, plotting the mathematics of physics in it.

On Monday, January 17, 2022 at 9:50:40 AM UTC-8, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> On Sunday, January 16, 2022 at 4:49:52 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > On Sunday, January 16, 2022 at 8:36:26 PM UTC-3, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> > > How about, after Einstein, there's Fritz London. It's figured out how
> > > for the operator region, that the potential theory of Fritz London in
> > > superconductors and the mathematics, has what results for Einstein
> > > and what is for the Fitzgerald, makes for an all-potential field theory,
> > > or true potential field theory, that is basically organized with respect
> > > to the next lionized giant, Fritz London.
> > So, in your twisted, non coherent mental drift over everything, you're trying
> > to say that London is the Einstein of quantum gravity, isn't it?
> >
> > But, as nobody care about tiny, tiny things, his work was not recognized by MSM?
> >
> > Maybe London should have teamed with Einstein, to complete the unified field theory.
> >
> > But Einstein run to USA and London to UK, later to France. What a pity. We could have
> > solved the failed string theory with their contributions. What difference makes adding 7 more dimensions to spacetime?
> >
> > Still, 8 "dimensions" are in excess for describing REAL THINGS!
> >
> > But wait! Both were working with non observable and difficult to prove things. One on the outer limits of space
> > and distances and the other on the inner limits, including electric fields and shit.
> >
> > Both were cranks in their way, only that the first was lucky and gained heavy support. Isn't it, Ross?
> Most people have heard of Einstein, then there's Feynman, now Fritz London.
>
> "Yes, we are pink sub-creatures, thank you, robot overlords".
>
> I think the phenomenon of superconductivity and all the various ways it
> reflects transition changes in regime transitions, in physics, makes for
> directly that much after relativity and energy is so explained, that so simply,
> for models of London dispersal or along transforms exactly for
> "Lorentz-London" transforms: is generally it would suffice to help make
> for science, that all sorts of new science can be written in it.
>
> The symplectic for the meromorphic, these days is the framework,
> to get what builds the symplectic and projects the meromorphic,
> a usual notion of overpressure, plotting the mathematics of physics in it.

(... and all the science is already written in it.)

That a Lorentz transform is a Lagrangian either way, is for
making then this notion of Lorentz-London, of also having
a London dispersal well associated what is it torsion center,
or that local gauge invariance starts.

I.e. this way for example it's after writing derivation in Lorentz
transforms, sorting out how they're connecting Lagrangians,
basically what results sorting local/global gauge invariance.

Op 17-jan.-2022 om 19:28 schreef Ross A. Finlayson:
> On Monday, January 17, 2022 at 9:50:40 AM UTC-8, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
>> On Sunday, January 16, 2022 at 4:49:52 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:

[snip whatever]

>> Most people have heard of Einstein, then there's Feynman, now Fritz London.
>>
>> "Yes, we are pink sub-creatures, thank you, robot overlords".
>>
>> I think the phenomenon of superconductivity and all the various ways it
>> reflects transition changes in regime transitions, in physics, makes for
>> directly that much after relativity and energy is so explained, that so simply,
>> for models of London dispersal or along transforms exactly for
>> "Lorentz-London" transforms: is generally it would suffice to help make
>> for science, that all sorts of new science can be written in it.
>>
>> The symplectic for the meromorphic, these days is the framework,
>> to get what builds the symplectic and projects the meromorphic,
>> a usual notion of overpressure, plotting the mathematics of physics in it.
>
>
> (... and all the science is already written in it.)
>
> That a Lorentz transform is a Lagrangian either way, is for
> making then this notion of Lorentz-London, of also having
> a London dispersal well associated what is it torsion center,
> or that local gauge invariance starts.
>
> I.e. this way for example it's after writing derivation in Lorentz
> transforms, sorting out how they're connecting Lagrangians,
> basically what results sorting local/global gauge invariance.
>

HA! There we have Finlayson's world-famous "BASICALLY" again.
What on Earth took you so long???
FINALLY!

Dirk Vdm

On Monday, January 17, 2022 at 10:42:52 AM UTC-8, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
> Op 17-jan.-2022 om 19:28 schreef Ross A. Finlayson:
> > On Monday, January 17, 2022 at 9:50:40 AM UTC-8, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> >> On Sunday, January 16, 2022 at 4:49:52 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> [snip whatever]
> >> Most people have heard of Einstein, then there's Feynman, now Fritz London.
> >>
> >> "Yes, we are pink sub-creatures, thank you, robot overlords".
> >>
> >> I think the phenomenon of superconductivity and all the various ways it
> >> reflects transition changes in regime transitions, in physics, makes for
> >> directly that much after relativity and energy is so explained, that so simply,
> >> for models of London dispersal or along transforms exactly for
> >> "Lorentz-London" transforms: is generally it would suffice to help make
> >> for science, that all sorts of new science can be written in it.
> >>
> >> The symplectic for the meromorphic, these days is the framework,
> >> to get what builds the symplectic and projects the meromorphic,
> >> a usual notion of overpressure, plotting the mathematics of physics in it.
> >
> >
> > (... and all the science is already written in it.)
> >
> > That a Lorentz transform is a Lagrangian either way, is for
> > making then this notion of Lorentz-London, of also having
> > a London dispersal well associated what is it torsion center,
> > or that local gauge invariance starts.
> >
> > I.e. this way for example it's after writing derivation in Lorentz
> > transforms, sorting out how they're connecting Lagrangians,
> > basically what results sorting local/global gauge invariance.
> >
> HA! There we have Finlayson's world-famous "BASICALLY" again.
> What on Earth took you so long???
> FINALLY!
>
> Dirk Vdm

Lorentz-London-Einstein for example sees "here you go,
speed of light is effectively infinite", for SR, or, "here
you go, energy of object at light speed is effectively infinite",
GR.

If you ask for any model of superconductivity basically it
is that there is one and it's great 20'th and 21'st century physics -
if Fritz London is really so great and like Chandrasekhar.

Op 17-jan.-2022 om 19:52 schreef Ross A. Finlayson:
> On Monday, January 17, 2022 at 10:42:52 AM UTC-8, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
>> Op 17-jan.-2022 om 19:28 schreef Ross A. Finlayson:
>>> On Monday, January 17, 2022 at 9:50:40 AM UTC-8, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
>>>> On Sunday, January 16, 2022 at 4:49:52 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
>> [snip whatever]
>>>> Most people have heard of Einstein, then there's Feynman, now Fritz London.
>>>>
>>>> "Yes, we are pink sub-creatures, thank you, robot overlords".
>>>>
>>>> I think the phenomenon of superconductivity and all the various ways it
>>>> reflects transition changes in regime transitions, in physics, makes for
>>>> directly that much after relativity and energy is so explained, that so simply,
>>>> for models of London dispersal or along transforms exactly for
>>>> "Lorentz-London" transforms: is generally it would suffice to help make
>>>> for science, that all sorts of new science can be written in it.
>>>>
>>>> The symplectic for the meromorphic, these days is the framework,
>>>> to get what builds the symplectic and projects the meromorphic,
>>>> a usual notion of overpressure, plotting the mathematics of physics in it.
>>>
>>>
>>> (... and all the science is already written in it.)
>>>
>>> That a Lorentz transform is a Lagrangian either way, is for
>>> making then this notion of Lorentz-London, of also having
>>> a London dispersal well associated what is it torsion center,
>>> or that local gauge invariance starts.
>>>
>>> I.e. this way for example it's after writing derivation in Lorentz
>>> transforms, sorting out how they're connecting Lagrangians,
>>> basically what results sorting local/global gauge invariance.
>>>
>> HA! There we have Finlayson's world-famous "BASICALLY" again.
>> What on Earth took you so long???
>> FINALLY!
>>
>> Dirk Vdm
>
> Lorentz-London-Einstein for example sees "here you go,
> speed of light is effectively infinite", for SR, or, "here
> you go, energy of object at light speed is effectively infinite",
> GR.

NO NO NO!!! Effectively infinite?? Twice???
BASICALLY infinite, surely you mean. Twice.
What on Earth happened to you on your way out from sci.math???

>
> If you ask for any model of superconductivity basically it
> is that there is one and it's great 20'th and 21'st century physics -
> if Fritz London is really so great and like Chandrasekhar.

Yeah, BASICALLY that is what that is. EXACTLY BASICALLY.
That's a good boy there.

Dirk Vdm

On Monday, January 17, 2022 at 11:05:50 AM UTC-8, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
> Op 17-jan.-2022 om 19:52 schreef Ross A. Finlayson:
> > On Monday, January 17, 2022 at 10:42:52 AM UTC-8, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
> >> Op 17-jan.-2022 om 19:28 schreef Ross A. Finlayson:
> >>> On Monday, January 17, 2022 at 9:50:40 AM UTC-8, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> >>>> On Sunday, January 16, 2022 at 4:49:52 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> >> [snip whatever]
> >>>> Most people have heard of Einstein, then there's Feynman, now Fritz London.
> >>>>
> >>>> "Yes, we are pink sub-creatures, thank you, robot overlords".
> >>>>
> >>>> I think the phenomenon of superconductivity and all the various ways it
> >>>> reflects transition changes in regime transitions, in physics, makes for
> >>>> directly that much after relativity and energy is so explained, that so simply,
> >>>> for models of London dispersal or along transforms exactly for
> >>>> "Lorentz-London" transforms: is generally it would suffice to help make
> >>>> for science, that all sorts of new science can be written in it.
> >>>>
> >>>> The symplectic for the meromorphic, these days is the framework,
> >>>> to get what builds the symplectic and projects the meromorphic,
> >>>> a usual notion of overpressure, plotting the mathematics of physics in it.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> (... and all the science is already written in it.)
> >>>
> >>> That a Lorentz transform is a Lagrangian either way, is for
> >>> making then this notion of Lorentz-London, of also having
> >>> a London dispersal well associated what is it torsion center,
> >>> or that local gauge invariance starts.
> >>>
> >>> I.e. this way for example it's after writing derivation in Lorentz
> >>> transforms, sorting out how they're connecting Lagrangians,
> >>> basically what results sorting local/global gauge invariance.
> >>>
> >> HA! There we have Finlayson's world-famous "BASICALLY" again.
> >> What on Earth took you so long???
> >> FINALLY!
> >>
> >> Dirk Vdm
> >
> > Lorentz-London-Einstein for example sees "here you go,
> > speed of light is effectively infinite", for SR, or, "here
> > you go, energy of object at light speed is effectively infinite",
> > GR.
> NO NO NO!!! Effectively infinite?? Twice???
> BASICALLY infinite, surely you mean. Twice.
> What on Earth happened to you on your way out from sci.math???
> >
> > If you ask for any model of superconductivity basically it
> > is that there is one and it's great 20'th and 21'st century physics -
> > if Fritz London is really so great and like Chandrasekhar.
> Yeah, BASICALLY that is what that is. EXACTLY BASICALLY.
> That's a good boy there.
>
> Dirk Vdm

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

Here for a definition of "effectively" infinite, is that it's a
definition about continuum mechanics, about regime and
boundary, that here what is effectively infinite is always
larger than a finite value in a (particle) regime.

What is effectively infinite to that is again larger and so on.

It's same with infinitesimal , effectively, except opposite.

It's not saying the stronger condition "actual infinity",
necessarily, but doesn't imply the inexistence of an
actual infinity, neither as only effective from scale regime.

The story of why potential energy is important later,
makes for effectively extending instruction, from what
are the usual classical and relativistic mechanics, or,
what are really theories in really a theory of unipotential.

Here for a point of "let's reduce the current catastrophe in
physics to a restatement after mechanics", basically is
that fixing QM and GTR together requires adding supergravity.