On Sunday, January 30, 2022 at 9:07:52 PM UTC-8, pile of shit itsalllies...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, January 31, 2022 at 2:06:43 PM UTC+11, Dono. wrote:
> > On Sunday, January 30, 2022 at 6:57:32 PM UTC-8, itsalllies...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > snip odious garbage<
> >
> > I thought that Richard Hertz is a steaming pile of shot but you are an even bigger one
> I am a steaming pile of shit

Correction: you are the biggest pile of shit, bigger than even Richard Hertz

On Monday, January 31, 2022 at 4:20:01 PM UTC+11, Dono. wrote:
> On Sunday, January 30, 2022 at 9:07:52 PM UTC-8, pile of shit itsalllies...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Monday, January 31, 2022 at 2:06:43 PM UTC+11, Dono. wrote:
> > > On Sunday, January 30, 2022 at 6:57:32 PM UTC-8, itsalllies...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > snip odious garbage<
> > >
> > > I thought that Richard Hertz is a steaming pile of shot but you are an even bigger one
> > I am a steaming pile of shit
> Correction: you are the biggest pile of shit, bigger than even Richard Hertz

Can you elaborate a bit? Its not clear what you are trying to convey.

Am 31.01.2022 um 00:08 schrieb everything isalllies:
> On Monday, January 31, 2022 at 9:04:51 AM UTC+11, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>> everything isalllies <itsalllies...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Saturday, January 29, 2022 at 10:08:12 PM UTC+11, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>>> everything isalllies <itsalllies...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> MAXWELL developed his Equations based on his "MODEL", a mental,
>>>>> imaginary, conceptual STORY that helped him develop his Mathematical
>>>>> equations...
>>>>
>>>> Yes, and the definitive answer to all that "model" kind of thing
>>>> was provided by Heinrich Hertz:
>>>>
>>>> "Maxwell's theory is nothing but Maxwell's equations"
>>>>
>>>> All the rest is nonsense,
>>>>
>>>> Jan
>>>
>>> And so your final conclusions then?
>>
>> Wasn't that obvious? All your talk about "MODEL" is nonsense.
>>
>>> Is STR correct Physics or just mathematical nonsense?
>>
>> Correct physics, and nothing wrong with the mathematics of it,
>> (but you knew that, didn't you?)
>>
>> Jan
>
> I don't find anything correct in Einsteins 1905 paper. I see errors of rational thinking and misdirection.
> This leads to Mathematics equations that don't reflect reality.
>
> If you studied it, you would come to the same conclusion.
>

Actually I have studied Einstein's 'On the electrodynamics of moving
bodies' very carefully and found tons of errors in it (roughly four
hundred).

That is a fantastically large number for a published scientific paper,
let alone something regarded as the best masterpiece of all of science.

Maxwell based his theory on his knowledge of fluids and developed twenty
quaternion equations from it.

He heavily opposed the approach of Heaviside and Gibbs to reduce
quaternions to vectors.

But we have now only four equations left in Heaviside's notation, while
some important insight of Maxwell got lost.

I personally suggest a certain extension of Hamilton's quaternions to so
called bi-quaternions (aka complex-four-vectors).

The concept is based on the idea, that nature behaves on a fundamental
level like a certain type of math which is a Clifford algebra called Cl3.

TH

On Monday, January 31, 2022 at 4:44:12 PM UTC+11, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 31.01.2022 um 00:08 schrieb everything isalllies:
> > On Monday, January 31, 2022 at 9:04:51 AM UTC+11, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> >> everything isalllies <itsalllies...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Saturday, January 29, 2022 at 10:08:12 PM UTC+11, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> >>>> everything isalllies <itsalllies...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> MAXWELL developed his Equations based on his "MODEL", a mental,
> >>>>> imaginary, conceptual STORY that helped him develop his Mathematical
> >>>>> equations...
> >>>>
> >>>> Yes, and the definitive answer to all that "model" kind of thing
> >>>> was provided by Heinrich Hertz:
> >>>>
> >>>> "Maxwell's theory is nothing but Maxwell's equations"
> >>>>
> >>>> All the rest is nonsense,
> >>>>
> >>>> Jan
> >>>
> >>> And so your final conclusions then?
> >>
> >> Wasn't that obvious? All your talk about "MODEL" is nonsense.
> >>
> >>> Is STR correct Physics or just mathematical nonsense?
> >>
> >> Correct physics, and nothing wrong with the mathematics of it,
> >> (but you knew that, didn't you?)
> >>
> >> Jan
> >
> > I don't find anything correct in Einsteins 1905 paper. I see errors of rational thinking and misdirection.
> > This leads to Mathematics equations that don't reflect reality.
> >
> > If you studied it, you would come to the same conclusion.
> >
> Actually I have studied Einstein's 'On the electrodynamics of moving
> bodies' very carefully and found tons of errors in it (roughly four
> hundred).
>
> That is a fantastically large number for a published scientific paper,
> let alone something regarded as the best masterpiece of all of science.
>
> Maxwell based his theory on his knowledge of fluids and developed twenty
> quaternion equations from it.
>
> He heavily opposed the approach of Heaviside and Gibbs to reduce
> quaternions to vectors.
>
> But we have now only four equations left in Heaviside's notation, while
> some important insight of Maxwell got lost.
>
> I personally suggest a certain extension of Hamilton's quaternions to so
> called bi-quaternions (aka complex-four-vectors).
>
> The concept is based on the idea, that nature behaves on a fundamental
> level like a certain type of math which is a Clifford algebra called Cl3.
>
> TH

The question is then, considering those errors, can Time Dilation, Length Contraction and Mass increase still be valid?
And I suggest that your "certain type of math" just approximately mimics what Nature appears to do, and not the other way around.

Am 31.01.2022 um 07:07 schrieb everything isalllies:

>>>
>>> I don't find anything correct in Einsteins 1905 paper. I see errors of rational thinking and misdirection.
>>> This leads to Mathematics equations that don't reflect reality.
>>>
>>> If you studied it, you would come to the same conclusion.
>>>
>> Actually I have studied Einstein's 'On the electrodynamics of moving
>> bodies' very carefully and found tons of errors in it (roughly four
>> hundred).
>>
>> That is a fantastically large number for a published scientific paper,
>> let alone something regarded as the best masterpiece of all of science.
>>
>> Maxwell based his theory on his knowledge of fluids and developed twenty
>> quaternion equations from it.
>>
>> He heavily opposed the approach of Heaviside and Gibbs to reduce
>> quaternions to vectors.
>>
>> But we have now only four equations left in Heaviside's notation, while
>> some important insight of Maxwell got lost.
>>
>> I personally suggest a certain extension of Hamilton's quaternions to so
>> called bi-quaternions (aka complex-four-vectors).
>>
>> The concept is based on the idea, that nature behaves on a fundamental
>> level like a certain type of math which is a Clifford algebra called Cl3.
>>
>> TH
>
>
> The question is then, considering those errors, can Time Dilation, Length Contraction and Mass increase still be valid?

Einstein ascribed the 'realness' of relativistic effects to the far side
of an observation of a remote system in relative motion.

But in analogy to the Doppler effect, we have a distortion of the
observation on the side of the observer. The things observed are not
influenced by observers passing by at a distance.

> And I suggest that your "certain type of math" just approximately mimics what Nature appears to do, and not the other way around.
>

Well, that is the question. I actually assume, that nature operates at a
fundamental level like a certain type of math.

In case you are interested, you should have a look at my 'book':

https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing

TH

On Sunday, January 30, 2022 at 10:34:02 PM UTC-3, itsalllies...@gmail.com wrote:

<snip>

> So e=mc^2 and this silly irrational claim about objects shrinking, is all mystical cutlish faith based concepts.

> So unless you think that god gave this knowledge to jews long ago, and thus they really are a superior race, compared to the rest of the "less than human" population of earth, then you should be aware of the true source of Einstein's jewish science.
> It's the teachings of the Kabbalah, and the Torah.

Well, I told you that you HAVE TO EDUCATE YOURSELF about history of physics, in particular RELATIVITY.

I don't understand why you claim about roots of relativity being on Jewish religion and Jewish physics.

I prepared a very compact report about a gifted Austrian physicist (of Christian roots) who lived too shortly because, being 40, still
volunteered to fight for his country in WWI but died when a grenade blew his brain out early on, in 1915. Another gifted German
physicist (of Jewish roots) died in March 1916, after volunteering (being 41) to fight for his country at the Russian war front. Their
names maybe mean nothing for you, and were Fritz Hasenöhrl and Karl Schwarzschild, but they are relevant in the history of
relativity for completely different reasons: The first, Hasenöhrl, was THE ONLY ONE who obtained an equation relating mass and
energy in 1904 (paper corrected in 1905). The other, Schwarzschild, saved the ass of Einstein FOREVER when he developed the first
(and only legit, I'd say) solution to the GR shit in an universe void of matter and energy, except the Sun. His solution, corrected in
1917 by the mathematician Hilbert (of Christian roots), stay with us WITHOUT A SINGLE CHANGE for 105 years.
Curiously, both died 6 months apart, due to WWI.

Hasenöhrl based his work partially on the work of Abraham (of Jewish roots) and Lorentz (of Christian roots) between 1892 and
1904. And Lorentz based his 12 years research on a proposal of FitzGerald (of Christian roots), by 1891, to explain the null result
of the 1898 Michelson-Morley experiment (both of Jewish roots), who wanted to measure the drag of Maxwell's luminoferus ether
on which he based his development of his famous and undisputed equations between 1864 and 1873. Maxwell was a devoted
Christian, by the way.

So, before the fucker started his trail of FRAUDS IN SCIENCE by 1905, you have to explain the connection between science and
religion for the previous 41 years. Good luck with your research.

I post here, as an homage to the TRUE FATHER of E=mc², which Einstein plagiarized IN DISGUISE in the same year of 1905, in the
same journal that published both papers (Einstein almost 10 months after Hasenöhrl) and ALMOST WITH THE SAME NAME:

Hasenöhrl (1904, 1905-, Annalen der Physik): Zur Theorie der Strahlung in bewegten Körpern,
Einstein (1905+, Annalen der Physik): Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper

On the Theory of Radiation in Moving Bodies (1904)
by Friedrich Hasenöhrl, translated from German by Wikisource
https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/Translation:On_the_Theory_of_Radiation_in_Moving_Bodies

The 1905 correction is here:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3AZur_Theorie_der_Strahlung_in_bewegten_K%C3%B6rpern._Berichtigung.djvu&page=1

Hasenöhrl theoretically proved that m = 4/3 E/c² as the mass of the energy within a closed black body cavity moving at
an inertial speed ratio β = v/c. I'm sure you'll recognize the factor β, as it is one of many things that the FRAUDSTER stole from
Hasenöhrl and Lorentz 1904 papers.

This is an EXCERPT from Hasenöhrl's 1904 paper, where HE CREDITED most of the physicists involved in the problem for 17 years:

"The simplest assumption is now, that for example the dimensions of matter are invariable perpendicular to their direction of
motion, ***********while the dimension coinciding with the direction of motion depends on the translation velocity*************
by the factor 1 - 1/2 β².
The agreement with the assumption of LORENTZ and FITZGERALD is thus a complete one.
I would like to allow myself, to remark that I derived this result also by another way.........."

Let me use modern notation for this expression, which ALSO WAS PLAGIARIZED by Einstein:

Longitudinal mass m = m₀ (1 - 1/2 β²) OR m = m₀ - 1/2 m₀ β² OR KE(energy) . c² = m₀

OR EM mass m₀(within the cavity) = KE(within cavity)/c² or, generalizing, m₀ = E(extra)/c²

So, for Hasenöhrl, energy in motion HAD MASS. And without relativity, only classic physics plus ABSOLUTE MOTION.

However, Hasenöhrl LET THIS PASS, and his final derivation is:

m₀ = 4/3 hε₀/c² = 4/3 E/c²

For this achievement, at the suggestion of Ludwig Boltzmann, Hasenöhrl received the Haitinger Prize from the Imperial
Academy of Sciences in Vienna and in 1906. Despite his youth, became Boltzmann's successor as professor.

He was the tutor of Erwin Schrödinger, among many.

Enrico Fermi, even by 1923, was an ardent defender of Hasenöhrl m = 4/3 E/c². But CONSPIRACY TOOK PLACE, and Hasenöhrl
ONLY EXISTING theoretical proof of relationship matter-energy was BURIED not longer than after he died.

Einstein NEVER EVER could prove his E = mc² (Hasenöhrl used 31 pages). The cretin tried 7 times until he gave up in 1942.

But the point is: relativity is not Jewish science. Is the NEW SCIENCE by which cretins, smart ass pretenders, found a new way to
make money with desktop physics (without any accountability, contrary to newtonian physics) and fool the idiots from have been
sucking money for a century.

On Monday, 31 January 2022 at 00:28:41 UTC+1, Paul Alsing wrote:

> So, it is your contention that the hundreds of thousands of scientists since 1905 who have conducted experiments or made observations that confirm that Einstein was correct are, in fact wrong... and only you have it right? Is this your claim?

Al, poor trash, you say the same to dozens of people here.
Are you really too dumb even to count to 2?

On Monday, 31 January 2022 at 01:21:19 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:

> There was a time for meaningful discussion on the validity of SR/the
> 1905 paper. But that time was 100+ years ago. And it did happen, of
> course, but it was the best scientists of the time who discussed it, not
> the equivalent of Usenet cranks. And those best possible scientists
> didn't find any problem then, or at least no problems unaddressed.

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.

On 1/31/2022 12:03 AM, everything isalllies wrote:
> On Monday, January 31, 2022 at 2:01:03 PM UTC+11, Paul Alsing wrote:
>
>> You said... "It doesn't matter how many physicists you have or how long they thought about it, they all still could be mistaken. The feed of each other, so a error assumed to be truth can stay before them but they don't recognise it as an error. Frames of Reference are imaginary, Imaginary constructs don't get to influence reality."
>>
>> Just about everything in that paragraph is incorrect.
>
>
>>> The vast majority of Physicists ever, learn Relativity, and then never have to use it again.
>> Frames of reference are not limited to just relativity. You were speaking about frames of reference...
>
> Not the "frames of reference" concept of Galileo, but the weird use of them and the claim of Einsteisn that they alone can cause Physical changes.

Absurd. The first postulate explicitly states the laws of physics are
the same in all (inertial) frames.
>
>> How would you know that dissenters have a solid case since you know very little physics yourself... certainly less than a freshman in high school who has taken a single physics class...
>>> In fact, Einsteins case dissolves in to meaningless gibberish when examined from all angles, but the dissenters case remains solid and rational.
>> Wow, that is quite a statement from a guy who is completely clueless about the subject matter!
>
> And yet, strangely I can debate with anyone on the subject, while not knowing anything, and I note that in your reply, not one single bit of explanation as to where I am wrong.
>
> Claiming I'm wrong is not showing where I"m wrong.

You have been shown to be wrong. You just blow it off when that happens.
>
>
>>> Any claim that says that solid things have to shrink in only one direction, whilst growing in Mass and while warping Time locally, and doing all thins simply by moving somewhere, and also doing it differently for every observer who is also moving differently, is instantly a top of the list item in my list of possibly insane ideas.
>> That would be because you really don't understand the theory. Not even close.
>
> Ok, I summarised STR in a nutshell, but you say its not even close, so lets hear you summarise its core in one sentence....
>
> We wait......

"We" who?
>
>>> The critical analysis of the reason given by Einstein for these mind bending claims, is found to be just a misunderstanding of how things work. Einsteins was not a mathematician, (nothing to do with Physics anyway) nor was he a Physicist, he was a Clerk.
>> You are very wrong about this. Einstein had mastered differential and integral calculus before the age of 15. Einstein earned his PhD from the University of Zurich in 1905, so clearly he was a physicist! Where are you getting your historical information? Wherever it is, it sucks!
>>> So of course I'm correct to be very suspicious of his bizarre claims.
>> It seems to me that it is *you* who have the bizarre claims... you don't even know about Einstein's education!
>
> Just quit with the nonsense ramblings. Not really important that Einstein was gifted his PhD because strings pulled by his jewie mates. That not really of importance here. He must have had mates because a correct peer review of his hypothesis would not have approved his 1905 paper for Publication.
>
> But lets agree to stick to the investigation into his Paper. Stick to Physics.

WTF? It is you who is inserting the "It's the JOOOZZZZZ" conspiracy
garbage when you're backed into a corner.

On 1/30/2022 9:57 PM, everything isalllies wrote:
> On Monday, January 31, 2022 at 1:32:44 PM UTC+11, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> On 1/30/2022 7:35 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
>
>> You mean the one where he debated proto-Nazi Philipp Lenard?
>>
>>
> Who considered relativity to be a "Jewish
>> fraud"?
>
>
> Sounds like this Lenard was switched on, and correctly identified Einstein's Relativity as Kabbalistic, mysticism, Zohar Jewish science fraud.
> Either that, or there really is a real god of the jews, and thus we just have to bow down and worship them.
> So what is it? god based Kabbalah "science" given by God, or Einsteins is wrong?

The dry cleaner called. Your white hood is ready.
>
> Its one or the other here, not another option.

This has to be the worst possible example of the 'false dilemma' fallacy
a.k.a. fallacy of bifurcation.

> "God of the jews IS science", or human rationality and logical Physics is reliable as our base for science., ... take your pick.
🤮

On Monday, January 31, 2022 at 5:35:55 PM UTC+11, Thomas Heger wrote:

> > The question is then, considering those errors, can Time Dilation, Length Contraction and Mass increase still be valid?
> Einstein ascribed the 'realness' of relativistic effects to the far side
> of an observation of a remote system in relative motion.
>
> But in analogy to the Doppler effect, we have a distortion of the
> observation on the side of the observer. The things observed are not
> influenced by observers passing by at a distance.
> > And I suggest that your "certain type of math" just approximately mimics what Nature appears to do, and not the other way around.
> >
> Well, that is the question. I actually assume, that nature operates at a
> fundamental level like a certain type of math.
>
> In case you are interested, you should have a look at my 'book':
>
> https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing
>
>
>
>
> TH

Thanks for the link to you book, art last somebody that has put educated effort into a belief.
But its mostly beyond me, being heavy in Math. However the introductions to each section are in descriptive English, so I can follow your intent without too much difficulty. As I'm interested not in criticising anyone's Math, I'll just try to understand WHY you believe that the Math describes or reveals how things like a Photon function.
Don't expect a comment about your professional book, anytime soon, not that my opinion counts for anything.
But I will have questions.

Anyway, to my question, "The question is then, considering those errors, can Time Dilation, Length Contraction and Mass increase still be valid?,

you replied:
> Einstein ascribed the 'realness' of relativistic effects to the far side
> of an observation of a remote system in relative motion.

But what in gods name does that mean? Anyone like to take a guess?
Does it mean that Length contraction etc, is REAL, or some form of illusion, a trick of the light, a matter of perspective.?

Then you add: "But in analogy to the Doppler effect, we have a distortion of the
> observation on the side of the observer. The things observed are not
> influenced by observers passing by at a distance."

So am I to assume that now with this statement, you do in fact mean that it IS all an illusion, that STR is just an observer error?
You say, "The things observed are not
> influenced by observers passing by at a distance."

So that really requires no further clarification. Ships do not shrink or gain mass and time doesn't change, its all errors in objective observation.

I agree with that to a point, but really the main error of Einstein is that he forces a false conclusion by means of deceptive false Logic, with the claim that because Postulate 1 and Postulate 2 are correct, which they are, then his real goal which was actually the un labelled 3rd Postulate, that "any observer regardless of his motion will still measure light speed as c even if he turns about and heads off in the opposite direction". This is not rational thinking. Its BS. To this day, no one has ever been able to justify that 3 rd postulate rationally. Or demonstrate that it could ever be a possibility. You have more chance of jamming 10 elephants into a sardine can then demonstrating the impossible. At least elephants and sardine cans are real, so we have a advantage to the Elephant stuffing experiment already.

On Sunday, January 30, 2022 at 2:03:01 PM UTC-8, itsalllies...@gmail.com wrote:
> Here is a collection of over 40 videos ... but you have deemed that its all BS,
> because its on video and on youtube.

You're living proof that someone can view a ton of videos about relativity on youtube and still have zero comprehension of the subject. Also, the specific examples you have cited were very poor quality. I make no claim to have exhaustive knowledge of every youtube video, but I can say that that respository of videos has not served you well. Getting a good book on the subject would be more likely to help you. (Of course, not all books are equally good either.)

> Einstein said, "IF you cant explain your theory to a 6 Year old, you don't
> know what you are talking about."

No he did not. It was Rutherford who said "it should be possible to explain the laws of physics to a barmaid." The closest thing that Einstein ever said was in a private talk with de Broglie, in which he said (according to de Broglie) "that all physical theories, their mathematical expressions apart, ought to lend themselves to so simple a description 'that even a child could understand them.' These are both comments about what various non-scientists should be able to understand. Neither one says that if a crackpot says he doesn't understand a theory, that means no one understands it. Crackpots love to circulate bogus self-serving quotes like that. Note also that Einstein wrote that most of the public who were fascinated by relativity didn't understand a word of it.

> To illustrate this, I linked to a video showing what ACTUALLY happens to a grid of
> clocks, and your educated, expert analysis was just one word, "embarrassing".

You simply must make some allowances for decency. A video like that causes the viewer to lose 1 IQ point for each second he views. It's so monumentally stupid and ignorant that it is simply not fit for discussion. The behavior of relatively moving clocks has been explained to you in detail. (Remember the two rows of clocks?) If you want to talk about the subject, then talk about the subject, do not direct people to idiotic youtube videos.

> And by t=t'*gamma, I mean exactly what I wrote...

Then you misunderstand. The symbols t and t' denote the time coordinates of relatively moving systems of inertia-based coordinate systems, and such coordinates do not satisfy the relation you typed. This was explained before.

> And IF you lay that clock on its side, then you do get t=t'*gamma squared.

No, a light clock gives the same time dilation in any orientation. That is Relativity 101... a simple exercise.

> Maybe you don't know what the official work around for this little problem is...

There is no need for a workaround, because there is no problem, little or otherwise.

> Anyway, as I'm interested in a critical analysis of Einsteins actual 1905 Paper that
> was accepted as sufficient in itself to overturn all of known Physics, then why do I
> need to read dozens of other books?

You don't need to read dozens... one good one would be enough. In fact, even Einstein's papers of 1905 would be enough, but note that I said paper(s) plural, and you should probably include the ones from 1906 and 1907 too. But the larger point is (again) that Einstein's 1905 was presented as a theory of principle, top-down, whereas your interest is in an alternative constructive bottom-up approach... For that, you either need to be smart enough to see it yourself, or you need to find a good book on the foundations of relativity theory.

>My understanding of STR has to be based only on what that 1905 paper claims.

Excuse me for saying so, but that's crazy.

> I challenge you over the claim that "in the case of special relativity it was known that the current set of assumptions was wrong". No one had a sound rational explanation for how a light wave could travel in a vacuum unless there was a medium. This led to Einsteins claim that no medium for Light = no absolute frame of reference.

No, your understanding is way off. By 1900 there were many empirical motivations all leading to special relativity, having nothing to do with what you mentioned. Fundamentally there was an inconsistency between the Galilean invariance of Newton’s equations of mechanics and the Lorentz invariance of the Maxwell equations of electrodynamics, and the inability to detect any failures of Galileo’s principle of relativity meant that both electromagnetism and mechanics had to be subject to the same relativistic invariance… which turned out to be Lorentz invariance.

Den 30.01.2022 09:20, skrev everything isalllies:
> On Sunday, January 30, 2022 at 7:16:46 PM UTC+11, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>> Den 29.01.2022 22:34, skrev everything isalllies:
>>> On Sunday, January 30, 2022 at 6:54:38 AM UTC+11, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>>>> Den 29.01.2022 11:36, skrev everything isalllies:
>>>>> We don’t need a MODEL of a car engine to help explain how it works, because we have real engines that we can see exactly what’s happening.
>>>> You are designing a new car engine. You have specifications
>>>> for power, fuel consumption, NOx emission etc. etc.
>>>>
>>>> How do you do it?
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Paul
>>>
>>> You are sidetracking, and demonstrating that you fail to comprehend the meaning of my words.
>>> You are being pedantic. Don't concentrate on details when all i'm dong is telling a story using metaphor to illustrate a point.
>>> A water wheel would serve the same purpose in my story as well as a car engine. You miss the point always. I'm beginning to think you do this on purpose, to sidetrack from the issues I raise.
>>
>> OK.
>> If you should design a Pelton Turbine, how would you do it?
>>
>> --
>> Paul
>>
>> https://paulba.no/
> You are still sidetracking for no useful purpose other than waste time.
> It matters not how I made the wheel, I did not design anything, used no math, no ruler, just used my eye and axe. OK. now get on with the argument. HOW I "designed " the water wheel, car or simple lever and pivot, has ZERO to do with anything we are trying to discuss.

So what are we discussing?

If an ignorant mathematical illiterate idiot who is
unable to design anything can make an engine or water
turbine using no math, no ruler, just using his eye and axe?

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

On Monday, January 31, 2022 at 5:50:06 PM UTC+11, Richard Hertz wrote:

>Well, I told you that you HAVE TO EDUCATE YOURSELF about history of physics, in particular RELATIVITY.<

I acknowledge your in depth knowledge of this subject. I'll try not to make claims re the history of the development of what ended up as the STR. I am biased against Einstein, and don't accept ANY of his claims from his explanation of the Photoelectric effect through GR to his ideas on QM.

It would not matter one iota if Einstein was a female blond bombshell from Scandinavia, I would still oppose her physics.
The fact that he was a jew just is coincidental, as I blame the cult of zionism and its parent Jewdaism for whats happening in this world today.

But no need to discuss that here, everyone already knows my position.
The way that its worked out, is suspicious to me, that its very convenient that modern Physiucs just nessles in bed with the same basic beliefs of Judaism's Kabbalah and Zohar. I provided a number of links a few posts before, where Jews and Physicists discuss this amazing circumstance, what are the chances eh?

So as I do not accept that premise that Matter is just congealed Energy, I don't accept e=mc^2.

And as Kabbalistic teaching does believe that very thing, and Einsteins was a Kabbalist, (that is a fact) then I can't help but put the two together.
As for the non jews that were working on this concept, as an student of History, you will recognise that what was all the rage at that time, would be on everyone's thoughts as they developed their theories. And everyone was of the belief that first , there was no god, next that man can eventually discover everything there is to know about Natural universe through Science, and especially math.. then of course all these learned men naturally were first Materialists, everything was particular in essence, (particles all the way down) but then contrasting that "world view" was the recognition that energy waves and Light, gravity don't easily fit in with a particle only universe. So as these math biased guys played around with ideas, perhaps being exposed to the Kabbalistic influences, re "energy is matter"... of course sooner or later they would end up with equations that seem to fit that predilection.

Now as fine as you think their math is, its all still based on some prior world view. And that world view is in essence that of the Kabbalist, Matter is Energy.
Personally I have a different world view that suggest that there is Matter, and there are Energies, and the two are distinct. the latter only can exist as a property of Matter. Never on its own.
Energy can be exchanged between matter, but Energy on it's own cant "move" anywhere, can't travel, can't posses a speed, (its not an object) but it does radiate from its source Matter.
And we still have no idea at all how gravity does what it does, Newton knew that he could not explain it, only calculate its affects.
Also, out model of how electricity works with electrons etc, is just a model, I doubt we have any real handle on Electricity either, and Magnetism? Nope we have no idea. Feynman blundered his way around that simple question in a truly condescending and embarrassing way, and said nothing in the end. He did not know how Magnetism worked, but was just too proud to admit it.

That's it.

On Monday, January 31, 2022 at 6:22:13 PM UTC+11, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 1/31/2022 12:03 AM, everything isalllies wrote:
> > On Monday, January 31, 2022 at 2:01:03 PM UTC+11, Paul Alsing wrote:
> >
> >> You said... "It doesn't matter how many physicists you have or how long they thought about it, they all still could be mistaken. The feed of each other, so a error assumed to be truth can stay before them but they don't recognise it as an error. Frames of Reference are imaginary, Imaginary constructs don't get to influence reality."
> >>
> >> Just about everything in that paragraph is incorrect.
> >
> >
> >>> The vast majority of Physicists ever, learn Relativity, and then never have to use it again.
> >> Frames of reference are not limited to just relativity. You were speaking about frames of reference...
> >
> > Not the "frames of reference" concept of Galileo, but the weird use of them and the claim of Einsteisn that they alone can cause Physical changes.
> Absurd. The first postulate explicitly states the laws of physics are
> the same in all (inertial) frames.
> >
> >> How would you know that dissenters have a solid case since you know very little physics yourself... certainly less than a freshman in high school who has taken a single physics class...
> >>> In fact, Einsteins case dissolves in to meaningless gibberish when examined from all angles, but the dissenters case remains solid and rational.
> >> Wow, that is quite a statement from a guy who is completely clueless about the subject matter!
> >
> > And yet, strangely I can debate with anyone on the subject, while not knowing anything, and I note that in your reply, not one single bit of explanation as to where I am wrong.
> >
> > Claiming I'm wrong is not showing where I"m wrong.
> You have been shown to be wrong. You just blow it off when that happens.
> >
> >
> >>> Any claim that says that solid things have to shrink in only one direction, whilst growing in Mass and while warping Time locally, and doing all thins simply by moving somewhere, and also doing it differently for every observer who is also moving differently, is instantly a top of the list item in my list of possibly insane ideas.
> >> That would be because you really don't understand the theory. Not even close.
> >
> > Ok, I summarised STR in a nutshell, but you say its not even close, so lets hear you summarise its core in one sentence....
> >
> > We wait......
> "We" who?
> >
> >>> The critical analysis of the reason given by Einstein for these mind bending claims, is found to be just a misunderstanding of how things work. Einsteins was not a mathematician, (nothing to do with Physics anyway) nor was he a Physicist, he was a Clerk.
> >> You are very wrong about this. Einstein had mastered differential and integral calculus before the age of 15. Einstein earned his PhD from the University of Zurich in 1905, so clearly he was a physicist! Where are you getting your historical information? Wherever it is, it sucks!
> >>> So of course I'm correct to be very suspicious of his bizarre claims.
> >> It seems to me that it is *you* who have the bizarre claims... you don't even know about Einstein's education!
> >
> > Just quit with the nonsense ramblings. Not really important that Einstein was gifted his PhD because strings pulled by his jewie mates. That not really of importance here. He must have had mates because a correct peer review of his hypothesis would not have approved his 1905 paper for Publication.
> >
> > But lets agree to stick to the investigation into his Paper. Stick to Physics.
> WTF? It is you who is inserting the "It's the JOOOZZZZZ" conspiracy
> garbage when you're backed into a corner.

In all that, I did not see your summary of STR ... don't you know what to write? try cutting and pasting something from wikipedia.

And BTW, anyone who thinks that "conspiracy theorist" is a derogatory term, and that jooz are not running the show in a conspiratorial manner, is either a jew, or a jew collaborator, or just an idiot. I'll be kind and suggest that for you, its the latter.

everything isalllies <itsalllieseverything@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Monday, January 31, 2022 at 9:04:51 AM UTC+11, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > everything isalllies <itsalllies...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Saturday, January 29, 2022 at 10:08:12 PM UTC+11, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > > everything isalllies <itsalllies...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > MAXWELL developed his Equations based on his "MODEL", a mental,
> > > > > imaginary, conceptual STORY that helped him develop his Mathematical
> > > > > equations...
> > > >
> > > > Yes, and the definitive answer to all that "model" kind of thing
> > > > was provided by Heinrich Hertz:
> > > >
> > > > "Maxwell's theory is nothing but Maxwell's equations"
> > > >
> > > > All the rest is nonsense,
> > > >
> > > > Jan
> > >
> > > And so your final conclusions then?
> >
> > Wasn't that obvious? All your talk about "MODEL" is nonsense.
> >
> > > Is STR correct Physics or just mathematical nonsense?
> >
> > Correct physics, and nothing wrong with the mathematics of it,
> > (but you knew that, didn't you?)
> >
> > Jan
>
> I don't find anything correct in Einsteins 1905 paper.

That's your problem,

Jan

On Monday, January 31, 2022 at 7:30:30 PM UTC+11, Townes Olson wrote:
Ok Townes, ignore everything i say.
But here is a link to published papers relating to this subject and others.

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ziaedin-Shafiei

Look for the Paper entitled, "Is Time Dilation a scientific theory?"
Or if reading is not to your liking, watch the video presentation:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FWYyR5uDpw8

I know you will shrug it off without any explanation other than "its all garbage".
But if you really are smart as you claim, you will show where this guy is wrong.
Line by line.

On Monday, 31 January 2022 at 09:30:30 UTC+1, Townes Olson wrote:
> On Sunday, January 30, 2022 at 2:03:01 PM UTC-8, itsalllies...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Here is a collection of over 40 videos ... but you have deemed that its all BS,
> > because its on video and on youtube.
>
> You're living proof that someone can view a ton of videos about relativity on youtube and still have zero comprehension of the subject.

You, on the other hand, are a living proof that years
of studying don't have to change it too.

> Then you misunderstand. The symbols t and t' denote the time coordinates of relatively moving systems of inertia-based coordinate systems

And when Jesus said - "love your neighbour" - neighbour denoted
a christian neighbour; fucken heretic scum were not included, and
whoever thinks they were - misunderstand.

On Monday, January 31, 2022 at 8:10:10 PM UTC+11, J. J. Lodder wrote:

> > > Correct physics, and nothing wrong with the mathematics of it,
> > > (but you knew that, didn't you?)
> > >
> > > Jan
> >
> > I don't find anything correct in Einsteins 1905 paper.
> That's your problem,
>
> Jan
Well that is a problem, that people like you cant detect when they have been sold a pup.
You still think everything is just fine.
And you aren't even curious to find out that there is another way to look at things.
That's sad. A scientist type who has no curiosity or sense of wonder or adventure.

On Monday, January 31, 2022 at 7:31:03 PM UTC+11, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Den 30.01.2022 09:20, skrev everything isalllies:
> > On Sunday, January 30, 2022 at 7:16:46 PM UTC+11, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> >> Den 29.01.2022 22:34, skrev everything isalllies:
> >>> On Sunday, January 30, 2022 at 6:54:38 AM UTC+11, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> >>>> Den 29.01.2022 11:36, skrev everything isalllies:
> >>>>> We don’t need a MODEL of a car engine to help explain how it works, because we have real engines that we can see exactly what’s happening.
> >>>> You are designing a new car engine. You have specifications
> >>>> for power, fuel consumption, NOx emission etc. etc.
> >>>>
> >>>> How do you do it?
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Paul
> >>>
> >>> You are sidetracking, and demonstrating that you fail to comprehend the meaning of my words.
> >>> You are being pedantic. Don't concentrate on details when all i'm dong is telling a story using metaphor to illustrate a point.
> >>> A water wheel would serve the same purpose in my story as well as a car engine. You miss the point always. I'm beginning to think you do this on purpose, to sidetrack from the issues I raise.
> >>
> >> OK.
> >> If you should design a Pelton Turbine, how would you do it?
> >>
> >> --
> >> Paul
> >>
> >> https://paulba.no/
> > You are still sidetracking for no useful purpose other than waste time.
> > It matters not how I made the wheel, I did not design anything, used no math, no ruler, just used my eye and axe. OK. now get on with the argument.. HOW I "designed " the water wheel, car or simple lever and pivot, has ZERO to do with anything we are trying to discuss.
>
> So what are we discussing?
>
> If an ignorant mathematical illiterate idiot who is
> unable to design anything can make an engine or water
> turbine using no math, no ruler, just using his eye and axe?
>
> --
> Paul
>
> https://paulba.no/

Paul you are a wanker.
before you sidetracked the topic to how to design engines, I challenged you to attempt some explanations for the wild claims you make all the time.
Latest one was that thousands of people had done experiments that demonstrate Einstein's versions of "inertial frames of reference." Where Einstein claims that by swapping to another frame, physical objects will change.
So lets hear your example of a experiment on how those thousands of people managed to demonstrate this.

Of course, you now will just say that's not what STR is all about, so I asked one of you Relativist wankers, for a definition, a summary of what STR is all about. No such summary is provided.

Don't you guys even know what the hell you are defending?

everything isalllies <itsalllieseverything@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, January 31, 2022 at 3:51:19 AM UTC+11, Townes Olson wrote:
>> On Sunday, January 30, 2022 at 12:16:58 AM UTC-8, itsalllies...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> Well, Ill watch Ignatowski's series on STR, to see if he has anything to say that was
>>> missed By Yale, Harvard, Stanford and bunch of others.
>> You do that. However, since Ignatowski wrote on this subject in 1910 and
>> died in 1942, I think it is unlikely he made any youtube videos. The way
>> most people learn about these things is by reading good books on the
>> history and foundations of the subject. Online videos on "explaining
>> relativity" to doltish freshmen by non-experts do not provide this level
>> of knowledge and understanding.
>>> In the spaceship together with the Light clock which is standing up like a grandfather
>>> clock, place another exactly identical clock on the floor,
>>> horizontally, laying so that the
>>> photon is going along the same x axis as the ship. Now using the exact same methodology
>>> you used to get the Lorentz equation for time dilation for the vertical
>>> clock, use the same
>>> though process for the photon travelling horizontally.
>> That's a simple high-school homework exercise.
>>> Now if you claim this is the way to calculate the time dilation
>> Well, it is *a* way of illustrating time dilation, but not a
>> particularly good way of *deriving* it. I've already explained to you how it is derived.
>>> If Einstein is correct, then there can be no different time dilation in
>>> the one single frame.
>> Well, if special relativity is correct, yes. (This isn't about any
>> individual being "correct".)
>>
>>> But mathematically you cant get lorentz transform...
>>
>> Again, describing the functioning of a "light clock" is not a good way
>> of deriving the Lorentz transformation (not transform), it is an
>> illustration of a consequence of the Lorentz transformation. You would
>> know this if you ever read a good book on the subject.
>>> you end up with a very drastically different time dilation.
>> Nope, you get the same time dilation, regardless of the orientation of
>> the device. Again, it's a simple high school homework exercise to
>> analyze such a clock oriented along the direction of travel.
>>
>>> Einstein/Lorentz sets t=t'*gamma...
>>
>> Nope. What you meant to say is that the time for a pulse to make the
>> round trip in terms of coordinates in which the device is moving at
>> speed v is gamma times the round trip time in terms of the system in which it is at rest.
>>> but in the same spaceship, just by having the clock on its side, the equation
>>> becomes t=t'*gamma SQUARED!
>> No, you flunked the homework exercise. Analyzing the clock aligned with
>> the direction of motion gives the same factor of gamma (not squared) in
>> the round trip time.
>>> So which time dilation is correct?
>> There is only one.
>>> I need a decent answer for this.
>> This is explained in countless book... but apparently after watching
>> lots of youtube videos you can't find one that explains this. Are you
>> beginning to see the problem with trying to learn by watching youtube
>> videos? Of course, most people wouldn't need a book or video to analyze
>> this, because it is trivial, but if you can't find a youtube video on
>> this trivial thing, imagine how likely it is to find one on genuinely
>> in-depth understanding.
>
>
>
> You are an idiot. I think I said that before...
> https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCndkdcCc_aVAe3qgEGye7Vw/videos
> Here is a collection of over 40 videos comprising many hours of detailed
> explanation with math done by an expert in Physics, intended to explain
> STR in a simple step by step approach, but you have deemed that its all
> BS, because its on video and on youtube.
> Einstein said, "IF you cant explain your theory to a 6 Year old, you
> don't know what you are talking about."

No, Einstein did not say that. Don’t make shit up.

Einstein DID write a book explaining relativity to lay people. Have you
read it? If not, WHY NOT?

> And you are claiming that you cant explain it to a 6 yo, who would learn
> best from a video I bet, so we can only conclude that you have zero
> understanding of STR yourself, as Einsteins indicated above.

I don’t care what “we” might falsely conclude from a statement “we”
misattribute to Einstein.

>
> To illustrate this, I linked to a video showing what ACTUALLY happens to
> a grid of clocks, and your educated, expert analysis was just one word,
> "embarrassing". What this tells me is here again, you simply have no idea
> what you are talking about.
>
> And by t=t'*gamma, I mean exactly what I wrote, as this is exactly what
> time dilation is, according to Einstein.
>
> And IF you lay that clock on its side, then you do get t=t'*gamma squared.
> Two different time dilations for the same spaceship.
>
> Maybe you don't know what the official work around for this little
> problem is, so you just hoped there would be one, and that's why you just
> suggested I read another book, which you neglect to actually name.

Not so, I’ve named three:

Einstein: Relativity, the Special and General Theories, aimed at lay people

Taylor and Wheeler: Spacetime Physics, aimed at beginners

Geroch: General Relativity from A to B, aimed at beginners

Now, since you can’t seem to recall any of these being mentioned to you, I
can only conclude you cannot read Usenet for comprehension either. So why
is it that you are trying to elicit explanations of relativity on
sci.physics.relativity that you will not understand because you cannot
read?

>
> Anyway, as I'm interested in a critical analysis of Einsteins actual 1905
> Paper that was accepted as sufficient in itself to overturn all of known
> Physics, then why do I need to read dozens of other books? My
> understanding of STR has to be based only on what that 1905 paper claims.

Nobody said you need to read dozens of books. You haven’t even read ONE.
What’s your excuse for avoiding reading ONE?

>
> Its a fallacy of Logic to claim that no accurate information can be found
> or no knowledge can be attained because of the media that is used to
> present the information.
>

The internet, including both YouTube and this forum, is a steaming pile of
garbage, where good quality nourishment is sprinkled in among rotting
pus-bags of misinformation. So you pick up a video dripping with yellow
ooze and say, “Hey, look what I found! This must be quality stuff! Tell me
why I shouldn’t eat it right now!” Your choices reflect your lack of
discernment.

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

everything isalllies <itsalllieseverything@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, January 31, 2022 at 4:33:59 AM UTC+11, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> everything isalllies <itsalllies...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Bodkin,
>>> Everything you said just missed the point.
>>> You pick on details instead of see the big picture.
>>> My stories are just metaphors, i'm not trying to state exact detailed
>>> facts, just telling a story.
>>> And in that story, you can see that the story that Einstein spun, is not rational.
>>
>> No, it’s rational. It’s just not what you believe to be true.
>> Something you don’t believe is not irrational.
>>
>>>
>>> And why do you keep saying stupid things like, "you don't know what a
>>> field is", that's silly talk unless you first, state what you believe
>>> I'm saying a field is, then counter that with what you think a field is.
>>>
>>
>> It’s obvious you don’t know what a field is. If you had said that you’d
>> flown to Istanbul in a submarine, it’d be clear you don’t know what a
>> submarine is.
>>
>> When you guess badly, just in the hopes that someone will correct you,
>> rather than you LEARNING what a field is by READING, the one that looks
>> like an idiot is you.
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>
> That's funny, I was under the impression that you were going to present
> your definition of a FIELD.
> I don't see that here anywhere.

That’s funny, you were under the impression that you are owed an
explanation just because you ask for it on Usenet, without having to study
the basics from a book. I wonder what kind of an idiot approaches learning
that way?

> Perhaps in your next comment, which for once is going to contain
> something concrete, like your actual definition.
>

Well, do you want MY actual definition of a field, or do you want
PHYSICISTS’ actual definition of a field?

I would presume you’re asking about the physics definition. If you’re
interested in only mine, this just means you’re more interested in mano y
mano bickering than you are in physics.

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

everything isalllies <itsalllieseverything@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, January 31, 2022 at 4:34:00 AM UTC+11, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> everything isalllies <itsalllies...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Sunday, January 30, 2022 at 4:57:00 AM UTC+11, Townes Olson wrote:
>>>> Remember you claimed that relativity can't possibly be correct because
>>>> it implies a<b and b<a, and I explained your mistake by describing the
>>>> two rows of clocks. When I first explained it, you replied "I will show
>>>> you what's wrong with your explanation in my next sitting"... and
>>>> then.... crickets. Until you make good on your promise, the explanation
>>>> stands unchallenged.
>>> <
>>>
>>> Watch this video, that shows clearly and simply that its not possible for
>>> moving clocks to change in relation to a stationary grid of clocks.
>>>
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oK0XpKKnLkw&ts
>>>
>>
>> Oh good grief.
>>
>> You think every piece of trash on the internet deserves a detailed
>> rebuttal?
>>
>> Have you become an adult yet?
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>
> Are you including yourself in that category of internet users? "Pieces of Trash"
> Because your comments indicate that you fit the description well.
>
> Of all the posters here, you are the one that ALWAYS comments, thus you
> obviously believe two opposing things.
> 1. Pieces of trash on the internet are not deserving of rebuttals

That’s right.

> 2. You constantly attempt to provide rebuttals to those very people.

No, I’m not. Notice I’m not trying to teach you any of the basics, because
I expect you to READ to learn those, like ANYBODY ELSE NORMAL DOES.

>
> Now IF you believed item 1. then we would not have all these comments
> from OddBodkin cluttering up the thread.
>
>

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

everything isalllies <itsalllieseverything@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, January 31, 2022 at 5:23:34 AM UTC+11, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>
>>>>> But first, you must describe WHY its necessary. (lorentz translations
>>>>> equations for OBJECTS)
>>
>> No you don’t. That’s the point you repeatedly don’t get.
>>
>> In science, you DO NOT have to prove that the current set of assumptions is
>> wrong before making a new set of assumptions and seeing what consequences
>> follow from them. This proposing alternative assumptions WITHOUT BEING
>> FORCED TO is heart and soul of science and it happens all the time.
>>
>> If this comes as a surprise to you, or you think it’s a bad thing to do,
>> then science is just not your bag.
>>
>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>
> Oh you can make assumptions, then try to justify them, but this is not
> the core principal of Physics.
> Postulates, Einsteins called them.

Yes, postulates are assumptions.

And no, postulates are things that are provisionally assumed to be true
WITHOUT justification. Did you not know that?

Guess when the validation of those postulates happens? Hint: we’ve talked
about this before.

> Now in his 1905 paper, he make postulates, then twists them with dodgy
> logic into meaning something else, then form there derives the Lorentz
> translation equation, but applies it to unsuitable subjects.
>
> So I want you to try to explain how to derive gamma factor the same way
> Einstein did, but in your own words.

Why would I do that, rather than to have you read EINSTEIN’S OWN WORDS
AIMED AT LAY PEOPLE? That book I’ve repeatedly referred you to.

Why do you come HERE to try to wheedle someone OTHER than Einstein to
explain HIS stuff to you, when you can just go to the library and check out
a copy? Heck, it’s available from Amazon for about $5. Ain’t got $5?

> The geometry that was used by Einstein is high school simple. But the
> trick is in the application of the twisted Postulate.
>
> Do we get to read your actual explanation this time, the first time you
> have done an actual answer? Usually you just pass it on to some other source.
>

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

everything isalllies <itsalllieseverything@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, January 31, 2022 at 9:02:29 AM UTC+11, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>> Please present clear experimental evidence that can't be attributed to
>>> other causes. So no sub atomic experiments. Cosmic Rays are not suitable,
>>> try something else.
>>>
>> Sorry, the point is not to find something that is compelling to you
>> personally. Why do you think that would matter at all? Are you nuts?
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>
> Look, Einstein makes a claim, an absolutely earth shattering
> extraordinary claim of Physics.
> Extraordinary claims require 2 things,
> 1. an extraordinarily strong Hypothesis, and 2, backed up by
> extraordinary supporting evidence.

Well, first of all, while special relativity was quite an insight, it was
hardly earth shattering for everyday people like you. So there isn’t any
real driver to make sure that everyday people are as convinced as
physicists are, is there?

Secondly, no, there is no extra burden on the strength or obviousness of
the hypothesis, as I’ve explained to you dozens of times. Hypotheses, even
remarkable ones, can come from an alcohol-induced fever dream. Of course,
the hypothesis isn’t worth anything unless it is validated in experiment,
which is what happened in this case.

Third, there IS extraordinary supporting evidence. You just don’t look at
it. Worse, you say the only evidence you’d accept is something you can see
in everyday life, as though THAT’s what matters.

>
> As its clear that 1 is dodgy and easily criticised, then the evidence has
> to be a unassailable from any angle.
> And no Physicst is going to claim that there is no issues with Particle Physics.

The fact that there are open issues with particle physics does not mean the
whole thing is dodgy. What are you, nine years old?

The only science that is good science is where all the open questions are
answered and there’s nothing left to do?

Does that work in chemistry or biology?

>
> So you fail on point 1 and on point 2.
> dodgy hypothesis and only evidence is guesswork based on interpretations
> of artefacts remaining from the release of energy reacting with god know what.
>
> Every single experiment that is supposed to support STR is invariably
> involving the impossibly tiny, the impossibly far away, or the impossibly
> fast. (impossible to be 100% sure we understand what we are looking at)

This technology is quite a bit more established than you think it is.

I’ll repeat this for your special benefit: Just because you don’t use it in
your kitchen or your garage does not make it dodgy or mostly speculative.

> Not only that, but every experiment has alternative explanations.
>
> So to repeat, no solid hypothesis, and no empirical supporting evidence.
>
> Are you going to make me dig up some Papers that challenge the finding
> and conclusions that are made by Particle Physics? because there are more
> than one. In a room full of Particle Physicists, its hard to find any two
> that agree with each other.
>

Well, it sure is easy to go digging around the garbage pile of the internet
about physics and find two bits that both smell and disagree with each
other.

This is one of the reasons I’m suggesting you read a book or two, so you
can learn what is truly very well established.

Did you know you can scour the internet and easily find open controversies
about whether the earth is in fact flat and not round, that we never landed
on the moon, that the earth is in fact no older than 6600 years old and
that the existence of dinosaurs that lived millions of years ago is dubious
science, that there are no viruses other than the common cold and that HIV
and COVID-19 are just scientific lies? Does the fact that this is EASY to
find on the internet mean that these are in fact controversies?

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