When Einstein "wrote his" 1905 paper about SR, time and time measurement were a central issue in the development of his theoretical work. His thought experiments, without any single numerical value, were based on synchronization of several clocks, which dictated what time was by the position of their needles.

The best lecture of time, using an state of the art swiss clock like the one on this link:

https://www.joseph-watches.com/all-products/swiss-1903-silver-before-1900/

couldn't provide any lecture better that this value, for instance:

11:46:31 ± 1 (eleven hour, 46 minutes, 31 ± 1 seconds)

and this accuracy and precission, that could be held for 30-35 hours, was considered a marvel of technology.

Nobody dreamed of measuring milliseconds, less yet microseconds and thinking about nanoseconds was not even considered in the most audacious scify story (and scify was booming in that epoch).

It took about 50 years to create the first digital counter-clock able to measure microseconds in the lab, being voluminous and expensive. And it would be required another 10 years to measure in nanoseconds. It amount 60 years of progress in electronics (not even dreamed in 1905) to make possible the measurement of a round trip time for light in closed doors at advanced laboratories in central countries.

Yet, the fallacies and sophistry on which 1905 relativity is based were accepted/forced to by an increasing number of believers in fairy tails during such period (1905 - 1965).

The idea of synchronizing two clocks marking t and t' by means of lightbeams during an infinitesimal amount of time, when a frame E'(x',t') moving at v speed passed by the origin of a frame E(x,t) at relative rest to E' was not considered utter-crap by any believer in the early years of relativity, even when much more sophisticated questions arose regarding Einstein's clock synchronization.

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

That two clocks marking t and t' could be synchronized by MAGIC when x = x' was not openly questioned by any scientist of that epoch, except by those (like Heaviside) who stated that relativity was a pile of crap.

Imagine this: you have two clocks marking

t = 11:46:31 ± 1 and t' = 09:12:07 ± 1

which are reset to t = t' = 00:00:00 ± 1 at the exact instant that x = x' = 0.

And this happening at perfection over clocks with more than 200 parts, based on MECHANICAL harmonic oscillators, and NOBODY called this illogical thought experiment BULLSHIT?

This is how swiss pocket clocks (the best) worked for the next 60 years:

How a Mechanical Watch Works
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_QsCLYs2mY

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

BUT THIS IS NOTHING COMPARED WITH THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PAPER, STARTING WITH:
QUOTE:-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"We have so far defined only an “A time” and a “B time.” We have not defined a common “time” for A and B, for the latter cannot be defined at all unless we establish by definition that the “time” required by light to travel from A to B equals the “time” it requires to travel from B to A. Let a ray of light start at the “A time” tA from A towards B, let it at the “B time” tB be reflected at B in the direction of A, and arrive again at A at the “A time” t'A.

In accordance with definition the two clocks synchronize if

tB − tA = t'A − tB.

We assume that this definition of synchronism is free from contradictions, and possible for any number of points;"
END QUOTE:------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So, using clocks that barely could measure time lapses in 1 second steps, the cretin affirmed (knowing that it was a METAPHYSICAL STATEMENT for that epoch) that he could measure EXACTLY time duration in the order or NANO or PICOseconds? And nobody, among top dogs in physics, protested and called it pure crap (like Heaviside did)?.

This is a simple proof about the physical nonsense of relativity, and why it HAS TO be confined in the realm of metaphysics even today.

Because the whole paper is metaphysical, metaphilosophical crap, unable to be proven or disproved for decades. But, as it opened a new field for people trying to make a living among the majority of scientists working on the progress of REAL SCIENCE, with honesty and free of fallacies, many cretins jumped into the bandwagon of relativity in decades to came. And the MAIN attraction was that they could last years working on this "field", because they were not accountable for any fail because it was untesteable. Magic!

Any other scientist had his work at a stake if they didn't delivered goods. But not the case of relativists, PARASITES that inherited such quality from Al.

The above is one of the many reasons by which I call relativists cretins, useless eaters, deceivers, liars, crooks, etc.

Up to 1905 everybody knew, that clocks tend to desynchronize,
but it was erroneously taken as a bad thing. Our Giant Guru has
discovered that no! It's fine! Maybe the desynchronized clocks
are useless, but what a magnificient symmetry they have.

Le 30/03/2022 à 08:35, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
> Up to 1905 everybody knew, that clocks tend to desynchronize,
> but it was erroneously taken as a bad thing. Our Giant Guru has
> discovered that no! It's fine! Maybe the desynchronized clocks
> are useless, but what a magnificient symmetry they have.

The problem with the theory of relativity is that the same word can have
different meanings for one researcher and for another.

I never use the word "simultaneity" in expressions like "both watches beat
simultaneously".

Even if I understand very well what the one who speaks to me means.

He means that they have the same chronotropy.

In short, that their needles beat at the same speed.

I think it's useful (fools think it's bullshit or narcissism that I say
that) that we give precise concepts to the terms.

I differentiate, very excellent Maciej, the notion of chronotropy and that
of anisochrony.

I really think that these two notions are natural and cannot be physically
refuted.

They must therefore be applied.

But apply them well.

I try to be as simple, as precise and as didactic as possible.

I can't do much better in my words.

Then, it is up to whoever reads me to try to understand and confirm the
concepts if the concepts appeal to him.

The "primum movens" of the theory of relativity should be: the notion of
general anisotropy.

But it is not. Nobody ever talks about it.

In short, the fact that two simultaneous events for an observer placed at
the creel of a public park will no longer be simultaneous for another
observer yet present in the same park.

Physicists falsely attribute this to the "speed of light".

The second notion, which complicates the first, is that of chronotropy:
if, in addition, the two observers are not in the same inertial reference
frame (they move relative to each other) their clocks tick reciprocally
MORE QUICKLY let the other show.

Two natural effects that must be understood and differentiated.

That's why I don't really like people talking about "simultaneity of watch
beats".
The same term relating to the first effect placed in a sentence which
speaks of the second effect, it can lead to confusion, and this theory,
which is true, is already confused enough as it is.

R.H.

Richard "Hachel" Lengrand (M.D.) wrote:
....
> I never use the word "simultaneity" in expressions like "both watches
> beat simultaneously".

No one uses such an expression (but you in your post), it is
meaningless.

> I think it's useful (fools think it's bullshit or narcissism that I say
> that) that we give precise concepts to the terms.

It is the opposite. Your "version" of SR is bullshit because you cannot
give precise meanings to *your* own terminology. And your narcissism
prevent you to even watching a course on Relativity or read a book.

> I differentiate, very excellent Maciej, the notion of chronotropy and
> that of anisochrony.
>
> I really think that these two notions are natural and cannot be
> physically refuted.
>
> They must therefore be applied.
>
> But apply them well.
>
> I try to be as simple, as precise and as didactic as possible.

Your production is so fuzzy, imprecise, self-contradictory, ill-defined,
inconsistent and so poorly worded, Richard, that the adjective
"didactic" definitely cannot qualify it.

The course I invited you to watch (what you refused in advance, sad
you could have erased 30+ years of confusion on your part by watching
a few hours of videos), on the other hand, is clear, define everything
very carefully (especially frames of reference and coordinates, what
you never do) and isolate all assumptions made in the process of
building Relativity.

Reminder:
Etienne Parizot — Physique pour non spécialistes : séance 1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gf2hCnbxvM8

> The "primum movens" of the theory of relativity should be: the notion of
> general anisotropy.

A Polish writer, Stanislas Lem, wrote once that medical doctors usually
start to speak in Latin when they don't understand something. You are
a perfect illustration of that claim. And Lem is a perfect illustration
that not all Polish are demented ranting idiots.

> That's why I don't really like people talking about "simultaneity of
> watch beats".

You are the only one who talks this way. You are, again, making up lies
about what other people say and write.

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
> When Einstein "wrote his" 1905 paper about SR, time and time measurement
> were a central issue in the development of his theoretical work. His
> thought experiments, without any single numerical value, were based on
> synchronization of several clocks, which dictated what time was by the
> position of their needles.
>
> The best lecture of time, using an state of the art swiss clock like the one on this link:
>
> https://www.joseph-watches.com/all-products/swiss-1903-silver-before-1900/
>
> couldn't provide any lecture better that this value, for instance:
>
> 11:46:31 ± 1 (eleven hour, 46 minutes, 31 ± 1 seconds)
>
> and this accuracy and precission, that could be held for 30-35 hours, was
> considered a marvel of technology.
>
> Nobody dreamed of measuring milliseconds, less yet microseconds and
> thinking about nanoseconds was not even considered in the most audacious
> scify story (and scify was booming in that epoch).
>
> It took about 50 years to create the first digital counter-clock able to
> measure microseconds in the lab, being voluminous and expensive. And it
> would be required another 10 years to measure in nanoseconds. It amount
> 60 years of progress in electronics (not even dreamed in 1905) to make
> possible the measurement of a round trip time for light in closed doors
> at advanced laboratories in central countries.
>
> Yet, the fallacies and sophistry on which 1905 relativity is based were
> accepted/forced to by an increasing number of believers in fairy tails
> during such period (1905 - 1965).
>
> The idea of synchronizing two clocks marking t and t' by means of
> lightbeams during an infinitesimal amount of time, when a frame E'(x',t')
> moving at v speed passed by the origin of a frame E(x,t) at relative rest
> to E' was not considered utter-crap by any believer in the early years of
> relativity, even when much more sophisticated questions arose regarding
> Einstein's clock synchronization.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_synchronisation
>
> That two clocks marking t and t' could be synchronized by MAGIC when x =
> x' was not openly questioned by any scientist of that epoch, except by
> those (like Heaviside) who stated that relativity was a pile of crap.
>
> Imagine this: you have two clocks marking
>
> t = 11:46:31 ± 1 and t' = 09:12:07 ± 1
>
> which are reset to t = t' = 00:00:00 ± 1 at the exact instant that x = x' = 0.
>
> And this happening at perfection over clocks with more than 200 parts,
> based on MECHANICAL harmonic oscillators, and NOBODY called this
> illogical thought experiment BULLSHIT?
>
> This is how swiss pocket clocks (the best) worked for the next 60 years:
>
> How a Mechanical Watch Works
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_QsCLYs2mY
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanical_watch
>
> BUT THIS IS NOTHING COMPARED WITH THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PAPER, STARTING WITH:
> QUOTE:-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> "We have so far defined only an “A time” and a “B time.” We have not
> defined a common “time” for A and B, for the latter cannot be defined at
> all unless we establish by definition that the “time” required by light
> to travel from A to B equals the “time” it requires to travel from B to
> A. Let a ray of light start at the “A time” tA from A towards B, let it
> at the “B time” tB be reflected at B in the direction of A, and arrive
> again at A at the “A time” t'A.
>
> In accordance with definition the two clocks synchronize if
>
> tB − tA = t'A − tB.
>
> We assume that this definition of synchronism is free from
> contradictions, and possible for any number of points;"
> END
> QUOTE:------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> So, using clocks that barely could measure time lapses in 1 second steps,
> the cretin affirmed (knowing that it was a METAPHYSICAL STATEMENT for
> that epoch) that he could measure EXACTLY time duration in the order or
> NANO or PICOseconds? And nobody, among top dogs in physics, protested and
> called it pure crap (like Heaviside did)?.
>
> This is a simple proof about the physical nonsense of relativity, and why
> it HAS TO be confined in the realm of metaphysics even today.
>
> Because the whole paper is metaphysical, metaphilosophical crap, unable
> to be proven or disproved for decades. But, as it opened a new field for
> people trying to make a living among the majority of scientists working
> on the progress of REAL SCIENCE, with honesty and free of fallacies, many
> cretins jumped into the bandwagon of relativity in decades to came. And
> the MAIN attraction was that they could last years working on this
> "field", because they were not accountable for any fail because it was untesteable. Magic!
>
> Any other scientist had his work at a stake if they didn't delivered
> goods. But not the case of relativists, PARASITES that inherited such quality from Al.
>
> The above is one of the many reasons by which I call relativists cretins,
> useless eaters, deceivers, liars, crooks, etc.
>
>
>
>

You seem to be under the impression that physicists should only hypothesize
about that which is immediately technologically testable in direct ways.
Has this ever been the case?

Darwin speculated about mechanisms by which traits could get passed from
generation to generation, while also suffering random variations, having no
idea about DNA or the mechanisms of mutation. Would you allege that, since
the discovery of DNA didn’t happen for many decades later, that Darwin
should have abandoned the idea as being directly untestable in his present
moment?

Is this how engineers think science should run?

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

On Wednesday, 30 March 2022 at 14:31:11 UTC+2, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 30/03/2022 à 08:35, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
> > Up to 1905 everybody knew, that clocks tend to desynchronize,
> > but it was erroneously taken as a bad thing. Our Giant Guru has
> > discovered that no! It's fine! Maybe the desynchronized clocks
> > are useless, but what a magnificient symmetry they have.
> The problem with the theory of relativity is that the same word can have
> different meanings for one researcher and for another.

Sure; there is a similiar problem when talking about a
"greatest leader of German nation", a "best political
system" etc.
In the real world, anyway, two events are simultaneous
when they have the same UTC/TAI/GPS coordinate.
You can scream "NOOOOOO!!!!" as much as you want,
nothing is going to change.

On Wednesday, March 30, 2022 at 9:31:11 AM UTC-3, Richard Hachel wrote:

<snip>

> But it is not. Nobody ever talks about it.
>
> In short, the fact that two simultaneous events for an observer placed at
> the creel of a public park will no longer be simultaneous for another
> observer yet present in the same park.
>
> Physicists falsely attribute this to the "speed of light".
>
> The second notion, which complicates the first, is that of chronotropy:
> if, in addition, the two observers are not in the same inertial reference
> frame (they move relative to each other) their clocks tick reciprocally
> MORE QUICKLY let the other show.

Chronotropy, as defined, is the result of physiological responses of events on humans, which change their heart rate.

So, chronotropy is a subjective physiological response to events, which is different for every person. The same happens
with other responses of different physiological systems, like the auditory or the visual system. Not two individuals can
perceive and react upon external stimulus in the same way. You only can have averages for responses to sound or vision.

Relativity, disregarding its abuse of mathematics and sophistry, is also a physiological based theory and, for this, is metaphysical,
subjective, because its based on the sense of time flow and the individual perception of time duration and lengths, disregarding
what any set of equations WANT TO impose on human responses to stimulus.

The perception of SIMULTANEITY was perfectly described by the simple expression of the galilean x' = x - vt, which is 500+ years old.

You can use it with TWO persons that travel on a train at v speed, but are located 680 mt one from each other. Set an object at rest,
located at 1000 mt from the nearest observer, goes off with light and sound. It's elementary to conclude that, for the two persons
on board, such event is not simultaneous for them, because of the different speeds of sound and light. And this can be measured with
their wristwatch, marking a difference of 2 seconds as measured by their clocks.

This is SUBJECTIVE and is due to the difference of 1 million to 1 in the speeds of light and sound. But now you have THREE different
subjective interpretations: for a person located near the firework and the two persons moving at v in the train. Even more, the relationship
between timings (dictated by their mechanical clocks) is mathematically connected to the DISTANCE from the blast. Pure galilean thing.

And this was known for centuries, before the imbecile tried to redefine time and space, because of his sick perversion to distort reality
with philosophy and metaphysics.

From any universal observer, located above the plane at enought height, all three perceptions ARE EQUAL, once time and distance is
discounted. Then, it means that SIMULTANEITY is SUBJECTIVE and, as other physiological interpretations of nature, MUST BE AVERAGED
to get a mean value.

The problem with the cretin is that he burnt his fucking mind thinking too much, and eliminated the sound from the picture.

Then, what he came through, using deceivingly SIMPLE MATHEMATICS, was what he TRIED TO SELL TO SCIENCE as a revelation.

But this SIN, that was bought by many, is unfounded and void of physical meaning.

For our sorrow, the working mind is also SUBJECTIVE, and their outputs can be EASILY MANIPULATED by a charlatan, in the same
way a magician deceive MOST of their audience with his tricks. In this case, mental tricks of sophistry and fallacies.

But not all are deceived in the audience. They are called cranks or antirelativist just to marginate them, because the HUMAN HERD
feels comfortable only among equals and tend to expell or outcast those who are against the average thinking.

It happens on EVERY SINGLE human activity: politics, religion, sports, science.

Relativity, as a CULT, has to be labeled as a religion based activity.

As simple as that.

Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> wrote:
> Le 30/03/2022 à 08:35, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
>> Up to 1905 everybody knew, that clocks tend to desynchronize,
>> but it was erroneously taken as a bad thing. Our Giant Guru has
>> discovered that no! It's fine! Maybe the desynchronized clocks
>> are useless, but what a magnificient symmetry they have.
>
> The problem with the theory of relativity is that the same word can have
> different meanings for one researcher and for another.

Well, that depends what you mean by researcher.

If you label uneducated amateurs such as yourself, and professional
physicists as both being “researchers”, yes I agree that this is a common
problem.

The resolution of the problem is simple. Those interested in physics must
learn the language used in physics, and must use the language that way.
Otherwise, the amateur will simply flounder, possibly for decades.

>
> I never use the word "simultaneity" in expressions like "both watches beat
> simultaneously".
>
> Even if I understand very well what the one who speaks to me means.
>
> He means that they have the same chronotropy.
>
> In short, that their needles beat at the same speed.
>
> I think it's useful (fools think it's bullshit or narcissism that I say
> that) that we give precise concepts to the terms.
>
> I differentiate, very excellent Maciej, the notion of chronotropy and that
> of anisochrony.
>
> I really think that these two notions are natural and cannot be physically
> refuted.
>
> They must therefore be applied.
>
> But apply them well.
>
> I try to be as simple, as precise and as didactic as possible.
>
> I can't do much better in my words.
>
> Then, it is up to whoever reads me to try to understand and confirm the
> concepts if the concepts appeal to him.
>
> The "primum movens" of the theory of relativity should be: the notion of
> general anisotropy.
>
> But it is not. Nobody ever talks about it.
>
> In short, the fact that two simultaneous events for an observer placed at
> the creel of a public park will no longer be simultaneous for another
> observer yet present in the same park.
>
> Physicists falsely attribute this to the "speed of light".
>
> The second notion, which complicates the first, is that of chronotropy:
> if, in addition, the two observers are not in the same inertial reference
> frame (they move relative to each other) their clocks tick reciprocally
> MORE QUICKLY let the other show.
>
> Two natural effects that must be understood and differentiated.
>
> That's why I don't really like people talking about "simultaneity of watch
> beats".
> The same term relating to the first effect placed in a sentence which
> speaks of the second effect, it can lead to confusion, and this theory,
> which is true, is already confused enough as it is.
>
> R.H.
>

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

On Wednesday, 30 March 2022 at 16:27:19 UTC+2, Python wrote:
> Richard "Hachel" Lengrand (M.D.) wrote:
> ...
> > I never use the word "simultaneity" in expressions like "both watches
> > beat simultaneously".
> No one uses such an expression (but you in your post), it is

Oh, stinker Python is opening its muzzle again,
and trying to pretend he knows something.
Tell me, poor stinker, what is your definition of
a "theory" in the terms of Peano arithmetic?
See: if a theorem is going to be a part of a theory,
it has to be formulable in the language of the
theory. Do you get it? Or are you too stupid even for
that, poor stinker?

On Wednesday, 30 March 2022 at 16:29:47 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:

> You seem to be under the impression that physicists should only hypothesize
> about that which is immediately technologically testable in direct ways.

You mean - by looking at GPS clocks, indicating
t'=t against your insane religion?

Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> In the meantime in the real world, Peano arithmetics
> is a theory of numbers, not about theories. Godel's
> theorem isn't a part of it. Godel has concocted a brandly
> new theory, but somehow he has forgotten to
> specify its assumptions.
> There are some other reasons why his theorem has no
> value, but they're all too muchg for [...]

If you really want your confusion and misconceptions about
Gödel's theorems to be addressed, please explain what assumptions
"Gödel somehow forgot to specify" according to you, as well as the
"other reasons why his theorem has no value" on sci.logic.

Le 30/03/2022 à 16:43, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
> On Wednesday, 30 March 2022 at 16:27:19 UTC+2, Python wrote:
>> Richard "Hachel" Lengrand (M.D.) wrote:
>> ...
>> > I never use the word "simultaneity" in expressions like "both watches
>> > beat simultaneously".
>> No one uses such an expression (but you in your post), it is
>
>
> Oh, stinker Python is opening its muzzle again,
> and trying to pretend he knows something.

Python est fou.

R.H.

Le 30/03/2022 à 16:42, Richard Hertz a écrit :

What I would like to say is that I think Henri Poincaré (a Frenchman)
understood, and you can see it in his writings that there were weird
things that happened if you went very far or if the We were going very
fast.

He gave many equations on it, including the Lorentz transformations and
the formula E=mc².

I think this gentleman was very strong.

BUT... thereupon came the German school and Albert Einstein.

This school derived Poincaré's achievements more than they carried them
further.

So we have to start from Poincaré, that's what I did.

And I'm not unhappy with my job.

R.H.

On Wednesday, March 30, 2022 at 11:29:47 AM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > When Einstein "wrote his" 1905 paper about SR, time and time measurement
> > were a central issue in the development of his theoretical work. His
> > thought experiments, without any single numerical value, were based on
> > synchronization of several clocks, which dictated what time was by the
> > position of their needles.
> >
> > The best lecture of time, using an state of the art swiss clock like the one on this link:
> >
> > https://www.joseph-watches.com/all-products/swiss-1903-silver-before-1900/
> >
> > couldn't provide any lecture better that this value, for instance:
> >
> > 11:46:31 ± 1 (eleven hour, 46 minutes, 31 ± 1 seconds)
> >
> > and this accuracy and precission, that could be held for 30-35 hours, was
> > considered a marvel of technology.
> >
> > Nobody dreamed of measuring milliseconds, less yet microseconds and
> > thinking about nanoseconds was not even considered in the most audacious
> > scify story (and scify was booming in that epoch).
> >
> > It took about 50 years to create the first digital counter-clock able to
> > measure microseconds in the lab, being voluminous and expensive. And it
> > would be required another 10 years to measure in nanoseconds. It amount
> > 60 years of progress in electronics (not even dreamed in 1905) to make
> > possible the measurement of a round trip time for light in closed doors
> > at advanced laboratories in central countries.
> >
> > Yet, the fallacies and sophistry on which 1905 relativity is based were
> > accepted/forced to by an increasing number of believers in fairy tails
> > during such period (1905 - 1965).
> >
> > The idea of synchronizing two clocks marking t and t' by means of
> > lightbeams during an infinitesimal amount of time, when a frame E'(x',t')
> > moving at v speed passed by the origin of a frame E(x,t) at relative rest
> > to E' was not considered utter-crap by any believer in the early years of
> > relativity, even when much more sophisticated questions arose regarding
> > Einstein's clock synchronization.
> >
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_synchronisation
> >
> > That two clocks marking t and t' could be synchronized by MAGIC when x =
> > x' was not openly questioned by any scientist of that epoch, except by
> > those (like Heaviside) who stated that relativity was a pile of crap.
> >
> > Imagine this: you have two clocks marking
> >
> > t = 11:46:31 ± 1 and t' = 09:12:07 ± 1
> >
> > which are reset to t = t' = 00:00:00 ± 1 at the exact instant that x = x' = 0.
> >
> > And this happening at perfection over clocks with more than 200 parts,
> > based on MECHANICAL harmonic oscillators, and NOBODY called this
> > illogical thought experiment BULLSHIT?
> >
> > This is how swiss pocket clocks (the best) worked for the next 60 years:
> >
> > How a Mechanical Watch Works
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_QsCLYs2mY
> >
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanical_watch
> >
> > BUT THIS IS NOTHING COMPARED WITH THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PAPER, STARTING WITH:
> > QUOTE:-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > "We have so far defined only an “A time” and a “B time.” We have not
> > defined a common “time” for A and B, for the latter cannot be defined at
> > all unless we establish by definition that the “time” required by light
> > to travel from A to B equals the “time” it requires to travel from B to
> > A. Let a ray of light start at the “A time” tA from A towards B, let it
> > at the “B time” tB be reflected at B in the direction of A, and arrive
> > again at A at the “A time” t'A.
> >
> > In accordance with definition the two clocks synchronize if
> >
> > tB − tA = t'A − tB.
> >
> > We assume that this definition of synchronism is free from
> > contradictions, and possible for any number of points;"
> > END
> > QUOTE:------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > So, using clocks that barely could measure time lapses in 1 second steps,
> > the cretin affirmed (knowing that it was a METAPHYSICAL STATEMENT for
> > that epoch) that he could measure EXACTLY time duration in the order or
> > NANO or PICOseconds? And nobody, among top dogs in physics, protested and
> > called it pure crap (like Heaviside did)?.
> >
> > This is a simple proof about the physical nonsense of relativity, and why
> > it HAS TO be confined in the realm of metaphysics even today.
> >
> > Because the whole paper is metaphysical, metaphilosophical crap, unable
> > to be proven or disproved for decades. But, as it opened a new field for
> > people trying to make a living among the majority of scientists working
> > on the progress of REAL SCIENCE, with honesty and free of fallacies, many
> > cretins jumped into the bandwagon of relativity in decades to came. And
> > the MAIN attraction was that they could last years working on this
> > "field", because they were not accountable for any fail because it was untesteable. Magic!
> >
> > Any other scientist had his work at a stake if they didn't delivered
> > goods. But not the case of relativists, PARASITES that inherited such quality from Al.
> >
> > The above is one of the many reasons by which I call relativists cretins,
> > useless eaters, deceivers, liars, crooks, etc.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> You seem to be under the impression that physicists should only hypothesize
> about that which is immediately technologically testable in direct ways.
> Has this ever been the case?
>
> Darwin speculated about mechanisms by which traits could get passed from
> generation to generation, while also suffering random variations, having no
> idea about DNA or the mechanisms of mutation. Would you allege that, since
> the discovery of DNA didn’t happen for many decades later, that Darwin
> should have abandoned the idea as being directly untestable in his present
> moment?
>
> Is this how engineers think science should run?
>
> --
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

What you don't understand, Bodkin, is that modern science is run by research engineers. It's called evolution (your Darwin).

The evolution of nature philosophers into physicists by mid XIX century, happened when the systematization of process of thought,
within hard sciences, took place gradually until it gained critical mass.

It brought, in the next decades, the complete transformation of every single human activity by the hand of industrialization.

The new rebranded "physicists" had about a century ahead to dig further into the process of nature, until limits were reached. And I
insisted on this point several times: upper and lower limits for distances and for time duration clearly marked a boundary between
what was able to be tested and verified from what was pure speculation.

As niches for exploration of knowledge in classic hard sciences became more and more scarce, physicists (since mid XX century)
started to venture into pure speculative and untesteable areas, for which their research lost most of its value.

With the advent and evolution of computer sciences and telecommunications, a new framework to develop an interconnected and
knowledgeable society rapidly took form in a short period of 40 years, which brought us to this point of civilization.

Then, first slowly and then faster, a new order emerged (in particular in the last 20 years), which is based in the fulfillment of human
needs worldwide, as it should have ever been pursued.

Now, the paradoxical conflict technology vs. society has reached a dead end.. It came to be that human needs are really very few, and
that science has been cornered to work on increasingly smaller areas of activities, in particular regarding hard sciences.

Engineering is, and it earned it, the driving force for the advance of a technological society. It may supply whatever humans need, but at
a heavy cost. As population increases, the percentage of those involved into the creation and manufacturing of goods is lower and lower.

For worse, as machine learning progress, less humans are required, because this world is increasingly based on handbooks for the
advance of civilization (recipes). A huge mistake was committed believing that such processes (to fulfill human needs) would be for
good. On the contrary, it backfires permanently.

El miércoles, 30 de marzo de 2022 a las 14:29:06 UTC-3, Richard Hertz escribió:
> On Wednesday, March 30, 2022 at 11:29:47 AM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:

> What you don't understand, Bodkin, is that modern science is run by research engineers. It's called evolution (your Darwin).
>
> The evolution of nature philosophers into physicists by mid XIX century, happened when the systematization of process of thought,
> within hard sciences, took place gradually until it gained critical mass.
>
> It brought, in the next decades, the complete transformation of every single human activity by the hand of industrialization.
>
> The new rebranded "physicists" had about a century ahead to dig further into the process of nature, until limits were reached. And I
> insisted on this point several times: upper and lower limits for distances and for time duration clearly marked a boundary between
> what was able to be tested and verified from what was pure speculation.
>
> As niches for exploration of knowledge in classic hard sciences became more and more scarce, physicists (since mid XX century)
> started to venture into pure speculative and untesteable areas, for which their research lost most of its value.
>
> With the advent and evolution of computer sciences and telecommunications, a new framework to develop an interconnected and
> knowledgeable society rapidly took form in a short period of 40 years, which brought us to this point of civilization.
>
> Then, first slowly and then faster, a new order emerged (in particular in the last 20 years), which is based in the fulfillment of human
> needs worldwide, as it should have ever been pursued.
>
> Now, the paradoxical conflict technology vs. society has reached a dead end. It came to be that human needs are really very few, and
> that science has been cornered to work on increasingly smaller areas of activities, in particular regarding hard sciences.
>
> Engineering is, and it earned it, the driving force for the advance of a technological society. It may supply whatever humans need, but at
> a heavy cost. As population increases, the percentage of those involved into the creation and manufacturing of goods is lower and lower.
>
> For worse, as machine learning progress, less humans are required, because this world is increasingly based on handbooks for the
> advance of civilization (recipes). A huge mistake was committed believing that such processes (to fulfill human needs) would be for
> good. On the contrary, it backfires permanently.
>
> As humans fulfill their basic needs, the drive to pursue advances decreases. Most people now than ever is dedicated to get that
> threshold of satisfaction of basic needs, changing afterwards their goals to just live and enjoy life. Curiosity is being killed at plain
> sight, and Homer Simpson's are the common place, not the exception.
>
> Having killed religion and moral standards, mankind is left without a compass to guide it to further evolution.
>
> In this apocaliptic scenario, which you can fact-check everywhere, even engineering is dying because of artificial intelligence.
>
> All of the sudden, some people awake to face this new reality and find themselves helpless to modify the course of evolution.
>
> The few that are dedicated to explore the edges of knowledge in hard sciences are finding themselves in a niche within society,
> which let them exists as MONKS were allowed to exist in the dark ages.
>
> Nobody give a shit about the Webb telescope, CERN LHC, LIGO systems, etc. They only exist to satisfy the urges of few bright
> people that is happy by having a job to put food on the table, while knowingly working in topics that they know are WORTHLESS.
>
> Science has been co-opted by capitalism and their need of mass production and consumption, sustaining a world of useless eaters.
>
> In such scenario, and having covered MOST of the areas in hard sciences that make sense for mankind, is almost impossible to
> forecast an scenario at which a singularity can change the course of evolution.
>
> If you want to understand the above with an analogy, I have this one: Only when a couple of scify ideas from Star Trek could be
> developed for real, like food synthesis (make me a sammich) or teleportation of humans (beam me to Bermudas) could exist,
> science will reach the next ECHELON.
>
> And I mean only an echelon, because applying it to a world with 15 billion inhabitants could face impossible problems in logistic
> and economy.
>
> I don't foresee a future where THE MIND of the majority of people has evolved IN SYNC with technology.
>
> Quite the contrary: I foresee a world spiraling down into IDIOCRACY, because most of the people don't want to make efforts as
> in the past.
>
> In such scenario, very likely, the role and objectives of the carriers of hard science knowledge HAS NO PLACE. Not even engineers.
>
> Call me pesimistic.

What a total load of crap you write.

My colleagues from the Faculty of Physics (all of them physicists) carry out multiple research in the following topics:

Medical Physics (https://fisica.uc.cl/item-4/lineas-de-investigacion/fisica-medica)
Mathematical Physics (https://fisica.uc.cl/item-4/lineas-de-investigacion/fisica-matematica)
Plasma Physics (https://fisica.uc.cl/item-4/lineas-de-investigacion/fisica-de-plasmas)
High Energy Physics (https://fisica.uc.cl/item-4/lineas-de-investigacion/fisica-de-altas-energias)
Condensed Matter Physics (https://fisica.uc.cl/item-4/lineas-de-investigacion/fisica-de-materia-condensada)
Quantum Optics (https://fisica.uc.cl/item-4/lineas-de-investigacion/optica-cuantica)

None of these subjects are related to engineering. The researchers published 127 papers in the year 2020

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 30, 2022 at 11:29:47 AM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> When Einstein "wrote his" 1905 paper about SR, time and time measurement
>>> were a central issue in the development of his theoretical work. His
>>> thought experiments, without any single numerical value, were based on
>>> synchronization of several clocks, which dictated what time was by the
>>> position of their needles.
>>>
>>> The best lecture of time, using an state of the art swiss clock like
>>> the one on this link:
>>>
>>> https://www.joseph-watches.com/all-products/swiss-1903-silver-before-1900/
>>>
>>> couldn't provide any lecture better that this value, for instance:
>>>
>>> 11:46:31 ± 1 (eleven hour, 46 minutes, 31 ± 1 seconds)
>>>
>>> and this accuracy and precission, that could be held for 30-35 hours, was
>>> considered a marvel of technology.
>>>
>>> Nobody dreamed of measuring milliseconds, less yet microseconds and
>>> thinking about nanoseconds was not even considered in the most audacious
>>> scify story (and scify was booming in that epoch).
>>>
>>> It took about 50 years to create the first digital counter-clock able to
>>> measure microseconds in the lab, being voluminous and expensive. And it
>>> would be required another 10 years to measure in nanoseconds. It amount
>>> 60 years of progress in electronics (not even dreamed in 1905) to make
>>> possible the measurement of a round trip time for light in closed doors
>>> at advanced laboratories in central countries.
>>>
>>> Yet, the fallacies and sophistry on which 1905 relativity is based were
>>> accepted/forced to by an increasing number of believers in fairy tails
>>> during such period (1905 - 1965).
>>>
>>> The idea of synchronizing two clocks marking t and t' by means of
>>> lightbeams during an infinitesimal amount of time, when a frame E'(x',t')
>>> moving at v speed passed by the origin of a frame E(x,t) at relative rest
>>> to E' was not considered utter-crap by any believer in the early years of
>>> relativity, even when much more sophisticated questions arose regarding
>>> Einstein's clock synchronization.
>>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_synchronisation
>>>
>>> That two clocks marking t and t' could be synchronized by MAGIC when x =
>>> x' was not openly questioned by any scientist of that epoch, except by
>>> those (like Heaviside) who stated that relativity was a pile of crap.
>>>
>>> Imagine this: you have two clocks marking
>>>
>>> t = 11:46:31 ± 1 and t' = 09:12:07 ± 1
>>>
>>> which are reset to t = t' = 00:00:00 ± 1 at the exact instant that x = x' = 0.
>>>
>>> And this happening at perfection over clocks with more than 200 parts,
>>> based on MECHANICAL harmonic oscillators, and NOBODY called this
>>> illogical thought experiment BULLSHIT?
>>>
>>> This is how swiss pocket clocks (the best) worked for the next 60 years:
>>>
>>> How a Mechanical Watch Works
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_QsCLYs2mY
>>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanical_watch
>>>
>>> BUT THIS IS NOTHING COMPARED WITH THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PAPER, STARTING WITH:
>>> QUOTE:-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>>
>>> "We have so far defined only an “A time” and a “B time.” We have not
>>> defined a common “time” for A and B, for the latter cannot be defined at
>>> all unless we establish by definition that the “time” required by light
>>> to travel from A to B equals the “time” it requires to travel from B to
>>> A. Let a ray of light start at the “A time” tA from A towards B, let it
>>> at the “B time” tB be reflected at B in the direction of A, and arrive
>>> again at A at the “A time” t'A.
>>>
>>> In accordance with definition the two clocks synchronize if
>>>
>>> tB − tA = t'A − tB.
>>>
>>> We assume that this definition of synchronism is free from
>>> contradictions, and possible for any number of points;"
>>> END
>>> QUOTE:------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>>
>>> So, using clocks that barely could measure time lapses in 1 second steps,
>>> the cretin affirmed (knowing that it was a METAPHYSICAL STATEMENT for
>>> that epoch) that he could measure EXACTLY time duration in the order or
>>> NANO or PICOseconds? And nobody, among top dogs in physics, protested and
>>> called it pure crap (like Heaviside did)?.
>>>
>>> This is a simple proof about the physical nonsense of relativity, and why
>>> it HAS TO be confined in the realm of metaphysics even today.
>>>
>>> Because the whole paper is metaphysical, metaphilosophical crap, unable
>>> to be proven or disproved for decades. But, as it opened a new field for
>>> people trying to make a living among the majority of scientists working
>>> on the progress of REAL SCIENCE, with honesty and free of fallacies, many
>>> cretins jumped into the bandwagon of relativity in decades to came. And
>>> the MAIN attraction was that they could last years working on this
>>> "field", because they were not accountable for any fail because it was
>>> untesteable. Magic!
>>>
>>> Any other scientist had his work at a stake if they didn't delivered
>>> goods. But not the case of relativists, PARASITES that inherited such quality from Al.
>>>
>>> The above is one of the many reasons by which I call relativists cretins,
>>> useless eaters, deceivers, liars, crooks, etc.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> You seem to be under the impression that physicists should only hypothesize
>> about that which is immediately technologically testable in direct ways.
>> Has this ever been the case?
>>
>> Darwin speculated about mechanisms by which traits could get passed from
>> generation to generation, while also suffering random variations, having no
>> idea about DNA or the mechanisms of mutation. Would you allege that, since
>> the discovery of DNA didn’t happen for many decades later, that Darwin
>> should have abandoned the idea as being directly untestable in his present
>> moment?
>>
>> Is this how engineers think science should run?
>>
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>
> What you don't understand, Bodkin, is that modern science is run by
> research engineers. It's called evolution (your Darwin).

No, it’s not. You’re using “modern science” to denote “technology”. Science
is not technology. The two are different enterprises. The fact that the two
bubbles in a Venn diagram have some overlap does not make them identical.
The fact that one of the bubbles has your favorite color and the other you
pretend you don’t see, changes nothing.

You are simply espousing a parochial “everything important in the world
comes from my profession” machismo that looks as stupid as a Mexican
wrestler’s mask.

You are conversing in a group that is dominantly about fundamental science,
and only a little overlapping with applied science and technology. If you
do not think fundamental science has any value for humanity, this is why
you were an engineer and would have never made a good scientist.

>
> The evolution of nature philosophers into physicists by mid XIX century,
> happened when the systematization of process of thought,
> within hard sciences, took place gradually until it gained critical mass.
>
> It brought, in the next decades, the complete transformation of every
> single human activity by the hand of industrialization.
>
> The new rebranded "physicists" had about a century ahead to dig further
> into the process of nature, until limits were reached. And I
> insisted on this point several times: upper and lower limits for
> distances and for time duration clearly marked a boundary between
> what was able to be tested and verified from what was pure speculation.
>
> As niches for exploration of knowledge in classic hard sciences became
> more and more scarce, physicists (since mid XX century)
> started to venture into pure speculative and untesteable areas, for which
> their research lost most of its value.
>
> With the advent and evolution of computer sciences and
> telecommunications, a new framework to develop an interconnected and
> knowledgeable society rapidly took form in a short period of 40 years,
> which brought us to this point of civilization.
>
> Then, first slowly and then faster, a new order emerged (in particular in
> the last 20 years), which is based in the fulfillment of human
> needs worldwide, as it should have ever been pursued.
>
> Now, the paradoxical conflict technology vs. society has reached a dead
> end. It came to be that human needs are really very few, and
> that science has been cornered to work on increasingly smaller areas of
> activities, in particular regarding hard sciences.
>
> Engineering is, and it earned it, the driving force for the advance of a
> technological society. It may supply whatever humans need, but at
> a heavy cost. As population increases, the percentage of those involved
> into the creation and manufacturing of goods is lower and lower.
>
> For worse, as machine learning progress, less humans are required,
> because this world is increasingly based on handbooks for the
> advance of civilization (recipes). A huge mistake was committed believing
> that such processes (to fulfill human needs) would be for
> good. On the contrary, it backfires permanently.
>
> As humans fulfill their basic needs, the drive to pursue advances
> decreases. Most people now than ever is dedicated to get that
> threshold of satisfaction of basic needs, changing afterwards their goals
> to just live and enjoy life. Curiosity is being killed at plain
> sight, and Homer Simpson's are the common place, not the exception.
>
> Having killed religion and moral standards, mankind is left without a
> compass to guide it to further evolution.
>
> In this apocaliptic scenario, which you can fact-check everywhere, even
> engineering is dying because of artificial intelligence.
>
> All of the sudden, some people awake to face this new reality and find
> themselves helpless to modify the course of evolution.
>
> The few that are dedicated to explore the edges of knowledge in hard
> sciences are finding themselves in a niche within society,
> which let them exists as MONKS were allowed to exist in the dark ages.
>
> Nobody give a shit about the Webb telescope, CERN LHC, LIGO systems, etc.
> They only exist to satisfy the urges of few bright
> people that is happy by having a job to put food on the table, while
> knowingly working in topics that they know are WORTHLESS.
>
> Science has been co-opted by capitalism and their need of mass production
> and consumption, sustaining a world of useless eaters.
>
> In such scenario, and having covered MOST of the areas in hard sciences
> that make sense for mankind, is almost impossible to
> forecast an scenario at which a singularity can change the course of evolution.
>
> If you want to understand the above with an analogy, I have this one:
> Only when a couple of scify ideas from Star Trek could be
> developed for real, like food synthesis (make me a sammich) or
> teleportation of humans (beam me to Bermudas) could exist,
> science will reach the next ECHELON.
>
> And I mean only an echelon, because applying it to a world with 15
> billion inhabitants could face impossible problems in logistic
> and economy.
>
> I don't foresee a future where THE MIND of the majority of people has
> evolved IN SYNC with technology.
>
> Quite the contrary: I foresee a world spiraling down into IDIOCRACY,
> because most of the people don't want to make efforts as
> in the past.
>
> In such scenario, very likely, the role and objectives of the carriers of
> hard science knowledge HAS NO PLACE. Not even engineers.
>
> Call me pesimistic.
>
>
>

On Wednesday, 30 March 2022 at 16:47:25 UTC+2, Python wrote:
> Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > In the meantime in the real world, Peano arithmetics
> > is a theory of numbers, not about theories. Godel's
> > theorem isn't a part of it. Godel has concocted a brandly
> > new theory, but somehow he has forgotten to
> > specify its assumptions.
> > There are some other reasons why his theorem has no
> > value, but they're all too muchg for [...]
>
>
> If you really want your confusion and misconceptions about

Oh, stinker Python is opening its muzzle again,
and trying to pretend he knows something.
Tell me, poor stinker, what is your definition of
a "theory" in the terms of Peano arithmetic?
See: if a theorem is going to be a part of a theory,
it has to be formulable in the language of the
theory. Do you get it? Or are you too stupid even for
that, poor stinker?

On 3/30/2022 1:29 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:

> What you don't understand, Bodkin, is that modern science is run by research engineers. It's called evolution (your Darwin).

They're called "scientists". Engineers take existing science and make
cool things out of it.
>
> The evolution of nature philosophers into physicists by mid XIX century, happened when the systematization of process of thought,
> within hard sciences, took place gradually until it gained critical mass.
>
> It brought, in the next decades, the complete transformation of every single human activity by the hand of industrialization.
>
> The new rebranded "physicists" had about a century ahead to dig further into the process of nature, until limits were reached.

Limits? What do you mean? Didn't someone around 1890 state that
everything worth inventing or discovering had already been
invented/discovered? How accurate do you think that turned out?

> Curiosity is being killed at plain
> sight, and Homer Simpson's are the common place, not the exception.
>
> Having killed religion and moral standards, mankind is left without a compass to guide it to further evolution.
[...]

> Nobody give a shit about the Webb telescope, CERN LHC, LIGO systems, etc.

Lots of people care. Some just like the pretty pictures, others with a
science bent are fascinated by what they discover.

This also conflicts with your "Homer Simpsons", curiosity is killed yet
cool things like the Webb Telescope and LIGO exist to get curious about?

> Science has been co-opted by capitalism and their need of mass production and consumption, sustaining a world of useless eaters.

Lots of raw research, and applied research as well. Largely in
universities with grants from various places (government, Gates
Foundation etc.)

> In such scenario, and having covered MOST of the areas in hard sciences that make sense for mankind, is almost impossible to
> forecast an scenario at which a singularity can change the course of evolution.

Where is that 1890s quote?

I *easily* visualize such a scenario. DNA, genotyping, gene editing,
etc. etc. and I see *lots* of human controlled evolution, not just
plants and animals, but people someday. My own brother is doing some of
this (just plants). It's actually quite scary what could happen.
Imagine what the eugenics people or Hitler could do with such tools....

> I don't foresee a future where THE MIND of the majority of people has evolved IN SYNC with technology.
>
> Quite the contrary: I foresee a world spiraling down into IDIOCRACY, because most of the people don't want to make efforts as
> in the past.

There seems to be a rise in anti-science people out there.

On Tuesday, March 29, 2022 at 10:42:56 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> When Einstein "wrote his" 1905 paper about SR, time and time measurement were a central issue in the development of his theoretical work. His thought experiments, without any single numerical value, were based on synchronization of several clocks, which dictated what time was by the position of their needles.
>
> The best lecture of time, using an state of the art swiss clock like the one on this link:
>
> https://www.joseph-watches.com/all-products/swiss-1903-silver-before-1900/
>
> couldn't provide any lecture better that this value, for instance:
>
> 11:46:31 ± 1 (eleven hour, 46 minutes, 31 ± 1 seconds)
>
> and this accuracy and precission, that could be held for 30-35 hours, was considered a marvel of technology.
>
> Nobody dreamed of measuring milliseconds, less yet microseconds and thinking about nanoseconds was not even considered in the most audacious scify story (and scify was booming in that epoch).
>
> It took about 50 years to create the first digital counter-clock able to measure microseconds in the lab, being voluminous and expensive. And it would be required another 10 years to measure in nanoseconds. It amount 60 years of progress in electronics (not even dreamed in 1905) to make possible the measurement of a round trip time for light in closed doors at advanced laboratories in central countries.
>
> Yet, the fallacies and sophistry on which 1905 relativity is based were accepted/forced to by an increasing number of believers in fairy tails during such period (1905 - 1965).
>
> The idea of synchronizing two clocks marking t and t' by means of lightbeams during an infinitesimal amount of time, when a frame E'(x',t') moving at v speed passed by the origin of a frame E(x,t) at relative rest to E' was not considered utter-crap by any believer in the early years of relativity, even when much more sophisticated questions arose regarding Einstein's clock synchronization.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_synchronisation
>
> That two clocks marking t and t' could be synchronized by MAGIC when x = x' was not openly questioned by any scientist of that epoch, except by those (like Heaviside) who stated that relativity was a pile of crap.
>
> Imagine this: you have two clocks marking
>
> t = 11:46:31 ± 1 and t' = 09:12:07 ± 1
>
> which are reset to t = t' = 00:00:00 ± 1 at the exact instant that x = x' = 0.
>
> And this happening at perfection over clocks with more than 200 parts, based on MECHANICAL harmonic oscillators, and NOBODY called this illogical thought experiment BULLSHIT?
>
> This is how swiss pocket clocks (the best) worked for the next 60 years:
>
> How a Mechanical Watch Works
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_QsCLYs2mY
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanical_watch
>
> BUT THIS IS NOTHING COMPARED WITH THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PAPER, STARTING WITH:
> QUOTE:-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> "We have so far defined only an “A time” and a “B time.” We have not defined a common “time” for A and B, for the latter cannot be defined at all unless we establish by definition that the “time” required by light to travel from A to B equals the “time” it requires to travel from B to A. Let a ray of light start at the “A time” tA from A towards B, let it at the “B time” tB be reflected at B in the direction of A, and arrive again at A at the “A time” t'A.
>
> In accordance with definition the two clocks synchronize if
>
> tB − tA = t'A − tB.
>
> We assume that this definition of synchronism is free from contradictions, and possible for any number of points;"
> END QUOTE:------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> So, using clocks that barely could measure time lapses in 1 second steps, the cretin affirmed (knowing that it was a METAPHYSICAL STATEMENT for that epoch) that he could measure EXACTLY time duration in the order or NANO or PICOseconds? And nobody, among top dogs in physics, protested and called it pure crap (like Heaviside did)?.
>
> This is a simple proof about the physical nonsense of relativity, and why it HAS TO be confined in the realm of metaphysics even today.
>
> Because the whole paper is metaphysical, metaphilosophical crap, unable to be proven or disproved for decades. But, as it opened a new field for people trying to make a living among the majority of scientists working on the progress of REAL SCIENCE, with honesty and free of fallacies, many cretins jumped into the bandwagon of relativity in decades to came. And the MAIN attraction was that they could last years working on this "field", because they were not accountable for any fail because it was untesteable. Magic!
>
> Any other scientist had his work at a stake if they didn't delivered goods. But not the case of relativists, PARASITES that inherited such quality from Al.
>
> The above is one of the many reasons by which I call relativists cretins, useless eaters, deceivers, liars, crooks, etc.

The above post is nonsense. You don't understand the subject.

--
Jan

On Thursday, 31 March 2022 at 00:23:47 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 3/30/2022 1:29 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
>
> > What you don't understand, Bodkin, is that modern science is run by research engineers. It's called evolution (your Darwin).
> They're called "scientists". Engineers take existing science and make
> cool things out of it.

Since your scientists have abandoned common sense,
stupid Mike, engineers abandoned taking them seriously.
And thus forbidden by your insane religion TAI keep
measuring t'=t, just like all serious clocks always did.

To put some images to the historical context around science and engineering at different epochs:

When the cretin wrote that time and length are perceptually personal and non-linear, and that light-generators increase their frequency as they are lifted from ground:

the early 1900's
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W4c9jhzoV44

c1910 - Berlin/Munich, Germany in Color (speed corrected w/ music)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k2L_IHmSdS0

[60 fps] Views of Tokyo, Japan, 1913-1915
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MQAmZ_kR8S8

OLD NEW YORK in 1911 VS NOW What changed in 110 years
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q1EMG9EbSHQ

When the world became aware of the existence of atoms, electrons and the quantum revolution was peaking:

A Day in Roaring 20's Berlin | 1927 AI Enhanced Film [ 60 fps,4k]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xf3_wefprMo

A Day at the Beach 1928 - Biarritz France 1920s | AI Enhanced [60 fps 4k]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJNjKvCP8UY

Did you notice the influence of relativity catching on?
Now, put in context these images with evolution of quantum physics and acceptance of relativity:

History Brief: Radio in the 1930s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ESYjfDJzMY8

History Brief: Daily Life in the 1930s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkAfjRolNCI

At the time of the last video, the cretin was earning $240,000 a year (current values), protected by his "friends" and pushing for the development of atomic bombs to obliterate Germany (no E=mc2 used). This was his prize to fuck up physics until these days.

Engineering saved the world by ignoring relativity and siding with REAL PHYSICIST to produce REAL THINGS, not shakesperean metaphysics or filo-philosophy, full of deceptions, sophistry and fallacies.

Now look around you: Do you think that this "evolution" owes ANYTHING to relativity?

Really? Then get an appointment with a shrink.

Richard "Hachel" Lengrand (M.D.) :
> Le 30/03/2022 à 16:42, Richard Hertz a écrit :
>
> What I would like to say is that I think Henri Poincaré (a Frenchman)
> understood, and you can see it in his writings that there were weird
> things that happened if you went very far or if the We were going very
> fast.

This makes no sense, you have either a very bad translator or are
mentally insane (or both).

> He gave many equations on it, including the Lorentz transformations and
> the formula E=mc².
>
> I think this gentleman was very strong.
>
> BUT... thereupon came the German school and Albert Einstein.

The is nothing like "German school" in physics (well, except the
crazy nazi idea of a "German science", but you know that Einstein
was not especially supporting this idiotic idea, right?, neither
any serious German scientist).

> This school derived Poincaré's achievements more than they carried them
> further.
>
> So we have to start from Poincaré, that's what I did.

You certainly didn't start from Poincaré. One of the foundation of
Relativity is definition of space and time coordinates in a Galilean
frame of reference. Poincaré defined the clock synchronization
procedure Einstein then used in 1905 paper. You pretend (without
any sound argument) that this procedure is inconsistent (it is
not). So you didn't start from Poincaré. You start by the exact
opposite of what Poincaré wrote.

> And I'm not unhappy with my job.

You should, it's a bunch of garbage.

On Thursday, 31 March 2022 at 14:28:28 UTC+2, Python wrote:
> Richard "Hachel" Lengrand (M.D.) :
> > Le 30/03/2022 à 16:42, Richard Hertz a écrit :
> >
> > What I would like to say is that I think Henri Poincaré (a Frenchman)
> > understood, and you can see it in his writings that there were weird
> > things that happened if you went very far or if the We were going very
> > fast.
> This makes no sense, you have either a very bad translator or are
> mentally insane (or both).
> > He gave many equations on it, including the Lorentz transformations and
> > the formula E=mc².
> >
> > I think this gentleman was very strong.
> >
> > BUT... thereupon came the German school and Albert Einstein.
> The is nothing like "German school" in physics (well, except the

Oh, stinker Python is opening its muzzle again,
and trying to pretend he knows something.
Tell me, poor stinker, what is your definition of
a "theory" in the terms of Peano arithmetic?
See: if a theorem is going to be a part of a theory,
it has to be formulable in the language of the
theory. Do you get it? Or are you too stupid even for
that, poor stinker?

Le 31/03/2022 à 14:28, Jean-Pierre Messager (Python) a écrit :

>> And I'm not unhappy with my job.
>
> You should, it's a bunch of garbage.

Au fait, tu as réfléchis à cette équation que je trouverais
intéressante à formuler?

C'est à dire Vo en fonction de To dans un référentiel accéléré.

Pour Vr par rapport à Tr, c'est très facile.

Vr=g.Tr

Moi, c'est comme ça que je fais, et c'est très bon, comme il est dit
dans la Bible.

"Et Dieu vit que l'équation était très bonne".

Bref, c'est du pur newtonien.

Même pas besoin d'équation "relativiste".

En vitesses observable dans le référentiel terrestre, ça fait 48 heures
que je réfléchis là dessus, et crois moi, le problème est pas piqué
des vers.

Je ne trouve cette équation, évidemment, nulle part non plus sur
internet, et je pense qu'elle n'existe pas.

Rien à voir avec l'équation (15) que tu as indiqué.

Je rappelle pour ceux qui suivent : je cherche la vitesse de la fusée
dans le référentiel terrestre en fonction du temps terrestre.

Dit comme ça, on peut être pété de rire et sauter de la tour Eiffel en
se tenant les côtes, tellement ça parait facile, et tellement tout le
monde est absolument certain qu'on va pouvoir humilier Richard Hachel,
et lui donner la bonne réponse en moins de deux minutes.

Sauf que, après quelques secondes, le crayon et le papier en main, on
commence à se gratter le crâne.

Et qu'on commence à entendre, dans le lointain, par la fenêtre, le doux
chant des cigales.

R.H.

Richard "Hachel" Lengrand (M.D.) wrote:
....
>>> And I'm not unhappy with my job.
>>
>> You should, it's a bunch of garbage.
>
> Au fait, tu as réfléchis à cette équation que je trouverais intéressante
> à formuler?
>
> C'est à dire Vo en fonction de To dans un référentiel accéléré.

Since you don't define (as usual) what you mean by Vo and To, I won't
use your unspecified conventions but Paul's ones in his article :

https://paulba.no/pdf/TwinsByMetric.pdf

using equation (15) and equation (20) you'd end up with:

v(tau) = c*tanh(tau*a/c)