On Friday, 1 April 2022 at 16:00:51 UTC+2, Python wrote:
> 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

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?

JanPB wrote:

>> 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.

So true. Here is an imbecile, destroying his once prosperous wannabe communist country,
now a shithole fucked up by western liberal capitalism.
Void of people able to work, emigrated as slaves to the fake_money west. Hard learning the lesson, but they will.

Deputy Prime Minister Jaroslaw Kaczynski says stationing US nukes in eastern Europe would “make sense”
https://www.rt.com/news/553214-polish-official-wants-us-nukes-eastern-europe/
“fundamentally, it makes sense to expand nuclear sharing to the eastern flank,”
meaning, bombing Russia, their brother folk.

This is the best pocket clock (state of the art swiss clock, around 1905) upon which Einstein elaborated his thought experiment:

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

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

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

But he wrote SR involving time durations in the nanoseconds range.

Can be possible that relativists be so naive, stupid to buy this utter crap of SR?

On Monday, 4 April 2022 at 08:18:18 UTC+2, Richard Hertz wrote:
> This is the best pocket clock (state of the art swiss clock, around 1905) upon which Einstein elaborated his thought experiment:
>
> https://www.joseph-watches.com/all-products/swiss-1903-silver-before-1900/
>
> It couldn't provide any lecture better that this value, for instance:
> 11:46:31 ± 1 (eleven hour, 46 minutes, 31 ± 1 seconds)
> But he wrote SR involving time durations in the nanoseconds range.
>
> Can be possible that relativists be so naive, stupid to buy this utter crap of SR?

If it wasn't it wouldn't happen.

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
> This is the best pocket clock (state of the art swiss clock, around 1905)
> upon which Einstein elaborated his thought experiment:
>
> https://www.joseph-watches.com/all-products/swiss-1903-silver-before-1900/
>
> It couldn't provide any lecture better that this value, for instance:
>
> 11:46:31 ± 1 (eleven hour, 46 minutes, 31 ± 1 seconds)
>
>
> But he wrote SR involving time durations in the nanoseconds range.
>
> Can be possible that relativists be so naive, stupid to buy this utter crap of SR?
>
>

Why do you feel that science should be bounded by the technology available
at the moment?
Seriously, that’s a question I’d like your answer to.

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

On Monday, April 4, 2022 at 10:55:10 AM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:

> Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > This is the best pocket clock (state of the art swiss clock, around 1905)
> > upon which Einstein elaborated his thought experiment:
> >
> > https://www.joseph-watches.com/all-products/swiss-1903-silver-before-1900/
> >
> > It couldn't provide any lecture better that this value, for instance:
> >
> > 11:46:31 ± 1 (eleven hour, 46 minutes, 31 ± 1 seconds)
> >
> >
> > But he wrote SR involving time durations in the nanoseconds range.
> >
> > Can be possible that relativists be so naive, stupid to buy this utter crap of SR?

> Why do you feel that science should be bounded by the technology available at the moment?
> Seriously, that’s a question I’d like your answer to.

Bodkin, you should read what you try to post before doing it.

I can't believe that the IKEA man, the Supreme Thinker, asked such stupidity. No wonder your understanding
of "science" is bounded to the 600 books that you've read by now. Borrowed knowledge without substantiation.

Now, ask that question to Alan Guth, Gell-Man or Susskind. I understand that you'd call them "scientists".

Theoretical magi-physics poses the same value as astrology: pseudo-science.

Kirchoff, Hertz, Maxwell, Wien, Planck, Lenard, Rutherford, Heaviside, Michelson, Bohr, Schrodinger, Becquerel, Curie, Hahn,
Schockley, Bardeen, Brattain, Maiman, Boyle and Smith, Shannon, Nyquist, Tesla, Watson-Watt, Rabi are only A FEW of
REAL SCIENTISTS in the realm of physics. I would need 100 more lines to list Nobel Prizes in Physics that collaborated to
real advances in hard science and derived technologies.

Your fucking pagan god and every cretin working on creating NARRATIVES BACKED BY MATHEMATICS are worthless parasites
that contributed with NOTHING to this world.

And about SCIENCE, physics is only ONE of so many different fields. You find, at most of them, worthless parasites developing
scify topics without any possibility of experimental validation, but are claimed as genius by their privileged community of suckers.

Meanwhile, REAL SCIENTISTS talk the talk and walk the walk, without the fanfarre of the cretins you worship, AT ANY FIELD.
And they derive theories from REAL OBSERVATIONS of nature behavior.

They do not force Nature to FIT their fucking derranged ideas, like your idols.

Stick with philosophy, Bodkin. There you are not accountable of anything, because it's designed in that way. Blah, blah, blah, blah.

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, April 4, 2022 at 10:55:10 AM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> This is the best pocket clock (state of the art swiss clock, around 1905)
>>> upon which Einstein elaborated his thought experiment:
>>>
>>> https://www.joseph-watches.com/all-products/swiss-1903-silver-before-1900/
>>>
>>> It couldn't provide any lecture better that this value, for instance:
>>>
>>> 11:46:31 ± 1 (eleven hour, 46 minutes, 31 ± 1 seconds)
>>>
>>>
>>> But he wrote SR involving time durations in the nanoseconds range.
>>>
>>> Can be possible that relativists be so naive, stupid to buy this utter crap of SR?
>
>> Why do you feel that science should be bounded by the technology available at the moment?
>> Seriously, that’s a question I’d like your answer to.
>
> Bodkin, you should read what you try to post before doing it.
>
> I can't believe that the IKEA man, the Supreme Thinker, asked such
> stupidity. No wonder your understanding
> of "science" is bounded to the 600 books that you've read by now.
> Borrowed knowledge without substantiation.
>
> Now, ask that question to Alan Guth, Gell-Man or Susskind. I understand
> that you'd call them "scientists".

I notice that you have not answered my question. All you have done is
repeated your sensibility that science that is not bounded by the
technology available at the moment is a metaphysical boondoggle, but you
have not stated WHY you would believe such a thing.

What on earth makes you think that science should ONLY be limited to what
can be investigated using current day technology?

>
> Theoretical magi-physics poses the same value as astrology: pseudo-science.
>
> Kirchoff, Hertz, Maxwell, Wien, Planck, Lenard, Rutherford, Heaviside,
> Michelson, Bohr, Schrodinger, Becquerel, Curie, Hahn,
> Schockley, Bardeen, Brattain, Maiman, Boyle and Smith, Shannon, Nyquist,
> Tesla, Watson-Watt, Rabi are only A FEW of
> REAL SCIENTISTS in the realm of physics. I would need 100 more lines to
> list Nobel Prizes in Physics that collaborated to
> real advances in hard science and derived technologies.
>
> Your fucking pagan god and every cretin working on creating NARRATIVES
> BACKED BY MATHEMATICS are worthless parasites
> that contributed with NOTHING to this world.
>
> And about SCIENCE, physics is only ONE of so many different fields. You
> find, at most of them, worthless parasites developing
> scify topics without any possibility of experimental validation, but are
> claimed as genius by their privileged community of suckers.
>
> Meanwhile, REAL SCIENTISTS talk the talk and walk the walk, without the
> fanfarre of the cretins you worship, AT ANY FIELD.
> And they derive theories from REAL OBSERVATIONS of nature behavior.
>
> They do not force Nature to FIT their fucking derranged ideas, like your idols.
>
> Stick with philosophy, Bodkin. There you are not accountable of anything,
> because it's designed in that way. Blah, blah, blah, blah.
>
>
>

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

On Monday, April 4, 2022 at 12:50:25 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Monday, April 4, 2022 at 10:55:10 AM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> >> Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> This is the best pocket clock (state of the art swiss clock, around 1905)
> >>> upon which Einstein elaborated his thought experiment:
> >>>
> >>> https://www.joseph-watches.com/all-products/swiss-1903-silver-before-1900/
> >>>
> >>> It couldn't provide any lecture better that this value, for instance:
> >>>
> >>> 11:46:31 ± 1 (eleven hour, 46 minutes, 31 ± 1 seconds)
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> But he wrote SR involving time durations in the nanoseconds range.
> >>>
> >>> Can be possible that relativists be so naive, stupid to buy this utter crap of SR?
> >
> >> Why do you feel that science should be bounded by the technology available at the moment?
> >> Seriously, that’s a question I’d like your answer to.
> >
> > Bodkin, you should read what you try to post before doing it.
> >
> > I can't believe that the IKEA man, the Supreme Thinker, asked such
> > stupidity. No wonder your understanding
> > of "science" is bounded to the 600 books that you've read by now.
> > Borrowed knowledge without substantiation.
> >
> > Now, ask that question to Alan Guth, Gell-Man or Susskind. I understand
> > that you'd call them "scientists".
> I notice that you have not answered my question. All you have done is
> repeated your sensibility that science that is not bounded by the
> technology available at the moment is a metaphysical boondoggle, but you
> have not stated WHY you would believe such a thing.
>
> What on earth makes you think that science should ONLY be limited to what
> can be investigated using current day technology?
> >
> > Theoretical magi-physics poses the same value as astrology: pseudo-science.
> >
> > Kirchoff, Hertz, Maxwell, Wien, Planck, Lenard, Rutherford, Heaviside,
> > Michelson, Bohr, Schrodinger, Becquerel, Curie, Hahn,
> > Schockley, Bardeen, Brattain, Maiman, Boyle and Smith, Shannon, Nyquist,
> > Tesla, Watson-Watt, Rabi are only A FEW of
> > REAL SCIENTISTS in the realm of physics. I would need 100 more lines to
> > list Nobel Prizes in Physics that collaborated to
> > real advances in hard science and derived technologies.
> >
> > Your fucking pagan god and every cretin working on creating NARRATIVES
> > BACKED BY MATHEMATICS are worthless parasites
> > that contributed with NOTHING to this world.
> >
> > And about SCIENCE, physics is only ONE of so many different fields. You
> > find, at most of them, worthless parasites developing
> > scify topics without any possibility of experimental validation, but are
> > claimed as genius by their privileged community of suckers.
> >
> > Meanwhile, REAL SCIENTISTS talk the talk and walk the walk, without the
> > fanfarre of the cretins you worship, AT ANY FIELD.
> > And they derive theories from REAL OBSERVATIONS of nature behavior.
> >
> > They do not force Nature to FIT their fucking derranged ideas, like your idols.
> >
> > Stick with philosophy, Bodkin. There you are not accountable of anything,
> > because it's designed in that way. Blah, blah, blah, blah.
> >
> >
> >
> --
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Bodkin: "What on earth makes you think that science should ONLY be limited to what
can be investigated using current day technology?"

Hertz: Please, enlight us with YOUR definition of science. Let mathematics aside.

I could use a good laugh, IKEA man.

On 4/4/2022 11:23 AM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Monday, April 4, 2022 at 10:55:10 AM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> This is the best pocket clock (state of the art swiss clock, around 1905)
>>> upon which Einstein elaborated his thought experiment:
>>>
>>> https://www.joseph-watches.com/all-products/swiss-1903-silver-before-1900/
>>>
>>> It couldn't provide any lecture better that this value, for instance:
>>>
>>> 11:46:31 ± 1 (eleven hour, 46 minutes, 31 ± 1 seconds)
>>>
>>>
>>> But he wrote SR involving time durations in the nanoseconds range.
>>>
>>> Can be possible that relativists be so naive, stupid to buy this utter crap of SR?
>
>> Why do you feel that science should be bounded by the technology available at the moment?
>> Seriously, that’s a question I’d like your answer to.
>
> Bodkin, you should read what you try to post before doing it.
>
> I can't believe that the IKEA man, the Supreme Thinker, asked such stupidity. No wonder your understanding
> of "science" is bounded to the 600 books that you've read by now. Borrowed knowledge without substantiation.
>
> Now, ask that question to Alan Guth, Gell-Man or Susskind. I understand that you'd call them "scientists".
[bla bla bla]

You didn't try to answer the question. Should science be bound by the
available technology? For example, before the invention of the
telescope, only a couple of thousand stars existed? Planets Uranus and
Neptune didn't exist before the telescope either? Bacteria didn't exist
before the microscope either? Atoms and molecules didn't exist before
about 100-150 years ago?

Einstein predicted the existence of gravitational waves around 1915 and
dismissed the idea since he saw how incredibly weak they would be,
completely unmeasurable then and unmeasurable for 100 years. Should he
have claimed they didn't exist at all (or not until 2015?), or stated
that they existed but could never be measured?

Back to the original question: If Einstein was discussing time
differences in the nanosecond range but the best clocks of his time were
only good to say, 1 second per day, does that mean SR must be wrong?

Does the creation/invention of better clocks, telescopes etc. suddenly
cause things which didn't exist to exist suddenly?

How about now, if we cannot measure a time of 0.0001 yoctosecond? Does
that mean it does not exist?

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, April 4, 2022 at 12:50:25 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Monday, April 4, 2022 at 10:55:10 AM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> This is the best pocket clock (state of the art swiss clock, around 1905)
>>>>> upon which Einstein elaborated his thought experiment:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.joseph-watches.com/all-products/swiss-1903-silver-before-1900/
>>>>>
>>>>> It couldn't provide any lecture better that this value, for instance:
>>>>>
>>>>> 11:46:31 ± 1 (eleven hour, 46 minutes, 31 ± 1 seconds)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> But he wrote SR involving time durations in the nanoseconds range.
>>>>>
>>>>> Can be possible that relativists be so naive, stupid to buy this utter crap of SR?
>>>
>>>> Why do you feel that science should be bounded by the technology
>>>> available at the moment?
>>>> Seriously, that’s a question I’d like your answer to.
>>>
>>> Bodkin, you should read what you try to post before doing it.
>>>
>>> I can't believe that the IKEA man, the Supreme Thinker, asked such
>>> stupidity. No wonder your understanding
>>> of "science" is bounded to the 600 books that you've read by now.
>>> Borrowed knowledge without substantiation.
>>>
>>> Now, ask that question to Alan Guth, Gell-Man or Susskind. I understand
>>> that you'd call them "scientists".
>> I notice that you have not answered my question. All you have done is
>> repeated your sensibility that science that is not bounded by the
>> technology available at the moment is a metaphysical boondoggle, but you
>> have not stated WHY you would believe such a thing.
>>
>> What on earth makes you think that science should ONLY be limited to what
>> can be investigated using current day technology?
>>>
>>> Theoretical magi-physics poses the same value as astrology: pseudo-science.
>>>
>>> Kirchoff, Hertz, Maxwell, Wien, Planck, Lenard, Rutherford, Heaviside,
>>> Michelson, Bohr, Schrodinger, Becquerel, Curie, Hahn,
>>> Schockley, Bardeen, Brattain, Maiman, Boyle and Smith, Shannon, Nyquist,
>>> Tesla, Watson-Watt, Rabi are only A FEW of
>>> REAL SCIENTISTS in the realm of physics. I would need 100 more lines to
>>> list Nobel Prizes in Physics that collaborated to
>>> real advances in hard science and derived technologies.
>>>
>>> Your fucking pagan god and every cretin working on creating NARRATIVES
>>> BACKED BY MATHEMATICS are worthless parasites
>>> that contributed with NOTHING to this world.
>>>
>>> And about SCIENCE, physics is only ONE of so many different fields. You
>>> find, at most of them, worthless parasites developing
>>> scify topics without any possibility of experimental validation, but are
>>> claimed as genius by their privileged community of suckers.
>>>
>>> Meanwhile, REAL SCIENTISTS talk the talk and walk the walk, without the
>>> fanfarre of the cretins you worship, AT ANY FIELD.
>>> And they derive theories from REAL OBSERVATIONS of nature behavior.
>>>
>>> They do not force Nature to FIT their fucking derranged ideas, like your idols.
>>>
>>> Stick with philosophy, Bodkin. There you are not accountable of anything,
>>> because it's designed in that way. Blah, blah, blah, blah.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>
> Bodkin: "What on earth makes you think that science should ONLY be limited to what
> can be investigated using current day technology?"
>
> Hertz: Please, enlight us with YOUR definition of science. Let mathematics aside.
>
> I could use a good laugh, IKEA man.

It’s not MY idea of science. And mathematics is just a tool.

Newton, for example, had a lovely figure of a cannon (See Wikipedia article
on Newton’s cannonball) firing around the world, though there was no such
thing available and still is not.

Neutrinos were hypothesized decades before the technology existed to detect
their existence.

The fusion reactions powering stars was worked out, and we are nowhere near
either building a sun or exploring the interior of one.

Darwin hypothesized just about everything about genetics, including
prepotency, heterosis, sex-limited inheritance, bud variation, without
having any idea about DNA or even chromosomes.

Quantum tunneling was well established before anyone could deliberately
build a tunneling diode.

You continue to confuse technology with science, partly because technology
is all you care about.

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

On Monday, April 4, 2022 at 1:27:00 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Monday, April 4, 2022 at 12:50:25 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Monday, April 4, 2022 at 10:55:10 AM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> This is the best pocket clock (state of the art swiss clock, around 1905)
> >>>>> upon which Einstein elaborated his thought experiment:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> https://www.joseph-watches.com/all-products/swiss-1903-silver-before-1900/
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It couldn't provide any lecture better that this value, for instance:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 11:46:31 ± 1 (eleven hour, 46 minutes, 31 ± 1 seconds)
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> But he wrote SR involving time durations in the nanoseconds range.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Can be possible that relativists be so naive, stupid to buy this utter crap of SR?
> >>>
> >>>> Why do you feel that science should be bounded by the technology
> >>>> available at the moment?
> >>>> Seriously, that’s a question I’d like your answer to..
> >>>
> >>> Bodkin, you should read what you try to post before doing it.
> >>>
> >>> I can't believe that the IKEA man, the Supreme Thinker, asked such
> >>> stupidity. No wonder your understanding
> >>> of "science" is bounded to the 600 books that you've read by now.
> >>> Borrowed knowledge without substantiation.
> >>>
> >>> Now, ask that question to Alan Guth, Gell-Man or Susskind. I understand
> >>> that you'd call them "scientists".
> >> I notice that you have not answered my question. All you have done is
> >> repeated your sensibility that science that is not bounded by the
> >> technology available at the moment is a metaphysical boondoggle, but you
> >> have not stated WHY you would believe such a thing.
> >>
> >> What on earth makes you think that science should ONLY be limited to what
> >> can be investigated using current day technology?
> >>>
> >>> Theoretical magi-physics poses the same value as astrology: pseudo-science.
> >>>
> >>> Kirchoff, Hertz, Maxwell, Wien, Planck, Lenard, Rutherford, Heaviside,
> >>> Michelson, Bohr, Schrodinger, Becquerel, Curie, Hahn,
> >>> Schockley, Bardeen, Brattain, Maiman, Boyle and Smith, Shannon, Nyquist,
> >>> Tesla, Watson-Watt, Rabi are only A FEW of
> >>> REAL SCIENTISTS in the realm of physics. I would need 100 more lines to
> >>> list Nobel Prizes in Physics that collaborated to
> >>> real advances in hard science and derived technologies.
> >>>
> >>> Your fucking pagan god and every cretin working on creating NARRATIVES
> >>> BACKED BY MATHEMATICS are worthless parasites
> >>> that contributed with NOTHING to this world.
> >>>
> >>> And about SCIENCE, physics is only ONE of so many different fields. You
> >>> find, at most of them, worthless parasites developing
> >>> scify topics without any possibility of experimental validation, but are
> >>> claimed as genius by their privileged community of suckers.
> >>>
> >>> Meanwhile, REAL SCIENTISTS talk the talk and walk the walk, without the
> >>> fanfarre of the cretins you worship, AT ANY FIELD.
> >>> And they derive theories from REAL OBSERVATIONS of nature behavior.
> >>>
> >>> They do not force Nature to FIT their fucking derranged ideas, like your idols.
> >>>
> >>> Stick with philosophy, Bodkin. There you are not accountable of anything,
> >>> because it's designed in that way. Blah, blah, blah, blah.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >> --
> >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >
> > Bodkin: "What on earth makes you think that science should ONLY be limited to what
> > can be investigated using current day technology?"
> >
> > Hertz: Please, enlight us with YOUR definition of science. Let mathematics aside.
> >
> > I could use a good laugh, IKEA man.
> It’s not MY idea of science. And mathematics is just a tool.
>
> Newton, for example, had a lovely figure of a cannon (See Wikipedia article
> on Newton’s cannonball) firing around the world, though there was no such
> thing available and still is not.
>
> Neutrinos were hypothesized decades before the technology existed to detect
> their existence.
>
> The fusion reactions powering stars was worked out, and we are nowhere near
> either building a sun or exploring the interior of one.
>
> Darwin hypothesized just about everything about genetics, including
> prepotency, heterosis, sex-limited inheritance, bud variation, without
> having any idea about DNA or even chromosomes.
>
> Quantum tunneling was well established before anyone could deliberately
> build a tunneling diode.
>
> You continue to confuse technology with science, partly because technology
> is all you care about.
> --
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

And yet you didn't define what SCIENCE is, cretin.

Blah, blah, blah, blah,..

I have no use for you.

El lunes, 4 de abril de 2022 a las 13:03:20 UTC-4, Richard Hertz escribió:
> On Monday, April 4, 2022 at 1:27:00 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:

> > > Bodkin: "What on earth makes you think that science should ONLY be limited to what
> > > can be investigated using current day technology?"
> > >
> > > Hertz: Please, enlight us with YOUR definition of science. Let mathematics aside.
> > >
> > > I could use a good laugh, IKEA man.
> > It’s not MY idea of science. And mathematics is just a tool.
> >
> > Newton, for example, had a lovely figure of a cannon (See Wikipedia article
> > on Newton’s cannonball) firing around the world, though there was no such
> > thing available and still is not.
> >
> > Neutrinos were hypothesized decades before the technology existed to detect
> > their existence.
> >
> > The fusion reactions powering stars was worked out, and we are nowhere near
> > either building a sun or exploring the interior of one.
> >
> > Darwin hypothesized just about everything about genetics, including
> > prepotency, heterosis, sex-limited inheritance, bud variation, without
> > having any idea about DNA or even chromosomes.
> >
> > Quantum tunneling was well established before anyone could deliberately
> > build a tunneling diode.
> >
> > You continue to confuse technology with science, partly because technology
> > is all you care about.
> > --
> > Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> And yet you didn't define what SCIENCE is, cretin.
>
> Blah, blah, blah, blah,..
>
> I have no use for you.

As you are just trolling this group, without any interest in the topic of the group which is physics.relativity, any conversation with you is just a waste of everybody's time.

Find another hobby, troll.

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, April 4, 2022 at 1:27:00 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Monday, April 4, 2022 at 12:50:25 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, April 4, 2022 at 10:55:10 AM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> This is the best pocket clock (state of the art swiss clock, around 1905)
>>>>>>> upon which Einstein elaborated his thought experiment:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://www.joseph-watches.com/all-products/swiss-1903-silver-before-1900/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It couldn't provide any lecture better that this value, for instance:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 11:46:31 ± 1 (eleven hour, 46 minutes, 31 ± 1 seconds)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But he wrote SR involving time durations in the nanoseconds range.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Can be possible that relativists be so naive, stupid to buy this utter crap of SR?
>>>>>
>>>>>> Why do you feel that science should be bounded by the technology
>>>>>> available at the moment?
>>>>>> Seriously, that’s a question I’d like your answer to.
>>>>>
>>>>> Bodkin, you should read what you try to post before doing it.
>>>>>
>>>>> I can't believe that the IKEA man, the Supreme Thinker, asked such
>>>>> stupidity. No wonder your understanding
>>>>> of "science" is bounded to the 600 books that you've read by now.
>>>>> Borrowed knowledge without substantiation.
>>>>>
>>>>> Now, ask that question to Alan Guth, Gell-Man or Susskind. I understand
>>>>> that you'd call them "scientists".
>>>> I notice that you have not answered my question. All you have done is
>>>> repeated your sensibility that science that is not bounded by the
>>>> technology available at the moment is a metaphysical boondoggle, but you
>>>> have not stated WHY you would believe such a thing.
>>>>
>>>> What on earth makes you think that science should ONLY be limited to what
>>>> can be investigated using current day technology?
>>>>>
>>>>> Theoretical magi-physics poses the same value as astrology: pseudo-science.
>>>>>
>>>>> Kirchoff, Hertz, Maxwell, Wien, Planck, Lenard, Rutherford, Heaviside,
>>>>> Michelson, Bohr, Schrodinger, Becquerel, Curie, Hahn,
>>>>> Schockley, Bardeen, Brattain, Maiman, Boyle and Smith, Shannon, Nyquist,
>>>>> Tesla, Watson-Watt, Rabi are only A FEW of
>>>>> REAL SCIENTISTS in the realm of physics. I would need 100 more lines to
>>>>> list Nobel Prizes in Physics that collaborated to
>>>>> real advances in hard science and derived technologies.
>>>>>
>>>>> Your fucking pagan god and every cretin working on creating NARRATIVES
>>>>> BACKED BY MATHEMATICS are worthless parasites
>>>>> that contributed with NOTHING to this world.
>>>>>
>>>>> And about SCIENCE, physics is only ONE of so many different fields. You
>>>>> find, at most of them, worthless parasites developing
>>>>> scify topics without any possibility of experimental validation, but are
>>>>> claimed as genius by their privileged community of suckers.
>>>>>
>>>>> Meanwhile, REAL SCIENTISTS talk the talk and walk the walk, without the
>>>>> fanfarre of the cretins you worship, AT ANY FIELD.
>>>>> And they derive theories from REAL OBSERVATIONS of nature behavior.
>>>>>
>>>>> They do not force Nature to FIT their fucking derranged ideas, like your idols.
>>>>>
>>>>> Stick with philosophy, Bodkin. There you are not accountable of anything,
>>>>> because it's designed in that way. Blah, blah, blah, blah.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>>
>>> Bodkin: "What on earth makes you think that science should ONLY be limited to what
>>> can be investigated using current day technology?"
>>>
>>> Hertz: Please, enlight us with YOUR definition of science. Let mathematics aside.
>>>
>>> I could use a good laugh, IKEA man.
>> It’s not MY idea of science. And mathematics is just a tool.
>>
>> Newton, for example, had a lovely figure of a cannon (See Wikipedia article
>> on Newton’s cannonball) firing around the world, though there was no such
>> thing available and still is not.
>>
>> Neutrinos were hypothesized decades before the technology existed to detect
>> their existence.
>>
>> The fusion reactions powering stars was worked out, and we are nowhere near
>> either building a sun or exploring the interior of one.
>>
>> Darwin hypothesized just about everything about genetics, including
>> prepotency, heterosis, sex-limited inheritance, bud variation, without
>> having any idea about DNA or even chromosomes.
>>
>> Quantum tunneling was well established before anyone could deliberately
>> build a tunneling diode.
>>
>> You continue to confuse technology with science, partly because technology
>> is all you care about.
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>
> And yet you didn't define what SCIENCE is, cretin.
>
> Blah, blah, blah, blah,..
>
> I have no use for you.
>
>

Why on earth would you need to have science defined for you?

Oh, I see, because you have it confused with technology.

Look, pal, if technology is what you’re interested in, and you have no idea
what science does that is different than that, perhaps visiting science
newsgroups is not your thing.

Kinda like Woz, who has absolutely no regards for physics or the scientific
method, and his whole purpose is to respond to as many posts as possible
with some form of “fuck you”.

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

On Monday, April 4, 2022 at 1:23:11 PM UTC-3, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 4/4/2022 11:23 AM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > On Monday, April 4, 2022 at 10:55:10 AM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> >> Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> This is the best pocket clock (state of the art swiss clock, around 1905)
> >>> upon which Einstein elaborated his thought experiment:
> >>>
> >>> https://www.joseph-watches.com/all-products/swiss-1903-silver-before-1900/
> >>>
> >>> It couldn't provide any lecture better that this value, for instance:
> >>>
> >>> 11:46:31 ± 1 (eleven hour, 46 minutes, 31 ± 1 seconds)
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> But he wrote SR involving time durations in the nanoseconds range.
> >>>
> >>> Can be possible that relativists be so naive, stupid to buy this utter crap of SR?
> >
> >> Why do you feel that science should be bounded by the technology available at the moment?
> >> Seriously, that’s a question I’d like your answer to.
> >
> > Bodkin, you should read what you try to post before doing it.
> >
> > I can't believe that the IKEA man, the Supreme Thinker, asked such stupidity. No wonder your understanding
> > of "science" is bounded to the 600 books that you've read by now. Borrowed knowledge without substantiation.
> >
> > Now, ask that question to Alan Guth, Gell-Man or Susskind. I understand that you'd call them "scientists".
> [bla bla bla]
>
> You didn't try to answer the question. Should science be bound by the
> available technology? For example, before the invention of the
> telescope, only a couple of thousand stars existed? Planets Uranus and
> Neptune didn't exist before the telescope either? Bacteria didn't exist
> before the microscope either? Atoms and molecules didn't exist before
> about 100-150 years ago?
>
> Einstein predicted the existence of gravitational waves around 1915 and
> dismissed the idea since he saw how incredibly weak they would be,
> completely unmeasurable then and unmeasurable for 100 years. Should he
> have claimed they didn't exist at all (or not until 2015?), or stated
> that they existed but could never be measured?
>
> Back to the original question: If Einstein was discussing time
> differences in the nanosecond range but the best clocks of his time were
> only good to say, 1 second per day, does that mean SR must be wrong?
>
> Does the creation/invention of better clocks, telescopes etc. suddenly
> cause things which didn't exist to exist suddenly?
>
> How about now, if we cannot measure a time of 0.0001 yoctosecond? Does
> that mean it does not exist?

Deal with this, Moroney. At any case, made a consultation with Alan Guth and other retarded.

1 sec : 1 second. Used around 1905
10E−3 sec : 1 millisecond. First measured around 1930
10E−6 sec : 1 microsecond. First measured around 1940
10E−9 sec : 1 nanosecond. First measured around 1960
10E−12 sec : 1 picosecond. First measured around 1975
10E−15 sec : 1 femtosecond. Questionably measured around 2010

10E−18 sec : 1 attosecond. Never measured. CALCULATED.
10E−21 sec : 1 zeptosecond. Never measured. CALCULATED.
10E−24 sec : 1 yoctosecond. Never measured. CALCULATED.
10E−27 sec : 1 xonosecond. Never measured.
10E−30 sec : 1 vecosecond. Never measured.
10E−33 sec : 1 mecosecond. Never measured.
10E−36 sec : 1 duecosecond. Never measured.
10E−39 sec : 1 trecosecond. Never measured.
10E−42 sec : 1 tetrecosecond. Never measured.
10E−45 sec : 1 pentecosecond. Never measured.
10E−48 sec : 1 hexecosecond. Never measured.
10E−51 sec : 1 heptecosecond. Never measured.
10E−54 sec : 1 octecosecond. Never measured.
10E−57 sec : 1 ennecosecond. Never measured.
10E−60 sec : 1 icososecond. Never measured.

https://physicsworld.com/a/enter-the-yoctosecond/

Light pulses emitted by an exotic state of matter known as a quark–gluon plasma last for just a few yoctoseconds – according to CALCULATIONS by physicists in Germany. One yoctosecond is one trillionth of a trillionth of a second (10–24 s) and is comparable to the time it takes light to cross an atomic nucleus. Indeed, the researchers say that such pulses could be used to study the ultrafast processes taking place inside nuclei.

Standard ultrafast lasers can produce pulses no shorter than a few femtoseconds (10–15 s) long. It is, however, possible to generate attosecond (10–18 s) pulses by combining the frequency harmonics that result from the nonlinear interaction of femtosecond pulses with various atoms.

Go back to work and patch some software driver, Moroney. You suck talking about physics and ENGINEERING.

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, April 4, 2022 at 1:23:11 PM UTC-3, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> On 4/4/2022 11:23 AM, Richard Hertz wrote:
>>> On Monday, April 4, 2022 at 10:55:10 AM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> This is the best pocket clock (state of the art swiss clock, around 1905)
>>>>> upon which Einstein elaborated his thought experiment:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.joseph-watches.com/all-products/swiss-1903-silver-before-1900/
>>>>>
>>>>> It couldn't provide any lecture better that this value, for instance:
>>>>>
>>>>> 11:46:31 ± 1 (eleven hour, 46 minutes, 31 ± 1 seconds)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> But he wrote SR involving time durations in the nanoseconds range.
>>>>>
>>>>> Can be possible that relativists be so naive, stupid to buy this utter crap of SR?
>>>
>>>> Why do you feel that science should be bounded by the technology
>>>> available at the moment?
>>>> Seriously, that’s a question I’d like your answer to.
>>>
>>> Bodkin, you should read what you try to post before doing it.
>>>
>>> I can't believe that the IKEA man, the Supreme Thinker, asked such
>>> stupidity. No wonder your understanding
>>> of "science" is bounded to the 600 books that you've read by now.
>>> Borrowed knowledge without substantiation.
>>>
>>> Now, ask that question to Alan Guth, Gell-Man or Susskind. I understand
>>> that you'd call them "scientists".
>> [bla bla bla]
>>
>> You didn't try to answer the question. Should science be bound by the
>> available technology? For example, before the invention of the
>> telescope, only a couple of thousand stars existed? Planets Uranus and
>> Neptune didn't exist before the telescope either? Bacteria didn't exist
>> before the microscope either? Atoms and molecules didn't exist before
>> about 100-150 years ago?
>>
>> Einstein predicted the existence of gravitational waves around 1915 and
>> dismissed the idea since he saw how incredibly weak they would be,
>> completely unmeasurable then and unmeasurable for 100 years. Should he
>> have claimed they didn't exist at all (or not until 2015?), or stated
>> that they existed but could never be measured?
>>
>> Back to the original question: If Einstein was discussing time
>> differences in the nanosecond range but the best clocks of his time were
>> only good to say, 1 second per day, does that mean SR must be wrong?
>>
>> Does the creation/invention of better clocks, telescopes etc. suddenly
>> cause things which didn't exist to exist suddenly?
>>
>> How about now, if we cannot measure a time of 0.0001 yoctosecond? Does
>> that mean it does not exist?
>
> Deal with this, Moroney. At any case, made a consultation with Alan Guth
> and other retarded.
>
> 1 sec : 1 second. Used around 1905
> 10E−3 sec : 1 millisecond. First measured around 1930
> 10E−6 sec : 1 microsecond. First measured around 1940
> 10E−9 sec : 1 nanosecond. First measured around 1960
> 10E−12 sec : 1 picosecond. First measured around 1975
> 10E−15 sec : 1 femtosecond. Questionably measured around 2010
>
>
> 10E−18 sec : 1 attosecond. Never measured. CALCULATED.
> 10E−21 sec : 1 zeptosecond. Never measured. CALCULATED.
> 10E−24 sec : 1 yoctosecond. Never measured. CALCULATED.
> 10E−27 sec : 1 xonosecond. Never measured.
> 10E−30 sec : 1 vecosecond. Never measured.
> 10E−33 sec : 1 mecosecond. Never measured.
> 10E−36 sec : 1 duecosecond. Never measured.
> 10E−39 sec : 1 trecosecond. Never measured.
> 10E−42 sec : 1 tetrecosecond. Never measured.
> 10E−45 sec : 1 pentecosecond. Never measured.
> 10E−48 sec : 1 hexecosecond. Never measured.
> 10E−51 sec : 1 heptecosecond. Never measured.
> 10E−54 sec : 1 octecosecond. Never measured.
> 10E−57 sec : 1 ennecosecond. Never measured.
> 10E−60 sec : 1 icososecond. Never measured.
>
> https://physicsworld.com/a/enter-the-yoctosecond/
>
> Light pulses emitted by an exotic state of matter known as a quark–gluon
> plasma last for just a few yoctoseconds – according to CALCULATIONS by
> physicists in Germany. One yoctosecond is one trillionth of a trillionth
> of a second (10–24 s) and is comparable to the time it takes light to
> cross an atomic nucleus. Indeed, the researchers say that such pulses
> could be used to study the ultrafast processes taking place inside nuclei.
>
> Standard ultrafast lasers can produce pulses no shorter than a few
> femtoseconds (10–15 s) long. It is, however, possible to generate
> attosecond (10–18 s) pulses by combining the frequency harmonics that
> result from the nonlinear interaction of femtosecond pulses with various atoms.
>
> Go back to work and patch some software driver, Moroney. You suck talking
> about physics and ENGINEERING.
>
>

Richard, the lifetime of the neutral pion is a *measured* 8.5E-17s. Now,
perhaps you might be mystified how such a measurement can be done.
Mystification is removable by education.

And if it helps make the point even more abundantly, the lifetime of the
J/psi was *measured* about *fifty* years ago to be 7.2E-21s.

I’m not even going to get into the mean lifetime of the Z boson.

Perhaps you have few insights into the physics, given your bent to the
technological.

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

On Monday, April 4, 2022 at 2:58:22 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Monday, April 4, 2022 at 1:23:11 PM UTC-3, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >> On 4/4/2022 11:23 AM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> >>> On Monday, April 4, 2022 at 10:55:10 AM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> This is the best pocket clock (state of the art swiss clock, around 1905)
> >>>>> upon which Einstein elaborated his thought experiment:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> https://www.joseph-watches.com/all-products/swiss-1903-silver-before-1900/
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It couldn't provide any lecture better that this value, for instance:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 11:46:31 ± 1 (eleven hour, 46 minutes, 31 ± 1 seconds)
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> But he wrote SR involving time durations in the nanoseconds range.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Can be possible that relativists be so naive, stupid to buy this utter crap of SR?
> >>>
> >>>> Why do you feel that science should be bounded by the technology
> >>>> available at the moment?
> >>>> Seriously, that’s a question I’d like your answer to..
> >>>
> >>> Bodkin, you should read what you try to post before doing it.
> >>>
> >>> I can't believe that the IKEA man, the Supreme Thinker, asked such
> >>> stupidity. No wonder your understanding
> >>> of "science" is bounded to the 600 books that you've read by now.
> >>> Borrowed knowledge without substantiation.
> >>>
> >>> Now, ask that question to Alan Guth, Gell-Man or Susskind. I understand
> >>> that you'd call them "scientists".
> >> [bla bla bla]
> >>
> >> You didn't try to answer the question. Should science be bound by the
> >> available technology? For example, before the invention of the
> >> telescope, only a couple of thousand stars existed? Planets Uranus and
> >> Neptune didn't exist before the telescope either? Bacteria didn't exist
> >> before the microscope either? Atoms and molecules didn't exist before
> >> about 100-150 years ago?
> >>
> >> Einstein predicted the existence of gravitational waves around 1915 and
> >> dismissed the idea since he saw how incredibly weak they would be,
> >> completely unmeasurable then and unmeasurable for 100 years. Should he
> >> have claimed they didn't exist at all (or not until 2015?), or stated
> >> that they existed but could never be measured?
> >>
> >> Back to the original question: If Einstein was discussing time
> >> differences in the nanosecond range but the best clocks of his time were
> >> only good to say, 1 second per day, does that mean SR must be wrong?
> >>
> >> Does the creation/invention of better clocks, telescopes etc. suddenly
> >> cause things which didn't exist to exist suddenly?
> >>
> >> How about now, if we cannot measure a time of 0.0001 yoctosecond? Does
> >> that mean it does not exist?
> >
> > Deal with this, Moroney. At any case, made a consultation with Alan Guth
> > and other retarded.
> >
> > 1 sec : 1 second. Used around 1905
> > 10E−3 sec : 1 millisecond. First measured around 1930
> > 10E−6 sec : 1 microsecond. First measured around 1940
> > 10E−9 sec : 1 nanosecond. First measured around 1960
> > 10E−12 sec : 1 picosecond. First measured around 1975
> > 10E−15 sec : 1 femtosecond. Questionably measured around 2010
> >
> >
> > 10E−18 sec : 1 attosecond. Never measured. CALCULATED.
> > 10E−21 sec : 1 zeptosecond. Never measured. CALCULATED.
> > 10E−24 sec : 1 yoctosecond. Never measured. CALCULATED.
> > 10E−27 sec : 1 xonosecond. Never measured.
> > 10E−30 sec : 1 vecosecond. Never measured.
> > 10E−33 sec : 1 mecosecond. Never measured.
> > 10E−36 sec : 1 duecosecond. Never measured.
> > 10E−39 sec : 1 trecosecond. Never measured.
> > 10E−42 sec : 1 tetrecosecond. Never measured.
> > 10E−45 sec : 1 pentecosecond. Never measured.
> > 10E−48 sec : 1 hexecosecond. Never measured.
> > 10E−51 sec : 1 heptecosecond. Never measured.
> > 10E−54 sec : 1 octecosecond. Never measured.
> > 10E−57 sec : 1 ennecosecond. Never measured.
> > 10E−60 sec : 1 icososecond. Never measured.
> >
> > https://physicsworld.com/a/enter-the-yoctosecond/
> >
> > Light pulses emitted by an exotic state of matter known as a quark–gluon
> > plasma last for just a few yoctoseconds – according to CALCULATIONS by
> > physicists in Germany. One yoctosecond is one trillionth of a trillionth
> > of a second (10–24 s) and is comparable to the time it takes light to
> > cross an atomic nucleus. Indeed, the researchers say that such pulses
> > could be used to study the ultrafast processes taking place inside nuclei.
> >
> > Standard ultrafast lasers can produce pulses no shorter than a few
> > femtoseconds (10–15 s) long. It is, however, possible to generate
> > attosecond (10–18 s) pulses by combining the frequency harmonics that
> > result from the nonlinear interaction of femtosecond pulses with various atoms.
> >
> > Go back to work and patch some software driver, Moroney. You suck talking
> > about physics and ENGINEERING.
> >
> >
> Richard, the lifetime of the neutral pion is a *measured* 8.5E-17s. Now,
> perhaps you might be mystified how such a measurement can be done.
> Mystification is removable by education.
>
> And if it helps make the point even more abundantly, the lifetime of the
> J/psi was *measured* about *fifty* years ago to be 7.2E-21s.
>
> I’m not even going to get into the mean lifetime of the Z boson.
>
> Perhaps you have few insights into the physics, given your bent to the
> technological.
> --
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Bodkin, you don't have a fucking clue about you wrote in your post.

You, as a pure breed deceiver, just PRETEND to understand what you read (READ).

You can't even make sense of the data you posted WITHOUT QUOTING one paper or one book. You just BORROW info,
and PRETEND to master it, because you are a natural born imbecile.

You are as far from real understanding of modern physics as I am from understanding the language of ancient babylonians.

Keep working with wood and stop dreaming. Your attempts to pose as a knowledgeable person are BEYOND PATHETIC.

I feel SO SORRY for you!

Try to get a life, man.

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, April 4, 2022 at 2:58:22 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Monday, April 4, 2022 at 1:23:11 PM UTC-3, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>> On 4/4/2022 11:23 AM, Richard Hertz wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, April 4, 2022 at 10:55:10 AM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> This is the best pocket clock (state of the art swiss clock, around 1905)
>>>>>>> upon which Einstein elaborated his thought experiment:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://www.joseph-watches.com/all-products/swiss-1903-silver-before-1900/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It couldn't provide any lecture better that this value, for instance:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 11:46:31 ± 1 (eleven hour, 46 minutes, 31 ± 1 seconds)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But he wrote SR involving time durations in the nanoseconds range.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Can be possible that relativists be so naive, stupid to buy this utter crap of SR?
>>>>>
>>>>>> Why do you feel that science should be bounded by the technology
>>>>>> available at the moment?
>>>>>> Seriously, that’s a question I’d like your answer to.
>>>>>
>>>>> Bodkin, you should read what you try to post before doing it.
>>>>>
>>>>> I can't believe that the IKEA man, the Supreme Thinker, asked such
>>>>> stupidity. No wonder your understanding
>>>>> of "science" is bounded to the 600 books that you've read by now.
>>>>> Borrowed knowledge without substantiation.
>>>>>
>>>>> Now, ask that question to Alan Guth, Gell-Man or Susskind. I understand
>>>>> that you'd call them "scientists".
>>>> [bla bla bla]
>>>>
>>>> You didn't try to answer the question. Should science be bound by the
>>>> available technology? For example, before the invention of the
>>>> telescope, only a couple of thousand stars existed? Planets Uranus and
>>>> Neptune didn't exist before the telescope either? Bacteria didn't exist
>>>> before the microscope either? Atoms and molecules didn't exist before
>>>> about 100-150 years ago?
>>>>
>>>> Einstein predicted the existence of gravitational waves around 1915 and
>>>> dismissed the idea since he saw how incredibly weak they would be,
>>>> completely unmeasurable then and unmeasurable for 100 years. Should he
>>>> have claimed they didn't exist at all (or not until 2015?), or stated
>>>> that they existed but could never be measured?
>>>>
>>>> Back to the original question: If Einstein was discussing time
>>>> differences in the nanosecond range but the best clocks of his time were
>>>> only good to say, 1 second per day, does that mean SR must be wrong?
>>>>
>>>> Does the creation/invention of better clocks, telescopes etc. suddenly
>>>> cause things which didn't exist to exist suddenly?
>>>>
>>>> How about now, if we cannot measure a time of 0.0001 yoctosecond? Does
>>>> that mean it does not exist?
>>>
>>> Deal with this, Moroney. At any case, made a consultation with Alan Guth
>>> and other retarded.
>>>
>>> 1 sec : 1 second. Used around 1905
>>> 10E−3 sec : 1 millisecond. First measured around 1930
>>> 10E−6 sec : 1 microsecond. First measured around 1940
>>> 10E−9 sec : 1 nanosecond. First measured around 1960
>>> 10E−12 sec : 1 picosecond. First measured around 1975
>>> 10E−15 sec : 1 femtosecond. Questionably measured around 2010
>>>
>>>
>>> 10E−18 sec : 1 attosecond. Never measured. CALCULATED.
>>> 10E−21 sec : 1 zeptosecond. Never measured. CALCULATED.
>>> 10E−24 sec : 1 yoctosecond. Never measured. CALCULATED.
>>> 10E−27 sec : 1 xonosecond. Never measured.
>>> 10E−30 sec : 1 vecosecond. Never measured.
>>> 10E−33 sec : 1 mecosecond. Never measured.
>>> 10E−36 sec : 1 duecosecond. Never measured.
>>> 10E−39 sec : 1 trecosecond. Never measured.
>>> 10E−42 sec : 1 tetrecosecond. Never measured.
>>> 10E−45 sec : 1 pentecosecond. Never measured.
>>> 10E−48 sec : 1 hexecosecond. Never measured.
>>> 10E−51 sec : 1 heptecosecond. Never measured.
>>> 10E−54 sec : 1 octecosecond. Never measured.
>>> 10E−57 sec : 1 ennecosecond. Never measured.
>>> 10E−60 sec : 1 icososecond. Never measured.
>>>
>>> https://physicsworld.com/a/enter-the-yoctosecond/
>>>
>>> Light pulses emitted by an exotic state of matter known as a quark–gluon
>>> plasma last for just a few yoctoseconds – according to CALCULATIONS by
>>> physicists in Germany. One yoctosecond is one trillionth of a trillionth
>>> of a second (10–24 s) and is comparable to the time it takes light to
>>> cross an atomic nucleus. Indeed, the researchers say that such pulses
>>> could be used to study the ultrafast processes taking place inside nuclei.
>>>
>>> Standard ultrafast lasers can produce pulses no shorter than a few
>>> femtoseconds (10–15 s) long. It is, however, possible to generate
>>> attosecond (10–18 s) pulses by combining the frequency harmonics that
>>> result from the nonlinear interaction of femtosecond pulses with various atoms.
>>>
>>> Go back to work and patch some software driver, Moroney. You suck talking
>>> about physics and ENGINEERING.
>>>
>>>
>> Richard, the lifetime of the neutral pion is a *measured* 8.5E-17s. Now,
>> perhaps you might be mystified how such a measurement can be done.
>> Mystification is removable by education.
>>
>> And if it helps make the point even more abundantly, the lifetime of the
>> J/psi was *measured* about *fifty* years ago to be 7.2E-21s.
>>
>> I’m not even going to get into the mean lifetime of the Z boson.
>>
>> Perhaps you have few insights into the physics, given your bent to the
>> technological.
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>
> Bodkin, you don't have a fucking clue about you wrote in your post.
>
> You, as a pure breed deceiver, just PRETEND to understand what you read (READ).
>
> You can't even make sense of the data you posted WITHOUT QUOTING one
> paper or one book. You just BORROW info,
> and PRETEND to master it, because you are a natural born imbecile.

Well, Richard, did that make you feel better?
Doesn’t change anything, mind you. I do know where those MEASURED lifetimes
come from.
I get that they are a mystery to you. As I mentioned earlier, mystification
is solvable with education.

Here’s the other end of the spectrum. The half-life of a particular uranium
isotope is measured in billions of years. And now there certainly have been
some well-meaning technologists who have posted to this group wondering how
to do that without humans being around for billions of years.

If your standard reaction whenever you run into someone that might know
more about a particular subject than you do, is it your standard response
to say, “Impossible! You are nothing but an unthinking sheep who knows
nothing!”?

>
> You are as far from real understanding of modern physics as I am from
> understanding the language of ancient babylonians.
>
> Keep working with wood and stop dreaming. Your attempts to pose as a
> knowledgeable person are BEYOND PATHETIC.
>
> I feel SO SORRY for you!
>
> Try to get a life, man.
>
>

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

On Monday, April 4, 2022 at 3:37:51 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Monday, April 4, 2022 at 2:58:22 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Monday, April 4, 2022 at 1:23:11 PM UTC-3, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >>>> On 4/4/2022 11:23 AM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> >>>>> On Monday, April 4, 2022 at 10:55:10 AM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>> This is the best pocket clock (state of the art swiss clock, around 1905)
> >>>>>>> upon which Einstein elaborated his thought experiment:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> https://www.joseph-watches.com/all-products/swiss-1903-silver-before-1900/
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> It couldn't provide any lecture better that this value, for instance:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> 11:46:31 ± 1 (eleven hour, 46 minutes, 31 ± 1 seconds)
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> But he wrote SR involving time durations in the nanoseconds range..
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Can be possible that relativists be so naive, stupid to buy this utter crap of SR?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Why do you feel that science should be bounded by the technology
> >>>>>> available at the moment?
> >>>>>> Seriously, that’s a question I’d like your answer to.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Bodkin, you should read what you try to post before doing it.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I can't believe that the IKEA man, the Supreme Thinker, asked such
> >>>>> stupidity. No wonder your understanding
> >>>>> of "science" is bounded to the 600 books that you've read by now.
> >>>>> Borrowed knowledge without substantiation.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Now, ask that question to Alan Guth, Gell-Man or Susskind. I understand
> >>>>> that you'd call them "scientists".
> >>>> [bla bla bla]
> >>>>
> >>>> You didn't try to answer the question. Should science be bound by the
> >>>> available technology? For example, before the invention of the
> >>>> telescope, only a couple of thousand stars existed? Planets Uranus and
> >>>> Neptune didn't exist before the telescope either? Bacteria didn't exist
> >>>> before the microscope either? Atoms and molecules didn't exist before
> >>>> about 100-150 years ago?
> >>>>
> >>>> Einstein predicted the existence of gravitational waves around 1915 and
> >>>> dismissed the idea since he saw how incredibly weak they would be,
> >>>> completely unmeasurable then and unmeasurable for 100 years. Should he
> >>>> have claimed they didn't exist at all (or not until 2015?), or stated
> >>>> that they existed but could never be measured?
> >>>>
> >>>> Back to the original question: If Einstein was discussing time
> >>>> differences in the nanosecond range but the best clocks of his time were
> >>>> only good to say, 1 second per day, does that mean SR must be wrong?
> >>>>
> >>>> Does the creation/invention of better clocks, telescopes etc. suddenly
> >>>> cause things which didn't exist to exist suddenly?
> >>>>
> >>>> How about now, if we cannot measure a time of 0.0001 yoctosecond? Does
> >>>> that mean it does not exist?
> >>>
> >>> Deal with this, Moroney. At any case, made a consultation with Alan Guth
> >>> and other retarded.
> >>>
> >>> 1 sec : 1 second. Used around 1905
> >>> 10E−3 sec : 1 millisecond. First measured around 1930
> >>> 10E−6 sec : 1 microsecond. First measured around 1940
> >>> 10E−9 sec : 1 nanosecond. First measured around 1960
> >>> 10E−12 sec : 1 picosecond. First measured around 1975
> >>> 10E−15 sec : 1 femtosecond. Questionably measured around 2010
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> 10E−18 sec : 1 attosecond. Never measured. CALCULATED.
> >>> 10E−21 sec : 1 zeptosecond. Never measured. CALCULATED.
> >>> 10E−24 sec : 1 yoctosecond. Never measured. CALCULATED.
> >>> 10E−27 sec : 1 xonosecond. Never measured.
> >>> 10E−30 sec : 1 vecosecond. Never measured.
> >>> 10E−33 sec : 1 mecosecond. Never measured.
> >>> 10E−36 sec : 1 duecosecond. Never measured.
> >>> 10E−39 sec : 1 trecosecond. Never measured.
> >>> 10E−42 sec : 1 tetrecosecond. Never measured.
> >>> 10E−45 sec : 1 pentecosecond. Never measured.
> >>> 10E−48 sec : 1 hexecosecond. Never measured.
> >>> 10E−51 sec : 1 heptecosecond. Never measured.
> >>> 10E−54 sec : 1 octecosecond. Never measured.
> >>> 10E−57 sec : 1 ennecosecond. Never measured.
> >>> 10E−60 sec : 1 icososecond. Never measured.
> >>>
> >>> https://physicsworld.com/a/enter-the-yoctosecond/
> >>>
> >>> Light pulses emitted by an exotic state of matter known as a quark–gluon
> >>> plasma last for just a few yoctoseconds – according to CALCULATIONS by
> >>> physicists in Germany. One yoctosecond is one trillionth of a trillionth
> >>> of a second (10–24 s) and is comparable to the time it takes light to
> >>> cross an atomic nucleus. Indeed, the researchers say that such pulses
> >>> could be used to study the ultrafast processes taking place inside nuclei.
> >>>
> >>> Standard ultrafast lasers can produce pulses no shorter than a few
> >>> femtoseconds (10–15 s) long. It is, however, possible to generate
> >>> attosecond (10–18 s) pulses by combining the frequency harmonics that
> >>> result from the nonlinear interaction of femtosecond pulses with various atoms.
> >>>
> >>> Go back to work and patch some software driver, Moroney. You suck talking
> >>> about physics and ENGINEERING.
> >>>
> >>>
> >> Richard, the lifetime of the neutral pion is a *measured* 8.5E-17s. Now,
> >> perhaps you might be mystified how such a measurement can be done.
> >> Mystification is removable by education.
> >>
> >> And if it helps make the point even more abundantly, the lifetime of the
> >> J/psi was *measured* about *fifty* years ago to be 7.2E-21s.
> >>
> >> I’m not even going to get into the mean lifetime of the Z boson.
> >>
> >> Perhaps you have few insights into the physics, given your bent to the
> >> technological.
> >> --
> >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >
> > Bodkin, you don't have a fucking clue about you wrote in your post.
> >
> > You, as a pure breed deceiver, just PRETEND to understand what you read (READ).
> >
> > You can't even make sense of the data you posted WITHOUT QUOTING one
> > paper or one book. You just BORROW info,
> > and PRETEND to master it, because you are a natural born imbecile.
> Well, Richard, did that make you feel better?
> Doesn’t change anything, mind you. I do know where those MEASURED lifetimes
> come from.
> I get that they are a mystery to you. As I mentioned earlier, mystification
> is solvable with education.
>
> Here’s the other end of the spectrum. The half-life of a particular uranium
> isotope is measured in billions of years. And now there certainly have been
> some well-meaning technologists who have posted to this group wondering how
> to do that without humans being around for billions of years.
>
> If your standard reaction whenever you run into someone that might know
> more about a particular subject than you do, is it your standard response
> to say, “Impossible! You are nothing but an unthinking sheep who knows
> nothing!”?
> >
> > You are as far from real understanding of modern physics as I am from
> > understanding the language of ancient babylonians.
> >
> > Keep working with wood and stop dreaming. Your attempts to pose as a
> > knowledgeable person are BEYOND PATHETIC.
> >
> > I feel SO SORRY for you!
> >
> > Try to get a life, man.
> >
> >
> --
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, April 4, 2022 at 3:37:51 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Monday, April 4, 2022 at 2:58:22 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, April 4, 2022 at 1:23:11 PM UTC-3, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/4/2022 11:23 AM, Richard Hertz wrote:
>>>>>>> On Monday, April 4, 2022 at 10:55:10 AM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> This is the best pocket clock (state of the art swiss clock, around 1905)
>>>>>>>>> upon which Einstein elaborated his thought experiment:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://www.joseph-watches.com/all-products/swiss-1903-silver-before-1900/
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It couldn't provide any lecture better that this value, for instance:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 11:46:31 ± 1 (eleven hour, 46 minutes, 31 ± 1 seconds)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> But he wrote SR involving time durations in the nanoseconds range.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Can be possible that relativists be so naive, stupid to buy this utter crap of SR?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Why do you feel that science should be bounded by the technology
>>>>>>>> available at the moment?
>>>>>>>> Seriously, that’s a question I’d like your answer to.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Bodkin, you should read what you try to post before doing it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I can't believe that the IKEA man, the Supreme Thinker, asked such
>>>>>>> stupidity. No wonder your understanding
>>>>>>> of "science" is bounded to the 600 books that you've read by now.
>>>>>>> Borrowed knowledge without substantiation.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Now, ask that question to Alan Guth, Gell-Man or Susskind. I understand
>>>>>>> that you'd call them "scientists".
>>>>>> [bla bla bla]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You didn't try to answer the question. Should science be bound by the
>>>>>> available technology? For example, before the invention of the
>>>>>> telescope, only a couple of thousand stars existed? Planets Uranus and
>>>>>> Neptune didn't exist before the telescope either? Bacteria didn't exist
>>>>>> before the microscope either? Atoms and molecules didn't exist before
>>>>>> about 100-150 years ago?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Einstein predicted the existence of gravitational waves around 1915 and
>>>>>> dismissed the idea since he saw how incredibly weak they would be,
>>>>>> completely unmeasurable then and unmeasurable for 100 years. Should he
>>>>>> have claimed they didn't exist at all (or not until 2015?), or stated
>>>>>> that they existed but could never be measured?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Back to the original question: If Einstein was discussing time
>>>>>> differences in the nanosecond range but the best clocks of his time were
>>>>>> only good to say, 1 second per day, does that mean SR must be wrong?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Does the creation/invention of better clocks, telescopes etc. suddenly
>>>>>> cause things which didn't exist to exist suddenly?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How about now, if we cannot measure a time of 0.0001 yoctosecond? Does
>>>>>> that mean it does not exist?
>>>>>
>>>>> Deal with this, Moroney. At any case, made a consultation with Alan Guth
>>>>> and other retarded.
>>>>>
>>>>> 1 sec : 1 second. Used around 1905
>>>>> 10E−3 sec : 1 millisecond. First measured around 1930
>>>>> 10E−6 sec : 1 microsecond. First measured around 1940
>>>>> 10E−9 sec : 1 nanosecond. First measured around 1960
>>>>> 10E−12 sec : 1 picosecond. First measured around 1975
>>>>> 10E−15 sec : 1 femtosecond. Questionably measured around 2010
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 10E−18 sec : 1 attosecond. Never measured. CALCULATED.
>>>>> 10E−21 sec : 1 zeptosecond. Never measured. CALCULATED.
>>>>> 10E−24 sec : 1 yoctosecond. Never measured. CALCULATED.
>>>>> 10E−27 sec : 1 xonosecond. Never measured.
>>>>> 10E−30 sec : 1 vecosecond. Never measured.
>>>>> 10E−33 sec : 1 mecosecond. Never measured.
>>>>> 10E−36 sec : 1 duecosecond. Never measured.
>>>>> 10E−39 sec : 1 trecosecond. Never measured.
>>>>> 10E−42 sec : 1 tetrecosecond. Never measured.
>>>>> 10E−45 sec : 1 pentecosecond. Never measured.
>>>>> 10E−48 sec : 1 hexecosecond. Never measured.
>>>>> 10E−51 sec : 1 heptecosecond. Never measured.
>>>>> 10E−54 sec : 1 octecosecond. Never measured.
>>>>> 10E−57 sec : 1 ennecosecond. Never measured.
>>>>> 10E−60 sec : 1 icososecond. Never measured.
>>>>>
>>>>> https://physicsworld.com/a/enter-the-yoctosecond/
>>>>>
>>>>> Light pulses emitted by an exotic state of matter known as a quark–gluon
>>>>> plasma last for just a few yoctoseconds – according to CALCULATIONS by
>>>>> physicists in Germany. One yoctosecond is one trillionth of a trillionth
>>>>> of a second (10–24 s) and is comparable to the time it takes light to
>>>>> cross an atomic nucleus. Indeed, the researchers say that such pulses
>>>>> could be used to study the ultrafast processes taking place inside nuclei.
>>>>>
>>>>> Standard ultrafast lasers can produce pulses no shorter than a few
>>>>> femtoseconds (10–15 s) long. It is, however, possible to generate
>>>>> attosecond (10–18 s) pulses by combining the frequency harmonics that
>>>>> result from the nonlinear interaction of femtosecond pulses with various atoms.
>>>>>
>>>>> Go back to work and patch some software driver, Moroney. You suck talking
>>>>> about physics and ENGINEERING.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Richard, the lifetime of the neutral pion is a *measured* 8.5E-17s. Now,
>>>> perhaps you might be mystified how such a measurement can be done.
>>>> Mystification is removable by education.
>>>>
>>>> And if it helps make the point even more abundantly, the lifetime of the
>>>> J/psi was *measured* about *fifty* years ago to be 7.2E-21s.
>>>>
>>>> I’m not even going to get into the mean lifetime of the Z boson.
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps you have few insights into the physics, given your bent to the
>>>> technological.
>>>> --
>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>>
>>> Bodkin, you don't have a fucking clue about you wrote in your post.
>>>
>>> You, as a pure breed deceiver, just PRETEND to understand what you read (READ).
>>>
>>> You can't even make sense of the data you posted WITHOUT QUOTING one
>>> paper or one book. You just BORROW info,
>>> and PRETEND to master it, because you are a natural born imbecile.
>> Well, Richard, did that make you feel better?
>> Doesn’t change anything, mind you. I do know where those MEASURED lifetimes
>> come from.
>> I get that they are a mystery to you. As I mentioned earlier, mystification
>> is solvable with education.
>>
>> Here’s the other end of the spectrum. The half-life of a particular uranium
>> isotope is measured in billions of years. And now there certainly have been
>> some well-meaning technologists who have posted to this group wondering how
>> to do that without humans being around for billions of years.
>>
>> If your standard reaction whenever you run into someone that might know
>> more about a particular subject than you do, is it your standard response
>> to say, “Impossible! You are nothing but an unthinking sheep who knows
>> nothing!”?
>>>
>>> You are as far from real understanding of modern physics as I am from
>>> understanding the language of ancient babylonians.
>>>
>>> Keep working with wood and stop dreaming. Your attempts to pose as a
>>> knowledgeable person are BEYOND PATHETIC.
>>>
>>> I feel SO SORRY for you!
>>>
>>> Try to get a life, man.
>>>
>>>
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>
> Bodkin, some advice about technology and science in the region of femtoseconds.
> After reading it, you could be more qualified to write about these topics.
> This is a very didactic book and will teach you things that I've know for decades, because
> electrical engineering is what SUPPORT R&D about time, timing and real
> measurements, not calculations.

On 4/4/2022 1:35 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Monday, April 4, 2022 at 1:23:11 PM UTC-3, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> On 4/4/2022 11:23 AM, Richard Hertz wrote:
>>> On Monday, April 4, 2022 at 10:55:10 AM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> This is the best pocket clock (state of the art swiss clock, around 1905)
>>>>> upon which Einstein elaborated his thought experiment:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.joseph-watches.com/all-products/swiss-1903-silver-before-1900/
>>>>>
>>>>> It couldn't provide any lecture better that this value, for instance:
>>>>>
>>>>> 11:46:31 ± 1 (eleven hour, 46 minutes, 31 ± 1 seconds)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> But he wrote SR involving time durations in the nanoseconds range.
>>>>>
>>>>> Can be possible that relativists be so naive, stupid to buy this utter crap of SR?
>>>
>>>> Why do you feel that science should be bounded by the technology available at the moment?
>>>> Seriously, that’s a question I’d like your answer to.
>>>
>>> Bodkin, you should read what you try to post before doing it.
>>>
>>> I can't believe that the IKEA man, the Supreme Thinker, asked such stupidity. No wonder your understanding
>>> of "science" is bounded to the 600 books that you've read by now. Borrowed knowledge without substantiation.
>>>
>>> Now, ask that question to Alan Guth, Gell-Man or Susskind. I understand that you'd call them "scientists".
>> [bla bla bla]
>>
>> You didn't try to answer the question. Should science be bound by the
>> available technology? For example, before the invention of the
>> telescope, only a couple of thousand stars existed? Planets Uranus and
>> Neptune didn't exist before the telescope either? Bacteria didn't exist
>> before the microscope either? Atoms and molecules didn't exist before
>> about 100-150 years ago?
>>
>> Einstein predicted the existence of gravitational waves around 1915 and
>> dismissed the idea since he saw how incredibly weak they would be,
>> completely unmeasurable then and unmeasurable for 100 years. Should he
>> have claimed they didn't exist at all (or not until 2015?), or stated
>> that they existed but could never be measured?
>>
>> Back to the original question: If Einstein was discussing time
>> differences in the nanosecond range but the best clocks of his time were
>> only good to say, 1 second per day, does that mean SR must be wrong?
>>
>> Does the creation/invention of better clocks, telescopes etc. suddenly
>> cause things which didn't exist to exist suddenly?
>>
>> How about now, if we cannot measure a time of 0.0001 yoctosecond? Does
>> that mean it does not exist?
>
> Deal with this, Moroney. At any case, made a consultation with Alan Guth and other retarded.

I note the fact that you *still* cannot answer the question of whether
physics can exist if it occurs on a scale we cannot currently measure.
Or whether the planets Uranus and Neptune existed before the invention
of the telescope, or bacteria existed before the microscope (how did
people get sick back then?)
>
> 1 sec : 1 second. Used around 1905
> 10E−3 sec : 1 millisecond. First measured around 1930

How do you define "measure"? Most people can hear sound over 1 kHz, and
that was true since modern humans existed.

> 10E−6 sec : 1 microsecond. First measured around 1940

AM radio broadcasting (1 MHz is in the middle of the AM band) for 100
years now. A local AM radio station is celebrating its 100th
anniversary this year.

> 10E−9 sec : 1 nanosecond. First measured around 1960

GHz radars existed when?

> 10E−12 sec : 1 picosecond. First measured around 1975
> 10E−15 sec : 1 femtosecond. Questionably measured around 2010
>
>
> 10E−18 sec : 1 attosecond. Never measured. CALCULATED.
> 10E−21 sec : 1 zeptosecond. Never measured. CALCULATED.
> 10E−24 sec : 1 yoctosecond. Never measured. CALCULATED.
> 10E−27 sec : 1 xonosecond. Never measured.
> 10E−30 sec : 1 vecosecond. Never measured.
> 10E−33 sec : 1 mecosecond. Never measured.
> 10E−36 sec : 1 duecosecond. Never measured.
> 10E−39 sec : 1 trecosecond. Never measured.
> 10E−42 sec : 1 tetrecosecond. Never measured.
> 10E−45 sec : 1 pentecosecond. Never measured.
> 10E−48 sec : 1 hexecosecond. Never measured.
> 10E−51 sec : 1 heptecosecond. Never measured.
> 10E−54 sec : 1 octecosecond. Never measured.
> 10E−57 sec : 1 ennecosecond. Never measured.
> 10E−60 sec : 1 icososecond. Never measured.

A bunch of prefixes I haven't really heard of. All beyond yoctosecond
are unofficial, and Google has hit counts in the hundreds, not the
millions like others. Regardless of their status, can physics even
exist on those scales if they cannot be "measured"? Why or why not?

> Go back to work and patch some software driver, Moroney. You suck talking about physics and ENGINEERING.
>
Not as badly as you do!

On Monday, April 4, 2022 at 8:06:06 PM UTC-3, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 4/4/2022 1:35 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > On Monday, April 4, 2022 at 1:23:11 PM UTC-3, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >> On 4/4/2022 11:23 AM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> >>> On Monday, April 4, 2022 at 10:55:10 AM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> This is the best pocket clock (state of the art swiss clock, around 1905)
> >>>>> upon which Einstein elaborated his thought experiment:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> https://www.joseph-watches.com/all-products/swiss-1903-silver-before-1900/
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It couldn't provide any lecture better that this value, for instance:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 11:46:31 ± 1 (eleven hour, 46 minutes, 31 ± 1 seconds)
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> But he wrote SR involving time durations in the nanoseconds range.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Can be possible that relativists be so naive, stupid to buy this utter crap of SR?
> >>>
> >>>> Why do you feel that science should be bounded by the technology available at the moment?
> >>>> Seriously, that’s a question I’d like your answer to..
> >>>
> >>> Bodkin, you should read what you try to post before doing it.
> >>>
> >>> I can't believe that the IKEA man, the Supreme Thinker, asked such stupidity. No wonder your understanding
> >>> of "science" is bounded to the 600 books that you've read by now. Borrowed knowledge without substantiation.
> >>>
> >>> Now, ask that question to Alan Guth, Gell-Man or Susskind. I understand that you'd call them "scientists".
> >> [bla bla bla]
> >>
> >> You didn't try to answer the question. Should science be bound by the
> >> available technology? For example, before the invention of the
> >> telescope, only a couple of thousand stars existed? Planets Uranus and
> >> Neptune didn't exist before the telescope either? Bacteria didn't exist
> >> before the microscope either? Atoms and molecules didn't exist before
> >> about 100-150 years ago?
> >>
> >> Einstein predicted the existence of gravitational waves around 1915 and
> >> dismissed the idea since he saw how incredibly weak they would be,
> >> completely unmeasurable then and unmeasurable for 100 years. Should he
> >> have claimed they didn't exist at all (or not until 2015?), or stated
> >> that they existed but could never be measured?
> >>
> >> Back to the original question: If Einstein was discussing time
> >> differences in the nanosecond range but the best clocks of his time were
> >> only good to say, 1 second per day, does that mean SR must be wrong?
> >>
> >> Does the creation/invention of better clocks, telescopes etc. suddenly
> >> cause things which didn't exist to exist suddenly?
> >>
> >> How about now, if we cannot measure a time of 0.0001 yoctosecond? Does
> >> that mean it does not exist?
> >
> > Deal with this, Moroney. At any case, made a consultation with Alan Guth and other retarded.
> I note the fact that you *still* cannot answer the question of whether
> physics can exist if it occurs on a scale we cannot currently measure.
> Or whether the planets Uranus and Neptune existed before the invention
> of the telescope, or bacteria existed before the microscope (how did
> people get sick back then?)
> >
> > 1 sec : 1 second. Used around 1905
> > 10E−3 sec : 1 millisecond. First measured around 1930
> How do you define "measure"? Most people can hear sound over 1 kHz, and
> that was true since modern humans existed.
> > 10E−6 sec : 1 microsecond. First measured around 1940
> AM radio broadcasting (1 MHz is in the middle of the AM band) for 100
> years now. A local AM radio station is celebrating its 100th
> anniversary this year.
> > 10E−9 sec : 1 nanosecond. First measured around 1960
> GHz radars existed when?
> > 10E−12 sec : 1 picosecond. First measured around 1975
> > 10E−15 sec : 1 femtosecond. Questionably measured around 2010
> >
> >
> > 10E−18 sec : 1 attosecond. Never measured. CALCULATED.
> > 10E−21 sec : 1 zeptosecond. Never measured. CALCULATED.
> > 10E−24 sec : 1 yoctosecond. Never measured. CALCULATED.
> > 10E−27 sec : 1 xonosecond. Never measured.
> > 10E−30 sec : 1 vecosecond. Never measured.
> > 10E−33 sec : 1 mecosecond. Never measured.
> > 10E−36 sec : 1 duecosecond. Never measured.
> > 10E−39 sec : 1 trecosecond. Never measured.
> > 10E−42 sec : 1 tetrecosecond. Never measured.
> > 10E−45 sec : 1 pentecosecond. Never measured.
> > 10E−48 sec : 1 hexecosecond. Never measured.
> > 10E−51 sec : 1 heptecosecond. Never measured.
> > 10E−54 sec : 1 octecosecond. Never measured.
> > 10E−57 sec : 1 ennecosecond. Never measured.
> > 10E−60 sec : 1 icososecond. Never measured.
> A bunch of prefixes I haven't really heard of. All beyond yoctosecond
> are unofficial, and Google has hit counts in the hundreds, not the
> millions like others. Regardless of their status, can physics even
> exist on those scales if they cannot be "measured"? Why or why not?
> > Go back to work and patch some software driver, Moroney. You suck talking about physics and ENGINEERING.
> >
> Not as badly as you do!

See? That's why I call you a failed EE.

TIME MEASUREMENT I wrote, not FREQUENCY. And with exact values, not approximations.

This imply digital presentation of TIME INTERVALS or TIME DURATION of electric signals, with accuracy down to +/- 1 LSD.

Learn a little of history on instrumentation, Moroney:

https://www.hpmemoryproject.org/wa_pages/wall_a_page_11.htm

On 4/4/2022 8:02 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Monday, April 4, 2022 at 8:06:06 PM UTC-3, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> On 4/4/2022 1:35 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
>>> On Monday, April 4, 2022 at 1:23:11 PM UTC-3, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>> On 4/4/2022 11:23 AM, Richard Hertz wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, April 4, 2022 at 10:55:10 AM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> This is the best pocket clock (state of the art swiss clock, around 1905)
>>>>>>> upon which Einstein elaborated his thought experiment:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://www.joseph-watches.com/all-products/swiss-1903-silver-before-1900/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It couldn't provide any lecture better that this value, for instance:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 11:46:31 ± 1 (eleven hour, 46 minutes, 31 ± 1 seconds)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But he wrote SR involving time durations in the nanoseconds range.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Can be possible that relativists be so naive, stupid to buy this utter crap of SR?
>>>>>
>>>>>> Why do you feel that science should be bounded by the technology available at the moment?
>>>>>> Seriously, that’s a question I’d like your answer to.
>>>>>
>>>>> Bodkin, you should read what you try to post before doing it.
>>>>>
>>>>> I can't believe that the IKEA man, the Supreme Thinker, asked such stupidity. No wonder your understanding
>>>>> of "science" is bounded to the 600 books that you've read by now. Borrowed knowledge without substantiation.
>>>>>
>>>>> Now, ask that question to Alan Guth, Gell-Man or Susskind. I understand that you'd call them "scientists".
>>>> [bla bla bla]
>>>>
>>>> You didn't try to answer the question. Should science be bound by the
>>>> available technology? For example, before the invention of the
>>>> telescope, only a couple of thousand stars existed? Planets Uranus and
>>>> Neptune didn't exist before the telescope either? Bacteria didn't exist
>>>> before the microscope either? Atoms and molecules didn't exist before
>>>> about 100-150 years ago?
>>>>
>>>> Einstein predicted the existence of gravitational waves around 1915 and
>>>> dismissed the idea since he saw how incredibly weak they would be,
>>>> completely unmeasurable then and unmeasurable for 100 years. Should he
>>>> have claimed they didn't exist at all (or not until 2015?), or stated
>>>> that they existed but could never be measured?
>>>>
>>>> Back to the original question: If Einstein was discussing time
>>>> differences in the nanosecond range but the best clocks of his time were
>>>> only good to say, 1 second per day, does that mean SR must be wrong?
>>>>
>>>> Does the creation/invention of better clocks, telescopes etc. suddenly
>>>> cause things which didn't exist to exist suddenly?
>>>>
>>>> How about now, if we cannot measure a time of 0.0001 yoctosecond? Does
>>>> that mean it does not exist?
>>>
>>> Deal with this, Moroney. At any case, made a consultation with Alan Guth and other retarded.
>> I note the fact that you *still* cannot answer the question of whether
>> physics can exist if it occurs on a scale we cannot currently measure.
>> Or whether the planets Uranus and Neptune existed before the invention
>> of the telescope, or bacteria existed before the microscope (how did
>> people get sick back then?)
>>>
>>> 1 sec : 1 second. Used around 1905
>>> 10E−3 sec : 1 millisecond. First measured around 1930
>> How do you define "measure"? Most people can hear sound over 1 kHz, and
>> that was true since modern humans existed.
>>> 10E−6 sec : 1 microsecond. First measured around 1940
>> AM radio broadcasting (1 MHz is in the middle of the AM band) for 100
>> years now. A local AM radio station is celebrating its 100th
>> anniversary this year.
>>> 10E−9 sec : 1 nanosecond. First measured around 1960
>> GHz radars existed when?
>>> 10E−12 sec : 1 picosecond. First measured around 1975
>>> 10E−15 sec : 1 femtosecond. Questionably measured around 2010
>>>
>>>
>>> 10E−18 sec : 1 attosecond. Never measured. CALCULATED.
>>> 10E−21 sec : 1 zeptosecond. Never measured. CALCULATED.
>>> 10E−24 sec : 1 yoctosecond. Never measured. CALCULATED.
>>> 10E−27 sec : 1 xonosecond. Never measured.
>>> 10E−30 sec : 1 vecosecond. Never measured.
>>> 10E−33 sec : 1 mecosecond. Never measured.
>>> 10E−36 sec : 1 duecosecond. Never measured.
>>> 10E−39 sec : 1 trecosecond. Never measured.
>>> 10E−42 sec : 1 tetrecosecond. Never measured.
>>> 10E−45 sec : 1 pentecosecond. Never measured.
>>> 10E−48 sec : 1 hexecosecond. Never measured.
>>> 10E−51 sec : 1 heptecosecond. Never measured.
>>> 10E−54 sec : 1 octecosecond. Never measured.
>>> 10E−57 sec : 1 ennecosecond. Never measured.
>>> 10E−60 sec : 1 icososecond. Never measured.
>> A bunch of prefixes I haven't really heard of. All beyond yoctosecond
>> are unofficial, and Google has hit counts in the hundreds, not the
>> millions like others. Regardless of their status, can physics even
>> exist on those scales if they cannot be "measured"? Why or why not?
>>> Go back to work and patch some software driver, Moroney. You suck talking about physics and ENGINEERING.
>>>
>> Not as badly as you do!
>
>
> See? That's why I call you a failed EE.
>
> TIME MEASUREMENT I wrote, not FREQUENCY. And with exact values, not approximations.

Frequency is 1/time. And they had very accurate measurements for many
of these.

Not knowing frequency is 1/time? That's why YOU are a failed EE.

Now where is your answer of whether physics can exist on a scale not
(yet) measurable? How did people get bacterial infections if bacteria
didn't exist before the microscope?
>

On Monday, April 4, 2022 at 9:54:24 PM UTC-3, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 4/4/2022 8:02 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > On Monday, April 4, 2022 at 8:06:06 PM UTC-3, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >> On 4/4/2022 1:35 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> >>> On Monday, April 4, 2022 at 1:23:11 PM UTC-3, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >>>> On 4/4/2022 11:23 AM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> >>>>> On Monday, April 4, 2022 at 10:55:10 AM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>> This is the best pocket clock (state of the art swiss clock, around 1905)
> >>>>>>> upon which Einstein elaborated his thought experiment:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> https://www.joseph-watches.com/all-products/swiss-1903-silver-before-1900/
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> It couldn't provide any lecture better that this value, for instance:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> 11:46:31 ± 1 (eleven hour, 46 minutes, 31 ± 1 seconds)
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> But he wrote SR involving time durations in the nanoseconds range..
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Can be possible that relativists be so naive, stupid to buy this utter crap of SR?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Why do you feel that science should be bounded by the technology available at the moment?
> >>>>>> Seriously, that’s a question I’d like your answer to.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Bodkin, you should read what you try to post before doing it.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I can't believe that the IKEA man, the Supreme Thinker, asked such stupidity. No wonder your understanding
> >>>>> of "science" is bounded to the 600 books that you've read by now. Borrowed knowledge without substantiation.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Now, ask that question to Alan Guth, Gell-Man or Susskind. I understand that you'd call them "scientists".
> >>>> [bla bla bla]
> >>>>
> >>>> You didn't try to answer the question. Should science be bound by the
> >>>> available technology? For example, before the invention of the
> >>>> telescope, only a couple of thousand stars existed? Planets Uranus and
> >>>> Neptune didn't exist before the telescope either? Bacteria didn't exist
> >>>> before the microscope either? Atoms and molecules didn't exist before
> >>>> about 100-150 years ago?
> >>>>
> >>>> Einstein predicted the existence of gravitational waves around 1915 and
> >>>> dismissed the idea since he saw how incredibly weak they would be,
> >>>> completely unmeasurable then and unmeasurable for 100 years. Should he
> >>>> have claimed they didn't exist at all (or not until 2015?), or stated
> >>>> that they existed but could never be measured?
> >>>>
> >>>> Back to the original question: If Einstein was discussing time
> >>>> differences in the nanosecond range but the best clocks of his time were
> >>>> only good to say, 1 second per day, does that mean SR must be wrong?
> >>>>
> >>>> Does the creation/invention of better clocks, telescopes etc. suddenly
> >>>> cause things which didn't exist to exist suddenly?
> >>>>
> >>>> How about now, if we cannot measure a time of 0.0001 yoctosecond? Does
> >>>> that mean it does not exist?
> >>>
> >>> Deal with this, Moroney. At any case, made a consultation with Alan Guth and other retarded.
> >> I note the fact that you *still* cannot answer the question of whether
> >> physics can exist if it occurs on a scale we cannot currently measure.
> >> Or whether the planets Uranus and Neptune existed before the invention
> >> of the telescope, or bacteria existed before the microscope (how did
> >> people get sick back then?)
> >>>
> >>> 1 sec : 1 second. Used around 1905
> >>> 10E−3 sec : 1 millisecond. First measured around 1930
> >> How do you define "measure"? Most people can hear sound over 1 kHz, and
> >> that was true since modern humans existed.
> >>> 10E−6 sec : 1 microsecond. First measured around 1940
> >> AM radio broadcasting (1 MHz is in the middle of the AM band) for 100
> >> years now. A local AM radio station is celebrating its 100th
> >> anniversary this year.
> >>> 10E−9 sec : 1 nanosecond. First measured around 1960
> >> GHz radars existed when?
> >>> 10E−12 sec : 1 picosecond. First measured around 1975
> >>> 10E−15 sec : 1 femtosecond. Questionably measured around 2010
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> 10E−18 sec : 1 attosecond. Never measured. CALCULATED.
> >>> 10E−21 sec : 1 zeptosecond. Never measured. CALCULATED.
> >>> 10E−24 sec : 1 yoctosecond. Never measured. CALCULATED.
> >>> 10E−27 sec : 1 xonosecond. Never measured.
> >>> 10E−30 sec : 1 vecosecond. Never measured.
> >>> 10E−33 sec : 1 mecosecond. Never measured.
> >>> 10E−36 sec : 1 duecosecond. Never measured.
> >>> 10E−39 sec : 1 trecosecond. Never measured.
> >>> 10E−42 sec : 1 tetrecosecond. Never measured.
> >>> 10E−45 sec : 1 pentecosecond. Never measured.
> >>> 10E−48 sec : 1 hexecosecond. Never measured.
> >>> 10E−51 sec : 1 heptecosecond. Never measured.
> >>> 10E−54 sec : 1 octecosecond. Never measured.
> >>> 10E−57 sec : 1 ennecosecond. Never measured.
> >>> 10E−60 sec : 1 icososecond. Never measured.
> >> A bunch of prefixes I haven't really heard of. All beyond yoctosecond
> >> are unofficial, and Google has hit counts in the hundreds, not the
> >> millions like others. Regardless of their status, can physics even
> >> exist on those scales if they cannot be "measured"? Why or why not?
> >>> Go back to work and patch some software driver, Moroney. You suck talking about physics and ENGINEERING.
> >>>
> >> Not as badly as you do!
> >
> >
> > See? That's why I call you a failed EE.
> >
> > TIME MEASUREMENT I wrote, not FREQUENCY. And with exact values, not approximations.
> Frequency is 1/time. And they had very accurate measurements for many
> of these.
>
> Not knowing frequency is 1/time? That's why YOU are a failed EE.
>
> Now where is your answer of whether physics can exist on a scale not
> (yet) measurable? How did people get bacterial infections if bacteria
> didn't exist before the microscope?
> >

TIME INTERVAL, imbecile, TIME DURATION!

Not for nothing I call you a failed EE (wannabe).

Frequency measurement is OTHER kind of measurement, UNRELATED to TIME INTERVAL/DURATION.

You really ARE an imbecile, aren't you?

On 4/4/2022 11:15 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Monday, April 4, 2022 at 9:54:24 PM UTC-3, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> On 4/4/2022 8:02 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
>>> On Monday, April 4, 2022 at 8:06:06 PM UTC-3, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>> On 4/4/2022 1:35 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, April 4, 2022 at 1:23:11 PM UTC-3, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/4/2022 11:23 AM, Richard Hertz wrote:
>>>>>>> On Monday, April 4, 2022 at 10:55:10 AM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> This is the best pocket clock (state of the art swiss clock, around 1905)
>>>>>>>>> upon which Einstein elaborated his thought experiment:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://www.joseph-watches.com/all-products/swiss-1903-silver-before-1900/
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It couldn't provide any lecture better that this value, for instance:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 11:46:31 ± 1 (eleven hour, 46 minutes, 31 ± 1 seconds)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> But he wrote SR involving time durations in the nanoseconds range.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Can be possible that relativists be so naive, stupid to buy this utter crap of SR?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Why do you feel that science should be bounded by the technology available at the moment?
>>>>>>>> Seriously, that’s a question I’d like your answer to.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Bodkin, you should read what you try to post before doing it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I can't believe that the IKEA man, the Supreme Thinker, asked such stupidity. No wonder your understanding
>>>>>>> of "science" is bounded to the 600 books that you've read by now. Borrowed knowledge without substantiation.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Now, ask that question to Alan Guth, Gell-Man or Susskind. I understand that you'd call them "scientists".
>>>>>> [bla bla bla]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You didn't try to answer the question. Should science be bound by the
>>>>>> available technology? For example, before the invention of the
>>>>>> telescope, only a couple of thousand stars existed? Planets Uranus and
>>>>>> Neptune didn't exist before the telescope either? Bacteria didn't exist
>>>>>> before the microscope either? Atoms and molecules didn't exist before
>>>>>> about 100-150 years ago?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Einstein predicted the existence of gravitational waves around 1915 and
>>>>>> dismissed the idea since he saw how incredibly weak they would be,
>>>>>> completely unmeasurable then and unmeasurable for 100 years. Should he
>>>>>> have claimed they didn't exist at all (or not until 2015?), or stated
>>>>>> that they existed but could never be measured?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Back to the original question: If Einstein was discussing time
>>>>>> differences in the nanosecond range but the best clocks of his time were
>>>>>> only good to say, 1 second per day, does that mean SR must be wrong?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Does the creation/invention of better clocks, telescopes etc. suddenly
>>>>>> cause things which didn't exist to exist suddenly?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How about now, if we cannot measure a time of 0.0001 yoctosecond? Does
>>>>>> that mean it does not exist?
>>>>>
>>>>> Deal with this, Moroney. At any case, made a consultation with Alan Guth and other retarded.
>>>> I note the fact that you *still* cannot answer the question of whether
>>>> physics can exist if it occurs on a scale we cannot currently measure.
>>>> Or whether the planets Uranus and Neptune existed before the invention
>>>> of the telescope, or bacteria existed before the microscope (how did
>>>> people get sick back then?)
>>>>>
>>>>> 1 sec : 1 second. Used around 1905
>>>>> 10E−3 sec : 1 millisecond. First measured around 1930
>>>> How do you define "measure"? Most people can hear sound over 1 kHz, and
>>>> that was true since modern humans existed.
>>>>> 10E−6 sec : 1 microsecond. First measured around 1940
>>>> AM radio broadcasting (1 MHz is in the middle of the AM band) for 100
>>>> years now. A local AM radio station is celebrating its 100th
>>>> anniversary this year.
>>>>> 10E−9 sec : 1 nanosecond. First measured around 1960
>>>> GHz radars existed when?
>>>>> 10E−12 sec : 1 picosecond. First measured around 1975
>>>>> 10E−15 sec : 1 femtosecond. Questionably measured around 2010
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 10E−18 sec : 1 attosecond. Never measured. CALCULATED.
>>>>> 10E−21 sec : 1 zeptosecond. Never measured. CALCULATED.
>>>>> 10E−24 sec : 1 yoctosecond. Never measured. CALCULATED.
>>>>> 10E−27 sec : 1 xonosecond. Never measured.
>>>>> 10E−30 sec : 1 vecosecond. Never measured.
>>>>> 10E−33 sec : 1 mecosecond. Never measured.
>>>>> 10E−36 sec : 1 duecosecond. Never measured.
>>>>> 10E−39 sec : 1 trecosecond. Never measured.
>>>>> 10E−42 sec : 1 tetrecosecond. Never measured.
>>>>> 10E−45 sec : 1 pentecosecond. Never measured.
>>>>> 10E−48 sec : 1 hexecosecond. Never measured.
>>>>> 10E−51 sec : 1 heptecosecond. Never measured.
>>>>> 10E−54 sec : 1 octecosecond. Never measured.
>>>>> 10E−57 sec : 1 ennecosecond. Never measured.
>>>>> 10E−60 sec : 1 icososecond. Never measured.
>>>> A bunch of prefixes I haven't really heard of. All beyond yoctosecond
>>>> are unofficial, and Google has hit counts in the hundreds, not the
>>>> millions like others. Regardless of their status, can physics even
>>>> exist on those scales if they cannot be "measured"? Why or why not?
>>>>> Go back to work and patch some software driver, Moroney. You suck talking about physics and ENGINEERING.
>>>>>
>>>> Not as badly as you do!
>>>
>>>
>>> See? That's why I call you a failed EE.
>>>
>>> TIME MEASUREMENT I wrote, not FREQUENCY. And with exact values, not approximations.
>> Frequency is 1/time. And they had very accurate measurements for many
>> of these.
>>
>> Not knowing frequency is 1/time? That's why YOU are a failed EE.
>>
>> Now where is your answer of whether physics can exist on a scale not
>> (yet) measurable? How did people get bacterial infections if bacteria
>> didn't exist before the microscope?
>>>
>
>
> TIME INTERVAL, imbecile, TIME DURATION!
>
> Not for nothing I call you a failed EE (wannabe).
>
> Frequency measurement is OTHER kind of measurement, UNRELATED to TIME INTERVAL/DURATION.

The inverse of frequency makes it unrelated?
>
> You really ARE an imbecile, aren't you?

You sure do an awful lot of projection in here, don't you.

Now let's hear about how things don't exist until science and technology
have the actual ability to detect and measure them.
>

On Tuesday, April 5, 2022 at 1:23:17 AM UTC-3, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 4/4/2022 11:15 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:

<snip>

> > Frequency measurement is OTHER kind of measurement, UNRELATED to TIME INTERVAL/DURATION.

> The inverse of frequency makes it unrelated?

Unrelated things, Moroney. You are a high school dropout, arent' you?
That's why you make a living by cleaning desks at datacenters.

Moron: If you want to MEASURE time duration of any given pulse, or time interval between pulses,
you CONFORM an start-stop signal based on them.

Then, with THAT start-stop signal, you COUNT pulses from a given stable oscillator running:

- At 1.00 Mhz, to measure duration in microseconds.
- At 1.00 Ghz, to measure duration in nanoseconds.
- At 1.00 Thz, to measure duration in picoseconds.

The amount of DIGITS depend on the design, but let's say that you use a display with 8 digits.
You can count up to 99,999,999 internal reference source, with uncertainty of +/-1 LSD.

To assert that a given pulse duration is 45.79 nanoseconds, as measured in an interval counter
imply that you COUNTED (digitally) 45,790 pulses of 1 picosecond each OR 4,579 pulses of a
100 Ghz internal source. This is the operation of a DIRECT measurement of time interval.

For time durations below 1 picosecond, as of today, the technique is INDIRECT and tipically
based on laser interferometry, which gives a pulse with a duration INDIRECTLY related to the real one.

Go back 4 or 5 posts here, and try to download the book about femtoseconds measurements that
I recommended to Bodkin.

Very didactic, and have pics too.