On Tuesday, 5 April 2022 at 02:54:24 UTC+2, 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.

For instance, frequency of Cs radiation on a GPS
satellite, as measured by local clock there, is
9 192 631 774, instead 9 192 631 770 postulated
by your idiot guru. Good bye, The Shit.

I still want to hear about how things don't exist until science has the
actual ability to detect and measure them.

Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> 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?

That position is called naive empirism.
Or naive positivism, in another variant.
Naive empirists and positivists hold that observation must come first,
and that theories are nothing but an economic condensation
of the observed 'facts'.
This position makes theoretical physics effectively impossible.
It reduces theory to drawing lines through point on a graph.

Ernst Mach for example held that atoms don't really exist,
except as convenient explanatory devices.
It will not come as a surprise that physicists like Max Planck
and Einstein disagreed very much,

Jan

--
"Aber haben Sie Eine gesehen?" (Mach, on atoms)

On Tuesday, April 5, 2022 at 7:01:36 AM UTC-3, J. J. Lodder wrote:

<snip>

> Naive empirists and positivists hold that observation must come first,
> and that theories are nothing but an economic condensation
> of the observed 'facts'.
> This position makes theoretical physics effectively impossible.
> It reduces theory to drawing lines through point on a graph.
>
> Ernst Mach for example held that atoms don't really exist,
> except as convenient explanatory devices.
> It will not come as a surprise that physicists like Max Planck
> and Einstein disagreed very much,

First, calling Einstein a physicist is an absurd exageration. A fraudster using metaphysics to profit and prosper suits better.
Planck was first generation theoretical physicist, who disliked experimental physics because he considered it a lower class
activity in science (just those who did the dirty work), but he never dismissed any outcome of the labs. In fact, he had direct
social relationships with the experimenters PTR. It was that having dinner with H Rubbens at his house that he received vital
information about the experiments conducted by him and F. Kurlbaum about radiation being emited by a black body in the
infrared range up to wavelengths of 50 microns, which proved 1896 Wien's theory wrong and Rayleigh's theory right for the
lower part of the spectrum. It happened on Sunday, and by mid week Planck had MERGED both theories, which Rubbens proved
right in the next week (July 1900). Planck worked intensively to develop a theoretical explanation for such formulae, which he
announced to the German Physics Society by December 1900. Quantum physics was born then, when he presented his work
based on Boltzmann constant and his famous h, the quantum of action.

You can read the history here:

https://physictheories.blogspot.com/2019/04/thermal-radiation-black-body-theory-and.html

Second, you are confused about the philosophical concept of positivism. It applies better to philosophy than to natural science.

Natural sciences developments are based either on inductive (bottom-up) or deductive (top-down) reasoning.

All relevant physics theories are based on inductive reasoning.

Metaphysics (relativity) is based on deductive reasoning PLUS heuristic assertions (self-discovery concepts
that employs a method that is not guaranteed to be optimal, perfect, or RATIONAL).

These topics would requiere extensive writing to develop them further, and this is not the place.

But you could decide by yourself if these achievements are based on induction or deduction:

- Kepler's laws
- Newton's laws
- Laplace's celestial mechanics
- Ohm's law
- Planck's law
- Maxwell's laws
- Rutherford's laws
- Bohr's laws
- QM laws
- Doppler's laws
- Ampere's laws
- Fourier's laws
- Hubble's law
- Serber's law

And

- Special relativity metaphysics
- General relativity fairy tails
- Particle physics laws?
- Big Bang theories?

Going up, going down, going nowhere: REAL physics versus metaphysics.

Which trend is aligned with this world, based on FAKE NEWS, DISINFORMATION and INDOCTRINATION?

Relativity or REAL PHYSICS?

Not to tell a word about the role of engineering. It's up to you.

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tuesday, April 5, 2022 at 7:01:36 AM UTC-3, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > Naive empirists and positivists hold that observation must come first,
> > and that theories are nothing but an economic condensation
> > of the observed 'facts'.
> > This position makes theoretical physics effectively impossible.
> > It reduces theory to drawing lines through point on a graph.
> >
> > Ernst Mach for example held that atoms don't really exist,
> > except as convenient explanatory devices.
> > It will not come as a surprise that physicists like Max Planck
> > and Einstein disagreed very much,
>
> First, calling Einstein a physicist is an absurd exageration. A fraudster ...

Ok, we can stop here,

Jan

J. J. Lodder <nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:
> Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tuesday, April 5, 2022 at 7:01:36 AM UTC-3, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> Naive empirists and positivists hold that observation must come first,
>>> and that theories are nothing but an economic condensation
>>> of the observed 'facts'.
>>> This position makes theoretical physics effectively impossible.
>>> It reduces theory to drawing lines through point on a graph.
>>>
>>> Ernst Mach for example held that atoms don't really exist,
>>> except as convenient explanatory devices.
>>> It will not come as a surprise that physicists like Max Planck
>>> and Einstein disagreed very much,
>>
>> First, calling Einstein a physicist is an absurd exageration. A fraudster ...
>
> Ok, we can stop here,
>
> Jan
>
>

I simply fail to understand what satisfaction Hertz gets from generation of
vast volumes of shameless propaganda.

He might as well be a QAnon goon.

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

On Tuesday, April 5, 2022 at 3:28:29 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> J. J. Lodder <nos...@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:

<snip>

> > First, calling Einstein a physicist is an absurd exageration. A fraudster ...
> >
> > Ok, we can stop here,
> >
> > Jan
> >
> >
> I simply fail to understand what satisfaction Hertz gets from generation of
> vast volumes of shameless propaganda.
>
> He might as well be a QAnon goon.
> --
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

ASHAMED OF RELATIVISTS: a painful feeling of distress caused by the consciousness of the utter stupidity of the indoctrinated
relativists, which braced a cause based ONLY on religious indoctrination and their inability to think by themselves in realistics terms.

PROPAGANDA: information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote a political cause or point of view.

1) I have lot of shame of others that support relativity till death, and lack the capacity of NOT understanding that it's NOT PHYSICS,
but metaphysics instead. That relativists don't want to assume that such perversion of thought has ruined physics through, exactly,
PROPAGANDA, shameless PROPAGANDA.

2) 100 years of PROPAGANDA about relativity and Einstein has CANCELLED the rights to think differently.

It's like NATO/USA/EU vs. Russia in these very days. And Zelinksky is like Einstein (figuratively).

You both CAN'T say anything against Zelinksky in western media, because immediately you're accused of being a traitor or worse.

PROPAGANDA: Zelinksky addressing the Grammys, addressing every fucking parliament in NATO countries, telling the UN Security
Council that have to remove the sit of Russia, one of the THREE founders of UNSC, etc, etc, etc. Relentless PROPAGANDA.

I can't perceive ANY difference between what Einstein represents and what Zelinsky represents.

Because BOTH are not individuals that stand alone. With due difference in time and geopolitical impact, both are ICONS manufactured
for a CHANGE (for worse) in the evolutionary path of society.

Considering that 99.9% of western people are fucking idiots, it let about 2 million adults with PRIVILEGES, ruled by 2,000 in TPTB, which
are involved in both fields (rounding up numbers).

Both ICONS represent what the empowered elite want to indoctrinate to the western world, with 99.9% of population being a fucking herd.

I bet that you both are Zelinsky believers in a degree similar to your faith on Einstein and relativity.

Don't dare to accuse me of PROPAGANDA, and even less about having SHAME.

You both are the useless eaters that support the SHIT that the world has become. And I also bet that you support LGBTQP+ movements.

Shame ON YOU, fucking assholes.

Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote:

> J. J. Lodder <nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:
> > Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Tuesday, April 5, 2022 at 7:01:36 AM UTC-3, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> >>
> >> <snip>
> >>
> >>> Naive empirists and positivists hold that observation must come first,
> >>> and that theories are nothing but an economic condensation
> >>> of the observed 'facts'.
> >>> This position makes theoretical physics effectively impossible.
> >>> It reduces theory to drawing lines through point on a graph.
> >>>
> >>> Ernst Mach for example held that atoms don't really exist,
> >>> except as convenient explanatory devices.
> >>> It will not come as a surprise that physicists like Max Planck
> >>> and Einstein disagreed very much,
> >>
> >> First, calling Einstein a physicist is an absurd exageration. A
> >> fraudster ...
> >
> > Ok, we can stop here,
> >
> > Jan
> >
> >
>
> I simply fail to understand what satisfaction Hertz gets from generation of
> vast volumes of shameless propaganda.
>
> He might as well be a QAnon goon.

RH is clearly completely unaware of the issues involved.
Mach, and a tribe of so-called 'energists' who followed him
in his naive 'positivism' denied the physical reality of atoms.
Real physicists of course knew better, and they fought back.
*THE* way to prove atoms real was to count them,
in other words, to measure Avogadro's number.

So a great many different and independent ways
were invented to measure it.
(they all came up with numbers in the same range)
Einstein's other 1905 paper was yet another nail in that coffin.

So you can say all kinds of things about it,
but that cannot detract from the fact that Einstein
was competent in the matter.
In 1905 Einstein was already an expert in thermodynamics
and statistical mechanics,

Jan

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 5, 2022 at 3:28:29 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> J. J. Lodder <nos...@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>> First, calling Einstein a physicist is an absurd exageration. A fraudster ...
>>>
>>> Ok, we can stop here,
>>>
>>> Jan
>>>
>>>
>> I simply fail to understand what satisfaction Hertz gets from generation of
>> vast volumes of shameless propaganda.
>>
>> He might as well be a QAnon goon.
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>
> ASHAMED OF RELATIVISTS: a painful feeling of distress caused by the
> consciousness of the utter stupidity of the indoctrinated
> relativists, which braced a cause based ONLY on religious indoctrination
> and their inability to think by themselves in realistics terms.
>
> PROPAGANDA: information, especially of a biased or misleading nature,
> used to promote a political cause or point of view.
>
> 1) I have lot of shame of others that support relativity till death, and
> lack the capacity of NOT understanding that it's NOT PHYSICS,
> but metaphysics instead. That relativists don't want to assume that
> such perversion of thought has ruined physics through, exactly,
> PROPAGANDA, shameless PROPAGANDA.
>
> 2) 100 years of PROPAGANDA about relativity and Einstein has CANCELLED
> the rights to think differently.
>
> It's like NATO/USA/EU vs. Russia in these very days. And Zelinksky is
> like Einstein (figuratively).
>
> You both CAN'T say anything against Zelinksky in western media, because
> immediately you're accused of being a traitor or worse.
>
> PROPAGANDA: Zelinksky addressing the Grammys, addressing every fucking
> parliament in NATO countries, telling the UN Security
> Council that have to remove the sit of Russia, one of the THREE founders
> of UNSC, etc, etc, etc. Relentless PROPAGANDA.
>
> I can't perceive ANY difference between what Einstein represents and what
> Zelinsky represents.
>
> Because BOTH are not individuals that stand alone. With due difference in
> time and geopolitical impact, both are ICONS manufactured
> for a CHANGE (for worse) in the evolutionary path of society.
>
> Considering that 99.9% of western people are fucking idiots, it let about
> 2 million adults with PRIVILEGES, ruled by 2,000 in TPTB, which
> are involved in both fields (rounding up numbers).
>
> Both ICONS represent what the empowered elite want to indoctrinate to the
> western world, with 99.9% of population being a fucking herd.
>
> I bet that you both are Zelinsky believers in a degree similar to your
> faith on Einstein and relativity.
>
> Don't dare to accuse me of PROPAGANDA, and even less about having SHAME.
>
> You both are the useless eaters that support the SHIT that the world has
> become. And I also bet that you support LGBTQP+ movements.
>
> Shame ON YOU, fucking assholes.
>
>
>
>

This is another example that I read 11 words of before abandoning.

Reams and reams and reams of pointless propaganda.

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

J. J. Lodder <nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:
> Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote:

>>
>> I simply fail to understand what satisfaction Hertz gets from generation of
>> vast volumes of shameless propaganda.
>>
>> He might as well be a QAnon goon.
>
> RH is clearly completely unaware of the issues involved.
> Mach, and a tribe of so-called 'energists' who followed him
> in his naive 'positivism' denied the physical reality of atoms.
> Real physicists of course knew better, and they fought back.
> *THE* way to prove atoms real was to count them,
> in other words, to measure Avogadro's number.
>
> So a great many different and independent ways
> were invented to measure it.
> (they all came up with numbers in the same range)
> Einstein's other 1905 paper was yet another nail in that coffin.
>
> So you can say all kinds of things about it,
> but that cannot detract from the fact that Einstein
> was competent in the matter.
> In 1905 Einstein was already an expert in thermodynamics
> and statistical mechanics,
>
> Jan
>
>

Yes, and it’s interesting that Einstein made strong use of the calculus of
variations and methods from statistical mechanics in areas other than
strictly thermodynamic ones, mostly notably in the Brownian motion paper,
but not limited to that.

For the quantum mechanics of atoms, whether Schrodinger or Dirac, though
Einstein had little to do with it, being able to apply that to orbital
theory in chemistry, including the bond configuration, bond strengths, and
reactivities of a wide variety of chemical structures, is an unmitigated
boon and a complete validation of the principles of quantum mechanics,
which Hertz would also complain about.

The extreme version of this is, “I do not believe in anything I cannot see,
touch, or otherwise directly discern with my bare senses.” Though Hertz
hasn’t gone this far, others who have posted here certainly have. Ask them
if they believe in the existence of electrons, or protons or atoms, or
molecules, or genes, or magnetic fields, and they start to get squirrely
about where the line is.

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

On Tuesday, April 5, 2022 at 4:32:19 PM UTC-3, J. J. Lodder wrote:

<snip>

> In 1905 Einstein was already an expert in thermodynamics
> and statistical mechanics,
>
> Jan

His first 5 papers at Annalen der Physik.

Genius in the making!
Only that by 1908 he called them pure crap.

* Conclusions Drawn from the Phenomena of Capillarity 1901 (Age 22)
* On the Thermodynamic Theory of the Difference in Potentials between Metals and Fully Dissociated Solutions of Their Salts and on an Electrical Method for Investigating Molecular Forces 1902 (Age 23)
* Kinetic Theory of Thermal Equilibrium and of the Second Law of Thermodynamics 1902 (Age 23)
* A Theory of the Foundations of Thermodynamics 1903 (Age 24)
* On the General Molecular Theory of Heat 1904 (Age 25)

Clock's continue no matter what their new distance...
There is a common universal instant since the BB.
The entirety of the universe shares the age of the BB....

Mitchell Raemsch

On 4/5/2022 11:49 AM, Richard Hertz wrote:

> First, calling Einstein a physicist is an absurd exageration.

Your opinion is worthless. Especially since it's caused by a bad case
of OCD, not rational thought.

On Tuesday, April 5, 2022 at 8:49:45 AM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:

> First, calling Einstein a physicist is an absurd exageration.

Well, this only goes to prove that you are a first-order crank who can be completely dismissed from this point forward... my god, man, you cannot even spell "exaggeration", for crying out loud, don't you use spellcheck?

You should probably just sail off into the sunset before you embarrass yourself any further...

On Tuesday, April 5, 2022 at 11:14:16 PM UTC-3, Paul Alsing wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 5, 2022 at 8:49:45 AM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
>
> > First, calling Einstein a physicist is an absurd exageration.
> Well, this only goes to prove that you are a first-order crank who can be completely dismissed from this point forward... my god, man, you cannot even spell "exaggeration", for crying out loud, don't you use spellcheck?
>
> You should probably just sail off into the sunset before you embarrass yourself any further...

I'm very sorry that I offended you by making a misspelling. I just installed one.

It's curious that you wasn't triggered by the contextual meaning of the phrase. Then, either you agreed with it
or it was more important for you the use of grammar than a truth about physics.

Richard Hertz wrote:

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

Those days he couldn't even see a nanosecond on an oscilloscope. Einstine
was a questionable individual, but honest. Having good roy_masters, for a
reason or another. Lol.

US Army Reduces Its Numbers as It Struggles to Find Recruits Who Want to
Enter Military Under Joe Biden
https://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=251799

NATO is Khazaria in Drag
https://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=251786

Chris Hedges, Victoria Nuland and the Khazars
https://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=251767