On Friday, August 5, 2022 at 12:17:01 AM UTC-6, Richard Hertz wrote:
>
> Now, as relativity itself, this forum is becoming obsolete.
>
> No new ideas, no wit, no humor, no great insights.

I have recently returned after taking a sabbatical from this forum and
there is much to support your opinion.

> Only a few topics, repeated "ad nauseum" by Einstein's widows.

Not so, mon ami. Only a few topics repeated ad nauseam by reality
deniers such as yourself.

> It's sad to witness how "die hard" relativists started to gave up months ago,
> after years of sterile attempts to explain why relativity MATTERS at any field
> of modern science,

You're obviously bereft of knowledge about STEM. Do you not use global
positioning? Do you care nothing for the amazing discoveries being
made by spacecraft? Are you not intrigued by quantum mechanics, specifically
QFT? In order for them to work at all, they rely heavily on relativity.

> or the instructive lectures about what is the essence of a physicist, based on
> his/her perception of how Nature seems to work.

Physics encompasses a VERY broad range of disciplines, and perceptions are
just as varied. My "perceptions" go way beyond accepted physics :-)

I have been a champion of tachyons. One can hypothesize their existence by
Gell-Mann's Totalitarian Principle: "That which is not forbidden, is compulsory."

I've also believed that neutrinos are tachyons because of experiments attempting
to determine the mass (or rather the square of the mass) of the electron antineutrino
by the decay of tritium. The three experiments that promote this idea (Mainz,
Troitsk and preliminary KATRIN) concluded that the most likely value of m² is -0.6,
-0.66 and -1.0 eV², respectively with reducing probable error.

The intermediate KATRIN result makes this less likely because it has m² at +0.26
± 0.34 eV². That's quite a shift from the preliminary result! But it still allows for a
negative m² :-)

I'm also a fan of string theory. It has the saving feature that no particles are point
particles. Pretending elementary particles are point particles may by a good enough
approximation for now, but that will bite us at some ... er ... point.

> It reminds me about the life and doings of one failed physicist, that only got
> one Nobel Prize in Physics, just by chance, and that allowed Einstein to publish:

No physicist needs a Nobel to publish.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physicist#:~:text=A%20physicist%20is%20a%20scientist%20who%20specializes%20in,and%20usually%20frame%20their%20understanding%20in%20mathematical%20terms.

Uh, oh. Look whose portrait stands at the beginning! Poor Richard :-))

Your extreme prejudicial stance against Einstein is really, really weird, even
psychotic. Have you seen a psychiatrist about that?