This is the extensive list, NOT supported by posterior DIRECT experimental verification:

1) Restricted Theory of Relativity (1904 AND 1905, Lorentz, Einstein, Poincaré).

2) General Theory of Relativity (1915, Hilbert, Einstein, Schwarzschild).

3) Theory of the Big Bang (1928, 1975, Le Maitre, Guth, others).

4) ............. (no other theory as of today)

On Monday, August 15, 2022 at 11:59:55 PM UTC-3, Richard Hertz wrote:
> This is the extensive list, NOT supported by posterior DIRECT experimental verification:
>
> 1) Restricted Theory of Relativity (1904 AND 1905, Lorentz, Einstein, Poincaré).
>
> 2) General Theory of Relativity (1915, Hilbert, Einstein, Schwarzschild).
>
> 3) Theory of the Big Bang (1928, 1975, Le Maitre, Guth, others).
>
> 4) ............. (no other theory as of today)

Danish physicist and philosopher Hans Christian Ørsted coined the term “thought experiment” first in 1811. His intention was to unite his adoration for Kantian metaphysics with traditional ideas about the hypothetical-deductive method of science.

METAPHYSICS, HYPOTHETICAL SCIENCE. Got it?

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Monday, August 15, 2022 at 11:59:55 PM UTC-3, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > This is the extensive list, NOT supported by posterior DIRECT
> > experimental verification:
> >
> > 1) Restricted Theory of Relativity (1904 AND 1905, Lorentz, Einstein,
> > Poincaré).
> >
> > 2) General Theory of Relativity (1915, Hilbert, Einstein, Schwarzschild).
> >
> > 3) Theory of the Big Bang (1928, 1975, Le Maitre, Guth, others).
> >
> > 4) ............. (no other theory as of today)
>
> Danish physicist and philosopher Hans Christian Ørsted coined the term
> "thought experiment" first in 1811. His intention was to unite his
> adoration for Kantian metaphysics with traditional ideas about the
> hypothetical-deductive method of science.

The word, yes, but thought experiments are much older than that.
A classic early example from modern science
is Galileo's thought experiment of the two stones tied together:
how fast do they fall?
The conflicting answers show that the Aristotelian laws of fall
are inconsistent, hence wrong.

It is a mistake, your mistake, to think
that theories -derive- from thought experiments.
Thought experiments test the consistency of theories.
(which have been invented in other ways)

All of the criticism of the thought experiments of Einstein 1905
that are vented here regularly
are completely misguided and mistaken.

Nothing is -derived- from those thought experiments.
What they show is that obvious measurement procedures
using distance and time measurements
in combination with electromagnetic signalling
are consistent with Lorentz kinematics,
as given by the Lorentz transformations,

Jan

On Tuesday, August 16, 2022 at 7:03:24 AM UTC-3, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Monday, August 15, 2022 at 11:59:55 PM UTC-3, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > > This is the extensive list, NOT supported by posterior DIRECT
> > > experimental verification:
> > >
> > > 1) Restricted Theory of Relativity (1904 AND 1905, Lorentz, Einstein,
> > > Poincaré).
> > >
> > > 2) General Theory of Relativity (1915, Hilbert, Einstein, Schwarzschild).
> > >
> > > 3) Theory of the Big Bang (1928, 1975, Le Maitre, Guth, others).
> > >
> > > 4) ............. (no other theory as of today)
> >
> > Danish physicist and philosopher Hans Christian Ørsted coined the term
> > "thought experiment" first in 1811. His intention was to unite his
> > adoration for Kantian metaphysics with traditional ideas about the
> > hypothetical-deductive method of science.
> The word, yes, but thought experiments are much older than that.
> A classic early example from modern science
> is Galileo's thought experiment of the two stones tied together:
> how fast do they fall?
> The conflicting answers show that the Aristotelian laws of fall
> are inconsistent, hence wrong.
>
> It is a mistake, your mistake, to think
> that theories -derive- from thought experiments.
> Thought experiments test the consistency of theories.
> (which have been invented in other ways)
>
> All of the criticism of the thought experiments of Einstein 1905
> that are vented here regularly
> are completely misguided and mistaken.
>
> Nothing is -derived- from those thought experiments.
> What they show is that obvious measurement procedures
> using distance and time measurements
> in combination with electromagnetic signalling
> are consistent with Lorentz kinematics,
> as given by the Lorentz transformations,
>
> Jan

NO. You are wrong and ill-informed. Plus, Galileo's anecdote is just another myth, an historical deformation of truth.

If you really how stupid are these thought experiments, just google "Maxwell's demon". Then, you can re-write your post.
You can't derive anything meaningful from scientific fairy tales.

And regarding your last paragraph, you should read carefully my thought experiment, which rewrite Einstein's 1905 SR one.

It's detailed, with numbers and calculations, here:

Destroying Einstein's 1905 SR paper by eliminating observers in a new though experiment (2022).
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics.relativity/c/3GV9kAYpXWE

It uses motion, length and timing, but can be completely automated, without any fantastic ghost observers or Einstein's kinematics.

It's independent of:

1. The speed of light.
2. Single, analogous observations.
3. It's designed so it could be implemented physically.
4. Uses XXI century technologies.
5. It's based on digital information and 1 attosecond resolution.
6. It can be implemented by lasting days, with 1,000 measurements/second.
7. It's purely based on electromagnetism, and disprove ANY kinematics deformation of truth.
8. Has been largely ignored by members of this forum, in particular because it proves Einstein's derivation as false and deceiving.

Nobody can beat a good design, done by someone with real experience on the topics involved. It would be me.

It's sad that such proposal has been largely ignored, because it's valid at ANY DISTANCE and ANY SPEED v.

More than a FANTASTIC, NAIVE thought experiment, it's a clear example about HOW such "experiments" should be done: based
ON real technological capabilities.

I don't approve fairy tales based on fantastic simplifications or written for gullible people that like META PHILOSOPHY. I'm an EE
above all things, and write from such stand (logic, critical analysis, common sense, knowledge).

Einstein's physics is METAPHYSICS, without the single ground in reality. It's the work of a philosopher that's an expert sophist.

On 8/16/2022 11:47 AM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 16, 2022 at 7:03:24 AM UTC-3, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>> Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Monday, August 15, 2022 at 11:59:55 PM UTC-3, Richard Hertz wrote:
>>>> This is the extensive list, NOT supported by posterior DIRECT
>>>> experimental verification:
>>>>
>>>> 1) Restricted Theory of Relativity (1904 AND 1905, Lorentz, Einstein,
>>>> Poincaré).
>>>>
>>>> 2) General Theory of Relativity (1915, Hilbert, Einstein, Schwarzschild).
>>>>
>>>> 3) Theory of the Big Bang (1928, 1975, Le Maitre, Guth, others).
>>>>
>>>> 4) ............. (no other theory as of today)
>>>
>>> Danish physicist and philosopher Hans Christian Ørsted coined the term
>>> "thought experiment" first in 1811. His intention was to unite his
>>> adoration for Kantian metaphysics with traditional ideas about the
>>> hypothetical-deductive method of science.
>> The word, yes, but thought experiments are much older than that.
>> A classic early example from modern science
>> is Galileo's thought experiment of the two stones tied together:
>> how fast do they fall?
>> The conflicting answers show that the Aristotelian laws of fall
>> are inconsistent, hence wrong.
>>
>> It is a mistake, your mistake, to think
>> that theories -derive- from thought experiments.
>> Thought experiments test the consistency of theories.
>> (which have been invented in other ways)
>>
>> All of the criticism of the thought experiments of Einstein 1905
>> that are vented here regularly
>> are completely misguided and mistaken.
>>
>> Nothing is -derived- from those thought experiments.
>> What they show is that obvious measurement procedures
>> using distance and time measurements
>> in combination with electromagnetic signalling
>> are consistent with Lorentz kinematics,
>> as given by the Lorentz transformations,
>>
>> Jan
>
> NO. You are wrong and ill-informed. Plus, Galileo's anecdote is just another myth, an historical deformation of truth.

And what do you claim the "truth" is?
>
> If you really how stupid are these thought experiments, just google "Maxwell's demon". Then, you can re-write your post.
> You can't derive anything meaningful from scientific fairy tales.

Thought experiments are only good for education or finding
contradictions, and can not be used for support of a theory. A thought
experiment bypasses any unknown/unexpected effects. Only an actual
experiment can be used to support a model/theory. What if Michelson and
Morley didn't go beyond the thought experiment stage and decided to
accept the outcome of their thought experiment without actually doing
their experiment?
>
> And regarding your last paragraph, you should read carefully my thought experiment, which rewrite Einstein's 1905 SR one.

Again, a thought experiment cannot be used as a basis for a model or
validate a model.

> More than a FANTASTIC, NAIVE thought experiment, it's a clear example about HOW such "experiments" should be done: based
> ON real technological capabilities.

And the real scientific observations and experimental evidence must be
obtained and analyzed. Thought experiments are insufficient.
>
> I don't approve fairy tales based on fantastic simplifications or written for gullible people that like META PHILOSOPHY. I'm an EE
> above all things, and write from such stand (logic, critical analysis, common sense, knowledge).

Since you didn't mention physics, only engineering, you admit you aren't
qualified to do any of this. You are only qualified to be an example of
a bad example.
>
> Einstein's physics is METAPHYSICS, without the single ground in reality. It's the work of a philosopher that's an expert sophist.

Yeah yeah, your hateful OCD rears its ugly head again.

On Tuesday, August 16, 2022 at 8:47:27 AM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:

> It's detailed, with latest Dick Hertz imbecilities:
>
Wait a second, this is the thread where I exposed your newest imbecilities, stinking kapo.

On Tuesday, August 16, 2022 at 3:05:42 PM UTC-3, Volney wrote:
> On 8/16/2022 11:47 AM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > On Tuesday, August 16, 2022 at 7:03:24 AM UTC-3, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> >> Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Monday, August 15, 2022 at 11:59:55 PM UTC-3, Richard Hertz wrote:
> >>>> This is the extensive list, NOT supported by posterior DIRECT
> >>>> experimental verification:
> >>>>
> >>>> 1) Restricted Theory of Relativity (1904 AND 1905, Lorentz, Einstein,
> >>>> Poincaré).
> >>>>
> >>>> 2) General Theory of Relativity (1915, Hilbert, Einstein, Schwarzschild).
> >>>>
> >>>> 3) Theory of the Big Bang (1928, 1975, Le Maitre, Guth, others).
> >>>>
> >>>> 4) ............. (no other theory as of today)
> >>>
> >>> Danish physicist and philosopher Hans Christian Ørsted coined the term
> >>> "thought experiment" first in 1811. His intention was to unite his
> >>> adoration for Kantian metaphysics with traditional ideas about the
> >>> hypothetical-deductive method of science.
> >> The word, yes, but thought experiments are much older than that.
> >> A classic early example from modern science
> >> is Galileo's thought experiment of the two stones tied together:
> >> how fast do they fall?
> >> The conflicting answers show that the Aristotelian laws of fall
> >> are inconsistent, hence wrong.
> >>
> >> It is a mistake, your mistake, to think
> >> that theories -derive- from thought experiments.
> >> Thought experiments test the consistency of theories.
> >> (which have been invented in other ways)
> >>
> >> All of the criticism of the thought experiments of Einstein 1905
> >> that are vented here regularly
> >> are completely misguided and mistaken.
> >>
> >> Nothing is -derived- from those thought experiments.
> >> What they show is that obvious measurement procedures
> >> using distance and time measurements
> >> in combination with electromagnetic signalling
> >> are consistent with Lorentz kinematics,
> >> as given by the Lorentz transformations,
> >>
> >> Jan
> >
> > NO. You are wrong and ill-informed. Plus, Galileo's anecdote is just another myth, an historical deformation of truth.
> And what do you claim the "truth" is?
> >
> > If you really how stupid are these thought experiments, just google "Maxwell's demon". Then, you can re-write your post.
> > You can't derive anything meaningful from scientific fairy tales.
> Thought experiments are only good for education or finding
> contradictions, and can not be used for support of a theory. A thought
> experiment bypasses any unknown/unexpected effects. Only an actual
> experiment can be used to support a model/theory. What if Michelson and
> Morley didn't go beyond the thought experiment stage and decided to
> accept the outcome of their thought experiment without actually doing
> their experiment?
> >
> > And regarding your last paragraph, you should read carefully my thought experiment, which rewrite Einstein's 1905 SR one.
> Again, a thought experiment cannot be used as a basis for a model or
> validate a model.
> > More than a FANTASTIC, NAIVE thought experiment, it's a clear example about HOW such "experiments" should be done: based
> > ON real technological capabilities.
> And the real scientific observations and experimental evidence must be
> obtained and analyzed. Thought experiments are insufficient.
> >
> > I don't approve fairy tales based on fantastic simplifications or written for gullible people that like META PHILOSOPHY. I'm an EE
> > above all things, and write from such stand (logic, critical analysis, common sense, knowledge).
> Since you didn't mention physics, only engineering, you admit you aren't
> qualified to do any of this. You are only qualified to be an example of
> a bad example.
> >
> > Einstein's physics is METAPHYSICS, without the single ground in reality.. It's the work of a philosopher that's an expert sophist.
> Yeah yeah, your hateful OCD rears its ugly head again.

I forgot to mention physics, chemistry or mathematics. My mistake.

I was formed as a RESEARCH&DEVELOPMENT engineer, with an education that is WAY ABOVE your 4 years + 4 years study to get
a LAME couple of BsC. Add two Master Degrees to that. My forming years are EUROPEAN, not US/Canada based, and in the best
R&D centers. I quit studying physics after year TWO, because I could understand (in advance) that physics and astronomy teaching
WAS ALREADY CORRUPTED in the early '70s, and I was right.

I'm enjoying now a well deserved REST from working as a professional, after decades of advanced works in leading edge topics.

I consider that, for several decades now, learning PHYSICS alone is OBSOLETE. Once major topics had already being solved by
mid '60s, physics became impossible to be learnt as a separate science. The advent of computers, microelectronics and many
other multidisciplinary technologies REPLACED what physics meant to be 100 years ago. The new physicist is an accomplished
R&D multi-functional engineer, basically built with electronics science at its core.

What's left to explore as a physicist has become, in the last decades, a ZONE of few topics with no connections to reality. I name
astronomy/cosmology and quantum physics as such zones, which ARE STERILE.

For instance, the developments in 3 nm 3D technology in microelectronics is under the control of R&D engineers and chemists. No
place for physicists there or AT ANY PLACE in computer sciences, which dominates the scene today.

And you contradict yourself with the comment: "Thought experiments are only good for education or finding
contradictions, and can not be used for support of a theory. A thought experiment bypasses any unknown/unexpected effects."

You are mistakenly guided by what means an engineer in the USA, Canada or UK. Try with France, Germany, Italy, Russia, or China.
If you learn about it, it would blow your brain with astonishment.

I saw a new post incoming, from the former EE Adrian. Of course, without any substance.

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tuesday, August 16, 2022 at 7:03:24 AM UTC-3, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Monday, August 15, 2022 at 11:59:55 PM UTC-3, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > > > This is the extensive list, NOT supported by posterior DIRECT
> > > > experimental verification:
> > > >
> > > > 1) Restricted Theory of Relativity (1904 AND 1905, Lorentz, Einstein,
> > > > Poincaré).
> > > >
> > > > 2) General Theory of Relativity (1915, Hilbert, Einstein, Schwarzschild)
> > > >
> > > > 3) Theory of the Big Bang (1928, 1975, Le Maitre, Guth, others).
> > > >
> > > > 4) ............. (no other theory as of today)
> > >
> > > Danish physicist and philosopher Hans Christian Ørsted coined the term
> > > "thought experiment" first in 1811. His intention was to unite his
> > > adoration for Kantian metaphysics with traditional ideas about the
> > > hypothetical-deductive method of science.
> > The word, yes, but thought experiments are much older than that.
> > A classic early example from modern science
> > is Galileo's thought experiment of the two stones tied together:
> > how fast do they fall?
> > The conflicting answers show that the Aristotelian laws of fall
> > are inconsistent, hence wrong.
> >
> > It is a mistake, your mistake, to think
> > that theories -derive- from thought experiments.
> > Thought experiments test the consistency of theories.
> > (which have been invented in other ways)
> >
> > All of the criticism of the thought experiments of Einstein 1905
> > that are vented here regularly
> > are completely misguided and mistaken.
> >
> > Nothing is -derived- from those thought experiments.
> > What they show is that obvious measurement procedures
> > using distance and time measurements
> > in combination with electromagnetic signalling
> > are consistent with Lorentz kinematics,
> > as given by the Lorentz transformations,
> >
> > Jan
>
> NO. You are wrong and ill-informed. Plus, Galileo's anecdote is just
> another myth, an historical deformation of truth.
[snip garbage]

OK, the point is wasted on you.

I won't elaborate,

Jan

On Tuesday, August 16, 2022 at 11:51:15 AM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:

> I was formed as a crank and as a despicable kapo, a toxic combination

Yep