Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, April 28, 2022 at 1:44:08 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Thursday, April 28, 2022 at 12:22:35 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 5:32:24 PM UTC-3, rotchm wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 12:59:56 PM UTC-4, Richard Hertz wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's that OR you are completely DRUNK or very HIGH on heavy drugs, fucking junkie.
>>>>>> Do not project your faults onto others. That, you can discuss with your therapist.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Seeing that everybody is against you in this thread, doesn't that show
>>>>>> you that maybe perhaps you are the one who has the severe problem?
>>>>>> Seriously, stop wasting time with me and go consult. That would be an
>>>>>> efficient way for you to better yourself.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Let me assert some subjects, many of which I've repeated many times:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1) Both SR and GR are pure metaphysics, with derivations assumed as if a
>>>>> pure mathematical development could have physical
>>>>> meanings, which have been proven false and based on delusional
>>>>> concepts, like working on space void of any matter/energy,
>>>>> which is clearly ridiculous.
>>>> It’s fascinating that you believe that anything that does not fit in with
>>>> what you believe to be true is therefore “clearly ridiculous”.
>>>> Congratulations on your cranial concreting.
>>>>
>>>> I also just *adore* the fact that you still call real, measurable effects
>>>> metaphysics. If you’re going to fling propaganda labels, please make sure
>>>> you know what those labels mean.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yet, indoctrinated fanatics INSIST in using relativity on Earth,
>>>>> under gravitational pull, and even under WATER!!
>>>>>
>>>>> The formulation of SR is for a void, infinite and euclidean
>>>>> universe. Yet, it's applied to cosmic muons and particles at the LHC.
>>>> SR has no requirements of void or infinitude and makes no claims on the
>>>> universe. The application of SR only has to be relevant to the LOCAL
>>>> environment. Is the LOCAL environment SUFFICIENTLY Euclidean to not
>>>> introduce errors above experimental resolution? Is the gravitational effect
>>>> of local matter SUFFICIENTLY small to not introduce errors about
>>>> experimental resolution?
>>>>
>>>> How is it that an engineer does not know this? Gone to rust upstairs?
>>>>>
>>>>> 2) Not ONCE it has been proven that length contraction, which originated
>>>>> the relativity movement to disprove MMX, is real.
>>>> First of all, you use the word “proven” in science, which is a sign of
>>>> scientific incompetence.
>>>>
>>>> Secondly, length contraction HAS BEEN experimentally demonstrated, as has
>>>> been discussed here several times.
>>>>> Even more, formulated before the CONCEPT of what an atom was, such
>>>>> derivation SHOULD BE even more ridicule nowadays.
>>>>>
>>>>> 3) As LC and time dilation were derived from a single framework, through
>>>>> heavy mathturbation, IT HAS TO BE ACCEPTED that both
>>>>> concepts ARE MATHEMATICALLY LINKED, so if one of them is proven
>>>>> FALSE, the other MUST BE FALSE (mandatory consequence).
>>>> While true, being “proven FALSE” is not the same as “not proven TRUE”. You
>>>> should know that too.
>>>>>
>>>>> 4) The stupid assertion written in the 1905 paper by Einstein that TIME
>>>>> IS WHAT MY CLOCK SHOWS should be popularized through
>>>>> merchandising, so retarded imbeciles who support relativity can
>>>>> support it proudly. If possible, adding a Picasso's Melting Clocks
>>>>> below it. After all, Picasso made the paint as an homage to his
>>>>> "friend" Einstein (both pushing 1900s New Age Movements, like
>>>>> LGTBQ support).
>>>>>
>>>>> 5) Given that the maximum speed achieved by man in space is lower than 50
>>>>> Km/sec, and that there are no chances that such record
>>>>> will be brought around 100 Km/sec in the next 400 years, relativity
>>>>> value IS NULL, and Lorentz Transform reduces to Galileo Transforms.
>>>> Practical value to humanity has absolutely zero relevance to fundamental
>>>> science. This still seems to elude you.
>>>>>
>>>>> More yet, and considering that a light beam covers 300,000 Km in one
>>>>> second, such value should be used as A RADIUS of what manned
>>>>> activities can dominate in such time lapse, rendering relativity
>>>>> USELESS for any human purpose. Galilean relativity is quite enough for
>>>>> any space activity in our cosmic neighborhood for centuries to come.
>>>>>
>>>>> And anything farther than 3 Astronomical Units from the Sun should be
>>>>> considered as BEYOND human abilities to define and measure.
>>>>>
>>>>> 6) In the same sense, anything below 1 Armstrong (believed to be the
>>>>> average atomic radius) should be declared as uncharted zone,
>>>> You are well behind the times. Rutherford did scattering experiments that
>>>> showed the size of the nucleus is five orders of magnitude smaller than the
>>>> atom over a century ago. You also seem to have missed the whole business of
>>>> deep inelastic scattering on protons in the 1960s.
>>>>
>>>> Just because it is not stuff you have used in your profession does not mean
>>>> that it is unknown ground. Don’t be an ass.
>>>>> at which what happens IS PURELY SPECULATIVE, closer to metaphysics
>>>>> than to physics. Only conquest of chemistry (not physics)
>>>>> should be given SOME VALUE, as it's proven that findings DO NOT
>>>>> STAND THE PASS OF TIME (like the case of molecular chemistry,
>>>>> which fails miserably after 10-15 years in the development of composite materials).
>>>>>
>>>>> 7) GR has been proved USELESS (with all of its 200+ non linear diff
>>>>> equations) beyond the MATHEMATICAL SOLUTION called
>>>>> Hilbert-Schwarzschild since 1917, which is the ONLY solution that
>>>>> cretin relativists use to "explain" how marvelous GPS is.
>>>> Again, practical human value has nothing to do with fundamental science.
>>>> When you can absorb this, you’ll start getting some insight. Reject it, and
>>>> you’ll die angry.
>>>>>
>>>>> No other solution has been proven to have any value (all THREE of
>>>>> them), and yet relativists have written million of pages praising them,
>>>>> and filmed ten of thousand of hours SELLING this crappy metaphysics,
>>>>> in particular during the last 15 years.
>>>>>
>>>>> GR FAILED MISERABLY at every attempt to use it in cosmology (another
>>>>> stupid movement), so it has suffered hundred of patches
>>>>> in the last 60 years, in the lame attempt to interpret an ever
>>>>> changing universe, that now has accelerating expansion, which
>>>>> requires that DARK ENERGY be actually ANTIGRAVITY!!
>>>>>
>>>>> So, as with moral values and decency degrade on a daily basis, so it
>>>>> happens on part of "science" (cosmology, particle physics), which
>>>>> try to redefine previous stances (failed ones) but are drifting
>>>>> increasingly away from reason.
>>>>>
>>>>> Last try in cosmology is to have A VARIABLE VALUE for Gravitational
>>>>> Constant G, in order to use an aggiornated GR.
>>>>>
>>>>> 8) Relativists should cease and desist, and use what is left of their
>>>>> brainpower to make REAL CONTRIBUTIONS to society, parasites.
>>>> Fundamental science does make a real contribution to humanity. Not all
>>>> contributions to humanity have to do with technology.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> END (for now).
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>>
>>>
>>> List (and think very carefully) FIVE specific researches in fundamental
>>> sciences (any kind) NOT RELATED TO TECHNOLOGY, either:
>>>
>>> a) Being technology an enabler for such specific research, or
>>> b) besides a), being technological applications the final goal of such
>>> specific research, or
>>> c) being technology the main goal behind such
>>> "fundamental" research, how is fundamental research results being retrofitted
>>> into the path of development of technology.
>>>
>>> If you like, you could make a try with Solid State Physics.
>>>
>> I’ll repeat what I told you earlier, and which you are unable to absorb.
>> Technology is used in fundamental science and fundamental science is used
>> in technology. This does not mean that the VALUE OF fundamental science is
>> to further technology. Likewise, mathematics is used in both technology and
>> in science. This does not mean that EITHER science or technology is there
>> to further mathematics.
>>
>> Good lord, you’re denser than a five foot stack of National Geographic
>> magazines.
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>
> You DON'T HAVE A FUCKING CLUE about what fundamental science is.
>
> You run away like A RAT when I challenged you to cite five examples of
> "fundamental science".

You first asked for one and I gave you one: cosmology.

If you’d like five, here are five or six:
- Cosmology
- Non-earth planetary atmospherics and, for that matter, all exoplanet
astronomy
- Paleontology
- Origin of life biology
- Taxonomic zoology
- High energy particle physics

Note that NONE of these have any practical value for human technological
benefit, even though they clearly USE technology in the pursuit of the
science.

I fully expect you to splutter that none of them count as science as far as
you’re concerned, an assessment that nobody cares about except you. Those
people working in those fields certainly do not care that you disregard the
value of their work and consider them blood-sucking, useless parasites on
humanity because they’re not engineers or applied scientists.

>
> Maybe you should try with examples in woodworking. Anything else is
> beyond your understanding, Bodkin.
>
> You're a pathetic apologist of science, which you learned WHAT IS by
> borrowing knowledge from books.
>
> There is not a single cell in your body that is "science oriented".
> You're just a cheap charlatan.
>
>

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