Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #601587 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2023-02-17 15:32 -0800 |
| Last post | 2023-02-26 22:17 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 80 — 20 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Why no Einstein’s laws?, asked R.W. Kadel from Berkeley Laboratory, in 2007. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-02-17 15:32 -0800
Re: Why no Einstein’s laws?, asked R.W. Kadel from Berkeley Laboratory, in 2007. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-02-17 16:34 -0800
Re: Why no Einstein’s laws?, asked R.W. Kadel from Berkeley Laboratory, in 2007. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-02-17 18:24 -0800
Re: Why no Einstein’s laws?, asked R.W. Kadel from Berkeley Laboratory, in 2007. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2023-02-18 04:57 -0800
Re: Why no Einstein’s laws?, asked R.W. Kadel from Berkeley Laboratory, in 2007. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-02-18 08:19 -0800
Re: Why no Einstein’s laws?, asked R.W. Kadel from Berkeley Laboratory, in 2007. Aldo <aldo.mayme.11084@cap.edu.mx> - 2023-02-17 16:58 -0800
Re: Why no Einstein’s laws?, asked R.W. Kadel from Berkeley Laboratory, in 2007. "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-02-17 17:15 -0800
Re: Why no Einstein’s laws?, asked R.W. Kadel from Berkeley Laboratory, in 2007. patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-02-17 17:56 -0800
Crank Pat Dolan kisses ass to fellow crank Richard Hertz "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-02-17 18:00 -0800
Re: Why no Einstein’s laws?, asked R.W. Kadel from Berkeley Laboratory, in 2007. Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-02-17 20:42 -0800
Re: Why no Einstein’s laws?, asked R.W. Kadel from Berkeley Laboratory, in 2007. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-02-17 23:50 -0800
Re: Why no Einstein’s laws?, asked R.W. Kadel from Berkeley Laboratory, in 2007. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-02-18 03:50 -0800
Re: Why no Einstein's laws?, asked R.W. Kadel from Berkeley Laboratory, in 2007. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-02-18 10:31 +0100
Re: Why no Einstein's laws?, asked R.W. Kadel from Berkeley Laboratory, in 2007. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-02-18 04:03 -0800
Re: Why no Einstein's laws?, asked R.W. Kadel from Berkeley Laboratory, in 2007. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2023-02-18 05:09 -0800
Re: Why no Einstein's laws?, asked R.W. Kadel from Berkeley Laboratory, in 2007. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-02-18 05:53 -0800
Re: Why no Einstein's laws?, asked R.W. Kadel from Berkeley Laboratory, in 2007. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2023-02-22 06:09 -0800
Re: Why no Einstein's laws?, asked R.W. Kadel from Berkeley Laboratory, in 2007. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-02-22 06:35 -0800
Re: Why no Einstein's laws?, asked R.W. Kadel from Berkeley Laboratory, in 2007. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2023-02-22 08:56 -0800
Re: Why no Einstein's laws?, asked R.W. Kadel from Berkeley Laboratory, in 2007. Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-02-22 19:12 +0100
Re: Why no Einstein's laws?, asked R.W. Kadel from Berkeley Laboratory, in 2007. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-02-22 11:59 -0800
Re: Why no Einstein's laws?, asked R.W. Kadel from Berkeley Laboratory, in 2007. "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-02-22 14:03 -0800
Re: Why no Einstein's laws?, asked R.W. Kadel from Berkeley Laboratory, in 2007. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-02-22 22:13 -0800
Re: Why no Einstein's laws?, asked R.W. Kadel from Berkeley Laboratory, in 2007. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2023-02-25 12:48 -0800
BONGTALK (or worse) (was Re: Why no Einstein's laws?, asked R.W. Kadel from Berkeley Laboratory, in 2007.) whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-02-25 16:39 -0600
Re: Why no Einstein's laws?, asked R.W. Kadel from Berkeley Laboratory, in 2007. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2023-02-23 01:13 -0800
Crank Richard Hertz repeats the same lies "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-02-22 10:36 -0800
Re: Crank Richard Hertz repeats the same lies Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-02-22 11:25 -0800
Re: Why no Einstein's laws?, asked R.W. Kadel from Berkeley Laboratory, in 2007. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-02-18 23:24 +0100
Re: Why no Einstein's laws?, asked R.W. Kadel from Berkeley Laboratory, in 2007. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-02-19 00:37 -0800
Re: Why no Einstein's laws?, asked R.W. Kadel from Berkeley Laboratory, in 2007. RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2023-02-21 14:01 -0800
Re: Why no Einstein's laws?, asked R.W. Kadel from Berkeley Laboratory, in 2007. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-02-21 14:12 -0800
Crank Richard Hertz keeps "sustaining" "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-02-21 14:16 -0800
Re: Crank Richard Hertz keeps "sustaining" Foos Research <cusanusnicolas@gmail.com> - 2023-02-22 01:51 -0800
Re: Crank Richard Hertz keeps "sustaining" "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-02-22 06:33 -0800
Re: Why no Einstein’s laws?, asked R.W. Kadel from Berkeley Laboratory, in 2007. Foos Research <cusanusnicolas@gmail.com> - 2023-02-18 23:52 -0800
Re: Why no Einstein’s laws?, asked R.W. Kadel from Berkeley Laboratory, in 2007. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-02-22 13:49 -0800
Re: Why no Einstein’s laws?, asked R.W. Kadel from Berkeley Laboratory, in 2007. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-02-24 10:46 -0800
Re: Why no Einstein’s laws?, asked R.W. Kadel from Berkeley Laboratory, in 2007. Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-02-26 11:34 -0600
Re: Why no Einstein’s laws?, asked R.W. Kadel from Berkeley Laboratory, in 2007. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-02-26 10:28 -0800
Re: Why no Einstein’s laws?, asked R.W. Kadel from Berkeley Laboratory, in 2007. Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-02-27 12:05 -0600
Re: Why no Einstein's laws?, asked R.W. Kadel from Berkeley Laboratory, in 2007. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-02-27 19:56 +0100
Re: Why no Einstein's laws?, asked R.W. Kadel from Berkeley Laboratory, in 2007. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-02-27 10:59 -0800
Re: Why no Einstein's laws?, asked R.W. Kadel from Berkeley Laboratory, in 2007. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2023-02-27 12:41 -0800
Re: Why no Einstein's laws?, asked R.W. Kadel from Berkeley Laboratory, in 2007. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-02-27 22:42 +0100
Re: Why no Einstein's laws?, asked R.W. Kadel from Berkeley Laboratory, in 2007. Connie Scutese <uiin@tssccenc.ne> - 2023-02-27 21:51 +0000
Re: Why no Einstein's laws?, asked R.W. Kadel from Berkeley Laboratory, in 2007. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-02-27 13:50 -0800
Re: Why no Einstein's laws?, asked R.W. Kadel from Berkeley Laboratory, in 2007. RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2023-02-27 14:04 -0800
Re: Why no Einstein's laws?, asked R.W. Kadel from Berkeley Laboratory, in 2007. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-02-27 14:08 -0800
Re: Why no Einstein's laws?, asked R.W. Kadel from Berkeley Laboratory, in 2007. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-02-27 23:28 +0100
Re: Why no Einstein's laws?, asked R.W. Kadel from Berkeley Laboratory, in 2007. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-02-27 18:37 -0500
Re: Why no Einstein's laws?, asked R.W. Kadel from Berkeley Laboratory, in 2007. Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-02-27 17:55 -0600
Re: Why no Einstein's laws?, asked R.W. Kadel from Berkeley Laboratory, in 2007. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-02-27 22:57 -0800
Re: Why no Einstein’s laws?, asked R.W. Kadel from Berkeley Laboratory, in 2007. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-02-27 10:58 -0800
Re: Why no Einstein’s laws?, asked R.W. Kadel from Berkeley Laboratory, in 2007. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-02-26 12:16 -0800
Re: Why no Einstein’s laws?, asked R.W. Kadel from Berkeley Laboratory, in 2007. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-02-27 02:24 -0500
Re: Why no Einstein’s laws?, asked R.W. Kadel from Berkeley Laboratory, in 2007. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-02-27 00:10 -0800
Re: Why no Einstein’s laws?, asked R.W. Kadel from Berkeley Laboratory, in 2007. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-02-27 05:06 -0800
Crank Richard Hertz eats shit. A lot of it "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-02-27 10:16 -0800
Re: Crank Richard Hertz eats shit. A lot of it Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-02-27 10:42 -0800
Re: Crank Richard Hertz eats shit. A lot of it "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-02-27 10:56 -0800
Re: Crank Richard Hertz eats shit. A lot of it JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2023-02-27 12:38 -0800
Re: Crank Richard Hertz eats shit. A lot of it Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-02-27 13:13 -0800
Re: Crank Richard Hertz eats shit. A lot of it "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-02-27 14:36 -0800
Re: Crank Richard Hertz eats shit. A lot of it Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-02-27 22:55 -0800
Re: Crank Richard Hertz eats shit. A lot of it Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-02-27 14:08 -0800
Re: Crank Richard Hertz eats shit. A lot of it Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-02-28 00:42 -0500
Re: Crank Richard Hertz eats shit. A lot of it Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-02-27 23:02 -0800
Re: Why no Einstein’s laws?, asked R.W. Kadel from Berkeley Laboratory, in 2007. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-02-27 11:36 -0800
Re: Why no Einstein’s laws?, asked R.W. Kadel from Berkeley Laboratory, in 2007. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-02-28 00:26 -0500
Re: Why no Einstein’s laws?, asked R.W. Kadel from Berkeley Laboratory, in 2007. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-02-27 22:58 -0800
Re: Why no Einstein’s laws?, asked R.W. Kadel from Berkeley Laboratory, in 2007. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-02-28 14:35 -0600
Re: Why no Einstein’s laws?, asked R.W. Kadel from Berkeley Laboratory, in 2007. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-02-28 12:49 -0800
Re: Why no Einstein’s laws?, asked R.W. Kadel from Berkeley Laboratory, in 2007. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-02-28 14:23 -0800
Re: Why no Einstein’s laws?, asked R.W. Kadel from Berkeley Laboratory, in 2007. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-02-28 16:51 -0600
Re: Why no Einstein’s laws?, asked R.W. Kadel from Berkeley Laboratory, in 2007. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-02-28 15:22 -0800
Re: Why no Einstein’s laws?, asked R.W. Kadel from Berkeley Laboratory, in 2007. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-02-28 15:35 -0800
Re: Why no Einstein’s laws?, asked R.W. Kadel from Berkeley Laboratory, in 2007. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-02-28 19:07 -0600
Re: Why no Einstein’s laws?, asked R.W. Kadel from Berkeley Laboratory, in 2007. "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-02-26 12:01 -0800
Re: Why no Einstein’s laws?, asked R.W. Kadel from Berkeley Laboratory, in 2007. Bubba Pagano <nuan@bappn.bb> - 2023-02-26 22:17 +0000
Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 Next page →
| From | Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-02-22 11:59 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Why no Einstein's laws?, asked R.W. Kadel from Berkeley Laboratory, in 2007. |
| Message-ID | <2a1a6fa1-b721-416f-82d7-e90eef576bb6n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #601968 |
On Wednesday, February 22, 2023 at 3:12:21 PM UTC-3, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote: > On 2023-02-22 16:56:17 +0000, JanPB said: > > > On Wednesday, February 22, 2023 at 3:35:16 PM UTC+1, Richard Hertz wrote: > >> On Wednesday, February 22, 2023 at 11:09:34 AM UTC-3, JanPB wrote: > >>> On Saturday, February 18, 2023 at 2:53:31 PM UTC+1, Richard Hertz wrote: > >> <snip> > >>>> - Then came Voigt, inventing relativity, gamma factor, length > >>>> contraction and local time. > >>> Voigt didn't invent relativity just like Laplace didn't invent the > >>> Schwarzschild radius. > >> <snip> > >> > >> Yes he did, imbecile, and 100 years before the cretins. > > > > No. And fix your mental problem. Repeating the word "cretins" in this > > context is indicative of your belief magic incantations will come true > > when repeated. > Another one Alan B. will want to ban, if he has any consistency, which I doubt. > > > >> Schwarzschild Radius Before General Relativity: Why Does > >> Michell-Laplace Argument Provide the Correct Answer? > >> https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10701-009-9315-8 > > > > It's just a formula coincidence. It happens. Just like it happened with Voigt. > > > -- > athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots I use "cretin" as an adjective, as it's usual in Spanish: CRETINO - "una persona estúpida y cabeza dura". I don't use/abuse its use as an insult for a clinical condition: cretinism. It has two acceptions, either on English or Spanish, and are quite similar. Informal : a stupid, vulgar person ---> Einstein, Albert.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-02-22 14:03 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Why no Einstein's laws?, asked R.W. Kadel from Berkeley Laboratory, in 2007. |
| Message-ID | <73cdbf10-9194-4cc1-998b-db780d2507e5n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #601979 |
On Wednesday, February 22, 2023 at 11:59:04 AM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote: > On Wednesday, February 22, 2023 at 3:12:21 PM UTC-3, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote: > > On 2023-02-22 16:56:17 +0000, JanPB said: > > > > > On Wednesday, February 22, 2023 at 3:35:16 PM UTC+1, Richard Hertz wrote: > > >> On Wednesday, February 22, 2023 at 11:09:34 AM UTC-3, JanPB wrote: > > >>> On Saturday, February 18, 2023 at 2:53:31 PM UTC+1, Richard Hertz wrote: > > >> <snip> > > >>>> - Then came Voigt, inventing relativity, gamma factor, length > > >>>> contraction and local time. > > >>> Voigt didn't invent relativity just like Laplace didn't invent the > > >>> Schwarzschild radius. > > >> <snip> > > >> > > >> Yes he did, imbecile, and 100 years before the cretins. > > > > > > No. And fix your mental problem. Repeating the word "cretins" in this > > > context is indicative of your belief magic incantations will come true > > > when repeated. > > Another one Alan B. will want to ban, if he has any consistency, which I doubt. > > > > > >> Schwarzschild Radius Before General Relativity: Why Does > > >> Michell-Laplace Argument Provide the Correct Answer? > > >> https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10701-009-9315-8 > > > > > > It's just a formula coincidence. It happens. Just like it happened with Voigt. > > > > > > -- > > athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots > I use "cretin" as an adjective, to describe myself We know
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-02-22 22:13 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Why no Einstein's laws?, asked R.W. Kadel from Berkeley Laboratory, in 2007. |
| Message-ID | <34da3332-c745-4226-aa24-3334607e5cc7n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #601987 |
On Wednesday, 22 February 2023 at 23:03:17 UTC+1, Dono. wrote: > On Wednesday, February 22, 2023 at 11:59:04 AM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote: > > I use "cretin" as an adjective, to describe myself No, he didn't. Poor idiot Dono isd lying, as expected from relativistic scum.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-02-25 12:48 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Why no Einstein's laws?, asked R.W. Kadel from Berkeley Laboratory, in 2007. |
| Message-ID | <63FA7418.4A2E@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #602007 |
There are no new laws in Science because there is only one Sun, and only one Moon. I mean, how many times can you look at the moon and come up with a new law again? It's over. No more physics laws. No one wants to focus on the biggest mystery in the universe...the Earth. -- The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge the unchallengeable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-02-25 16:39 -0600 |
| Subject | BONGTALK (or worse) (was Re: Why no Einstein's laws?, asked R.W. Kadel from Berkeley Laboratory, in 2007.) |
| Message-ID | <k5vh09FodriU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #602256 |
Bongtalk (or worse) On 2/25/2023 2:48 PM, The Starmaker wrote: > There are no new laws in Science because there is only one Sun, and only > one Moon. I mean, how many times > can you look at the moon and come up with a new law again? It's over. No > more physics laws. > > No one wants to focus on the biggest mystery in the universe...the > Earth.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-02-23 01:13 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Why no Einstein's laws?, asked R.W. Kadel from Berkeley Laboratory, in 2007. |
| Message-ID | <37da5a9f-2800-4420-a75f-8e3481c854e9n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #601979 |
On Wednesday, February 22, 2023 at 8:59:04 PM UTC+1, Richard Hertz wrote: > On Wednesday, February 22, 2023 at 3:12:21 PM UTC-3, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote: > > On 2023-02-22 16:56:17 +0000, JanPB said: > > > > > On Wednesday, February 22, 2023 at 3:35:16 PM UTC+1, Richard Hertz wrote: > > >> On Wednesday, February 22, 2023 at 11:09:34 AM UTC-3, JanPB wrote: > > >>> On Saturday, February 18, 2023 at 2:53:31 PM UTC+1, Richard Hertz wrote: > > >> <snip> > > >>>> - Then came Voigt, inventing relativity, gamma factor, length > > >>>> contraction and local time. > > >>> Voigt didn't invent relativity just like Laplace didn't invent the > > >>> Schwarzschild radius. > > >> <snip> > > >> > > >> Yes he did, imbecile, and 100 years before the cretins. > > > > > > No. And fix your mental problem. Repeating the word "cretins" in this > > > context is indicative of your belief magic incantations will come true > > > when repeated. > > Another one Alan B. will want to ban, if he has any consistency, which I doubt. > > > > > >> Schwarzschild Radius Before General Relativity: Why Does > > >> Michell-Laplace Argument Provide the Correct Answer? > > >> https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10701-009-9315-8 > > > > > > It's just a formula coincidence. It happens. Just like it happened with Voigt. > > > > > > -- > > athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots > I use "cretin" as an adjective, as it's usual in Spanish: CRETINO - "una persona estúpida y cabeza dura". > > I don't use/abuse its use as an insult for a clinical condition: cretinism. > > It has two acceptions, either on English or Spanish, and are quite similar. > > Informal : a stupid, vulgar person ---> Einstein, Albert. See a doctor. You have a serious Albert Einstein monomania, many famous people experience this, sometimes with really bad results. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-02-22 10:36 -0800 |
| Subject | Crank Richard Hertz repeats the same lies |
| Message-ID | <06693703-399f-4ca0-9216-e68e5acc770en@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #601946 |
On Wednesday, February 22, 2023 at 6:35:16 AM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote: > On Wednesday, February 22, 2023 at 11:09:34 AM UTC-3, JanPB wrote: > > On Saturday, February 18, 2023 at 2:53:31 PM UTC+1, Richard Hertz wrote: > <snip> > > > - Then came Voigt, inventing relativity, gamma factor, length contraction and local time. > > Voigt didn't invent relativity just like Laplace didn't invent the Schwarzschild radius. > <snip> > > Yes he did Voigt transforms have been falsified by Ives-Stilwell experiment. You wait a few months , hoping that people have forgotten and you repeat the same idiocy. Way to go, crank.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-02-22 11:25 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Crank Richard Hertz repeats the same lies |
| Message-ID | <f0d7a842-653e-42c1-b004-71eef1d96766n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #601971 |
On Wednesday, 22 February 2023 at 19:36:46 UTC+1, Dono. wrote: > On Wednesday, February 22, 2023 at 6:35:16 AM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote: > > On Wednesday, February 22, 2023 at 11:09:34 AM UTC-3, JanPB wrote: > > > On Saturday, February 18, 2023 at 2:53:31 PM UTC+1, Richard Hertz wrote: > > <snip> > > > > - Then came Voigt, inventing relativity, gamma factor, length contraction and local time. > > > Voigt didn't invent relativity just like Laplace didn't invent the Schwarzschild radius. > > <snip> > > > > Yes he did > Voigt transforms have been falsified by Ives-Stilwell experiment. You wait a few months , hoping that people have forgotten and you repeat the same idiocy. Way to go, crank. And Lorentz's transforms were falsified by GPS clocks, keeping measuring t'=t, just like all serious clocks always did.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-02-18 23:24 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Why no Einstein's laws?, asked R.W. Kadel from Berkeley Laboratory, in 2007. |
| Message-ID | <1q6d8lk.13ykagyow2ndtN%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> |
| In reply to | #601629 |
JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> wrote: > On Saturday, February 18, 2023 at 10:31:26 AM UTC+1, J. J. Lodder wrote: > > Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > The equations of general relativity are universally known > > as 'The Einstein Equations'. > > [-] > > > And I wonder why he wasn't awarded with a second Nobel Prize for > > > relativity. > > > > > > After all, the Nobel Committee had plenty of time: 33 years after 1922. > > > If he was the greatest star in the sky of physics for the entire XX centur y. > > > > > > These persons were awarded twice: > > > > > > 1. Marie Curie (1903 - Physics, 1911 - Chemistry). 8 years apart. > > > 2. Linus Pauling (1954 - Chemistry, 1962 - Peace). 8 years apart. > > > 3. John Bardeen (1956 - Physics, 1972 - Physics). 16 years apart. > > > 4. Frederick Sanger (1958 - Chemistry, 1980 - Chemistry). 22 years apart. > > > > > > They could have given him one (Peace) for the letter to FDR, or one (physi cs) > > > for E=mc2 and the nuclear power for war/peace. > > > > > > But IT DIDN'T HAPPEN. Why? What reasons had the Nobel Committee > > > to hold the prize back? > > They really didn't want to, > > and they gave him his first Nobel prize only because of immense pressure > > from almost the entire physics community, > > If not, it might have come to a boycot of the Nobel prizes. > > Niels Bohr for example wouldn't have accepted his Nobel prize > > if Einstein hadn't been given one first, > > My impression is that Einstein didn't really got famous in the physics > community until the Compton experiment. Huh? Your impression is quite wrong. Einstein became very well known almost immediately after 1905. (in a select circle) He became well-know among those who mattered when he met them all personally at the first Solvay conference. (1911) By that time people were practically begging him to accept a professorate at their institution. He became a public figure in 1919, with the publication of Eddington's results. The Nobel committee caused a complete scandal in physics by first giving the 1920 Nobel to a complete nobody for the virtue of not being named Albert Einstein, (to the great surprise of the recipient) and next passing over the 1921 prize. (for lack of a suitable candidate) With this the Nobel committee had thoroughly discredited itself. We know how the situation was rectified with the lame compromise that actually came about. By 1923 (Compton) no serious physicist in the world needed to be convinced anymore, Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-02-19 00:37 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Why no Einstein's laws?, asked R.W. Kadel from Berkeley Laboratory, in 2007. |
| Message-ID | <a308f7d5-92da-4b19-9a37-add9f0a8bf2cn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #601660 |
On Saturday, 18 February 2023 at 23:24:05 UTC+1, J. J. Lodder wrote: > JanPB <fil...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Saturday, February 18, 2023 at 10:31:26 AM UTC+1, J. J. Lodder wrote: > > > Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > The equations of general relativity are universally known > > > as 'The Einstein Equations'. > > > [-] > > > > And I wonder why he wasn't awarded with a second Nobel Prize for > > > > relativity. > > > > > > > > After all, the Nobel Committee had plenty of time: 33 years after 1922. > > > > If he was the greatest star in the sky of physics for the entire XX centur > > y. > > > > > > > > These persons were awarded twice: > > > > > > > > 1. Marie Curie (1903 - Physics, 1911 - Chemistry). 8 years apart. > > > > 2. Linus Pauling (1954 - Chemistry, 1962 - Peace). 8 years apart. > > > > 3. John Bardeen (1956 - Physics, 1972 - Physics). 16 years apart. > > > > 4. Frederick Sanger (1958 - Chemistry, 1980 - Chemistry). 22 years apart. > > > > > > > > They could have given him one (Peace) for the letter to FDR, or one (physi > cs) > > > > for E=mc2 and the nuclear power for war/peace. > > > > > > > > But IT DIDN'T HAPPEN. Why? What reasons had the Nobel Committee > > > > to hold the prize back? > > > They really didn't want to, > > > and they gave him his first Nobel prize only because of immense pressure > > > from almost the entire physics community, > > > If not, it might have come to a boycot of the Nobel prizes. > > > Niels Bohr for example wouldn't have accepted his Nobel prize > > > if Einstein hadn't been given one first, > > > > My impression is that Einstein didn't really got famous in the physics > > community until the Compton experiment. > Huh? Your impression is quite wrong. > Einstein became very well known almost immediately after 1905. > (in a select circle) > He became well-know among those who mattered when > he met them all personally at the first Solvay conference. (1911) > By that time people were practically begging him > to accept a professorate at their institution. > He became a public figure in 1919, > with the publication of Eddington's results. > > The Nobel committee caused a complete scandal in physics > by first giving the 1920 Nobel to a complete nobody > for the virtue of not being named Albert Einstein, Some didn't worship your idiot guru!!!! How scandalous!!!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-02-21 14:01 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Why no Einstein's laws?, asked R.W. Kadel from Berkeley Laboratory, in 2007. |
| Message-ID | <84d12b76-6ec8-4d15-a9a3-9727c3b15aabn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #601629 |
On February 18, JanPB wrote: > My impression is that Einstein didn't really got famous in the physics > community until the Compton experiment. https://www.nytimes.com/1919/11/25/archives/a-new-physics-based-on-einstein-sir-oliver-lodge-says-it-will.html And, for Mr. Hertz: https://www.nytimes.com/1919/11/16/archives/dont-worry-over-new-light-theory-physicists-agree-that-it-can-be.html -- Rich
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-02-21 14:12 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Why no Einstein's laws?, asked R.W. Kadel from Berkeley Laboratory, in 2007. |
| Message-ID | <1426dacc-d129-4c04-becd-4c3c5c55e683n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #601882 |
On Tuesday, February 21, 2023 at 7:01:38 PM UTC-3, RichD wrote: > On February 18, JanPB wrote: > > My impression is that Einstein didn't really got famous in the physics > > community until the Compton experiment. > https://www.nytimes.com/1919/11/25/archives/a-new-physics-based-on-einstein-sir-oliver-lodge-says-it-will.html > > And, for Mr. Hertz: > > https://www.nytimes.com/1919/11/16/archives/dont-worry-over-new-light-theory-physicists-agree-that-it-can-be.html > > -- > Rich Thanks. That's what I've been sustaining here for years: Newton rules and relativity is WORTHLESS, void of any practical applications, either in 1919 or 2023. But relativists EAT and PROFIT with the importance of THEIR CULT OF NOTHINGNESS. Let them be.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-02-21 14:16 -0800 |
| Subject | Crank Richard Hertz keeps "sustaining" |
| Message-ID | <4b8b3c99-ad59-4e75-91b6-13543f19f1f5n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #601884 |
On Tuesday, February 21, 2023 at 2:12:36 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote: > Thanks. That's the imbecility what I've been sustaining here for years Keep "sustaining", Dick.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Foos Research <cusanusnicolas@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-02-22 01:51 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Crank Richard Hertz keeps "sustaining" |
| Message-ID | <9917d80a-9cba-4928-ae06-c60fe5ad246bn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #601886 |
On Wednesday, February 22, 2023 at 5:16:20 AM UTC+7, Dono. wrote: > On Tuesday, February 21, 2023 at 2:12:36 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote: > > > Thanks. That's the imbecility what I've been sustaining here for years > > Keep "sustaining" Dick -------------------------------------------- Non illegitimi carborundum, Mr. Hertz. This https://bit.ly/3xKsc0a is not a link I recommend, but represents the general way that Dingle's objections to the twin paradox were treated by the science community and emulated by the following crop of little Einsteins. So, you get nineteen pages (and many more by the same author in other links) that amount to a torrential attack on Dingle's mental aptitude mixed with logical inconsistencies, poor math, and numerous examples of other scientists lamenting that Dingle simply fails to understand simultaneity and special relativity. The writer (author unstated) is impeccably articulate and good at juggling trivial equations so that readers are too confused by specious math, convoluted logic and complex metaphysics to object. The author fails to mention Louis Essen. Essen was at the top of his game during that period and did not misunderstand Einstein. He was the first to find an accurate measure of light speed and later invented the atomic clock used to validate Einstein's "time dilation." He very strongly objected to the use of his clock, however, having correctly called out Einstein's relativity as a swindle. He cites a series of logical contradictions and deceptive math. All the king's horses and men praise Einstein, but in the view of a real scientist who truly understands the correct use of math and logic, Einstein was the crook he was. Nobody in this group can hold a candle to Essen, or even solve a simple integration problem. Nobody here is qualified to argue Essen, so Essen has my approval, not just because he would know, but because I see the same things quite clearly and do not misunderstand simultaneity, which is not relative but absolutely scientifically absolute. So, I'll limit my example to the first page of his attack on Dingle that coincides with my question to Denny Lee in my 1972 physics class. "If the first postulate of relativity is that it is arbitrary which "inertial frame" is in motion and which at rest, then why shouldn't the stay at home twin age less instead?" Denny was a real showman and never lacked a good answer, but all he could come up with is that it had to do with acceleration and deceleration issues outside the scope of our class. Try outside the scope of the problem presented. But the TP presented by Einstein does not feature acceleration because it is a fraud as Essen rightly pointed out. The author writes, "In 1972, just as Dingle's book was about to be published, he engaged in one more debate, this time with Professor Ray Lyttleton, in the “letters to the editor” section of The Times. In his final letter, Dingle presented his “irrefutable proof” as follows:" To be concise, Dingle's letter only rephrases my comment to Denny. "How can clock A and clock B both run more slowly than each other?" The author's answer is that Dingle notes that the derivative of t with respect to t' in one frame moving at relative velocity v and constant x to be the algebraic inverse of the partial derivative t' with respect to t, "which of course is false." Thus Dingle is in fact missing his faculties. You can read the rest yourself, but let's chew on this bit. NOWHERE in Dingle's letter is there any mention of a derivative or math expression. Dingle simply poses Einstein's idea as manifestly absurd as did Essen and any other sane human being. The author's dialogue is grammatically correct, but his argument not mathematically relevant. It is only made to astound and confuse, just like Einstein's general relativity equation purporting to account for the difference in g at different elevations. He then proceeds to put a great many more words in Dingle's mouth and shows how the Lorentz transformations prove mathematically that clocks in frame B move more slowly than in A and why Dingle is wrong. But Dingle was not wrong. The Lorentz equations fail to address the problem that it is not possible to compare clocks without one frame or the other accelerating or decelerating, either of which jiggers the variables in the Lorentz equations. Our anonymous author is the one whose assertions are bizarre, not Dingle's. If frame A slows at the same rate that frame B accelerates to the point where they meet, the two clocks will not differ, the fantasies of Einstein and all the world's greatest scientists and army of little Einsteins notwithstanding. However, if only one frame changes velocity, the ratio between time the two time intervals can be expressed as 1/(1-v2/c2), an equation easily derived from the phenomenon of redshift and change in velocity due to gravitational potential. If you can't verify this fact for yourself, this subject is out of your league and you should shut your trap, though I know you won't. The twin paradox is a deliberate swindle as Essen rightly pointed out. The Lorentz expression for the ratio of the two time intervals is given as 1/(1-v2/c2)1/2 by Einstein. The radical in the denominator isn't an error, but one of many tricks used to ignore the source of the equation being the change in clock speed owed to deceleration, 1/(1-v2/c2). Note that there is no possibility of devising an experiment where there could be a difference between (1-v2/c2)1/2 and 1/(1-v2/c2) greater than an experimental error, so Einstein's deception would be impossible to confirm as long as changes in velocity are ignored. Your daddy was a fake.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-02-22 06:33 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Crank Richard Hertz keeps "sustaining" |
| Message-ID | <a270c7dc-e676-42d0-a26e-4c35bc316d01n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #601930 |
On Wednesday, February 22, 2023 at 1:51:50 AM UTC-8, Foos Research wrote: > On Wednesday, February 22, 2023 at 5:16:20 AM UTC+7, Dono. wrote: > > On Tuesday, February 21, 2023 at 2:12:36 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote: > > > > > Thanks. That's the imbecility what I've been sustaining here for years > > > > Keep "sustaining" Dick > -------------------------------------------- > But Dingle was not wrong. Actually, he was. Keep it up, dumbass.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Foos Research <cusanusnicolas@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-02-18 23:52 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Why no Einstein’s laws?, asked R.W. Kadel from Berkeley Laboratory, in 2007. |
| Message-ID | <24dc2e4e-4da2-4a91-91b2-0d9f764b2686n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #601587 |
On Saturday, February 18, 2023 at 6:32:55 AM UTC+7, Richard Hertz wrote: > https://physicstoday.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.2709536 > > ******************************************************************* > "Since my undergraduate days, I have been puzzled by the fact that we have Newton’s laws of motion but only Einstein’s theory of special relativity. We have finished celebrating the 100th anniversary of the publication of the theory of special relativity, and it seems to me that after a century of validation, it’s time to rename it as more than just a theory. > > I propose that we, as physicists, define a set of Einstein’s laws, just as we have Newton’s laws, Coulomb’s law, or Faraday’s law. I begin the discussion by offering the following three laws: > > ▸ The laws of physics are identical in all non-accelerating (that is, inertial) frames. > > ▸ The vacuum speed of light, c, is the same for all inertial frames. > > ▸ The total energy E of a body of mass m and momentum p is given by 𝐸=√(𝑚²𝑐⁴+𝑝²𝑐²) > > . In particular, the energy of a body measured in its own rest frame is given by E = mc², and the energy of a massless body is E = pc. > > Collectively, these laws should, in my opinion, be called Einstein’s laws of special relativity". > > ******************************************************************* > > I wonder why, also. > > And I wonder why he wasn't awarded with a second Nobel Prize for > relativity. > > After all, the Nobel Committee had plenty of time: 33 years after 1922. > If he was the greatest star in the sky of physics for the entire XX century. > > These persons were awarded twice: > > 1. Marie Curie (1903 - Physics, 1911 - Chemistry). 8 years apart. > 2. Linus Pauling (1954 - Chemistry, 1962 - Peace). 8 years apart. > 3. John Bardeen (1956 - Physics, 1972 - Physics). 16 years apart. > 4. Frederick Sanger (1958 - Chemistry, 1980 - Chemistry). 22 years apart. > > They could have given him one (Peace) for the letter to FDR, or one (physics) > for E=mc2 and the nuclear power for war/peace. > > But IT DIDN'T HAPPEN. Why? What reasons had the Nobel Committee > to hold the prize back? Because they are not Einstein's laws. If you raise the measuring apparatus that defines a meter in terms of wavelength by distance h, the meter is the same, the clock speed is the same locally, and the frequency is the same. But it is obvious to Einstein's "remote" observer that light increases in wavelength (redshift) in proportion to ambient mass; therefore, Einstein's meter has grown in length and the time it takes (clock speed) to reach end to end is farther and therefore the clock must run faster. It doesn't take an Albert Einstein to figure that out and the notion that relativity predicts such a thing entirely false and a vicious crime against the good name and works of Newton. Einstein's equations are fakes. The phenomenon of redshift is a simple observation, not a law. But you're right. Nobel prizes are not about real science anymore, anyway, so then why didn't it happen? Ya got me.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-02-22 13:49 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Why no Einstein’s laws?, asked R.W. Kadel from Berkeley Laboratory, in 2007. |
| Message-ID | <72d4954d-e754-4c68-882b-c3f57d58ec02n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #601587 |
Einstein didn't generate enough material to get some laws named after him.
But, as correspond to a pagan religion, Einstein's followers created a list of Commandments.
That's much heavier than laws.
1) First Einsteinian Commandment: Einstein is right.
2) II EC: Do not have any other gods.
3) III EC: Do not disrespect or misuse Einstein's name.
4) IV EC: Honor Einstein.
5) V EC: Remember 1905 and keep it holy.
6) VI EC: Do not steal. Just plagiarize or fudge stuff.
7) VII EC: Do not worship other idols than me.
8) VIII EC: Do not commit murder. Just ban the SOB from everything.
9) IX EC: Do not commit adultery. Use mathturbation.
10) X EC: Do not take the name of Einstein in vain. Mean it when writing stuff.
11) XI EC: Obey and respect SR and GR.
12) XII EC: Groom your children as relativists since age 3.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-02-24 10:46 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Why no Einstein’s laws?, asked R.W. Kadel from Berkeley Laboratory, in 2007. |
| Message-ID | <c75b4813-8617-46f1-9911-fe9231f8a55bn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #601587 |
On Friday, February 17, 2023 at 3:32:55 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote: > https://physicstoday.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.2709536 > > ******************************************************************* > "Since my undergraduate days, I have been puzzled by the fact that we have Newton’s laws of motion but only Einstein’s theory of special relativity. We have finished celebrating the 100th anniversary of the publication of the theory of special relativity, and it seems to me that after a century of validation, it’s time to rename it as more than just a theory. > > I propose that we, as physicists, define a set of Einstein’s laws, just as we have Newton’s laws, Coulomb’s law, or Faraday’s law. I begin the discussion by offering the following three laws: ... > ▸ The vacuum speed of light, c, is the same for all inertial frames. Einstein regarded the speed of light in a vacuum as a law of nature, yet it is only a constant of nature. What is meant by "the same in all inertial frames" really is the same across or between inertial frames. That "law" would be a denial of the ontological reality of relative or additive velocities. That is irrational.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-02-26 11:34 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Why no Einstein’s laws?, asked R.W. Kadel from Berkeley Laboratory, in 2007. |
| Message-ID | <Gd2cnT6jY4WLBWb-nZ2dnZfqlJ_-fwAA@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #602138 |
On 2/24/23 12:46 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > Einstein regarded the speed of light in a vacuum as a law of nature, yet it is only a constant of nature. Not really. In 1905 Einstein regarded Maxwell's equations as laws of nature. A direct consequence of that is the vacuum speed of light is c relative to every inertial frame. > [... further silliness omitted] Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-02-26 10:28 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Why no Einstein’s laws?, asked R.W. Kadel from Berkeley Laboratory, in 2007. |
| Message-ID | <2c5ae27c-d3fa-44d7-8573-620cd119c84en@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #602315 |
On Sunday, February 26, 2023 at 9:34:20 AM UTC-8, Tom Roberts wrote: > On 2/24/23 12:46 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > Einstein regarded the speed of light in a vacuum as a law of nature, yet it is only a constant of nature. > Not really. In 1905 Einstein regarded Maxwell's equations as laws of > nature. A direct consequence of that is the vacuum speed of light is c > relative to every inertial frame. > > > [... further silliness omitted] > > Tom Roberts Thank you. How can Maxwell's equations lack the means to adjust for relative velocity?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web