a different constant

[RichD]

The constant c in the gamma formula happens to be
the same as the speed of light. Conceptually, however,
it doesn't have to be so. What about physically?

Denote the constant as b, while c is light speed.
So:

β = v/b
γ = 1 / √ (1 - β²)

Let b be greater or less than c.
What does that universe look like?

Fro instance, if 0b > c, then one could travel faster
than light, would that permit non-causality?

--
Rich

[dlzc]

Post by RichD
The constant c in the gamma formula happens to be
the same as the speed of light. Conceptually, however,
it doesn't have to be so. What about physically?

Physically, it has to be. c is essentially "conservation of momentum".

Post by RichD
Denote the constant as b, while c is light speed.
β = v/b
γ = 1 / √ (1 - β²)
Let b be greater or less than c.
What does that universe look like?

Not like this one. If spacetime is emergent from the 2nd law of thermodynamics, conservation of momentum, and multiple bodies with mass, then you'd have "no" or "variable" conservation of momentum. And "no" or "variable" 3D space.

[Ho Im]

Post by dlzc

β = v/b γ = 1 / √ (1 - β²)
Let b be greater or less than c. What does that universe look like?

Not like this one. If spacetime is emergent from the 2nd law of
thermodynamics, conservation of momentum, and multiple bodies with mass,
then you'd have "no" or "variable" conservation of momentum. And "no" or
"variable" 3D space.

tray again. You cant have a b greater than c. The b is fixed, he just
change the name of the shit.

[Michael Moroney]

Post by RichD
The constant c in the gamma formula happens to be
the same as the speed of light. Conceptually, however,
it doesn't have to be so. What about physically?
Denote the constant as b, while c is light speed.
β = v/b
γ = 1 / √ (1 - β²)
Let b be greater or less than c.
What does that universe look like?
Fro instance, if 0b > c, then one could travel faster
than light, would that permit non-causality?

Tom answered a similar question. If I recall it would mean the photon
would have mass and light/EM wouldn't quite match the inverse square
law. Maybe he'll comment.

[Tom Roberts]

Post by RichD
The constant c in the gamma formula happens to be
the same as the speed of light. Conceptually, however,
it doesn't have to be so. What about physically?

See below for a discussion of this, using your notation.

Post by RichD
Denote the constant as b, while c is light speed.
β = v/b
γ = 1 / √ (1 - β²)

OK. So b denotes the symmetry speed of the Lorentz group. It is
necessarily the maximum speed of any massive object (relative to any
locally inertial frame). It is necessarily the speed of any massless
object (relative to any locally inertial frame).

So necessarily: c <= b.

Post by RichD
Let b be greater or less than c.
What does that universe look like?

If b < c there is an inconsistency and we have no model for what that
would look like.

If c < b, photons have nonzero mass, and light would not exactly follow
the inverse square law.

Post by RichD
Fro instance, if 0b > c, then one could travel faster
than light, would that permit non-causality?

No. Because causality is governed by b, not c.

It is a historical accident that the two meanings of "c" were
intermixed. But in the world we inhabit they are equal to incredibly
high accuracy.

Tom Roberts

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

Post by Tom Roberts
If c < b, photons have nonzero mass, and light would not exactly follow
the inverse square law.

Please elaborate.

I can somewhat see the former [v = c √(1 − m²c⁴/E²)], but how is the speed
of light related to the latter?

I only know that the inverse square law comes from the surface of a sphere
as for a point source emitting in all directions the radiation is
distributed over a virtual sphere, so the radiation received by an
infinitesimal surface element is:

P = A σ T⁴
F = P/A = P/(4π d²) ~ 1/d²,

where d is the distance from the source. How is the speed of light related
to that?


PointedEars

[Gus Coy]

Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn

Post by Tom Roberts
If c < b, photons have nonzero mass, and light would not exactly follow
the inverse square law.

Please elaborate.
I can somewhat see the former [v = c √(1 − m²c⁴/E²)], but how is the
speed of light related to the latter?

idiot.

[Tom Roberts]

Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn

Post by Tom Roberts
If c < b, photons have nonzero mass, and light would not exactly
follow the inverse square law.

Please elaborate.

The amplitude for the exchange of a gauge particle goes as 1/r^2 from
geometry. If it has nonzero mass, it gets an additional factor related
to its mass. If it is unstable it also gets a factor related to its
lifetime. Both factors are of the form exp(-r/k), where k is an
appropriate constant related to mass or lifetime.

Current measurements put an incredibly small upper bound on the photon
mass, which implies that the factor related to mass is incredibly close
to 1 everywhere we have measured it. The photon appears to be stable, so
the factor related to lifetime is also extremely close to 1.

[It should be obvious I am speaking rather loosely. These
amplitudes are much more complex, and they are normally
expressed in momentum space....]

Tom Roberts

[Ross A. Finlayson]

Post by Tom Roberts

Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn

Post by Tom Roberts
If c < b, photons have nonzero mass, and light would not exactly
follow the inverse square law.

Please elaborate.

The amplitude for the exchange of a gauge particle goes as 1/r^2 from
geometry. If it has nonzero mass, it gets an additional factor related
to its mass. If it is unstable it also gets a factor related to its
lifetime. Both factors are of the form exp(-r/k), where k is an
appropriate constant related to mass or lifetime.
Current measurements put an incredibly small upper bound on the photon
mass, which implies that the factor related to mass is incredibly close
to 1 everywhere we have measured it. The photon appears to be stable, so
the factor related to lifetime is also extremely close to 1.
[It should be obvious I am speaking rather loosely. These
amplitudes are much more complex, and they are normally
expressed in momentum space....]
Tom Roberts

Momentum not necessarily being conserved is about the greatest,
for it works out stability and the frame, ..., as about that linear operators
define, what then works out lesser or under the semi-stable.

Here for example which is the photon rocket and multipole moment.

Atoms are usually interesting that the higher performance meaning
energy and configuration experiments, that the atom looks smaller
and the universe with greater telescope looks larger, that the
constants, and, "running constants", are basically where the constant
is defined, in the classical, what the non-classical includes the running
out the constants, what result the running constants, that maintain
symmetry in symmetry-breaking conditions in what is symmetry-flex
or super-symmetry. (I.e. that supersymmetry isn't just virtual particles,
it's also virtual space and continuous deformations.)

I.e. the invariants maintain the constants, as what are linear invariants
and usually originalities or "singularities", in what is continuous.

Defining the bar and the constant, are, efforts in measures, with respect
to reference constants, and the origin of reference, with respect to
NIST CODATA which over time as I suggest above shows atoms get
smaller and the universe gets larger (and older) as science advances
the definition of what is constant.

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

[pseudo-scientific word salad]

Get well soon.


PointedEars

[Ross A. Finlayson]

Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn

[pseudo-scientific word salad]

Get well soon.
PointedEars
--
Q: Why is electricity so dangerous?
A: It doesn't conduct itself.
(from: WolframAlpha)

Thanks, though you snipped the salad or soup, and,
a unified field theory with gravity both "a" and, remarkable,
"the", force in it, with charge though as about potential in
the electromotive the kinetic yet otherwise "all potential",
it makes for at least conceptually a most neat "unified field
theory, what happens to also be a gauge theory in terms of
the continuity of deformations in the field the field theory".


Torque is static, ....

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

Post by Ross A. Finlayson

Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn

[pseudo-scientific word salad]

Get well soon.

Thanks, though you snipped the salad or soup, and,
a unified field theory with gravity

What you wrote does not qualify as a ([unified] field) theory.
It does not even qualify as sensible English.

Post by Ross A. Finlayson
both "a" and, remarkable,
"the", force in it, with charge though as about potential in
the electromotive the kinetic yet otherwise "all potential",
it makes for at least conceptually a most neat "unified field
theory, what happens to also be a gauge theory in terms of
the continuity of deformations in the field the field theory".

A mere juxtaposition or strewing-in of scientific terms like above is not
yet a sensible scientific statement. Either you are doing this out of
malice, in an attempt to deceive the naive reader, or you do not even
realize that you write meaningless nonsense because you are mentally ill.

Post by Ross A. Finlayson
Torque is static, ....

No, a torque is very much NOT a static phenomenon:

τ = r × F = r × dp/dt = r × d(m v)/dt = r × (m dv/dt) = m (r × dv/dt).

If there is no motion, then v = 0 ⇒ dv/dt = 0. If there is no acceleration,
i.e. v = const. ≠ 0, then still dv/dt = 0. In both cases: τ = 0.


I do not expect you to understand it precisely for the reasons laid out in
it, but the dedicated reader should note:

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logorrhea_(psychology)>


PointedEars

[Volney]

Post by Tom Roberts

Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn

Post by Tom Roberts
If c < b, photons have nonzero mass, and light would not exactly
follow the inverse square law.

Please elaborate.

The amplitude for the exchange of a gauge particle goes as 1/r^2 from
geometry. If it has nonzero mass, it gets an additional factor related
to its mass. If it is unstable it also gets a factor related to its
lifetime. Both factors are of the form exp(-r/k), where k is an
appropriate constant related to mass or lifetime.

Would it be accurate to say that the Higgs boson could be regarded as
the mediator of a new force, one with an extremely short range? It's
fundamental(?), a boson, very massive with a short lifetime, so it would
have an even shorter range than the weak force.

[Tom Roberts]

Post by Volney
Would it be accurate to say that the Higgs boson could be regarded
as the mediator of a new force, one with an extremely short range?
It's fundamental(?), a boson, very massive with a short lifetime, so
it would have an even shorter range than the weak force.

No. The Higgs is not a gauge boson (i.e. there is no corresponding gauge
symmetry). In the standard model all forces are mediated by gauge bosons.

Tom Roberts

[Volney]

Post by Tom Roberts

Post by Volney
Would it be accurate to say that the Higgs boson could be regarded
as the mediator of a new force, one with an extremely short range?
It's fundamental(?), a boson, very massive with a short lifetime, so
it would have an even shorter range than the weak force.

No. The Higgs is not a gauge boson (i.e. there is no corresponding gauge
symmetry). In the standard model all forces are mediated by gauge bosons.
Tom Roberts

Why isn't the Higgs field a gauge symmetry?

[Volney]

Post by Volney

Post by Tom Roberts

Post by Volney
Would it be accurate to say that the Higgs boson could be regarded
as the mediator of a new force, one with an extremely short range?
It's fundamental(?), a boson, very massive with a short lifetime, so
it would have an even shorter range than the weak force.

No. The Higgs is not a gauge boson (i.e. there is no corresponding gauge
symmetry). In the standard model all forces are mediated by gauge bosons.

Why isn't the Higgs field a gauge symmetry?

(IMHO, a *field* is *never* a symmetry; it may *exhibit* one, though.)

That's what I intended to write.

Explain how the Higgs field doesn't exhibit gauge symmetry?

As I understand, it means you can add a constant and the interactions
remain the same. (correct any misunderstandings please)

[Tom Roberts]

Post by Volney

Post by Tom Roberts
The Higgs is not a gauge boson (i.e. there is no corresponding
gauge symmetry). In the standard model all forces are mediated by
gauge bosons.

Why isn't the Higgs field a gauge symmetry?

Because then it could not do what it was intended to do: give the gauge
bosons nonzero mass in the absence of a mass term in the Lagrangian.

The basic problem with gauge theories is that a mass term in the
Lagrangian breaks their gauge invariance, making it useless. So in the
standard model, none of the gauge bosons have a mass term, which makes
them APPEAR to be massless (in stark contrast to observation). The Higgs
boson was invented to give other particles nonzero masses by interacting
with the Higgs, rather than from a mass term. So instead of having
parameters for the (bare) masses of particles, the SM has parameters
corresponding to their coupling strength to the Higgs.

Tom Roberts

[Volney]

Post by Tom Roberts

Post by Volney

Post by Tom Roberts
The Higgs is not a gauge boson (i.e. there is no corresponding gauge
symmetry). In the standard model all forces are mediated by gauge bosons.

Why isn't the Higgs field a gauge symmetry?

Because then it could not do what it was intended to do: give the gauge
bosons nonzero mass in the absence of a mass term in the Lagrangian.

OK I guess it wouldn't make any sense if the Higgs got its mass from
interactions with the Higgs. :-)

Although that "it has mass but it doesn't have mass" is rather confusing.

Post by Tom Roberts
The basic problem with gauge theories is that a mass term in the
Lagrangian breaks their gauge invariance, making it useless. So in the
standard model, none of the gauge bosons have a mass term, which makes
them APPEAR to be massless (in stark contrast to observation). The Higgs
boson was invented to give other particles nonzero masses by interacting
with the Higgs, rather than from a mass term. So instead of having
parameters for the (bare) masses of particles, the SM has parameters
corresponding to their coupling strength to the Higgs.
Tom Roberts

[Volney]

Also I noticed one possible decay of Higgs is to 2 photons. But the
Higgs doesn't couple to the photon (otherwise the photon would have
mass, correct?) so shouldn't it be unable to decay into 2 photons?

What am I missing?

Can the decays all be classified as "strong decays" and "weak decays"
depending on the decay products?

[dlzc]

Also I noticed one possible decay of Higgs is to 2 photons. But the
Higgs doesn't couple to the photon (otherwise the photon would have
mass, correct?) so shouldn't it be unable to decay into 2 photons?
What am I missing?

The Higgs boson does no longer couple Standard particles to the Higgs field (the boson found was too energetic / massive, could not fit the theory). The Higgs field gives mass to Standard particles directly. Experiment has shown a 1:1 correspondence between the Higgs field and spacetime.

Does that help?

David A. Smith

[Hilton Blome]

Post by dlzc

Post by Volney
What am I missing?

The Higgs boson does no longer couple Standard particles to the Higgs
field (the boson found was too energetic / massive, could not fit the
theory). The Higgs field gives mass to Standard particles directly.
Experiment has shown a 1:1 correspondence between the Higgs field and
spacetime. Does that help?

I dont understand. How can a particle give mass to another particle. You
guys dont undrestand relativity too.

[Tom Roberts]

Post by dlzc
The Higgs boson does no longer couple Standard particles to the Higgs
field (the boson found was too energetic / massive, could not fit the
theory).

I have no idea where you got that, and suspect you just made it up.
It is WRONG.

Post by dlzc
The Higgs field gives mass to Standard particles directly.

Well DUH! That's what it does.

But when you actually calculate something, the Higgs boson appears as a
line in the Feynman diagrams, just like any other particle (= excitation
of the corresponding field).

Post by dlzc
Experiment has shown a 1:1 correspondence between the Higgs field and
spacetime.

NONSENSE! This you clearly just made up (or believed someone else who
just made it up).

Tom Roberts

[dlzc]

Post by Tom Roberts

Post by dlzc
The Higgs boson does no longer couple Standard
particles to the Higgs field (the boson found was
too energetic / massive, could not fit the theory).

I have no idea where you got that, and suspect you
just made it up. It is WRONG.

I attended a lecture by one of the researchers, and that is what a large audience was told. You may have other knowledge this LHC researcher is unaware of.

Post by Tom Roberts

Post by dlzc
The Higgs field gives mass to Standard particles directly.

Well DUH! That's what it does.

...

Post by Tom Roberts

Post by dlzc
Experiment has shown a 1:1 correspondence
between the Higgs field and spacetime.

NONSENSE! This you clearly just made up (or
believed someone else who just made it up).

That was the clearest statement yet. Sorry, but that is what was stated.

David A. Smith

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

Post by dlzc

Also I noticed one possible decay of Higgs is to 2 photons. But the
Higgs doesn't couple to the photon (otherwise the photon would have
mass, correct?) so shouldn't it be unable to decay into 2 photons?
What am I missing?

The Higgs boson does no longer couple Standard particles to the Higgs
field

How did you get the idea that it was ever supposed to?

Post by dlzc
(the boson found was too energetic / massive, could not fit the
theory).

How did you get that idea?

Post by dlzc
The Higgs field gives mass to Standard particles directly.

To standard _model_ particles that interact with it, namely the W and Z
bosons.

Post by dlzc
Experiment has shown a 1:1 correspondence between the Higgs field and
spacetime.

I think that is simply word salad. Cite evidence.


PointedEars

[dlzc]

...

Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn

Post by dlzc
The Higgs boson does no longer couple Standard
particles to the Higgs field

How did you get the idea that it was ever supposed to?

Back when it was originally formulated, and called the "God particle".

Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn

Post by dlzc
(the boson found was too energetic / massive,
could not fit the theory).

How did you get that idea?

Experimental result.

Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn

Post by dlzc
The Higgs field gives mass to Standard particles directly.

[Two] standard _model_ particles that interact with it, namely
the W and Z bosons.

Post by dlzc
Experiment has shown a 1:1 correspondence between
the Higgs field and spacetime.

I think that is simply word salad. Cite evidence.

I cannot recall the researcher's name, that made a presentation at ASU, about 2019, female. These were what she had said.

David A. Smith

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

This is a newsgroup, not e-mail. We do not write letter-like messages to
each other here, we write as if in a public discussion where there is an
audience.

Post by dlzc

Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn

Post by dlzc
The Higgs boson does no longer couple Standard
particles to the Higgs field

How did you get the idea that it was ever supposed to?

Back when it was originally formulated, and called the "God particle".

Utter nonsense. To begin with, the Higgs boson was never called “the God
particle” in a scientific medium, but in a popular-scientific book, and more
as a dare to the publisher (who, to the authors’ surprise, accepted the
title). Unfortunately, mass media have used and some keep using that catchy
term, to the dismay of many physicists:

<https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2013/03/15/174440162/the-man-who-coined-the-god-particle-explains-it-was-a-joke?t=1634062887343>

Tom Roberts, who by contrast to me is a working particle physicist, has
already debunked the rest of your unfounded fantasies. Nothing more needs
to be added to that.


PointedEars

[dlzc]

This is a newsgroup, not e-mail. We do not write letter-like messages to
each other here, we write as if in a public discussion where there is an
audience.

Let each man lay his dead according to his own fashion. I understand that you have nothing further to say TO ME on this topic.

David A. Smith

[Tom Roberts]

Post by Volney
Also I noticed one possible decay of Higgs is to 2 photons. But the
Higgs doesn't couple to the photon (otherwise the photon would have
mass, correct?) so shouldn't it be unable to decay into 2 photons?

The Higgs does not couple to photons, and does not decay DIRECTLY to 2
photons. But it does couple to intermediaries that can result in 2 photons:
"One of the primary ways to search for the Higgs boson
at the CERN Large Hadron Collider is via its decay to
two photons. That decay is induced by quantum loop
corrections involving the W boson and fermions, primarily
the top quark."
-- https://arxiv.org/abs/1109.5304

Post by Volney
Can the decays all be classified as "strong decays" and "weak
decays" depending on the decay products?

No. Intermediaries matter. The above quote cites both weak and strong
intermediaries, with just two photons in the final state.

BTW they search for the Higgs using two photons because that is an
excellent signature that can be easily identified experimentally. Having
just two particles in the final state reduces the effects of
combinatorics in high energy p-p interactions with dozens to hundreds of
particles in the final state.

Tom Roberts

[Tom Roberts]

(IMHO, a *field* is *never* a symmetry; it may *exhibit* one, though.)

Yes.

Tom Roberts

[RichD]

Post by Tom Roberts

Post by RichD
The constant c in the gamma formula happens to be
the same as the speed of light. Conceptually, however,
it doesn't have to be so. What about physically?
Denote the constant as b, while c is light speed.
β = v/b
γ = 1 / √ (1 - β²)

OK. So b denotes the symmetry speed of the Lorentz group. It is
necessarily the maximum speed of any massive object (relative to any
locally inertial frame). It is necessarily the speed of any massless
object (relative to any locally inertial frame).
So necessarily: c <= b.

Post by RichD
Let b be greater or less than c.

If b < c there is an inconsistency and we have no model for what that
would look like.
If c < b, photons have nonzero mass, and light would not exactly follow
the inverse square law.

Post by RichD
For instance, if b > c, then one could travel faster
than light, would that permit non-causality?

No. Because causality is governed by b, not c.

How would that affect the tachyon question?

Post by Tom Roberts
It is a historical accident that the two meanings of "c" were
intermixed. But in the world we inhabit they are equal to incredibly
high accuracy.

Can we expect that a quantum gravity theory, if it's ever constructed,
will explain this coincidence?

--
Rich

[Ross A. Finlayson]

Post by RichD
The constant c in the gamma formula happens to be
the same as the speed of light. Conceptually, however,
it doesn't have to be so. What about physically?
Denote the constant as b, while c is light speed.
β = v/b
γ = 1 / √ (1 - β²)
Let b be greater or less than c.
What does that universe look like?
Fro instance, if 0b > c, then one could travel faster
than light, would that permit non-causality?
--
Rich

It's defined to only range 0-1, the number its value.

So, where, "written 1 there it means infinite with
respect to 0, the limit, as built in mathematics",
that there is a "larger" respective quantity if
"unobtainable" given the milieu, it is also defined 1,
and the only mathematics what work out put and
keep them together, eg as only under what systems
of limits hold up there.

Also it's a gross approximation what > 1 what it
means the abstract wave, that, has no speed limit,
which of course is outside the theory and only inside
the theory in the general respect above, or as it were.

[[e-mail]]

Post by Ross A. Finlayson

Post by RichD
The constant c in the gamma formula happens to be
the same as the speed of light. Conceptually, however,
it doesn't have to be so. What about physically?
Denote the constant as b, while c is light speed.
β = v/b
γ = 1 / √ (1 - β²)
Let b be greater or less than c.

There is no FTL Gamma as that math is a botch.
You cannot bridge finite slow to its infinite.

Post by Ross A. Finlayson

Post by RichD
What does that universe look like?
Fro instance, if 0b > c, then one could travel faster
than light, would that permit non-causality?
--
Rich

It's defined to only range 0-1, the number its value.
So, where, "written 1 there it means infinite with
respect to 0, the limit, as built in mathematics",
that there is a "larger" respective quantity if
"unobtainable" given the milieu, it is also defined 1,
and the only mathematics what work out put and
keep them together, eg as only under what systems
of limits hold up there.
Also it's a gross approximation what > 1 what it
means the abstract wave, that, has no speed limit,
which of course is outside the theory and only inside
the theory in the general respect above, or as it were.

Four forces have what constants?
Is gravitational the least...?

Mitchell Raemsch

[Ross A. Finlayson]

Post by ***@gmail.com

Post by Ross A. Finlayson

Post by RichD
The constant c in the gamma formula happens to be
the same as the speed of light. Conceptually, however,
it doesn't have to be so. What about physically?
Denote the constant as b, while c is light speed.
β = v/b
γ = 1 / √ (1 - β²)
Let b be greater or less than c.

There is no FTL Gamma as that math is a botch.
You cannot bridge finite slow to its infinite.

Post by Ross A. Finlayson

Post by RichD
What does that universe look like?
Fro instance, if 0b > c, then one could travel faster
than light, would that permit non-causality?
--
Rich

It's defined to only range 0-1, the number its value.
So, where, "written 1 there it means infinite with
respect to 0, the limit, as built in mathematics",
that there is a "larger" respective quantity if
"unobtainable" given the milieu, it is also defined 1,
and the only mathematics what work out put and
keep them together, eg as only under what systems
of limits hold up there.
Also it's a gross approximation what > 1 what it
means the abstract wave, that, has no speed limit,
which of course is outside the theory and only inside
the theory in the general respect above, or as it were.

Four forces have what constants?
Is gravitational the least...?
Mitchell Raemsch

No, "what are constants".

Sharing constants like units is about an easiest way to
exchange information.

Making for matter being the primary elements, in a theory
with either matter or charge, primary, there's that gravity,
is usually worked out that objects attract each other, then
that the atoms, are points that stick out. Another usual theory
for gravity, has that instead it is all falling together, so it works
out, that the strong nuclear force, which is the force that holds
the nucleus together and is considered strong, is actually and
exactly implemented, as if by gravity, which is considered weak,
though of the longest range the forces.

Gravity, the theoretical aspects, even as usually left out for whatever
place gravity holds in the theories, under constants, makes for that
having that "the only force in our field theory is a natural combined
tendency of what results classically gravity and also acts as the force
carrier for the kinetic throughout", with respect to charge, where of
course the massy bodies and matter are primary and the elements in
the theory, as field occupation numbers in the field theory they are in.

For that charge is static and current of course is in charge, i.e. the electrical,
then has as above the other usual "four or five fundamental forces that
according to these high energy configurations there works out lines that
balance for symmetry all what results high power physics, for classical physics".

Here then atoms are real, wave-functions are real, ....

Physics is a gauge theory, field theory, thermo works out, ....

Statistical mechanics, discrete and quantum mechanics, continuum mechanics.

"The giant lightning bolt from the giant black hole in the center of the universe."

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

[incoherent nonsense, aka word salad]

You really should see a psychiatrist and show them your postings. There may
be a psychotherapy to treat the mental illness that causes your logorrhea.

Get well soon. Seriously.


PointedEars

[Ross A. Finlayson]

[incoherent nonsense, aka word salad]

You really should see a psychiatrist and show them your postings. There may
be a psychotherapy to treat the mental illness that causes your logorrhea.
Get well soon. Seriously.
PointedEars
--
Q: How many theoretical physicists specializing in general relativity
does it take to change a light bulb?
A: Two: one to hold the bulb and one to rotate the universe.
(from: WolframAlpha)

I don't care if you believe it -
all it takes is a thinking machine.

[Ross A. Finlayson]

Post by Ross A. Finlayson

[incoherent nonsense, aka word salad]

You really should see a psychiatrist and show them your postings. There may
be a psychotherapy to treat the mental illness that causes your logorrhea.
Get well soon. Seriously.
PointedEars
--
Q: How many theoretical physicists specializing in general relativity
does it take to change a light bulb?
A: Two: one to hold the bulb and one to rotate the universe.
(from: WolframAlpha)

I don't care if you believe it -
all it takes is a thinking machine.

Also - if you "fully agreed" with me -
I'd have nothing to do but agree.

Thanks, I'd rather read your terms, in the usual sense about
the moment, that, torque, the static quantity expressed in
rotational inertia besides linear inertia, is thus "static" from
the rotational to the linear as about its moment. (Which is linear.)

Whereas it's also rotational with respect to the rest of the static....

Sorry, Lahn, I'm a hyper-mind.

Static about the moment including the axle in terms of
for example the next note of the moment, of course
you might agree that's not "static" any more but "impulse".
(Or along lines.)

Thank you I have a full interpretation of the terms.

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

Post by Ross A. Finlayson
Sorry, Lahn, I'm a hyper-mind.

No, you are mentally ill.


PointedEars

[Ross A. Finlayson]

Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn

Post by Ross A. Finlayson
Sorry, Lahn, I'm a hyper-mind.

No, you are mentally ill.
PointedEars
--
A neutron walks into a bar and inquires how much a drink costs.
The bartender replies, "For you? No charge."
(from: WolframAlpha)

How sick am I?

[Ross A. Finlayson]

Post by Ross A. Finlayson

Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn

Post by Ross A. Finlayson
Sorry, Lahn, I'm a hyper-mind.

No, you are mentally ill.
PointedEars
--
A neutron walks into a bar and inquires how much a drink costs.
The bartender replies, "For you? No charge."
(from: WolframAlpha)

How sick am I?

... ...



I suppose I could pile these up....



Really though nothing I write here is important in the usual sense
without deriving the constants in a unified field theory down to
one or two constants, where, much physics these days is down in
some few constants, excuse me I'm terribly shallow, sometimes there's
Planck under hbar, with thus, proton lifetime, about muons probably,
which are the usual high energy devices where such things are measured.

The electrostatic, and, Boltzmann more or less, Boltzmann constant, this
is around a lot in the statistical mechanics for example between the what's
usual the kinetic, and usual just kinetic energy, in watts, say, that's not so
much constants as units, which is where under the constant, what's relative
to the running constant is that the underdefined terms are both in the units
but when they're approximations have their terms in higher order units that
aren't the same, it's where running constants work out, making for of course
what are linear regimes of running constants.

So, understanding the notion of "running constants", is, rather a requisite,
for resultingly writing them out, both the constants in their usual terms also
the resulting regimes more than less and usually under statistical mechanics
to reflect the total effect as probabilistic, make for the highly non-linear instead
of the chaotic and truncated, linear.

Which it is....


So, clearly you know now that fundamental physical constants are in the
sense of theory of other theories with varying constants what would model
a theory of running constants, that it's the same as for the fundamental
physical constants, their constant value, which these days is 25 orders of magnitude,
or rather more, with particle mechanics some more orders of magnitude
"verified in the experiment", as also relativity is.

[Ross A. Finlayson]

Post by Ross A. Finlayson

Post by Ross A. Finlayson

Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn

Post by Ross A. Finlayson
Sorry, Lahn, I'm a hyper-mind.

No, you are mentally ill.
PointedEars
--
A neutron walks into a bar and inquires how much a drink costs.
The bartender replies, "For you? No charge."
(from: WolframAlpha)

How sick am I?

... ...
I suppose I could pile these up....
Really though nothing I write here is important in the usual sense
without deriving the constants in a unified field theory down to
one or two constants, where, much physics these days is down in
some few constants, excuse me I'm terribly shallow, sometimes there's
Planck under hbar, with thus, proton lifetime, about muons probably,
which are the usual high energy devices where such things are measured.
The electrostatic, and, Boltzmann more or less, Boltzmann constant, this
is around a lot in the statistical mechanics for example between the what's
usual the kinetic, and usual just kinetic energy, in watts, say, that's not so
much constants as units, which is where under the constant, what's relative
to the running constant is that the underdefined terms are both in the units
but when they're approximations have their terms in higher order units that
aren't the same, it's where running constants work out, making for of course
what are linear regimes of running constants.
So, understanding the notion of "running constants", is, rather a requisite,
for resultingly writing them out, both the constants in their usual terms also
the resulting regimes more than less and usually under statistical mechanics
to reflect the total effect as probabilistic, make for the highly non-linear instead
of the chaotic and truncated, linear.
Which it is....
So, clearly you know now that fundamental physical constants are in the
sense of theory of other theories with varying constants what would model
a theory of running constants, that it's the same as for the fundamental
physical constants, their constant value, which these days is 25 orders of magnitude,
or rather more, with particle mechanics some more orders of magnitude
"verified in the experiment", as also relativity is.

For example between watts and joules, that in a theory with an infinite infinitesimal
current, that there's an infinite base unit, and in time, makes for its energy as in the
state of the mass-energy equivalence, that part that is massless.

I.e. that it's a finite quantity in the theory where that all potential here the "giant
lightning bolt from the giant black hole (in the center of the universe)", is free under
potential about working out a general flow for a general flux.

It's rather a point of "unified field theory" it would seem (or, "what's space and what's
in it", a theory of physics, here in terms of field occupation numbers and what would
be the potential terms as always evaluated and as infinitely over everything), this is
where there can be a way to look over terms, about that otherwise between the usual
kinetic, and the usual electrostatic, the usual electrodynamic and the statics.


Then under what regimes the scales collapse is usually enough least action,
as much as tendency to entropy. Asymptotically it's as so also.

Making basically a tipping model, is what tips up. (Usually for well models,
also here for the potential and uni-potential, tipping well model.)

Thank you I am much more coherent than a usual logorrheac.
(Though I back that up with also claiming "unified mathematical theory".)

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

Post by Ross A. Finlayson

Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn

Post by Ross A. Finlayson
Sorry, Lahn, I'm a hyper-mind.

No, you are mentally ill.
PointedEars
--
A neutron walks into a bar and inquires how much a drink costs.
The bartender replies, "For you? No charge."
(from: WolframAlpha)

You should trim your quotes to the parts that you are referring to.
You have not referred to my signature, so it is pointless to quote it.

Post by Ross A. Finlayson
How sick am I?

I am somewhat glad that you are asking.

I presume that you are mentally very ill. But I am not a doctor, so I leave
the final assessment of your condition to your psychologist/psychotherapist
to find out, for whom I hope (for you and the newsgroup) that you will
eventually, and soon, make an appointment.

I only know that something is very much not right with your mind as you are
putting words together without regard to their meaning (i.e. word salad),
and you are posting a lot of that without there being a reason for it. And
you are following up to postings, but actually you are talking *to yourself*
only.

And that *cannot* be explained by the assumption that English would not be
your native language (as your name might suggest: Finlayson is a name of
Scandinavian origin). It is an issue with regard to *behavior*, of
psychology, instead.

Most recent example: <news:8e812c92-a033-422f-
ac05-***@googlegroups.com>

In reply to the statement “Your idiot guru was an unique case, sure.” you
wrote: “I.e. sometimes when theories talk about what happened in what
epoch, for example inflationary theories which these days are less held as
absolute and more describable as about the limits of energy and
configuration in experiment, […]”

Notice firstly that you did not address the statement that you replied to
*at all*. You simply kept on talking *to yourself* (just in writing).

Notice secondly that you wrote *word salad*:

“I.e. sometimes when theories talk about what happened in what epoch, for
example […], as we learn more about the theory and modern experiment, is for
a re-interpretation of the mathematical with respect to the physical
interpretation they have and vice-versa: […]”

This is not a proper sentence as there is no sentence structure (and the
structure is not revealed in the omitted parts either): There is no clear
subject, predicate, or object to be found anywhere that *belong together*
to form a *coherent* statement or question.

The phrase “i.e.” (standing for «id est», Latin for “that is”) that you are
using in the beginning ought to refer to something that had been said
immediately before; but what had been said immediately before – “Your idiot
guru was an unique case, sure.” – has *nothing* to do with what you are
replying.

It all looks like a live reproduction of the randomly and rapidly changing
thoughts of a person, with none of them having run to its completion. IOW,
it looks as if you have not thought through any of which you are writing.
You may call that a “hyper-mind” (see below); I call it a very disturbed,
*dysfunctional* mind.

Notice thirdly that what you are saying is factually complete nonsense that
is very easily disproved. In the omitted part you claimed:

“inflationary theories which these days are less held as absolute
and more describable as about the limits of energy and configuration in
experiment”

That is plain not true. First of all, the term is not “inflationary
theory”, but “inflation theory” (such a theory postulates an inflationary
_model_ of our universe). Second, inflation theory as a general concept is
to date the most successful addition to the Big Bang theory as it can
explain both the near-isotropy of the CMB, and the flatness of the space of
the observable universe as obtained from CMB observations:

Don Lincoln et al. (2020): What really happened at the Big Bang?
YouTube: Fermilab.

See also:
Planck Collaboration (2020): “Planck 2018 results: X. Constraints on
inflation”

<https://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/full_html/2020/09/aa33887-18/aa33887-18.html>

The abstract ends with: “All these findings support the key predictions of
the standard single-field inflationary models, which will be further
tested by future cosmological observations.”

Inflation theory has absolutely nothing to do with any “limits of energy in
experiment”.

You also claimed:

“or the real wave-function as "revisit Heisenberg" and about the "mass" of
the Higgs boson or "revisit Higgs"”

That the wave function (of a quantum-mechanical system) would be real is
your *fantasy*. It is *complex*-valued instead.

That there would be a “revisiting Heisenberg” is your *fantasy*.

That there would be something wrong with the mass of the Higgs boson is
apparently your *fantasy*. (Because you wrote word salad, it is unclear
what you are arguing.)

That there would be a “revisiting Higgs” is your *fantasy*.

And the name is “(Georges) Lemaître”, not “Le Maitre”.


So what you are posting exhibits all the signs of logorrhea, if you compare
it with the description and the examples in the Wikipedia article that I
referred to. It also exhibits all the signs of a disconnection of the
author from reality.

All of this together with you seriously calling yourself a “hyper-mind”, and
professing to be able to write about a unified field theory even though you
clearly do not know what you are writing *about* – let alone what you are
*writing* – suggests (to me) a serious mental disorder on your part as the
underlying reason for your logorrhea (which is apparently a common symptom
then).

I also know that therefore it is probably impossible to convince you of that
fact using a textual medium such as Usenet, and futile for me to try it –
which is actually a sad thing. But at least now the truth is where it needs
to be.


HTH

PointedEars

[Ross A. Finlayson]

Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn

Post by Ross A. Finlayson

Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn

Post by Ross A. Finlayson
Sorry, Lahn, I'm a hyper-mind.

No, you are mentally ill.
PointedEars
--
A neutron walks into a bar and inquires how much a drink costs.
The bartender replies, "For you? No charge."
(from: WolframAlpha)

You should trim your quotes to the parts that you are referring to.
You have not referred to my signature, so it is pointless to quote it.

Post by Ross A. Finlayson
How sick am I?

I am somewhat glad that you are asking.
I presume that you are mentally very ill. But I am not a doctor, so I leave
the final assessment of your condition to your psychologist/psychotherapist
to find out, for whom I hope (for you and the newsgroup) that you will
eventually, and soon, make an appointment.
I only know that something is very much not right with your mind as you are
putting words together without regard to their meaning (i.e. word salad),
and you are posting a lot of that without there being a reason for it. And
you are following up to postings, but actually you are talking *to yourself*
only.
And that *cannot* be explained by the assumption that English would not be
your native language (as your name might suggest: Finlayson is a name of
Scandinavian origin). It is an issue with regard to *behavior*, of
psychology, instead.
Most recent example: <news:8e812c92-a033-422f-
In reply to the statement “Your idiot guru was an unique case, sure.” you
wrote: “I.e. sometimes when theories talk about what happened in what
epoch, for example inflationary theories which these days are less held as
absolute and more describable as about the limits of energy and
configuration in experiment, […]”
Notice firstly that you did not address the statement that you replied to
*at all*. You simply kept on talking *to yourself* (just in writing).
“I.e. sometimes when theories talk about what happened in what epoch, for
example […], as we learn more about the theory and modern experiment, is for
a re-interpretation of the mathematical with respect to the physical
interpretation they have and vice-versa: […]”
This is not a proper sentence as there is no sentence structure (and the
structure is not revealed in the omitted parts either): There is no clear
subject, predicate, or object to be found anywhere that *belong together*
to form a *coherent* statement or question.
The phrase “i.e.” (standing for «id est», Latin for “that is”) that you are
using in the beginning ought to refer to something that had been said
immediately before; but what had been said immediately before – “Your idiot
guru was an unique case, sure.” – has *nothing* to do with what you are
replying.
It all looks like a live reproduction of the randomly and rapidly changing
thoughts of a person, with none of them having run to its completion. IOW,
it looks as if you have not thought through any of which you are writing.
You may call that a “hyper-mind” (see below); I call it a very disturbed,
*dysfunctional* mind.
Notice thirdly that what you are saying is factually complete nonsense that
“inflationary theories which these days are less held as absolute
and more describable as about the limits of energy and configuration in
experiment”
That is plain not true. First of all, the term is not “inflationary
theory”, but “inflation theory” (such a theory postulates an inflationary
_model_ of our universe). Second, inflation theory as a general concept is
to date the most successful addition to the Big Bang theory as it can
explain both the near-isotropy of the CMB, and the flatness of the space of
Don Lincoln et al. (2020): What really happened at the Big Bang?
YouTube: Fermilab. http://youtu.be/bZdvSJyHvUU
Planck Collaboration (2020): “Planck 2018 results: X. Constraints on
inflation”
<https://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/full_html/2020/09/aa33887-18/aa33887-18.html>
The abstract ends with: “All these findings support the key predictions of
the standard single-field inflationary models, which will be further
tested by future cosmological observations.”
Inflation theory has absolutely nothing to do with any “limits of energy in
experiment”.
“or the real wave-function as "revisit Heisenberg" and about the "mass" of
the Higgs boson or "revisit Higgs"”
That the wave function (of a quantum-mechanical system) would be real is
your *fantasy*. It is *complex*-valued instead.
That there would be a “revisiting Heisenberg” is your *fantasy*.
That there would be something wrong with the mass of the Higgs boson is
apparently your *fantasy*. (Because you wrote word salad, it is unclear
what you are arguing.)
That there would be a “revisiting Higgs” is your *fantasy*.
And the name is “(Georges) Lemaître”, not “Le Maitre”.
So what you are posting exhibits all the signs of logorrhea, if you compare
it with the description and the examples in the Wikipedia article that I
referred to. It also exhibits all the signs of a disconnection of the
author from reality.
All of this together with you seriously calling yourself a “hyper-mind”, and
professing to be able to write about a unified field theory even though you
clearly do not know what you are writing *about* – let alone what you are
*writing* – suggests (to me) a serious mental disorder on your part as the
underlying reason for your logorrhea (which is apparently a common symptom
then).
I also know that therefore it is probably impossible to convince you of that
fact using a textual medium such as Usenet, and futile for me to try it –
which is actually a sad thing. But at least now the truth is where it needs
to be.
HTH
PointedEars
--
A neutron walks into a bar and inquires how much a drink costs.
The bartender replies, "For you? No charge."
(from: WolframAlpha)

Since Hubble was mostly the notion "everywhere redshift". But, these days, it's not
so, since the configuration of experiment (the sky survey for 2MASS and outside
Laniakea the local supercluster), is much closer "even redshift/blueshift". If you
didn't know that, then you would have no context that "revisit Hubble" meant that
"since Hubble's old observation was long-standing but it's been falsified, now all
the derivations in the development of theory, basically have to be revisited with
respect to that while our local supercluster is a large feature and much expanding
or with apparent redshift, now it's known instead that models of inflation, or,
"what explains why the universe appears to be expanding, with usual models of
a Big Bang and then heat/cold/death/crunch", that they are just a form of extrapolation,
theories of inflation, and that furthermore after "revisit Hubble" is for Lemaitre (corr.) or
Big Bang Theory, also thusly to revisit Bondi/Hoyle and Steady State theory.

So, you see, according to configuration of experiment, what over time we know
sees that in ergy of experiment as primary configuration that atoms look smaller
and the universe looks bigger, that again with respect to these running constants,
what I wrote above is validated again here.

If you didn't know that then you would've had no context, to make sense of things,
but also you should check that in case you're not infallible, maybe you just don't
have enough context to be making sense of the extra pieces I've put here for my
foundational approach, for a usual suggestion that there is extra context to
make sense of it.


Also my form and style though long-winded is grammatical and I'm also opinionated,
grammatically.


About the "real wave-function" of course I meant "wave-function collapse is real",
if you'll please excuse that "wave-function" is as usually arrives at "what solves
the wave function in configuration space as it were is its 'collapse' and is real
with respect to Boehm over Copenhagen and a usual 'statistical' interpretation".
I.e., again that my extra opinion isn't necessarily usual, but, once again it's totally
usual in a theory of a "real wave-function" as it were. (Revisit Heisenberg.)


So, I hope you'll consider that this extra context provides instead what you
would find without it, not sense, instead, not non-sense. I.e. "everywhere
red-shift isn't a fact means revisit Hubble, theories of inflation, ...", "wave-function
is real besides statistical means revisit Heisenberg, what means Pauli, ...". The
Bohm-deBroglie theory or varieties are having made quite a renaissance in
some recent years, for example that "revisit Heisenberg" is _well underway_.


About Higgs then and what generates mass is a notion of a unified field theory
what has the strong nuclear force, which Lahn you may recall from our earlier
discussion is a usual force, same as "fall gravity", which is a type of a "shadow
gravity" theory or so and besides a quantum theory because it's based in continuum
mechanics, is again for "revisit Hubble, Heisenberg, Higgs", which is among my
usual refrains on sci.physics and sci.physics.relativity for some time.

I.e., as an individual with my own content and context, in this forum of opinions
in physics, mathematical, it is an extra burden both to read the posts, then what
results as that the work of explaining these ... theories in physics, lightens the
burden, from that for a theory of Foundations there's only one, and that I
happen to have one, here, and by here I mean in 10,000 posts on mathematics,
logic, and physics.


So, "Well-order the reals", and, "revisit Hubble, Heisenberg, Higgs".


(Sometimes it might help where I write "what" that you should read it as "that what"
instead, if it's not a question word.)



About Higgs then
and [that]
what generates mass
is a notion of a unified field theory
what has the strong nuclear force,
which Lahn you may recall from our earlier discussion is a usual force,
same as "fall gravity",
which is a type of a "shadow gravity" theory or so
and besides a quantum theory because it's based in continuum mechanics,
[About Higgs then] is again for "revisit Hubble, Heisenberg, Higgs",
which is among my usual refrains on sci.physics and sci.physics.relativity for some time.


Also nobody has any retorts anymore for my mathematical theory or
"line continuity, field continuity, and signal continuity are three replete
models of continuous domains besides the usual field continuity".
(Or they don't know them.)


So, thank you for pointing out "item A here makes no sense in this context which is so",
that's much better than "item A here requires a context not present, it's insane".
Then, please consider as above here directly addressing your points, why I have put
it as so, and will continue to do so, as I have already done so, that I hope it does so, thank you.


(My usual only style in replies is to quote the entirety and post a contiguous
following reply: it helps keep the context in context. Also my usual style is that
as soon as I post a definition or refer to a fact at all, it's integrated to the context,
as I should be so happy to explain, even if I already did.)


Ah, then back to constants: let's feel free to get back to this thread's
topic of why c is "normalized" in some theories interpreting SR, to 1, unity.
(...For example as I have explained above and what it means in theories
where c_g >= c.)

Basically my conversation to usenet is a monolog, but please feel free
to expect that somewhere its entirety is as well, transparent and
self-contained, in definition.

... And that it's to my dear readers primarily me.

[Odd Bodkin]

Post by Ross A. Finlayson
Basically my conversation to usenet is a monolog, but please feel free
to expect that somewhere its entirety is as well, transparent and
self-contained, in definition.
... And that it's to my dear readers primarily me.

To the point about mental health, a clinical psychologist friend tells me
that people who have mental issues are attracted to Internet forums for a
variety of reasons.

It helps to vent all the internal noise and chatter.

There is no eye contact and so you don’t get that look from others when you
say something that’s a little nuts, at least not while you’re saying it.

There’s a buffer period where people’s assessment of you is delayed and you
can feel normal and healthy for a while, which can be a breath of fresh
air.

[Branimir Maksimovic]

Post by Odd Bodkin

Post by Ross A. Finlayson
Basically my conversation to usenet is a monolog, but please feel free
to expect that somewhere its entirety is as well, transparent and
self-contained, in definition.
... And that it's to my dear readers primarily me.

To the point about mental health, a clinical psychologist friend tells me
that people who have mental issues are attracted to Internet forums for a
variety of reasons.
It helps to vent all the internal noise and chatter.
There is no eye contact and so you don’t get that look from others when you
say something that’s a little nuts, at least not while you’re saying it.
There’s a buffer period where people’s assessment of you is delayed and you
can feel normal and healthy for a while, which can be a breath of fresh
air.

So what's your menthal health problem?
LOVE

[Michael Moroney]

Post by Odd Bodkin
To the point about mental health, a clinical psychologist friend tells me
that people who have mental issues are attracted to Internet forums for a
variety of reasons.
It helps to vent all the internal noise and chatter.
There is no eye contact and so you don’t get that look from others when you
say something that’s a little nuts, at least not while you’re saying it.
There’s a buffer period where people’s assessment of you is delayed and you
can feel normal and healthy for a while, which can be a breath of fresh
air.

Very Interesting.

[Maciej Wozniak]

Post by Michael Moroney

Post by Odd Bodkin
To the point about mental health, a clinical psychologist friend tells me
that people who have mental issues are attracted to Internet forums for a
variety of reasons.
It helps to vent all the internal noise and chatter.
There is no eye contact and so you don’t get that look from others when you
say something that’s a little nuts, at least not while you’re saying it.
There’s a buffer period where people’s assessment of you is delayed and you
can feel normal and healthy for a while, which can be a breath of fresh
air.

Very Interesting.

Well, stupid Mike, of course you're too dumb to notice that
"attracted to Internet forums" describes you as well as your
opponents here?

[Odd Bodkin]

Post by Maciej Wozniak

Post by Michael Moroney

Post by Odd Bodkin
To the point about mental health, a clinical psychologist friend tells me
that people who have mental issues are attracted to Internet forums for a
variety of reasons.
It helps to vent all the internal noise and chatter.
There is no eye contact and so you don’t get that look from others when you
say something that’s a little nuts, at least not while you’re saying it.
There’s a buffer period where people’s assessment of you is delayed and you
can feel normal and healthy for a while, which can be a breath of fresh
air.

Very Interesting.

Well, stupid Mike, of course you're too dumb to notice that
"attracted to Internet forums" describes you as well as your
opponents here?

O greatest logician of modern times, the mentally ill being attracted to
Internet forums does not logically imply that all that are attracted to
Internet forums are mentally ill.

[Maciej Wozniak]

Post by Odd Bodkin

Post by Maciej Wozniak

Post by Michael Moroney

Post by Odd Bodkin
To the point about mental health, a clinical psychologist friend tells me
that people who have mental issues are attracted to Internet forums for a
variety of reasons.
It helps to vent all the internal noise and chatter.
There is no eye contact and so you don’t get that look from others when you
say something that’s a little nuts, at least not while you’re saying it.
There’s a buffer period where people’s assessment of you is delayed and you
can feel normal and healthy for a while, which can be a breath of fresh
air.

Very Interesting.

Well, stupid Mike, of course you're too dumb to notice that
"attracted to Internet forums" describes you as well as your
opponents here?

O greatest logician of modern times, the mentally ill being attracted to
Internet forums does not logically imply that all that are attracted to
Internet forums are mentally ill.

Sure, poor halfbrain. Has someone said it does?

[Ross A. Finlayson]

Post by Odd Bodkin

Post by Maciej Wozniak

Post by Michael Moroney

Post by Odd Bodkin
To the point about mental health, a clinical psychologist friend tells me
that people who have mental issues are attracted to Internet forums for a
variety of reasons.
It helps to vent all the internal noise and chatter.
There is no eye contact and so you don’t get that look from others when you
say something that’s a little nuts, at least not while you’re saying it.
There’s a buffer period where people’s assessment of you is delayed and you
can feel normal and healthy for a while, which can be a breath of fresh
air.

Very Interesting.

Well, stupid Mike, of course you're too dumb to notice that
"attracted to Internet forums" describes you as well as your
opponents here?

O greatest logician of modern times, the mentally ill being attracted to
Internet forums does not logically imply that all that are attracted to
Internet forums are mentally ill.
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

That's funny, many people are put off my Internet forae,
because they get attacked by random a-noms.

In fact it takes a sort of stubborn-ness to weary out an
unmoderated forum with its usual pathologies, and,
moderated forums are often boring.

It's much easier to feel the like minded with no dissent.

This though basically is for comment on "sci.physics.relativity".

Reputation of course is a critical asset in many people's lives.

Also it's often the basis of trust.

Or lack thereof....

("... Or lack thereof.")

If we might agree the matter then here it's outright -
physics is all quite well held up by mathematics,
theories in the modern are profound and exquisite,
the new renaissance of theory is making way for
the super-classical, neatly, quantum mechanics and
relativity together, modern theory collected
is the matter. "Foundations".


Let's agree that "moderated forums, of, only a
once-off chop of spew and one-rule deletes,
resulting in a feed", are different than "moderated
and unmoderated forums, cultivated vote-down".

Now, you three men, Maciej, Mike, and the OB,
and myself, Ross, or here Ross Finlayson, let's
say we all "claim" to understand physics, the comment,
to understand physics enough, that it's de rigeur
that it's _right_, it's correct, to be both competent
and also direct, any comment, on physics.

[Here that 'any at least one' is not 'any and all'.]

Or not.

This is basically that comment, thanks to etiquette,
can be correct.

Now, this is Rich's thread, constants are constants,
and in theory there's only one object that reflects
both what is constant and variable, monism, directly,
let's agree that "running constants" are for reference,
that, NIST CODATA and SI, constants and units, these
are as they are and correct under definition, that in
the terms, about the potential fields of course for these
measured definitions from inside the classical fields
and our theories, that parastatistics for string theory,
is on its way in, that really most the symmetry-flex,
has at least a way to explain to individual people,
enough of the mathematics of all the theory, what
results a combined fundamental theory, that reflects
most all the science of the day.



"Reputation, or lack thereof, the basis of trust, or not."

If you'd please excuse me most all the reason that
I post to usenet is a letter-writing campaign what to
have fulfilled a modern rhetoric on foundations.

Usually there's _no possible chance of that_ but I
was let to put the countable and continuous together
and here physics for its part after that.

[Ross A. Finlayson]

Post by Ross A. Finlayson

Post by Odd Bodkin

Post by Maciej Wozniak

Post by Michael Moroney

Post by Odd Bodkin
To the point about mental health, a clinical psychologist friend tells me
that people who have mental issues are attracted to Internet forums for a
variety of reasons.
It helps to vent all the internal noise and chatter.
There is no eye contact and so you don’t get that look from others when you
say something that’s a little nuts, at least not while you’re saying it.
There’s a buffer period where people’s assessment of you is delayed and you
can feel normal and healthy for a while, which can be a breath of fresh
air.

Very Interesting.

Well, stupid Mike, of course you're too dumb to notice that
"attracted to Internet forums" describes you as well as your
opponents here?

O greatest logician of modern times, the mentally ill being attracted to
Internet forums does not logically imply that all that are attracted to
Internet forums are mentally ill.
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

That's funny, many people are put off my Internet forae,
because they get attacked by random a-noms.
In fact it takes a sort of stubborn-ness to weary out an
unmoderated forum with its usual pathologies, and,
moderated forums are often boring.
It's much easier to feel the like minded with no dissent.
This though basically is for comment on "sci.physics.relativity".
Reputation of course is a critical asset in many people's lives.
Also it's often the basis of trust.
Or lack thereof....
("... Or lack thereof.")
If we might agree the matter then here it's outright -
physics is all quite well held up by mathematics,
theories in the modern are profound and exquisite,
the new renaissance of theory is making way for
the super-classical, neatly, quantum mechanics and
relativity together, modern theory collected
is the matter. "Foundations".
Let's agree that "moderated forums, of, only a
once-off chop of spew and one-rule deletes,
resulting in a feed", are different than "moderated
and unmoderated forums, cultivated vote-down".
Now, you three men, Maciej, Mike, and the OB,
and myself, Ross, or here Ross Finlayson, let's
say we all "claim" to understand physics, the comment,
to understand physics enough, that it's de rigeur
that it's _right_, it's correct, to be both competent
and also direct, any comment, on physics.
[Here that 'any at least one' is not 'any and all'.]
Or not.
This is basically that comment, thanks to etiquette,
can be correct.
Now, this is Rich's thread, constants are constants,
and in theory there's only one object that reflects
both what is constant and variable, monism, directly,
let's agree that "running constants" are for reference,
that, NIST CODATA and SI, constants and units, these
are as they are and correct under definition, that in
the terms, about the potential fields of course for these
measured definitions from inside the classical fields
and our theories, that parastatistics for string theory,
is on its way in, that really most the symmetry-flex,
has at least a way to explain to individual people,
enough of the mathematics of all the theory, what
results a combined fundamental theory, that reflects
most all the science of the day.
"Reputation, or lack thereof, the basis of trust, or not."
If you'd please excuse me most all the reason that
I post to usenet is a letter-writing campaign what to
have fulfilled a modern rhetoric on foundations.
Usually there's _no possible chance of that_ but I
was let to put the countable and continuous together
and here physics for its part after that.

It's pretty nuts....

One reason why zero, infinity, and one, are the constants,
is that in mathematics, having zero, infinity, and one,
makes for 1/oo = 0 and 1/0 = oo where 0*oo = 1.

Of course, zero is the multiplicative annihilator,
and, infinity times any positive value isn't finite,
what results from 1 = 0 * oo.

Now, clearly these are only labels, because 0 the usual
label is the additive identity and multiplicative annihiliator
in the usual rings and fields of numbers, and oo doesn 't
exist among finite rings and fields except here it first defines
a simple algebra where there's _only in this context_ a 0
and an infinity oo, that results 0 * oo = 1.

Basically then this zero is an iota or non-zero, here strictly positive.
And, the infinity is only what makes for that the iota-values, have
at least one operation, that underdefines or undefines otherwise
usual operations of the numbers, it makes for why then in all the
other systems that as soon as admit infinity: it results that the
particular operation of what results for a "largest finite" and "atom",
that that many atoms is the entire whole.

That of course is only a simple classical linearity, established defining division.

But, in the sense of also being non-standard or infinitary,
also it's the classical linear infinitary and continuous. I.e.,
the "classical continuity" is as of the constant meter of a ray
of time, and, is infinitely divisible, and, is whole and parts,
with, constancy in parts.

So, Zeno's paradoxes and so on are built right down into defining
intuitively and also semi-formally an infinity in numbers, and that so
everywhere in equations according to what with these labels and
any others that their operations are defined (resp. not defined or
undefined, underdefined).

Then, about countability, which I studied quite some time, is that
this also is the only form or model of a "continuous domain", that,
also, is "countable". We know in the space of functions or the Cartesian,
that that Complete Ordered Field which can also be identified with
Cantor space 2^w or the powerset of integers, the real numbers are
uncountable with respect to all the Cartesian functions, here then
that as you'll notice, above in the underdefined is defined a non-Cartesian
function, so, unique among all the functions infinite integers to elements
of a continuous domain [0,1] with all what completeness implies, a
continuous domain, then this simplest classical line-drawing in time
has a solid foundation then for definitions of continuity in mathematics.

Which I found and read and put through the establishment of modern
mathematics and set theory in foundations, into an extra-ordinary theory
of ubiquitous ordinals including all the uncountable and also having neat
simple resolutions of all the logical paradoxes, what so result "A Theory".

[carl eto]

Lets assume that the transformation is valid, what is Einstein and Lorentz doing with the transformation? Can you think forward and not keep spinning in the same circle around and around so that I do not have to or do you want more stories of my cat?

[Ross A. Finlayson]

Post by Ross A. Finlayson

Post by Ross A. Finlayson

Post by Odd Bodkin

Post by Maciej Wozniak

Post by Michael Moroney

Post by Odd Bodkin
To the point about mental health, a clinical psychologist friend tells me
that people who have mental issues are attracted to Internet forums for a
variety of reasons.
It helps to vent all the internal noise and chatter.
There is no eye contact and so you don’t get that look from others when you
say something that’s a little nuts, at least not while you’re saying it.
There’s a buffer period where people’s assessment of you is delayed and you
can feel normal and healthy for a while, which can be a breath of fresh
air.

Very Interesting.

Well, stupid Mike, of course you're too dumb to notice that
"attracted to Internet forums" describes you as well as your
opponents here?

O greatest logician of modern times, the mentally ill being attracted to
Internet forums does not logically imply that all that are attracted to
Internet forums are mentally ill.
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

That's funny, many people are put off my Internet forae,
because they get attacked by random a-noms.
In fact it takes a sort of stubborn-ness to weary out an
unmoderated forum with its usual pathologies, and,
moderated forums are often boring.
It's much easier to feel the like minded with no dissent.
This though basically is for comment on "sci.physics.relativity".
Reputation of course is a critical asset in many people's lives.
Also it's often the basis of trust.
Or lack thereof....
("... Or lack thereof.")
If we might agree the matter then here it's outright -
physics is all quite well held up by mathematics,
theories in the modern are profound and exquisite,
the new renaissance of theory is making way for
the super-classical, neatly, quantum mechanics and
relativity together, modern theory collected
is the matter. "Foundations".
Let's agree that "moderated forums, of, only a
once-off chop of spew and one-rule deletes,
resulting in a feed", are different than "moderated
and unmoderated forums, cultivated vote-down".
Now, you three men, Maciej, Mike, and the OB,
and myself, Ross, or here Ross Finlayson, let's
say we all "claim" to understand physics, the comment,
to understand physics enough, that it's de rigeur
that it's _right_, it's correct, to be both competent
and also direct, any comment, on physics.
[Here that 'any at least one' is not 'any and all'.]
Or not.
This is basically that comment, thanks to etiquette,
can be correct.
Now, this is Rich's thread, constants are constants,
and in theory there's only one object that reflects
both what is constant and variable, monism, directly,
let's agree that "running constants" are for reference,
that, NIST CODATA and SI, constants and units, these
are as they are and correct under definition, that in
the terms, about the potential fields of course for these
measured definitions from inside the classical fields
and our theories, that parastatistics for string theory,
is on its way in, that really most the symmetry-flex,
has at least a way to explain to individual people,
enough of the mathematics of all the theory, what
results a combined fundamental theory, that reflects
most all the science of the day.
"Reputation, or lack thereof, the basis of trust, or not."
If you'd please excuse me most all the reason that
I post to usenet is a letter-writing campaign what to
have fulfilled a modern rhetoric on foundations.
Usually there's _no possible chance of that_ but I
was let to put the countable and continuous together
and here physics for its part after that.

It's pretty nuts....
One reason why zero, infinity, and one, are the constants,
is that in mathematics, having zero, infinity, and one,
makes for 1/oo = 0 and 1/0 = oo where 0*oo = 1.
Of course, zero is the multiplicative annihilator,
and, infinity times any positive value isn't finite,
what results from 1 = 0 * oo.
Now, clearly these are only labels, because 0 the usual
label is the additive identity and multiplicative annihiliator
in the usual rings and fields of numbers, and oo doesn 't
exist among finite rings and fields except here it first defines
a simple algebra where there's _only in this context_ a 0
and an infinity oo, that results 0 * oo = 1.
Basically then this zero is an iota or non-zero, here strictly positive.
And, the infinity is only what makes for that the iota-values, have
at least one operation, that underdefines or undefines otherwise
usual operations of the numbers, it makes for why then in all the
other systems that as soon as admit infinity: it results that the
particular operation of what results for a "largest finite" and "atom",
that that many atoms is the entire whole.
That of course is only a simple classical linearity, established defining division.
But, in the sense of also being non-standard or infinitary,
also it's the classical linear infinitary and continuous. I.e.,
the "classical continuity" is as of the constant meter of a ray
of time, and, is infinitely divisible, and, is whole and parts,
with, constancy in parts.
So, Zeno's paradoxes and so on are built right down into defining
intuitively and also semi-formally an infinity in numbers, and that so
everywhere in equations according to what with these labels and
any others that their operations are defined (resp. not defined or
undefined, underdefined).
Then, about countability, which I studied quite some time, is that
this also is the only form or model of a "continuous domain", that,
also, is "countable". We know in the space of functions or the Cartesian,
that that Complete Ordered Field which can also be identified with
Cantor space 2^w or the powerset of integers, the real numbers are
uncountable with respect to all the Cartesian functions, here then
that as you'll notice, above in the underdefined is defined a non-Cartesian
function, so, unique among all the functions infinite integers to elements
of a continuous domain [0,1] with all what completeness implies, a
continuous domain, then this simplest classical line-drawing in time
has a solid foundation then for definitions of continuity in mathematics.
Which I found and read and put through the establishment of modern
mathematics and set theory in foundations, into an extra-ordinary theory
of ubiquitous ordinals including all the uncountable and also having neat
simple resolutions of all the logical paradoxes, what so result "A Theory".

But, isn't, in a sense, the crank besides believing ... also dis-believing, ...?




Then, you might wonder, what does in the theory it mean to make the continuity,
with this simple infinity in front, then all of modern mathematics and usually the
common delta-epsilonics which results for triangle inequality all what's useful in
physics, what is real analysis, calculus, and so on.

For the theory, it's much like here for the kinetic theory having fall gravity, in front,
what makes for this approach formally, then that the force model can be unified
for both what result "statistical mechanics", with respect to the continuity either
way of dual singular systems, for the one continuum are "classical impulse" for
the other, system, this way there is a neat theoretical placement, of this simply,
what corresponds with "unified theory theory", here mathematical physics.

Then, for the particle side of the particle wave being "statistical mechanics",
while at the same time being "classical impulse", is basically with a model of
point, local, global, total, with that it's inside for the particle and outside for
the wave, and so on for the wave as a soliton, as on through the organization
of regime with the democritan atom as soliton and for string theory.

So, modern continuum mechanics is framed with that besides for topology's
sake that there is the metrized and para-metrized ultrafilter which is a countable
continuous domain as with respect to fibers and both statistical mechanics,
and the general condition, ultrafilters for string theory, also is the main gradient,
modern continuum mechanics with retro-classical infinitary primary foundations.

Or, there is what "A Theory" is.


So, when I hear about constants or constancy, they're defined terms in theories.

And mathematics works out great to explain everything fundamentally for science.

So, when it comes to the very definition of "what is constant or constancy", itself,
research in type theory makes for valency, and let's remember the fuzzy and illative,
what result from strong platonic mathematical theory concrete and metal numbers
and also all their models in what results from an establishment of geometry.

I.e., the primary object in the theory that is underdefined, is "both" constant and variable,
totally fundamentally or in what comes from technical philosophy what "no, things are
not both constant and variable in opposition, here only the value is sufficed, or its lack thereof".

That though is for technical philosophers in non-axiomatic theory when for all the
useful axiomatic theories there are terms and constants under derivation.

[Here the underdefined are simple "what _would be_ the terms: constants and variables".]

It's though much the same school "unified theory theory".

Which over time is shared between mostly science and religion. (And philosophy.)


Or fundamentally belief....


Yes a theory of mathematical physics, that is, for the mathematics, having a consistent,
constant, complete, concrete theory, in the strength of mathematical theories, there
is a very direct and succinct theory of it, what suffices for a usual abstraction of it,
and here: having one written out for formalism's sake, makes for a solid austere
conscientious opinion, that I shared.


Now in physics....

[carl eto]

]

[carl eto]

n the meantime in the real world, GPS clocks keep measuring t'=t,
just like all serious clocks always did; ignoring wackos like Paparios,
Roberts, JanPB, PointedEars among many others.

This statement is patently incorrect since time cannot be measured using a GPS. Gps is based on the intensity difference of three satellite radio signals similar to FCC pirate radio triangularization capture.

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

Post by Maciej Wozniak
n the meantime in the real world, GPS clocks keep measuring t'=t,
just like all serious clocks always did; ignoring wackos like Paparios,
Roberts, JanPB, PointedEars among many others.

Please learn to post. The statement above was (which I recognize easily)
written by someone else in another subthread. Reply in the subthread, and
use quotation prefixes (as you can see here) to quote the minimum of what
you are replying to.

Post by Maciej Wozniak
This statement is patently incorrect since time cannot be measured using a
GPS. Gps is based on the intensity difference of three satellite radio
signals similar to FCC pirate radio triangularization capture.

Not at all. GPS (there is only one, _the_ GPS) *is* based on timekeeping,
and comparing time differences, NOT intensity differences, to obtain the
distance between satellite and receiver. The used method of geopositioning
is _trilateration_, NOT triangulation.


PointedEars

[Maciej Wozniak]

Post by Ross A. Finlayson
So, when I hear about constants or constancy, they're defined terms in theories.
And mathematics works out great to explain everything fundamentally for science.

Speaking of mathematics, it's always good to remind
that your idiot guru had to announce its oldest, very
successful and important part false - as it didn't
want to cooperate with his madness.

[Ross A. Finlayson]

Post by Maciej Wozniak

Post by Ross A. Finlayson
So, when I hear about constants or constancy, they're defined terms in theories.
And mathematics works out great to explain everything fundamentally for science.

Speaking of mathematics, it's always good to remind
that your idiot guru had to announce its oldest, very
successful and important part false - as it didn't
want to cooperate with his madness.

I don't know what you're talking about.

Unless maybe it's "non-Euclidean", about how physics has to
model continuous deformations in the Euclidean including what
make the higher-order or resultingly "non-Euclidean", while still
having for Minkowski that has 3+1 is the same as the Euclidean 4.

That the higher-order to non-linear establishes or results regime
of surfaces or models of transport, ..., about the linear and Euclidean.

There's a geometry before Euclid's of points and spaces vis-a-vis
points and lines: of course that a plane is parallel lines, ....

High order space dimensions as a realm for thrust makes a simple model.

Though, it's expected that "the entire mathematical model" also contains
throughout "the physical interpretation is also established throughout,
as with respect to branches in the complex or negative for example,
and their physical interpretations".

Or, "the three space dimensions" is just about all the modeled space
dimensions, where their infinities and infinitesimals about rotations
fit in one hologram dimension, which is why there are three space dimensions
as a mostly simple "conservation of numbers".

Which is mostly usual for Minkowski 3+1 and for a ray of time.


The time-like-space-like-light-like, in dimensional analysis, is
mostly after reflexions and rotations for Elie Cartan.
(As a model of the moments....)

[Ross A. Finlayson]

Post by Ross A. Finlayson

Post by Maciej Wozniak

Post by Ross A. Finlayson
So, when I hear about constants or constancy, they're defined terms in theories.
And mathematics works out great to explain everything fundamentally for science.

Speaking of mathematics, it's always good to remind
that your idiot guru had to announce its oldest, very
successful and important part false - as it didn't
want to cooperate with his madness.

I don't know what you're talking about.
Unless maybe it's "non-Euclidean", about how physics has to
model continuous deformations in the Euclidean including what
make the higher-order or resultingly "non-Euclidean", while still
having for Minkowski that has 3+1 is the same as the Euclidean 4.
That the higher-order to non-linear establishes or results regime
of surfaces or models of transport, ..., about the linear and Euclidean.
There's a geometry before Euclid's of points and spaces vis-a-vis
points and lines: of course that a plane is parallel lines, ....
High order space dimensions as a realm for thrust makes a simple model.
Though, it's expected that "the entire mathematical model" also contains
throughout "the physical interpretation is also established throughout,
as with respect to branches in the complex or negative for example,
and their physical interpretations".
Or, "the three space dimensions" is just about all the modeled space
dimensions, where their infinities and infinitesimals about rotations
fit in one hologram dimension, which is why there are three space dimensions
as a mostly simple "conservation of numbers".
Which is mostly usual for Minkowski 3+1 and for a ray of time.
The time-like-space-like-light-like, in dimensional analysis, is
mostly after reflexions and rotations for Elie Cartan.
(As a model of the moments....)

You should understand it's with respect to co-ordinates this "co-ordinate free".

[Maciej Wozniak]

Post by Ross A. Finlayson

Post by Maciej Wozniak

Post by Ross A. Finlayson
So, when I hear about constants or constancy, they're defined terms in theories.
And mathematics works out great to explain everything fundamentally for science.

Speaking of mathematics, it's always good to remind
that your idiot guru had to announce its oldest, very
successful and important part false - as it didn't
want to cooperate with his madness.

I don't know what you're talking about.

As usual, you know very little. No surprise.

[Michael Moroney]

Post by Maciej Wozniak

Post by Michael Moroney

Post by Odd Bodkin
To the point about mental health, a clinical psychologist friend tells me
that people who have mental issues are attracted to Internet forums for a
variety of reasons.
It helps to vent all the internal noise and chatter.
There is no eye contact and so you don’t get that look from others when you
say something that’s a little nuts, at least not while you’re saying it.
There’s a buffer period where people’s assessment of you is delayed and you
can feel normal and healthy for a while, which can be a breath of fresh
air.

Very Interesting.

Well, stupid Mike, of course you're too dumb to notice that
"attracted to Internet forums" describes you as well as your
opponents here?

Logical fallacy.

Mentally ill --> attracted to internet forums does NOT mean
attracted to internet forums --> mentally ill.

Besides, I am not here for the reasons Odd gives. I come here to watch
the crackpots, such as yourself, demonstrate their mental illnesses
here. Of course, as crackpots go, you are very boring and repetitious.
(another mental illness symptom).

[Maciej Wozniak]

Post by Michael Moroney

Post by Maciej Wozniak

Post by Michael Moroney

Post by Odd Bodkin
To the point about mental health, a clinical psychologist friend tells me
that people who have mental issues are attracted to Internet forums for a
variety of reasons.
It helps to vent all the internal noise and chatter.
There is no eye contact and so you don’t get that look from others when you
say something that’s a little nuts, at least not while you’re saying it.
There’s a buffer period where people’s assessment of you is delayed and you
can feel normal and healthy for a while, which can be a breath of fresh
air.

Very Interesting.

Well, stupid Mike, of course you're too dumb to notice that
"attracted to Internet forums" describes you as well as your
opponents here?

Logical fallacy.

Where, stupid Mike?

Post by Michael Moroney
Besides, I am not here for the reasons Odd gives. I come here to watch
the crackpots, such as yourself, demonstrate their mental illnesses
here.

Neither am I, stupid Mike. I come here to watch
fanatic idiots, such as yourself, demonstrate their
mental illnesses here.
And to remind that GPS clocks keep measuring t'=t,
just like all serious clocks always did.

[Michael Moroney]

Post by Maciej Wozniak

Post by Michael Moroney

Post by Maciej Wozniak

Post by Michael Moroney

Post by Odd Bodkin
To the point about mental health, a clinical psychologist friend tells me
that people who have mental issues are attracted to Internet forums for a
variety of reasons.
It helps to vent all the internal noise and chatter.
There is no eye contact and so you don’t get that look from others when you
say something that’s a little nuts, at least not while you’re saying it.
There’s a buffer period where people’s assessment of you is delayed and you
can feel normal and healthy for a while, which can be a breath of fresh
air.

Very Interesting.

Well, stupid Mike, of course you're too dumb to notice that
"attracted to Internet forums" describes you as well as your
opponents here?

Logical fallacy.

Where, stupid Mike?

In the part of my post you cut out.

Talk about a short attention span! You cut part of my post and then
completely forget about what you cut and think I forgot to include it!

Post by Maciej Wozniak

Post by Michael Moroney
Besides, I am not here for the reasons Odd gives. I come here to watch
the crackpots, such as yourself, demonstrate their mental illnesses
here.

Neither am I, stupid Mike. I come here to watch
fanatic idiots, such as yourself, demonstrate their
mental illnesses here.
And to remind that GPS clocks keep measuring t'=t,
just like all serious clocks always did.

Well, keep pretending that 1/9,192,631,770 = 1/9,192,631,774.1 if you
want. As long as it doesn't interfere with keeping those toilets clean.

[Richard Hertz]

On Wednesday, October 6, 2021 at 6:23:02 PM UTC-3, ***@gmail.com wrote:

<snip>

To the point about mental health, a clinical psychologist friend tells me that people who have mental issues
are attracted to Internet forums for a variety of reasons.
It helps to vent all the internal noise and chatter.
There is no eye contact and so you don’t get that look from others when you say something that’s a little nuts,
at least not while you’re saying it.
There’s a buffer period where people’s assessment of you is delayed and you can feel normal and healthy for a
while, which can be a breath of fresh air.

Oh my! Bodkin, why did you ruin the fun of decoding you? Such open and deep confession is very telling, but let
something out for me or any other, please.

What moves you to post about 100 posts a month on OTHER PEOPLE'S threads, but you produce no OP?

What moves you to come here and talk as an erudite on ANY subject. ANY! It can be:

- Quantum physics
- Cosmology and BBT
- Black holes
- Relativity (SR and GR)
- Differential geometry and Riemann
- Tensors, Ricci, Levi-Civita, etc.
- Evolution
- History of PCs
- History of birth and death of workstations
- History of Science (whichever)
- Psychology
- Philosophy
- Achievements and failures in life of many.
- GPS
- Electronic Engineering
- Software
- CERN and particle accelerators
- The scientific method
- Gravitational waves, LIGO
- Radar guns
- String theory
- Cranks, crackpots
- Atomic clocks
- Chemistry
- Photons, nature of mass, virtual photons, quantum fields, Higgs field
- Kepler, Galileo, Descartes, Newton, Hamilton, Lagrange, Laplace, etc.
- Retired engineers (you really have an issue with them. Really.)
- Astronomy
- Theoretical physics
- Applied physics
- Particle physics
- Lorentz: theory and practice
- E = mc2
- t' = t
- Maxwell's equations
- Planck theory of quantum of action
- Cosmic Background Radiation
- Minkowski theory of space-time
- Nuclear physics
- Subnuclear theoretical physics
- etc, etc, etc.

But, barely once a year, you make an OP.

Why do you fear to voice your opinion strong enough to put a topic under discussion?

It has to tell you something. Stop fearing and start doing new, innovative OP threads.

After all, you are the Supreme Thinker. Honor that.

[Paparios]

Post by Richard Hertz
<snip>

To the point about mental health, a clinical psychologist friend tells me that people who have mental issues
are attracted to Internet forums for a variety of reasons.
It helps to vent all the internal noise and chatter.
There is no eye contact and so you don’t get that look from others when you say something that’s a little nuts,
at least not while you’re saying it.
There’s a buffer period where people’s assessment of you is delayed and you can feel normal and healthy for a
while, which can be a breath of fresh air.

Oh my! Bodkin, why did you ruin the fun of decoding you? Such open and deep confession is very telling, but let
something out for me or any other, please.
What moves you to post about 100 posts a month on OTHER PEOPLE'S threads, but you produce no OP?

This group was created to give a space for all the crackpots and ignorant people that were infesting several serious physics groups, such as sci.physics.research.
So in this group here, most of the people that post OPs are those wackos (like you). All the knowledgeable people around, just enjoy the nonsense those people post here. Examples of those wackos are people like Seto, Wilson, Androcles, Winn, Valev, Lake, Mitch, Wozniak and the nameshifting troll, among many others.

So it should be clear that all your lengthy posts here just serve, as their only purpose, to amuse us to wonder how a person can derail himself to post such amount of nonsensical stuff.

[Richard Hertz]

On Saturday, October 9, 2021 at 9:59:31 PM UTC-3, Paparios wrote:

<snip>

Post by Paparios
This group was created to give a space for all the crackpots and ignorant people that were infesting several serious
physics groups, such as sci.physics.research.
So in this group here, most of the people that post OPs are those wackos (like you). All the knowledgeable people around,
just enjoy the nonsense those people post here. Examples of those wackos are people like Seto, Wilson, Androcles, Winn,
Valev, Lake, Mitch, Wozniak and the nameshifting troll, among many others.
So it should be clear that all your lengthy posts here just serve, as their only purpose, to amuse us to wonder how a person
can derail himself to post such amount of nonsensical stuff.

Miguel, sos tan conocedor de la física como Sebastián Piñera.

No vengas a hacerte el superado conmigo, Sr. DiffServ. No sos más que un Profesor Asociado de Ing. Eléctrica desde que te
recibiste, 44 años atrás. Que tengas un master y un doctorado en ingeniería eléctrica (Ottawa) no significa gran cosa. Acá hay
como 500 pelotudos que tienen lo mismo en Canadá, USA, Inglaterra, Alemania, España, Italia, Japón, etc.

Incluso conozco un idiota que se hizo una tarjetita con el título Dr. Ingeniero nnnnnn, y no se dá cuenta de que TODOS se le
ríen por detrás, pero el idiota no se da cuenta de lo presuntuoso que es. Encima reclama que lo llamen Doctor nnnnnn. Apuesto
a que vos tenés una tarjetita parecida.

Ojo, que vos sos el mono en la jaula y yo te miro desde afuera. Mono que vé, mono que hace.

Saludos desde Argentina. Las Malvinas son argentinas, no inglesas.

[Dono.]

Post by Richard Hertz
Saludos desde Argentina. Las Malvinas son argentinas, no inglesas.

Delusional idiot. The Brits stuck it to you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands

[Paparios]

Post by Richard Hertz
<snip>

Post by Paparios
This group was created to give a space for all the crackpots and ignorant people that were infesting several serious
physics groups, such as sci.physics.research.
So in this group here, most of the people that post OPs are those wackos (like you). All the knowledgeable people around,
just enjoy the nonsense those people post here. Examples of those wackos are people like Seto, Wilson, Androcles, Winn,
Valev, Lake, Mitch, Wozniak and the nameshifting troll, among many others.
So it should be clear that all your lengthy posts here just serve, as their only purpose, to amuse us to wonder how a person
can derail himself to post such amount of nonsensical stuff.

Miguel, sos tan conocedor de la física como Sebastián Piñera.
No vengas a hacerte el superado conmigo, Sr. DiffServ. No sos más que un Profesor Asociado de Ing. Eléctrica desde que te
recibiste, 44 años atrás. Que tengas un master y un doctorado en ingeniería eléctrica (Ottawa) no significa gran cosa. Acá hay
como 500 pelotudos que tienen lo mismo en Canadá, USA, Inglaterra, Alemania, España, Italia, Japón, etc.
Incluso conozco un idiota que se hizo una tarjetita con el título Dr. Ingeniero nnnnnn, y no se dá cuenta de que TODOS se le
ríen por detrás, pero el idiota no se da cuenta de lo presuntuoso que es. Encima reclama que lo llamen Doctor nnnnnn. Apuesto
a que vos tenés una tarjetita parecida.
Ojo, que vos sos el mono en la jaula y yo te miro desde afuera. Mono que vé, mono que hace.
Saludos desde Argentina. Las Malvinas son argentinas, no inglesas.

Real funny and, of course, quite appropiate to the subject. Keep up doing the funny clown.

[Maciej Wozniak]

Post by Paparios

Post by Richard Hertz
<snip>

Post by Paparios
This group was created to give a space for all the crackpots and ignorant people that were infesting several serious
physics groups, such as sci.physics.research.
So in this group here, most of the people that post OPs are those wackos (like you). All the knowledgeable people around,
just enjoy the nonsense those people post here. Examples of those wackos are people like Seto, Wilson, Androcles, Winn,
Valev, Lake, Mitch, Wozniak and the nameshifting troll, among many others.
So it should be clear that all your lengthy posts here just serve, as their only purpose, to amuse us to wonder how a person
can derail himself to post such amount of nonsensical stuff.

Miguel, sos tan conocedor de la física como Sebastián Piñera.
No vengas a hacerte el superado conmigo, Sr. DiffServ. No sos más que un Profesor Asociado de Ing. Eléctrica desde que te
recibiste, 44 años atrás. Que tengas un master y un doctorado en ingeniería eléctrica (Ottawa) no significa gran cosa. Acá hay
como 500 pelotudos que tienen lo mismo en Canadá, USA, Inglaterra, Alemania, España, Italia, Japón, etc.
Incluso conozco un idiota que se hizo una tarjetita con el título Dr. Ingeniero nnnnnn, y no se dá cuenta de que TODOS se le
ríen por detrás, pero el idiota no se da cuenta de lo presuntuoso que es. Encima reclama que lo llamen Doctor nnnnnn. Apuesto
a que vos tenés una tarjetita parecida.
Ojo, que vos sos el mono en la jaula y yo te miro desde afuera. Mono que vé, mono que hace.
Saludos desde Argentina. Las Malvinas son argentinas, no inglesas.

Real funny and, of course, quite appropiate to the subject. Keep up doing the funny clown.

And, of course, in the meantime in the real
world real GPS clocks will keep measuring
t'=t, just like all serious clocks always did.

[Richard Hertz]

Post by Paparios

Post by Richard Hertz
<snip>

Post by Paparios
This group was created to give a space for all the crackpots and ignorant people that were infesting several serious
physics groups, such as sci.physics.research.
So in this group here, most of the people that post OPs are those wackos (like you). All the knowledgeable people around,
just enjoy the nonsense those people post here. Examples of those wackos are people like Seto, Wilson, Androcles, Winn,
Valev, Lake, Mitch, Wozniak and the nameshifting troll, among many others.
So it should be clear that all your lengthy posts here just serve, as their only purpose, to amuse us to wonder how a person
can derail himself to post such amount of nonsensical stuff.

Miguel, sos tan conocedor de la física como Sebastián Piñera.
No vengas a hacerte el superado conmigo, Sr. DiffServ. No sos más que un Profesor Asociado de Ing. Eléctrica desde que te
recibiste, 44 años atrás. Que tengas un master y un doctorado en ingeniería eléctrica (Ottawa) no significa gran cosa. Acá hay
como 500 pelotudos que tienen lo mismo en Canadá, USA, Inglaterra, Alemania, España, Italia, Japón, etc.
Incluso conozco un idiota que se hizo una tarjetita con el título Dr. Ingeniero nnnnnn, y no se dá cuenta de que TODOS se le
ríen por detrás, pero el idiota no se da cuenta de lo presuntuoso que es. Encima reclama que lo llamen Doctor nnnnnn. Apuesto
a que vos tenés una tarjetita parecida.
Ojo, que vos sos el mono en la jaula y yo te miro desde afuera. Mono que vé, mono que hace.
Saludos desde Argentina. Las Malvinas son argentinas, no inglesas.

Real funny and, of course, quite appropiate to the subject. Keep up doing the funny clown.

Muy apropiado.

Post by Paparios

Post by Richard Hertz

Post by Paparios
This group was created to give a space for all the crackpots and ignorant people that were infesting several serious
physics groups, such as sci.physics.research. .................... All the knowledgeable people around,
just enjoy the nonsense those people post here. .................................... So it should be clear that all your lengthy posts
here just serve, as their only purpose, to amuse US .............................

Te das cuenta de lo idiota que sonás, siendo solamente un ingeniero?

Porqué te la das de físico, si lo único que hiciste en tu vida fue enseñar ingeniería y dirigir algunos proyectitos de QoS?

Aflojá con pretender lo que no sos, solo porque leíste algunos libros/artículos de física en tu vida.

Lo de ingeniero no te lo sacás más de encima. Dejá de juzgar a la gente que postea aquí, idiota.

Ya he visto tu actitud en años aquí, y lo que te salva es que nadie sabe quien sos en realidad.

Acá agarramos a los forros como vos, los emplumamos y los mandamos a la calle, sea en el trabajo ó la universidad.

Voy a leer tu historial para ver los temas en los que opinaste como un sabelotodo, y te voy a desenmascarar como un farsante.

Arrogante clasista de mierda!

[Richard Hertz]

On Sunday, October 10, 2021 at 3:32:48 PM UTC-3, Paparios wrote:

<snip>

It is clear that this character is argentinian (probably from nazi origin). It is amazing how he insults people who correct his multiple nonsensical posts.
Probably the guy is pissed off with one more of the corrupt argentinian goverments of the last 50 years, which have made his country suffer while the rich take out all the money out of Argentina.

https://www.elperiodico.com/es/internacional/20181004/incautados18-millones-dolares-herencia-augusto-pinochet-7069837

The Chilean Justice seized 17.8 million dollars from the inheritance of the dictator Augusto Pinochet, after the Seventh Civil Court of Santiago granted the request of the State Defense Council (CDE), to retain almost all of the inherited assets, as well as a prohibition of entering into contracts linked to them.

The millionaire inheritance of the former dictator Augusto Pinochet, had been received by his widow, Lucía Hirart and his children and grandchildren, but within the framework of the "Riggs case", which investigated the embezzlement of public funds during his administration, they reached the decision of the judge to seize these amounts.


https://www.elmostrador.cl/noticias/opinion/2021/08/26/corrupcion-en-chile-una-realidad-ante-la-que-necesitamos-penas-ejemplificadoras/

Corruption in Chile: a reality in the face of which we need exemplary penalties

Based on these facts, there are several concerns that we must address, since it is not just another case of corruption, but rather mechanisms that are already known and used, which continue to function without any real control to prevent them from happening. Already in 2015 we learned about the fraud of the Army and in 2016 that of the Carabineros, both investigated for the appropriation of reserved expenses, and in 2021 we see the same act again, this time in the PDI.


https://www.lavanguardia.com/hemeroteca/20130911/54380173263/golpe-militar-chile-salvador-allende-augusto-pinochet-dictaduras-latinoamerica.html

45 YEARS AGO - CHILEAN 9/11

The coup led by General Pinochet ended the "Chilean road to socialism." The bombing of the Palacio de la Moneda, where
President Salvador Allende was, and his decision to die rather than hand over command to the coup plotters, became a
symbol of the recent history of Chile.



The business of privatization

It is possibly the largest case of corruption during the military dictatorship. As a way to remedy the economic crisis that Chile had reached after the same coup in 1973, a process of reduction of State services began, privatizing them to lower their maintenance costs. However, the same ones in charge of supervising the sales and values ​​of the different organizations were in turn the buyers. Thus, politicians and businessmen became rich buying large service companies at undervalued prices, even without having enough money to do so at the time, but doing so through loans provided by banks.20 24

One of the beneficiaries of these privatizations was Pinochet's son-in-law, Julio Ponce Lerou, who became a millionaire from a public official in a few years, being in the 2010s a world leader in the lithium market.

---------------------------

You better shut the fuck up, when talking about corrupt governments.

[Maciej Wozniak]

Post by Paparios

Post by Richard Hertz
<snip>

To the point about mental health, a clinical psychologist friend tells me that people who have mental issues
are attracted to Internet forums for a variety of reasons.
It helps to vent all the internal noise and chatter.
There is no eye contact and so you don’t get that look from others when you say something that’s a little nuts,
at least not while you’re saying it.
There’s a buffer period where people’s assessment of you is delayed and you can feel normal and healthy for a
while, which can be a breath of fresh air.

Oh my! Bodkin, why did you ruin the fun of decoding you? Such open and deep confession is very telling, but let
something out for me or any other, please.
What moves you to post about 100 posts a month on OTHER PEOPLE'S threads, but you produce no OP?

This group was created to give a space for all the crackpots and ignorant people that were infesting several serious physics groups, such as sci.physics.research.
So in this group here, most of the people that post OPs are those wackos (like you). All the knowledgeable people around, just enjoy the nonsense those people post here. Examples of those wackos are people like Seto, Wilson, Androcles, Winn, Valev, Lake, Mitch, Wozniak and the nameshifting troll, among many others.

In the meantime in the real world, GPS clocks keep measuring t'=t,
just like all serious clocks always did; ignoring wackos like Paparios,
Roberts, JanPB, PointedEars among many others.

[Odd Bodkin]

Post by Paparios

Post by Richard Hertz
<snip>

Post by Odd Bodkin
To the point about mental health, a clinical psychologist friend tells
me that people who have mental issues
are attracted to Internet forums for a variety of reasons.
It helps to vent all the internal noise and chatter.
There is no eye contact and so you don’t get that look from others when
you say something that’s a little nuts,
at least not while you’re saying it.
There’s a buffer period where people’s assessment of you is delayed and
you can feel normal and healthy for a
while, which can be a breath of fresh air.

Oh my! Bodkin, why did you ruin the fun of decoding you? Such open and
deep confession is very telling, but let
something out for me or any other, please.
What moves you to post about 100 posts a month on OTHER PEOPLE'S
threads, but you produce no OP?

This group was created to give a space for all the crackpots and ignorant
people that were infesting several serious physics groups, such as sci.physics.research.
So in this group here, most of the people that post OPs are those wackos
(like you). All the knowledgeable people around, just enjoy the nonsense
those people post here. Examples of those wackos are people like Seto,
Wilson, Androcles, Winn, Valev, Lake, Mitch, Wozniak and the nameshifting
troll, among many others.
So it should be clear that all your lengthy posts here just serve, as
their only purpose, to amuse us to wonder how a person can derail himself
to post such amount of nonsensical stuff.

It’s pretty easy to see the motivations of the OPs here. And then they say,
Come join in on the fun I’m having making a fool of myself!

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

Post by Paparios
This group was created to give a space for all the crackpots and ignorant
people that were infesting several serious physics groups,

How did you get that idea?


PointedEars

[Maciej Wozniak]

Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn

Post by Paparios
This group was created to give a space for all the crackpots and ignorant
people that were infesting several serious physics groups,

How did you get that idea?

Asking a physicist how he gets his ideas?
Fabricating, what else?

[Ross A. Finlayson]

Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn

Post by Paparios
This group was created to give a space for all the crackpots and ignorant
people that were infesting several serious physics groups,

How did you get that idea?

It's true. At the time (around 1995 I think) sci.physics was still
relatively useful other than being overrun by anti-relativity cranks.
s.p.r was and proposed for relativity discussion, but the real reason
was to get the largest noise contributor out.

I posted on sci.physics.foundations then it shut down.

I posted on sci.math.moderated then it shut down.

....

[carl eto]

"Not at all. GPS (there is only one, _the_ GPS) *is* based on timekeeping,
and comparing time differences, NOT intensity differences,

This is patently incorrect since electrons of the GPS are propagating at the maximum velocity of 10^6 m/s cannot be used to measure a time difference of an radio signals that are propagating at the velocity of light. Have you ever heard of a measurement uncertainty? Example, you cannot see an electron of a atom using an optical microscope.

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

Post by carl eto
"Not at all. GPS (there is only one, _the_ GPS) *is* based on timekeeping,
and comparing time differences, NOT intensity differences,

Once again: Learn to post.

[> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: ]

Post by carl eto

Post by carl eto
Not at all. GPS (there is only one, _the_ GPS) *is* based on timekeeping,
and comparing time differences, NOT intensity differences,

This is patently incorrect since electrons of the GPS are propagating at
the maximum velocity of 10^6 m/s cannot be used to measure a time
difference of an radio signals that are propagating at the velocity of
light.

GPS is NOT based on the propagation of electrons, and the maximum _speed_
(NOT: velocity) of electrons is NOT 10⁶ m/s.

Post by carl eto
Have you ever heard of a measurement uncertainty? Example, you
cannot see an electron of a atom using an optical microscope.

Non sequitur.


PointedEars

[Tom Roberts]

Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn

Post by Paparios
This group was created to give a space for all the crackpots and ignorant
people that were infesting several serious physics groups,

How did you get that idea?

It's well known, and supported by the USENET discussions leading to the
creation of sci.physics.relativity, back in the 1990s.

Tom Roberts

[Paparios]

Post by Tom Roberts

Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn

Post by Paparios
This group was created to give a space for all the crackpots and ignorant
people that were infesting several serious physics groups,

How did you get that idea?

It's well known, and supported by the USENET discussions leading to the
creation of sci.physics.relativity, back in the 1990s.
Tom Roberts

Yes, I have been in this group for more than 20 years. In all that period there has been only one serious (and very long) debate, which resulted in some ISI publications, regarding the "speed of gravity". Tom, Chris Hillman, Steve Carlip and Tom Van Flandern (who proposed that gravity propagates much faster than the speed of light).

Serious physics topics are treated in moderate groups, such as physics.research.

If anyone thinks this is a place to learn relativity, it has a serious problem of sight.

[Maciej Wozniak]

Post by Paparios

Post by Tom Roberts

Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn

Post by Paparios
This group was created to give a space for all the crackpots and ignorant
people that were infesting several serious physics groups,

How did you get that idea?

It's well known, and supported by the USENET discussions leading to the
creation of sci.physics.relativity, back in the 1990s.
Tom Roberts

Yes, I have been in this group for more than 20 years. In all that period

the clocks of GPS were measuring t'=t, just like
all serious clocks always did.

[Ross A. Finlayson]

Post by Tom Roberts

Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn

Post by Paparios
This group was created to give a space for all the crackpots and ignorant
people that were infesting several serious physics groups,

How did you get that idea?

It's well known, and supported by the USENET discussions leading to the
creation of sci.physics.relativity, back in the 1990s.
Tom Roberts

Yes, I have been in this group for more than 20 years. In all that period there has been only one serious (and very long) debate, which resulted in some ISI publications, regarding the "speed of gravity". Tom, Chris Hillman, Steve Carlip and Tom Van Flandern (who proposed that gravity propagates much faster than the speed of light).
Serious physics topics are treated in moderate groups, such as physics.research.
If anyone thinks this is a place to learn relativity, it has a serious problem of sight.

It seems like learning relativity besides usual instruction is
much a matter of reading enough science to understand the
definitions and resulting derivations, with respect to not only
the theories of GR and SR but also particle-physics/quantum-mechanics.

Of course one would be expected to be familiar with classical
mechanics or the Newtonian, equations of motion and usual
notions of states of matter, i.e. with the usual background of
chemistry and mechanics then electromagnetism. Then, there's
basically the path to <bra|ket>, and bracket and c, and the notion
of the tensor formalisms and various conventions what result
(or the summation conventions).

It's kind of like Pertti Louenesto once put it "sci.math is not a
place to learn", but, at some point one would expect any actual
advances, to arrive at the common knowledge, where one could
expect "even in sci.physics such modern advances are de rigeur".

Then, for what those are, or about the crisis in physics between
functional freedom and, Pauli, that relativity and QM cross about
120 orders of magnitude off each other, is for what approaches
to suffice "this is a theory and a physics, too", about one theory
altogether.

I have more than a hundred books in physics so reading them has
been a path to understanding the scope of derivation, then to finish
I'd compliment the Wikipedia in its state, which has arrived in about
the same time, to have a more-than-less wonderful front page to knowledge.

[Maciej Wozniak]

Post by Ross A. Finlayson

Post by Tom Roberts

Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn

Post by Paparios
This group was created to give a space for all the crackpots and ignorant
people that were infesting several serious physics groups,

How did you get that idea?

It's well known, and supported by the USENET discussions leading to the
creation of sci.physics.relativity, back in the 1990s.
Tom Roberts

Yes, I have been in this group for more than 20 years. In all that period there has been only one serious (and very long) debate, which resulted in some ISI publications, regarding the "speed of gravity". Tom, Chris Hillman, Steve Carlip and Tom Van Flandern (who proposed that gravity propagates much faster than the speed of light).
Serious physics topics are treated in moderate groups, such as physics.research.
If anyone thinks this is a place to learn relativity, it has a serious problem of sight.

It seems like learning relativity besides usual instruction is
much a matter of reading enough science to understand the
definitions and resulting derivations

While in the meantime in the real world GPS clocks
keep measuring t'=t, just like all serious clocks always
did.

[Ilya Boon]

Post by Paparios

Post by Tom Roberts
Tom Roberts

Yes, I have been in this group for more than 20 years. In all that
period there has been only one serious (and very long) debate, which
resulted in some ISI publications, regarding the "speed of gravity".
Tom, Chris Hillman, Steve Carlip and Tom Van Flandern (who proposed that
gravity propagates much faster than the speed of light).

no shit, and you didn't purposed anything?? And I was about to be cited
in relativity papers, without intending it.

[Richard Hertz]

On Monday, October 11, 2021 at 2:50:18 PM UTC-3, Ilya Boon wrote:

<snip>

Post by Paparios

Post by Tom Roberts
Tom Roberts

Yes, I have been in this group for more than 20 years. In all that period there has been only one serious (and very long) debate, which
resulted in some ISI publications, regarding the "speed of gravity".
Tom, Chris Hillman, Steve Carlip and Tom Van Flandern (who proposed that gravity propagates much faster than the speed of light).

no shit, and you didn't purposed anything?? And I was about to be cited in relativity papers, without intending it.

Purpose fulfilled years ago.

http://repositorio.conicyt.cl/bitstream/handle/10533/182004/1060695-IF.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

After such achievement on IP networks, Paparios can write as an EE, erudite in relativity and atomic clocks, like in here:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You continue to put lies, which come from your very sick mind.

The physical process a Cesium atomic clock uses is the following:

"The second, symbol s, is the SI unit of time. It is defined by taking the fixed numerical value of the caesium frequency ∆νCs, the unperturbed ground-state hyperfine transition frequency of the caesium 133 atom, to be 9192631770 when expressed in the unit Hz, which is equal to s−1."

The atomic clock uses a feedback system, where the frequency of an oscillator istuned to the frequency where the "unperturbed ground-state hyperfine transition frequency" is maximized. If the oscillator is not at precisely 9192631770 Hz, those transitions do not occur.

Inside the GPS satellite a Cesium atomic clock uses the same physical process (as per Einstein first principle, "The laws by which the states of physical systems undergo change are not affected, whether these changes of state be referred to the one or the other of two systems of co-ordinates in uniform translatory motion" dictates.

So the GPS atomic clock is running precisely at 9192631770 Hz, the same frequency a similar clock runs on the ground.

What the GPS electronics do is to modify the frequency used to transmit the GPS signal to the ground, by using counters. The frequency rate of those signals is 10.2299999954326 MHz (much lower frequency than the 9.192631770 GHz of the clock). See section 3.3.1.1 Frequency Plan of the GPS-200J document for details.

Stop telling lies and being a crackpot!!!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

See? He witnessed when they did that, in person. That's why he makes such assertions.
Also, can tell if your mind is sick or not.

[carl eto]

Einstein is structurally unifying an electromagnetic field with a mass (m) using the inertial mass Eo/c2 (equ 52) since the formation of a light wave requires a medium (ether) composed of matter yet the ether does not physically exist (vacuum) and Einstein describes and electromagnetic ether but the inertial mass (m = Eo/c2) is massless since Eo represents the energy of an electromagnetic photon since experimentally, a 3 W laser beam does not displace a gold foil which invalids Einstein inertial mass.

[Ross A. Finlayson]

Post by carl eto
Einstein is structurally unifying an electromagnetic field with a mass (m) using the inertial mass Eo/c2 (equ 52) since the formation of a light wave requires a medium (ether) composed of matter yet the ether does not physically exist (vacuum) and Einstein describes and electromagnetic ether but the inertial mass (m = Eo/c2) is massless since Eo represents the energy of an electromagnetic photon since experimentally, a 3 W laser beam does not displace a gold foil which invalids Einstein inertial mass.

How you say!

Carl Seto is no Ben Ito.

[carl eto]

“In 1916, the year after the final formulation of the field equations of general relativity, Albert Einstein predicted the existence of gravitational waves. He found that the linearized weak-field equations had wave solutions: transverse waves of spatial strain that travel at the speed of light,” (Abbott2, Intro).


The LIGO gravitational wave interaction with the interferometer mirror produces a 10-18 m mirror displacement but massless electromagnetic gravitational waves depicted with Maxwell equations (Einstein5, § 20) and the gauge cannot displace the LIGO interferometer mirrors. Compton photon momentum (p = λ/h) is used to justify the LIGO mirror displacement but experimentally, a 3 W laser beam or 1 W X-ray (dt = .1s) does not displace a gold foil which invalids the concept of massless electromagnetic gravitational waves displacing the LIGO mirrors.

[carl eto]

"I have shown how to obtain field equations of gravitation that comply with the postulate of general relativity" (Einstein, p. 117).


"dh/dt + rot e = 0...............................................76



div h = 0...........................................................77



rot h - de'/dt = i................................................78



div e' = p"........................................................79



(Einstein5, § 20).

[carl eto]

Einstein5 , Albert. The Foundation of the General Theory of Relativity. Annalen der Physik. Königlich Preussische Akademie der Wissenschaften. 1916. https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Foundation_of_the_Generalised_Theory_of_Relativity

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

Post by Paparios
If anyone thinks this is a place to learn relativity, it has a serious problem of sight.

Apparently “it” rather has a serious problem of not knowing English very
well in the first place. “It” also appears to have an identity crisis :->

FWIW, I have learned concepts of relativity and related concepts from e.g.
Tom Roberts and Paul B. Andersen here.


PointedEars

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

Post by Tom Roberts

Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn

Post by Paparios
This group was created to give a space for all the crackpots and
ignorant people that were infesting several serious physics groups,

How did you get that idea?

It's well known, and supported by the USENET discussions leading to the
creation of sci.physics.relativity, back in the 1990s.

Interesting; I will check that.

Anyhow, regardless of the original intention for its creation, I for one do
not care what it was, and I am not willing to cede this newsgroup to “all
the crackpots and ignorant people”.


PointedEars

[Odd Bodkin]

Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn

Post by Tom Roberts

Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn

Post by Paparios
This group was created to give a space for all the crackpots and
ignorant people that were infesting several serious physics groups,

How did you get that idea?

It's well known, and supported by the USENET discussions leading to the
creation of sci.physics.relativity, back in the 1990s.

Interesting; I will check that.
Anyhow, regardless of the original intention for its creation, I for one do
not care what it was, and I am not willing to cede this newsgroup to “all
the crackpots and ignorant people”.
PointedEars

Nor should you have to. But also understand that the noise level here is
very, very high.

There are some people, of course, that are attracted to noise because they
want to contribute to it.

[Kendale Gross]

Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn

Post by Tom Roberts
It's well known, and supported by the USENET discussions leading to the
creation of sci.physics.relativity, back in the 1990s.

Interesting; I will check that.
Anyhow, regardless of the original intention for its creation, I for one
do not care what it was, and I am not willing to cede this newsgroup to
“all the crackpots and ignorant people”.

then piss off, fucking stupid. Not even now you know what physics is all
about. What an impertinent *homepage_designer*.

[Odd Bodkin]

Post by Richard Hertz
<snip>

Post by Odd Bodkin
To the point about mental health, a clinical psychologist friend tells
me that people who have mental issues
are attracted to Internet forums for a variety of reasons.
It helps to vent all the internal noise and chatter.
There is no eye contact and so you don’t get that look from others when
you say something that’s a little nuts,
at least not while you’re saying it.
There’s a buffer period where people’s assessment of you is delayed and
you can feel normal and healthy for a
while, which can be a breath of fresh air.

Oh my! Bodkin, why did you ruin the fun of decoding you? Such open and
deep confession is very telling, but let
something out for me or any other, please.
What moves you to post about 100 posts a month on OTHER PEOPLE'S threads,
but you produce no OP?
- Quantum physics
- Cosmology and BBT
- Black holes
- Relativity (SR and GR)
- Differential geometry and Riemann
- Tensors, Ricci, Levi-Civita, etc.
- Evolution
- History of PCs
- History of birth and death of workstations
- History of Science (whichever)
- Psychology
- Philosophy
- Achievements and failures in life of many.
- GPS
- Electronic Engineering
- Software
- CERN and particle accelerators
- The scientific method
- Gravitational waves, LIGO
- Radar guns
- String theory
- Cranks, crackpots
- Atomic clocks
- Chemistry
- Photons, nature of mass, virtual photons, quantum fields, Higgs field
- Kepler, Galileo, Descartes, Newton, Hamilton, Lagrange, Laplace, etc.
- Retired engineers (you really have an issue with them. Really.)
- Astronomy
- Theoretical physics
- Applied physics
- Particle physics
- Lorentz: theory and practice
- E = mc2
- t' = t
- Maxwell's equations
- Planck theory of quantum of action
- Cosmic Background Radiation
- Minkowski theory of space-time
- Nuclear physics
- Subnuclear theoretical physics
- etc, etc, etc.
But, barely once a year, you make an OP.

Which seems an appropriate pace. In a group like this, what is typically
signified by making an OP? Describe if you will the attitude of OPers.
Hint: most, if not all, are mumbling whackos or retired engineers, no? And
other than your own posts, what is the content you find interesting in
other OPs?

Post by Richard Hertz
Why do you fear to voice your opinion strong enough to put a topic under discussion?
It has to tell you something. Stop fearing and start doing new, innovative OP threads.
After all, you are the Supreme Thinker. Honor that.

[Odd Bodkin]

Post by Ross A. Finlayson

Post by Ross A. Finlayson

[incoherent nonsense, aka word salad]

You really should see a psychiatrist and show them your postings. There may
be a psychotherapy to treat the mental illness that causes your logorrhea.
Get well soon. Seriously.
PointedEars
--
Q: How many theoretical physicists specializing in general relativity
does it take to change a light bulb?
A: Two: one to hold the bulb and one to rotate the universe.
(from: WolframAlpha)

I don't care if you believe it -
all it takes is a thinking machine.

Also - if you "fully agreed" with me -
I'd have nothing to do but agree.
Thanks, I'd rather read your terms, in the usual sense about
the moment, that, torque, the static quantity expressed in
rotational inertia besides linear inertia, is thus "static" from
the rotational to the linear as about its moment. (Which is linear.)
Whereas it's also rotational with respect to the rest of the static....
Sorry, Lahn, I'm a hyper-mind.

I see a number of posters here sitting at home alone, reminding themselves
they are unappreciated geniuses, cast out by the world that does not
understand their revolutionary ideas.

Post by Ross A. Finlayson
Static about the moment including the axle in terms of
for example the next note of the moment, of course
you might agree that's not "static" any more but "impulse".
(Or along lines.)
Thank you I have a full interpretation of the terms.

[Ross A. Finlayson]

Post by Odd Bodkin

Post by Ross A. Finlayson

Post by Ross A. Finlayson

[incoherent nonsense, aka word salad]

You really should see a psychiatrist and show them your postings. There may
be a psychotherapy to treat the mental illness that causes your logorrhea.
Get well soon. Seriously.
PointedEars
--
Q: How many theoretical physicists specializing in general relativity
does it take to change a light bulb?
A: Two: one to hold the bulb and one to rotate the universe.
(from: WolframAlpha)

I don't care if you believe it -
all it takes is a thinking machine.

Also - if you "fully agreed" with me -
I'd have nothing to do but agree.
Thanks, I'd rather read your terms, in the usual sense about
the moment, that, torque, the static quantity expressed in
rotational inertia besides linear inertia, is thus "static" from
the rotational to the linear as about its moment. (Which is linear.)
Whereas it's also rotational with respect to the rest of the static....
Sorry, Lahn, I'm a hyper-mind.

I see a number of posters here sitting at home alone, reminding themselves
they are unappreciated geniuses, cast out by the world that does not
understand their revolutionary ideas.

Post by Ross A. Finlayson
Static about the moment including the axle in terms of
for example the next note of the moment, of course
you might agree that's not "static" any more but "impulse".
(Or along lines.)
Thank you I have a full interpretation of the terms.

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

I suppose if you're bored, it's boring.

Yes, everyone I think knows that the likelihood of a random jobber
"revolutionizing" mathematics, physics, ..., goes to zero.


It's like, I read this paper of Terrence MacMahon, and it's kind of amusing.

"Energy variation causes most principal constants to run,
while still adhering to this scale invariant, overall symmetry."

I wonder how he likes his lonely genius tea.

(I read MacMahon's papers and though the development's interesting
then I strike or reject most of the conclusions because the
quantities they reflect are others' that he's so extrapolated,
instead of re-interpreted.)

Maybe it's simply that I can't detect his errors, that otherwise
what is a tendered reserve is a tendered reserve.


It's like we talked about science before and about how it's all the
science that came before, also, only the theory of the moment,
here that there might be any unified theory is that everyone in
reference to the "true" unified theory is pointing at the same term.

I.e. there's not so much "revolutionizing" as "advancing", that
no putative theory is acceptible except of course what explains
(in the usual sense of not being falsified) all the previous theories'
theory, too.

That is, any physicist who comes along with "this is a theory of
everything for physics" gets "how is it for mathematics, too".

[Maciej Wozniak]

Post by Ross A. Finlayson
Yes, everyone I think knows that the likelihood of a random jobber
"revolutionizing" mathematics, physics, ..., goes to zero.

Your idiot guru was an unique case, sure.

[Hilton Blome]

Post by Maciej Wozniak

Post by Ross A. Finlayson
Yes, everyone I think knows that the likelihood of a random jobber
"revolutionizing" mathematics, physics, ..., goes to zero.

Your idiot guru was an unique case, sure.

I.e. sometimes when theories talk about what happened in what epoch,
for example inflationary theories which these days are less held as

economic theories are not theories.

ROACH QUARANTINE https://www.bitchute.com/video/HP0JsBgE0sVl/

[Maciej Wozniak]

Post by Maciej Wozniak

Post by Ross A. Finlayson
Yes, everyone I think knows that the likelihood of a random jobber
"revolutionizing" mathematics, physics, ..., goes to zero.

Your idiot guru was an unique case, sure.

I.e. sometimes when theories talk about what happened in what epoch,
for example inflationary theories which these days are less held as absolute
and more describable as about the limits of energy and configuration in
experiment, or the "revisit Hubble, Le Maitre, Zwicky, ...", or the real wave-function
as "revisit Heisenberg" and about the "mass" of the Higgs boson or "revisit Higgs",
as we learn more about the theory and modern experiment, is for a re-interpretation
of the mathematical with respect to the physical interpretation they have and
vice-versa: it's fair to expect any physics "beyond the Standard Model" will
re-interpret those terms and help explain all the experiments that came before.

And in the meantime in the real world - GPS clocks keep
indicating t'=t, just like all serious clocks always did.

[Sylvia Else]

Post by RichD
The constant c in the gamma formula happens to be
the same as the speed of light. Conceptually, however,
it doesn't have to be so. What about physically?
Denote the constant as b, while c is light speed.
β = v/b
γ = 1 / √ (1 - β²)
Let b be greater or less than c.
What does that universe look like?
Fro instance, if 0b > c, then one could travel faster
than light, would that permit non-causality?

Then the issue of causality only arises in the context of the transfer
of information at a speed greater than b.

In a universe in which the speed of light is less than b, the speed
would not be a constant, so there would be no c. Such a universe would
need some other way of determining the speed of any particular light
ray, which would in any case be frame dependent.

Sylvia.