usenet weirdness

All this is long irrelevant to the original topic about "energy and mass".

In a theory where "mass is energy" yet "energy is not mass", there are at least two ways to look at the "type theory" resulting, the usual account where mass is a kind of energy, and the _inverted_ type-tree where energy is an attribute of mass.

Here that's for an account of E-energy and F-Lorentzians, about Einstein et alia's arrival at mass-energy equivalency after the usual account after conservation of forces of the conservation of energy, then about "the forces" and thusly always "the fields", and that "physics is a field theory, not a force theory", about the energy _and_ entelechy, has that the practice of reductionism to energy is eventually empty.

Actually, this absurd and nasty thread was started by my conjectures in s.e.d. about the dynamics of spherically symmetric gravitational and electrical fields.

I'm optimistic that it will soon hit a thousand mostly-bloated insult-rich posts.

What work do you do?

John Larkin Highland Tech Glen Canyon Design Center Lunatic Fringe Electronics

Heaviside didn't try "to tear down" Maxwell's theory - he just expressed it more neatly. Maxwell didn't base his theory on any kind of aether - he just a assumed a fluid to support the waves he was talking about

Seems unlikely. Today's science does seem to work.

You don't know much about it, and may not be aware of this.

The atom bomb is pretty dangerous,and that made it into the open literature.

Nothing new about them. They have been around forever. Modern science has a couple of features that do make life difficult for bullshit artists. Peer-review does make it harder for bullshit artists to get their bullshit into the literature, and the habit of publishing critical comments in peer-reviewed journals does get rid of some of the rubbish that makes it through peer-review.

The real example of bull-s*it artistry in the modern world is climate change denial.

Most educated people ignore climate change denial propaganda. Clowns like Donald Trump endorse it, but he is making a lot of money out being president.

All you are saying is that you don't know much about it and don't understand what you do know.

Climate change doesn't make the top 5 list of things that most people worry about.

John Larkin Highland Tech Glen Canyon Design Center Lunatic Fringe Electronics

Actually I kind of work on this.

(Three decades corp enterprise software dev is a "day job". I have usual tools of the trades and "the joys of ownership".)

About the spherically and radially symmetric, and that being _different_ than the usual linear account, there's this guy named Albert Einstein, in his book "Out of My Later Years" he sets up a contradistinction from A. Einstein's account of mass/energy equivalency with another one that he introduces after politely defending Newton for being not completely wrong, then addressing that he, Einstein, intends an attack on Newton (and Galileo and so on, ..., _and himself_), about that then Einstein makes a simple derivation of his own second "mass/energy equivalency relation", that unlike "E = mc^2", _nobody ever heard of_.

You can find an account of this in Einstein's "Out of My Later Years", which _is_ what he was working on in his later years. I read it in a series of video essays on my video essay channel at

I've written a lot about "foundations of mathematics and logic " then got into "foundations of physics" and "foundations of reason", I'm a "researcher in foundations".

Only in your wormhole. In the real world, they have maintained quite close contact.

The clocks of the period weren't all that accurate, and time dilation is not the sort of "clock error" they would have known about.

Far from it. Quite a lot of high energy physics wouldn't make sense if time dilation wasn't happening.

You don't have a clue about the global positioning system. You aren't so much observing it as inventing stories about it.

Oh, so, "it's not a field theory", the physics?

When people say "physics is a gauge theory", you'll notice that's still a "field theory".

Now with R-gauge, ....

What I say is that reductionism has run out its course and now it's got GR and QM disagreeing 120 orders of magnitude and still absent gravity in the middle, pointing out there's a "crisis in physics" which is _well_ known then pointing out how it may be resolved, and rather how it must be resolved.

Galileo and Magnus can't even explain the physics of the non-Galilean non-Magnus effects of a spinning projectile, physics the usual theories either have no gravity or have it constantly violating conservation of energy, Dark Matter and Dark Energy long ago falsified the otherwise premier theories of physics and cosmology, and if you don't think so you're not being a scientist.

We just had a long talk about reductionism and about matters of the ideal and the practical and how they differ - there is no such thing as a "perfect inelastic collision".

So, here the account is "return to realism" not "pluralistic fallibilist nominalist quasi-modal half-account partial empirical discontinuity".

It's a continuum mechanics, ....

Of course. And it isn't happening. Snipping the question "what do clocks really indicate" won't help it, poor stupid scum.

Neither fierce barking will. But still - it's fortunate that even such a disgusting piece of lying s*it as you are can't lie non stop, so sometimes you admit they're correcting clocks for error, instead for your absurd dilation delusion.

Really? The position of observer X (or their point of view) doesn't make any difference to the speed of earth.

In order to specify the "speed of earth" you have to specify where the earth is going, not where the observer is standing.

The observer is stationary with respect to the earth. Since the earth is rotating the observer will be moving with respect to the sun, the centre of our galaxy and centre of the Andromeda galaxy. You can pick any fixed point you like, but if you want to define the speed of the earth, you do have to specify the coordinate system within which the earth is moving.

The moronic religion you are appealing to seems to be one of your own invention. And it does seem to be remarkably moronic.

You are quite stupid enough to misunderstand quite a lot of things as some kind of religion, but trying to work out exactly what you might have thought you were talking about would be a complete waste of time.

Really. Not that anyone is expecting any logic, consequence, honesty or dignity from something like you.

Better to give a title, not just a link. Here it is:

Matt Kaplan, I Told You So!_ Scientists Who Were Ridiculed, Exiled, and Imprisoned for Being Right. (February 24, 2026)

Not seen it yet, you are quite up to date. From the blurb it would seem to be many old cases, mostly.

I did have a glance at his earlier:

Matt Kaplan - Medusa's Gaze and Vampire's Bite- The Science of Monsters

Didn't seem to be worth more than looking at some fragments, then. It didn't seem to be really science,

Jan

So? The clocks seriously prepared by serious people for serious measurement (not for childish games of some idiots) keep measuring t'=t, with the accuracy of an acceptable error. Anyone can check GPS.

Well, not quite. It's just that your insane religion has brainwashed you so hard - that you believed that when clocks desynchronize it's really good. And, of course, that basic math is false and doesn't apply to the reality. A REALLY good clock will measure t'=t, with the precision of an acceptable error. If it doesn't want - we will correct it. Or maybe discard it. That's how things REALLY are in the world we inhabit. And it's no way related to any delusional "Laws of Nature".

So will a really bad one.

But the effect confirms relativity.

John Larkin Highland Tech Glen Canyon Design Center Lunatic Fringe Electronics

An atomic clock lattice array actually detects physical hand-waving about it and basically makes for an imaging system due the effects of the interactions of matter alone.

This suggests a real effect of "space-contraction" instead of gravitational/acceleration "time-dilation", about that space-contraction-linear and space-contraction-rotational are each real and two different things, while space-contraction is one thing, not length-contraction and time-dilation apart.

So, an atomic clock lattice array can serve as a detector of the hand-waving.

Does this mean the light-speed-limit is actually ignored by space-contraction-linear and that "frames" in the usual account are space-frames and frame-spaces? Is it so that the "apparent super-luminal motion" from the sky survey really is so?

Yes, it does.

Does it "violate relativity"? No, it's just another way of looking at it. Relativity is just "think of the theory where motion is always relative, not absolute", about that the "coordinate-free" settings are because they all have coordinate settings. Does it result "infinite energy" for matter to be Galilean linearly? No, it doesn't, and light is just constantly flowing away. Does it make an account matching why the solar system holds together since the force of gravity must always point at the source where it really is not the image that's delayed by light speed? Yes, it does.

There are any number of ways to "confirm relativity", since by itself it's just a formalism, and, for example, "optical illusions" "confirm relativity". It's loose language to say that the scientific theory is ever confirmed, only that it's not falsified in the face of alternatives.

The usual "Relativity Theory" is pretty much "motion, ..., is relative", then there's attached "and there's an L-principle of the constancy of the speed of light and otherwise it's classically mechanical in the limit", that's what it says, or as Einstein puts it, when he asks, "what's the use of just such a negative stipulation that motion isn't absolute?", that then he answers as making a great account for coordinates and these kinds of things.

Then, most people don't necessarily think that if motion, ..., is relative, then for that: "space, ..., is relative". I.e., in otherwise a theory of absolutes, or the cosmological principle that the laws of the universe its physics are the same everywhere, then fits the idea that besides "frames" the usual notion of local settings, local coordinate settings that the usual Relativity Theory has, "frames" like "frames of a motion picture", which was new in those days, those representing instantaneous snapshots of things providing a perception of motion, then there's that "frame-spaces" and "space-frames", making for that it's a sort of, "Double-Relativity Theory", then that this goes well for usual accounts of after atomic and nuclear theory that "matter is mostly space".

It's creating problems now, but the ones that people notice are mostly extreme weather, and people aren't all that sensitive the fact that there's more extreme weather around than there used to be.

Educated people worry more, but you don't seem to have much to do with them.

You think that time dilation doesn't happen? That's simple ignorance.

The stupid scum here is you. "What do clock really indicate" is just the first line in well rehearsed theatrical performance that you seem to enjoy putting on, even though you don't understand a word of it

They aren't correcting them for "error" - they are adjusting them to cope with a known, predictable and calculable physical effect which you don't seem to be able to understand, and prefer to remain ignorant about.