Groups | Search | Server Info | Login | Register

Groups > sci.math > #644205

Re: energy and mass

Cross-posted to 3 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> Bill Sloman wrote:
> >
> > On 19/03/2026 5:07 pm, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > Bill Sloman wrote:
> > >>
> > >> On 19/03/2026 5:07 am, The Starmaker wrote:
> > >>> Bill Sloman wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>> On 18/03/2026 6:27 pm, The Starmaker wrote:
> > >>>>> Bill Sloman wrote:
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> On 18/03/2026 4:34 am, The Starmaker wrote:
> > >>>>>>> Bill Sloman wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> On 17/03/2026 7:14 pm, The Starmaker wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>> Bill Sloman wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> On 17/03/2026 2:55 am, The Starmaker wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>> Bill Sloman wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> On 16/03/2026 3:42 pm, The Starmaker wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Bill Sloman wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 13/03/2026 8:24 pm, Thomas Heger wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Donnerstag000012, 12.03.2026 um 12:29 schrieb Bill Sloman:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ...
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> True.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and isn't worth the effort until you have lots of
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> observations to make sense of
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nonsense. Your naive positivism is playing up again.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best counterexample: general relativity.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It wasn't based on any observation.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure, it was based on some madness of an
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> insane crazy instead.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Einstein was about as sane as anybody could be.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ...
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I personally think, that Einstein was what I would call a
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'disinformation agent'.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are free to think that. I wouldn't go around telling other people
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that you think that - it would suggest that you had a rather poor
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> grasp of reality
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Most likely he wasn't even a Jew and a Swiss from birth.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Lots of people were happy to claim him as being Jewish after he got
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> famous.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If Einstein wasn't actually a Jew, this would be a possible explanation
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for why he rejected the presidency of Israel, which was offered to him.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Would have been quite dangerous, if he had actually accepted and would
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> been asked to prove his jewishness.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> A much more likely explanation is that he didn't fancy becoming some
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> kind of figurehead to be rolled out on ceremonial occasions.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> It would have distracted him from the scientific work that he kept on
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> doing all his life.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Oh Yes, the  scientific work that he kept on
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> doing all his life was figuring out how to teleport a Navy war ship from
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> one city to another city...
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Einstein was working on...Quantum Teleportation. Called "The Einstein's
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Continuum of Spatio-Temporal"
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> "The Einstein's continuum of spatio-temporal which enabled idea of
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> quantum teleportation, which represents technique of dematerialization
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> of the matter, in one location and 'faxing', namely, electronic
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> transmission to quantum state on the other
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> location, in order to be materialized there."
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> (dematerialization in one location, and materialized on the other
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> location).
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Larry Niven described it better - as a science fiction author he had to.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Attributing it to Einstein seems to be pure invention. It didn't show up
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> in 1950's science fiction, and Einstein died in 1955.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Put simply, it would get you from here to there...
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> You. or something that might look very like you. Transforming some 70kgm
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> of matter into energy and transforming it back to matter implies
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> transmitting great deal of energy. A hydrogen bomb transforms 0.7kgm of
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> mass into energy. Transforming the energy into exactly the right sort of
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> matter to exactly duplicate you might be tricky
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> "exactly duplicate", or making a copy is not how it works.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> It is simply a 'cut and paste'.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> You cut it from and paste it there.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> Like on a computer..
> > >>>>>>>>>>> you just highlight the whole folder with a blue light, then you,
> > >>>>>>>>>>> you...cut-and-paste it
> > >>>>>>>>>>> to your other hard drive and it reappears there!
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> Not copy and paste, cut and paste.
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> A distinction without meaning. "Cut and paste" is just "copy and paste"
> > >>>>>>>>>> followed by "delete the original". Somebody with a very tight memory
> > >>>>>>>>>> budget might cut, paste and delete in very small chunks.
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> You scan each atom
> > >>>>>>>>>>> delete it. and paste it there.
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> Which would mean that there would be a point where you'd have half a
> > >>>>>>>>>> person at each end of the link, both dead, unless you could complete the
> > >>>>>>>>>> process in less than a millisecond.
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> spooky at a distance.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> Why do you think Einstein didn't finish it?
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> Have you any evidence to suggest that Einstein even started on it?
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> Yes, you gave us the evidence.
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> You wrote: "It would have distracted him from the scientific work that
> > >>>>>>>>> he kept on doing all his life."
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> You were referring to his Grand Unified Theory he was working on all his
> > >>>>>>>>> life.
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> What do you think  the Grand Unified Theory 'is'?
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> It includes gravity as well as electromagnetism and the weak and strong
> > >>>>>>>> nuclear forces.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> In 'science jargon' it's: 'When a mass moves, the force acting on other
> > >>>>>>>>> masses had been considered to adjust instantaneously to the new location
> > >>>>>>>>> of the displaced mass.'
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> In other words... make a ship invisible and transport it to another
> > >>>>>>>>> place.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> No.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> You scan the atom (all the atoms) of the ship, delete it, and paste it
> > >>>>>>>>> another place.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> Lovely if you could do it, but you probably need to invent a new
> > >>>>>>>> universe with new and different physical laws to make it possible
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> "The Office of Naval Research (ONR) has stated that the use of force
> > >>>>>>>>> fields to make a ship and her crew invisible does not conform to known
> > >>>>>>>>> physical laws.
> > >>>>>>>>> ONR also claims that Dr. Albert Einstein's Unified Field Theory was
> > >>>>>>>>> never completed.
> > >>>>>>>>> During 1943-1944, Einstein was a part-time consultant with the Navy's
> > >>>>>>>>> Bureau of Ordnance, undertaking theoretical research on explosives and
> > >>>>>>>>> explosions. "
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> The Bureau of Ordance wanted a celebrity name to play with.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> I think I have around somewhere a blackboard with all the math on it
> > >>>>>>>>> 'about getting from here to there' teleportation...celestial mechanics.
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> https://x.com/Starmaker111/status/2033817198998000030/photo/1
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> but it is not finished...
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> Like a lot of other research projects. Mostly when you dig deep enough,
> > >>>>>>>> you find out that an idea is never going to work. If your success rate
> > >>>>>>>> is better than 30% you are going to get scooped by other researchers
> > >>>>>>>> uncomfortably often.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> Good ideas have a nasty habit of striking different people in different
> > >>>>>>>> places at much the same time. A friend ended up making $A12 million out
> > >>>>>>>> of an idea he patented. Tektronix had applied for a provisional patent
> > >>>>>>>> six weeks earlier, but abandoned it without spending the much larger
> > >>>>>>>> sums that would have been required to register an actual patent.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> It's also not science fiction as you claim to be...\\
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> It certainly is science fiction, which doesn't stop people having
> > >>>>>> half-baked ideas about using it in real life.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Using refined tools and long series of experiments, Anton Zeilinger started to use entangled quantum states.
> > >>>>>>> Among other things, his research group has demonstrated a phenomenon called quantum teleportation, which makes it possible to move a quantum state from one particle to one at a distance.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=4ae20d8bd47daad1&hl=en&gbv=2&sxsrf=ANbL-n4iBGManDUb2_O74J964ltj7MZlqg%3A1773767645872&q=nobel+prize+quantum+tel
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> A quantum state doesn't have any mass.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> The 2022 Nobel Prize in Physics was awarded to Alain Aspect, John F. Clauser, and Anton Zeilinger
> > >>>>>>> for their pioneering work on quantum entanglement, which laid the foundation for the field of quantum information science, including quantum teleportation.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/physics/2022/press-release/#:~:text=Using%20refined%20tools%20and%20long,the%20Nobel%20Committee%20for%20Physics.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> and that 'blackboard' is Albert Einstein's promotion for...teleportation.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> https://x.com/Starmaker111/status/2033817198998000030/photo/1 >
> > >>>>>>> 'beam me up, Scotty.'
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Since Scotty was always pixels on a screen, \it an illusion.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> I notice you have a Scottish accent...
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Via my wife I hung out with quite a few dialect experts. My accent is
> > >>>>>> educated Australian, slightly soften by 22 years living in England. One
> > >>>>>> work colleague - with whom I'm still in contact - is Scottish, but I
> > >>>>>> don't seem to have picked up his accent.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> are you slow?
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> My surname is a west country surname - there are more pages of Slomans
> > >>>>>> in the Taunton telephone directory than in the London telephone
> > >>>>>> directory - and it is a contraction of Sloughman, who was some who
> > >>>>>> farmed bottom land close to a river.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> I'm not slow - both my parents had university degrees and I got a Ph.D.
> > >>>>>> All my nieces and nephews have been to university and graduated - one
> > >>>>>> now works for Google. My father's sister married a very clever vet, who
> > >>>>>> ended up with a D.Sc, and both their kids were professors at Adelaide
> > >>>>>> University for a bit. It isn't a high prestige school and both moved on
> > >>>>>> to better jobs. That is the clever branch of the family. My father's 25
> > >>>>>> patents - I've only got three - instills a certain measure of humility.
> > >>>
> > >>>   From slow +? man, a nickname for a sluggish person.
> > >>
> > >> Always corrupted into snowman.
> > >>
> > >>> https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Sloman
> > >>>>> Now I understand why teachers blow up in rocketships...the engineers
> > >>>>> don't understand physics.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_Challenger_disaster
> > >>>
> > >>>> The engineers has warned management, "but neither NASA nor the SRB
> > >>>> manufacturer Morton Thiokol had addressed this known defect. NASA
> > >>>> managers also disregarded engineers' warnings about the dangers of
> > >>>> launching in low temperatures and did not report these technical
> > >>>> concerns to their superiors."
> > >>>>
> > >>>> It was a management screw up. The engineers had done their jobs and
> > >>>> warned management, but management ignored them. It happens a lot.
> > >>>
> > >>> "It happens a lot."???? You mean, you look the other way.
> > >>
> > >> I was never management, though I got close. I later found out that my
> > >> refusal to waste time on pointless paper-shuffling counted against me.
> > >>
> > >>> then you take bets in the bathroom, will she live or die?
> > >>
> > >> It doesn't work like that. The managers worry about more important stuff
> > >> - pointless paper-shuffling.
> > >>
> > >>> I can bet on that today, can I? Kalshi.
> > >>
> > >> You can bet on anything you like. It's a character defect, but not yet a
> > >> crime.
> > >>
> > >>> no more bathroom bets.
> > >>>
> > >>> I bet she dies...I seen the engineers...too weak.
> > >>
> > >> That's built into the system. Engineers - like British scientists -have
> > >> to be on tap rather than on top.
> > >>
> > >>> You know, no one ever told the teacher what were the odds...
> > >>
> > >> They were well known. Going into space has always been a risky business,
> > >> but you do get a lot of publicity, which strikes as even stronger
> > >> demotivator.
> > >> --
> > >> Bill Sloman, Sydney
> > >
> > >
> > > The internal reality
> > >
> > > After the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster, the Rogers Commission
> > > uncovered a huge gap:
> > >
> > >      NASA management often cited failure odds around 1 in 100,000
> > > (extremely optimistic)
> > >
> > >      Engineers and some contractors believed the real risk could be
> > > closer to 1 in 100 or even worse
> > >
> > > That enormous mismatch shows that even within NASA, there wasn’t a
> > > single honest, agreed-upon number — so it certainly wasn’t clearly
> > > communicated to McAuliffe.
> >
> > McAuliffe could count. NASA had killed a number of astronauts over the
> > years.
> >
> > > She wasn’t told specific odds — and if she had been told the most
> > > realistic internal estimates, it might have sounded very different from
> > > the "safe routine flight" image the Shuttle program projected at the
> > > time.
> > >
> > > That teacher was murdered. NASA needed the money...
> >
> > Don't be silly. They sincerely didn't want her dead, but bureaucracies
> > put a lot more emphasis on meeting schedules than they do on avoiding
> > disasters
> >
> > > But, it's okay to look the other way...
> >
> > It most certainly isn't
> >
> > > Every time they send a rocket up...everybody looks the other way...they
> > > got mouths to feed.
> >
> > Far from it. But when the whole organisation is focussed on staging
> > impressive events and getting them to happen when promised, concerns
> > about safety get a lower priority.
> 
> dats wat i said...you look the other way.
> 
> Look at the numbers:
> 
> NASA management often cited failure odds around 1 in 100,000
> 
>  Engineers and some contractors believed the real risk could be
>  closer to 1 in 100 or even worse
> 
> They told the teacher..."safe routine flight".
> 
> I would call it...'human error'. She trusted you guys.
> 
> They told her, "Don't worry, it's safe...get your fat ass in dat washing machine, you stupid bitch!"
> 
> You people are soooo stupid. NASA shows you a picture of a 'blurred hole' and call it a black hole.
> 
> And you don't investigate why the picture is a blurred hole.
> 
> NASA will tell you..."OH, dats the way it came out!"
> 
> When I first saw the photograph..i need to sharpen it! It's BLURRY!
> 
> Since I'm an expert in sharpening photos, I can now see what it REALLY looks like.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://x.com/Starmaker111/status/1120048519715229696
> 
> https://x.com/Starmaker111/status/1120048519715229696/photo/1
> 
> https://x.com/Starmaker111/status/1120048519715229696/photo/2
> 
> If you show this photo to Ai, (don't metioned it's suppose to be a black hole)
> 
> and ask "In what direction are the gravitional waves moving, inward or outward?"
> 
> Ai will say, "Outward!"
> 
> That means everything is escaping a black hole.
> 
> 

furthermore, if you download it and look at it in Photoshop, and enlarge
it more...
you see there is no black hole...but a lot of activity all the way down.
https://x.com/Starmaker111/status/1120048519715229696/photo/1

In order to make it a Black Hole, just do a Gaussian Blur: Radius around
29.1 and it is exactly
how NASA present it to you...


but there is no black hole, just less light...swirling waves...all the
way.







-- 
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, 
and challenge the unchallengeable.

Back to sci.math | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

Re: energy and mass The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-03-17 01:14 -0700
  Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-18 00:29 +1100
    Re: energy and mass The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-03-17 10:34 -0700
      Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-18 15:49 +1100
        Re: energy and mass The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-03-18 00:27 -0700
          Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-18 21:00 +1100
            Re: energy and mass The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-03-18 11:07 -0700
              Re: energy and mass The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-03-18 11:47 -0700
                Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-19 15:14 +1100
                Re: energy and mass Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-03-19 07:47 +0100
                Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-19 18:11 +1100
              Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-19 15:07 +1100
                Re: energy and mass The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-03-18 23:07 -0700
                Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-19 18:24 +1100
                Re: energy and mass Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-03-19 09:31 +0100
                Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-19 20:38 +1100
                Re: energy and mass The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-03-19 11:54 -0700
                Re: energy and mass The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-03-20 11:59 -0700
                Re: energy and mass The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-03-20 15:28 -0700
                Re: energy and mass The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-03-22 12:12 -0700
                Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-23 23:05 +1100
                Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-21 16:23 +1100
                Re: energy and mass Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-03-19 07:47 +0100
        Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-18 07:32 -0700

csiph-web