Path: csiph.com!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!reader5.news.weretis.net!news.solani.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Gerhard Hoffmann Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity,sci.electronics.design Subject: Re: energy and mass Date: Sat, 21 Mar 2026 11:59:37 +0100 Message-ID: <10pltmp$9ko8$1@solani.org> References: <1897d2730a1a0205$447653$71155$c2065a8b@news.newsdemon.com> <10nup5d$3c2s4$2@dont-email.me> <10o11j9$3pb4$1@dont-email.me> <10o6jb9$20j6f$1@dont-email.me> <10oc4qv$3s7dn$1@dont-email.me> <10ok1j9$2ecdb$1@dont-email.me> <10opf96$c907$1@dont-email.me> <10orpc4$13e80$1@dont-email.me> <1rrwmiq.1wswrxu1eydtaN%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> <10p42s3$a44n$10@dont-email.me> <10pbhp2$2tdk0$1@dont-email.me> <10pgsad$mp47$2@dont-email.me> <10pjl2i$1kd2m$3@dont-email.me> <1rsafzo.vjlk95w9ct90N%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> <10pl8nv$26c7q$2@dont-email.me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Sat, 21 Mar 2026 10:59:37 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: solani.org; logging-data="316168"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@news.solani.org" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:l1/bDzVXTKcB8MqxOjdPJOjDK/U= X-User-ID: eJwNwoERACEIA7CVUKB9x1Gk+4/gX5KOgWIgEakUGr5E/9jRYeUrbGObX038xsRl8txTkrEfCzIQ2g== In-Reply-To: <10pl8nv$26c7q$2@dont-email.me> Content-Language: en-US Xref: csiph.com sci.physics.relativity:670255 sci.electronics.design:742022 Am 21.03.26 um 06:01 schrieb Bill Sloman: > On 21/03/2026 8:43 am, J. J. Lodder wrote: >> Bill Sloman wrote: >> >>> On 20/03/2026 8:45 pm, Thomas Heger wrote: >>>> Am Donnerstag000019, 19.03.2026 um 14:05 schrieb Bill Sloman: >>>>> On 19/03/2026 9:32 pm, Thomas Heger wrote: >>>>>> Am Dienstag000017, 17.03.2026 um 13:34 schrieb Bill Sloman: >>>>>> ... >>>>>>>>>>>> Smart people are in most cases smart in many areas and not that >>>>>>>>>>>> often >>>>>>>>>>>> weak in grammar and expression. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> One aspect of intelligence is actually fast learning. But >>>>>>>>>>>> Einstein >>>>>>>>>>>> didn't learn proper English in ten years at Princeton. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Depends on what you want 'proper' to mean. >>>>>>>>>>> Whatever, it was adequate. (but with a heavy accent) >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> https://www.facebook.com/davesmegastore/videos/einstein-speaking- >>>>>>>>>> on- emc2/3427205117297399/ >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Not only he was reading his statement from a manuscript, but also >>>>>>>>>> extremely slow and with heavy German accent. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> At that time he had been ten years in Princeton as a professor of >>>>>>>>>> physics. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> So he had enough time, incentive and opportunity to learn proper >>>>>>>>>> English, but didn't. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Also his desk in Princeton looked always like a mess, which >>>>>>>>>>>> would be >>>>>>>>>>>> another issue you wouldn't expect from a smart person. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> "If a cluttered desk is a sign of a cluttered mind, of what, >>>>>>>>>>> then, is an >>>>>>>>>>> empty desk a sign?" (probably not Albert Einstein) >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>    A cluttered desk is actually a sign of low intelligence, >>>>>>>>>> because an intelligent person is able to clear the mess. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> So, my guess was, that Einstein wasn't particularly smart. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Who cares about your guesses? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I do. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> But you do seem to get a lot of stuff wrong. Maybe you should put >>>>>>>>> some effort into finding out actual facts, rather than guessing >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> But that doesn't matter, of course, because he wasn't >>>>>>>>>>>>>> famous for >>>>>>>>>>>>>> language. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> He was famous for what he wrote and communicated, but you >>>>>>>>>>>>> don't seem to >>>>>>>>>>>>> be able to understand why. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I have actually have read one article carefully and found >>>>>>>>>>>> that it >>>>>>>>>>>> contains way too many errors (roughly 390!). >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> So, you are in fact correct and I actually don't understand, >>>>>>>>>>>> why he is >>>>>>>>>>>> still famous for this particular article. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Guess you never will, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> My guess was actually, that Einstein was a 'disinformation agent' >>>>>>>>>> and his work was praised, because it is full of errors. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> This was necessary for 'brainwashing' of students of physics. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> If you wanted a better grasp of physics, you would need to get >>>>>>>>> your brain washed. There may not be enough of it let you grasp >>>>>>>>> Einstein- level physics, but sweeping out the rubbish that you >>>>>>>>> post here might make room for something better. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It wasn't about me, because I'm not a physicist and have never >>>>>>>> studied physics. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> That is very obvious. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> My problem was: >>>>>>>> if that particular text is FULL of errors and terrible physics at >>>>>>>> best, then why got it so popular??? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If you have never studied physics, how can you be confident that the >>>>>>> physics was terrible? >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The number of errors in it is just enormous (roughly 12 per page on >>>>>>>> average). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This deserves an explanation, because it isn't easy to make THAT >>>>>>>> many errors in the first place. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Of course, if you can't count error reliably, it might indicate that >>>>>>> your defective language skills have lead you to reject a large >>>>>>> number of acceptable variations in sentence structure that somebody >>>>>>> with a better grasp of language variation would not have marked as >>>>>>> errors. >>>>>> >>>>>> Sure, English is a second language for me, because my native language >>>>>> is German. >>>>> >>>>> But German has regional variants, and - like all languages - has >>>>> evolved over time. >>> >>>> Yes, that actually true. >>>> >>>> And English and Dutch are also regarded as German dialects. >>> >>> English and Dutch have evolved independently since about 800 AD. >> >> Not really. >> They have always been in close contact. > > The English say "all hands on deck". The Dutch say "alle hans op dak" > which is literally "all chickens on the roof" but means exactly the same > thing. That's obvious evidence of close contact, but hasn't had any kind > of influence on the structure and vocabulary of either language. > They are mutually unintelligible. > >>> Dutch is low German, and was the language of publication across most of >>> northern Europe until Fredrick the Great had the political clout to make >>> high German his administrative language. To that extent High German is >>> something of a political construct. >> >> Certainly. The Rhineland, Netherlands to Cologne say, >> was in many respects a cultural unity, in which people understood each >> other, until Prussia took over, after 1815. > The cultural unity extended rather farther than that, up into > Scandinavia and further across what is now Germany. When I was a 6 yo kid, I sat an a park bench in Middelburg, NL when 2 grandmas came, took the places next to me and continued their conversation in slow grandma style. I could follow that; not word by word but content-wise. My home town is located 30 Km south of Luxemburg and 30 Km east of the French border. Gerhard