Groups | Search | Server Info | Login | Register
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #670134
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | sci.physics.relativity, sci.electronics.design, sci.math |
| Subject | Re: energy and mass |
| Date | 2026-03-18 23:07 -0700 |
| Organization | The Starmaker Organization |
| Message-ID | <69BB92B9.1DB0@ix.netcom.com> (permalink) |
| References | (23 earlier) <10pdas8$3h168$3@dont-email.me> <69BA53EC.676@ix.netcom.com> <10pdt44$3n2fa$3@dont-email.me> <69BAE9E5.712@ix.netcom.com> <10pfspv$d4ji$5@dont-email.me> |
Cross-posted to 3 groups.
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+telepor
> >>>>
> >>>> 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.
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...
But, it's okay to look the other way...
Everytime they send a rocket up...everybody looks the other way...they
gots mouths to feed.
--
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.physics.relativity | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar
Re: energy and mass Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-03-12 10:35 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-12 22:29 +1100
Re: energy and mass Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-03-13 10:24 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-14 03:42 +1100
Re: energy and mass The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-03-15 21:42 -0700
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-16 21:50 +1100
Re: energy and mass The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-03-16 08:55 -0700
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-17 18:06 +1100
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