Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #668608 > unrolled thread
| Started by | john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2026-02-11 07:44 -0800 |
| Last post | 2026-03-18 04:37 +1100 |
| Articles |
20 on this page of 1000+
— 62 participants
Thread has 1371 articles; only the first 1000 are indexed. |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity | Browse in flat view
Thread has 1371 articles; showing the first 1000 in depth-first order. Use the flat group view to see the rest.
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Re: energy and mass john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-02-11 07:44 -0800
Re: energy and mass liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid (Liz Tuddenham) - 2026-02-11 18:47 +0000
Re: energy and mass nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-02-11 23:09 +0100
Re: energy and mass Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-02-13 09:50 +0100
Re: energy and mass john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-02-13 07:23 -0800
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-02-14 03:51 +1100
Re: energy and mass john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-02-13 09:52 -0800
Re: energy and mass ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) - 2026-02-13 18:06 +0000
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-02-13 10:17 -0800
Re: energy and mass john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-02-13 10:56 -0800
Re: energy and mass nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-02-13 23:40 +0100
Re: energy and mass nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-02-13 23:40 +0100
Re: energy and mass Brody Baikov <aav@booayoki.ru> - 2026-02-13 23:16 +0000
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-02-14 06:52 +1100
Re: energy and mass nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-02-13 23:40 +0100
Re: energy and mass john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-02-13 21:03 -0800
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-02-14 22:42 +1100
Re: energy and mass john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-02-14 08:06 -0800
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-02-15 05:07 +1100
Re: energy and mass Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-02-14 11:02 +0100
Re: energy and mass "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2026-02-14 11:52 +0100
Re: energy and mass Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-02-14 11:57 +0100
Re: energy and mass nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-02-14 22:56 +0100
Re: energy and mass Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-02-15 09:54 +0100
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-02-15 08:23 -0800
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-02-15 13:19 -0800
Re: energy and mass Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-02-17 10:29 +0100
Re: energy and mass nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-02-15 22:30 +0100
Re: energy and mass Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-02-18 16:22 +0100
Re: energy and mass nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-02-18 22:21 +0100
Re: energy and mass Jeremiah Jones <jj@j.j> - 2026-02-19 00:25 -0800
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-02-19 22:03 +1100
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-02-19 08:03 -0800
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-02-20 05:10 +1100
Re: energy and mass Jeremiah Jones <jj@j.j> - 2026-02-19 21:04 -0800
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-02-20 18:04 +1100
Re: energy and mass Jeremiah Jones <jj@j.j> - 2026-02-20 01:04 -0800
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-02-20 23:00 +1100
Re: energy and mass Jeremiah Jones <jj@j.j> - 2026-02-20 22:06 -0800
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-02-21 22:48 +1100
Re: energy and mass nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-02-19 12:26 +0100
Re: energy and mass Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-02-20 08:23 +0100
Re: energy and mass Jeremiah Jones <jj@j.j> - 2026-02-20 01:16 -0800
Re: energy and mass Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-02-22 10:38 +0100
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-02-14 04:17 -0800
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-02-14 04:29 -0800
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-02-14 04:35 -0800
Re: energy and mass john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-02-14 08:10 -0800
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-02-15 05:39 +1100
Re: energy and mass Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-02-17 09:53 +0100
Re: energy and mass nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-02-17 12:49 +0100
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-02-17 09:29 -0800
Re: energy and mass Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-02-17 18:47 +0100
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-02-17 10:37 -0800
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-02-18 15:35 +1100
Re: energy and mass nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-02-18 10:37 +0100
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-02-18 10:57 -0800
Re: energy and mass Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-02-18 20:56 +0100
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-02-18 12:32 -0800
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-02-18 11:06 -0800
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-02-18 11:13 -0800
Re: energy and mass Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-02-18 20:43 +0000
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-02-18 12:49 -0800
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-02-18 12:54 -0800
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-02-18 12:57 -0800
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-02-19 21:06 +1100
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-02-19 08:08 -0800
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-02-19 08:22 -0800
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-02-20 05:19 +1100
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-02-19 10:25 -0800
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-02-20 18:19 +1100
Re: energy and mass john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-02-20 10:56 -0800
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-02-21 14:52 +1100
Re: energy and mass nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-02-21 11:19 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-02-21 22:54 +1100
Re: energy and mass "Don" <g@crcomp.net> - 2026-02-20 14:16 +0000
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-02-20 11:56 -0800
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-02-19 21:02 +1100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-02-19 20:52 +1100
Re: energy and mass nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-02-19 11:56 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-02-19 23:39 +1100
Re: energy and mass nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-02-19 14:13 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-02-20 02:47 +1100
Re: energy and mass nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-02-19 21:41 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-02-20 18:26 +1100
Re: energy and mass nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-02-20 11:35 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-02-20 23:09 +1100
Re: energy and mass nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-02-20 13:30 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-02-21 03:20 +1100
Re: energy and mass nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-02-20 11:35 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-02-21 03:43 +1100
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-02-20 11:37 -0800
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-02-21 15:09 +1100
Re: energy and mass nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-02-20 21:47 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-02-21 15:29 +1100
Re: energy and mass nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-02-21 11:19 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-02-21 23:12 +1100
Re: energy and mass nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-02-21 14:58 +0100
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-02-21 05:59 -0800
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-02-22 17:04 +1100
Re: energy and mass nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-02-22 14:19 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-02-23 02:25 +1100
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-02-22 11:01 -0800
Re: energy and mass nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-02-22 23:40 +0100
Re: energy and mass Edwin Lohmatikov <iiw@aoo.ru> - 2026-02-20 22:14 +0000
Re: energy and mass nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-02-21 11:19 +0100
Re: energy and mass Zamir Nasibullaev <rniz@zzrlus.ru> - 2026-02-21 18:53 +0000
Shitting and pissing your own pants again? [A noiseless patient Spider] (Re: energy and mass) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2026-02-21 20:54 +0100
Re: energy and mass john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-02-19 08:54 -0800
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-02-20 18:32 +1100
Re: energy and mass john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-02-20 08:46 -0800
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-02-21 15:39 +1100
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-02-20 21:31 -0800
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-02-21 23:23 +1100
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-02-21 05:06 -0800
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-02-22 15:27 +1100
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-02-21 23:18 -0800
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-02-22 20:20 +1100
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-02-22 03:11 -0800
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-02-22 03:24 -0800
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-02-23 02:42 +1100
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-02-22 10:30 -0800
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-02-22 11:15 -0800
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-02-23 17:23 +1100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-02-23 17:01 +1100
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-02-22 22:38 -0800
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-02-23 23:23 +1100
Re: energy and mass nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-02-23 21:08 +0100
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-02-23 22:24 -0800
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-02-24 18:27 +1100
Re: energy and mass nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-02-24 12:40 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-02-25 00:15 +1100
Re: energy and mass nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-02-24 15:15 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-02-25 02:19 +1100
Re: energy and mass nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-02-24 20:34 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-02-25 16:05 +1100
Re: energy and mass nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-02-25 11:46 +0100
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-02-25 08:33 -0800
Re: energy and mass nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-02-23 12:28 +0100
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-02-23 08:46 -0800
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-02-23 09:26 -0800
Re: energy and mass nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-02-23 21:49 +0100
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-02-23 22:30 -0800
Re: energy and mass nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-02-24 12:40 +0100
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-02-24 09:02 -0800
Re: energy and mass nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-02-24 20:34 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-02-25 16:17 +1100
Re: energy and mass nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-02-25 11:46 +0100
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-02-25 08:35 -0800
Re: energy and mass john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-02-25 10:01 -0800
Re: energy and mass nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-02-26 13:24 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-02-26 16:50 +1100
Re: energy and mass nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-02-26 11:21 +0100
Re: energy and mass Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-02-26 11:29 +0100
Re: energy and mass Gerhard Hoffmann <dk4xp@arcor.de> - 2026-02-26 12:32 +0100
Re: energy and mass nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-02-26 13:24 +0100
Re: energy and mass Gerhard Hoffmann <dk4xp@arcor.de> - 2026-02-26 18:33 +0100
Re: energy and mass nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-02-26 21:39 +0100
Re: energy and mass Domingo Totolos <itot@go.gr> - 2026-02-26 21:01 +0000
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-02-26 06:05 -0800
Re: energy and mass Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-02-26 15:32 +0100
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-02-26 06:41 -0800
Re: energy and mass Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-02-26 18:11 +0100
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-02-26 10:40 -0800
Re: energy and mass Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-02-26 20:12 +0100
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-02-26 11:52 -0800
Re: energy and mass Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-02-28 10:14 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-01 00:04 +1100
Re: energy and mass Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-03-01 10:08 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-01 20:40 +1100
Re: energy and mass Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-03-03 09:53 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-03 23:14 +1100
Re: energy and mass Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-03-05 11:57 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-06 01:43 +1100
Re: energy and mass Jeroen Belleman <jeroen@nospam.please> - 2026-03-05 16:03 +0100
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-05 08:48 -0800
Re: energy and mass Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-03-05 22:03 +0100
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-05 18:20 -0800
Re: energy and mass john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-03-06 11:01 -0800
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-07 16:48 +1100
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-06 21:56 -0800
Re: energy and mass john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-03-07 04:16 -0800
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-08 00:31 +1100
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-07 07:08 -0800
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-08 00:29 +1100
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-05 08:42 -0800
Re: energy and mass "Don" <g@crcomp.net> - 2026-03-05 18:48 +0000
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-05 12:32 -0800
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-06 05:57 +1100
Re: energy and mass Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-03-08 09:40 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-09 01:37 +1100
Re: energy and mass Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-03-10 09:19 +0100
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-10 08:56 -0700
Re: energy and mass john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-03-10 09:13 -0700
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-10 09:21 -0700
Re: energy and mass Jeroen Belleman <jeroen@nospam.please> - 2026-03-10 20:04 +0100
Re: energy and mass john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-03-10 12:51 -0700
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-10 12:55 -0700
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-11 15:00 +1100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-11 14:53 +1100
Re: energy and mass Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-03-11 10:01 +0100
Re: energy and mass john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-03-11 07:54 -0700
Re: energy and mass nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-03-11 18:45 +0100
Re: energy and mass john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-03-11 20:19 -0700
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-12 17:37 +1100
Re: energy and mass john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-03-12 07:59 -0700
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-13 16:41 +1100
Re: energy and mass john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-03-13 08:10 -0700
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-14 16:53 +1100
Re: energy and mass nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-03-12 11:51 +0100
Re: energy and mass john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-03-12 10:18 -0700
Re: energy and mass nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-03-12 21:58 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-13 16:48 +1100
Re: energy and mass john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-03-13 08:18 -0700
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-14 17:03 +1100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-12 17:34 +1100
Re: energy and mass nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-03-12 11:51 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-13 02:29 +1100
Re: energy and mass nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-03-12 21:58 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-13 16:55 +1100
Re: energy and mass Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-03-13 07:56 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-14 01:47 +1100
Re: energy and mass Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-03-13 20:01 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-14 17:13 +1100
Re: energy and mass Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-03-14 07:50 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-15 01:18 +1100
Re: energy and mass Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-03-14 20:40 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-15 15:40 +1100
Re: energy and mass Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-03-15 08:13 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-15 20:19 +1100
Re: energy and mass Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-03-15 10:33 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-15 23:36 +1100
Re: energy and mass Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-03-15 14:50 +0100
Re: energy and mass Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-03-13 09:46 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-14 02:24 +1100
Re: energy and mass Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-03-14 09:55 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-15 02:02 +1100
Re: energy and mass Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-03-15 10:08 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-15 20:52 +1100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-16 20:50 +1100
Re: energy and mass Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-03-19 10:38 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-19 23:18 +1100
Re: energy and mass Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-03-20 10:36 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-21 00:06 +1100
Re: energy and mass Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-03-21 10:06 +0100
Re: energy and mass john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-03-21 07:31 -0700
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-21 09:35 -0700
Re: energy and mass john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-03-21 10:17 -0700
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-21 11:13 -0700
Re: energy and mass john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-03-21 14:15 -0700
Re: energy and mass nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-03-22 09:37 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-22 20:37 +1100
Re: energy and mass nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-03-22 11:34 +0100
Re: energy and mass john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-03-22 07:45 -0700
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-23 02:18 +1100
Re: energy and mass nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-03-22 19:13 +0100
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-22 11:44 -0700
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-22 04:32 +1100
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-21 11:22 -0700
Re: energy and mass nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-03-21 22:32 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-22 04:27 +1100
Re: energy and mass john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-03-21 10:44 -0700
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-22 15:54 +1100
Re: energy and mass john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-03-23 10:15 -0700
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-24 22:45 +1100
Re: energy and mass Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-03-26 13:58 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-27 01:50 +1100
Re: energy and mass john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-03-26 08:08 -0700
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-27 17:16 +1100
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-19 06:16 -0700
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-11 08:12 -0700
Re: energy and mass john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-03-11 08:24 -0700
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-12 17:43 +1100
Re: energy and mass Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-03-13 09:49 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-14 02:33 +1100
Re: energy and mass Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-03-14 10:00 +0100
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-13 08:40 -0700
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-10 09:16 -0700
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-11 04:20 +1100
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-10 10:37 -0700
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-11 15:32 +1100
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-10 23:23 -0700
Re: energy and mass "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2026-03-11 13:15 +0100
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-11 08:27 -0700
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-11 10:05 -0700
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-11 10:12 -0700
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-11 10:20 -0700
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-11 10:30 -0700
Re: energy and mass Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-03-11 19:37 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-12 15:49 +1100
Re: energy and mass Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-03-12 06:48 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-12 18:09 +1100
Re: energy and mass Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-03-12 09:45 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-12 21:22 +1100
Re: energy and mass Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-03-12 13:14 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-13 02:57 +1100
Re: energy and mass Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-03-12 23:03 +0100
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-12 16:34 -0700
Re: energy and mass nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-03-12 14:16 +0100
Re: energy and mass Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-03-12 14:31 +0100
Re: energy and mass Isais Kitamura <riiisia@imi.jp> - 2026-03-12 16:37 +0000
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-12 07:17 -0700
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-12 07:33 -0700
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-12 07:52 -0700
Re: energy and mass nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-03-12 11:51 +0100
Re: energy and mass Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-03-13 10:05 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-14 02:46 +1100
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-13 08:57 -0700
Re: energy and mass Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-03-14 10:09 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-11 03:01 +1100
Re: energy and mass nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-03-10 21:45 +0100
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-10 19:18 -0700
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-11 15:42 +1100
Re: energy and mass nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-03-11 11:20 +0100
Re: energy and mass Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-03-11 09:57 +0100
Re: energy and mass Gerhard Hoffmann <dk4xp@arcor.de> - 2026-03-11 10:54 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-12 00:07 +1100
Re: energy and mass Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-03-12 10:45 +0100
Re: energy and mass Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-03-12 10:48 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-12 22:05 +1100
Re: energy and mass Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-03-12 12:42 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-13 03:14 +1100
Re: energy and mass Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-03-13 10:10 +0100
Re: energy and mass Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-03-13 10:54 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-14 02:57 +1100
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-13 09:04 -0700
Re: energy and mass Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-03-13 20:08 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-14 17:29 +1100
Re: energy and mass Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-03-14 07:52 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-15 02:10 +1100
Re: energy and mass Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-03-14 20:44 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-15 15:46 +1100
Re: energy and mass Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-03-15 09:26 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-15 20:56 +1100
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-14 01:03 -0700
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-15 02:30 +1100
Re: energy and mass Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-03-15 09:38 +0100
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-15 06:19 -0700
Re: energy and mass Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-03-14 10:12 +0100
Re: energy and mass Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-03-14 11:20 +0100
Re: energy and mass Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-03-14 09:24 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-12 21:52 +1100
Re: energy and mass nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-03-12 14:16 +0100
Re: energy and mass Jeroen Belleman <jeroen@nospam.please> - 2026-03-12 15:52 +0100
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-12 07:55 -0700
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-12 08:04 -0700
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-13 17:19 +1100
Re: energy and mass nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-03-13 11:05 +0100
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-13 08:28 -0700
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-13 08:31 -0700
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-13 09:07 -0700
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-13 09:08 -0700
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-14 17:58 +1100
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-14 01:12 -0700
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-14 01:17 -0700
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-14 17:44 +1100
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-14 01:05 -0700
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-15 02:43 +1100
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-14 09:10 -0700
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-14 09:25 -0700
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-14 09:32 -0700
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-15 04:44 +1100
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-14 17:00 -0700
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-15 06:22 -0700
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-14 17:37 +1100
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-14 01:04 -0700
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-15 02:50 +1100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-14 17:34 +1100
Re: energy and mass Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-03-14 07:54 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-15 02:57 +1100
Re: energy and mass Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-03-14 21:01 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-15 15:49 +1100
Re: energy and mass Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-03-15 08:19 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-15 21:05 +1100
Re: energy and mass Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-03-15 11:18 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-16 13:58 +1100
Re: energy and mass Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-03-16 07:56 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-16 21:04 +1100
Re: energy and mass Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-03-16 11:43 +0100
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-16 05:30 -0700
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-17 01:21 +1100
Re: energy and mass Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-03-16 15:47 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-17 17:11 +1100
Re: energy and mass Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-03-17 08:07 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-17 22:17 +1100
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-17 08:07 -0700
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-16 05:22 -0700
Re: energy and mass Jeroen Belleman <jeroen@nospam.please> - 2026-03-14 12:00 +0100
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-14 08:24 -0700
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-14 08:26 -0700
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-15 03:10 +1100
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-14 09:19 -0700
Re: energy and mass nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-03-14 21:43 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-15 16:05 +1100
Re: energy and mass nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-03-12 21:58 +0100
Re: energy and mass Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-03-13 10:19 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-14 03:17 +1100
Re: energy and mass Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-03-14 10:15 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-15 03:18 +1100
Re: energy and mass nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-03-15 21:57 +0100
Re: energy and mass Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-03-15 23:04 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-16 14:27 +1100
Re: energy and mass Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-03-16 07:50 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-16 21:19 +1100
Re: energy and mass Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-03-16 11:48 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-17 01:35 +1100
Re: energy and mass Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-03-16 15:55 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-17 17:27 +1100
Re: energy and mass Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-03-17 08:12 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-17 22:26 +1100
Re: energy and mass Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-03-17 13:58 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-18 02:36 +1100
Re: energy and mass Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-03-17 17:18 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-18 05:50 +1100
Re: energy and mass Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-03-17 20:28 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-18 17:19 +1100
Re: energy and mass Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-03-18 08:13 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-18 20:39 +1100
Re: energy and mass Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-03-18 11:07 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-19 00:41 +1100
Re: energy and mass Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-03-18 15:09 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-19 14:18 +1100
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-18 21:00 -0700
Re: energy and mass Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-03-19 07:29 +0100
That stupid piece of shit Bill Sloman is admitting it is lying Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-03-19 11:37 +0100
Re: energy and mass "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2026-03-18 14:51 +0100
Re: energy and mass Limuel Patselas <teuu@lss.gr> - 2026-03-18 14:03 +0000
Re: energy and mass Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-03-18 15:13 +0100
Re: energy and mass Oval Kasprzak <saaavv@zzssl.pl> - 2026-03-18 14:18 +0000
Re: energy and mass Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-03-18 15:13 +0000
Re: energy and mass Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-03-18 17:53 +0100
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-18 09:57 -0700
Re: energy and mass Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-03-18 18:59 +0100
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-18 11:17 -0700
Re: energy and mass Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-03-18 20:19 +0100
Re: energy and mass "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2026-03-20 14:01 +0100
Re: energy and mass Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-03-20 13:58 +0100
Re: energy and mass "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2026-03-20 14:36 +0100
Re: energy and mass Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-03-20 16:15 +0100
Re: energy and mass Kayce Hatakeda <aedkya@aaktey.jp> - 2026-03-20 15:51 +0000
Re: energy and mass Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-03-21 17:07 +0100
Re: energy and mass Rhyan Taverna <aah@vreyt.it> - 2026-03-21 18:34 +0000
Re: energy and mass "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2026-03-22 14:10 +0100
Re: energy and mass Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-03-22 14:37 +0100
Re: energy and mass "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2026-03-24 12:27 +0100
GPS (was: energy and mass) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-03-24 14:20 +0100
Re: GPS (was: energy and mass) Logan Baturin <ngggg@rainag.ru> - 2026-03-24 13:30 +0000
Re: GPS Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-03-24 17:01 +0100
Re: energy and mass Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-03-24 16:36 +0100
Re: energy and mass "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2026-03-25 11:20 +0100
Re: energy and mass Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-03-25 12:12 +0100
Re: energy and mass "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2026-03-25 14:43 +0100
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-25 07:24 -0700
Re: energy and mass "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2026-03-26 14:26 +0100
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-26 06:44 -0700
Re: energy and mass "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2026-03-26 21:08 +0100
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-26 17:53 -0700
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-27 10:55 -0700
GPS (was: energy and mass) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-03-27 00:21 +0100
Re: GPS Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-03-27 06:18 +0100
Re: energy and mass Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-03-25 15:48 +0100
Re: energy and mass "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2026-03-26 14:38 +0100
Re: energy and mass Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-03-26 16:13 +0100
Time (was: energy and mass) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-03-25 16:06 +0100
Re: Time Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-25 08:22 -0700
Re: Time Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-25 08:30 -0700
Re: Time Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-03-25 17:34 +0100
Re: Time Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-03-25 17:33 +0100
Re: Time Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-03-25 17:35 +0100
Curvature of spacetime (was: Time) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-03-26 03:38 +0100
Re: Curvature of spacetime (was: Time) Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-03-26 04:11 +0000
Re: Curvature of spacetime Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-25 21:22 -0700
Re: Curvature of spacetime Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-26 06:06 -0700
Re: Curvature of spacetime Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-26 06:31 -0700
Re: Curvature of spacetime Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-04-01 10:32 -0700
Re: Curvature of spacetime Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-03-26 07:33 +0100
Re: Curvature of spacetime (was: Time) Jakob Winogrodzki <ooii@krdko.pl> - 2026-03-26 21:17 +0000
Re: energy and mass Rion Mahaev <ahom@amme.ru> - 2026-03-20 13:28 +0000
Re: energy and mass Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-03-21 01:49 +0100
Re: energy and mass Yeiniel Katsumata <kna@tuiktyay.jp> - 2026-03-21 18:39 +0000
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-18 07:53 -0700
Re: energy and mass Simei Mahrov <iie@irovoea.ru> - 2026-03-18 19:57 +0000
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-18 21:38 -0700
Re: energy and mass Dwane Sakakibara <kaaad@aaa.jp> - 2026-03-19 20:26 +0000
Re: energy and mass nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-03-16 16:24 +0100
Re: energy and mass Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-03-16 16:49 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-17 17:44 +1100
Re: energy and mass Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-03-17 08:17 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-17 22:47 +1100
Re: energy and mass Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-03-17 14:12 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-18 03:06 +1100
Re: energy and mass Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-03-17 17:34 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-18 06:26 +1100
Re: energy and mass Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-03-17 20:36 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-18 15:12 +1100
Re: energy and mass Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-03-18 08:03 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-18 20:50 +1100
Re: energy and mass Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-03-18 11:28 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-19 00:19 +1100
Re: energy and mass Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-03-18 14:41 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-19 01:20 +1100
Re: energy and mass Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-03-18 15:33 +0100
Re: energy and mass Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-03-18 15:19 +0000
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-18 08:29 -0700
Re: energy and mass Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-03-18 17:54 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-19 14:35 +1100
Re: energy and mass nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-03-19 11:48 +0100
Re: energy and mass Gerhard Hoffmann <dk4xp@arcor.de> - 2026-03-19 12:08 +0100
Re: energy and mass nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-03-19 13:39 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-20 16:51 +1100
Re: energy and mass Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-03-20 06:56 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-20 18:35 +1100
Re: energy and mass Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-03-20 10:00 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-21 00:49 +1100
Re: energy and mass Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-03-20 16:25 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-21 15:13 +1100
Re: energy and mass Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-03-21 06:23 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-21 18:00 +1100
Re: energy and mass Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-03-21 09:55 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-22 02:40 +1100
Re: energy and mass Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-03-21 17:00 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-22 05:19 +1100
Re: energy and mass Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-03-21 19:47 +0100
Re: energy and mass john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-03-21 14:21 -0700
Re: energy and mass Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-03-21 22:51 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-22 16:27 +1100
Re: energy and mass Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-03-22 06:39 +0100
Re: energy and mass john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-03-22 08:03 -0700
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-23 02:40 +1100
Re: energy and mass john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-03-22 10:27 -0700
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-22 10:43 -0700
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-21 19:21 -0700
Re: energy and mass (Double Relativity Theory) Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-22 03:06 -0700
Re: energy and mass (Double Relativity Theory) Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-22 03:36 -0700
Re: energy and mass (Double Relativity Theory) Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-22 10:15 -0700
Re: energy and mass (Double Relativity Theory) Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-22 10:26 -0700
Re: energy and mass (Double Relativity Theory) Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-23 09:45 -0700
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-22 16:20 +1100
Re: energy and mass nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-03-22 10:58 +0100
Re: energy and mass nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-03-23 13:21 +0100
Re: energy and mass john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-03-23 08:01 -0700
Re: energy and mass Keeton Zdunowski <ni@eudei.pl> - 2026-03-23 17:19 +0000
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-22 16:04 +1100
Re: energy and mass Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-03-22 06:28 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-22 21:03 +1100
Re: energy and mass Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-03-22 11:15 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-23 02:47 +1100
Re: energy and mass Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-03-22 20:35 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-23 15:19 +1100
Re: energy and mass Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-03-23 07:05 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-23 21:15 +1100
Re: energy and mass Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-03-23 13:05 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-23 23:16 +1100
Re: energy and mass Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-03-23 16:01 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-24 17:34 +1100
Re: energy and mass Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-03-24 07:52 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-24 19:04 +1100
Re: energy and mass Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-03-24 09:27 +0100
Re: energy and mass "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2026-03-24 13:36 +0100
Re: energy and mass Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-03-24 16:48 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-25 04:28 +1100
Re: energy and mass Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-03-24 18:37 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-25 03:07 +1100
Re: energy and mass Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-03-24 17:41 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-25 04:42 +1100
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-24 10:53 -0700
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-25 05:29 +1100
Re: energy and mass Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-03-24 19:54 +0100
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-24 13:06 -0700
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-24 13:53 -0700
Re: energy and mass Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-03-24 23:21 +0100
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-24 20:55 -0700
Re: energy and mass Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-03-25 07:25 +0100
Re: energy and mass Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-03-24 19:03 +0100
Re: energy and mass john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-03-23 08:06 -0700
Re: energy and mass Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-03-23 20:11 +0100
Re: energy and mass john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-03-23 19:04 -0700
Re: energy and mass Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-03-24 07:46 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-24 22:31 +1100
Re: energy and mass john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-03-24 05:33 -0700
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-25 03:23 +1100
Re: energy and mass Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-03-24 16:40 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-25 04:21 +1100
Re: energy and mass john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-03-24 05:31 -0700
Re: energy and mass Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-03-24 16:41 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-25 04:23 +1100
Re: energy and mass Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-03-24 18:32 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-24 17:51 +1100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-24 17:37 +1100
Re: energy and mass john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-03-24 05:37 -0700
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-25 03:39 +1100
Re: energy and mass nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-03-20 11:32 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-21 01:04 +1100
Re: energy and mass nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-03-20 22:43 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-21 15:50 +1100
Re: energy and mass Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-03-19 13:52 +0100
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-19 06:00 -0700
Re: energy and mass Jeroen Belleman <jeroen@nospam.please> - 2026-03-17 17:26 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-19 14:44 +1100
Re: energy and mass Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-03-19 07:46 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-19 18:01 +1100
Re: energy and mass Jeroen Belleman <jeroen@nospam.please> - 2026-03-19 11:17 +0100
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-17 08:08 -0700
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-18 03:13 +1100
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-16 11:00 -0700
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-16 11:20 -0700
Re: energy and mass nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-03-16 22:24 +0100
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-16 17:32 -0700
Re: energy and mass Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-03-17 10:51 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-17 22:50 +1100
Re: energy and mass Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-03-19 10:42 +0100
Re: energy and mass nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-03-19 13:39 +0100
Re: energy and mass nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-03-13 22:05 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-12 00:06 +1100
Re: energy and mass nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-03-12 11:51 +0100
Re: energy and mass Larry Gulyás <ylcl@alyl.hu> - 2026-03-12 12:36 +0000
Re: energy and mass Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-03-13 09:26 +0100
Re: energy and mass nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-03-13 15:08 +0100
Re: energy and mass Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-03-14 09:39 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-15 03:37 +1100
Re: energy and mass Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-03-14 21:06 +0100
Re: energy and mass Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-03-17 08:42 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-17 23:34 +1100
Re: energy and mass Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-03-19 11:32 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-20 00:05 +1100
Re: energy and mass Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-03-19 14:34 +0100
Re: energy and mass Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-03-20 10:45 +0100
Re: energy and mass john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-03-20 04:21 -0700
Re: energy and mass Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-03-21 09:28 +0100
Re: energy and mass john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-03-23 10:32 -0700
Re: energy and mass Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-03-25 09:10 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-25 21:31 +1100
Re: energy and mass Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-03-26 14:33 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-27 02:03 +1100
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-26 09:33 -0700
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-26 09:49 -0700
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-26 10:26 -0700
Re: energy and mass Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-03-27 09:25 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-28 16:23 +1100
Re: energy and mass Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-03-29 10:24 +0200
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-29 20:55 +1100
Re: energy and mass Flavio Schuhart <ifuaofvs@thl.de> - 2026-03-29 12:59 +0000
Re: energy and mass john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-03-25 07:20 -0700
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-21 01:19 +1100
Re: energy and mass nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-03-20 22:43 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-21 16:01 +1100
Re: energy and mass Gerhard Hoffmann <dk4xp@arcor.de> - 2026-03-21 11:59 +0100
Re: energy and mass nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-03-21 13:26 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-22 02:16 +1100
Re: energy and mass Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-03-19 11:01 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-20 00:40 +1100
Re: energy and mass Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-03-19 14:45 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-20 16:57 +1100
Re: energy and mass Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-03-20 07:06 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-20 18:55 +1100
Re: energy and mass Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-03-20 10:11 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-21 01:43 +1100
Re: energy and mass Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-03-20 17:03 +0100
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-20 09:28 -0700
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-20 09:35 -0700
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-21 16:08 +1100
Re: energy and mass Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-03-21 06:28 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-21 18:26 +1100
Re: energy and mass Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-03-21 09:57 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-22 02:02 +1100
Re: energy and mass Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-03-21 16:21 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-22 05:50 +1100
Re: energy and mass Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-03-21 20:24 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-22 16:42 +1100
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-19 06:56 -0700
Re: energy and mass Donovan Rocca <onon@nanna.it> - 2026-03-19 20:31 +0000
Re: energy and mass Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-03-20 01:40 +0100
Re: energy and mass nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-03-14 21:43 +0100
Re: energy and mass Adiel Ungaretti <tdlla@rdrlnng.it> - 2026-03-14 21:31 +0000
Re: energy and mass Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-03-17 08:52 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-18 00:13 +1100
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-17 08:09 -0700
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-17 08:35 -0700
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-18 03:24 +1100
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-17 14:33 -0700
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-18 15:25 +1100
Re: energy and mass nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-03-18 13:05 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-18 23:44 +1100
Re: energy and mass nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-03-18 15:43 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-19 14:51 +1100
Re: energy and mass Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-03-19 07:46 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-19 18:07 +1100
Re: energy and mass nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-03-20 13:06 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-21 02:15 +1100
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-20 08:39 -0700
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-20 08:49 -0700
Re: energy and mass nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-03-20 22:43 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-21 16:15 +1100
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-18 07:50 -0700
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-18 08:06 -0700
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-18 08:18 -0700
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-18 08:34 -0700
Re: energy and mass nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-03-18 13:05 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-19 00:02 +1100
Re: energy and mass Rian Wojewódzki <encmzd@jw.pl> - 2026-03-18 13:55 +0000
Re: energy and mass Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-03-19 11:45 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-20 01:16 +1100
Re: energy and mass nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-03-19 22:32 +0100
Re: energy and mass Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-03-20 10:55 +0100
Re: energy and mass john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-03-20 04:28 -0700
Re: energy and mass Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-03-21 09:42 +0100
Re: energy and mass john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-03-21 07:35 -0700
Re: energy and mass Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-03-22 10:45 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-22 21:24 +1100
Re: energy and mass Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-03-23 08:48 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-23 21:25 +1100
Re: energy and mass john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-03-23 08:07 -0700
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-24 17:56 +1100
Re: energy and mass Gerhard Hoffmann <dk4xp@arcor.de> - 2026-03-24 10:20 +0100
Re: energy and mass john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-03-24 05:46 -0700
Re: energy and mass Jeroen Belleman <jeroen@nospam.please> - 2026-03-24 19:25 +0100
Re: energy and mass john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-03-24 12:44 -0700
Re: energy and mass Jeroen Belleman <jeroen@nospam.please> - 2026-03-24 21:41 +0100
Re: energy and mass john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-03-24 14:12 -0700
Re: energy and mass Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-03-24 23:28 +0100
Re: energy and mass Jeroen Belleman <jeroen@nospam.please> - 2026-03-24 23:29 +0100
Re: energy and mass john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-03-24 19:55 -0700
Re: energy and mass Jeroen Belleman <jeroen@nospam.please> - 2026-03-25 09:36 +0100
Re: energy and mass john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-03-25 07:25 -0700
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-26 02:25 +1100
Re: energy and mass Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-03-26 14:11 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-27 02:10 +1100
Re: energy and mass john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-03-26 08:47 -0700
Re: energy and mass nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-03-25 13:33 +0100
Re: energy and mass Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-03-25 13:45 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-25 17:50 +1100
Re: energy and mass Gerhard Hoffmann <dk4xp@arcor.de> - 2026-04-05 01:07 +0200
Re: energy and mass Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-04-05 01:58 +0200
Re: energy and mass john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-03-22 08:13 -0700
Re: energy and mass Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-03-25 08:46 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-25 21:21 +1100
Re: energy and mass Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-03-26 14:29 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-27 02:27 +1100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-22 01:41 +1100
Re: energy and mass nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-03-20 13:06 +0100
Re: energy and mass Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-03-21 09:53 +0100
Re: energy and mass nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-03-21 13:26 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-21 02:36 +1100
Re: energy and mass Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-03-22 10:15 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-22 21:38 +1100
Re: energy and mass Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-03-23 08:58 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-23 21:45 +1100
Re: energy and mass john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-03-22 08:16 -0700
Re: energy and mass nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-03-18 13:05 +0100
Re: energy and mass Howard Takeshita <rrad@ar.jp> - 2026-03-18 13:40 +0000
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-14 03:34 +1100
Re: energy and mass Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-03-14 10:18 +0100
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-14 02:58 -0700
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-15 03:41 +1100
Re: energy and mass nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-03-01 13:13 +0100
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-02-28 06:51 -0800
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-02-28 07:06 -0800
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-01 17:05 +1100
Re: energy and mass Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-03-01 10:46 +0100
Re: energy and mass Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-02-28 10:03 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-01 00:17 +1100
Re: energy and mass Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-03-01 10:26 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-01 21:03 +1100
Re: energy and mass Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-03-03 10:06 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-03 23:40 +1100
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-03 13:47 -0800
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-04 16:25 +1100
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-04 02:52 -0800
Re: energy and mass nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-03-07 23:39 +0100
Re: energy and mass Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-03-06 09:37 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-07 00:36 +1100
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-06 07:47 -0800
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-07 17:12 +1100
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-07 06:59 -0800
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-08 11:33 +1100
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-07 19:19 -0800
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-09 01:44 +1100
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-08 08:29 -0700
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-09 12:52 +1100
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-08 20:04 -0700
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-08 20:17 -0700
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-10 00:09 +1100
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-09 07:36 -0700
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-09 09:09 -0700
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-10 14:29 +1100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-10 14:17 +1100
Re: energy and mass nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-03-10 21:21 +0100
Re: energy and mass Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-03-10 23:57 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-11 16:14 +1100
Re: energy and mass Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-03-11 08:13 +0100
Re: energy and mass "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2026-03-11 13:50 +0100
Re: energy and mass Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-03-11 14:39 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-12 00:24 +1100
Re: energy and mass Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-03-11 16:10 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-12 16:07 +1100
Re: energy and mass Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-03-12 07:11 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-12 18:26 +1100
Re: energy and mass Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-03-12 09:56 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-12 22:22 +1100
Re: energy and mass Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-03-12 12:56 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-13 03:36 +1100
Re: energy and mass Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-03-12 23:20 +0100
Re: energy and mass nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-03-12 14:16 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-13 03:45 +1100
Re: energy and mass Ronnie Pantelakos <ina@snl.gr> - 2026-03-12 17:38 +0000
Re: energy and mass Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-03-12 22:12 +0100
Re: energy and mass Tathan Nagahama <gagngt@mmatata.jp> - 2026-03-12 22:11 +0000
Re: energy and mass Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-03-13 01:47 +0100
Re: energy and mass Cristobal Umehara <be@iu.jp> - 2026-03-13 16:50 +0000
Re: energy and mass Jairo Pantelakos <soaonjo@iai.gr> - 2026-03-14 13:21 +0000
Re: energy and mass Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-03-14 16:18 +0100
Re: energy and mass Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-03-14 20:46 +0100
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-14 16:59 -0700
GPS (was: energy and mass) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-03-14 16:23 +0100
Re: GPS (was: energy and mass) Brock Nakamura <cruan@bknkkror.jp> - 2026-03-14 15:39 +0000
Re: GPS Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-03-14 18:31 +0100
Re: energy and mass Virgil Dömötör <rr@egi.hu> - 2026-03-14 17:43 +0000
Re: GPS (was: energy and mass) Kyndal Zsoldos <odondo@ndzsda.hu> - 2026-03-14 15:52 +0000
Re: GPS Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-03-14 18:37 +0100
Re: GPS Mikey Santiago <ime@ymsn.pt> - 2026-03-14 19:49 +0000
Re: GPS Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-03-15 15:29 +0100
Re: GPS Frauly Christakos <acrahr@afrafs.gr> - 2026-03-15 14:37 +0000
Re: GPS Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-03-15 19:17 +0100
Re: GPS Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-03-15 19:22 +0100
Re: energy and mass Enmanuel Jacques <cucus@mulneam.fr> - 2026-03-15 20:00 +0000
GPS (was: energy and mass) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-03-15 22:40 +0100
Re: GPS Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-03-15 23:06 +0100
Re: GPS (was: energy and mass) Nestor Rooijakkers <skk@ereno.nl> - 2026-03-16 14:15 +0000
Re: GPS Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-03-16 15:37 +0100
Re: GPS Bernie Gonzalez <inzbi@rol.es> - 2026-03-16 17:13 +0000
Re: energy and mass athel.cb@gmail.com <user12588@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-03-16 11:27 +0000
Re: energy and mass Shay Hofwegen <gwg@eewyow.nl> - 2026-03-16 17:25 +0000
Re: GPS Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-15 08:08 -0700
Re: GPS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-03-16 10:16 +0100
Re: GPS Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-16 05:26 -0700
Re: GPS Leopold Bicchieri <deo@rehi.it> - 2026-03-16 14:26 +0000
Re: GPS Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-03-14 18:16 +0100
Re: GPS Lowen Missiakos <osmi@wlss.gr> - 2026-03-14 17:49 +0000
Re: GPS Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-03-14 19:44 +0100
Re: GPS Ridge Górski <kgie@gigg.pl> - 2026-03-14 19:39 +0000
Re: GPS Krinden Hoffmann <efne@roeaa.de> - 2026-03-15 14:44 +0000
GPS (was: energy and mass) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-03-16 01:20 +0100
GPS (was: energy and mass) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-03-16 01:22 +0100
Re: GPS (was: energy and mass) Jovanni Rodrigues <iav@ignj.pt> - 2026-03-16 14:00 +0000
Re: GPS Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-03-16 15:26 +0100
Re: GPS Webster Schuchardt <tcbr@tteue.de> - 2026-03-16 14:33 +0000
Re: GPS Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-16 07:54 -0700
Re: GPS Hever Ramires <ihme@aermr.pt> - 2026-03-16 17:09 +0000
Re: GPS Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-16 11:08 -0700
Re: GPS Kile Karolina <oeelka@aili.net> - 2026-03-17 18:05 +0000
Re: GPS Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-17 14:44 -0700
Re: energy and mass nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-03-12 21:58 +0100
Re: energy and mass Donel Profeta <aadeafe@nefe.it> - 2026-03-15 15:17 +0000
Re: energy and mass nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-03-11 18:45 +0100
Re: energy and mass nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-03-11 11:20 +0100
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
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-11 15:56 +1100
Re: energy and mass nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-03-11 11:20 +0100
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-09 10:59 -0700
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-09 11:41 -0700
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-09 13:18 -0700
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-09 23:59 +1100
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-09 07:32 -0700
Re: energy and mass nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-03-09 21:49 +0100
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-09 15:24 -0700
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-10 15:37 +1100
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-09 22:07 -0700
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-10 16:58 +1100
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-09 23:26 -0700
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-10 09:25 -0700
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-11 04:33 +1100
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-10 10:45 -0700
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-11 16:26 +1100
Re: energy and mass Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-03-11 08:19 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-12 00:34 +1100
Re: energy and mass Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-03-11 16:10 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-12 16:16 +1100
Re: energy and mass Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-03-12 07:13 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-12 18:39 +1100
Re: energy and mass Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-03-12 09:58 +0100
Re: energy and mass Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-03-12 10:17 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-12 22:42 +1100
Re: energy and mass Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-03-12 13:03 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-13 03:50 +1100
Re: energy and mass Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-03-12 23:23 +0100
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-12 07:05 -0700
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-12 22:31 +1100
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-11 08:38 -0700
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-11 08:55 -0700
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-11 00:28 -0700
Re: energy and mass nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-03-10 21:45 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-11 03:36 +1100
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-10 10:13 -0700
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-11 16:51 +1100
Re: energy and mass nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-03-10 21:21 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-10 14:51 +1100
Re: energy and mass nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-03-10 21:21 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-11 17:02 +1100
Re: energy and mass nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-03-11 11:20 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-12 01:00 +1100
Re: energy and mass nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-03-11 18:45 +0100
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-11 12:48 -0700
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-12 16:33 +1100
Re: energy and mass nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-03-12 11:51 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-13 04:09 +1100
Re: energy and mass nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-03-12 21:58 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-13 17:36 +1100
Re: energy and mass nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-03-13 22:05 +0100
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-13 14:55 -0700
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-13 21:29 -0700
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-15 03:49 +1100
Re: energy and mass nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-03-15 21:57 +0100
Re: energy and mass john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-03-15 14:18 -0700
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-15 17:24 -0700
Re: energy and mass john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-03-15 18:10 -0700
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-16 14:49 +1100
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-16 05:14 -0700
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-17 01:52 +1100
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-16 08:04 -0700
Re: energy and mass john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-03-16 08:32 -0700
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-17 18:24 +1100
Re: energy and mass Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-03-17 10:49 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-18 00:43 +1100
Re: energy and mass Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-03-17 15:35 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-18 03:33 +1100
Re: energy and mass Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-03-17 17:39 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-18 06:36 +1100
Re: energy and mass Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-03-17 20:41 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-18 21:10 +1100
Re: energy and mass Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-03-18 11:37 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-18 23:29 +1100
Re: energy and mass Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-03-18 13:37 +0100
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-17 07:48 -0700
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-18 03:58 +1100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-16 14:47 +1100
Re: energy and mass nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-03-17 21:21 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-18 15:56 +1100
Re: energy and mass nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-03-18 13:05 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-18 23:25 +1100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-16 14:41 +1100
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-14 20:14 -0700
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-15 16:16 +1100
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-15 06:58 -0700
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-15 08:13 -0700
Re: energy and mass Jeroen Belleman <jeroen@nospam.please> - 2026-03-15 17:01 +0100
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-15 09:39 -0700
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-15 09:55 -0700
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-16 15:16 +1100
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-16 05:21 -0700
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-17 02:10 +1100
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-16 10:56 -0700
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-16 11:29 -0700
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-17 18:44 +1100
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-17 07:57 -0700
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-18 04:25 +1100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-17 18:35 +1100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-16 15:01 +1100
Re: energy and mass Jeroen Belleman <jeroen@nospam.please> - 2026-03-16 11:00 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-17 02:18 +1100
Re: energy and mass john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-03-16 08:34 -0700
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-16 11:02 -0700
Re: energy and mass john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-03-17 07:20 -0700
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-17 08:12 -0700
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-18 06:56 +1100
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-17 14:47 -0700
Re: energy and mass nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-03-16 22:24 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-17 18:49 +1100
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-17 08:03 -0700
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-18 04:37 +1100
Page 45 of 50 — ← Prev page 1 … 43 44 [45] 46 47 … 50 Next page →
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-03-20 11:59 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <69BD9920.571A@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #670177 |
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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-03-20 15:28 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <69BDCA17.3165@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #670231 |
The Starmaker wrote: > > 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+t > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> 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. Okay, you have seen the top view of a black hole... Here is a sideview of a Black hole... https://x.com/Starmaker111/status/2035119648690356476/photo/1 -- The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge the unchallengeable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-03-22 12:12 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <69C03F2C.7C7A@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #670235 |
The Starmaker wrote: > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > 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 > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> 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%20Physic > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> 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. > > Okay, you have seen the top view of a black hole... > > Here is a sideview of a Black hole... > > https://x.com/Starmaker111/status/2035119648690356476/photo/1 > Now you have to 'ask yourself a question' (not that yous have the ability to do that) "Where are the 'other' universe stars and galaxies in the 'Black Hole image' NASA provided you with???? It seems to be...cropped out. Maybe because they would all show up as ...blurred too! Somebody in NASA said..."Fucked it! Blurr it...fuck everybody!!" WE CONTROL THE SCIENCE PRESS!!!! Why blur it? Because, if you know how to look...there is no black hole in the picture. I KNOW HOW TO LOOK! I looked, and there was no black hole in the picture. It's very simple: The Blue Channel is the foundation of all the details.. Just look at this image in Photoshop https://x.com/Starmaker111/status/1120048519715229696/photo/1 and view the Blue Channel. no black hole! -- The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge the unchallengeable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-03-23 23:05 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <10prab9$48cq$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #670331 |
On 23/03/2026 6:12 am, The Starmaker wrote: > The Starmaker wrote: >> The Starmaker wrote: >>> 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: <snip> > Now you have to 'ask yourself a question' (not that you have the > ability to do that) > > "Where are the 'other' universe stars and galaxies in the 'Black Hole > image' NASA provided you with???? > > It seems to be...cropped out. Maybe because they would all show up as > ...blurred too > > Somebody in NASA said..."Fucked it! Blurr it...fuck everybody!!" > > WE CONTROL THE SCIENCE PRESS!!!! > > Why blur it? Because, if you know how to look...there is no black hole > in the picture. Why do you think it is called a "black hole"? No light can get out of it. If it could, it couldn't get to us - there's a great dealof dust in the way. The images we've got are derived from radio-telescope observations. > I KNOW HOW TO LOOK! I looked, and there was no black hole in the > picture. You clearly don't. What was being imaged was the accretion disk around the blank hole. There's a lot of mass orbiting around it. The orbital speed for a black hole is quite high. Astronomers have detected orbiting clumps of gas moving at about 30% of the speed of light. > It's very simple: Yes. You don't know what you are talking about. Couldn't be simpler. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagittarius_A* -- Bill Sloman, Sydney
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-03-21 16:23 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <10pla0o$26c7q$5@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #670231 |
On 21/03/2026 5:59 am, The Starmaker wrote: > 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. There's certainly no visible black hole - a black hole by definition doesn't emit any light. There is a black hole there, as we've known for quite a while, and there's quite a lot of optical activity just above the event horizon, where space is seriously distorted by the gravitational field of the black hole and the mass spiralling in towards it. -- Bill Sloman, Sydney
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-03-19 07:47 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <189e2b38813a5a67$341232$3722891$c2265aab@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #670130 |
On 3/19/2026 5:07 AM, 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+teleporta >>>>> >>>>> 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. In 2 days you will write the opposite, but it doesn't matter. What matters is that you're a knight of The Shit of Einstein and you expect some obedience. Right, trash?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-03-18 07:32 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <XFWdnfIP4_8OKif0nZ2dnZfqn_ednZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #670063 |
On 03/17/2026 09:49 PM, 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+teleportation >> > > 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. > Don't feed that leering menace.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-03-11 15:56 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <10oqsll$qhf1$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #669612 |
On 11/03/2026 7:21 am, J. J. Lodder wrote: > Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote: > >> On 10/03/2026 1:36 am, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>> On 03/09/2026 06:09 AM, Bill Sloman wrote: >>>> On 9/03/2026 2:17 pm, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>> On 03/08/2026 08:04 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>> On 03/08/2026 06:52 PM, Bill Sloman wrote: >>>>>>> On 9/03/2026 2:29 am, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>> On 03/08/2026 07:44 AM, Bill Sloman wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 8/03/2026 2:19 pm, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 03/07/2026 04:33 PM, Bill Sloman wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 8/03/2026 1:59 am, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 03/06/2026 10:12 PM, Bill Sloman wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/03/2026 2:47 am, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 03/06/2026 05:36 AM, Bill Sloman wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/03/2026 7:37 pm, Thomas Heger wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Dienstag000003, 03.03.2026 um 13:40 schrieb Bill Sloman: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/03/2026 8:06 pm, Thomas Heger wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Sonntag000001, 01.03.2026 um 11:03 schrieb Bill Sloman: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/03/2026 8:26 pm, Thomas Heger wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Samstag000028, 28.02.2026 um 14:17 schrieb Bill >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sloman: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 28/02/2026 8:03 pm, Thomas Heger wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Donnerstag000026, 26.02.2026 um 15:05 schrieb Ross >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Finlayson: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 02/26/2026 02:21 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 25/02/2026 9:46 pm, J. J. Lodder wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 25/02/2026 4:02 am, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 02/24/2026 03:40 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 02/23/2026 12:49 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> <snip> >>>> >>>>> The idea of "asymptotic freedom" or as after Salam and Weinberg who >>>>> had to apply the idea to their theory since the data didn't otherwise >>>>> fit, so Gross and Wilczek got a prize, is a super-classical notion, >>>>> since it defines otherwise induction and is furthermore anti-inductive. >>>>> >>>>> So, add that to other contrived accounts >>>>> keeping the ivory tower on its pedestal. >>>> >>>> Lee Smolin wrote >>>> >>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Trouble_with_Physics >>>> >>>> because - as a String Theory insider - he didn't think that the whole >>>> exercise was going anywhere useful. It didn't knock the ivory tower off >>>> it's pedestal, but it did leave it a bit dented. You are more into >>>> tilting at windmills. >>>> >>> >>> Solving "the measure problem" involves matters of measure, >>> and measure theory belongs to mathematics. >>> >>> String theory or superstring theory is a great idea, >>> "atoms as indivisible quanta is a great idea and >>> corresponds with the elements of chemistry, make >>> another quantum scale as far beneath that as chemistry's >>> atoms are beneath us". >>> >>> The ivory tower is a bit heavy at the top, >>> what it needs is some particularly dense >>> individuals at the Foundations keeping it >>> from floating off. >>> >>> Theoretically, all we should need is >>> one good theory of all of it. >> >> Practice draws one's attention to the fact that devising good theories >> is difficult, > > 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. > Au contraire, once formulated it predicted what to observe. But it's formulation was heavily constrained by what had been observed. The cosmological constant was put in to kill off the expansion of the universe, because Hubble's observations that seemed to show that it was expanding were not available at the time. >>> Anything else, you know, "isn't". >> >> Einstein wasted a lot of his life on a premature attempt to find a >> unified field theory. He had had enough early successes to make him a >> little too optimistic. > > You can hardly blame him for not inventing quarks and weak interactions > from first principles. You can blame him for starting on his project before quantum physics had gotten far into the nucleus. > And it is easy say to say 'premature', with nine decades of hindsight, > and nobody having done better in the meantime. It may be easy, but that doesn't make it wrong. -- Bill Sloman, Sydney
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-03-11 11:20 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <1rrsqw6.1bys2jmzcb4dwN%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> |
| In reply to | #669623 |
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote: > On 11/03/2026 7:21 am, J. J. Lodder wrote: > > Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote: > > > >> On 10/03/2026 1:36 am, Ross Finlayson wrote: > >>> On 03/09/2026 06:09 AM, Bill Sloman wrote: > >>>> On 9/03/2026 2:17 pm, Ross Finlayson wrote: > >>>>> On 03/08/2026 08:04 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote: > >>>>>> On 03/08/2026 06:52 PM, Bill Sloman wrote: > >>>>>>> On 9/03/2026 2:29 am, Ross Finlayson wrote: > >>>>>>>> On 03/08/2026 07:44 AM, Bill Sloman wrote: > >>>>>>>>> On 8/03/2026 2:19 pm, Ross Finlayson wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> On 03/07/2026 04:33 PM, Bill Sloman wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> On 8/03/2026 1:59 am, Ross Finlayson wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> On 03/06/2026 10:12 PM, Bill Sloman wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/03/2026 2:47 am, Ross Finlayson wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 03/06/2026 05:36 AM, Bill Sloman wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/03/2026 7:37 pm, Thomas Heger wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Dienstag000003, 03.03.2026 um 13:40 schrieb Bill Sloman: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/03/2026 8:06 pm, Thomas Heger wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Sonntag000001, 01.03.2026 um 11:03 schrieb Bill Sloman: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/03/2026 8:26 pm, Thomas Heger wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Samstag000028, 28.02.2026 um 14:17 schrieb Bill > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sloman: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 28/02/2026 8:03 pm, Thomas Heger wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Donnerstag000026, 26.02.2026 um 15:05 schrieb Ross > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Finlayson: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 02/26/2026 02:21 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 25/02/2026 9:46 pm, J. J. Lodder wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 25/02/2026 4:02 am, Ross Finlayson wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 02/24/2026 03:40 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 02/23/2026 12:49 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> <snip> > >>>> > >>>>> The idea of "asymptotic freedom" or as after Salam and Weinberg who > >>>>> had to apply the idea to their theory since the data didn't otherwise > >>>>> fit, so Gross and Wilczek got a prize, is a super-classical notion, > >>>>> since it defines otherwise induction and is furthermore anti-inductive. > >>>>> > >>>>> So, add that to other contrived accounts > >>>>> keeping the ivory tower on its pedestal. > >>>> > >>>> Lee Smolin wrote > >>>> > >>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Trouble_with_Physics > >>>> > >>>> because - as a String Theory insider - he didn't think that the whole > >>>> exercise was going anywhere useful. It didn't knock the ivory tower off > >>>> it's pedestal, but it did leave it a bit dented. You are more into > >>>> tilting at windmills. > >>>> > >>> > >>> Solving "the measure problem" involves matters of measure, > >>> and measure theory belongs to mathematics. > >>> > >>> String theory or superstring theory is a great idea, > >>> "atoms as indivisible quanta is a great idea and > >>> corresponds with the elements of chemistry, make > >>> another quantum scale as far beneath that as chemistry's > >>> atoms are beneath us". > >>> > >>> The ivory tower is a bit heavy at the top, > >>> what it needs is some particularly dense > >>> individuals at the Foundations keeping it > >>> from floating off. > >>> > >>> Theoretically, all we should need is > >>> one good theory of all of it. > >> > >> Practice draws one's attention to the fact that devising good theories > >> is difficult, > > > > 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. > > Au contraire, once formulated it predicted what to observe. > > But it's formulation was heavily constrained by what had been observed. Sorry, but this is nonsense again. General relativity was a purely theoretical project, made necessary by Newtonian gravity being obviously wrong. The only observational constraint into it was that it should reproduce Newtonian gravity in the limit of v << c. The unexpected bonus of an observable v/c effect came out, it didn't go in, and it's known existence beforehand didn't provide a clue. > The cosmological constant was put in to kill off the expansion of the > universe, because Hubble's observations that seemed to show that it was > expanding were not available at the time. There was no cosmological constant in the original 1915 theory. That came much later, and doesn't really belong. > >>> Anything else, you know, "isn't". > >> > >> Einstein wasted a lot of his life on a premature attempt to find a > >> unified field theory. He had had enough early successes to make him a > >> little too optimistic. > > > > You can hardly blame him for not inventing quarks and weak interactions > > from first principles. > > You can blame him for starting on his project before quantum physics had > gotten far into the nucleus. He hoped for unification of classical electrodynamics and gravity, which isn't a bad idea, a priori. There was Kaluza-Klein theory for example, which was a precursor for supergravity and string theory. > > And it is easy say to say 'premature', with nine decades of hindsight, > > and nobody having done better in the meantime. > > It may be easy, but that doesn't make it wrong. No, merely gratuitous, Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-03-09 10:59 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <bdSdnR14qf05lzL0nZ2dnZfqnPWdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #669575 |
On 03/09/2026 06:09 AM, Bill Sloman wrote: > On 9/03/2026 2:17 pm, Ross Finlayson wrote: >> On 03/08/2026 08:04 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>> On 03/08/2026 06:52 PM, Bill Sloman wrote: >>>> On 9/03/2026 2:29 am, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>> On 03/08/2026 07:44 AM, Bill Sloman wrote: >>>>>> On 8/03/2026 2:19 pm, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>> On 03/07/2026 04:33 PM, Bill Sloman wrote: >>>>>>>> On 8/03/2026 1:59 am, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 03/06/2026 10:12 PM, Bill Sloman wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 7/03/2026 2:47 am, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 03/06/2026 05:36 AM, Bill Sloman wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/03/2026 7:37 pm, Thomas Heger wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Dienstag000003, 03.03.2026 um 13:40 schrieb Bill Sloman: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/03/2026 8:06 pm, Thomas Heger wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Sonntag000001, 01.03.2026 um 11:03 schrieb Bill Sloman: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/03/2026 8:26 pm, Thomas Heger wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Samstag000028, 28.02.2026 um 14:17 schrieb Bill Sloman: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 28/02/2026 8:03 pm, Thomas Heger wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Donnerstag000026, 26.02.2026 um 15:05 schrieb Ross >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Finlayson: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 02/26/2026 02:21 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 25/02/2026 9:46 pm, J. J. Lodder wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 25/02/2026 4:02 am, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 02/24/2026 03:40 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 02/23/2026 12:49 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > > <snip> > >> The idea of "asymptotic freedom" or as after Salam and Weinberg who >> had to apply the idea to their theory since the data didn't otherwise >> fit, so Gross and Wilczek got a prize, is a super-classical notion, >> since it defines otherwise induction and is furthermore anti-inductive. >> >> So, add that to other contrived accounts >> keeping the ivory tower on its pedestal. > > Lee Smolin wrote > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Trouble_with_Physics > > because - as a String Theory insider - he didn't think that the whole > exercise was going anywhere useful. It didn't knock the ivory tower off > it's pedestal, but it did leave it a bit dented. You are more into > tilting at windmills. > Don Quixote of La Mancha of Miguel Cervantes since about the 1500's some centuries after "El Cid", or the knight of the sad countenance or knight of the lions, serialized and novelized in two great parts, besides being called the first novel in literature, often most familiar with its first few pages where Quixote girds up and relates to his companion Sancho Panza as to why the windmills are in allegory giants against which to test, has at least a few points of interest besides Panza's brief governorship and Quixote's experience in the cave. For example, one theory includes that Sancho Panza is actually Quixote's own illegitimate son with the maid. This isn't outright declared, while though, about 3/4 through Quixote starts declaring Panza as his son, and at the end bequeaths his estate to the maid and the Panza's, after his niece. There are several and many stories contained in the hundreds upon thousands of pages of Cervantes' great classic, a gentle and touching and thoughtful comedy about the idealism of chivalry and the chivalric, and the ideals of beauty and devotion. The page or two on tilting windmills, and its various mentions later, are before even Quixote has a helmet. ... Which he fashioned from a barber's wash-bowl. The second section beginning as it does with the lambasting of the plagiarists and charlatans to Quixote's account makes for that today all editions of it are much alike, while though many treatments as so inspired make for many variations, like Welles'. A foolish hobgoblin's consistency is yet a little mind. What became of Quixote's library? Cervantes makes an account of it. And, largely, its _idealisms_. On, Rocinante.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-03-09 11:41 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <eZycnTqhjcr8iTL0nZ2dnZfqn_qdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #669580 |
On 03/09/2026 10:59 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote: > On 03/09/2026 06:09 AM, Bill Sloman wrote: >> On 9/03/2026 2:17 pm, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>> On 03/08/2026 08:04 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>> On 03/08/2026 06:52 PM, Bill Sloman wrote: >>>>> On 9/03/2026 2:29 am, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>> On 03/08/2026 07:44 AM, Bill Sloman wrote: >>>>>>> On 8/03/2026 2:19 pm, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>> On 03/07/2026 04:33 PM, Bill Sloman wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 8/03/2026 1:59 am, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 03/06/2026 10:12 PM, Bill Sloman wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 7/03/2026 2:47 am, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 03/06/2026 05:36 AM, Bill Sloman wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/03/2026 7:37 pm, Thomas Heger wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Dienstag000003, 03.03.2026 um 13:40 schrieb Bill Sloman: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/03/2026 8:06 pm, Thomas Heger wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Sonntag000001, 01.03.2026 um 11:03 schrieb Bill Sloman: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/03/2026 8:26 pm, Thomas Heger wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Samstag000028, 28.02.2026 um 14:17 schrieb Bill >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sloman: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 28/02/2026 8:03 pm, Thomas Heger wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Donnerstag000026, 26.02.2026 um 15:05 schrieb Ross >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Finlayson: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 02/26/2026 02:21 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 25/02/2026 9:46 pm, J. J. Lodder wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 25/02/2026 4:02 am, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 02/24/2026 03:40 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 02/23/2026 12:49 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >> >> <snip> >> >>> The idea of "asymptotic freedom" or as after Salam and Weinberg who >>> had to apply the idea to their theory since the data didn't otherwise >>> fit, so Gross and Wilczek got a prize, is a super-classical notion, >>> since it defines otherwise induction and is furthermore anti-inductive. >>> >>> So, add that to other contrived accounts >>> keeping the ivory tower on its pedestal. >> >> Lee Smolin wrote >> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Trouble_with_Physics >> >> because - as a String Theory insider - he didn't think that the whole >> exercise was going anywhere useful. It didn't knock the ivory tower off >> it's pedestal, but it did leave it a bit dented. You are more into >> tilting at windmills. >> > > Don Quixote of La Mancha of Miguel Cervantes since about > the 1500's some centuries after "El Cid", or the knight > of the sad countenance or knight of the lions, serialized > and novelized in two great parts, besides being called > the first novel in literature, often most familiar with > its first few pages where Quixote girds up and relates > to his companion Sancho Panza as to why the windmills > are in allegory giants against which to test, has at > least a few points of interest besides Panza's brief > governorship and Quixote's experience in the cave. > > For example, one theory includes that Sancho Panza is > actually Quixote's own illegitimate son with the maid. > This isn't outright declared, while though, about 3/4 > through Quixote starts declaring Panza as his son, > and at the end bequeaths his estate to the maid and > the Panza's, after his niece. > > > There are several and many stories contained in the > hundreds upon thousands of pages of Cervantes' > great classic, a gentle and touching and thoughtful > comedy about the idealism of chivalry and the chivalric, > and the ideals of beauty and devotion. > > The page or two on tilting windmills, and its various > mentions later, are before even Quixote has a helmet. > ... Which he fashioned from a barber's wash-bowl. > > The second section beginning as it does with the > lambasting of the plagiarists and charlatans to > Quixote's account makes for that today all editions > of it are much alike, while though many treatments > as so inspired make for many variations, like Welles'. > > > > A foolish hobgoblin's consistency is yet a little mind. > > > > What became of Quixote's library? > Cervantes makes an account of it. > > And, largely, its _idealisms_. > > > > On, Rocinante. > > Chivalry's not dead, it's just curled up in the corner weakly kicking it with Conversation. Super-symmetry's not dead, again, .... Quantum Mechanics, if never wrong, is just a perspective on Continuum Mechanics. The _energy_ always lives in the _entelechy_. The _point_ is always of the _space_. The point, local, global, and total, make for usual reflection about particles and resonances: waves, models of change, in time, in an open system. Physics: it's an open system. (The science.) Technicolour is the idea that it's quarks all the way down. The asymptotic freedom of the strong nuclear making for reasoning that fall-gravity is the perfect explanation of gravity, speaks quite directly to the complementary concepts of "flow", and, "flux", when they're different at all. There's a definition of entropy: Aristotle's and Leibnitz'. They're opposites. The dynamis and dunamis, power and potential, are similar, originally being one word, yet readily enough distinguished by theoretical physicists since antiquity, in fragments. Geometry as axiomless geometry of points and spaces a dialectic after axiomless natural deduction about voids and universals, makes for matters of perspective and projection, for an account after constancy and change of geometry and motion, being along the Testaments Old and New, the Vedas, Zeno's classical expositions of the super-classical, and other sorts widely published and maintained works of whatever sort of an authoritative philosophical position. Hegel's Wissenschaft der Logik, "The Science of Logic", or "insightful beams", makes for that Hegel, like Duns Scotus, was a fair and full sort of Aristotlean, moreso than usual sorts of partial, half accounts. A full account, ....
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-03-09 13:18 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <wkednbyNz4qItjL0nZ2dnZfqn_udnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #669581 |
On 03/09/2026 11:41 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote: > On 03/09/2026 10:59 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote: >> On 03/09/2026 06:09 AM, Bill Sloman wrote: >>> On 9/03/2026 2:17 pm, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>> On 03/08/2026 08:04 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>> On 03/08/2026 06:52 PM, Bill Sloman wrote: >>>>>> On 9/03/2026 2:29 am, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>> On 03/08/2026 07:44 AM, Bill Sloman wrote: >>>>>>>> On 8/03/2026 2:19 pm, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 03/07/2026 04:33 PM, Bill Sloman wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 8/03/2026 1:59 am, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 03/06/2026 10:12 PM, Bill Sloman wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/03/2026 2:47 am, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 03/06/2026 05:36 AM, Bill Sloman wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/03/2026 7:37 pm, Thomas Heger wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Dienstag000003, 03.03.2026 um 13:40 schrieb Bill Sloman: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/03/2026 8:06 pm, Thomas Heger wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Sonntag000001, 01.03.2026 um 11:03 schrieb Bill Sloman: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/03/2026 8:26 pm, Thomas Heger wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Samstag000028, 28.02.2026 um 14:17 schrieb Bill >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sloman: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 28/02/2026 8:03 pm, Thomas Heger wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Donnerstag000026, 26.02.2026 um 15:05 schrieb Ross >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Finlayson: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 02/26/2026 02:21 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 25/02/2026 9:46 pm, J. J. Lodder wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 25/02/2026 4:02 am, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 02/24/2026 03:40 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 02/23/2026 12:49 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>> >>> <snip> >>> >>>> The idea of "asymptotic freedom" or as after Salam and Weinberg who >>>> had to apply the idea to their theory since the data didn't otherwise >>>> fit, so Gross and Wilczek got a prize, is a super-classical notion, >>>> since it defines otherwise induction and is furthermore anti-inductive. >>>> >>>> So, add that to other contrived accounts >>>> keeping the ivory tower on its pedestal. >>> >>> Lee Smolin wrote >>> >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Trouble_with_Physics >>> >>> because - as a String Theory insider - he didn't think that the whole >>> exercise was going anywhere useful. It didn't knock the ivory tower off >>> it's pedestal, but it did leave it a bit dented. You are more into >>> tilting at windmills. >>> >> >> Don Quixote of La Mancha of Miguel Cervantes since about >> the 1500's some centuries after "El Cid", or the knight >> of the sad countenance or knight of the lions, serialized >> and novelized in two great parts, besides being called >> the first novel in literature, often most familiar with >> its first few pages where Quixote girds up and relates >> to his companion Sancho Panza as to why the windmills >> are in allegory giants against which to test, has at >> least a few points of interest besides Panza's brief >> governorship and Quixote's experience in the cave. >> >> For example, one theory includes that Sancho Panza is >> actually Quixote's own illegitimate son with the maid. >> This isn't outright declared, while though, about 3/4 >> through Quixote starts declaring Panza as his son, >> and at the end bequeaths his estate to the maid and >> the Panza's, after his niece. >> >> >> There are several and many stories contained in the >> hundreds upon thousands of pages of Cervantes' >> great classic, a gentle and touching and thoughtful >> comedy about the idealism of chivalry and the chivalric, >> and the ideals of beauty and devotion. >> >> The page or two on tilting windmills, and its various >> mentions later, are before even Quixote has a helmet. >> ... Which he fashioned from a barber's wash-bowl. >> >> The second section beginning as it does with the >> lambasting of the plagiarists and charlatans to >> Quixote's account makes for that today all editions >> of it are much alike, while though many treatments >> as so inspired make for many variations, like Welles'. >> >> >> >> A foolish hobgoblin's consistency is yet a little mind. >> >> >> >> What became of Quixote's library? >> Cervantes makes an account of it. >> >> And, largely, its _idealisms_. >> >> >> >> On, Rocinante. >> >> > > Chivalry's not dead, it's just curled up in the > corner weakly kicking it with Conversation. > > > Super-symmetry's not dead, again, .... > > > Quantum Mechanics, if never wrong, > is just a perspective on Continuum Mechanics. > > > > The _energy_ always lives in the _entelechy_. > The _point_ is always of the _space_. > > The point, local, global, and total, > make for usual reflection about particles and resonances: > waves, models of change, in time, in an open system. > > > Physics: it's an open system. (The science.) > > > Technicolour is the idea that > it's quarks all the way down. > > > The asymptotic freedom of the strong nuclear making > for reasoning that fall-gravity is the perfect explanation > of gravity, speaks quite directly to the complementary > concepts of "flow", and, "flux", when they're different at all. > > > There's a definition of entropy: Aristotle's and Leibnitz'. > They're opposites. > > > The dynamis and dunamis, power and potential, are similar, > originally being one word, yet readily enough distinguished > by theoretical physicists since antiquity, in fragments. > > > Geometry as axiomless geometry of points and spaces a dialectic > after axiomless natural deduction about voids and universals, > makes for matters of perspective and projection, for an account > after constancy and change of geometry and motion, being along > the Testaments Old and New, the Vedas, Zeno's classical expositions > of the super-classical, and other sorts widely published and maintained > works of whatever sort of an authoritative philosophical position. > Hegel's Wissenschaft der Logik, "The Science of Logic", or "insightful > beams", makes for that Hegel, like Duns Scotus, was a fair and full > sort of Aristotlean, moreso than usual sorts of partial, half accounts. > > > A full account, .... > > > > > Sort of like "gravitic", vis-a-vis, "gravific", force, neither one quite whole without the other, while though yet the "gravitic" is more easily found and it's called the classical, about the "point" and "local", while the "gravific" is of the wider sort of potentialistic account, the "global" and "total", then that there's the idea that the potential fields _are_ the real fields, and that the classical is an individual's perspective, while the fuller potentialistic view makes for the theory's, perspective, as it were. For from being "unknown", these sorts of accounts are the best-known, to historians of physics and science, the theoretical physicists, the reasoning behind why the usual standard linear curriculum's narrative is given, quite thoroughly and over time. Einstein has his "spatial" and "spacial" as different terms, with different definitions, for GR and SR, another usual sort of example, easy to miss and of the carefully didactic to keep straight, and, not exactly explicit besides the merest difference. So, it is as _we_ say, and, we care a lot. These days the online conversational report generators are quite adept at consuming material like this. Cats? Oats. (Describing a difference for example the "categorical" and "objective", in "agents and actors in the ecosystem and economy of a large language model, and for the entire.)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-03-09 23:59 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <10omg8f$39lir$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #669566 |
On 9/03/2026 2:04 pm, Ross Finlayson wrote: > On 03/08/2026 06:52 PM, Bill Sloman wrote: >> On 9/03/2026 2:29 am, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>> On 03/08/2026 07:44 AM, Bill Sloman wrote: >>>> On 8/03/2026 2:19 pm, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>> On 03/07/2026 04:33 PM, Bill Sloman wrote: >>>>>> On 8/03/2026 1:59 am, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>> On 03/06/2026 10:12 PM, Bill Sloman wrote: >>>>>>>> On 7/03/2026 2:47 am, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 03/06/2026 05:36 AM, Bill Sloman wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 6/03/2026 7:37 pm, Thomas Heger wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> Am Dienstag000003, 03.03.2026 um 13:40 schrieb Bill Sloman: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/03/2026 8:06 pm, Thomas Heger wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Sonntag000001, 01.03.2026 um 11:03 schrieb Bill Sloman: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/03/2026 8:26 pm, Thomas Heger wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Samstag000028, 28.02.2026 um 14:17 schrieb Bill Sloman: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 28/02/2026 8:03 pm, Thomas Heger wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Donnerstag000026, 26.02.2026 um 15:05 schrieb Ross >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Finlayson: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 02/26/2026 02:21 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 25/02/2026 9:46 pm, J. J. Lodder wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 25/02/2026 4:02 am, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 02/24/2026 03:40 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 02/23/2026 12:49 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: <snip> >>> The Dark Matter / Dark Energy their posited existence is since >>> otherwise the usual premier theories are violated. >>> >>> Now, these theories already have gravity always doing >>> work for free, which is a constant violation of >>> conservation of energy, the energy budget of the universe. >> >> Gravity applies a force. That isn't doing work. The earth orbits the sun >> without doing much work at all. The consequent tidal forces inside the >> sun sap kinetic energy from the earth's orbital movement, in the same >> way that tides on earth are causing the moons orbit to change. >> >> We can see that happening if we look very closely. >> >> https://www.hummingbirdpc.com.au/as-it-slowly-drifts-away-from-earth-the-moon-is-changing-the-length-of-our-days-and-our-tides/ >> >> >>> Dark Matter and Dark Energy are un-observable by definition, >>> this un-falsifiable, thus not science, while the otherwise >>> premier theory has been falsified. >> >> People have been looking for Dark Matter particles for decades now. >> They seem to have a different definition from yours. >> >> Dark energy was proposed as an explanation for the expansion of the >> universe, as observed by Hubble. It has been argued that Hubble >> misinterpreted what he saw, but few accept that argument. >> >>> "... as would require being theoretical _physicists_." >>> >>> >>> I don't even care what I say: only what's said. >> >> So you aren't all that careful about what you say. > > Everybody knows that applying force over distance is work. > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work_(physics) That's not all that precisely formulated. If the applied force moves the object to which the force was applied in the direction in which the force was applied, then work was done. A planet in orbit is in motion, but the movement is at right-angles to the force applied by gravity, so that force isn't doing any work. > The idea that "curved space-time in relativity theory" > does that for free is fallacious. > > Then, quantum mechanics also has no usual "quantum gravity". It hasn't got it yet. It took quite a while for us to realise that electric charge is quantised, because the quanta of charge are pretty small. We may need much more fine-grained instruments before we can see any sign of quantisation in gravitational effects > Newton: pull (gravitic) > Fatio/LeSage: push (gravific) > Einstein: follow (Newton's) > Finlayson: fall (Fatio/LeSage's) > > To be bending space-time all around, or the usual idea > of the "rubber sheet" analogy of gravity, and that > gravity's cause is "down", or as per Einstein, > "straight down", has that that's giving an > explanation to a non-explanation. If it curves > space-time then it must involve what curves space-time, > which otherwise would be doing work for free. You don't have a very clear idea of what might constitute work. > Then, how it can be that quantum gravity gets defined, > that gravity is the gravific and furthermore is as of > an overall balance and resolving the potentials of > the total field instead of anywhere locally being > a constant violation of the energy budget and > the most usual principles of conservation of energy > and least action, it's a fall gravity explained by and > explaining the nuclear force. You don't seem to have any idea how you might calculate an energy budget. > This way this unification of sorts also helps explain > both the (strong) nuclear force and gravity, together. You may think so. > Another example of the constant violation of > the energy budget is electron orbitals with > regards to otherwise classical orbits would > always be decaying. Why? Tidal forces are steadily moving the moon away from the earth, not towards it. The nucleus of an atom doesn't accommodate tidal movement so there's no reason why an electron orbital would decay. Because the energies involved are all quantised the electrons can't lose small amounts of energy - they can only move into higher orbits (or get captured by the nucleus in an inverse beta decay). > I very much care what I say, for that > what I say is so. You can't even define work accurately. > The academic authority is one hopes > hard-earned and hard-learned, more > than merely a convenience of assignation > of blame and direction of guidance. But you don't seem to have had an adequate acedemic education. > I only care what the words say, > and science cares about _all_ the data. And you clearly don't. -- Bill Sloman, Sydney
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-03-09 07:32 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <MdqdnaIx3OBrRDP0nZ2dnZfqn_GdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #669574 |
On 03/09/2026 05:59 AM, Bill Sloman wrote: > On 9/03/2026 2:04 pm, Ross Finlayson wrote: >> On 03/08/2026 06:52 PM, Bill Sloman wrote: >>> On 9/03/2026 2:29 am, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>> On 03/08/2026 07:44 AM, Bill Sloman wrote: >>>>> On 8/03/2026 2:19 pm, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>> On 03/07/2026 04:33 PM, Bill Sloman wrote: >>>>>>> On 8/03/2026 1:59 am, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>> On 03/06/2026 10:12 PM, Bill Sloman wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 7/03/2026 2:47 am, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 03/06/2026 05:36 AM, Bill Sloman wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 6/03/2026 7:37 pm, Thomas Heger wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> Am Dienstag000003, 03.03.2026 um 13:40 schrieb Bill Sloman: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/03/2026 8:06 pm, Thomas Heger wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Sonntag000001, 01.03.2026 um 11:03 schrieb Bill Sloman: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/03/2026 8:26 pm, Thomas Heger wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Samstag000028, 28.02.2026 um 14:17 schrieb Bill Sloman: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 28/02/2026 8:03 pm, Thomas Heger wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Donnerstag000026, 26.02.2026 um 15:05 schrieb Ross >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Finlayson: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 02/26/2026 02:21 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 25/02/2026 9:46 pm, J. J. Lodder wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 25/02/2026 4:02 am, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 02/24/2026 03:40 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 02/23/2026 12:49 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > > <snip> > >>>> The Dark Matter / Dark Energy their posited existence is since >>>> otherwise the usual premier theories are violated. >>>> >>>> Now, these theories already have gravity always doing >>>> work for free, which is a constant violation of >>>> conservation of energy, the energy budget of the universe. >>> >>> Gravity applies a force. That isn't doing work. The earth orbits the sun >>> without doing much work at all. The consequent tidal forces inside the >>> sun sap kinetic energy from the earth's orbital movement, in the same >>> way that tides on earth are causing the moons orbit to change. >>> >>> We can see that happening if we look very closely. >>> >>> https://www.hummingbirdpc.com.au/as-it-slowly-drifts-away-from-earth-the-moon-is-changing-the-length-of-our-days-and-our-tides/ >>> >>> >>> >>>> Dark Matter and Dark Energy are un-observable by definition, >>>> this un-falsifiable, thus not science, while the otherwise >>>> premier theory has been falsified. >>> >>> People have been looking for Dark Matter particles for decades now. >>> They seem to have a different definition from yours. >>> >>> Dark energy was proposed as an explanation for the expansion of the >>> universe, as observed by Hubble. It has been argued that Hubble >>> misinterpreted what he saw, but few accept that argument. >>> >>>> "... as would require being theoretical _physicists_." >>>> >>>> >>>> I don't even care what I say: only what's said. >>> >>> So you aren't all that careful about what you say. >> >> Everybody knows that applying force over distance is work. >> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work_(physics) > > That's not all that precisely formulated. If the applied force moves the > object to which the force was applied in the direction in which the > force was applied, then work was done. > > A planet in orbit is in motion, but the movement is at right-angles to > the force applied by gravity, so that force isn't doing any work. > >> The idea that "curved space-time in relativity theory" >> does that for free is fallacious. >> >> Then, quantum mechanics also has no usual "quantum gravity". > > It hasn't got it yet. It took quite a while for us to realise that > electric charge is quantised, because the quanta of charge are pretty > small. We may need much more fine-grained instruments before we can see > any sign of quantisation in gravitational effects > >> Newton: pull (gravitic) >> Fatio/LeSage: push (gravific) >> Einstein: follow (Newton's) >> Finlayson: fall (Fatio/LeSage's) >> >> To be bending space-time all around, or the usual idea >> of the "rubber sheet" analogy of gravity, and that >> gravity's cause is "down", or as per Einstein, >> "straight down", has that that's giving an >> explanation to a non-explanation. If it curves >> space-time then it must involve what curves space-time, >> which otherwise would be doing work for free. > > You don't have a very clear idea of what might constitute work. > >> Then, how it can be that quantum gravity gets defined, >> that gravity is the gravific and furthermore is as of >> an overall balance and resolving the potentials of >> the total field instead of anywhere locally being >> a constant violation of the energy budget and >> the most usual principles of conservation of energy >> and least action, it's a fall gravity explained by and >> explaining the nuclear force. > > You don't seem to have any idea how you might calculate an energy budget. > >> This way this unification of sorts also helps explain >> both the (strong) nuclear force and gravity, together. > > You may think so. > >> Another example of the constant violation of >> the energy budget is electron orbitals with >> regards to otherwise classical orbits would >> always be decaying. > > Why? Tidal forces are steadily moving the moon away from the earth, not > towards it. > > The nucleus of an atom doesn't accommodate tidal movement so there's no > reason why an electron orbital would decay. Because the energies > involved are all quantised the electrons can't lose small amounts of > energy - they can only move into higher orbits (or get captured by the > nucleus in an inverse beta decay). > >> I very much care what I say, for that >> what I say is so. > > You can't even define work accurately. > >> The academic authority is one hopes >> hard-earned and hard-learned, more >> than merely a convenience of assignation >> of blame and direction of guidance. > > But you don't seem to have had an adequate acedemic education. > >> I only care what the words say, >> and science cares about _all_ the data. > > And you clearly don't. > Actually the measurement of the quantity of an electron isn't exactly charge by itself so much as a charge/mass ratio. Gravity according to the oldest law is always doing work, whenever it can. I have a mathematics degree. I got a 1520/1600 on the SAT and 1500/1600 on the GRE and 170/180 on the LSAT, back when those were top scores, so, theoretically I'm at least _ready_ for higher education. I even found somebody who's made a greater account of continuity and infinity in mathematics for Foundations. It's me, though, ....
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-03-09 21:49 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <1rrq1kw.rer3msu20byuN%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> |
| In reply to | #669577 |
Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote: > On 03/09/2026 05:59 AM, Bill Sloman wrote: > > On 9/03/2026 2:04 pm, Ross Finlayson wrote: > >> On 03/08/2026 06:52 PM, Bill Sloman wrote: > >>> On 9/03/2026 2:29 am, Ross Finlayson wrote: > >>>> On 03/08/2026 07:44 AM, Bill Sloman wrote: > >>>>> On 8/03/2026 2:19 pm, Ross Finlayson wrote: > >>>>>> On 03/07/2026 04:33 PM, Bill Sloman wrote: > >>>>>>> On 8/03/2026 1:59 am, Ross Finlayson wrote: > >>>>>>>> On 03/06/2026 10:12 PM, Bill Sloman wrote: > >>>>>>>>> On 7/03/2026 2:47 am, Ross Finlayson wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> On 03/06/2026 05:36 AM, Bill Sloman wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> On 6/03/2026 7:37 pm, Thomas Heger wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> Am Dienstag000003, 03.03.2026 um 13:40 schrieb Bill Sloman: > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/03/2026 8:06 pm, Thomas Heger wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Sonntag000001, 01.03.2026 um 11:03 schrieb Bill Sloman: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/03/2026 8:26 pm, Thomas Heger wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Samstag000028, 28.02.2026 um 14:17 schrieb Bill Sloman: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 28/02/2026 8:03 pm, Thomas Heger wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Donnerstag000026, 26.02.2026 um 15:05 schrieb Ross > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Finlayson: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 02/26/2026 02:21 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 25/02/2026 9:46 pm, J. J. Lodder wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 25/02/2026 4:02 am, Ross Finlayson wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 02/24/2026 03:40 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 02/23/2026 12:49 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > > > > <snip> > > > >>>> The Dark Matter / Dark Energy their posited existence is since > >>>> otherwise the usual premier theories are violated. > >>>> > >>>> Now, these theories already have gravity always doing > >>>> work for free, which is a constant violation of > >>>> conservation of energy, the energy budget of the universe. > >>> > >>> Gravity applies a force. That isn't doing work. The earth orbits the sun > >>> without doing much work at all. The consequent tidal forces inside the > >>> sun sap kinetic energy from the earth's orbital movement, in the same > >>> way that tides on earth are causing the moons orbit to change. > >>> > >>> We can see that happening if we look very closely. > >>> > >>> https://www.hummingbirdpc.com.au/as-it-slowly-drifts-away-from-earth-the-m oon-is-changing-the-length-of-our-days-and-our-tides/ > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>> Dark Matter and Dark Energy are un-observable by definition, > >>>> this un-falsifiable, thus not science, while the otherwise > >>>> premier theory has been falsified. > >>> > >>> People have been looking for Dark Matter particles for decades now. > >>> They seem to have a different definition from yours. > >>> > >>> Dark energy was proposed as an explanation for the expansion of the > >>> universe, as observed by Hubble. It has been argued that Hubble > >>> misinterpreted what he saw, but few accept that argument. > >>> > >>>> "... as would require being theoretical _physicists_." > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> I don't even care what I say: only what's said. > >>> > >>> So you aren't all that careful about what you say. > >> > >> Everybody knows that applying force over distance is work. > >> > >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work_(physics) > > > > That's not all that precisely formulated. If the applied force moves the > > object to which the force was applied in the direction in which the > > force was applied, then work was done. > > > > A planet in orbit is in motion, but the movement is at right-angles to > > the force applied by gravity, so that force isn't doing any work. > > > >> The idea that "curved space-time in relativity theory" > >> does that for free is fallacious. > >> > >> Then, quantum mechanics also has no usual "quantum gravity". > > > > It hasn't got it yet. It took quite a while for us to realise that > > electric charge is quantised, because the quanta of charge are pretty > > small. We may need much more fine-grained instruments before we can see > > any sign of quantisation in gravitational effects > > > >> Newton: pull (gravitic) > >> Fatio/LeSage: push (gravific) > >> Einstein: follow (Newton's) > >> Finlayson: fall (Fatio/LeSage's) > >> > >> To be bending space-time all around, or the usual idea > >> of the "rubber sheet" analogy of gravity, and that > >> gravity's cause is "down", or as per Einstein, > >> "straight down", has that that's giving an > >> explanation to a non-explanation. If it curves > >> space-time then it must involve what curves space-time, > >> which otherwise would be doing work for free. > > > > You don't have a very clear idea of what might constitute work. > > > >> Then, how it can be that quantum gravity gets defined, > >> that gravity is the gravific and furthermore is as of > >> an overall balance and resolving the potentials of > >> the total field instead of anywhere locally being > >> a constant violation of the energy budget and > >> the most usual principles of conservation of energy > >> and least action, it's a fall gravity explained by and > >> explaining the nuclear force. > > > > You don't seem to have any idea how you might calculate an energy budget. > > > >> This way this unification of sorts also helps explain > >> both the (strong) nuclear force and gravity, together. > > > > You may think so. > > > >> Another example of the constant violation of > >> the energy budget is electron orbitals with > >> regards to otherwise classical orbits would > >> always be decaying. > > > > Why? Tidal forces are steadily moving the moon away from the earth, not > > towards it. > > > > The nucleus of an atom doesn't accommodate tidal movement so there's no > > reason why an electron orbital would decay. Because the energies > > involved are all quantised the electrons can't lose small amounts of > > energy - they can only move into higher orbits (or get captured by the > > nucleus in an inverse beta decay). > > > >> I very much care what I say, for that > >> what I say is so. > > > > You can't even define work accurately. > > > >> The academic authority is one hopes > >> hard-earned and hard-learned, more > >> than merely a convenience of assignation > >> of blame and direction of guidance. > > > > But you don't seem to have had an adequate acedemic education. > > > >> I only care what the words say, > >> and science cares about _all_ the data. > > > > And you clearly don't. > > > > Actually the measurement of the quantity of an electron > isn't exactly charge by itself so much as a charge/mass ratio. Millikan doesn't agree with you. > Gravity according to the oldest law is always doing work, > whenever it can. > > I have a mathematics degree. I got a 1520/1600 on the > SAT and 1500/1600 on the GRE and 170/180 on the LSAT, > back when those were top scores, so, theoretically > I'm at least _ready_ for higher education. > > I even found somebody who's made a greater account > of continuity and infinity in mathematics for > Foundations. It's me, though, .... So you learned the lessons, did some excercises, perhaps, and in the end you didn't understand a thing, Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-03-09 15:24 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <oh6cne035t8T1TL0nZ2dnZfqnPVj4p2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #669583 |
On 03/09/2026 01:49 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote: > Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 03/09/2026 05:59 AM, Bill Sloman wrote: >>> On 9/03/2026 2:04 pm, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>> On 03/08/2026 06:52 PM, Bill Sloman wrote: >>>>> On 9/03/2026 2:29 am, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>> On 03/08/2026 07:44 AM, Bill Sloman wrote: >>>>>>> On 8/03/2026 2:19 pm, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>> On 03/07/2026 04:33 PM, Bill Sloman wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 8/03/2026 1:59 am, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 03/06/2026 10:12 PM, Bill Sloman wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 7/03/2026 2:47 am, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 03/06/2026 05:36 AM, Bill Sloman wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/03/2026 7:37 pm, Thomas Heger wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Dienstag000003, 03.03.2026 um 13:40 schrieb Bill Sloman: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/03/2026 8:06 pm, Thomas Heger wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Sonntag000001, 01.03.2026 um 11:03 schrieb Bill Sloman: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/03/2026 8:26 pm, Thomas Heger wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Samstag000028, 28.02.2026 um 14:17 schrieb Bill Sloman: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 28/02/2026 8:03 pm, Thomas Heger wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Donnerstag000026, 26.02.2026 um 15:05 schrieb Ross >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Finlayson: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 02/26/2026 02:21 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 25/02/2026 9:46 pm, J. J. Lodder wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 25/02/2026 4:02 am, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 02/24/2026 03:40 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 02/23/2026 12:49 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>> >>> <snip> >>> >>>>>> The Dark Matter / Dark Energy their posited existence is since >>>>>> otherwise the usual premier theories are violated. >>>>>> >>>>>> Now, these theories already have gravity always doing >>>>>> work for free, which is a constant violation of >>>>>> conservation of energy, the energy budget of the universe. >>>>> >>>>> Gravity applies a force. That isn't doing work. The earth orbits the sun >>>>> without doing much work at all. The consequent tidal forces inside the >>>>> sun sap kinetic energy from the earth's orbital movement, in the same >>>>> way that tides on earth are causing the moons orbit to change. >>>>> >>>>> We can see that happening if we look very closely. >>>>> >>>>> https://www.hummingbirdpc.com.au/as-it-slowly-drifts-away-from-earth-the-m > oon-is-changing-the-length-of-our-days-and-our-tides/ >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Dark Matter and Dark Energy are un-observable by definition, >>>>>> this un-falsifiable, thus not science, while the otherwise >>>>>> premier theory has been falsified. >>>>> >>>>> People have been looking for Dark Matter particles for decades now. >>>>> They seem to have a different definition from yours. >>>>> >>>>> Dark energy was proposed as an explanation for the expansion of the >>>>> universe, as observed by Hubble. It has been argued that Hubble >>>>> misinterpreted what he saw, but few accept that argument. >>>>> >>>>>> "... as would require being theoretical _physicists_." >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I don't even care what I say: only what's said. >>>>> >>>>> So you aren't all that careful about what you say. >>>> >>>> Everybody knows that applying force over distance is work. >>>> >>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work_(physics) >>> >>> That's not all that precisely formulated. If the applied force moves the >>> object to which the force was applied in the direction in which the >>> force was applied, then work was done. >>> >>> A planet in orbit is in motion, but the movement is at right-angles to >>> the force applied by gravity, so that force isn't doing any work. >>> >>>> The idea that "curved space-time in relativity theory" >>>> does that for free is fallacious. >>>> >>>> Then, quantum mechanics also has no usual "quantum gravity". >>> >>> It hasn't got it yet. It took quite a while for us to realise that >>> electric charge is quantised, because the quanta of charge are pretty >>> small. We may need much more fine-grained instruments before we can see >>> any sign of quantisation in gravitational effects >>> >>>> Newton: pull (gravitic) >>>> Fatio/LeSage: push (gravific) >>>> Einstein: follow (Newton's) >>>> Finlayson: fall (Fatio/LeSage's) >>>> >>>> To be bending space-time all around, or the usual idea >>>> of the "rubber sheet" analogy of gravity, and that >>>> gravity's cause is "down", or as per Einstein, >>>> "straight down", has that that's giving an >>>> explanation to a non-explanation. If it curves >>>> space-time then it must involve what curves space-time, >>>> which otherwise would be doing work for free. >>> >>> You don't have a very clear idea of what might constitute work. >>> >>>> Then, how it can be that quantum gravity gets defined, >>>> that gravity is the gravific and furthermore is as of >>>> an overall balance and resolving the potentials of >>>> the total field instead of anywhere locally being >>>> a constant violation of the energy budget and >>>> the most usual principles of conservation of energy >>>> and least action, it's a fall gravity explained by and >>>> explaining the nuclear force. >>> >>> You don't seem to have any idea how you might calculate an energy budget. >>> >>>> This way this unification of sorts also helps explain >>>> both the (strong) nuclear force and gravity, together. >>> >>> You may think so. >>> >>>> Another example of the constant violation of >>>> the energy budget is electron orbitals with >>>> regards to otherwise classical orbits would >>>> always be decaying. >>> >>> Why? Tidal forces are steadily moving the moon away from the earth, not >>> towards it. >>> >>> The nucleus of an atom doesn't accommodate tidal movement so there's no >>> reason why an electron orbital would decay. Because the energies >>> involved are all quantised the electrons can't lose small amounts of >>> energy - they can only move into higher orbits (or get captured by the >>> nucleus in an inverse beta decay). >>> >>>> I very much care what I say, for that >>>> what I say is so. >>> >>> You can't even define work accurately. >>> >>>> The academic authority is one hopes >>>> hard-earned and hard-learned, more >>>> than merely a convenience of assignation >>>> of blame and direction of guidance. >>> >>> But you don't seem to have had an adequate acedemic education. >>> >>>> I only care what the words say, >>>> and science cares about _all_ the data. >>> >>> And you clearly don't. >>> >> >> Actually the measurement of the quantity of an electron >> isn't exactly charge by itself so much as a charge/mass ratio. > > Millikan doesn't agree with you. > >> Gravity according to the oldest law is always doing work, >> whenever it can. >> >> I have a mathematics degree. I got a 1520/1600 on the >> SAT and 1500/1600 on the GRE and 170/180 on the LSAT, >> back when those were top scores, so, theoretically >> I'm at least _ready_ for higher education. >> >> I even found somebody who's made a greater account >> of continuity and infinity in mathematics for >> Foundations. It's me, though, .... > > So you learned the lessons, did some excercises, perhaps, > and in the end you didn't understand a thing, > > Jan > Millikan was a studious and able technician who ran with what he had. He's not Thomson or Rutherford, .... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._J._Thomson "In 1897, [ Thomson ] showed that cathode rays were composed of previously unknown negatively charged particles (now called electrons), which he calculated must have bodies much smaller than atoms and a very large charge-to-mass ratio." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernest_Rutherford https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Rutherford_(mathematician) "William Rutherford (1798–1871) was an English mathematician famous for his calculation of 208 digits of the mathematical constant π in 1841. Only the first 152 calculated digits were later found to be correct; but that broke the record of the time, ...." "[Ernest Rutherford] has been described as "the father of nuclear physics" and "the greatest experimentalist since Michael Faraday."" I think Thomson bears more than a passing resemblance to Planck. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Planck Sort of like Einstein and Carl Neumann. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Neumann Feynman was famous for his calculation, ..., about whether his records ever broke. Electrical current is not "a fine mist of charged oil droplets in the fields of gravity and electromagnetism". These days besides the usual model with a fixed and finite charge to mass ratio, and what makes "Higgs" theory, there are quite altogether various accounts of where the ratio is infinite, and another where it vacillates. "Little Higgs" and "higgsinos" is not Higgs theory, and neither is "charginos". "Super-symmetry: not dead, again." Everybody who sat physics/chemistry class through Millikan and for what's given as electron orbital theory and later about Lienard-Wiechert and the account of the sum of, "potentials", the usual account, has often it was never introduced these other ideas and their theoretical and experimental backing, for example that there are other derivations than Lienard-Wiechert, with a usual account of "test particles" and "electron holes". O.W. Richardson has a great account of at least three ways to look at the particle conceit besides laying out the entire standard narrative in "The Electron Theory of Matter". O.W. Richardson: just another "Nobel prize winner". Also he gives three different constants 'c'. He even has more than one where Wolfgang Pauli and Max Born don't even get included. Of course, Faraday is really pretty great, and "Faraday Rotation" is up again almost as much as "supplementary variables". Copenhagen: grasping at straws. I don't have much for "understanding" and "compromise" when there are "knowledge/wisdom" and "science/decision".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-03-10 15:37 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <10oo778$3van2$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #669584 |
On 10/03/2026 9:24 am, Ross Finlayson wrote: > On 03/09/2026 01:49 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote: >> Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> On 03/09/2026 05:59 AM, Bill Sloman wrote: >>>> On 9/03/2026 2:04 pm, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>> On 03/08/2026 06:52 PM, Bill Sloman wrote: >>>>>> On 9/03/2026 2:29 am, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>> On 03/08/2026 07:44 AM, Bill Sloman wrote: >>>>>>>> On 8/03/2026 2:19 pm, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 03/07/2026 04:33 PM, Bill Sloman wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 8/03/2026 1:59 am, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 03/06/2026 10:12 PM, Bill Sloman wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/03/2026 2:47 am, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 03/06/2026 05:36 AM, Bill Sloman wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/03/2026 7:37 pm, Thomas Heger wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Dienstag000003, 03.03.2026 um 13:40 schrieb Bill Sloman: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/03/2026 8:06 pm, Thomas Heger wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Sonntag000001, 01.03.2026 um 11:03 schrieb Bill Sloman: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/03/2026 8:26 pm, Thomas Heger wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Samstag000028, 28.02.2026 um 14:17 schrieb Bill >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sloman: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 28/02/2026 8:03 pm, Thomas Heger wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Donnerstag000026, 26.02.2026 um 15:05 schrieb Ross >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Finlayson: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 02/26/2026 02:21 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 25/02/2026 9:46 pm, J. J. Lodder wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 25/02/2026 4:02 am, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 02/24/2026 03:40 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 02/23/2026 12:49 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> <snip> >>>> >>>>>>> The Dark Matter / Dark Energy their posited existence is since >>>>>>> otherwise the usual premier theories are violated. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Now, these theories already have gravity always doing >>>>>>> work for free, which is a constant violation of >>>>>>> conservation of energy, the energy budget of the universe. >>>>>> >>>>>> Gravity applies a force. That isn't doing work. The earth orbits >>>>>> the sun >>>>>> without doing much work at all. The consequent tidal forces inside >>>>>> the >>>>>> sun sap kinetic energy from the earth's orbital movement, in the same >>>>>> way that tides on earth are causing the moons orbit to change. >>>>>> >>>>>> We can see that happening if we look very closely. >>>>>> >>>>>> https://www.hummingbirdpc.com.au/as-it-slowly-drifts-away-from-earth-the-m >> oon-is-changing-the-length-of-our-days-and-our-tides/ >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> Dark Matter and Dark Energy are un-observable by definition, >>>>>>> this un-falsifiable, thus not science, while the otherwise >>>>>>> premier theory has been falsified. >>>>>> >>>>>> People have been looking for Dark Matter particles for decades now. >>>>>> They seem to have a different definition from yours. >>>>>> >>>>>> Dark energy was proposed as an explanation for the expansion of the >>>>>> universe, as observed by Hubble. It has been argued that Hubble >>>>>> misinterpreted what he saw, but few accept that argument. >>>>>> >>>>>>> "... as would require being theoretical _physicists_." >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I don't even care what I say: only what's said. >>>>>> >>>>>> So you aren't all that careful about what you say. >>>>> >>>>> Everybody knows that applying force over distance is work. >>>>> >>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work_(physics) >>>> >>>> That's not all that precisely formulated. If the applied force moves >>>> the >>>> object to which the force was applied in the direction in which the >>>> force was applied, then work was done. >>>> >>>> A planet in orbit is in motion, but the movement is at right-angles to >>>> the force applied by gravity, so that force isn't doing any work. >>>> >>>>> The idea that "curved space-time in relativity theory" >>>>> does that for free is fallacious. >>>>> >>>>> Then, quantum mechanics also has no usual "quantum gravity". >>>> >>>> It hasn't got it yet. It took quite a while for us to realise that >>>> electric charge is quantised, because the quanta of charge are pretty >>>> small. We may need much more fine-grained instruments before we can see >>>> any sign of quantisation in gravitational effects >>>> >>>>> Newton: pull (gravitic) >>>>> Fatio/LeSage: push (gravific) >>>>> Einstein: follow (Newton's) >>>>> Finlayson: fall (Fatio/LeSage's) >>>>> >>>>> To be bending space-time all around, or the usual idea >>>>> of the "rubber sheet" analogy of gravity, and that >>>>> gravity's cause is "down", or as per Einstein, >>>>> "straight down", has that that's giving an >>>>> explanation to a non-explanation. If it curves >>>>> space-time then it must involve what curves space-time, >>>>> which otherwise would be doing work for free. >>>> >>>> You don't have a very clear idea of what might constitute work. >>>> >>>>> Then, how it can be that quantum gravity gets defined, >>>>> that gravity is the gravific and furthermore is as of >>>>> an overall balance and resolving the potentials of >>>>> the total field instead of anywhere locally being >>>>> a constant violation of the energy budget and >>>>> the most usual principles of conservation of energy >>>>> and least action, it's a fall gravity explained by and >>>>> explaining the nuclear force. >>>> >>>> You don't seem to have any idea how you might calculate an energy >>>> budget. >>>> >>>>> This way this unification of sorts also helps explain >>>>> both the (strong) nuclear force and gravity, together. >>>> >>>> You may think so. >>>> >>>>> Another example of the constant violation of >>>>> the energy budget is electron orbitals with >>>>> regards to otherwise classical orbits would >>>>> always be decaying. >>>> >>>> Why? Tidal forces are steadily moving the moon away from the earth, not >>>> towards it. >>>> >>>> The nucleus of an atom doesn't accommodate tidal movement so there's no >>>> reason why an electron orbital would decay. Because the energies >>>> involved are all quantised the electrons can't lose small amounts of >>>> energy - they can only move into higher orbits (or get captured by the >>>> nucleus in an inverse beta decay). >>>> >>>>> I very much care what I say, for that >>>>> what I say is so. >>>> >>>> You can't even define work accurately. >>>> >>>>> The academic authority is one hopes >>>>> hard-earned and hard-learned, more >>>>> than merely a convenience of assignation >>>>> of blame and direction of guidance. >>>> >>>> But you don't seem to have had an adequate acedemic education. >>>> >>>>> I only care what the words say, >>>>> and science cares about _all_ the data. >>>> >>>> And you clearly don't. >>> >>> Actually the measurement of the quantity of an electron >>> isn't exactly charge by itself so much as a charge/mass ratio. >> >> Millikan doesn't agree with you. >> >>> Gravity according to the oldest law is always doing work, >>> whenever it can. >>> >>> I have a mathematics degree. I got a 1520/1600 on the >>> SAT and 1500/1600 on the GRE and 170/180 on the LSAT, >>> back when those were top scores, so, theoretically >>> I'm at least _ready_ for higher education. >>> >>> I even found somebody who's made a greater account >>> of continuity and infinity in mathematics for >>> Foundations. It's me, though, .... >> >> So you learned the lessons, did some excercises, perhaps, >> and in the end you didn't understand a thing, > Millikan was a studious and able technician > who ran with what he had. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Millikan He got the 1923 Nobel Prize in Physics for the work. > He's not Thomson or Rutherford, .... True, but not far behind. > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._J._Thomson > > "In 1897, [ Thomson ] showed that cathode rays > were composed of previously unknown negatively > charged particles (now called electrons), which he > calculated must have bodies much smaller than atoms > and a very large charge-to-mass ratio." > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernest_Rutherford > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Rutherford_(mathematician) > > "William Rutherford (1798–1871) was an English mathematician > famous for his calculation of 208 digits of the mathematical constant > π in 1841. Only the first 152 calculated digits were later found to be > correct; but that broke the record of the time, ...." > > > "[Ernest Rutherford] has been described as "the father of nuclear > physics" and "the greatest experimentalist since Michael Faraday."" > > I think Thomson bears more than a passing resemblance to Planck. > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Planck > > Sort of like Einstein and Carl Neumann. > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Neumann > > Feynman was famous for his calculation, ..., > about whether his records ever broke. > > Electrical current is not "a fine mist of charged oil > droplets in the fields of gravity and electromagnetism". But it can be carried by charged oil droplets, and the oil droplets were small enough that the difference between one electron and two electrons of charge was perceptible and measurable. That's what experimental physicists exist to exploit. > These days besides the usual model with a fixed and finite > charge to mass ratio, and what makes "Higgs" theory, there > are quite altogether various accounts of where the ratio is > infinite, and another where it vacillates. "Little Higgs" and > "higgsinos" is not Higgs theory, and neither is "charginos". > > "Super-symmetry: not dead, again." But not in the least useful. > Everybody who sat physics/chemistry class through Millikan and > for what's given as electron orbital theory and later about > Lienard-Wiechert and the account of the sum of, "potentials", > the usual account, has often it was never introduced these > other ideas and their theoretical and experimental backing, > for example that there are other derivations than Lienard-Wiechert, > with a usual account of "test particles" and "electron holes". I was certainly taught about Millikan in my elementary physics courses. Lienard-Wiechert didn't feature. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Li%C3%A9nard%E2%80%93Wiechert_potential > O.W. Richardson has a great account of at least three ways to > look at the particle conceit besides laying out the entire standard > narrative in "The Electron Theory of Matter". O.W. Richardson: > just another "Nobel prize winner". Also he gives three different > constants 'c'. > > He even has more than one where Wolfgang Pauli and Max Born > don't even get included. Richardson looked at the thermal emission of electrons from heated cathodes. Schottky added in the effect of negative bias in increasing the emission. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Schottky Wolfgang Pauli and Max Born wouldn't have missed that. > Of course, Faraday is really pretty great, and "Faraday Rotation" > is up again almost as much as "supplementary variables". > > Copenhagen: grasping at straws. The Copenhagen interpretation may be intellectually lazy, but it evaded a lot of pointless rationalisation. > I don't have much for "understanding" and "compromise" > when there are "knowledge/wisdom" and "science/decision". Why would you? All four skills seem to be out of your reach. -- Bill Sloman, Sydney
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-03-09 22:07 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <IridncZ76txmOzL0nZ2dnZfqnPednZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #669588 |
On 03/09/2026 09:37 PM, Bill Sloman wrote: > On 10/03/2026 9:24 am, Ross Finlayson wrote: >> On 03/09/2026 01:49 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote: >>> Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On 03/09/2026 05:59 AM, Bill Sloman wrote: >>>>> On 9/03/2026 2:04 pm, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>> On 03/08/2026 06:52 PM, Bill Sloman wrote: >>>>>>> On 9/03/2026 2:29 am, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>> On 03/08/2026 07:44 AM, Bill Sloman wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 8/03/2026 2:19 pm, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 03/07/2026 04:33 PM, Bill Sloman wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 8/03/2026 1:59 am, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 03/06/2026 10:12 PM, Bill Sloman wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/03/2026 2:47 am, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 03/06/2026 05:36 AM, Bill Sloman wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/03/2026 7:37 pm, Thomas Heger wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Dienstag000003, 03.03.2026 um 13:40 schrieb Bill Sloman: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/03/2026 8:06 pm, Thomas Heger wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Sonntag000001, 01.03.2026 um 11:03 schrieb Bill >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sloman: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/03/2026 8:26 pm, Thomas Heger wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Samstag000028, 28.02.2026 um 14:17 schrieb Bill >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sloman: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 28/02/2026 8:03 pm, Thomas Heger wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Donnerstag000026, 26.02.2026 um 15:05 schrieb Ross >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Finlayson: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 02/26/2026 02:21 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 25/02/2026 9:46 pm, J. J. Lodder wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 25/02/2026 4:02 am, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 02/24/2026 03:40 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 02/23/2026 12:49 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> <snip> >>>>> >>>>>>>> The Dark Matter / Dark Energy their posited existence is since >>>>>>>> otherwise the usual premier theories are violated. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Now, these theories already have gravity always doing >>>>>>>> work for free, which is a constant violation of >>>>>>>> conservation of energy, the energy budget of the universe. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Gravity applies a force. That isn't doing work. The earth orbits >>>>>>> the sun >>>>>>> without doing much work at all. The consequent tidal forces >>>>>>> inside the >>>>>>> sun sap kinetic energy from the earth's orbital movement, in the >>>>>>> same >>>>>>> way that tides on earth are causing the moons orbit to change. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> We can see that happening if we look very closely. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> https://www.hummingbirdpc.com.au/as-it-slowly-drifts-away-from-earth-the-m >>>>>>> >>> oon-is-changing-the-length-of-our-days-and-our-tides/ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Dark Matter and Dark Energy are un-observable by definition, >>>>>>>> this un-falsifiable, thus not science, while the otherwise >>>>>>>> premier theory has been falsified. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> People have been looking for Dark Matter particles for decades now. >>>>>>> They seem to have a different definition from yours. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Dark energy was proposed as an explanation for the expansion of the >>>>>>> universe, as observed by Hubble. It has been argued that Hubble >>>>>>> misinterpreted what he saw, but few accept that argument. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> "... as would require being theoretical _physicists_." >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I don't even care what I say: only what's said. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So you aren't all that careful about what you say. >>>>>> >>>>>> Everybody knows that applying force over distance is work. >>>>>> >>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work_(physics) >>>>> >>>>> That's not all that precisely formulated. If the applied force >>>>> moves the >>>>> object to which the force was applied in the direction in which the >>>>> force was applied, then work was done. >>>>> >>>>> A planet in orbit is in motion, but the movement is at right-angles to >>>>> the force applied by gravity, so that force isn't doing any work. >>>>> >>>>>> The idea that "curved space-time in relativity theory" >>>>>> does that for free is fallacious. >>>>>> >>>>>> Then, quantum mechanics also has no usual "quantum gravity". >>>>> >>>>> It hasn't got it yet. It took quite a while for us to realise that >>>>> electric charge is quantised, because the quanta of charge are pretty >>>>> small. We may need much more fine-grained instruments before we can >>>>> see >>>>> any sign of quantisation in gravitational effects >>>>> >>>>>> Newton: pull (gravitic) >>>>>> Fatio/LeSage: push (gravific) >>>>>> Einstein: follow (Newton's) >>>>>> Finlayson: fall (Fatio/LeSage's) >>>>>> >>>>>> To be bending space-time all around, or the usual idea >>>>>> of the "rubber sheet" analogy of gravity, and that >>>>>> gravity's cause is "down", or as per Einstein, >>>>>> "straight down", has that that's giving an >>>>>> explanation to a non-explanation. If it curves >>>>>> space-time then it must involve what curves space-time, >>>>>> which otherwise would be doing work for free. >>>>> >>>>> You don't have a very clear idea of what might constitute work. >>>>> >>>>>> Then, how it can be that quantum gravity gets defined, >>>>>> that gravity is the gravific and furthermore is as of >>>>>> an overall balance and resolving the potentials of >>>>>> the total field instead of anywhere locally being >>>>>> a constant violation of the energy budget and >>>>>> the most usual principles of conservation of energy >>>>>> and least action, it's a fall gravity explained by and >>>>>> explaining the nuclear force. >>>>> >>>>> You don't seem to have any idea how you might calculate an energy >>>>> budget. >>>>> >>>>>> This way this unification of sorts also helps explain >>>>>> both the (strong) nuclear force and gravity, together. >>>>> >>>>> You may think so. >>>>> >>>>>> Another example of the constant violation of >>>>>> the energy budget is electron orbitals with >>>>>> regards to otherwise classical orbits would >>>>>> always be decaying. >>>>> >>>>> Why? Tidal forces are steadily moving the moon away from the earth, >>>>> not >>>>> towards it. >>>>> >>>>> The nucleus of an atom doesn't accommodate tidal movement so >>>>> there's no >>>>> reason why an electron orbital would decay. Because the energies >>>>> involved are all quantised the electrons can't lose small amounts of >>>>> energy - they can only move into higher orbits (or get captured by the >>>>> nucleus in an inverse beta decay). >>>>> >>>>>> I very much care what I say, for that >>>>>> what I say is so. >>>>> >>>>> You can't even define work accurately. >>>>> >>>>>> The academic authority is one hopes >>>>>> hard-earned and hard-learned, more >>>>>> than merely a convenience of assignation >>>>>> of blame and direction of guidance. >>>>> >>>>> But you don't seem to have had an adequate acedemic education. >>>>> >>>>>> I only care what the words say, >>>>>> and science cares about _all_ the data. >>>>> >>>>> And you clearly don't. >>>> >>>> Actually the measurement of the quantity of an electron >>>> isn't exactly charge by itself so much as a charge/mass ratio. >>> >>> Millikan doesn't agree with you. >>> >>>> Gravity according to the oldest law is always doing work, >>>> whenever it can. >>>> >>>> I have a mathematics degree. I got a 1520/1600 on the >>>> SAT and 1500/1600 on the GRE and 170/180 on the LSAT, >>>> back when those were top scores, so, theoretically >>>> I'm at least _ready_ for higher education. >>>> >>>> I even found somebody who's made a greater account >>>> of continuity and infinity in mathematics for >>>> Foundations. It's me, though, .... >>> >>> So you learned the lessons, did some excercises, perhaps, >>> and in the end you didn't understand a thing, > >> Millikan was a studious and able technician >> who ran with what he had. > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Millikan > > He got the 1923 Nobel Prize in Physics for the work. > >> He's not Thomson or Rutherford, .... > > True, but not far behind. > >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._J._Thomson >> >> "In 1897, [ Thomson ] showed that cathode rays >> were composed of previously unknown negatively >> charged particles (now called electrons), which he >> calculated must have bodies much smaller than atoms >> and a very large charge-to-mass ratio." >> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernest_Rutherford >> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Rutherford_(mathematician) >> >> "William Rutherford (1798–1871) was an English mathematician >> famous for his calculation of 208 digits of the mathematical constant >> π in 1841. Only the first 152 calculated digits were later found to be >> correct; but that broke the record of the time, ...." >> >> >> "[Ernest Rutherford] has been described as "the father of nuclear >> physics" and "the greatest experimentalist since Michael Faraday."" >> >> I think Thomson bears more than a passing resemblance to Planck. >> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Planck >> >> Sort of like Einstein and Carl Neumann. >> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Neumann >> >> Feynman was famous for his calculation, ..., >> about whether his records ever broke. >> >> Electrical current is not "a fine mist of charged oil >> droplets in the fields of gravity and electromagnetism". > > But it can be carried by charged oil droplets, and the oil droplets were > small enough that the difference between one electron and two electrons > of charge was perceptible and measurable. That's what experimental > physicists exist to exploit. > >> These days besides the usual model with a fixed and finite >> charge to mass ratio, and what makes "Higgs" theory, there >> are quite altogether various accounts of where the ratio is >> infinite, and another where it vacillates. "Little Higgs" and >> "higgsinos" is not Higgs theory, and neither is "charginos". >> >> "Super-symmetry: not dead, again." > > But not in the least useful. > >> Everybody who sat physics/chemistry class through Millikan and >> for what's given as electron orbital theory and later about >> Lienard-Wiechert and the account of the sum of, "potentials", >> the usual account, has often it was never introduced these >> other ideas and their theoretical and experimental backing, >> for example that there are other derivations than Lienard-Wiechert, >> with a usual account of "test particles" and "electron holes". > > I was certainly taught about Millikan in my elementary physics courses. > Lienard-Wiechert didn't feature. > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Li%C3%A9nard%E2%80%93Wiechert_potential > >> O.W. Richardson has a great account of at least three ways to >> look at the particle conceit besides laying out the entire standard >> narrative in "The Electron Theory of Matter". O.W. Richardson: >> just another "Nobel prize winner". Also he gives three different >> constants 'c'. >> >> He even has more than one where Wolfgang Pauli and Max Born >> don't even get included. > > Richardson looked at the thermal emission of electrons from heated > cathodes. Schottky added in the effect of negative bias in increasing > the emission. > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Schottky > > Wolfgang Pauli and Max Born wouldn't have missed that. > >> Of course, Faraday is really pretty great, and "Faraday Rotation" >> is up again almost as much as "supplementary variables". >> Copenhagen: grasping at straws. > > The Copenhagen interpretation may be intellectually lazy, but it evaded > a lot of pointless rationalisation. > >> I don't have much for "understanding" and "compromise" >> when there are "knowledge/wisdom" and "science/decision". > > Why would you? All four skills seem to be out of your reach. > I'll leave it to an electrical engineer to explain the significance of Lienard-Wiechert, "test particles", and "electron holes", to you. (With regards to what "electrical current" is and the usual derivation of the formalism, and about statistical mechanics into entropy and information. I.e., it's an integral. These, or those, days, current was electron-holes not electrons themselves, and electrons a usual spatter or beam live more in cloud chambers than conductors.) One interesting thing about current across an area is that if the vector field is a magic square instead of unit vector field, it still looks uniform any way you slice it. Without getting all into it, .... This helps explain how things can result about the non-adiabatic w.r.t. the usual adiabatic. Lots of fields use very similar formalisms, while also there are very many derivations for applications and studies. Inverse square comes to mind, about the quadratic, the triangle inequality of course, the Laplacian, thus the Lorentzian, second-order partials. Then Gauss-Bonnet or Gauss-Ostrogradsky can see adding a model of magic squares and making for that Ampere's law and Faraday's law don't kill each other. For examples, .... Neither of which much care about Ohm or Kirchhoff law, both those about passive and active RLC circuits being derivable from one or the other of Ampere and Faraday, given either of E x B or D x H. Super-symmetry for the convolutive setting shows right up in for example antenna function.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-03-10 16:58 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <10oobv4$aoh$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #669589 |
On 10/03/2026 4:07 pm, Ross Finlayson wrote: > On 03/09/2026 09:37 PM, Bill Sloman wrote: >> On 10/03/2026 9:24 am, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>> On 03/09/2026 01:49 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote: >>>> Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 03/09/2026 05:59 AM, Bill Sloman wrote: >>>>>> On 9/03/2026 2:04 pm, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>> On 03/08/2026 06:52 PM, Bill Sloman wrote: >>>>>>>> On 9/03/2026 2:29 am, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 03/08/2026 07:44 AM, Bill Sloman wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 8/03/2026 2:19 pm, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 03/07/2026 04:33 PM, Bill Sloman wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/03/2026 1:59 am, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 03/06/2026 10:12 PM, Bill Sloman wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/03/2026 2:47 am, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 03/06/2026 05:36 AM, Bill Sloman wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/03/2026 7:37 pm, Thomas Heger wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Dienstag000003, 03.03.2026 um 13:40 schrieb Bill >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sloman: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/03/2026 8:06 pm, Thomas Heger wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Sonntag000001, 01.03.2026 um 11:03 schrieb Bill >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sloman: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/03/2026 8:26 pm, Thomas Heger wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Samstag000028, 28.02.2026 um 14:17 schrieb Bill >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sloman: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 28/02/2026 8:03 pm, Thomas Heger wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Donnerstag000026, 26.02.2026 um 15:05 schrieb >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ross >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Finlayson: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 02/26/2026 02:21 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 25/02/2026 9:46 pm, J. J. Lodder wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 25/02/2026 4:02 am, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 02/24/2026 03:40 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 02/23/2026 12:49 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> <snip> >>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The Dark Matter / Dark Energy their posited existence is since >>>>>>>>> otherwise the usual premier theories are violated. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Now, these theories already have gravity always doing >>>>>>>>> work for free, which is a constant violation of >>>>>>>>> conservation of energy, the energy budget of the universe. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Gravity applies a force. That isn't doing work. The earth orbits >>>>>>>> the sun >>>>>>>> without doing much work at all. The consequent tidal forces >>>>>>>> inside the >>>>>>>> sun sap kinetic energy from the earth's orbital movement, in the >>>>>>>> same >>>>>>>> way that tides on earth are causing the moons orbit to change. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> We can see that happening if we look very closely. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> https://www.hummingbirdpc.com.au/as-it-slowly-drifts-away-from-earth-the-m >>>>>>>> >>>> oon-is-changing-the-length-of-our-days-and-our-tides/ >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Dark Matter and Dark Energy are un-observable by definition, >>>>>>>>> this un-falsifiable, thus not science, while the otherwise >>>>>>>>> premier theory has been falsified. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> People have been looking for Dark Matter particles for decades now. >>>>>>>> They seem to have a different definition from yours. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Dark energy was proposed as an explanation for the expansion of the >>>>>>>> universe, as observed by Hubble. It has been argued that Hubble >>>>>>>> misinterpreted what he saw, but few accept that argument. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> "... as would require being theoretical _physicists_." >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I don't even care what I say: only what's said. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> So you aren't all that careful about what you say. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Everybody knows that applying force over distance is work. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work_(physics) >>>>>> >>>>>> That's not all that precisely formulated. If the applied force >>>>>> moves the >>>>>> object to which the force was applied in the direction in which the >>>>>> force was applied, then work was done. >>>>>> >>>>>> A planet in orbit is in motion, but the movement is at >>>>>> right-angles to >>>>>> the force applied by gravity, so that force isn't doing any work. >>>>>> >>>>>>> The idea that "curved space-time in relativity theory" >>>>>>> does that for free is fallacious. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Then, quantum mechanics also has no usual "quantum gravity". >>>>>> >>>>>> It hasn't got it yet. It took quite a while for us to realise that >>>>>> electric charge is quantised, because the quanta of charge are pretty >>>>>> small. We may need much more fine-grained instruments before we can >>>>>> see >>>>>> any sign of quantisation in gravitational effects >>>>>> >>>>>>> Newton: pull (gravitic) >>>>>>> Fatio/LeSage: push (gravific) >>>>>>> Einstein: follow (Newton's) >>>>>>> Finlayson: fall (Fatio/LeSage's) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> To be bending space-time all around, or the usual idea >>>>>>> of the "rubber sheet" analogy of gravity, and that >>>>>>> gravity's cause is "down", or as per Einstein, >>>>>>> "straight down", has that that's giving an >>>>>>> explanation to a non-explanation. If it curves >>>>>>> space-time then it must involve what curves space-time, >>>>>>> which otherwise would be doing work for free. >>>>>> >>>>>> You don't have a very clear idea of what might constitute work. >>>>>> >>>>>>> Then, how it can be that quantum gravity gets defined, >>>>>>> that gravity is the gravific and furthermore is as of >>>>>>> an overall balance and resolving the potentials of >>>>>>> the total field instead of anywhere locally being >>>>>>> a constant violation of the energy budget and >>>>>>> the most usual principles of conservation of energy >>>>>>> and least action, it's a fall gravity explained by and >>>>>>> explaining the nuclear force. >>>>>> >>>>>> You don't seem to have any idea how you might calculate an energy >>>>>> budget. >>>>>> >>>>>>> This way this unification of sorts also helps explain >>>>>>> both the (strong) nuclear force and gravity, together. >>>>>> >>>>>> You may think so. >>>>>> >>>>>>> Another example of the constant violation of >>>>>>> the energy budget is electron orbitals with >>>>>>> regards to otherwise classical orbits would >>>>>>> always be decaying. >>>>>> >>>>>> Why? Tidal forces are steadily moving the moon away from the earth, >>>>>> not >>>>>> towards it. >>>>>> >>>>>> The nucleus of an atom doesn't accommodate tidal movement so >>>>>> there's no >>>>>> reason why an electron orbital would decay. Because the energies >>>>>> involved are all quantised the electrons can't lose small amounts of >>>>>> energy - they can only move into higher orbits (or get captured by >>>>>> the >>>>>> nucleus in an inverse beta decay). >>>>>> >>>>>>> I very much care what I say, for that >>>>>>> what I say is so. >>>>>> >>>>>> You can't even define work accurately. >>>>>> >>>>>>> The academic authority is one hopes >>>>>>> hard-earned and hard-learned, more >>>>>>> than merely a convenience of assignation >>>>>>> of blame and direction of guidance. >>>>>> >>>>>> But you don't seem to have had an adequate acedemic education. >>>>>> >>>>>>> I only care what the words say, >>>>>>> and science cares about _all_ the data. >>>>>> >>>>>> And you clearly don't. >>>>> >>>>> Actually the measurement of the quantity of an electron >>>>> isn't exactly charge by itself so much as a charge/mass ratio. >>>> >>>> Millikan doesn't agree with you. >>>> >>>>> Gravity according to the oldest law is always doing work, >>>>> whenever it can. >>>>> >>>>> I have a mathematics degree. I got a 1520/1600 on the >>>>> SAT and 1500/1600 on the GRE and 170/180 on the LSAT, >>>>> back when those were top scores, so, theoretically >>>>> I'm at least _ready_ for higher education. >>>>> >>>>> I even found somebody who's made a greater account >>>>> of continuity and infinity in mathematics for >>>>> Foundations. It's me, though, .... >>>> >>>> So you learned the lessons, did some excercises, perhaps, >>>> and in the end you didn't understand a thing, >> >>> Millikan was a studious and able technician >>> who ran with what he had. >> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Millikan >> >> He got the 1923 Nobel Prize in Physics for the work. >> >>> He's not Thomson or Rutherford, .... >> >> True, but not far behind. >> >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._J._Thomson >>> >>> "In 1897, [ Thomson ] showed that cathode rays >>> were composed of previously unknown negatively >>> charged particles (now called electrons), which he >>> calculated must have bodies much smaller than atoms >>> and a very large charge-to-mass ratio." >>> >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernest_Rutherford >>> >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Rutherford_(mathematician) >>> >>> "William Rutherford (1798–1871) was an English mathematician >>> famous for his calculation of 208 digits of the mathematical constant >>> π in 1841. Only the first 152 calculated digits were later found to be >>> correct; but that broke the record of the time, ...." >>> >>> >>> "[Ernest Rutherford] has been described as "the father of nuclear >>> physics" and "the greatest experimentalist since Michael Faraday."" >>> >>> I think Thomson bears more than a passing resemblance to Planck. >>> >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Planck >>> >>> Sort of like Einstein and Carl Neumann. >>> >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Neumann >>> >>> Feynman was famous for his calculation, ..., >>> about whether his records ever broke. >>> >>> Electrical current is not "a fine mist of charged oil >>> droplets in the fields of gravity and electromagnetism". >> >> But it can be carried by charged oil droplets, and the oil droplets were >> small enough that the difference between one electron and two electrons >> of charge was perceptible and measurable. That's what experimental >> physicists exist to exploit. >> >>> These days besides the usual model with a fixed and finite >>> charge to mass ratio, and what makes "Higgs" theory, there >>> are quite altogether various accounts of where the ratio is >>> infinite, and another where it vacillates. "Little Higgs" and >>> "higgsinos" is not Higgs theory, and neither is "charginos". >>> >>> "Super-symmetry: not dead, again." >> >> But not in the least useful. >> >>> Everybody who sat physics/chemistry class through Millikan and >>> for what's given as electron orbital theory and later about >>> Lienard-Wiechert and the account of the sum of, "potentials", >>> the usual account, has often it was never introduced these >>> other ideas and their theoretical and experimental backing, >>> for example that there are other derivations than Lienard-Wiechert, >>> with a usual account of "test particles" and "electron holes". >> >> I was certainly taught about Millikan in my elementary physics courses. >> Lienard-Wiechert didn't feature. >> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Li%C3%A9nard%E2%80%93Wiechert_potential >> >>> O.W. Richardson has a great account of at least three ways to >>> look at the particle conceit besides laying out the entire standard >>> narrative in "The Electron Theory of Matter". O.W. Richardson: >>> just another "Nobel prize winner". Also he gives three different >>> constants 'c'. >>> >>> He even has more than one where Wolfgang Pauli and Max Born >>> don't even get included. >> >> Richardson looked at the thermal emission of electrons from heated >> cathodes. Schottky added in the effect of negative bias in increasing >> the emission. >> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Schottky >> >> Wolfgang Pauli and Max Born wouldn't have missed that. >> >>> Of course, Faraday is really pretty great, and "Faraday Rotation" >>> is up again almost as much as "supplementary variables". >>> Copenhagen: grasping at straws. >> >> The Copenhagen interpretation may be intellectually lazy, but it evaded >> a lot of pointless rationalisation. >> >>> I don't have much for "understanding" and "compromise" >>> when there are "knowledge/wisdom" and "science/decision". >> >> Why would you? All four skills seem to be out of your reach. >> > > I'll leave it to an electrical engineer > to explain the significance of Lienard-Wiechert, > "test particles", and "electron holes", to you. Since I am an electronic engineer, I do happen to know that you don't have to know about Lienard-Wiechert to work on stuff like electron microscopes - as I did for nine years - though electron microscopes do rely on a steady stream of electrons as test particles. > (With regards to what "electrical current" is > and the usual derivation of the formalism, > and about statistical mechanics into entropy and information. > I.e., it's an integral. These, or those, days, current > was electron-holes not electrons themselves, and electrons > a usual spatter or beam live more in cloud chambers > than conductors.) The average speed on an electron in a conductor is walking pace. This doesn't stop electromagnetic waves from propagating at about 70% of the speed of light across printed circuit boards, and if you want to get a half-nanosecond wide pulse of electrons out of a stroboscopic electron microscope you can end up exploiting this. U.K. patent 2139411 "Moving Plate" (also US patent 4614872) on an improved blanking system for charged particle beams, easily adjusted to match a wide range of particle velocities; assigned to Cambridge Instruments in 1983. <snipped more pretentious nonsense> -- Bill Sloman, Sydney
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-03-09 23:26 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <nv2dnfp3mdgUJDL0nZ2dnZfqnPqdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #669590 |
On 03/09/2026 10:58 PM, Bill Sloman wrote: > On 10/03/2026 4:07 pm, Ross Finlayson wrote: >> On 03/09/2026 09:37 PM, Bill Sloman wrote: >>> On 10/03/2026 9:24 am, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>> On 03/09/2026 01:49 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote: >>>>> Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 03/09/2026 05:59 AM, Bill Sloman wrote: >>>>>>> On 9/03/2026 2:04 pm, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>> On 03/08/2026 06:52 PM, Bill Sloman wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 9/03/2026 2:29 am, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 03/08/2026 07:44 AM, Bill Sloman wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 8/03/2026 2:19 pm, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 03/07/2026 04:33 PM, Bill Sloman wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/03/2026 1:59 am, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 03/06/2026 10:12 PM, Bill Sloman wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/03/2026 2:47 am, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 03/06/2026 05:36 AM, Bill Sloman wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/03/2026 7:37 pm, Thomas Heger wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Dienstag000003, 03.03.2026 um 13:40 schrieb Bill >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sloman: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/03/2026 8:06 pm, Thomas Heger wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Sonntag000001, 01.03.2026 um 11:03 schrieb Bill >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sloman: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/03/2026 8:26 pm, Thomas Heger wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Samstag000028, 28.02.2026 um 14:17 schrieb Bill >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sloman: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 28/02/2026 8:03 pm, Thomas Heger wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Donnerstag000026, 26.02.2026 um 15:05 schrieb >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ross >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Finlayson: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 02/26/2026 02:21 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 25/02/2026 9:46 pm, J. J. Lodder wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 25/02/2026 4:02 am, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 02/24/2026 03:40 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 02/23/2026 12:49 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ross Finlayson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> <snip> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The Dark Matter / Dark Energy their posited existence is since >>>>>>>>>> otherwise the usual premier theories are violated. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Now, these theories already have gravity always doing >>>>>>>>>> work for free, which is a constant violation of >>>>>>>>>> conservation of energy, the energy budget of the universe. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Gravity applies a force. That isn't doing work. The earth orbits >>>>>>>>> the sun >>>>>>>>> without doing much work at all. The consequent tidal forces >>>>>>>>> inside the >>>>>>>>> sun sap kinetic energy from the earth's orbital movement, in the >>>>>>>>> same >>>>>>>>> way that tides on earth are causing the moons orbit to change. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> We can see that happening if we look very closely. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> https://www.hummingbirdpc.com.au/as-it-slowly-drifts-away-from-earth-the-m >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>> oon-is-changing-the-length-of-our-days-and-our-tides/ >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Dark Matter and Dark Energy are un-observable by definition, >>>>>>>>>> this un-falsifiable, thus not science, while the otherwise >>>>>>>>>> premier theory has been falsified. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> People have been looking for Dark Matter particles for decades >>>>>>>>> now. >>>>>>>>> They seem to have a different definition from yours. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Dark energy was proposed as an explanation for the expansion of >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> universe, as observed by Hubble. It has been argued that Hubble >>>>>>>>> misinterpreted what he saw, but few accept that argument. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> "... as would require being theoretical _physicists_." >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I don't even care what I say: only what's said. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> So you aren't all that careful about what you say. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Everybody knows that applying force over distance is work. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work_(physics) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> That's not all that precisely formulated. If the applied force >>>>>>> moves the >>>>>>> object to which the force was applied in the direction in which the >>>>>>> force was applied, then work was done. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> A planet in orbit is in motion, but the movement is at >>>>>>> right-angles to >>>>>>> the force applied by gravity, so that force isn't doing any work. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The idea that "curved space-time in relativity theory" >>>>>>>> does that for free is fallacious. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Then, quantum mechanics also has no usual "quantum gravity". >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It hasn't got it yet. It took quite a while for us to realise that >>>>>>> electric charge is quantised, because the quanta of charge are >>>>>>> pretty >>>>>>> small. We may need much more fine-grained instruments before we can >>>>>>> see >>>>>>> any sign of quantisation in gravitational effects >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Newton: pull (gravitic) >>>>>>>> Fatio/LeSage: push (gravific) >>>>>>>> Einstein: follow (Newton's) >>>>>>>> Finlayson: fall (Fatio/LeSage's) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> To be bending space-time all around, or the usual idea >>>>>>>> of the "rubber sheet" analogy of gravity, and that >>>>>>>> gravity's cause is "down", or as per Einstein, >>>>>>>> "straight down", has that that's giving an >>>>>>>> explanation to a non-explanation. If it curves >>>>>>>> space-time then it must involve what curves space-time, >>>>>>>> which otherwise would be doing work for free. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You don't have a very clear idea of what might constitute work. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Then, how it can be that quantum gravity gets defined, >>>>>>>> that gravity is the gravific and furthermore is as of >>>>>>>> an overall balance and resolving the potentials of >>>>>>>> the total field instead of anywhere locally being >>>>>>>> a constant violation of the energy budget and >>>>>>>> the most usual principles of conservation of energy >>>>>>>> and least action, it's a fall gravity explained by and >>>>>>>> explaining the nuclear force. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You don't seem to have any idea how you might calculate an energy >>>>>>> budget. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This way this unification of sorts also helps explain >>>>>>>> both the (strong) nuclear force and gravity, together. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You may think so. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Another example of the constant violation of >>>>>>>> the energy budget is electron orbitals with >>>>>>>> regards to otherwise classical orbits would >>>>>>>> always be decaying. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Why? Tidal forces are steadily moving the moon away from the earth, >>>>>>> not >>>>>>> towards it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The nucleus of an atom doesn't accommodate tidal movement so >>>>>>> there's no >>>>>>> reason why an electron orbital would decay. Because the energies >>>>>>> involved are all quantised the electrons can't lose small amounts of >>>>>>> energy - they can only move into higher orbits (or get captured >>>>>>> by the >>>>>>> nucleus in an inverse beta decay). >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I very much care what I say, for that >>>>>>>> what I say is so. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You can't even define work accurately. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The academic authority is one hopes >>>>>>>> hard-earned and hard-learned, more >>>>>>>> than merely a convenience of assignation >>>>>>>> of blame and direction of guidance. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> But you don't seem to have had an adequate acedemic education. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I only care what the words say, >>>>>>>> and science cares about _all_ the data. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> And you clearly don't. >>>>>> >>>>>> Actually the measurement of the quantity of an electron >>>>>> isn't exactly charge by itself so much as a charge/mass ratio. >>>>> >>>>> Millikan doesn't agree with you. >>>>> >>>>>> Gravity according to the oldest law is always doing work, >>>>>> whenever it can. >>>>>> >>>>>> I have a mathematics degree. I got a 1520/1600 on the >>>>>> SAT and 1500/1600 on the GRE and 170/180 on the LSAT, >>>>>> back when those were top scores, so, theoretically >>>>>> I'm at least _ready_ for higher education. >>>>>> >>>>>> I even found somebody who's made a greater account >>>>>> of continuity and infinity in mathematics for >>>>>> Foundations. It's me, though, .... >>>>> >>>>> So you learned the lessons, did some excercises, perhaps, >>>>> and in the end you didn't understand a thing, >>> >>>> Millikan was a studious and able technician >>>> who ran with what he had. >>> >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Millikan >>> >>> He got the 1923 Nobel Prize in Physics for the work. >>> >>>> He's not Thomson or Rutherford, .... >>> >>> True, but not far behind. >>> >>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._J._Thomson >>>> >>>> "In 1897, [ Thomson ] showed that cathode rays >>>> were composed of previously unknown negatively >>>> charged particles (now called electrons), which he >>>> calculated must have bodies much smaller than atoms >>>> and a very large charge-to-mass ratio." >>>> >>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernest_Rutherford >>>> >>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Rutherford_(mathematician) >>>> >>>> "William Rutherford (1798–1871) was an English mathematician >>>> famous for his calculation of 208 digits of the mathematical constant >>>> π in 1841. Only the first 152 calculated digits were later found to be >>>> correct; but that broke the record of the time, ...." >>>> >>>> >>>> "[Ernest Rutherford] has been described as "the father of nuclear >>>> physics" and "the greatest experimentalist since Michael Faraday."" >>>> >>>> I think Thomson bears more than a passing resemblance to Planck. >>>> >>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Planck >>>> >>>> Sort of like Einstein and Carl Neumann. >>>> >>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Neumann >>>> >>>> Feynman was famous for his calculation, ..., >>>> about whether his records ever broke. >>>> >>>> Electrical current is not "a fine mist of charged oil >>>> droplets in the fields of gravity and electromagnetism". >>> >>> But it can be carried by charged oil droplets, and the oil droplets were >>> small enough that the difference between one electron and two electrons >>> of charge was perceptible and measurable. That's what experimental >>> physicists exist to exploit. >>> >>>> These days besides the usual model with a fixed and finite >>>> charge to mass ratio, and what makes "Higgs" theory, there >>>> are quite altogether various accounts of where the ratio is >>>> infinite, and another where it vacillates. "Little Higgs" and >>>> "higgsinos" is not Higgs theory, and neither is "charginos". >>>> >>>> "Super-symmetry: not dead, again." >>> >>> But not in the least useful. >>> >>>> Everybody who sat physics/chemistry class through Millikan and >>>> for what's given as electron orbital theory and later about >>>> Lienard-Wiechert and the account of the sum of, "potentials", >>>> the usual account, has often it was never introduced these >>>> other ideas and their theoretical and experimental backing, >>>> for example that there are other derivations than Lienard-Wiechert, >>>> with a usual account of "test particles" and "electron holes". >>> >>> I was certainly taught about Millikan in my elementary physics courses. >>> Lienard-Wiechert didn't feature. >>> >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Li%C3%A9nard%E2%80%93Wiechert_potential >>> >>>> O.W. Richardson has a great account of at least three ways to >>>> look at the particle conceit besides laying out the entire standard >>>> narrative in "The Electron Theory of Matter". O.W. Richardson: >>>> just another "Nobel prize winner". Also he gives three different >>>> constants 'c'. >>>> >>>> He even has more than one where Wolfgang Pauli and Max Born >>>> don't even get included. >>> >>> Richardson looked at the thermal emission of electrons from heated >>> cathodes. Schottky added in the effect of negative bias in increasing >>> the emission. >>> >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Schottky >>> >>> Wolfgang Pauli and Max Born wouldn't have missed that. >>> >>>> Of course, Faraday is really pretty great, and "Faraday Rotation" >>>> is up again almost as much as "supplementary variables". >>>> Copenhagen: grasping at straws. >>> >>> The Copenhagen interpretation may be intellectually lazy, but it evaded >>> a lot of pointless rationalisation. >>> >>>> I don't have much for "understanding" and "compromise" >>>> when there are "knowledge/wisdom" and "science/decision". >>> >>> Why would you? All four skills seem to be out of your reach. >>> >> >> I'll leave it to an electrical engineer >> to explain the significance of Lienard-Wiechert, >> "test particles", and "electron holes", to you. > > Since I am an electronic engineer, I do happen to know that you don't > have to know about Lienard-Wiechert to work on stuff like electron > microscopes - as I did for nine years - though electron microscopes do > rely on a steady stream of electrons as test particles. > >> (With regards to what "electrical current" is >> and the usual derivation of the formalism, >> and about statistical mechanics into entropy and information. >> I.e., it's an integral. These, or those, days, current >> was electron-holes not electrons themselves, and electrons >> a usual spatter or beam live more in cloud chambers >> than conductors.) > > The average speed on an electron in a conductor is walking pace. This > doesn't stop electromagnetic waves from propagating at about 70% of the > speed of light across printed circuit boards, and if you want to get a > half-nanosecond wide pulse of electrons out of a stroboscopic electron > microscope you can end up exploiting this. > > U.K. patent 2139411 "Moving Plate" (also US patent 4614872) on an > improved blanking system for charged particle beams, easily adjusted to > match a wide range of particle velocities; assigned to Cambridge > Instruments in 1983. > > <snipped more pretentious nonsense> > That's not nonsense, that's the mathematics of the mathematical physics of the electricity (and some of the magnetism), "the theory". Pretty much all that, and that's all is necessary for the usual formalisms. Of course there's Coulomb's law, .... Then also I added some more, about the magic squares. Don't shoot the messenger. How about the measurement of the electron being charge/mass ratio? How about the charge/mass ratio its character being variable under considerations? You kind of left the point without being agreeable, so, ..., I figure then you updated your mind about it. Or, you know, didn't. I suppose I'd be interested if your moving plate was piezoelectric, or as with regards to the solid-state. If so you might be interested in something like G.A. Maugin's "Nonlinear Electromechanical Effects and their Applications".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 45 of 50 — ← Prev page 1 … 43 44 [45] 46 47 … 50 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web