Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #591990 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2022-09-18 22:39 +0000 |
| Last post | 2022-12-07 23:06 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 290 — 33 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
The error of relativistic physicists explained Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2022-09-18 22:39 +0000
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-09-18 17:14 -0700
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-09-18 17:37 -0700
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-09-18 17:55 -0700
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-09-18 23:17 -0700
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-09-18 19:32 -0700
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-09-18 20:12 -0700
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2022-09-19 09:35 +0000
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2022-09-19 09:44 +0000
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2022-09-19 09:53 +0000
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2022-09-20 13:59 +0000
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-09-20 08:23 -0700
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-09-19 12:10 +0300
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2022-09-19 11:29 +0000
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-09-19 19:42 -0700
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-09-20 13:18 +0300
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-09-20 15:15 -0400
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Justus Basurto <trso@subsrbob.au> - 2022-09-20 19:34 +0000
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Justus Basurto <trso@subsrbob.au> - 2022-09-20 19:47 +0000
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Justus Basurto <trso@subsrbob.au> - 2022-09-20 19:54 +0000
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2022-09-20 21:45 +0000
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Justus Basurto <trso@subsrbob.au> - 2022-09-20 21:56 +0000
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-09-20 15:47 -0700
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-09-20 19:51 -0400
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2022-09-21 10:59 +0000
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-09-21 06:32 -0700
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2022-09-21 23:20 +0000
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-09-21 16:53 -0700
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-09-21 19:29 -0400
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-09-21 23:14 -0700
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Jeiker Carboni <iree@eoaijoje.br> - 2022-09-22 14:26 +0000
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Jeiker Carboni <iree@eoaijoje.br> - 2022-09-22 15:27 +0000
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-09-20 22:42 -0700
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-09-20 22:51 -0700
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-09-23 07:03 +0200
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2022-09-23 11:50 +0000
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-09-23 07:22 -0700
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-09-23 12:55 -0700
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-09-24 08:21 +0200
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-09-23 23:59 -0700
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-09-24 09:24 +0200
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-09-24 11:24 -0700
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-09-25 08:44 +0200
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained "Paul B. Andersen" <pba@paulba.no> - 2022-09-25 14:56 +0200
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2022-09-26 20:32 +0000
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-11-01 07:40 +0100
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-11-01 00:23 -0700
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-11-05 08:22 +0100
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-11-05 11:08 -0700
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-11-06 08:41 +0100
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-11-06 10:35 -0800
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-11-07 14:06 -0500
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-11-08 07:19 +0100
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-11-08 00:09 -0800
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-11-08 10:27 -0500
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-11-08 08:54 -0800
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-11-09 09:10 -0500
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-11-16 08:15 +0100
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Athel Cornish-Bowden <acornish@imm.cnrs.fr> - 2022-11-16 09:14 +0100
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-11-16 12:59 -0500
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-11-16 10:37 -0800
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Jules Scotti <ujsl@ocjssuis.os> - 2022-11-16 18:40 +0000
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-11-18 08:33 +0100
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-11-20 20:56 -0500
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-11-23 08:55 +0100
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Everly Segreti <ille@leysgsei.re> - 2022-11-08 18:52 +0000
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-11-09 09:24 -0500
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Everly Segreti <ille@leysgsei.re> - 2022-11-09 16:17 +0000
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-11-09 12:34 -0500
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Everly Segreti <ille@leysgsei.re> - 2022-11-09 19:30 +0000
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-11-09 12:37 -0800
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Everly Segreti <ille@leysgsei.re> - 2022-11-10 06:21 +0000
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-11-09 23:19 -0800
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Everly Segreti <ille@leysgsei.re> - 2022-11-10 07:59 +0000
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Urbano Napoleoni <uiiu@ilaonpno.ai> - 2022-12-07 23:10 +0000
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-12-07 15:28 -0800
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Everly Segreti <ille@leysgsei.re> - 2022-11-10 06:47 +0000
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-11-10 08:34 +0100
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-11-12 01:32 -0500
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Stefano Martelli <ftor@asanlnit.ir> - 2022-11-12 09:06 +0000
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Athel Cornish-Bowden <acornish@imm.cnrs.fr> - 2022-11-12 11:27 +0100
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-11-13 09:58 +0100
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-11-13 11:17 -0500
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-11-14 08:11 +0100
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-11-14 11:31 -0500
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-11-15 09:20 +0100
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-11-16 08:06 +0100
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Athel Cornish-Bowden <acornish@imm.cnrs.fr> - 2022-11-16 09:12 +0100
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-11-16 12:56 -0500
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-11-17 09:03 +0100
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Athel Cornish-Bowden <acornish@imm.cnrs.fr> - 2022-11-17 10:22 +0100
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-11-18 08:03 +0100
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-11-20 21:01 -0500
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Blake Armanni <blea@arrkare.in> - 2022-11-21 10:41 +0000
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-11-21 13:37 -0500
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Blake Armanni <blea@arrkare.in> - 2022-11-21 20:33 +0000
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-11-23 13:21 -0500
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Forest Vaccaro <asoa@ctrsreca.vr> - 2022-11-23 19:10 +0000
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-11-23 09:14 +0100
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-11-17 13:10 +0100
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Athel Cornish-Bowden <acornish@imm.cnrs.fr> - 2022-11-17 15:07 +0100
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-11-18 08:10 +0100
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-11-09 07:57 +0100
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-11-08 23:15 -0800
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-11-09 12:03 -0500
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-11-10 08:21 +0100
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-11-12 01:55 -0500
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-11-20 09:19 +0100
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-11-20 21:18 -0500
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-11-20 22:12 -0800
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-11-21 08:52 +0100
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-11-22 08:37 +0100
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-11-23 18:31 -0500
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-11-23 22:32 -0800
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-11-24 08:49 +0100
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-09-25 13:08 -0700
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-09-26 08:46 +0200
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-09-26 09:25 -0700
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-09-26 15:42 -0700
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-09-27 08:33 +0200
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-09-27 13:01 -0700
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Nikki Baldini <inai@dilainii.ib> - 2022-09-27 23:17 +0000
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-09-28 08:15 +0200
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-09-28 00:04 -0700
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Nikki Baldini <inai@dilainii.ib> - 2022-09-28 16:10 +0000
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-09-28 11:55 -0700
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Nikki Baldini <inai@dilainii.ib> - 2022-09-28 19:23 +0000
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-09-28 12:46 -0700
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Nikki Baldini <inai@dilainii.ib> - 2022-09-28 21:28 +0000
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Nikki Baldini <inai@dilainii.ib> - 2022-09-28 21:34 +0000
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-09-28 16:17 -0500
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Urbano Napoleoni <uiiu@ilaonpno.ai> - 2022-12-07 23:25 +0000
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-12-07 15:29 -0800
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-09-28 11:53 -0700
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-09-29 08:48 +0200
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-09-29 10:54 -0700
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-09-30 09:12 +0200
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-10-01 16:05 -0700
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-10-02 09:58 +0200
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-10-02 03:34 -0700
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-10-03 08:55 +0200
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-10-03 01:02 -0700
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-10-06 08:21 +0200
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-10-06 00:57 -0700
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-10-06 20:04 +0200
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-10-06 12:00 -0700
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-10-07 07:21 +0200
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-10-07 14:14 -0700
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Urbano Stilo <nuor@riotlaur.iu> - 2022-10-08 03:37 +0000
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-10-08 08:19 +0200
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-10-08 03:37 -0400
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-10-08 14:29 -0700
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Michel Marconi <iinc@lcrallem.or> - 2022-10-08 22:21 +0000
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-10-10 08:37 +0200
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-10-10 01:56 -0700
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-10-11 08:03 +0200
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-10-11 01:06 -0700
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-10-11 01:25 -0700
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-10-12 08:17 +0200
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-10-11 23:32 -0700
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-10-12 11:27 -0700
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-10-13 09:33 +0200
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-10-13 13:58 -0700
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Woodrow Adessi <reds@odirsodo.er> - 2022-10-13 21:03 +0000
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-10-14 08:49 +0200
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-10-14 01:11 -0700
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-10-15 09:24 +0200
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-10-15 03:05 -0700
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-10-16 09:30 +0200
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-10-16 13:02 -0700
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-10-16 13:19 -0700
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-10-17 08:18 +0200
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-10-17 02:48 -0700
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-10-18 08:56 +0200
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-10-19 14:51 -0700
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-10-20 21:14 +0200
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-10-20 13:27 -0700
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-10-21 09:03 +0200
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-10-21 02:05 -0700
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-10-22 10:36 +0200
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Oscar Alcheri <ohci@iessicsr.rn> - 2022-10-22 08:42 +0000
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-10-22 12:04 -0700
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Oscar Alcheri <ohci@iessicsr.rn> - 2022-10-22 19:47 +0000
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-10-22 19:54 -0700
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-10-22 23:00 -0700
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-10-23 09:13 +0200
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-10-23 02:45 -0700
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-10-25 07:49 +0200
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-10-24 23:53 -0700
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-10-25 09:26 +0200
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-10-25 12:32 -0700
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-10-28 09:16 +0200
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-10-28 20:51 -0700
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-10-30 08:25 +0100
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-10-30 13:51 -0700
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-10-31 09:40 +0100
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-10-31 11:26 +0200
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-10-31 17:42 -0700
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-11-01 07:59 +0100
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-11-01 00:35 -0700
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-11-02 09:04 +0100
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-11-02 11:39 +0200
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-11-04 08:18 +0100
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-11-04 12:12 +0200
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-11-04 10:49 -0700
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-11-05 08:35 +0100
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-11-05 11:10 -0700
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-11-06 08:51 +0100
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-11-06 10:47 -0800
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-11-08 07:35 +0100
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-11-08 00:07 -0800
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Everly Segreti <ille@leysgsei.re> - 2022-11-08 19:28 +0000
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-10-26 08:48 +0200
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-10-22 22:31 -0400
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-10-22 22:57 -0700
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-10-23 09:24 +0200
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Oscar Alcheri <ohci@iessicsr.rn> - 2022-10-23 07:46 +0000
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-10-23 02:48 -0700
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-10-23 02:51 -0700
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-10-25 08:05 +0200
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-10-25 19:48 -0400
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-10-27 08:51 +0200
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Chase Rossini <asoi@riisscss.ho> - 2022-10-28 10:49 +0000
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Urbano Stilo <nuor@riotlaur.iu> - 2022-10-08 04:01 +0000
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-10-08 14:02 +0200
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-10-09 08:30 +0200
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Michel Marconi <iinc@lcrallem.or> - 2022-10-09 12:02 +0000
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-10-09 22:29 +0200
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-10-07 02:05 -0400
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Urbano Stilo <nuor@riotlaur.iu> - 2022-10-08 03:57 +0000
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-10-08 08:47 +0200
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-10-08 03:43 -0400
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-10-09 08:36 +0200
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Michel Marconi <iinc@lcrallem.or> - 2022-10-09 12:14 +0000
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-10-10 08:23 +0200
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Mandy Stabile <alts@ilnnnbsl.ed> - 2022-10-10 15:40 +0000
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-10-11 08:08 +0200
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained "Paul B. Andersen" <pba@paulba.no> - 2022-10-02 14:37 +0200
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-10-02 14:27 -0700
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-10-02 14:38 -0700
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-10-03 09:21 +0200
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-10-03 01:08 -0700
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-10-03 11:59 -0400
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Douglass Nervetti <dlul@esivlen.an> - 2022-10-03 18:31 +0000
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Urbano Napoleoni <uiiu@ilaonpno.ai> - 2022-12-07 23:03 +0000
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-12-07 15:24 -0800
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-10-06 08:29 +0200
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-10-06 00:58 -0700
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-10-06 20:11 +0200
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-10-06 11:31 -0700
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-10-06 11:33 -0700
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-11-30 09:19 +0100
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Lee Barsetti <erre@battaete.tr> - 2022-11-30 16:12 +0000
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-11-30 20:15 -0800
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-12-01 10:46 +0100
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-12-01 12:40 -0800
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-12-01 13:15 -0800
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-12-02 08:22 +0100
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-12-02 03:17 -0800
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-12-05 08:51 +0100
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-12-05 03:03 -0800
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Dallas Basurto <aarr@maramr.sa> - 2022-12-05 18:34 +0000
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-12-06 09:08 +0100
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-12-06 13:01 -0600
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-12-07 09:12 +0100
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-12-07 12:31 -0600
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-12-08 08:06 +0100
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-12-08 10:17 -0600
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-12-09 07:54 +0100
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-12-09 10:56 -0600
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-12-10 07:53 +0100
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2022-12-10 06:53 -0800
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-12-10 10:06 -0600
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-12-11 07:48 +0100
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-12-14 08:29 +0100
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-12-14 06:06 -0600
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Fabio Brambilla <oaab@llbaboaa.am> - 2022-12-14 17:36 +0000
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-12-14 13:48 -0600
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-12-15 10:15 +0100
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-12-15 01:17 -0800
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-12-15 05:57 -0600
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-12-16 12:45 -0800
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-12-15 05:52 -0600
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-12-16 08:43 +0100
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2022-12-07 11:23 -0800
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-12-02 01:25 -0500
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Nikki Baldini <inai@dilainii.ib> - 2022-09-28 21:46 +0000
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Nikki Baldini <inai@dilainii.ib> - 2022-09-27 16:39 +0000
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-09-27 12:34 -0700
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Urbano Napoleoni <uiiu@ilaonpno.ai> - 2022-12-07 23:06 +0000
Page 14 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 … 12 13 [14] 15 Next page →
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-05 03:03 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <1d392efe-f687-491d-883f-f3eb8f0a415fn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #596831 |
On Sunday, December 4, 2022 at 11:51:20 PM UTC-8, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 02.12.2022 um 12:17 schrieb JanPB: > > On Thursday, December 1, 2022 at 11:22:12 PM UTC-8, Thomas Heger wrote: > >> Am 01.12.2022 um 21:40 schrieb JanPB: > >>> On Thursday, December 1, 2022 at 10:46:56 AM UTC+1, Thomas Heger wrote: > >>>> Am 01.12.2022 um 05:15 schrieb JanPB: > >>>>> On Wednesday, November 30, 2022 at 12:19:41 AM UTC-8, Thomas Heger wrote: > >>>>>> Am 06.10.2022 um 20:31 schrieb JanPB: > >>>>>>> On Thursday, October 6, 2022 at 11:11:49 AM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote: > >>>>>>>> Am 06.10.2022 um 09:58 schrieb JanPB: > >>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, October 5, 2022 at 11:29:46 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> If Einstein wanted to describe the baviour of a wave and the impact on > >>>>>>>>>> the points on the way, he needed to describe the wave with a coordinate > >>>>>>>>>> system related to the wave. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> But he didn't, as you have correctly mentioned. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Again, this is high school physics. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Here I do agree. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> I meant: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> you can used absolutely correct equations wrong, if you plug in the > >>>>>>>> wrong numbers. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> For instance you could use the size of your shoes as variable in an > >>>>>>>> equation for the field strength and it wouldn't work, because that would > >>>>>>>> be an unrelated quantity. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> You need to restrict yourself to relevant numbers, which describe > >>>>>>>> quantities, that could eventually have an impact on the phenomenon, > >>>>>>>> these equations shall describe. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> You insist on the coordinates and the direction of the wave in respect > >>>>>>>> to the observer as valid and important quantities, while I insist on the > >>>>>>>> relation of the point in respect to the emitter. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> But you failed to explain, why these coordinates could have an impact on > >>>>>>>> the wave or the point. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> It's simply a formula that describes the E and B values at any given > >>>>>>> point (x, y, z) and time t (as described by K in this case). > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> (x,y,z) is not a point, but the coordinates of a point in a coordinate > >>>>>> system called K. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> It is absolutely essential to distinguish between points and > >>>>>> coordinates, because both belong to different realms. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> A coordinate system is an arbitrary artefact, which nature itself > >>>>>> doesn't know about. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> If we want to model the behaviour of a wave at that point, we should > >>>>>> start with an appropriate coordinate system. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> System K is actually not involved, hence can be left away. > >>>>> > >>>>> The system K is involved. The plane wave in question is > >>>>> written in terms of K (and a bit later also in terms of the moving > >>>>> system). > >>>> A point is hit by a wave from some distant source. > >>>> > >>>> But this setting has only two relevant points: the emitter and the target. > >>>> > >>>> Where you place the observer is therefore irrelevant for the problem. > >>> > >>> The problem is to find out the relationship between the frequencies > >>> measured by two observers in relative motion. So what's important is > >>> the two inertial coordinate systems representing the two observers. > >>> Where exactly the observer is situated is not needed to know, correct. > >>> > >>>>>> A better system would be spherical coordinates, which have the emitter > >>>>>> in the center. > >>>>> > >>>>> The emitter is at infinity. > >>>> Infinity is not a location, hence nothing can be placed there. > A place far away is not infinitity! Yes, and even tiny objects are not point masses. > A place far away is a real place, but in some distance. It doesn't matter. It's enough that a faraway source can be approximated arbitrarily close by a plane wave. > We only know from the context, that Einstein wanted the source so far > away, that plane wave approximations are possible in vicinitity of the > center of the coordinate system. > > This means: the source is a real, but distant location and the wave > itself is spherical, but approximated by a plane wave. The only thing that matters after this assumption is that there is a plane wave. For the purposes of the calculation that follows, the plane is not spherical. But in the vicinity of the two observers the difference between the spherical wave and the plane wave is not measurable. > Now this would say, that real plane waves were not meant and also no > infinitly distant source. You are barking a nonexistent tree. > >>> There exist no point masses. You keep barking on the basic tree > >>> of all abstract thought (not only physics or mathematics): abstract > >>> models are useful even if they don't exist. In most cases (like this > >>> one) they are simply limiting cases of physical situations. This means > >>> they can be used to calculate whatever it is that you want to calculate > >>> using those abstract models. That's the basic principle behind the > >>> applicability of calculus to physics, for example. > Einstein was free to define his setting, while we are not, because we > are not Einstein. > > We can only take what he wrote. And that was not an abstract wave. He wrote the same thing every normal scientist would write: consider a plane wave which is by definition an arbitrarily accurate representation of the radiation from a faraway source. Just like in geometry one considers infinitely thin lines, and based on knowledge obtained this way one builds bridges, airplanes, etc. It's all also very consistent. > >> We are still discussing a minor aspect of one of Einstein's equations in > >> 'On the electrodynamics of moving bodies'. > >> > >> I hold the position, that waves have a source, that the source must be > >> real and cannot be placed at infinity. > > > > And I've just said that idealisations are valid scientific tools and the > > reason they work is that they approximate reality as close as we please > > (both in principle and in practice). > It is essential to take the setting of the author. It is not allowed to > alter anything, because we think, that would be better. 1. We are not altering anything, Einstein actually states what we are discussing here explicitly: "...very far away from the origin [...] let there be a source of electrodynamic waves which in a part of space containing the origin [...] may be represented to a sufficient degree of approximation by the equations [here follow the equations for a plane wave]". 2. Besides, this is not how science works. Nobody reads science papers as if it was some Holy Writ. What's important is the actual content, not the choice of words or the notation, etc. Those are not legal documents. > >>> We have only a wave (plane) and two inertial coordinate systems. > >>> That's all that's needed to calculate the Doppler effect. That calculation > >>> uses the plane wave abstraction because it yields the exact result > >>> representing the physical situation of a distant source which > >>> can be situated arbitrarily far. > >> > >> It was not the aim to calculate the Doppler effect. > > > > It was Einstein's aim in that section of the paper. > > This is actually true, because § 7 is about the Doppler effect. > > "§ 7. Theory of Doppler’s Principle and of Aberration" > > >> The question is, whether the equation is a valid description of the > >> phenomenon under consideration. > > > > The wave is needed to model the phenomenon called "frequency". > > Isn't that the other way round? > To calculate the Doppler effect one needs a wave. > >> This phenomenon consists of a point and a wave. That's all. > >> > >> Whether or not someone is watching was not a part of the setting. > > > > Nobody says anyone is watching. What we literally have is two > > coordinate systems. Their relevance rests on the fact that they > > would be used as a means of measuring the frequency by two > > observers in relative motion. > > A coordinate system needs something, against what it's position is measured. > > Usually I would take the observer and place that in the center of its > own coordinate system. Einstein does not go into the details of the derivation but if you do it, you'll see that both observers' positions at the instant they momentarily coincide can be arbitrary (the calculation is independent of the specific x, y, z, t values, in fact it relies on the fact that the event of the observers' momentary coincidence can be fixed arbitrarily). > In this case the observer and the coordinate system are identical, hence > we would not need an additional anchor for the coordinate system. No, just the inertial frames for K and k, the same ones as chosen near the beginning of the paper. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dallas Basurto <aarr@maramr.sa> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-05 18:34 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <tmldjs$k4h$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #596831 |
Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 02.12.2022 um 12:17 schrieb JanPB: >>>>> Infinity is not a location, hence nothing can be placed there. > > A place far away is not infinitity! > A place far away is a real place, but in some distance. > We only know from the context, that Einstein wanted the source so far > away, that plane wave approximations are possible in vicinitity of the > center of the coordinate system. let him pack his shit and move to america. These uneducated, unskilled dicks, wants make us believe they landed man on moon 1969. Endless Fail： World's Biggest Joke F-35 Has Another Disaster https://%62%69%74%63%68%75%74%65.com/%76%69%64%65%6f/bNJIRyMgKtpp
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-06 09:08 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <jv8bklFidloU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #596859 |
Am 05.12.2022 um 19:34 schrieb Dallas Basurto: > Thomas Heger wrote: >> Am 02.12.2022 um 12:17 schrieb JanPB: >>>>>> Infinity is not a location, hence nothing can be placed there. >> >> A place far away is not infinitity! >> A place far away is a real place, but in some distance. >> We only know from the context, that Einstein wanted the source so far >> away, that plane wave approximations are possible in vicinitity of the >> center of the coordinate system. > > let him pack his shit and move to america. These uneducated, unskilled > dicks, wants make us believe they landed man on moon 1969. > > Endless Fail： World's Biggest Joke F-35 Has Another Disaster > https://%62%69%74%63%68%75%74%65.com/%76%69%64%65%6f/bNJIRyMgKtpp > German military is apparently forced to buy these planes to replace 'Tornados'. I woukd say, that https://www.thomasnet.com/insights/what-went-wrong-with-the-f-35-fighter-jet/ "The most expensive fighter jet in history is also one of the least reliable. Earlier this year, the U.S. Air Force tacitly admitted that the F-35 fighter jet was a failure. A very expensive, time-consuming failure. The F-35 was supposed to be a low-cost, lightweight fighter jet. But with a cost of around $100 million per jet and project delays now stretching into double digits, the F-35 is one of the most high-profile failures in the history of military procurement. What happened, and what does the future hold for the F-35 fighter jet?" isn't really a recommendendation. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-06 13:01 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <jv9hscFo2ngU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #596889 |
On 12/6/2022 2:08 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 05.12.2022 um 19:34 schrieb Dallas Basurto: >> Thomas Heger wrote: >>> Am 02.12.2022 um 12:17 schrieb JanPB: >>>>>>> Infinity is not a location, hence nothing can be placed there. >>> >>> A place far away is not infinitity! >>> A place far away is a real place, but in some distance. >>> We only know from the context, that Einstein wanted the source so far >>> away, that plane wave approximations are possible in vicinitity of the >>> center of the coordinate system. >> >> let him pack his shit and move to america. These uneducated, unskilled >> dicks, wants make us believe they landed man on moon 1969. >> >> Endless Fail： World's Biggest Joke F-35 Has Another Disaster >> https://%62%69%74%63%68%75%74%65.com/%76%69%64%65%6f/bNJIRyMgKtpp >> > > German military is apparently forced to buy these planes to replace > 'Tornados'. > > I woukd say, that > > https://www.thomasnet.com/insights/what-went-wrong-with-the-f-35-fighter-jet/ > > "The most expensive fighter jet in history is also one of the least > reliable. > > Earlier this year, the U.S. Air Force tacitly admitted that the F-35 > fighter jet was a failure. A very expensive, time-consuming failure. > > The F-35 was supposed to be a low-cost, lightweight fighter jet. But > with a cost of around $100 million per jet and project delays now > stretching into double digits, the F-35 is one of the most high-profile > failures in the history of military procurement. What happened, and what > does the future hold for the F-35 fighter jet?" > > isn't really a recommendendation. The Lockheed Electra is a very good counterexample.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-07 09:12 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <jvb06cF9bqU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #596907 |
Am 06.12.2022 um 20:01 schrieb whodat: > On 12/6/2022 2:08 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: >> Am 05.12.2022 um 19:34 schrieb Dallas Basurto: >>> Thomas Heger wrote: >>>> Am 02.12.2022 um 12:17 schrieb JanPB: >>>>>>>> Infinity is not a location, hence nothing can be placed there. >>>> >>>> A place far away is not infinitity! >>>> A place far away is a real place, but in some distance. >>>> We only know from the context, that Einstein wanted the source so far >>>> away, that plane wave approximations are possible in vicinitity of the >>>> center of the coordinate system. >>> >>> let him pack his shit and move to america. These uneducated, unskilled >>> dicks, wants make us believe they landed man on moon 1969. >>> >>> Endless Fail： World's Biggest Joke F-35 Has Another Disaster >>> https://%62%69%74%63%68%75%74%65.com/%76%69%64%65%6f/bNJIRyMgKtpp >>> >> >> German military is apparently forced to buy these planes to replace >> 'Tornados'. >> >> I woukd say, that >> >> https://www.thomasnet.com/insights/what-went-wrong-with-the-f-35-fighter-jet/ >> >> >> "The most expensive fighter jet in history is also one of the least >> reliable. >> >> Earlier this year, the U.S. Air Force tacitly admitted that the F-35 >> fighter jet was a failure. A very expensive, time-consuming failure. >> >> The F-35 was supposed to be a low-cost, lightweight fighter jet. But >> with a cost of around $100 million per jet and project delays now >> stretching into double digits, the F-35 is one of the most >> high-profile failures in the history of military procurement. What >> happened, and what does the future hold for the F-35 fighter jet?" >> >> isn't really a recommendendation. > > The Lockheed Electra is a very good counterexample. > A better example was the 'Starfighter'. I knew actually two ladies personally, who had a father, who died in a 'Starfighter'. So, from time to time, the US military is able to dump their 'Starfighters' in Germany. I don't know the exact mechanism, of course, but would say, that it is not entirely beneficial (for Germany). TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-07 12:31 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <jvc4f9F5hltU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #596931 |
On 12/7/2022 2:12 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 06.12.2022 um 20:01 schrieb whodat: >> On 12/6/2022 2:08 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: >>> Am 05.12.2022 um 19:34 schrieb Dallas Basurto: >>>> Thomas Heger wrote: >>>>> Am 02.12.2022 um 12:17 schrieb JanPB: >>>>>>>>> Infinity is not a location, hence nothing can be placed there. >>>>> >>>>> A place far away is not infinitity! >>>>> A place far away is a real place, but in some distance. >>>>> We only know from the context, that Einstein wanted the source so far >>>>> away, that plane wave approximations are possible in vicinitity of the >>>>> center of the coordinate system. >>>> >>>> let him pack his shit and move to america. These uneducated, unskilled >>>> dicks, wants make us believe they landed man on moon 1969. >>>> >>>> Endless Fail： World's Biggest Joke F-35 Has Another Disaster >>>> https://%62%69%74%63%68%75%74%65.com/%76%69%64%65%6f/bNJIRyMgKtpp >>>> >>> >>> German military is apparently forced to buy these planes to replace >>> 'Tornados'. >>> >>> I woukd say, that >>> >>> https://www.thomasnet.com/insights/what-went-wrong-with-the-f-35-fighter-jet/ >>> >>> >>> "The most expensive fighter jet in history is also one of the least >>> reliable. >>> >>> Earlier this year, the U.S. Air Force tacitly admitted that the F-35 >>> fighter jet was a failure. A very expensive, time-consuming failure. >>> >>> The F-35 was supposed to be a low-cost, lightweight fighter jet. But >>> with a cost of around $100 million per jet and project delays now >>> stretching into double digits, the F-35 is one of the most >>> high-profile failures in the history of military procurement. What >>> happened, and what does the future hold for the F-35 fighter jet?" >>> >>> isn't really a recommendendation. >> >> The Lockheed Electra is a very good counterexample. >> > A better example was the 'Starfighter'. > > I knew actually two ladies personally, who had a father, who died in a > 'Starfighter'. > > So, from time to time, the US military is able to dump their > 'Starfighters' in Germany. > > I don't know the exact mechanism, of course, but would say, that it is > not entirely beneficial (for Germany). Lockheed was corrupt where the F-104 sales were concerned. Still, you purposely missed the point I made, that even severe flaws can (and sometimes are) corrected yielding a well functioning piece of technology. You prefer to substitute politics for the realities. I can't say I'm surprised. Do you feel any better for it? If you do, why?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-08 08:06 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <jvdgmmFc0ruU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #596952 |
Am 07.12.2022 um 19:31 schrieb whodat: >>>>> let him pack his shit and move to america. These uneducated, unskilled >>>>> dicks, wants make us believe they landed man on moon 1969. >>>>> >>>>> Endless Fail： World's Biggest Joke F-35 Has Another Disaster >>>>> https://%62%69%74%63%68%75%74%65.com/%76%69%64%65%6f/bNJIRyMgKtpp >>>>> >>>> >>>> German military is apparently forced to buy these planes to replace >>>> 'Tornados'. >>>> >>>> I woukd say, that >>>> >>>> https://www.thomasnet.com/insights/what-went-wrong-with-the-f-35-fighter-jet/ >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> "The most expensive fighter jet in history is also one of the least >>>> reliable. >>>> >>>> Earlier this year, the U.S. Air Force tacitly admitted that the F-35 >>>> fighter jet was a failure. A very expensive, time-consuming failure. >>>> >>>> The F-35 was supposed to be a low-cost, lightweight fighter jet. But >>>> with a cost of around $100 million per jet and project delays now >>>> stretching into double digits, the F-35 is one of the most >>>> high-profile failures in the history of military procurement. What >>>> happened, and what does the future hold for the F-35 fighter jet?" >>>> >>>> isn't really a recommendendation. >>> >>> The Lockheed Electra is a very good counterexample. >>> >> A better example was the 'Starfighter'. >> >> I knew actually two ladies personally, who had a father, who died in a >> 'Starfighter'. >> >> So, from time to time, the US military is able to dump their >> 'Starfighters' in Germany. >> >> I don't know the exact mechanism, of course, but would say, that it is >> not entirely beneficial (for Germany). > > Lockheed was corrupt where the F-104 sales were concerned. Still, you > purposely missed the point I made, that even severe flaws can (and > sometimes are) corrected yielding a well functioning piece of > technology. You prefer to substitute politics for the realities. I can't > say I'm surprised. Do you feel any better for it? If you do, why? > The F-104 'sales' were not caused by the qualities of the planes, but by political presssure upon the government of Germany in the 1960th. Germany would have been better off, if they had chosen a different fighter jet, but was not free to decide. That was apparently caused by the fact, that Germany was an occupied country and the former allies of WWII were still in control of German politics. Especially the former president of Bavaria Franz-Joseph Strauss was involved in what turned out to be a huge scandal. So far, so bad. But F 35 fighter jets are way more expensive and still are apperently forced upon the German government by means, that are not entirely based on quality of the planes and competition of the manufacturers. Iow: if the US is unhappy with this jet, then why should Germans be happy? Sure, possibly German engineers are able to solve the problems and make that plane better than it was in the US. I think, stealth technology is certainly interesting and German manufacturers could eventually learn a thing or two about that. But possibly that jet is not really what Germany needs. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-08 10:17 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <jveh1hFgh0aU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #596996 |
On 12/8/2022 1:06 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 07.12.2022 um 19:31 schrieb whodat: > >>>>>> let him pack his shit and move to america. These uneducated, >>>>>> unskilled >>>>>> dicks, wants make us believe they landed man on moon 1969. >>>>>> >>>>>> Endless Fail： World's Biggest Joke F-35 Has Another Disaster >>>>>> https://%62%69%74%63%68%75%74%65.com/%76%69%64%65%6f/bNJIRyMgKtpp >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> German military is apparently forced to buy these planes to replace >>>>> 'Tornados'. >>>>> >>>>> I woukd say, that >>>>> >>>>> https://www.thomasnet.com/insights/what-went-wrong-with-the-f-35-fighter-jet/ >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> "The most expensive fighter jet in history is also one of the least >>>>> reliable. >>>>> >>>>> Earlier this year, the U.S. Air Force tacitly admitted that the F-35 >>>>> fighter jet was a failure. A very expensive, time-consuming failure. >>>>> >>>>> The F-35 was supposed to be a low-cost, lightweight fighter jet. But >>>>> with a cost of around $100 million per jet and project delays now >>>>> stretching into double digits, the F-35 is one of the most >>>>> high-profile failures in the history of military procurement. What >>>>> happened, and what does the future hold for the F-35 fighter jet?" >>>>> >>>>> isn't really a recommendendation. >>>> >>>> The Lockheed Electra is a very good counterexample. >>>> >>> A better example was the 'Starfighter'. >>> >>> I knew actually two ladies personally, who had a father, who died in a >>> 'Starfighter'. >>> >>> So, from time to time, the US military is able to dump their >>> 'Starfighters' in Germany. >>> >>> I don't know the exact mechanism, of course, but would say, that it is >>> not entirely beneficial (for Germany). >> >> Lockheed was corrupt where the F-104 sales were concerned. Still, you >> purposely missed the point I made, that even severe flaws can (and >> sometimes are) corrected yielding a well functioning piece of >> technology. You prefer to substitute politics for the realities. I can't >> say I'm surprised. Do you feel any better for it? If you do, why? >> > > The F-104 'sales' were not caused by the qualities of the planes, but by > political presssure upon the government of Germany in the 1960th. > > Germany would have been better off, if they had chosen a different > fighter jet, but was not free to decide. > > That was apparently caused by the fact, that Germany was an occupied > country and the former allies of WWII were still in control of German > politics. Especially the former president of Bavaria Franz-Joseph > Strauss was involved in what turned out to be a huge scandal. > > So far, so bad. But F 35 fighter jets are way more expensive and still > are apperently forced upon the German government by means, that are not > entirely based on quality of the planes and competition of the > manufacturers. > > Iow: if the US is unhappy with this jet, then why should Germans be happy? > > Sure, possibly German engineers are able to solve the problems and make > that plane better than it was in the US. > > I think, stealth technology is certainly interesting and German > manufacturers could eventually learn a thing or two about that. > > But possibly that jet is not really what Germany needs. Still you play your political games here. You treat Germany as though it were a dependent of the USA when clearly it is not. Clean up your own house. Germany does not have to purchase any particular airplane. When Europe (Germany is still part of Europe, no?) wanted to manufacture its own trucks they arranged to do so. If a small country (relatively speaking) like England/UK can design and manufacture aircraft there's nothing keeping Germany, a country that has historically been a manufacturing powerhouse, from doing so. Points to ponder (while ignoring Heger's propaganda:) Boeing's jets have typically been excellent. Lockheed's manufacture of cargo aircraft has been unparalleled, especially the C-141 that as far as I know is still in production although that airframe was originally designed in the 1950's. Historically, depending on others for national defense (or even part of it) has always been a disaster. The USA can apparently survive such disasters as we make. I remember the F-111 vividly. I was working at Lockheed at the time, on cargo aircraft. When I left Lockheed I got into the exciting, state-of-the-art, R&D. I make no apologies for Germany's political blunders, they've been doing that since before I was born. Only the names have been changed.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-09 07:54 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <jvg4e3Fo6qkU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #597005 |
Am 08.12.2022 um 17:17 schrieb whodat: > On 12/8/2022 1:06 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: >> Am 07.12.2022 um 19:31 schrieb whodat: >> >>>>>>> let him pack his shit and move to america. These uneducated, >>>>>>> unskilled >>>>>>> dicks, wants make us believe they landed man on moon 1969. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Endless Fail： World's Biggest Joke F-35 Has Another Disaster >>>>>>> https://%62%69%74%63%68%75%74%65.com/%76%69%64%65%6f/bNJIRyMgKtpp >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> German military is apparently forced to buy these planes to replace >>>>>> 'Tornados'. >>>>>> >>>>>> I woukd say, that >>>>>> >>>>>> https://www.thomasnet.com/insights/what-went-wrong-with-the-f-35-fighter-jet/ >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> "The most expensive fighter jet in history is also one of the least >>>>>> reliable. >>>>>> >>>>>> Earlier this year, the U.S. Air Force tacitly admitted that the F-35 >>>>>> fighter jet was a failure. A very expensive, time-consuming failure. >>>>>> >>>>>> The F-35 was supposed to be a low-cost, lightweight fighter jet. But >>>>>> with a cost of around $100 million per jet and project delays now >>>>>> stretching into double digits, the F-35 is one of the most >>>>>> high-profile failures in the history of military procurement. What >>>>>> happened, and what does the future hold for the F-35 fighter jet?" >>>>>> >>>>>> isn't really a recommendendation. >>>>> >>>>> The Lockheed Electra is a very good counterexample. >>>>> >>>> A better example was the 'Starfighter'. >>>> >>>> I knew actually two ladies personally, who had a father, who died in a >>>> 'Starfighter'. >>>> >>>> So, from time to time, the US military is able to dump their >>>> 'Starfighters' in Germany. >>>> >>>> I don't know the exact mechanism, of course, but would say, that it is >>>> not entirely beneficial (for Germany). >>> >>> Lockheed was corrupt where the F-104 sales were concerned. Still, you >>> purposely missed the point I made, that even severe flaws can (and >>> sometimes are) corrected yielding a well functioning piece of >>> technology. You prefer to substitute politics for the realities. I can't >>> say I'm surprised. Do you feel any better for it? If you do, why? >>> >> >> The F-104 'sales' were not caused by the qualities of the planes, but >> by political presssure upon the government of Germany in the 1960th. >> >> Germany would have been better off, if they had chosen a different >> fighter jet, but was not free to decide. >> >> That was apparently caused by the fact, that Germany was an occupied >> country and the former allies of WWII were still in control of German >> politics. Especially the former president of Bavaria Franz-Joseph >> Strauss was involved in what turned out to be a huge scandal. >> >> So far, so bad. But F 35 fighter jets are way more expensive and still >> are apperently forced upon the German government by means, that are >> not entirely based on quality of the planes and competition of the >> manufacturers. >> >> Iow: if the US is unhappy with this jet, then why should Germans be >> happy? >> >> Sure, possibly German engineers are able to solve the problems and >> make that plane better than it was in the US. >> >> I think, stealth technology is certainly interesting and German >> manufacturers could eventually learn a thing or two about that. >> >> But possibly that jet is not really what Germany needs. > > > Still you play your political games here. You treat Germany as though it > were a dependent of the USA when clearly it is not. Clean up your own > house. Germany does not have to purchase any particular airplane. When > Europe (Germany is still part of Europe, no?) wanted to manufacture its > own trucks they arranged to do so. If a small country (relatively > speaking) like England/UK can design and manufacture aircraft there's > nothing keeping Germany, a country that has historically been a > manufacturing powerhouse, from doing so. Political pressure is applied to people, not to the country. Usually people in politicis were chosen from the members of certain groups, which had to fullfil the wishes of their particular leaders. Then the elected few would further the agendas of their groups rather than the demands of their country. This is also the case for the USA itself, which is also influenced by such groups. The groups themselves are hidden and therefore also the lines of influence around the globe. We only know, such groups are international and do not care for nations like e.g. Germany. The countries now find repeatedly incentive to further their own goals and get in conflict with such groups. But usually such hidden groups are stronger and pull the strings from behind the scenes. This case is only visible, when taken actions and obvious demands of the nation do not match, like in the purchase of F 104 or F 35 by Germany. > Points to ponder (while ignoring Heger's propaganda:) > > Boeing's jets have typically been excellent. Lockheed's manufacture of > cargo aircraft has been unparalleled, especially the C-141 that as far > as I know is still in production although that airframe was originally > designed in the 1950's. Nobody questioned the quality of US cargo planes. Certainly Germany had also the capacity to build good planes for any possible purpose. But Germany is a relatively small country and 'economy of scale' is an issue here and Germans can only afford the development of a few planes. > Historically, depending on others for national defense (or even part of > it) has always been a disaster. The USA can apparently survive such > disasters as we make. I remember the F-111 vividly. I was working at > Lockheed at the time, on cargo aircraft. When I left Lockheed I got > into the exciting, state-of-the-art, R&D. > > I make no apologies for Germany's political blunders, they've been doing > that since before I was born. Only the names have been changed. Sure. But you should distinguish between politicians and the people. A nation is not the talking head at the most prominent political position. Politicians come and go and sooner or later better politicians will come. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-09 10:56 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <jvh7lnFtavmU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #597050 |
On 12/9/2022 12:54 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 08.12.2022 um 17:17 schrieb whodat: >> On 12/8/2022 1:06 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: >>> Am 07.12.2022 um 19:31 schrieb whodat: [...] >> I make no apologies for Germany's political blunders, they've been doing >> that since before I was born. Only the names have been changed. > > Sure. But you should distinguish between politicians and the people. I've written it here before, the people get the government they deserve no matter how or what you argue. You're full of excuses and in your argumentation accept no responsibility. As has been pointed out to you, another European nation bought the same planes from the USA and had a very good safety record with them. It has become clear to me that you argue for its own sake without achieving anything. Too bad. > A nation is not the talking head at the most prominent political > position. Then what the hell are you doing here? > Politicians come and go and sooner or later better politicians > will come. In the end, whether or not you realize it, you have just accepted Germany's responsibility for the failing aircraft.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-10 07:53 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <jvion2F6069U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #597085 |
Am 09.12.2022 um 17:56 schrieb whodat: > On 12/9/2022 12:54 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: >> Am 08.12.2022 um 17:17 schrieb whodat: >>> On 12/8/2022 1:06 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: >>>> Am 07.12.2022 um 19:31 schrieb whodat: > > > [...] > >>> I make no apologies for Germany's political blunders, they've been doing >>> that since before I was born. Only the names have been changed. >> >> Sure. But you should distinguish between politicians and the people. > > I've written it here before, the people get the government they deserve > no matter how or what you argue. You're full of excuses and in your > argumentation accept no responsibility. As has been pointed out to you, > another European nation bought the same planes from the USA and had > a very good safety record with them. It has become clear to me that you > argue for its own sake without achieving anything. Too bad. > >> A nation is not the talking head at the most prominent political >> position. > > Then what the hell are you doing here? sorry, but I was born here. Usually you do not decide where you like to live. >> Politicians come and go and sooner or later better politicians will come. > > In the end, whether or not you realize it, you have just accepted > Germany's responsibility for the failing aircraft. > You are usually not responsible for what you have not done. F35 stealth bombers are not a German development, but stem from the USA. Germany has no real demand for a stealth bomber, anyhow, because Germany does not plan to bomb anything in the near future. If I personally had to buy fighter planes for Germany, I would not buy a stealth bomber at all. We have a demand for state-of-the-art interceptors, air-to-ground fighters like the 'Warthog' and for large cargo planes. The F35 is way too expensive and of no obvious use. But large cargo planes and fighter jets against tanks on the ground are certainly welcome. Another class of jets is called 'air-superiority-fighters', to which the F35 also does not belong. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-10 06:53 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <k3je6j-m4n32.ln1@gonzo.specsol.net> |
| In reply to | #597177 |
In sci.physics Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote: > Am 09.12.2022 um 17:56 schrieb whodat: >> On 12/9/2022 12:54 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: >>> Am 08.12.2022 um 17:17 schrieb whodat: >>>> On 12/8/2022 1:06 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: >>>>> Am 07.12.2022 um 19:31 schrieb whodat: >> >> >> [...] >> >>>> I make no apologies for Germany's political blunders, they've been doing >>>> that since before I was born. Only the names have been changed. >>> >>> Sure. But you should distinguish between politicians and the people. >> >> I've written it here before, the people get the government they deserve >> no matter how or what you argue. You're full of excuses and in your >> argumentation accept no responsibility. As has been pointed out to you, >> another European nation bought the same planes from the USA and had >> a very good safety record with them. It has become clear to me that you >> argue for its own sake without achieving anything. Too bad. >> >>> A nation is not the talking head at the most prominent political >>> position. >> >> Then what the hell are you doing here? > > sorry, but I was born here. > > Usually you do not decide where you like to live. > > >>> Politicians come and go and sooner or later better politicians will come. >> >> In the end, whether or not you realize it, you have just accepted >> Germany's responsibility for the failing aircraft. >> > You are usually not responsible for what you have not done. > > F35 stealth bombers are not a German development, but stem from the USA. > > Germany has no real demand for a stealth bomber, anyhow, because Germany > does not plan to bomb anything in the near future. > > If I personally had to buy fighter planes for Germany, I would not buy a > stealth bomber at all. > > We have a demand for state-of-the-art interceptors, air-to-ground > fighters like the 'Warthog' and for large cargo planes. > > The F35 is way too expensive and of no obvious use. But large cargo > planes and fighter jets against tanks on the ground are certainly welcome. > > Another class of jets is called 'air-superiority-fighters', to which the > F35 also does not belong. "The Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II is an American family of single-seat, single-engine, all-weather stealth multirole combat aircraft that is intended to perform both air superiority and strike missions." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-10 10:06 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <jvjp47FamdgU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #597177 |
On 12/10/2022 12:53 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 09.12.2022 um 17:56 schrieb whodat: >> On 12/9/2022 12:54 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: >>> Am 08.12.2022 um 17:17 schrieb whodat: >>>> On 12/8/2022 1:06 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: >>>>> Am 07.12.2022 um 19:31 schrieb whodat: >> >> >> [...] >> >>>> I make no apologies for Germany's political blunders, they've been >>>> doing >>>> that since before I was born. Only the names have been changed. >>> >>> Sure. But you should distinguish between politicians and the people. >> >> I've written it here before, the people get the government they deserve >> no matter how or what you argue. You're full of excuses and in your >> argumentation accept no responsibility. As has been pointed out to you, >> another European nation bought the same planes from the USA and had >> a very good safety record with them. It has become clear to me that you >> argue for its own sake without achieving anything. Too bad. >> >>> A nation is not the talking head at the most prominent political >>> position. >> >> Then what the hell are you doing here? > > sorry, but I was born here. > > Usually you do not decide where you like to live. Born on Usenet, now there's a trick. >>> Politicians come and go and sooner or later better politicians will >>> come. >> >> In the end, whether or not you realize it, you have just accepted >> Germany's responsibility for the failing aircraft. >> > You are usually not responsible for what you have not done. Nonsense. > F35 stealth bombers are not a German development, but stem from the USA. Did someone twist Germany's arm behind it's back and force Germany to purchase defective airplanes? And who/what the hell are you anyway, you don't have authority to speak on behalf of the government or the German people. > Germany has no real demand for a stealth bomber, anyhow, because Germany > does not plan to bomb anything in the near future. Now you're doing strategic planning for the German government? > If I personally had to buy fighter planes for Germany, I would not buy a > stealth bomber at all. Finally one glimmer of truth, you don't have responsibility. You have a right to question those who are responsible but no "right" to complain to or about the USA's provision of equipment. You probably don't think of it this way but what you are doing here in sci newsgroups is trolling. You're angry and you're trying to incite anger in others here. > We have a demand for state-of-the-art interceptors, air-to-ground > fighters like the 'Warthog' and for large cargo planes. Who is the "we" to whom you refer here? > The F35 is way too expensive and of no obvious use. But large cargo > planes and fighter jets against tanks on the ground are certainly welcome. Nobody here, in a Usenet sci newsgroup, can do anything about your gripes that don't belong here. > > Another class of jets is called 'air-superiority-fighters', to which the > F35 also does not belong. How very nice, while OT.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-11 07:48 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <jvlcovFi9bhU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #597198 |
Am 10.12.2022 um 17:06 schrieb whodat: > On 12/10/2022 12:53 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: >> Am 09.12.2022 um 17:56 schrieb whodat: >>> On 12/9/2022 12:54 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: >>>> Am 08.12.2022 um 17:17 schrieb whodat: >>>>> On 12/8/2022 1:06 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: >>>>>> Am 07.12.2022 um 19:31 schrieb whodat: >>> >>> >>> [...] >>> >>>>> I make no apologies for Germany's political blunders, they've been >>>>> doing >>>>> that since before I was born. Only the names have been changed. >>>> >>>> Sure. But you should distinguish between politicians and the people. >>> >>> I've written it here before, the people get the government they deserve >>> no matter how or what you argue. You're full of excuses and in your >>> argumentation accept no responsibility. As has been pointed out to you, >>> another European nation bought the same planes from the USA and had >>> a very good safety record with them. It has become clear to me that you >>> argue for its own sake without achieving anything. Too bad. >>> >>>> A nation is not the talking head at the most prominent political >>>> position. >>> >>> Then what the hell are you doing here? >> >> sorry, but I was born here. >> >> Usually you do not decide where you like to live. > > > Born on Usenet, now there's a trick. > > >>>> Politicians come and go and sooner or later better politicians will >>>> come. >>> >>> In the end, whether or not you realize it, you have just accepted >>> Germany's responsibility for the failing aircraft. >>> >> You are usually not responsible for what you have not done. > > > Nonsense. Surely not nonsense! Guilt requires, that you did something illegal or didn't do something required. In any case you can be either guilty of misbehavior or not. In the 'not case' you are innocent and have to be treated that way. To prosecute the innocent is a very serious crime itself. > >> F35 stealth bombers are not a German development, but stem from the USA. > > > Did someone twist Germany's arm behind it's back and force Germany to > purchase defective airplanes? And who/what the hell are you anyway, you > don't have authority to speak on behalf of the government or the German > people. I don't know, but guess this is what usually happens. The mighty nations force the not so mighty nations to do, what is beneficial to them. For this purpose the mighty nations have installed their spies in these nations. For instance 'Stalin', Hitler, Mussolini or Idi-Amin were imho spies. For Hitler I had the theory, that that spy had the real name 'Noel Trevenen Huxley'. > > >> Germany has no real demand for a stealth bomber, anyhow, because >> Germany does not plan to bomb anything in the near future. > > > Now you're doing strategic planning for the German government? > No, unfortunately not. > >> If I personally had to buy fighter planes for Germany, I would not buy >> a stealth bomber at all. > > > Finally one glimmer of truth, you don't have responsibility. You have a > right to question those who are responsible but no "right" to complain > to or about the USA's provision of equipment. You probably don't think > of it this way but what you are doing here in sci newsgroups is > trolling. You're angry and you're trying to incite anger in others here. I think usually in terms of price-worthyness of baught items and think, the F35 is way too expenesive, not very reliable and not what Germany needs. If I could spent the same money on US war planes, I would buy different ones like these huge cargo planes and the 'Warthog'. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-14 08:29 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <jvtc9uFp8ooU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #597268 |
Am 11.12.2022 um 07:48 schrieb Thomas Heger: >> >>> Germany has no real demand for a stealth bomber, anyhow, because >>> Germany does not plan to bomb anything in the near future. >> >> >> Now you're doing strategic planning for the German government? >> > No, unfortunately not. > >> >>> If I personally had to buy fighter planes for Germany, I would not buy >>> a stealth bomber at all. >> >> >> Finally one glimmer of truth, you don't have responsibility. You have a >> right to question those who are responsible but no "right" to complain >> to or about the USA's provision of equipment. You probably don't think >> of it this way but what you are doing here in sci newsgroups is >> trolling. You're angry and you're trying to incite anger in others here. > > I think usually in terms of price-worthyness of baught items and think, > the F35 is way too expenesive, not very reliable and not what Germany > needs. > > If I could spent the same money on US war planes, I would buy different > ones like these huge cargo planes and the 'Warthog'. > Now I see these crappy planes on German tv in the news and that the current defense minister wants to spent most of the budget for them. That makes me sick and I really dislike the idea to buy these planes. I also dislike the idea of deficit spendings for questionabe arms deals, because that would multiply the dangers of the already questionable purchase. Especially in times of 'inflation' the government should try to cut unnecessary spendings and useless arms are a good means to start with that. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-14 06:06 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <jvtshrFrim3U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #597486 |
On 12/14/2022 1:29 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 11.12.2022 um 07:48 schrieb Thomas Heger: > >>> >>>> Germany has no real demand for a stealth bomber, anyhow, because >>>> Germany does not plan to bomb anything in the near future. >>> >>> >>> Now you're doing strategic planning for the German government? >>> >> No, unfortunately not. >> >>> >>>> If I personally had to buy fighter planes for Germany, I would not buy >>>> a stealth bomber at all. >>> >>> >>> Finally one glimmer of truth, you don't have responsibility. You have a >>> right to question those who are responsible but no "right" to complain >>> to or about the USA's provision of equipment. You probably don't think >>> of it this way but what you are doing here in sci newsgroups is >>> trolling. You're angry and you're trying to incite anger in others here. >> >> I think usually in terms of price-worthyness of baught items and think, >> the F35 is way too expenesive, not very reliable and not what Germany >> needs. >> >> If I could spent the same money on US war planes, I would buy different >> ones like these huge cargo planes and the 'Warthog'. >> > Now I see these crappy planes on German tv in the news and that the > current defense minister wants to spent most of the budget for them. > > That makes me sick and I really dislike the idea to buy these planes. > > I also dislike the idea of deficit spendings for questionabe arms deals, > because that would multiply the dangers of the already questionable > purchase. > > Especially in times of 'inflation' the government should try to cut > unnecessary spendings and useless arms are a good means to start with that. No purchases, no kickbacks. Get a clue already.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fabio Brambilla <oaab@llbaboaa.am> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-14 17:36 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <tnd1ia$2r9mb$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #597489 |
whodat wrote: > On 12/14/2022 1:29 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: >> Especially in times of 'inflation' the government should try to cut >> unnecessary spendings and useless arms are a good means to start with >> that. > > No purchases, no kickbacks. Get a clue already. you are stupid like a dog, a gay goy with which not to sit at a table. He shits on your stinking mouth, you saying "give me more".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-14 13:48 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <jvunk4F10nfU5@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #597511 |
On 12/14/2022 11:36 AM, Fabio Brambilla wrote: > whodat wrote: > >> On 12/14/2022 1:29 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: >>> Especially in times of 'inflation' the government should try to cut >>> unnecessary spendings and useless arms are a good means to start with >>> that. >> >> No purchases, no kickbacks. Get a clue already. > > you are stupid like a dog, a gay goy with which not to sit at a table. He > shits on your stinking mouth, you saying "give me more". Take the psychotropic medications the doctor gave you. Please. The hallucinations will go away if you do.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-15 10:15 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <k006siF82f3U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #597489 |
Am 14.12.2022 um 13:06 schrieb whodat: > On 12/14/2022 1:29 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: >> Am 11.12.2022 um 07:48 schrieb Thomas Heger: >> >>>> >>>>> Germany has no real demand for a stealth bomber, anyhow, because >>>>> Germany does not plan to bomb anything in the near future. >>>> >>>> >>>> Now you're doing strategic planning for the German government? >>>> >>> No, unfortunately not. >>> >>>> >>>>> If I personally had to buy fighter planes for Germany, I would not buy >>>>> a stealth bomber at all. >>>> >>>> >>>> Finally one glimmer of truth, you don't have responsibility. You have a >>>> right to question those who are responsible but no "right" to complain >>>> to or about the USA's provision of equipment. You probably don't think >>>> of it this way but what you are doing here in sci newsgroups is >>>> trolling. You're angry and you're trying to incite anger in others >>>> here. >>> >>> I think usually in terms of price-worthyness of baught items and think, >>> the F35 is way too expenesive, not very reliable and not what Germany >>> needs. >>> >>> If I could spent the same money on US war planes, I would buy different >>> ones like these huge cargo planes and the 'Warthog'. >>> >> Now I see these crappy planes on German tv in the news and that the >> current defense minister wants to spent most of the budget for them. >> >> That makes me sick and I really dislike the idea to buy these planes. >> >> I also dislike the idea of deficit spendings for questionabe arms >> deals, because that would multiply the dangers of the already >> questionable purchase. >> >> Especially in times of 'inflation' the government should try to cut >> unnecessary spendings and useless arms are a good means to start with >> that. > > No purchases, no kickbacks. Get a clue already. > Well, we had Franz Joseph Strauss already as defense minister. He was the guy from Bavaria, who puchased the starfighter F 104 from Lockeed and got some 'kick-backs' (as far as that is known). I'm not involved in military purchases at all, hence cannot tell too much about the details. But it was a HUGE !!! scandal and absolutely nobody wants anything similar anytime soon. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-15 01:17 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <tneomr$328vq$5@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #597552 |
On 12/15/2022 1:15 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 14.12.2022 um 13:06 schrieb whodat: >> On 12/14/2022 1:29 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: >>> Am 11.12.2022 um 07:48 schrieb Thomas Heger: >>> >>>>> >>>>>> Germany has no real demand for a stealth bomber, anyhow, because >>>>>> Germany does not plan to bomb anything in the near future. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Now you're doing strategic planning for the German government? >>>>> >>>> No, unfortunately not. >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> If I personally had to buy fighter planes for Germany, I would not >>>>>> buy >>>>>> a stealth bomber at all. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Finally one glimmer of truth, you don't have responsibility. You >>>>> have a >>>>> right to question those who are responsible but no "right" to complain >>>>> to or about the USA's provision of equipment. You probably don't think >>>>> of it this way but what you are doing here in sci newsgroups is >>>>> trolling. You're angry and you're trying to incite anger in others >>>>> here. >>>> >>>> I think usually in terms of price-worthyness of baught items and think, >>>> the F35 is way too expenesive, not very reliable and not what Germany >>>> needs. >>>> >>>> If I could spent the same money on US war planes, I would buy different >>>> ones like these huge cargo planes and the 'Warthog'. >>>> >>> Now I see these crappy planes on German tv in the news and that the >>> current defense minister wants to spent most of the budget for them. >>> >>> That makes me sick and I really dislike the idea to buy these planes. >>> >>> I also dislike the idea of deficit spendings for questionabe arms >>> deals, because that would multiply the dangers of the already >>> questionable purchase. >>> >>> Especially in times of 'inflation' the government should try to cut >>> unnecessary spendings and useless arms are a good means to start with >>> that. >> >> No purchases, no kickbacks. Get a clue already. >> > > Well, we had Franz Joseph Strauss already as defense minister. He was > the guy from Bavaria, who puchased the starfighter F 104 from Lockeed > and got some 'kick-backs' (as far as that is known). EuroFighter 2000 will down that sucker! ;^) > > I'm not involved in military purchases at all, hence cannot tell too > much about the details. > > But it was a HUGE !!! scandal and absolutely nobody wants anything > similar anytime soon. > > > TH > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 14 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 … 12 13 [14] 15 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web