Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #623928 > unrolled thread

Crooked and Straight Geometry

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  Crooked and Straight Geometry Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-11-11 17:50 -0800
    Re: Crooked and Straight Geometry Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-11-12 11:02 -0800
    Re: Crooked and Straight Geometry "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-11-12 12:18 -0800
      Re: Crooked and Straight Geometry Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-11-12 16:33 -0800
      Re: Crooked and Straight Geometry Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-11-12 17:51 -0800
        Re: Crooked and Straight Geometry "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-11-16 18:21 -0800
          Re: Crooked and Straight Geometry Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-11-17 11:31 -0800
            Re: Crooked and Straight Geometry "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-11-17 11:49 -0800
              Re: Crooked and Straight Geometry Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-11-17 16:56 -0800
              Re: Crooked and Straight Geometry Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-11-17 20:35 -0800
                Re: Crooked and Straight Geometry patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-11-17 20:44 -0800
    Re: Crooked and Straight Geometry patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-11-17 10:27 -0800
      Re: Crooked and Straight Geometry Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-11-17 11:28 -0800
      Re: Crooked and Straight Geometry Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-11-17 15:32 -0800
        Re: Crooked and Straight Geometry Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-11-17 16:58 -0800
          Re: Crooked and Straight Geometry Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-11-18 09:20 -0800
            Re: Crooked and Straight Geometry Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-11-18 10:33 -0800
            Re: Crooked and Straight Geometry Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-11-18 11:28 -0800
              Re: Crooked and Straight Geometry Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-11-18 18:57 -0800
                Re: Crooked and Straight Geometry Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-11-19 02:36 -0800
                Re: Crooked and Straight Geometry Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-11-25 20:20 -0800
                  Re: Crooked and Straight Geometry Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-11-25 21:37 -0800
                    Re: Crooked and Straight Geometry Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-11-26 07:38 -0800
                    Re: Crooked and Straight Geometry Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-11-26 12:00 -0800
                      Re: Crooked and Straight Geometry Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-11-26 16:29 -0800
                        Re: Crooked and Straight Geometry Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-11-26 16:52 -0800
                          Re: Crooked and Straight Geometry Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-11-26 18:15 -0800
                            Re: Crooked and Straight Geometry Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-11-26 19:22 -0800
                              Re: Crooked and Straight Geometry Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-11-26 20:54 -0800
                                Re: Crooked and Straight Geometry Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-11-26 23:45 -0800
                        Re: Crooked and Straight Geometry Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-11-26 23:40 -0800
                      Re: Crooked and Straight Geometry Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-11-27 02:02 -0500
                        Re: Crooked and Straight Geometry Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-11-26 23:43 -0800
                        Re: Crooked and Straight Geometry Alcadio Mihailovich Baidukov <adda@duldabcl.da> - 2023-11-27 18:03 +0000
                    Re: Crooked and Straight Geometry "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-11-26 17:05 -0800
                      Re: Crooked and Straight Geometry Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-11-26 18:35 -0800
            Re: Crooked and Straight Geometry Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-11-18 17:43 -0500
              Re: Crooked and Straight Geometry Zacarias Marushko <zaso@arhkhhaa.ah> - 2023-11-18 23:50 +0000
        Re: Crooked and Straight Geometry Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2023-11-19 10:22 +0100
          Re: Crooked and Straight Geometry Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-11-19 10:26 +0100
            Re: Crooked and Straight Geometry Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2023-11-20 08:05 +0100
              Re: Crooked and Straight Geometry Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-11-20 09:25 +0100
                Re: Crooked and Straight Geometry Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2023-11-21 09:37 +0100
                  Re: Crooked and Straight Geometry Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-11-22 10:59 -0500
                    Re: Crooked and Straight Geometry Bret Kabulov <rrkm@kbvvuoaa.vb> - 2023-11-22 23:22 +0000
                    Re: Crooked and Straight Geometry Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2023-11-23 08:00 +0100
                      Re: Crooked and Straight Geometry Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-11-23 14:13 +0100
                      Re: Crooked and Straight Geometry Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-11-23 09:29 -0500
                Re: Crooked and Straight Geometry nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-11-21 13:26 +0100
        Re: Crooked and Straight Geometry Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-11-25 20:19 -0800
    Re: Crooked and Straight Geometry JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2023-11-18 20:37 -0800
      Re: Crooked and Straight Geometry Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-11-18 21:02 -0800
        Re: Crooked and Straight Geometry Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2023-11-22 08:43 +0100
          Re: Crooked and Straight Geometry "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2023-11-22 10:14 +0100
            Re: Crooked and Straight Geometry Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-11-22 01:56 -0800
            Re: Crooked and Straight Geometry Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2023-11-23 07:45 +0100
              Re: Crooked and Straight Geometry Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-11-23 09:34 -0500
              Re: Crooked and Straight Geometry "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2023-11-23 20:47 +0100
                Re: Crooked and Straight Geometry Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-11-26 07:39 -0800
      Re: Crooked and Straight Geometry Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-11-18 21:13 -0800
        Re: Crooked and Straight Geometry patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-11-19 00:28 -0800
          Re: Crooked and Straight Geometry RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2023-11-25 13:22 -0800
            Re: Crooked and Straight Geometry Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-11-25 13:52 -0800
          Re: Crooked and Straight Geometry Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-11-25 20:21 -0800
            Re: Crooked and Straight Geometry Owen Valtchikovski <lnso@canhcchw.sk> - 2023-11-26 12:26 +0000
      Re: Crooked and Straight Geometry Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-11-18 21:15 -0800
        Re: Crooked and Straight Geometry Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-11-18 21:25 -0800
          Re: Crooked and Straight Geometry "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-11-19 11:43 -0800
            Re: Crooked and Straight Geometry Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-11-19 15:25 -0800
      Re: Crooked and Straight Geometry Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-11-18 21:53 -0800
        Re: Crooked and Straight Geometry Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-11-19 02:08 -0500
          Re: Crooked and Straight Geometry patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-11-19 00:29 -0800
            Re: Crooked and Straight Geometry Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-11-25 20:22 -0800
              Re: Crooked and Straight Geometry Brittany Gudimov <vrmb@odvbiiri.du> - 2023-11-26 13:07 +0000
      Re: Crooked and Straight Geometry Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-11-19 02:37 -0800

Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4  Next page →

#624191

Am 19.11.2023 um 10:26 schrieb Athel Cornish-Bowden:
> On 2023-11-19 09:22:02 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
>
>>
>> [ … ]
>>
>> (btw: my own conspriracy theories are also better and also more
>> numerous. E.g. I had the idea, that 'Jack the Ripper' was actually
>> Winston Churchill ;-))
>> )
>
> Crazy as a loon
>

Well, the idea is certainly a little strange.

But it has some rational foundation, thou it is most likely wrong.

the idea behind it was this:

Churchill was only 14 at the time of the jack the ripper murders, what 
is too young for this type of crime.

But Churchill was also the poltician, who had more innocent blood on his 
hands than any other politician before or after.

So, possibly, he was subject to a kind of 'education', which is similar 
to those, who were trained as boy-soldiers in some parts of Africa.

These kinds have to kill real people early in life, to make them 'good' 
killers.

These kids are actually victims of a criminal practise, thou 
-nevertheless- killers afterwards.


Now rumors say, that Winston Churchill was actually the son of Albert, 
later Edward VII, son of Queen Victoria, with a matress from New York, 
named Jenny Jerome.

This kind of offspring of the Royals were ideal for future use as 
'killers', if educated early enough for their role in the world.


And left behind were the bodies of unwanted lifeforms in Whitechapel...


TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#624195

On 2023-11-20 07:05:43 +0000, Thomas Heger said:

> Am 19.11.2023 um 10:26 schrieb Athel Cornish-Bowden:
>> On 2023-11-19 09:22:02 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
>> 
>>> 
>>> [ … ]
>>> 
>>> (btw: my own conspriracy theories are also better and also more
>>> numerous. E.g. I had the idea, that 'Jack the Ripper' was actually
>>> Winston Churchill ;-))
>>> )
>> 
>> Crazy as a loon
>> 
> 
> Well, the idea is certainly a little strange.
> 
> But it has some rational foundation, thou it is most likely wrong.
> 
> the idea behind it was this:
> 
> Churchill was only 14 at the time of the jack the ripper murders, what 
> is too young for this type of crime.
> 
> But Churchill was also the poltician, who had more innocent blood on 
> his hands than any other politician before or after.
> 
> So, possibly, he was subject to a kind of 'education', which is similar 
> to those, who were trained as boy-soldiers in some parts of Africa.
> 
> These kinds have to kill real people early in life, to make them 'good' 
> killers.
> 
> These kids are actually victims of a criminal practise, thou 
> -nevertheless- killers afterwards.
> 
> 
> Now rumors say, that Winston Churchill was actually the son of Albert, 
> later Edward VII, son of Queen Victoria, with a matress from New York, 
> named Jenny Jerome.
> 
> This kind of offspring of the Royals were ideal for future use as 
> 'killers', if educated early enough for their role in the world.
> 
> 
> And left behind were the bodies of unwanted lifeforms in Whitechapel...

I was too restrained to use the term crazy as a loon; it would have 
been better to say even crazier than a loon.

I am essentially the same age as Mick Jagger and was born in the same 
country. Can you deduce from that that I'm a clandestine member of the 
Rolling Stones?

-- 
Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 36 years; mainly 
in England until 1987.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#624228

Am 20.11.2023 um 09:25 schrieb Athel Cornish-Bowden:
> On 2023-11-20 07:05:43 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
>
>> Am 19.11.2023 um 10:26 schrieb Athel Cornish-Bowden:
>>> On 2023-11-19 09:22:02 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> [ … ]
>>>>
>>>> (btw: my own conspriracy theories are also better and also more
>>>> numerous. E.g. I had the idea, that 'Jack the Ripper' was actually
>>>> Winston Churchill ;-))
>>>> )
>>>
>>> Crazy as a loon
>>>
>>
>> Well, the idea is certainly a little strange.
>>
>> But it has some rational foundation, thou it is most likely wrong.
>>
>> the idea behind it was this:
>>
>> Churchill was only 14 at the time of the jack the ripper murders, what
>> is too young for this type of crime.
>>
>> But Churchill was also the poltician, who had more innocent blood on
>> his hands than any other politician before or after.
>>
>> So, possibly, he was subject to a kind of 'education', which is
>> similar to those, who were trained as boy-soldiers in some parts of
>> Africa.
>>
>> These kinds have to kill real people early in life, to make them
>> 'good' killers.
>>
>> These kids are actually victims of a criminal practise, thou
>> -nevertheless- killers afterwards.
>>
>>
>> Now rumors say, that Winston Churchill was actually the son of Albert,
>> later Edward VII, son of Queen Victoria, with a matress from New York,
>> named Jenny Jerome.
>>
>> This kind of offspring of the Royals were ideal for future use as
>> 'killers', if educated early enough for their role in the world.
>>
>>
>> And left behind were the bodies of unwanted lifeforms in Whitechapel...
>
> I was too restrained to use the term crazy as a loon; it would have been
> better to say even crazier than a loon.
>
> I am essentially the same age as Mick Jagger and was born in the same
> country. Can you deduce from that that I'm a clandestine member of the
> Rolling Stones?
>
No, certainly not, because you don't sound like a rock-musician.


Anyhow: my hypothesis (Winston Churchill was 'Jack-the-Ripper') was most 
likely wrong, but it is still a valid hypothesis and not as crazy as you 
think.


Churchill had certain odd habits, which resemble in a way the mindset of 
occultists like Alisteir Crowley.

He was also very racist and had at least a few sympathies for naziism.


But much more than this, there exist two books, which mentioned Churchill:

https://www.abebooks.de/9780473120733/Stalins-British-Training-Greg-Hallett-0473120739/plp

https://www.amazon.de/Hitler-Britischer-Agent-Solving-History/dp/0985227818

If these books are correct, than Churchills 'head-count' would also 
include the millions murdered by Hitler and Stalin, what would add up to 
a collosal number, that can hardly be surpassed by anyone else.


TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#624331

On 11/21/2023 3:37 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 20.11.2023 um 09:25 schrieb Athel Cornish-Bowden:
>> On 2023-11-20 07:05:43 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
>>
>>> Am 19.11.2023 um 10:26 schrieb Athel Cornish-Bowden:
>>>> On 2023-11-19 09:22:02 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> [ … ]
>>>>>
>>>>> (btw: my own conspriracy theories are also better and also more
>>>>> numerous. E.g. I had the idea, that 'Jack the Ripper' was actually
>>>>> Winston Churchill ;-))
>>>>> )
>>>>
>>>> Crazy as a loon
>>>>
>>>
>>> Well, the idea is certainly a little strange.
>>>
>>> But it has some rational foundation, thou it is most likely wrong.
>>>
>>> the idea behind it was this:
>>>
>>> Churchill was only 14 at the time of the jack the ripper murders, what
>>> is too young for this type of crime.
>>>
>>> But Churchill was also the poltician, who had more innocent blood on
>>> his hands than any other politician before or after.
>>>
>>> So, possibly, he was subject to a kind of 'education', which is
>>> similar to those, who were trained as boy-soldiers in some parts of
>>> Africa.
>>>
>>> These kinds have to kill real people early in life, to make them
>>> 'good' killers.
>>>
>>> These kids are actually victims of a criminal practise, thou
>>> -nevertheless- killers afterwards.
>>>
>>>
>>> Now rumors say, that Winston Churchill was actually the son of Albert,
>>> later Edward VII, son of Queen Victoria, with a matress from New York,
>>> named Jenny Jerome.
>>>
>>> This kind of offspring of the Royals were ideal for future use as
>>> 'killers', if educated early enough for their role in the world.
>>>
>>>
>>> And left behind were the bodies of unwanted lifeforms in Whitechapel...
>>
>> I was too restrained to use the term crazy as a loon; it would have been
>> better to say even crazier than a loon.
>>
>> I am essentially the same age as Mick Jagger and was born in the same
>> country. Can you deduce from that that I'm a clandestine member of the
>> Rolling Stones?
>>
> No, certainly not, because you don't sound like a rock-musician.

And Churchill doesn't sound much like a mass murderer.
> 
> 
> Anyhow: my hypothesis (Winston Churchill was 'Jack-the-Ripper') was most 
> likely wrong, but it is still a valid hypothesis and not as crazy as you 
> think.

No, it is 'crazy as a loon' crazy.
> 
> 
> Churchill had certain odd habits, which resemble in a way the mindset of 
> occultists like Alisteir Crowley.
> 
> He was also very racist and had at least a few sympathies for naziism.

Which has no connection to Jack the Ripper, since Jack the Ripper didn't 
target Jews or racial minorities.
> 
> 
> But much more than this, there exist two books, which mentioned Churchill:
> 
> If these books are correct, than Churchills 'head-count' would also 
> include the millions murdered by Hitler and Stalin, what would add up to 
> a collosal number, that can hardly be surpassed by anyone else.

No, the blood of millions remains on the hands of Hitler and Stalin, not 
Churchill. You can argue that Stalin fooled him (and others) to gain 
control of Eastern Europe and force communism on them, but the evil of 
Hitler and Stalin remains theirs.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#624343

Volney wrote:

>> He was also very racist and had at least a few sympathies for naziism.
> 
> Which has no connection to Jack the Ripper, since Jack the Ripper didn't
> target Jews or racial minorities.

think again, my friend. Most likely he was a polaker 𝗸𝗵𝗮𝘇𝗮𝗿_𝗴𝗼𝘆, 𝗝𝗲𝘀𝘂𝘀 𝗰𝗮𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗱 
𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗺 𝗹𝗶𝗮𝗿𝘀, 𝘃𝗶𝗽𝗲𝗿𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗵𝘆𝗽𝗼𝗰𝗿𝗶𝘁𝗲𝘀 (𝗠𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗵𝗲𝘄_23). They kill everybody. Here's some 
𝗱𝗲𝗲𝗽_𝗰𝗼𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲𝗻𝗰𝘆 in Physics, for those who can't wait. Please read. And 
memorize. It is like tensors.

𝗔𝗹𝗹_𝗟𝗼𝘀𝘁,_𝗧𝗼𝘁𝗮𝗹_𝗙𝗮𝗶𝗹𝘂𝗿𝗲_𝗔𝗰𝗵𝗶𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗱_-_𝗦𝗰𝗼𝘁𝘁_𝗥𝗶𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗿
https://bi%74%63hute.com/video/pO4o8ZccnvQU

𝗜𝗳_𝗧𝗵𝗲𝘆_𝗖𝗮𝗻_𝗣𝗿𝗶𝗻𝘁_𝗠𝗼𝗻𝗲𝘆_𝗢𝘂𝘁_𝗼𝗳_𝗡𝗼𝘁𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗴_𝗪𝗵𝘆_𝗗𝗼_𝗪𝗲_𝗣𝗮𝘆_𝗧𝗮𝘅𝗲𝘀??
https://bi%74%63hute.com/video/6ExEBQiESvNI

here's another 𝗸𝗵𝗮𝘇𝗮𝗿_𝗴𝗼𝘆 from polakia, with changed name and a big mouth. 
They think they own the fucking planet.

𝗘𝘅-𝗢𝗯𝗮𝗺𝗮_𝗮𝗱𝘃𝗶𝘀𝗲𝗿_𝗰𝗮𝘂𝗴𝗵𝘁_𝗶𝗻_𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗴_𝗼𝗳_𝗿𝗮𝗰𝗶𝘀𝘁_𝘁𝗶𝗿𝗮𝗱𝗲𝘀
https://bi%74%63hute.com/video/dFIt93VkjD9I

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#624365

Am 22.11.2023 um 16:59 schrieb Volney:


>> Anyhow: my hypothesis (Winston Churchill was 'Jack-the-Ripper') was
>> most likely wrong, but it is still a valid hypothesis and not as crazy
>> as you think.
>
> No, it is 'crazy as a loon' crazy.

You simply don't understand the scientific method.

This method is based on the idea, that you should make up your mind and 
set up a hypothesis, which could eventually explain a certain observation.

Then you need to test your hypothesis, e.g. in an experiment.

But usually you would first try to disprove it by showing, that it is 
actually impossible what you assume.


E.g. if you show, that Winston Churchill could not possibly have been in 
Whitechapel at the time of the murders, you had made the assumption 
impossible and had rejected that claim.

But neither experiment nor such a proof are possible, because Churchill 
had been in London in that era and experiments are impossible today.

so: what next?

Maybe we need to talk to witnesses or collect other evidence.

But that's also impossible, because the events are longer ago than 
people usually live.

Maybe we ask contemporaries about their impressions.

Not possible neither, but we have contemporary statements:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CxFaWrvgneQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uN9aaZDI-No


...


TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#624383

On 2023-11-23 07:00:58 +0000, Thomas Heger said:

> Am 22.11.2023 um 16:59 schrieb Volney:
> 
> 
>>> Anyhow: my hypothesis (Winston Churchill was 'Jack-the-Ripper') was
>>> most likely wrong, but it is still a valid hypothesis and not as crazy
>>> as you think.
>> 
>> No, it is 'crazy as a loon' crazy.
> 
> You simply don't understand the scientific method.

And you do? You've never provided any evidence that you do. What 
scientific discoveries have you made that have been published in 
respectable (not vanity) journals?
> 
> This method is based on the idea, that you should make up your mind and 
> set up a hypothesis, which could eventually explain a certain 
> observation.
> 
> Then you need to test your hypothesis, e.g. in an experiment.
> 
> But usually you would first try to disprove it by showing, that it is 
> actually impossible what you assume.
> 
> 
> E.g. if you show, that Winston Churchill could not possibly have been 
> in Whitechapel at the time of the murders, you had made the assumption 
> impossible and had rejected that claim.
> 
> But neither experiment nor such a proof are possible, because Churchill 
> had been in London in that era and experiments are impossible today.
> 
> so: what next?
> 
> Maybe we need to talk to witnesses or collect other evidence.
> 
> But that's also impossible, because the events are longer ago than 
> people usually live.
> 
> Maybe we ask contemporaries about their impressions.
> 
> Not possible neither, but we have contemporary statements:
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CxFaWrvgneQ
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uN9aaZDI-No
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> 
> TH


-- 
Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 36 years; mainly 
in England until 1987.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#624388

On 11/23/2023 2:00 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 22.11.2023 um 16:59 schrieb Volney:
> 
> 
>>> Anyhow: my hypothesis (Winston Churchill was 'Jack-the-Ripper') was
>>> most likely wrong, but it is still a valid hypothesis and not as crazy
>>> as you think.
>>
>> No, it is 'crazy as a loon' crazy.
> 
> You simply don't understand the scientific method.
> 
> This method is based on the idea, that you should make up your mind and 
> set up a hypothesis, which could eventually explain a certain observation.
> 
> Then you need to test your hypothesis, e.g. in an experiment.
> 
[...]

But before we even get that far, you have to consider the absurdity of 
the concept that it was Churchill rather than any of the other men of 
the right age in London at the time. First, as you stated, Churchill 
wasn't even of the right age, as you yourself stated. Second, Churchill 
doesn't sound much like a mass murderer.

So yes, the idea is "loon" level crazy.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#624236

Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 2023-11-20 07:05:43 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
> 
> > Am 19.11.2023 um 10:26 schrieb Athel Cornish-Bowden:
> >> On 2023-11-19 09:22:02 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
> >> 
> >>> 
> >>> [ ╜ ]
> >>> 
> >>> (btw: my own conspriracy theories are also better and also more
> >>> numerous. E.g. I had the idea, that 'Jack the Ripper' was actually
> >>> Winston Churchill ;-))
> >>> )
> >> 
> >> Crazy as a loon
> >> 
> > 
> > Well, the idea is certainly a little strange.
> > 
> > But it has some rational foundation, thou it is most likely wrong.
> > 
> > the idea behind it was this:
> > 
> > Churchill was only 14 at the time of the jack the ripper murders, what
> > is too young for this type of crime.
> > 
> > But Churchill was also the poltician, who had more innocent blood on
> > his hands than any other politician before or after.
> > 
> > So, possibly, he was subject to a kind of 'education', which is similar
> > to those, who were trained as boy-soldiers in some parts of Africa.
> > 
> > These kinds have to kill real people early in life, to make them 'good'
> > killers.
> > 
> > These kids are actually victims of a criminal practise, thou 
> > -nevertheless- killers afterwards.
> > 
> > 
> > Now rumors say, that Winston Churchill was actually the son of Albert,
> > later Edward VII, son of Queen Victoria, with a matress from New York,
> > named Jenny Jerome.
> > 
> > This kind of offspring of the Royals were ideal for future use as 
> > 'killers', if educated early enough for their role in the world.
> > 
> > 
> > And left behind were the bodies of unwanted lifeforms in Whitechapel...
> 
> I was too restrained to use the term crazy as a loon; it would have 
> been better to say even crazier than a loon.
> 
> I am essentially the same age as Mick Jagger and was born in the same
> country. Can you deduce from that that I'm a clandestine member of the
> Rolling Stones?

I think plain English is lacking adequate superlatives for 'crazy as a
loon' to do justice to TH,

Jan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#624562

On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 3:32:06 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
> On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 10:27:04 AM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
> > On Saturday, November 11, 2023 at 5:50:35 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: 
> 
> > > "Euclidean” and “Euclidean,” replacing them with “curved” and “straight.” That will be my first simplification... 
> > > We have been told that curved geometry has been used for the last two centuries because it allows us to solve problems we could not solve before. This is a false claim. Any problem that can be solved with curved geometry can be solved with straight geometry, and it can be solved much more quickly and transparently with straight geometry. If problems have seemed to be solved with curved geometry that could not be solved with straight geometry, it is only because those problems were too subtle for mathematicians of the time. They could not solve them with rigorous, elegant proofs, and they needed some room to fudge their way through the proof. Curved geometry was chosen because it gave them this latitude, this room to move. As I will show, curved geometry allowed for numbers to be squashed and stretched, and this allowed for solutions to be hammered into place. By and large, curved geometry came to the fore not for honest reasons, but for dishonest reasons. It has become pandemic not because it is better but because it is easier to fake. It has flourished for the same reason legalese has flourished and for the same reason propaganda has flourished 
> > > and for the same reason advertising has flourished. It has flourished because it has proved to be a successful con-job. It is an impressive and opaque parlor trick that fools almost everyone. It fills blackboards and makes people rich and famous." Miles Mathis "Why non-Euclidean geometry is a cheat" Miles Mathis "Why Non-Euclidean Geometry is a Cheat" 
> 
> > Laurence, thank you for yet another brilliant analysis. I shall go to Amazon immediately and get the Miles Mathis tome.
> I doubt that any rational person would believe anything that Miles Mathis has to say about science or math. 
> 
> https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Miles_Mathis 
> 
> "Mathis is best known for his outlandish and often ridiculous theories. For instance, that π (pi) is actually equal to 4, with the caveat that motion be involved; however, not one single reputable scientist agrees with this far-fetched nonsense. Mathis thinks that standard mathematical derivatives are incorrect — overturning almost all math and science, ever. He has also invented a charge field theory which, like all of his other myriad theories, has yet to pass the scrutiny of a basic peer review. 
> 
> In addition to his math and science ineptitude, Mathis is also a raving conspiracy theorist."
Peer review enforces ignorant dogmas in dark back rooms in secret. It is a censorious mechanism hostile to the truth.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#624135

On Saturday, November 11, 2023 at 5:50:35 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> "Euclidean” and “Euclidean,” replacing them with “curved” and “straight.” That will be my first simplification... 
> We have been told that curved geometry has been used for the last two centuries because it allows us to solve problems we could not solve before. This is a false claim. Any problem that can be solved with curved geometry can be solved with straight geometry, and it can be solved much more quickly and transparently with straight geometry. If problems have seemed to be solved with curved geometry that could not be solved with straight geometry, it is only because those problems were too subtle for mathematicians of the time. [etc.]

You are barking a nonexistent tree. This is NOT the point of having different geometries.

--
Jan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#624140

On Saturday, November 18, 2023 at 8:37:29 PM UTC-8, JanPB wrote:
> On Saturday, November 11, 2023 at 5:50:35 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > "Euclidean” and “Euclidean,” replacing them with “curved” and “straight.” That will be my first simplification...
> > We have been told that curved geometry has been used for the last two centuries because it allows us to solve problems we could not solve before. This is a false claim. Any problem that can be solved with curved geometry can be solved with straight geometry, and it can be solved much more quickly and transparently with straight geometry. If problems have seemed to be solved with curved geometry that could not be solved with straight geometry, it is only because those problems were too subtle for mathematicians of the time. [etc.] 
> 
> You are barking a nonexistent tree. This is NOT the point of having different geometries. 
> 
> -- 
> Jan
If you had read with any comprehension you would know the point is there is no point to non-Euclidean geometry (other than moronic heuristic purposes).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#624309

Am 19.11.2023 um 06:02 schrieb Laurence Clark Crossen:
> On Saturday, November 18, 2023 at 8:37:29 PM UTC-8, JanPB wrote:
>> On Saturday, November 11, 2023 at 5:50:35 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
>>> "Euclidean” and “Euclidean,” replacing them with “curved” and “straight.” That will be my first simplification...
>>> We have been told that curved geometry has been used for the last two centuries because it allows us to solve problems we could not solve before. This is a false claim. Any problem that can be solved with curved geometry can be solved with straight geometry, and it can be solved much more quickly and transparently with straight geometry. If problems have seemed to be solved with curved geometry that could not be solved with straight geometry, it is only because those problems were too subtle for mathematicians of the time. [etc.]
>>
>> You are barking a nonexistent tree. This is NOT the point of having different geometries.
>>
>> --
>> Jan
> If you had read with any comprehension you would know the point is there is no point to non-Euclidean geometry (other than moronic heuristic purposes).
>

Euclidean geometry is based on an assumption, which is illogic and not 
supported by nature.

To have three rectilinear axes requires straight lines and right angles.

But nature does not 'like' right angles. 90° is just one example of an 
angle and no phenomenon in nature uses this particular number.

Also streight lines or circles are not found in nature very often.

Those are human artifacts and not a feature of the world around us.

So: what would be a better and more natural way to describe positions???

Well, first you need an 'anchor' point and known directions.

On Earth we use a clock, a compass and an altimeter to define a position.


This includes two angles, one distance (hight) and time.

These angles are spherical angles, which are based on the planet we live 
on and where we like to define positions.

(The clock we need to find the longitude of our position.)


TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#624311

Den 22.11.2023 08:43, skrev Thomas Heger:
> 
> Euclidean geometry is based on an assumption, which is illogic and not 
> supported by nature.
> 
> To have three rectilinear axes requires straight lines and right angles.
> 
> But nature does not 'like' right angles. 90° is just one example of an 
> angle and no phenomenon in nature uses this particular number.
> 
> Also streight lines or circles are not found in nature very often.
> 
> Those are human artifacts and not a feature of the world around us.
> 
> So: what would be a better and more natural way to describe positions???
> 
> Well, first you need an 'anchor' point and known directions.
> 
> On Earth we use a clock, a compass and an altimeter to define a position.
> 
> 
> This includes two angles, one distance (hight) and time.
> 
> These angles are spherical angles, which are based on the planet we live 
> on and where we like to define positions.
> 
> (The clock we need to find the longitude of our position.)
> 
> 
> TH

So you are talking about celestial navigation.
I can assure you that the mathematics involved in
celestial navigation is based on Euclidean geometry.

-- 
Paul

https://paulba.no/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#624313

On Wednesday, 22 November 2023 at 10:12:53 UTC+1, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

> So you are talking about celestial navigation. 
> I can assure you that the mathematics involved in 
> celestial navigation is based on Euclidean geometry. 

And only relativistic idiots can think otherwise; as seen - 
not even all of them are stupid enough.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#624363

Am 22.11.2023 um 10:14 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:
> Den 22.11.2023 08:43, skrev Thomas Heger:
>>
>> Euclidean geometry is based on an assumption, which is illogic and not
>> supported by nature.
>>
>> To have three rectilinear axes requires straight lines and right angles.
>>
>> But nature does not 'like' right angles. 90° is just one example of an
>> angle and no phenomenon in nature uses this particular number.
>>
>> Also streight lines or circles are not found in nature very often.
>>
>> Those are human artifacts and not a feature of the world around us.
>>
>> So: what would be a better and more natural way to describe positions???
>>
>> Well, first you need an 'anchor' point and known directions.
>>
>> On Earth we use a clock, a compass and an altimeter to define a position.
>>
>>
>> This includes two angles, one distance (hight) and time.
>>
>> These angles are spherical angles, which are based on the planet we
>> live on and where we like to define positions.
>>
>> (The clock we need to find the longitude of our position.)
>>
>>
>> TH
>
> So you are talking about celestial navigation.
> I can assure you that the mathematics involved in
> celestial navigation is based on Euclidean geometry.
>

Actually I think, that spherical coordinates make more sense than Euclidean.

The idea behind Euiclidean geometry is what Newton called 'absolute space'.

I personally regard this concept as wrong.

I would like to take spacetime of GR as 'prior' and regard our 'space' 
as a mere optical illusion.

The universe as we see it, is actually stacked in time, hence is not 
real, but a picture.

We receive this picture by means of light, hence all seen events belong 
to our own past light cone.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_cone

Since the vertical axis means time, we have a set of circles, which are 
'stacked in time'.

And since these circles are two-dimensional reductions of three 
dimensions, we have actually nested spheres.

These set of nested spheres are similar to Ptolomy and his crystal 
spheres, because the spheres are representations of time (meaning: the 
further away the longer ago).

Now Euclidean geometry does not fit to this picture, because Euclidean 
space is timeless, while spheric geometry would.

TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#624389

On 11/23/2023 1:45 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 22.11.2023 um 10:14 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:

>> So you are talking about celestial navigation.
>> I can assure you that the mathematics involved in
>> celestial navigation is based on Euclidean geometry.
>>
> 
> Actually I think, that spherical coordinates make more sense than 
> Euclidean.
> 
[...]
> 
> Now Euclidean geometry does not fit to this picture, because Euclidean 
> space is timeless, while spheric geometry would.

Spherical coordinates are Euclidean, or not, depending on how used. Just 
as Cartesian coordinates are Euclidean, or not, depending on how used. 
There is a simple transformation from Cartesian (or cylindrical) 
coordinated to/from spherical, and whether it's Euclidean or not depends 
on other things.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#624404

Den 23.11.2023 07:45, skrev Thomas Heger:
> Am 22.11.2023 um 10:14 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:
>> Den 22.11.2023 08:43, skrev Thomas Heger:
>>>
>>> On Earth we use a clock, a compass and an altimeter to define a 
>>> position.
>>>
>>>
>>> This includes two angles, one distance (hight) and time.
>>>
>>> These angles are spherical angles, which are based on the planet we
>>> live on and where we like to define positions.
>>>
>>> (The clock we need to find the longitude of our position.)
>>>
>>>
>>> TH

>>
>> So you are talking about celestial navigation.
>> I can assure you that the mathematics involved in
>> celestial navigation is based on Euclidean geometry.
>>
> 

You didn't get the point?

When you use a clock to find the longitude of your
position, it is because you must have  measured the direction
to the Sun (or Moon or a star). Determining your position
this way is geometry! Euclidean geometry!
Celestial navigation as we know it would be impossible
without Euclidean geometry.


> Actually I think, that spherical coordinates make more sense than 
> Euclidean.

See Volney's comment.

You seem to think that a Cartesian coordinate system must be used
in Euclidean geometry. That is nonsense. Spherical coordinates
are used in celestial navigation. The geometry is still Euclidean.

> 
> The idea behind Euiclidean geometry is what Newton called 'absolute space'.
> 
> I personally regard this concept as wrong.

Euclidean geometry is a consistent mathematical system based
on a set of postulates. It is not physics, and it is meaningless
to say it is 'wrong'.

Newton lived more than 1900 years later.
He took for granted that Euclidean space was a good model
of physical space, and based his physics on it.

Newtonian mechanics is a consistent theory,
and good model of "reality" within its scope. It is still
used on most physical problems, and we know it's limitation-

> 
> I would like to take spacetime of GR as 'prior' and regard our 'space' 
> as a mere optical illusion.
Gobbledygook.

> 
> The universe as we see it, is actually stacked in time, hence is not 
> real, but a picture.

And you can see the hand of the photographer?

<snip nonsense>

-- 
Paul

https://paulba.no/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#624595

On Thursday, 23 November 2023 at 20:45:49 UTC+1, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Den 23.11.2023 07:45, skrev Thomas Heger: 
> > Am 22.11.2023 um 10:14 schrieb Paul B. Andersen: 
> >> Den 22.11.2023 08:43, skrev Thomas Heger: 
> >>> 
> >>> On Earth we use a clock, a compass and an altimeter to define a 
> >>> position. 
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> This includes two angles, one distance (hight) and time. 
> >>> 
> >>> These angles are spherical angles, which are based on the planet we 
> >>> live on and where we like to define positions. 
> >>> 
> >>> (The clock we need to find the longitude of our position.) 
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> TH 
> 
> >> 
> >> So you are talking about celestial navigation. 
> >> I can assure you that the mathematics involved in 
> >> celestial navigation is based on Euclidean geometry. 
> >> 
> >
> You didn't get the point? 
> 
> When you use a clock to find the longitude of your 
> position, it is because you must have measured the direction 
> to the Sun (or Moon or a star). Determining your position 
> this way is geometry! Euclidean geometry! 
> Celestial navigation as we know it would be impossible 
> without Euclidean geometry.
> > Actually I think, that spherical coordinates make more sense than 
> > Euclidean.
> See Volney's comment. 
> 
> You seem to think that a Cartesian coordinate system must be used 
> in Euclidean geometry. That is nonsense. Spherical coordinates 
> are used in celestial navigation. The geometry is still Euclidean.

Sure it is; only relativistic idiots are dumb enough to deny, and - as
seen - not even all of them.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#624141

On Saturday, November 18, 2023 at 8:37:29 PM UTC-8, JanPB wrote:
> On Saturday, November 11, 2023 at 5:50:35 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > "Euclidean” and “Euclidean,” replacing them with “curved” and “straight.” That will be my first simplification...
> > We have been told that curved geometry has been used for the last two centuries because it allows us to solve problems we could not solve before. This is a false claim. Any problem that can be solved with curved geometry can be solved with straight geometry, and it can be solved much more quickly and transparently with straight geometry. If problems have seemed to be solved with curved geometry that could not be solved with straight geometry, it is only because those problems were too subtle for mathematicians of the time. [etc.] 
> 
> You are barking a nonexistent tree. This is NOT the point of having different geometries. 
> 
> -- 
> Jan
You are living proof that universities are prestige mills that confer prestige instead of knowledge.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web