Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #662360 > unrolled thread
| Started by | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2025-04-03 22:03 -0700 |
| Last post | 2025-04-11 09:58 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 82 — 20 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-04-03 22:03 -0700
Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-04-04 05:24 +0000
Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-04-04 07:55 +0200
Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-04-04 22:38 +0000
Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-04-04 10:46 -0700
Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-04-04 12:29 -0700
Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-04-04 12:37 -0700
Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2025-04-10 19:02 -0500
Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-04-10 20:12 -0700
Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-04-10 20:39 -0700
Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-04-10 20:50 -0700
Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2025-04-10 23:39 -0500
Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2025-04-10 23:57 -0500
Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-04-04 14:15 -0700
Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-04-04 15:19 -0700
Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-04-10 22:58 -0700
Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-04-13 12:17 -0700
Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-04-14 01:13 -0700
Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-04-19 23:50 -0700
Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-04-05 11:17 -0700
Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) - 2025-04-09 13:00 +0000
Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-04-09 13:10 +0000
Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Dwaine Hajdú <edajay@njwnwindj.hu> - 2025-04-09 17:29 +0000
Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2025-04-10 09:20 +0200
Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) - 2025-04-10 11:33 +0000
Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Arius Babaskin Rui <bnk@aab.ru> - 2025-04-10 12:46 +0000
Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-04-11 07:19 +0200
Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2025-04-11 19:52 +0200
Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Douglas Laterza <ou@oodssaa.it> - 2025-04-11 18:04 +0000
Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-04-12 10:48 +0200
Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Bobbie Bakhvalov <ab@vibh.ru> - 2025-04-12 10:39 +0000
Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-04-13 09:11 +0200
Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-04-13 01:07 -0700
Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-04-14 05:58 +0200
Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-04-13 21:54 -0700
Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Athel Cornish-Bowden <me@yahoo.com> - 2025-04-14 09:31 +0200
Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2025-04-15 22:21 +0200
Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Edel Baburoff <obbeub@aerb.ru> - 2025-04-13 10:04 +0000
Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Corbin Yuan Xiong <nb@rya.cn> - 2025-04-12 10:52 +0000
Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2025-04-12 11:03 -0500
Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-04-12 08:38 -0700
Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-04-12 09:13 -0700
Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2025-04-12 22:37 +0200
Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-04-13 09:24 +0200
Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2025-04-10 15:15 -0500
Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2025-04-10 22:32 +0200
Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-04-10 14:06 -0700
Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? x <x@x.org> - 2025-04-10 15:14 -0700
Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-04-11 07:30 +0200
Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-04-14 01:12 +0000
Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2025-04-10 19:32 -0500
Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2025-04-11 15:44 +0200
Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-04-11 08:17 -0700
Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-04-11 08:53 -0700
Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2025-04-11 11:56 -0500
Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2025-04-04 14:34 -0500
Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-04-04 12:39 -0700
Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2025-04-04 14:45 -0500
Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-04-04 13:02 -0700
Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-04-04 12:57 -0700
Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> - 2025-04-09 15:21 +0100
Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-04-09 09:44 -0700
Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? "shades@cov.net.inv" <seeu@nt.net> - 2025-04-11 20:16 +0100
Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-04-12 07:35 -0700
Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-04-12 11:59 -0700
Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-04-14 01:08 +0000
Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2025-04-13 20:39 -0500
Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2025-04-13 21:40 -0500
Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-04-14 03:04 +0000
Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2025-04-13 22:49 -0500
Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2025-04-13 23:08 -0500
Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2025-04-13 23:27 -0500
Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-04-14 04:53 +0000
Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2025-04-14 00:48 -0500
Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-04-14 06:29 +0000
Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-04-14 04:24 +0000
Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-04-14 02:52 +0000
Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2025-04-13 23:45 -0500
Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-04-20 12:05 +0000
Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-04-11 06:27 +0200
Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2025-04-10 21:22 +0200
Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? quadibloc <quadibloc@gmail.com> - 2025-04-11 09:58 +0000
Page 2 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 Next page →
| From | hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-09 13:00 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <e196baed039a0b3096885dd026bc319a@www.novabbs.com> |
| In reply to | #662419 |
On Sat, 5 Apr 2025 18:17:24 +0000, The Starmaker wrote: > > I mean, I observe the Earth and it doesn't appear rational to me.... > > doesn't that ...bother...you? > > Using rational means in a irrational world sounds STUPID to me. > > Luckly, only a small percentage of the people on earth are rational. > > There is NO scientific basis for a rational world... > > but there is a scientific basis for a irratio[nal*] world. * Correcting Starfaker's dyslexia. “Now my own suspicion is that the Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose.” -- J.B.S. Haldane
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-09 13:10 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <58e5e9ff5de114bd887490753fed7651@www.novabbs.org> |
| In reply to | #662563 |
Poor devils simply cannot understand the implications of eternity and infinity Woof-woof woof woof woof-woof Bertietaylor --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dwaine Hajdú <edajay@njwnwindj.hu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-09 17:29 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vt6aqe$13r7b$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #662563 |
gharnagel wrote: > On Sat, 5 Apr 2025 18:17:24 +0000, The Starmaker wrote: >> There is NO scientific basis for a rational world... >> but there is a scientific basis for a irratio[nal*] world. > > * Correcting Starfaker's dyslexia. > > “Now my own suspicion is that the Universe is not only queerer than we > suppose, but queerer than we can suppose.” -- J.B.S. Haldane thank you my friend very much, making it obvious, that in the Einstine based relativity, they are not supposing what they can, but are just supposing. Very funny indeed. A lesson to be learned from here.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-10 09:20 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1rakhfg.vqrsfd2xnf4mN%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> |
| In reply to | #662563 |
gharnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> wrote: > On Sat, 5 Apr 2025 18:17:24 +0000, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > I mean, I observe the Earth and it doesn't appear rational to me.... > > > > doesn't that ...bother...you? > > > > Using rational means in a irrational world sounds STUPID to me. > > > > Luckly, only a small percentage of the people on earth are rational. > > > > There is NO scientific basis for a rational world... > > > > but there is a scientific basis for a irratio[nal*] world. > > * Correcting Starfaker's dyslexia. > > "Now my own suspicion is that the Universe is not only queerer than we > suppose, but queerer than we can suppose." -- J.B.S. Haldane Just talk. Haldane was a biologist, and not known for competence in physics or cosmology. The Universe is not an evolved biologcal system. His naive psychologising about inherent limitations of the human brain is best ignored. Fortunatately Haldane himself saw that his sayings were 'suspicions' only, Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-10 11:33 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <8309cf9411b3d1fb6990a61dbcac02b9@www.novabbs.com> |
| In reply to | #662593 |
On Thu, 10 Apr 2025 7:20:18 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote: > > gharnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > "Now my own suspicion is that the Universe is not only queerer than > > we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose." -- J.B.S. Haldane > > Just talk. Haldane was a biologist, and not known for competence in > physics or cosmology. The Universe is not an evolved biologcal system. Are we sure of that? > His naive psychologising about inherent limitations of the human > brain is best ignored. I don't know about that, but "he described how he 'enjoyed the opportunity of killing people and regarded this as a respectable relic of primitive man.'” Did he have a troubling little psychological problem, or maybe it was PTSD. > Fortunatately Haldane himself saw that his sayings > were 'suspicions' only, > > Jan Well, I have suspicions about his suspicions. "Nobel laureate Peter Medawar once referred to Haldane as, 'the cleverest man I ever knew'” I consider his suspicions as "clever" :-) Fortunately, it doesn't seemed to have prevented a sufficient number from trying to understand the Cosmic All anyway.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arius Babaskin Rui <bnk@aab.ru> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-10 12:46 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vt8eja$2vhnd$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #662602 |
gharnagel wrote: > Well, I have suspicions about his suspicions. > > "Nobel laureate Peter Medawar once referred to Haldane as, 'the > cleverest man I ever knew'” > > I consider his suspicions as "clever" Fortunately, it doesn't seemed > to have prevented a sufficient number from trying to understand the > Cosmic All anyway. no sir, my paper *_On the Divergent Matter of the Moving Koerpers Model_* is correct. The abstract coercive conception of the Einstine's */_bended spacetime_/* is incorrect.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-11 07:19 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <m5rn1nFj157U5@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #662605 |
Am Donnerstag000010, 10.04.2025 um 14:46 schrieb Arius Babaskin Rui: > gharnagel wrote: > >> Well, I have suspicions about his suspicions. >> >> "Nobel laureate Peter Medawar once referred to Haldane as, 'the >> cleverest man I ever knew'” >> >> I consider his suspicions as "clever" Fortunately, it doesn't seemed >> to have prevented a sufficient number from trying to understand the >> Cosmic All anyway. > > no sir, my paper *_On the Divergent Matter of the Moving Koerpers Model_* > is correct. The abstract coercive conception of the Einstine's > */_bended spacetime_/* is incorrect. 'Körper' is a German word and means 'body'. But unlike the English 'body', it is mainly used for the human body or something similar. The German word 'Körper' isn't a a synonym for 'object', but usually addresses biological bodies. In geometry 'Körper' is used in German to address objects with three dimensions. Also a certain type of mathematical objects are called 'Körper'. But particles, atoms, rays and many other physical objects are not called 'Körper'. The title 'electrodynamics of moving bodies' had therefore a strange connotation in German. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-11 19:52 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1ramdrp.6j8jyps41hq0N%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> |
| In reply to | #662635 |
Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote: > Am Donnerstag000010, 10.04.2025 um 14:46 schrieb Arius Babaskin Rui: > > gharnagel wrote: > > > >> Well, I have suspicions about his suspicions. > >> > >> "Nobel laureate Peter Medawar once referred to Haldane as, 'the > >> cleverest man I ever knew'" > >> > >> I consider his suspicions as "clever" Fortunately, it doesn't seemed > >> to have prevented a sufficient number from trying to understand the > >> Cosmic All anyway. > > > > no sir, my paper *_On the Divergent Matter of the Moving Koerpers Model_* > > is correct. The abstract coercive conception of the Einstine's > > */_bended spacetime_/* is incorrect. > > 'Körper' is a German word and means 'body'. > > But unlike the English 'body', it is mainly used for the human body or > something similar. > > The German word 'Körper' isn't a a synonym for 'object', but usually > addresses biological bodies. > > In geometry 'Körper' is used in German to address objects with three > dimensions. Also a certain type of mathematical objects are called 'Körper'. > > But particles, atoms, rays and many other physical objects are not > called 'Körper'. > > The title 'electrodynamics of moving bodies' had therefore a strange > connotation in German. So you are incompetent in scientific German as well. FYI: Körper (Physik) Ein physikalischer Körper ist ein von seiner Umgebung abgrenzbares Objekt, das eine Masse sowie ein Volumen besitzt. Jan -- <https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Körper_(Physik)>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Douglas Laterza <ou@oodssaa.it> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-11 18:04 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vtblj2$28dbm$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #662652 |
J. J. Lodder wrote: > Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote: >> But particles, atoms, rays and many other physical objects are not >> called 'Körper'. of course not, since are particles and waves, and not koerpers. >> The title 'electrodynamics of moving bodies' had therefore a strange >> connotation in German. > > So you are incompetent in scientific German as well. > > FYI: Körper (Physik) > Ein physikalischer Körper ist ein von seiner Umgebung abgrenzbares > Objekt, das eine Masse sowie ein Volumen besitzt. > > Jan we agree. First and foremost koerpers comes in physics, then biology. Reveals Heger don't undrestand universities.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-12 10:48 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <m5unm2F36ttU6@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #662653 |
Am Freitag000011, 11.04.2025 um 20:04 schrieb Douglas Laterza: > J. J. Lodder wrote: > >> Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote: >>> But particles, atoms, rays and many other physical objects are not >>> called 'Körper'. > > of course not, since are particles and waves, and not koerpers. > >>> The title 'electrodynamics of moving bodies' had therefore a strange >>> connotation in German. >> >> So you are incompetent in scientific German as well. Well, actually I'm not a physicist and don't know, how the physicists talk. I'm an engineer from education and had no personal contacts to the physics department. So: possibly they speak in a different idiom than engineers do. To me the title 'moving bodies' (combined with 'electric forces') sounds like a synonym for 'sex'. ... TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bobbie Bakhvalov <ab@vibh.ru> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-12 10:39 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vtdfsf$9bus$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #662665 |
Thomas Heger wrote: > I'm an engineer from education and had no personal contacts to the > physics department. So: possibly they speak in a different idiom than > engineers do. > > To me the title 'moving bodies' (combined with 'electric forces') sounds > like a synonym for 'sex'. > ... since you are engineer neither. Ever heard of a blackbody in your area of interest? Here a little what the cacamerica destroyed 2. ww for no reason. They had electric current, the polakia for instance doesn't have it right now. *_Beautiful Dresden Germany in 1936_* https://%42i%54%63hute.com/vi%44eo/biiQogqnLF3N
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-13 09:11 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <m616brFfdkbU4@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #662666 |
Am Samstag000012, 12.04.2025 um 12:39 schrieb Bobbie Bakhvalov:
> Thomas Heger wrote:
>
>> I'm an engineer from education and had no personal contacts to the
>> physics department. So: possibly they speak in a different idiom than
>> engineers do.
>>
>> To me the title 'moving bodies' (combined with 'electric forces') sounds
>> like a synonym for 'sex'.
>> ...
>
> since you are engineer neither. Ever heard of a blackbody in your area of
> interest?..
Actually you are right, because I'm not an engineer by profession.
But I own a very nice document from the university 'TU-Berlin', which
grants the academic degree 'Dipl.-Ing.' to me.
Therefore I'm allowed to use 'Dipl.-Ing.' on all letters that I write. I
could also write that on my door-bell (if I wanted to, what I didn't).
About 'blackbody radiation' I have heard before.
Most of the relevant equations I could write down here, without looking
them up.
Why I think, that Einstein's title is 'mocking'?
Well, I conducted extensive studies on that particular paper and found,
that article is really bad and FULL of errors.
The number of errors is sooooo large, that they cannot be explained as
mistakes, but another explanation is required.
This would be im my opinion an intentional offense ('mocking'), to which
the title would be the 'cherry on the cake'.
TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-13 01:07 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4uCcnU5A9ptN7Wb6nZ2dnZfqn_adnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #662680 |
On 04/13/2025 12:11 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am Samstag000012, 12.04.2025 um 12:39 schrieb Bobbie Bakhvalov:
>> Thomas Heger wrote:
>>
>>> I'm an engineer from education and had no personal contacts to the
>>> physics department. So: possibly they speak in a different idiom than
>>> engineers do.
>>>
>>> To me the title 'moving bodies' (combined with 'electric forces') sounds
>>> like a synonym for 'sex'.
>>> ...
>>
>> since you are engineer neither. Ever heard of a blackbody in your area of
>> interest?..
>
> Actually you are right, because I'm not an engineer by profession.
>
> But I own a very nice document from the university 'TU-Berlin', which
> grants the academic degree 'Dipl.-Ing.' to me.
>
> Therefore I'm allowed to use 'Dipl.-Ing.' on all letters that I write. I
> could also write that on my door-bell (if I wanted to, what I didn't).
>
> About 'blackbody radiation' I have heard before.
>
> Most of the relevant equations I could write down here, without looking
> them up.
>
>
> Why I think, that Einstein's title is 'mocking'?
>
> Well, I conducted extensive studies on that particular paper and found,
> that article is really bad and FULL of errors.
>
> The number of errors is sooooo large, that they cannot be explained as
> mistakes, but another explanation is required.
>
> This would be im my opinion an intentional offense ('mocking'), to which
> the title would be the 'cherry on the cake'.
>
>
> TH
Maybe he was just suffering through a language barrier.
Einstein developed a lot. Definitely there are differences early
Einstein and later Einstein. I contrast that with myself, having a very
coherent narrative since I was very versed in all the super-classical
theories then set loose on modern mathematics and premier physics.
The later Einstein, from "Out of My Later Years", when he was talking
about a field theory and not talking about the linear and rotational, I
can't really say whether he knew about the differences thereof or not,
though, a generous reading sees that he does and will arrive at them.
Or, it's arrived at.
Really you should point at me, I'm one of the premier mathematicians and
physicists of this time.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-14 05:58 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <m63fctFqo98U2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #662683 |
Am Sonntag000013, 13.04.2025 um 10:07 schrieb Ross Finlayson:
> On 04/13/2025 12:11 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>> Am Samstag000012, 12.04.2025 um 12:39 schrieb Bobbie Bakhvalov:
>>> Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'm an engineer from education and had no personal contacts to the
>>>> physics department. So: possibly they speak in a different idiom than
>>>> engineers do.
>>>>
>>>> To me the title 'moving bodies' (combined with 'electric forces')
>>>> sounds
>>>> like a synonym for 'sex'.
>>>> ...
>>>
>>> since you are engineer neither. Ever heard of a blackbody in your
>>> area of
>>> interest?..
>>
>> Actually you are right, because I'm not an engineer by profession.
>>
>> But I own a very nice document from the university 'TU-Berlin', which
>> grants the academic degree 'Dipl.-Ing.' to me.
>>
>> Therefore I'm allowed to use 'Dipl.-Ing.' on all letters that I write. I
>> could also write that on my door-bell (if I wanted to, what I didn't).
>>
>> About 'blackbody radiation' I have heard before.
>>
>> Most of the relevant equations I could write down here, without looking
>> them up.
>>
>>
>> Why I think, that Einstein's title is 'mocking'?
>>
>> Well, I conducted extensive studies on that particular paper and found,
>> that article is really bad and FULL of errors.
>>
>> The number of errors is sooooo large, that they cannot be explained as
>> mistakes, but another explanation is required.
>>
>> This would be im my opinion an intentional offense ('mocking'), to which
>> the title would be the 'cherry on the cake'.
>>
>>
>> TH
>
> Maybe he was just suffering through a language barrier.
Well, Einstein was German and wrote in German, hence there was no
'language barrier'.
>
> Einstein developed a lot. Definitely there are differences early
> Einstein and later Einstein. I contrast that with myself, having a very
> coherent narrative since I was very versed in all the super-classical
> theories then set loose on modern mathematics and premier physics.
Sure, he developed and became a much better physicist.
But I'm talking about a certain paper from 1905, when Einstein was 26.
...
TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-13 21:54 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ch2dnYuacqCYCGH6nZ2dnZfqn_WdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #662713 |
On 04/13/2025 08:58 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am Sonntag000013, 13.04.2025 um 10:07 schrieb Ross Finlayson:
>> On 04/13/2025 12:11 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>> Am Samstag000012, 12.04.2025 um 12:39 schrieb Bobbie Bakhvalov:
>>>> Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I'm an engineer from education and had no personal contacts to the
>>>>> physics department. So: possibly they speak in a different idiom than
>>>>> engineers do.
>>>>>
>>>>> To me the title 'moving bodies' (combined with 'electric forces')
>>>>> sounds
>>>>> like a synonym for 'sex'.
>>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> since you are engineer neither. Ever heard of a blackbody in your
>>>> area of
>>>> interest?..
>>>
>>> Actually you are right, because I'm not an engineer by profession.
>>>
>>> But I own a very nice document from the university 'TU-Berlin', which
>>> grants the academic degree 'Dipl.-Ing.' to me.
>>>
>>> Therefore I'm allowed to use 'Dipl.-Ing.' on all letters that I write. I
>>> could also write that on my door-bell (if I wanted to, what I didn't).
>>>
>>> About 'blackbody radiation' I have heard before.
>>>
>>> Most of the relevant equations I could write down here, without looking
>>> them up.
>>>
>>>
>>> Why I think, that Einstein's title is 'mocking'?
>>>
>>> Well, I conducted extensive studies on that particular paper and found,
>>> that article is really bad and FULL of errors.
>>>
>>> The number of errors is sooooo large, that they cannot be explained as
>>> mistakes, but another explanation is required.
>>>
>>> This would be im my opinion an intentional offense ('mocking'), to which
>>> the title would be the 'cherry on the cake'.
>>>
>>>
>>> TH
>>
>> Maybe he was just suffering through a language barrier.
>
> Well, Einstein was German and wrote in German, hence there was no
> 'language barrier'.
>
>>
>> Einstein developed a lot. Definitely there are differences early
>> Einstein and later Einstein. I contrast that with myself, having a very
>> coherent narrative since I was very versed in all the super-classical
>> theories then set loose on modern mathematics and premier physics.
>
> Sure, he developed and became a much better physicist.
>
> But I'm talking about a certain paper from 1905, when Einstein was 26.
>
> ...
>
>
> TH
>
A brief account given some facts of electron theory and a bit of algebra
and geometry.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Athel Cornish-Bowden <me@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-14 09:31 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <vtidkf$phv3$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #662713 |
On 2025-04-14 03:58:05 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
> Am Sonntag000013, 13.04.2025 um 10:07 schrieb Ross Finlayson:
>> On 04/13/2025 12:11 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>> Am Samstag000012, 12.04.2025 um 12:39 schrieb Bobbie Bakhvalov:
>>>> Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I'm an engineer from education and had no personal contacts to the
>>>>> physics department. So: possibly they speak in a different idiom than
>>>>> engineers do.
>>>>>
>>>>> To me the title 'moving bodies' (combined with 'electric forces') sounds
>>>>> like a synonym for 'sex'.
>>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> since you are engineer neither. Ever heard of a blackbody in your area of
>>>> interest?..
>>>
>>> Actually you are right, because I'm not an engineer by profession.
>>>
>>> But I own a very nice document from the university 'TU-Berlin', which
>>> grants the academic degree 'Dipl.-Ing.' to me.
>>>
>>> Therefore I'm allowed to use 'Dipl.-Ing.' on all letters that I write. I
>>> could also write that on my door-bell (if I wanted to, what I didn't).
>>>
>>> About 'blackbody radiation' I have heard before.
>>>
>>> Most of the relevant equations I could write down here, without looking
>>> them up.
>>>
>>>
>>> Why I think, that Einstein's title is 'mocking'?
>>>
>>> Well, I conducted extensive studies on that particular paper and found,
>>> that article is really bad and FULL of errors.
>>>
>>> The number of errors is sooooo large, that they cannot be explained as
>>> mistakes, but another explanation is required.
>>>
>>> This would be im my opinion an intentional offense ('mocking'), to which
>>> the title would be the 'cherry on the cake'.
>>>
>>>
>>> TH
>>
>> Maybe he was just suffering through a language barrier.
>
> Well, Einstein was German and wrote in German, hence there was no
> 'language barrier'.
>
>>
>> Einstein developed a lot. Definitely there are differences early
>> Einstein and later Einstein. I contrast that with myself, having a very
>> coherent narrative since I was very versed in all the super-classical
>> theories then set loose on modern mathematics and premier physics.
>
> Sure, he developed and became a much better physicist.
>
> But I'm talking about a certain paper from 1905, when Einstein was 26.
Forget your sex obsession: "black body" was an established term long
before 1905. Newton wrote "Do not black Bodies conceive heat more
easily from Light than those of other Colours do, by reason that the
Light falling on them is not reflected outwards, but enters into the
Bodies, and is often reflected and refracted within them, until it be
stifled and lost?"
--
athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-15 22:21 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1raur33.1u0ba37162sdbtN%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> |
| In reply to | #662724 |
Athel Cornish-Bowden <me@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 2025-04-14 03:58:05 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
>
> > Am Sonntag000013, 13.04.2025 um 10:07 schrieb Ross Finlayson:
> >> On 04/13/2025 12:11 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> >>> Am Samstag000012, 12.04.2025 um 12:39 schrieb Bobbie Bakhvalov:
> >>>> Thomas Heger wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> I'm an engineer from education and had no personal contacts to the
> >>>>> physics department. So: possibly they speak in a different idiom than
> >>>>> engineers do.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> To me the title 'moving bodies' (combined with 'electric forces') sounds
> >>>>> like a synonym for 'sex'.
> >>>>> ...
> >>>>
> >>>> since you are engineer neither. Ever heard of a blackbody in your area of
> >>>> interest?..
> >>>
> >>> Actually you are right, because I'm not an engineer by profession.
> >>>
> >>> But I own a very nice document from the university 'TU-Berlin', which
> >>> grants the academic degree 'Dipl.-Ing.' to me.
> >>>
> >>> Therefore I'm allowed to use 'Dipl.-Ing.' on all letters that I write. I
> >>> could also write that on my door-bell (if I wanted to, what I didn't).
> >>>
> >>> About 'blackbody radiation' I have heard before.
> >>>
> >>> Most of the relevant equations I could write down here, without looking
> >>> them up.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Why I think, that Einstein's title is 'mocking'?
> >>>
> >>> Well, I conducted extensive studies on that particular paper and found,
> >>> that article is really bad and FULL of errors.
> >>>
> >>> The number of errors is sooooo large, that they cannot be explained as
> >>> mistakes, but another explanation is required.
> >>>
> >>> This would be im my opinion an intentional offense ('mocking'), to which
> >>> the title would be the 'cherry on the cake'.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> TH
> >>
> >> Maybe he was just suffering through a language barrier.
> >
> > Well, Einstein was German and wrote in German, hence there was no
> > 'language barrier'.
>
> >
> >>
> >> Einstein developed a lot. Definitely there are differences early
> >> Einstein and later Einstein. I contrast that with myself, having a very
> >> coherent narrative since I was very versed in all the super-classical
> >> theories then set loose on modern mathematics and premier physics.
> >
> > Sure, he developed and became a much better physicist.
> >
> > But I'm talking about a certain paper from 1905, when Einstein was 26.
>
> Forget your sex obsession: "black body" was an established term long
> before 1905. Newton wrote "Do not black Bodies conceive heat more
> easily from Light than those of other Colours do, by reason that the
> Light falling on them is not reflected outwards, but enters into the
> Bodies, and is often reflected and refracted within them, until it be
> stifled and lost?"
But I guess that Newon wouldn't have seen a glowing poker
as an example of a 'black body'.
Wikipedia informs me that it was invented in 1860.
"Der Begriff "Schwarzer Körper" wurde 1860 von Gustav Robert Kirchhoff
geprägt."
So it -was- German, originally,
Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Edel Baburoff <obbeub@aerb.ru> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-13 10:04 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vtg27f$2jrf5$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #662680 |
Thomas Heger wrote: > Why I think, that Einstein's title is 'mocking'? > > Well, I conducted extensive studies on that particular paper and found, > that article is really bad and FULL of errors. > > The number of errors is sooooo large, that they cannot be explained as > mistakes, but another explanation is required. here we agree my friend. A disgusting excuse of a human being, this Einstine. But the history of science is 100% fake. Those equations funded where else, assigned to him, _admittedly_ something he never understood. I am so depressed about this Einstine. This wasn't even his real name. I suppose he was an orphan from the previous _population reset_. Here some proofs, making me undrestand *_The Marble Church - My Lunch Break_* https://%42i%54%63hute.com/vi%44eo/LcTAYaPMwQVl *_Beautiful Dresden Germany in 1936_* https://%42i%54%63hute.com/vi%44eo/biiQogqnLF3N
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Corbin Yuan Xiong <nb@rya.cn> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-12 10:52 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vtdgl9$9bvf$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #662665 |
Thomas Heger wrote: > I'm an engineer from education and had no personal contacts to the > physics department. So: possibly they speak in a different idiom than > engineers do. > > To me the title 'moving bodies' (combined with 'electric forces') sounds > like a synonym for 'sex'. > ... speaking the witch neither I think they built those buildings. To me it looks like something /_laser_3D_printing_/, done by others before population resets. *_Beautiful Dresden Germany in 1936_* https://%42i%54%63hute.com/vi%44eo/biiQogqnLF3N *_The Marble Church - My Lunch Break_* https://%42i%54%63hute.com/vi%44eo/LcTAYaPMwQVl
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-12 11:03 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <vte2sq$13bh6$1@solani.org> |
| In reply to | #662667 |
On 4/12/25 5:52 AM, Corbin Yuan Xiong wrote: > > > > > > > > > *_Beautiful Dresden Germany in 1936_* > https://%42i%54%63hute.com/vi%44eo/biiQogqnLF3N > > > Trump should watch that to learn a lesson or two. Netanyahu too! A lot of Jews these days too. Nazis are your enemy. They'll ruin you.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web