Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #664666
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | sci.physics.relativity |
| Subject | Re: The first postulate is a truism. |
| Date | 2025-06-29 06:20 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mcbt2oF1d3oU4@mid.individual.net> (permalink) |
| References | (2 earlier) <1rebzma.1ovikw0894wqnN%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> <mc6nm3F5qbaU1@mid.individual.net> <103lin2$19i1$1@dont-email.me> <mcaj0kFoi9pU10@mid.individual.net> <103p858$vq58$1@dont-email.me> |
Am Samstag000028, 28.06.2025 um 19:18 schrieb Athel Cornish-Bowden: > On 2025-06-28 16:22:06 +0000, Thomas Heger said: > >> >> [ … ] > >> >> Well, that's what you think. >> >> For me it seems, that Heaviside and Gibbs were 'con-artists' and >> wanted to divert physics from true science. >> ... > > I don't know enough about Heaviside to comment on what you say about him > (though my guess is that it's complete bollocks to rival the complete > bollocks that you write on other subjects). For Gibbs, however, it's > clear that you don't know the first thing about Gibbs's character. A > good place to start would be the Wikiparticle on Gibbs, but there is > plenty to be learned from other sources. > My guess was, that Gibbs and Heaviside cooperated in the attempt to eliminate quaternions. My guess was, that they knew, that nature would require something like quaternions and complex numbers, but wanted to divert mankind from good science. Iow: they knew better science than what they told to the general public, but didn't want that general public to interfere with their hidden knowledge. So the extremely stupid concept of additive connections between 'forces' was introduced and that was meant to eliminate ideas about 'ether', too. People like Tait and Hertz rejected this concept, but were simply overrun by the vector hype, which is still the dominant paradigm. TH
Back to sci.physics.relativity | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
The first postulate is a truism. clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-06-19 17:37 +0000
Re: The first postulate is a truism. Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-06-20 12:06 +0300
Re: The first postulate is a truism. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-06-20 11:43 +0200
Re: The first postulate is a truism. clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-06-20 18:55 +0000
Re: The first postulate is a truism. Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-06-21 13:19 +0300
Re: The first postulate is a truism. clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-06-21 21:14 +0000
Re: The first postulate is a truism. Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-06-21 22:31 +0000
Re: The first postulate is a truism. bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-06-22 00:11 +0000
Re: The first postulate is a truism. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-06-22 11:45 +0200
Re: The first postulate is a truism. clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-06-23 00:09 +0000
Re: The first postulate is a truism. Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-06-23 13:47 +0000
Re: The first postulate is a truism. Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-06-22 12:43 +0300
Re: The first postulate is a truism. clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-06-23 21:25 +0000
Re: The first postulate is a truism. Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-06-24 12:36 +0300
Re: The first postulate is a truism. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2025-06-22 13:25 +0200
Re: The first postulate is a truism. bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-06-22 13:50 +0000
Re: The first postulate is a truism. Jerald Warszawski <raw@eazreizs.pl> - 2025-06-22 14:03 +0000
Re: The first postulate is a truism. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-06-22 16:46 +0200
Re: The first postulate is a truism. Walid Paradjanov <awload@wlv.ru> - 2025-06-22 16:07 +0000
Re: The first postulate is a truism. clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-06-23 03:21 +0000
Re: The first postulate is a truism. Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-06-23 11:13 +0300
Re: The first postulate is a truism. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2025-06-23 19:20 +0200
Re: The first postulate is a truism. clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-06-23 21:52 +0000
Re: The first postulate is a truism. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2025-06-24 09:27 +0200
Re: The first postulate is a truism. Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-06-24 12:38 +0300
Re: The first postulate is a truism. clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-06-23 21:09 +0000
Re: The first postulate is a truism. Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-06-24 12:42 +0300
Re: The first postulate is a truism. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-06-24 19:59 +0200
Re: The first postulate is a truism. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-06-27 07:17 +0200
Re: The first postulate is a truism. Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-06-27 10:54 +0300
Re: The first postulate is a truism. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2025-06-27 12:51 +0200
Re: The first postulate is a truism. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-06-28 18:22 +0200
Re: The first postulate is a truism. Athel Cornish-Bowden <me@yahoo.com> - 2025-06-28 19:18 +0200
Re: The first postulate is a truism. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-06-29 06:20 +0200
Re: The first postulate is a truism. Athel Cornish-Bowden <me@yahoo.com> - 2025-06-29 10:03 +0200
Re: The first postulate is a truism. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-06-30 14:15 +0200
Re: The first postulate is a truism. Athel Cornish-Bowden <me@yahoo.com> - 2025-06-30 17:31 +0200
Re: The first postulate is a truism. Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2025-06-30 23:11 +0200
Re: The first postulate is a truism. Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-06-30 22:18 +0000
Re: The first postulate is a truism. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-07-01 07:20 +0200
Re: The first postulate is a truism. bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-07-01 09:39 +0000
Re: The first postulate is a truism. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2025-06-29 10:34 +0200
Re: The first postulate is a truism. bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-07-01 09:42 +0000
Re: The first postulate is a truism. Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-06-29 13:46 +0300
Re: The first postulate is a truism. clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-06-20 18:59 +0000
Re: The first postulate is a truism. clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-06-21 01:28 +0000
Re: The first postulate is a truism. Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-06-21 13:22 +0300
Re: The first postulate is a truism. clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-06-21 21:11 +0000
Re: The first postulate is a truism. Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-06-22 12:45 +0300
Re: The first postulate is a truism. clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-06-23 21:29 +0000
Re: The first postulate is a truism. Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-06-24 12:45 +0300
Re: The first postulate is a truism. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2025-06-22 13:25 +0200
Re: The first postulate is a truism. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-06-22 16:47 +0200
Re: The first postulate is a truism. clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-06-23 03:36 +0000
Re: The first postulate is a truism. clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-06-23 03:48 +0000
Re: The first postulate is a truism. clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-06-23 03:54 +0000
Re: The first postulate is a truism. Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-06-23 11:43 +0300
Re: The first postulate is a truism. clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-06-23 21:16 +0000
Re: The first postulate is a truism. Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-06-24 12:47 +0300
Re: The first postulate is a truism. clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-06-23 13:32 +0000
Re: The first postulate is a truism. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2025-06-24 09:27 +0200
Re: The first postulate is a truism. Jefforey Yoshimatsu <rymaoeo@msyhua.jp> - 2025-06-24 10:02 +0000
Re: The first postulate is a truism. Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2025-06-24 13:07 +0200
Re: The first postulate is a truism. Otte Baigushev <aa@bigtghsoev.ru> - 2025-06-24 17:41 +0000
Re: The first postulate is a truism. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2025-06-25 12:08 +0200
Re: The first postulate is a truism. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-06-24 20:03 +0200
Re: The first postulate is a truism. Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-06-24 12:54 +0300
Re: The first postulate is a truism. bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-06-20 10:18 +0000
csiph-web