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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #671209 > unrolled thread

Attention Tom Roberts

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

Contents

  Attention Tom Roberts Y <Yborg@zenodo.com> - 2026-06-15 21:32 +1000
    Re: Attention Tom Roberts The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-06-15 14:51 -0700
    [OT] How to post to Usenet correctly (was: Attention Tom Roberts) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-06-16 15:28 +0200
      Re: [OT] How to post to Usenet correctly Y <Yborg@zenodo.com> - 2026-06-17 11:55 +1000
      Re: [OT] How to post to Usenet correctly Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-06-18 08:50 +0200
        Re: [OT] How to post to Usenet correctly "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> - 2026-06-18 07:40 +0000
          'nym-shifting troll (was: [OT] How to post to Usenet correctly) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-06-18 10:00 +0200
        Re: [OT] How to post to Usenet correctly onion@anon.invalid (Mr Ön!on) - 2026-06-18 13:58 +0100
      Re: [OT] How to post to Usenet correctly (was: Attention Tom Roberts) The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-06-18 10:25 -0700
        Re: [OT] How to post to Usenet correctly Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-06-20 04:27 +0200

#671209 — Attention Tom Roberts

On 4/14/2025 3:15 PM, Tom Roberts wrote:

 > There are literally hundreds of other experiments that confirm the
 > validity of SR. Some measure "time dilation", and some measure other
 > predictions of SR. To date, there is not a single reproducible
 > experiment within SR's domain that is not consistent with the
 > predictions of SR. There are so many such experiments that SR is one of
 > the most solidly confirmed theories/models that we have today.
 >
 > BTW there are over 30,000 particle accelerators operating in the world
 > today. SR was essential in the design of each of them, and they simply
 > would not work if SR were not valid.
 >
 > If you truly want to "regain aether" you will have to come up with an
 > aether theory that is indistinguishable from SR for EACH of those
 > experiments. And be sure to make it consistent with the quantum nature
 > of the universe we inhabit. To date, nobody has done so. AFAIK nobody
 > even has an inkling how to start....
 >
 > Tom Roberts
Dear Tom Roberts

While not an aether theory by any means, this can be done. Or at least 
it's the "start" you speak of. It involves performing a relational 
inversion on the foundational equation of Special Relativity, and 
identifying the core asymmetries of what the equation shows. Once these 
asymmetries have been identified, they can be mapped to the 
corresponding gauge groups; though readers would need to be prepared to 
digest the implications. For example; there is no Big Bang (instead 
there is directional reference to the General case theory - Stochastic 
Spacetime Evolution - SSE) which handles the production of matter events 
over the Riemannian manifold. What unfolds is a cascading structure for 
matter production events over spacetime. Curvature in the geometry of 
spacetime sets the background probability variance for matter production 
- without violating energy conservation or total field energy.

We like to think of E=mc^2 as symmetric; something that doesn't violate 
conservation laws. But there are symmetries outside of conservation laws 
themselves at play. We have this mass stuff on one side, this energy 
stuff on the other, where is the matter term? What propagates, what 
doesn't? What localizes, what doesn't ? What do the asymmetries in 
E=mc^2 tell us and what do they point directly to ? Moreover, where SSE 
is concerned - variations to field geometry (the manifold) do not 
represent energy conservation violations - energy conservation laws 
permit spacetime curvature. [To assist readers - when matter production 
ensues what is taken from the field - remains in the field via mass 
energy equivalence - but the field densities are varied - in the form of 
curvature].

Matter Anti-Matter Asymmetry

The Standard Model of cosmology requires baryogenesis as an imposed 
condition. The implication of the Big Bang framework is that the 
universe began in a matter-antimatter symmetric state which subsequently 
broke. The Rα framework challenges this assumption directly. RSU(2) — 
the crystallisation-transition component — corresponds to SU(2), the 
weak interaction, which is intrinsically CP-violating. This means that 
crystallization was never matter-antimatter symmetric. The asymmetry is 
not a condition imposed on the universe at a specific moment. It is a 
structural property of RSU(2) itself, present in every crystallisation 
event at every point in spacetime. Matter did not win a competition 
against antimatter. Matter is what crystallization structurally produces. "

The classification of m, c, and E as ontologically distinct is not a 
metaphysical imposition in the way aether is. It reflects established 
empirical facts: rest mass is Lorentz invariant; energy is 
frame-dependent; c is a universal constant of spacetime structure 
confirmed to extraordinary precision. These are properties of nature, 
not of interpretation.

On that basis I rely on the following and present...

THE SPECIAL CASE
The Rα field.

Asymmetries of E = mc² and the Gauge Group Correspondence The Unified 
Spacetime Potential Rα(x) and its Decomposition Across U(1), SU(2), and 
SU(3) (Yanick Borg).

https://zenodo.org/records/20594039

The above paper's scope is explicitly the rest-frame case, p=0, as 
stated. The full energy-momentum relation E² = (pc)² + (mc²)² is listed 
as the immediate next step — Lorentz corrections enter at the 
crystallisation boundary, which is precisely where momentum becomes 
defined. That is not an oversight; it is a principled boundary condition.

The causal direction is not asserted from the equation alone — it is 
derived from QFT, in which mass is generated from field processes via 
the Higgs mechanism and QCD binding energy. These are standard results, 
cited in the paper.

Regarding m as intrinsic: rest mass is Lorentz invariant. 
Frame-independence is precisely what intrinsic means in relativistic 
mechanics. This is standard usage.

THE GENERAL CASE

STOCHASTIC SPACETIME EVOLUTION

  "Spacetime tells matter how to move; matter tells spacetime how to 
curve." Wheeler, Geons, Black Holes, and Quantum Foam, p. 235, W.W. 
Norton & Company. (Goodreads) The paper uses the 2000 edition. Both 
editions (1998 first printing, 2000 reprint)

SSE extends and deepens this mutual dependency into the quantum domain. 
Where Wheeler describes a two-way coupling between existing matter and 
existing spacetime, SSE describes the prior process by which both come 
into existence." (Yanick Borg)

"This is not a restatement of Wheeler's formulation — it is its 
generative foundation. Wheeler describes what matter and spacetime do to 
each other once both exist. SSE describes the conditional spontaneous 
process by which they come to exist at all." (Yanick Borg)

***Link to SSE paper below***

https://zenodo.org/records/20448537



Yanick Borg

-y

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#671218

Y wrote:
> 
> On 4/14/2025 3:15 PM, Tom Roberts wrote:
> 
>  > There are literally hundreds of other experiments that confirm the
>  > validity of SR. Some measure "time dilation", and some measure other
>  > predictions of SR. To date, there is not a single reproducible
>  > experiment within SR's domain that is not consistent with the
>  > predictions of SR. There are so many such experiments that SR is one of
>  > the most solidly confirmed theories/models that we have today.
>  >
>  > BTW there are over 30,000 particle accelerators operating in the world
>  > today. SR was essential in the design of each of them, and they simply
>  > would not work if SR were not valid.
>  >
>  > If you truly want to "regain aether" you will have to come up with an
>  > aether theory that is indistinguishable from SR for EACH of those
>  > experiments. And be sure to make it consistent with the quantum nature
>  > of the universe we inhabit. To date, nobody has done so. AFAIK nobody
>  > even has an inkling how to start....
>  >
>  > Tom Roberts
> Dear Tom Roberts
> 
> While not an aether theory by any means, this can be done. Or at least
> it's the "start" you speak of. It involves performing a relational
> inversion on the foundational equation of Special Relativity, and
> identifying the core asymmetries of what the equation shows. Once these
> asymmetries have been identified, they can be mapped to the
> corresponding gauge groups; though readers would need to be prepared to
> digest the implications. For example; there is no Big Bang (instead
> there is directional reference to the General case theory - Stochastic
> Spacetime Evolution - SSE) which handles the production of matter events
> over the Riemannian manifold. What unfolds is a cascading structure for
> matter production events over spacetime. Curvature in the geometry of
> spacetime sets the background probability variance for matter production
> - without violating energy conservation or total field energy.
> 
> We like to think of E=mc^2 as symmetric; something that doesn't violate
> conservation laws. But there are symmetries outside of conservation laws
> themselves at play. We have this mass stuff on one side, this energy
> stuff on the other, where is the matter term? What propagates, what
> doesn't? What localizes, what doesn't ? What do the asymmetries in
> E=mc^2 tell us and what do they point directly to ? Moreover, where SSE
> is concerned - variations to field geometry (the manifold) do not
> represent energy conservation violations - energy conservation laws
> permit spacetime curvature. [To assist readers - when matter production
> ensues what is taken from the field - remains in the field via mass
> energy equivalence - but the field densities are varied - in the form of
> curvature].
> 
> Matter Anti-Matter Asymmetry
> 
> The Standard Model of cosmology requires baryogenesis as an imposed
> condition. The implication of the Big Bang framework is that the
> universe began in a matter-antimatter symmetric state which subsequently
> broke. The Rα framework challenges this assumption directly. RSU(2) —
> the crystallisation-transition component — corresponds to SU(2), the
> weak interaction, which is intrinsically CP-violating. This means that
> crystallization was never matter-antimatter symmetric. The asymmetry is
> not a condition imposed on the universe at a specific moment. It is a
> structural property of RSU(2) itself, present in every crystallisation
> event at every point in spacetime. Matter did not win a competition
> against antimatter. Matter is what crystallization structurally produces. "
> 
> The classification of m, c, and E as ontologically distinct is not a
> metaphysical imposition in the way aether is. It reflects established
> empirical facts: rest mass is Lorentz invariant; energy is
> frame-dependent; c is a universal constant of spacetime structure
> confirmed to extraordinary precision. These are properties of nature,
> not of interpretation.
> 
> On that basis I rely on the following and present...
> 
> THE SPECIAL CASE
> The Rα field.
> 
> Asymmetries of E = mc² and the Gauge Group Correspondence The Unified
> Spacetime Potential Rα(x) and its Decomposition Across U(1), SU(2), and
> SU(3) (Yanick Borg).
> 
> https://zenodo.org/records/20594039
> 
> The above paper's scope is explicitly the rest-frame case, p=0, as
> stated. The full energy-momentum relation E² = (pc)² + (mc²)² is listed
> as the immediate next step — Lorentz corrections enter at the
> crystallisation boundary, which is precisely where momentum becomes
> defined. That is not an oversight; it is a principled boundary condition.
> 
> The causal direction is not asserted from the equation alone — it is
> derived from QFT, in which mass is generated from field processes via
> the Higgs mechanism and QCD binding energy. These are standard results,
> cited in the paper.
> 
> Regarding m as intrinsic: rest mass is Lorentz invariant.
> Frame-independence is precisely what intrinsic means in relativistic
> mechanics. This is standard usage.
> 
> THE GENERAL CASE
> 
> STOCHASTIC SPACETIME EVOLUTION
> 
>   "Spacetime tells matter how to move; matter tells spacetime how to
> curve." Wheeler, Geons, Black Holes, and Quantum Foam, p. 235, W.W.
> Norton & Company. (Goodreads) The paper uses the 2000 edition. Both
> editions (1998 first printing, 2000 reprint)
> 
> SSE extends and deepens this mutual dependency into the quantum domain.
> Where Wheeler describes a two-way coupling between existing matter and
> existing spacetime, SSE describes the prior process by which both come
> into existence." (Yanick Borg)
> 
> "This is not a restatement of Wheeler's formulation — it is its
> generative foundation. Wheeler describes what matter and spacetime do to
> each other once both exist. SSE describes the conditional spontaneous
> process by which they come to exist at all." (Yanick Borg)
> 
> ***Link to SSE paper below***
> 
> https://zenodo.org/records/20448537
> 
> Yanick Borg
> 
> -y


This is not physics — it's fanfiction cosplaying as a "relational
inversion" of E=mc² while name-dropping gauge groups and Wheeler to
sound profound.


  "Relational inversion" is meaningless word salad.
Flipping E=mc² around and declaring "asymmetries" between mass/energy
doesn't reveal hidden gauge groups. It reveals you don't understand what
a symmetry is in physics. The equation is a relation from the full E² =
p²c² + m²c4; your "inversion" ignores the actual Lorentz-invariant
structure and pretends rest-frame cherry-picking is deep. Gauge groups
(U(1), SU(2), SU(3)) arise from local phase invariances in quantum
fields, not from staring at E=mc² until patterns emerge in your head.
This is numerology with tensors.
RSU(2) "crystallization" as built-in CP-violation is pure assertion.
You claim your made-up RSU(2) corresponds to weak SU(2) and thus matter
production is structurally asymmetric everywhere, solving baryogenesis
without imposition. Bullshit. The actual Standard Model CP-violation
(CKM matrix, Jarlskog invariant ~10^{-5}) is tiny and insufficient for
observed asymmetry by many orders of magnitude. Your "structural
property of RSU(2)" has zero derivation, zero calculation, zero
prediction of the baryon-to-photon ratio (~6×10^{-10}). It's "matter
wins because my framework says crystallization makes matter" — circular
theology.
SSE "stochastic production" dodges the vacuum catastrophe while creating
worse ones.
Claiming vacuum energy doesn't source curvature "by construction" while
having stochastic pair production that does curve spacetime is
incoherent handwaving. Energy conservation at each vertex doesn't save
you from the cosmological constant problem or explain why the vacuum
energy density isn't 10^{120} times observed. Your simulation producing
hydrogen from uniform conditions is cute but proves nothing without
continuum limit, renormalization, or matching to CMB, nucleosynthesis,
or large-scale structure.
Misuse of Wheeler and "generative foundation."
Wheeler's "spacetime tells matter how to move..." is about classical GR
+ quantum foam ideas. You turn it into "SSE is the prior process by
which both come into existence" without a single rigorous equation
governing the stochastic manifold evolution, backreaction, or
probability measure. This is not deepening mutual dependency — it's
slapping "stochastic" and "cascading" on top and calling it emergent.

garbage-That reinterpreting textbook equations via "inversion" and
"ontologically distinct" categories generates new physics instead of
just repackaging ignorance.  
That Zenodo preprints with HTML simulations constitute a "framework"
rather than unchecked speculation.  
Lorentz invariance, QFT results (Higgs, QCD), and empirical facts can be
selectively cited when convenient but ignored when your "crystallization
boundary" needs them to magically appear.  
No one will notice the complete absence of Feynman rules, S-matrix, or
any computable cross-section in your theory.

Physicists will ignore this because it offers zero novel predictions
testable against data (LHC, Planck, DESI, etc.) while requiring them to
learn your private vocabulary of Ra modes. Amateurs will lap it up
because it feels like "challenging the Big Bang" with fancy math words.
Competitors (actual quantum gravity researchers) will treat it as
background noise. Regulators don't matter here, but peer review would
eviscerate the lack of falsifiability.
This doesn't scale to one consistent Lagrangian. At "meaningful size" it
collides with precision tests: anomalous magnetic moment, CKM unitarity,
gravitational wave propagation, black hole thermodynamics — all of which
your crystallization events would disrupt unless finely tuned to
reproduce SM+GR exactly, at which point it's not new. Your rest-frame
special case + "next step Lorentz" is the classic crackpot evasion: the
hard part where symmetries actually matter is postponed forever.
The entire "relational inversion" starting point, the RSU(2)/Ra
decomposition, the SSE stochastic handwave, the "structural asymmetry
solves baryogenesis" claim, and the pretend unification via modes of one
field. Start over with actual calculations that match existing data or
make a sharp, risky prediction.
 Not one equation, not one insight, not even the citation of Wheeler
survives scrutiny as presented. It's all scaffolding for unsubstantiated
conjecture.
 Just stop. This isn't "the start" of anything except another unread
Zenodo entry in the graveyard of personal theories that mistake
philosophical wordplay for physics. The universe doesn't owe your
asymmetries a theory.



shoot yourself.

-- 
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, 
and challenge the unchallengeable.

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

#671225 — [OT] How to post to Usenet correctly (was: Attention Tom Roberts)

Y wrote:
> On 4/14/2025 3:15 PM, Tom Roberts wrote:
> [...]

e-mail belongs to Usenet (as you would have seen; see below), but Usenet is
not e-mail.  It is considered impolite, at best inappropriate, to put the
name of a participant in the Subject.  If you want to communicate with Tom
Roberts, send them an e-mail instead.

That is why it is important that either the "From" or "Reply-To" header
field, which are to be used for that, contains a valid e-mail address, and
one reason why address munging is considered harmful.  The "From" header
field of your posting contains something that resembles an e-mail address,
but it is not one because (in violation of Internet standards) the domain
zenodo.com does not even have a MX [Mail eXchanger] configured.  Therefore
I received an error message when attempting to send you this off-topic
information via e-mail as it should be done.

So you MUST NOT use that "address" in a "From" or "Reply-To" header field
(see RFC 5536), and you SHOULD use a valid address instead.

So if you want to comment on a posting by Tom Roberts, simply post a
follow-up to it.  Although you cannot expect them to read it, much less
reply to it, especially one year later (!), other people may read it and
reply to it.

> Yanick Borg

This should be in the "From" header field value of your postings, as I
indicated in my other follow-up.

You should consult common Usenet guidelines before you post in any group
other than in the news.newusers.* subhierarchy, as you should find them there.

HTH

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2

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

#671237 — Re: [OT] How to post to Usenet correctly

On 6/16/2026 11:28 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Y wrote:
>> On 4/14/2025 3:15 PM, Tom Roberts wrote:
>> [...]
> 
> e-mail belongs to Usenet (as you would have seen; see below), but Usenet is
> not e-mail.  It is considered impolite, at best inappropriate, to put the
> name of a participant in the Subject.  If you want to communicate with Tom
> Roberts, send them an e-mail instead.
> 
> That is why it is important that either the "From" or "Reply-To" header
> field, which are to be used for that, contains a valid e-mail address, and
> one reason why address munging is considered harmful.  The "From" header
> field of your posting contains something that resembles an e-mail address,
> but it is not one because (in violation of Internet standards) the domain
> zenodo.com does not even have a MX [Mail eXchanger] configured.  Therefore
> I received an error message when attempting to send you this off-topic
> information via e-mail as it should be done.
> 
> So you MUST NOT use that "address" in a "From" or "Reply-To" header field
> (see RFC 5536), and you SHOULD use a valid address instead.
> 
> So if you want to comment on a posting by Tom Roberts, simply post a
> follow-up to it.  Although you cannot expect them to read it, much less
> reply to it, especially one year later (!), other people may read it and
> reply to it.
> 
>> Yanick Borg
> 
> This should be in the "From" header field value of your postings, as I
> indicated in my other follow-up.
> 
> You should consult common Usenet guidelines before you post in any group
> other than in the news.newusers.* subhierarchy, as you should find them there.
> 
> HTH
> 


My apologies.


Yanick Borg

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

#671254 — Re: [OT] How to post to Usenet correctly

The 'nym-shifting troll trolled as "Dayron Weeber <rdew@drrd.de>":
> inbreed wanker former now obsolete it supporter Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn 
> wrote:
> 
>> Y wrote:
>>> On 4/14/2025 3:15 PM, Tom Roberts wrote:
>>> [...]
>>
>> e-mail belongs to Usenet (as you would have seen; see below), but Usenet
>> is not e-mail.  It is considered impolite, at best inappropriate, to put
> 
> not you fucking business, you natzi pig. Eat shit and piss off.

| Injection-Info: [...] mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; [...]

[x] done

F'up2 <news:news.admin.net-abuse.usenet>

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

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

#671255 — Re: [OT] How to post to Usenet correctly

This is off topic in news.admin.net-abuse.usenet.

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <usenet@PointedEars.de> wrote:
>The 'nym-shifting troll trolled as "Dayron Weeber <rdew@drrd.de>":
>> inbreed wanker former now obsolete it supporter Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn 
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> Y wrote:
>>>> On 4/14/2025 3:15 PM, Tom Roberts wrote:
>>>> [...]
>>>
>>> e-mail belongs to Usenet (as you would have seen; see below), but Usenet
>>> is not e-mail.  It is considered impolite, at best inappropriate, to put
>> 
>> not you fucking business, you natzi pig. Eat shit and piss off.
>
>| Injection-Info: [...] mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; [...]
>
>[x] done
>
>F'up2 <news:news.admin.net-abuse.usenet>

Please don't play followup-to games.

Just learn to use your kill file. How difficult is it for any of you to
notice trolling and a flame war if the thread is crossposted? Have all
of you regulars managed to eliminate all on topic discussion in the
three groups with the constant troll feeding?

Stop cross posting. Post on topic only. Stop flaming each other.
Suddenly you'll be able to reclaim these groups for useful discussion.
As long as the regulars choose not to post on topic, you are the
problem.

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

#671256 — 'nym-shifting troll (was: [OT] How to post to Usenet correctly)

Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> This is off topic in news.admin.net-abuse.usenet.

No, it is not:

> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <usenet@PointedEars.de> wrote:
>> The 'nym-shifting troll trolled as "Dayron Weeber <rdew@drrd.de>":
       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Granted, I should have updated the Subject accordingly.

>>> inbreed wanker former now obsolete it supporter Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Y wrote:
>>>>> On 4/14/2025 3:15 PM, Tom Roberts wrote:
>>>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>> e-mail belongs to Usenet (as you would have seen; see below), but Usenet
>>>> is not e-mail.  It is considered impolite, at best inappropriate, to put
>>>
>>> not you fucking business, you natzi pig. Eat shit and piss off.
>>
>> | Injection-Info: [...] mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; [...]
>>
>> [x] done
>>
>> F'up2 <news:news.admin.net-abuse.usenet>
> 
> Please don't play followup-to games.

It is not a game: the discussion of this was redirected to where it is
on-topic.  You should have observed the Followup-To.  At the very least, you
should not have crossposted again.

> Just learn to use your kill file.  [More nonsense]

If you had paid more attention, you would have realized that killfiles do
not work with this one; hence the crossposting, abuse notification, and
information of other users.

F'up2 <news:news.admin.net-abuse.usenet> again

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail

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

#671260 — Re: [OT] How to post to Usenet correctly

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> wrote:

> The 'nym-shifting troll trolled as "Dayron Weeber <rdew@drrd.de>":
> > inbreed wanker former now obsolete it supporter Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
> > wrote:
> > 
> >> Y wrote:
> >>> On 4/14/2025 3:15 PM, Tom Roberts wrote:
> >>> [...]
> >>
> >> e-mail belongs to Usenet (as you would have seen; see below), but Usenet
> >> is not e-mail.  It is considered impolite, at best inappropriate, to put
> > 
> > not you fucking business, you natzi pig. Eat shit and piss off.
> 
> | Injection-Info: [...] mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";
> [...]
> 
> [x] done
> 
> F'up2 <news:news.admin.net-abuse.usenet>
>

Abuse *of* Usenet is a TOSsable offence; abuse *on* Usenet is not.   HTH

-- 
  \|/  
(((Ï)))    -    Mr Ön!on, NPC 
 
When we shake the ketchup bottle 
At first none comes and then a lot'll.

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

#671265 — Re: [OT] How to post to Usenet correctly (was: Attention Tom Roberts)

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> 
> Y wrote:
> > On 4/14/2025 3:15 PM, Tom Roberts wrote:
> > [...]
> 
> e-mail belongs to Usenet (as you would have seen; see below), but Usenet is
> not e-mail.  It is considered impolite, at best inappropriate, to put the
> name of a participant in the Subject.  If you want to communicate with Tom
> Roberts, send them an e-mail instead.
> 
> That is why it is important that either the "From" or "Reply-To" header
> field, which are to be used for that, contains a valid e-mail address, and
> one reason why address munging is considered harmful.  The "From" header
> field of your posting contains something that resembles an e-mail address,
> but it is not one because (in violation of Internet standards) the domain
> zenodo.com does not even have a MX [Mail eXchanger] configured.  Therefore
> I received an error message when attempting to send you this off-topic
> information via e-mail as it should be done.
> 
> So you MUST NOT use that "address" in a "From" or "Reply-To" header field
> (see RFC 5536), and you SHOULD use a valid address instead.
> 
> So if you want to comment on a posting by Tom Roberts, simply post a
> follow-up to it.  Although you cannot expect them to read it, much less
> reply to it, especially one year later (!), other people may read it and
> reply to it.
> 
> > Yanick Borg
> 
> This should be in the "From" header field value of your postings, as I
> indicated in my other follow-up.
> 
> You should consult common Usenet guidelines before you post in any group
> other than in the news.newusers.* subhierarchy, as you should find them there.
> 
> HTH
> 
> --
> PointedEars
> 
> Twitter: @PointedEars2

This is peak 1990s Usenet hall-monitor autism pretending it's wisdom in
2026.

The entire premise is a corpse. Usenet is dead. It has been dead for
years. Lecturing someone on "proper" Usenet etiquette while citing RFC
5536 in the age of Discord, Reddit, Slack, and email-as-a-nightmare is
like a carriage driver screaming at Uber drivers about correct whip
technique. The medium has zero relevance; your rules have negative
relevance.
Pedantic enforcement of obsolete technical purity. Complaining that
zenodo.com lacks an MX record as if this is some moral failing is the
intellectual equivalent of correcting someone's font choice on a ransom
note. No one cares. Modern systems treat "From" addresses as display
names or throwaway identifiers because email deliverability is a garbage
fire of spam filters, DMARC, and corporate policies. Your standard is
not "correct"—it's a fragile antique that breaks on contact with
reality.
False dichotomy between email and public posting. Telling someone they
must email privately instead of following up publicly is actively stupid
in public forums. Public reply chains create searchable knowledge for
everyone. Private email creates one fragile, lost-in-inbox conversation
that dies when the recipient ignores it (exactly as you admit happens
"especially one year later"). Your preferred method is strictly inferior
for knowledge propagation.
Address munging hypocrisy. You call munging "harmful" while the entire
internet moved to it (and worse: no-reply addresses, forms, chat apps)
because real humans hate spam, doxxing, and scrapers. Your "standards"
lost. They lost badly. Clinging to them makes you the guy still
demanding everyone use Gopher.

You assume eternal 1990s network conditions: trustworthy participants,
low spam, functioning MTA infrastructure, and a community that gives a
damn about your etiquette. You assume the reader is a clueless newbie
who owes you deference. You assume your personal interpretation of RFCs
is law rather than one pedant's opinion. You never once address why
anyone should prioritize 30-year-old customs over what actually works
for humans today.Incentive & Human-Behavior LandminesNormal people want
to participate without reading your 500-word lecture or configuring
proper mail exchangers. They will ignore you, mock you (as is happening
now), or leave the dying forum entirely. Gatekeepers like you
accelerated Usenet's collapse by making it hostile to newcomers.
Competitors (modern platforms) won by having lower friction, not by
obsessing over Reply-To headers. Your behavior is self-sabotaging for
the very community you claim to protect.
Usenet is a rounding error. Active users are a tiny, aging cohort. Your
approach does not scale past a handful of dying newsgroups. At any
meaningful internet scale, email addresses in public are spam magnets,
privacy nightmares, and legally risky. Physics of attention: no one has
time for your HTH sermon. Reality of 2026: people use whatever field
works and move on. Your method fails the "does this survive contact with
actual humans at volume" test instantly.

The entire tone, the prescriptive "MUST NOT"/"SHOULD" language, the
assumption of authority, the RFC-waving, the Usenet exceptionalism, and
the private-email fetish. Replace with: "This forum is public. Expect
public replies. Use whatever contact method you want; spam is everyone's
problem now."
The basic suggestion to use a real, working contact method if you
actually want private replies has a kernel of sense. That's it. One thin
fragment not on fire.
This isn't helpful advice—it's a dying tribe's status ritual dressed up
as technical correctness. Stop. Just stop. The internet left you behind
decades ago, and lecturing ghosts about proper From headers is the
saddest possible use of remaining bandwidth.

Are your ears really pointed???





-- 
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, 
and challenge the unchallengeable.

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

#671273 — Re: [OT] How to post to Usenet correctly

The 'nym-shifting troll trolled as "Kendrick Jelezov":
> The Starmaker wrote:
>> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>> Y wrote:
>>>> On 4/14/2025 3:15 PM, Tom Roberts wrote:
>>>> [...] 
>> You assume eternal 1990s network conditions: trustworthy participants,
>> low spam, functioning MTA infrastructure, and a community that gives a
>> damn about your etiquette. You assume the reader is a clueless newbie
>> who owes you deference. You assume your personal interpretation of RFCs
>> is law
> 
> not exactly, the pointedhead is an completely uneducated mazarfaka 
> imbecile, seemingly a dirty natzi pig, kicked out from facebook and 
> everywhere. Fuck him in his sorry ass and get over it. These disgusting 
> natzi pigs, year 2026. They are still alive indeed.

The reply that I got from your Usenet provider indicates that you will hear
from them soon.  Hopefully it will be yet another message regarding the
termination of your account(s), so that we will no longer suffer your
activities here.

FOAD.

F'up2 <news:news.admin.net-abuse.usenet>

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

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

csiph-web