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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #406189 > unrolled thread

The Worst Mistake in Theoretical Physics

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

Contents

  The Worst Mistake in Theoretical Physics Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2017-01-20 13:22 -0800
    Re: The Worst Mistake in Theoretical Physics Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2017-01-20 14:12 -0800
      Re: The Worst Mistake in Theoretical Physics JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-01-20 16:52 -0800
        Re: The Worst Mistake in Theoretical Physics Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2017-01-23 03:19 -0800
          Re: The Worst Mistake in Theoretical Physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-01-23 10:34 -0600
            Re: The Worst Mistake in Theoretical Physics "HGW... DSc." <hgw@....> - 2017-01-24 04:20 +1100
            Re: The Worst Mistake in Theoretical Physics mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-01-23 09:32 -0800
            Re: The Worst Mistake in Theoretical Physics Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2017-02-03 15:58 -0800
              Re: The Worst Mistake in Theoretical Physics JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-02-03 16:13 -0800
                Re: The Worst Mistake in Theoretical Physics Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2017-02-06 08:46 -0800
          Re: The Worst Mistake in Theoretical Physics JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-01-23 16:24 -0800
    Re: The Worst Mistake in Theoretical Physics JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-01-20 16:53 -0800
    Re: The Worst Mistake in Theoretical Physics Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-01-21 06:43 +0100
    Re: The Worst Mistake in Theoretical Physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-01-21 14:12 +0000
    Re: The Worst Mistake in Theoretical Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-01-21 08:37 -0800
      Re: The Worst Mistake in Theoretical Physics "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-21 08:49 -0800
      Re: The Worst Mistake in Theoretical Physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-01-21 09:36 -0800
        Re: The Worst Mistake in Theoretical Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-01-21 10:10 -0800
          Re: The Worst Mistake in Theoretical Physics Reid Schaffner <dnfoonio@acdnfni.info> - 2017-01-21 21:23 +0000
          Re: The Worst Mistake in Theoretical Physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-01-22 06:45 -0800
            Re: The Worst Mistake in Theoretical Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-01-22 08:24 -0800
              Re: The Worst Mistake in Theoretical Physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-01-22 17:31 +0000
                Re: The Worst Mistake in Theoretical Physics "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-22 09:58 -0800
                  Re: The Worst Mistake in Theoretical Physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-01-23 16:33 +0000
                Re: The Worst Mistake in Theoretical Physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-01-22 10:24 -0800
                  Re: The Worst Mistake in Theoretical Physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-01-23 16:36 +0000
                    Re: The Worst Mistake in Theoretical Physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-01-23 09:52 -0800
                      Re: The Worst Mistake in Theoretical Physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-01-24 01:22 +0000
                        Re: The Worst Mistake in Theoretical Physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-01-23 21:23 -0800
                          Re: The Worst Mistake in Theoretical Physics "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-23 21:29 -0800
                          Re: The Worst Mistake in Theoretical Physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-01-24 13:44 +0000
                            Re: The Worst Mistake in Theoretical Physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-01-24 11:52 -0800
              Re: The Worst Mistake in Theoretical Physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-01-22 10:54 -0800
            Re: The Worst Mistake in Theoretical Physics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-01-24 16:09 +0000
      Re: The Worst Mistake in Theoretical Physics Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-01-21 21:32 +0100
        Re: The Worst Mistake in Theoretical Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-01-21 13:43 -0800
          Re: The Worst Mistake in Theoretical Physics Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-01-22 04:25 +0100
            Re: The Worst Mistake in Theoretical Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-01-22 08:16 -0800
              Re: The Worst Mistake in Theoretical Physics Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-01-22 17:59 +0100
                Re: The Worst Mistake in Theoretical Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-01-22 10:33 -0800
                  Re: The Worst Mistake in Theoretical Physics "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-22 10:44 -0800
                    Re: The Worst Mistake in Theoretical Physics Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-01-23 06:34 +0100
                      Re: The Worst Mistake in Theoretical Physics "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-22 22:06 -0800
                        Re: The Worst Mistake in Theoretical Physics Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-01-24 06:49 +0100
                          Re: The Worst Mistake in Theoretical Physics "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-23 22:41 -0800
                            Re: The Worst Mistake in Theoretical Physics "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-23 22:45 -0800
                            Re: The Worst Mistake in Theoretical Physics Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-01-24 23:08 +0100
                              Re: The Worst Mistake in Theoretical Physics "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-24 14:35 -0800
                                Re: The Worst Mistake in Theoretical Physics Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-01-25 06:34 +0100
                                  Re: The Worst Mistake in Theoretical Physics Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-01-26 06:15 +0100
                                    Re: The Worst Mistake in Theoretical Physics Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-01-29 06:54 +0100
                    Re: The Worst Mistake in Theoretical Physics The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-01-23 11:57 -0800
                      Re: The Worst Mistake in Theoretical Physics The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-01-23 12:00 -0800
                        Re: The Worst Mistake in Theoretical Physics The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-01-23 14:38 -0800
                          Re: The Worst Mistake in Theoretical Physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-01-24 01:27 +0000
      Re: The Worst Mistake in Theoretical Physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-23 09:27 -0600
        Re: The Worst Mistake in Theoretical Physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-01-23 18:13 -0600
          Re: The Worst Mistake in Theoretical Physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-01-24 01:39 +0000
          Re: The Worst Mistake in Theoretical Physics mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-01-23 23:38 -0800
            Re: The Worst Mistake in Theoretical Physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-01-24 13:55 +0000
              Re: The Worst Mistake in Theoretical Physics mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-01-24 06:34 -0800
                Re: The Worst Mistake in Theoretical Physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-01-24 23:10 +0000
                  Re: The Worst Mistake in Theoretical Physics mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-01-24 23:08 -0800
                    Re: The Worst Mistake in Theoretical Physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-01-25 15:11 +0000
                      Re: The Worst Mistake in Theoretical Physics mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-01-25 07:35 -0800
                        Re: The Worst Mistake in Theoretical Physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-01-26 11:22 +0000
                          Re: The Worst Mistake in Theoretical Physics mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-01-26 03:30 -0800
                            Re: The Worst Mistake in Theoretical Physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-01-26 17:15 +0000
                              Re: The Worst Mistake in Theoretical Physics benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-01-27 19:19 -0500
                                Re: The Worst Mistake in Theoretical Physics Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-01-28 04:25 +0100
                                Re: The Worst Mistake in Theoretical Physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-01-28 10:53 +0000
                                  Re: The Worst Mistake in Theoretical Physics mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-01-28 03:08 -0800
                                    Re: The Worst Mistake in Theoretical Physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-01-28 14:31 +0000
                                      Re: The Worst Mistake in Theoretical Physics mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-01-28 06:55 -0800
                                        Re: The Worst Mistake in Theoretical Physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-01-29 03:41 +0000
                                  Re: The Worst Mistake in Theoretical Physics Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-01-28 20:18 +0100
                                    Re: The Worst Mistake in Theoretical Physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-01-29 04:03 +0000
                                      Re: The Worst Mistake in Theoretical Physics Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-01-29 07:21 +0100
                                        Re: The Worst Mistake in Theoretical Physics "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-28 22:44 -0800
                                          Re: The Worst Mistake in Theoretical Physics Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-01-29 20:25 +0100
                                            Re: The Worst Mistake in Theoretical Physics "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-29 12:32 -0800
                                            Re: The Worst Mistake in Theoretical Physics "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-29 12:35 -0800
                                              Re: The Worst Mistake in Theoretical Physics Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-01-30 23:57 +0100
                                        Re: The Worst Mistake in Theoretical Physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-01-29 22:16 +0000
                                          Re: The Worst Mistake in Theoretical Physics Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-01-30 23:47 +0100
                                            Re: The Worst Mistake in Theoretical Physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-01-31 13:01 +0000
                                              Re: The Worst Mistake in Theoretical Physics Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-02-01 06:51 +0100
                                                Re: The Worst Mistake in Theoretical Physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-02-01 09:10 +0000
                                                  Re: The Worst Mistake in Theoretical Physics mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-01 01:27 -0800
                                                    Re: The Worst Mistake in Theoretical Physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-02-01 13:23 +0000
    The Worst Mistake in Theoretical Physics Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2017-01-21 16:42 -0800
    Re: The Worst Mistake in Theoretical Physics Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2017-01-22 11:04 -0800
      Re: The Worst Mistake in Theoretical Physics "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-22 11:50 -0800
      Re: The Worst Mistake in Theoretical Physics Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-01-23 06:24 +0100

Page 3 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5  Next page →

#406373

Ed Lake Gibbered:
<snip>

Thomas Heger is WAY Smarter than you. 

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

#406424

Am 22.01.2017 19:44, schrieb David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller:
> Ed Lake Gibbered:
> <snip>
>
> Thomas Heger is WAY Smarter than you.

thanks!

Actually we have very little positive response to anything or about 
anybody on such UseNet forums.

Usually the tone is rough and full of insults.

I always wonder, why this is so.

I mean: in a usual conversation you also don't start with insults. 
Usually you have a mixture of positive response and or at least neutral 
ones.

Insults are actually rare exceptions.

But the UseNet is full of harassment and personal attacks.

So I appreciate positive or polite replies, since those are relatively few.


TH

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

#406428

Thomas Heger wrote:

thanks! 

Actually we have very little positive response to anything or about 
anybody on such UseNet forums. 

Usually the tone is rough and full of insults. 

I always wonder, why this is so. 

I mean: in a usual conversation you also don't start with insults. 
Usually you have a mixture of positive response and or at least neutral 
ones. 

Insults are actually rare exceptions. 

But the UseNet is full of harassment and personal attacks. 

So I appreciate positive or polite replies, since those are relatively few. 


TH 

Glad to.
Seems To me, there is something Very broken with the psyche of the world, especially America.  
I don't even like to go outside anymore. 
People here seem to really enjoy causing emotional pain to other people now. 
People seem to view others as something to exploit and Bully for personal Gain. 
Bosses will always lie about subordinates when necessary to protect themselves. 

Integrity is just Gone in people 
You seem to be one of the few good people left in the world 

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

#406583

Am 23.01.2017 07:06, schrieb David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller:

> Actually we have very little positive response to anything or about
> anybody on such UseNet forums.
>
> Usually the tone is rough and full of insults.
>
> I always wonder, why this is so.
>
> I mean: in a usual conversation you also don't start with insults.
> Usually you have a mixture of positive response and or at least neutral
> ones.
>
> Insults are actually rare exceptions.
>
> But the UseNet is full of harassment and personal attacks.
>
> So I appreciate positive or polite replies, since those are relatively few.
>
>
> TH
>
> Glad to.
> Seems To me, there is something Very broken with the psyche of the world, especially America.
> I don't even like to go outside anymore.
> People here seem to really enjoy causing emotional pain to other people now.
> People seem to view others as something to exploit and Bully for personal Gain.
> Bosses will always lie about subordinates when necessary to protect themselves.

I have theory about this phenomenon, too:

It is a phenomenon somehow related to so called 'chain letters' and that 
is a scheme, where people gain benefits by exploitation of an increasing 
number of others, who subsequently are recruited into the system.

This causes exponential growth of people, who wish to exploit others, 
since that was the promise they received, once they were recruited.

Now we apparently have similar patterns in certain structures of the 
society, mainly aristocracy, secret/ honorary societies and organised crime.

Aristocracy is in a way a political system and not meant as system of 
personal privileges.

So the best man in a tribe became the chief and in ancient Rome the best 
nobleman was elected as emperor.

Once this was changed to dynasties, the number of members of nobility 
had grown faster than chiefs were required, because chiefs had more than 
one kid.

If you allow to inherits offices, these offices had to grow, if you want 
to find something fitting for the noble offspring.

This could be done to some extend, since a society could have more than 
simply a chief.

But now we have 'too many piglets for to few tits'.

Those in the lower ranks seek opportunities, but that they cannot find, 
since nobility must be rare, if you want to maintain a stable society.

Now the Anglo-Saxon scheme does not only include aristocrats, but all 
sorts of other systems, that promise wealth and fortunes, if the 
initiated just finds a few others, who would also want to profit from 
that scheme.

This CANNOT work, since exponential growth will simply blow up the 
system itself.


TH

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

#406587

On Monday, January 23, 2017 at 11:49:38 PM UTC-6, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 23.01.2017 07:06, schrieb David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller:
> 
> > Actually we have very little positive response to anything or about
> > anybody on such UseNet forums.
> >
> > Usually the tone is rough and full of insults.
> >
> > I always wonder, why this is so.
> >
> > I mean: in a usual conversation you also don't start with insults.
> > Usually you have a mixture of positive response and or at least neutral
> > ones.
> >
> > Insults are actually rare exceptions.
> >
> > But the UseNet is full of harassment and personal attacks.
> >
> > So I appreciate positive or polite replies, since those are relatively few.
> >
> >
> > TH
> >
> > Glad to.
> > Seems To me, there is something Very broken with the psyche of the world, especially America.
> > I don't even like to go outside anymore.
> > People here seem to really enjoy causing emotional pain to other people now.
> > People seem to view others as something to exploit and Bully for personal Gain.
> > Bosses will always lie about subordinates when necessary to protect themselves.
> 
> I have theory about this phenomenon, too:
> 
> It is a phenomenon somehow related to so called 'chain letters' and that 
> is a scheme, where people gain benefits by exploitation of an increasing 
> number of others, who subsequently are recruited into the system.
> 
> This causes exponential growth of people, who wish to exploit others, 
> since that was the promise they received, once they were recruited.
> 
> Now we apparently have similar patterns in certain structures of the 
> society, mainly aristocracy, secret/ honorary societies and organised crime.
> 
> Aristocracy is in a way a political system and not meant as system of 
> personal privileges.
> 
> So the best man in a tribe became the chief and in ancient Rome the best 
> nobleman was elected as emperor.
> 
> Once this was changed to dynasties, the number of members of nobility 
> had grown faster than chiefs were required, because chiefs had more than 
> one kid.
> 
> If you allow to inherits offices, these offices had to grow, if you want 
> to find something fitting for the noble offspring.
> 
> This could be done to some extend, since a society could have more than 
> simply a chief.
> 
> But now we have 'too many piglets for to few tits'.
> 
> Those in the lower ranks seek opportunities, but that they cannot find, 
> since nobility must be rare, if you want to maintain a stable society.
> 
> Now the Anglo-Saxon scheme does not only include aristocrats, but all 
> sorts of other systems, that promise wealth and fortunes, if the 
> initiated just finds a few others, who would also want to profit from 
> that scheme.
> 
> This CANNOT work, since exponential growth will simply blow up the 
> system itself.
> 
> 
> TH

I think the Problem is 3 fold

1. The "Moneyed Elite" do not want to label themselves as EXPLOITERS by the methods they use to make & keep themselves rich. This ethically legitimizes exploitation and greed in all castes below them. 

2. Capitalism has been corrupted by wealth inequality into an Oligarchy & Feudalism

3. Television has turned most Americans into superficial, narcissistic, materialist shallow self centered arrogant Un-empathetic Brainwashed jingoistic Morons. 

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

#406588

On Tuesday, January 24, 2017 at 12:41:37 AM UTC-6, David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller wrote:
> On Monday, January 23, 2017 at 11:49:38 PM UTC-6, Thomas Heger wrote:
> > Am 23.01.2017 07:06, schrieb David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller:
> > 
> > > Actually we have very little positive response to anything or about
> > > anybody on such UseNet forums.
> > >
> > > Usually the tone is rough and full of insults.
> > >
> > > I always wonder, why this is so.
> > >
> > > I mean: in a usual conversation you also don't start with insults.
> > > Usually you have a mixture of positive response and or at least neutral
> > > ones.
> > >
> > > Insults are actually rare exceptions.
> > >
> > > But the UseNet is full of harassment and personal attacks.
> > >
> > > So I appreciate positive or polite replies, since those are relatively few.
> > >
> > >
> > > TH
> > >
> > > Glad to.
> > > Seems To me, there is something Very broken with the psyche of the world, especially America.
> > > I don't even like to go outside anymore.
> > > People here seem to really enjoy causing emotional pain to other people now.
> > > People seem to view others as something to exploit and Bully for personal Gain.
> > > Bosses will always lie about subordinates when necessary to protect themselves.
> > 
> > I have theory about this phenomenon, too:
> > 
> > It is a phenomenon somehow related to so called 'chain letters' and that 
> > is a scheme, where people gain benefits by exploitation of an increasing 
> > number of others, who subsequently are recruited into the system.
> > 
> > This causes exponential growth of people, who wish to exploit others, 
> > since that was the promise they received, once they were recruited.
> > 
> > Now we apparently have similar patterns in certain structures of the 
> > society, mainly aristocracy, secret/ honorary societies and organised crime.
> > 
> > Aristocracy is in a way a political system and not meant as system of 
> > personal privileges.
> > 
> > So the best man in a tribe became the chief and in ancient Rome the best 
> > nobleman was elected as emperor.
> > 
> > Once this was changed to dynasties, the number of members of nobility 
> > had grown faster than chiefs were required, because chiefs had more than 
> > one kid.
> > 
> > If you allow to inherits offices, these offices had to grow, if you want 
> > to find something fitting for the noble offspring.
> > 
> > This could be done to some extend, since a society could have more than 
> > simply a chief.
> > 
> > But now we have 'too many piglets for to few tits'.
> > 
> > Those in the lower ranks seek opportunities, but that they cannot find, 
> > since nobility must be rare, if you want to maintain a stable society.
> > 
> > Now the Anglo-Saxon scheme does not only include aristocrats, but all 
> > sorts of other systems, that promise wealth and fortunes, if the 
> > initiated just finds a few others, who would also want to profit from 
> > that scheme.
> > 
> > This CANNOT work, since exponential growth will simply blow up the 
> > system itself.
> > 
> > 
> > TH
> 
> I think the Problem is 3 fold
> 
> 1. The "Moneyed Elite" do not want to label themselves as EXPLOITERS by the methods they use to make & keep themselves rich. This ethically legitimizes exploitation and greed in all castes below them. 
> 
> 2. Capitalism has been corrupted by wealth inequality into an Oligarchy & Feudalism
> 
> 3. Television has turned most Americans into superficial, narcissistic, materialist shallow self centered arrogant Un-empathetic Brainwashed jingoistic Morons.

Trump has Legitimized Labeling EVERYONE who does not Agree with him & his world View "Fucked Up From Birth" 

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

#406672

Am 24.01.2017 07:41, schrieb David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller:
> On Monday, January 23, 2017 at 11:49:38 PM UTC-6, Thomas Heger wrote:
>> Am 23.01.2017 07:06, schrieb David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller:
>>
>>> Actually we have very little positive response to anything or about
>>> anybody on such UseNet forums.
>>>
>>> Usually the tone is rough and full of insults.
>>>
>>> I always wonder, why this is so.
>>>
>>> I mean: in a usual conversation you also don't start with insults.
>>> Usually you have a mixture of positive response and or at least neutral
>>> ones.
>>>
>>> Insults are actually rare exceptions.
>>>
>>> But the UseNet is full of harassment and personal attacks.
>>>
>>> So I appreciate positive or polite replies, since those are relatively few.
>>>
>>>
>>> TH
>>>
>>> Glad to.
>>> Seems To me, there is something Very broken with the psyche of the world, especially America.
>>> I don't even like to go outside anymore.
>>> People here seem to really enjoy causing emotional pain to other people now.
>>> People seem to view others as something to exploit and Bully for personal Gain.
>>> Bosses will always lie about subordinates when necessary to protect themselves.
>>
>> I have theory about this phenomenon, too:
>>
>> It is a phenomenon somehow related to so called 'chain letters' and that
>> is a scheme, where people gain benefits by exploitation of an increasing
>> number of others, who subsequently are recruited into the system.
>>
>> This causes exponential growth of people, who wish to exploit others,
>> since that was the promise they received, once they were recruited.
>>
>> Now we apparently have similar patterns in certain structures of the
>> society, mainly aristocracy, secret/ honorary societies and organised crime.
>>
>> Aristocracy is in a way a political system and not meant as system of
>> personal privileges.
>>
>> So the best man in a tribe became the chief and in ancient Rome the best
>> nobleman was elected as emperor.
>>
>> Once this was changed to dynasties, the number of members of nobility
>> had grown faster than chiefs were required, because chiefs had more than
>> one kid.
>>
>> If you allow to inherits offices, these offices had to grow, if you want
>> to find something fitting for the noble offspring.
>>
>> This could be done to some extend, since a society could have more than
>> simply a chief.
>>
>> But now we have 'too many piglets for to few tits'.
>>
>> Those in the lower ranks seek opportunities, but that they cannot find,
>> since nobility must be rare, if you want to maintain a stable society.
>>
>> Now the Anglo-Saxon scheme does not only include aristocrats, but all
>> sorts of other systems, that promise wealth and fortunes, if the
>> initiated just finds a few others, who would also want to profit from
>> that scheme.
>>
>> This CANNOT work, since exponential growth will simply blow up the
>> system itself.
>>
>>
>> TH
>
> I think the Problem is 3 fold
>
> 1. The "Moneyed Elite" do not want to label themselves as EXPLOITERS by the methods they use to make&  keep themselves rich. This ethically legitimizes exploitation and greed in all castes below them.
>
> 2. Capitalism has been corrupted by wealth inequality into an Oligarchy&  Feudalism
>
> 3. Television has turned most Americans into superficial, narcissistic, materialist shallow self centered arrogant Un-empathetic Brainwashed jingoistic Morons.

No, the problem is not capitalism, but the building of dynasties.

A dynasty is something like a clan, but with inherited financial and 
political power.

This political system sufferers from a problem: exponential growth of 
nobility.

There exist other possibilities and that is a fixed number of offices, 
into which people could be elected.

One such offices is (for instance) called 'Sheriff of Nottingham'.

This office could be taken, elected, won in a game or fought out in a 
fight. Still it is just one office and some qualified person should take 
that job.

But if you have dynasties, you need something for all the sons and 
daughters, nieces and nephews, brothers and sisters in law and so forth.

This could be more in the end, than your budget could afford, or as the 
nation would require.

So you need to stress your fantasy and you had to invent offices, where 
all your people could earn some money.

So, maybe, this is the reason for all these agencies, that are not 
really mandatory.

Or: what do you do with all those physicists?

At least your inner circle should earn their bread somewhere.

But where?

Eventually at CERN...


TH

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

#406680

No, the problem is not capitalism, but the building of dynasties. 

A dynasty is something like a clan, but with inherited financial and 
political power. 

This political system sufferers from a problem: exponential growth of 
nobility. 

There exist other possibilities and that is a fixed number of offices, 
into which people could be elected. 

One such offices is (for instance) called 'Sheriff of Nottingham'. 

This office could be taken, elected, won in a game or fought out in a 
fight. Still it is just one office and some qualified person should take 
that job. 

But if you have dynasties, you need something for all the sons and 
daughters, nieces and nephews, brothers and sisters in law and so forth. 

This could be more in the end, than your budget could afford, or as the 
nation would require. 

So you need to stress your fantasy and you had to invent offices, where 
all your people could earn some money. 

So, maybe, this is the reason for all these agencies, that are not 
really mandatory. 

Or: what do you do with all those physicists? 

At least your inner circle should earn their bread somewhere. 

But where? 

Eventually at CERN... 


TH 

If you agree that Dynasty's that are too large & too prolific causes wealth inequality that allows Capitalism to be exploited by the Dynasty's, then I agree with you.

The common people are being deceived & fear monger-ed into being allowed to have their assets Devalued and asset ownership Shifted To Wall Street Capitalists cover risky Gambling of Wall Street forced by Corrupt government officials 

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

#406725

Am 24.01.2017 23:35, schrieb David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller:
>
> No, the problem is not capitalism, but the building of dynasties.
>
> A dynasty is something like a clan, but with inherited financial and
> political power.
>
> This political system sufferers from a problem: exponential growth of
> nobility.
>
> There exist other possibilities and that is a fixed number of offices,
> into which people could be elected.
>
> One such offices is (for instance) called 'Sheriff of Nottingham'.
>
> This office could be taken, elected, won in a game or fought out in a
> fight. Still it is just one office and some qualified person should take
> that job.
>
> But if you have dynasties, you need something for all the sons and
> daughters, nieces and nephews, brothers and sisters in law and so forth.
>
> This could be more in the end, than your budget could afford, or as the
> nation would require.
>
> So you need to stress your fantasy and you had to invent offices, where
> all your people could earn some money.
>
> So, maybe, this is the reason for all these agencies, that are not
> really mandatory.
>
> Or: what do you do with all those physicists?
>
> At least your inner circle should earn their bread somewhere.
>
> But where?
>
> Eventually at CERN...
>
>
> TH
>
> If you agree that Dynasty's that are too large&  too prolific causes wealth inequality that allows Capitalism to be exploited by the Dynasty's, then I agree with you.
>
> The common people are being deceived&  fear monger-ed into being allowed to have their assets Devalued and asset ownership Shifted To Wall Street Capitalists cover risky Gambling of Wall Street forced by Corrupt government officials
>


If you look at New York, for instance, than you could see 'society design'.

Its is a gigantic 'exploitation machine' and carefully designed that way.


You could assume better solutions for certain problems and try to find 
out, why they have not been implemented.

E.g. apparently you cannot simply go into a restaurant and eat something 
(in New York).

But this is something entirely unknown in Germany. Well, not completely, 
since there exist a few places, where reservation are required. But 
usually you just go into a restaurant and sit somewhere.


We have also street-cars in many cities.

Why is it, that the USA has little to no public transport?

Certainly not, because they could not build or afford street-cars. But 
taxi-cabs allow more exploitation.

Also: one of the largest countries in the world has a real estate 
problem. That seem entirely illogic, since space is or was never an issue.

And why are the houses build from plywood? Or why do cars look like 
small trucks?

This goes on and on and on.

For instance the USA is among the few countries (besides Pakistan) where 
electric energy is distributed with wires hanging on poles.

Or what is the reason for the USA is still using the non-metric imperial 
units system, only together with Myanmar.

It is all a gigantic rip-off.


TH

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

#406865

Am 25.01.2017 06:34, schrieb Thomas Heger:

>> No, the problem is not capitalism, but the building of dynasties.
>>
>> A dynasty is something like a clan, but with inherited financial and
>> political power.
>>
>> This political system sufferers from a problem: exponential growth of
>> nobility.
>>
>> There exist other possibilities and that is a fixed number of offices,
>> into which people could be elected.
>>
>> One such offices is (for instance) called 'Sheriff of Nottingham'.
>>
>> This office could be taken, elected, won in a game or fought out in a
>> fight. Still it is just one office and some qualified person should take
>> that job.
>>
>> But if you have dynasties, you need something for all the sons and
>> daughters, nieces and nephews, brothers and sisters in law and so forth.
>>
>> This could be more in the end, than your budget could afford, or as the
>> nation would require.
>>
>> So you need to stress your fantasy and you had to invent offices, where
>> all your people could earn some money.
>>
>> So, maybe, this is the reason for all these agencies, that are not
>> really mandatory.
>>
>> Or: what do you do with all those physicists?
>>
>> At least your inner circle should earn their bread somewhere.
>>
>> But where?
>>
>> Eventually at CERN...
>>
>>
>> TH
>>
>> If you agree that Dynasty's that are too large& too prolific causes
>> wealth inequality that allows Capitalism to be exploited by the
>> Dynasty's, then I agree with you.
>>
>> The common people are being deceived& fear monger-ed into being
>> allowed to have their assets Devalued and asset ownership Shifted To
>> Wall Street Capitalists cover risky Gambling of Wall Street forced by
>> Corrupt government officials
>>
>
>
> If you look at New York, for instance, than you could see 'society design'.
>
> Its is a gigantic 'exploitation machine' and carefully designed that way.
>
>
> You could assume better solutions for certain problems and try to find
> out, why they have not been implemented.
>
> E.g. apparently you cannot simply go into a restaurant and eat something
> (in New York).
>
> But this is something entirely unknown in Germany. Well, not completely,
> since there exist a few places, where reservation are required. But
> usually you just go into a restaurant and sit somewhere.
>
>
> We have also street-cars in many cities.
>
> Why is it, that the USA has little to no public transport?
>
> Certainly not, because they could not build or afford street-cars. But
> taxi-cabs allow more exploitation.
>
> Also: one of the largest countries in the world has a real estate
> problem. That seem entirely illogic, since space is or was never an issue.
>
> And why are the houses build from plywood? Or why do cars look like
> small trucks?
>
> This goes on and on and on.
>
> For instance the USA is among the few countries (besides Pakistan) where
> electric energy is distributed with wires hanging on poles.
>
> Or what is the reason for the USA is still using the non-metric imperial
> units system, only together with Myanmar.
>
> It is all a gigantic rip-off.
>

It is not easy to see, how the system works. So let me explain:

the system is based on rip-off at a certain level and handing upwards 
pieces of the profit.

So you need over prized stuff or services and hinder people to take 
cheaper alternatives.

The rip-off lies in the 'hinder people to take alternatives'.

This requires 'society design' and 'bad guys behind the curtains'.

So you need to look for situations, where people are lured into 
situations, where they are forced to by expensive services.

Typical is the situation in the film 'Casablanca' with Humphrey Bogart.

It is about refugees in Casablanca, that need to bribe officials to get 
visa to Lisbon. Only from Lisbon are ships to America.

Correct solution would be, if ships would sail from Casablanca to 
America, hence nobody would need to bribe police officers.

But that scheme is different and more profitable: you force people to 
give their valuables for useless services (visa).

Parts of the prey is handed upwards to those, who scare the refugees 
away from their homes.

So the correct solution is not taken and hindered by 'bad guys', since 
without a proper solution people could get ripped off more easily in 
certain situations.

To hinder them to escape, social force is needed (and applied).

Such forces are - for instance - refugee situations, because at certain 
stations of transit, people are extremely vulnerable.

Since refugees came mainly to New York in 19th century, you find the 
system exemplified in this city.

Other situations are masses of people, into which someone is forced.

This is happening in large cities, in mass gatherings, in the military, 
in prisons, in subways or similar.

This would restrict space and the available degrees of freedom, hence 
is, what 'bad guys' love.


TH

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

#407109

Am 26.01.2017 06:15, schrieb Thomas Heger:
> Am 25.01.2017 06:34, schrieb Thomas Heger:
>
>>> No, the problem is not capitalism, but the building of dynasties.
>>>
>>> A dynasty is something like a clan, but with inherited financial and
>>> political power.
>>>
>>> This political system sufferers from a problem: exponential growth of
>>> nobility.
>>>
>>> There exist other possibilities and that is a fixed number of offices,
>>> into which people could be elected.
>>>
>>> One such offices is (for instance) called 'Sheriff of Nottingham'.
>>>
>>> This office could be taken, elected, won in a game or fought out in a
>>> fight. Still it is just one office and some qualified person should take
>>> that job.
>>>
>>> But if you have dynasties, you need something for all the sons and
>>> daughters, nieces and nephews, brothers and sisters in law and so forth.
>>>
>>> This could be more in the end, than your budget could afford, or as the
>>> nation would require.
>>>
>>> So you need to stress your fantasy and you had to invent offices, where
>>> all your people could earn some money.
>>>
>>> So, maybe, this is the reason for all these agencies, that are not
>>> really mandatory.
>>>
>>> Or: what do you do with all those physicists?
>>>
>>> At least your inner circle should earn their bread somewhere.
>>>
>>> But where?
>>>
>>> Eventually at CERN...
>>>
>>>
>>> TH
>>>
>>> If you agree that Dynasty's that are too large& too prolific causes
>>> wealth inequality that allows Capitalism to be exploited by the
>>> Dynasty's, then I agree with you.
>>>
>>> The common people are being deceived& fear monger-ed into being
>>> allowed to have their assets Devalued and asset ownership Shifted To
>>> Wall Street Capitalists cover risky Gambling of Wall Street forced by
>>> Corrupt government officials
>>>
>>
>>
>> If you look at New York, for instance, than you could see 'society
>> design'.
>>
>> Its is a gigantic 'exploitation machine' and carefully designed that way.
>>
>>
>> You could assume better solutions for certain problems and try to find
>> out, why they have not been implemented.
>>
>> E.g. apparently you cannot simply go into a restaurant and eat something
>> (in New York).
>>
>> But this is something entirely unknown in Germany. Well, not completely,
>> since there exist a few places, where reservation are required. But
>> usually you just go into a restaurant and sit somewhere.
>>
>>
>> We have also street-cars in many cities.
>>
>> Why is it, that the USA has little to no public transport?
>>
>> Certainly not, because they could not build or afford street-cars. But
>> taxi-cabs allow more exploitation.
>>
>> Also: one of the largest countries in the world has a real estate
>> problem. That seem entirely illogic, since space is or was never an
>> issue.
>>
>> And why are the houses build from plywood? Or why do cars look like
>> small trucks?
>>
>> This goes on and on and on.
>>
>> For instance the USA is among the few countries (besides Pakistan) where
>> electric energy is distributed with wires hanging on poles.
>>
>> Or what is the reason for the USA is still using the non-metric imperial
>> units system, only together with Myanmar.
>>
>> It is all a gigantic rip-off.
>>
>
> It is not easy to see, how the system works. So let me explain:
>
> the system is based on rip-off at a certain level and handing upwards
> pieces of the profit.
>
> So you need over prized stuff or services and hinder people to take
> cheaper alternatives.
>
> The rip-off lies in the 'hinder people to take alternatives'.
>
> This requires 'society design' and 'bad guys behind the curtains'.
>
> So you need to look for situations, where people are lured into
> situations, where they are forced to buy expensive services.
>

Typical  'US-ripp-offs' are:

- public transport
- jurisdiction
- education
- health care
- energy supply
- nutrition


For instance 'jurisdiction' as form of 'ripp-off':

A 'ripp-off' is based on a structured society, where licensed profiteers 
are allowed to exploit a mass of potential victims.

To make this profitable, you need to make law as complicated as possible 
and confrontation with a court decision as dangerous as possible.

To hinder people in finding cheaper solutions, you make use of licensed 
personal mandatory and criminalise alternatives.

So: how complicate is US law?

Well, it is the worst piece of nightmarish crap, you could possibly invent.

It is based on British 'common law' and 'incremental changes'.

It is hard do imagine anything more weird than this.


Or: education as 'ripp-off':

The US system of higher education is more or less unknown in most other 
countries.

In Germany for instance (were I live), you don't need to pay more than a 
very small fee for being allowed to study at a university.

Also schools are public and quite good.

There are private schools and universities, of course, but in general 
education is public and no need to pay anything.


Public transport in the USA is mainly done with cars, airplanes and long 
distance buses/trains.

But there exists no municipal systems of public transport worth 
mentioning in most US cities.

Why is that?



Or medicine as 'ripp-off':

Here we find again 'licensed personal' and criminalisation of 
alternatives. This is typical for 'guilds' and that for medieval societies.

But in a better world, the health of people would be the main focus of 
politics, not the income of the guilds.

So more health is required, not more expenses for medicine.

How could you increase health?

Well, there are a lot of possibilities:

- reduction of dangerous activities
- reduction of toxins in the environment and in food and beverages
- increased hygiene
- less drugs
- better nutrition
- immediate care of small injuries or malfunctions (before they become 
mayor issues)

...

But since increased health would reduce the income of the licensed 
personal, it is more or less illegal to do any of the list above.

Instead people are lured into extremely dangerous activities, like 
paragliding, downhill race or street fights.

Also nutrition could be better, since the ratio of overweight people is 
becoming frightening in the US. And overweight is a sign for bad nutrition.

People are told, that too much cleanness would cause allergies.

Also alternative medicine is now more or less illegal in the USA.


Now you need to compare the solutions in reality with those you would 
chose in the interest of the majority to see, that in fact the US 
society is structured according to the needs of certain 'guilds'  and 
the US citizens are the 'cows' (to get milked).

To make this possible the USA needs to exploit other countries.

So the ripp-off is done in layers and the prey handed upwards.


TH

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

#406504

David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller wrote:
> 
> Ed Lake Gibbered:
> <snip>
> 
> Thomas Heger is WAY Smarter than you.


i'm the genueis here


A student recognizes Einstein in a train and asks: Excuse me, professor,
but does New York stop by this train?

Why did the chicken cross the road? Albert Einstein: Whether the chicken
crossed the road or the road crossed the chicken depends on your frame
of reference.

Q: How many theoretical physicists specializing in general relativity
does it take to change a light bulb?
A: Two. One to hold the bulb and one to rotate the universe.

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

#406505

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller wrote:
> >
> > Ed Lake Gibbered:
> > <snip>
> >
> > Thomas Heger is WAY Smarter than you.
> 
> i'm the genueis here
> 
> A student recognizes Einstein in a train and asks: Excuse me, professor,
> but does New York stop by this train?
> 
> Why did the chicken cross the road? Albert Einstein: Whether the chicken
> crossed the road or the road crossed the chicken depends on your frame
> of reference.
> 
> Q: How many theoretical physicists specializing in general relativity
> does it take to change a light bulb?
> A: Two. One to hold the bulb and one to rotate the universe.


if nothing is moving
no train moving
no station moving
New York is not moving
no chickens are crossing the street..

how do you sense Time?

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

#406541

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller wrote:
> > >
> > > Ed Lake Gibbered:
> > > <snip>
> > >
> > > Thomas Heger is WAY Smarter than you.
> >
> > i'm the genueis here
> >
> > A student recognizes Einstein in a train and asks: Excuse me, professor,
> > but does New York stop by this train?
> >
> > Why did the chicken cross the road? Albert Einstein: Whether the chicken
> > crossed the road or the road crossed the chicken depends on your frame
> > of reference.
> >
> > Q: How many theoretical physicists specializing in general relativity
> > does it take to change a light bulb?
> > A: Two. One to hold the bulb and one to rotate the universe.
> 
> if nothing is moving
> no train moving
> no station moving
> New York is not moving
> no chickens are crossing the street..
> 
> how do you sense Time?



i mean, does time exist if nothing around you is moving??

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

#406560

The Starmaker wrote:
> The Starmaker wrote:
> > The Starmaker wrote:
> > > David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller wrote:
> > > > Ed Lake Gibbered:
> > > > <snip>
> > > >
> > > > Thomas Heger is WAY Smarter than you.
> > >
> > > i'm the genueis here
> > >
> > > A student recognizes Einstein in a train and asks: Excuse me, professor,
> > > but does New York stop by this train?
> > >
> > > Why did the chicken cross the road? Albert Einstein: Whether the chicken
> > > crossed the road or the road crossed the chicken depends on your frame
> > > of reference.
> > >
> > > Q: How many theoretical physicists specializing in general relativity
> > > does it take to change a light bulb?
> > > A: Two. One to hold the bulb and one to rotate the universe.
> >
> > if nothing is moving
> > no train moving
> > no station moving
> > New York is not moving
> > no chickens are crossing the street..
> >
> > how do you sense Time?

How many times do you have to be told? It's all in the mind.

> i mean, does time exist if nothing around you is moving??

Of course not: it doesn't exist at all.

Ned

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

#406457

On 1/21/2017 10:37 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
> Any intelligent person would KNOW by examining ALL the evidence, that the train was moving
> and it only MOMENTARILY SEEMED like the train station was moving past the window while the
> train was standing still.

Ed, are you seriously going to claim that the train station is not moving?

As far as I know, the train station is tied to the surface of the earth. 
So if the surface of the earth is moving, then so is the train station. 
So then the only question remaining is whether you believe the surface 
of the earth is moving, or whether you truly believe that the sun 
travels around the earth.

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

#406550

On 1/23/17 1/23/17   9:27 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 1/21/2017 10:37 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
>> Any intelligent person would KNOW by examining ALL the evidence, that the
>> train was moving
>> and it only MOMENTARILY SEEMED like the train station was moving past the
>> window while the
>> train was standing still.
>
> Ed, are you seriously going to claim that the train station is not moving?
>
> As far as I know, the train station is tied to the surface of the earth. So if
> the surface of the earth is moving, then so is the train station. So then the
> only question remaining is whether you believe the surface of the earth is
> moving, or whether you truly believe that the sun travels around the earth.

That is a poor presentation that misses the real answer.

The real answer is that motion is ALWAYS relative to some coordinate system, and 
you both have omitted mentioning what coordinates you intend your use of 
"moving" to refer to.
  * The train is moving relative to coordinates in which the station
    is at rest.
  * The station is moving relative to coordinates in which the train
    is at rest.
  * They both are moving relative to coordinates in which the sun
    is at rest.

Had either of you mentioned the coordinates you implicitly assumed, there would 
be no confusion about whether this or that is moving RELATIVE TO SUCH-AND-SUCH 
COORDINATES.

Tom Roberts

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

#406562

Tom Roberts wrote:
> The Slow Bot (no, that's not a typo), aka Odd Bodkin, wrote:
> > Ed Lake wrote:
> > >
> > > Any intelligent person would KNOW by examining ALL the evidence,
> > > that the train was moving and it only MOMENTARILY SEEMED like
> > > the train station was moving past the window while the train
> > > was standing still.
> >
> > Ed, are you seriously going to claim that the train station is not
> > moving? As far as I know, the train station is tied to the surface
> > of the earth. So if the surface of the earth is moving, then so is
> > the train station. So then the only question remaining is whether
> > you believe the surface of the earth is moving, or whether you
> > truly believe that the sun travels around the earth.
>
> That is a poor presentation that misses the real answer.
>
> The real answer is that motion is ALWAYS relative to some coordinate
> system, and you both have omitted mentioning what coordinates you
> intend your use of "moving" to refer to.
>   * The train is moving relative to coordinates in which the station
>     is at rest.
>   * The station is moving relative to coordinates in which the train
>     is at rest.
>   * They both are moving relative to coordinates in which the sun
>     is at rest.
>
> Had either of you mentioned the coordinates you implicitly assumed,
> there would  be no confusion about whether this or that is moving
> RELATIVE TO SUCH-AND-SUCH  COORDINATES.

Rematkable! Honest Roberts not only failed to lie, he actually got
something right!

Of course, a simple matter of Galilean Relativity isn't much of
a challenge, but still, it does show some promise.

Ned

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

#406591

W dniu wtorek, 24 stycznia 2017 01:13:28 UTC+1 użytkownik tjrob137 napisał:

> The real answer is that motion is ALWAYS relative to some coordinate system,

And it's obviously true, because poor idiot Tom
said.

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

#406612

mlwozniak wrote:
> tjrob137 wrote:
> >
> > The real answer is that motion is ALWAYS relative to some
> > coordinate system,

THat's *very* poorly exoressed. Try instead "if we want to talk
intelligibly about it, we must define some coordinate system for
the discussion".

> And it's obviously true, because poor idiot Tom said.

No, Tom said so because it's true (the way *I* expressed it:
you lot are hopelessly inarticulate).

(He's not very good at it, but he *does* like to get things right.)

Ned

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

Page 3 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5  Next page →

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

csiph-web