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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #450200 > unrolled thread

Fundamental Physics Reconciles 2+2=5 and 2+2=4

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

Contents

  Fundamental Physics Reconciles 2+2=5 and 2+2=4 Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2018-02-17 00:07 -0800
    Re: Fundamental Physics Reconciles 2+2=5 and 2+2=4 JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-02-17 15:27 -0800
    Re: Fundamental Physics Reconciles 2+2=5 and 2+2=4 mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-02-18 01:21 -0800
    Re: Fundamental Physics Reconciles 2+2=5 and 2+2=4 Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-02-18 19:00 +0100
      Re: Fundamental Physics Reconciles 2+2=5 and 2+2=4 Libor 'Poutnik' Stříž <poutnik@privacy.net> - 2018-02-18 19:31 +0100
        Re: Fundamental Physics Reconciles 2+2=5 and 2+2=4 Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-02-20 22:01 +0100
          Re: Fundamental Physics Reconciles 2+2=5 and 2+2=4 Libor 'Poutnik' Stříž <poutnik@privacy.net> - 2018-02-20 22:07 +0100
            Re: Fundamental Physics Reconciles 2+2=5 and 2+2=4 Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-02-20 22:35 +0100
              Re: Fundamental Physics Reconciles 2+2=5 and 2+2=4 Libor 'Poutnik' Stříž <poutnik@privacy.net> - 2018-02-20 22:55 +0100
                Re: Fundamental Physics Reconciles 2+2=5 and 2+2=4 Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-02-21 15:06 +0100
                  Re: Fundamental Physics Reconciles 2+2=5 and 2+2=4 Libor 'Poutnik' Stříž <poutnik@privacy.net> - 2018-02-21 19:09 +0100
                    Re: Fundamental Physics Reconciles 2+2=5 and 2+2=4 mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-02-21 11:19 -0800
                    Re: Fundamental Physics Reconciles 2+2=5 and 2+2=4 Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-02-22 12:49 +0100
                      Re: Fundamental Physics Reconciles 2+2=5 and 2+2=4 Libor 'Poutnik' Stříž <poutnik@privacy.net> - 2018-02-22 21:38 +0100
                        Re: Fundamental Physics Reconciles 2+2=5 and 2+2=4 Evonne Lamarr <rairi@liwowa.ar> - 2018-02-22 20:40 +0000
                          Re: Fundamental Physics Reconciles 2+2=5 and 2+2=4 Libor 'Poutnik' Stříž <poutnik@privacy.net> - 2018-02-22 21:43 +0100
                          Re: Fundamental Physics Reconciles 2+2=5 and 2+2=4 Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-02-24 19:39 +0100
                            Re: Fundamental Physics Reconciles 2+2=5 and 2+2=4 Libor 'Poutnik' Stříž <poutnik@privacy.net> - 2018-02-25 20:27 +0100
                              Re: Fundamental Physics Reconciles 2+2=5 and 2+2=4 Eveline Hurst <rutu@rwsrnlv.ee> - 2018-02-25 21:08 +0000
                                Re: Fundamental Physics Reconciles 2+2=5 and 2+2=4 Libor 'Poutnik' Stříž <poutnik@privacy.net> - 2018-02-26 07:05 +0100
                                  Re: Fundamental Physics Reconciles 2+2=5 and 2+2=4 Eveline Hurst <rutu@rwsrnlv.ee> - 2018-02-26 13:11 +0000
                              Re: Fundamental Physics Reconciles 2+2=5 and 2+2=4 Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-02-26 11:47 +0100
                                Re: Fundamental Physics Reconciles 2+2=5 and 2+2=4 Ický Bezdrátovì <ikbe@wmkfre.np> - 2018-02-28 12:47 +0000
                        Re: Fundamental Physics Reconciles 2+2=5 and 2+2=4 mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-02-22 21:23 -0800
                          Re: Fundamental Physics Reconciles 2+2=5 and 2+2=4 Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-02-26 18:40 +0100
      Re: Fundamental Physics Reconciles 2+2=5 and 2+2=4 Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-02-18 18:57 -0600
        Re: Fundamental Physics Reconciles 2+2=5 and 2+2=4 Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-03-19 15:21 +0000
          Re: Fundamental Physics Reconciles 2+2=5 and 2+2=4 Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-03-25 23:24 +0100

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#450200 — Fundamental Physics Reconciles 2+2=5 and 2+2=4

For more than half a century, theoretical physicists have been reconciling spacetime, the absurd consequence of Einstein's false constant-speed-of-light postulate, and the absolute (Newtonian) time of quantum mechanics:

"The effort to unify quantum mechanics and general relativity means reconciling totally different notions of time. In quantum mechanics, time is universal and absolute; its steady ticks dictate the evolving entanglements between particles. But in general relativity (Albert Einstein's theory of gravity), time is relative and dynamical, a dimension that's inextricably interwoven with directions X, Y and Z into a four-dimensional "space-time" fabric."  https://www.quantamagazine.org/20161201-quantum-gravitys-time-problem/ 

Perimeter Institute: "Quantum mechanics has one thing, time, which is absolute. But general relativity tells us that space and time are both dynamical so there is a big contradiction there. So the question is, can quantum gravity be formulated in a context where quantum mechanics still has absolute time?"  https://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/research/conferences/convergence/roundtable-discussion-questions/what-are-lessons-quantum

http://negrjp.fotoblog.uol.com.br/images/photo20150819051851.jpg

In Big Brother's world scientists are desperately trying to reconcile 2+2=5, gloriously discovered by Big Brother, and 2+2=4:

http://img.picturequotes.com/2/424/423180/in-philosophy-or-religion-or-ethics-or-politics-two-and-two-might-make-five-but-when-one-was-quote-1.jpg

Pentcho Valev

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#450287

On Saturday, February 17, 2018 at 12:07:06 AM UTC-8, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> For more than half a century, theoretical physicists have been reconciling spacetime, the absurd consequence of Einstein's false constant-speed-of-light postulate, and the absolute (Newtonian) time of quantum mechanics:

Gobbledygook.

--
Jan

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

#450320

On Saturday, 17 February 2018 09:07:06 UTC+1, Pentcho Valev  wrote:
> For more than half a century, theoretical physicists have been reconciling spacetime, the absurd consequence of Einstein's false constant-speed-of-light postulate

No. Even Great Guru was unable to hold such an idiocy for
long time, so his GR Shit has rejected it.

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

#450332

Am 17.02.2018 um 09:07 schrieb Pentcho Valev:
> "The effort to unify quantum mechanics and general relativity means reconciling totally different notions of time. In quantum mechanics, time is universal and absolute; its steady ticks dictate the evolving entanglements between particles. But in general relativity (Albert Einstein's theory of gravity), time is relative and dynamical, a dimension that's inextricably interwoven with directions X, Y and Z into a four-dimensional "space-time" fabric."

This is in fact true.
There are other incompatible concepts about material objects, too.

Quantum mechanics is mainly about particles, while GR and SRT assume 
something called 'length-contraction'. And this does not square well 
with assumed features of material objects.

But who is right?

Actually I assume, that GR is right and QM provides only a local 
approximation, which is valid under the assumption of a constant and 
universal time.

This 'universal' refers to 'universe'. But: This universe is actually 
not universal, but our own specific impression we have from a more 
difficult reality.

'The universe' is actually our own past light cone, hence kind of 
optical illusion.

To show the validity of this assumption I had used various examples.

My favorite example is 'Growing Earth'. But also possible are comets or 
the impact of the probe on Temple I.

TH


ps

here you find a more elaborate version of this concept:

https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6

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

#450335

Dne 18/02/2018 v 19:00 Thomas Heger napsal(a):
> 
> This is in fact true.
> There are other incompatible concepts about material objects, too.
> 
> Quantum mechanics is mainly about particles, while GR and SRT assume
> something called 'length-contraction'. And this does not square well
> with assumed features of material objects.

Quantum mechanics is SR-relativistic, i.e. involving space-time,
Lorentz transform, time dilation, length contraction,
relativity of simultaneity and other SR effects.

Relativistic quantum chemistry is very succesful
in modelling electron behaviour in heavy atoms
in the context of chemistry.

-- 
Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )

A wise man guards words he says,
as they say about him more,
than he says about the subject.

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

#450521

Am 18.02.2018 um 19:31 schrieb Libor 'Poutnik' Stříž:

>> This is in fact true.
>> There are other incompatible concepts about material objects, too.
>>
>> Quantum mechanics is mainly about particles, while GR and SRT assume
>> something called 'length-contraction'. And this does not square well
>> with assumed features of material objects.
>
> Quantum mechanics is SR-relativistic, i.e. involving space-time,
> Lorentz transform, time dilation, length contraction,
> relativity of simultaneity and other SR effects.

Well... I think, that SRT is wrong, while GR is correct.

(Especially I dislike 'length-contraction'.)

I had the idea of time being mainly a local phenomenon. Any place and 
object has its own time and since we are somehow objects and somewhere, 
we have also our own time.

Only this time is not universal, be especially ours.

All places with the same time build what I call a 'time-domaine'.

This is apparently the case for the surface of planet Earth. And this is 
where we could go, while using the same clocks.

Would we go into a realm with a different time-axis, we would be 
annihilated.

Such an effect is visible at the impact of the probe on 'Temple I', 
assumed this object would belong to such a realm with a different time.

Also comets could be understood in this manner. Then comets are simple 
rocks and the tail is caused be the disturbance of space by a rock 
flying through.

So empty space is not really empty, it looks empty only in a certain 
perspective (ours).


> Relativistic quantum chemistry is very succesful
> in modelling electron behaviour in heavy atoms
> in the context of chemistry.
>

If 'Growing Earth' is in fact rue, then the particle concept (of QM) 
could not be true.

And even if this idea is heavily rejected, it is IMHO nevertheless correct.

(I have spent a LOT of time on that subject and found tons of examples 
in favor of this idea.)


TH

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

#450523

Dne 20/02/2018 v 22:01 Thomas Heger napsal(a):
> Am 18.02.2018 um 19:31 schrieb Libor 'Poutnik' Stříž:
> 
>>
>> Quantum mechanics is SR-relativistic, i.e. involving space-time,
>> Lorentz transform, time dilation, length contraction,
>> relativity of simultaneity and other SR effects.
> 
> Well... I think, that SRT is wrong, while GR is correct.

Therefore SR is correct, as GR says SR is its local limit.

-- 
Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )

A wise man guards words he says,
as they say about him more,
than he says about the subject.

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

#450528

Am 20.02.2018 um 22:07 schrieb Libor 'Poutnik' Stříž:
> Dne 20/02/2018 v 22:01 Thomas Heger napsal(a):
>> Am 18.02.2018 um 19:31 schrieb Libor 'Poutnik' Stříž:
>>
>>>
>>> Quantum mechanics is SR-relativistic, i.e. involving space-time,
>>> Lorentz transform, time dilation, length contraction,
>>> relativity of simultaneity and other SR effects.
>>
>> Well... I think, that SRT is wrong, while GR is correct.
>
> Therefore SR is correct, as GR says SR is its local limit.
>


This is STRANGE logic.

btw here's the video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dryvDlB1hWA



TH

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

#450533

Dne 20/02/2018 v 22:35 Thomas Heger napsal(a):
> Am 20.02.2018 um 22:07 schrieb Libor 'Poutnik' Stříž:
>> Dne 20/02/2018 v 22:01 Thomas Heger napsal(a):
>>> Am 18.02.2018 um 19:31 schrieb Libor 'Poutnik' Stříž:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Quantum mechanics is SR-relativistic, i.e. involving space-time,
>>>> Lorentz transform, time dilation, length contraction,
>>>> relativity of simultaneity and other SR effects.
>>>
>>> Well... I think, that SRT is wrong, while GR is correct.
>>
>> Therefore SR is correct, as GR says SR is its local limit.
> 
> This is STRANGE logic.

You agree GR is correct. And GR says that.
So you agree SR as GR local limit is correct as well.
Quantum objects are definitely very local.


-- 
Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )

A wise man guards words he says,
as they say about him more,
than he says about the subject.

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

#450562

Am 20.02.2018 um 22:55 schrieb Libor 'Poutnik' Stříž:

>>>>> Quantum mechanics is SR-relativistic, i.e. involving space-time,
>>>>> Lorentz transform, time dilation, length contraction,
>>>>> relativity of simultaneity and other SR effects.
>>>>
>>>> Well... I think, that SRT is wrong, while GR is correct.
>>>
>>> Therefore SR is correct, as GR says SR is its local limit.
>>
>> This is STRANGE logic.
>
> You agree GR is correct. And GR says that.
> So you agree SR as GR local limit is correct as well.

'correct as local limit' of a theory about relativity is an oxymoron.


> Quantum objects are definitely very local.


Yes, quantum objects are very local.

BUT: if time is not restricted to the (our) local time, than SRT is only 
a local approximation as well as QM, because both depend on one 
universal time (which is fact our local time and not universal).

Since space and time are 'relative' in GR, quantum objects must be as well.

Since 'quantum objects' are more or less particles, these particles are 
'relative', too.

(You could also say 'observer dependent' - instead of 'relative').

This would violate fundamental assumptions of QM, since matter is not 
expected to vanish or to pop out of nowhere.


But we know, that matter can in fact pop out of nowhere (called 'big 
bang') or vanish into nothing (called 'black hole').

As you said GR is correct, hence QM is not.


TH

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

#450575

Dne 21/02/2018 v 15:06 Thomas Heger napsal(a):
> Am 20.02.2018 um 22:55 schrieb Libor 'Poutnik' Stříž:
> 
>>>>>> Quantum mechanics is SR-relativistic, i.e. involving space-time,
>>>>>> Lorentz transform, time dilation, length contraction,
>>>>>> relativity of simultaneity and other SR effects.
>>>>>
>>>>> Well... I think, that SRT is wrong, while GR is correct.
>>>>
>>>> Therefore SR is correct, as GR says SR is its local limit.
>>>
>>> This is STRANGE logic.
>>
>> You agree GR is correct. And GR says that.
>> So you agree SR as GR local limit is correct as well.
> 
> 'correct as local limit' of a theory about relativity is an oxymoron.

It is not, at least not in physical sense of correctness
as agreement with observation within uncertainty of measurement.

There are generally many physical models, that fits these criteria
under restricting conditions as special cases
of more general and more complex models.
> 
> 
>> Quantum objects are definitely very local.
> 
> 
> Yes, quantum objects are very local.
> 
> BUT: if time is not restricted to the (our) local time, than SRT is only
> a local approximation as well as QM, because both depend on one
> universal time (which is fact our local time and not universal).

That is not related. Locality of SR does not relate
to time restriction, but to Euclidean space-time metric.

> 
> Since space and time are 'relative' in GR, quantum objects must be as well.

THAT is strange logic.
> 
> Since 'quantum objects' are more or less particles, these particles are
> 'relative', too.

THAT is strange logic.
BTW Molecules are quantum objects as well.

> 
> (You could also say 'observer dependent' - instead of 'relative').
> 
> This would violate fundamental assumptions of QM, since matter is not
> expected to vanish or to pop out of nowhere.

YEs, avoid then such a logic.
> 
> 
> But we know, that matter can in fact pop out of nowhere (called 'big
> bang') or vanish into nothing (called 'black hole').
> 
> As you said GR is correct, hence QM is not.

False conclusion.

-- 
Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )

A wise man guards words he says,
as they say about him more,
than he says about the subject.

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

#450578

On Wednesday, 21 February 2018 19:09:20 UTC+1, Libor 'Poutnik' Stříž  wrote:
> Dne 21/02/2018 v 15:06 Thomas Heger napsal(a):
> > Am 20.02.2018 um 22:55 schrieb Libor 'Poutnik' Stříž:
> > 
> >>>>>> Quantum mechanics is SR-relativistic, i.e. involving space-time,
> >>>>>> Lorentz transform, time dilation, length contraction,
> >>>>>> relativity of simultaneity and other SR effects.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Well... I think, that SRT is wrong, while GR is correct.
> >>>>
> >>>> Therefore SR is correct, as GR says SR is its local limit.
> >>>
> >>> This is STRANGE logic.
> >>
> >> You agree GR is correct. And GR says that.
> >> So you agree SR as GR local limit is correct as well.
> > 
> > 'correct as local limit' of a theory about relativity is an oxymoron.
> 
> It is not, at least not in physical sense of correctness
> as agreement with observation within uncertainty of measurement.

Observation, of course, as performed by twins imagined
by an insane guru.

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

#450621

Am 21.02.2018 um 19:09 schrieb Libor 'Poutnik' Stříž:
> Dne 21/02/2018 v 15:06 Thomas Heger napsal(a):
>> Am 20.02.2018 um 22:55 schrieb Libor 'Poutnik' Stříž:
>>
>>>>>>> Quantum mechanics is SR-relativistic, i.e. involving space-time,
>>>>>>> Lorentz transform, time dilation, length contraction,
>>>>>>> relativity of simultaneity and other SR effects.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well... I think, that SRT is wrong, while GR is correct.
>>>>>
>>>>> Therefore SR is correct, as GR says SR is its local limit.
>>>>
>>>> This is STRANGE logic.
>>>
>>> You agree GR is correct. And GR says that.
>>> So you agree SR as GR local limit is correct as well.
>>
>> 'correct as local limit' of a theory about relativity is an oxymoron.
>
> It is not, at least not in physical sense of correctness
> as agreement with observation within uncertainty of measurement.
>
> There are generally many physical models, that fits these criteria
> under restricting conditions as special cases
> of more general and more complex models.
>>
>>
>>> Quantum objects are definitely very local.
>>
>>
>> Yes, quantum objects are very local.
>>
>> BUT: if time is not restricted to the (our) local time, than SRT is only
>> a local approximation as well as QM, because both depend on one
>> universal time (which is fact our local time and not universal).
>
> That is not related. Locality of SR does not relate
> to time restriction, but to Euclidean space-time metric.
>
>>
>> Since space and time are 'relative' in GR, quantum objects must be as well.
>
> THAT is strange logic.

If time would be local and 'local' equivalent to a subset of something 
more complex, as observed from an arbitrary location, than the world we 
observe must be 'relative' as well.

IOW: if we could (and would) twist the axis of time into a new/different 
direction, then another world must appear, while ours would disappear.

This world would depend on that other axis of time, hence would come 
equipped with some kind of universe, which is different than ours.

To make this possible our matter must also be time-dependent.

This is actually hard to swallow (but not THAT hard).

If this assumption would be correct, we could explain various strange 
phenomena with it:
-black holes
-particles
-jets
-CMBR

and various others.

Here comes the link to my 'book' again:


https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6


I tried to explain the idea with it. It has about 150 pages and is 
technically a google doc presentation.



TH

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

#450643

Dne 22/02/2018 v 12:49 Thomas Heger napsal(a):

> If time would be local and 'local' equivalent to a subset of something
> more complex, as observed from an arbitrary location, than the world we
> observe must be 'relative' as well.

Fortunately, it is not.
> 
> IOW: if we could (and would) twist the axis of time into a new/different
> direction, then another world must appear, while ours would disappear.

> 
> This world would depend on that other axis of time, hence would come
> equipped with some kind of universe, which is different than ours.

Time is part of our reality model and reality does not depend
on what model we use.
> 

-- 
Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )

A wise man guards words he says,
as they say about him more,
than he says about the subject.

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

#450644

Libor 'Poutnik' Stříž wrote:

> Dne 22/02/2018 v 12:49 Thomas Heger napsal(a):
> 
>> If time would be local and 'local' equivalent to a subset of something
>> more complex, as observed from an arbitrary location, than the world we
>> observe must be 'relative' as well.
> 
> Fortunately, it is not.
>> 
>> IOW: if we could (and would) twist the axis of time into a
>> new/different direction, then another world must appear, while ours
>> would disappear.
>> This world would depend on that other axis of time, hence would come
>> equipped with some kind of universe, which is different than ours.
> 
> Time is part of our reality model and reality does not depend on what
> model we use.

You just hate germans, as I can translate. For whatever obscure reason.

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

#450645

Dne 22/02/2018 v 21:40 Evonne Lamarr napsal(a):
> Libor 'Poutnik' Stříž wrote:
> 
>> Dne 22/02/2018 v 12:49 Thomas Heger napsal(a):
>>
>>> If time would be local and 'local' equivalent to a subset of something
>>> more complex, as observed from an arbitrary location, than the world we
>>> observe must be 'relative' as well.
>>
>> Fortunately, it is not.
>>>
>>> IOW: if we could (and would) twist the axis of time into a
>>> new/different direction, then another world must appear, while ours
>>> would disappear.
>>> This world would depend on that other axis of time, hence would come
>>> equipped with some kind of universe, which is different than ours.
>>
>> Time is part of our reality model and reality does not depend on what
>> model we use.
> 
> You just hate germans, as I can translate. For whatever obscure reason.
> 
Wrong, as usually.

-- 
Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )

A wise man guards words he says,
as they say about him more,
than he says about the subject.

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

#450739

Am 22.02.2018 um 21:40 schrieb Evonne Lamarr:

>>> If time would be local and 'local' equivalent to a subset of something
>>> more complex, as observed from an arbitrary location, than the world we
>>> observe must be 'relative' as well.
>>
>> Fortunately, it is not.
>>>
>>> IOW: if we could (and would) twist the axis of time into a
>>> new/different direction, then another world must appear, while ours
>>> would disappear.
>>> This world would depend on that other axis of time, hence would come
>>> equipped with some kind of universe, which is different than ours.
>>
>> Time is part of our reality model and reality does not depend on what
>> model we use.
>
> You just hate germans, as I can translate. For whatever obscure reason.
>
Anti-German sentiments are not that rare among Czech people.

Anyhow...

That time is part of our reality, that is certainly acceptable.

But this was not the question.

I said, that our time is not the only time possible, hence time is not 
universal.

The reason is a little tricky to explain.

A very good book about this subject is written by Alexander Franklin 
Mayer and called 'Geometry of time'.

Unfortunately it's pretty expensive and the free pdf-version is not 
available anymore (as far as I know).

TH

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

#450791

Dne 24/02/2018 v 19:39 Thomas Heger napsal(a):
> Am 22.02.2018 um 21:40 schrieb Evonne Lamarr:
> 
>>>> If time would be local and 'local' equivalent to a subset of something
>>>> more complex, as observed from an arbitrary location, than the world we
>>>> observe must be 'relative' as well.
>>>
>>> Fortunately, it is not.
>>>>
>>>> IOW: if we could (and would) twist the axis of time into a
>>>> new/different direction, then another world must appear, while ours
>>>> would disappear.
>>>> This world would depend on that other axis of time, hence would come
>>>> equipped with some kind of universe, which is different than ours.
>>>
>>> Time is part of our reality model and reality does not depend on what
>>> model we use.
>>
>> You just hate germans, as I can translate. For whatever obscure reason.
>>
> Anti-German sentiments are not that rare among Czech people.

Not as much as trolling behaviour on the Usenet.

In fact, I cannot say I like Germans less then other nations.

Even if Czech nation has many reasons not to like Germans.
Germanic tribes and ruling houses made multiple fatal blows to us
during Czech history since the early 9th century till WWII aftermath.

But such an approach is largely abandoned by the generations
born after the WWII, as today Germans are not Germans from history.

-- 
Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )

A wise man guards words he says,
as they say about him more,
than he says about the subject.

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

#450795

Libor 'Poutnik' Stříž wrote:

> Even if Czech nation has many reasons not to like Germans.
> Germanic tribes and ruling houses made multiple fatal blows to us during
> Czech history since the early 9th century till WWII aftermath.

You need to love, not to like. Like only is the same as to hate.

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

#450827

Dne 25/02/2018 v 22:08 Eveline Hurst napsal(a):
> Libor 'Poutnik' Stříž wrote:
> 
>> Even if Czech nation has many reasons not to like Germans.
>> Germanic tribes and ruling houses made multiple fatal blows to us during
>> Czech history since the early 9th century till WWII aftermath.
> 
> You need to love, not to like. Like only is the same as to hate.
>

You are among the last who could dare
to request it from others,
being a famous misquoting nymshifting troll.

-- 
Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )

A wise man guards words he says,
as they say about him more,
than he says about the subject.

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

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

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

csiph-web