Re: Is the universe infinite, or does it have a limit?

Nioclás Pól Caileán de Ghloucester wrote: ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ I doubt that this is your real name. In fact, the Web site that you refer to indicates otherwise.

No, I did not. Also, it does not matter whether the person making the statement is a member of Mensa International. You should not equate a high IQ test result with intelligence (as Mensa says itself), let alone scientific expertise.

There was nothing to refute as you did not provide a proper citation.

1. You have no clue about natural science. In natural science we do not make proofs; that is the domain of mathematics instead.
2. Fallacy: Shifting the burden of proof. It is the duty of the person making the claim to provide supporting evidence; it is NOT the duty of the person doubting the claim to refute it.
3. By contrast to light, gravitational waves are quadrupole waves that are only emitted when the spacetime curvature changes in a non-spherically symmetric way. They are also emitted by objects and systems which do not emit light.

This refutes the claim attributed to a certain Roger Brewis that "electromagnetic radiation is not electromagnetic, but is instead gravitational".

I did not lie, I drew a conclusion.

This provides evidence to support my first impression that you are mentally ill and cannot be taken seriously.

In sci.electronics.design a person claiming to be called Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn snipped-for-privacy@web.de wrote: |----------------------------------------------------------------------------| |"Nioclás Pól Caileán de Ghloucester wrote: | |^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ | |I doubt that this is your real name." | |----------------------------------------------------------------------------|

Dear Mister Lahn,

Thou art mistaken. Any way, I do not own a name.

|----------------------------------------------------------------------------| |"In fact, the Web site that you refer | |to indicates otherwise." | |----------------------------------------------------------------------------|

Uh, this name is the real name that identifies me so as this name occurs in 2 parts of

I am not aware of any law which requires me to use this version on the USENET and on that website. Different files of that website use many different versions. Cf. during a VHDL standardization teleconference more than 13 years ago, a gentleman asked me a question concerning more than one version of this name even in English alone.

|----------------------------------------------------------------------------| |"No, I did not." | |----------------------------------------------------------------------------|

Thou hast done so. Roger Brewis is a professional mathematician who is intelligent.

|----------------------------------------------------------------------------| |"You should not equate a | |high IQ test result with [. . .] let alone | |scientific expertise." | |----------------------------------------------------------------------------|

Fair enough, but then again I do not equate his high IQ-test results with scientific expertise. I assert that he is intelligent and that thou hast illegally lied about his high intelligence.

|----------------------------------------------------------------------------| |"> Roger Brewis published a theory. Thomas Lahn did not refute it. | | | |There was nothing to refute as you did not provide a proper citation." | |----------------------------------------------------------------------------|

Irrelevant. That is not a defence in anti-malicious-falsehood law! Thou hast made an actionable statement, so if Roger Brewis would choose to sue thee via various anti-malicious-falsehood laws, then the onus would be on thee to prove that that actionable statement be true or that thou have acted without malice (in a very bizarre sense or in very bizarre senses of "malice" which is or are unlikely to be shown by standard dictonaries).

I read publications by him about this theory more than twenty-two years ago. I do not work with this theory. I instead work with one of the two old dominant rival theories which are normally taught in secondary schools and universities.

Many intelligent persons never publish any thing, but their lacks of publications do not give thee a legal defence to lie about their brains. As for Brewis or others who did publish, if a random third person - i.e. I - does not cite a publication by them, then such a lack of a citation again does not give thee a right to illegally lie about them! For Goodness's sake!

|----------------------------------------------------------------------------| |" In natural science we do not | | make proofs;" | |----------------------------------------------------------------------------|

Irrelevant. Thou hadst published a malicious falsehood about Roger Brewis's intelligence. I have published a remark that thou hast published no proof therefor. Is Roger Brewis's intelligence a topic of natural science?

I do know about a natural science. I am a professional natural scientist.

|----------------------------------------------------------------------------| |"that is the domain of mathematics instead." | |----------------------------------------------------------------------------|

Roger Brewis is a professional mathematician.

Jurists also say "proofs".

|----------------------------------------------------------------------------| |"2. Fallacy: Shifting the burden of proof. It is the duty of the person | | making the claim to provide supporting evidence;" | |----------------------------------------------------------------------------|

Exactly. Thou hadst made a claim about Roger Brewis's intelligence and thou dost refuse "to provide supporting evidence" so thou art a hypocrite who would be bound to be found liable by a court if Roger Brewis would sue thee!

|----------------------------------------------------------------------------| |"it is NOT the duty | | of the person doubting the claim to refute it." | |----------------------------------------------------------------------------|

Exactly. I am a "person doubting the claim" made by thyself about Roger Brewis's intelligence and "it is NOT the duty" of mine "to refute it." N.B. this hypocrisy by thee as in a different sentence further above in one post thou dost refuse to even attempt to refute when thou hast written: |----------------------------------------------------------------------------| |"There was nothing to refute as you did not provide a proper citation." | |----------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|----------------------------------------------------------------------------| |"3. By contrast to light, gravitational waves are quadrupole waves that are | | only emitted when the spacetime curvature changes in a non-spherically | | symmetric way. They are also emitted by objects and systems which do not| | emit light." | |----------------------------------------------------------------------------|

Perhaps Roger Brewis would want to discuss that with thee. If thou wouldst bother to read what I had written, I had written that a theory by Roger Brewis proposes that light is a gravitational wave. I myself am not he himself!

|----------------------------------------------------------------------------| |"> of what he lied about Roger Brewis. | | | |I did not lie, I drew a conclusion." | |----------------------------------------------------------------------------|

Thou hadst and hast published malicious falsehoods so thou art a liar.

I am mentally healthy. Cf. inter alia

(S.

...and have a certificate to prove it?

According to you. Provide a citation to something he has written.

I can only find a couple of Roger Brewis's who are mathematicians in a quick search. One is pedalling home tutoring at A level and the other has written a "How to pass Advanced Business Calculations" book (out of print). Neither of them claim to have written about science or physics.

Due to your address munging -- which is a violation of network standards [1] and Netiquette [2] -- I could not inform you about that via e-mail.

john larkin wrote in <news:sci.astro>:

See <mid:10m8fo7$9gf8$ snipped-for-privacy@gwaiyur.mb-net.net> (in <news:sci.astro>).

Gravitational waves do not produce a sound, although they can be made audible by computer, i.e. the oscillations can be converted to sound: For example, you can hear a characteristic chirp when two celestial objects merge because the frequency and amplitude of the produced gravitational waves increases as the objects are spiraling in:

F'up2 <news:sci.astro> again.

Quoting an article by me, Elizabeth Tuddenham posted to this professional online forum on Date: Sun, 8 Feb 2026 09:18:57 +0000

- |--------------------------------------------------| |"> I am mentally healthy. | | | |...and have a certificate to prove it? | | | |-- | |~ Liz Tuddenham ~ | |(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)| |

Of course! Cf.

I am sorry that I read this post by Liz Tuddenham of Date: Sun, 8 Feb 2026 09:18:57 +0000 for the 1st time today, because I am overworked; and because this newsgroup is very active so various USENET problems interfered with downloading it quickly. Cf. inter alia

Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design Subject: Edward Rawde and BlueWorld Hosting Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2026 17:00:05 -0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <10r0oqj$1v2ip$ snipped-for-privacy@paganini.bofh.team>

and

Newsgroups: alt.free.newsservers Subject: Re: blueworld list counts - top 500 (2026-04-04) Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2026 17:05:47 -0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <10rtp99$1rhqe$ snipped-for-privacy@paganini.bofh.team>

(S.