usenet weirdness

There really is no need to need to tell me where Doggerland is and was.

Certainly.

Nobody still there did well. The run-up of the tsunamis was up to 25 meter in Scotland. Those tsunamis had nothing to do with sea level rise. (and they couldn't have been forseen, even today) Once known about, the Norwegians did a thorough investigation to make sure that the three of them were all there are going to be. (before starting their oil exploitation)

Quite possible, but the distribution of the population in Britain at the time isn't really well known, so you can invent percentages to suit. Oxfordians wouldn't have had a problem.

Pure fantasy on your part. If you would want to acquire some more realistic knowledge you might want to have a look at:

Conclusion: there are no episodes of catastrophis sea level rise in the Early Neolithc. (in the North Sea, so nowhere else) Measured sea level rise is steady, and of order of 10 mm/year. (comparable to what is measured nowadays)

The sources of the Noachian story are well known, (Ur, Gilgamesh etc.)

BTW, your habit of dishing up common knowledge as if it is brilliant discovery on your part is not conductive to informed discussion.

Jan

Machinists all know about gauge blocks (Johanssen blocks). but ours all measuring gear tacked onto the their lathes - mostly Heidenhain optical systems good to about a micron. The foreman had a Sanyo magentic system where you didn't need to blow cutting fluid out of the sensing head.

Rubbish. At one point I knew the wavelength of the He-Neon line used in laser interferometers to ten decimal places. I hadn't intended to learn it, but I found myself looking it up a lot and eventually it stuck.,

Since I tend to back it up with Wikipedia references, it's hard to see how you can imagine that I'm claiming it as a brilliant personal discovery.

The problem is more that you don't to know nearly as much as you seem to imagine, and don't like being shown up for posting half-baked ignorance.

Not surprising. It is the most commonly used secondary meter standard,

Jan

See? You are doing it again,

Jan

Doing what again? The trouble with posing as an expert in obscure subjects is that every now and then you run into somebody who has had to become even more expert in your narrow field than you are. It doesn't happen often, but it pays to keep in mind that they can pop out of the oddest corners of the user-group universe.

I happen to know the geologist who mapped the Arabian plate - the first complete continental plate to be mapped (mainly because it is the smallest). He married my wife's first Dutch graduate student (before he did the plate mapping) and we got progress reports from time to time. Nice people with good kids who all now speak Danish, which didn't seem to worry the Dutch grandparents.

And again. You may get away with posing as a superior know it all in sed, (based second hand wikipedia regurgitation) but it doesn't work here in spr.

Jan

I'm so glad I'm not an expert and don't feel I have to pose as one.

This is cool. My little speculation about spherical fields has generated 478 posts in just s.e.d., some hundreds of lines long, most of which are childish flames.

John Larkin Highland Tech Glen Canyon Design Center Lunatic Fringe Electronics

This is cool. My little speculation about spherical fields has generated 478 posts in just s.e.d., some hundreds of lines long, most of which are childish flames.

John Larkin Highland Tech Glen Canyon Design Center Lunatic Fringe Electronics

It does seem to work in spr, based on the twaddle that has been posted in this thread.

I'm not regurgitating Wikipedia, but rather using it as a easily accessible source of information that I've got from other sources, mostly books. I'm not posing as a know it all - if you post about a subject that I don't know much about (and don't make gross mistakes) I'm most unlikely to post a critical comment.

It's quite possible (and in fact pretty likely) that there are subjects where you do know a lot more than I do, and some of what you know may even be correct.

Sci.physics.relativity does seem to have a lot of childish flamers.

It wasn't you little speculation that generated all the posts but your inadvertent cross-posting to sci.physics.relativity some way down the thread, which attracted some people who seem to know even less about real science than you do (improbable though that is - but apparently possible).

But time must be a LOCAL parameter ONLY!

It is total bunk to assume, that an 'external' clock would exist, which synchronizes everything in the universe.

Such an 'external clock' would violate two essential principles:

a)it would be 'outside' the universe, but the universe has no outside.

b) such a clock would require means, which would allow that 'master clock' to adjust all local clocks. But there ain't anything, which would allow a 'master clock' to interfere with what is happening very far away.

...

TH

What you actually mean is 'universal'.

You have, for some odd reasons, the idea, that the entire universe must but universally synchronized.

Even stranger is, that clocks and time are used interchangeable.

But a clock is a man-made device, while time is a natural phenomenon and not supposed to depend on clocks (because nature is not man-made).

This is a very euclidean account.

Bad enough

TH

Am Donnerstag000026, 26.02.2026 um 18:54 schrieb Bill Sloman: ...

'Climate' was once defined as the mean local state of the atmosphere.

But once the scum took over, that was changed and the word was used to describe the word as a hole.

This was necessary, because the scandal is meant as justification of what I would call 'tax on air', which is apparently planned for the first world countries, where 'climate' is more or less OK, even it could be a little warmer in many areas.

The real problem occurs, of course, in much poorer regions, where pollution and population growth is out of control.

But even if the countries in that region are actually responsible for what they do, they are far too poor to allow to extract a lot of tax.

So, the industrialized world is blamed for what they are not responsible and what they could not change efficiently.

The means to justify this bunk is actually a redefinition of the world 'climate', which is now used to describe the mean temperature of the entire Earth.

This was needed, because otherwise countries in the first world could rightfully claim, that they were not responisble and had nothing against warmer 'climate'.

...

TH

A clock is something that documents the passage of time in the space where the clock is located. Nobody is going to confuse the ruler used to measure distance with the distance measured.

Why would anybody think that?

Euclid worked on two dimensional geometry. Space-time is a complex four dimensional non-linear geometry.

That happened when weather forecasting became practical. People got to realise that high pressure areas and low pressure areas travelled across the country in roughly predictable directions at roughly predictable speeds. Electric telegraph system got fast enough after the 1850's for observers to keep track of them. If you think that those people were scum, you can comfort yourself with the thought that they are all dead.

Australia's "Telegraph" Todd was one of them, and he was highly respected at the time (and his grandson, Lawrence Bragg was Australia's first Nobel Prize winner).

The industrial revolution did involve burning a lot of fossil carbon which has had visible and now well-documented effect on the climate over the last century. Now that we have got the point where the cheapest way of generating electric power is with solar cells, and wind turbines are the second cheapest, we can stop burning fossil carbon and messing up the climate even more and still manufacture stuff in huge volumes, and more cheaply and efficiently than we used to. We haven't actually got to the point where we are burning less fossil carbon than we did last year, but we are close to it, and China is making a lot of money out of making remarkably cheap solar cells in enormous volumes (which is why they can make them cheaply).

Climate got redefined when we could collect enough data around the world to realise that the weather around the world was connected. Satellites in orbit looking down at the atmosphere did a much better job than weather observatories on the ground has done, but ground based observers had been doing a pretty good job for about a century before we had satellites to do it better.

The low lying islands in the Pacific aren't too worried about a warmer climate in their area, but they are deeply worried about the effects of a warmer climate on the ice sheets on top of Greenland and West Antarctica.

These are are going to slide off and melt over the next few centuries, and produce about 10 meters of sea level rise, which will submerge a lot of low lying islands. The Dutch sea defenses are going to need work too.

It's a "clock hypothesis", that a "clock hypothesis" is that the universe has one, a "clock hypothesis" is usual in many accounts of physics the theory, for example Einstein has one.

Most people think he doesn't because they're confused by aspects of relativity theory, and about Minkowski then the space-time, yet he says so, Einstein, for example in "Out of My Later Years".

Anything else eventually violates causality, or the usual idea that there's a physics at all, a "cosmological principle".

This sort of "clock hypothesis" for something like Einstein's account of "requirements and desiderata of a total field theory" is more than what's slapped on to SR and called "clock hypothesis".

It does though get itself directly slapped onto SR.