usenet weirdness

Science is certainly a complicated mechanism. The proposition that I'm dumb may appeal to you, but there's counter evidence around, if you know where to look. Getting a Ph.D. isn't evidence of dumbness, nor getting stuff published in peer-reviewed journals, nor a patent or two.

Based on the nonsense you post here, it's not a task that you seem to be equipped to take on. And nobody sane would pay any attention to it if you went to the trouble of making the attempt.

I wonder what that sentence was intended to mean

Some of them - not all that often.

You don't really have a clue how GPS works, do you. To a user it's hand-held radio receiver that can work out where you are on the surface of the planet to a couple of feet. I regularly use it to get places I haven't been before, relying on the maps built into the device, and the satellite transmissions that tell the unit where it is.

John Larkin thinks that Donald J Trump has common sense. God only knows what he understands by common sense, or you either.

If you knew the exact temperatures (and thus the lengths of the pendulum) for the entire period you were trying to measure, you might have been able to correct for that particular error. Nobody did. There were others

You do seem to be lunatic enough for your motives to be inaccessible to rational logic. <snip>

You are confusing station keeping with satellite location.

The satellites can drift from their desired orbit, and if they drifted too far, the ground stations (as in my hand-held GPS unit) wouldn't be able to see enough satellites to know where it was. The satellites always know exactly where they.

Good question.

We weren't talking about relevance. I wanted to see a coherent world picture.

It's a lot easier than doing plasma stability calculations.

And are very willing to tell people how difficult it is.

I do take care not to behave too much like a crank.

There are lots of real-world engineering problems to solve. And most get solved just fine.

If we never solve any more theoretical Big Physics problems (and maybe we won't) life will go on.

What do you do? I design electronics.

John Larkin Highland Tech Glen Canyon Design Center Lunatic Fringe Electronics

You are imagining things I never said anything about.

Yes, and what the time really is.

I answered it for myself long ago. (as you might have noticed)

Jan

A coherent world picture involves having correct ideas about orders of magnitude, and relevance or irrelevance. Or do you also include a note on the phases of the moon in your electronics measurements?

Sure, any excuse for not having a fusion reactor yet will do.

FYI, you are behaving too much like a crank on this. No better than for example TH on his growing Earth. Is it really too hard for you to admit for once that you goofed?

Jan

No doubt. (but bridges do fall down, every now and then)

No doubt again. Even if the whole scientific revolution had never happened lots of humans would be alive today. (but less of them, and in much poorer circumstances)

Jan

Quite possible. I've had suspicions along those lines, but I never really looked at it. I do know from newspaper reports that claims of so called 'Majorana particles' in the solid state were nonsense. So no quantum computing there. Again, not looked at in detail.

What I did have a look at is some of that 'quantum conciousness' stuff. It is nonsense, all of it,

Jan

IQ stuff is a pseudo-sciene. Don't waste time on it, if you ask me.

Seen any new ones, lately?

There you have it.

With a lot of luck. They must be good enough to have time to do their own original thinking next to the job they are supposed to do. (or they must have a very good supervisor)

There you have it again. Some of the good science gets done despite the system, rather than with it or because of it. (with or without cooperation from advisors willing to allow it)

Jan

Yes I do, a fanatic religious maniac spitting, slandering and asserting otherwise means nothing. And its proper clocks keep indicating t'=t, just like all serious clocks always did. Common sense has been warning your idiot guru.

How great of you.

How fortunate that serious engineers preparing their clocks were ignoring your bunch of idiots insisting that what they do is improper.

There is no god and that you don't know something means nothing.

(and thus the lengths of the

\ Sure, sure, calling the opponent a lunatic is much easier than answering his questions. It changes nothing, however, time is what clocks indicate and the clocks keep indicating t'=t, just like they always did. Some brainwashed lunatics screaming that it is improper won't prevent that, sorry.

slander /ˈslɑːndə/ nounLaw the action or crime of making a false spoken statement damaging to a person's reputation.

Why do you think that too many of them are getting degrees? They won't all be uniformly good in the area in which they trained, but having got to university level in one speciality they've got the kind of training (and have demonstrated the necessary persistence) to acquire similar levels of skill in related areas. Win Hill started a Ph.D. in chemical physics, and I completed one in physical chemistry - not the obvious preparation for a career in electronics, but we both went on to do tolerably well.

One of my nephews did physics, then trained to be a financial analyst (a quant) which he hated when he'd got to understand what the job entailed, so he went off to do a course on video-editing and ended up editing a news program for a couple of year, and getting married to wife (the daughter of two professors) who thought that he could be better and got him to do a part-time course in Computer Science, from which he got head-hunted by Yahoo, into a area which got taken over by Google, where he does seem to be doing well.

Test techs and sales reps are perhaps two examples of low level alternative career paths.There are others, not all of them low level.

Is he programing small FPGA's or systems on a chip? You can squeeze quite a lot into a small FPGA, and there are some remarkably big (if expensive) ones around.

From what he posts on sci.electronics.design it looks as he evolves circuits rather than designing them. My experience of the design process has been that it involves quite a lot fleshing out alternative designs and dumping them at the point where it becomes clear that they aren't going to work well enough, and John Larkin never admits to having had to back-track.

Science is a human enterprise. It has evolved and it now seems to work better than it did a hundred years ago. With any luck it will evolve a bit more and work even better, but perfection is clearly a long way off.

I tagged onto a Royal Society of New South Wales tour around the University of New South Wales quantum computer.

The computing elements were individual phosphorus atoms ion-implanted in a silicon chip. They had a Raith electron beam microfabrictor to let them make their own chips, which would have been cheaper than the electron-beam microfabricators I worked on.

In operation the silicon chip is immersed in bath of liquid helium-3 which the get from the US atomic energy commission, who harvest it from US nuclear reactors.

The nuclear spin state of the phosphorus atom can be flipped by microwave pulse and each atom is coupled to a separate microwave circuit on the chip which can interrogate its orientation or flip it.

That's not any kind of simulation.

If the tides exist, but are too small to be important, it isn't a reason to deny their very existence.

As a graduate student I used to joke that I ought to include it in my reaction data. I certainly need to record a lot of data that didn't look directly relevant

The people I was in contact with - for a very different project - actually got their machine to fuse a few nuclei. They'd put off doing it until they'd got all the data they really needed because the neutron flux was high enough to leave insides of the machine dangerously radioactive, but it made for a nice sign-off press release.

I have no problem admitting that I've goofed when I actually have goofed. My feeling is that you are now acting more like a crank than I did.

No. Oppositely. Science trains humans the way it needs and uses them as tools.

Am Mittwoch000011, 11.03.2026 um 14:06 schrieb Bill Sloman: ...

I think that the enormous number of issues in that particular articles, which is also the foundation of SRT, needs a good explanation.

The number is so large, that it deserves an explanation, why people still defend it till today and why it got published in the first place.

I don't think that Max Planck who was responsible for publication could not see the errors and weaknesses, because he was actually a world class physicist.

Smart people are in most cases smart in many areas and not that often weak in grammar and expression.

One aspect of intelligence is actually fast learning. But Einstein didn't learn proper English in ten years at Princeton.

Also his desk in Princeton looked always like a mess, which would be another issue you wouldn't expect from a smart person.

So, my guess was, that Einstein wasn't particularly smart.

I have actually have read one article carefully and found that it contains way too many errors (roughly 390!).

So, you are in fact correct and I actually don't understand, why he is still famous for this particular article.

TH