usenet weirdness

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

So what?

Sure, you also said that it was always 2 dimensional. Just a paragraph above. Of course, no consequence, no logic, no honesty or dignity is expected from someone like you.

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.

The devil is an ideological construct in symbology.

For some, it's a punisher of bad actions, for responsible people.

For others, it's an excuse for their bad behavior, irresponsible people.

The ancient notions of "daemonia" and "eudaemonia" or the conflicting spirits of basically the Manicheaeism, has that man has free will and thus responsibility for his own actions.

Euclid was a panel of a man.

"The devil did not make me do it."

Don't be blaming it on the rain. Hate the player and the game.

Thus spake Zarathustra.

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

Am Mittwoch000011, 11.03.2026 um 15:54 schrieb john larkin:

No, we can safely exclude this possibility.

First issue:

do you really think, that those guys wanted to tell general public some sort of truth?

I mean: the US regarded valid discoveries as 'threats to national security' repeatedly and have taken inventions, research results, scientific papers or the inventors themselves, and locked them away, if there was anything threatening political, financial or military interests.

The result:

general public got only a white-washed toy version of real science, while the 'good stuff' is locked away.

Second issue:

Then we have the socio-oeconomical issues of 'academia' itself.

Since research is not based on 'free-thinkers' and amateurs anymore, we have a gigantic horde of people, who base their personal life upon a certain set of accepted knowledge.

The last thing they want is actually a final end of the seemingly eternal search for a true understanding of nature.

Third issue:

Physicists are actually human beings and those behave human also in academic, political or scientific settings.

And human tend to be conservative, the older they get. And they tend to value former work (like in learning) as an asset and don't like that to become obsolete.

They are also human in the way, that they like hierarchies and status, as long as their status is high.

So, many thinkers dislike it, if they get proven wrong, because that could eventually reduce their status.

But if they also rank high in the hierarchy of academia, you can be sure, that academia would make no progress.

I don't know.

TH

Most Us-Presidents had a 'Queen-Elisabeth-II-number' equal or less than four.

TH

As far as I can tell, the idea of 'complex dimension' for time came from Henry Poincaré.

Now:

if we had i*t in a geometric equation and x,y,z as real spatial axes, we have actually a certain form of a quaternion.

The usual quaternions are wrong, because they have a real scalar and an imaginary vector part.

But we can use so called 'complex four vectors' instead (aka 'bi-quaternions').

Now we could allow the axis of time to rotate among the various directions and make time imaginary in all cases and space real and 'perpendicular to time' (kind of multiplication by i).

Then we had use for bi-quaternions and could actually build Minkowski's space from 'point-like elements', which behave like bi-quaternions.

This would allow any place to become the position of an observer, who would see the world from there and regard his local time as imaginary axis and local space as real valued.

The only unusual thing:

this would allow 'ghost spaces' (for other observers) which are somehow there, though invisible.

...

TH

Truth is definitely not a democratic decision.

There exist the possibility, that almost everybody thinks, that some explanation is actually correct.

But that doesn't matter, if the explanation is actually wrong.

Among the dangers of AI is the problem, that AI can't tell the truth neither, but has no moral in itself, to hinder wrong actions from wrong conclusions.

TH

Well, people are people and like to restrict access to the 'fun parts' of everything, if possible. And they especially like, if they had access themselves and could exclude competitors.

Max Planck didn't like Einstein and was allegedly afraid of him.

It is said, that he always hid behind the curtains if Einstein rang the door-bell and didn't open.

...

TH

Am Donnerstag000012, 12.03.2026 um 12:29 schrieb Bill Sloman: ...

If Einstein wasn't actually a Jew, this would be a possible explanation for why he rejected the presidency of Israel, which was offered to him.

Would have been quite dangerous, if he had actually accepted and would been asked to prove his jewishness.

...