usenet weirdness

It's similar an account of gravitational waves, any one of which is at best a "doublet" not a "spike".

Making that work with the "laws of physics" gets involved about the zero'eth laws of physics, about accounts of space-contraction-linear and space-contraction-linear as "heft", which shows up after gyroscopic terms influencing considerations of "mass" and "weight" or "inertia" and "momentum", since things like footballs and bullets and golf balls and other matters of trajectory in ballistics, have real mathematics involved their description not explained by Galileo or Magnus together. "The empirical, ...".

Yeah, Einstein was working on a "total field theory" and part of that was making a break from Newton.

And ice skaters and basketball players and triple jumpers and the balleton, ....

Sure, that is true, but not a description of 'truth'.

'Truth' does not need acceptance or the consent of any kind of group or oligarchy.

You are responsible for what you believe and you are obliged to check your believes yourself.

If you believe in what is actually wrong, than it's your decision.

If you are lazy and regard tv-shows as education, than it's your fault.

TH

Am Freitag000013, 13.03.2026 um 15:08 schrieb J. J. Lodder: ...

At that time he had been ten years in Princeton as a professor of physics.

So he had enough time, incentive and opportunity to learn proper English, but didn't.

A cluttered desk is actually a sign of low intelligence, because an intelligent person is able to clear the mess.

I do.

My guess was actually, that Einstein was a 'disinformation agent' and his work was praised, because it is full of errors.

This was necessary for 'brainwashing' of students of physics.

The method is possibly this:

the students are forced to accept blatant nonsense as valid truth.

That would cause 'cognitive dissonance' and that a certain type of trauma, which create psycholigcal conditions, that make students more controllable.

To write such a piece of garbadge is actually difficult and even more difficult than to write something of proper value.

That's why I thought, that Einstein didn't write his articles himself.

Instead some kind of 'Q' (for 'quatermaster') had a set of ghostwriters, who wrote Einstein's papers.

TH

Am Freitag000013, 13.03.2026 um 16:24 schrieb Bill Sloman: ...

Science is meant as a cooperative activity.

So, you need to pick up something, which somebody else had started, sieve for errors and add a few newer insights and leave the result to somebody else, who will do the same, but with what you did.

So, stepwise the results get better and the errors get less.

But that is violating the motivations of most scientists, who want fame for themselves and loose sight of science in the meantime.

But most sciences are way to complicated for a single person and progress can only be achieved, if scientists would cooperate worldwide.

But that would also give away any controll about the outcome, hence that isn't how scoience is conducted.

Instead of cooperation we have millions of papers about physics alone, which actually nobody could read.

That is all a waste of time and efforts and brings no progress to the subject of interest.

Well, publishing is usually the final step.

But before you could publish something, you need to have something worth publishing.

And that is difficult, if you do it all alone.

E.g. I'm a proponent of 'Growing Earth' and 'abiogenic oil' and have spent a lot of time on these topics.

And I'm pretty certain, that Earth does in fact grows and also know why.

But you can't even talk about these topics, because that would cause very harsh reactions.

The problem:

if you don't deal with issues properly, they sooner or later byte you where it hurts.

...

TH

Sure, but my definition fo 'number' was different.

My 'Queen-Elisabeth-II-number' means: how many 'steps' you have in your personal bloodline, which could establish a personal connection to the former Queen of England.

me to parents counts as 1 me to grandma counts as 2 me to nephev of grandma counts as 4 ...

TH

Quaternions were often better than vectors in many realms.

They had a revival in computer grafics and rocket science.

But quaternions had a lot of fans in the mid 19th century, too, especially Grassmann, Maxwell and Tait.

The vector calculus was actually younger and derived from quaternions, by discarding the scalar part of a quaternion and treating that as real.

But was that invention actually better in electrodynamics?

Anyhow..

Soon was found out, that quaternions were not the best thing possible and vectors had disadvantages, too.

So, what construct would behave better than quaternions and vectors in physics?

My personal guess: biquaternions would (also known as 'complex four vectors').

In a way, these strange constructs behave as if nature itself would use them at a very fundamental level.

TH

Am Freitag000013, 13.03.2026 um 16:57 schrieb Bill Sloman: ..

AI means 'artificcial intelligence'.

But does that include 'artificial emotions' or 'artificial emphaty'???

You should never allow computers to start nuclear weapons!

TH

Am Freitag000013, 13.03.2026 um 17:17 schrieb Bill Sloman: ...

Possibly Einstein made 'An offer you can't refuse'....

...

TH

Am Freitag000013, 13.03.2026 um 17:34 schrieb Bill Sloman: ...

Sure..

I don't think that Planck liked Einstein.

Max Planck was a very stiff Prussian protestant and conservative and Einstein a leftist jew, who needed a haircut.

TH

Bigot.

Or "artificial sadism"? "artificial crime"? "artificial rapts"?

Mmmh. Invariably, spin is measured while subjecting particles to a magnetic field. How could you expect particles with spin to maintain random orientations? *Of course* they'll align with the field. The orientation of iron nails in a magnetic field is quantized too.

Jeroen Belleman

Please list the examples of pseudologic (whatever that might be) that you imagine that I've "fabricated".

The definition of serious clocks has changed quite a bit in my life-time, and so has the acceptable error.

If you want a low jitter clock, the latest technique seems to involve immersing a lump of sapphire in liquid helium and exciting whispering galley modes circulating in the sapphire. The long term stability isn't as good as atomic clocks but the short term stability is rather better.

Australia's over-the horizon radar apparently relies on them, if a recent IEEE Spectrum article is to be taken seriously.

Or you can get a paradigm change, and all bets are off.

Got an example? Some people are avid for fame, but not all that many. There's more interest in writing papers that will accepted by journal with high impact numbers and get to be widely cited - that can get you promoted.

My wife had a handful of papers with more than a thousand citation. My most cited paper has 26 citations, and two of them are mine. The most famous paper I cited (published twenty years earlier) has 36.

They do. American's aren't fond of reading papers published in non-American journals, but they do get around to it eventually.

Except that that is exactly the way most of it is conducted.

People don't read all that much outside their narrow specialty, but the better scientists do tend read pretty much everything published in their specialty, and talk to one another about the occasional unusually interesting paper.

Quite a lot of the effort isn't all that productive, but there are exceptions. The good ones eventually lead to Nobel Prizes in areas where Nobel Prizes are awarded.

Very few people do.

And I'm pretty certain that you are deceiving yourself.

The continental drift theory took a long time to get accepted. You do seem to be unaware of it.

If there actually is an issue to be dealt with. You don't seem to be in close contact with reality.

As usual, you have indulged in your usual text-chopping. America certainly wasn't the most democratic country in the world at the time.

Hm. Besides things like skyrmions and spintronics, orientation isn't so much quantization.

About Helmholtz, and for example hybrid bonds, those are eventually analog in effect, "electrons".

Calling "nuclear spin" quantized - when it's as well modeled as being "1 infinity, 2 infinity", and, halfs of those, in effect, has that that's due measurement and formalism. ("Electrons.")

Re "hybrid bonds",

Modern democracy doesn't have a lot in common with Greek democracy, mainly because we have much bigger political units than the Greeks did.

The enshrinement of individual and property rights is basic, but you also need a mechanism by which each individual can have some influence on the way they are governed.

First past the post elections in single member electorates leads to a two party system and majority government. That's what I grew up with in Australia, and lived under for 22 years in England. I then moved to the Netherlands for 19 years, where they have multi-member electorates with proportional representation, four or five political parties and coalition governments.

In Australia and the UK, the political reporting is all about factions within the two major parties, and the serious decisions get made within the party in power by horse-trading between the factions, behind closed doors. In the Netherlands the serious decisions get made by house-trading between coalition partners, but it happens in public.

A minority party that backs the wrong horse can get wiped out at the next election.

Quantisation is very specific. It's integral numbers versus natural numbers. It shows up in lots of different ways. Electric charge is quantised. Chemical elements are quantised into discrete atoms. Electromagnetic waves are quantised into discrete photons.

You present as a mathematician. You should have been able to comprehend that.