usenet weirdness

Certainly, but they will take what is called the relaxation time for it. Under suitable circumstances these relaxation times can be quite long.

Jan

Those are quite thoroughly "simulated" quantum computers.

It's becoming more usual now that accounts of "redshift distortion" are making for an entire new table of values in the data to help start sorting out which of the old values were off 100%.

None, in other words.

As the text you chopped made clear, it wasn't my superclock. While Australia's Defense Forces may be playing childish games, the toys are remarkably grown-up.

The Netherlands also had proportional representation by then but it was occupied by Germany for most of WW2. The UK, Canada and Australia were all more democratic than the US at the time if perhaps not up to the Swedish and Dutch level. Switzerland is remarkably democratic in a rather odd way.

What makes you think that? Not that I expect any kind of rational response.

That's precisely what made the University of New South Wales P-31 nuclei attractive. At the time they had the longest relaxation time of any q-bit around. I seem to remember it as some thirty seconds, but a google search didn't dig out any neat numbers. The UNSW machine was cooled to about 100mK with liquid He-3 which helped.

Red-shift is deduced from spectral lines. That isn't going to be "100% off". If it is then treated as a purely Doppler shift, and something else is also affecting the observed wavelength, the recession velocities deduced from the spectral shift may be wrong.

"Any post of yours" is no way equivalent to "none". Only such an idiot can believe otherwise.

While it may - like any other institution except your moronic church it wants its clocks to be synchronized i.e. indicating t'=t.

It's just usual for you logic - "I have trained juniors so basic math is incorrect for Earth surface". Nothing more.

OK, I'm not going to quarrel about such details, US wasn't the most democratic country of the world at the time. I wonder whether you are going to say they were terrorists and criminals, just because I said they weren't.

The USA has pratically only two parties that matter.

And both behave like the opposite sides of the same coin.

IoW: the two parties are actually only one party, pretending to be two.

So, in effect the people of the USA have less opportunities to chose from then the inhabitants of the former Soviet Union.

TH

Am Samstag000014, 14.03.2026 um 16:02 schrieb Bill Sloman: ...

I did.

No, because I knew who Wegener was and how his theory worked.

But I'm a proponent of the German geologist Ott-Christoph Hilgenberg, who invented 'Growing Earth' as addition to Wegner's continental drift theory.

Both theories are quite similar, but have one main difference:

plate tectonics(PT) assumes a constant size of the Earth and growing Earth (called GE here) assumes growth.

So, PT needs something balancing the obvious spreading. PT calls this 'subduction'.

But 'subduction is blatant nonsense for an large number of reasons.

There are several things, which are simply impossible, PT nevertheless assumes.

For instance plate movement is impossible in the first place, if the entire Earth is covered with plates (as the Earth is), because plates would need to move (obviously) it plates shall move.

That is in fact difficult, because the entire plate is one huge piece of stone and if it would like to float upon the upper mantle, the front part of the plate needs space, towards where it could move.

But 'subduction' (even if entirely nonsense itself) assumes only an explanation for a little part of the front, which is right in the middle of the moving direction.

But because the plate is internally rigid, the entire length of the front of that plate needs to 'subduct' and not only the part adjacent to a continent.

If a plate were a hexagon moving into the direction of on side, then three front sides need space to move towards,not only the one front line.

But because plates have a diameter in the range of several thousand kilometers, we would als need several thousand square kilometers of 'space' (actually uncovered view upon the upper mantle), if the plate shall move 1 km.

But no such space exists. Actually the entire planet is covered with plates, hence plates have exactly zero opportunity to mover horizontally.

(this was only one of a lot of counterarguments against plate tectonics, but there exist several others, too)

I used GE as counter-example against the so called 'standard modell of QM'.

I wanted to use GE as example, that matter is 'relative'. To understand this idea you could read my 'book':

Therefore, it is very important, that fundamental physics is correct, because all other sciences depend on what physicists had discovered.

TH

I asked for a specific example. You've evaded the request. The assumption has to be that you couldn't find a single example that matched the request, and are conceding the point as rudely as you can manage.

As if you knew what that remarkably opaque claim might mean.

It happens at oceanic trenches, and is well documented.

but oceanic plates differ from continental plates. They are thinner - ranging from a few km when they emerge at the oceanic ridges to about

The continental and oceanic plates aren't any kind of single piece of rock. There are lots of them.

There are about 55,000km of subduction zones, and about 60,000 km of mid-ocean ridges where new oceanic plate is extruded.

Each individual plate may be entirely rigid, but there are lots of them and they all move.

Wrong.The plates can rotate as well as translate.n

But they can move past one another, and the oceanic plates can subduct under the continental plates.

None of them any more convincing.

If your grasp of physics is as weak as your grasp of geology, reading your book would be a complete waste of time.

Disagreeing with you would be a rational strategy, because you do get a great deal of stuff wrong, but even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

That elides are remarkably large number of unstated (and illogical) steps. You aren't going to "show your working" because none of it actually hangs together. I was taught Boolean logic when I did Theory of Computation 1 back in 1965 and found it trivial. You'd have failed.

Bill, poor trash, I've finished 5 years of computer science studies. You're free to spit and slander - you're unable for anything else after all, just like most (if not all) of yours broyhers-in-Einstein. And, BTW, what Boole thought of implication was primitive and worthless.

What you might imagine to be logic. Your capacity for self-delusion may be remarkable, but it isn't admirable.