usenet weirdness

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.

Both parties as they may be having been hijacked by progressives, as basically corporate interests playing both ends against the middle, has that the educated, prosperous middle class was the backbone and engine of development in the US since them 1930's, after things like the New Deal through the Waking Giant into the Space Age, the Civil Rights Era, then into the beginning of Conspicuous Consumerism, about the Cold War Peace Dividend, then as for the Internet and Information Age, that what made for the prosperous and strong middle class, about education and the government's investment in Primary R&D the primary correlated macroeconomic component related to real growth in GDP, agreeably the modern "progressive" interests, whether communist or fascist though about the anarcho-capitalism and anarcho-syndicalism, have threatened the backbone and spirit of the proper polity, the strong and educated middle class, so, yes, there are problems.

I'll agree that there are some examples of "authentic" quantum computers, while yet that they're somewhat contrived, like "teleportation in the lab", and that for the most part are yet fundamentally "analog", then also about that most accounts are yet, "simulated".

Come on, poor trash, your spitting and slandering can't stand against my logic. Have some dignity and face it.

It's of different measurements and assumptions, since the account of light as since "tired light" then today's "redshift distortion", means that the "redshift bias" is everywhere in the terrestrial frame.

So, the "100%" means that sometimes the "true blueshift" was on the order of zero, other times on the order of 14, on the scale

Why to make any room to otherwise dis-believe the otherwise usual account of 99% measured redshift, is since neither the Big Bang nor Steady State theories of cosmology are ultimately falsifiable, so, for example, there must always be a model where the universe is growing or strinking, to the hot or cold or crunch or pop the heat death, about Big Bang models, and also about where the universe is just right and getting along the Steady State model, then about ideas like Cyclic Cosmology which already look to make an account of putting those together, while yet the modern optical astronomy gives that we live in LaniaKea and the wider universe is bigger than that as a jet, and besides, that the universe is billions and billions of years older since last we looked, every time we look.

So, then it's since the '80's otherwise that otherwise the redshift measurements indicate "Dark Energy", where "Dark Matter" is that galaxies are holding together with no visible means of support, and "Dark Energy" is that the galaxies are flying apart with no visible means of locomotion. At various points since the '80's and '90's, saying that DM/DE "exist" and "we're looking for them" is because each sigma of standard deviation of statistical significance leads to that 50/65/85/90/95/99 percent of the observable universe is "statistically insignificant", saying that there's a "quest for dark matter/dark energy" is that there's a "crisis in cosmology", since the theory is _falsified_ so it's wrong.

So, "Lambda Cold Dark Matter", or "Lambda CDM", saying that "Lambda CDM is cosmology's standard model", has that only "Lambda = 0" or as about "Lambda = 0.5" are compatible at all with GR and the Newtonian and the usual accounts of conserved quantities and least action or the energy budget, while these days Lambda is about 0.99 which means that it's statistically insignificant that the "standard model of cosmology" is standard any-more.

So: modern accounts of redshift distortion as models of light traveling according to not merely the geodesy/orbifold yet also as "metered by the aether", since absolute space still exists in the theory, makes for models of space-contraction-rotational and space-contraction-linear to explain Dark Matter and Dark Energy, and resolve one of the "crises in physics".

Then, a usual account of that is adding another table (column) to "measured redshift", since 0 .. 14 the scale has instead that scale -7 .. 7 or actually variously, since "true blueshift" (and "true redshift") make for the received, sampled, observed, measured values since "tired light", or Erwin Finlay-Freundlich's estimation.

These then are to fit into models of "Lorentzians" these "F-Lorentzians", mostly since FitzGerald and "real space-contraction", then as for Fresnel and "large Fresnel".

Otherwise physics is broken and people who say it isn't are ignorant, or incompetent, as underinformed, or by definition as not being "physicists" (realists) and "scientists" (impartial).