usenet weirdness

Science, generally, is not. They both program human brains, but with different profiles for different purposes. The S*it of Einstain is an exception.

and the most frequently cited authors aren't

You have no idea how your "Eintein anecdotes" remind the tales of comerade Lenin I've heard in my childhood.

"Instincts" are encoded in your DNA. Training just installs habits, and makes them rapid and automatic.

John Larkin is notoriously sceptical about data sheets, and his idea of design looks a lot like "cut and try" evolution from similar circuits. He's got his name on just one patent, as contributor to the invention, rather than the inventor.

Obviously true. Electronic design is an art, but scientific knowledge does sometimes constrain your thinking towards potentially productive solutions.

I was designing them back in the 1980's, and reprised the design for an Electron Spin Resonance machine back in the 1990's. The 1980's design got built into a working prototype before the project got cancelled (mainly because computer simulation had got cheap enough to drastically reduce the potential market for our machine. The 1990's design hadn't even been turned into a printed circuit layout when the researcher lost his funding.

What John Larkin was posting was a me-too, twenty years after the idea had been reduced to practice. Anybody who knew enough to respond would have thought the same.

And I wouldn't describe John Larkin as sensible, and the motives that keep me posting aren't all that clear.

The "disambiguation" is all about the effects of scale. Light waves have relative short wavelengths - sub micron for visible light. centimetres for microwaves, and kilometers for radio waves - and that does affect the way they interact with the immediate environment.

Scribing narrow lines on a metal film makes a diffraction grating for visible light. Spacing out a lot of radio receivers over kilometer wide radio astronomy observatories is exploiting exactly the same effect.

It wasn't about me, because I'm not a physicist and have never studied physics.

My problem was: if that particular text is FULL of errors and terrible physics at best, then why got it so popular???

The number of errors in it is just enormous (roughly 12 per page on average).

This deserves an explanation, because it isn't easy to make THAT many errors in the first place.

But second questions would be: who made that piece of garbadge popular and why?

I don't give a s*** on whether that is accepted or not.

There is just one (!) goal of physics and 'acceptance' isn't it.

The goal is truth.

Well, actually yes, because 'intention' would be a logical assumption.

And intentional misinformation is actually a likely pattern, because almost everything useful got classified (in at least USSSR and USA).

So, who would be the 'driving forces' and who would actually be able to conduct something like that???

Actually I have not the faintest idea and do not want to speculate.

But the powers behind such a scam should be enormous.

That Einstein couldn't possibly have written all the papers which bear his name, that was an assumption of me since a very long time.

I meant:

in 1905 alone he wrote four famous longish famous articles about four different subjects.

One of these papers won him a Nobel price.

But he also worked six days a week at ten hours each and had a young family at home.

Not only was this already unlikely, but Einstein wrote 22 reviews for 'Annalen der Physik', too (that same year).

So, when did he actually sleep?

Therefore, my guess was, that Einstein was actually an agent, because agents get their stuff from 'Q'. And 'Q' organised the ghostwriters (or whatever is necessary). (The name of the quatermasters differ from agency to agency, but 'Q' would do as a placeholder).

This sounds far fetched but would actually fit to the facts (while not to the story).

TH

"Linear accounts" aren't "usual" they are just convenient over the range where the non-linearity is tolerable.

"Don't care" isn't necessarily associated with "don't know". Like everybody who has worked with bipolar transistors, I know that collector current is a largely exponential function of base-emitter voltage, but in some circuits you can ignore that, and everybody does, right up to the point where you can't get away with it, and buckle down to using a more precise representation of what's going on.

Smarter people are dubious about the very concept of a God. It's not evidence based, and looks very much as if it were invented by a bunch of confidence tricksters intending to rip off their neighbors.

Am Samstag000014, 14.03.2026 um 21:43 schrieb J. J. Lodder:

He didn't speak good German neither. But his English was just bad.

Actually he had a job to do at Princeton and that was teaching students.

Would he expect from the sudents to speak German, too.

BTW: didn't you know, that at that time he worked in Princeton there was also WWII and the Germans and US-citizens with German ancestors in the USA were looked into POW-camps.

With whom could he possibly talk German in that time?

But also daily life would be easier, if you speak the language of your new home country.

So, why didn't he learns English in ten years, if he was so intelligent?

...

TH

Yes, you gave us the edvience.

You wrote: "It would have distracted him from the scientific work that he kept on doing all his life."

You were refering to his Grand Unified Theory he was working on all his life.

What do you think the Grand Unified Theory 'is'?

In 'science gargon' it's: 'When a mass moves, the force acting on other masses had been considered to adjust instantaneously to the new location of the displaced mass.'

In other words... make a ship invisible and transport it to another place.

You scan the atom (all the atoms) of the ship, delete it, and paste it another place.

"The Office of Naval Research (ONR) has stated that the use of force fields to make a ship and her crew invisible does not conform to known physical laws. ONR also claims that Dr. Albert Einstein's Unified Field Theory was never completed. During 1943-1944, Einstein was a part-time consultant with the Navy's Bureau of Ordnance, undertaking theoretical research on explosives and explosions. "

I think I have around somewhere a blackboard with all the math on it 'about getting from here to there' teleportation...celestrial mechanics.

https://x.com/Starmaker111/status/2033817198998000030/photo/1

but it is not finished...

Like your habit to deny any knowledge, any understanding, any education the enemies of your S*it (and yours) could potentially have. That's how The S*it is training its knights.

Sure, sure, an impudent arrogant crank could never made any career amongst academic demigods.

Your peculiar delusions don't seem to correspond to any kind of religion. It's just a sign that your brain doesn't work very well.

The small minority that chooses to think that Einstein was wrong don't seem to do so in a particularly consistent way - they don't seem to have been indoctrinated by any kind of single organised religion. They just don't think all that well.

They seem curiously consistent in their understanding. The whole point about delusion - like yours - is that they don't seem to anchored to any concrete reality.

"indicating/measuring improper t'=t in improper seconds"

isn't actually a recognisable activity.

The real indications of real clocks in real GPS units is that they tell you where you are, or at least where you are on the digital maps loaded into the kind of car navigation system I've been using for years.

If they didn't work, you'd have something to complain about.

Science doesn't program human brains. Programing writes a bunch of code into processor memory, which controls the way that data flowing through the processing unit is processed.

Changing the human brain so that it processes incoming data in a different way after it has been programmed is an much more subtle process.

How?

Lenin had his secret police to make sure that people weren't told the wrong story. Einstein doesn't seem to have commanded any kind of comparable force, and he did disagreed with other leading phsycists from time to time. "God doesn't play dice" does comes to mind, even if he wrote it in German.

Quantum physics has stayed perfectly happy with stochastic behaviour despite Einstein's dislike of it. Physicists have tested it, and Bell's Inequalities make it pretty clear that Einstein was wrong on this point.

Does that make you feel happier?

So Einstein wasn't an impudent arrogant crank! We are making progress.

That is very obvious.

If you have never studied physics, how can you be confident that the physics was terrible?

Of course, if you can't count error reliably, it might indicate that your defective language skills have lead you to reject a large number of acceptable variations in sentence structure that somebody with a better grasp of language variation would not have marked as errors.

The obvious answer is that it wasn't garbage, and it's your judgment that was defective, rather than the paper.

How is that done?

It's evidence, despite your wish to ignore it.

Truth isn't accessible to us mere mortals. Popper wanted to substitute "not falsified" for truth. Polyani was more flexible

" Scientists, freely making their own choice of problems and pursuing them in the light of their own personal judgment, are in fact co-operating as members of a closely knit organization.

Such self-co-ordination of independent initiatives leads to a joint result which is unpremeditated by any of those who bring it about."

Not really. A science fiction story that spelled pretty exactly how an atomic bomb worked got published in a US science fiction magazine in

If it existed. The security service exist - at least in part - to provide a secure environment where paranoid lunatics can exercise their imaginations in an area where an unfettered imagination might latch onto something worth knowing.

But no rational observer thinks that it was garbage. You are clearly irrational

They weren't that long. My wife was clocking up about ten papers a year at the end of her career. They were pretty much all in collaboration with her research students, but she did write very well, and the final version was almost always her words, though the ideas and emphasis were shared with, and driven by, her research students, some of whom went on to do very well. Some of them are now professors. Her Radboud University professorial toga (gown in Dutch) just got transferred to one of them.

That's one review every two weeks. It's not a heavy load.

Finding people to review papers is famously difficult. Finding people good enough to ghostwrite a review while having their work credited to Einstein would be even more difficult

It's exceedingly far-fetched, and the "facts" you are postulating are obviously figments of a diseased imagination.

Nope, they are not, and when their inconsistencies are pointed they rave, spit and slander. Like you.

The whole point

I'm sure it's not for a dumb, brainwashed by some insane ideology idiot.

Instead telling you what some alleged "laws of nature" deluded by some idiots are. See, poor trash - where you are is important, "laws of nature" imagined and announced by your idiot guru are not. That's how things in the real world really are and always were. Common sense has been warning the idiot.

It's generating some information, isn't it? And when that information is uploaded to a human brain - the brain is getting new abilities it wouldn't have without that information uploaded. Right?

I can even tell you we've copied its method of programming and adapted it for computers - as "objective programming" - with great successes.

That's exactly what science is doing to us - except that our memory is not a processor memory.

Sane science is concentrating on questions like "what do real clocks indicate". For The S*it worshipers it's insignificant. What matters for them is obedience to their idiot guru and his holy postulates.

But succeeded in training a force of brainless worshipers spitting, slandering and casting any other s*it possible at anyone who is telling wrong story. It works too.

It includes gravity as well as electromagnetism and the weak and strong nuclear forces.

No.

Lovely if you could do it, but you probably need to invent a new universe with new and different physical laws to make it possible

The Bureau of Ordance wanted a celebrity name to play with.

Like a lot of other research projects. Mostly when you dig deep enough, you find out that an idea is never going to work. If your success rate is better than 30% you are going to get scooped by other researchers uncomfortably often.

Good ideas have a nasty habit of striking different people in different places at much the same time. A friend ended up making $A12 million out of an idea he patented. Tektronix had applied for a provisional patent six weeks earlier, but abandoned it without spending the much larger sums that would have been required to register an actual patent.

The academic training I got was as a physical chemist. Einstein's photoelectric paper from 1905 is implicit in that kind of training, but I don't think that any of my lecturers ever talked about it.

Your lack of education and understanding is the kind of syndrome I'm perfectly familiar with from less academic environments, and I deal with it in the way I learned on the shop floor in a bunch of high technology companies. You let them say enough to make it clear to observers that they are half-wits, and try to make it funny, so that the observers are more likely to remember that they are half-wits.