usenet weirdness

Nononononono! Relativistic priests were and are always demigods free of the weaknesses of ordinary mortal worms, and even if not all of them - our Giant Guru was for sure.

And yet really he was a nasty idiot screaming that whoever disagree with him is a wretched antisemitist.

"exactly duplicate", or making a copy is not how it works.

It is simply a 'cut and paste'.

You cut it from and paste it there.

Like on a computer.. you just highlight the whole folder with a blue light, then you, you...cut-and-paste it to your other hard drive and it reappears there!

Not copy and paste, cut and paste.

You scan each atom delete it. and paste it there.

spooky at a distance.

Why do you think Einstein didn't finish it?

I didn't see any mouse or any computers on his desk...

Like Steve Jobs said..."How does the mouse work?"

Oh, here there's an account that optical, visible light, since optical light and radio waves are of different quantities, that calling optical visible light as "electromagnetic radiation" is since a severe case of reductionism after basically the opto-electronic effect.

The junctions as they are, junctions like LED's or Peltier or Seebeck junctions about the thermo-electric or thermo-electronic, the opto-electronic junctions, then for accounts of the "coherent" and "decoherent", and about the "single wavelength" outputs of LED's, "stimulated emission", then that lasers are "light amplified by ... simtulation emission", that's a mode of an emitter of light.

Anyways there's a great value in disambiguating light from electromagnetic radiation, since much like models of fluids for current like electricity and liquids have some alike features and some _opposite_ features, like the core effect of liquids and skin effect of electrical current, effectively opposites, then there's that light behaves altogether differently than (electromagnetic) radio waves, about the geometric (ray-like) and the optical (matters of diffraction and refraction).

The "[light] ... is a charge particle" above, that seems to make no sense", or rather that seems trailed off there, since by definition photons are both charge-less and mass-less. Also, there's always particle/wave duality, or at least it's built-in to the definitions in "quantum mechanics" since Heisenberg.

About reductionism then, it's to be distinguished matters of a "physical model" after a "mathematical model", and as for the "physical interpretation" of the "mathematical interpretation", that being _abstraction_, from "don't know / don't care", _reduction_.

I.e. a usual account of truth values, for example rising or falling level or edge triggered signals or flip-flops, in terms of on/off bits or as modeling yes/no or true/false, has accounts of "true" and "false", then also "don't know" and "don't care". Then, when for example one doesn't know whether a system with a fluid model like incompressible liquids or a passive circuit like Ohm's is otherwise fully parameterized, when it comes to whether when the "don't care" bit goes out that "don't know" lights both the otherwise exclusive on/off bits, for example about skin effect and core effect, or about light's optics' behavior of the Arago spot, that radio waves don't have.

Isn't it irrelevant?

Sure, we might lionize our heroes and demonize our enemies, like primitive warring backwards types lacking virtue, yet eventually the actual content of the theory is confiscated and only good on its own account, or, as Einstein put it, "holds good".

Ehrenfest is rather a tragic account, yet the platter is as well for Sagnac, since both establish why the linear setting is different than the rotational setting, as for example Einstein does also, which also makes for an opposite to the gravitational/linear equivalence principle.

Of course Sagnac can't exactly be wrong since ring laser gyroscopes. Yet, it would thusly falsify many usual accounts of SR by itself.

It's generally given that the "Supreme" or "Omni" is the un-falsifiable so it's super-scientific, while as well that idealistically there could only be monotheism after theism after monism (or, against pluralism), thus that agnosticism is a perfectly rational account of what may as well be related and relayed as a great "gift" of mathematical perfection that thusly a model reasoner may voluntarily submit their ontological commitment.

Besides that, effects of spin with regards to inertia vis-a-vis "heft" show up in the classical quite directly as for any number of examples like as from sports balls or ballistics where Galileo and Magnus together fail to fully model "classical" motion, while "real space-contraction-rotational" vis-a-vis the post-Galilean, then, "space-contraction-linear", fails less, for "real space-contraction" and then distinguishing "space-contraction-linear" and the "space-contraction-rotational"

Sedov always includes nominally non-zero accounts of both continuity transitions and "gyroscopic effects" in _all_ matters of macroscopic theories of matter.

Also there are "Lorentzians" for those.

It's like a setup where there's a hole in the wall with lots of potential energy. What do you stick in it?

For reductionists it's a "whatever works".

What the junction is and what'll result plugging it in, is going to vary according to energy and configuration of experiment, about usual notions like the "high-energy" and "low-energy", which is where usual linear accounts fail out, and "configuration" of the experiment as metrically and geometrically and physical and mechanically and so on.

Yeah, "don't-know/don't-care", isn't relevant to reductionists, until it is.

By being 'The Supreme Fascist'?

Jan

Not quite. If Einstein had not been 'Ein Gebildeter' his academic carreer would have gone far more slowly,

Jan

If by "screwed up" you mean "not suffering from Maciej Woźniak's particular problems, you could be correct. But few people are as brain-damaged as you seem to be.

You delude yourself that you can understand it very well. You ignore that fact that most of people who think they understand it find Einstein's output decidedly useful.

Science is not a religion, and the most frequently cited authors aren't any kinds of demi-gods. Einstein's domestic life was untidy. He married twice and seems to have been unfaithful to both of his wives. Nobody seems to have tried to hide that. The ancient Greek gods behaved as badly, but more modern deities are depicted as more respectable characters.

Not a claim that you have bothered to document with anything purported to have been written by Einstein himself.

A distinction without meaning. "Cut and paste" is just "copy and paste" followed by "delete the original". Somebody with a very tight memory budget might cut, paste and delete in very small chunks.

Which would mean that there would be a point where you'd have half a person at each end of the link, both dead, unless you could complete the process in less than a millisecond.

Have you any evidence to suggest that Einstein even started on it?

The mouse was invented in 1968. but was preceded by trackerballs.

And if you, on the other hand, by "screwed up" mean "not brainwashed by your insane religion" - you could be correct too.

They delude themself that they understand it. They ignore the fact that in the meantime in the real world - forbidden by their madness improper clocks keep indicating/measuring improper t'=t in improper seconds. And they ignore the fact that they are unable to answer a simple question "WHAT ARE THE REAL INDICATIONS OF A REAL CLOCK OF REAL GPS", so they have to scream "IRRELEVANT!!!" and snip.

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.