usenet weirdness

"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.

No, it wasn't. He was a member of the Institute of Advanced Studies at Princeton, not a teacher at Princeton University, which is a separate institution.

Probably. I had to learn some German to get a Science Degree at Melbourne - enough to read and translate scientific papers. I'd passed high school French, which gave me the two languages I needed.

It was done on a case-by-case basis. There were a million or so people who might have been interned, and about 11,000 actually were interned.

Hitler had made it easy for the Institute of Advanced studies to recruit talented Germans, and lots of American physicists had spent time at German universities before the war.

He did. Just not all that well. I lived in the Netherlands for 19 years and had mastered spoken Dutch within year. Nobody wanted me to write stuff in Dutch - we'd have to translate into English for our foreign customers - and my written Dutch is more comprehensible than correct.

My wife - who was linguist before she became a psycholinguist - did much better, but it came at a cost. Her German had been pretty much perfect - non-Bavarian Germans though that she was Bavarian, and Bavarians did too

- but not from their part of Bavaria. After she'd got fluent (and correct) in Dutch, Germans thought that she was a Dutch person who spoke very good German. Not bad for an Australian, but depressing for her.

He had better things to do.

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.

You sure have a way with words.

John Larkin Highland Tech Glen Canyon Design Center Lunatic Fringe Electronics

As said, for a fanatic worshiper of The S*it anyone criticizing it will be lacking education, knowledge and understanding. It's a part of your faith. That's how it's training idiots like you.

I was working one time at a fabless semiconductor outfit, who, you know, made chips for daughterboards like for accelerating string-search or deflate compression, and were making some IP for JPEG2000, then as I was learning about "standard logic" and "custom logic", then I started learning VHDL or Verilog about the pins and a bunch of different great ideas among a team of a dozen or so electrical engineers, who for example had been involved in JPEG the committee's and standards processes with respect to their being members of IEEE and so on and about the usual account of actual "engineers" in USA and their oath and license and so on, vis-a-vis "software engineers".

So anyways I had heard of free-form 3-D IC since I knew about planar circuits and vias, then learning about standard logic, I noticed that the roller and shifter planar circuits could be put together a simple 3-D IC circuit a "roller/shifter" or "barrel shifter" as I described it, would make a concurrent parallel operation of a serial operation.

Anyways, that would be "patently obvious" to those "skilled in the field" besides that there's a usual account of "prior art" as ingenuity, that there being "prior art" or "being obvious to those skilled in the field" mostly invalidates claims for "patents", for a sufficiently wide definition of "skilled".