usenet weirdness

I don't think, that playing an instrument was a part of the job description for physicists in Germany.

I'm not asking you, I'm asking Maciej. He seems to believe there exists some sort of master clock that reigns the universe.

Anyway, I've decided he's not worth trying to reason with.

Jeroen Belleman

Am Dienstag000017, 17.03.2026 um 13:34 schrieb Bill Sloman: ...

Sure, English is a second language for me, because my nativ language is German.

But, as a matter of fact, I made a German version, too, where I have written comment in German into the German version of the text.

And I speak German far better than English, because English is actually a second language for me.

Well, possibly.

But I spent much longer on that paper than Einstein did for his entire university education.

I have also written several entirely new versions, from which the English version wasn't the best I could do.

But I will evetually publish the recent German version, too, but I'm insecure when I should do that.

So, now I'm kind of expert on that article of Einstein.

And still my error counting is a little less than 400, even if I have removed several comments (the older English version had 428 comments).

I have also discussed many comments here and elsewhere and used hints, to 'polish' my 'annotated version of SRT' a bit.

Now your duty would be to disprove all of my arguments.

But I can assure you, that this is impossible, because some of Einstein's errors were just stupid and obvious.

Like always.

People want to earn their bread somehow and prefer to do it in conditions, which are more pleasant then cleaning toilets or cutting stone.

So, 'good' students are those, who accept what they get told and bad students are those, who ask stupid questions.

Lighting a candle for the forefathers is also wellcome and obedience to the hierarchie required.

...

TH

quote:

"By the time of WWII, the United States had a large population of ethnic Germans. Among residents of the United States in 1940, more than 1.2 million persons had been born in Germany, 5 million had two native-German parents, and 6 million had one native-German parent. Many more had distant German ancestry. During WWII, the United States detained at least 11,000 ethnic Germans, overwhelmingly German nationals between the years 1940 and 1948 in two designated camps at Fort Douglas, Utah, and Fort Oglethorpe, Georgia.[3][4] The government examined the cases of German nationals individually, and detained relatively few in internment camps run by the Department of Justice, as related to its responsibilities under the Alien Enemies Act. To a much lesser extent, some ethnic German US citizens were classified as suspect after due process and also detained. Similarly, a small proportion of Italian nationals and Italian Americans were interned in relation to their total population in the US. The United States had allowed immigrants from both Germany and Italy to become naturalized citizens, which many had done by then.

In the early 21st century, Congress considered legislation to study treatment of European Americans during WWII, but it did not pass the House of Representatives. Activists and historians have identified certain injustices against these groups. Unlike Italian Americans and Japanese Americans, German American internees have never received financial compensation or an official apology for these events. "

The mayor flaw was this:

there no ethnic group called 'Germans'.

German is a language and all speakers of that language a collectively called 'Germans'.

The ethncity of Germans is actually ver complicated, since about fourty different ethnic origins had been identified in the genes of people living in Germany.

To called Germans 'an ethnic group' is actually Naziism at it's best.

The US-citizens with roots in Germany were US-citizens only, because in most cases they spoke English only.

Their home country was also not Germany, because Germany was founded in

And German is and was spoken in other countries (other than Germany), too: Switzerland Austria Rumania Russia USA Lchtenstein Italy ...

So, the entire thing was propaganda at it's finest and conducted by a US-president, who came actually from a family of drug dealers and slave traders.

TH

"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler" Not literally Albert Einstein, but an adequate paraphrase of what he really said.

As for Ockham, his dictum should be taken as an heuristic principle, and no more than that,

Jan

What a pile of it.

Occam, verbatim: "Entia non sunt complicanda praeter necessitatem!"

Als gebildeter Mensch kann man das übersetzen.

Gerhard

The video is evidence from a quite reasonable source (CBS).

So, if you like to know, whether matter can disappear without a trace, you should actually have a look at that video.

You could watch other videos of 9/11, of course, if you prefer to do so.

And there are actually millions of videos available from that day.

But I cannot possibly comment all of them, hence took the video from CBS.

Sure, but the effects visible at the video are far more exotic than simple rust.

I wanted to prove, that more than a million to of building materials vanished without a trace.

These masses of steel and concrete simply went away and nobody knows to where.

This is actually a physical problem and related to the topic of this thread (which is still 'energy and mass').

The question to explore is actually:

is mass 'conserved'?

This is so, because 1 mio to of steel and concrete usually do not get blown away.

That's why physicists could take such a rare event and treat it as a (well documented) scientific 'experiment'.

Well, yes. But 'fine dust' would need an explanation, too, because skyscrapers rarely turn into fine dust.

Ok, the skyscrapers turned into fine dust, which was blown away.

BUT: since when do skyscrapers turn into fine dust?

No, not at all.

I personally thought, that an exotic weapon was used, which could turn large structures of steel and concrete into fine dust.

But I would have doubts about al-quida having such a device.

Dust blows away, that's true.

But how would you transform a 400m skyscraper into fine dust??

It also happened in mid-air, because the fine dust was blown away, before it had reached the ground.

My guess was therefor some VERY unusual weapon, which was possibly stationed in space and which shot down from the orbit.

The very first shots were apparently a near miss, because the first building blown up wasn't one of the twin-towers, but the costums building WTC-6.

That happened earlier than the collapse of the towers.

My additional guess:

if this event was actually caused by an exotic weapon, then 9/11 would have been a collosal stupidity.

The reason: if such a device would exist, it would be absolutly crazy to actually use it in such a way, because now every single despot on planet Earth wants such a device, too.

TH

But a pretty well tested one.

A growing earth violates the principle of the conservation of mass/energy. That doesn't make it inconcieveable, but it means that you need very convincing evidence to support the idea, and that doesn't seem to exist.

Subduction involves oceanic plate getting sucked into the mantle. It's not going to be anything like as obvious as new oceanic plate being extruded at mid-ocean ridges, but siesmologists are sure that they have have mapped subduction zones. Letting off explosive charges on the surface does launch acoustic waves into the underlying rocks, which you can detect with an array of microphones, and you can use this technique to map large areas. The whole of the Arabian plate has been mapped that way.

They don't. They ride on top of convection currents in the molten rock of the outer core.

Rock is a pretty good insulator. There is a continuous flux of heat (generated by radioactive decay) from the core of the earth out to the surface, where it gets radiated away, and there's a thermal gradiant from the inner cores (which is at 5700K) out to the surface which drives the flow of heat.

You really can't. It's a perfectly terrible model

Except that the outer core is molten rock - a fluid, not a solid - and it convects.

Except that the oceanic plates are in continuous movement as they move from the mid-ocean ridges to the subduction zones, getting thicker all the way as the liquid outer core freezes onto their undersides.

But the upper mantle is entirely molten and convecting, and drags the continental plates plates along in the direction of the convection current.

But they clearly can move past them. The San Andreas fault is a well known example of two plates moving past one another.

But geological forces can obviously bend them. Chunks that were once deeply buried get pushed up to the surface and eroded, and you can see the bent bits if you know where to look.

The San Andreas fault is an obvious counter example.

It might look that way to somebody who doesn't know much about geology.

Yes, but what is 'necessary'?

Jan

Gerhard Hoffmann wrote in sci.physics.relativity, sci.electronics.design:

William of Ockham probably never wrote this.

Using Google Translate:

"Entities should not be folded unless necessary" :)

Using Wiktionary and linguistic intuition, I translate it as

"Entities should not be more complicated than necessary."

instead:

However, a more educated person knows

1. that it is better (although not required) to write in an international newsgroup in English;

1. to check their sources ;-)

It is actually commonly claimed that William of Ockham would have written

"Entia non sunt _multiplicanda_ praeter necessitatem"

which means "Entities should not be multiplied unless necessary", but it is also claimed that he did not write that either:

In that article it is claimed instead that the closest to the meaning of what is considered Occam's/Ockham's/Ocham's razor today that he would have written is

"Numquam ponenda est pluralitas sine necessitate"

which means "Plurality must never be posited without necessity" 'which occurs in his theological work on the "Sentences of Peter Lombard" ("Quaestiones et decisiones in quattuor libros Sententiarum Petri Lombardi"; ed. Lugd., 1495, i, dist. 27, qu. 2, K).'

There is a digitized version of which it is claimed that it is a printed version of that work, however, IIUC, the reference above refers to the first book (i), and the digitized version begins with the second book (ii):

In any case, this work was probably not written by William of Ockham (c. 1287–1347) because it was published in 1495, more than a century after his death. While it is possible that it was just printed in 1495 based on the previous handwritten work, my research (using Microsoft Copilot with the "Smart" setting), and Google Web Search, indicates that it was written instead by Heinrich (Henricus/Henry) Totting/Tötting (de/von Oyta):

It can also be read here:

What bothers me about that is that the book spines(?) are different, but that does not have to mean anything.

Still, it is further claimed in the Wikipdia article that '[...] In his "Summa Totius Logicae", i. 12, William of Ockham cites the principle of economy, "Frustra fit per plura quod potest fieri per pauciora" ("It is futile to do with more things that which can be done with fewer"; Thorburn,

However, according to Copilot (again), the correct title of Ockham's work is "Summa Logicae" (c. 1323–1326), for example in "Opera Philosophica" (St. Bonaventure, NY): "Vol. I–II: Summa logicae", while the title "Summa Totius Logicae" appears to be a later addition in library catalogues; apparently there was or is a tendency to insert "totius" into medieval Latin titles, analogous to the title of Thomas of Aquin's (Thomas Aquinus') work, "Summa totius theologiae".

So *all* of these claims are very questionable, too. (I am inclined to remove all references from the Wikipedia article that I cannot find confirmed, but maybe it is better to have a discussion in Wikipedia first.)

HTH

F'up2 <news:sci.philosophy.meta>

It makes sense for closed categories.

Most matters of chance and uncertainty are not, and "physics is an open system", so, it lets out that science is justified, then that matters of truth about ideals would have their own grounds.

I.e., an attachment to idealism then also has its own account, since "continuity" and "infinity" are necessary, w.r.t. "suppositiones" in Occam.

Occam is basically a logicist positivist, even Aquinas who was an Aristotlean at least reflects on Platon's accounts in Aristotle, then Occam's wider accounts of "de jure" as lawerly/legalese.

"So Occam was into clear, simple reasoning?" "Well, he was a lawyer, ...." "Oh...."

Things like quasi-modal logic make for lies.

But German has regional variants, and - like all languages - has evolved over time.

It shows. Not often, but often enough.

Granting the number of people who approve of the paper, it's closer to probable than possible.

Suggesting that your judgement isn't all that good.

Never might be a good choice.

You are obsessed with it, which isn't quite the same thing.

Actually my humanitarian duty is to persuade you that this is an unhealthy obsession, that you should discuss with your GP and get yourself referred to a mental health specialist

Maciej Woźniak would tell me the same thing.

But good students ask intelligent questions. And if they are intelligent enough they can get the instructor to refine their point of view

Not if the hierarchy has got something wrong, which happened from time to time when I was a student. It's lot easier to clean up the consequences of an error if you do it before outsiders have got to hear of it.

German "god-professors" were talked about in Australia and England, and some Australian professors did try assert that sort of authority - and got sent up (satirised) until they got the message.

That has its own particulars with regards to Earth particularly.

"Our Radiant World", ....

In 2 days you will write the opposite, but it doesn't matter. What matters is that you're a knight of The S*it of Einstein and you expect some obedience. Right, trash?

Or anybody else.

You set it on fire. The jet fuel in two pretty much fully fuelled jet-liners is going to be a pretty good fire starter and there's a lot of flammable stuff in a skyscraper that's in use, including the steel frame if you get it hot enough

Star Wars never took off. It frightened the Russians into spending more than they could afford on defense, but it seems to have been confined to paper studies.

How about, "Shiii-ney Pebbles", ....

The World Trade Center? For whatever reason it was closed for "maintenance" a few weeks before, and for whatever reason all the water was let out of the roof tanks, and for whatever reason it got a huge new insurance policy taken out on it, and for whatever reason planes supposedly hijacked by Saudis crashed into them, yet nobody ever asks about "GlobalHawk fly-by-wire" and why when the planes were hijacked they weren't just flown down from the control tower.

Most people think "GlobalHawk" is a predator drone, yet others that it's a mostly ubiquitous fly-by-wire system.

How about WTC7?

It's like one of those old airline disaster movies.

"This is the control tower. We're going to try and talk you down."

"I've never flown a plane before."

"Alright, look at the control panel, and find the sign that says says 'RNAV'".

"Ok, ..., I found it."

"Is the light on?"

"Yeah, ...."

"Don't, ..., touch, ..., anything."

I might got lost here...

if you want to know the Truth of why the building colaspe..

it makes good TV.

I mean, you simply cannot have those buildings on tvee to continue burning for days while America and the world watches.

It's not a good image.

You need to remove the buildings by 'any means necessary'.

Then there is nothing to look at on tv.

bomb some country...

dats wat i said...you look the other way.

Look at the numbers:

NASA management often cited failure odds around 1 in 100,000

Engineers and some contractors believed the real risk could be closer to 1 in 100 or even worse

They told the teacher..."safe routine flight".

I would call it...'human error'. She trusted you guys.

They told her, "Don't worry, it's safe...get your fat ass in dat washing machine, you stupid bitch!"

You people are soooo stupid. NASA shows you a picture of a 'blurred hole' and call it a black hole.

And you don't investigate why the picture is a blurred hole.

NASA will tell you..."OH, dats the way it came out!"

When I first saw the photograph..i need to sharpen it! It's BLURRY!

Since I'm an expert in sharpening photos, I can now see what it REALLY looks like.

https://x.com/Starmaker111/status/1120048519715229696 https://x.com/Starmaker111/status/1120048519715229696/photo/1 https://x.com/Starmaker111/status/1120048519715229696/photo/2

If you show this photo to Ai, (don't metioned it's suppose to be a black hole)

and ask "In what direction are the gravitional waves moving, inward or outward?"

Ai will say, "Outward!"

That means everything is escaping a black hole.