usenet weirdness

GPs corrects the errors, and works. It wouldn't work if it didn't.

You seem to think that way the GPS system claims that it works is a lie, and that they are lying because some imaginary elite is telling them to do that. It's a perfectly standard conspiracy theory lunacy, but just as fatuous as all the others

An irrational assertion.

He is quite explicit about the need to correct a clock that has travelled if you want it to display the same time as a clock that has stayed put when you bring the travelled clock back home.

If you can't understand that, your reading comprehension is bad enough that you need to check in at the nearest neurological clinic as fast as you can. You'd have to be in the early stages of a stroke. This is the kind of advice that might raise your blood pressure if you took it seriously, but you are too far gone for that to be a real risk.

There's not a lot of point in trying to imagine what kind of work you might be allowed to do. Computers cost money, and letting you get your hands on one could destroy it quite rapidly. Unintentionally of course, but that doesn't make the destruction any less expensive.

I certainly wouldn't let you anywhere near the hardware to let you check.

Your "logic"?

It was a management screw up. The engineers had done their jobs and warned management, but management ignored them. It happens a lot.

And The S*it of Einstein is not predicting any errors. You know that perfectly, but being a piece of lying s*it you're not going to admit that.

It wouldn't work if it didn't.

I know that the way relativistic fanatics claim GPS system works is a lie.

A clock error is a very classical phenomenon, well known by Galileo, Newton and any 12 years old child of average intelligence, but not predictable for your idiot guru.

but the idiot has denied such need.

that has

The idiot has imagined I don't want it. And that if I wanted it it would be improper and violating his "laws of nature". That's the core of his revolution, that's why it looks so absurd, that's why common sense has been warning him. If you can't understand that, your reading comprehension is bad enough to call you an idiot you are.

Which is to say that you find it plausible. You find a lot of other nonsense equally plausible.

You couldn't even do the Google search.

I don't waste my time watching videos, least of all those offered up by conspiracy nut-cases.

The twin towers were steel-framed and steel burns to ferric oxide when it gets hot enough. The heat generated produced air currents which spread the oxide and any other dust particles around far and wide.

There was a lot of smoke around in the immediate aftermath of the fire and the collapse.

As fine dust.

They weren't cut into fine pieces, but rather incinerated into fine dust and blown away.

But wrong.

As you might expect if you neglected to think about what had actually happened.

Dust clouds are ephemeral. They blow away. They don't have to blow far away to avoid showing up in the basement.

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

How fortunate that all you really can do is to kiss my ass (in a metaphor, of course, I certainly wouldn't let you do it for real).

Come on, trash, your spitting and slandering can't stand against my logic, no matter how fiercely you will bark. Have some dignity and face it.

Indeed. Any thread between two people that lasts for more than a few postings is best given up upon, usually. I tend to read those subtreads with a finger on the space bar.

You could have learned about the tides, for example,

Jan

My god, isn't there anything you can get right? Einstein did not work at Princeton Unversity. He was at the Princeton Institute for Advanced Study, which has no formal ties with the university.

The founders set it up precisely as a place for study, to free eminent scientists from the duties of university professors, such as lecturing, advising students, and attending meetings,

Jan

The French love to boast about it, as if the Enlightenment was their invention. It had its roots in the Netherlands in the 17th century, but the Dutch dislike boasting, generally.

No need to believe Isreal in particular on this. BTW, Spinoza also wrote and spoke Dutch, but he published mostly in quasi-Latin, because that gave him a far wider range.

Jan

PS You might also like Steven Nadler, A Book Forged in Hell on Spinoza.

If not the book, then at least the blurb.

He is confusing Germans and Japanese. (who were interned en masse) The policies were obviously racist. He also fails to see the difference between an internment camp and a prisoner of war camp.

J. Robert Oppenheimer for example was fluent in German. (and other languages)

According to anecdote J. Robert Oppenheimer lecured in Dutch, only two weeks after his arrival in Leiden.

The Dutch themselves hardly write anything scientific in Dutch. Most of their advanced university textbooks are in English. (or French or German, in some specialties)

Learning almost accent-free Dutch is possible, for those with some talent, but it takes a lot of coaching by a native speaker.

His English was good enough. (apart from the accent) More anecdote: Einstein like to go on long walks, also through neigbourhoods that whites frowned upon. He made friends with coloured residents, sat on their porches, and talked with them. He was also a member of NAACP and ACAL, and friends with many of their members.

All in his 'almost non-existent' English of course,

Jan

I did. The point about satellites that orbited faster than their primary rotated spiralling in and crashing (or at least breaking up) while satellite that orbited more slowly than primary rotated spiralled out and were eventually lost was entirely new to me, and I dug it out of the google searches that I did while I was concocting my responses.

I'm not sure that I entirely understand why it works that way, and I'm not interested enough to try and find out, but it was certainly an interesting bit of information.

Bizarre imagery, and rather repetitive. You are coming across as a remarkably dull crank.

Fierce barking, obvious for a fanatic idiot lacking any arguments.

It doesn't sound as if it adds much to Jonathon Israel's account. Israel also identifies Ben Franklin and Thomas Paine as radical enlightenment enthusiasts. They were both out of the US when the US constitution was drafted with a moderate enlightenment bias, and George Washington wasn't all that keen on working to extract Thomas Paine from France after the French resolution went sour. The book is clearly aimed at an American audience and may be distorted by that.

He did come to mind.

My wife and I had Dutch lessons in England for about six months before we moved to the Netherlands. They weren't all that immersive and we weren't in a position to devote much time to them. Oppenheimer may have been better placed.

Apparently the lecturers in Nijmegen were known to ask their classes if anybody had trouble with Dutch, and lecture in English if any of the students found that easier to follow.

Or a phonetician. I still remember John Local - an English phonetician - doing a better - or at least broader - Australian accent than I could.

I hadn't heard about that.

Hanging out with psycholinguists has given me a level of insight that you are unlikely to be able to match. They don't know all that much about the human brain, but more than pretty much anybody else.

I'd be much more likely to kick it, and even more likely to make myself scarce if I got close enough to you for either action to be practicable. Your responses don't suggest that you would be congenial company.

You dug up his 1905 Special Relativity paper, which quite explicitly does. Are you illiterate as well as demented?

You are seriously out of touch with reality.

Knowing is a state of mind. If you think you "know" that, your mind is in very poor shape.

The whole point about relativity is that it dealt with moving clocks and they aren't "classical". Galileo and Newton didn't get to play with clocks that were all that accurate, and reliable marine chronometers weren't around until 1761.

Why would he have done that? What he asserted was that a clock that got moved around at any significant speed would need to be corrected to get it to agree with a stationary clock when the moving clock clock had been moved back to where it started