usenet weirdness

If your theory won't fit the observations without it, it's necessary.

Necessary indeed, but for your theory only, poor stupid scum.

The concept wasn't around back then.

Do you say he invented this absurd later?

I think he simply believed it the same way christians believe their second cheek rule. "A great, obviously right rule, just not for me. Only for others.".

William of Occam has been dead for 679 years. He certainly wasn't talking about any theory that I might have had. Your enthusiasm for posting irrelevant insults has clearly over-ridden any sense you might have. The implication is that you think that Einstein's relativity theory is somehow mine, which is strange, if no more bizarre than the rest of your output.

Kepler replaced epicycles with ellipses, but while Galileo was a contemporary of Kepler, he doesn't seem to have bought into that.

So you don't have any idea what the controversy was about.

Right. His "necessary" for sure doesn't mean "necessary for The S*it of Einstein to win some worshipers and for Bill Sloman to feel understanding, enlightened and special". There is no reason to believe he would consider your zillions of local times necessary, particularly when GPS works fine with only one.

And according to relativistic idiots it's the one and only valid point of viev for any earth bond observer (i.e. all of us). Galileo invented this idiocy himself. Seems it was too stupid even for him to obey, however.

Am Donnerstag000019, 19.03.2026 um 13:18 schrieb Bill Sloman: ...

Well, it would violate a certain priciple which is commonly called 'materialism'.

This 'great materialistic metaparadigm' is encoded into what is called 'standard modell of QM' and belongs to the also fraudulent 'big-bang theory'.

Now you seemingly want to forbid, what planet Earth actually does, because it would violate fraudulent laws???

TH

...

Yes, that actually true.

And English and Dutch are also regarded as German dialects.

Sorry for mistakes. But foreign languages are among my weaknesses.

It took me a very long time to speak good English.

No. I follow a certain principle, which I regard as necessary for proper learning.

It is actually better to become a specialist in a very narrow realm than to have some knowledge about lots of things.

Usually I prefer the second option, but I had chosen to follow the other principle of better knowledge about a small topic in the case of Einstein's article.

The reason:

I'm only a single person and can only convince somebody, if my own arguments are absolutely flawless.

Therefore I have rewritten my annotations over and over again. I have taken every effort to eliminate own errors of any kind.

That's why you will hardly find any.

But since there is a lot to chose from, it doesn't matter that much, if I have made a few errors, despite my effort to sieve them out. ...

TH

Am Donnerstag000019, 19.03.2026 um 15:35 schrieb Bill Sloman: ...

Have I ever told you, that I'm actually an engineer from my education. (I have a German degree called 'Dilp.-Ing.).

And I get frost bytes, if I read your nonsense.

Well, yes 400m is quite a hight. But free-falling rubble needs only a few seconds to pass that distance.

So, by what means do you want to make HUGE steel-beams and concrete blocks evaporate within ten seconds???

...

TH

Or you challenge the observations. Typical example: Einstein and Planck versus Kaufmann. (who had 'falsified' special relativity)

But iirc you are a hopeless case of naive positivism and/or naive empirism,

Jan

Not if you want to design things that actually work. Electronic design involves the basic physics-electromagnetics principles, mechanical design, thermal design, human/aesthetic/ui concepts, software, logic design, signals-and-systems, PCB design, finding and understanding parts, understanding the users' physics and problems, documentation, manufacturing, and the economics of the whole thing.

Plus is needs common sense to keep all the above under control and get it done and all right.

Are you a physicist? What are your deliverables?

John Larkin Highland Tech Glen Canyon Design Center Lunatic Fringe Electronics

Neither is fraudulent - both were advanced as hypotheses and seem to fit the data. It's perfectly clear that neither is perfect, but until you can come up models that work at least as well, nobody is going to take your alternatives seriously.

We do know quite a bit about what the planet earth actually does, and nothing suggests that it is getting heavier. You seem to want to reject the existence of subduction zones, for which there does seem to be an appreciable amount of observation evidence, and replace them with matter creation, for which there is none.

I'm fairly clearly more enlightened than you are, but that's like being taller than dwarf. It certainly doesn't make me fell special.

You really don't understand how GPS works, do you.

"Each GPS satellite continually broadcasts a signal (carrier wave with modulation) that includes:

A pseudorandom code (sequence of ones and zeros) that is known to the receiver. By time-aligning a receiver-generated version and the receiver-measured version of the code, the time of arrival (TOA) of a defined point in the code sequence, called an epoch, can be found in the receiver clock time scale A message that includes the time of transmission (TOT) of the code epoch (in GPS time scale) and the satellite position at that time."

The time base for the transmission of the pseudorandpm sequences is generated an atomic clock carried in each satellite, which is corrected for relativistic effects on the atomic clock before it is used to clock out the sequence.

In that sense the GPS system has only got one time base, but making the satellite transmissions happen at exactly the same time does require that each individual atomic clock has to be corrected for relativistic effects - both Lorentz and gravitational time dilation.

I know that you are going to find some way to misrepresent this, but going to the trouble of telling you what you clearly need to know does send it's own message.

What do you think you are remembering? I'm certainly not a positivist, and while I do tend to be empirical, I do understand that having the right perspective is necessary to extract useful knowledge from empirical observations. I'm not a statistician, but I know enough to know that all observations are - to some extent - corrupted by noise which isn't always purely random. 1/f noise is random, but there's more of it a low frequencies.

English and Dutch have evolved independently since about 800 AD.

Dutch is low German, and was the language of publication across most of northern Europe until Fredrick the Great had the political clout to make high German his administrative language. To that extent High German is something of a political construct.

Not to mention physics and geology.

You need to have quite a lot of knowledge in a number of areas to be of any use as narrow specialist. Your ignorance of physics and geology wrecks your credibility

Why would I bother to look for them?

Since you don't have anything useful to say, none of it matters at all.

Not really. Anybody standing on the equator is travelling at about 0.46 m/sec around the centre of the earth and is 21km further from the earth's core than somebody standing on the north pole, and 18km further away than anybody standing on the south pole. The relativistic corrects required are small, but finite.

Galileo didn't invent the Copernican heliocentric solar system. His observations of the moons of Jupiter did help popularise it

How would one "obey" a theory that said that the sun was the centre of the solar system rather than the earth?

I know you'd constructed your insult earlier and didn't want to alter it any more than you felt you had to, but this is a bit silly, even for you.

Delusion, as usual. But anyway - his "necessary" for sure doesn't mean "necessary for The S*it of Einstein to win some worshipers and for Bill Sloman to feel understanding, enlightened and special".

I do. A brainwashed religious maniac asserting the opposite mean nothing.

It is corrected, but not for any relativistic effects. The writer was simply lied by scum like you.

on the atomic clock before it is used to clock

Right. Except some brainwashed idiots those zillions of local times are necessary for noone. And even for you only for some liturgical rites.

You're a piece of impudently lying s*it, that's for sure - but I've already forced you to admit that your insane S*it predicted no corrections.