When I was a 6 yo kid, I sat an a park bench in Middelburg, NL when 2 grandmas came, took the places next to me and continued their conversation in slow grandma style. I could follow that; not word by word but content-wise. My home town is located 30 Km south of Luxemburg and 30 Km east of the French border.
Gerhard
You really should do more work on your Dutch. The Dutch expression is 'alle hens aan dek', which is obviously an English borrowing, with the same meaning. (still generally understood, figuratively) Equivalent: 'alle zeilen bijzetten', set all sails, so do all we can.
Borrowings the other way round are also plenty. Like 'bottom' as meaning a whole ship, for example. Ships often had mixed crews.
I have been told that the English spoken by Elizatheth I wouldn't be fit for civilised society in modern England. Dutch, English, (and Cockney) were a lot closer then.
Yes. I happened to see an exposition recently dedicated to the cultural unity of Europe around year 1000,
Jan
Speaking of bad science, this is a cool book:
John Larkin Highland Tech Glen Canyon Design Center Lunatic Fringe Electronics
My post went on to answer the question for three different points of view - one the basis of our movement around the sun, around the centre our galaxy and the centre of the Andromeda galaxy - the nearest big galaxy.
Maciej Woźniak has snipped all that text - without marking the snip - and posted a nonsensical "observer X" as his preferred reference point.
The rule is not to assume malice when stupidity is a sufficient explanation, but it would take massive stupidity to be as silly as that.
I haven't used it much in recent years, pretty much only on Dutch tourists in Sydney, We left the Netherlands in 2011 but used to go back every year until the Covid epidemic. We did go back in 2022, but my wife died while we were over there, which killed off any motive I might have had to go back again.
Shakespeare was writing his plays for her and her court. Shakespearean English is a bit odd, but perfectly comprehensible, and I was expected to read it at school. When I lived England I was a subscriber of the Royal Shakespeare company and saw quite a few of his plays.
Stop lying once, stupid scum. You know very well what "from the point of view of observer X" means in your moronic religion.
He did predict that if pairs of clocks were separated, and one travelled at an appreciable fraction of the speed of light while going away and coming back, it would register that less time had elapsed than its static partner, and he did give a formula for the difference.
You are too dumb to properly understand what is being said, and seem to enjoy expressing your ignorance as rudely as possible
The aren't correcting for errors, they are adjusting the clocks to reflect physical reality.
Lorentzian and gravitational time dilation are physical processes, not "errors" and they certainly aren't "classical".
Either you don't know what "classical" means, or you are being deliberately obtuse.
Fortunately, we have GPS now and anyone can see that his prediction is worth s*it, the clocks keep indicating the same. Common sense has been warning the idiot. Relativistic idiots are trying to save their S*it against the cruel reality - by simply snipping the question "what do clock really indicate" every time they are asked about that. What a pathetic bunch of fanatics they are.
Fortunately, even such a such a disgusting piece of lying s*it as you are can't lie non stop, so you sometimes admit they are.
, they are adjusting the clocks to
Physical and reality have been, unfortunately, excluding each other for the last 120 years.
Yes, they're delusions of your absurd religion. And what we observe in GPS is a very classical clock error. Even such a lying piece of s*it as you are sometimes admits that.
All this is long irrelevant to the original topic about "energy and mass".
In a theory where "mass is energy" yet "energy is not mass", there are at least two ways to look at the "type theory" resulting, the usual account where mass is a kind of energy, and the _inverted_ type-tree where energy is an attribute of mass.
Here that's for an account of E-energy and F-Lorentzians, about Einstein et alia's arrival at mass-energy equivalency after the usual account after conservation of forces of the conservation of energy, then about "the forces" and thusly always "the fields", and that "physics is a field theory, not a force theory", about the energy _and_ entelechy, has that the practice of reductionism to energy is eventually empty.
Actually, this absurd and nasty thread was started by my conjectures in s.e.d. about the dynamics of spherically symmetric gravitational and electrical fields.
I'm optimistic that it will soon hit a thousand mostly-bloated insult-rich posts.
What work do you do?
John Larkin Highland Tech Glen Canyon Design Center Lunatic Fringe Electronics
Heaviside didn't try "to tear down" Maxwell's theory - he just expressed it more neatly. Maxwell didn't base his theory on any kind of aether - he just a assumed a fluid to support the waves he was talking about
Seems unlikely. Today's science does seem to work.
You don't know much about it, and may not be aware of this.
The atom bomb is pretty dangerous,and that made it into the open literature.
Nothing new about them. They have been around forever. Modern science has a couple of features that do make life difficult for bullshit artists. Peer-review does make it harder for bullshit artists to get their bullshit into the literature, and the habit of publishing critical comments in peer-reviewed journals does get rid of some of the rubbish that makes it through peer-review.
The real example of bull-s*it artistry in the modern world is climate change denial.
Most educated people ignore climate change denial propaganda. Clowns like Donald Trump endorse it, but he is making a lot of money out being president.
All you are saying is that you don't know much about it and don't understand what you do know.
Climate change doesn't make the top 5 list of things that most people worry about.
John Larkin Highland Tech Glen Canyon Design Center Lunatic Fringe Electronics
Actually I kind of work on this.
(Three decades corp enterprise software dev is a "day job". I have usual tools of the trades and "the joys of ownership".)
About the spherically and radially symmetric, and that being _different_ than the usual linear account, there's this guy named Albert Einstein, in his book "Out of My Later Years" he sets up a contradistinction from A. Einstein's account of mass/energy equivalency with another one that he introduces after politely defending Newton for being not completely wrong, then addressing that he, Einstein, intends an attack on Newton (and Galileo and so on, ..., _and himself_), about that then Einstein makes a simple derivation of his own second "mass/energy equivalency relation", that unlike "E = mc^2", _nobody ever heard of_.
You can find an account of this in Einstein's "Out of My Later Years", which _is_ what he was working on in his later years. I read it in a series of video essays on my video essay channel at
I've written a lot about "foundations of mathematics and logic " then got into "foundations of physics" and "foundations of reason", I'm a "researcher in foundations".
Only in your wormhole. In the real world, they have maintained quite close contact.
The clocks of the period weren't all that accurate, and time dilation is not the sort of "clock error" they would have known about.
Far from it. Quite a lot of high energy physics wouldn't make sense if time dilation wasn't happening.
You don't have a clue about the global positioning system. You aren't so much observing it as inventing stories about it.
Oh, so, "it's not a field theory", the physics?
When people say "physics is a gauge theory", you'll notice that's still a "field theory".
Now with R-gauge, ....
What I say is that reductionism has run out its course and now it's got GR and QM disagreeing 120 orders of magnitude and still absent gravity in the middle, pointing out there's a "crisis in physics" which is _well_ known then pointing out how it may be resolved, and rather how it must be resolved.
Galileo and Magnus can't even explain the physics of the non-Galilean non-Magnus effects of a spinning projectile, physics the usual theories either have no gravity or have it constantly violating conservation of energy, Dark Matter and Dark Energy long ago falsified the otherwise premier theories of physics and cosmology, and if you don't think so you're not being a scientist.
We just had a long talk about reductionism and about matters of the ideal and the practical and how they differ - there is no such thing as a "perfect inelastic collision".
So, here the account is "return to realism" not "pluralistic fallibilist nominalist quasi-modal half-account partial empirical discontinuity".
It's a continuum mechanics, ....
Of course. And it isn't happening. Snipping the question "what do clocks really indicate" won't help it, poor stupid scum.
Neither fierce barking will. But still - it's fortunate that even such a disgusting piece of lying s*it as you are can't lie non stop, so sometimes you admit they're correcting clocks for error, instead for your absurd dilation delusion.
Really? The position of observer X (or their point of view) doesn't make any difference to the speed of earth.
In order to specify the "speed of earth" you have to specify where the earth is going, not where the observer is standing.
The observer is stationary with respect to the earth. Since the earth is rotating the observer will be moving with respect to the sun, the centre of our galaxy and centre of the Andromeda galaxy. You can pick any fixed point you like, but if you want to define the speed of the earth, you do have to specify the coordinate system within which the earth is moving.
The moronic religion you are appealing to seems to be one of your own invention. And it does seem to be remarkably moronic.
You are quite stupid enough to misunderstand quite a lot of things as some kind of religion, but trying to work out exactly what you might have thought you were talking about would be a complete waste of time.
Really. Not that anyone is expecting any logic, consequence, honesty or dignity from something like you.
Better to give a title, not just a link. Here it is:
Matt Kaplan, I Told You So!_ Scientists Who Were Ridiculed, Exiled, and Imprisoned for Being Right. (February 24, 2026)
Not seen it yet, you are quite up to date. From the blurb it would seem to be many old cases, mostly.
I did have a glance at his earlier:
Matt Kaplan - Medusa's Gaze and Vampire's Bite- The Science of Monsters
Didn't seem to be worth more than looking at some fragments, then. It didn't seem to be really science,
Jan
Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.
Ask the community — no account required