usenet weirdness

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.

The bell curve a.k.a. the Gaussian or normal distribution is after a great result in probability theory for statistics called "The Central Limit Theorem".

So, "The Central Limit Theorem" is a great promontory in the theory of the behavior of populations presumably modeled by the analysis of statistics, yet it's a fallacy to have that it generally applies, since it's really just giving the crown to a first-year undergraduate student with a brief course in the "college statistics".

There are other "Limit Theorems", which as would be implied from name are as about the inductive limit, vis-a-vis the infinite limit and the continuum limit, about infinitary reasoning, and "the completions" of analysis.

So, it's not probability's fault that such limited, i.e. hindered, or blindered, accounts of limit theorems in probability are uniqueness results instead of distinctness results as they are, and is another example of where "premature reductionism" has resulted a great gap in common sense.

Tom Paine wrote a "Common Sense".

Here the usual topical account of "energy as the quantity" as the great account of reductionism as it is, has that it is at once an ideal, that there is a conservation thus a balance in the universe, that there's a law, then about the usual stack of derivations limited (hindered, blindered, won't walk off and won't walk away) by the account of the reductionism, that it's yet only part of a greater account of _idealism_, since energy always lives in an _entelechy_, for that the potential (the potentialists') fields are "the real fields", and that physics (the science and the language of it, according to the data) has a crisis.

And what do engineers know about chemistry? I've got a Ph.D.in physical chemistry and both my parents had B.Sc's in chemistry.

A byte is eight bits. Frostbite is what you get if your extremities get too cold.

But you have to melt the steel frame before the rubble can fall freely, and the rubble has been calcined by then and is dust, rather than lumps of rubble.

It took a lot longer than ten seconds. I was watching it on Dutch TV when it happened - not the first impact, but by the second everybody at work knew that it was happening and had turned on TV sets around the lab, and I saw the second plane hit the tower. It took quite a while before the buildings fell down. There was a lot of smoke around, initially from the jet fuel burning and more as the buildings burnt down.

Really.

He invented "relative movement" however.

Have you heard of the Mertonian School?

These Oxford scholars like Bradwardine and Swineshead had a "latitude of forms" quite a century or so before.

It can be read from the Vedas' accounts of perspective and projection which is so old it has an originally oral tradition.

Everything else being absolute, then the usual formalisms of things "relative" are due DesCartes the coordinate setting, while as while that's all after the brachistochrone and tautochrone.

Galileo was a key figure in the time of the Reformation and Counter-Reformation as with regards to the usual authorities' accounts of after the Medieval Scholasticism the curated ensconcement of Aristotlean wisdom in the dogma and doctrine of the Counter-Reformation's attachment to the reason and rationality that the Protestant Reformation abandoned with its rejection of Papal Supremacy.

Also he had a simple telescope ground out of glass, had a variety of tautochrone experiments, and made for an account of parabolic motion as a model of power and resistance matters of motion, Galileo Galilei.

Also he talked about things like the equivalency of integers and squares as infinite or about the Galileo's Paradox, while they those alike Robert Grosseteste already had models of aliquot parts and otherwise size relations in the modularity of numbers as after density. So, it's a theme of reductionism, making complicated things simple for being slippery and inarguable.

I liked Chuck Norris. He was gentlemanly, kind, and cool. I've had a picture of me before with Bob Wall, and met Chuck Norris walking with his family once.

It was at the Sifu D.F. Leung's 1st PNW Expo. We weren't fighting, though I had to get down to get in. I've attended or observed classes at the Leungs'. The corner restaurant used to be Bruce Lee's.

Silver and gold, ....

Not really. They have always been in close contact.

Certainly. The Rhineland, Netherlands to Cologne say, was in many respects a cultural unity, in which people understood each other, until Prussia took over, after 1815,

Jan

This exchange in particular, but there has been more like it. [literal cut/paste] ===========================================================================

You are a naive positivist, I see. Not unsuprising, for an engineer,

Jan ===========================================================================

The point of view that theories are vehicles for encoding observations (economically) is typically Machian, hence naive positivist.

That is *much* better. More explicitly: You need reliable theories about how an experiment works in order to be able to to extract meaningful information from it.

In practice it isn't until several rounds of confrontation between theory and experiment have passed that you can begin to have confidence in both.

That is largely beside the point. (which you are still missing here)

The real point is that the relation between theory and experiment is more subtle and symmetrical than you are assuming. Good experiments may cast doubt on theories, good theories may cast doubt on experiments.

I already mentioned Planck & Einstein (& others) vs Kaufmann. For a more recent example you may take the faster than light neutrinos from Cern to Gran Sasso. More generally, the Standard Model has falsified dozens of supposed 'falsifictions' of it,

Jan

-i

Weaseling,

Jan

Okay, you have seen the top view of a black hole...

Here is a sideview of a Black hole...

https://x.com/Starmaker111/status/2035119648690356476/photo/1

Restoring the text you chopped.

The delusion here is that it was worth your trouble to go i for such and obvious bit of text-chopping. You've clearly got no idea how foolish this makes you look.

Equally trues of the assertions of the demented half-wit you go to the trouble demonstrating yourself to be.

So what what effects is it being corrected for? And what makes them predictable enough to be easily corrected?

So you are a member of the illuminati who has access to higher knowledge? You wouldn't be posting here if you had anything useful to do and you wouldn't post so much utter nonsense if you knew anything worth knowing.

It's you who is brainwashed - you've scrubbed your brain of any knowledge of the theory of relativity, probably because you share the German National Socialist delusion that it is "Jewish science". That would make it hard for you to develop high-technology products if you were involved in any kind of product development that did anything interesting, but you are much too dim to be doing anything like that.

And you may even believe that fatuous claim.

Sometimes. It can happen faster if you get lucky.

Naive positivism is associated with down-playig statistical limitations.

Than you think that I'm assuming. If you went to the trouble of reading the dozen or so publications I've got in the peer-reviewed literature - mostly comments in the Review of Scientific Instruments and papers in the Journal of Scientific Instruments (now Measurement Science and Technology) you might form a different and better-informed opinion.

Which came down to some idiot not being careful enough about measuring the length of a fibre optic cable. Philosophy might have motivated the careful checking that found the error, but a good experimentalist wouldn't have made the error in the first place.

Good theories are tested all the time - not because people expect them to fail, but because a successful falsification of an established theory gets a lot of publicity.

The cretins who are trying to falsify Einstein's theory of relativity have exactly the same motivation.

The English say "all hands on deck". The Dutch say "alle hans op dak" which is literally "all chickens on the roof" but means exactly the same thing. That's obvious evidence of close contact, but hasn't had any kind of influence on the structure and vocabulary of either language. They are mutually unintelligible.

The cultural unity extended rather farther than that, up into Scandinavia and further across what is now Germany.

As usual you have chopped the text where I explained why I thought that.

He's not famous for it. What makes you think he did? The Vatican certainly wasn't objecting to that when they called him in.

Your post was nonsense, and I was being polite about pointing that out. If you want to call that "weaseling" feel free. The weasel here is you.

Even such a disgusting piece of lying s*it as you are can't lie non stop, so you once admitted - they correct errors. A clock error is a very classical phenomenon, well known...

The reality is what it is.

No I'm not. You're lying as usual.

who has access to higher

What higher knowledge? That fanatic idiots tend to lie is a higher knowledge to you?

Not just me, for GPS engineers your idiocy was not necessary too. They don't have your urge of onanizing with your supreme understanding and wisdom, they simply want their stuff to work.

you've scrubbed your brain of any

slan·der [ˈslɑːndə] law the action or crime of making a false spoken statement damaging to a person's reputation.

An obvious choice of weapon for a relativistic knight on his holy crusade - your idiot guru was also screaming that whoever didn't obey him was a nasty antisemitist.

That

Eat that, you piece of s*it.