usenet weirdness

But Maciej Woźniak can't understand how it works.

That's not actually how the Mossbauer effect works.

As if Maciej Woźniak had any grasp of basic math.

What Maciej Woźniak can't understand he calls delusional.

Chanting "whoever disagree with me and my idiot guru is a simple ignorant" won't help the fact that in the meantime in the real world real clocks keep measuring t'=t, just like they always did. Sorry, poor stupid scum.

Fortunately, even such a disgusting piece of lying s*it as you are can't lie non stop, so sometimes you admit they are.

The difference between "time dilation" and "a clock error" is simple and hard to misinterpret: you don't correct your dilation idiocy, but you do correct error. Sorry, poor stupid scum.

But that's how The S*it of Einstein works. Actually, asserting that a really, really, really good plane wouldn't fly at all (because that's what some "laws of nature" are demanding from a really good plane) would be at the same level of idiocy.

Maciej Woźniak has - as usual - snipped most of what I posted. I've put it back below

A bit rich rich coming from a habitual text chopper who evades any question for which he hasn't a neat prepackaged answer, usually by snipping the question down to one to which he thinks he has got an answer.

??? looks like a garbled popularisation. Do you have a serious source for this?

What I do know is that serious attempts were made in the thirties to demonstrate simulated emission in neon gas discharges. (so verifying Einstein's B coefficiet) IIRC the experiments were difficult, and the results not conclusive. (would have to search)

Jan

Chemistry has also engineers.

I had interest in chemistry in my younger age and owned a laboratory in our basement.

We have a system in Germany, where students of the higher classes in the school called 'Gymnasium' (has nothing to do with 'gym' in English) could select topics they liked and what they were good at.

Mine were math and chemistry.

Or when I read your stuff...

No, because also large sections of the perimeter walls were falling down, each in the regions of several ten tons.

If such a lump of steel and concrete would crash upon the WTC-Plaza with more then 300 km/h, it would punch a hole into the floor-level with the size of a tennis court and deep enough, that you could see the rock below Manhattan.

But that didn't happen.

Instead the street level was mainly undamaged. (e.g. you can identify cars and trucks in the rubble, which are hardly damaged.)

This is the point I wanted to show and that is why there must have been unusual effects in operation.

One possible explanation would be 'cold fusion'.

Another were weapons in space, that have kind of laser, which can make skyscrapers disappear.

Sure, it took much longer that ten seconds.

But a free falling piece of - say- concrete would need roughly ten seconds to fall down from the top of a WTC-tower.

So, where did the delay come from?

TH

For a laser to work, it has to host a population excited atoms or molecules, where there are more atoms or molecules in the excited high energy state than in the ground state - an inverted population. Such a population is thermodynamically unstable and decays to the non-inverted state, usually pretty rapidly. Einstein didn't happen to think of any way you could get an inverted population, but others were luckier.

They needed a different point of view.

Am Samstag000021, 21.03.2026 um 15:35 schrieb john larkin:

Sure.

The USA alone captured more then four million German soldiers.

So: what was their fate?

I personally have never heard of any ships coming from the states and releasing large amounts of POWs to German soil (even if I was born in Hamburg).

The Soviets did, but only 10% and only in 1955.

That was celebrated and published in all German papers.

But what have they done with German POWs in the USA?

Well, possibly. But they needed to be released from the camps, before they could look for american brides.

(The less fortunate went to this:

or possibly to the 'GULAGS'.)

TH

It is not a clock at all, it is a frequency standard,

Jan

Maciej Woźniak has convinced himself of this. He hasn't convinced any actual physicists, hasn't presented any actual arguments that might have worked on them, and seems to think that his simple assertion is all the proof he needs.

It's a physical effect, rather than any kind of "error". And he doesn't tell us how the "error" might have arisen.

That's how it looks to Maciej Woźniak. He's wrong, but he has convinced himself that he isn't, and doesn't realise quite how stupid this makes him look.

Perhaps a little hypocritical. Carrying on about the imagined superiority of your own insight and calling your critic "poor scum" doesn't suggest that the "sorry" is all that sincere.

So, if "Relativity Theory" makes accounts of Lorentzians that then make all "predictions" of Relativity Theory, then what would be the next "Double Relativity Theory" its usual formalisms or expressions then about the relevant implicits and formulations that make the algebras for the formalisms?

Various ideas include, for example, just using the third differential instead of the second differentials in the Laplacian cum Lorentzian, another to square it terms, either way making simple accounts of either making the initial terms of Maclaurin/Taylor series or making another account of quadrature for the triangle inequality.

If "Relativity Theory" is so great for what it is, "no absolute, ..., motion", now "Double Relativity Theory" with "no absolute, ..., motion, and no absolute, ..., space", is greater.

That's how it looks to Bill Sloman. He's wrong, but he has convinced himself that he isn't, and doesn't realise quite how stupid this makes him look. Fortunately, he is too dumb to keep his lies consistent and sometimes he admits it's an error.

They got sent to France and the UK and had to put in three years working on repairing the damage German forces had inflicted during WW2.>

Since the German prisoners of war spent three years working in France the UK, that never happened. They'd get shipped home on trains and ferries, and the occupying powers would have made sure that there weren't any public celebrations when they did get back to Germany.

They got shipped back to Europe in 1946 to work as labourers in France and the UK for three years.

Probably not true. They worked in America and would have had social contact with the Americans they worked with.

The "less fortunate" were those under suspicion of committing war crimes.

Probably not.

That was a Russian system.

It doesn't say anything about Einstein's possible imaginings either. Neither does it say anything about 'secondary emission' which is an entirely different phenomenon. Summary: irrelevant.

For perspective: Einstein derived stimulated emission

Einstein deriving his coefficints nevertheles was a masterpiece of thermodynamics based on statistical mechanics.

Yes. All blaming of Einstein for not inventing the laser is hogwash. There just was no basis for it at the time. All you might 'blame' him for is not returning to the subject after quantum mechanics became a settled subject, (which he was fed up with, by then)

Jan

I'm usually against reductionism as a "merely partial" or "half-account", or "only good to first order" as usual accounts of the formalism after the Laplacian the sum of second partial derivatives, instead for a more singular and integral analysis, since overall there's for a continuum mechanics and merely-partial accounts simply eventually fail.

Then, about the Euclidean and otherwise a system of the world, then about this "Double Relativity Theory" is again for what are notions of "frame-spaces" and "space-frames", beyond the usual notion of "frames". Then, it's perhaps so that there would be a better word than "spaces" for the the ideas of "spacities", since they're analytical settings' just like "frames" are, with regards to instances in time or as for motion meters/second, and about instances in space or about meters/meters. Then, "frame-spaces" and "space-frames" for "Rahme-Raumen" and "Raume-Rahmen" will do, adding enough words to the language of the theory to encompass the idea that real space-contraction and making for space-contraction-linear and space-contraction-rotational simply have objects their descriptions their representations in the theory.

So, being a realist and an anti-reductionist, then these sorts of terms are cognitively consonant.

Naturally no experiment that doesn't disconfirm the old "Relativity Theory" would disconfirm this "Double Relativity Theory" either, though one may aver that adding an aether would make "absolute space", that though variously being considered by physicists like Einstein as being "in the theory".

Then your physiology is very odd.

The sort of wind-speeds you get around a burning building are pretty impressive too, and they would tend to push the rubble away from the building

And your evidence for this claim?

If it fell onto the WTC-Plaza. The steel inside that lump of concrete was put in there to tie it to the rest of the building, and it would have to get very hot - close to melting - before it let go, and the stucture would tend to fold rather than get torn up into ten ton chunks.

Probably because the chunks that did fall off were a lot hotter and soggier than you imagine, and unrolled from the structure rather than falling off as neat chunks.

The steel frame had to melt - and probably burnt - before the concrete chunks could fall off, and the concrete would have got hot enough to be much softer than it is a room temperature

And you have showed us that you have a lively imagination, and no enthusiasm at all for finding factual evidence

Sadly, it has never worked. Odd stuff happens in cold fusion experiments, but people have been looking at them for quite while now and there haven't been any large explosions, nor anything big enough to encourage much investment.

That would be a very large laser.

The WTC buildings pretty much had to burn up before they got hot enough to fall down and by that time the concrete in the structure would have been broken up into very small bits by thermal stresses.

You should have found and read that link before you started babbling about space lasers.

Townes almost had his maser project cancelled because everyone knew that it was impossible to get net gain from stimulated emission, because Einstein said so.

His book "How The Laser Happened" is a good study in the sociology/occasional pathology of science.

This thread is another good example.

John Larkin Highland Tech Glen Canyon Design Center Lunatic Fringe Electronics

Hey, I did some electronics for a Mossbauer experiment, for the physics dept at LSUNO. I was working summers while I was still in high school. My main project was with Stark Effect microwave spectroscopy (I designed and built the high-voltage pulse generators) but physicists always need help with electronics so I did some other stuff too.

My Mossbauer circuit fooled a gamma ray spectrometer into graphing velocity on its x-axis, instead of wavelength.

They wanted me to become a physicist but even at age 16 I knew I didn't like the culture.

That's what I didn't like about physics. The intense, often absurd, need to proclaim intellectual superiority.

The way we design electronics is totally different. It's fun, a team sport where everybody plays and nobody has to lose.

When an idea is obviously about to emerge, I keep quiet and let someone else invent it first. I did that on Friday, and it was more rewarding than declaring the idea for my personal glory.

John Larkin Highland Tech Glen Canyon Design Center Lunatic Fringe Electronics

Not always. Many POWs worked on farms, for pay, worked and ate with the often-female farmers whose men were away or dead.

Things happened.

The experiences of Japanese POWs arguably changed the culture of Japan. As did the millions of meals we shipped into Japan to prevent starvation.

By historical standards, the Americans were exraordinally kind to the defeated. The Germans and the Japanese were certainly not.

John Larkin Highland Tech Glen Canyon Design Center Lunatic Fringe Electronics