usenet weirdness

This thread does include quite a few posts which exhibit a pathological ignorance of science, which isn't any kind of pathology of science, but rather the pathology of people who want to have opinions about science without learning enough about the relevant science to know what they are talking about. Your own opinions about anthropogenic global warming fall into that category.

I can't say that I have seen much of that. There's quite a lot of emphasis on getting facts right, which really isn't the same thing.

Up to a point. Some circuits work better than others, some use cheaper components and some draw less power. In a collaborative lab people talk about how to get there - and one of my happier memories of working at EMI Central Research was the mob gathering around one or other of the drawing boards and discussing how the circuit might be improve. You'd have to go around the lab afterwards and grab all the cups half-full of cold coffee and rinse them out.

Sadly, the circuit you ended up with was the one you'd have to get built and tested and take responsibility for.

Good when you can engineer it. Some good ideas do fail to get invented.

I had an idea for shaping the frequency content of a pulse width modulated waveform back around 1975, but it wasn't all that practical without a programmable logic device to do the bit shuffling. A big-enough PLD eventually showed up in 1993 and I wrote it up in my 1996 "Millidegree thermostat" paper". People had been shaping the frequency content of PWD waveform for years by then, but that particular technique hadn't been used.

Now all the arguments for/against Relativity Theory have a new playground, Double Relativity Theory.

One can even put them off against each other.

After frame-spaces and space-frames is a usual idea then that there are wave-spirals and spiral-waves, since waves are just a sort of cross-section, then sort of like how waves follow spirals and frames follow spaces.

Faraday Rotation and FitzGerald et alia's original accounts of space-contraction come to mind as prior work in the field.

That's why here's there an account of these various "F-Lorentzians" about the fields and forces, where the Lorentzian is sort of a reductionism since it's just taking the Laplacian which is a sum of second partial differences then according to a sign convention plus/minus a time dimension's second partial, then equating that to a metric's second partial. So, it's at least four or five reductionisms with the corresponding losses of analyticity beyond first order, the Lorentzian.

Fizeau Faraday Fatio FitzGerald Finlay-Freundlich Freundlich Feynman Fresnel ...

Forces and fields their usual milieux, ....

... Each having their own setups making "models of Relativity Theory".

Then a usual idea is that there's only one of those.

A brief mnemonic.

Lots of recent switching regulator chips dither the PWM to spread the spectrum and minimize EMI, or rather to pass the FCC EMI tests, which is not exactly the same thing. Kinda like VW gaming the pollution tests.

But I haven't seen the dithering show up as noise on the DC outputs, even when the PWM looks ghastly on a scope. Cute trick.

John Larkin Highland Tech Glen Canyon Design Center Lunatic Fringe Electronics

The other day there was some talk of a divider circuit and then there are some questions about a typical use-case of a DC/AC inverter about how to get from square-wave after switching rectifiers to triangle-wave with an integrator then as about how to result something more than less a "phase-clean" AC signal basically to make an account of the Fourier-style analysis to adjust the bounds so that then the first term that comes out of that is a regular periodic function in the sinosoidal, about high-efficiency power inverters and converters, in solid-state (or, counting that plasma is another state of matter, no moving parts).

(The usual offerings that just chop it up the DC are considered dirty.)

There's perceived large markets for high-efficiency high-reliability low-cost low-maintenance power inverters and converters among DC/DC, DC/AC, AC/DC, AC/AC, and so on, particularly the _variable_ to the _regulated_, for over/under current and over/under voltage, and also over/under frequency and over/under phase, or a general-purpose power converter usually aimed at mains or motors or low voltage DC.

Something like the temperature-controlled oscillator really changed what could be done then with things like printed planar antennas after the usual sorts of phase-locked-loops for digital electronic radio, those being usual part numbers on assembly manifests, for examples like pick-and-place and so on.

That is a book I happen to have access to. It is definitely not 'a good study in the sociology/occasional pathology of science.'

In it, I see Townes saying: ========================================================================= During my junior year, the class did not get all the way through a physics text so I decided to study the rest of it myself during the summer. I vividly remember that summer, sitting on a moss-covered rock overlooking a stream near my grandmother's summer cottage in the Blue Ridge Mountains, with the section on special relativity opened on my lap, and reaching the startling conviction that Einstein had made a mistake in his logic. I went to lunch, and it was a heady few hours until I came back, sat down again with the book, and decided no, I was wrong and that Einstein had gotten it right after all. ========================================================================

The second mention of Einstein in the book has Townes saying: ======================================================================== [about stimulated emission] Thus, Einstein described a process that would feed energy to the triggering radiation. He never considered coherence, but I feel sure that if asked, Einstein would have quickly concluded there must be coherence and that, if one had enough atoms in an appropriate upper state, one would get net amplification. Einstein, of course, was thinking of systems in thermal equilibrium. I don't have any evidence that he thought about non-equilibrium conditions. If prompted to think in such terms, he surely couldn't have missed the implications for amplification and coherence. =======================================================================

It is a good example of you falling prey to occasional pathology and third-hand story re-telling. There is nothing in the book that is even remotely like what you are ascribing to Einstein,

Jan

I guess that's what happens when you rely on "third-party accounts", like that reprobate linguists' burse-scheiss bots.

The chickens coming home to roost, ....

Now you have to 'ask yourself a question' (not that yous have the ability to do that)

"Where are the 'other' universe stars and galaxies in the 'Black Hole image' NASA provided you with????

It seems to be...cropped out. Maybe because they would all show up as ...blurred too!

Somebody in NASA said..."F***ed it! Blurr it...f*ck everybody!!"

WE CONTROL THE SCIENCE PRESS!!!!

Why blur it? Because, if you know how to look...there is no black hole in the picture.

I KNOW HOW TO LOOK! I looked, and there was no black hole in the picture.

It's very simple:

The Blue Channel is the foundation of all the details..

Just look at this image in Photoshop https://x.com/Starmaker111/status/1120048519715229696/photo/1 and view the Blue Channel.

no black hole!

And I haven't told you my mother's name, too. And you haven't told me how you "falsificate" my hypothesis. By chanting "whoever disagree with me is a stupid uneducated crank", I guess.

Still, even such a disgusting piece of lying s*it can't lie non stop, so you sometimes admit that GPS clocks are corrected for an error.

Wouldn't they be flowing inwards towards the building as the heated air rose?

The Germans were characteristically without humor. The Japanese weren't very funny either.

John Larkin Highland Tech Glen Canyon Design Center Lunatic Fringe Electronics

My posts tend to include links to wikipedia pages. Yours don't. You actually are a stupid uneducated crank, but you are too stupid to recognise the fact. I have told you how I have falsified your hypothesis, but you are too dumb to follow the argument.

Actually I don't. I point out that the outputs of the atomic clocks in the orbiting satellite transmitters are corrected for the perfectly predictable relativistic frequency shifts that would otherwise desynchronise them from other atomic clocks in different orbits and those in ground stations. Those frequency shifts are inconvenient but they aren't errors.

You do like to use loaded language to make your posts look aggressive. It also makes you look stupid.

If you don't speak the language, you don't get the jokes. Sometimes you have to speak it quite well to get them.

Buster Keaton's idea of humour was more subtle than Laurel and Hardy's.

Oh, I can change that easily.

I predicted correctly.

Oh yes, you do. Sorry, poor stupid scum.

Am Sonntag000022, 22.03.2026 um 11:24 schrieb Bill Sloman: ...

No, I didn't mean the French and British camps, but the POW-camps in the USA, to which about four million german soldiers were brought.

(Most of the inmates of the 'Rheinwiesen'-camps.)

What was the fate of those POWs, the US-forces shipped to the sates? (allegedly that were roughly 4 million soldiers)

The other allies had a lot of POWs, too, and about 4 million germans (combined in France, UK and USSR).

But my question was, what the US-forces did with the Germans.

...

TH

Am Sonntag000022, 22.03.2026 um 12:21 schrieb Bill Sloman:

...

A little wind drag and we get 10 seconds for a piece of rubble to fall down from the roof.

The speed would also be very high and in the range of 300 km/h.

That would have the momentum of a fast train, which would smash with enormous force against the floor.

Such falling steel is used in 'bunker busters', which can penetrate several meters of reinforced concrete.

Since the towers were extremly large, there would have been an enormous number of such falling pieses.

The WTC-plaza should have looked like a traget for bombing in a jet-fighter training range.

But that wasn't the case!

Instead of being totally destroyed, the WTC-plaza looked almost entirely unharmed.

On the followiung day the street level was clearly visible and seemingly undamaged.

E.g. you can see delivery- and fire-trucks in the rubble, which looked a little dusty and had been hit by smaller parts. But the glass of their windows wasn't broken.

Also the statue 'The Sphere' was a little damaged, but stood still upon its pedestal and that on the WTC-plaza.

From this we can draw the conclusion, that only a few/none of the heavier parts falling down from up to 410 m made it to the ground.

This fact is actually quite surprising and would deserve an explanation.

Th

...

Perfectly. You missed the point I was making - which is that I'm educated enough to know that there is published material supporting the points I want to make, and I know how to find the wikipedia pages that link to it. I didn't make it all that explicitly in the hope of eliciting the reaction you produced.

You missed that - and thought that posting two totally irrelevant wikipedia pages would get you off the hook.

It was a very gratifying response.

You really are a stupid uneducated crank, and get told this often enough to predict that people will point this out. This is learning by experience rather than any kind of exhibition of insight. If you had any insight you might have come to realise that we are right, but if you had that much insight you might well have got an education.

It's not predicting errors, it is predicting predictable differences between clocks travelling at different speeds and in different gravitational fields. You like calling the differences "errors" but that's an abuse of the word.

It predicts a difference between a clock which has stayed put, and a matching clock which has travelled away at an appreciable fraction of the speed of light and travelled back again at a similar sort of speed.

You have a passion for calling this difference an "error".

You are dumb enough to think that articulating your self-serving misconceptions is worth the effort.

They had been shipped over to France and the UK in 1946 where they worked as laborers for the next three years.

And several people - not just me - have directed you to

If you had been paying attention you'd have known this already.