usenet weirdness

"building ICBMs and nukes" actually applies to both Israel and US more than to Iran. "Run by murderous thugs" - well, US don't deserve that.

Neither Israel does.

Palestine much worse.

Si vis pacem, para bellum. It's the same for any country.

The US has been building nukes and ICBMs for decennia. I wouldn't be at all surprised to learn that the unrest in Iran was fomented by the US. It's completely in style.

So you are told. I think they'd much prefer to sell their oil to the world and be left alone otherwise.

You just wait and see what will happen in the US when you finally try to get rid of those thugs in the white house.

Trump has been menacing Greenland, Denmark and Canada. He has insulted and abused allies. He has attacked several sovereign countries. Who will be next?

Jeroen Belleman

The US proposed a nuke-free world in 1946. The Russians wouldn't have it.

John Larkin Highland Tech Glen Canyon Design Center Lunatic Fringe Electronics

Great minds think alike, ..., greatest minds think the same.

Was:

Such language is the plebeian patois of poor students and bad kids who never learned their "times tables".

The other usual account of such vainglory is "bull-s*it", the actual loss of a bull of its continence of its bodily functions.

You say there's always a Galilean account for example from the perspective of the moving item itself as as Einstein images "riding the light", fine, it's so, and then about there always being an Euclidean account, yes it's so, then though about the real space-contraction and the arrival times of things, and the elapsed times, somebody with a universal clock hypothesis may say that clocks meet or slow (otherwise constant monotone), as well, there are interpretations where that's so and that's fine.

Here for example is distinguished the linear and the rotational settings and for the space-contraction-linear and space-contraction-rotational and keeping things Galilean as they are in the linear and Euclidean as they are in the linear, all else just be matters of a perspective and projection, as they are, in a theory like "relativity theory" with its one axiom, "motion is relative", everything else basically being a reductionism otherwise from since "motion is absolute", with however it works the space-contraction-linear and space-contraction-rotational, I'll agree that eventually the "space-time" is isotropic, and all the sky survey agrees or the great account of the sky survey, and that automatically means the Euclidean and then as for "apparent super-luminal motion" as well the Galilean, and even in accelerators and cyclotrons, for example about the gyroklystron I was just reading about, the energy put into particles their acceleration really does result their Galilean velocity.

Then, that the theory keeps an account of that as simple for high-school algebra and trig, that's just another way of looking at the same things, and they've made their sand castles and tinker-toys and Rube Goldberg machines and mousetraps, they are what they are and if you want something better then make one.

So, anyways, all "Maciej" cares is that according to his calculations they're Galilean in the Euclidean.

Then the rest is just vehemence about his contempt.

It's sort of so for any "linear" account, ..., though usually with less to say about the "un-linear".

SI units just keep it simple to make digital circuits, anything else has its own domain, while NIST PDG CODATA actually gives the day's constants according to "energy and configuration of experiment".

Sometimes.

The same what you think?

If you invent a good reasoning schema, other may follow. Or may not. You can never be sure it's really good anyway (unless you're an arrogant idiot with no clue, of course). But, for sure, whatever you invent is your invention, no Nature or another Higher Force is ever going to speak through your mouth.

while there are always some things that should be kept complicated. You're not going to bring everything into some simple formulas you'll love.

Yes, that is actually a true statement and I have no intentions to reject you claim.

Sure, but if we take, say, only the highest 10% of the building and ignore the rest, then we would encounter at least those 10% smashing upon the ground level with more then 300 km/h.

This velocity would multiply with an enormous mass of up to 20000 kg per piece to a gigantic momentum.

And because momentum is a conserved quantity, we need tremendous amounts of material to stop such a falling piece.

This material needs to shoot away from a large crater with very high speed.

But that didn't happen, because the street level of WTC-Plaza wasn't demaged at all (well a few holes were actually punched into the street level, but not remotely as much and as large as expected).

So, material objects with a mass larger than 20 to of steel and concrete 'dustified' in mid air and were blown away.

THIS was - at least- rather strange. ...

TH

Sure, but that wasn't the question.

The question was:

is there still anybody believing the official story?

The official story has more holes than a Swiss cheese and is actually an insult to rational thinking.

TH

Am Montag000023, 23.03.2026 um 18:32 schrieb john larkin: ...

I'm actually an engineer and can assure you, that most engineers don't care about what physicist do.

Yes, because most engineers love to tinker around with 'toys for adults'.

Well, I actually can (at least I've tried).

So, have a look at my 'book':

Yes, the borders are thin between both realms.

But physics is actually a natural science and engineers are mainly concerned with what they have built themselves.

Only a small part of engineering is dealing with electronics.

Engineers exist in several 'flavors', which range from building bridges to chemistry. ...

TH

The US really wanted to remain the *only* nation to have the bomb.

Jeroen Belleman

Dumb engineers have been known to make that kind of mistake. They do get jeered at when they do.

If you work in the more conservative areas of engineering, that may be true in particularly dim corners of those areas. The people they work for tend to go broke when less conservative firms eat their lunch.

Don't bother.

And you don't know much about any of them.

The rational majority.

The claims that you have been making - like the Twin Towers falling down in ten seconds - don't suggest that you can do rational thinking, or recognise it when you run into it.

Except that it didn't.

Momentum is only conserved from interaction to interaction. When a building fall down over about an hour there are lots of interactions and lots of accounting to be done.

Only if it was travelling really fast when it hit the ground, and it wasn't.

The WTC plaza wasn't actually directly below the Twin Towers.

They got broken up in a series of smaller collisions, as each floor fell onto the floor below it, and got further broken up by each impact in succession.

Not half as strange as your claim that the Twin Towers fell down in ten seconds - when they took about an hour and and an hour and three quarters respectively.

The Russians said OK, so show your good intentions by dismantling your nuclear weaponry and production facilities.

The USA went on to scale up production and have more weapons tests instead,

Jan

And if they didn't have nukes they would almost for sure start shooting each other in 50s or 60s.

I'm posting in sci.electronics.design.

John Larkin Highland Tech Glen Canyon Design Center Lunatic Fringe Electronics

No, just the last.

The US has proposed many times to limit the number of nukes to some reasonably small number. The Russians didn't like that either.

The good news is that the russian nukes probably don't work. Most of the parts have been stolen.

John Larkin Highland Tech Glen Canyon Design Center Lunatic Fringe Electronics

WTC7 is a usual outlier to otherwise the "Jones" theory versus the "NIST" theory.

Mostly it was the squibs in the windows and that it entered free-fall, as can be read off from video, not "pancaking".

Or, such is a usual account.

It's not easy to steal parts from inside a nuclear weapon, and the resale value of what you might be able to steal wouldn't be high.

About the only really valuable bit in a nuclear weapon is the weapons grade uranium or plutonium. It is radioactive enough to be easy to detect.

U-235 emits 4.678 MeV alpha particles, Pu-239 5.157 MeV alpha particles.

Pu-239 is pretty toxic.

Ukranians will tell you that Russia does seem to have a lot of lower level weapons that work. Military security may be tighter than the kind of security you'd have seen in the civil environments to which you were exposed.

We would expect weather to be distributed in some sort of randomness.

This means:

most of the weather is usual and some conditions are extreme.

But how would you measure the patterns of weather and quantify them???

Usually randomness is distributed with some sort of bell-shaped curve.

The mean conditions (of weather in this case) are numerous and the rare exceptions are, well, rare.

So, you need to measure the weather distribution by measuring for some time each condition and then sort these contions by stacking up the numbers on the y-axis and distribute the specific condition on the x-axis.

This should produce some sort of bell shaped curve, because almost all random events produce such curves.

Now, such shaped curves are usually not defined by the extreme conditions, but by other parameters like mean, symmetry, maximum and standard average.

The 'extreme weather' considerations are therefor nonsense, if you want to find trends in the climate.

TH