usenet weirdness

Am Samstag000014, 14.02.2026 um 13:11 schrieb Bill Sloman: ...

Sure, but actually reading papers carefully isn't a widely shared habit, neither.

Well, if you look at the picture from the Solvay conference you see Einstein in the center and the far better and also widely recognized Max Planck squeezed to the side.

The 'setting' looked actually like it was made by some experts in PR and advertising, which had the aim to promote Einstein.

Sure, the papers were famous. But for what reasons were they famous?

It couldn't have been the content or the quality of writing, because both were terrible.

It was a 'fame creates fame' thing and Einstein was kind of 'pop star' of science.

The term 'leading British newspaper' alone said enough.

Would you really believe, that 'leading British newspapers' have genuine interest in theoretical physics at all?

But WHAT had Einstein actually done?

If you force crap into the minds of scientists, than this isn't beneficial at all.

TH

Bill Sloman trolled, amok-crossposting to sci.physics.relativity and sci.electronics.design again:

It's not a penalty, it's me saving precious free time for discussing with smarter people.

F'up2 poster

You won't have any trouble finding them. They won't want to bother wasting their time discussing anything with a half-wit like you, so devoting any time or effort to freeing more time to let you do it is pointless, though you do seem to be too dim to work this out for yourself.

Einstein's later work was toward a total field theory, and one may offer generously that he was conscientious of the limitations of his own work.

For example if you read "Out of My Later Years", he says so.

D'Espagnat in "On Physics and Philosophy" definitely makes for so that "realism" is yet lacking in the usual account, and that "anti-realism" is not itself scientific.

Here from my podcasts

Also among my podcasts I read Einstein's "Out of My Later Years", which one may aver that if Einstein's word is good and he's not actively lie-ing, i.e. generously, that "Out of My Later Years" is Einstein's standing opinion on science and includes his own refined definition of Einstein's Relativity.

Here there's a realist and anti-reductionist theory, and studying logic and philosophy of science makes it easier to not get flim-flammed by operationalist nominalists.

What do you do that makes your time so valuable?

John Larkin Highland Tech Glen Canyon Design Center Lunatic Fringe Electronics

Anger, frustration, outrage, distrust, ....

The events of 9/11 the surrounding and following still have that the "real" story remains to be revealed.

It's still so the evidence of thermite, that the pile was "hot", the apparent "squibs", and many other circumstances of suspicion briefly summarized when the newsman relayed that WTC7 was, "pulled".

I recall in the days following, or the next day, there was circulating on Usenet a purported timeline of the events.

That the buildings had had their fire-fighting tanks emptied in the, "maintenance" of the buildings some weeks prior, is a circumstance of great suspicion.

And we all know now that Giuliani was a wolf (corrupt).

It reminds of those events where those fellows in the following weeks climbed the Brooklyn Bridge, or the month after when that airplane its tail fell off.

"Truthers", was the usual appellation given to those with theories that it was a conspiracy of the false-flag variety.

"Wag the Dog", wasn't it. The premise of that was "there's a sex scandal, make a war scandal about it", these days "there's a war scandal, make a sex scandal about it".

When I heard that "Israel's 10/7" was "Israel's 9/11", it much soured my outlook.

The dirty, ....

They call it a swamp because of its corruption.

Usenet isn't always a troll-filled echo-chamber of disinformation. For example, on the passing of JP II, many of his encyclicals were published to sci.logic.

john larkin snipped-for-privacy@glen--canyon.com wrote or quoted:

So, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle basically says you can't set up a state that's got a perfectly fixed number of photons at a su- per well-defined frequency. Still, you can study what are called Fock states, or number states, if the light field's spread over a pret- ty narrow range of frequencies. In that case, a single-photon emitter ends up acting like it's kicking out just one photon. One of the old-school and simplest tricks to get something close to single-photon light was just to tone down a normal laser until the average number of photons per pulse was tiny. Since laser light fol- lows a Poisson distribution, you can actually play with the odds of getting one photon versus more than one. Like, if the average pho- ton number mu=0.1, about 90% of the pulses have none, roughly 9% have one, and around 1% spit out multiple photons. Light from an ideal single-photon source acts totally quantum - it shows antibunching, meaning there's always some nonzero delay between photon hits. A basic laser doesn't do that; its second-order corre- lation function equals one, so no antibunching there. But for stuff like quantum cryptography, you need those antibunched photons. A perfect single-photon source still doesn't exist, though. Right now, people use things like single molecules, Rydberg atoms, diamond color centers, or quantum dots to make single photons, and you can actually see their antibunching if you set up the experiment right.

And there really was no need. Einstein was already an eminent scientist by 1919.

Einstein had a great deal of luck with it. BTW, there is even a book about it, titled "Einstein's Luck". (NOT recommended, it uncritically repeats a lot of anti-Einstein crap)

Apart from that, scientists (like the Curies in France for example) generally had a much higher public standing that today.

The New York Times had something similar on it. Einstein's American tour in 1921 became a triumph, but Einstein himself thoroughly disliked all the publicity. ('being exhibited like a prize bull' in his own words)

The Times reported on a meeting of the Royal Society, the day after. (a combined session of Royal Society and Royal Astronomical Society) It was a quality newspaper, in those times.

Abraham Pais describes it jokingly as a canonsation procedure. And the time was ripe for it, after the world-shaking effects of WW I,

Jan

Seems like you have given yourself a crash course in who is who in SPR,

Jan

Wasting time of others?

Jan

Just asking. I wonder what he does.

John Larkin Highland Tech Glen Canyon Design Center Lunatic Fringe Electronics

Getting better all the time !

So actually those criminals at BNL (you know, scientists, what do you expect) destroyed the WTC by cold muon catalysed fusion. (just after the planes hit)

Keep it up !

Jan

That's interesting. Have you got a link to more detailed discussion?

you promote an idea, which regard as terrible. It is called: 'quantity over quality'.

Planck could hardly be worse.

'Spin doctors' were called by other names before. But the concept itself is older than the pyramids.

I used a certain method, which I have actually invented:

I take the famous text of Einstein and treat it as if it would be the homework of a student and I were the professor, who had to write corrections.

My aim isn't a discussion about the metaphysical content, but a correction of errors.

Therefore I take any single word or equation and analyze, what they actually say.

Than I check, if that statement makes sense and whether or not it would fit into that homework of a student.

That's why I don't say 'Einstein was wrong' or alike, because the actual content is excluded from my comments.

Technically I 'atomize' all statements and check, whether or not they are correct.

I also checked for formal requirements or proper use of the German language, for instance.

My counting of errors resulted in 390 comments, which mainly were about errors. Not all errors were unique, hence there was some double-counting. But, on the other hand, some annotations covered more than one error.

All in all it was a fantastically large number of errors and by no means acceptable, let alone good.

...

The full story might actually been told already, but nobody listend.

I had spent a lot of time on that subject, event if I'm not a 'truther' or alike.

But there were certain observations, which didn't add up.

E.g. there were rumours, that a plane fell into the Indian Lake and the hole in Shzanksville was there much earlier that 9/11.

After I looked up 'Indean lake' I found an abandoned airfield next to the lake and that the plane seeminly approached that landing strip, but was shot down prior (hence fell into Indian Lake).

To me this made perfect sense, but only for a different story:

If a 'highjacker' actually found out, that he shall be sacrified and tried to evade to an unknow landing strip, this would f*** up the entire operation, hence that wimp 'needs' to be shot down.

This story of mine would perfectly fit to observations near Shanksville, were 'white planes' were seen circling around near Indean Lake.

Also debree was found in that lake, while none could be seen in that hole near Shanksville.

...

TH

Light-emitting diodes might not offer one hundred year life, and I have replaced some of the cheaper LED-based light bulbs that I bought because they had gotten a lot dimmer than they were when I installed them, but most of them do last a lot longer than incandescent-filament based lamps they replaced.

In other words you are a pedant, not a scholar.

Finding grammatical errors in text isn't a reliable indicator that the text is wrong - even the most competent people make typographical errors from time to time. Read the psychological literature on "errors of action" - the take away message is that evolution has given us a nervous system which only just good enough to do it's job.

The test of a scientific paper is whether it conveys interesting and novel information to the interested reader. You clearly aren't interested in the content, so your conclusions aren't worth communicating.

Ah, so we're back to that fantasy, are we? I think the time has come to stop reading your posts.

I wish you old hens would keep your squawking and clucking to your own sci. groups and stop posting to s.e.d.

Or discuss electronics if you can.

John Larkin Highland Tech Glen Canyon Design Center Lunatic Fringe Electronics