Approximately 300,000 km/s with respect to what?
How about the local/dominant gravitational field?
Approximately 300,000 km/s with respect to what?
How about the local/dominant gravitational field?
On Thu, 11 Jul 2024 19:58:02 +0000, amirjf nin wrote:
Approximately 300,000 km/s with respect to what?
With respect to the transmitter speed and position.
Speed of light transmitted from a reference frame moving at v km/sec is 300000 +v.
How about the local/dominant gravitational field?
Irrelevant.
Planets move and light goes straight. We measure from the moving planet
so light SEEMS to get bent therefore APPARENTLY but NOT CORRECTLY
"proving" the BUNKUM theories of relativity.
Bertietaylor
Approximately 300,000 km/s with respect to what?
On 2024-07-11 19:58:02 +0000, amirjf nin said:
Approximately 300,000 km/s with respect to what?
Whenever the speec of something is measured it is measured with respect
to someting else. The report should make clear what is the reference that
is considered stationary. Usually it is the instruments used in the measurement, and usually but not always they are at rest with restpect to Earth surface at the place of the measurement.
Sometimes numbers with units of speed are used for other purposes instead
of speed, for example in E = mc?, where c has units of speed. In those cases the question need not be asked.
Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> wrote:
On 2024-07-11 19:58:02 +0000, amirjf nin said:
Approximately 300,000 km/s with respect to what?
Whenever the speec of something is measured it is measured with respect
to someting else. The report should make clear what is the reference that
is considered stationary. Usually it is the instruments used in the
measurement, and usually but not always they are at rest with restpect to
Earth surface at the place of the measurement.
You really need to have a look at what and how is actually measured,
instead of elaborating your own ideas of measurement.
FYI, in the precision 'speed of light' measurements
that preceded the abolition of the meter in 1983
physicists measured the frequency of a standing wave.
This is a proper measurement in a proper frame,
yielding an obviously dimensionless number.
(a world scalar of course, being the same in every proper frame.)
It does not involve something going from somewhere.
Sometimes numbers with units of speed are used for other purposes instead
of speed, for example in E = mc?, where c has units of speed. In those cases >> the question need not be asked.
Standard error: speed does not -have- a unit.
W dniu 12.07.2024 o 02:53, bertietaylor pisze:
On Thu, 11 Jul 2024 19:58:02 +0000, amirjf nin wrote:
Approximately 300,000 km/s with respect to what?
With respect to the transmitter speed and position.
Speed of light transmitted from a reference frame moving at v km/sec is
300000 +v.
How about the local/dominant gravitational field?
Irrelevant.
Planets move and light goes straight. We measure from the moving planet
so light SEEMS to get bent therefore APPARENTLY but NOT CORRECTLY
"proving" the BUNKUM theories of relativity.
Oh, but according to The Shit light SHOULD go straight.
Poor relativistic doggies see bent light - because they're
not really stupid enough to stick to the moronic schema
of their idiot guru. Their minds are simply still
polluted with Euclidean prejudices...
Bertietaylor
Approximately 300,000 km/s with respect to what?
On Fri, 12 Jul 2024 3:58:38 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 12.07.2024 o 02:53, bertietaylor pisze:
On Thu, 11 Jul 2024 19:58:02 +0000, amirjf nin wrote:
Approximately 300,000 km/s with respect to what?
With respect to the transmitter speed and position.
Speed of light transmitted from a reference frame moving at v km/sec is
300000 +v.
How about the local/dominant gravitational field?
Irrelevant.
Planets move and light goes straight. We measure from the moving planet
so light SEEMS to get bent therefore APPARENTLY but NOT CORRECTLY
"proving" the BUNKUM theories of relativity.
Oh, but according to The Shit light SHOULD go straight.
It does.
Poor relativistic doggies see bent light - because they're
not really stupid enough to stick to the moronic schema
of their idiot guru. Their minds are simply still
polluted with Euclidean prejudices...
Euclid and Newton are correct.
Bertietaylor
W dniu 12.07.2024 o 12:31, bertietaylor pisze:
On Fri, 12 Jul 2024 3:58:38 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 12.07.2024 o 02:53, bertietaylor pisze:
On Thu, 11 Jul 2024 19:58:02 +0000, amirjf nin wrote:
Approximately 300,000 km/s with respect to what?
With respect to the transmitter speed and position.
Speed of light transmitted from a reference frame moving at v km/sec is >>>> 300000 +v.
How about the local/dominant gravitational field?
Irrelevant.
Planets move and light goes straight. We measure from the moving planet >>>> so light SEEMS to get bent therefore APPARENTLY but NOT CORRECTLY
"proving" the BUNKUM theories of relativity.
Oh, but according to The Shit light SHOULD go straight.
It does.
Seen stupider axioms, but not many of them.
Poor relativistic doggies see bent light - because they're
not really stupid enough to stick to the moronic schema
of their idiot guru. Their minds are simply still
polluted with Euclidean prejudices...
Euclid and Newton are correct.
Bertietaylor
On 2024-07-11 19:58:02 +0000, amirjf nin said:
Approximately 300,000 km/s with respect to what?
Whenever the speec of something is measured it is measured with respect
to someting else. The report should make clear what is the reference that
is considered stationary. Usually it is the instruments used in the measurement, and usually but not always they are at rest with restpect to Earth surface at the place of the measurement.
Am Freitag000012, 12.07.2024 um 11:26 schrieb Mikko:
On 2024-07-11 19:58:02 +0000, amirjf nin said:
Approximately 300,000 km/s with respect to what?
Whenever the speec of something is measured it is measured with respect
to someting else. The report should make clear what is the reference that
is considered stationary. Usually it is the instruments used in the
measurement, and usually but not always they are at rest with restpect to
Earth surface at the place of the measurement.
'Stationary' can be understood as 'not moving' and that as 'having
velocity zero'.
But velocity would require a reference point, in respect to which the
object does not move.
But what was actually Einstein's reference, in respect to which velocity
v was measured.
Usually we could take 'the universe' as kind of background and Newton's absolute space as reference.
But this wasn't possible, because Einstein had explicitly excluded
Newton's absolute space.
But if not that space, then what else could you take?
I suggested the following concept:
the observer always takes the own position and assumes, that would not move.
This assumption is wrong, of course.
But what else could you take? ? ?
TH
Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> wrote:
On 2024-07-11 19:58:02 +0000, amirjf nin said:
Approximately 300,000 km/s with respect to what?
Whenever the speec of something is measured it is measured with respect
to someting else. The report should make clear what is the reference that
is considered stationary. Usually it is the instruments used in the
measurement, and usually but not always they are at rest with restpect to
Earth surface at the place of the measurement.
You really need to have a look at what and how is actually measured,
instead of elaborating your own ideas of measurement.
Am Freitag000012, 12.07.2024 um 11:26 schrieb Mikko:
On 2024-07-11 19:58:02 +0000, amirjf nin said:
Approximately 300,000 km/s with respect to what?
Whenever the speec of something is measured it is measured with respect
to someting else. The report should make clear what is the reference that
is considered stationary. Usually it is the instruments used in the
measurement, and usually but not always they are at rest with restpect to
Earth surface at the place of the measurement.
'Stationary' can be understood as 'not moving' and that as 'having
velocity zero'.
But velocity would require a reference point, in respect to which the
object does not move.
But what was actually Einstein's reference, in respect to which
velocity v was measured.
On 2024-07-13 08:08:44 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
Am Freitag000012, 12.07.2024 um 11:26 schrieb Mikko:
On 2024-07-11 19:58:02 +0000, amirjf nin said:
Approximately 300,000 km/s with respect to what?
Whenever the speec of something is measured it is measured with respect
to someting else. The report should make clear what is the reference
that
is considered stationary. Usually it is the instruments used in the
measurement, and usually but not always they are at rest with
restpect to
Earth surface at the place of the measurement.
'Stationary' can be understood as 'not moving' and that as 'having
velocity zero'.
Yes, that is what the word means.
But velocity would require a reference point, in respect to which the
object does not move.
That gives you a revefernce point: the object does not move in respect to itself.
Am Sonntag000014, 14.07.2024 um 12:19 schrieb Mikko:
On 2024-07-13 08:08:44 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
Am Freitag000012, 12.07.2024 um 11:26 schrieb Mikko:
On 2024-07-11 19:58:02 +0000, amirjf nin said:
Approximately 300,000 km/s with respect to what?
Whenever the speec of something is measured it is measured with respect >>>> to someting else. The report should make clear what is the reference that >>>> is considered stationary. Usually it is the instruments used in the
measurement, and usually but not always they are at rest with restpect to >>>> Earth surface at the place of the measurement.
'Stationary' can be understood as 'not moving' and that as 'having
velocity zero'.
Yes, that is what the word means.
But velocity would require a reference point, in respect to which the
object does not move.
That gives you a revefernce point: the object does not move in respect to
itself.
Actually I have used this setting in my 'book' and declared, that all observers regard themselves as non-moving.
On 2024-07-15 06:26:42 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
Am Sonntag000014, 14.07.2024 um 12:19 schrieb Mikko:
On 2024-07-13 08:08:44 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
Am Freitag000012, 12.07.2024 um 11:26 schrieb Mikko:
On 2024-07-11 19:58:02 +0000, amirjf nin said:
Approximately 300,000 km/s with respect to what?
Whenever the speec of something is measured it is measured with
respect
to someting else. The report should make clear what is the
reference that
is considered stationary. Usually it is the instruments used in the
measurement, and usually but not always they are at rest with
restpect to
Earth surface at the place of the measurement.
'Stationary' can be understood as 'not moving' and that as 'having
velocity zero'.
Yes, that is what the word means.
But velocity would require a reference point, in respect to which
the object does not move.
That gives you a revefernce point: the object does not move in
respect to
itself.
Actually I have used this setting in my 'book' and declared, that all
observers regard themselves as non-moving.
That is possible but not always the best idea. In the real world an
observer
often considers oneself as moving and someting else as stationary.
On 2024-07-15 06:26:42 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
Am Sonntag000014, 14.07.2024 um 12:19 schrieb Mikko:
On 2024-07-13 08:08:44 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
Am Freitag000012, 12.07.2024 um 11:26 schrieb Mikko:
On 2024-07-11 19:58:02 +0000, amirjf nin said:
Approximately 300,000 km/s with respect to what?
Whenever the speec of something is measured it is measured with
respect
to someting else. The report should make clear what is the
reference that
is considered stationary. Usually it is the instruments used in the
measurement, and usually but not always they are at rest with
restpect to
Earth surface at the place of the measurement.
'Stationary' can be understood as 'not moving' and that as 'having
velocity zero'.
Yes, that is what the word means.
But velocity would require a reference point, in respect to which
the object does not move.
That gives you a revefernce point: the object does not move in
respect to
itself.
Actually I have used this setting in my 'book' and declared, that all
observers regard themselves as non-moving.
That is possible but not always the best idea. In the real world an
observer
often considers oneself as moving and someting else as stationary. Often
it is better to choose samething inertial for "statinary" when the observer is not inertial.
On 2024-07-12 09:55:27 +0000, J. J. Lodder said:
Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> wrote:
On 2024-07-11 19:58:02 +0000, amirjf nin said:
Approximately 300,000 km/s with respect to what?
Whenever the speec of something is measured it is measured with respect
to someting else. The report should make clear what is the reference that >> is considered stationary. Usually it is the instruments used in the
measurement, and usually but not always they are at rest with restpect to >> Earth surface at the place of the measurement.
You really need to have a look at what and how is actually measured, instead of elaborating your own ideas of measurement.
Yes, that is a correct interpretation of my words. Of course, what and
how is not alwasys the same so you need to look at thar separately for
each measurement.
Am Montag000015, 15.07.2024 um 11:05 schrieb Mikko:
On 2024-07-15 06:26:42 +0000, Thomas Heger said:Sure, but 'non-inertial observers' where not included in SRT.
Am Sonntag000014, 14.07.2024 um 12:19 schrieb Mikko:
On 2024-07-13 08:08:44 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
Am Freitag000012, 12.07.2024 um 11:26 schrieb Mikko:
On 2024-07-11 19:58:02 +0000, amirjf nin said:
Approximately 300,000 km/s with respect to what?
Whenever the speec of something is measured it is measured with respect >>>>>> to someting else. The report should make clear what is the reference that
is considered stationary. Usually it is the instruments used in the >>>>>> measurement, and usually but not always they are at rest with restpect to
Earth surface at the place of the measurement.
'Stationary' can be understood as 'not moving' and that as 'having
velocity zero'.
Yes, that is what the word means.
But velocity would require a reference point, in respect to which the >>>>> object does not move.
That gives you a revefernce point: the object does not move in respect to >>>> itself.
Actually I have used this setting in my 'book' and declared, that all
observers regard themselves as non-moving.
That is possible but not always the best idea. In the real world an observer >> often considers oneself as moving and someting else as stationary. Often
it is better to choose samething inertial for "statinary" when the observer >> is not inertial.
IOW: there is no acceleration in SRT, but only streigth steady movement
in a force free space.
The very word 'acceleration' was used by Einstein in 'On the
electrodynamics of moving bodies' only in connection with the electron
and not in any other relation.
Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> wrote:
On 2024-07-12 09:55:27 +0000, J. J. Lodder said:
Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> wrote:
On 2024-07-11 19:58:02 +0000, amirjf nin said:
Approximately 300,000 km/s with respect to what?
Whenever the speec of something is measured it is measured with respect >>>> to someting else. The report should make clear what is the reference that >>>> is considered stationary. Usually it is the instruments used in the
measurement, and usually but not always they are at rest with restpect to >>>> Earth surface at the place of the measurement.
You really need to have a look at what and how is actually measured,
instead of elaborating your own ideas of measurement.
Yes, that is a correct interpretation of my words. Of course, what and
how is not alwasys the same so you need to look at thar separately for
each measurement.
The first electromagnetic measurement of the 'speed of light',
by Weber and Kohlrausch, didn't involve any velocity at all.
They pointed the way for Maxwell.
Maxwell's equations [1] likewise have a c in them
but no velocity,
Jan
[1] In Heaviside-Lorentz units for example.
On 2024-07-16 07:26:07 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
Am Montag000015, 15.07.2024 um 11:05 schrieb Mikko:
On 2024-07-15 06:26:42 +0000, Thomas Heger said:Sure, but 'non-inertial observers' where not included in SRT.
Am Sonntag000014, 14.07.2024 um 12:19 schrieb Mikko:
On 2024-07-13 08:08:44 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
Am Freitag000012, 12.07.2024 um 11:26 schrieb Mikko:
On 2024-07-11 19:58:02 +0000, amirjf nin said:
Approximately 300,000 km/s with respect to what?
Whenever the speec of something is measured it is measured with
respect
to someting else. The report should make clear what is the
reference that
is considered stationary. Usually it is the instruments used in the >>>>>>> measurement, and usually but not always they are at rest with
restpect to
Earth surface at the place of the measurement.
'Stationary' can be understood as 'not moving' and that as 'having >>>>>> velocity zero'.
Yes, that is what the word means.
But velocity would require a reference point, in respect to which
the object does not move.
That gives you a revefernce point: the object does not move in
respect to
itself.
Actually I have used this setting in my 'book' and declared, that
all observers regard themselves as non-moving.
That is possible but not always the best idea. In the real world an
observer
often considers oneself as moving and someting else as stationary. Often >>> it is better to choose samething inertial for "statinary" when the
observer
is not inertial.
Not intentionally but SRT can be used for calculations of what a
non-inertial
observer would see.
On 2024-07-16 10:58:32 +0000, J. J. Lodder said:
Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> wrote:
On 2024-07-12 09:55:27 +0000, J. J. Lodder said:
Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> wrote:
On 2024-07-11 19:58:02 +0000, amirjf nin said:
Approximately 300,000 km/s with respect to what?
Whenever the speec of something is measured it is measured with respect >>>> to someting else. The report should make clear what is the reference that
is considered stationary. Usually it is the instruments used in the
measurement, and usually but not always they are at rest with restpect to
Earth surface at the place of the measurement.
You really need to have a look at what and how is actually measured,
instead of elaborating your own ideas of measurement.
Yes, that is a correct interpretation of my words. Of course, what and
how is not alwasys the same so you need to look at thar separately for
each measurement.
The first electromagnetic measurement of the 'speed of light',
by Weber and Kohlrausch, didn't involve any velocity at all.
They pointed the way for Maxwell.
Maxwell's equations [1] likewise have a c in them
but no velocity,
Jan
[1] In Heaviside-Lorentz units for example.
One may even regard c as the conversion factor between meters and seoonds just like 25,4 is the conversion factor between metric inches and meters.
On 2024-07-16 07:26:07 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
Am Montag000015, 15.07.2024 um 11:05 schrieb Mikko:
On 2024-07-15 06:26:42 +0000, Thomas Heger said:Sure, but 'non-inertial observers' where not included in SRT.
Am Sonntag000014, 14.07.2024 um 12:19 schrieb Mikko:
On 2024-07-13 08:08:44 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
Am Freitag000012, 12.07.2024 um 11:26 schrieb Mikko:
On 2024-07-11 19:58:02 +0000, amirjf nin said:
Approximately 300,000 km/s with respect to what?
Whenever the speec of something is measured it is measured with
respect
to someting else. The report should make clear what is the
reference that
is considered stationary. Usually it is the instruments used in the >>>>>>> measurement, and usually but not always they are at rest with
restpect to
Earth surface at the place of the measurement.
'Stationary' can be understood as 'not moving' and that as 'having >>>>>> velocity zero'.
Yes, that is what the word means.
But velocity would require a reference point, in respect to which
the object does not move.
That gives you a revefernce point: the object does not move in
respect to
itself.
Actually I have used this setting in my 'book' and declared, that
all observers regard themselves as non-moving.
That is possible but not always the best idea. In the real world an
observer
often considers oneself as moving and someting else as stationary. Often >>> it is better to choose samething inertial for "statinary" when the
observer
is not inertial.
Not intentionally but SRT can be used for calculations of what a
non-inertial
observer would see.
Am Mittwoch000017, 17.07.2024 um 12:27 schrieb Mikko:
On 2024-07-16 07:26:07 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
Am Montag000015, 15.07.2024 um 11:05 schrieb Mikko:
On 2024-07-15 06:26:42 +0000, Thomas Heger said:Sure, but 'non-inertial observers' where not included in SRT.
Am Sonntag000014, 14.07.2024 um 12:19 schrieb Mikko:
On 2024-07-13 08:08:44 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
Am Freitag000012, 12.07.2024 um 11:26 schrieb Mikko:
On 2024-07-11 19:58:02 +0000, amirjf nin said:
Approximately 300,000 km/s with respect to what?
Whenever the speec of something is measured it is measured with respect
to someting else. The report should make clear what is the reference that
is considered stationary. Usually it is the instruments used in the >>>>>>>> measurement, and usually but not always they are at rest with restpect to
Earth surface at the place of the measurement.
'Stationary' can be understood as 'not moving' and that as 'having >>>>>>> velocity zero'.
Yes, that is what the word means.
But velocity would require a reference point, in respect to which the >>>>>>> object does not move.
That gives you a revefernce point: the object does not move in respect to
itself.
Actually I have used this setting in my 'book' and declared, that all >>>>> observers regard themselves as non-moving.
That is possible but not always the best idea. In the real world an observer
often considers oneself as moving and someting else as stationary. Often >>>> it is better to choose samething inertial for "statinary" when the observer
is not inertial.
Not intentionally but SRT can be used for calculations of what a non-inertial
observer would see.
Relativity is actually not a single paper, but a set of different theories.
'SRT' is usually used for Einstein's 'On the electrodynamics of moving bodies'.
And this paper does not deal with accelerated frames of reference.
Relativity is actually not a single paper, but a set of different theories.
'SRT' is usually used for Einstein's 'On the electrodynamics of moving bodies'.
And this paper does not deal with accelerated frames of reference.
If you want to refer to something else, then please write to what paper
you want to refer.
I wrote about Einstein's paper.
This is based on streight lateral motion with constant velocity in a
force free space.
...
[snip idiotic nonsense]
Einstein got it wrong when he said: “Relativity is very complex, but
there are no pitfalls.”
Le 18/07/2024 à 08:20, Thomas Heger a écrit :
Relativity is actually not a single paper, but a set of different
theories.
'SRT' is usually used for Einstein's 'On the electrodynamics of moving
bodies'.
And this paper does not deal with accelerated frames of reference.
If you want to refer to something else, then please write to what
paper you want to refer.
I wrote about Einstein's paper.
This is based on streight lateral motion with constant velocity in a
force free space.
...
I think you are absolutely right: what we call today the theory of
relativity is more a conglomeration of different hypotheses given by different physicists from all backgrounds and all nationalities, that is
to say an edifice built in a fairly polymorphous way.
I had already noticed this forty years ago, and for forty years, I tried
to bring all this together into a compact, logical, global, and very
clear theory to hold whole in the brain of a single man or 'only one
student.
In short, something which holds simply, logically, and in one conceptual piece, from Galilean frames of reference, to uniformly accelerated
frames of reference, including rotating frames of reference.
Very quickly, I realized the magnitude of the task for two reasons:
- the appearance of obvious problems in the formulations of physicists,
even if only to describe a simple Langevin, and the inability even
today, in 2024, incredibly, to describe a coherent relationship even if
only by passing in apparent speeds (what the two observers would see in
their telescope). And I'm not talking about the madness of the masters
in physics if we have to move on to more complicated frames of reference
and the invention of surreal things like that (reverse saddle geometry,
or fanciful integrations of relativistic time, etc...) .
- human madness and the navel-gazing of opponents (there, I don't even
need to explain).
However, we can give a complete and coherent theory using very simple mathematics (no need to calculate an integral).
Special relativity is very simple. Mathematically at high school level
(16-18 years old). What makes it difficult is:
1. the understanding and genesis of the gamma factor by the logical invariance of the speed of light in an anisochronous medium.
2. the reciprocity of relativistic effects by permutation of frames of reference and in particular apparent effects on distances.
3. that if it is true that there is a dilation of times, by the simple
fact of the denominator present in the Poincaré-Lorentz transformations, there is ALSO, by the same denominator a dilation of lengths and
distances ( physicists confusing this general dilation with the
observation of an object passing transversely in the field of vision,
and which actually appears contracted in this position).
Einstein got it wrong when he said: “Relativity is very complex, but
there are no pitfalls.”
The opposite was true: “Relativity is a game for children or high school students, but it’s full of little conceptual traps.”
Once you get rid of the bad concepts, all the equations become
incredibly simple.
And yet more beautiful and truer.
But we have Einstein's paper and Einstein himself.
He got almost deified, even if his paper is full of errors.
To me this seems to be intentional and to the disadvantage of mankind.
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing
Einstein got it wrong when he said: “Relativity is very complex, but
there are no pitfalls.”
This is a plain lie. Einstein never said nor wrote that.
student.
We have several other contributers like Poincare, Lorentz and cerainly a
lot of others.
But we have Einstein's paper and Einstein himself.
He got almost deified, even if his paper is full of errors.
To me this seems to be intentional and to the disadvantage of mankind.
Le 19/07/2024 à 12:22, Thomas Heger a écrit :
student.
We have several other contributers like Poincare, Lorentz and cerainly
a lot of others.
But we have Einstein's paper and Einstein himself.
He got almost deified, even if his paper is full of errors.
To me this seems to be intentional and to the disadvantage of mankind.
Yes, this seems to be intentional.
Il fallait déifier Einstein pour enfoncer Poincaré.
[snip irrelevancies]You are mentally sick Richard.
Le 19/07/2024 à 14:39, M.D. Richard "Hachel" Lengrand a écrit :
Le 19/07/2024 à 12:22, Thomas Heger a écrit :
student.
We have several other contributers like Poincare, Lorentz and
cerainly a lot of others.
But we have Einstein's paper and Einstein himself.
He got almost deified, even if his paper is full of errors.
To me this seems to be intentional and to the disadvantage of mankind.
Yes, this seems to be intentional.
Il fallait déifier Einstein pour enfoncer Poincaré.
This is utterly stupid. Poincaré praised Einstein work, and he would
have loved GR.
W dniu 19.07.2024 o 14:46, Python pisze:
Le 19/07/2024 à 14:39, M.D. Richard "Hachel" Lengrand a écrit :
Le 19/07/2024 à 12:22, Thomas Heger a écrit :
student.
We have several other contributers like Poincare, Lorentz and
cerainly a lot of others.
But we have Einstein's paper and Einstein himself.
He got almost deified, even if his paper is full of errors.
To me this seems to be intentional and to the disadvantage of mankind.
Yes, this seems to be intentional.
Il fallait déifier Einstein pour enfoncer Poincaré.
This is utterly stupid. Poincaré praised Einstein work, and he would
have loved GR.
Bullshit. Poincare was a quite smart guy and
he has written directly what he would think about
rejecting basic [Euclidean] math - done by your
idiot guru some years after his death.
Le 19/07/2024 à 15:02, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 19.07.2024 o 14:46, Python pisze:
Le 19/07/2024 à 14:39, M.D. Richard "Hachel" Lengrand a écrit :
Le 19/07/2024 à 12:22, Thomas Heger a écrit :
Yes, this seems to be intentional.student.
We have several other contributers like Poincare, Lorentz and
cerainly a lot of others.
But we have Einstein's paper and Einstein himself.
He got almost deified, even if his paper is full of errors.
To me this seems to be intentional and to the disadvantage of mankind. >>>>
Il fallait déifier Einstein pour enfoncer Poincaré.
This is utterly stupid. Poincaré praised Einstein work, and he would
have loved GR.
Bullshit. Poincare was a quite smart guy and
he has written directly what he would think about
rejecting basic [Euclidean] math - done by your
idiot guru some years after his death.
Poincaré published a lot of work on Hyperbolic Geometry.
You are as ignorant as stupid, Wozniak.
Le 19/07/2024 à 15:02, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
You are as ignorant as stupid, Wozniak.
Le 19/07/2024 à 12:22, Thomas Heger a écrit :
student.
We have several other contributers like Poincare, Lorentz and cerainly
a lot of others.
But we have Einstein's paper and Einstein himself.
He got almost deified, even if his paper is full of errors.
To me this seems to be intentional and to the disadvantage of mankind.
Yes, this seems to be intentional.
Il fallait déifier Einstein pour enfoncer Poincaré.
Am Freitag000019, 19.07.2024 um 14:39 schrieb Richard Hachel:
But for what reasons would any system take such an amount of efforts? ? ?
Am Freitag000019, 19.07.2024 um 14:39 schrieb Richard Hachel:
Le 19/07/2024 à 12:22, Thomas Heger a écrit :
student.
We have several other contributers like Poincare, Lorentz and
cerainly a lot of others.
But we have Einstein's paper and Einstein himself.
He got almost deified, even if his paper is full of errors.
To me this seems to be intentional and to the disadvantage of mankind.
Yes, this seems to be intentional.
Il fallait déifier Einstein pour enfoncer Poincaré.
What if this WAS actually intentional?
Who were the people behind this??
It must be an immense system, with tremendous wealth and power.
This is so because to make Einstein that popular would require a lot of
power and control of several different media.
The number of errors in einstein's paper is also extremely large, hence
that 'system' would need permanent control over large parts of science.
Also a mechanism for sanctions against dissidents would be useful.
But for what reasons would any system take such an amount of efforts???
Certainly something not very beneficial, because otherwise we would be
told about it.
Le 20/07/2024 à 08:25, Thomas Heger a écrit :
Am Freitag000019, 19.07.2024 um 14:39 schrieb Richard Hachel:
But for what reasons would any system take such an amount of efforts? ? ?
It's a good question.
What we can say is that between the Annexation of Alsace and Moselle by Germany (1871), and until 1945, relations between Germany and France
were not looking good. It was an almost permanent military or
psychological war (three clashes) with global repercussions. Extreme
powers were at stake. Diesel, the German inventor of the engine of the
same name, was found floating in the Channel in 1913, probably
eliminated by the English.
It is not normal that today, Albert Einstein has such great popularity
(the SR is not him, but the French; the RG, it is Grossmann and
Hilbert), the atomic bomb, he (he only knew Pouic, it was Oppenhaimer).
This is obviously voluntary.
Question: Who? For what? Which great power had an interest and still has
an interest in promoting Einstein (a useful idiot) rather than Poincaré
(the greatest mathematician in history, and the only one to have been
able to master the entirety of three sciences, mathematics, philosophy, physics) ?
It's a good question.
Note that part of the answer consists of:
- Albert Eisntein was naturalized American.
- In his political will, François Mitterrand will say:
“France does not know it, but we are at war with America, a merciless
war, apparently without death, but a war to the death.”
François Mitterrand led France for 14 years, and he had the nuclear
code. When a man like that says things like that, we should at least
open an investigation.
Nobody ever talks about it.
As we never talk about who blew up the Nordstream which supplied France
and Germany with quality gas.
Hence, in part, the fall of the current European economy.
Who was annoyed that Europe bought gas from the Russians?
There are things you shouldn't talk about.
Le 20/07/2024 à 08:25, Thomas Heger a écrit :
Am Freitag000019, 19.07.2024 um 14:39 schrieb Richard Hachel:
Le 19/07/2024 à 12:22, Thomas Heger a écrit :
student.
We have several other contributers like Poincare, Lorentz and
cerainly a lot of others.
But we have Einstein's paper and Einstein himself.
He got almost deified, even if his paper is full of errors.
To me this seems to be intentional and to the disadvantage of mankind.
Yes, this seems to be intentional.
Il fallait déifier Einstein pour enfoncer Poincaré.
What if this WAS actually intentional?
Who were the people behind this??
It must be an immense system, with tremendous wealth and power.
This is so because to make Einstein that popular would require a lot
of power and control of several different media.
The number of errors in einstein's paper is also extremely large,
hence that 'system' would need permanent control over large parts of
science.
Also a mechanism for sanctions against dissidents would be useful.
But for what reasons would any system take such an amount of efforts???
Certainly something not very beneficial, because otherwise we would be
told about it.
Even as fond you are to pathetically stupid "theories" (growing Earth,
Hitler is a British spy, etc.)
Le 20/07/2024 à 08:25, Thomas Heger a écrit :
Am Freitag000019, 19.07.2024 um 14:39 schrieb Richard Hachel:
But for what reasons would any system take such an amount of efforts? ? ?
It's a good question.
What we can say is that between the Annexation of Alsace and Moselle by Germany (1871), and until 1945, relations between Germany and France
were not looking good. It was an almost permanent military or
psychological war (three clashes) with global repercussions. Extreme
powers were at stake. Diesel, the German inventor of the engine of the
same name, was found floating in the Channel in 1913, probably
eliminated by the English.
It is not normal that today, Albert Einstein has such great popularity
(the SR is not him, but the French; the RG, it is Grossmann and
Hilbert), the atomic bomb, he (he only knew Pouic, it was Oppenhaimer).
This is obviously voluntary.
Question: Who? For what? Which great power had an interest and still has
an interest in promoting Einstein (a useful idiot) rather than Poincaré
(the greatest mathematician in history, and the only one to have been
able to master the entirety of three sciences, mathematics, philosophy, physics) ?
It's a good question.
The number of errors in einstein's paper is also extremely large,
hence that 'system' would need permanent control over large parts of
science.
Also a mechanism for sanctions against dissidents would be useful.
But for what reasons would any system take such an amount of efforts???
Certainly something not very beneficial, because otherwise we would be
told about it.
Even as fond you are to pathetically stupid "theories" (growing Earth,
Hitler is a British spy, etc.) you seem to realize, somewhat, how
stupid your claims are?
There is a far simpler way to explain everything
- There are no significant mistakes in Einstein's article
It is not normal that today, Albert Einstein has such great popularity
(the SR is not him, but the French; the RG, it is Grossmann and
Hilbert), the atomic bomb, he (he only knew Pouic, it was
Oppenhaimer). This is obviously voluntary.
Question: Who? For what? Which great power had an interest and still
has an interest in promoting Einstein (a useful idiot) rather than
Poincaré (the greatest mathematician in history, and the only one to
have been able to master the entirety of three sciences, mathematics,
philosophy, physics) ?
It's a good question.
Note that part of the answer consists of:
- Albert Eisntein was naturalized American.
- In his political will, François Mitterrand will say:
“France does not know it, but we are at war with America, a merciless
war, apparently without death, but a war to the death.”
François Mitterrand led France for 14 years, and he had the nuclear
code. When a man like that says things like that, we should at least
open an investigation.
Nobody ever talks about it.
As we never talk about who blew up the Nordstream which supplied
France and Germany with quality gas.
Hence, in part, the fall of the current European economy.
Who was annoyed that Europe bought gas from the Russians?
There are things you shouldn't talk about.
This is quite (pathetically) funny to read such demented people (Richard
& Thomas) confronting their "views".
Richard: according to Thomas Einstein is not really *German*, (blink
blink) if you see what I mean (blink blink)... It is obvious when you
read his posts. Of course he cannot express as clearly as he wanted
his opinion because there are some laws about that in Germany.
Am Samstag000020, 20.07.2024 um 16:12 schrieb Python:
...
It is not normal that today, Albert Einstein has such great
popularity (the SR is not him, but the French; the RG, it is
Grossmann and Hilbert), the atomic bomb, he (he only knew Pouic, it
was Oppenhaimer). This is obviously voluntary.
Question: Who? For what? Which great power had an interest and still
has an interest in promoting Einstein (a useful idiot) rather than
Poincaré (the greatest mathematician in history, and the only one to
have been able to master the entirety of three sciences, mathematics,
philosophy, physics) ?
It's a good question.
Note that part of the answer consists of:
- Albert Eisntein was naturalized American.
- In his political will, François Mitterrand will say:
“France does not know it, but we are at war with America, a merciless
war, apparently without death, but a war to the death.”
François Mitterrand led France for 14 years, and he had the nuclear
code. When a man like that says things like that, we should at least
open an investigation.
Nobody ever talks about it.
As we never talk about who blew up the Nordstream which supplied
France and Germany with quality gas.
Hence, in part, the fall of the current European economy.
Who was annoyed that Europe bought gas from the Russians?
There are things you shouldn't talk about.
This is quite (pathetically) funny to read such demented people (Richard
& Thomas) confronting their "views".
Richard: according to Thomas Einstein is not really *German*, (blink
blink) if you see what I mean (blink blink)... It is obvious when you
read his posts. Of course he cannot express as clearly as he wanted
his opinion because there are some laws about that in Germany.
My assumption was, that Einstein's CV was seemingly impossible and a
more possible explanation would be, that Einstein was a Swiss citizen
from birth and his CV a fake.
Am Samstag000020, 20.07.2024 um 16:08 schrieb Python:
...
The number of errors in einstein's paper is also extremely large,
hence that 'system' would need permanent control over large parts of
science.
Also a mechanism for sanctions against dissidents would be useful.
But for what reasons would any system take such an amount of efforts???
Certainly something not very beneficial, because otherwise we would
be told about it.
Even as fond you are to pathetically stupid "theories" (growing Earth,
Hitler is a British spy, etc.) you seem to realize, somewhat, how
stupid your claims are?
There is a far simpler way to explain everything
- There are no significant mistakes in Einstein's article
This is actually a counterfactual 'sanction'!
You didn't even mention my 'annotated version of SRT' and the 400+
errors I have found in Einstein's paper.
Here it is:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RkhX-B5u7X4ga0QH-C53RddjQGctZVdo/view
If you think, that I made 400+ errors myself, than please show at least
a single one.
Le 21/07/2024 à 09:03, Thomas Heger a écrit :
Am Samstag000020, 20.07.2024 um 16:08 schrieb Python:
...
The number of errors in einstein's paper is also extremely large,
hence that 'system' would need permanent control over large parts of
science.
Also a mechanism for sanctions against dissidents would be useful.
But for what reasons would any system take such an amount of efforts??? >>>>
Certainly something not very beneficial, because otherwise we would
be told about it.
Even as fond you are to pathetically stupid "theories" (growing Earth,
Hitler is a British spy, etc.) you seem to realize, somewhat, how
stupid your claims are?
There is a far simpler way to explain everything
- There are no significant mistakes in Einstein's article
This is actually a counterfactual 'sanction'!
You didn't even mention my 'annotated version of SRT' and the 400+
errors I have found in Einstein's paper.
Here it is:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RkhX-B5u7X4ga0QH-C53RddjQGctZVdo/view
If you think, that I made 400+ errors myself, than please show at
least a single one.
Come on, Thomas. A lot of yours claims there has been extensively
debunked here, by me and others.
I have a proposal:
when Nicola Tesla died, he was actually pennyless, even if he had
invented a lot and held more than seven hundred patents.
So: why was he so poor?
The idea is a little far fetched and would include certain rumors, which state that a 'deep state' would exist, which is thirty years
technologically in advance.
This matched other rumors, e.g. that other inventions were also stolen
or patents declared of interest for the national security.
Now lets assume, that such a 'deep state' would actually exist and is located in fact somewhere deep down and has all these patents, but does
not like to pay something for the inventors.
Then this 'deep state' would be thirty years in advance in terms of technology, because patents protect the inventions that long.
After thirty years the patents are released, but not very beneficial
anymore for the inventors, because they protect only for thirty years.
Now you need 'spies' in the patent offices, which warn the deep state
about new developments and to reject unwanted inventions.
Such agents need rewards, especially if the inventions are important.
And one among the eligable rewards is fame.
The death of Diesel could be squezed into the same theory, too, by
assuming, that energy in general and petrol especially is in the
interest of the 'deep state' and efficient motors were regarded as
dangerous. And threads or heritics have to be 'removed'.
TH
Le 21/07/2024 à 09:03, Thomas Heger a écrit :
Am Samstag000020, 20.07.2024 um 16:08 schrieb Python:
...
The number of errors in einstein's paper is also extremely large,
hence that 'system' would need permanent control over large parts of
science.
Also a mechanism for sanctions against dissidents would be useful.
But for what reasons would any system take such an amount of efforts??? >>>>
Certainly something not very beneficial, because otherwise we would
be told about it.
Even as fond you are to pathetically stupid "theories" (growing Earth,
Hitler is a British spy, etc.) you seem to realize, somewhat, how
stupid your claims are?
There is a far simpler way to explain everything
- There are no significant mistakes in Einstein's article
This is actually a counterfactual 'sanction'!
You didn't even mention my 'annotated version of SRT' and the 400+
errors I have found in Einstein's paper.
Here it is:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RkhX-B5u7X4ga0QH-C53RddjQGctZVdo/view
If you think, that I made 400+ errors myself, than please show at
least a single one.
Come on, Thomas. A lot of yours claims there has been extensively
debunked here, by me and others.
That you are such a demented stubborn imbecile who refuses to admit it
does not change anything.
Le 21/07/2024 à 09:26, Thomas Heger a écrit :
Am Samstag000020, 20.07.2024 um 16:12 schrieb Python:
...
It is not normal that today, Albert Einstein has such great
popularity (the SR is not him, but the French; the RG, it is
Grossmann and Hilbert), the atomic bomb, he (he only knew Pouic, it
was Oppenhaimer). This is obviously voluntary.
Question: Who? For what? Which great power had an interest and still
has an interest in promoting Einstein (a useful idiot) rather than
Poincaré (the greatest mathematician in history, and the only one to
have been able to master the entirety of three sciences,
mathematics, philosophy, physics) ?
It's a good question.
Note that part of the answer consists of:
- Albert Eisntein was naturalized American.
- In his political will, François Mitterrand will say:
“France does not know it, but we are at war with America, a
merciless war, apparently without death, but a war to the death.”
François Mitterrand led France for 14 years, and he had the nuclear
code. When a man like that says things like that, we should at least
open an investigation.
Nobody ever talks about it.
As we never talk about who blew up the Nordstream which supplied
France and Germany with quality gas.
Hence, in part, the fall of the current European economy.
Who was annoyed that Europe bought gas from the Russians?
There are things you shouldn't talk about.
This is quite (pathetically) funny to read such demented people (Richard >>> & Thomas) confronting their "views".
Richard: according to Thomas Einstein is not really *German*, (blink
blink) if you see what I mean (blink blink)... It is obvious when you
read his posts. Of course he cannot express as clearly as he wanted
his opinion because there are some laws about that in Germany.
My assumption was, that Einstein's CV was seemingly impossible and a
more possible explanation would be, that Einstein was a Swiss citizen
from birth and his CV a fake.
Thomas you know perfectly well that it's not about this other silly
theories of yours... This is about what you think and cannot write
here because it would bring you to court in Germany.
W dniu 21.07.2024 o 12:40, Python pisze:
Le 21/07/2024 à 09:03, Thomas Heger a écrit :
Am Samstag000020, 20.07.2024 um 16:08 schrieb Python:
...
The number of errors in einstein's paper is also extremely large,
hence that 'system' would need permanent control over large parts
of science.
Also a mechanism for sanctions against dissidents would be useful.
But for what reasons would any system take such an amount of
efforts???
Certainly something not very beneficial, because otherwise we would
be told about it.
Even as fond you are to pathetically stupid "theories" (growing Earth, >>>> Hitler is a British spy, etc.) you seem to realize, somewhat, how
stupid your claims are?
There is a far simpler way to explain everything
- There are no significant mistakes in Einstein's article
This is actually a counterfactual 'sanction'!
You didn't even mention my 'annotated version of SRT' and the 400+
errors I have found in Einstein's paper.
Here it is:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RkhX-B5u7X4ga0QH-C53RddjQGctZVdo/view
If you think, that I made 400+ errors myself, than please show at
least a single one.
Come on, Thomas. A lot of yours claims there has been extensively
debunked here, by me and others.
Whatever you say - Poincare had enough wit
to understand how idiotic rejecting Euclid
would be, and he has written it clearly
enough for anyone able to read (even if not
clearly enough for you, poor stinker).
Le 21/07/2024 à 08:42, Thomas Heger a écrit :
I have a proposal:
when Nicola Tesla died, he was actually pennyless, even if he had
invented a lot and held more than seven hundred patents.
So: why was he so poor?
The idea is a little far fetched and would include certain rumors,
which state that a 'deep state' would exist, which is thirty years
technologically in advance.
This matched other rumors, e.g. that other inventions were also stolen
or patents declared of interest for the national security.
Now lets assume, that such a 'deep state' would actually exist and is
located in fact somewhere deep down and has all these patents, but
does not like to pay something for the inventors.
Then this 'deep state' would be thirty years in advance in terms of
technology, because patents protect the inventions that long.
After thirty years the patents are released, but not very beneficial
anymore for the inventors, because they protect only for thirty years.
Now you need 'spies' in the patent offices, which warn the deep state
about new developments and to reject unwanted inventions.
Such agents need rewards, especially if the inventions are important.
And one among the eligable rewards is fame.
The death of Diesel could be squezed into the same theory, too, by
assuming, that energy in general and petrol especially is in the
interest of the 'deep state' and efficient motors were regarded as
dangerous. And threads or heritics have to be 'removed'.
TH
Politics is a profession.
There is a caste of individuals who live in opulence and never work.
They are content to pay the judges, the deputies who make the laws, etc...
They live as the Pharaoh lived, through the sweat of the people.
But the great miracle is not there, the great miracle is that the people themselves largely agree.
If an opponent stands up and makes a remark about the fact that it is
not normal to pay rights of way on the highways (racket worthy of the
time of the Lords), he is immediately singled out by the people
themselves , and denounced.
It's even worse than you think, a human society.
This also exists in science, and I think that the Einstein-Poincaré
example is also a good example: the guy who tells the truth, that is to
say that Poincaré's brain was worth ten Einsteins, he gets threatened
on usenet.
Don't laugh friends, it's true.
It's simply incredible.
“1984”, “Brave New World”, it’s no longer really fiction.
Am Sonntag000021, 21.07.2024 um 13:36 schrieb Maciej Wozniak:
W dniu 21.07.2024 o 12:40, Python pisze:
Le 21/07/2024 à 09:03, Thomas Heger a écrit :
Am Samstag000020, 20.07.2024 um 16:08 schrieb Python:
...
The number of errors in einstein's paper is also extremely large, hence >>>>>> that 'system' would need permanent control over large parts of science. >>>>>>
Also a mechanism for sanctions against dissidents would be useful. >>>>>>
But for what reasons would any system take such an amount of efforts??? >>>>>>
Certainly something not very beneficial, because otherwise we would be >>>>>> told about it.
Even as fond you are to pathetically stupid "theories" (growing Earth, >>>>> Hitler is a British spy, etc.) you seem to realize, somewhat, how
stupid your claims are?
There is a far simpler way to explain everything
- There are no significant mistakes in Einstein's article
This is actually a counterfactual 'sanction'!
You didn't even mention my 'annotated version of SRT' and the 400+
errors I have found in Einstein's paper.
Here it is:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RkhX-B5u7X4ga0QH-C53RddjQGctZVdo/view >>>>
If you think, that I made 400+ errors myself, than please show at least >>>> a single one.
Come on, Thomas. A lot of yours claims there has been extensively
debunked here, by me and others.
Whatever you say - Poincare had enough wit
to understand how idiotic rejecting Euclid
would be, and he has written it clearly
enough for anyone able to read (even if not
clearly enough for you, poor stinker).
Poincare was a mathematician and a very good one.
He wandered into physics, because he was dealing with the Lorentz transformation and with Maxwells equations.
Am Sonntag000021, 21.07.2024 um 13:36 schrieb Maciej Wozniak:
W dniu 21.07.2024 o 12:40, Python pisze:
Le 21/07/2024 à 09:03, Thomas Heger a écrit :
Am Samstag000020, 20.07.2024 um 16:08 schrieb Python:
...
The number of errors in einstein's paper is also extremely large,
hence that 'system' would need permanent control over large parts
of science.
Also a mechanism for sanctions against dissidents would be useful. >>>>>>
But for what reasons would any system take such an amount of
efforts???
Certainly something not very beneficial, because otherwise we
would be told about it.
Even as fond you are to pathetically stupid "theories" (growing Earth, >>>>> Hitler is a British spy, etc.) you seem to realize, somewhat, how
stupid your claims are?
There is a far simpler way to explain everything
- There are no significant mistakes in Einstein's article
This is actually a counterfactual 'sanction'!
You didn't even mention my 'annotated version of SRT' and the 400+
errors I have found in Einstein's paper.
Here it is:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RkhX-B5u7X4ga0QH-C53RddjQGctZVdo/view >>>>
If you think, that I made 400+ errors myself, than please show at
least a single one.
Come on, Thomas. A lot of yours claims there has been extensively
debunked here, by me and others.
Whatever you say - Poincare had enough wit
to understand how idiotic rejecting Euclid
would be, and he has written it clearly
enough for anyone able to read (even if not
clearly enough for you, poor stinker).
Poincare was a mathematician and a very good one.
He wandered into physics, because he was dealing with the Lorentz transformation and with Maxwells equations.
He came to the conclusion, that Lorentz made some errors (which he was
able to correct) and that time should be treated as local time only.
Poincare was a mathematician and a very good one.
He wandered into physics,
What? ? ?
In Germany we have a constitutional civil right which is called 'freedom
of science'.
As my critique of Einstein's text is strictly scientific, it should be covered by our constitution.
My guesses about the person Einstein are protected by another
constitutional right, which is called' freedom of expression'.
Partially this critique is also meant as scientific, because history is actually a science.
Btw: what if Einstein was really a disinformation agent? ? ?
Wouldn't that be interesting in this forum, which is named after his invention?
Therefore, some speculations should be allowed. Einstein himself
shouldn't care, because he's dead now for almost 70 years.
Well, I'm afraid your correct.
But what can we do?
My proposal: we need to change the future!
This is actually very easy and goes like this:
if 'bad guys' have time-machines, we could make the use of them really dangerous by very simple means:
Simmply use (occasionally) a coin to decide what you do.
think about two possible activities, which are both equally good for
you. Then flip a coin and do, which action you had assigned to either
side of the coin and which side comes up.
This is simple, but would alter the future, hence make all predictions
about the future worthless.
This is actually good for 'good guys' because those have no time
machines and are therefore not threatend by 'future manipulation'.
But 'bad guys' apparently use 'time-travel', what is a VERY powerful weapon.
You and everybodey else could make that a little more adventurous, if
you decide to make thinks only better and nicer that necessary and if
you bring an element of unpredictability into the world, which is based
on flipping a coin.
On 2024-07-22 05:33:26 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
And the practical problem of synchronization of clocks at diffrent locations.
My proposal: we need to change the future!
This is actually very easy and goes like this:
if 'bad guys' have time-machines, we could make the use of them really
dangerous by very simple means:
Simmply use (occasionally) a coin to decide what you do.
think about two possible activities, which are both equally good for
you. Then flip a coin and do, which action you had assigned to either
side of the coin and which side comes up.
This is simple, but would alter the future, hence make all predictions
about the future worthless.
This is actually good for 'good guys' because those have no time
machines and are therefore not threatend by 'future manipulation'.
But 'bad guys' apparently use 'time-travel', what is a VERY powerful
weapon.
You and everybodey else could make that a little more adventurous, if
you decide to make thinks only better and nicer that necessary and if
you bring an element of unpredictability into the world, which is
based on flipping a coin.
There's not much we can do.
It is much easier to destroy than to build, which is why generally, as
the Bible says: “The wicked gets fat, and the poor wastes.”
Whatever you say - Poincare had enough wit
to understand how idiotic rejecting Euclid
would be, and he has written it clearly
enough for anyone able to read (even if not
clearly enough for you, poor stinker).
Poincare was a mathematician and a very good one.
He wandered into physics, because he was dealing with the Lorentz
transformation and with Maxwells equations.
And the practical problem of synchronization of clocks at diffrent
locations.
Le 22/07/2024 à 07:33, Thomas Heger a écrit :
Poincare was a mathematician and a very good one.
He wandered into physics,
I find you very harsh.
The Poincaré equations in relativistic physics are magnificent.
They are true, they are beautiful, they are coherent.
Einstein, next door, is Laurel and Hardy.
On 2024-07-22 05:33:26 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
Am Sonntag000021, 21.07.2024 um 13:36 schrieb Maciej Wozniak:
W dniu 21.07.2024 o 12:40, Python pisze:
Le 21/07/2024 � 09:03, Thomas Heger a �crit :
Am Samstag000020, 20.07.2024 um 16:08 schrieb Python:
...
The number of errors in einstein's paper is also extremely large, hence
that 'system' would need permanent control over large parts of science.
Also a mechanism for sanctions against dissidents would be useful. >>>>>>
But for what reasons would any system take such an amount of efforts???
Certainly something not very beneficial, because otherwise we would be >>>>>> told about it.
Even as fond you are to pathetically stupid "theories" (growing Earth, >>>>> Hitler is a British spy, etc.) you seem to realize, somewhat, how
stupid your claims are?
There is a far simpler way to explain everything
- There are no significant mistakes in Einstein's article
This is actually a counterfactual 'sanction'!
You didn't even mention my 'annotated version of SRT' and the 400+
errors I have found in Einstein's paper.
Here it is:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RkhX-B5u7X4ga0QH-C53RddjQGctZVdo/view >>>>
If you think, that I made 400+ errors myself, than please show at least >>>> a single one.
Come on, Thomas. A lot of yours claims there has been extensively
debunked here, by me and others.
Whatever you say - Poincare had enough wit
to understand how idiotic rejecting Euclid
would be, and he has written it clearly
enough for anyone able to read (even if not
clearly enough for you, poor stinker).
Poincare was a mathematician and a very good one.
He wandered into physics, because he was dealing with the Lorentz transformation and with Maxwells equations.
And the practical problem of synchronization of clocks at diffrent locations.
Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> wrote:
On 2024-07-22 05:33:26 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
Am Sonntag000021, 21.07.2024 um 13:36 schrieb Maciej Wozniak:
W dniu 21.07.2024 o 12:40, Python pisze:
Le 21/07/2024 à 09:03, Thomas Heger a écrit :
Am Samstag000020, 20.07.2024 um 16:08 schrieb Python:
...
The number of errors in einstein's paper is also extremely large, hence
that 'system' would need permanent control over large parts of science.
Also a mechanism for sanctions against dissidents would be useful. >>>>>>>>
But for what reasons would any system take such an amount of efforts???
Certainly something not very beneficial, because otherwise we would be >>>>>>>> told about it.
Even as fond you are to pathetically stupid "theories" (growing Earth, >>>>>>> Hitler is a British spy, etc.) you seem to realize, somewhat, how >>>>>>> stupid your claims are?
There is a far simpler way to explain everything
- There are no significant mistakes in Einstein's article
This is actually a counterfactual 'sanction'!
You didn't even mention my 'annotated version of SRT' and the 400+ >>>>>> errors I have found in Einstein's paper.
Here it is:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RkhX-B5u7X4ga0QH-C53RddjQGctZVdo/view >>>>>>
If you think, that I made 400+ errors myself, than please show at least >>>>>> a single one.
Come on, Thomas. A lot of yours claims there has been extensively
debunked here, by me and others.
Whatever you say - Poincare had enough wit
to understand how idiotic rejecting Euclid
would be, and he has written it clearly
enough for anyone able to read (even if not
clearly enough for you, poor stinker).
Poincare was a mathematician and a very good one.
He wandered into physics, because he was dealing with the Lorentz
transformation and with Maxwells equations.
So you got that wrong too. (can't you ever get anything right?)
Poincaré, like Einstein, was an engineer by training.
(Ecole Polytechnique, Ecole des Mines)
He also worked as an engineer for much of his life,
in mining, beside his work as a mathematician.
He wandered into mathematics from there, not the other way round.
He was first of all a thoroughly practical man, just like Einstein.
Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> wrote:
On 2024-07-22 05:33:26 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
Am Sonntag000021, 21.07.2024 um 13:36 schrieb Maciej Wozniak:
W dniu 21.07.2024 o 12:40, Python pisze:
Le 21/07/2024 à 09:03, Thomas Heger a écrit :
Am Samstag000020, 20.07.2024 um 16:08 schrieb Python:
...
The number of errors in einstein's paper is also extremely large, hence
that 'system' would need permanent control over large parts of science.
Also a mechanism for sanctions against dissidents would be useful. >>>>>>>>
But for what reasons would any system take such an amount of efforts???
Certainly something not very beneficial, because otherwise we would be >>>>>>>> told about it.
Even as fond you are to pathetically stupid "theories" (growing Earth, >>>>>>> Hitler is a British spy, etc.) you seem to realize, somewhat, how >>>>>>> stupid your claims are?
There is a far simpler way to explain everything
- There are no significant mistakes in Einstein's article
This is actually a counterfactual 'sanction'!
You didn't even mention my 'annotated version of SRT' and the 400+ >>>>>> errors I have found in Einstein's paper.
Here it is:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RkhX-B5u7X4ga0QH-C53RddjQGctZVdo/view >>>>>>
If you think, that I made 400+ errors myself, than please show at least >>>>>> a single one.
Come on, Thomas. A lot of yours claims there has been extensively
debunked here, by me and others.
Whatever you say - Poincare had enough wit
to understand how idiotic rejecting Euclid
would be, and he has written it clearly
enough for anyone able to read (even if not
clearly enough for you, poor stinker).
Poincare was a mathematician and a very good one.
He wandered into physics, because he was dealing with the Lorentz
transformation and with Maxwells equations.
So you got that wrong too. (can't you ever get anything right?)
Poincaré, like Einstein, was an engineer by training.
Am Dienstag000023, 23.07.2024 um 09:33 schrieb J. J. Lodder:
Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> wrote:
On 2024-07-22 05:33:26 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
Am Sonntag000021, 21.07.2024 um 13:36 schrieb Maciej Wozniak:
W dniu 21.07.2024 o 12:40, Python pisze:
Le 21/07/2024 � 09:03, Thomas Heger a �crit :
Am Samstag000020, 20.07.2024 um 16:08 schrieb Python:
...
The number of errors in einstein's paper is also extremely large, >>>>>>>> hence that 'system' would need permanent control over large parts >>>>>>>> of science.
Also a mechanism for sanctions against dissidents would be >>>>>>>>useful.
But for what reasons would any system take such an amount of >>>>>>>>efforts???
Certainly something not very beneficial, because otherwise we >>>>>>>> would be told about it.
Even as fond you are to pathetically stupid "theories" (growing >>>>>>> Earth, Hitler is a British spy, etc.) you seem to realize,
somewhat, how stupid your claims are?
There is a far simpler way to explain everything
- There are no significant mistakes in Einstein's article
This is actually a counterfactual 'sanction'!
You didn't even mention my 'annotated version of SRT' and the 400+ >>>>>> errors I have found in Einstein's paper.
Here it is:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RkhX-B5u7X4ga0QH-C53RddjQGctZVdo/view >>>>>>
If you think, that I made 400+ errors myself, than please show at least
a single one.
Come on, Thomas. A lot of yours claims there has been extensively
debunked here, by me and others.
Whatever you say - Poincare had enough wit
to understand how idiotic rejecting Euclid
would be, and he has written it clearly
enough for anyone able to read (even if not
clearly enough for you, poor stinker).
Poincare was a mathematician and a very good one.
He wandered into physics, because he was dealing with the Lorentz
transformation and with Maxwells equations.
So you got that wrong too. (can't you ever get anything right?)
Poincar�, like Einstein, was an engineer by training.
Einstein was actually teacher from training.
That Poincar� was an engineer was new for me.
Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
Am Dienstag000023, 23.07.2024 um 09:33 schrieb J. J. Lodder:
Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> wrote:
On 2024-07-22 05:33:26 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
Am Sonntag000021, 21.07.2024 um 13:36 schrieb Maciej Wozniak:
W dniu 21.07.2024 o 12:40, Python pisze:
Le 21/07/2024 à 09:03, Thomas Heger a écrit :
Am Samstag000020, 20.07.2024 um 16:08 schrieb Python:
...
The number of errors in einstein's paper is also extremely large, >>>>>>>>>> hence that 'system' would need permanent control over large parts >>>>>>>>>> of science.
Also a mechanism for sanctions against dissidents would be >>>>>>>>>> useful.
But for what reasons would any system take such an amount of >>>>>>>>>> efforts???
Certainly something not very beneficial, because otherwise we >>>>>>>>>> would be told about it.
Even as fond you are to pathetically stupid "theories" (growing >>>>>>>>> Earth, Hitler is a British spy, etc.) you seem to realize,
somewhat, how stupid your claims are?
There is a far simpler way to explain everything
- There are no significant mistakes in Einstein's article
This is actually a counterfactual 'sanction'!
You didn't even mention my 'annotated version of SRT' and the 400+ >>>>>>>> errors I have found in Einstein's paper.
Here it is:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RkhX-B5u7X4ga0QH-C53RddjQGctZVdo/view >>>>>>>>
If you think, that I made 400+ errors myself, than please show at least
a single one.
Come on, Thomas. A lot of yours claims there has been extensively >>>>>>> debunked here, by me and others.
Whatever you say - Poincare had enough wit
to understand how idiotic rejecting Euclid
would be, and he has written it clearly
enough for anyone able to read (even if not
clearly enough for you, poor stinker).
Poincare was a mathematician and a very good one.
He wandered into physics, because he was dealing with the Lorentz
transformation and with Maxwells equations.
So you got that wrong too. (can't you ever get anything right?)
Poincaré, like Einstein, was an engineer by training.
Einstein was actually teacher from training.
More nonsense.
Einstein graduated from the ETH Zurich as an engineer, period,
just like any other engineer.
They didn't have 'teaching only' degrees. [1]
What is true is that Einstein prefered the general physics courses,
and that he avoided specialised subjects as much as possible.
He was, and wanted to be a generalist.
It seems plausible that he got his job at the patent office
precisely because of that.
That Poincaré was an engineer was new for me.
This is typical of you. You proclaim all kinds of things
without bothering for a moment to look at readily available sources
for even a little amount of fact check,
Am Mittwoch000024, 24.07.2024 um 11:39 schrieb J. J. Lodder:w
Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
Am Dienstag000023, 23.07.2024 um 09:33 schrieb J. J. Lodder:
Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> wrote:
On 2024-07-22 05:33:26 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
Am Sonntag000021, 21.07.2024 um 13:36 schrieb Maciej Wozniak:
W dniu 21.07.2024 o 12:40, Python pisze:
Le 21/07/2024 � 09:03, Thomas Heger a �crit :
Am Samstag000020, 20.07.2024 um 16:08 schrieb Python:
...
The number of errors in einstein's paper is also extremely large, >>>>>>>>>> hence that 'system' would need permanent control over large parts >>>>>>>>>> of science.
Also a mechanism for sanctions against dissidents would be >>>>>>>>>> useful.
But for what reasons would any system take such an amount of >>>>>>>>>> efforts???
Certainly something not very beneficial, because otherwise we >>>>>>>>>> would be told about it.
Even as fond you are to pathetically stupid "theories" (growing >>>>>>>>> Earth, Hitler is a British spy, etc.) you seem to realize, >>>>>>>>> somewhat, how stupid your claims are?
There is a far simpler way to explain everything
- There are no significant mistakes in Einstein's article
This is actually a counterfactual 'sanction'!
You didn't even mention my 'annotated version of SRT' and the 400+ >>>>>>>> errors I have found in Einstein's paper.
Here it is:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RkhX-B5u7X4ga0QH-C53RddjQGctZVdo/vie
If you think, that I made 400+ errors myself, than please show at >>>>>>>> least a single one.
Come on, Thomas. A lot of yours claims there has been extensively >>>>>>> debunked here, by me and others.
Whatever you say - Poincare had enough wit
to understand how idiotic rejecting Euclid
would be, and he has written it clearly
enough for anyone able to read (even if not
clearly enough for you, poor stinker).
Poincare was a mathematician and a very good one.
He wandered into physics, because he was dealing with the Lorentz
transformation and with Maxwells equations.
So you got that wrong too. (can't you ever get anything right?)
Poincar�, like Einstein, was an engineer by training.
Einstein was actually teacher from training.
More nonsense.
Einstein graduated from the ETH Zurich as an engineer, period,
just like any other engineer.
They didn't have 'teaching only' degrees. [1]
I have read, that Einstein got a degree as teacher for physics.
But, as a matter of fact, I cannot proof this and it is also of little interest for me.
What is true is that Einstein prefered the general physics courses,
and that he avoided specialised subjects as much as possible.
He was, and wanted to be a generalist.
It seems plausible that he got his job at the patent office
precisely because of that.
I have regarded it as questionable, that stateless foreigners could work
in an 'Amt', where usually only born citizens could work (because the Patentamt was security critical).
My conclusion from this was, that Einstein WAS in fact born in
Swizzerland and his CV therefore a fake.
Why Swizzerland did that and why they tried to derail common science,
that is a riddle for me.
Possibly the Swiss had developed something useful, like a time machine
or device to synthesize Gold, which they wanted to have exclusively.
That Poincar� was an engineer was new for me.
This is typical of you. You proclaim all kinds of things
without bothering for a moment to look at readily available sources
for even a little amount of fact check,
Well, you always have some gaps in what you know.
About Poincar� and his personal life I have actually very few informations.
But what exactly are you trying to prove with this�?
Am Mittwoch000024, 24.07.2024 um 11:39 schrieb J. J. Lodder:
Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
Am Dienstag000023, 23.07.2024 um 09:33 schrieb J. J. Lodder:
Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> wrote:
On 2024-07-22 05:33:26 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
Am Sonntag000021, 21.07.2024 um 13:36 schrieb Maciej Wozniak:
W dniu 21.07.2024 o 12:40, Python pisze:
Le 21/07/2024 à 09:03, Thomas Heger a écrit :
Am Samstag000020, 20.07.2024 um 16:08 schrieb Python:
...
The number of errors in einstein's paper is also extremely large, >>>>>>>>>>> hence that 'system' would need permanent control over large parts >>>>>>>>>>> of science.
Also a mechanism for sanctions against dissidents would be >>>>>>>>>>> useful.
But for what reasons would any system take such an amount of >>>>>>>>>>> efforts???
Certainly something not very beneficial, because otherwise we >>>>>>>>>>> would be told about it.
Even as fond you are to pathetically stupid "theories" (growing >>>>>>>>>> Earth, Hitler is a British spy, etc.) you seem to realize, >>>>>>>>>> somewhat, how stupid your claims are?
There is a far simpler way to explain everything
- There are no significant mistakes in Einstein's article
This is actually a counterfactual 'sanction'!
You didn't even mention my 'annotated version of SRT' and the 400+ >>>>>>>>> errors I have found in Einstein's paper.
Here it is:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RkhX-B5u7X4ga0QH-C53RddjQGctZVdo/view
If you think, that I made 400+ errors myself, than please show at least
a single one.
Come on, Thomas. A lot of yours claims there has been extensively >>>>>>>> debunked here, by me and others.
Whatever you say - Poincare had enough wit
to understand how idiotic rejecting Euclid
would be, and he has written it clearly
enough for anyone able to read (even if not
clearly enough for you, poor stinker).
Poincare was a mathematician and a very good one.
He wandered into physics, because he was dealing with the Lorentz
transformation and with Maxwells equations.
So you got that wrong too. (can't you ever get anything right?)
Poincaré, like Einstein, was an engineer by training.
Einstein was actually teacher from training.
More nonsense.
Einstein graduated from the ETH Zurich as an engineer, period,
just like any other engineer.
They didn't have 'teaching only' degrees. [1]
I have read,
that Einstein got a degree as teacher for physics.
But, as a matter of fact, I cannot proof this
and it is also of little interest for me.
What is true is that Einstein prefered the general physics courses,
and that he avoided specialised subjects as much as possible.
He was, and wanted to be a generalist.
It seems plausible that he got his job at the patent office
precisely because of that.
I have regarded it as questionable, that stateless foreigners could
work in an 'Amt', where usually only born citizens could work (because
the Patentamt was security critical).
My conclusion from this was, that Einstein WAS in fact born in
Swizzerland and his CV therefore a fake.
Why Swizzerland did that and why they tried to derail common science,
that is a riddle for me.
Possibly the Swiss had developed something useful, like a time machine
or device to synthesize Gold, which they wanted to have exclusively.
That Poincaré was an engineer was new for me.
This is typical of you. You proclaim all kinds of things
without bothering for a moment to look at readily available sources
for even a little amount of fact check,
Well, you always have some gaps in what you know.
About Poincaré and his personal life I have actually very few informations.
But what exactly are you trying to prove with this´?
...
TH
Possibly the Swiss had developed something useful, like a time machine
or device to synthesize Gold, which they wanted to have exclusively.
Le 25/07/2024 à 08:58, Thomas Heger a écrit :
...
Possibly the Swiss had developed something useful, like a time machine
or device to synthesize Gold, which they wanted to have exclusively.
What about a device to synthesize cheese instead?
And you pretend not to be demented?!
W dniu 25.07.2024 o 13:28, Python pisze:
Le 25/07/2024 à 08:58, Thomas Heger a écrit :And whatever you say ...
...
Possibly the Swiss had developed something useful, like a time
machine or device to synthesize Gold, which they wanted to have
exclusively.
What about a device to synthesize cheese instead?
And you pretend not to be demented?!
No. Do you still rape your daughters, Python?
Whether you do or don't - Poincare had enough wit
to understand how idiotic rejecting Euclid
would be, and he has written it clearly
enough for anyone able to read (even if not
clearly enough for you, poor stinker).
Le 25/07/2024 à 16:10, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 25.07.2024 o 13:28, Python pisze:
Le 25/07/2024 à 08:58, Thomas Heger a écrit :And whatever you say ...
...
Possibly the Swiss had developed something useful, like a time
machine or device to synthesize Gold, which they wanted to have
exclusively.
What about a device to synthesize cheese instead?
And you pretend not to be demented?!
You have an opinion about a swiss-driven worldwide conspiration
involving time-travel and the philosophical stone, Wozniak :-D ?
Le 25/07/2024 à 08:58, Thomas Heger a écrit :
...
Possibly the Swiss had developed something useful, like a time machine
or device to synthesize Gold,
which they wanted to have exclusively.
What about a device to synthesize cheese instead?
And you pretend not to be demented?!
On 2024-07-25 11:28:55 +0000, Python said:
Le 25/07/2024 à 08:58, Thomas Heger a écrit :machine
...
Possibly the Swiss had developed something useful, like a time
or device to synthesize Gold,
Apparently his ignorance of chemistry matches his ignorance of physics.
On Thu, 25 Jul 2024 16:35:28 +0000, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2024-07-25 11:28:55 +0000, Python said:
machine
Le 25/07/2024 à 08:58, Thomas Heger a écrit :
...
Possibly the Swiss had developed something useful, like a time
or device to synthesize Gold,
Apparently his ignorance of chemistry matches his ignorance of physics.
I believe in one-way time machines: Just hustle.
I believe in synthesizing gold: Get a neutron generator and
neutron-activate
a few kg, er ... a few nuclei of Hg. Mostly, though, you'll just change
the
isotopic ratios of Hg.
Le 25/07/2024 à 08:58, Thomas Heger a écrit :
...
Possibly the Swiss had developed something useful, like a time machine
or device to synthesize Gold, which they wanted to have exclusively.
What about a device to synthesize cheese instead?
On 2024-07-25 11:28:55 +0000, Python said:
Le 25/07/2024 à 08:58, Thomas Heger a écrit :
...
Possibly the Swiss had developed something useful, like a time
machine or device to synthesize Gold,
Apparently his ignorance of chemistry matches his ignorance of physics.
Le 25/07/2024 à 16:10, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 25.07.2024 o 13:28, Python pisze:
Le 25/07/2024 à 08:58, Thomas Heger a écrit :And whatever you say ...
...
Possibly the Swiss had developed something useful, like a time
machine or device to synthesize Gold, which they wanted to have
exclusively.
What about a device to synthesize cheese instead?
And you pretend not to be demented?!
You have an opinion about a swiss-driven worldwide conspiration
involving time-travel and the philosophical stone, Wozniak :-D ?
On Thu, 25 Jul 2024 16:35:28 +0000, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2024-07-25 11:28:55 +0000, Python said:
machine
Le 25/07/2024 à 08:58, Thomas Heger a écrit :
...
Possibly the Swiss had developed something useful, like a time
or device to synthesize Gold,
Apparently his ignorance of chemistry matches his ignorance of physics.
I believe in one-way time machines: Just hustle.
I believe in synthesizing gold: Get a neutron generator and
neutron-activate
a few kg, er ... a few nuclei of Hg. Mostly, though, you'll just change
the
isotopic ratios of Hg.
So you got that wrong too. (can't you ever get anything right?)
Poincaré, like Einstein, was an engineer by training.
Einstein was actually teacher from training.
More nonsense.
Einstein graduated from the ETH Zurich as an engineer, period,
just like any other engineer.
They didn't have 'teaching only' degrees. [1]
I have read, that Einstein got a degree as teacher for physics.
But, as a matter of fact, I cannot proof this and it is also of little
interest for me.
Yes, this was just another of your self-invented 'facts'.
What is true is that Einstein prefered the general physics courses,
and that he avoided specialised subjects as much as possible.
He was, and wanted to be a generalist.
It seems plausible that he got his job at the patent office
precisely because of that.
I have regarded it as questionable, that stateless foreigners could work
in an 'Amt', where usually only born citizens could work (because the
Patentamt was security critical).
Einstein wasn't a stateless foreigner, he was a Swiss citizen,
and had been that since 1901.
And he had an academic degree from a Swiss university
that qualified him for the job.
That 'born citizens only' thing is
just another of your self-invented non-facts.
My conclusion from this was, that Einstein WAS in fact born in
Swizzerland and his CV therefore a fake.
Why Swizzerland did that and why they tried to derail common science,
that is a riddle for me.
Whatever the data, you will without fail arrive at the wrong comclusion.
You are as useful for direction finding as a broken compass
that never points north. If you say something it must be wrong.
Possibly the Swiss had developed something useful, like a time machine
or device to synthesize Gold, which they wanted to have exclusively.
Am Mittwoch000024, 24.07.2024 um 11:39 schrieb J. J. Lodder:
What is true is that Einstein prefered the general physics courses, and
that he avoided specialised subjects as much as possible.
He was, and wanted to be a generalist.
It seems plausible that he got his job at the patent office precisely
because of that.
I have regarded it as questionable, that stateless foreigners could work
in an 'Amt', where usually only born citizens could work (because the Patentamt was security critical). My conclusion from this was, that
Einstein WAS in fact born in Swizzerland and his CV therefore a fake.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 475 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 40:48:32 |
| Calls: | 9,490 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 13,618 |
| Messages: | 6,122,650 |