From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

The Starmaker wrote:

On Mon, 16 Feb 2026 23:47:38 -0800, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

Schrodinger's cat is alive or dead until we look?

i'll tell ya..

there's no cat in the box alive or dead.

there's no cat
in the box
if you're not looking.

the cat no exist.

it is your looking
dat make dat cat.

there is no moon.

the moon doesn't exist.

there are some things even Einstein no understand...

he no believe in action at a distance.

--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

On Tue, 17 Feb 2026 15:36:29 +0000, jojo <f00@0f0.00f> wrote:

The Starmaker wrote:

On Mon, 16 Feb 2026 23:47:38 -0800, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

Schrodinger's cat is alive or dead until we look?

i'll tell ya..

there's no cat in the box alive or dead.

there's no cat
in the box
if you're not looking.

the cat no exist.

it is your looking
dat make dat cat.

there is no moon.

the moon doesn't exist.

there are some things even Einstein no understand...

he no believe in action at a distance.

the universe is an action at a distance...
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

On 2/17/2026 1:47 AM, The Starmaker wrote:

Schrodinger's cat is alive or dead until we look?

i'll tell ya..

there's no cat in the box alive or dead.

there's no cat
in the box
if you're not looking.

the cat no exist.

it is your looking
dat make dat cat.

there is no moon.

the moon doesn't exist.
--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, and challenge
the unchallengeable.

If you want to study Quantum Mechanics and then Quantum Field Theory,
then do it!!
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

jojo <f00@0f0.00f> wrote:

The Starmaker wrote:

On Mon, 16 Feb 2026 23:47:38 -0800, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

Schrodinger's cat is alive or dead until we look?

i'll tell ya..

there's no cat in the box alive or dead.

there's no cat
in the box
if you're not looking.

the cat no exist.

it is your looking
dat make dat cat.

there is no moon.

the moon doesn't exist.

there are some things even Einstein no understand...

he no believe in action at a distance.

It was obvious after 1905 that Newtonian gravity
must be incorrect. (because non-relativistic)

But it took another 10 years to find the correct replacement,

Jan

--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Op 17/02/2026 om 8:47 schreef The Starmaker:

Schrodinger's cat is alive or dead until we look?

i'll tell ya..

there's no cat in the box alive or dead.

there's no cat
in the box
if you're not looking.

the cat no exist.

it is your looking
dat make dat cat.

there is no moon.

the moon doesn't exist.
--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, and challenge
the unchallengeable.

I've recently come upon a nice question to ask yourself:
"Bin ich da wenn niemand guckt?"
--
guido wugi
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

On Tue, 17 Feb 2026 08:14:45 -0800, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

On Tue, 17 Feb 2026 15:36:29 +0000, jojo <f00@0f0.00f> wrote:

The Starmaker wrote:

On Mon, 16 Feb 2026 23:47:38 -0800, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

Schrodinger's cat is alive or dead until we look?

i'll tell ya..

there's no cat in the box alive or dead.

there's no cat
in the box
if you're not looking.

the cat no exist.

it is your looking
dat make dat cat.

there is no moon.

the moon doesn't exist.

there are some things even Einstein no understand...

he no believe in action at a distance.

the universe is an action at a distance...

I can give you an eyewitness account of a
spooky action at a distance...

Before the Big Bang
there existed trillions of stars.

But going back to that very first star
of the trillion of stars BEFORE the big bang..

just right before the very first star..

it was all BLACK.

Then, after trillions and trillions years
during all this blackness..

a light popped in.

i haven't figured out yet where that light came from.

but it was spooky...
at a distant.



--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, and challenge
the unchallengeable.
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

On Tue, 17 Feb 2026 22:31:22 +0100, nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
Lodder) wrote:

jojo <f00@0f0.00f> wrote:

The Starmaker wrote:

On Mon, 16 Feb 2026 23:47:38 -0800, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

Schrodinger's cat is alive or dead until we look?

i'll tell ya..

there's no cat in the box alive or dead.

there's no cat
in the box
if you're not looking.

the cat no exist.

it is your looking
dat make dat cat.

there is no moon.

the moon doesn't exist.

there are some things even Einstein no understand...

he no believe in action at a distance.

It was obvious after 1905 that Newtonian gravity
must be incorrect. (because non-relativistic)

But it took another 10 years to find the correct replacement,

Jan

is dis gravity pulling my feet to the ground or pushing my head down
to the ground????
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

The Starmaker wrote:

On Tue, 17 Feb 2026 08:14:45 -0800, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

On Tue, 17 Feb 2026 15:36:29 +0000, jojo <f00@0f0.00f> wrote:

The Starmaker wrote:

On Mon, 16 Feb 2026 23:47:38 -0800, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

Schrodinger's cat is alive or dead until we look?

i'll tell ya..

there's no cat in the box alive or dead.

there's no cat
in the box
if you're not looking.

the cat no exist.

it is your looking
dat make dat cat.

there is no moon.

the moon doesn't exist.

there are some things even Einstein no understand...

he no believe in action at a distance.

the universe is an action at a distance...

I can give you an eyewitness account of a
spooky action at a distance...

Before the Big Bang
there existed trillions of stars.

But going back to that very first star
of the trillion of stars BEFORE the big bang..

just right before the very first star..

it was all BLACK.

Then, after trillions and trillions years
during all this blackness..

a light popped in.

i haven't figured out yet where that light came from.

but it was spooky...
at a distant.

--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, and challenge
the unchallengeable.

problem is, there was no distance then, probably, for there to be
action. there might have been something else?

--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

J. J. Lodder wrote:

jojo <f00@0f0.00f> wrote:

The Starmaker wrote:

On Mon, 16 Feb 2026 23:47:38 -0800, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

Schrodinger's cat is alive or dead until we look?

i'll tell ya..

there's no cat in the box alive or dead.

there's no cat
in the box
if you're not looking.

the cat no exist.

it is your looking
dat make dat cat.

there is no moon.

the moon doesn't exist.

there are some things even Einstein no understand...

he no believe in action at a distance.

It was obvious after 1905 that Newtonian gravity
must be incorrect. (because non-relativistic)

But it took another 10 years to find the correct replacement,

Jan

there is a growing voice that fundamental physics has stalled
since the 1980s. maybe with ai we can change that.

--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

guido wugi <wugi@brol.invalid> wrote:

Op 17/02/2026 om 8:47 schreef The Starmaker:

Schrodinger's cat is alive or dead until we look?

i'll tell ya..

there's no cat in the box alive or dead.

there's no cat
in the box
if you're not looking.

the cat no exist.

it is your looking
dat make dat cat.

there is no moon.

the moon doesn't exist.
--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, and challenge
the unchallengeable.

I've recently come upon a nice question to ask yourself:
"Bin ich da wenn niemand guckt?"

Maybe you are Wigner's friend?

Jan


--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

jojo <f00@0f0.00f> wrote:

J. J. Lodder wrote:

jojo <f00@0f0.00f> wrote:

The Starmaker wrote:

On Mon, 16 Feb 2026 23:47:38 -0800, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

Schrodinger's cat is alive or dead until we look?

i'll tell ya..

there's no cat in the box alive or dead.

there's no cat
in the box
if you're not looking.

the cat no exist.

it is your looking
dat make dat cat.

there is no moon.

the moon doesn't exist.

there are some things even Einstein no understand...

he no believe in action at a distance.

It was obvious after 1905 that Newtonian gravity
must be incorrect. (because non-relativistic)

But it took another 10 years to find the correct replacement,

Jan

there is a growing voice that fundamental physics has stalled
since the 1980s. maybe with ai we can change that.

OK. May I suggest that you use your AI to write a research proposal for
A.E. for the year 1910?
(using only pre-1910 input)

Jan
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Op 18/02/2026 om 10:00 schreef J. J. Lodder:

guido wugi <wugi@brol.invalid> wrote:

Op 17/02/2026 om 8:47 schreef The Starmaker:

Schrodinger's cat is alive or dead until we look?

i'll tell ya..

there's no cat in the box alive or dead.

there's no cat
in the box
if you're not looking.

the cat no exist.

it is your looking
dat make dat cat.

there is no moon.

the moon doesn't exist.
--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, and challenge
the unchallengeable.

I've recently come upon a nice question to ask yourself:
"Bin ich da wenn niemand guckt?"

Maybe you are Wigner's friend?

(0: And so are Schr||dinger's cat, the flask with poison, the lever with hammer, the Geiger counter.

All are trustworthy "observers". Or more accurately, the whole
Copenhagen fuss is about confusing (conscious) observing and mere
interacting. The wavefunction is an information descriptor, it holds
what one physical system (not limited to observers) can know about
another system (including itself or not). When interaction occurs (and
there lies the mystery: interference between the microscopic and
macroscopic world) the wavefunction collapses to one of its possible
outcomes, that's where (and only there) particles appear and can be "observed".
Long before our scientist has opened the box or told his friend, the
cat, and flask, and hammer, and Geiger counter, have each already (or
not) suffered interaction and "know" their state, each from its own wavefunction as it were.
--
guido wugi
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

jojo wrote:

The Starmaker wrote:

I can give you an eyewitness account of a
spooky action at a distance...

Before the Big Bang
there existed trillions of stars.

We do not know that.

But going back to that very first star
of the trillion of stars BEFORE the big bang..

just right before the very first star..

it was all BLACK.

The stars that we can see today could not form before 380'000 years into the Big Bang.

Then, after trillions and trillions years
during all this blackness..

a light popped in.

Gazillions of "lights": stars. One would think that someone who calls themselves "The Starmaker" should know what a star is and how it forms.
Unless, of course, as we all know and can see, they are just a crackpot/troll.

i haven't figured out yet where that light came from.

The pressure in a gas cloud that cools enough by emitting EM radiation decreases so that parts of it collapses under its own gravitation due to
their mass density. When a gas is compressed, it heats up which means that
the energy of its electrons increases. When they return to their
lower-energy state afterwards, the extra energy is released in the form of photons: light is being emitted, and a collapsing ball of gas begins to glow (protostar or brown dwarf). Also, eventually nuclear fusion sets in,
releasing more and brighter light: a star has formed, usually many stars
from the same molecular cloud at the same time.

but it was spooky...

No.

at a distant.

_distance_, and no.

problem is, there was no distance then, probably, for there to be
action. there might have been something else?

Utter nonsense.
--
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

jojo wrote:

J. J. Lodder wrote:

jojo <f00@0f0.00f> wrote:

he no believe in action at a distance.

It was obvious after 1905 that Newtonian gravity
must be incorrect. (because non-relativistic)

That something was missing in that theory was already clear when, after searching for it since ca. 1850, again no planet Vulcan (sic) was found to explain Mercury's perihelion precession in the Crocker Expeditions of 1901, 1905, and 1908.

But it took another 10 years to find the correct replacement,

there is a growing voice that fundamental physics has stalled
since the 1980s.

Because for various reasons the percentage of people who have no clue about science has been growing (as we can also see here), not because there is anything wrong with the science.

maybe with ai we can change that.

Replacing untrained idiots by trained idiots? I doubt it.
--
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

jojo wrote:

The Starmaker wrote:

I can give you an eyewitness account of a
spooky action at a distance...

Before the Big Bang
there existed trillions of stars.

We do not know that.

But going back to that very first star
of the trillion of stars BEFORE the big bang..

just right before the very first star..

it was all BLACK.

The stars that we can see today could not form before 380'000 years into the Big Bang.

Then, after trillions and trillions years
during all this blackness..

a light popped in.

Gazillions of "lights": stars. One would think that someone who calls themselves "The Starmaker" should know what a star is and how it forms. Unless, of course, as we all know and can see, they are just a crackpot/troll.

i haven't figured out yet where that light came from.

The pressure in a gas cloud that cools enough by emitting EM radiation decreases so that parts of it collapses under its own gravitation due to their mass density. When a gas is compressed, it heats up which means that the energy of its electrons increases. When they return to their lower-energy state afterwards, the extra energy is released in the form of photons: light is being emitted, and a collapsing ball of gas begins to glow (protostar or brown dwarf). Also, eventually nuclear fusion sets in, releasing more and brighter light: a star has formed, usually many stars
from the same molecular cloud at the same time.

but it was spooky...

No.

at a distant.

_distance_, and no.

problem is, there was no distance then, probably, for there to be
action. there might have been something else?

Utter nonsense.

thomas, you are not the same thomas as the other thomas, right?
in school there were a pair of shared names and i feel... they
felt, it somehow was not good.

--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

J. J. Lodder wrote:

jojo <f00@0f0.00f> wrote:

J. J. Lodder wrote:

jojo <f00@0f0.00f> wrote:

The Starmaker wrote:

On Mon, 16 Feb 2026 23:47:38 -0800, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

Schrodinger's cat is alive or dead until we look?

i'll tell ya..

there's no cat in the box alive or dead.

there's no cat
in the box
if you're not looking.

the cat no exist.

it is your looking
dat make dat cat.

there is no moon.

the moon doesn't exist.

there are some things even Einstein no understand...

he no believe in action at a distance.

It was obvious after 1905 that Newtonian gravity
must be incorrect. (because non-relativistic)

But it took another 10 years to find the correct replacement,

Jan

there is a growing voice that fundamental physics has stalled
since the 1980s. maybe with ai we can change that.

OK. May I suggest that you use your AI to write a research proposal for
A.E. for the year 1910?
(using only pre-1910 input)

Jan

i take it you have no faith in ai to come up with novel solutions?

--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

jojo wrote:

J. J. Lodder wrote:

jojo <f00@0f0.00f> wrote:

he no believe in action at a distance.

It was obvious after 1905 that Newtonian gravity
must be incorrect. (because non-relativistic)

That something was missing in that theory was already clear when, after searching for it since ca. 1850, again no planet Vulcan (sic) was found to explain Mercury's perihelion precession in the Crocker Expeditions of 1901, 1905, and 1908.

But it took another 10 years to find the correct replacement,

there is a growing voice that fundamental physics has stalled
since the 1980s.

Because for various reasons the percentage of people who have no clue about science has been growing (as we can also see here), not because there is anything wrong with the science.

maybe with ai we can change that.

Replacing untrained idiots by trained idiots? I doubt it.

any examples that could highlight fundamental progress beyond 80s?

--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

On Wed, 18 Feb 2026 15:58:51 +0100, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> wrote:

jojo wrote:

The Starmaker wrote:

I can give you an eyewitness account of a
spooky action at a distance...

Before the Big Bang
there existed trillions of stars.

We do not know that.

"We"???? I don't belong to any WE clubs, I only belong to a ME
club...and I'm the only member!


What does your WE club say about Nature, ..does Nature knows what will
happen moment by moment?




--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

jojo amok-crossposted with an invalid sender:

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

jojo wrote:

there is a growing voice that fundamental physics has stalled
since the 1980s.

Because for various reasons the percentage of people who have no clue about >> science has been growing (as we can also see here), not because there is
anything wrong with the science.

maybe with ai we can change that.

Replacing untrained idiots by trained idiots? I doubt it.

q.e.d.

any examples that could highlight fundamental progress beyond 80s?

Yes.
--
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

jojo amok-crossposted with an invalid sender:

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

jojo wrote:

there is a growing voice that fundamental physics has stalled
since the 1980s.

Because for various reasons the percentage of people who have no clue about >>> science has been growing (as we can also see here), not because there is >>> anything wrong with the science.

maybe with ai we can change that.

Replacing untrained idiots by trained idiots? I doubt it.

q.e.d.

any examples that could highlight fundamental progress beyond 80s?

Yes.

nice.

--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

jojo <f00@0f0.00f> wrote:

J. J. Lodder wrote:

jojo <f00@0f0.00f> wrote:

J. J. Lodder wrote:

jojo <f00@0f0.00f> wrote:

The Starmaker wrote:

On Mon, 16 Feb 2026 23:47:38 -0800, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

Schrodinger's cat is alive or dead until we look?

i'll tell ya..

there's no cat in the box alive or dead.

there's no cat
in the box
if you're not looking.

the cat no exist.

it is your looking
dat make dat cat.

there is no moon.

the moon doesn't exist.

there are some things even Einstein no understand...

he no believe in action at a distance.

It was obvious after 1905 that Newtonian gravity
must be incorrect. (because non-relativistic)

But it took another 10 years to find the correct replacement,

Jan

there is a growing voice that fundamental physics has stalled
since the 1980s. maybe with ai we can change that.

OK. May I suggest that you use your AI to write a research proposal for A.E. for the year 1910?
(using only pre-1910 input)

Jan

i take it you have no faith in ai to come up with novel solutions?

Of course not.
Theoretical physics is not language-based.
So large language models are irrelevant.
They can ony regurgitate language of the past.

Compounding talk about non-solutions cannot give the solution,

Jan
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

On 02/18/2026 01:21 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:

jojo <f00@0f0.00f> wrote:

J. J. Lodder wrote:

jojo <f00@0f0.00f> wrote:

J. J. Lodder wrote:

jojo <f00@0f0.00f> wrote:

The Starmaker wrote:

On Mon, 16 Feb 2026 23:47:38 -0800, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

Schrodinger's cat is alive or dead until we look?

i'll tell ya..

there's no cat in the box alive or dead.

there's no cat
in the box
if you're not looking.

the cat no exist.

it is your looking
dat make dat cat.

there is no moon.

the moon doesn't exist.

there are some things even Einstein no understand...

he no believe in action at a distance.

It was obvious after 1905 that Newtonian gravity
must be incorrect. (because non-relativistic)

But it took another 10 years to find the correct replacement,

Jan

there is a growing voice that fundamental physics has stalled
since the 1980s. maybe with ai we can change that.

OK. May I suggest that you use your AI to write a research proposal for
A.E. for the year 1910?
(using only pre-1910 input)

Jan

i take it you have no faith in ai to come up with novel solutions?

Of course not.
Theoretical physics is not language-based.
So large language models are irrelevant.
They can ony regurgitate language of the past.

Compounding talk about non-solutions cannot give the solution,

Jan

"Supertasks" is the usual mathematical notion,
since there are multiple laws of large numbers,
alike three definitions of continuity and natural infinity,
mathematically.

\-v--v-/
\^--^/

Since Erdos' "Giant Monster of Mathematical Independence"
demands a sort of "Atlas of Mathematical Independence",
it's amusing that many efforts in asymptotics
are distinctness results, not uniqueness results.

It seems you're making demands rather than revealing fact,
though arguably it's a limitation of weak logicist positivism.

Matters of language are inextricable matters of theory,
as for example Leibnitz explains better than you.


--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

The Starmaker wrote:

On Wed, 18 Feb 2026 15:58:51 +0100, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> wrote:

jojo wrote:

The Starmaker wrote:

I can give you an eyewitness account of a
spooky action at a distance...

Before the Big Bang
there existed trillions of stars.

We do not know that.

"We"???? I don't belong to any WE clubs, I only belong to a ME
club...and I'm the only member!

What does your WE club say about Nature, ..does Nature knows what will
happen moment by moment?

'PointedEars' doesn't know the answer so it either

"WE don't know." Translation: "I don't know."

cause he doesn't know where to look for answers on the internet...
mafia science.

So, 'PointedEars' is stuck. He's wondering, ..

'does Nature knows what will happen moment by moment?'

he's got a dead cat in the house...with pointed ears.

Me-owwwww.

pussy.
--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge the unchallengeable.
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

The Starmaker wrote:

The Starmaker wrote:

On Wed, 18 Feb 2026 15:58:51 +0100, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
<PointedEars@web.de> wrote:
"We"???? I don't belong to any WE clubs, I only belong to a ME
club...and I'm the only member!

What does your WE club say about Nature, ..does Nature knows what will
happen moment by moment?

'PointedEars' doesn't know the answer so it either

"WE don't know." Translation: "I don't know."

cause he doesn't know where to look for answers on the internet...
mafia science.

he's a void education inbreed wanker, likely unemployed obsolete former it-supporter. A disgusting impertinent german
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

The Starmaker wrote:

On Tue, 17 Feb 2026 08:14:45 -0800, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

On Tue, 17 Feb 2026 15:36:29 +0000, jojo <f00@0f0.00f> wrote:

The Starmaker wrote:

On Mon, 16 Feb 2026 23:47:38 -0800, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

Schrodinger's cat is alive or dead until we look?

i'll tell ya..

there's no cat in the box alive or dead.

there's no cat
in the box
if you're not looking.

the cat no exist.

it is your looking
dat make dat cat.

there is no moon.

the moon doesn't exist.

there are some things even Einstein no understand...

he no believe in action at a distance.

the universe is an action at a distance...

I can give you an eyewitness account of a
spooky action at a distance...

Before the Big Bang
there existed trillions of stars.

But going back to that very first star
of the trillion of stars BEFORE the big bang..

just right before the very first star..

it was all BLACK.

Then, after trillions and trillions years
during all this blackness..

a light popped in.

i haven't figured out yet where that light came from.

but it was spooky...
at a distant.

wats real spooky is water doesn't seem to boil when I'm looking at it..
i have to look away from it at a distance in order for the water to
boil.
--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge the unchallengeable.
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

The Starmaker wrote:

The Starmaker wrote:

On Tue, 17 Feb 2026 08:14:45 -0800, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

On Tue, 17 Feb 2026 15:36:29 +0000, jojo <f00@0f0.00f> wrote:

The Starmaker wrote:

On Mon, 16 Feb 2026 23:47:38 -0800, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

Schrodinger's cat is alive or dead until we look?

i'll tell ya..

there's no cat in the box alive or dead.

there's no cat
in the box
if you're not looking.

the cat no exist.

it is your looking
dat make dat cat.

there is no moon.

the moon doesn't exist.

there are some things even Einstein no understand...

he no believe in action at a distance.

the universe is an action at a distance...

I can give you an eyewitness account of a
spooky action at a distance...

Before the Big Bang
there existed trillions of stars.

But going back to that very first star
of the trillion of stars BEFORE the big bang..

just right before the very first star..

it was all BLACK.

Then, after trillions and trillions years
during all this blackness..

a light popped in.

i haven't figured out yet where that light came from.

but it was spooky...
at a distant.

wats real spooky is water doesn't seem to boil when I'm looking at it..
i have to look away from it at a distance in order for the water to
boil.

there is a thing known as patience.

--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

On Tue, 17 Feb 2026 19:52:00 -0800, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

On Tue, 17 Feb 2026 08:14:45 -0800, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

On Tue, 17 Feb 2026 15:36:29 +0000, jojo <f00@0f0.00f> wrote:

The Starmaker wrote:

On Mon, 16 Feb 2026 23:47:38 -0800, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

Schrodinger's cat is alive or dead until we look?

i'll tell ya..

there's no cat in the box alive or dead.

there's no cat
in the box
if you're not looking.

the cat no exist.

it is your looking
dat make dat cat.

there is no moon.

the moon doesn't exist.

there are some things even Einstein no understand...

he no believe in action at a distance.

the universe is an action at a distance...

I can give you an eyewitness account of a
spooky action at a distance...

Before the Big Bang
there existed trillions of stars.

But going back to that very first star
of the trillion of stars BEFORE the big bang..

just right before the very first star..

it was all BLACK.

Then, after trillions and trillions years
during all this blackness..

a light popped in.

i haven't figured out yet where that light came from.

Okay, I know where the first light came from...
i was wondering since there is only one universe..
where did the light popped in from? It couldn't have been
outside of the universe since there is only one universe...

it came from within the universe!

In all that Black...something in the Black...maybe waves of Black
set off the first light!

Like striking a match.

Whoosh.

What came first the fire or the match?


--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, and challenge
the unchallengeable.
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

On Sun, 22 Feb 2026 11:11:54 -0800, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

On Tue, 17 Feb 2026 19:52:00 -0800, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

On Tue, 17 Feb 2026 08:14:45 -0800, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

On Tue, 17 Feb 2026 15:36:29 +0000, jojo <f00@0f0.00f> wrote:

The Starmaker wrote:

On Mon, 16 Feb 2026 23:47:38 -0800, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

Schrodinger's cat is alive or dead until we look?

i'll tell ya..

there's no cat in the box alive or dead.

there's no cat
in the box
if you're not looking.

the cat no exist.

it is your looking
dat make dat cat.

there is no moon.

the moon doesn't exist.

there are some things even Einstein no understand...

he no believe in action at a distance.

the universe is an action at a distance...

I can give you an eyewitness account of a
spooky action at a distance...

Before the Big Bang
there existed trillions of stars.

But going back to that very first star
of the trillion of stars BEFORE the big bang..

just right before the very first star..

it was all BLACK.

Then, after trillions and trillions years
during all this blackness..

a light popped in.

i haven't figured out yet where that light came from.

Okay, I know where the first light came from...
i was wondering since there is only one universe..
where did the light popped in from? It couldn't have been
outside of the universe since there is only one universe...

it came from within the universe!

In all that Black...something in the Black...maybe waves of Black
set off the first light!

Like striking a match.

Whoosh.

What came first the fire or the match?

Oh, I get it now...

dat Black thing
yous people call
dark matter..

dat is the match
dat lit the fire.

Before the big bang,
and before that..

somebody said

"WILL SOMEBODY TURN ON THE FUCKING LIGHTS!"



and then there was Light.



--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, and challenge
the unchallengeable.
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2