On 03/25/2026 08:06 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 24.03.2026 16:36, skrev Maciej Wo+|niak:
On 3/24/2026 12:27 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:You know, and have frequently repeated the fact that the rate
Can you please explain why the GPS works when the clocks
are compensated for a - according to you - non existing effect?
They're compensated for ordinary effect, while
your bunch of idiots is screaming it's
improper.
of GPS SV clocks are adjusted down by the factor (1-4.4647e-10)
and that the clocks then will stay in sync with clocks on
the ground.
This adjustment is described in the Interface Control Document:
https://www.gps.gov/sites/default/files/2025-07/IS-GPS-200N.pdf
"The SV carrier frequency and clock rates are offset to
-a-a compensate for relativistic effects. The clock rates
-a-a are offset by +of/f = -4.4647E-10."
GR predicts that the rate of clocks in GPS orbit will
be (1 + 4.4647E-10) faster than clocks on the ground,
that's why it's called a "relativistic effect".
But "ordinary effect" is OK, with me.
The clocks are adjusted to compensate for an ordinary
relativistic effect.
:)
But why would some idiots call the ordinary relativistic
effect "improper"?
The record suggests that he does not understand why the term is
"proper time": He does not understand that (proper) time elapses
independently of what a clock shows; that a (proper, *unadjusted*) clock
*measures* (proper) time, but does NOT *determine* it.-a (Time does not
slow
down *because* a clock does; time does not stop because a clock breaks.
Which is what Einstein meant when he wrote in OEoMB, translated, often
paraphrased: "Time is what clocks show." [1])
As a result, he does not understand that how much proper time elapses
depends on the frame of reference, and that this is a consequence of the
experimental fact that the local speed of light in vacuum (as a known
stand-in for the speed with which information propagates in a local
patch of
space) is the same in every reference frame (i.e., it must be
considered a
physical law [2], irrespective of a possible reason/explanation for
that).
[(You probably know the following; it is intended for all readers,
including
Maciej Wo+|niak if he is willing to learn.)
The "additional effect" that is observed irrespective of relative
motion can
be explained by the curvature of spacetime: if spacetime is curved
*and* the
local speed of light is the same in all frames of reference, then this
effect would be observed.
For example, with the Schwarzschild metric, a static solution of the
Einstein Field Equations for a spherically-symmetric uniform
distribution of
the total mass M (m := G M/c^2)
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a ds^2 = c^2 (d tau)^2
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a = (1 - 2m/r) c^2 dt^2 - (1 - 2m/r)^-1 dr^2 - r^2 (d
Omega)^2,
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a = c^2 dt^2 [(1 - 2m/r) - (1 - 2m/r)^-1 (dr/dt)^2
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a - r^2 (d Omega/dt)^2], >>
-a-a (d Omega)^2 = (d theta)^2 + sin^2(theta) (d phi)^2,
it is clear that as/if c is the same in all frames of reference, then
even
at relative rest, (dr/dt)^2, (d Omega/dt)^2 = 0, the elapsed proper time
(Delta tau = int_W d tau, W the section of a corresponding worldline)
depends on the distance r from the center of mass.
And so slow-enough-moving (*unadjusted*) clocks at greater r, when
compared,
are generally ahead of clocks at smaller r; clocks at larger r would
*appear* to "tick faster" from the perspective of an observer at
smaller r,
and slow-enough-moving clocks at smaller r would *appear* to "tick
slower"
from the perspective of an observer at larger r.-a That *explains why*
this
adjustment of the satellite clocks is *necessary* as *a first step* to
keep
them in sync with the ground clocks.
But that spacetime is curved is just a postulate of the general theory of
relativity that so far fits the(se) observations very well; it is not
a fact
in itself.-a This is frequently misunderstood, especially by laypeople,
although physicists giving oversimplified explanations ("the fabric of
spacetime" etc.) are partially to blame for that.]
___
[1] "It may appear that all difficulties connected with the definition of
-a-a-a-a time can be removed when in place of time, we substitute the
position of
-a-a-a-a the little hand of my watch. Such a definition is in fact
sufficient,
-a-a-a-a when it is required to define time exclusively for the place at
which
-a-a-a-a the clock is stationed."
-a-a-a-a This is the part that may be paraphrased as "(proper) time is what >> -a-a-a-a (proper) clocks show (when the observer is where they are)".
-a-a-a-a "But the definition is not sufficient when it is required to
connect by
-a-a-a-a time events taking place at different stations, rCo or what amounts to
-a-a-a-a the same thing,rCo to estimate by means of time (zeitlich werten) the
-a-a-a-a occurrence of events, which take place at stations distant from the >> -a-a-a-a clock."
-a-a-a-a This and what follows is the part that may be paraphrased as "the >> -a-a-a-a elapsed proper time depends on the frame of reference (in which a >> -a-a-a-a clock/observer is at rest)".-a Einstein's statements there is made >> -a-a-a-a in the context of *special* relativity, but it is already general >> -a-a-a-a enough to be applicable generally (as he probably realized later, >> -a-a-a-a when he began thinking about *general* relativity).
<https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/
On_the_Electrodynamics_of_Moving_Bodies_%281920_edition%29#%C2%A7_1._Definition_of_Synchronism.>
[2] The Feynman Messenger Lectures (1964/1965): The Character of Physical
-a-a-a-a Law. <https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/messenger.html>
-a-a-a-a StarTalk (2026): Why Science DoesnrCOt Make Laws Anymore
-a-a-a-a <https://youtu.be/EVJdwD7coQ4?si=HHUKzz8WSXewo8dE>
Since the thread depth is quite so deep now, perhaps it would be
a good idea to start altogether a new thread like
"sci.physics.relativity thrash" since so much of it is
mostly restating already held opinions.
In relativity theory, space-time being curved is almost only
The "additional effect" that is observed irrespective of relative motion can be explained by the curvature of spacetime: if spacetime is curved *and* the local speed of light is the same in all frames of reference, then this
effect would be observed.
For example, with the Schwarzschild metric, a static solution of the
Einstein Field Equations for a spherically-symmetric uniform distribution of the total mass M (m := G M/c^2)
ds^2 = c^2 (d tau)^2
= (1 - 2m/r) c^2 dt^2 - (1 - 2m/r)^-1 dr^2 - r^2 (d Omega)^2,
= c^2 dt^2 [(1 - 2m/r) - (1 - 2m/r)^-1 (dr/dt)^2
- r^2 (d Omega/dt)^2],
(d Omega)^2 = (d theta)^2 + sin^2(theta) (d phi)^2,
it is clear that as/if c is the same in all frames of reference, then even--
at relative rest, (dr/dt)^2, (d Omega/dt)^2 = 0, the elapsed proper time (Delta tau = int_W d tau, W the section of a corresponding worldline)
depends on the distance r from the center of mass.
[...]
The "additional effect" that is observed irrespective of relative motion can be explained by the curvature of spacetime: if spacetime is curved *and* the local speed of light is the same in all frames of reference, then this
effect would be observed.
For example, with the Schwarzschild metric, a static solution of the
Einstein Field Equations for a spherically-symmetric uniform distribution of the total mass M (m := G M/c^2)
[
ds^2 = c^2 (d tau)^2
= (1 - 2m/r) c^2 dt^2 - (1 - 2m/r)^-1 dr^2 - r^2 (d Omega)^2,
= c^2 dt^2 [1 - 2m/r - (1 - 2m/r)^-1 (dr/dt)^2/c^2
- r^2 (d Omega/dt)^2/c^2],
(d Omega)^2 = (d theta)^2 + sin^2(theta) (d phi)^2,
]
it is clear that as/if c is the same in all frames of reference, then even
at relative rest, (dr/dt)^2, (d Omega/dt)^2 = 0, the elapsed proper time (Delta tau = int_W d tau, W the section of a corresponding worldline)
depends on the distance r from the center of mass.
[...]
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
The "additional effect" that is observed irrespective of relative motion can >> be explained by the curvature of spacetime: if spacetime is curved *and* the >> local speed of light is the same in all frames of reference, then this
effect would be observed.
For example, with the Schwarzschild metric, a static solution of the
Einstein Field Equations for a spherically-symmetric uniform distribution of >> the total mass M (m := G M/c^2)
[
ds^2 = c^2 (d tau)^2
= (1 - 2m/r) c^2 dt^2 - (1 - 2m/r)^-1 dr^2 - r^2 (d Omega)^2, >> = c^2 dt^2 [1 - 2m/r - (1 - 2m/r)^-1 (dr/dt)^2/c^2
- r^2 (d Omega/dt)^2/c^2],
(d Omega)^2 = (d theta)^2 + sin^2(theta) (d phi)^2,
]
it is clear that as/if c is the same in all frames of reference, then even >> at relative rest, (dr/dt)^2, (d Omega/dt)^2 = 0, the elapsed proper time
(Delta tau = int_W d tau, W the section of a corresponding worldline)
depends on the distance r from the center of mass.
[...]
Another thing that confuses a lot of (lay)people (which included me before
my studies) is the concept that I have mentioned here: "the curvature of spacetime". How can spacetime be "curved"? Is space "curved", is time "curved", and if yes, what does that mean? And what is this "spacetime" anyway? Pictures of bent rubber sheets certainly do not do this concept justice, and without proper explanation confuse more than they help.
Why do we even call this "curvature"? This had confused me, too, until I studied general relativity. It is actually a term taken over from analyzing three-dimensional surfaces that we (humanoids) can still intuitively understand as we can see and touch them. If such a surface is curved, i.e. not flat like a sheet, and you put a coordinate grid on it where grid lines would have been evenly spaced if it were flat, then it depends on where you are on the surface what the distance between points on it along it is if you use those coordinates. For example, the distance between two lines of longitude that differ by 1-#, i.e. between two points on the surface whose geocoordinates only differ in longitude and only by that much, is much
larger at the equator [ca. (40000/360) km = 111 km] than at the poles [all lines of longitude meet there, so the distance between them there is 0 km].
How do we measure the distance between points on such a surface *along* that surface? It is curved, so if the triangle becomes large enough, Euclidean geometry and thus the Pythagorean theorem do not work anymore. (They never work then, but for small areas the error is too small and can be neglected. For example, you can have a large triangle on this surface along the
equator, to one of the poles, and back to the equator at a different longitude, that has an inner angle sum that is greater than 180-#.)
But it turns out that this theorem is just a special case: We choose a path that connects the points and measure/calculate its length. The path between two points can in general be arbitrarily long (we can make as many detours from point A to point B as we want), so for defining the distance between
the two points, we choose a special path between them: the locally shortest path, called a *geodesic path* or simply a *geodesic* (which comes from geodesy/geodetics, the science of measuring and representing the surface of Earth; literally: "dividing Earth"). Its length is determined by a function into which we basically put the pairwise differences between the coordinates of the points: the *metric*.
The metric is of the general form
ds^2 = g_ab dx^a dx^b,
where Einstein notation has been used (a and b are placeholders for the labels of the coordinates, and one sums over indices that appear as
subscript and as superscript). g_ab are components of the *metric tensor*.
I claimed before that the Pythagorean theorem is just a special case of
this, and here is the proof: If you use as coordinates just x and y, label them x^1 and x^2 instead, and define that g_11 := 1, g_12 = g_21 := 0, and g_22 := 1, i.e.
[g]_ab = (1 0),
(0 1)
and you get
ds^2 = dx^1 dx^1 + dx^2 dx^2 = (dx^1)^2 + (dx^2)^2 = dx^2 + dy^2.
If you set c := ds, a := dx, and b := dy, there you have it:
c^2 = a^2 + b^2 or a^2 + b^2 = c^2.
So the metric tensor tells us how the surface (in general, a manifold) differs from a flat one, and as the components of the metric tensor appear
in the metric, the metric does, too. One can use the metric (tensor) to calculate various objects, some of them just numbers (scalars), that provide information about the curvature.
Finally, this concept of curvature can be extended to an arbitrary number of dimensions, and we (Minkowski, Einstein, and others) found out that reality can be best described using an (at least) (1+3)-dimensional manifold that we (Minkowski) call(ed) "spacetime".
Sean Carroll gives a very good introduction to this that is (AFAICS)
correct, easy to understand for laypeople (he gives this public lecture at The Royal Institution), and humorous (i.e. not boring), which IMO (having studied GR at university now) is quite a feat:
The Royal Institution/YouTube: The secrets of Einstein's unknown equation rCo with Sean Carroll
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRudidBcfXk&list=PL41EYJuJ5YuDn3d13ryZwpzGBXewXa9AH&index=9>
Einstein has also written about it for the 1922 edition of the Encyclop|adia Britannica, which after the primers above should be easier to understand:
<https://www.britannica.com/topic/Albert-Einstein-on-Space-Time-1987141>
I claimed before that the Pythagorean theorem is just a special case of
this,
Le 26/03/2026 |a 03:39, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn a |-crit :
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
The "additional effect" that is observed irrespective of relative
motion can
be explained by the curvature of spacetime: if spacetime is curved
*and* the
local speed of light is the same in all frames of reference, then this
effect would be observed.
For example, with the Schwarzschild metric, a static solution of the
Einstein Field Equations for a spherically-symmetric uniform
distribution of
the total mass M (m := G M/c^2)
[
ds^2 = c^2 (d tau)^2
= (1 - 2m/r) c^2 dt^2 - (1 - 2m/r)^-1 dr^2 - r^2 (d
Omega)^2,
= c^2 dt^2 [1 - 2m/r - (1 - 2m/r)^-1 (dr/dt)^2/c^2
- r^2 (d Omega/dt)^2/c^2],
(d Omega)^2 = (d theta)^2 + sin^2(theta) (d phi)^2,
]
it is clear that as/if c is the same in all frames of reference, then
even
at relative rest, (dr/dt)^2, (d Omega/dt)^2 = 0, the elapsed proper time >>> (Delta tau = int_W d tau, W the section of a corresponding worldline)
depends on the distance r from the center of mass.
[...]
Another thing that confuses a lot of (lay)people (which included me
before
my studies) is the concept that I have mentioned here: "the curvature of
spacetime". How can spacetime be "curved"? Is space "curved", is time
"curved", and if yes, what does that mean? And what is this "spacetime"
anyway? Pictures of bent rubber sheets certainly do not do this concept
justice, and without proper explanation confuse more than they help.
Why do we even call this "curvature"? This had confused me, too, until I
studied general relativity. It is actually a term taken over from
analyzing
three-dimensional surfaces that we (humanoids) can still intuitively
understand as we can see and touch them. If such a surface is curved,
i.e.
not flat like a sheet, and you put a coordinate grid on it where grid
lines
would have been evenly spaced if it were flat, then it depends on
where you
are on the surface what the distance between points on it along it is
if you
use those coordinates. For example, the distance between two lines of
longitude that differ by 1-#, i.e. between two points on the surface whose >> geocoordinates only differ in longitude and only by that much, is much
larger at the equator [ca. (40000/360) km = 111 km] than at the poles
[all
lines of longitude meet there, so the distance between them there is 0
km].
How do we measure the distance between points on such a surface
*along* that
surface? It is curved, so if the triangle becomes large enough,
Euclidean
geometry and thus the Pythagorean theorem do not work anymore. (They
never
work then, but for small areas the error is too small and can be
neglected.
For example, you can have a large triangle on this surface along the
equator, to one of the poles, and back to the equator at a different
longitude, that has an inner angle sum that is greater than 180-#.)
But it turns out that this theorem is just a special case: We choose a
path
that connects the points and measure/calculate its length. The path
between
two points can in general be arbitrarily long (we can make as many
detours
from point A to point B as we want), so for defining the distance between
the two points, we choose a special path between them: the locally
shortest
path, called a *geodesic path* or simply a *geodesic* (which comes from
geodesy/geodetics, the science of measuring and representing the
surface of
Earth; literally: "dividing Earth"). Its length is determined by a
function
into which we basically put the pairwise differences between the
coordinates
of the points: the *metric*.
The metric is of the general form
ds^2 = g_ab dx^a dx^b,
where Einstein notation has been used (a and b are placeholders for the
labels of the coordinates, and one sums over indices that appear as
subscript and as superscript). g_ab are components of the *metric
tensor*.
I claimed before that the Pythagorean theorem is just a special case of
this, and here is the proof: If you use as coordinates just x and y,
label
them x^1 and x^2 instead, and define that g_11 := 1, g_12 = g_21 := 0,
and
g_22 := 1, i.e.
[g]_ab = (1 0),
(0 1)
and you get
ds^2 = dx^1 dx^1 + dx^2 dx^2 = (dx^1)^2 + (dx^2)^2 = dx^2 + dy^2.
If you set c := ds, a := dx, and b := dy, there you have it:
c^2 = a^2 + b^2 or a^2 + b^2 = c^2.
So the metric tensor tells us how the surface (in general, a manifold)
differs from a flat one, and as the components of the metric tensor
appear
in the metric, the metric does, too. One can use the metric (tensor) to
calculate various objects, some of them just numbers (scalars), that
provide
information about the curvature.
Finally, this concept of curvature can be extended to an arbitrary
number of
dimensions, and we (Minkowski, Einstein, and others) found out that
reality
can be best described using an (at least) (1+3)-dimensional manifold
that we
(Minkowski) call(ed) "spacetime".
Sean Carroll gives a very good introduction to this that is (AFAICS)
correct, easy to understand for laypeople (he gives this public
lecture at
The Royal Institution), and humorous (i.e. not boring), which IMO (having
studied GR at university now) is quite a feat:
The Royal Institution/YouTube: The secrets of Einstein's unknown
equation rCo
with Sean Carroll
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRudidBcfXk&list=PL41EYJuJ5YuDn3d13ryZwpzGBXewXa9AH&index=9>
Einstein has also written about it for the 1922 edition of the
Encyclop|adia
Britannica, which after the primers above should be easier to understand:
<https://www.britannica.com/topic/Albert-Einstein-on-Space-Time-1987141>
Very wise post.
Unfortunately (for this group) : Wozniak will, again, scream for ages....
I claimed before that the Pythagorean theorem is just a special case of
this,
Thanks for that :'-(
Le 26/03/2026 |a 03:39, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn a |-crit :
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
The "additional effect" that is observed irrespective of relative
motion can
be explained by the curvature of spacetime: if spacetime is curved
*and* the
local speed of light is the same in all frames of reference, then this
effect would be observed.
For example, with the Schwarzschild metric, a static solution of the
Einstein Field Equations for a spherically-symmetric uniform
distribution of
the total mass M (m := G M/c^2)
[
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a ds^2 = c^2 (d tau)^2
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a = (1 - 2m/r) c^2 dt^2 - (1 - 2m/r)^-1 dr^2 - r^2 (d
Omega)^2,
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a = c^2 dt^2 [1 - 2m/r - (1 - 2m/r)^-1 (dr/dt)^2/c^2
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a - r^2 (d Omega/dt)^2/c^2],
-a (d Omega)^2 = (d theta)^2 + sin^2(theta) (d phi)^2,
]
it is clear that as/if c is the same in all frames of reference, then
even
at relative rest, (dr/dt)^2, (d Omega/dt)^2 = 0, the elapsed proper time >>> (Delta tau = int_W d tau, W the section of a corresponding worldline)
depends on the distance r from the center of mass.
[...]
Another thing that confuses a lot of (lay)people (which included me
before
my studies) is the concept that I have mentioned here: "the curvature of
spacetime".-a How can spacetime be "curved"?-a Is space "curved", is time
"curved", and if yes, what does that mean?-a And what is this "spacetime"
anyway?-a Pictures of bent rubber sheets certainly do not do this concept
justice, and without proper explanation confuse more than they help.
Why do we even call this "curvature"?-a This had confused me, too, until I >> studied general relativity.-a It is actually a term taken over from
analyzing
three-dimensional surfaces that we (humanoids) can still intuitively
understand as we can see and touch them.-a If such a surface is curved,
i.e.
not flat like a sheet, and you put a coordinate grid on it where grid
lines
would have been evenly spaced if it were flat, then it depends on
where you
are on the surface what the distance between points on it along it is
if you
use those coordinates.-a For example, the distance between two lines of
longitude that differ by 1-#, i.e. between two points on the surface whose >> geocoordinates only differ in longitude and only by that much, is much
larger at the equator [ca. (40000/360) km = 111 km] than at the poles
[all
lines of longitude meet there, so the distance between them there is 0
km].
How do we measure the distance between points on such a surface
*along* that
surface?-a It is curved, so if the triangle becomes large enough,
Euclidean
geometry and thus the Pythagorean theorem do not work anymore.-a (They
never
work then, but for small areas the error is too small and can be
neglected.
For example, you can have a large triangle on this surface along the
equator, to one of the poles, and back to the equator at a different
longitude, that has an inner angle sum that is greater than 180-#.)
But it turns out that this theorem is just a special case: We choose a
path
that connects the points and measure/calculate its length.-a The path
between
two points can in general be arbitrarily long (we can make as many
detours
from point A to point B as we want), so for defining the distance between
the two points, we choose a special path between them: the locally
shortest
path, called a *geodesic path* or simply a *geodesic* (which comes from
geodesy/geodetics, the science of measuring and representing the
surface of
Earth; literally: "dividing Earth").-a Its length is determined by a
function
into which we basically put the pairwise differences between the
coordinates
of the points: the *metric*.
The metric is of the general form
-a ds^2 = g_ab dx^a dx^b,
where Einstein notation has been used (a and b are placeholders for the
labels of the coordinates, and one sums over indices that appear as
subscript and as superscript).-a g_ab are components of the *metric
tensor*.
I claimed before that the Pythagorean theorem is just a special case of
this, and here is the proof: If you use as coordinates just x and y,
label
them x^1 and x^2 instead, and define that g_11 := 1, g_12 = g_21 := 0,
and
g_22 := 1, i.e.
-a [g]_ab = (1 0),
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a (0 1)
and you get
-a ds^2 = dx^1 dx^1 + dx^2 dx^2 = (dx^1)^2 + (dx^2)^2 = dx^2 + dy^2.
If you set c := ds, a := dx, and b := dy, there you have it:
-a c^2 = a^2 + b^2-a or-a a^2 + b^2 = c^2.
So the metric tensor tells us how the surface (in general, a manifold)
differs from a flat one, and as the components of the metric tensor
appear
in the metric, the metric does, too.-a One can use the metric (tensor) to
calculate various objects, some of them just numbers (scalars), that
provide
information about the curvature.
Finally, this concept of curvature can be extended to an arbitrary
number of
dimensions, and we (Minkowski, Einstein, and others) found out that
reality
can be best described using an (at least) (1+3)-dimensional manifold
that we
(Minkowski) call(ed) "spacetime".
Sean Carroll gives a very good introduction to this that is (AFAICS)
correct, easy to understand for laypeople (he gives this public
lecture at
The Royal Institution), and humorous (i.e. not boring), which IMO (having
studied GR at university now) is quite a feat:
The Royal Institution/YouTube: The secrets of Einstein's unknown
equation rCo
with Sean Carroll
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=BRudidBcfXk&list=PL41EYJuJ5YuDn3d13ryZwpzGBXewXa9AH&index=9>
Einstein has also written about it for the 1922 edition of the
Encyclop|adia
Britannica, which after the primers above should be easier to understand:
<https://www.britannica.com/topic/Albert-Einstein-on-Space-Time-1987141>
Very wise post.
Unfortunately (for this group) : Wozniak will, again, scream for ages....
On 24/03/2026 4:15 am, john larkin wrote:
On Sun, 22 Mar 2026 15:54:03 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 22/03/2026 4:44 am, john larkin wrote:
On Sun, 22 Mar 2026 04:27:56 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>> wrote:
On 21/03/2026 8:06 pm, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am Freitag000020, 20.03.2026 um 14:06 schrieb Bill Sloman:
On 20/03/2026 8:36 pm, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am Donnerstag000019, 19.03.2026 um 13:18 schrieb Bill Sloman:
...
Subduction is a hypothesis.E.g. I'm a proponent of 'Growing Earth' and 'abiogenic >>>>>>>>>>>>>> oil' and
have spent a lot of time on these topics.
And I'm pretty certain, that Earth does in fact grow and also >>>>>>>>>>>>>> know why.
And I'm pretty certain that you are deceiving yourself. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
But you can't even talk about these topics, because that >>>>>>>>>>>>>> would
cause very harsh reactions.
The continental drift theory took a long time to get accepted. >>>>>>>>>>>>> You do seem to be unaware of it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Wegener
No, because I knew who Wegener was and how his theory worked. >>>>>>>>>>>>
But I'm a proponent of the German geologist Ott-Christoph >>>>>>>>>>>> Hilgenberg, who invented 'Growing Earth' as addition to >>>>>>>>>>>> Wegner's
continental drift theory.
Both theories are quite similar, but have one main difference: >>>>>>>>>>>>
plate tectonics(PT) assumes a constant size of the Earth and >>>>>>>>>>>> growing Earth (called GE here) assumes growth.
So, PT needs something balancing the obvious spreading. PT >>>>>>>>>>>> calls
this 'subduction'.
But 'subduction is blatant nonsense for an large number of >>>>>>>>>>>> reasons.
It happens at oceanic trenches, and is well documented.
But a pretty well tested one.
But it also blatant nonsense. It is actually the lie that plate >>>>>>>>>> tectonics depends on, hence cannot be questioned at all.
But it is nonsense, however.
Subduction would assume thing, which violate simple logic. >>>>>>>>>>
For instance plate tectonics is based on the assumption, that >>>>>>>>>> Earth
would NOT grow. That's why the obvious spreading needs
something to
balance that spreading and that is the alleged subduction.
A growing earth violates the principle of the conservation of >>>>>>>>> mass/
energy. That doesn't make it inconceiveable, but it means that you >>>>>>>>> need very convincing evidence to support the idea, and that >>>>>>>>> doesn't
seem to exist.
Well, it would violate a certain principle which is commonly called >>>>>>>> 'materialism'.
This 'great materialistic metaparadigm' is encoded into what is >>>>>>>> called 'standard model of QM' and belongs to the also fraudulent >>>>>>>> 'big-bang theory'.
Neither is fraudulent - both were advanced as hypotheses and seem to >>>>>>> fit the data. It's perfectly clear that neither is perfect, but >>>>>>> until
you can come up models that work at least as well, nobody is
going to
take your alternatives seriously.
I assume intention and some kind of 'bad physics', which is carefully >>>>>> crafted and force-feed to the defenceless general public.
It had imho started in the mid 19th century with people like
Heaviside
and Gibbs, who tried to tear down Maxwells theories, which were
based on
quaternions and 'aether'.
Heaviside didn't try "to tear down" Maxwell's theory - he just
expressed
it more neatly. Maxwell didn't base his theory on any kind of aether - >>>>> he just a assumed a fluid to support the waves he was talking about >>>>>> Since then science got deliberately derailed.
Seems unlikely. Today's science does seem to work.
You don't know much about it, and may not be aware of this.
This would require some kind of motivation. and for this there are >>>>>> numeorous options:The atom bomb is pretty dangerous,and that made it into the open
time travel
real aliens
transmutation
scalar waves weapons
mind control
...
This would have been, if found in real experiments, be regarded as >>>>>> way
too dangerous, if common people and common enemies would know about. >>>>>
literature.
So, there was a new profession created: so called 'bullshit artists'. >>>>>Nothing new about them. They have been around forever. Modern science >>>>> has a couple of features that do make life difficult for bullshit
artists. Peer-review does make it harder for bullshit artists to get >>>>> their bullshit into the literature, and the habit of publishing
critical
comments in peer-reviewed journals does get rid of some of the rubbish >>>>> that makes it through peer-review.
That was so much fun, that this profession was very attractive to >>>>>> sick
minds (from which we have a lot) and common physics got bananas in >>>>>> the
mean time.
The real example of bull-shit artistry in the modern world is climate >>>>> change denial.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchants_of_Doubt
It does influence public opinion, but it only works on the ignorant >>>>> and
gullible.
So, today only very few resist, because that is actually dangerous >>>>>> and
would not help the own career.
Most educated people ignore climate change denial propaganda. Clowns >>>>> like Donald Trump endorse it, but he is making a lot of money out
being
president.
Climate change doesn't make the top 5 list of things that most people
worry about.
It's creating problems now, but the ones that people notice are mostly
extreme weather, and people aren't all that sensitive the fact that
there's more extreme weather around than there used to be.
That makes sense, because there isn't.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extreme_weather
does suggest otherwise. Tropical cyclones are something of an exception
- they do seem to be getting more intense rather than more numerous,
because they do depend on the existence of an appreciable area of ocean surface above 26.3 degrees Celcius, and once a cyclone has got underway
it cools off that ocean surface. A bigger area of hot ocean fuels a more intense cyclone rather than several smaller ones.
On 3/25/26 03:55, john larkin wrote:
On Tue, 24 Mar 2026 23:29:20 +0100, Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
On 3/24/26 22:12, john larkin wrote:
On Tue, 24 Mar 2026 21:41:09 +0100, Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
On 3/24/26 20:44, john larkin wrote:
On Tue, 24 Mar 2026 19:25:31 +0100, Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
On 3/24/26 13:46, john larkin wrote:
On Tue, 24 Mar 2026 10:20:02 +0100, Gerhard Hoffmann[...]
<dk4xp@arcor.de>
wrote:
Am 23.03.26 um 16:07 schrieb john larkin:
On Mon, 23 Mar 2026 08:48:12 +0100, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
No, I didn't mean the French and British camps, but the POW- >>>>>>>>>>> camps in the
USA, to which about four million german soldiers were brought. >>>>>>>>>>>
(Most of the inmates of the 'Rheinwiesen'-camps.)
What was the fate of those POWs, the US-forces shipped to the >>>>>>>>>>> sates?
(allegedly that were roughly 4 million soldiers)
We boiled them and ate them, except in Texas they bbq'd.
John Larkin
Highland Tech Glen Canyon Design Center
Lunatic Fringe Electronics
... unless they were fellow law-abiding citizens of east
Asian descend in 1942, these were sushi-fied.
George Carlin put it better than I ever could:
<-a-a https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_FQZUSy1Vg-a-a-a-a >
about halfway into the clip.
What a nasty creep. I bet he would have signed up for Nazi Youth. >>>>>>>>
John Larkin
Highland Tech Glen Canyon Design Center
Lunatic Fringe Electronics
It's called 'parody'. The US definitely comes across as creepy.
He makes a living out of being, well, what he has become.
The point shouldn't be about how bad people were 80 or 300 years ago. >>>>>> What's important is how much we have improved.
Jeroen Belleman
It's wonderful around here. People are nice and friendly and helpful >>>>>> and the weather is beautiful today. And the Canyon Market has a
holiday corned-beef reuben today.
The internet isn't much like reality.
John Larkin
Highland Tech Glen Canyon Design Center
Lunatic Fringe Electronics
Ask Iran, or Greenland, Denmark, or Venezuela. Trump is a creep
and the US is a rogue, not to be trusted. I wish it wasn't true,
but it is.
Jeroen Belleman
Should Israel and the USA respect the soverignity of a place run by
murderous thugs, who are building ICBMs and nukes?
Si vis pacem, para bellum. It's the same for any country.
The US has been building nukes and ICBMs for decennia. I wouldn't
be at all surprised to learn that the unrest in Iran was fomented
by the US. It's completely in style.
The US proposed a nuke-free world in 1946. The Russians wouldn't have
it.
John Larkin
Highland Tech Glen Canyon Design Center
Lunatic Fringe Electronics
The US really wanted to remain the *only* nation to have
the bomb.
as/if c is the same in all frames of reference
On 25/03/2026 6:46 pm, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am Sonntag000022, 22.03.2026 um 16:13 schrieb john larkin:
On Sun, 22 Mar 2026 10:45:30 +0100, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de>
wrote:
Am Samstag000021, 21.03.2026 um 15:35 schrieb john larkin:
On Sat, 21 Mar 2026 09:42:20 +0100, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de>
wrote:
Am Freitag000020, 20.03.2026 um 12:28 schrieb john larkin:
On Fri, 20 Mar 2026 10:55:41 +0100, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> >>>>>>> wrote:This is a famous picture of one of the US POW-Camps in Germany:
Am Donnerstag000019, 19.03.2026 um 15:16 schrieb Bill Sloman:
To called Germans 'an ethnic group' is actually Nazism at it's >>>>>>>>>> best.
Except that wasn't what was going on. The people who could be >>>>>>>>> identified
as "German" were looked over on a case-by-case basis to assess >>>>>>>>> whether
they'd be likely to support the German war machine, and a
fairly small
proportion of them were interned. We couldn't sequence human >>>>>>>>> genome
until about 2003, and it isn't all that helpful. I've had it >>>>>>>>> done and
while my ancestors mostly came from England one of my great- >>>>>>>>> grandmothers, while born in England, was a member of a family >>>>>>>>> who had
come over from Strasbourg, so I'm one eighth Rhinelander (and >>>>>>>>> it does
show up clearly in my genome).
There is a little other topic, which isn't discussed that often >>>>>>>> and that
was the fate of the German POWs in US-camps.
They were housed, kept warm, had clean clothes and decent beds, had >>>>>>> medical care, had books and movies, sometimes had paying jobs,
had far
better food than German soldiers.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/23/
Remagen_enclosure.jpg/500px-Remagen_enclosure.jpg
As I see it, there were no tents, no beds, no heating and no fresh >>>>>> clothes.
Instead the German soldiers had to sit on bare ground with no shelter >>>>>> what ever.
And that enormous camp was just one of many US-camps.
When entire divisions or entire armies surrender, it takes a while to >>>>> sort things out.
Sure.
The USA alone captured more then four million German soldiers.
So: what was their fate?
I personally have never heard of any ships coming from the states and
releasing large amounts of POWs to German soil (even if I was born in
Hamburg).
The Soviets did, but only 10% and only in 1955.
That was celebrated and published in all German papers.
But what have they done with German POWs in the USA?
And there is almost no information available about the further
fate of
these inmates.
About soviet camps it is known, that hardly 10% of inmates survived. >>>>>>
But at least those 10% returned home in the mid 1950th.
But what happened to the enormous number of POWs in US-camps?
Some married American women.
Well, possibly. But they needed to be released from the camps, before
they could look for american brides.
Not always. Many POWs worked on farms, for pay, worked and ate with
the often-female farmers whose men were away or dead.
Things happened.
Sure, that was certainly possible.
But I wasn't talking about rare exceptions, but about the mass of the
4 million POWs.
If they were actually released, the USA would most likely shipped them
back to Germany after some years in prison.
You've been told repeatedly what did happen, based on the wikipedia
entry on the subject. It looks as if only 400,000 German POWs got
shipped to the US, and they were all shipped back to Europe in 1946 -
not to Germany but to the UK and France where they were employed as labourers for three years.
But such vessels, of say 1000 POWs each, should have reached a German
port.
None seem to have been sent directly back to Germany.
But apparently these 4000 boats didn't arrive in Germany.
Only about 400,000 of the German POW's - those captured earlier in WW2 -
got shipped to the US. The 3,600,000 captured at the end of WW2 stayed
in Europe, as in France and the UK
The satellites have to be constantly adjusted after
an account of reckoning, position, and their drift,
off the "pseudo-packets" or a usual account of a
spread-spectrum approach to "synchronize the watches".
That's because in the terrestrial ephemeris it's
"Parameterized Post-Newtonian", the 20+ factors.
Ground receivers simply don't need to know that.
Nobody can see all the way down the abstraction stack, not even
physicists. They don't know where the universe came from or how it
actually works.
Well, I actually can (at least I've tried).
So, have a look at my 'book':
https://docs.google.com/presentation/
d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing
Don't bother.
Both engineers and physicists work with whatever they can get.
Yes, the borders are thin between both realms.
But physics is actually a natural science and engineers are mainly
concerned with what they have built themselves.
The thing I like about desiging electronics is the many things it
involves, and the fact that we can be done in months and move on to
something else that's interesting.
Only a small part of engineering is dealing with electronics.
Engineers exist in several 'flavors', which range from building
bridges to chemistry.
...
And you don't know much about any of them.
On 03/25/2026 09:22 PM, Lahn wrote:
as/if c is the same in all frames of reference
"as if"
The "as if" approach to things is a sort of what's
called "fallibilism after nominalism".
It's sort of like, "almost everywhere": not exactly everywhere.
Now, I'm not pointing out that the account is just another
equivalent conservative explanation saying nothing different
at all just to be contrary: just pointing out that that sort
of account is saying nothing different at all just to go along.
If what you enjoy is "Christmas Talks" at the "Royal Institution",
I'd suggest Michael Faraday's, then that one with the fellow with
the gyroscopes, or Eric Laithwaite. (Faraday's is first in print,
and Laithwaite's is first on television.)
So, for accounts of the metric and norm, then usually it's
triangle inequality in the formalism, and then about the
curvature of space-time, one may aver that since the great
awaited results of the Cosmic Microwave Background Explorer,
that it's validated that the universe is isotropic, or "flat".
Then, the cosmological constant has a value as a mathematical
infinitesimal: then as with regards to whether it's negligeable
or non-negligeable, is for matters of "the indefiniteness of ds^2".
Anyways "as if" is also "as if not".
On 3/25/2026 11:20 AM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
You know, and have frequently repeated the fact that the rate
of GPS SV clocks are adjusted down by the factor (1-4.4647e-10)
and that the clocks then will stay in sync with clocks on
the ground.
Clocks had to be adjusted - generally,:-D
only in the moronic delusions of physicists
they don't have to be-a adjusted and by some
unknown magic they appear with built-in ability
of working correctly (i.e. the way of their
idiot guru).
Den 25.03.2026 15:24, skrev Ross Finlayson:
The satellites have to be constantly adjusted after
an account of reckoning, position, and their drift,
off the "pseudo-packets" or a usual account of a
spread-spectrum approach to "synchronize the watches".
This statement doesn't make sense.
That's because in the terrestrial ephemeris it's
"Parameterized Post-Newtonian", the 20+ factors.
Why would you use PPN formalism in the GPS?
Ground receivers simply don't need to know that.
I suppose you by "ground receivers" mean the GPS-receivers,
not the GPS-monitoring stations.
The fact is that the GPS-receivers must know "everything".
Let's start with the satellite orbits. The nominal orbits
for all the SVs are pre-stored in the GPS-receiver.
The monitor stations will measure the real orbits, and
upload ephemeris to the SVs, which in turn will download
the correction ephemeris to receivers, so the receiver will
know the exact orbits. The result is that when a receiver
receives the time when the signal was sent from the SV, it will
know the position of the SV when the signal was sent.
Now about the time:
The clocks in the SVs are normally not adjusted in any way while
the SV is in service, and may be several microseconds off sync.
But the monitoring stations will measure how the clocks behave,
and upload corrections to the SV. These corrections are downloaded
to the receivers, and the calculation of the correct time is done
in the receiver.
See:
http://paulba.no/div/GPS_clock_correction.pdf
The ephemeris and clock corrections are uploaded to the SVs
typically once a day.
You mention "spread spectrum".
Yes, spread spectrum technique is used in GPS.
Consider this:
A receiver will receive the signal from up to 12 SVs at the same time.
All these SVs are transmitting at the same carrier frequencies, and
the signal from each SV will be Doppler shifted to a different degree.
The resulting signal will be much like random noise.
So how can a receiver pick out the signal from each SV?
Each SV has a unique Pseudo Random Noise (PRN) signal. This signal
is 1024 chips long, and is sent during 1 ms. This signal is sent
continuously from the SV. All the other data are modulated on top
of the PRN signal. (But that's another story.)
A receiver may have up to 12 channels, and each channel will
use cross-correlation (matched filter) between the signal and
a PRN signal to 'dig out' the signal containing the PRN-code.
The receiver will lock to this signal in a phase locked
loop, where the data bits can be extracted.
See:
https://www.gps.gov/sites/default/files/2025-07/IS-GPS-200N.pdf
On 25/03/2026 6:59 pm, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am Montag000023, 23.03.2026 um 12:31 schrieb Bill Sloman:
On 23/03/2026 7:21 pm, Thomas Heger wrote:Yes, that is actually a true statement and I have no intentions to
Am Sonntag000022, 22.03.2026 um 12:21 schrieb Bill Sloman:
...Or anybody else.the huge basement was not a compact mess of stone and steel, >>>>>>>>>>>> as we would expect, but was almost entirely undamaged.
As you might expect if you neglected to think about what had >>>>>>>>>>> actually happened.
No, not at all.
I personally thought, that an exotic weapon was used, which >>>>>>>>>> could turn large structures of steel and concrete into fine dust. >>>>>>>>>>
But I would have doubts about al-quida having such a device. >>>>>>>>>
That should shock you, since that would mean, that 80 to 90% >>>>>>>>>>>> of the original building materials vanished without a trace. >>>>>>>>>>>Dust clouds are ephemeral. They blow away. They don't have to >>>>>>>>>>> blow far away to avoid showing up in the basement.
Dust blows away, that's true.
But how would you transform a 400m skyscraper into fine dust??
It also happened in mid-air, because the fine dust was blown >>>>>>>>>> away, before it had reached the ground.
400 meters is quite a long way up in the air, and a fierce fire >>>>>>>>> generates a lot of air-circulation.
Well, yes 400m is quite a height. But free-falling rubble needs >>>>>>>> only a few seconds to pass that distance.
9.032 seconds. It gets up to a speed of 88.57m/sec.
A little wind drag and we get 10 seconds for a piece of rubble to
fall down from the roof.
The bulk of the building was below the roof.
reject you claim.
The speed would also be very high and in the range of 300 km/h.
Only if it fell all the way from the roof, and if it didn't slowed
down the air currents feeding oxygen into the fires and replacing the
hot air rising out of the fire.
Sure, but if we take, say, only the highest 10% of the building and
ignore the rest, then we would encounter at least those 10% smashing
upon the ground level with more then 300 km/h.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_of_the_World_Trade_Center
says it didn't happen that way. When the floor slabs starting falling
onto the floor slabs below them, they stated from the top, and each
falling slab dissipated most of its kinetic energy in breaking the links between the slab below it and the supporting columns. This only took
about a tenth of second for the lower floors, but none of them got to
travel at anything like 300km per hour. the supporting columns fell
sideways rather an straight down, and some of them j]hit adjacent
buildings.
This velocity would multiply with an enormous mass of up to 20000 kg
per piece to a gigantic momentum.
Except that it didn't.
And because momentum is a conserved quantity, we need tremendous
amounts of material to stop such a falling piece.
Momentum is only conserved from interaction-a to interaction. When a building fall down over about an hour there are lots of interactions and
lots of accounting to be done.
This material needs to shoot away from a large crater with very high
speed.
Only if it was travelling really fast when it hit the ground, and it
wasn't.
But that didn't happen, because the street level of WTC-Plaza wasn't
demaged at all (well a few holes were actually punched into the street
level, but not remotely as much and as large as expected).
The WTC plaza wasn't actually directly below the Twin Towers.
So, material objects with a mass larger than 20 to of steel and
concrete 'dustified' in mid air and were blown away.
They got broken up in a series of smaller collisions, as each floor fell onto the floor below it, and got further broken up by each impact in succession.
Am Dienstag000024, 24.03.2026 um 12:45 schrieb Bill Sloman:
On 24/03/2026 4:15 am, john larkin wrote:
On Sun, 22 Mar 2026 15:54:03 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 22/03/2026 4:44 am, john larkin wrote:
On Sun, 22 Mar 2026 04:27:56 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>>> wrote:
On 21/03/2026 8:06 pm, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am Freitag000020, 20.03.2026 um 14:06 schrieb Bill Sloman:
On 20/03/2026 8:36 pm, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am Donnerstag000019, 19.03.2026 um 13:18 schrieb Bill Sloman:
It's creating problems now, but the ones that people notice are mostly >>>> extreme weather, and people aren't all that sensitive the fact that
there's more extreme weather around than there used to be.
That makes sense, because there isn't.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extreme_weather
does suggest otherwise. Tropical cyclones are something of an
exception - they do seem to be getting more intense rather than more
numerous, because they do depend on the existence of an appreciable
area of ocean surface above 26.3 degrees Celcius, and once a cyclone
has got underway it cools off that ocean surface. A bigger area of hot
ocean fuels a more intense cyclone rather than several smaller ones.
We would expect weather to be distributed in some sort of randomness.
This means:
most of the weather is usual and some conditions are extreme.
But how would you measure the patterns of weather and quantify them???
Usually randomness is distributed with some sort of bell-shaped curve.
The mean conditions (of weather in this case) are numerous and the rare exceptions are, well, rare.
So, you need to measure the weather distribution by measuring for some
time each condition and then sort these contidions by stacking up the numbers on the y-axis and distribute the specific condition on the x-axis.
This should produce some sort of bell shaped curve, because almost all random events produce such curves.
Now, such shaped curves are usually not defined by the extreme
conditions, but by other parameters like mean, symmetry, maximum and standard average.
The 'extreme weather' considerations are therefor nonsense, if you want
to find trends in the climate.
Am Mittwoch000025, 25.03.2026 um 11:31 schrieb Bill Sloman:
...
Nobody can see all the way down the abstraction stack, not even
physicists. They don't know where the universe came from or how it
actually works.
Well, I actually can (at least I've tried).
So, have a look at my 'book':
https://docs.google.com/presentation/
d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing
Don't bother.
Both engineers and physicists work with whatever they can get.
Yes, the borders are thin between both realms.
But physics is actually a natural science and engineers are mainly
concerned with what they have built themselves.
The thing I like about desiging electronics is the many things it
involves, and the fact that we can be done in months and move on to
something else that's interesting.
Only a small part of engineering is dealing with electronics.
Engineers exist in several 'flavors', which range from building
bridges to chemistry.
...
And you don't know much about any of them.
Sure, I have never build a bridge.
But I know a few things about electronics and chemistry.
My specific 'flavour' is called 'economics engineering'.
It is kind of mixture of economics and building machines.
That is quite difficult and not a very common topic in other countries.
(It's among the 'crown jewels' of German education.)
Am Dienstag000024, 24.03.2026 um 12:45 schrieb Bill Sloman:
On 24/03/2026 4:15 am, john larkin wrote:
On Sun, 22 Mar 2026 15:54:03 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 22/03/2026 4:44 am, john larkin wrote:
On Sun, 22 Mar 2026 04:27:56 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>>> wrote:
On 21/03/2026 8:06 pm, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am Freitag000020, 20.03.2026 um 14:06 schrieb Bill Sloman:
On 20/03/2026 8:36 pm, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am Donnerstag000019, 19.03.2026 um 13:18 schrieb Bill Sloman: >>>>>>>>> ...
E.g. I'm a proponent of 'Growing Earth' and 'abiogenic >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> oil' and
have spent a lot of time on these topics.
And I'm pretty certain, that Earth does in fact grow and also >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know why.
And I'm pretty certain that you are deceiving yourself. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
But you can't even talk about these topics, because that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would
cause very harsh reactions.
The continental drift theory took a long time to get accepted. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> You do seem to be unaware of it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Wegener
No, because I knew who Wegener was and how his theory worked. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
But I'm a proponent of the German geologist Ott-Christoph >>>>>>>>>>>>> Hilgenberg, who invented 'Growing Earth' as addition to >>>>>>>>>>>>> Wegner's
continental drift theory.
Both theories are quite similar, but have one main difference: >>>>>>>>>>>>>
plate tectonics(PT) assumes a constant size of the Earth and >>>>>>>>>>>>> growing Earth (called GE here) assumes growth.
So, PT needs something balancing the obvious spreading. PT >>>>>>>>>>>>> calls
this 'subduction'.
But 'subduction is blatant nonsense for an large number of >>>>>>>>>>>>> reasons.
It happens at oceanic trenches, and is well documented. >>>>>>>>>>> Subduction is a hypothesis.
But a pretty well tested one.
A growing earth violates the principle of the conservation of >>>>>>>>>> mass/
But it also blatant nonsense. It is actually the lie that plate >>>>>>>>>>> tectonics depends on, hence cannot be questioned at all. >>>>>>>>>>>
But it is nonsense, however.
Subduction would assume thing, which violate simple logic. >>>>>>>>>>>
For instance plate tectonics is based on the assumption, that >>>>>>>>>>> Earth
would NOT grow. That's why the obvious spreading needs
something to
balance that spreading and that is the alleged subduction. >>>>>>>>>>
energy. That doesn't make it inconceiveable, but it means that you >>>>>>>>>> need very convincing evidence to support the idea, and that >>>>>>>>>> doesn't
seem to exist.
Well, it would violate a certain principle which is commonly called >>>>>>>>> 'materialism'.
This 'great materialistic metaparadigm' is encoded into what is >>>>>>>>> called 'standard model of QM' and belongs to the also fraudulent >>>>>>>>> 'big-bang theory'.
Neither is fraudulent - both were advanced as hypotheses and seem to >>>>>>>> fit the data. It's perfectly clear that neither is perfect, but >>>>>>>> until
you can come up models that work at least as well, nobody is
going to
take your alternatives seriously.
I assume intention and some kind of 'bad physics', which is carefully >>>>>>> crafted and force-feed to the defenceless general public.
It had imho started in the mid 19th century with people like
Heaviside
and Gibbs, who tried to tear down Maxwells theories, which were >>>>>>> based on
quaternions and 'aether'.
Heaviside didn't try "to tear down" Maxwell's theory - he just
expressed
it more neatly. Maxwell didn't base his theory on any kind of aether - >>>>>> he just a assumed a fluid to support the waves he was talking about >>>>>>> Since then science got deliberately derailed.
Seems unlikely. Today's science does seem to work.
You don't know much about it, and may not be aware of this.
This would require some kind of motivation. and for this there are >>>>>>> numeorous options:The atom bomb is pretty dangerous,and that made it into the open
time travel
real aliens
transmutation
scalar waves weapons
mind control
...
This would have been, if found in real experiments, be regarded as >>>>>>> way
too dangerous, if common people and common enemies would know about. >>>>>>
literature.
So, there was a new profession created: so called 'bullshit artists'. >>>>>>Nothing new about them. They have been around forever. Modern science >>>>>> has a couple of features that do make life difficult for bullshit
artists. Peer-review does make it harder for bullshit artists to get >>>>>> their bullshit into the literature, and the habit of publishing
critical
comments in peer-reviewed journals does get rid of some of the rubbish >>>>>> that makes it through peer-review.
That was so much fun, that this profession was very attractive to >>>>>>> sick
minds (from which we have a lot) and common physics got bananas in >>>>>>> the
mean time.
The real example of bull-shit artistry in the modern world is climate >>>>>> change denial.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchants_of_Doubt
It does influence public opinion, but it only works on the ignorant >>>>>> and
gullible.
So, today only very few resist, because that is actually dangerous >>>>>>> and
would not help the own career.
Most educated people ignore climate change denial propaganda. Clowns >>>>>> like Donald Trump endorse it, but he is making a lot of money out >>>>>> being
president.
Climate change doesn't make the top 5 list of things that most people >>>>> worry about.
It's creating problems now, but the ones that people notice are mostly >>>> extreme weather, and people aren't all that sensitive the fact that
there's more extreme weather around than there used to be.
That makes sense, because there isn't.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extreme_weather
does suggest otherwise. Tropical cyclones are something of an exception
- they do seem to be getting more intense rather than more numerous,
because they do depend on the existence of an appreciable area of ocean
surface above 26.3 degrees Celcius, and once a cyclone has got underway
it cools off that ocean surface. A bigger area of hot ocean fuels a more
intense cyclone rather than several smaller ones.
We would expect weather to be distributed in some sort of randomness.
This means:
most of the weather is usual and some conditions are extreme.
But how would you measure the patterns of weather and quantify them???
Usually randomness is distributed with some sort of bell-shaped curve.
The mean conditions (of weather in this case) are numerous and the rare >exceptions are, well, rare.
So, you need to measure the weather distribution by measuring for some
time each condition and then sort these contions by stacking up the
numbers on the y-axis and distribute the specific condition on the x-axis.
This should produce some sort of bell shaped curve, because almost all >random events produce such curves.
Now, such shaped curves are usually not defined by the extreme
conditions, but by other parameters like mean, symmetry, maximum and >standard average.
The 'extreme weather' considerations are therefor nonsense, if you want
to find trends in the climate.
TH
Am Mittwoch000025, 25.03.2026 um 09:36 schrieb Jeroen Belleman:
On 3/25/26 03:55, john larkin wrote:
On Tue, 24 Mar 2026 23:29:20 +0100, Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
On 3/24/26 22:12, john larkin wrote:
On Tue, 24 Mar 2026 21:41:09 +0100, Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
On 3/24/26 20:44, john larkin wrote:
On Tue, 24 Mar 2026 19:25:31 +0100, Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
On 3/24/26 13:46, john larkin wrote:
On Tue, 24 Mar 2026 10:20:02 +0100, Gerhard Hoffmann
<dk4xp@arcor.de>
wrote:
Am 23.03.26 um 16:07 schrieb john larkin:
On Mon, 23 Mar 2026 08:48:12 +0100, Thomas Heger
<ttt_heg@web.de>
wrote:
The US really wanted to remain the *only* nation to haveThis is a quite natural wish, but unfortunately it is also impossible.
the bomb.
Knowledge distributes usually with an exponential function and that may
seem like a good stopper for the distribution of secrets.
BUT: this does only slow down the distribution, but would not stop it entirely.
Even if you try very hard to protect your secrets, they will eventually
leak out at unexpected places.
You could try to prevent such leaks, but you will always fail (on the
long run).
It could take some time, but the more people try to crack the codes and steal the secrets, the more likely it will become, that valuable secrets leak through seemingly unbreakable walls.
Den 25.03.2026 15:48, skrev Maciej Wo+|niak:
On 3/25/2026 11:20 AM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
You know, and have frequently repeated the fact that the rate
of GPS SV clocks are adjusted down by the factor (1-4.4647e-10)
and that the clocks then will stay in sync with clocks on
the ground.
:-D
Clocks had to be adjusted - generally,
only in the moronic delusions of physicists
they don't have to be-a adjusted and by some
unknown magic they appear with built-in ability
of working correctly (i.e. the way of their
idiot guru).
Am Mittwoch000025, 25.03.2026 um 11:21 schrieb Bill Sloman:
On 25/03/2026 6:46 pm, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am Sonntag000022, 22.03.2026 um 16:13 schrieb john larkin:
On Sun, 22 Mar 2026 10:45:30 +0100, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de>
wrote:
Am Samstag000021, 21.03.2026 um 15:35 schrieb john larkin:
On Sat, 21 Mar 2026 09:42:20 +0100, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de>
wrote:
Am Freitag000020, 20.03.2026 um 12:28 schrieb john larkin:
On Fri, 20 Mar 2026 10:55:41 +0100, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> >>>>>>>> wrote:This is a famous picture of one of the US POW-Camps in Germany:
Am Donnerstag000019, 19.03.2026 um 15:16 schrieb Bill Sloman: >>>>>>>>>
To called Germans 'an ethnic group' is actually Nazism at >>>>>>>>>>> it's best.
Except that wasn't what was going on. The people who could be >>>>>>>>>> identified
as "German" were looked over on a case-by-case basis to assess >>>>>>>>>> whether
they'd be likely to support the German war machine, and a >>>>>>>>>> fairly small
proportion of them were interned. We couldn't sequence human >>>>>>>>>> genome
until about 2003, and it isn't all that helpful. I've had it >>>>>>>>>> done and
while my ancestors mostly came from England one of my great- >>>>>>>>>> grandmothers, while born in England, was a member of a family >>>>>>>>>> who had
come over from Strasbourg, so I'm one eighth Rhinelander (and >>>>>>>>>> it does
show up clearly in my genome).
There is a little other topic, which isn't discussed that often >>>>>>>>> and that
was the fate of the German POWs in US-camps.
They were housed, kept warm, had clean clothes and decent beds, had >>>>>>>> medical care, had books and movies, sometimes had paying jobs, >>>>>>>> had far
better food than German soldiers.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/23/
Remagen_enclosure.jpg/500px-Remagen_enclosure.jpg
As I see it, there were no tents, no beds, no heating and no
fresh clothes.
Instead the German soldiers had to sit on bare ground with no
shelter
what ever.
And that enormous camp was just one of many US-camps.
When entire divisions or entire armies surrender, it takes a while to >>>>>> sort things out.
Sure.
The USA alone captured more then four million German soldiers.
So: what was their fate?
I personally have never heard of any ships coming from the states and >>>>> releasing large amounts of POWs to German soil (even if I was born in >>>>> Hamburg).
The Soviets did, but only 10% and only in 1955.
That was celebrated and published in all German papers.
But what have they done with German POWs in the USA?
And there is almost no information available about the further
fate of
these inmates.
About soviet camps it is known, that hardly 10% of inmates survived. >>>>>>>
But at least those 10% returned home in the mid 1950th.
But what happened to the enormous number of POWs in US-camps?
Some married American women.
Well, possibly. But they needed to be released from the camps, before >>>>> they could look for american brides.
Not always. Many POWs worked on farms, for pay, worked and ate with
the often-female farmers whose men were away or dead.
Things happened.
Sure, that was certainly possible.
But I wasn't talking about rare exceptions, but about the mass of the
4 million POWs.
If they were actually released, the USA would most likely shipped
them back to Germany after some years in prison.
You've been told repeatedly what did happen, based on the wikipedia
entry on the subject. It looks as if only 400,000 German POWs got
shipped to the US, and they were all shipped back to Europe in 1946 -
not to Germany but to the UK and France where they were employed as
labourers for three years.
But such vessels, of say 1000 POWs each, should have reached a German
port.
None seem to have been sent directly back to Germany.
But apparently these 4000 boats didn't arrive in Germany.
Only about 400,000 of the German POW's - those captured earlier in WW2
- got shipped to the US. The 3,600,000 captured at the end of WW2
stayed in Europe, as in France and the UK
Look at this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rheinwiesenlager
If the US forces captured 4.000.000 Germans and brought only 400.000 to
the USA, then we would need to find out, where the missing 3.600.000 remained.
The idea, that additional 3.6 million Germans where brought to France is just stupid, because France was also suffering in those years and could
not support so many new 'eaters' (same with the UK, where they still had food stamps at that time).
France,Russia and the UK took already numerous German POWs (roughly the
half of 7.7 million captured Germans in total).
The POWs had to be released, anyhow, because after WWII that war was obviously over (togehter with interned US-citizens).
Not to do that and to capture and displace even more people and to force them to slave labour was actually a war crime.
Additional war crimes were committed, because not only military personal were captured, but also elderly, woman and children.
Other war crimes were the support of 'ethnic cleansing' by allied
troops, who helped eviction of Germans for no other reason than they
were Germans.
Even if there does not exist a German ethnicity, the very definition of those who were evicted is a sort of 'ethnic cleansing' (= forcing people
out of a certain area, which have some personal things in common).
Am Mittwoch000025, 25.03.2026 um 12:01 schrieb Bill Sloman:
On 25/03/2026 6:59 pm, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am Montag000023, 23.03.2026 um 12:31 schrieb Bill Sloman:
On 23/03/2026 7:21 pm, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am Sonntag000022, 22.03.2026 um 12:21 schrieb Bill Sloman:
Momentum is only conserved from interaction-a to interaction. When a
building fall down over about an hour there are lots of interactions and
lots of accounting to be done.
Sure, if a comet smashes onto, say, the Moon, then the large momentum of
the comet falling onto the Moon needs to be stopped somehow by the surface,
You could use several methods, but 'conservation of momentum' has advantages, because it would provide intuitive understanding for the formation of craters:
The crater is so large, because the missing material inside the crater
was needed, to balance the momentum of the moving debris.
IoW: the material on the ground got struck by the falling part and
unless the momentum is transferred to material from the ground, the
falling piece would continue to move.
That's why the velocity of the material from the ground could become
very high and the crater very large, until finally the projectile is stopped.
This material needs to shoot away from a large crater with very high
speed.
Only if it was travelling really fast when it hit the ground, and it
wasn't.
Actually the velocity was more than 300 km/h and I would regard that as fast.
We could also encounter 'elastic recoil', which could allow speeds of
parts or the material on the ground to be faster than the falling debris.
But that didn't happen, because the street level of WTC-Plaza wasn't
demaged at all (well a few holes were actually punched into the
street level, but not remotely as much and as large as expected).
The WTC plaza wasn't actually directly below the Twin Towers.
Well, possibly.
I have never been there and don't know the exact street names. But you
could guess what I meant:
the surface of the ground level of the entire WTC-complex.
So, material objects with a mass larger than 20 to of steel and
concrete 'dustified' in mid air and were blown away.
They got broken up in a series of smaller collisions, as each floor
fell onto the floor below it, and got further broken up by each impact
in succession.
That's not how things fall, if they hit something hard below.
Am Mittwoch000025, 25.03.2026 um 09:36 schrieb Jeroen Belleman:
On 3/25/26 03:55, john larkin wrote:This is a quite natural wish, but unfortunately it is also impossible.
On Tue, 24 Mar 2026 23:29:20 +0100, Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
On 3/24/26 22:12, john larkin wrote:
On Tue, 24 Mar 2026 21:41:09 +0100, Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
On 3/24/26 20:44, john larkin wrote:
On Tue, 24 Mar 2026 19:25:31 +0100, Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
On 3/24/26 13:46, john larkin wrote:He makes a living out of being, well, what he has become.
On Tue, 24 Mar 2026 10:20:02 +0100, Gerhard Hoffmann[...]
<dk4xp@arcor.de>
wrote:
Am 23.03.26 um 16:07 schrieb john larkin:
On Mon, 23 Mar 2026 08:48:12 +0100, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
No, I didn't mean the French and British camps, but the POW- >>>>>>>>>>>> camps in the
USA, to which about four million german soldiers were brought. >>>>>>>>>>>>
(Most of the inmates of the 'Rheinwiesen'-camps.)
What was the fate of those POWs, the US-forces shipped to the >>>>>>>>>>>> sates?
(allegedly that were roughly 4 million soldiers)
We boiled them and ate them, except in Texas they bbq'd. >>>>>>>>>>>
John Larkin
Highland Tech Glen Canyon Design Center
Lunatic Fringe Electronics
... unless they were fellow law-abiding citizens of east
Asian descend in 1942, these were sushi-fied.
George Carlin put it better than I ever could:
<aa https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_FQZUSy1Vgaaaa >
about halfway into the clip.
What a nasty creep. I bet he would have signed up for Nazi Youth. >>>>>>>>>
John Larkin
Highland Tech Glen Canyon Design Center
Lunatic Fringe Electronics
It's called 'parody'. The US definitely comes across as creepy. >>>>>>>
The point shouldn't be about how bad people were 80 or 300 years ago. >>>>>>> What's important is how much we have improved.
Jeroen Belleman
It's wonderful around here. People are nice and friendly and helpful >>>>>>> and the weather is beautiful today. And the Canyon Market has a
holiday corned-beef reuben today.
The internet isn't much like reality.
John Larkin
Highland Tech Glen Canyon Design Center
Lunatic Fringe Electronics
Ask Iran, or Greenland, Denmark, or Venezuela. Trump is a creep
and the US is a rogue, not to be trusted. I wish it wasn't true,
but it is.
Jeroen Belleman
Should Israel and the USA respect the soverignity of a place run by
murderous thugs, who are building ICBMs and nukes?
Si vis pacem, para bellum. It's the same for any country.
The US has been building nukes and ICBMs for decennia. I wouldn't
be at all surprised to learn that the unrest in Iran was fomented
by the US. It's completely in style.
The US proposed a nuke-free world in 1946. The Russians wouldn't have
it.
John Larkin
Highland Tech Glen Canyon Design Center
Lunatic Fringe Electronics
The US really wanted to remain the *only* nation to have
the bomb.
Knowledge distributes usually with an exponential function and that may
seem like a good stopper for the distribution of secrets.
BUT: this does only slow down the distribution, but would not stop it >entirely.
Even if you try very hard to protect your secrets, they will eventually
leak out at unexpected places.
You could try to prevent such leaks, but you will always fail (on the
long run).
It could take some time, but the more people try to crack the codes and >steal the secrets, the more likely it will become, that valuable secrets >leak through seemingly unbreakable walls.
TH
On 27/03/2026 12:33 am, Thomas Heger wrote:Don't bother.
Am Mittwoch000025, 25.03.2026 um 11:31 schrieb Bill Sloman: ...
Nobody can see all the way down the abstraction stack, not
even physicists. They don't know where the universe came from
or how it actually works.
Well, I actually can (at least I've tried).
So, have a look at my 'book':
https://docs.google.com/presentation/
d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing
Both engineers and physicists work with whatever they can
get.
Yes, the borders are thin between both realms.
But physics is actually a natural science and engineers are
mainly concerned with what they have built themselves.
The thing I like about desiging electronics is the many
things it involves, and the fact that we can be done in
months and move on to something else that's interesting.
Only a small part of engineering is dealing with electronics.
Engineers exist in several 'flavors', which range from building
bridges to chemistry. ...
And you don't know much about any of them.
Sure, I have never build a bridge.
But I know a few things about electronics and chemistry.
My specific 'flavour' is called 'economics engineering'.
It is kind of mixture of economics and building machines.
That is quite difficult and not a very common topic in other
countries.
(It's among the 'crown jewels' of German education.)
My wife was a director of a Max Planck Institute. I do know a bit
about German education, and value engineering isn't one of it's crown
jewels.
If you want to build a machine more cheaply, you don't study it's
economics, you study what it does and work out a way to do that
differently with a different, cheaper and faster machine.
I'm aware that Fraunhofer Institutes tend to be more applied than Max
Planck Institutes, but I doubt that you work for any of them
either.
On 03/26/2026 08:03 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 27/03/2026 12:33 am, Thomas Heger wrote:Don't bother.
Am Mittwoch000025, 25.03.2026 um 11:31 schrieb Bill Sloman: ...
Nobody can see all the way down the abstraction stack, not
even physicists. They don't know where the universe came from
or how it actually works.
Well, I actually can (at least I've tried).
So, have a look at my 'book':
https://docs.google.com/presentation/
d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing
Both engineers and physicists work with whatever they can
get.
Yes, the borders are thin between both realms.
But physics is actually a natural science and engineers are
mainly concerned with what they have built themselves.
The thing I like about desiging electronics is the many
things it involves, and the fact that we can be done in
months and move on to something else that's interesting.
Only a small part of engineering is dealing with electronics.
Engineers exist in several 'flavors', which range from building
bridges to chemistry. ...
And you don't know much about any of them.
Sure, I have never build a bridge.
But I know a few things about electronics and chemistry.
My specific 'flavour' is called 'economics engineering'.
It is kind of mixture of economics and building machines.
That is quite difficult and not a very common topic in other
countries.
(It's among the 'crown jewels' of German education.)
My wife was a director of a Max Planck Institute. I do know a bit
about German education, and value engineering isn't one of it's crown
jewels.
If you want to build a machine more cheaply, you don't study it's
economics, you study what it does and work out a way to do that
differently with a different, cheaper and faster machine.
I'm aware that Fraunhofer Institutes tend to be more applied than Max
Planck Institutes, but I doubt that you work for any of them
either.
Here the "value engineering" is much inspired by
the "Miles Value Foundation", with regards to
Miles and Deming and so on.
https://www.valuefoundation.org/
Value, Quality, ....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._Edwards_Deming https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_D._Miles
Deming and Miles are considered among the
"four founders" of the efforts as re-built
the economy of Japan since WWII.
That used to be a common sort of story while
though it seems a bit lost on the modern sorts
of the anarcho-crapitalist who don't know their
roots and where their food came from.
I know a guy who knows Miles who knows Deming, ....
The "value engineering" used to be a central
tenet of the "operations research" of the
"United States Government".
On 03/26/2026 09:33 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 03/26/2026 08:03 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 27/03/2026 12:33 am, Thomas Heger wrote:Don't bother.
Am Mittwoch000025, 25.03.2026 um 11:31 schrieb Bill Sloman: ...
Nobody can see all the way down the abstraction stack, not
even physicists. They don't know where the universe came from
or how it actually works.
Well, I actually can (at least I've tried).
So, have a look at my 'book':
https://docs.google.com/presentation/
d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing
Both engineers and physicists work with whatever they can
get.
Yes, the borders are thin between both realms.
But physics is actually a natural science and engineers are
mainly concerned with what they have built themselves.
The thing I like about desiging electronics is the many
things it involves, and the fact that we can be done in
months and move on to something else that's interesting.
Only a small part of engineering is dealing with electronics.
Engineers exist in several 'flavors', which range from building
bridges to chemistry. ...
And you don't know much about any of them.
Sure, I have never build a bridge.
But I know a few things about electronics and chemistry.
My specific 'flavour' is called 'economics engineering'.
It is kind of mixture of economics and building machines.
That is quite difficult and not a very common topic in other
countries.
(It's among the 'crown jewels' of German education.)
My wife was a director of a Max Planck Institute. I do know a bit
about German education, and value engineering isn't one of it's crown
jewels.
If you want to build a machine more cheaply, you don't study it's
economics, you study what it does and work out a way to do that
differently with a different, cheaper and faster machine.
I'm aware that Fraunhofer Institutes tend to be more applied than Max
Planck Institutes, but I doubt that you work for any of them
either.
Here the "value engineering" is much inspired by
the "Miles Value Foundation", with regards to
Miles and Deming and so on.
https://www.valuefoundation.org/
Value, Quality, ....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._Edwards_Deming
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_D._Miles
Deming and Miles are considered among the
"four founders" of the efforts as re-built
the economy of Japan since WWII.
That used to be a common sort of story while
though it seems a bit lost on the modern sorts
of the anarcho-crapitalist who don't know their
roots and where their food came from.
I know a guy who knows Miles who knows Deming, ....
The "value engineering" used to be a central
tenet of the "operations research" of the
"United States Government".
Here the idea of "value engineering" is
quite distinct from the "cheapness" or the
"planned obsolescence", and of course not
at all about "the values of morals and ethics
their engineering", instead it's as of an aspect
of Value and Quality the values that contribute
to quality, and where long lifetime is a value itself.
The "value engineering" is not
"the cheapo-nomics of anarcho-crapitalism".
The "value engineering" was simply a primary analysis
of cost drivers, which over the lifetime engage
both parsimony and fullness and the quality.
The "value engineering" is not "disposable society".
The "value engineering" basically used to
keep costs of government services in check.
The economist Samuelson's "total utility function"
also includes matters of aesthetics and ecology,
not just the payout of the greed-grab.
On 03/26/2026 06:26 AM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 25.03.2026 15:24, skrev Ross Finlayson:
The satellites have to be constantly adjusted after
an account of reckoning, position, and their drift,
off the "pseudo-packets" or a usual account of a
spread-spectrum approach to "synchronize the watches".
This statement doesn't make sense.
That's because in the terrestrial ephemeris it's
"Parameterized Post-Newtonian", the 20+ factors.
Why would you use PPN formalism in the GPS?
Ground receivers simply don't need to know that.
I suppose you by "ground receivers" mean the GPS-receivers,
not the GPS-monitoring stations.
The fact is that the GPS-receivers must know "everything".
Let's start with the satellite orbits. The nominal orbits
for all the SVs are pre-stored in the GPS-receiver.
The monitor stations will measure the real orbits, and
upload ephemeris to the SVs, which in turn will download
the correction ephemeris to receivers, so the receiver will
know the exact orbits. The result is that when a receiver
receives the time when the signal was sent from the SV, it will
know the position of the SV when the signal was sent.
Now about the time:
The clocks in the SVs are normally not adjusted in any way while
the SV is in service, and may be several microseconds off sync.
But the monitoring stations will measure how the clocks behave,
and upload corrections to the SV. These corrections are downloaded
to the receivers, and the calculation of the correct time is done
in the receiver.
See:
http://paulba.no/div/GPS_clock_correction.pdf
The ephemeris and clock corrections are uploaded to the SVs
typically once a day.
You mention "spread spectrum".
Yes, spread spectrum technique is used in GPS.
Consider this:
A receiver will receive the signal from up to 12 SVs at the same time.
All these SVs are transmitting at the same carrier frequencies, and
the signal from each SV will be Doppler shifted to a different degree.
The resulting signal will be much like random noise.
So how can a receiver pick out the signal from each SV?
Each SV has a unique Pseudo Random Noise (PRN) signal. This signal
is 1024 chips long, and is sent during 1 ms. This signal is sent
continuously from the SV. All the other data are modulated on top
of the PRN signal. (But that's another story.)
A receiver may have up to 12 channels, and each channel will
use cross-correlation (matched filter) between the signal and
a PRN signal to 'dig out' the signal containing the PRN-code.
The receiver will lock to this signal in a phase locked
loop, where the data bits can be extracted.
See:
https://www.gps.gov/sites/default/files/2025-07/IS-GPS-200N.pdf
Thanks for writing.
What's suggested by "pseudo-packet" and "spread spectrum" is
about how the satellites read the ground station clock time
as from a signal that itself is varying in time as to why
it's not exactly thusly a "packet" of the usual idea of
the cellular packet or digital radio, that it's analog in
effect.
Then the relevance of the ephemeris is that it's not simply
enough "Newtonian" nor "Einsteinian", it's "Parameterized
Post-Newtonian".
About how all the satellites each modulate their signal
so that they look like identical sources to be distinguished
then according to an account of plain Doppler, is that they
are constantly being updated both _from_ the ground, and
to the ground, 2-way, not just to the ground, 1-way.
Then, that "receivers don't need to know", how the satellite
is being updated, has that they neither know nor care except
that the point signals in the sky are theoretically constants.
Basically the account about "reckoning" is that it's a 2-way
account practically, that otherwise the theory would only
need a 1-way account theoretically, as to why the theory
does include the "Parameterized Post-Newtonian" and as after
the "synchronizing the watches" since they are always drifting.
I.e., the "synchronizing the watches" of control stations and
satellites, is a constantly ongoing process, so that receivers
may assume what they see is constant.
Or, that's my impression, since theory advises it must be so.
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
worldline) depends on the distance r from the center of mass.
[...]
Another thing that confuses a lot of (lay)people (which included me
before my studies) is the concept that I have mentioned here: "the
curvature of
The fact is that the GPS-receivers must know "everything".
Let's start with the satellite orbits. The nominal orbits
for all the SVs are pre-stored in the GPS-receiver.
The monitor stations will measure the real orbits, and
upload ephemeris to the SVs,
which in turn will download the correction ephemeris to receivers,
so the receiver will know the exact orbits.
The result is that when a receiver receives the time when the signal was
sent from the SV, it will know the position of the SV when the signal was sent.
Den 26.03.2026 14:44, skrev Ross Finlayson:
On 03/26/2026 06:26 AM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 25.03.2026 15:24, skrev Ross Finlayson:
The satellites have to be constantly adjusted after
an account of reckoning, position, and their drift,
off the "pseudo-packets" or a usual account of a
spread-spectrum approach to "synchronize the watches".
This statement doesn't make sense.
That's because in the terrestrial ephemeris it's
"Parameterized Post-Newtonian", the 20+ factors.
Why would you use PPN formalism in the GPS?
Ground receivers simply don't need to know that.
I suppose you by "ground receivers" mean the GPS-receivers,
not the GPS-monitoring stations.
The fact is that the GPS-receivers must know "everything".
Let's start with the satellite orbits. The nominal orbits
for all the SVs are pre-stored in the GPS-receiver.
The monitor stations will measure the real orbits, and
upload ephemeris to the SVs, which in turn will download
the correction ephemeris to receivers, so the receiver will
know the exact orbits. The result is that when a receiver
receives the time when the signal was sent from the SV, it will
know the position of the SV when the signal was sent.
Now about the time:
The clocks in the SVs are normally not adjusted in any way while
the SV is in service, and may be several microseconds off sync.
But the monitoring stations will measure how the clocks behave,
and upload corrections to the SV. These corrections are downloaded
to the receivers, and the calculation of the correct time is done
in the receiver.
See:
http://paulba.no/div/GPS_clock_correction.pdf
The ephemeris and clock corrections are uploaded to the SVs
typically once a day.
You mention "spread spectrum".
Yes, spread spectrum technique is used in GPS.
Consider this:
A receiver will receive the signal from up to 12 SVs at the same time.
All these SVs are transmitting at the same carrier frequencies, and
the signal from each SV will be Doppler shifted to a different degree.
The resulting signal will be much like random noise.
So how can a receiver pick out the signal from each SV?
Each SV has a unique Pseudo Random Noise (PRN) signal. This signal
is 1024 chips long, and is sent during 1 ms. This signal is sent
continuously from the SV. All the other data are modulated on top
of the PRN signal. (But that's another story.)
A receiver may have up to 12 channels, and each channel will
use cross-correlation (matched filter) between the signal and
a PRN signal to 'dig out' the signal containing the PRN-code.
The receiver will lock to this signal in a phase locked
loop, where the data bits can be extracted.
See:
https://www.gps.gov/sites/default/files/2025-07/IS-GPS-200N.pdf
Thanks for writing.
But you didn't read it, did you?
What's suggested by "pseudo-packet" and "spread spectrum" is
about how the satellites read the ground station clock time
as from a signal that itself is varying in time as to why
it's not exactly thusly a "packet" of the usual idea of
the cellular packet or digital radio, that it's analog in
effect.
Then the relevance of the ephemeris is that it's not simply
enough "Newtonian" nor "Einsteinian", it's "Parameterized
Post-Newtonian".
About how all the satellites each modulate their signal
so that they look like identical sources to be distinguished
then according to an account of plain Doppler, is that they
are constantly being updated both _from_ the ground, and
to the ground, 2-way, not just to the ground, 1-way.
Then, that "receivers don't need to know", how the satellite
is being updated, has that they neither know nor care except
that the point signals in the sky are theoretically constants.
Basically the account about "reckoning" is that it's a 2-way
account practically, that otherwise the theory would only
need a 1-way account theoretically, as to why the theory
does include the "Parameterized Post-Newtonian" and as after
the "synchronizing the watches" since they are always drifting.
I.e., the "synchronizing the watches" of control stations and
satellites, is a constantly ongoing process, so that receivers
may assume what they see is constant.
Or, that's my impression, since theory advises it must be so.
So many words, and not one meaningful statement! :-D
The GPS receiver ("user") then has to _calculate_ the position of at least 4 satellites using the orbital parameters
in the LNAV/CNAV message in order to solve the navigation equations to calculate its own position.--
On Thu, 26 Mar 2026 13:58:16 +0100, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de>
wrote:
Am Dienstag000024, 24.03.2026 um 12:45 schrieb Bill Sloman:
On 24/03/2026 4:15 am, john larkin wrote:
On Sun, 22 Mar 2026 15:54:03 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>> wrote:
On 22/03/2026 4:44 am, john larkin wrote:
On Sun, 22 Mar 2026 04:27:56 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>>>> wrote:
On 21/03/2026 8:06 pm, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am Freitag000020, 20.03.2026 um 14:06 schrieb Bill Sloman:
On 20/03/2026 8:36 pm, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am Donnerstag000019, 19.03.2026 um 13:18 schrieb Bill Sloman: >>>>>>>>>> ...
E.g. I'm a proponent of 'Growing Earth' and 'abiogenic >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> oil' and
have spent a lot of time on these topics.
And I'm pretty certain, that Earth does in fact grow and also >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know why.
And I'm pretty certain that you are deceiving yourself. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
But you can't even talk about these topics, because that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would
cause very harsh reactions.
The continental drift theory took a long time to get accepted. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You do seem to be unaware of it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Wegener
No, because I knew who Wegener was and how his theory worked. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
But I'm a proponent of the German geologist Ott-Christoph >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hilgenberg, who invented 'Growing Earth' as addition to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Wegner's
continental drift theory.
Both theories are quite similar, but have one main difference: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
plate tectonics(PT) assumes a constant size of the Earth and >>>>>>>>>>>>>> growing Earth (called GE here) assumes growth.
So, PT needs something balancing the obvious spreading. PT >>>>>>>>>>>>>> calls
this 'subduction'.
But 'subduction is blatant nonsense for an large number of >>>>>>>>>>>>>> reasons.
It happens at oceanic trenches, and is well documented. >>>>>>>>>>>> Subduction is a hypothesis.
But a pretty well tested one.
A growing earth violates the principle of the conservation of >>>>>>>>>>> mass/
But it also blatant nonsense. It is actually the lie that plate >>>>>>>>>>>> tectonics depends on, hence cannot be questioned at all. >>>>>>>>>>>>
But it is nonsense, however.
Subduction would assume thing, which violate simple logic. >>>>>>>>>>>>
For instance plate tectonics is based on the assumption, that >>>>>>>>>>>> Earth
would NOT grow. That's why the obvious spreading needs >>>>>>>>>>>> something to
balance that spreading and that is the alleged subduction. >>>>>>>>>>>
energy. That doesn't make it inconceiveable, but it means that you >>>>>>>>>>> need very convincing evidence to support the idea, and that >>>>>>>>>>> doesn't
seem to exist.
Well, it would violate a certain principle which is commonly called >>>>>>>>>> 'materialism'.
This 'great materialistic metaparadigm' is encoded into what is >>>>>>>>>> called 'standard model of QM' and belongs to the also fraudulent >>>>>>>>>> 'big-bang theory'.
Neither is fraudulent - both were advanced as hypotheses and seem to >>>>>>>>> fit the data. It's perfectly clear that neither is perfect, but >>>>>>>>> until
you can come up models that work at least as well, nobody is >>>>>>>>> going to
take your alternatives seriously.
I assume intention and some kind of 'bad physics', which is carefully >>>>>>>> crafted and force-feed to the defenceless general public.
It had imho started in the mid 19th century with people like
Heaviside
and Gibbs, who tried to tear down Maxwells theories, which were >>>>>>>> based on
quaternions and 'aether'.
Heaviside didn't try "to tear down" Maxwell's theory - he just
expressed
it more neatly. Maxwell didn't base his theory on any kind of aether - >>>>>>> he just a assumed a fluid to support the waves he was talking about >>>>>>>> Since then science got deliberately derailed.
Seems unlikely. Today's science does seem to work.
You don't know much about it, and may not be aware of this.
This would require some kind of motivation. and for this there are >>>>>>>> numeorous options:The atom bomb is pretty dangerous,and that made it into the open >>>>>>> literature.
time travel
real aliens
transmutation
scalar waves weapons
mind control
...
This would have been, if found in real experiments, be regarded as >>>>>>>> way
too dangerous, if common people and common enemies would know about. >>>>>>>
So, there was a new profession created: so called 'bullshit artists'. >>>>>>>Nothing new about them. They have been around forever. Modern science >>>>>>> has a couple of features that do make life difficult for bullshit >>>>>>> artists. Peer-review does make it harder for bullshit artists to get >>>>>>> their bullshit into the literature, and the habit of publishing
critical
comments in peer-reviewed journals does get rid of some of the rubbish >>>>>>> that makes it through peer-review.
That was so much fun, that this profession was very attractive to >>>>>>>> sick
minds (from which we have a lot) and common physics got bananas in >>>>>>>> the
mean time.
The real example of bull-shit artistry in the modern world is climate >>>>>>> change denial.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchants_of_Doubt
It does influence public opinion, but it only works on the ignorant >>>>>>> and
gullible.
So, today only very few resist, because that is actually dangerous >>>>>>>> and
would not help the own career.
Most educated people ignore climate change denial propaganda. Clowns >>>>>>> like Donald Trump endorse it, but he is making a lot of money out >>>>>>> being
president.
Climate change doesn't make the top 5 list of things that most people >>>>>> worry about.
It's creating problems now, but the ones that people notice are mostly >>>>> extreme weather, and people aren't all that sensitive the fact that
there's more extreme weather around than there used to be.
That makes sense, because there isn't.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extreme_weather
does suggest otherwise. Tropical cyclones are something of an exception
- they do seem to be getting more intense rather than more numerous,
because they do depend on the existence of an appreciable area of ocean
surface above 26.3 degrees Celcius, and once a cyclone has got underway
it cools off that ocean surface. A bigger area of hot ocean fuels a more >>> intense cyclone rather than several smaller ones.
We would expect weather to be distributed in some sort of randomness.
This means:
most of the weather is usual and some conditions are extreme.
But how would you measure the patterns of weather and quantify them???
Usually randomness is distributed with some sort of bell-shaped curve.
The mean conditions (of weather in this case) are numerous and the rare
exceptions are, well, rare.
So, you need to measure the weather distribution by measuring for some
time each condition and then sort these contions by stacking up the
numbers on the y-axis and distribute the specific condition on the x-axis. >>
This should produce some sort of bell shaped curve, because almost all
random events produce such curves.
Now, such shaped curves are usually not defined by the extreme
conditions, but by other parameters like mean, symmetry, maximum and
standard average.
The 'extreme weather' considerations are therefor nonsense, if you want
to find trends in the climate.
TH
The instrument problem is huge. We haven't had weather satellites, or millions of realtime sensors, or radar, for very long.
Hurricanes at sea, or even hitting land, were poorly measured or
entirely missed. Ditto tornadoes and temperature/precipitation
extremes.
Great books:
A Weekend In September by Weems, about the deadliest hurricane in US
history, the great Galveston storm of 1900. There's a song about that, "Mighty Day" by the Chad Mitchell Trio.
Isaac's Storm by Larson, same hurricane.
Rising Tide by Barry: about the great Mississippi River flood of 1927.
Randy Newman's song "Louisiana" is about that.
I used to ride dirt bikes (illegally) in the Bonnet Carr|- Spillway. I
very much remember Hurricanes Betsy and Camille.
There's always going to be somebody
who doesn't believe the official narrative of 9/11.
Sure, but that wasn't the question.
The question was:
is there still anybody believing the official story?
The rational majority.
The official story has more holes than a Swiss cheese and is actually
an insult to rational thinking.
The claims that you have been making - like the Twin Towers falling down
in ten seconds - don't suggest that you can do rational thinking, or
recognise it when you run into it.
WTC7 is a usual outlier to otherwise the "Jones" theory versus
the "NIST" theory.
So, material objects with a mass larger than 20 to of steel and
concrete 'dustified' in mid air and were blown away.
They got broken up in a series of smaller collisions, as each floor
fell onto the floor below it, and got further broken up by each impact
in succession.
That's not how things fall, if they hit something hard below.
If you would drop something breakable from some hight upon something breakable, but with high resistance against breaks, you would expect a different pattern:
the upper part of a collision would cause breaks in the parts below, but also braks of the same kind in itself, because the both parts were
assumed to have the same strength.
If we concentrate on the upper part only (for a moment), we would expect parts of the falling piece to splinter off and fall partly outside of
the former building shape, hence would fall in free fall outside down to
the ground.
Doesn't matter that much, what percentage would break of the upper part, because at least some parts would do that.
But even at the hight of the actual impact zones, sections of the
perimeter wall of the twintowers would fall down with enormous mass and velocity.
IoW: possibly you were right and not that many 'cannon balls' or 'fright trains' would have hit the ground, but certainly some.
But apparently this didn't happen, because every single of those
sections of the perimeter walls would have pierced through the street
level like a hot knife though butter.
In this didn't happen, because the street level was mainly intact.
You could easily see that, if you look at any pictures of the aftermath
of 9/11, which show the remains of the twin-towers.
E.g. you can see, if you look carefully, remains of fire-trucks and
other cars in the rubble, which remained astonishingly undamaged. For instance some had still unbroken windows.
This wouldn't be possible, if a just screw-driver would fall from that hight, let alone sections of the perimeter wall, weighing more then-a 20 tons.
...
Only a small part of engineering is dealing with electronics.
Engineers exist in several 'flavors', which range from building
bridges to chemistry.
...
And you don't know much about any of them.
Sure, I have never build a bridge.
But I know a few things about electronics and chemistry.
My specific 'flavour' is called 'economics engineering'.
It is kind of mixture of economics and building machines.
That is quite difficult and not a very common topic in other countries.
(It's among the 'crown jewels' of German education.)
My wife was a director of a Max Planck Institute. I do know a bit about German education, and value engineering isn't one of it's crown jewels.
If you want to build a machine more cheaply, you don't study it's
economics, you study what it does and work out a way to do that
differently with a different, cheaper and faster machine.
I'm aware that Fraunhofer Institutes tend to be more applied than Max
Planck Institutes, but I doubt that you work for any of them either.
Am Mittwoch000025, 25.03.2026 um 15:26 schrieb Ross Finlayson:
...
The rational majority.
There's always going to be somebody
who doesn't believe the official narrative of 9/11.
Sure, but that wasn't the question.
The question was:
is there still anybody believing the official story? >>>
The official story has more holes than a Swiss cheese and is actually
an insult to rational thinking.
The claims that you have been making - like the Twin Towers falling down >>> in ten seconds - don't suggest that you can do rational thinking, or
recognise it when you run into it.
WTC7 is a usual outlier to otherwise the "Jones" theory versus
the "NIST" theory.
Stephan Jones was a proponent of a theory, that can't possibly be true.
Jones assumed, that the WTC buildings were destroyed by explosions of nano-thermite.
But the buildings didn't explode!
What really happened that was far stranger than mini-nukes or nanothermite:
The twin towers simply 'dustified' in mid-air and vanished.
Since Stephan Jones was also the expert for cold-fusion of the
Department of Energy, I assumed, that Jones knew what had happened and wanted to divert the attention away from cold fusion.
...
Am Donnerstag000026, 26.03.2026 um 15:00 schrieb Thomas Heger:
...
So, material objects with a mass larger than 20 to of steel and
concrete 'dustified' in mid air and were blown away.
They got broken up in a series of smaller collisions, as each floor
fell onto the floor below it, and got further broken up by each
impact in succession.
That's not how things fall, if they hit something hard below.
If you would drop something breakable from some height upon something
breakable, but with high resistance against breaks, you would expect a
different pattern:
the upper part of a collision would cause breaks in the parts below,
but also breaks of the same kind in itself, because the both parts were
assumed to have the same strength.
If we concentrate on the upper part only (for a moment), we would
expect parts of the falling piece to splinter off and fall partly
outside of the former building shape, hence would fall in free fall
outside down to the ground.
Doesn't matter that much, what percentage would break of the upper
part, because at least some parts would do that.
But even at the height of the actual impact zones, sections of the
perimeter wall of the twin towers would fall down with enormous mass
and velocity.
IoW: possibly you were right and not that many 'cannon balls' or
'fright trains' would have hit the ground, but certainly some.
But apparently this didn't happen, because every single of those
sections of the perimeter walls would have pierced through the street
level like a hot knife though butter.
In this didn't happen, because the street level was mainly intact.
You could easily see that, if you look at any pictures of the
aftermath of 9/11, which show the remains of the twin-towers.
E.g. you can see, if you look carefully, remains of fire-trucks and
other cars in the rubble, which remained astonishingly undamaged. For
instance some had still unbroken windows.
This wouldn't be possible, if a just screw-driver would fall from that
height, let alone sections of the perimeter wall, weighing more then
20 tons.
But each tower consisted of more than half a million tons, hence not
only one piece would fall down, but more than 25.000 pieces.
On 27/03/2026 7:13 pm, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am Donnerstag000026, 26.03.2026 um 15:00 schrieb Thomas Heger:
...
So, material objects with a mass larger than 20 to of steel and
concrete 'dustified' in mid air and were blown away.
They got broken up in a series of smaller collisions, as each floor
fell onto the floor below it, and got further broken up by each
impact in succession.
That's not how things fall, if they hit something hard below.
If you would drop something breakable from some height upon something
breakable, but with high resistance against breaks, you would expect
a different pattern:
the upper part of a collision would cause breaks in the parts below,
but also breaks of the same kind in itself, because the both parts
were assumed to have the same strength.
What happened to the Twin Towers was that the towers caught on fire and
got hot, weakening both the steel frame and the concrete.
When they got weak enough the Towers collapsed, floor by floor. About
the only stuff that fell a long way were the supporting columns, which
leaned way from the building and eventually fell outwards, hitting
adjacent building. Each floor collapsed inwards, stopping at the next
floor (but not for long) before the next floor failed
If we concentrate on the upper part only (for a moment), we would
expect parts of the falling piece to splinter off and fall partly
outside of the former building shape, hence would fall in free fall
outside down to the ground.
Why? It's all tied together by a steel frame, which may be failing,
But stuff isn't going to "splinter off". There don't seem to be any
reports of that.
Doesn't matter that much, what percentage would break of the upper
part, because at least some parts would do that.
An unsupported assumption.
But even at the height of the actual impact zones, sections of the
perimeter wall of the twin towers would fall down with enormous mass
and velocity.
I saw it happen on TV. They didn't.
IoW: possibly you were right and not that many 'cannon balls' or
'fright trains' would have hit the ground, but certainly some.
Why "certainly"?
But apparently this didn't happen, because every single of those
sections of the perimeter walls would have pierced through the street
level like a hot knife though butter.
Really?
In this didn't happen, because the street level was mainly intact.
You could easily see that, if you look at any pictures of the
aftermath of 9/11, which show the remains of the twin-towers.
E.g. you can see, if you look carefully, remains of fire-trucks and
other cars in the rubble, which remained astonishingly undamaged. For
instance some had still unbroken windows.
This wouldn't be possible, if a just screw-driver would fall from
that height, let alone sections of the perimeter wall, weighing more
then 20 tons.
A screw driver has a rather low terminal velocity. A human falling from
any height can't reach a terminal velocity above about 190km/hour.
It the perimeter wall broken up into less massive pieces - only 10 or
20kgm - they'd have a lower terminal velocity.
<snipped calculations about imagined fragments>
But each tower consisted of more than half a million tons, hence not
only one piece would fall down, but more than 25.000 pieces.
You'd like each piece to have weighed about 20 tons, but you haven't explained why it should have.
On 03/26/2026 01:08 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 26.03.2026 14:44, skrev Ross Finlayson:
On 03/26/2026 06:26 AM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 25.03.2026 15:24, skrev Ross Finlayson:
The satellites have to be constantly adjusted after
an account of reckoning, position, and their drift,
off the "pseudo-packets" or a usual account of a
spread-spectrum approach to "synchronize the watches".
This statement doesn't make sense.
That's because in the terrestrial ephemeris it's
"Parameterized Post-Newtonian", the 20+ factors.
Why would you use PPN formalism in the GPS?
Ground receivers simply don't need to know that.
I suppose you by "ground receivers" mean the GPS-receivers,
not the GPS-monitoring stations.
The fact is that the GPS-receivers must know "everything".
Let's start with the satellite orbits. The nominal orbits
for all the SVs are pre-stored in the GPS-receiver.
The monitor stations will measure the real orbits, and
upload ephemeris to the SVs, which in turn will download
the correction ephemeris to receivers, so the receiver will
know the exact orbits. The result is that when a receiver
receives the time when the signal was sent from the SV, it will
know the position of the SV when the signal was sent.
Now about the time:
The clocks in the SVs are normally not adjusted in any way while
the SV is in service, and may be several microseconds off sync.
But the monitoring stations will measure how the clocks behave,
and upload corrections to the SV. These corrections are downloaded
to the receivers, and the calculation of the correct time is done
in the receiver.
See:
http://paulba.no/div/GPS_clock_correction.pdf
The ephemeris and clock corrections are uploaded to the SVs
typically once a day.
You mention "spread spectrum".
Yes, spread spectrum technique is used in GPS.
Consider this:
A receiver will receive the signal from up to 12 SVs at the same time. >>>> All these SVs are transmitting at the same carrier frequencies, and
the signal from each SV will be Doppler shifted to a different degree. >>>> The resulting signal will be much like random noise.
So how can a receiver pick out the signal from each SV?
Each SV has a unique Pseudo Random Noise (PRN) signal. This signal
is 1024 chips long, and is sent during 1 ms. This signal is sent
continuously from the SV. All the other data are modulated on top
of the PRN signal. (But that's another story.)
A receiver may have up to 12 channels, and each channel will
use cross-correlation (matched filter) between the signal and
a PRN signal to 'dig out' the signal containing the PRN-code.
The receiver will lock to this signal in a phase locked
loop, where the data bits can be extracted.
See:
https://www.gps.gov/sites/default/files/2025-07/IS-GPS-200N.pdf
Thanks for writing.
But you didn't read it, did you?
What's suggested by "pseudo-packet" and "spread spectrum" is
about how the satellites read the ground station clock time
as from a signal that itself is varying in time as to why
it's not exactly thusly a "packet" of the usual idea of
the cellular packet or digital radio, that it's analog in
effect.
Then the relevance of the ephemeris is that it's not simply
enough "Newtonian" nor "Einsteinian", it's "Parameterized
Post-Newtonian".
About how all the satellites each modulate their signal
so that they look like identical sources to be distinguished
then according to an account of plain Doppler, is that they
are constantly being updated both _from_ the ground, and
to the ground, 2-way, not just to the ground, 1-way.
Then, that "receivers don't need to know", how the satellite
is being updated, has that they neither know nor care except
that the point signals in the sky are theoretically constants.
Basically the account about "reckoning" is that it's a 2-way
account practically, that otherwise the theory would only
need a 1-way account theoretically, as to why the theory
does include the "Parameterized Post-Newtonian" and as after
the "synchronizing the watches" since they are always drifting.
I.e., the "synchronizing the watches" of control stations and
satellites, is a constantly ongoing process, so that receivers
may assume what they see is constant.
Or, that's my impression, since theory advises it must be so.
So many words, and not one meaningful statement! :-D
So many, ....
Am Donnerstag000026, 26.03.2026 um 16:03 schrieb Bill Sloman:
-a...
'Wirtschaftsingenuerswesen' is called 'Engineering managment' in English:Only a small part of engineering is dealing with electronics.
Engineers exist in several 'flavors', which range from building
bridges to chemistry.
...
And you don't know much about any of them.
Sure, I have never build a bridge.
But I know a few things about electronics and chemistry.
My specific 'flavour' is called 'economics engineering'.
It is kind of mixture of economics and building machines.
That is quite difficult and not a very common topic in other countries.
(It's among the 'crown jewels' of German education.)
My wife was a director of a Max Planck Institute. I do know a bit
about German education, and value engineering isn't one of it's crown
jewels.
If you want to build a machine more cheaply, you don't study it's
economics, you study what it does and work out a way to do that
differently with a different, cheaper and faster machine.
I'm aware that Fraunhofer Institutes tend to be more applied than Max
Planck Institutes, but I doubt that you work for any of them either.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engineering_management
It's quite a difficult topic, at least in Germany, because you need to
learn both 'engineering' and 'ecomomics'.
The title I actually have is 'Dipl.-Ing.' and in English called
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master_of_Engineering_Management
Btw: I have spent actually some time in the 'Fraunhofer Institute' of
Berlin Charlottenburg and wrote my Diploma thesis for Prof. Spur.
The rather strange thing was, that I have never seen Prof. Spur
personally (not a single time!).
On 27/03/2026 6:54 pm, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am Mittwoch000025, 25.03.2026 um 15:26 schrieb Ross Finlayson:
...
The rational majority.
There's always going to be somebody
who doesn't believe the official narrative of 9/11.
Sure, but that wasn't the question.
The question was:
is there still anybody believing the official story? >>>
The official story has more holes than a Swiss cheese and is actually >>>>> an insult to rational thinking.
The claims that you have been making - like the Twin Towers falling
down
in ten seconds - don't suggest that you can do rational thinking, or
recognise it when you run into it.
WTC7 is a usual outlier to otherwise the "Jones" theory versus
the "NIST" theory.
Stephan Jones was a proponent of a theory, that can't possibly be true.
Jones assumed, that the WTC buildings were destroyed by explosions of
nano-thermite.
But the buildings didn't explode!
Thermite isn't an explosive. It just burns and gets very hot.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermite
What really happened that was far stranger than mini-nukes or
nanothermite:
The twin towers simply 'dustified' in mid-air and vanished.
It would have been very strange if it had happened. I've not seen
anybody sane claim that it did. The concrete got hot as the towers
burned, and got smashed into small rubble as each floor fell down on the floor below as the steel frames got hot and failed. There was a great
deal of dust around after the Twin Towers had fallen down, so by no
means all of it "vanished"-a - if any of it did
Since Stephan Jones was also the expert for cold-fusion of the
Department of Energy, I assumed, that Jones knew what had happened and
wanted to divert the attention away from cold fusion.
...
Cold fusion is weird - not because of anything it has been observed to
do, but because people have kept on looking at it since 1989 when Pons
and Fleischmann first reported it. I'd run into Martin Fleischmann when
I was post-doc at Southampton 1971-73, and he was a professor there and
he was perfectly respectable electrochemist back then.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion
The proposition that it might have destroyed the Twin Towers is
definitely lunacy.
On 27/03/2026 7:13 pm, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am Donnerstag000026, 26.03.2026 um 15:00 schrieb Thomas Heger:
...
So, material objects with a mass larger than 20 to of steel and
concrete 'dustified' in mid air and were blown away.
They got broken up in a series of smaller collisions, as each floor
fell onto the floor below it, and got further broken up by each
impact in succession.
That's not how things fall, if they hit something hard below.
If you would drop something breakable from some height upon something
breakable, but with high resistance against breaks, you would expect
a different pattern:
the upper part of a collision would cause breaks in the parts below,
but also breaks of the same kind in itself, because the both parts
were assumed to have the same strength.
What happened to the Twin Towers was that the towers caught on fire and
got hot, weakening both the steel frame and the concrete.
When they got weak enough the Towers collapsed, floor by floor. About
the only stuff that fell a long way were the supporting columns, which leaned way from the building and eventually fell outwards, hitting
adjacent building. Each floor collapsed inwards, stopping at the next
floor (but not for long) before the next floor failed
If we concentrate on the upper part only (for a moment), we would
expect parts of the falling piece to splinter off and fall partly
outside of the former building shape, hence would fall in free fall
outside down to the ground.
Why? It's all tied together by a steel frame, which may be failing,
But stuff isn't going to "splinter off". There don't seem to be any
reports of that.
Doesn't matter that much, what percentage would break of the upper
part, because at least some parts would do that.
An unsupported assumption.
But even at the height of the actual impact zones, sections of the
perimeter wall of the twin towers would fall down with enormous mass
and velocity.
I saw it happen on TV. They didn't.
IoW: possibly you were right and not that many 'cannon balls' or
'fright trains' would have hit the ground, but certainly some.
Why "certainly"?
But apparently this didn't happen, because every single of those
sections of the perimeter walls would have pierced through the street
level like a hot knife though butter.
Really?
In this didn't happen, because the street level was mainly intact.
You could easily see that, if you look at any pictures of the
aftermath of 9/11, which show the remains of the twin-towers.
E.g. you can see, if you look carefully, remains of fire-trucks and
other cars in the rubble, which remained astonishingly undamaged. For
instance some had still unbroken windows.
This wouldn't be possible, if a just screw-driver would fall from
that height, let alone sections of the perimeter wall, weighing more
then 20 tons.
A screw driver has a rather low terminal velocity. A human falling from
any height can't reach a terminal velocity above about 190km/hour.
It the perimeter wall broken up into less massive pieces - only 10 or
20kgm - they'd have a lower terminal velocity.
<snipped calculations about imagined fragments>
But each tower consisted of more than half a million tons, hence not
only one piece would fall down, but more than 25.000 pieces.
You'd like each piece to have weighed about 20 tons, but you haven't explained why it should have.
On 27/03/2026 7:25 pm, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am Donnerstag000026, 26.03.2026 um 16:03 schrieb Bill Sloman:
-a-a...
'Wirtschaftsingenuerswesen' is called 'Engineering managment' in English:Only a small part of engineering is dealing with electronics.
Engineers exist in several 'flavors', which range from building
bridges to chemistry.
...
And you don't know much about any of them.
Sure, I have never build a bridge.
But I know a few things about electronics and chemistry.
My specific 'flavour' is called 'economics engineering'.
It is kind of mixture of economics and building machines.
That is quite difficult and not a very common topic in other countries. >>>>
(It's among the 'crown jewels' of German education.)
My wife was a director of a Max Planck Institute. I do know a bit
about German education, and value engineering isn't one of it's crown
jewels.
If you want to build a machine more cheaply, you don't study it's
economics, you study what it does and work out a way to do that
differently with a different, cheaper and faster machine.
I'm aware that Fraunhofer Institutes tend to be more applied than Max
Planck Institutes, but I doubt that you work for any of them either.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engineering_management
It's quite a difficult topic, at least in Germany, because you need to
learn both 'engineering' and 'ecomomics'.
The title I actually have is 'Dipl.-Ing.' and in English called
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master_of_Engineering_Management
Btw: I have spent actually some time in the 'Fraunhofer Institute' of
Berlin Charlottenburg and wrote my Diploma thesis for Prof. Spur.
The rather strange thing was, that I have never seen Prof. Spur
personally (not a single time!).
The colloquial term for it in English is "management bull shit".
The kind of managers who have been taught how to manage engineers have
been told that engineers procrastinate, and have to be pressured to make
up their minds rapidly.
Am Samstag000028, 28.03.2026 um 06:23 schrieb Bill Sloman:
On 27/03/2026 7:25 pm, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am Donnerstag000026, 26.03.2026 um 16:03 schrieb Bill Sloman:
-a-a...
'Wirtschaftsingenuerswesen' is called 'Engineering managment' inOnly a small part of engineering is dealing with electronics.
Engineers exist in several 'flavors', which range from building >>>>>>> bridges to chemistry.
...
And you don't know much about any of them.
Sure, I have never build a bridge.
But I know a few things about electronics and chemistry.
My specific 'flavour' is called 'economics engineering'.
It is kind of mixture of economics and building machines.
That is quite difficult and not a very common topic in other
countries.
(It's among the 'crown jewels' of German education.)
My wife was a director of a Max Planck Institute. I do know a bit
about German education, and value engineering isn't one of it's
crown jewels.
If you want to build a machine more cheaply, you don't study it's
economics, you study what it does and work out a way to do that
differently with a different, cheaper and faster machine.
I'm aware that Fraunhofer Institutes tend to be more applied than
Max Planck Institutes, but I doubt that you work for any of them
either.
English:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engineering_management
It's quite a difficult topic, at least in Germany, because you need
to learn both 'engineering' and 'ecomomics'.
The title I actually have is 'Dipl.-Ing.' and in English called
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master_of_Engineering_Management
Btw: I have spent actually some time in the 'Fraunhofer Institute' of
Berlin Charlottenburg and wrote my Diploma thesis for Prof. Spur.
The rather strange thing was, that I have never seen Prof. Spur
personally (not a single time!).
The colloquial term for it in English is "management bull shit".
The kind of managers who have been taught how to manage engineers have
been told that engineers procrastinate, and have to be pressured to
make up their minds rapidly.
'Wirtschaftsingenieurwesen' wasn't meant that way!
It's is more like 'management by engineers' rather than 'management of engineers'.
'Wi.Ings.' are kind of 'special forces of the industry' and able to do
many jobs, if necessary.
'Wirtschaftsingenieurwesen' wasn't meant that way!
It's is more like 'management by engineers' rather than 'management of engineers'.
'Wi.Ings.' are kind of 'special forces of the industry' and able to do
many jobs, if necessary.
The entire neighborhood of the twin-towers got struck by large sections
of the perimeterwalls.
Some of these sections were HUGE and hit neighboring buildings up to
several hundred meters away (like e.g. bulting WTC 7).
That's why the assumption of simple free fall drop wasn't unlikely at
all.
I actually assumed a 'weaponised' version of the so called 'Hutchison
effect' (similar to John Hutchison himself, together with Tom Beardon
and Judy Wood).
Am Freitag000027, 27.03.2026 um 16:51 schrieb Bill Sloman:
On 27/03/2026 6:54 pm, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am Mittwoch000025, 25.03.2026 um 15:26 schrieb Ross Finlayson:
...
The rational majority.
There's always going to be somebody
who doesn't believe the official narrative of 9/11.
Sure, but that wasn't the question.
The question was:
is there still anybody believing the official story? >>>
The official story has more holes than a Swiss cheese and is actually >>>>>> an insult to rational thinking.
The claims that you have been making - like the Twin Towers falling >>>>> down
in ten seconds - don't suggest that you can do rational thinking, or >>>>> recognise it when you run into it.
WTC7 is a usual outlier to otherwise the "Jones" theory versus
the "NIST" theory.
Stephan Jones was a proponent of a theory, that can't possibly be true.
Jones assumed, that the WTC buildings were destroyed by explosions of
nano-thermite.
But the buildings didn't explode!
Thermite isn't an explosive. It just burns and gets very hot.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermite
What really happened that was far stranger than mini-nukes or
nanothermite:
The twin towers simply 'dustified' in mid-air and vanished.
It would have been very strange if it had happened. I've not seen
anybody sane claim that it did. The concrete got hot as the towers
burned, and got smashed into small rubble as each floor fell down on
the floor below as the steel frames got hot and failed. There was a
great deal of dust around after the Twin Towers had fallen down, so by
no means all of it "vanished"-a - if any of it did
Since Stephan Jones was also the expert for cold-fusion of the
Department of Energy, I assumed, that Jones knew what had happened
and wanted to divert the attention away from cold fusion.
...
Cold fusion is weird - not because of anything it has been observed to
do, but because people have kept on looking at it since 1989 when Pons
and Fleischmann first reported it. I'd run into Martin Fleischmann
when I was post-doc at Southampton 1971-73, and he was a professor
there and he was perfectly respectable electrochemist back then.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion
The proposition that it might have destroyed the Twin Towers is
definitely lunacy.
I have not said, that the WTC was destroyed by cold fusion.
I actually assumed a 'weaponised' version of the so called 'Hutchison effect' (similar to John Hutchison himself, together with Tom Beardon
and Judy Wood).
But possibly Stephan Jones assumed it was 'cold fusion', because he was
an expert in that topic and that might eventually have looked a little similar.
Then: in an effort to protect his alleged masters, he inventent a
nonsense theory of nano-thermite-explosions (that was my guess).
This theory cannot possibly be true, because there was no explosion and
the actual effect was also far stranger than cold fusion could possibly
had been.
On 29/03/2026 6:56 pm, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am Freitag000027, 27.03.2026 um 16:51 schrieb Bill Sloman:
On 27/03/2026 6:54 pm, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am Mittwoch000025, 25.03.2026 um 15:26 schrieb Ross Finlayson:
...
The rational majority.
There's always going to be somebody
who doesn't believe the official narrative of 9/11.
Sure, but that wasn't the question.
The question was:
is there still anybody believing the official story? >>>
The official story has more holes than a Swiss cheese and is
actually
an insult to rational thinking.
The claims that you have been making - like the Twin Towers
falling down
in ten seconds - don't suggest that you can do rational thinking, or >>>>>> recognise it when you run into it.
WTC7 is a usual outlier to otherwise the "Jones" theory versus
the "NIST" theory.
Stephan Jones was a proponent of a theory, that can't possibly be true. >>>>
Jones assumed, that the WTC buildings were destroyed by explosions
of nano-thermite.
But the buildings didn't explode!
Thermite isn't an explosive. It just burns and gets very hot.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermite
What really happened that was far stranger than mini-nukes or
nanothermite:
The twin towers simply 'dustified' in mid-air and vanished.
It would have been very strange if it had happened. I've not seen
anybody sane claim that it did. The concrete got hot as the towers
burned, and got smashed into small rubble as each floor fell down on
the floor below as the steel frames got hot and failed. There was a
great deal of dust around after the Twin Towers had fallen down, so
by no means all of it "vanished" - if any of it did
Since Stephan Jones was also the expert for cold-fusion of the
Department of Energy, I assumed, that Jones knew what had happened
and wanted to divert the attention away from cold fusion.
...
Cold fusion is weird - not because of anything it has been observed
to do, but because people have kept on looking at it since 1989 when
Pons and Fleischmann first reported it. I'd run into Martin
Fleischmann when I was post-doc at Southampton 1971-73, and he was a
professor there and he was perfectly respectable electrochemist back
then.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion
The proposition that it might have destroyed the Twin Towers is
definitely lunacy.
I have not said, that the WTC was destroyed by cold fusion.
I actually assumed a 'weaponised' version of the so called 'Hutchison
effect' (similar to John Hutchison himself, together with Tom Beardon
and Judy Wood).
So not cold fusion - which doesn't seem to happen - but something even
more improbable, verging on the absolutely fatuous.
But possibly Stephan Jones assumed it was 'cold fusion', because he
was an expert in that topic and that might eventually have looked a
little similar.
Conspiracy theory nut cases do go in for that kind of lunatic over-reach.
Then: in an effort to protect his alleged masters, he inventent a
nonsense theory of nano-thermite-explosions (that was my guess).
More piling nonsense on nonsense.
This theory cannot possibly be true, because there was no explosion
and the actual effect was also far stranger than cold fusion could
possibly had been.
A building catches on fire and falls down. What's strange about that?
It was an unusually large building, and the fires got started when two fuelled up jet-airlines flew into the building, but that's where the strangeness stops.
You trying to tell us that they fell down in 10 seconds was pretty
strange, but if probably comes from the fact that an object in free fall falling for the top of building would have taken ten seconds to reach
the ground. One of the towers had to burn for an hour and three
quarters before it collapsed, and the other only had to burn for an
hour. You managed to ignore those inconvenient facts - which makes it
clear that you don't a particularly firm grasp of reality.
Thomas Heger wrote:
The entire neighborhood of the twin-towers got struck by large sections
of the perimeterwalls.
Some of these sections were HUGE and hit neighboring buildings up to
several hundred meters away (like e.g. bulting WTC 7).
That's why the assumption of simple free fall drop wasn't unlikely at
all.
any pictures of it before collapse? or you are talking discussions here
Thomas Heger wrote:
I actually assumed a 'weaponised' version of the so called 'Hutchison
effect' (similar to John Hutchison himself, together with Tom Beardon
and Judy Wood).
make it repetitive, Hutchison, and let me see what you do under laboratory conditions. You see too many movies
On 29/03/2026 6:56 pm, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am Freitag000027, 27.03.2026 um 16:51 schrieb Bill Sloman:
On 27/03/2026 6:54 pm, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am Mittwoch000025, 25.03.2026 um 15:26 schrieb Ross Finlayson:
...
The rational majority.
There's always going to be somebody
who doesn't believe the official narrative of 9/11.
Sure, but that wasn't the question.
The question was:
is there still anybody believing the official story? >>>
The official story has more holes than a Swiss cheese and is
actually
an insult to rational thinking.
The claims that you have been making - like the Twin Towers
falling down
in ten seconds - don't suggest that you can do rational thinking, or >>>>>> recognise it when you run into it.
WTC7 is a usual outlier to otherwise the "Jones" theory versus
the "NIST" theory.
Stephan Jones was a proponent of a theory, that can't possibly be true. >>>>
Jones assumed, that the WTC buildings were destroyed by explosions
of nano-thermite.
But the buildings didn't explode!
Thermite isn't an explosive. It just burns and gets very hot.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermite
What really happened that was far stranger than mini-nukes or
nanothermite:
The twin towers simply 'dustified' in mid-air and vanished.
It would have been very strange if it had happened. I've not seen
anybody sane claim that it did. The concrete got hot as the towers
burned, and got smashed into small rubble as each floor fell down on
the floor below as the steel frames got hot and failed. There was a
great deal of dust around after the Twin Towers had fallen down, so
by no means all of it "vanished"-a - if any of it did
Since Stephan Jones was also the expert for cold-fusion of the
Department of Energy, I assumed, that Jones knew what had happened
and wanted to divert the attention away from cold fusion.
...
Cold fusion is weird - not because of anything it has been observed
to do, but because people have kept on looking at it since 1989 when
Pons and Fleischmann first reported it. I'd run into Martin
Fleischmann when I was post-doc at Southampton 1971-73, and he was a
professor there and he was perfectly respectable electrochemist back
then.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion
The proposition that it might have destroyed the Twin Towers is
definitely lunacy.
I have not said, that the WTC was destroyed by cold fusion.
I actually assumed a 'weaponised' version of the so called 'Hutchison
effect' (similar to John Hutchison himself, together with Tom Beardon
and Judy Wood).
So not cold fusion - which doesn't seem to happen - but something even
more improbable, verging on the absolutely fatuous.
But possibly Stephan Jones assumed it was 'cold fusion', because he
was an expert in that topic and that might eventually have looked a
little similar.
Conspiracy theory nut cases do go in for that kind of lunatic over-reach.
Am Sonntag000029, 29.03.2026 um 16:32 schrieb Bill Sloman:
On 29/03/2026 6:56 pm, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am Freitag000027, 27.03.2026 um 16:51 schrieb Bill Sloman:
On 27/03/2026 6:54 pm, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am Mittwoch000025, 25.03.2026 um 15:26 schrieb Ross Finlayson:
...
The rational majority.
There's always going to be somebody
who doesn't believe the official narrative of 9/11.
Sure, but that wasn't the question.
The question was:
is there still anybody believing the official story? >>>
The official story has more holes than a Swiss cheese and is
actually
an insult to rational thinking.
The claims that you have been making - like the Twin Towers
falling down
in ten seconds - don't suggest that you can do rational thinking, or >>>>>>> recognise it when you run into it.
WTC7 is a usual outlier to otherwise the "Jones" theory versus
the "NIST" theory.
Stephan Jones was a proponent of a theory, that can't possibly be
true.
Jones assumed, that the WTC buildings were destroyed by explosions
of nano-thermite.
But the buildings didn't explode!
Thermite isn't an explosive. It just burns and gets very hot.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermite
What really happened that was far stranger than mini-nukes or
nanothermite:
The twin towers simply 'dustified' in mid-air and vanished.
It would have been very strange if it had happened. I've not seen
anybody sane claim that it did. The concrete got hot as the towers
burned, and got smashed into small rubble as each floor fell down on
the floor below as the steel frames got hot and failed. There was a
great deal of dust around after the Twin Towers had fallen down, so
by no means all of it "vanished"-a - if any of it did
Since Stephan Jones was also the expert for cold-fusion of the
Department of Energy, I assumed, that Jones knew what had happened
and wanted to divert the attention away from cold fusion.
...
Cold fusion is weird - not because of anything it has been observed
to do, but because people have kept on looking at it since 1989 when
Pons and Fleischmann first reported it. I'd run into Martin
Fleischmann when I was post-doc at Southampton 1971-73, and he was a
professor there and he was perfectly respectable electrochemist back
then.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion
The proposition that it might have destroyed the Twin Towers is
definitely lunacy.
I have not said, that the WTC was destroyed by cold fusion.
I actually assumed a 'weaponised' version of the so called 'Hutchison
effect' (similar to John Hutchison himself, together with Tom Beardon
and Judy Wood).
So not cold fusion - which doesn't seem to happen - but something even
more improbable, verging on the absolutely fatuous.
But possibly Stephan Jones assumed it was 'cold fusion', because he
was an expert in that topic and that might eventually have looked a
little similar.
Conspiracy theory nut cases do go in for that kind of lunatic over-reach.
I have created several 'conspiracy theories' myself. But I usually don't
use the term 'conspiracy'.
Most of the time these 'theories' ain't theories, but guesses. And they
are usually not guesses about conspiracies, but are guesswork about the activities of secret agencies and their 'spooks'.
Sorry, but that's actually all what is possible, because 'spooks' are
spooky and try to keep their activities secret.
That leaves only guesswork as possiblity.
E.g. I have compared the book 'my Struggle' in English with the same
book in German (called 'Mein Kampf') and found something quite interesting:
the book in German must be a (bad) translation of an English origional
and not the other way round.
That is at least astonishing, but still guesswork.
I also found, that this picture (which could be found in the English
version of 'My Struggle') looks like a very bad montage:
https://img.br.de/be3a4a28-0381-4039-a60e-db00a08150ee.tiff
What was dubious that were the heads. They looked like cut out and glued over other heads.
Anyhow..
But you can't reject guesses about activities of spooks, just because
they are guesses.
The simple reason:
the agents don't announce their activities in the newspaper.
On 30/03/2026 5:48 pm, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am Sonntag000029, 29.03.2026 um 16:32 schrieb Bill Sloman:
On 29/03/2026 6:56 pm, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am Freitag000027, 27.03.2026 um 16:51 schrieb Bill Sloman:
On 27/03/2026 6:54 pm, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am Mittwoch000025, 25.03.2026 um 15:26 schrieb Ross Finlayson:
...
The rational majority.
There's always going to be somebody
who doesn't believe the official narrative of 9/11.
Sure, but that wasn't the question.
The question was:
is there still anybody believing the official story? >>>
The official story has more holes than a Swiss cheese and is >>>>>>>>> actually
an insult to rational thinking.
The claims that you have been making - like the Twin Towers
falling down
in ten seconds - don't suggest that you can do rational
thinking, or
recognise it when you run into it.
WTC7 is a usual outlier to otherwise the "Jones" theory versus
the "NIST" theory.
Stephan Jones was a proponent of a theory, that can't possibly be >>>>>> true.
Jones assumed, that the WTC buildings were destroyed by explosions >>>>>> of nano-thermite.
But the buildings didn't explode!
Thermite isn't an explosive. It just burns and gets very hot.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermite
What really happened that was far stranger than mini-nukes or
nanothermite:
The twin towers simply 'dustified' in mid-air and vanished.
It would have been very strange if it had happened. I've not seen
anybody sane claim that it did. The concrete got hot as the towers
burned, and got smashed into small rubble as each floor fell down
on the floor below as the steel frames got hot and failed. There
was a great deal of dust around after the Twin Towers had fallen
down, so by no means all of it "vanished"-a - if any of it did
Since Stephan Jones was also the expert for cold-fusion of the
Department of Energy, I assumed, that Jones knew what had happened >>>>>> and wanted to divert the attention away from cold fusion.
...
Cold fusion is weird - not because of anything it has been observed >>>>> to do, but because people have kept on looking at it since 1989
when Pons and Fleischmann first reported it. I'd run into Martin
Fleischmann when I was post-doc at Southampton 1971-73, and he was
a professor there and he was perfectly respectable electrochemist
back then.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion
The proposition that it might have destroyed the Twin Towers is
definitely lunacy.
I have not said, that the WTC was destroyed by cold fusion.
I actually assumed a 'weaponised' version of the so called
'Hutchison effect' (similar to John Hutchison himself, together with
Tom Beardon and Judy Wood).
So not cold fusion - which doesn't seem to happen - but something
even more improbable, verging on the absolutely fatuous.
But possibly Stephan Jones assumed it was 'cold fusion', because he
was an expert in that topic and that might eventually have looked a
little similar.
Conspiracy theory nut cases do go in for that kind of lunatic over-
reach.
I have created several 'conspiracy theories' myself. But I usually
don't use the term 'conspiracy'.
Most of the time these 'theories' ain't theories, but guesses. And
they are usually not guesses about conspiracies, but are guesswork
about the activities of secret agencies and their 'spooks'.
Sorry, but that's actually all what is possible, because 'spooks' are
spooky and try to keep their activities secret.
That leaves only guesswork as possiblity.
E.g. I have compared the book 'my Struggle' in English with the same
book in German (called 'Mein Kampf') and found something quite
interesting:
the book in German must be a (bad) translation of an English origional
and not the other way round.
That is at least astonishing, but still guesswork.
I also found, that this picture (which could be found in the English
version of 'My Struggle') looks like a very bad montage:
https://img.br.de/be3a4a28-0381-4039-a60e-db00a08150ee.tiff
What was dubious that were the heads. They looked like cut out and
glued over other heads.
Anyhow..
But you can't reject guesses about activities of spooks, just because
they are guesses.
Actually you can and should. The spooks are free to post the same sorts
of guesses, and use them to distract from and devalue evidence-based accounts.
The classic example is climate-change-denial propaganda which is biassed guess-work designed to distract people from the evidence-based science.
Am Freitag000027, 27.03.2026 um 17:17 schrieb Bill Sloman:
On 27/03/2026 7:13 pm, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am Donnerstag000026, 26.03.2026 um 15:00 schrieb Thomas Heger:
...
So, material objects with a mass larger than 20 to of steel and
concrete 'dustified' in mid air and were blown away.
They got broken up in a series of smaller collisions, as each floor >>>>> fell onto the floor below it, and got further broken up by each
impact in succession.
That's not how things fall, if they hit something hard below.
If you would drop something breakable from some height upon
something breakable, but with high resistance against breaks, you
would expect a different pattern:
the upper part of a collision would cause breaks in the parts below,
but also breaks of the same kind in itself, because the both parts
were assumed to have the same strength.
What happened to the Twin Towers was that the towers caught on fire
and got hot, weakening both the steel frame and the concrete.
When they got weak enough the Towers collapsed, floor by floor. About
the only stuff that fell a long way were the supporting columns, which
leaned way from the building and eventually fell outwards, hitting
adjacent building. Each floor collapsed inwards, stopping at the next
floor (but not for long) before the next floor failed
If we concentrate on the upper part only (for a moment), we would
expect parts of the falling piece to splinter off and fall partly
outside of the former building shape, hence would fall in free fall
outside down to the ground.
Why? It's all tied together by a steel frame, which may be failing,
But stuff isn't going to "splinter off". There don't seem to be any
reports of that.
The entire neighborhood of the twin-towers got struck by large sections
of the perimeter walls.
Some of these sections were HUGE and hit neighboring buildings up to
several hundred meters away (like e.g. building WTC 7).
That's why the assumption of simple free fall drop wasn't unlikely at all.
Doesn't matter that much, what percentage would break of the upper
part, because at least some parts would do that.
An unsupported assumption.
WHAT???
If a building collapses under the own gravity, it is actually VERY
likely, that the pieces fall down to the ground in one way or the other.
But even at the height of the actual impact zones, sections of the
perimeter wall of the twin towers would fall down with enormous mass
and velocity.
I saw it happen on TV. They didn't.
No, they didn't.
But isn't that astonishing??
I mean: you drop a piece of the enormous buildings composed from steel
and concrete and a weight of a locomotive from a skyscraper.
And it didn't hit the ground!
Instead it turned to dust in mid-air and gets blown away.
If you would think, that such a behavior is 'natural', you were a
hopeless case.
IoW: possibly you were right and not that many 'cannon balls' or
'fright trains' would have hit the ground, but certainly some.
Why "certainly"?
Well, in 'collapse under the own weight' I would see an influence of
Earth' gravity.
What gravity 'really' is, that is not perfectly understood. But at least
we know, that gravity makes unsupported things drop down.
As we have some confidence in gravity, we could assume with certainty,
that heavy objects do not float in the air.
But apparently this didn't happen, because every single of those
sections of the perimeter walls would have pierced through the
street level like a hot knife though butter.
Really?
The kinetic energy and the momentum of falling debris would have been enormous.
E.g. a piece of 'moderate' mass (by WTC standards) would have, say, 20 to.
If dropped from a hight of 400 m it would have a kinetic energie at
ground level of about 78.000.000 Joules.
That is just enormous and about five times the kinetic energy of an artillery shell.
In this didn't happen, because the street level was mainly intact.
You could easily see that, if you look at any pictures of the
aftermath of 9/11, which show the remains of the twin-towers.
E.g. you can see, if you look carefully, remains of fire-trucks and
other cars in the rubble, which remained astonishingly undamaged.
For instance some had still unbroken windows.
This wouldn't be possible, if a just screw-driver would fall from
that height, let alone sections of the perimeter wall, weighing more
then 20 tons.
A screw driver has a rather low terminal velocity. A human falling
from any height can't reach a terminal velocity above about 190km/hour.
It the perimeter wall broken up into less massive pieces - only 10 or
20kgm - they'd have a lower terminal velocity.
Sure, but the pieces hadn't.
The twintowers were build from-steel beams with insane masses,
These steel-beams had thick wall and large dimensions.
There ware also used in groups of beams in the perimeter walls and were welded together.
A few kg are just not the right dimensions for the sections of the walls.
These sections had masses well over twenty to.
<snipped calculations about imagined fragments>
But each tower consisted of more than half a million tons, hence not
only one piece would fall down, but more than 25.000 pieces.
You'd like each piece to have weighed about 20 tons, but you haven't
explained why it should have.
Well, we usually have smaller pieces and larger pieces and some sort of
mean 'piece-size'.
Conspiracy theory nut cases do go in for that kind of lunatic over-
reach.
I have created several 'conspiracy theories' myself. But I usually
don't use the term 'conspiracy'.
Most of the time these 'theories' ain't theories, but guesses. And
they are usually not guesses about conspiracies, but are guesswork
about the activities of secret agencies and their 'spooks'.
Sorry, but that's actually all what is possible, because 'spooks' are
spooky and try to keep their activities secret.
That leaves only guesswork as possiblity.
E.g. I have compared the book 'my Struggle' in English with the same
book in German (called 'Mein Kampf') and found something quite
interesting:
the book in German must be a (bad) translation of an English origional
and not the other way round.
That is at least astonishing, but still guesswork.
I also found, that this picture (which could be found in the English
version of 'My Struggle') looks like a very bad montage:
https://img.br.de/be3a4a28-0381-4039-a60e-db00a08150ee.tiff
What was dubious that were the heads. They looked like cut out and
glued over other heads.
Anyhow..
But you can't reject guesses about activities of spooks, just because
they are guesses.
Actually you can and should. The spooks are free to post the same sorts
of guesses, and use them to distract from and devalue evidence-based accounts.
...
So, material objects with a mass larger than 20 to of steel and >>>>>>> concrete 'dustified' in mid air and were blown away.
They got broken up in a series of smaller collisions, as each
floor fell onto the floor below it, and got further broken up by
each impact in succession.
That's not how things fall, if they hit something hard below.
If you would drop something breakable from some height upon
something breakable, but with high resistance against breaks, you
would expect a different pattern:
the upper part of a collision would cause breaks in the parts
below, but also breaks of the same kind in itself, because the both >>>>> parts were assumed to have the same strength.
What happened to the Twin Towers was that the towers caught on fire
and got hot, weakening both the steel frame and the concrete.
When they got weak enough the Towers collapsed, floor by floor. About
the only stuff that fell a long way were the supporting columns,
which leaned way from the building and eventually fell outwards,
hitting adjacent building. Each floor collapsed inwards, stopping at
the next floor (but not for long) before the next floor failed
If we concentrate on the upper part only (for a moment), we would
expect parts of the falling piece to splinter off and fall partly
outside of the former building shape, hence would fall in free fall >>>>> outside down to the ground.
Why? It's all tied together by a steel frame, which may be failing,
But stuff isn't going to "splinter off". There don't seem to be any
reports of that.
The entire neighborhood of the twin-towers got struck by large
sections of the perimeter walls.
That's not the way I read the reports. One the steel holding each floor
in place started giving way - from the top because the building was on
fire hot air rises - the top floor fell onto the floor below, which then fell onto the floor below a little later. Those two floors then loaded
up the third floor so it failed even more rapidly, and so forth down to ground.
This left the supporting columns around the outside of the building disconnected from one another and they started swaying and eventually
fell sideways, hitting adjacent buildings. They were studtural columns,
not perimeter walls
Some of these sections were HUGE and hit neighboring buildings up to
several hundred meters away (like e.g. building WTC 7).
A 400 meter long column is pretty big, and there were quite a few of them.
That's why the assumption of simple free fall drop wasn't unlikely at
all.
Not so much unlikely as inappropriate.
Doesn't matter that much, what percentage would break of the upper
part, because at least some parts would do that.
An unsupported assumption.
WHAT???
If a building collapses under the own gravity, it is actually VERY
likely, that the pieces fall down to the ground in one way or the other.
But not necessarily in large chunks.
But even at the height of the actual impact zones, sections of the
perimeter wall of the twin towers would fall down with enormous
mass and velocity.
I saw it happen on TV. They didn't.
No, they didn't.
But isn't that astonishing??
Only if you have preconceived and unrealistic ideas about how a burning steel-frame building building might fall down.
Sure, that would happen.I mean: you drop a piece of the enormous buildings composed from steel
and concrete and a weight of a locomotive from a skyscraper.
You don't drop it. It falls off, largely because the steel has got hot enough to let the frame come apart
And it didn't hit the ground!
Of course it did. Just not in the way that you like to imagine.
Instead it turned to dust in mid-air and gets blown away.
Some of it did. More of it got turned into loose rubble and got moved sideways on the way down by the air-currents that circulate quite fast around a burning building
If you would think, that such a behavior is 'natural', you were a
hopeless case.
That doesn't seem to be the behavior that was actually observed
Am Montag000030, 30.03.2026 um 09:15 schrieb Bill Sloman:
Actually you can and should. The spooks are free to post the same
sorts of guesses, and use them to distract from and devalue
evidence-based accounts.
No, I don't think that spook can or should do that, because they are not allowed to say, that they are 'spooks' (actually 'agents').
This would be 'deconspiracy', what is regarded as a crime for almost any agent of any agency.
On 31/03/2026 6:13 pm, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am Montag000030, 30.03.2026 um 09:15 schrieb Bill Sloman:
<snip>
Actually you can and should. The spooks are free to post the same
sorts of guesses, and use them to distract from and devalue evidence-
based accounts.
No, I don't think that spook can or should do that, because they are
not allowed to say, that they are 'spooks' (actually 'agents').
This would be 'deconspiracy', what is regarded as a crime for almost
any agent of any agency.
Unless their masters have told them to do it. Undercover agents are free
to do all sorts of stuff that their masters wouldn't admit that they
hadtold them to do. Agents do go undercover to make their antics deniable.
Oil companies contribute to the "merchants of doubt'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchants_of_Doubt
precisely to fund climate change denial propaganda in a way that doesn't expose them to prosecution.
And we've got Maciej Wo+|niak who posts nonsense about Einstein because
he can't think straight.
Am Montag000030, 30.03.2026 um 17:45 schrieb Bill Sloman:
You could SEE these large chunks on several photos.
But even at the height of the actual impact zones, sections of the >>>>>> perimeter wall of the twin towers would fall down with enormous
mass and velocity.
I saw it happen on TV. They didn't.
No, they didn't.
But isn't that astonishing??
Only if you have preconceived and unrealistic ideas about how a
burning steel-frame building building might fall down.
You're right...
... supposed steel would burn!
I mean: you drop a piece of the enormous buildings composed from
steel and concrete and a weight of a locomotive from a skyscraper.
You don't drop it. It falls off, largely because the steel has got hot
enough to let the frame come apart.
Sure, that would happen.
But still these parts would have masses of several tons each.
What we encountered instead were tiny droplets in the range of microns.
That is quite a different story!
And it didn't hit the ground!
Of course it did. Just not in the way that you like to imagine.
These tiny droplets were actually blown away by the wind.
And, yes, I didn't expect that.
Instead it turned to dust in mid-air and gets blown away.
Some of it did. More of it got turned into loose rubble and got moved
sideways on the way down by the air-currents that circulate quite fast
around a burning building
Some did, but we were expecting ten-thousands of massive pieces and not
just a few.
If you would think, that such a behavior is 'natural', you were a
hopeless case.
That doesn't seem to be the behavior that was actually observed
If you don't believe, that most of the debris was blown away, than you should say to where it actually went.
It didn't fell upon the WTC-plaza, because the street level was mainly undamaged. (you could actually see cars in the rubble, which had
unbroken windows!)
It wasn't in the basement, because there exist videos, where firemen and rescue workers marched through all the floors of the basement and have
not been hindered by any material there.
So: where did the millions of tons of debris go? (estimated mass was 1.6 millions tons)
On 31/03/2026 6:39 pm, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am Montag000030, 30.03.2026 um 17:45 schrieb Bill Sloman:
<snip>
You could SEE these large chunks on several photos.
But you can't post a link to any of them.
Am Dienstag000031, 31.03.2026 um 14:10 schrieb Bill Sloman:
On 31/03/2026 6:39 pm, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am Montag000030, 30.03.2026 um 17:45 schrieb Bill Sloman:
<snip>
You could SEE these large chunks on several photos.
But you can't post a link to any of them.
Actually I did.
But google is nice and provided tons of links.
E.g. this is a good picture:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/84/September_17_2001_Ground_Zero_04.jpg
or this one
https://www.esri.com/about/newsroom/app/uploads/2021/09/Handheld_Mapping.jpg
but there are many more of these pictures!
You are exhibiting the same pathology as Maciej Wo+|niak did when I went after him for not posting informative links. He posted two totally irrelevant links to prove that he could do it - missing the point that
they do need to be relevant to be informative.
On 03/25/2026 09:22 PM, Lahn wrote:
as/if c is the same in all frames of reference
"as if"
The "as if" approach to things is a sort of what's
called "fallibilism after nominalism".
It's sort of like, "almost everywhere": not exactly everywhere.
Now, I'm not pointing out that the account is just another
equivalent conservative explanation saying nothing different
at all just to be contrary: just pointing out that that sort
of account is saying nothing different at all just to go along.
If what you enjoy is "Christmas Talks" at the "Royal Institution",
I'd suggest Michael Faraday's, then that one with the fellow with
the gyroscopes, or Eric Laithwaite. (Faraday's is first in print,
and Laithwaite's is first on television.)
So, for accounts of the metric and norm, then usually it's
triangle inequality in the formalism, and then about the
curvature of space-time, one may aver that since the great
awaited results of the Cosmic Microwave Background Explorer,
that it's validated that the universe is isotropic, or "flat".
Then, the cosmological constant has a value as a mathematical
infinitesimal: then as with regards to whether it's negligeable
or non-negligeable, is for matters of "the indefiniteness of ds^2".
Anyways "as if" is also "as if not".
On 1/04/2026 6:47 pm, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am Dienstag000031, 31.03.2026 um 14:10 schrieb Bill Sloman:
On 31/03/2026 6:39 pm, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am Montag000030, 30.03.2026 um 17:45 schrieb Bill Sloman:
<snip>
You could SEE these large chunks on several photos.
But you can't post a link to any of them.
Actually I did.
Really?
But google is nice and provided tons of links.
E.g. this is a good picture:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/84/
September_17_2001_Ground_Zero_04.jpg
But what do you think it is telling you?
or this one
https://www.esri.com/about/newsroom/app/uploads/2021/09/
Handheld_Mapping.jpg
but there are many more of these pictures!
All of them meaningless in isolation.
But what do you think it is telling you?
or this one
https://www.esri.com/about/newsroom/app/uploads/2021/09/
Handheld_Mapping.jpg
but there are many more of these pictures!
All of them meaningless in isolation.
Am Mittwoch000001, 01.04.2026 um 17:34 schrieb Bill Sloman:
On 1/04/2026 6:47 pm, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am Dienstag000031, 31.03.2026 um 14:10 schrieb Bill Sloman:
On 31/03/2026 6:39 pm, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am Montag000030, 30.03.2026 um 17:45 schrieb Bill Sloman:
<snip>
You could SEE these large chunks on several photos.
But you can't post a link to any of them.
Actually I did.
Really?
But google is nice and provided tons of links.
E.g. this is a good picture:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/84/
September_17_2001_Ground_Zero_04.jpg
But what do you think it is telling you?
You see hundreds of parts of the former perimeter-walls, each in the
ranger of more than 20 to, lying outside the WTC-plaza.
Actually I don't know, what that strange building was, but it didn't
belong to the WTC complex.
Because the sections of the perimeter walls are easy to identify by
their very special shape, we know, that these pieces flew from the twin-towers to where they were found on the next day.
This would allow us to reject the claim, that these pieces didn't fall
down, because you can clearly see numerous of these pieces on that picture.
It was strange, however, that these pieces flew that far and remained
there, while the much more logical place to fall upon (WTC-Plaza) wasn't
hit as much as that building, which apparently belonged to the harbor of
New York.
There are also sections of the twin towers, that pierced through the
walls of adjacent buildings.
This is cleanly visible on that photo, too.
or this one
https://www.esri.com/about/newsroom/app/uploads/2021/09/Handheld_Mapping.jpg
but there are many more of these pictures!
All of them meaningless in isolation.
No!!!!
You look at a picture, identify the visible items and try to figure out,
how the pieces managed to get there were they are seen.
The best way is to isolate the image and concentrate on very few items.
It doesn't make any sense at all, if you get overwhelmed with too many images.
Isolation of evidence is essential!
After that, you need to connect your findings again.
But too many pictures at once just blur your intuition.
Am Mittwoch000001, 01.04.2026 um 17:34 schrieb Bill Sloman:
what made these steel beams rust overnight?
On 3/04/2026 7:31 pm, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am Mittwoch000001, 01.04.2026 um 17:34 schrieb Bill Sloman:
<snipped lots of wishful thinking>
what made these steel beams rust overnight?
Encasing steel beams in concrete doesn't stop them rusting. It they'd
been bare, the fire would have stripped off any corrosion protection
they had, and got them hot enough to encourage rather rapid oxidation.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Bill Sloman wrote:
On 3/04/2026 7:31 pm, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am Mittwoch000001, 01.04.2026 um 17:34 schrieb Bill Sloman:
<snipped lots of wishful thinking>
what made these steel beams rust overnight?
Encasing steel beams in concrete doesn't stop them rusting. It they'd
been bare, the fire would have stripped off any corrosion protection
they had, and got them hot enough to encourage rather rapid oxidation.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Is Sydney your first name, middle name or last name?
On 4/04/2026 3:38 am, The Starmaker wrote:
Bill Sloman wrote:
On 3/04/2026 7:31 pm, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am Mittwoch000001, 01.04.2026 um 17:34 schrieb Bill Sloman:
<snipped lots of wishful thinking>
what made these steel beams rust overnight?
Encasing steel beams in concrete doesn't stop them rusting. It they'd
been bare, the fire would have stripped off any corrosion protection
they had, and got them hot enough to encourage rather rapid oxidation.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Is Sydney your first name, middle name or last name?
It was Bill Sloman, Nijmegen but fifteen years ago I moved to Sydney, Australia. I am Australian, and so was my wife.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Bill Sloman wrote:
On 4/04/2026 3:38 am, The Starmaker wrote:
Bill Sloman wrote:
On 3/04/2026 7:31 pm, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am Mittwoch000001, 01.04.2026 um 17:34 schrieb Bill Sloman:
<snipped lots of wishful thinking>
what made these steel beams rust overnight?
Encasing steel beams in concrete doesn't stop them rusting. It they'd
been bare, the fire would have stripped off any corrosion protection
they had, and got them hot enough to encourage rather rapid oxidation. >>>>
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Is Sydney your first name, middle name or last name?
It was Bill Sloman, Nijmegen but fifteen years ago I moved to Sydney,
Australia. I am Australian, and so was my wife.
You got a wife? Have you got any pictures of her??
On Tue, 24 Mar 2026 10:20:02 +0100, Gerhard Hoffmann <dk4xp@arcor.de>
wrote:
George Carlin put it better than I ever could:
< https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_FQZUSy1Vg >
about halfway into the clip.
What a nasty creep. I bet he would have signed up for Nazi Youth.
Am 24.03.26 um 13:46 schrieb john larkin:
On Tue, 24 Mar 2026 10:20:02 +0100, Gerhard Hoffmann <dk4xp@arcor.de>
wrote:
George Carlin put it better than I ever could:
< https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_FQZUSy1Vg >
about halfway into the clip.
What a nasty creep. I bet he would have signed up for Nazi Youth.
He was the antithesis to Nazi if there ever was one.
Nasty creeps are those who use war crimes to hide Sex Crimes.
Another way to put it is they kill children to hide they rape children.
On 3/04/2026 7:12 pm, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am Mittwoch000001, 01.04.2026 um 17:34 schrieb Bill Sloman:
On 1/04/2026 6:47 pm, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am Dienstag000031, 31.03.2026 um 14:10 schrieb Bill Sloman:
On 31/03/2026 6:39 pm, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am Montag000030, 30.03.2026 um 17:45 schrieb Bill Sloman:
<snip>
You could SEE these large chunks on several photos.
But you can't post a link to any of them.
Actually I did.
Really?
But google is nice and provided tons of links.
E.g. this is a good picture:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/84/
September_17_2001_Ground_Zero_04.jpg
But what do you think it is telling you?
You see hundreds of parts of the former perimeter-walls, each in the
ranger of more than 20 to, lying outside the WTC-plaza.
You see lumps of concrete - you don't know where they came from or how
much they weigh.
Actually I don't know, what that strange building was, but it didn't
belong to the WTC complex.
Because the sections of the perimeter walls are easy to identify by
their very special shape, we know, that these pieces flew from the
twin-towers to where they were found on the next day.
And what shape was that?
This would allow us to reject the claim, that these pieces didn't fall
down, because you can clearly see numerous of these pieces on that
picture.
But you don't know what they are or where they came from. You want them
to be sections of the perimeter wall, but simple assertion doesn't hack it.
It was strange, however, that these pieces flew that far and remained
there, while the much more logical place to fall upon (WTC-Plaza)
wasn't hit as much as that building, which apparently belonged to the
harbor of New York.
There are also sections of the twin towers, that pierced through the
walls of adjacent buildings.
They were the vertical structural columns, which tilted over as they
fell down, after the steel links in the floors of each storey failed and dump each floor onto the floor below
On 3/04/2026 7:31 pm, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am Mittwoch000001, 01.04.2026 um 17:34 schrieb Bill Sloman:
<snipped lots of wishful thinking>
what made these steel beams rust overnight?
Encasing steel beams in concrete doesn't stop them rusting. It they'd
been bare, the fire would have stripped off any corrosion protection
they had, and got them hot enough to encourage rather rapid oxidation.
Am Freitag000003, 03.04.2026 um 18:16 schrieb Bill Sloman:
On 3/04/2026 7:31 pm, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am Mittwoch000001, 01.04.2026 um 17:34 schrieb Bill Sloman:
<snipped lots of wishful thinking>
what made these steel beams rust overnight?
Encasing steel beams in concrete doesn't stop them rusting. It they'd
been bare, the fire would have stripped off any corrosion protection
they had, and got them hot enough to encourage rather rapid oxidation.
'Rapid rust' was among the strangest things happening at 9/11!
MANY massive steel items collected rusted almost instantly. That were
not only steel beems of adjacent buildings, but lots of other items collected rust very fast.
That was a VERY (!!) unusual phenomenon.
Usually it can take weeks for bare steel to rust, even in 'hostile' environments.
Am Freitag000003, 03.04.2026 um 14:42 schrieb Bill Sloman:
On 3/04/2026 7:12 pm, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am Mittwoch000001, 01.04.2026 um 17:34 schrieb Bill Sloman:
On 1/04/2026 6:47 pm, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am Dienstag000031, 31.03.2026 um 14:10 schrieb Bill Sloman:
On 31/03/2026 6:39 pm, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am Montag000030, 30.03.2026 um 17:45 schrieb Bill Sloman:
<snip>
You could SEE these large chunks on several photos.
But you can't post a link to any of them.
Actually I did.
Really?
But google is nice and provided tons of links.
E.g. this is a good picture:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/84/
September_17_2001_Ground_Zero_04.jpg
But what do you think it is telling you?
You see hundreds of parts of the former perimeter-walls, each in the
ranger of more than 20 to, lying outside the WTC-plaza.
You see lumps of concrete - you don't know where they came from or how
much they weigh.
Actually I don't know, what that strange building was, but it didn't
belong to the WTC complex.
Because the sections of the perimeter walls are easy to identify by
their very special shape, we know, that these pieces flew from the
twin-towers to where they were found on the next day.
And what shape was that?
The sections of the perimeter walls were pre-fabricated and lifted to
their position with cranes. There the large pieces were bolted together
and later welded.
The sections looked more or less similar and consisted of a number of vertical and horizontal steel beams.
If you see such pieces in the rubble, you know with certainty that they
came from one of the twin towers.
From where they came exactly is hard to say, because these sections
were build mainly equally.-a If there were any differences at all would
be a good question. But at least I don't know about any differences.
Therefore you only know, that they stem from the outer perimeter walls
of one of the towers.
The mass was roughly twenty tons each (sorry, but I actually don't know
the exact weight).
This would allow us to reject the claim, that these pieces didn't
fall down, because you can clearly see numerous of these pieces on
that picture.
But you don't know what they are or where they came from. You want
them to be sections of the perimeter wall, but simple assertion
doesn't hack it.
I know what the were, but not were they have been before, because these sections were mainly equal.
Don't know if there were significant differencers, which would allow to identify the individual piece.
It was strange, however, that these pieces flew that far and remained
there, while the much more logical place to fall upon (WTC-Plaza)
wasn't hit as much as that building, which apparently belonged to the
harbor of New York.
There are also sections of the twin towers, that pierced through the
walls of adjacent buildings.
They were the vertical structural columns, which tilted over as they
fell down, after the steel links in the floors of each storey failed
and dumped each floor onto the floor below
Sure, something like that...
BUT: why didn't twenty ton massive pieces of steel with a velocity of up
to 350 km/h-a damage the ground level of the WTC-plaza????
That was a VERY unusual habit!!!
Instead of piercing through the floor, these sections pierced through
the facades of adjacent buildings and remained intact outside of the WTC-Plaza, while turning into fine dust inside that WTC-area.
THAT was INSANELY surreal!!!
On 5/04/2026 6:14 pm, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am Freitag000003, 03.04.2026 um 18:16 schrieb Bill Sloman:
On 3/04/2026 7:31 pm, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am Mittwoch000001, 01.04.2026 um 17:34 schrieb Bill Sloman:
<snipped lots of wishful thinking>
what made these steel beams rust overnight?
Encasing steel beams in concrete doesn't stop them rusting. It they'd
been bare, the fire would have stripped off any corrosion protection
they had, and got them hot enough to encourage rather rapid oxidation.
'Rapid rust' was among the strangest things happening at 9/11!
MANY massive steel items collected rusted almost instantly. That were
not only steel beems of adjacent buildings, but lots of other items
collected rust very fast.
That was a VERY (!!) unusual phenomenon.
Usually it can take weeks for bare steel to rust, even in 'hostile'
environments.
If you want to speed up a chemical reaction, get the reagents hot.
The Twin Towers fell down because the fire started by crashing the jet planes into the buildings got hot enough to weaken the steel frames.
It also got them hot enough to rust remarkably rapidly.
You see hundreds of parts of the former perimeter-walls, each in the
ranger of more than 20 to, lying outside the WTC-plaza.
You see lumps of concrete - you don't know where they came from or
how much they weigh.
Actually I don't know, what that strange building was, but it didn't
belong to the WTC complex.
Because the sections of the perimeter walls are easy to identify by
their very special shape, we know, that these pieces flew from the
twin-towers to where they were found on the next day.
And what shape was that?
The sections of the perimeter walls were pre-fabricated and lifted to
their position with cranes. There the large pieces were bolted
together and later welded.
The sections looked more or less similar and consisted of a number of
vertical and horizontal steel beams.
If you see such pieces in the rubble, you know with certainty that
they came from one of the twin towers.
-aFrom where they came exactly is hard to say, because these sections
were build mainly equally.-a If there were any differences at all would
be a good question. But at least I don't know about any differences.
Therefore you only know, that they stem from the outer perimeter walls
of one of the towers.
The mass was roughly twenty tons each (sorry, but I actually don't
know the exact weight).
This would allow us to reject the claim, that these pieces didn't
fall down, because you can clearly see numerous of these pieces on
that picture.
But you don't know what they are or where they came from. You want
them to be sections of the perimeter wall, but simple assertion
doesn't hack it.
I know what the were, but not were they have been before, because
these sections were mainly equal.
Don't know if there were significant differencers, which would allow
to identify the individual piece.
It was strange, however, that these pieces flew that far and
remained there, while the much more logical place to fall upon (WTC-
Plaza) wasn't hit as much as that building, which apparently
belonged to the harbor of New York.
There are also sections of the twin towers, that pierced through the
walls of adjacent buildings.
They were the vertical structural columns, which tilted over as they
fell down, after the steel links in the floors of each storey failed
and dumped each floor onto the floor below
Sure, something like that...
BUT: why didn't twenty ton massive pieces of steel with a velocity of
up to 350 km/h-a damage the ground level of the WTC-plaza????
Probably because there weren't any twenty ton massive pieces of steel falling freely from the top of world Trade Centre.
That was a VERY unusual habit!!!
Nobody makes a habit of dropping twenty ton pieces of steel from the
tops of very tall buildings. It is anti-social and discouraged.
Instead of piercing through the floor, these sections pierced through
the facades of adjacent buildings and remained intact outside of the
WTC-Plaza, while turning into fine dust inside that WTC-area.
The columns didn't drop vertically - they swayed out of the vertical and eventually swayed far enough to fall over, but the sway meant that they didn't fall freely or vertically.
THAT was INSANELY surreal!!!
The insanity is all in your insistence on imaging what might have been
going on, rather than trying to find out.
Am Sonntag000005, 05.04.2026 um 18:53 schrieb Bill Sloman:
...
You see hundreds of parts of the former perimeter-walls, each in
the ranger of more than 20 to, lying outside the WTC-plaza.
You see lumps of concrete - you don't know where they came from or
how much they weigh.
Actually I don't know, what that strange building was, but it
didn't belong to the WTC complex.
Because the sections of the perimeter walls are easy to identify by >>>>> their very special shape, we know, that these pieces flew from the
twin-towers to where they were found on the next day.
And what shape was that?
The sections of the perimeter walls were pre-fabricated and lifted to
their position with cranes. There the large pieces were bolted
together and later welded.
The sections looked more or less similar and consisted of a number of
vertical and horizontal steel beams.
If you see such pieces in the rubble, you know with certainty that
they came from one of the twin towers.
-aFrom where they came exactly is hard to say, because these sections
were build mainly equally.-a If there were any differences at all
would be a good question. But at least I don't know about any
differences.
Therefore you only know, that they stem from the outer perimeter
walls of one of the towers.
The mass was roughly twenty tons each (sorry, but I actually don't
know the exact weight).
This would allow us to reject the claim, that these pieces didn't
fall down, because you can clearly see numerous of these pieces on
that picture.
But you don't know what they are or where they came from. You want
them to be sections of the perimeter wall, but simple assertion
doesn't hack it.
I know what the were, but not were they have been before, because
these sections were mainly equal.
Don't know if there were significant differencers, which would allow
to identify the individual piece.
It was strange, however, that these pieces flew that far and
remained there, while the much more logical place to fall upon
(WTC- Plaza) wasn't hit as much as that building, which apparently
belonged to the harbor of New York.
There are also sections of the twin towers, that pierced through
the walls of adjacent buildings.
They were the vertical structural columns, which tilted over as they
fell down, after the steel links in the floors of each storey failed
and dumped each floor onto the floor below
Sure, something like that...
BUT: why didn't twenty ton massive pieces of steel with a velocity of
up to 350 km/h-a damage the ground level of the WTC-plaza????
Probably because there weren't any twenty ton massive pieces of steel
falling freely from the top of world Trade Centre.
You would certainly agree, that the twintowers actually collapsed.
So: 'what was up had to come down' (in one way or the other), because steel-beams are not supposed to stay floating in the sky.
We could discuss the size of the pieces, but not the total mass and the hight, from where these pieces had to come down.
Each tower was made from roughly 600,000 to of material.
So, it we had, say, ten-thousand pieces, each piece would have a mass of
60 tonns.
That's a little large, so lets assume 30,000 pieces of debris (per tower).
That would give us an average of 20 to per piece.
But by looking at the pile of the rubble, there haven't been 30,000
pieces of an average of 20 to in each of the piles.
I would say, there were less the ten-thousand pieces of such a mass, possibly far less (in both piles combined!).
But, if you prefer that, we could also assume 40,000 pieces with an
average mass of 15 to or 60,000 pieces weighing on average 10 tonns each.
What would you prefer?
That was a VERY unusual habit!!!
Nobody makes a habit of dropping twenty ton pieces of steel from the
tops of very tall buildings. It is anti-social and discouraged.
You are absolute right and nobody would drop such piece intentionally
from such a height.
But we're not talking about intentions, but about the collase of a skyscraper. This did happen and therefore we need to assume, that the
pieces fell down some way.
Instead of piercing through the floor, these sections pierced through
the facades of adjacent buildings and remained intact outside of the
WTC-Plaza, while turning into fine dust inside that WTC-area.
The columns didn't drop vertically - they swayed out of the vertical
and eventually swayed far enough to fall over, but the sway meant that
they didn't fall freely or vertically.
Sure, but the pieces 'falling' sideways had enough kinetic energy to
pierce through the steel structures of adjacent buildings.
So: why didn't they cut through the floor level of the WTC-Plaza???
There the kinetic energy would be even higher.
THAT was INSANELY surreal!!!
The insanity is all in your insistence on imaging what might have been
going on, rather than trying to find out.
Well, I was never in New York and all I have are such pictures.
Therefore, I can only used pictures of independent sources.
This is certainly not evidence in a classical sense. But you could
easily obtain similar pictures from other source and could choose, whom
you trust more.
Am Sonntag000005, 05.04.2026 um 12:58 schrieb Bill Sloman:
On 5/04/2026 6:14 pm, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am Freitag000003, 03.04.2026 um 18:16 schrieb Bill Sloman:
On 3/04/2026 7:31 pm, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am Mittwoch000001, 01.04.2026 um 17:34 schrieb Bill Sloman:
<snipped lots of wishful thinking>
what made these steel beams rust overnight?
Encasing steel beams in concrete doesn't stop them rusting. It
they'd been bare, the fire would have stripped off any corrosion
protection they had, and got them hot enough to encourage rather
rapid oxidation.
'Rapid rust' was among the strangest things happening at 9/11!
MANY massive steel items collected rusted almost instantly. That were
not only steel beems of adjacent buildings, but lots of other items
collected rust very fast.
That was a VERY (!!) unusual phenomenon.
Usually it can take weeks for bare steel to rust, even in 'hostile'
environments.
If you want to speed up a chemical reaction, get the reagents hot.
The Twin Towers fell down because the fire started by crashing the jet
planes into the buildings got hot enough to weaken the steel frames.
It also got them hot enough to rust remarkably rapidly.
Well, possibly...
But adjacent buildings were not hit by planes and didn't burn.
E.g. have a look at this picture:
https://www.redcross.org/content/dam/redcross/local/news-articles/greater-new-york/1-36484-003-1000x1213.jpg
Here you can-a see a building, which wasn't hit by a plane, but is quite rusty.
This means, that rust appeared almost instantly.
There were also these 'half-burned cars', where the burned side was also very rusty, while the other half of the same car was still undamaged.
That was all VERY strange!
My current guess:
there was an invisible field in action (possibly 'scalar waves'), which
was tuned to resonate with steel and concrete.
This was centered around the twin-towers and was able to turn
Steel-beams into fine dust and less resonant steel at least into rust.
That was something like a HUGE 'microwave oven', which turned the large buildings into molten metal and dust and cars and other stuff into rust.
What was entirely unharmed was apparently paper, which managed to fly
away from the towers, while the metal cabinets these papers were stored turned into dust.
On 6/04/2026 9:09 pm, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am Sonntag000005, 05.04.2026 um 18:53 schrieb Bill Sloman:
...
You see hundreds of parts of the former perimeter-walls, each in
the ranger of more than 20 to, lying outside the WTC-plaza.
You see lumps of concrete - you don't know where they came from or
how much they weigh.
Actually I don't know, what that strange building was, but it
didn't belong to the WTC complex.
Because the sections of the perimeter walls are easy to identify
by their very special shape, we know, that these pieces flew from >>>>>> the twin-towers to where they were found on the next day.
And what shape was that?
The sections of the perimeter walls were pre-fabricated and lifted
to their position with cranes. There the large pieces were bolted
together and later welded.
The sections looked more or less similar and consisted of a number
of vertical and horizontal steel beams.
If you see such pieces in the rubble, you know with certainty that
they came from one of the twin towers.
-aFrom where they came exactly is hard to say, because these sections >>>> were build mainly equally.-a If there were any differences at all
would be a good question. But at least I don't know about any
differences.
Therefore you only know, that they stem from the outer perimeter
walls of one of the towers.
The mass was roughly twenty tons each (sorry, but I actually don't
know the exact weight).
This would allow us to reject the claim, that these pieces didn't >>>>>> fall down, because you can clearly see numerous of these pieces on >>>>>> that picture.
But you don't know what they are or where they came from. You want
them to be sections of the perimeter wall, but simple assertion
doesn't hack it.
I know what the were, but not were they have been before, because
these sections were mainly equal.
Don't know if there were significant differencers, which would allow
to identify the individual piece.
It was strange, however, that these pieces flew that far and
remained there, while the much more logical place to fall upon
(WTC- Plaza) wasn't hit as much as that building, which apparently >>>>>> belonged to the harbor of New York.
There are also sections of the twin towers, that pierced through
the walls of adjacent buildings.
They were the vertical structural columns, which tilted over as
they fell down, after the steel links in the floors of each storey
failed and dumped each floor onto the floor below
Sure, something like that...
BUT: why didn't twenty ton massive pieces of steel with a velocity
of up to 350 km/h-a damage the ground level of the WTC-plaza????
Probably because there weren't any twenty ton massive pieces of steel
falling freely from the top of world Trade Centre.
You would certainly agree, that the twintowers actually collapsed.
So: 'what was up had to come down' (in one way or the other), because
steel-beams are not supposed to stay floating in the sky.
We could discuss the size of the pieces, but not the total mass and
the hight, from where these pieces had to come down.
Each tower was made from roughly 600,000 to of material.
So, it we had, say, ten-thousand pieces, each piece would have a mass
of 60 tonns.
That's a little large, so lets assume 30,000 pieces of debris (per
tower).
That would give us an average of 20 to per piece.
But by looking at the pile of the rubble, there haven't been 30,000
pieces of an average of 20 to in each of the piles.
I would say, there were less the ten-thousand pieces of such a mass,
possibly far less (in both piles combined!).
But, if you prefer that, we could also assume 40,000 pieces with an
average mass of 15 to or 60,000 pieces weighing on average 10 tonns each.
What would you prefer?
That was a VERY unusual habit!!!
Nobody makes a habit of dropping twenty ton pieces of steel from the
tops of very tall buildings. It is anti-social and discouraged.
You are absolute right and nobody would drop such piece intentionally
from such a height.
But we're not talking about intentions, but about the collase of a
skyscraper. This did happen and therefore we need to assume, that the
pieces fell down some way.
Instead of piercing through the floor, these sections pierced
through the facades of adjacent buildings and remained intact
outside of the WTC-Plaza, while turning into fine dust inside that
WTC-area.
The columns didn't drop vertically - they swayed out of the vertical
and eventually swayed far enough to fall over, but the sway meant
that they didn't fall freely or vertically.
Sure, but the pieces 'falling' sideways had enough kinetic energy to
pierce through the steel structures of adjacent buildings.
The top of the column moved further sideways that the bits closer to the ground. I'd imagine that the columns lost the their lateral support from
the top down - as each floor fell down onto the one below it, the tops vertical columns would splay out a bit further until the residual
stiffness wasn't enough to constrain the lateral motion and they'd go
from being bent to being u-shaped with what had the top now hitting the ground.
So: why didn't they cut through the floor level of the WTC-Plaza???
Because they went sideways before they went down.
Am Montag000006, 06.04.2026 um 20:11 schrieb Bill Sloman:
On 6/04/2026 9:09 pm, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am Sonntag000005, 05.04.2026 um 18:53 schrieb Bill Sloman:
Because they went sideways before they went down.
Look at this picture and ask yourself: what is depicted on this photo?
https://cdn.abcotvs.com/dip/images/291527_AP01091002603.jpg
You see a fireman and a police car, which is standing on the street near
the ruins of one of the WTC-buildings.
The police car is hardly damaged and there was almost no debris and you
can clearly see the street level.
This means:
the remains of that destroyed building didn't fall outside of the
buildings own footprint.
This fact alone is extremely strange, because this would mean, that the building had mainly vanished without a trace.
This is another picture with strange content: https://cdn.abcotvs.com/dip/images/291530_AP01091105609.jpg
It shows rows of parking cars, with remains of the perimeter walls of
the twintowers inbetween the cars.
But the cars had still windows, which were covered with dust, but were
not broken.
Now: such a huge steel beam could break the windscreen of any car with
ease, even if it didn't drop from more than a meter.
So, why didn't the windows break?
Or his page:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-58512318
There you can see a picture, which shows car inside the rubble of one of
the towers.
These cars looked quite undamaged, if you take into account, that just recently the remains of the largest building in the world fell upon them.
Or that issue: lots and lots of unburned paper in the streets, while none of the filing
cabinets remained:
https://www.bu.edu/files/2021/09/resize-3905155592_0d38904c5e_o.jpg
How did that happen?
I mean, if you melt the cabinets, the paper should be burnt (at least a little).
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 65 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 10:17:27 |
| Calls: | 862 |
| Files: | 1,311 |
| D/L today: |
3 files (7,546K bytes) |
| Messages: | 265,185 |
