XPost: sci.physics.relativity, sci.math   
   From: physfitfreak@gmail.com   
      
   On 4/11/25 8:44 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:   
   > Physfitfreak  wrote:   
   >   
   >> On 4/10/25 3:32 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:   
   >>> Physfitfreak  wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>> On 4/10/25 2:20 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> The Universe is not an evolved biologcal system.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Jan   
   >>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> How do you know that? How can one state that as fact without having the   
   >>>> means to check it?   
   >>>   
   >>> Ockham told me.   
   >>>   
   >>> Jan   
   >>>   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>   
   >> Hmm.. Ockham didn't tell you Einstein wrote that letter of   
   >> recommendation himself?   
   >   
   > That is not the simplest explanation.   
   >   
   > Jan   
   >   
      
      
      
   For an objective person it is. For a Priest-like person, it isn't.   
      
   Priests carry their crosses on their chests, collectivistic scientists   
   like you place their titles on their walls. And they both in effect kiss   
   those things every now and then. It's a certain bizarre affair; a   
   master-servant relationship :)   
      
   You tend to forget that the physics community even in 1921 didn't yet   
   believe the GR tests were any proof of Einstein's work. They generally   
   looked at GR as some sort of absurd hypothesis. That's how Nobel went   
   for some much less important work of his.   
      
   Physics community found Einstein to be what that letter described only   
   years after 1921. Don't try to assume credit for physicists of those   
   days where they didn't have it. It won't work with Physfit's dick.   
      
   In 1911, nobody gave a serious damn about Einstein, and that letter has   
   more to say than just that. Nobody _knew_ Einstein's features that well,   
   until decades later. The letter is how Einstein described himself.   
   Doesn't matter which friend of his signed it, which amounts to doing   
   what an essentially Bozo does for a friend.   
      
   But I'm repeating myself, and when I do that, my longtime usenet   
   experience tells me I'm not talking to an objective person. I cannot put   
   sense into a Priest's head. I just dump him and go on.   
      
   Another much more famous example of such fraudulent claim of credit by   
   physicists of those times was the matter of black body radiation,   
   calling the experimental results a "Catastrophe". As if any of them   
   really believed the results to be true.   
      
   These little fraudsteres, complete with their titles, of course at the   
   time of those experiments were 100% confident something had gone wrong   
   with the experiments giving that ridiculous bell shaped result. But   
   these same suckers some years later pretended to the world that they had   
   immediately grasped the significance of those experiments as soon as   
   results were out. Trying to credit themselves with a credit that they   
   didn't have!..   
      
   As lately as in 1980s, still texts like Eisberg referred to those   
   results as "the ultraviolet catastrophe". I have not checked the physics   
   books since and do not know whether this sham, this Priestly fraud, is   
   still ongoing.   
      
   In short, when you confront Physfit's dick, walk carefully. Talk   
   carefully. Think carefully. Individuals like you hide from Physfit's dick.   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)