XPost: sci.physics.relativity   
   From: ttt_heg@web.de   
      
   Am Dienstag000009, 09.09.2025 um 16:38 schrieb Python:   
   > Le 09/09/2025 à 08:31, Thomas Heger a écrit :   
   >> Am Sonntag000007, 07.09.2025 um 10:37 schrieb Python:   
   >>> Le 07/09/2025 à 10:22, Thomas Heger a écrit :   
   >>>> Am Samstag000006, 06.09.2025 um 14:56 schrieb Python:   
   >>>> ...   
   >>>>>>>> it is written, and God said, "Let there be light."   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> but the Light went on After there was First  an Ocean on earth.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> Comets with shit loads of water impacting the primordial Earth?   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> The water came out of the interior of the Earth, not from comets.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> Comets are the remains of a former planet, which exploded long ago   
   >>>>>> in a region, where today there is the asteroid belt.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> That former planet had also water upon its surface. That's why   
   >>>>>> some comets consist of water.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> But mainly the water stems from within the celestial bodies.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> We can see this effect easily in e.g. volcanoes, because the lava   
   >>>>>> contains besides of CO2 and other gases also a lot of water vapor.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Again, Thomas, weird stuff that you pulled out of your ass that are   
   >>>>> partially true and mainly false.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> You forgot to answer to my posts on synchronization between Earth   
   >>>>> and Moon and about the ridiculous claim that cosmological maps in   
   >>>>> Astronomy does not take light propagation delays into account.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> How come?   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> That is my personal impression of how popular cosmology seemingly   
   >>>> functions.   
   >>>   
   >>> "impression" ? "seemingly" ? You didn't check ?   
   >>   
   >> Well, in part's I did.   
   >   
   > Not properly.   
   >   
   >> I used a technique to analyze Einstein's text, which is applicable to   
   >> other papers, too.   
   >   
   > Your "analyze" of Einstein's text is an abysmal failure, a complete   
   > bunch of nonsense from start to finish.   
   >> For instance I had taken 'The Galactic Black Hole' and analyzed that.   
      
   I made an English version called 'Annotated version of SRT'.   
      
   It was a pdf of the English translation of Einstein's paper 'On the   
   electrodynamics of moving bodies'.   
      
   Then I marked every questionable statement with the annotation function   
   of that pdf software and wrote a comment, why that was in my view a   
   questionable statement (and whether or not that was an error).   
      
   I wrote more than 420 annotations.   
      
   This actually means: the text contains a colossal number of errors of   
   all kinds.   
      
   About those comments I had several discussions in this group of the   
   UseNet in a period of about two years.   
      
   The comments helped me a lot to clarify my own statements and rethink a   
   number of comments.   
      
   But the total number of annotation was only reduced insignificantly in   
   this process.   
      
   The vast majority remained unchallenged.   
      
   That means: there are a HUGE number of errors in this text, where the   
   text itself could not be defended against critique.   
      
   This in turn would qualify Einstein's text as among the worst articles   
   ever printed in a scientific journal.   
      
   >>   
   >> I found several statements, that were in my opinion nonsense.   
   >>   
   >> This is actually all over the place and has to do with how physicists   
   >> think about their own profession.   
   >>   
   >> It is more like a medieval guild, which has apprentices and masters,   
   >> where non-initiated are not allowed to participate.   
   >   
   > Real physics books, articles, courses are available online for everyone.   
      
   Sure, but my statement was that because they are available for everyone   
   they contain mainly nonsense.   
      
      
   > Your ignorance is the result of a choice to remain ignorant.   
      
      
   If textbook-science is fake, than ignoring textbook science would be a   
   god idea.   
      
   >>>> Therefore, I think, that nonsense is taken to the next level and I   
   >>>> had to stay away from that.   
   >>>   
   >>> Did you consider that this nonsense is something you made up by   
   >>> yourself ?   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> This is certainly a risk.   
   >>   
   >> But I think, that I'm not as stupid as you think.   
   >   
   > There is no comma before "that" in proper English.   
   Well, possibly, but I'm German and use a second language.   
      
   In German you make a comma before 'das' (in an equivalent position to   
   'that').   
      
   So, yes, I make mistakes and especially in certain 'comma-cases'.   
      
   Sorry.   
   TH   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)