Am 23.01.2024 um 11:23 schrieb Athel Cornish-Bowden:
....
>>> Not surprising in someone who hasn't understood yet not to set off a
>>> defining clause with a comma in English (unlike German): "I had the role
>>> of a professor, who had to write corrections for the homework". I wince
>>> every time I see one of Thomas Heger's incorrect commas. I don't
>>> complain about "ciriticised" (obviously a typo) or "striktness" (a
>>> spelling error that any German speaker might make).
>>
>> Well, I would like to see YOU writing in a second language without the
>> assistence of a spell-checker.
>>
>> (Unfortunately there are no more updates available for this version of
>> thunderbird, which is the last one, that runs under Windows VISTA).
>>
>> So, try some German and let me correct your posts in my own language.
>>
>> In case of commas: well, yes, maybe you are right.
>
> No maybe about it. It is plain wrong.

Well, yes, but do you really want to insist on commas?

Usually I would give foreigners a little benefit in their use of the
language, because it is usually difficult to learn a second language and
therefore rude to requirre perfect spelling from a stranger.

>
>> But I use mostly 'comma-logic' from German, even if that is not quite
>> correct.
>
> Not correct _at all_. English is not German.

English has actually German roots, too.

German is more or less a very big family of languages and also includes
languages from the nehterlands or the Swiss, Italian, Russian and
Romanian Germans.

Some historians also say, that a very early form of German was spoken by
the Mayas.
....

TH

Am 23.01.2024 um 17:51 schrieb Volney:
> On 1/23/2024 3:53 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>> Am 22.01.2024 um 18:40 schrieb Volney:
>>
>>>>> Since the light goes from A to B and back to A, everything happens in
>>>>> one dimension. Define the X axis as along the AB axis and the Y and Z
>>>>> axes can be ignored as irrelevant.
>>>>
>>>> I know what you mean, of course.
>>>>
>>>> But you're nevertheless wrong, because 'everything happens in one
>>>> dimension' is nonsense.
>>>
>>> Since 'everything' in this part of the paper is light along a line
>>> segment going out and back, everything there IS in just one dimension.
>>>
>>> See my other reply I just posted.
>>>>
>>>> Actually 'everything happens in three dimensions' (if you ignore time).
>>>>
>>>> A ray of light could be approximated by a single line, but simply is
>>>> not a one-dimensional line.
>>>
>>> It's not an approximation. It is a simplification.
>>
>> Sure, but the line is an approximate simplification of a ray, but not
>> a ray.
>
> So use a ray then.
> (actually for this part we use a line segment, one with endpoints A and B)
>>
>> This line belongs to a different realm than a ray, because nothing in
>> the universe is actually one-dimensional.
>
> A line and a ray are both 1 dimensional mathematical objects, as is a
> line segment. As a simplification (not an approximation) they are used
> for the mathematical analysis of the problem.

I mean 'ray in the real world' with 'ray', of course.

In geomoetry you have also a construct called 'ray', but that cannot be
produced by a torch, for instance.

>>
>> Lines, circles, squares and so forth are simply non-existent in the
>> real world.
>
> Once again, they are simplifications.

Mathematical objects belong to mathematics and real world objects to the
real world.

And you must not confuse one with the other.
....

TH

Am 24.01.2024 um 00:25 schrieb Richard Hachel:
> Le 23/01/2024 à 19:11, Athel Cornish-Bowden a écrit :
>> Isn't that what Christians do, when they worship someone who (if he
>> lived at all) died at around that age?

Well, religion is not always very logic.

But other than science, religion does not need to be logic, because it
is about believes and rutuals, while science is not.

> Not exactly.
> It is attested that Jesus Christ was born during the reign of King Herod
> the Great.
> Some exegetes speak (and I tend to follow them as a learned theologian)
> of a birth in Bethlehem around -17 BC.

I personally think, that Jesus didn't have the second name 'Christ'.

Actually the person 'Jesus' was based on a myth about a Jewish prophet
from the Jewish sect of the Essenes, who lived near the Red Sea in Qumran.

This prophet had the title 'Mahmed' in Aramaic and no known name.

This myth was used MUCH later by the Umayadic Caliphs to create the
Quran (from Qumran) and the prophet 'Mohammed' (from 'Mahmed').

The Romans used the same myth about the same prophet, to morph the
hellenistic version of that story (with the Greek name 'IESOS') and
fused it together with other Roman believe systems (like e.g. Mithraism)
to form the then new religion called 'catholicism'.

So 'Jesus' and 'Mohammed' mean actually the same jewish prophet, which
was not cruzified.

The special features of Jesus (being born by a virgin on 25th of
december, for instance) stem from Mythras and Zaroastrism.

....

TH

On Wednesday 24 January 2024 at 06:56:04 UTC+1, Volney wrote:

> > I mean logically, scientifically, mathematically.
> Mathematically consistent

A lie, of course, you've got a direct proof
that it was not. Of course, a logical proof
won't impress a fanatic religious maniac,
but won't go away because of being
ignored by a fanatic religious maniac.

Am 23.01.2024 um 23:11 schrieb Richard Hachel:
..
> The problem is that, with the theory wonderfully tinged with bullshit
> plastering, even the world's greatest physicists are getting caught.
>
> Wanting to explain where the errors are then becomes an insurmountable
> task.
>
It is difficult, but possible, even if it tock quite a while.

Just look at this

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RkhX-B5u7X4ga0QH-C53RddjQGctZVdo/view

(You need to download the file, if you want to read my annotations)

TH

On 2024-01-24 07:10:58 +0000, Thomas Heger said:

> Am 23.01.2024 um 11:23 schrieb Athel Cornish-Bowden:
> ...
>>>> Not surprising in someone who hasn't understood yet not to set off a
>>>> defining clause with a comma in English (unlike German): "I had the role
>>>> of a professor, who had to write corrections for the homework". I wince
>>>> every time I see one of Thomas Heger's incorrect commas. I don't
>>>> complain about "ciriticised" (obviously a typo) or "striktness" (a
>>>> spelling error that any German speaker might make).
>>>
>>> Well, I would like to see YOU writing in a second language without the
>>> assistence of a spell-checker.
>>>
>>> (Unfortunately there are no more updates available for this version of
>>> thunderbird, which is the last one, that runs under Windows VISTA).
>>>
>>> So, try some German and let me correct your posts in my own language.
>>>
>>> In case of commas: well, yes, maybe you are right.
>>
>> No maybe about it. It is plain wrong.
>
> Well, yes, but do you really want to insist on commas?
>
> Usually I would give foreigners a little benefit in their use of the
> language, because it is usually difficult to learn a second language
> and therefore rude to requirre perfect spelling from a stranger.
>
>>
>>> But I use mostly 'comma-logic' from German, even if that is not quite
>>> correct.
>>
>> Not correct _at all_. English is not German.
>
> English has actually German roots, too.

Yes. Most people know that. However, English changed almost beyond
recognition in the 12th and 13th centuries, and is now very different
from German.

Many years ago (1970s) my first wife worked at a language school for
adults. Many of the clients were German and Spanish businessmen. She
said that the Spanish had very little difficulty with the grammar, but
almost unsurmountable difficulties with the pronunciation, whereas with
Germans it was the opposite. They insisted that English should follow
the same rules as German and often wanted to argue on the basis of
logic, ignoring the fact that logic is a very poor guide to how
languages behave.
>
> German is more or less a very big family of languages and also includes
> languages from the nehterlands or the Swiss, Italian, Russian and
> Romanian Germans.
>
> Some historians also say, that a very early form of German was spoken
> by the Mayas.

Yes. Linguistics is also infested by crackpots. It's not just
relativity physics and evolutionary biology in which the crackpots are
very visible.
> ...

--
athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots

Thomas Heger wrote:

> Am 23.01.2024 um 11:23 schrieb Athel Cornish-Bowden:
>> Not correct _at all_. English is not German.

it's germanic

> English has actually German roots, too.
> German is more or less a very big family of languages and also includes
> languages from the nehterlands or the Swiss, Italian, Russian and
> Romanian Germans. Some historians also say, that a very early form of
> German was spoken by the Mayas.

that imbecile starts polluting again. Add for instance

^.*[ฝากถอนขงแท้ปฐมพรชัยภูมิ].*$

as 𝙢𝙖𝙩𝙘𝙝𝙞𝙣𝙜_𝙧𝙚𝙜𝙚𝙭 to 𝗦𝘂𝗯𝗷𝗲𝗰𝘁 and 𝗔𝘂𝘁𝗵𝗼𝗿, to not see him again.

Thomas Heger wrote:

> Am 23.01.2024 um 17:51 schrieb Volney:
>> On 1/23/2024 3:53 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>> Lines, circles, squares and so forth are simply non-existent in the
>>> real world.
>> Once again, they are simplifications.
>
> Mathematical objects belong to mathematics and real world objects to the
> real world. And you must not confuse one with the other.

so true indeed. I hear Einstine could operate a venting
machine ...and worked in a patten office thats where he stole
ideas from ...and here is a fact he was screwimg a bloodline hamily
memeber and use to dress in womens colthes ...i had pictures of
it but they got lost

yes, he dressed in the clothes of a woman. That laughing picture of him is
not fake. The man was a total failure, not knowing why they called him a
scientist.

On 1/24/2024 2:10 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 23.01.2024 um 11:23 schrieb Athel Cornish-Bowden:
> ...
>>>> Not surprising in someone who hasn't understood yet not to set off a
>>>> defining clause with a comma in English (unlike German): "I had the
>>>> role
>>>> of a professor, who had to write corrections for the homework". I wince
>>>> every time I see one of Thomas Heger's incorrect commas. I don't
>>>> complain about "ciriticised" (obviously a typo) or "striktness" (a
>>>> spelling error that any German speaker might make).
>>>
>>> Well, I would like to see YOU writing in a second language without the
>>> assistence of a spell-checker.
>>>
>>> (Unfortunately there are no more updates available for this version of
>>> thunderbird, which is the last one, that runs under Windows VISTA).
>>>
>>> So, try some German and let me correct your posts in my own language.
>>>
>>> In case of commas: well, yes, maybe you are right.
>>
>> No maybe about it. It is plain wrong.
>
> Well, yes, but do you really want to insist on commas?
>
> Usually I would give foreigners a little benefit in their use of the
> language, because it is usually difficult to learn a second language and
> therefore rude to requirre perfect spelling from a stranger.
>
>>
>>>  But I use mostly 'comma-logic' from German, even if that is not quite
>>> correct.
>>
>> Not correct _at all_. English is not German.
>
> English has actually German roots, too.

But it's quite different now. In addition to centuries of separation,
English was heavily influenced by the Norman Invasion, with lots of old
French influences.
>
> German is more or less a very big family of languages and also includes
> languages from the nehterlands or the Swiss,

The Swiss have multiple languages. German is one, but French, Italian
and Romansh are Romance languages, derived from Latin, not German.

> Italian, Russian and
> Romanian Germans.

Russian is a Slavic language. Romanian and Italian are Romance languages.

The best you can do is state all these languages are Indo-European
languages.
>
> Some historians also say, that a very early form of German was spoken by
> the Mayas.

That is completely absurd. None of the native languages are even
Indo-European, much less German-based. The last time you stated that BS,
I even asked my niece (PhD in linguistics) and she just laughed at how
stupid that was.

Volney wrote:

> On 1/24/2024 2:10 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Russian is a Slavic language. Romanian and Italian are Romance
> languages. The best you can do is state all these languages are
> Indo-European languages.
>> Some historians also say, that a very early form of German was spoken
>> by the Mayas.
>
> That is completely absurd. None of the native languages are even
> Indo-European, much less German-based. The last time you stated that BS,
> I even asked my niece (PhD in linguistics) and she just laughed at how
> stupid that was.

so true indeed. You are good at languages. Before 𝗲𝘂𝗿𝗼𝗽𝗲𝗮𝗻_𝗮𝗺𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗻𝘀, the
america was Russian. The languages of the natives are 𝗥𝘂𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗮𝗻_𝗹𝗶𝗸𝗲. Not
germans. Germans are 𝗸𝗵𝗮𝘇𝗮𝗿_𝗴𝗼𝘆𝘀. They spread their seed uncontrollably,
attacking countries and continents. The gay actor is killing own people,
because they are Christians, not like him. What a disgrace.

65_𝙐𝙠𝙧𝙖𝙞𝙣𝙞𝙖𝙣_𝙋𝙊𝙒𝙨_𝙠𝙞𝙡𝙡𝙚𝙙_𝙞𝙣_𝙥𝙡𝙖𝙣𝙚_𝙘𝙧𝙖𝙨𝙝:_𝙒𝙝𝙖𝙩_𝙬𝙚_𝙠𝙣𝙤𝙬_𝙨𝙤_𝙛𝙖𝙧
A military aircraft carrying 65 Ukrainian POWs came down in Russia’s
Belgorod Region, killing all passengers on board
https://r%74.com/russia/591220-russia-il76-crash-recap/

Calling the leadership in Kiev a terrorist cell and the Ukraine a
terrorist state is too kind .These are hard core psychopath fascists that
will not stop at anything to destroy Russia even if it means destroying
Ukraine first and killing it's people. Only burn't offerings from Nazi /
fascists , pure evil.

Ukraine and the US are Definitely Terroris States and this behavior
perfectly fits the US/Ukraine NAZI narrative !

Seems Little slug zelenksi is trying to win friends in Israel’s Zionist
regime by conducting his own brand of their Hannibal Doctrine

biden fully supports zelensky

On 1/24/2024 5:42 PM, Leonel Gorsky Murtazaliev wrote:
> Belgorod Region, killing all passengers on board
> https://r%74.com/russia/591220-russia-il76-crash-recap/

If you're "Russian", why do you give links to a news outlet that quotes
"Radio Liberty Europe" propaganda?

Hanson, you're not even Russian. You're Sheep.

On 1/24/2024 2:15 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 23.01.2024 um 17:51 schrieb Volney:
>> On 1/23/2024 3:53 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>> Am 22.01.2024 um 18:40 schrieb Volney:
>>>
>>>>>> Since the light goes from A to B and back to A, everything happens in
>>>>>> one dimension. Define the X axis as along the AB axis and the Y and Z
>>>>>> axes can be ignored as irrelevant.
>>>>>
>>>>> I know what you mean, of course.
>>>>>
>>>>> But you're nevertheless wrong, because 'everything happens in  one
>>>>> dimension'  is nonsense.
>>>>
>>>> Since 'everything' in this part of the paper is light along a line
>>>> segment going out and back, everything there IS in just one dimension.
>>>>
>>>> See my other reply I just posted.
>>>>>
>>>>> Actually 'everything happens in three dimensions' (if you ignore
>>>>> time).
>>>>>
>>>>> A ray of light could be approximated by a single line, but simply is
>>>>> not a one-dimensional line.
>>>>
>>>> It's not an approximation. It is a simplification.
>>>
>>> Sure, but the line is an approximate simplification of a ray, but not
>>> a ray.
>>
>> So use a ray then.
>> (actually for this part we use a line segment, one with endpoints A
>> and B)
>>>
>>> This line belongs to a different realm than a ray, because nothing in
>>> the universe is actually one-dimensional.
>>
>> A line and a ray are both 1 dimensional mathematical objects, as is a
>> line segment. As a simplification (not an approximation) they are used
>> for the mathematical analysis of the problem.
>
> I mean 'ray in the real world' with 'ray', of course.
>
> In geomoetry you have also a construct called 'ray', but that cannot be
> produced by a torch, for instance.
>
>>>
>>> Lines, circles, squares and so forth are simply non-existent in the
>>> real world.
>>
>> Once again, they are simplifications.
>
>
> Mathematical objects belong to mathematics and real world objects to the
> real world.
>
> And you must not confuse one with the other.
> ...
But you can simplify things so the physics problem can be solved by
mathematics.

Physics: I have a basket with two apples and a second basket with two
apples. How many apples do I have.

Mathematics: 2+2=4.

Am 24.01.2024 um 21:47 schrieb Volney:

>>>
>>>> But I use mostly 'comma-logic' from German, even if that is not quite
>>>> correct.
>>>
>>> Not correct _at all_. English is not German.
>>
>> English has actually German roots, too.
>
> But it's quite different now. In addition to centuries of separation,
> English was heavily influenced by the Norman Invasion, with lots of old
> French influences.

This is why english is so difficult. English has more different words
than any other language.
>>
>> German is more or less a very big family of languages and also
>> includes languages from the nehterlands or the Swiss,
>
> The Swiss have multiple languages. German is one, but French, Italian
> and Romansh are Romance languages, derived from Latin, not German.
>
>> Italian, Russian and Romanian Germans.
>
> Russian is a Slavic language. Romanian and Italian are Romance languages.

Russia is a country and has a population, which speaks mainly but not
only Russian.

Some Russians speak German, for instance.

> The best you can do is state all these languages are Indo-European
> languages.
>>
>> Some historians also say, that a very early form of German was spoken
>> by the Mayas.
>
> That is completely absurd. None of the native languages are even
> Indo-European, much less German-based. The last time you stated that BS,
> I even asked my niece (PhD in linguistics) and she just laughed at how
> stupid that was.

The is a guy, who wrote, that a very ancient form of Old-German was the
root of all languages on the planet.

(Sorry, but I forgot the name of that guy)

TH

Am 25.01.2024 um 07:22 schrieb Thomas Heger:

>>> Italian, Russian and Romanian Germans.
>>
>> Russian is a Slavic language. Romanian and Italian are Romance languages.
>
> Russia is a country and has a population, which speaks mainly but not
> only Russian.
>
> Some Russians speak German, for instance.
>
>> The best you can do is state all these languages are Indo-European
>> languages.
>>>
>>> Some historians also say, that a very early form of German was spoken
>>> by the Mayas.
>>
>> That is completely absurd. None of the native languages are even
>> Indo-European, much less German-based. The last time you stated that BS,
>> I even asked my niece (PhD in linguistics) and she just laughed at how
>> stupid that was.
>
> The is a guy, who wrote, that a very ancient form of Old-German was the
> root of all languages on the planet.
>
> (Sorry, but I forgot the name of that guy)

https://zeitfuerdich.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/maya-althochdeutsch.pdf

The name is Eduard Landmann

https://de.scribd.com/doc/56051873/Landmann-Erhard-Weltbilderschutterung

TH

Am 25.01.2024 um 03:38 schrieb Volney:
> On 1/24/2024 2:15 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>> Am 23.01.2024 um 17:51 schrieb Volney:
>>> On 1/23/2024 3:53 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>> Am 22.01.2024 um 18:40 schrieb Volney:
>>>>
>>>>>>> Since the light goes from A to B and back to A, everything
>>>>>>> happens in
>>>>>>> one dimension. Define the X axis as along the AB axis and the Y
>>>>>>> and Z
>>>>>>> axes can be ignored as irrelevant.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I know what you mean, of course.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But you're nevertheless wrong, because 'everything happens in one
>>>>>> dimension' is nonsense.
>>>>>
>>>>> Since 'everything' in this part of the paper is light along a line
>>>>> segment going out and back, everything there IS in just one dimension.
>>>>>
>>>>> See my other reply I just posted.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Actually 'everything happens in three dimensions' (if you ignore
>>>>>> time).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A ray of light could be approximated by a single line, but simply is
>>>>>> not a one-dimensional line.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's not an approximation. It is a simplification.
>>>>
>>>> Sure, but the line is an approximate simplification of a ray, but not
>>>> a ray.
>>>
>>> So use a ray then.
>>> (actually for this part we use a line segment, one with endpoints A
>>> and B)
>>>>
>>>> This line belongs to a different realm than a ray, because nothing in
>>>> the universe is actually one-dimensional.
>>>
>>> A line and a ray are both 1 dimensional mathematical objects, as is a
>>> line segment. As a simplification (not an approximation) they are used
>>> for the mathematical analysis of the problem.
>>
>> I mean 'ray in the real world' with 'ray', of course.
>>
>> In geomoetry you have also a construct called 'ray', but that cannot
>> be produced by a torch, for instance.
>>
>>>>
>>>> Lines, circles, squares and so forth are simply non-existent in the
>>>> real world.
>>>
>>> Once again, they are simplifications.
>>
>>
>> Mathematical objects belong to mathematics and real world objects to
>> the real world.
>>
>> And you must not confuse one with the other.
>> ...
> But you can simplify things so the physics problem can be solved by
> mathematics.

Sure: physics uses models instead of the real world and is by such means
able to predict certain things.

But still these models are no real things, but human artifacts.

They enable predictions, but are not eatable - for instance.

>
> Physics: I have a basket with two apples and a second basket with two
> apples. How many apples do I have.

You have four apples.
>
> Mathematics: 2+2=4.
>
How many apples has the mathematician?

Answer: none.

TH

On Thursday 25 January 2024 at 03:38:16 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
> On 1/24/2024 2:15 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> > Am 23.01.2024 um 17:51 schrieb Volney:
> >> On 1/23/2024 3:53 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> >>> Am 22.01.2024 um 18:40 schrieb Volney:
> >>>
> >>>>>> Since the light goes from A to B and back to A, everything happens in
> >>>>>> one dimension. Define the X axis as along the AB axis and the Y and Z
> >>>>>> axes can be ignored as irrelevant.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I know what you mean, of course.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> But you're nevertheless wrong, because 'everything happens in one
> >>>>> dimension' is nonsense.
> >>>>
> >>>> Since 'everything' in this part of the paper is light along a line
> >>>> segment going out and back, everything there IS in just one dimension.
> >>>>
> >>>> See my other reply I just posted.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Actually 'everything happens in three dimensions' (if you ignore
> >>>>> time).
> >>>>>
> >>>>> A ray of light could be approximated by a single line, but simply is
> >>>>> not a one-dimensional line.
> >>>>
> >>>> It's not an approximation. It is a simplification.
> >>>
> >>> Sure, but the line is an approximate simplification of a ray, but not
> >>> a ray.
> >>
> >> So use a ray then.
> >> (actually for this part we use a line segment, one with endpoints A
> >> and B)
> >>>
> >>> This line belongs to a different realm than a ray, because nothing in
> >>> the universe is actually one-dimensional.
> >>
> >> A line and a ray are both 1 dimensional mathematical objects, as is a
> >> line segment. As a simplification (not an approximation) they are used
> >> for the mathematical analysis of the problem.
> >
> > I mean 'ray in the real world' with 'ray', of course.
> >
> > In geomoetry you have also a construct called 'ray', but that cannot be
> > produced by a torch, for instance.
> >
> >>>
> >>> Lines, circles, squares and so forth are simply non-existent in the
> >>> real world.
> >>
> >> Once again, they are simplifications.
> >
> >
> > Mathematical objects belong to mathematics and real world objects to the
> > real world.
> >
> > And you must not confuse one with the other.
> > ...
> But you can simplify things so the physics problem can be solved by
> mathematics.

Speaking of mathematics - it's always good to remind that
your idiot guru had to announce it's oldest part false,
as it didn't want to fit his mad visions.

> Mathematics: 2+2=4.

I always ask idiots like you why they are believing that
to be more true than Pythagorean theorem they have
announced false. Why, stupid Mike?

Le 25/01/2024 à 03:38, Volney a écrit :

> I have a basket with two apples and a second basket with two
> apples. How many apples do I have.
>
> Mathematics: 2+2=4.

This is what I have been saying for 40 years, but no one has ever wanted
to believe me.

R.H.

Le 25/01/2024 à 07:37, Thomas Heger a écrit :
> Am 25.01.2024 um 03:38 schrieb Volney:

>> I have a basket with two apples and a second basket with two
>> apples. How many apples do I have.

> You have four apples.

> TH

Correct.

R.H.

Physfitfreak deluded:

> On 1/24/2024 5:42 PM, Leonel Gorsky Murtazaliev wrote:
>> 𝘽𝙚𝙡𝙜𝙤𝙧𝙤𝙙_𝙍𝙚𝙜𝙞𝙤𝙣,_𝙠𝙞𝙡𝙡𝙞𝙣𝙜_𝙖𝙡𝙡_𝙥𝙖𝙨𝙨𝙚𝙣𝙜𝙚𝙧𝙨_𝙤𝙣_𝙗𝙤𝙖𝙧𝙙
>> https://r%74.com/russia/591220-russia-il76-crash-recap/
>
> If you're "Russian", why do you give links to a news outlet that quotes
> "R̶a̶d̶i̶o̶ L̶i̶b̶e̶r̶t̶y̶ E̶u̶r̶o̶p̶e̶" propaganda? H̶a̶n̶s̶o̶n̶, y̶o̶u̶'r̶e̶ n̶o̶t̶ e̶v̶e̶n̶ R̶u̶s̶s̶i̶a̶n̶.
> Y̶o̶u̶'r̶e̶ S̶h̶e̶e̶p̶.

imbecile, read this, again. Fuck your cia wankers radio liberty europe in
she ass.

𝙀𝙭𝙥𝙡𝙤𝙨𝙞𝙫𝙚_𝙘𝙡𝙖𝙞𝙢𝙨_𝙝𝙖𝙫𝙚_𝙚𝙢𝙚𝙧𝙜𝙚𝙙_𝙨𝙪𝙜𝙜𝙚𝙨𝙩𝙞𝙣𝙜_𝙩𝙝𝙖𝙩_𝙩𝙝𝙚_𝘾𝙊𝙑𝙄𝘿-19_𝙫𝙖𝙘𝙘𝙞𝙣𝙚𝙨
𝙬𝙚𝙧𝙚_𝙙𝙚𝙨𝙞𝙜𝙣𝙚𝙙_𝙩𝙤_𝙘𝙖𝙪𝙨𝙚_𝙝𝙖𝙧𝙢.
https://bi%74%63hute.com/video/B4wN82fox4cd

𝘾𝙊𝙍𝙋𝙊𝙍𝘼𝙏𝙄𝙊𝙉𝙎_𝙫𝙨_𝘿𝙀𝙈𝙊𝘾𝙍𝘼𝘾𝙔_-_𝙀𝙘𝙤𝙣𝙤𝙢𝙞𝙘_𝙐𝙥𝙙𝙖𝙩𝙚
https://bi%74%63hute.com/video/UoA8bdvpliJf

𝙎𝙘𝙤𝙩𝙩_𝙍𝙞𝙩𝙩𝙚𝙧__𝙃𝙚𝙯𝙗𝙤𝙡𝙡𝙖𝙝_𝙇𝙖𝙪𝙣𝙘𝙝𝙚𝙨_𝙍𝙀𝙑𝙀𝙉𝙂𝙀_𝘼𝙜𝙖𝙞𝙣𝙨𝙩_𝙄𝙨𝙧𝙖𝙚𝙡,
𝙃𝙤𝙪𝙩𝙝𝙞𝙨_𝙈𝙖𝙧𝙘𝙝_𝙏𝙤𝙬𝙖𝙧𝙙_𝙂𝙖𝙯𝙖
https://bi%74%63hute.com/video/qiZFJ5e8KheH

Thomas Heger wrote:

>>> And you must not confuse one with the other.
>>> ...
>> But you can simplify things so the physics problem can be solved by
>> mathematics.
>
> Sure: physics uses models instead of the real world and is by such means
> able to predict certain things.
>
> But still these models are no real things, but human artifacts.
>
> They enable predictions, but are not eatable - for instance.

this gearmon imbecile doesn't know what a mode is. Which world is your
world which is real, not a model. The one you see? You fucking imbecile.
Is your fucking brain not a model?? lol

Am 25.01.2024 um 13:46 schrieb Darwin Peláez Etxeberria:
> Thomas Heger wrote:
>
>>>> And you must not confuse one with the other.
>>>> ...
>>> But you can simplify things so the physics problem can be solved by
>>> mathematics.
>>
>> Sure: physics uses models instead of the real world and is by such means
>> able to predict certain things.
>>
>> But still these models are no real things, but human artifacts.
>>
>> They enable predictions, but are not eatable - for instance.
>
> this gearmon imbecile doesn't know what a mode is. Which world is your
> world which is real, not a model. The one you see? You fucking imbecile.
> Is your fucking brain not a model?? lol
>

I know what you're trying to say (even if your keyboard is apparently
damaged - possibly your head, too).

Sure: what we see is actually an internal image, which our brain
generates from the visual impressions of our eyes.

Therefore, the 'real deal' is outside of our head and can only be
partially approximated by our brain.

But we can safely assume, that some sort of reality exists outside of
our brain.

TH

Am 25.01.2024 um 12:48 schrieb Richard Hachel:
>>
>> Mathematics: 2+2=4.
>
> This is what I have been saying for 40 years, but no one has ever wanted
> to believe me.

I pretty certain, that there wasn't that much resistence to this equation.

TH

Thomas Heger wrote:

>> this gearmon imbecile doesn't know what a mode is. Which world is your
>> world which is real, not a model. The one you see? You fucking
>> imbecile.
>> Is your fucking brain not a model?? lol
>>
>>
> I know what you're trying to say (even if your keyboard is apparently
> damaged - possibly your head, too).
> Sure: what we see is actually an internal image, which our brain
> generates from the visual impressions of our eyes.
> Therefore, the 'real deal' is outside of our head and can only be
> partially approximated by our brain.

outside where, detected by what, which is not a model, fucking stoopid.
Your country gearmony is a shithole. Driven by 𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗲𝘁𝗲𝗻𝘁_𝗮𝘀𝘀𝗵𝗼𝗹𝗲𝘀. 100% liars
and incompetents. What we call in Physics, 𝗳𝘂𝗰𝗸𝗶𝗻𝗴_𝘀𝘁𝗼𝗼𝗽𝗶𝗱.

> But we can safely assume, that some sort of reality exists outside of
> our brain.

physics is not about assumptions, idiot. Observations and theories based,
and 𝗻𝗼𝘁_𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗱𝗶𝗰𝘁𝗲𝗱, by observations.

Le 27/01/2024 à 07:39, Thomas Heger a écrit :
>>>
>>> Mathematics: 2+2=4.
>>
>> This is what I have been saying for 40 years, but no one has ever wanted
>> to believe me.
>
> I pretty certain, that there wasn't that much resistence to this equation.
>
>
> TH

Yes, you know people are crazy.

R.H.

On 1/25/2024 1:36 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 25.01.2024 um 07:22 schrieb Thomas Heger:
>
>>>> Italian, Russian and Romanian Germans.
>>>
>>> Russian is a Slavic language. Romanian and Italian are Romance
>>> languages.
>>
>> Russia is a country and has a population, which speaks mainly but not
>> only Russian.
>>
>> Some Russians speak German, for instance.

That's true for every country, especially one the size of Russia.
(Russia tries to suppress languages other than Russian, however)
>>
>>> The best you can do is state all these languages are Indo-European
>>> languages.
>>>>
>>>> Some historians also say, that a very early form of German was spoken
>>>> by the Mayas.
>>>
>>> That is completely absurd. None of the native languages are even
>>> Indo-European, much less German-based. The last time you stated that BS,
>>> I even asked my niece (PhD in linguistics) and she just laughed at how
>>> stupid that was.
>>
>> The is a guy, who wrote, that a very ancient form of Old-German was the
>> root of all languages on the planet.
>>
>> (Sorry, but I forgot the name of that guy)
>
>
> https://zeitfuerdich.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/maya-althochdeutsch.pdf
>
>
> The name is Eduard Landmann

It doesn't matter what his name is. It is absurd. Mayans had no contact
with Germans since some time after the conquistadors arrived. The Mayan
languages (many of them) descended from a common proto-Mayan language
4-5000 years ago, well before any form of German existed. Probably just
Indo-European 5000 years ago. I mean it should be blazingly obvious
since there was no contact between Mayans and Germans until relatively
recently, why would you believe something that ridiculous?