• Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing?

    From The Starmaker@21:1/5 to The Starmaker on Fri Apr 4 10:46:16 2025
    XPost: sci.physics

    The Starmaker wrote:

    Stephen Hawking once asked:

    Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing?

    If Stephen Hawking would like an answer
    to that question, has he ever consider
    asking a woman that question?

    I don't mean a woman scientist..

    i mean, just any woman.

    Where did Stephen Hawking get the idea he is
    entitled to know the answer?

    Is he Moses?

    I was under the impression that Stephen Hawking was an atheist.

    But he refers to the universe as a person, a being, a self that feels "bother"..


    Why is Stephen Hawking soooo bothered by a bothered universe?


    Mother Nature?


    Is something bothering here?




    Yous science guys make no sense...





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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richmond@21:1/5 to All on Wed Apr 9 15:21:20 2025
    XPost: sci.physics

    What does 'exist' mean? Why suppose that it was ever possible for
    nothing to exist?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Dwaine =?iso-8859-1?b?SGFqZPo=?=@21:1/5 to gharnagel on Wed Apr 9 17:29:51 2025
    gharnagel wrote:

    On Sat, 5 Apr 2025 18:17:24 +0000, The Starmaker wrote:
    There is NO scientific basis for a rational world...
    but there is a scientific basis for a irratio[nal*] world.

    * Correcting Starfaker's dyslexia.

    “Now my own suspicion is that the Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose.” -- J.B.S. Haldane

    thank you my friend very much, making it obvious, that in the Einstine
    based relativity, they are not supposing what they can, but are just
    supposing. Very funny indeed. A lesson to be learned from here.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From J. J. Lodder@21:1/5 to gharnagel on Thu Apr 10 09:20:18 2025
    gharnagel <[email protected]> wrote:

    On Sat, 5 Apr 2025 18:17:24 +0000, The Starmaker wrote:

    I mean, I observe the Earth and it doesn't appear rational to me....

    doesn't that ...bother...you?

    Using rational means in a irrational world sounds STUPID to me.

    Luckly, only a small percentage of the people on earth are rational.

    There is NO scientific basis for a rational world...

    but there is a scientific basis for a irratio[nal*] world.

    * Correcting Starfaker's dyslexia.

    "Now my own suspicion is that the Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose." -- J.B.S. Haldane

    Just talk. Haldane was a biologist,
    and not known for competence in physics or cosmology.
    The Universe is not an evolved biologcal system.

    His naive psychologising about inherent limitations of the human brain
    is best ignored.
    Fortunatately Haldane himself saw that his sayings
    were 'suspicions' only,

    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Arius Babaskin Rui@21:1/5 to gharnagel on Thu Apr 10 12:46:35 2025
    gharnagel wrote:

    Well, I have suspicions about his suspicions.

    "Nobel laureate Peter Medawar once referred to Haldane as, 'the
    cleverest man I ever knew'”

    I consider his suspicions as "clever" Fortunately, it doesn't seemed
    to have prevented a sufficient number from trying to understand the
    Cosmic All anyway.

    no sir, my paper *_On the Divergent Matter of the Moving Koerpers Model_*
    is correct. The abstract coercive conception of the Einstine's
    */_bended spacetime_/* is incorrect.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From J. J. Lodder@21:1/5 to The Starmaker on Thu Apr 10 21:22:19 2025
    The Starmaker <[email protected]> wrote:

    Stephen Hawking once asked:

    Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing?

    What else is there to do?

    If Stephen Hawking would like an answer
    to that question, has he ever consider
    asking a woman that question?

    Why not, he was married.

    I don't mean a woman scientist..

    i mean, just any woman.

    He wasn't married to just any woman.

    Where did Stephen Hawking get the idea he is
    entitled to know the answer?

    We are all entitled to know the answer.
    And waiting for it...

    Jan
    (and it isn't 42)

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From J. J. Lodder@21:1/5 to Physfitfreak on Thu Apr 10 22:32:50 2025
    XPost: sci.physics, sci.math

    Physfitfreak <[email protected]> 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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Thomas Heger@21:1/5 to All on Fri Apr 11 07:19:30 2025
    Am Donnerstag000010, 10.04.2025 um 14:46 schrieb Arius Babaskin Rui:
    gharnagel wrote:

    Well, I have suspicions about his suspicions.

    "Nobel laureate Peter Medawar once referred to Haldane as, 'the
    cleverest man I ever knew'”

    I consider his suspicions as "clever" Fortunately, it doesn't seemed
    to have prevented a sufficient number from trying to understand the
    Cosmic All anyway.

    no sir, my paper *_On the Divergent Matter of the Moving Koerpers Model_*
    is correct. The abstract coercive conception of the Einstine's
    */_bended spacetime_/* is incorrect.

    'Körper' is a German word and means 'body'.

    But unlike the English 'body', it is mainly used for the human body or something similar.

    The German word 'Körper' isn't a a synonym for 'object', but usually
    addresses biological bodies.

    In geometry 'Körper' is used in German to address objects with three dimensions. Also a certain type of mathematical objects are called 'Körper'.

    But particles, atoms, rays and many other physical objects are not
    called 'Körper'.

    The title 'electrodynamics of moving bodies' had therefore a strange connotation in German.

    TH

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Douglas Laterza@21:1/5 to J. J. Lodder on Fri Apr 11 18:04:19 2025
    J. J. Lodder wrote:

    Thomas Heger <[email protected]> wrote:
    But particles, atoms, rays and many other physical objects are not
    called 'Körper'.

    of course not, since are particles and waves, and not koerpers.

    The title 'electrodynamics of moving bodies' had therefore a strange
    connotation in German.

    So you are incompetent in scientific German as well.

    FYI: Körper (Physik)
    Ein physikalischer Körper ist ein von seiner Umgebung abgrenzbares
    Objekt, das eine Masse sowie ein Volumen besitzt.

    Jan

    we agree. First and foremost koerpers comes in physics, then biology.
    Reveals Heger don't undrestand universities.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From J. J. Lodder@21:1/5 to Thomas Heger on Fri Apr 11 19:52:48 2025
    Thomas Heger <[email protected]> wrote:

    Am Donnerstag000010, 10.04.2025 um 14:46 schrieb Arius Babaskin Rui:
    gharnagel wrote:

    Well, I have suspicions about his suspicions.

    "Nobel laureate Peter Medawar once referred to Haldane as, 'the
    cleverest man I ever knew'"

    I consider his suspicions as "clever" Fortunately, it doesn't seemed
    to have prevented a sufficient number from trying to understand the
    Cosmic All anyway.

    no sir, my paper *_On the Divergent Matter of the Moving Koerpers Model_* is correct. The abstract coercive conception of the Einstine's
    */_bended spacetime_/* is incorrect.

    'K�rper' is a German word and means 'body'.

    But unlike the English 'body', it is mainly used for the human body or something similar.

    The German word 'K�rper' isn't a a synonym for 'object', but usually addresses biological bodies.

    In geometry 'K�rper' is used in German to address objects with three dimensions. Also a certain type of mathematical objects are called 'K�rper'.

    But particles, atoms, rays and many other physical objects are not
    called 'K�rper'.

    The title 'electrodynamics of moving bodies' had therefore a strange connotation in German.

    So you are incompetent in scientific German as well.

    FYI: K�rper (Physik)
    Ein physikalischer K�rper ist ein von seiner Umgebung abgrenzbares
    Objekt, das eine Masse sowie ein Volumen besitzt.

    Jan

    --
    <https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/K�rper_(Physik)>

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Thomas Heger@21:1/5 to All on Sat Apr 12 10:48:47 2025
    Am Freitag000011, 11.04.2025 um 20:04 schrieb Douglas Laterza:
    J. J. Lodder wrote:

    Thomas Heger <[email protected]> wrote:
    But particles, atoms, rays and many other physical objects are not
    called 'Körper'.

    of course not, since are particles and waves, and not koerpers.

    The title 'electrodynamics of moving bodies' had therefore a strange
    connotation in German.

    So you are incompetent in scientific German as well.

    Well, actually I'm not a physicist and don't know, how the physicists talk.

    I'm an engineer from education and had no personal contacts to the
    physics department. So: possibly they speak in a different idiom than
    engineers do.

    To me the title 'moving bodies' (combined with 'electric forces') sounds
    like a synonym for 'sex'.
    ...


    TH

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bobbie Bakhvalov@21:1/5 to Thomas Heger on Sat Apr 12 10:39:11 2025
    Thomas Heger wrote:

    I'm an engineer from education and had no personal contacts to the
    physics department. So: possibly they speak in a different idiom than engineers do.

    To me the title 'moving bodies' (combined with 'electric forces') sounds
    like a synonym for 'sex'.
    ...

    since you are engineer neither. Ever heard of a blackbody in your area of interest? Here a little what the cacamerica destroyed 2. ww for no reason.
    They had electric current, the polakia for instance doesn't have it right
    now.

    *_Beautiful Dresden Germany in 1936_* https://%42i%54%63hute.com/vi%44eo/biiQogqnLF3N

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Corbin Yuan Xiong@21:1/5 to Thomas Heger on Sat Apr 12 10:52:25 2025
    Thomas Heger wrote:

    I'm an engineer from education and had no personal contacts to the
    physics department. So: possibly they speak in a different idiom than engineers do.

    To me the title 'moving bodies' (combined with 'electric forces') sounds
    like a synonym for 'sex'.
    ...

    speaking the witch neither I think they built those buildings. To me it
    looks like something /_laser_3D_printing_/, done by others before
    population resets.

    *_Beautiful Dresden Germany in 1936_* https://%42i%54%63hute.com/vi%44eo/biiQogqnLF3N

    *_The Marble Church - My Lunch Break_* https://%42i%54%63hute.com/vi%44eo/LcTAYaPMwQVl

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From J. J. Lodder@21:1/5 to Thomas Heger on Sat Apr 12 22:37:45 2025
    Thomas Heger <[email protected]> wrote:

    Am Freitag000011, 11.04.2025 um 20:04 schrieb Douglas Laterza:
    J. J. Lodder wrote:

    Thomas Heger <[email protected]> wrote:
    But particles, atoms, rays and many other physical objects are not
    called 'K�rper'.

    of course not, since are particles and waves, and not koerpers.

    The title 'electrodynamics of moving bodies' had therefore a strange
    connotation in German.

    So you are incompetent in scientific German as well.

    Well, actually I'm not a physicist and don't know, how the physicists talk.

    Yet you pretend to understand physics.

    I'm an engineer from education and had no personal contacts to the
    physics department. So: possibly they speak in a different idiom than engineers do.

    To me the title 'moving bodies' (combined with 'electric forces') sounds
    like a synonym for 'sex'.

    Yes, complete incompetence,

    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Thomas Heger@21:1/5 to All on Sun Apr 13 09:11:37 2025
    Am Samstag000012, 12.04.2025 um 12:39 schrieb Bobbie Bakhvalov:
    Thomas Heger wrote:

    I'm an engineer from education and had no personal contacts to the
    physics department. So: possibly they speak in a different idiom than
    engineers do.

    To me the title 'moving bodies' (combined with 'electric forces') sounds
    like a synonym for 'sex'.
    ...

    since you are engineer neither. Ever heard of a blackbody in your area of interest?..

    Actually you are right, because I'm not an engineer by profession.

    But I own a very nice document from the university 'TU-Berlin', which
    grants the academic degree 'Dipl.-Ing.' to me.

    Therefore I'm allowed to use 'Dipl.-Ing.' on all letters that I write. I
    could also write that on my door-bell (if I wanted to, what I didn't).

    About 'blackbody radiation' I have heard before.

    Most of the relevant equations I could write down here, without looking
    them up.


    Why I think, that Einstein's title is 'mocking'?

    Well, I conducted extensive studies on that particular paper and found,
    that article is really bad and FULL of errors.

    The number of errors is sooooo large, that they cannot be explained as mistakes, but another explanation is required.

    This would be im my opinion an intentional offense ('mocking'), to which
    the title would be the 'cherry on the cake'.


    TH

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Thomas Heger@21:1/5 to All on Sun Apr 13 09:24:28 2025
    Am Samstag000012, 12.04.2025 um 22:37 schrieb J. J. Lodder:
    Thomas Heger <[email protected]> wrote:

    Am Freitag000011, 11.04.2025 um 20:04 schrieb Douglas Laterza:
    J. J. Lodder wrote:

    Thomas Heger <[email protected]> wrote:
    But particles, atoms, rays and many other physical objects are not
    called 'Körper'.

    of course not, since are particles and waves, and not koerpers.

    The title 'electrodynamics of moving bodies' had therefore a strange >>>>> connotation in German.

    So you are incompetent in scientific German as well.

    Well, actually I'm not a physicist and don't know, how the physicists talk.

    Yet you pretend to understand physics.

    Actually physics and engineering are quite related topics.

    I had also experience in (organic) chemistry, mathematics and electronics.

    Especially chemistry is quite related to some concept in physics,
    because chemists also deal with atoms and particles.

    Therefore, I came in contact with the Schroedinger equations at a very
    young age.

    Also electronics has connections to physics, especially in semi-conductors.

    The rest is a hobby, which I had for a number of decades.


    I'm an engineer from education and had no personal contacts to the
    physics department. So: possibly they speak in a different idiom than
    engineers do.

    To me the title 'moving bodies' (combined with 'electric forces') sounds
    like a synonym for 'sex'.

    Yes, complete incompetence,

    No!

    I was looking for a 'bad' interpretation of the title and asked the
    question, whether or not that could be meant as an insult.

    This would be possible, if those moving bodies were human.

    TH

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Edel Baburoff@21:1/5 to Thomas Heger on Sun Apr 13 10:04:31 2025
    Thomas Heger wrote:

    Why I think, that Einstein's title is 'mocking'?

    Well, I conducted extensive studies on that particular paper and found,
    that article is really bad and FULL of errors.

    The number of errors is sooooo large, that they cannot be explained as mistakes, but another explanation is required.

    here we agree my friend. A disgusting excuse of a human being, this
    Einstine. But the history of science is 100% fake. Those equations funded
    where else, assigned to him, _admittedly_ something he never understood. I
    am so depressed about this Einstine. This wasn't even his real name. I
    suppose he was an orphan from the previous _population reset_. Here some proofs, making me undrestand

    *_The Marble Church - My Lunch Break_* https://%42i%54%63hute.com/vi%44eo/LcTAYaPMwQVl

    *_Beautiful Dresden Germany in 1936_* https://%42i%54%63hute.com/vi%44eo/biiQogqnLF3N

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Thomas Heger@21:1/5 to Einstein was German and on Mon Apr 14 05:58:05 2025
    Am Sonntag000013, 13.04.2025 um 10:07 schrieb Ross Finlayson:
    On 04/13/2025 12:11 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
    Am Samstag000012, 12.04.2025 um 12:39 schrieb Bobbie Bakhvalov:
    Thomas Heger wrote:

    I'm an engineer from education and had no personal contacts to the
    physics department. So: possibly they speak in a different idiom than
    engineers do.

    To me the title 'moving bodies' (combined with 'electric forces')
    sounds
    like a synonym for 'sex'.
    ...

    since you are engineer neither. Ever heard of a blackbody in your
    area of
    interest?..

    Actually you are right, because I'm not an engineer by profession.

    But I own a very nice document from the university 'TU-Berlin', which
    grants the academic degree 'Dipl.-Ing.' to me.

    Therefore I'm allowed to use 'Dipl.-Ing.' on all letters that I write. I
    could also write that on my door-bell (if I wanted to, what I didn't).

    About 'blackbody radiation' I have heard before.

    Most of the relevant equations I could write down here, without looking
    them up.


    Why I think, that Einstein's title is 'mocking'?

    Well, I conducted extensive studies on that particular paper and found,
    that article is really bad and FULL of errors.

    The number of errors is sooooo large, that they cannot be explained as
    mistakes, but another explanation is required.

    This would be im my opinion an intentional offense ('mocking'), to which
    the title would be the 'cherry on the cake'.


    TH

    Maybe he was just suffering through a language barrier.

    Well, Einstein was German and wrote in German, hence there was no
    'language barrier'.


    Einstein developed a lot. Definitely there are differences early
    Einstein and later Einstein. I contrast that with myself, having a very coherent narrative since I was very versed in all the super-classical theories then set loose on modern mathematics and premier physics.

    Sure, he developed and became a much better physicist.

    But I'm talking about a certain paper from 1905, when Einstein was 26.

    ...


    TH

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Athel Cornish-Bowden@21:1/5 to Thomas Heger on Mon Apr 14 09:31:26 2025
    On 2025-04-14 03:58:05 +0000, Thomas Heger said:

    Am Sonntag000013, 13.04.2025 um 10:07 schrieb Ross Finlayson:
    On 04/13/2025 12:11 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
    Am Samstag000012, 12.04.2025 um 12:39 schrieb Bobbie Bakhvalov:
    Thomas Heger wrote:

    I'm an engineer from education and had no personal contacts to the
    physics department. So: possibly they speak in a different idiom than >>>>> engineers do.

    To me the title 'moving bodies' (combined with 'electric forces') sounds >>>>> like a synonym for 'sex'.
    ...

    since you are engineer neither. Ever heard of a blackbody in your area of >>>> interest?..

    Actually you are right, because I'm not an engineer by profession.

    But I own a very nice document from the university 'TU-Berlin', which
    grants the academic degree 'Dipl.-Ing.' to me.

    Therefore I'm allowed to use 'Dipl.-Ing.' on all letters that I write. I >>> could also write that on my door-bell (if I wanted to, what I didn't).

    About 'blackbody radiation' I have heard before.

    Most of the relevant equations I could write down here, without looking
    them up.


    Why I think, that Einstein's title is 'mocking'?

    Well, I conducted extensive studies on that particular paper and found,
    that article is really bad and FULL of errors.

    The number of errors is sooooo large, that they cannot be explained as
    mistakes, but another explanation is required.

    This would be im my opinion an intentional offense ('mocking'), to which >>> the title would be the 'cherry on the cake'.


    TH

    Maybe he was just suffering through a language barrier.

    Well, Einstein was German and wrote in German, hence there was no
    'language barrier'.



    Einstein developed a lot. Definitely there are differences early
    Einstein and later Einstein. I contrast that with myself, having a very
    coherent narrative since I was very versed in all the super-classical
    theories then set loose on modern mathematics and premier physics.

    Sure, he developed and became a much better physicist.

    But I'm talking about a certain paper from 1905, when Einstein was 26.

    Forget your sex obsession: "black body" was an established term long
    before 1905. Newton wrote "Do not black Bodies conceive heat more
    easily from Light than those of other Colours do, by reason that the
    Light falling on them is not reflected outwards, but enters into the
    Bodies, and is often reflected and refracted within them, until it be
    stifled and lost?"


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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From J. J. Lodder@21:1/5 to Athel Cornish-Bowden on Tue Apr 15 22:21:13 2025
    Athel Cornish-Bowden <[email protected]> wrote:

    On 2025-04-14 03:58:05 +0000, Thomas Heger said:

    Am Sonntag000013, 13.04.2025 um 10:07 schrieb Ross Finlayson:
    On 04/13/2025 12:11 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
    Am Samstag000012, 12.04.2025 um 12:39 schrieb Bobbie Bakhvalov:
    Thomas Heger wrote:

    I'm an engineer from education and had no personal contacts to the >>>>> physics department. So: possibly they speak in a different idiom than >>>>> engineers do.

    To me the title 'moving bodies' (combined with 'electric forces') sounds
    like a synonym for 'sex'.
    ...

    since you are engineer neither. Ever heard of a blackbody in your area of
    interest?..

    Actually you are right, because I'm not an engineer by profession.

    But I own a very nice document from the university 'TU-Berlin', which
    grants the academic degree 'Dipl.-Ing.' to me.

    Therefore I'm allowed to use 'Dipl.-Ing.' on all letters that I write. I >>> could also write that on my door-bell (if I wanted to, what I didn't). >>>
    About 'blackbody radiation' I have heard before.

    Most of the relevant equations I could write down here, without looking >>> them up.


    Why I think, that Einstein's title is 'mocking'?

    Well, I conducted extensive studies on that particular paper and found, >>> that article is really bad and FULL of errors.

    The number of errors is sooooo large, that they cannot be explained as >>> mistakes, but another explanation is required.

    This would be im my opinion an intentional offense ('mocking'), to which >>> the title would be the 'cherry on the cake'.


    TH

    Maybe he was just suffering through a language barrier.

    Well, Einstein was German and wrote in German, hence there was no
    'language barrier'.



    Einstein developed a lot. Definitely there are differences early
    Einstein and later Einstein. I contrast that with myself, having a very
    coherent narrative since I was very versed in all the super-classical
    theories then set loose on modern mathematics and premier physics.

    Sure, he developed and became a much better physicist.

    But I'm talking about a certain paper from 1905, when Einstein was 26.

    Forget your sex obsession: "black body" was an established term long
    before 1905. Newton wrote "Do not black Bodies conceive heat more
    easily from Light than those of other Colours do, by reason that the
    Light falling on them is not reflected outwards, but enters into the
    Bodies, and is often reflected and refracted within them, until it be
    stifled and lost?"

    But I guess that Newon wouldn't have seen a glowing poker
    as an example of a 'black body'.
    Wikipedia informs me that it was invented in 1860.
    "Der Begriff "Schwarzer K�rper" wurde 1860 von Gustav Robert Kirchhoff gepr�gt."

    So it -was- German, originally,

    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)