Mild Shock wrote:
^^^^^^^^^^
Please repair this.
Subject: What if of the cosmos does a BB dance? (Was: Its a subconscioushypothesis)
The correct way to change the Subject is "... (was: ...)". Then some newsreaders can automatically remove the " (was: ...)" part on composing a follow-up.
What if the planets in certain galaxies
form a turning machine.
They do not.
You appear to be very confused about the applicability of computer science
to natural science.
Also, you should learn how to post. This was a completely new question, so you should not have posted it as a follow-up. Also, you should not have top-posted, i.e. you should not have appended the full quotation of the previous postings; such is maybe appropriate in business communication, but not in Usenet. It is also not appropriate to crosspost without Followup-To to *one* newsgroup set.
I strongly suggest that you subscribe to news:news.announce.newusers, or consult Usenet posting guidelines on the Web to educate yourself about
the communication medium that you are using here. Lest you be killfiled rather quickly by people.
Could Keppler
Johannes _Kepler_
have modelled a 3 planet system.
Yes, he did, but not exactly.
Can we model a 3 planet system now ?
Obviously; there are simulations of the Sol System e.g. in Universe Sandbox.
But the 3-body-problem is not about 3 planets, but more general.
There is no *general* *exact* solution to this problem; just a solution for the *restricted* 3-body-problem in which one of the objects has a very large mass; the second object, e.g. a gas giant like Jupiter, has a smaller mass and is very far away from the first object; and the third object. e.g. an asteroid, has a small that is small enough to be negligible, and is comparably far away from the first and second object, respectively.
And this is neglecting general-relativistic corrections that lead to an additional contribution in the precession of the perihelia (orbits are not actually ellipses, closed curves).
F'up2 sci.physics
Hi,
Don't you have a newsreader where you can
see the message source. You don't need more
information than Mild Shock in the message
body, you see everything in the message
headers. For example I see in your message:
From: Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de>
Injection-Info: gwaiyur.mb-net.net; logging-data="2349822"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@open-news-network.org"
So you posted from INWX GmbH? Still you
give advice how to format a USENET post, even
you are not able to see the message source,
of my posts? You can easily read off who I am.
Maybe get a decend news reader before you give
advice how to post.
Fucking 5 year old imbecil, get lost in your kindergarden.
Bye
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn schrieb:
Mild Shock wrote:
^^^^^^^^^^
Please repair this.
Subject: What if of the cosmos does a BB dance? (Was: Its a subconscioushypothesis)
The correct way to change the Subject is "... (was: ...)". Then some
newsreaders can automatically remove the " (was: ...)" part on composing a >> follow-up.
What if the planets in certain galaxies
form a turning machine.
They do not.
You appear to be very confused about the applicability of computer science >> to natural science.
Also, you should learn how to post. This was a completely new question, so >> you should not have posted it as a follow-up. Also, you should not have
top-posted, i.e. you should not have appended the full quotation of the
previous postings; such is maybe appropriate in business communication, but >> not in Usenet. It is also not appropriate to crosspost without Followup-To >> to *one* newsgroup set.
I strongly suggest that you subscribe to news:news.announce.newusers, or
consult Usenet posting guidelines on the Web to educate yourself about
the communication medium that you are using here. Lest you be killfiled
rather quickly by people.
Could Keppler
Johannes _Kepler_
have modelled a 3 planet system.
Yes, he did, but not exactly.
Can we model a 3 planet system now ?
Obviously; there are simulations of the Sol System e.g. in Universe Sandbox. >> But the 3-body-problem is not about 3 planets, but more general.
There is no *general* *exact* solution to this problem; just a solution for >> the *restricted* 3-body-problem in which one of the objects has a very large >> mass; the second object, e.g. a gas giant like Jupiter, has a smaller mass >> and is very far away from the first object; and the third object. e.g. an
asteroid, has a small that is small enough to be negligible, and is
comparably far away from the first and second object, respectively.
And this is neglecting general-relativistic corrections that lead to an
additional contribution in the precession of the perihelia (orbits are not >> actually ellipses, closed curves).
F'up2 sci.physics
you're not going well, right?
Don't you have a newsreader where you can see the message source.
You don't need more information than Mild Shock in the message
body, you see everything in the message headers.
[top post]
And here comes the next oneliner imbecil.
I wish the USENET was like 10 years ago,
where there were veritable cranks and trolls,
that wrote 2-3 page essays, that were interesting
and challenge to respond. Now its all autism,
and inquisitory questions. Everybody has his
brain amputated and fears making expositions.
So get lost, fuck yourself annonying moron.
Mild Shock wrote:
Don't you have a newsreader where you can see the message source.
I do. In fact, I happen to use one of the same family of newsreaders as
you, if the User-Agent header field of your messages is not forged.
You don't need more information than Mild Shock in the message
Wrong. Politeness suggests that one introduces oneself to strangers by telling them one's real name. This is Usenet, not a chat group.
body, you see everything in the message headers.
You should try that next time before you complain:
Followup-To poster *again*
[top post]
*facepalm*
Hi,
Since I am top posting, and not interleaved posting,
and hence not responding to your gibberish. What makes
you think I am interested in your gibberish?
Could you explain yourself?
Bye
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn schrieb:
Mild Shock wrote:
Don't you have a newsreader where you can see the message source.
I do. In fact, I happen to use one of the same family of newsreaders as
you, if the User-Agent header field of your messages is not forged.
You don't need more information than Mild Shock in the message
Wrong. Politeness suggests that one introduces oneself to strangers by
telling them one's real name. This is Usenet, not a chat group.
body, you see everything in the message headers.
You should try that next time before you complain:
Followup-To poster *again*
[top post]
*facepalm*
Hi,
Since I am top posting, and not interleaved posting,
and hence not responding to your gibberish. What makes
you think I am interested in your gibberish?
Could you explain yourself?
Bye
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn schrieb:
Mild Shock wrote:
^^^^^^^^^^
Your *real* name should be found there.
Which part of "please do not crosspost mindlessly"
The part that your message header contains a crossposting:
From: Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity,comp.theory,sci.physics
Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2025 23:23:24 +0100
Organization: PointedEars Software (PES)
Maybe get a decend news reader before you give advice how to post.
It was a crosspost _deliberately with Followup-To set_ *in order to
contain
your crosspost*:
| Followup-To: poster
That is why your newsreader
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:128.0)
Gecko/20100101 Firefox/128.0 SeaMonkey/2.53.22
told you that I ask for replies by private e-mail. Your ignoring that
is a
violation of Netiquette.
Fucking 5 year old imbecil, get lost in your kindergarden.I have been using Usenet for more than 3 decades now.
But the September never ends... So just "Score adjusted" for now:
<http://www.catb.org/esr/faqs/smart-questions.html#not_losing>
F'up2 poster again
Le 02/12/2025 à 00:00, Mild Shock a écrit :
Hi,
Don't you have a newsreader where you can
see the message source. You don't need more
information than Mild Shock in the message
body, you see everything in the message
headers. For example I see in your message:
From: Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de>
Injection-Info: gwaiyur.mb-net.net; logging-data="2349822";
mail-complaints-to="abuse@open-news-network.org"
So you posted from INWX GmbH? Still you
give advice how to format a USENET post, even
you are not able to see the message source,
of my posts? You can easily read off who I am.
Maybe get a decend news reader before you give
advice how to post.
Fucking 5 year old imbecil, get lost in your kindergarden.
Bye
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn schrieb:
Mild Shock wrote:
^^^^^^^^^^
Please repair this.
Subject: What if of the cosmos does a BB dance? (Was: Its ahypothesis)
subconscious
The correct way to change the Subject is "... (was: ...)". Then some
newsreaders can automatically remove the " (was: ...)" part on
composing a
follow-up.
What if the planets in certain galaxies
form a turning machine.
They do not.
You appear to be very confused about the applicability of computer
science
to natural science.
Also, you should learn how to post. This was a completely new
question, so
you should not have posted it as a follow-up. Also, you should not have >>> top-posted, i.e. you should not have appended the full quotation of the
previous postings; such is maybe appropriate in business
communication, but
not in Usenet. It is also not appropriate to crosspost without
Followup-To
to *one* newsgroup set.
I strongly suggest that you subscribe to news:news.announce.newusers, or >>> consult Usenet posting guidelines on the Web to educate yourself about
the communication medium that you are using here. Lest you be killfiled >>> rather quickly by people.
Could Keppler
Johannes _Kepler_
have modelled a 3 planet system.
Yes, he did, but not exactly.
Can we model a 3 planet system now ?
Obviously; there are simulations of the Sol System e.g. in Universe
Sandbox.
But the 3-body-problem is not about 3 planets, but more general.
There is no *general* *exact* solution to this problem; just a
solution for
the *restricted* 3-body-problem in which one of the objects has a
very large
mass; the second object, e.g. a gas giant like Jupiter, has a smaller
mass
and is very far away from the first object; and the third object.
e.g. an
asteroid, has a small that is small enough to be negligible, and is
comparably far away from the first and second object, respectively.
And this is neglecting general-relativistic corrections that lead to an
additional contribution in the precession of the perihelia (orbits
are not
actually ellipses, closed curves).
F'up2 sci.physics
you're not going well, right?
notions like Kepler's banishment of epicycles and as
after about Bode's law
then as for inverse square the Keplerian geometric way
then that the Newtonian "System of the World" after
the Keplerian "System of the World" or Harmonisches Mundi
after the Muslim "System of the Heavens"
and that, that, in the solar system today,
the force vector of gravity always points at the
source not the image,
so, it's quite Newtonian
and even Galilean the current state of the solar system,
while it is yet so that space-contraction-linear and space-contraction-rotational are in effect,
as with regards to a notion like "fall-gravity" of course.
I.e., Einstein's later "attack on Newton" is a matter
of mechanics itself as much as about relativity and
mass-energy-equivalency, getting into why the gyroscopic
effects as of the kinematic up after "pseudo"-momentum
and the space-contraction-rotational, has that Einstein's
second and much-less-well-known mass-energy-equivalency
derivation, about the centrally symmetric, helps establish
the concern overall as, "un-linear", for a potentialistic
theory and sum-of-potentials and revisiting the Lagrangian
the severe abstraction the mechanical reduction.
notions like Kepler's banishment of epicycles and as
after about Bode's law
then as for inverse square the Keplerian geometric way
then that the Newtonian "System of the World" after
the Keplerian "System of the World" or Harmonisches Mundi
after the Muslim "System of the Heavens"
and that, that, in the solar system today,
the force vector of gravity always points at the
source not the image,
so, it's quite Newtonian
and even Galilean the current state of the solar system,
while it is yet so that space-contraction-linear and space-contraction-rotational are in effect,
as with regards to a notion like "fall-gravity" of course.
I.e., Einstein's later "attack on Newton" is a matter
of mechanics itself as much as about relativity and
mass-energy-equivalency, getting into why the gyroscopic
effects as of the kinematic up after "pseudo"-momentum
and the space-contraction-rotational, has that Einstein's
second and much-less-well-known mass-energy-equivalency
derivation, about the centrally symmetric, helps establish
the concern overall as, "un-linear", for a potentialistic
theory and sum-of-potentials and revisiting the Lagrangian
the severe abstraction the mechanical reduction.
| Sysop: | DaiTengu |
|---|---|
| Location: | Appleton, WI |
| Users: | 1,090 |
| Nodes: | 10 (0 / 10) |
| Uptime: | 159:53:08 |
| Calls: | 13,922 |
| Files: | 187,021 |
| D/L today: |
888 files (250M bytes) |
| Messages: | 2,457,303 |