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

On 4/11/25 8:44 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:

Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> wrote:
 

On 4/10/25 3:32 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:

Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> 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.