Path: csiph.com!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!newsfeed.bofh.team!paganini.bofh.team!not-for-mail From: The Starmaker Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics Subject: Re: New version of my annotations to SRT Date: Tue, 21 May 2024 13:35:39 -0700 Organization: To protect and to server Message-ID: <664D059B.601F@ix.netcom.com> References: <66499C6F.56C@ix.netcom.com> <664A71C4.71A@ix.netcom.com> <664BDDB6.2986@ix.netcom.com> <664CD147.1AB7@ix.netcom.com> Reply-To: starmaker@ix.netcom.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Info: paganini.bofh.team; logging-data="164150"; posting-host="nLYg9UBeoMWa070gP9wQcw.user.paganini.bofh.team"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@bofh.team"; posting-account="9dIQLXBM7WM9KzA+yjdR4A"; X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.9.3 X-Antivirus-Status: Clean X-Antivirus: Avast (VPS 240521-0, 05/20/2024), Outbound message X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.04Gold (WinNT; U) Xref: csiph.com sci.physics.relativity:653868 sci.physics:887696 1905 is Relativity without the Gravity 1915 is Gravity without the Relativity wats love gotodowitit? Question, which one has the twins leaving on a rocket but not returning, and the twins leaving on a rocket but returning? Question, which one has dilation with no gravity, and which one has dilation WITH gravity? What do you call a theory that contains dilation but no gravity? A dilated hypothesis! It's a gravity-free dilation! The Starmaker wrote: > > Here is the difference between Einstein's 1905 paper and the 1915 paper... > > 1905 is without the Gravity > > 1915 is with the Gravity > > 1905 is without the Acceleration > > 1915 is with the Acceleration > > 1905 is without the rocket coming back > > 1915 is with the rocket coming back > > 1905 is with the train going one way > > 1915 is with the train making a connecting flight on > a rocket in order to come back > > 1905 is without the bandage > > 1915 is with the bandage > > 1905 is without finishing it > > 1915 is with the finishing > > 1905 is with the formula for the atomic bomb > > 1939 is puting the atomic bomb on a boat to > Germany because to too heavy for a plane to carry it. > > 1905 is without the Gravity but contains the formula > for the atomic bomb and no one notices it. > > Conclusion: > > The atomic bomb is Real and Gravity is still ...just a theory. > > > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > Volney wrote: > > > > > > > > On 5/19/2024 2:30 AM, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > JanPB wrote: > > > > >> > > > > >> Thomas Heger wrote: > > > > >> > > > > >>> Am 12.11.2023 um 19:17 schrieb Frauly Bagaryatsky: > > > > >>>> Thomas Heger wrote: > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>>>>> Actually you can read the annotations now online (without downloading > > > > >>>>>>> the file). > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> nonsense, that's completely bullshit. It displays you never been study > > > > >>>>>> at an university with a 𝘃𝗶𝘀𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴_𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗳𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗼𝗿. > > > > >>> Most likely a few specialists exist in Germany, who actually know. > > > > >> > > > > >>> I was actually a HYPOTHETICAL professor (in my role as writer of these > > > > >>> annotations). > > > > >> > > > > >>> The method goes like this: > > > > >> > > > > >>> imagine you were a professor and had to write corrections for the > > > > >>> homework of a student (Albert Einstein in this case). > > > > >> > > > > >>> The 'homework' is the text in question ('On the electrodynamics of > > > > >>> moving bodies' in this case). > > > > >> > > > > >>> So my 'duty' would be to write annotations, where I give the student a > > > > >>> few hints, how to avoid errors next time. > > > > >> > > > > >>> I found 428 errors in Einstein's text and therefore wrote so many > > > > >>> annotations. > > > > >> > > > > >> There are no errors in Einstein's paper. There are instances of sloppiness, > > > > >> bending over backwards, inconsequential omissions, and the like, all of which are > > > > >> typical of any science paper. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "inconsequential omissions"???? Like Albert Einstein's 1905 Relativity > > > > > paper NOT neven even mentioning ONCE 'Gravity'. > > > > > > > > > Duh-h-h! That was a paper on special relativity, and special relativity > > > > doesn't involve gravity! > > > > > > Time dilation special relativity 1905 paper is caused by relativity or gravity? > > > > > > > If you *steal* somebodies homework you liable to make the same mistakes. > > > > -- > > The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, > > to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, > > and challenge the unchallengeable. > > -- > The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, > to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, > and challenge the unchallengeable. -- The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge the unchallengeable.