Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #653812 > unrolled thread

Re: New version of my annotations to SRT

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: New version of my annotations to SRT film.art@gmail.com (JanPB) - 2024-05-18 18:41 +0000
    Re: New version of my annotations to SRT Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-05-18 21:30 +0200
    Re: New version of my annotations to SRT Badalbeili Turukhin <he@bbbh.ru> - 2024-05-18 22:01 +0000
    Re: New version of my annotations to SRT The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-05-18 23:30 -0700
      Re: New version of my annotations to SRT Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2024-05-19 13:42 -0400
        Re: New version of my annotations to SRT The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-05-19 12:10 -0700
          Re: New version of my annotations to SRT The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-05-19 12:27 -0700
          Re: New version of my annotations to SRT Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-05-22 13:57 +0200
          Re: New version of my annotations to SRT Cesario Fehér Buzás <jrs@receofh.hu> - 2024-05-22 15:31 +0000
          Re: New version of my annotations to SRT Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2024-05-22 02:18 -0400
            Re: New version of my annotations to SRT Procoro Cernochova Yang <oopoe@rcocpnc.cz> - 2024-05-24 11:23 +0000
        Re: New version of my annotations to SRT Justin Ali Kokkalis <kksjl@si.gr> - 2024-05-19 19:29 +0000
        Re: New version of my annotations to SRT The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-05-19 14:40 -0700
          Re: New version of my annotations to SRT The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-05-20 16:33 -0700
            Re: New version of my annotations to SRT The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-05-21 09:52 -0700
              Re: New version of my annotations to SRT The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-05-21 13:35 -0700
                Re: New version of my annotations to SRT The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-05-22 10:17 -0700

#653812 — Re: New version of my annotations to SRT

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. 

In other words, you haven't done anything useful here, it's all a giant waste
of your time.

Last but not least, you haven't even listed a few instances which may appear
GENUINELY puzzling to a newbie. This tells us you don't even understand the
text you are "critiquing".

--
Jan

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#653813

W dniu 18.05.2024 o 20:41, JanPB pisze:
> 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. 

And poor idiot Jan is a queen of England.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#653817

JanPB wrote:

> Thomas Heger wrote:
>> Am 12.11.2023 um 19:17 schrieb Frauly Bagaryatsky:
>>>>> 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).
>
> Last but not least, you haven't even listed a few instances which may
> appear GENUINELY puzzling to a newbie. This tells us you don't even
> understand the text you are "critiquing".

not true, the thomas heger knows vulgar german, and you don't. You don't
undrestand what is going on in Einstine. Neither Einstine was bright in
vulgar german. He was not german, and left for america. Which intently
confuses the whole thing.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#653831

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'.


inconsequential omissions??? unimportant? irrelevant? of no
signficance?? poppycock;rubblish.







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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#653840

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!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#653841

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!

That's what I said..it didn't include Gravity. Big mistake, wasn't it?
(i know yous people just look the other way)





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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#653843

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!
> 
> That's what I said..it didn't include Gravity. Big mistake, wasn't it?
> (i know yous people just look the other way)


Somebody, someone must have whispered into Albert Einstein's ear

"Psst, hey albert, you forgot to mention gravity."

albert probably said..."Gravity, whats that?"

He spent the next ten years reading about it and finally came out with a
paper called General Relativity that was ALL about Gravity only!"

Too late. stupid mistake...again.


Like Volney already exclaimed: "...relativity doesn't involve gravity!"



Duh-h-h!

La De Duh-h-h!




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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#653873

W dniu 22.05.2024 o 08:18, Volney pisze:
> On 5/19/2024 3:10 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
>> Volney wrote:
>>>
>>> On 5/19/2024 2:30 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
> 
>>>> "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!
>>
>> That's what I said..it didn't include Gravity. Big mistake, wasn't it?
>> (i know yous people just look the other way)
>>
> No mistake. It is for situations without gravity or where gravitational 
> effects are too small to have any effect. Even the GPS system's GR 
> effect is less than one part per billion.

There is no "GR effect" in GPS, stupid Mike.
Time is "what clocks indicate", clocks of
GPS indicate t'=t, good bye The Shit.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#653875

Volney wrote:

> On 5/19/2024 3:10 PM, The Starmaker wrote: 
>> That's what I said..it didn't include Gravity. Big mistake, wasn't it?
>> (i know yous people just look the other way)
>> 
> No mistake. It is for situations without gravity or where gravitational
> effects are too small to have any effect. Even the GPS system's GR
> effect is less than one part per billion.

you are from americaaa.. good bye The Shit. The Einstine, not even his 
name, but something he changed from 𝙠𝙝𝙖𝙯𝙖𝙧_𝙜𝙤𝙮, before entering america, 
didn't know there is gravity the space he inherits. You don't enter america 
with a name from ukrane Basarabien. Ie, a 𝙉𝙪𝙙𝙚𝙡𝙢𝙖𝙣 you must change it to 
𝙉𝙪𝙡𝙖𝙣𝙙 and so on a 𝙎𝙢𝙚𝙡𝙡𝙚𝙣𝙨𝙠𝙮 to something else. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victoria_Nuland#Early_life_and_education
Then he suddenly makes another theory about it, as strong in tensors etc. 
Leave me alone. I just realized Sans 10 fonts are a wonderful font to look 
at and didn't know it can be read this small.

 𝗙𝗮𝗶𝗹𝘂𝗿𝗲_𝗶𝗻_𝗨𝗸𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗲_𝗽𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗲𝗻𝘁𝘀_𝘁𝗵𝗲_𝗪𝗲𝘀𝘁_𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵_𝗮_𝗰𝗹𝗲𝗮𝗿_𝘆𝗲𝘁_𝗱𝗶𝗳𝗳𝗶𝗰𝘂𝗹𝘁_𝗰𝗵𝗼𝗶𝗰𝗲
As it seeks to minimize its own risks, the US-led bloc is about to hit a 
dead end 
https://r%74.com/russia/597986-west-intervention-growing-ukrainian-conflict

the Zelensky is stereotype evil Cabal. No regard for human life, just power 
and money matter to him.

Victoria the Cookie Monster Jewish lover of Nazism wants USA to bomb 
Russia..... But then again can't mention how zionist neocon Jews like 
Nuland Kagan adore nazism in 2024

the US led bloc was "dead bloc walking" when the US handed over control of 
its domestic and foreign policy to 'the jews'.

which means even if Ukraine/NATO suffer a humiliating defeat in Ukraine, 
they'll try to put a positive spin to it and get away with genocide. After 
all, we've seen the same kinda results in Libya, Afghanistan, Vietnam, 
Iran, Iraq, Yemen, Nicaragua, Cuba and many other countries.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#653877

On 5/19/2024 3:10 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> Volney wrote:
>>
>> On 5/19/2024 2:30 AM, The Starmaker wrote:

>>> "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!
> 
> That's what I said..it didn't include Gravity. Big mistake, wasn't it?
> (i know yous people just look the other way)
> 
No mistake. It is for situations without gravity or where gravitational 
effects are too small to have any effect. Even the GPS system's GR 
effect is less than one part per billion.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#653890

Volney wrote:

>> That's what I said..it didn't include Gravity. Big mistake, wasn't it?
>> (i know yous people just look the other way)
>> 
> No mistake. It is for situations without gravity or where gravitational
> effects are too small to have any effect. Even the GPS system's GR
> effect is less than one part per billion.

entirely disappointing, where are you guys?? Are you posting once a week, I 
want you to post every day. Where are Mitchel raemesh, eric gisse, big dog, 
dono, paparios, archimedes and so on. This site is entirely jews and 
gypsies. Terribly disappointing. Bring me eric gisse.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#653844

Volney wrote:

> On 5/19/2024 2:30 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
>> "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!

lol, it was not included. The imbecile didn't know what that thing was 
included in. He was just a gay, leaving his beautiful wife and 2 children, 
to fuck his cousin in his ass, since he which was a man. I really hate this 
Einstine. Here is what they do in america.

𝗜𝘀𝗿𝗮𝗲𝗹_𝗿𝗶𝗴𝗵𝘁𝗳𝘂𝗹𝗹𝘆_𝗼𝘄𝗻𝗲𝗱_𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗴𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘀.._-_𝗧𝗿𝘂𝗺𝗽
https://b%69%74%63%68%75te.com/%76%69%64eo/qQbyiJKPmX6i

𝗠𝗼𝗰𝗸𝗯𝗮_𝗳𝘂𝗰𝗸𝘀_𝘁𝗵𝗲_𝗡𝗔𝗧𝗢_𝗹𝗼𝗴𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗰𝘀_𝗶𝗻_𝗵𝗶𝘀_𝗮𝘀𝘀_𝗶𝗻_𝗢𝗱𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗮,_𝗨𝗸𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗲,_𝘀𝗲𝗻𝗱_𝗺𝗼𝗿𝗲
https://b%69%74%63%68%75te.com/%76%69%64eo/oNJYmRWx36IP

𝗔𝗺𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗰𝗮_𝗙𝗮𝘀𝗰𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗲𝘀_𝗚𝗲𝗻𝗼𝗰𝗶𝗱𝗲_-_𝗞𝗲𝗻_𝗢'𝗸𝗲𝗲𝗳𝗲
https://b%69%74%63%68%75te.com/%76%69%64eo/gtCL6jhF3AQC

𝗧𝗵𝗲_𝗖𝗼𝗻𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻_𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁_𝗕𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗸𝘀_𝘁𝗵𝗲_𝗜𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗻𝗲𝘁,_𝗩𝗶𝗰𝘁𝗼𝗿-𝗛𝘂𝗴𝗼_𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗿𝘃𝗶𝗲𝘄𝘀_𝗞𝗲𝗻𝗮𝗻_-_𝗦𝗼𝗻𝗢𝗳𝗘𝗻𝗼𝘀
https://b%69%74%63%68%75te.com/%76%69%64eo/3OS0BWIEbw8m

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#653847

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?

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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#653860

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.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#653864

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.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#653868

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.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#653876

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> 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.


Now, for some reason there are a lot of appologists, cover-ups, fraud in the scientific community.


Einstein submitted an incomplete paper in 1905 (was he trying to win a grant?)

It contained no mention of gravity
no mention of acceleration
no mentioned of velocity.

(inconsequential omissions??? unimportant? irrelevant????)mendacity! 

So, Einstein in 1907 came out with a ..'sequel' to the 1905 paper

and threw in gravity, acceleration and velocity to cover up his mistakes.

I mean, he had better things to think about...like building an atomic bomb.



 










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

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web