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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #660188 > unrolled thread

"In reality there is almost nothing to understand in the theory of relativity."

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

Contents

  "In reality there is almost nothing to understand in the theory of relativity." clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-01-09 19:43 +0000
    Re: "In reality there is almost nothing to understand in the theory of  relativity." Richard Hachel <r.hachel@liscati.fr.invalid> - 2025-01-09 21:21 +0000
    Re: "In reality there is almost nothing to understand in the theory of relativity." Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-01-09 22:51 +0100
      Re: "In reality there is almost nothing to understand in the theory of  relativity." Richard Hachel <r.hachel@liscati.fr.invalid> - 2025-01-09 22:20 +0000
        Re: "In reality there is almost nothing to understand in the theory of relativity." Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-01-10 08:01 +0100
      Re: "In reality there is almost nothing to understand in the theory of relativity." clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-01-09 22:17 +0000
      Re: "In reality there is almost nothing to understand in the theory of relativity." clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-01-09 22:48 +0000
    Re: "In reality there is almost nothing to understand in the theory of relativity." The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-01-09 14:37 -0800
      Re: "In reality there is almost nothing to understand in the theory of relativity." clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-01-10 00:00 +0000
        Re: "In reality there is almost nothing to understand in the theory of  relativity." The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-01-09 23:20 -0800
          Re: "In reality there is almost nothing to understand in the theory of relativity." The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-01-11 12:43 -0800
            Re: "In reality there is almost nothing to understand in the theory of relativity." The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-01-11 13:22 -0800
              Re: "In reality there is almost nothing to understand in the theory of relativity." The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-01-11 13:51 -0800
                Re: "In reality there is almost nothing to understand in the theory of relativity." The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-01-11 14:40 -0800
                  Re: "In reality there is almost nothing to understand in the theory of relativity." The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-01-11 18:08 -0800
                    Re: "In reality there is almost nothing to understand in the theory of relativity." The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-01-13 19:48 -0800
                      Re: "In reality there is almost nothing to understand in the theory of relativity." The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-01-15 11:16 -0800
      Re: "In reality there is almost nothing to understand in the theory of relativity." clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-01-10 01:39 +0000
        Re: "In reality there is almost nothing to understand in the theory of relativity." Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-01-10 12:08 -0800
          Re: "In reality there is almost nothing to understand in the theory of relativity." Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-01-10 23:42 +0100
            Re: "In reality there is almost nothing to understand in the theory of relativity." Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-01-10 21:39 -0800
              Re: "In reality there is almost nothing to understand in the theory of relativity." Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-01-11 08:19 +0100
                Re: "In reality there is almost nothing to understand in the theory of relativity." Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-01-11 06:05 -0800
                  Re: "In reality there is almost nothing to understand in the theory of relativity." Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-01-11 16:46 +0100
                    Re: "In reality there is almost nothing to understand in the theory of relativity." Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-01-12 08:14 -0800
                      Re: "In reality there is almost nothing to understand in the theory of relativity." Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-01-12 18:40 +0100

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#660188 — "In reality there is almost nothing to understand in the theory of relativity."

"'When the theories of relativity were experimentally confirmed, the red
carpet was rolled out despite (or perhaps because of) the fact that
almost no one understood them.'"

- "On the empirical evidence of Special Relativity" by Antonio Leon free
pdf=
https://www.academia.edu/91707309/On_the_empirical_evidence_of_Special_Relativity?email_work_card=view-paper

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#660189 — Re: "In reality there is almost nothing to understand in the theory of relativity."

Le 09/01/2025 à 20:43, clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) a écrit 
:
> "'When the theories of relativity were experimentally confirmed, the red
> carpet was rolled out despite (or perhaps because of) the fact that
> almost no one understood them.'"
> 

 It's a bit true, and it's also a bit normal.
We give a calculation, an equation, a bit randomly (simply proposing the 
invariance of the speed of light as a basis is good, but it doesn't 
explain WHY) and we see that in some cases it works, so we're happy. We 
have something fantastic and new.
All this is very normal.
Where it's no longer normal is when someone says: "Everything is 
ultimately very simple, and I understood how it worked; neither Poincaré 
nor Einstein could find the right explanation, and I'm going to give it to 
you using a much simpler and more experimentally obvious basic 
mathematical concept" and then, a real universal miracle occurs: "We spit 
in his face".
Don't laugh, friends, it's not funny.
Once the principle is understood, everything is very simple.
And no more need to bother with hyperbolic geometry, ridiculous 
considerations (the disk contracts at the periphery but not at the 
radius), flagrant contradictions even at the base (in apparent speed the 
measurements are no longer reciprocal), incomprehension of the notion of 
causality, of the concreted and stupid Minkowskian block (as if space-time 
were geometrically a concrete block).
No, no, the relativistic problem is not so much a scientific problem as a 
human, moral, pathological problem. We have here thousands of men who see 
clearly (if they look) that something is wrong, like small pebbles in an 
immense grinder, but are very happy with their mathematical grinder. It 
does not occur to them to change the nature of the olives (the basic 
concepts), or to see if there are not pebbles in them. Pebbles made 
lovable by psychological acceptance: "We do not want Doctor Hachel to give 
us his opinion". We prefer to throw stones in the grinder rather than 
admit that he is stronger than us on these very specific problems.

R.H. 

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

#660190

W dniu 09.01.2025 o 20:43, LaurenceClarkCrossen pisze:
> "'When the theories of relativity were experimentally confirmed

They were not. Relativistic fanatics have just
invented some new meaning for the word "confirmed",
as well as for some  other words involved.

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

#660191 — Re: "In reality there is almost nothing to understand in the theory of relativity."

Le 09/01/2025 à 22:51, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
> 
> They were not. Relativistic fanatics have just
> invented some new meaning for the word "confirmed",
> as well as for some  other words involved.

Yes, the theory of relativity has been confirmed many times, but not in 
the sense that they think.
They think "we have confirmed the theory" when it should be said: "We have 
confirmed that things are happening in the relationships between space and 
time".

It is completely different.

And very often, the theory was introduced AFTER the observed facts and as 
if to explain them. It is therefore only half valid, because it smells of 
patching.

It would have been useful to predict the facts BEFORE (as I do for 
rotating frames of reference, accelerated frames of reference, and the 
spatial zoom effect) that cannot be predicted without a complete mastery 
of the theory while using the mathematics of an average 18-year-old 
student.

At this point, it goes without saying that the theory takes on incredible 
strength, because it is logical and totally predictive. This is not yet 
the case today, where in scientific circles these predictions cited above 
do not exist and where the theory is riddled with falsehoods and 
inexplicable paradoxes.

R.H. 

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

#660203

W dniu 09.01.2025 o 23:20, Richard Hachel pisze:
> Le 09/01/2025 à 22:51, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
>>
>> They were not. Relativistic fanatics have just
>> invented some new meaning for the word "confirmed",
>> as well as for some  other words involved.
> 
> Yes, the theory of relativity has been confirmed many times

It was not.  It was only "confirmed in the
meaning of a relativistic idiot".


, but not in
> the sense that they think.
> They think "we have confirmed the theory" when it should be said: "We 
> have confirmed that things are happening in the relationships between 
> space and time".

Or maybe the relationships between "time
in the meaning of a relativistic idiot"
amd "space in the meaning of a relativistic
idiot".
Poincare was right and self-appointed
"realists" are mistaken, physics is an
outcome of a word game, experiments
can only affect it indirect way.

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

#660192

On Thu, 9 Jan 2025 21:51:41 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

> W dniu 09.01.2025 o 20:43, LaurenceClarkCrossen pisze:
>> "'When the theories of relativity were experimentally confirmed
>
> They were not. Relativistic fanatics have just
> invented some new meaning for the word "confirmed",
> as well as for some  other words involved.
Of course, they could not be confirmed because no one understood them.
The theories are not coherent or logical and make no rational
predictions. If they understood them, they would know they were pure
nonsense. The point is that they were accepted by proclamation by
charlatans pretending to understand nonsense.

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

#660194

On Thu, 9 Jan 2025 21:51:41 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

> W dniu 09.01.2025 o 20:43, LaurenceClarkCrossen pisze:
>> "'When the theories of relativity were experimentally confirmed
>
> They were not. Relativistic fanatics have just
> invented some new meaning for the word "confirmed",
> as well as for some  other words involved.
Leon quotes Weyll as saying Einstein banished the dogma of simultaneity,
so we rank him with Copernicus. Leon says it's not a dogma and is
essential to the second law of logic.

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

#660193

LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
> 
> "'When the theories of relativity were experimentally confirmed, the red
> carpet was rolled out despite (or perhaps because of) the fact that
> almost no one understood them.'"
> 
> - "On the empirical evidence of Special Relativity" by Antonio Leon free
> pdf=
> https://www.academia.edu/91707309/On_the_empirical_evidence_of_Special_Relativity?email_work_card=view-paper


dats true, i don't undersatand nuthin in the theory of relativity.



nutin at'all

nutin.


-- 
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]

#660195

On Thu, 9 Jan 2025 22:37:15 +0000, The Starmaker wrote:

> LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
>>
>> "'When the theories of relativity were experimentally confirmed, the red
>> carpet was rolled out despite (or perhaps because of) the fact that
>> almost no one understood them.'"
>>
>> - "On the empirical evidence of Special Relativity" by Antonio Leon free
>> pdf=
>> https://www.academia.edu/91707309/On_the_empirical_evidence_of_Special_Relativity?email_work_card=view-paper
>
>
> dats true, i don't undersatand nuthin in the theory of relativity.
>
>
>
> nutin at'all
>
> nutin.
>
But you still believe, and that's what counts!

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

#660205 — Re: "In reality there is almost nothing to understand in the theory of relativity."

LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
> 
> On Thu, 9 Jan 2025 22:37:15 +0000, The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> > LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
> >>
> >> "'When the theories of relativity were experimentally confirmed, the red
> >> carpet was rolled out despite (or perhaps because of) the fact that
> >> almost no one understood them.'"
> >>
> >> - "On the empirical evidence of Special Relativity" by Antonio Leon free
> >> pdf=
> >> https://www.academia.edu/91707309/On_the_empirical_evidence_of_Special_Relativity?email_work_card=view-paper
> >
> >
> > dats true, i don't undersatand nuthin in the theory of relativity.
> >
> >
> >
> > nutin at'all
> >
> > nutin.
> >
> But you still believe, and that's what counts!


Ding-an-Sich


-- 
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]

#660245

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 9 Jan 2025 22:37:15 +0000, The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > > LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
> > >>
> > >> "'When the theories of relativity were experimentally confirmed, the red
> > >> carpet was rolled out despite (or perhaps because of) the fact that
> > >> almost no one understood them.'"
> > >>
> > >> - "On the empirical evidence of Special Relativity" by Antonio Leon free
> > >> pdf=
> > >> https://www.academia.edu/91707309/On_the_empirical_evidence_of_Special_Relativity?email_work_card=view-paper
> > >
> > >
> > > dats true, i don't undersatand nuthin in the theory of relativity.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > nutin at'all
> > >
> > > nutin.
> > >
> > But you still believe, and that's what counts!
> 
> Ding-an-Sich
> 

Einstein was inspired by Kant theory of relativity. 


Relativity is philosophy...and Einstein twisted Kant theory of
relativity. 


Kants's is more true than' Einstien's.


Ding-an-Sich

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=define+ding-an-sich





-- 
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]

#660247

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, 9 Jan 2025 22:37:15 +0000, The Starmaker wrote:
> > >
> > > > LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> "'When the theories of relativity were experimentally confirmed, the red
> > > >> carpet was rolled out despite (or perhaps because of) the fact that
> > > >> almost no one understood them.'"
> > > >>
> > > >> - "On the empirical evidence of Special Relativity" by Antonio Leon free
> > > >> pdf=
> > > >> https://www.academia.edu/91707309/On_the_empirical_evidence_of_Special_Relativity?email_work_card=view-paper
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > dats true, i don't undersatand nuthin in the theory of relativity.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > nutin at'all
> > > >
> > > > nutin.
> > > >
> > > But you still believe, and that's what counts!
> >
> > Ding-an-Sich
> >
> 
> Einstein was inspired by Kant theory of relativity.
> 
> Relativity is philosophy...and Einstein twisted Kant theory of
> relativity.
> 
> Kants's is more true than' Einstien's.
> 
> Ding-an-Sich
> 
> https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=define+ding-an-sich


The fact is, in Einstein's day...physics and philosophy are the same
thing.


But everybody seems to have a different philosophy on things..


who's philosophy is better? His or Hers?



-- 
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]

#660248

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > The Starmaker wrote:
> > >
> > > LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, 9 Jan 2025 22:37:15 +0000, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> "'When the theories of relativity were experimentally confirmed, the red
> > > > >> carpet was rolled out despite (or perhaps because of) the fact that
> > > > >> almost no one understood them.'"
> > > > >>
> > > > >> - "On the empirical evidence of Special Relativity" by Antonio Leon free
> > > > >> pdf=
> > > > >> https://www.academia.edu/91707309/On_the_empirical_evidence_of_Special_Relativity?email_work_card=view-paper
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > dats true, i don't undersatand nuthin in the theory of relativity.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > nutin at'all
> > > > >
> > > > > nutin.
> > > > >
> > > > But you still believe, and that's what counts!
> > >
> > > Ding-an-Sich
> > >
> >
> > Einstein was inspired by Kant theory of relativity.
> >
> > Relativity is philosophy...and Einstein twisted Kant theory of
> > relativity.
> >
> > Kants's is more true than' Einstien's.
> >
> > Ding-an-Sich
> >
> > https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=define+ding-an-sich
> 
> The fact is, in Einstein's day...physics and philosophy are the same
> thing.
> 
> But everybody seems to have a different philosophy on things..
> 
> whose philosophy is better? His or Hers?

His:things look different depending your point of reference

Hers:things look the same whatever  your point of reference
(Ding-an-Sich)




In fact, if you look at Einstein's Desk on the day he died...

you can see a Philosophy book...


https://x.com/Starmaker111/status/1668464757861683200/photo/1


https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FyeTzX3agAEoeJU?format=jpg&name=4096x4096


Einstein studied philosophy in school all the way till he died...


he wanted to know The Mind Of God...



the rest are details.



-- 
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]

#660251

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > The Starmaker wrote:
> > >
> > > The Starmaker wrote:
> > > >
> > > > LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, 9 Jan 2025 22:37:15 +0000, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> "'When the theories of relativity were experimentally confirmed, the red
> > > > > >> carpet was rolled out despite (or perhaps because of) the fact that
> > > > > >> almost no one understood them.'"
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> - "On the empirical evidence of Special Relativity" by Antonio Leon free
> > > > > >> pdf=
> > > > > >> https://www.academia.edu/91707309/On_the_empirical_evidence_of_Special_Relativity?email_work_card=view-paper
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > dats true, i don't undersatand nuthin in the theory of relativity.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > nutin at'all
> > > > > >
> > > > > > nutin.
> > > > > >
> > > > > But you still believe, and that's what counts!
> > > >
> > > > Ding-an-Sich
> > > >
> > >
> > > Einstein was inspired by Kant theory of relativity.
> > >
> > > Relativity is philosophy...and Einstein twisted Kant theory of
> > > relativity.
> > >
> > > Kants's is more true than' Einstien's.
> > >
> > > Ding-an-Sich
> > >
> > > https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=define+ding-an-sich
> >
> > The fact is, in Einstein's day...physics and philosophy are the same
> > thing.
> >
> > But everybody seems to have a different philosophy on things..
> >
> > whose philosophy is better? His or Hers?
> 
> His:things look different depending your point of reference
> 
> Hers:things look the same whatever  your point of reference
> (Ding-an-Sich)
> 
> In fact, if you look at Einstein's Desk on the day he died...
> 
> you can see a Philosophy book...
> 
> https://x.com/Starmaker111/status/1668464757861683200/photo/1
> 
> https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FyeTzX3agAEoeJU?format=jpg&name=4096x4096
> 
> Einstein studied philosophy in school all the way till he died...
> 
> he wanted to know The Mind Of God...
> 
> the rest are details.
> 


(Ding-an-Sich)

You want to know what time it is now?

it don't matter what your frame of reference is, everybody
will ask you what time it is now...

the time is..the present time now..

the time is now...everywhere!

don't matter if your watch
is fast or slow..or you are there
or here...

it's now.

The time now is...

what time did you say it is now???

okay, i was just wondering what time it is now.

Now?
Yeah, now..wat da fuck do you 
think i'm talking about...NOW!

Now?


You know wat i'm going to do you to you now?

Now?






-- 
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]

#660264

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > The Starmaker wrote:
> > >
> > > The Starmaker wrote:
> > > >
> > > > The Starmaker wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Thu, 9 Jan 2025 22:37:15 +0000, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> "'When the theories of relativity were experimentally confirmed, the red
> > > > > > >> carpet was rolled out despite (or perhaps because of) the fact that
> > > > > > >> almost no one understood them.'"
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> - "On the empirical evidence of Special Relativity" by Antonio Leon free
> > > > > > >> pdf=
> > > > > > >> https://www.academia.edu/91707309/On_the_empirical_evidence_of_Special_Relativity?email_work_card=view-paper
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > dats true, i don't undersatand nuthin in the theory of relativity.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > nutin at'all
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > nutin.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > But you still believe, and that's what counts!
> > > > >
> > > > > Ding-an-Sich
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Einstein was inspired by Kant theory of relativity.
> > > >
> > > > Relativity is philosophy...and Einstein twisted Kant theory of
> > > > relativity.
> > > >
> > > > Kants's is more true than' Einstien's.
> > > >
> > > > Ding-an-Sich
> > > >
> > > > https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=define+ding-an-sich
> > >
> > > The fact is, in Einstein's day...physics and philosophy are the same
> > > thing.
> > >
> > > But everybody seems to have a different philosophy on things..
> > >
> > > whose philosophy is better? His or Hers?
> >
> > His:things look different depending your point of reference
> >
> > Hers:things look the same whatever  your point of reference
> > (Ding-an-Sich)
> >
> > In fact, if you look at Einstein's Desk on the day he died...
> >
> > you can see a Philosophy book...
> >
> > https://x.com/Starmaker111/status/1668464757861683200/photo/1
> >
> > https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FyeTzX3agAEoeJU?format=jpg&name=4096x4096
> >
> > Einstein studied philosophy in school all the way till he died...
> >
> > he wanted to know The Mind Of God...
> >
> > the rest are details.
> >
> 
> (Ding-an-Sich)
> 
> You want to know what time it is now?
> 
> it don't matter what your frame of reference is, everybody
> will ask you what time it is now...
> 
> the time is..the present time now..
> 
> the time is now...everywhere!
> 
> don't matter if your watch
> is fast or slow..or you are there
> or here...
> 
> it's now.
> 
> The time now is...
> 
> what time did you say it is now???
> 
> okay, i was just wondering what time it is now.
> 
> Now?
> Yeah, now..wat da fuck do you
> think i'm talking about...NOW!
> 
> Now?
> 
> You know wat i'm going to do you to you now?
> 
> Now?

The Fact is...when Albert Einstein uses the term..."present time", he is
not
refering to what time it is on the face of a clock now, he is refering
to
the missing Now time on the face of a clock.

Einstein does not think of "present time" having minutes, hours or even
days! 

Einstein's "present time" is in fact...a universal Now.


No minutes, no hours, no days, just...NOW.


Could be yesterday in Einstein't Now time...you cannot get him to narrow
it down..cause
he is slippery as a snake.

And if you try to narrow him down he'll say something like..."I didn't
say absolutly NOW!"

"I didn't say this very minute!"


he is slippery as a snake....








-- 
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]

#660326

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > The Starmaker wrote:
> > >
> > > The Starmaker wrote:
> > > >
> > > > The Starmaker wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > The Starmaker wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Thu, 9 Jan 2025 22:37:15 +0000, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> "'When the theories of relativity were experimentally confirmed, the red
> > > > > > > >> carpet was rolled out despite (or perhaps because of) the fact that
> > > > > > > >> almost no one understood them.'"
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> - "On the empirical evidence of Special Relativity" by Antonio Leon free
> > > > > > > >> pdf=
> > > > > > > >> https://www.academia.edu/91707309/On_the_empirical_evidence_of_Special_Relativity?email_work_card=view-paper
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > dats true, i don't undersatand nuthin in the theory of relativity.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > nutin at'all
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > nutin.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > But you still believe, and that's what counts!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ding-an-Sich
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Einstein was inspired by Kant theory of relativity.
> > > > >
> > > > > Relativity is philosophy...and Einstein twisted Kant theory of
> > > > > relativity.
> > > > >
> > > > > Kants's is more true than' Einstien's.
> > > > >
> > > > > Ding-an-Sich
> > > > >
> > > > > https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=define+ding-an-sich
> > > >
> > > > The fact is, in Einstein's day...physics and philosophy are the same
> > > > thing.
> > > >
> > > > But everybody seems to have a different philosophy on things..
> > > >
> > > > whose philosophy is better? His or Hers?
> > >
> > > His:things look different depending your point of reference
> > >
> > > Hers:things look the same whatever  your point of reference
> > > (Ding-an-Sich)
> > >
> > > In fact, if you look at Einstein's Desk on the day he died...
> > >
> > > you can see a Philosophy book...
> > >
> > > https://x.com/Starmaker111/status/1668464757861683200/photo/1
> > >
> > > https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FyeTzX3agAEoeJU?format=jpg&name=4096x4096
> > >
> > > Einstein studied philosophy in school all the way till he died...
> > >
> > > he wanted to know The Mind Of God...
> > >
> > > the rest are details.
> > >
> >
> > (Ding-an-Sich)
> >
> > You want to know what time it is now?
> >
> > it don't matter what your frame of reference is, everybody
> > will ask you what time it is now...
> >
> > the time is..the present time now..
> >
> > the time is now...everywhere!
> >
> > don't matter if your watch
> > is fast or slow..or you are there
> > or here...
> >
> > it's now.
> >
> > The time now is...
> >
> > what time did you say it is now???
> >
> > okay, i was just wondering what time it is now.
> >
> > Now?
> > Yeah, now..wat da fuck do you
> > think i'm talking about...NOW!
> >
> > Now?
> >
> > You know wat i'm going to do you to you now?
> >
> > Now?
> 
> The Fact is...when Albert Einstein uses the term..."present time", he is
> not
> refering to what time it is on the face of a clock now, he is refering
> to
> the missing Now time on the face of a clock.
> 
> Einstein does not think of "present time" having minutes, hours or even
> days!
> 
> Einstein's "present time" is in fact...a universal Now.
> 
> No minutes, no hours, no days, just...NOW.
> 
> Could be yesterday in Einstein't Now time...you cannot get him to narrow
> it down..cause
> he is slippery as a snake.
> 
> And if you try to narrow him down he'll say something like..."I didn't
> say absolutly NOW!"
> 
> "I didn't say this very minute!"
> 
> he is slippery as a snake....
> 

Hell, in Einstein's mind "present time" could also mean...this century.


(which is still...now)


If you study the definition of the word..."present"

you will see 'hidden' within it's meaning...'the structure of
relativity'.


pres·ent
/'preznt/
adjective

    in a particular place.
    "a doctor must be present at the ringside"
    synonyms: in attendance, attending, here, there, near, nearby, at
hand, close/near at hand, adjacent, available, ready, accounted for
    existing or occurring now.
    "she did not expect to find herself in her present situation"
    synonyms: current, present-day, existing, contemporary, immediate,
instant


noun
the period of time now occurring.
"they are happy and at peace, refusing to think beyond the present"
synonyms: now, today, the present time, the here and now, this day and
age, the present moment, the time being

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=define+present




What is "the here and now"????



What is the Here?




















-- 
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]

#660413

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > The Starmaker wrote:
> > >
> > > The Starmaker wrote:
> > > >
> > > > The Starmaker wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > The Starmaker wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The Starmaker wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Thu, 9 Jan 2025 22:37:15 +0000, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> "'When the theories of relativity were experimentally confirmed, the red
> > > > > > > > >> carpet was rolled out despite (or perhaps because of) the fact that
> > > > > > > > >> almost no one understood them.'"
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> - "On the empirical evidence of Special Relativity" by Antonio Leon free
> > > > > > > > >> pdf=
> > > > > > > > >> https://www.academia.edu/91707309/On_the_empirical_evidence_of_Special_Relativity?email_work_card=view-paper
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > dats true, i don't undersatand nuthin in the theory of relativity.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > nutin at'all
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > nutin.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > But you still believe, and that's what counts!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Ding-an-Sich
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Einstein was inspired by Kant theory of relativity.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Relativity is philosophy...and Einstein twisted Kant theory of
> > > > > > relativity.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Kants's is more true than' Einstien's.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ding-an-Sich
> > > > > >
> > > > > > https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=define+ding-an-sich
> > > > >
> > > > > The fact is, in Einstein's day...physics and philosophy are the same
> > > > > thing.
> > > > >
> > > > > But everybody seems to have a different philosophy on things..
> > > > >
> > > > > whose philosophy is better? His or Hers?
> > > >
> > > > His:things look different depending your point of reference
> > > >
> > > > Hers:things look the same whatever  your point of reference
> > > > (Ding-an-Sich)
> > > >
> > > > In fact, if you look at Einstein's Desk on the day he died...
> > > >
> > > > you can see a Philosophy book...
> > > >
> > > > https://x.com/Starmaker111/status/1668464757861683200/photo/1
> > > >
> > > > https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FyeTzX3agAEoeJU?format=jpg&name=4096x4096
> > > >
> > > > Einstein studied philosophy in school all the way till he died...
> > > >
> > > > he wanted to know The Mind Of God...
> > > >
> > > > the rest are details.
> > > >
> > >
> > > (Ding-an-Sich)
> > >
> > > You want to know what time it is now?
> > >
> > > it don't matter what your frame of reference is, everybody
> > > will ask you what time it is now...
> > >
> > > the time is..the present time now..
> > >
> > > the time is now...everywhere!
> > >
> > > don't matter if your watch
> > > is fast or slow..or you are there
> > > or here...
> > >
> > > it's now.
> > >
> > > The time now is...
> > >
> > > what time did you say it is now???
> > >
> > > okay, i was just wondering what time it is now.
> > >
> > > Now?
> > > Yeah, now..wat da fuck do you
> > > think i'm talking about...NOW!
> > >
> > > Now?
> > >
> > > You know wat i'm going to do you to you now?
> > >
> > > Now?
> >
> > The Fact is...when Albert Einstein uses the term..."present time", he is
> > not
> > refering to what time it is on the face of a clock now, he is refering
> > to
> > the missing Now time on the face of a clock.
> >
> > Einstein does not think of "present time" having minutes, hours or even
> > days!
> >
> > Einstein's "present time" is in fact...a universal Now.
> >
> > No minutes, no hours, no days, just...NOW.
> >
> > Could be yesterday in Einstein't Now time...you cannot get him to narrow
> > it down..cause
> > he is slippery as a snake.
> >
> > And if you try to narrow him down he'll say something like..."I didn't
> > say absolutly NOW!"
> >
> > "I didn't say this very minute!"
> >
> > he is slippery as a snake....
> >
> 
> Hell, in Einstein's mind "present time" could also mean...this century.
> 
> (which is still...now)
> 
> If you study the definition of the word..."present"
> 
> you will see 'hidden' within it's meaning...'the structure of
> relativity'.
> 
> pres·ent
> /'preznt/
> adjective
> 
>     in a particular place.
>     "a doctor must be present at the ringside"
>     synonyms: in attendance, attending, here, there, near, nearby, at
> hand, close/near at hand, adjacent, available, ready, accounted for
>     existing or occurring now.
>     "she did not expect to find herself in her present situation"
>     synonyms: current, present-day, existing, contemporary, immediate,
> instant
> 
> noun
> the period of time now occurring.
> "they are happy and at peace, refusing to think beyond the present"
> synonyms: now, today, the present time, the here and now, this day and
> age, the present moment, the time being
> 
> https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=define+present
> 
> What is "the here and now"????
> 
> What is the Here?


Where is Here? Is it over there?? 

No, it's here.

dats what I said, over there!

No, it's over here.

dat is what i said, over there!!!!

Okay, where is Here?

Here?

Yes, Here!

It's over here!

Where, there?

No, over here!

Over there!

No, right here!!!

No, here IS here!

Where?

Over here!!


No, it's over here!!!

Come on, you cannot have two here's..







-- 
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]

#660196

On Thu, 9 Jan 2025 22:37:15 +0000, The Starmaker wrote:

> LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
>>
>> "'When the theories of relativity were experimentally confirmed, the red
>> carpet was rolled out despite (or perhaps because of) the fact that
>> almost no one understood them.'"
>>
>> - "On the empirical evidence of Special Relativity" by Antonio Leon free
>> pdf=
>> https://www.academia.edu/91707309/On_the_empirical_evidence_of_Special_Relativity?email_work_card=view-paper
>
>
> dats true, i don't undersatand nuthin in the theory of relativity.
>
>
>
> nutin at'all
>
> nutin.
>
Leon has an interesting section in his free pdf book "Apparent
Relativity" on the laws of logic and relativity.

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

#660209

On 01/09/2025 05:39 PM, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
> On Thu, 9 Jan 2025 22:37:15 +0000, The Starmaker wrote:
>
>> LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
>>>
>>> "'When the theories of relativity were experimentally confirmed, the red
>>> carpet was rolled out despite (or perhaps because of) the fact that
>>> almost no one understood them.'"
>>>
>>> - "On the empirical evidence of Special Relativity" by Antonio Leon free
>>> pdf=
>>> https://www.academia.edu/91707309/On_the_empirical_evidence_of_Special_Relativity?email_work_card=view-paper
>>>
>>
>>
>> dats true, i don't undersatand nuthin in the theory of relativity.
>>
>>
>>
>> nutin at'all
>>
>> nutin.
>>
> Leon has an interesting section in his free pdf book "Apparent
> Relativity" on the laws of logic and relativity.

In reality the principle of Relativity is merely
a negative assertion "motion is relative not absolute"
and then framing things in terms of perspective.

Einstein asked "what can result of a theory so minimal
as merely a negative assertion that negates that motion
is absolute instead relative?" then goes about answering
why, among the other absolutes and ideals, it's so.

Then, "mass-energy equivalency" making for space-contraction,
and, "cosmological constant" as infinitesimal, then besides
the "L-principle light's constant velocity", are basically
separate concerns altogether about when the fields come
together, that Einstein clarifies "Special is spacial not
spatial" as far as it goes.

That then there's a tetrad of quantities and those usually
a triad of force complements, is quite classical yet merely
a classical perspective of the super-classical, which is
really the fields of potentials in a sum-of-histories
sum-of-potentials least-action least-gradient theory,
in itself.


It's a continuum mechanics, ....

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

#660211

W dniu 10.01.2025 o 21:08, Ross Finlayson pisze:

>>>
>> Leon has an interesting section in his free pdf book "Apparent
>> Relativity" on the laws of logic and relativity.
> 
> In reality the principle of Relativity is merely
> a negative assertion "motion is relative not absolute"


Right, The Shit is merely an assertion.
Later on, of course, the term "confirm"
was redefined to make it "confirmed".

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

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

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

csiph-web