Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #599489 > unrolled thread

Re: Kinetic Energy formula check - a series of short burn rockets, and see how the velocity adds up.

Started by	Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de>
First post	2023-01-12 08:31 +0100
Last post	2023-01-19 00:39 -0800
Articles	20 on this page of 46 — 15 participants

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.

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 Next page →

#599916 — Re: Kinetic Energy formula check - a series of short burn rockets, and see how the velocity adds up.

From	Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com>
Date	2023-01-19 23:07 -0800
Subject	Re: Kinetic Energy formula check - a series of short burn rockets, and see how the velocity adds up.
Message-ID	<85a342aa-41ec-453e-adca-4a5fb87d694en@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#599896

On Thursday, 19 January 2023 at 22:33:00 UTC+1, Volney wrote:

> You can't ignore things established in the field of interest. Does he 
> need to prove 2+2=4 if he uses that in his paper?

What for? Pythagorean theorem had ~150 independent
proofs, and poor idiot has announced it false.

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

#600038 — Re: Kinetic Energy formula check - a series of short burn rockets, and see how the velocity adds up.

From	Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de>
Date	2023-01-22 08:24 +0100
Subject	Re: Kinetic Energy formula check - a series of short burn rockets, and see how the velocity adds up.
Message-ID	<k346klF78caU1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to	#599896

Am 19.01.2023 um 22:33 schrieb Volney:
> On 1/19/2023 3:28 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>> Am 18.01.2023 um 22:33 schrieb Volney:
>>> On 1/18/2023 3:22 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>> Am 17.01.2023 um 19:04 schrieb Volney:
>>>>
>>>>>> Such inertial frames require absense of gravity, which we earthlings
>>>>>> obviously cannot provide.
>>>>>
>>>>> As usual in physics, especially then, things are tested to within an
>>>>> error limit, where it can be shown the error from the existence of
>>>>> gravity or whatever is smaller than measurement errors or outcome
>>>>> error.
>>>>>
>>>>> Secondly, this is theoretical, it's what happens when there is no
>>>>> gravity even if such a situation is difficult or impossible to
>>>>> reproduce
>>>>> in real life. Just like Einstein's trains, moving at a substantial
>>>>> fraction of c, with observers able to time flashes from lightning
>>>>> bolts
>>>>> as a train passes an embankment aren't real.
>>>>>
>>>>>> But in such a dark and gravity free inertial frame, you have
>>>>>> abolutely
>>>>>> nothing, which could eventually help you to measure absolute
>>>>>> velocity.
>>>>>
>>>>> And Einstein doesn't try to use any absolute velocity. He says simply
>>>>> here's a frame where the equations of Newton's mechanics hold good.
>>>>> Are
>>>>> you going to complain that Einstein didn't discuss moving objects
>>>>> around
>>>>> and accelerating them to test Newton's mechanics?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In that scenario you always need something, where you could base your
>>>>>> position vectors on.
>>>>>
>>>>> You, the observer, say "Here's the origin".
>>>>
>>>> That would be actually correct, but was not, what Einstein said.
>>>
>>> He defined a frame in which 'equations of Newton hold good'. Period. He
>>> defined the origin. No other reference frame necessary.
>>>>
>>>> I personally use a concept I call 'subjectivism', which states, that
>>>> all observers would naturally take the own position and base
>>>> observations upon that.
>>>
>>> Thus, Einstein use the perspective of an unnamed observer and called
>>> this frame "the stationary frame". That's really just a name, it has no
>>> special features like being "absolutely stationary" in some way.
>>
>> What Einstein had in mind is not important, but what he wrote in his
>> text.
>
> But he didn't need to write things his peers were well acquainted with,
> such as the definition of an inertial reference frame.


Einstein wrote such a definition with: a coordinate system in which the 
equations of Newtons mechanics hold good.

That is what Einstein wrote and what we should take as his definition.

Other definitions could float around among his peer, but we need to take 
his words verbatim and use definitions as he defined terms.

Other terms in use among physicists could safely be used without 
definition. For instance the terms 'acceleration' or 'force' would not 
need to be defined. These have well accepted meanings among physicists 
and could be used accordingly.


>> I wrote a critique about 'On the electrodynamics of moving bodies' and
>> didn't attempt to read his mind in a psychoanalysis.
>>
>> It is simply irrelevant, what Einstein really wanted, if he didn't
>> write that in his paper.
>
> Except things there was no need to write what you claim is needed.
> Remember who his target audience was!

Sure. He wrote for physicists.

But that was not the problem I had adressed.

The problem was, that even physicists need to know, what Einstein 
actually wanted to say.


>> Also subsequent papers are irrellevant for a review, because at the
>> time of the article those didn't exist.
>>
>> That's why I'm allowed to ignore Einstein's real intentions, if they
>> were not put into words and those into the text.
>
> You can't ignore things established in the field of interest. Does he
> need to prove 2+2=4 if he uses that in his paper? How about everything
> Galileo said about inertial frames?

Well, Gallileo is certainly quotable. But without a quote, it wouldn't 
be possible to know, whether Einstein meant Gallileo or not.


>> Sure, 'the perspective of an unnamed observer' would make sense, but I
>> cannot find such a statement in the text.
>
> It wasn't necessary. The first part of his kinematics section explains
> the frame he is going to use.


But "a coordinate system in which the equations of Newtons mechanics 
hold good" does not contain " unnamed observer".

You simply must not 'fill in the blanks' with your own preoccupied 
knowledge, but can take only, what is actually written.

To fill the blanks would make things appear in a text, which simply are 
not there. And it would make also different 'copies' possible, if 
different readers fill the blanks differently.



>> Contrary to your view, Einstein gave the impression, that he wanted to
>> measure velocity against a static and well defined universe.
>
> No, he didn't. He used the definition of an inertial frame without
> boring his intended audience (not you) what an inertial frame was.


Well, that's not a particularily boring question in the topic of relativity.

But Einstein gave in fact a definition of the coordinate system called 
'stationary' and used that.

That is good enough, but would not define 'stationary' properly, because 
Newton's equations are not restricted to absolutely stationary systems.

>> This was actually a self-contradicting statement, because Einstein
>> also wrote, that Newton's absolute space would not exist.
>
> Since he wasn't intending to measure any velocity "against a static
> universe", this claim is irrelevant.


Sure, but against what else did he want to measure 'stationary'?

...


TH

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

#600083 — Re: Kinetic Energy formula check - a series of short burn rockets, and see how the velocity adds up.

From	Volney <volney@invalid.invalid>
Date	2023-01-22 21:11 -0500
Subject	Re: Kinetic Energy formula check - a series of short burn rockets, and see how the velocity adds up.
Message-ID	<tqkqd8$3bnh2$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to	#600038

On 1/22/2023 2:24 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 19.01.2023 um 22:33 schrieb Volney:
>> On 1/19/2023 3:28 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>> Am 18.01.2023 um 22:33 schrieb Volney:
>>>> On 1/18/2023 3:22 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>>> Am 17.01.2023 um 19:04 schrieb Volney:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Such inertial frames require absense of gravity, which we earthlings
>>>>>>> obviously cannot provide.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As usual in physics, especially then, things are tested to within an
>>>>>> error limit, where it can be shown the error from the existence of
>>>>>> gravity or whatever is smaller than measurement errors or outcome
>>>>>> error.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Secondly, this is theoretical, it's what happens when there is no
>>>>>> gravity even if such a situation is difficult or impossible to
>>>>>> reproduce
>>>>>> in real life. Just like Einstein's trains, moving at a substantial
>>>>>> fraction of c, with observers able to time flashes from lightning
>>>>>> bolts
>>>>>> as a train passes an embankment aren't real.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But in such a dark and gravity free inertial frame, you have
>>>>>>> abolutely
>>>>>>> nothing, which could eventually help you to measure absolute
>>>>>>> velocity.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And Einstein doesn't try to use any absolute velocity. He says simply
>>>>>> here's a frame where the equations of Newton's mechanics hold good.
>>>>>> Are
>>>>>> you going to complain that Einstein didn't discuss moving objects
>>>>>> around
>>>>>> and accelerating them to test Newton's mechanics?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In that scenario you always need something, where you could base 
>>>>>>> your
>>>>>>> position vectors on.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You, the observer, say "Here's the origin".
>>>>>
>>>>> That would be actually correct, but was not, what Einstein said.
>>>>
>>>> He defined a frame in which 'equations of Newton hold good'. Period. He
>>>> defined the origin. No other reference frame necessary.
>>>>>
>>>>> I personally use a concept I call 'subjectivism', which states, that
>>>>> all observers would naturally take the own position and base
>>>>> observations upon that.
>>>>
>>>> Thus, Einstein use the perspective of an unnamed observer and called
>>>> this frame "the stationary frame". That's really just a name, it has no
>>>> special features like being "absolutely stationary" in some way.
>>>
>>> What Einstein had in mind is not important, but what he wrote in his
>>> text.
>>
>> But he didn't need to write things his peers were well acquainted with,
>> such as the definition of an inertial reference frame.
> 
> 
> Einstein wrote such a definition with: a coordinate system in which the 
> equations of Newtons mechanics hold good.
> 
> That is what Einstein wrote and what we should take as his definition.
> 
> Other definitions could float around among his peer, but we need to take 
> his words verbatim and use definitions as he defined terms.

It's a good definition of what he wanted to use, an inertial frame. "A 
coordinate system in which the equations of Newton's mechanics hold 
good" was probably the way they referred to inertial frames at the time.

> Other terms in use among physicists could safely be used without 
> definition. For instance the terms 'acceleration' or 'force' would not 
> need to be defined. These have well accepted meanings among physicists 
> and could be used accordingly.
> 
> 
>>> I wrote a critique about 'On the electrodynamics of moving bodies' and
>>> didn't attempt to read his mind in a psychoanalysis.
>>>
>>> It is simply irrelevant, what Einstein really wanted, if he didn't
>>> write that in his paper.
>>
>> Except things there was no need to write what you claim is needed.
>> Remember who his target audience was!
> 
> Sure. He wrote for physicists.
> 
> But that was not the problem I had adressed.
> 
> The problem was, that even physicists need to know, what Einstein 
> actually wanted to say.
> 
> 
>>> Also subsequent papers are irrellevant for a review, because at the
>>> time of the article those didn't exist.
>>>
>>> That's why I'm allowed to ignore Einstein's real intentions, if they
>>> were not put into words and those into the text.
>>
>> You can't ignore things established in the field of interest. Does he
>> need to prove 2+2=4 if he uses that in his paper? How about everything
>> Galileo said about inertial frames?
> 
> Well, Gallileo is certainly quotable. But without a quote, it wouldn't 
> be possible to know, whether Einstein meant Gallileo or not.
> 
> 
>>> Sure, 'the perspective of an unnamed observer' would make sense, but I
>>> cannot find such a statement in the text.
>>
>> It wasn't necessary. The first part of his kinematics section explains
>> the frame he is going to use.
> 
> 
> But "a coordinate system in which the equations of Newtons mechanics 
> hold good" does not contain " unnamed observer".

All locations in a frame can be considered observers, even if there is 
nothing observing there.

But that is irrelevant, as I was wrong. Einstein *does* mention the 
observer (actually plural) in this frame, in the fifth and sixth 
paragraph of § 1. Definition of Simultaneity.

> To fill the blanks would make things appear in a text, which simply are 
> not there. And it would make also different 'copies' possible, if 
> different readers fill the blanks differently.

Yet you agree that there is no need to define or prove such things as 
2+2=4, or what acceleration is or what Galileo said about inertial 
frames. You say you know he wrote the paper for an audience of 
physicists but seem to want to treat the audience as children.
> 
> 
> 
>>> Contrary to your view, Einstein gave the impression, that he wanted to
>>> measure velocity against a static and well defined universe.
>>
>> No, he didn't. He used the definition of an inertial frame without
>> boring his intended audience (not you) what an inertial frame was.
> 
> 
> Well, that's not a particularily boring question in the topic of 
> relativity.
> 
> But Einstein gave in fact a definition of the coordinate system called 
> 'stationary' and used that.
> 
> That is good enough, but would not define 'stationary' properly, because 
> Newton's equations are not restricted to absolutely stationary systems.

Nor was that needed. Einstein himself stated "stationary" was a NAME for 
the frame. Anyone familiar with Galileo knew there wasn't such a thing 
as an absolutely stationary frame.

This further shoots down your claim of infinite references, since the 
"stationary frame" is nothing more than an inertial frame NAMED "the 
stationary frame".
> 
>>> This was actually a self-contradicting statement, because Einstein
>>> also wrote, that Newton's absolute space would not exist.

True, but there's no contradiction with anything.
>>
>> Since he wasn't intending to measure any velocity "against a static
>> universe", this claim is irrelevant.
> 
> 
> Sure, but against what else did he want to measure 'stationary'?

Einstein said it was a NAME to distinguish it from other frames! Did you 
even read the paper? It's right there in the first paragraph of §1!

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

#600120 — Re: Kinetic Energy formula check - a series of short burn rockets, and see how the velocity adds up.

From	"Kevin Aylward" <kevinRemoveandReplaceATkevinaylward.co.uk>
Date	2023-01-23 20:49 +0000
Subject	Re: Kinetic Energy formula check - a series of short burn rockets, and see how the velocity adds up.
Message-ID	<fAadnQNrYrPib1P-nZ2dnZeNn_TNnZ2d@giganews.com>
In reply to	#599859





"Thomas Heger"  wrote in message news:k2sd92Fud77U1@mid.individual.net...

Am 18.01.2023 um 22:33 schrieb Volney:
> On 1/18/2023 3:22 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>> Am 17.01.2023 um 19:04 schrieb Volney:

>Contrary to your view, Einstein gave the impression, that he wanted to 
>measure velocity against a static and well defined universe.

>This was actually a self-contradicting statement, because Einstein also 
>wrote, that Newton's absolute space would not exist.

>This would require some specualtions about what else would replace Newton's 
>universe and 'the perspective of an unnamed observer' would be in fact an 
>option, but Einstein left that question to the reader.

>And I, as a reader, interpreted Einstein's statements, that he wanted to 
>refer to the universe in the sense of the space of fixed stars, but 
>erronously also declared that space for noexistent.

>This is self-contradicting, because that space of the fixed stars was also 
>Newton's 'absolute space', which Einstein said wouldn't exist.

Yep....

The fundamental basis of SR is that in a truly empty universe, X T and c 
exist and can be defined, such that equations can be written that describe 
physical reality.

This is trivially impossible.

Claiming that absolute time didn't exist, didnt  go far enough. An empty 
universe has no properties at all.

e.g:

https://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/gr/misc/Geometry&Relativity.html


https://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/gr/index.html - General Relativity
http://www.anasoft.co.uk/ SuperSpice Simulation
http://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/ee/index.html - Electronics

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

#600126 — Re: Kinetic Energy formula check - a series of short burn rockets, and see how the velocity adds up.

From	Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net>
Date	2023-01-23 15:43 -0600
Subject	Re: Kinetic Energy formula check - a series of short burn rockets, and see how the velocity adds up.
Message-ID	<qrOdncJfcfQHYlP-nZ2dnZfqlJxh4p2d@giganews.com>
In reply to	#600120

On 1/23/23 2:49 PM, Kevin Aylward wrote:
> The fundamental basis of SR is that in a truly empty universe, X T 
> and c exist and can be defined, such that equations can be written 
> that describe physical reality.

Hmmm. SR models a universe that is flat and empty, and CLEARLY not the
universe we inhabit. (Though it is a (3+1)-D universe, not just "X T and
c exist".)

No matter, as SR can be EXTREMELY useful -- it is the local limit of GR
(which has no such limitations). So SR is used to accurately model
experiments and physical situation in which its assumptions are
approximately valid. This includes every particle accelerator on the
planet, and every experiment in particle physics, etc.

> This is trivially impossible.

Nope. We do it all the time. It's just that SR does not model the
universe we inhabit, but can be very useful in appropriate physical
situations.

> [... further nonsense omitted]

Tom Roberts

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

#600143 — Re: Kinetic Energy formula check - a series of short burn rockets, and see how the velocity adds up.

From	Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com>
Date	2023-01-23 22:01 -0800
Subject	Re: Kinetic Energy formula check - a series of short burn rockets, and see how the velocity adds up.
Message-ID	<1f050ce4-504e-490a-a7ec-861323fab181n@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#600126

On Monday, 23 January 2023 at 22:44:01 UTC+1, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 1/23/23 2:49 PM, Kevin Aylward wrote: 
> > The fundamental basis of SR is that in a truly empty universe, X T 
> > and c exist and can be defined, such that equations can be written 
> > that describe physical reality.
> Hmmm. SR models a universe that is flat and empty, and CLEARLY not the 
> universe we inhabit. (Though it is a (3+1)-D universe, not just "X T and 
> c exist".) 
> 
> No matter, as SR can be EXTREMELY useful 

In the meantime in the real world, extremly useful GPS
keep measuring t'=t, just like all serious clocks always
did.

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

#600147 — Re: Kinetic Energy formula check - a series of short burn rockets, and see how the velocity adds up.

From	Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de>
Date	2023-01-24 08:53 +0100
Subject	Re: Kinetic Energy formula check - a series of short burn rockets, and see how the velocity adds up.
Message-ID	<k39h2uF1toqU1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to	#600126

Am 23.01.2023 um 22:43 schrieb Tom Roberts:
> On 1/23/23 2:49 PM, Kevin Aylward wrote:
>> The fundamental basis of SR is that in a truly empty universe, X T and
>> c exist and can be defined, such that equations can be written that
>> describe physical reality.
>
> Hmmm. SR models a universe that is flat and empty, and CLEARLY not the
> universe we inhabit. (Though it is a (3+1)-D universe, not just "X T and
> c exist".)
>
> No matter, as SR can be EXTREMELY useful -- it is the local limit of GR
> (which has no such limitations). So SR is used to accurately model
> experiments and physical situation in which its assumptions are
> approximately valid. This includes every particle accelerator on the
> planet, and every experiment in particle physics, etc.


I would say, that SR is simply wrong and based on faulty concepts.

It is also not the local limit to GR, but was based on wrong 
cosmological concepts and bad math.

Whether GR is much better, I cannot say, but assume it is.

...

TH

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

#600149 — Re: Kinetic Energy formula check - a series of short burn rockets, and see how the velocity adds up.

From	Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com>
Date	2023-01-24 00:27 -0800
Subject	Re: Kinetic Energy formula check - a series of short burn rockets, and see how the velocity adds up.
Message-ID	<a33fc3fe-ad56-42dc-82c5-b6bddf95e396n@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#600147

On Tuesday, 24 January 2023 at 08:53:05 UTC+1, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 23.01.2023 um 22:43 schrieb Tom Roberts: 
> > On 1/23/23 2:49 PM, Kevin Aylward wrote: 
> >> The fundamental basis of SR is that in a truly empty universe, X T and 
> >> c exist and can be defined, such that equations can be written that 
> >> describe physical reality. 
> > 
> > Hmmm. SR models a universe that is flat and empty, and CLEARLY not the 
> > universe we inhabit. (Though it is a (3+1)-D universe, not just "X T and 
> > c exist".) 
> > 
> > No matter, as SR can be EXTREMELY useful -- it is the local limit of GR 
> > (which has no such limitations). So SR is used to accurately model 
> > experiments and physical situation in which its assumptions are 
> > approximately valid. This includes every particle accelerator on the 
> > planet, and every experiment in particle physics, etc.
> I would say, that SR is simply wrong and based on faulty concepts. 

SR is - simply - stupid. Some morons have imagined, 
that it's enough they announce the revolution in
timecounting -  and everyone will obey and  start to 
count time like they want.
The real world don't work like that.

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

#600236 — Re: Kinetic Energy formula check - a series of short burn rockets, and see how the velocity adds up.

From	Faustino Biondo <uinn@bfotboia.nt>
Date	2023-01-25 19:19 +0000
Subject	Re: Kinetic Energy formula check - a series of short burn rockets, and see how the velocity adds up.
Message-ID	<tqrvb4$pbsa$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to	#600147

Thomas Heger wrote:

> Am 23.01.2023 um 22:43 schrieb Tom Roberts:
>> N̶o̶ m̶a̶t̶t̶e̶r̶, a̶s̶ S̶R̶ c̶a̶n̶ b̶e̶ E̶X̶T̶R̶E̶M̶E̶L̶Y̶ u̶s̶e̶f̶u̶l̶ -- i̶t̶ i̶s̶ t̶h̶e̶ l̶o̶c̶a̶l̶ l̶i̶m̶i̶t̶ o̶f̶ G̶R̶
>> (w̶h̶i̶c̶h̶ h̶a̶s̶ n̶o̶ s̶u̶c̶h̶ l̶i̶m̶i̶t̶a̶t̶i̶o̶n̶s̶). So SR is used to accurately model
>> experiments and physical situation in which its assumptions are
>> approximately valid. This includes every particle accelerator on the
>> planet, and every experiment in particle physics, etc.

idiot. SR has nothing to do with GR. Different domains and everything. You 
don't understand the math behind.

> I would say, that SR is simply wrong and based on faulty concepts.
> It is also not the local limit to GR, but was based on wrong
> cosmological concepts and bad math.
> Whether GR is much better, I cannot say, but assume it is.

fascist cacamerica putted again at war gearmony with Russia. One more 
time. For the reason Russia gave then energy for industry too cheap. The 
gearmons don't masticate energy sold too cheap.

Germany */_‘at_war’_/* with Russia – FM 
https://%72%74.com/news/570469-germany-war-russia-baerbock/
Annalena Baerbock made the admission in a debate with EU colleagues, 
pushing for the delivery of tanks to Kiev 

this is what happens letting *_an_ugly_braindead_bitch_* representing a 
country. This kind of bitches thinks the world goes through their vagina.

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

#600282 — Re: Kinetic Energy formula check - a series of short burn rockets, and see how the velocity adds up.

From	Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de>
Date	2023-01-26 09:53 +0100
Subject	Re: Kinetic Energy formula check - a series of short burn rockets, and see how the velocity adds up.
Message-ID	<k3etc4F95rbU1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to	#600236

Am 25.01.2023 um 20:19 schrieb Faustino Biondo:
> Thomas Heger wrote:
>
>> Am 23.01.2023 um 22:43 schrieb Tom Roberts:
>>> N̶o̶ m̶a̶t̶t̶e̶r̶, a̶s̶ S̶R̶ c̶a̶n̶ b̶e̶ E̶X̶T̶R̶E̶M̶E̶L̶Y̶ u̶s̶e̶f̶u̶l̶ -- i̶t̶ i̶s̶ t̶h̶e̶ l̶o̶c̶a̶l̶ l̶i̶m̶i̶t̶ o̶f̶ G̶R̶
>>> (w̶h̶i̶c̶h̶ h̶a̶s̶ n̶o̶ s̶u̶c̶h̶ l̶i̶m̶i̶t̶a̶t̶i̶o̶n̶s̶). So SR is used to accurately model
>>> experiments and physical situation in which its assumptions are
>>> approximately valid. This includes every particle accelerator on the
>>> planet, and every experiment in particle physics, etc.
>
> idiot. SR has nothing to do with GR. Different domains and everything. You
> don't understand the math behind.
>
>> I would say, that SR is simply wrong and based on faulty concepts.
>> It is also not the local limit to GR, but was based on wrong
>> cosmological concepts and bad math.
>> Whether GR is much better, I cannot say, but assume it is.
>
> fascist cacamerica putted again at war gearmony with Russia. One more
> time. For the reason Russia gave then energy for industry too cheap. The
> gearmons don't masticate energy sold too cheap.

Germans don't like the conflict and are totally against a war with Russia.

It's not really a question about energy sources and not even about the 
Ukraine.

Germans had several conflicts with Russia which all turned out to be 
extremely desasterous.

We Germans had the hope of good neighborhood with Russia and possible 
cooperations in fields, where that is possible.

Russians and Germans are also relatively close 'relatives' in ethnicity 
and culture.

Ukraine in contrast has rather low reputation in Europe and ranks 
somewhat below Albania in respect to political culture and safety of the 
population.

We Germans also don't want any part of Ukraine and nothing of its resources.

It's simply not our war and we hope the best this madness will stop soon.

TH

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

#600283 — Re: Kinetic Energy formula check - a series of short burn rockets, and see how the velocity adds up.

From	Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com>
Date	2023-01-26 02:36 -0800
Subject	Re: Kinetic Energy formula check - a series of short burn rockets, and see how the velocity adds up.
Message-ID	<d4d161a5-fcc3-4c3c-9ad9-5599b6c19d8en@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#600282

On Thursday, 26 January 2023 at 09:53:28 UTC+1, Thomas Heger wrote:

> Ukraine in contrast has rather low reputation in Europe and ranks 
> somewhat below Albania in respect to political culture and safety of the 
> population. 

The safety of the Ukrainian population is
rather low now, under Russian bombs, indeed. 
But I still esteem  their political culture much, 
much more  than Putin's.

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

#600308 — Re: Kinetic Energy formula check - a series of short burn rockets, and see how the velocity adds up.

From	Baldomero De filippis <ppbo@ibsldimp.sn>
Date	2023-01-26 21:36 +0000
Subject	Re: Kinetic Energy formula check - a series of short burn rockets, and see how the velocity adds up.
Message-ID	<tqurpd$1bij0$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to	#600283

Maciej Wozniak wrote: 
> On Thursday, 26 January 2023 at 09:53:28 UTC+1, Thomas Heger wrote:
>> Ukraine in contrast has rather low reputation in Europe and ranks
>> somewhat below Albania in respect to political culture and safety of
>> the population.
> 
> T̶h̶e̶ s̶a̶f̶e̶t̶y̶ o̶f̶ t̶h̶e̶ U̶k̶r̶a̶i̶n̶i̶a̶n̶ p̶o̶p̶u̶l̶a̶t̶i̶o̶n̶ i̶s̶ r̶a̶t̶h̶e̶r̶ l̶o̶w̶ n̶o̶w̶, u̶n̶d̶e̶r̶ R̶u̶s̶s̶i̶a̶n̶
> b̶o̶m̶b̶s̶, i̶n̶d̶e̶e̶d̶. B̶u̶t̶ I̶ s̶t̶i̶l̶l̶ e̶s̶t̶e̶e̶m̶  t̶h̶e̶i̶r̶ p̶o̶l̶i̶t̶i̶c̶a̶l̶ c̶u̶l̶t̶u̶r̶e̶ m̶u̶c̶h̶,
> m̶u̶c̶h̶ m̶o̶r̶e̶  t̶h̶a̶n̶ P̶u̶t̶i̶n̶'s̶.

what population, you fucking idiot. The nazi uKraine is a big business for 
the */_khazar_zelenske__/*and khazar *_bidan_clan_family_*. It's all about 
the business. The fools cannon fodder are dying for the stinking braindead 
khazar cocaine zelenske, you disgusting subhuman excrement. Siberia is 
waiting for you, the rest of your stinking polak life.

Zelensky Admits: “Ukraine War Is Good For Business!”
https://youtu.be/NtEglfF8030

Arestovich Admits Russia's First Phase Was Deliberately ＂Soft＂ - Didn't 
Want To Hurt Many People
https://%62%69%74%63%68%75%74%65.com/%76%69%64%65%6f/jWHYHthzz1AI

Now Fired - Arestovich Says He Can ＂Speak The Truth＂ - Ukraine Can't Win 
(LOL) 
https://%62%69%74%63%68%75%74%65.com/%76%69%64%65%6f/Wr8g4vdXgiwA

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

#600312 — Re: Kinetic Energy formula check - a series of short burn rockets, and see how the velocity adds up.

From	"Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com>
Date	2023-01-26 14:05 -0800
Subject	Re: Kinetic Energy formula check - a series of short burn rockets, and see how the velocity adds up.
Message-ID	<8fdb9d58-29e0-45c2-8310-58613c7ce411n@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#600282

On Thursday, January 26, 2023 at 12:53:28 AM UTC-8, Thomas Heger wrote:

> Russians and Germans are also relatively close 'relatives' in ethnicity 
> and culture. 

Yeah, you both are genocidal butchers.

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

#600313 — Re: Kinetic Energy formula check - a series of short burn rockets, and see how the velocity adds up.

From	Baldomero De filippis <ppbo@ibsldimp.sn>
Date	2023-01-26 22:20 +0000
Subject	Re: Kinetic Energy formula check - a series of short burn rockets, and see how the velocity adds up.
Message-ID	<tquuc3$1c2c2$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to	#600282

Thomas Heger wrote:

> Germans don't like the conflict and are t̶o̶t̶a̶l̶l̶y̶ a̶g̶a̶i̶n̶s̶t̶ a̶ w̶a̶r̶ w̶i̶t̶h̶
> R̶u̶s̶s̶i̶a̶. It's n̶o̶t̶ r̶e̶a̶l̶l̶y̶ a̶ q̶u̶e̶s̶t̶i̶o̶n̶ a̶b̶o̶u̶t̶ e̶n̶e̶r̶g̶y̶ s̶o̶u̶r̶c̶e̶s̶ and not even
> about the Ukraine. Germans had several conflicts with Russia which all
> turned out to be extremely desasterous. We Germans had the hope of good
> neighborhood with Russia and possible cooperations in fields, where that
> is possible. R̶u̶s̶s̶i̶a̶n̶s̶ a̶n̶d̶ G̶e̶r̶m̶a̶n̶s̶ a̶r̶e̶ a̶l̶s̶o̶ r̶e̶l̶a̶t̶i̶v̶e̶l̶y̶ c̶l̶o̶s̶e̶ 'r̶e̶l̶a̶t̶i̶v̶e̶s̶'
> in ethnicity and culture. Ukraine in contrast has rather low reputation
> in Europe and ranks somewhat below Albania in respect to political
> culture and safety of the population. We Germans also don't want any
> part of Ukraine and nothing of its resources. It's simply not our war
> and we hope the best this madness will stop soon.

how come "close relative" to Russians, when gearmons are anglo-saxon 
*_pigs_*, which just *_declared war to russia_*. You don't read the 
fucking news, idiot. Go read the news. And regime change your corrupt 
government. */_Now_/*.

Germany */_‘at_war’_/* with Russia – FM 
https://%72%74.com/news/570469-germany-war-russia-baerbock/

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

#600339 — Re: Kinetic Energy formula check - a series of short burn rockets, and see how the velocity adds up.

From	Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de>
Date	2023-01-27 08:08 +0100
Subject	Re: Kinetic Energy formula check - a series of short burn rockets, and see how the velocity adds up.
Message-ID	<k3hbk3FkkpoU1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to	#600313

Am 26.01.2023 um 23:20 schrieb Baldomero De filippis:
> Thomas Heger wrote:
>
>> Germans don't like the conflict and are t̶o̶t̶a̶l̶l̶y̶ a̶g̶a̶i̶n̶s̶t̶ a̶ w̶a̶r̶ w̶i̶t̶h̶
>> R̶u̶s̶s̶i̶a̶. It's n̶o̶t̶ r̶e̶a̶l̶l̶y̶ a̶ q̶u̶e̶s̶t̶i̶o̶n̶ a̶b̶o̶u̶t̶ e̶n̶e̶r̶g̶y̶ s̶o̶u̶r̶c̶e̶s̶ and not even
>> about the Ukraine. Germans had several conflicts with Russia which all
>> turned out to be extremely desasterous. We Germans had the hope of good
>> neighborhood with Russia and possible cooperations in fields, where that
>> is possible. R̶u̶s̶s̶i̶a̶n̶s̶ a̶n̶d̶ G̶e̶r̶m̶a̶n̶s̶ a̶r̶e̶ a̶l̶s̶o̶ r̶e̶l̶a̶t̶i̶v̶e̶l̶y̶ c̶l̶o̶s̶e̶ 'r̶e̶l̶a̶t̶i̶v̶e̶s̶'
>> in ethnicity and culture. Ukraine in contrast has rather low reputation
>> in Europe and ranks somewhat below Albania in respect to political
>> culture and safety of the population. We Germans also don't want any
>> part of Ukraine and nothing of its resources. It's simply not our war
>> and we hope the best this madness will stop soon.
>
> how come "close relative" to Russians, when gearmons are anglo-saxon
> *_pigs_*, which just *_declared war to russia_*. You don't read the
> fucking news, idiot. Go read the news. And regime change your corrupt
> government. */_Now_/*.
>
German is actually a language which was very widely spoken in former time.

The tribes called 'Germanes' by the Romans were actually Cimbern, 
Teutons and Anglo-Saxons, who all lived in what is today Denmark.

'Angeln' is a region in northern Germany, which belonged to Denmark 
until the so called 'Nordic War', when Prussia captured Schleswig from 
Denmark.

Saxons lived in a region called 'Niedersachsen' today (which belongs to 
current Germany).

But the former 'Germanes' of the Romans lived predominately in Denmark

Anhow: the poluplation of Germany is not particularily Germanic, but to 
a great extend Slavic.

(Already the similarity of the words 'Prussia' and 'Russia' should make 
you wonder.)

Other tribes in Germany were Kelts , Allemans, Frisians and several others.

So: the German population is a mixture of several different ethnic 
groups and not predominately blond or Germanic.

The language German was and is also spoken in several other countries 
(other than Germany) like in Austria, Swizerland, Russia, Rumania, Italy 
and so forth.

TH

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

#600378 — Re: Kinetic Energy formula check - a series of short burn rockets, and see how the velocity adds up.

From	Volney <volney@invalid.invalid>
Date	2023-01-27 20:23 -0500
Subject	Re: Kinetic Energy formula check - a series of short burn rockets, and see how the velocity adds up.
Message-ID	<tr1te5$1uadg$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to	#600339

On 1/27/2023 2:08 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 26.01.2023 um 23:20 schrieb Baldomero De filippis:
>> Thomas Heger wrote:
>>
>>> Germans don't like the conflict and are t̶o̶t̶a̶l̶l̶y̶ a̶g̶a̶i̶n̶s̶t̶ a̶ w̶a̶r̶ w̶i̶t̶h̶
>>> R̶u̶s̶s̶i̶a̶. It's n̶o̶t̶ r̶e̶a̶l̶l̶y̶ a̶ q̶u̶e̶s̶t̶i̶o̶n̶ a̶b̶o̶u̶t̶ e̶n̶e̶r̶g̶y̶ s̶o̶u̶r̶c̶e̶s̶ and not even
>>> about the Ukraine. Germans had several conflicts with Russia which all
>>> turned out to be extremely desasterous. We Germans had the hope of good
>>> neighborhood with Russia and possible cooperations in fields, where that
>>> is possible. R̶u̶s̶s̶i̶a̶n̶s̶ a̶n̶d̶ G̶e̶r̶m̶a̶n̶s̶ a̶r̶e̶ a̶l̶s̶o̶ r̶e̶l̶a̶t̶i̶v̶e̶l̶y̶ c̶l̶o̶s̶e̶ 'r̶e̶l̶a̶t̶i̶v̶e̶s̶'
>>> in ethnicity and culture. Ukraine in contrast has rather low reputation
>>> in Europe and ranks somewhat below Albania in respect to political
>>> culture and safety of the population. We Germans also don't want any
>>> part of Ukraine and nothing of its resources. It's simply not our war
>>> and we hope the best this madness will stop soon.
>>
>> how come "close relative" to Russians, when gearmons are anglo-saxon
>> *_pigs_*, which just *_declared war to russia_*. You don't read the
>> fucking news, idiot. Go read the news. And regime change your corrupt
>> government. */_Now_/*.
>>
> German is actually a language which was very widely spoken in former time.

Well the base language (which is not German) in the region eventually 
evolved into Norwegian, Swedish and some extinct ones, and into a branch 
which became the base for Low German and High German. Dutch and Old 
English are related to Low German. Modern German from High German. 
Slavic languages? No. Except both groups came from Indo-European. 
Ukrainian and Russian are East Slavic languages, Polish West Slavic, and 
I believe the former Yugoslavia area languages are called South Slavic.

> Anhow: the poluplation of Germany is not particularily Germanic, but to 
> a great extend Slavic.

Maybe in the east. Western Germans are substantially related to the 
French, and to a lesser extent, the English, as the Western European 
ethnic group.  There have been wars and population migration for 
centuries, so yes lots of mixing.
> 
> (Already the similarity of the words 'Prussia' and 'Russia' should make 
> you wonder.)

The words are not as close in most other languages. "Russia" came from 
the Kievan Rus, a people in what is now Ukraine and south Belarus, also 
called the Ruthenians. The Kievan Rus eventually spread into Muscovy (in 
western Russia). and founded Moscow. Muscovy eventually became very 
powerful while Kievan Rus declined, largely due to the Mongol invasion.

Prussia came from Pruss, the name the Lithuanian related people in that 
area called themselves. The Germans (Teutonic Knights) converted them to 
Christianity and largely wiped them out, so the area became German. (why 
does that sound familiar :-( ). I guess the Soviet-forced eviction of 
Germans from the area to be replaced by Polish and (in half of East 
Prussia) the Russians is "payback" not just for WW2 but that earlier period.

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

#600380 — Re: Kinetic Energy formula check - a series of short burn rockets, and see how the velocity adds up.

From	Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com>
Date	2023-01-27 22:42 -0800
Subject	Re: Kinetic Energy formula check - a series of short burn rockets, and see how the velocity adds up.
Message-ID	<d162a755-753d-4f73-bec0-d7dfa35187a9n@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#600339

On Friday, 27 January 2023 at 08:08:55 UTC+1, Thomas Heger wrote:

> (Already the similarity of the words 'Prussia' and 'Russia' should make 
> you wonder.) 

:))))) What?
Better wonder about the similliarity of English "sea"
and italian "si".

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

#600466 — Re: Kinetic Energy formula check - a series of short burn rockets, and see how the velocity adds up.

From	Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de>
Date	2023-01-30 07:26 +0100
Subject	Re: Kinetic Energy formula check - a series of short burn rockets, and see how the velocity adds up.
Message-ID	<k3p693FqrqsU1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to	#600380

Am 28.01.2023 um 07:42 schrieb Maciej Wozniak:
> On Friday, 27 January 2023 at 08:08:55 UTC+1, Thomas Heger wrote:
>
>> (Already the similarity of the words 'Prussia' and 'Russia' should make
>> you wonder.)
>
> :))))) What?
> Better wonder about the similliarity of English "sea"
> and italian "si".
>

The former Prussians were actually slavic tribes and came from East 
Prussia, what is a reagion next to Poland, Belarus and Lithuania.

How these people actually came to East prussia is a question. But 
possibly they came from the same source as the Kieva Rus, possibly a 
little north.

The Germans of that time were kind of aristocratic settlers and belonged 
to the so called 'Deutscher Orden', while the population of the region 
spoke kind of Polish.

And until Prussia was wiped from the map, the East-Prussians didn't 
speak proper German but something called 'water-polish'.

TH

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

#600315 — Re: Kinetic Energy formula check - a series of short burn rockets, and see how the velocity adds up.

From	Baldomero De filippis <ppbo@ibsldimp.sn>
Date	2023-01-26 22:34 +0000
Subject	Re: Kinetic Energy formula check - a series of short burn rockets, and see how the velocity adds up.
Message-ID	<tquv5n$1c2c2$2@dont-email.me>
In reply to	#600282

Thomas Heger wrote:

> W̶e̶ G̶e̶r̶m̶a̶n̶s̶ a̶l̶s̶o̶ d̶o̶n̶'t̶ w̶a̶n̶t̶ a̶n̶y̶ p̶a̶r̶t̶ o̶f̶ U̶k̶r̶a̶i̶n̶e̶ a̶n̶d̶ n̶o̶t̶h̶i̶n̶g̶ o̶f̶ i̶t̶s̶
> r̶e̶s̶o̶u̶r̶c̶e̶s̶. I̶t̶'s̶ s̶i̶m̶p̶l̶y̶ n̶o̶t̶ o̶u̶r̶ w̶a̶r̶ a̶n̶d̶ w̶e̶ h̶o̶p̶e̶ t̶h̶e̶ b̶e̶s̶t̶ t̶h̶i̶s̶ m̶a̶d̶n̶e̶s̶s̶
> w̶i̶l̶l̶ s̶t̶o̶p̶ s̶o̶o̶n̶.

that's why you tanks and military shit to kill for free?? Other countries pays in billions for rusted crap, your nazi brothers "uKrainia" gets it for free.

German Government Just Officially *_Declared_War_on_Russia_*
https://%6e%65%77%73%70%75%6e%63%68.com/german-government-just-officially-declared-war-on-russia/

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

#600338 — Re: Kinetic Energy formula check - a series of short burn rockets, and see how the velocity adds up.

From	Volney <volney@invalid.invalid>
Date	2023-01-27 01:53 -0500
Subject	Re: Kinetic Energy formula check - a series of short burn rockets, and see how the velocity adds up.
Message-ID	<tqvscd$1is26$5@dont-email.me>
In reply to	#600315

On 1/26/2023 5:34 PM, Baldomero De filippis wrote:
> Other countries pays in billions for rusted crap, your nazi brothers "uKrainia" gets it for free.

They shouldn't have spent billions buying rusted crap from Russia, 
should they. Now Russia gives the rusty WW2 rifles to their involuntary 
suicide squads, the "mobiks".

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

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 Next page →

csiph-web

Re: Kinetic Energy formula check - a series of short burn rockets, and see how the velocity adds up.

Contents

#599916 — Re: Kinetic Energy formula check - a series of short burn rockets, and see how the velocity adds up.

#600038 — Re: Kinetic Energy formula check - a series of short burn rockets, and see how the velocity adds up.

#600083 — Re: Kinetic Energy formula check - a series of short burn rockets, and see how the velocity adds up.

#600120 — Re: Kinetic Energy formula check - a series of short burn rockets, and see how the velocity adds up.

#600126 — Re: Kinetic Energy formula check - a series of short burn rockets, and see how the velocity adds up.

#600143 — Re: Kinetic Energy formula check - a series of short burn rockets, and see how the velocity adds up.

#600147 — Re: Kinetic Energy formula check - a series of short burn rockets, and see how the velocity adds up.

#600149 — Re: Kinetic Energy formula check - a series of short burn rockets, and see how the velocity adds up.

#600236 — Re: Kinetic Energy formula check - a series of short burn rockets, and see how the velocity adds up.

#600282 — Re: Kinetic Energy formula check - a series of short burn rockets, and see how the velocity adds up.

#600283 — Re: Kinetic Energy formula check - a series of short burn rockets, and see how the velocity adds up.

#600308 — Re: Kinetic Energy formula check - a series of short burn rockets, and see how the velocity adds up.

#600312 — Re: Kinetic Energy formula check - a series of short burn rockets, and see how the velocity adds up.

#600313 — Re: Kinetic Energy formula check - a series of short burn rockets, and see how the velocity adds up.

#600339 — Re: Kinetic Energy formula check - a series of short burn rockets, and see how the velocity adds up.

#600378 — Re: Kinetic Energy formula check - a series of short burn rockets, and see how the velocity adds up.

#600380 — Re: Kinetic Energy formula check - a series of short burn rockets, and see how the velocity adds up.

#600466 — Re: Kinetic Energy formula check - a series of short burn rockets, and see how the velocity adds up.

#600315 — Re: Kinetic Energy formula check - a series of short burn rockets, and see how the velocity adds up.

#600338 — Re: Kinetic Energy formula check - a series of short burn rockets, and see how the velocity adds up.