Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #665543 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2025-08-21 06:58 +0200 |
| Last post | 2025-08-24 08:13 +0200 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 201 — 33 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
The real measurements deny The Shit Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-08-21 06:58 +0200
Re: The real measurements deny The Shit "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-08-21 21:36 +0200
Re: The real measurements deny The Shit Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-08-21 19:39 +0000
Re: The real measurements deny The Shit Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-08-22 11:06 +0200
Re: The real measurements deny The Shit Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-08-22 16:07 +0000
Re: The real measurements deny The Shit Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-08-22 18:43 +0200
Re: The real measurements deny The Shit Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-08-22 16:50 +0000
Re: The real measurements deny The Shit Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-08-22 18:55 +0200
Re: The real measurements deny The Shit Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-08-21 23:32 +0200
Re: The real measurements deny The Shit "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-08-22 20:20 +0200
Re: The real measurements deny The Shit Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-08-22 20:58 +0200
Re: The real measurements deny The Shit Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-08-22 21:22 +0200
Re: The real measurements deny The Shit "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-08-23 22:33 +0200
Re: The real measurements deny The Shit Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-08-24 00:26 +0200
Re: The real measurements deny The Shit "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-08-24 23:18 +0200
Re: The real measurements deny The Shit Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-08-25 06:19 +0200
Re: The real measurements deny The Shit "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-08-25 21:36 +0200
Re: The real measurements deny The Shit Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-08-25 22:03 +0200
Re: The real measurements deny The Shit "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-08-26 10:53 +0200
Re: The real measurements deny The Shit Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-08-26 11:51 +0200
Re: The real measurements deny The Shit "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-08-27 12:00 +0200
Re: The real measurements deny The Shit Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-08-27 14:02 +0200
Re: The real measurements deny The Shit "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-08-28 19:54 +0200
Re: The real measurements deny The Shit Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-08-28 21:22 +0200
Re: The real measurements deny The Shit Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-08-28 20:09 +0000
Re: The real measurements deny The Shit Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-08-28 22:35 +0200
Re: The real measurements deny The Shit Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-08-28 20:44 +0000
Re: The real measurements deny The Shit Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-08-28 23:24 +0200
Re: The real measurements deny The Shit nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2025-08-29 20:41 +0200
Re: The real measurements deny The Shit Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-08-29 19:06 +0000
Re: The real measurements deny The Shit Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-08-30 08:30 +0200
Re: The real measurements deny The Shit Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-08-30 08:45 +0200
Re: The real measurements deny The Shit "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-08-29 14:52 +0200
Re: The real measurements deny The Shit Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-08-29 15:16 +0200
Re: The real measurements deny The Shit "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-08-30 11:56 +0200
Re: The real measurements deny The Shit Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-08-30 12:14 +0200
Re: The real measurements deny The Shit Tharon Turlapov <pv@llh.ru> - 2025-08-30 10:28 +0000
Re: The real measurements deny The Shit Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-08-30 12:49 +0200
Re: The real measurements deny The Shit Micha Wojewódka <iaek@oahdfewd.pl> - 2025-08-30 11:04 +0000
Re: The real measurements deny The Shit Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-08-30 14:23 +0200
Re: The real measurements deny The Shit Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-08-30 12:37 +0000
Re: The real measurements deny The Shit Joshawa Lécuyer <ucyr@asaa.fr> - 2025-08-30 12:51 +0000
Re: The real measurements deny The Shit Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-08-30 12:54 +0000
Re: The real measurements deny The Shit Daryel Chevalier <elri@rrdird.fr> - 2025-08-30 19:46 +0000
Re: The real measurements deny The Shit Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-08-30 15:02 +0200
Re: The real measurements deny The Shit Ulisez Walentowicz <at@letlizs.pl> - 2025-08-30 20:00 +0000
Re: The real measurements deny The Shit "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-08-31 14:14 +0200
Re: The real measurements deny The Shit Richard Hachel <rh@tiscali.fr> - 2025-08-31 12:46 +0000
Re: The real measurements deny The Shit Zackee Dovlatov <ozdvzc@taaddd.ru> - 2025-08-31 15:52 +0000
Re: The real measurements deny The Shit Richard Hachel <rh@tiscali.fr> - 2025-08-31 17:09 +0000
Re: The real measurements deny The Shit Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-08-31 14:50 +0200
Re: The real measurements deny The Shit Harless Eli Sokolowski <wklo@asslo.pl> - 2025-08-31 15:55 +0000
Re: The real measurements deny The Shit Richard Hachel <rh@tiscali.fr> - 2025-08-31 17:14 +0000
Re: The real measurements deny The Shit "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-08-31 20:37 +0200
Re: The real measurements deny The Shit Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-08-31 21:11 +0200
Re: The real measurements deny The Shit "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-08-31 12:02 -0700
Re: The real measurements deny The Shit Orren Halapkhaev <vla@vnara.ru> - 2025-08-31 19:11 +0000
Re: The real measurements deny The Shit "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-08-31 12:16 -0700
Re: The real measurements deny The Shit "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-08-31 12:54 +0200
Re: The real measurements deny The Shit Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-08-31 13:38 +0200
Re: The real measurements deny The Shit "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-08-31 19:49 +0200
Re: The real measurements deny The Shit Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-08-31 20:06 +0200
Re: The real measurements deny The Shit "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-08-31 21:03 +0200
Re: The real measurements deny The Shit Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-08-31 21:17 +0200
Re: The real measurements deny The Shit Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-01 08:54 +0200
Re: The real measurements deny The Shit "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-09-01 21:13 +0200
Re: The real measurements deny The Shit Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-01 22:40 +0200
Re: The real measurements deny The Shit Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-02 07:40 +0200
Re: The real measurements deny The Shit Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-02 08:03 +0200
Re: The real measurements deny The Shit Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-02 10:15 +0200
Re: The real measurements deny The Shit Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-02 19:27 +0200
Re: The real measurements deny The Shit "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-09-02 22:02 +0200
Re: The real measurements deny The Shit Eudaldo Kabaloev <kouu@oeoev.ru> - 2025-09-02 20:22 +0000
Re: The real measurements deny The Shit Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-02 23:07 +0200
Re: The real measurements deny The Shit "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-09-03 15:53 +0200
Re: The real measurements deny The Shit Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-03 16:45 +0200
Re: The real measurements deny The Shit "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-09-04 22:31 +0200
Re: The real measurements deny The Shit Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-04 23:11 +0200
Re: The real measurements deny The Shit Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-09-04 22:02 +0000
Re: The real measurements deny The Shit Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-05 07:06 +0200
Re: The real measurements deny The Shit "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-09-05 11:25 +0200
Re: The real measurements deny The Shit Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-05 12:38 +0200
Re: The real measurements deny The Shit "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-09-06 21:59 +0200
Re: The real measurements deny The Shit Wilber Mihalev <wilva@birli.ru> - 2025-09-06 21:06 +0000
Re: The real measurements deny The Shit Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-06 23:12 +0200
Re: The real measurements deny The Shit "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-09-07 20:26 +0200
Re: The real measurements deny The Shit nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2025-09-03 14:10 +0200
Re: The real measurements deny The Shit Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-03 14:33 +0200
Re: The real measurements deny The Shit Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-03 14:47 +0200
Re: The real measurements deny The Shit Alan Zdunowski <lzwski@uduawwi.pl> - 2025-09-03 12:52 +0000
Re: The real measurements deny The Shit nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2025-09-03 21:03 +0200
Re: The real measurements deny The Shit Bernabe Jaskulski <ae@ae.pl> - 2025-09-03 20:10 +0000
Re: The real measurements deny The Shit nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2025-09-04 22:38 +0200
Re: The real measurements deny The Shit "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-09-04 20:03 +0200
Re: The real measurements deny The Shit Douglas Bazhaev <lughv@ao.ru> - 2025-09-04 18:15 +0000
Re: The real measurements deny The Shit Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-04 20:32 +0200
Re: The real measurements deny The Shit "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-09-05 10:16 +0200
Re: The real measurements deny The Shit Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-05 11:02 +0200
Re: The real measurements deny The Shit "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-09-06 20:07 +0200
Re: The real measurements deny The Shit Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-06 20:35 +0200
Re: The real measurements deny The Shit Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-09-06 18:46 +0000
Re: The real measurements deny The Shit Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-06 21:00 +0200
Re: The real measurements deny The Shit Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-09-06 19:07 +0000
Re: The real measurements deny The Shit Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-06 21:24 +0200
Re: The real measurements deny The Shit Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-09-06 19:25 +0000
Re: The real measurements deny The Shit Jhon Kabulov <hv@jvlnuu.ru> - 2025-09-06 20:48 +0000
Re: The real measurements deny The Shit Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-06 23:15 +0200
Re: The real measurements deny The Shit Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-09-07 08:19 +0000
Re: The real measurements deny The Shit Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-07 11:00 +0200
Re: The real measurements deny The Shit Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-09-07 10:55 +0000
Re: The real measurements deny The Shit Teobaldo Szczepanski <aznpic@lndsisde.pl> - 2025-09-07 11:27 +0000
Re: The real measurements deny The Shit Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-09-07 12:01 +0000
Re: The real measurements deny The Shit Javier Poingdestre <vjdjra@ned.fr> - 2025-09-08 07:36 +0000
Re: The real measurements deny The Shit Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-09-08 09:13 +0000
Re: The real measurements deny The Shit Merlin Lebeau <bemnla@reera.fr> - 2025-09-08 10:14 +0000
Re: The real measurements deny The Shit Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-09-08 17:04 +0000
Re: The real measurements deny The Shit Kalob Lévêque <lk@vujl.fr> - 2025-09-09 15:50 +0000
Re: The real measurements deny The Shit Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-07 14:46 +0200
Re: The real measurements deny The Shit "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-09-06 22:21 +0200
Re: The real measurements deny The Shit Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-06 23:18 +0200
Re: The real measurements deny The Shit "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-09-07 20:26 +0200
Re: The real measurements deny The Shit Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-07 21:30 +0200
Re: The real measurements deny The Shit Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-09-07 20:15 +0000
Re: The real measurements deny The Shit Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-07 22:34 +0200
Re: The real measurements deny The Shit Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-09-07 20:38 +0000
Re: The real measurements deny The Shit Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-07 22:58 +0200
Re: The real measurements deny The Shit "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-09-08 14:44 +0200
Re: The real measurements deny The Shit Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-08 14:51 +0200
Re: The real measurements deny The Shit Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-09-08 14:03 +0000
Re: The real measurements deny The Shit Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-08 17:01 +0200
Re: The real measurements deny The Shit Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-09-08 16:23 +0000
Re: The real measurements deny The Shit Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-08 19:13 +0200
Re: The real measurements deny The Shit Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-09-08 17:18 +0000
Re: The real measurements deny The Shit Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-08 19:44 +0200
Re: The real measurements deny The Shit "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-09-08 22:27 +0200
Re: The real measurements deny The Shit Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-08 22:31 +0200
Re: The real measurements deny The Shit nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2025-09-07 13:30 +0200
Re: The real measurements deny The Shit Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-09-09 09:07 +0200
Re: The real measurements deny The Shit Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-09 09:49 +0200
Re: The real measurements deny The Shit Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-09-10 11:02 +0200
Re: The real measurements deny The Shit Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-09-10 10:38 +0000
Re: The real measurements deny The Shit Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-10 12:48 +0200
Re: The real measurements deny The Shit Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-09-12 07:59 +0200
Re: The real measurements deny The Shit Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-09-12 05:58 +0000
Re: The real measurements deny The Shit Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-09-13 08:41 +0200
Re: The real measurements deny The Shit Eniel Babadei <aali@eeid.ru> - 2025-09-09 09:01 +0000
Re: The real measurements deny The Shit HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2025-09-08 11:05 +0000
Re: The real measurements deny The Shit Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-08 14:19 +0200
Re: The real measurements deny The Shit "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-09-08 21:53 +0200
Re: The real measurements deny The Shit HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2025-09-08 23:49 +0000
Re: The real measurements deny The Shit "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-09-09 10:37 +0200
Re: The real measurements deny The Shit Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-09 10:39 +0200
Re: The real measurements deny The Shit HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2025-09-09 11:22 +0000
Re: The real measurements deny The Shit "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-09-09 22:53 +0200
Re: The real measurements deny The Shit Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-10 06:45 +0200
Re: The real measurements deny The Shit "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-09-10 22:09 +0200
Re: The real measurements deny The Shit Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-09-10 20:38 +0000
Re: The real measurements deny The Shit Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-11 07:10 +0200
Re: The real measurements deny The Shit Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-11 07:09 +0200
Re: The real measurements deny The Shit "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-09-11 19:16 +0200
Re: The real measurements deny The Shit Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-11 19:58 +0200
Re: The real measurements deny The Shit "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-09-12 11:31 +0200
Re: The real measurements deny The Shit Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-12 12:44 +0200
Re: The real measurements deny The Shit "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-09-12 14:00 +0200
Re: The real measurements deny The Shit Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-12 14:13 +0200
Re: The real measurements deny The Shit "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-09-13 12:51 +0200
Re: The real measurements deny The Shit Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-13 12:57 +0200
Re: The real measurements deny The Shit Jamie Kabisha <jsbaj@jiaaa.ru> - 2025-09-10 12:26 +0000
Re: The real measurements deny The Shit nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2025-09-08 23:32 +0200
Re: The real measurements deny The Shit HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2025-09-08 23:55 +0000
Re: The real measurements deny The Shit Simei Wojewódzki <ze@zeizy.pl> - 2025-08-31 19:07 +0000
Re: The real measurements deny The Shit Evan Marchuk <va@ar.ru> - 2025-08-28 21:02 +0000
Re: The real measurements deny The Shit Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-08-25 22:24 +0200
Re: The real measurements deny The Shit Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-08-25 22:31 +0200
Re: The real measurements deny The Shit "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-08-23 22:15 +0200
Re: The real measurements deny The Shit Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-08-24 00:29 +0200
Re: The real measurements deny The Shit "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-08-24 23:44 +0200
Re: The real measurements deny The Shit Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-08-24 22:41 +0000
Re: The real measurements deny The Shit Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-08-25 06:33 +0200
Re: The real measurements deny The Shit Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-08-25 06:37 +0200
Re: The real measurements deny The Shit "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-08-25 22:05 +0200
Re: The real measurements deny The Shit Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-08-22 08:56 +0200
Re: The real measurements deny The Shit nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2025-08-22 10:13 +0200
Re: The real measurements deny The Shit Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-08-22 11:04 +0200
Re: The real measurements deny The Shit "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-08-22 19:28 +0200
Re: The real measurements deny The Shit Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-08-22 19:44 +0200
Re: The real measurements deny The Shit "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-08-22 20:41 +0200
Re: The real measurements deny The Shit Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-08-22 20:55 +0200
Re: The real measurements deny The Shit "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-08-23 20:53 +0200
Re: The real measurements deny The Shit Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-08-24 00:08 +0200
Re: The real measurements deny The Shit nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2025-08-22 20:53 +0200
Re: The real measurements deny The Shit Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-08-22 21:10 +0200
Re: The real measurements deny The Shit "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-08-23 20:30 +0200
Re: The real measurements deny The Shit nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2025-08-26 21:02 +0200
Re: The real measurements deny The Shit "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-08-27 14:28 +0200
Re: The real measurements deny The Shit nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2025-08-27 21:14 +0200
Re: The real measurements deny The Shit Lazaro Wojewódka <jole@lqae.pl> - 2025-08-27 19:37 +0000
Re: The real measurements deny The Shit "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-08-28 09:57 +0200
Re: The real measurements deny The Shit nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2025-08-28 22:55 +0200
Re: The real measurements deny The Shit Chadwick Wojewódzki <ik@zwij.pl> - 2025-08-28 21:16 +0000
Re: The real measurements deny The Shit Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-08-24 08:13 +0200
Page 7 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 5 6 [7] 8 9 … 11 Next page →
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-07 20:26 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <D6kvQ.9604$fCH2.9310@fx18.ams4> |
| In reply to | #665814 |
Den 06.09.2025 23:18, skrev Maciej Woźniak:
>>> On 9/6/2025 8:07 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>>>> Den 05.09.2025 11:02, skrev Maciej Woźniak:
>>>>> Do you expect an idiot
>>>>> babbling about invalidity of basic math
>>>>> to really stop applying basic math?
>>>> I was expecting a mathematically illiterate idiot to babble
>>>> that GR doesn't predict gravitational deflection of light
>>>> even when the proof that it does is shoved into his face.
>>>>
>>>> My expectation was met.
I suppose the following is Maciej Woźniak
way of claiming that GR doesn't predict gravitational
deflection of light:
> The idiot has said that, so it's a
> proof that it's not a lie. The idiot could
> never lie!
> But he could and he did. His Shit is non
> euclidean and light is travelling straight/
> geodesic paths according to it.
>
So my expectation was met. Again!
---------------
I will yet again shove the proof that GR predicts
gravitational deflection into your face.
https://paulba.no/paper/Foundation_of_GR.pdf
In chapter
24.Behaviour of Rods and Clocks in the Static Gravitational
Field. Bending of Light-rays. Motion of the Perihelion of
a Planetary Orbit
We find on page 69;
"We examine the curvature undergone by a ray of light passing
by a mass M at the distance Δ. If we choose the system of
co-ordinates in agreement with the accompanying Figure 24.1,
the total bending of the ray (calculated positively if concave
towards the origin) is given in sufficient approximation by
. . . .
Carrying out the calculation, this gives B = 2α/Δ = κM/2πΔ
. . . .
According to this, a ray of light going past the sun
undergoes a deflexion of 1.7"
"
Now go take a shower.
You have what you call "His Shit" all over your face.
--
Paul, with his morbid sense of humour having fun
https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-07 21:30 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <186316dc925284e7$1389644$2911792$c2065a8b@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #665828 |
On 9/7/2025 8:26 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > Den 06.09.2025 23:18, skrev Maciej Woźniak: >>>> On 9/6/2025 8:07 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>>>> Den 05.09.2025 11:02, skrev Maciej Woźniak: > >>>>>> Do you expect an idiot >>>>>> babbling about invalidity of basic math >>>>>> to really stop applying basic math? > >>>>> I was expecting a mathematically illiterate idiot to babble >>>>> that GR doesn't predict gravitational deflection of light >>>>> even when the proof that it does is shoved into his face. >>>>> >>>>> My expectation was met. > > I suppose the following is Maciej Woźniak > way of claiming that GR doesn't predict gravitational > deflection of light: > >> The idiot has said that, so it's a >> proof that it's not a lie. The idiot could >> never lie! >> But he could and he did. His Shit is non >> euclidean and light is travelling straight/ >> geodesic paths according to it. >> > So my expectation was met. Again! > > --------------- > > I will yet again shove the proof that GR predicts > gravitational deflection into your face. > > https://paulba.no/paper/Foundation_of_GR.pdf > In chapter > 24.Behaviour of Rods and Clocks in the Static Gravitational > Field. Bending of Light-rays. Motion of the Perihelion of > a Planetary Orbit > > We find on page 69; That the idiot started the lie himself. Nothing more.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <jp@python.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-07 20:15 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <Tt_xad-bFqaPEASxOKm5jQw_Qjw@jntp> |
| In reply to | #665829 |
Le 07/09/2025 à 21:30, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : > On 9/7/2025 8:26 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> Den 06.09.2025 23:18, skrev Maciej Woźniak: >>>>> On 9/6/2025 8:07 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>>>>> Den 05.09.2025 11:02, skrev Maciej Woźniak: >> >>>>>>> Do you expect an idiot >>>>>>> babbling about invalidity of basic math >>>>>>> to really stop applying basic math? >> >>>>>> I was expecting a mathematically illiterate idiot to babble >>>>>> that GR doesn't predict gravitational deflection of light >>>>>> even when the proof that it does is shoved into his face. >>>>>> >>>>>> My expectation was met. >> >> I suppose the following is Maciej Woźniak >> way of claiming that GR doesn't predict gravitational >> deflection of light: >> >>> The idiot has said that, so it's a >>> proof that it's not a lie. The idiot could >>> never lie! >>> But he could and he did. His Shit is non >>> euclidean and light is travelling straight/ >>> geodesic paths according to it. >>> >> So my expectation was met. Again! >> >> --------------- >> >> I will yet again shove the proof that GR predicts >> gravitational deflection into your face. > >> >> https://paulba.no/paper/Foundation_of_GR.pdf >> In chapter >> 24.Behaviour of Rods and Clocks in the Static Gravitational >> Field. Bending of Light-rays. Motion of the Perihelion of >> a Planetary Orbit >> >> We find on page 69; > > > That the idiot started the lie himself. How could you know? You admitted to be incompetent in math.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-07 22:34 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <18631a5b5896083e$7597173$2360894$c2565adb@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #665830 |
On 9/7/2025 10:15 PM, Python wrote: > Le 07/09/2025 à 21:30, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >> On 9/7/2025 8:26 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>> Den 06.09.2025 23:18, skrev Maciej Woźniak: >>>>>> On 9/6/2025 8:07 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>>>>>> Den 05.09.2025 11:02, skrev Maciej Woźniak: >>> >>>>>>>> Do you expect an idiot >>>>>>>> babbling about invalidity of basic math >>>>>>>> to really stop applying basic math? >>> >>>>>>> I was expecting a mathematically illiterate idiot to babble >>>>>>> that GR doesn't predict gravitational deflection of light >>>>>>> even when the proof that it does is shoved into his face. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> My expectation was met. >>> >>> I suppose the following is Maciej Woźniak >>> way of claiming that GR doesn't predict gravitational >>> deflection of light: >>> >>>> The idiot has said that, so it's a >>>> proof that it's not a lie. The idiot could >>>> never lie! >>>> But he could and he did. His Shit is non >>>> euclidean and light is travelling straight/ >>>> geodesic paths according to it. >>>> >>> So my expectation was met. Again! >>> >>> --------------- >>> >>> I will yet again shove the proof that GR predicts >>> gravitational deflection into your face. >> >>> >>> https://paulba.no/paper/Foundation_of_GR.pdf >>> In chapter >>> 24.Behaviour of Rods and Clocks in the Static Gravitational >>> Field. Bending of Light-rays. Motion of the Perihelion of >>> a Planetary Orbit >>> >>> We find on page 69; >> >> >> That the idiot started the lie himself. > > How could you know? You admitted to be incompetent in math. No, poor stinker, I didn't, you're slandering like always. BTW, if path of light in vacuum isn't a straight/ geodesic line according to The Shit - what is a straight/geodesic line in space [not spacetime, spacetime is a smokescreen of no significance] according to The Shit? I've asked you this question several times already. Still no answer, poor stinker? Of course.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <jp@python.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-07 20:38 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <DfYbEv-WVbaNq73tBJ9dAy19Q4c@jntp> |
| In reply to | #665831 |
Le 07/09/2025 à 22:34, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : > On 9/7/2025 10:15 PM, Python wrote: >> Le 07/09/2025 à 21:30, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>> On 9/7/2025 8:26 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>>> Den 06.09.2025 23:18, skrev Maciej Woźniak: >>>>>>> On 9/6/2025 8:07 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>>>>>>> Den 05.09.2025 11:02, skrev Maciej Woźniak: >>>> >>>>>>>>> Do you expect an idiot >>>>>>>>> babbling about invalidity of basic math >>>>>>>>> to really stop applying basic math? >>>> >>>>>>>> I was expecting a mathematically illiterate idiot to babble >>>>>>>> that GR doesn't predict gravitational deflection of light >>>>>>>> even when the proof that it does is shoved into his face. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> My expectation was met. >>>> >>>> I suppose the following is Maciej Woźniak >>>> way of claiming that GR doesn't predict gravitational >>>> deflection of light: >>>> >>>>> The idiot has said that, so it's a >>>>> proof that it's not a lie. The idiot could >>>>> never lie! >>>>> But he could and he did. His Shit is non >>>>> euclidean and light is travelling straight/ >>>>> geodesic paths according to it. >>>>> >>>> So my expectation was met. Again! >>>> >>>> --------------- >>>> >>>> I will yet again shove the proof that GR predicts >>>> gravitational deflection into your face. >>> >>>> >>>> https://paulba.no/paper/Foundation_of_GR.pdf >>>> In chapter >>>> 24.Behaviour of Rods and Clocks in the Static Gravitational >>>> Field. Bending of Light-rays. Motion of the Perihelion of >>>> a Planetary Orbit >>>> >>>> We find on page 69; >>> >>> >>> That the idiot started the lie himself. >> >> How could you know? You admitted to be incompetent in math. > > No You did, and prove it then: > [not spacetime, > spacetime is a smokescreen of no significance] 🙄🙄😂😄😁👽
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-07 22:58 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <18631ba9d733199f$1487221$2911792$c2065a8b@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #665832 |
On 9/7/2025 10:38 PM, Python wrote: > Le 07/09/2025 à 22:34, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >> On 9/7/2025 10:15 PM, Python wrote: >>> Le 07/09/2025 à 21:30, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>> On 9/7/2025 8:26 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>>>> Den 06.09.2025 23:18, skrev Maciej Woźniak: >>>>>>>> On 9/6/2025 8:07 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>>>>>>>> Den 05.09.2025 11:02, skrev Maciej Woźniak: >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Do you expect an idiot >>>>>>>>>> babbling about invalidity of basic math >>>>>>>>>> to really stop applying basic math? >>>>> >>>>>>>>> I was expecting a mathematically illiterate idiot to babble >>>>>>>>> that GR doesn't predict gravitational deflection of light >>>>>>>>> even when the proof that it does is shoved into his face. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> My expectation was met. >>>>> >>>>> I suppose the following is Maciej Woźniak >>>>> way of claiming that GR doesn't predict gravitational >>>>> deflection of light: >>>>> >>>>>> The idiot has said that, so it's a >>>>>> proof that it's not a lie. The idiot could >>>>>> never lie! >>>>>> But he could and he did. His Shit is non >>>>>> euclidean and light is travelling straight/ >>>>>> geodesic paths according to it. >>>>>> >>>>> So my expectation was met. Again! >>>>> >>>>> --------------- >>>>> >>>>> I will yet again shove the proof that GR predicts >>>>> gravitational deflection into your face. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> https://paulba.no/paper/Foundation_of_GR.pdf >>>>> In chapter >>>>> 24.Behaviour of Rods and Clocks in the Static Gravitational >>>>> Field. Bending of Light-rays. Motion of the Perihelion of >>>>> a Planetary Orbit >>>>> >>>>> We find on page 69; >>>> >>>> >>>> That the idiot started the lie himself. >>> >>> How could you know? You admitted to be incompetent in math. >> >> No > > You did, and prove it then: No I didn't. > > >> [not spacetime, >> spacetime is a smokescreen of no significance] > > 🙄🙄😂😄😁👽 Oh, it's a common trick, well known by charlatans of all kind: using long words of unknown provenience is making you looking wiser. Of course, still no answer to my question. No surprise.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-08 14:44 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <RbAvQ.6102$hzI.4898@fx02.ams4> |
| In reply to | #665829 |
Den 07.09.2025 21:30, skrev Maciej Woźniak: > On 9/7/2025 8:26 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> >> I will yet again shove the proof that GR predicts >> gravitational deflection into your face. >> >> >> https://paulba.no/paper/Foundation_of_GR.pdf >> In chapter >> 24.Behaviour of Rods and Clocks in the Static Gravitational >> Field. Bending of Light-rays. Motion of the Perihelion of >> a Planetary Orbit >> >> We find on page 69; >> "We examine the curvature undergone by a ray of light passing >> by a mass M at the distance Δ. If we choose the system of >> co-ordinates in agreement with the accompanying Figure 24.1, >> the total bending of the ray (calculated positively if concave >> towards the origin) is given in sufficient approximation by >> . . . . >> Carrying out the calculation, this gives B = 2α/Δ = κM/2πΔ >> . . . . >> According to this, a ray of light going past the sun >> undergoes a deflexion of 1.7" >> " >> > > That the idiot started the lie himself. > Nothing more. > So when Einstein in his paper predicted gravitational deflection of light, he started the lie that gravitational deflection of light was predicted in his paper? :-D -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-08 14:51 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <18634fb149203891$56770$2472716$c2365abb@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #665842 |
On 9/8/2025 2:44 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > Den 07.09.2025 21:30, skrev Maciej Woźniak: >> On 9/7/2025 8:26 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > >>> >>> I will yet again shove the proof that GR predicts >>> gravitational deflection into your face. >>> >>> >>> https://paulba.no/paper/Foundation_of_GR.pdf >>> In chapter >>> 24.Behaviour of Rods and Clocks in the Static Gravitational >>> Field. Bending of Light-rays. Motion of the Perihelion of >>> a Planetary Orbit >>> >>> We find on page 69; >>> "We examine the curvature undergone by a ray of light passing >>> by a mass M at the distance Δ. If we choose the system of >>> co-ordinates in agreement with the accompanying Figure 24.1, >>> the total bending of the ray (calculated positively if concave >>> towards the origin) is given in sufficient approximation by >>> . . . . >>> Carrying out the calculation, this gives B = 2α/Δ = κM/2πΔ >>> . . . . >>> According to this, a ray of light going past the sun >>> undergoes a deflexion of 1.7" >>> " >>> > >> >> That the idiot started the lie himself. >> Nothing more. >> > > So when Einstein in his paper predicted gravitational > deflection of light, he started the lie that gravitational > deflection of light was predicted in his paper? :-D Right, poor trash. Well, he was an idiot, for sure he didn't quite understand the consequences of hid mad postulates too, but, anyway - that's how announcing basic math false must end. For your idiot guru and for his idiot worshippers, and for the people from "Alternative math" short film as well. >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <jp@python.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-08 14:03 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <xUiz70_RVGIRuMGQKCnfHpxeDiM@jntp> |
| In reply to | #665843 |
Le 08/09/2025 à 14:51, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : > On 9/8/2025 2:44 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> Den 07.09.2025 21:30, skrev Maciej Woźniak: >>> On 9/7/2025 8:26 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> >>>> >>>> I will yet again shove the proof that GR predicts >>>> gravitational deflection into your face. >>>> >>>> >>>> https://paulba.no/paper/Foundation_of_GR.pdf >>>> In chapter >>>> 24.Behaviour of Rods and Clocks in the Static Gravitational >>>> Field. Bending of Light-rays. Motion of the Perihelion of >>>> a Planetary Orbit >>>> >>>> We find on page 69; >>>> "We examine the curvature undergone by a ray of light passing >>>> by a mass M at the distance Δ. If we choose the system of >>>> co-ordinates in agreement with the accompanying Figure 24.1, >>>> the total bending of the ray (calculated positively if concave >>>> towards the origin) is given in sufficient approximation by >>>> . . . . >>>> Carrying out the calculation, this gives B = 2α/Δ = κM/2πΔ >>>> . . . . >>>> According to this, a ray of light going past the sun >>>> undergoes a deflexion of 1.7" >>>> " >>>> >> >>> >>> That the idiot started the lie himself. >>> Nothing more. >>> >> >> So when Einstein in his paper predicted gravitational >> deflection of light, he started the lie that gravitational >> deflection of light was predicted in his paper? :-D > > Right, poor trash. Well, he was an idiot, for > sure he didn't quite understand the consequences > of hid mad postulates too, but, anyway - that's > how announcing basic math false must end. For > your idiot guru and for his idiot worshippers, > and for the people from "Alternative math" short > film as well. Oh dear... The whole work of Einstein shows that he perfectly knew the subjects you are babbling about with ignorance, nonsense and insults. There is no "alternative math" btw :-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-08 17:01 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <186356cda97c95a7$7741553$2360894$c2565adb@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #665844 |
On 9/8/2025 4:03 PM, Python wrote: > Le 08/09/2025 à 14:51, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >> On 9/8/2025 2:44 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>> Den 07.09.2025 21:30, skrev Maciej Woźniak: >>>> On 9/7/2025 8:26 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>> >>>>> >>>>> I will yet again shove the proof that GR predicts >>>>> gravitational deflection into your face. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> https://paulba.no/paper/Foundation_of_GR.pdf >>>>> In chapter >>>>> 24.Behaviour of Rods and Clocks in the Static Gravitational >>>>> Field. Bending of Light-rays. Motion of the Perihelion of >>>>> a Planetary Orbit >>>>> >>>>> We find on page 69; >>>>> "We examine the curvature undergone by a ray of light passing >>>>> by a mass M at the distance Δ. If we choose the system of >>>>> co-ordinates in agreement with the accompanying Figure 24.1, >>>>> the total bending of the ray (calculated positively if concave >>>>> towards the origin) is given in sufficient approximation by >>>>> . . . . >>>>> Carrying out the calculation, this gives B = 2α/Δ = κM/2πΔ >>>>> . . . . >>>>> According to this, a ray of light going past the sun >>>>> undergoes a deflexion of 1.7" >>>>> " >>>>> >>> >>>> >>>> That the idiot started the lie himself. >>>> Nothing more. >>>> >>> >>> So when Einstein in his paper predicted gravitational >>> deflection of light, he started the lie that gravitational >>> deflection of light was predicted in his paper? :-D >> >> Right, poor trash. Well, he was an idiot, for >> sure he didn't quite understand the consequences >> of hid mad postulates too, but, anyway - that's >> how announcing basic math false must end. For >> your idiot guru and for his idiot worshippers, >> and for the people from "Alternative math" short >> film as well. > > Oh dear... The whole work of Einstein shows that he perfectly knew the > subjects you are babbling about with ignorance, nonsense and insults. Oh dear... The whole work of Einstein shows that he had no slightest clue about the subjects he was babbling with ignorance, nonsense and insults. > There is no "alternative math" btw :-) According to basic [euclidean] math - for any right triangle a^2+b^2=c^2 (where a,b - shorter sides, c - the longest one). According to the teachings of your bunch of idiots such statement is a) true, no right triangle without the property exists b) false, there are right triangles without the property ? Anyway, an idiot announcing that basic math doesn't apply and must be replaced by his pathetic fartings - is not going to admit voluntarily that his crap is unusable even for him and without Euclid he couldn't really make a single step. Thus, he's going to lie.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <jp@python.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-08 16:23 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <e7KYwIoNqmnp1q1dwDu_mQKDpqE@jntp> |
| In reply to | #665845 |
Le 08/09/2025 à 17:01, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : > On 9/8/2025 4:03 PM, Python wrote: >> Le 08/09/2025 à 14:51, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>> On 9/8/2025 2:44 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>>> Den 07.09.2025 21:30, skrev Maciej Woźniak: >>>>> On 9/7/2025 8:26 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I will yet again shove the proof that GR predicts >>>>>> gravitational deflection into your face. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> https://paulba.no/paper/Foundation_of_GR.pdf >>>>>> In chapter >>>>>> 24.Behaviour of Rods and Clocks in the Static Gravitational >>>>>> Field. Bending of Light-rays. Motion of the Perihelion of >>>>>> a Planetary Orbit >>>>>> >>>>>> We find on page 69; >>>>>> "We examine the curvature undergone by a ray of light passing >>>>>> by a mass M at the distance Δ. If we choose the system of >>>>>> co-ordinates in agreement with the accompanying Figure 24.1, >>>>>> the total bending of the ray (calculated positively if concave >>>>>> towards the origin) is given in sufficient approximation by >>>>>> . . . . >>>>>> Carrying out the calculation, this gives B = 2α/Δ = κM/2πΔ >>>>>> . . . . >>>>>> According to this, a ray of light going past the sun >>>>>> undergoes a deflexion of 1.7" >>>>>> " >>>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> That the idiot started the lie himself. >>>>> Nothing more. >>>>> >>>> >>>> So when Einstein in his paper predicted gravitational >>>> deflection of light, he started the lie that gravitational >>>> deflection of light was predicted in his paper? :-D >>> >>> Right, poor trash. Well, he was an idiot, for >>> sure he didn't quite understand the consequences >>> of hid mad postulates too, but, anyway - that's >>> how announcing basic math false must end. For >>> your idiot guru and for his idiot worshippers, >>> and for the people from "Alternative math" short >>> film as well. >> >> Oh dear... The whole work of Einstein shows that he perfectly knew the >> subjects you are babbling about with ignorance, nonsense and insults. > > Oh dear... The whole work of Einstein shows that he > had no slightest clue about the subjects he was > babbling with ignorance, nonsense and insults. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_notation https://www.chem.tamu.edu/rgroup/hughbanks/courses/102/slides/slides3_2.pdf https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser_science etc. Call me when you will have achieved a fraction of that :-) >> There is no "alternative math" btw :-) > > According to basic [euclidean] math - for any > right triangle a^2+b^2=c^2 (where a,b - shorter sides, > c - the longest one). According to the teachings of > your bunch of idiots such statement is > a) true, no right triangle without the property exists > b) false, there are right triangles without the property > ? > > Anyway, an idiot announcing that basic math doesn't > apply and must be replaced by his pathetic fartings - > is not going to admit voluntarily that his crap is > unusable even for him and without Euclid he couldn't > really make a single step. Thus, he's going to lie. https://www.reddit.com/r/math/comments/f6hzs6/is_there_a_generalization_of_riemannian_geometry/ It seems that "one of the best logician Humanity ever had" cannot grasp the concept of generalization :)))
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-08 19:13 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <18635dfcec42d1cf$201557$2472716$c2365abb@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #665846 |
On 9/8/2025 6:23 PM, Python wrote: > Le 08/09/2025 à 17:01, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >> On 9/8/2025 4:03 PM, Python wrote: >>> Le 08/09/2025 à 14:51, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>> On 9/8/2025 2:44 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>>>> Den 07.09.2025 21:30, skrev Maciej Woźniak: >>>>>> On 9/7/2025 8:26 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I will yet again shove the proof that GR predicts >>>>>>> gravitational deflection into your face. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> https://paulba.no/paper/Foundation_of_GR.pdf >>>>>>> In chapter >>>>>>> 24.Behaviour of Rods and Clocks in the Static Gravitational >>>>>>> Field. Bending of Light-rays. Motion of the Perihelion of >>>>>>> a Planetary Orbit >>>>>>> >>>>>>> We find on page 69; >>>>>>> "We examine the curvature undergone by a ray of light passing >>>>>>> by a mass M at the distance Δ. If we choose the system of >>>>>>> co-ordinates in agreement with the accompanying Figure 24.1, >>>>>>> the total bending of the ray (calculated positively if concave >>>>>>> towards the origin) is given in sufficient approximation by >>>>>>> . . . . >>>>>>> Carrying out the calculation, this gives B = 2α/Δ = κM/2πΔ >>>>>>> . . . . >>>>>>> According to this, a ray of light going past the sun >>>>>>> undergoes a deflexion of 1.7" >>>>>>> " >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> That the idiot started the lie himself. >>>>>> Nothing more. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> So when Einstein in his paper predicted gravitational >>>>> deflection of light, he started the lie that gravitational >>>>> deflection of light was predicted in his paper? :-D >>>> >>>> Right, poor trash. Well, he was an idiot, for >>>> sure he didn't quite understand the consequences >>>> of hid mad postulates too, but, anyway - that's >>>> how announcing basic math false must end. For >>>> your idiot guru and for his idiot worshippers, >>>> and for the people from "Alternative math" short >>>> film as well. >>> >>> Oh dear... The whole work of Einstein shows that he perfectly knew >>> the subjects you are babbling about with ignorance, nonsense and >>> insults. >> >> Oh dear... The whole work of Einstein shows that he >> had no slightest clue about the subjects he was >> babbling with ignorance, nonsense and insults. > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_notation > https://www.chem.tamu.edu/rgroup/hughbanks/courses/102/slides/slides3_2.pdf > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser_science > etc. > > Call me when you will have achieved a fraction of that :-) That's nothing. Comerade Lenin achieved much more, according to his worshippers. And, well, science is using scientists for centuries - its idiotproofness is, indeed, amazing. > >>> There is no "alternative math" btw :-) >> >> According to basic [euclidean] math - for any >> right triangle a^2+b^2=c^2 (where a,b - shorter sides, >> c - the longest one). According to the teachings of >> your bunch of idiots such statement is >> a) true, no right triangle without the property exists >> b) false, there are right triangles without the property >> ? >> >> Anyway, an idiot announcing that basic math doesn't >> apply and must be replaced by his pathetic fartings - >> is not going to admit voluntarily that his crap is >> unusable even for him and without Euclid he couldn't >> really make a single step. Thus, he's going to lie. > > https://www.reddit.com/r/math/comments/f6hzs6/ > is_there_a_generalization_of_riemannian_geometry/ > > It seems that "one of the best logician Humanity ever had" cannot grasp > the concept of generalization :))) But he can easily notice, that "a or b" question is dodged. Of course. Doesn't matter, I know the answer and you know it too, poor stinker. Your pseudophilosophy of "but this is not what it is, I can explain" is no way interesting.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <jp@python.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-08 17:18 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pliTYgY6YZl-tawE8yuIYQCLqV0@jntp> |
| In reply to | #665849 |
Le 08/09/2025 à 19:13, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : > On 9/8/2025 6:23 PM, Python wrote: >> Le 08/09/2025 à 17:01, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>> On 9/8/2025 4:03 PM, Python wrote: >>>> Le 08/09/2025 à 14:51, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>>> On 9/8/2025 2:44 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>>>>> Den 07.09.2025 21:30, skrev Maciej Woźniak: >>>>>>> On 9/7/2025 8:26 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I will yet again shove the proof that GR predicts >>>>>>>> gravitational deflection into your face. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> https://paulba.no/paper/Foundation_of_GR.pdf >>>>>>>> In chapter >>>>>>>> 24.Behaviour of Rods and Clocks in the Static Gravitational >>>>>>>> Field. Bending of Light-rays. Motion of the Perihelion of >>>>>>>> a Planetary Orbit >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> We find on page 69; >>>>>>>> "We examine the curvature undergone by a ray of light passing >>>>>>>> by a mass M at the distance Δ. If we choose the system of >>>>>>>> co-ordinates in agreement with the accompanying Figure 24.1, >>>>>>>> the total bending of the ray (calculated positively if concave >>>>>>>> towards the origin) is given in sufficient approximation by >>>>>>>> . . . . >>>>>>>> Carrying out the calculation, this gives B = 2α/Δ = κM/2πΔ >>>>>>>> . . . . >>>>>>>> According to this, a ray of light going past the sun >>>>>>>> undergoes a deflexion of 1.7" >>>>>>>> " >>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> That the idiot started the lie himself. >>>>>>> Nothing more. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> So when Einstein in his paper predicted gravitational >>>>>> deflection of light, he started the lie that gravitational >>>>>> deflection of light was predicted in his paper? :-D >>>>> >>>>> Right, poor trash. Well, he was an idiot, for >>>>> sure he didn't quite understand the consequences >>>>> of hid mad postulates too, but, anyway - that's >>>>> how announcing basic math false must end. For >>>>> your idiot guru and for his idiot worshippers, >>>>> and for the people from "Alternative math" short >>>>> film as well. >>>> >>>> Oh dear... The whole work of Einstein shows that he perfectly knew >>>> the subjects you are babbling about with ignorance, nonsense and >>>> insults. >>> >>> Oh dear... The whole work of Einstein shows that he >>> had no slightest clue about the subjects he was >>> babbling with ignorance, nonsense and insults. >> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_notation >> https://www.chem.tamu.edu/rgroup/hughbanks/courses/102/slides/slides3_2.pdf >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser_science >> etc. >> >> Call me when you will have achieved a fraction of that :-) > > That's nothing. Comerade Lenin achieved much more, > according to his worshippers. > > And, well, science is using scientists for > centuries - its idiotproofness is, indeed, > amazing. Could you name a few more "idiots" of this kind (in your opinion) ? >>>> There is no "alternative math" btw :-) >>> >>> According to basic [euclidean] math - for any >>> right triangle a^2+b^2=c^2 (where a,b - shorter sides, >>> c - the longest one). According to the teachings of >>> your bunch of idiots such statement is >>> a) true, no right triangle without the property exists >>> b) false, there are right triangles without the property >>> ? >>> >>> Anyway, an idiot announcing that basic math doesn't >>> apply and must be replaced by his pathetic fartings - >>> is not going to admit voluntarily that his crap is >>> unusable even for him and without Euclid he couldn't >>> really make a single step. Thus, he's going to lie. >> >> https://www.reddit.com/r/math/comments/f6hzs6/ >> is_there_a_generalization_of_riemannian_geometry/ >> >> It seems that "one of the best logician Humanity ever had" cannot grasp >> the concept of generalization :))) > > But he can easily notice, that "a or b" > question is dodged. Of course. Doesn't > matter, I know the answer and you know it > too, poor stinker. This does not even parse. You cannot grasp the whole idea of generalization of Geometry during the two last centuries. And you don't want to. What could I do? Why would I even want to do something given how a despicable ans stupid person you've shown to be? > Your pseudophilosophy > of "but this is not what it is, I can > explain" is no way interesting. You are not interested. An old fart from Poland who is yelling at clouds is not interested. So what?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-08 19:44 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <18635fa9344a5bbf$217808$2472716$c2365abb@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #665850 |
On 9/8/2025 7:18 PM, Python wrote: > Le 08/09/2025 à 19:13, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >> On 9/8/2025 6:23 PM, Python wrote: >>> Le 08/09/2025 à 17:01, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>> On 9/8/2025 4:03 PM, Python wrote: >>>>> Le 08/09/2025 à 14:51, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>>>> On 9/8/2025 2:44 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>>>>>> Den 07.09.2025 21:30, skrev Maciej Woźniak: >>>>>>>> On 9/7/2025 8:26 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I will yet again shove the proof that GR predicts >>>>>>>>> gravitational deflection into your face. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> https://paulba.no/paper/Foundation_of_GR.pdf >>>>>>>>> In chapter >>>>>>>>> 24.Behaviour of Rods and Clocks in the Static Gravitational >>>>>>>>> Field. Bending of Light-rays. Motion of the Perihelion of >>>>>>>>> a Planetary Orbit >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> We find on page 69; >>>>>>>>> "We examine the curvature undergone by a ray of light passing >>>>>>>>> by a mass M at the distance Δ. If we choose the system of >>>>>>>>> co-ordinates in agreement with the accompanying Figure 24.1, >>>>>>>>> the total bending of the ray (calculated positively if concave >>>>>>>>> towards the origin) is given in sufficient approximation by >>>>>>>>> . . . . >>>>>>>>> Carrying out the calculation, this gives B = 2α/Δ = κM/2πΔ >>>>>>>>> . . . . >>>>>>>>> According to this, a ray of light going past the sun >>>>>>>>> undergoes a deflexion of 1.7" >>>>>>>>> " >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> That the idiot started the lie himself. >>>>>>>> Nothing more. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So when Einstein in his paper predicted gravitational >>>>>>> deflection of light, he started the lie that gravitational >>>>>>> deflection of light was predicted in his paper? :-D >>>>>> >>>>>> Right, poor trash. Well, he was an idiot, for >>>>>> sure he didn't quite understand the consequences >>>>>> of hid mad postulates too, but, anyway - that's >>>>>> how announcing basic math false must end. For >>>>>> your idiot guru and for his idiot worshippers, >>>>>> and for the people from "Alternative math" short >>>>>> film as well. >>>>> >>>>> Oh dear... The whole work of Einstein shows that he perfectly knew >>>>> the subjects you are babbling about with ignorance, nonsense and >>>>> insults. >>>> >>>> Oh dear... The whole work of Einstein shows that he >>>> had no slightest clue about the subjects he was >>>> babbling with ignorance, nonsense and insults. >>> >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_notation >>> https://www.chem.tamu.edu/rgroup/hughbanks/courses/102/slides/ >>> slides3_2.pdf >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser_science >>> etc. >>> >>> Call me when you will have achieved a fraction of that :-) >> >> That's nothing. Comerade Lenin achieved much more, >> according to his worshippers. >> >> And, well, science is using scientists for >> centuries - its idiotproofness is, indeed, >> amazing. > > Could you name a few more "idiots" of this kind (in your opinion) ? Of this kind? Of course not, the history of human kind didn't notice another one. >>>>> There is no "alternative math" btw :-) >>>> >>>> According to basic [euclidean] math - for any >>>> right triangle a^2+b^2=c^2 (where a,b - shorter sides, >>>> c - the longest one). According to the teachings of >>>> your bunch of idiots such statement is >>>> a) true, no right triangle without the property exists >>>> b) false, there are right triangles without the property >>>> ? >>>> >>>> Anyway, an idiot announcing that basic math doesn't >>>> apply and must be replaced by his pathetic fartings - >>>> is not going to admit voluntarily that his crap is >>>> unusable even for him and without Euclid he couldn't >>>> really make a single step. Thus, he's going to lie. >>> >>> https://www.reddit.com/r/math/comments/f6hzs6/ >>> is_there_a_generalization_of_riemannian_geometry/ >>> >>> It seems that "one of the best logician Humanity ever had" cannot >>> grasp the concept of generalization :))) >> >> But he can easily notice, that "a or b" >> question is dodged. Of course. Doesn't >> matter, I know the answer and you know it >> too, poor stinker. > > This does not even parse. :) > > You cannot grasp the whole idea of generalization What generalization, poor stinker? According to basic [euclidean] math - for any right triangle a^2+b^2=c^2 (where a,b - shorter sides, c - the longest one). According to the teachings of your bunch of idiots such statement is a) true, no right triangle without the property exists b) false, there are right triangles without the property ? Generalization, eh? >> Your pseudophilosophy >> of "but this is not what it is, I can >> explain" is no way interesting. > > You are not interested. An old fart from Poland who is yelling at clouds > is not interested. > > So what? So you're wasting your time writing your utterly nonsensical lies. It's your time, of course.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-08 22:27 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <OZGvQ.8773$hzI.8486@fx02.ams4> |
| In reply to | #665843 |
Den 08.09.2025 14:51, skrev Maciej Woźniak: > On 9/8/2025 2:44 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> Den 07.09.2025 21:30, skrev Maciej Woźniak: >>> On 9/7/2025 8:26 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> >>>> >>>> I will yet again shove the proof that GR predicts >>>> gravitational deflection into your face. >>>> >>>> >>>> https://paulba.no/paper/Foundation_of_GR.pdf >>>> In chapter >>>> 24.Behaviour of Rods and Clocks in the Static Gravitational >>>> Field. Bending of Light-rays. Motion of the Perihelion of >>>> a Planetary Orbit >>>> >>>> We find on page 69; >>>> "We examine the curvature undergone by a ray of light passing >>>> by a mass M at the distance Δ. If we choose the system of >>>> co-ordinates in agreement with the accompanying Figure 24.1, >>>> the total bending of the ray (calculated positively if concave >>>> towards the origin) is given in sufficient approximation by >>>> . . . . >>>> Carrying out the calculation, this gives B = 2α/Δ = κM/2πΔ >>>> . . . . >>>> According to this, a ray of light going past the sun >>>> undergoes a deflexion of 1.7" >>>> " >>>> >> >>> >>> That the idiot started the lie himself. >>> Nothing more. >>> >> >> So when Einstein in his paper predicted gravitational >> deflection of light, he started the lie that gravitational >> deflection of light was predicted in his paper? :-D > > Right, poor trash. Well, he was an idiot, for > sure he didn't quite understand the consequences > of hid mad postulates too, but, anyway - that's > how announcing basic math false must end. For > your idiot guru and for his idiot worshippers, > and for the people from "Alternative math" short > film as well. Frustrated, Maciej? :-D -- Paul, amused https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-08 22:31 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <186368cc9fa8b21d$276505$2472716$c2365abb@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #665855 |
On 9/8/2025 10:27 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > Den 08.09.2025 14:51, skrev Maciej Woźniak: >> On 9/8/2025 2:44 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>> Den 07.09.2025 21:30, skrev Maciej Woźniak: >>>> On 9/7/2025 8:26 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>> >>>>> >>>>> I will yet again shove the proof that GR predicts >>>>> gravitational deflection into your face. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> https://paulba.no/paper/Foundation_of_GR.pdf >>>>> In chapter >>>>> 24.Behaviour of Rods and Clocks in the Static Gravitational >>>>> Field. Bending of Light-rays. Motion of the Perihelion of >>>>> a Planetary Orbit >>>>> >>>>> We find on page 69; >>>>> "We examine the curvature undergone by a ray of light passing >>>>> by a mass M at the distance Δ. If we choose the system of >>>>> co-ordinates in agreement with the accompanying Figure 24.1, >>>>> the total bending of the ray (calculated positively if concave >>>>> towards the origin) is given in sufficient approximation by >>>>> . . . . >>>>> Carrying out the calculation, this gives B = 2α/Δ = κM/2πΔ >>>>> . . . . >>>>> According to this, a ray of light going past the sun >>>>> undergoes a deflexion of 1.7" >>>>> " >>>>> >>> >>>> >>>> That the idiot started the lie himself. >>>> Nothing more. >>>> >>> >>> So when Einstein in his paper predicted gravitational >>> deflection of light, he started the lie that gravitational >>> deflection of light was predicted in his paper? :-D > >> >> Right, poor trash. Well, he was an idiot, for >> sure he didn't quite understand the consequences >> of hid mad postulates too, but, anyway - that's >> how announcing basic math false must end. For >> your idiot guru and for his idiot worshippers, >> and for the people from "Alternative math" short >> film as well. > Frustrated, Maciej? :-D No, poor trash. Why?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-07 13:30 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1riajs0.1eo36351cty6yxN%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> |
| In reply to | #665772 |
Paul B. Andersen <relativity@paulba.no> wrote: > Den 03.09.2025 14:10, skrev J. J. Lodder: > > > > Being pedantic about it: General relativity -by itself- > > predicts nothing about light deflection. > > It is a purely geometrical theory without physical content. > > What is "General relativity - by itself" ? > > The theory which Einstein called "The General Theory of Relativity" > predicts gravitational deflection of light. > > https://paulba.no/paper/Foundation_of_GR.pdf > In chapter > 24.Behaviour of Rods and Clocks in the Static Gravitational > Field. Bending of Light-rays. Motion of the Perihelion of > a Planetary Orbit > > We find on page 69; > "We examine the curvature undergone by a ray of light passing > by a mass M at the distance ?. If we choose the system of > co-ordinates in agreement with the accompanying Figure 24.1, > the total bending of the ray (calculated positively if concave > towards the origin) is given in sufficient approximation by > . . . . > Carrying out the calculation, this gives B = 2?/? = ?M/2π? > . . . . > According to this, a ray of light going past the sun > undergoes a deflexion of 1.7" > " Now that is an old reference indeed. > I am sure you know this, so why the strange expression > "General relativity - by itself" ? General relativity, by itself, is just the Einstein equation. There is no physics in it, it is pure geometry. There is only the unspecified source term, the stress-energy tensor. (which can in principle be anything, and cannot be predicted from GR) Back then, in 1920, fundamental physics was simple indeed. There was nothing but the classical Lorentz theory of 'electrons', based on Maxwell's equations and the Lorentz force law. (not to be confused with 'electrons' as we know them these days) As you know, this bit of physics integrates easily into GR, by just putting the metrics into the classical Maxwell eqns. Einstein does that in sec. 22 of your ref. The light deflection then follows easily. Though apparently natural, this is not part of 'general relativity by itself'. It is an addition of some physics to it. These days 'physics' has grown enormously, there is quantum field theory, several fundamental interactions, and perhaps strings. But, as you know, this is not without problems. The Grand Unification of those forces is missing, string theory is (arguably) a failure, and merging general relativity with all things quantum to a Theory OF Everything has been found to be impossible, so far. Therefore I think it is best to keep pure geometry, (as given by general relativity) and the physics that plays out in that geometry as separate as possible, Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-09 09:07 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mia1p1Ft8spU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #665824 |
Am Sonntag000007, 07.09.2025 um 13:30 schrieb J. J. Lodder: > Paul B. Andersen <relativity@paulba.no> wrote: > >> Den 03.09.2025 14:10, skrev J. J. Lodder: >>> >>> Being pedantic about it: General relativity -by itself- >>> predicts nothing about light deflection. >>> It is a purely geometrical theory without physical content. >> >> What is "General relativity - by itself" ? >> >> The theory which Einstein called "The General Theory of Relativity" >> predicts gravitational deflection of light. >> >> https://paulba.no/paper/Foundation_of_GR.pdf >> In chapter >> 24.Behaviour of Rods and Clocks in the Static Gravitational >> Field. Bending of Light-rays. Motion of the Perihelion of >> a Planetary Orbit >> >> We find on page 69; >> "We examine the curvature undergone by a ray of light passing >> by a mass M at the distance ?. If we choose the system of >> co-ordinates in agreement with the accompanying Figure 24.1, >> the total bending of the ray (calculated positively if concave >> towards the origin) is given in sufficient approximation by >> . . . . >> Carrying out the calculation, this gives B = 2?/? = ?M/2π? >> . . . . >> According to this, a ray of light going past the sun >> undergoes a deflexion of 1.7" >> " > > Now that is an old reference indeed. > >> I am sure you know this, so why the strange expression >> "General relativity - by itself" ? > > General relativity, by itself, is just the Einstein equation. > There is no physics in it, it is pure geometry. > There is only the unspecified source term, > the stress-energy tensor. > (which can in principle be anything, and cannot be predicted from GR) > > Back then, in 1920, fundamental physics was simple indeed. > There was nothing but the classical Lorentz theory of 'electrons', > based on Maxwell's equations and the Lorentz force law. > (not to be confused with 'electrons' as we know them these days) > > As you know, this bit of physics integrates easily into GR, > by just putting the metrics into the classical Maxwell eqns. > Einstein does that in sec. 22 of your ref. > The light deflection then follows easily. > Though apparently natural, > this is not part of 'general relativity by itself'. > It is an addition of some physics to it. > > These days 'physics' has grown enormously, > there is quantum field theory, several fundamental interactions, > and perhaps strings. > But, as you know, this is not without problems. > The Grand Unification of those forces is missing, > string theory is (arguably) a failure, > and merging general relativity with all things quantum > to a Theory OF Everything has been found to be impossible, so far. > > Therefore I think it is best to keep pure geometry, > (as given by general relativity) > and the physics that plays out in that geometry > as separate as possible, My own approach to this problem was: assume that spacetime of GR is real and make particles (and 'all things quantum') out of that. That is also kind of unification, but based upon a different background. The idea is relatively simple and goes like this: if something like spacetime does in fact exist, that from what type of 'elements' is it composed? I found a certain type of quaternions (so called 'biquaternions') would fit, and therefore had assumed, that spacetime is actually a quaternion field. These 'elements' could be set into motion and that motion would distribute in a certain manner. It would generate certain patterns and among those are timelike stable structures, which we call 'matter'. I have written kind of book about this concept, which can be found here: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing It is kind of 'geometric theory', because the geometry itself is used to create particles and 'all things quantum'. It's not particulary intuitiv, because its 'geometry' is not the usual geometry, which is based in common understanding upon Euclidean space. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-09 09:49 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <18638dc57efeffaa$8041233$2360894$c2565adb@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #665862 |
On 9/9/2025 9:07 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am Sonntag000007, 07.09.2025 um 13:30 schrieb J. J. Lodder: >> Paul B. Andersen <relativity@paulba.no> wrote: >> >>> Den 03.09.2025 14:10, skrev J. J. Lodder: >>>> >>>> Being pedantic about it: General relativity -by itself- >>>> predicts nothing about light deflection. >>>> It is a purely geometrical theory without physical content. >>> >>> What is "General relativity - by itself" ? >>> >>> The theory which Einstein called "The General Theory of Relativity" >>> predicts gravitational deflection of light. >>> >>> https://paulba.no/paper/Foundation_of_GR.pdf >>> In chapter >>> 24.Behaviour of Rods and Clocks in the Static Gravitational >>> Field. Bending of Light-rays. Motion of the Perihelion of >>> a Planetary Orbit >>> >>> We find on page 69; >>> "We examine the curvature undergone by a ray of light passing >>> by a mass M at the distance ?. If we choose the system of >>> co-ordinates in agreement with the accompanying Figure 24.1, >>> the total bending of the ray (calculated positively if concave >>> towards the origin) is given in sufficient approximation by >>> . . . . >>> Carrying out the calculation, this gives B = 2?/? = ?M/2π? >>> . . . . >>> According to this, a ray of light going past the sun >>> undergoes a deflexion of 1.7" >>> " >> >> Now that is an old reference indeed. >> >>> I am sure you know this, so why the strange expression >>> "General relativity - by itself" ? >> >> General relativity, by itself, is just the Einstein equation. >> There is no physics in it, it is pure geometry. >> There is only the unspecified source term, >> the stress-energy tensor. >> (which can in principle be anything, and cannot be predicted from GR) >> >> Back then, in 1920, fundamental physics was simple indeed. >> There was nothing but the classical Lorentz theory of 'electrons', >> based on Maxwell's equations and the Lorentz force law. >> (not to be confused with 'electrons' as we know them these days) >> >> As you know, this bit of physics integrates easily into GR, >> by just putting the metrics into the classical Maxwell eqns. >> Einstein does that in sec. 22 of your ref. >> The light deflection then follows easily. >> Though apparently natural, >> this is not part of 'general relativity by itself'. >> It is an addition of some physics to it. >> >> These days 'physics' has grown enormously, >> there is quantum field theory, several fundamental interactions, >> and perhaps strings. >> But, as you know, this is not without problems. >> The Grand Unification of those forces is missing, >> string theory is (arguably) a failure, >> and merging general relativity with all things quantum >> to a Theory OF Everything has been found to be impossible, so far. >> >> Therefore I think it is best to keep pure geometry, >> (as given by general relativity) >> and the physics that plays out in that geometry >> as separate as possible, > > My own approach to this problem was: > > assume that spacetime of GR is real and make particles (and 'all things > quantum') out of that. Spacetime is static. It never changes. It's not making anything. You're just putting words together at random.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-10 11:02 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <micssdFcotpU10@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #665863 |
Am Dienstag000009, 09.09.2025 um 09:49 schrieb Maciej Woźniak: ... >>> These days 'physics' has grown enormously, >>> there is quantum field theory, several fundamental interactions, >>> and perhaps strings. >>> But, as you know, this is not without problems. >>> The Grand Unification of those forces is missing, >>> string theory is (arguably) a failure, >>> and merging general relativity with all things quantum >>> to a Theory OF Everything has been found to be impossible, so far. >>> >>> Therefore I think it is best to keep pure geometry, >>> (as given by general relativity) >>> and the physics that plays out in that geometry >>> as separate as possible, >> >> My own approach to this problem was: >> >> assume that spacetime of GR is real and make particles (and 'all >> things quantum') out of that. > > > Spacetime is static. It never changes. > It's not making anything. You're just > putting words together at random. > The idea was, that spacetime or GR could be real and we as human beings had an 'inside view', because we are actually 'part of the show'. Now we need to guess a superset, while knowing only a subset (our own impressions). This ain't that easy, but I found a possible solution. In this spacetime is real and our world is actually the local impression from our particular position. To be somewhere would require, to see the world from there. But our brain is designed to take this impression and generalise it, hence we think, that the universe should be larger version of what we can actually see. Only: that ain't the case. Therefor we cannot use our intuitions to estimate the superset, to which we ourselves are a subset. In fact we had to check all sorts of modells and ideas, whether they would produce the same impression of the universe, which we actually see. Then we could take the remaining concepts and check, whether or not they are somehow possible. Something will remain in the 'dragnet' and in my approach 'structured spacetime' was the final remainder. Then I took this as valid and tried to replicate all sort of phenomena, but based upon this concept. And as far as I can tell, it always worked well. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 7 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 5 6 [7] 8 9 … 11 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web