Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #665869 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2025-09-09 15:58 +0200 |
| Last post | 2025-09-11 20:45 +0200 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 110 — 18 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Why "GR predicts light deflection" myth Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-09 15:58 +0200
Re: Why "GR predicts light deflection" myth Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-09-09 14:14 +0000
Re: Why "GR predicts light deflection" myth Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-09 16:28 +0200
Re: Why "GR predicts light deflection" myth Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-09-09 14:31 +0000
Re: Why "GR predicts light deflection" myth Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-09 16:49 +0200
Re: Why "GR predicts light deflection" myth Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-09-09 15:06 +0000
Re: Why "GR predicts light deflection" myth Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-09 17:14 +0200
Re: Why "GR predicts light deflection" myth Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-09-09 15:37 +0000
Re: Why "GR predicts light deflection" myth Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-09 19:41 +0200
Re: Why "GR predicts light deflection" myth Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-09-09 17:57 +0000
Re: Why "GR predicts light deflection" myth Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-09 20:06 +0200
Re: Why "GR predicts light deflection" myth Nathanial Walentowicz <nlaaa@iacaa.pl> - 2025-09-09 15:55 +0000
Re: Why "GR predicts light deflection" myth "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-09-10 14:54 +0200
Re: Why "GR predicts light deflection" myth Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-10 15:22 +0200
Re: Why "GR predicts light deflection" myth Normand Bobienski <on@brooondm.pl> - 2025-09-10 17:52 +0000
Re: Why "GR predicts light deflection" myth Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-10 21:21 +0200
Re: Why "GR predicts light deflection" myth Cecilio Dubanowski <lo@oi.pl> - 2025-09-10 20:45 +0000
Re: Why "GR predicts light deflection" myth Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-11 07:17 +0200
Re: Why "GR predicts light deflection" myth Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-09-11 15:25 +0000
Re: Why "GR predicts light deflection" myth Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-11 17:32 +0200
Re: Why "GR predicts light deflection" myth Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-09-11 15:41 +0000
Re: Why "GR predicts light deflection" myth Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-11 18:05 +0200
Re: Why "GR predicts light deflection" myth Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-09-11 16:17 +0000
Re: Why "GR predicts light deflection" myth Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-11 18:24 +0200
Re: Why "GR predicts light deflection" myth Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-09-11 16:26 +0000
Re: Why "GR predicts light deflection" myth Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-11 18:41 +0200
Re: Why "GR predicts light deflection" myth Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-09-11 16:45 +0000
Re: Why "GR predicts light deflection" myth Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-11 18:58 +0200
Re: Why "GR predicts light deflection" myth Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-09-11 17:07 +0000
Re: Why "GR predicts light deflection" myth Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-11 19:51 +0200
Re: Why "GR predicts light deflection" myth Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-09-11 18:47 +0000
Re: Why "GR predicts light deflection" myth Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-11 20:59 +0200
Re: Why "GR predicts light deflection" myth Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-09-11 19:07 +0000
Re: Why "GR predicts light deflection" myth Moebius <invalid@example.invalid> - 2025-09-11 21:13 +0200
Re: Why "GR predicts light deflection" myth Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-11 21:20 +0200
Re: Why "GR predicts light deflection" myth Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-09-11 19:23 +0000
Re: Why "GR predicts light deflection" myth Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-11 21:50 +0200
Re: Why "GR predicts light deflection" myth Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-09-11 19:59 +0000
Re: Why "GR predicts light deflection" myth Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-11 22:20 +0200
Re: Why "GR predicts light deflection" myth Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-09-11 20:25 +0000
Re: Why "GR predicts light deflection" myth Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-11 22:37 +0200
Re: Why "GR predicts light deflection" myth Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-09-11 20:55 +0000
Re: Why "GR predicts light deflection" myth Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-11 23:06 +0200
Re: Why "GR predicts light deflection" myth Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-09-11 21:12 +0000
Re: Why "GR predicts light deflection" myth Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-12 06:50 +0200
Re: Why "GR predicts light deflection" myth Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-09-12 05:41 +0000
Re: Why "GR predicts light deflection" myth Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-12 08:10 +0200
Re: Why "GR predicts light deflection" myth Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-09-12 06:54 +0000
Re: Why "GR predicts light deflection" myth Moebius <invalid@example.invalid> - 2025-09-12 09:16 +0200
Re: Why "GR predicts light deflection" myth Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-09-12 07:48 +0000
Re: Why "GR predicts light deflection" myth "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-09-12 16:27 -0700
Re: Why "GR predicts light deflection" myth Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-12 09:56 +0200
Re: Why "GR predicts light deflection" myth Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-09-12 08:22 +0000
Re: Why "GR predicts light deflection" myth Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-12 10:56 +0200
Re: Why "GR predicts light deflection" myth Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-09-13 08:27 +0200
Re: Why "GR predicts light deflection" myth Moebius <invalid@example.invalid> - 2025-09-11 22:21 +0200
Re: Why "GR predicts light deflection" myth Moebius <invalid@example.invalid> - 2025-09-11 21:12 +0200
Re: Why "GR predicts light deflection" myth Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-09-11 15:48 +0000
Re: Why "GR predicts light deflection" myth Ben Pakulski <neie@ekiuknssk.pl> - 2025-09-11 20:29 +0000
Re: Why "GR predicts light deflection" myth Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-11 22:43 +0200
Re: Why "GR predicts light deflection" myth Irvin Warszawski <nwkw@iaw.pl> - 2025-09-11 21:38 +0000
Re: Why "GR predicts light deflection" myth Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-09-11 21:42 +0000
Re: Why "GR predicts light deflection" myth Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-12 06:57 +0200
Re: Why "GR predicts light deflection" myth Theron Wojewódzki <wrzeo@weze.pl> - 2025-09-12 09:46 +0000
Re: Why "GR predicts light deflection" myth Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-12 12:48 +0200
Re: Why "GR predicts light deflection" myth Howard Szczepanski <nopei@aa.pl> - 2025-09-12 19:32 +0000
Re: Why "GR predicts light deflection" myth Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-12 21:52 +0200
Re: Why "GR predicts light deflection" myth Jamie Zdunowski <na@woo.pl> - 2025-09-12 21:37 +0000
Re: Why "GR predicts light deflection" myth Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-09-13 09:17 +0200
Re: Why "GR predicts light deflection" myth Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-09-13 08:46 +0000
Re: Why "GR predicts light deflection" myth Moebius <invalid@example.invalid> - 2025-09-13 10:51 +0200
Re: Why "GR predicts light deflection" myth Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-09-13 09:45 +0000
Re: Why "GR predicts light deflection" myth Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-13 11:56 +0200
Re: Why "GR predicts light deflection" myth Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-09-13 10:08 +0000
Re: Why "GR predicts light deflection" myth Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-13 12:21 +0200
Re: Why "GR predicts light deflection" myth Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-09-13 10:26 +0000
Re: Why "GR predicts light deflection" myth Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-13 12:47 +0200
Re: Why "GR predicts light deflection" myth Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-09-13 10:51 +0000
Re: Why "GR predicts light deflection" myth Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-13 13:09 +0200
Re: Why "GR predicts light deflection" myth Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-09-13 11:12 +0000
Re: Why "GR predicts light deflection" myth Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-09-13 11:17 +0000
Re: Why "GR predicts light deflection" myth Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-13 13:32 +0200
Re: Why "GR predicts light deflection" myth Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-09-13 11:39 +0000
Re: Why "GR predicts light deflection" myth Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-13 14:02 +0200
Re: Why "GR predicts light deflection" myth Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-09-13 12:11 +0000
Re: Why "GR predicts light deflection" myth Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-09-13 12:08 +0000
Re: Why "GR predicts light deflection" myth Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-13 14:34 +0200
Re: Why "GR predicts light deflection" myth Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-09-13 12:38 +0000
Re: Why "GR predicts light deflection" myth Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-09-13 12:43 +0000
Re: Why "GR predicts light deflection" myth Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-09-13 12:49 +0000
Re: Why "GR predicts light deflection" myth Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-13 15:00 +0200
Re: Why "GR predicts light deflection" myth Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-09-13 13:06 +0000
Re: Why "GR predicts light deflection" myth Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-13 15:16 +0200
Re: Why "GR predicts light deflection" myth Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-09-13 15:36 +0000
Re: Why "GR predicts light deflection" myth Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-13 15:26 +0200
Re: Why "GR predicts light deflection" myth Jabari Kalbfleisch <eljkhk@bs.de> - 2025-09-13 19:03 +0000
Re: Why "GR predicts light deflection" myth Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-13 21:19 +0200
Re: Why "GR predicts light deflection" myth Yahse Sokolowski <zke@srle.pl> - 2025-09-13 20:29 +0000
Re: Why "GR predicts light deflection" myth Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-14 06:36 +0200
Re: Why "GR predicts light deflection" myth Henry Schultheiß <wt@icumuhl.de> - 2025-09-14 16:01 +0000
Re: Why "GR predicts light deflection" myth FromTheRafters <FTR@nomail.afraid.org> - 2025-09-14 07:37 -0400
Re: Why "GR predicts light deflection" myth Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-09-15 08:21 +0200
Re: Why "GR predicts light deflection" myth FromTheRafters <FTR@nomail.afraid.org> - 2025-09-15 08:22 -0400
Re: Why "GR predicts light deflection" myth Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-09-16 08:47 +0200
Re: Why "GR predicts light deflection" myth "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-09-10 21:56 +0200
Re: Why "GR predicts light deflection" myth Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-11 07:04 +0200
Re: Why "GR predicts light deflection" myth "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-09-11 20:10 +0200
Re: Why "GR predicts light deflection" myth Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-11 20:24 +0200
Re: Why "GR predicts light deflection" myth Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-09-11 18:28 +0000
Re: Why "GR predicts light deflection" myth "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-09-11 20:45 +0200
Page 4 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 Next page →
| From | Irvin Warszawski <nwkw@iaw.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-11 21:38 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <109vfg1$2v6j4$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #665953 |
Maciej Woźniak wrote: >> nonsense, inside a curved surface, for instance, two intersecting >> straight lines makes an angle. Three of such lines intersecting makes a >> triangle. > > Too bad there are [generally, exceptions happen] no straight lines on a > curved surface. And if an exception happens - 3 intersecting straight > lines are also inside a plane. > Is the example you presented in the previous post "3 intersecting > straight lines", BTW? this is the same mistake PBA is doing for the domain of curved surfaces, lines are straight, whereas triangles with angles larger than 180° are the proof of curvature. inside a curved spacetime, that formula is just an 𝗮𝗽𝗽𝗿𝗼𝘅𝗶𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 to flat surface, as there are no 100% flat surface 𝗶𝗻𝘀𝗶𝗱𝗲 the 𝘀𝗽𝗮𝗰𝗲𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗲_𝗰𝘂𝗿𝘃𝗮𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗲.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <jp@python.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-11 21:42 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <blEwZ0z1RLkfd-oIgafax-4rHVU@jntp> |
| In reply to | #665958 |
Le 11/09/2025 à 23:38, Irvin Warszawski a écrit : > Maciej Woźniak wrote: > >>> nonsense, inside a curved surface, for instance, two intersecting >>> straight lines makes an angle. Three of such lines intersecting makes a >>> triangle. >> >> Too bad there are [generally, exceptions happen] no straight lines on a >> curved surface. And if an exception happens - 3 intersecting straight >> lines are also inside a plane. >> Is the example you presented in the previous post "3 intersecting >> straight lines", BTW? > > this is the same mistake PBA is doing > > for the domain of curved surfaces, lines are straight, whereas triangles > with angles larger than 180° are the proof of curvature. > > inside a curved spacetime, that formula is just an > 𝗮𝗽𝗽𝗿𝗼𝘅𝗶𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 to flat > surface, as there are no 100% flat surface 𝗶𝗻𝘀𝗶𝗱𝗲 the > 𝘀𝗽𝗮𝗰𝗲𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗲_𝗰𝘂𝗿𝘃𝗮𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗲. "Another framework we impose upon the world is space. But where do the first principles of geometry come from? Are they dictated to us by logic? Lobachevsky has shown they are not, by inventing non-Euclidean geometries. Is space revealed to us by our senses? Again no, for the space perceived by our senses differs entirely from that of the geometer. Does geometry derive from experience? Careful reflection will show that it does not. We are thus led to conclude that its principles are merely conventions—yet not arbitrary ones. Transported into another world (which I call the non-Euclidean world and strive to imagine), we would have been compelled to adopt different conventions." Henri Poincaré
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-12 06:57 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1864701f0c00d36c$267767$2486831$c2365abb@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #665958 |
On 9/11/2025 11:38 PM, Irvin Warszawski wrote: > Maciej Woźniak wrote: > >>> nonsense, inside a curved surface, for instance, two intersecting >>> straight lines makes an angle. Three of such lines intersecting makes a >>> triangle. >> >> Too bad there are [generally, exceptions happen] no straight lines on a >> curved surface. And if an exception happens - 3 intersecting straight >> lines are also inside a plane. >> Is the example you presented in the previous post "3 intersecting >> straight lines", BTW? > > this is the same mistake PBA is doing > > for the domain of curved surfaces, lines are straight And for the domain of marxism-leninism communism is the best; the "proof" of that is very similar to "let's take some circles and pretend with insisting they're straight lines" you're presenting here.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Theron Wojewódzki <wrzeo@weze.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-12 09:46 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10a0q60$3cbl9$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #665961 |
Maciej Woźniak wrote: >> this is the same mistake PBA is doing >> >> for the domain of curved surfaces, lines are straight > > And for the domain of marxism-leninism communism is the best; the > "proof" of that is very similar to "let's take some circles and pretend > with insisting they're straight lines" you're presenting here. earth is a circle, fucking stoopid, where you have straight lines. Use your fucking brain, idiot.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-12 12:48 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <18648346bb88f66c$10954734$2360894$c2565adb@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #665981 |
On 9/12/2025 11:46 AM, Theron Wojewódzki wrote: > Maciej Woźniak wrote: > >>> this is the same mistake PBA is doing >>> >>> for the domain of curved surfaces, lines are straight >> >> And for the domain of marxism-leninism communism is the best; the >> "proof" of that is very similar to "let's take some circles and pretend >> with insisting they're straight lines" you're presenting here. > > earth is a circle, fucking stoopid, where you have straight lines. Earth is not a circle, it can be considered as a sphere, no straight lines on a sphere, sorry. We may always take circles (big circles of a sphere) and pretend they are straight lines, samely as we can take a sheep and pretend it's a shark which eats grass and confirms our theory that sharks eat grass.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Howard Szczepanski <nopei@aa.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-12 19:32 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10a1sg7$3pl8q$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #665983 |
Maciej Woźniak wrote: > On 9/12/2025 11:46 AM, Theron Wojewódzki wrote: >> Maciej Woźniak wrote: >> >>>> this is the same mistake PBA is doing >>>> >>>> for the domain of curved surfaces, lines are straight >>> >>> And for the domain of marxism-leninism communism is the best; the >>> "proof" of that is very similar to "let's take some circles and >>> pretend with insisting they're straight lines" you're presenting >>> here. >> >> earth is a circle, fucking stoopid, where you have straight lines. > > Earth is not a circle, it can be considered as a sphere, no straight > lines on a sphere, sorry. it's more than that, the earth is an infinitely many circles. Please recap.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-12 21:52 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1864a0fbc9ac87f5$772038$2486831$c2365abb@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #665995 |
On 9/12/2025 9:32 PM, Howard Szczepanski wrote: > Maciej Woźniak wrote: > >> On 9/12/2025 11:46 AM, Theron Wojewódzki wrote: >>> Maciej Woźniak wrote: >>> >>>>> this is the same mistake PBA is doing >>>>> >>>>> for the domain of curved surfaces, lines are straight >>>> >>>> And for the domain of marxism-leninism communism is the best; the >>>> "proof" of that is very similar to "let's take some circles and >>>> pretend with insisting they're straight lines" you're presenting >>>> here. >>> >>> earth is a circle, fucking stoopid, where you have straight lines. >> >> Earth is not a circle, it can be considered as a sphere, no straight >> lines on a sphere, sorry. > > it's more than that I may agree it's more than a circle, I'm not going to agree it's a circle.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jamie Zdunowski <na@woo.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-12 21:37 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10a23r9$3snqd$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #665996 |
Maciej Woźniak wrote: >>>> earth is a circle, fucking stoopid, where you have straight lines. >>> >>> Earth is not a circle, it can be considered as a sphere, no straight >>> lines on a sphere, sorry. >> >> it's more than that > > I may agree it's more than a circle, I'm not going to agree it's a > circle. a sphere is made up by infinitely many circles, read the context, but that's not the point. The point is that you dismiss lines on circles, which makes you an idiot.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-13 09:17 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mikjriFm89fU6@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #665999 |
Am Freitag000012, 12.09.2025 um 23:37 schrieb Jamie Zdunowski: > Maciej Woźniak wrote: > >>>>> earth is a circle, fucking stoopid, where you have straight lines. >>>> >>>> Earth is not a circle, it can be considered as a sphere, no straight >>>> lines on a sphere, sorry. >>> >>> it's more than that >> >> I may agree it's more than a circle, I'm not going to agree it's a >> circle. > > a sphere is made up by infinitely many circles, read the context, but > that's not the point. The point is that you dismiss lines on circles, > which makes you an idiot. I don't know, what you're trying to say. But the Earth isn't neither a sphere nor a circle. Earth is is more like a massive ball, that is bugled outwards at the equator. It's not a sphere, because a sphere is the two-dimensional surface of a ball, while the Earth is (at least) three-dimensional. Straight lines are not that often in nature and most likely do not occur in nature at all. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <jp@python.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-13 08:46 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <Kph2JSn_hfIQ9IIg37IRo1nGWKw@jntp> |
| In reply to | #666009 |
Le 13/09/2025 à 09:12, Thomas Heger a écrit : > Am Freitag000012, 12.09.2025 um 23:37 schrieb Jamie Zdunowski: >> Maciej Woźniak wrote: >> >>>>>> earth is a circle, fucking stoopid, where you have straight lines. >>>>> >>>>> Earth is not a circle, it can be considered as a sphere, no straight >>>>> lines on a sphere, sorry. >>>> >>>> it's more than that >>> >>> I may agree it's more than a circle, I'm not going to agree it's a >>> circle. >> >> a sphere is made up by infinitely many circles, read the context, but >> that's not the point. The point is that you dismiss lines on circles, >> which makes you an idiot. > > > I don't know, what you're trying to say. > > But the Earth isn't neither a sphere nor a circle. > > Earth is is more like a massive ball, that is bugled outwards at the > equator. > > It's not a sphere, because a sphere is the two-dimensional surface of a > ball, while the Earth is (at least) three-dimensional. > > Straight lines are not that often in nature and most likely do not occur > in nature at all. > > > TH At least you are not a flat earther :-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Moebius <invalid@example.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-13 10:51 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <10a3baa$9pe5$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #666011 |
Am 13.09.2025 um 10:46 schrieb Python: > At least you are not a flat earther :-) Actually, the earth has a hole! See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollow_Earth . . .
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <jp@python.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-13 09:45 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <rcemDPUPSGsV-TKtYITa9T7VMnk@jntp> |
| In reply to | #666012 |
Le 13/09/2025 à 10:51, Moebius a écrit : > Am 13.09.2025 um 10:46 schrieb Python: > >> At least you are not a flat earther :-) > > Actually, the earth has a hole! > > See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollow_Earth > > . > . > . Well Thomas is a Eartch growther btw, Is this hole growing :-D ?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-13 11:56 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1864cf030cadad96$205472$2996671$c2065a8b@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #666013 |
On 9/13/2025 11:45 AM, Python wrote: > Le 13/09/2025 à 10:51, Moebius a écrit : >> Am 13.09.2025 um 10:46 schrieb Python: >> >>> At least you are not a flat earther :-) >> >> Actually, the earth has a hole! >> >> See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollow_Earth >> >> . >> . >> . > > Well Thomas is a Eartch growther btw, Is this hole growing :-D ? At least he's not denying basic math, like your idiot guru and your bunch of idiots.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <jp@python.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-13 10:08 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <w0QhRsTfhsePdEq38-UokaItdSk@jntp> |
| In reply to | #666014 |
Le 13/09/2025 à 11:56, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : > On 9/13/2025 11:45 AM, Python wrote: >> Le 13/09/2025 à 10:51, Moebius a écrit : >>> Am 13.09.2025 um 10:46 schrieb Python: >>> >>>> At least you are not a flat earther :-) >>> >>> Actually, the earth has a hole! >>> >>> See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollow_Earth >>> >>> . >>> . >>> . >> >> Well Thomas is a Eartch growther btw, Is this hole growing :-D ? > > At least he's not denying basic math, Well I guess that he could likely do so; > like [A.E.] and [you] He didn't, we don't :-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-13 12:21 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1864d06a13bc9f89$205473$2996671$c2065a8b@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #666015 |
On 9/13/2025 12:08 PM, Python wrote: > Le 13/09/2025 à 11:56, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >> On 9/13/2025 11:45 AM, Python wrote: >>> Le 13/09/2025 à 10:51, Moebius a écrit : >>>> Am 13.09.2025 um 10:46 schrieb Python: >>>> >>>>> At least you are not a flat earther :-) >>>> >>>> Actually, the earth has a hole! >>>> >>>> See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollow_Earth >>>> >>>> . >>>> . >>>> . >>> >>> Well Thomas is a Eartch growther btw, Is this hole growing :-D ? >> >> At least he's not denying basic math, > > Well I guess that he could likely do so; > >> like [A.E.] and [you] > > He didn't, we don't :-) According to basic [euclidean] math - for any right triangle a^2+b^2=c^2 (where a,b - shorter sides, c - the longest one). Notice that it's not "any triangle in my garden" here. It's ANY triangle. According to the teachings of the idiot (and yours) such statement is a) true, no right triangle without the property exists b) false, there are right triangles without the property ? Still no answer, poor stinker? Of course. But at least you're ashamed. That's good.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <jp@python.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-13 10:26 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <EJwQDEmGRx6pnb0Pe7or6Njkblc@jntp> |
| In reply to | #666016 |
Le 13/09/2025 à 12:21, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : > On 9/13/2025 12:08 PM, Python wrote: >> Le 13/09/2025 à 11:56, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>> On 9/13/2025 11:45 AM, Python wrote: >>>> Le 13/09/2025 à 10:51, Moebius a écrit : >>>>> Am 13.09.2025 um 10:46 schrieb Python: >>>>> >>>>>> At least you are not a flat earther :-) >>>>> >>>>> Actually, the earth has a hole! >>>>> >>>>> See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollow_Earth >>>>> >>>>> . >>>>> . >>>>> . >>>> >>>> Well Thomas is a Eartch growther btw, Is this hole growing :-D ? >>> >>> At least he's not denying basic math, >> >> Well I guess that he could likely do so; >> >>> like [A.E.] and [you] >> >> He didn't, we don't :-) > > > > According to basic [euclidean] math - for any > right triangle a^2+b^2=c^2 (where a,b - shorter sides, > c - the longest one). > Notice that it's not "any triangle in my garden" here. > It's ANY triangle. No it's any triangle in an euclidean space. Not ALL spaces are Euclidean. Something "one of the best logicians Humanity ever had" cannot grasp. Weird.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-13 12:47 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1864d1cd92afe360$205474$2996671$c2065a8b@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #666017 |
On 9/13/2025 12:26 PM, Python wrote: > Le 13/09/2025 à 12:21, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >> On 9/13/2025 12:08 PM, Python wrote: >>> Le 13/09/2025 à 11:56, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>> On 9/13/2025 11:45 AM, Python wrote: >>>>> Le 13/09/2025 à 10:51, Moebius a écrit : >>>>>> Am 13.09.2025 um 10:46 schrieb Python: >>>>>> >>>>>>> At least you are not a flat earther :-) >>>>>> >>>>>> Actually, the earth has a hole! >>>>>> >>>>>> See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollow_Earth >>>>>> >>>>>> . >>>>>> . >>>>>> . >>>>> >>>>> Well Thomas is a Eartch growther btw, Is this hole growing :-D ? >>>> >>>> At least he's not denying basic math, >>> >>> Well I guess that he could likely do so; >>> >>>> like [A.E.] and [you] >>> >>> He didn't, we don't :-) >> >> >> >> According to basic [euclidean] math - for any >> right triangle a^2+b^2=c^2 (where a,b - shorter sides, >> c - the longest one). >> Notice that it's not "any triangle in my garden" here. >> It's ANY triangle. > > No it's any triangle in an euclidean space. Well, an idiot like you can't even lie with sense, no surprise. How could Pythagoras know about any "euclidean space"? He lived 300 years before Euclid. Not even mentioning that Tarski (or maybe Godel) has proven that any theory invoking itself must be inconsistent, because how could you know that, "mathematician".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <jp@python.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-13 10:51 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <knPC7ZDB3pvsD1GCzrg_asBW5jE@jntp> |
| In reply to | #666018 |
Le 13/09/2025 à 12:47, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : > On 9/13/2025 12:26 PM, Python wrote: >> Le 13/09/2025 à 12:21, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>> On 9/13/2025 12:08 PM, Python wrote: >>>> Le 13/09/2025 à 11:56, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>>> On 9/13/2025 11:45 AM, Python wrote: >>>>>> Le 13/09/2025 à 10:51, Moebius a écrit : >>>>>>> Am 13.09.2025 um 10:46 schrieb Python: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> At least you are not a flat earther :-) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Actually, the earth has a hole! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollow_Earth >>>>>>> >>>>>>> . >>>>>>> . >>>>>>> . >>>>>> >>>>>> Well Thomas is a Eartch growther btw, Is this hole growing :-D ? >>>>> >>>>> At least he's not denying basic math, >>>> >>>> Well I guess that he could likely do so; >>>> >>>>> like [A.E.] and [you] >>>> >>>> He didn't, we don't :-) >>> >>> >>> >>> According to basic [euclidean] math - for any >>> right triangle a^2+b^2=c^2 (where a,b - shorter sides, >>> c - the longest one). >>> Notice that it's not "any triangle in my garden" here. >>> It's ANY triangle. >> >> No it's any triangle in an euclidean space. > > > Well, an idiot like you can't even lie > with sense, no surprise. How could Pythagoras > know about any "euclidean space"? He lived > 300 years before Euclid. You didn't notice that mathematics made some progress in between? One of this progress is driven by a very difficult concept called "generalization". > Not even mentioning that Tarski (or maybe Godel) > has proven that any theory invoking itself must > be inconsistent, because how could you know that, > "mathematician". There is nothing of this kind in my answer. I just attribute a name to a given property of some (not all) spaces. Like a natural number can be even or odd. BTW your description of Tarsky/Gödel theorems is utterly wrong.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-13 13:09 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1864d2fe7ad8a9b0$205475$2996671$c2065a8b@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #666020 |
On 9/13/2025 12:51 PM, Python wrote: > Le 13/09/2025 à 12:47, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >> On 9/13/2025 12:26 PM, Python wrote: >>> Le 13/09/2025 à 12:21, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>> On 9/13/2025 12:08 PM, Python wrote: >>>>> Le 13/09/2025 à 11:56, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>>>> On 9/13/2025 11:45 AM, Python wrote: >>>>>>> Le 13/09/2025 à 10:51, Moebius a écrit : >>>>>>>> Am 13.09.2025 um 10:46 schrieb Python: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> At least you are not a flat earther :-) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Actually, the earth has a hole! >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollow_Earth >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> . >>>>>>>> . >>>>>>>> . >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Well Thomas is a Eartch growther btw, Is this hole growing :-D ? >>>>>> >>>>>> At least he's not denying basic math, >>>>> >>>>> Well I guess that he could likely do so; >>>>> >>>>>> like [A.E.] and [you] >>>>> >>>>> He didn't, we don't :-) >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> According to basic [euclidean] math - for any >>>> right triangle a^2+b^2=c^2 (where a,b - shorter sides, >>>> c - the longest one). >>>> Notice that it's not "any triangle in my garden" here. >>>> It's ANY triangle. >>> >>> No it's any triangle in an euclidean space. >> >> >> Well, an idiot like you can't even lie >> with sense, no surprise. How could Pythagoras >> know about any "euclidean space"? He lived >> 300 years before Euclid. > > You didn't notice that mathematics made some progress in between? Good, good, poor stinker. Wave arms! Attack! That will for sure draw the attenttion and maybe the question how P could make and prove a claim about Euclid's space will get forgotten. >> Not even mentioning that Tarski (or maybe Godel) >> has proven that any theory invoking itself must >> be inconsistent, because how could you know that, >> "mathematician". > > There is nothing of this kind in my answer. Wrong, poor stinker. There is definitely "something of this kind" in your answer. You're, of course, too dumb to understand that, but that's no surprise.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <jp@python.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-13 11:12 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <usnynPNA7gPT9JchEIhecqCE5Rc@jntp> |
| In reply to | #666022 |
Le 13/09/2025 à 13:09, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : > On 9/13/2025 12:51 PM, Python wrote: >> Le 13/09/2025 à 12:47, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>> On 9/13/2025 12:26 PM, Python wrote: >>>> Le 13/09/2025 à 12:21, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>>> On 9/13/2025 12:08 PM, Python wrote: >>>>>> Le 13/09/2025 à 11:56, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>>>>> On 9/13/2025 11:45 AM, Python wrote: >>>>>>>> Le 13/09/2025 à 10:51, Moebius a écrit : >>>>>>>>> Am 13.09.2025 um 10:46 schrieb Python: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> At least you are not a flat earther :-) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Actually, the earth has a hole! >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollow_Earth >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> . >>>>>>>>> . >>>>>>>>> . >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Well Thomas is a Eartch growther btw, Is this hole growing :-D ? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> At least he's not denying basic math, >>>>>> >>>>>> Well I guess that he could likely do so; >>>>>> >>>>>>> like [A.E.] and [you] >>>>>> >>>>>> He didn't, we don't :-) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> According to basic [euclidean] math - for any >>>>> right triangle a^2+b^2=c^2 (where a,b - shorter sides, >>>>> c - the longest one). >>>>> Notice that it's not "any triangle in my garden" here. >>>>> It's ANY triangle. >>>> >>>> No it's any triangle in an euclidean space. >>> >>> >>> Well, an idiot like you can't even lie >>> with sense, no surprise. How could Pythagoras >>> know about any "euclidean space"? He lived >>> 300 years before Euclid. >> >> You didn't notice that mathematics made some progress in between? > > > Good, good, poor stinker. Wave arms! Attack! > That will for sure draw the attenttion > and maybe the question how P could make > and prove a claim about Euclid's space > will get forgotten. > > >>> Not even mentioning that Tarski (or maybe Godel) >>> has proven that any theory invoking itself must >>> be inconsistent, because how could you know that, >>> "mathematician". >> >> There is nothing of this kind in my answer. > > > Wrong, poor stinker. There is definitely > "something of this kind" in your answer. > You're, of course, too dumb to understand > that, but that's no surprise. It is quite clear here that the one here who is waving arms, attacking without arguments and slandering is Maciej Wozniak. Don't expect people to answer to your misconceptions with this kind of attitude.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web