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

Groups > sci.math > #640643 > unrolled thread

Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right

Back to article view | Back to sci.math

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

Contents

  Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right Tyler Bukoski <iuvyk@rsttyoyuj.pl> - 2025-11-10 17:36 +0000
    Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-11-11 08:34 +0100
      Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-11-11 20:58 +0100
        Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right Colomer Kalakos <rkmo@krmklra.gr> - 2025-11-12 00:34 +0000
        Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-11-12 09:13 +0100
          Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right Raymon Raimanov <oay@ormmao.ru> - 2025-11-12 18:37 +0000
          Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-11-12 21:12 +0100
            Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-11-13 10:01 +0100
              Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-11-13 21:38 +0100
                Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-11-14 07:42 +0100
                  Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-11-14 13:08 +0100
                    Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-11-14 13:39 +0100
                      Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right Stetson Sówka <ktt@ewshr.pl> - 2025-11-14 18:14 +0000
                      Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right Wendyl Agelakos <na@las.gr> - 2025-11-16 13:30 +0000
                Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-11-17 09:37 +0100
                  Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-11-23 11:12 -0800
                    Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-11-23 11:16 -0800
                      Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-11-23 11:26 -0800
                  Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-11-23 11:28 -0800
                    Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-11-23 11:33 -0800
                      Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-11-23 11:41 -0800
                        Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-11-23 12:06 -0800
                  Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-11-24 22:45 -0800
                    Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-11-27 08:09 +0100
                  Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right Efrain Ślusarski <iiiar@fesl.pl> - 2025-11-28 12:48 +0000
        Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-11-12 18:13 +0100
          Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-11-12 21:56 +0100
            Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-11-12 22:31 +0100
              Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-11-13 12:10 +0100
                Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-11-13 13:16 +0100
                  Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-11-13 22:56 +0100
                    Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-11-14 07:48 +0100
                      Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-11-14 12:15 +0100
                        Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right Cleveland Balabaev <aave@nnal.ru> - 2025-11-14 11:36 +0000
                        Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-11-14 13:37 +0100
                          Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-11-15 15:27 +0100
                            Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-11-15 16:05 +0100
                              Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-11-15 21:09 +0100
                                Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-11-15 21:25 +0100
                                  Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right Jerrell Kántor <ktl@rrkojh.hu> - 2025-11-16 13:21 +0000
                                  Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-11-16 14:27 +0100
                                    Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-11-16 09:43 -0800
                                      Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-11-16 12:11 -0800
      Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right Erin Schuhmacher <irre@ms.de> - 2025-11-12 00:30 +0000

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

#640643 — Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right

Maciej Woźniak wrote:

> On 11/10/2025 2:55 PM, Python wrote:
>> Definitely. A experiment that confirm F = ma also confirm :
> 
> No experiments confirm F=ma or anything else.
> Still, while most of relativistic idiots deeply believe that their
> accelerator s experiments "falsify" F=ma - in Feynamnn's physics the 
> formula is valid together with those experiments.

there is no force acting in freefall, fucking stoopid. You two are both 
polakers

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#640653

Am Montag000010, 10.11.2025 um 18:36 schrieb Tyler Bukoski:
> Maciej Woźniak wrote:
> 
>> On 11/10/2025 2:55 PM, Python wrote:
>>> Definitely. A experiment that confirm F = ma also confirm :
>>
>> No experiments confirm F=ma or anything else.
>> Still, while most of relativistic idiots deeply believe that their
>> accelerator s experiments "falsify" F=ma - in Feynamnn's physics the
>> formula is valid together with those experiments.
> 
> there is no force acting in freefall, fucking stoopid. You two are both
> polakers


Well, that depends on the definition of 'force'.

Usually gravity is considered to be a force, which accelerates objects, 
once they are allowed to fall.

This force reaches out from planet Earth with invisible hands and pulls 
down falling objects with a certain force.

That is certainly not a valid description of what is really happening in 
gravity.

Unfortunately nobody has a better one.


TH

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

#640659

Den 11.11.2025 08:34, skrev Thomas Heger:
> Am Montag000010, 10.11.2025 um 18:36 schrieb Tyler Bukoski:
>>
>> there is no force arting in freefall, 
> 
> Well, that depends on the definition of 'force'.

A force is what makes a mass m accelerate at a. F = ma

Consider the following scenario:
You are inside a small capsule somewhere in space.
You are weightless. You can't feel any force acting on you.

Can you tell if you are 10 million light years from the nearest
galaxy, or if you are in orbit around the Earth?

In the latter case, according to Newtonian Mechanics (NM),
a gravitational force will be acting on you.
Why don't you feel it?

> 
> Usually gravity is considered to be a force, which accelerates objects, 
> once they are allowed to fall.

In NM.

> This force reaches out from planet Earth with invisible hands and pulls 
> down falling objects with a certain force.

Quite.
Instant action at a distance.

> 
> That is certainly not a valid description of what is really happening in 
> gravity.

No theory of physics can "describe what's really happening".
A theory of physics is a mathematical model of some aspects
of nature. The best it can do is to give correct predictions
of what will be measured or observed in some experiments.

> 
> Unfortunately nobody has a better one.
> 
You can't be ignorant of the fact that 'The General Theory of
Physics' (GR) is a much better model of gravitation that NM.

What forces are acting on you right now?
It is the force acting upwards on your butt.
You can feel it.
It is accelerating you upwards at 9.81 m/s² !

In GR 'proper acceleration' is what is measured with
an accelerometer.
An accelerometer measures the force F that is exerted on
a known mass m in the accelerometer. The acceleration is
a = F/m.

Now you take your accelerometer and enter the capsule.
The mass of the capsule with you in it is M.
But this time the capsule is accelerated by a rocket with
a force F so that F/M = 9.81 m/s².

Your accelerometer shows that your acceleration is 9.81 m/s².

Can you tell if you are stationary (relative to ground)
one meter above the ground, or are accelerating somewhere
out in space?


In GR, there is no gravitational force.
Gravitation is the curvature of spacetime.
Mass curve spacetime.
There is no 'action at the distance'.

The mass of the Earth curves spacetime, and satellites
do what the local curvature tell them to do.

Changes in masses (like orbiting Moon) will change the curvature
with the speed of light. No instant action at a distance.

-- 
Paul

https://paulba.no/

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

#640666

Paul.B.Andersen wrote:

> Den 11.11.2025 08:34, skrev Thomas Heger:
>> Am Montag000010, 10.11.2025 um 18:36 schrieb Tyler Bukoski:
>>>
>>> there is no force arting in freefall,
>> 
>> Well, that depends on the definition of 'force'.
> 
> A force is what makes a mass m accelerate at a. F = ma

idiot, you stand on earth and not accelerate. Fucking unskilled, 
unprepared and uneducated morons. You see physics labs only by pictures. 
Idiot.

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

#640674

Am Dienstag000011, 11.11.2025 um 20:58 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen:
> Den 11.11.2025 08:34, skrev Thomas Heger:
>> Am Montag000010, 10.11.2025 um 18:36 schrieb Tyler Bukoski:
>>>
>>> there is no force arting in freefall, 
>>
>> Well, that depends on the definition of 'force'.
> 
> A force is what makes a mass m accelerate at a. F = ma
> 
> Consider the following scenario:
> You are inside a small capsule somewhere in space.
> You are weightless. You can't feel any force acting on you.
> 
> Can you tell if you are 10 million light years from the nearest
> galaxy, or if you are in orbit around the Earth?
> 
> In the latter case, according to Newtonian Mechanics (NM),
> a gravitational force will be acting on you.
> Why don't you feel it?
> 
>>
>> Usually gravity is considered to be a force, which accelerates 
>> objects, once they are allowed to fall.
> 
> In NM.
> 
>> This force reaches out from planet Earth with invisible hands and 
>> pulls down falling objects with a certain force.
> 
> Quite.
> Instant action at a distance.
> 
>>
>> That is certainly not a valid description of what is really happening 
>> in gravity.
> 
> No theory of physics can "describe what's really happening".
> A theory of physics is a mathematical model of some aspects
> of nature. The best it can do is to give correct predictions
> of what will be measured or observed in some experiments.

I do not agree.

(This is why we do never agree on anything.)

I actually think, that models and reality are two distict entities.

Models are useful, but nature is not.

Nature is as nature is and that is not supposed to serve our demands.

To make calculations possible we use simplyfied versions of the real 
world, call that 'model' and let them run in computers.

But that is NOT how nature functions, not even close.

If we want to understand nature, we had to give up our demands for 
usuable models, because we can safely assume, that nature itself does 
not use computers.


>>
>> Unfortunately nobody has a better one.
>>
> You can't be ignorant of the fact that 'The General Theory of
> Physics' (GR) is a much better model of gravitation that NM.


I do agree here and did already (even if GR had a slightly different title).

https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing

> What forces are acting on you right now?

Coffein and peanut butter sandwiches.
...


TH

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

#640687

Thomas Heger wrote:

> Am Dienstag000011, 11.11.2025 um 20:58 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen:
>> No theory of physics can "describe what's really happening".
>> A theory of physics is a mathematical model of some aspects of nature.
>> The best it can do is to give correct predictions of what will be
>> measured or observed in some experiments.
> 
> I do not agree.
> 
> (This is why we do never agree on anything.)
> 
> I actually think, that models and reality are two distict entities.

he just said the same; the point is that you have to use reality to sense 
reality, which is oxymoron; hence what you do is sensing it by believes, 
something taking place into a brain.

The businessman, Timur Mindich, is believed to have fled to Israel hours 
before his home was raided by agents, raising questions of whether he had 
been tipped off to the impending move against him. The Ukrainian media 
have reported that the FBI is now also investigating Mindich. 

why the fuck are they always fleeing there, once the country coming from 
is 90% Christian. They hate Jesus I can see. The entire collective_west 
hates Jesus.

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

#640692

Den 12.11.2025 09:13, skrev Thomas Heger:
> Am Dienstag000011, 11.11.2025 um 20:58 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen:
>>
>> No theory of physics can "describe what's really happening".
>> A theory of physics is a mathematical model of some aspects
>> of nature. The best it can do is to give correct predictions
>> of what will be measured or observed in some experiments.

> I do not agree.

So you claim that a theory of physics can  "describe what's
really happening"?

> I actually think, that models and reality are two distict entities.

As opposed to what I think?
> Models are useful, but nature is not.


A statement void of meaning
For what are "models" useful, and for what is "nature" not useful?

> 
> Nature is as nature is and that is not supposed to serve our demands.


"Nature is not supposed to serve our demands."

Don't you understand that this is an idiotic statement?

> 
> To make calculations possible we use simplyfied versions of the real 
> world, call that 'model' and let them run in computers.
> 
> But that is NOT how nature functions, not even close.
> 
> If we want to understand nature, we had to give up our demands for 
> usuable models, because we can safely assume, that nature itself does 
> not use computers.

So you are claiming that to understand nature we must not
use theories of physics because nature itself doesn't use
computers.

And then we will "understand nature"? :-D

-----------------------

Now let's look at a meaningful statement:

No theory of physics can "describe what's really happening".
A theory of physics is a mathematical model of some aspects
of nature. The best it can do is to give correct predictions
of what will be measured or observed in some experiments.

This means that a theory of physics is _not_ "nature" or
"the reality". And we can never "understand nature".
Theories of physics are mathematical models.
We can understand these models.
And these models can actually help us designing mechanical
and electrical appliances and machinery.

The civilisation as we know it would be impossible without
these theories of physics.
(NM, Maxwell, thermodynamics, hydrodynamics, aerodynamics, SR, GR)

Do you agree?


>> What forces are acting on you right now?
> 
> Coffein and peanut butter sandwiches.

Does that mean that you are unable to give a sensible response to
the following?

You. Thomas Heger wrote:
| Usually gravity is considered to be a force, which accelerates
| objects, once they are allowed to fall.
| This force reaches out from planet Earth with invisible hands
| and pulls down falling objects with a certain force.
| That is certainly not a valid description of what is really
| happening in gravity.
|
| Unfortunately nobody has a better one.

'The General Theory of Physics' (GR)
  is a much better model of gravitation that NM.

So please respond to the following:

Now you take your accelerometer and enter the capsule.
The mass of the capsule with you in it is M.
But this time the capsule is accelerated by a rocket with
a force F so that F/M = 9.81 m/s².

Your accelerometer shows that your acceleration is 9.81 m/s².

Can you tell if you are stationary (relative to ground)
one meter above the ground, or are accelerating somewhere
out in space?


In GR, there is no gravitational force.
Gravitation is the curvature of spacetime.
Mass curve spacetime.
There is no 'action at the distance'.

The mass of the Earth curves spacetime, and satellites
do what the local curvature tell them to do.

Changes in masses (like orbiting Moon) will change the curvature
with the speed of light. No instant action at a distance.


-- 
Paul

https://paulba.no/

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

#640712

Am Mittwoch000012, 12.11.2025 um 21:12 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen:
> Den 12.11.2025 09:13, skrev Thomas Heger:
>> Am Dienstag000011, 11.11.2025 um 20:58 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen:
>>>
>>> No theory of physics can "describe what's really happening".
>>> A theory of physics is a mathematical model of some aspects
>>> of nature. The best it can do is to give correct predictions
>>> of what will be measured or observed in some experiments.
> 
>> I do not agree.
> 
> So you claim that a theory of physics can  "describe what's
> really happening"?
> 
>> I actually think, that models and reality are two distict entities.
> 
> As opposed to what I think?
>> Models are useful, but nature is not.
> 
> 
> A statement void of meaning
> For what are "models" useful, and for what is "nature" not useful?
> 

A model is a simplyfied representation of something.

It has the advantage of being able to be computed and to make predictions.

But usually the predictions and the real thing differ to some degree, 
because the model works upon entirely different principles than the real 
thing does.

Therefore, we need to decide:

do we want usability or precision?


>> Nature is as nature is and that is not supposed to serve our demands.
> 
> 
> "Nature is not supposed to serve our demands."
> 
> Don't you understand that this is an idiotic statement?

well, in a way you are right.

I meant:

we cannot assume, that nature is like nature is, because we want it that 
way.

Nature decides, what is right and what is wrong and not we human beings.

To create good modells we need good understanding of the acting 
principles, which nature actually uses.

But we can't use the same principles in models, because such a model 
could not be computed and would take foreever to make any predictions.

That's why we need to give up predictions and computability, if we want 
to describe, how nature functions.

For a model we need something different, hence use simplyfied 
approximations.

This makes models computable, but unfortunately also less precise.


>>
>> To make calculations possible we use simplyfied versions of the real 
>> world, call that 'model' and let them run in computers.
>>
>> But that is NOT how nature functions, not even close.
>>
>> If we want to understand nature, we had to give up our demands for 
>> usuable models, because we can safely assume, that nature itself does 
>> not use computers.
> 
> So you are claiming that to understand nature we must not
> use theories of physics because nature itself doesn't use
> computers.

'Nature' is meant as synonym for everything, that is not created by men.

This 'everything else than manmade' is functioning somehow. And our taks 
is, to find out, how this functions.

If we would, this wouldn't help us at all in even the simplest of tasks, 
because such tasks are actually related to manmade devices.

> And then we will "understand nature"? :-D

No, not at all.

But we can safely assume, that nature does not use computers.

> -----------------------
> 
> Now let's look at a meaningful statement:
> 
> No theory of physics can "describe what's really happening".
> A theory of physics is a mathematical model of some aspects
> of nature. The best it can do is to give correct predictions
> of what will be measured or observed in some experiments.

That is total nonsense.

If you insist on usuablity, you already failed to understand something.

> This means that a theory of physics is _not_ "nature" or
> "the reality". And we can never "understand nature".
> Theories of physics are mathematical models.
> We can understand these models.
> And these models can actually help us designing mechanical
> and electrical appliances and machinery.

If you give up the wish to understand nature, than all your efforts are 
a waste of time.
...

TH

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

#640736

Den 13.11.2025 10:01, skrev Thomas Heger:
> Am Mittwoch000012, 12.11.2025 um 21:12 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen:

> 
> A model is a simplyfied representation of something.
> 
> It has the advantage of being able to be computed and to make predictions.
> 
> But usually the predictions and the real thing differ to some degree, 
> because the model works upon entirely different principles than the real 
> thing does.

The mathematical models SR and GR predict the "real thing" with
infinite precision. (Or rather, the precision of the prediction
is only limited by how precisely the experiment is defined.)

It is the measurement of "the real thing" that always will be
of limited precision.
But SR or GR is considered as confirmed only when the prediction
is well within the error bars of the measurement.

> 
> Therefore, we need to decide:
> 
> do we want usability or precision?

< snip lot of nonsense >

Here is your alternative to mathematical models like SR and GR:

> 
> To create good modells we need good understanding of the acting 
> principles, which nature actually uses.
> 
> But we can't use the same principles in models, because such 
> a model could not be computed and would take fore ever to make 
> any predictions.
> 
> That's why we need to give up predictions and computability, 
> if we want to describe, how nature functions.

So your alternative 'description of how nature works' can't
predict how nature will behave when a well defined experiment
is performed, yet it does describe how nature works?

> 
> For a model we need something different, hence use simplyfied 
> approximations.
> 
> This makes models computable, but unfortunately also less precise.

So in the real world we have to use mathematical models like
SR and GR which can predict how nature will behave in well
defined experiments.

According to you, the predictions of SR and GR are less
precise than your 'description of how nature works',
which can predict nothing about how nature will behave when
a well defined experiment is performed.

---------------

Honestly Thomas:
This is mindless nonsense!
Are you inventing things as you go without considering
the consequences of your inventions?

< snip more stupidities >


>> -----------------------
>>
>> Now let's look at a meaningful statement:
>>
>> No theory of physics can "describe what's really happening".
>> A theory of physics is a mathematical model of some aspects
>> of nature. The best it can do is to give correct predictions
>> of what will be measured or observed in some experiments.

> That is total nonsense.
> 
> If you insist on usuablity, you already failed to understand something.


The following are facts which you claim are "total nonsense":

"The Special Theory of Relativity (SR)" as defined in Einstein's
paper "ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES", and
"The General Theory of Relativity (GR)" as defined in Einstein's
paper "The Foundation of the General Theory of Relativity".
are both logically consistent theories.

Do you dispute this?
====================

Both these theories of physics give precise predictions
for what will be measured in well defined experiments.

Do you dispute this?
====================

For a vast number of experiments the predictions of SR and GR
are confirmed to be in accordance with measurements.

Do you dispute this?
====================

You can see some of these experiment here:
https://paulba.no/paper/index.html

Now you can explain why the mathematical models SR and GR
are "total nonsense".



-- 
Paul

https://paulba.no/

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

#640750

On 11/13/2025 9:38 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Den 13.11.2025 10:01, skrev Thomas Heger:
>> Am Mittwoch000012, 12.11.2025 um 21:12 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen:
> 
>>
>> A model is a simplyfied representation of something.
>>
>> It has the advantage of being able to be computed and to make 
>> predictions.
>>
>> But usually the predictions and the real thing differ to some degree, 
>> because the model works upon entirely different principles than the 
>> real thing does.
> 
> The mathematical models SR and GR predict the "real thing" with
> infinite precision. (Or rather, the precision of the prediction
> is only limited by how precisely the experiment is defined.)
> 
> It is the measurement of "the real thing" that always will be
> of limited precision.
> But SR or GR is considered as confirmed only when the prediction
> is well within the error bars of the measurement.


Fortunately - even such a disgusting piece of
lying shit as you are can't lie non stop, so
sometimes you admit that the real measurement
re3sults don't fit your Shit at all.


> So your alternative 'description of how nature works' can't
> predict how nature will behave when a well defined experiment
> is performed, yet it does describe how nature works?
> 
>>
>> For a model we need something different, hence use simplyfied 
>> approximations.
>>
>> This makes models computable, but unfortunately also less precise.
> 
> So in the real world we have to use mathematical models like
> SR and GR which can predict how nature will behave in well
> defined experiments.

Paul, poor trash, what nature? Observers,
clocks, measurements - nature doesn't deal
with that at all.
Physics was never predicting how nature
works,instead it was enforcing how observers
work with clocks and other measurement tools.

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

#640756

Den 14.11.2025 07:42, skrev Maciej Woźniak:
> 
> Fortunately - even such a disgusting piece of
> lying shit as you are can't lie non stop, so
> sometimes you admit that the real measurement
> re3sults don't fit your Shit at all.


Can you name one "real measurement" which
"don't fit" SR or GR?

Can you quote where I admitted that this real measurement
"don't fit" SR or GR?


Here you have a bunch of real measurements to choose from:
https://paulba.no/paper/index.html

Or do you have another real measurement in mind?

-- 
Paul

https://paulba.no/

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

#640758

On 11/14/2025 1:08 PM, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
> Den 14.11.2025 07:42, skrev Maciej Woźniak:
>>
>> Fortunately - even such a disgusting piece of
>> lying shit as you are can't lie non stop, so
>> sometimes you admit that the real measurement
>> re3sults don't fit your Shit at all.
> 
> 
> Can you name one "real measurement" which
> "don't fit" SR or GR?

Sure.

 > GPS clocks are adjusted down by (1 - 4.4647e-10)
 > so the adjusted clock will measure a mean solar day
 > to last 86400 s


So, where The Shit is predicting 83400s+37us -
the real measurement result is 86400. And you
re admitting that. You're soooo stupid.

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

#640770

Maciej Woźniak wrote:

> On 11/14/2025 1:08 PM, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
>> Can you name one "real measurement" which "don't fit" SR or GR?
> 
> Sure.
> 
>  > GPS clocks are adjusted down by (1 - 4.4647e-10) so the adjusted
>  > clock will measure a mean solar day to last 86400 s
> 
> So, where The Shit is predicting 83400s+37us -
> the real measurement result is 86400. And you re admitting that. You're
> soooo stupid.

dobravietchy, good news, we come back

𝗥𝘂𝘀𝘀𝗶𝘀𝗰𝗵𝗲_𝗡𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗹𝗵𝘆𝗺𝗻𝗲_𝗺𝗶𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗻_𝗶𝗺_𝗭𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗿𝘂𝗺_𝗱𝗲𝗿_𝗡𝗔𝗧𝗢_𝗕𝗲𝗿𝗹𝗶𝗻_9.11.2025
https://b%69%74%63%68%75te.com/v%69%64%65o/HwR98rmjYz8n

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

#640798

Paul.B.Andersen wrote:

> if the GPS clock hadn't been adjusted down, then the GPS clock would
> have measured a mean solar day to last 86400 s + 38.6 μs as predicted by
> GR.

in that configuration you don't have a microsecond yet. Nor seconds. You 
two talks discussions. 

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

#640825

Am Donnerstag000013, 13.11.2025 um 21:38 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:
> Den 13.11.2025 10:01, skrev Thomas Heger:
>> Am Mittwoch000012, 12.11.2025 um 21:12 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen:
> 
>>
>> A model is a simplyfied representation of something.
>>
>> It has the advantage of being able to be computed and to make 
>> predictions.
>>
>> But usually the predictions and the real thing differ to some degree, 
>> because the model works upon entirely different principles than the 
>> real thing does.
> 
> The mathematical models SR and GR predict the "real thing" with
> infinite precision. (Or rather, the precision of the prediction
> is only limited by how precisely the experiment is defined.)

You are just a hopelss case!
...

TH

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

#641028

On Sun, 23 Nov 2025 11:05:01 -0800, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 23 Nov 2025 10:12:20 +0100, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de>
>wrote:
>
>>Am Samstag000022, 22.11.2025 um 20:10 schrieb The Starmaker:
>>
>>>>>>>>> Both these theories of physics give precise predictions
>>>>>>>>> for what will be measured in well defined experiments.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Do you dispute this?
>>>>>>>>> ====================
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I distinguish between a model and the part of nature, which that
>>>>>>>> model attempts to model.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This distinction is extremly important and by no meas disputable.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If you equate a model with the real world, you would  conduct
>>>>>>>> something extremely stupid.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That is like eating the menu in a restaurant instead of the meal.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Again, your opinion of SR/GR is irrelevant.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It is an indisputable fact that SR and GR give precise
>>>>>>> predictions for what will be measured in well defined experiments.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Again: you are a hopeless case!
>>>>>
>>>>> Says the one who didn't understand a single word of Einstein's paper on SR.
>>>>
>>>> I can almost sing the entire paper and absolutely understand every
>>>> single word or equation in it.
>>>>
>>>> I have spent a lot of time upon that particular paper. And now you could
>>>> ask me everthing about it.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Okay, which part did his wife wrote?
>>
>>Elsa Einstein looked like a male in a dress.
>>
>>Don't know if 'she' wrote anything significant.
>>
>>His former wife looked nicer and was certainly smarter.
>>
>>But I don't know, which part of Einstein's papers she had actually written.
>>
>>TH
>
>She co-authord the 1905 paper. How is it possible you don't know
>that???
>
>Dr. Walker also presented evidence at the symposium that a noted
>Russian physicist named Abraham F. Joffe had seen the original
>manuscripts of Einstein's 1905 papers while Dr. Joffe had been a
>graduate student, and that one of the authors on the papers was
>``Einstein-Marity,'' the Hungarianized spelling of Mari'c's name.

 Historians have translated the letters between Einstein and Maric
into English, allowing a detailed analysis of their relationship.
However, one of these letters includes the phrase: “bringing our work
on relative motion to a successful conclusion!” This seems to back up
the idea that the pair must have collaborated.

 “bringing our work on relative motion to a successful conclusion!”


"our work"

The 1905 Relativity paper is  “bringing our work on relative motion to
a successful conclusion!”

Maybe she did the math part. (his math was noo too good) pardon my
german.

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

#641029

On Sun, 23 Nov 2025 11:12:43 -0800, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 23 Nov 2025 11:05:01 -0800, The Starmaker
><starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 23 Nov 2025 10:12:20 +0100, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Am Samstag000022, 22.11.2025 um 20:10 schrieb The Starmaker:
>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Both these theories of physics give precise predictions
>>>>>>>>>> for what will be measured in well defined experiments.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Do you dispute this?
>>>>>>>>>> ====================
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I distinguish between a model and the part of nature, which that
>>>>>>>>> model attempts to model.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This distinction is extremly important and by no meas disputable.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If you equate a model with the real world, you would  conduct
>>>>>>>>> something extremely stupid.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That is like eating the menu in a restaurant instead of the meal.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Again, your opinion of SR/GR is irrelevant.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It is an indisputable fact that SR and GR give precise
>>>>>>>> predictions for what will be measured in well defined experiments.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Again: you are a hopeless case!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Says the one who didn't understand a single word of Einstein's paper on SR.
>>>>>
>>>>> I can almost sing the entire paper and absolutely understand every
>>>>> single word or equation in it.
>>>>>
>>>>> I have spent a lot of time upon that particular paper. And now you could
>>>>> ask me everthing about it.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Okay, which part did his wife wrote?
>>>
>>>Elsa Einstein looked like a male in a dress.
>>>
>>>Don't know if 'she' wrote anything significant.
>>>
>>>His former wife looked nicer and was certainly smarter.
>>>
>>>But I don't know, which part of Einstein's papers she had actually written.
>>>
>>>TH
>>
>>She co-authord the 1905 paper. How is it possible you don't know
>>that???
>>
>>Dr. Walker also presented evidence at the symposium that a noted
>>Russian physicist named Abraham F. Joffe had seen the original
>>manuscripts of Einstein's 1905 papers while Dr. Joffe had been a
>>graduate student, and that one of the authors on the papers was
>>``Einstein-Marity,'' the Hungarianized spelling of Mari'c's name.
>
> Historians have translated the letters between Einstein and Maric
>into English, allowing a detailed analysis of their relationship.
>However, one of these letters includes the phrase: “bringing our work
>on relative motion to a successful conclusion!” This seems to back up
>the idea that the pair must have collaborated.
>
> “bringing our work on relative motion to a successful conclusion!”
>
>
>"our work"
>
>The 1905 Relativity paper is  “bringing our work on relative motion to
>a successful conclusion!”
>
>Maybe she did the math part. (his math was noo too good) pardon my
>german.

Maric and Einstein divorced in 1919, but as part of the divorce
settlement, Einstein agreed to pay his ex-wife every krona of any
future Nobel Prize he might be awarded.

He told her, "I'll pay you if you promise to shut the fuck up about
you co-authored our 1905 paper, ...bitch."

She said, "Okay you fucking kike!"

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

#641030

On Sun, 23 Nov 2025 11:16:55 -0800, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 23 Nov 2025 11:12:43 -0800, The Starmaker
><starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 23 Nov 2025 11:05:01 -0800, The Starmaker
>><starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 23 Nov 2025 10:12:20 +0100, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>Am Samstag000022, 22.11.2025 um 20:10 schrieb The Starmaker:
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Both these theories of physics give precise predictions
>>>>>>>>>>> for what will be measured in well defined experiments.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Do you dispute this?
>>>>>>>>>>> ====================
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I distinguish between a model and the part of nature, which that
>>>>>>>>>> model attempts to model.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> This distinction is extremly important and by no meas disputable.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If you equate a model with the real world, you would  conduct
>>>>>>>>>> something extremely stupid.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> That is like eating the menu in a restaurant instead of the meal.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Again, your opinion of SR/GR is irrelevant.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It is an indisputable fact that SR and GR give precise
>>>>>>>>> predictions for what will be measured in well defined experiments.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Again: you are a hopeless case!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Says the one who didn't understand a single word of Einstein's paper on SR.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I can almost sing the entire paper and absolutely understand every
>>>>>> single word or equation in it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have spent a lot of time upon that particular paper. And now you could
>>>>>> ask me everthing about it.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Okay, which part did his wife wrote?
>>>>
>>>>Elsa Einstein looked like a male in a dress.
>>>>
>>>>Don't know if 'she' wrote anything significant.
>>>>
>>>>His former wife looked nicer and was certainly smarter.
>>>>
>>>>But I don't know, which part of Einstein's papers she had actually written.
>>>>
>>>>TH
>>>
>>>She co-authord the 1905 paper. How is it possible you don't know
>>>that???
>>>
>>>Dr. Walker also presented evidence at the symposium that a noted
>>>Russian physicist named Abraham F. Joffe had seen the original
>>>manuscripts of Einstein's 1905 papers while Dr. Joffe had been a
>>>graduate student, and that one of the authors on the papers was
>>>``Einstein-Marity,'' the Hungarianized spelling of Mari'c's name.
>>
>> Historians have translated the letters between Einstein and Maric
>>into English, allowing a detailed analysis of their relationship.
>>However, one of these letters includes the phrase: “bringing our work
>>on relative motion to a successful conclusion!” This seems to back up
>>the idea that the pair must have collaborated.
>>
>> “bringing our work on relative motion to a successful conclusion!”
>>
>>
>>"our work"
>>
>>The 1905 Relativity paper is  “bringing our work on relative motion to
>>a successful conclusion!”
>>
>>Maybe she did the math part. (his math was noo too good) pardon my
>>german.
>
>Maric and Einstein divorced in 1919, but as part of the divorce
>settlement, Einstein agreed to pay his ex-wife every krona of any
>future Nobel Prize he might be awarded.
>
>He told her, "I'll pay you if you promise to shut the fuck up about
>you co-authored our 1905 paper, ...bitch."
>
>She said, "Okay you fucking kike!"


Here is a list of Einstien's conditions for divorce:

CONDITIONS

A. You will make sure:

1. that my clothes and laundry are kept in good order;
2. that I will receive my three meals regularly in my room;
3. that my bedroom and study are kept neat, and especially that my
desk is left for my use only.

B. You will renounce all personal relations with me insofar as they
are not completely necessary for social reasons. Specifically, You
will forego:

1. my sitting at home with you;
2. my going out or travelling with you.

C. You will obey the following points in your relations with me:

1. you will not expect any intimacy from me, nor will you reproach me
in any way;
2. you will stop talking to me if I request it;
3. you will leave my bedroom or study immediately without protest if I
request it.

D. You will undertake not to belittle me in front of our children,
either through words or behavior.

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

#641031

On Sun, 23 Nov 2025 11:05:01 -0800, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 23 Nov 2025 10:12:20 +0100, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de>
>wrote:
>
>>Am Samstag000022, 22.11.2025 um 20:10 schrieb The Starmaker:
>>
>>>>>>>>> Both these theories of physics give precise predictions
>>>>>>>>> for what will be measured in well defined experiments.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Do you dispute this?
>>>>>>>>> ====================
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I distinguish between a model and the part of nature, which that
>>>>>>>> model attempts to model.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This distinction is extremly important and by no meas disputable.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If you equate a model with the real world, you would  conduct
>>>>>>>> something extremely stupid.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That is like eating the menu in a restaurant instead of the meal.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Again, your opinion of SR/GR is irrelevant.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It is an indisputable fact that SR and GR give precise
>>>>>>> predictions for what will be measured in well defined experiments.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Again: you are a hopeless case!
>>>>>
>>>>> Says the one who didn't understand a single word of Einstein's paper on SR.
>>>>
>>>> I can almost sing the entire paper and absolutely understand every
>>>> single word or equation in it.
>>>>
>>>> I have spent a lot of time upon that particular paper. And now you could
>>>> ask me everthing about it.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Okay, which part did his wife wrote?
>>
>>Elsa Einstein looked like a male in a dress.
>>
>>Don't know if 'she' wrote anything significant.
>>
>>His former wife looked nicer and was certainly smarter.
>>
>>But I don't know, which part of Einstein's papers she had actually written.
>>
>>TH
>
>She co-authord the 1905 paper. How is it possible you don't know
>that???
>
>Dr. Walker also presented evidence at the symposium that a noted
>Russian physicist named Abraham F. Joffe had seen the original
>manuscripts of Einstein's 1905 papers while Dr. Joffe had been a
>graduate student, and that one of the authors on the papers was
>``Einstein-Marity,'' the Hungarianized spelling of Mari'c's name.


https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2016/08/01/did-albert-einstein-steal-the-theory-of-relativity-from-his-wife/



of course, he's a gonif.
-- 
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, 
and challenge the unchallengeable.

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

#641032

On Sun, 23 Nov 2025 11:28:48 -0800, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 23 Nov 2025 11:05:01 -0800, The Starmaker
><starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 23 Nov 2025 10:12:20 +0100, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Am Samstag000022, 22.11.2025 um 20:10 schrieb The Starmaker:
>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Both these theories of physics give precise predictions
>>>>>>>>>> for what will be measured in well defined experiments.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Do you dispute this?
>>>>>>>>>> ====================
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I distinguish between a model and the part of nature, which that
>>>>>>>>> model attempts to model.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This distinction is extremly important and by no meas disputable.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If you equate a model with the real world, you would  conduct
>>>>>>>>> something extremely stupid.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That is like eating the menu in a restaurant instead of the meal.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Again, your opinion of SR/GR is irrelevant.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It is an indisputable fact that SR and GR give precise
>>>>>>>> predictions for what will be measured in well defined experiments.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Again: you are a hopeless case!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Says the one who didn't understand a single word of Einstein's paper on SR.
>>>>>
>>>>> I can almost sing the entire paper and absolutely understand every
>>>>> single word or equation in it.
>>>>>
>>>>> I have spent a lot of time upon that particular paper. And now you could
>>>>> ask me everthing about it.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Okay, which part did his wife wrote?
>>>
>>>Elsa Einstein looked like a male in a dress.
>>>
>>>Don't know if 'she' wrote anything significant.
>>>
>>>His former wife looked nicer and was certainly smarter.
>>>
>>>But I don't know, which part of Einstein's papers she had actually written.
>>>
>>>TH
>>
>>She co-authord the 1905 paper. How is it possible you don't know
>>that???
>>
>>Dr. Walker also presented evidence at the symposium that a noted
>>Russian physicist named Abraham F. Joffe had seen the original
>>manuscripts of Einstein's 1905 papers while Dr. Joffe had been a
>>graduate student, and that one of the authors on the papers was
>>``Einstein-Marity,'' the Hungarianized spelling of Mari'c's name.
>
>
>https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2016/08/01/did-albert-einstein-steal-the-theory-of-relativity-from-his-wife/
>
>
>
>of course, he's a gonif.


Yes, "Einstein-Marity" (Mileva Maric) was a talented mathematician and
physicist who was a highly intelligent student and a key figure in
Albert Einstein's early work. She was the only woman in her
mathematics and physics class at the Zurich Polytechnic, and evidence
suggests she assisted Albert with complex calculations for his papers,
which he reportedly acknowledged by saying she "solves all my
mathematical problems". 


So, my question 
"Okay, which part did his wife wrote?"

the answer has to be the Math part.


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

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

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.math

csiph-web