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

#641033

On Sun, 23 Nov 2025 11:33:19 -0800, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

>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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mileva_Mari%C4%87#:~:text=Her%20highest%20grades%20were%20in,mathematics%20lectures%20as%20an%20auditor.




-- 
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]

#641034

On Sun, 23 Nov 2025 11:41:59 -0800, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 23 Nov 2025 11:33:19 -0800, The Starmaker
><starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>>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.
>
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mileva_Mari%C4%87#:~:text=Her%20highest%20grades%20were%20in,mathematics%20lectures%20as%20an%20auditor.


In the shadow of Albert Einstein: the
tragic life of Mileva Einstein-Maric, Desanka
Trbuhovic-Gjuric (1969/1993: 79) claimed that the
Russian physicist Abram Joffe, in his article ‘In
remembrance ofAlbert Einstein’, pointed out that the
1905 papers were originally signed ‘Einstein-Maric’.
Following Trbuhovic-Gjuric, Evan Harris Walker
wrote a letter to Physics Today, published in 1991,
reiterating the claim. Walker claimed that, regarding
the 1905 papers, Joffe noted that ‘Their author was
Einstein-Mariti’ (Walker, 1991: 123). That phrase is
Walker’s translation from an article of 1955 in
Russian. Furthermore, Michele Zackheim, in her book
Einstein’s daughter (1999: 19), stated that ‘Abram F.
Joffe,aRussian scientist, wrote in Meetings with
Physicists: my reminiscences of foreign physicists,
that three original manuscripts, including the one
describing the Special Theory of Relativity, were
signed “Einstein-Marity”.’ Likewise, Bjerknes (2002:
195) stated that ‘Joffe (Ioffe) recounts that the paper
was signed “Einstein-Marity”.’ Furthermore, in 2003
the claim that Joffe cited Maric’s name on the 1905
manuscripts was aired in the television programme,
Einstein’s Wife.And, the companion website (see endnote 1) claims that
‘there is at least one printed report
in which Joffe declared that he personally saw the
names of two authors on the 1905 papers: Einstein
and Marity’.

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

#641057

On Mon, 24 Nov 2025 10:21:33 +0100, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de>
wrote:

>Am Sonntag000023, 23.11.2025 um 20:05 schrieb The Starmaker:
>> 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???
>> 
>
>I knew, of course, that Mileva Maric wrote some parts of that article.
>
>But actually I don't know, which parts she wrote.


It's very simple...he is a word person, she is a number person.


>
>I personally thought, that Einstein didn't write any of those papers or 
>articles, which bear his name.
>
>The reason to think so:
>
>Einstein wrote simply way too much in 1905 to be technically possible 
>for a single person.
>
>He wrote actually four groundbraking articles in 1905 alone, from which 
>one won him a Nobel Price.
>
>Besides of that and working fulltime at the Swiss patent office in Bern, 
>he also wrote 20 reviews for 'Annalen der Physik'.

goofing off  fulltime at the Swiss patent office...

he's a goof off.

>
>That's more than a person could possibly do, even if he had no familily 
>to care for (as Einstein had).
>
>So, my guess: 'Q' provided the papers and Einstein his smile.

I don't recal Einstein smiling...

>
>
>TH
>
>> 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.

I get it. Jewish woman even today in Israel are not allowed to sit in
front of the bus..men sit in front, women sit in the back...where they
belong.


-- 
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]

#641294

Am Dienstag000025, 25.11.2025 um 07:45 schrieb The Starmaker:
> On Mon, 24 Nov 2025 10:21:33 +0100, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de>
> wrote:
> 
>> Am Sonntag000023, 23.11.2025 um 20:05 schrieb The Starmaker:
>>> 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???
>>>
>>
>> I knew, of course, that Mileva Maric wrote some parts of that article.
>>
>> But actually I don't know, which parts she wrote.
> 
> 
> It's very simple...he is a word person, she is a number person.
> 
> 
>>
>> I personally thought, that Einstein didn't write any of those papers or
>> articles, which bear his name.
>>
>> The reason to think so:
>>
>> Einstein wrote simply way too much in 1905 to be technically possible
>> for a single person.
>>
>> He wrote actually four groundbraking articles in 1905 alone, from which
>> one won him a Nobel Price.
>>
>> Besides of that and working fulltime at the Swiss patent office in Bern,
>> he also wrote 20 reviews for 'Annalen der Physik'.
> 
> goofing off  fulltime at the Swiss patent office...
> 
> he's a goof off.
> 
>>
>> That's more than a person could possibly do, even if he had no familily
>> to care for (as Einstein had).
>>
>> So, my guess: 'Q' provided the papers and Einstein his smile.
> 
> I don't recal Einstein smiling...

Well, that's a point for you.

My guess was, that Einstein was actually kind of (disinformation) agent.

For instance I found, that his biography didn't make sense.

For me Einstein wasn't a German, but a Swiss citizen from birth and 
possibly not even a Jew.

More likely he was actually a Swiss Jesuit and belonged to the 
fraternity, commonly called the 'CIA of the vatican'.

Therefore a few thigs didn't add up in his life, because these were 
actually lies.

E.g. he was left behind alone in Munich, Germany, after his family moved 
to Pavia, Italy.

There he lived next door to a Jesuit facility, but didn't go to school.

Then he went alone to Aarau in Switzerland and attend school there.

But since when have the Swiss allowed this?

And then he went to ETH in Zurich, even if was allegedly stateless alien.

Miraculusly he got Swiss citizenship later and subsequently a job in one 
of the few Swiss institutions, where secrecy is mandatory.

This story is nonsense from start to finish, hence we need a proper 
assumption, which would make more sense.


TH

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

#641338

Maciej Woźniak wrote:

>> https://paulba.no/paper/Filippas_Fox.pdf
>> 
>> Facts:
> 
> Facts: even such a disgusting piece of lying shit as you are can't lie
> non stop, so sometimes it's admitting that the real measurement results
> have little in common with those absurd delusions of a mumbling idiot.

so true indeed, The most-often cited metric of economic success (the
nothingburger GDP lists) more often than not simply tells us what we want
to hear – or what the stinking dirty capitalist West wants us to hear

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

#640681

On 11/11/2025 8:58 PM, 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
> 
> 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),

Newtonian mechanics is not Newtonian gravity,
poor trash. And since when your moronic
religion care about "feelings"?
"A force is what makes a mass m accelerate at a. F = ma"
Do you  accelerate on orbit or not?





> 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.


In NG.

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

#640693

Den 12.11.2025 18:13, skrev Maciej Woźniak:
> On 11/11/2025 8:58 PM, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
>>
>> A force is what makes a mass m accelerate at a. F = ma
>>
> 
> "A force is what makes a mass m accelerate at a. F = ma"
> Do you  accelerate on orbit or not?
> 
According to Newton, yes.
According to Einstein, no.

-- 
Paul

https://paulba.no/

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

#640694

On 11/12/2025 9:56 PM, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
> Den 12.11.2025 18:13, skrev Maciej Woźniak:
>> On 11/11/2025 8:58 PM, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
>>>
>>> A force is what makes a mass m accelerate at a. F = ma
>>>
>>
>> "A force is what makes a mass m accelerate at a. F = ma"
>> Do you  accelerate on orbit or not?
>>
> According to Newton, yes.
> According to Einstein, no.

So, according to your mumbling guru - (the second
derivative of  position in time) of an Earth
satellite - is 0. Right, poor trash?


> 

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

#640714

Den 12.11.2025 22:31, skrev Maciej Woźniak:
> On 11/12/2025 9:56 PM, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
>> Den 12.11.2025 18:13, skrev Maciej Woźniak:
>>> On 11/11/2025 8:58 PM, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
>>>>
>>>> A force is what makes a mass m accelerate at a. F = ma
>>>>
>>>
>>> "A force is what makes a mass m accelerate at a. F = ma"
>>> Do you  accelerate on orbit or not?
>>>
>> According to Newton, yes.
>> According to Einstein, no.
> 
> So, according to your mumbling guru - (the second
> derivative of  position in time) of an Earth
> satellite - is 0. Right, poor trash?
> 

According to elementary math:
The second derivative of the position of the satellite
in the non-rotating Earth centred frame of reference (ECI)
is a vector which is pointing towards the centre of the Earth
with magnitude v²/r, where v is the satellite's orbital speed
and r is the radius of the orbit.

According to Newton this is the centripetal acceleration
of the satellite, a = v²/r.

But according to Einstein the proper acceleration of the satellite
is a = F/m where m is the mass of the satellite and F is the force
acting on it. Since no force is acting on an object in free-fall,
the proper acceleration of the satellite is zero.

----

A wise person would learn from this, but you won't.
Or will you? :-D

-- 
Paul

https://paulba.no/

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

#640715

On 11/13/2025 12:10 PM, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
> Den 12.11.2025 22:31, skrev Maciej Woźniak:
>> On 11/12/2025 9:56 PM, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
>>> Den 12.11.2025 18:13, skrev Maciej Woźniak:
>>>> On 11/11/2025 8:58 PM, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> A force is what makes a mass m accelerate at a. F = ma
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "A force is what makes a mass m accelerate at a. F = ma"
>>>> Do you  accelerate on orbit or not?
>>>>
>>> According to Newton, yes.
>>> According to Einstein, no.
>>
>> So, according to your mumbling guru - (the second
>> derivative of  position in time) of an Earth
>> satellite - is 0. Right, poor trash?
>>
> 
> According to elementary math:
> The second derivative of the position of the satellite
> in the non-rotating Earth centred frame of reference (ECI)
> is a vector which is pointing towards the centre of the Earth
> with magnitude v²/r, where v is the satellite's orbital speed
> and r is the radius of the orbit.

So, is it 0 or isn't it 0 according to
your moronic religion?

> 
> According to Newton this is the centripetal acceleration
> of the satellite, a = v²/r.
> 
> But according to Einstein the proper acceleration of the satellite
> is a = F/m where m is the mass of the satellite and F is the force
> acting on it. Since no force is acting on an object in free-fall,
> the proper acceleration of the satellite is zero.


If dv/dt is not 0 (or is it?) and "proper acceleration"
of relativistic idiots is 0 - i guess acceleration
is no longer dv/dt for relativistic idiots. Is it?


Well, since a mumbling idiot postulated that
shark must eat grass, because that's what
"Laws of Nature" are - no wonder that a sheep
became a "shark".

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

#640739

Den 13.11.2025 13:16, skrev Maciej Woźniak:
> On 11/13/2025 12:10 PM, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
>> Den 12.11.2025 22:31, skrev Maciej Woźniak:
>>> On 11/12/2025 9:56 PM, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
>>>> Den 12.11.2025 18:13, skrev Maciej Woźniak:
>>>>> On 11/11/2025 8:58 PM, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A force is what makes a mass m accelerate at a. F = ma
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "A force is what makes a mass m accelerate at a. F = ma"
>>>>> Do you  accelerate on orbit or not?
>>>>>
>>>> According to Newton, yes.
>>>> According to Einstein, no.
>>>
>>> So, according to your mumbling guru - (the second
>>> derivative of  position in time) of an Earth
>>> satellite - is 0. Right, poor trash?
>>>
>>
>> According to elementary math:
>> The second derivative of the position of the satellite
>> in the non-rotating Earth centred frame of reference (ECI)
>> is a vector which is pointing towards the centre of the Earth
>> with magnitude v²/r, where v is the satellite's orbital speed
>> and r is the radius of the orbit.

I will elaborate on this (there may be lurkers):
In NM accelerations is not generally the second derivative of
the position, it is the derivative of the velocity.

That is because the position function P(t,x,y,z) is frame
dependent. So the function P(t,x,y,z) will be different
in different inertial frames.
The velocity is also frame dependent, but the derivative
of the velocity is the same in all frames.

> 
> So, is it 0 or isn't it 0 according to
> your moronic religion?

Why are you asking questions which are answered in the post
you are responding to?
>>
>> According to Newton this is the centripetal acceleration
>> of the satellite, a = v²/r.

In this case, the position function _in the ECI frame_ is
a circle, and its derivative is a velocity vector with
constant magnitude and direction perpendicular to the position
function, as explained above.

>>
>> But according to Einstein the proper acceleration of the satellite
>> is a = F/m where m is the mass of the satellite and F is the force
>> acting on it. Since no force is acting on an object in free-fall,
>> the proper acceleration of the satellite is zero.
> 
> 
> If dv/dt is not 0 (or is it?) and "proper acceleration"
> of relativistic idiots is 0 - i guess acceleration
> is no longer dv/dt for relativistic idiots. Is it?

No, it isn't dv/dt.

I will elaborate.
In SR/GR "proper acceleration" is the acceleration measured
in the rest frame. So there is no velocity to derivate,
and the proper acceleration is as explained above.

In GR, the acceleration is what an accelerometer shows.
An accelerometer in free-fall  will show zero acceleration,
an accelerometer on the ground will show 9.81 m/s² acceleration
upwards.

Do you think the accelerometer shows this because GR says so,
or do you think it has something to do with laws of nature?

> 
> Well, since a mumbling idiot postulated that
> shark must eat grass, because that's what
> "Laws of Nature" are - no wonder that a sheep
> became a "shark".
> 

Yes, I know.
You understand nothing, and can't respond
with anything but nonsense.
-- 
Paul

https://paulba.no/

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

#640751

On 11/13/2025 10:56 PM, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
> Den 13.11.2025 13:16, skrev Maciej Woźniak:
>> On 11/13/2025 12:10 PM, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
>>> Den 12.11.2025 22:31, skrev Maciej Woźniak:
>>>> On 11/12/2025 9:56 PM, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
>>>>> Den 12.11.2025 18:13, skrev Maciej Woźniak:
>>>>>> On 11/11/2025 8:58 PM, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A force is what makes a mass m accelerate at a. F = ma
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "A force is what makes a mass m accelerate at a. F = ma"
>>>>>> Do you  accelerate on orbit or not?
>>>>>>
>>>>> According to Newton, yes.
>>>>> According to Einstein, no.
>>>>
>>>> So, according to your mumbling guru - (the second
>>>> derivative of  position in time) of an Earth
>>>> satellite - is 0. Right, poor trash?
>>>>
>>>
>>> According to elementary math:
>>> The second derivative of the position of the satellite
>>> in the non-rotating Earth centred frame of reference (ECI)
>>> is a vector which is pointing towards the centre of the Earth
>>> with magnitude v²/r, where v is the satellite's orbital speed
>>> and r is the radius of the orbit.
> 
> I will elaborate on this (there may be lurkers):
> In NM accelerations is not generally the second derivative of
> the position, it is the derivative of the velocity.
> 
> That is because the position function P(t,x,y,z) is frame
> dependent. So the function P(t,x,y,z) will be different
> in different inertial frames.
> The velocity is also frame dependent, but the derivative
> of the velocity is the same in all frames.
> 
>>
>> So, is it 0 or isn't it 0 according to
>> your moronic religion?
> 
> Why are you asking questions which are answered in the post
> you are responding to?

Because you're always trying to avoid
the direct answer and replace it with something
twisted and vague, as expected from a piece of
lying shit you are


>>>
>>> But according to Einstein the proper acceleration of the satellite
>>> is a = F/m where m is the mass of the satellite and F is the force
>>> acting on it. Since no force is acting on an object in free-fall,
>>> the proper acceleration of the satellite is zero.
>>
>>
>> If dv/dt is not 0 (or is it?) and "proper acceleration"
>> of relativistic idiots is 0 - i guess acceleration
>> is no longer dv/dt for relativistic idiots. Is it?
> 
> No, it isn't dv/dt.

Sure, why would acceleration be - the change of
speed in time? That it should be is an obvious
common  sense prejudice, refuted by a mumbling
idiot and zillions of experiments.

Thus, since a mumbling idiot postulated that
shark must eat grass, because that's what
"Laws of Nature" are - no wonder that a sheep
became a "shark".

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

#640754

Den 14.11.2025 07:48, skrev Maciej Woźniak:
> On 11/13/2025 10:56 PM, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
>> Den 13.11.2025 13:16, skrev Maciej Woźniak:
>>> On 11/13/2025 12:10 PM, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
>>>>
>>>> But according to Einstein the proper acceleration of the satellite
>>>> is a = F/m where m is the mass of the satellite and F is the force
>>>> acting on it. Since no force is acting on an object in free-fall,
>>>> the proper acceleration of the satellite is zero.

>>> If dv/dt is not 0 (or is it?) and "proper acceleration"
>>> of relativistic idiots is 0 - i guess acceleration
>>> is no longer dv/dt for relativistic idiots. Is it?

>> No, it isn't dv/dt.

Any particular reason why you snipped the following?

I will elaborate.
In SR/GR "proper acceleration" is the acceleration measured
in the rest frame (Momentarily co-moving inertial frame).
So there is no velocity to derivate, and the proper acceleration is as 
explained above.

In GR, the acceleration is what an accelerometer shows.
An accelerometer in free-fall  will show zero acceleration,
an accelerometer on the ground will show 9.81 m/s² acceleration
upwards.

> 
> Sure, why would acceleration be - the change of
> speed in time? That it should be is an obvious
> common  sense prejudice, refuted by a mumbling
> idiot and zillions of experiments.

Why do you think accelerometers show what GR says,
and not what your common sense say it should show?

Could it be that GR is more in accordance with
the laws of nature than is your prejudiced common sense?

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

> Thus, since a mumbling idiot postulated that
> shark must eat grass, because that's what
> "Laws of Nature" are - no wonder that a sheep
> became a "shark".
> 

Yes, I know.
You understand nothing, and can't respond
with anything but nonsense.


-- 
Paul

https://paulba.no/

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

#640755

Paul.B.Andersen wrote:

> Den 14.11.2025 07:48, skrev Maciej Woźniak:
>>> No, it isn't dv/dt.
> 
> Any particular reason why you snipped the following?
> 
> I will elaborate.
> In SR/GR "proper acceleration" is the acceleration measured in the rest
> frame (Momentarily co-moving inertial frame).
> So there is no velocity to derivate, and the proper acceleration is as
> explained above.

insignificant. Here's the best video on internet recently. Fuck youuu, and 
your propaganda war liberal sack of shit, democracy my ass. That's how you 
destroy pipelines, countries and so on.

𝗖𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗲𝘀𝗲_𝗽𝗲𝗼𝗽𝗹𝗲_𝗮𝗿𝗲_𝘄𝗮𝗸𝗶𝗻𝗴_𝘂𝗽_𝘁𝗼_𝘁𝗵𝗲_𝘁𝗿𝘂𝘁𝗵𝘀_𝗼𝗳_𝘁𝗵𝗲_𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗹𝗱_
https://b%69%74%63%68%75te.com/v%69%64%65o/mKOWyZm74JaF

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

#640757

On 11/14/2025 12:15 PM, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
> Den 14.11.2025 07:48, skrev Maciej Woźniak:
>> On 11/13/2025 10:56 PM, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
>>> Den 13.11.2025 13:16, skrev Maciej Woźniak:
>>>> On 11/13/2025 12:10 PM, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> But according to Einstein the proper acceleration of the satellite
>>>>> is a = F/m where m is the mass of the satellite and F is the force
>>>>> acting on it. Since no force is acting on an object in free-fall,
>>>>> the proper acceleration of the satellite is zero.
> 
>>>> If dv/dt is not 0 (or is it?) and "proper acceleration"
>>>> of relativistic idiots is 0 - i guess acceleration
>>>> is no longer dv/dt for relativistic idiots. Is it?
> 
>>> No, it isn't dv/dt.
> 
> Any particular reason why you snipped the following?
> 
> I will elaborate.
> In SR/GR "proper acceleration" is the acceleration measured
> in the rest frame (Momentarily co-moving inertial frame).
> So there is no velocity to derivate, and the proper acceleration is as 
> explained above.
> 
> In GR, the acceleration is what an accelerometer shows.


And a shark is what eats grass - because I have
a theory of sharks eating grass. Why not?
Why would acceleration be - the change of
speed in time? That it should be is an obvious
common  sense prejudice, refuted by a mumbling
idiot and zillions of experiments.

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

#640784

Den 14.11.2025 13:37, skrev Maciej Woźniak:
> On 11/14/2025 12:15 PM, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
>>
>> Any particular reason why you snipped the following?
>>
>> I will elaborate.
>> In SR/GR "proper acceleration" is the acceleration measured
>> in the rest frame (Momentarily co-moving inertial frame).
>> So there is no velocity to derivate, and the proper acceleration is as 
>> explained above.
>>
>> In GR, the acceleration is what an accelerometer shows.
> 
> 
> And a shark is what eats grass - because I have
> a theory of sharks eating grass. Why not?
> Why would acceleration be - the change of
> speed in time? That it should be is an obvious
> common  sense prejudice, refuted by a mumbling
> idiot and zillions of experiments.
> 
>

Why are you responding to a post when you address nothing in it?

Try again?
Or are you admitting that the following is beyond your abilities?

-------

In SR/GR "proper acceleration" is the acceleration measured
in the rest frame (Momentarily co-moving inertial frame).
So there is no velocity to derivate, and the proper acceleration is as 
explained above.

According to GR the proper acceleration of the satellite
is a = F/m where m is the mass of the satellite and F is the force
acting on it. Since no force is acting on an object in free-fall,
the proper acceleration of the satellite is zero.

According to GR the proper acceleration of an object on the ground
is 9.81 m/s² upwards.

In GR, the acceleration is what an accelerometer shows.
An accelerometer in free-fall  will show zero acceleration,
an accelerometer on the ground will show 9.81 m/s² acceleration
upwards.

Why do you think accelerometers show what GR says,
and not what your common sense say it should show?

Could it be that GR is more in accordance with
the laws of nature than is your prejudiced common sense?


-- 
Paul

https://paulba.no/

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

#640785

On 11/15/2025 3:27 PM, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
> Den 14.11.2025 13:37, skrev Maciej Woźniak:
>> On 11/14/2025 12:15 PM, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
>>>
>>> Any particular reason why you snipped the following?
>>>
>>> I will elaborate.
>>> In SR/GR "proper acceleration" is the acceleration measured
>>> in the rest frame (Momentarily co-moving inertial frame).
>>> So there is no velocity to derivate, and the proper acceleration is 
>>> as explained above.
>>>
>>> In GR, the acceleration is what an accelerometer shows.
>>
>>
>> And a shark is what eats grass - because I have
>> a theory of sharks eating grass. Why not?
>> Why would acceleration be - the change of
>> speed in time? That it should be is an obvious
>> common  sense prejudice, refuted by a mumbling
>> idiot and zillions of experiments.
>>
>>
> 
> Why are you responding to a post when you address nothing in it?
> 
> Try again?
> Or are you admitting that the following is beyond your abilities?
> 
> -------
> 
> In SR/GR "proper acceleration" is the acceleration measured


Sure, and in a theory of sharks eating grass
a shark is what eats grass.

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

#640788

Den 15.11.2025 16:05, skrev Maciej Woźniak:
> On 11/15/2025 3:27 PM, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
>>
>> Why are you responding to a post when you address nothing in it?
>>
>> Try again?
>> Or are you admitting that the following is beyond your abilities?
>>
>> -------
>>
>> In SR/GR "proper acceleration" is the acceleration measured
>> in the rest frame (Momentarily co-moving inertial frame).
>> So there is no velocity to derivate, and the proper acceleration > is as explained below.
>> 
>> According to GR the proper acceleration of the satellite
>> is a = F/m where m is the mass of the satellite and F is the force
>> acting on it. Since no force is acting on an object in free-fall,
>> the proper acceleration of the satellite is zero.
>> 
>> According to GR the proper acceleration of an object on the ground
>> is 9.81 m/s² upwards.
>> 
>> In GR, the acceleration is what an accelerometer shows.
>> An accelerometer in free-fall  will show zero acceleration,
>> an accelerometer on the ground will show 9.81 m/s² acceleration
>> upwards.
>> 
>> Why do you think accelerometers show what GR says,
>> and not what your common sense say it should show?
>> 
>> Could it be that GR is more in accordance with
>> the laws of nature than is your prejudiced common sense?

I see.
This was way beyond your mental abilities,
so all you can do is to babble nonsense like this:
> Sure, and in a theory of sharks eating grass
> a shark is what eats grass.

I will give an advise.
If a post is above your mental abilities,
and you understand nothing - don't respond.

Babbling nonsense will only make you look stupid.

-- 
Paul

https://paulba.no/

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

#640789

On 11/15/2025 9:09 PM, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
> Den 15.11.2025 16:05, skrev Maciej Woźniak:
>> On 11/15/2025 3:27 PM, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
>>>
>>> Why are you responding to a post when you address nothing in it?
>>>
>>> Try again?
>>> Or are you admitting that the following is beyond your abilities?
>>>
>>> -------
>>>
>>> In SR/GR "proper acceleration" is the acceleration measured
>>> in the rest frame (Momentarily co-moving inertial frame).
>>> So there is no velocity to derivate, and the proper acceleration > is 
>>> as explained below.
>>>
>>> According to GR the proper acceleration of the satellite
>>> is a = F/m where m is the mass of the satellite and F is the force
>>> acting on it. Since no force is acting on an object in free-fall,
>>> the proper acceleration of the satellite is zero.
>>>
>>> According to GR the proper acceleration of an object on the ground
>>> is 9.81 m/s² upwards.
>>>
>>> In GR, the acceleration is what an accelerometer shows.
>>> An accelerometer in free-fall  will show zero acceleration,
>>> an accelerometer on the ground will show 9.81 m/s² acceleration
>>> upwards.
>>>
>>> Why do you think accelerometers show what GR says,
>>> and not what your common sense say it should show?
>>>
>>> Could it be that GR is more in accordance with
>>> the laws of nature than is your prejudiced common sense?
> 
> I see.
> This was way beyond your mental abilities,\

As a mumbling idiot postulated that
sharks must eat grass, because that's
what "Laws of Nature" are - no wonder that
a sheep became a "shark". Nothing
complicated in that, sorry, trash.

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

#640796

Maciej Woźniak wrote:

> On 11/15/2025 9:09 PM, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
>> I see.
>> This was way beyond your mental abilities,\
> 
> As a mumbling idiot postulated that sharks must eat grass, because
> that's what "Laws of Nature" are - no wonder that a sheep became a
> "shark". Nothing complicated in that, sorry, trash.

you have a mental fixation with your sharks. What you wannabe scientists 
call 'accelerometers' are infact force-meters.

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

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

Back to top | Article view | sci.math

csiph-web