Path: csiph.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail From: Thomas Heger Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity Subject: Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2025 11:29:39 +0100 Lines: 96 Message-ID: References: <37dtgk95rie389qm3sps8beibmq7huudo9@4ax.com> <1rlheo3.n3j6a1zakxatN%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> <2d5vgk5ue9vsd8et8t06o0l6ebc6ov5bsj@4ax.com> <0020hk5jbrvk617hm69kp32qftbpvi06th@4ax.com> <10eqsmu$3hf75$1@dont-email.me> <1876925df53de7d0$6247443$2551467$c2365abb@news.newsdemon.com> <1876accc4b7ba45e$6383263$2551467$c2365abb@news.newsdemon.com> <10et7q2$5iu5$1@dont-email.me> <10f04fr$vm8o$1@dont-email.me> <10f2pn9$1mkfd$1@dont-email.me> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: individual.net udLpXi/w2lYOPma9D+TZnwEb9bqMALp6AGmcqyezhRGhvVHoSE Cancel-Lock: sha1:JfiAq0p1tleu1tO2LId7KQYaznI= sha256:w+q/bkF0iSLnfRhcXlUrT5cuY3ulvaF6jCZfOYlL6mk= User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Content-Language: de-DE In-Reply-To: Xref: csiph.com sci.physics.relativity:667346 Am Montag000017, 17.11.2025 um 20:53 schrieb Paul B. Andersen: > Den 17.11.2025 09:37, skrev Thomas Heger: >> Am Donnerstag000013, 13.11.2025 um 21:38 schrieb Paul B. Andersen: >>> Den 13.11.2025 10:01, skrev Thomas Heger: > >>>> 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? >>>> >>>> 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. >>>> '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. > >>> Honestly Thomas: >>> This is mindless nonsense! >>> Are you inventing things as you go without considering >>> the consequences of your inventions? > >> You are just a hopelss case! > > This is sci.physics.relativity > > There are two theories of relativity, and your fantasies > have nothing to do with either of them. > > If you are not interested in relativity, don't post > to this ng. > > If you are interested in relativity, return to the real > world and respond to the following: > > "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? > ==================== I have conducted an extensive study of Einstein's text 'On the electrodynamics of moving bodies'. I found hundreds of errors in it and regard that particular article therefore as a piece of crap. It is so insanely bad, that it will be hard to defend it somehow. The physical content is therefore irrelevant and wasn't discussed by me. I regard relativity per se as mainly correct and argue only about the quality of Einstein's paper. > 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. ... TH