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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #674307 > unrolled thread

Einstein in 1915

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  Einstein in 1915 The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-10-09 11:20 -0700
    Re: Einstein in 1915 nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-10-09 21:45 +0200
      Re: Einstein in 1915 Gay Banana <rb@vedir.ru> - 2026-10-09 20:20 +0000
      Re: Einstein in 1915 The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-10-09 17:09 -0700
        Re: Einstein in 1915 The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-10-10 09:56 -0700
          Re: Einstein in 1915 Gay Banana <rymi@ekrer.ru> - 2026-10-10 17:01 +0000
          Re: Einstein in 1915 The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-10-10 14:30 -0700
            Re: Einstein in 1915 The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-10-11 15:34 -0700
              Re: Einstein in 1915 The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-10-11 20:46 -0700
          Re: Einstein in 1915 The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-10-11 21:46 -0700
      Re: Einstein in 1915 Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-10 07:15 +0200
        Re: Einstein in 1915 Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-10-09 22:22 -0700
          Re: Einstein in 1915 Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-10-09 22:23 -0700
          Re: Einstein in 1915 Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-10 12:55 +0200
            Re: Einstein in 1915 Gay Banana <eoowkn@jvnoa.ru> - 2026-10-10 15:36 +0000
              Re: Einstein in 1915 Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-10-10 08:44 -0700
                Re: Einstein in 1915 Jesee Beiman <emna@ijbbme.ru> - 2026-10-10 16:33 +0000
                  Re: Einstein in 1915 Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-10-10 09:39 -0700
                    Re: Einstein in 1915 Gay Banana <obpno@lnrccic.ru> - 2026-10-10 16:42 +0000
                    Re: Einstein in 1915 Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-10-10 09:57 -0700
                      Re: Einstein in 1915 Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-10-10 10:05 -0700
                        Re: Einstein in 1915 Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-10-12 07:50 -0700
    Re: Einstein in 1915 x3 <x@x.net> - 2026-10-12 09:50 -0700
      Re: Einstein in 1915 Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-12 19:06 +0200
      Re: Einstein in 1915 Christal Bawidov <riwbd@ahiiwh.ru> - 2026-10-12 20:07 +0000

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#674307 — Einstein in 1915

What I don't understand is how could
Albert Einstein come out with GR in 1915
without accounting for the galaxies and the rest of the univese
that he didn't know existed then???






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

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#674311

The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

> What I don't understand is how could
> Albert Einstein come out with GR in 1915
> without accounting for the galaxies and the rest of the univese
> that he didn't know existed then???

General Relativity holds for any universe, whatever is in it.
No different from Newton's theory of -universal- gravitation,

Jan

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

#674313

J. J. Lodder wrote:

> The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> 
>> What I don't understand is how could Albert Einstein come out with GR
>> in 1915 without accounting for the galaxies and the rest of the univese
>> that he didn't know existed then???
> 
> General Relativity holds for any universe, whatever is in it.
> No different from Newton's theory of -universal- gravitation,

nonsense, without amplitude particle distribution you wont have gravity, 
nor space to begin with. And also the Entropy will be nill. Gay Einstine 
had no brain to look through the embedded characteristics

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

#674315

J. J. Lodder wrote:
> 
> The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> 
> > What I don't understand is how could
> > Albert Einstein come out with GR in 1915
> > without accounting for the galaxies and the rest of the univese
> > that he didn't know existed then???
> 
> General Relativity holds for any universe, whatever is in it.
> No different from Newton's theory of -universal- gravitation,
> 
> Jan

i didn't know the laws are the same everywhere...



-- 
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]

#674327

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> J. J. Lodder wrote:
> >
> > The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >
> > > What I don't understand is how could
> > > Albert Einstein come out with GR in 1915
> > > without accounting for the galaxies and the rest of the univese
> > > that he didn't know existed then???
> >
> > General Relativity holds for any universe, whatever is in it.
> > No different from Newton's theory of -universal- gravitation,
> >
> > Jan
> 
> i didn't know the laws are the same everywhere...
> 


i guess that explains why einstein spent 30 years trying
to make gravity fit with quantum..

Quantum is not part of the history of our universe.

theory of everything translats to Gravity theory of everything.


if it don't fit, you got to a quit.

The universe is not mathematical, it's another entire new language very
far away.

Don't buy a quantum computer, it's fake.

-- 
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]

#674329

The Starmaker wrote:

> i guess that explains why einstein spent 30 years trying to make gravity
> fit with quantum..
> 
> Quantum is not part of the history of our universe.

you stink like farts

> theory of everything translats to Gravity theory of everything.
> 
> 
> if it don't fit, you got to a quit.
> 
> The universe is not mathematical, it's another entire new language very
> far away.
> 
> Don't buy a quantum computer, it's fake.

this is correct, but only because you capitalist wankers dont undrestnd 
anything

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

#674332

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > >
> > > The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > What I don't understand is how could
> > > > Albert Einstein come out with GR in 1915
> > > > without accounting for the galaxies and the rest of the univese
> > > > that he didn't know existed then???
> > >
> > > General Relativity holds for any universe, whatever is in it.
> > > No different from Newton's theory of -universal- gravitation,
> > >
> > > Jan
> >
> > i didn't know the laws are the same everywhere...
> >
> 
> i guess that explains why einstein spent 30 years trying
> to make gravity fit with quantum..
> 
> Quantum is not part of the history of our universe.
> 
> theory of everything translats to Gravity theory of everything.
> 
> if it don't fit, you got to a quit.
> 
> The universe is not mathematical, it's another entire new language very
> far away.
> 
> Don't buy a quantum computer, it's fake.

and too late..

What people want today is their own Ai Personal Home Computer...




https://www.techradar.com/ai-platforms-assistants/teen-founder-reveals-personal-ai-computer-for-running-local-agents-usd3-499-mac-mini-rival-runs-on-nvidia-rtx-pro-4000-gpu-and-promises-to-be-a-subscription-free-brain-in-a-box



'you can dictate how much autonomy (God Mode) the Core agents are
allowed, heavily restricting the AI should you prefer. '


(there's no subscription fee here).

The CEO assures us: "All of the source code, logic, and model weights
live on the device, not the services. We build this device to not be
dependent on having an outside entity maintaining the service."


Already sold out! I'm sure their would be competitors and Bill Gates all
bought one to reverse engineer it.


Go rogue, or go home.

I would feed my ai personal computer all the back issuses of 2600
magazine!!!

It's going to be a ...MONSTER!

 


-- 
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]

#674341

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > The Starmaker wrote:
> > >
> > > J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > >
> > > > The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > What I don't understand is how could
> > > > > Albert Einstein come out with GR in 1915
> > > > > without accounting for the galaxies and the rest of the univese
> > > > > that he didn't know existed then???
> > > >
> > > > General Relativity holds for any universe, whatever is in it.
> > > > No different from Newton's theory of -universal- gravitation,
> > > >
> > > > Jan
> > >
> > > i didn't know the laws are the same everywhere...
> > >
> >
> > i guess that explains why einstein spent 30 years trying
> > to make gravity fit with quantum..
> >
> > Quantum is not part of the history of our universe.
> >
> > theory of everything translats to Gravity theory of everything.
> >
> > if it don't fit, you got to a quit.
> >
> > The universe is not mathematical, it's another entire new language very
> > far away.
> >
> > Don't buy a quantum computer, it's fake.
> 
> and too late..
> 
> What people want today is their own Ai Personal Home Computer...
> 
> https://www.techradar.com/ai-platforms-assistants/teen-founder-reveals-personal-ai-computer-for-running-local-agents-usd3-499-mac-mini-rival-runs-on-nvidia-rtx-pro-4000-gpu-and-promises-to-be-a-subscription-free-brain-in-a-box
> 
> 'you can dictate how much autonomy (God Mode) the Core agents are
> allowed, heavily restricting the AI should you prefer. '
> 
> (there's no subscription fee here).
> 
> The CEO assures us: "All of the source code, logic, and model weights
> live on the device, not the services. We build this device to not be
> dependent on having an outside entity maintaining the service."
> 
> Already sold out! I'm sure their would be competitors and Bill Gates all
> bought one to reverse engineer it.
> 
> Go rogue, or go home.
> 
> I would feed my ai personal computer all the back issuses of 2600
> magazine!!!


Here comes the bad guy...
https://www.foxnews.com/media/bill-gates-sounds-alarm-ai-powered-cyberattacks-warns-negative-surprises-within-year



-- 
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]

#674350

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > The Starmaker wrote:
> > >
> > > The Starmaker wrote:
> > > >
> > > > J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > What I don't understand is how could
> > > > > > Albert Einstein come out with GR in 1915
> > > > > > without accounting for the galaxies and the rest of the univese
> > > > > > that he didn't know existed then???
> > > > >
> > > > > General Relativity holds for any universe, whatever is in it.
> > > > > No different from Newton's theory of -universal- gravitation,
> > > > >
> > > > > Jan
> > > >
> > > > i didn't know the laws are the same everywhere...
> > > >
> > >
> > > i guess that explains why einstein spent 30 years trying
> > > to make gravity fit with quantum..
> > >
> > > Quantum is not part of the history of our universe.
> > >
> > > theory of everything translats to Gravity theory of everything.
> > >
> > > if it don't fit, you got to a quit.
> > >
> > > The universe is not mathematical, it's another entire new language very
> > > far away.
> > >
> > > Don't buy a quantum computer, it's fake.
> >
> > and too late..
> >
> > What people want today is their own Ai Personal Home Computer...
> >
>   https://www.techradar.com/ai-platforms-assistants/teen-founder-reveals-personal-ai-computer-for-running-local-agents-usd3-499-mac-mini-rival-runs-on-nvidia-rtx-pro-4000-gpu-and-promises-to-be-a-subscription-free-brain-in-a-b
> >
> > 'you can dictate how much autonomy (God Mode) the Core agents are
> > allowed, heavily restricting the AI should you prefer. '
> >
> > (there's no subscription fee here).
> >
> > The CEO assures us: "All of the source code, logic, and model weights
> > live on the device, not the services. We build this device to not be
> > dependent on having an outside entity maintaining the service."
> >
> > Already sold out! I'm sure their would be competitors and Bill Gates all
> > bought one to reverse engineer it.
> >
> > Go rogue, or go home.
> >
> > I would feed my ai personal computer all the back issuses of 2600
> > magazine!!!
> 
> Here comes the bad guy...
> https://www.foxnews.com/media/bill-gates-sounds-alarm-ai-powered-cyberattacks-warns-negative-surprises-within-year

Of course you can build one yourself..

first you gonna need 
nvidia rtx pro 4000 blackwell graphics card 24gb



-- 
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]

#674351

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > >
> > > The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > What I don't understand is how could
> > > > Albert Einstein come out with GR in 1915
> > > > without accounting for the galaxies and the rest of the univese
> > > > that he didn't know existed then???
> > >
> > > General Relativity holds for any universe, whatever is in it.
> > > No different from Newton's theory of -universal- gravitation,
> > >
> > > Jan
> >
> > i didn't know the laws are the same everywhere...
> >
> 
> i guess that explains why einstein spent 30 years trying
> to make gravity fit with quantum..
> 
> Quantum is not part of the history of our universe.

Hell, yous haven't even come close to the History of your own universe.

You have no history!


> 
> theory of everything translats to Gravity theory of everything.
> 

theory of everything means nothing afterwards.


-- 
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]

#674318

On 10/9/2026 9:45 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> 
>> What I don't understand is how could
>> Albert Einstein come out with GR in 1915
>> without accounting for the galaxies and the rest of the univese
>> that he didn't know existed then???
> 
> General Relativity holds for any universe, whatever is in it.


And in the meantime in the real world - forbidden
by your mad religion improper clocks keep measuring
improper t'=t in improper seconds.

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

#674319

On 10/09/2026 10:15 PM, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
> On 10/9/2026 9:45 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>> The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>
>>> What I don't understand is how could
>>> Albert Einstein come out with GR in 1915
>>> without accounting for the galaxies and the rest of the univese
>>> that he didn't know existed then???
>>
>> General Relativity holds for any universe, whatever is in it.
>
>
> And in the meantime in the real world - forbidden
> by your mad religion improper clocks keep measuring
> improper t'=t in improper seconds.
>
>


"Relativity" by itself only says to frame motion
as relative, instead of absolute, that's all it says.

General Relativity then as with regards to its attachment
to various other theories doesn't explain for example
the mechanism of gravity.

"Mass/energy equivalency" and a "cosmological constant"
of course are great contributions to physics.


Kind of like they say about "Superstring Theory", that
there are lots of models of string theory, there are
lots of models of General Relativity theory, for example
a doubly-objective relativity theory with real space-contraction
and a distinction space-contraction-linear and
space-contraction-rotational. Einstein for example makes such a
distinction, however briefly, in "Out of My Later Years", circa 1955.

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

#674320

On 10/09/2026 10:22 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> On 10/09/2026 10:15 PM, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
>> On 10/9/2026 9:45 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>> The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> What I don't understand is how could
>>>> Albert Einstein come out with GR in 1915
>>>> without accounting for the galaxies and the rest of the univese
>>>> that he didn't know existed then???
>>>
>>> General Relativity holds for any universe, whatever is in it.
>>
>>
>> And in the meantime in the real world - forbidden
>> by your mad religion improper clocks keep measuring
>> improper t'=t in improper seconds.
>>
>>
>
>
> "Relativity" by itself only says to frame motion
> as relative, instead of absolute, that's all it says.
>
> General Relativity then as with regards to its attachment
> to various other theories doesn't explain for example
> the mechanism of gravity.
>
> "Mass/energy equivalency" and a "cosmological constant"
> of course are great contributions to physics.
>
>
> Kind of like they say about "Superstring Theory", that
> there are lots of models of string theory, there are
> lots of models of General Relativity theory, for example
> a doubly-objective relativity theory with real space-contraction
> and a distinction space-contraction-linear and
> space-contraction-rotational. Einstein for example makes such a
> distinction, however briefly, in "Out of My Later Years", circa 1955.
>
>

"Boy", ....

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

#674321

On 10/10/2026 7:22 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> On 10/09/2026 10:15 PM, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
>> On 10/9/2026 9:45 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>> The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> What I don't understand is how could
>>>> Albert Einstein come out with GR in 1915
>>>> without accounting for the galaxies and the rest of the univese
>>>> that he didn't know existed then???
>>>
>>> General Relativity holds for any universe, whatever is in it.
>>
>>
>> And in the meantime in the real world - forbidden
>> by your mad religion improper clocks keep measuring
>> improper t'=t in improper seconds.
>>
>>
> 
> 
> "Relativity" by itself only says to frame motion
> as relative, instead of absolute, that's all it says.

It says much, much more, including
"good clocks are desynchronizing clocks".

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

#674322

Maciej Woźniak wrote:

> On 10/10/2026 7:22 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>> "Relativity" by itself only says to frame motion as relative, instead
>> of absolute, that's all it says.
> 
> It says much, much more, including "good clocks are desynchronizing
> clocks".

i bet you guys dont even know synchronize clocks is; define it what it is, 
then talk

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

#674323

On 10/10/2026 08:36 AM, Gay Banana wrote:
> Maciej Woźniak wrote:
>
>> On 10/10/2026 7:22 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>> "Relativity" by itself only says to frame motion as relative, instead
>>> of absolute, that's all it says.
>>
>> It says much, much more, including "good clocks are desynchronizing
>> clocks".
>
> i bet you guys dont even know synchronize clocks is; define it what it is,
> then talk
>


Real "space-contraction" is always "length contraction" and "time
dilation" together, then there's correspondingly "space-relaxation"
in "length-relaxation" and "time-constriction" together, about
the "advanced" and "retarded" and to do with all the infinitely-many
higher orders of acceleration in accounts of change, that it's
mathematical, and keeps invariant theory and symmetry and conservation,
while with more of a "Shech's continuity law" instead of "Noether's
conservation law" to keep everything in balance, and always
at-equilibrium and seeking-equilibrium, with
sum-of-histories/sum-of-potentials in least-action/least-gradient, so
that there's "symmetry-flex" instead of "symmetry-breaking", which is
everywhere.


Then there's a distinction space-contraction-linear and
space-contraction-rotational, since a spiral space-filling curve as
a basis for a vortex besides dimensionality as a basis for a vector,
makes for spiral-waves and wave-spirals about frame-spaces and
space-frames in accounts of doubly-objective relativity theory, with
absolutes.

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

#674324

Ross Finlayson wrote:

> Real "space-contraction" is always "length contraction" and "time
> dilation" together, then there's correspondingly "space-relaxation" in
> "length-relaxation" and "time-constriction" together, about the
> "advanced" and "retarded" and to do with all the infinitely-many higher
> orders of acceleration in accounts of change, that it's

another error, you get back the space, but never the time lost along the 
left origins

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

#674325

On 10/10/2026 09:33 AM, Jesee Beiman wrote:
> Ross Finlayson wrote:
>
>> Real "space-contraction" is always "length contraction" and "time
>> dilation" together, then there's correspondingly "space-relaxation" in
>> "length-relaxation" and "time-constriction" together, about the
>> "advanced" and "retarded" and to do with all the infinitely-many higher
>> orders of acceleration in accounts of change, that it's
>
> another error, you get back the space, but never the time lost along the
> left origins
>

Proper accounts of "flux" for "flow" involving "forward flux", "spot
flux", and "reverse flux" involve the mathematics concerning:

at least three laws of large numbers, large larger largest
at least three limit theorems, inductive infinite continuum
at least three models of continuous domains, line field signal
at least three models of Cantor space, square sparse signal
at least three probabilistic limit theorems, central uniform polar

and so on, about forward-flux and spot-flux and reverse-flux,
for all the eddies and currents and whorls and turbidity,
that the usual naive account has only one of each of those,
the weakest sort, thusly the weakest link.


If Einstein was a grandiose hedge, Russell was a hypocritical flake.

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

#674326

Ross Finlayson wrote:

> On 10/10/2026 09:33 AM, Jesee Beiman wrote:
>> Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>
>>> Real "space-contraction" is always "length contraction" and "time
>>> dilation" together, then there's correspondingly "space-relaxation" in
>>> "length-relaxation" and "time-constriction" together, about the
>>> "advanced" and "retarded" and to do with all the infinitely-many
>>> higher orders of acceleration in accounts of change, that it's
>>
>> another error, you get back the space, but never the time lost along
>> the left origins
>>
>>
> Proper accounts of "flux" for "flow" involving "forward flux", "spot
> flux", and "reverse flux" involve the mathematics concerning:
> 
> at least three laws of large numbers, large larger largest at least
> three limit theorems, inductive infinite continuum at least three models
> of continuous domains, line field signal at least three models of Cantor
> space, square sparse signal at least three probabilistic limit theorems,
> central uniform polar
> 
> and so on, about forward-flux and spot-flux and reverse-flux,
> for all the eddies and currents and whorls and turbidity,
> that the usual naive account has only one of each of those,
> the weakest sort, thusly the weakest link.
> 
> 
> If Einstein was a grandiose hedge, Russell was a hypocritical flake.

you must be kind of gay or something strong related with

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

#674328

On 10/10/2026 09:39 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> On 10/10/2026 09:33 AM, Jesee Beiman wrote:
>> Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>
>>> Real "space-contraction" is always "length contraction" and "time
>>> dilation" together, then there's correspondingly "space-relaxation" in
>>> "length-relaxation" and "time-constriction" together, about the
>>> "advanced" and "retarded" and to do with all the infinitely-many higher
>>> orders of acceleration in accounts of change, that it's
>>
>> another error, you get back the space, but never the time lost along the
>> left origins
>>
>
> Proper accounts of "flux" for "flow" involving "forward flux", "spot
> flux", and "reverse flux" involve the mathematics concerning:
>
> at least three laws of large numbers, large larger largest
> at least three limit theorems, inductive infinite continuum
> at least three models of continuous domains, line field signal
> at least three models of Cantor space, square sparse signal
> at least three probabilistic limit theorems, central uniform polar
>
> and so on, about forward-flux and spot-flux and reverse-flux,
> for all the eddies and currents and whorls and turbidity,
> that the usual naive account has only one of each of those,
> the weakest sort, thusly the weakest link.
>
>
> If Einstein was a grandiose hedge, Russell was a hypocritical flake.
>
>

Also there's

at least three models of integers, fragments extensions ordinary
at least three accounts of empty, vacuous trivial specific
at least three accounts of identity, identity equality tautology

so that for the accounts of "paradoxes" of

induction
quantification
identity
infinity
continuity

now there are none.

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

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web