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 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#674330

On 10/10/2026 09:57 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> 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.
>
>


Try for example "Reading Foundations: Bernays on Hilbert",
it's a sort of overview on "Hilbert's Infinite, Living, Working
Museum of Mathematics".

Mathematics has non-standard, meaning _super_-standard, accounts
of infinity for arithmetic, then continuity & measure for geometry,
and randomness for probability, all about "infinity & continuity".

Then things like "modal-flux" for "simple flow" eventually need
all that, also.

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

#674354

On 10/10/2026 10:05 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> On 10/10/2026 09:57 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>> 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.
>>
>>
>
>
> Try for example "Reading Foundations: Bernays on Hilbert",
> it's a sort of overview on "Hilbert's Infinite, Living, Working
> Museum of Mathematics".
>
> Mathematics has non-standard, meaning _super_-standard, accounts
> of infinity for arithmetic, then continuity & measure for geometry,
> and randomness for probability, all about "infinity & continuity".
>
> Then things like "modal-flux" for "simple flow" eventually need
> all that, also.
>
>
>


That "Reading Foundations: thea-theory, dually-self-infraconsistency"
is easy listening, for a 21'st century Foundations.

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

#674355

On 10/9/26 11:20, The Starmaker 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???

You know, I tend to think of non-determinism in quantum
mechanics as generally meaning that the future is not
necessarily written at any point in time.  Or in other
words, perhaps early in the universe one quantum event
may have produced one galaxy here, another one there,
and then later gas and dust would have formed stars
at some location and not another.  More and more subtle
things would be later and later and that is still going
on.

Wikipedia seems to mutate that from the 'Heisenberg
uncertainty principle' into 'philosophy - it is not
science at all'.

The word 'physics'.  Does it have anything to do
with the words 'true' or 'real'?  Not obvious ... .


 >
 >
 >
 >
 >
 >

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

#674356

On 10/12/2026 6:50 PM, x3 wrote:
> On 10/9/26 11:20, The Starmaker 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???
> 
> You know, I tend to think of non-determinism in quantum
> mechanics as generally meaning that the future is not
> necessarily written at any point in time.  Or in other
> words, perhaps early in the universe one quantum event
> may have produced one galaxy here, another one there,
> and then later gas and dust would have formed stars
> at some location and not another.  More and more subtle
> things would be later and later and that is still going
> on.
> 
> Wikipedia seems to mutate that from the 'Heisenberg
> uncertainty principle' into 'philosophy - it is not
> science at all'.
> 
> The word 'physics'.  Does it have anything to do
> with the words 'true' or 'real'?  Not obvious ... .

This moronic religion has definitely not much
in common with "real", it actually deals much
more with "gedanken". As for "true" - it's more
complicated.

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

#674358

x3 wrote:

> You know, I tend to think of non-determinism in quantum mechanics as
> generally meaning that the future is not necessarily written at any
> point in time.  Or in other words, perhaps early in the universe one
> quantum event may have produced one galaxy here, another one there,

not sure i understand quantum events, as there are no events in quantum; 
events however, are just macro domain states of the art

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

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

csiph-web