Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #666892 > unrolled thread
| Started by | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2025-10-25 11:36 -0700 |
| Last post | 2025-10-29 09:20 +0100 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 185 — 31 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
A House of Dynamite (2025) The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-10-25 11:36 -0700
Re: A House of Dynamite (2025) Clifford Rompaeij <imrfl@jimji.nl> - 2025-10-25 19:10 +0000
Re: A House of Dynamite (2025) Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-10-26 08:11 +0100
Re: A House of Dynamite (2025) Python <jpierre.messager@gmail.com> - 2025-10-26 12:05 +0000
Re: A House of Dynamite (2025) Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-10-29 09:10 +0100
Re: A House of Dynamite (2025) Python <jpierre.messager@gmail.com> - 2025-10-29 13:56 +0000
Re: A House of Dynamite (2025) Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-10-29 08:57 -0700
Re: A House of Dynamite (2025) Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-10-29 09:05 -0700
Re: A House of Dynamite (2025) Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-10-29 09:12 -0700
Re: A House of Dynamite (2025) Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-10-30 08:47 +0100
Re: A House of Dynamite (2025) Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-10-30 09:15 +0100
Re: A House of Dynamite (2025) Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-10-30 09:17 +0100
Re: A House of Dynamite (2025) The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-10-29 11:26 -0700
Re: A House of Dynamite (2025) Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-10-29 11:48 -0700
Re: A House of Dynamite (2025) The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-10-30 10:03 -0700
Re: A House of Dynamite (2025) Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-10-31 07:47 +0100
Re: A House of Dynamite (2025) Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-11-01 08:20 +0100
Re: A House of Dynamite (2025) Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-10-26 08:08 +0100
Re: A House of Dynamite (2025) "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-10-26 21:58 +0100
Re: A House of Dynamite (2025) Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-10-26 22:27 +0100
Re: A House of Dynamite (2025) "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-10-27 11:27 +0100
Re: A House of Dynamite (2025) The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-10-27 08:36 -0700
Re: A House of Dynamite (2025) "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-10-28 10:55 +0100
Re: A House of Dynamite (2025) The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-10-28 21:09 -0700
Re: A House of Dynamite (2025) The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-10-28 21:23 -0700
Re: A House of Dynamite (2025) The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-10-28 22:44 -0700
Re: A House of Dynamite (2025) "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-10-30 22:21 +0100
Re: A House of Dynamite (2025) "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-10-30 22:01 +0100
Re: A House of Dynamite (2025) Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-10-30 22:09 +0100
Re: A House of Dynamite (2025) "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-10-30 22:31 +0100
Re: A House of Dynamite (2025) Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-10-30 22:42 +0100
Re: A House of Dynamite (2025) "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-10-31 13:29 +0100
Re: A House of Dynamite (2025) Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-10-31 15:50 +0100
Re: A House of Dynamite (2025) Tray Rooijakkers <oiiy@kakry.nl> - 2025-10-31 16:29 +0000
Re: A House of Dynamite (2025) Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-10-27 17:35 +0100
Re: A House of Dynamite (2025) "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-10-28 10:52 +0100
Re: A House of Dynamite (2025) Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-10-28 13:29 +0100
Re: A House of Dynamite (2025) "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-10-28 21:57 +0100
Re: A House of Dynamite (2025) Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-10-28 23:04 +0100
Re: A House of Dynamite (2025) "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-10-30 22:52 +0100
Re: A House of Dynamite (2025) Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-10-31 07:01 +0100
Re: A House of Dynamite (2025) "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-10-31 12:58 +0100
Re: A House of Dynamite (2025) Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-10-31 13:21 +0100
Re: A House of Dynamite (2025) "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-10-31 13:44 +0100
Re: A House of Dynamite (2025) Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-10-31 15:53 +0100
Re: A House of Dynamite (2025) Devyn Szczepanski <znpi@dypz.pl> - 2025-10-31 21:21 +0000
Re: A House of Dynamite (2025) "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-10-31 14:48 +0100
Re: A House of Dynamite (2025) Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-10-31 16:19 +0100
Re: A House of Dynamite (2025) "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-11-02 13:35 +0100
Re: A House of Dynamite (2025) Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-11-02 14:23 +0100
Re: A House of Dynamite (2025) "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-11-02 20:49 +0100
Re: A House of Dynamite (2025) Shirley Vassilopulos <lhv@oyelp.gr> - 2025-10-31 20:42 +0000
Re: A House of Dynamite (2025) nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2025-11-01 13:43 +0100
Re: A House of Dynamite (2025) Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-11-01 14:20 +0100
Re: A House of Dynamite (2025) Yoannes Brzezicki <ryan@ezbbyne.pl> - 2025-11-01 15:48 +0000
Re: A House of Dynamite (2025) Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-11-01 15:45 -0700
Re: A House of Dynamite (2025) nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2025-11-02 22:29 +0100
Re: A House of Dynamite (2025) Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-11-02 22:34 +0100
Re: A House of Dynamite (2025) "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-11-02 12:27 +0100
Re: A House of Dynamite (2025) "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-11-02 13:43 +0100
Re: A House of Dynamite (2025) Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-11-02 14:30 +0100
Re: A House of Dynamite (2025) Darling Belorusov <vgen@rrr.ru> - 2025-11-02 15:22 +0000
Re: A House of Dynamite (2025) nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2025-11-02 22:52 +0100
Re: A House of Dynamite (2025) Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-11-02 23:16 +0100
Re: A House of Dynamite (2025) "chine.bleu" <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2025-10-26 14:43 -0700
Re: A House of Dynamite (2025) nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2025-10-27 21:22 +0100
Re: A House of Dynamite (2025) Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-10-27 13:32 -0700
Re: A House of Dynamite (2025) Python <jpierre.messager@gmail.com> - 2025-10-27 20:44 +0000
Re: A House of Dynamite (2025) Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-10-27 14:45 -0700
Re: A House of Dynamite (2025) Python <jpierre.messager@gmail.com> - 2025-10-27 22:02 +0000
Re: A House of Dynamite (2025) Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-10-27 15:51 -0700
Re: A House of Dynamite (2025) Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-10-28 00:54 -0700
Re: A House of Dynamite (2025) Python <jpierre.messager@gmail.com> - 2025-10-28 09:25 +0000
Re: A House of Dynamite (2025) nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2025-10-28 11:21 +0100
Re: A House of Dynamite (2025) Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-10-28 08:46 -0700
Re: A House of Dynamite (2025) Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-10-28 09:15 -0700
Re: A House of Dynamite (2025) nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2025-10-28 11:21 +0100
Re: A House of Dynamite (2025) Jeronimo Krakowski <konew@wnok.pl> - 2025-10-28 10:56 +0000
Re: A House of Dynamite (2025) nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2025-10-28 13:02 +0100
Re: A House of Dynamite (2025) Theron Gomolka <hkek@kn.pl> - 2025-10-28 14:03 +0000
Re: A House of Dynamite (2025) Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-10-27 21:42 +0100
Re: A House of Dynamite (2025) Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-10-29 09:32 +0100
Re: A House of Dynamite (2025) "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-10-29 20:29 +0100
Re: A House of Dynamite (2025) Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-10-29 13:40 -0700
Re: A House of Dynamite (2025) Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-10-29 13:47 -0700
Re: A House of Dynamite (2025) Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-10-29 13:54 -0700
Re: A House of Dynamite (2025) Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-10-29 23:23 +0100
Re: A House of Dynamite (2025) Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-10-30 09:11 +0100
Re: A House of Dynamite (2025) Bosephis Von wegberg <sswni@ehbees.de> - 2025-10-30 15:35 +0000
Re: A House of Dynamite (2025) "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-10-31 19:43 +0100
Re: A House of Dynamite (2025) Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-10-31 20:28 +0100
Re: A House of Dynamite (2025) Wes Kaczka <cazc@as.pl> - 2025-10-31 20:29 +0000
Re: A House of Dynamite (2025) Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-11-01 08:04 +0100
Re: A House of Dynamite (2025) "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-11-01 12:15 +0100
Re: A House of Dynamite (2025) Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-11-01 14:26 +0100
Re: A House of Dynamite (2025) The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-11-01 09:48 -0700
Re: A House of Dynamite (2025) Arlen Abandonato <oe@alr.it> - 2025-11-01 18:16 +0000
Re: A House of Dynamite (2025) Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-11-02 08:30 +0100
Re: A House of Dynamite (2025) "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-11-02 22:33 +0100
Re: A House of Dynamite (2025) Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-11-03 08:09 +0100
Re: A House of Dynamite (2025) "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-11-03 15:22 +0100
Re: A House of Dynamite (2025) Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-11-03 15:36 +0100
Re: A House of Dynamite (2025) The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-10-26 11:28 -0700
Re: A House of Dynamite (2025) The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-10-26 12:37 -0700
Re: A House of Dynamite (2025) The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-10-26 13:52 -0700
Re: A House of Dynamite (2025) The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-10-26 14:00 -0700
Re: A House of Dynamite (2025) Delmar Sokolowski <esilo@komk.pl> - 2025-10-26 21:14 +0000
Re: A House of Dynamite (2025) The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-10-26 20:21 -0700
Re: A House of Dynamite (2025) The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-10-27 20:48 -0700
Re: A House of Dynamite (2025) The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-10-27 20:52 -0700
Re: A House of Dynamite (2025) The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-10-29 00:17 -0700
Re: A House of Dynamite (2025) The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-10-29 00:21 -0700
Re: A House of Dynamite (2025) The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-10-29 00:24 -0700
Re: A House of Dynamite (2025) The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-10-29 23:48 -0700
Re: A House of Dynamite (2025) The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-10-30 09:59 -0700
Re: A House of Dynamite (2025) The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-10-31 22:24 -0700
Re: A House of Dynamite (2025) The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-11-01 13:13 -0700
Re: A House of Dynamite (2025) The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-11-04 23:58 -0800
Re: A House of Dynamite (2025) The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-11-05 00:00 -0800
Re: A House of Dynamite (2025) The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-10-31 22:33 -0700
Re: A House of Dynamite (2025) The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-11-01 15:01 -0700
Re: A House of Dynamite (2025) The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-11-02 11:35 -0800
Re: A House of Dynamite (2025) The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-11-04 23:39 -0800
Re: A House of Dynamite (2025) The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-11-06 21:41 -0800
Re: A House of Dynamite (2025) The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-11-10 15:36 -0800
Re: A House of Dynamite (2025) Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-11-11 08:45 +0100
Re: A House of Dynamite (2025) The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-11-11 00:04 -0800
Re: A House of Dynamite (2025) kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) - 2025-11-11 16:25 -0500
Re: A House of Dynamite (2025) Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-11-12 08:43 +0100
Re: A House of Dynamite (2025) Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2025-11-12 08:49 +0000
Re: A House of Dynamite (2025) The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-11-12 01:28 -0800
Re: A House of Dynamite (2025) Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-11-13 09:05 +0100
Re: A House of Dynamite (2025) Daven Babadzhanov <dan@av.ru> - 2025-11-13 12:45 +0000
Re: A House of Dynamite (2025) The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-11-14 11:19 -0800
Re: A House of Dynamite (2025) The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-11-14 11:54 -0800
Re: A House of Dynamite (2025) The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-11-14 20:28 -0800
Re: A House of Dynamite (2025) The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-11-16 12:25 -0800
Re: A House of Dynamite (2025) The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-11-17 09:03 -0800
Re: A House of Dynamite (2025) Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> - 2025-11-12 09:28 -0800
Re: A House of Dynamite (2025) The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-11-12 11:20 -0800
Re: A House of Dynamite (2025) Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-11-13 09:44 +0100
Re: A House of Dynamite (2025) The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-11-13 10:20 -0800
Re: A House of Dynamite (2025) Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2025-11-13 07:35 +0000
Re: A House of Dynamite (2025) Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-11-13 10:03 +0100
Re: A House of Dynamite (2025) Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2025-11-13 16:55 +0000
Re: A House of Dynamite (2025) Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-11-17 09:17 +0100
Re: A House of Dynamite (2025) Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2025-11-23 20:57 +0000
Re: A House of Dynamite (2025) Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> - 2025-11-23 13:13 -0800
Re: A House of Dynamite (2025) The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-11-23 15:51 -0800
Re: A House of Dynamite (2025) Cryptoengineer <petertrei@gmail.com> - 2025-11-24 15:05 -0500
Re: A House of Dynamite (2025) kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) - 2025-11-25 08:56 -0500
Re: A House of Dynamite (2025) The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-11-23 14:27 -0800
Re: A House of Dynamite (2025) The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-11-24 10:09 -0800
Re: A House of Dynamite (2025) The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-11-13 10:41 -0800
Re: A House of Dynamite (2025) Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-11-17 09:36 +0100
Re: A House of Dynamite (2025) kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) - 2025-11-17 11:17 -0500
Re: A House of Dynamite (2025) Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> - 2025-11-17 09:36 -0800
Re: A House of Dynamite (2025) Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> - 2025-11-18 08:24 -0800
Re: A House of Dynamite (2025) Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-11-18 11:20 +0100
Re: A House of Dynamite (2025) Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> - 2025-11-13 09:15 -0800
Re: A House of Dynamite (2025) Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-11-17 09:33 +0100
Re: A House of Dynamite (2025) Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> - 2025-11-17 00:38 -0800
Re: A House of Dynamite (2025) The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-11-17 00:51 -0800
Re: A House of Dynamite (2025) Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-11-18 11:10 +0100
Re: A House of Dynamite (2025) Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> - 2025-11-18 09:33 -0800
Re: A House of Dynamite (2025) Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-11-21 11:42 +0100
Re: A House of Dynamite (2025) Yony Königsmann <nmn@imn.de> - 2025-11-17 11:54 +0000
Re: A House of Dynamite (2025) Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-11-13 09:30 +0100
Re: A House of Dynamite (2025) Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> - 2025-11-13 09:08 -0800
Re: A House of Dynamite (2025) Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-11-17 09:25 +0100
Re: A House of Dynamite (2025) Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> - 2025-11-11 08:31 -0800
Re: A House of Dynamite (2025) Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> - 2025-11-11 09:44 -0800
Re: A House of Dynamite (2025) "chine.bleu" <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2025-11-11 18:18 -0800
Re: A House of Dynamite (2025) Titus G <noone@nowhere.com> - 2025-11-12 14:11 +1300
Re: A House of Dynamite (2025) Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-11-12 08:48 +0100
Re: A House of Dynamite (2025) Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> - 2025-11-12 08:29 -0800
Re: A House of Dynamite (2025) ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan <tednolan>) - 2025-11-12 17:24 +0000
Re: A House of Dynamite (2025) Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> - 2025-11-13 08:43 -0800
Re: A House of Dynamite (2025) ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan <tednolan>) - 2025-11-13 17:14 +0000
Re: A House of Dynamite (2025) Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> - 2025-11-14 08:47 -0800
Re: A House of Dynamite (2025) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-11-14 17:35 +0000
Re: A House of Dynamite (2025) The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-11-14 10:55 -0800
Re: A House of Dynamite (2025) Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> - 2025-11-15 08:14 -0800
Re: A House of Dynamite (2025) Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-10-29 09:28 +0100
Re: A House of Dynamite (2025) Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-10-29 09:20 +0100
Page 5 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 10 Next page →
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-27 21:42 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <187273d687efac50$4456350$2551467$c2365abb@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #666916 |
On 10/27/2025 9:22 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote: > chine.bleu <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>> The metric below defines The Special Theory of Relativity (SR). >>> What can be deduced from this metric is what SR predicts. >>> (c?d?)? = (c?dt)? ? dx? ? dy? ? dz? >>> >>> The theory Einstein defined in "On the electrodynamics of moving >>> bodies" is identical to the theory defined by the metric above. >>> >> >> He did not understand differential geometry and tensors at that time. He >> had to educate himself between SR and GR. > > Differential geometry and tensors are irrelevant to special relativity. > > Just geometry will do, like for Euclidean geometry, But still the mumble of the idiot is not even consistent.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-29 09:32 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <mme1edF1jkU6@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #666904 |
Am Sonntag000026, 26.10.2025 um 21:58 schrieb Paul B. Andersen: > Den 26.10.2025 08:08, skrev Thomas Heger: >> >> But Einstein could have been a tiny cog in a huge system, which was >> meant to derail science in general. >> >> I actually assume, that 'On the electrodynamics of moving bodies' was >> meant as such a means, which intentionally tried to divert science >> from their supposed course. >> >> I think so, because that particular article contains an enormous >> amount of errors of all sorts. >> >> Some of them are actually comically stupid. > > > The metric below defines The Special Theory of Relativity (SR). > What can be deduced from this metric is what SR predicts. > (c⋅dτ)² = (c⋅dt)² − dx² − dy² − dz² This was not from Einstein's text 'On the electrodynamics of moving bodies'!! Sure, it is actually correct (mainly), but still not a part of the article I was talking about. Therefore, it doesn't help Einstein's paper, if you succesfully defend this equation. > > The theory Einstein defined in "On the electrodynamics of moving > bodies" is identical to the theory defined by the metric above. No! ... TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-29 20:29 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <vWtMQ.79689$IEG9.9418@fx05.ams4> |
| In reply to | #666955 |
Den 29.10.2025 09:32, skrev Thomas Heger: > Am Sonntag000026, 26.10.2025 um 21:58 schrieb Paul B. Andersen: >> Den 26.10.2025 08:08, skrev Thomas Heger: >>> >>> But Einstein could have been a tiny cog in a huge system, which was >>> meant to derail science in general. >>> >>> I actually assume, that 'On the electrodynamics of moving bodies' was >>> meant as such a means, which intentionally tried to divert science >>> from their supposed course. >>> >>> I think so, because that particular article contains an enormous >>> amount of errors of all sorts. >>> >>> Some of them are actually comically stupid. >> >> >> The metric below defines The Special Theory of Relativity (SR). >> What can be deduced from this metric is what SR predicts. >> (c⋅dτ)² = (c⋅dt)² − dx² − dy² − dz² > > This was not from Einstein's text 'On the electrodynamics of moving > bodies'!! > > Sure, it is actually correct (mainly), but still not a part of the > article I was talking about. > > Therefore, it doesn't help Einstein's paper, if you succesfully defend > this equation. It was Minkowski, not Einstein, who introduced four dimensionally spacetime and the geometric approach. In 1908 Minkowski presented a paper named "Space and Time" for the "80th Assembly of German Natural Scientists and Physicians". In the introduction he writes: "Henceforth space by itself, and time by itself, are doomed to fade away into mere shadows, and only a kind of union of the two will preserve an independent reality." This "union" is what we now call Minkowski spacetime (flat spacetime) In the paper Minkowski presented the metric: dτ² = − dx² − dy² − dz² − ds² where s = √(−1)⋅t, so ds² = - dt² so the metric becomes: dτ² = dt² − dx² − dy² − dz² This is a reformulation of Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity. Allegedly Einstein has said: "Since the mathematicians have invaded the theory of relativity, I do not understand it myself any more." Note that this statement implies that Einstein considered Minkowski's geometric approach to be a formulation of his theory of relativity But Einstein had to learn more mathematics, and in the introduction of the paper "The Foundation of the General Theory of Relativity" he writes: "The generalization of the theory of relativity has been facilitated considerably by _Minkowski_, a mathematician who was the first one to recognize the formal equivalence of space coordinates and the time coordinate, and utilized this in the construction of the theory." Einstein's spacetime (which is not necessarily flat) is a generalisation of Minkowski spacetime. >> >> The theory Einstein defined in "On the electrodynamics of moving >> bodies" is identical to the theory defined by the metric above. > > No! > That the theory Einstein defined in "On the electrodynamics of moving bodies" is identical to the theory defined by the metric: (c⋅dτ)² = (c⋅dt)² − dx² − dy² − dz² is a historical fact, and not disputable. That you, due to your serious reading comprehension problem and mathematical illiteracy, don't understand Einstein's paper doesn't mean that the paper: "contains an enormous amount of errors of all sorts". When this is settled, you can read what you snipped: No professional physicist will dispute that SR is a consistent theory. (There have been physicists who have claimed that SR is inconsistent, look up Herbert Dingle. But Dingle's arguments are long since proven wrong.) So we can consider it to be a fact that SR is a logically consistent theory. But the predictions of a logically consistent theory do not have to be in accordance with measurements. Only real experiments can show that. Some of the experiments testing SR: https://paulba.no/paper/Fizeau_by_Michelson.pdf https://paulba.no/paper/Michelson_1887.pdf https://paulba.no/paper/Kennedy_Thorndike.pdf https://paulba.no/paper/Ives_Stilwell.pdf https://paulba.no/paper/Ives_Stilwell_II.pdf https://paulba.no/paper/Babcock_Bergman.pdf https://paulba.no/paper/Frisch_Smith.pdf https://paulba.no/paper/Alvager_et_al.pdf https://paulba.no/paper/Beckmann_Mandics.pdf https://paulba.no/paper/Filippas_Fox.pdf https://paulba.no/paper/Brecher.pdf https://paulba.no/paper/Brillet_Hall.pdf Newtonian Mechanics (NM) and SR are both logically consistent theories. All the experiments above confirm SR, none falsify SR. Most of the experiments above falsify NM. (It takes but one experiment to falsify a theory.) Now you can assume that all physicists are idiots, and that all the experimental physicist who performed the experiments are frauds who have faked their results. That will make you look very smart. -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-29 13:40 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <tiudnb5LIPlY5p_0nZ2dnZfqn_ednZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #666963 |
On 10/29/2025 12:29 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > Den 29.10.2025 09:32, skrev Thomas Heger: >> Am Sonntag000026, 26.10.2025 um 21:58 schrieb Paul B. Andersen: >>> Den 26.10.2025 08:08, skrev Thomas Heger: >>>> >>>> But Einstein could have been a tiny cog in a huge system, which was >>>> meant to derail science in general. >>>> >>>> I actually assume, that 'On the electrodynamics of moving bodies' >>>> was meant as such a means, which intentionally tried to divert >>>> science from their supposed course. >>>> >>>> I think so, because that particular article contains an enormous >>>> amount of errors of all sorts. >>>> >>>> Some of them are actually comically stupid. >>> >>> >>> The metric below defines The Special Theory of Relativity (SR). >>> What can be deduced from this metric is what SR predicts. >>> (c⋅dτ)² = (c⋅dt)² − dx² − dy² − dz² >> >> This was not from Einstein's text 'On the electrodynamics of moving >> bodies'!! >> >> Sure, it is actually correct (mainly), but still not a part of the >> article I was talking about. >> >> Therefore, it doesn't help Einstein's paper, if you succesfully defend >> this equation. > > It was Minkowski, not Einstein, who introduced four dimensionally > spacetime and the geometric approach. > > In 1908 Minkowski presented a paper named "Space and Time" for > the "80th Assembly of German Natural Scientists and Physicians". > > In the introduction he writes: > "Henceforth space by itself, and time by itself, are doomed to > fade away into mere shadows, and only a kind of union of the two > will preserve an independent reality." > > This "union" is what we now call Minkowski spacetime (flat spacetime) > > In the paper Minkowski presented the metric: > dτ² = − dx² − dy² − dz² − ds² > where s = √(−1)⋅t, so ds² = - dt² > so the metric becomes: > dτ² = dt² − dx² − dy² − dz² > > This is a reformulation of Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity. > > Allegedly Einstein has said: > "Since the mathematicians have invaded the theory of relativity, > I do not understand it myself any more." > > Note that this statement implies that Einstein considered > Minkowski's geometric approach to be a formulation of his theory of > relativity > > > But Einstein had to learn more mathematics, and in the introduction > of the paper "The Foundation of the General Theory of Relativity" > he writes: > "The generalization of the theory of relativity has been > facilitated considerably by _Minkowski_, a mathematician > who was the first one to recognize the formal equivalence > of space coordinates and the time coordinate, and utilized > this in the construction of the theory." > > Einstein's spacetime (which is not necessarily > flat) is a generalisation of Minkowski spacetime. > > >>> >>> The theory Einstein defined in "On the electrodynamics of moving >>> bodies" is identical to the theory defined by the metric above. >> >> No! >> > > That the theory Einstein defined in "On the electrodynamics of > moving bodies" is identical to the theory defined by the metric: > (c⋅dτ)² = (c⋅dt)² − dx² − dy² − dz² > is a historical fact, and not disputable. > > That you, due to your serious reading comprehension problem > and mathematical illiteracy, don't understand Einstein's paper > doesn't mean that the paper: "contains an enormous amount of > errors of all sorts". > > When this is settled, you can read what you snipped: > > No professional physicist will dispute that SR is a consistent theory. > (There have been physicists who have claimed that SR is inconsistent, > look up Herbert Dingle. But Dingle's arguments are long since proven > wrong.) > > So we can consider it to be a fact that SR is a logically > consistent theory. > > But the predictions of a logically consistent theory > do not have to be in accordance with measurements. > Only real experiments can show that. > > Some of the experiments testing SR: > https://paulba.no/paper/Fizeau_by_Michelson.pdf > https://paulba.no/paper/Michelson_1887.pdf > https://paulba.no/paper/Kennedy_Thorndike.pdf > https://paulba.no/paper/Ives_Stilwell.pdf > https://paulba.no/paper/Ives_Stilwell_II.pdf > https://paulba.no/paper/Babcock_Bergman.pdf > https://paulba.no/paper/Frisch_Smith.pdf > https://paulba.no/paper/Alvager_et_al.pdf > https://paulba.no/paper/Beckmann_Mandics.pdf > https://paulba.no/paper/Filippas_Fox.pdf > https://paulba.no/paper/Brecher.pdf > https://paulba.no/paper/Brillet_Hall.pdf > > Newtonian Mechanics (NM) and SR are both logically consistent > theories. > All the experiments above confirm SR, none falsify SR. > Most of the experiments above falsify NM. > (It takes but one experiment to falsify a theory.) > > Now you can assume that all physicists are idiots, and > that all the experimental physicist who performed > the experiments are frauds who have faked their results. > > That will make you look very smart. > Physics can't explain a football. (The "empirical" part.) Dark Matter and Dark Energy long ago falsified SR or GR by themselves.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-29 13:47 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <Vn-dneXFG-314J_0nZ2dnZfqnPednZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #666964 |
On 10/29/2025 01:40 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote: > On 10/29/2025 12:29 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> Den 29.10.2025 09:32, skrev Thomas Heger: >>> Am Sonntag000026, 26.10.2025 um 21:58 schrieb Paul B. Andersen: >>>> Den 26.10.2025 08:08, skrev Thomas Heger: >>>>> >>>>> But Einstein could have been a tiny cog in a huge system, which was >>>>> meant to derail science in general. >>>>> >>>>> I actually assume, that 'On the electrodynamics of moving bodies' >>>>> was meant as such a means, which intentionally tried to divert >>>>> science from their supposed course. >>>>> >>>>> I think so, because that particular article contains an enormous >>>>> amount of errors of all sorts. >>>>> >>>>> Some of them are actually comically stupid. >>>> >>>> >>>> The metric below defines The Special Theory of Relativity (SR). >>>> What can be deduced from this metric is what SR predicts. >>>> (c⋅dτ)² = (c⋅dt)² − dx² − dy² − dz² >>> >>> This was not from Einstein's text 'On the electrodynamics of moving >>> bodies'!! >>> >>> Sure, it is actually correct (mainly), but still not a part of the >>> article I was talking about. >>> >>> Therefore, it doesn't help Einstein's paper, if you succesfully defend >>> this equation. >> >> It was Minkowski, not Einstein, who introduced four dimensionally >> spacetime and the geometric approach. >> >> In 1908 Minkowski presented a paper named "Space and Time" for >> the "80th Assembly of German Natural Scientists and Physicians". >> >> In the introduction he writes: >> "Henceforth space by itself, and time by itself, are doomed to >> fade away into mere shadows, and only a kind of union of the two >> will preserve an independent reality." >> >> This "union" is what we now call Minkowski spacetime (flat spacetime) >> >> In the paper Minkowski presented the metric: >> dτ² = − dx² − dy² − dz² − ds² >> where s = √(−1)⋅t, so ds² = - dt² >> so the metric becomes: >> dτ² = dt² − dx² − dy² − dz² >> >> This is a reformulation of Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity. >> >> Allegedly Einstein has said: >> "Since the mathematicians have invaded the theory of relativity, >> I do not understand it myself any more." >> >> Note that this statement implies that Einstein considered >> Minkowski's geometric approach to be a formulation of his theory of >> relativity >> >> >> But Einstein had to learn more mathematics, and in the introduction >> of the paper "The Foundation of the General Theory of Relativity" >> he writes: >> "The generalization of the theory of relativity has been >> facilitated considerably by _Minkowski_, a mathematician >> who was the first one to recognize the formal equivalence >> of space coordinates and the time coordinate, and utilized >> this in the construction of the theory." >> >> Einstein's spacetime (which is not necessarily >> flat) is a generalisation of Minkowski spacetime. >> >> >>>> >>>> The theory Einstein defined in "On the electrodynamics of moving >>>> bodies" is identical to the theory defined by the metric above. >>> >>> No! >>> >> >> That the theory Einstein defined in "On the electrodynamics of >> moving bodies" is identical to the theory defined by the metric: >> (c⋅dτ)² = (c⋅dt)² − dx² − dy² − dz² >> is a historical fact, and not disputable. >> >> That you, due to your serious reading comprehension problem >> and mathematical illiteracy, don't understand Einstein's paper >> doesn't mean that the paper: "contains an enormous amount of >> errors of all sorts". >> >> When this is settled, you can read what you snipped: >> >> No professional physicist will dispute that SR is a consistent theory. >> (There have been physicists who have claimed that SR is inconsistent, >> look up Herbert Dingle. But Dingle's arguments are long since proven >> wrong.) >> >> So we can consider it to be a fact that SR is a logically >> consistent theory. >> >> But the predictions of a logically consistent theory >> do not have to be in accordance with measurements. >> Only real experiments can show that. >> >> Some of the experiments testing SR: >> https://paulba.no/paper/Fizeau_by_Michelson.pdf >> https://paulba.no/paper/Michelson_1887.pdf >> https://paulba.no/paper/Kennedy_Thorndike.pdf >> https://paulba.no/paper/Ives_Stilwell.pdf >> https://paulba.no/paper/Ives_Stilwell_II.pdf >> https://paulba.no/paper/Babcock_Bergman.pdf >> https://paulba.no/paper/Frisch_Smith.pdf >> https://paulba.no/paper/Alvager_et_al.pdf >> https://paulba.no/paper/Beckmann_Mandics.pdf >> https://paulba.no/paper/Filippas_Fox.pdf >> https://paulba.no/paper/Brecher.pdf >> https://paulba.no/paper/Brillet_Hall.pdf >> >> Newtonian Mechanics (NM) and SR are both logically consistent >> theories. >> All the experiments above confirm SR, none falsify SR. >> Most of the experiments above falsify NM. >> (It takes but one experiment to falsify a theory.) >> >> Now you can assume that all physicists are idiots, and >> that all the experimental physicist who performed >> the experiments are frauds who have faked their results. >> >> That will make you look very smart. >> > > Physics can't explain a football. (The "empirical" part.) > > Dark Matter and Dark Energy long ago falsified SR or GR by themselves. > > Jets use turbo-fans not rockets, and rockets these days giant MEMS blocks, for the gyroscopic effects. Eotvos went both ways you know, Lense-Thirring does have a result, the Higgs Boson is a doublet not a particle, Poind-Rebka never caught up with their muons, and Hafaele-Keating only made one specific trip. That's not to say that according to the premier theories there aren't particular energies and configurations of experiment that don't invalidate them, yet it's quite well known that even in the meso-scale that 3'rd order terms introduce dynamics. (Removed "alt.fan.hillbilly-pills".)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-29 13:54 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <JcicnVJFiLeZ4p_0nZ2dnZfqnPadnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #666965 |
On 10/29/2025 01:47 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote: > On 10/29/2025 01:40 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote: >> On 10/29/2025 12:29 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>> Den 29.10.2025 09:32, skrev Thomas Heger: >>>> Am Sonntag000026, 26.10.2025 um 21:58 schrieb Paul B. Andersen: >>>>> Den 26.10.2025 08:08, skrev Thomas Heger: >>>>>> >>>>>> But Einstein could have been a tiny cog in a huge system, which was >>>>>> meant to derail science in general. >>>>>> >>>>>> I actually assume, that 'On the electrodynamics of moving bodies' >>>>>> was meant as such a means, which intentionally tried to divert >>>>>> science from their supposed course. >>>>>> >>>>>> I think so, because that particular article contains an enormous >>>>>> amount of errors of all sorts. >>>>>> >>>>>> Some of them are actually comically stupid. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The metric below defines The Special Theory of Relativity (SR). >>>>> What can be deduced from this metric is what SR predicts. >>>>> (c⋅dτ)² = (c⋅dt)² − dx² − dy² − dz² >>>> >>>> This was not from Einstein's text 'On the electrodynamics of moving >>>> bodies'!! >>>> >>>> Sure, it is actually correct (mainly), but still not a part of the >>>> article I was talking about. >>>> >>>> Therefore, it doesn't help Einstein's paper, if you succesfully defend >>>> this equation. >>> >>> It was Minkowski, not Einstein, who introduced four dimensionally >>> spacetime and the geometric approach. >>> >>> In 1908 Minkowski presented a paper named "Space and Time" for >>> the "80th Assembly of German Natural Scientists and Physicians". >>> >>> In the introduction he writes: >>> "Henceforth space by itself, and time by itself, are doomed to >>> fade away into mere shadows, and only a kind of union of the two >>> will preserve an independent reality." >>> >>> This "union" is what we now call Minkowski spacetime (flat spacetime) >>> >>> In the paper Minkowski presented the metric: >>> dτ² = − dx² − dy² − dz² − ds² >>> where s = √(−1)⋅t, so ds² = - dt² >>> so the metric becomes: >>> dτ² = dt² − dx² − dy² − dz² >>> >>> This is a reformulation of Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity. >>> >>> Allegedly Einstein has said: >>> "Since the mathematicians have invaded the theory of relativity, >>> I do not understand it myself any more." >>> >>> Note that this statement implies that Einstein considered >>> Minkowski's geometric approach to be a formulation of his theory of >>> relativity >>> >>> >>> But Einstein had to learn more mathematics, and in the introduction >>> of the paper "The Foundation of the General Theory of Relativity" >>> he writes: >>> "The generalization of the theory of relativity has been >>> facilitated considerably by _Minkowski_, a mathematician >>> who was the first one to recognize the formal equivalence >>> of space coordinates and the time coordinate, and utilized >>> this in the construction of the theory." >>> >>> Einstein's spacetime (which is not necessarily >>> flat) is a generalisation of Minkowski spacetime. >>> >>> >>>>> >>>>> The theory Einstein defined in "On the electrodynamics of moving >>>>> bodies" is identical to the theory defined by the metric above. >>>> >>>> No! >>>> >>> >>> That the theory Einstein defined in "On the electrodynamics of >>> moving bodies" is identical to the theory defined by the metric: >>> (c⋅dτ)² = (c⋅dt)² − dx² − dy² − dz² >>> is a historical fact, and not disputable. >>> >>> That you, due to your serious reading comprehension problem >>> and mathematical illiteracy, don't understand Einstein's paper >>> doesn't mean that the paper: "contains an enormous amount of >>> errors of all sorts". >>> >>> When this is settled, you can read what you snipped: >>> >>> No professional physicist will dispute that SR is a consistent theory. >>> (There have been physicists who have claimed that SR is inconsistent, >>> look up Herbert Dingle. But Dingle's arguments are long since proven >>> wrong.) >>> >>> So we can consider it to be a fact that SR is a logically >>> consistent theory. >>> >>> But the predictions of a logically consistent theory >>> do not have to be in accordance with measurements. >>> Only real experiments can show that. >>> >>> Some of the experiments testing SR: >>> https://paulba.no/paper/Fizeau_by_Michelson.pdf >>> https://paulba.no/paper/Michelson_1887.pdf >>> https://paulba.no/paper/Kennedy_Thorndike.pdf >>> https://paulba.no/paper/Ives_Stilwell.pdf >>> https://paulba.no/paper/Ives_Stilwell_II.pdf >>> https://paulba.no/paper/Babcock_Bergman.pdf >>> https://paulba.no/paper/Frisch_Smith.pdf >>> https://paulba.no/paper/Alvager_et_al.pdf >>> https://paulba.no/paper/Beckmann_Mandics.pdf >>> https://paulba.no/paper/Filippas_Fox.pdf >>> https://paulba.no/paper/Brecher.pdf >>> https://paulba.no/paper/Brillet_Hall.pdf >>> >>> Newtonian Mechanics (NM) and SR are both logically consistent >>> theories. >>> All the experiments above confirm SR, none falsify SR. >>> Most of the experiments above falsify NM. >>> (It takes but one experiment to falsify a theory.) >>> >>> Now you can assume that all physicists are idiots, and >>> that all the experimental physicist who performed >>> the experiments are frauds who have faked their results. >>> >>> That will make you look very smart. >>> >> >> Physics can't explain a football. (The "empirical" part.) >> >> Dark Matter and Dark Energy long ago falsified SR or GR by themselves. >> >> > > Jets use turbo-fans not rockets, > and rockets these days giant MEMS blocks, > for the gyroscopic effects. > > Eotvos went both ways you know, > Lense-Thirring does have a result, > the Higgs Boson is a doublet not a particle, > Poind-Rebka never caught up with their muons, > and Hafaele-Keating only made one specific trip. > > That's not to say that according to the premier > theories there aren't particular energies and configurations > of experiment that don't invalidate them, yet it's > quite well known that even in the meso-scale > that 3'rd order terms introduce dynamics. > > > (Removed "alt.fan.hillbilly-pills".) > > Michelson-Morley-still and Michelson-Morley-spinning give two different results, also Michelson-Morley-moving a third. The space-contraction-linear and space-contraction-rotational are two different things.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-29 23:23 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <187316784ee20212$2201850$2542420$c2265aab@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #666963 |
On 10/29/2025 8:29 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > Den 29.10.2025 09:32, skrev Thomas Heger: >> Am Sonntag000026, 26.10.2025 um 21:58 schrieb Paul B. Andersen: >>> Den 26.10.2025 08:08, skrev Thomas Heger: >>>> >>>> But Einstein could have been a tiny cog in a huge system, which was >>>> meant to derail science in general. >>>> >>>> I actually assume, that 'On the electrodynamics of moving bodies' >>>> was meant as such a means, which intentionally tried to divert >>>> science from their supposed course. >>>> >>>> I think so, because that particular article contains an enormous >>>> amount of errors of all sorts. >>>> >>>> Some of them are actually comically stupid. >>> >>> >>> The metric below defines The Special Theory of Relativity (SR). >>> What can be deduced from this metric is what SR predicts. >>> (c⋅dτ)² = (c⋅dt)² − dx² − dy² − dz² >> >> This was not from Einstein's text 'On the electrodynamics of moving >> bodies'!! >> >> Sure, it is actually correct (mainly), but still not a part of the >> article I was talking about. >> >> Therefore, it doesn't help Einstein's paper, if you succesfully defend >> this equation. > > It was Minkowski, not Einstein, who introduced four dimensionally > spacetime and the geometric approach. > > In 1908 Minkowski presented a paper named "Space and Time" for > the "80th Assembly of German Natural Scientists and Physicians". > > In the introduction he writes: > "Henceforth space by itself, and time by itself, are doomed to > fade away into mere shadows, and only a kind of union of the two > will preserve an independent reality." > > This "union" is what we now call Minkowski spacetime (flat spacetime) > > In the paper Minkowski presented the metric: > dτ² = − dx² − dy² − dz² − ds² > where s = √(−1)⋅t, so ds² = - dt² > so the metric becomes: > dτ² = dt² − dx² − dy² − dz² > > This is a reformulation of Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity. > > Allegedly Einstein has said: > "Since the mathematicians have invaded the theory of relativity, > I do not understand it myself any more." > > Note that this statement implies that Einstein considered > Minkowski's geometric approach to be a formulation of his theory of > relativity > > > But Einstein had to learn more mathematics, and in the introduction > of the paper "The Foundation of the General Theory of Relativity" > he writes: > "The generalization of the theory of relativity has been > facilitated considerably by _Minkowski_, a mathematician > who was the first one to recognize the formal equivalence > of space coordinates and the time coordinate, and utilized > this in the construction of the theory." > > Einstein's spacetime (which is not necessarily > flat) is a generalisation of Minkowski spacetime. > > >>> >>> The theory Einstein defined in "On the electrodynamics of moving >>> bodies" is identical to the theory defined by the metric above. >> >> No! >> > > That the theory Einstein defined in "On the electrodynamics of > moving bodies" is identical to the theory defined by the metric: > (c⋅dτ)² = (c⋅dt)² − dx² − dy² − dz² Even such a primitive theory as The Shit can't be defined by a single formula, poor trash. > No professional physicist will dispute that SR is a consistent theory. > (There have been physicists who have claimed that SR is inconsistent, > look up Herbert Dingle. But Dingle's arguments are long since proven > wrong.) > > So we can consider it to be a fact that SR is a logically > consistent theory. Or you can consider as a fact pink unicorns. > > But the predictions of a logically consistent theory > do not have to be in accordance with measurements. > Only real experiments can show that. Bullshit too. > > Some of the experiments testing SR: > https://paulba.no/paper/Fizeau_by_Michelson.pdf > https://paulba.no/paper/Michelson_1887.pdf > https://paulba.no/paper/Kennedy_Thorndike.pdf > https://paulba.no/paper/Ives_Stilwell.pdf > https://paulba.no/paper/Ives_Stilwell_II.pdf > https://paulba.no/paper/Babcock_Bergman.pdf > https://paulba.no/paper/Frisch_Smith.pdf > https://paulba.no/paper/Alvager_et_al.pdf > https://paulba.no/paper/Beckmann_Mandics.pdf > https://paulba.no/paper/Filippas_Fox.pdf > https://paulba.no/paper/Brecher.pdf > https://paulba.no/paper/Brillet_Hall.pdf > > Newtonian Mechanics (NM) and SR are both logically consistent > theories. > All the experiments above confirm SR, none falsify SR. 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 results have little in common with the delusions of your insane guru. > Most of the experiments above falsify NM. Or, at least, a brainwashed religious maniac is asserting they do. > (It takes but one experiment to falsify a theory.) > > Now you can assume that all physicists are idiots No doubts of that.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-30 09:11 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <mmgkikFdgvhU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #666963 |
Am Mittwoch000029, 29.10.2025 um 20:29 schrieb Paul B. Andersen: > Den 29.10.2025 09:32, skrev Thomas Heger: >> Am Sonntag000026, 26.10.2025 um 21:58 schrieb Paul B. Andersen: >>> Den 26.10.2025 08:08, skrev Thomas Heger: >>>> >>>> But Einstein could have been a tiny cog in a huge system, which was >>>> meant to derail science in general. >>>> >>>> I actually assume, that 'On the electrodynamics of moving bodies' >>>> was meant as such a means, which intentionally tried to divert >>>> science from their supposed course. >>>> >>>> I think so, because that particular article contains an enormous >>>> amount of errors of all sorts. >>>> >>>> Some of them are actually comically stupid. >>> >>> >>> The metric below defines The Special Theory of Relativity (SR). >>> What can be deduced from this metric is what SR predicts. >>> (c⋅dτ)² = (c⋅dt)² − dx² − dy² − dz² >> >> This was not from Einstein's text 'On the electrodynamics of moving >> bodies'!! >> >> Sure, it is actually correct (mainly), but still not a part of the >> article I was talking about. >> >> Therefore, it doesn't help Einstein's paper, if you succesfully defend >> this equation. > > It was Minkowski, not Einstein, who introduced four dimensionally > spacetime and the geometric approach. > > In 1908 Minkowski presented a paper named "Space and Time" for > the "80th Assembly of German Natural Scientists and Physicians". > > In the introduction he writes: > "Henceforth space by itself, and time by itself, are doomed to > fade away into mere shadows, and only a kind of union of the two > will preserve an independent reality." > > This "union" is what we now call Minkowski spacetime (flat spacetime) > > In the paper Minkowski presented the metric: > dτ² = − dx² − dy² − dz² − ds² > where s = √(−1)⋅t, so ds² = - dt² > so the metric becomes: > dτ² = dt² − dx² − dy² − dz² > > This is a reformulation of Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity. > > Allegedly Einstein has said: > "Since the mathematicians have invaded the theory of relativity, > I do not understand it myself any more." > > Note that this statement implies that Einstein considered > Minkowski's geometric approach to be a formulation of his theory of > relativity > > > But Einstein had to learn more mathematics, and in the introduction > of the paper "The Foundation of the General Theory of Relativity" > he writes: > "The generalization of the theory of relativity has been > facilitated considerably by _Minkowski_, a mathematician > who was the first one to recognize the formal equivalence > of space coordinates and the time coordinate, and utilized > this in the construction of the theory." > > Einstein's spacetime (which is not necessarily > flat) is a generalisation of Minkowski spacetime. > > >>> >>> The theory Einstein defined in "On the electrodynamics of moving >>> bodies" is identical to the theory defined by the metric above. >> >> No! >> > > That the theory Einstein defined in "On the electrodynamics of > moving bodies" is identical to the theory defined by the metric: > (c⋅dτ)² = (c⋅dt)² − dx² − dy² − dz² > is a historical fact, and not disputable. > > That you, due to your serious reading comprehension problem > and mathematical illiteracy, don't understand Einstein's paper > doesn't mean that the paper: "contains an enormous amount of > errors of all sorts". I didn't discuss the SRT itself, but a certain very specific article written by Einstein in 1905 (no more, no less). I used a certain perspective: I treated the paper as homework of a student and myself as a professor, who had to write corrections for that paper. I didn't discuss SRT, but this paper (only). Then I tried to find every single error or inconsistency within it. The number was enormous and ranges beyond 400 errors, depending on how you count them. Whether the actually meant theory was correct or not, that was NOT my topic. First I had focussed on formal questions, expressions, spelling and so forth. Then I was looking for physical issues, which could be eventually debated And then I marked those issues, which were realy serious flaws and why I think they were. Since the paper itself was 'dead' after the very first error, I had to disconnect it from the underlying theory altogether, because otherwise it wouldn't make sense to search for all errors. So, yes, SRT might be correct (or not). But that wasn't my topic, even if I think, that relativity per se is correct. > When this is settled, you can read what you snipped: > > No professional physicist will dispute that SR is a consistent theory. > (There have been physicists who have claimed that SR is inconsistent, > look up Herbert Dingle. But Dingle's arguments are long since proven > wrong.) Herbert Dingle was actually a physics professor with some reputation. He wrote 'Science at the crossroads' and demanded, that such a farce should be stopped immediately (what obviously didn't happen). That's why I actually think, that professional physics today is a total farce. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bosephis Von wegberg <sswni@ehbees.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-30 15:35 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10e00k6$3p9sv$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #666971 |
Thomas Heger wrote: > Am Mittwoch000029, 29.10.2025 um 20:29 schrieb Paul B. Andersen: >> That the theory Einstein defined in "On the electrodynamics of moving >> bodies" is identical to the theory defined by the metric: >> (c⋅dτ)² = (c⋅dt)² − dx² − dy² − dz² >> is a historical fact, and not disputable. >> >> That you, due to your serious reading comprehension problem and >> mathematical illiteracy, don't understand Einstein's paper doesn't mean >> that the paper: "contains an enormous amount of errors of all sorts". > > I didn't discuss the SRT itself, but a certain very specific article > written by Einstein in 1905 (no more, no less). > > I used a certain perspective: > > I treated the paper as homework of a student and myself as a professor, > who had to write corrections for that paper. it's because you don't take that equation at large. Here's a set of SRT papers, he wants you to undrestand, the precedence on why the Einstine was forced to take ownership of https://b%69%74%63%68%75%74e.com/v%69%64%65o/njMYOiVhIXqD
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-31 19:43 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <Xq7NQ.14854$kzA2.8429@fx06.ams4> |
| In reply to | #666971 |
Den 30.10.2025 09:11, skrev Thomas Heger: > Am Mittwoch000029, 29.10.2025 um 20:29 schrieb Paul B. Andersen: >> Den 29.10.2025 09:32, skrev Thomas Heger: >>> Am Sonntag000026, 26.10.2025 um 21:58 schrieb Paul B. Andersen: >>>> Den 26.10.2025 08:08, skrev Thomas Heger: >>>>> >>>>> But Einstein could have been a tiny cog in a huge system, which was >>>>> meant to derail science in general. >>>>> >>>>> I actually assume, that 'On the electrodynamics of moving bodies' >>>>> was meant as such a means, which intentionally tried to divert >>>>> science from their supposed course. >>>>> >>>>> I think so, because that particular article contains an enormous >>>>> amount of errors of all sorts. >>>>> >>>>> Some of them are actually comically stupid. >>>> >>>> >>>> The metric below defines The Special Theory of Relativity (SR). >>>> What can be deduced from this metric is what SR predicts. >>>> (c⋅dτ)² = (c⋅dt)² − dx² − dy² − dz² >>> >>> This was not from Einstein's text 'On the electrodynamics of moving >>> bodies'!! >>> >>> Sure, it is actually correct (mainly), but still not a part of the >>> article I was talking about. >>> >>> Therefore, it doesn't help Einstein's paper, if you succesfully >>> defend this equation. >> >> It was Minkowski, not Einstein, who introduced four dimensionally >> spacetime and the geometric approach. >> >> In 1908 Minkowski presented a paper named "Space and Time" for >> the "80th Assembly of German Natural Scientists and Physicians". >> >> In the introduction he writes: >> "Henceforth space by itself, and time by itself, are doomed to >> fade away into mere shadows, and only a kind of union of the two >> will preserve an independent reality." >> >> This "union" is what we now call Minkowski spacetime (flat spacetime) >> >> In the paper Minkowski presented the metric: >> dτ² = − dx² − dy² − dz² − ds² >> where s = √(−1)⋅t, so ds² = - dt² >> so the metric becomes: >> dτ² = dt² − dx² − dy² − dz² >> >> This is a reformulation of Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity. >> >> Allegedly Einstein has said: >> "Since the mathematicians have invaded the theory of relativity, >> I do not understand it myself any more." >> >> Note that this statement implies that Einstein considered >> Minkowski's geometric approach to be a formulation of his theory of >> relativity >> >> >> But Einstein had to learn more mathematics, and in the introduction >> of the paper "The Foundation of the General Theory of Relativity" >> he writes: >> "The generalization of the theory of relativity has been >> facilitated considerably by _Minkowski_, a mathematician >> who was the first one to recognize the formal equivalence >> of space coordinates and the time coordinate, and utilized >> this in the construction of the theory." >> >> Einstein's spacetime (which is not necessarily >> flat) is a generalisation of Minkowski spacetime. >> >> >>>> >>>> The theory Einstein defined in "On the electrodynamics of moving >>>> bodies" is identical to the theory defined by the metric above. >>> >>> No! >>> >> >> That the theory Einstein defined in "On the electrodynamics of >> moving bodies" is identical to the theory defined by the metric: >> (c⋅dτ)² = (c⋅dt)² − dx² − dy² − dz² >> is a historical fact, and not disputable. >> >> That you, due to your serious reading comprehension problem >> and mathematical illiteracy, don't understand Einstein's paper >> doesn't mean that the paper: "contains an enormous amount of >> errors of all sorts". > > I didn't discuss the SRT itself, but a certain very specific article > written by Einstein in 1905 (no more, no less). > > I used a certain perspective: > > I treated the paper as homework of a student and myself as a professor, > who had to write corrections for that paper. > > I didn't discuss SRT, but this paper (only). > > Then I tried to find every single error or inconsistency within it. > > The number was enormous and ranges beyond 400 errors, depending on how > you count them. > > Whether the actually meant theory was correct or not, that was NOT my > topic. > > First I had focussed on formal questions, expressions, spelling and so > forth. > > Then I was looking for physical issues, which could be eventually debated > > And then I marked those issues, which were realy serious flaws and why I > think they were. > > Since the paper itself was 'dead' after the very first error, I had to > disconnect it from the underlying theory altogether, because otherwise > it wouldn't make sense to search for all errors. > > So, yes, SRT might be correct (or not). But that wasn't my topic, even > if I think, that relativity per se is correct. Your motivation for writing nonsense is irrelevant. The fact remains: The theory Einstein defined in "On the electrodynamics of moving bodies" is identical to the theory defined by the metric: (c⋅dτ)² = (c⋅dt)² − dx² − dy² − dz² This is a historical fact, and not disputable. > >> When this is settled, you can read what you snipped: >> >> No professional physicist will dispute that SR is a consistent theory. >> (There have been physicists who have claimed that SR is inconsistent, >> look up Herbert Dingle. But Dingle's arguments are long since proven >> wrong.) > > > Herbert Dingle was actually a physics professor with some reputation. He > wrote 'Science at the crossroads' and demanded, that such a farce should > be stopped immediately (what obviously didn't happen). Dingle was wrong. Historical fact! > > That's why I actually think, that professional physics today is a total > farce. Your opinion can't change the _fact_: SR is a logically consistent theory. But the predictions of a logically consistent theory do not have to be in accordance with measurements. Only real experiments can show that. Some of the experiments testing SR: https://paulba.no/paper/Fizeau_by_Michelson.pdf https://paulba.no/paper/Michelson_1887.pdf https://paulba.no/paper/Kennedy_Thorndike.pdf https://paulba.no/paper/Ives_Stilwell.pdf https://paulba.no/paper/Ives_Stilwell_II.pdf https://paulba.no/paper/Babcock_Bergman.pdf https://paulba.no/paper/Frisch_Smith.pdf https://paulba.no/paper/Alvager_et_al.pdf https://paulba.no/paper/Beckmann_Mandics.pdf https://paulba.no/paper/Filippas_Fox.pdf https://paulba.no/paper/Brecher.pdf https://paulba.no/paper/Brillet_Hall.pdf Newtonian Mechanics (NM) and SR are both logically consistent theories. All the experiments above confirm SR, none falsify SR. Most of the experiments above falsify NM. (It takes but one experiment to falsify a theory.) Do you understand this, or will you claim that all physicists are idiots, and that all the experimental physicist who performed the experiments are frauds who have faked their results? -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-31 20:28 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <1873aa1ae0b88044$13596029$2534374$c2565adb@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #667001 |
On 10/31/2025 7:43 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > The fact remains: > The theory Einstein defined in "On the electrodynamics of > moving bodies" is identical to the theory defined by the metric: > (c⋅dτ)² = (c⋅dt)² − dx² − dy² − dz² > > This is a historical fact, and not disputable. Paul, only such an idiot can believe that a single formula can define a whole theory, even such a primitive one. > All the experiments above confirm SR, none falsify SR. > Most of the experiments above falsify NM. And only such an idiot can believe so impudent lies.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Wes Kaczka <cazc@as.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-31 20:29 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10e366s$peb5$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #667002 |
Maciej Woźniak wrote: > On 10/31/2025 7:43 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > >> The fact remains: >> The theory Einstein defined in "On the electrodynamics of moving >> bodies" is identical to the theory defined by the metric: >> (c⋅dτ)² = (c⋅dt)² − dx² − dy² − dz² >> >> This is a historical fact, and not disputable. > > Paul, only such an idiot can believe that a single formula can define a > whole theory, even such a primitive one. that should be delta, not d, since d stands for something else. the remote RHS part is also wrong, referring to LOCAL time and distances, hence the speed of light, as local measurements, since they are NOT and NEVER will be adolf Einstine was a fool, not undrestanding my Divergent Matter of the Moving Koerpers Model. What a shame..
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-01 08:04 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <mmlpdnF9olhU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #667001 |
Am Freitag000031, 31.10.2025 um 19:43 schrieb Paul B. Andersen: > Den 30.10.2025 09:11, skrev Thomas Heger: >> Am Mittwoch000029, 29.10.2025 um 20:29 schrieb Paul B. Andersen: >>> Den 29.10.2025 09:32, skrev Thomas Heger: >>>> Am Sonntag000026, 26.10.2025 um 21:58 schrieb Paul B. Andersen: >>>>> Den 26.10.2025 08:08, skrev Thomas Heger: >>>>>> >>>>>> But Einstein could have been a tiny cog in a huge system, which >>>>>> was meant to derail science in general. >>>>>> >>>>>> I actually assume, that 'On the electrodynamics of moving bodies' >>>>>> was meant as such a means, which intentionally tried to divert >>>>>> science from their supposed course. >>>>>> >>>>>> I think so, because that particular article contains an enormous >>>>>> amount of errors of all sorts. >>>>>> >>>>>> Some of them are actually comically stupid. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The metric below defines The Special Theory of Relativity (SR). >>>>> What can be deduced from this metric is what SR predicts. >>>>> (c⋅dτ)² = (c⋅dt)² − dx² − dy² − dz² >>>> >>>> This was not from Einstein's text 'On the electrodynamics of moving >>>> bodies'!! >>>> >>>> Sure, it is actually correct (mainly), but still not a part of the >>>> article I was talking about. >>>> >>>> Therefore, it doesn't help Einstein's paper, if you succesfully >>>> defend this equation. >>> >>> It was Minkowski, not Einstein, who introduced four dimensionally >>> spacetime and the geometric approach. >>> >>> In 1908 Minkowski presented a paper named "Space and Time" for >>> the "80th Assembly of German Natural Scientists and Physicians". >>> >>> In the introduction he writes: >>> "Henceforth space by itself, and time by itself, are doomed to >>> fade away into mere shadows, and only a kind of union of the two >>> will preserve an independent reality." >>> >>> This "union" is what we now call Minkowski spacetime (flat spacetime) >>> >>> In the paper Minkowski presented the metric: >>> dτ² = − dx² − dy² − dz² − ds² >>> where s = √(−1)⋅t, so ds² = - dt² >>> so the metric becomes: >>> dτ² = dt² − dx² − dy² − dz² >>> >>> This is a reformulation of Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity. >>> >>> Allegedly Einstein has said: >>> "Since the mathematicians have invaded the theory of relativity, >>> I do not understand it myself any more." >>> >>> Note that this statement implies that Einstein considered >>> Minkowski's geometric approach to be a formulation of his theory of >>> relativity >>> >>> >>> But Einstein had to learn more mathematics, and in the introduction >>> of the paper "The Foundation of the General Theory of Relativity" >>> he writes: >>> "The generalization of the theory of relativity has been >>> facilitated considerably by _Minkowski_, a mathematician >>> who was the first one to recognize the formal equivalence >>> of space coordinates and the time coordinate, and utilized >>> this in the construction of the theory." >>> >>> Einstein's spacetime (which is not necessarily >>> flat) is a generalisation of Minkowski spacetime. >>> >>> > >>>>> >>>>> The theory Einstein defined in "On the electrodynamics of moving >>>>> bodies" is identical to the theory defined by the metric above. >>>> >>>> No! >>>> >>> >>> That the theory Einstein defined in "On the electrodynamics of >>> moving bodies" is identical to the theory defined by the metric: >>> (c⋅dτ)² = (c⋅dt)² − dx² − dy² − dz² >>> is a historical fact, and not disputable. >>> >>> That you, due to your serious reading comprehension problem >>> and mathematical illiteracy, don't understand Einstein's paper >>> doesn't mean that the paper: "contains an enormous amount of >>> errors of all sorts". > >> >> I didn't discuss the SRT itself, but a certain very specific article >> written by Einstein in 1905 (no more, no less). >> >> I used a certain perspective: >> >> I treated the paper as homework of a student and myself as a >> professor, who had to write corrections for that paper. >> >> I didn't discuss SRT, but this paper (only). >> >> Then I tried to find every single error or inconsistency within it. >> >> The number was enormous and ranges beyond 400 errors, depending on how >> you count them. >> >> Whether the actually meant theory was correct or not, that was NOT my >> topic. >> >> First I had focussed on formal questions, expressions, spelling and so >> forth. >> >> Then I was looking for physical issues, which could be eventually debated >> >> And then I marked those issues, which were realy serious flaws and why >> I think they were. >> >> Since the paper itself was 'dead' after the very first error, I had to >> disconnect it from the underlying theory altogether, because otherwise >> it wouldn't make sense to search for all errors. >> >> So, yes, SRT might be correct (or not). But that wasn't my topic, even >> if I think, that relativity per se is correct. > > Your motivation for writing nonsense is irrelevant. > > The fact remains: > The theory Einstein defined in "On the electrodynamics of > moving bodies" is identical to the theory defined by the metric: > (c⋅dτ)² = (c⋅dt)² − dx² − dy² − dz² Possibly this equation is compatible with what Einstein had written in 1905, even if I don't think so. But that equation wasn't part of Einstein's text in 1905. Therefore that equation isn't part of Einstein's 1905 version of SRT, even if that is somehow compatible with what is called 'SRT' today. The very simple reason: a text (article, book, paper) is what it is and not what you make out of it. If an equation is not written in this paper, it is not a part of that paper. period! > > This is a historical fact, and not disputable. That statement is wrong by itself, because EVERYTHING is disputable. More often than not, such debates make no sense. But you may rightfully debate whatever you like. > >> >>> When this is settled, you can read what you snipped: >>> >>> No professional physicist will dispute that SR is a consistent theory. >>> (There have been physicists who have claimed that SR is inconsistent, >>> look up Herbert Dingle. But Dingle's arguments are long since proven >>> wrong.) >> >> >> Herbert Dingle was actually a physics professor with some reputation. >> He wrote 'Science at the crossroads' and demanded, that such a farce >> should be stopped immediately (what obviously didn't happen). > > Dingle was wrong. Historical fact! I don't see any reason for such a statement. If you dislike 'Science at the crossroads' you could certainly discuss this topic and can eventually disprove a few of his statements (supposed you find people willing to discuss that topic with you). But shouting 'Dingle was wrong!' is like spitting into the wwind.>> >> That's why I actually think, that professional physics today is a >> total farce. > Your opinion can't change the _fact_: > SR is a logically consistent theory. Sure, but I had never argued about SRT per se. 'Relativity' is actually a very simple and totally undisputable concept, which hardly anybody wants to reject. What people eventually dislaike that are certain versions of SRT, like e.g. that of Einstein from 1905. (Personally I prefer Minkowski and Poincaré.) ... TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-01 12:15 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <WYlNQ.108482$Lr5.24345@fx04.ams4> |
| In reply to | #667009 |
Den 01.11.2025 08:04, skrev Thomas Heger: > Am Freitag000031, 31.10.2025 um 19:43 schrieb Paul B. Andersen: >> Den 30.10.2025 09:11, skrev Thomas Heger: >>> Am Mittwoch000029, 29.10.2025 um 20:29 schrieb Paul B. Andersen: >>>> Den 29.10.2025 09:32, skrev Thomas Heger: >>>>> Am Sonntag000026, 26.10.2025 um 21:58 schrieb Paul B. Andersen: >>>>>> >>>>>> The metric below defines The Special Theory of Relativity (SR). >>>>>> What can be deduced from this metric is what SR predicts. >>>>>> (c⋅dτ)² = (c⋅dt)² − dx² − dy² − dz² >>>>> >>>>> This was not from Einstein's text 'On the electrodynamics of moving >>>>> bodies'!! >>>>> >>>>> Sure, it is actually correct (mainly), but still not a part of the >>>>> article I was talking about. >>>>> >>>>> Therefore, it doesn't help Einstein's paper, if you succesfully >>>>> defend this equation. >>>> >>>> It was Minkowski, not Einstein, who introduced four dimensionally >>>> spacetime and the geometric approach. >>>> >>>> In 1908 Minkowski presented a paper named "Space and Time" for >>>> the "80th Assembly of German Natural Scientists and Physicians". >>>> >>>> In the introduction he writes: >>>> "Henceforth space by itself, and time by itself, are doomed to >>>> fade away into mere shadows, and only a kind of union of the two >>>> will preserve an independent reality." >>>> >>>> This "union" is what we now call Minkowski spacetime (flat spacetime) >>>> >>>> In the paper Minkowski presented the metric: >>>> dτ² = − dx² − dy² − dz² − ds² >>>> where s = √(−1)⋅t, so ds² = - dt² >>>> so the metric becomes: >>>> dτ² = dt² − dx² − dy² − dz² >>>> >>>> This is a reformulation of Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity. >>>> >>>> Allegedly Einstein has said: >>>> "Since the mathematicians have invaded the theory of relativity, >>>> I do not understand it myself any more." >>>> >>>> Note that this statement implies that Einstein considered >>>> Minkowski's geometric approach to be a formulation of his theory of >>>> relativity >>>> >>>> >>>> But Einstein had to learn more mathematics, and in the introduction >>>> of the paper "The Foundation of the General Theory of Relativity" >>>> he writes: >>>> "The generalization of the theory of relativity has been >>>> facilitated considerably by _Minkowski_, a mathematician >>>> who was the first one to recognize the formal equivalence >>>> of space coordinates and the time coordinate, and utilized >>>> this in the construction of the theory." The "flat" SR metric is in "The Foundation of the General Theory of Relativity" . >>>> >>>> Einstein's spacetime (which is not necessarily >>>> flat) is a generalisation of Minkowski spacetime. >>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> The theory Einstein defined in "On the electrodynamics of moving >>>>>> bodies" is identical to the theory defined by the metric above. >>>>> >>>>> No! >>>> >>>> That the theory Einstein defined in "On the electrodynamics of >>>> moving bodies" is identical to the theory defined by the metric: >>>> (c⋅dτ)² = (c⋅dt)² − dx² − dy² − dz² >>>> is a historical fact, and not disputable. >>>> >>>> That you, due to your serious reading comprehension problem >>>> and mathematical illiteracy, don't understand Einstein's paper >>>> doesn't mean that the paper: "contains an enormous amount of >>>> errors of all sorts". >>> >>> I didn't discuss the SRT itself, but a certain very specific article >>> written by Einstein in 1905 (no more, no less). >>> >>> I used a certain perspective: >>> >>> I treated the paper as homework of a student and myself as a >>> professor, who had to write corrections for that paper. >>> >>> I didn't discuss SRT, but this paper (only). >>> >>> Then I tried to find every single error or inconsistency within it. >>> >>> The number was enormous and ranges beyond 400 errors, depending on >>> how you count them. >>> >>> Whether the actually meant theory was correct or not, that was NOT my >>> topic. >>> >>> First I had focussed on formal questions, expressions, spelling and >>> so forth. >>> >>> Then I was looking for physical issues, which could be eventually >>> debated >>> >>> And then I marked those issues, which were realy serious flaws and >>> why I think they were. >>> >>> Since the paper itself was 'dead' after the very first error, I had >>> to disconnect it from the underlying theory altogether, because >>> otherwise it wouldn't make sense to search for all errors. >>> >>> So, yes, SRT might be correct (or not). But that wasn't my topic, >>> even if I think, that relativity per se is correct. >> >> Your motivation for writing nonsense is irrelevant. >> >> The fact remains: >> The theory Einstein defined in "On the electrodynamics of >> moving bodies" is identical to the theory defined by the metric: >> (c⋅dτ)² = (c⋅dt)² − dx² − dy² − dz² > > Possibly this equation is compatible with what Einstein had written in > 1905, even if I don't think so. What you believe is irrelevant. It is a fact that the theory Einstein defined in "On the electrodynamics of moving bodies" is identical to the theory defined by the metric: (c⋅dτ)² = (c⋅dt)² − dx² − dy² − dz² > > But that equation wasn't part of Einstein's text in 1905. > > Therefore that equation isn't part of Einstein's 1905 version of SRT, > even if that is somehow compatible with what is called 'SRT' today. > > The very simple reason: a text (article, book, paper) is what it is and > not what you make out of it. > > If an equation is not written in this paper, it is not a part of that > paper. > > period! Good Grief! I have explained all that above. Minkowski wrote the Minkowski metric in 1908 so it was obviously not in Einstein's 1905 paper. >> >> This is a historical fact, and not disputable. > That statement is wrong by itself, because EVERYTHING is disputable. Of course YOU can dispute anything, even facts. But an "indisputable fact" means that the fact is a fact. > > More often than not, such debates make no sense. > > But you may rightfully debate whatever you like. Of course YOU can dispute indisputable facts. It is however a stupid behaviour. > >> >>> >>>> When this is settled, you can read what you snipped: >>>> >>>> No professional physicist will dispute that SR is a consistent theory. >>>> (There have been physicists who have claimed that SR is inconsistent, >>>> look up Herbert Dingle. But Dingle's arguments are long since proven >>>> wrong.) >>> >>> Herbert Dingle was actually a physics professor with some reputation. >>> He wrote 'Science at the crossroads' and demanded, that such a farce >>> should be stopped immediately (what obviously didn't happen). >> Dingle was wrong. Historical fact! > > I don't see any reason for such a statement. > > If you dislike 'Science at the crossroads' you could certainly discuss > this topic and can eventually disprove a few of his statements > (supposed you find people willing to discuss that topic with you). > But shouting 'Dingle was wrong!' is like spitting into the wwind. Dingle wasn't as smart as you seem to believe. His misunderstandings of SR were rather naive, and easy to spot for anyone who understands SR. But I won't bother to explain them to you, you can look up the Dingle - Einstein discussion and see for yourself. That Dingle was wrong is a historical fact. >> >>> That's why I actually think, that professional physics today is a >>> total farce. >> Your opinion can't change the _fact_: >> SR is a logically consistent theory. > > Sure, but I had never argued about SRT per se. > > 'Relativity' is actually a very simple and totally undisputable concept, > which hardly anybody wants to reject. > > What people eventually dislaike that are certain versions of SRT, like > e.g. that of Einstein from 1905. > > (Personally I prefer Minkowski and Poincaré.) Here we go again! There is but one version of SR. Einstein's 1905 formulation of the theory can be summed up in the Lorentz transform [LT}: t' = γ(t - v⋅x/c²) x' = γ(x - v⋅t) y' = y z' = z Minkowski's reformulation is the metric: dτ² = dt² − dx² − dy² − dz² You can derive the metric from the LT, and you can derive the LT from the metric. Any prediction of SR can be derived equal well from the LT or the metric. There are two formulations of the one and only Special Theory of Relativity. So when you, Thomas Heger, wrote: "I actually assume, that 'On the electrodynamics of moving bodies' was meant as such a means, which intentionally tried to divert science from their supposed course. I think so, because that particular article contains an enormous amount of errors of all sorts. Some of them are actually comically stupid." You claimed that the Special Theory of Relativity was nonsense. That's why I would like you to respond to the part you by some reason keep snipping: ------------------------------ It is a fact that SR is a logically consistent theory. But the predictions of a logically consistent theory do not have to be in accordance with measurements. Only real experiments can show that. Some of the experiments testing SR: https://paulba.no/paper/Fizeau_by_Michelson.pdf https://paulba.no/paper/Michelson_1887.pdf https://paulba.no/paper/Kennedy_Thorndike.pdf https://paulba.no/paper/Ives_Stilwell.pdf https://paulba.no/paper/Ives_Stilwell_II.pdf https://paulba.no/paper/Babcock_Bergman.pdf https://paulba.no/paper/Frisch_Smith.pdf https://paulba.no/paper/Alvager_et_al.pdf https://paulba.no/paper/Beckmann_Mandics.pdf https://paulba.no/paper/Filippas_Fox.pdf https://paulba.no/paper/Brecher.pdf https://paulba.no/paper/Brillet_Hall.pdf Newtonian Mechanics (NM) and SR are both logically consistent theories. All the experiments above confirm SR, none falsify SR. Most of the experiments above falsify NM. (It takes but one experiment to falsify a theory.) Do you understand this, or will you claim that all physicists are idiots, and that all the experimental physicist who performed the experiments are frauds who have faked their results? -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-01 14:26 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <1873e4e949abf712$4844116$2542420$c2265aab@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #667011 |
On 11/1/2025 12:15 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > Den 01.11.2025 08:04, skrev Thomas Heger: >> Am Freitag000031, 31.10.2025 um 19:43 schrieb Paul B. Andersen: >>> Den 30.10.2025 09:11, skrev Thomas Heger: >>>> Am Mittwoch000029, 29.10.2025 um 20:29 schrieb Paul B. Andersen: >>>>> Den 29.10.2025 09:32, skrev Thomas Heger: >>>>>> Am Sonntag000026, 26.10.2025 um 21:58 schrieb Paul B. Andersen: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The metric below defines The Special Theory of Relativity (SR). >>>>>>> What can be deduced from this metric is what SR predicts. >>>>>>> (c⋅dτ)² = (c⋅dt)² − dx² − dy² − dz² > >>>>>> >>>>>> This was not from Einstein's text 'On the electrodynamics of >>>>>> moving bodies'!! >>>>>> >>>>>> Sure, it is actually correct (mainly), but still not a part of the >>>>>> article I was talking about. >>>>>> >>>>>> Therefore, it doesn't help Einstein's paper, if you succesfully >>>>>> defend this equation. > >>>>> >>>>> It was Minkowski, not Einstein, who introduced four dimensionally >>>>> spacetime and the geometric approach. >>>>> >>>>> In 1908 Minkowski presented a paper named "Space and Time" for >>>>> the "80th Assembly of German Natural Scientists and Physicians". >>>>> >>>>> In the introduction he writes: >>>>> "Henceforth space by itself, and time by itself, are doomed to >>>>> fade away into mere shadows, and only a kind of union of the two >>>>> will preserve an independent reality." >>>>> >>>>> This "union" is what we now call Minkowski spacetime (flat spacetime) >>>>> >>>>> In the paper Minkowski presented the metric: >>>>> dτ² = − dx² − dy² − dz² − ds² >>>>> where s = √(−1)⋅t, so ds² = - dt² >>>>> so the metric becomes: >>>>> dτ² = dt² − dx² − dy² − dz² >>>>> >>>>> This is a reformulation of Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity. >>>>> >>>>> Allegedly Einstein has said: >>>>> "Since the mathematicians have invaded the theory of relativity, >>>>> I do not understand it myself any more." >>>>> >>>>> Note that this statement implies that Einstein considered >>>>> Minkowski's geometric approach to be a formulation of his theory of >>>>> relativity >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> But Einstein had to learn more mathematics, and in the introduction >>>>> of the paper "The Foundation of the General Theory of Relativity" >>>>> he writes: >>>>> "The generalization of the theory of relativity has been >>>>> facilitated considerably by _Minkowski_, a mathematician >>>>> who was the first one to recognize the formal equivalence >>>>> of space coordinates and the time coordinate, and utilized >>>>> this in the construction of the theory." > > The "flat" SR metric is in > "The Foundation of the General Theory of Relativity" . > >>>>> >>>>> Einstein's spacetime (which is not necessarily >>>>> flat) is a generalisation of Minkowski spacetime. >>>>> >>>>> > >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The theory Einstein defined in "On the electrodynamics of moving >>>>>>> bodies" is identical to the theory defined by the metric above. >>>>>> >>>>>> No! > >>>>> >>>>> That the theory Einstein defined in "On the electrodynamics of >>>>> moving bodies" is identical to the theory defined by the metric: >>>>> (c⋅dτ)² = (c⋅dt)² − dx² − dy² − dz² >>>>> is a historical fact, and not disputable. >>>>> >>>>> That you, due to your serious reading comprehension problem >>>>> and mathematical illiteracy, don't understand Einstein's paper >>>>> doesn't mean that the paper: "contains an enormous amount of >>>>> errors of all sorts". > >>>> >>>> I didn't discuss the SRT itself, but a certain very specific article >>>> written by Einstein in 1905 (no more, no less). >>>> >>>> I used a certain perspective: >>>> >>>> I treated the paper as homework of a student and myself as a >>>> professor, who had to write corrections for that paper. >>>> >>>> I didn't discuss SRT, but this paper (only). >>>> >>>> Then I tried to find every single error or inconsistency within it. >>>> >>>> The number was enormous and ranges beyond 400 errors, depending on >>>> how you count them. >>>> >>>> Whether the actually meant theory was correct or not, that was NOT >>>> my topic. >>>> >>>> First I had focussed on formal questions, expressions, spelling and >>>> so forth. >>>> >>>> Then I was looking for physical issues, which could be eventually >>>> debated >>>> >>>> And then I marked those issues, which were realy serious flaws and >>>> why I think they were. >>>> >>>> Since the paper itself was 'dead' after the very first error, I had >>>> to disconnect it from the underlying theory altogether, because >>>> otherwise it wouldn't make sense to search for all errors. >>>> >>>> So, yes, SRT might be correct (or not). But that wasn't my topic, >>>> even if I think, that relativity per se is correct. > >>> >>> Your motivation for writing nonsense is irrelevant. >>> >>> The fact remains: >>> The theory Einstein defined in "On the electrodynamics of >>> moving bodies" is identical to the theory defined by the metric: >>> (c⋅dτ)² = (c⋅dt)² − dx² − dy² − dz² > >> >> Possibly this equation is compatible with what Einstein had written in >> 1905, even if I don't think so. > > What you believe is irrelevant. > > It is a fact that the theory Einstein defined in > "On the electrodynamics of moving bodies" is identical to > the theory defined by the metric: > (c⋅dτ)² = (c⋅dt)² − dx² − dy² − dz² > >> >> But that equation wasn't part of Einstein's text in 1905. >> >> Therefore that equation isn't part of Einstein's 1905 version of SRT, >> even if that is somehow compatible with what is called 'SRT' today. >> >> The very simple reason: a text (article, book, paper) is what it is >> and not what you make out of it. >> >> If an equation is not written in this paper, it is not a part of that >> paper. >> >> period! > > Good Grief! > I have explained all that above. > Minkowski wrote the Minkowski metric in 1908 so it > was obviously not in Einstein's 1905 paper. >>> >>> This is a historical fact, and not disputable. > >> That statement is wrong by itself, because EVERYTHING is disputable. > > Of course YOU can dispute anything, even facts. > But an "indisputable fact" means that the fact is a fact. And when a brainwashed religious maniac is asserting his delusional bullshit as an "indisputable fact" - who wouldn't believe? > But the predictions of a logically consistent theory > do not have to be in accordance with measurements. > Only real experiments can show that. Only such an idiot as you are can believe such a nonsensical lie. > > Some of the experiments testing SR: > https://paulba.no/paper/Fizeau_by_Michelson.pdf > https://paulba.no/paper/Michelson_1887.pdf > https://paulba.no/paper/Kennedy_Thorndike.pdf > https://paulba.no/paper/Ives_Stilwell.pdf > https://paulba.no/paper/Ives_Stilwell_II.pdf > https://paulba.no/paper/Babcock_Bergman.pdf > https://paulba.no/paper/Frisch_Smith.pdf > https://paulba.no/paper/Alvager_et_al.pdf > https://paulba.no/paper/Beckmann_Mandics.pdf > https://paulba.no/paper/Filippas_Fox.pdf > https://paulba.no/paper/Brecher.pdf > https://paulba.no/paper/Brillet_Hall.pdf > > Newtonian Mechanics (NM) and SR are both logically consistent > theories. > All the experiments above confirm SR, none falsify SR. > Most of the experiments above falsify NM. Only such an idiot as you are can believe such a nonsensical lie. Fortunately, even such a disgusting piece of lying shit can't lie non stop, so sometimes you admit that the real measurement results have little in common with the delusions of your idiot guru.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-01 09:48 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <j4ecgk1ns3i3j5252kqfct1splglb6oi2a@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #667009 |
On Sat, 1 Nov 2025 08:04:31 +0100, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote: >Am Freitag000031, 31.10.2025 um 19:43 schrieb Paul B. Andersen: >> Den 30.10.2025 09:11, skrev Thomas Heger: >>> Am Mittwoch000029, 29.10.2025 um 20:29 schrieb Paul B. Andersen: >>>> Den 29.10.2025 09:32, skrev Thomas Heger: >>>>> Am Sonntag000026, 26.10.2025 um 21:58 schrieb Paul B. Andersen: >>>>>> Den 26.10.2025 08:08, skrev Thomas Heger: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> But Einstein could have been a tiny cog in a huge system, which >>>>>>> was meant to derail science in general. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I actually assume, that 'On the electrodynamics of moving bodies' >>>>>>> was meant as such a means, which intentionally tried to divert >>>>>>> science from their supposed course. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I think so, because that particular article contains an enormous >>>>>>> amount of errors of all sorts. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Some of them are actually comically stupid. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> The metric below defines The Special Theory of Relativity (SR). >>>>>> What can be deduced from this metric is what SR predicts. >>>>>> (c?d?)² = (c?dt)² ? dx² ? dy² ? dz² >>>>> >>>>> This was not from Einstein's text 'On the electrodynamics of moving >>>>> bodies'!! >>>>> >>>>> Sure, it is actually correct (mainly), but still not a part of the >>>>> article I was talking about. >>>>> >>>>> Therefore, it doesn't help Einstein's paper, if you succesfully >>>>> defend this equation. >>>> >>>> It was Minkowski, not Einstein, who introduced four dimensionally >>>> spacetime and the geometric approach. >>>> >>>> In 1908 Minkowski presented a paper named "Space and Time" for >>>> the "80th Assembly of German Natural Scientists and Physicians". >>>> >>>> In the introduction he writes: >>>> "Henceforth space by itself, and time by itself, are doomed to >>>> fade away into mere shadows, and only a kind of union of the two >>>> will preserve an independent reality." >>>> >>>> This "union" is what we now call Minkowski spacetime (flat spacetime) >>>> >>>> In the paper Minkowski presented the metric: >>>> d?² = ? dx² ? dy² ? dz² ? ds² >>>> where s = ?(?1)?t, so ds² = - dt² >>>> so the metric becomes: >>>> d?² = dt² ? dx² ? dy² ? dz² >>>> >>>> This is a reformulation of Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity. >>>> >>>> Allegedly Einstein has said: >>>> "Since the mathematicians have invaded the theory of relativity, >>>> I do not understand it myself any more." >>>> >>>> Note that this statement implies that Einstein considered >>>> Minkowski's geometric approach to be a formulation of his theory of >>>> relativity >>>> >>>> >>>> But Einstein had to learn more mathematics, and in the introduction >>>> of the paper "The Foundation of the General Theory of Relativity" >>>> he writes: >>>> "The generalization of the theory of relativity has been >>>> facilitated considerably by _Minkowski_, a mathematician >>>> who was the first one to recognize the formal equivalence >>>> of space coordinates and the time coordinate, and utilized >>>> this in the construction of the theory." >>>> >>>> Einstein's spacetime (which is not necessarily >>>> flat) is a generalisation of Minkowski spacetime. >>>> >>>> >> >>>>>> >>>>>> The theory Einstein defined in "On the electrodynamics of moving >>>>>> bodies" is identical to the theory defined by the metric above. >>>>> >>>>> No! >>>>> >>>> >>>> That the theory Einstein defined in "On the electrodynamics of >>>> moving bodies" is identical to the theory defined by the metric: >>>> (c?d?)² = (c?dt)² ? dx² ? dy² ? dz² >>>> is a historical fact, and not disputable. >>>> >>>> That you, due to your serious reading comprehension problem >>>> and mathematical illiteracy, don't understand Einstein's paper >>>> doesn't mean that the paper: "contains an enormous amount of >>>> errors of all sorts". >> >>> >>> I didn't discuss the SRT itself, but a certain very specific article >>> written by Einstein in 1905 (no more, no less). >>> >>> I used a certain perspective: >>> >>> I treated the paper as homework of a student and myself as a >>> professor, who had to write corrections for that paper. >>> >>> I didn't discuss SRT, but this paper (only). >>> >>> Then I tried to find every single error or inconsistency within it. >>> >>> The number was enormous and ranges beyond 400 errors, depending on how >>> you count them. >>> >>> Whether the actually meant theory was correct or not, that was NOT my >>> topic. >>> >>> First I had focussed on formal questions, expressions, spelling and so >>> forth. >>> >>> Then I was looking for physical issues, which could be eventually debated >>> >>> And then I marked those issues, which were realy serious flaws and why >>> I think they were. >>> >>> Since the paper itself was 'dead' after the very first error, I had to >>> disconnect it from the underlying theory altogether, because otherwise >>> it wouldn't make sense to search for all errors. >>> >>> So, yes, SRT might be correct (or not). But that wasn't my topic, even >>> if I think, that relativity per se is correct. >> >> Your motivation for writing nonsense is irrelevant. >> >> The fact remains: >> The theory Einstein defined in "On the electrodynamics of >> moving bodies" is identical to the theory defined by the metric: >> (c?d?)² = (c?dt)² ? dx² ? dy² ? dz² > >Possibly this equation is compatible with what Einstein had written in >1905, even if I don't think so. > >But that equation wasn't part of Einstein's text in 1905. > >Therefore that equation isn't part of Einstein's 1905 version of SRT, >even if that is somehow compatible with what is called 'SRT' today. > >The very simple reason: a text (article, book, paper) is what it is and >not what you make out of it. > >If an equation is not written in this paper, it is not a part of that >paper. > >period! E=Mc^2 is part of the 1905 paper but has nothing to do with Relativity. It is Einsten's formula for atomic bombs, but has nothing to do with Relativity.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arlen Abandonato <oe@alr.it> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-01 18:16 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10e5iov$1f19b$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #667016 |
The Starmaker wrote: > E=Mc^2 is part of the 1905 paper but has nothing to do with Relativity. > > > It is Einsten's formula for atomic bombs, but has nothing to do with > Relativity. idiot, fucking dirty capitalist, it has nothing to do with chabab Einstine. That equality came before him. So fucking many idiots in that stupid wannabe country The ‘War On Drugs’ rears again… School bully US picks another weak nation. Americans are violent, warmongering, expansive, aggressive, genocidal terrorists. They seem to be related to chabab Israel. Maduro has asked Russia, China, Iran for help. Russian guns are heading to Venezuela. How dare the Venezuelans keep the USA’s own oil hidden within their borders. US killing and destruction of peaceful human lives to keep the failing US economy humming needs lubrication by human blood and misery. Please Venezuela, sink this garbage.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-02 08:30 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <mmof9jFnkduU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #667016 |
Am Samstag000001, 01.11.2025 um 17:48 schrieb The Starmaker:
...
>>>>>>> The theory Einstein defined in "On the electrodynamics of moving
>>>>>>> bodies" is identical to the theory defined by the metric above.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No!
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That the theory Einstein defined in "On the electrodynamics of
>>>>> moving bodies" is identical to the theory defined by the metric:
>>>>> (c?d?)² = (c?dt)² ? dx² ? dy² ? dz²
>>>>> is a historical fact, and not disputable.
>>>>>
>>>>> That you, due to your serious reading comprehension problem
>>>>> and mathematical illiteracy, don't understand Einstein's paper
>>>>> doesn't mean that the paper: "contains an enormous amount of
>>>>> errors of all sorts".
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I didn't discuss the SRT itself, but a certain very specific article
>>>> written by Einstein in 1905 (no more, no less).
>>>>
>>>> I used a certain perspective:
>>>>
>>>> I treated the paper as homework of a student and myself as a
>>>> professor, who had to write corrections for that paper.
>>>>
>>>> I didn't discuss SRT, but this paper (only).
>>>>
>>>> Then I tried to find every single error or inconsistency within it.
>>>>
>>>> The number was enormous and ranges beyond 400 errors, depending on how
>>>> you count them.
>>>>
>>>> Whether the actually meant theory was correct or not, that was NOT my
>>>> topic.
>>>>
>>>> First I had focussed on formal questions, expressions, spelling and so
>>>> forth.
>>>>
>>>> Then I was looking for physical issues, which could be eventually debated
>>>>
>>>> And then I marked those issues, which were realy serious flaws and why
>>>> I think they were.
>>>>
>>>> Since the paper itself was 'dead' after the very first error, I had to
>>>> disconnect it from the underlying theory altogether, because otherwise
>>>> it wouldn't make sense to search for all errors.
>>>>
>>>> So, yes, SRT might be correct (or not). But that wasn't my topic, even
>>>> if I think, that relativity per se is correct.
>>>
>>> Your motivation for writing nonsense is irrelevant.
>>>
>>> The fact remains:
>>> The theory Einstein defined in "On the electrodynamics of
>>> moving bodies" is identical to the theory defined by the metric:
>>> (c?d?)² = (c?dt)² ? dx² ? dy² ? dz²
Einstein wrote this about tau:
τ = φ(v)β(t − vx/c²)
β =1/(1 − sqrt(v²/c²))
φ(v)=1
Also the word 'metric' cannot be found in Einstein's paper.
>> Possibly this equation is compatible with what Einstein had written in
>> 1905, even if I don't think so.
>>
>> But that equation wasn't part of Einstein's text in 1905.
>>
>> Therefore that equation isn't part of Einstein's 1905 version of SRT,
>> even if that is somehow compatible with what is called 'SRT' today.
>>
>> The very simple reason: a text (article, book, paper) is what it is and
>> not what you make out of it.
>>
>> If an equation is not written in this paper, it is not a part of that
>> paper.
>>
>> period!
>
>
> E=Mc^2 is part of the 1905 paper but has nothing to do with
> Relativity.
Actually it's not.
There is an equation on page 22, however, which came quite close:
W = m c² {-1 + sqrt(1/(1- v²/c²))}
That 'W' meant actually 'work', but Einstein used 'work' (erroneously)
as a synonym for energy.
> It is Einsten's formula for atomic bombs, but has nothing to do with
> Relativity.
>
Afaik that equition was known already, long before 1905.
TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-02 22:33 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <10e8imk$2dngh$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #667022 |
Den 02.11.2025 08:30, skrev Thomas Heger: > Am Samstag000001, 01.11.2025 um 17:48 schrieb The Starmaker: DON'T SKIP THE ATTRIBTIONS! > ... > On Sat, 1 Nov 2025 08:04:31 +0100, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> > wrote: > >> Am Freitag000031, 31.10.2025 um 19:43 schrieb Paul B. Andersen: >>> Den 30.10.2025 09:11, skrev Thomas Heger: >>>> Am Mittwoch000029, 29.10.2025 um 20:29 schrieb Paul B. Andersen: >>>>> Den 29.10.2025 09:32, skrev Thomas Heger: >>>>>> Am Sonntag000026, 26.10.2025 um 21:58 schrieb Paul B. Andersen: >>>>>>> Den 26.10.2025 08:08, skrev Thomas Heger: >>>>>>>> The theory Einstein defined in "On the electrodynamics of moving >>>>>>>> bodies" is identical to the theory defined by the metric above. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> No! >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> That the theory Einstein defined in "On the electrodynamics of >>>>>> moving bodies" is identical to the theory defined by the metric: >>>>>> (c?d?)² = (c?dt)² ? dx² ? dy² ? dz² >>>>>> is a historical fact, and not disputable. >>>>>> >>>>>> That you, due to your serious reading comprehension problem >>>>>> and mathematical illiteracy, don't understand Einstein's paper >>>>>> doesn't mean that the paper: "contains an enormous amount of >>>>>> errors of all sorts". >>>> >>>>> >>>>> I didn't discuss the SRT itself, but a certain very specific article >>>>> written by Einstein in 1905 (no more, no less). >>>>> >>>>> I used a certain perspective: >>>>> >>>>> I treated the paper as homework of a student and myself as a >>>>> professor, who had to write corrections for that paper. >>>>> >>>>> I didn't discuss SRT, but this paper (only). >>>>> >>>>> Then I tried to find every single error or inconsistency within it. >>>>> >>>>> The number was enormous and ranges beyond 400 errors, depending on how >>>>> you count them. >>>>> >>>>> Whether the actually meant theory was correct or not, that was NOT my >>>>> topic. >>>>> >>>>> First I had focussed on formal questions, expressions, spelling and so >>>>> forth. >>>>> >>>>> Then I was looking for physical issues, which could be eventually >>>>> debated >>>>> >>>>> And then I marked those issues, which were realy serious flaws and why >>>>> I think they were. >>>>> >>>>> Since the paper itself was 'dead' after the very first error, I had to >>>>> disconnect it from the underlying theory altogether, because otherwise >>>>> it wouldn't make sense to search for all errors. >>>>> >>>>> So, yes, SRT might be correct (or not). But that wasn't my topic, even >>>>> if I think, that relativity per se is correct. >>>> >>>> Your motivation for writing nonsense is irrelevant. >>>> >>>> The fact remains: >>>> The theory Einstein defined in "On the electrodynamics of >>>> moving bodies" is identical to the theory defined by the metric: >>>> (c⋅dτ)² = (c⋅dt)² − dx² − dy² − dz² If you want to respond to someting I, Paul B. Andersen, have written, why didn't you respond to my post of Novemper 1. in stead of my post of October 31. quoted in a post by Starmaker of Novemper 1.? > Einstein wrote this about tau: > > τ = φ(v)β(t − vx/c²) > β =1/(1 − sqrt(v²/c²)) > φ(v)=1 https://paulba.no/pdf/Dilbert.pdf You can change the text to: Paul: (c⋅dτ)² = (c⋅dt)² − dx² − dy² − dz² Thomas: Just a darn minute, yesterday you said τ = φ(v)β(t − vx/c²) You probably don't get the point, but I won't bother to explainut. -------------------------- Please respond to my post of November 1. -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-03 08:09 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <mmr2fbF6covU3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #667050 |
Am Sonntag000002, 02.11.2025 um 22:33 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen: > Den 02.11.2025 08:30, skrev Thomas Heger: ... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> That the theory Einstein defined in "On the electrodynamics of >>>>>>> moving bodies" is identical to the theory defined by the metric: >>>>>>> (c?d?)² = (c?dt)² ? dx² ? dy² ? dz² >>>>>>> is a historical fact, and not disputable. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> That you, due to your serious reading comprehension problem >>>>>>> and mathematical illiteracy, don't understand Einstein's paper >>>>>>> doesn't mean that the paper: "contains an enormous amount of >>>>>>> errors of all sorts". >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I didn't discuss the SRT itself, but a certain very specific article >>>>>> written by Einstein in 1905 (no more, no less). >>>>>> >>>>>> I used a certain perspective: >>>>>> >>>>>> I treated the paper as homework of a student and myself as a >>>>>> professor, who had to write corrections for that paper. >>>>>> >>>>>> I didn't discuss SRT, but this paper (only). >>>>>> >>>>>> Then I tried to find every single error or inconsistency within it. >>>>>> >>>>>> The number was enormous and ranges beyond 400 errors, depending on >>>>>> how >>>>>> you count them. >>>>>> >>>>>> Whether the actually meant theory was correct or not, that was NOT my >>>>>> topic. >>>>>> >>>>>> First I had focussed on formal questions, expressions, spelling >>>>>> and so >>>>>> forth. >>>>>> >>>>>> Then I was looking for physical issues, which could be eventually >>>>>> debated >>>>>> >>>>>> And then I marked those issues, which were realy serious flaws and >>>>>> why >>>>>> I think they were. >>>>>> >>>>>> Since the paper itself was 'dead' after the very first error, I >>>>>> had to >>>>>> disconnect it from the underlying theory altogether, because >>>>>> otherwise >>>>>> it wouldn't make sense to search for all errors. >>>>>> >>>>>> So, yes, SRT might be correct (or not). But that wasn't my topic, >>>>>> even >>>>>> if I think, that relativity per se is correct. >>>>> >>>>> Your motivation for writing nonsense is irrelevant. What I have written is by no means nonsense. If this particular article is regarded as masterpiece and pinnacle of science, I would expect from that article to be flawless. But that is not exactly the case, because the article contains way more than fourhundred errors. In other words: the article isn't even on the lowest level which a student of physics would need to pass an exam. In usual terms, the article gets an 'F' (in the US system) or a '6' in the German. And if so, someone had to be responsible why that piece of garbage was printed anyhow. >>>>> The fact remains: >>>>> The theory Einstein defined in "On the electrodynamics of >>>>> moving bodies" is identical to the theory defined by the metric: >>>>> (c⋅dτ)² = (c⋅dt)² − dx² − dy² − dz² > > If you want to respond to someting I, Paul B. Andersen, have written, > why didn't you respond to my post of Novemper 1. in stead of > my post of October 31. quoted in a post by Starmaker of Novemper 1.? > >> Einstein wrote this about tau: >> >> τ = φ(v)β(t − vx/c²) >> β =1/(1 − sqrt(v²/c²)) >> φ(v)=1 > > https://paulba.no/pdf/Dilbert.pdf > > You can change the text to: > Paul: (c⋅dτ)² = (c⋅dt)² − dx² − dy² − dz² > Thomas: Just a darn minute, yesterday you said τ = φ(v)β(t − vx/c²) > > You probably don't get the point, but I won't bother to explainut. > > -------------------------- > > Please respond to my post of November 1. > > YOU have introduced derivatives, which were not present in Einstein's paper. And I wrote, that you must not alter a certain text, which is as it is. It does not help, if your solution could be derived from the article with ease, if the author didn't do that. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 10 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web