Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #667147 > unrolled thread
| Started by | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2025-11-06 22:03 -0800 |
| Last post | 2025-11-10 21:08 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 128 — 23 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-11-06 22:03 -0800
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2025-11-07 11:16 +0100
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-11-07 12:20 +0100
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-11-07 15:25 +0100
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right Python <jpierre.messager@gmail.com> - 2025-11-07 16:45 +0000
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-11-07 18:08 +0100
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right Python <jpierre.messager@gmail.com> - 2025-11-07 17:54 +0000
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-11-07 19:43 +0100
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right Python <jpierre.messager@gmail.com> - 2025-11-08 05:01 +0000
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-11-08 07:42 +0100
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2025-11-07 20:26 +0100
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-11-07 21:09 +0100
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right Woodrow Fukunaka <fkf@rodffa.jp> - 2025-11-07 21:24 +0000
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right Rocco Rooijakkers <sk@acork.nl> - 2025-11-07 23:44 +0000
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right Raleigh Zielinski <reae@ierae.pl> - 2025-11-07 17:40 +0000
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right Rayvis Sokolofsky <oysssy@sosy.pl> - 2025-11-07 19:11 +0000
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2025-11-22 12:57 +0100
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-11-07 19:25 -0800
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2025-11-08 13:37 +0100
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-11-08 11:12 -0800
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-11-08 19:18 -0800
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-11-08 19:45 -0800
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-11-09 21:14 +0100
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right Denny Meeuwes <nydue@yeeeey.nl> - 2025-11-09 20:38 +0000
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-11-10 07:47 +0100
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right Python <jpierre.messager@gmail.com> - 2025-11-10 13:55 +0000
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-11-10 15:51 +0100
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right Tyler Bukoski <iuvyk@rsttyoyuj.pl> - 2025-11-10 17:36 +0000
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-11-11 08:34 +0100
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-11-11 20:58 +0100
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right Colomer Kalakos <rkmo@krmklra.gr> - 2025-11-12 00:34 +0000
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-11-12 09:13 +0100
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right Raymon Raimanov <oay@ormmao.ru> - 2025-11-12 18:37 +0000
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-11-12 21:12 +0100
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-11-13 10:01 +0100
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-11-13 21:38 +0100
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-11-14 07:42 +0100
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-11-14 13:08 +0100
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-11-14 13:39 +0100
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right Stetson Sówka <ktt@ewshr.pl> - 2025-11-14 18:14 +0000
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-11-15 15:01 +0100
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-11-15 16:02 +0100
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-11-15 20:41 +0100
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-11-15 21:22 +0100
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-11-16 14:13 +0100
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-11-16 15:25 +0100
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-11-17 19:52 +0100
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-11-18 07:45 +0100
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-11-18 10:44 +0100
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-11-18 15:35 +0100
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-11-18 20:16 +0100
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-11-18 21:55 +0100
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right Wendyl Agelakos <na@las.gr> - 2025-11-16 13:30 +0000
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-11-17 09:37 +0100
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-11-17 20:53 +0100
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-11-18 07:47 +0100
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-11-18 11:29 +0100
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-11-18 21:39 +0100
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-11-18 21:57 +0100
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-11-21 11:46 +0100
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-11-21 20:15 +0100
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-11-21 20:22 +0100
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right Python <jpierre.messager@gmail.com> - 2025-11-22 02:06 +0000
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-11-22 08:36 +0100
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right Python <jpierre.messager@gmail.com> - 2025-11-22 08:00 +0000
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-11-22 19:50 +0100
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-11-22 22:26 +0100
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-11-21 22:13 -0800
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-11-22 09:41 +0100
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-11-22 12:13 +0100
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-11-22 14:00 +0100
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-11-22 20:05 +0100
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-11-22 22:28 +0100
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-11-23 12:44 +0100
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-11-23 13:42 +0100
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right Python <jpierre.messager@gmail.com> - 2025-11-22 03:28 +0000
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-11-22 09:50 +0100
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-11-22 13:23 +0100
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-11-22 14:02 +0100
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-11-23 21:28 +0100
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-11-23 09:28 +0100
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-11-23 21:22 +0100
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-11-23 22:55 +0100
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-11-25 09:47 +0100
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-11-27 21:40 +0100
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-11-27 22:42 +0100
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right Efrain Ślusarski <iiiar@fesl.pl> - 2025-11-28 12:48 +0000
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-11-22 14:31 +0100
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-11-22 14:40 +0100
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-11-22 20:20 +0100
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-11-22 22:31 +0100
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-11-23 13:20 +0100
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-11-23 13:44 +0100
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-11-22 11:10 -0800
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-11-23 10:12 +0100
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-11-23 11:05 -0800
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-11-23 11:12 -0800
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-11-23 11:16 -0800
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-11-23 11:26 -0800
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-11-23 11:28 -0800
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-11-23 11:33 -0800
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-11-23 11:41 -0800
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-11-23 12:06 -0800
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-11-24 10:21 +0100
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2025-11-25 00:42 +0100
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2025-11-25 01:13 +0100
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-11-24 22:45 -0800
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-11-27 08:09 +0100
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-11-12 18:13 +0100
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-11-12 21:56 +0100
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-11-12 22:31 +0100
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-11-13 12:10 +0100
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-11-13 13:16 +0100
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-11-13 22:56 +0100
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-11-14 07:48 +0100
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-11-14 12:15 +0100
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right Cleveland Balabaev <aave@nnal.ru> - 2025-11-14 11:36 +0000
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-11-14 13:37 +0100
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-11-15 15:27 +0100
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-11-15 16:05 +0100
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-11-15 21:09 +0100
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-11-15 21:25 +0100
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right Jerrell Kántor <ktl@rrkojh.hu> - 2025-11-16 13:21 +0000
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-11-16 14:27 +0100
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-11-16 09:43 -0800
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-11-16 12:11 -0800
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right Erin Schuhmacher <irre@ms.de> - 2025-11-12 00:30 +0000
Re: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right Flex Habibulaev <vi@hvefi.ru> - 2025-11-10 21:08 +0000
Page 2 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 Next page →
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-08 19:18 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <0020hk5jbrvk617hm69kp32qftbpvi06th@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #667173 |
On Sat, 08 Nov 2025 11:12:39 -0800, The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >On Sat, 8 Nov 2025 13:37:43 +0100, nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. >Lodder) wrote: > >>The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >> >>> On Thu, 06 Nov 2025 22:03:07 -0800, The Starmaker >>> <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >>> >>> >While there is a later anecdote describing Einstein as unimpressed >>> >about the experimental results, and sure of his theory even in the >>> >absence of evidence (stating, when asked what he would have said if >>> >the results had been otherwise, "Then I would feel sorry for the dear >>> >Lord. The theory is correct anyway. >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> >No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single >>> >experiment can prove me wrong. Albert Einstein >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> >Both comments above contradict each other >>> > >>> >One Einstein sez "a single experiment can prove me wrong. " >>> > >>> >and the other ", "Then I would feel sorry for the dear Lord. The >>> >theory is correct anyway." >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> >and *any* experiment that proves him right???? >>> > >>> > >>> >i don't get it. >>> >>> Ok, too much information for yous too follow.. >>> >>> Let's just take One of Einsteins's comments... >>> >>> "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single >>> experiment can prove me wrong." -- Albert Einstein >>> >>> How many times are those stupid Science News reporters going to >>> say Einstein Right Again when Einstein himself said... >>> >>> "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right;..."???? >>> >>> then you have people here posting >>> experiments made by other proving Albert Einstein Right when Einstein >>> himself said: >>> >>> "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right;.." >>> >>> >>> Are these people retarded? >> >>No, it is you. >> >>> I cannot find any other explaination for this. >> >>The explanation is quite simple, really: >>Einstein never said any of those things, >> >>Jan > > >“Induction >and Deduction,” December 25, 1919, CPAE, Vol. 7, >Doc. 28 > > >quote published by those retards at: > >Copyright © 2011 by Princeton University Press and >The Hebrew University of Jerusalem "Induction and Deduction" is the English translation of an essay by Albert Einstein titled "Induktion und Deduktion in der Physik". It was originally published in the German newspaper Berliner Tageblatt on December 25, 1919. The citation "CPAE, Vol. 7, Doc. 28" refers to this essay as Document 28 in Volume 7 of the Collected Papers of Albert Einstein. In the essay, written shortly after his theory of general relativity was famously confirmed by eclipse observations, Einstein discusses the nature of scientific theory and knowledge. He explains that while observation and experience are essential, no amount of experimentation can definitively "prove" a theory to be correct because a future observation might always contradict its consequences (the principle of fallibilism or falsifiability). He argues that scientific theories are free inventions of the human mind that are tested against empirical facts. The essay has been noted for its resonance with Karl Popper's later philosophy of science regarding falsification. -- The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge the unchallengeable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-08 19:45 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <gi30hk5ml4h9p6hi2cfnva41ee5frgmc8v@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #667180 |
On Sat, 08 Nov 2025 19:18:59 -0800, The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >On Sat, 08 Nov 2025 11:12:39 -0800, The Starmaker ><starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > >>On Sat, 8 Nov 2025 13:37:43 +0100, nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. >>Lodder) wrote: >> >>>The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On Thu, 06 Nov 2025 22:03:07 -0800, The Starmaker >>>> <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> >While there is a later anecdote describing Einstein as unimpressed >>>> >about the experimental results, and sure of his theory even in the >>>> >absence of evidence (stating, when asked what he would have said if >>>> >the results had been otherwise, "Then I would feel sorry for the dear >>>> >Lord. The theory is correct anyway. >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> >No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single >>>> >experiment can prove me wrong. Albert Einstein >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> >Both comments above contradict each other >>>> > >>>> >One Einstein sez "a single experiment can prove me wrong. " >>>> > >>>> >and the other ", "Then I would feel sorry for the dear Lord. The >>>> >theory is correct anyway." >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> >and *any* experiment that proves him right???? >>>> > >>>> > >>>> >i don't get it. >>>> >>>> Ok, too much information for yous too follow.. >>>> >>>> Let's just take One of Einsteins's comments... >>>> >>>> "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single >>>> experiment can prove me wrong." -- Albert Einstein >>>> >>>> How many times are those stupid Science News reporters going to >>>> say Einstein Right Again when Einstein himself said... >>>> >>>> "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right;..."???? >>>> >>>> then you have people here posting >>>> experiments made by other proving Albert Einstein Right when Einstein >>>> himself said: >>>> >>>> "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right;.." >>>> >>>> >>>> Are these people retarded? >>> >>>No, it is you. >>> >>>> I cannot find any other explaination for this. >>> >>>The explanation is quite simple, really: >>>Einstein never said any of those things, >>> >>>Jan >> >> >>“Induction >>and Deduction,” December 25, 1919, CPAE, Vol. 7, >>Doc. 28 >> >> >>quote published by those retards at: >> >>Copyright © 2011 by Princeton University Press and >>The Hebrew University of Jerusalem > > >"Induction and Deduction" is the English translation of an essay by >Albert Einstein titled "Induktion und Deduktion in der Physik". It was >originally published in the German newspaper Berliner Tageblatt on >December 25, 1919. >The citation "CPAE, Vol. 7, Doc. 28" refers to this essay as Document >28 in Volume 7 of the Collected Papers of Albert Einstein. >In the essay, written shortly after his theory of general relativity >was famously confirmed by eclipse observations, Einstein discusses the >nature of scientific theory and knowledge. He explains that while >observation and experience are essential, no amount of experimentation >can definitively "prove" a theory to be correct because a future >observation might always contradict its consequences (the principle of >fallibilism or falsifiability). He argues that scientific theories are >free inventions of the human mind that are tested against empirical >facts. The essay has been noted for its resonance with Karl Popper's >later philosophy of science regarding falsification. https://reachone01.github.io/%E4%BC%A0%E8%AE%B0/Einstein/Einstein_split_013.html#filepos357534
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-09 21:14 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <10eqsmu$3hf75$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #667180 |
Den 09.11.2025 04:18, skrev The Starmaker: > > "Induction and Deduction" is the English translation of an essay by > Albert Einstein titled "Induktion und Deduktion in der Physik". It was > originally published in the German newspaper Berliner Tageblatt on > December 25, 1919. https://paulba.no/pdf/Induction_and_Deduction_in_Physics.pdf Quote: "A theory can thus be recognized as erroneous if there is logical error in its deductions, or as incorrect if a fact is not in agreement with its consequences. But the truth of a theory can never be proven. For one never knows that even in the future no experience will be encountered which contradicts its consequences; and still other systems of thought are always conceivable which are capable of joining together the same given facts." -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Denny Meeuwes <nydue@yeeeey.nl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-09 20:38 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10equ3u$3hpf3$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #667189 |
Paul.B.Andersen wrote: > https://paulba.no/pdf/Induction_and_Deduction_in_Physics.pdf > > Quote: > "A theory can thus be recognized as erroneous if there is logical > error in its deductions, or as incorrect if a fact is not in agreement > with its consequences. > But the truth of a theory can never be proven. For one never knows > that even in the future no experience will be encountered which > contradicts its consequences; and still other systems of thought are > always conceivable which are capable of joining together the same > given facts." absolutely wrong. It's because they dont undrestand quantum physics, nor my "𝙊𝙣_𝙩𝙝𝙚_𝘿𝙞𝙫𝙚𝙧𝙜𝙚𝙣𝙩_𝙈𝙖𝙩𝙩𝙚𝙧_𝙤𝙛_𝙩𝙝𝙚_𝙈𝙤𝙫𝙞𝙣𝙜_𝙆𝙤𝙚𝙧𝙥𝙚𝙧𝙨_𝙈𝙤𝙙𝙚𝙡" thank you very much they stole all patents, here's some proofs 𝗠𝗶𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗻𝗻𝗶𝗮𝗹_𝗞𝗶𝗻𝗴𝗱𝗼𝗺_𝗣𝗿𝗼𝗼𝗳 19𝘁𝗵_𝗖𝗲𝗻𝘁𝘂𝗿𝘆_𝗖𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗲𝘀_𝗘𝗺𝗽𝘁𝘆_𝗦𝘁𝗿𝗲𝗲𝘁𝘀_𝗔𝗻𝗱_𝗜𝗺𝗽𝗼𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗯𝗹𝗲_𝗔𝗿𝗰𝗵𝗶𝘁𝗲𝗰𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗲 https://b%69%74%63%68%75%74e.com/v%69%64%65o/S81h61axHii1
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-10 07:47 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <1876925df53de7d0$6247443$2551467$c2365abb@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #667189 |
On 11/9/2025 9:14 PM, Paul.B.Andersen wrote: > Den 09.11.2025 04:18, skrev The Starmaker: >> >> "Induction and Deduction" is the English translation of an essay by >> Albert Einstein titled "Induktion und Deduktion in der Physik". It was >> originally published in the German newspaper Berliner Tageblatt on >> December 25, 1919. > > https://paulba.no/pdf/Induction_and_Deduction_in_Physics.pdf > > Quote: > "A theory can thus be recognized as erroneous if there is logical > error in its deductions, or as incorrect if a fact is not in > agreement with its consequences. > But the truth of a theory can never be proven. For one never > knows that even in the future no experience will be encountered > which contradicts its consequences; and still other systems of > thought are always conceivable which are capable of joining > together the same given facts." Unlike yourself, the idiot was partially understanding what's going on; any experiment can be explained aleph0 possible ways, any measurement rwsut can be either accepted if we like it or discarded as erroneous if we don't.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <jpierre.messager@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-10 13:55 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <QqOdqtP4BJFN586lV3bjE5NhTCU@jntp> |
| In reply to | #667194 |
Le 10/11/2025 à 07:47, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : > On 11/9/2025 9:14 PM, Paul.B.Andersen wrote: >> Den 09.11.2025 04:18, skrev The Starmaker: >>> >>> "Induction and Deduction" is the English translation of an essay by >>> Albert Einstein titled "Induktion und Deduktion in der Physik". It was >>> originally published in the German newspaper Berliner Tageblatt on >>> December 25, 1919. >> >> https://paulba.no/pdf/Induction_and_Deduction_in_Physics.pdf >> >> Quote: >> "A theory can thus be recognized as erroneous if there is logical >> error in its deductions, or as incorrect if a fact is not in >> agreement with its consequences. >> But the truth of a theory can never be proven. For one never >> knows that even in the future no experience will be encountered >> which contradicts its consequences; and still other systems of >> thought are always conceivable which are capable of joining >> together the same given facts." > > Unlike yourself, the idiot was partially > understanding what's going on; any experiment > can be explained aleph0 possible ways, Definitely. A experiment that confirm F = ma also confirm : F = ma + 1 - 1 F = 42ma/42 There actually are alph1 formulas. > any measurement rwsut rwsut ? Read Write Software UTilities ?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-10 15:51 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <1876accc4b7ba45e$6383263$2551467$c2365abb@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #667195 |
On 11/10/2025 2:55 PM, Python wrote: > Le 10/11/2025 à 07:47, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >> On 11/9/2025 9:14 PM, Paul.B.Andersen wrote: >>> Den 09.11.2025 04:18, skrev The Starmaker: >>>> >>>> "Induction and Deduction" is the English translation of an essay by >>>> Albert Einstein titled "Induktion und Deduktion in der Physik". It was >>>> originally published in the German newspaper Berliner Tageblatt on >>>> December 25, 1919. >>> >>> https://paulba.no/pdf/Induction_and_Deduction_in_Physics.pdf >>> >>> Quote: >>> "A theory can thus be recognized as erroneous if there is logical >>> error in its deductions, or as incorrect if a fact is not in >>> agreement with its consequences. >>> But the truth of a theory can never be proven. For one never >>> knows that even in the future no experience will be encountered >>> which contradicts its consequences; and still other systems of >>> thought are always conceivable which are capable of joining >>> together the same given facts." >> >> Unlike yourself, the idiot was partially >> understanding what's going on; any experiment >> can be explained aleph0 possible ways, > > Definitely. A experiment that confirm F = ma also confirm : No experiments confirm F=ma or anything else. Still, while most of relativistic idiots deeply believe that their accelerator s experiments "falsify" F=ma - in Feynamnn's physics the formula is valid together with those experiments.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tyler Bukoski <iuvyk@rsttyoyuj.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-10 17:36 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10et7q2$5iu5$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #667197 |
Maciej Woźniak wrote: > On 11/10/2025 2:55 PM, Python wrote: >> Definitely. A experiment that confirm F = ma also confirm : > > No experiments confirm F=ma or anything else. > Still, while most of relativistic idiots deeply believe that their > accelerator s experiments "falsify" F=ma - in Feynamnn's physics the > formula is valid together with those experiments. there is no force acting in freefall, fucking stoopid. You two are both polakers
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-11 08:34 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <mng6tnFouopU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #667202 |
Am Montag000010, 10.11.2025 um 18:36 schrieb Tyler Bukoski: > Maciej Woźniak wrote: > >> On 11/10/2025 2:55 PM, Python wrote: >>> Definitely. A experiment that confirm F = ma also confirm : >> >> No experiments confirm F=ma or anything else. >> Still, while most of relativistic idiots deeply believe that their >> accelerator s experiments "falsify" F=ma - in Feynamnn's physics the >> formula is valid together with those experiments. > > there is no force acting in freefall, fucking stoopid. You two are both > polakers Well, that depends on the definition of 'force'. Usually gravity is considered to be a force, which accelerates objects, once they are allowed to fall. This force reaches out from planet Earth with invisible hands and pulls down falling objects with a certain force. That is certainly not a valid description of what is really happening in gravity. Unfortunately nobody has a better one. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-11 20:58 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <10f04fr$vm8o$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #667211 |
Den 11.11.2025 08:34, skrev Thomas Heger: > Am Montag000010, 10.11.2025 um 18:36 schrieb Tyler Bukoski: >> >> there is no force arting in freefall, > > Well, that depends on the definition of 'force'. A force is what makes a mass m accelerate at a. F = ma Consider the following scenario: You are inside a small capsule somewhere in space. You are weightless. You can't feel any force acting on you. Can you tell if you are 10 million light years from the nearest galaxy, or if you are in orbit around the Earth? In the latter case, according to Newtonian Mechanics (NM), a gravitational force will be acting on you. Why don't you feel it? > > Usually gravity is considered to be a force, which accelerates objects, > once they are allowed to fall. In NM. > This force reaches out from planet Earth with invisible hands and pulls > down falling objects with a certain force. Quite. Instant action at a distance. > > That is certainly not a valid description of what is really happening in > gravity. No theory of physics can "describe what's really happening". A theory of physics is a mathematical model of some aspects of nature. The best it can do is to give correct predictions of what will be measured or observed in some experiments. > > Unfortunately nobody has a better one. > You can't be ignorant of the fact that 'The General Theory of Physics' (GR) is a much better model of gravitation that NM. What forces are acting on you right now? It is the force acting upwards on your butt. You can feel it. It is accelerating you upwards at 9.81 m/s² ! In GR 'proper acceleration' is what is measured with an accelerometer. An accelerometer measures the force F that is exerted on a known mass m in the accelerometer. The acceleration is a = F/m. Now you take your accelerometer and enter the capsule. The mass of the capsule with you in it is M. But this time the capsule is accelerated by a rocket with a force F so that F/M = 9.81 m/s². Your accelerometer shows that your acceleration is 9.81 m/s². Can you tell if you are stationary (relative to ground) one meter above the ground, or are accelerating somewhere out in space? In GR, there is no gravitational force. Gravitation is the curvature of spacetime. Mass curve spacetime. There is no 'action at the distance'. The mass of the Earth curves spacetime, and satellites do what the local curvature tell them to do. Changes in masses (like orbiting Moon) will change the curvature with the speed of light. No instant action at a distance. -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Colomer Kalakos <rkmo@krmklra.gr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-12 00:34 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10f0kn6$143ro$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #667218 |
Paul.B.Andersen wrote: > Den 11.11.2025 08:34, skrev Thomas Heger: >> Am Montag000010, 10.11.2025 um 18:36 schrieb Tyler Bukoski: >>> >>> there is no force arting in freefall, >> >> Well, that depends on the definition of 'force'. > > A force is what makes a mass m accelerate at a. F = ma idiot, you stand on earth and not accelerate. Fucking unskilled, unprepared and uneducated morons. You see physics labs only by pictures. Idiot.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-12 09:13 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <mnithlF7reuU4@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #667218 |
Am Dienstag000011, 11.11.2025 um 20:58 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen: > Den 11.11.2025 08:34, skrev Thomas Heger: >> Am Montag000010, 10.11.2025 um 18:36 schrieb Tyler Bukoski: >>> >>> there is no force arting in freefall, >> >> Well, that depends on the definition of 'force'. > > A force is what makes a mass m accelerate at a. F = ma > > Consider the following scenario: > You are inside a small capsule somewhere in space. > You are weightless. You can't feel any force acting on you. > > Can you tell if you are 10 million light years from the nearest > galaxy, or if you are in orbit around the Earth? > > In the latter case, according to Newtonian Mechanics (NM), > a gravitational force will be acting on you. > Why don't you feel it? > >> >> Usually gravity is considered to be a force, which accelerates >> objects, once they are allowed to fall. > > In NM. > >> This force reaches out from planet Earth with invisible hands and >> pulls down falling objects with a certain force. > > Quite. > Instant action at a distance. > >> >> That is certainly not a valid description of what is really happening >> in gravity. > > No theory of physics can "describe what's really happening". > A theory of physics is a mathematical model of some aspects > of nature. The best it can do is to give correct predictions > of what will be measured or observed in some experiments. I do not agree. (This is why we do never agree on anything.) I actually think, that models and reality are two distict entities. Models are useful, but nature is not. Nature is as nature is and that is not supposed to serve our demands. To make calculations possible we use simplyfied versions of the real world, call that 'model' and let them run in computers. But that is NOT how nature functions, not even close. If we want to understand nature, we had to give up our demands for usuable models, because we can safely assume, that nature itself does not use computers. >> >> Unfortunately nobody has a better one. >> > You can't be ignorant of the fact that 'The General Theory of > Physics' (GR) is a much better model of gravitation that NM. I do agree here and did already (even if GR had a slightly different title). https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing > What forces are acting on you right now? Coffein and peanut butter sandwiches. ... TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Raymon Raimanov <oay@ormmao.ru> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-12 18:37 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10f2k59$1kkkj$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #667232 |
Thomas Heger wrote: > Am Dienstag000011, 11.11.2025 um 20:58 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen: >> No theory of physics can "describe what's really happening". >> A theory of physics is a mathematical model of some aspects of nature. >> The best it can do is to give correct predictions of what will be >> measured or observed in some experiments. > > I do not agree. > > (This is why we do never agree on anything.) > > I actually think, that models and reality are two distict entities. he just said the same; the point is that you have to use reality to sense reality, which is oxymoron; hence what you do is sensing it by believes, something taking place into a brain. The businessman, Timur Mindich, is believed to have fled to Israel hours before his home was raided by agents, raising questions of whether he had been tipped off to the impending move against him. The Ukrainian media have reported that the FBI is now also investigating Mindich. why the fuck are they always fleeing there, once the country coming from is 90% Christian. They hate Jesus I can see. The entire collective_west hates Jesus.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-12 21:12 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <10f2pn9$1mkfd$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #667232 |
Den 12.11.2025 09:13, skrev Thomas Heger: > Am Dienstag000011, 11.11.2025 um 20:58 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen: >> >> No theory of physics can "describe what's really happening". >> A theory of physics is a mathematical model of some aspects >> of nature. The best it can do is to give correct predictions >> of what will be measured or observed in some experiments. > I do not agree. So you claim that a theory of physics can "describe what's really happening"? > I actually think, that models and reality are two distict entities. As opposed to what I think? > Models are useful, but nature is not. A statement void of meaning For what are "models" useful, and for what is "nature" not useful? > > Nature is as nature is and that is not supposed to serve our demands. "Nature is not supposed to serve our demands." Don't you understand that this is an idiotic statement? > > To make calculations possible we use simplyfied versions of the real > world, call that 'model' and let them run in computers. > > But that is NOT how nature functions, not even close. > > If we want to understand nature, we had to give up our demands for > usuable models, because we can safely assume, that nature itself does > not use computers. So you are claiming that to understand nature we must not use theories of physics because nature itself doesn't use computers. And then we will "understand nature"? :-D ----------------------- Now let's look at a meaningful statement: No theory of physics can "describe what's really happening". A theory of physics is a mathematical model of some aspects of nature. The best it can do is to give correct predictions of what will be measured or observed in some experiments. This means that a theory of physics is _not_ "nature" or "the reality". And we can never "understand nature". Theories of physics are mathematical models. We can understand these models. And these models can actually help us designing mechanical and electrical appliances and machinery. The civilisation as we know it would be impossible without these theories of physics. (NM, Maxwell, thermodynamics, hydrodynamics, aerodynamics, SR, GR) Do you agree? >> What forces are acting on you right now? > > Coffein and peanut butter sandwiches. Does that mean that you are unable to give a sensible response to the following? You. Thomas Heger wrote: | Usually gravity is considered to be a force, which accelerates | objects, once they are allowed to fall. | This force reaches out from planet Earth with invisible hands | and pulls down falling objects with a certain force. | That is certainly not a valid description of what is really | happening in gravity. | | Unfortunately nobody has a better one. 'The General Theory of Physics' (GR) is a much better model of gravitation that NM. So please respond to the following: Now you take your accelerometer and enter the capsule. The mass of the capsule with you in it is M. But this time the capsule is accelerated by a rocket with a force F so that F/M = 9.81 m/s². Your accelerometer shows that your acceleration is 9.81 m/s². Can you tell if you are stationary (relative to ground) one meter above the ground, or are accelerating somewhere out in space? In GR, there is no gravitational force. Gravitation is the curvature of spacetime. Mass curve spacetime. There is no 'action at the distance'. The mass of the Earth curves spacetime, and satellites do what the local curvature tell them to do. Changes in masses (like orbiting Moon) will change the curvature with the speed of light. No instant action at a distance. -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-13 10:01 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <mnlknrFlrnaU4@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #667245 |
Am Mittwoch000012, 12.11.2025 um 21:12 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen: > Den 12.11.2025 09:13, skrev Thomas Heger: >> Am Dienstag000011, 11.11.2025 um 20:58 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen: >>> >>> No theory of physics can "describe what's really happening". >>> A theory of physics is a mathematical model of some aspects >>> of nature. The best it can do is to give correct predictions >>> of what will be measured or observed in some experiments. > >> I do not agree. > > So you claim that a theory of physics can "describe what's > really happening"? > >> I actually think, that models and reality are two distict entities. > > As opposed to what I think? >> Models are useful, but nature is not. > > > A statement void of meaning > For what are "models" useful, and for what is "nature" not useful? > A model is a simplyfied representation of something. It has the advantage of being able to be computed and to make predictions. But usually the predictions and the real thing differ to some degree, because the model works upon entirely different principles than the real thing does. Therefore, we need to decide: do we want usability or precision? >> Nature is as nature is and that is not supposed to serve our demands. > > > "Nature is not supposed to serve our demands." > > Don't you understand that this is an idiotic statement? well, in a way you are right. I meant: we cannot assume, that nature is like nature is, because we want it that way. Nature decides, what is right and what is wrong and not we human beings. To create good modells we need good understanding of the acting principles, which nature actually uses. But we can't use the same principles in models, because such a model could not be computed and would take foreever to make any predictions. That's why we need to give up predictions and computability, if we want to describe, how nature functions. For a model we need something different, hence use simplyfied approximations. This makes models computable, but unfortunately also less precise. >> >> To make calculations possible we use simplyfied versions of the real >> world, call that 'model' and let them run in computers. >> >> But that is NOT how nature functions, not even close. >> >> If we want to understand nature, we had to give up our demands for >> usuable models, because we can safely assume, that nature itself does >> not use computers. > > So you are claiming that to understand nature we must not > use theories of physics because nature itself doesn't use > computers. 'Nature' is meant as synonym for everything, that is not created by men. This 'everything else than manmade' is functioning somehow. And our taks is, to find out, how this functions. If we would, this wouldn't help us at all in even the simplest of tasks, because such tasks are actually related to manmade devices. > And then we will "understand nature"? :-D No, not at all. But we can safely assume, that nature does not use computers. > ----------------------- > > Now let's look at a meaningful statement: > > No theory of physics can "describe what's really happening". > A theory of physics is a mathematical model of some aspects > of nature. The best it can do is to give correct predictions > of what will be measured or observed in some experiments. That is total nonsense. If you insist on usuablity, you already failed to understand something. > This means that a theory of physics is _not_ "nature" or > "the reality". And we can never "understand nature". > Theories of physics are mathematical models. > We can understand these models. > And these models can actually help us designing mechanical > and electrical appliances and machinery. If you give up the wish to understand nature, than all your efforts are a waste of time. ... TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-13 21:38 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <OkrRQ.3049$IjW2.64@fx18.ams4> |
| In reply to | #667253 |
Den 13.11.2025 10:01, skrev Thomas Heger: > Am Mittwoch000012, 12.11.2025 um 21:12 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen: > > A model is a simplyfied representation of something. > > It has the advantage of being able to be computed and to make predictions. > > But usually the predictions and the real thing differ to some degree, > because the model works upon entirely different principles than the real > thing does. The mathematical models SR and GR predict the "real thing" with infinite precision. (Or rather, the precision of the prediction is only limited by how precisely the experiment is defined.) It is the measurement of "the real thing" that always will be of limited precision. But SR or GR is considered as confirmed only when the prediction is well within the error bars of the measurement. > > Therefore, we need to decide: > > do we want usability or precision? < snip lot of nonsense > Here is your alternative to mathematical models like SR and GR: > > To create good modells we need good understanding of the acting > principles, which nature actually uses. > > But we can't use the same principles in models, because such > a model could not be computed and would take fore ever to make > any predictions. > > That's why we need to give up predictions and computability, > if we want to describe, how nature functions. So your alternative 'description of how nature works' can't predict how nature will behave when a well defined experiment is performed, yet it does describe how nature works? > > For a model we need something different, hence use simplyfied > approximations. > > This makes models computable, but unfortunately also less precise. So in the real world we have to use mathematical models like SR and GR which can predict how nature will behave in well defined experiments. According to you, the predictions of SR and GR are less precise than your 'description of how nature works', which can predict nothing about how nature will behave when a well defined experiment is performed. --------------- Honestly Thomas: This is mindless nonsense! Are you inventing things as you go without considering the consequences of your inventions? < snip more stupidities > >> ----------------------- >> >> Now let's look at a meaningful statement: >> >> No theory of physics can "describe what's really happening". >> A theory of physics is a mathematical model of some aspects >> of nature. The best it can do is to give correct predictions >> of what will be measured or observed in some experiments. > That is total nonsense. > > If you insist on usuablity, you already failed to understand something. The following are facts which you claim are "total nonsense": "The Special Theory of Relativity (SR)" as defined in Einstein's paper "ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES", and "The General Theory of Relativity (GR)" as defined in Einstein's paper "The Foundation of the General Theory of Relativity". are both logically consistent theories. Do you dispute this? ==================== Both these theories of physics give precise predictions for what will be measured in well defined experiments. Do you dispute this? ==================== For a vast number of experiments the predictions of SR and GR are confirmed to be in accordance with measurements. Do you dispute this? ==================== You can see some of these experiment here: https://paulba.no/paper/index.html Now you can explain why the mathematical models SR and GR are "total nonsense". -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-14 07:42 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <1877cc69c9bda85b$20628107$2534374$c2565adb@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #667275 |
On 11/13/2025 9:38 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > Den 13.11.2025 10:01, skrev Thomas Heger: >> Am Mittwoch000012, 12.11.2025 um 21:12 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen: > >> >> A model is a simplyfied representation of something. >> >> It has the advantage of being able to be computed and to make >> predictions. >> >> But usually the predictions and the real thing differ to some degree, >> because the model works upon entirely different principles than the >> real thing does. > > The mathematical models SR and GR predict the "real thing" with > infinite precision. (Or rather, the precision of the prediction > is only limited by how precisely the experiment is defined.) > > It is the measurement of "the real thing" that always will be > of limited precision. > But SR or GR is considered as confirmed only when the prediction > is well within the error bars of the measurement. 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 re3sults don't fit your Shit at all. > So your alternative 'description of how nature works' can't > predict how nature will behave when a well defined experiment > is performed, yet it does describe how nature works? > >> >> For a model we need something different, hence use simplyfied >> approximations. >> >> This makes models computable, but unfortunately also less precise. > > So in the real world we have to use mathematical models like > SR and GR which can predict how nature will behave in well > defined experiments. Paul, poor trash, what nature? Observers, clocks, measurements - nature doesn't deal with that at all. Physics was never predicting how nature works,instead it was enforcing how observers work with clocks and other measurement tools.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-14 13:08 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <10f763b$2qpao$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #667284 |
Den 14.11.2025 07:42, skrev Maciej Woźniak: > > 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 > re3sults don't fit your Shit at all. Can you name one "real measurement" which "don't fit" SR or GR? Can you quote where I admitted that this real measurement "don't fit" SR or GR? Here you have a bunch of real measurements to choose from: https://paulba.no/paper/index.html Or do you have another real measurement in mind? -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-14 13:39 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <1877dfec969c8eab$3875449$2551467$c2365abb@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #667288 |
On 11/14/2025 1:08 PM, Paul.B.Andersen wrote: > Den 14.11.2025 07:42, skrev Maciej Woźniak: >> >> 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 >> re3sults don't fit your Shit at all. > > > Can you name one "real measurement" which > "don't fit" SR or GR? Sure. > GPS clocks are adjusted down by (1 - 4.4647e-10) > so the adjusted clock will measure a mean solar day > to last 86400 s So, where The Shit is predicting 83400s+37us - the real measurement result is 86400. And you re admitting that. You're soooo stupid.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stetson Sówka <ktt@ewshr.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-14 18:14 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10f7rh7$3116f$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #667290 |
Maciej Woźniak wrote: > On 11/14/2025 1:08 PM, Paul.B.Andersen wrote: >> Can you name one "real measurement" which "don't fit" SR or GR? > > Sure. > > > GPS clocks are adjusted down by (1 - 4.4647e-10) so the adjusted > > clock will measure a mean solar day to last 86400 s > > So, where The Shit is predicting 83400s+37us - > the real measurement result is 86400. And you re admitting that. You're > soooo stupid. dobravietchy, good news, we come back 𝗥𝘂𝘀𝘀𝗶𝘀𝗰𝗵𝗲_𝗡𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗹𝗵𝘆𝗺𝗻𝗲_𝗺𝗶𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗻_𝗶𝗺_𝗭𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗿𝘂𝗺_𝗱𝗲𝗿_𝗡𝗔𝗧𝗢_𝗕𝗲𝗿𝗹𝗶𝗻_9.11.2025 https://b%69%74%63%68%75te.com/v%69%64%65o/HwR98rmjYz8n
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web