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 5 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 Next page →
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-23 09:28 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <mofui7F5ouoU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #667428 |
Am Samstag000022, 22.11.2025 um 13:23 schrieb Paul B. Andersen: > Den 22.11.2025 09:50, skrev Thomas Heger: >> Am Samstag000022, 22.11.2025 um 04:28 schrieb Python: >>> Le 21/11/2025 à 11:40, Thomas Heger a écrit : >>>> Am Dienstag000018, 18.11.2025 um 21:39 schrieb Paul B. Andersen: >>>> ... >>>>> >>>>> It is an indisputable fact that SR and GR give precise >>>>> predictions for what will be measured in well defined experiments. >>>> >>>> Again: you are a hopeless case! >>> >>> Says the one who didn't understand a single word of Einstein's paper >>> on SR. >> >> I can almost sing the entire paper and absolutely understand every >> single word or equation in it. >> >> I have spent a lot of time upon that particular paper. And now you >> could ask me everthing about it. > OK. > > Q1: > Have you understood that the Special Theory of Physics (SR) > can be summarised in the Lorentz transform (LT)? No, because Einstein has not written anything alike. He mentioned the name 'Lorentz' and that was about it. > Given two frames of references: K(t,x,y,z) and K'(t',x',y',z') > The axes are parallel, x with x', y with y' etc. > The origin of K' is moving along the positive x-axis with > the speed v. > > c = the speed of light, γ = 1/√(1 − v²/c²) Einstein used the term 'Geschwindigkeit', which is commonly translated to 'velocity'. This is in fact wrong, because 'velocity' is a vectorial quantity, while the German word 'Geschwindigkeit' is not and means 'speed'. Einstein used the letter 'V' for speed of light and the term 'Geschwindigkeit des Lichtes'. I didn't agree about his concept of velocity in the first place, because velocity is 'relative' (to something). Einstein used 'Gescchwindigkeit' like you in 'speed of light', but without a reference to something, in respect to what that speed is measured. In effect he refered to something like 'absolute space', even if he directly excluded such an 'absolute space'. He never wrote, what else would be the reference, against which that speed should be measured. > t' = γ⋅(t - v⋅x/c²) > x' = γ⋅(x - v⋅t) > y' = y > z' = z > > t = γ⋅(t' + v⋅x'/c²) > x = γ⋅(x' + v⋅t') > y = y' > z = z' > > Q2: > Have you understood that the LT and thus SR is logically consistent? sure, but that wasn't a part of Einstein's paper. I have in fact not touched the 'physical' content with my critique. I have treated that article like a professor of physics would treat the homework of a student. I had therefore wrote comments to all statements, which by themselves contained errors. Whether the text itself was right or wrong in sense of methaphysics, that was not my topic. Therefore it was not my aim to write a critique about relativity. My aim was to write a critique about that article. This required to continue, even if the text was already faulty. > Q4: > Have you understood that all predictions of SR can be derived from > the LT? Hendrik Lorentz is a different story and was not covered by my analysis. > Q5: > Have you understood that a lot of those prediction are confirmed > to be in accordance with measurements in the real world? > > Some tests of SR: I didn't want to write a critique of SRT, but of Einstein's paper 'On the electrodynamics of moving bodies'. So, yes, I agree upon most of SRT, but not about the content of that article. It is therefore entirely irrelevant, whether SRT is experimentally confirmed or not. I have found, that Einstein's article is total crap, because it contains an insane amout of errors of all kinds. The number (btw: 400+) is in fact extremely large and even larger than a student would dare to make in his first semester. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-23 21:22 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <10fvqcr$1mm2b$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #667460 |
Den 23.11.2025 09:28, skrev Thomas Heger:
> Am Samstag000022, 22.11.2025 um 13:23 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:
>> Den 22.11.2025 09:50, skrev Thomas Heger:
>>>
>>> I can almost sing the entire paper and absolutely understand every
>>> single word or equation in it.
>>>
>>> I have spent a lot of time upon that particular paper. And now you
>>> could ask me everthing about it.
>> OK.
>>
>> Q1:
>> Have you understood that the Special Theory of Physics (SR)
>> can be summarised in the Lorentz transform (LT)?
>
> No, because Einstein has not written anything alike.
>
> He mentioned the name 'Lorentz' and that was about it.
Why can't you read one statement without writing stupid
comments?
Not even you can be ignorant of the fact that the transform
Einstein called:
"The Transformation of Co-ordinates and Times from a Stationary
System to another System in Uniform Motion of Translation
Relatively to the Former"
is the same transform as in all English books is called
"the Lorentz transform "(LT).
So please answer Q1:
Do you understand that the Special Theory of Physics (SR)
can be summarised in the Lorentz transform (LT)?
The LT is below:
>> Given two frames of references: K(t,x,y,z) and K'(t',x',y',z')
>> The axes are parallel, x with x', y with y' etc.
>> The origin of K' is moving along the positive x-axis with
>> the speed v.
>>
>> c = the speed of light, γ = 1/√(1 − v²/c²)
>
> Einstein used the term 'Geschwindigkeit', which is commonly translated
> to 'velocity'. This is in fact wrong, because 'velocity' is a vectorial
> quantity, while the German word 'Geschwindigkeit' is not and means 'speed'.
>
> Einstein used the letter 'V' for speed of light and the term
> 'Geschwindigkeit des Lichtes'.
>
> I didn't agree about his concept of velocity in the first place, because
> velocity is 'relative' (to something).
>
> Einstein used 'Gescchwindigkeit' like you in 'speed of light', but
> without a reference to something, in respect to what that speed is
> measured.
>
> In effect he refered to something like 'absolute space', even if he
> directly excluded such an 'absolute space'.
>
> He never wrote, what else would be the reference, against which that
> speed should be measured.
What's your point with these comments?
Have you a problem with this:
c = the speed of light,
γ = 1/√(1 − v²/c²)
>> t' = γ⋅(t - v⋅x/c²)
>> x' = γ⋅(x - v⋅t)
>> y' = y
>> z' = z
>>
>> t = γ⋅(t' + v⋅x'/c²)
>> x = γ⋅(x' + v⋅t')
>> y = y'
>> z = z'
>>
>> Q2:
>> Do you understand that the LT and thus SR is logically consistent?
> sure, but that wasn't a part of Einstein's paper.
You are boasting of your knowledge of Einstein's paper,
but don't know what it contains!
So you didn't sing what is at the bottom of page 9,
the last equations in §3
https://paulba.no/paper/Electrodynamics.pdf
They are the most important equations in the paper since
all predictions of SR can be derived from them.
τ = β(t−vx/c²),
ξ = β(x−vt),
η = y,
ζ = z,
β =1/√(1−v²/c²)
This is the Lorentz transform, the exact same as the one I wrote
above if you set β = γ, τ = t', ξ = x', η = y' and ζ = z'
But you have answered the question:
Do you understand that the LT and thus SR is logically consistent?
Your answer is the affirmative "sure".
>
> I have in fact not touched the 'physical' content with my critique.
>
> I have treated that article like a professor of physics would treat the
> homework of a student.
>
> I had therefore wrote comments to all statements, which by themselves
> contained errors.
>
> Whether the text itself was right or wrong in sense of methaphysics,
> that was not my topic.
>
> Therefore it was not my aim to write a critique about relativity.
>
> My aim was to write a critique about that article.
>
> This required to continue, even if the text was already faulty.
To say that the text is faulty, but the physical content
of the text is correct is nonsensical!
>
>> Q4:
>> Do you understand that all predictions of SR can be derived from
>> the LT?
> Hendrik Lorentz is a different story and was not covered by my analysis.
Yes, Hendrik Antoon Lorentz is a different story.
But now you know that the "Lorentz transform" in this case is
the name of Einstein's coordinate transform.
>> Q5:
>> Do you understand that a lot of those prediction are confirmed
>> to be in accordance with measurements in the real world?
> I didn't want to write a critique of SRT, but of Einstein's paper 'On
> the electrodynamics of moving bodies'.
>
> So, yes, I agree upon most of SRT, but not about the content of that
> article.
The content of Einstein's paper "On the Electrodynamics of Moving
Bodies" is the Special Theory of Relativity.
To say that you didn't criticise the theory, but only the content
the paper is ridiculous.
>
> It is therefore entirely irrelevant, whether SRT is experimentally
> confirmed or not.
>
> I have found, that Einstein's article is total crap, because it contains
> an insane amout of errors of all kinds.
>
> The number (btw: 400+) is in fact extremely large and even larger than a
> student would dare to make in his first semester.
This is absolutely nonsensical!
Please address the issue!
You have answered that you understand that the Lorentz transform
and thus the Special Theory of Relativity is a consistent theory.
But the predictions of a consistent theory doesn't have to be
in accordance with measurements, so the only relevant question is:
Do you understood that a lot of those prediction are confirmed
to be in accordance with measurements in the real world?
Some tests of SR:
https://paulba.no/paper/Fizeau_by_Michelson.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Michelson_1887.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Michelson_1913.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Michelson_Gale_I.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Michelson_Gale_II.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/Filippas_Fox.pdf
Facts:
"The Special Theory of Relativity (SR)" as defined in Einstein's
paper "ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES" is a logically
consistent theory which make precise predictions for what will
be measured in the real world, and many of these predictions
are proved to be in accordance with the measurements, and no
prediction of SR is proven wrong.
Do you understand that these facts make it rather stupid to claim
that Einstein's paper is "total crap"?
--
Paul
https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-23 22:55 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <187ac176c7509e71$24412458$3040052$c2065a8b@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #667479 |
On 11/23/2025 9:22 PM, Paul.B.Andersen wrote: > Den 23.11.2025 09:28, skrev Thomas Heger: >> Am Samstag000022, 22.11.2025 um 13:23 schrieb Paul B. Andersen: >>> Den 22.11.2025 09:50, skrev Thomas Heger: > >>>> >>>> I can almost sing the entire paper and absolutely understand every >>>> single word or equation in it. >>>> >>>> I have spent a lot of time upon that particular paper. And now you >>>> could ask me everthing about it. >>> OK. >>> >>> Q1: >>> Have you understood that the Special Theory of Physics (SR) >>> can be summarised in the Lorentz transform (LT)? >> >> No, because Einstein has not written anything alike. >> >> He mentioned the name 'Lorentz' and that was about it. > > Why can't you read one statement without writing stupid > comments? > > Not even you can be ignorant of the fact that the transform > Einstein called: > "The Transformation of Co-ordinates and Times from a Stationary > System to another System in Uniform Motion of Translation > Relatively to the Former" > is the same transform as in all English books is called > "the Lorentz transform "(LT). > > So please answer Q1: > Do you understand that the Special Theory of Physics (SR) > can be summarised in the Lorentz transform (LT)? > > The LT is below: > >>> Given two frames of references: K(t,x,y,z) and K'(t',x',y',z') >>> The axes are parallel, x with x', y with y' etc. >>> The origin of K' is moving along the positive x-axis with >>> the speed v. >>> >>> c = the speed of light, γ = 1/√(1 − v²/c²) > >> >> Einstein used the term 'Geschwindigkeit', which is commonly translated >> to 'velocity'. This is in fact wrong, because 'velocity' is a >> vectorial quantity, while the German word 'Geschwindigkeit' is not and >> means 'speed'. >> >> Einstein used the letter 'V' for speed of light and the term >> 'Geschwindigkeit des Lichtes'. >> >> I didn't agree about his concept of velocity in the first place, >> because velocity is 'relative' (to something). >> >> Einstein used 'Gescchwindigkeit' like you in 'speed of light', but >> without a reference to something, in respect to what that speed is >> measured. >> >> In effect he refered to something like 'absolute space', even if he >> directly excluded such an 'absolute space'. >> >> He never wrote, what else would be the reference, against which that >> speed should be measured. > > What's your point with these comments? > > Have you a problem with this: > > c = the speed of light, > γ = 1/√(1 − v²/c²) > > >>> t' = γ⋅(t - v⋅x/c²) >>> x' = γ⋅(x - v⋅t) >>> y' = y >>> z' = z >>> >>> t = γ⋅(t' + v⋅x'/c²) >>> x = γ⋅(x' + v⋅t') >>> y = y' >>> z = z' >>> >>> Q2: >>> Do you understand that the LT and thus SR is logically consistent? > >> sure, but that wasn't a part of Einstein's paper. > > You are boasting of your knowledge of Einstein's paper, > but don't know what it contains! > > So you didn't sing what is at the bottom of page 9, > the last equations in §3 > https://paulba.no/paper/Electrodynamics.pdf > > They are the most important equations in the paper since > all predictions of SR can be derived from them. > > τ = β(t−vx/c²), > ξ = β(x−vt), > η = y, > ζ = z, > > β =1/√(1−v²/c²) > > This is the Lorentz transform, the exact same as the one I wrote > above if you set β = γ, τ = t', ξ = x', η = y' and ζ = z' > > But you have answered the question: > Do you understand that the LT and thus SR is logically consistent? Sorry, trash, a lie as usual, LT is but SR shit is not, it has been proven on this NG many times. > > Your answer is the affirmative "sure". > >> >> I have in fact not touched the 'physical' content with my critique. >> >> I have treated that article like a professor of physics would treat >> the homework of a student. >> >> I had therefore wrote comments to all statements, which by themselves >> contained errors. >> >> Whether the text itself was right or wrong in sense of methaphysics, >> that was not my topic. >> >> Therefore it was not my aim to write a critique about relativity. >> >> My aim was to write a critique about that article. >> >> This required to continue, even if the text was already faulty. > > To say that the text is faulty, but the physical content > of the text is correct is nonsensical! > >> >>> Q4: >>> Do you understand that all predictions of SR can be derived from >>> the LT? > >> Hendrik Lorentz is a different story and was not covered by my analysis. > > Yes, Hendrik Antoon Lorentz is a different story. > > But now you know that the "Lorentz transform" in this case is > the name of Einstein's coordinate transform. > >>> Q5: >>> Do you understand that a lot of those prediction are confirmed >>> to be in accordance with measurements in the real world? > >> I didn't want to write a critique of SRT, but of Einstein's paper 'On >> the electrodynamics of moving bodies'. >> >> So, yes, I agree upon most of SRT, but not about the content of that >> article. > > The content of Einstein's paper "On the Electrodynamics of Moving > Bodies" is the Special Theory of Relativity. > > To say that you didn't criticise the theory, but only the content > the paper is ridiculous. > >> >> It is therefore entirely irrelevant, whether SRT is experimentally >> confirmed or not. >> >> I have found, that Einstein's article is total crap, because it >> contains an insane amout of errors of all kinds. >> >> The number (btw: 400+) is in fact extremely large and even larger than >> a student would dare to make in his first semester. > > This is absolutely nonsensical! > > Please address the issue! > > You have answered that you understand that the Lorentz transform > and thus the Special Theory of Relativity is a consistent theory. > > But the predictions of a consistent theory doesn't have to be > in accordance with measurements, so the only relevant question is: > > Do you understood that a lot of those prediction are confirmed > to be in accordance with measurements in the real world? > > Some tests of SR: > https://paulba.no/paper/Fizeau_by_Michelson.pdf > https://paulba.no/paper/Michelson_1887.pdf > https://paulba.no/paper/Michelson_1913.pdf > https://paulba.no/paper/Michelson_Gale_I.pdf > https://paulba.no/paper/Michelson_Gale_II.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/Filippas_Fox.pdf > > Facts: > "The Special Theory of Relativity (SR)" as defined in Einstein's > paper "ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES" is a logically > consistent theory which make precise predictions for what will > be measured in the real world, and many of these predictions > are proved to be in accordance with the measurements, and no > prediction of SR is proven wrong. > > Do you understand that these facts make it rather stupid to claim > that Einstein's paper is "total crap"? >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-25 09:47 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <mol8dgF2h1uU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #667479 |
Am Sonntag000023, 23.11.2025 um 21:22 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen: > Den 23.11.2025 09:28, skrev Thomas Heger: >> Am Samstag000022, 22.11.2025 um 13:23 schrieb Paul B. Andersen: >>> Den 22.11.2025 09:50, skrev Thomas Heger: > >>>> >>>> I can almost sing the entire paper and absolutely understand every >>>> single word or equation in it. >>>> >>>> I have spent a lot of time upon that particular paper. And now you >>>> could ask me everthing about it. >>> OK. >>> >>> Q1: >>> Have you understood that the Special Theory of Physics (SR) >>> can be summarised in the Lorentz transform (LT)? >> >> No, because Einstein has not written anything alike. >> >> He mentioned the name 'Lorentz' and that was about it. > > Why can't you read one statement without writing stupid > comments? > > Not even you can be ignorant of the fact that the transform > Einstein called: > "The Transformation of Co-ordinates and Times from a Stationary > System to another System in Uniform Motion of Translation > Relatively to the Former" > is the same transform as in all English books is called > "the Lorentz transform "(LT). > Sure, but Lorentz or the so called 'Lorentz transform' were NOT my topic! I wrote something about Einstein's paper 'On the electrodynamics of moving bodies' and not about 'Lorentz transform'. Also SRT per se wasn't my topic. I had written a critique based on Einstein's words published in this article. And Einstein wasn't Hendrik Lorentz. > So please answer Q1: > Do you understand that the Special Theory of Physics (SR) > can be summarised in the Lorentz transform (LT)? > > The LT is below: > >>> Given two frames of references: K(t,x,y,z) and K'(t',x',y',z') >>> The axes are parallel, x with x', y with y' etc. >>> The origin of K' is moving along the positive x-axis with >>> the speed v. >>> >>> c = the speed of light, γ = 1/√(1 − v²/c²) > >> >> Einstein used the term 'Geschwindigkeit', which is commonly translated >> to 'velocity'. This is in fact wrong, because 'velocity' is a >> vectorial quantity, while the German word 'Geschwindigkeit' is not and >> means 'speed'. >> >> Einstein used the letter 'V' for speed of light and the term >> 'Geschwindigkeit des Lichtes'. >> >> I didn't agree about his concept of velocity in the first place, >> because velocity is 'relative' (to something). >> >> Einstein used 'Gescchwindigkeit' like you in 'speed of light', but >> without a reference to something, in respect to what that speed is >> measured. >> >> In effect he refered to something like 'absolute space', even if he >> directly excluded such an 'absolute space'. >> >> He never wrote, what else would be the reference, against which that >> speed should be measured. > > What's your point with these comments? This is a critique about Einstein's statements. At first he said, that 'absolute space' would not exist, but later used that space as hidden reference. This is so, because all velocities are relative to something. But to what is 'v' relative, if you don't mention anything as reference?? It can't be anything else but 'the universe' or something like that. Now both statements contradict each other. Iow: if you exclude 'absolute space', then you need some other 'anchor' instead, because any line of movement needs two ends: one beginning and one at the time in question. Also any time value is actually meant as an interval, which has a beginning and an end, even if the beginning is often not mentioned. If you have no refence defined, you can't use the term 'velocity' (or 'time') to beginn with. And if you do that, anyhow, you would use a hidden reference, which you regard as so obvious, that it is not worth mentioning. But THAT is not only faulty, but in contradiction with Einstein's own concept of relativity. ... TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-27 21:40 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <wG2WQ.17470$20V3.1088@fx04.ams4> |
| In reply to | #667508 |
Den 25.11.2025 09:47, skrev Thomas Heger: > Am Sonntag000023, 23.11.2025 um 21:22 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen: >> Den 23.11.2025 09:28, skrev Thomas Heger: >>> Am Samstag000022, 22.11.2025 um 13:23 schrieb Paul B. Andersen: >>>> Den 22.11.2025 09:50, skrev Thomas Heger: >>>>> >>>>> I can almost sing the entire paper and absolutely understand every >>>>> single word or equation in it. >>>>> >>>>> I have spent a lot of time upon that particular paper. And now you >>>>> could ask me everthing about it. >>>> OK. >>>> >>>> Q1: >>>> Have you understood that the Special Theory of Physics (SR) >>>> can be summarised in the Lorentz transform (LT)? >>> >>> No, because Einstein has not written anything alike. >>> >>> He mentioned the name 'Lorentz' and that was about it. >> >> Why can't you read one statement without writing stupid >> comments? >> >> Not even you can be ignorant of the fact that the transform >> Einstein called: >> "The Transformation of Co-ordinates and Times from a Stationary >> System to another System in Uniform Motion of Translation >> Relatively to the Former" >> is the same transform as in all English books is called >> "the Lorentz transform "(LT). >> > > Sure, but Lorentz or the so called 'Lorentz transform' were NOT my topic! But it is THE topic. Stop giving irrelevant comments, and answer the questions. Q1: Do you understand that the Special Theory of Physics (SR) can be summarised in the Lorentz transform (LT)? The LT is below: Given two frames of references: K(t,x,y,z) and K'(t',x',y',z') The axes are parallel, x with x', y with y' etc. The origin of K' is moving along the positive x-axis with the speed v. c = the speed of light, γ = 1/√(1 − v²/c²) t' = γ⋅(t - v⋅x/c²) x' = γ⋅(x - v⋅t) y' = y z' = z t = γ⋅(t' + v⋅x'/c²) x = γ⋅(x' + v⋅t') y = y' z = z' Q2: Do you understand that the LT and thus SR is logically consistent? Q3: Do you understand that all predictions of SR can be derived from the LT? Q4: Do you understand that a lot of those prediction are confirmed to be in accordance with measurements in the real world? Some tests of SR: https://paulba.no/paper/Fizeau_by_Michelson.pdf https://paulba.no/paper/Michelson_1887.pdf https://paulba.no/paper/Michelson_1913.pdf https://paulba.no/paper/Michelson_Gale_I.pdf https://paulba.no/paper/Michelson_Gale_II.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/Filippas_Fox.pdf Facts: "The Special Theory of Relativity (SR)" as defined in Einstein's paper "ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES" is a logically consistent theory which make precise predictions for what will be measured in the real world, and many of these predictions are proved to be in accordance with the measurements, and no prediction of SR is proven wrong. Q5: Do you understand that these facts make it rather stupid to claim that the theory defined in Einstein's paper is "terrible crap"? -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-27 22:42 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <187bfb1861d3d827$4920871$2551467$c2365abb@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #667563 |
On 11/27/2025 9:40 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > Some tests of SR: > https://paulba.no/paper/Fizeau_by_Michelson.pdf > https://paulba.no/paper/Michelson_1887.pdf > https://paulba.no/paper/Michelson_1913.pdf > https://paulba.no/paper/Michelson_Gale_I.pdf > https://paulba.no/paper/Michelson_Gale_II.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/Filippas_Fox.pdf > > Facts: Facts: even such a disgusting piece of lying shit as you are can't lie non stop, so sometimes it's admitting that the real measurement results have little in common with those absurd delusions of a mumbling idiot.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Efrain Ślusarski <iiiar@fesl.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-28 12:48 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10gc5m7$2dgpb$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #667565 |
Maciej Woźniak wrote: >> https://paulba.no/paper/Filippas_Fox.pdf >> >> Facts: > > Facts: even such a disgusting piece of lying shit as you are can't lie > non stop, so sometimes it's admitting that the real measurement results > have little in common with those absurd delusions of a mumbling idiot. so true indeed, The most-often cited metric of economic success (the nothingburger GDP lists) more often than not simply tells us what we want to hear – or what the stinking dirty capitalist West wants us to hear
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-22 14:31 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <rWiUQ.8624$K6V.7450@fx16.ams4> |
| In reply to | #667424 |
Den 22.11.2025 09:50, skrev Thomas Heger: > Am Samstag000022, 22.11.2025 um 04:28 schrieb Python: >> Says the one who still missed that the "delay" of light propagation is >> taken into account in Einstein's paper, even after people have a blue >> tongue. > > > The very word 'delay' is entirely missing in that paper. Also the > treatment of something equivalent cannot be found. Quote #1 quote from § 1. Definition of Simultaneity ------------------------------------------- | "We have not defined a common “time” for A and B, for | the latter cannot be defined at all unless we establish | by definition that the “time” required by light to travel | from A to B equals the “time” it requires to travel from | B to A." What is your 'delay', if it is not the 'time' required by light to travel from A to B, or the 'time' it requires to travel from B to A? Quote #2 quote from § 1. Definition of Simultaneity ------------------------------------------- | "Let a ray of light start at the “A time” tA from A towards B, | let it at the “B time” tB be reflected at B in the direction | of A, and arrive again at A at the “A time” t′A." So (tB-tA) is the 'time' required by light to travel from A to B and (tA'-tB) is the 'time' required by light to travel from B to A If these times are equal, then the clocks are synchronous according to the definition in Quote #1. Thus: Quote #3 quote from § 1. Definition of Simultaneity ------------------------------------------- | " In accordance with definition the two clocks synchronize if | tB − tA = t′A − tB." (The German "laufen synchron" is translated with "synchronize". A better translation would be "are synchronous".) Simple and crystal clear, isn't it? -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-22 14:40 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <187a57df0ecdc59b$23864483$3040052$c2065a8b@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #667431 |
On 11/22/2025 2:31 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > Den 22.11.2025 09:50, skrev Thomas Heger: >> Am Samstag000022, 22.11.2025 um 04:28 schrieb Python: > >>> Says the one who still missed that the "delay" of light propagation >>> is taken into account in Einstein's paper, even after people have a >>> blue tongue. >> >> >> The very word 'delay' is entirely missing in that paper. Also the >> treatment of something equivalent cannot be found. > > Quote #1 > quote from § 1. Definition of Simultaneity And a shark is a domesticated ruminant mammal with a thick woolly coat and (typically only in the male) curving horns. No doubts for that.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-22 20:20 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <10ft2bp$nkpa$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #667432 |
Den 22.11.2025 14:40, skrev Maciej Woźniak: > > And a shark is a domesticated ruminant mammal > with a thick woolly coat and (typically only > in the male) curving horns. No doubts for that. > Maciej Woźniak doesn't know what a shark is ! He is even more ignorant than I thought possible! -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-22 22:31 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <187a719a55c36e67$8075737$2542420$c2265aab@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #667446 |
On 11/22/2025 8:20 PM, Paul.B.Andersen wrote: > Den 22.11.2025 14:40, skrev Maciej Woźniak: >> >> And a shark is a domesticated ruminant mammal >> with a thick woolly coat and (typically only >> in the male) curving horns. No doubts for that. >> > > Maciej Woźniak doesn't know what a shark is ! What? I wrote a definition. Can a definition be wrong, poor trash? Well, yes, it can. And it happens that your idiot guru's definition of simultaneity - is.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-23 13:20 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <10fuu3v$1c7km$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #667451 |
Den 22.11.2025 22:31, skrev Maciej Woźniak: > On 11/22/2025 8:20 PM, Paul.B.Andersen wrote: >> Den 22.11.2025 14:40, skrev Maciej Woźniak: >>> >>> And a shark is a domesticated ruminant mammal >>> with a thick woolly coat and (typically only >>> in the male) curving horns. No doubts for that. >>> >> >> Maciej Woźniak doesn't know what a shark is ! > > What? I wrote a definition. Can a definition > be wrong, poor trash? Ah. So according Maciej Woźniak the following is a definition! "And a shark is a domesticated ruminant mammal with a thick woolly coat and (typically only in the male) curving horns. No doubts for that." > > Well, yes, it can. So what's your point with writing what you think is a wrong definition? > And it happens that your > idiot guru's definition of simultaneity - is. What idiot guru defined "And a shark is the simultaneity" Could it be Maciej Woźniak? I know nobody else who defines a shark to be anything else than a shark. -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-23 13:44 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <187aa365109058fa$5404364$2542420$c2265aab@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #667464 |
On 11/23/2025 1:20 PM, Paul.B.Andersen wrote: > Den 22.11.2025 22:31, skrev Maciej Woźniak: >> On 11/22/2025 8:20 PM, Paul.B.Andersen wrote: >>> Den 22.11.2025 14:40, skrev Maciej Woźniak: >>>> >>>> And a shark is a domesticated ruminant mammal >>>> with a thick woolly coat and (typically only >>>> in the male) curving horns. No doubts for that. >>>> >>> >>> Maciej Woźniak doesn't know what a shark is ! >> >> What? I wrote a definition. Can a definition >> be wrong, poor trash? > > Ah. So according Maciej Woźniak the following is a definition! > > "And a shark is a domesticated ruminant mammal > with a thick woolly coat and (typically only > in the male) curving horns. No doubts for that." It is. I wrote it. Think - it's violating common sense, but are sharks obligged somehow to obey common sense?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-22 11:10 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <0j24ik5npn29o98upbeag0j1c8nkkfo3mi@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #667424 |
On Sat, 22 Nov 2025 09:50:58 +0100, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote: >Am Samstag000022, 22.11.2025 um 04:28 schrieb Python: >> Le 21/11/2025 à 11:40, Thomas Heger a écrit : >>> Am Dienstag000018, 18.11.2025 um 21:39 schrieb Paul B. Andersen: >>> ... >>>> >>>>>> Both these theories of physics give precise predictions >>>>>> for what will be measured in well defined experiments. >>>>>> >>>>>> Do you dispute this? >>>>>> ==================== >>>> >>>>> >>>>> I distinguish between a model and the part of nature, which that >>>>> model attempts to model. >>>>> >>>>> This distinction is extremly important and by no meas disputable. >>>>> >>>>> If you equate a model with the real world, you would conduct >>>>> something extremely stupid. >>>>> >>>>> That is like eating the menu in a restaurant instead of the meal. >>>> >>>> Again, your opinion of SR/GR is irrelevant. >>>> >>>> It is an indisputable fact that SR and GR give precise >>>> predictions for what will be measured in well defined experiments. >>> >>> Again: you are a hopeless case! >> >> Says the one who didn't understand a single word of Einstein's paper on SR. > >I can almost sing the entire paper and absolutely understand every >single word or equation in it. > >I have spent a lot of time upon that particular paper. And now you could >ask me everthing about it. Okay, which part did his wife wrote?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-23 10:12 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <mog14cF6cf2U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #667444 |
Am Samstag000022, 22.11.2025 um 20:10 schrieb The Starmaker: >>>>>>> Both these theories of physics give precise predictions >>>>>>> for what will be measured in well defined experiments. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Do you dispute this? >>>>>>> ==================== >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I distinguish between a model and the part of nature, which that >>>>>> model attempts to model. >>>>>> >>>>>> This distinction is extremly important and by no meas disputable. >>>>>> >>>>>> If you equate a model with the real world, you would conduct >>>>>> something extremely stupid. >>>>>> >>>>>> That is like eating the menu in a restaurant instead of the meal. >>>>> >>>>> Again, your opinion of SR/GR is irrelevant. >>>>> >>>>> It is an indisputable fact that SR and GR give precise >>>>> predictions for what will be measured in well defined experiments. >>>> >>>> Again: you are a hopeless case! >>> >>> Says the one who didn't understand a single word of Einstein's paper on SR. >> >> I can almost sing the entire paper and absolutely understand every >> single word or equation in it. >> >> I have spent a lot of time upon that particular paper. And now you could >> ask me everthing about it. > > > Okay, which part did his wife wrote? Elsa Einstein looked like a male in a dress. Don't know if 'she' wrote anything significant. His former wife looked nicer and was certainly smarter. But I don't know, which part of Einstein's papers she had actually written. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-23 11:05 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <dkm6ik1503reiap3mlfi8ljl3362om6cjl@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #667461 |
On Sun, 23 Nov 2025 10:12:20 +0100, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote: >Am Samstag000022, 22.11.2025 um 20:10 schrieb The Starmaker: > >>>>>>>> Both these theories of physics give precise predictions >>>>>>>> for what will be measured in well defined experiments. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Do you dispute this? >>>>>>>> ==================== >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I distinguish between a model and the part of nature, which that >>>>>>> model attempts to model. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This distinction is extremly important and by no meas disputable. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If you equate a model with the real world, you would conduct >>>>>>> something extremely stupid. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> That is like eating the menu in a restaurant instead of the meal. >>>>>> >>>>>> Again, your opinion of SR/GR is irrelevant. >>>>>> >>>>>> It is an indisputable fact that SR and GR give precise >>>>>> predictions for what will be measured in well defined experiments. >>>>> >>>>> Again: you are a hopeless case! >>>> >>>> Says the one who didn't understand a single word of Einstein's paper on SR. >>> >>> I can almost sing the entire paper and absolutely understand every >>> single word or equation in it. >>> >>> I have spent a lot of time upon that particular paper. And now you could >>> ask me everthing about it. >> >> >> Okay, which part did his wife wrote? > >Elsa Einstein looked like a male in a dress. > >Don't know if 'she' wrote anything significant. > >His former wife looked nicer and was certainly smarter. > >But I don't know, which part of Einstein's papers she had actually written. > >TH She co-authord the 1905 paper. How is it possible you don't know that??? Dr. Walker also presented evidence at the symposium that a noted Russian physicist named Abraham F. Joffe had seen the original manuscripts of Einstein's 1905 papers while Dr. Joffe had been a graduate student, and that one of the authors on the papers was ``Einstein-Marity,'' the Hungarianized spelling of Mari'c's name.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-23 11:12 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <ptm6ik1a0pt4fc6d3qsb2v7tmi3c9mt5hs@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #667470 |
On Sun, 23 Nov 2025 11:05:01 -0800, The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >On Sun, 23 Nov 2025 10:12:20 +0100, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> >wrote: > >>Am Samstag000022, 22.11.2025 um 20:10 schrieb The Starmaker: >> >>>>>>>>> Both these theories of physics give precise predictions >>>>>>>>> for what will be measured in well defined experiments. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Do you dispute this? >>>>>>>>> ==================== >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I distinguish between a model and the part of nature, which that >>>>>>>> model attempts to model. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This distinction is extremly important and by no meas disputable. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If you equate a model with the real world, you would conduct >>>>>>>> something extremely stupid. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> That is like eating the menu in a restaurant instead of the meal. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Again, your opinion of SR/GR is irrelevant. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It is an indisputable fact that SR and GR give precise >>>>>>> predictions for what will be measured in well defined experiments. >>>>>> >>>>>> Again: you are a hopeless case! >>>>> >>>>> Says the one who didn't understand a single word of Einstein's paper on SR. >>>> >>>> I can almost sing the entire paper and absolutely understand every >>>> single word or equation in it. >>>> >>>> I have spent a lot of time upon that particular paper. And now you could >>>> ask me everthing about it. >>> >>> >>> Okay, which part did his wife wrote? >> >>Elsa Einstein looked like a male in a dress. >> >>Don't know if 'she' wrote anything significant. >> >>His former wife looked nicer and was certainly smarter. >> >>But I don't know, which part of Einstein's papers she had actually written. >> >>TH > >She co-authord the 1905 paper. How is it possible you don't know >that??? > >Dr. Walker also presented evidence at the symposium that a noted >Russian physicist named Abraham F. Joffe had seen the original >manuscripts of Einstein's 1905 papers while Dr. Joffe had been a >graduate student, and that one of the authors on the papers was >``Einstein-Marity,'' the Hungarianized spelling of Mari'c's name. Historians have translated the letters between Einstein and Maric into English, allowing a detailed analysis of their relationship. However, one of these letters includes the phrase: “bringing our work on relative motion to a successful conclusion!” This seems to back up the idea that the pair must have collaborated. “bringing our work on relative motion to a successful conclusion!” "our work" The 1905 Relativity paper is “bringing our work on relative motion to a successful conclusion!” Maybe she did the math part. (his math was noo too good) pardon my german.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-23 11:16 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <f8n6ikdf5098gj1g2rbnug0t28393gv22c@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #667471 |
On Sun, 23 Nov 2025 11:12:43 -0800, The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >On Sun, 23 Nov 2025 11:05:01 -0800, The Starmaker ><starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > >>On Sun, 23 Nov 2025 10:12:20 +0100, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> >>wrote: >> >>>Am Samstag000022, 22.11.2025 um 20:10 schrieb The Starmaker: >>> >>>>>>>>>> Both these theories of physics give precise predictions >>>>>>>>>> for what will be measured in well defined experiments. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Do you dispute this? >>>>>>>>>> ==================== >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I distinguish between a model and the part of nature, which that >>>>>>>>> model attempts to model. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> This distinction is extremly important and by no meas disputable. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> If you equate a model with the real world, you would conduct >>>>>>>>> something extremely stupid. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> That is like eating the menu in a restaurant instead of the meal. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Again, your opinion of SR/GR is irrelevant. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It is an indisputable fact that SR and GR give precise >>>>>>>> predictions for what will be measured in well defined experiments. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Again: you are a hopeless case! >>>>>> >>>>>> Says the one who didn't understand a single word of Einstein's paper on SR. >>>>> >>>>> I can almost sing the entire paper and absolutely understand every >>>>> single word or equation in it. >>>>> >>>>> I have spent a lot of time upon that particular paper. And now you could >>>>> ask me everthing about it. >>>> >>>> >>>> Okay, which part did his wife wrote? >>> >>>Elsa Einstein looked like a male in a dress. >>> >>>Don't know if 'she' wrote anything significant. >>> >>>His former wife looked nicer and was certainly smarter. >>> >>>But I don't know, which part of Einstein's papers she had actually written. >>> >>>TH >> >>She co-authord the 1905 paper. How is it possible you don't know >>that??? >> >>Dr. Walker also presented evidence at the symposium that a noted >>Russian physicist named Abraham F. Joffe had seen the original >>manuscripts of Einstein's 1905 papers while Dr. Joffe had been a >>graduate student, and that one of the authors on the papers was >>``Einstein-Marity,'' the Hungarianized spelling of Mari'c's name. > > Historians have translated the letters between Einstein and Maric >into English, allowing a detailed analysis of their relationship. >However, one of these letters includes the phrase: “bringing our work >on relative motion to a successful conclusion!” This seems to back up >the idea that the pair must have collaborated. > > “bringing our work on relative motion to a successful conclusion!” > > >"our work" > >The 1905 Relativity paper is “bringing our work on relative motion to >a successful conclusion!” > >Maybe she did the math part. (his math was noo too good) pardon my >german. Maric and Einstein divorced in 1919, but as part of the divorce settlement, Einstein agreed to pay his ex-wife every krona of any future Nobel Prize he might be awarded. He told her, "I'll pay you if you promise to shut the fuck up about you co-authored our 1905 paper, ...bitch." She said, "Okay you fucking kike!"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-23 11:26 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <tsn6ikttpjs52dn2gongmd72meu22puqi1@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #667472 |
On Sun, 23 Nov 2025 11:16:55 -0800, The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >On Sun, 23 Nov 2025 11:12:43 -0800, The Starmaker ><starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > >>On Sun, 23 Nov 2025 11:05:01 -0800, The Starmaker >><starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >> >>>On Sun, 23 Nov 2025 10:12:20 +0100, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> >>>wrote: >>> >>>>Am Samstag000022, 22.11.2025 um 20:10 schrieb The Starmaker: >>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Both these theories of physics give precise predictions >>>>>>>>>>> for what will be measured in well defined experiments. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Do you dispute this? >>>>>>>>>>> ==================== >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I distinguish between a model and the part of nature, which that >>>>>>>>>> model attempts to model. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> This distinction is extremly important and by no meas disputable. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> If you equate a model with the real world, you would conduct >>>>>>>>>> something extremely stupid. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> That is like eating the menu in a restaurant instead of the meal. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Again, your opinion of SR/GR is irrelevant. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> It is an indisputable fact that SR and GR give precise >>>>>>>>> predictions for what will be measured in well defined experiments. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Again: you are a hopeless case! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Says the one who didn't understand a single word of Einstein's paper on SR. >>>>>> >>>>>> I can almost sing the entire paper and absolutely understand every >>>>>> single word or equation in it. >>>>>> >>>>>> I have spent a lot of time upon that particular paper. And now you could >>>>>> ask me everthing about it. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Okay, which part did his wife wrote? >>>> >>>>Elsa Einstein looked like a male in a dress. >>>> >>>>Don't know if 'she' wrote anything significant. >>>> >>>>His former wife looked nicer and was certainly smarter. >>>> >>>>But I don't know, which part of Einstein's papers she had actually written. >>>> >>>>TH >>> >>>She co-authord the 1905 paper. How is it possible you don't know >>>that??? >>> >>>Dr. Walker also presented evidence at the symposium that a noted >>>Russian physicist named Abraham F. Joffe had seen the original >>>manuscripts of Einstein's 1905 papers while Dr. Joffe had been a >>>graduate student, and that one of the authors on the papers was >>>``Einstein-Marity,'' the Hungarianized spelling of Mari'c's name. >> >> Historians have translated the letters between Einstein and Maric >>into English, allowing a detailed analysis of their relationship. >>However, one of these letters includes the phrase: “bringing our work >>on relative motion to a successful conclusion!” This seems to back up >>the idea that the pair must have collaborated. >> >> “bringing our work on relative motion to a successful conclusion!” >> >> >>"our work" >> >>The 1905 Relativity paper is “bringing our work on relative motion to >>a successful conclusion!” >> >>Maybe she did the math part. (his math was noo too good) pardon my >>german. > >Maric and Einstein divorced in 1919, but as part of the divorce >settlement, Einstein agreed to pay his ex-wife every krona of any >future Nobel Prize he might be awarded. > >He told her, "I'll pay you if you promise to shut the fuck up about >you co-authored our 1905 paper, ...bitch." > >She said, "Okay you fucking kike!" Here is a list of Einstien's conditions for divorce: CONDITIONS A. You will make sure: 1. that my clothes and laundry are kept in good order; 2. that I will receive my three meals regularly in my room; 3. that my bedroom and study are kept neat, and especially that my desk is left for my use only. B. You will renounce all personal relations with me insofar as they are not completely necessary for social reasons. Specifically, You will forego: 1. my sitting at home with you; 2. my going out or travelling with you. C. You will obey the following points in your relations with me: 1. you will not expect any intimacy from me, nor will you reproach me in any way; 2. you will stop talking to me if I request it; 3. you will leave my bedroom or study immediately without protest if I request it. D. You will undertake not to belittle me in front of our children, either through words or behavior.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-23 11:28 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <f1o6ikpt2jqc36ul1mc6pc8qn2k4a7h6cp@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #667470 |
On Sun, 23 Nov 2025 11:05:01 -0800, The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >On Sun, 23 Nov 2025 10:12:20 +0100, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> >wrote: > >>Am Samstag000022, 22.11.2025 um 20:10 schrieb The Starmaker: >> >>>>>>>>> Both these theories of physics give precise predictions >>>>>>>>> for what will be measured in well defined experiments. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Do you dispute this? >>>>>>>>> ==================== >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I distinguish between a model and the part of nature, which that >>>>>>>> model attempts to model. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This distinction is extremly important and by no meas disputable. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If you equate a model with the real world, you would conduct >>>>>>>> something extremely stupid. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> That is like eating the menu in a restaurant instead of the meal. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Again, your opinion of SR/GR is irrelevant. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It is an indisputable fact that SR and GR give precise >>>>>>> predictions for what will be measured in well defined experiments. >>>>>> >>>>>> Again: you are a hopeless case! >>>>> >>>>> Says the one who didn't understand a single word of Einstein's paper on SR. >>>> >>>> I can almost sing the entire paper and absolutely understand every >>>> single word or equation in it. >>>> >>>> I have spent a lot of time upon that particular paper. And now you could >>>> ask me everthing about it. >>> >>> >>> Okay, which part did his wife wrote? >> >>Elsa Einstein looked like a male in a dress. >> >>Don't know if 'she' wrote anything significant. >> >>His former wife looked nicer and was certainly smarter. >> >>But I don't know, which part of Einstein's papers she had actually written. >> >>TH > >She co-authord the 1905 paper. How is it possible you don't know >that??? > >Dr. Walker also presented evidence at the symposium that a noted >Russian physicist named Abraham F. Joffe had seen the original >manuscripts of Einstein's 1905 papers while Dr. Joffe had been a >graduate student, and that one of the authors on the papers was >``Einstein-Marity,'' the Hungarianized spelling of Mari'c's name. https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2016/08/01/did-albert-einstein-steal-the-theory-of-relativity-from-his-wife/ of course, he's a gonif. -- 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]
Page 5 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web