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 6 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 Next page →
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-23 11:33 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <f7o6ikp9mmbit1abnbr100qiqi7pb9m2oi@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #667474 |
On Sun, 23 Nov 2025 11:28:48 -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. > > >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. Yes, "Einstein-Marity" (Mileva Maric) was a talented mathematician and physicist who was a highly intelligent student and a key figure in Albert Einstein's early work. She was the only woman in her mathematics and physics class at the Zurich Polytechnic, and evidence suggests she assisted Albert with complex calculations for his papers, which he reportedly acknowledged by saying she "solves all my mathematical problems". So, my question "Okay, which part did his wife wrote?" the answer has to be the Math part. -- 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 | 2025-11-23 11:41 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <gko6ikllgdvjogbkts849n8gh4h3gi7jta@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #667475 |
On Sun, 23 Nov 2025 11:33:19 -0800, The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >On Sun, 23 Nov 2025 11:28:48 -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. >> >> >>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. > > >Yes, "Einstein-Marity" (Mileva Maric) was a talented mathematician and >physicist who was a highly intelligent student and a key figure in >Albert Einstein's early work. She was the only woman in her >mathematics and physics class at the Zurich Polytechnic, and evidence >suggests she assisted Albert with complex calculations for his papers, >which he reportedly acknowledged by saying she "solves all my >mathematical problems". > > >So, my question >"Okay, which part did his wife wrote?" > >the answer has to be the Math part. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mileva_Mari%C4%87#:~:text=Her%20highest%20grades%20were%20in,mathematics%20lectures%20as%20an%20auditor. -- 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 | 2025-11-23 12:06 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <n8q6ik1u99veo4om35i9dib012e3umkdmb@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #667476 |
On Sun, 23 Nov 2025 11:41:59 -0800, The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >On Sun, 23 Nov 2025 11:33:19 -0800, The Starmaker ><starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > >>On Sun, 23 Nov 2025 11:28:48 -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. >>> >>> >>>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. >> >> >>Yes, "Einstein-Marity" (Mileva Maric) was a talented mathematician and >>physicist who was a highly intelligent student and a key figure in >>Albert Einstein's early work. She was the only woman in her >>mathematics and physics class at the Zurich Polytechnic, and evidence >>suggests she assisted Albert with complex calculations for his papers, >>which he reportedly acknowledged by saying she "solves all my >>mathematical problems". >> >> >>So, my question >>"Okay, which part did his wife wrote?" >> >>the answer has to be the Math part. > >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mileva_Mari%C4%87#:~:text=Her%20highest%20grades%20were%20in,mathematics%20lectures%20as%20an%20auditor. In the shadow of Albert Einstein: the tragic life of Mileva Einstein-Maric, Desanka Trbuhovic-Gjuric (1969/1993: 79) claimed that the Russian physicist Abram Joffe, in his article ‘In remembrance ofAlbert Einstein’, pointed out that the 1905 papers were originally signed ‘Einstein-Maric’. Following Trbuhovic-Gjuric, Evan Harris Walker wrote a letter to Physics Today, published in 1991, reiterating the claim. Walker claimed that, regarding the 1905 papers, Joffe noted that ‘Their author was Einstein-Mariti’ (Walker, 1991: 123). That phrase is Walker’s translation from an article of 1955 in Russian. Furthermore, Michele Zackheim, in her book Einstein’s daughter (1999: 19), stated that ‘Abram F. Joffe,aRussian scientist, wrote in Meetings with Physicists: my reminiscences of foreign physicists, that three original manuscripts, including the one describing the Special Theory of Relativity, were signed “Einstein-Marity”.’ Likewise, Bjerknes (2002: 195) stated that ‘Joffe (Ioffe) recounts that the paper was signed “Einstein-Marity”.’ Furthermore, in 2003 the claim that Joffe cited Maric’s name on the 1905 manuscripts was aired in the television programme, Einstein’s Wife.And, the companion website (see endnote 1) claims that ‘there is at least one printed report in which Joffe declared that he personally saw the names of two authors on the 1905 papers: Einstein and Marity’.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-24 10:21 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <moim1kFjg6cU5@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #667470 |
Am Sonntag000023, 23.11.2025 um 20:05 schrieb The Starmaker: > 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??? > I knew, of course, that Mileva Maric wrote some parts of that article. But actually I don't know, which parts she wrote. I personally thought, that Einstein didn't write any of those papers or articles, which bear his name. The reason to think so: Einstein wrote simply way too much in 1905 to be technically possible for a single person. He wrote actually four groundbraking articles in 1905 alone, from which one won him a Nobel Price. Besides of that and working fulltime at the Swiss patent office in Bern, he also wrote 20 reviews for 'Annalen der Physik'. That's more than a person could possibly do, even if he had no familily to care for (as Einstein had). So, my guess: 'Q' provided the papers and Einstein his smile. TH > 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 | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-25 00:42 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <10g2qhl$n06a$1@gwaiyur.mb-net.net> |
| In reply to | #667493 |
Thomas Heger wrote: > Am Sonntag000023, 23.11.2025 um 20:05 schrieb The Starmaker: >> On Sun, 23 Nov 2025 10:12:20 +0100, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> >> wrote: >>> His former wife looked nicer and was certainly smarter. By contrast to Einstein, who apparently could afford to miss lectures, (perhaps as a result of that) she did not pass her mathematics exam, though, and never finished her degree. When Einstein had graduated, and obtained the position at the Patent Office, she had hoped that after a year Einstein would get a promotion there, so that she could employ a nanny, and finally finish her doctoral thesis. He did not, and so she could not even then. She held that against him, and his negligence of her and the children in favor of his theoretical work, in combination with several affairs with other women (including eventually his cousin when he visited Berlin), eventually led to their divorce. You can learn much of that when you too visit the Einstein exhibition at the Historical Museum at Bern, near where I live. >>> But I don't know, which part of Einstein's papers she had actually written. >> >> She co-authord the 1905 paper. How is it possible you don't know >> that??? It is just a common myth that was propagated by some of Maric's relatives, claiming that when Einstein said or wrote "our work" he meant more than that she *at most* proofread the paper. > I knew, of course, that Mileva Maric wrote some parts of that article. There is no evidence of that. > The reason to think so: > > Einstein wrote simply way too much in 1905 to be technically possible > for a single person. That he submitted all of this in 1905 does not mean that he started writing it in 1905. Also, the last of the Annus Mirabilis papers, in which he derived the mass--energy equivalence, is rather short: it is only 3 pages. (Which you would have known if you had actually read it.) Finally, this is a specious argument. A person who has thought for a long time about these topics would be able to write them down within one year. (For example, typically you have one semester for writing a bachelor's thesis in Physics, during which you also still have to hear other lectures.) > He wrote actually four groundbraking articles in 1905 alone, from which > one won him a Nobel Price. It's Nobel _Prize_, and actually he published a lot more during that year. (As you can find out by searching the online archives of the "Annalen der Physik", for example.) > Besides of that and working fulltime at the Swiss patent office in Bern, You are mistaken there. He was *employed* there full-time, but he was able to delegate much of his work there to his friend Michele Besso, who happily did it for him instead to help him focus on his theories instead. Einstein had previously arranged for Besso to get basically the same job in the Office as Besso and his wife were expecting their first child, and Besso was in need of a good-paying job the same as Einstein was when Grossmann's father arranged for him to be exployed at the Office. One reason for Einstein doing that was this altruistic; the other was more selfish: calling Besso in a letter "the best sounding board in all of Europe", he wanted to have Besso at this side to discuss his own ideas with Besso (as they did when they studied together in Zürich). > he also wrote 20 reviews for 'Annalen der Physik'. He did not write *for* that (as if he was employed), but he wrote those reviews and submitted them *to* that, where they were eventually published. (Either you do not know that "Annalen der Physik" is a scientific journal, or you do not know what a scientific journal is and how it works. Which one is it?) > That's more than a person could possibly do, even if he had no familily > to care for (as Einstein had). Einstein did not really spend much time with his family in that year or in general; he was mostly focused on his work, and let Maric look for the children instead. This was also expected of her by the social standards at the time; that she would study or have a career of her own was very uncommon, one other notable exception being Marie Curie. (Even the accomplished scientist Lise Meitner faced difficulties being seen as an equal when working with Otto Hahn, 10 years later, notwithstanding that eventually she also was a Jew in Nazi Germany.) > So, my guess: 'Q' provided the papers and Einstein his smile. :-D -- PointedEars Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-25 01:13 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <10g2sal$n28j$1@gwaiyur.mb-net.net> |
| In reply to | #667500 |
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Thomas Heger wrote:
>> Am Sonntag000023, 23.11.2025 um 20:05 schrieb The Starmaker:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Something is wrong with your newsreader configuration there. Also,
including more information than the author's name in an attribution line is
usually superfluous.
>> That's more than a person could possibly do, even if he had no familily
>> to care for (as Einstein had).
>
> Einstein did not really spend much time with his family in that year or in
> general; he was mostly focused on his work, and let Maric look for the
> children instead. [...]
look _after_
--
PointedEars
Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-24 22:45 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <injaikp0b3e1q1e898civnqoc2ipk2jd60@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #667493 |
On Mon, 24 Nov 2025 10:21:33 +0100, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote: >Am Sonntag000023, 23.11.2025 um 20:05 schrieb The Starmaker: >> 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??? >> > >I knew, of course, that Mileva Maric wrote some parts of that article. > >But actually I don't know, which parts she wrote. It's very simple...he is a word person, she is a number person. > >I personally thought, that Einstein didn't write any of those papers or >articles, which bear his name. > >The reason to think so: > >Einstein wrote simply way too much in 1905 to be technically possible >for a single person. > >He wrote actually four groundbraking articles in 1905 alone, from which >one won him a Nobel Price. > >Besides of that and working fulltime at the Swiss patent office in Bern, >he also wrote 20 reviews for 'Annalen der Physik'. goofing off fulltime at the Swiss patent office... he's a goof off. > >That's more than a person could possibly do, even if he had no familily >to care for (as Einstein had). > >So, my guess: 'Q' provided the papers and Einstein his smile. I don't recal Einstein smiling... > > >TH > >> 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. I get it. Jewish woman even today in Israel are not allowed to sit in front of the bus..men sit in front, women sit in the back...where they belong. -- 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 | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-27 08:09 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <moqbemFs0bkU9@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #667507 |
Am Dienstag000025, 25.11.2025 um 07:45 schrieb The Starmaker: > On Mon, 24 Nov 2025 10:21:33 +0100, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> > wrote: > >> Am Sonntag000023, 23.11.2025 um 20:05 schrieb The Starmaker: >>> 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??? >>> >> >> I knew, of course, that Mileva Maric wrote some parts of that article. >> >> But actually I don't know, which parts she wrote. > > > It's very simple...he is a word person, she is a number person. > > >> >> I personally thought, that Einstein didn't write any of those papers or >> articles, which bear his name. >> >> The reason to think so: >> >> Einstein wrote simply way too much in 1905 to be technically possible >> for a single person. >> >> He wrote actually four groundbraking articles in 1905 alone, from which >> one won him a Nobel Price. >> >> Besides of that and working fulltime at the Swiss patent office in Bern, >> he also wrote 20 reviews for 'Annalen der Physik'. > > goofing off fulltime at the Swiss patent office... > > he's a goof off. > >> >> That's more than a person could possibly do, even if he had no familily >> to care for (as Einstein had). >> >> So, my guess: 'Q' provided the papers and Einstein his smile. > > I don't recal Einstein smiling... Well, that's a point for you. My guess was, that Einstein was actually kind of (disinformation) agent. For instance I found, that his biography didn't make sense. For me Einstein wasn't a German, but a Swiss citizen from birth and possibly not even a Jew. More likely he was actually a Swiss Jesuit and belonged to the fraternity, commonly called the 'CIA of the vatican'. Therefore a few thigs didn't add up in his life, because these were actually lies. E.g. he was left behind alone in Munich, Germany, after his family moved to Pavia, Italy. There he lived next door to a Jesuit facility, but didn't go to school. Then he went alone to Aarau in Switzerland and attend school there. But since when have the Swiss allowed this? And then he went to ETH in Zurich, even if was allegedly stateless alien. Miraculusly he got Swiss citizenship later and subsequently a job in one of the few Swiss institutions, where secrecy is mandatory. This story is nonsense from start to finish, hence we need a proper assumption, which would make more sense. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-12 18:13 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <187751b378d3efae$3767853$2551467$c2365abb@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #667218 |
On 11/11/2025 8:58 PM, 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 > > 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), Newtonian mechanics is not Newtonian gravity, poor trash. And since when your moronic religion care about "feelings"? "A force is what makes a mass m accelerate at a. F = ma" Do you accelerate on orbit or not? > 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. In NG.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-12 21:56 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <10f2s8c$1ng05$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #667238 |
Den 12.11.2025 18:13, skrev Maciej Woźniak: > On 11/11/2025 8:58 PM, Paul.B.Andersen wrote: >> >> A force is what makes a mass m accelerate at a. F = ma >> > > "A force is what makes a mass m accelerate at a. F = ma" > Do you accelerate on orbit or not? > According to Newton, yes. According to Einstein, no. -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-12 22:31 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <18775fc506150cb6$6720573$2551467$c2365abb@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #667246 |
On 11/12/2025 9:56 PM, Paul.B.Andersen wrote: > Den 12.11.2025 18:13, skrev Maciej Woźniak: >> On 11/11/2025 8:58 PM, Paul.B.Andersen wrote: >>> >>> A force is what makes a mass m accelerate at a. F = ma >>> >> >> "A force is what makes a mass m accelerate at a. F = ma" >> Do you accelerate on orbit or not? >> > According to Newton, yes. > According to Einstein, no. So, according to your mumbling guru - (the second derivative of position in time) of an Earth satellite - is 0. Right, poor trash? >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-13 12:10 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <10f4e9r$23h5g$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #667247 |
Den 12.11.2025 22:31, skrev Maciej Woźniak: > On 11/12/2025 9:56 PM, Paul.B.Andersen wrote: >> Den 12.11.2025 18:13, skrev Maciej Woźniak: >>> On 11/11/2025 8:58 PM, Paul.B.Andersen wrote: >>>> >>>> A force is what makes a mass m accelerate at a. F = ma >>>> >>> >>> "A force is what makes a mass m accelerate at a. F = ma" >>> Do you accelerate on orbit or not? >>> >> According to Newton, yes. >> According to Einstein, no. > > So, according to your mumbling guru - (the second > derivative of position in time) of an Earth > satellite - is 0. Right, poor trash? > According to elementary math: The second derivative of the position of the satellite in the non-rotating Earth centred frame of reference (ECI) is a vector which is pointing towards the centre of the Earth with magnitude v²/r, where v is the satellite's orbital speed and r is the radius of the orbit. According to Newton this is the centripetal acceleration of the satellite, a = v²/r. But according to Einstein the proper acceleration of the satellite is a = F/m where m is the mass of the satellite and F is the force acting on it. Since no force is acting on an object in free-fall, the proper acceleration of the satellite is zero. ---- A wise person would learn from this, but you won't. Or will you? :-D -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-13 13:16 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <1877900cece40e5a$20567490$3040052$c2065a8b@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #667255 |
On 11/13/2025 12:10 PM, Paul.B.Andersen wrote: > Den 12.11.2025 22:31, skrev Maciej Woźniak: >> On 11/12/2025 9:56 PM, Paul.B.Andersen wrote: >>> Den 12.11.2025 18:13, skrev Maciej Woźniak: >>>> On 11/11/2025 8:58 PM, Paul.B.Andersen wrote: >>>>> >>>>> A force is what makes a mass m accelerate at a. F = ma >>>>> >>>> >>>> "A force is what makes a mass m accelerate at a. F = ma" >>>> Do you accelerate on orbit or not? >>>> >>> According to Newton, yes. >>> According to Einstein, no. >> >> So, according to your mumbling guru - (the second >> derivative of position in time) of an Earth >> satellite - is 0. Right, poor trash? >> > > According to elementary math: > The second derivative of the position of the satellite > in the non-rotating Earth centred frame of reference (ECI) > is a vector which is pointing towards the centre of the Earth > with magnitude v²/r, where v is the satellite's orbital speed > and r is the radius of the orbit. So, is it 0 or isn't it 0 according to your moronic religion? > > According to Newton this is the centripetal acceleration > of the satellite, a = v²/r. > > But according to Einstein the proper acceleration of the satellite > is a = F/m where m is the mass of the satellite and F is the force > acting on it. Since no force is acting on an object in free-fall, > the proper acceleration of the satellite is zero. If dv/dt is not 0 (or is it?) and "proper acceleration" of relativistic idiots is 0 - i guess acceleration is no longer dv/dt for relativistic idiots. Is it? Well, since a mumbling idiot postulated that shark must eat grass, because that's what "Laws of Nature" are - no wonder that a sheep became a "shark".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-13 22:56 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <10f5k5j$2f6p8$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #667256 |
Den 13.11.2025 13:16, skrev Maciej Woźniak: > On 11/13/2025 12:10 PM, Paul.B.Andersen wrote: >> Den 12.11.2025 22:31, skrev Maciej Woźniak: >>> On 11/12/2025 9:56 PM, Paul.B.Andersen wrote: >>>> Den 12.11.2025 18:13, skrev Maciej Woźniak: >>>>> On 11/11/2025 8:58 PM, Paul.B.Andersen wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> A force is what makes a mass m accelerate at a. F = ma >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> "A force is what makes a mass m accelerate at a. F = ma" >>>>> Do you accelerate on orbit or not? >>>>> >>>> According to Newton, yes. >>>> According to Einstein, no. >>> >>> So, according to your mumbling guru - (the second >>> derivative of position in time) of an Earth >>> satellite - is 0. Right, poor trash? >>> >> >> According to elementary math: >> The second derivative of the position of the satellite >> in the non-rotating Earth centred frame of reference (ECI) >> is a vector which is pointing towards the centre of the Earth >> with magnitude v²/r, where v is the satellite's orbital speed >> and r is the radius of the orbit. I will elaborate on this (there may be lurkers): In NM accelerations is not generally the second derivative of the position, it is the derivative of the velocity. That is because the position function P(t,x,y,z) is frame dependent. So the function P(t,x,y,z) will be different in different inertial frames. The velocity is also frame dependent, but the derivative of the velocity is the same in all frames. > > So, is it 0 or isn't it 0 according to > your moronic religion? Why are you asking questions which are answered in the post you are responding to? >> >> According to Newton this is the centripetal acceleration >> of the satellite, a = v²/r. In this case, the position function _in the ECI frame_ is a circle, and its derivative is a velocity vector with constant magnitude and direction perpendicular to the position function, as explained above. >> >> But according to Einstein the proper acceleration of the satellite >> is a = F/m where m is the mass of the satellite and F is the force >> acting on it. Since no force is acting on an object in free-fall, >> the proper acceleration of the satellite is zero. > > > If dv/dt is not 0 (or is it?) and "proper acceleration" > of relativistic idiots is 0 - i guess acceleration > is no longer dv/dt for relativistic idiots. Is it? No, it isn't dv/dt. I will elaborate. In SR/GR "proper acceleration" is the acceleration measured in the rest frame. So there is no velocity to derivate, and the proper acceleration is as explained above. In GR, the acceleration is what an accelerometer shows. An accelerometer in free-fall will show zero acceleration, an accelerometer on the ground will show 9.81 m/s² acceleration upwards. Do you think the accelerometer shows this because GR says so, or do you think it has something to do with laws of nature? > > Well, since a mumbling idiot postulated that > shark must eat grass, because that's what > "Laws of Nature" are - no wonder that a sheep > became a "shark". > Yes, I know. You understand nothing, and can't respond with anything but nonsense. -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-14 07:48 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <1877ccc739c2f807$3875448$2551467$c2365abb@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #667278 |
On 11/13/2025 10:56 PM, Paul.B.Andersen wrote: > Den 13.11.2025 13:16, skrev Maciej Woźniak: >> On 11/13/2025 12:10 PM, Paul.B.Andersen wrote: >>> Den 12.11.2025 22:31, skrev Maciej Woźniak: >>>> On 11/12/2025 9:56 PM, Paul.B.Andersen wrote: >>>>> Den 12.11.2025 18:13, skrev Maciej Woźniak: >>>>>> On 11/11/2025 8:58 PM, Paul.B.Andersen wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> A force is what makes a mass m accelerate at a. F = ma >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> "A force is what makes a mass m accelerate at a. F = ma" >>>>>> Do you accelerate on orbit or not? >>>>>> >>>>> According to Newton, yes. >>>>> According to Einstein, no. >>>> >>>> So, according to your mumbling guru - (the second >>>> derivative of position in time) of an Earth >>>> satellite - is 0. Right, poor trash? >>>> >>> >>> According to elementary math: >>> The second derivative of the position of the satellite >>> in the non-rotating Earth centred frame of reference (ECI) >>> is a vector which is pointing towards the centre of the Earth >>> with magnitude v²/r, where v is the satellite's orbital speed >>> and r is the radius of the orbit. > > I will elaborate on this (there may be lurkers): > In NM accelerations is not generally the second derivative of > the position, it is the derivative of the velocity. > > That is because the position function P(t,x,y,z) is frame > dependent. So the function P(t,x,y,z) will be different > in different inertial frames. > The velocity is also frame dependent, but the derivative > of the velocity is the same in all frames. > >> >> So, is it 0 or isn't it 0 according to >> your moronic religion? > > Why are you asking questions which are answered in the post > you are responding to? Because you're always trying to avoid the direct answer and replace it with something twisted and vague, as expected from a piece of lying shit you are >>> >>> But according to Einstein the proper acceleration of the satellite >>> is a = F/m where m is the mass of the satellite and F is the force >>> acting on it. Since no force is acting on an object in free-fall, >>> the proper acceleration of the satellite is zero. >> >> >> If dv/dt is not 0 (or is it?) and "proper acceleration" >> of relativistic idiots is 0 - i guess acceleration >> is no longer dv/dt for relativistic idiots. Is it? > > No, it isn't dv/dt. Sure, why would acceleration be - the change of speed in time? That it should be is an obvious common sense prejudice, refuted by a mumbling idiot and zillions of experiments. Thus, since a mumbling idiot postulated that shark must eat grass, because that's what "Laws of Nature" are - no wonder that a sheep became a "shark".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-14 12:15 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <10f72vn$2pr9i$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #667285 |
Den 14.11.2025 07:48, skrev Maciej Woźniak: > On 11/13/2025 10:56 PM, Paul.B.Andersen wrote: >> Den 13.11.2025 13:16, skrev Maciej Woźniak: >>> On 11/13/2025 12:10 PM, Paul.B.Andersen wrote: >>>> >>>> But according to Einstein the proper acceleration of the satellite >>>> is a = F/m where m is the mass of the satellite and F is the force >>>> acting on it. Since no force is acting on an object in free-fall, >>>> the proper acceleration of the satellite is zero. >>> If dv/dt is not 0 (or is it?) and "proper acceleration" >>> of relativistic idiots is 0 - i guess acceleration >>> is no longer dv/dt for relativistic idiots. Is it? >> No, it isn't dv/dt. Any particular reason why you snipped the following? I will elaborate. In SR/GR "proper acceleration" is the acceleration measured in the rest frame (Momentarily co-moving inertial frame). So there is no velocity to derivate, and the proper acceleration is as explained above. In GR, the acceleration is what an accelerometer shows. An accelerometer in free-fall will show zero acceleration, an accelerometer on the ground will show 9.81 m/s² acceleration upwards. > > Sure, why would acceleration be - the change of > speed in time? That it should be is an obvious > common sense prejudice, refuted by a mumbling > idiot and zillions of experiments. Why do you think accelerometers show what GR says, and not what your common sense say it should show? Could it be that GR is more in accordance with the laws of nature than is your prejudiced common sense? ----------------------- > Thus, since a mumbling idiot postulated that > shark must eat grass, because that's what > "Laws of Nature" are - no wonder that a sheep > became a "shark". > Yes, I know. You understand nothing, and can't respond with anything but nonsense. -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Cleveland Balabaev <aave@nnal.ru> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-14 11:36 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10f7486$2q72t$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #667286 |
Paul.B.Andersen wrote: > Den 14.11.2025 07:48, skrev Maciej Woźniak: >>> No, it isn't dv/dt. > > Any particular reason why you snipped the following? > > I will elaborate. > In SR/GR "proper acceleration" is the acceleration measured in the rest > frame (Momentarily co-moving inertial frame). > So there is no velocity to derivate, and the proper acceleration is as > explained above. insignificant. Here's the best video on internet recently. Fuck youuu, and your propaganda war liberal sack of shit, democracy my ass. That's how you destroy pipelines, countries and so on. 𝗖𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗲𝘀𝗲_𝗽𝗲𝗼𝗽𝗹𝗲_𝗮𝗿𝗲_𝘄𝗮𝗸𝗶𝗻𝗴_𝘂𝗽_𝘁𝗼_𝘁𝗵𝗲_𝘁𝗿𝘂𝘁𝗵𝘀_𝗼𝗳_𝘁𝗵𝗲_𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗹𝗱_ https://b%69%74%63%68%75te.com/v%69%64%65o/mKOWyZm74JaF
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-14 13:37 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <1877dfc65fbb72fc$6792150$2551467$c2365abb@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #667286 |
On 11/14/2025 12:15 PM, Paul.B.Andersen wrote: > Den 14.11.2025 07:48, skrev Maciej Woźniak: >> On 11/13/2025 10:56 PM, Paul.B.Andersen wrote: >>> Den 13.11.2025 13:16, skrev Maciej Woźniak: >>>> On 11/13/2025 12:10 PM, Paul.B.Andersen wrote: >>>>> >>>>> But according to Einstein the proper acceleration of the satellite >>>>> is a = F/m where m is the mass of the satellite and F is the force >>>>> acting on it. Since no force is acting on an object in free-fall, >>>>> the proper acceleration of the satellite is zero. > >>>> If dv/dt is not 0 (or is it?) and "proper acceleration" >>>> of relativistic idiots is 0 - i guess acceleration >>>> is no longer dv/dt for relativistic idiots. Is it? > >>> No, it isn't dv/dt. > > Any particular reason why you snipped the following? > > I will elaborate. > In SR/GR "proper acceleration" is the acceleration measured > in the rest frame (Momentarily co-moving inertial frame). > So there is no velocity to derivate, and the proper acceleration is as > explained above. > > In GR, the acceleration is what an accelerometer shows. And a shark is what eats grass - because I have a theory of sharks eating grass. Why not? Why would acceleration be - the change of speed in time? That it should be is an obvious common sense prejudice, refuted by a mumbling idiot and zillions of experiments.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-15 15:27 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <10fa2jc$3hhvh$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #667289 |
Den 14.11.2025 13:37, skrev Maciej Woźniak: > On 11/14/2025 12:15 PM, Paul.B.Andersen wrote: >> >> Any particular reason why you snipped the following? >> >> I will elaborate. >> In SR/GR "proper acceleration" is the acceleration measured >> in the rest frame (Momentarily co-moving inertial frame). >> So there is no velocity to derivate, and the proper acceleration is as >> explained above. >> >> In GR, the acceleration is what an accelerometer shows. > > > And a shark is what eats grass - because I have > a theory of sharks eating grass. Why not? > Why would acceleration be - the change of > speed in time? That it should be is an obvious > common sense prejudice, refuted by a mumbling > idiot and zillions of experiments. > > Why are you responding to a post when you address nothing in it? Try again? Or are you admitting that the following is beyond your abilities? ------- In SR/GR "proper acceleration" is the acceleration measured in the rest frame (Momentarily co-moving inertial frame). So there is no velocity to derivate, and the proper acceleration is as explained above. According to GR the proper acceleration of the satellite is a = F/m where m is the mass of the satellite and F is the force acting on it. Since no force is acting on an object in free-fall, the proper acceleration of the satellite is zero. According to GR the proper acceleration of an object on the ground is 9.81 m/s² upwards. In GR, the acceleration is what an accelerometer shows. An accelerometer in free-fall will show zero acceleration, an accelerometer on the ground will show 9.81 m/s² acceleration upwards. Why do you think accelerometers show what GR says, and not what your common sense say it should show? Could it be that GR is more in accordance with the laws of nature than is your prejudiced common sense? -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-15 16:05 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <18783670545a9f41$4045657$2551467$c2365abb@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #667304 |
On 11/15/2025 3:27 PM, Paul.B.Andersen wrote: > Den 14.11.2025 13:37, skrev Maciej Woźniak: >> On 11/14/2025 12:15 PM, Paul.B.Andersen wrote: >>> >>> Any particular reason why you snipped the following? >>> >>> I will elaborate. >>> In SR/GR "proper acceleration" is the acceleration measured >>> in the rest frame (Momentarily co-moving inertial frame). >>> So there is no velocity to derivate, and the proper acceleration is >>> as explained above. >>> >>> In GR, the acceleration is what an accelerometer shows. >> >> >> And a shark is what eats grass - because I have >> a theory of sharks eating grass. Why not? >> Why would acceleration be - the change of >> speed in time? That it should be is an obvious >> common sense prejudice, refuted by a mumbling >> idiot and zillions of experiments. >> >> > > Why are you responding to a post when you address nothing in it? > > Try again? > Or are you admitting that the following is beyond your abilities? > > ------- > > In SR/GR "proper acceleration" is the acceleration measured Sure, and in a theory of sharks eating grass a shark is what eats grass.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 6 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web