Approximately 300,000 km/s With Respect To What?

[amirjf nin]

Approximately 300,000 km/s with respect to what?

How about the local/dominant gravitational field?

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by amirjf nin
Approximately 300,000 km/s with respect to what?

With respect to everything. It is a universal speed,
inherent in the space-time we live in.
That is the whole point of special relativity.

Post by amirjf nin
How about the local/dominant gravitational field?

There is no such thing as a gravitational field in GR,
only in approximations to it,

Jan

[Wilton Bekhteev]

Post by amirjf nin
Approximately 300,000 km/s with respect to what?

With respect to everything. It is a universal speed, inherent in the
space-time we live in.
That is the whole point of special relativity.

Post by amirjf nin
How about the local/dominant gravitational field?

There is no such thing as a gravitational field in GR,
only in approximations to it, Jan

this guy dont undrestand tensors. Of course it is. That's exactly what
those tensors stands for Guv=Tuv. Blyat..

𝗞𝗵𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗼𝗻_𝗱𝗶𝗿𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻._𝗥𝗙_𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗹𝗹𝗶𝗴𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲_𝗽𝗶𝗰𝗸𝗲𝗱_𝘂𝗽_𝘁𝗵𝗲_𝗲𝗻𝗲𝗺𝘆'𝘀_𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗺𝗮𝗻𝗱_𝗽𝗼𝘀𝘁_𝗮𝗻𝗱_𝘀𝗺𝗮𝘀𝗵𝗲𝗱_𝗶𝘁
https://old.b%69%74%63%68%75te.com/%76%69%64eo/CvpcAlAjih25

𝗩𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗼_𝗰𝗹𝗮𝗶𝗺𝘀_𝗣𝗼𝗹𝗶𝘀𝗵_𝗯𝗹𝗼𝗰𝗸𝗶𝗻𝗴_𝗱𝗲𝘁𝗮𝗰𝗵𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁_𝗲𝘅𝗲𝗰𝘂𝘁𝗲𝘀_𝘂𝗻𝘄𝗼𝗿𝘁𝗵𝘆_𝗔𝗙𝗨
https://old.b%69%74%63%68%75te.com/%76%69%64eo/ZuNmGynEO0qP

𝗖𝗹𝗮𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗰_𝗰𝗹𝗶𝗽__𝗨𝗸𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗶𝗮𝗻_𝗮𝗿𝗺𝗲𝗱_𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗰𝗲𝘀_𝗽𝗮𝗰𝗸_𝗵𝗲𝗮𝘃𝘆_𝗴𝗲𝗮𝗿_-_𝗡𝗔𝗧𝗢_𝘀𝘂𝗽𝗽𝗹𝗶𝗲𝘀_𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗺_𝘄𝗲𝗹𝗹
https://old.b%69%74%63%68%75te.com/%76%69%64eo/GcPxfpzmyRPB

𝗗𝗼𝘂𝗴𝗹𝗮𝘀_𝗠𝗮𝗰𝗴𝗿𝗲𝗴𝗼𝗿
https://old.b%69%74%63%68%75te.com/%76%69%64eo/bG0RLZNuXX9u

𝗘𝘂𝗿𝗼𝗽𝗲𝗮𝗻_𝗣𝗮𝗿𝗹𝗶𝗮𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁_𝗖𝗼𝗿𝗿𝘂𝗽𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻_𝗘𝗫𝗣𝗢𝗦𝗘𝗗 they like war
https://old.b%69%74%63%68%75te.com/%76%69%64eo/d584X6skD2U

[bertietaylor @novabbs.com (bertietaylor)]

Post by amirjf nin
Approximately 300,000 km/s with respect to what?

With respect to the transmitter speed and position.
Speed of light transmitted from a reference frame moving at v km/sec is
300000 +v.

Post by amirjf nin
How about the local/dominant gravitational field?

Irrelevant.
Planets move and light goes straight. We measure from the moving planet
so light SEEMS to get bent therefore APPARENTLY but NOT CORRECTLY
"proving" the BUNKUM theories of relativity.

Bertietaylor

[Maciej Wozniak]

Post by bertietaylor @novabbs.com (bertietaylor)

Post by amirjf nin
Approximately 300,000 km/s with respect to what?

With respect to the transmitter speed and position.
Speed of light transmitted from a reference frame moving at v km/sec is
300000 +v.

Post by amirjf nin
How about the local/dominant gravitational field?

Irrelevant.
Planets move and light goes straight. We measure from the moving planet
so light SEEMS to get bent therefore APPARENTLY but NOT CORRECTLY
"proving" the BUNKUM theories of relativity.

Oh, but according to The Shit light SHOULD go straight.
Poor relativistic doggies see bent light - because they're
not really stupid enough to stick to the moronic schema
of their idiot guru. Their minds are simply still
polluted with Euclidean prejudices...

Post by bertietaylor @novabbs.com (bertietaylor)
Bertietaylor

[bertietaylor]

Post by Maciej Wozniak

Post by bertietaylor @novabbs.com (bertietaylor)

Post by amirjf nin
Approximately 300,000 km/s with respect to what?

With respect to the transmitter speed and position.
Speed of light transmitted from a reference frame moving at v km/sec is
300000 +v.

Post by amirjf nin
How about the local/dominant gravitational field?

Irrelevant.
Planets move and light goes straight. We measure from the moving planet
so light SEEMS to get bent therefore APPARENTLY but NOT CORRECTLY
"proving" the BUNKUM theories of relativity.

Oh, but according to The Shit light SHOULD go straight.

It does.

Post by Maciej Wozniak
Poor relativistic doggies see bent light - because they're
not really stupid enough to stick to the moronic schema
of their idiot guru. Their minds are simply still
polluted with Euclidean prejudices...

Euclid and Newton are correct.

Post by Maciej Wozniak

Post by bertietaylor @novabbs.com (bertietaylor)
Bertietaylor

[Maciej Wozniak]

Post by bertietaylor

Post by Maciej Wozniak

Post by bertietaylor @novabbs.com (bertietaylor)

Post by amirjf nin
Approximately 300,000 km/s with respect to what?

With respect to the transmitter speed and position.
Speed of light transmitted from a reference frame moving at v km/sec is
300000 +v.

Post by amirjf nin
How about the local/dominant gravitational field?

Irrelevant.
Planets move and light goes straight. We measure from the moving planet
so light SEEMS to get bent therefore APPARENTLY but NOT CORRECTLY
"proving" the BUNKUM theories of relativity.

Oh, but according to The Shit light SHOULD go straight.

It does.

Seen stupider axioms, but not many of them.

Post by bertietaylor

Post by Maciej Wozniak
Poor relativistic doggies see bent light - because they're
not really stupid enough to stick to the moronic schema
of their  idiot guru. Their minds are simply still
polluted  with Euclidean prejudices...

Euclid and Newton are correct.

Post by Maciej Wozniak

Post by bertietaylor @novabbs.com (bertietaylor)
Bertietaylor

[bertietaylor]

Post by Maciej Wozniak

Post by bertietaylor

Post by Maciej Wozniak

Post by bertietaylor @novabbs.com (bertietaylor)

Post by amirjf nin
Approximately 300,000 km/s with respect to what?

With respect to the transmitter speed and position.
Speed of light transmitted from a reference frame moving at v km/sec is
300000 +v.

Post by amirjf nin
How about the local/dominant gravitational field?

Irrelevant.
Planets move and light goes straight. We measure from the moving planet
so light SEEMS to get bent therefore APPARENTLY but NOT CORRECTLY
"proving" the BUNKUM theories of relativity.

Oh, but according to The Shit light SHOULD go straight.

It does.

Seen stupider axioms, but not many of them.

Anything straight looks crooked to those crooked.
No greater crooks than the e=mcc ullulating pullulating polluting
parasites: physicists, professors, politicians, plutocrats, pimps,
presstitutes and prostitutes.

Post by Maciej Wozniak

Post by bertietaylor

Post by Maciej Wozniak
Poor relativistic doggies see bent light - because they're
not really stupid enough to stick to the moronic schema
of their  idiot guru. Their minds are simply still
polluted  with Euclidean prejudices...

Euclid and Newton are correct.

Post by Maciej Wozniak

Post by bertietaylor @novabbs.com (bertietaylor)
Bertietaylor

[Mikko]

Post by amirjf nin
Approximately 300,000 km/s with respect to what?

Whenever the speec of something is measured it is measured with respect
to someting else. The report should make clear what is the reference that
is considered stationary. Usually it is the instruments used in the
measurement, and usually but not always they are at rest with restpect to
Earth surface at the place of the measurement.

Sometimes numbers with units of speed are used for other purposes instead
of speed, for example in E = mc², where c has units of speed. In those cases
the question need not be asked.

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by Mikko

Post by amirjf nin
Approximately 300,000 km/s with respect to what?

Whenever the speec of something is measured it is measured with respect
to someting else. The report should make clear what is the reference that
is considered stationary. Usually it is the instruments used in the
measurement, and usually but not always they are at rest with restpect to
Earth surface at the place of the measurement.

You really need to have a look at what and how is actually measured,
instead of elaborating your own ideas of measurement.

FYI, in the precision 'speed of light' measurements
that preceded the abolition of the meter in 1983
physicists measured the frequency of a standing wave.
This is a proper measurement in a proper frame,
yielding an obviously dimensionless number.
(a world scalar of course, being the same in every proper frame.)
It does not involve something going from somewhere.

Post by Mikko
Sometimes numbers with units of speed are used for other purposes instead
of speed, for example in E = mc?, where c has units of speed. In those cases
the question need not be asked.

Standard error: speed does not -have- a unit.
(except for high school kiddies)
Conversely, 'm/s' is not -a property- of the physical quantity 'speed',
You suffer from misconceptions induced by an 'SI-only' education,

Jan

[Maciej Wozniak]

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Mikko

Post by amirjf nin
Approximately 300,000 km/s with respect to what?

Whenever the speec of something is measured it is measured with respect
to someting else. The report should make clear what is the reference that
is considered stationary. Usually it is the instruments used in the
measurement, and usually but not always they are at rest with restpect to
Earth surface at the place of the measurement.

You really need to have a look at what and how is actually measured,
instead of elaborating your own ideas of measurement.
FYI, in the precision 'speed of light' measurements
that preceded the abolition of the meter in 1983
physicists measured the frequency of a standing wave.
This is a proper measurement in a proper frame,
yielding an obviously dimensionless number.
(a world scalar of course, being the same in every proper frame.)
It does not involve something going from somewhere.

Post by Mikko
Sometimes numbers with units of speed are used for other purposes instead
of speed, for example in E = mc?, where c has units of speed. In those cases
the question need not be asked.

Standard error: speed does not -have- a unit.

Yeah - that's what The Shit is making to
the brains of its victims.

[Mikko]

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Mikko

Post by amirjf nin
Approximately 300,000 km/s with respect to what?

Whenever the speec of something is measured it is measured with respect
to someting else. The report should make clear what is the reference that
is considered stationary. Usually it is the instruments used in the
measurement, and usually but not always they are at rest with restpect to
Earth surface at the place of the measurement.

You really need to have a look at what and how is actually measured,
instead of elaborating your own ideas of measurement.

Yes, that is a correct interpretation of my words. Of course, what and
how is not alwasys the same so you need to look at thar separately for
each measurement.

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by Mikko

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Mikko

Post by amirjf nin
Approximately 300,000 km/s with respect to what?

Whenever the speec of something is measured it is measured with respect
to someting else. The report should make clear what is the reference that
is considered stationary. Usually it is the instruments used in the
measurement, and usually but not always they are at rest with restpect to
Earth surface at the place of the measurement.

You really need to have a look at what and how is actually measured,
instead of elaborating your own ideas of measurement.

Yes, that is a correct interpretation of my words. Of course, what and
how is not alwasys the same so you need to look at thar separately for
each measurement.

The first electromagnetic measurement of the 'speed of light',
by Weber and Kohlrausch, didn't involve any velocity at all.
They pointed the way for Maxwell.

Maxwell's equations [1] likewise have a c in them
but no velocity,

Jan

[1] In Heaviside-Lorentz units for example.

[Mikko]

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Mikko

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Mikko

Post by amirjf nin
Approximately 300,000 km/s with respect to what?

Whenever the speec of something is measured it is measured with respect
to someting else. The report should make clear what is the reference that
is considered stationary. Usually it is the instruments used in the
measurement, and usually but not always they are at rest with restpect to
Earth surface at the place of the measurement.

You really need to have a look at what and how is actually measured,
instead of elaborating your own ideas of measurement.

Yes, that is a correct interpretation of my words. Of course, what and
how is not alwasys the same so you need to look at thar separately for
each measurement.

The first electromagnetic measurement of the 'speed of light',
by Weber and Kohlrausch, didn't involve any velocity at all.
They pointed the way for Maxwell.
Maxwell's equations [1] likewise have a c in them
but no velocity,
Jan
[1] In Heaviside-Lorentz units for example.

One may even regard c as the conversion factor between meters and seoonds
just like 25,4 is the conversion factor between metric inches and meters.

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by Mikko

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Mikko

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Mikko

Post by amirjf nin
Approximately 300,000 km/s with respect to what?

Whenever the speec of something is measured it is measured with respect
to someting else. The report should make clear what is the reference that
is considered stationary. Usually it is the instruments used in the
measurement, and usually but not always they are at rest with restpect to
Earth surface at the place of the measurement.

You really need to have a look at what and how is actually measured,
instead of elaborating your own ideas of measurement.

Yes, that is a correct interpretation of my words. Of course, what and
how is not alwasys the same so you need to look at thar separately for
each measurement.

The first electromagnetic measurement of the 'speed of light',
by Weber and Kohlrausch, didn't involve any velocity at all.
They pointed the way for Maxwell.
Maxwell's equations [1] likewise have a c in them
but no velocity,
Jan
[1] In Heaviside-Lorentz units for example.

One may even regard c as the conversion factor between meters and seoonds
just like 25,4 is the conversion factor between metric inches and meters.

Yes, it is as fundamental as 12 inch to the foot,

Jan

[Thomas Heger]

Post by Mikko

Post by amirjf nin
Approximately 300,000 km/s with respect to what?

Whenever the speec of something is measured it is measured with respect
to someting else. The report should make clear what is the reference that
is considered stationary. Usually it is the instruments used in the
measurement, and usually but not always they are at rest with restpect to
Earth surface at the place of the measurement.

'Stationary' can be understood as 'not moving' and that as 'having
velocity zero'.

But velocity would require a reference point, in respect to which the
object does not move.

But what was actually Einstein's reference, in respect to which velocity
v was measured.

Usually we could take 'the universe' as kind of background and Newton's
absolute space as reference.

But this wasn't possible, because Einstein had explicitly excluded
Newton's absolute space.

But if not that space, then what else could you take?

I suggested the following concept:

the observer always takes the own position and assumes, that would not move.

This assumption is wrong, of course.

But what else could you take???


TH

[Richard Hachel]

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Mikko

Post by amirjf nin
Approximately 300,000 km/s with respect to what?

Whenever the speec of something is measured it is measured with respect
to someting else. The report should make clear what is the reference that
is considered stationary. Usually it is the instruments used in the
measurement, and usually but not always they are at rest with restpect to
Earth surface at the place of the measurement.

'Stationary' can be understood as 'not moving' and that as 'having
velocity zero'.
But velocity would require a reference point, in respect to which the
object does not move.
But what was actually Einstein's reference, in respect to which velocity
v was measured.
Usually we could take 'the universe' as kind of background and Newton's
absolute space as reference.
But this wasn't possible, because Einstein had explicitly excluded
Newton's absolute space.
But if not that space, then what else could you take?
the observer always takes the own position and assumes, that would not move.
This assumption is wrong, of course.
But what else could you take? ? ?
TH

“For any given observer, even in a uniformly accelerated frame of
reference, even in a rotating frame of reference, proper motion does not
exist.”
Everything always happens as if it were the universe that was moving in
relation to it. Let's take the example of a man finding himself in the
wind, he is not moving, it is the atmospheric universe which is moving in
relation to him, and if he is hit by a tile, it is, for him, the tile that
hits him. In accelerated frames of reference, the same is true, even if it
may seem counterintuitive: it is not the plane which accelerates, but the
air which accelerates relative to the plane,
it doesn't matter who really "pushes" the other, or who really acts in
relation to the other.

R.H.

[Mikko]

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Mikko

Post by amirjf nin
Approximately 300,000 km/s with respect to what?

Whenever the speec of something is measured it is measured with respect
to someting else. The report should make clear what is the reference that
is considered stationary. Usually it is the instruments used in the
measurement, and usually but not always they are at rest with restpect to
Earth surface at the place of the measurement.

'Stationary' can be understood as 'not moving' and that as 'having
velocity zero'.

Yes, that is what the word means.

Post by Thomas Heger
But velocity would require a reference point, in respect to which the
object does not move.

That gives you a revefernce point: the object does not move in respect to
itself.

Post by Thomas Heger
But what was actually Einstein's reference, in respect to which
velocity v was measured.

Einstein did not measure velocity v.

[Thomas Heger]

Post by Mikko

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Mikko

Post by amirjf nin
Approximately 300,000 km/s with respect to what?

Whenever the speec of something is measured it is measured with respect
to someting else. The report should make clear what is the reference that
is considered stationary. Usually it is the instruments used in the
measurement, and usually but not always they are at rest with restpect to
Earth surface at the place of the measurement.

'Stationary' can be understood as 'not moving' and that as 'having
 velocity zero'.

Yes, that is what the word means.

Post by Thomas Heger
But velocity would require a reference point, in respect to which the
object does not move.

That gives you a revefernce point: the object does not move in respect to
itself.

Actually I have used this setting in my 'book' and declared, that all
observers regard themselves as non-moving.

This is possible, if all inertial reference frames are of equal rights.

I can therefore use this setting, because it makes some sense and is
allowed.

BUT: if the observer does not move, how could he possibly reach v=c???

So I turned the 'twin paradox' upside down and applied it to the point
of origin (e.g. the Earth if a spacecraft starts from there).

...


TH

[Mikko]

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Mikko

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Mikko

Post by amirjf nin
Approximately 300,000 km/s with respect to what?

Whenever the speec of something is measured it is measured with respect
to someting else. The report should make clear what is the reference that
is considered stationary. Usually it is the instruments used in the
measurement, and usually but not always they are at rest with restpect to
Earth surface at the place of the measurement.

'Stationary' can be understood as 'not moving' and that as 'having
 velocity zero'.

Yes, that is what the word means.

Post by Thomas Heger
But velocity would require a reference point, in respect to which the
object does not move.

That gives you a revefernce point: the object does not move in respect to
itself.

Actually I have used this setting in my 'book' and declared, that all
observers regard themselves as non-moving.

That is possible but not always the best idea. In the real world an observer
often considers oneself as moving and someting else as stationary. Often
it is better to choose samething inertial for "statinary" when the observer
is not inertial.

[Maciej Wozniak]

Post by Mikko

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Mikko

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Mikko

Post by amirjf nin
Approximately 300,000 km/s with respect to what?

Whenever the speec of something is measured it is measured with respect
to someting else. The report should make clear what is the
reference that
is considered stationary. Usually it is the instruments used in the
measurement, and usually but not always they are at rest with restpect to
Earth surface at the place of the measurement.

'Stationary' can be understood as 'not moving' and that as 'having
 velocity zero'.

Yes, that is what the word means.

Post by Thomas Heger
But velocity would require a reference point, in respect to which
the object does not move.

That gives you a revefernce point: the object does not move in respect to
itself.

Actually I have used this setting in my 'book' and declared, that all
observers regard themselves as non-moving.

That is possible but not always the best idea. In the real world an observer
often considers oneself as moving and someting else as stationary.

But we can announce he is just a stupid crank,
not understanding the ingenious concepts of
our magnificient gurus - and ignore him.
Praise The Holy Symmetry!

[Thomas Heger]

Post by Mikko

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Mikko

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Mikko

Post by amirjf nin
Approximately 300,000 km/s with respect to what?

Whenever the speec of something is measured it is measured with respect
to someting else. The report should make clear what is the
reference that
is considered stationary. Usually it is the instruments used in the
measurement, and usually but not always they are at rest with restpect to
Earth surface at the place of the measurement.

'Stationary' can be understood as 'not moving' and that as 'having
 velocity zero'.

Yes, that is what the word means.

Post by Thomas Heger
But velocity would require a reference point, in respect to which
the object does not move.

That gives you a revefernce point: the object does not move in respect to
itself.

Actually I have used this setting in my 'book' and declared, that all
observers regard themselves as non-moving.

That is possible but not always the best idea. In the real world an observer
often considers oneself as moving and someting else as stationary. Often
it is better to choose samething inertial for "statinary" when the observer
is not inertial.

Sure, but 'non-inertial observers' where not included in SRT.

IOW: there is no acceleration in SRT, but only streigth steady movement
in a force free space.

The very word 'acceleration' was used by Einstein in 'On the
electrodynamics of moving bodies' only in connection with the electron
and not in any other relation.


TH

[Belvie Vassilopulos]

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Mikko
That is possible but not always the best idea. In the real world an
observer often considers oneself as moving and someting else as
stationary. Often it is better to choose samething inertial for
"statinary" when the observer is not inertial.

Sure, but 'non-inertial observers' where not included in SRT.
IOW: there is no acceleration in SRT, but only streigth steady movement
in a force free space.

ohh yes sure. There is no acceleration nor speed in SRT. They use speed to
emphasize 𝙩𝙝𝙚_𝙥𝙤𝙨𝙞𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣, since 𝙖𝙩_𝙖𝙣𝙮_𝙞𝙣𝙨𝙩𝙖𝙣𝙩_𝙤𝙛_𝙩𝙞𝙢𝙚 you have a position. Not an
acceleration, nor a speed.

𝗥𝗙𝗞_𝗝𝗿_𝗮𝗽𝗼𝗹𝗼𝗴𝗶𝘇𝗲𝘀_𝗳𝗼𝗿_𝗧𝗿𝘂𝗺𝗽_𝗹𝗲𝗮𝗸
https://www.r%74.com/news/601169-trump-rfk-phone-call/

There are millions of us in the United States that believe 100% that the
USA has already fallen. To keep this short I won't go into detail. But if
by some miracle President Trump survives and makes it back to the White
House we will stand down and see this play out. Red State secession is plan
B. The current situation in Washington is unbearable to the 65% of
Americans that want ties with DC cut...

Kennedy is the only one who knew what so called vaccination was all about.
Trump on the other hand was endorsing Fauci, Gates and other criminals.

too bad the Russians didn't catch that little worm when he went to 'fight'
in Ukraine

In other words, Trump isn't actually opposed to their vax.

Trump asked secret service to protect Kennedy, but only vaccinated
personnel... 😂🤣🤪

[Mikko]

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Mikko

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Mikko

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Mikko

Post by amirjf nin
Approximately 300,000 km/s with respect to what?

Whenever the speec of something is measured it is measured with respect
to someting else. The report should make clear what is the reference that
is considered stationary. Usually it is the instruments used in the
measurement, and usually but not always they are at rest with restpect to
Earth surface at the place of the measurement.

'Stationary' can be understood as 'not moving' and that as 'having
 velocity zero'.

Yes, that is what the word means.

Post by Thomas Heger
But velocity would require a reference point, in respect to which the
object does not move.

That gives you a revefernce point: the object does not move in respect to
itself.

Actually I have used this setting in my 'book' and declared, that all
observers regard themselves as non-moving.

That is possible but not always the best idea. In the real world an observer
often considers oneself as moving and someting else as stationary. Often
it is better to choose samething inertial for "statinary" when the observer
is not inertial.

Sure, but 'non-inertial observers' where not included in SRT.

Not intentionally but SRT can be used for calculations of what a non-inertial
observer would see.

Post by Thomas Heger
IOW: there is no acceleration in SRT, but only streigth steady movement
in a force free space.

There is. Acclerated motions can be described and analyzed with SRT. Electric
and magnetic fields discussed in "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" are
meaningful only by their affect on the acceleration of charged bodies.

Post by Thomas Heger
The very word 'acceleration' was used by Einstein in 'On the
electrodynamics of moving bodies' only in connection with the electron
and not in any other relation.

Because what at the time were called "electrons" were only bodies to which
electrodynamics is obviously relevant. It was even speculated that all matter
migh be only electrons (both positively and negatively charged so they would
stick together).

[Maciej Wozniak]

Post by Mikko

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Mikko

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Mikko

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Mikko

Post by amirjf nin
Approximately 300,000 km/s with respect to what?

Whenever the speec of something is measured it is measured with respect
to someting else. The report should make clear what is the reference that
is considered stationary. Usually it is the instruments used in the
measurement, and usually but not always they are at rest with restpect to
Earth surface at the place of the measurement.

'Stationary' can be understood as 'not moving' and that as 'having
 velocity zero'.

Yes, that is what the word means.

Post by Thomas Heger
But velocity would require a reference point, in respect to which
the object does not move.

That gives you a revefernce point: the object does not move in respect to
itself.

Actually I have used this setting in my 'book' and declared, that
all observers regard themselves as non-moving.

That is possible but not always the best idea. In the real world an observer
often considers oneself as moving and someting else as stationary. Often
it is better to choose samething inertial for "statinary" when the observer
is not inertial.

Sure, but 'non-inertial observers' where not included in SRT.

Not intentionally but SRT can be used for calculations of what a non-inertial
observer would see.

And, as anyone can check at GPS - the result
will have nothing in common with what a real
observer will really see.

[Thomas Heger]

Post by Mikko

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Mikko

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Mikko

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Mikko

Post by amirjf nin
Approximately 300,000 km/s with respect to what?

Whenever the speec of something is measured it is measured with respect
to someting else. The report should make clear what is the reference that
is considered stationary. Usually it is the instruments used in the
measurement, and usually but not always they are at rest with restpect to
Earth surface at the place of the measurement.

'Stationary' can be understood as 'not moving' and that as 'having
 velocity zero'.

Yes, that is what the word means.

Post by Thomas Heger
But velocity would require a reference point, in respect to which
the object does not move.

That gives you a revefernce point: the object does not move in respect to
itself.

Actually I have used this setting in my 'book' and declared, that
all observers regard themselves as non-moving.

That is possible but not always the best idea. In the real world an observer
often considers oneself as moving and someting else as stationary. Often
it is better to choose samething inertial for "statinary" when the observer
is not inertial.

Sure, but 'non-inertial observers' where not included in SRT.

Not intentionally but SRT can be used for calculations of what a non-inertial
observer would see.

Relativity is actually not a single paper, but a set of different theories.

'SRT' is usually used for Einstein's 'On the electrodynamics of moving
bodies'.

And this paper does not deal with accelerated frames of reference.

If you want to refer to something else, then please write to what paper
you want to refer.

I wrote about Einstein's paper.

This is based on streight lateral motion with constant velocity in a
force free space.


...


TH

[Mikko]

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Mikko

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Mikko

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Mikko

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Mikko

Post by amirjf nin
Approximately 300,000 km/s with respect to what?

Whenever the speec of something is measured it is measured with respect
to someting else. The report should make clear what is the reference that
is considered stationary. Usually it is the instruments used in the
measurement, and usually but not always they are at rest with restpect to
Earth surface at the place of the measurement.

'Stationary' can be understood as 'not moving' and that as 'having
 velocity zero'.

Yes, that is what the word means.

Post by Thomas Heger
But velocity would require a reference point, in respect to which the
object does not move.

That gives you a revefernce point: the object does not move in respect to
itself.

Actually I have used this setting in my 'book' and declared, that all
observers regard themselves as non-moving.

That is possible but not always the best idea. In the real world an observer
often considers oneself as moving and someting else as stationary. Often
it is better to choose samething inertial for "statinary" when the observer
is not inertial.

Sure, but 'non-inertial observers' where not included in SRT.

Not intentionally but SRT can be used for calculations of what a non-inertial
observer would see.

Relativity is actually not a single paper, but a set of different theories.
'SRT' is usually used for Einstein's 'On the electrodynamics of moving bodies'.
And this paper does not deal with accelerated frames of reference.

Inertial coordinate systems are the simplest to use. You may construct other
coordnate systems but they have no physical significance. Inertial coordinate
systems are sufficient for description and analysis of accelerated objects.
All that needs be known about the theory, as long as no consideration of
gravity is needed, can be found in "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies".

[Richard Hachel]

Post by Thomas Heger
Relativity is actually not a single paper, but a set of different theories.
'SRT' is usually used for Einstein's 'On the electrodynamics of moving
bodies'.
And this paper does not deal with accelerated frames of reference.
If you want to refer to something else, then please write to what paper
you want to refer.
I wrote about Einstein's paper.
This is based on streight lateral motion with constant velocity in a
force free space.
...

I think you are absolutely right: what we call today the theory of
relativity is more a conglomeration of different hypotheses given by
different physicists from all backgrounds and all nationalities, that is
to say an edifice built in a fairly polymorphous way.
I had already noticed this forty years ago, and for forty years, I tried
to bring all this together into a compact, logical, global, and very clear
theory to hold whole in the brain of a single man or 'only one student.
In short, something which holds simply, logically, and in one conceptual
piece, from Galilean frames of reference, to uniformly accelerated frames
of reference, including rotating frames of reference.
Very quickly, I realized the magnitude of the task for two reasons:
- the appearance of obvious problems in the formulations of physicists,
even if only to describe a simple Langevin, and the inability even today,
in 2024, incredibly, to describe a coherent relationship even if only by
passing in apparent speeds (what the two observers would see in their
telescope). And I'm not talking about the madness of the masters in
physics if we have to move on to more complicated frames of reference and
the invention of surreal things like that (reverse saddle geometry, or
fanciful integrations of relativistic time, etc...) .
- human madness and the navel-gazing of opponents (there, I don't even
need to explain).

However, we can give a complete and coherent theory using very simple
mathematics (no need to calculate an integral).
Special relativity is very simple. Mathematically at high school level
(16-18 years old). What makes it difficult is:
1. the understanding and genesis of the gamma factor by the logical
invariance of the speed of light in an anisochronous medium.
2. the reciprocity of relativistic effects by permutation of frames of
reference and in particular apparent effects on distances.
3. that if it is true that there is a dilation of times, by the simple
fact of the denominator present in the Poincaré-Lorentz transformations,
there is ALSO, by the same denominator a dilation of lengths and distances
( physicists confusing this general dilation with the observation of an
object passing transversely in the field of vision, and which actually
appears contracted in this position).

Einstein got it wrong when he said: “Relativity is very complex, but
there are no pitfalls.”
The opposite was true: “Relativity is a game for children or high school
students, but it’s full of little conceptual traps.”

Once you get rid of the bad concepts, all the equations become incredibly
simple.

And yet more beautiful and truer.


R.H.

[Python]

[snip idiotic nonsense]
Einstein got it wrong when he said: “Relativity is very complex, but
there are no pitfalls.”

This is a plain lie. Einstein never said nor wrote that.

[Richard Hachel]

Post by Python

Post by Richard Hachel
Einstein got it wrong when he said: “Relativity is very complex, but
there are no pitfalls.”

This is a plain lie. Einstein never said nor wrote that.

M'euh t'euh qu'un bouffon, t'euh qu'un guignol, tu ne sais rien du tout.

R.H.

[Thomas Heger]

Post by Richard Hachel

Post by Thomas Heger
Relativity is actually not a single paper, but a set of different theories.
'SRT' is usually used for Einstein's 'On the electrodynamics of moving
bodies'.
And this paper does not deal with accelerated frames of reference.
If you want to refer to something  else, then please write to what
paper you want to refer.
I wrote about Einstein's paper.
This is based on streight lateral motion with constant velocity in a
force free space.
...

I think you are absolutely right: what we call today the theory of
relativity is more a conglomeration of different hypotheses given by
different physicists from all backgrounds and all nationalities, that is
to say an edifice built in a fairly polymorphous way.
I had already noticed this forty years ago, and for forty years, I tried
to bring all this together into a compact, logical, global, and very
clear theory to hold whole in the brain of a single man or 'only one
student.

We have several other contributers like Poincare, Lorentz and cerainly a
lot of others.

But we have Einstein's paper and Einstein himself.

He got almost deified, even if his paper is full of errors.

To me this seems to be intentional and to the disadvantage of mankind.

Post by Richard Hachel
In short, something which holds simply, logically, and in one conceptual
piece, from Galilean frames of reference, to uniformly accelerated
frames of reference, including rotating frames of reference.
- the appearance of obvious problems in the formulations of physicists,
even if only to describe a simple Langevin, and the inability even
today, in 2024, incredibly, to describe a coherent relationship even if
only by passing in apparent speeds (what the two observers would see in
their telescope). And I'm not talking about the madness of the masters
in physics if we have to move on to more complicated frames of reference
and the invention of surreal things like that (reverse saddle geometry,
or fanciful integrations of relativistic time, etc...) .
- human madness and the navel-gazing of opponents (there, I don't even
need to explain).
However, we can give a complete and coherent theory using very simple
mathematics (no need to calculate an integral).
Special relativity is very simple. Mathematically at high school level
1. the understanding and genesis of the gamma factor by the logical
invariance of the speed of light in an anisochronous medium.
2. the reciprocity of relativistic effects by permutation of frames of
reference and in particular apparent effects on distances.
3. that if it is true that there is a dilation of times, by the simple
fact of the denominator present in the Poincaré-Lorentz transformations,
there is ALSO, by the same denominator a dilation of lengths and
distances ( physicists confusing this general dilation with the
observation of an object passing transversely in the field of vision,
and which actually appears contracted in this position).
Einstein got it wrong when he said: “Relativity is very complex, but
there are no pitfalls.”
The opposite was true: “Relativity is a game for children or high school
students, but it’s full of little conceptual traps.”
Once you get rid of the bad concepts, all the equations become
incredibly simple.
And yet more beautiful and truer.

Maybe you like my 'book':

https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing


TH

[Python]

Le 19/07/2024 à 12:22, Thomas Heger a écrit :
...

Post by Thomas Heger
But we have Einstein's paper and Einstein himself.
He got almost deified, even if his paper is full of errors.

There is no errors (except one that you missed). You list of errors
is only a expression of your ignorance and stupidity.

Post by Thomas Heger
To me this seems to be intentional and to the disadvantage of mankind.

Your existence is a disadvantage to mankind Thomas.

Post by Thomas Heger
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing

This is a bunch of nonsense.

[Richard Hachel]

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Richard Hachel
student.

We have several other contributers like Poincare, Lorentz and cerainly a
lot of others.
But we have Einstein's paper and Einstein himself.
He got almost deified, even if his paper is full of errors.
To me this seems to be intentional and to the disadvantage of mankind.

Yes, this seems to be intentional.

Il fallait déifier Einstein pour enfoncer Poincaré.

Le plus incroyable, c'est que les hommes y sont parvenus.

La même chose est arrivée avec Jésus-Christ :
Jésus-Christ est mort (idéologiquement) et il a été remplacé par
Saint Paul.

R.H.

[Python]

Post by Richard Hachel

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Richard Hachel
student.

We have several other contributers like Poincare, Lorentz and cerainly
a lot of others.
But we have Einstein's paper and Einstein himself.
He got almost deified, even if his paper is full of errors.
To me this seems to be intentional and to the disadvantage of mankind.

Yes, this seems to be intentional.
Il fallait déifier Einstein pour enfoncer Poincaré.

This is utterly stupid. Poincaré praised Einstein work, and he would
have loved GR.

Post by Richard Hachel
[snip irrelevancies]

You are mentally sick Richard.

[Maciej Wozniak]

Post by Python

Post by Richard Hachel

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Richard Hachel
student.

We have several other contributers like Poincare, Lorentz and
cerainly a lot of others.
But we have Einstein's paper and Einstein himself.
He got almost deified, even if his paper is full of errors.
To me this seems to be intentional and to the disadvantage of mankind.

Yes, this seems to be intentional.
Il fallait déifier Einstein pour enfoncer Poincaré.

This is utterly stupid. Poincaré praised Einstein work, and he would
have loved GR.

Bullshit. Poincare was a quite smart guy and
he has written directly what he would think about
rejecting basic [Euclidean] math - done by your
idiot guru some years after his death.

[Python]

Post by Maciej Wozniak

Post by Python

Post by Richard Hachel

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Richard Hachel
student.

We have several other contributers like Poincare, Lorentz and
cerainly a lot of others.
But we have Einstein's paper and Einstein himself.
He got almost deified, even if his paper is full of errors.
To me this seems to be intentional and to the disadvantage of mankind.

Yes, this seems to be intentional.
Il fallait déifier Einstein pour enfoncer Poincaré.

This is utterly stupid. Poincaré praised Einstein work, and he would
have loved GR.

Bullshit. Poincare was a quite smart guy and
he has written directly what he would think about
rejecting basic [Euclidean] math - done by your
idiot guru some years after his death.

Poincaré published a lot of work on Hyperbolic Geometry.

You are as ignorant as stupid, Wozniak.

[Maciej Wozniak]

Post by Python

Post by Maciej Wozniak

Post by Python

Post by Richard Hachel

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Richard Hachel
student.

We have several other contributers like Poincare, Lorentz and
cerainly a lot of others.
But we have Einstein's paper and Einstein himself.
He got almost deified, even if his paper is full of errors.
To me this seems to be intentional and to the disadvantage of mankind.

Yes, this seems to be intentional.
Il fallait déifier Einstein pour enfoncer Poincaré.

This is utterly stupid. Poincaré praised Einstein work, and he would
have loved GR.

Bullshit. Poincare was a quite smart guy and
he has written directly what he would think about
rejecting basic [Euclidean] math - done by your
idiot guru some years after his death.

Poincaré published a lot of work on Hyperbolic Geometry.

So he surely knew the subject - enough to
understand how idiotic the move of your
idiot guru would be, and to write it
directly.
Checked "science and hypothesis", poor
halfbrain?

Post by Python
You are as ignorant as stupid, Wozniak.

See, poor halfbrain - I've proven the mumble
of your idiot guru to be inconsistent, and
you can do nothing about it apart of spitting
and insulting. So you are spitting and
insulting, together with your fellow idiots.

[Richard Hachel]

Post by Python
You are as ignorant as stupid, Wozniak.

But not as much as the stinker python. :))

R.H.

[Thomas Heger]

Post by Richard Hachel

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Richard Hachel
student.

We have several other contributers like Poincare, Lorentz and cerainly
a lot of others.
But we have Einstein's paper and Einstein himself.
He got almost deified, even if his paper is full of errors.
To me this seems to be intentional and to the disadvantage of mankind.

Yes, this seems to be intentional.
Il fallait déifier Einstein pour enfoncer Poincaré.

What if this WAS actually intentional?

Who were the people behind this??

It must be an immense system, with tremendous wealth and power.

This is so because to make Einstein that popular would require a lot of
power and control of several different media.

The number of errors in einstein's paper is also extremely large, hence
that 'system' would need permanent control over large parts of science.

Also a mechanism for sanctions against dissidents would be useful.

But for what reasons would any system take such an amount of efforts???

Certainly something not very beneficial, because otherwise we would be
told about it.

TH

[Richard Hachel]

But for what reasons would any system take such an amount of efforts? ? ?

It's a good question.

What we can say is that between the Annexation of Alsace and Moselle by
Germany (1871), and until 1945, relations between Germany and France were
not looking good. It was an almost permanent military or psychological war
(three clashes) with global repercussions. Extreme powers were at stake.
Diesel, the German inventor of the engine of the same name, was found
floating in the Channel in 1913, probably eliminated by the English.

It is not normal that today, Albert Einstein has such great popularity
(the SR is not him, but the French; the RG, it is Grossmann and Hilbert),
the atomic bomb, he (he only knew Pouic, it was Oppenhaimer). This is
obviously voluntary.

Question: Who? For what? Which great power had an interest and still has
an interest in promoting Einstein (a useful idiot) rather than Poincaré
(the greatest mathematician in history, and the only one to have been able
to master the entirety of three sciences, mathematics, philosophy,
physics) ?

It's a good question.

Note that part of the answer consists of:
- Albert Eisntein was naturalized American.
- In his political will, François Mitterrand will say:
“France does not know it, but we are at war with America, a merciless
war, apparently without death, but a war to the death.”

François Mitterrand led France for 14 years, and he had the nuclear code.
When a man like that says things like that, we should at least open an
investigation.

Nobody ever talks about it.

As we never talk about who blew up the Nordstream which supplied France
and Germany with quality gas.
Hence, in part, the fall of the current European economy.
Who was annoyed that Europe bought gas from the Russians?
There are things you shouldn't talk about.

R.H.

[Python]

Post by Richard Hachel

But for what reasons would any system take such an amount of efforts? ? ?

It's a good question.
What we can say is that between the Annexation of Alsace and Moselle by
Germany (1871), and until 1945, relations between Germany and France
were not looking good. It was an almost permanent military or
psychological war (three clashes) with global repercussions. Extreme
powers were at stake. Diesel, the German inventor of the engine of the
same name, was found floating in the Channel in 1913, probably
eliminated by the English.
It is not normal that today, Albert Einstein has such great popularity
(the SR is not him, but the French; the RG, it is Grossmann and
Hilbert), the atomic bomb, he (he only knew Pouic, it was Oppenhaimer).
This is obviously voluntary.
Question: Who? For what? Which great power had an interest and still has
an interest in promoting Einstein (a useful idiot) rather than Poincaré
(the greatest mathematician in history, and the only one to have been
able to master the entirety of three sciences, mathematics, philosophy,
physics) ?
It's a good question.
- Albert Eisntein was naturalized American.
“France does not know it, but we are at war with America, a merciless
war, apparently without death, but a war to the death.”
François Mitterrand led France for 14 years, and he had the nuclear
code. When a man like that says things like that, we should at least
open an investigation.
Nobody ever talks about it.
As we never talk about who blew up the Nordstream which supplied France
and Germany with quality gas.
Hence, in part, the fall of the current European economy.
Who was annoyed that Europe bought gas from the Russians?
There are things you shouldn't talk about.

This is quite (pathetically) funny to read such demented people (Richard
& Thomas) confronting their "views".

Richard: according to Thomas Einstein is not really *German*, (blink
blink) if you see what I mean (blink blink)... It is obvious when you
read his posts. Of course he cannot express as clearly as he wanted
his opinion because there are some laws about that in Germany.

[Thomas Heger]

Am Samstag000020, 20.07.2024 um 16:12 schrieb Python:
...

Post by Python

Post by Richard Hachel
It is not normal that today, Albert Einstein has such great popularity
(the SR is not him, but the French; the RG, it is Grossmann and
Hilbert), the atomic bomb, he (he only knew Pouic, it was
Oppenhaimer). This is obviously voluntary.
Question: Who? For what? Which great power had an interest and still
has an interest in promoting Einstein (a useful idiot) rather than
Poincaré (the greatest mathematician in history, and the only one to
have been able to master the entirety of three sciences, mathematics,
philosophy, physics) ?
It's a good question.
- Albert Eisntein was naturalized American.
“France does not know it, but we are at war with America, a merciless
war, apparently without death, but a war to the death.”
François Mitterrand led France for 14 years, and he had the nuclear
code. When a man like that says things like that, we should at least
open an investigation.
Nobody ever talks about it.
As we never talk about who blew up the Nordstream which supplied
France and Germany with quality gas.
Hence, in part, the fall of the current European economy.
Who was annoyed that Europe bought gas from the Russians?
There are things you shouldn't talk about.

This is quite (pathetically) funny to read such demented people (Richard
& Thomas) confronting their "views".
Richard: according to Thomas Einstein is not really *German*, (blink
blink) if you see what I mean (blink blink)... It is obvious when you
read his posts. Of course he cannot express as clearly as he wanted
his opinion because there are some laws about that in Germany.

My assumption was, that Einstein's CV was seemingly impossible and a
more possible explanation would be, that Einstein was a Swiss citizen
from birth and his CV a fake.

As impossible I would regard his work in the Swiss patent office,
because in the German speaking world 'Amt' means 'state owned facility'
and is the place to work of 'Beamte'.

Such employees of the state had certain (very desirable) privileges,
like lifelong employment and high pensions.

As they represent the state, only born citizens were eligable as 'Beamter'.

This was the case at least in Germany in the early 20th century.
About Swizzerland I'm uncertain, because I don't know Swiss laws, but
assume, they were relatively similar to German laws.

This assumption (Einstein was actually Swiss) would, btw, fit to all
other known fact about his life.

Therefore, this is a very good assumption, even theough it might be
actually wrong.


TH

[Python]

Post by Thomas Heger
...

Post by Python

Post by Richard Hachel
It is not normal that today, Albert Einstein has such great
popularity (the SR is not him, but the French; the RG, it is
Grossmann and Hilbert), the atomic bomb, he (he only knew Pouic, it
was Oppenhaimer). This is obviously voluntary.
Question: Who? For what? Which great power had an interest and still
has an interest in promoting Einstein (a useful idiot) rather than
Poincaré (the greatest mathematician in history, and the only one to
have been able to master the entirety of three sciences, mathematics,
philosophy, physics) ?
It's a good question.
- Albert Eisntein was naturalized American.
“France does not know it, but we are at war with America, a merciless
war, apparently without death, but a war to the death.”
François Mitterrand led France for 14 years, and he had the nuclear
code. When a man like that says things like that, we should at least
open an investigation.
Nobody ever talks about it.
As we never talk about who blew up the Nordstream which supplied
France and Germany with quality gas.
Hence, in part, the fall of the current European economy.
Who was annoyed that Europe bought gas from the Russians?
There are things you shouldn't talk about.

This is quite (pathetically) funny to read such demented people (Richard
& Thomas) confronting their "views".
Richard: according to Thomas Einstein is not really *German*, (blink
blink) if you see what I mean (blink blink)... It is obvious when you
read his posts. Of course he cannot express as clearly as he wanted
his opinion because there are some laws about that in Germany.

My assumption was, that Einstein's CV was seemingly impossible and a
more possible explanation would be, that Einstein was a Swiss citizen
from birth and his CV a fake.

Thomas you know perfectly well that it's not about this other silly
theories of yours... This is about what you think and cannot write
here because it would bring you to court in Germany.

[Maverick Kálmán]

Post by Python

Post by Thomas Heger
My assumption was, that Einstein's CV was seemingly impossible and a
more possible explanation would be, that Einstein was a Swiss citizen
from birth and his CV a fake.

Thomas you know perfectly well that it's not about this other silly
theories of yours... This is about what you think and cannot write here
because it would bring you to court in Germany.

lol, threatening with courts, in the gay Einstine relativity theory stolen

Post by Python
from somewhere, the guys with patents etc. How the fuck, the imbecile got
a position in a patent office, to begin with. He was a pervert with no
education and no laboratory experience whatsoever.

those mazafaka giving courts, in "insulting" the Einstine, should be put

Post by Python
in prison by default, as traitors.

also, you guys are bounded in thinking earthly, that's your problem. You

Post by Python
physicists are incapable in thinking unearthly.

let me saying it clearly, the Einstine was a pervert gay, fucking his

Post by Python
cousin who was a man, whoring in america, leaving his family, wife and
kids, back in the war gearmony. What a motherfucker, leaving his family in
war.

[Thomas Heger]

Post by Python

Post by Thomas Heger
...

Post by Python

Post by Richard Hachel
It is not normal that today, Albert Einstein has such great
popularity (the SR is not him, but the French; the RG, it is
Grossmann and Hilbert), the atomic bomb, he (he only knew Pouic, it
was Oppenhaimer). This is obviously voluntary.
Question: Who? For what? Which great power had an interest and still
has an interest in promoting Einstein (a useful idiot) rather than
Poincaré (the greatest mathematician in history, and the only one to
have been able to master the entirety of three sciences,
mathematics, philosophy, physics) ?
It's a good question.
- Albert Eisntein was naturalized American.
“France does not know it, but we are at war with America, a
merciless war, apparently without death, but a war to the death.”
François Mitterrand led France for 14 years, and he had the nuclear
code. When a man like that says things like that, we should at least
open an investigation.
Nobody ever talks about it.
As we never talk about who blew up the Nordstream which supplied
France and Germany with quality gas.
Hence, in part, the fall of the current European economy.
Who was annoyed that Europe bought gas from the Russians?
There are things you shouldn't talk about.

This is quite (pathetically) funny to read such demented people (Richard
& Thomas) confronting their "views".
Richard: according to Thomas Einstein is not really *German*, (blink
blink) if you see what I mean (blink blink)... It is obvious when you
read his posts. Of course he cannot express as clearly as he wanted
his opinion because there are some laws about that in Germany.

My assumption was, that Einstein's CV was seemingly impossible and a
more possible explanation would be, that Einstein was a Swiss citizen
from birth and his CV a fake.

Thomas you know perfectly well that it's not about this other silly
theories of yours... This is about what you think and cannot write
here because it would bring you to court in Germany.

What???

In Germany we have a constitutional civil right which is called 'freedom
of science'.

As my critique of Einstein's text is strictly scientific, it should be
covered by our constitution.

My guesses about the person Einstein are protected by another
constitutional right, which is called' freedom of expression'.

Partially this critique is also meant as scientific, because history is
actually a science.

Btw: what if Einstein was really a disinformation agent???

Wouldn't that be interesting in this forum, which is named after his
invention?

Therefore, some speculations should be allowed. Einstein himself
shouldn't care, because he's dead now for almost 70 years.



TH

[Richard Hachel]

What? ? ?
In Germany we have a constitutional civil right which is called 'freedom
of science'.
As my critique of Einstein's text is strictly scientific, it should be
covered by our constitution.
My guesses about the person Einstein are protected by another
constitutional right, which is called' freedom of expression'.
Partially this critique is also meant as scientific, because history is
actually a science.
Btw: what if Einstein was really a disinformation agent? ? ?
Wouldn't that be interesting in this forum, which is named after his
invention?
Therefore, some speculations should be allowed. Einstein himself
shouldn't care, because he's dead now for almost 70 years.

Einstein was an agent of disinformation, but not in the scientific sense,
rather in the political sense.
His goal (that is to say those who created him) was more to destroy
Poincaré, terribly jealous (Einstein said at the end of his life that he
had lied by saying that he had not read Poincaré and that he did not know
him, he revealed that on the contrary, he had read him, and that he had
been captivated by the power of thought and the works of this man).
Einstein, however, never cites Poincaré in his works, which is frankly
abnormal and deliberate. We have the same thing today in France with a
professor who wrote a book "the origins of the theory of relativity". The
author cites dozens of people (Galileo, Lorentz, Einstein, Larmor, etc.),
dozens...
Not once does he cite Poincaré. Poincaré never existed. It's becoming
surreal. Even in the smallest footnote paragraph, Poincaré is not cited.
Many saw it as an attitude of voluntary censorship by a French person
against a French person. All this is obviously very abnormal, especially
since W=mc² is Poincaré. The expansion of chronotropy is Poincaré. The
correct transformations of Galilean relativity (Lorentz) are Poincaré.
Note that Einstein was nationalized American. It's not trivial either. He
was no longer European, but American. He will say himself: I hate the
German people. Einstein was a traitor to Germany
in the sense that he lies by omission. He does not say that Nazism in
Germany was the work of the Americans. He does not say "the Americans were
odious, they pushed Europe into civil war, they financed Germany to attack
France and Russia, then they wanted to occupy and colonize half of the
world." Europe".
Einstein doesn't say that. He says he hates the Germans for what they did
to the Jews, but does not explain who ordered and who financed the
destruction of Europe from within.
Last thing: Einstein deviated Poincaré's current of thought much more
than he carried it further. In everything that relativistic physicists
added AFTER Poincaré, almost everything is false.


R.H.

[Thomas Heger]

Post by Richard Hachel

But for what reasons would any system take such an amount of efforts? ? ?

It's a good question.
What we can say is that between the Annexation of Alsace and Moselle by
Germany (1871), and until 1945, relations between Germany and France
were not looking good. It was an almost permanent military or
psychological war (three clashes) with global repercussions. Extreme
powers were at stake. Diesel, the German inventor of the engine of the
same name, was found floating in the Channel in 1913, probably
eliminated by the English.
It is not normal that today, Albert Einstein has such great popularity
(the SR is not him, but the French; the RG, it is Grossmann and
Hilbert), the atomic bomb, he (he only knew Pouic, it was Oppenhaimer).
This is obviously voluntary.
Question: Who? For what? Which great power had an interest and still has
an interest in promoting Einstein (a useful idiot) rather than Poincaré
(the greatest mathematician in history, and the only one to have been
able to master the entirety of three sciences, mathematics, philosophy,
physics) ?
It's a good question.

I have a proposal:

when Nicola Tesla died, he was actually pennyless, even if he had
invented a lot and held more than seven hundred patents.

So: why was he so poor?

The idea is a little far fetched and would include certain rumors, which
state that a 'deep state' would exist, which is thirty years
technologically in advance.

This matched other rumors, e.g. that other inventions were also stolen
or patents declared of interest for the national security.

Now lets assume, that such a 'deep state' would actually exist and is
located in fact somewhere deep down and has all these patents, but does
not like to pay something for the inventors.

Then this 'deep state' would be thirty years in advance in terms of
technology, because patents protect the inventions that long.

After thirty years the patents are released, but not very beneficial
anymore for the inventors, because they protect only for thirty years.

Now you need 'spies' in the patent offices, which warn the deep state
about new developments and to reject unwanted inventions.

Such agents need rewards, especially if the inventions are important.

And one among the eligable rewards is fame.


The death of Diesel could be squezed into the same theory, too, by
assuming, that energy in general and petrol especially is in the
interest of the 'deep state' and efficient motors were regarded as
dangerous. And threads or heritics have to be 'removed'.


TH

[Richard Hachel]

Post by Thomas Heger
when Nicola Tesla died, he was actually pennyless, even if he had
invented a lot and held more than seven hundred patents.
So: why was he so poor?
The idea is a little far fetched and would include certain rumors, which
state that a 'deep state' would exist, which is thirty years
technologically in advance.
This matched other rumors, e.g. that other inventions were also stolen
or patents declared of interest for the national security.
Now lets assume, that such a 'deep state' would actually exist and is
located in fact somewhere deep down and has all these patents, but does
not like to pay something for the inventors.
Then this 'deep state' would be thirty years in advance in terms of
technology, because patents protect the inventions that long.
After thirty years the patents are released, but not very beneficial
anymore for the inventors, because they protect only for thirty years.
Now you need 'spies' in the patent offices, which warn the deep state
about new developments and to reject unwanted inventions.
Such agents need rewards, especially if the inventions are important.
And one among the eligable rewards is fame.
The death of Diesel could be squezed into the same theory, too, by
assuming, that energy in general and petrol especially is in the
interest of the 'deep state' and efficient motors were regarded as
dangerous. And threads or heritics have to be 'removed'.
TH

Politics is a profession.

There is a caste of individuals who live in opulence and never work. They
are content to pay the judges, the deputies who make the laws, etc...

They live as the Pharaoh lived, through the sweat of the people.

But the great miracle is not there, the great miracle is that the people
themselves largely agree.

If an opponent stands up and makes a remark about the fact that it is not
normal to pay rights of way on the highways (racket worthy of the time of
the Lords), he is immediately singled out by the people themselves , and
denounced.

It's even worse than you think, a human society.

This also exists in science, and I think that the Einstein-Poincaré
example is also a good example: the guy who tells the truth, that is to
say that Poincaré's brain was worth ten Einsteins, he gets threatened
on usenet.
Don't laugh friends, it's true.

It's simply incredible.

“1984”, “Brave New World”, it’s no longer really fiction.

R.H.

[na]

Post by Richard Hachel

Post by Thomas Heger
The death of Diesel could be squezed into the same theory, too, by
assuming, that energy in general and petrol especially is in the
interest of the 'deep state' and efficient motors were regarded as
dangerous. And threads or heritics have to be 'removed'. TH

Politics is a profession.
There is a caste of individuals who live in opulence and never work.
They are content to pay the judges, the deputies who make the laws,
etc...

untrue. It's NOT a profession. It's usury. Which is a 𝙠𝙝𝙖𝙯𝙖𝙧_𝙜𝙤𝙮
capitalist conspiracy, framing forgery, aka lying, cheating and stealing.
See 𝙈𝙞𝙘𝙝𝙖𝙚𝙡_𝙀_𝙅𝙤𝙣𝙚𝙨's "𝙩𝙝𝙚_𝙟𝙚𝙬𝙞𝙨𝙝_𝙘𝙖𝙥𝙞𝙩𝙖𝙡𝙞𝙨𝙩_𝙘𝙤𝙣𝙨𝙥𝙞𝙧𝙖𝙘𝙮", to know more. But please
be careful.

𝗥𝘂𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗮𝗻_𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗰𝗲𝘀_𝗮𝗱𝘃𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗶𝗻𝗴_𝗶𝗻_𝗨𝗸𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗲_𝗮𝗻𝗱_𝗗𝗼𝗻𝗯𝗮𝘀𝘀_–_𝗠𝗢𝗗
Moscow’s troops have secured the town of Rozovka in the Lugansk People’s
Republic and Pestchanoye Nizhneye in Kharkov Region
https://www.r%74.com/russia/601415-rozovka-pestchanoye-territorial-gains/

Can't wait til Russia takes ALL Ukraine. It's time to now!

Ukurina in retreat in most areas. Running to less fortified areas.
Casualties will increase. Panic.

I stand with the people for the Liberation of the Donbass.

THE NAZIS MUST BE COMPLETELLY TERMINATED, especially in the capitalist
west, so some kind of compromised NORMALITY and PEACE finally will be
achieved! The fucking west if 96% 𝙠𝙝𝙖𝙯𝙖𝙧_𝙜𝙤𝙮𝙢 nazis. They just call it
something else.

Ammunition depots: blow they all, and finish this US driven war....

Poor people are dying in a Corporatocracy war for the natural resources
and world 🌎 domination so sooner the end of the better.

[Thomas Heger]

Post by Richard Hachel

Post by Thomas Heger
when Nicola Tesla died, he was actually pennyless, even if he had
invented a lot and held more than seven hundred patents.
So: why was he so poor?
The idea is a little far fetched and would include certain rumors,
which state that a 'deep state' would exist, which is thirty years
technologically in advance.
This matched other rumors, e.g. that other inventions were also stolen
or patents declared of interest for the national security.
Now lets assume, that such a 'deep state' would  actually exist and is
located in fact somewhere deep down and has all these patents, but
does not like to pay something for the inventors.
Then this 'deep state' would be thirty years in advance in terms of
technology, because patents protect the inventions that long.
After thirty years the patents are released, but not very beneficial
anymore for the inventors, because they protect only for thirty years.
Now you need 'spies' in the patent offices, which warn the deep state
about new developments and to reject unwanted inventions.
Such agents need rewards, especially if the inventions are important.
And one among the eligable rewards is fame.
The death of Diesel could be squezed into the same theory, too, by
assuming, that energy in general and petrol especially is in the
interest of the 'deep state' and efficient motors were regarded as
dangerous. And threads or heritics have to be 'removed'.
TH

Politics is a profession.
There is a caste of individuals who live in opulence and never work.
They are content to pay the judges, the deputies who make the laws, etc...
They live as the Pharaoh lived, through the sweat of the people.
But the great miracle is not there, the great miracle is that the people
themselves largely agree.
If an opponent stands up and makes a remark about the fact that it is
not normal to pay rights of way on the highways (racket worthy of the
time of the Lords), he is immediately singled out by the people
themselves , and denounced.
It's even worse than you think, a human society.
This also exists in science, and I think that the Einstein-Poincaré
example is also a good example: the guy who tells the truth, that is to
say that Poincaré's brain was worth ten Einsteins, he gets threatened
on usenet.
Don't laugh friends, it's true.
It's simply incredible.
“1984”, “Brave New World”, it’s no longer really fiction.

Well, I'm afraid your correct.

But what can we do?


My proposal: we need to change the future!

This is actually very easy and goes like this:

if 'bad guys' have time-machines, we could make the use of them really
dangerous by very simple means:

Simmply use (occasionally) a coin to decide what you do.

think about two possible activities, which are both equally good for
you. Then flip a coin and do, which action you had assigned to either
side of the coin and which side comes up.

This is simple, but would alter the future, hence make all predictions
about the future worthless.

This is actually good for 'good guys' because those have no time
machines and are therefore not threatend by 'future manipulation'.

But 'bad guys' apparently use 'time-travel', what is a VERY powerful weapon.

You and everybodey else could make that a little more adventurous, if
you decide to make thinks only better and nicer that necessary and if
you bring an element of unpredictability into the world, which is based
on flipping a coin.

[Richard Hachel]

Post by Thomas Heger
Well, I'm afraid your correct.
But what can we do?
My proposal: we need to change the future!
if 'bad guys' have time-machines, we could make the use of them really
Simmply use (occasionally) a coin to decide what you do.
think about two possible activities, which are both equally good for
you. Then flip a coin and do, which action you had assigned to either
side of the coin and which side comes up.
This is simple, but would alter the future, hence make all predictions
about the future worthless.
This is actually good for 'good guys' because those have no time
machines and are therefore not threatend by 'future manipulation'.
But 'bad guys' apparently use 'time-travel', what is a VERY powerful weapon.
You and everybodey else could make that a little more adventurous, if
you decide to make thinks only better and nicer that necessary and if
you bring an element of unpredictability into the world, which is based
on flipping a coin.

There's not much we can do.

It is much easier to destroy than to build, which is why generally, as the
Bible says: “The wicked gets fat, and the poor wastes.”

As for time travel, this poses two insoluble problems, firstly that of
logic and causality, then that of the principles of the theory of
relativity whose equations we cannot invent as we wish.

Relativity tells us that we can easily travel into the future, but that it
will be physically and mathematically a journey of no return. We can only
travel in one direction, even if we can travel faster or slower in that
direction by using relativistic speeds.

R.H.

[Thomas Heger]

Post by Richard Hachel

Post by Thomas Heger
My proposal: we need to change the future!
if 'bad guys' have time-machines, we could make the use of them really
Simmply use (occasionally) a coin to decide what you do.
think about two possible activities, which are both equally good for
you. Then flip a coin and do, which action you had assigned to either
side of the coin and which side comes up.
This is simple, but would alter the future, hence make all predictions
about the future worthless.
This is actually good for 'good guys' because those have no time
machines and are therefore not threatend by 'future manipulation'.
But 'bad guys' apparently use 'time-travel', what is a VERY powerful weapon.
You and everybodey else could make that a little more adventurous, if
you decide to make thinks only better and nicer that necessary and if
you bring an element of unpredictability into the world, which is
based on flipping a coin.

There's not much we can do.
It is much easier to destroy than to build, which is why generally, as
the Bible says: “The wicked gets fat, and the poor wastes.”

It's easier to destroy, sure, but that is the reason, why 'to build' is
the best way to distort the future in an unpredictable way.

It has to do with the term 'entropy', which also means 'disorder'.

If you willfully lower entropy in your personal environment (mainly) and
also elsewhere, you create soemthing, which natur does not expect.

Usually entropy always increases, hence things become broken, system in
disorder and cold things get warm.

It takes time and efford to undo this and to work in the 'wrong' direction.

If you do this secretly, it will become entirely unpredictable and
therefore the equations of the time-devices become wrong and the
timetravelers get katapulted into the wrong universe.

For you this is irrelevant, because you will most likely have no time
machine.

Lower entropy is actually better for you and your health and you will
most likely profit from cleaning your home, fixing things and being
helpfull to your loved ones.

...

TH

[Python]

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Richard Hachel

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Richard Hachel
student.

We have several other contributers like Poincare, Lorentz and
cerainly a lot of others.
But we have Einstein's paper and Einstein himself.
He got almost deified, even if his paper is full of errors.
To me this seems to be intentional and to the disadvantage of mankind.

Yes, this seems to be intentional.
Il fallait déifier Einstein pour enfoncer Poincaré.

What if this WAS actually intentional?
Who were the people behind this??
It must be an immense system, with tremendous wealth and power.
This is so because to make Einstein that popular would require a lot of
power and control of several different media.
The number of errors in einstein's paper is also extremely large, hence
that 'system' would need permanent control over large parts of science.
Also a mechanism for sanctions against dissidents would be useful.
But for what reasons would any system take such an amount of efforts???
Certainly something not very beneficial, because otherwise we would be
told about it.

Even as fond you are to pathetically stupid "theories" (growing Earth,
Hitler is a British spy, etc.) you seem to realize, somewhat, how
stupid your claims are?

There is a far simpler way to explain everything
- There are no significant mistakes in Einstein's article
- What Einstein presented there and "modern" SRT are exactly
the same theory. What has been done since 1905 is geometrizing
the theory. This leaded the path to GR
- You are not at all competent to evaluate 1905 article : 100%
of your comments are asinine
- There are no "dissidents". Most physicists understand very well
the theory and a lot of tried to supersede it with new concepts,
they are not "silenced" they are encouraged to do so

[Maciej Wozniak]

Post by Python

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Richard Hachel

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Richard Hachel
student.

We have several other contributers like Poincare, Lorentz and
cerainly a lot of others.
But we have Einstein's paper and Einstein himself.
He got almost deified, even if his paper is full of errors.
To me this seems to be intentional and to the disadvantage of mankind.

Yes, this seems to be intentional.
Il fallait déifier Einstein pour enfoncer Poincaré.

What if this WAS actually intentional?
Who were the people behind this??
It must be an immense system, with tremendous wealth and power.
This is so because to make Einstein that popular would require a lot
of power and control of several different media.
The number of errors in einstein's paper is also extremely large,
hence that 'system' would need permanent control over large parts of
science.
Also a mechanism for sanctions against dissidents would be useful.
But for what reasons would any system take such an amount of efforts???
Certainly something not very beneficial, because otherwise we would be
told about it.

Even as fond you are to pathetically stupid "theories" (growing Earth,
Hitler is a British spy, etc.)

Comparing to the worshippers of The Shit he's still
relatively reasonable.

[Thomas Heger]

Am Samstag000020, 20.07.2024 um 16:08 schrieb Python:
...

Post by Python

Post by Thomas Heger
The number of errors in einstein's paper is also extremely large,
hence that 'system' would need permanent control over large parts of
science.
Also a mechanism for sanctions against dissidents would be useful.
But for what reasons would any system take such an amount of efforts???
Certainly something not very beneficial, because otherwise we would be
told about it.

Even as fond you are to pathetically stupid "theories" (growing Earth,
Hitler is a British spy, etc.) you seem to realize, somewhat, how
stupid your claims are?
There is a far simpler way to explain everything
- There are no significant mistakes in Einstein's article

This is actually a counterfactual 'sanction'!

You didn't even mention my 'annotated version of SRT' and the 400+
errors I have found in Einstein's paper.

Here it is:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RkhX-B5u7X4ga0QH-C53RddjQGctZVdo/view

If you think, that I made 400+ errors myself, than please show at least
a single one.

...


TH

[Python]

Post by Thomas Heger
...

Post by Python

Post by Thomas Heger
The number of errors in einstein's paper is also extremely large,
hence that 'system' would need permanent control over large parts of
science.
Also a mechanism for sanctions against dissidents would be useful.
But for what reasons would any system take such an amount of efforts???
Certainly something not very beneficial, because otherwise we would
be told about it.

Even as fond you are to pathetically stupid "theories" (growing Earth,
Hitler is a British spy, etc.) you seem to realize, somewhat, how
stupid your claims are?
There is a far simpler way to explain everything
- There are no significant mistakes in Einstein's article

This is actually a counterfactual 'sanction'!
You didn't even mention my 'annotated version of SRT' and the 400+
errors I have found in Einstein's paper.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RkhX-B5u7X4ga0QH-C53RddjQGctZVdo/view
If you think, that I made 400+ errors myself, than please show at least
a single one.

Come on, Thomas. A lot of yours claims there has been extensively
debunked here, by me and others.

That you are such a demented stubborn imbecile who refuses to admit it
does not change anything.

[Maciej Wozniak]

Post by Python

Post by Thomas Heger
...

Post by Python

Post by Thomas Heger
The number of errors in einstein's paper is also extremely large,
hence that 'system' would need permanent control over large parts of
science.
Also a mechanism for sanctions against dissidents would be useful.
But for what reasons would any system take such an amount of efforts???
Certainly something not very beneficial, because otherwise we would
be told about it.

Even as fond you are to pathetically stupid "theories" (growing Earth,
Hitler is a British spy, etc.) you seem to realize, somewhat, how
stupid your claims are?
There is a far simpler way to explain everything
- There are no significant mistakes in Einstein's article

This is actually a counterfactual 'sanction'!
You didn't even mention my 'annotated version of SRT' and the 400+
errors I have found in Einstein's paper.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RkhX-B5u7X4ga0QH-C53RddjQGctZVdo/view
If you think, that I made 400+ errors myself, than please show at
least a single one.

Come on, Thomas. A lot of yours claims there has been extensively
debunked here, by me and others.

Whatever you say - Poincare had enough wit
to understand how idiotic rejecting Euclid
would be, and he has written it clearly
enough for anyone able to read (even if not
clearly enough for you, poor stinker).

[Thomas Heger]

Post by Maciej Wozniak

Post by Python

Post by Thomas Heger
...

Post by Python

Post by Thomas Heger
The number of errors in einstein's paper is also extremely large,
hence that 'system' would need permanent control over large parts
of science.
Also a mechanism for sanctions against dissidents would be useful.
But for what reasons would any system take such an amount of efforts???
Certainly something not very beneficial, because otherwise we would
be told about it.

Even as fond you are to pathetically stupid "theories" (growing Earth,
Hitler is a British spy, etc.) you seem to realize, somewhat, how
stupid your claims are?
There is a far simpler way to explain everything
- There are no significant mistakes in Einstein's article

This is actually a counterfactual 'sanction'!
You didn't even mention my 'annotated version of SRT' and the 400+
errors I have found in Einstein's paper.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RkhX-B5u7X4ga0QH-C53RddjQGctZVdo/view
If you think, that I made 400+ errors myself, than please show at
least a single one.

Come on, Thomas. A lot of yours claims there has been extensively
debunked here, by me and others.

Whatever you say - Poincare had enough wit
to understand how idiotic rejecting Euclid
would be, and he has written it clearly
enough for anyone able to read (even if not
clearly enough for you, poor stinker).

Poincare was a mathematician and a very good one.

He wandered into physics, because he was dealing with the Lorentz
transformation and with Maxwells equations.

He came to the conclusion, that Lorentz made some errors (which he was
able to correct) and that time should be treated as local time only.

With this assumption he was able to make Maxwells equations
form-invariant under relativistic transformations.

Quite impressive actually, but more or less forgotten.


TH

[Mikko]

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Maciej Wozniak

Post by Python

Post by Thomas Heger
...

Post by Python

Post by Thomas Heger
The number of errors in einstein's paper is also extremely large, hence
that 'system' would need permanent control over large parts of science.
Also a mechanism for sanctions against dissidents would be useful.
But for what reasons would any system take such an amount of efforts???
Certainly something not very beneficial, because otherwise we would be
told about it.

Even as fond you are to pathetically stupid "theories" (growing Earth,
Hitler is a British spy, etc.) you seem to realize, somewhat, how
stupid your claims are?
There is a far simpler way to explain everything
- There are no significant mistakes in Einstein's article

This is actually a counterfactual 'sanction'!
You didn't even mention my 'annotated version of SRT' and the 400+
errors I have found in Einstein's paper.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RkhX-B5u7X4ga0QH-C53RddjQGctZVdo/view
If you think, that I made 400+ errors myself, than please show at least
a single one.

Come on, Thomas. A lot of yours claims there has been extensively
debunked here, by me and others.

Whatever you say - Poincare had enough wit
to understand how idiotic rejecting Euclid
would be, and he has written it clearly
enough for anyone able to read (even if not
clearly enough for you, poor stinker).

Poincare was a mathematician and a very good one.
He wandered into physics, because he was dealing with the Lorentz
transformation and with Maxwells equations.

And the practical problem of synchronization of clocks at diffrent locations.

[Richard Hachel]

Post by Mikko
And the practical problem of synchronization of clocks at diffrent locations.

[Richard Hachel]

Post by Mikko
And the practical problem of synchronization of clocks at diffrent locations.

I have read many times how Einstein wanted to synchronize these watches.
But I have never been able to find an article on how Poincaré wanted to
synchronize his.
Einstein made a huge blunder (like Paul B. Andersen with his very
beautiful and very mathematical, but physically abstract integration) by
explaining how he synchronized his watches by assuming a "universal
present time".
Then the good doctor Hachel (that's me) arrives, and a very small
firecracker blows up the whole building.


R.H.

[Thomas Heger]

Post by Mikko

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Maciej Wozniak
Whatever you say - Poincare had enough wit
to understand how idiotic rejecting Euclid
would be, and he has written it clearly
enough for anyone able to read (even if not
clearly enough for you, poor stinker).

Poincare was a mathematician and a very good one.
He wandered into physics, because he was dealing with the Lorentz
transformation and with Maxwells equations.

And the practical problem of synchronization of clocks at diffrent locations.

I don't think so, because Poincaré was a mathematician and
mathematicians are not known for practical thinking.

It was actually Einstein, who thought about synchronization of remote
clocks and how that could be done.

TH

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by Mikko

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Maciej Wozniak

Post by Python

Post by Thomas Heger
...

Post by Python

Post by Thomas Heger
The number of errors in einstein's paper is also extremely large, hence
that 'system' would need permanent control over large parts of science.
Also a mechanism for sanctions against dissidents would be useful.
But for what reasons would any system take such an amount of efforts???
Certainly something not very beneficial, because otherwise we would be
told about it.

Even as fond you are to pathetically stupid "theories" (growing Earth,
Hitler is a British spy, etc.) you seem to realize, somewhat, how
stupid your claims are?
There is a far simpler way to explain everything
- There are no significant mistakes in Einstein's article

This is actually a counterfactual 'sanction'!
You didn't even mention my 'annotated version of SRT' and the 400+
errors I have found in Einstein's paper.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RkhX-B5u7X4ga0QH-C53RddjQGctZVdo/view
If you think, that I made 400+ errors myself, than please show at least
a single one.

Come on, Thomas. A lot of yours claims there has been extensively
debunked here, by me and others.

Whatever you say - Poincare had enough wit
to understand how idiotic rejecting Euclid
would be, and he has written it clearly
enough for anyone able to read (even if not
clearly enough for you, poor stinker).

Poincare was a mathematician and a very good one.
He wandered into physics, because he was dealing with the Lorentz
transformation and with Maxwells equations.

So you got that wrong too. (can't you ever get anything right?)
Poincaré, like Einstein, was an engineer by training.
(Ecole Polytechnique, Ecole des Mines)
He also worked as an engineer for much of his life,
in mining, beside his work as a mathematician.
He wandered into mathematics from there, not the other way round.
He was first of all a thoroughly practical man, just like Einstein.

Post by Mikko
And the practical problem of synchronization of clocks at diffrent locations.

[sorry about replying over your head, missing article on my server]

Jan

[Maciej Wozniak]

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Maciej Wozniak

Post by Python

Post by Thomas Heger
...

Post by Python

Post by Thomas Heger
The number of errors in einstein's paper is also extremely large, hence
that 'system' would need permanent control over large parts of science.
Also a mechanism for sanctions against dissidents would be useful.
But for what reasons would any system take such an amount of efforts???
Certainly something not very beneficial, because otherwise we would be
told about it.

Even as fond you are to pathetically stupid "theories" (growing Earth,
Hitler is a British spy, etc.) you seem to realize, somewhat, how
stupid your claims are?
There is a far simpler way to explain everything
- There are no significant mistakes in Einstein's article

This is actually a counterfactual 'sanction'!
You didn't even mention my 'annotated version of SRT' and the 400+
errors I have found in Einstein's paper.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RkhX-B5u7X4ga0QH-C53RddjQGctZVdo/view
If you think, that I made 400+ errors myself, than please show at least
a single one.

Come on, Thomas. A lot of yours claims there has been extensively
debunked here, by me and others.

Whatever you say - Poincare had enough wit
to understand how idiotic rejecting Euclid
would be, and he has written it clearly
enough for anyone able to read (even if not
clearly enough for you, poor stinker).

Poincare was a mathematician and a very good one.
He wandered into physics, because he was dealing with the Lorentz
transformation and with Maxwells equations.

So you got that wrong too. (can't you ever get anything right?)
Poincaré, like Einstein, was an engineer by training.
(Ecole Polytechnique, Ecole des Mines)
He also worked as an engineer for much of his life,
in mining, beside his work as a mathematician.
He wandered into mathematics from there, not the other way round.
He was first of all a thoroughly practical man, just like Einstein.

Einstein - a thoroughly practical man. Buhahahahahahahahaha.

[Thomas Heger]

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Maciej Wozniak

Post by Python

Post by Thomas Heger
...

Post by Python

Post by Thomas Heger
The number of errors in einstein's paper is also extremely large, hence
that 'system' would need permanent control over large parts of science.
Also a mechanism for sanctions against dissidents would be useful.
But for what reasons would any system take such an amount of efforts???
Certainly something not very beneficial, because otherwise we would be
told about it.

Even as fond you are to pathetically stupid "theories" (growing Earth,
Hitler is a British spy, etc.) you seem to realize, somewhat, how
stupid your claims are?
There is a far simpler way to explain everything
- There are no significant mistakes in Einstein's article

This is actually a counterfactual 'sanction'!
You didn't even mention my 'annotated version of SRT' and the 400+
errors I have found in Einstein's paper.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RkhX-B5u7X4ga0QH-C53RddjQGctZVdo/view
If you think, that I made 400+ errors myself, than please show at least
a single one.

Come on, Thomas. A lot of yours claims there has been extensively
debunked here, by me and others.

Whatever you say - Poincare had enough wit
to understand how idiotic rejecting Euclid
would be, and he has written it clearly
enough for anyone able to read (even if not
clearly enough for you, poor stinker).

Poincare was a mathematician and a very good one.
He wandered into physics, because he was dealing with the Lorentz
transformation and with Maxwells equations.

So you got that wrong too. (can't you ever get anything right?)
Poincaré, like Einstein, was an engineer by training.

Einstein was actually teacher from training.

That Poincaré was an engineer was new for me.


..

TH

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Maciej Wozniak

Post by Python

Post by Thomas Heger
...

Post by Python

Post by Thomas Heger
The number of errors in einstein's paper is also extremely large,
hence that 'system' would need permanent control over large parts
of science.
Also a mechanism for sanctions against dissidents would be useful.
But for what reasons would any system take such an amount of efforts???
Certainly something not very beneficial, because otherwise we
would be told about it.

Even as fond you are to pathetically stupid "theories" (growing
Earth, Hitler is a British spy, etc.) you seem to realize,
somewhat, how stupid your claims are?
There is a far simpler way to explain everything
- There are no significant mistakes in Einstein's article

This is actually a counterfactual 'sanction'!
You didn't even mention my 'annotated version of SRT' and the 400+
errors I have found in Einstein's paper.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RkhX-B5u7X4ga0QH-C53RddjQGctZVdo/view
If you think, that I made 400+ errors myself, than please show at least
a single one.

Come on, Thomas. A lot of yours claims there has been extensively
debunked here, by me and others.

Whatever you say - Poincare had enough wit
to understand how idiotic rejecting Euclid
would be, and he has written it clearly
enough for anyone able to read (even if not
clearly enough for you, poor stinker).

Poincare was a mathematician and a very good one.
He wandered into physics, because he was dealing with the Lorentz
transformation and with Maxwells equations.

So you got that wrong too. (can't you ever get anything right?)
Poincaré, like Einstein, was an engineer by training.

Einstein was actually teacher from training.

More nonsense.
Einstein graduated from the ETH Zurich as an engineer, period,
just like any other engineer.
They didn't have 'teaching only' degrees. [1]

What is true is that Einstein prefered the general physics courses,
and that he avoided specialised subjects as much as possible.
He was, and wanted to be a generalist.
It seems plausible that he got his job at the patent office
precisely because of that.

Post by Thomas Heger
That Poincaré was an engineer was new for me.

This is typical of you. You proclaim all kinds of things
without bothering for a moment to look at readily available sources
for even a little amount of fact check,

Jan

[1] In those days it was not unusual at all for any kind of engineer
or other university graduate to take a high school teaching job.
[they could work on a thesis in their free time]

Paid academic positions, apart from full professorships,
were practically non-existent.
Lorentz too taught in a secondary school, for a while.

[Thomas Heger]

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Maciej Wozniak

Post by Python

Post by Thomas Heger
...

Post by Python

Post by Thomas Heger
The number of errors in einstein's paper is also extremely large,
hence that 'system' would need permanent control over large parts
of science.
Also a mechanism for sanctions against dissidents would be useful.
But for what reasons would any system take such an amount of efforts???
Certainly something not very beneficial, because otherwise we
would be told about it.

Even as fond you are to pathetically stupid "theories" (growing
Earth, Hitler is a British spy, etc.) you seem to realize,
somewhat, how stupid your claims are?
There is a far simpler way to explain everything
- There are no significant mistakes in Einstein's article

This is actually a counterfactual 'sanction'!
You didn't even mention my 'annotated version of SRT' and the 400+
errors I have found in Einstein's paper.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RkhX-B5u7X4ga0QH-C53RddjQGctZVdo/view
If you think, that I made 400+ errors myself, than please show at least
a single one.

Come on, Thomas. A lot of yours claims there has been extensively
debunked here, by me and others.

Whatever you say - Poincare had enough wit
to understand how idiotic rejecting Euclid
would be, and he has written it clearly
enough for anyone able to read (even if not
clearly enough for you, poor stinker).

Poincare was a mathematician and a very good one.
He wandered into physics, because he was dealing with the Lorentz
transformation and with Maxwells equations.

So you got that wrong too. (can't you ever get anything right?)
Poincaré, like Einstein, was an engineer by training.

Einstein was actually teacher from training.

More nonsense.
Einstein graduated from the ETH Zurich as an engineer, period,
just like any other engineer.
They didn't have 'teaching only' degrees. [1]

I have read, that Einstein got a degree as teacher for physics.

But, as a matter of fact, I cannot proof this and it is also of little
interest for me.

Post by J. J. Lodder
What is true is that Einstein prefered the general physics courses,
and that he avoided specialised subjects as much as possible.
He was, and wanted to be a generalist.
It seems plausible that he got his job at the patent office
precisely because of that.

I have regarded it as questionable, that stateless foreigners could work
in an 'Amt', where usually only born citizens could work (because the
Patentamt was security critical).

My conclusion from this was, that Einstein WAS in fact born in
Swizzerland and his CV therefore a fake.

Why Swizzerland did that and why they tried to derail common science,
that is a riddle for me.

Possibly the Swiss had developed something useful, like a time machine
or device to synthesize Gold, which they wanted to have exclusively.

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Thomas Heger
That Poincaré was an engineer was new for me.

This is typical of you. You proclaim all kinds of things
without bothering for a moment to look at readily available sources
for even a little amount of fact check,

Well, you always have some gaps in what you know.

About Poincaré and his personal life I have actually very few informations.

But what exactly are you trying to prove with this´?

...


TH

[Maciej Wozniak]

...

Post by Thomas Heger
Possibly the Swiss had developed something useful, like a time machine
or device to synthesize Gold, which they wanted to have exclusively.

What about a device to synthesize cheese instead?
And you pretend not to be demented?!

And whatever you say - Poincare had enough wit
to understand how idiotic rejecting Euclid
would be, and he has written it clearly
enough for anyone able to read (even if not
clearly enough for you, poor stinker).

[Python]

...

Post by Thomas Heger
Possibly the Swiss had developed something useful, like a time
machine or device to synthesize Gold, which they wanted to have
exclusively.

What about a device to synthesize cheese instead?
And you pretend not to be demented?!

And whatever you say ...

You have an opinion about a swiss-driven worldwide conspiration
involving time-travel and the philosophical stone, Wozniak :-D ?

[Maciej Wozniak]

Post by Python

...

Post by Thomas Heger
Possibly the Swiss had developed something useful, like a time
machine or device to synthesize Gold, which they wanted to have
exclusively.

What about a device to synthesize cheese instead?
And you pretend not to be demented?!

And whatever you say ...

You have an opinion about a swiss-driven worldwide conspiration
involving time-travel and the philosophical stone, Wozniak :-D ?

No. Do you still rape your daughters, Python?
Whether you do or don't - Poincare had enough wit
to understand how idiotic rejecting Euclid
would be, and he has written it clearly
enough for anyone able to read (even if not
clearly enough for you, poor stinker).

[Richard Hachel]

Post by Maciej Wozniak
No. Do you still rape your daughters, Python?
Whether you do or don't - Poincare had enough wit
to understand how idiotic rejecting Euclid
would be, and he has written it clearly
enough for anyone able to read (even if not
clearly enough for you, poor stinker).

Uważaj, zgłosi cię do międzynarodowego trybunału karnego za
komentarze przeciwko Pythonowi.


He's a real stinker python, and not only in usenet.

Jean-Pierre is killer!

R.H.

[Thomas Heger]

Post by Python

...

Post by Thomas Heger
Possibly the Swiss had developed something useful, like a time
machine or device to synthesize Gold, which they wanted to have
exclusively.

What about a device to synthesize cheese instead?
And you pretend not to be demented?!

And whatever you say ...

You have an opinion about a swiss-driven worldwide conspiration
involving time-travel and the philosophical stone, Wozniak :-D ?

There is a group, which is called 'World Conomic Forum', which is
directed by the failed Bond-villian 'Klaus Schwab'.

So, possibly, Davos and this group is the headquarter of the 'New World
Order' (aka 'The Great Reset').

Actually I don't think so, because this groups is too small and Klaus
Schwab not a particulairly carismatic leader.

(Possibly the headquaters is in Geneva.)


TH

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

...

Post by Thomas Heger
Possibly the Swiss had developed something useful, like a time machine
or device to synthesize Gold,

Apparently his ignorance of chemistry matches his ignorance of physics.

Post by Thomas Heger
which they wanted to have exclusively.

What about a device to synthesize cheese instead?
And you pretend not to be demented?!

[gharnagel]

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Thomas Heger
...
Possibly the Swiss had developed something useful, like a time

machine

Post by Thomas Heger
or device to synthesize Gold,

Apparently his ignorance of chemistry matches his ignorance of physics.

I believe in one-way time machines: Just hustle.
I believe in synthesizing gold: Get a neutron generator and
neutron-activate
a few kg, er ... a few nuclei of Hg. Mostly, though, you'll just change
the
isotopic ratios of Hg.

[Richard Hachel]

Post by gharnagel

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Thomas Heger
...
Possibly the Swiss had developed something useful, like a time

machine

Post by Thomas Heger
or device to synthesize Gold,

Apparently his ignorance of chemistry matches his ignorance of physics.

I believe in one-way time machines: Just hustle.
I believe in synthesizing gold: Get a neutron generator and
neutron-activate
a few kg, er ... a few nuclei of Hg. Mostly, though, you'll just change
the
isotopic ratios of Hg.

The time machine is something very amusing, but it is science fiction.
It is above all another abstract theory.
Those who think, and there are many of them, that we can go back in time,
or that we can find tachyons are deluding themselves. They show by this
that they do not have complete knowledge of the theory of relativity.
To think that we can find tachyons, or that we can go back in time, is
just as absurd as looking for rabbit horns and blue unicorns.
Let's take the example of a perfectly stupid university professor, who
will set his mind on finding two natural squares, one of which would be
double the other, or one of which would be triple the other.
Simple mathematical reasoning proves that this is impossible, with the
most perfect certainty.
The same goes for time machines, it's impossible, abstract, it doesn't
exist in our universe, and what's more, the notions of breaking causality
would be so terrifying and so grotesque, that we quickly lose the simple
desire to think about it.

R.H.

[Thomas Heger]

Post by gharnagel

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Thomas Heger
...
Possibly the Swiss had developed something useful, like a time

machine

Post by Thomas Heger
or device to synthesize Gold,

Apparently his ignorance of chemistry matches his ignorance of physics.

I believe in one-way time machines: Just hustle.
I believe in synthesizing gold: Get a neutron generator and
neutron-activate
a few kg, er ... a few nuclei of Hg.  Mostly, though, you'll just change
the
isotopic ratios of Hg.

Like almost everybody else, you think way too 'materialistic'.

I suggest: stop thinking about material objects like particles, but
think about structures.

In my view timelike stable structures are what we call 'matter'.

If you want to make matter diappear, you simply need to compromise
stability and then matter would 'roll away'.

This is way more easy than you think:

you would need to find specific resonance frequencies of your material
object, modulate those upon a carrier wave and send a beam upon you
object. Then you need to change the frequency a little.

This would 'derail' stability and matter would disintegrate.

The opposite could be possible, too, and you could create matter out of
nothing, by specially designed waves.

Fortunately I have absolutely no idea, what the frequencies are and how
you could actually create these waves, but wanted to mention the
possibility to create matter out of nothing by e.g. pulsed micro-waves.

This is actually observed occasionally in a rare phenomenon called
'magic dust', where dust apears in unlikely places out of nowhere.


TH

[Thomas Heger]

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

...

Post by Thomas Heger
Possibly the Swiss had developed something useful, like a time
machine or device to synthesize Gold,

Apparently his ignorance of chemistry matches his ignorance of physics.

Long ago I was quite good in chemistry and had an own little laboratory
in our basement.

Nothing exploded and all went safe, but I gave that off, anyhow.

But especially organic chemistry was the topic in school in what was
called 'Leistungskurs' (difficult to explain what that is: kind of
special interest enhanced education in the classes 11-13 in the German
advanced schools called 'Gymnasium').

But even if I have lost interest in chemistry, I have still good
memories about it and enhanced education.

..

TH

[Thomas Heger]

Am Donnerstag000025, 25.07.2024 um 10:25 schrieb J. J. Lodder:
.

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by J. J. Lodder
So you got that wrong too. (can't you ever get anything right?)
Poincaré, like Einstein, was an engineer by training.

Einstein was actually teacher from training.

More nonsense.
Einstein graduated from the ETH Zurich as an engineer, period,
just like any other engineer.
They didn't have 'teaching only' degrees. [1]

I have read, that Einstein got a degree as teacher for physics.
But, as a matter of fact, I cannot proof this and it is also of little
interest for me.

Yes, this was just another of your self-invented 'facts'.

'I have little interest' is actually true, whether you believe me or not.

Ok, possibly you won't regard that as fact, because that is not what you
think.

BUT: facts are independent of your believes.

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by J. J. Lodder
What is true is that Einstein prefered the general physics courses,
and that he avoided specialised subjects as much as possible.
He was, and wanted to be a generalist.
It seems plausible that he got his job at the patent office
precisely because of that.

I have regarded it as questionable, that stateless foreigners could work
in an 'Amt', where usually only born citizens could work (because the
Patentamt was security critical).

Einstein wasn't a stateless foreigner, he was a Swiss citizen,
and had been that since 1901.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein

Einstein was born in 14 March 1879.

This means, that he acquired Swiss citizenship at the age of 22 and
renounced German citizenship at the age of 16.

About both statements I have doubts, because I don't think, that they
are actually possible.

Especially sceptical I'm about the possibility to renounce German
citizenship, if you are 16 years old and want to become stateless.

As far as I know, German citizenship could only be laid off, if another
country grants you citizenship and you are able to prove this.

Also: minors (below the age of 21) could not do anything with out their
parents in those days in Germany.

And he had an academic degree from a Swiss university
that qualified him for the job.

Qualification is just one of the requirements for the status as state
official, which were called 'Beamter' (because they work in an 'Amt') in
the German speaking world.

About Swiss laws I don't know much, but assume they had somehow
equivalent rules in those days.

But in Germany there was no chance to become 'Beamter', if you were not
a born citizen.

That 'born citizens only' thing is
just another of your self-invented non-facts.

Well, possibly the Swiss allowed foreigners to become Beamter, but
actually I don't think so, because the Swiss were most likely not that
liberal in respect to foreigners.

Post by Thomas Heger
My conclusion from this was, that Einstein WAS in fact born in
Swizzerland and his CV therefore a fake.
Why Swizzerland did that and why they tried to derail common science,
that is a riddle for me.

Whatever the data, you will without fail arrive at the wrong comclusion.
You are as useful for direction finding as a broken compass
that never points north. If you say something it must be wrong.

Not quite.

I usually try to find a better explanation for the same facts.

This is called a 'hypothesis'.

Such a hypothesis might be correct but it is very often not correct.

I either case it is still a valid hypothesis.

In case of nobody is able to disprove it, this hypothesis is advanced to
what is called 'theory'.

Post by Thomas Heger
Possibly the Swiss had developed something useful, like a time machine
or device to synthesize Gold, which they wanted to have exclusively.

I opt on: both....


TH

[Thomas Heger]

...

Post by Thomas Heger
Possibly the Swiss had developed something useful, like a time machine
or device to synthesize Gold, which they wanted to have exclusively.

What about a device to synthesize cheese instead?

Well, they still produce cheese by devices called 'cow'.

But what if the LHC is actually a weapon or a time machine?


TH

[Python]

Le 25/07/2024 à 08:58, Thomas Heger a écrit :
...

Post by Thomas Heger
Possibly the Swiss had developed something useful, like a time machine
or device to synthesize Gold, which they wanted to have exclusively.

What about a device to synthesize cheese instead?

And you pretend not to be demented?!

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Maciej Wozniak

Post by Python

Post by Thomas Heger
...

Post by Python

Post by Thomas Heger
The number of errors in einstein's paper is also extremely large,
hence that 'system' would need permanent control over large parts
of science.
Also a mechanism for sanctions against dissidents would be useful.
But for what reasons would any system take such an amount of efforts???
Certainly something not very beneficial, because otherwise we
would be told about it.

Even as fond you are to pathetically stupid "theories" (growing
Earth, Hitler is a British spy, etc.) you seem to realize,
somewhat, how stupid your claims are?
There is a far simpler way to explain everything
- There are no significant mistakes in Einstein's article

This is actually a counterfactual 'sanction'!
You didn't even mention my 'annotated version of SRT' and the 400+
errors I have found in Einstein's paper.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RkhX-B5u7X4ga0QH-C53RddjQGctZVdo/view
If you think, that I made 400+ errors myself, than please show at least
a single one.

Come on, Thomas. A lot of yours claims there has been extensively
debunked here, by me and others.

Whatever you say - Poincare had enough wit
to understand how idiotic rejecting Euclid
would be, and he has written it clearly
enough for anyone able to read (even if not
clearly enough for you, poor stinker).

Poincare was a mathematician and a very good one.
He wandered into physics, because he was dealing with the Lorentz
transformation and with Maxwells equations.

So you got that wrong too. (can't you ever get anything right?)
Poincaré, like Einstein, was an engineer by training.

Einstein was actually teacher from training.

More nonsense.
Einstein graduated from the ETH Zurich as an engineer, period,
just like any other engineer.
They didn't have 'teaching only' degrees. [1]

I have read,

Where? Citation please.

Post by Thomas Heger
that Einstein got a degree as teacher for physics.
But, as a matter of fact, I cannot proof this

Of course not. Most of your fantasies cannot be proved.

Post by Thomas Heger
and it is also of little interest for me.

Why say it then?

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by J. J. Lodder
What is true is that Einstein prefered the general physics courses,
and that he avoided specialised subjects as much as possible.
He was, and wanted to be a generalist.
It seems plausible that he got his job at the patent office
precisely because of that.

I have regarded it as questionable, that stateless foreigners could
work in an 'Amt', where usually only born citizens could work (because
the Patentamt was security critical).
My conclusion from this was, that Einstein WAS in fact born in
Swizzerland and his CV therefore a fake.

Fantasy again.

Post by Thomas Heger
Why Swizzerland did that and why they tried to derail common science,
that is a riddle for me.
Possibly the Swiss had developed something useful, like a time machine
or device to synthesize Gold, which they wanted to have exclusively.

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Thomas Heger
That Poincaré was an engineer was new for me.

This is typical of you. You proclaim all kinds of things
without bothering for a moment to look at readily available sources
for even a little amount of fact check,

Well, you always have some gaps in what you know.
About Poincaré and his personal life I have actually very few informations.
But what exactly are you trying to prove with this´?
...
TH

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Maciej Wozniak

Post by Python

Post by Thomas Heger
...

Post by Python

Post by Thomas Heger
The number of errors in einstein's paper is also extremely large,
hence that 'system' would need permanent control over large parts
of science.
Also a mechanism for sanctions against dissidents would be useful.
But for what reasons would any system take such an amount of
efforts???
Certainly something not very beneficial, because otherwise we
would be told about it.

Even as fond you are to pathetically stupid "theories" (growing
Earth, Hitler is a British spy, etc.) you seem to realize,
somewhat, how stupid your claims are?
There is a far simpler way to explain everything
- There are no significant mistakes in Einstein's article

This is actually a counterfactual 'sanction'!
You didn't even mention my 'annotated version of SRT' and the 400+
errors I have found in Einstein's paper.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RkhX-B5u7X4ga0QH-C53RddjQGctZVdo/vie

w

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Maciej Wozniak

Post by Python

Post by Thomas Heger
If you think, that I made 400+ errors myself, than please show at
least a single one.

Come on, Thomas. A lot of yours claims there has been extensively
debunked here, by me and others.

Whatever you say - Poincare had enough wit
to understand how idiotic rejecting Euclid
would be, and he has written it clearly
enough for anyone able to read (even if not
clearly enough for you, poor stinker).

Poincare was a mathematician and a very good one.
He wandered into physics, because he was dealing with the Lorentz
transformation and with Maxwells equations.

So you got that wrong too. (can't you ever get anything right?)
Poincaré, like Einstein, was an engineer by training.

Einstein was actually teacher from training.

More nonsense.
Einstein graduated from the ETH Zurich as an engineer, period,
just like any other engineer.
They didn't have 'teaching only' degrees. [1]

I have read, that Einstein got a degree as teacher for physics.
But, as a matter of fact, I cannot proof this and it is also of little
interest for me.

Yes, this was just another of your self-invented 'facts'.

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by J. J. Lodder
What is true is that Einstein prefered the general physics courses,
and that he avoided specialised subjects as much as possible.
He was, and wanted to be a generalist.
It seems plausible that he got his job at the patent office
precisely because of that.

I have regarded it as questionable, that stateless foreigners could work
in an 'Amt', where usually only born citizens could work (because the
Patentamt was security critical).

Einstein wasn't a stateless foreigner, he was a Swiss citizen,
and had been that since 1901.
And he had an academic degree from a Swiss university
that qualified him for the job.

That 'born citizens only' thing is
just another of your self-invented non-facts.

Post by Thomas Heger
My conclusion from this was, that Einstein WAS in fact born in
Swizzerland and his CV therefore a fake.
Why Swizzerland did that and why they tried to derail common science,
that is a riddle for me.

Whatever the data, you will without fail arrive at the wrong comclusion.
You are as useful for direction finding as a broken compass
that never points north. If you say something it must be wrong.

Post by Thomas Heger
Possibly the Swiss had developed something useful, like a time machine
or device to synthesize Gold, which they wanted to have exclusively.

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Thomas Heger
That Poincaré was an engineer was new for me.

This is typical of you. You proclaim all kinds of things
without bothering for a moment to look at readily available sources
for even a little amount of fact check,

Well, you always have some gaps in what you know.
About Poincaré and his personal life I have actually very few informations.
But what exactly are you trying to prove with this´?

That you are a complete idiot.
Certainly you could have seen that for yourself?

Jan

[Jami Pető]

Post by Thomas Heger

What is true is that Einstein prefered the general physics courses, and
that he avoided specialised subjects as much as possible.
He was, and wanted to be a generalist.
It seems plausible that he got his job at the patent office precisely
because of that.

I have regarded it as questionable, that stateless foreigners could work
in an 'Amt', where usually only born citizens could work (because the
Patentamt was security critical). My conclusion from this was, that
Einstein WAS in fact born in Swizzerland and his CV therefore a fake.

the gay capitalism showing man testicle on TV ol 2024. They certainly dont
expect mercy right now. They killed france on record for fuck sake. That
gay macrone is guilty like shit

𝗬𝗲𝘀_𝗧𝗵𝗲_2024_𝗢𝗹𝘆𝗺𝗽𝗶𝗰𝘀_𝗢𝗽𝗲𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴_𝗖𝗲𝗿𝗲𝗺𝗼𝗻𝘆_𝗪𝗮𝘀_𝗔𝗻𝘁𝗶-𝗖𝗵𝗿𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗮𝗻
𝗕𝘂𝘁_𝗜𝘀_𝗔𝗻𝘆𝗼𝗻𝗲_𝗔𝘀𝗸𝗶𝗻𝗴_𝗪𝗛𝗬??
https://old.b%69%74%63%68ute.com/%76%69%64eo/eMo6Gfy2V9kG

[Pierre Juhász]

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Thomas Heger
Poincare was a mathematician and a very good one.
He wandered into physics, because he was dealing with the Lorentz
transformation and with Maxwells equations.

So you got that wrong too. (can't you ever get anything right?)
Poincaré, like Einstein, was an engineer by training.

Einstein was actually teacher from training.

impossible. The Einstine couldnt pass a basic math exam in arithmetic, let
alone calculus. Neither you are an engineer without calculus. But
calculus, PDEs, PID etc came later on, through the introduction of
computers. Those papers he "wrote" are a fraud most likely.

𝗣𝗼𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗱_𝘄𝗼𝗻’𝘁_𝗹𝗲𝘁_𝗨𝗸𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗲_𝗷𝗼𝗶𝗻_𝗘𝗨_𝘂𝗻𝗹𝗲𝘀𝘀_𝗪𝗪𝗜𝗜_𝗺𝗮𝘀𝘀𝗮𝗰𝗿𝗲_𝗶𝘀𝘀𝘂𝗲_𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗼𝗹𝘃𝗲𝗱
Kiev cannot join the bloc until the sides reach closure over atrocities
perpetrated against Poles, Warsaw’s defense chief has said
https://r%74.com/news/601568-poland-ukraine-eu-condition-nazi-massacre/

Kiev cannot join the bloc until the sides reach closure over atrocities
perpetrated against Poles, Warsaw’s defense chief YET THEY SUPPORT UKRAINE
AZOV

Exactly. It's a pretense that these Polish Politicians actually still runs
their country. Once they invited the United States military in, they
relinquish control of their self-governance.

And now the Poles themselves collaborate with the filthy Ukrainian Nazis
of today. How they grind the memories of their own murdered countrymen
into the ground. Is their anything more vile than these current Polish
leaders?

The Ukrainian state was founded upon genocide of the Poles. Poles had a
choice to either go to the infamous German work camps or be 'cleansed'
from the land by the heroes of the modern State of The Ukraine. Ukraine
needs to acknowledge and atone for it's original sin.

[Maciej Wozniak]

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Maciej Wozniak

Post by Python

Post by Thomas Heger
...

Post by Python

Post by Thomas Heger
The number of errors in einstein's paper is also extremely large,
hence that 'system' would need permanent control over large parts
of science.
Also a mechanism for sanctions against dissidents would be useful.
But for what reasons would any system take such an amount of efforts???
Certainly something not very beneficial, because otherwise we
would be told about it.

Even as fond you are to pathetically stupid "theories" (growing Earth,
Hitler is a British spy, etc.) you seem to realize, somewhat, how
stupid your claims are?
There is a far simpler way to explain everything
- There are no significant mistakes in Einstein's article

This is actually a counterfactual 'sanction'!
You didn't even mention my 'annotated version of SRT' and the 400+
errors I have found in Einstein's paper.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RkhX-B5u7X4ga0QH-C53RddjQGctZVdo/view
If you think, that I made 400+ errors myself, than please show at
least a single one.

Come on, Thomas. A lot of yours claims there has been extensively
debunked here, by me and others.

Whatever you say - Poincare had enough wit
to understand how idiotic rejecting Euclid
would be, and he has written it clearly
enough for anyone able to read (even if not
clearly enough for you, poor stinker).

Poincare was a mathematician and a very good one.
He wandered into physics, because he was dealing with the Lorentz
transformation and with Maxwells equations.
He came to the conclusion, that Lorentz made some errors (which he was
able to correct) and that time should be treated as local time only.

Maybe he did - if he did, too bad for him.
Still, he had enough wit to understand how
idiotic rejecting Euclid would be, and he
has written it clearly enough for anyone
able to read (even if not clearly enough for
poor stinker Python).

[Richard Hachel]

Post by Thomas Heger
Poincare was a mathematician and a very good one.
He wandered into physics,

I find you very harsh.
The Poincaré equations in relativistic physics are magnificent.
They are true, they are beautiful, they are coherent.
Einstein, next door, is Laurel and Hardy.

R.H.

[Thomas Heger]

Post by Richard Hachel

Post by Thomas Heger
Poincare was a mathematician and a very good one.
He wandered into physics,

I find you very harsh.

No, that was not my intention.

But I had the idea, that mathematicians mainly think in terms of
mathematics. But math and physics are not the same thing.

Poincaré was actually an extremly good mathematician.

And I was personally unable to understand most of his work.

But Poincaré wasn't my topic, anyhow, hence I noticed Poincare and tried
to read a bit of 'Sur le dynamic d'electron' in French.

Unfortunately I cannot speak French good enough, only a little bit.

His math is also way too difficult for me.

I have read a few papers about Poincare, hence I know a litle bit about
his work from second sources. But that's more or less it.


TH

Post by Richard Hachel
The Poincaré equations in relativistic physics are magnificent.
They are true, they are beautiful, they are coherent.
Einstein, next door, is Laurel and Hardy.

[Thomas Heger]

Post by Python

Post by Thomas Heger
...

Post by Python

Post by Thomas Heger
The number of errors in einstein's paper is also extremely large,
hence that 'system' would need permanent control over large parts of
science.
Also a mechanism for sanctions against dissidents would be useful.
But for what reasons would any system take such an amount of efforts???
Certainly something not very beneficial, because otherwise we would
be told about it.

Even as fond you are to pathetically stupid "theories" (growing Earth,
Hitler is a British spy, etc.) you seem to realize, somewhat, how
stupid your claims are?
There is a far simpler way to explain everything
- There are no significant mistakes in Einstein's article

This is actually a counterfactual 'sanction'!
You didn't even mention my 'annotated version of SRT' and the 400+
errors I have found in Einstein's paper.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RkhX-B5u7X4ga0QH-C53RddjQGctZVdo/view
If you think, that I made 400+ errors myself, than please show at
least a single one.

Come on, Thomas. A lot of yours claims there has been extensively
debunked here, by me and others.
That you are such a demented stubborn imbecile who refuses to admit it
does not change anything.

Stubborn: yes, but demented: no!

So: were are YOUR arguments and YOUR disproof of any one of my 400+
comments?


TH

[Stefan Ram]

Post by amirjf nin
Approximately 300,000 km/s with respect to what?

That's a hoot, seeing as you're fishing for a frame
of reference for a speed, like some sort of /context/ for it.
It's almost as if you're bent out of shape or have a bone
to pick with the speed lacking its context.

But here's the kicker - you're dropping a question /yourself/
that's so bare-bones /it's missing the context/ that would
make it clear enough to answer without having to play
a guessing game about what you're getting at.