Re: Kinetic Energy formula check - a series of short burn rockets, and see how the velocity adds up.

[Thomas Heger]

Am 09.01.2023 um 15:13 schrieb Joe:
> On Mon, 09 Jan 2023 09:07:50 +0100
> Thomas Heger <ttt...@web.de> wrote:
>
>> Am 08.01.2023 um 10:36 schrieb Dave:
>>> Is it v or v^2?
>>>
>>> Is this formula E=0.5mv^2 correct, or is it more like E= mv?
>>
>>
>> That should depend on the used units for E, m and v.
>>
>> As unit systems have different degrees of internal consistency, you
>> should certainly be able to find an example for both factors.
>>
>>
>> I usually use SI units only and would get 0.5 as factor, but have not
>> verified the exponent 2 myself.
>>
>> In general I would prefer the quantity momentum over energy, because
>> v is frame dependent, hence also kinetic energy.
>>
>> Then I would like to compare conservation of momentum and
>> conservation of energy, but suggest choosing conservation of momentum
>> over conservation of energy.
>>
>> TH
>
> The whole question revolves around kinetic energy being a different
> thing from momentum, not just being a different word for it. To begin
> with, we have no idea of the absolute kinetic energy or the absolute
> momentum of an object, because we have no idea how fast an object is
> moving, and according Einstein, we never can know it. So we work on
> relative quantities, generally relative to 'stationary with respect to
> the bit of Earth's surface where the action takes place'.


Momentum and kinetic energy adress different things, but are closely
related.

I chose as example a cannon ball flying through an empty
gravitation-free SRT like space.

Now we don't know the velocity of the cannon ball, because we have no
'anchor' to measure velocity against.

But that cannon ball shall hit a spaceship, which drifts around that
void, too.

Now we have an anchor point, which is that spaceship and the point of
its hull that the cannonball hits.

Now we see, that we need to take the relative velocity between ball and
spaceship as velocity v and cannot use any other velocity.

In the case of collision between ball and ship the momentum of the ball
is transferred to the ships armourment, as is also the kinetic energy of
the ball.

But obviously relative velocity is the thing which matters, while
absolute velocity wouldn't.

If we would use the SRT setting and would allow arbitrary velocities and
arbitrary frames of references, then we would not have proportional
relations between momentum and kinetic energy, because one behaves
quatratic and one linear, if v is altered.

So, a different velocity caused by external changes of the position of
observation would alter the relation between inertia and energy inside
that cannon ball, what cannot possibly be the case. Therefore velocity v
has to be the velocity in respect to the target, which is not arbitrary
and not subject to decisions of an external observer.


> The kinetic energy of an object of mass m moving at velocity v is the
> amount of energy required to raise the mass from a stationary position
> to the velocity v, or to slow it down to stationary. You can start from
> first principles with length and time, going through force,
> acceleration and work, or you can work directly with velocity as the
> independent variable.


SRT does not know any 'stationary positions', because positions are
always relative to something.

That somethings is also relative to something and so forth.

In the end we have a final point and still don't know, whether or not
that point moves.

...

TH

[Evangelista Barzetti]

Thomas Heger wrote:

> Momentum and kinetic energy adress different things, but are closely
> related. I chose as example a cannon ball flying through an empty
> gravitation-free SRT like space.

not sure, but here's how Relativity is to be pictured as "science". When
you talk to Einstine, you talk to science.

＂Coincidences are the leading cause of deaths＂ Coincidence theory.
https://%62%69%74%63%68%75%74%65.com/%76%69%64%65%6f/4onY7JdMkUC8

[Otto Fiscella]

Thomas Heger wrote:

> Momentum and kinetic energy adress different things, but are closely
> related. I chose as example a cannon ball flying through an empty
> gravitation-free SRT like space.

wow, forgot the other _deep_scientist_ in Relativity. Corruption all
levels, in capitalism, my friend.

Neil deGrasse Tyson Doesn't Want You Asking Questions About The Vaccine
https://%62%69%74%63%68%75%74%65.com/%76%69%64%65%6f/CzT9zJfvafVK

[Thomas Heger]

Am 12.01.2023 um 17:51 schrieb Otto Fiscella:
> Thomas Heger wrote:
>
>> Momentum and kinetic energy adress different things, but are closely
>> related. I chose as example a cannon ball flying through an empty
>> gravitation-free SRT like space.
>
> wow, forgot the other _deep_scientist_ in Relativity. Corruption all
> levels, in capitalism, my friend.
>

In SRT Einstein used the velocity v, but meant velocity of an object
relative to space.

But that definition would violate the very idea of SRT itself.

I meant, that SRT-like movements would require to different 'anchors' to
measure velocity against like the relation to a target, which a
cannon-ball hits.

The setting of SRT would actually allow to use other frames of
references as 'achors'. But in this case velocity v would become a
variable. But that could (for different v) alter the relation between
inertia and kinetic energy of a connon-ball in flight, just by choosing
a different coordinate system, what cannot possibly be the case.


TH

[Tom Roberts]

On 1/13/23 1:23 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> In SRT Einstein used the velocity v, but meant velocity of an object
> relative to space.

You just keep making stuff up and pretending it is true. This is
BLATANTLY WRONG. If you had actually read Einstein's 1905 paper on SR,
you would know that every velocity he mentioned was relative to a
specified set of inertial coordinates.

> [.... more nonsensical, made-up stuff]

His paper is quite clear: no "anchors" or "targets" are ever used to
measure velocities; each and every time he used a set of inertial
coordinates.

Tom Roberts

[Maciej Wozniak]

On Saturday, 14 January 2023 at 03:24:42 UTC+1, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 1/13/23 1:23 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> > In SRT Einstein used the velocity v, but meant velocity of an object
> > relative to space.
> You just keep making stuff up and pretending it is true. This is
> BLATANTLY WRONG. If you had actually read Einstein's 1905 paper on SR,
> you would know that

That we're FORCED!!! To THE BEST WAY!!!!

[Thomas Heger]

Am 14.01.2023 um 03:24 schrieb Tom Roberts:
> On 1/13/23 1:23 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>> In SRT Einstein used the velocity v, but meant velocity of an object
>> relative to space.
>
> You just keep making stuff up and pretending it is true. This is
> BLATANTLY WRONG. If you had actually read Einstein's 1905 paper on SR,
> you would know that every velocity he mentioned was relative to a
> specified set of inertial coordinates.

This 'specified set of coordinates' needs to be specidied, too.
Therefore, we need another set of specified coordinates to specify the
previous ones.

And so on and on, with infinite regress.

>
>> [.... more nonsensical, made-up stuff]
>
> His paper is quite clear: no "anchors" or "targets" are ever used to
> measure velocities; each and every time he used a set of inertial
> coordinates.
>

He could have used 'mumble' also (instead of 'inertial coordinates').

Contrary to your view, you need a starting point for a position vector.
And that starting point needs also a vector, which defines, where that
point is located. (and so forth...)


TH

[JanPB]

On Saturday, January 14, 2023 at 1:00:48 AM UTC-8, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 14.01.2023 um 03:24 schrieb Tom Roberts:
> > On 1/13/23 1:23 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> >> In SRT Einstein used the velocity v, but meant velocity of an object
> >> relative to space.
> >
> > You just keep making stuff up and pretending it is true. This is
> > BLATANTLY WRONG. If you had actually read Einstein's 1905 paper on SR,
> > you would know that every velocity he mentioned was relative to a
> > specified set of inertial coordinates.
> This 'specified set of coordinates' needs to be specidied, too.
> Therefore, we need another set of specified coordinates to specify the
> previous ones.
>
> And so on and on, with infinite regress.

No. It doesn't work that way.

--
Jan

[Thomas Heger]

sure, infinite regress does not work.

But what else do you suggest?

TH

[JanPB]

It was described in Einstein's 1905 paper. It's a process with no infinite regress.

--
Jan

[Thomas Heger]

Einstein 'defined' an inertial frame as coordinate system, in which the
equations of Newton's mechanics hold good.

I wrote, that Newton was an earthling and the surface of our home planet
is not, what we would call 'inertial frame of reference' today.

Such inertial frames require absense of gravity, which we earthlings
obviously cannot provide.

But in such a dark and gravity free inertial frame, you have abolutely
nothing, which could eventually help you to measure absolute velocity.

In that scenario you always need something, where you could base your
position vectors on.

You could place a 'buoy' somewhere as reference, but don't know its
velocity neither.

So, you need another buoy, to reference the position of the first buoy.
And that buoy needs an anchor, too, what lets you end up with infinite
regress.


TH

[JanPB]

Nonsense.

--
Jan

[Thomas Heger]

Am 16.01.2023 um 11:09 schrieb JanPB:

>
> Nonsense.
>


This argument is a little weak.

You should at least write, wtih which particular statement you disagree.


TH
>

[Maciej Wozniak]

No, he shouldn't. He should wave his arms and
scream; that's what one is expecting from a
fanatic idiot and that's what a fanatic idiot
is performing.

[Volney]

Einstein didn't state that this frame, where the equations of Newton's
mechanics hold good, was being tested on earth. Remember, frames are
infinite in extent and comprise the entire universe.

>
> Such inertial frames require absense of gravity, which we earthlings
> obviously cannot provide.

As usual in physics, especially then, things are tested to within an
error limit, where it can be shown the error from the existence of
gravity or whatever is smaller than measurement errors or outcome error.

Secondly, this is theoretical, it's what happens when there is no
gravity even if such a situation is difficult or impossible to reproduce
in real life. Just like Einstein's trains, moving at a substantial
fraction of c, with observers able to time flashes from lightning bolts
as a train passes an embankment aren't real.

> But in such a dark and gravity free inertial frame, you have abolutely
> nothing, which could eventually help you to measure absolute velocity.

And Einstein doesn't try to use any absolute velocity. He says simply
here's a frame where the equations of Newton's mechanics hold good. Are
you going to complain that Einstein didn't discuss moving objects around
and accelerating them to test Newton's mechanics?

>
> In that scenario you always need something, where you could base your
> position vectors on.

You, the observer, say "Here's the origin".

>
> You could place a 'buoy' somewhere as reference, but don't know its
> velocity neither.

Doesn't matter. Observer considers himself stationary and verifies
Newton's mechanics.

Remember, Einstein was writing for other physicists who understood
perfectly what the equations of Newton's mechanics hold good means,
there was no need for him to write another 5000 pages to explain all of
that.

You come up with some of the craziest nitpicks, no wonder you found 400+
"errors" where there are none.

> So, you need another buoy, to reference the position of the first buoy.

What first buoy? Where the observer declares the origin and declares it
to be stationary? Remember, these are user defined, frames are infinite
in extent, and can be anywhere the observer wants.

> And that buoy needs an anchor, too, what lets you end up with infinite
> regress.

No regression needed. If you are unable to try to understand a paper
written for physicists just leave a marker and declare it as at the
origin and with zero velocity. Wait, you'll probably whine your little
pebble marker has mass and therefore gravity, so...

[Thomas Heger]

Am 17.01.2023 um 19:04 schrieb Volney:

>> Such inertial frames require absense of gravity, which we earthlings
>> obviously cannot provide.
>
> As usual in physics, especially then, things are tested to within an
> error limit, where it can be shown the error from the existence of
> gravity or whatever is smaller than measurement errors or outcome error.
>
> Secondly, this is theoretical, it's what happens when there is no
> gravity even if such a situation is difficult or impossible to reproduce
> in real life. Just like Einstein's trains, moving at a substantial
> fraction of c, with observers able to time flashes from lightning bolts
> as a train passes an embankment aren't real.
>
>> But in such a dark and gravity free inertial frame, you have abolutely
>> nothing, which could eventually help you to measure absolute velocity.
>
> And Einstein doesn't try to use any absolute velocity. He says simply
> here's a frame where the equations of Newton's mechanics hold good. Are
> you going to complain that Einstein didn't discuss moving objects around
> and accelerating them to test Newton's mechanics?
>>
>> In that scenario you always need something, where you could base your
>> position vectors on.
>
> You, the observer, say "Here's the origin".

That would be actually correct, but was not, what Einstein said.

I personally use a concept I call 'subjectivism', which states, that all
observers would naturally take the own position and base observations
upon that.

But the concept of Einstein's SRT didn't do that. Instead, the
'stationary' frame was 'defined' as one, where the equations of Newton's
mechanics hold good.

The equations of Newton were actually not developed for such a scenario,
because Newton lived on planet Earth, where we have gravity and all sort
of other things, which we do not find in inertial frames of reference.

Therefore Einstein's stationary system were undefined, because he didn't
write, in respect to what they were stationary.

He couldn't actually do, because this would require infinite regress of
references.

In the end 'stationary' remains undefined entirely, which would also
include velocity v and also the term 'space'.

That is quite unfortunate, because velocity plays a mayor role in SRT.

>>
>> You could place a 'buoy' somewhere as reference, but don't know its
>> velocity neither.
>
> Doesn't matter. Observer considers himself stationary and verifies
> Newton's mechanics.
>
> Remember, Einstein was writing for other physicists who understood
> perfectly what the equations of Newton's mechanics hold good means,
> there was no need for him to write another 5000 pages to explain all of
> that.

Sure.

But still 'equations of Newton hold good' would not define 'stationary'.

> You come up with some of the craziest nitpicks, no wonder you found 400+
> "errors" where there are none.

This is not 'nitpick'!

It is absolutely essential in relativity to define relations of objects
under consideration.

It's simply not allowed to 'reference to nothing' in relativity, because
the very word 'relative' requires a relation between at least two entities.

>> So, you need another buoy, to reference the position of the first buoy.
>
> What first buoy? Where the observer declares the origin and declares it
> to be stationary? Remember, these are user defined, frames are infinite
> in extent, and can be anywhere the observer wants.

Sure, that would be acceptable, but was not Einstein's setting.

...

TH

[Maciej Wozniak]

Unfortunately, that's a complete nonsense and
while things are complicated indeed - most observers
are working hard to make their observations
objective.

[Volney]

On 1/18/2023 3:22 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 17.01.2023 um 19:04 schrieb Volney:
>
>>> Such inertial frames require absense of gravity, which we earthlings
>>> obviously cannot provide.
>>
>> As usual in physics, especially then, things are tested to within an
>> error limit, where it can be shown the error from the existence of
>> gravity or whatever is smaller than measurement errors or outcome error.
>>
>> Secondly, this is theoretical, it's what happens when there is no
>> gravity even if such a situation is difficult or impossible to reproduce
>> in real life. Just like Einstein's trains, moving at a substantial
>> fraction of c, with observers able to time flashes from lightning bolts
>> as a train passes an embankment aren't real.
>>
>>> But in such a dark and gravity free inertial frame, you have abolutely
>>> nothing, which could eventually help you to measure absolute velocity.
>>
>> And Einstein doesn't try to use any absolute velocity. He says simply
>> here's a frame where the equations of Newton's mechanics hold good. Are
>> you going to complain that Einstein didn't discuss moving objects around
>> and accelerating them to test Newton's mechanics?
>>>
>>> In that scenario you always need something, where you could base your
>>> position vectors on.
>>
>> You, the observer, say "Here's the origin".
>
> That would be actually correct, but was not, what Einstein said.

He defined a frame in which 'equations of Newton hold good'. Period. He
defined the origin. No other reference frame necessary.

>
> I personally use a concept I call 'subjectivism', which states, that all
> observers would naturally take the own position and base observations
> upon that.

Thus, Einstein use the perspective of an unnamed observer and called
this frame "the stationary frame". That's really just a name, it has no
special features like being "absolutely stationary" in some way.

>
> But the concept of Einstein's SRT didn't do that. Instead, the
> 'stationary' frame was 'defined' as one, where the equations of Newton's
> mechanics hold good.

Exactly. That made it an inertial frame even though he didn't use that
term. He could then define an origin wherever he wanted as well.

>
> The equations of Newton were actually not developed for such a scenario,
> because Newton lived on planet Earth, where we have gravity and all sort
> of other things, which we do not find in inertial frames of reference.

Newton dealt with the planets and sun in space where there was no air
resistance, the only gravity was the sun/planets acting on each other
etc. He was certainly smart enough to know the earth's gravity was
present when dealing with observations and experiments on earth.

>
> Therefore Einstein's stationary system were undefined, because he didn't
> write, in respect to what they were stationary.

"Stationary" was really just a name. It was stationary relative to the
unnamed observer observing the results of everything. No further
definitions needed.

>
> He couldn't actually do, because this would require infinite regress of
> references.

No need to reference any frame to another to define an inertial frame.
'where the equations of Newton hold good'

>
> In the end 'stationary' remains undefined entirely, which would also
> include velocity v and also the term 'space'.

Wrong conclusion. If this was one of your "400+ imaginary errors", cross
it off as not an error.

>
> That is quite unfortunate, because velocity plays a mayor role in SRT.

The velocity of things in this frame, and in other frames he used later.

>
>>>
>>> You could place a 'buoy' somewhere as reference, but don't know its
>>> velocity neither.
>>
>> Doesn't matter. Observer considers himself stationary and verifies
>> Newton's mechanics.
>>
>> Remember, Einstein was writing for other physicists who understood
>> perfectly what the equations of Newton's mechanics hold good means,
>> there was no need for him to write another 5000 pages to explain all of
>> that.
>
> Sure.
>
> But still 'equations of Newton hold good' would not define 'stationary'.

You forget Galileo. There is always something which is stationary in
this frame. As the paper reads, the observations of the early parts
which indicates the unnamed observer is stationary in this frame.

Remember, "stationary" is really just a name, as to something moving in
it, the "stationary" frame is moving in the opposite direction. See Galileo.

>
>> You come up with some of the craziest nitpicks, no wonder you found 400+
>> "errors" where there are none.
>
>
> This is not 'nitpick'!

It most certainly is a nitpick! All that is necessary is to define a
frame which he did, and add an observer stationary in it.

>
> It is absolutely essential in relativity to define relations of objects
> under consideration.

You ignored 'where the equations of Newton hold good' defines inertial,
and "stationary" can be any such frame he wants.

>
> It's simply not allowed to 'reference to nothing' in relativity, because
> the very word 'relative' requires a relation between at least two entities.

So? He introduces moving (in that frame) objects and moving frames later.

>
>>> So, you need another buoy, to reference the position of the first buoy.
>>
>> What first buoy? Where the observer declares the origin and declares it
>> to be stationary? Remember, these are user defined, frames are infinite
>> in extent, and can be anywhere the observer wants.
>
> Sure, that would be acceptable, but was not Einstein's setting.

Einstein defines a frame, states 'the equations of Newton hold good' in
it, names it ("the stationary frame") and implies the observer is
stationary in it.

[Thomas Heger]

What Einstein had in mind is not important, but what he wrote in his text.

I wrote a critique about 'On the electrodynamics of moving bodies' and
didn't attempt to read his mind in a psychoanalysis.

It is simply irrelevant, what Einstein really wanted, if he didn't write
that in his paper.

Also subsequent papers are irrellevant for a review, because at the time
of the article those didn't exist.

That's why I'm allowed to ignore Einstein's real intentions, if they
were not put into words and those into the text.

Sure, 'the perspective of an unnamed observer' would make sense, but I
cannot find such a statement in the text.

Contrary to your view, Einstein gave the impression, that he wanted to
measure velocity against a static and well defined universe.

This was actually a self-contradicting statement, because Einstein also
wrote, that Newton's absolute space would not exist.

This would require some specualtions about what else would replace
Newton's universe and 'the perspective of an unnamed observer' would be
in fact an option, but Einstein left that question to the reader.

And I, as a reader, interpreted Einstein's statements, that he wanted to
refer to the universe in the sense of the space of fixed stars, but
erronously also declared that space for noexistent.

This is self-contradicting, because that space of the fixed stars was
also Newton's 'absolute space', which Einstein said wouldn't exist.


TH

[Maciej Wozniak]

Stop fucking, stupid Mike, it's been proven many
times here that your idiot guru was simply too
stupid for defining things carefully and so his
mumble was inconsistent.

[Volney]

But he didn't need to write things his peers were well acquainted with,
such as the definition of an inertial reference frame.

>
> I wrote a critique about 'On the electrodynamics of moving bodies' and
> didn't attempt to read his mind in a psychoanalysis.
>
> It is simply irrelevant, what Einstein really wanted, if he didn't write
> that in his paper.

Except things there was no need to write what you claim is needed.
Remember who his target audience was!

>
> Also subsequent papers are irrellevant for a review, because at the time
> of the article those didn't exist.
>
> That's why I'm allowed to ignore Einstein's real intentions, if they
> were not put into words and those into the text.

You can't ignore things established in the field of interest. Does he
need to prove 2+2=4 if he uses that in his paper? How about everything
Galileo said about inertial frames?

>
> Sure, 'the perspective of an unnamed observer' would make sense, but I
> cannot find such a statement in the text.

It wasn't necessary. The first part of his kinematics section explains
the frame he is going to use.

>
> Contrary to your view, Einstein gave the impression, that he wanted to
> measure velocity against a static and well defined universe.

No, he didn't. He used the definition of an inertial frame without
boring his intended audience (not you) what an inertial frame was.

>
> This was actually a self-contradicting statement, because Einstein also
> wrote, that Newton's absolute space would not exist.

Since he wasn't intending to measure any velocity "against a static
universe", this claim is irrelevant.

>
> This would require some specualtions about what else would replace
> Newton's universe and 'the perspective of an unnamed observer' would be
> in fact an option, but Einstein left that question to the reader.

No need. Once again, his target audience was well aware what a frame is.

>
> And I, as a reader,

and not part of his intended audience, of course.

> interpreted Einstein's statements, that he wanted to
> refer to the universe in the sense of the space of fixed stars,

He didn't care how you would misinterpret his statement since he was
only worried about other physicists, his intended audience.

> but
> erronously also declared that space for noexistent.

No error since he never claimed to use "the fixed stars" for anything.

>
> This is self-contradicting, because that space of the fixed stars was
> also Newton's 'absolute space', which Einstein said wouldn't exist.

And once again, you find a 'fault' based on your own misinterpretation.

How many of your "400+ errors" does this negate? Just one, the fixed
stars reference, or one for each of my sentences?

[Maciej Wozniak]

On Thursday, 19 January 2023 at 22:33:00 UTC+1, Volney wrote:

> You can't ignore things established in the field of interest. Does he
> need to prove 2+2=4 if he uses that in his paper?

What for? Pythagorean theorem had ~150 independent
proofs, and poor idiot has announced it false.

[Thomas Heger]

Einstein wrote such a definition with: a coordinate system in which the
equations of Newtons mechanics hold good.

That is what Einstein wrote and what we should take as his definition.

Other definitions could float around among his peer, but we need to take
his words verbatim and use definitions as he defined terms.

Other terms in use among physicists could safely be used without
definition. For instance the terms 'acceleration' or 'force' would not
need to be defined. These have well accepted meanings among physicists
and could be used accordingly.

>> I wrote a critique about 'On the electrodynamics of moving bodies' and
>> didn't attempt to read his mind in a psychoanalysis.
>>
>> It is simply irrelevant, what Einstein really wanted, if he didn't
>> write that in his paper.
>
> Except things there was no need to write what you claim is needed.
> Remember who his target audience was!

Sure. He wrote for physicists.

But that was not the problem I had adressed.

The problem was, that even physicists need to know, what Einstein
actually wanted to say.

>> Also subsequent papers are irrellevant for a review, because at the
>> time of the article those didn't exist.
>>
>> That's why I'm allowed to ignore Einstein's real intentions, if they
>> were not put into words and those into the text.
>
> You can't ignore things established in the field of interest. Does he
> need to prove 2+2=4 if he uses that in his paper? How about everything
> Galileo said about inertial frames?

Well, Gallileo is certainly quotable. But without a quote, it wouldn't
be possible to know, whether Einstein meant Gallileo or not.

>> Sure, 'the perspective of an unnamed observer' would make sense, but I
>> cannot find such a statement in the text.
>
> It wasn't necessary. The first part of his kinematics section explains
> the frame he is going to use.

But "a coordinate system in which the equations of Newtons mechanics
hold good" does not contain " unnamed observer".

You simply must not 'fill in the blanks' with your own preoccupied
knowledge, but can take only, what is actually written.

To fill the blanks would make things appear in a text, which simply are
not there. And it would make also different 'copies' possible, if
different readers fill the blanks differently.

>> Contrary to your view, Einstein gave the impression, that he wanted to
>> measure velocity against a static and well defined universe.
>
> No, he didn't. He used the definition of an inertial frame without
> boring his intended audience (not you) what an inertial frame was.

Well, that's not a particularily boring question in the topic of relativity.

But Einstein gave in fact a definition of the coordinate system called
'stationary' and used that.

That is good enough, but would not define 'stationary' properly, because
Newton's equations are not restricted to absolutely stationary systems.

>> This was actually a self-contradicting statement, because Einstein
>> also wrote, that Newton's absolute space would not exist.
>
> Since he wasn't intending to measure any velocity "against a static
> universe", this claim is irrelevant.

Sure, but against what else did he want to measure 'stationary'?

...


TH

[Volney]

It's a good definition of what he wanted to use, an inertial frame. "A
coordinate system in which the equations of Newton's mechanics hold
good" was probably the way they referred to inertial frames at the time.

All locations in a frame can be considered observers, even if there is
nothing observing there.

But that is irrelevant, as I was wrong. Einstein *does* mention the
observer (actually plural) in this frame, in the fifth and sixth
paragraph of § 1. Definition of Simultaneity.

> To fill the blanks would make things appear in a text, which simply are
> not there. And it would make also different 'copies' possible, if
> different readers fill the blanks differently.

Yet you agree that there is no need to define or prove such things as
2+2=4, or what acceleration is or what Galileo said about inertial
frames. You say you know he wrote the paper for an audience of
physicists but seem to want to treat the audience as children.

>
>
>
>>> Contrary to your view, Einstein gave the impression, that he wanted to
>>> measure velocity against a static and well defined universe.
>>
>> No, he didn't. He used the definition of an inertial frame without
>> boring his intended audience (not you) what an inertial frame was.
>
>
> Well, that's not a particularily boring question in the topic of
> relativity.
>
> But Einstein gave in fact a definition of the coordinate system called
> 'stationary' and used that.
>
> That is good enough, but would not define 'stationary' properly, because
> Newton's equations are not restricted to absolutely stationary systems.

Nor was that needed. Einstein himself stated "stationary" was a NAME for
the frame. Anyone familiar with Galileo knew there wasn't such a thing
as an absolutely stationary frame.

This further shoots down your claim of infinite references, since the
"stationary frame" is nothing more than an inertial frame NAMED "the
stationary frame".

>
>>> This was actually a self-contradicting statement, because Einstein
>>> also wrote, that Newton's absolute space would not exist.

True, but there's no contradiction with anything.

>>
>> Since he wasn't intending to measure any velocity "against a static
>> universe", this claim is irrelevant.
>
>
> Sure, but against what else did he want to measure 'stationary'?

Einstein said it was a NAME to distinguish it from other frames! Did you
even read the paper? It's right there in the first paragraph of §1!

[Kevin Aylward]

"Thomas Heger" wrote in message news:k2sd92...@mid.individual.net...

Yep....

The fundamental basis of SR is that in a truly empty universe, X T and c
exist and can be defined, such that equations can be written that describe
physical reality.

This is trivially impossible.

Claiming that absolute time didn't exist, didnt go far enough. An empty
universe has no properties at all.

e.g:

https://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/gr/misc/Geometry&Relativity.html


https://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/gr/index.html - General Relativity
http://www.anasoft.co.uk/ SuperSpice Simulation
http://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/ee/index.html - Electronics

[Tom Roberts]

On 1/23/23 2:49 PM, Kevin Aylward wrote:
> The fundamental basis of SR is that in a truly empty universe, X T
> and c exist and can be defined, such that equations can be written
> that describe physical reality.

Hmmm. SR models a universe that is flat and empty, and CLEARLY not the
universe we inhabit. (Though it is a (3+1)-D universe, not just "X T and
c exist".)

No matter, as SR can be EXTREMELY useful -- it is the local limit of GR
(which has no such limitations). So SR is used to accurately model
experiments and physical situation in which its assumptions are
approximately valid. This includes every particle accelerator on the
planet, and every experiment in particle physics, etc.

> This is trivially impossible.

Nope. We do it all the time. It's just that SR does not model the
universe we inhabit, but can be very useful in appropriate physical
situations.

> [... further nonsense omitted]

Tom Roberts

[Maciej Wozniak]

On Monday, 23 January 2023 at 22:44:01 UTC+1, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 1/23/23 2:49 PM, Kevin Aylward wrote:
> > The fundamental basis of SR is that in a truly empty universe, X T
> > and c exist and can be defined, such that equations can be written
> > that describe physical reality.
> Hmmm. SR models a universe that is flat and empty, and CLEARLY not the
> universe we inhabit. (Though it is a (3+1)-D universe, not just "X T and
> c exist".)
>
> No matter, as SR can be EXTREMELY useful

In the meantime in the real world, extremly useful GPS
keep measuring t'=t, just like all serious clocks always
did.

[Thomas Heger]

Am 23.01.2023 um 22:43 schrieb Tom Roberts:
> On 1/23/23 2:49 PM, Kevin Aylward wrote:
>> The fundamental basis of SR is that in a truly empty universe, X T and
>> c exist and can be defined, such that equations can be written that
>> describe physical reality.
>
> Hmmm. SR models a universe that is flat and empty, and CLEARLY not the
> universe we inhabit. (Though it is a (3+1)-D universe, not just "X T and
> c exist".)
>
> No matter, as SR can be EXTREMELY useful -- it is the local limit of GR
> (which has no such limitations). So SR is used to accurately model
> experiments and physical situation in which its assumptions are
> approximately valid. This includes every particle accelerator on the
> planet, and every experiment in particle physics, etc.

I would say, that SR is simply wrong and based on faulty concepts.

It is also not the local limit to GR, but was based on wrong
cosmological concepts and bad math.

Whether GR is much better, I cannot say, but assume it is.

...

TH

[Maciej Wozniak]

On Tuesday, 24 January 2023 at 08:53:05 UTC+1, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 23.01.2023 um 22:43 schrieb Tom Roberts:
> > On 1/23/23 2:49 PM, Kevin Aylward wrote:
> >> The fundamental basis of SR is that in a truly empty universe, X T and
> >> c exist and can be defined, such that equations can be written that
> >> describe physical reality.
> >
> > Hmmm. SR models a universe that is flat and empty, and CLEARLY not the
> > universe we inhabit. (Though it is a (3+1)-D universe, not just "X T and
> > c exist".)
> >
> > No matter, as SR can be EXTREMELY useful -- it is the local limit of GR
> > (which has no such limitations). So SR is used to accurately model
> > experiments and physical situation in which its assumptions are
> > approximately valid. This includes every particle accelerator on the
> > planet, and every experiment in particle physics, etc.
> I would say, that SR is simply wrong and based on faulty concepts.

SR is - simply - stupid. Some morons have imagined,
that it's enough they announce the revolution in
timecounting - and everyone will obey and start to
count time like they want.
The real world don't work like that.

[Faustino Biondo]

Thomas Heger wrote:

> Am 23.01.2023 um 22:43 schrieb Tom Roberts:

>> N̶o̶ m̶a̶t̶t̶e̶r̶, a̶s̶ S̶R̶ c̶a̶n̶ b̶e̶ E̶X̶T̶R̶E̶M̶E̶L̶Y̶ u̶s̶e̶f̶u̶l̶ -- i̶t̶ i̶s̶ t̶h̶e̶ l̶o̶c̶a̶l̶ l̶i̶m̶i̶t̶ o̶f̶ G̶R̶
>> (w̶h̶i̶c̶h̶ h̶a̶s̶ n̶o̶ s̶u̶c̶h̶ l̶i̶m̶i̶t̶a̶t̶i̶o̶n̶s̶). So SR is used to accurately model

>> experiments and physical situation in which its assumptions are
>> approximately valid. This includes every particle accelerator on the
>> planet, and every experiment in particle physics, etc.

idiot. SR has nothing to do with GR. Different domains and everything. You
don't understand the math behind.

> I would say, that SR is simply wrong and based on faulty concepts.
> It is also not the local limit to GR, but was based on wrong
> cosmological concepts and bad math.
> Whether GR is much better, I cannot say, but assume it is.

fascist cacamerica putted again at war gearmony with Russia. One more
time. For the reason Russia gave then energy for industry too cheap. The
gearmons don't masticate energy sold too cheap.

Germany */_‘at_war’_/* with Russia – FM
https://%72%74.com/news/570469-germany-war-russia-baerbock/
Annalena Baerbock made the admission in a debate with EU colleagues,
pushing for the delivery of tanks to Kiev

this is what happens letting *_an_ugly_braindead_bitch_* representing a
country. This kind of bitches thinks the world goes through their vagina.

[Thomas Heger]

Am 25.01.2023 um 20:19 schrieb Faustino Biondo:
> Thomas Heger wrote:
>
>> Am 23.01.2023 um 22:43 schrieb Tom Roberts:
>>> N̶o̶ m̶a̶t̶t̶e̶r̶, a̶s̶ S̶R̶ c̶a̶n̶ b̶e̶ E̶X̶T̶R̶E̶M̶E̶L̶Y̶ u̶s̶e̶f̶u̶l̶ -- i̶t̶ i̶s̶ t̶h̶e̶ l̶o̶c̶a̶l̶ l̶i̶m̶i̶t̶ o̶f̶ G̶R̶
>>> (w̶h̶i̶c̶h̶ h̶a̶s̶ n̶o̶ s̶u̶c̶h̶ l̶i̶m̶i̶t̶a̶t̶i̶o̶n̶s̶). So SR is used to accurately model
>>> experiments and physical situation in which its assumptions are
>>> approximately valid. This includes every particle accelerator on the
>>> planet, and every experiment in particle physics, etc.
>
> idiot. SR has nothing to do with GR. Different domains and everything. You
> don't understand the math behind.
>
>> I would say, that SR is simply wrong and based on faulty concepts.
>> It is also not the local limit to GR, but was based on wrong
>> cosmological concepts and bad math.
>> Whether GR is much better, I cannot say, but assume it is.
>
> fascist cacamerica putted again at war gearmony with Russia. One more
> time. For the reason Russia gave then energy for industry too cheap. The
> gearmons don't masticate energy sold too cheap.

Germans don't like the conflict and are totally against a war with Russia.

It's not really a question about energy sources and not even about the
Ukraine.

Germans had several conflicts with Russia which all turned out to be
extremely desasterous.

We Germans had the hope of good neighborhood with Russia and possible
cooperations in fields, where that is possible.

Russians and Germans are also relatively close 'relatives' in ethnicity
and culture.

Ukraine in contrast has rather low reputation in Europe and ranks
somewhat below Albania in respect to political culture and safety of the
population.

We Germans also don't want any part of Ukraine and nothing of its resources.

It's simply not our war and we hope the best this madness will stop soon.


TH

[Maciej Wozniak]

On Thursday, 26 January 2023 at 09:53:28 UTC+1, Thomas Heger wrote:

> Ukraine in contrast has rather low reputation in Europe and ranks
> somewhat below Albania in respect to political culture and safety of the
> population.

The safety of the Ukrainian population is
rather low now, under Russian bombs, indeed.
But I still esteem their political culture much,
much more than Putin's.

[Baldomero De filippis]

Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Thursday, 26 January 2023 at 09:53:28 UTC+1, Thomas Heger wrote:
>> Ukraine in contrast has rather low reputation in Europe and ranks
>> somewhat below Albania in respect to political culture and safety of
>> the population.
>

> T̶h̶e̶ s̶a̶f̶e̶t̶y̶ o̶f̶ t̶h̶e̶ U̶k̶r̶a̶i̶n̶i̶a̶n̶ p̶o̶p̶u̶l̶a̶t̶i̶o̶n̶ i̶s̶ r̶a̶t̶h̶e̶r̶ l̶o̶w̶ n̶o̶w̶, u̶n̶d̶e̶r̶ R̶u̶s̶s̶i̶a̶n̶
> b̶o̶m̶b̶s̶, i̶n̶d̶e̶e̶d̶. B̶u̶t̶ I̶ s̶t̶i̶l̶l̶ e̶s̶t̶e̶e̶m̶ t̶h̶e̶i̶r̶ p̶o̶l̶i̶t̶i̶c̶a̶l̶ c̶u̶l̶t̶u̶r̶e̶ m̶u̶c̶h̶,
> m̶u̶c̶h̶ m̶o̶r̶e̶ t̶h̶a̶n̶ P̶u̶t̶i̶n̶'s̶.

what population, you fucking idiot. The nazi uKraine is a big business for
the */_khazar_zelenske__/*and khazar *_bidan_clan_family_*. It's all about
the business. The fools cannon fodder are dying for the stinking braindead
khazar cocaine zelenske, you disgusting subhuman excrement. Siberia is
waiting for you, the rest of your stinking polak life.

Zelensky Admits: “Ukraine War Is Good For Business!”
https://youtu.be/NtEglfF8030

Arestovich Admits Russia's First Phase Was Deliberately ＂Soft＂ - Didn't
Want To Hurt Many People
https://%62%69%74%63%68%75%74%65.com/%76%69%64%65%6f/jWHYHthzz1AI

Now Fired - Arestovich Says He Can ＂Speak The Truth＂ - Ukraine Can't Win
(LOL)
https://%62%69%74%63%68%75%74%65.com/%76%69%64%65%6f/Wr8g4vdXgiwA

[Dono.]

On Thursday, January 26, 2023 at 12:53:28 AM UTC-8, Thomas Heger wrote:

> Russians and Germans are also relatively close 'relatives' in ethnicity
> and culture.

Yeah, you both are genocidal butchers.

[Baldomero De filippis]

Thomas Heger wrote:

> Germans don't like the conflict and are t̶o̶t̶a̶l̶l̶y̶ a̶g̶a̶i̶n̶s̶t̶ a̶ w̶a̶r̶ w̶i̶t̶h̶
> R̶u̶s̶s̶i̶a̶. It's n̶o̶t̶ r̶e̶a̶l̶l̶y̶ a̶ q̶u̶e̶s̶t̶i̶o̶n̶ a̶b̶o̶u̶t̶ e̶n̶e̶r̶g̶y̶ s̶o̶u̶r̶c̶e̶s̶ and not even

> about the Ukraine. Germans had several conflicts with Russia which all
> turned out to be extremely desasterous. We Germans had the hope of good
> neighborhood with Russia and possible cooperations in fields, where that

> is possible. R̶u̶s̶s̶i̶a̶n̶s̶ a̶n̶d̶ G̶e̶r̶m̶a̶n̶s̶ a̶r̶e̶ a̶l̶s̶o̶ r̶e̶l̶a̶t̶i̶v̶e̶l̶y̶ c̶l̶o̶s̶e̶ 'r̶e̶l̶a̶t̶i̶v̶e̶s̶'

> in ethnicity and culture. Ukraine in contrast has rather low reputation
> in Europe and ranks somewhat below Albania in respect to political
> culture and safety of the population. We Germans also don't want any
> part of Ukraine and nothing of its resources. It's simply not our war
> and we hope the best this madness will stop soon.

how come "close relative" to Russians, when gearmons are anglo-saxon
*_pigs_*, which just *_declared war to russia_*. You don't read the
fucking news, idiot. Go read the news. And regime change your corrupt
government. */_Now_/*.

[Baldomero De filippis]

Thomas Heger wrote:

> W̶e̶ G̶e̶r̶m̶a̶n̶s̶ a̶l̶s̶o̶ d̶o̶n̶'t̶ w̶a̶n̶t̶ a̶n̶y̶ p̶a̶r̶t̶ o̶f̶ U̶k̶r̶a̶i̶n̶e̶ a̶n̶d̶ n̶o̶t̶h̶i̶n̶g̶ o̶f̶ i̶t̶s̶
> r̶e̶s̶o̶u̶r̶c̶e̶s̶. I̶t̶'s̶ s̶i̶m̶p̶l̶y̶ n̶o̶t̶ o̶u̶r̶ w̶a̶r̶ a̶n̶d̶ w̶e̶ h̶o̶p̶e̶ t̶h̶e̶ b̶e̶s̶t̶ t̶h̶i̶s̶ m̶a̶d̶n̶e̶s̶s̶
> w̶i̶l̶l̶ s̶t̶o̶p̶ s̶o̶o̶n̶.

that's why you tanks and military shit to kill for free?? Other countries pays in billions for rusted crap, your nazi brothers "uKrainia" gets it for free.

German Government Just Officially *_Declared_War_on_Russia_*
https://%6e%65%77%73%70%75%6e%63%68.com/german-government-just-officially-declared-war-on-russia/

[RichD]

On January 23, Kevin Aylward wrote:
> The fundamental basis of SR is that in a truly empty universe, X T and c
> exist and can be defined, such that equations can be written that describe
> physical reality.
> This is trivially impossible.
> Claiming that absolute time didn't exist, didnt go far enough. An empty
> universe has no properties at all.

This is a complete misreading. Einstein discussed coordinate
systems separate from physics, but never claimed that an empty
universe has any meaning.

He operationalized everything. A quantity isn't defined, until
one defines how it's measured. Time doesn't exist, separate
from clocks. Spatial intervals can only be measured by the
distance between objects, laying meter sticks end to end;
distance is meaningless in an empty universe, or with one
object. Similarly velocity.


This is basic stuff, Aristotle would understand. Where do you get
your ideas from?

--
Rich

[Volney]

On 1/26/2023 5:34 PM, Baldomero De filippis wrote:
> Other countries pays in billions for rusted crap, your nazi brothers "uKrainia" gets it for free.

They shouldn't have spent billions buying rusted crap from Russia,
should they. Now Russia gives the rusty WW2 rifles to their involuntary
suicide squads, the "mobiks".

[Thomas Heger]

German is actually a language which was very widely spoken in former time.

The tribes called 'Germanes' by the Romans were actually Cimbern,
Teutons and Anglo-Saxons, who all lived in what is today Denmark.

'Angeln' is a region in northern Germany, which belonged to Denmark
until the so called 'Nordic War', when Prussia captured Schleswig from
Denmark.

Saxons lived in a region called 'Niedersachsen' today (which belongs to
current Germany).

But the former 'Germanes' of the Romans lived predominately in Denmark

Anhow: the poluplation of Germany is not particularily Germanic, but to
a great extend Slavic.

(Already the similarity of the words 'Prussia' and 'Russia' should make
you wonder.)

Other tribes in Germany were Kelts , Allemans, Frisians and several others.

So: the German population is a mixture of several different ethnic
groups and not predominately blond or Germanic.

The language German was and is also spoken in several other countries
(other than Germany) like in Austria, Swizerland, Russia, Rumania, Italy
and so forth.


TH

[De filippis]

you are so stupid, what is your pronouns?

[Volney]

On 1/27/2023 2:08 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 26.01.2023 um 23:20 schrieb Baldomero De filippis:
>> Thomas Heger wrote:
>>
>>> Germans don't like the conflict and are t̶o̶t̶a̶l̶l̶y̶ a̶g̶a̶i̶n̶s̶t̶ a̶ w̶a̶r̶ w̶i̶t̶h̶
>>> R̶u̶s̶s̶i̶a̶. It's n̶o̶t̶ r̶e̶a̶l̶l̶y̶ a̶ q̶u̶e̶s̶t̶i̶o̶n̶ a̶b̶o̶u̶t̶ e̶n̶e̶r̶g̶y̶ s̶o̶u̶r̶c̶e̶s̶ and not even
>>> about the Ukraine. Germans had several conflicts with Russia which all
>>> turned out to be extremely desasterous. We Germans had the hope of good
>>> neighborhood with Russia and possible cooperations in fields, where that
>>> is possible. R̶u̶s̶s̶i̶a̶n̶s̶ a̶n̶d̶ G̶e̶r̶m̶a̶n̶s̶ a̶r̶e̶ a̶l̶s̶o̶ r̶e̶l̶a̶t̶i̶v̶e̶l̶y̶ c̶l̶o̶s̶e̶ 'r̶e̶l̶a̶t̶i̶v̶e̶s̶'
>>> in ethnicity and culture. Ukraine in contrast has rather low reputation
>>> in Europe and ranks somewhat below Albania in respect to political
>>> culture and safety of the population. We Germans also don't want any
>>> part of Ukraine and nothing of its resources. It's simply not our war
>>> and we hope the best this madness will stop soon.
>>
>> how come "close relative" to Russians, when gearmons are anglo-saxon
>> *_pigs_*, which just *_declared war to russia_*. You don't read the
>> fucking news, idiot. Go read the news. And regime change your corrupt
>> government. */_Now_/*.
>>
> German is actually a language which was very widely spoken in former time.

Well the base language (which is not German) in the region eventually
evolved into Norwegian, Swedish and some extinct ones, and into a branch
which became the base for Low German and High German. Dutch and Old
English are related to Low German. Modern German from High German.
Slavic languages? No. Except both groups came from Indo-European.
Ukrainian and Russian are East Slavic languages, Polish West Slavic, and
I believe the former Yugoslavia area languages are called South Slavic.

> Anhow: the poluplation of Germany is not particularily Germanic, but to
> a great extend Slavic.

Maybe in the east. Western Germans are substantially related to the
French, and to a lesser extent, the English, as the Western European
ethnic group. There have been wars and population migration for
centuries, so yes lots of mixing.

>
> (Already the similarity of the words 'Prussia' and 'Russia' should make
> you wonder.)

The words are not as close in most other languages. "Russia" came from
the Kievan Rus, a people in what is now Ukraine and south Belarus, also
called the Ruthenians. The Kievan Rus eventually spread into Muscovy (in
western Russia). and founded Moscow. Muscovy eventually became very
powerful while Kievan Rus declined, largely due to the Mongol invasion.

Prussia came from Pruss, the name the Lithuanian related people in that
area called themselves. The Germans (Teutonic Knights) converted them to
Christianity and largely wiped them out, so the area became German. (why
does that sound familiar :-( ). I guess the Soviet-forced eviction of
Germans from the area to be replaced by Polish and (in half of East
Prussia) the Russians is "payback" not just for WW2 but that earlier period.

[Maciej Wozniak]

On Friday, 27 January 2023 at 08:08:55 UTC+1, Thomas Heger wrote:

> (Already the similarity of the words 'Prussia' and 'Russia' should make
> you wonder.)

:))))) What?
Better wonder about the similliarity of English "sea"
and italian "si".

[Volney]

Путин хуйло.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

On 2023-01-28 19:33:44 +0000, Volney said:

> Путин хуйло

Путин OK, but my Russian, such as it is, doesn't extend to хуйло.
However, Google Translate to the rescue. You're right.


--
athel cb : Biochemical Evolution, Garland Science, 2016

[Douglass Columbo]

Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:

> On 2023-01-28 19:33:44 +0000, Volney said:
>
>> Путин хуйло
>
> Путин OK, but my Russian, such as it is, doesn't extend to хуйло.
> However, Google Translate to the rescue. You're right.

so true indeed. The */_putina_is_a_traitor_/*, working with the cacamerica
and the west, to kill Russia in small pieces, then steal its resources,
gas, oil, gold, fertilizer, etc.

He is a son of a bitch, and will be replaced. So *_you_wankers_of_the_capitalist_west_* will learn what war is
all about, instantaneously. You *_are_fucking_inbreed_criminals_*, like your fathers. Here
more news to love, ie women on the streets with the intestines
outside, since the american *_coup_detat_2014_*, if you have the stomach (18++).

KHAZARS WHO CONTROL UKRAINE relodede with links
https://zb10-7gsop1v78.%62%69%74%63%68%75%74%65.com/HzFVUijW84Jk/hzXcn0N2zqQE.mp4

[Thomas Heger]

The former Prussians were actually slavic tribes and came from East
Prussia, what is a reagion next to Poland, Belarus and Lithuania.

How these people actually came to East prussia is a question. But
possibly they came from the same source as the Kieva Rus, possibly a
little north.

The Germans of that time were kind of aristocratic settlers and belonged
to the so called 'Deutscher Orden', while the population of the region
spoke kind of Polish.

And until Prussia was wiped from the map, the East-Prussians didn't
speak proper German but something called 'water-polish'.


TH