Ross Finlayson wrote:like 𝘀𝗺𝗲𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗸𝘆 of
On 02/08/2024 06:51 AM, Volney wrote:
I found 428 errors in Einstein's textNo, you did not.
One great thing about Baez' index is that more than half of the points
also go to Einstein 2 or Zweistein, whoever that may be, of course that
it's a sort of asymptotic anti-inductive excellence, of which most would
be unawares.
nonsense. Those are not Einstine's papers. He was 𝗮_𝗽𝘂𝗽𝗽𝗲𝘁
ukurina (an imbecile gay actor with no military experience, firing
generals, lol). What a gay of a country. The Einstine couldn't even speak gearmon. And was gay, like 𝘀𝗺𝗲𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗸𝘆.
...
...
Volney wrote:
On 5/19/2024 2:30 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
JanPB wrote:
Thomas Heger wrote:
Am 12.11.2023 um 19:17 schrieb Frauly Bagaryatsky:
Thomas Heger wrote:Most likely a few specialists exist in Germany, who actually know.
Actually you can read the annotations now online (without downloading
the file).
nonsense, that's completely bullshit. It displays you never been study
at an university with a ð˜ƒð—¶ð˜€ð—¶ð˜ð—¶ð—»ð—´_ð—½ð—¿ð—¼ð—³ð—²ð˜€ð˜€ð—¼ð—¿.
I was actually a HYPOTHETICAL professor (in my role as writer of these >>> annotations).
The method goes like this:
imagine you were a professor and had to write corrections for the
homework of a student (Albert Einstein in this case).
The 'homework' is the text in question ('On the electrodynamics of
moving bodies' in this case).
So my 'duty' would be to write annotations, where I give the student a >>> few hints, how to avoid errors next time.
I found 428 errors in Einstein's text and therefore wrote so many
annotations.
There are no errors in Einstein's paper. There are instances of sloppiness,
bending over backwards, inconsequential omissions, and the like, all of which are
typical of any science paper.
"inconsequential omissions"???? Like Albert Einstein's 1905 Relativity paper NOT neven even mentioning ONCE 'Gravity'.
Duh-h-h! That was a paper on special relativity, and special relativity doesn't involve gravity!
That's what I said..it didn't include Gravity. Big mistake, wasn't it?
(i know yous people just look the other way)
On 5/19/2024 2:30 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
JanPB wrote:
Thomas Heger wrote:
Am 12.11.2023 um 19:17 schrieb Frauly Bagaryatsky:
Thomas Heger wrote:Most likely a few specialists exist in Germany, who actually know.
Actually you can read the annotations now online (without downloading >>>>>>> the file).
nonsense, that's completely bullshit. It displays you never been study >>>>>> at an university with a ð˜ƒð—¶ð˜€ð—¶ð˜ð—¶ð—»ð—´_ð—½ð—¿ð—¼ð—³ð—²ð˜€ð˜€ð—¼ð—¿.
I was actually a HYPOTHETICAL professor (in my role as writer of these >>> annotations).
The method goes like this:
imagine you were a professor and had to write corrections for the
homework of a student (Albert Einstein in this case).
The 'homework' is the text in question ('On the electrodynamics of
moving bodies' in this case).
So my 'duty' would be to write annotations, where I give the student a >>> few hints, how to avoid errors next time.
I found 428 errors in Einstein's text and therefore wrote so many
annotations.
There are no errors in Einstein's paper. There are instances of sloppiness,
bending over backwards, inconsequential omissions, and the like, all of which are
typical of any science paper.
"inconsequential omissions"???? Like Albert Einstein's 1905 Relativity paper NOT neven even mentioning ONCE 'Gravity'.
Duh-h-h! That was a paper on special relativity, and special relativity doesn't involve gravity!
Volney wrote:
On 5/19/2024 2:30 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
JanPB wrote:
Thomas Heger wrote:
Am 12.11.2023 um 19:17 schrieb Frauly Bagaryatsky:
Thomas Heger wrote:Most likely a few specialists exist in Germany, who actually know.
Actually you can read the annotations now online (without downloading
the file).
nonsense, that's completely bullshit. It displays you never been study
at an university with a ð˜ƒð—¶ð˜€ð—¶ð˜ð—¶ð—»ð—´_ð—½ð—¿ð—¼ð—³ð—²ð˜€ð˜€ð—¼ð—¿.
I was actually a HYPOTHETICAL professor (in my role as writer of these >>> annotations).
The method goes like this:
imagine you were a professor and had to write corrections for the
homework of a student (Albert Einstein in this case).
The 'homework' is the text in question ('On the electrodynamics of
moving bodies' in this case).
So my 'duty' would be to write annotations, where I give the student a >>> few hints, how to avoid errors next time.
I found 428 errors in Einstein's text and therefore wrote so many
annotations.
There are no errors in Einstein's paper. There are instances of sloppiness,
bending over backwards, inconsequential omissions, and the like, all of which are
typical of any science paper.
"inconsequential omissions"???? Like Albert Einstein's 1905 Relativity paper NOT neven even mentioning ONCE 'Gravity'.
Duh-h-h! That was a paper on special relativity, and special relativity doesn't involve gravity!
Time dilation special relativity 1905 paper is caused by relativity or gravity?
The Starmaker wrote:
Volney wrote:
On 5/19/2024 2:30 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
JanPB wrote:
Thomas Heger wrote:
Am 12.11.2023 um 19:17 schrieb Frauly Bagaryatsky:
Thomas Heger wrote:Most likely a few specialists exist in Germany, who actually know.
Actually you can read the annotations now online (without downloading
the file).
nonsense, that's completely bullshit. It displays you never been study
at an university with a ð˜ƒð—¶ð˜€ð—¶ð˜ð—¶ð—»ð—´_ð—½ð—¿ð—¼ð—³ð—²ð˜€ð˜€ð—¼ð—¿.
I was actually a HYPOTHETICAL professor (in my role as writer of these
annotations).
The method goes like this:
imagine you were a professor and had to write corrections for the
homework of a student (Albert Einstein in this case).
The 'homework' is the text in question ('On the electrodynamics of >>> moving bodies' in this case).
So my 'duty' would be to write annotations, where I give the student a
few hints, how to avoid errors next time.
I found 428 errors in Einstein's text and therefore wrote so many
annotations.
There are no errors in Einstein's paper. There are instances of sloppiness,
bending over backwards, inconsequential omissions, and the like, all of which are
typical of any science paper.
"inconsequential omissions"???? Like Albert Einstein's 1905 Relativity paper NOT neven even mentioning ONCE 'Gravity'.
Duh-h-h! That was a paper on special relativity, and special relativity doesn't involve gravity!
Time dilation special relativity 1905 paper is caused by relativity or gravity?
If you *steal* somebodies homework you liable to make the same mistakes.
--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge the unchallengeable.
Here is the difference between Einstein's 1905 paper and the 1915 paper...
1905 is without the Gravity
1915 is with the Gravity
1905 is without the Acceleration
1915 is with the Acceleration
1905 is without the rocket coming back
1915 is with the rocket coming back
1905 is with the train going one way
1915 is with the train making a connecting flight on
a rocket in order to come back
1905 is without the bandage
1915 is with the bandage
1905 is without finishing it
1915 is with the finishing
1905 is with the formula for the atomic bomb
1939 is puting the atomic bomb on a boat to
Germany because to too heavy for a plane to carry it.
1905 is without the Gravity but contains the formula
for the atomic bomb and no one notices it.
Conclusion:
The atomic bomb is Real and Gravity is still ...just a theory.
The Starmaker wrote:
The Starmaker wrote:
Volney wrote:
On 5/19/2024 2:30 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
JanPB wrote:
Thomas Heger wrote:
Am 12.11.2023 um 19:17 schrieb Frauly Bagaryatsky:
Thomas Heger wrote:Most likely a few specialists exist in Germany, who actually know. >>
Actually you can read the annotations now online (without downloading
the file).
nonsense, that's completely bullshit. It displays you never been study
at an university with a ð˜ƒð—¶ð˜€ð—¶ð˜ð—¶ð—»ð—´_ð—½ð—¿ð—¼ð—³ð—²ð˜€ð˜€ð—¼ð—¿.
I was actually a HYPOTHETICAL professor (in my role as writer of these
annotations).
The method goes like this:
imagine you were a professor and had to write corrections for the >>> homework of a student (Albert Einstein in this case).
The 'homework' is the text in question ('On the electrodynamics of >>> moving bodies' in this case).
So my 'duty' would be to write annotations, where I give the student a
few hints, how to avoid errors next time.
I found 428 errors in Einstein's text and therefore wrote so many >>> annotations.
There are no errors in Einstein's paper. There are instances of sloppiness,
bending over backwards, inconsequential omissions, and the like, all of which are
typical of any science paper.
"inconsequential omissions"???? Like Albert Einstein's 1905 Relativity
paper NOT neven even mentioning ONCE 'Gravity'.
Duh-h-h! That was a paper on special relativity, and special relativity doesn't involve gravity!
Time dilation special relativity 1905 paper is caused by relativity or gravity?
If you *steal* somebodies homework you liable to make the same mistakes.
--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge the unchallengeable.
--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge the unchallengeable.
1905 is Relativity without the Gravity
1915 is Gravity without the Relativity
wats love gotodowitit?
Question, which one has the twins leaving on
a rocket but not returning, and the twins
leaving on a rocket but returning?
Question, which one has dilation with no gravity, and
which one has dilation WITH gravity?
What do you call a theory that contains dilation but no gravity?
A dilated hypothesis!
It's a gravity-free dilation!
The Starmaker wrote:
Here is the difference between Einstein's 1905 paper and the 1915 paper...
1905 is without the Gravity
1915 is with the Gravity
1905 is without the Acceleration
1915 is with the Acceleration
1905 is without the rocket coming back
1915 is with the rocket coming back
1905 is with the train going one way
1915 is with the train making a connecting flight on
a rocket in order to come back
1905 is without the bandage
1915 is with the bandage
1905 is without finishing it
1915 is with the finishing
1905 is with the formula for the atomic bomb
1939 is puting the atomic bomb on a boat to
Germany because to too heavy for a plane to carry it.
1905 is without the Gravity but contains the formula
for the atomic bomb and no one notices it.
Conclusion:
The atomic bomb is Real and Gravity is still ...just a theory.
The Starmaker wrote:
The Starmaker wrote:
Volney wrote:
On 5/19/2024 2:30 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
JanPB wrote:
Thomas Heger wrote:
Am 12.11.2023 um 19:17 schrieb Frauly Bagaryatsky:
Thomas Heger wrote:Most likely a few specialists exist in Germany, who actually know.
Actually you can read the annotations now online (without downloading
the file).
nonsense, that's completely bullshit. It displays you never been study
at an university with a ð˜ƒð—¶ð˜€ð—¶ð˜ð—¶ð—»ð—´_ð—½ð—¿ð—¼ð—³ð—²ð˜€ð˜€ð—¼ð—¿.
I was actually a HYPOTHETICAL professor (in my role as writer of these
annotations).
The method goes like this:
imagine you were a professor and had to write corrections for the >>> homework of a student (Albert Einstein in this case).
The 'homework' is the text in question ('On the electrodynamics of
moving bodies' in this case).
So my 'duty' would be to write annotations, where I give the student a
few hints, how to avoid errors next time.
I found 428 errors in Einstein's text and therefore wrote so many >>> annotations.
There are no errors in Einstein's paper. There are instances of sloppiness,
bending over backwards, inconsequential omissions, and the like, all of which are
typical of any science paper.
"inconsequential omissions"???? Like Albert Einstein's 1905 Relativity
paper NOT neven even mentioning ONCE 'Gravity'.
Duh-h-h! That was a paper on special relativity, and special relativity
doesn't involve gravity!
Time dilation special relativity 1905 paper is caused by relativity or gravity?
If you *steal* somebodies homework you liable to make the same mistakes.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 475 |
| Nodes: | 16 (3 / 13) |
| Uptime: | 147:50:08 |
| Calls: | 9,478 |
| Calls today: | 9 |
| Files: | 13,610 |
| Messages: | 6,120,737 |