From: relativity@paulba.no   
      
   Den 18.11.2025 11:29, skrev Thomas Heger:   
   > Am Montag000017, 17.11.2025 um 20:53 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:   
   >>   
   >> If you are interested in relativity, return to the real   
   >> world and respond to the following:   
   >>   
   >> "The Special Theory of Relativity (SR)" as defined in Einstein's   
   >> paper "ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES", and   
   >> "The General Theory of Relativity (GR)" as defined in Einstein's   
   >> paper "The Foundation of the General Theory of Relativity",   
   >> are both logically consistent theories.   
   >>   
   >> Do you dispute this?   
   >> ====================   
   >   
   > I have conducted an extensive study of Einstein's text 'On the   
   > electrodynamics of moving bodies'.   
   >   
   > I found hundreds of errors in it and regard that particular article   
   > therefore as a piece of crap.   
   >   
   > It is so insanely bad, that it will be hard to defend it somehow.   
   >   
   > The physical content is therefore irrelevant and wasn't discussed by me.   
   >   
   > I regard relativity per se as mainly correct and argue only about the   
   > quality of Einstein's paper.   
      
   Repeating your opinion of SR/GR is no refutation.   
      
   SR is pretty well defined by the Lorentz transform (LT):   
      
   Given two frames of references: K(t,x,y,z) and K'(t',x',y',z')   
   The axes are paralell, x with x', y with y' etc.   
   The origin of K' is moving along the postive x-axis with   
   the speed v.   
      
      c = the speed of light, γ = 1/√(1 − v²/c²)   
      
      t' = γ⋅(t - v⋅x/c²)   
      x' = γ⋅(x - v⋅t)   
      y' = y   
      z' = z   
      
      t = γ⋅(t' + v⋅x'/c²)   
      x = γ⋅(x' + v⋅t')   
      y = y'   
      z = z'   
      
   You can prove SR inconsitent by showing that the LT   
   is  inconsistent.   
      
   With math, not words!   
      
   Can you do that?   
      
   >> Both these theories of physics give precise predictions   
   >> for what will be measured in well defined experiments.   
   >>   
   >> Do you dispute this?   
   >> ====================   
      
   >   
   > I distinguish between a model and the part of nature, which that model   
   > attempts to model.   
   >   
   > This distinction is extremly important and by no meas disputable.   
   >   
   > If you equate a model with the real world, you would  conduct something   
   > extremely stupid.   
   >   
   > That is like eating the menu in a restaurant instead of the meal.   
      
   Again, your opinion of SR/GR is irrelevant.   
      
   It is an indisputable fact that SR and GR give precise   
   predictions for what will be measured in well defined experiments.   
      
   Here are a few examples of the predictions:   
   https://paulba.no/pdf/GRPerihelionAdvance.pdf   
   https://paulba.no/pdf/sagnac_ring.pdf   
   https://paulba.no/pdf/four_mirror_sagnac.pdf   
   https://paulba.no/pdf/fiber_optic_gyro.pdf   
   https://paulba.no/pdf/PoundRebka.pdf   
   https://paulba.no/pdf/H&K_like.pdf   
   https://paulba.no/pdf/Clock_rate.pdf   
      
   But the fact that SR and GR give precise predictions   
   doesn't prove that the predictions are in accordance with   
   measurements. Only real experiments can do that.   
      
      
   For a vast number of experiments the predictions of SR and GR   
   are confirmed to be in accordance with measurements.   
      
   Do you dispute this?   
   ====================   
      
   You can see some of these experiment here:   
   https://paulba.no/paper/index.html   
      
   Now you can explain why theories wich are "total nonsense".   
   can give predictions which are confirmed to be correct.   
      
      
   --   
   Paul   
      
   https://paulba.no/   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)