But it's formulation was heavily constrained by what had been observed. The cosmological constant was put in to kill off the expansion of the universe, because Hubble's observations that seemed to show that it was expanding were not available at the time.
You can blame him for starting on his project before quantum physics had gotten far into the nucleus.
It may be easy, but that doesn't make it wrong.
Einstein was about as sane as anybody could be. General Relativity pulled together Lorentz's work with a bunch of other observations and managed to explain the precession of the orbit of Mercury and predict the shift of stellar images when the light involved had grazed the sun.
It was a testable theory that improved our understanding of our observations. The Michelson-Morely Ether Drift experiment might be seen as the starting point. Eisntein seems to have seen it that way.
People keep on proposing new observations, and some of the proposals get funded. The politics that determine which proposals get funded involve regular humans and their known defects, but science is a scheme designed to get around the worst of those defects. It isn't perfect, but Donald Trump is a prize example of how it could be worse.
An elliptical orbit trades kinetic energy for gravitational potential energy.
The sun will have tides too and the tidal ridges and valleys on the surface of the will influence the movement of the earth, and the movement of surface of the sun will absorb energy. There will be tidal dissipation in the sun, but not much of it.
I'm sure that most of it is. The solid earth also distorts - earth tides
- but doesn't flow very far.
The band-pass and Kalman filters are so ubiquitous, that it's often not even considered that they don't perfectly make for reconstructing the analog.
It seems like a lot of mathematics these days is so much about the embarrassment of resources of the computing milieu that there's not much made of analysis, just regression to the mean.
That said, then there's certainly opportunity in analysis and design over crunching and iteration, since analog computing still has some unique capabilities.
The Kalman filter shows up a lot, it's just so usual, or so it seems from somebody who's not an electrical engineer by trade, there's yet something to be said for analog approaches like integrators.
Thanks for writing.
Einstein was a madman insisting we should stop synchronizing clocks for the sake of the symmetry of his pretty little formulas. Even his hardest fanatics don't, of course - they limit themself to talk that is what should be done.
General Relativity
If you're told you have to observe because of some "laws of nature" invented by your idiot guru, and you trust your idiot guru
- you observe. That's all.
What do you think an "observation" is? I will tell you: it is a process of converting pictures(also sounds, smells and touch, but mostly pictures) into text. Explaining why it is important would be long, what matters is that nature doesn't affect text, it's all ours.
F*ck your understanding. The clocks will keep indicating t'=t, not because of some delusional "laws of nature", but because of what we need them for. Anyone can check GPS, or any other timekeeping system. The wannabe standards Einstein's church is trying to enforce are - simply - ignored, common sense has been warning the idiot.
The Michelson-Morely Ether Drift experiment might be seen
And it usually succeeds. The S*it of Einstein just demonstrates that's not for sure. There is no method for being infallible.
Actually it doesn't matter, but I think that Einstein wasn't a particularily smart person.
I have analysed his paper 'On the electrodynamics of moving bodies' very carefully and found roughly 390 errors in it.
Also his language was quite weak, even if he spoke German. But after ten years at Princton his English was just terrible.
But that doesn't matter, of course, because he wasn't famous for language.
...
TH
Am Dienstag000010, 10.03.2026 um 17:13 schrieb john larkin:
What he apparently meant:
there had been several approaches to utilise hypercomplex numbers and none had worked.
I wanted to express, that my system, composed of biquaternions and Pauli algebra, looks quite promising.
Have a look yourself:
TH
Am 11.03.26 um 09:57 schrieb Thomas Heger:
They said on the radio there was a wrong-way driver on this highway - but there are hundreds!
Gerhard
Einstein has both said so and denied it, on different occasions. It seems probable that even if it did play a part it was a minor one. What clinched it seems to have been stellar aberation, and Fizeau's partial aether drag results.
Jan
Perhaps, but the problem is not fitting the evidence. The problem is that they do not even relate to the evidence, and are clueless about how that might come about. (so they fall back on string theory landscape and anthropic principles)
Jan
You are clutching at straws to save an erroneous idea. Sometimes it is easier to just admit to having made a mistake.
Effectively nothing. Remember that the relevant part of the sun is turbulent plasma.
The solid tides do dissipate some energy, but not much. [1] (would have to look up again)
Jan
[1] Typical example: the inner moon of Mars, Phobos, is going to crash, in 50 million years or so.
Sorry, but this is nonsense again. General relativity was a purely theoretical project, made necessary by Newtonian gravity being obviously wrong. The only observational constraint into it was that it should reproduce Newtonian gravity in the limit of v << c.
The unexpected bonus of an observable v/c effect came out, it didn't go in, and it's known existence beforehand didn't provide a clue.
There was no cosmological constant in the original 1915 theory. That came much later, and doesn't really belong.
He hoped for unification of classical electrodynamics and gravity, which isn't a bad idea, a priori. There was Kaluza-Klein theory for example, which was a precursor for supergravity and string theory.
No, merely gratuitous,
Jan
Den 10.03.2026 16:56, skrev Ross Finlayson:
I find your symmetrical and reflective convolutive setting which is going to zero instead of off to infinity rather convoluted.
Den 11.03.2026 08:13, skrev Maciej Woźniak:
Maciej is referring to the SI-standard (International System of Units).
'nuff said!
Intelligence is multifacetted. Whatever Einstein had was pretty good.
Who cares. It got a lot f attention at the time, and we are still talking about it here
I was married to a psycholinguist for some forty years (she died in
2022) and am well aware that some people are very skilled at language, but her language skills (which were impressive) didn't make her all that good at physics. If Einstein didn't obsess about the correctness of his German or his English, that just means that he was sane. He was quite competent enough to get the attention of serious physicists for a a very long time. He clearly didn't need superior language skills.He was famous for what he wrote and communicated, but you don't seem to be able to understand why.
Nicely put.
The idiot here is you. GPS satellites are accurate enough that they have to be corrected for relativistic effects to maintain a uniform time base.
It not just that the orbiting satellites are moving fast enough relative to planet underneath to need correction for Lorenz effects, but they are also high enough to be in a less powerful gravitational field, so they run faster than ground-based clocks. You can test the effects without getting into orbit. This was done in 1971.
Or looking at it another way, some people do get silly ideas into their heads and can't understand the evidence that most people understand to show that their ideas are wrong.
Yes I am (except that it's no way any standard). Paul is a piece of lying s*it, but sometimes he admits that serious clocks [of GPS]
I guess he's too stupid to realize that if a mean solar day lasts 86400 seconds of a serious clock, then one second of a serious clock lasts 1/86400 of a mean solar day.
Go ahead.
I'm well aware of it. Tidal excursions will still dissipate some energy.
Any satellite that orbits faster than the planet underneath rotates is going to spiral in.
Maybe the universe is sufficiently complex that humans can never understand it. Newton, Einstein, Feynman got us about as far as we will ever go.
Given that, we don't need many theoretical physicists.
John Larkin Highland Tech Glen Canyon Design Center Lunatic Fringe Electronics
Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.
Ask the community — no account required