Break in time that extends to months or maybe even years!!

fundsgon
Geoffkait,
true enuf. He did however, predict orbital precession. His calculations perfectly predicted mercury’s orbit, which is subject to a higher degree of precession than the outer planets. Orbital dynamics using classical physics are not able to accurately predict the orbit of Mercury, Einstein’s Gravitational physics is needed for that.

recently, a star orbiting the milky ways central black hole was shown to be behaving as Einstein’s calculation predict. Astounding.

Anyone know what music Herr Einstein listened to?

Okay, now we’re light years off topic. My fault.

>>>>You’re getting warm. It was Einstein’s theory of General Relativity that explained Mercury’s orbit. Ironically perhaps it’s inaccurate to use the term gravitational physics as that’s a classical physics term. That was the whole point of the Mercury orbit anomaly, that it couldn’t be entirely explained by gravitational physics.

I’m from Michigan so what do I know - I’ll bring some Bell’s

BTW,
https://northernwilds.com/pickerel-vs-walleye-setting-the-record-straight/

Nope, sorry. Einstein would never say something so trite. It doesn’t mean anything.

You are right :) but I love this " trite" citation....
Sometimes banality reflect the situation itself....This was my point....

It is for the last decades in all audio thread this break-in "problem" that is not one simple problem but reflective of a complex situation, a trite problematic, implicating an experiencing subjectivity and a complex audio system .....
I dont think blind test, or comparison will settle that, except for those who call the improvement in some break-in process an illusion because it is mostly only subjectively experienced ( not necessarily an illusion or a placebo tough) and not measurable the way they will like it...

Like say Einstein in a non trite citation:

"“We can not solve our problems with the same level of thinking that created them.”

And this apply also to the break- in problem ….


But you said that this citation is not meaningful.... I dont think so... This is my translation:

“Not everything that counts can be counted,
and not everything that can be counted counts.”

All parameters linked to a problem cannot always be takes into account by the problem's statement
And more than that some parameters of the problem are sometimes secondary for the solution...

I forget to say that this first citation is effectively not from Einstein...
It seems trite or a banality... Yes... Not meaningful ? no...And like my "translation" or reformulated statement made it clear, there is a link between the citation falsely attributed to Einstein, and the real citation of Einstein....

the 2 citations are well related to this break-in problem, which is also, in some aspect, an optimization problem....

My" translation" of the trite citation in a new statement of it, refer to what in mathematics, computer science and economics, is call an optimization problem , the problem of finding the best solution from all feasible solutions. is it not clear?

With this short post about this "trite" citation, falsely attributed to Einstein, I was willing to only makes my point in few clear words... But you push me to be more clear, and clarify something that is apparently trite but meaningful tough....

my best....