On Thursday, April 21, 2022 at 6:13:18 AM UTC-7, Reinhardt Behm wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Apr 2022 08:53:26 +0200, Thomas Heger wrote:
>
> > Am 19.04.2022 um 12:01 schrieb JanPB:
> >
> >>>>> That is not how science works.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Anything ever invented can be questioned at any time in the future.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> So, I could try to question Newton's laws, if I wanted to do so.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> That is legal, because this is how science works.
> >>>>
> >>>> This is a different topic. What you said was: "Whether or not
> >>>> Einstein has something useful to say about the topic, that is a
> >>>> question of debate."
> >>> Relativity is actually a daily observation. Practically everything is
> >>> relative to something else.
> >>>
> >>> So relativity per se cannot be questioned in any meaningful sense.
> >>>
> >>> But we can, of course, question certain theories from this realm.
> >>>
> >>> Now we are talking about a certain proposal from a guy named Albert
> >>> Einstein, which he had published in 1905.
> >>>
> >>> This proposal is about 'inertal frames of reference in streight
> >>> lateral motion'. The relative velocity is assumed to be constant and
> >>> very fast.
> >>>
> >>> That is roughly the setting, about which Einstein wrote.
> >>>
> >>> From certain assumptions he came to certain results. And now we are
> >>> discussing the question, whether or not these results are derived
> >>> properly and have some value in physics.
> >>>
> >>> I came to the conclusion, that the results themselves are possible,
> >>> while the methods by which he came to them were not.
> >>
> >> And this conclusion is incorrect.
> >>
> >>> To derive a certain result from certain axioms, it is essential to
> >>> make no formal errors of any kind.
> >>
> >> There are no errors in Einstein's 1905, formal or otherwise. There are
> >> some instances of over-complicating things or bits of sloppiness but
> >> that standard in practically all science research papers.
> >
> > The text is FULL of errors of all sorts.
> >
> > Some of these errors were extremely stupid, some very small, some
> > formal.
> >
> > My counting was: more than four-hundred errors in the text.
> >
> > Very simple example:
> > Einstein wrote in a footnote, that a sphere is a spherical body, when
> > observed at rest.
> >
> > I counted this as three errors:
> >
> > 1) it is not necessecary to explain the term 'sphere' to the intended
> > audience of professional physicists
> >
> > 2) it is wrong to explain a term by reference to itself
> >
> > 3) a sphere is the two dimensional shell of a ball, hence not a body.
> >
> >
> > VERY serious was Einstein's habit, that he made no destinctions between
> > vectors and scalars.
> >
> > It was hard to say, what Einstein actually meant, because he gave no
> > hints in the form of a different fort for different types of
> > mathematical objects (for instance) or in any other form.
> >
> > So he simply assumed, the reader would know anyhow, what he had in mind.
> >
> > This was regarded as an error, because the author is responsible to make
> > clear, what he wants to say.
> >
> >
> > But Einstein himself had seemingly trouble with the distinction between
> > vectors and scalars, because he added - for instance- c and a velocity
> > w.
> >
> > Now c is a scalar, while velocity is a vectorial quantity, which you
> > must not add or subtract from vectors.
> >
> >> Textbooks strive for more "perfection" but this is not a student text.
> >
> >
> > Einstein made very serious physical errors, too.
> >
> > E.g. he used work as equal to energy.
> >
> > Or he attempted to redefine certain terms in common use, like mass.
> >
> > He used the term 'mass' with the meaning 'amount of matter', what 'mass'
> > does not mean.
> >
> >
> >>> Especially mathematical errors are deadly in theoretical physics,
> >>> which is based on mathematical perfectionism.
> >>
> >> Sure, but there aren't any there.
> >
> > There are also mathematical errors.
> >
> > E.g. the first equation on page 4:
> >
> > 'tau' is here the name of a linear function, which has four vectors as
> > arguments.
> >
> > since tau is a linear function, the argument on the right side of the
> > equation must have zero at the first position, while it has actually x'
> > there.
> >
> > this doesn't actually matter, because x' = 0 must be true for some other
> > reason.
> >
> > But if x'=0 the equation would read as:
> >
> > 1/2 [tau(0,0,0,t) + tau(0,0,0,t)]= tau(0,0,0,t)
> >
> >
> > Well, that is certainly true, but hardly, what Einstein had in mind.
> >
> > ...
> It seems Bertrand Russel already knew you when he said
> "A stupid man's report of what a clever man says is never accurate,
> because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something that he
> can understand."
>
>
>
>
> --
> Reinhardt

Perfect! I will be "borrowing" this quote in the future...

On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 11:53:31 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 19.04.2022 um 12:01 schrieb JanPB:
>
> >>>> That is not how science works.
> >>>>
> >>>> Anything ever invented can be questioned at any time in the future.
> >>>>
> >>>> So, I could try to question Newton's laws, if I wanted to do so.
> >>>>
> >>>> That is legal, because this is how science works.
> >>>
> >>> This is a different topic. What you said was: "Whether or not Einstein has
> >>> something useful to say about the topic, that is a question of debate."
> >> Relativity is actually a daily observation. Practically everything is
> >> relative to something else.
> >>
> >> So relativity per se cannot be questioned in any meaningful sense.
> >>
> >> But we can, of course, question certain theories from this realm.
> >>
> >> Now we are talking about a certain proposal from a guy named Albert
> >> Einstein, which he had published in 1905.
> >>
> >> This proposal is about 'inertal frames of reference in streight lateral
> >> motion'. The relative velocity is assumed to be constant and very fast.
> >>
> >> That is roughly the setting, about which Einstein wrote.
> >>
> >> From certain assumptions he came to certain results. And now we are
> >> discussing the question, whether or not these results are derived
> >> properly and have some value in physics.
> >>
> >> I came to the conclusion, that the results themselves are possible,
> >> while the methods by which he came to them were not.
> >
> > And this conclusion is incorrect.
> >
> >> To derive a certain result from certain axioms, it is essential to make
> >> no formal errors of any kind.
> >
> > There are no errors in Einstein's 1905, formal or otherwise. There are some
> > instances of over-complicating things or bits of sloppiness but that standard
> > in practically all science research papers.
> The text is FULL of errors of all sorts.

Nope, there are none.

> Some of these errors were extremely stupid, some very small, some formal.

There are no errors in Einstein's 1905 paper. It's all your imagination.
(I'm assuming you mean by "error" what people cutomarily take it to mean.)

> My counting was: more than four-hundred errors in the text.

That's all your fantasy.

> Very simple example:
> Einstein wrote in a footnote, that a sphere is a spherical body, when
> observed at rest.
>
> I counted this as three errors:
>
> 1) it is not necessecary to explain the term 'sphere' to the intended
> audience of professional physicists
>
> 2) it is wrong to explain a term by reference to itself
>
> 3) a sphere is the two dimensional shell of a ball, hence not a body.

These are not errors. What you write above has zero information content
because it would apply to every single paper (not only scientific) ever written
on any topic, anywhere.

> VERY serious was Einstein's habit, that he made no destinctions between
> vectors and scalars.

Trust me, he does distinguish between vectors and scalars :-)
(Whatever stupidity can you think of next?)

> It was hard to say, what Einstein actually meant, because he gave no
> hints in the form of a different fort for different types of
> mathematical objects (for instance) or in any other form.

No, it's extremely easy.

> So he simply assumed, the reader would know anyhow, what he had in mind.

Yes. That's what every research paper does.

> This was regarded as an error, because the author is responsible to make
> clear, what he wants to say.

The author did make clear what he wanted to say.

> But Einstein himself had seemingly trouble with the distinction between
> vectors and scalars,

No, he did not. It's all in your head. You don't even know how he
derived the formulas for the transverse Doppler effect or the
formulas for an accelerating electron at the end of the paper.

> because he added - for instance- c and a velocity w.

No, he did not. You simply don't understand the simplest basics, yet
you feel "qualified" to pontificate on Einstein's "errors". This is
pure Monty Python.

> Now c is a scalar, while velocity is a vectorial quantity, which you
> must not add or subtract from vectors.

He never adds scalars to vectors, you just don't understand this stuff.

> > Textbooks strive for more "perfection" but this is not a student text.
> Einstein made very serious physical errors, too.
>
> E.g. he used work as equal to energy.

What do you mean? Ever heard of the work-energy theorem?

> Or he attempted to redefine certain terms in common use, like mass.

This was Lorentz, not Einstein. The point of certain types of research is
to consider implications of certain assumptions. One of those was Lorentz's
transverse and longitudinal mass. Einstein was able to obtain the same
result using his approach (which was different than Lorentz's). It was very
quickly realised that, while not incorrect, that way of redefining mass was
inferior to redefining momentum instead. This momentum redefinition allowed
to keep mass scalar.

> He used the term 'mass' with the meaning 'amount of matter', what 'mass'
> does not mean.

A clumsy colloquialism. It's used in textbooks even today.

> >> Especially mathematical errors are deadly
> >> in theoretical physics, which is based on mathematical perfectionism.
> >
> > Sure, but there aren't any there.
> There are also mathematical errors.

There are no mathematical errors in Einstein's 1905 paper.

> E.g. the first equation on page 4:
>
> 'tau' is here the name of a linear function, which has four vectors as
> arguments.

No, that's false. You don 't understand the basics yet to attempt
to critique this paper? How on earth does that work outside
the world of the aforementioned Monty Python?

tau is a function of ONE vector variable, written in terms of
its FOUR *components* (which are not scalars in the physics sense BTW).
On top of that, the coordinates are not the (x, y, z, t) but (x', y, z, t).

> since tau is a linear function, the argument on the right side of the
> equation must have zero at the first position,

WHAT??

> while it has actually x'
> there.

Because that's what should be there. The equation expresses the
constraints for the emission-reflection-return light ray scenario
described in the paragraph immediately preceding that equation.

The reason x' is there is that the RHS refers to the light bouncing off the
mirror which has the x'-coordinate equal to x' throughout. On the LHS
there are zeros because this is the x'-coordinate of the light emitter-receiver:
it's equal to 0 throughout.

Your falling into that trap is nothing new, it's been a recurring theme on this
NG since 1995.

> this doesn't actually matter, because x' = 0 must be true for some other
> reason.

No. You don't understand what's being done here.

> But if x'=0 the equation would read as:
>
> 1/2 [tau(0,0,0,t) + tau(0,0,0,t)]= tau(0,0,0,t)

This equation is a mathematical tautology, like 0 = 0, it
does not express the constraint imposed by the experimental setup
described by the author.

> Well, that is certainly true, but hardly, what Einstein had in mind.

You are merely making high-school-level mistakes here. I suggest
you spend your free time on something else.

--
Jan

On Thursday, April 21, 2022 at 6:13:18 AM UTC-7, Reinhardt Behm wrote:
>
> It seems Bertrand Russel already knew you when he said
> "A stupid man's report of what a clever man says is never accurate,
> because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something that he
> can understand."

Yes, that's one of the standard mechanisms. Of course it really applies
to _everyone_. But the problem arises because the stupid man's translation
must necessarily involve a _restriction_.

--
Jan

Reinhardt Behm <rbehm@hushmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, 21 Apr 2022 08:53:26 +0200, Thomas Heger wrote:
>
> > Am 19.04.2022 um 12:01 schrieb JanPB:
> >
> >>>>> That is not how science works.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Anything ever invented can be questioned at any time in the future.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> So, I could try to question Newton's laws, if I wanted to do so.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> That is legal, because this is how science works.
> >>>>
> >>>> This is a different topic. What you said was: "Whether or not
> >>>> Einstein has something useful to say about the topic, that is a
> >>>> question of debate."
> >>> Relativity is actually a daily observation. Practically everything is
> >>> relative to something else.
> >>>
> >>> So relativity per se cannot be questioned in any meaningful sense.
> >>>
> >>> But we can, of course, question certain theories from this realm.
> >>>
> >>> Now we are talking about a certain proposal from a guy named Albert
> >>> Einstein, which he had published in 1905.
> >>>
> >>> This proposal is about 'inertal frames of reference in streight
> >>> lateral motion'. The relative velocity is assumed to be constant and
> >>> very fast.
> >>>
> >>> That is roughly the setting, about which Einstein wrote.
> >>>
> >>> From certain assumptions he came to certain results. And now we are
> >>> discussing the question, whether or not these results are derived
> >>> properly and have some value in physics.
> >>>
> >>> I came to the conclusion, that the results themselves are possible,
> >>> while the methods by which he came to them were not.
> >>
> >> And this conclusion is incorrect.
> >>
> >>> To derive a certain result from certain axioms, it is essential to
> >>> make no formal errors of any kind.
> >>
> >> There are no errors in Einstein's 1905, formal or otherwise. There are
> >> some instances of over-complicating things or bits of sloppiness but
> >> that standard in practically all science research papers.
> >
> > The text is FULL of errors of all sorts.
> >
> > Some of these errors were extremely stupid, some very small, some
> > formal.
> >
> > My counting was: more than four-hundred errors in the text.
> >
> > Very simple example:
> > Einstein wrote in a footnote, that a sphere is a spherical body, when
> > observed at rest.
> >
> > I counted this as three errors:
> >
> > 1) it is not necessecary to explain the term 'sphere' to the intended
> > audience of professional physicists
> >
> > 2) it is wrong to explain a term by reference to itself
> >
> > 3) a sphere is the two dimensional shell of a ball, hence not a body.
> >
> >
> > VERY serious was Einstein's habit, that he made no destinctions between
> > vectors and scalars.
> >
> > It was hard to say, what Einstein actually meant, because he gave no
> > hints in the form of a different fort for different types of
> > mathematical objects (for instance) or in any other form.
> >
> > So he simply assumed, the reader would know anyhow, what he had in mind.
> >
> > This was regarded as an error, because the author is responsible to make
> > clear, what he wants to say.
> >
> >
> > But Einstein himself had seemingly trouble with the distinction between
> > vectors and scalars, because he added - for instance- c and a velocity
> > w.
> >
> > Now c is a scalar, while velocity is a vectorial quantity, which you
> > must not add or subtract from vectors.
> >
> >> Textbooks strive for more "perfection" but this is not a student text.
> >
> >
> > Einstein made very serious physical errors, too.
> >
> > E.g. he used work as equal to energy.
> >
> > Or he attempted to redefine certain terms in common use, like mass.
> >
> > He used the term 'mass' with the meaning 'amount of matter', what 'mass'
> > does not mean.
> >
> >
> >>> Especially mathematical errors are deadly in theoretical physics,
> >>> which is based on mathematical perfectionism.
> >>
> >> Sure, but there aren't any there.
> >
> > There are also mathematical errors.
> >
> > E.g. the first equation on page 4:
> >
> > 'tau' is here the name of a linear function, which has four vectors as
> > arguments.
> >
> > since tau is a linear function, the argument on the right side of the
> > equation must have zero at the first position, while it has actually x'
> > there.
> >
> > this doesn't actually matter, because x' = 0 must be true for some other
> > reason.
> >
> > But if x'=0 the equation would read as:
> >
> > 1/2 [tau(0,0,0,t) + tau(0,0,0,t)]= tau(0,0,0,t)
> >
> >
> > Well, that is certainly true, but hardly, what Einstein had in mind.
> >
> > ...
>
> It seems Bertrand Russel already knew you when he said
> "A stupid man's report of what a clever man says is never accurate,
> because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something that he
> can understand."

Russell was ahead of his time. A comparable usenet meme:
Never argue with a fool. He will drag you down to his level,
and then beat you with his superior experience,

Jan

On Thursday, 21 April 2022 at 23:24:18 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Reinhardt Behm <rb...@hushmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 21 Apr 2022 08:53:26 +0200, Thomas Heger wrote:
> >
> > > Am 19.04.2022 um 12:01 schrieb JanPB:
> > >
> > >>>>> That is not how science works.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Anything ever invented can be questioned at any time in the future.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> So, I could try to question Newton's laws, if I wanted to do so.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> That is legal, because this is how science works.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> This is a different topic. What you said was: "Whether or not
> > >>>> Einstein has something useful to say about the topic, that is a
> > >>>> question of debate."
> > >>> Relativity is actually a daily observation. Practically everything is
> > >>> relative to something else.
> > >>>
> > >>> So relativity per se cannot be questioned in any meaningful sense.
> > >>>
> > >>> But we can, of course, question certain theories from this realm.
> > >>>
> > >>> Now we are talking about a certain proposal from a guy named Albert
> > >>> Einstein, which he had published in 1905.
> > >>>
> > >>> This proposal is about 'inertal frames of reference in streight
> > >>> lateral motion'. The relative velocity is assumed to be constant and
> > >>> very fast.
> > >>>
> > >>> That is roughly the setting, about which Einstein wrote.
> > >>>
> > >>> From certain assumptions he came to certain results. And now we are
> > >>> discussing the question, whether or not these results are derived
> > >>> properly and have some value in physics.
> > >>>
> > >>> I came to the conclusion, that the results themselves are possible,
> > >>> while the methods by which he came to them were not.
> > >>
> > >> And this conclusion is incorrect.
> > >>
> > >>> To derive a certain result from certain axioms, it is essential to
> > >>> make no formal errors of any kind.
> > >>
> > >> There are no errors in Einstein's 1905, formal or otherwise. There are
> > >> some instances of over-complicating things or bits of sloppiness but
> > >> that standard in practically all science research papers.
> > >
> > > The text is FULL of errors of all sorts.
> > >
> > > Some of these errors were extremely stupid, some very small, some
> > > formal.
> > >
> > > My counting was: more than four-hundred errors in the text.
> > >
> > > Very simple example:
> > > Einstein wrote in a footnote, that a sphere is a spherical body, when
> > > observed at rest.
> > >
> > > I counted this as three errors:
> > >
> > > 1) it is not necessecary to explain the term 'sphere' to the intended
> > > audience of professional physicists
> > >
> > > 2) it is wrong to explain a term by reference to itself
> > >
> > > 3) a sphere is the two dimensional shell of a ball, hence not a body.
> > >
> > >
> > > VERY serious was Einstein's habit, that he made no destinctions between
> > > vectors and scalars.
> > >
> > > It was hard to say, what Einstein actually meant, because he gave no
> > > hints in the form of a different fort for different types of
> > > mathematical objects (for instance) or in any other form.
> > >
> > > So he simply assumed, the reader would know anyhow, what he had in mind.
> > >
> > > This was regarded as an error, because the author is responsible to make
> > > clear, what he wants to say.
> > >
> > >
> > > But Einstein himself had seemingly trouble with the distinction between
> > > vectors and scalars, because he added - for instance- c and a velocity
> > > w.
> > >
> > > Now c is a scalar, while velocity is a vectorial quantity, which you
> > > must not add or subtract from vectors.
> > >
> > >> Textbooks strive for more "perfection" but this is not a student text.
> > >
> > >
> > > Einstein made very serious physical errors, too.
> > >
> > > E.g. he used work as equal to energy.
> > >
> > > Or he attempted to redefine certain terms in common use, like mass.
> > >
> > > He used the term 'mass' with the meaning 'amount of matter', what 'mass'
> > > does not mean.
> > >
> > >
> > >>> Especially mathematical errors are deadly in theoretical physics,
> > >>> which is based on mathematical perfectionism.
> > >>
> > >> Sure, but there aren't any there.
> > >
> > > There are also mathematical errors.
> > >
> > > E.g. the first equation on page 4:
> > >
> > > 'tau' is here the name of a linear function, which has four vectors as
> > > arguments.
> > >
> > > since tau is a linear function, the argument on the right side of the
> > > equation must have zero at the first position, while it has actually x'
> > > there.
> > >
> > > this doesn't actually matter, because x' = 0 must be true for some other
> > > reason.
> > >
> > > But if x'=0 the equation would read as:
> > >
> > > 1/2 [tau(0,0,0,t) + tau(0,0,0,t)]= tau(0,0,0,t)
> > >
> > >
> > > Well, that is certainly true, but hardly, what Einstein had in mind.
> > >
> > > ...
> >
> > It seems Bertrand Russel already knew you when he said
> > "A stupid man's report of what a clever man says is never accurate,
> > because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something that he
> > can understand."
> Russell was ahead of his time. A comparable usenet meme:
> Never argue with a fool. He will drag you down to his level,
> and then beat you with his superior experience,

Sorry, poor idiot, even at your level you 're helpless.

Am 21.04.2022 um 23:24 schrieb J. J. Lodder:

>> It seems Bertrand Russel already knew you when he said
>> "A stupid man's report of what a clever man says is never accurate,
>> because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something that he
>> can understand."
>
> Russell was ahead of his time. A comparable usenet meme:
> Never argue with a fool. He will drag you down to his level,
> and then beat you with his superior experience,
>

Betrand Russel was head of the 'Fabians'. He was also a member of the so
called 'Apostles of Cambridge'.

He was head of his wealthy family and had the title 'Earl Russel', which
only very few people ever had.

His nickname was 'Golem of Venice' and he was supposed to be a
representaive of what is called 'Black Nobility'.

One of Russels's 'achievements' was actually socialism, for what we
common mortals are still 'thankful'.

The Russel familly had held the title 'Earl of Tavistook', too.

This name 'Tavistock' resurfaced together with Naziism and the so called
'New World Order' several times.

The connection stems from the 'Tavistock Instutute for Human Relations'
(aka: 'Scriptwriters of the New World Order').

Befor that Institute got its current name, it was called 'Freud Hilton'.

That letters 'F.H.' resurfaced on some scripts, which are falsly assumed
to be Hitler's diaries, while they were actually scripts.

Anyhow: the letters 'F H' were imprinted in golden letters in the font
'Old English' on what looks like a script from a movie set.

TH

Am 21.04.2022 um 22:48 schrieb JanPB:
....

>>>> Especially mathematical errors are deadly
>>>> in theoretical physics, which is based on mathematical perfectionism.
>>>
>>> Sure, but there aren't any there.
>> There are also mathematical errors.
>
> There are no mathematical errors in Einstein's 1905 paper.
>
>> E.g. the first equation on page 4:
>>
>> 'tau' is here the name of a linear function, which has four vectors as
>> arguments.
>
> No, that's false. You don 't understand the basics yet to attempt
> to critique this paper? How on earth does that work outside
> the world of the aforementioned Monty Python?
>
> tau is a function of ONE vector variable, written in terms of
> its FOUR *components* (which are not scalars in the physics sense BTW).
> On top of that, the coordinates are not the (x, y, z, t) but (x', y, z, t).
>
>> since tau is a linear function, the argument on the right side of the
>> equation must have zero at the first position,
>
> WHAT??

'tau' was defined as a linear function, but was otherwise not specified.

(it was bad to name this function 'tau', because tau was already in use.
But that is a different story.)

If you have a linear function - say- f(x) (with the argument x being a
vector) and apply a factor a to f(x) you get

a* f(x) = f(a*x)

And because x is a vector, you can multiply the factor 'a' into the
vector, too.

Here I take (x,y,z,t) as a vector and multiply a with it:

a*(x,y,z,t)=(a*x,a*y,a*z,a*t)

If x=y=z=0 then a*(x,y,z,t)=(0,0,0, a*t)

while Einstein wrote:

tau(x', 0,0, t + x'/(c-v))

I wrote:

this is actually correct, but only for x'=0.

>> while it has actually x'
>> there.
>
> Because that's what should be there. The equation expresses the
> constraints for the emission-reflection-return light ray scenario
> described in the paragraph immediately preceding that equation.

Well, in fact this requirement was not fullfilled with the equation,
which contains a zero there, where you expected x'.

> The reason x' is there is that the RHS refers to the light bouncing off the
> mirror which has the x'-coordinate equal to x' throughout. On the LHS
> there are zeros because this is the x'-coordinate of the light emitter-receiver:
> it's equal to 0 throughout.

The coordinate x' was defined in the text by using the Gallileo
transform x' = x- v*t

The velocity v was defined as velocity of the system k along the x-axis
of K.

The source of the ray was defined as center of system k and x' as
position of the mirror.

Now you don't need to be too smart to figure out, that x' must be the
zero spot of K which has a x-coordinate of x=0.

That is all perfectly possible and the zero spot of K makes very much
sense to place the mirror there.

But still the x-coordinate of the zero spot of K is zero.

That zero you can plug into the equations, where x' is used.

....

TH

On Friday, April 22, 2022 at 12:00:22 AM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 21.04.2022 um 22:48 schrieb JanPB:
> ...
> >>>> Especially mathematical errors are deadly
> >>>> in theoretical physics, which is based on mathematical perfectionism.
> >>>
> >>> Sure, but there aren't any there.
> >> There are also mathematical errors.
> >
> > There are no mathematical errors in Einstein's 1905 paper.
> >
> >> E.g. the first equation on page 4:
> >>
> >> 'tau' is here the name of a linear function, which has four vectors as
> >> arguments.
> >
> > No, that's false. You don 't understand the basics yet to attempt
> > to critique this paper? How on earth does that work outside
> > the world of the aforementioned Monty Python?
> >
> > tau is a function of ONE vector variable, written in terms of
> > its FOUR *components* (which are not scalars in the physics sense BTW).
> > On top of that, the coordinates are not the (x, y, z, t) but (x', y, z, t).
> >
> >> since tau is a linear function, the argument on the right side of the
> >> equation must have zero at the first position,
> >
> > WHAT??
> 'tau' was defined as a linear function, but was otherwise not specified.

Of course it was not specified, it's unknown at this point. Einstein is
setting out to derive a formula for it.

> (it was bad to name this function 'tau', because tau was already in use.
> But that is a different story.)

No, it's obvious what tau is here.

> If you have a linear function - say- f(x) (with the argument x being a
> vector) and apply a factor a to f(x) you get
>
> a* f(x) = f(a*x)
>
> And because x is a vector, you can multiply the factor 'a' into the
> vector, too.
>
> Here I take (x,y,z,t) as a vector and multiply a with it:
>
> a*(x,y,z,t)=(a*x,a*y,a*z,a*t)
>
> If x=y=z=0 then a*(x,y,z,t)=(0,0,0, a*t)
>
> while Einstein wrote:
>
> tau(x', 0,0, t + x'/(c-v))
>
> I wrote:
>
> this is actually correct, but only for x'=0.

No, you are incorrect. What Einstein wrote was a constraint on the
(still unknown at this point) function tau which is an
ADDITIONAL requirement (on top of the linearity requirement)
and it enforces the light ray time requirement:
(1/2)(tau_0 + tau_2) = tau_1

It turns out this extra requirement, combined with linearity, does
NOT overconstrain the problem, and in fact it defines the resulting
linear transformation uniquely, except the exact dependence of the
transformation's coefficients (the lower-case "a" in the formulas
that follow) on the speed v is still unknown.

> >> while it has actually x'
> >> there.
> >
> > Because that's what should be there. The equation expresses the
> > constraints for the emission-reflection-return light ray scenario
> > described in the paragraph immediately preceding that equation.
> Well, in fact this requirement was not fullfilled with the equation,
> which contains a zero there, where you expected x'.

No, the equation must have x' there because the mirror is at x'.
The light emitter/receptor is at x' = 0.

Again, this equation is an additional constraint, on top of the linearity
constraint. It turns out both constraints force a unique solution (except
the dependence of the coefficients on v still has to be worked out,
which is what Einstein does on the next couple of pages).

> > The reason x' is there is that the RHS refers to the light bouncing off the
> > mirror which has the x'-coordinate equal to x' throughout. On the LHS
> > there are zeros because this is the x'-coordinate of the light emitter-receiver:
> > it's equal to 0 throughout.
> The coordinate x' was defined in the text by using the Gallileo
> transform x' = x- v*t

It's not any "Galileo transform", it's only a little mathematical shortcut
of a single coordinate just to make the notation easier. Einstein could
have done this thing using (x, y, z, t) throughout. It would make the
formulas slightly more complicated but the end result would be identical.

> The velocity v was defined as velocity of the system k along the x-axis
> of K.

Yes.

> The source of the ray was defined as center of system k and x' as
> position of the mirror.

Yes, and x' refers to the K coordinates via x - vt.

> Now you don't need to be too smart to figure out, that x' must be the
> zero spot of K which has a x-coordinate of x=0.

No, this is incorrect. It would probably be less confusing for you if
this derivation was done using just K's (x, y, z, t) coordinates, without
using x'.

> That is all perfectly possible and the zero spot of K makes very much
> sense to place the mirror there.

No, the mirror is at a fixed distance away from the emitter, as seen from
k's perspective. Emitter is at the origin of k, the mirror is some distance
from it.

> But still the x-coordinate of the zero spot of K is zero.

You are using a non-standard terminology. Nobody except you
knows what "zero spot" means. Do you mean the origin of K?
Yes, x = 0 there. But the light ray is emitted, reflected, and
received at three different values of K's x-coordinate,
none of them required to be zero. What we do assume is
that at at every value of t the (moving) emitter/receiver has
x-coordinate equal to vt.

(That's why if one defines x' as x - vt, the emitter/receiver
has x' = 0 throughout.)

Similarly the mirror at every value of t moves at the same speed
some distance away from the emitter/receiver. Let's say the
difference between the x-coordinate values of the emitter/receiver
and the mirror is some number D. This means the mirror's
x- and t-coordinates are related by: x = vt + D.

(So if one defines x' as x - vt, the mirror has x' = D throughout.
Except Einstein by the standard abuse of notation does not use
a new letter (like "D") but reuses the generic x' as that value.
This procedure is standard everywhere, from high school texts to
research papers.)

We also need the t-coordinates of the emission, reflection and
absorption.

Emission: we assume this value is t (the notational abuse again).
So emission has (x', y, z, t) coordinates equal to (0, 0, 0, t).

Reflection: this requires calculating what K's coordinates are
when the ray catches up to the mirror. This t-coordinate value
will be equal to t + delta (emission time + the ray flight time).
That delta is easily calculated by figuring out the ray's flight
x-coordinate distance (difference) in two ways:

(1) distance = (light ray speed)*(flight time) = c*delta

(2) distance = (separation between emitter and mirror) +
(distance travelled by the mirror during the time delta) =
= x' + v*delta

They are the same physical distance (as measured by K) so they
are equal:

c*delta = x' + v*delta

Solving for delta:

delta = x'/(c - v)

So the reflection has coordinates (x', y, z, t) equal to:
(x', 0, 0, t + x'/(c - v)) (the eternal abuse of notation).

Similar consideration results in calculating the ray's
return flight time as x'/(c + v), so the (x', y, z t) coordinates
of the absorption are: (0, 0, 0, t + x'/(c - v) + x'/(c + v)).

And then the values of tau at those K-coordinates are
required to satisfy (1/2)*(tau(emission) + tau(absorption) =
tau(reflection), which is Einstein's equation in the paper.

> That zero you can plug into the equations, where x' is used.

No, this is wrong.

--
Jan

Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:

> Am 21.04.2022 um 23:24 schrieb J. J. Lodder:
>
> >> It seems Bertrand Russel already knew you when he said
> >> "A stupid man's report of what a clever man says is never accurate,
> >> because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something that he
> >> can understand."
> >
> > Russell was ahead of his time. A comparable usenet meme:
> > Never argue with a fool. He will drag you down to his level,
> > and then beat you with his superior experience,
> >
>
> Betrand Russel was head of the 'Fabians'. He was also a member of the so
> called 'Apostles of Cambridge'.
>
> He was head of his wealthy family and had the title 'Earl Russel', which
> only very few people ever had.

So you have that wrong too. Can't you get anything right?
1) Of course there are few Earl Russell-s.
The title was created mid 19th century, and Bertrand was the third.

2) If you had read anything (auto)biographical about Russell
you would know that he wasn't rich at all.
He had to work for his living, by teaching and writing books.

He complained that Americans in particular had this misconception.
(of English Lords being all very rich)
They acted indignant when he asked how much they intended to pay,
after they had had the kindness to invite him as a speaker,

Jan

Thomas Heger wrote:
> [snip bullshit]
> The coordinate x' was defined in the text by using the Gallileo
> transform x' = x- v*t

No. It's is not a transformation equation, idiot. It is a equation
of motion.

> [snip more bullshit]

On Friday, 22 April 2022 at 15:39:22 UTC+2, Python wrote:
> Thomas Heger wrote:
> > [snip bullshit]
> > The coordinate x' was defined in the text by using the Gallileo
> > transform x' = x- v*t
> No. It's is not a transformation equation, idiot. It is a equation

Oh, stinker Python is opening its muzzle again,
and trying to pretend he knows something.
Tell me, poor stinker, what is your definition of
a "theory" in the terms of Peano arithmetic?
See: if a theorem is going to be a part of a theory,
it has to be formulable in the language of the
theory. Do you get it? Or are you too stupid even for
that, poor stinker?

Am 22.04.2022 um 15:39 schrieb Python:
> Thomas Heger wrote:
>> [snip bullshit]
>> The coordinate x' was defined in the text by using the Gallileo
>> transform x' = x- v*t
>
> No. It's is not a transformation equation, idiot. It is a equation
> of motion.
>
>> [snip more bullshit]
>
>

Before you crank out insults, you should at least ask google for the
meaning of 'Gallileo transformation'.

The very first result would be this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galilean_transformation

Quote:

" x' = x- v*t "

Now we should not assume, that Einstein had access to Wikipedia. But
still the equation of Einstein seems to be - at least - inspired by
Galilleo.

TH

Am 22.04.2022 um 11:00 schrieb J. J. Lodder:
> Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
>
>> Am 21.04.2022 um 23:24 schrieb J. J. Lodder:
>>
>>>> It seems Bertrand Russel already knew you when he said
>>>> "A stupid man's report of what a clever man says is never accurate,
>>>> because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something that he
>>>> can understand."
>>>
>>> Russell was ahead of his time. A comparable usenet meme:
>>> Never argue with a fool. He will drag you down to his level,
>>> and then beat you with his superior experience,
>>>
>>
>> Betrand Russel was head of the 'Fabians'. He was also a member of the so
>> called 'Apostles of Cambridge'.
>>
>> He was head of his wealthy family and had the title 'Earl Russel', which
>> only very few people ever had.
>
> So you have that wrong too. Can't you get anything right?
> 1) Of course there are few Earl Russell-s.
> The title was created mid 19th century, and Bertrand was the third.
>
> 2) If you had read anything (auto)biographical about Russell
> you would know that he wasn't rich at all.
> He had to work for his living, by teaching and writing books.
>
> He complained that Americans in particular had this misconception.
> (of English Lords being all very rich)
> They acted indignant when he asked how much they intended to pay,
> after they had had the kindness to invite him as a speaker,
>

OK

I had actually no idea, how wealthy Bertrand Russel actually was.

Be he was very influential, to say the least.

He had also a conncetion to Hitler, though very indirect.

His connection was through Ludwig Wittgenstein. That was a classmate of
the real Hitler and also gay.

The connection to the Huxley familiy and Eugenics was through the so
called 'Apostles', which was a secret society in Cambridge. There
Russel, Wittgenstein and one of the Huxleys met.

My assumption about the real identity of the 'Fuehrer' was therefore,
that Julian Huxley took his brother Noel Treven Huxley in 1913 to
Bavaria, where he was educated by Isolde Beidler, who was the daughter
of Richard Wagner.

The Brits faked a suicide and Noel learned good Bavarian dialect and
resurfaced later as 'The Fuehrer'.

But Braunau on the Inn is in Austria, where they speak a different
dialect. Also Austrians have a different nationality, hence are not
allowed to serve in the German military.

The idea itself came from this book by Greg Hallet, who wrote, that
Hitler was British agent:
https://www.amazon.de/True-Crime-Solving-History-Vol/dp/047311478X

I have contributed only in the point, to find out, which Brit posed as
'Fuehrer'.

My guess was, that Noel Trevenen Huxley would fit.

TH

On 4/23/2022 1:55 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 22.04.2022 um 15:39 schrieb Python:
>> Thomas Heger wrote:
>>> [snip bullshit]
>>> The coordinate x' was defined in the text by using the Gallileo
>>> transform x' = x- v*t
>>
>> No. It's is not a transformation equation, idiot. It is a equation
>> of motion.
>>
>>> [snip more bullshit]
>>
>>
>
> Before you crank out insults, you should at least ask google for the
> meaning of 'Gallileo transformation'.
>
> The very first result would be this:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galilean_transformation
>
> Quote:
>
> " x' = x- v*t "
>
Just because the Galilean transformation is x' = x-vt doesn't mean every
instance of "x'=x-vt" is the Galilean Transform.
This is an example of the logical fallacy: If A then B implies If B then
A. (If NOT B then NOT A is true, however)

Thomas Heger wrote:

> Am 22.04.2022 um 15:39 schrieb Python:
> Before you crank out insults, you should at least ask google for the
> meaning of 'Gallileo transformation'. The very first result would be
> this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galilean_transformation

absolutely, this is what happens when you are not evil enough. Especially dealing with the capitalist nazis.

Russia Lost 1000 KIA During the First 30 Days Because ‘They Felt Sorry for Ukraine’ – Expert
https://www.veteranstoday.com/2022/04/22/russia-lost-1000-kia-during-the-first-30-days-because-they-felt-sorry-for-ukraine-expert/

Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 4/23/2022 1:55 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>> Am 22.04.2022 um 15:39 schrieb Python:
>>> Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>> [snip bullshit]
>>>> The coordinate x' was defined in the text by using the Gallileo
>>>> transform x' = x- v*t
>>>
>>> No. It's is not a transformation equation, idiot. It is a equation
>>> of motion.
>>>
>>>> [snip more bullshit]
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Before you crank out insults, you should at least ask google for the
>> meaning of 'Gallileo transformation'.
>>
>> The very first result would be this:
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galilean_transformation
>>
>> Quote:
>>
>> " x' = x- v*t "
>>
> Just because the Galilean transformation is x' = x-vt doesn't mean every
> instance of "x'=x-vt" is the Galilean Transform.
> This is an example of the logical fallacy: If A then B implies If B then
> A.  (If NOT B then NOT A is true, however)

Thomas is not only completely unable to understand a single equation, he
is also totally unable to grasp that the *context* of an equation has to
be taken into account to grasp the meaning of an equation.

While x' = x - v*t actually is part of Galilean Transformations when x
and t are space and time coordinates in a given frame and x' a space
coordinate in *another* frame. It is definitely NOT the case if these
conditions are not fulfilled... In that part of the article x' and x
are space coordinates of events in the *same* frame of reference.

How can such an IDIOT be an engineer?

On Saturday, 23 April 2022 at 11:52:34 UTC+2, Python wrote:
> Michael Moroney wrote:
> > On 4/23/2022 1:55 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> >> Am 22.04.2022 um 15:39 schrieb Python:
> >>> Thomas Heger wrote:
> >>>> [snip bullshit]
> >>>> The coordinate x' was defined in the text by using the Gallileo
> >>>> transform x' = x- v*t
> >>>
> >>> No. It's is not a transformation equation, idiot. It is a equation
> >>> of motion.
> >>>
> >>>> [snip more bullshit]
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> Before you crank out insults, you should at least ask google for the
> >> meaning of 'Gallileo transformation'.
> >>
> >> The very first result would be this:
> >>
> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galilean_transformation
> >>
> >> Quote:
> >>
> >> " x' = x- v*t "
> >>
> > Just because the Galilean transformation is x' = x-vt doesn't mean every
> > instance of "x'=x-vt" is the Galilean Transform.
> > This is an example of the logical fallacy: If A then B implies If B then
> > A. (If NOT B then NOT A is true, however)
> Thomas is not only completely unable to understand a single equation, he

Oh, stinker Python is opening its muzzle again,
and trying to pretend he knows something.
Tell me, poor stinker, what is your definition of
a "theory" in the terms of Peano arithmetic?
See: if a theorem is going to be a part of a theory,
it has to be formulable in the language of the
theory. Do you get it? Or are you too stupid even for
that, poor stinker?

Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
> Am 22.04.2022 um 15:39 schrieb Python:
>> Thomas Heger wrote:
>>> [snip bullshit]
>>> The coordinate x' was defined in the text by using the Gallileo
>>> transform x' = x- v*t
>>
>> No. It's is not a transformation equation, idiot. It is a equation
>> of motion.
>>
>>> [snip more bullshit]
>>
>>
>
> Before you crank out insults, you should at least ask google for the
> meaning of 'Gallileo transformation'.
>
> The very first result would be this:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galilean_transformation
>
> Quote:
>
> " x' = x- v*t "
>
> Now we should not assume, that Einstein had access to Wikipedia. But
> still the equation of Einstein seems to be - at least - inspired by
> Galilleo.
>
> TH
>

This is a subtlety that beginners often struggle with.
The same equation, with the same letters and symbols, can have two
completely different meanings in different contexts. This is why it’s
useless to play around with algebra in physics equations if you don’t know
what the variables mean in the present context.

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On April 21, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Betrand Russel was head of the 'Fabians'.
> His nickname was 'Golem of Venice' and he was supposed to be a
> representaive of what is called 'Black Nobility'.
> One of Russels's 'achievements' was actually socialism, for what we
> common mortals are still 'thankful'.
> The Russel familly had held the title 'Earl of Tavistook', too.
> This name 'Tavistock' resurfaced together with Naziism and the so called
> 'New World Order' several times.
> The connection stems from the 'Tavistock Instutute for Human Relations'
> (aka: 'Scriptwriters of the New World Order').
> Befor that Institute got its current name, it was called 'Freud Hilton'.

A hypothetical question: if a man is completely nuts, is it
biologically possible for him to recognize this fact?

--
Rich

Am 23.04.2022 um 23:59 schrieb RichD:
> On April 21, Thomas Heger wrote:
>> Betrand Russel was head of the 'Fabians'.
>> His nickname was 'Golem of Venice' and he was supposed to be a
>> representaive of what is called 'Black Nobility'.
>> One of Russels's 'achievements' was actually socialism, for what we
>> common mortals are still 'thankful'.
>> The Russel familly had held the title 'Earl of Tavistook', too.
>> This name 'Tavistock' resurfaced together with Naziism and the so called
>> 'New World Order' several times.
>> The connection stems from the 'Tavistock Instutute for Human Relations'
>> (aka: 'Scriptwriters of the New World Order').
>> Befor that Institute got its current name, it was called 'Freud Hilton'.
>
> A hypothetical question: if a man is completely nuts, is it
> biologically possible for him to recognize this fact?
>

The worst shitheads of all of human history were the so called 'elite'
of the former Soviet Union.

This was a murderous bunch of criminals, who only pretended to serve the
rights of the working man.

Their political leader was the former bankrobber from Georgia Jossiff
Djugashvilli (aka 'Stalin'), who killed more people then any other
person dead or alive.

The so called 'avantgarde' of that country was therefore criminal scum,
which is not worth to spit on.

These scumbags had the habbit to declare 'nuts', who rejected their
morderous regime.

Many 'nutcases' were actually killed on the spot. But also a number were
imprisoned in instututions, which allegedly wanted to 'help' to enhance
the mental state of the poor victim of these bastards.

All of these were criminal activities by a criminal state, which had
already gone to hell entirely. We should leave it that way...

TH

Am 23.04.2022 um 09:34 schrieb Michael Moroney:
> On 4/23/2022 1:55 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>> Am 22.04.2022 um 15:39 schrieb Python:
>>> Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>> [snip bullshit]
>>>> The coordinate x' was defined in the text by using the Gallileo
>>>> transform x' = x- v*t
>>>
>>> No. It's is not a transformation equation, idiot. It is a equation
>>> of motion.
>>>
>>>> [snip more bullshit]
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Before you crank out insults, you should at least ask google for the
>> meaning of 'Gallileo transformation'.
>>
>> The very first result would be this:
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galilean_transformation
>>
>> Quote:
>>
>> " x' = x- v*t "
>>
> Just because the Galilean transformation is x' = x-vt doesn't mean every
> instance of "x'=x-vt" is the Galilean Transform.
> This is an example of the logical fallacy: If A then B implies If B then
> A. (If NOT B then NOT A is true, however)

You are absolute right, that this was not meant as Galilean
transformation, even if the equation of that transform was used.

In fact Einstein made an error:

he used 'x' in his equation "x' = x- v*t"

Instead of that, actually:
x' = xsi - v*t
was meant with xsi=0.

The setting was: a light beam was sent from the zero spot of k to the
point x'. There was a mirror placed, which reflected the beam back to
the source.

Now the zero spot of k has the xsi-coordinate xsi=0.

This point moves along the X-axis of K with velocity v. Now we have:
x' = xsi - v*t (correcting Einstein's obvious error from above).

Therefore the point x' must be the zero spot of K, which has the
x-coordinate x'=0.

This is all nice and possible, but would invalidate most of the
subsequent equations for a number of reasons.

For instance del x' in the denominator would not make much sense, if x'=0.

TH

Am 23.04.2022 um 11:52 schrieb Python:
> Michael Moroney wrote:
>> On 4/23/2022 1:55 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>> Am 22.04.2022 um 15:39 schrieb Python:
>>>> Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>>> [snip bullshit]
>>>>> The coordinate x' was defined in the text by using the Gallileo
>>>>> transform x' = x- v*t
>>>>
>>>> No. It's is not a transformation equation, idiot. It is a equation
>>>> of motion.
>>>>
>>>>> [snip more bullshit]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Before you crank out insults, you should at least ask google for the
>>> meaning of 'Gallileo transformation'.
>>>
>>> The very first result would be this:
>>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galilean_transformation
>>>
>>> Quote:
>>>
>>> " x' = x- v*t "
>>>
>> Just because the Galilean transformation is x' = x-vt doesn't mean
>> every instance of "x'=x-vt" is the Galilean Transform.
>> This is an example of the logical fallacy: If A then B implies If B
>> then A. (If NOT B then NOT A is true, however)
>
> Thomas is not only completely unable to understand a single equation, he
> is also totally unable to grasp that the *context* of an equation has to
> be taken into account to grasp the meaning of an equation.
>
> While x' = x - v*t actually is part of Galilean Transformations when x
> and t are space and time coordinates in a given frame and x' a space
> coordinate in *another* frame. It is definitely NOT the case if these
> conditions are not fulfilled... In that part of the article x' and x
> are space coordinates of events in the *same* frame of reference.
>

No, you are wrong.

An author tells the reader, what he intends to write about. This setting
remains valid, unless the author changes it.

Now we are talking about §3 on the pages 5 to 9.

This chapter starts with a detailled description about what the author
had in mind. This description is therefore valid. What you think is
correct, that is totally irrelvant, because you are not the author.

It is also irrelevant, whether errors were obvious and could easily be
corrected, because the reader cannot alter a text (only the author can).

So, we must apply the setting of the text and interpret the text
carefully, to find out, what it actually says.

The rule is, that we have to trust the text and take it as true
manifestation of the wishes of the author, whether or not they are good
and beneficial.

Now §3 starts with:
quote
"Let us in “stationary” space take two systems of co-ordinates, i.e. two
systems, each of three rigid material lines, perpendicular to one
another, and issuing from a point. Let the axes of X of the two systems
coincide, and their axes of Y and Z respectively be parallel."

These coordinate systems had the names k and K.

Now the setting of the author is not equal to yours, because you wrote:

quote

" In that part of the article x' and x
> are space coordinates of events in the *same* frame of reference."

This is in fact wrong, because the start of the beam was the zero spot
of k (at least Einstein wrote so), hence had the coordinate xsi=0 (not
x=arbitrary).

This point has also an x-coordinate in K. That would be v*t.

Now it would be rediculous to assume, that Einstein wanted to subtract
v*t from v*t.

But even if so, x' would still be zero.

TH

>
>
>

On Saturday, April 23, 2022 at 10:49:01 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 23.04.2022 um 09:34 schrieb Michael Moroney:
> > On 4/23/2022 1:55 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> >> Am 22.04.2022 um 15:39 schrieb Python:
> >>> Thomas Heger wrote:
> >>>> [snip bullshit]
> >>>> The coordinate x' was defined in the text by using the Gallileo
> >>>> transform x' = x- v*t
> >>>
> >>> No. It's is not a transformation equation, idiot. It is a equation
> >>> of motion.
> >>>
> >>>> [snip more bullshit]
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> Before you crank out insults, you should at least ask google for the
> >> meaning of 'Gallileo transformation'.
> >>
> >> The very first result would be this:
> >>
> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galilean_transformation
> >>
> >> Quote:
> >>
> >> " x' = x- v*t "
> >>
> > Just because the Galilean transformation is x' = x-vt doesn't mean every
> > instance of "x'=x-vt" is the Galilean Transform.
> > This is an example of the logical fallacy: If A then B implies If B then
> > A. (If NOT B then NOT A is true, however)
> You are absolute right, that this was not meant as Galilean
> transformation, even if the equation of that transform was used.
>
> In fact Einstein made an error:
>
> he used 'x' in his equation "x' = x- v*t"

No, this is correct.

> Instead of that, actually:
> x' = xsi - v*t
> was meant with xsi=0.

No.

> The setting was: a light beam was sent from the zero spot of k to the
> point x'. There was a mirror placed, which reflected the beam back to
> the source.
>
> Now the zero spot of k has the xsi-coordinate xsi=0.
>
> This point moves along the X-axis of K with velocity v. Now we have:
> x' = xsi - v*t (correcting Einstein's obvious error from above).

No, this is wrong. x' is defined as x - vt. It's just a definition of a new
variable called x', introduced for convenience. One could call this
"Galilean transformation" only in the sense that the coordinates (x, y, z, t)
are being changed to (x', y, z, t) the "Galilean" way but the physical
context is wrong: the term "such-and-such transform" usually refers
to two observers whose space and time coordinates are being related
by the transformation. But here the context is that we have only one
observer (K) who for convenience relabels one of the axes.

Note that it's important that this relabelling be linear since the final
transform (x, y, z, t) -> (ksi, eta, zeta, tau) is required to be linear.

> Therefore the point x' must be the zero spot of K, which has the
> x-coordinate x'=0.

There is no "spot of K" corresponding to x'. What x' is is simply
a mathematical formula involving K's x and t coordinates designed
to remain a fixed number when x and t refer to a point moving at
speed v wrt K.

> This is all nice and possible, but would invalidate most of the
> subsequent equations for a number of reasons.

Nothing is invalidated, everything is corret there.

> For instance del x' in the denominator would not make much sense, if x'=0.

I'm compelled to ask at this point: do you know calculus?

--
Jan

RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On April 21, Thomas Heger wrote:
> > Betrand Russel was head of the 'Fabians'.
> > His nickname was 'Golem of Venice' and he was supposed to be a
> > representaive of what is called 'Black Nobility'.
> > One of Russels's 'achievements' was actually socialism, for what we
> > common mortals are still 'thankful'.
> > The Russel familly had held the title 'Earl of Tavistook', too.
> > This name 'Tavistock' resurfaced together with Naziism and the so called
> > 'New World Order' several times.
> > The connection stems from the 'Tavistock Instutute for Human Relations'
> > (aka: 'Scriptwriters of the New World Order').
> > Befor that Institute got its current name, it was called 'Freud Hilton'.
>
> A hypothetical question: if a man is completely nuts, is it
> biologically possible for him to recognize this fact?

Good question indeed. While it cannot be excluded in general
I guess this particular case is hopeless.

TH lives in a fancy world of his own making,
and he cannot escape it,

Jan

On Saturday, April 23, 2022 at 11:07:26 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 23.04.2022 um 11:52 schrieb Python:
> > Michael Moroney wrote:
> >> On 4/23/2022 1:55 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> >>> Am 22.04.2022 um 15:39 schrieb Python:
> >>>> Thomas Heger wrote:
> >>>>> [snip bullshit]
> >>>>> The coordinate x' was defined in the text by using the Gallileo
> >>>>> transform x' = x- v*t
> >>>>
> >>>> No. It's is not a transformation equation, idiot. It is a equation
> >>>> of motion.
> >>>>
> >>>>> [snip more bullshit]
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Before you crank out insults, you should at least ask google for the
> >>> meaning of 'Gallileo transformation'.
> >>>
> >>> The very first result would be this:
> >>>
> >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galilean_transformation
> >>>
> >>> Quote:
> >>>
> >>> " x' = x- v*t "
> >>>
> >> Just because the Galilean transformation is x' = x-vt doesn't mean
> >> every instance of "x'=x-vt" is the Galilean Transform.
> >> This is an example of the logical fallacy: If A then B implies If B
> >> then A. (If NOT B then NOT A is true, however)
> >
> > Thomas is not only completely unable to understand a single equation, he
> > is also totally unable to grasp that the *context* of an equation has to
> > be taken into account to grasp the meaning of an equation.
> >
> > While x' = x - v*t actually is part of Galilean Transformations when x
> > and t are space and time coordinates in a given frame and x' a space
> > coordinate in *another* frame. It is definitely NOT the case if these
> > conditions are not fulfilled... In that part of the article x' and x
> > are space coordinates of events in the *same* frame of reference.
> >
> No, you are wrong.

Yes, Python is correct. Both x and x' refer to K. You can think of
setting x' = x - vt as a "transformation" but this would be misleading
as it's the same observer K who uses the "transformed" coordinates.

> An author tells the reader, what he intends to write about. This setting
> remains valid, unless the author changes it.

Sure.

> Now we are talking about §3 on the pages 5 to 9.
>
> This chapter starts with a detailled description about what the author
> had in mind. This description is therefore valid. What you think is
> correct, that is totally irrelvant, because you are not the author.

It is not only relevant but necessary when someone explains something
to someone else who makes mistakes.

> It is also irrelevant, whether errors were obvious and could easily be
> corrected, because the reader cannot alter a text (only the author can).

There are no errors in that text, so there is nothing to correct.

> So, we must apply the setting of the text and interpret the text
> carefully, to find out, what it actually says.
>
> The rule is, that we have to trust the text and take it as true
> manifestation of the wishes of the author, whether or not they are good
> and beneficial.

Sure.

> Now §3 starts with:
> quote
> "Let us in “stationary” space take two systems of co-ordinates, i.e. two
> systems, each of three rigid material lines, perpendicular to one
> another, and issuing from a point. Let the axes of X of the two systems
> coincide, and their axes of Y and Z respectively be parallel."
>
> These coordinate systems had the names k and K.
>
> Now the setting of the author is not equal to yours, because you wrote:
>
> quote
> " In that part of the article x' and x
> > are space coordinates of events in the *same* frame of reference."

Yes, this is correct.

> This is in fact wrong,

No, it's correct.

> because the start of the beam was the zero spot
> of k (at least Einstein wrote so), hence had the coordinate xsi=0 (not
> x=arbitrary).
>
> This point has also an x-coordinate in K. That would be v*t.
>
> Now it would be rediculous to assume, that Einstein wanted to subtract
> v*t from v*t.

For the emitter/receiver you do in fact subtract vt from vt.

> But even if so, x' would still be zero.

Yes, you get x' = 0 for the emitter/receiver because its location
by construction of this experimental setup satisfies x = vt at
all times t, hence the corresponding x' value is:

x' = x - vt = 0

throughout.

You get confused by the multiple uses of x' (the standard notational
abuse). What Einstein does is he puts the emitter/receiver at x' = 0
and the mirror at some nonzero value of x' which he also calls x'
(notational abuse). Then he varies the location of the mirror and
compares the resulting differences, this is what the differentiation
with respect to x' that follows does.

This differentiation is an overkill, one could calculate the result by
a bit of simple algebra but Einstein's way is quicker.

BTW, have you tried to figure out how the subsequent
coefficients needed for evaluating tau are obtained?
Einstein gets: dtau/dy = 0 and dtau/dz = 0 (correctly).

--
Jan