Thomas Heger wrote:

> As an engineer I was actually trained to use SI units only. But I have
> also some experience with other system, but not that much.
>
> To me it is actually irrelevant, which unit system you use, because the
> units do not create any kind of reality and are only a tool to describe
> something, hence are no things themselves.

au contraire, without units you have no physics, much less engineering and
reality. But you have the wifes of the "ukraine" nazis in your country.
The nazis will re-invade Berlin. What are you going to do with this
situation.

On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 12:23:09 PM UTC-7, Mitch Yamaguchi wrote:
> Thomas Heger wrote:
>
> > As an engineer I was actually trained to use SI units only. But I have
> > also some experience with other system, but not that much.
> >
> > To me it is actually irrelevant, which unit system you use, because the
> > units do not create any kind of reality and are only a tool to describe
> > something, hence are no things themselves.
>
> au contraire, without units you have no physics, much less engineering and
> reality. But you have the wifes of the "ukraine" nazis in your country.
> The nazis will re-invade Berlin. What are you going to do with this
> situation.

Roses are Red,
Violets are Blue.
Sugar is sweet,
And so are you.
…But the roses are wilting,
The violets are dead.
The sugar bowl's empty,
And so is your head.

Am 07.04.2022 um 15:25 schrieb Odd Bodkin:
> Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
>> Am 06.04.2022 um 15:50 schrieb Odd Bodkin:
>>> Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
>>>> Am 05.04.2022 um 16:56 schrieb Odd Bodkin:
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> No. You simply don't understand how this works. Some people, when
>>>>>>>>>>>>> they don't understand something, tend to blame everyone but themselves
>>>>>>>>>>>>> for this. I cannot fix this problem for you.
>>>>>>>>>>>> I understand, that magnetic field and electric field have different
>>>>>>>>>>>> effects, hence are different things, even if related.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> So: I cannot subtract 1 amp from 1 Volt, because that does not make much
>>>>>>>>>>>> more sense then subtraction weigth from pressure.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You don't subtract 1 A from 1 V.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Electric field strength (commonly called 'E') was subtracted from
>>>>>>>>>> magnetic field strength (commonly called 'H') by Einstein.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> E has [V/m] as units and H has [A/m].
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> How about in cgs units? You know about those?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Do you really want to defend the same idocities as Einstein?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don’t think systems of units are idiocies.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not the system of units, of course, but the use of these units.
>>>>>
>>>>> This may come as a shock to you, but combining quantities of the same units
>>>>> and same transformation properties is commonplace in physics. For example,
>>>>> the combination of angular kinetic energy and translational kinetic energy
>>>>> in ordinary energy conservation scenarios.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The cgs system boild the fields down to 'force', which is measured in
>>>>>> 'dyne'.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This force was meant as real mechanical force like with what we measure
>>>>>> weight, for instance.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This was justified by measuring a force inside the measuring device,
>>>>>> which ultimately was a mechanical force.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (Einstein actually wrote so, when he wrote about the connection of an
>>>>>> electron to a spring balance).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Now the same units 'dyne' are not appropriate for electrical fields of
>>>>>> different kind, because the dyne is 'not electric'.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The units simply ignore this different origins of the fields and their
>>>>>> different nature.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think you’re going to be generally flummoxed by the realization that
>>>>> there is one electromagnetic field, not physically distinct electric and
>>>>> magnetic fields.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I know magnets and I know electric fields. These fields do not behave
>>>> equal, at least not in the static realm.
>>>>
>>>> They may be ultimately two manifestations of the same thing, but still
>>>> these static manifestations behave different.
>>>
>>> Well, sure. For one thing, currents are the source of one, but as you know,
>>> whether a charge is stationary or in motion is an accident of choice of
>>> reference frame.
>>
>>
>> The magnetic field is NOT caused by currents!!!
>> Currents in a coil can cause a magnetic field, but the field itself does
>> not require any current.
>
> Oh, Thomas, oh dear.
>
> I’m afraid you’ve forgotten some of the basic of electrodynamics. Would you
> like a recommendation for a beginner’s book on the subject to remind you of
> what you’ve forgotten?

A field is not the source, but a feature of the space around the source.

Therefore the points of that space must be able to have features.

Such features must include at least electric and magnetic field strength
vectors.

Now we can assume, that points may have a E and a B vector, though of
zero length usually.

A non zero source would change that and make the vectors grow and point
somewhere.

The pattern gets distributed away from the source, if the source is not
static.

We know this would happen in radio waves, for instance.

These waves distribute away from the source, hence do not depend on
current in any way, once in motion.

>>
>> Fields are in general properties of space. So we need to assign
>> properties to points, which are not material objects.
>>
>> The material objects are actually certain patterns, which these
>> properties could build, but the points themselves are immaterial, but
>> still can have properties, which we call 'field-strength-vectors'.
>>
>> Also the electric field does not require material objects of any kind,
>> whether flowing through a wire or static.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Horizontal behaviors are often different than vertical behaviors as well,
>>> but this doesn’t mean that horizontal and vertical displacements are
>>> incommensurate, nor does it mean that horizontal displacements cannot be
>>> combined with vertical displacements because of a clash of units.
>>
>>
>> Well, yes. On Earth we have a gravitational field and it does in fact
>> make a difference, if you move horizontal or upwards.
>>
>> This gravitational field has a lot of influence on other things, which
>> have no mass, like e.g. time or light.
>>
>>>> If we now use the features of one of these manifestions and apply them
>>>> to the other one, we find, these description does not match.
>>>>
>>>> Magnetic fields behave inertial and make things spin, while electric
>>>> fields push or pull other charged objects, what is not quite the same.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Your statement is not entirely wrong, but is actually a disprove of one
>>>> of Einstein's main assumptions:
>>>>
>>>> The electric field itself was modelled by Einstein by means of
>>>> electrons, which were assumed as very tiny balls, to which a certain
>>>> amount of charge was added.
>>>>
>>>> But if electric and magnetic fields are actually only one thing, than
>>>> how would you like to modell the electric charge of an electron?
>>>>
>>>
>>> The same way. Look at Maxwell’s equations. Gauss’s law has a charge density
>>> as a source. Ampere’s law has a charge current density as a source.
>>
>> And the universe has a 'big-bang' as a source.
>>
>> But does such a source in an equation make the source a real material
>> object?
>
> That depends on your definition of “material”. In the physical sciences,
> matter means that which has mass and occupies volume. Electrons have mass
> but do not occupy measurable volume, so they do not satisfy the physical
> sciences definition of matter.
>

No.

Actually the magnetic field also behaves inertial, but has no mass,
while fills space.

So, 'material object' means something like: countable, distinct entity,
which is composed from matter or elementry particles.

Such things have a feature called 'mass', hence behave inertial.

But not everything with inertia is a material object.

I personally would like to abandon the idea of elementary particles
entirely and declare them to be immaterial.

What we call 'particle' are actually certain structures.

Such structures occur, as if a material 'operator' would create them.

That's why we call them things. But in fact no such thing exist, while
the structures are real.

TH

Am 07.04.2022 um 21:23 schrieb Mitch Yamaguchi:
> Thomas Heger wrote:
>
>> As an engineer I was actually trained to use SI units only. But I have
>> also some experience with other system, but not that much.
>>
>> To me it is actually irrelevant, which unit system you use, because the
>> units do not create any kind of reality and are only a tool to describe
>> something, hence are no things themselves.
>
> au contraire, without units you have no physics, much less engineering and
> reality. But you have the wifes of the "ukraine" nazis in your country.
> The nazis will re-invade Berlin. What are you going to do with this
> situation.
>

I personally like the weman of the Ukraine. It's actually a question of
taste, but my own experiences with female Ukranians were quite good.

TH

Am 07.04.2022 um 15:25 schrieb Odd Bodkin:

>>>>> It’s rather stunning that you are wholly incapable of working in any system
>>>>> of units other than SI. What do you attribute that to?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Of course.
>>>
>>> Thomas seems to be spectacularly unequipped with systems of units.
>>>
>>
>>
>> As an engineer I was actually trained to use SI units only. But I have
>> also some experience with other system, but not that much.
>
> And that has hurt you.

No, not really.

But the SI system is actually quite ok.

>
>>
>> To me it is actually irrelevant, which unit system you use, because the
>> units do not create any kind of reality and are only a tool to describe
>> something, hence are no things themselves.
>>

Again: different units do not change the real world, because the real
world does not know anything about our units.

Also other descriptions are not real things, hence to alter the
descriptions has no influence on what they describe.

TH

Am 07.04.2022 um 10:20 schrieb JanPB:
> On Wednesday, April 6, 2022 at 10:45:16 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
>> Am 06.04.2022 um 08:22 schrieb Thomas Heger:
>>> Am 05.04.2022 um 19:58 schrieb Michael Moroney:
>>>> On 4/5/2022 2:35 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>>> Am 04.04.2022 um 15:55 schrieb Odd Bodkin:
>>>>>> Thomas Heger <ttt...@web.de> wrote:
>>>>>>> Am 03.04.2022 um 21:42 schrieb Michael Moroney:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I understand, that magnetic field and electric field have
>>>>>>>>>>> different
>>>>>>>>>>> effects, hence are different things, even if related.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> So: I cannot subtract 1 amp from 1 Volt, because that does not
>>>>>>>>>>> make
>>>>>>>>>>> much
>>>>>>>>>>> more sense then subtraction weigth from pressure.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You don't subtract 1 A from 1 V.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Electric field strength (commonly called 'E') was subtracted from
>>>>>>>>> magnetic field strength (commonly called 'H') by Einstein.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> E has [V/m] as units and H has [A/m].
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> To subtract E from H would mean [A/m - V/m] =[(A - V)/m].
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> (Einstein used only the X-components called 'N' and 'Y', which
>>>>>>>>> should
>>>>>>>>> have similar units, nevertheless. The used phrase 'force' instead of
>>>>>>>>> 'field strength' was actually wrong.)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Now ... ..(N - v/c*Y)... contains an illegal operation, because it
>>>>>>>>> requires to subtract Volts from Amps. (sorry: I wrote it the other
>>>>>>>>> way
>> It is worth to have a closer look at the equations on page 13 again.
>>
>> Einstein did something repeatedly wrong:
>> he used scalar for quatities, which are inherently vectorial (or vice
>> versa):
>
> No, he never does that. Why do you constantly assume that:
>
> (1) Einstein made high-school-level mistake,
>
> (2) That such mistake was not caught by the Annalen der Physik
> editors,
>
> (3) That such was not caught by all physicists in the world
> for past 117 years?

There is a sufficiant explanation, which you most likely do not like.

I counted roughly four hundred errors of various kinds.

This is even way too much, if you try to make them by chance or pure
stupidity.

Therefore the errors must be intentional. So, someone who actually knew
better created with great care and knowledge the worst crap immaginable.

This was praised by the media as pinnacle of human development and
masterpiece of science.

Now this text was force fed to the professional scientists by
socio-economical pressure, who could only become a professional, if they
would not critizise Einstein.

(Once they do, they get fired.)

Now only professionals are allowed to criticise the text, but the
professionals did not want, because they wanted to keep their job.

Others were treated as 'crackpots', Nazis or worse and are and were
regarded as unworthy to discuss with (what was at least my own experience).

Some professionals did criticise the text for various reasons, anyhow,
like e.g. Herbert Dingle.

There exist about three thousand critical publications, which said
something critical about Einstein's text.

But they were all simply ignored and swept under the rug, while the
usual suspects still praise that paper as better than everything else in
science.

In effect the entire natural science physics got derailed to a mere farce.

That's what the 'bad guys' wanted.

....

TH

Am 07.04.2022 um 10:06 schrieb JanPB:
> On Tuesday, April 5, 2022 at 11:22:47 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
>> Am 05.04.2022 um 19:58 schrieb Michael Moroney:
>>> On 4/5/2022 2:35 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>> Am 04.04.2022 um 15:55 schrieb Odd Bodkin:
>>>>> Thomas Heger <ttt...@web.de> wrote:
>>>>>> Am 03.04.2022 um 21:42 schrieb Michael Moroney:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I understand, that magnetic field and electric field have different
>>>>>>>>>> effects, hence are different things, even if related.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So: I cannot subtract 1 amp from 1 Volt, because that does not make
>>>>>>>>>> much
>>>>>>>>>> more sense then subtraction weigth from pressure.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You don't subtract 1 A from 1 V.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Electric field strength (commonly called 'E') was subtracted from
>>>>>>>> magnetic field strength (commonly called 'H') by Einstein.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> E has [V/m] as units and H has [A/m].
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> To subtract E from H would mean [A/m - V/m] =[(A - V)/m].
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> (Einstein used only the X-components called 'N' and 'Y', which should
>>>>>>>> have similar units, nevertheless. The used phrase 'force' instead of
>>>>>>>> 'field strength' was actually wrong.)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Now ... ..(N - v/c*Y)... contains an illegal operation, because it
>>>>>>>> requires to subtract Volts from Amps. (sorry: I wrote it the other
>>>>>>>> way
>> Here I made a mistake.
>>
>> I regarded the equations on page 13 as equations with vectors, because
>> Einstein defined the symbols 'Y' and 'N' as electric and magnetic force
>> on page 22 as "...an electric force Y and a magnetic force N ".
>>
>> My error was now, that I have used the definition of page 22 and applied
>> that to page 13.
>
> Both pages refer to components of the relevant fields (electric or magnetic).

Sure, but I was talking about components of vectors.

Now a field is something from the real world, while vectors belong to
the mathematical description of that phenomenon.

A vector is actually a n-tuple, which combines a number of values into
one piece.

the main features of a vector are: direction and 'length'.
Vectors maintain direction and strength, but can be moved around.

But what entries do vectors have?

We could think about different things, that could be the entries: like
numbers, scalar physical quantities with a unit or other vectors.

But how shall we interpret the entries of vectors in Einstein's text?

Usually the author should say, how he likes his symbols to be
understood. But since Einstein did not define his variables, we are
forced to find out on the own, what could possibly be meant.

This is not easy, because Einstein used usual symbols with unusual meanings.

E.g. the usualy symbol for a Poyting vector is S, while Einstein used it
for 'volume of a sphere'.

The next stumbling block is the fact, that Einstein used same symbols
with different meanings.

E.g. the symbol 'A' was used for eight different purposes.

(that is actually so nasty, that this alone would be sufficant to
dismiss the entire paper.)

To make matters worse, he also defined something, but actually used
other symbols.

E.g. the axes of the moving system k got intitially the names Xsi, Eta
and Zeta in tall Greek letters, but actually used were X, Y and Z.

In case of vectors he gave no hints whatever, how he wanted the entries
to be interpreted.

Therefore we are forced to find that out ourselves.

But Einstein used such entries in an n-tuple also as names for the
direction components of the physical fields.

E.g. Y was used as x-component in the electric field strength vector at
point (x, y, z). That 'Y' is therefore a unitless number, because the
n-tuple (X, Y, Z) 'inherits' its units from the coordinate system it
belongs to.

But the x-component of the electric field is not a number.

>> This was justified by the common practice, that a definitions remains
>> valid throughout the entire text, which also would operate backwards.
>>
>> But instead of this, Einstein had the EXTREMELY NASTY habit, to reuse
>> or redefine symbols, what would excluse such backwards operations.
>>
>> So: 'N' on page 13 means something else than 'N' on page 22 and only the
>> definition from pages prior to page 13 are valid there.
>
> No, both "N" mean the same thing. Einstein says "electric force Y" when
> he means "the y-component of the electric field". It may have been
> standard usage back then. Its meaning is obvious regardless.
>
>> On page 13 N and Y do not mean vector or vector component, but the
>> actual numbers at a certain position within a vector.
>
> Everywhere in the paper they denote components of the electric or
> magnetic field ((X, Y, Z) and (L, M, N), respectively.
>

No

The vectors build not the field itself, but the numerical destription of
the field.

The vector is therefore a mathematical object and belongs to a
mathematical representation of a real physical phenomenon.

Such objects are technically unitless n-tupels. The meaning stems from
the 'environment', to what this n-tuple belongs.

TH
>

On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 11:14:21 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 07.04.2022 um 10:20 schrieb JanPB:
> > On Wednesday, April 6, 2022 at 10:45:16 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
> >> Am 06.04.2022 um 08:22 schrieb Thomas Heger:
> >>> Am 05.04.2022 um 19:58 schrieb Michael Moroney:
> >>>> On 4/5/2022 2:35 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> >>>>> Am 04.04.2022 um 15:55 schrieb Odd Bodkin:
> >>>>>> Thomas Heger <ttt...@web.de> wrote:
> >>>>>>> Am 03.04.2022 um 21:42 schrieb Michael Moroney:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> I understand, that magnetic field and electric field have
> >>>>>>>>>>> different
> >>>>>>>>>>> effects, hence are different things, even if related.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> So: I cannot subtract 1 amp from 1 Volt, because that does not
> >>>>>>>>>>> make
> >>>>>>>>>>> much
> >>>>>>>>>>> more sense then subtraction weigth from pressure.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> You don't subtract 1 A from 1 V.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Electric field strength (commonly called 'E') was subtracted from
> >>>>>>>>> magnetic field strength (commonly called 'H') by Einstein.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> E has [V/m] as units and H has [A/m].
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> To subtract E from H would mean [A/m - V/m] =[(A - V)/m].
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> (Einstein used only the X-components called 'N' and 'Y', which
> >>>>>>>>> should
> >>>>>>>>> have similar units, nevertheless. The used phrase 'force' instead of
> >>>>>>>>> 'field strength' was actually wrong.)
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Now ... ..(N - v/c*Y)... contains an illegal operation, because it
> >>>>>>>>> requires to subtract Volts from Amps. (sorry: I wrote it the other
> >>>>>>>>> way
> >> It is worth to have a closer look at the equations on page 13 again.
> >>
> >> Einstein did something repeatedly wrong:
> >> he used scalar for quatities, which are inherently vectorial (or vice
> >> versa):
> >
> > No, he never does that. Why do you constantly assume that:
> >
> > (1) Einstein made high-school-level mistake,
> >
> > (2) That such mistake was not caught by the Annalen der Physik
> > editors,
> >
> > (3) That such was not caught by all physicists in the world
> > for past 117 years?
>
>
> There is a sufficiant explanation, which you most likely do not like.

There is no explanation because this kind of claim is ludicrous.

> I counted roughly four hundred errors of various kinds.

No, you did not.

> This is even way too much, if you try to make them by chance or pure
> stupidity.

Again, your claims of "errors" are all, and I repeat, ALL, nonsensical.

> Therefore the errors must be intentional.

N/A. There are no errors in Einstein's 1905 paper.

> So, someone who actually knew
> better created with great care and knowledge the worst crap immaginable.

Repeating fantasies will never make them true.

> This was praised by the media as pinnacle of human development and
> masterpiece of science.
>
> Now this text was force fed to the professional scientists by
> socio-economical pressure, who could only become a professional, if they
> would not critizise Einstein.
>
> (Once they do, they get fired.)

No, this is the standard fantasy here. The truth OTOH is that the first scientist to
disprove relativity experimentally will get a Nobel and a bunch of cushy
job offers.

> Now only professionals are allowed to criticise the text, but the
> professionals did not want, because they wanted to keep their job.

Everyone is allowed to criticise it. There were numerous detailed
studies done over many years. Problem with you is that you
don't understand this paper and all you write about is nonsense.

> There exist about three thousand critical publications, which said
> something critical about Einstein's text.

It's perfectly fine to criticise relativity but it has to be done
by people who understand it.

Don't waste your time on this, it's just not your metier.

--
Jan

On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 11:40:32 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 07.04.2022 um 10:06 schrieb JanPB:
> > On Tuesday, April 5, 2022 at 11:22:47 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
> >> Am 05.04.2022 um 19:58 schrieb Michael Moroney:
> >>> On 4/5/2022 2:35 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> >>>> Am 04.04.2022 um 15:55 schrieb Odd Bodkin:
> >>>>> Thomas Heger <ttt...@web.de> wrote:
> >>>>>> Am 03.04.2022 um 21:42 schrieb Michael Moroney:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> I understand, that magnetic field and electric field have different
> >>>>>>>>>> effects, hence are different things, even if related.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> So: I cannot subtract 1 amp from 1 Volt, because that does not make
> >>>>>>>>>> much
> >>>>>>>>>> more sense then subtraction weigth from pressure.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> You don't subtract 1 A from 1 V.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Electric field strength (commonly called 'E') was subtracted from
> >>>>>>>> magnetic field strength (commonly called 'H') by Einstein.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> E has [V/m] as units and H has [A/m].
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> To subtract E from H would mean [A/m - V/m] =[(A - V)/m].
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> (Einstein used only the X-components called 'N' and 'Y', which should
> >>>>>>>> have similar units, nevertheless. The used phrase 'force' instead of
> >>>>>>>> 'field strength' was actually wrong.)
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Now ... ..(N - v/c*Y)... contains an illegal operation, because it
> >>>>>>>> requires to subtract Volts from Amps. (sorry: I wrote it the other
> >>>>>>>> way
> >> Here I made a mistake.
> >>
> >> I regarded the equations on page 13 as equations with vectors, because
> >> Einstein defined the symbols 'Y' and 'N' as electric and magnetic force
> >> on page 22 as "...an electric force Y and a magnetic force N ".
> >>
> >> My error was now, that I have used the definition of page 22 and applied
> >> that to page 13.
> >
> > Both pages refer to components of the relevant fields (electric or magnetic).
> Sure, but I was talking about components of vectors.
>
> Now a field is something from the real world, while vectors belong to
> the mathematical description of that phenomenon.

No. Field is a mathematical concept. It's based on the continuum
concept which we don't even know exists in nature.

> A vector is actually a n-tuple, which combines a number of values into
> one piece.

It's an n-tuple with certain transformation properties.

> the main features of a vector are: direction and 'length'.
> Vectors maintain direction and strength, but can be moved around.
>
> But what entries do vectors have?
>
> We could think about different things, that could be the entries: like
> numbers, scalar physical quantities with a unit or other vectors.
>
> But how shall we interpret the entries of vectors in Einstein's text?

It's obvious to a competent reader.

> Usually the author should say, how he likes his symbols to be
> understood.

It's completely specified in the paper.

> But since Einstein did not define his variables,

He did.

> we are
> forced to find out on the own, what could possibly be meant.

N/A.

> This is not easy, because Einstein used usual symbols with unusual meanings.

N/A.

> E.g. the usualy symbol for a Poyting vector is S, while Einstein used it
> for 'volume of a sphere'.

N/A.

> The next stumbling block is the fact, that Einstein used same symbols
> with different meanings.

N/A.

> E.g. the symbol 'A' was used for eight different purposes.

Again, all nonsense - N/A.

> (that is actually so nasty, that this alone would be sufficant to
> dismiss the entire paper.)

Again, total nonsense - N/A. Why are you wasting your time
on posting complete nonsense?

> To make matters worse, he also defined something, but actually used
> other symbols.

Again, nonsense.

> E.g. the axes of the moving system k got intitially the names Xsi, Eta
> and Zeta in tall Greek letters, but actually used were X, Y and Z.

Nonsense.

> In case of vectors he gave no hints whatever, how he wanted the entries
> to be interpreted.
>
> Therefore we are forced to find that out ourselves.
>
> But Einstein used such entries in an n-tuple also as names for the
> direction components of the physical fields.
>
> E.g. Y was used as x-component in the electric field strength vector at
> point (x, y, z). That 'Y' is therefore a unitless number, because the
> n-tuple (X, Y, Z) 'inherits' its units from the coordinate system it
> belongs to.

You don't have the faintest clue what you are talking about here.

> But the x-component of the electric field is not a number.

It is.

> >> This was justified by the common practice, that a definitions remains
> >> valid throughout the entire text, which also would operate backwards.
> >>
> >> But instead of this, Einstein had the EXTREMELY NASTY habit, to reuse
> >> or redefine symbols, what would excluse such backwards operations.
> >>
> >> So: 'N' on page 13 means something else than 'N' on page 22 and only the
> >> definition from pages prior to page 13 are valid there.
> >
> > No, both "N" mean the same thing. Einstein says "electric force Y" when
> > he means "the y-component of the electric field". It may have been
> > standard usage back then. Its meaning is obvious regardless.
> >
> >> On page 13 N and Y do not mean vector or vector component, but the
> >> actual numbers at a certain position within a vector.
> >
> > Everywhere in the paper they denote components of the electric or
> > magnetic field ((X, Y, Z) and (L, M, N), respectively.
> >
> No

Yes.

> The vectors build not the field itself, but the numerical destription of
> the field.

Word salad.

> The vector is therefore a mathematical object and belongs to a
> mathematical representation of a real physical phenomenon.

Yes, also 2 = 2.

> Such objects are technically unitless n-tupels. The meaning stems from
> the 'environment', to what this n-tuple belongs.

Your posts are getting increasingly nonsensical. Why are
you wasting your life away on this? Isn't there something
you can actually do?

--
Jan

Am 08.04.2022 um 08:56 schrieb JanPB:

>>> Both pages refer to components of the relevant fields (electric or magnetic).
>> Sure, but I was talking about components of vectors.
>>
>> Now a field is something from the real world, while vectors belong to
>> the mathematical description of that phenomenon.
>
> No. Field is a mathematical concept. It's based on the continuum
> concept which we don't even know exists in nature.

In physics 'field' means the distribution of something in space.

It an electric field was meant, we mean something likee the effect of a
charged probe upon the environment and how this is distributed in space.

>> A vector is actually a n-tuple, which combines a number of values into
>> one piece.
>
> It's an n-tuple with certain transformation properties.
>
>> the main features of a vector are: direction and 'length'.
>> Vectors maintain direction and strength, but can be moved around.
>>
>> But what entries do vectors have?
>>
>> We could think about different things, that could be the entries: like
>> numbers, scalar physical quantities with a unit or other vectors.
>>
>> But how shall we interpret the entries of vectors in Einstein's text?
>
> It's obvious to a competent reader.
>
>> Usually the author should say, how he likes his symbols to be
>> understood.
>
> It's completely specified in the paper.
>
>> But since Einstein did not define his variables,
>
> He did.

Sure. Actually he did that occasionally.

But he used the symbol 'Y' for different purposes and in case of the
electric field strength vectors he left the question open, how that 'Y'
should be interpreted.

Meant was the y-component of the field strength vector at point (x,y, z).

But what he meant was most likely also a vector, but with only one
entry: something like (0, Y, 0).

The symbol 'Y' could have other meanings, too:

for instance the y-axis of the stationary system K had the name 'Y', too.

(0, Y, 0) is a symbolic representation in form of a n-tupel of the field
strength at a certain point inspace.

The entries are numbers without units. But that can hardly be meant,
because a number is not a physical quantity.

So: what was meant instead?

Einstein left the question to the reader, who was therefore forced to
imagine, what Einstein had in mind.

I regarded this as a very nasty habit, because the author has to tell
the reader, what he wants to say

....

>
>> E.g. the symbol 'A' was used for eight different purposes.
>
> Again, all nonsense - N/A.

This is in fact true.

Einstein used the tall letter 'A' for:

name of a point
name of one end of a moving rod
index of a time measure in t_A
sign at set of equations
as symbol for area
as variable, which meant 'amplitude'
in 'electric power of deflexion A_e' (whatever that is)
in 'magnetic power of deflexion A_m'

>
>> (that is actually so nasty, that this alone would be sufficant to
>> dismiss the entire paper.)
>
> Again, total nonsense - N/A. Why are you wasting your time
> on posting complete nonsense?

It is actually not nonsense.

I would regard his naming system as total crap.

It is actually so bad, that also his naming conventions alone were
enough for me to reject that paper.

Besides of that crapping system of naming things, he kept the actual
meanings hidden and left it to the reader, to find out, what he meant.

>> To make matters worse, he also defined something, but actually used
>> other symbols.
>

Sure he did!

quote from the footnote on page 8:

"Editor’s note: In Einstein’s original paper, the symbols (Ξ, H, Z)
for the co-ordinates of the moving system k were introduced without
explicitly defining them. In the 1923 English translation, (X, Y, Z) were
used, creating an ambiguity between X co-ordinates in the fixed system K
and the parallel axis in moving system k. "

But he used the names Ξ, H, Z only here and on page 12. At all other
instances he used X, y and Z.

Besides of this problem we can see here yet another problem:

some Greek letters look similar to some Latin letters, which were also
in use, but Einstein made no efforts to distinguish between both alphabets.

This caused problems in a number of cases, because e.g. the small Greek
alpha and the italic 'a' look identical.

>
>> E.g. the axes of the moving system k got intitially the names Xsi, Eta
>> and Zeta in tall Greek letters, but actually used were X, Y and Z.
>
> Nonsense.

see above.

In fact he named in the German version the axes of the system k with
Greek letters.

The names of the systems were also bad.
He used four system:
K, k, k' and k''

To me the system made no sense, because of the inconsistent use of the
symbol ' (prime).
....

TH

On 4/8/2022 2:50 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 08.04.2022 um 08:56 schrieb JanPB:
>
>>>> Both pages refer to components of the relevant fields (electric or
>>>> magnetic).
>>> Sure, but I was talking about components of vectors.
>>>
>>> Now a field is something from the real world, while vectors belong to
>>> the mathematical description of that phenomenon.
>>
>> No. Field is a mathematical concept. It's based on the continuum
>> concept which we don't even know exists in nature.
>
> In physics 'field' means the distribution of something in space.
>
> It an electric field was meant, we mean something likee the effect of a
> charged probe upon the environment and how this is distributed in space.
>
>
>>> A vector is actually a n-tuple, which combines a number of values into
>>> one piece.
>>
>> It's an n-tuple with certain transformation properties.
>>
>>> the main features of a vector are: direction and 'length'.
>>> Vectors maintain direction and strength, but can be moved around.
>>>
>>> But what entries do vectors have?
>>>
>>> We could think about different things, that could be the entries: like
>>> numbers, scalar physical quantities with a unit or other vectors.
>>>
>>> But how shall we interpret the entries of vectors in Einstein's text?
>>
>> It's obvious to a competent reader.
>>
>>> Usually the author should say, how he likes his symbols to be
>>> understood.
>>
>> It's completely specified in the paper.
>>
>>> But since Einstein did not define his variables,
>>
>> He did.
>
> Sure. Actually he did that occasionally.
>
> But he used the symbol 'Y' for different purposes and in case of the
> electric field strength vectors he left the question open, how that 'Y'
> should be interpreted.
>
> Meant was the y-component of the field strength vector at point (x,y, z).
>
> But what he meant was most likely also a vector, but with only one
> entry: something like (0, Y, 0).

Again, to simplify the example of an object moving at right angles to a
magnetic field, with axes defined appropriately (direction of motion
along X axis, magnetic field along Y axis). No need to involve
complexity needing the cross product etc.

You have been told this many times, yet you ignore this.
>
> The symbol 'Y' could have other meanings, too:
>
> for instance the y-axis of the stationary system K had the name 'Y', too.

In a different part of the paper. Here it is defined differently.
>
> (0, Y, 0) is a symbolic representation in form of a n-tupel of the field
> strength at a certain point inspace.
>
> The entries are numbers without units. But that can hardly be meant,
> because a number is not a physical quantity.
>
> So: what was meant instead?

Obviously, the strength of the magnetic field in the Y direction.
>
> Einstein left the question to the reader, who was therefore forced to
> imagine, what Einstein had in mind.

Once again, you are not Einstein's target audience. His actual
audience, physicists of his time, knew what Einstein was talking about,
and didn't need to imagine anything.

I didn't need to imagine anything when I read that part of the paper. I
am also not part of Einstein's target audience, but at least I could
follow along easily.
>
> I regarded this as a very nasty habit, because the author has to tell
> the reader, what he wants to say
>
>
> ...
>
>>
>>> E.g. the symbol 'A' was used for eight different purposes.
>>
>> Again, all nonsense - N/A.
>
> This is in fact true.
>
> Einstein used the tall letter 'A' for:
>
> name of a point
> name of one end of a moving rod
> index of a time measure in t_A
> sign at set of equations
> as symbol for area
> as variable, which meant 'amplitude'
> in 'electric power of deflexion A_e' (whatever that is)
> in 'magnetic power of deflexion A_m'
>
>>
>>> (that is actually so nasty, that this alone would be sufficant to
>>> dismiss the entire paper.)
>>
>> Again, total nonsense - N/A. Why are you wasting your time
>> on posting complete nonsense?
>
> It is actually not nonsense.
>
> I would regard his naming system as total crap.
>
> It is actually so bad, that also his naming conventions alone were
> enough for me to reject that paper.

Well, it's a good thing actual physicists reviewed the paper rather than
someone with a hateful obsession with the author.

Am 08.04.2022 um 20:50 schrieb Thomas Heger:
>
> In fact he named in the German version the axes of the system k with
> Greek letters.
>
> The names of the systems were also bad.
> He used four system:
> K, k, k' and k''
>
> To me the system made no sense, because of the inconsistent use of the
> symbol ' (prime).

Sorry

The four systems were named

K, k, K' and k'

To me the system looks 'ugly'.

Already the distiction between moving and non-moving systems by small
instead of large letters was questionable.

But even that system was not used consistently, because only the system
K was assumed to be not moving, while k, K' and k' actually move.

Also the use of ' (prime) was inconsistent, because it meant 'moving
backwards' in case of K' and k'.

A better solution would be a certain sign like e.g. ' for moving forward
and e.g. * for moving backwards and a tall letter or no sign at all for
'at rest'.

This would be better:
K, K', K*

(k' is actually the same as K)

TH

Am 09.04.2022 um 01:05 schrieb Michael Moroney:

>>>> Usually the author should say, how he likes his symbols to be
>>>> understood.
>>>
>>> It's completely specified in the paper.
>>>
>>>> But since Einstein did not define his variables,
>>>
>>> He did.
>>
>> Sure. Actually he did that occasionally.
>>
>> But he used the symbol 'Y' for different purposes and in case of the
>> electric field strength vectors he left the question open, how that
>> 'Y' should be interpreted.
>>
>> Meant was the y-component of the field strength vector at point (x,y, z).
>>
>> But what he meant was most likely also a vector, but with only one
>> entry: something like (0, Y, 0).
>
> Again, to simplify the example of an object moving at right angles to a
> magnetic field, with axes defined appropriately (direction of motion
> along X axis, magnetic field along Y axis). No need to involve
> complexity needing the cross product etc.

Totally wrong!

The effect on a moving charge by a magnetic field is usually described
by vectors and cross products.

The cross product is also not such an advanced tool, that nobody can
actually use it.

> You have been told this many times, yet you ignore this.

Sure, I ignored your useless statement, because it is totally wrong.

>> The symbol 'Y' could have other meanings, too:
>>
>> for instance the y-axis of the stationary system K had the name 'Y', too.
>
> In a different part of the paper. Here it is defined differently.

This is VERY BAD !!!! practise!.

You should NOT redefine used symbols within a scientific paper without
good reasons to do so.

There are tons of possibilities to name things with symbols, which you
can maintain throughout the entire paper.

E.g. sub- or superscripts are a possibility or hooks, ~, *, ° or other
signs like arrows or under- or overlines, different fonts, different
alphabets, upper- and lower-case and so forth.

There is absolutely no need to reuse the same symbol for other purposes
somewhere later in the same text.

But Einstein used the same symbol 'X' with different meanings in the
same sentence.

To me that was EXTREMLY BAD habit!

>> (0, Y, 0) is a symbolic representation in form of a n-tupel of the
>> field strength at a certain point inspace.
>>
>> The entries are numbers without units. But that can hardly be meant,
>> because a number is not a physical quantity.
>>
>> So: what was meant instead?
>
> Obviously, the strength of the magnetic field in the Y direction.

Sure, but this was not my question.

My question was, what kind of mathematical object 'Y' meant.

(0, Y, 0) is a vector, while the entry 'Y' in this vector is a number.

So: was the symbol 'Y' in Einstein's equations meant as a vector or as a
number (or what else)?

This is important, because the validity of the equations rests upon the
type of mathematical object of 'Y'.

>> Einstein left the question to the reader, who was therefore forced to
>> imagine, what Einstein had in mind.
>
> Once again, you are not Einstein's target audience. His actual
> audience, physicists of his time, knew what Einstein was talking about,
> and didn't need to imagine anything.

I certainly would agree, that Einstein had not written for me.

But to write something in a scientific paper always adresses the general
public.

Scientific papers are nothing like club magazines, which are distributed
only among the members of a club.

Scientific papers are meant as publication of scientific discoveries to
whom ever that may concern.

....

TH

On Friday, April 8, 2022 at 11:08:54 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
>
> But to write something in a scientific paper always adresses the general
> public.

Obviously false.

> Scientific papers are nothing like club magazines, which are distributed
> only among the members of a club.

Sour grapes and nonsense. Is it possible for you to write just ONE
true statement? Just wondering.

> Scientific papers are meant as publication of scientific discoveries to
> whom ever that may concern.

They are meant to communicate mainly to the audience of professionals.
Such audience takes VERY badly excessive pedantry and excessive pointing
out of trivial matters.

Why are you wasting your time on this project? None of your annotations to
Einstein's paper have any meaning, it's simply junk.

--
Jan

Michael Moroney wrote:

>> But is this an electric field or a magnetic field or both combined?
>
> There really is a single electromagnetic field, which manifests itself
> as electric and magnetic fields depending on the SR frame referenced.

You dog licking balls, electric is different from magnetic.

But you dirty anglo-saxons are just *slavic_nazis*, which learned to
speech engilsh. You are committing war crimes, blaming it on other
countries with your corrupt *mass_media_conglomerates*.

You committed war crimes in Yugoslavia, Iraq, Syria, Libya and
Afghanistan, just to mention the few, not mentioning Latin america etc.

Moscow warns of ‘direct military confrontation’ with US
https://www.rt.com/russia/553584-antonov-confrontation-us-russia/
Western countries, by “pumping” weapons into Ukraine, risk leading the US
and Russia “onto the path of direct military confrontation,” Moscow’s
ambassador to Washington, Anatoly Antonov, said earlier this week.

West wants to ‘destroy’ Russia – Venezuela
https://www.rt.com/news/553580-venezuela-west-dismember-russia/
“They are lining up, economically, politically, and diplomatically [in the
West] for a big war against Russia. From Venezuela, we denounce it,”
Maduro said in a televised speech on Friday.

Just imagine how much natural gas and crude oil, would america sell to
europe, from Russia. Liquefied gas is difficult and not for free, as it
would be, stolen from Russia.

Russia accuses Ukraine of ‘barbarism’
https://www.rt.com/russia/553572-kiev-justicekramatorsk-strike-weapons/
The ministry has requested that the international community “make an
unbiased assessment” of the actions of the Ukrainian forces and “stop
supplying them with weapons, as well as urge Kiev to abandon unacceptable
fighting methods.”

Thomas Heger wrote:
....
> E.g. Y was used as x-component in the electric field strength vector at
> point (x, y, z). That 'Y' is therefore a unitless number, because the
> n-tuple (X, Y, Z) 'inherits' its units from the coordinate system it
> belongs to.

*facepalm*

Well, Thomas let's apply this silly idea of yours that vector
components are unitless. If they are unitless their values
won't change if you switch from one unit system to another
one, right?

There is a glass of water in front of me on the table. Taking
the room walls to define orthogonal axis I can represent the
position of the glass as a three dimension vector (distance
from left well, front wall and floor, right?

Using SI (meters) I got (1, 1.50, .50)

Using inches I got (38.37, 59.05, 19.68)

It is weird for "unitless" numbers to behave that way,
isn't it?

> But the x-component of the electric field is not a number.

What is it then? A giraffe?

Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:

> I certainly would agree, that Einstein had not written for me.
>
> But to write something in a scientific paper always adresses the general
> public.
>
> Scientific papers are nothing like club magazines, which are distributed
> only among the members of a club.
>
> Scientific papers are meant as publication of scientific discoveries to
> whom ever that may concern.

No sir. I’m afraid this is simply flat wrong.
Journal articles are intended to be, and are written as, communications
between similarly trained peers — namely, professional physicists. Period,
end of story.

For communicating with the general public, physicists use other vehicles:
popularizations in books and popsci magazines for those who are interested
but not needing to learn anything rigorously, and textbooks for those who
do want to learn.

You have placed your interests incorrectly.

>
> ...
>
>
> TH
>

--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On Saturday, 9 April 2022 at 14:36:35 UTC+2, Python wrote:
> Thomas Heger wrote:
> ...
> > E.g. Y was used as x-component in the electric field strength vector at
> > point (x, y, z). That 'Y' is therefore a unitless number, because the
> > n-tuple (X, Y, Z) 'inherits' its units from the coordinate system it
> > belongs to.
> *facepalm*
>
> Well, Thomas let's apply this silly idea of yours that vector

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?

Odd Bodkin wrote:

>> Scientific papers are meant as publication of scientific discoveries to
>> whom ever that may concern.
>
> No sir. I’m afraid this is simply flat wrong.
> Journal articles are intended to be, and are written as, communications
> between similarly trained peers — namely, professional physicists.
> Period, end of story.

wow, that's why Einstine was repeatedly demanding explanations to him, as
done to a seven years old.

On 4/9/2022 2:08 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 09.04.2022 um 01:05 schrieb Michael Moroney:
>
>>>>> Usually the author should say, how he likes his symbols to be
>>>>> understood.
>>>>
>>>> It's completely specified in the paper.
>>>>
>>>>> But since Einstein did not define his variables,
>>>>
>>>> He did.
>>>
>>> Sure. Actually he did that occasionally.
>>>
>>> But he used the symbol 'Y' for different purposes and in case of the
>>> electric field strength vectors he left the question open, how that
>>> 'Y' should be interpreted.
>>>
>>> Meant was the y-component of the field strength vector at point (x,y,
>>> z).
>>>
>>> But what he meant was most likely also a vector, but with only one
>>> entry: something like (0, Y, 0).
>>
>> Again, to simplify the example of an object moving at right angles to a
>> magnetic field, with axes defined appropriately (direction of motion
>> along X axis, magnetic field along Y axis).  No need to involve
>> complexity needing the cross product etc.
>
> Totally wrong!
>
> The effect on a moving charge by a magnetic field is usually described
> by vectors and cross products.

In the full 3 dimensional description. Not for this simplified case
where motion is along the x axis and the magnetic field is at a right
angle to it. The resulting force is trivially calculated, and is
understood as being at right angles to both the x axis speed and the
right angle magnetic field.
>
> The cross product is also not such an advanced tool, that nobody can
> actually use it.

Yet it is more complex than the simplified case presented. Remember,
one can ALWAYS choose a system of coordinates such that motion is along
the x axis and a field at a right angle is along the y axis.
>
>> You have been told this many times, yet you ignore this.
>
>
> Sure, I ignored your useless statement, because it is totally wrong.

The physicists of the time didn't consider my statement as wrong. If
they did, it would have been flagged and Einstein told to resubmit his
paper using full blown 3d vectors and cross products. No need.

>>> The symbol 'Y' could have other meanings, too:
>>>
>>> for instance the y-axis of the stationary system K had the name 'Y',
>>> too.
>>
>> In a different part of the paper.  Here it is defined differently.
>
>
> This is VERY BAD !!!! practise!.

No, it is not. Certain variable names (especially x and y, or symbols
frequently associated with a type of unit, such as v for velocity) are
used in papers, both early and modern, repeatedly.
>
> You should NOT redefine used symbols within a scientific paper without
> good reasons to do so.
>
> There are tons of possibilities to name things with symbols, which you
> can maintain throughout the entire paper.
>
> E.g. sub- or superscripts are a possibility or  hooks, ~, *, ° or other
> signs like arrows or under- or overlines, different fonts, different
> alphabets, upper- and lower-case and so forth.

Was any of those dingbats used by others during Einstein's time? Other
than the heavier use of Greek letters then, it is similar to modern papers.
>
>
> There is absolutely no need to reuse the same symbol for other purposes
> somewhere later in the same text.

If the earlier point was made and is finished, no.
Go sit in on a modern algebra or geometry course. You'll see the
instructor use the same symbols over and over and over again.

>>> (0, Y, 0) is a symbolic representation in form of a n-tupel of the
>>> field strength at a certain point inspace.
>>>
>>> The entries are numbers without units. But that can hardly be meant,
>>> because a number is not a physical quantity.
>>>
>>> So: what was meant instead?
>>
>> Obviously, the strength of the magnetic field in the Y direction.
>
> Sure, but this was not my question.
>
> My question was, what kind of mathematical object 'Y' meant.

The strength of the magnetic field in the y direction. Or in the
simplified case where motion is along the x axis and the magnetic field
at right angles to it, it is the strength of the magnetic field.
>
> (0, Y, 0) is a vector, while the entry 'Y' in this vector is a number.
>
> So: was the symbol 'Y' in Einstein's equations meant as a vector or as a
> number (or what else)?
>
> This is important, because the validity of the equations rests upon the
> type of mathematical object of 'Y'.

Bla bla bla. The scientists of Einstein's time had no issue with this.
Neither would a modern physics instructor.
>
>>> Einstein left the question to the reader, who was therefore forced to
>>> imagine, what Einstein had in mind.
>>
>> Once again, you are not Einstein's target audience.  His actual
>> audience, physicists of his time, knew what Einstein was talking about,
>> and didn't need to imagine anything.
>
>
> I certainly would agree, that Einstein had not written for me.
>
> But to write something in a scientific paper always adresses the general
> public.

Nope. It addresses his target audience, which is not the general
public, but other physicists of his time.
>
> Scientific papers are nothing like club magazines, which are distributed
> only among the members of a club.

Anyone can read them, sure, but that doesn't mean "anyone" is the target
audience.

I have substantial problems understanding my own brother's published
research papers, which are modern, not 110 years old. I am not his
target audience. Other biologists in a niche field are.
>
> Scientific papers are meant as publication of scientific discoveries to
> whom ever that may concern.

Anyone can read them, yes, but they aren't the target audience.

For substantial papers likely to be of actual interest to the public,
the author or other physicists could or should write a different
publication for them. Which Einstein did.

On Saturday, April 9, 2022 at 4:33:13 AM UTC-7, Coke Hishikawa wrote:
> Michael Moroney wrote:
>
> >> But is this an electric field or a magnetic field or both combined?
> >
> > There really is a single electromagnetic field, which manifests itself
> > as electric and magnetic fields depending on the SR frame referenced.
>
> You dog licking balls, electric is different from magnetic.

They are, but the E and B fields are not _vector fields_ in the usual
sense. They are colloquially referred to as "vector fields" because they
assign vectors to space points from the POV of a fixed observer
but it turns out (per Lorentz) that
they do not possess the right transformation properties for being
true vector fields. (True vector fields would transform by the
Jacobian matrix of the coordinate change while Lorentz's formulas
are different and can transform 0 to a non-zero value, for example,
which cannot happen under a linear map.)

What does have the right transformation properties is a rank-2
tensor (skew-symmetric in fact, so a 2-form) which includes both
the E and B components in a single package.

When Maxwell's equations are written using this 2-form (call it F),
they assume a form that's even more succinct than Heaviside's:

dF = 0
*d*F = j

....where j is the source 1-form combining charge and current,
"d" is the exterior derivative, and "*" is the Hodge star operator
with the Minkowski space signature.

This gets generalized much more in particle physics (Yang-Mills etc.)

--
Jan

Am 09.04.2022 um 14:36 schrieb Python:
> Thomas Heger wrote:
> ...
>> E.g. Y was used as x-component in the electric field strength vector
>> at point (x, y, z). That 'Y' is therefore a unitless number, because
>> the n-tuple (X, Y, Z) 'inherits' its units from the coordinate system
>> it belongs to.
>
> *facepalm*
>
> Well, Thomas let's apply this silly idea of yours that vector
> components are unitless. If they are unitless their values
> won't change if you switch from one unit system to another
> one, right?
>
> There is a glass of water in front of me on the table. Taking
> the room walls to define orthogonal axis I can represent the
> position of the glass as a three dimension vector (distance
> from left well, front wall and floor, right?
>
> Using SI (meters) I got (1, 1.50, .50)
>
> Using inches I got (38.37, 59.05, 19.68)
>
> It is weird for "unitless" numbers to behave that way,
> isn't it?

A vector is meant as coordinates within a coordinate system. (without a
corresponding coordinate system a vector would not make any sense at all.)

Therefore your vector (1, 1.50, .50) 'inherits' the SI units from the
corresponding coordinate system, which is defined in term of SI units.

In such a coordinate system 1 unit of length in the x-direction, for
instance, is 1 m long.

Because the coordinate system is already 'normed', the n-tuple (1, 1.50,
..50) does not need additional units anymore.

Not to norm a coordinate system would not make sense, because
coordinates are multiples of the unit length used.

And because the coordinate system already 'knows' the units, the vectors
themselves do not need to know, how long one unit of length is, hence
carry only numerical values.

If you alter the norm of the coordinate system, you obviously need to
alter the numerical values, too, while the meant length would not change.

(If vectors carry also units, the system gets 'doubble normed', what is
not such a good idea.)

Now we could attatch a different coordinate system to a point, which
carry other units, like V/m for instance.

The field strength vector is then meant as as 'coordinates' in that
abstract coordinate system.

In this case we also do not need to assing units to the vector entries,
because that coordinate system already knows the units.

>> But the x-component of the electric field is not a number.
>
> What is it then? A giraffe?
>

'Field' denotes something, what distributes in space.

In case of the electric field, the influence of a charge on the
surrounding space was meant.

This influence is meant with 'electric field'.

The strength of this influence is then called 'electric field strength'.

As this has a strength and a direction at all of the influenced points,
we can use vectors starting from these points.

Now we get two possibilities for what we mean by 'vector':

one is the n-tuple, which belongs to the mathematical description

one is the physical field strength, which has a certain strength and
direction at any point in space.

The physical field strength seems to be decomposable into orthogonal
fractions, which behave like vector themselves.

These can be represented in mathematical form as a vector, too.

Therefore the y-component of the field vector (X, Y, Z) can be written
as (0, Y, 0). That is a vector, while Y is a number.

Now I would like to know, which of these interpretations it was, that
Einstein had in mind.

TH

On Sunday, 10 April 2022 at 08:49:52 UTC+2, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 09.04.2022 um 14:36 schrieb Python:
> > Thomas Heger wrote:
> > ...
> >> E.g. Y was used as x-component in the electric field strength vector
> >> at point (x, y, z). That 'Y' is therefore a unitless number, because
> >> the n-tuple (X, Y, Z) 'inherits' its units from the coordinate system
> >> it belongs to.
> >
> > *facepalm*
> >
> > Well, Thomas let's apply this silly idea of yours that vector
> > components are unitless. If they are unitless their values
> > won't change if you switch from one unit system to another
> > one, right?
> >
> > There is a glass of water in front of me on the table. Taking
> > the room walls to define orthogonal axis I can represent the
> > position of the glass as a three dimension vector (distance
> > from left well, front wall and floor, right?
> >
> > Using SI (meters) I got (1, 1.50, .50)
> >
> > Using inches I got (38.37, 59.05, 19.68)
> >
> > It is weird for "unitless" numbers to behave that way,
> > isn't it?
> A vector is meant as coordinates within a coordinate system.

Sometimes.

> (without a
> corresponding coordinate system a vector would not make any sense at all.)

It would and it does.

Am 09.04.2022 um 18:18 schrieb Michael Moroney:
> On 4/9/2022 2:08 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>> Am 09.04.2022 um 01:05 schrieb Michael Moroney:
>>
>>>>>> Usually the author should say, how he likes his symbols to be
>>>>>> understood.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's completely specified in the paper.
>>>>>
>>>>>> But since Einstein did not define his variables,
>>>>>
>>>>> He did.
>>>>
>>>> Sure. Actually he did that occasionally.
>>>>
>>>> But he used the symbol 'Y' for different purposes and in case of the
>>>> electric field strength vectors he left the question open, how that
>>>> 'Y' should be interpreted.
>>>>
>>>> Meant was the y-component of the field strength vector at point
>>>> (x,y, z).
>>>>
>>>> But what he meant was most likely also a vector, but with only one
>>>> entry: something like (0, Y, 0).
>>>
>>> Again, to simplify the example of an object moving at right angles to a
>>> magnetic field, with axes defined appropriately (direction of motion
>>> along X axis, magnetic field along Y axis). No need to involve
>>> complexity needing the cross product etc.
>>
>> Totally wrong!
>>
>> The effect on a moving charge by a magnetic field is usually described
>> by vectors and cross products.
>
> In the full 3 dimensional description. Not for this simplified case
> where motion is along the x axis and the magnetic field is at a right
> angle to it. The resulting force is trivially calculated, and is
> understood as being at right angles to both the x axis speed and the
> right angle magnetic field.

But Einstein had written about this case, where an electric field
accelerates an electron along the x-axis of K in streight lateral motion.

This can be seen here:

[quote from page 22]
"If an electron moves from rest at the origin of co-ordinates of the
system K along the axis of X under the action of an electrostatic force
X, it is clear that the energy R withdrawn from the electrostatic field
has the value integral(Xdx). "

He had actually not written about a force, but about acceleration along
the y-axis.

This can be seen in the second last equation on page 23

>> The cross product is also not such an advanced tool, that nobody can
>> actually use it.
>
> Yet it is more complex than the simplified case presented. Remember,
> one can ALWAYS choose a system of coordinates such that motion is along
> the x axis and a field at a right angle is along the y axis.

Cross products are not very sophisticated constructs.

>>> You have been told this many times, yet you ignore this.
>>
>>
>> Sure, I ignored your useless statement, because it is totally wrong.
>
> The physicists of the time didn't consider my statement as wrong. If
> they did, it would have been flagged and Einstein told to resubmit his
> paper using full blown 3d vectors and cross products. No need.

I don't live in Einstein's time.

As you tried to convince me, I would apply my current understanding, not
the historic one of 1905.

>>>> The symbol 'Y' could have other meanings, too:
>>>>
>>>> for instance the y-axis of the stationary system K had the name 'Y',
>>>> too.
>>>
>>> In a different part of the paper. Here it is defined differently.
>>
>>
>> This is VERY BAD !!!! practise!.
>
> No, it is not. Certain variable names (especially x and y, or symbols
> frequently associated with a type of unit, such as v for velocity) are
> used in papers, both early and modern, repeatedly.

Well, yes. But in math the symbol 'x' means usually 'independent
variable', while 'y' means 'dependent variable'.

In physics x,y and z mean coordinates in Euclidean space.

That's something else, hence an author needs to decide, how he would
like to use such symbols.

To mix both meanings would be just terrible.

>> You should NOT redefine used symbols within a scientific paper without
>> good reasons to do so.
>>
>> There are tons of possibilities to name things with symbols, which you
>> can maintain throughout the entire paper.
>>
>> E.g. sub- or superscripts are a possibility or hooks, ~, *, ° or
>> other signs like arrows or under- or overlines, different fonts,
>> different alphabets, upper- and lower-case and so forth.
>
> Was any of those dingbats used by others during Einstein's time? Other
> than the heavier use of Greek letters then, it is similar to modern papers.

E.g. you may look at publications from Maxwell or Tait, which were
actually older than Einstein's paper, and how they distinguished
vectors from functions, for instance.

The older papers are actually much easier to read, once you understand
the symbols.

I have often martered my brain, when I have tried to find out, what
Einstein actually meant with a certain variable, becaue Einstein gave
not hints whatever. The few hints he actually gave, were used
inconsistently.

E.g. the text attribute 'italic' was used, but without identifiable reason.

E.g. some equations contain italic and normal font letters, but the
reason to do so remains a riddle. (page 18, lower third)

>>
>> There is absolutely no need to reuse the same symbol for other
>> purposes somewhere later in the same text.
>
> If the earlier point was made and is finished, no.
> Go sit in on a modern algebra or geometry course. You'll see the
> instructor use the same symbols over and over and over again.

Usually an author should write list of used symbols and their meaning.
This would exclude any reuse of variable names, because these defintions
are usually written at the end of the paper, hence the definitions
operate backwards throughout the entire paper.

....

TH

On 2022-04-10 07:14:33 +0000, Thomas Heger said:

> E.g. the text attribute 'italic' was used, but without identifiable reason.
>
> E.g. some equations contain italic and normal font letters, but the
> reason to do so remains a riddle. (page 18, lower third)

Einstein probably didn't cosider that, as he could trust that the editors
and typesetters of Annalen der Physik knew how a scientific text should
look. And it is easy to see that they did.

Mikko