JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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.

To avoid misunderstandings:
there are vectors and vectors.
The E field -is- a vector in 3-space.
It is -not- part of a 4-vector.

For others: In general a vector is defined to be something
that transforms as a vector under a transformation group.
So it isn't an absolute concept.
What is a vector under one group of transformations
need not be a vector under another group,

Jan

Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> wrote:

> 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.

Scientists have always had conventions for indicating
what is for example a vector in handwritten equations.
(for example an arrow over it, or use of Fraktur letters)

Scientific typesetters would understand those conventions,
(perhaps with the help of some editorial mark-up)
and translate this to the conventions for printed text,

Jan

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. (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.)

*faceplam*

> 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

Thomas, an asinine answer from you was expected, but unwanted, and
is useless (if you don't admit being wrong, what you are): we already
know you are a unsufferable idiot.

Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> 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.

Second time you're right Maciej, surprising.

Thomas confuses vectors with coordinates of vectors. I wonder if he ever
followed a course on linear algebra.

Thomas Heger wrote:
....
> 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!

https://www.pinterest.es/pin/246783254555858800/

On Sunday, 10 April 2022 at 12:51:58 UTC+2, Python wrote:
> 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. (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.)
> *faceplam*
> > 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
> Thomas, an asinine answer from you was expected, but unwanted, and

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?

On 2022-04-10 10:28:03 +0000, J. J. Lodder said:

> Scientists have always had conventions for indicating
> what is for example a vector in handwritten equations.
> (for example an arrow over it, or use of Fraktur letters)
>
> Scientific typesetters would understand those conventions,
> (perhaps with the help of some editorial mark-up)
> and translate this to the conventions for printed text,

Not relevant, as the discussion is about a text were no
symbols for vectors are used.

Mikko

Am 10.04.2022 um 12:51 schrieb Python:
> 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. (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.)
>
> *faceplam*

Well, but possibly you should slap a little harder, because you need to
wake up.

In fact my description matches what we are taught in Germany about
vectorial quantities in physics.

see here

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vektorielle_Gr%C3%B6%C3%9Fe

(Unfortunately you cannot read that, but you could ask google for a
translation.)

Since you think my description was funny, you were apparently tought
something else.

This would be very bad, in my oppinion, hence rethinking your
understanding would be a good idea (for what you should awake from
half-concious dozing).

....

TH

Am 10.04.2022 um 11:54 schrieb J. J. Lodder:

>> 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.

Maxwell used actually quaternions.

> To avoid misunderstandings:
> there are vectors and vectors.
> The E field -is- a vector in 3-space.
> It is -not- part of a 4-vector.

You can add a time component and get a four-vector from a 3-vector, if
you like to do that.

In case of the electric field strength vector this would in fact make sense.

> For others: In general a vector is defined to be something
> that transforms as a vector under a transformation group.
> So it isn't an absolute concept.
> What is a vector under one group of transformations
> need not be a vector under another group,
>
Well, actually the term 'vector' was coined by Hamillton for the
imaginary part of a quaternion, which denotes a direction.

The other part was called 'scalar'.

I don't think, that group theory was already known in the mid 19th century.

TH

Idiot and liar Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 10.04.2022 um 12:51 schrieb Python:
>> 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. (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.)
>>
>> *faceplam*
>
> Well, but possibly you should slap a little harder, because you need to
> wake up.
>
> In fact my description matches what we are taught in Germany about
> vectorial quantities in physics.

Certainly not. You goofed. And I can read German. You are dumb.

On Sunday, 10 April 2022 at 22:08:09 UTC+2, Python wrote:
> Idiot and liar Thomas Heger wrote:
> > Am 10.04.2022 um 12:51 schrieb Python:
> >> 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. (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.)
> >>
> >> *faceplam*
> >
> > Well, but possibly you should slap a little harder, because you need to
> > wake up.
> >
> > In fact my description matches what we are taught in Germany about
> > vectorial quantities in physics.
> Certainly not. You goofed. And I can read German. You are dumb.

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?

On 4/10/2022 3:14 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> 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:

>> 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). "

Since the electrostatic acceleration is along the x axis, the
simplification remains valid and useful.
>
> 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

I think Einstein's target audience understands the relationship between
force and acceleration.

>> 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.

Yet Einstein wrote during the time of 1905, so what is considered right
and wrong when writing a paper is the 1905 standard, not the 2022 standard.

Even if you found something wrong according to 2022 conventions (so far
you haven't found anything), it wouldn't be relevant unless it was also
wrong according to the 1905 convention.
>
>>>>> 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.

Yet Einstein's target audience had no issues.
>
>
>>> 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.

So you admit not having the understandings that Einstein's target
audience had.
>
> 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)

If what you said is true, it sounds more like an editor or publisher error.
>
>
>>>
>>> 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.

He describes the variables as he introduces them. New definitions
replace any old ones at that point.

Maybe with 2022 paper conventions a list of variables is always
included. With 1905 conventions that was not the case.

On Monday, 11 April 2022 at 06:49:59 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:

> I think Einstein's target audience understands the relationship between
> force and acceleration.

A pity it was too dumb to stick consistently
to its own definitions.

Am 11.04.2022 um 06:52 schrieb Maciej Wozniak:
> On Monday, 11 April 2022 at 06:49:59 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:
>
>> I think Einstein's target audience understands the relationship between
>> force and acceleration.
>
> A pity it was too dumb to stick consistently
> to its own definitions.
>

Einstein wrote almost no definitions, because he assumed, the 'intended
audience' would know the meaning of his symbols anyhow.

But that was certainly not the case and most physicists would have
regarded Einstein's text as obscure crap, which they didn't find useful
to deal with.

So, Einstein's text remained within the continuous stream of nonsense,
we are permanently exposed to and which we usually simply ignore.

This did change later, when a collosal hype was created, with which the
text of Einstein should be lifted to devine status.

Then a number of physicists opposed, but it was already too late.

For the intended audience of professional physicists it was strictly
forbidden to criticise Einstein in any way. If anyone dared to do that,
he was expelled from the 'community'.

Many dared, anyhow, but were expelled and regared as 'crackpots',
'Nazi', 'insane', 'antisemitic' or similar.

That is for all practical purposes the case untill today, as I can tell
from my experience of decades of following this usenet group and of my
own experience as critic of Einstein's text.

I have decided not argue against relativity itself (which I think is
correct), but concentrate on 'technical' issues alone, because the text
contains so many errors, that it is hard to believe, that anybody will
dare to defend it in the future.

This seems to work quite fine, because even people without any knowledge
in physics can see the amount of errors with one single view at the huge
number of yellow stripes in my text and can imagine, those would be red
and mean corrections by their teatcher.

The details, like wrong or inconsistent variable names or wrong
equations, can be left to the specialists in the field, because anybody
with eyes can see the number of issues.

In case someone missed it, here is the link again:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1dlajModzLK4wgScoOLEMmzpzS2JTUft6/view?usp=sharing

The file needs to be downloaded, because google does not show
annotations in the online version.

TH

Am 10.04.2022 um 22:08 schrieb Python:
> Idiot and liar Thomas Heger wrote:
>> Am 10.04.2022 um 12:51 schrieb Python:
>>> 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. (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.)
>>>
>>> *faceplam*
>>
>> Well, but possibly you should slap a little harder, because you need
>> to wake up.
>>
>> In fact my description matches what we are taught in Germany about
>> vectorial quantities in physics.
>
> Certainly not. You goofed. And I can read German. You are dumb.

Then why don't you read the page about vectorial quantities?

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vektorielle_Gr%C3%B6%C3%9Fe

"In contrast to geometric vectors, a vector quantity does not represent
a spatial displacement. So are e.g. for example, forces are not elements
of position space, but of their own vector space, even if they are
entered in spatial sketches for illustration. In other words: although
they are represented as directed lines, they usually do not have the
dimension of length".

translation by google

TH

On Mon, 11 Apr 2022 07:48:37 +0200, Thomas Heger wrote:

>> Certainly not. You goofed. And I can read German. You are dumb.
>
> Then why don't you read the page about vectorial quantities?
>
> https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vektorielle_Gr%C3%B6%C3%9Fe
>
> "In contrast to geometric vectors, a vector quantity does not represent
> a spatial displacement. So are e.g. for example, forces are not elements
> of position space, but of their own vector space, even if they are
> entered in spatial sketches for illustration. In other words: although
> they are represented as directed lines, they usually do not have the
> dimension of length".

Have you even understood what this text means? It has nothing to do with
the dimensions of the components of the vector.
Your reading comprehension is as bad as your logical reasoning.

--
Reinhardt

Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
> Am 11.04.2022 um 06:52 schrieb Maciej Wozniak:
>> On Monday, 11 April 2022 at 06:49:59 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>
>>> I think Einstein's target audience understands the relationship between
>>> force and acceleration.
>>
>> A pity it was too dumb to stick consistently
>> to its own definitions.
>>
>
> Einstein wrote almost no definitions, because he assumed, the 'intended
> audience' would know the meaning of his symbols anyhow.

Which they did.

>
> But that was certainly not the case and most physicists would have
> regarded Einstein's text as obscure crap, which they didn't find useful
> to deal with.

No, that is not true. You wish it were so.

>
> So, Einstein's text remained within the continuous stream of nonsense,
> we are permanently exposed to and which we usually simply ignore.
>
>
> This did change later, when a collosal hype was created, with which the
> text of Einstein should be lifted to devine status.
>
> Then a number of physicists opposed, but it was already too late.
>
> For the intended audience of professional physicists it was strictly
> forbidden to criticise Einstein in any way. If anyone dared to do that,
> he was expelled from the 'community'.

This is also not so.

>
> Many dared, anyhow, but were expelled and regared as 'crackpots',
> 'Nazi', 'insane', 'antisemitic' or similar.
>
> That is for all practical purposes the case untill today, as I can tell
> from my experience of decades of following this usenet group and of my
> own experience as critic of Einstein's text.

A critic uneducated in the field IS a crackpot.

>
> I have decided not argue against relativity itself (which I think is
> correct), but concentrate on 'technical' issues alone, because the text
> contains so many errors, that it is hard to believe, that anybody will
> dare to defend it in the future.
>
> This seems to work quite fine, because even people without any knowledge
> in physics can see the amount of errors with one single view at the huge
> number of yellow stripes in my text and can imagine, those would be red
> and mean corrections by their teatcher.
>
> The details, like wrong or inconsistent variable names or wrong
> equations, can be left to the specialists in the field, because anybody
> with eyes can see the number of issues.
>
> In case someone missed it, here is the link again:
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1dlajModzLK4wgScoOLEMmzpzS2JTUft6/view?usp=sharing
>
>
> The file needs to be downloaded, because google does not show
> annotations in the online version.
>
>
> TH
>
>
>
>
>

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

Reinhardt Behm <rbehm@hushmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 11 Apr 2022 07:48:37 +0200, Thomas Heger wrote:
>
>
> >> Certainly not. You goofed. And I can read German. You are dumb.
> >
> > Then why don't you read the page about vectorial quantities?
> >
> > https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vektorielle_Gr%C3%B6%C3%9Fe
> >
> > "In contrast to geometric vectors, a vector quantity does not represent
> > a spatial displacement. So are e.g. for example, forces are not elements
> > of position space, but of their own vector space, even if they are
> > entered in spatial sketches for illustration. In other words: although
> > they are represented as directed lines, they usually do not have the
> > dimension of length".
>
> Have you even understood what this text means? It has nothing to do with
> the dimensions of the components of the vector.
> Your reading comprehension is as bad as your logical reasoning.

This German wikipedia text is of poor quality.
It lacks the modern mathematical understanding of vectors
as elements of vector spaces.
(it is understandable that it exists only in other obscure languages)
And yes, poor understanding of a poor text makes it even worse.

It could be greatly improved by deleting it altogether,
and by replacing it with a competent translation
of the corresponding English language page on vectors,

Jan

El lunes, 11 de abril de 2022 a las 7:01:44 UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com escribió:
> Thomas Heger <ttt...@web.de> wrote:

This whole thread, as all Heger's threads, is complete nonsense.
First, Einstein's 1905 paper, while being the starting point of the modern relativity studies, it is not exactly how the Special Relativity Model is now understood. For sure, Einstein's paper (the same as his General Relativity paper of 1916) was not easily accepted by the physics community for many years. Actually, Einstein got his Nobel prize not for SR but for his photoelectric effect paper (also from 1905). In fact if you do a google search of relativity subjects, you obtain the following results:

a) On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies: 394,000 hits.
b) Special Relativity: 30,000,000 hits.
c) General Relativity: 43,000,000 hits
c) Relativity: 73,800,000 hits.
d) Einstein: 405,000,000 hits

Clearly Einstein, the man, is more famous than his theories and far more famous than his 1905 paper.

Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> wrote:

> El lunes, 11 de abril de 2022 a las 7:01:44 UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com escribió:
> > Thomas Heger <ttt...@web.de> wrote:
>
> This whole thread, as all Heger's threads, is complete nonsense. First,
> Einstein's 1905 paper, while being the starting point of the modern
> relativity studies, it is not exactly how the Special Relativity Model is
> now understood.

But it is still perfectly understandable.

> For sure, Einstein's paper (the same as his General Relativity paper of
> 1916) was not easily accepted by the physics community for many years.

That is a myth.
It was immediately and enthousiastically accepted by all who mattered.
Planck, Lorentz, Ehrenfest, Bohr, Sommerfeld, Pauli, and so on.
(even if they didn't agree with all, they saw it was important)

> Actually, Einstein got his Nobel prize not for SR but for
> his photoelectric effect paper (also from 1905).

The history of Einstein's prize is hilarious. Do look it up.
There even was a 'for not being named Einstein' Nobel prize,
and they passed up a year 'for lack of a suitable candidate'.
Any excuse for not giving one to Einstein.
They were also afraid of the noises from the proto-nazis.

Jan

On Monday, 11 April 2022 at 18:20:55 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Paparios <mr...@ing.puc.cl> wrote:
>
> > El lunes, 11 de abril de 2022 a las 7:01:44 UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com escribió:
> > > Thomas Heger <ttt...@web.de> wrote:
> >
> > This whole thread, as all Heger's threads, is complete nonsense. First,
> > Einstein's 1905 paper, while being the starting point of the modern
> > relativity studies, it is not exactly how the Special Relativity Model is
> > now understood.
> But it is still perfectly understandable.
> > For sure, Einstein's paper (the same as his General Relativity paper of
> > 1916) was not easily accepted by the physics community for many years.
> That is a myth.
> It was immediately and enthousiastically accepted by all who mattered.

Well, simply; those dirty antisemitists that didn't want
to accept - didn't matter.

El lunes, 11 de abril de 2022 a las 12:20:55 UTC-4, J. J. Lodder escribió:
> Paparios <mr...@ing.puc.cl> wrote:
>
> > El lunes, 11 de abril de 2022 a las 7:01:44 UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com escribió:
> > > Thomas Heger <ttt...@web.de> wrote:
> >
> > This whole thread, as all Heger's threads, is complete nonsense. First,
> > Einstein's 1905 paper, while being the starting point of the modern
> > relativity studies, it is not exactly how the Special Relativity Model is
> > now understood.

> But it is still perfectly understandable.

Sure. But nowadays SR is more a geometric model and it can be derived from just one postulate.

> > For sure, Einstein's paper (the same as his General Relativity paper of
> > 1916) was not easily accepted by the physics community for many years.

> That is a myth.
> It was immediately and enthousiastically accepted by all who mattered.
> Planck, Lorentz, Ehrenfest, Bohr, Sommerfeld, Pauli, and so on.
> (even if they didn't agree with all, they saw it was important).

Well, the GPS developers (in the early 1970s) were not sure the gravitational time dilation was present at the GPS satellite orbit. They launched the first GPS satellite with a switch which allowed or not to apply the relativistic correction to the internal clock. After 20 days, measurements convinced them Einstein was right.

The point is that Heger is writing pure nonsense, playing the nonsensical role of a teacher (him) correcting the homework of a student (Einstein).

Am 11.04.2022 um 13:55 schrieb J. J. Lodder:
> Reinhardt Behm <rbehm@hushmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 11 Apr 2022 07:48:37 +0200, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> Certainly not. You goofed. And I can read German. You are dumb.
>>>
>>> Then why don't you read the page about vectorial quantities?
>>>
>>> https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vektorielle_Gr%C3%B6%C3%9Fe
>>>
>>> "In contrast to geometric vectors, a vector quantity does not represent
>>> a spatial displacement. So are e.g. for example, forces are not elements
>>> of position space, but of their own vector space, even if they are
>>> entered in spatial sketches for illustration. In other words: although
>>> they are represented as directed lines, they usually do not have the
>>> dimension of length".
>>
>> Have you even understood what this text means? It has nothing to do with
>> the dimensions of the components of the vector.
>> Your reading comprehension is as bad as your logical reasoning.

Actually I have written about my understand of vectors before I have
read that article.

I just wanted to mention, that wikipedia actually wrote almost the same
as I did.

> This German wikipedia text is of poor quality.
> It lacks the modern mathematical understanding of vectors
> as elements of vector spaces.

Vectors are a little older than Wikipedia.

In my oppinion, it was already an error, that Heaviside converted
Maxwell's equations into the modern vector form.

To me Maxwell himself is the authority, not 'the modern mathematical
understanding of vectors'.

> (it is understandable that it exists only in other obscure languages)
> And yes, poor understanding of a poor text makes it even worse.
>
> It could be greatly improved by deleting it altogether,
> and by replacing it with a competent translation
> of the corresponding English language page on vectors,

.... deleting Wikipedia pages seems to be 'progress in science'...

TH
>
>
>
>
>

On Monday, 11 April 2022 at 18:54:32 UTC+2, Paparios wrote:
> El lunes, 11 de abril de 2022 a las 12:20:55 UTC-4, J. J. Lodder escribió:
> > Paparios <mr...@ing.puc.cl> wrote:
> >
> > > El lunes, 11 de abril de 2022 a las 7:01:44 UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com escribió:
> > > > Thomas Heger <ttt...@web.de> wrote:
> > >
> > > This whole thread, as all Heger's threads, is complete nonsense. First,
> > > Einstein's 1905 paper, while being the starting point of the modern
> > > relativity studies, it is not exactly how the Special Relativity Model is
> > > now understood.
>
> > But it is still perfectly understandable.
> Sure. But nowadays SR is more a geometric model and it can be derived from just one postulate.
> > > For sure, Einstein's paper (the same as his General Relativity paper of
> > > 1916) was not easily accepted by the physics community for many years..
>
> > That is a myth.
> > It was immediately and enthousiastically accepted by all who mattered.
> > Planck, Lorentz, Ehrenfest, Bohr, Sommerfeld, Pauli, and so on.
> > (even if they didn't agree with all, they saw it was important).
>
> Well, the GPS developers (in the early 1970s) were not sure the gravitational time dilation was present at the GPS satellite orbit. They launched the first GPS satellite with a switch which allowed or not to apply the relativistic correction to the internal clock. After 20 days, measurements convinced them Einstein was right.

A lie, of course. Your "relativistic" correction are
forbidden by your Postulate, your ISO and your
fellow idiots, and the switch you mentioned was
in opposite direction.
After 20 days it was clear that the clocks announced
by your bunch oof idiots as "correct", "proper", "perfect"
are unusable and they switched to classical, galilean
time. Common sense was warning your idiot guru.

On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 10:42:49 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 11.04.2022 um 06:52 schrieb Maciej Wozniak:
> > On Monday, 11 April 2022 at 06:49:59 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >
> >> I think Einstein's target audience understands the relationship between
> >> force and acceleration.
> >
> > A pity it was too dumb to stick consistently
> > to its own definitions.
> >
> Einstein wrote almost no definitions, because he assumed, the 'intended
> audience' would know the meaning of his symbols anyhow.

Yes. His paper is no different than, say, Lorentz's in that regard.

> But that was certainly not the case and most physicists would have
> regarded Einstein's text as obscure crap, which they didn't find useful
> to deal with.

No, it's actually written somewhat more clearly and at a more
explanatory level than Lorentz's paper (again). The latter bothers
with the reader much less and expects a higher competence level.
You should bark at Hendrik Antoon instead.

> So, Einstein's text remained within the continuous stream of nonsense,
> we are permanently exposed to and which we usually simply ignore.

There is no "continuous stream of nonsense", you simply don't understand
this stuff. Normally people can feel that sort of thing instinctively
and stay away because they know it's just not for them. I like the pipe
organ, for example, but I know I'm no good at playing it so I stay away and
just admire the performers of the art.

Gigout's toccata at St-Sulpice: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vQvchO39eFY

> This did change later, when a collosal hype was created, with which the
> text of Einstein should be lifted to devine status.

What hype? What are you talking about? Was there a "hype"
created to "lift" Riemann's zeta function paper to "divine status"?
Why do cranks like you have to always invent those Hollywoodesque
cuckoo conspiracies? The truth is far more boring: it's
simply a good paper that established a new kind of
classical mechanics, closer to reality than Newton's.
That's good enough to make the paper very well known and
respected. What *else* would you expect, realistically?

> Then a number of physicists opposed, but it was already too late.

Too late for what? Why would the scientists even accept a paper
written by a semi-outsider if it wasn't exceptionally good?
Did Einstein own oil wells in America and paid
those established physicists off or something?

Just what degree of unhinged stupidity must one accept
to follow your line of "reasoning"?

> For the intended audience of professional physicists it was strictly
> forbidden to criticise Einstein in any way. If anyone dared to do that,
> he was expelled from the 'community'.

No, this was always false, and remains false to this day. In fact
the opposite is true: the first physicist to disprove relativity by some means
(necessarily, experimentally) will get an instant Nobel and obligation-free
well-paid position at any university lucky enough to get him.

What you describe OTOH is the usual movie fantasy.
Real life is simply not like that.

(Caveat: what you say DOES currently apply to university
departments in the US with names ending in "...studies".
It can also apply to a physicist if he crosses certain
political lines. But not relativity (or any physical
theory). This is a disgusting political development
of recent years but unrelated to this topic.)

> Many dared, anyhow, but were expelled and regared as 'crackpots',
> 'Nazi', 'insane', 'antisemitic' or similar.

No, may tried and ARE trying to this day, and very hard too.
They all do retain their jobs.
You are simply unaware of this because you enjoy
your fantasies more than facets of real life.
> That is for all practical purposes the case untill today,

Nope, it's exactly the opposite. It just pleases your ego to
make up those fantasies.

> as I can tell
> from my experience of decades of following this usenet group and of my
> own experience as critic of Einstein's text.

Your experience is merely that of encountering total rejection because
your arguments are all literally worthless. And you are not a "critic"
of Einstein's text, you only post scientific word salad. So hardly anybody
would discuss those things seriously even. It's like that silly abstract
nonsense joke that was for some reason quite popular
in the pre-1989 Poland:

Q: What's the difference between a sparrow?
A: One of its whiskers is more.

Your annotations to Einstein's text read a lot like this. They are
not simply wrong, most of them are pure nonsense.

Besides, don't use the fact that people laugh at your antics as
a proof of anything. The relevant quote (from Uncle Al, IIRC) is:
"They laughed at Copernicus. They laughed at Galileo. But they
also laughed at Bozo the Clown."

> I have decided not argue against relativity itself (which I think is
> correct), but concentrate on 'technical' issues alone, because the text
> contains so many errors,

It doesn't contain any "errors". It's just your incompetence tricking you.
And then your arrogance renders you blind to the trap you've just fallen into.

> that it is hard to believe, that anybody will
> dare to defend it in the future.

Again, that's a trap, you are being tricked by your
lack of knowledge coupled with arrogance.

That combination is always fatal.

I'm skipping the rest of your post because it's just a repeat of idiocies.

--
Jan