On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 2:54:07 AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> JanPB <fil...@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.

Yes, that's a better way of saying it.

--
Jan

On 4/11/2022 3:32 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> 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.

Poor stupid janitor. He got everything backwards yet again.

> 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.

OK, show us how to derive using a timebase of 9192631774.1 ticks per
second using only Galilean/Newtonian time, for a GPS satellite at its
current orbit. And show us why using 9192631770 as a divisor is wrong
for a GPS satellite, even if it is correct for that same satellite when
it was on earth.

On Mon, 11 Apr 2022 21:09:59 +0200, Thomas Heger wrote:

>>> 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.

For very special meanings of "almost".

--
Reinhardt

On Tuesday, 12 April 2022 at 00:39:31 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:

> > 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.
> Poor stupid janitor. He got everything backwards yet again.

Poor stupid Mike. He got everything backwards yet again.

> current orbit. And show us why using 9192631770 as a divisor is wrong
> for a GPS satellite, even if it is correct for that same satellite when
> it was on earth.

Because that's what we can observe, stupid Mike.
Your ISO idiocy and whole the mad "local time"
concept is simply unusable for serious measurement.
Common sense was warning your idiot guru.

Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Tuesday, 12 April 2022 at 00:39:31 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:
>
>>> 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.
>> Poor stupid janitor. He got everything backwards yet again.
>
> Poor stupid Mike. He got everything backwards yet again.
>
>
>
>> current orbit. And show us why using 9192631770 as a divisor is wrong
>> for a GPS satellite, even if it is correct for that same satellite when
>> it was on earth.
>
> Because that's what we can observe

we can observe that applying a specific correction predicted by a
theory called GR ends up with a working system.

a janitor shitting in his pants decided that he cannot see that.
Oh My God!

On Tuesday, 12 April 2022 at 06:36:14 UTC+2, Python wrote:
> Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > On Tuesday, 12 April 2022 at 00:39:31 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >
> >>> 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.
> >> Poor stupid janitor. He got everything backwards yet again.
> >
> > Poor stupid Mike. He got everything backwards yet again.
> >
> >
> >
> >> current orbit. And show us why using 9192631770 as a divisor is wrong
> >> for a GPS satellite, even if it is correct for that same satellite when
> >> it was on earth.
> >
> > Because that's what we can observe
> we can observe that applying a specific correction predicted by a

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?

Maciej Wozniak scwrote:
> On Tuesday, 12 April 2022 at 06:36:14 UTC+2, Python wrote:
>> Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, 12 April 2022 at 00:39:31 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>> Poor stupid janitor. He got everything backwards yet again.
>>>
>>> Poor stupid Mike. He got everything backwards yet again.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> current orbit. And show us why using 9192631770 as a divisor is wrong
>>>> for a GPS satellite, even if it is correct for that same satellite when
>>>> it was on earth.
>>>
>>> Because that's what we can observe
>> we can observe that applying a specific correction predicted by a

[restabilishing]
>> we can observe that applying a specific correction predicted by a
>> theory called GR ends up with a working system.
>>
>> a janitor shitting in his pants decided that he cannot see that.
>> Oh My God!

then the filthy dog started to rub his dirty dick on my leg:

> 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?

well he's not assuming much of his own words:

> Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>> In the meantime in the real world, Peano arithmetics
>> is a theory of numbers, not about theories. Godel's
>> theorem isn't a part of it. Godel has concocted a brandly
>> new theory, but somehow he has forgotten to
>> specify its assumptions.
>> There are some other reasons why his theorem has no
>> value, but they're all too muchg for [...]
>
>
> If you really want your confusion and misconceptions about
> Gödel's theorems to be addressed, please explain what assumptions
> "Gödel somehow forgot to specify" according to you, as well as the
> "other reasons why his theorem has no value" on sci.logic.
>

On Tuesday, 12 April 2022 at 06:47:00 UTC+2, Python wrote:
> Maciej Wozniak scwrote:
> > On Tuesday, 12 April 2022 at 06:36:14 UTC+2, Python wrote:
> >> Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, 12 April 2022 at 00:39:31 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>> 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.
> >>>> Poor stupid janitor. He got everything backwards yet again.
> >>>
> >>> Poor stupid Mike. He got everything backwards yet again.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> current orbit. And show us why using 9192631770 as a divisor is wrong
> >>>> for a GPS satellite, even if it is correct for that same satellite when
> >>>> it was on earth.
> >>>
> >>> Because that's what we can observe
> >> we can observe that applying a specific correction predicted by a
> [restabilishing]
> >> we can observe that applying a specific correction predicted by a
> >> theory called GR ends up with a working system.

No, we can observe a bunch of insane fanatics for their
religious postulates insisting that it should be always
9192631770 everywhere and in the same time lying that
they've brilliantly predicted 9192631774 that is really
happening.
And we can observe stinker Python 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?

Le 12/04/2022 à 06:36, Python a écrit :

> a janitor shitting in his pants decided

Tu veux être poli, Jean-Pierre?

Dernier avertissement avant transmission de ton dossier au modérateur.

R.H.

Le 12/04/2022 à 06:46, Jean-Pierre Messager (Python) a écrit :

> then the filthy dog started to rub his dirty dick on my leg:

Oh mon Dieu!

Mon Dieu!

Il n'arrêtera jamais!

R.H.

Am 11.04.2022 um 21:38 schrieb JanPB:

>> 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.

This is hillarious!

To watch nonsense 24/7 you just need to switch on any tv-programm you like.

You could also read a magazine or listen to the radio. It's all the
same: people are litterally bathed in nonsense.

....

>
>> 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"?

There was never any hype about Riemann, even if he had a little more
brain than Einstein had.

> 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.

This 'closer to Newton' statement is actually correct. But that
'mechanical' understanding of electricity by Einstein was also one of my
points of critique.

Einstein's world view was just too 'materialistic'. Even points and
coordinate systems were material objects.

Somehow electricity itself was treated as 'stuff', what is just twisted.
....

>
>> 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"?

I suggest this book:

https://www.amazon.de/True-Crime-Solving-History-Vol/dp/047311478X

>> 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.

As you may have noticed, I didn't want to disprove relativity!

It was my aim, to show, that Einstein's paper is full of errors, no
more, no less.

But errors prove nothing, not even something wrong. So tons of errors in
Einstein's paper would not disprove relativity.

We just need to take Einstein out of the equation.

Instead of him we could have a look at Minkowski, Lorentz or Poincaré.

> 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.

I have received COUNTLESS insulting replies, like: 'crackpot', 'Nazi',
'insane', 'antisemitic' or worse.

(just take my word for that).

....

TH

On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 9:48:43 AM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 11.04.2022 um 21:38 schrieb JanPB:
>
> >> 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.
> This is hillarious!
>
> To watch nonsense 24/7 you just need to switch on any tv-programm you like.
>
> You could also read a magazine or listen to the radio. It's all the
> same: people are litterally bathed in nonsense.

This is just throwing a tantrum.

> >> 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"?
> There was never any hype about Riemann, even if he had a little more
> brain than Einstein had.

OK, so you have no point, just farting around.

> > 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.
> This 'closer to Newton' statement is actually correct. But that
> 'mechanical' understanding of electricity by Einstein was also one of my
> points of critique.

But you have no "points of critique".

> Einstein's world view was just too 'materialistic'. Even points and
> coordinate systems were material objects.
>
> Somehow electricity itself was treated as 'stuff', what is just twisted.
> ...
> >
> >> 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"?
> I suggest this book:
>
> https://www.amazon.de/True-Crime-Solving-History-Vol/dp/047311478X

You keep posting irrelevancies.

> >> 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.
> As you may have noticed, I didn't want to disprove relativity!
>
> It was my aim, to show, that Einstein's paper is full of errors, no
> more, no less.

Einstein's paper contains no errors. Some things in it could be done
differently and more elegantly, but that's true for practically
every single paper in physics or math that ever was.

IOW, the information content of what you've jyst said is zero.

> But errors prove nothing, not even something wrong. So tons of errors in
> Einstein's paper would not disprove relativity.
>
> We just need to take Einstein out of the equation.

Stop fantasising. You are wasting your time. Get involved in
something you are good at instead.

--
Jan

Am 12.04.2022 um 04:52 schrieb Reinhardt Behm:
> On Mon, 11 Apr 2022 21:09:59 +0200, Thomas Heger wrote:
>
>
>>>> 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.
>
> For very special meanings of "almost".
>
I had explained, what I understood as the meaning of the term 'vector'
and 'vectorial quantity in physics'.

This was my expression of my own understanding, which is almost the same
as what wikipedia wrote.

Therefore my intuitive understanding cannot be entirely wrong, what
'Python' meant with *facepalm*.

So, apparently Python's intuition is wrong, because he thought, that
mine was funny.

To enhance his awakening phase, I suggested he should slap harder.

TH

On 4/12/2022 12:48 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:

> We just need to take Einstein out of the equation.

Why would anyone, other than someone with an OCD compulsive hatred for
the man, want to do that?

Einstein discovered both SR and GR, he deserves the credit for that.
>
> Instead of him we could have a look at Minkowski, Lorentz or Poincaré.

They deserve credit for their contributions, but they didn't contribute
as much as Albert.

> I have received COUNTLESS insulting replies, like: 'crackpot', 'Nazi',
> 'insane', 'antisemitic' or worse.
>
> (just take my word for that).
>
Perhaps if you get that obsessive hatred compulsion treated, that could
change.

On Wed, 13 Apr 2022 07:49:13 +0200, Thomas Heger wrote:

> Am 12.04.2022 um 04:52 schrieb Reinhardt Behm:
>> On Mon, 11 Apr 2022 21:09:59 +0200, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>> 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.
>>
>> For very special meanings of "almost".
>>
> I had explained, what I understood as the meaning of the term 'vector'
> and 'vectorial quantity in physics'.
>
> This was my expression of my own understanding, which is almost the same
> as what wikipedia wrote.
>
> Therefore my intuitive understanding cannot be entirely wrong, what
> 'Python' meant with *facepalm*.
>
> So, apparently Python's intuition is wrong, because he thought, that
> mine was funny.
>
> To enhance his awakening phase, I suggested he should slap harder.

You explicitly cited this paragraph of a Wikipedia article as
confirmation of your nonsensic claim that vector components are
dimensionless numbers. The cited text does in no way have anything to do
with your claim.
You just show that you don't even comprehend what this cited paragraph
says.
Perhaps you should slap yourself harder. But I doubt this would be of any
help.

--
Reinhardt

Am 13.04.2022 um 09:41 schrieb Reinhardt Behm:
> On Wed, 13 Apr 2022 07:49:13 +0200, Thomas Heger wrote:
>
>> Am 12.04.2022 um 04:52 schrieb Reinhardt Behm:
>>> On Mon, 11 Apr 2022 21:09:59 +0200, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> For very special meanings of "almost".
>>>
>> I had explained, what I understood as the meaning of the term 'vector'
>> and 'vectorial quantity in physics'.
>>
>> This was my expression of my own understanding, which is almost the same
>> as what wikipedia wrote.
>>
>> Therefore my intuitive understanding cannot be entirely wrong, what
>> 'Python' meant with *facepalm*.
>>
>> So, apparently Python's intuition is wrong, because he thought, that
>> mine was funny.
>>
>> To enhance his awakening phase, I suggested he should slap harder.
>
> You explicitly cited this paragraph of a Wikipedia article as
> confirmation of your nonsensic claim that vector components are
> dimensionless numbers. The cited text does in no way have anything to do
> with your claim.

No, that was NOT my claim.

E.g. (1,2,3) is not a vector, but a short text.

It is a representation of a vector in textual form. The qualifier
'vector' stems from the use of that text in a certain context.

This context includes a coordinate system, which the entries in the
vector adress.

The entries can be numbers, but other types of mathematical objects are
also possible.

The coordinate system is not necessarily normed with spatial units, but
other units like e.g. V/m are also possible.

In this case the entries can be simple numbers, because the vector
inherits the units from the coordinate system.

'Components of vectors' is usually not meant as e.g. '(' or a komma,
even if in a way they are a parts of a vector, too.

Meant is usually the fact, that vectorial quantities like force can be
added, hence can be represented by adding vectorial components, which
aligne with spatial axes.

These components are vectors themselves (actually 'vectorial
quantities'), which aligne with the axes of the spatial coordinate
system, say x, y and z.

But if you now write a vector (A, B, C) and use the symbol 'A'
afterwards, you mean the entry A in the textual representation and not
the vector (A,0,0).

If you want to adress the component (A,0,0), you can do that, just by
saying so.

And if you don't, you mean the value of A.

....

TH

Am 13.04.2022 um 08:37 schrieb Michael Moroney:
> On 4/12/2022 12:48 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>
>> We just need to take Einstein out of the equation.
>
> Why would anyone, other than someone with an OCD compulsive hatred for
> the man, want to do that?
>

The problem I have tried to adress, was the huge number of various
errors in Einstein's text.

The number is so large, that a total rewrite would be easier than an
attempt to correct the errors in Einstein's text.

But it is in fact possible to do that, because there exist a HUGE number
of publications about relativity and electrodynamics.

I personally like these 19th century texts from Hamilton, Riemann,
Maxwell, Tait, Thomson, Helmholtz, Hertz, Weber and so forth, because
they are much clearer and far more developed that Einstein's text.

About relativity we can use e.g. Poincaré, Lorentz or Minkowski.

> Einstein discovered both SR and GR, he deserves the credit for that.
>>
>> Instead of him we could have a look at Minkowski, Lorentz or Poincaré.
>
> They deserve credit for their contributions, but they didn't contribute
> as much as Albert.
>
>> I have received COUNTLESS insulting replies, like: 'crackpot', 'Nazi',
>> 'insane', 'antisemitic' or worse.
>>
>> (just take my word for that).
>>
> Perhaps if you get that obsessive hatred compulsion treated, that could
> change.

I don't know, what you want.

Theoretical physics is not for wimps and not meant to serve personal pride.

So, a scientist can only provide a tiny bit to a huge puzzle and have to
be happy about contributing that tiny bit. If that contribution will be
removed in subsequent corrections, this has to accepted, because a
scientist is just a small cog in a large gearbox and any of these have
to function correctly. If one piece does not work as wanted, it had to
be replaced.

It's certainly a pitty for those, who contributed something removed. But
that's the name of the game and in most cases the contributers are long
gone.

TH

On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 11:36:05 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 13.04.2022 um 08:37 schrieb Michael Moroney:
> > On 4/12/2022 12:48 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> >
> >> We just need to take Einstein out of the equation.
> >
> > Why would anyone, other than someone with an OCD compulsive hatred for
> > the man, want to do that?
> >
> The problem I have tried to adress, was the huge number of various
> errors in Einstein's text.

There are no errors in Einstein's 1905 paper.

> The number is so large,

The number is zero.

> that a total rewrite would be easier than an
> attempt to correct the errors in Einstein's text.

A total rewrite of your emotional naivete is needed.

> But it is in fact possible to do that, because there exist a HUGE number
> of publications about relativity and electrodynamics.
>
> I personally like these 19th century texts from Hamilton, Riemann,
> Maxwell, Tait, Thomson, Helmholtz, Hertz, Weber and so forth, because
> they are much clearer and far more developed that Einstein's text.

This is word salad.

> About relativity we can use e.g. Poincaré, Lorentz or Minkowski.

Or Einstein.

> > Einstein discovered both SR and GR, he deserves the credit for that.
> >>
> >> Instead of him we could have a look at Minkowski, Lorentz or Poincaré.
> >
> > They deserve credit for their contributions, but they didn't contribute
> > as much as Albert.
> >
> >> I have received COUNTLESS insulting replies, like: 'crackpot', 'Nazi',
> >> 'insane', 'antisemitic' or worse.
> >>
> >> (just take my word for that).
> >>
> > Perhaps if you get that obsessive hatred compulsion treated, that could
> > change.
> I don't know, what you want.
>
> Theoretical physics is not for wimps and not meant to serve personal pride.

You have to understand it first. It's just not for you.

> So, a scientist can only provide a tiny bit to a huge puzzle and have to
> be happy about contributing that tiny bit. If that contribution will be
> removed in subsequent corrections, this has to accepted, because a
> scientist is just a small cog in a large gearbox and any of these have
> to function correctly. If one piece does not work as wanted, it had to
> be replaced.
>
> It's certainly a pitty for those, who contributed something removed. But
> that's the name of the game and in most cases the contributers are long
> gone.

Irrelevant.

--
Jan

On 4/14/2022 2:36 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 13.04.2022 um 08:37 schrieb Michael Moroney:
>> On 4/12/2022 12:48 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>
>>> We just need to take Einstein out of the equation.
>>
>> Why would anyone, other than someone with an OCD compulsive hatred for
>> the man, want to do that?
>>
>
> The problem I have tried to adress, was the huge number of various
> errors in Einstein's text.

There are no errors in Einstein's paper, only your misunderstandings.
>
> The number is so large, that a total rewrite would be easier than an
> attempt to correct the errors in Einstein's text.

0 is not large.
>
> But it is in fact possible to do that, because there exist a HUGE number
> of publications about relativity and electrodynamics.
>
> I personally like these 19th century texts from Hamilton, Riemann,
> Maxwell, Tait, Thomson, Helmholtz, Hertz, Weber and so forth, because
> they are much clearer and far more developed that Einstein's text.
>
> About relativity we can use e.g. Poincaré, Lorentz or Minkowski.

But they never reached Einstein's conclusions before he did. Einstein
gets the credit he deserves.
>
>
>> Einstein discovered both SR and GR, he deserves the credit for that.
>>>
>>> Instead of him we could have a look at Minkowski, Lorentz or Poincaré.
>>
>> They deserve credit for their contributions, but they didn't contribute
>> as much as Albert.
>>
>>> I have received COUNTLESS insulting replies, like: 'crackpot', 'Nazi',
>>> 'insane', 'antisemitic' or worse.
>>>
>>> (just take my word for that).
>>>
>> Perhaps if you get that obsessive hatred compulsion treated, that could
>> change.
>
> I don't know, what you want.

I want you to see a medical specialist in mental disorders, so you can
get your obsessive hatred for Einstein treated.

You never will do that, of course.
>
> Theoretical physics is not for wimps and not meant to serve personal pride.

Theoretical physics is not for you. Don't let your personal pride
interfere, find a new hobby.
>
> So, a scientist can only provide a tiny bit to a huge puzzle and have to
> be happy about contributing that tiny bit. If that contribution will be
> removed in subsequent corrections, this has to accepted, because a
> scientist is just a small cog in a large gearbox and any of these have
> to function correctly. If one piece does not work as wanted, it had to
> be replaced.
>
> It's certainly a pitty for those, who contributed something removed. But
> that's the name of the game and in most cases the contributers are long
> gone.

And yet, Einstein's excellent discoveries keep getting built on.

Yes, one day there will be some new theory, perhaps uniting gravity. The
new theory won't eliminate relativity entirely, it will remain as an
approximation under certain circumstances, just as Newtonian mechanics
remains as an approximation of SR/GR, useful for low speeds and weak
gravity.

On Thursday, 14 April 2022 at 10:16:53 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:

> And yet, Einstein's excellent discoveries keep getting built on.

And in the meantime in the real world - forbidden
by his insane religion TAI and GPS keep measuring
t'=t, just like all serious clocks always did.

Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 13.04.2022 um 09:41 schrieb Reinhardt Behm:
>> On Wed, 13 Apr 2022 07:49:13 +0200, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>
>>> Am 12.04.2022 um 04:52 schrieb Reinhardt Behm:
>>>> On Mon, 11 Apr 2022 21:09:59 +0200, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> For very special meanings of "almost".
>>>>
>>> I had explained, what I understood as the meaning of the term 'vector'
>>> and 'vectorial quantity in physics'.
>>>
>>> This was my expression of my own understanding, which is almost the same
>>> as what wikipedia wrote.
>>>
>>> Therefore my intuitive understanding cannot be entirely wrong, what
>>> 'Python' meant with *facepalm*.
>>>
>>> So, apparently Python's intuition is wrong, because he thought, that
>>> mine was funny.
>>>
>>> To enhance his awakening phase, I suggested he should slap harder.
>>
>> You explicitly cited this paragraph of a Wikipedia article as
>> confirmation of your nonsensic claim that vector components are
>> dimensionless numbers. The cited text does in no way have anything to do
>> with your claim.
>
> No, that was NOT my claim.
>
> E.g. (1,2,3) is not a vector, but a short text.
>
> It is a representation of a vector in textual form. The qualifier
> 'vector' stems from the use of that text in a certain context.
>
> This context includes a coordinate system, which the entries in the
> vector adress.
>
> The entries can be numbers, but other types of mathematical objects are
> also possible.
>
> The coordinate system is not necessarily normed with spatial units, but
> other units like e.g. V/m are also possible.
>
> In this case the entries can be simple numbers, because the vector
> inherits the units from the coordinate system.
>
> 'Components of vectors' is usually not meant as e.g. '(' or a komma,
> even if in a way they are a parts of a vector, too.
>
> Meant is usually the fact, that vectorial quantities like force can be
> added, hence can be represented by adding vectorial components, which
> aligne with spatial axes.
>
> These components are vectors themselves (actually 'vectorial
> quantities'), which aligne with the axes of the spatial coordinate
> system, say x, y and z.
>
> But if you now write a vector (A, B, C) and use the symbol 'A'
> afterwards, you mean the entry A in the textual representation and not
> the vector (A,0,0).
>
> If you want to adress the component (A,0,0), you can do that, just by
> saying so.
>
> And if you don't, you mean the value of A.

Given how strong are your abilities to misread and misunderstand things,
it should be hilarious to see you try to make sense of an Ikea furniture
assembly instructions booklet.

Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
> Am 13.04.2022 um 08:37 schrieb Michael Moroney:
>> On 4/12/2022 12:48 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>
>>> We just need to take Einstein out of the equation.
>>
>> Why would anyone, other than someone with an OCD compulsive hatred for
>> the man, want to do that?
>>
>
> The problem I have tried to adress, was the huge number of various
> errors in Einstein's text.

Which are fabrications, carved from a pretense that this is a student paper
and that you can play the role of a professor of physics. Since neither of
those things are true, then the claims are little fictions as well.

>
> The number is so large, that a total rewrite would be easier than an
> attempt to correct the errors in Einstein's text.
>
> But it is in fact possible to do that, because there exist a HUGE number
> of publications about relativity and electrodynamics.
>
> I personally like these 19th century texts from Hamilton, Riemann,
> Maxwell, Tait, Thomson, Helmholtz, Hertz, Weber and so forth, because
> they are much clearer and far more developed that Einstein's text.
>
> About relativity we can use e.g. Poincaré, Lorentz or Minkowski.
>
>
>> Einstein discovered both SR and GR, he deserves the credit for that.
>>>
>>> Instead of him we could have a look at Minkowski, Lorentz or Poincaré.
>>
>> They deserve credit for their contributions, but they didn't contribute
>> as much as Albert.
>>
>>> I have received COUNTLESS insulting replies, like: 'crackpot', 'Nazi',
>>> 'insane', 'antisemitic' or worse.
>>>
>>> (just take my word for that).
>>>
>> Perhaps if you get that obsessive hatred compulsion treated, that could
>> change.
>
> I don't know, what you want.
>
> Theoretical physics is not for wimps and not meant to serve personal pride.
>
> So, a scientist can only provide a tiny bit to a huge puzzle and have to
> be happy about contributing that tiny bit. If that contribution will be
> removed in subsequent corrections, this has to accepted, because a
> scientist is just a small cog in a large gearbox and any of these have
> to function correctly. If one piece does not work as wanted, it had to
> be replaced.
>
> It's certainly a pitty for those, who contributed something removed. But
> that's the name of the game and in most cases the contributers are long
> gone.
>
>
> TH
>
>

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

On Thursday, 14 April 2022 at 14:38:32 UTC+2, Python wrote:
> Thomas Heger wrote:
> > Am 13.04.2022 um 09:41 schrieb Reinhardt Behm:
> >> On Wed, 13 Apr 2022 07:49:13 +0200, Thomas Heger wrote:
> >>
> >>> Am 12.04.2022 um 04:52 schrieb Reinhardt Behm:
> >>>> On Mon, 11 Apr 2022 21:09:59 +0200, Thomas Heger wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>> 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.
> >>>>
> >>>> For very special meanings of "almost".
> >>>>
> >>> I had explained, what I understood as the meaning of the term 'vector'
> >>> and 'vectorial quantity in physics'.
> >>>
> >>> This was my expression of my own understanding, which is almost the same
> >>> as what wikipedia wrote.
> >>>
> >>> Therefore my intuitive understanding cannot be entirely wrong, what
> >>> 'Python' meant with *facepalm*.
> >>>
> >>> So, apparently Python's intuition is wrong, because he thought, that
> >>> mine was funny.
> >>>
> >>> To enhance his awakening phase, I suggested he should slap harder.
> >>
> >> You explicitly cited this paragraph of a Wikipedia article as
> >> confirmation of your nonsensic claim that vector components are
> >> dimensionless numbers. The cited text does in no way have anything to do
> >> with your claim.
> >
> > No, that was NOT my claim.
> >
> > E.g. (1,2,3) is not a vector, but a short text.
> >
> > It is a representation of a vector in textual form. The qualifier
> > 'vector' stems from the use of that text in a certain context.
> >
> > This context includes a coordinate system, which the entries in the
> > vector adress.
> >
> > The entries can be numbers, but other types of mathematical objects are
> > also possible.
> >
> > The coordinate system is not necessarily normed with spatial units, but
> > other units like e.g. V/m are also possible.
> >
> > In this case the entries can be simple numbers, because the vector
> > inherits the units from the coordinate system.
> >
> > 'Components of vectors' is usually not meant as e.g. '(' or a komma,
> > even if in a way they are a parts of a vector, too.
> >
> > Meant is usually the fact, that vectorial quantities like force can be
> > added, hence can be represented by adding vectorial components, which
> > aligne with spatial axes.
> >
> > These components are vectors themselves (actually 'vectorial
> > quantities'), which aligne with the axes of the spatial coordinate
> > system, say x, y and z.
> >
> > But if you now write a vector (A, B, C) and use the symbol 'A'
> > afterwards, you mean the entry A in the textual representation and not
> > the vector (A,0,0).
> >
> > If you want to adress the component (A,0,0), you can do that, just by
> > saying so.
> >
> > And if you don't, you mean the value of A.
> Given how strong are your abilities to misread and misunderstand things,

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 Thu, 14 Apr 2022 14:38:47 +0200, Python wrote:

> Given how strong are your abilities to misread and misunderstand things,
> it should be hilarious to see you try to make sense of an Ikea furniture
> assembly instructions booklet.

He wouldn't even find the hex key.

--
Reinhardt

Reinhardt Behm <rbehm@hushmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Apr 2022 14:38:47 +0200, Python wrote:
>
>
>> Given how strong are your abilities to misread and misunderstand things,
>> it should be hilarious to see you try to make sense of an Ikea furniture
>> assembly instructions booklet.
>
> He wouldn't even find the hex key.
>

Well, it’s going to be tough to battle passive-aggressive
self-distractions.

Anyone who is interested in promoting their own furniture that competes
with IKEA is going to dump the contents of an IKEA kit, complain that the
bags containing the bolts are not labeled with standard sizes, will
deliberately lose the hex key and complain that it wasn’t fastened down,
complain that if there are three identical wooden parts they aren’t labeled
A, B, C or A1, A2, A3.

Likewise, TH has a desire to promote his own ideas that compete with
relativity, and so he’s going to take a relativity paper and dump out the
contents on the floor and have lots of complaints that it’s unusable for
idiots, where idiots were not the intended audience of the relativity
paper.

He is motivated to not let go of his complaints, because without the
complaints he has no leverage for getting views of his own ideas.

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