On 2022-06-08 06:40:32 +0000, Thomas Heger said:

> Am 07.06.2022 um 18:38 schrieb Mikko:
>> On 2022-06-07 05:59:13 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
>>
>>> Am 06.06.2022 um 10:07 schrieb Mikko:
>>>> On 2022-06-06 06:56:40 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
>>>
>>>>>>> Motivition is not important at all in science.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Depends on science. There are no motivations in physics but they are
>>>>>> an important topic in psychology and history. Some theories about the
>>>>>> behaviour of animals involve motivation, others try to do whithout.
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, if motivation of scientists is your particular science,
>>>>
>>>> It isn't.
>>>>
>>>>> than certainly you should cover this topic.
>>>>>
>>>>> But physics is not about motivations of any particular researcher.
>>>>
>>>> Or any other people.
>>>>
>>>>> Sure, these people had their particular motives and often historians
>>>>> tell stories about these.
>>>>>
>>>>> But that is all not physics, but other branches of science like
>>>>> psychology or history.
>>>>
>>>> So should be discussed in a better place than here.
>>>>
>>>>>> You introduced insults to discussion. Without discussion of motivation
>>>>>> there is no way to obtain any useful result from that discussion.
>>>>>
>>>>> Physics is a natural science and its topic is the nature itself, not
>>>>> the participants in a discussion.
>>>>
>>>> You started the discussion about participants. If you dont want that
>>>> then
>>>> don't do that again.
>>>
>>> Actually I started a thread about Einstein's SRT text from 1905.
>>>
>>> This thread meandered around a bit, like most threads do and included
>>> the topic of insults.
>>
>> You didn't stick to the original topic but switched to insults.
>
> I switched to such 'meta-discussions' about insults, because some
> participants wrote insults about me.

That you discuss insults instead of physics can be understood as an
indication that you are here for trolling and not for learning physics.

> But sticking to the topic in question is seemingly already to difficult
> for the attackers, hence they use insults instead of arguments.

You don't stick to the topic and apparently want more insults than
arguments.

>>> But I actually try to find out, why people behave as they do.

Maybe they just inferred from your behaviour that insults rather than
arguments is what you want to read.

Mikko

Am 08.06.2022 um 11:05 schrieb Mikko:
> On 2022-06-08 06:40:32 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
>
>> Am 07.06.2022 um 18:38 schrieb Mikko:
>>> On 2022-06-07 05:59:13 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
>>>
>>>> Am 06.06.2022 um 10:07 schrieb Mikko:
>>>>> On 2022-06-06 06:56:40 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
>>>>
>>>>>>>> Motivition is not important at all in science.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Depends on science. There are no motivations in physics but they are
>>>>>>> an important topic in psychology and history. Some theories about
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> behaviour of animals involve motivation, others try to do whithout.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well, if motivation of scientists is your particular science,
>>>>>
>>>>> It isn't.
>>>>>
>>>>>> than certainly you should cover this topic.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But physics is not about motivations of any particular researcher.
>>>>>
>>>>> Or any other people.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Sure, these people had their particular motives and often historians
>>>>>> tell stories about these.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But that is all not physics, but other branches of science like
>>>>>> psychology or history.
>>>>>
>>>>> So should be discussed in a better place than here.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> You introduced insults to discussion. Without discussion of
>>>>>>> motivation
>>>>>>> there is no way to obtain any useful result from that discussion.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Physics is a natural science and its topic is the nature itself, not
>>>>>> the participants in a discussion.
>>>>>
>>>>> You started the discussion about participants. If you dont want that
>>>>> then
>>>>> don't do that again.
>>>>
>>>> Actually I started a thread about Einstein's SRT text from 1905.
>>>>
>>>> This thread meandered around a bit, like most threads do and included
>>>> the topic of insults.
>>>
>>> You didn't stick to the original topic but switched to insults.
>>
>> I switched to such 'meta-discussions' about insults, because some
>> participants wrote insults about me.
>
> That you discuss insults instead of physics can be understood as an
> indication that you are here for trolling and not for learning physics.

It is absurd to say, that I wanted insults, to be able to 'troll' here.

But I wanted to reject attacks on me as a person, anyhow, because it is
my right to defend myself.

That's why I tried to disprove, what such attackers said about me.

Usual insults are: I would be a Nazi, I made everything wrong, I have no
right to criticise Einstein, all my annotations are false themselves.

But ALL of these statements are wrong themself, because I have all right
to criticise whatever I like and I'm not a Nazi.

The errors in my annotations are actually something, what I would like
to discuss, because that would enable to eliminate such errors.

But for the very same reason, such discussions about my own errrors do
not happen very often, if at all.

What only happens is an overall rejection of my arguments, without any
argument about any particular case.

But such unjustified rejection is not a scientific discussion, but
seemingly a pattern related to a large scale plot in science, which is
conducted to the disadvantage of the general public.

Now that is also a pattern and related to dynastic thinking of a
selfproclaimed elite, which regard science as 'theirs'.

This pattern is apparently real, though hidden, and known under
different names.

I personally use a name, which is most likely wrong: 'the Illuminaty',
because that elightenment sounds so scientific.

Now I try to find out, how I could identify them and what is their
personal agenda.

The first question is actually easy:

we have a 'conspiracy of the not-so-gifted-people', who do, what is
actually beyond their capacity, because their parents wanted little
geniusses, what their particular breed was unfortunately not.

These little bastards were (and are) promoted to positions beyond what
they should do, considered their abilities, because the elite has the
abilities to do that and to scare anyone away, who does not comply.

This is a patheological pattern, but apparently how western societies
are constructed.

>> But sticking to the topic in question is seemingly already to
>> difficult for the attackers, hence they use insults instead of arguments.
>
> You don't stick to the topic and apparently want more insults than
> arguments.

this is nonsense!

>>>> But I actually try to find out, why people behave as they do.
>
> Maybe they just inferred from your behaviour that insults rather than
> arguments is what you want to read.
>
It makes no sense to assume, that I actually like to be insulted.

TH

On 2022-06-10 05:55:32 +0000, Thomas Heger said:

> Am 08.06.2022 um 11:05 schrieb Mikko:
>> On 2022-06-08 06:40:32 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
>>
>>> Am 07.06.2022 um 18:38 schrieb Mikko:
>>>> On 2022-06-07 05:59:13 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
>>>>
>>>>> Am 06.06.2022 um 10:07 schrieb Mikko:
>>>>>> On 2022-06-06 06:56:40 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Motivition is not important at all in science.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Depends on science. There are no motivations in physics but they are
>>>>>>>> an important topic in psychology and history. Some theories about
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> behaviour of animals involve motivation, others try to do whithout.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Well, if motivation of scientists is your particular science,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It isn't.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> than certainly you should cover this topic.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But physics is not about motivations of any particular researcher.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Or any other people.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sure, these people had their particular motives and often historians
>>>>>>> tell stories about these.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But that is all not physics, but other branches of science like
>>>>>>> psychology or history.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So should be discussed in a better place than here.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You introduced insults to discussion. Without discussion of
>>>>>>>> motivation
>>>>>>>> there is no way to obtain any useful result from that discussion.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Physics is a natural science and its topic is the nature itself, not
>>>>>>> the participants in a discussion.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You started the discussion about participants. If you dont want that
>>>>>> then
>>>>>> don't do that again.
>>>>>
>>>>> Actually I started a thread about Einstein's SRT text from 1905.
>>>>>
>>>>> This thread meandered around a bit, like most threads do and included
>>>>> the topic of insults.
>>>>
>>>> You didn't stick to the original topic but switched to insults.
>>>
>>> I switched to such 'meta-discussions' about insults, because some
>>> participants wrote insults about me.
>>
>> That you discuss insults instead of physics can be understood as an
>> indication that you are here for trolling and not for learning physics.
>
>
> It is absurd to say, that I wanted insults, to be able to 'troll' here.

Not at all. People do strange things and trolling for insults fits well
in the range of observed behaviours.

> Now I try to find out, how I could identify them and what is their
> personal agenda.

Instead of discussing physics.

>> You don't stick to the topic and apparently want more insults than
>> arguments.
>
> this is nonsense!

Wrong, it does make sense.

> It makes no sense to assume, that I actually like to be insulted.

As an a priori assumption it would not be a good guess. In light
of your observed behaviour it does make sense.

Mikko

On Friday, 10 June 2022 at 09:31:20 UTC+2, Mikko wrote:

> > It makes no sense to assume, that I actually like to be insulted.
> As an a priori assumption it would not be a good guess. In light
> of your observed behaviour it does make sense.

Well; together with your fellow fanatics you're casting
piles of shit at the enemies of your insane ideology.
I guess any idiocy justifying what you're doing could
make sense for you, but still "they seem to like it" is
amazing. Even considering the relativistic intellectual
standard.

Am 10.06.2022 um 09:59 schrieb Maciej Wozniak:
> On Friday, 10 June 2022 at 09:31:20 UTC+2, Mikko wrote:
>
>>> It makes no sense to assume, that I actually like to be insulted.
>> As an a priori assumption it would not be a good guess. In light
>> of your observed behaviour it does make sense.
>
> Well; together with your fellow fanatics you're casting
> piles of shit at the enemies of your insane ideology.
> I guess any idiocy justifying what you're doing could
> make sense for you, but still "they seem to like it" is
> amazing. Even considering the relativistic intellectual
> standard.
>

This is actually the question:
were scientific standards of the time actually used?

In my annotations I have mentioned the lack of vector calculus in
connection to em-fields by Einstein. But that was already scientific
standard in 1905.

But instead of using vector equations, he used the component form of
vectors and scalar equations only.

Also standard in science were quotes and a list of used material, at
least in a brief form.

But Einstein provided no quotes or references of any kind.

In case of the few mentioned names, like Hendrik Lorentz, James Clark
Maxwell and Heinrich Hertz, there seem to be wrong quotes, too. (That
would have been already a severe departure of possible tracks in science.)

At least in case of Hertz, there seems to be a wrong quote, because
Einstein called his partial differential equations 'Maxwell-Hertz
equations', while Hertz used only total derivatives.

Poincaré was not mentioned at all, but his works were seemingly used.
That would be yet another deviation from the path of truth.

TH

On Tuesday, June 7, 2022 at 11:43:36 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 06.06.2022 um 16:43 schrieb Dono.:
>
> >>>> Many insults came from a user named 'Dono', who called me 'Nazi' or similar.
> >>>>
> >>> But you ARE a nazi (piece of shit). You are motivated by rabid racism.
> >>>
> >> These are two unjustified claims, which were meant to be insults.
> >>
> >> In case you want to link me to Naziism, you would need to quote any kind
> >> or political statement by me, which would connect me to right winged
> >> movements.
> >>
> >
> > Your statements over the years make it quite clear that you ARE a nazi piece of shit.
> >
> >
> >> But that will be most likely not succesfull, as I have been politically
> >> active more at the left side of the political spectrum.
> >>
> >
> > Today's "left" is clearly antisemitic. So, you fit the mold.
> >
> What you have still failed to explain, that's why writing a critique
> about 'On the electrodynamics of moving bodies' has anything to do with
> religion.
>
Has to do with your rabid antisemitism. You try to hide it but it doesn't work. You are a nazi piece of shit , Thomas. Choke on it!

On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 10:03:12 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 10.06.2022 um 09:59 schrieb Maciej Wozniak:
> > On Friday, 10 June 2022 at 09:31:20 UTC+2, Mikko wrote:
> >
> >>> It makes no sense to assume, that I actually like to be insulted.
> >> As an a priori assumption it would not be a good guess. In light
> >> of your observed behaviour it does make sense.
> >
> > Well; together with your fellow fanatics you're casting
> > piles of shit at the enemies of your insane ideology.
> > I guess any idiocy justifying what you're doing could
> > make sense for you, but still "they seem to like it" is
> > amazing. Even considering the relativistic intellectual
> > standard.
> >
> This is actually the question:
> were scientific standards of the time actually used?

Sure.

> In my annotations I have mentioned the lack of vector calculus in
> connection to em-fields by Einstein. But that was already scientific
> standard in 1905.

What an absolutely idiotic remark! The author can use whatever
he feels like using as long as it's communicated correctly.

> But instead of using vector equations, he used the component form of
> vectors and scalar equations only.

This is done even today. It's up to the author. Lorentz did the same thing.
Also, the discussion in those papers was about the E and B field
transformation which is NOT a vector transformation and must be
written in components at first.

It is only later that one realises the E and B fields transform by
a TENSOR(*) transformation (so vector calculus in the simple Maxwell
equations sense doesn't apply either).

(*)a skew-symmetric tensor in fact.

> Also standard in science were quotes and a list of used material, at
> least in a brief form.

Not in 1905. Go to any good university library and spend a couple of
hours leafing through the issues of Annalen der Physik for 1905 and the
years before and after, and also other similar physics journals, and you'll
see that papers which quoted NO references were common.

Proper annotation of every single sneeze did not begin until later,
I'd say after WWII. Today even someone mentioning something to the
author over a cup of beer in Monte Carlo gets a proper reference as
"private communication".

> But Einstein provided no quotes or references of any kind.

Right, this was common.

> In case of the few mentioned names, like Hendrik Lorentz, James Clark

Clerk (pronounced "Clark" (Americans, watch out!))

> Maxwell and Heinrich Hertz, there seem to be wrong quotes, too. (That
> would have been already a severe departure of possible tracks in science.)

I cannot comment on that as you provided no specifics. As Judge Judy
would say: "That's hearsay".

> At least in case of Hertz, there seems to be a wrong quote, because
> Einstein called his partial differential equations 'Maxwell-Hertz
> equations', while Hertz used only total derivatives.

This was probably the standard usage at the time. I'd have to check.
I don't think Einstein just made it up, it makes no sense.

> Poincaré was not mentioned at all, but his works were seemingly used..

The key of the paper is providing a justification for the physicality of
Lorentz's "abstract time coordinate" and for the transformed E and
B fields.

Neither Lorentz nor Poincare got his. They (esp. Poincare) got very close
to relativity in the purely mathematical sense. Lorentz himself said so,
explicitly, in a 1908 (IIRC) memoir tribute to Poincare.

> That would be yet another deviation from the path of truth.

No. I suggest you stop making stuff up to prop up your pet theories.
You are truly, really, wasting your time on a piece of nonsense.

Try something you are good at. Your current hobby is 100% meaningless.

--
Jan

Am 12.06.2022 um 15:47 schrieb JanPB:
> On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 10:03:12 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
>> Am 10.06.2022 um 09:59 schrieb Maciej Wozniak:
>>> On Friday, 10 June 2022 at 09:31:20 UTC+2, Mikko wrote:
>>>
>>>>> It makes no sense to assume, that I actually like to be insulted.
>>>> As an a priori assumption it would not be a good guess. In light
>>>> of your observed behaviour it does make sense.
>>>
>>> Well; together with your fellow fanatics you're casting
>>> piles of shit at the enemies of your insane ideology.
>>> I guess any idiocy justifying what you're doing could
>>> make sense for you, but still "they seem to like it" is
>>> amazing. Even considering the relativistic intellectual
>>> standard.
>>>
>> This is actually the question:
>> were scientific standards of the time actually used?
>
> Sure.
>
>> In my annotations I have mentioned the lack of vector calculus in
>> connection to em-fields by Einstein. But that was already scientific
>> standard in 1905.
>
> What an absolutely idiotic remark! The author can use whatever
> he feels like using as long as it's communicated correctly.
>
>> But instead of using vector equations, he used the component form of
>> vectors and scalar equations only.
>
> This is done even today. It's up to the author. Lorentz did the same thing.
> Also, the discussion in those papers was about the E and B field
> transformation which is NOT a vector transformation and must be
> written in components at first.
>
> It is only later that one realises the E and B fields transform by
> a TENSOR(*) transformation (so vector calculus in the simple Maxwell
> equations sense doesn't apply either).
>
> (*)a skew-symmetric tensor in fact.
>
>> Also standard in science were quotes and a list of used material, at
>> least in a brief form.
>
> Not in 1905. Go to any good university library and spend a couple of
> hours leafing through the issues of Annalen der Physik for 1905 and the
> years before and after, and also other similar physics journals, and you'll
> see that papers which quoted NO references were common.
>
> Proper annotation of every single sneeze did not begin until later,
> I'd say after WWII. Today even someone mentioning something to the
> author over a cup of beer in Monte Carlo gets a proper reference as
> "private communication".
>
>> But Einstein provided no quotes or references of any kind.
>
> Right, this was common.
>
>> In case of the few mentioned names, like Hendrik Lorentz, James Clark
>
> Clerk (pronounced "Clark" (Americans, watch out!))
>
>> Maxwell and Heinrich Hertz, there seem to be wrong quotes, too. (That
>> would have been already a severe departure of possible tracks in science.)
>
> I cannot comment on that as you provided no specifics. As Judge Judy
> would say: "That's hearsay".

I have obtained copies of the works from Heinrich Hertz and have started
reading them.

As far as I can tell, they are available in German only (what is not a
problem for me).

But I have not found any 'del' symbol, but only total derivatives.

What I found instead was a remarkable similar title in one of the books
of Hertz, which was:

'Grundgleichungen zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper' (something like
'fundamental equations about the electrodynamics of moving bodies' in
chapter 14 of the book 'About the distribution of the electric forces'.

There are some similarities in the structure of the texts, but I have
not yet analyzed that far enough.

>> At least in case of Hertz, there seems to be a wrong quote, because
>> Einstein called his partial differential equations 'Maxwell-Hertz
>> equations', while Hertz used only total derivatives.
>
> This was probably the standard usage at the time. I'd have to check.
> I don't think Einstein just made it up, it makes no sense.

Einstein mentioned Hertz, but no particular work. So we are now forced
to read everything, what Hertz has written and try to estimate the used
source.

As Hertz had died at the relatively young age of 36, he had not written
that much, but still a lot.

Once I find the text, from where the quotes stem, I will write that. But
most likely the book mentioned above was used.

The critical point is, that Hertz was a pronounced 'aetherist' and meant
his equations as description of motion of the 'aether'.

>> Poincaré was not mentioned at all, but his works were seemingly used.
>
> The key of the paper is providing a justification for the physicality of
> Lorentz's "abstract time coordinate" and for the transformed E and
> B fields.

Unfortunately I cannot say much about this, because to read the works of
Lorentz is still on my to-do list.

> Neither Lorentz nor Poincare got his. They (esp. Poincare) got very close
> to relativity in the purely mathematical sense. Lorentz himself said so,
> explicitly, in a 1908 (IIRC) memoir tribute to Poincare.

Two equations from Einstein were seemingly 'inspired' by Poincaré.

Here we have to notice, that Poincaré was a mathematician of some fame
and certainly far better in that realm than Einstein.
....

TH

Am 12.06.2022 um 15:47 schrieb JanPB:
>> Maxwell and Heinrich Hertz, there seem to be wrong quotes, too. (That
>> >would have been already a severe departure of possible tracks in science.)
> I cannot comment on that as you provided no specifics. As Judge Judy
> would say: "That's hearsay".
>
>> >At least in case of Hertz, there seems to be a wrong quote, because
>> >Einstein called his partial differential equations 'Maxwell-Hertz
>> >equations', while Hertz used only total derivatives.
> This was probably the standard usage at the time. I'd have to check.
> I don't think Einstein just made it up, it makes no sense.
>

I was now able to identify the used source with some degree of certainty:

https://de.wikisource.org/wiki/Elektrische_Kraft_Hertz:148#/media/Datei:De_Elektrische_Kraft_Hertz_148.jpg

from this book:

https://de.wikisource.org/wiki/Untersuchungen_%C3%BCber_die_Ausbreitung_der_elektrischen_Kraft

The equations by Einstein with similar content and form were written on
page 13 (top).

TH

On Tue, 14 Jun 2022 08:09:34 +0200, Thomas Heger wrote:

> Am 12.06.2022 um 15:47 schrieb JanPB:
>>> Maxwell and Heinrich Hertz, there seem to be wrong quotes, too. (That
>>> >would have been already a severe departure of possible tracks in
>>> >science.)
>> I cannot comment on that as you provided no specifics. As Judge Judy
>> would say: "That's hearsay".
>>
>>> >At least in case of Hertz, there seems to be a wrong quote, because
>>> >Einstein called his partial differential equations 'Maxwell-Hertz
>>> >equations', while Hertz used only total derivatives.
>> This was probably the standard usage at the time. I'd have to check.
>> I don't think Einstein just made it up, it makes no sense.
>>
>>
> I was now able to identify the used source with some degree of
> certainty:
>
> https://de.wikisource.org/wiki/Elektrische_Kraft_Hertz:148#/media/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://de.wikisource.org/wiki/Elektrische_Kraft_Hertz:148#/media/
Datei:De_Elektrische_Kraft_Hertz_148.jpg
>
> from this book:
>
> https://de.wikisource.org/wiki/
Untersuchungen_%C3%BCber_die_Ausbreitung_der_elektrischen_Kraft
>
> The equations by Einstein with similar content and form were written on
> page 13 (top).

Great, you have found something that uses some of the same letters and
words. Then there must surely be a correlation. That's your usual method.

--
Reinhardt

Am 14.06.2022 um 15:08 schrieb Reinhardt Behm:
> On Tue, 14 Jun 2022 08:09:34 +0200, Thomas Heger wrote:
>
>> Am 12.06.2022 um 15:47 schrieb JanPB:
>>>> Maxwell and Heinrich Hertz, there seem to be wrong quotes, too. (That
>>>>> would have been already a severe departure of possible tracks in
>>>>> science.)
>>> I cannot comment on that as you provided no specifics. As Judge Judy
>>> would say: "That's hearsay".
>>>
>>>>> At least in case of Hertz, there seems to be a wrong quote, because
>>>>> Einstein called his partial differential equations 'Maxwell-Hertz
>>>>> equations', while Hertz used only total derivatives.
>>> This was probably the standard usage at the time. I'd have to check.
>>> I don't think Einstein just made it up, it makes no sense.
>>>
>>>
>> I was now able to identify the used source with some degree of
>> certainty:
>>
>> https://de.wikisource.org/wiki/Elektrische_Kraft_Hertz:148#/media/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://de.wikisource.org/wiki/Elektrische_Kraft_Hertz:148#/media/
> Datei:De_Elektrische_Kraft_Hertz_148.jpg
>>
>> from this book:
>>
>> https://de.wikisource.org/wiki/
> Untersuchungen_%C3%BCber_die_Ausbreitung_der_elektrischen_Kraft
>>
>> The equations by Einstein with similar content and form were written on
>> page 13 (top).
>
> Great, you have found something that uses some of the same letters and
> words. Then there must surely be a correlation. That's your usual method.
>

Einstein called this set of equations 'Maxwell-Hertz-equations'.

It is absolutely natural to ask, where these equations came from.

As Hertz lived later than Maxwell, we need to search in the works of
Hertz for these equations, because otherwise they should be named
Hertz-Maxwell-equations.

Since Einstein provided no reference to used material at all, we need to
search on our own for a likely source of the equations, which Einstein
called 'Maxwell-Hertz-equations'.

I provided a link to a possible source.

This is a book by Heinrich Hertz, which also contained a chapter 14,
with the title 'basic equations about the electrodynamics of moving
bodies' (in German of course, translation was mine).

Now this sounds quite similar to the title of Einstein's text, hence
some sort of knowledge of this book by Einstein seems obvious.

This knowledge per se is no problem at all, even if no reference was
provided.

But what was not ok, that were false quotes of a used source, even if
that was not mentioned.

Here we have a number of problems.

One is the fact, that Einstein used partial derivatives and Hertz used
total derivatives.

Also the order of the terms was different in the text of Hertz.

A different set of problems relates to the meaning of the equations,
because Hertz wanted to describe the behaviour of the 'aether' with them.

TH

Am 04.04.2022 um 15:55 schrieb Odd Bodkin:
> Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
>> Am 03.04.2022 um 21:42 schrieb Michael Moroney:
>>
>>>>>> I understand, that magnetic field and electric field have different
>>>>>> effects, hence are different things, even if related.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So: I cannot subtract 1 amp from 1 Volt, because that does not make
>>>>>> much
>>>>>> more sense then subtraction weigth from pressure.
>>>>>
>>>>> You don't subtract 1 A from 1 V.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Electric field strength (commonly called 'E') was subtracted from
>>>> magnetic field strength (commonly called 'H') by Einstein.
>>>>
>>>> E has [V/m] as units and H has [A/m].
>>>>
>>>> To subtract E from H would mean [A/m - V/m] =[(A - V)/m].
>>>>
>>>> (Einstein used only the X-components called 'N' and 'Y', which should
>>>> have similar units, nevertheless. The used phrase 'force' instead of
>>>> 'field strength' was actually wrong.)
>>>>
>>>> Now ... ..(N - v/c*Y)... contains an illegal operation, because it
>>>> requires to subtract Volts from Amps. (sorry: I wrote it the other way
>>>> round, but that does not matter, because subtraction is also a form of
>>>> addition).
>>>>
>>>> I have complained about this operation and you are still not able to
>>>> justify that by other means then by referencing to the same units used
>>>> in the cgs system.
>>>
>>> The Gaussian/CGS system uses different definitions for electric and
>>> magnetic fields. Both are defined as force per unit charge.
>>>
>>> The magnetic field also needs a speed/velocity component, but CGS uses a
>>> _ratio_ of v/c which is unitless. Since both the magnetic and electric
>>> fields have the same units, they can be added or subtracted from each
>>> other.
>>
>> I'm totally speachless!
>>
>> No!!!
>>
>> In physics you cannot randomly add or subtract numbers, just because
>> they have no or the same units!
>
> Well, actually, if two numbers have no units, yes, absolutely you can add
> or subtract them. As in, 1-v/c.

v/c is actually a vector, because v is a vector and c is a scalar (hence
also 1/c).

And vector times scalar is a vector!

1 is a number, which can be treated as scalars, too.

So we have in fact an illegal operation in your term '1-v/c'.

What you actually meant was 1-|v|/c.

>>
>> In physics you have always real physical systems, which need to
>> correspond to the numbers in some way.
>
> Yes, and there are different systems of units, which you don’t seem to be
> familiar with.
>
>>
>> Here we have electric and magnetic field strength, which the cgs-system
>> unfortunately measures with the same units.
>>
>> But to add or subtract these values would require, to add or subtract
>> those fields, what you cannot do (at least should not do).
>
> Depends on the system of units.

No.

You could take the unit 'piece' as unit for apples and oranges.

But you would not necessarly subtract or add them.

There are situations possible, however, where 'piece' is a unit, which
should be taken into consideration.

But more often than not, you are not interested in such quantities.

TH
>

On Monday, June 13, 2022 at 11:09:36 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 12.06.2022 um 15:47 schrieb JanPB:
> >> Maxwell and Heinrich Hertz, there seem to be wrong quotes, too. (That
> >> >would have been already a severe departure of possible tracks in science.)
> > I cannot comment on that as you provided no specifics. As Judge Judy
> > would say: "That's hearsay".
> >
> >> >At least in case of Hertz, there seems to be a wrong quote, because
> >> >Einstein called his partial differential equations 'Maxwell-Hertz
> >> >equations', while Hertz used only total derivatives.
> > This was probably the standard usage at the time. I'd have to check.
> > I don't think Einstein just made it up, it makes no sense.
> >
> I was now able to identify the used source with some degree of certainty:
>
> https://de.wikisource.org/wiki/Elektrische_Kraft_Hertz:148#/media/Datei:De_Elektrische_Kraft_Hertz_148.jpg
>
> from this book:
>
> https://de.wikisource.org/wiki/Untersuchungen_%C3%BCber_die_Ausbreitung_der_elektrischen_Kraft
>
> The equations by Einstein with similar content and form were written on
> page 13 (top).

OK. What's your point? Of course Maxwell's equations look like
Maxwell's equations, no matter how they are written.

--
Jan

On Saturday, June 18, 2022 at 8:44:02 AM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 04.04.2022 um 15:55 schrieb Odd Bodkin:
> > Thomas Heger <ttt...@web.de> wrote:
> >> Am 03.04.2022 um 21:42 schrieb Michael Moroney:
> >>
> >>>>>> I understand, that magnetic field and electric field have different
> >>>>>> effects, hence are different things, even if related.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> So: I cannot subtract 1 amp from 1 Volt, because that does not make
> >>>>>> much
> >>>>>> more sense then subtraction weigth from pressure.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> You don't subtract 1 A from 1 V.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Electric field strength (commonly called 'E') was subtracted from
> >>>> magnetic field strength (commonly called 'H') by Einstein.
> >>>>
> >>>> E has [V/m] as units and H has [A/m].
> >>>>
> >>>> To subtract E from H would mean [A/m - V/m] =[(A - V)/m].
> >>>>
> >>>> (Einstein used only the X-components called 'N' and 'Y', which should
> >>>> have similar units, nevertheless. The used phrase 'force' instead of
> >>>> 'field strength' was actually wrong.)
> >>>>
> >>>> Now ... ..(N - v/c*Y)... contains an illegal operation, because it
> >>>> requires to subtract Volts from Amps. (sorry: I wrote it the other way
> >>>> round, but that does not matter, because subtraction is also a form of
> >>>> addition).
> >>>>
> >>>> I have complained about this operation and you are still not able to
> >>>> justify that by other means then by referencing to the same units used
> >>>> in the cgs system.
> >>>
> >>> The Gaussian/CGS system uses different definitions for electric and
> >>> magnetic fields. Both are defined as force per unit charge.
> >>>
> >>> The magnetic field also needs a speed/velocity component, but CGS uses a
> >>> _ratio_ of v/c which is unitless. Since both the magnetic and electric
> >>> fields have the same units, they can be added or subtracted from each
> >>> other.
> >>
> >> I'm totally speachless!
> >>
> >> No!!!
> >>
> >> In physics you cannot randomly add or subtract numbers, just because
> >> they have no or the same units!
> >
> > Well, actually, if two numbers have no units, yes, absolutely you can add
> > or subtract them. As in, 1-v/c.
>
> v/c is actually a vector, because v is a vector and c is a scalar (hence
> also 1/c).

No, v is a component of the velocity vector. So it's a number (although
not a scalar in the sense usually understood in physics because it's not
coordinate-invariant).

--
Jan

Am 19.06.2022 um 18:39 schrieb JanPB:

>>> This was probably the standard usage at the time. I'd have to check.
>>> I don't think Einstein just made it up, it makes no sense.
>>>
>> I was now able to identify the used source with some degree of certainty:
>>
>> https://de.wikisource.org/wiki/Elektrische_Kraft_Hertz:148#/media/Datei:De_Elektrische_Kraft_Hertz_148.jpg
>>
>> from this book:
>>
>> https://de.wikisource.org/wiki/Untersuchungen_%C3%BCber_die_Ausbreitung_der_elektrischen_Kraft
>>
>> The equations by Einstein with similar content and form were written on
>> page 13 (top).
>
> OK. What's your point? Of course Maxwell's equations look like
> Maxwell's equations, no matter how they are written.

Hertz modified the Maxwell equations and Einstein used Hertz' modified
version. He actually wrote that in his text and called the set of
equations 'Maxwell-Hertz equations'.

He used actually the very same variable names as Hertz.

But Einstein used partial derivatives, what Hertz had not done.

This would be a false quote, even if the quote itself was missing.

TH

Am 19.06.2022 um 18:43 schrieb JanPB:

>>>>>> Now ... ..(N - v/c*Y)... contains an illegal operation, because it
>>>>>> requires to subtract Volts from Amps. (sorry: I wrote it the other way
>>>>>> round, but that does not matter, because subtraction is also a form of
>>>>>> addition).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have complained about this operation and you are still not able to
>>>>>> justify that by other means then by referencing to the same units used
>>>>>> in the cgs system.
>>>>>
>>>>> The Gaussian/CGS system uses different definitions for electric and
>>>>> magnetic fields. Both are defined as force per unit charge.
>>>>>
>>>>> The magnetic field also needs a speed/velocity component, but CGS uses a
>>>>> _ratio_ of v/c which is unitless. Since both the magnetic and electric
>>>>> fields have the same units, they can be added or subtracted from each
>>>>> other.
>>>>
>>>> I'm totally speachless!
>>>>
>>>> No!!!
>>>>
>>>> In physics you cannot randomly add or subtract numbers, just because
>>>> they have no or the same units!
>>>
>>> Well, actually, if two numbers have no units, yes, absolutely you can add
>>> or subtract them. As in, 1-v/c.
>>
>> v/c is actually a vector, because v is a vector and c is a scalar (hence
>> also 1/c).
>
> No, v is a component of the velocity vector. So it's a number (although
> not a scalar in the sense usually understood in physics because it's not
> coordinate-invariant).
>
'v' is actually a very short text, which consists only of one single letter.

This letter 'v' is the name of a variable, which was meant as
representation of a certain velocity.

This velocity is, as all velocities, a directed quantity, hence v
denotes a vector.

If we want to adress a certain partial aspect of this vector, we can do
that, but need to say so.

In case of 'amount' we can use the sign ||, to indicate that something
else than a vector was meant.

Vectors themselves are usually denoted by a little arrow (or similar),
to distinguish them from other types of objects.

Now, Einstein had done nothing of this sort and left it to the reader,
to find the appropriate use of his variables.

TH

On 6/21/2022 2:01 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 19.06.2022 um 18:43 schrieb JanPB:
>
>>> v/c is actually a vector, because v is a vector and c is a scalar (hence
>>> also 1/c).
>>
>> No,  v  is a component of the velocity vector. So it's a number (although
>> not a scalar in the sense usually understood in physics because it's not
>> coordinate-invariant).
>>
> This velocity is, as all velocities, a directed quantity, hence v
> denotes a vector.
>
> If we want to adress a certain partial aspect of this vector, we can do
> that, but need to say so.

This is nothing of Einstein's doing, but is part of the CGS units
definition of the strength of the magnetic field, the v/c scaling of the
magnetic field force. Einstein was doing what everyone else did at the time.

The problem has already been manipulated in such a way that "v" is the
component of the velocity vector at right angles to the magnetic field,
plus the coordinates are such that the velocity was strictly along the x
axis.
>
> In case of 'amount' we can use the sign ||, to indicate that something
> else than a vector was meant.
>
> Vectors themselves are usually denoted by a little arrow (or similar),
> to distinguish them from other types of objects.
>
> Now, Einstein had done nothing of this sort and left it to the reader,
> to find the appropriate use of his variables.

Remember, his intended audience was other physicists, who had no issues
with the CGS definition of the magnetic field force equation, not us.
(if they did, peer review would have caught it)

Am 21.06.2022 um 16:08 schrieb Volney:
> On 6/21/2022 2:01 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>> Am 19.06.2022 um 18:43 schrieb JanPB:
>>
>>>> v/c is actually a vector, because v is a vector and c is a scalar
>>>> (hence
>>>> also 1/c).
>>>
>>> No, v is a component of the velocity vector. So it's a number
>>> (although
>>> not a scalar in the sense usually understood in physics because it's not
>>> coordinate-invariant).
>>>
>> This velocity is, as all velocities, a directed quantity, hence v
>> denotes a vector.
>>
>> If we want to adress a certain partial aspect of this vector, we can
>> do that, but need to say so.
>
> This is nothing of Einstein's doing, but is part of the CGS units
> definition of the strength of the magnetic field, the v/c scaling of the
> magnetic field force. Einstein was doing what everyone else did at the
> time.

The custom to measure magnetic field strength at that time was by
'number of field lines crossing a unit area'.

I have checked that out by buying a book for (German) electrical
engineers from 1912 on the flee market.

That methods is actually closer to the modern understanding of field
strength than the Gauss units, used by Einstein.

Therefore you are in fact wrong, that everybody used CGS-units in
Germany in the early 20th century.

> The problem has already been manipulated in such a way that "v" is the
> component of the velocity vector at right angles to the magnetic field,
> plus the coordinates are such that the velocity was strictly along the x
> axis.

v means simply 'velocity' with v=dx/dt.

That has more or less nothing to do with the magnetic field or speed of
light.

>> In case of 'amount' we can use the sign ||, to indicate that something
>> else than a vector was meant.
>>
>> Vectors themselves are usually denoted by a little arrow (or similar),
>> to distinguish them from other types of objects.
>>
>> Now, Einstein had done nothing of this sort and left it to the reader,
>> to find the appropriate use of his variables.
>
> Remember, his intended audience was other physicists, who had no issues
> with the CGS definition of the magnetic field force equation, not us.
> (if they did, peer review would have caught it)

In vector calculus, you need to keep the symbols for variables separated
and allow the reader, to identify, which type of mathematical object was
meant with a certain variable name.

At least the symbols should never alter their meaning and must not be
used for different types of objects without notice.

If a symbol, say 'A', is used for something, than this use has to remain
the same througout the entire article and must not be altered.

Otherwise a paper would become unreadable, if the content of a symbol
could swap around.

TH

On Monday, June 20, 2022 at 10:51:05 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 19.06.2022 um 18:39 schrieb JanPB:
>
> >>> This was probably the standard usage at the time. I'd have to check.
> >>> I don't think Einstein just made it up, it makes no sense.
> >>>
> >> I was now able to identify the used source with some degree of certainty:
> >>
> >> https://de.wikisource.org/wiki/Elektrische_Kraft_Hertz:148#/media/Datei:De_Elektrische_Kraft_Hertz_148.jpg
> >>
> >> from this book:
> >>
> >> https://de.wikisource.org/wiki/Untersuchungen_%C3%BCber_die_Ausbreitung_der_elektrischen_Kraft
> >>
> >> The equations by Einstein with similar content and form were written on
> >> page 13 (top).
> >
> > OK. What's your point? Of course Maxwell's equations look like
> > Maxwell's equations, no matter how they are written.
> Hertz modified the Maxwell equations and Einstein used Hertz' modified
> version. He actually wrote that in his text and called the set of
> equations 'Maxwell-Hertz equations'.
>
> He used actually the very same variable names as Hertz.

So what?

> But Einstein used partial derivatives, what Hertz had not done.

So what?

--
Jan

On Tuesday, June 21, 2022 at 10:00:36 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 21.06.2022 um 16:08 schrieb Volney:
> > On 6/21/2022 2:01 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> >> Am 19.06.2022 um 18:43 schrieb JanPB:
> >>
> >>>> v/c is actually a vector, because v is a vector and c is a scalar
> >>>> (hence
> >>>> also 1/c).
> >>>
> >>> No, v is a component of the velocity vector. So it's a number
> >>> (although
> >>> not a scalar in the sense usually understood in physics because it's not
> >>> coordinate-invariant).
> >>>
> >> This velocity is, as all velocities, a directed quantity, hence v
> >> denotes a vector.
> >>
> >> If we want to adress a certain partial aspect of this vector, we can
> >> do that, but need to say so.
> >
> > This is nothing of Einstein's doing, but is part of the CGS units
> > definition of the strength of the magnetic field, the v/c scaling of the
> > magnetic field force. Einstein was doing what everyone else did at the
> > time.
> The custom to measure magnetic field strength at that time was by
> 'number of field lines crossing a unit area'.

No. The system of units used was the Gaussian one. It was common in
physics papers.

> I have checked that out by buying a book for (German) electrical
> engineers from 1912 on the flee market.

Cute but irrelevant.

> That methods is actually closer to the modern understanding of field
> strength than the Gauss units, used by Einstein.
>
> Therefore you are in fact wrong, that everybody used CGS-units in
> Germany in the early 20th century.

The point is, Einstein's use of those units was nothing unusual.

> > The problem has already been manipulated in such a way that "v" is the
> > component of the velocity vector at right angles to the magnetic field,
> > plus the coordinates are such that the velocity was strictly along the x
> > axis.
> v means simply 'velocity' with v=dx/dt.
>
> That has more or less nothing to do with the magnetic field or speed of
> light.

It doesn't matter. You don't understand this.

> >> In case of 'amount' we can use the sign ||, to indicate that something
> >> else than a vector was meant.
> >>
> >> Vectors themselves are usually denoted by a little arrow (or similar),
> >> to distinguish them from other types of objects.
> >>
> >> Now, Einstein had done nothing of this sort and left it to the reader,
> >> to find the appropriate use of his variables.
> >
> > Remember, his intended audience was other physicists, who had no issues
> > with the CGS definition of the magnetic field force equation, not us.
> > (if they did, peer review would have caught it)
> In vector calculus, you need to keep the symbols for variables separated
> and allow the reader, to identify, which type of mathematical object was
> meant with a certain variable name.
>
> At least the symbols should never alter their meaning and must not be
> used for different types of objects without notice.

There is no problem of that sort in the paper.

> If a symbol, say 'A', is used for something, than this use has to remain
> the same througout the entire article and must not be altered.
>
> Otherwise a paper would become unreadable, if the content of a symbol
> could swap around.

The paper is very readable.

Your attempts are silly and do not even begin to address anything in relativity.
It's all a fantasy inside your head.

--
Jan

On 6/29/2022 4:02 AM, JanPB wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 21, 2022 at 10:00:36 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
>> Am 21.06.2022 um 16:08 schrieb Volney:
>>> On 6/21/2022 2:01 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>> Am 19.06.2022 um 18:43 schrieb JanPB:
>>>>
>>>>>> v/c is actually a vector, because v is a vector and c is a scalar
>>>>>> (hence
>>>>>> also 1/c).
>>>>>
>>>>> No, v is a component of the velocity vector. So it's a number
>>>>> (although
>>>>> not a scalar in the sense usually understood in physics because it's not
>>>>> coordinate-invariant).
>>>>>
>>>> This velocity is, as all velocities, a directed quantity, hence v
>>>> denotes a vector.
>>>>
>>>> If we want to adress a certain partial aspect of this vector, we can
>>>> do that, but need to say so.
>>>
>>> This is nothing of Einstein's doing, but is part of the CGS units
>>> definition of the strength of the magnetic field, the v/c scaling of the
>>> magnetic field force. Einstein was doing what everyone else did at the
>>> time.
>> The custom to measure magnetic field strength at that time was by
>> 'number of field lines crossing a unit area'.
>
> No. The system of units used was the Gaussian one. It was common in
> physics papers.

That's what I was trying to say.
>
>> I have checked that out by buying a book for (German) electrical
>> engineers from 1912 on the flee market.
>
> Cute but irrelevant.
>
>> That methods is actually closer to the modern understanding of field
>> strength than the Gauss units, used by Einstein.
>>
>> Therefore you are in fact wrong, that everybody used CGS-units in
>> Germany in the early 20th century.
>
> The point is, Einstein's use of those units was nothing unusual.

Again, common for physics papers of the time.
>
>>> The problem has already been manipulated in such a way that "v" is the
>>> component of the velocity vector at right angles to the magnetic field,
>>> plus the coordinates are such that the velocity was strictly along the x
>>> axis.
>> v means simply 'velocity' with v=dx/dt.
>>
>> That has more or less nothing to do with the magnetic field or speed of
>> light.
>
> It doesn't matter. You don't understand this.

The term v/c exists because the force on the charge is not only
proportional to the magnetic field strength, but its speed through the
field. Place a stationary charge in a magnetic field, there is no force
on it. That's because v=0, v/c=0, resulting force on charge = 0.

Since v/c is a unitless value, the magnetic field can be measured in
units of force/charge JUST LIKE THE ELECTRIC FIELD can be. The electric
field just doesn't have a v/c factor, that's all.

I mentioned this because you (Thomas H.) were whining about subtracting
E from H by Einstein, and whining about E and H being of different
units, (and accusing Einstein of a "mistake" by doing that) when in CGS
they are the SAME units. (in MKS they are NOT the same units)
>
>>>> In case of 'amount' we can use the sign ||, to indicate that something
>>>> else than a vector was meant.
>>>>
>>>> Vectors themselves are usually denoted by a little arrow (or similar),
>>>> to distinguish them from other types of objects.
>>>>
>>>> Now, Einstein had done nothing of this sort and left it to the reader,
>>>> to find the appropriate use of his variables.
>>>
>>> Remember, his intended audience was other physicists, who had no issues
>>> with the CGS definition of the magnetic field force equation, not us.
>>> (if they did, peer review would have caught it)
>> In vector calculus, you need to keep the symbols for variables separated
>> and allow the reader, to identify, which type of mathematical object was
>> meant with a certain variable name.
>>
>> At least the symbols should never alter their meaning and must not be
>> used for different types of objects without notice.
>
> There is no problem of that sort in the paper.

Again, these papers were written for the audience of other scientists,
these scientists could follow along just fine, even if you (not part of
the audience) cannot do so.
>
>> If a symbol, say 'A', is used for something, than this use has to remain
>> the same througout the entire article and must not be altered.
>>
>> Otherwise a paper would become unreadable, if the content of a symbol
>> could swap around.
>
> The paper is very readable.

Especially by its intended audience, other scientists.
>
> Your attempts are silly and do not even begin to address anything in relativity.
> It's all a fantasy inside your head.

Am 30.06.2022 um 07:18 schrieb Volney:
> On 6/29/2022 4:02 AM, JanPB wrote:
>> On Tuesday, June 21, 2022 at 10:00:36 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>> Am 21.06.2022 um 16:08 schrieb Volney:
>>>> On 6/21/2022 2:01 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>>> Am 19.06.2022 um 18:43 schrieb JanPB:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> v/c is actually a vector, because v is a vector and c is a scalar
>>>>>>> (hence
>>>>>>> also 1/c).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, v is a component of the velocity vector. So it's a number
>>>>>> (although
>>>>>> not a scalar in the sense usually understood in physics because
>>>>>> it's not
>>>>>> coordinate-invariant).
>>>>>>
>>>>> This velocity is, as all velocities, a directed quantity, hence v
>>>>> denotes a vector.
>>>>>
>>>>> If we want to adress a certain partial aspect of this vector, we can
>>>>> do that, but need to say so.
>>>>
>>>> This is nothing of Einstein's doing, but is part of the CGS units
>>>> definition of the strength of the magnetic field, the v/c scaling of
>>>> the
>>>> magnetic field force. Einstein was doing what everyone else did at the
>>>> time.
>>> The custom to measure magnetic field strength at that time was by
>>> 'number of field lines crossing a unit area'.
>>
>> No. The system of units used was the Gaussian one. It was common in
>> physics papers.
>
> That's what I was trying to say.
>>
>>> I have checked that out by buying a book for (German) electrical
>>> engineers from 1912 on the flee market.
>>
>> Cute but irrelevant.
>>
>>> That methods is actually closer to the modern understanding of field
>>> strength than the Gauss units, used by Einstein.
>>>
>>> Therefore you are in fact wrong, that everybody used CGS-units in
>>> Germany in the early 20th century.
>>
>> The point is, Einstein's use of those units was nothing unusual.
>
> Again, common for physics papers of the time.
>>
>>>> The problem has already been manipulated in such a way that "v" is the
>>>> component of the velocity vector at right angles to the magnetic field,
>>>> plus the coordinates are such that the velocity was strictly along
>>>> the x
>>>> axis.
>>> v means simply 'velocity' with v=dx/dt.
>>>
>>> That has more or less nothing to do with the magnetic field or speed of
>>> light.
>>
>> It doesn't matter. You don't understand this.
>
> The term v/c exists because the force on the charge is not only
> proportional to the magnetic field strength, but its speed through the
> field. Place a stationary charge in a magnetic field, there is no force
> on it. That's because v=0, v/c=0, resulting force on charge = 0.
>
> Since v/c is a unitless value, the magnetic field can be measured in
> units of force/charge JUST LIKE THE ELECTRIC FIELD can be. The electric
> field just doesn't have a v/c factor, that's all.

In my view v/c is a vector without units, because v is a vector and 1/c
is a scalar. Now vector times scalar is a vector, not a number.

I also dislike the use of 'force' in connection to field strength.

A force is something mechanical, which is meant to connect at least two
mechanical objects, while a field is also measurable alone.

I also dislike to regard charge as countable, even if that is a
fundamental assumption of QM.

To use the term charge would therefore require to define a measure of
charge, which is based on field strength. That would lead to a circular
dependency, if you define field strength by a reference to charge.

> I mentioned this because you (Thomas H.) were whining about subtracting
> E from H by Einstein, and whining about E and H being of different
> units, (and accusing Einstein of a "mistake" by doing that) when in CGS
> they are the SAME units. (in MKS they are NOT the same units)

If quantities have similar units, this does not allow algebraic
operations between them.

All sorts of nonsense would be possible, if you allow that.

Therefore you need to discuss the question, whether or not the algebraic
operations make sense.

Here I complained about addition of electric and magnetic field strength
(subtraction as form of addition).

I still do, because that operation is in my eyes nonsense.

The use of the cgs-system of units would not make any difference,
because same units do not allow such operations per se. You also need to
justify such an operation.

....
>>>> Remember, his intended audience was other physicists, who had no issues
>>>> with the CGS definition of the magnetic field force equation, not us.
>>>> (if they did, peer review would have caught it)
>>> In vector calculus, you need to keep the symbols for variables separated
>>> and allow the reader, to identify, which type of mathematical object was
>>> meant with a certain variable name.
>>>
>>> At least the symbols should never alter their meaning and must not be
>>> used for different types of objects without notice.
>>
>> There is no problem of that sort in the paper.
>
> Again, these papers were written for the audience of other scientists,
> these scientists could follow along just fine, even if you (not part of
> the audience) cannot do so.

Even if scientific papers address a scientific audience, this would not
free an author from scientific logic and clearness of his arguments.

Actually I see it the other way round and require stricter logic and
reasoning from a paper for scientists than for the general public.

>>> If a symbol, say 'A', is used for something, than this use has to remain
>>> the same througout the entire article and must not be altered.
>>>
>>> Otherwise a paper would become unreadable, if the content of a symbol
>>> could swap around.
>>
>> The paper is very readable.
>
> Especially by its intended audience, other scientists.

The word 'would' was meant as a possibility.

I wanted to say, that a paper would become unreadable, if a certain
variable name would be used for different things.

This is independent of the skills of the readers, because even
professional physicists cannot read the mind of the author.

The chance would be higher to guess the correct meaning, if the reader
is a professional in the field.

But such professionals usually regard bad habits as a reason to drop
such a paper instantly.

....

TH

On 2022-06-30 05:57:57 +0000, Thomas Heger said:

> In my view v/c is a vector without units, because v is a vector and 1/c
> is a scalar. Now vector times scalar is a vector, not a number.

Your view is irrelevant. In Einstein's "Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper"
v is a scalar and so is v/V where Einstein's V is what is now commonly
called c.

Mikko

Am 30.06.2022 um 12:58 schrieb Mikko:
> On 2022-06-30 05:57:57 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
>
>> In my view v/c is a vector without units, because v is a vector and
>> 1/c is a scalar. Now vector times scalar is a vector, not a number.
>
> Your view is irrelevant. In Einstein's "Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper"
> v is a scalar and so is v/V where Einstein's V is what is now commonly
> called c.
>
No quite...

In my 'annotated version of SRT' (what this thread is about), I play the
role of a (ficticious) professor, who had to write corrections into the
homework of a student (in this case Einstein).

Therefore Einstein's view is irrelevant, while mine is not.

You could eventually argue, that velocity is usually a scalar, what I
hope you wouldn't do, but cannot say, that my view (in my ficiticous
position) is irrelavant.

TH

Am 29.06.2022 um 09:53 schrieb JanPB:
> On Monday, June 20, 2022 at 10:51:05 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
>> Am 19.06.2022 um 18:39 schrieb JanPB:
>>
>>>>> This was probably the standard usage at the time. I'd have to check.
>>>>> I don't think Einstein just made it up, it makes no sense.
>>>>>
>>>> I was now able to identify the used source with some degree of certainty:
>>>>
>>>> https://de.wikisource.org/wiki/Elektrische_Kraft_Hertz:148#/media/Datei:De_Elektrische_Kraft_Hertz_148.jpg
>>>>
>>>> from this book:
>>>>
>>>> https://de.wikisource.org/wiki/Untersuchungen_%C3%BCber_die_Ausbreitung_der_elektrischen_Kraft
>>>>
>>>> The equations by Einstein with similar content and form were written on
>>>> page 13 (top).
>>>
>>> OK. What's your point? Of course Maxwell's equations look like
>>> Maxwell's equations, no matter how they are written.
>> Hertz modified the Maxwell equations and Einstein used Hertz' modified
>> version. He actually wrote that in his text and called the set of
>> equations 'Maxwell-Hertz equations'.
>>
>> He used actually the very same variable names as Hertz.
>
> So what?

Hertz used his equations to describe the behaviour of 'the aether',
while Einstein declared, that an aether would not exist.

To me it seems to be - at least- odd, to use the arguments of kind
opponent, to prove the own postion, which is totally opposite to the
realm, from where the arguments came.

>> But Einstein used partial derivatives, what Hertz had not done.
>
> So what?

It is not a only a missing quote, but also a false quote.

If you quote something from somobody, the quote has to be correct.

What you should never ever do, that is a false quote. A false quote is a
quote, which does not quote the actual source correctly, but says so.

Actually Einstein didn't say, he quoted Heinrich Hertz, just mentioned
his name.

That is already scientific misbehaviour.

But even in this case there has to be a one to one relation between
source and quote.

If the source is altered without notice, this is regarded as severe sin
in science.

TH