On Tuesday, February 28, 2023 at 5:35:27 PM UTC-3, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 2/26/23 2:16 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > On Sunday, February 26, 2023 at 2:34:20 PM UTC-3, Tom Roberts wrote:
> >> In 1905 Einstein regarded Maxwell's equations as laws of nature.
> >
> > How would you possibly know that?
>
> Because Einstein stated that in several places.
>
> > [... further nonsense ignored]
>
> Tom Roberts

For a person that claim to hold a PhD in physics, you SUCK with your assertions without any reference.

Too lazy to do that, or just CAN'T BACK UP with facts your assertions?

It's too easy to go around parroting, pretending that your comments be accepted like if coming from the supreme, absolute thinker.

We had Bodkin for that, but he "was" a woodworker.

Put more substance on your claims, and gain respect. LINKS or it didn't happen.

Learn a bit from Paul Andersen's M.O.

On 2/28/2023 4:23 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 28, 2023 at 5:35:27 PM UTC-3, Tom Roberts wrote:
>> On 2/26/23 2:16 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
>>> On Sunday, February 26, 2023 at 2:34:20 PM UTC-3, Tom Roberts wrote:
>>>> In 1905 Einstein regarded Maxwell's equations as laws of nature.
>>>
>>> How would you possibly know that?
>>
>> Because Einstein stated that in several places.
>>
>>> [... further nonsense ignored]
>>
>> Tom Roberts
>
> For a person that claim to hold a PhD in physics, you SUCK with your assertions without any reference.
>
> Too lazy to do that, or just CAN'T BACK UP with facts your assertions?
>
> It's too easy to go around parroting, pretending that your comments be accepted like if coming from the supreme, absolute thinker.
>
> We had Bodkin for that, but he "was" a woodworker.
>
> Put more substance on your claims, and gain respect. LINKS or it didn't happen.
>
> Learn a bit from Paul Andersen's M.O.
>

google "einstein's references to Maxwell's works"

About 3,440,000 results

At the same time you're right about he etiquette of this situation,
where references are known to be available they should be cited.

On Tuesday, February 28, 2023 at 7:51:29 PM UTC-3, whodat wrote:
> On 2/28/2023 4:23 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > On Tuesday, February 28, 2023 at 5:35:27 PM UTC-3, Tom Roberts wrote:
> >> On 2/26/23 2:16 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> >>> On Sunday, February 26, 2023 at 2:34:20 PM UTC-3, Tom Roberts wrote:
> >>>> In 1905 Einstein regarded Maxwell's equations as laws of nature.
> >>>
> >>> How would you possibly know that?
> >>
> >> Because Einstein stated that in several places.
> >>
> >>> [... further nonsense ignored]
> >>
> >> Tom Roberts
> >
> > For a person that claim to hold a PhD in physics, you SUCK with your assertions without any reference.
> >
> > Too lazy to do that, or just CAN'T BACK UP with facts your assertions?
> >
> > It's too easy to go around parroting, pretending that your comments be accepted like if coming from the supreme, absolute thinker.
> >
> > We had Bodkin for that, but he "was" a woodworker.
> >
> > Put more substance on your claims, and gain respect. LINKS or it didn't happen.
> >
> > Learn a bit from Paul Andersen's M.O.
> >
> google "einstein's references to Maxwell's works"
>
> About 3,440,000 results
>
> At the same time you're right about he etiquette of this situation,
> where references are known to be available they should be cited.

The correct search should be "Einstein regarded Maxwell's equations as laws of nature", or similar.

You'll be disappointed. ZERO finds, even breaking it as "Einstein" "Maxwell's equations" "laws of nature".

On Tuesday, February 28, 2023 at 3:22:54 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > >>> On Sunday, February 26, 2023 at 2:34:20 PM UTC-3, Tom Roberts wrote:
> > >>>> In 1905 Einstein regarded Maxwell's equations as laws of nature.
> > >>> How would you possibly know that?
> > >> Because Einstein stated that in several places.
> Tom Roberts
> > >
> > > For a person that claim to hold a PhD in physics, you SUCK with your assertions without any reference.
> > > Too lazy to do that, or just CAN'T BACK UP with facts your assertions?
> > > It's too easy to go around parroting, pretending that your comments be accepted like if coming from the supreme, absolute thinker.
> > > Put more substance on your claims, and gain respect. LINKS or it didn't happen.
> > At the same time you're right about he etiquette of this situation,
> > where references are known to be available they should be cited.
> The correct search should be "Einstein regarded Maxwell's equations as laws of nature", or similar.
> You'll be disappointed. ZERO finds, even breaking it as "Einstein" "Maxwell's equations" "laws of nature".
There is no need for Einstein's Lorentz transformations unless one must account for a missing ether wind in the Michelson-Morley Experiment with a wave theory. Please see: "Ritz, Einstein, and the Emission Hypothesis" by Alberto A. Martínez.

On 2/28/2023 5:22 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 28, 2023 at 7:51:29 PM UTC-3, whodat wrote:
>> On 2/28/2023 4:23 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, February 28, 2023 at 5:35:27 PM UTC-3, Tom Roberts wrote:
>>>> On 2/26/23 2:16 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
>>>>> On Sunday, February 26, 2023 at 2:34:20 PM UTC-3, Tom Roberts wrote:
>>>>>> In 1905 Einstein regarded Maxwell's equations as laws of nature.
>>>>>
>>>>> How would you possibly know that?
>>>>
>>>> Because Einstein stated that in several places.
>>>>
>>>>> [... further nonsense ignored]
>>>>
>>>> Tom Roberts
>>>
>>> For a person that claim to hold a PhD in physics, you SUCK with your assertions without any reference.
>>>
>>> Too lazy to do that, or just CAN'T BACK UP with facts your assertions?
>>>
>>> It's too easy to go around parroting, pretending that your comments be accepted like if coming from the supreme, absolute thinker.
>>>
>>> We had Bodkin for that, but he "was" a woodworker.
>>>
>>> Put more substance on your claims, and gain respect. LINKS or it didn't happen.
>>>
>>> Learn a bit from Paul Andersen's M.O.
>>>
>> google "einstein's references to Maxwell's works"
>>
>> About 3,440,000 results
>>
>> At the same time you're right about he etiquette of this situation,
>> where references are known to be available they should be cited.
>
> The correct search should be "Einstein regarded Maxwell's equations as laws of nature", or similar.
>
> You'll be disappointed. ZERO finds, even breaking it as "Einstein" "Maxwell's equations" "laws of nature".

So I asked google " dick hertz gets something right" with the expectation
that I would get zero hits. But then google doesn't always live up to
the premise/promise and back came "About 44,100,000 results."

Of course none of them that I saw actually addressed the question,
instead they focused on the name "Dick Hertz" and I'm not about to
take the time to review anything beyond the first page of results.

Using the exact wording you suggested by "cut n paste" I got a
surprising "About 4,520,000 results." So you were as wrong as
I was and probably for the same reason, google will give
replies if at all possible even if it is wrong.

What's left is the question whether or not you believe good etiquette
requires a citation where one is available, a piece of thread drift that
I introduced. Considering that I did that, are you actually content with
the answer you gave?