On Tuesday, 28 February 2023 at 19:55:36 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
> On 2/28/2023 2:12 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> > Am 27.02.2023 um 07:48 schrieb Volney:
> >> On 2/25/2023 6:07 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> >>> Am 23.02.2023 um 09:52 schrieb JanPB:
> >>>> On Thursday, February 23, 2023 at 8:46:44 AM UTC+1, Thomas Heger wrote:
> >>
> >>>>> Infinity is not a location, but infinitly far away.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> A signal from infinity would need infinite time to reach us, hence
> >>>>> would
> >>>>> never be here.
> >>>>
> >>>> This is the very basis of scientific (and mathematical)
> >>>> modelling. In contexts like this, infinity refers to a limit of
> >>>> arbitrarily
> >>>> large distance with the signal (the plane wave) already presumed
> >>>> omnipresent.
> >>
> >>> Infinity is further away than any numerical distance (or: inf >> x for
> >>> all x element of R).
> >>
> >> And...?
> >>>
> >>> You must not call 'resonably far away' 'infinity'.
> >>
> >> And nobody does. "Reasonably far away" means "reasonably close to what
> >> happens at an infinite distance". And this is normal limit theory
> >> applied.>
> >>>
> >>> Also 'plane waves' themselves are unphysical local approximations.
> >>
> >> They are quite physical. They'll propagate just fine if they happen to
> >> exist.
> >>>
> >>> A real plane wave would require an infinetely long emitting antenna,
> >>> which we can safely exclude.
> >>
> >> So they (all physicists using a plane wave model) use a "reasonably far
> >> away" source to be reasonably close to a plane wave.
> >>>
> >>> In the real world we have Huygen's principle and waves expand
> >>> spherically from the emitting points.
> >>>
> >>> The plane waves are possible approximations for an area, where the
> >>> diameter of the area is small in comparison to the distance of the
> >>> emitter.
> >>
> >> Which is what Einstein was doing...
> >>>
> >>> But 'small area' would hinder fast relative motion in respect to that
> >>> area, because soon the area would be left, where the approximation is
> >>> valid.
> >>
> >> Why did you say something so dumb?
> >>
> >>>
> >>> From this would follow, that Einstein could only treat the situation
> >>> at the spherical shell of the wave, where the wave normal hits
> >>> perpendicular to to that shell.
> >>
> >> If it looks too much like the shell of a spherical wave front, the
> >> "reasonably far away" source isn't "reasonably far away" enough, a more
> >> distant source is needed.
> >>
> >> But in such a paper, details of the plane wave's source are irrelevant..
> >> "Assume there is a plane wave such that..." is perfectly fine.
> >>
> >> Remember, you are not the intended audience. Other physicists who were
> >> perfectly OK with the existence of plane waves were.
> >>
> >>> I have complained about this and you failed to defend Einstein's
> >>> arguments.
> >>
> >> It's not "Einstein's arguments", it is what EVERY scientist and engineer
> >> needing the simple math of a plane wave uses! So this "error" of yours
> >> belongs in the "Heger doesn't understand standard usage" pile of
> >> 'notations'.
> >
> >
> > Einstein mentioned on page 16: '...if an observer is moving with
> > velocity v relatively to an infinitely distant source of light '..
> And he previously stated: "In the system K, very far from the origin of

And do you still believe that adjusting
clocks to your ISO idiocy means some
"Newton mode"? You're such an amazing
idiot, stupid Mike.

Am 28.02.2023 um 18:31 schrieb JanPB:
> On Tuesday, February 28, 2023 at 8:12:04 AM UTC+1, Thomas Heger wrote:
>> Am 27.02.2023 um 07:48 schrieb Volney:
>>> On 2/25/2023 6:07 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>> Am 23.02.2023 um 09:52 schrieb JanPB:
>>>>> On Thursday, February 23, 2023 at 8:46:44 AM UTC+1, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> Infinity is not a location, but infinitly far away.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A signal from infinity would need infinite time to reach us, hence
>>>>>> would
>>>>>> never be here.
>>>>>
>>>>> This is the very basis of scientific (and mathematical)
>>>>> modelling. In contexts like this, infinity refers to a limit of
>>>>> arbitrarily
>>>>> large distance with the signal (the plane wave) already presumed
>>>>> omnipresent.
>>>
>>>> Infinity is further away than any numerical distance (or: inf >> x for
>>>> all x element of R).
>>>
>>> And...?
>>>>
>>>> You must not call 'resonably far away' 'infinity'.
>>>
>>> And nobody does. "Reasonably far away" means "reasonably close to what
>>> happens at an infinite distance". And this is normal limit theory applied.>
>>>>
>>>> Also 'plane waves' themselves are unphysical local approximations.
>>>
>>> They are quite physical. They'll propagate just fine if they happen to
>>> exist.
>>>>
>>>> A real plane wave would require an infinetely long emitting antenna,
>>>> which we can safely exclude.
>>>
>>> So they (all physicists using a plane wave model) use a "reasonably far
>>> away" source to be reasonably close to a plane wave.
>>>>
>>>> In the real world we have Huygen's principle and waves expand
>>>> spherically from the emitting points.
>>>>
>>>> The plane waves are possible approximations for an area, where the
>>>> diameter of the area is small in comparison to the distance of the
>>>> emitter.
>>>
>>> Which is what Einstein was doing...
>>>>
>>>> But 'small area' would hinder fast relative motion in respect to that
>>>> area, because soon the area would be left, where the approximation is
>>>> valid.
>>>
>>> Why did you say something so dumb?
>>>
>>>>
>>>> From this would follow, that Einstein could only treat the situation
>>>> at the spherical shell of the wave, where the wave normal hits
>>>> perpendicular to to that shell.
>>>
>>> If it looks too much like the shell of a spherical wave front, the
>>> "reasonably far away" source isn't "reasonably far away" enough, a more
>>> distant source is needed.
>>>
>>> But in such a paper, details of the plane wave's source are irrelevant.
>>> "Assume there is a plane wave such that..." is perfectly fine.
>>>
>>> Remember, you are not the intended audience. Other physicists who were
>>> perfectly OK with the existence of plane waves were.
>>>
>>>> I have complained about this and you failed to defend Einstein's
>>>> arguments.
>>>
>>> It's not "Einstein's arguments", it is what EVERY scientist and engineer
>>> needing the simple math of a plane wave uses! So this "error" of yours
>>> belongs in the "Heger doesn't understand standard usage" pile of
>>> 'notations'.
>> Einstein mentioned on page 16: '...if an observer is moving with
>> velocity v relatively to an infinitely distant source of light '.
>>
>> I have complained about this statement, because velocity v in respect to
>> infinity is always zero.
>
> This is false. Think about it. And think what we've been telling you about
> the meaning of infinitely far as a limit of arbitrary large distance.
>
>> It was therefor a VERY !!!! bad idea to make such a statement.
>
> No, it was a very standard idea.

There have been large amounts of 'standard ideas', which turned out to
be wrong:

'Miasma' as cause of desease, for instance.

It is therefore an exceptionally dangerous idea to justify believes by
'standard ideas'.

>> Also planes waves are not real world waves, but local approximations to
>> spherical waves from distant sources.
>
> Yes.
>
>> That approximation is actually ok, but not in the context, which
>> Einstein used.
>
> It's very appropriate (also standard).
>
>> The validity of this approximation would require, that the realm of
>> observation is not moved around with considerable velocity (what
>> Einstein actually wanted to do).
>
> No, completely incorrect.

No!

If you fly around in empty space with velocties near the speed of light,
than the 'realm of validity of that approximation' would be left very soon.

Therefore, relativistic effects require spherical waves and proper
definition of the intended angles.

>>>>>> Also velocity in respect to infinitity is always zero, because
>>>>>> inf- x= inf
>>>>>>
>>>>>> for all x element of R.
>>>
>>> Nobody is using the source of the plane wave as the origin!
>>> Einstein defines the origin he uses in S and S', and the math and
>>> physics are just fine!
>> Sorry, but I cannot follow your arguments.
>>
>> Waves have a source and that source was actually mentioned (see above).
>
> The wave is given as a plane wave. Wave planes have no sources, they are
> unphysical and they are limits of physical waves with sources at finite
> distances. Physics and mathematics are full of models of that kind,
> the principle;e of using such models goes back to ancient Greece.

'Planes waves have no sources' is another of these statements, which
'flatten' me.

>> Now plane waves are really plane and extend infinitely sideways without
>> any curvature.
>>
>> But such waves do not exist, because they are physically impossible.
>
> This is irrelevant in the context of the scientific method. What you demand
> is some sort of Mediaeval Scholastics. It may have its domain of validity but
> it's not science.

Why not elves, if existence is irrelevant?

....

TH

On Wednesday, March 1, 2023 at 9:27:34 AM UTC+1, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 28.02.2023 um 18:31 schrieb JanPB:
> > On Tuesday, February 28, 2023 at 8:12:04 AM UTC+1, Thomas Heger wrote:
> >> Am 27.02.2023 um 07:48 schrieb Volney:
> >>> On 2/25/2023 6:07 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> >>>> Am 23.02.2023 um 09:52 schrieb JanPB:
> >>>>> On Thursday, February 23, 2023 at 8:46:44 AM UTC+1, Thomas Heger wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>>> Infinity is not a location, but infinitly far away.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> A signal from infinity would need infinite time to reach us, hence
> >>>>>> would
> >>>>>> never be here.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> This is the very basis of scientific (and mathematical)
> >>>>> modelling. In contexts like this, infinity refers to a limit of
> >>>>> arbitrarily
> >>>>> large distance with the signal (the plane wave) already presumed
> >>>>> omnipresent.
> >>>
> >>>> Infinity is further away than any numerical distance (or: inf >> x for
> >>>> all x element of R).
> >>>
> >>> And...?
> >>>>
> >>>> You must not call 'resonably far away' 'infinity'.
> >>>
> >>> And nobody does. "Reasonably far away" means "reasonably close to what
> >>> happens at an infinite distance". And this is normal limit theory applied.>
> >>>>
> >>>> Also 'plane waves' themselves are unphysical local approximations.
> >>>
> >>> They are quite physical. They'll propagate just fine if they happen to
> >>> exist.
> >>>>
> >>>> A real plane wave would require an infinetely long emitting antenna,
> >>>> which we can safely exclude.
> >>>
> >>> So they (all physicists using a plane wave model) use a "reasonably far
> >>> away" source to be reasonably close to a plane wave.
> >>>>
> >>>> In the real world we have Huygen's principle and waves expand
> >>>> spherically from the emitting points.
> >>>>
> >>>> The plane waves are possible approximations for an area, where the
> >>>> diameter of the area is small in comparison to the distance of the
> >>>> emitter.
> >>>
> >>> Which is what Einstein was doing...
> >>>>
> >>>> But 'small area' would hinder fast relative motion in respect to that
> >>>> area, because soon the area would be left, where the approximation is
> >>>> valid.
> >>>
> >>> Why did you say something so dumb?
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> From this would follow, that Einstein could only treat the situation
> >>>> at the spherical shell of the wave, where the wave normal hits
> >>>> perpendicular to to that shell.
> >>>
> >>> If it looks too much like the shell of a spherical wave front, the
> >>> "reasonably far away" source isn't "reasonably far away" enough, a more
> >>> distant source is needed.
> >>>
> >>> But in such a paper, details of the plane wave's source are irrelevant.
> >>> "Assume there is a plane wave such that..." is perfectly fine.
> >>>
> >>> Remember, you are not the intended audience. Other physicists who were
> >>> perfectly OK with the existence of plane waves were.
> >>>
> >>>> I have complained about this and you failed to defend Einstein's
> >>>> arguments.
> >>>
> >>> It's not "Einstein's arguments", it is what EVERY scientist and engineer
> >>> needing the simple math of a plane wave uses! So this "error" of yours
> >>> belongs in the "Heger doesn't understand standard usage" pile of
> >>> 'notations'.
> >> Einstein mentioned on page 16: '...if an observer is moving with
> >> velocity v relatively to an infinitely distant source of light '.
> >>
> >> I have complained about this statement, because velocity v in respect to
> >> infinity is always zero.
> >
> > This is false. Think about it. And think what we've been telling you about
> > the meaning of infinitely far as a limit of arbitrary large distance.
> >
> >> It was therefor a VERY !!!! bad idea to make such a statement.
> >
> > No, it was a very standard idea.
> There have been large amounts of 'standard ideas', which turned out to
> be wrong:

Yes but the order of magnitude is important.

> 'Miasma' as cause of desease, for instance.

Yes but it's one thing to say "miasma causes diseases" and quite
another to say "2 + 2 = 5". They are not even comparable.

> It is therefore an exceptionally dangerous idea to justify believes by
> 'standard ideas'.

Therefore, you are wrong regarding plane waves.

> >> Also planes waves are not real world waves, but local approximations to
> >> spherical waves from distant sources.
> >
> > Yes.
> >
> >> That approximation is actually ok, but not in the context, which
> >> Einstein used.
> >
> > It's very appropriate (also standard).
> >
> >> The validity of this approximation would require, that the realm of
> >> observation is not moved around with considerable velocity (what
> >> Einstein actually wanted to do).
> >
> > No, completely incorrect.
> No!
>
> If you fly around in empty space with velocties near the speed of light,
> than the 'realm of validity of that approximation' would be left very soon.

No, it won't be. You need to think this through before posting.
Or hire a tutor first. Again, please try to understand that if something
appears wrong to you, it doesn't mean it's wrong.

> Therefore, relativistic effects require spherical waves and proper
> definition of the intended angles.

No, incorrect. You are missing the entire point of modelling, beginning
with ancient Greece.

> >>>>>> Also velocity in respect to infinitity is always zero, because
> >>>>>> inf- x= inf
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> for all x element of R.
> >>>
> >>> Nobody is using the source of the plane wave as the origin!
> >>> Einstein defines the origin he uses in S and S', and the math and
> >>> physics are just fine!
> >> Sorry, but I cannot follow your arguments.
> >>
> >> Waves have a source and that source was actually mentioned (see above)..
> >
> > The wave is given as a plane wave. Wave planes have no sources, they are
> > unphysical and they are limits of physical waves with sources at finite
> > distances. Physics and mathematics are full of models of that kind,
> > the principle;e of using such models goes back to ancient Greece.
> 'Planes waves have no sources' is another of these statements, which
> 'flatten' me.
> >> Now plane waves are really plane and extend infinitely sideways without
> >> any curvature.
> >>
> >> But such waves do not exist, because they are physically impossible.
> >
> > This is irrelevant in the context of the scientific method. What you demand
> > is some sort of Mediaeval Scholastics. It may have its domain of validity but
> > it's not science.
> Why not elves, if existence is irrelevant?

Same answer as using geometric concepts like lines and curves which
don't exist either. It's a method of acquiring knowledge that's very old.

--
Jan

On 3/1/23 2:27 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> [...]

Your fallacy is like the claim "there can be no square boards". Any
carpenter can cut a board so it is square, in the usual sense of
"square" in the context of carpentry. So within that context the claim
is wrong.

Similarly, your claim "there can be no plane waves" is wrong in the
context of physics.

The carpenter can cut a board to be square to within the accuracy and
precision of a carpenter's measuring tools. The physicist can consider
a wave with wavefronts that are planar to within the accuracy and
precision of a physicist's measuring tools.

Bottom line: context matters, and physics is not math.

Tom Roberts

On 25/2/23 00:39, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Den 23.02.2023 21:57, skrev Richard Hachel:
>> Le 23/02/2023 à 20:33, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :
Hello Paul. Nice to see you are still alive and just as deluded as ever.
You will be pleased to hear that I have now completed my great book
which summarizes the pros and cons of Einstein's theories and provides a
host of novel and relevant facts regarding their introduction and
acceptance.

Since you get a mention, I offer you first chance to read it on the
condition of course that you do not plagiarize any of my many
sensational discoveries.
You can read the introduction here:

http://www.ralfslab.net/books/IntroBit.pdf

The book will be for sale soon.

Am 01.03.2023 um 19:26 schrieb Tom Roberts:
> On 3/1/23 2:27 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>> [...]
>
> Your fallacy is like the claim "there can be no square boards". Any
> carpenter can cut a board so it is square, in the usual sense of
> "square" in the context of carpentry. So within that context the claim
> is wrong.
>
> Similarly, your claim "there can be no plane waves" is wrong in the
> context of physics.

Actually I have written, that plane waves would exist as approximations
of real world waves, were the source is far away and the realm of
observation is small in comparison to the distance of the source.

So far there is no problem at all.

But the question was, whether or not this approxination is possible in
the context of SRT.

I wrote, that this would not be the case, because SRT is about fast
movements mainly.

In this case a very large spherical wave, which was created by a very
distant emitter, would soon turn out to be curved, if you pace along
that sphere near the speed of light.

Not that the issue would matter too much.

But actually I was critizised for mentioning that.

Therefore, I was forced to insist, that the problem might be of minor
importance, but it was nevertheless an error in the text, which I could
rightfully critizise.

> The carpenter can cut a board to be square to within the accuracy and
> precision of a carpenter's measuring tools. The physicist can consider
> a wave with wavefronts that are planar to within the accuracy and
> precision of a physicist's measuring tools.
>
> Bottom line: context matters, and physics is not math.

Well yes.

But theoretical physics, like SRT, is an exception from this rule,
because theoretical physics rests mainly on math.

TH

Am 25.02.2023 um 12:32 schrieb JanPB:
> On Monday, February 20, 2023 at 9:30:10 PM UTC+1, Thomas Heger wrote:
>> Am 18.02.2023 um 11:52 schrieb JanPB:
>>> On Saturday, February 18, 2023 at 11:17:06 AM UTC+1, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>> Am 18.02.2023 um 10:48 schrieb JanPB:
>>>>> On Saturday, February 18, 2023 at 10:02:00 AM UTC+1, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>>>> Hi NG
>>>>>>
>>>>>> now I have finished my latest version after rewriting almost all
>>>>>> annotations from previous versions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The idea behind writing aannotations is this:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> take a certain text (here: 'On the electrodynamics of moving bodies' by
>>>>>> A. Einstein from 1905) and write annotations into it, similar to how a
>>>>>> professor writes annotations into the homework of a student.
>>>>>
>>>>> It only makes sense if it's truly a teacher-pupil relationship. In other words,
>>>>> it only makes sense if the person making the annotations understands
>>>>> the content.
>>>> This is actually true.
>>>>
>>>> Iow: you can only learn to swim by swimming.
>>>
>>> My point was that that's not what you are doing. What you are doing is
>>> like trying to learn playing piano by exclusively studying the fabric of
>>> the tuxedo (because piano players tend to wear tuxedo for recitals).
>> I wrote annotations into the English version of Einstein's text.
>>
>> That is something legal and my hobby.
>>
>> If you like to critizise my annotations, than feel free to do so.
>>
>> Simply take any of my comments, quote that and show, where my commentens
>> were wrong.
>
> I may do that for other readers. It most likely not work for you because
> it never does (you must know the basics before you can follow the
> explanations or refutations).
>
>> Anything else like telling me what I need to do and what I should read
>> or learn, that is not related to the subject.
>>
>> I surely apprecheate other comments, too, but mainly I'm interested in
>> comments about my annotations.
>
> There can be no comments made about your annotations because they
> are all not even wrong. Again, it's as if someone started seriously debating
> a music critic who focuses exclusively on the clothes the conductor wears.

You can do that and focus on the clothes, which someone wears.

But certainly you do not want to make this claim about my annotations to
Einstein's text.

My annotations do not cover the person Einstein at all, especially not
his clothes.

I could have mentioned a few odd habbits of Einstein, but actually
didn't (at least not in my annotations).

As I have written before, my annotations follow a certain perspective
and serve a specific purpose.

The perspective is that of a hypothetical physics professor, who had to
written corrections for the homework of a student (Einstein in this case).

The aim was not, to correct the errors in Einstein's text or critizise
Einstein himself.

The method used was actually a certain variant of what is called
'critical reading', which is actually a learning tool.

But finally I got a certain result, which I have presented here.

In case you don't like my result, you may eventually write a critique
about my annotations and show errors in them.

But you should stick to the subject which are my annotations and not my
clothes or me as a person.

TH

Am 28.02.2023 um 09:43 schrieb Sylvia Else:

>> This is the relativity forum of the Usenet and my critique would
>> certainly fit to the subject of this board.
>>
>
> How many times do you need to show that you have no understanding of
> what Einstein wrote?
>

My understanding of what Einstein wrote is written in my annotations.

In case you think that my annotations contain errors, you need to tell
me, which annotation you have in mind and what is wrong with it.

TH

On 03-Mar-23 6:47 pm, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 28.02.2023 um 09:43 schrieb Sylvia Else:
>
>>> This is the relativity forum of the Usenet and my critique would
>>> certainly fit to the subject of this board.
>>>
>>
>> How many times do you need to show that you have no understanding of
>> what Einstein wrote?
>>
>
>
> My understanding of what Einstein wrote is written in my annotations.
>
> In case you think that my annotations contain errors, you need to tell
> me, which annotation you have in mind and what is wrong with it.
>
>
> TH

Did that before. You didn't understand then, and I've no reason to think
that you will now.

Sylvia.

On Thursday, March 2, 2023 at 11:44:59 PM UTC-8, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 25.02.2023 um 12:32 schrieb JanPB:
> > On Monday, February 20, 2023 at 9:30:10 PM UTC+1, Thomas Heger wrote:
> >> Am 18.02.2023 um 11:52 schrieb JanPB:
> >>> On Saturday, February 18, 2023 at 11:17:06 AM UTC+1, Thomas Heger wrote:
> >>>> Am 18.02.2023 um 10:48 schrieb JanPB:
> >>>>> On Saturday, February 18, 2023 at 10:02:00 AM UTC+1, Thomas Heger wrote:
> >>>>>> Hi NG
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> now I have finished my latest version after rewriting almost all
> >>>>>> annotations from previous versions.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The idea behind writing aannotations is this:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> take a certain text (here: 'On the electrodynamics of moving bodies' by
> >>>>>> A. Einstein from 1905) and write annotations into it, similar to how a
> >>>>>> professor writes annotations into the homework of a student.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It only makes sense if it's truly a teacher-pupil relationship. In other words,
> >>>>> it only makes sense if the person making the annotations understands
> >>>>> the content.
> >>>> This is actually true.
> >>>>
> >>>> Iow: you can only learn to swim by swimming.
> >>>
> >>> My point was that that's not what you are doing. What you are doing is
> >>> like trying to learn playing piano by exclusively studying the fabric of
> >>> the tuxedo (because piano players tend to wear tuxedo for recitals).
> >> I wrote annotations into the English version of Einstein's text.
> >>
> >> That is something legal and my hobby.
> >>
> >> If you like to critizise my annotations, than feel free to do so.
> >>
> >> Simply take any of my comments, quote that and show, where my commentens
> >> were wrong.
> >
> > I may do that for other readers. It most likely not work for you because
> > it never does (you must know the basics before you can follow the
> > explanations or refutations).
> >
> >> Anything else like telling me what I need to do and what I should read
> >> or learn, that is not related to the subject.
> >>
> >> I surely apprecheate other comments, too, but mainly I'm interested in
> >> comments about my annotations.
> >
> > There can be no comments made about your annotations because they
> > are all not even wrong. Again, it's as if someone started seriously debating
> > a music critic who focuses exclusively on the clothes the conductor wears.
>
> You can do that and focus on the clothes, which someone wears.
>
> But certainly you do not want to make this claim about my annotations to
> Einstein's text.
>
> My annotations do not cover the person Einstein at all, especially not
> his clothes.

I know. Look up "simile".

--
Jan

On Thursday, March 2, 2023 at 11:47:58 PM UTC-8, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 28.02.2023 um 09:43 schrieb Sylvia Else:
>
> >> This is the relativity forum of the Usenet and my critique would
> >> certainly fit to the subject of this board.
> >>
> >
> > How many times do you need to show that you have no understanding of
> > what Einstein wrote?
> >
> My understanding of what Einstein wrote is written in my annotations.
>
> In case you think that my annotations contain errors, you need to tell
> me, which annotation you have in mind and what is wrong with it.

This has been done dozens of times already. You simply ignore
what people are telling you.

--
Jan

Am 03.03.2023 um 13:03 schrieb Sylvia Else:

>>> How many times do you need to show that you have no understanding of
>>> what Einstein wrote?
>>>
>>
>>
>> My understanding of what Einstein wrote is written in my annotations.
>>
>> In case you think that my annotations contain errors, you need to tell
>> me, which annotation you have in mind and what is wrong with it.
>>
>>
>> TH
>
> Did that before. You didn't understand then, and I've no reason to think
> that you will now.

Well, I have a certain approach to writing a text, which is based on
stepwise refinement.

This process isn't particularily fast, but can bring very good results.

Now I have rewritten my annotations several times and are therefore
confident, that almost all errors in it were eliminated.

A few errors are certainly still remaining in these annotations. That's
why I asked you to tell me, were you have found any flaws in them.

So, in case you like to do so, then please tell me, were you have found
something wrong in them.

TH

Am 03.03.2023 um 18:10 schrieb JanPB:
> On Thursday, March 2, 2023 at 11:47:58 PM UTC-8, Thomas Heger wrote:
>> Am 28.02.2023 um 09:43 schrieb Sylvia Else:
>>
>>>> This is the relativity forum of the Usenet and my critique would
>>>> certainly fit to the subject of this board.
>>>>
>>>
>>> How many times do you need to show that you have no understanding of
>>> what Einstein wrote?
>>>
>> My understanding of what Einstein wrote is written in my annotations.
>>
>> In case you think that my annotations contain errors, you need to tell
>> me, which annotation you have in mind and what is wrong with it.
>
> This has been done dozens of times already. You simply ignore
> what people are telling you.

No, that's wrong.

I have discussed a great number of topics in this forum in great detail.

From these discussion I took as hints, what ever was possible.

Such hints went into my annotations, hence I had to rewrite them (what I
did).

This is a certain method of writing, which I frequently use. It is based
on the idea that you start with a rough sketch and make this better in a
large number of steps.

Therefore I assume, that my annotations get better over time.

Now I'm (almost) certain, that only a few annotations could be attacked
succesfully.

A little polish would be nice, nevertheless, hence I would like to
discuss them.

But apparently you are unwilling to do so, possibly because you haven't
found an error yet.

TH

On 05-Mar-23 5:59 pm, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 03.03.2023 um 13:03 schrieb Sylvia Else:
>
>>>> How many times do you need to show that you have no understanding of
>>>> what Einstein wrote?
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> My understanding of what Einstein wrote is written in my annotations.
>>>
>>> In case you think that my annotations contain errors, you need to tell
>>> me, which annotation you have in mind and what is wrong with it.
>>>
>>>
>>> TH
>>
>> Did that before. You didn't understand then, and I've no reason to think
>> that you will now.
>
> Well, I have a certain approach to writing a text, which is based on
> stepwise refinement.

You mean writing nonsense, and getting other people to correct it for you.

Sylvia.

On Saturday, March 4, 2023 at 11:05:03 PM UTC-8, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 03.03.2023 um 18:10 schrieb JanPB:
> > On Thursday, March 2, 2023 at 11:47:58 PM UTC-8, Thomas Heger wrote:
> >> Am 28.02.2023 um 09:43 schrieb Sylvia Else:
> >>
> >>>> This is the relativity forum of the Usenet and my critique would
> >>>> certainly fit to the subject of this board.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> How many times do you need to show that you have no understanding of
> >>> what Einstein wrote?
> >>>
> >> My understanding of what Einstein wrote is written in my annotations.
> >>
> >> In case you think that my annotations contain errors, you need to tell
> >> me, which annotation you have in mind and what is wrong with it.
> >
> > This has been done dozens of times already. You simply ignore
> > what people are telling you.
> No, that's wrong.
>
> I have discussed a great number of topics in this forum in great detail.
>
> From these discussion I took as hints, what ever was possible.
>
> Such hints went into my annotations, hence I had to rewrite them (what I
> did).

You still don't understand what people are telling you: all of your
annotations are either incorrect or at best correct but trivial and useless,
and should be removed, with the entire project scrapped. Its continued
existence only creates the fractally self-perpetuating and self-similar
mythological patterns of confusion. To use a musical analogy again,
you are like a piano student who, through some perverse sequence of events,
was misled into learning by studying the quirks and ages-old conventions
of sheet music engraving. Your annotations are like: "It's sloppy to have
the stem of the flat sign printed with a non-uniform width, therefore Beethoven
was being sloppy", etc. (Yes, the nonuniform width of those stems
are intentional. It's just like the Greek columns: they are not
perfectly conical because of the way optical illusions work: the
columns (and the flat signs) would look ugly if they were mathematically
completely correct. For the same reason the Parthenon columns are
not 100% parallel.)

> This is a certain method of writing, which I frequently use. It is based
> on the idea that you start with a rough sketch and make this better in a
> large number of steps.

Sure, it's a very good approach.

> Therefore I assume, that my annotations get better over time.

No, because you don't have even a rough sketch here. You have,
instead, a fantasy with practically zero content. It's best
abandoned completely. It only serves to mislead you into
thinking you have something worth continuing or improving.

Sometimes a project is best abandoned rather than attempted to
be improved upon ad infinitum.

> But apparently you are unwilling to do so, possibly because you haven't
> found an error yet.

Practically all of your annotations are errors. You simply refuse
to accept this fact. I can understand that, it's not a nice feeling
to be told that all the time spent on them was a waste. But maybe
not 100%: if you are going to be honest with yourself, it could be
a good experience which would proof you against similar
useless exercises in self-deception in the future.

Please understand: generations of scientists that have been
working around the planet, across all continents and cultures
over the centuries were/are REALLY not stupid.

--
Jan

On 2023-02-18 09:01:56 +0000, Thomas Heger said:

> Hi NG
>
> now I have finished my latest version after rewriting almost all
> annotations from previous versions.
>
> The idea behind writing aannotations is this:
>
> take a certain text (here: 'On the electrodynamics of moving bodies' by
> A. Einstein from 1905) and write annotations into it, similar to how a
> professor writes annotations into the homework of a student.
>
> It was actually meant as a learning tool and aimed to find ALL errors
> in a text and to write into the annotations, why that is an error.
>
> I wrote more than 400 annotations and most of them aare bout errors in
> Einstein's text.
>
> The errors stem from a great varfiety of topics, like:
>
> formal errors
> missing quotes
> unclear formulations
> wrong or reused variables
> illogic resoning
> wrong math
> and so forth...
>
> Many of my arguments were discussed in this forum extensively. Then I
> had, if possible, taken hints and corrections by members of this board
> and integrated them into this version, too.
>
> A different class of improvements of this lates version came from my
> attempt to identify the possibly sources, which Einstein had used (but
> not quoted).
>
> As I speak, of course, German, I could read the works of Heinrich Hertz
> und could identify possible sources.
>
> French is not that possible, but I can understand a little. So,
> Poincare's 'Sur le dynamic de la electron' was another possible source.

To be taken seriously you need to find out what Poincaré's publication
was called. Three errors in six words is too many, if you want to be
more than a joke.
>
> (Dutch is impossible for me, hence I had to leave Hendrik Lorentz away.)

Why is it impossible? If you know German and English you should be able
to make some sense of it. I don't speak Portuguese, but if there was an
important paper in Portuguese I needed to read I could manage to get
most of the sense (with the help of Spanish).
>
> Also language, spelling and formats were improved in this version
> (besides of rethinking and checking the annotations themselves).
>
>
> So, here comes my latest annotated version of SRT:
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1D2m4RV7StviWik2JiB1_Huk_7PR5Sxvi/view?usp=sharing
>
>
> You need to download the pdf-file, because this is stored as google doc
> and google will not show the annotations online.
>
>
> Hope you like it...
>
> TH

--
athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots

Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 2023-02-18 09:01:56 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
>
> > Hi NG
> >
> > now I have finished my latest version after rewriting almost all
> > annotations from previous versions.
> >
> > The idea behind writing aannotations is this:
> >
> > take a certain text (here: 'On the electrodynamics of moving bodies' by
> > A. Einstein from 1905) and write annotations into it, similar to how a
> > professor writes annotations into the homework of a student.
> >
> > It was actually meant as a learning tool and aimed to find ALL errors
> > in a text and to write into the annotations, why that is an error.
> >
> > I wrote more than 400 annotations and most of them aare bout errors in
> > Einstein's text.
> >
> > The errors stem from a great varfiety of topics, like:
> >
> > formal errors
> > missing quotes
> > unclear formulations
> > wrong or reused variables
> > illogic resoning
> > wrong math
> > and so forth...
> >
> > Many of my arguments were discussed in this forum extensively. Then I
> > had, if possible, taken hints and corrections by members of this board
> > and integrated them into this version, too.
> >
> > A different class of improvements of this lates version came from my
> > attempt to identify the possibly sources, which Einstein had used (but
> > not quoted).
> >
> > As I speak, of course, German, I could read the works of Heinrich Hertz
> > und could identify possible sources.
> >
> > French is not that possible, but I can understand a little. So,
> > Poincare's 'Sur le dynamic de la electron' was another possible source.
>
> To be taken seriously you need to find out what Poincaré's publication
> was called. Three errors in six words is too many, if you want to be
> more than a joke.
> >
> > (Dutch is impossible for me, hence I had to leave Hendrik Lorentz away.)
>
> Why is it impossible? If you know German and English you should be able
> to make some sense of it. I don't speak Portuguese, but if there was an
> important paper in Portuguese I needed to read I could manage to get
> most of the sense (with the help of Spanish).

Yes, and there is historic precedent for that.
It is known that Maxwell learned some Dutch
because there was a paper by Van der Waals
that he wanted to understand,

Jan

Am 05.03.2023 um 08:49 schrieb Sylvia Else:
> On 05-Mar-23 5:59 pm, Thomas Heger wrote:
>> Am 03.03.2023 um 13:03 schrieb Sylvia Else:
>>
>>>>> How many times do you need to show that you have no understanding of
>>>>> what Einstein wrote?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> My understanding of what Einstein wrote is written in my annotations.
>>>>
>>>> In case you think that my annotations contain errors, you need to tell
>>>> me, which annotation you have in mind and what is wrong with it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> TH
>>>
>>> Did that before. You didn't understand then, and I've no reason to think
>>> that you will now.
>>
>> Well, I have a certain approach to writing a text, which is based on
>> stepwise refinement.
>
> You mean writing nonsense, and getting other people to correct it for you.

I have written my annotations entirely myself.

I had actually the impression, that you think my annotations contain
errors. In that case it would be nice, if you tell me, where you have
found something wrong.

TH

Am 05.03.2023 um 19:28 schrieb JanPB:

>>>>>
>>>>> How many times do you need to show that you have no understanding of
>>>>> what Einstein wrote?
>>>>>
>>>> My understanding of what Einstein wrote is written in my annotations.
>>>>
>>>> In case you think that my annotations contain errors, you need to tell
>>>> me, which annotation you have in mind and what is wrong with it.
>>>
>>> This has been done dozens of times already. You simply ignore
>>> what people are telling you.
>> No, that's wrong.
>>
>> I have discussed a great number of topics in this forum in great detail.
>>
>> From these discussion I took as hints, what ever was possible.
>>
>> Such hints went into my annotations, hence I had to rewrite them (what I
>> did).
>
> You still don't understand what people are telling you: all of your
> annotations are either incorrect or at best correct but trivial and useless,
> and should be removed, with the entire project scrapped. Its continued
> existence only creates the fractally self-perpetuating and self-similar
> mythological patterns of confusion.

'Useless' is not a scientific criterion, because many scientific
discoveries do not serve any obvious purpose.

I wrote my annotations as kind of hobby. And hobbies do not serve any
obvious purpose, neither.

Su, well, yes, my annotations are seemingly useless.

But I could live with 'uselessness', because 'useful' was not really my aim.

These annotations stem from a dispute with a guy named 'Dono' and should
be counted as reply.

The specific form is something that I frequently use as a learning aid.

But in case you like to disprove the content of any of my annotations,
than feel free to do so.

....

TH

Am 05.03.2023 um 22:02 schrieb J. J. Lodder:
> Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2023-02-18 09:01:56 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
>>
>>> Hi NG
>>>
>>> now I have finished my latest version after rewriting almost all
>>> annotations from previous versions.
>>>
>>> The idea behind writing aannotations is this:
>>>
>>> take a certain text (here: 'On the electrodynamics of moving bodies' by
>>> A. Einstein from 1905) and write annotations into it, similar to how a
>>> professor writes annotations into the homework of a student.
>>>
>>> It was actually meant as a learning tool and aimed to find ALL errors
>>> in a text and to write into the annotations, why that is an error.
>>>
>>> I wrote more than 400 annotations and most of them aare bout errors in
>>> Einstein's text.
>>>
>>> The errors stem from a great varfiety of topics, like:
>>>
>>> formal errors
>>> missing quotes
>>> unclear formulations
>>> wrong or reused variables
>>> illogic resoning
>>> wrong math
>>> and so forth...
>>>
>>> Many of my arguments were discussed in this forum extensively. Then I
>>> had, if possible, taken hints and corrections by members of this board
>>> and integrated them into this version, too.
>>>
>>> A different class of improvements of this lates version came from my
>>> attempt to identify the possibly sources, which Einstein had used (but
>>> not quoted).
>>>
>>> As I speak, of course, German, I could read the works of Heinrich Hertz
>>> und could identify possible sources.
>>>
>>> French is not that possible, but I can understand a little. So,
>>> Poincare's 'Sur le dynamic de la electron' was another possible source.
>>
>> To be taken seriously you need to find out what Poincaré's publication
>> was called. Three errors in six words is too many, if you want to be
>> more than a joke.

Sorry, but I have never claimed to speak French.

I understand a little, but correct spelling is beyond my abilities.

>>> (Dutch is impossible for me, hence I had to leave Hendrik Lorentz away.)
>>
>> Why is it impossible? If you know German and English you should be able
>> to make some sense of it. ...

Possibly. But why should I?
> Yes, and there is historic precedent for that.
> It is known that Maxwell learned some Dutch
> because there was a paper by Van der Waals
> that he wanted to understand,

Poincare was actually translated into German and English, but very
difficult to understand and not really my topic.

Therefore I only mentioned the text of Poincare about the electron,
which I have 'read' in French.

I was actually interested in the question, whether or not there are
similarities between Einstein's text and that of Poincaré.

And there are some similarities.

This is astonishing, because the text of Poincare was published a few
days after Einstein handed in his paper.

Missing quotes and references was critizised by me, too.

But the name 'Poincaré' was missing entirely in Einstein's text, even if
Poincare's text is seemingly related.

Lorentz is also translated into German. But to read his works was still
beyond my temporal limits.

The original Dutch is not really an option for me, because I hardly
understand a word in that language.

TH

On 3/6/2023 2:26 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 05.03.2023 um 08:49 schrieb Sylvia Else:
>> On 05-Mar-23 5:59 pm, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>> Am 03.03.2023 um 13:03 schrieb Sylvia Else:
>>>
>>>>>> How many times do you need to show that you have no understanding of
>>>>>> what Einstein wrote?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> My understanding of what Einstein wrote is written in my annotations.
>>>>>
>>>>> In case you think that my annotations contain errors, you need to tell
>>>>> me, which annotation you have in mind and what is wrong with it.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> TH
>>>>
>>>> Did that before. You didn't understand then, and I've no reason to
>>>> think
>>>> that you will now.
>>>
>>> Well, I have a certain approach to writing a text, which is based on
>>> stepwise refinement.
>>
>> You mean writing nonsense, and getting other people to correct it for
>> you.
>
> I have written my annotations entirely myself.
>
> I had actually the impression, that you think my annotations contain
> errors. In that case it would be nice, if you tell me, where you have
> found something wrong.

You have been repeatedly told where your annotations are wrong or at
best irrelevant. You ignore that and come back with "I wish someone
would tell me where errors were found in my annotations".

On Monday, 6 March 2023 at 09:16:21 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
> On 3/6/2023 2:26 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> > Am 05.03.2023 um 08:49 schrieb Sylvia Else:
> >> On 05-Mar-23 5:59 pm, Thomas Heger wrote:
> >>> Am 03.03.2023 um 13:03 schrieb Sylvia Else:
> >>>
> >>>>>> How many times do you need to show that you have no understanding of
> >>>>>> what Einstein wrote?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> My understanding of what Einstein wrote is written in my annotations.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> In case you think that my annotations contain errors, you need to tell
> >>>>> me, which annotation you have in mind and what is wrong with it.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> TH
> >>>>
> >>>> Did that before. You didn't understand then, and I've no reason to
> >>>> think
> >>>> that you will now.
> >>>
> >>> Well, I have a certain approach to writing a text, which is based on
> >>> stepwise refinement.
> >>
> >> You mean writing nonsense, and getting other people to correct it for
> >> you.
> >
> > I have written my annotations entirely myself.
> >
> > I had actually the impression, that you think my annotations contain
> > errors. In that case it would be nice, if you tell me, where you have
> > found something wrong.
> You have been repeatedly told where your annotations are wrong

And adjusting the clocks to your ISO idiocy is
some "Newton mode".

Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:

> Am 05.03.2023 um 22:02 schrieb J. J. Lodder:
> > Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 2023-02-18 09:01:56 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
> >>
> >>> Hi NG
> >>>
> >>> now I have finished my latest version after rewriting almost all
> >>> annotations from previous versions.
> >>>
> >>> The idea behind writing aannotations is this:
> >>>
> >>> take a certain text (here: 'On the electrodynamics of moving bodies' by
> >>> A. Einstein from 1905) and write annotations into it, similar to how a
> >>> professor writes annotations into the homework of a student.
> >>>
> >>> It was actually meant as a learning tool and aimed to find ALL errors
> >>> in a text and to write into the annotations, why that is an error.
> >>>
> >>> I wrote more than 400 annotations and most of them aare bout errors in
> >>> Einstein's text.
> >>>
> >>> The errors stem from a great varfiety of topics, like:
> >>>
> >>> formal errors
> >>> missing quotes
> >>> unclear formulations
> >>> wrong or reused variables
> >>> illogic resoning
> >>> wrong math
> >>> and so forth...
> >>>
> >>> Many of my arguments were discussed in this forum extensively. Then I
> >>> had, if possible, taken hints and corrections by members of this board
> >>> and integrated them into this version, too.
> >>>
> >>> A different class of improvements of this lates version came from my
> >>> attempt to identify the possibly sources, which Einstein had used (but
> >>> not quoted).
> >>>
> >>> As I speak, of course, German, I could read the works of Heinrich Hertz
> >>> und could identify possible sources.
> >>>
> >>> French is not that possible, but I can understand a little. So,
> >>> Poincare's 'Sur le dynamic de la electron' was another possible source.
> >>
> >> To be taken seriously you need to find out what Poincaré's publication
> >> was called. Three errors in six words is too many, if you want to be
> >> more than a joke.
>
> Sorry, but I have never claimed to speak French.
>
> I understand a little, but correct spelling is beyond my abilities.
>
> >>> (Dutch is impossible for me, hence I had to leave Hendrik Lorentz away.)
> >>
> >> Why is it impossible? If you know German and English you should be able
> >> to make some sense of it. ...
>
> Possibly. But why should I?
> > Yes, and there is historic precedent for that.
> > It is known that Maxwell learned some Dutch
> > because there was a paper by Van der Waals
> > that he wanted to understand,
>
> Poincare was actually translated into German and English, but very
> difficult to understand and not really my topic.
>
> Therefore I only mentioned the text of Poincare about the electron,
> which I have 'read' in French.
>
> I was actually interested in the question, whether or not there are
> similarities between Einstein's text and that of Poincaré.
>
> And there are some similarities.
>
> This is astonishing, because the text of Poincare was published a few
> days after Einstein handed in his paper.
>
> Missing quotes and references was critizised by me, too.
>
> But the name 'Poincaré' was missing entirely in Einstein's text, even if
> Poincare's text is seemingly related.
>
> Lorentz is also translated into German. But to read his works was still
> beyond my temporal limits.
>
> The original Dutch is not really an option for me, because I hardly
> understand a word in that language.

You obviously haven't even bothered to look for it.
Most of Lorentz' original work was published in German,
much less of it in English, very little in French.

Go find a better excuse for your ignorance,

Jan

(Sorry, but you'll all need to work out who said what. The server
thought my original version was in HTML. I can't imagine why it thought
that.)

On 2023-03-06 07:47:56 +0000, Thomas Heger said:

Am 05.03.2023 um 22:02 schrieb J. J. Lodder:
Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> wrote:

On 2023-02-18 09:01:56 +0000, Thomas Heger said:

Hi NG

now I have finished my latest version after rewriting almost all
annotations from previous versions.

The idea behind writing aannotations is this:

take a certain text (here: 'On the electrodynamics of moving bodies' by
A. Einstein from 1905) and write annotations into it, similar to how a
professor writes annotations into the homework of a student.

It was actually meant as a learning tool and aimed to find ALL errors
in a text and to write into the annotations, why that is an error.

I wrote more than 400 annotations and most of them aare bout errors in
Einstein's text.

The errors stem from a great varfiety of topics, like:

formal errors
missing quotes
unclear formulations
wrong or reused variables
illogic resoning
wrong math
and so forth...

Many of my arguments were discussed in this forum extensively. Then I
had, if possible, taken hints and corrections by members of this board
and integrated them into this version, too.

A different class of improvements of this lates version came from my
attempt to identify the possibly sources, which Einstein had used (but
not quoted).

As I speak, of course, German, I could read the works of Heinrich Hertz
und could identify possible sources.

French is not that possible, but I can understand a little. So,
Poincare's 'Sur le dynamic de la electron' was another possible source.

To be taken seriously you need to find out what Poincaré's publication
was called. Three errors in six words is too many, if you want to be
more than a joke.

Sorry, but I have never claimed to speak French.

I understand a little, but correct spelling is beyond my abilities.

Copying and pasting doesn't require expertise in spelling.

(Dutch is impossible for me, hence I had to leave Hendrik Lorentz away.)

Why is it impossible? If you know German and English you should be able
to make some sense of it. ...

Possibly. But why should I?

Because you yourself said that you "*had* to leave Hendrik Lorentz
away" (my emphasis.

--
athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots

On Monday, March 6, 2023 at 8:34:57 AM UTC+1, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 05.03.2023 um 19:28 schrieb JanPB:
>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> How many times do you need to show that you have no understanding of
> >>>>> what Einstein wrote?
> >>>>>
> >>>> My understanding of what Einstein wrote is written in my annotations..
> >>>>
> >>>> In case you think that my annotations contain errors, you need to tell
> >>>> me, which annotation you have in mind and what is wrong with it.
> >>>
> >>> This has been done dozens of times already. You simply ignore
> >>> what people are telling you.
> >> No, that's wrong.
> >>
> >> I have discussed a great number of topics in this forum in great detail.
> >>
> >> From these discussion I took as hints, what ever was possible.
> >>
> >> Such hints went into my annotations, hence I had to rewrite them (what I
> >> did).
> >
> > You still don't understand what people are telling you: all of your
> > annotations are either incorrect or at best correct but trivial and useless,
> > and should be removed, with the entire project scrapped. Its continued
> > existence only creates the fractally self-perpetuating and self-similar
> > mythological patterns of confusion.
>
> 'Useless' is not a scientific criterion, because many scientific
> discoveries do not serve any obvious purpose.

Isn't it obvious what I mean? "Obvious" in the sense your work on those
notes does not teach you anything.

> I wrote my annotations as kind of hobby. And hobbies do not serve any
> obvious purpose, neither.
>
> Su, well, yes, my annotations are seemingly useless.
>
> But I could live with 'uselessness', because 'useful' was not really my aim.
>
> These annotations stem from a dispute with a guy named 'Dono' and should
> be counted as reply.
>
> The specific form is something that I frequently use as a learning aid.

It isn't. My point is that it's an excellent deception generator.

> But in case you like to disprove the content of any of my annotations,
> than feel free to do so.

This cannot be done, as was explained many times on this NG: the problem
is that in order for someone (like you) to understand our disproofs, you need
to know a bit about the subject matter in the first place. But if things like
plane waves are a problem, then there is really nothing anyone can do for you
unless you start studying physics from the beginning.

--
Jan