On 3/6/2023 3:42 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Monday, 6 March 2023 at 09:16:21 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
>> On 3/6/2023 2:26 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:

>>> 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".

Once again, not even wrong.

On Monday, 6 March 2023 at 18:35:37 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
> On 3/6/2023 3:42 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > On Monday, 6 March 2023 at 09:16:21 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
> >> On 3/6/2023 2:26 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>
> >>> 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".
> Once again, not even wrong.

Wrong, stupid Mike. Just wrong. And - absolutely
- yours. Or did you learn, maybe?

On 3/6/2023 1:57 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Monday, 6 March 2023 at 18:35:37 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
>> On 3/6/2023 3:42 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>> On Monday, 6 March 2023 at 09:16:21 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
>>>> On 3/6/2023 2:26 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>
>>>>> 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".

>> Once again, not even wrong.
>
> Wrong, stupid Mike. Just wrong.

Janitor, you're "not even wrong". See Wolfgang Pauli. He was quoted as
saying "That is not only not right; it is not even wrong". Which
describes your statement perfectly.

Am 06.03.2023 um 09:16 schrieb Volney:

>>> 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".
>

And I have repeatedly asked, what's wrong with them.

'Irrelevant' is ok, but not really an argument, because relevance is as
irrelevant as usefulness, if you don't say, in respect to what that is
irrelevant.

If you refuse to say, where you have found an error, this is equivalent
to say, that you have found no error.

That's ok for me, too.

TH

On Tuesday, 7 March 2023 at 06:20:45 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
> On 3/6/2023 1:57 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > On Monday, 6 March 2023 at 18:35:37 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
> >> On 3/6/2023 3:42 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >>> On Monday, 6 March 2023 at 09:16:21 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
> >>>> On 3/6/2023 2:26 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> >>
> >>>>> 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".
>
> >> Once again, not even wrong.
> >
> > Wrong, stupid Mike. Just wrong.
> Janitor, you're "not even wrong".

But you absolutely are wrong. You believe
that adjusting clocks to your ISO idiocy
means some "Newton mode". An amazing
idiocy, even considering usual level
of relativistic halfbrains.

Am 06.03.2023 um 18:32 schrieb JanPB:
> 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.
>

Since I can almost sing Einstein's text now and have analysed it in
great length an detail, you can hardly bring me into trouble, if you
write anything about it.

But most people want to discuss the methaphysical content of Einstein's
text and defend it by references to experiments and other texts.

But that was NOT my topic.

So, I don't want to discuss relativity per se, but whether or not
Einstein's text contains errors.

Such errors are of a different kind and cover also formal subjects like
an appropriate naming system or the form of internal references.

Therefore, I discuss the valitity of derivations and not the validity of
the results.

This is so, because valid results can also be drived by wrong methods,
what makes a text wrong, even if the result is correct.

In case you like to disprove any of my statements, you at least need to
tell me, which statement you have in mind.

TH

Am 06.03.2023 um 10:57 schrieb J. J. Lodder:

>>>>> 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,

I don't need an excuse, because Lorentz wasn't my topic.

I should certainly read something of Lorentz, but this was simply not a
part of my subject.

Sure, there is always something nice and useful. But somehow time is
limitted and you need to cut off things somewhere. Unfortunately Lorentz
fell under this restriction.

But I have also no obligation to read anything of Hendrik Lorentz, but
could, if I like and haved time.

TH

Am 06.03.2023 um 13:05 schrieb Athel Cornish-Bowden:

> (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.
>

I can't understand Dutch, hence cannot read the works of Lorentz in
Dutch language.

I can obtain translations, of course, but usually prefer original works.

So, well, yes, Hendrik Lorentz' works fell beyond the limits of my efforts.

Sorry, but that is how it is: you alway miss something.

IOW: it is simply impossible to read all relevant literatur about a topic.

The reason: any single topic is discussed thousands of times and you
simply have not the time to read them all.

Especially SRT is a topic, which is discussed way to often to read all
contributions to that topic in a single lifetime.

TH

On 3/7/2023 3:10 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 06.03.2023 um 09:16 schrieb Volney:
>
>>>> 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".
>>
>
> And I have repeatedly asked, what's wrong with them.

And we repeatedly told you what is wrong with them.
>
> 'Irrelevant' is ok, but not really an argument, because relevance is as
> irrelevant as usefulness, if you don't say, in respect to what that is
> irrelevant.
>
> If you refuse to say, where you have found an error, this is equivalent
> to say, that you have found no error.

Again we *have* told you what the error is, and you ignore us. You
pretend there are no errors and leave the erroneous annotations in.

Since you ignore us, we can only assume you aren't interested in any
corrections so this is just masturbation for you.

Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:

> Am 06.03.2023 um 13:05 schrieb Athel Cornish-Bowden:
>
> > (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.
> >
>
>
>
> I can't understand Dutch, hence cannot read the works of Lorentz in
> Dutch language.
>
> I can obtain translations, of course, but usually prefer original works.
>
> So, well, yes, Hendrik Lorentz' works fell beyond the limits of my efforts.
>
> Sorry, but that is how it is: you alway miss something.

Yes, you have fallen through.
Why not admit you never even looked it up?

FYI, Lorentz seminal works were published in German originally,
less so in French, a few in English,
and English translations exist. Dutch doesn't come into it,

Jan

On Tuesday, March 7, 2023 at 9:11:01 AM UTC+1, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 06.03.2023 um 09:16 schrieb Volney:
>
> >>> 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".
> >
> And I have repeatedly asked, what's wrong with them.

You were told in detail.

> 'Irrelevant' is ok, but not really an argument,

It's one of the arguments, it addresses one type of error you make.

> because relevance is as
> irrelevant as usefulness, if you don't say, in respect to what that is
> irrelevant.

Many of them are irrelevant. How else one can say that?

> If you refuse to say, where you have found an error,

Nobody is "refusing" except you. Specific technical errors were
pointed out many times, you simply ignore them and keep
asking the same question as if nothing happened.

> this is equivalent
> to say, that you have found no error.

Your notes are literally only errors or at best irrelevancies.
Nothing else.

--
Jan

On Tuesday, March 7, 2023 at 12:25:04 AM UTC-8, Thomas Heger wrote:

> So, I don't want to discuss relativity per se, but whether or not
> Einstein's text contains errors.

It doesn't . But this will not dissuade you from your idee fixe

Am 07.03.2023 um 17:15 schrieb JanPB:
> On Tuesday, March 7, 2023 at 9:11:01 AM UTC+1, Thomas Heger wrote:
>> Am 06.03.2023 um 09:16 schrieb Volney:
>>
>>>>> 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".
>>>
>> And I have repeatedly asked, what's wrong with them.
>
> You were told in detail.

Sure.

That's why I have rewitten almost all of my annotations.

So, you should refer to errors in my LATEST version, which can be found
here:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1D2m4RV7StviWik2JiB1_Huk_7PR5Sxvi/view?usp=sharing

....

TH

Am 07.03.2023 um 11:42 schrieb J. J. Lodder:
> Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
>
>> Am 06.03.2023 um 13:05 schrieb Athel Cornish-Bowden:
>>
>>> (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.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> I can't understand Dutch, hence cannot read the works of Lorentz in
>> Dutch language.
>>
>> I can obtain translations, of course, but usually prefer original works.
>>
>> So, well, yes, Hendrik Lorentz' works fell beyond the limits of my efforts.
>>
>> Sorry, but that is how it is: you alway miss something.
>
> Yes, you have fallen through.
> Why not admit you never even looked it up?
>
> FYI, Lorentz seminal works were published in German originally,
> less so in French, a few in English,
> and English translations exist. Dutch doesn't come into it,

I have actually no idea what you are trying to tell me.

I have not read anything written by Lorentz, because that was not my
topic (which was 'On the electrodynamics of moving bodies' by A. Einstein).

Sure, I could read Lorentz in case I want to do so, but are in no way
obliged to do that, because the ideas of Hendrik Lorentz did not belong
to my topic.

TH

On 3/9/2023 4:06 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 07.03.2023 um 17:15 schrieb JanPB:
>> On Tuesday, March 7, 2023 at 9:11:01 AM UTC+1, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>> Am 06.03.2023 um 09:16 schrieb Volney:
>>>
>>>>>> 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".
>>>>
>>> And I have repeatedly asked, what's wrong with them.
>>
>> You were told in detail.
>
>
> Sure.
>
> That's why I have rewitten almost all of my annotations.
>
> So, you should refer to errors in my LATEST version, which can be found
> here:

Did you actually remove all the "annotations" which you were told were
your misunderstandings, irrelevant or simply nonsense? In other words,
is there a decrease in count of about 20?

On 3/7/2023 3:23 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:

> Since I can almost sing Einstein's text now

You may be able to sing it, but can you understand it?

(many singers sing in a language they don't understand in performances)

On Thursday, 9 March 2023 at 16:37:32 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
> On 3/9/2023 4:06 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> > Am 07.03.2023 um 17:15 schrieb JanPB:
> >> On Tuesday, March 7, 2023 at 9:11:01 AM UTC+1, Thomas Heger wrote:
> >>> Am 06.03.2023 um 09:16 schrieb Volney:
> >>>
> >>>>>> 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".
> >>>>
> >>> And I have repeatedly asked, what's wrong with them.
> >>
> >> You were told in detail.
> >
> >
> > Sure.
> >
> > That's why I have rewitten almost all of my annotations.
> >
> > So, you should refer to errors in my LATEST version, which can be found
> > here:
> Did you actually remove all the "annotations" which you were told were

You were told many times, stupid Mike, that
adjusting clocks to your ISO idiocy isn't
any Newton mode. An effect? No.

On Thursday, March 9, 2023 at 1:06:35 AM UTC-8, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 07.03.2023 um 17:15 schrieb JanPB:
> > On Tuesday, March 7, 2023 at 9:11:01 AM UTC+1, Thomas Heger wrote:
> >> Am 06.03.2023 um 09:16 schrieb Volney:
> >>
> >>>>> 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".
> >>>
> >> And I have repeatedly asked, what's wrong with them.
> >
> > You were told in detail.
> Sure.
>
> That's why I have rewitten almost all of my annotations.

Had you understood those comments, you'd have removed all
of your annotations and abandoned the project entirely. The point
is they cannot be "fixed" or "rewritten".

> So, you should refer to errors in my LATEST version, which can be found
> here:

No, it won't work because you don't understand the problem. You'll
just keep rewriting and deluding yourself in a typical
"fractally wrong" way. It will never end until you wake up.

--
Jan

Am 09.03.2023 um 16:37 schrieb Volney:
> On 3/9/2023 4:06 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>> Am 07.03.2023 um 17:15 schrieb JanPB:
>>> On Tuesday, March 7, 2023 at 9:11:01 AM UTC+1, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>> Am 06.03.2023 um 09:16 schrieb Volney:
>>>>
>>>>>>> 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".
>>>>>
>>>> And I have repeatedly asked, what's wrong with them.
>>>
>>> You were told in detail.
>>
>>
>> Sure.
>>
>> That's why I have rewitten almost all of my annotations.
>>
>> So, you should refer to errors in my LATEST version, which can be
>> found here:
>
> Did you actually remove all the "annotations" which you were told were
> your misunderstandings, irrelevant or simply nonsense? In other words,
> is there a decrease in count of about 20?
>

I have removed some and written new ones. The amount remained roughly
the same (about 420).

Since many of my annotation cover more than one error, the text of
Einstein contains a spectacular amount of flaws.

It is so large, that almost as much of the text was marked as error as
was not.

I have speculated, how this could have happened and who was responsible.

I would exclude the possibility, that Planck did not recognize these
errors.

So, he could have published this article as a result of some kind of
advice or order by third parties.

Actually I had also doubts, that the article was written by Einstein
himself.

Among several reasons was, that the text may be full of errors, but is
by no means an easy piece. And Einstein was young, worked six days a
week and ten hours each and had a young family at home.

And it would hinder thinking about length contraction and relativity of
time very efficiently, if the wife complains and the baby cries, while
the kitchen table, where had to write after a long workday, is dimmly
lit by a candle.

TH

On 3/10/2023 2:36 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 09.03.2023 um 16:37 schrieb Volney:
>> On 3/9/2023 4:06 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>> Am 07.03.2023 um 17:15 schrieb JanPB:
>>>> On Tuesday, March 7, 2023 at 9:11:01 AM UTC+1, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>>> Am 06.03.2023 um 09:16 schrieb Volney:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 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".
>>>>>>
>>>>> And I have repeatedly asked, what's wrong with them.
>>>>
>>>> You were told in detail.
>>>
>>>
>>> Sure.
>>>
>>> That's why I have rewitten almost all of my annotations.
>>>
>>> So, you should refer to errors in my LATEST version, which can be
>>> found here:
>>
>> Did you actually remove all the "annotations" which you were told were
>> your misunderstandings, irrelevant or simply nonsense? In other words,
>> is there a decrease in count of about 20?
>>
>
> I have removed some and written new ones.

So you shuffled around and rearranged things? You learned nothing from
your mistakes? You should have gone through them all and removed the
"annotations" where you made a similar mistake.

> The amount remained roughly
> the same (about 420).
>
> Since many of my annotation cover more than one error, the text of
> Einstein contains a spectacular amount of flaws.

There are no "spectacular number of flaws". In the rather unlikely event
you actually found one or two flaws, they'll be lost in the noise of
your own misunderstandings, anachronisms and nonsense.
>
> It is so large, that almost as much of the text was marked as error as
> was not.

That should tell you that your "errors" in a paper considered as a
landmark paper are bogus. Being such a breakthrough, this paper has been
analyzed under a microscope by scientists and nothing wrong has been
found. There's simply no way such a paper has as many errors as text.

> I have speculated, how this could have happened and who was responsible.

You found a windmill to tilt at, that's all. You are responsible.
>
> I would exclude the possibility, that Planck did not recognize these
> errors.

He didn't recognize those "errors" because there were none to recognize.

Certainly it went through the normal review process where Planck and
others pointed out _real_ issues, sent it back, Einstein addressed them
and resubmitted it. Possibly repeat a few times. Once this was done, the
paper was published.
>
> So, he could have published this article as a result of some kind of
> advice or order by third parties.

???

> Actually I had also doubts, that the article was written by Einstein
> himself.
>
> Among several reasons was, that the text may be full of errors, but is
> by no means an easy piece. And Einstein was young, worked six days a
> week and ten hours each and had a young family at home.

Or he had some dead time between handling patents.
>
> And it would hinder thinking about length contraction and relativity of
> time very efficiently, if the wife complains and the baby cries, while
> the kitchen table, where had to write after a long workday, is dimmly
> lit by a candle.

Candle? You do realize when the electric light bulb was invented and
available?

On Thursday, March 9, 2023 at 11:39:10 PM UTC-8, Thomas Heger wrote:
>
> Since many of my annotation cover more than one error,

None of them cover any error. You are just daydreaming.

> the text of
> Einstein contains a spectacular amount of flaws.

It contains no errors. It does contain instances of slight carelessness but
literally every scientific paper in existence contains those so this is simply
not saying anything anyway.

> It is so large, that almost as much of the text was marked as error as
> was not.

It's not large, gthe actual count is zero. You are simply living a fantasy,
probably for a little ego trip or something.

> I have speculated, how this could have happened and who was responsible.

Nothing "happened" and nobody is "responsible". Your annotations are
discussions of the elements of the empty set.

> I would exclude the possibility, that Planck did not recognize these
> errors.
>
> So, he could have published this article as a result of some kind of
> advice or order by third parties.

Vast majority of science papers are written while seeking advice of
colleagues. Again, what you are saying is true but contains no
information.

> Actually I had also doubts, that the article was written by Einstein
> himself.

This paper and Einstein'snotes were dissected by generations of
scientists and historians. I suggest you look into this if you are
historically minded. There is no need to guess, the facts and the
evidence is readily available.

> Among several reasons was, that the text may be full of errors,

It's not. It's a little fantasy of yours. The sooner you let go
of this idiocy, the better of you'll be. Right now you are
drowning in self-deception.

> but is
> by no means an easy piece. And Einstein was young, worked six days a
> week and ten hours each and had a young family at home.

That's false. Again, read the historical record, eyewitnesses from the
period, etc. The fact is that Einstein's work at the patent office did
leave him with a reasonable amount of free time. He kept the physics
books and his notes right there inside his office desk drawer (which he
called "my physics department").

> And it would hinder thinking about length contraction and relativity of
> time very efficiently, if the wife complains and the baby cries, while
> the kitchen table, where had to write after a long workday, is dimmly
> lit by a candle.

I've advised you several times to sign up with an agent in Los Angeles.

--
Jan

On Friday, 10 March 2023 at 17:20:08 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
> On 3/10/2023 2:36 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> > Am 09.03.2023 um 16:37 schrieb Volney:
> >> On 3/9/2023 4:06 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> >>> Am 07.03.2023 um 17:15 schrieb JanPB:
> >>>> On Tuesday, March 7, 2023 at 9:11:01 AM UTC+1, Thomas Heger wrote:
> >>>>> Am 06.03.2023 um 09:16 schrieb Volney:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>> 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".
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> And I have repeatedly asked, what's wrong with them.
> >>>>
> >>>> You were told in detail.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Sure.
> >>>
> >>> That's why I have rewitten almost all of my annotations.
> >>>
> >>> So, you should refer to errors in my LATEST version, which can be
> >>> found here:
> >>
> >> Did you actually remove all the "annotations" which you were told were
> >> your misunderstandings, irrelevant or simply nonsense? In other words,
> >> is there a decrease in count of about 20?
> >>
> >
> > I have removed some and written new ones.
> So you shuffled around and rearranged things? You learned nothing from

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

On 3/10/2023 1:45 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

> And do you still believe that adjusting clocks
> to your ISO idiocy means some "Newton mode"?

How could I believe in something that's simply "not even wrong"?

I'll give you a hint: The ISO definition of the second has nothing to do
with whether Newtonian or SR/GR physics is used.

Do you understand the difference between mass and the kilogram?

On Saturday, 11 March 2023 at 03:26:24 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
> On 3/10/2023 1:45 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>
> > And do you still believe that adjusting clocks
> > to your ISO idiocy means some "Newton mode"?
> How could I believe in something that's simply "not even wrong"?

Well, you're a lacking any logic idiot, so you
can; if you couldn't - why would you claim it
so many times?

> I'll give you a hint: The ISO definition of the second has nothing to do
> with whether Newtonian or SR/GR physics is used.

Well, your assertion is not any argument, stupid
Mike, and it happens that I know better. We could
discuss it - if you weren't such an arrogant, incompetent
idiot.

> Do you understand the difference between mass and the kilogram?

Will you be also stupid enough to insist that
the kilogram has nothing to do to mass?

Am 10.03.2023 um 17:20 schrieb Volney:
...

>> I have speculated, how this could have happened and who was responsible.
>
> You found a windmill to tilt at, that's all. You are responsible.
>>
>> I would exclude the possibility, that Planck did not recognize these
>> errors.
>
> He didn't recognize those "errors" because there were none to recognize.

In case you disagree, you should write, with what you disagree.

Feel free to critizise any of my comments. But you need to tell me,
which comment you have in mind.

> Certainly it went through the normal review process where Planck and
> others pointed out _real_ issues, sent it back, Einstein addressed them
> and resubmitted it. Possibly repeat a few times. Once this was done, the
> paper was published.
>>
>> So, he could have published this article as a result of some kind of
>> advice or order by third parties.
>
> ???

Planck was the publisher of 'Annalen der Physik'. Possibly he had an
employer or somebody else, who could give him orders.

That assumption is actually not far fetched.

>
>> Actually I had also doubts, that the article was written by Einstein
>> himself.
>>
>> Among several reasons was, that the text may be full of errors, but is
>> by no means an easy piece. And Einstein was young, worked six days a
>> week and ten hours each and had a young family at home.
>
> Or he had some dead time between handling patents.
>>
>> And it would hinder thinking about length contraction and relativity
>> of time very efficiently, if the wife complains and the baby cries,
>> while the kitchen table, where had to write after a long workday, is
>> dimmly lit by a candle.
>
> Candle? You do realize when the electric light bulb was invented and
> available?
>

Electricity was extremely expensive in the late 19th and early 20th century.

Possibly the Einsteins had already electric light, but possibly not.

A young family with two infants is usually not well off, even if
Einstein had a job.

But I cannot think about a separate writing room for Einstein and his
studies, because that would certainly overstretch the budget.

I think, that Einstein would write at the kitchtable, where had
certainly neither much space nor time to write, because a young family
could occupy a lot of attention. The remainder of his time was certainly
absorbed by his job, hence little time remained available for
theoretical physics.

But where would the writing of four seminal articls in 1905 alone fit
into his time budget?

TH