Am 10.03.2023 um 18:45 schrieb JanPB:
...
>> 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.

I want to remind you, that you still failed to prove a single error in
my annotations.

So, you certainly failed to prove 420+ errors in my 420+ annotations.

Without such a proof it is simply nonsense to say, that all I have
written was wrong.

So, at least once you should at least try to disprove any of my arguments.

TH

On Saturday, March 11, 2023 at 12:05:44 AM UTC-8, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 10.03.2023 um 18:45 schrieb JanPB:
> ...
> >> 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.
>
> I want to remind you, that you still failed to prove a single error in
> my annotations.

Yes, I did, and many other people too. Virtually all of your annotations
are errors or at best irrelevancies arguing trivial points.

> So, you certainly failed to prove 420+ errors in my 420+ annotations.

There are no 420+ errors listed in your annotations, they are themselves
major errors or simply irrelevancies. Your annotations are completely useless.
They only serve to delude you into thinking you have done something.

And so you simply never understood our arguments and never accepted them.
This is THE standard response of a self-deluded person who lacks the
necessary knowledge: everyone knows one cannot convince such
a person of his mistakes. This has been known for centuries and
had been commented upon by people like Newton, Leibniz, Goethe, etc. etc.

Also, the fact that you reject our arguments does not mean you are correct.
Real life does not work that way (you seem to assume that any random claim
is just true by default unless disproven, and not only that, unless disproven _to
your satisfaction_. This is simply a very convenient delusion). It's simply a
well-known fact that in order to understand counterarguments, you have to possess
a certain minimum of the subject knowledge in the first place. This minimum you lack,
which is what condemns you to the constant failure, esp. when it's coupled
with arrogance.

> Without such a proof it is simply nonsense to say, that all I have
> written was wrong.

Again, real life doesn't work that way. Besides, again, there can be no proof
presented to you because you cannot understand those proofs. This is a
well-known phenomenon in psychology.

> So, at least once you should at least try to disprove any of my arguments..

But I did, in excruciating detail, have you forgotten already? So did the others.
See e.g. our discussion of plane waves. You don't understand the high
school grade material. Other people discussed other points. You simply
created a little fantasy world in which you comfortably live.

--
Jan

On 2023-03-11 17:51:40 +0000, JanPB said:

> On Saturday, March 11, 2023 at 12:05:44 AM UTC-8, Thomas Heger wrote:
>> Am 10.03.2023 um 18:45 schrieb JanPB:> ...> >> 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.>> I want to remind
>> you, that you still failed to prove a single error in> my annotations.
> Yes, I did, and many other people too. Virtually all of your annotations
> are errors or at best irrelevancies arguing trivial points.

In the vain hope of ending the torrent of nonsense, and to save people
like me from having to plough through the archives, maybe you could
give just one example, first giving Einstein's statement, then the
annotation and then explaining why it is wrong. Even if you've done
this before it would still be useful to give a reminder.
>
> --
> athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots

On Saturday, March 11, 2023 at 10:06:33 AM UTC-8, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> On 2023-03-11 17:51:40 +0000, JanPB said:
>
> > On Saturday, March 11, 2023 at 12:05:44 AM UTC-8, Thomas Heger wrote:
> >> Am 10.03.2023 um 18:45 schrieb JanPB:> ...> >> 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.>> I want to remind
> >> you, that you still failed to prove a single error in> my annotations.
> > Yes, I did, and many other people too. Virtually all of your annotations
> > are errors or at best irrelevancies arguing trivial points.
> In the vain hope of ending the torrent of nonsense, and to save people
> like me from having to plough through the archives, maybe you could
> give just one example, first giving Einstein's statement, then the
> annotation and then explaining why it is wrong. Even if you've done
> this before it would still be useful to give a reminder.
> >
> > --
> > athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots

Do you watch "The Big Bang Theory"? If yes, do you remember how everybody groans when some unsuspecting character asks Sheldon to explain something?

On 3/11/2023 3:00 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> 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.

I have, but you ignored me (and everyone else who does so).
>
> Feel free to critizise any of my comments. But you need to tell me,
> which comment you have in mind.

I have, but you ignored me (and everyone else who does so).
>
>> 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.

Like whom? Hinting at some conspiracy is useless.
I believe Planck was favorably impressed by the SR paper and worked to
see it got more attention.
>
> That assumption is actually not far fetched.

With no evidence, yes it is.
>
>>
>>> 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.

I've seen pictures of the Einsteinhaus in Bern. It is now a museum and
is how it would have been when Einstein lived there. It has overhead
lighting fixtures (on very high ceilings, impractical for gas lamps).
Electricity wouldn't have been expensive that long after its introduction.
>
> A young family with two infants

One infant.

> is usually not well off, even if
> Einstein had a job.

The Einsteinhaus flat was actually rather fancy, if small. I wouldn't
mind living there other than the size. I'm unsure whether it was one or
two floors, as some descriptions discuss the second floor, others the
third floor. This may be a two floor apartment or the european vs. US
description of which floor you are on.

The museum itself is on two floors of the building, one is restored to
1905, the other isn't but contains relevant displays and items.
>
> But I cannot think about a separate writing room for Einstein and his
> studies, because that would certainly overstretch the budget.

They had an unusual fancy desk in the apartment which could have been
its own room if they had two floors. More importantly is that Einstein
worked from the patent office when not busy actually working.
>
> I think, that Einstein would write at the kitchtable,

They had a large desk in the photos I saw.

> 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.

He apparently had quite a bit of free time during his work.
>
> But where would the writing of four seminal articls in 1905 alone fit
> into his time budget?

Who knows how long he was working on all four problems before he decided
to go for it, making them into physics papers and submitting them?

On Saturday, March 11, 2023 at 10:06:33 AM UTC-8, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> On 2023-03-11 17:51:40 +0000, JanPB said:
>
> > On Saturday, March 11, 2023 at 12:05:44 AM UTC-8, Thomas Heger wrote:
> >> Am 10.03.2023 um 18:45 schrieb JanPB:> ...> >> 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.>> I want to remind
> >> you, that you still failed to prove a single error in> my annotations.
> > Yes, I did, and many other people too. Virtually all of your annotations
> > are errors or at best irrelevancies arguing trivial points.
> In the vain hope of ending the torrent of nonsense, and to save people
> like me from having to plough through the archives, maybe you could
> give just one example, first giving Einstein's statement, then the
> annotation and then explaining why it is wrong. Even if you've done
> this before it would still be useful to give a reminder.

There was a long exchange not too long ago about plane waves which
Einstein used to derive the Doppler effect formula (in section 7 of his
1905 paper). It involved several people. Search this newgroup for
"plane wave" or "plane waves", can't remember if it was juyst in 2023,
perhaps include the year 2022 in your search as well.

Thomas' annotations are not only all non-issues (at best, most of them
are simply nonsensical, therefore they cannot be improved), he also
does not notice, and does not comment, on instances of Einstein's
genuine bits of awkwardness or rushing over portions of his arguments.

I'm not a science historian but here is one thing that's noticeable.
For example, in that Section 7, he never mentions the phase equality
(invariance) which is at the heart of the Doppler derivation there.
Given the fact that in 1905 the Lorentz transformation was a very
new thing, it would perhaps not have been very clear, even to an
expert reader at the time, that the phase invariance was still true for
Lorentz-transformed observers (people of course knew that for the
traditional Galilean-related observers). Einstein doesn't even put one
word about it in the text.

He similarly skips the derivation of the transformation of the amplitude
of the EM field at the end of that section. That entire section reads
more like a preprint announcing results.

Perhaps this was perfectly acceptable, I'm sure the peer reviewer(s)(*) at the
Annalen der Physik would have simply asked Einstein to elaborate such
easy but perhaps rather novel (in 1905) points.

(*) Is it known now who they were?

--
Jan

On Saturday, March 11, 2023 at 10:40:16 AM UTC-8, Volney wrote:
> On 3/11/2023 3:00 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> >
> > Electricity was extremely expensive in the late 19th and early 20th
> > century.
> >
> > Possibly the Einsteins had already electric light, but possibly not.
>
> I've seen pictures of the Einsteinhaus in Bern. It is now a museum and
> is how it would have been when Einstein lived there. It has overhead
> lighting fixtures (on very high ceilings, impractical for gas lamps).

I was there few weeks ago and the ceilings are high and there are lights
there.

> The Einsteinhaus flat was actually rather fancy, if small. I wouldn't
> mind living there other than the size.

I think Einstein had two rooms: a bedroom and a "salon" overlooking
Kramgasse.

> > I think, that Einstein would write at the kitchtable,
>
> They had a large desk in the photos I saw.

And a secretaire, a common item in "intellectual households" back then.

> He apparently had quite a bit of free time during his work.

That was my impression.

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

I don't see any reason why not, given the circumstances.

--
Jan

Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> On 3/11/2023 3:00 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
[-]
> > Electricity was extremely expensive in the late 19th and early 20th
> > century.
> >
> > Possibly the Einsteins had already electric light, but possibly not.
>
> I've seen pictures of the Einsteinhaus in Bern. It is now a museum and
> is how it would have been when Einstein lived there. It has overhead
> lighting fixtures (on very high ceilings, impractical for gas lamps).
> Electricity wouldn't have been expensive that long after its introduction.

Actually Bern had gas lighting,
both on the street in front of the house and inside.
(it had been in place more than 50 years before Einstein lived there)
There would have been gas piping in the ceilings of the house.
Piping would have come out of the plaster ornaments
in the midddle of the ceiling.
Gas lamps hung on steel or brass piping, at a convenient height.
<https://blog.nationalmuseum.ch/en/2018/04/the-time-the-bernese-put-their-foot-on-the-gas/>

You can get an idea of what Einstein's might have looked like by
searching on 'gasolier', (portmanteau for gas chandelier)
or 'Victorian gas lamp'.
Many survive, but allmost all of them have been converted
to electricity.
Joints are soldered, the gas taps are often obvious.

> > A young family with two infants
>
> One infant.

Yes, about one year old in 1905.
One may guess that Mileva will have been doing most of the caretaking.

> > is usually not well off, even if
> > Einstein had a job.
>
> The Einsteinhaus flat was actually rather fancy, if small. I wouldn't
> mind living there other than the size.

Looking: I think you should expect a rent of 2000 SF/month, nowadays,
or a sale price of at least half a million.

> I'm unsure whether it was one or
> two floors, as some descriptions discuss the second floor, others the
> third floor. This may be a two floor apartment or the european vs. US
> description of which floor you are on.
>
> The museum itself is on two floors of the building, one is restored to
> 1905, the other isn't but contains relevant displays and items.

Actually it is more of a reconstruction than a restoration.
Nothing original was left when they started.
If you look at photographs on the web you can see
that it is regularly being improved, with better period furniture.

> > But I cannot think about a separate writing room for Einstein and his
> > studies, because that would certainly overstretch the budget.
>
> They had an unusual fancy desk in the apartment which could have been
> its own room if they had two floors. More importantly is that Einstein
> worked from the patent office when not busy actually working.

People didn't have or use writing desks in those days.
Writing was done while standing at a secretary.
The Einstein Haus has one like in the well-known photograph
of Einstein at one.
(dont know wether it is an original or a reconstruction)

> > I think, that Einstein would write at the kitchtable,
>
> They had a large desk in the photos I saw.
>
> > 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.
>
> He apparently had quite a bit of free time during his work.

Yes. Even though his job is called 'clerk' it was an independent job,
involving lots of thought.
It was necessary to think about what the inventor claimed to have
invented. (understand it, compare with 'prior art', and so on)

> > But where would the writing of four seminal articls in 1905 alone fit
> > into his time budget?
>
> Who knows how long he was working on all four problems before he decided
> to go for it, making them into physics papers and submitting them?

For the relativity paper the standard account is that he had been
thinking about it from high school onwards.
Sometime in the spring of 1905 the right idea hit him.
After that, writing it up is straightforward.

And a general comment: it is very strange to see
how our self-appointed Einstein critic
is reinventing the history of everything
in order to fit his peculiar preconceptions.
All of it in order to 'prove' that Einstein
couldn't possibly have done anything at all,

Jan

JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> wrote:
[-]
> Perhaps this was perfectly acceptable, I'm sure the peer reviewer(s)(*) at the
> Annalen der Physik would have simply asked Einstein to elaborate such
> easy but perhaps rather novel (in 1905) points.
>
> (*) Is it known now who they were?

Peer review is an American abomination that was unheard of in 1905.
It is on record that Einstein was horrified and incensed about it
when he discovered the existence of it after moving to princeton.

The editors of the journal decided what to accept.
(in practice almost everything,
unless there was something obviously wrong with it)
In the case of the relativity paper this was Max Planck,

Jan

On Saturday, March 11, 2023 at 2:50:09 PM UTC-8, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> JanPB <fil...@gmail.com> wrote:
> [-]
> > Perhaps this was perfectly acceptable, I'm sure the peer reviewer(s)(*) at the
> > Annalen der Physik would have simply asked Einstein to elaborate such
> > easy but perhaps rather novel (in 1905) points.
> >
> > (*) Is it known now who they were?
> Peer review is an American abomination that was unheard of in 1905.
> It is on record that Einstein was horrified and incensed about it
> when he discovered the existence of it after moving to princeton.

Although there was one interesting instance when a peer reviewer
in America saved Einstein from a little blunder (I forget the details).
Einstein was incensed but saw the reviewer's point and withdrew
the paper from publication.

--
Jan

On Saturday, March 11, 2023 at 2:50:09 PM UTC-8, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Volney <vol...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
> > On 3/11/2023 3:00 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> [-]
> > > Electricity was extremely expensive in the late 19th and early 20th
> > > century.
> > >
> > > Possibly the Einsteins had already electric light, but possibly not.
> >
> > I've seen pictures of the Einsteinhaus in Bern. It is now a museum and
> > is how it would have been when Einstein lived there. It has overhead
> > lighting fixtures (on very high ceilings, impractical for gas lamps).
> > Electricity wouldn't have been expensive that long after its introduction.
>
> Actually Bern had gas lighting,
> both on the street in front of the house and inside.

There are still many street gas lamps in Berlin, it's rather cute.

In the area of Warsaw where I grew up we had street gas lamps. A guy
with a wire hook walked every evening pulling on the corresponding hook
inside to turn them on. As kids we used to climb the lamp posts and turn the
lamps on during the day.

--
Jan

On 3/11/2023 1:05 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> 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?

Sorry, toilet scrubber, your not even wrong equating the ISO second with
Newton mode is nonsense YOU invented. I would never claim that.
>
>
>> 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,

What I stated is simple fact.

> and it happens that I know better.

Hahahaha! You don't even understand most time related physics!

> We could
> discuss it - if you weren't such an arrogant, incompetent
> idiot.

I could also discuss it with the schizophrenic drunk on the park bench
in some shady neighborhood. The drunk is more likely to make sense than
you are.
>
>
>> 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?

You didn't answer the question. Do you understand the difference between
mass and the kilogram?

OK, I'll make it easier for you. Do you understand the difference
between time and the second?

On 3/11/2023 5:50 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 3/11/2023 3:00 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> [-]
>>> Electricity was extremely expensive in the late 19th and early 20th
>>> century.
>>>
>>> Possibly the Einsteins had already electric light, but possibly not.
>>
>> I've seen pictures of the Einsteinhaus in Bern. It is now a museum and
>> is how it would have been when Einstein lived there. It has overhead
>> lighting fixtures (on very high ceilings, impractical for gas lamps).
>> Electricity wouldn't have been expensive that long after its introduction.
>
> Actually Bern had gas lighting,
> both on the street in front of the house and inside.
> (it had been in place more than 50 years before Einstein lived there)
> There would have been gas piping in the ceilings of the house.
> Piping would have come out of the plaster ornaments
> in the midddle of the ceiling.
> Gas lamps hung on steel or brass piping, at a convenient height.
> <https://blog.nationalmuseum.ch/en/2018/04/the-time-the-bernese-put-their-foot-on-the-gas/>
>
> You can get an idea of what Einstein's might have looked like by
> searching on 'gasolier', (portmanteau for gas chandelier)
> or 'Victorian gas lamp'.
> Many survive, but allmost all of them have been converted
> to electricity.
> Joints are soldered, the gas taps are often obvious.

It's definitely not the light there now. It looks period but it's WAY
too high to light.

I had forgotten how cities often had town gas for lighting.
>
>>> A young family with two infants
>>
>> One infant.
>
> Yes, about one year old in 1905.
> One may guess that Mileva will have been doing most of the caretaking.
>
>>> is usually not well off, even if
>>> Einstein had a job.
>>
>> The Einsteinhaus flat was actually rather fancy, if small. I wouldn't
>> mind living there other than the size.
>
> Looking: I think you should expect a rent of 2000 SF/month, nowadays,
> or a sale price of at least half a million.

I wonder what Einstein paid for the place, and its value in current money.
>
>> I'm unsure whether it was one or
>> two floors, as some descriptions discuss the second floor, others the
>> third floor. This may be a two floor apartment or the european vs. US
>> description of which floor you are on.
>>
>> The museum itself is on two floors of the building, one is restored to
>> 1905, the other isn't but contains relevant displays and items.
>
> Actually it is more of a reconstruction than a restoration.
> Nothing original was left when they started.
> If you look at photographs on the web you can see
> that it is regularly being improved, with better period furniture.
>
>>> But I cannot think about a separate writing room for Einstein and his
>>> studies, because that would certainly overstretch the budget.
>>
>> They had an unusual fancy desk in the apartment which could have been
>> its own room if they had two floors. More importantly is that Einstein
>> worked from the patent office when not busy actually working.
>
> People didn't have or use writing desks in those days.
> Writing was done while standing at a secretary.
> The Einstein Haus has one like in the well-known photograph
> of Einstein at one.
> (dont know wether it is an original or a reconstruction)

Yes the one there now looks like a secretary, and looks more to be
standing height. The one that's there now also doesn't have a chair.

https://goo.gl/maps/3ws6kD8C3AhxJ2MF9

See also: https://www.einstein-bern.ch/en/einstein-house

>
>>> I think, that Einstein would write at the kitchtable,
>>
>> They had a large desk in the photos I saw.
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> He apparently had quite a bit of free time during his work.
>
> Yes. Even though his job is called 'clerk' it was an independent job,
> involving lots of thought.
> It was necessary to think about what the inventor claimed to have
> invented. (understand it, compare with 'prior art', and so on)

Definitely a job requiring lots of thought.
>
>>> But where would the writing of four seminal articls in 1905 alone fit
>>> into his time budget?
>>
>> Who knows how long he was working on all four problems before he decided
>> to go for it, making them into physics papers and submitting them?
>
> For the relativity paper the standard account is that he had been
> thinking about it from high school onwards.
> Sometime in the spring of 1905 the right idea hit him.
> After that, writing it up is straightforward.
>
> And a general comment: it is very strange to see
> how our self-appointed Einstein critic
> is reinventing the history of everything
> in order to fit his peculiar preconceptions.
> All of it in order to 'prove' that Einstein
> couldn't possibly have done anything at all,

It's funny what both he and Hertz conjure up to make Einstein look bad.

On Sunday, 12 March 2023 at 06:41:41 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
> On 3/11/2023 1:05 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > 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?
>
> Sorry, toilet scrubber, your not even wrong equating the ISO second with
> Newton mode

Not mine, yours, stupid Mike, google keeps record.

> is nonsense YOU invented. I would never claim that.

As said, google keeps record, poor trash, sorry.

> What I stated is simple fact.

No, it's just another idiotic delusion of yours.
Like the one with 9 192 631 770 being
a "Newton mode".

> >> 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?
>
> You didn't answer the question.

Neither you did, stupid Mike.

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

Yes

>
> OK, I'll make it easier for you. Do you understand the difference
> between time and the second?

Yes.
So, will you be also stupid enough to insist that
the kilogram has nothing to do to mass?

JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Saturday, March 11, 2023 at 2:50:09?PM UTC-8, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > JanPB <fil...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > [-]
> > > Perhaps this was perfectly acceptable, I'm sure the peer
> > > reviewer(s)(*) at the Annalen der Physik would have simply asked
> > > Einstein to elaborate such easy but perhaps rather novel (in 1905)
> > > points.
> > >
> > > (*) Is it known now who they were?
> > Peer review is an American abomination that was unheard of in 1905.
> > It is on record that Einstein was horrified and incensed about it
> > when he discovered the existence of it after moving to princeton.
>
> Although there was one interesting instance when a peer reviewer
> in America saved Einstein from a little blunder (I forget the details).
> Einstein was incensed but saw the reviewer's point and withdrew
> the paper from publication.

What Einstein was furious about
was that some collegues got an unfair advantage
by seeing unpublished papers before everybody else.
He saw (correctly of course) that this opened the door to abuses,

Jan

Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> On 3/11/2023 5:50 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >> On 3/11/2023 3:00 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> > [-]
> >>> Electricity was extremely expensive in the late 19th and early 20th
> >>> century.
> >>>
> >>> Possibly the Einsteins had already electric light, but possibly not.
> >>
> >> I've seen pictures of the Einsteinhaus in Bern. It is now a museum and
> >> is how it would have been when Einstein lived there. It has overhead
> >> lighting fixtures (on very high ceilings, impractical for gas lamps).
> >> Electricity wouldn't have been expensive that long after its introduction.
> >
> > Actually Bern had gas lighting,
> > both on the street in front of the house and inside.
> > (it had been in place more than 50 years before Einstein lived there)
> > There would have been gas piping in the ceilings of the house.
> > Piping would have come out of the plaster ornaments
> > in the midddle of the ceiling.
> > Gas lamps hung on steel or brass piping, at a convenient height.
> > <https://blog.nationalmuseum.ch/en/2018/04/the-time-the-bernese-put-their-fo
ot-on-the-gas/>
> >
> > You can get an idea of what Einstein's might have looked like by
> > searching on 'gasolier', (portmanteau for gas chandelier)
> > or 'Victorian gas lamp'.
> > Many survive, but allmost all of them have been converted
> > to electricity.
> > Joints are soldered, the gas taps are often obvious.
>
> It's definitely not the light there now. It looks period but it's WAY
> too high to light.

But it is definitely a gas lamp. Notice the baffle on top
that shields the ceiling from the hot updraft.
It isn't paraffin, for there is no reservoir.
You can still buy brass clad steel tubing for use with electric lamps.
It comes in pre-cut length with gas thread at the ends.
Eistein could have walked into a shop and ordered a length cut to size
and have it threaded.
He would have had the lamp at a convenient height.
Nowaday it is a crowded museum, and I can understand
that they want it out of the way.

> I had forgotten how cities often had town gas for lighting.

It was quite standard, late 19th.
They would of course have had city gasworks too,
and a railroad to bring coal in.

> >>> A young family with two infants
> >>
> >> One infant.
> >
> > Yes, about one year old in 1905.
> > One may guess that Mileva will have been doing most of the caretaking.
> >
> >>> is usually not well off, even if
> >>> Einstein had a job.
> >>
> >> The Einsteinhaus flat was actually rather fancy, if small. I wouldn't
> >> mind living there other than the size.
> >
> > Looking: I think you should expect a rent of 2000 SF/month, nowadays,
> > or a sale price of at least half a million.
>
> I wonder what Einstein paid for the place, and its value in current money.

No idea. Remember though that Einstein was a patent clerk,
so a relatively well paid expert civil servant.
Not rich, or well to do, but certainly not poor either.

> >> I'm unsure whether it was one or
> >> two floors, as some descriptions discuss the second floor, others the
> >> third floor. This may be a two floor apartment or the european vs. US
> >> description of which floor you are on.
> >>
> >> The museum itself is on two floors of the building, one is restored to
> >> 1905, the other isn't but contains relevant displays and items.
> >
> > Actually it is more of a reconstruction than a restoration.
> > Nothing original was left when they started.
> > If you look at photographs on the web you can see
> > that it is regularly being improved, with better period furniture.
> >
> >>> But I cannot think about a separate writing room for Einstein and his
> >>> studies, because that would certainly overstretch the budget.
> >>
> >> They had an unusual fancy desk in the apartment which could have been
> >> its own room if they had two floors. More importantly is that Einstein
> >> worked from the patent office when not busy actually working.
> >
> > People didn't have or use writing desks in those days.
> > Writing was done while standing at a secretary.
> > The Einstein Haus has one like in the well-known photograph
> > of Einstein at one.
> > (dont know wether it is an original or a reconstruction)
>
> Yes the one there now looks like a secretary, and looks more to be
> standing height. The one that's there now also doesn't have a chair.
>
> https://goo.gl/maps/3ws6kD8C3AhxJ2MF9
>
> See also: https://www.einstein-bern.ch/en/einstein-house

There is no real connection between Einstein
and any of the furniture there now.
The only thing is the writing stand, but that looks like a replica
made after the one at the patent office in the well-known photograph.

> >>> I think, that Einstein would write at the kitchtable,
> >>
> >> They had a large desk in the photos I saw.
> >>
> >>> 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.
> >>
> >> He apparently had quite a bit of free time during his work.
> >
> > Yes. Even though his job is called 'clerk' it was an independent job,
> > involving lots of thought.
> > It was necessary to think about what the inventor claimed to have
> > invented. (understand it, compare with 'prior art', and so on)
>
> Definitely a job requiring lots of thought.

Yes, and literature searches. That patent office
no doubt had an adequate library.
And yes, you -must- understand the claim.
What is the claimed use of the claimed invention,
and will it work as claimed?
You also must also not allow people to stake out carpet claims
on things yet to be made possible by others.
BTW, there is testimony by his boss
that Einstein was the best patent clerk they ever had.
He wasn't only a theoretical physicist,
but also a quite practical man. [1]

> >>> But where would the writing of four seminal articls in 1905 alone fit
> >>> into his time budget?
> >>
> >> Who knows how long he was working on all four problems before he decided
> >> to go for it, making them into physics papers and submitting them?
> >
> > For the relativity paper the standard account is that he had been
> > thinking about it from high school onwards.
> > Sometime in the spring of 1905 the right idea hit him.
> > After that, writing it up is straightforward.
> >
> > And a general comment: it is very strange to see
> > how our self-appointed Einstein critic
> > is reinventing the history of everything
> > in order to fit his peculiar preconceptions.
> > All of it in order to 'prove' that Einstein
> > couldn't possibly have done anything at all,
>
> It's funny what both he and Hertz conjure up to make Einstein look bad.

Yes, quite. Lots of words about how Einstein couldn't have done anything
because he possibly couldn't have paid the electricity bill,
instead of doing 30 seconds search to find out that there was gas light,

Jan

[1] And for Roberts, if here.
I would also rate Einstein's understanding of experimental physics
above that of Dayton Miller.
And I also rate Kaufmann above Dayton Miller.

Athel Cornish-Bowden:

> In the vain hope of ending the torrent of nonsense, and to
> save people like me from having to plough through the
> archives, maybe you could give just one example, first
> giving Einstein's statement, then the annotation and then
> explaining why it is wrong. Even if you've done this
> before it would still be useful to give a reminder.

I join Athel in his proposal. And make it some of the
simpler, less ambiguous, and easer defendable ones. The
entire discussion so far has been a mixure insults and
generalities, without any reference to subject matter.

--
() ascii ribbon campaign -- against html e-mail
/\ www.asciiribbon.org -- against proprietary attachments

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

One of the most outrageous blunders you've made is this comment on
page 2 :

> If Einstein had added the delay of the timed signal, this disadvantage would disappear.
> But he took the actual reading of the remote clock as time at the clock's location.
> That made it difficult to relocate the clock, while maintaining the same time.
> It is actually difficult to find out, whether Einstein wanted to add the delay or not,
> because no statement about that can be found in this text.
> But it would have been better to add the delay, anyhow, because that would solve
> this problem.

I've shown to you repeatedly that the synchronization described on
page 3 is exactly "taking the delay into account". He didn't describe
it with the exact wording you wanted for a good reason: separating what
is conventional in this procedure and what is not. This procedure can
be shown to be strictly equivalent to what Poincaré proposed before.

In the context of page 3, these two equations:

t_B - t_A = t'_A - t_B
2AB/(t'_A - t_A) = c

implies:

t_B = t_A + (AB)/c

i.e. time for clock at B for the event taking place at clock A is time
for clock A + delay of propagation of light from B to A.

This *precisely* means "taking the delay into account". And if obvious
for everyone with minimal mathematical ability.

Le 12/03/2023 à 13:34, Python a écrit :
> 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:
>>
>>
>> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1D2m4RV7StviWik2JiB1_Huk_7PR5Sxvi/view?usp=sharing
>
> One of the most outrageous blunders you've made is this comment on
> page 2 :
>
>> If Einstein had added the delay of the timed signal, this disadvantage would
>> disappear.
>> But he took the actual reading of the remote clock as time at the clock's
>> location.
>> That made it difficult to relocate the clock, while maintaining the same time.
>> It is actually difficult to find out, whether Einstein wanted to add the delay
>> or not,
>> because no statement about that can be found in this text.
>> But it would have been better to add the delay, anyhow, because that would solve
>> this problem.
>
> I've shown to you repeatedly that the synchronization described on
> page 3 is exactly "taking the delay into account". He didn't describe
> it with the exact wording you wanted for a good reason: separating what
> is conventional in this procedure and what is not. This procedure can
> be shown to be strictly equivalent to what Poincaré proposed before.
>
> In the context of page 3, these two equations:
>
> t_B - t_A = t'_A - t_B
> 2AB/(t'_A - t_A) = c
>
> implies:
>
> t_B = t_A + (AB)/c
>
> i.e. time for clock at B for the event taking place at clock A is time
> for clock A + delay of propagation of light from B to A.
>
> This *precisely* means "taking the delay into account". And if obvious
> for everyone with minimal mathematical ability.

Bref, j'ai rien compris de ce que dis Richard Hachel, mais je fais le
fanfaron.

Je resterai toujours surpris de cette dénégation humaine qui consiste à
faire dans le pornographique
et qui dit : "La grosse bite de mon voisin de palier, je l'ai vue ce matin
quand il faisait pipi dans son jardin. Je vais tout faire pour que ma
femme ne s'en rendre pas compte, et je vais planter des thuyas en bon
endroit".

C'est comme ça que ça marche. SURTOUT en cinétique relativiste.

LOL.

C'est quand vous voulez, les mecs que vous baissez vos frocs et que vous
glorifier mes notions relativistes sur l'absence de simultanéité même
inertielle. J'ai pas dit absence d'isochronotropie, mais absence de
simultanéité. Ne jouons pas sur les mots pour avoir prise, et prise à
la con.

R.H.

M.D. Richard "Hachel" Lengrand wrote:
> Le 12/03/2023 à 13:34, Python a écrit :
>> 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:
>>>
>>>
>>> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1D2m4RV7StviWik2JiB1_Huk_7PR5Sxvi/view?usp=sharing
>>
>> One of the most outrageous blunders you've made is this comment on
>> page 2 :
>>
>>> If Einstein had added the delay of the timed signal, this
>>> disadvantage would disappear.
>>> But he took the actual reading of the remote clock as time at the
>>> clock's location.
>>> That made it difficult to relocate the clock, while maintaining the
>>> same time.
>>> It is actually difficult to find out, whether Einstein wanted to add
>>> the delay or not,
>>> because no statement about that can be found in this text.
>>> But it would have been better to add the delay, anyhow, because that
>>> would solve
>>> this problem.
>>
>> I've shown to you repeatedly that the synchronization described on
>> page 3 is exactly "taking the delay into account". He didn't describe
>> it with the exact wording you wanted for a good reason: separating what
>> is conventional in this procedure and what is not. This procedure can
>> be shown to be strictly equivalent to what Poincaré proposed before.
>>
>> In the context of page 3, these two equations:
>>
>> t_B - t_A = t'_A - t_B
>> 2AB/(t'_A - t_A) = c
>>
>> implies:
>>
>> t_B = t_A + (AB)/c
>>
>> i.e. time for clock at B for the event taking place at clock A is time
>> for clock A +  delay of propagation of light from B to A.
>>
>> This *precisely* means "taking the delay into account". And if obvious
>> for everyone with minimal mathematical ability.
>
> Bref, j'ai rien compris de ce que dis Richard Hachel, mais je fais le
> fanfaron.

I understand very well what you propose, and I have shown you numerous
times that it is inconsistent in addition to be in conflict with
Newton's law of motion. Moreover you reasoning" is unsound, it is
based on a sophistry (A => B and not-A does not imply B)

> [snip off topic considerations on microscopic Lengrand/Hachel's genitalia]
>
> C'est quand vous voulez, les mecs que vous baissez vos frocs et que vous
> glorifier mes notions relativistes sur l'absence de simultanéité même
> inertielle. J'ai pas dit absence d'isochronotropie, mais absence de
> simultanéité. Ne jouons pas sur les mots pour avoir prise, et prise à la
> con.

You are the one playing with words and dodging issues with your stupid
"theory". After all these years of spreading nonsense it should have
ring a bell that you've never convinced anyone, not even one of your
fellow cranks. But you are in a state of denial because of your mental
disability and hubris.

Anyway, abuse report sent to Nemo's webmaster as you are posting in
French in an English speaking groupe.

Le 12/03/2023 à 15:36, Python a écrit :

> I understand very well what you propose,

Et mes couilles?

Tu fais des concours d'obscénités ou quoi?

R.H.

On 3/12/2023 7:13 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 3/11/2023 5:50 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>> Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> wrote:

>>> You can get an idea of what Einstein's might have looked like by
>>> searching on 'gasolier', (portmanteau for gas chandelier)
>>> or 'Victorian gas lamp'.
>>> Many survive, but allmost all of them have been converted
>>> to electricity.
>>> Joints are soldered, the gas taps are often obvious.
>>
>> It's definitely not the light there now. It looks period but it's WAY
>> too high to light.
>
> But it is definitely a gas lamp. Notice the baffle on top
> that shields the ceiling from the hot updraft.
> It isn't paraffin, for there is no reservoir.
> You can still buy brass clad steel tubing for use with electric lamps.
> It comes in pre-cut length with gas thread at the ends.
> Eistein could have walked into a shop and ordered a length cut to size
> and have it threaded.

Thanks, I just had an AHA! moment. You can also buy the brass clad steel
tubing in the US for repair or modification of lamps and ceiling
fixtures, and even new lamps are made from them. I took the decorative
shade from a modern (OK, 20 years old) ceiling fixture, and the fancy
nut that holds it on is screwed to one of these threaded pipes. Now I
know they are an anachronism from gaslighting.

> He would have had the lamp at a convenient height.
> Nowaday it is a crowded museum, and I can understand
> that they want it out of the way.

And as you said about the apartment, probably not original anyway, just
period.
>
>> I had forgotten how cities often had town gas for lighting.
>
> It was quite standard, late 19th.
> They would of course have had city gasworks too,
> and a railroad to bring coal in.
>

>>>>> But where would the writing of four seminal articls in 1905 alone fit
>>>>> into his time budget?
>>>>
>>>> Who knows how long he was working on all four problems before he decided
>>>> to go for it, making them into physics papers and submitting them?
>>>
>>> For the relativity paper the standard account is that he had been
>>> thinking about it from high school onwards.
>>> Sometime in the spring of 1905 the right idea hit him.
>>> After that, writing it up is straightforward.
>>>
>>> And a general comment: it is very strange to see
>>> how our self-appointed Einstein critic
>>> is reinventing the history of everything
>>> in order to fit his peculiar preconceptions.
>>> All of it in order to 'prove' that Einstein
>>> couldn't possibly have done anything at all,
>>
>> It's funny what both he and Hertz conjure up to make Einstein look bad.
>
> Yes, quite. Lots of words about how Einstein couldn't have done anything
> because he possibly couldn't have paid the electricity bill,
> instead of doing 30 seconds search to find out that there was gas light,

Yes, and civil servant workers were generally paid decently. (and if
Einstein couldn't pay his bills, what about the rest of the country?)

On 3/12/2023 10:36 AM, Python wrote:
> M.D. Richard "Hachel" Lengrand wrote:
[snip french]

> Anyway, abuse report sent to Nemo's webmaster as you are posting in
> French in an English speaking groupe.

You can always tell when Richard gets frustrated or starts realizing
he's wrong, because he always switches to French. Probably he does so
hoping nobody can read it/bother to translate it so he can have the last
word.

Volney wrote:
> On 3/12/2023 10:36 AM, Python wrote:
>> M.D. Richard "Hachel" Lengrand wrote:
> [snip french]
>
>> Anyway, abuse report sent to Nemo's webmaster as you are posting in
>> French in an English speaking groupe.
>
> You can always tell when Richard gets frustrated or starts realizing
> he's wrong, because he always switches to French. Probably he does so
> hoping nobody can read it/bother to translate it so he can have the last
> word.

True. In French newsgroups he starts talking about his genitalia
instead, when the same situation happens, and it happens very often.

That such a jerk can be a M.D. in France is a shame and puts people's
health at risk.

Le 12/03/2023 à 16:49, Volney a écrit :
> You can always tell when Richard gets frustrated or starts realizing
> he's wrong, because he always switches to French. Probably he does so
> hoping nobody can read it/bother to translate it so he can have the last
> word.

J'ai rien compris.

R.H.