Dono. <eggy20011951@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wednesday, April 26, 2023 at 10:12:08?PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
>
> > I wanted to express, that I know this particular paper extremly well,
> > because I have spent an enormous amout of time on that.
> >
> You sure spent an enormous amount of time. The only thing that you have to
> show for the time spent is that you understood....absolutely nothing.

OTOH, the statement -is- good for 10 points on the crackpot index,

Jan

Volney wrote:

> On 4/27/2023 1:12 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>> If you like to challenge my knowledge and understanding, than feel free
>> to do so.
>
> We already have. You blow everything off and later act as if nothing
> ever happened. Just like now, "feel free to challenge my knowledge and
> understanding" when we already have. Repeatedly.

Global Population *_Reduced_by_1_BILLION_Since_2021_* – Media Blackout
https://thepeoplesvoice.tv/global-population-reduced-by-1-billion-since-2021-media-blackout/
https://rumble.com/embed/v2i7ik2/?pub=4

Am 28.04.2023 um 18:33 schrieb Dono.:
> On Wednesday, April 26, 2023 at 10:12:08 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
>
>> I wanted to express, that I know this particular paper extremly well,
>> because I have spent an enormous amout of time on that.
>>
> You sure spent an enormous amount of time. The only thing that you have to show for the time spent is that you understood....absolutely nothing.
>

I would actually recommend my method as a learning tool.

The idea goes like this:

pretend to be a professor in that particular science and your duty would
be to writte corrections for the homework of a student.

This 'homework' could be any scinetific paper of your choice.

Now you need to find all errors in it and write annotations, why you
think it would be an error.

The challenge is, that you should not leave out any error and should not
mark something correct as an error.

This is actually quite a difficult task, because it requires perfect
understanding of the text.

And this understanding of the text is actually the motivation of this
method.

And even if the method is slow and annoying, it is very efficient as a
learning tool.

TH

On 4/30/2023 1:06 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 28.04.2023 um 18:33 schrieb Dono.:
>> On Wednesday, April 26, 2023 at 10:12:08 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>
>>> I wanted to express, that I know this particular paper extremly well,
>>> because I have spent an enormous amout of time on that.
>>>
>> You sure spent an enormous amount of time. The only thing that you
>> have to show for the time spent is that you understood....absolutely
>> nothing.
>>
>
> I would actually recommend my method as a learning tool.

Only as an example of a bad example.

> The challenge is, that you should not leave out any error and should not
> mark something correct as an error.

A challenge which you have failed. Repeatedly.

> This is actually quite a difficult task, because it requires perfect
> understanding of the text.

Since you don't understand the text, you are unable to perform this task.

> And even if the method is slow and annoying, it is very efficient as a
> learning tool.

Again, only as an example of a bad example.

Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:

> Am 28.04.2023 um 18:33 schrieb Dono.:
> > On Wednesday, April 26, 2023 at 10:12:08?PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
> >
> >> I wanted to express, that I know this particular paper extremly well,
> >> because I have spent an enormous amout of time on that.
> >>
> > You sure spent an enormous amount of time. The only thing that you have
> >to show for the time spent is that you understood....absolutely nothing.
> >
>
> I would actually recommend my method as a learning tool.
> The idea goes like this:
> pretend to be a professor in that particular science and your duty would
> be to writte corrections for the homework of a student.
> This 'homework' could be any scinetific paper of your choice.
> Now you need to find all errors in it and write annotations, why you
> think it would be an error.
[-]

Historically, Max Planck was such a professor.
When he read the Einstein 1905 paper he said something like:
'this is a good one, print it as is',
and he passed it on to the printer of the Annalen.

You think that you are better than Max Planck?

Jan

Am 30.04.2023 um 22:21 schrieb J. J. Lodder:

>> I would actually recommend my method as a learning tool.
>> The idea goes like this:
>> pretend to be a professor in that particular science and your duty would
>> be to writte corrections for the homework of a student.
>> This 'homework' could be any scinetific paper of your choice.
>> Now you need to find all errors in it and write annotations, why you
>> think it would be an error.
> [-]
>
> Historically, Max Planck was such a professor.
> When he read the Einstein 1905 paper he said something like:
> 'this is a good one, print it as is',
> and he passed it on to the printer of the Annalen.
>
> You think that you are better than Max Planck?
>

Definetely not, because Planck was actually a world class physicist.

But this statement would not render any of my comments wrong, because
Planck could have had other than scientific reasons to print this paper
(like e.g.: following orders from 'above'...).

TH

On 2023-05-01 06:25:39 +0000, Thomas Heger said:

> Am 30.04.2023 um 22:21 schrieb J. J. Lodder:
>
>>> I would actually recommend my method as a learning tool.
>>> The idea goes like this:
>>> pretend to be a professor in that particular science and your duty would
>>> be to writte corrections for the homework of a student.
>>> This 'homework' could be any scinetific paper of your choice.
>>> Now you need to find all errors in it and write annotations, why you
>>> think it would be an error.
>> [-]
>>
>> Historically, Max Planck was such a professor.
>> When he read the Einstein 1905 paper he said something like:
>> 'this is a good one, print it as is',
>> and he passed it on to the printer of the Annalen.
>>
>> You think that you are better than Max Planck?
>>
>
> Definetely not, because Planck was actually a world class physicist.
>
> But this statement would not render any of my comments wrong, because
> Planck could have had other than scientific reasons to print this paper
> (like e.g.: following orders from 'above'...).

Even by your standards that's a profoundly silly suggestion. Who in
1905 do you think was in a position to give Planck orders?

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

Am 01.05.2023 um 12:08 schrieb Athel Cornish-Bowden:
> On 2023-05-01 06:25:39 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
>
>> Am 30.04.2023 um 22:21 schrieb J. J. Lodder:
>>
>>>> I would actually recommend my method as a learning tool.
>>>> The idea goes like this:
>>>> pretend to be a professor in that particular science and your duty
>>>> would
>>>> be to writte corrections for the homework of a student.
>>>> This 'homework' could be any scinetific paper of your choice.
>>>> Now you need to find all errors in it and write annotations, why you
>>>> think it would be an error.
>>> [-]
>>>
>>> Historically, Max Planck was such a professor.
>>> When he read the Einstein 1905 paper he said something like:
>>> 'this is a good one, print it as is',
>>> and he passed it on to the printer of the Annalen.
>>>
>>> You think that you are better than Max Planck?
>>>
>>
>> Definetely not, because Planck was actually a world class physicist.
>>
>> But this statement would not render any of my comments wrong, because
>> Planck could have had other than scientific reasons to print this
>> paper (like e.g.: following orders from 'above'...).
>
> Even by your standards that's a profoundly silly suggestion. Who in 1905
> do you think was in a position to give Planck orders?
>
>
His wife, the Pope, Emperor Kaiser Wilhelm IInd, the owner of his paper...

TH

On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 10:06:38 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 28.04.2023 um 18:33 schrieb Dono.:
> > On Wednesday, April 26, 2023 at 10:12:08 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
> >
> >> I wanted to express, that I know this particular paper extremly well,
> >> because I have spent an enormous amout of time on that.
> >>
> > You sure spent an enormous amount of time. The only thing that you have to show for the time spent is that you understood....absolutely nothing.
> >
> I would actually recommend my method as a learning tool.
>
> The idea goes like this:
>
> pretend to be a professor in that particular science and your duty would
> be to writte corrections for the homework of a student.

This will never work as a learning tool unless you are at a professor level..
Without it it's just a silly waste of time.

--
Jan

Am 02.05.2023 um 09:04 schrieb JanPB:
> On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 10:06:38 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
>> Am 28.04.2023 um 18:33 schrieb Dono.:
>>> On Wednesday, April 26, 2023 at 10:12:08 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>
>>>> I wanted to express, that I know this particular paper extremly well,
>>>> because I have spent an enormous amout of time on that.
>>>>
>>> You sure spent an enormous amount of time. The only thing that you have to show for the time spent is that you understood....absolutely nothing.
>>>
>> I would actually recommend my method as a learning tool.
>>
>> The idea goes like this:
>>
>> pretend to be a professor in that particular science and your duty would
>> be to writte corrections for the homework of a student.
>
> This will never work as a learning tool unless you are at a professor level.
> Without it it's just a silly waste of time.
>
Learning is never a waste of time.

OK, well, sometimes you learn things which have no obvious use.

And you could actually obtain skills, which you shouldn's aquirre.

But most knowledge is somehow usefull, even if the direct benefits are
not always visible.

My method is an advanced version of 'critical reading' and related to
that idea.

This method is quite good as a learning tool, even if it is very slow.

(this was at least my own impression)

TH

On 2023-05-03 06:20:06 +0000, Thomas Heger said:

> Am 02.05.2023 um 09:04 schrieb JanPB:
>> On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 10:06:38 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>> Am 28.04.2023 um 18:33 schrieb Dono.:
>>>> On Wednesday, April 26, 2023 at 10:12:08 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I wanted to express, that I know this particular paper extremly well,
>>>>> because I have spent an enormous amout of time on that.
>>>>>
>>>> You sure spent an enormous amount of time. The only thing that you have
>>>> to show for the time spent is that you understood....absolutely nothing.
>>>>
>>> I would actually recommend my method as a learning tool.
>>>
>>> The idea goes like this:
>>>
>>> pretend to be a professor in that particular science and your duty would
>>> be to writte corrections for the homework of a student.
>>
>> This will never work as a learning tool unless you are at a professor level.
>> Without it it's just a silly waste of time.
>>
> Learning is never a waste of time.
>
> OK, well, sometimes you learn things which have no obvious use.
>
> And you could actually obtain skills, which you shouldn's aquirre.
>
> But most knowledge is somehow usefull, even if the direct benefits are
> not always visible.
>
> My method is an advanced version of 'critical reading' and related to
> that idea.
>
> This method is quite good as a learning tool, even if it is very slow.
>
> (this was at least my own impression)

You haven't shown that you learned anything at all from this exercise.
Please give an example (one will do) of something significant you
learned from your studies of the 1905 paper.

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

Am 03.05.2023 um 09:45 schrieb Athel Cornish-Bowden:
> On 2023-05-03 06:20:06 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
>
>> Am 02.05.2023 um 09:04 schrieb JanPB:
>>> On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 10:06:38 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>> Am 28.04.2023 um 18:33 schrieb Dono.:
>>>>> On Wednesday, April 26, 2023 at 10:12:08 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I wanted to express, that I know this particular paper extremly well,
>>>>>> because I have spent an enormous amout of time on that.
>>>>>>
>>>>> You sure spent an enormous amount of time. The only thing that you
>>>>> have to show for the time spent is that you
>>>>> understood....absolutely nothing.
>>>>>
>>>> I would actually recommend my method as a learning tool.
>>>>
>>>> The idea goes like this:
>>>>
>>>> pretend to be a professor in that particular science and your duty
>>>> would
>>>> be to writte corrections for the homework of a student.
>>>
>>> This will never work as a learning tool unless you are at a professor
>>> level.
>>> Without it it's just a silly waste of time.
>>>
>> Learning is never a waste of time.
>>
>> OK, well, sometimes you learn things which have no obvious use.
>>
>> And you could actually obtain skills, which you shouldn's aquirre.
>>
>> But most knowledge is somehow usefull, even if the direct benefits are
>> not always visible.
>>
>> My method is an advanced version of 'critical reading' and related to
>> that idea.
>>
>> This method is quite good as a learning tool, even if it is very slow.
>>
>> (this was at least my own impression)
>
> You haven't shown that you learned anything at all from this exercise.
> Please give an example (one will do) of something significant you
> learned from your studies of the 1905 paper.
>

Actually I have written 420 annotations, which all deal with the content
of this article.

(see here:

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

)

Each of these annotations adress a certain aspect of this text and
discusses the validity of Einstein's statements.

This would, of course, require to understand every aspect of this paper.

This in turn creates a learning effect (because you need to understand
the text) and that is finally the benefit from this method.

TH

On 2023-05-04 05:32:19 +0000, Thomas Heger said:

> Am 03.05.2023 um 09:45 schrieb Athel Cornish-Bowden:
>> On 2023-05-03 06:20:06 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
>>
>>> Am 02.05.2023 um 09:04 schrieb JanPB:
>>>> On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 10:06:38 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>>> Am 28.04.2023 um 18:33 schrieb Dono.:
>>>>>> On Wednesday, April 26, 2023 at 10:12:08 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I wanted to express, that I know this particular paper extremly well,
>>>>>>> because I have spent an enormous amout of time on that.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> You sure spent an enormous amount of time. The only thing that you
>>>>>> have to show for the time spent is that you
>>>>>> understood....absolutely nothing.
>>>>>>
>>>>> I would actually recommend my method as a learning tool.
>>>>>
>>>>> The idea goes like this:
>>>>>
>>>>> pretend to be a professor in that particular science and your duty
>>>>> would
>>>>> be to writte corrections for the homework of a student.
>>>>
>>>> This will never work as a learning tool unless you are at a professor
>>>> level.
>>>> Without it it's just a silly waste of time.
>>>>
>>> Learning is never a waste of time.
>>>
>>> OK, well, sometimes you learn things which have no obvious use.
>>>
>>> And you could actually obtain skills, which you shouldn's aquirre.
>>>
>>> But most knowledge is somehow usefull, even if the direct benefits are
>>> not always visible.
>>>
>>> My method is an advanced version of 'critical reading' and related to
>>> that idea.
>>>
>>> This method is quite good as a learning tool, even if it is very slow.
>>>
>>> (this was at least my own impression)
>>
>> You haven't shown that you learned anything at all from this exercise.
>> Please give an example (one will do) of something significant you
>> learned from your studies of the 1905 paper.
>>
>
>
> Actually I have written 420 annotations, which all deal with the
> content of this article.
>
> (see here:
>
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1D2m4RV7StviWik2JiB1_Huk_7PR5Sxvi/view?usp=sharing
>
> )
>
> Each of these annotations adress a certain aspect of this text and
> discusses the validity of Einstein's statements.
>
> This would, of course, require to understand every aspect of this paper.
>
> This in turn creates a learning effect (because you need to understand
> the text) and that is finally the benefit from this method.

OK, so you're not able to give a single example of something
significant you learned.

--
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:
>
> >
> > [ … ]
> >
> > 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...
> >
> > [ … ]
> >
> > French is not that possible, but I can understand a little. So,
> > Poincare's 'Sur le dynamic de la electron' was another possible source.
>
> Poincaré was French. I find it impossible to believe that he would have
> used such an illiterate title (five errors in six words: "dynamique",
> not "dynamic"; it is feminine, so "la" not "le"; "électron" has an
> accent; and is masculine, so "du", not "de la", and anyway it's elided
> beforea vowel: "de l'électron"). Can we assume that your list of
> "errors" in Einstein's paper is as carelessly assembled as that?

Yes, and he is also incapable
of doing even elementary literature searching.
Doing so would have revealed that Poincare's work
appeared nominally in 1906, but actually in 1908,
so it cannot heve been a source for Einstein 1905,

Jan

Thomas Heger wrote:

>> You haven't shown that you learned anything at all from this exercise.
>> Please give an example (one will do) of something significant you
>> learned from your studies of the 1905 paper.
>
> Actually I have written 420 annotations, which all deal with the content
> of this article.
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1D2m4RV7StviWik2JiB1_Huk_7PR5Sxvi/view?

Peskov asserted that it is important that the US “clearly understands”
that Russia is aware of its involvement in Ukraine and “how dangerous such
direct involvement is.”

I don't get it. All Russia does is say "we know it's you" but then they do
nothing back to them? What's
*_Russia_scared_of_the_LGBTHIV+_60_IQ_military_* that America has? America
is now *_a_3rd_world_craphole_country_* with broken infrastructure. Their
militaries are *_depleted_morally_*, physically, mentally and
logistically. You either strike before recover, or keep your mouth shut.

On 5/4/2023 11:02 AM, Josue De felice wrote:
> Thomas Heger wrote:
>
>>> You haven't shown that you learned anything at all from this exercise.
>>> Please give an example (one will do) of something significant you
>>> learned from your studies of the 1905 paper.
>>
>> Actually I have written 420 annotations, which all deal with the content
>> of this article.
>> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1D2m4RV7StviWik2JiB1_Huk_7PR5Sxvi/view?
>
> Peskov asserted that it is important that the US “clearly understands”
> that Russia is aware of its involvement in Ukraine and “how dangerous such
> direct involvement is.”
>
> I don't get it. All Russia does is say "we know it's you" but then they do
> nothing back to them? What's
> *_Russia_scared_of_the_LGBTHIV+_60_IQ_military_* that America has? America
> is now *_a_3rd_world_craphole_country_* with broken infrastructure. Their
> militaries are *_depleted_morally_*, physically, mentally and
> logistically. You either strike before recover, or keep your mouth shut.

The IQ of the typical Russian soldier is so low it cannot be measured.
And as you said earlier, they're all gay. Why would they shoot someone
they want to fuck, unless they're happy to fuck dead bodies? That leaves
the question, why is direct involvement in the Ukraine dangerous to the
US when the main goal of the Russian military is to fuck rotting corpses

You certainly live in a strange world of fiction where nobody actually
believes anything you say. So why do you believe yourself? Only one
answer to that, you are insane. So regardless of your nymshifting, from
now on I will call you Crazy Ivan.

Go home to your sewer, Crazy Ivan. The rats there are your food and your
favorite company. They miss you.

Am 04.05.2023 um 15:56 schrieb J. J. Lodder:
> Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2023-02-18 09:01:56 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
>>
>>>
>>> [ … ]
>>>
>>> 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...
>>>
>>> [ … ]
>>>
>>> French is not that possible, but I can understand a little. So,
>>> Poincare's 'Sur le dynamic de la electron' was another possible source.
>>
>> Poincaré was French. I find it impossible to believe that he would have
>> used such an illiterate title (five errors in six words: "dynamique",
>> not "dynamic"; it is feminine, so "la" not "le"; "électron" has an
>> accent; and is masculine, so "du", not "de la", and anyway it's elided
>> beforea vowel: "de l'électron").

Well, sorry for speaking only poor French.

But how about your German?

>
> Yes, and he is also incapable
> of doing even elementary literature searching.
> Doing so would have revealed that Poincare's work
> appeared nominally in 1906, but actually in 1908,
> so it cannot heve been a source for Einstein 1905,

The book of Poincare was accepted in July 1905 (afaik 15th) and the
article of Einstein roughly two weeks earlier.

If Einstein's text contains quotes from Poincare's text, than this would
be a proof, that Einstein's date at the beginning of his article was wrong.

This would mean, that a certain date of Einstein's text would be the
date of publication of the article, which was afaik in November 1905.

TH

On 2023-05-05 06:03:53 +0000, Thomas Heger said:

> Am 04.05.2023 um 15:56 schrieb J. J. Lodder:
>> Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2023-02-18 09:01:56 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> [ … ]
>>>>
>>>> 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...
>>>>
>>>> [ … ]
>>>>
>>>> French is not that possible, but I can understand a little. So,
>>>> Poincare's 'Sur le dynamic de la electron' was another possible source.
>>>
>>> Poincaré was French. I find it impossible to believe that he would have
>>> used such an illiterate title (five errors in six words: "dynamique",
>>> not "dynamic"; it is feminine, so "la" not "le"; "électron" has an
>>> accent; and is masculine, so "du", not "de la", and anyway it's elided
>>> beforea vowel: "de l'électron").
>
> Well, sorry for speaking only poor French.

It's not a matter of speaking; it's matter of being able to copy a
title accurately.
>
> But how about your German?

Perfectly adequate for copying the titles of papers. Perfectly adequate
also when I want to quote a longer piece of text, for example

Die Gesellschaft ist ein autopoietisches System auf der Basis von
sinnhafter Kommunikation. Sie besteht aus Kommunikationen, sie besteht
nur aus Kommunikationen, sie besteht aus allen Kommunikationen. Sie
reproduziert Kommunikation durch Kommunikation.... Gesellschaft ist
also ein geschlossenes und ein offenes System zugleich, und
Kommunikation ist die Form der elementaren Operation, die diese
Kombination laufend leistet und reproduziert.

Any obvious errors of German you see there? To get a better idea of
what it means...

(Society is an autopoietic system based on meaningful communication. It
consists of communications, it consists only of communications, it
consists of all communi- cations. It reproduces communication through
communication.... Society is therefore a closed and an open system at
the same time, and communication is the form of the elementary
operation that constantly makes this combination and reproduces it.)
....I consulted a German-speaking colleague. That seems the normal
scholarly thing to do, not to write any old rubbish and then claim poor
knowledge of German as an excuse.
>>
>> Yes, and he is also incapable
>> of doing even elementary literature searching.
>> Doing so would have revealed that Poincare's work
>> appeared nominally in 1906, but actually in 1908,
>> so it cannot heve been a source for Einstein 1905,
>
> The book of Poincare was accepted in July 1905 (afaik 15th) and the
> article of Einstein roughly two weeks earlier.
>
> If Einstein's text contains quotes from Poincare's text, than this
> would be a proof, that Einstein's date at the beginning of his article
> was wrong.
>
> This would mean, that a certain date of Einstein's text would be the
> date of publication of the article, which was afaik in November 1905.

More important, you (Thomas Heger) haven't given an example of anything
significant you learned from your study of the 1905 paper. I'm still
waiting.

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

hey bitch does SR include Maxwell's equations?

Am 04.05.2023 um 08:35 schrieb Athel Cornish-Bowden:

>>> You haven't shown that you learned anything at all from this exercise.
>>> Please give an example (one will do) of something significant you
>>> learned from your studies of the 1905 paper.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Actually I have written 420 annotations, which all deal with the
>> content of this article.
>>
>> (see here:
>>
>>
>> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1D2m4RV7StviWik2JiB1_Huk_7PR5Sxvi/view?usp=sharing
>>
>> )
>>
>> Each of these annotations adress a certain aspect of this text and
>> discusses the validity of Einstein's statements.
>>
>> This would, of course, require to understand every aspect of this paper.
>>
>> This in turn creates a learning effect (because you need to understand
>> the text) and that is finally the benefit from this method.
>
> OK, so you're not able to give a single example of something significant
> you learned.
>

I have learnt something from reading ther paper: its content.

What else do you expect?

TH

Thomas Heger wrote:

> Am 04.05.2023 um 08:35 schrieb Athel Cornish-Bowden:
>> OK, so you're not able to give a single example of something
>> significant you learned.
>
> I have learnt something from reading ther paper: its content.
> What else do you expect?

Aftermath of Russian Strike on *_Polish_Merc_Base_* in Kramatorsk -
Candles Lit For the Deceased
https://b%69%74%63%68ute.com/video/L2ymHAar0uIL

Remaining *_khakhol_Bakhmut_* positions get thermite illumination
https://b%69%74%63%68ute.com/video/vL2pQKGR7Cc4

Niels Bohr Institute - Ice drilling for researching the climate
https://b%69%74%63%68ute.com/video/J4teyZ6rl55j

Huygens (1690) describes the propagation of light using spherical waves formed by the motion of an ether, composed of matter, (Huygens, p. 5 – 11) yet light propagates in a vacuum that is void of an ether. Fresnel (1819) established the wave theory of light by deriving a diffraction intensity equation using Huygens’ spherical waves (Fresnel, 43) but diffraction forms in vacuum that is void of an ether. Michelson (1881) tested for the existence of the ether but the result was negative; consequently, Lorentz (1899) reverses the negative result of Michelson's experiment to justify the ether (Lorentz, § 9).

Lenard (1902) proves light is composed of particles (Lenard, Intro) which negates the continuity of Maxwell's electromagnetic field. Planck (1901) supports Maxwell's theory (Planck, Intro) that Lenard invalidates by deriving an energy element that represents the energy of a photon but an expanding electromagnetic field cannot form a particle structure. Plus, Planck’s ether (diathermic media) (Planck, § 7) that motion forms Planck's standing wave (resonator) does not exist (vacuum).

Einstein's (1905) special relativity is used to justify Maxwell's theory by transforming Maxwell's equations (Einstein1, § 6) but altering the dimensions of Maxwell's equations does not change the fact that induction is not luminous. In addition, Einstein states the ether is superfluous (Einstein2, Intro) but Einstein does not explain how altering the coordinate system of Maxwell's equations renders the ether superfluous since the ether is the foundation of the wave theory of light.

Minkowski (1908) describes an electromagnetic aether using Maxwell's equations (Minkowski, § 2) but a massless electromagnetic ether conflicts with Huygens' ether that is composed of matter. In 1910, Einstein supported Minkowski's electromagnetic aether (Einstein2, § 1). Einstein (1917) uses the inertial mass (m = E/c2) (Einstein3, § 15) that is used to structurally unify Maxwell's electromagnetic field with matter to confirm the electromagnetic ether but Einstein's inertial mass is massless since E represents the energy of a photon. Compton's photon momentum (p = h/λ) is used to support Einstein’s inertial mass but the units of Compton's photon momentum (g m/s) contain the unit of the mass (g) yet a photon is massless.

Am 04.05.2023 um 18:02 schrieb Josue De felice:
> Thomas Heger wrote:
>
>>> You haven't shown that you learned anything at all from this exercise.
>>> Please give an example (one will do) of something significant you
>>> learned from your studies of the 1905 paper.
>>
>> Actually I have written 420 annotations, which all deal with the content
>> of this article.
>> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1D2m4RV7StviWik2JiB1_Huk_7PR5Sxvi/view?
>
> Peskov asserted that it is important that the US “clearly understands”
> that Russia is aware of its involvement in Ukraine and “how dangerous such
> direct involvement is.”
>

This doesn't really fit to Einstein's 'On the Electrodynamics of Moving
Bodies'.

As far as I know Einstein was never in the Ukraine or Russia, but he was
living in the USA for a while.

I personally think, that Szwizzerland deserves more attention, since
most of Einstein's life was related to Swizzerland.

He also lived next door to a Jesuit facility in Pavia, Italy.

I don't really get that into a consistent picture, even if some
speculations are alllowed, like e.g.:

(Possibly) he was a Swiss spy, secretly educated as a Jesuit (only
pretending to be a Jew), who aimed to steal the secrets of atomic arms
from America (and Germany) and to deliver them to the Ukrainians, who
wanted to destroy Russia.

TH

On 5/7/2023 2:42 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:

> (Possibly) he [Einstein] was a Swiss spy, secretly educated as a Jesuit (only
> pretending to be a Jew), who aimed to steal the secrets of atomic arms
> from America (and Germany) and to deliver them to the Ukrainians, who
> wanted to destroy Russia.

You're drunk, Thomas. Really, really drunk.

Am 07.05.2023 um 23:03 schrieb Volney:
> On 5/7/2023 2:42 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>
>> (Possibly) he [Einstein] was a Swiss spy, secretly educated as a
>> Jesuit (only pretending to be a Jew), who aimed to steal the secrets
>> of atomic arms from America (and Germany) and to deliver them to the
>> Ukrainians, who wanted to destroy Russia.
>
> You're drunk, Thomas. Really, really drunk.
>

No, not at all...

My speculations were actually meant as a joke, but apparently you didn't
get it.

(Maybe it wasn't that funny....)

But 'spy for scientific secrets' (possibly for Swiss, Russians or
Jesuits) would be a a hypothesis worth to explore.

TH