I wrote this on another post, with more than 50 replies.

As this is at the bottom of the thread, I consider it is worth to post separately.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thief and plagiarist. I affirm that. Watch the writings of Lorentz (1904) and Einstein (1905).
First, some adjusts between the cgs and MKS units systems:

In the cgs system (used by Lorentz), the electron mass is defined by:

m = e^2/(6.PI.c^2.R)

where R is the electron radius as defined in that epoch. This is the only subatomic radius accepted and validated by NIST, as classical electron radius: 2.8179403262 x 10^-15 meters.

https://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Constants/index.html (search classical electron radius).

In the current MKS system, the permittivity Epsilon_0 adopt a value different from 1 (like in cgs), so

m = e^2/(4.PI.Epsilon_0.c^2.R)

The classical electron radius is sometimes known as the Lorentz radius or the Thomson scattering length. (Wiki).

Attempts to model the electron as a non-point particle have been described as ill-conceived and counter-pedagogic.(Wiki)

Still, a value of 10^-18 mt. is widely used (read about LIGO).

Comparing one section on both papers:

Physics. - "Electromagnetic phenomena in a system moving with any velocity smaller than that of light." By Prof. H. A. LORENTZ (1904)

Excerpt:
-----------------------------------------------------------
" m1= e^2/(6.PI.c^2.R) , d(k.l.w)/dw and m2 = e^2/(6.PI.c^2.R).k.l

Hence, in phenomena in which there is an acceleration in the direction of motion, the electron behaves as if it had a mass m1, in which the acceleration is normal to the path, as if the mass were m2. These quantities m1 and m2, may therefore properly be called the "longitudinal" and "transverse" electromagnetic masses of the electron. I shall suppose
that there is no other, no "true" or "material" mass.°

Note: Lorentz used here the moment of the electron in only the X direction. The value of l=1 (Lorentz-Poincaré) and k is the gamma factor Gamma (I'll use Y).

So, by solving the derivation and using the value m for very low speeds (as stated by Lorentz in the next page), it comes to be that

m1 = m.Y^3 and m2 = m.Y (Y = (1-v^2/c^2)^-1/2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, in Einstein's "ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES" (section § 10. Dynamics of the Slowly Accelerated Electron):

"Now if we call this force simply “the force acting upon the electron,” and maintain the equation—mass × acceleration = force—and if we also decide that the accelerations are to be measured in the stationary system K, we derive from the above equations

Longitudinal mass = m.Y^3

Transverse mass = m.Y^2 (an error, corrected by Planck the next year. The same values as Lorentz's, and also same names)."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Einstein's paper appeared more than one year after Lorentz one.

And THIS is what I call the job of a plagiarist, a thief, a deceiver and also an idiot. This is not the only one mistake in the paper.

Is anyone willing to challenge this? It's obvious the manner he disguises Lorentz work in his formulation, only to arrive to the same formulae, NAMES and overall concepts.

On Friday, August 6, 2021 at 1:43:06 AM UTC-3, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> Science can use science you moron...
> Where does science say it cannot?
>
> Mitchell Raemsch

When you, as a scientist, become a plagiarist, a thief and a deceiver. There is no moral ground to support
your "gaining functions°, in the same way "the mafia" grows from its learning base (in this case, stealing,
deceiving, breaking the written law, murdering, blackmailing, etc.).

Do you see differences in the "business plan"?

He didn't credited Lorentz. Nor he credited anyone else except Maxwell (in the original german 1905 version).

Am 06.08.2021 um 06:58 schrieb Richard Hertz:
> On Friday, August 6, 2021 at 1:43:06 AM UTC-3, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Science can use science you moron...
>> Where does science say it cannot?
>>
>> Mitchell Raemsch
>
> When you, as a scientist, become a plagiarist, a thief and a deceiver. There is no moral ground to support
> your "gaining functions°, in the same way "the mafia" grows from its learning base (in this case, stealing,
> deceiving, breaking the written law, murdering, blackmailing, etc.).
>
> Do you see differences in the "business plan"?
>
> He didn't credited Lorentz. Nor he credited anyone else except Maxwell (in the original german 1905 version).
>
I found some similarities to 'Sur le dynamic de la Electron' of Henry
Poincare.

This is interesting, because Poincare didn't like Einstein, hence had no
reason to share any knowledge with him prior of publication of his own book.

This was published in August 1905, while Einstein's article had the date
end of July 1905 (it was printed much later in 1905).

TH

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
> I wrote this on another post, with more than 50 replies.
>
> As this is at the bottom of the thread, I consider it is worth to post separately.
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> Thief and plagiarist. I affirm that. Watch the writings of Lorentz (1904)
> and Einstein (1905).
> First, some adjusts between the cgs and MKS units systems:
>
> In the cgs system (used by Lorentz), the electron mass is defined by:
>
> m = e^2/(6.PI.c^2.R)
>
> where R is the electron radius as defined in that epoch. This is the only
> subatomic radius accepted and validated by NIST, as classical electron
> radius: 2.8179403262 x 10^-15 meters.
>
> https://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Constants/index.html (search classical electron radius).
>
> In the current MKS system, the permittivity Epsilon_0 adopt a value
> different from 1 (like in cgs), so
>
> m = e^2/(4.PI.Epsilon_0.c^2.R)
>
> The classical electron radius is sometimes known as the Lorentz radius or
> the Thomson scattering length. (Wiki).
>
> Attempts to model the electron as a non-point particle have been
> described as ill-conceived and counter-pedagogic.(Wiki)
>
> Still, a value of 10^-18 mt. is widely used (read about LIGO).
>
> Comparing one section on both papers:
>
> Physics. - "Electromagnetic phenomena in a system moving with any
> velocity smaller than that of light." By Prof. H. A. LORENTZ (1904)
>
> Excerpt:
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> " m1= e^2/(6.PI.c^2.R) , d(k.l.w)/dw and m2 = e^2/(6.PI.c^2.R).k.l
>
> Hence, in phenomena in which there is an acceleration in the direction of
> motion, the electron behaves as if it had a mass m1, in which the
> acceleration is normal to the path, as if the mass were m2. These
> quantities m1 and m2, may therefore properly be called the "longitudinal"
> and "transverse" electromagnetic masses of the electron. I shall suppose
> that there is no other, no "true" or "material" mass.°
>
> Note: Lorentz used here the moment of the electron in only the X
> direction. The value of l=1 (Lorentz-Poincaré) and k is the gamma factor
> Gamma (I'll use Y).
>
> So, by solving the derivation and using the value m for very low speeds
> (as stated by Lorentz in the next page), it comes to be that
>
> m1 = m.Y^3 and m2 = m.Y (Y = (1-v^2/c^2)^-1/2)
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Now, in Einstein's "ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES" (section §
> 10. Dynamics of the Slowly Accelerated Electron):
>
> "Now if we call this force simply “the force acting upon the electron,”
> and maintain the equation—mass × acceleration = force—and if we also
> decide that the accelerations are to be measured in the stationary system
> K, we derive from the above equations
>
> Longitudinal mass = m.Y^3
>
> Transverse mass = m.Y^2 (an error, corrected by Planck the next year.
> The same values as Lorentz's, and also same names)."
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Einstein's paper appeared more than one year after Lorentz one.
>
> And THIS is what I call the job of a plagiarist, a thief, a deceiver and
> also an idiot. This is not the only one mistake in the paper.
>
> Is anyone willing to challenge this? It's obvious the manner he disguises
> Lorentz work in his formulation, only to arrive to the same formulae,
> NAMES and overall concepts.
>
>

If you’d like to take on the mantle of Koobee “nitwit, plagiarist, and
liar” Wublee, now that he dropped his “treatise” at
http://107.184.176.53/Aether01.pdf and then died, I suppose there is an
opening. Note that the “treatise” did not live long after Koobee, and
anyone who imagines that their internet presence will live forever for
future generations to discover can take this as an object lesson about
delusional thinking.

So if you’d like to continue wasting your time following in someone else’s
pointless footsteps into the weeds, that is entirely up to you.

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Friday, August 6, 2021 at 1:43:06 AM UTC-3, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Science can use science you moron...
>> Where does science say it cannot?
>>
>> Mitchell Raemsch
>
> When you, as a scientist, become a plagiarist, a thief and a deceiver.
> There is no moral ground to support
> your "gaining functions°, in the same way "the mafia" grows from its
> learning base (in this case, stealing,
> deceiving, breaking the written law, murdering, blackmailing, etc.).
>
> Do you see differences in the "business plan"?
>
> He didn't credited Lorentz. Nor he credited anyone else except Maxwell
> (in the original german 1905 version).
>

And you think this is a crime.

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On Thursday, August 5, 2021 at 9:32:13 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:

> Thief and plagiarist. I affirm that. Watch the writings of Lorentz (1904) and Einstein (1905).
Cretinoid

It is quite clear that you have a hard-on for Einstein. Thing is, you will die while Einstein remains famous for his works while you are infamous for your imbecilities. Does your family know?

On Friday, August 6, 2021 at 5:32:13 AM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:

> If you’d like to take on the mantle of Koobee “nitwit, plagiarist, and
> liar” Wublee, now that he dropped his “treatise” at
> http://107.184.176.53/Aether01.pdf and then died, I suppose there is an
> opening. Note that the “treatise” did not live long after Koobee, and
> anyone who imagines that their internet presence will live forever for
> future generations to discover can take this as an object lesson about
> delusional thinking.
>
> So if you’d like to continue wasting your time following in someone else’s
> pointless footsteps into the weeds, that is entirely up to you.
>
Richard the Kapo Hertz will also die soon. Ge will be remembered for all his imbecilities posted here and for bringing shame to the Argentinian Jewish community.

Dono. <eggy20011951@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Friday, August 6, 2021 at 5:32:13 AM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> If you’d like to take on the mantle of Koobee “nitwit, plagiarist, and
>> liar” Wublee, now that he dropped his “treatise” at
>> http://107.184.176.53/Aether01.pdf and then died, I suppose there is an
>> opening. Note that the “treatise” did not live long after Koobee, and
>> anyone who imagines that their internet presence will live forever for
>> future generations to discover can take this as an object lesson about
>> delusional thinking.
>>
>> So if you’d like to continue wasting your time following in someone else’s
>> pointless footsteps into the weeds, that is entirely up to you.
>>
> Richard the Kapo Hertz will also die soon. Ge will be remembered for all
> his imbecilities posted here and for bringing shame to the Argentinian Jewish community.
>

I mean, there’s worthless harping by an electrical engineer about physics.
And then there is UNORIGINAL worthless harping by an electrical engineer
about physics.

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On Friday, August 6, 2021 at 4:44:56 AM UTC-3, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 06.08.2021 um 06:58 schrieb Richard Hertz:
> > On Friday, August 6, 2021 at 1:43:06 AM UTC-3, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Science can use science you moron...
> >> Where does science say it cannot?
> >>
> >> Mitchell Raemsch
> >
> > When you, as a scientist, become a plagiarist, a thief and a deceiver. There is no moral ground to support
> > your "gaining functions°, in the same way "the mafia" grows from its learning base (in this case, stealing,
> > deceiving, breaking the written law, murdering, blackmailing, etc.).
> >
> > Do you see differences in the "business plan"?
> >
> > He didn't credited Lorentz. Nor he credited anyone else except Maxwell (in the original german 1905 version).
> >
> I found some similarities to 'Sur le dynamic de la Electron' of Henry
> Poincare.
>
> This is interesting, because Poincare didn't like Einstein, hence had no
> reason to share any knowledge with him prior of publication of his own book.
>
> This was published in August 1905, while Einstein's article had the date
> end of July 1905 (it was printed much later in 1905).
>
> TH

Yes, I knew that about Poincaré, whose lectures and books on the topic of this post I've read.
Also, some parts of the excellent book Science and Hypothesis, a copy of which Maurice Solovine
brought to the meetings of the Olympia Academy (the Einstein's club to discuss science and philosophy)
in 1904. I've read that the book was object of interesting discussions for a long time. It contains some seeds
of all of the relativities, and beyond. The book was in french, as it hadn't been translated to other languages yet.
Certainly, not to german. It seems that here is irrelevant the state of affairs between France and Germany in the
early years of XX century. The tug of war was all over there, due to the popular sentiments about the 1870's war,
which France lost. Also, the worldwide scandal of the Dreyfus affair was peaking for the injustice of the French
establishment with Capt. Dreyfus was at its highest. An honest officer, of Jewish religion, had been accused of
spying in favor of Germany by selling them military secrets about the french rearming. Also, antisemitism was
peaking in France (as in Hungary and other countries, besides Germany), something that was highly disturbing
for all Jewish people in continental Europe.

It's not difficult to understand how that context could have endured determinations of many persons, at any branch
of science or any activities, to do things to make their enemies suffer (at any level) and also to trigger resolutions
to make the other part suffer. Nobody, as far as I know, took the job to analyze how such a state of affairs could
have affected the minds of the young Einstein and his friends and colleagues.

The french academy was quite hostile toward Einstein, once he gained popularity, and it took several years (mid '30s)
for french scientists to accept him. An interesting book that I've read study the waves of acceptance of relativity in
Europe and the rest of the world, and how each of the many countries studied installed relativity in their academy.

THE COMPARATIVE RECEPTION OF RELATIVITY
Edited by
THOMAS F. GLICK
Department of History, Boston University

On Friday, August 6, 2021 at 11:49:34 AM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Dono. <eggy20...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Friday, August 6, 2021 at 5:32:13 AM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> >> If you’d like to take on the mantle of Koobee “nitwit, plagiarist, and
> >> liar” Wublee, now that he dropped his “treatise” at
> >> http://107.184.176.53/Aether01.pdf and then died, I suppose there is an
> >> opening. Note that the “treatise” did not live long after Koobee, and
> >> anyone who imagines that their internet presence will live forever for
> >> future generations to discover can take this as an object lesson about
> >> delusional thinking.
> >>
> >> So if you’d like to continue wasting your time following in someone else’s
> >> pointless footsteps into the weeds, that is entirely up to you.
> >>
> > Richard the Kapo Hertz will also die soon. Ge will be remembered for all
> > his imbecilities posted here and for bringing shame to the Argentinian Jewish community.
> >
> I mean, there’s worthless harping by an electrical engineer about physics.
> And then there is UNORIGINAL worthless harping by an electrical engineer
> about physics.
> --
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

I'm sorry I hurt your feelings, Bodkin, by telling the truth.

I'm not tuned to only think about Einstein or relativity. In fact, the entire subject disgust me.
I tried to post here different things, like the post with "supercluster of galaxies simulation", but nobody care.

As Sylvia wrote to me, this is a site devoted to relativity so, what do you pretend? That I post about
global warming, wall street shit or things from the world at war?

You tell me some topics and I'll give them a try.

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Friday, August 6, 2021 at 11:49:34 AM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Dono. <eggy20...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Friday, August 6, 2021 at 5:32:13 AM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> If you’d like to take on the mantle of Koobee “nitwit, plagiarist, and
>>>> liar” Wublee, now that he dropped his “treatise” at
>>>> http://107.184.176.53/Aether01.pdf and then died, I suppose there is an
>>>> opening. Note that the “treatise” did not live long after Koobee, and
>>>> anyone who imagines that their internet presence will live forever for
>>>> future generations to discover can take this as an object lesson about
>>>> delusional thinking.
>>>>
>>>> So if you’d like to continue wasting your time following in someone else’s
>>>> pointless footsteps into the weeds, that is entirely up to you.
>>>>
>>> Richard the Kapo Hertz will also die soon. Ge will be remembered for all
>>> his imbecilities posted here and for bringing shame to the Argentinian Jewish community.
>>>
>> I mean, there’s worthless harping by an electrical engineer about physics.
>> And then there is UNORIGINAL worthless harping by an electrical engineer
>> about physics.
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>
> I'm sorry I hurt your feelings, Bodkin, by telling the truth.

And how would your stealing verbiage from a dead kook hurt anyone’s
feelings? The dead kook doesn’t care.

>
> I'm not tuned to only think about Einstein or relativity. In fact, the
> entire subject disgust me.
> I tried to post here different things, like the post with "supercluster
> of galaxies simulation", but nobody care.

And it’s off topic here. You could try sci.physics. Or
alt.topics.random.lonely.

>
> As Sylvia wrote to me, this is a site devoted to relativity so, what do
> you pretend? That I post about
> global warming, wall street shit or things from the world at war?
>
> You tell me some topics and I'll give them a try.
>

How about the role of physics in engineering?

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On Friday, August 6, 2021 at 7:32:13 AM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:

> anyone who imagines that their internet presence will live forever for
> future generations to discover can take this as an object lesson about
> delusional thinking.

Hmmm...
Every day, tens of thousands of eyeballs read words that I've written or
examine illustrations that I've created for Wikipedia, both under my
present user name and under a previous name. I do not pretend that
I am any sort of original thinker, but I -do- feel that I am a reasonably
adequate science explicator. Words written on this forum are forgotten
within days or weeks, on websites like Quora within months, but can
persist for decades on Wikipedia with only slow erosion.

A certain -very very few- of my illustrations might even persist for
centuries. :-)

On Friday, August 6, 2021 at 4:10:13 PM UTC-5, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> On Friday, August 6, 2021 at 7:32:13 AM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:

> Every day, tens of thousands of eyeballs read words that I've written or
> examine illustrations that I've created for Wikipedia

Two eyeballs per person, usually.

Expressing this way inflates my numbers. :-)

On Thursday, August 5, 2021 at 9:58:56 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Friday, August 6, 2021 at 1:43:06 AM UTC-3, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Science can use science you moron...
> > Where does science say it cannot?
> >
> > Mitchell Raemsch
> When you, as a scientist, become a plagiarist, a thief and a deceiver.

Who said you can judge you moron?
Are you a genius? and who said so?

Mitchell Raemsch

Am 06.08.2021 um 18:18 schrieb Richard Hertz:
> On Friday, August 6, 2021 at 4:44:56 AM UTC-3, Thomas Heger wrote:
>> Am 06.08.2021 um 06:58 schrieb Richard Hertz:
>>> On Friday, August 6, 2021 at 1:43:06 AM UTC-3, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Science can use science you moron...
>>>> Where does science say it cannot?
>>>>
>>>> Mitchell Raemsch
>>>
>>> When you, as a scientist, become a plagiarist, a thief and a deceiver. There is no moral ground to support
>>> your "gaining functions°, in the same way "the mafia" grows from its learning base (in this case, stealing,
>>> deceiving, breaking the written law, murdering, blackmailing, etc.).
>>>
>>> Do you see differences in the "business plan"?
>>>
>>> He didn't credited Lorentz. Nor he credited anyone else except Maxwell (in the original german 1905 version).
>>>
>> I found some similarities to 'Sur le dynamic de la Electron' of Henry
>> Poincare.
>>
>> This is interesting, because Poincare didn't like Einstein, hence had no
>> reason to share any knowledge with him prior of publication of his own book.
>>
>> This was published in August 1905, while Einstein's article had the date
>> end of July 1905 (it was printed much later in 1905).
>>
>> TH
>
> Yes, I knew that about Poincaré, whose lectures and books on the topic of this post I've read.
> Also, some parts of the excellent book Science and Hypothesis, a copy of which Maurice Solovine
> brought to the meetings of the Olympia Academy (the Einstein's club to discuss science and philosophy)
> in 1904. I've read that the book was object of interesting discussions for a long time. It contains some seeds
> of all of the relativities, and beyond. The book was in french, as it hadn't been translated to other languages yet.
> Certainly, not to german. It seems that here is irrelevant the state of affairs between France and Germany in the
> early years of XX century. The tug of war was all over there, due to the popular sentiments about the 1870's war,
> which France lost. Also, the worldwide scandal of the Dreyfus affair was peaking for the injustice of the French
> establishment with Capt. Dreyfus was at its highest. An honest officer, of Jewish religion, had been accused of
> spying in favor of Germany by selling them military secrets about the french rearming. Also, antisemitism was
> peaking in France (as in Hungary and other countries, besides Germany), something that was highly disturbing
> for all Jewish people in continental Europe.

Physics and science are international in nature and not related to
ethnic groups or certain religions.

So: what is valid in France is also valid in Germany (and vice versa).

(Judaism ist much less a criterium for validity of something in
theoretical physics.)

Well, yes, there were hostilities and even wars between France and
Germany. But that wouldn't render any theory valid, whether or not they
came from any particular country.

But we have a different topic here and that was the date of Einstein's
paper.

The reason is, that Einstein wrote a date into his text, when Poincares
book was not published.

And if content of Poincare's book can be found in Einstein's text, that
date cannot be correct.

TH
....

Am 06.08.2021 um 21:22 schrieb Odd Bodkin:
> Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Friday, August 6, 2021 at 11:49:34 AM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> Dono. <eggy20...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Friday, August 6, 2021 at 5:32:13 AM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> If you’d like to take on the mantle of Koobee “nitwit, plagiarist, and
>>>>> liar” Wublee, now that he dropped his “treatise” at
>>>>> http://107.184.176.53/Aether01.pdf and then died, I suppose there is an
>>>>> opening. Note that the “treatise” did not live long after Koobee, and
>>>>> anyone who imagines that their internet presence will live forever for
>>>>> future generations to discover can take this as an object lesson about
>>>>> delusional thinking.
>>>>>
>>>>> So if you’d like to continue wasting your time following in someone else’s
>>>>> pointless footsteps into the weeds, that is entirely up to you.
>>>>>
>>>> Richard the Kapo Hertz will also die soon. Ge will be remembered for all
>>>> his imbecilities posted here and for bringing shame to the Argentinian Jewish community.
>>>>
>>> I mean, there’s worthless harping by an electrical engineer about physics.
>>> And then there is UNORIGINAL worthless harping by an electrical engineer
>>> about physics.
>>> --
>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>
>> I'm sorry I hurt your feelings, Bodkin, by telling the truth.
>
> And how would your stealing verbiage from a dead kook hurt anyone’s
> feelings? The dead kook doesn’t care.
>
>>
>> I'm not tuned to only think about Einstein or relativity. In fact, the
>> entire subject disgust me.
>> I tried to post here different things, like the post with "supercluster
>> of galaxies simulation", but nobody care.
>
> And it’s off topic here. You could try sci.physics. Or
> alt.topics.random.lonely.
>
>>
>> As Sylvia wrote to me, this is a site devoted to relativity so, what do
>> you pretend? That I post about
>> global warming, wall street shit or things from the world at war?
>>
>> You tell me some topics and I'll give them a try.
>>
>
> How about the role of physics in engineering?
>
>
Engineers take physics as a given thing and usually do not question any
result.

But because they are practical guys, they do not care too much neither.

What counts in the real world, that are machines, which function as desired.

Whether this agrees with theory is usually not the concern of engineers.

And once engineers wander into physics, they usually do not see the
smoke and mirrors produced by the academic system and develop things,
which function as desired (which is causing the greates anger of the
physicists).

TH

Am 06.08.2021 um 23:10 schrieb Prokaryotic Capase Homolog:
> On Friday, August 6, 2021 at 7:32:13 AM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> anyone who imagines that their internet presence will live forever for
>> future generations to discover can take this as an object lesson about
>> delusional thinking.
>
> Hmmm...
> Every day, tens of thousands of eyeballs read words that I've written or
> examine illustrations that I've created for Wikipedia, both under my
> present user name and under a previous name. I do not pretend that
> I am any sort of original thinker, but I -do- feel that I am a reasonably
> adequate science explicator. Words written on this forum are forgotten
> within days or weeks, on websites like Quora within months, but can
> persist for decades on Wikipedia with only slow erosion.
>
> A certain -very very few- of my illustrations might even persist for
> centuries. :-)
>

This is quite wrong.

Actually there is nothing more persistent than a post to the Usenet.

I had once copied lots of posts into a database, because two decades ago
the internet connections were slow and I wanted to index and categorize
the posts.

Many software tools can actually do that and many people did.

This includes many Web-sites, that copy messages from the Usenet into
their forum systems.

Wikipedia on the other hand is a user-maintained system. And any user
can eventually remove or edit, what you have written so carefully.

TH

On Saturday, August 7, 2021 at 3:19:17 AM UTC-3, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 06.08.2021 um 18:18 schrieb Richard Hertz:
> > On Friday, August 6, 2021 at 4:44:56 AM UTC-3, Thomas Heger wrote:
> >> Am 06.08.2021 um 06:58 schrieb Richard Hertz:
> >>> On Friday, August 6, 2021 at 1:43:06 AM UTC-3, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> Science can use science you moron...
> >>>> Where does science say it cannot?
> >>>>
> >>>> Mitchell Raemsch
> >>>
> >>> When you, as a scientist, become a plagiarist, a thief and a deceiver.. There is no moral ground to support
> >>> your "gaining functions°, in the same way "the mafia" grows from its learning base (in this case, stealing,
> >>> deceiving, breaking the written law, murdering, blackmailing, etc.).
> >>>
> >>> Do you see differences in the "business plan"?
> >>>
> >>> He didn't credited Lorentz. Nor he credited anyone else except Maxwell (in the original german 1905 version).
> >>>
> >> I found some similarities to 'Sur le dynamic de la Electron' of Henry
> >> Poincare.
> >>
> >> This is interesting, because Poincare didn't like Einstein, hence had no
> >> reason to share any knowledge with him prior of publication of his own book.
> >>
> >> This was published in August 1905, while Einstein's article had the date
> >> end of July 1905 (it was printed much later in 1905).
> >>
> >> TH
> >
> > Yes, I knew that about Poincaré, whose lectures and books on the topic of this post I've read.
> > Also, some parts of the excellent book Science and Hypothesis, a copy of which Maurice Solovine
> > brought to the meetings of the Olympia Academy (the Einstein's club to discuss science and philosophy)
> > in 1904. I've read that the book was object of interesting discussions for a long time. It contains some seeds
> > of all of the relativities, and beyond. The book was in french, as it hadn't been translated to other languages yet.
> > Certainly, not to german. It seems that here is irrelevant the state of affairs between France and Germany in the
> > early years of XX century. The tug of war was all over there, due to the popular sentiments about the 1870's war,
> > which France lost. Also, the worldwide scandal of the Dreyfus affair was peaking for the injustice of the French
> > establishment with Capt. Dreyfus was at its highest. An honest officer, of Jewish religion, had been accused of
> > spying in favor of Germany by selling them military secrets about the french rearming. Also, antisemitism was
> > peaking in France (as in Hungary and other countries, besides Germany), something that was highly disturbing
> > for all Jewish people in continental Europe.
> Physics and science are international in nature and not related to
> ethnic groups or certain religions.
>
> So: what is valid in France is also valid in Germany (and vice versa).
>
> (Judaism ist much less a criterium for validity of something in
> theoretical physics.)
>
> Well, yes, there were hostilities and even wars between France and
> Germany. But that wouldn't render any theory valid, whether or not they
> came from any particular country.
>
>
> But we have a different topic here and that was the date of Einstein's
> paper.
>
> The reason is, that Einstein wrote a date into his text, when Poincares
> book was not published.
>
> And if content of Poincare's book can be found in Einstein's text, that
> date cannot be correct.
>
> TH
> ...

I'm talking about the "Science and Hypothesis" Poincaré's book, which was
widely available in 1904, and used to discuss at Einstein's Olympia Academy..

Sur la dynamique de l'électron, as an article, was published on June 5, 1905. There, Poincaré credits
to Lorentz and Langevin on his writing.

Prior to that publication, Poincaré gave several lectures on the topic..

https://www.academie-sciences.fr/pdf/dossiers/Poincare/Poincare_pdf/Poincare_CR1905.pdf

But the issue here is Lorentz 1904 paper's plagiarism.

Am 07.08.2021 um 08:40 schrieb Richard Hertz:
> On Saturday, August 7, 2021 at 3:19:17 AM UTC-3, Thomas Heger wrote:
>> Am 06.08.2021 um 18:18 schrieb Richard Hertz:
>>> On Friday, August 6, 2021 at 4:44:56 AM UTC-3, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>> Am 06.08.2021 um 06:58 schrieb Richard Hertz:
>>>>> On Friday, August 6, 2021 at 1:43:06 AM UTC-3, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> Science can use science you moron...
>>>>>> Where does science say it cannot?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mitchell Raemsch
>>>>>
>>>>> When you, as a scientist, become a plagiarist, a thief and a deceiver. There is no moral ground to support
>>>>> your "gaining functions°, in the same way "the mafia" grows from its learning base (in this case, stealing,
>>>>> deceiving, breaking the written law, murdering, blackmailing, etc.).
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you see differences in the "business plan"?
>>>>>
>>>>> He didn't credited Lorentz. Nor he credited anyone else except Maxwell (in the original german 1905 version).
>>>>>
>>>> I found some similarities to 'Sur le dynamic de la Electron' of Henry
>>>> Poincare.
>>>>
>>>> This is interesting, because Poincare didn't like Einstein, hence had no
>>>> reason to share any knowledge with him prior of publication of his own book.
>>>>
>>>> This was published in August 1905, while Einstein's article had the date
>>>> end of July 1905 (it was printed much later in 1905).
>>>>
>>>> TH
>>>
>>> Yes, I knew that about Poincaré, whose lectures and books on the topic of this post I've read.
>>> Also, some parts of the excellent book Science and Hypothesis, a copy of which Maurice Solovine
>>> brought to the meetings of the Olympia Academy (the Einstein's club to discuss science and philosophy)
>>> in 1904. I've read that the book was object of interesting discussions for a long time. It contains some seeds
>>> of all of the relativities, and beyond. The book was in french, as it hadn't been translated to other languages yet.
>>> Certainly, not to german. It seems that here is irrelevant the state of affairs between France and Germany in the
>>> early years of XX century. The tug of war was all over there, due to the popular sentiments about the 1870's war,
>>> which France lost. Also, the worldwide scandal of the Dreyfus affair was peaking for the injustice of the French
>>> establishment with Capt. Dreyfus was at its highest. An honest officer, of Jewish religion, had been accused of
>>> spying in favor of Germany by selling them military secrets about the french rearming. Also, antisemitism was
>>> peaking in France (as in Hungary and other countries, besides Germany), something that was highly disturbing
>>> for all Jewish people in continental Europe.
>> Physics and science are international in nature and not related to
>> ethnic groups or certain religions.
>>
>> So: what is valid in France is also valid in Germany (and vice versa).
>>
>> (Judaism ist much less a criterium for validity of something in
>> theoretical physics.)
>>
>> Well, yes, there were hostilities and even wars between France and
>> Germany. But that wouldn't render any theory valid, whether or not they
>> came from any particular country.
>>
>>
>> But we have a different topic here and that was the date of Einstein's
>> paper.
>>
>> The reason is, that Einstein wrote a date into his text, when Poincares
>> book was not published.
>>
>> And if content of Poincare's book can be found in Einstein's text, that
>> date cannot be correct.
....

> Sur la dynamique de l'électron, as an article, was published on June 5, 1905. There, Poincaré credits
> to Lorentz and Langevin on his writing.

https://fr.wikisource.org/wiki/Sur_la_dynamique_de_l%E2%80%99%C3%A9lectron

the dates were:

"Adunanza del 23 luglio 1905.
Stampato il 14-16 dicembre 1905 "

translated into English by google

"Meeting of 23 July 1905. (meant was 'handed in..')
Printed December 14-16, 1905"

the dates of Einstein's article:
Annalen der Physik und Chemie, Jg. 17, 1905, S. 891
"eingegangen 30. Juni 1905"
"Ausgegeben am 26.September 1905"

so Einstein handed in his paper three weeks before Poincare did.

But still Einstein's paper contains equations, which seem to stem from
Poincare's text.

And because Poincare's text was printed after the 'Annalen der Physik',
he could not have obtained the knowledge from the printed book.

....

TH

Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
> Am 06.08.2021 um 21:22 schrieb Odd Bodkin:
>> Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Friday, August 6, 2021 at 11:49:34 AM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Dono. <eggy20...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Friday, August 6, 2021 at 5:32:13 AM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> If you’d like to take on the mantle of Koobee “nitwit, plagiarist, and
>>>>>> liar” Wublee, now that he dropped his “treatise” at
>>>>>> http://107.184.176.53/Aether01.pdf and then died, I suppose there is an
>>>>>> opening. Note that the “treatise” did not live long after Koobee, and
>>>>>> anyone who imagines that their internet presence will live forever for
>>>>>> future generations to discover can take this as an object lesson about
>>>>>> delusional thinking.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So if you’d like to continue wasting your time following in someone else’s
>>>>>> pointless footsteps into the weeds, that is entirely up to you.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Richard the Kapo Hertz will also die soon. Ge will be remembered for all
>>>>> his imbecilities posted here and for bringing shame to the
>>>>> Argentinian Jewish community.
>>>>>
>>>> I mean, there’s worthless harping by an electrical engineer about physics.
>>>> And then there is UNORIGINAL worthless harping by an electrical engineer
>>>> about physics.
>>>> --
>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>>
>>> I'm sorry I hurt your feelings, Bodkin, by telling the truth.
>>
>> And how would your stealing verbiage from a dead kook hurt anyone’s
>> feelings? The dead kook doesn’t care.
>>
>>>
>>> I'm not tuned to only think about Einstein or relativity. In fact, the
>>> entire subject disgust me.
>>> I tried to post here different things, like the post with "supercluster
>>> of galaxies simulation", but nobody care.
>>
>> And it’s off topic here. You could try sci.physics. Or
>> alt.topics.random.lonely.
>>
>>>
>>> As Sylvia wrote to me, this is a site devoted to relativity so, what do
>>> you pretend? That I post about
>>> global warming, wall street shit or things from the world at war?
>>>
>>> You tell me some topics and I'll give them a try.
>>>
>>
>> How about the role of physics in engineering?
>>
>>
> Engineers take physics as a given thing and usually do not question any
> result.
>
> But because they are practical guys, they do not care too much neither.
>
> What counts in the real world, that are machines, which function as desired.

Knowing how to DESIGN those machines is at least as important. Which means
understanding the principles that would govern their operation.

>
> Whether this agrees with theory is usually not the concern of engineers.

See the principles behind the DESIGN. Engineering is not a trial and error
exercise.

>
> And once engineers wander into physics, they usually do not see the
> smoke and mirrors produced by the academic system and develop things,
> which function as desired (which is causing the greates anger of the
> physicists).
>
>
> TH
>
>

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On Saturday, August 7, 2021 at 5:03:06 AM UTC-3, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 07.08.2021 um 08:40 schrieb Richard Hertz:
> > On Saturday, August 7, 2021 at 3:19:17 AM UTC-3, Thomas Heger wrote:
> >> Am 06.08.2021 um 18:18 schrieb Richard Hertz:
> >>> On Friday, August 6, 2021 at 4:44:56 AM UTC-3, Thomas Heger wrote:
> >>>> Am 06.08.2021 um 06:58 schrieb Richard Hertz:
> >>>>> On Friday, August 6, 2021 at 1:43:06 AM UTC-3, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>> Science can use science you moron...
> >>>>>> Where does science say it cannot?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Mitchell Raemsch
> >>>>>
> >>>>> When you, as a scientist, become a plagiarist, a thief and a deceiver. There is no moral ground to support
> >>>>> your "gaining functions°, in the same way "the mafia" grows from its learning base (in this case, stealing,
> >>>>> deceiving, breaking the written law, murdering, blackmailing, etc.)..
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Do you see differences in the "business plan"?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> He didn't credited Lorentz. Nor he credited anyone else except Maxwell (in the original german 1905 version).
> >>>>>
> >>>> I found some similarities to 'Sur le dynamic de la Electron' of Henry
> >>>> Poincare.
> >>>>
> >>>> This is interesting, because Poincare didn't like Einstein, hence had no
> >>>> reason to share any knowledge with him prior of publication of his own book.
> >>>>
> >>>> This was published in August 1905, while Einstein's article had the date
> >>>> end of July 1905 (it was printed much later in 1905).
> >>>>
> >>>> TH
> >>>
> >>> Yes, I knew that about Poincaré, whose lectures and books on the topic of this post I've read.
> >>> Also, some parts of the excellent book Science and Hypothesis, a copy of which Maurice Solovine
> >>> brought to the meetings of the Olympia Academy (the Einstein's club to discuss science and philosophy)
> >>> in 1904. I've read that the book was object of interesting discussions for a long time. It contains some seeds
> >>> of all of the relativities, and beyond. The book was in french, as it hadn't been translated to other languages yet.
> >>> Certainly, not to german. It seems that here is irrelevant the state of affairs between France and Germany in the
> >>> early years of XX century. The tug of war was all over there, due to the popular sentiments about the 1870's war,
> >>> which France lost. Also, the worldwide scandal of the Dreyfus affair was peaking for the injustice of the French
> >>> establishment with Capt. Dreyfus was at its highest. An honest officer, of Jewish religion, had been accused of
> >>> spying in favor of Germany by selling them military secrets about the french rearming. Also, antisemitism was
> >>> peaking in France (as in Hungary and other countries, besides Germany), something that was highly disturbing
> >>> for all Jewish people in continental Europe.
> >> Physics and science are international in nature and not related to
> >> ethnic groups or certain religions.
> >>
> >> So: what is valid in France is also valid in Germany (and vice versa).
> >>
> >> (Judaism ist much less a criterium for validity of something in
> >> theoretical physics.)
> >>
> >> Well, yes, there were hostilities and even wars between France and
> >> Germany. But that wouldn't render any theory valid, whether or not they
> >> came from any particular country.
> >>
> >>
> >> But we have a different topic here and that was the date of Einstein's
> >> paper.
> >>
> >> The reason is, that Einstein wrote a date into his text, when Poincares
> >> book was not published.
> >>
> >> And if content of Poincare's book can be found in Einstein's text, that
> >> date cannot be correct.
> ...
> > Sur la dynamique de l'électron, as an article, was published on June 5, 1905. There, Poincaré credits
> > to Lorentz and Langevin on his writing.
> https://fr.wikisource.org/wiki/Sur_la_dynamique_de_l%E2%80%99%C3%A9lectron
>
> the dates were:
>
> "Adunanza del 23 luglio 1905.
> Stampato il 14-16 dicembre 1905 "
>
> translated into English by google
>
> "Meeting of 23 July 1905. (meant was 'handed in..')
> Printed December 14-16, 1905"
>
>
> the dates of Einstein's article:
> Annalen der Physik und Chemie, Jg. 17, 1905, S. 891
> "eingegangen 30. Juni 1905"
> "Ausgegeben am 26.September 1905"
>
> so Einstein handed in his paper three weeks before Poincare did.
>
> But still Einstein's paper contains equations, which seem to stem from
> Poincare's text.
>
> And because Poincare's text was printed after the 'Annalen der Physik',
> he could not have obtained the knowledge from the printed book.
>
> ...
>
>
> TH

Thomas, you have to read again the topic of this thread. It's all about Lorentz' 1904 paper.
I wrote that this thread was a sample of Einstein's plagiarism over Lorentz
paper on contractions of the slowly accelerated electrons. NOTHING ELSE!

Nor I didn't mention Poincaré neither I wrote a word about an entire plagiarism
of the theory within the 1905 Einstein's paper.

I choose carefully my wording here to avoid accuse Einstein of plagiarism over the entire theory.

But, if you insist, I'll drop some grains of salt over the open wound.

Einstein got a questionable derivation of Lorentz transforms (as named by Poincaré after
he made some corrections in 1905) by suppressing the ether reference frame which,
as Tom Roberts taught me a couple of years ago, are hidden at the 1904 Lorentz paper.

BUT, in the first 1905 paper about the photoelectric effect, Einstein claims
all over there that ether exists. It's funny that he changed entirely his credence
a couple of months later, just to adjust SR to Poincaré's transforms (which, I repeat,
Poincaré credited to Lorentz as he did with many other corrections which he made
on other papers on mathematics.). It seems that Poincaré took pleasure in giving
other people names to a given work, instead of credit himself for his corrections.

So, remember: this thread is not about Lorentz transforms plagiarism. It's about
the plagiarism of Einstein over the SECTION of masses of slowly accelerated electrons.

I hope that this explanation can be satisfactory to you. And, if you don't believe
my excerpts of both papers (1904, 1905), they are out there in the web in their original
translation at english.

There is evidence also about Einstein plagiarism of Poincaré work on
relativity, given the existence of prior written drafts and lectures by Poincaré,
but this is not what addressing here.

There is a connection between Langevin and Solovine by then, which perfectly
explain who gave Einstein full access to Poincaré´s work early in 1905 or late 1904.

Am 07.08.2021 um 14:08 schrieb Odd Bodkin:
> Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
>> Am 06.08.2021 um 21:22 schrieb Odd Bodkin:
>>> Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Friday, August 6, 2021 at 11:49:34 AM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> Dono. <eggy20...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Friday, August 6, 2021 at 5:32:13 AM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you’d like to take on the mantle of Koobee “nitwit, plagiarist, and
>>>>>>> liar” Wublee, now that he dropped his “treatise” at
>>>>>>> http://107.184.176.53/Aether01.pdf and then died, I suppose there is an
>>>>>>> opening. Note that the “treatise” did not live long after Koobee, and
>>>>>>> anyone who imagines that their internet presence will live forever for
>>>>>>> future generations to discover can take this as an object lesson about
>>>>>>> delusional thinking.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So if you’d like to continue wasting your time following in someone else’s
>>>>>>> pointless footsteps into the weeds, that is entirely up to you.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Richard the Kapo Hertz will also die soon. Ge will be remembered for all
>>>>>> his imbecilities posted here and for bringing shame to the
>>>>>> Argentinian Jewish community.
>>>>>>
>>>>> I mean, there’s worthless harping by an electrical engineer about physics.
>>>>> And then there is UNORIGINAL worthless harping by an electrical engineer
>>>>> about physics.
>>>>> --
>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>>>
>>>> I'm sorry I hurt your feelings, Bodkin, by telling the truth.
>>>
>>> And how would your stealing verbiage from a dead kook hurt anyone’s
>>> feelings? The dead kook doesn’t care.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'm not tuned to only think about Einstein or relativity. In fact, the
>>>> entire subject disgust me.
>>>> I tried to post here different things, like the post with "supercluster
>>>> of galaxies simulation", but nobody care.
>>>
>>> And it’s off topic here. You could try sci.physics. Or
>>> alt.topics.random.lonely.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> As Sylvia wrote to me, this is a site devoted to relativity so, what do
>>>> you pretend? That I post about
>>>> global warming, wall street shit or things from the world at war?
>>>>
>>>> You tell me some topics and I'll give them a try.
>>>>
>>>
>>> How about the role of physics in engineering?
>>>
>>>
>> Engineers take physics as a given thing and usually do not question any
>> result.
>>
>> But because they are practical guys, they do not care too much neither.
>>
>> What counts in the real world, that are machines, which function as desired.
>
> Knowing how to DESIGN those machines is at least as important. Which means
> understanding the principles that would govern their operation.
>
>>
>> Whether this agrees with theory is usually not the concern of engineers.
>
> See the principles behind the DESIGN. Engineering is not a trial and error
> exercise.
>

You are totally wrong.

Engineering is mainly a longish process, which takes several
intermediate steps, until the final product can be produced.

Lets take cars, for example:
in the beginning the car looked like a stage coach without a horse.

Now this chanded a bit, but took about 150 years and several generations
of car-designs.

...

TH

Am 07.08.2021 um 19:50 schrieb Richard Hertz:
> On Saturday, August 7, 2021 at 5:03:06 AM UTC-3, Thomas Heger wrote:
>> Am 07.08.2021 um 08:40 schrieb Richard Hertz:
>>> On Saturday, August 7, 2021 at 3:19:17 AM UTC-3, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>> Am 06.08.2021 um 18:18 schrieb Richard Hertz:
>>>>> On Friday, August 6, 2021 at 4:44:56 AM UTC-3, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>>>> Am 06.08.2021 um 06:58 schrieb Richard Hertz:
>>>>>>> On Friday, August 6, 2021 at 1:43:06 AM UTC-3, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>> Science can use science you moron...
>>>>>>>> Where does science say it cannot?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Mitchell Raemsch
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When you, as a scientist, become a plagiarist, a thief and a deceiver. There is no moral ground to support
>>>>>>> your "gaining functions°, in the same way "the mafia" grows from its learning base (in this case, stealing,
>>>>>>> deceiving, breaking the written law, murdering, blackmailing, etc.).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Do you see differences in the "business plan"?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> He didn't credited Lorentz. Nor he credited anyone else except Maxwell (in the original german 1905 version).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> I found some similarities to 'Sur le dynamic de la Electron' of Henry
>>>>>> Poincare.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is interesting, because Poincare didn't like Einstein, hence had no
>>>>>> reason to share any knowledge with him prior of publication of his own book.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This was published in August 1905, while Einstein's article had the date
>>>>>> end of July 1905 (it was printed much later in 1905).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> TH
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, I knew that about Poincaré, whose lectures and books on the topic of this post I've read.
>>>>> Also, some parts of the excellent book Science and Hypothesis, a copy of which Maurice Solovine
>>>>> brought to the meetings of the Olympia Academy (the Einstein's club to discuss science and philosophy)
>>>>> in 1904. I've read that the book was object of interesting discussions for a long time. It contains some seeds
>>>>> of all of the relativities, and beyond. The book was in french, as it hadn't been translated to other languages yet.
>>>>> Certainly, not to german. It seems that here is irrelevant the state of affairs between France and Germany in the
>>>>> early years of XX century. The tug of war was all over there, due to the popular sentiments about the 1870's war,
>>>>> which France lost. Also, the worldwide scandal of the Dreyfus affair was peaking for the injustice of the French
>>>>> establishment with Capt. Dreyfus was at its highest. An honest officer, of Jewish religion, had been accused of
>>>>> spying in favor of Germany by selling them military secrets about the french rearming. Also, antisemitism was
>>>>> peaking in France (as in Hungary and other countries, besides Germany), something that was highly disturbing
>>>>> for all Jewish people in continental Europe.
>>>> Physics and science are international in nature and not related to
>>>> ethnic groups or certain religions.
>>>>
>>>> So: what is valid in France is also valid in Germany (and vice versa).
>>>>
>>>> (Judaism ist much less a criterium for validity of something in
>>>> theoretical physics.)
>>>>
>>>> Well, yes, there were hostilities and even wars between France and
>>>> Germany. But that wouldn't render any theory valid, whether or not they
>>>> came from any particular country.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> But we have a different topic here and that was the date of Einstein's
>>>> paper.
>>>>
>>>> The reason is, that Einstein wrote a date into his text, when Poincares
>>>> book was not published.
>>>>
>>>> And if content of Poincare's book can be found in Einstein's text, that
>>>> date cannot be correct.
>> ...
>>> Sur la dynamique de l'électron, as an article, was published on June 5, 1905. There, Poincaré credits
>>> to Lorentz and Langevin on his writing.
>> https://fr.wikisource.org/wiki/Sur_la_dynamique_de_l%E2%80%99%C3%A9lectron
>>
>> the dates were:
>>
>> "Adunanza del 23 luglio 1905.
>> Stampato il 14-16 dicembre 1905 "
>>
>> translated into English by google
>>
>> "Meeting of 23 July 1905. (meant was 'handed in..')
>> Printed December 14-16, 1905"
>>
>>
>> the dates of Einstein's article:
>> Annalen der Physik und Chemie, Jg. 17, 1905, S. 891
>> "eingegangen 30. Juni 1905"
>> "Ausgegeben am 26.September 1905"
>>
>> so Einstein handed in his paper three weeks before Poincare did.
>>
>> But still Einstein's paper contains equations, which seem to stem from
>> Poincare's text.
>>
>> And because Poincare's text was printed after the 'Annalen der Physik',
>> he could not have obtained the knowledge from the printed book.
>>
>> ...
>>
>>
>> TH
>
> Thomas, you have to read again the topic of this thread. It's all about Lorentz' 1904 paper.
> I wrote that this thread was a sample of Einstein's plagiarism over Lorentz
> paper on contractions of the slowly accelerated electrons. NOTHING ELSE!

Sorry, but I have not read anything from Hendrik Lorentz at all.

But I have tried to decipher Poincares text, even if I don't speak French.

I can speak a little bit and understand a bit more, but I have not
learned that language in school.

I found recently an English translation, but have actually tried to read
the French version (with the help of google translator).

> Nor I didn't mention Poincaré neither I wrote a word about an entire plagiarism
> of the theory within the 1905 Einstein's paper.
>
> I choose carefully my wording here to avoid accuse Einstein of plagiarism over the entire theory.

Well, I was simply hoping to add something useful.
About Lorentz I cannot say anything.

> But, if you insist, I'll drop some grains of salt over the open wound.
>
> Einstein got a questionable derivation of Lorentz transforms (as named by Poincaré after
> he made some corrections in 1905) by suppressing the ether reference frame which,
> as Tom Roberts taught me a couple of years ago, are hidden at the 1904 Lorentz paper.
>
> BUT, in the first 1905 paper about the photoelectric effect, Einstein claims
> all over there that ether exists. It's funny that he changed entirely his credence
> a couple of months later, just to adjust SR to Poincaré's transforms (which, I repeat,
> Poincaré credited to Lorentz as he did with many other corrections which he made
> on other papers on mathematics.). It seems that Poincaré took pleasure in giving
> other people names to a given work, instead of credit himself for his corrections.
>
> So, remember: this thread is not about Lorentz transforms plagiarism. It's about
> the plagiarism of Einstein over the SECTION of masses of slowly accelerated electrons.
>
> I hope that this explanation can be satisfactory to you. And, if you don't believe
> my excerpts of both papers (1904, 1905), they are out there in the web in their original
> translation at english.

If I find time, I will read that.

> There is evidence also about Einstein plagiarism of Poincaré work on
> relativity, given the existence of prior written drafts and lectures by Poincaré,
> but this is not what addressing here.

I found similarities in Einstein's paper to words and equations in 'sur
la dynamic de la electron' by Poincare.

From where Poincare got them, I don't know. Possibly they came from
Lorentz, but actually I think, they were mainly Poincare's work.

> There is a connection between Langevin and Solovine by then, which perfectly
> explain who gave Einstein full access to Poincaré´s work early in 1905 or late 1904.
>
Interesting...

TH

Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
> Am 07.08.2021 um 14:08 schrieb Odd Bodkin:
>> Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
>>> Am 06.08.2021 um 21:22 schrieb Odd Bodkin:
>>>> Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Friday, August 6, 2021 at 11:49:34 AM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> Dono. <eggy20...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Friday, August 6, 2021 at 5:32:13 AM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If you’d like to take on the mantle of Koobee “nitwit, plagiarist, and
>>>>>>>> liar” Wublee, now that he dropped his “treatise” at
>>>>>>>> http://107.184.176.53/Aether01.pdf and then died, I suppose there is an
>>>>>>>> opening. Note that the “treatise” did not live long after Koobee, and
>>>>>>>> anyone who imagines that their internet presence will live forever for
>>>>>>>> future generations to discover can take this as an object lesson about
>>>>>>>> delusional thinking.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So if you’d like to continue wasting your time following in someone else’s
>>>>>>>> pointless footsteps into the weeds, that is entirely up to you.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Richard the Kapo Hertz will also die soon. Ge will be remembered for all
>>>>>>> his imbecilities posted here and for bringing shame to the
>>>>>>> Argentinian Jewish community.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> I mean, there’s worthless harping by an electrical engineer about physics.
>>>>>> And then there is UNORIGINAL worthless harping by an electrical engineer
>>>>>> about physics.
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm sorry I hurt your feelings, Bodkin, by telling the truth.
>>>>
>>>> And how would your stealing verbiage from a dead kook hurt anyone’s
>>>> feelings? The dead kook doesn’t care.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm not tuned to only think about Einstein or relativity. In fact, the
>>>>> entire subject disgust me.
>>>>> I tried to post here different things, like the post with "supercluster
>>>>> of galaxies simulation", but nobody care.
>>>>
>>>> And it’s off topic here. You could try sci.physics. Or
>>>> alt.topics.random.lonely.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> As Sylvia wrote to me, this is a site devoted to relativity so, what do
>>>>> you pretend? That I post about
>>>>> global warming, wall street shit or things from the world at war?
>>>>>
>>>>> You tell me some topics and I'll give them a try.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> How about the role of physics in engineering?
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Engineers take physics as a given thing and usually do not question any
>>> result.
>>>
>>> But because they are practical guys, they do not care too much neither.
>>>
>>> What counts in the real world, that are machines, which function as desired.
>>
>> Knowing how to DESIGN those machines is at least as important. Which means
>> understanding the principles that would govern their operation.
>>
>>>
>>> Whether this agrees with theory is usually not the concern of engineers.
>>
>> See the principles behind the DESIGN. Engineering is not a trial and error
>> exercise.
>>
>
> You are totally wrong.
>
> Engineering is mainly a longish process, which takes several
> intermediate steps, until the final product can be produced.

Which is driven by design, which in turn is driven by understanding physics
principles.

Good grief, you know nothing about engineering too?

>
> Lets take cars, for example:
> in the beginning the car looked like a stage coach without a horse.
>
> Now this chanded a bit, but took about 150 years and several generations
> of car-designs.
>
>
> ..
>
> TH
>

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On Monday, 9 August 2021 at 14:42:11 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:

> > Engineering is mainly a longish process, which takes several
> > intermediate steps, until the final product can be produced.
> Which is driven by design, which in turn is driven by understanding physics
> principles.

Was, poor idiot; until physics got mad.