And yet Einstein plagiarized Lorentz, among others.

His *re-invention* of the development of the transforms is faulty, as noted by Planck and others.

Worse yet, according to the author of the english version of his 1905 paper:

"5. The equations of the Lorentz transformation may be more simply deduced directly from
the condition that in virtue of those equations the relation x^2 + y^2 + z^2 = c^2.t^2 shall have as
its consequence the second relation x'^2 + y'^2 + z'^2 = c^2.t'^2."

This is a direct derivation obtained from Voigt's paper in 1887, which he denied to have read. Yet,
he uses exactly the same notations as Voigt.

A sample of idiocy? or fear to be found to been doing reverse mathemagics, hiding sources?

On Tuesday, August 10, 2021 at 4:27:48 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> And yet Einstein plagiarized Lorentz, among others.
>
> His *re-invention* of the development of the transforms is faulty, as noted by Planck and others.
>

Now, now, you are resorting yo outright lies.
> This is a direct derivation obtained from Voigt's paper in 1887, which he denied to have read. Yet,
> he uses exactly the same notations as Voigt.

Kapo, Voigt transforms are not equivalent to Lorentz-Einstein. Open your mouth, get it filled up with shit. Swallow.

On Tuesday, August 10, 2021 at 1:11:49 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 10, 2021 at 3:53:19 PM UTC-3, JanPB wrote:
> > On Tuesday, August 10, 2021 at 5:46:37 AM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Monday, August 9, 2021 at 5:47:09 PM UTC-3, JanPB wrote:
> > > >
> > > > <snip>
> > > >
> > > >>> 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.
> > > >>
> > > >> No, Einstein is correct. You merely don't understand neither Lorentz nor
> > > >> Einstein. BTW, Einstein is not "plagiarizing"
> > > >> either, one of the goals of his paper is to *reproduce* (i.e.,
> > > >> *re-derive by different means*) Lorentz's results, presumed
> > > >> known and correct to the reader, like the Lorentz transformation itself.
> > > >
> > > > Incredible what you are willing to pull out to defend Einstein. So,
> > > > *re-derive by different means* mechanism is not to *re-invent*
> > > > as Dirac did with his spinors (introduced in mathematics by W. C.
> > > > Clifford circa 1876) or having *a synchronicity event* like
> > > > happened with Leibnitz, co-living with Newton in the same epoch.
> > > >
> > > >> For example, his method of derivation obtains the global numerical
> > > >> factor equal to 1 very quickly, unlike Lorentz's method
> > > >> which is spread over several pages. Einstein also obtains in this
> > > >> section one new result using his approach: the transverse
> > > >> Doppler effect.
> > > >
> > > > Maybe he had a *a synchronicity event* with Poincaré, who had corrected
> > > > Lorentz transforms derivation months before and
> > > > wrote back to Lorentz, attaching Lorentz name to the transforms.
> > > >
> > > >>> 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.
> > > >>
> > > >> Yes, this is intentional. It was one of the goals of the paper to
> > > >> demonstrate that the stuff-known-so-far could be
> > > >> re-derived using the new framework AND THEN that this new framework
> > > >> could go *further* and demonstrate
> > > >> that Lorentz's "abstract time parameter" and "transformed E and B
> > > >> fields" could be endowed with a physical
> > > >> interpretation which yielded an explanation of the magnet-and-coil
> > > >> experiment Einstein mentions in the introduction to his paper.
> > > >
> > > > Then you accept that he was completely aware of Lorentz 1904 paper. Yet,
> > > > your defense make me wonder how did you obtain
> > > > such noble explanation about Einstein's purposes when every single
> > > > written proof of his drafts for his "annus mirabilis" production
> > > > vanished from existence, like a thief do with the proofs of his robbery.
> > > >
> > > >> This was what Einstein apparently considered at the time the paper's
> > > >> most important conclusion, hence
> > > >> the title given to it (that title appears odd to the modern reader since
> > > >> we know things developed later!).
> > > >> Very soon, however, everybody and his mother noticed the alteration of
> > > >> the laws of mechanics implied in the
> > > >> FIRST part of the paper ("kinematical part") was a much bigger cheese
> > > >> than their application to Maxwell's equations.
> > > >
> > > > But but, this was a pursuit of many contemporaries of Einstein (Lorentz,
> > > > Larmor, etc.): to develop a new mechanics that
> > > > could contain solutions to "action at a distance" effects on gravity
> > > > (like Gerber's 1898 paper about Mercury's perihelion)
> > > > or the work of Lorentz and others on length contraction to explain null
> > > > effects on 1887 MM experiment, or J.J.Thomson
> > > > observing increase of electron's mass under varying accelerating
> > > > potentials on his famous tubes.
> > > >
> > > >> The paper's title should have been something like "On the physical
> > > >> aspects of time" or some such had Einstein not
> > > >> been in such an enthusiastic mad rush to publish it.
> > > >
> > > > Such show of fanaticism, no matter what, should be awarded with a prize
> > > > from the Albert Einstein Institution, for the least.
> > > >
> > > > https://www.aeinstein.org/
> > > >
> > > >
> > > It’s very amusing to me for you to complain on the one hand that all of the
> > > pieces were there for the picking in 1905 and that it was relatively easy
> > > for Einstein to just make a tiny little step, and then on the other hand to
> > > insist that physics would have been substantially different had Einstein
> > > never lived, probably for the better.
> > >
> > > Hertz: “All of the ills of the world are attributable to this one guy
> > > Einstein holding back progress! And yet he did NOTHING, as all of his
> > > contemporaries had done all the important work.”
> > >
> > > Gotta find SOME way to eliminate hero-worship among the masses, no?
> > > --
> > > Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> > That's because many hobbyists cannot detach themselves from the
> > Hollywood view of science. For an expert the subject itself is interesting,
> > for a well-meaning but ignorant amateur the interest has to be supported
> > by... something, and the usual naive fantasies along the
> > Hollywood/conspiracy/etc. lines fits the bill, esp. if the self-critical
> > faculties are atrophied (as is common, at least on this NG). Those
> > faculties normally protect one from falling off the intellectual cliff, even
> > in the absence of expert knowledge. That's because one of the signs
> > of wisdom is *knowing what you don't know*, or *where the boundaries
> > of your knowledge lie*. The lack of this kind of awareness is one of
> > THE defining characteristics of this forum.
> >
> > --
> > Jan
> I think that you, Bodkin, Dono and many others are full of shitty superiority complex,

No. It's simply that you don't know what you are talking about.

> which serves only to conceal your failures in life and actual feelings of inferiority.

No. It's much simpler than that: you are ignorant and not willing to accept that. The
obvious solution, namely to simply learn physics OR switch to a different hobby does not
occur to you for some reason which I consider slightly pathological.

> You all should learn from the life and achievements of the great physicist, Dr. Sheldon Cooper,
> and try to emulate some of his warm, sensitive and supportive attitude toward others. Of course,
> none of you will be able, in your wildest dreams, to reach the heights of his supreme intellect.

Warm and fuzzy is very nice but it takes two to tango. You insult people here, including great
honest people of the past who cannot defend themselves - so that's what you get. You chose
being an idiot - fine. Just have the courage to at least sleep in the bed you've made and stop
complaining when people call your idiocies.

--
Jan

On Tuesday, August 10, 2021 at 3:11:49 PM UTC-5, Richard Hertz wrote:

> I think that you, Bodkin, Dono and many others are full of shitty superiority complex,
> which serves only to conceal your failures in life and actual feelings of inferiority.

I suspect that you are projecting.

On Tuesday, August 10, 2021 at 11:01:43 PM UTC-3, JanPB wrote:

> > You all should learn from the life and achievements of the great physicist, Dr. Sheldon Cooper,
> > and try to emulate some of his warm, sensitive and supportive attitude toward others. Of course,
> > none of you will be able, in your wildest dreams, to reach the heights of his supreme intellect.

> Warm and fuzzy is very nice but it takes two to tango. You insult people here, including great
> honest people of the past who cannot defend themselves - so that's what you get. You chose
> being an idiot - fine. Just have the courage to at least sleep in the bed you've made and stop
> complaining when people call your idiocies.
>
> --
> Jan

Jan, I'm worried about you. Seriously.
If you could´t understand that I was referring to a character from the sitcom "The Big Bang Theory",
who portraits a theoretical physicist (Jim Parsons), then either:

- You never watched the hilarious TV show, were physicists and engineers are continuously mocked.
or
- You believed that such imaginary person is real.

You seem to lack entirely any sense of humor and you are extremely sensitive like when recently, I called
you "a high school teacher" and you had to make a serious complain about that you weren't such thing.
I know that you are a professional in mathematics (don't know if you have a PhD) and that you are very good at it.
I just remembered that, years ago, you went to Warsaw to teach (as an invited lecturer, I assume), so I pulled out
the Warsaw thing with the "high school teacher", just to tease you. Nothing else.

Regarding the iconic Einstein, it's like making fun of The Beatles as icons of pop music or Messi as icon of soccer.

The thing is that controversies about Einstein's credits and achievements everywhere, make his name and work an
easy target to stir once again these controversies in this site, devoted to relativity.

So, you should learn something about Bodkin behavior, who understand (mostly) my game and we are in a continuous
fight of words to see who "defeats° the other's point of view, either those are fallacious, true or just wrong. There is a
game involved over here, where posts easily spiral out of order toward personal attacks, which I find very funny.

I'm sure that, if we ever had the chance to meet to dinner (most of us), we would have a very good time laughing at
things that we did over here. It's my belief about what the flexibility of an intelligent and humorous person would do.

Maybe I'm wrong in your case (or Dono's one), so then I apologize.

On Tuesday, August 10, 2021 at 8:20:12 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 10, 2021 at 11:01:43 PM UTC-3, JanPB wrote:
>
> > > You all should learn from the life and achievements of the great physicist, Dr. Sheldon Cooper,
> > > and try to emulate some of his warm, sensitive and supportive attitude toward others. Of course,
> > > none of you will be able, in your wildest dreams, to reach the heights of his supreme intellect.
>
> > Warm and fuzzy is very nice but it takes two to tango. You insult people here, including great
> > honest people of the past who cannot defend themselves - so that's what you get. You chose
> > being an idiot - fine. Just have the courage to at least sleep in the bed you've made and stop
> > complaining when people call your idiocies.
> >
> > --
> > Jan
> Jan, I'm worried about you. Seriously.
> If you could´t understand that I was referring to a character from the sitcom "The Big Bang Theory",
> who portraits a theoretical physicist (Jim Parsons), then either:
>
> - You never watched the hilarious TV show, were physicists and engineers are continuously mocked.

I don't watch TV. Stopped in 2000 (a new millennium resolution). Made only one brief exception
for the 9/11 attacks.

> - You believed that such imaginary person is real.
>
> You seem to lack entirely any sense of humor and you are extremely sensitive like when recently, I called
> you "a high school teacher" and you had to make a serious complain about that you weren't such thing.

Now you are backpedaling, as is the standard procedure around here. You wrote an entire tract whose
foundational assumption is that not only Einstein but every physicist who lived over last 115 years is
an idiot. Think it over before you respond.

> I know that you are a professional in mathematics (don't know if you have a PhD) and that you are very good at it.
> I just remembered that, years ago, you went to Warsaw to teach (as an invited lecturer, I assume), so I pulled out
> the Warsaw thing with the "high school teacher", just to tease you. Nothing else.

I never went to Warsaw to teach. Only to visit family and friends.

> Regarding the iconic Einstein, it's like making fun of The Beatles as icons of pop music or Messi as icon of soccer.

You are now making it look like you are just poking fun. Please understand that practically all of your posts
are deeply insulting. Your only excuse is that you don't understand that you implicitly assume at all times
that every physicist who ever lived since 1905 is (1) an idiot, (2) a dishonest person, (3) a cheat, etc.

> The thing is that controversies about Einstein's credits and achievements everywhere, make his name and work an
> easy target to stir once again these controversies in this site, devoted to relativity.
>
> So, you should learn something about Bodkin behavior, who understand (mostly) my game and we are in a continuous
> fight of words to see who "defeats° the other's point of view, either those are fallacious, true or just wrong. There is a
> game involved over here, where posts easily spiral out of order toward personal attacks, which I find very funny.
>
> I'm sure that, if we ever had the chance to meet to dinner (most of us), we would have a very good time laughing at
> things that we did over here. It's my belief about what the flexibility of an intelligent and humorous person would do.

Yes, you are probably right, the Internet medium tends to exaggerate the level of rhetoric. But the fact remains that
you are wasting your time 100% on this project.

> Maybe I'm wrong in your case (or Dono's one), so then I apologize.

You need to set your ego aside, trash all your writings and start from square one.

--
Jan

On Wednesday, 11 August 2021 at 04:01:43 UTC+2, JanPB wrote:

> Warm and fuzzy is very nice but it takes two to tango. You insult people here

On the other hand, when Jan says someone is an idiot, it's not any insult, of course.
It's just stating a fact.
You must simply accept the fact that whoever disagreees with Jan is an idiot;
then Jan would discuss with you.

On 8/11/2021 2:33 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Wednesday, 11 August 2021 at 04:01:43 UTC+2, JanPB wrote:
>
>> Warm and fuzzy is very nice but it takes two to tango. You insult people here
>
> On the other hand, when Jan says someone is an idiot, it's not any insult, of course.
> It's just stating a fact.

Well, in your case, it *is* a fact.

On Wednesday, 11 August 2021 at 08:36:11 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 8/11/2021 2:33 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > On Wednesday, 11 August 2021 at 04:01:43 UTC+2, JanPB wrote:
> >
> >> Warm and fuzzy is very nice but it takes two to tango. You insult people here
> >
> > On the other hand, when Jan says someone is an idiot, it's not any insult, of course.
> > It's just stating a fact.
> Well, in your case, it *is* a fact.

Whatever stupid Mike says must be a fact; stupid Mike would never
make a mistake, would he?

JanPB wrote:

>> - You never watched the hilarious TV show, were physicists and
>> engineers are continuously mocked.
>
> I don't watch TV. Stopped in 2000 (a new millennium resolution). Made
> only one brief exception for the 9/11 attacks.

You must be kidding, what "attacks". Let me guess, you are a moon landing
believer. A qualified guess. Believer, because you have no any proofs,
but loads of proofs on the contrary. Listen to him, "attacks". You must
be coming from another planet.

JanPB wrote:

>> You all should learn from the life and achievements of the great
>> physicist, Dr. Sheldon Cooper, and try to emulate some of his warm,
>> sensitive and supportive attitude toward others. Of course,
>> none of you will be able, in your wildest dreams, to reach the heights
>> of his supreme intellect.
>
> Warm and fuzzy is very nice but it takes two to tango. You insult people
> here, including great honest people of the past who cannot defend
> themselves - so that's what you get. You chose being an idiot - fine.
> Just have the courage to at least sleep in the bed you've made and stop
> complaining when people call your idiocies.

He is correcting the paper, not insulting the author. You are the only
one around here still believing in the manned moon landing.

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 10, 2021 at 11:01:43 PM UTC-3, JanPB wrote:
>
>>> You all should learn from the life and achievements of the great
>>> physicist, Dr. Sheldon Cooper,
>>> and try to emulate some of his warm, sensitive and supportive attitude
>>> toward others. Of course,
>>> none of you will be able, in your wildest dreams, to reach the heights
>>> of his supreme intellect.
>
>> Warm and fuzzy is very nice but it takes two to tango. You insult people
>> here, including great
>> honest people of the past who cannot defend themselves - so that's what
>> you get. You chose
>> being an idiot - fine. Just have the courage to
>> at least sleep in the bed you've made and stop
>> complaining when people call your idiocies.
>>
>> --
>> Jan
>
> Jan, I'm worried about you. Seriously.
> If you could´t understand that I was referring to a character from the
> sitcom "The Big Bang Theory",
> who portraits a theoretical physicist (Jim Parsons), then either:
>
> - You never watched the hilarious TV show, were physicists and
> engineers are continuously mocked.
> or
> - You believed that such imaginary person is real.
>
> You seem to lack entirely any sense of humor and you are extremely
> sensitive like when recently, I called
> you "a high school teacher" and you had to make a serious complain about
> that you weren't such thing.
> I know that you are a professional in mathematics (don't know if you have
> a PhD) and that you are very good at it.
> I just remembered that, years ago, you went to Warsaw to teach (as an
> invited lecturer, I assume), so I pulled out
> the Warsaw thing with the "high school teacher", just to tease you. Nothing else.
>
> Regarding the iconic Einstein, it's like making fun of The Beatles as
> icons of pop music or Messi as icon of soccer.
>
> The thing is that controversies about Einstein's credits and achievements
> everywhere, make his name and work an
> easy target to stir once again these controversies in this site, devoted to relativity.

Well, I suppose that’s one of my reasons to dismiss you when you chatter on
about such things. You are picking up an easy target. Some easy way to stir
the pot, which is overworked and hackneyed and also tiringly off base. I do
wish you might find some more thoughtful and creative way to generate real
controversy, if it is possible to do so in a 12-decades-old topic. Instead,
you pick at freckles, confusing them with scabs, and you do so obsessively.

>
> So, you should learn something about Bodkin behavior, who understand
> (mostly) my game and we are in a continuous
> fight of words to see who "defeats° the other's point of view, either
> those are fallacious, true or just wrong. There is a
> game involved over here, where posts easily spiral out of order toward
> personal attacks, which I find very funny.
>
> I'm sure that, if we ever had the chance to meet to dinner (most of us),
> we would have a very good time laughing at
> things that we did over here. It's my belief about what the flexibility
> of an intelligent and humorous person would do.
>
> Maybe I'm wrong in your case (or Dono's one), so then I apologize.
>
>
>

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

On Wednesday, 11 August 2021 at 15:14:22 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:

> the pot, which is overworked and hackneyed and also tiringly off base. I do
> wish you might find some more thoughtful and creative way to generate real
> controversy,

Odd, you're a fanatic idiot; no controversy will ever break through
your thick skull. And you're too stupid to recognize thoughtful and
creative.

> if it is possible to do so in a 12-decades-old topic

Geocentrism had more.

Am 10.08.2021 um 22:25 schrieb Richard Hertz:
> On Tuesday, August 10, 2021 at 5:15:26 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>> I think that you, Bodkin, Dono and many others are full of shitty superiority complex,
>>> which serves only to conceal your failures in life and actual feelings of inferiority.
>>>
>>> You all should learn from the life and achievements of the great
>>> physicist, Dr. Sheldon Cooper,
>>> and try to emulate some of his warm, sensitive and supportive attitude
>>> toward others. Of course,
>>> none of you will be able, in your wildest dreams, to reach the heights of
>>> his supreme intellect.
>>>
>>>
>> This was one of your weaker attempts to bait.
>
> I don't see a reason for you to post that.
>
> You should revere him in due form. Don't be a denier as some anti-Einstein people.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheldon_Cooper
>
>

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leon_Cooper

(Sheldon is just a fictional character in a tv drama)

On Wednesday, August 11, 2021 at 10:14:22 AM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:

<snip>

> Well, I suppose that’s one of my reasons to dismiss you when you chatter on
> about such things. You are picking up an easy target. Some easy way to stir
> the pot, which is overworked and hackneyed and also tiringly off base. I do
> wish you might find some more thoughtful and creative way to generate real
> controversy, if it is possible to do so in a 12-decades-old topic. Instead,
> you pick at freckles, confusing them with scabs, and you do so obsessively.

I guess that you have a bit of reason here.

Einstein's 1905 restricted relativity origins have been battered her,e since the forum was created.
It's easy to demonstrate his maneuvers to hide the true origins of his work then, even when his fingerprints
are all over the crime scene. The young Einstein took care to ERASE any condemnatory proofs of its sources,
BURNING all of them, once he became visible to the public eye in the next years.

Gone are any traces of his correspondence with his friends, his "loved° Mariva Malic, as well as ANY scratchpad
where he did his prior writings, derivations, etc. For a man whose ambitions to became famous and his understanding
of history of sciences, he didn't give a flying fuck to preserve such documents for his future biographers. A fog of
mystery descended, then, over his "annus mirabilis° productions, fueling the mysticism about "the lone genius, the clerk".
His followers, in the next decades, would fall into paroxysm and reverence about and over his early work. As Dr. Sheldon
Cooper use to say:

"streets and cities will have his name (close) and children will sing song with his name (close)".

But a different matter is the development of general relativity. There are enough traces to demonstrate that it's a team work.
Also there are plenty of proofs about his public appearance on this subject in 1911, after four years of silence regarding any
publication on the topic of an extension of SR to include gravity and acceleration.

In 1909 he was devastated by the formal extension of SR by Minkowski, introducing new notations and tensors to develop
his theory of space-time in a tridimensional euclidean world. Minkowski's intention to extend his work to include gravity
was truncated by his early death, just months after the publication of his work. Minkowski HAD TURNED to Poincaré, to
discuss with his formidable colleague (mutual respect) about modifications of Newton's theories, to include delays and to
use gravity fields. They both agree on conclusions over the prior work of Gauss and Poisson. But, tragically, Poincaré also
died at an early age, only three years after Minkowski, and such an investigative line made BY SCHOLARS, died (1909 and
1912).

Nonwithstanding, the spark of their works ignited a fire among several european physicists, which started to publish drafts
on this matter at an increasing rate since 1909 (more than a dozen).

Meanwhile, the neophyte Einstein was crying about that he didn't understand his SR under the new lights of differential
geometry (1909) and, after failing on his trying by 1911, he wrote to his old friend (Marcel Grossman) to HELP him to
understand the new math (or he could be crazy because of the difficulties). And Grossman accepted, probably thinking
to share his part of fame is a successful theory could be brought to life. The poor Marcel didn't know how EInstein operated.

This are some of the names that had a cut in the OUTSOURCING of the Einstenian General Relativity. I'll elaborate this later.

Some actors involved, either in Einstein's epoch, or before:

Abraham, Max (1875 􀀀 1922)
Berkeley, George Bishop (1685 􀀀 1753)
Born, Max (1882 􀀀 1970)
Christoffel, Elwin Bruno (1829 􀀀 1900)
Einstein, Albert (1878 􀀀 1955)
Eötvös, Roland Baron von (1848 􀀀 1919)
Freundlich, Erwin (1885 􀀀 1964)
Friedman, Aleksandr (1888 􀀀 1925)
Grossmann, Marcel (1878 􀀀 1936)
Herglotz, Gustav (1881 􀀀 1953)
Hilbert, David (1862 􀀀 1943)
Hume, David (1711 􀀀 1776)
Klein, Felix (1849 􀀀 1925)
Kottler, Friedrich (1886 􀀀 1965)
Laue, Max von (1879 􀀀 1960)
Levi-Civita, Tulio (1873 􀀀 1941)
Lipschitz, Rudolf (1832 􀀀 1903)
Lorentz, Hendrik Antoon (1853 􀀀 1928)
Mach, Ernst (1838 􀀀 1916)
Mie, Gustav (1868 􀀀 1957)
Minkowski, Hermann (1864 􀀀 1909)
Nordström, Gunnar (1881 􀀀 1923)
Petzoldt, Joseph (1862 􀀀 1929)
Planck, Max (1858 􀀀 1947)
Poincaré, Henri (1854 􀀀 1912)
Ricci-Curbastro, Gregorio (1853 􀀀 1925)
Riemann, Bernhard (1826 􀀀 1866)
Schwarzschild, Karl (1873 􀀀 1916)
Seeliger, Hugo von (1849 􀀀 1924)
Sitter, Willem de (1872 􀀀 1934)
Sommerfeld, Arnold (1868 􀀀 1951)
Vari¢ak, Vladimir (1865 􀀀 1942)
Voigt, Woldemar (1850 􀀀 1919)

TO BE CONTINUED.

Am 09.08.2021 um 14:42 schrieb Odd Bodkin:
....
>>>>>> 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.

I know, what you mean.
It is a system, which people like you always demand:

you don't want 'trail and error', but 'linear' design based on
'fundamental knowledge'.

Your way is based on the idea of a linear process, which starts with a
concept and ends with the shiny final product.

My way on doing similar things is based on the iteration of processes,
which include intermediate steps and correction of errors.

It is a much more efficient method, but uses 'fuzzy' methods like 'sense
of beauty', experience and intuition.

> Good grief, you know nothing about engineering too?

Well, actually I have an university degree as engineer.

What do you have?

>

TH
>
>

On Tuesday, August 10, 2021 at 11:36:11 PM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 8/11/2021 2:33 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > On Wednesday, 11 August 2021 at 04:01:43 UTC+2, JanPB wrote:
> >
> >> Warm and fuzzy is very nice but it takes two to tango. You insult people here
> >
> > On the other hand, when Jan says someone is an idiot, it's not any insult, of course.
> > It's just stating a fact.
> Well, in your case, it *is* a fact.

Yes, correct.

(Maciej is still here? Poor guy.)

--
Jan

JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 10, 2021 at 11:36:11 PM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> On 8/11/2021 2:33 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, 11 August 2021 at 04:01:43 UTC+2, JanPB wrote:
>>>
>>>> Warm and fuzzy is very nice but it takes two to tango. You insult people here
>>>
>>> On the other hand, when Jan says someone is an idiot, it's not any insult, of course.
>>> It's just stating a fact.
>> Well, in your case, it *is* a fact.
>
> Yes, correct.
>
> (Maciej is still here? Poor guy.)
>
> --
> Jan
>

Maciej has nothing better to live for than to catcall from the stands.

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

Am 11.08.2021 um 01:27 schrieb Richard Hertz:
> And yet Einstein plagiarized Lorentz, among others.
>
> His *re-invention* of the development of the transforms is faulty, as noted by Planck and others.
>
> Worse yet, according to the author of the english version of his 1905 paper:
>
> "5. The equations of the Lorentz transformation may be more simply deduced directly from
> the condition that in virtue of those equations the relation x^2 + y^2 + z^2 = c^2.t^2 shall have as
> its consequence the second relation x'^2 + y'^2 + z'^2 = c^2.t'^2."

As far as I know, Poincare wanted to make the axis of time imaginary
and the spacelike axes real, while Einstein didn't use complex numbers
at all (what is imho a serious flaw).

> This is a direct derivation obtained from Voigt's paper in 1887, which he denied to have read. Yet,
> he uses exactly the same notations as Voigt.
>

He also used terms and equations from Poincare, hence must have known
Poincare's text.

This is interesting, because Einstein had no record of speaking French.

He lived in Italy for a while, hence should have been fluent in Italian.
But I have not heard anything about him speaking French.

TH

On Thursday, August 12, 2021 at 3:17:44 AM UTC-3, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 11.08.2021 um 01:27 schrieb Richard Hertz:
> > And yet Einstein plagiarized Lorentz, among others.
> >
> > His *re-invention* of the development of the transforms is faulty, as noted by Planck and others.
> >
> > Worse yet, according to the author of the english version of his 1905 paper:
> >
> > "5. The equations of the Lorentz transformation may be more simply deduced directly from
> > the condition that in virtue of those equations the relation x^2 + y^2 + z^2 = c^2.t^2 shall have as
> > its consequence the second relation x'^2 + y'^2 + z'^2 = c^2.t'^2."
> As far as I know, Poincare wanted to make the axis of time imaginary
> and the spacelike axes real, while Einstein didn't use complex numbers
> at all (what is imho a serious flaw).
> > This is a direct derivation obtained from Voigt's paper in 1887, which he denied to have read. Yet,
> > he uses exactly the same notations as Voigt.
> >
> He also used terms and equations from Poincare, hence must have known
> Poincare's text.
>
> This is interesting, because Einstein had no record of speaking French.
>
> He lived in Italy for a while, hence should have been fluent in Italian.
> But I have not heard anything about him speaking French.
>
> TH
His friend did (i.e.: Solovine). He also had courses on french at the Polytechnic,
mandatory due to the strong relationships between both countries. He didn't very good, but he knew something.

At the Olympia Academy, in 1904, he and his buddies (Solovine, Haabritch, Grossman plus Mileva Maric)
studied and discussed with passion Poincaré's book Science and Hypothesis (in french, not english, I guess).

And this book, plus transcriptions of Poincaré's lecture at St. Louis (US) in 1904 had enough guidances for SR, GR and beyond.

Poincaré and Minkowski had some kind of friendship, and they exchanged ideas frequently. Each one highly respected the other,
and they interacted since 1907 until Minkowski death on the ideas of space-time and else.

The early death of both, 1909 and 1912, prevented such a framework to advance when the contest for a general theory gained
traction along continental physicists in Europe (Abraham, Wie, Nordström and several others).

On Wednesday, 11 August 2021 at 22:17:17 UTC+2, JanPB wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 10, 2021 at 11:36:11 PM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > On 8/11/2021 2:33 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, 11 August 2021 at 04:01:43 UTC+2, JanPB wrote:
> > >
> > >> Warm and fuzzy is very nice but it takes two to tango. You insult people here
> > >
> > > On the other hand, when Jan says someone is an idiot, it's not any insult, of course.
> > > It's just stating a fact.
> > Well, in your case, it *is* a fact.
> Yes, correct.
> (Maciej is still here? Poor guy.)

Whatever Jan says has to be a fact; he is a very Wise Guru;
he can't be wrong like common mortals sometimes are.
Poor guy.

On Wednesday, 11 August 2021 at 22:22:51 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> JanPB <fil...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Tuesday, August 10, 2021 at 11:36:11 PM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >> On 8/11/2021 2:33 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, 11 August 2021 at 04:01:43 UTC+2, JanPB wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Warm and fuzzy is very nice but it takes two to tango. You insult people here
> >>>
> >>> On the other hand, when Jan says someone is an idiot, it's not any insult, of course.
> >>> It's just stating a fact.
> >> Well, in your case, it *is* a fact.
> >
> > Yes, correct.
> >
> > (Maciej is still here? Poor guy.)
> >
> > --
> > Jan
> >
> Maciej has nothing better to live for than to catcall from the stands.

Odd has nonthing better to live for than barking at the enemies
of his moronic Shit.

And here is a SHORT list of peoples who worked for the Einstein's teamwork, either voluntarily or
involuntarily, in the development of "his" theories of relativity. You make your choice to label their will:

Born, Max (1882 - 1970)
Eötvös, Roland Baron von (1848 - 1919)
Freundlich, Erwin (1885 - 1964)
Grossmann, Marcel (1878 - 1936)
Herglotz, Gustav (1881 - 1953)
Hilbert, David (1862 - 1943)
Klein, Felix (1849 - 1925)
Kottler, Friedrich (1886 - 1965)
Laue, Max von (1879 - 1960)
Levi-Civita, Tulio (1873 - 1941)
Lipschitz, Rudolf (1832 - 1903)
Lorentz, Hendrik Antoon (1853 - 1928)
Mach, Ernst (1838 - 1916)
Minkowski, Hermann (1864 - 1909)
Nordström, Gunnar (1881 - 1923)
Petzoldt, Joseph (1862 - 1929)
Planck, Max (1858 - 1947)
Poincaré, Henri (1854 - 1912)
Ricci-Curbastro, Gregorio (1853 - 1925)
Sommerfeld, Arnold (1868 - 1951)
Voigt, Woldemar (1850 - 1919)

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
> And here is a SHORT list of peoples who worked for the Einstein's
> teamwork, either voluntarily or
> involuntarily, in the development of "his" theories of relativity. You
> make your choice to label their will:
>
> Born, Max (1882 - 1970)
> Eötvös, Roland Baron von (1848 - 1919)
> Freundlich, Erwin (1885 - 1964)
> Grossmann, Marcel (1878 - 1936)
> Herglotz, Gustav (1881 - 1953)
> Hilbert, David (1862 - 1943)
> Klein, Felix (1849 - 1925)
> Kottler, Friedrich (1886 - 1965)
> Laue, Max von (1879 - 1960)
> Levi-Civita, Tulio (1873 - 1941)
> Lipschitz, Rudolf (1832 - 1903)
> Lorentz, Hendrik Antoon (1853 - 1928)
> Mach, Ernst (1838 - 1916)
> Minkowski, Hermann (1864 - 1909)
> Nordström, Gunnar (1881 - 1923)
> Petzoldt, Joseph (1862 - 1929)
> Planck, Max (1858 - 1947)
> Poincaré, Henri (1854 - 1912)
> Ricci-Curbastro, Gregorio (1853 - 1925)
> Sommerfeld, Arnold (1868 - 1951)
> Voigt, Woldemar (1850 - 1919)
>
>

And would you like to see a similar list of collaborators for the likes of
Maxwell, Newton, Born, Heisenberg, etc?

You seem to think this being true for Einstein is damning in some way, that
it isn’t true for others.

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

On Thursday, August 12, 2021 at 3:11:04 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > And here is a SHORT list of peoples who worked for the Einstein's
> > teamwork, either voluntarily or
> > involuntarily, in the development of "his" theories of relativity. You
> > make your choice to label their will:
> >
> > Born, Max (1882 - 1970)
> > Eötvös, Roland Baron von (1848 - 1919)
> > Freundlich, Erwin (1885 - 1964)
> > Grossmann, Marcel (1878 - 1936)
> > Herglotz, Gustav (1881 - 1953)
> > Hilbert, David (1862 - 1943)
> > Klein, Felix (1849 - 1925)
> > Kottler, Friedrich (1886 - 1965)
> > Laue, Max von (1879 - 1960)
> > Levi-Civita, Tulio (1873 - 1941)
> > Lipschitz, Rudolf (1832 - 1903)
> > Lorentz, Hendrik Antoon (1853 - 1928)
> > Mach, Ernst (1838 - 1916)
> > Minkowski, Hermann (1864 - 1909)
> > Nordström, Gunnar (1881 - 1923)
> > Petzoldt, Joseph (1862 - 1929)
> > Planck, Max (1858 - 1947)
> > Poincaré, Henri (1854 - 1912)
> > Ricci-Curbastro, Gregorio (1853 - 1925)
> > Sommerfeld, Arnold (1868 - 1951)
> > Voigt, Woldemar (1850 - 1919)
> >
> >
> And would you like to see a similar list of collaborators for the likes of
> Maxwell, Newton, Born, Heisenberg, etc?
>
> You seem to think this being true for Einstein is damning in some way, that
> it isn’t true for others.
> --
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

"either voluntarily or involuntarily" I wrote. None of them received recognition or due credit by Einstein.

Maxwell monumental "Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism" is full, on its almost 1,000 pages, of due credit
of those who contributed to the development of such science. Try to read it, it exists out there free of charge to download.

Newton breakthrough book "On the Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy", more than 1,000 pages also,
marks the division between dark ages and the beginning of modern physics and mathematics. He created them all, in a
single act, but he credited ancestors (the giants on whose shoulders he stood to do his achievements).
Halley is credited for such publication, as he encouraged Newton to compile his life-long achievements, and also payed
for such publication in times where the Royal Society was broken. If not for Halley's actions, the book wouldn't had existed.

Einstein did...... Oh! forget it.