Hi NG

after spending a lot of time on the subject and after rewriting most of
my comments (at least a little), I would call my latest version now 'final'.

The text 'On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies' as a pdf with my
comments can be found here

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1IiF0r7Rl4eLEMLOyRorKke6iDwFpWvxl/view?usp=sharing

For those who don't know that already:

my idea was to mimic a hypothetical professor of physics, who had to
correct the homework of a student, which was in my case the text of
Albert Einstein.

The aim was to find any error or otherwise remarkable parts and write
comments into the text, like a professor would do with the homework of a
student.

I wrote a little more than four hundred comments and most of them are
about errors (in the view of this hypothetical professor).

Greeting

Thomas Heger

Am 12.02.2022 um 20:18 schrieb Thomas Heger:
> Hi NG
>
> after spending a lot of time on the subject and after rewriting most of
> my comments (at least a little), I would call my latest version now
> 'final'.
>
> The text 'On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies' as a pdf with my
> comments can be found here
>
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1IiF0r7Rl4eLEMLOyRorKke6iDwFpWvxl/view?usp=sharing
>
>

I forgot to mention this:

to read my comments, it is necessary to download the pdf file, because
Google does not show the comments online.

Greetings

TH

On Saturday, February 12, 2022 at 11:18:52 AM UTC-8, crank Thomas Heger wrote:

> I wrote a little more than four hundred comments and all of them are
> about my imbecility and inability to learn basic physics.
>
Yep

Thomas Heger wrote:

>> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1IiF0r7Rl4eLEMLOyRorKke6iDwFpWvxl/view?
usp=sharing
>
> I forgot to mention this:
> to read my comments, it is necessary to download the pdf file, because
> Google does not show the comments online.

you mean *population_death*, not "control". Please stop talking nice
about these dirty capitalists *mass_murderers*. One death, and you had
revolutions in eastern europe. Compare that withe millions to billions in
stinking capitalism. You make me vomit, *"population_control"*. It's
death in billions, not "control". Wake the fuck up.

Am 12.02.2022 um 20:38 schrieb Dono.:
> On Saturday, February 12, 2022 at 11:18:52 AM UTC-8, crank Thomas Heger wrote:
>
>> I wrote a little more than four hundred comments and all of them are
>> about my imbecility and inability to learn basic physics.
>>
> Yep
>
Well, we had this already. And the next thing you will do is calling me
a Nazi or anti-semitic.

But what you will most likely don't do, that is even trying to find some
errors in my comments.

TH

Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
> Hi NG
>
> after spending a lot of time on the subject and after rewriting most of
> my comments (at least a little), I would call my latest version now 'final'.
>
> The text 'On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies' as a pdf with my
> comments can be found here
>
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1IiF0r7Rl4eLEMLOyRorKke6iDwFpWvxl/view?usp=sharing
>
> For those who don't know that already:
>
> my idea was to mimic a hypothetical professor of physics, who had to
> correct the homework of a student, which was in my case the text of
> Albert Einstein.
>
> The aim was to find any error or otherwise remarkable parts and write
> comments into the text, like a professor would do with the homework of a
> student.
>
> I wrote a little more than four hundred comments and most of them are
> about errors (in the view of this hypothetical professor).

(Which corresponds to the view of no real physics professor.)

Of course, the hypothetical professor of Thomas Heger’s invention doesn’t
actually know much about physics and has strange ideas about how a
scientific paper should be written, not surprising given Thomas Heger’s
background in the subject matter.

>
>
> Greeting
>
> Thomas Heger
>

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

Thomas Heger wrote:

>> Yep
>>
> Well, we had this already. And the next thing you will do is calling me
> a Nazi or anti-semitic. But what you will most likely don't do, that is
> even trying to find some errors in my comments.

good point. Here is an uneducated stupid fuck, not knowing, proved by
Einstine, that the Oxygen in air and water is *highly_reactive*,
destroying all the *bio_tech* *_gain_of_function_* crap the cook in
laboratories.

In Order To COMPLY With Youtube Rules I Have No Opinion - I Can Only Ask
What Is Going On Here https://www.bitchute.com/video/kwfMwCWeetM/

then here, capitalist corporate mass_media, telling the truth off mic, to
*capitalist_nazi* austreilia. Just great.

Watch how this “journalist” acts when he thinks the cameras are off.
https://www.bitchute.com/video/AsZdVTTNfPYE/

Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
> Hi NG
>
> after spending a lot of time on the subject and after rewriting most of
> my comments (at least a little), I would call my latest version now 'final'.

Oddly though, it never is.

>
> The text 'On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies' as a pdf with my
> comments can be found here
>
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1IiF0r7Rl4eLEMLOyRorKke6iDwFpWvxl/view?usp=sharing
>
> For those who don't know that already:
>
> my idea was to mimic a hypothetical professor of physics, who had to
> correct the homework of a student, which was in my case the text of
> Albert Einstein.
>
> The aim was to find any error or otherwise remarkable parts and write
> comments into the text, like a professor would do with the homework of a
> student.
>
> I wrote a little more than four hundred comments and most of them are
> about errors (in the view of this hypothetical professor).
>
>
> Greeting
>
> Thomas Heger
>

--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On Saturday, February 12, 2022 at 11:48:43 AM UTC-8, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 12.02.2022 um 20:38 schrieb Dono.:
> > On Saturday, February 12, 2022 at 11:18:52 AM UTC-8, crank Thomas Heger wrote:
> >
> >> I wrote a little more than four hundred comments and all of them are
> >> about my imbecility and inability to learn basic physics.
> >>
> > Yep
> >
> Well, we had this already. And the next thing you will do is calling me
> a Nazi or anti-semitic.
>
....and an idiot

Le 13/02/2022 à 00:21, "Dono." a écrit :
> On Saturday, February 12, 2022 at 11:48:43 AM UTC-8, Thomas Heger wrote:
>> Am 12.02.2022 um 20:38 schrieb Dono.:
>> > On Saturday, February 12, 2022 at 11:18:52 AM UTC-8, crank Thomas Heger wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >> I wrote a little more than four hundred comments and all of them are
>> >> about my imbecility and inability to learn basic physics.
>> >>
>> > Yep
>> >
>> Well, we had this already. And the next thing you will do is calling me
>> a Nazi or anti-semitic.
>>
> ...and an idiot

<http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?JYxlN4I4nsorHrvfILIgktpRYpM@jntp/Data.Media:1>

R.H.

On Saturday, February 12, 2022 at 11:18:52 AM UTC-8, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Hi NG
>
> after spending a lot of time on the subject and after rewriting most of
> my comments (at least a little), I would call my latest version now 'final'.
>
> The text 'On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies' as a pdf with my
> comments can be found here
>
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1IiF0r7Rl4eLEMLOyRorKke6iDwFpWvxl/view?usp=sharing
>
> For those who don't know that already:
>
> my idea was to mimic a hypothetical professor of physics, who had to
> correct the homework of a student, which was in my case the text of
> Albert Einstein.

You are not qualified to do this.

--
Jan

Am 12.02.2022 um 23:12 schrieb Odd Bodkin:
> Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
>> Hi NG
>>
>> after spending a lot of time on the subject and after rewriting most of
>> my comments (at least a little), I would call my latest version now 'final'.
>
> Oddly though, it never is.
>

Now I think I can leave it as it is. But there were a number of issues,
where I had to do something.

I have also read some background papers and was able to provide better
arguments.

I also have found some more errors of Einstein.

e.g. this is a real gem:

"...and maintain the equation—mass × acceleration = force..."

The cross product can only applied to vectors, but mass is certainly not
a vector. But supposed it would be a vector, the vector of force and the
vector of acceleration are not perpendicular.

So, the use of the cross product was wrong here and the quantities were
not properly defined.

It was often hard to find out, which type of mathematical object was
meant by Einstein, because he used similar letters for scalars, vectors,
vector components and functions.

I think, it is hard to believe, that he could have passed any exam at
his university, if he had such habbits at his student times. But why
then do we find them in his paper, which is regarded as a masterpiece of
physics, if not of all of science?

TH

TH

On 2/13/2022 2:19 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> I also have found some more errors of Einstein.
>
> e.g. this is a real gem:
>
> "...and maintain the equation—mass × acceleration = force..."
>
> The cross product can only applied to vectors, but mass is certainly not
> a vector. But supposed it would be a vector, the vector of force and the
> vector of acceleration are not perpendicular.
>
> So, the use of the cross product was wrong here and the quantities were
> not properly defined.

Idjit.

You don't even know of the ordinary multiplication sign "×"? Really?

THIS is why your claim of finding some "400+" errors is so laughable.
You keep making boneheaded mistakes like that and blame them on Einstein.

[snip crap]

Am 13.02.2022 um 08:42 schrieb Michael Moroney:
> On 2/13/2022 2:19 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>> I also have found some more errors of Einstein.
>>
>> e.g. this is a real gem:
>>
>> "...and maintain the equation—mass × acceleration = force..."
>>
>> The cross product can only applied to vectors, but mass is certainly
>> not a vector. But supposed it would be a vector, the vector of force
>> and the vector of acceleration are not perpendicular.
>>
>> So, the use of the cross product was wrong here and the quantities
>> were not properly defined.
>
> Idjit.
>
> You don't even know of the ordinary multiplication sign "×"? Really?
>
Well, ordinary people may use it for multiplication.

But theoretical physics is another kind of thing, where symbols are much
more complicated than for common mortals.

In theoretical physics there exist several types of multiplications, for
which different symbols are used. The 'x' used for multiplication means
'cross product' and nothing else.

If you don't want to stick to what is common in the field, you could use
other symbols, if you define them properly.

But no such definitions can be found, hence the usual meaning must be
applied, what is 'cross product'.

If someone does not agree to the usual habbits in theoretical physics
and uses, what 'the man on the street' uses, he should aswell do, what
common people do and e.g. play Bingo and read the SUN.

TH

Am 13.02.2022 um 08:04 schrieb JanPB:
> On Saturday, February 12, 2022 at 11:18:52 AM UTC-8, Thomas Heger wrote:
>> Hi NG
>>
>> after spending a lot of time on the subject and after rewriting most of
>> my comments (at least a little), I would call my latest version now 'final'.
>>
>> The text 'On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies' as a pdf with my
>> comments can be found here
>>
>>
>> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1IiF0r7Rl4eLEMLOyRorKke6iDwFpWvxl/view?usp=sharing
>>
>> For those who don't know that already:
>>
>> my idea was to mimic a hypothetical professor of physics, who had to
>> correct the homework of a student, which was in my case the text of
>> Albert Einstein.
>
> You are not qualified to do this.

Well, in a way you are right, but I did it anyhow, hence must be qualified.

If you don't agree, than feel free to show any error in any of my comments.

TH

Den 13.02.2022 08:19, skrev Thomas Heger:
>
> I also have found some more errors of Einstein.
>
> e.g. this is a real gem:
>
> "...and maintain the equation—mass × acceleration = force..."
>
> The cross product can only applied to vectors, but mass is certainly not
> a vector. But supposed it would be a vector, the vector of force and the
> vector of acceleration are not perpendicular.
>

:-D

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
> Am 12.02.2022 um 23:12 schrieb Odd Bodkin:
>> Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
>>> Hi NG
>>>
>>> after spending a lot of time on the subject and after rewriting most of
>>> my comments (at least a little), I would call my latest version now 'final'.
>>
>> Oddly though, it never is.
>>
>
> Now I think I can leave it as it is. But there were a number of issues,
> where I had to do something.
>
> I have also read some background papers and was able to provide better
> arguments.
>
> I also have found some more errors of Einstein.
>
> e.g. this is a real gem:
>
> "...and maintain the equation—mass × acceleration = force..."
>
> The cross product can only applied to vectors, but mass is certainly not
> a vector. But supposed it would be a vector, the vector of force and the
> vector of acceleration are not perpendicular.

This is a perfect example of what you do. The multiplication sign here has
context-dependent meaning, and an able and trained reader is able to
discern whether the symbol is to mean vector multiplication or generic
multiplication. You on the other hand, took the meaning not intended, and
then blamed it on the author for not preventing you from making the stupid
choice. You have an irrational expectation that any paper should not make
assumptions about the abilities and background of the reader, and that it
should at every turn be written to prevent the reader from making stupid
misreadings. These are not mistakes. It is as though you are on a highway
and suddenly yank the steering wheel to the left, find yourself colliding
with a tree, and then blaming the car manufacturer for not preventing you
from yanking the wheel suddenly on the highway. The only mistake made in
that case, and in this one, is yours.

>
> So, the use of the cross product was wrong here and the quantities were
> not properly defined.
>
> It was often hard to find out, which type of mathematical object was
> meant by Einstein, because he used similar letters for scalars, vectors,
> vector components and functions.
>
> I think, it is hard to believe, that he could have passed any exam at
> his university, if he had such habbits at his student times. But why
> then do we find them in his paper, which is regarded as a masterpiece of
> physics, if not of all of science?
>
>
> TH
>
>
> TH
>
>
>

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

Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
> Am 13.02.2022 um 08:42 schrieb Michael Moroney:
>> On 2/13/2022 2:19 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>> I also have found some more errors of Einstein.
>>>
>>> e.g. this is a real gem:
>>>
>>> "...and maintain the equation—mass × acceleration = force..."
>>>
>>> The cross product can only applied to vectors, but mass is certainly
>>> not a vector. But supposed it would be a vector, the vector of force
>>> and the vector of acceleration are not perpendicular.
>>>
>>> So, the use of the cross product was wrong here and the quantities
>>> were not properly defined.
>>
>> Idjit.
>>
>> You don't even know of the ordinary multiplication sign "×"? Really?
>>
> Well, ordinary people may use it for multiplication.
>
> But theoretical physics is another kind of thing, where symbols are much
> more complicated than for common mortals.
>
> In theoretical physics there exist several types of multiplications, for
> which different symbols are used. The 'x' used for multiplication means
> 'cross product' and nothing else.

Bullshit. That’s an erroneous claim on your part.

>
> If you don't want to stick to what is common in the field, you could use
> other symbols, if you define them properly.
>
> But no such definitions can be found, hence the usual meaning must be
> applied, what is 'cross product'.
>
> If someone does not agree to the usual habbits in theoretical physics
> and uses, what 'the man on the street' uses, he should aswell do, what
> common people do and e.g. play Bingo and read the SUN.
>
>
> TH
>
>
>
>

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

Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
> Am 13.02.2022 um 08:04 schrieb JanPB:
>> On Saturday, February 12, 2022 at 11:18:52 AM UTC-8, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>> Hi NG
>>>
>>> after spending a lot of time on the subject and after rewriting most of
>>> my comments (at least a little), I would call my latest version now 'final'.
>>>
>>> The text 'On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies' as a pdf with my
>>> comments can be found here
>>>
>>>
>>> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1IiF0r7Rl4eLEMLOyRorKke6iDwFpWvxl/view?usp=sharing
>>>
>>> For those who don't know that already:
>>>
>>> my idea was to mimic a hypothetical professor of physics, who had to
>>> correct the homework of a student, which was in my case the text of
>>> Albert Einstein.
>>
>> You are not qualified to do this.
>
> Well, in a way you are right, but I did it anyhow, hence must be qualified.

No. A television actor who dresses up in a white lab coat and a
stethoscope is not qualified to diagnose a disease in another. He might
make that diagnosis anyway. It does not make him qualified.

>
> If you don't agree, than feel free to show any error in any of my comments.
>
> TH
>
>

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

On Sunday, 13 February 2022 at 14:30:58 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Thomas Heger <ttt...@web.de> wrote:
> > Am 13.02.2022 um 08:04 schrieb JanPB:
> >> On Saturday, February 12, 2022 at 11:18:52 AM UTC-8, Thomas Heger wrote:
> >>> Hi NG
> >>>
> >>> after spending a lot of time on the subject and after rewriting most of
> >>> my comments (at least a little), I would call my latest version now 'final'.
> >>>
> >>> The text 'On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies' as a pdf with my
> >>> comments can be found here
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1IiF0r7Rl4eLEMLOyRorKke6iDwFpWvxl/view?usp=sharing
> >>>
> >>> For those who don't know that already:
> >>>
> >>> my idea was to mimic a hypothetical professor of physics, who had to
> >>> correct the homework of a student, which was in my case the text of
> >>> Albert Einstein.
> >>
> >> You are not qualified to do this.
> >
> > Well, in a way you are right, but I did it anyhow, hence must be qualified.
> No. A television actor who dresses up in a white lab coat and a
> stethoscope is not qualified to diagnose a disease in another. He might
> make that diagnosis anyway. It does not make him qualified.

Neither is a poor idiot woodworker making wise faces
and asserting, that he knows how science works.

On 2/13/2022 3:17 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 13.02.2022 um 08:04 schrieb JanPB:
>> On Saturday, February 12, 2022 at 11:18:52 AM UTC-8, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>> Hi NG
>>>
>>> after spending a lot of time on the subject and after rewriting most of
>>> my comments (at least a little), I would call my latest version now
>>> 'final'.
>>>
>>> The text 'On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies' as a pdf with my
>>> comments can be found here
>>>
>>>
>>> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1IiF0r7Rl4eLEMLOyRorKke6iDwFpWvxl/view?usp=sharing
>>>
>>>
>>> For those who don't know that already:
>>>
>>> my idea was to mimic a hypothetical professor of physics, who had to
>>> correct the homework of a student, which was in my case the text of
>>> Albert Einstein.
>>
>> You are not qualified to do this.
>
> Well, in a way you are right, but I did it anyhow, hence must be qualified.
>
> If you don't agree, than feel free to show any error in any of my comments.

I am not qualified to be a rocket scientist.

I built a rocket anyhow, and when I launched it, it made it 1 foot off
the ground before exploding, hence I must be qualified.

On 2/13/2022 3:15 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 13.02.2022 um 08:42 schrieb Michael Moroney:
>> On 2/13/2022 2:19 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>> I also have found some more errors of Einstein.
>>>
>>> e.g. this is a real gem:
>>>
>>> "...and maintain the equation—mass × acceleration = force..."
>>>
>>> The cross product can only applied to vectors, but mass is certainly
>>> not a vector. But supposed it would be a vector, the vector of force
>>> and the vector of acceleration are not perpendicular.
>>>
>>> So, the use of the cross product was wrong here and the quantities
>>> were not properly defined.
>>
>> Idjit.
>>
>> You don't even know of the ordinary multiplication sign "×"? Really?
>>
> Well, ordinary people may use it for multiplication.

As do extraordinary people.
>
> But theoretical physics is another kind of thing, where symbols are much
> more complicated than for common mortals.
>
> In theoretical physics there exist several types of multiplications, for
> which different symbols are used. The 'x' used for multiplication means
> 'cross product' and nothing else.

That's just crap you made up from nothing.

Whether "x" means multiplication or cross product is context dependent.
In this context, when multiplying a vector quantity by a scalar to get
another vector quantity, the context is obvious, it's multiplication.
Remember, his target audience is other physicists of his time, not
cranks on Usenet 115+ years later.

>
> If you don't want to stick to what is common in the field, you could use
> other symbols, if you define them properly.

Like what? "x" for multiplication is common in the field!
>
> But no such definitions can be found, hence the usual meaning must be
> applied, what is 'cross product'.

Or multiplication, which is really the default. It's context dependent,
and his target audience never even slowed down when encountering the
multiplication symbol "x". Especially since he was simply repeating an
extremely well-known physics relationship, F=ma.
>
> If someone does not agree to the usual habbits in theoretical physics
> and uses, what 'the man on the street' uses, he should aswell do, what
> common people do and e.g. play Bingo and read the SUN.
>
His target audience (not you) had absolutely no issue with that.

You seem to be almost desperate to find anything at all that you can
claim to be an error.

Paul B. Andersen wrote:

> Den 13.02.2022 08:19, skrev Thomas Heger:
>> I also have found some more errors of Einstein.
>>
>> e.g. this is a real gem:
>>
>> "...and maintain the equation—mass × acceleration = force..."
>>
>> The cross product can only applied to vectors, but mass is certainly not
>> a vector. But supposed it would be a vector, the vector of force and the
>> vector of acceleration are not perpendicular.
>
> :-D

:-D

Who is going to tell him?

PointedEars
--
«Nec fasces, nec opes, sola artis sceptra perennant.»
(“Neither high office nor power, only the scepters of science survive.”)

—Tycho Brahe, astronomer (1546-1601): inscription at Hven

On Sunday, February 13, 2022 at 12:17:08 AM UTC-8, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 13.02.2022 um 08:04 schrieb JanPB:
> > On Saturday, February 12, 2022 at 11:18:52 AM UTC-8, Thomas Heger wrote:
> >> Hi NG
> >>
> >> after spending a lot of time on the subject and after rewriting most of
> >> my comments (at least a little), I would call my latest version now 'final'.
> >>
> >> The text 'On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies' as a pdf with my
> >> comments can be found here
> >>
> >>
> >> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1IiF0r7Rl4eLEMLOyRorKke6iDwFpWvxl/view?usp=sharing
> >>
> >> For those who don't know that already:
> >>
> >> my idea was to mimic a hypothetical professor of physics, who had to
> >> correct the homework of a student, which was in my case the text of
> >> Albert Einstein.
> >
> > You are not qualified to do this.
> Well, in a way you are right, but I did it anyhow, hence must be qualified.

No. It doesn't work that way.

> If you don't agree, than feel free to show any error in any of my comments.

You are really naive. There is no such thing as anybody ever
succeeding in explaining mistakes to an arrogant ignoramus.

--
Jan

On 2/13/2022 1:08 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>
>> Den 13.02.2022 08:19, skrev Thomas Heger:
>>> I also have found some more errors of Einstein.
>>>
>>> e.g. this is a real gem:
>>>
>>> "...and maintain the equation—mass × acceleration = force..."
>>>
>>> The cross product can only applied to vectors, but mass is certainly not
>>> a vector. But supposed it would be a vector, the vector of force and the
>>> vector of acceleration are not perpendicular.
>>
>> :-D
>
> :-D
>
> Who is going to tell him?
>
Not me.