Am 18.02.2022 um 19:53 schrieb Dono.:
> On Thursday, February 17, 2022 at 10:40:15 PM UTC-8, Thomas Heger wrote:
>
>> Well, that is here the question: who's the fool?
>> ...
There are as many contenders as there are paricipants.
But who's correct?
> Easy answer: Thomas Heger
>

TH

On 2022-02-17 06:34:38 +0000, Thomas Heger said:

> Am 16.02.2022 um 12:12 schrieb Mikko:
>> On 2022-02-15 09:49:29 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
>>
>>>> Mikko wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Do you know any scientific article written in German before World War I
>>>>> that uses "x" for cross product?
>>>
>>> Well, possibly Einstein knew what a scalar product is and what the
>>> cross product is used for.
>>
>> Is that your best answer to my question?
>
> I cannot tell you, when the cross product of vectors was actually
> invented and which sign was used then.
>
> Most likely it were Tait or Hamilton, possibly Heaviside.
>
> But that is history of mathematics and not particularily important.
>
>>
>>> Whether or not he knew the correct sign is irrelevant here.
>>
>> Do you know what was the correct sign in 1905 in Annalen der Physik?
>>
> Well, even if I speak German, 'Annalen der Physik' is not my usual
> reading stuff, especially not the issues of 1905.
>
> So, unfortunately, I cannot answer your question and suggest, you try
> to find that out yourself.
>
> TH

You presented Einstein's use of small cross as a multiplication sign as
ans example of Einstein's "errors", presenting two claims:
1. cross was used as the sign of cross product; and,
2. cross was not used for any other product.
Now you say that you don't know whether your claims were true.
As this particular example was your choice, we can conclude that in general
you don't know whether any your "errors" really are errors -- otherwise
you would have chosen an examle that you can be sure about.

Mikko

Am 19.02.2022 um 16:05 schrieb Mikko:
> On 2022-02-17 06:34:38 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
>
>> Am 16.02.2022 um 12:12 schrieb Mikko:
>>> On 2022-02-15 09:49:29 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
>>>
>>>>> Mikko wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Do you know any scientific article written in German before World
>>>>>> War I
>>>>>> that uses "x" for cross product?
>>>>
>>>> Well, possibly Einstein knew what a scalar product is and what the
>>>> cross product is used for.
>>>
>>> Is that your best answer to my question?
>>
>> I cannot tell you, when the cross product of vectors was actually
>> invented and which sign was used then.
>>
>> Most likely it were Tait or Hamilton, possibly Heaviside.
>>
>> But that is history of mathematics and not particularily important.
>>
>>>
>>>> Whether or not he knew the correct sign is irrelevant here.
>>>
>>> Do you know what was the correct sign in 1905 in Annalen der Physik?
>>>
>> Well, even if I speak German, 'Annalen der Physik' is not my usual
>> reading stuff, especially not the issues of 1905.
>>
>> So, unfortunately, I cannot answer your question and suggest, you try
>> to find that out yourself.
>>
>> TH
>
> You presented Einstein's use of small cross as a multiplication sign as
> ans example of Einstein's "errors", presenting two claims:
> 1. cross was used as the sign of cross product; and,
> 2. cross was not used for any other product.
> Now you say that you don't know whether your claims were true.
> As this particular example was your choice, we can conclude that in general
> you don't know whether any your "errors" really are errors -- otherwise
> you would have chosen an examle that you can be sure about.

As I have already written, I wrote my annotations with a certain 'backdrop'.

This is the situation of a hypothetical physics professor, who took
Einstein's text as the homework of a student.

This (hypothetical) professor citicised such a formal issue of a cross
for a scalar product, because that is, what he's supposed to do.

You are now aguing, that I'm neither a professor nor even a physicist.

That is actually true. But as a professor I can decide, what I think is
correct and not the student.

TH

Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
> Am 19.02.2022 um 16:05 schrieb Mikko:
>> On 2022-02-17 06:34:38 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
>>
>>> Am 16.02.2022 um 12:12 schrieb Mikko:
>>>> On 2022-02-15 09:49:29 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
>>>>
>>>>>> Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Do you know any scientific article written in German before World
>>>>>>> War I
>>>>>>> that uses "x" for cross product?
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, possibly Einstein knew what a scalar product is and what the
>>>>> cross product is used for.
>>>>
>>>> Is that your best answer to my question?
>>>
>>> I cannot tell you, when the cross product of vectors was actually
>>> invented and which sign was used then.
>>>
>>> Most likely it were Tait or Hamilton, possibly Heaviside.
>>>
>>> But that is history of mathematics and not particularily important.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Whether or not he knew the correct sign is irrelevant here.
>>>>
>>>> Do you know what was the correct sign in 1905 in Annalen der Physik?
>>>>
>>> Well, even if I speak German, 'Annalen der Physik' is not my usual
>>> reading stuff, especially not the issues of 1905.
>>>
>>> So, unfortunately, I cannot answer your question and suggest, you try
>>> to find that out yourself.
>>>
>>> TH
>>
>> You presented Einstein's use of small cross as a multiplication sign as
>> ans example of Einstein's "errors", presenting two claims:
>> 1. cross was used as the sign of cross product; and,
>> 2. cross was not used for any other product.
>> Now you say that you don't know whether your claims were true.
>> As this particular example was your choice, we can conclude that in general
>> you don't know whether any your "errors" really are errors -- otherwise
>> you would have chosen an examle that you can be sure about.
>
> As I have already written, I wrote my annotations with a certain 'backdrop'.
>
> This is the situation of a hypothetical physics professor, who took
> Einstein's text as the homework of a student.
>
> This (hypothetical) professor citicised such a formal issue of a cross
> for a scalar product, because that is, what he's supposed to do.
>
> You are now aguing, that I'm neither a professor nor even a physicist.
>
> That is actually true. But as a professor I can decide, what I think is
> correct and not the student.

Perhaps what you meant to say is, “But as a pretend professor, I can
pretend that what I think is correct and not the student.”

Something like a TV actor pretending to be a doctor telling a patient, “You
have Locke’s Syndrome, and I know this better than you, because I am
pretending to be a doctor.”

>
>
> TH
>
>

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

Am 21.02.2022 um 14:34 schrieb Odd Bodkin:

>>> As this particular example was your choice, we can conclude that in general
>>> you don't know whether any your "errors" really are errors -- otherwise
>>> you would have chosen an examle that you can be sure about.
>>
>> As I have already written, I wrote my annotations with a certain 'backdrop'.
>>
>> This is the situation of a hypothetical physics professor, who took
>> Einstein's text as the homework of a student.
>>
>> This (hypothetical) professor citicised such a formal issue of a cross
>> for a scalar product, because that is, what he's supposed to do.
>>
>> You are now aguing, that I'm neither a professor nor even a physicist.
>>
>> That is actually true. But as a professor I can decide, what I think is
>> correct and not the student.
>
> Perhaps what you meant to say is, “But as a pretend professor, I can
> pretend that what I think is correct and not the student.”

Sure. The student has to learn and the professor has to tell the
student, what he shall learn and what is right and what is not.

Whether or not this is actually true is irrelevant.

But I had actually the intention, to aplly only valid methods.

> Something like a TV actor pretending to be a doctor telling a patient, “You
> have Locke’s Syndrome, and I know this better than you, because I am
> pretending to be a doctor.”

Usually the actors pretenting to be doctors use other phrases, like 'I
am a doctor and know better than you, what is good for you'.

TH

Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
> Am 21.02.2022 um 14:34 schrieb Odd Bodkin:
>
>>>> As this particular example was your choice, we can conclude that in general
>>>> you don't know whether any your "errors" really are errors -- otherwise
>>>> you would have chosen an examle that you can be sure about.
>>>
>>> As I have already written, I wrote my annotations with a certain 'backdrop'.
>>>
>>> This is the situation of a hypothetical physics professor, who took
>>> Einstein's text as the homework of a student.
>>>
>>> This (hypothetical) professor citicised such a formal issue of a cross
>>> for a scalar product, because that is, what he's supposed to do.
>>>
>>> You are now aguing, that I'm neither a professor nor even a physicist.
>>>
>>> That is actually true. But as a professor I can decide, what I think is
>>> correct and not the student.
>>
>> Perhaps what you meant to say is, “But as a pretend professor, I can
>> pretend that what I think is correct and not the student.”
>
>
> Sure. The student has to learn and the professor has to tell the
> student, what he shall learn and what is right and what is not.
>
> Whether or not this is actually true is irrelevant.

Actually, it is very relevant, see below.

>
> But I had actually the intention, to aplly only valid methods.
>
>> Something like a TV actor pretending to be a doctor telling a patient, “You
>> have Locke’s Syndrome, and I know this better than you, because I am
>> pretending to be a doctor.”
>
>
> Usually the actors pretenting to be doctors use other phrases, like 'I
> am a doctor and know better than you, what is good for you'.

And to do so is fraud and constitutes nothing of value. Is it irrelevant
whether the actor is actually a doctor when he says these things?

>
>
>
> TH
>

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

El martes, 22 de febrero de 2022 a las 4:12:06 UTC-3, Thomas Heger escribió:
> Am 21.02.2022 um 14:34 schrieb Odd Bodkin:

> > Perhaps what you meant to say is, “But as a pretend professor, I can
> > pretend that what I think is correct and not the student.”

> Sure. The student has to learn and the professor has to tell the
> student, what he shall learn and what is right and what is not.
>
> Whether or not this is actually true is irrelevant.
>
> But I had actually the intention, to aplly only valid methods.

Your problem is that you have never been a "professor" of anything and, therefore, you completely ignore what a real professor looks in a student's paper.

You may be surprised to learn that when I (a professor of electrical engineering for 45 years) read a student's paper, the main focus is not the words he uses (which can be easily corrected) but the ideas and organization of his work.

All of Einstein's four 1905 papers are flawless and he clearly deserved the Nobel prize he got for his work on the Photoelectric effect.

On Tuesday, 22 February 2022 at 18:40:05 UTC+1, Paparios wrote:

> All of Einstein's four 1905 papers are flawless

An assertion of a fanatic idiot is not especially interesting,
And the paper of your idiot guru is just some inconsistent
mumble, violating valid in that time definitions.

Am 22.02.2022 um 18:40 schrieb Paparios:
> El martes, 22 de febrero de 2022 a las 4:12:06 UTC-3, Thomas Heger escribió:
>> Am 21.02.2022 um 14:34 schrieb Odd Bodkin:
>
>>> Perhaps what you meant to say is, “But as a pretend professor, I can
>>> pretend that what I think is correct and not the student.”
>
>> Sure. The student has to learn and the professor has to tell the
>> student, what he shall learn and what is right and what is not.
>>
>> Whether or not this is actually true is irrelevant.
>>
>> But I had actually the intention, to aplly only valid methods.
>
> Your problem is that you have never been a "professor" of anything and, therefore, you completely ignore what a real professor looks in a student's paper.

That is not a problem at all, because I didn't want to immitate the work
of a professor.

What I had done is more similar to games or role play.

I had set up some rules, which were similar to how a professor would
work, but were not meant to immitate real professors.

Sure, no professor would ever take three years to correct one single
homework.

But this is a usual setting for role plays. E.g. that nurse in that role
play does not want to work in a hospital.

> You may be surprised to learn that when I (a professor of electrical engineering for 45 years) read a student's paper, the main focus is not the words he uses (which can be easily corrected) but the ideas and organization of his work.
>
> All of Einstein's four 1905 papers are flawless and he clearly deserved the Nobel prize he got for his work on the Photoelectric effect.
>
Here I disagree, because I cannot see anything 'flawless' in his paper.

TH

Am 22.02.2022 um 17:23 schrieb Odd Bodkin:

>>> Something like a TV actor pretending to be a doctor telling a patient, “You
>>> have Locke’s Syndrome, and I know this better than you, because I am
>>> pretending to be a doctor.”
>>
>>
>> Usually the actors pretenting to be doctors use other phrases, like 'I
>> am a doctor and know better than you, what is good for you'.
>
> And to do so is fraud and constitutes nothing of value. Is it irrelevant
> whether the actor is actually a doctor when he says these things?

oh dear...

Didn't you know, that all these films, soap operas and tv-dramas are not
'real'?

TH

El miércoles, 23 de febrero de 2022 a las 4:46:16 UTC-3, Thomas Heger escribió:
> Am 22.02.2022 um 18:40 schrieb Paparios:
> > El martes, 22 de febrero de 2022 a las 4:12:06 UTC-3, Thomas Heger escribió:
> >> Am 21.02.2022 um 14:34 schrieb Odd Bodkin:
> >
> >>> Perhaps what you meant to say is, “But as a pretend professor, I can
> >>> pretend that what I think is correct and not the student.”
> >
> >> Sure. The student has to learn and the professor has to tell the
> >> student, what he shall learn and what is right and what is not.
> >>
> >> Whether or not this is actually true is irrelevant.
> >>
> >> But I had actually the intention, to aplly only valid methods.
> >
> > Your problem is that you have never been a "professor" of anything and, therefore, you completely ignore what a real professor looks in a student's paper.

> That is not a problem at all, because I didn't want to immitate the work
> of a professor.
>

So when you wrote, at the beginning of this thread, "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 really talking BS.

> What I had done is more similar to games or role play.
>
> I had set up some rules, which were similar to how a professor would
> work, but were not meant to immitate real professors.
>

But in fact, you do not have the slightest idea of how a real professor works.

> Sure, no professor would ever take three years to correct one single
> homework.
>

The problem is that Einstein's paper was not a homework set by a professor of physics. You clearly do not know what a homework is and how it is quite different from a journal paper.

> > You may be surprised to learn that when I (a professor of electrical engineering for 45 years) read a student's paper, the main focus is not the words he uses (which can be easily corrected) but the ideas and organization of his work.
> >
> > All of Einstein's four 1905 papers are flawless and he clearly deserved the Nobel prize he got for his work on the Photoelectric effect.
> >
> Here I disagree, because I cannot see anything 'flawless' in his paper.
>

You do not have the necessary qualifications to judge that: you are not a physicist, nor a professor!!!

Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
> Am 22.02.2022 um 17:23 schrieb Odd Bodkin:
>
>>>> Something like a TV actor pretending to be a doctor telling a patient, “You
>>>> have Locke’s Syndrome, and I know this better than you, because I am
>>>> pretending to be a doctor.”
>>>
>>>
>>> Usually the actors pretenting to be doctors use other phrases, like 'I
>>> am a doctor and know better than you, what is good for you'.
>>
>> And to do so is fraud and constitutes nothing of value. Is it irrelevant
>> whether the actor is actually a doctor when he says these things?
>
> oh dear...
>
> Didn't you know, that all these films, soap operas and tv-dramas are not
> 'real'?
>
> TH
>
>

I see you have completely missed the point.

Your pretense of knowing what a professor would say to a student is not
real. None of the critiques you make are critiques that a real physics
professor would make to a real student publishing a real physics paper.
None of them. They’re all artifacts of your pretense.

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

Am 23.02.2022 um 15:21 schrieb Odd Bodkin:
> Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
>> Am 22.02.2022 um 17:23 schrieb Odd Bodkin:
>>
>>>>> Something like a TV actor pretending to be a doctor telling a patient, “You
>>>>> have Locke’s Syndrome, and I know this better than you, because I am
>>>>> pretending to be a doctor.”
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Usually the actors pretenting to be doctors use other phrases, like 'I
>>>> am a doctor and know better than you, what is good for you'.
>>>
>>> And to do so is fraud and constitutes nothing of value. Is it irrelevant
>>> whether the actor is actually a doctor when he says these things?
>>
>> oh dear...
>>
>> Didn't you know, that all these films, soap operas and tv-dramas are not
>> 'real'?
>>
>> TH
>>
>>
>
> I see you have completely missed the point.

No, you did.

> Your pretense of knowing what a professor would say to a student is not
> real. None of the critiques you make are critiques that a real physics
> professor would make to a real student publishing a real physics paper.
> None of them. They’re all artifacts of your pretense.
>

Not quite, because I had no plans to immitate a real professor. It is
therefore entirely irrelevant, what real professors do in the real world.

My 'backdrop', if you will, is more related to role playing games than
to real universities, because I immitate a hypothetical professor, who
would correct the homework of a student with infinite patience.

This 'backdrop' can be found in other forms in movies, where the main
character acts from a certain perspective.

This is more or less like a form, in which literature is written or
screen plays are designed, rather than the behaviour of a real teacher.

TH

Am 23.02.2022 um 15:05 schrieb Paparios:

>>>>> Perhaps what you meant to say is, “But as a pretend professor, I can
>>>>> pretend that what I think is correct and not the student.”
>>>
>>>> Sure. The student has to learn and the professor has to tell the
>>>> student, what he shall learn and what is right and what is not.
>>>>
>>>> Whether or not this is actually true is irrelevant.
>>>>
>>>> But I had actually the intention, to aplly only valid methods.
>>>
>>> Your problem is that you have never been a "professor" of anything and, therefore, you completely ignore what a real professor looks in a student's paper.
>
>> That is not a problem at all, because I didn't want to immitate the work
>> of a professor.
>>
>
> So when you wrote, at the beginning of this thread, "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 really talking BS.

Not at all.

I did not immitate a real professor, but have set up a certain scheme,
which is more similar to how video games function or certain types of
literature.

In fact a real professor could never do, what I have done and spent
about three years with only one article.

>> What I had done is more similar to games or role play.
>>
>> I had set up some rules, which were similar to how a professor would
>> work, but were not meant to immitate real professors.
>>
>
> But in fact, you do not have the slightest idea of how a real professor works.

Actually I do, because I have a real university degree as an engineer
('Dipl.-Ing.').

>> Sure, no professor would ever take three years to correct one single
>> homework.
>>
>
> The problem is that Einstein's paper was not a homework set by a professor of physics.

The problem is, that Einstein's text would not have been accepted as
such, because it is FULL of errors.

Why is was printed is actually the much more difficult problem. But a
real riddle is, why this piece of garbadge was not rejected a century
ago by science.

>>> You may be surprised to learn that when I (a professor of electrical engineering for 45 years) read a student's paper, the main focus is not the words he uses (which can be easily corrected) but the ideas and organization of his work.
>>>
>>> All of Einstein's four 1905 papers are flawless and he clearly deserved the Nobel prize he got for his work on the Photoelectric effect.
>>>
>> Here I disagree, because I cannot see anything 'flawless' in his paper.
>>
>
> You do not have the necessary qualifications to judge that: you are not a physicist, nor a professor!!!
>
Well, this is true.

But scientific critique does not require any specific qualification.

So feel free to disprove all (or at least a few) of my comments. If you
succeed, what you most likely can't, than we could talk about the
validity of my critique.

TH

Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
> Am 23.02.2022 um 15:21 schrieb Odd Bodkin:
>> Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
>>> Am 22.02.2022 um 17:23 schrieb Odd Bodkin:
>>>
>>>>>> Something like a TV actor pretending to be a doctor telling a patient, “You
>>>>>> have Locke’s Syndrome, and I know this better than you, because I am
>>>>>> pretending to be a doctor.”
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Usually the actors pretenting to be doctors use other phrases, like 'I
>>>>> am a doctor and know better than you, what is good for you'.
>>>>
>>>> And to do so is fraud and constitutes nothing of value. Is it irrelevant
>>>> whether the actor is actually a doctor when he says these things?
>>>
>>> oh dear...
>>>
>>> Didn't you know, that all these films, soap operas and tv-dramas are not
>>> 'real'?
>>>
>>> TH
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I see you have completely missed the point.
>
> No, you did.
>
>> Your pretense of knowing what a professor would say to a student is not
>> real. None of the critiques you make are critiques that a real physics
>> professor would make to a real student publishing a real physics paper.
>> None of them. They’re all artifacts of your pretense.
>>
>
> Not quite, because I had no plans to immitate a real professor. It is
> therefore entirely irrelevant, what real professors do in the real world.

Then of course you have only imitated a fake professor (not a real
professor) who bears no resemblance to any real professor. And likewise,
the criticisms of this fake professor are also fake and bear no resemblance
to any real criticisms that a real professor might make about this paper.

And so if your whole gambit is just to generate imaginary fictions, what do
you expect the reaction to be?

>
> My 'backdrop', if you will, is more related to role playing games than
> to real universities, because I immitate a hypothetical professor, who
> would correct the homework of a student with infinite patience.
>
> This 'backdrop' can be found in other forms in movies, where the main
> character acts from a certain perspective.
>
> This is more or less like a form, in which literature is written or
> screen plays are designed, rather than the behaviour of a real teacher.

And you’ve just described fiction: literature, screen plays.

>
>
> TH
>
>

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

Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
> Am 23.02.2022 um 15:05 schrieb Paparios:
>
>>>>>> Perhaps what you meant to say is, “But as a pretend professor, I can
>>>>>> pretend that what I think is correct and not the student.”
>>>>
>>>>> Sure. The student has to learn and the professor has to tell the
>>>>> student, what he shall learn and what is right and what is not.
>>>>>
>>>>> Whether or not this is actually true is irrelevant.
>>>>>
>>>>> But I had actually the intention, to aplly only valid methods.
>>>>
>>>> Your problem is that you have never been a "professor" of anything
>>>> and, therefore, you completely ignore what a real professor looks in a student's paper.
>>
>>> That is not a problem at all, because I didn't want to immitate the work
>>> of a professor.
>>>
>>
>> So when you wrote, at the beginning of this thread, "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 really talking BS.
>
>
> Not at all.
>
> I did not immitate a real professor, but have set up a certain scheme,
> which is more similar to how video games function or certain types of
> literature.
>
> In fact a real professor could never do, what I have done and spent
> about three years with only one article.

This is true. No real professor would have lodged any of the complaints
that you lodged against the paper in your fictional drama.

>
>>> What I had done is more similar to games or role play.
>>>
>>> I had set up some rules, which were similar to how a professor would
>>> work, but were not meant to immitate real professors.
>>>
>>
>> But in fact, you do not have the slightest idea of how a real professor works.
>
> Actually I do, because I have a real university degree as an engineer
> ('Dipl.-Ing.').
>
>>> Sure, no professor would ever take three years to correct one single
>>> homework.
>>>
>>
>> The problem is that Einstein's paper was not a homework set by a professor of physics.
>
> The problem is, that Einstein's text would not have been accepted as
> such, because it is FULL of errors.

No. I remind you that what you have done is the product of FICTION. This
you have said yourself. You placed yourself in the role of a FICTIONAL
professor, who did not act in the manner that a REAL professor would have
done — in the manner of literature or a screen play, as you said.

The errors cited by this FICTIONAL professor were also FICTIONAL.

>
> Why is was printed is actually the much more difficult problem. But a
> real riddle is, why this piece of garbadge was not rejected a century
> ago by science.

Because it is only “garbage” in your FICTIONAL screenplay involving a
FICTIONAL professor devising FICTIONAL complaints against the paper. In
real life, REAL professors did not find and will not find those same
complaints, because they are not REAL errors.

>
>
>>>> You may be surprised to learn that when I (a professor of electrical
>>>> engineering for 45 years) read a student's paper, the main focus is
>>>> not the words he uses (which can be easily corrected) but the ideas
>>>> and organization of his work.
>>>>
>>>> All of Einstein's four 1905 papers are flawless and he clearly
>>>> deserved the Nobel prize he got for his work on the Photoelectric effect.
>>>>
>>> Here I disagree, because I cannot see anything 'flawless' in his paper.
>>>
>>
>> You do not have the necessary qualifications to judge that: you are not
>> a physicist, nor a professor!!!
>>
> Well, this is true.
>
> But scientific critique does not require any specific qualification.

That is incorrect.
Someone untrained in medicine is not qualified to critique a medical
procedure, and medicine does not have to defend itself against such
critiques.
Someone untrained in chemistry is not qualified to critique a chemical
theory, and chemistry does not have to defend itself against such
critiques.

>
> So feel free to disprove all (or at least a few) of my comments. If you
> succeed, what you most likely can't, than we could talk about the
> validity of my critique.
>
> TH
>
>
>

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

El jueves, 24 de febrero de 2022 a las 3:31:03 UTC-3, Thomas Heger escribió:
> Am 23.02.2022 um 15:05 schrieb Paparios:

> > So when you wrote, at the beginning of this thread, "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 really talking BS.

> Not at all.
>

Sure is complete BS. Homework, or a homework assignment, is a set of tasks assigned to students by their teachers to be completed outside the classroom. Typically, in my case, a set of 4 to 5 mathematical problems that students have to work on and deliver answers within two weeks.

If the number of students is lower than ten, the homework can be marked by the professor. I have been teaching courses with around 200 students, where the markings were done by 8-10 student helpers.

> I did not immitate a real professor, but have set up a certain scheme,
> which is more similar to how video games function or certain types of
> literature.
>
> In fact a real professor could never do, what I have done and spent
> about three years with only one article.

A scientific paper, such as any of Einstein's 1905 papers, presents the results of a research conducted by the research team (usually the professor (in his thesis supervisor rol) and the student). A scientific paper is not answering questions set by a real or hypothetical professor.

> > You do not have the necessary qualifications to judge that: you are not a physicist, nor a professor!!!
> >
> Well, this is true.
>
> But scientific critique does not require any specific qualification.
>

At the very least it requires some previous study of the subject, which you recognize you have not done.

> So feel free to disprove all (or at least a few) of my comments. If you
> succeed, what you most likely can't, than we could talk about the
> validity of my critique.
>

Me and others have done that in every one of your so called "comments".

Am 24.02.2022 um 14:54 schrieb Odd Bodkin:
> Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
>> Am 23.02.2022 um 15:21 schrieb Odd Bodkin:
>>> Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
>>>> Am 22.02.2022 um 17:23 schrieb Odd Bodkin:
>>>>
>>>>>>> Something like a TV actor pretending to be a doctor telling a patient, “You
>>>>>>> have Locke’s Syndrome, and I know this better than you, because I am
>>>>>>> pretending to be a doctor.”
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Usually the actors pretenting to be doctors use other phrases, like 'I
>>>>>> am a doctor and know better than you, what is good for you'.
>>>>>
>>>>> And to do so is fraud and constitutes nothing of value. Is it irrelevant
>>>>> whether the actor is actually a doctor when he says these things?
>>>>
>>>> oh dear...
>>>>
>>>> Didn't you know, that all these films, soap operas and tv-dramas are not
>>>> 'real'?
>>>>
>>>> TH
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> I see you have completely missed the point.
>>
>> No, you did.
>>
>>> Your pretense of knowing what a professor would say to a student is not
>>> real. None of the critiques you make are critiques that a real physics
>>> professor would make to a real student publishing a real physics paper.
>>> None of them. They’re all artifacts of your pretense.
>>>
>>
>> Not quite, because I had no plans to immitate a real professor. It is
>> therefore entirely irrelevant, what real professors do in the real world.
>
> Then of course you have only imitated a fake professor (not a real
> professor) who bears no resemblance to any real professor. And likewise,
> the criticisms of this fake professor are also fake and bear no resemblance
> to any real criticisms that a real professor might make about this paper.

I have not immitated any real professor at all and had no intention to
do that.

I wrote, it is a method, which is somehow similar to role play.

> And so if your whole gambit is just to generate imaginary fictions, what do
> you expect the reaction to be?

Apparently you have problems to distinguish reality from fiction.

So, to let me help you:

almost everything you see on a TV screen is ficticious!

Everybody depicted is an actor in some way and gets paid at least a
little, to smile into a camera and to fake a statement, which someone
wants him to fake.

So: TV is not real as is cinema.

Actors all over the place!

Practically everything visible in the media is a heavily distorted
picture of the real world (at best),

It is performed by actors and written by professionals, which are called
'spin doctors' or similar ('bull-shit artists' for instance).

>>
>> My 'backdrop', if you will, is more related to role playing games than
>> to real universities, because I immitate a hypothetical professor, who
>> would correct the homework of a student with infinite patience.
>>
>> This 'backdrop' can be found in other forms in movies, where the main
>> character acts from a certain perspective.
>>
>> This is more or less like a form, in which literature is written or
>> screen plays are designed, rather than the behaviour of a real teacher.
>
> And you’ve just described fiction: literature, screen plays.
>

If you don't like fiction, you have a problem.

But my method uses a hypothetical professor not as fiction, but as a
method, by which I structure my writing.

TH

Am 24.02.2022 um 16:07 schrieb Paparios:
....
>>> You do not have the necessary qualifications to judge that: you are not a physicist, nor a professor!!!
>>>
>> Well, this is true.
>>
>> But scientific critique does not require any specific qualification.
>>
>
> At the very least it requires some previous study of the subject, which you recognize you have not done.

This is actually a lie.

I have studied a lot and for decades.
>
>> So feel free to disprove all (or at least a few) of my comments. If you
>> succeed, what you most likely can't, than we could talk about the
>> validity of my critique.
>>
>
> Me and others have done that in every one of your so called "comments".
>

Actually zero of my comments where quoted by anybody.

This means: everybody utters some incoherent insults and that's
practically it.

No real discussion about any of my 428 annotations took place (at least
not about my recent version).

TH

Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
> Am 24.02.2022 um 14:54 schrieb Odd Bodkin:
>> Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
>>> Am 23.02.2022 um 15:21 schrieb Odd Bodkin:
>>>> Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
>>>>> Am 22.02.2022 um 17:23 schrieb Odd Bodkin:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Something like a TV actor pretending to be a doctor telling a patient, “You
>>>>>>>> have Locke’s Syndrome, and I know this better than you, because I am
>>>>>>>> pretending to be a doctor.”
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Usually the actors pretenting to be doctors use other phrases, like 'I
>>>>>>> am a doctor and know better than you, what is good for you'.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And to do so is fraud and constitutes nothing of value. Is it irrelevant
>>>>>> whether the actor is actually a doctor when he says these things?
>>>>>
>>>>> oh dear...
>>>>>
>>>>> Didn't you know, that all these films, soap operas and tv-dramas are not
>>>>> 'real'?
>>>>>
>>>>> TH
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I see you have completely missed the point.
>>>
>>> No, you did.
>>>
>>>> Your pretense of knowing what a professor would say to a student is not
>>>> real. None of the critiques you make are critiques that a real physics
>>>> professor would make to a real student publishing a real physics paper.
>>>> None of them. They’re all artifacts of your pretense.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Not quite, because I had no plans to immitate a real professor. It is
>>> therefore entirely irrelevant, what real professors do in the real world.
>>
>> Then of course you have only imitated a fake professor (not a real
>> professor) who bears no resemblance to any real professor. And likewise,
>> the criticisms of this fake professor are also fake and bear no resemblance
>> to any real criticisms that a real professor might make about this paper.
>
>
> I have not immitated any real professor at all and had no intention to
> do that.
>
> I wrote, it is a method, which is somehow similar to role play.
>
>> And so if your whole gambit is just to generate imaginary fictions, what do
>> you expect the reaction to be?
>
>
> Apparently you have problems to distinguish reality from fiction.
>
> So, to let me help you:
>
> almost everything you see on a TV screen is ficticious!
>
> Everybody depicted is an actor in some way and gets paid at least a
> little, to smile into a camera and to fake a statement, which someone
> wants him to fake.
>
> So: TV is not real as is cinema.
>
> Actors all over the place!
>
> Practically everything visible in the media is a heavily distorted
> picture of the real world (at best),
>
> It is performed by actors and written by professionals, which are called
> 'spin doctors' or similar ('bull-shit artists' for instance).
>
>>>
>>> My 'backdrop', if you will, is more related to role playing games than
>>> to real universities, because I immitate a hypothetical professor, who
>>> would correct the homework of a student with infinite patience.
>>>
>>> This 'backdrop' can be found in other forms in movies, where the main
>>> character acts from a certain perspective.
>>>
>>> This is more or less like a form, in which literature is written or
>>> screen plays are designed, rather than the behaviour of a real teacher.
>>
>> And you’ve just described fiction: literature, screen plays.
>>
>
> If you don't like fiction, you have a problem.
>
> But my method uses a hypothetical professor not as fiction, but as a
> method, by which I structure my writing.
>
> TH
>
>

Fiction is fine when it is understood as fiction.
Fiction presented as fact is how you get fascists in charge.

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

Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
> Am 24.02.2022 um 16:07 schrieb Paparios:
> ...
>>>> You do not have the necessary qualifications to judge that: you are
>>>> not a physicist, nor a professor!!!
>>>>
>>> Well, this is true.
>>>
>>> But scientific critique does not require any specific qualification.
>>>
>>
>> At the very least it requires some previous study of the subject, which
>> you recognize you have not done.
>
> This is actually a lie.
>
> I have studied a lot and for decades.

No, the duration is irrelevant. Study means consumption of lots of
instructional materials presented by experts and personal training at the
hands of experts.

Someone who goes into their back yard for 20 years looking at the trees
there in great detail does not become a botanist and cannot say he has
studied botany. Somebody who looks at trees in his backyard for 20 years in
an attempt to learn botany has only managed to waste 20 years.

>>
>>> So feel free to disprove all (or at least a few) of my comments. If you
>>> succeed, what you most likely can't, than we could talk about the
>>> validity of my critique.
>>>
>>
>> Me and others have done that in every one of your so called "comments".
>>
>
> Actually zero of my comments where quoted by anybody.
>
> This means: everybody utters some incoherent insults and that's
> practically it.
>
> No real discussion about any of my 428 annotations took place (at least
> not about my recent version).
>
> TH
>

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

On 2/24/2022 4:28 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 24.02.2022 um 14:54 schrieb Odd Bodkin:
>> Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:

>>> This is more or less like a form, in which literature is written or
>>> screen plays are designed, rather than the behaviour of a real teacher.
>>
>> And you’ve just described fiction: literature, screen plays.
>>
>
> If you don't like fiction, you have a problem.
>
> But my method uses a hypothetical professor not as fiction, but as a
> method, by which I structure my writing.
>
Thomas, when you role play this retarded professor and find 400+
"errors", do you believe the "errors" are actual errors or are fictitious?

Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote:
> On 2/24/2022 4:28 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>> Am 24.02.2022 um 14:54 schrieb Odd Bodkin:
>>> Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
>
>>>> This is more or less like a form, in which literature is written or
>>>> screen plays are designed, rather than the behaviour of a real teacher.
>>>
>>> And you’ve just described fiction: literature, screen plays.
>>>
>>
>> If you don't like fiction, you have a problem.
>>
>> But my method uses a hypothetical professor not as fiction, but as a
>> method, by which I structure my writing.
>>
> Thomas, when you role play this retarded professor and find 400+
> "errors", do you believe the "errors" are actual errors or are fictitious?
>

Like many things in Thomas’ world, the line between fiction and reality is
blurred and is prone to migration. What it is that he concedes is reality
today will not be tomorrow.

What is almost certainly true is that he has a lot emotionally invested in
both his own ideas (structure space and time or something like that) and in
his critiques of popular prevailing ideas like relativity. Thus, even if he
concedes that he did it largely as a fictional exercise, he’d still like to
have them treated seriously because he put so much effort into it.

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

El jueves, 24 de febrero de 2022 a las 18:33:15 UTC-3, Thomas Heger escribió:
> Am 24.02.2022 um 16:07 schrieb Paparios:
> ...
> >>> You do not have the necessary qualifications to judge that: you are not a physicist, nor a professor!!!
> >>>
> >> Well, this is true.
> >>
> >> But scientific critique does not require any specific qualification.
> >>
> >
> > At the very least it requires some previous study of the subject, which you recognize you have not done.

> This is actually a lie.
>
> I have studied a lot and for decades.

But nothing related to Special Relativity, as your posts clearly show. Your 400 hypothetical professor comments of Einstein's 1905 paper have been all debunked several times.

> >
> > Me and others have done that in every one of your so called "comments".
> >
> Actually zero of my comments where quoted by anybody.
>

There are several threads in this group, started by you, which have your so called new versions of your "comments", and in every one of those threads you have been corrected in your nonsensical comments.

> This means: everybody utters some incoherent insults and that's
> practically it.
>
> No real discussion about any of my 428 annotations took place (at least
> not about my recent version).
>

Why would you expect to receive the same corrections, when you have not learn a bit about the multiple corrections about your comments (the last one regarding your nonsensical comment on the symbol x.

Am 24.02.2022 um 23:34 schrieb Michael Moroney:
> On 2/24/2022 4:28 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>> Am 24.02.2022 um 14:54 schrieb Odd Bodkin:
>>> Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
>
>>>> This is more or less like a form, in which literature is written or
>>>> screen plays are designed, rather than the behaviour of a real teacher.
>>>
>>> And you’ve just described fiction: literature, screen plays.
>>>
>>
>> If you don't like fiction, you have a problem.
>>
>> But my method uses a hypothetical professor not as fiction, but as a
>> method, by which I structure my writing.
>>
> Thomas, when you role play this retarded professor and find 400+
> "errors", do you believe the "errors" are actual errors or are fictitious?

The method is meant as a learning tool and does not try to imitate a
professor.

The learning effect is that on the knowledge of the person, who apllies
this method. So, you pretend to be a professor and try to write corrections.

This is quite a simple setting, but is not meant as tool for writng a
screen play, but for writing a critique about a certain scientific paper.

The marked errors should be those, a real professor of that era would
have marked, if the author has handed the text in question in to a
professor, who treated it as the homework of a student.

And if the text would not have passed this test, it should be regarded
as toxic, because violation of the rather low requirements for such
homeworks would also make a high-level text questionable.

In Einstein's case we have as another issue the enormous amount of such
violations, which can hardly have passed unnoticed for the last century.

This is a very serious problem, because in such a case some entity must
have defended Einstein and his text (for unknown reasons).

The 'Who's done it?'- question is now far more interesting than
Einstein's text itself.

I don't know, but somewhere the lifelines of Einstein and Planck must
have crossed and that would be a good place to search.

One such place was the ETH, to which both have attended.

TH