Hi NG

I have made a number of changes and are now happy to present my latest
version.

Now it should be actually final, but I'm not really certain. Possibly
some errors are still in my comments, but actually I can't even find
typos anymore.

The file can be found here:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1dlajModzLK4wgScoOLEMmzpzS2JTUft6/view?usp=sharing

It is a google doc of the file type pdf.

It is technically a public domain version of Einstein's 'On the
electrodynamics of moving bodies', into which I have written comments.

The file needs to be downloaded, because google does not show the
comments in the online version.

The comments are written under the (fictional!) assumption, that I would
be a professor and the text under consideration would be the homework of
a student.

The idea behind that is, that by doing so, you could actually learn a
lot about the subject in question.

To write these annotations took a lot of time and a number of longish
discussions on this board.

But now it looks like a finished product.

Initially I had the idea to sell it in some way, but decided to leave it
as a free-to-download pdf - at leat for the near future.

Any comments?

TH

On Saturday, March 26, 2022 at 11:48:31 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Hi NG
>
> I have made a number of changes and are now happy to present my latest
> version.
>
> Now it should be actually final, but I'm not really certain. Possibly
> some errors are still in my comments, but actually I can't even find
> typos anymore.
>
> The file can be found here:
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1dlajModzLK4wgScoOLEMmzpzS2JTUft6/view?usp=sharing
>
> It is a google doc of the file type pdf.

Who is the author of "Editor's notes" in this version? The footnote on p. 16 is
incorrect: the text should in fact read l' there (not phi').

Also, on p. 13 that editor should have mentioned a typo in the English translation
in the second formula of the set of equations in the middle of the page (the
variables ksi and zeta are reversed).

As for your comments on this paper, they are 100% junk.
Practically all of them are not even wrong. The remaining
few are simply incorrect.

A total waste of your time.

--
Jan

JanPB wrote:

>> It is a google doc of the file type pdf.
>
> Who is the author of "Editor's notes" in this version? The footnote on
> p. 16 is incorrect: the text should in fact read l' there (not
> phi').
> Also, on p. 13 that editor should have mentioned a typo in the English
> translation in the second formula of the set of equations in the middle
> of the page (the variables ksi and zeta are reversed).
> As for your comments on this paper, they are 100% junk.
> Practically all of them are not even wrong. The remaining few are
> simply incorrect. A total waste of your time.

must be something you still don't understand. The below average Einstine
had the physics mathematics wrong. *_Physics_mathematics_* is not the same
as mathematics. Anyhow, the text is obvious written by *a_woman*, so it
must be Mileva, *_his_wife_*. Much more intelligent than him, in many
aspects.

El domingo, 27 de marzo de 2022 a las 3:48:31 UTC-3, Thomas Heger escribió:
> Hi NG
>
> I have made a number of changes and are now happy to present my latest
> version.
>
> Now it should be actually final, but I'm not really certain. Possibly
> some errors are still in my comments, but actually I can't even find
> typos anymore.
>
> The file can be found here:
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1dlajModzLK4wgScoOLEMmzpzS2JTUft6/view?usp=sharing
>
> It is a google doc of the file type pdf.
>
> It is technically a public domain version of Einstein's 'On the
> electrodynamics of moving bodies', into which I have written comments.
>
> The file needs to be downloaded, because google does not show the
> comments in the online version.
>
> The comments are written under the (fictional!) assumption, that I would
> be a professor and the text under consideration would be the homework of
> a student.
>
> The idea behind that is, that by doing so, you could actually learn a
> lot about the subject in question.
>
> To write these annotations took a lot of time and a number of longish
> discussions on this board.
>
> But now it looks like a finished product.
>
> Initially I had the idea to sell it in some way, but decided to leave it
> as a free-to-download pdf - at leat for the near future.
>
>
> Any comments?
>

Yes, it was BS before and it continues to be BS now.

You still do not understand what the rol of a professor is and what a homework is.

> Any comments?
>
You are still the same idiot. Nothing changed.

On 3/27/2022 2:48 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Hi NG
>
> I have made a number of changes and are now happy to present my latest
> version.
>
> Now it should be actually final, but I'm not really certain.

The final version until the *next* final version.

Just like the last zillion "final" versions.

Am 27.03.2022 um 17:43 schrieb Michael Moroney:
> On 3/27/2022 2:48 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>> Hi NG
>>
>> I have made a number of changes and are now happy to present my latest
>> version.
>>
>> Now it should be actually final, but I'm not really certain.
>
> The final version until the *next* final version.
>
> Just like the last zillion "final" versions.

This time I think, that it's enough.

But possibly I try the same method on other subjects.

It is quite difficult and remotely similar to solving a puzzle.

But now I've certainly spent enough time on that text.

TH

Am 27.03.2022 um 11:11 schrieb JanPB:
> On Saturday, March 26, 2022 at 11:48:31 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
>> Hi NG
>>
>> I have made a number of changes and are now happy to present my latest
>> version.
>>
>> Now it should be actually final, but I'm not really certain. Possibly
>> some errors are still in my comments, but actually I can't even find
>> typos anymore.
>>
>> The file can be found here:
>>
>> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1dlajModzLK4wgScoOLEMmzpzS2JTUft6/view?usp=sharing
>>
>> It is a google doc of the file type pdf.
>
> Who is the author of "Editor's notes" in this version? The footnote on p. 16 is
> incorrect: the text should in fact read l' there (not phi').

The 'editor's notes' in Einstein's text stem most likely from the
publisher. Sorry, but unfortunately I have no idea, who that actually
was (definetely not me!).

> Also, on p. 13 that editor should have mentioned a typo in the English translation
> in the second formula of the set of equations in the middle of the page (the
> variables ksi and zeta are reversed).

Well, there remained some errors, which I have not found.

Sorry..

> As for your comments on this paper, they are 100% junk.
> Practically all of them are not even wrong. The remaining
> few are simply incorrect.

If you think so, then feel free to prove that for a single case.

TH

On Sunday, March 27, 2022 at 10:35:06 AM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 27.03.2022 um 11:11 schrieb JanPB:
> > On Saturday, March 26, 2022 at 11:48:31 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
> >> Hi NG
> >>
> >> I have made a number of changes and are now happy to present my latest
> >> version.
> >>
> >> Now it should be actually final, but I'm not really certain. Possibly
> >> some errors are still in my comments, but actually I can't even find
> >> typos anymore.
> >>
> >> The file can be found here:
> >>
> >> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1dlajModzLK4wgScoOLEMmzpzS2JTUft6/view?usp=sharing
> >>
> >> It is a google doc of the file type pdf.
> >
> > Who is the author of "Editor's notes" in this version? The footnote on p. 16 is
> > incorrect: the text should in fact read l' there (not phi').
> The 'editor's notes' in Einstein's text stem most likely from the
> publisher. Sorry, but unfortunately I have no idea, who that actually
> was (definetely not me!).

OK.

> > Also, on p. 13 that editor should have mentioned a typo in the English translation
> > in the second formula of the set of equations in the middle of the page (the
> > variables ksi and zeta are reversed).
> Well, there remained some errors, which I have not found.
>
> Sorry..

This is a typo by the English translator, not Einstein.

> > As for your comments on this paper, they are 100% junk.
> > Practically all of them are not even wrong. The remaining
> > few are simply incorrect.
> If you think so, then feel free to prove that for a single case.

One cannot prove an arrogant individual that he is wrong. If I could,
it would take a long time because it is also a fact of life that it's much
more difficult to debunk a claim like "X is wrong" than to make such
claim. The latter takes just a few words, the former requires a lecture
that further presumes a solid background to understand the argument
in the first place.

In your case not only your comments are downright silly,
you also frequently don't comment on genuine difficult or non-obvious
points. It's clear that you don't understand the text.

And if you don't understand the text, you cannot meaningfully comment
on it (other than for entertainment or - I don 't know - acting classes, when
people practice reciting a telephone directory, etc.)

Here I can address the item I mentioned in my previous comment:

p. 15, "Theory of Doppler's Principle and of Aberration".

* your first two comments complain, in all naive seriousness, that the
spherical wave is not 100% plane wave. It's like like complaining that
Newton used point masses in his mechanics.

* vector notation vs. components is up to the author. Here he chose the
components because he needs to transform them according to the
formulas on p. 14 which are different for different components.

* those formulas involve maximum amplitude, not mean amplitude.

* comments about the amplitude components naming convention
are asinine.

* the formula for the upper-case Phi is standard undergraduate
physics. In pro science papers people normally don't define elementary
concepts. It's not an undergrad textbook. There is no "riddle" in
dividing by c, please educate yourself. Check any basic textbook
on wave motion, either from a mechanical or E&M point of view.

* "wave train" is the standard physics usage in English. The correct
English translation of Einstein's paper (which you should have used
in the first place) employs the same term:
https://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol2-trans/174

* your comment regarding Einstein's phrase "when they are examined by an
observer at rest in the moving system k" is nonsensical. The entire point
of the setup is to have the light source stationary wrt K and then having the
observer k measure those waves.

* your next comment demonstrates that you don't understand how Einstein
calculates omega', l', m', n'. Einstein DOES in fact substitute the Lorentz
transformation but he skips this calculation (again, the paper is for
professionals who can fill in those details easily). He also does not
mention another fact that both observers will measure the same
phase when their positions coincide, despite their relative motion (this
is another basic factoid about waves). Because of that we have the
equation Phi' = Phi which is the starting point of the derivation. There
is one more step there which Einstein does not mention and
which the reader is presumed to be able to see instantly: using the fact
that those formulas must hold in principle for arbitrary ksi, eta, zeta, tau.

* another comment you make: "the important quantity omega was not
defined anywhere in this paper" is another eye-roller.

On and on it goes.

--
Jan

Am 27.03.2022 um 21:28 schrieb JanPB:
> On Sunday, March 27, 2022 at 10:35:06 AM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
>> Am 27.03.2022 um 11:11 schrieb JanPB:
>>> On Saturday, March 26, 2022 at 11:48:31 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>> Hi NG
>>>>
>>>> I have made a number of changes and are now happy to present my latest
>>>> version.
>>>>
>>>> Now it should be actually final, but I'm not really certain. Possibly
>>>> some errors are still in my comments, but actually I can't even find
>>>> typos anymore.
>>>>
>>>> The file can be found here:
>>>>
>>>> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1dlajModzLK4wgScoOLEMmzpzS2JTUft6/view?usp=sharing
>>>>
>>>> It is a google doc of the file type pdf.
>>>
>>> Who is the author of "Editor's notes" in this version? The footnote on p. 16 is
>>> incorrect: the text should in fact read l' there (not phi').
>> The 'editor's notes' in Einstein's text stem most likely from the
>> publisher. Sorry, but unfortunately I have no idea, who that actually
>> was (definetely not me!).
>
> OK.
>
>>> Also, on p. 13 that editor should have mentioned a typo in the English translation
>>> in the second formula of the set of equations in the middle of the page (the
>>> variables ksi and zeta are reversed).
>> Well, there remained some errors, which I have not found.
>>
>> Sorry..
>
> This is a typo by the English translator, not Einstein.

I have to admit, that missing an error is actually a fault, which I
tried to avoid.

But I have not dealt with these equations, because I disliked Einstein's
subtraction of magnetic field strength from electric field strength, anyhow.

I also found it totally illogic to aplly the geometric relations from
the kinematic part to the 'length' of the field strength vector.

In my view the relation between electric field and magnetic field
requires a rotation and complex numbers, which I wanted to modell with
multiplicative connections of quaternions.

But these equations contain addition of things, which have different units.

So, I gave that set of equations a 'thumbs down' and went further.

The differences in translations were not my business, since I was
discussing the English version, into which my comments were written, as
if it were the only version in existence.

>>> As for your comments on this paper, they are 100% junk.
>>> Practically all of them are not even wrong. The remaining
>>> few are simply incorrect.
>> If you think so, then feel free to prove that for a single case.
>
> One cannot prove an arrogant individual that he is wrong. If I could,
> it would take a long time because it is also a fact of life that it's much
> more difficult to debunk a claim like "X is wrong" than to make such
> claim. The latter takes just a few words, the former requires a lecture
> that further presumes a solid background to understand the argument
> in the first place.

Well, I don't think, that Einstein was that arrogant.

But the person is irellevant, anyhow, because I was discussing a text,
not a person.

The text is regarded as 'singular', meaning: it is as it is, whoever
wrote that text and for whatever reason. (No secondary material is
allow, besides of standard knowledge).

> In your case not only your comments are downright silly,
> you also frequently don't comment on genuine difficult or non-obvious
> points. It's clear that you don't understand the text.

Well, this is actually a valid critique of me as a person.

But you have to keep in mind, that I'm just a single hobbyist, without
any support from any side and which is requested to do, what actually
thousends of others should have done a century ago.

So, possibly I missed a few critical points, where the subject got a
little too difficult for my abilities. But, after all, there remain
roughly four hundred topic, about which we could discuss.

To remind you: the error margin in theoretical physics is not
four-hundred but zero.

> And if you don't understand the text, you cannot meaningfully comment
> on it (other than for entertainment or - I don 't know - acting classes, when
> people practice reciting a telephone directory, etc.)

Actually I could comment that text, as I have proven already (simply
look at my comments).

What you apparently tried to say: my comments are all invalid.

If so, you should easily be able disprove at least one.

> Here I can address the item I mentioned in my previous comment:
>
> p. 15, "Theory of Doppler's Principle and of Aberration".
>
> * your first two comments complain, in all naive seriousness, that the
> spherical wave is not 100% plane wave. It's like like complaining that
> Newton used point masses in his mechanics.

NO, Newton was correct, because he didn't mean points with 'point
masses', while Einstein did.

In fact Einstein turned materialism into something absurd, because
everything was 'stuff' in his view: points, coordinate systems, electricity.

> * vector notation vs. components is up to the author. Here he chose the
> components because he needs to transform them according to the
> formulas on p. 14 which are different for different components.

Well, actually you are right.

But in my role as a professor I have also the duty to educate the
students to some kind of aestetic use of mathematics.

And I therefore marked as an error, what looks 'ugly', even if that
wasn't really wrong.

> * those formulas involve maximum amplitude, not mean amplitude.

One of my main points of critique was Einstein's habit, that he didn't
give any hint at all what he meant with certain symbols.

That is totally inacceptable, because the reader needs to know, what the
author tries to say. The author is therefore responsible to make clear,
what he's talking about. It's not the duty of a reader to reader the
authors mind.

In my view this issue alone would have been actually enough to dismiss
this paper without further consideration.

> * comments about the amplitude components naming convention
> are asinine.
>
> * the formula for the upper-case Phi is standard undergraduate
> physics. In pro science papers people normally don't define elementary
> concepts. It's not an undergrad textbook. There is no "riddle" in
> dividing by c, please educate yourself. Check any basic textbook
> on wave motion, either from a mechanical or E&M point of view.
>
> * "wave train" is the standard physics usage in English. The correct
> English translation of Einstein's paper (which you should have used
> in the first place) employs the same term:
> https://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol2-trans/174

Sure 'wave-train' is in common use in English. But in German 'Wellenzug'
(literal translation of 'wave-train) is not used in connection with waves.

'Zug' in German means 'train', but is also the substantive related to
'pull' ('ziehen' in German). 'Zug' is the movement of a chess piece, for
instance.

It is also used to describe the result, if you draw a line. So
'Wellenzug' is best approximated with 'wavy line'.

I have criticised the phrase, because I have regarded it as a funny
translation error.

> * your comment regarding Einstein's phrase "when they are examined by an
> observer at rest in the moving system k" is nonsensical. The entire point
> of the setup is to have the light source stationary wrt K and then having the
> observer k measure those waves.

But why?

My personal settings are usually: the observer is at rest and the things
of interest move.

Therefore a stationary observer could as well observe a moving light
source, instead of the other way round.

The system K is actually regarded as 'stationary', because it is
'attatched' to the observer.

The observer sees from his position a moving light source, which is a
very common setting.

>
> * your next comment demonstrates that you don't understand how Einstein
> calculates omega', l', m', n'. Einstein DOES in fact substitute the Lorentz
> transformation but he skips this calculation (again, the paper is for
> professionals who can fill in those details easily). He also does not
> mention another fact that both observers will measure the same
> phase when their positions coincide, despite their relative motion (this
> is another basic factoid about waves).

Two observers will most likely never coincide.

We could regard that another example of the Pauli exclusion principle.

On Sunday, March 27, 2022 at 11:46:59 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 27.03.2022 um 21:28 schrieb JanPB:
> > On Sunday, March 27, 2022 at 10:35:06 AM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
> >> Am 27.03.2022 um 11:11 schrieb JanPB:
> >>> On Saturday, March 26, 2022 at 11:48:31 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
> >>>> Hi NG
> >>>>
> >>>> I have made a number of changes and are now happy to present my latest
> >>>> version.
> >>>>
> >>>> Now it should be actually final, but I'm not really certain. Possibly
> >>>> some errors are still in my comments, but actually I can't even find
> >>>> typos anymore.
> >>>>
> >>>> The file can be found here:
> >>>>
> >>>> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1dlajModzLK4wgScoOLEMmzpzS2JTUft6/view?usp=sharing
> >>>>
> >>>> It is a google doc of the file type pdf.
> >>>
> >>> Who is the author of "Editor's notes" in this version? The footnote on p. 16 is
> >>> incorrect: the text should in fact read l' there (not phi').
> >> The 'editor's notes' in Einstein's text stem most likely from the
> >> publisher. Sorry, but unfortunately I have no idea, who that actually
> >> was (definetely not me!).
> >
> > OK.
> >
> >>> Also, on p. 13 that editor should have mentioned a typo in the English translation
> >>> in the second formula of the set of equations in the middle of the page (the
> >>> variables ksi and zeta are reversed).
> >> Well, there remained some errors, which I have not found.
> >>
> >> Sorry..
> >
> > This is a typo by the English translator, not Einstein.
> I have to admit, that missing an error is actually a fault, which I
> tried to avoid.
>
> But I have not dealt with these equations, because I disliked Einstein's
> subtraction of magnetic field strength from electric field strength, anyhow.

It's nothing peculiar to Einstein, it's the Gaussian system of units.

> I also found it totally illogic to aplly the geometric relations from
> the kinematic part to the 'length' of the field strength vector.

These are Lorentz's formulas from his 1904 paper (or earlier,
I forget). It's not any more or less illogical than Maxwell's
equations. Einstein uses the same "geometric relations" as
Lorentz in 1904 to derive those formulas.

> In my view the relation between electric field and magnetic field
> requires a rotation and complex numbers, which I wanted to modell with
> multiplicative connections of quaternions.

One can do that but it's not required and in the context of the paper
(and Lorentz's 1904 paper) it would only obfuscate things by
gratuitous over-generalisation.

> But these equations contain addition of things, which have different units.

No, in the Gaussian system of units electric and magnetic fields
have the same dimensions.

> So, I gave that set of equations a 'thumbs down' and went further.

And it never gave you a pause that such a trivial "mistake" as the
"wrong" units would have gone unnoticed by the Annalen der
Physik editors in 1905, let alone the generations of physicists
for the past 117 years? You really go about living your life with
that mode of making assumptions about facts and people?
What?

> The differences in translations were not my business, since I was
> discussing the English version, into which my comments were written, as
> if it were the only version in existence.

There are two English versions. The corrected one is in the
link I cited.

> >>> As for your comments on this paper, they are 100% junk.
> >>> Practically all of them are not even wrong. The remaining
> >>> few are simply incorrect.
> >> If you think so, then feel free to prove that for a single case.
> >
> > One cannot prove an arrogant individual that he is wrong. If I could,
> > it would take a long time because it is also a fact of life that it's much
> > more difficult to debunk a claim like "X is wrong" than to make such
> > claim. The latter takes just a few words, the former requires a lecture
> > that further presumes a solid background to understand the argument
> > in the first place.
> Well, I don't think, that Einstein was that arrogant.
>
> But the person is irellevant, anyhow, because I was discussing a text,
> not a person.

You are not discussing it. What you wrote is at best poetry.

> The text is regarded as 'singular', meaning: it is as it is, whoever
> wrote that text and for whatever reason. (No secondary material is
> allow, besides of standard knowledge).
> > In your case not only your comments are downright silly,
> > you also frequently don't comment on genuine difficult or non-obvious
> > points. It's clear that you don't understand the text.
> Well, this is actually a valid critique of me as a person.
>
> But you have to keep in mind, that I'm just a single hobbyist, without
> any support from any side and which is requested to do, what actually
> thousends of others should have done a century ago.

But why are you doing this? It's a completely pointless activity.
(Unless your goal is writing some sort of modern poetry.)

> So, possibly I missed a few critical points, where the subject got a
> little too difficult for my abilities. But, after all, there remain
> roughly four hundred topic, about which we could discuss.
>
> To remind you: the error margin in theoretical physics is not
> four-hundred but zero.

It is zero as far as Einstein's 1905 paper is concerned.

> > And if you don't understand the text, you cannot meaningfully comment
> > on it (other than for entertainment or - I don 't know - acting classes, when
> > people practice reciting a telephone directory, etc.)
> Actually I could comment that text, as I have proven already (simply
> look at my comments).

They are not comments, they are gobbledygook.

> What you apparently tried to say: my comments are all invalid.

Yes.

> If so, you should easily be able disprove at least one.

No. That's impossible. This phenomenon is well-known.

> > Here I can address the item I mentioned in my previous comment:
> >
> > p. 15, "Theory of Doppler's Principle and of Aberration".
> >
> > * your first two comments complain, in all naive seriousness, that the
> > spherical wave is not 100% plane wave. It's like like complaining that
> > Newton used point masses in his mechanics.
> NO, Newton was correct, because he didn't mean points with 'point
> masses', while Einstein did.

Newton meant point masses, just like Einstein. They are an idealisation,
just like a source at infinity or perfectly plane waves.

> In fact Einstein turned materialism into something absurd, because
> everything was 'stuff' in his view: points, coordinate systems, electricity.

He didn't change anything in that sense that had not been changed
already. Points, coordinate systems, and electricity were all in use
before him.

> > * vector notation vs. components is up to the author. Here he chose the
> > components because he needs to transform them according to the
> > formulas on p. 14 which are different for different components.
> Well, actually you are right.
>
> But in my role as a professor I have also the duty to educate the
> students to some kind of aestetic use of mathematics.

But this is nonsense.

> And I therefore marked as an error, what looks 'ugly', even if that
> wasn't really wrong.

It's not ugly and it's not wrong. It's exactly what's needed there.

> > * those formulas involve maximum amplitude, not mean amplitude.
> One of my main points of critique was Einstein's habit, that he didn't
> give any hint at all what he meant with certain symbols.

Because this paper was not an undegraduate textbook. It's a research
communication written in a scientific shorthand for people who know
all that basic stuff.

> That is totally inacceptable, because the reader needs to know, what the
> author tries to say.

The reader knows that very well.

> The author is therefore responsible to make clear,
> what he's talking about. It's not the duty of a reader to reader the
> authors mind.

This is not applicable because the text was written for people who
already know all this. This is how all physics or math papers are
written.

Am 28.03.2022 um 11:50 schrieb JanPB:
> On Sunday, March 27, 2022 at 11:46:59 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
>> Am 27.03.2022 um 21:28 schrieb JanPB:
>>> On Sunday, March 27, 2022 at 10:35:06 AM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>> Am 27.03.2022 um 11:11 schrieb JanPB:
>>>>> On Saturday, March 26, 2022 at 11:48:31 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>>>> Hi NG
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have made a number of changes and are now happy to present my latest
>>>>>> version.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Now it should be actually final, but I'm not really certain. Possibly
>>>>>> some errors are still in my comments, but actually I can't even find
>>>>>> typos anymore.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The file can be found here:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1dlajModzLK4wgScoOLEMmzpzS2JTUft6/view?usp=sharing
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is a google doc of the file type pdf.
>>>>>
>>>>> Who is the author of "Editor's notes" in this version? The footnote on p. 16 is
>>>>> incorrect: the text should in fact read l' there (not phi').
>>>> The 'editor's notes' in Einstein's text stem most likely from the
>>>> publisher. Sorry, but unfortunately I have no idea, who that actually
>>>> was (definetely not me!).
>>>
>>> OK.
>>>
>>>>> Also, on p. 13 that editor should have mentioned a typo in the English translation
>>>>> in the second formula of the set of equations in the middle of the page (the
>>>>> variables ksi and zeta are reversed).
>>>> Well, there remained some errors, which I have not found.
>>>>
>>>> Sorry..
>>>
>>> This is a typo by the English translator, not Einstein.
>> I have to admit, that missing an error is actually a fault, which I
>> tried to avoid.
>>
>> But I have not dealt with these equations, because I disliked Einstein's
>> subtraction of magnetic field strength from electric field strength, anyhow.
>
> It's nothing peculiar to Einstein, it's the Gaussian system of units.

I have actually problems with subtracting electric field strength from
magnetic field strength.

This is like subtracting 1 V from 1 A.

To me this doesn't make any sense at all.

Einstein gave absolutely no hints, what he actually tried to figure out
and I'm personally lost with that situation, which I'm unable to interpret.

So, possibly you are able to tell me, what ' ...(N - v/c* Y)..' is meant
to be?

N ist the magnetic field strength in the z-direction and Y the electric
field strength in the y-direction.

So: what is that????????

I would say, he meant, that the vectors look like 'pinched together', if
the field moves at velocities near the spead of light.

This is most likely actually true, but Einstein gave no hint whatever,
what he tried to figure out.

>> I also found it totally illogic to aplly the geometric relations from
>> the kinematic part to the 'length' of the field strength vector.
>
> These are Lorentz's formulas from his 1904 paper (or earlier,
> I forget). It's not any more or less illogical than Maxwell's
> equations. Einstein uses the same "geometric relations" as
> Lorentz in 1904 to derive those formulas.

But you cannot apply geometric relations to field strength vectors,
because the 'length' of the vectors is arbitrary.

If the field strength is actually changing with velocity, this would be
a physical problem, not a geometrical one.

If fields behave in a geometric fashion and change upon velocity, this
would indicate a physical relation between fields and geometry itself.

I actually think, this is the case, but Einstein didn't say anything alike.

Besides of this, Einstein wrote, the field strength would not change
upon movement, what is IMHO wrong.

>> In my view the relation between electric field and magnetic field
>> requires a rotation and complex numbers, which I wanted to modell with
>> multiplicative connections of quaternions.
>
> One can do that but it's not required and in the context of the paper
> (and Lorentz's 1904 paper) it would only obfuscate things by
> gratuitous over-generalisation.
>
>> But these equations contain addition of things, which have different units.
>
> No, in the Gaussian system of units electric and magnetic fields
> have the same dimensions.

Unfortunately yes.

But still you should not subtract apples from oranges.

I have actually trouble to find any reasonable meaning for the
difference of a magnetic field strength vector and an electric one.

What could that possibly be?

>> So, I gave that set of equations a 'thumbs down' and went further.
>
> And it never gave you a pause that such a trivial "mistake" as the
> "wrong" units would have gone unnoticed by the Annalen der
> Physik editors in 1905, let alone the generations of physicists
> for the past 117 years? You really go about living your life with
> that mode of making assumptions about facts and people?
> What?

I would guess, that most people 'consume' such articles similar to how
they read 'Haarper's Bazar'.

To carefully analyse an article word for word takes time and effort,
which most readers are not willing to invest.

We have also massive advertising of this article and super-hero status
of the author, what would most certainly hinder people to actually
critise it.

....
>>> One cannot prove an arrogant individual that he is wrong. If I could,
>>> it would take a long time because it is also a fact of life that it's much
>>> more difficult to debunk a claim like "X is wrong" than to make such
>>> claim. The latter takes just a few words, the former requires a lecture
>>> that further presumes a solid background to understand the argument
>>> in the first place.
>> Well, I don't think, that Einstein was that arrogant.
>>
>> But the person is irellevant, anyhow, because I was discussing a text,
>> not a person.
>
> You are not discussing it. What you wrote is at best poetry.

Well, I'm actually discussing it now (with you, of course).

....

>>> * "wave train" is the standard physics usage in English. The correct
>>> English translation of Einstein's paper (which you should have used
>>> in the first place) employs the same term:
>>> https://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol2-trans/174
>> Sure 'wave-train' is in common use in English. But in German 'Wellenzug'
>> (literal translation of 'wave-train) is not used in connection with waves.
>
> It is: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wellenpaket

I have thought about this particular phrase for a long time.

To me the word 'Wellenzug' (in the German version) didn't make sense.

The German language allows, different than English, to create new words
according to certain general rules.

One such rule is to make nouns from verbs, like here: 'Zug' (train) from
'ziehen' ('to pull').

To make it possible, that newly created words are understood by
everyone, there exist general rules for how such new words are created
and how they have to be interpreted.

Such nouns created from verbs must have a relation to the verb, from
which they were derived.

So: 'Zug' MUST have a connection to something pulling something!!!

As this is a general rule, it overrides even dictionaries.

Same thig with composed words:

German alllows to piece words together like 'Lego' bricks.

Such composits are interpreted as string of related things.

Therefore 'Wellenzug' is interpreted as 'Wellen' + 'Zug'. (waves + train)

Since 'train' is not derived from a verb, it might be translated to 'Zug'.

But the part 'Zug' in German is prohibitted by this general rule for
substantivated verbs, because the waves in pyhsics are not pulled, hence
'ziehen' is inappropriate for physical waves. This would disallow to
connect physical waves with 'Zug'.

The English phrase 'wave train' is a 'linguistic picture', which has no
counterpart in German. It is related to the sound a long train makes, it
it rattles over a gap in the track. It means the passing by of the waves
like train-cars on a track. This phenomenon it not associated with any
German word, hence needs to be described with a few additional words.

Therefore the German phrase is a literal translation of the English
phrase 'wave train', but 'Wellenzug' is not allowed in German.

Am 29.03.2022 um 08:19 schrieb Thomas Heger:
....
>
>>>> * "wave train" is the standard physics usage in English. The correct
>>>> English translation of Einstein's paper (which you should have used
>>>> in the first place) employs the same term:
>>>> https://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol2-trans/174
>>> Sure 'wave-train' is in common use in English. But in German 'Wellenzug'
>>> (literal translation of 'wave-train) is not used in connection with
>>> waves.
>>
>> It is: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wellenpaket
>
> I have thought about this particular phrase for a long time.
>
> To me the word 'Wellenzug' (in the German version) didn't make sense.
>
> The German language allows, different than English, to create new words
> according to certain general rules.
>
> One such rule is to make nouns from verbs, like here: 'Zug' (train) from
> 'ziehen' ('to pull').
>
> To make it possible, that newly created words are understood by
> everyone, there exist general rules for how such new words are created
> and how they have to be interpreted.
>
> Such nouns created from verbs must have a relation to the verb, from
> which they were derived.
>
> So: 'Zug' MUST have a connection to something pulling something!!!

Lines are actually something, you could use 'Zug' for, because 'ziehen
is also similar to 'to draw'. In the German linguistic picture a feather
is dragged over a paper, what leaves a line.

> As this is a general rule, it overrides even dictionaries.
>
> Same thig with composed words:
>
> German alllows to piece words together like 'Lego' bricks.
>
> Such composits are interpreted as string of related things.
>
> Therefore 'Wellenzug' is interpreted as 'Wellen' + 'Zug'. (waves + train)
>
> Since 'train' is not derived from a verb, it might be translated to 'Zug'.
>
> But the part 'Zug' in German is prohibitted by this general rule for
> substantivated verbs, because the waves in pyhsics are not pulled, hence
> 'ziehen' is inappropriate for physical waves. This would disallow to
> connect physical waves with 'Zug'.
>
> The English phrase 'wave train' is a 'linguistic picture', which has no
> counterpart in German. It is related to the sound a long train makes, it
> it rattles over a gap in the track. It means the passing by of the waves
> like train-cars on a track. This phenomenon it not associated with any
> German word, hence needs to be described with a few additional words.

My fault:

'Wellenzug' is actually a German word, too, but does not mean the same
thing as 'wave train'.

(this is called 'false friend').

The German phrase means

" Linie des wellenförmigen Verlaufs einer Welle"
(= line along which a wave moves)

The English phrase means something like a wave-packet:

https://context.reverso.net/%C3%BCbersetzung/englisch-deutsch/wave+train

"There, the particles were captured by the electric field of the second
pulse, an infrared wave train lasting less than five femtoseconds. "

TH

On 2022-03-27 17:35:07 +0000, Thomas Heger said:

> Am 27.03.2022 um 11:11 schrieb JanPB:

>> As for your comments on this paper, they are 100% junk.
>> Practically all of them are not even wrong. The remaining
>> few are simply incorrect.
>
> If you think so, then feel free to prove that for a single case.

The proof will be better if you first pick the best comment and
post it here. When we prove that the best comment is junk, we
can safely infer that all other comments are junk, too.

Mikko

On 2022-03-28 06:47:00 +0000, Thomas Heger said:

> Sure 'wave-train' is in common use in English. But in German
> 'Wellenzug' (literal translation of 'wave-train) is not used in
> connection with waves.

What was Helmholtz talking about when he said "Bei der Interferenz zweier
Wellenzüge findet keine Vernichtung der lebendigen Kraft statt, sondern
nur eine andere Vertheilung."?

The word "Wellenzug" has been used in physics during 19th and 20th
centuries.

Mikko

On Monday, March 28, 2022 at 11:19:17 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 28.03.2022 um 11:50 schrieb JanPB:
> > On Sunday, March 27, 2022 at 11:46:59 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
> >> Am 27.03.2022 um 21:28 schrieb JanPB:
> >>> On Sunday, March 27, 2022 at 10:35:06 AM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
> >>>> Am 27.03.2022 um 11:11 schrieb JanPB:
> >>>>> On Saturday, March 26, 2022 at 11:48:31 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
> >>>>>> Hi NG
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I have made a number of changes and are now happy to present my latest
> >>>>>> version.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Now it should be actually final, but I'm not really certain. Possibly
> >>>>>> some errors are still in my comments, but actually I can't even find
> >>>>>> typos anymore.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The file can be found here:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1dlajModzLK4wgScoOLEMmzpzS2JTUft6/view?usp=sharing
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> It is a google doc of the file type pdf.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Who is the author of "Editor's notes" in this version? The footnote on p. 16 is
> >>>>> incorrect: the text should in fact read l' there (not phi').
> >>>> The 'editor's notes' in Einstein's text stem most likely from the
> >>>> publisher. Sorry, but unfortunately I have no idea, who that actually
> >>>> was (definetely not me!).
> >>>
> >>> OK.
> >>>
> >>>>> Also, on p. 13 that editor should have mentioned a typo in the English translation
> >>>>> in the second formula of the set of equations in the middle of the page (the
> >>>>> variables ksi and zeta are reversed).
> >>>> Well, there remained some errors, which I have not found.
> >>>>
> >>>> Sorry..
> >>>
> >>> This is a typo by the English translator, not Einstein.
> >> I have to admit, that missing an error is actually a fault, which I
> >> tried to avoid.
> >>
> >> But I have not dealt with these equations, because I disliked Einstein's
> >> subtraction of magnetic field strength from electric field strength, anyhow.
> >
> > It's nothing peculiar to Einstein, it's the Gaussian system of units.
> I have actually problems with subtracting electric field strength from
> magnetic field strength.
>
> This is like subtracting 1 V from 1 A.
>
> To me this doesn't make any sense at all.

That's your problem then. If you want to resolve this, you must
learn how various systems of units work.

> Einstein gave absolutely no hints, what he actually tried to figure out
> and I'm personally lost with that situation, which I'm unable to interpret.
>
> So, possibly you are able to tell me, what ' ...(N - v/c* Y)..' is meant
> to be?

You can rewrite this in the SI system: ...(N - vY), etc.

> N ist the magnetic field strength in the z-direction and Y the electric
> field strength in the y-direction.
>
> So: what is that????????

The values of the fields measured by the k observer.
Ultimately they are the way they are because Maxwell's equations
are the way they are.

> I would say, he meant, that the vectors look like 'pinched together', if
> the field moves at velocities near the spead of light.

It can look that way.

> This is most likely actually true, but Einstein gave no hint whatever,
> what he tried to figure out.

He only wanted to show that his method yields the same formulas
for the transformed fields as those obtained by Lorentz. He also
does it more elegantly by being able to get rid of the extra multiplicative
factor by quick geometric considerations while Lorentz works quite
hard on that one detail in his 1904 paper.

> >> I also found it totally illogic to aplly the geometric relations from
> >> the kinematic part to the 'length' of the field strength vector.
> >
> > These are Lorentz's formulas from his 1904 paper (or earlier,
> > I forget). It's not any more or less illogical than Maxwell's
> > equations. Einstein uses the same "geometric relations" as
> > Lorentz in 1904 to derive those formulas.
> But you cannot apply geometric relations to field strength vectors,
> because the 'length' of the vectors is arbitrary.

Measured values of those fields are not arbitrary.

> If the field strength is actually changing with velocity, this would be
> a physical problem, not a geometrical one.

But the fields do change with the observer, this had been known for
a long time. For example, according to one observer there is only an
electric field at some location while the moving observer detects
a magnetic field as well (say).

> If fields behave in a geometric fashion and change upon velocity, this
> would indicate a physical relation between fields and geometry itself.
>
> I actually think, this is the case, but Einstein didn't say anything alike.
>
> Besides of this, Einstein wrote, the field strength would not change
> upon movement, what is IMHO wrong.
> >> In my view the relation between electric field and magnetic field
> >> requires a rotation and complex numbers, which I wanted to modell with
> >> multiplicative connections of quaternions.
> >
> > One can do that but it's not required and in the context of the paper
> > (and Lorentz's 1904 paper) it would only obfuscate things by
> > gratuitous over-generalisation.
> >
> >> But these equations contain addition of things, which have different units.
> >
> > No, in the Gaussian system of units electric and magnetic fields
> > have the same dimensions.
> Unfortunately yes.
>
> But still you should not subtract apples from oranges.

> I have actually trouble to find any reasonable meaning for the
> difference of a magnetic field strength vector and an electric one.
>
> What could that possibly be?

You are forgetting the v factor. Also, why are you then not bothered
by the Lorentz force formula which involves the same type of
expression for the components: E + vB (or E + (v/c)B in the Gaussian
system)?

> >> So, I gave that set of equations a 'thumbs down' and went further.
> >
> > And it never gave you a pause that such a trivial "mistake" as the
> > "wrong" units would have gone unnoticed by the Annalen der
> > Physik editors in 1905, let alone the generations of physicists
> > for the past 117 years? You really go about living your life with
> > that mode of making assumptions about facts and people?
> > What?
> I would guess, that most people 'consume' such articles similar to how
> they read 'Haarper's Bazar'.
>
> To carefully analyse an article word for word takes time and effort,
> which most readers are not willing to invest.

But you are not carefully analysing this paper. You are simply fantasising.

> We have also massive advertising of this article and super-hero status
> of the author, what would most certainly hinder people to actually
> critise it.

There may be some of it but not in the professional circles. Contrary to
the canonical legends on this forum, the first physicist do disprove
relativity experimentally would be showered with awards and fighting
off princely job offers left and right.

> >>> * "wave train" is the standard physics usage in English. The correct
> >>> English translation of Einstein's paper (which you should have used
> >>> in the first place) employs the same term:
> >>> https://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol2-trans/174
> >> Sure 'wave-train' is in common use in English. But in German 'Wellenzug'
> >> (literal translation of 'wave-train) is not used in connection with waves.
> >
> > It is: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wellenpaket
> I have thought about this particular phrase for a long time.
>
> To me the word 'Wellenzug' (in the German version) didn't make sense.

But it's used in physics in German, at least according to Duden which
I consider reliable: https://www.duden.de/rechtschreibung/Wellenzug
("Linie des wellenförmigen Verlaufs einer Welle", "Gebrauch: Physik".)

On 3/27/2022 1:28 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 27.03.2022 um 17:43 schrieb Michael Moroney:
>> On 3/27/2022 2:48 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>> Hi NG
>>>
>>> I have made a number of changes and are now happy to present my latest
>>> version.
>>>
>>> Now it should be actually final, but I'm not really certain.
>>
>> The final version until the *next* final version.
>>
>> Just like the last zillion "final" versions.
>
> This time I think, that it's enough.

Exactly what you said the last zillion times.
So this will be the final version until the next final version...

> But now I've certainly spent enough time on that text.

Certainly true.

Mikko wrote:

> When we prove that the best comment is junk, we
> can safely infer that all other comments are junk, too.

That is a (classical) fallacy: “Poisoning the well”.

PointedEars
--
I heard that entropy isn't what it used to be.

(from: WolframAlpha)

Am 29.03.2022 um 11:06 schrieb JanPB:

>>>>>>> Also, on p. 13 that editor should have mentioned a typo in the English translation
>>>>>>> in the second formula of the set of equations in the middle of the page (the
>>>>>>> variables ksi and zeta are reversed).
>>>>>> Well, there remained some errors, which I have not found.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sorry..
>>>>>
>>>>> This is a typo by the English translator, not Einstein.
>>>> I have to admit, that missing an error is actually a fault, which I
>>>> tried to avoid.
>>>>
>>>> But I have not dealt with these equations, because I disliked Einstein's
>>>> subtraction of magnetic field strength from electric field strength, anyhow.
>>>
>>> It's nothing peculiar to Einstein, it's the Gaussian system of units.
>> I have actually problems with subtracting electric field strength from
>> magnetic field strength.
>>
>> This is like subtracting 1 V from 1 A.
>>
>> To me this doesn't make any sense at all.
>
> That's your problem then. If you want to resolve this, you must
> learn how various systems of units work.

No.

In the cgs system electric field strength and magnetic field strength
have the same unit of force, because the fields were equated with the
process of measuring them.

These measuring devices contained deformable springs, which measure a force.

Such springs are contained in many analog measuring devices, like a
pressure gauge, a cithen balance or a volt-meter.

All of them measure something by a reference to a deformable spring.

But you cannot subtract Volts from psi, just because both were measured
with a deformable spring.

To do so would require a physical justification, which was entirely
missing in Einstein's text.

>> Einstein gave absolutely no hints, what he actually tried to figure out
>> and I'm personally lost with that situation, which I'm unable to interpret.
>>
>> So, possibly you are able to tell me, what ' ...(N - v/c* Y)..' is meant
>> to be?
>
> You can rewrite this in the SI system: ...(N - vY), etc.

???

N is a vector component of the magnetic field strength vector and Y of
the electric field strength vector.

To subtract Y from N would require some justification. Bu usually you
cannot do that, because both have different units.

In cgs system they have the same units, but still cannot be added,
because the same unit measures different quantities.

>
>> N ist the magnetic field strength in the z-direction and Y the electric
>> field strength in the y-direction.
>>
>> So: what is that????????
>
> The values of the fields measured by the k observer.
> Ultimately they are the way they are because Maxwell's equations
> are the way they are.

I wouldn't count that as an explanation.

>> I would say, he meant, that the vectors look like 'pinched together', if
>> the field moves at velocities near the spead of light.
>
> It can look that way.
>
>> This is most likely actually true, but Einstein gave no hint whatever,
>> what he tried to figure out.
>
> He only wanted to show that his method yields the same formulas
> for the transformed fields as those obtained by Lorentz. He also
> does it more elegantly by being able to get rid of the extra multiplicative
> factor by quick geometric considerations while Lorentz works quite
> hard on that one detail in his 1904 paper.

Here a quote from some text written by Lorentz would be required.

If he actually wanted to do, what you assume he wanted to do, he had to
write that himself.

>>>> I also found it totally illogic to aplly the geometric relations from
>>>> the kinematic part to the 'length' of the field strength vector.
>>>
>>> These are Lorentz's formulas from his 1904 paper (or earlier,
>>> I forget). It's not any more or less illogical than Maxwell's
>>> equations. Einstein uses the same "geometric relations" as
>>> Lorentz in 1904 to derive those formulas.
>> But you cannot apply geometric relations to field strength vectors,
>> because the 'length' of the vectors is arbitrary.
>
> Measured values of those fields are not arbitrary.

Sure. But 'length of the field strength vector' is arbitrary, because it
is only a geometric representation of field strength.

To apply the methods of the kinematic part to the length of the field
strength vector is imho nonsense.

>> If the field strength is actually changing with velocity, this would be
>> a physical problem, not a geometrical one.
>
> But the fields do change with the observer, this had been known for
> a long time. ...

Why then wrote Einstein the opposite?

....

>>>>> * "wave train" is the standard physics usage in English. The correct
>>>>> English translation of Einstein's paper (which you should have used
>>>>> in the first place) employs the same term:
>>>>> https://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol2-trans/174
>>>> Sure 'wave-train' is in common use in English. But in German 'Wellenzug'
>>>> (literal translation of 'wave-train) is not used in connection with waves.
>>>
>>> It is: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wellenpaket
>> I have thought about this particular phrase for a long time.
>>
>> To me the word 'Wellenzug' (in the German version) didn't make sense.
>
> But it's used in physics in German, at least according to Duden which
> I consider reliable: https://www.duden.de/rechtschreibung/Wellenzug
> ("Linie des wellenförmigen Verlaufs einer Welle", "Gebrauch: Physik".)
>
Yes, but the use in German means something else than the same word in
English, what is called 'false friend'.

To the context it was used, the English term fits better, while the
German use does not make much sense.

That's why we have to consider the possibility, that the text was
translated from English to German and not the other way round.

TH

Thomas Heger wrote:
....
> That's why we have to consider the possibility, that the text was
> translated from English to German and not the other way round.

Let me guess... A MI6 agent wrote it, right?

On Wednesday, March 30, 2022 at 12:13:12 AM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 29.03.2022 um 11:06 schrieb JanPB:
>
> >>>>>>> Also, on p. 13 that editor should have mentioned a typo in the English translation
> >>>>>>> in the second formula of the set of equations in the middle of the page (the
> >>>>>>> variables ksi and zeta are reversed).
> >>>>>> Well, there remained some errors, which I have not found.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Sorry..
> >>>>>
> >>>>> This is a typo by the English translator, not Einstein.
> >>>> I have to admit, that missing an error is actually a fault, which I
> >>>> tried to avoid.
> >>>>
> >>>> But I have not dealt with these equations, because I disliked Einstein's
> >>>> subtraction of magnetic field strength from electric field strength, anyhow.
> >>>
> >>> It's nothing peculiar to Einstein, it's the Gaussian system of units.
> >> I have actually problems with subtracting electric field strength from
> >> magnetic field strength.
> >>
> >> This is like subtracting 1 V from 1 A.
> >>
> >> To me this doesn't make any sense at all.
> >
> > That's your problem then. If you want to resolve this, you must
> > learn how various systems of units work.
> No.
>
> In the cgs system electric field strength and magnetic field strength
> have the same unit of force, because the fields were equated with the
> process of measuring them.
>
> These measuring devices contained deformable springs, which measure a force.
>
> Such springs are contained in many analog measuring devices, like a
> pressure gauge, a cithen balance or a volt-meter.
>
> All of them measure something by a reference to a deformable spring.
>
> But you cannot subtract Volts from psi, just because both were measured
> with a deformable spring.
>
> To do so would require a physical justification, which was entirely
> missing in Einstein's text.

No, this is how units of systems work (Gaussian, in this case).

But you haven't answered my question why exactly the same
addition or subtraction does not bother you when it's written
in the Lorentz force law:

F/q = E + (v/c) x B

> > The values of the fields measured by the k observer.
> > Ultimately they are the way they are because Maxwell's equations
> > are the way they are.
>
> I wouldn't count that as an explanation.

That's where the formula comes from. Can't you derive it for
yourself?

> > He only wanted to show that his method yields the same formulas
> > for the transformed fields as those obtained by Lorentz. He also
> > does it more elegantly by being able to get rid of the extra multiplicative
> > factor by quick geometric considerations while Lorentz works quite
> > hard on that one detail in his 1904 paper.
> Here a quote from some text written by Lorentz would be required.

If it was a textbook, yes. In a research paper devoted to a topic everyone
is talking about - no. It's excessive pedantry in most contexts of this type
and considered a defect by some.

> If he actually wanted to do, what you assume he wanted to do, he had to
> write that himself.

Not needed, he was writing for the professional audience. Another author
might have said it. Point is, this is a non-issue. Even less than non-issue..

> >>>> I also found it totally illogic to aplly the geometric relations from
> >>>> the kinematic part to the 'length' of the field strength vector.
> >>>
> >>> These are Lorentz's formulas from his 1904 paper (or earlier,
> >>> I forget). It's not any more or less illogical than Maxwell's
> >>> equations. Einstein uses the same "geometric relations" as
> >>> Lorentz in 1904 to derive those formulas.
> >> But you cannot apply geometric relations to field strength vectors,
> >> because the 'length' of the vectors is arbitrary.
> >
> > Measured values of those fields are not arbitrary.
> Sure. But 'length of the field strength vector' is arbitrary, because it
> is only a geometric representation of field strength.
>
> To apply the methods of the kinematic part to the length of the field
> strength vector is imho nonsense.

This is simple mathematics: there are fields E and B at every point
in space and at every instant, as measured by K. In other words,
there are two vector functions: E(x, y, z, t) and B(x, y, z, t).

Those E and B functions satisfy Maxwell's equations. Meanwhile,
the observer k assigns the quadruple of numbers (ksi, eta, zeta, tau)
to every point in space and a time instant. If both K and k consider
the same event, its corresponding descriptive quadruples (x, y, z, t)
and (ksi, eta, zeta, tau) are related by a certain linear map called
"Lorentz transformation". When you apply this transformation, you'll
discover that the only way to maintain Maxwell's equations is by
altering E and B according to the formulas you object to (despite
the fact that identical formulas have been used in the Lorentz force
formula which never bothered you for some reason).

The entire POINT of Einstein's paper (as originally intended by Einstein) was
to show that one can sensibly justify the claim that those transformed
E and B fields would be exactly as physical (according to k) as the
original E and B were (according to K). This e.g. resolves the
magnet-and-coil question Einstein mentions in the introduction.

It was only a bit later (weeks?) that everyone noticed that the main
achievement here was establishing a new kinematics and dynamics,
with the electrodynamics aspects being "merely" a corollary.

> >> If the field strength is actually changing with velocity, this would be
> >> a physical problem, not a geometrical one.
> >
> > But the fields do change with the observer, this had been known for
> > a long time. ...
>
> Why then wrote Einstein the opposite?

He didn't write the opposite.

> >>>>> * "wave train" is the standard physics usage in English. The correct
> >>>>> English translation of Einstein's paper (which you should have used
> >>>>> in the first place) employs the same term:
> >>>>> https://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol2-trans/174
> >>>> Sure 'wave-train' is in common use in English. But in German 'Wellenzug'
> >>>> (literal translation of 'wave-train) is not used in connection with waves.
> >>>
> >>> It is: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wellenpaket
> >> I have thought about this particular phrase for a long time.
> >>
> >> To me the word 'Wellenzug' (in the German version) didn't make sense.
> >
> > But it's used in physics in German, at least according to Duden which
> > I consider reliable: https://www.duden.de/rechtschreibung/Wellenzug
> > ("Linie des wellenförmigen Verlaufs einer Welle", "Gebrauch: Physik".)
> >
> Yes, but the use in German means something else than the same word in
> English, what is called 'false friend'.

I have just shown you the link from Duden proving the opposite.

--
Jan

On Wednesday, 30 March 2022 at 16:46:25 UTC+2, Python wrote:
> Thomas Heger wrote:
> ...
> > That's why we have to consider the possibility, that the text was
> > translated from English to German and not the other way round.
> Let me guess... A MI6 agent wrote it, right?

Oh, stinker Python is opening its muzzle again,
and trying to pretend he knows something.
Tell me, poor stinker, what is your definition of
a "theory" in the terms of Peano arithmetic?
See: if a theorem is going to be a part of a theory,
it has to be formulable in the language of the
theory. Do you get it? Or are you too stupid even for
that, poor stinker?

Am 30.03.2022 um 20:08 schrieb JanPB:

>>>>>> But I have not dealt with these equations, because I disliked Einstein's
>>>>>> subtraction of magnetic field strength from electric field strength, anyhow.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's nothing peculiar to Einstein, it's the Gaussian system of units.
>>>> I have actually problems with subtracting electric field strength from
>>>> magnetic field strength.
>>>>
>>>> This is like subtracting 1 V from 1 A.
>>>>
>>>> To me this doesn't make any sense at all.
>>>
>>> That's your problem then. If you want to resolve this, you must
>>> learn how various systems of units work.
>> No.
>>
>> In the cgs system electric field strength and magnetic field strength
>> have the same unit of force, because the fields were equated with the
>> process of measuring them.
>>
>> These measuring devices contained deformable springs, which measure a force.
>>
>> Such springs are contained in many analog measuring devices, like a
>> pressure gauge, a cithen balance or a volt-meter.
>>
>> All of them measure something by a reference to a deformable spring.
>>
>> But you cannot subtract Volts from psi, just because both were measured
>> with a deformable spring.
>>
>> To do so would require a physical justification, which was entirely
>> missing in Einstein's text.
>
> No, this is how units of systems work (Gaussian, in this case).

I have given you already the example, that many anolg measuring devices
work with deformable springs, which emasure ultimatively a force.

But still you must not add or subtract different units, like pressure
and weigth, for instance, even if a pressure gauge and a kitchen scale
work with a spring.

It is fantastically stupid nonsese to even advocate such use of values.

> But you haven't answered my question why exactly the same
> addition or subtraction does not bother you when it's written
> in the Lorentz force law:
>
> F/q = E + (v/c) x B

Actually it did bother me, that Einstein tried to subtract electric from
magnetic field strength, but I have not written a comment to all
occurances of the same topic.

Einstein had not used the 'x' of the cross product correctly, but in one
case, where it does not belong, while leaving it away in an equation
(related to your equation from above), where it would belong.

>>> The values of the fields measured by the k observer.
>>> Ultimately they are the way they are because Maxwell's equations
>>> are the way they are.
>>
>> I wouldn't count that as an explanation.
>
> That's where the formula comes from. Can't you derive it for
> yourself?

Actually I have read a book of Maxwell and was not able to find the
equations Einstein used.

So, he had apparently other sources, but didn't consider it necessary to
inform the reader, which his sources were.

>>> He only wanted to show that his method yields the same formulas
>>> for the transformed fields as those obtained by Lorentz. He also
>>> does it more elegantly by being able to get rid of the extra multiplicative
>>> factor by quick geometric considerations while Lorentz works quite
>>> hard on that one detail in his 1904 paper.
>> Here a quote from some text written by Lorentz would be required.
>
> If it was a textbook, yes. In a research paper devoted to a topic everyone
> is talking about - no. It's excessive pedantry in most contexts of this type
> and considered a defect by some.

Don't you think it would be nice to know, WHICH textbook Einstein used?

>> If he actually wanted to do, what you assume he wanted to do, he had to
>> write that himself.
>
> Not needed, he was writing for the professional audience. Another author
> might have said it. Point is, this is a non-issue. Even less than non-issue.

I think, it is in fact an issue!

Actually Einstein mentioned Heinrich Hertz and his adaptation of
Maxwell's equation.

As far as I can tell, Herth did that and developed an own form of
Maxwell's equations. But Hertz died young and his version got more or
less lost.

Now it is hard to say, to what Einstein actually referred with his
equations.

I have read, the Hertz Ansatz used total derivatives, while Einstein
wrote partial differential equation.

Now: what guarantees, that at least Hertz was quoted correctly?

>>>>>> I also found it totally illogic to aplly the geometric relations from
>>>>>> the kinematic part to the 'length' of the field strength vector.
>>>>>
>>>>> These are Lorentz's formulas from his 1904 paper (or earlier,
>>>>> I forget). It's not any more or less illogical than Maxwell's
>>>>> equations. Einstein uses the same "geometric relations" as
>>>>> Lorentz in 1904 to derive those formulas.
>>>> But you cannot apply geometric relations to field strength vectors,
>>>> because the 'length' of the vectors is arbitrary.
>>>
>>> Measured values of those fields are not arbitrary.
>> Sure. But 'length of the field strength vector' is arbitrary, because it
>> is only a geometric representation of field strength.
>>
>> To apply the methods of the kinematic part to the length of the field
>> strength vector is imho nonsense.
>
> This is simple mathematics: there are fields E and B at every point
> in space and at every instant, as measured by K. In other words,
> there are two vector functions: E(x, y, z, t) and B(x, y, z, t).

The term 'space' is undefined, if no reference system is provided.

That is actually the main point of relativity itself: space is 'relative'.

Therefore you cannot refer to coordinates without an anchor, to where
you base these coordinates on.

Space itself does not provide any 'anchor' hence you cannot use
coordinates without a reference point.

This, btw, is also the case for time, because time also requires a
reference point, from which we measure time intervals.

So: 'instant of time' and 'position in space' are illegal constructs, if
you have no reference system.

> Those E and B functions satisfy Maxwell's equations. Meanwhile,
> the observer k assigns the quadruple of numbers (ksi, eta, zeta, tau)
> to every point in space and a time instant. If both K and k consider
> the same event, its corresponding descriptive quadruples (x, y, z, t)
> and (ksi, eta, zeta, tau) are related by a certain linear map called
> "Lorentz transformation". When you apply this transformation, you'll
> discover that the only way to maintain Maxwell's equations is by
> altering E and B according to the formulas you object to (despite
> the fact that identical formulas have been used in the Lorentz force
> formula which never bothered you for some reason).

k and K were coordinate systems. The observers had different names in
Einsteins text. I would prefer to use 'A' as name of the stationary
observer located at the zero spot of K.

The system k moves along the X-axis of K with velocity v into the
positive x-direction.

The system k has also an observer located at its center, for which I
would chose the name 'B'.

This system is also stationary, but only in respect to B, while A moves.

The Lorentz tranformations should now convert observation from K to k or
vice versa.

To do so, also the fields stationary in k and moving in K or vice versa
had to be transformed, too.

To do this we had to read Henry Poincaré, who developed such
transformations and named them after Hendrik Lorentz.

> The entire POINT of Einstein's paper (as originally intended by Einstein) was
> to show that one can sensibly justify the claim that those transformed
> E and B fields would be exactly as physical (according to k) as the
> original E and B were (according to K). This e.g. resolves the
> magnet-and-coil question Einstein mentions in the introduction.

Einstein actual intentions were not my topic. I have only studied a
certain text, into which I wrote annotations.

....
>>>> If the field strength is actually changing with velocity, this would be
>>>> a physical problem, not a geometrical one.
>>>
>>> But the fields do change with the observer, this had been known for
>>> a long time. ...
>>
>> Why then wrote Einstein the opposite?
>
> He didn't write the opposite.

Actually he did:

he wrote on page 14 (roughly in the middle)

X'=X

That 'X' means 'electric field strenth in the x-direction'.

Am 30.03.2022 um 16:46 schrieb Python:
> Thomas Heger wrote:
> ...
>> That's why we have to consider the possibility, that the text was
>> translated from English to German and not the other way round.
>
> Let me guess... A MI6 agent wrote it, right?
>

I have made no assumption so far.

But in case of Einstein there were other possible influences, rather
than MI6 (which was very unlikely the source).

At first: Einstein was a Swiss citizen, he went to school, studied and
worked in Switzerland.

So, something related to Switzerland would be required.

Then he apparently had connections to the Jesuits.

E.g. he lived next door to a Jesuit facility in Italy. He also had a lot
of connections to George LeMaitre (possibly he spoke French).

But Einstein spoke VERY poor English, even after decades in the USA.

Einstein also lived in a relative large number of countries:
Germany
Italy
Switzerland
Chech Republik
USA
...?

And a relatively large number of persons he had contact with were
involved in the research of nuclear energy:

Leo Szillard
Marie Curie
Liese Meitner
Otto Hahn
Max Plank
Nils Bohr
....?

No idea, what to make out of this, just wanted to mention, that MI6
would not fit.

TH

On Wednesday, March 30, 2022 at 11:04:11 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 30.03.2022 um 20:08 schrieb JanPB:
>
> >>>>>> But I have not dealt with these equations, because I disliked Einstein's
> >>>>>> subtraction of magnetic field strength from electric field strength, anyhow.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It's nothing peculiar to Einstein, it's the Gaussian system of units.
> >>>> I have actually problems with subtracting electric field strength from
> >>>> magnetic field strength.
> >>>>
> >>>> This is like subtracting 1 V from 1 A.
> >>>>
> >>>> To me this doesn't make any sense at all.
> >>>
> >>> That's your problem then. If you want to resolve this, you must
> >>> learn how various systems of units work.
> >> No.
> >>
> >> In the cgs system electric field strength and magnetic field strength
> >> have the same unit of force, because the fields were equated with the
> >> process of measuring them.
> >>
> >> These measuring devices contained deformable springs, which measure a force.
> >>
> >> Such springs are contained in many analog measuring devices, like a
> >> pressure gauge, a cithen balance or a volt-meter.
> >>
> >> All of them measure something by a reference to a deformable spring.
> >>
> >> But you cannot subtract Volts from psi, just because both were measured
> >> with a deformable spring.
> >>
> >> To do so would require a physical justification, which was entirely
> >> missing in Einstein's text.
> >
> > No, this is how units of systems work (Gaussian, in this case).
> I have given you already the example, that many anolg measuring devices
> work with deformable springs, which emasure ultimatively a force.
>
> But still you must not add or subtract different units,

They are not different units in the Gaussian system.

> like pressure
> and weigth,

N/A. Learn about X if you want to discuss X (esp. if you want to
criticise X).

> for instance, even if a pressure gauge and a kitchen scale
> work with a spring.
>
> It is fantastically stupid nonsese to even advocate such use of values.

No. You simply don't understand how this works. Some people, when
they don't understand something, tend to blame everyone but themselves
for this. I cannot fix this problem for you.

> > But you haven't answered my question why exactly the same
> > addition or subtraction does not bother you when it's written
> > in the Lorentz force law:
> >
> > F/q = E + (v/c) x B
> Actually it did bother me, that Einstein tried to subtract electric from
> magnetic field strength,

So why it doesn't bother you when Lorentz does exactly the same?

> Einstein had not used the 'x' of the cross product correctly,

The point is that the components of the Lorentz force law formula
look exactly like those of the Lorentz-transformed E and B fields.

"Einstein had not used the 'x' of the cross product correctly" is,
incidentally, the funniest part of your post.

> >>> The values of the fields measured by the k observer.
> >>> Ultimately they are the way they are because Maxwell's equations
> >>> are the way they are.
> >>
> >> I wouldn't count that as an explanation.
> >
> > That's where the formula comes from. Can't you derive it for
> > yourself?
> Actually I have read a book of Maxwell and was not able to find the
> equations Einstein used.

The transformed E and B fields were derived by Lorentz, not Maxwell.
Einstein only re-derived them to demonstrate the power of his new approach.

> So, he had apparently other sources, but didn't consider it necessary to
> inform the reader, which his sources were.

It's obvious what his sources were: Lorentz's big paper from the
previous year.

> >>> He only wanted to show that his method yields the same formulas
> >>> for the transformed fields as those obtained by Lorentz. He also
> >>> does it more elegantly by being able to get rid of the extra multiplicative
> >>> factor by quick geometric considerations while Lorentz works quite
> >>> hard on that one detail in his 1904 paper.
> >> Here a quote from some text written by Lorentz would be required.
> >
> > If it was a textbook, yes. In a research paper devoted to a topic everyone
> > is talking about - no. It's excessive pedantry in most contexts of this type
> > and considered a defect by some.
> Don't you think it would be nice to know, WHICH textbook Einstein used?

No. This is a research paper, not a textbook. The reader knows exactly
where the previous stuff comes from.

> >> If he actually wanted to do, what you assume he wanted to do, he had to
> >> write that himself.
> >
> > Not needed, he was writing for the professional audience. Another author
> > might have said it. Point is, this is a non-issue. Even less than non-issue.
> I think, it is in fact an issue!
>
> Actually Einstein mentioned Heinrich Hertz and his adaptation of
> Maxwell's equation.
>
> As far as I can tell, Herth did that and developed an own form of
> Maxwell's equations. But Hertz died young and his version got more or
> less lost.
>
> Now it is hard to say, to what Einstein actually referred with his
> equations.

Einstein just wrote Maxwell's equations.

> I have read, the Hertz Ansatz used total derivatives, while Einstein
> wrote partial differential equation.

This is irrelevant.

> Now: what guarantees, that at least Hertz was quoted correctly?

Irrelevant.

> >>>>>> I also found it totally illogic to aplly the geometric relations from
> >>>>>> the kinematic part to the 'length' of the field strength vector.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> These are Lorentz's formulas from his 1904 paper (or earlier,
> >>>>> I forget). It's not any more or less illogical than Maxwell's
> >>>>> equations. Einstein uses the same "geometric relations" as
> >>>>> Lorentz in 1904 to derive those formulas.
> >>>> But you cannot apply geometric relations to field strength vectors,
> >>>> because the 'length' of the vectors is arbitrary.
> >>>
> >>> Measured values of those fields are not arbitrary.
> >> Sure. But 'length of the field strength vector' is arbitrary, because it
> >> is only a geometric representation of field strength.
> >>
> >> To apply the methods of the kinematic part to the length of the field
> >> strength vector is imho nonsense.
> >
> > This is simple mathematics: there are fields E and B at every point
> > in space and at every instant, as measured by K. In other words,
> > there are two vector functions: E(x, y, z, t) and B(x, y, z, t).
> The term 'space' is undefined, if no reference system is provided.

It is defined. Two systems in fact, one called K and another called k.

> That is actually the main point of relativity itself: space is 'relative'.

Meaningless. Word salad.

> Therefore

There is no "therefore" following a nonsensical sentence.

> Space itself does not provide any 'anchor' hence you cannot use
> coordinates without a reference point.

Word salad.

> This, btw, is also the case for time, because time also requires a
> reference point, from which we measure time intervals.

Word salad. Pseudoscience.

> So: 'instant of time' and 'position in space' are illegal constructs, if
> you have no reference system.

Word salad. Pseudoscience.

> >>>> If the field strength is actually changing with velocity, this would be
> >>>> a physical problem, not a geometrical one.
> >>>
> >>> But the fields do change with the observer, this had been known for
> >>> a long time. ...
> >>
> >> Why then wrote Einstein the opposite?
> >
> > He didn't write the opposite.
> Actually he did:
>
> he wrote on page 14 (roughly in the middle)
>
> X'=X

This only means that the field's x-coordinate does not change. But the other
two coordinates change, in other words, the field changes.
>
> That 'X' means 'electric field strenth in the x-direction'.
>
> The ' sign ('prime') means 'moving'.
>
> Therefore Einstein assumed, that the electric field strength would not
> change upon movement.