Rocksolid Light

Welcome to novaBBS (click a section below)

mail  files  register  newsreader  groups  login

Message-ID:  

MSDOS is not dead, it just smells that way. -- Henry Spencer


tech / sci.physics.relativity / Re: Annotated version of SRT

SubjectAuthor
* Annotated version of SRTThomas Heger
+* Re: Annotated version of SRTJanPB
|+- Re: Annotated version of SRTEvodio Bayon
|`* Re: Annotated version of SRTThomas Heger
| +* Re: Annotated version of SRTJanPB
| |`* Re: Annotated version of SRTThomas Heger
| | +* Re: Annotated version of SRTJanPB
| | |`* Re: Annotated version of SRTThomas Heger
| | | +- Re: Annotated version of SRTThomas Heger
| | | `* Re: Annotated version of SRTJanPB
| | |  `* Re: Annotated version of SRTThomas Heger
| | |   +* Re: Annotated version of SRTPython
| | |   |+- Re: Annotated version of SRTMaciej Wozniak
| | |   |`* Re: Annotated version of SRTThomas Heger
| | |   | `- Re: Annotated version of SRTVance Rera
| | |   `* Re: Annotated version of SRTJanPB
| | |    `* Re: Annotated version of SRTThomas Heger
| | |     `* Re: Annotated version of SRTJanPB
| | |      +* Re: Annotated version of SRTMaciej Wozniak
| | |      |`* Re: Annotated version of SRTThomas Heger
| | |      | `* Re: Annotated version of SRTJanPB
| | |      |  `- Re: Annotated version of SRTThomas Heger
| | |      `* Re: Annotated version of SRTThomas Heger
| | |       `* Re: Annotated version of SRTJanPB
| | |        +- Re: Annotated version of SRTThomas Heger
| | |        +* Re: Annotated version of SRTRichie Cruze
| | |        |`* Re: Annotated version of SRTMichael Moroney
| | |        | `* Re: Annotated version of SRTRichie Cruze
| | |        |  +* Re: Annotated version of SRTMichael Moroney
| | |        |  |`- Re: Annotated version of SRTRichie Cruze
| | |        |  `* Re: Annotated version of SRTJanPB
| | |        |   `* Re: Annotated version of SRTRichie Cruze
| | |        |    `* Re: Annotated version of SRTJanPB
| | |        |     `* Re: Annotated version of SRTElmer Joss
| | |        |      `* Re: Annotated version of SRTJanPB
| | |        |       `* Re: Annotated version of SRTVance Rera
| | |        |        `* Re: Annotated version of SRTJanPB
| | |        |         `* Re: Annotated version of SRTVance Rera
| | |        |          `* Re: Annotated version of SRTJanPB
| | |        |           +* Re: Annotated nazi excrement JanPB failed the eugenicist IQ-testHagan Koon
| | |        |           |+* Re: Annotated nazi excrement JanPB failed the eugenicist IQ-testJanPB
| | |        |           ||+- Re: Annotated nazi excrement JanPB failed the eugenicist IQ-testLamar Main
| | |        |           ||`* Re: Annotated nazi excrement JanPB failed the eugenicist IQ-testPaul Alsing
| | |        |           || +* Re: Annotated nazi excrement JanPB failed the eugenicist IQ-testMichael Moroney
| | |        |           || |+- Re: Annotated nazi excrement JanPB failed the eugenicist IQ-testwhodat
| | |        |           || |`* Re: Annotated nazi excrement JanPB failed the eugenicist IQ-testJanPB
| | |        |           || | +- Re: Annotated nazi excrement JanPB failed the eugenicist IQ-testMichael Moroney
| | |        |           || | +- Re: Annotated nazi excrement JanPB failed the eugenicist IQ-testLamar Main
| | |        |           || | `- Re: Annotated nazi excrement JanPB failed the eugenicist IQ-testJanPB
| | |        |           || `- Re: Annotated nazi excrement JanPB failed the eugenicist IQ-testLamar Main
| | |        |           |`* Re: Annotated nazi excrement JanPB failed the eugenicist IQ-testJanPB
| | |        |           | `- Re: Annotated nazi excrement JanPB failed the eugenicist IQ-testLamar Main
| | |        |           `- Re: Annotated version of SRTThomas Heger
| | |        `* Re: Annotated version of SRTThomas Heger
| | |         +- Re: Annotated version of SRTJanPB
| | |         +* Re: Annotated version of SRTOdd Bodkin
| | |         |`* Re: Annotated version of SRTThomas Heger
| | |         | +* Re: Annotated version of SRTJanPB
| | |         | |`- Re: Annotated version of SRTThomas Heger
| | |         | `* Re: Annotated version of SRTOdd Bodkin
| | |         |  `* Re: Annotated version of SRTThomas Heger
| | |         |   +* Re: Annotated version of SRTMichael Moroney
| | |         |   |`- Re: Annotated version of SRTThomas Heger
| | |         |   `* Re: Annotated version of SRTOdd Bodkin
| | |         |    `* Re: Annotated version of SRTThomas Heger
| | |         |     `* Re: Annotated version of SRTOdd Bodkin
| | |         |      +* Re: Annotated version of SRTMaciej Wozniak
| | |         |      |`* Re: Annotated version of SRTOdd Bodkin
| | |         |      | `- Re: Annotated version of SRTMaciej Wozniak
| | |         |      `* Re: Annotated version of SRTThomas Heger
| | |         |       `* Re: Annotated version of SRTOdd Bodkin
| | |         |        `- Re: Annotated version of SRTThomas Heger
| | |         +* Re: Annotated version of SRTMichael Moroney
| | |         |`* Re: Annotated version of SRTThomas Heger
| | |         | +- Re: Annotated version of SRTJ. J. Lodder
| | |         | +* Re: Annotated version of SRTOdd Bodkin
| | |         | |+* Re: Annotated version of SRTThomas Heger
| | |         | ||+* Re: Annotated version of SRTJ. J. Lodder
| | |         | |||`* Re: Annotated version of SRTMaciej Wozniak
| | |         | ||| `- Re: Annotated version of SRTThomas Heger
| | |         | ||+* Re: Annotated version of SRTOdd Bodkin
| | |         | |||`* Re: Annotated version of SRTMichael Moroney
| | |         | ||| `* Re: Annotated version of SRTOdd Bodkin
| | |         | |||  `* Re: Annotated version of SRTThomas Heger
| | |         | |||   +* Re: Annotated version of SRTOdd Bodkin
| | |         | |||   |`- Re: Annotated version of SRTThomas Heger
| | |         | |||   `* Re: Annotated version of SRTMitch Yamaguchi
| | |         | |||    +- Re: Annotated version of SRTthor stoneman
| | |         | |||    `- Re: Annotated version of SRTThomas Heger
| | |         | ||`* Re: Annotated version of SRTMichael Moroney
| | |         | || +* Re: Annotated version of SRTThomas Heger
| | |         | || |+* Re: Annotated version of SRTThomas Heger
| | |         | || ||`* Re: Annotated version of SRTJanPB
| | |         | || || `* Re: Annotated version of SRTThomas Heger
| | |         | || ||  `- Re: Annotated version of SRTJanPB
| | |         | || |`* Re: Annotated version of SRTJanPB
| | |         | || | `* Re: Annotated version of SRTThomas Heger
| | |         | || |  +* Re: Annotated version of SRTJanPB
| | |         | || |  |`* Re: Annotated version of SRTThomas Heger
| | |         | || |  | +* Re: Annotated version of SRTMichael Moroney
| | |         | || |  | |`* Re: Annotated version of SRTThomas Heger
| | |         | || |  | `- Re: Annotated version of SRTThomas Heger
| | |         | || |  `* Re: Annotated version of SRTPython
| | |         | || `* Re: Annotated version of SRTCoke Hishikawa
| | |         | |`* Re: Annotated version of SRTThomas Heger
| | |         | `- Re: Annotated version of SRTMichael Moroney
| | |         +- Re: Annotated version of SRTPaul B. Andersen
| | |         `- Re: Annotated version of SRTJ. J. Lodder
| | `- Re: Annotated version of SRTMikko
| `* Re: Annotated version of SRTMikko
+- Re: Annotated version of SRTPaparios
+- Re: Annotated version of SRTDono.
`* Re: Annotated version of SRTMichael Moroney

Pages:123456789101112131415161718
Re: Annotated version of SRT

<jbtkr6F94g6U1@mid.individual.net>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=87919&group=sci.physics.relativity#87919

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!usenet.goja.nl.eu.org!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!news.in-chemnitz.de!news2.arglkargh.de!news.karotte.org!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: ttt_...@web.de (Thomas Heger)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Subject: Re: Annotated version of SRT
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2022 18:29:28 +0200
Lines: 41
Message-ID: <jbtkr6F94g6U1@mid.individual.net>
References: <janhdiFsvsnU1@mid.individual.net> <b11d446a-ede8-41a7-bb31-c435e9acc4fen@googlegroups.com> <jasrs0FtnirU1@mid.individual.net> <t2cta9$va$1@gioia.aioe.org> <javdg2Fe6q1U1@mid.individual.net> <t2etbn$h0v$3@gioia.aioe.org> <jb268qF405U1@mid.individual.net> <t2i00b$e25$1@gioia.aioe.org> <jb4ptjFffd0U1@mid.individual.net> <03a03595-b620-438c-939a-b1efadaa0d79n@googlegroups.com> <jba3mtFg7iqU1@mid.individual.net> <t2rukg$1qn8$1@gioia.aioe.org> <jbfd0cFgk3oU1@mid.individual.net> <t2ucsc$rl2$1@gioia.aioe.org> <jbgo29FoldtU1@mid.individual.net> <t2vdf7$1kg8$3@gioia.aioe.org> <jbhtpkFre1U1@mid.individual.net> <t30pmj$coi$2@dont-email.me> <1pq91fs.12jj83msllygjN%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> <jbjco5F9lnqU1@mid.individual.net> <t32ph7$ut3$1@dont-email.me> <jbn6ilF1fe0U1@mid.individual.net> <t35urv$oju$1@dont-email.me> <jbpsqoFhdcuU1@mid.individual.net> <t394k5$nm5$1@gioia.aioe.org> <t39eg2$keu$1@dont-email.me> <t39fcl$3si$3@gioia.aioe.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: individual.net lU5F2OSuoMT7fc0UKQKUuA4oY6W+7IN+I40REYDcQjiq51jbhq
Cancel-Lock: sha1:Cgt3TuUJkQKGUISAq+2VY8JQ/dE=
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.0; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0
In-Reply-To: <t39fcl$3si$3@gioia.aioe.org>
 by: Thomas Heger - Fri, 15 Apr 2022 16:29 UTC

Am 14.04.2022 um 17:42 schrieb Odd Bodkin:

>
> Anyone who is interested in promoting their own furniture that competes
> with IKEA is going to dump the contents of an IKEA kit, complain that the
> bags containing the bolts are not labeled with standard sizes, will
> deliberately lose the hex key and complain that it wasn’t fastened down,
> complain that if there are three identical wooden parts they aren’t labeled
> A, B, C or A1, A2, A3.

What I'm actually very good at, that are such mechanical tasks like to
assemble an IKEA shelve.

I cannot really prove it. But just take my word for that.

> Likewise, TH has a desire to promote his own ideas that compete with
> relativity, and so he’s going to take a relativity paper and dump out the
> contents on the floor and have lots of complaints that it’s unusable for
> idiots, where idiots were not the intended audience of the relativity
> paper.

I'm not at all against relativity. I have analyzed a certain paper and
have presented my results. This paper has some connections to
relativity, but is not relativity itself.

The results prove nothing about relativity, because errors prove
nothing, not right and not wrong.

But the presence of a huge number of errors in a paper, that is regarded
as masterpiece of all of science, proves ssomething else:

That media of all sort permanently lie and are assisted by other
cheaters, who chime into the same choire of cheaters and liers.

It is all done at the expense of the 'men on the street', who are
defenseless against scientific cheating.

....

TH

Re: Annotated version of SRT

<t3c8as$1jhg$1@gioia.aioe.org>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=87923&group=sci.physics.relativity#87923

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!Of0kprfJVVw2aVQefhvR6Q.user.46.165.242.75.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: bodkin...@gmail.com (Odd Bodkin)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Subject: Re: Annotated version of SRT
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2022 17:00:12 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID: <t3c8as$1jhg$1@gioia.aioe.org>
References: <jasrs0FtnirU1@mid.individual.net>
<t2cta9$va$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<javdg2Fe6q1U1@mid.individual.net>
<t2etbn$h0v$3@gioia.aioe.org>
<jb268qF405U1@mid.individual.net>
<t2i00b$e25$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<jb4ptjFffd0U1@mid.individual.net>
<03a03595-b620-438c-939a-b1efadaa0d79n@googlegroups.com>
<jba3mtFg7iqU1@mid.individual.net>
<t2rukg$1qn8$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<jbfd0cFgk3oU1@mid.individual.net>
<t2ucsc$rl2$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<jbgo29FoldtU1@mid.individual.net>
<t2vdf7$1kg8$3@gioia.aioe.org>
<jbhtpkFre1U1@mid.individual.net>
<t30pmj$coi$2@dont-email.me>
<1pq91fs.12jj83msllygjN%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl>
<jbjco5F9lnqU1@mid.individual.net>
<t32ph7$ut3$1@dont-email.me>
<jbn6ilF1fe0U1@mid.individual.net>
<t35urv$oju$1@dont-email.me>
<jbpsqoFhdcuU1@mid.individual.net>
<t394k5$nm5$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<t39eg2$keu$1@dont-email.me>
<t39fcl$3si$3@gioia.aioe.org>
<jbtkr6F94g6U1@mid.individual.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: gioia.aioe.org; logging-data="52784"; posting-host="Of0kprfJVVw2aVQefhvR6Q.user.gioia.aioe.org"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@aioe.org";
User-Agent: NewsTap/5.5 (iPad)
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.9.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:jmmznI3V+zcKSHersS28skIXcLY=
 by: Odd Bodkin - Fri, 15 Apr 2022 17:00 UTC

Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
> Am 14.04.2022 um 17:42 schrieb Odd Bodkin:
>
>>
>> Anyone who is interested in promoting their own furniture that competes
>> with IKEA is going to dump the contents of an IKEA kit, complain that the
>> bags containing the bolts are not labeled with standard sizes, will
>> deliberately lose the hex key and complain that it wasn’t fastened down,
>> complain that if there are three identical wooden parts they aren’t labeled
>> A, B, C or A1, A2, A3.
>
> What I'm actually very good at, that are such mechanical tasks like to
> assemble an IKEA shelve.
>
> I cannot really prove it. But just take my word for that.
>
>> Likewise, TH has a desire to promote his own ideas that compete with
>> relativity, and so he’s going to take a relativity paper and dump out the
>> contents on the floor and have lots of complaints that it’s unusable for
>> idiots, where idiots were not the intended audience of the relativity
>> paper.
>
> I'm not at all against relativity. I have analyzed a certain paper and
> have presented my results. This paper has some connections to
> relativity, but is not relativity itself.
>
> The results prove nothing about relativity, because errors prove
> nothing, not right and not wrong.
>
> But the presence of a huge number of errors in a paper, that is regarded
> as masterpiece of all of science, proves ssomething else:
>
> That media of all sort permanently lie and are assisted by other
> cheaters, who chime into the same choire of cheaters and liers.

Because you need SOME reason, don’t you, for why your ideas get no
attention. So it must be the suppression of the Everyman by hidden powers
and the protection of that power.

And so what you aim to do is discredit that which is praised, to try to
point out that your ideas are really JUST AS GOOD as those that do get
attention, certainly no worse.

And the method is to dump the contents of the lauded paper on the ground
and assemble an artifice, this pretense of peering down at it as a
professor sneers down at a lowly student, ripping it to shreds. Not because
you have any real basis or experiential capacity in that regard, but just
that it feels good to do that.

You thinly mask your intents, but they are worn and hole-pocked veils after
all these years, and your true intentions are far more obvious than you
think, TH.

>
> It is all done at the expense of the 'men on the street', who are
> defenseless against scientific cheating.
>
> ...
>
>
> TH
>

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

Re: Annotated version of SRT

<6caf4811-deaf-47bd-b517-1eaac3b5a818n@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=87954&group=sci.physics.relativity#87954

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:29cb:b0:699:fee3:265a with SMTP id s11-20020a05620a29cb00b00699fee3265amr642941qkp.513.1650062793736;
Fri, 15 Apr 2022 15:46:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6214:1c0d:b0:444:39b4:e4fb with SMTP id
u13-20020a0562141c0d00b0044439b4e4fbmr738639qvc.58.1650062793450; Fri, 15 Apr
2022 15:46:33 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2022 15:46:33 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <jbtkr6F94g6U1@mid.individual.net>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=162.195.247.210; posting-account=Y2v6DQoAAACGpOrX04JGhSdsTevCdArN
NNTP-Posting-Host: 162.195.247.210
References: <janhdiFsvsnU1@mid.individual.net> <b11d446a-ede8-41a7-bb31-c435e9acc4fen@googlegroups.com>
<jasrs0FtnirU1@mid.individual.net> <t2cta9$va$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<javdg2Fe6q1U1@mid.individual.net> <t2etbn$h0v$3@gioia.aioe.org>
<jb268qF405U1@mid.individual.net> <t2i00b$e25$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<jb4ptjFffd0U1@mid.individual.net> <03a03595-b620-438c-939a-b1efadaa0d79n@googlegroups.com>
<jba3mtFg7iqU1@mid.individual.net> <t2rukg$1qn8$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<jbfd0cFgk3oU1@mid.individual.net> <t2ucsc$rl2$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<jbgo29FoldtU1@mid.individual.net> <t2vdf7$1kg8$3@gioia.aioe.org>
<jbhtpkFre1U1@mid.individual.net> <t30pmj$coi$2@dont-email.me>
<1pq91fs.12jj83msllygjN%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> <jbjco5F9lnqU1@mid.individual.net>
<t32ph7$ut3$1@dont-email.me> <jbn6ilF1fe0U1@mid.individual.net>
<t35urv$oju$1@dont-email.me> <jbpsqoFhdcuU1@mid.individual.net>
<t394k5$nm5$1@gioia.aioe.org> <t39eg2$keu$1@dont-email.me>
<t39fcl$3si$3@gioia.aioe.org> <jbtkr6F94g6U1@mid.individual.net>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <6caf4811-deaf-47bd-b517-1eaac3b5a818n@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Annotated version of SRT
From: film...@gmail.com (JanPB)
Injection-Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2022 22:46:33 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Lines: 59
 by: JanPB - Fri, 15 Apr 2022 22:46 UTC

On Friday, April 15, 2022 at 9:29:29 AM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 14.04.2022 um 17:42 schrieb Odd Bodkin:
>
> >
> > Anyone who is interested in promoting their own furniture that competes
> > with IKEA is going to dump the contents of an IKEA kit, complain that the
> > bags containing the bolts are not labeled with standard sizes, will
> > deliberately lose the hex key and complain that it wasn’t fastened down,
> > complain that if there are three identical wooden parts they aren’t labeled
> > A, B, C or A1, A2, A3.
> What I'm actually very good at, that are such mechanical tasks like to
> assemble an IKEA shelve.
>
> I cannot really prove it. But just take my word for that.
> > Likewise, TH has a desire to promote his own ideas that compete with
> > relativity, and so he’s going to take a relativity paper and dump out the
> > contents on the floor and have lots of complaints that it’s unusable for
> > idiots, where idiots were not the intended audience of the relativity
> > paper.
> I'm not at all against relativity. I have analyzed a certain paper and
> have presented my results. This paper has some connections to
> relativity, but is not relativity itself.

It's a paper that defined relativity. Other than that it has some
connections to relativity.

> The results prove nothing about relativity, because errors prove
> nothing, not right and not wrong.

There are no errors in that paper.

> But the presence of a huge number of errors in a paper,

Again, there are no errors in that paper.

> that is regarded
> as masterpiece of all of science, proves ssomething else:

It does not prove anything besides your misunderstanding of it.

> That media of all sort permanently lie and are assisted by other
> cheaters, who chime into the same choire of cheaters and liers.

Yes, they do that a lot but not in this case.

> It is all done at the expense of the 'men on the street', who are
> defenseless against scientific cheating.

Again, it did not take place in this case. You are making up stories
to boost your ego.

--
Jan

Re: Annotated version of SRT

<jbvcn6Fj8khU1@mid.individual.net>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=87976&group=sci.physics.relativity#87976

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!news.mixmin.net!news2.arglkargh.de!news.karotte.org!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: ttt_...@web.de (Thomas Heger)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Subject: Re: Annotated version of SRT
Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2022 10:23:06 +0200
Lines: 70
Message-ID: <jbvcn6Fj8khU1@mid.individual.net>
References: <janhdiFsvsnU1@mid.individual.net> <jasrs0FtnirU1@mid.individual.net> <t2cta9$va$1@gioia.aioe.org> <javdg2Fe6q1U1@mid.individual.net> <t2etbn$h0v$3@gioia.aioe.org> <jb268qF405U1@mid.individual.net> <t2i00b$e25$1@gioia.aioe.org> <jb4ptjFffd0U1@mid.individual.net> <03a03595-b620-438c-939a-b1efadaa0d79n@googlegroups.com> <jba3mtFg7iqU1@mid.individual.net> <t2rukg$1qn8$1@gioia.aioe.org> <jbfd0cFgk3oU1@mid.individual.net> <t2ucsc$rl2$1@gioia.aioe.org> <jbgo29FoldtU1@mid.individual.net> <t2vdf7$1kg8$3@gioia.aioe.org> <jbhtpkFre1U1@mid.individual.net> <t30pmj$coi$2@dont-email.me> <1pq91fs.12jj83msllygjN%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> <jbjco5F9lnqU1@mid.individual.net> <t32ph7$ut3$1@dont-email.me> <jbn6ilF1fe0U1@mid.individual.net> <t35urv$oju$1@dont-email.me> <jbpsqoFhdcuU1@mid.individual.net> <t394k5$nm5$1@gioia.aioe.org> <t39eg2$keu$1@dont-email.me> <t39fcl$3si$3@gioia.aioe.org> <jbtkr6F94g6U1@mid.individual.net> <6caf4811-deaf-47bd-b517-1eaac3b5a818n@googlegroups.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: individual.net ItWBG7m88mAOHAYsfhBgyQRSbXoy3Cw32wTMBoQkMt1mRSF3lY
Cancel-Lock: sha1:eWWzOV81tW088lDIo7wweUsijQ4=
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.0; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0
In-Reply-To: <6caf4811-deaf-47bd-b517-1eaac3b5a818n@googlegroups.com>
 by: Thomas Heger - Sat, 16 Apr 2022 08:23 UTC

Am 16.04.2022 um 00:46 schrieb JanPB:
> On Friday, April 15, 2022 at 9:29:29 AM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
>> Am 14.04.2022 um 17:42 schrieb Odd Bodkin:
>>
>>>
>>> Anyone who is interested in promoting their own furniture that competes
>>> with IKEA is going to dump the contents of an IKEA kit, complain that the
>>> bags containing the bolts are not labeled with standard sizes, will
>>> deliberately lose the hex key and complain that it wasn’t fastened down,
>>> complain that if there are three identical wooden parts they aren’t labeled
>>> A, B, C or A1, A2, A3.
>> What I'm actually very good at, that are such mechanical tasks like to
>> assemble an IKEA shelve.
>>
>> I cannot really prove it. But just take my word for that.
>>> Likewise, TH has a desire to promote his own ideas that compete with
>>> relativity, and so he’s going to take a relativity paper and dump out the
>>> contents on the floor and have lots of complaints that it’s unusable for
>>> idiots, where idiots were not the intended audience of the relativity
>>> paper.
>> I'm not at all against relativity. I have analyzed a certain paper and
>> have presented my results. This paper has some connections to
>> relativity, but is not relativity itself.
>
> It's a paper that defined relativity. Other than that it has some
> connections to relativity.

Relativity is way older than even Einstein.

But it case of Einstein's 'on the electrodynics of moving bodies' we had
to analyse the ancestors of this theory, too.

We had, for instance, Hendrik Lorentz and Henri Poincaré, who wrote
about similar topics.

But far more interesting is actually Heinrich Hertz.

He wrote about the distribution of electric fields a longish book.

Chapter 14 had the title (in German) like 'About the basic equations of
the electrodynamics of moving bodies'.

That sounds familliar, doesn't it?

Also a number of equations and basic concepts seem to stem from there.

The book is remarkably well written, and combines great experimental
care with great mathematical and physical skills.

Now Hertz wasn't forgottten, because he was actually a hero in physics
and invented radio waves. But his theory about the aether is wastly
forgotten, from which Einstein was apparently inspired.

That is in fact odd, because Einstein took the equations about the
behaviour of the aether from Hertz and 'proved', that aether would not
exist.

>> The results prove nothing about relativity, because errors prove
>> nothing, not right and not wrong.
>
> There are no errors in that paper.
>

At least the lack of a reference to used material was bad science, at best.

TH

Re: Annotated version of SRT

<330cfd4d-beab-4821-b23f-92ef53258736n@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=88018&group=sci.physics.relativity#88018

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
X-Received: by 2002:a37:a50:0:b0:69c:7024:7090 with SMTP id 77-20020a370a50000000b0069c70247090mr2966131qkk.48.1650139168123;
Sat, 16 Apr 2022 12:59:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:b92:b0:67e:b7a2:dabd with SMTP id
k18-20020a05620a0b9200b0067eb7a2dabdmr2836079qkh.106.1650139167833; Sat, 16
Apr 2022 12:59:27 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2022 12:59:27 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <jbvcn6Fj8khU1@mid.individual.net>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=162.195.247.210; posting-account=Y2v6DQoAAACGpOrX04JGhSdsTevCdArN
NNTP-Posting-Host: 162.195.247.210
References: <janhdiFsvsnU1@mid.individual.net> <jasrs0FtnirU1@mid.individual.net>
<t2cta9$va$1@gioia.aioe.org> <javdg2Fe6q1U1@mid.individual.net>
<t2etbn$h0v$3@gioia.aioe.org> <jb268qF405U1@mid.individual.net>
<t2i00b$e25$1@gioia.aioe.org> <jb4ptjFffd0U1@mid.individual.net>
<03a03595-b620-438c-939a-b1efadaa0d79n@googlegroups.com> <jba3mtFg7iqU1@mid.individual.net>
<t2rukg$1qn8$1@gioia.aioe.org> <jbfd0cFgk3oU1@mid.individual.net>
<t2ucsc$rl2$1@gioia.aioe.org> <jbgo29FoldtU1@mid.individual.net>
<t2vdf7$1kg8$3@gioia.aioe.org> <jbhtpkFre1U1@mid.individual.net>
<t30pmj$coi$2@dont-email.me> <1pq91fs.12jj83msllygjN%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl>
<jbjco5F9lnqU1@mid.individual.net> <t32ph7$ut3$1@dont-email.me>
<jbn6ilF1fe0U1@mid.individual.net> <t35urv$oju$1@dont-email.me>
<jbpsqoFhdcuU1@mid.individual.net> <t394k5$nm5$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<t39eg2$keu$1@dont-email.me> <t39fcl$3si$3@gioia.aioe.org>
<jbtkr6F94g6U1@mid.individual.net> <6caf4811-deaf-47bd-b517-1eaac3b5a818n@googlegroups.com>
<jbvcn6Fj8khU1@mid.individual.net>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <330cfd4d-beab-4821-b23f-92ef53258736n@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Annotated version of SRT
From: film...@gmail.com (JanPB)
Injection-Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2022 19:59:28 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Lines: 98
 by: JanPB - Sat, 16 Apr 2022 19:59 UTC

On Saturday, April 16, 2022 at 1:23:06 AM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 16.04.2022 um 00:46 schrieb JanPB:
> > On Friday, April 15, 2022 at 9:29:29 AM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
> >> Am 14.04.2022 um 17:42 schrieb Odd Bodkin:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Anyone who is interested in promoting their own furniture that competes
> >>> with IKEA is going to dump the contents of an IKEA kit, complain that the
> >>> bags containing the bolts are not labeled with standard sizes, will
> >>> deliberately lose the hex key and complain that it wasn’t fastened down,
> >>> complain that if there are three identical wooden parts they aren’t labeled
> >>> A, B, C or A1, A2, A3.
> >> What I'm actually very good at, that are such mechanical tasks like to
> >> assemble an IKEA shelve.
> >>
> >> I cannot really prove it. But just take my word for that.
> >>> Likewise, TH has a desire to promote his own ideas that compete with
> >>> relativity, and so he’s going to take a relativity paper and dump out the
> >>> contents on the floor and have lots of complaints that it’s unusable for
> >>> idiots, where idiots were not the intended audience of the relativity
> >>> paper.
> >> I'm not at all against relativity. I have analyzed a certain paper and
> >> have presented my results. This paper has some connections to
> >> relativity, but is not relativity itself.
> >
> > It's a paper that defined relativity. Other than that it has some
> > connections to relativity.
> Relativity is way older than even Einstein.

By "relativity" on this NG we mean Einstein's 1905 theory.

> But it case of Einstein's 'on the electrodynics of moving bodies' we had
> to analyse the ancestors of this theory, too.
>
> We had, for instance, Hendrik Lorentz and Henri Poincaré, who wrote
> about similar topics.
>
> But far more interesting is actually Heinrich Hertz.
>
> He wrote about the distribution of electric fields a longish book.
>
> Chapter 14 had the title (in German) like 'About the basic equations of
> the electrodynamics of moving bodies'.
>
> That sounds familliar, doesn't it?
>
> Also a number of equations and basic concepts seem to stem from there.
>
> The book is remarkably well written, and combines great experimental
> care with great mathematical and physical skills.
>
> Now Hertz wasn't forgottten, because he was actually a hero in physics
> and invented radio waves. But his theory about the aether is wastly
> forgotten, from which Einstein was apparently inspired.

In the sense that Einstein's theory does not depend on aether.

> That is in fact odd, because Einstein took the equations about the
> behaviour of the aether from Hertz and 'proved', that aether would not
> exist.

Einstein did not "prove" that. Instead, he created a theory which is agnostic
wrt aether.

> >> The results prove nothing about relativity, because errors prove
> >> nothing, not right and not wrong.
> >
> > There are no errors in that paper.
> >
> At least the lack of a reference to used material was bad science, at best.

No, it was a standard practice back then. Go to a good science library and
flip through issues or Annalen der Physik from about that year. Or other
physics journals. You'll see lots of papers in them that list no references..
The readers knew very well what lines of inspiration were relevant
without writing it explicitly (as is the fashion today when even someone
mentioning something to you over a beer gets listed as "private communication").

--
Jan

Re: Annotated version of SRT

<1pqj0mj.1rh6zrmb5z32N%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=88030&group=sci.physics.relativity#88030

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Subject: Re: Annotated version of SRT
Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2022 23:13:29 +0200
Organization: De Ster
Lines: 95
Message-ID: <1pqj0mj.1rh6zrmb5z32N%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl>
References: <t2etbn$h0v$3@gioia.aioe.org> <jb268qF405U1@mid.individual.net> <t2i00b$e25$1@gioia.aioe.org> <jb4ptjFffd0U1@mid.individual.net> <03a03595-b620-438c-939a-b1efadaa0d79n@googlegroups.com> <jba3mtFg7iqU1@mid.individual.net> <t2rukg$1qn8$1@gioia.aioe.org> <jbfd0cFgk3oU1@mid.individual.net> <t2ucsc$rl2$1@gioia.aioe.org> <jbgo29FoldtU1@mid.individual.net> <t2vdf7$1kg8$3@gioia.aioe.org> <jbhtpkFre1U1@mid.individual.net> <t30pmj$coi$2@dont-email.me> <1pq91fs.12jj83msllygjN%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> <jbjco5F9lnqU1@mid.individual.net> <t32ph7$ut3$1@dont-email.me> <jbn6ilF1fe0U1@mid.individual.net> <t35urv$oju$1@dont-email.me> <jbpsqoFhdcuU1@mid.individual.net> <t394k5$nm5$1@gioia.aioe.org> <t39eg2$keu$1@dont-email.me> <t39fcl$3si$3@gioia.aioe.org> <jbtkr6F94g6U1@mid.individual.net> <6caf4811-deaf-47bd-b517-1eaac3b5a818n@googlegroups.com> <jbvcn6Fj8khU1@mid.individual.net> <330cfd4d-beab-4821-b23f-92ef53258736n@googlegroups.com>
Reply-To: jjlax32@xs4all.nl (J. J. Lodder)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="a2d2e674a5e32ae075236caf009edc21";
logging-data="21013"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX190CdIgpVGcx1baj9ioA0KUJa5WA0OHxBk="
User-Agent: MacSOUP/2.8.5 (ea919cf118) (Mac OS 10.10.5)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:UO2H0vVUtrG8V2BMsOaSgl9glP0=
 by: J. J. Lodder - Sat, 16 Apr 2022 21:13 UTC

JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Saturday, April 16, 2022 at 1:23:06 AM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
> > Am 16.04.2022 um 00:46 schrieb JanPB:
> > > On Friday, April 15, 2022 at 9:29:29 AM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
> > >> Am 14.04.2022 um 17:42 schrieb Odd Bodkin:
> > >>
> > >>>
> > >>> Anyone who is interested in promoting their own furniture that competes
> > >>> with IKEA is going to dump the contents of an IKEA kit, complain
> > >>> that the bags containing the bolts are not labeled with standard
> > >>> sizes, will deliberately lose the hex key and complain that it
> > >>> wasn't fastened down, complain that if there are three identical
> > >>> wooden parts they aren't labeled A, B, C or A1, A2, A3.
> > >> What I'm actually very good at, that are such mechanical tasks like to
> > >> assemble an IKEA shelve.
> > >>
> > >> I cannot really prove it. But just take my word for that.
> > >>> Likewise, TH has a desire to promote his own ideas that compete with
> > >>> relativity, and so he's going to take a relativity paper and dump
> > >>> out the contents on the floor and have lots of complaints that it's
> > >>> unusable for idiots, where idiots were not the intended audience of
> > >>> the relativity paper.
> > >> I'm not at all against relativity. I have analyzed a certain paper
> > >> and have presented my results. This paper has some connections to
> > >> relativity, but is not relativity itself.
> > >
> > > It's a paper that defined relativity. Other than that it has some
> > > connections to relativity.
> > Relativity is way older than even Einstein.
>
> By "relativity" on this NG we mean Einstein's 1905 theory.
>
> > But it case of Einstein's 'on the electrodynics of moving bodies' we had
> > to analyse the ancestors of this theory, too.
> >
> > We had, for instance, Hendrik Lorentz and Henri Poincaré, who wrote
> > about similar topics.
> >
> > But far more interesting is actually Heinrich Hertz.
> >
> > He wrote about the distribution of electric fields a longish book.
> >
> > Chapter 14 had the title (in German) like 'About the basic equations of
> > the electrodynamics of moving bodies'.
> >
> > That sounds familliar, doesn't it?
> >
> > Also a number of equations and basic concepts seem to stem from there.
> >
> > The book is remarkably well written, and combines great experimental
> > care with great mathematical and physical skills.
> >
> > Now Hertz wasn't forgottten, because he was actually a hero in physics
> > and invented radio waves. But his theory about the aether is wastly
> > forgotten, from which Einstein was apparently inspired.
>
> In the sense that Einstein's theory does not depend on aether.
>
> > That is in fact odd, because Einstein took the equations about the
> > behaviour of the aether from Hertz and 'proved', that aether would not
> > exist.
>
> Einstein did not "prove" that. Instead, he created a theory which is agnostic
> wrt aether.
>
> > >> The results prove nothing about relativity, because errors prove
> > >> nothing, not right and not wrong.
> > >
> > > There are no errors in that paper.
> > >
> > At least the lack of a reference to used material was bad science, at best.
>
> No, it was a standard practice back then. Go to a good science library and
> flip through issues or Annalen der Physik from about that year. Or other
> physics journals. You'll see lots of papers in them that list no references.
> The readers knew very well what lines of inspiration were relevant without
> writing it explicitly (as is the fashion today when even someone
> mentioning something to you over a beer gets listed as "private
> communication").

It may seem incredible nowadays,
but in those long past days the scientific literature
was actually a means of communication with collegues.
The idea that the literature should be used primarily
for staking out claims, and for establishing status
was still far into the future.

And the idea that you would select someone
for appointment as a professor
by counting publications and citations
would have struck people like Planck, or Lorentz
(and all their contemporaries) as completely crazy,

Jan

Re: Annotated version of SRT

<jc2002F3s20U1@mid.individual.net>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=88050&group=sci.physics.relativity#88050

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!usenet.goja.nl.eu.org!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!news.szaf.org!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: ttt_...@web.de (Thomas Heger)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Subject: Re: Annotated version of SRT
Date: Sun, 17 Apr 2022 10:04:23 +0200
Lines: 121
Message-ID: <jc2002F3s20U1@mid.individual.net>
References: <janhdiFsvsnU1@mid.individual.net> <t2etbn$h0v$3@gioia.aioe.org> <jb268qF405U1@mid.individual.net> <t2i00b$e25$1@gioia.aioe.org> <jb4ptjFffd0U1@mid.individual.net> <03a03595-b620-438c-939a-b1efadaa0d79n@googlegroups.com> <jba3mtFg7iqU1@mid.individual.net> <t2rukg$1qn8$1@gioia.aioe.org> <jbfd0cFgk3oU1@mid.individual.net> <t2ucsc$rl2$1@gioia.aioe.org> <jbgo29FoldtU1@mid.individual.net> <t2vdf7$1kg8$3@gioia.aioe.org> <jbhtpkFre1U1@mid.individual.net> <t30pmj$coi$2@dont-email.me> <1pq91fs.12jj83msllygjN%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> <jbjco5F9lnqU1@mid.individual.net> <t32ph7$ut3$1@dont-email.me> <jbn6ilF1fe0U1@mid.individual.net> <t35urv$oju$1@dont-email.me> <jbpsqoFhdcuU1@mid.individual.net> <t394k5$nm5$1@gioia.aioe.org> <t39eg2$keu$1@dont-email.me> <t39fcl$3si$3@gioia.aioe.org> <jbtkr6F94g6U1@mid.individual.net> <6caf4811-deaf-47bd-b517-1eaac3b5a818n@googlegroups.com> <jbvcn6Fj8khU1@mid.individual.net> <330cfd4d-beab-4821-b23f-92ef53258736n@googlegroups.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: individual.net QbaVglpBxV8+h6REycULVwFtrwbdCy5OZfOHlV1fvoSAPhy97i
Cancel-Lock: sha1:cXt+Y0OnGa6xB7GRACHGo2IYDzo=
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.0; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0
In-Reply-To: <330cfd4d-beab-4821-b23f-92ef53258736n@googlegroups.com>
 by: Thomas Heger - Sun, 17 Apr 2022 08:04 UTC

Am 16.04.2022 um 21:59 schrieb JanPB:
> On Saturday, April 16, 2022 at 1:23:06 AM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
>> Am 16.04.2022 um 00:46 schrieb JanPB:
>>> On Friday, April 15, 2022 at 9:29:29 AM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>> Am 14.04.2022 um 17:42 schrieb Odd Bodkin:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Anyone who is interested in promoting their own furniture that competes
>>>>> with IKEA is going to dump the contents of an IKEA kit, complain that the
>>>>> bags containing the bolts are not labeled with standard sizes, will
>>>>> deliberately lose the hex key and complain that it wasn’t fastened down,
>>>>> complain that if there are three identical wooden parts they aren’t labeled
>>>>> A, B, C or A1, A2, A3.
>>>> What I'm actually very good at, that are such mechanical tasks like to
>>>> assemble an IKEA shelve.
>>>>
>>>> I cannot really prove it. But just take my word for that.
>>>>> Likewise, TH has a desire to promote his own ideas that compete with
>>>>> relativity, and so he’s going to take a relativity paper and dump out the
>>>>> contents on the floor and have lots of complaints that it’s unusable for
>>>>> idiots, where idiots were not the intended audience of the relativity
>>>>> paper.
>>>> I'm not at all against relativity. I have analyzed a certain paper and
>>>> have presented my results. This paper has some connections to
>>>> relativity, but is not relativity itself.
>>>
>>> It's a paper that defined relativity. Other than that it has some
>>> connections to relativity.
>> Relativity is way older than even Einstein.
>
> By "relativity" on this NG we mean Einstein's 1905 theory.

Definetely not.

'Relativity' is actually a very trivial concept and most likely nobody
would disagree.

But it started with Gillieo or even further.

Whether or not Einstein has something useful to say about the topic,
that is a question of debate.

>> But it case of Einstein's 'on the electrodynics of moving bodies' we had
>> to analyse the ancestors of this theory, too.
>>
>> We had, for instance, Hendrik Lorentz and Henri Poincaré, who wrote
>> about similar topics.
>>
>> But far more interesting is actually Heinrich Hertz.
>>
>> He wrote about the distribution of electric fields a longish book.

see here

https://de.wikisource.org/wiki/Untersuchungen_%C3%BCber_die_Ausbreitung_der_elektrischen_Kraft

Unfortunately I don't know, if that book was translated into English.

>> Chapter 14 had the title (in German) like 'About the basic equations of
>> the electrodynamics of moving bodies'.
>>
>> That sounds familliar, doesn't it?
>>
>> Also a number of equations and basic concepts seem to stem from there.
>>
>> The book is remarkably well written, and combines great experimental
>> care with great mathematical and physical skills.
>>
>> Now Hertz wasn't forgottten, because he was actually a hero in physics
>> and invented radio waves. But his theory about the aether is wastly
>> forgotten, from which Einstein was apparently inspired.
>
> In the sense that Einstein's theory does not depend on aether.

Heinrich Hertz was an 'aetherist' and developed equations to describe
the aether.

Now Einstein took these equations and used them to disprove the
existence of an aether.

>> That is in fact odd, because Einstein took the equations about the
>> behaviour of the aether from Hertz and 'proved', that aether would not
>> exist.
>
> Einstein did not "prove" that. Instead, he created a theory which is agnostic
> wrt aether.

He used equations of Hertz, which meant 'aether', hence cannot derive
the non-existence with such equations.

The prerequisites of his derivation were 'inherited' from Hertz, because
he used his equations.

>>>> The results prove nothing about relativity, because errors prove
>>>> nothing, not right and not wrong.
>>>
>>> There are no errors in that paper.
>>>
>> At least the lack of a reference to used material was bad science, at best.
>
> No, it was a standard practice back then. Go to a good science library and
> flip through issues or Annalen der Physik from about that year. Or other
> physics journals. You'll see lots of papers in them that list no references.
> The readers knew very well what lines of inspiration were relevant
> without writing it explicitly (as is the fashion today when even someone
> mentioning something to you over a beer gets listed as "private communication").

He did not just use a few equations.

TH

Re: Annotated version of SRT

<jc25v7F4vsvU1@mid.individual.net>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=88052&group=sci.physics.relativity#88052

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!lilly.ping.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: whod...@void.nowgre.com (whodat)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Subject: Re: Annotated version of SRT
Date: Sun, 17 Apr 2022 04:46:14 -0500
Lines: 142
Message-ID: <jc25v7F4vsvU1@mid.individual.net>
References: <janhdiFsvsnU1@mid.individual.net>
<jb268qF405U1@mid.individual.net> <t2i00b$e25$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<jb4ptjFffd0U1@mid.individual.net>
<03a03595-b620-438c-939a-b1efadaa0d79n@googlegroups.com>
<jba3mtFg7iqU1@mid.individual.net> <t2rukg$1qn8$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<jbfd0cFgk3oU1@mid.individual.net> <t2ucsc$rl2$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<jbgo29FoldtU1@mid.individual.net> <t2vdf7$1kg8$3@gioia.aioe.org>
<jbhtpkFre1U1@mid.individual.net> <t30pmj$coi$2@dont-email.me>
<1pq91fs.12jj83msllygjN%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl>
<jbjco5F9lnqU1@mid.individual.net> <t32ph7$ut3$1@dont-email.me>
<jbn6ilF1fe0U1@mid.individual.net> <t35urv$oju$1@dont-email.me>
<jbpsqoFhdcuU1@mid.individual.net> <t394k5$nm5$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<t39eg2$keu$1@dont-email.me> <t39fcl$3si$3@gioia.aioe.org>
<jbtkr6F94g6U1@mid.individual.net>
<6caf4811-deaf-47bd-b517-1eaac3b5a818n@googlegroups.com>
<jbvcn6Fj8khU1@mid.individual.net>
<330cfd4d-beab-4821-b23f-92ef53258736n@googlegroups.com>
<jc2002F3s20U1@mid.individual.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: individual.net 6F6dlEbfpe2E2PvqImSfKQGiLOfgmFouvA9bXsMBlGyfy+jFV8
Cancel-Lock: sha1:RgSo2MaGiCX+j/LUbv4/87iNmAw=
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.8.0
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <jc2002F3s20U1@mid.individual.net>
 by: whodat - Sun, 17 Apr 2022 09:46 UTC

On 4/17/2022 3:04 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 16.04.2022 um 21:59 schrieb JanPB:
>> On Saturday, April 16, 2022 at 1:23:06 AM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>> Am 16.04.2022 um 00:46 schrieb JanPB:
>>>> On Friday, April 15, 2022 at 9:29:29 AM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>>> Am 14.04.2022 um 17:42 schrieb Odd Bodkin:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Anyone who is interested in promoting their own furniture that
>>>>>> competes
>>>>>> with IKEA is going to dump the contents of an IKEA kit, complain
>>>>>> that the
>>>>>> bags containing the bolts are not labeled with standard sizes, will
>>>>>> deliberately lose the hex key and complain that it wasn’t fastened
>>>>>> down,
>>>>>> complain that if there are three identical wooden parts they
>>>>>> aren’t labeled
>>>>>> A, B, C or A1, A2, A3.
>>>>> What I'm actually very good at, that are such mechanical tasks like to
>>>>> assemble an IKEA shelve.
>>>>>
>>>>> I cannot really prove it. But just take my word for that.
>>>>>> Likewise, TH has a desire to promote his own ideas that compete with
>>>>>> relativity, and so he’s going to take a relativity paper and dump
>>>>>> out the
>>>>>> contents on the floor and have lots of complaints that it’s
>>>>>> unusable for
>>>>>> idiots, where idiots were not the intended audience of the relativity
>>>>>> paper.
>>>>> I'm not at all against relativity. I have analyzed a certain paper and
>>>>> have presented my results. This paper has some connections to
>>>>> relativity, but is not relativity itself.
>>>>
>>>> It's a paper that defined relativity. Other than that it has some
>>>> connections to relativity.
>>> Relativity is way older than even Einstein.
>>
>> By "relativity" on this NG we mean Einstein's 1905 theory.
>
> Definetely not.
>
> 'Relativity' is actually a very trivial concept and most likely nobody
> would disagree.
>
> But it started with Gillieo or even further.
>
> Whether or not Einstein has something useful to say about the topic,
> that is a question of debate.
>
>>> But it case of Einstein's 'on the electrodynics of moving bodies' we had
>>> to analyse the ancestors of this theory, too.
>>>
>>> We had, for instance, Hendrik Lorentz and Henri Poincaré, who wrote
>>> about similar topics.
>>>
>>> But far more interesting is actually Heinrich Hertz.
>>>
>>> He wrote about the distribution of electric fields a longish book.
>
>
> see here
>
> https://de.wikisource.org/wiki/Untersuchungen_%C3%BCber_die_Ausbreitung_der_elektrischen_Kraft
>
>
> Unfortunately I don't know, if that book was translated into English.
>
>
>>> Chapter 14 had the title (in German) like 'About the basic equations of
>>> the electrodynamics of moving bodies'.
>>>
>>> That sounds familliar, doesn't it?
>>>
>>> Also a number of equations and basic concepts seem to stem from there.
>>>
>>> The book is remarkably well written, and combines great experimental
>>> care with great mathematical and physical skills.
>>>
>>> Now Hertz wasn't forgottten, because he was actually a hero in physics
>>> and invented radio waves. But his theory about the aether is wastly
>>> forgotten, from which Einstein was apparently inspired.
>>
>> In the sense that Einstein's theory does not depend on aether.
>
>
> Heinrich Hertz was an 'aetherist' and developed equations to describe
> the aether.
>
> Now Einstein took these equations and used them to disprove the
> existence of an aether.

http://www.hc10.eu/pdf/The%20speech%20by%20Albert%20Einstein.pdf

>>> That is in fact odd, because Einstein took the equations about the
>>> behaviour of the aether from Hertz and 'proved', that aether would not
>>> exist.
>>
>> Einstein did not "prove" that. Instead, he created a theory which is
>> agnostic
>> wrt aether.
>
>
> He used equations of Hertz, which meant 'aether', hence cannot derive
> the non-existence with such equations.
>
> The prerequisites of his derivation were 'inherited' from Hertz, because
> he used his equations.
>
>
>
>>>>> The results prove nothing about relativity, because errors prove
>>>>> nothing, not right and not wrong.
>>>>
>>>> There are no errors in that paper.
>>>>
>>> At least the lack of a reference to used material was bad science, at
>>> best.
>>
>> No, it was a standard practice back then. Go to a good science library
>> and
>> flip through issues or Annalen der Physik from about that year. Or other
>> physics journals. You'll see lots of papers in them that list no
>> references.
>> The readers knew very well what lines of inspiration were relevant
>> without writing it explicitly (as is the fashion today when even someone
>> mentioning something to you over a beer gets listed as "private
>> communication").
>
> He did not just use a few equations.
>
> TH
>
>
>
>
>

Re: Annotated version of SRT

<pan$49a20$dbadb07a$f691b5b5$5428abf0@tlqinosm.jt>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=88104&group=sci.physics.relativity#88104

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!KqCYo9DhH+5lq72ynz17Nw.user.46.165.242.75.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: irz...@tlqinosm.jt (Emil Imada)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Subject: Re: Annotated version of SRT
Date: Sun, 17 Apr 2022 22:47:22 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID: <pan$49a20$dbadb07a$f691b5b5$5428abf0@tlqinosm.jt>
References: <jaaflrFde2kU1@mid.individual.net>
<janhdiFsvsnU1@mid.individual.net>
<b11d446a-ede8-41a7-bb31-c435e9acc4fen@googlegroups.com>
<jasrs0FtnirU1@mid.individual.net> <t2cta9$va$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<javdg2Fe6q1U1@mid.individual.net> <t2etbn$h0v$3@gioia.aioe.org>
<jb268qF405U1@mid.individual.net> <t2i00b$e25$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<jb4ptjFffd0U1@mid.individual.net>
<03a03595-b620-438c-939a-b1efadaa0d79n@googlegroups.com>
<jba3mtFg7iqU1@mid.individual.net>
<6764db6a-256b-46c2-83ca-ab2d74811565n@googlegroups.com>
<jbbeghFo9obU1@mid.individual.net> <t2qf3s$uqr$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<jbcm7iFr8jU1@mid.individual.net> <t2sbk2$ka$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<jbfeeoFgs4lU1@mid.individual.net> <t30c1k$10rb$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<acdebdda-e439-4528-9961-3df7ea1a8714n@googlegroups.com>
<jbhtemFpi0U1@mid.individual.net>
<90936380-6460-4254-9e3a-ffe1bb7a5994n@googlegroups.com>
<jblor6Fnn10U1@mid.individual.net> <t35r2s$1skg$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<jbptmgFhhvsU1@mid.individual.net> <t38l9b$1mkm$1@gioia.aioe.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: gioia.aioe.org; logging-data="39637"; posting-host="KqCYo9DhH+5lq72ynz17Nw.user.gioia.aioe.org"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@aioe.org";
User-Agent: NewsTap/5.3.4 (iPhone)
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.9.2
 by: Emil Imada - Sun, 17 Apr 2022 22:47 UTC

Michael Moroney wrote:

>> The problem I have tried to adress, was the huge number of various
>> errors in Einstein's text.
>
> There are no errors in Einstein's paper, only your misunderstandings.

I beg you to reconsider.

█▀▀▀▀▀█ ██████▄▀ █▀▄▄ ▀ ▄▄█▀▀▀▀ █▀▀▀▀▀█
█ ███ █ █ ██▄▀ ▄▀▀▀█ ▀▄█ ▀▄▀ █ ███ █
█ ▀▀▀ █ ███▄ ▄▀▄ ▄ ▀█ ▀ ▀▄▄█▄█▀█ █ ▀▀▀ █
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀ █▄▀ █ ▀ ▀ ▀ ▀▄▀ █ ▀ █ ▀ █ ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
▀ ▀█▀█▀▄ ▄▄▀▀▀▀ █ ▄▄ ▀▄██▀▀▄▀█▄█ █████▄▄
█▄ ▀▄▄▀ ▄ █ ▀▀▄█ █ ▀█ ▄▄ ▀▀▀ ▄ ▀█ ███ █
▀▄▀▀▄ ▀ ▀█ ▄▀▀▀ ▀▄▀▄ ▀▄▀█▀▀▄███▄▄▄█▄▄▀▄▄
▄▄▄▄█▀ ▄▀▀▄▄▀▄▄█ ██▄▄▀ ▀▀██ ▀ ▀▄█▄█ ▄▄
█▀█▄█▀▀█▀▄█ ▄▀ ▀▀█▄█▄ ▀▄▀█▀▀▄█▄▄ ▄▄▄▄▀▀▄
▀▄█▄ ▄▀ ▄▄█ █ ▄ ▀█▄▄▄▄█ ▀ ▀██ ▀▄▀ █ █ ▄▄
▄▀█▀█ ▀▄█▀▄▀▄ ██ ▄█ ▀█▀▀▀ ▄▀ ▄▄ ▄█▄ ▀▄█
▄▀█ █▀█ █▄▀▄█▀▄▄▀█▄▄█▄▄▄ ▄▀▄ █▄▄▄▄▀█▄ ▄▄
█ █▄█▀▀▀███▄▄▀██▄▀▄█▄ ▀▄▀██ █▀▄█▄▄▄▄▄▄█▄▄
█▄ ▀▀ ██▀▄▀ ██ █▄█ ▄▀██ █ ▀▀▀▀█▀▄▄
▄█▄ ▄▀▀▄ █▄ ▄▀▄▀▄▀█▀ ▄▀█ █ ▀ █▄▄▄ ▄█▄██▄█
█ █▀ ▄▀ ▄▀█▄ ██▄▀ ▀▄▀█▀▄▄▀▀█▄▀▄ ▄▀▀ █ ▄
▀ ▀ ▀ █▄ ▀▀ ▄█▀▀▄▄▄ ▀▄▀▀ ▀▄▀█▄█▀▀▀█▄██▄
█▀▀▀▀▀█ ▄█▄ █▄▄▀ ▀ ▀▄▀ █ ██ ▀▀██ ▀ █▄
█ ███ █ █▄▀███ ██▄▀█ █▄ ▀▀▀▄▀ ▄▀█▀▀▀ ▀█▄
█ ▀▀▀ █ ▀▀▀██▀ █▄▄█▄▄██ ▀▀█▀ ▀▀▄█▀▀▀█▀▄
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀ ▀▀▀▀ ▀▀▀ ▀▀ ▀▀▀▀▀▀ ▀▀▀ ▀▀ ▀ ▀

Re: Annotated version of SRT

<3fa535b9-79c6-4f6e-bb4b-80347861aaa7n@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=88123&group=sci.physics.relativity#88123

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
X-Received: by 2002:a05:622a:107:b0:2e1:d655:cc4c with SMTP id u7-20020a05622a010700b002e1d655cc4cmr5678802qtw.669.1650240685784;
Sun, 17 Apr 2022 17:11:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:ad4:5842:0:b0:444:5137:44c6 with SMTP id
de2-20020ad45842000000b00444513744c6mr6501342qvb.27.1650240685419; Sun, 17
Apr 2022 17:11:25 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Date: Sun, 17 Apr 2022 17:11:25 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <jc2002F3s20U1@mid.individual.net>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=162.195.247.210; posting-account=Y2v6DQoAAACGpOrX04JGhSdsTevCdArN
NNTP-Posting-Host: 162.195.247.210
References: <janhdiFsvsnU1@mid.individual.net> <t2etbn$h0v$3@gioia.aioe.org>
<jb268qF405U1@mid.individual.net> <t2i00b$e25$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<jb4ptjFffd0U1@mid.individual.net> <03a03595-b620-438c-939a-b1efadaa0d79n@googlegroups.com>
<jba3mtFg7iqU1@mid.individual.net> <t2rukg$1qn8$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<jbfd0cFgk3oU1@mid.individual.net> <t2ucsc$rl2$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<jbgo29FoldtU1@mid.individual.net> <t2vdf7$1kg8$3@gioia.aioe.org>
<jbhtpkFre1U1@mid.individual.net> <t30pmj$coi$2@dont-email.me>
<1pq91fs.12jj83msllygjN%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> <jbjco5F9lnqU1@mid.individual.net>
<t32ph7$ut3$1@dont-email.me> <jbn6ilF1fe0U1@mid.individual.net>
<t35urv$oju$1@dont-email.me> <jbpsqoFhdcuU1@mid.individual.net>
<t394k5$nm5$1@gioia.aioe.org> <t39eg2$keu$1@dont-email.me>
<t39fcl$3si$3@gioia.aioe.org> <jbtkr6F94g6U1@mid.individual.net>
<6caf4811-deaf-47bd-b517-1eaac3b5a818n@googlegroups.com> <jbvcn6Fj8khU1@mid.individual.net>
<330cfd4d-beab-4821-b23f-92ef53258736n@googlegroups.com> <jc2002F3s20U1@mid.individual.net>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <3fa535b9-79c6-4f6e-bb4b-80347861aaa7n@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Annotated version of SRT
From: film...@gmail.com (JanPB)
Injection-Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2022 00:11:25 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Lines: 109
 by: JanPB - Mon, 18 Apr 2022 00:11 UTC

On Sunday, April 17, 2022 at 1:04:22 AM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 16.04.2022 um 21:59 schrieb JanPB:
> > On Saturday, April 16, 2022 at 1:23:06 AM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
> >> Am 16.04.2022 um 00:46 schrieb JanPB:
> >>> On Friday, April 15, 2022 at 9:29:29 AM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
> >>>> Am 14.04.2022 um 17:42 schrieb Odd Bodkin:
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Anyone who is interested in promoting their own furniture that competes
> >>>>> with IKEA is going to dump the contents of an IKEA kit, complain that the
> >>>>> bags containing the bolts are not labeled with standard sizes, will
> >>>>> deliberately lose the hex key and complain that it wasn’t fastened down,
> >>>>> complain that if there are three identical wooden parts they aren’t labeled
> >>>>> A, B, C or A1, A2, A3.
> >>>> What I'm actually very good at, that are such mechanical tasks like to
> >>>> assemble an IKEA shelve.
> >>>>
> >>>> I cannot really prove it. But just take my word for that.
> >>>>> Likewise, TH has a desire to promote his own ideas that compete with
> >>>>> relativity, and so he’s going to take a relativity paper and dump out the
> >>>>> contents on the floor and have lots of complaints that it’s unusable for
> >>>>> idiots, where idiots were not the intended audience of the relativity
> >>>>> paper.
> >>>> I'm not at all against relativity. I have analyzed a certain paper and
> >>>> have presented my results. This paper has some connections to
> >>>> relativity, but is not relativity itself.
> >>>
> >>> It's a paper that defined relativity. Other than that it has some
> >>> connections to relativity.
> >> Relativity is way older than even Einstein.
> >
> > By "relativity" on this NG we mean Einstein's 1905 theory.
> Definetely not.
>
> 'Relativity' is actually a very trivial concept and most likely nobody
> would disagree.
>
> But it started with Gillieo or even further.

If you want to change the subject, create a new thread. This thread
is about your annotations to the 1905 paper.

> Whether or not Einstein has something useful to say about the topic,
> that is a question of debate.

Actually, it is not. This period ended around 1906.

> >> That is in fact odd, because Einstein took the equations about the
> >> behaviour of the aether from Hertz and 'proved', that aether would not
> >> exist.
> >
> > Einstein did not "prove" that. Instead, he created a theory which is agnostic
> > wrt aether.
> He used equations of Hertz, which meant 'aether', hence cannot derive
> the non-existence with such equations.

You don't read my responses. What I said, again, was NOT that any "non-existence"
was "derived". What I said was that Einstein's theory was *agnostic* to aether.
Einstein says so explicitly in the paper's introduction.

> The prerequisites of his derivation were 'inherited' from Hertz, because
> he used his equations.

Irrelevant.

> >>>> The results prove nothing about relativity, because errors prove
> >>>> nothing, not right and not wrong.
> >>>
> >>> There are no errors in that paper.
> >>>
> >> At least the lack of a reference to used material was bad science, at best.
> >
> > No, it was a standard practice back then. Go to a good science library and
> > flip through issues or Annalen der Physik from about that year. Or other
> > physics journals. You'll see lots of papers in them that list no references.
> > The readers knew very well what lines of inspiration were relevant
> > without writing it explicitly (as is the fashion today when even someone
> > mentioning something to you over a beer gets listed as "private communication").
> He did not just use a few equations.

Again, do you read the responses people post? What I said, again, was that
in those days it was a part of the standard practice to publish papers without
references. IOW, your claim of "bad science" is nonsense, like everything
you post here about relativity.

--
Jan

Re: Annotated version of SRT

<jc4ii2Fit86U1@mid.individual.net>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=88148&group=sci.physics.relativity#88148

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!news.uzoreto.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: ttt_...@web.de (Thomas Heger)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Subject: Re: Annotated version of SRT
Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2022 09:33:27 +0200
Lines: 107
Message-ID: <jc4ii2Fit86U1@mid.individual.net>
References: <janhdiFsvsnU1@mid.individual.net> <jb4ptjFffd0U1@mid.individual.net> <03a03595-b620-438c-939a-b1efadaa0d79n@googlegroups.com> <jba3mtFg7iqU1@mid.individual.net> <t2rukg$1qn8$1@gioia.aioe.org> <jbfd0cFgk3oU1@mid.individual.net> <t2ucsc$rl2$1@gioia.aioe.org> <jbgo29FoldtU1@mid.individual.net> <t2vdf7$1kg8$3@gioia.aioe.org> <jbhtpkFre1U1@mid.individual.net> <t30pmj$coi$2@dont-email.me> <1pq91fs.12jj83msllygjN%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> <jbjco5F9lnqU1@mid.individual.net> <t32ph7$ut3$1@dont-email.me> <jbn6ilF1fe0U1@mid.individual.net> <t35urv$oju$1@dont-email.me> <jbpsqoFhdcuU1@mid.individual.net> <t394k5$nm5$1@gioia.aioe.org> <t39eg2$keu$1@dont-email.me> <t39fcl$3si$3@gioia.aioe.org> <jbtkr6F94g6U1@mid.individual.net> <6caf4811-deaf-47bd-b517-1eaac3b5a818n@googlegroups.com> <jbvcn6Fj8khU1@mid.individual.net> <330cfd4d-beab-4821-b23f-92ef53258736n@googlegroups.com> <jc2002F3s20U1@mid.individual.net> <3fa535b9-79c6-4f6e-bb4b-80347861aaa7n@googlegroups.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: individual.net Y8bvz/8j6DuAVrFkx59lYQ8MFgdCYnYX4FB0LHo1qvmizKox83
Cancel-Lock: sha1:ygUazCgrm9FU4xkekB4+jj+Z3GQ=
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.0; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0
In-Reply-To: <3fa535b9-79c6-4f6e-bb4b-80347861aaa7n@googlegroups.com>
 by: Thomas Heger - Mon, 18 Apr 2022 07:33 UTC

Am 18.04.2022 um 02:11 schrieb JanPB:
> On Sunday, April 17, 2022 at 1:04:22 AM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
>> Am 16.04.2022 um 21:59 schrieb JanPB:
>>> On Saturday, April 16, 2022 at 1:23:06 AM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>> Am 16.04.2022 um 00:46 schrieb JanPB:
>>>>> On Friday, April 15, 2022 at 9:29:29 AM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>>>> Am 14.04.2022 um 17:42 schrieb Odd Bodkin:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Anyone who is interested in promoting their own furniture that competes
>>>>>>> with IKEA is going to dump the contents of an IKEA kit, complain that the
>>>>>>> bags containing the bolts are not labeled with standard sizes, will
>>>>>>> deliberately lose the hex key and complain that it wasn’t fastened down,
>>>>>>> complain that if there are three identical wooden parts they aren’t labeled
>>>>>>> A, B, C or A1, A2, A3.
>>>>>> What I'm actually very good at, that are such mechanical tasks like to
>>>>>> assemble an IKEA shelve.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I cannot really prove it. But just take my word for that.
>>>>>>> Likewise, TH has a desire to promote his own ideas that compete with
>>>>>>> relativity, and so he’s going to take a relativity paper and dump out the
>>>>>>> contents on the floor and have lots of complaints that it’s unusable for
>>>>>>> idiots, where idiots were not the intended audience of the relativity
>>>>>>> paper.
>>>>>> I'm not at all against relativity. I have analyzed a certain paper and
>>>>>> have presented my results. This paper has some connections to
>>>>>> relativity, but is not relativity itself.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's a paper that defined relativity. Other than that it has some
>>>>> connections to relativity.
>>>> Relativity is way older than even Einstein.
>>>
>>> By "relativity" on this NG we mean Einstein's 1905 theory.
>> Definetely not.
>>
>> 'Relativity' is actually a very trivial concept and most likely nobody
>> would disagree.
>>
>> But it started with Gillieo or even further.
>
> If you want to change the subject, create a new thread. This thread
> is about your annotations to the 1905 paper.
>
>> Whether or not Einstein has something useful to say about the topic,
>> that is a question of debate.
>
> Actually, it is not. This period ended around 1906.
???

That is not how science works.

Anything ever invented can be questioned at any time in the future.

So, I could try to question Newton's laws, if I wanted to do so.

That is legal, because this is how science works.

To put a limit to the time of criticism would hinder to sort out errors
for no obvious benefit.

>>>> That is in fact odd, because Einstein took the equations about the
>>>> behaviour of the aether from Hertz and 'proved', that aether would not
>>>> exist.
>>>
>>> Einstein did not "prove" that. Instead, he created a theory which is agnostic
>>> wrt aether.
>> He used equations of Hertz, which meant 'aether', hence cannot derive
>> the non-existence with such equations.
>
> You don't read my responses. What I said, again, was NOT that any "non-existence"
> was "derived". What I said was that Einstein's theory was *agnostic* to aether.
> Einstein says so explicitly in the paper's introduction.
>
>> The prerequisites of his derivation were 'inherited' from Hertz, because
>> he used his equations.
>
> Irrelevant.

The books of Heinrich Hertz are actually very good and Hertz was a VERY
good physicist of world wide reputation.

He had great mathematical skills, was an extremely good experimenter and
a very good physicist.

His books are worth reading till today.

Now Einstein took a few things from Hertz' books, but without
mentioning, from where.

This is today regarded as scientific offence and also was questionable
in those times.

But even a missing reference does not allow to take something from a
certain context, and then prove with that the prerequisites wrong, on
which that context was based.

This would violate simple logic.

Therefore Einstein took also the axioms about the aether from Hertz, as
he took his equations about the aether.

....

TH

Re: Annotated version of SRT

<t3jm4s$1fu0$1@gioia.aioe.org>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=88164&group=sci.physics.relativity#88164

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!Of0kprfJVVw2aVQefhvR6Q.user.46.165.242.75.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: bodkin...@gmail.com (Odd Bodkin)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Subject: Re: Annotated version of SRT
Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2022 12:38:52 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID: <t3jm4s$1fu0$1@gioia.aioe.org>
References: <jba3mtFg7iqU1@mid.individual.net>
<t2rukg$1qn8$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<jbfd0cFgk3oU1@mid.individual.net>
<t2ucsc$rl2$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<jbgo29FoldtU1@mid.individual.net>
<t2vdf7$1kg8$3@gioia.aioe.org>
<jbhtpkFre1U1@mid.individual.net>
<t30pmj$coi$2@dont-email.me>
<1pq91fs.12jj83msllygjN%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl>
<jbjco5F9lnqU1@mid.individual.net>
<t32ph7$ut3$1@dont-email.me>
<jbn6ilF1fe0U1@mid.individual.net>
<t35urv$oju$1@dont-email.me>
<jbpsqoFhdcuU1@mid.individual.net>
<t394k5$nm5$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<t39eg2$keu$1@dont-email.me>
<t39fcl$3si$3@gioia.aioe.org>
<jbtkr6F94g6U1@mid.individual.net>
<6caf4811-deaf-47bd-b517-1eaac3b5a818n@googlegroups.com>
<jbvcn6Fj8khU1@mid.individual.net>
<330cfd4d-beab-4821-b23f-92ef53258736n@googlegroups.com>
<jc2002F3s20U1@mid.individual.net>
<3fa535b9-79c6-4f6e-bb4b-80347861aaa7n@googlegroups.com>
<jc4ii2Fit86U1@mid.individual.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: gioia.aioe.org; logging-data="49088"; posting-host="Of0kprfJVVw2aVQefhvR6Q.user.gioia.aioe.org"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@aioe.org";
User-Agent: NewsTap/5.5 (iPad)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:xSZNizJCq0MudM0trELVjV79Q/8=
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.9.2
 by: Odd Bodkin - Mon, 18 Apr 2022 12:38 UTC

Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
> Am 18.04.2022 um 02:11 schrieb JanPB:
>> On Sunday, April 17, 2022 at 1:04:22 AM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>> Am 16.04.2022 um 21:59 schrieb JanPB:
>>>> On Saturday, April 16, 2022 at 1:23:06 AM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>>> Am 16.04.2022 um 00:46 schrieb JanPB:
>>>>>> On Friday, April 15, 2022 at 9:29:29 AM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>>>>> Am 14.04.2022 um 17:42 schrieb Odd Bodkin:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Anyone who is interested in promoting their own furniture that competes
>>>>>>>> with IKEA is going to dump the contents of an IKEA kit, complain that the
>>>>>>>> bags containing the bolts are not labeled with standard sizes, will
>>>>>>>> deliberately lose the hex key and complain that it wasn’t fastened down,
>>>>>>>> complain that if there are three identical wooden parts they aren’t labeled
>>>>>>>> A, B, C or A1, A2, A3.
>>>>>>> What I'm actually very good at, that are such mechanical tasks like to
>>>>>>> assemble an IKEA shelve.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I cannot really prove it. But just take my word for that.
>>>>>>>> Likewise, TH has a desire to promote his own ideas that compete with
>>>>>>>> relativity, and so he’s going to take a relativity paper and dump out the
>>>>>>>> contents on the floor and have lots of complaints that it’s unusable for
>>>>>>>> idiots, where idiots were not the intended audience of the relativity
>>>>>>>> paper.
>>>>>>> I'm not at all against relativity. I have analyzed a certain paper and
>>>>>>> have presented my results. This paper has some connections to
>>>>>>> relativity, but is not relativity itself.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's a paper that defined relativity. Other than that it has some
>>>>>> connections to relativity.
>>>>> Relativity is way older than even Einstein.
>>>>
>>>> By "relativity" on this NG we mean Einstein's 1905 theory.
>>> Definetely not.
>>>
>>> 'Relativity' is actually a very trivial concept and most likely nobody
>>> would disagree.
>>>
>>> But it started with Gillieo or even further.
>>
>> If you want to change the subject, create a new thread. This thread
>> is about your annotations to the 1905 paper.
>>
>>> Whether or not Einstein has something useful to say about the topic,
>>> that is a question of debate.
>>
>> Actually, it is not. This period ended around 1906.
> ???
>
> That is not how science works.
>
> Anything ever invented can be questioned at any time in the future.
>
> So, I could try to question Newton's laws, if I wanted to do so.
>
> That is legal, because this is how science works.

Actually, no, this is not really how science works. If you want to know how
science works, ask a scientist. Never ask an engineer what he thinks
science is. There’s a reason he’s an engineer and not a scientist.

There are many amateur hacks who proclaim, “By casting doubt, I am thinking
scientifically. And the more things I doubt, the better a scientist I am!”
This is both silly and off the mark.

>
> To put a limit to the time of criticism would hinder to sort out errors
> for no obvious benefit.
>
>
>>>>> That is in fact odd, because Einstein took the equations about the
>>>>> behaviour of the aether from Hertz and 'proved', that aether would not
>>>>> exist.
>>>>
>>>> Einstein did not "prove" that. Instead, he created a theory which is agnostic
>>>> wrt aether.
>>> He used equations of Hertz, which meant 'aether', hence cannot derive
>>> the non-existence with such equations.
>>
>> You don't read my responses. What I said, again, was NOT that any "non-existence"
>> was "derived". What I said was that Einstein's theory was *agnostic* to aether.
>> Einstein says so explicitly in the paper's introduction.
>>
>>> The prerequisites of his derivation were 'inherited' from Hertz, because
>>> he used his equations.
>>
>> Irrelevant.
>
> The books of Heinrich Hertz are actually very good and Hertz was a VERY
> good physicist of world wide reputation.
>
> He had great mathematical skills, was an extremely good experimenter and
> a very good physicist.
>
> His books are worth reading till today.
>
> Now Einstein took a few things from Hertz' books, but without
> mentioning, from where.
>
> This is today regarded as scientific offence and also was questionable
> in those times.
>
> But even a missing reference does not allow to take something from a
> certain context, and then prove with that the prerequisites wrong, on
> which that context was based.
>
> This would violate simple logic.
>
> Therefore Einstein took also the axioms about the aether from Hertz, as
> he took his equations about the aether.
>
>
> ...
>
>
> TH
>

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

Re: Annotated version of SRT

<1pqm6du.1utn5xh1wkzd7mN%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=88167&group=sci.physics.relativity#88167

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Subject: Re: Annotated version of SRT
Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2022 16:05:19 +0200
Organization: De Ster
Lines: 91
Message-ID: <1pqm6du.1utn5xh1wkzd7mN%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl>
References: <03a03595-b620-438c-939a-b1efadaa0d79n@googlegroups.com> <jba3mtFg7iqU1@mid.individual.net> <t2rukg$1qn8$1@gioia.aioe.org> <jbfd0cFgk3oU1@mid.individual.net> <t2ucsc$rl2$1@gioia.aioe.org> <jbgo29FoldtU1@mid.individual.net> <t2vdf7$1kg8$3@gioia.aioe.org> <jbhtpkFre1U1@mid.individual.net> <t30pmj$coi$2@dont-email.me> <1pq91fs.12jj83msllygjN%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> <jbjco5F9lnqU1@mid.individual.net> <t32ph7$ut3$1@dont-email.me> <jbn6ilF1fe0U1@mid.individual.net> <t35urv$oju$1@dont-email.me> <jbpsqoFhdcuU1@mid.individual.net> <t394k5$nm5$1@gioia.aioe.org> <t39eg2$keu$1@dont-email.me> <t39fcl$3si$3@gioia.aioe.org> <jbtkr6F94g6U1@mid.individual.net> <6caf4811-deaf-47bd-b517-1eaac3b5a818n@googlegroups.com> <jbvcn6Fj8khU1@mid.individual.net> <330cfd4d-beab-4821-b23f-92ef53258736n@googlegroups.com> <jc2002F3s20U1@mid.individual.net> <3fa535b9-79c6-4f6e-bb4b-80347861aaa7n@googlegroups.com> <jc4ii2Fit86U1@mid.individual.net> <t3jm4s$1fu0$1@gioia.aioe.org>
Reply-To: jjlax32@xs4all.nl (J. J. Lodder)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="27f12f60803be108ff8e219b5134130b";
logging-data="27975"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19H0jSIzObFmtHumtxQMapS35NFZFylhco="
User-Agent: MacSOUP/2.8.5 (ea919cf118) (Mac OS 10.10.5)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:mCf80rggevCbi4gQMW9tjz5bTHM=
 by: J. J. Lodder - Mon, 18 Apr 2022 14:05 UTC

Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote:

> Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
> > Am 18.04.2022 um 02:11 schrieb JanPB:
> >> On Sunday, April 17, 2022 at 1:04:22 AM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
> >>> Am 16.04.2022 um 21:59 schrieb JanPB:
> >>>> On Saturday, April 16, 2022 at 1:23:06 AM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
> >>>>> Am 16.04.2022 um 00:46 schrieb JanPB:
> >>>>>> On Friday, April 15, 2022 at 9:29:29 AM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
> >>>>>>> Am 14.04.2022 um 17:42 schrieb Odd Bodkin:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Anyone who is interested in promoting their own furniture that
> >>>>>>>> competes with IKEA is going to dump the contents of an IKEA kit,
> >>>>>>>> complain that the bags containing the bolts are not labeled with
> >>>>>>>> standard sizes, will deliberately lose the hex key and complain
> >>>>>>>> that it wasn't fastened down, complain that if there are three
> >>>>>>>> identical wooden parts they aren't labeled A, B, C or A1, A2, A3.
> >>>>>>> What I'm actually very good at, that are such mechanical tasks
> >>>>>>> like to assemble an IKEA shelve.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I cannot really prove it. But just take my word for that.
> >>>>>>>> Likewise, TH has a desire to promote his own ideas that compete
> >>>>>>>> with relativity, and so he's going to take a relativity paper and
> >>>>>>>> dump out the contents on the floor and have lots of complaints
> >>>>>>>> that it's unusable for idiots, where idiots were not the intended
> >>>>>>>> audience of the relativity paper.
> >>>>>>> I'm not at all against relativity. I have analyzed a certain paper
> >>>>>>> and have presented my results. This paper has some connections to
> >>>>>>> relativity, but is not relativity itself.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> It's a paper that defined relativity. Other than that it has some
> >>>>>> connections to relativity.
> >>>>> Relativity is way older than even Einstein.
> >>>>
> >>>> By "relativity" on this NG we mean Einstein's 1905 theory.
> >>> Definetely not.
> >>>
> >>> 'Relativity' is actually a very trivial concept and most likely nobody
> >>> would disagree.
> >>>
> >>> But it started with Gillieo or even further.
> >>
> >> If you want to change the subject, create a new thread. This thread
> >> is about your annotations to the 1905 paper.
> >>
> >>> Whether or not Einstein has something useful to say about the topic,
> >>> that is a question of debate.
> >>
> >> Actually, it is not. This period ended around 1906.
> > ???
> >
> > That is not how science works.
> >
> > Anything ever invented can be questioned at any time in the future.
> >
> > So, I could try to question Newton's laws, if I wanted to do so.
> >
> > That is legal, because this is how science works.
>
> Actually, no, this is not really how science works. If you want to know how
> science works, ask a scientist. Never ask an engineer what he thinks
> science is. There's a reason he's an engineer and not a scientist.
>
> There are many amateur hacks who proclaim, "By casting doubt, I am thinking
> scientifically. And the more things I doubt, the better a scientist I am!"
> This is both silly and off the mark.

What all those hacks don't understand
is that criticism in science needs to be constructive.
You show that some existing thing is not good/not good enough
by showing that you can do better.

Of course this implies that you must have mastered
the science that already exists.
'Criticism' that is merely based on lack of understanding
is not even looked at by real scientists.

So our resident nutters have caught themselves in a cul de sac.
By declaring relativity and its author to be wrong/evil and so on
they have deprived themselves of the possibility to be taken seriously.

They can only dig deeper holes for themselves,

Jan

--
"You don't take a fortress by pointing to a loose stone in the walls"
(forgotten who)

Crank Thomas Heger perseveres (in his imbecility)

<50ec08c1-e142-44c9-a2fb-fa501c3b57c1n@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=88176&group=sci.physics.relativity#88176

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:4456:b0:69e:7630:b29e with SMTP id w22-20020a05620a445600b0069e7630b29emr6170787qkp.111.1650296982415;
Mon, 18 Apr 2022 08:49:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:ac8:5f07:0:b0:2e1:d695:d857 with SMTP id
x7-20020ac85f07000000b002e1d695d857mr7548546qta.40.1650296982188; Mon, 18 Apr
2022 08:49:42 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!1.us.feeder.erje.net!3.us.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2022 08:49:41 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <jc4ii2Fit86U1@mid.individual.net>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=71.9.244.224; posting-account=vma-PgoAAABrctSmMdefNKZ-c5S8buvP
NNTP-Posting-Host: 71.9.244.224
References: <janhdiFsvsnU1@mid.individual.net> <jb4ptjFffd0U1@mid.individual.net>
<03a03595-b620-438c-939a-b1efadaa0d79n@googlegroups.com> <jba3mtFg7iqU1@mid.individual.net>
<t2rukg$1qn8$1@gioia.aioe.org> <jbfd0cFgk3oU1@mid.individual.net>
<t2ucsc$rl2$1@gioia.aioe.org> <jbgo29FoldtU1@mid.individual.net>
<t2vdf7$1kg8$3@gioia.aioe.org> <jbhtpkFre1U1@mid.individual.net>
<t30pmj$coi$2@dont-email.me> <1pq91fs.12jj83msllygjN%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl>
<jbjco5F9lnqU1@mid.individual.net> <t32ph7$ut3$1@dont-email.me>
<jbn6ilF1fe0U1@mid.individual.net> <t35urv$oju$1@dont-email.me>
<jbpsqoFhdcuU1@mid.individual.net> <t394k5$nm5$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<t39eg2$keu$1@dont-email.me> <t39fcl$3si$3@gioia.aioe.org>
<jbtkr6F94g6U1@mid.individual.net> <6caf4811-deaf-47bd-b517-1eaac3b5a818n@googlegroups.com>
<jbvcn6Fj8khU1@mid.individual.net> <330cfd4d-beab-4821-b23f-92ef53258736n@googlegroups.com>
<jc2002F3s20U1@mid.individual.net> <3fa535b9-79c6-4f6e-bb4b-80347861aaa7n@googlegroups.com>
<jc4ii2Fit86U1@mid.individual.net>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <50ec08c1-e142-44c9-a2fb-fa501c3b57c1n@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Crank Thomas Heger perseveres (in his imbecility)
From: eggy2001...@gmail.com (Dono.)
Injection-Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2022 15:49:42 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Lines: 5
 by: Dono. - Mon, 18 Apr 2022 15:49 UTC

On Monday, April 18, 2022 at 12:33:26 AM UTC-7, crank Thomas Heger wrote:

> Therefore Einstein took also the axioms about the aether from Hertz, as
> he took his equations about the aether.

What aether?

Re: Annotated version of SRT

<35821212-eac1-405c-9a0e-74533d841406n@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=88187&group=sci.physics.relativity#88187

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
X-Received: by 2002:a0c:c250:0:b0:444:4193:7eb1 with SMTP id w16-20020a0cc250000000b0044441937eb1mr8742557qvh.40.1650299078867;
Mon, 18 Apr 2022 09:24:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:ac8:5a4f:0:b0:2ed:d39b:5264 with SMTP id
o15-20020ac85a4f000000b002edd39b5264mr7529189qta.477.1650299078712; Mon, 18
Apr 2022 09:24:38 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2022 09:24:38 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <1pqm6du.1utn5xh1wkzd7mN%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=89.206.14.16; posting-account=I3DWzAoAAACOmZUdDcZ-C0PqAZGVsbW0
NNTP-Posting-Host: 89.206.14.16
References: <03a03595-b620-438c-939a-b1efadaa0d79n@googlegroups.com>
<jba3mtFg7iqU1@mid.individual.net> <t2rukg$1qn8$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<jbfd0cFgk3oU1@mid.individual.net> <t2ucsc$rl2$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<jbgo29FoldtU1@mid.individual.net> <t2vdf7$1kg8$3@gioia.aioe.org>
<jbhtpkFre1U1@mid.individual.net> <t30pmj$coi$2@dont-email.me>
<1pq91fs.12jj83msllygjN%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> <jbjco5F9lnqU1@mid.individual.net>
<t32ph7$ut3$1@dont-email.me> <jbn6ilF1fe0U1@mid.individual.net>
<t35urv$oju$1@dont-email.me> <jbpsqoFhdcuU1@mid.individual.net>
<t394k5$nm5$1@gioia.aioe.org> <t39eg2$keu$1@dont-email.me>
<t39fcl$3si$3@gioia.aioe.org> <jbtkr6F94g6U1@mid.individual.net>
<6caf4811-deaf-47bd-b517-1eaac3b5a818n@googlegroups.com> <jbvcn6Fj8khU1@mid.individual.net>
<330cfd4d-beab-4821-b23f-92ef53258736n@googlegroups.com> <jc2002F3s20U1@mid.individual.net>
<3fa535b9-79c6-4f6e-bb4b-80347861aaa7n@googlegroups.com> <jc4ii2Fit86U1@mid.individual.net>
<t3jm4s$1fu0$1@gioia.aioe.org> <1pqm6du.1utn5xh1wkzd7mN%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <35821212-eac1-405c-9a0e-74533d841406n@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Annotated version of SRT
From: maluwozn...@gmail.com (Maciej Wozniak)
Injection-Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2022 16:24:38 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Lines: 72
 by: Maciej Wozniak - Mon, 18 Apr 2022 16:24 UTC

On Monday, 18 April 2022 at 16:05:22 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Odd Bodkin <bodk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Thomas Heger <ttt...@web.de> wrote:
> > > Am 18.04.2022 um 02:11 schrieb JanPB:
> > >> On Sunday, April 17, 2022 at 1:04:22 AM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
> > >>> Am 16.04.2022 um 21:59 schrieb JanPB:
> > >>>> On Saturday, April 16, 2022 at 1:23:06 AM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
> > >>>>> Am 16.04.2022 um 00:46 schrieb JanPB:
> > >>>>>> On Friday, April 15, 2022 at 9:29:29 AM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
> > >>>>>>> Am 14.04.2022 um 17:42 schrieb Odd Bodkin:
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> Anyone who is interested in promoting their own furniture that
> > >>>>>>>> competes with IKEA is going to dump the contents of an IKEA kit,
> > >>>>>>>> complain that the bags containing the bolts are not labeled with
> > >>>>>>>> standard sizes, will deliberately lose the hex key and complain
> > >>>>>>>> that it wasn't fastened down, complain that if there are three
> > >>>>>>>> identical wooden parts they aren't labeled A, B, C or A1, A2, A3.
> > >>>>>>> What I'm actually very good at, that are such mechanical tasks
> > >>>>>>> like to assemble an IKEA shelve.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> I cannot really prove it. But just take my word for that.
> > >>>>>>>> Likewise, TH has a desire to promote his own ideas that compete
> > >>>>>>>> with relativity, and so he's going to take a relativity paper and
> > >>>>>>>> dump out the contents on the floor and have lots of complaints
> > >>>>>>>> that it's unusable for idiots, where idiots were not the intended
> > >>>>>>>> audience of the relativity paper.
> > >>>>>>> I'm not at all against relativity. I have analyzed a certain paper
> > >>>>>>> and have presented my results. This paper has some connections to
> > >>>>>>> relativity, but is not relativity itself.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> It's a paper that defined relativity. Other than that it has some
> > >>>>>> connections to relativity.
> > >>>>> Relativity is way older than even Einstein.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> By "relativity" on this NG we mean Einstein's 1905 theory.
> > >>> Definetely not.
> > >>>
> > >>> 'Relativity' is actually a very trivial concept and most likely nobody
> > >>> would disagree.
> > >>>
> > >>> But it started with Gillieo or even further.
> > >>
> > >> If you want to change the subject, create a new thread. This thread
> > >> is about your annotations to the 1905 paper.
> > >>
> > >>> Whether or not Einstein has something useful to say about the topic,
> > >>> that is a question of debate.
> > >>
> > >> Actually, it is not. This period ended around 1906.
> > > ???
> > >
> > > That is not how science works.
> > >
> > > Anything ever invented can be questioned at any time in the future.
> > >
> > > So, I could try to question Newton's laws, if I wanted to do so.
> > >
> > > That is legal, because this is how science works.
> >
> > Actually, no, this is not really how science works. If you want to know how
> > science works, ask a scientist. Never ask an engineer what he thinks
> > science is. There's a reason he's an engineer and not a scientist.
> >
> > There are many amateur hacks who proclaim, "By casting doubt, I am thinking
> > scientifically. And the more things I doubt, the better a scientist I am!"
> > This is both silly and off the mark.
> What all those hacks don't understand
> is that criticism in science needs to be constructive.

An arrogant idiot believe he's the one to decide
how to criticize him.

Re: Annotated version of SRT

<dbe407a6-9d6b-4799-a1b8-27000eacedabn@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=88217&group=sci.physics.relativity#88217

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6214:29e7:b0:446:6d26:2440 with SMTP id jv7-20020a05621429e700b004466d262440mr1455746qvb.118.1650312167526;
Mon, 18 Apr 2022 13:02:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:b92:b0:67e:b7a2:dabd with SMTP id
k18-20020a05620a0b9200b0067eb7a2dabdmr7806419qkh.106.1650312167223; Mon, 18
Apr 2022 13:02:47 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2022 13:02:47 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <jc4ii2Fit86U1@mid.individual.net>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=162.195.247.210; posting-account=Y2v6DQoAAACGpOrX04JGhSdsTevCdArN
NNTP-Posting-Host: 162.195.247.210
References: <janhdiFsvsnU1@mid.individual.net> <jb4ptjFffd0U1@mid.individual.net>
<03a03595-b620-438c-939a-b1efadaa0d79n@googlegroups.com> <jba3mtFg7iqU1@mid.individual.net>
<t2rukg$1qn8$1@gioia.aioe.org> <jbfd0cFgk3oU1@mid.individual.net>
<t2ucsc$rl2$1@gioia.aioe.org> <jbgo29FoldtU1@mid.individual.net>
<t2vdf7$1kg8$3@gioia.aioe.org> <jbhtpkFre1U1@mid.individual.net>
<t30pmj$coi$2@dont-email.me> <1pq91fs.12jj83msllygjN%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl>
<jbjco5F9lnqU1@mid.individual.net> <t32ph7$ut3$1@dont-email.me>
<jbn6ilF1fe0U1@mid.individual.net> <t35urv$oju$1@dont-email.me>
<jbpsqoFhdcuU1@mid.individual.net> <t394k5$nm5$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<t39eg2$keu$1@dont-email.me> <t39fcl$3si$3@gioia.aioe.org>
<jbtkr6F94g6U1@mid.individual.net> <6caf4811-deaf-47bd-b517-1eaac3b5a818n@googlegroups.com>
<jbvcn6Fj8khU1@mid.individual.net> <330cfd4d-beab-4821-b23f-92ef53258736n@googlegroups.com>
<jc2002F3s20U1@mid.individual.net> <3fa535b9-79c6-4f6e-bb4b-80347861aaa7n@googlegroups.com>
<jc4ii2Fit86U1@mid.individual.net>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <dbe407a6-9d6b-4799-a1b8-27000eacedabn@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Annotated version of SRT
From: film...@gmail.com (JanPB)
Injection-Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2022 20:02:47 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Lines: 182
 by: JanPB - Mon, 18 Apr 2022 20:02 UTC

On Monday, April 18, 2022 at 12:33:26 AM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 18.04.2022 um 02:11 schrieb JanPB:
> > On Sunday, April 17, 2022 at 1:04:22 AM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
> >> Am 16.04.2022 um 21:59 schrieb JanPB:
> >>> On Saturday, April 16, 2022 at 1:23:06 AM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
> >>>> Am 16.04.2022 um 00:46 schrieb JanPB:
> >>>>> On Friday, April 15, 2022 at 9:29:29 AM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
> >>>>>> Am 14.04.2022 um 17:42 schrieb Odd Bodkin:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Anyone who is interested in promoting their own furniture that competes
> >>>>>>> with IKEA is going to dump the contents of an IKEA kit, complain that the
> >>>>>>> bags containing the bolts are not labeled with standard sizes, will
> >>>>>>> deliberately lose the hex key and complain that it wasn’t fastened down,
> >>>>>>> complain that if there are three identical wooden parts they aren’t labeled
> >>>>>>> A, B, C or A1, A2, A3.
> >>>>>> What I'm actually very good at, that are such mechanical tasks like to
> >>>>>> assemble an IKEA shelve.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I cannot really prove it. But just take my word for that.
> >>>>>>> Likewise, TH has a desire to promote his own ideas that compete with
> >>>>>>> relativity, and so he’s going to take a relativity paper and dump out the
> >>>>>>> contents on the floor and have lots of complaints that it’s unusable for
> >>>>>>> idiots, where idiots were not the intended audience of the relativity
> >>>>>>> paper.
> >>>>>> I'm not at all against relativity. I have analyzed a certain paper and
> >>>>>> have presented my results. This paper has some connections to
> >>>>>> relativity, but is not relativity itself.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It's a paper that defined relativity. Other than that it has some
> >>>>> connections to relativity.
> >>>> Relativity is way older than even Einstein.
> >>>
> >>> By "relativity" on this NG we mean Einstein's 1905 theory.
> >> Definetely not.
> >>
> >> 'Relativity' is actually a very trivial concept and most likely nobody
> >> would disagree.
> >>
> >> But it started with Gillieo or even further.
> >
> > If you want to change the subject, create a new thread. This thread
> > is about your annotations to the 1905 paper.
> >
> >> Whether or not Einstein has something useful to say about the topic,
> >> that is a question of debate.
> >
> > Actually, it is not. This period ended around 1906.
> ???
>
> That is not how science works.
>
> Anything ever invented can be questioned at any time in the future.
>
> So, I could try to question Newton's laws, if I wanted to do so.
>
> That is legal, because this is how science works.

This is a different topic. What you said was: "Whether or not Einstein has
something useful to say about the topic, that is a question of debate."

....and I responded that THAT particular question was not open to debate,
even if relativity was experimentally falsified next week, for the same
reason that Newton's or Maxwell's contributions are never going to be
re-evaluated along the lines of "something useful to say about the topic",
even though their theories have been disproved experimentally.

> To put a limit to the time of criticism would hinder to sort out errors
> for no obvious benefit.

I never wanted to put any such restrictions. I only responded to your
phrase "Whether or not Einstein has something useful to say about the topic,
that is a question of debate". It isn't. That particular debate is over now..

> >>>> That is in fact odd, because Einstein took the equations about the
> >>>> behaviour of the aether from Hertz and 'proved', that aether would not
> >>>> exist.
> >>>
> >>> Einstein did not "prove" that. Instead, he created a theory which is agnostic
> >>> wrt aether.
> >> He used equations of Hertz, which meant 'aether', hence cannot derive
> >> the non-existence with such equations.
> >
> > You don't read my responses. What I said, again, was NOT that any "non-existence"
> > was "derived". What I said was that Einstein's theory was *agnostic* to aether.
> > Einstein says so explicitly in the paper's introduction.
> >
> >> The prerequisites of his derivation were 'inherited' from Hertz, because
> >> he used his equations.
> >
> > Irrelevant.
> The books of Heinrich Hertz are actually very good and Hertz was a VERY
> good physicist of world wide reputation.

That very nice but it has no relevance to Einstein's paper besides the obvious
constatation that any science paper uses some previously available results.

> He had great mathematical skills, was an extremely good experimenter and
> a very good physicist.
>
> His books are worth reading till today.
>
> Now Einstein took a few things from Hertz' books, but without
> mentioning, from where.

Yes, this was (and is) a standard practice.

> This is today regarded as scientific offence and also was questionable
> in those times.

No, it's not any "offence". You are creating an entire fictitious world just to
maintain your anti-Einstein fantasy.

What would be an offence is quoting a known result by someone else and
knowingly present it as one's own. (Although multiple independent
discoveries happen all the time so such mis-attribution may be done in
good faith. Feynman diagrams are one such example AFAIK. There are
countless others. It's not the end of the world.)

> But even a missing reference

There are no references "missing". It was a standard practice then. Are
you now going to blame Michelangelo that he didn't use the Internet?

> does not allow to take something from a
> certain context, and then prove with that the prerequisites wrong, on
> which that context was based.

Give a concrete example what you are talking about. Specifically, the
page numbers and quotes.
> This would violate simple logic.
>
> Therefore Einstein took also the axioms about the aether from Hertz, as
> he took his equations about the aether.

Give a specific example. As stated, your comment above makes no sense:
"Einstein took also the axioms about the aether from Hertz". Scientists
take stuff from their predecessor's work all the time. You seem to be saying
there is something nefarious about a mathematician (say) using the notion
of the integral without crediting Newton first. This is a ludicrous claim to make.

You really have no idea how science publishing works and what the age-old
(literally) customs in that domain are.

I don't get your attitude. Are you schizophrenic or something? Literally
everything you post is just nonsense.

--
Jan

Re: Annotated version of SRT

<jc76moF3oggU1@mid.individual.net>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=88265&group=sci.physics.relativity#88265

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!usenet.goja.nl.eu.org!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: ttt_...@web.de (Thomas Heger)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Subject: Re: Annotated version of SRT
Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2022 09:29:34 +0200
Lines: 93
Message-ID: <jc76moF3oggU1@mid.individual.net>
References: <janhdiFsvsnU1@mid.individual.net> <jba3mtFg7iqU1@mid.individual.net> <t2rukg$1qn8$1@gioia.aioe.org> <jbfd0cFgk3oU1@mid.individual.net> <t2ucsc$rl2$1@gioia.aioe.org> <jbgo29FoldtU1@mid.individual.net> <t2vdf7$1kg8$3@gioia.aioe.org> <jbhtpkFre1U1@mid.individual.net> <t30pmj$coi$2@dont-email.me> <1pq91fs.12jj83msllygjN%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> <jbjco5F9lnqU1@mid.individual.net> <t32ph7$ut3$1@dont-email.me> <jbn6ilF1fe0U1@mid.individual.net> <t35urv$oju$1@dont-email.me> <jbpsqoFhdcuU1@mid.individual.net> <t394k5$nm5$1@gioia.aioe.org> <t39eg2$keu$1@dont-email.me> <t39fcl$3si$3@gioia.aioe.org> <jbtkr6F94g6U1@mid.individual.net> <6caf4811-deaf-47bd-b517-1eaac3b5a818n@googlegroups.com> <jbvcn6Fj8khU1@mid.individual.net> <330cfd4d-beab-4821-b23f-92ef53258736n@googlegroups.com> <jc2002F3s20U1@mid.individual.net> <3fa535b9-79c6-4f6e-bb4b-80347861aaa7n@googlegroups.com> <jc4ii2Fit86U1@mid.individual.net> <dbe407a6-9d6b-4799-a1b8-27000eacedabn@googlegroups.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: individual.net doe6i4IRWk3oToz/Je+phA8guJAzTaGXmSyKyX0AtAeoTGLCae
Cancel-Lock: sha1:eLnCVM7kBwHifFtj5aOZvytUuC0=
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.0; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0
In-Reply-To: <dbe407a6-9d6b-4799-a1b8-27000eacedabn@googlegroups.com>
 by: Thomas Heger - Tue, 19 Apr 2022 07:29 UTC

Am 18.04.2022 um 22:02 schrieb JanPB:

>>>>>> Relativity is way older than even Einstein.
>>>>>
>>>>> By "relativity" on this NG we mean Einstein's 1905 theory.
>>>> Definetely not.
>>>>
>>>> 'Relativity' is actually a very trivial concept and most likely nobody
>>>> would disagree.
>>>>
>>>> But it started with Gillieo or even further.
>>>
>>> If you want to change the subject, create a new thread. This thread
>>> is about your annotations to the 1905 paper.
>>>
>>>> Whether or not Einstein has something useful to say about the topic,
>>>> that is a question of debate.
>>>
>>> Actually, it is not. This period ended around 1906.
>> ???
>>
>> That is not how science works.
>>
>> Anything ever invented can be questioned at any time in the future.
>>
>> So, I could try to question Newton's laws, if I wanted to do so.
>>
>> That is legal, because this is how science works.
>
> This is a different topic. What you said was: "Whether or not Einstein has
> something useful to say about the topic, that is a question of debate."

Relativity is actually a daily observation. Practically everything is
relative to something else.

So relativity per se cannot be questioned in any meaningful sense.

But we can, of course, question certain theories from this realm.

Now we are talking about a certain proposal from a guy named Albert
Einstein, which he had published in 1905.

This proposal is about 'inertal frames of reference in streight lateral
motion'. The relative velocity is assumed to be constant and very fast.

That is roughly the setting, about which Einstein wrote.

From certain assumptions he came to certain results. And now we are
discussing the question, whether or not these results are derived
properly and have some value in physics.

I came to the conclusion, that the results themselves are possible,
while the methods by which he came to them were not.

To derive a certain result from certain axioms, it is essential to make
no formal errors of any kind. Especially mathematical errors are deadly
in theoretical physics, which is based on mathematical perfectionism.

(But perfectionism was certainly not the main feature of Einstein.)

And: the axioms and other prerequisites should be chosen with care.

But in Einstein's case we have requirements, which are nowhere
fulfilled, because we know from experience, that things do not move in
streight lines and are always accelerated by something.

It was also illogic to take stuff from the work of a pronounced
aetherist and try to prove the non-existence of the aether with that.

So, what to do with that paper?

I would say, a complete rewrite would be the best solution.

> ...and I responded that THAT particular question was not open to debate,
> even if relativity was experimentally falsified next week, for the same
> reason that Newton's or Maxwell's contributions are never going to be
> re-evaluated along the lines of "something useful to say about the topic",
> even though their theories have been disproved experimentally.

Ok, I should revoke that statement.

I meant something like: is the theory presented in that paper relevant
for the topic of relativity today?

....

TH

Re: Annotated version of SRT

<f889f522-778c-4a08-8ce2-3c8ee6cf72bbn@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=88266&group=sci.physics.relativity#88266

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:2912:b0:680:9c3d:b806 with SMTP id m18-20020a05620a291200b006809c3db806mr8881259qkp.462.1650355383069;
Tue, 19 Apr 2022 01:03:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6214:230a:b0:435:4f89:3c0e with SMTP id
gc10-20020a056214230a00b004354f893c0emr10393988qvb.92.1650355382883; Tue, 19
Apr 2022 01:03:02 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2022 01:03:02 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <jc76moF3oggU1@mid.individual.net>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=89.206.14.16; posting-account=I3DWzAoAAACOmZUdDcZ-C0PqAZGVsbW0
NNTP-Posting-Host: 89.206.14.16
References: <janhdiFsvsnU1@mid.individual.net> <jba3mtFg7iqU1@mid.individual.net>
<t2rukg$1qn8$1@gioia.aioe.org> <jbfd0cFgk3oU1@mid.individual.net>
<t2ucsc$rl2$1@gioia.aioe.org> <jbgo29FoldtU1@mid.individual.net>
<t2vdf7$1kg8$3@gioia.aioe.org> <jbhtpkFre1U1@mid.individual.net>
<t30pmj$coi$2@dont-email.me> <1pq91fs.12jj83msllygjN%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl>
<jbjco5F9lnqU1@mid.individual.net> <t32ph7$ut3$1@dont-email.me>
<jbn6ilF1fe0U1@mid.individual.net> <t35urv$oju$1@dont-email.me>
<jbpsqoFhdcuU1@mid.individual.net> <t394k5$nm5$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<t39eg2$keu$1@dont-email.me> <t39fcl$3si$3@gioia.aioe.org>
<jbtkr6F94g6U1@mid.individual.net> <6caf4811-deaf-47bd-b517-1eaac3b5a818n@googlegroups.com>
<jbvcn6Fj8khU1@mid.individual.net> <330cfd4d-beab-4821-b23f-92ef53258736n@googlegroups.com>
<jc2002F3s20U1@mid.individual.net> <3fa535b9-79c6-4f6e-bb4b-80347861aaa7n@googlegroups.com>
<jc4ii2Fit86U1@mid.individual.net> <dbe407a6-9d6b-4799-a1b8-27000eacedabn@googlegroups.com>
<jc76moF3oggU1@mid.individual.net>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <f889f522-778c-4a08-8ce2-3c8ee6cf72bbn@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Annotated version of SRT
From: maluwozn...@gmail.com (Maciej Wozniak)
Injection-Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2022 08:03:03 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Lines: 38
 by: Maciej Wozniak - Tue, 19 Apr 2022 08:03 UTC

On Tuesday, 19 April 2022 at 09:29:32 UTC+2, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 18.04.2022 um 22:02 schrieb JanPB:
>
> >>>>>> Relativity is way older than even Einstein.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> By "relativity" on this NG we mean Einstein's 1905 theory.
> >>>> Definetely not.
> >>>>
> >>>> 'Relativity' is actually a very trivial concept and most likely nobody
> >>>> would disagree.
> >>>>
> >>>> But it started with Gillieo or even further.
> >>>
> >>> If you want to change the subject, create a new thread. This thread
> >>> is about your annotations to the 1905 paper.
> >>>
> >>>> Whether or not Einstein has something useful to say about the topic,
> >>>> that is a question of debate.
> >>>
> >>> Actually, it is not. This period ended around 1906.
> >> ???
> >>
> >> That is not how science works.
> >>
> >> Anything ever invented can be questioned at any time in the future.
> >>
> >> So, I could try to question Newton's laws, if I wanted to do so.
> >>
> >> That is legal, because this is how science works.
> >
> > This is a different topic. What you said was: "Whether or not Einstein has
> > something useful to say about the topic, that is a question of debate."
> Relativity is actually a daily observation. Practically everything is
> relative to something else.

No, relativity is mostly an assertion of some morons
dreaming of a simple, comprehendable by them
world.

Re: Annotated version of SRT

<jc7egjF56lpU1@mid.individual.net>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=88269&group=sci.physics.relativity#88269

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!usenet.goja.nl.eu.org!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: ttt_...@web.de (Thomas Heger)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Subject: Re: Annotated version of SRT
Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2022 11:42:48 +0200
Lines: 65
Message-ID: <jc7egjF56lpU1@mid.individual.net>
References: <janhdiFsvsnU1@mid.individual.net> <t2ucsc$rl2$1@gioia.aioe.org> <jbgo29FoldtU1@mid.individual.net> <t2vdf7$1kg8$3@gioia.aioe.org> <jbhtpkFre1U1@mid.individual.net> <t30pmj$coi$2@dont-email.me> <1pq91fs.12jj83msllygjN%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> <jbjco5F9lnqU1@mid.individual.net> <t32ph7$ut3$1@dont-email.me> <jbn6ilF1fe0U1@mid.individual.net> <t35urv$oju$1@dont-email.me> <jbpsqoFhdcuU1@mid.individual.net> <t394k5$nm5$1@gioia.aioe.org> <t39eg2$keu$1@dont-email.me> <t39fcl$3si$3@gioia.aioe.org> <jbtkr6F94g6U1@mid.individual.net> <6caf4811-deaf-47bd-b517-1eaac3b5a818n@googlegroups.com> <jbvcn6Fj8khU1@mid.individual.net> <330cfd4d-beab-4821-b23f-92ef53258736n@googlegroups.com> <jc2002F3s20U1@mid.individual.net> <3fa535b9-79c6-4f6e-bb4b-80347861aaa7n@googlegroups.com> <jc4ii2Fit86U1@mid.individual.net> <dbe407a6-9d6b-4799-a1b8-27000eacedabn@googlegroups.com> <jc76moF3oggU1@mid.individual.net> <f889f522-778c-4a08-8ce2-3c8ee6cf72bbn@googlegroups.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: individual.net i55zkUP1aNlmihqrL49/Ew2D0Og+rRBa0VqfnB3bNI2PQF2JFL
Cancel-Lock: sha1:8mPhLBJIOg8EKAAoQho8yUTt3D0=
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.0; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0
In-Reply-To: <f889f522-778c-4a08-8ce2-3c8ee6cf72bbn@googlegroups.com>
 by: Thomas Heger - Tue, 19 Apr 2022 09:42 UTC

Am 19.04.2022 um 10:03 schrieb Maciej Wozniak:
> On Tuesday, 19 April 2022 at 09:29:32 UTC+2, Thomas Heger wrote:
>> Am 18.04.2022 um 22:02 schrieb JanPB:
>>
>>>>>>>> Relativity is way older than even Einstein.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> By "relativity" on this NG we mean Einstein's 1905 theory.
>>>>>> Definetely not.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 'Relativity' is actually a very trivial concept and most likely nobody
>>>>>> would disagree.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But it started with Gillieo or even further.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you want to change the subject, create a new thread. This thread
>>>>> is about your annotations to the 1905 paper.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Whether or not Einstein has something useful to say about the topic,
>>>>>> that is a question of debate.
>>>>>
>>>>> Actually, it is not. This period ended around 1906.
>>>> ???
>>>>
>>>> That is not how science works.
>>>>
>>>> Anything ever invented can be questioned at any time in the future.
>>>>
>>>> So, I could try to question Newton's laws, if I wanted to do so.
>>>>
>>>> That is legal, because this is how science works.
>>>
>>> This is a different topic. What you said was: "Whether or not Einstein has
>>> something useful to say about the topic, that is a question of debate."
>> Relativity is actually a daily observation. Practically everything is
>> relative to something else.
>
> No, relativity is mostly an assertion of some morons
> dreaming of a simple, comprehendable by them
> world.
>

To see that most things behave 'relative' you just need to go outside
and watch people passing by, clouds, rivers or the flow of cars on the
street.

Everything moves in respect to you and mostly everything else.

So, everything is 'relative' (to something else).

Now we would need certain methods, to derive observations in one frame
of reference from observations in some other frame of reference.

To do so, we create a theory, which we may call 'relativity'.

The question is now, how that theory should function, not whether or not
relativity exists.

TH

Re: Annotated version of SRT

<c54cf8a6-fc9b-4f00-8e9e-94be68ee3ef9n@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=88270&group=sci.physics.relativity#88270

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
X-Received: by 2002:a37:6107:0:b0:69e:7b8a:e733 with SMTP id v7-20020a376107000000b0069e7b8ae733mr7770351qkb.459.1650362475882;
Tue, 19 Apr 2022 03:01:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:ac8:7e88:0:b0:2f1:f942:80bd with SMTP id
w8-20020ac87e88000000b002f1f94280bdmr7847768qtj.554.1650362475607; Tue, 19
Apr 2022 03:01:15 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2022 03:01:15 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <jc76moF3oggU1@mid.individual.net>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=162.195.247.210; posting-account=Y2v6DQoAAACGpOrX04JGhSdsTevCdArN
NNTP-Posting-Host: 162.195.247.210
References: <janhdiFsvsnU1@mid.individual.net> <jba3mtFg7iqU1@mid.individual.net>
<t2rukg$1qn8$1@gioia.aioe.org> <jbfd0cFgk3oU1@mid.individual.net>
<t2ucsc$rl2$1@gioia.aioe.org> <jbgo29FoldtU1@mid.individual.net>
<t2vdf7$1kg8$3@gioia.aioe.org> <jbhtpkFre1U1@mid.individual.net>
<t30pmj$coi$2@dont-email.me> <1pq91fs.12jj83msllygjN%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl>
<jbjco5F9lnqU1@mid.individual.net> <t32ph7$ut3$1@dont-email.me>
<jbn6ilF1fe0U1@mid.individual.net> <t35urv$oju$1@dont-email.me>
<jbpsqoFhdcuU1@mid.individual.net> <t394k5$nm5$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<t39eg2$keu$1@dont-email.me> <t39fcl$3si$3@gioia.aioe.org>
<jbtkr6F94g6U1@mid.individual.net> <6caf4811-deaf-47bd-b517-1eaac3b5a818n@googlegroups.com>
<jbvcn6Fj8khU1@mid.individual.net> <330cfd4d-beab-4821-b23f-92ef53258736n@googlegroups.com>
<jc2002F3s20U1@mid.individual.net> <3fa535b9-79c6-4f6e-bb4b-80347861aaa7n@googlegroups.com>
<jc4ii2Fit86U1@mid.individual.net> <dbe407a6-9d6b-4799-a1b8-27000eacedabn@googlegroups.com>
<jc76moF3oggU1@mid.individual.net>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <c54cf8a6-fc9b-4f00-8e9e-94be68ee3ef9n@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Annotated version of SRT
From: film...@gmail.com (JanPB)
Injection-Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2022 10:01:15 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Lines: 119
 by: JanPB - Tue, 19 Apr 2022 10:01 UTC

On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 12:29:32 AM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 18.04.2022 um 22:02 schrieb JanPB:
>
> >>>>>> Relativity is way older than even Einstein.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> By "relativity" on this NG we mean Einstein's 1905 theory.
> >>>> Definetely not.
> >>>>
> >>>> 'Relativity' is actually a very trivial concept and most likely nobody
> >>>> would disagree.
> >>>>
> >>>> But it started with Gillieo or even further.
> >>>
> >>> If you want to change the subject, create a new thread. This thread
> >>> is about your annotations to the 1905 paper.
> >>>
> >>>> Whether or not Einstein has something useful to say about the topic,
> >>>> that is a question of debate.
> >>>
> >>> Actually, it is not. This period ended around 1906.
> >> ???
> >>
> >> That is not how science works.
> >>
> >> Anything ever invented can be questioned at any time in the future.
> >>
> >> So, I could try to question Newton's laws, if I wanted to do so.
> >>
> >> That is legal, because this is how science works.
> >
> > This is a different topic. What you said was: "Whether or not Einstein has
> > something useful to say about the topic, that is a question of debate."
> Relativity is actually a daily observation. Practically everything is
> relative to something else.
>
> So relativity per se cannot be questioned in any meaningful sense.
>
> But we can, of course, question certain theories from this realm.
>
> Now we are talking about a certain proposal from a guy named Albert
> Einstein, which he had published in 1905.
>
> This proposal is about 'inertal frames of reference in streight lateral
> motion'. The relative velocity is assumed to be constant and very fast.
>
> That is roughly the setting, about which Einstein wrote.
>
> From certain assumptions he came to certain results. And now we are
> discussing the question, whether or not these results are derived
> properly and have some value in physics.
>
> I came to the conclusion, that the results themselves are possible,
> while the methods by which he came to them were not.

And this conclusion is incorrect.

> To derive a certain result from certain axioms, it is essential to make
> no formal errors of any kind.

There are no errors in Einstein's 1905, formal or otherwise. There are some
instances of over-complicating things or bits of sloppiness but that standard
in practically all science research papers.

Textbooks strive for more "perfection" but this is not a student text.

> Especially mathematical errors are deadly
> in theoretical physics, which is based on mathematical perfectionism.

Sure, but there aren't any there.

> (But perfectionism was certainly not the main feature of Einstein.)
>
>
> And: the axioms and other prerequisites should be chosen with care.
>
> But in Einstein's case we have requirements, which are nowhere
> fulfilled, because we know from experience, that things do not move in
> streight lines and are always accelerated by something.

This is not a valid argument. Physics doesn't work that way.

> It was also illogic to take stuff from the work of a pronounced
> aetherist and try to prove the non-existence of the aether with that.

This is not even wrong. First of all, he didn't take anything of
significance from Hertz, it was mostly Lorentz. Secondly,
he never "proved the non-existence of the aether", he created
a theory that was agnostic to aether. This is obvious from the
content of the paper and he also mentions it specifically in the
summary introductory section of the paper. Thirdly, there is
simply no connection between X believing in Y while Z
says that Y is of no concern to him. Do you take drugs when you post?
I'm frankly puzzled by your utter illogic and gratuitous random
nonsense in everything you write.

> So, what to do with that paper?

Just let it go, it's not your bag. You don't want to learn this stuff,
therefore you have no chance. You are wasting your time.

> I would say, a complete rewrite would be the best solution.

Your opinion on this topic doesn't matter. In order to change this
state of affairs, you need to understand this paper first. This will
not happen by writing ludicrous "notes" about the paper.

> > ...and I responded that THAT particular question was not open to debate,
> > even if relativity was experimentally falsified next week, for the same
> > reason that Newton's or Maxwell's contributions are never going to be
> > re-evaluated along the lines of "something useful to say about the topic",
> > even though their theories have been disproved experimentally.
> Ok, I should revoke that statement.
>
> I meant something like: is the theory presented in that paper relevant
> for the topic of relativity today?

It's the same theory as it is today.

--
Jan

Re: Annotated version of SRT

<b119b711-3e05-4669-9b9c-60a0ca7cda4dn@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=88271&group=sci.physics.relativity#88271

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
X-Received: by 2002:ad4:5b8c:0:b0:446:5ca6:bba0 with SMTP id 12-20020ad45b8c000000b004465ca6bba0mr6436380qvp.46.1650364418882;
Tue, 19 Apr 2022 03:33:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:b92:b0:67e:b7a2:dabd with SMTP id
k18-20020a05620a0b9200b0067eb7a2dabdmr9230720qkh.106.1650364418661; Tue, 19
Apr 2022 03:33:38 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2022 03:33:38 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <c54cf8a6-fc9b-4f00-8e9e-94be68ee3ef9n@googlegroups.com>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=89.206.14.16; posting-account=I3DWzAoAAACOmZUdDcZ-C0PqAZGVsbW0
NNTP-Posting-Host: 89.206.14.16
References: <janhdiFsvsnU1@mid.individual.net> <jba3mtFg7iqU1@mid.individual.net>
<t2rukg$1qn8$1@gioia.aioe.org> <jbfd0cFgk3oU1@mid.individual.net>
<t2ucsc$rl2$1@gioia.aioe.org> <jbgo29FoldtU1@mid.individual.net>
<t2vdf7$1kg8$3@gioia.aioe.org> <jbhtpkFre1U1@mid.individual.net>
<t30pmj$coi$2@dont-email.me> <1pq91fs.12jj83msllygjN%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl>
<jbjco5F9lnqU1@mid.individual.net> <t32ph7$ut3$1@dont-email.me>
<jbn6ilF1fe0U1@mid.individual.net> <t35urv$oju$1@dont-email.me>
<jbpsqoFhdcuU1@mid.individual.net> <t394k5$nm5$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<t39eg2$keu$1@dont-email.me> <t39fcl$3si$3@gioia.aioe.org>
<jbtkr6F94g6U1@mid.individual.net> <6caf4811-deaf-47bd-b517-1eaac3b5a818n@googlegroups.com>
<jbvcn6Fj8khU1@mid.individual.net> <330cfd4d-beab-4821-b23f-92ef53258736n@googlegroups.com>
<jc2002F3s20U1@mid.individual.net> <3fa535b9-79c6-4f6e-bb4b-80347861aaa7n@googlegroups.com>
<jc4ii2Fit86U1@mid.individual.net> <dbe407a6-9d6b-4799-a1b8-27000eacedabn@googlegroups.com>
<jc76moF3oggU1@mid.individual.net> <c54cf8a6-fc9b-4f00-8e9e-94be68ee3ef9n@googlegroups.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <b119b711-3e05-4669-9b9c-60a0ca7cda4dn@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Annotated version of SRT
From: maluwozn...@gmail.com (Maciej Wozniak)
Injection-Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2022 10:33:38 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Lines: 7
 by: Maciej Wozniak - Tue, 19 Apr 2022 10:33 UTC

On Tuesday, 19 April 2022 at 12:01:17 UTC+2, JanPB wrote:

> > I meant something like: is the theory presented in that paper relevant
> > for the topic of relativity today?
> It's the same theory as it is today.

It's just that the unit of time was redefined in 1968 (afair)
to make this insane mumble a bit less inconsistent.

Re: Annotated version of SRT

<t3mj3s$r25$1@gioia.aioe.org>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=88280&group=sci.physics.relativity#88280

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!Uh3cGLv3BUP05xA/L7flqA.user.46.165.242.75.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: moro...@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Subject: Re: Annotated version of SRT
Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2022 11:05:32 -0400
Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID: <t3mj3s$r25$1@gioia.aioe.org>
References: <janhdiFsvsnU1@mid.individual.net>
<jbgo29FoldtU1@mid.individual.net> <t2vdf7$1kg8$3@gioia.aioe.org>
<jbhtpkFre1U1@mid.individual.net> <t30pmj$coi$2@dont-email.me>
<1pq91fs.12jj83msllygjN%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl>
<jbjco5F9lnqU1@mid.individual.net> <t32ph7$ut3$1@dont-email.me>
<jbn6ilF1fe0U1@mid.individual.net> <t35urv$oju$1@dont-email.me>
<jbpsqoFhdcuU1@mid.individual.net> <t394k5$nm5$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<t39eg2$keu$1@dont-email.me> <t39fcl$3si$3@gioia.aioe.org>
<jbtkr6F94g6U1@mid.individual.net>
<6caf4811-deaf-47bd-b517-1eaac3b5a818n@googlegroups.com>
<jbvcn6Fj8khU1@mid.individual.net>
<330cfd4d-beab-4821-b23f-92ef53258736n@googlegroups.com>
<jc2002F3s20U1@mid.individual.net>
<3fa535b9-79c6-4f6e-bb4b-80347861aaa7n@googlegroups.com>
<jc4ii2Fit86U1@mid.individual.net>
<dbe407a6-9d6b-4799-a1b8-27000eacedabn@googlegroups.com>
<jc76moF3oggU1@mid.individual.net>
<c54cf8a6-fc9b-4f00-8e9e-94be68ee3ef9n@googlegroups.com>
<b119b711-3e05-4669-9b9c-60a0ca7cda4dn@googlegroups.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Info: gioia.aioe.org; logging-data="27717"; posting-host="Uh3cGLv3BUP05xA/L7flqA.user.gioia.aioe.org"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@aioe.org";
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.6.1
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.9.2
Content-Language: en-US
 by: Michael Moroney - Tue, 19 Apr 2022 15:05 UTC

On 4/19/2022 6:33 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Tuesday, 19 April 2022 at 12:01:17 UTC+2, JanPB wrote:
>
>>> I meant something like: is the theory presented in that paper relevant
>>> for the topic of relativity today?
>> It's the same theory as it is today.
>
> It's just that the unit of time was redefined in 1968 (afair)
> to make this insane mumble a bit less inconsistent.

The redefinition of time has nothing to do with relativity/Einstein.

It was done for three reasons:
1) A clock to define time more accurately than wobbly earth's rotation
is now being used;
2) Access to the observations of the earth rotating are no longer
necessary, while cesium is available almost anywhere and all cesium is
the same;
3) Technically the old basis of time isn't available to anyone, as not
any rotation of earth was used, but one specific rotation, the one at
"Jan 0 1900" was used. We can no longer check anything against a
rotation that happened in the past.

Re: Annotated version of SRT

<c35115db-8e89-4e00-9763-1a88c789d8e0n@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=88287&group=sci.physics.relativity#88287

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
X-Received: by 2002:a0c:f885:0:b0:444:416a:3f7a with SMTP id u5-20020a0cf885000000b00444416a3f7amr12367746qvn.127.1650381922391;
Tue, 19 Apr 2022 08:25:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:ac8:57c3:0:b0:2f2:2a4:fd15 with SMTP id
w3-20020ac857c3000000b002f202a4fd15mr5443036qta.339.1650381922158; Tue, 19
Apr 2022 08:25:22 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2022 08:25:21 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <t3mj3s$r25$1@gioia.aioe.org>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=89.206.14.16; posting-account=I3DWzAoAAACOmZUdDcZ-C0PqAZGVsbW0
NNTP-Posting-Host: 89.206.14.16
References: <janhdiFsvsnU1@mid.individual.net> <jbgo29FoldtU1@mid.individual.net>
<t2vdf7$1kg8$3@gioia.aioe.org> <jbhtpkFre1U1@mid.individual.net>
<t30pmj$coi$2@dont-email.me> <1pq91fs.12jj83msllygjN%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl>
<jbjco5F9lnqU1@mid.individual.net> <t32ph7$ut3$1@dont-email.me>
<jbn6ilF1fe0U1@mid.individual.net> <t35urv$oju$1@dont-email.me>
<jbpsqoFhdcuU1@mid.individual.net> <t394k5$nm5$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<t39eg2$keu$1@dont-email.me> <t39fcl$3si$3@gioia.aioe.org>
<jbtkr6F94g6U1@mid.individual.net> <6caf4811-deaf-47bd-b517-1eaac3b5a818n@googlegroups.com>
<jbvcn6Fj8khU1@mid.individual.net> <330cfd4d-beab-4821-b23f-92ef53258736n@googlegroups.com>
<jc2002F3s20U1@mid.individual.net> <3fa535b9-79c6-4f6e-bb4b-80347861aaa7n@googlegroups.com>
<jc4ii2Fit86U1@mid.individual.net> <dbe407a6-9d6b-4799-a1b8-27000eacedabn@googlegroups.com>
<jc76moF3oggU1@mid.individual.net> <c54cf8a6-fc9b-4f00-8e9e-94be68ee3ef9n@googlegroups.com>
<b119b711-3e05-4669-9b9c-60a0ca7cda4dn@googlegroups.com> <t3mj3s$r25$1@gioia.aioe.org>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <c35115db-8e89-4e00-9763-1a88c789d8e0n@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Annotated version of SRT
From: maluwozn...@gmail.com (Maciej Wozniak)
Injection-Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2022 15:25:22 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Lines: 18
 by: Maciej Wozniak - Tue, 19 Apr 2022 15:25 UTC

On Tuesday, 19 April 2022 at 17:05:35 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 4/19/2022 6:33 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > On Tuesday, 19 April 2022 at 12:01:17 UTC+2, JanPB wrote:
> >
> >>> I meant something like: is the theory presented in that paper relevant
> >>> for the topic of relativity today?
> >> It's the same theory as it is today.
> >
> > It's just that the unit of time was redefined in 1968 (afair)
> > to make this insane mumble a bit less inconsistent.
> The redefinition of time has nothing to do with relativity/Einstein.

An assertion of a poor, fanatic idiot is not a valid
argument, stupid Mike. And, of course, as anyone
can check in GPS for instance, people dealing with
real measurements of the real world have ignored
the ideological madness of your insane gurus.

Re: Annotated version of SRT

<jccdb7F3tf6U1@mid.individual.net>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=88494&group=sci.physics.relativity#88494

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!usenet.goja.nl.eu.org!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: ttt_...@web.de (Thomas Heger)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Subject: Re: Annotated version of SRT
Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2022 08:53:26 +0200
Lines: 125
Message-ID: <jccdb7F3tf6U1@mid.individual.net>
References: <janhdiFsvsnU1@mid.individual.net> <t2ucsc$rl2$1@gioia.aioe.org> <jbgo29FoldtU1@mid.individual.net> <t2vdf7$1kg8$3@gioia.aioe.org> <jbhtpkFre1U1@mid.individual.net> <t30pmj$coi$2@dont-email.me> <1pq91fs.12jj83msllygjN%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> <jbjco5F9lnqU1@mid.individual.net> <t32ph7$ut3$1@dont-email.me> <jbn6ilF1fe0U1@mid.individual.net> <t35urv$oju$1@dont-email.me> <jbpsqoFhdcuU1@mid.individual.net> <t394k5$nm5$1@gioia.aioe.org> <t39eg2$keu$1@dont-email.me> <t39fcl$3si$3@gioia.aioe.org> <jbtkr6F94g6U1@mid.individual.net> <6caf4811-deaf-47bd-b517-1eaac3b5a818n@googlegroups.com> <jbvcn6Fj8khU1@mid.individual.net> <330cfd4d-beab-4821-b23f-92ef53258736n@googlegroups.com> <jc2002F3s20U1@mid.individual.net> <3fa535b9-79c6-4f6e-bb4b-80347861aaa7n@googlegroups.com> <jc4ii2Fit86U1@mid.individual.net> <dbe407a6-9d6b-4799-a1b8-27000eacedabn@googlegroups.com> <jc76moF3oggU1@mid.individual.net> <c54cf8a6-fc9b-4f00-8e9e-94be68ee3ef9n@googlegroups.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: individual.net 5BrmFQprF7s9Qrtl4AK0zwBXXBq7J/XmmFaxmTTdFcZOAgQDsw
Cancel-Lock: sha1:ZHPpLvAXO/aog+xS2RD6Bkzz9Fw=
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.0; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0
In-Reply-To: <c54cf8a6-fc9b-4f00-8e9e-94be68ee3ef9n@googlegroups.com>
 by: Thomas Heger - Thu, 21 Apr 2022 06:53 UTC

Am 19.04.2022 um 12:01 schrieb JanPB:

>>>> That is not how science works.
>>>>
>>>> Anything ever invented can be questioned at any time in the future.
>>>>
>>>> So, I could try to question Newton's laws, if I wanted to do so.
>>>>
>>>> That is legal, because this is how science works.
>>>
>>> This is a different topic. What you said was: "Whether or not Einstein has
>>> something useful to say about the topic, that is a question of debate."
>> Relativity is actually a daily observation. Practically everything is
>> relative to something else.
>>
>> So relativity per se cannot be questioned in any meaningful sense.
>>
>> But we can, of course, question certain theories from this realm.
>>
>> Now we are talking about a certain proposal from a guy named Albert
>> Einstein, which he had published in 1905.
>>
>> This proposal is about 'inertal frames of reference in streight lateral
>> motion'. The relative velocity is assumed to be constant and very fast.
>>
>> That is roughly the setting, about which Einstein wrote.
>>
>> From certain assumptions he came to certain results. And now we are
>> discussing the question, whether or not these results are derived
>> properly and have some value in physics.
>>
>> I came to the conclusion, that the results themselves are possible,
>> while the methods by which he came to them were not.
>
> And this conclusion is incorrect.
>
>> To derive a certain result from certain axioms, it is essential to make
>> no formal errors of any kind.
>
> There are no errors in Einstein's 1905, formal or otherwise. There are some
> instances of over-complicating things or bits of sloppiness but that standard
> in practically all science research papers.

The text is FULL of errors of all sorts.

Some of these errors were extremely stupid, some very small, some formal.

My counting was: more than four-hundred errors in the text.

Very simple example:
Einstein wrote in a footnote, that a sphere is a spherical body, when
observed at rest.

I counted this as three errors:

1) it is not necessecary to explain the term 'sphere' to the intended
audience of professional physicists

2) it is wrong to explain a term by reference to itself

3) a sphere is the two dimensional shell of a ball, hence not a body.

VERY serious was Einstein's habit, that he made no destinctions between
vectors and scalars.

It was hard to say, what Einstein actually meant, because he gave no
hints in the form of a different fort for different types of
mathematical objects (for instance) or in any other form.

So he simply assumed, the reader would know anyhow, what he had in mind.

This was regarded as an error, because the author is responsible to make
clear, what he wants to say.

But Einstein himself had seemingly trouble with the distinction between
vectors and scalars, because he added - for instance- c and a velocity w.

Now c is a scalar, while velocity is a vectorial quantity, which you
must not add or subtract from vectors.

> Textbooks strive for more "perfection" but this is not a student text.

Einstein made very serious physical errors, too.

E.g. he used work as equal to energy.

Or he attempted to redefine certain terms in common use, like mass.

He used the term 'mass' with the meaning 'amount of matter', what 'mass'
does not mean.

>> Especially mathematical errors are deadly
>> in theoretical physics, which is based on mathematical perfectionism.
>
> Sure, but there aren't any there.

There are also mathematical errors.

E.g. the first equation on page 4:

'tau' is here the name of a linear function, which has four vectors as
arguments.

since tau is a linear function, the argument on the right side of the
equation must have zero at the first position, while it has actually x'
there.

this doesn't actually matter, because x' = 0 must be true for some other
reason.

But if x'=0 the equation would read as:

1/2 [tau(0,0,0,t) + tau(0,0,0,t)]= tau(0,0,0,t)

Well, that is certainly true, but hardly, what Einstein had in mind.

....

TH

Re: Annotated version of SRT

<t3rl9b$38b$1@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=88515&group=sci.physics.relativity#88515

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: rbe...@hushmail.com (Reinhardt Behm)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Subject: Re: Annotated version of SRT
Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2022 13:13:15 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 139
Message-ID: <t3rl9b$38b$1@dont-email.me>
References: <janhdiFsvsnU1@mid.individual.net>
<jbgo29FoldtU1@mid.individual.net> <t2vdf7$1kg8$3@gioia.aioe.org>
<jbhtpkFre1U1@mid.individual.net> <t30pmj$coi$2@dont-email.me>
<1pq91fs.12jj83msllygjN%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl>
<jbjco5F9lnqU1@mid.individual.net> <t32ph7$ut3$1@dont-email.me>
<jbn6ilF1fe0U1@mid.individual.net> <t35urv$oju$1@dont-email.me>
<jbpsqoFhdcuU1@mid.individual.net> <t394k5$nm5$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<t39eg2$keu$1@dont-email.me> <t39fcl$3si$3@gioia.aioe.org>
<jbtkr6F94g6U1@mid.individual.net>
<6caf4811-deaf-47bd-b517-1eaac3b5a818n@googlegroups.com>
<jbvcn6Fj8khU1@mid.individual.net>
<330cfd4d-beab-4821-b23f-92ef53258736n@googlegroups.com>
<jc2002F3s20U1@mid.individual.net>
<3fa535b9-79c6-4f6e-bb4b-80347861aaa7n@googlegroups.com>
<jc4ii2Fit86U1@mid.individual.net>
<dbe407a6-9d6b-4799-a1b8-27000eacedabn@googlegroups.com>
<jc76moF3oggU1@mid.individual.net>
<c54cf8a6-fc9b-4f00-8e9e-94be68ee3ef9n@googlegroups.com>
<jccdb7F3tf6U1@mid.individual.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2022 13:13:15 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="ef2143ca4e25d99463c08cd25481dad7";
logging-data="3339"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18hAxddZmJYMqcWR6BXOsRF"
User-Agent: Pan/0.146 (Hic habitat felicitas; 8107378
git@gitlab.gnome.org:GNOME/pan.git)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:BEMgD4CeKD3RJEeZiN0Dksp2zAM=
 by: Reinhardt Behm - Thu, 21 Apr 2022 13:13 UTC

On Thu, 21 Apr 2022 08:53:26 +0200, Thomas Heger wrote:

> Am 19.04.2022 um 12:01 schrieb JanPB:
>
>>>>> That is not how science works.
>>>>>
>>>>> Anything ever invented can be questioned at any time in the future.
>>>>>
>>>>> So, I could try to question Newton's laws, if I wanted to do so.
>>>>>
>>>>> That is legal, because this is how science works.
>>>>
>>>> This is a different topic. What you said was: "Whether or not
>>>> Einstein has something useful to say about the topic, that is a
>>>> question of debate."
>>> Relativity is actually a daily observation. Practically everything is
>>> relative to something else.
>>>
>>> So relativity per se cannot be questioned in any meaningful sense.
>>>
>>> But we can, of course, question certain theories from this realm.
>>>
>>> Now we are talking about a certain proposal from a guy named Albert
>>> Einstein, which he had published in 1905.
>>>
>>> This proposal is about 'inertal frames of reference in streight
>>> lateral motion'. The relative velocity is assumed to be constant and
>>> very fast.
>>>
>>> That is roughly the setting, about which Einstein wrote.
>>>
>>> From certain assumptions he came to certain results. And now we are
>>> discussing the question, whether or not these results are derived
>>> properly and have some value in physics.
>>>
>>> I came to the conclusion, that the results themselves are possible,
>>> while the methods by which he came to them were not.
>>
>> And this conclusion is incorrect.
>>
>>> To derive a certain result from certain axioms, it is essential to
>>> make no formal errors of any kind.
>>
>> There are no errors in Einstein's 1905, formal or otherwise. There are
>> some instances of over-complicating things or bits of sloppiness but
>> that standard in practically all science research papers.
>
> The text is FULL of errors of all sorts.
>
> Some of these errors were extremely stupid, some very small, some
> formal.
>
> My counting was: more than four-hundred errors in the text.
>
> Very simple example:
> Einstein wrote in a footnote, that a sphere is a spherical body, when
> observed at rest.
>
> I counted this as three errors:
>
> 1) it is not necessecary to explain the term 'sphere' to the intended
> audience of professional physicists
>
> 2) it is wrong to explain a term by reference to itself
>
> 3) a sphere is the two dimensional shell of a ball, hence not a body.
>
>
> VERY serious was Einstein's habit, that he made no destinctions between
> vectors and scalars.
>
> It was hard to say, what Einstein actually meant, because he gave no
> hints in the form of a different fort for different types of
> mathematical objects (for instance) or in any other form.
>
> So he simply assumed, the reader would know anyhow, what he had in mind.
>
> This was regarded as an error, because the author is responsible to make
> clear, what he wants to say.
>
>
> But Einstein himself had seemingly trouble with the distinction between
> vectors and scalars, because he added - for instance- c and a velocity
> w.
>
> Now c is a scalar, while velocity is a vectorial quantity, which you
> must not add or subtract from vectors.
>
>> Textbooks strive for more "perfection" but this is not a student text.
>
>
> Einstein made very serious physical errors, too.
>
> E.g. he used work as equal to energy.
>
> Or he attempted to redefine certain terms in common use, like mass.
>
> He used the term 'mass' with the meaning 'amount of matter', what 'mass'
> does not mean.
>
>
>>> Especially mathematical errors are deadly in theoretical physics,
>>> which is based on mathematical perfectionism.
>>
>> Sure, but there aren't any there.
>
> There are also mathematical errors.
>
> E.g. the first equation on page 4:
>
> 'tau' is here the name of a linear function, which has four vectors as
> arguments.
>
> since tau is a linear function, the argument on the right side of the
> equation must have zero at the first position, while it has actually x'
> there.
>
> this doesn't actually matter, because x' = 0 must be true for some other
> reason.
>
> But if x'=0 the equation would read as:
>
> 1/2 [tau(0,0,0,t) + tau(0,0,0,t)]= tau(0,0,0,t)
>
>
> Well, that is certainly true, but hardly, what Einstein had in mind.
>
> ...

It seems Bertrand Russel already knew you when he said
"A stupid man's report of what a clever man says is never accurate,
because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something that he
can understand."

--
Reinhardt

Pages:123456789101112131415161718
server_pubkey.txt

rocksolid light 0.9.7
clearnet tor