Rocksolid Light

Welcome to novaBBS (click a section below)

mail  files  register  newsreader  groups  login

Message-ID:  

COBOL is for morons. -- E. W. Dijkstra


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

<db452b9a-42ed-490c-834d-698ca3474dfan@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=89587&group=sci.physics.relativity#89587

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6214:1767:b0:456:f39:4cbb with SMTP id et7-20020a056214176700b004560f394cbbmr8431208qvb.37.1651475706840;
Mon, 02 May 2022 00:15:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:ac8:5ac6:0:b0:2f3:a72e:e68c with SMTP id
d6-20020ac85ac6000000b002f3a72ee68cmr1793714qtd.210.1651475706528; Mon, 02
May 2022 00:15:06 -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, 2 May 2022 00:15:06 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <jd6tsrF70j2U1@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> <jc76moF3oggU1@mid.individual.net>
<c54cf8a6-fc9b-4f00-8e9e-94be68ee3ef9n@googlegroups.com> <jccdb7F3tf6U1@mid.individual.net>
<90eae6e0-539d-4edd-913e-a2772b9b5ca6n@googlegroups.com> <jcf242Fjgq4U1@mid.individual.net>
<t3ub67$3ji$1@gioia.aioe.org> <jchimgF3l9qU1@mid.individual.net>
<t40a6a$17t7$1@gioia.aioe.org> <t40i8v$e99$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<jck7oqFj9orU1@mid.individual.net> <b3816797-e144-415f-a0cc-210dfb533137n@googlegroups.com>
<jcn29aF5f6dU1@mid.individual.net> <03cc52d5-9636-485a-a9f3-7c8350619c31n@googlegroups.com>
<jcpcmoFj8lpU1@mid.individual.net> <b5b02531-42cc-4714-9799-1043df76199fn@googlegroups.com>
<jcr2n2Ftcv2U1@mid.individual.net> <eacd0116-ac91-4cea-bcd2-35aa422bf510n@googlegroups.com>
<jcum4nFjnusU1@mid.individual.net> <53605068-fc97-464b-95c6-75eb67e219cbn@googlegroups.com>
<jd1dnlF5d0qU1@mid.individual.net> <74749391-9489-4833-9e2c-b880a3e59fa0n@googlegroups.com>
<jd6tsrF70j2U1@mid.individual.net>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <db452b9a-42ed-490c-834d-698ca3474dfan@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Annotated version of SRT
From: film...@gmail.com (JanPB)
Injection-Date: Mon, 02 May 2022 07:15:06 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Lines: 230
 by: JanPB - Mon, 2 May 2022 07:15 UTC

On Sunday, May 1, 2022 at 1:15:28 AM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 30.04.2022 um 05:51 schrieb JanPB:
> > On Thursday, April 28, 2022 at 11:08:58 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
> >> Am 28.04.2022 um 10:45 schrieb JanPB:
> >>> On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 10:14:03 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
> >>>> Am 27.04.2022 um 02:35 schrieb JanPB:
> >>>>> On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 1:24:06 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
> >>>>>> Am 26.04.2022 um 08:52 schrieb JanPB:
> >>>>>>> On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 10:02:19 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Am 25.04.2022 um 21:22 schrieb JanPB:
> >>>>>>>>> On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 12:52:14 AM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> Am 24.04.2022 um 10:52 schrieb JanPB:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> But even if so, x' would still be zero.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Yes, you get x' = 0 for the emitter/receiver because its location
> >>>>>>>>>>> by construction of this experimental setup satisfies x = vt at
> >>>>>>>>>>> all times t, hence the corresponding x' value is:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> x' = x - vt = 0
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> throughout.
> >>>>>>>>>> Here you actually agree, that x'=0 must be true.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> For the *light source*.
> >>>>>>>> No, this is wrong because Einstein had a different setting:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> [quote]
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> "From the origin of system k let a ray be emitted at the time τ'along
> >>>>>>>> the X-axis to x' and at the time τ_1 be reflected thence to the origin of
> >>>>>>>> the coordinates, ..."
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> [/quote]
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> The system k was the moving system, hence Einstein wanted a moving
> >>>>>>>> emitter and a stationary mirror.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Both the light source and the mirror are stationary in k because that's how
> >>>>>>> the (1/2)*(tau_0 +tau_2) = tau_1 criterion has been set up previously (in section 1).
> >>>>>> The coordinates in k had small Greek letters as names.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Therefore x' must be a coordinate from system K.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Yes, it's an expression involving the K coordinates. But keep in mind
> >>>>> that the following three statements are simultaneously true:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> (1) x' is an expression involving K coordinates,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> (2) if x' denotes the values of this expression for the mirror
> >>>>> at different times t, then x' is constant and nonzero,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> (3) the mirror is stationary in k (the lower-case k).
> >>>> You should keep in mind, that it is absolutely impossible, that an
> >>>> author requires from the readers, that they would marter their brain to
> >>>> develop, what actually the author should have written.
> >>>
> >>> But the author has written all that. I only rewrote it.
> >>>
> >>>> Einstein himself had to write, which coordinate systems were used and
> >>>> for which quantities. These quantities need to be defined properly.
> >>>
> >>> They are.
> >>>
> >>>> But in contrast to common standards, we are now discussing the question,
> >>>> whether the mirror moves (or not) in system K.
> >>>
> >>> The mirror is stationary in k. This is obvious from the description as well as
> >>> from everything that went on before (e.g. the clock sync definition).
> >>>
> >>>> This is an information, an author needs to provide.
> >>>
> >>> It was provided.
> >>>
> >>>> We are now discussing this question on the basis on other constraints
> >>>> like other equations or descriptions in the text.
> >>>>
> >>>> But I have tried hard and found no possible setting, which violated non
> >>>> of these constraints somewhere.
> >>>
> >>> I've described the setting by paraphrasing he paper slightly to underline
> >>> the points we are discussing. There are no violations of anything there.
> >> In a scientific paper the author has to tell his story. It is not the
> >> duty of the reader to 'fill the blancs'.
> >
> > Einstein told his story. The reader can fill in the blanks. The blanks are
> > present in every science paper (for obvious reasons).
> >
> > None of it created any problems to the readers.
> >
> >> But if we actually try to do that (as I did), we find self-contradicting
> >> requirements, which cannot be all equally fulfilled.
> >
> > But that's your problem.
> >
> >> Einstein wrote about an emitter at the zero spot of the moving system k,
> >> which sends out a ray, which is reflected by a mirror at the point x'.
> >>
> >> The only introduction of x' that can be found in the text stems from the
> >> equation x' =x - v*t.
> >>
> >> Now we can assume, that Einstein wanted x' to be in constant distance to
> >> the emitter, because otherwise the nect equation
> >> (1/2)*(tau_0 +tau_2) = tau_1
> >> cannot be fulfilled.
> >>
> >> But -v*t is obviously negative, while x has (apparently) a fixed value..
> >
> > Consider any object at rest in the system k. Let's say at time t_0 it's at x_0
> > (according to K's coordinates). This means at any time t its position
> > x satisfies:
> >
> > x = x_0 + v*(t - t_0)
> No. The positions in k had the variable name 'xsi'.

This is describing the K coordinates of an object at rest in k
(moving at speed v wrt K). It's a formula relating the x and t
coordinates of such object. x and t are K's coordinates.
There is no "ksi" here.

I had this formula taught to me in *elementary school*
(8th grade). I remember using it at a test in class
when I was 14.

Have you ever studied physics at school? This is super-basic stuff.

> If 'x' is used, that would address a coordinate in K.

It does.

> x_0 and t_0 are the zero-points in time and along the x-axis of K, hence
> have the numerical value zero.

No, I explained before what x_0 and t_0 were.

> For this reason we can leave them away and get
> x= v*t
>
> for what I would agree.

No, x_0 and t_0 do not necessarily have value 0. They are
the K-position and K-time of the instant of the light pulse emission.
Einstein assumes that at t = 0 the light source is at x = 0 but
he does NOT assume the light is *emitted* at t = 0. This happens,
instead, at some (unspecified) time t_0 (as measured by K).

> > This means:
> >
> > x - vt = x_0 - v*t_0
> hence x- vt= 0

For the light source, yes. For the mirror it's also a constant but
it's nonzero. Einstein denotes that second constant by x'.

> That is also ok, while trivial.
> >
> > IOW, the combination "x - vt" for any object at rest in k is *constant*
> > (since the RHS is independent of time).
> No, since 0 is not 'any object at rest in k'.

One more time: the combination "x - vt" for any object at rest in k is *constant*.

You need to understand why that is before progressing further.

> An object at rest in k (say at point xsi) is moving in K!

Yes.

> The movement is according to x'= xsi - vt,

No, the movement is according to x = x_0 + v*(t - t_0).
There can be no "ksi" there because we are
talking about K's description of moving objects.


Click here to read the complete article
Re: Annotated version of SRT

<6d94bbeb-a2c5-419a-b266-9da8392b3870n@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=89588&group=sci.physics.relativity#89588

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
X-Received: by 2002:a05:622a:1827:b0:2f3:6d90:1504 with SMTP id t39-20020a05622a182700b002f36d901504mr9071428qtc.268.1651475914752;
Mon, 02 May 2022 00:18:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:ac8:4e44:0:b0:2f3:a4b4:1d82 with SMTP id
e4-20020ac84e44000000b002f3a4b41d82mr3375913qtw.257.1651475914511; Mon, 02
May 2022 00:18:34 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!209.85.160.216.MISMATCH!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Date: Mon, 2 May 2022 00:18:34 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <jd9ah1Fl21cU1@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: <jc76moF3oggU1@mid.individual.net> <c54cf8a6-fc9b-4f00-8e9e-94be68ee3ef9n@googlegroups.com>
<jccdb7F3tf6U1@mid.individual.net> <90eae6e0-539d-4edd-913e-a2772b9b5ca6n@googlegroups.com>
<jcf242Fjgq4U1@mid.individual.net> <t3ub67$3ji$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<jchimgF3l9qU1@mid.individual.net> <t40a6a$17t7$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<t40i8v$e99$1@gioia.aioe.org> <jck7oqFj9orU1@mid.individual.net>
<b3816797-e144-415f-a0cc-210dfb533137n@googlegroups.com> <jcn29aF5f6dU1@mid.individual.net>
<03cc52d5-9636-485a-a9f3-7c8350619c31n@googlegroups.com> <jcpcmoFj8lpU1@mid.individual.net>
<b5b02531-42cc-4714-9799-1043df76199fn@googlegroups.com> <jcr2n2Ftcv2U1@mid.individual.net>
<eacd0116-ac91-4cea-bcd2-35aa422bf510n@googlegroups.com> <jcum4nFjnusU1@mid.individual.net>
<t4eg8l$cal$5@gioia.aioe.org> <jd1egjF5iktU1@mid.individual.net>
<t4gn2d$103s$2@gioia.aioe.org> <jd6sulF6r8bU1@mid.individual.net>
<t4ltn8$18d6$1@gioia.aioe.org> <jd9ah1Fl21cU1@mid.individual.net>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <6d94bbeb-a2c5-419a-b266-9da8392b3870n@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Annotated version of SRT
From: film...@gmail.com (JanPB)
Injection-Date: Mon, 02 May 2022 07:18:34 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
 by: JanPB - Mon, 2 May 2022 07:18 UTC

On Sunday, May 1, 2022 at 11:03:16 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 01.05.2022 um 14:16 schrieb Odd Bodkin:
>
> >>>>> Once again, Thomas, it is only up to the author to try to communicate to
> >>>>> his intended audience, which you are not a member of. This does not prevent
> >>>>> you from reading his communication to other people, but in so doing the
> >>>>> failure to communicate to you is your fault, not the author’s.
> >>>>
> >>>> No
> >>>>
> >>>> A scientific paper is called 'publication', because it address the public.
> >>>
> >>> No, Thomas, that’s just a misbegotten aspiration, an expectation that is
> >>> off basis.
> >>> A publication is opened to others to read, but that does not entail that
> >>> the target audience is the general public.
> >>> Yes, the general public might well be able to access it, but this does not
> >>> obligate the author to write the publication so that the general public can
> >>> understand it.
> >>>
> >>> Don’t be silly about this.
> >>>
> >>> Even in textbooks, graduate texts are aimed at graduate students, not
> >>> undergraduate students and certainly not the general public. Graduate texts
> >>> are specifically written with assumptions about the background familiarity
> >>> of the reader — by design and with appropriate effect. Sure, you can walk
> >>> into a university library and sit down with a graduate-level text, and you
> >>> will find that it is impenetrable, precisely because the assumptions made
> >>> by the author about his audience do not apply to you.
> >>>
> >>> This is not an attempt to form an elite. This is not an attempt to exclude
> >>> the Everyman. It is a recognition that some courses of study take a long
> >>> time of dedicated and guided work, and that the materials will change in
> >>> their scope and presentation level as the student advances through that
> >>> course of study.
> >>>
> >>> You have silly, irrational, and unshared expectations of what level
> >>> resources should be written to. These you call “rules” but they are only
> >>> your “rules” and not those endorsed by others. They would serve your
> >>> purpose, but nobody cares what your purposes are.
> >>
> >> Well, ok, 'my rules' is acceptable.
> >>
> >> Such rules include internal consistancy, clearness of thought and
> >> mathematical correctness.
> >
> > Which there are no problems with in the paper, given the intended audience.
> >
> >
> >>
> >> I also would insist on certain formal criteria, because formal issues
> >> are not just aestetic issues.
> >
> > These “formal issues” are not ones that physicists care about, regardless
> > whether you insist.
> >
> > Again, the form of papers as accepted has NOTHING to do with what you would
> > prefer to see.
> Sure.
>
> But my 'setting' was, that I took the paper in question as the homework
> of a student.

But this is a nonsensical enterprise.

--
Jan

Re: Annotated version of SRT

<665bf3f5-a842-489a-96d1-eb81c3d07faan@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=89589&group=sci.physics.relativity#89589

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
X-Received: by 2002:a0c:fb4d:0:b0:456:3a15:30d7 with SMTP id b13-20020a0cfb4d000000b004563a1530d7mr8822615qvq.93.1651477246636;
Mon, 02 May 2022 00:40:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:424c:b0:67d:2bad:4450 with SMTP id
w12-20020a05620a424c00b0067d2bad4450mr7748140qko.171.1651477246479; Mon, 02
May 2022 00:40:46 -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, 2 May 2022 00:40:46 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <db452b9a-42ed-490c-834d-698ca3474dfan@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> <jc76moF3oggU1@mid.individual.net>
<c54cf8a6-fc9b-4f00-8e9e-94be68ee3ef9n@googlegroups.com> <jccdb7F3tf6U1@mid.individual.net>
<90eae6e0-539d-4edd-913e-a2772b9b5ca6n@googlegroups.com> <jcf242Fjgq4U1@mid.individual.net>
<t3ub67$3ji$1@gioia.aioe.org> <jchimgF3l9qU1@mid.individual.net>
<t40a6a$17t7$1@gioia.aioe.org> <t40i8v$e99$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<jck7oqFj9orU1@mid.individual.net> <b3816797-e144-415f-a0cc-210dfb533137n@googlegroups.com>
<jcn29aF5f6dU1@mid.individual.net> <03cc52d5-9636-485a-a9f3-7c8350619c31n@googlegroups.com>
<jcpcmoFj8lpU1@mid.individual.net> <b5b02531-42cc-4714-9799-1043df76199fn@googlegroups.com>
<jcr2n2Ftcv2U1@mid.individual.net> <eacd0116-ac91-4cea-bcd2-35aa422bf510n@googlegroups.com>
<jcum4nFjnusU1@mid.individual.net> <53605068-fc97-464b-95c6-75eb67e219cbn@googlegroups.com>
<jd1dnlF5d0qU1@mid.individual.net> <74749391-9489-4833-9e2c-b880a3e59fa0n@googlegroups.com>
<jd6tsrF70j2U1@mid.individual.net> <db452b9a-42ed-490c-834d-698ca3474dfan@googlegroups.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <665bf3f5-a842-489a-96d1-eb81c3d07faan@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Annotated version of SRT
From: maluwozn...@gmail.com (Maciej Wozniak)
Injection-Date: Mon, 02 May 2022 07:40:46 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Lines: 157
 by: Maciej Wozniak - Mon, 2 May 2022 07:40 UTC

On Monday, 2 May 2022 at 09:15:08 UTC+2, JanPB wrote:
> On Sunday, May 1, 2022 at 1:15:28 AM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
> > Am 30.04.2022 um 05:51 schrieb JanPB:
> > > On Thursday, April 28, 2022 at 11:08:58 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
> > >> Am 28.04.2022 um 10:45 schrieb JanPB:
> > >>> On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 10:14:03 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
> > >>>> Am 27.04.2022 um 02:35 schrieb JanPB:
> > >>>>> On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 1:24:06 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
> > >>>>>> Am 26.04.2022 um 08:52 schrieb JanPB:
> > >>>>>>> On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 10:02:19 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
> > >>>>>>>> Am 25.04.2022 um 21:22 schrieb JanPB:
> > >>>>>>>>> On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 12:52:14 AM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>> Am 24.04.2022 um 10:52 schrieb JanPB:
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> But even if so, x' would still be zero.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> Yes, you get x' = 0 for the emitter/receiver because its location
> > >>>>>>>>>>> by construction of this experimental setup satisfies x = vt at
> > >>>>>>>>>>> all times t, hence the corresponding x' value is:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> x' = x - vt = 0
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> throughout.
> > >>>>>>>>>> Here you actually agree, that x'=0 must be true.
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> For the *light source*.
> > >>>>>>>> No, this is wrong because Einstein had a different setting:
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> [quote]
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> "From the origin of system k let a ray be emitted at the time τ'along
> > >>>>>>>> the X-axis to x' and at the time τ_1 be reflected thence to the origin of
> > >>>>>>>> the coordinates, ..."
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> [/quote]
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> The system k was the moving system, hence Einstein wanted a moving
> > >>>>>>>> emitter and a stationary mirror.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Both the light source and the mirror are stationary in k because that's how
> > >>>>>>> the (1/2)*(tau_0 +tau_2) = tau_1 criterion has been set up previously (in section 1).
> > >>>>>> The coordinates in k had small Greek letters as names.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Therefore x' must be a coordinate from system K.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Yes, it's an expression involving the K coordinates. But keep in mind
> > >>>>> that the following three statements are simultaneously true:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> (1) x' is an expression involving K coordinates,
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> (2) if x' denotes the values of this expression for the mirror
> > >>>>> at different times t, then x' is constant and nonzero,
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> (3) the mirror is stationary in k (the lower-case k).
> > >>>> You should keep in mind, that it is absolutely impossible, that an
> > >>>> author requires from the readers, that they would marter their brain to
> > >>>> develop, what actually the author should have written.
> > >>>
> > >>> But the author has written all that. I only rewrote it.
> > >>>
> > >>>> Einstein himself had to write, which coordinate systems were used and
> > >>>> for which quantities. These quantities need to be defined properly..
> > >>>
> > >>> They are.
> > >>>
> > >>>> But in contrast to common standards, we are now discussing the question,
> > >>>> whether the mirror moves (or not) in system K.
> > >>>
> > >>> The mirror is stationary in k. This is obvious from the description as well as
> > >>> from everything that went on before (e.g. the clock sync definition).
> > >>>
> > >>>> This is an information, an author needs to provide.
> > >>>
> > >>> It was provided.
> > >>>
> > >>>> We are now discussing this question on the basis on other constraints
> > >>>> like other equations or descriptions in the text.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> But I have tried hard and found no possible setting, which violated non
> > >>>> of these constraints somewhere.
> > >>>
> > >>> I've described the setting by paraphrasing he paper slightly to underline
> > >>> the points we are discussing. There are no violations of anything there.
> > >> In a scientific paper the author has to tell his story. It is not the
> > >> duty of the reader to 'fill the blancs'.
> > >
> > > Einstein told his story. The reader can fill in the blanks. The blanks are
> > > present in every science paper (for obvious reasons).
> > >
> > > None of it created any problems to the readers.
> > >
> > >> But if we actually try to do that (as I did), we find self-contradicting
> > >> requirements, which cannot be all equally fulfilled.
> > >
> > > But that's your problem.
> > >
> > >> Einstein wrote about an emitter at the zero spot of the moving system k,
> > >> which sends out a ray, which is reflected by a mirror at the point x'.
> > >>
> > >> The only introduction of x' that can be found in the text stems from the
> > >> equation x' =x - v*t.
> > >>
> > >> Now we can assume, that Einstein wanted x' to be in constant distance to
> > >> the emitter, because otherwise the nect equation
> > >> (1/2)*(tau_0 +tau_2) = tau_1
> > >> cannot be fulfilled.
> > >>
> > >> But -v*t is obviously negative, while x has (apparently) a fixed value.
> > >
> > > Consider any object at rest in the system k. Let's say at time t_0 it's at x_0
> > > (according to K's coordinates). This means at any time t its position
> > > x satisfies:
> > >
> > > x = x_0 + v*(t - t_0)
> > No. The positions in k had the variable name 'xsi'.
> This is describing the K coordinates of an object at rest in k
> (moving at speed v wrt K). It's a formula relating the x and t
> coordinates of such object. x and t are K's coordinates.
> There is no "ksi" here.

And in the meantime in the real world, forbidden
by your insane Shit TAI and GPS keep measuring t'=t,
just like all serious clocks always did; your imagined
ants can do nothing about it.

Re: Annotated version of SRT

<t4o6bl$1vm2$1@gioia.aioe.org>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=89591&group=sci.physics.relativity#89591

 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, 2 May 2022 08:56:21 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID: <t4o6bl$1vm2$1@gioia.aioe.org>
References: <jccdb7F3tf6U1@mid.individual.net>
<90eae6e0-539d-4edd-913e-a2772b9b5ca6n@googlegroups.com>
<jcf242Fjgq4U1@mid.individual.net>
<t3ub67$3ji$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<jchimgF3l9qU1@mid.individual.net>
<t40a6a$17t7$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<t40i8v$e99$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<jck7oqFj9orU1@mid.individual.net>
<b3816797-e144-415f-a0cc-210dfb533137n@googlegroups.com>
<jcn29aF5f6dU1@mid.individual.net>
<03cc52d5-9636-485a-a9f3-7c8350619c31n@googlegroups.com>
<jcpcmoFj8lpU1@mid.individual.net>
<b5b02531-42cc-4714-9799-1043df76199fn@googlegroups.com>
<jcr2n2Ftcv2U1@mid.individual.net>
<eacd0116-ac91-4cea-bcd2-35aa422bf510n@googlegroups.com>
<jcum4nFjnusU1@mid.individual.net>
<t4eg8l$cal$5@gioia.aioe.org>
<jd1egjF5iktU1@mid.individual.net>
<t4gn2d$103s$2@gioia.aioe.org>
<jd6sulF6r8bU1@mid.individual.net>
<t4ltn8$18d6$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<jd9ah1Fl21cU1@mid.individual.net>
<5f9b7d29-da84-4732-8a4c-69af5ed12ac3n@googlegroups.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: gioia.aioe.org; logging-data="65218"; 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:SyRE249I1s0KECJlExEFiuCNFvk=
 by: Odd Bodkin - Mon, 2 May 2022 08:56 UTC

Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> Professional physicists are totally incopetent narcists,

Well done there, Woz, oh fabulous mind of all time.

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

Re: Annotated version of SRT

<9ed5fa8d-0962-4404-882a-b805f65fa54an@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=89592&group=sci.physics.relativity#89592

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:4310:b0:67b:3fc1:86eb with SMTP id u16-20020a05620a431000b0067b3fc186ebmr7808400qko.495.1651483823257;
Mon, 02 May 2022 02:30:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a05:622a:1714:b0:2f3:5758:c789 with SMTP id
h20-20020a05622a171400b002f35758c789mr9399509qtk.299.1651483823093; Mon, 02
May 2022 02:30:23 -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, 2 May 2022 02:30:22 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <t4o6bl$1vm2$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: <jccdb7F3tf6U1@mid.individual.net> <90eae6e0-539d-4edd-913e-a2772b9b5ca6n@googlegroups.com>
<jcf242Fjgq4U1@mid.individual.net> <t3ub67$3ji$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<jchimgF3l9qU1@mid.individual.net> <t40a6a$17t7$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<t40i8v$e99$1@gioia.aioe.org> <jck7oqFj9orU1@mid.individual.net>
<b3816797-e144-415f-a0cc-210dfb533137n@googlegroups.com> <jcn29aF5f6dU1@mid.individual.net>
<03cc52d5-9636-485a-a9f3-7c8350619c31n@googlegroups.com> <jcpcmoFj8lpU1@mid.individual.net>
<b5b02531-42cc-4714-9799-1043df76199fn@googlegroups.com> <jcr2n2Ftcv2U1@mid.individual.net>
<eacd0116-ac91-4cea-bcd2-35aa422bf510n@googlegroups.com> <jcum4nFjnusU1@mid.individual.net>
<t4eg8l$cal$5@gioia.aioe.org> <jd1egjF5iktU1@mid.individual.net>
<t4gn2d$103s$2@gioia.aioe.org> <jd6sulF6r8bU1@mid.individual.net>
<t4ltn8$18d6$1@gioia.aioe.org> <jd9ah1Fl21cU1@mid.individual.net>
<5f9b7d29-da84-4732-8a4c-69af5ed12ac3n@googlegroups.com> <t4o6bl$1vm2$1@gioia.aioe.org>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <9ed5fa8d-0962-4404-882a-b805f65fa54an@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Annotated version of SRT
From: maluwozn...@gmail.com (Maciej Wozniak)
Injection-Date: Mon, 02 May 2022 09:30:23 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Lines: 7
 by: Maciej Wozniak - Mon, 2 May 2022 09:30 UTC

On Monday, 2 May 2022 at 10:56:25 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > Professional physicists are totally incopetent narcists,
> Well done there, Woz, oh fabulous mind of all time.

Thanks, Bod, oh poor fanatic idiot.

Re: Annotated version of SRT

<t4oei1$1rqg$2@gioia.aioe.org>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=89596&group=sci.physics.relativity#89596

 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, 2 May 2022 11:16:18 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID: <t4oei1$1rqg$2@gioia.aioe.org>
References: <c54cf8a6-fc9b-4f00-8e9e-94be68ee3ef9n@googlegroups.com>
<jccdb7F3tf6U1@mid.individual.net>
<90eae6e0-539d-4edd-913e-a2772b9b5ca6n@googlegroups.com>
<jcf242Fjgq4U1@mid.individual.net>
<t3ub67$3ji$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<jchimgF3l9qU1@mid.individual.net>
<t40a6a$17t7$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<t40i8v$e99$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<jck7oqFj9orU1@mid.individual.net>
<b3816797-e144-415f-a0cc-210dfb533137n@googlegroups.com>
<jcn29aF5f6dU1@mid.individual.net>
<03cc52d5-9636-485a-a9f3-7c8350619c31n@googlegroups.com>
<jcpcmoFj8lpU1@mid.individual.net>
<b5b02531-42cc-4714-9799-1043df76199fn@googlegroups.com>
<jcr2n2Ftcv2U1@mid.individual.net>
<eacd0116-ac91-4cea-bcd2-35aa422bf510n@googlegroups.com>
<jcum4nFjnusU1@mid.individual.net>
<t4eg8l$cal$5@gioia.aioe.org>
<jd1egjF5iktU1@mid.individual.net>
<t4gn2d$103s$2@gioia.aioe.org>
<jd6sulF6r8bU1@mid.individual.net>
<t4ltn8$18d6$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<jd9ah1Fl21cU1@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="61264"; posting-host="Of0kprfJVVw2aVQefhvR6Q.user.gioia.aioe.org"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@aioe.org";
User-Agent: NewsTap/5.5 (iPad)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:fek8J1I1stZhb8h4TjvyPIAF3xE=
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.9.2
 by: Odd Bodkin - Mon, 2 May 2022 11:16 UTC

Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
> Am 01.05.2022 um 14:16 schrieb Odd Bodkin:
>
>>>>>> Once again, Thomas, it is only up to the author to try to communicate to
>>>>>> his intended audience, which you are not a member of. This does not prevent
>>>>>> you from reading his communication to other people, but in so doing the
>>>>>> failure to communicate to you is your fault, not the author’s.
>>>>>
>>>>> No
>>>>>
>>>>> A scientific paper is called 'publication', because it address the public.
>>>>
>>>> No, Thomas, that’s just a misbegotten aspiration, an expectation that is
>>>> off basis.
>>>> A publication is opened to others to read, but that does not entail that
>>>> the target audience is the general public.
>>>> Yes, the general public might well be able to access it, but this does not
>>>> obligate the author to write the publication so that the general public can
>>>> understand it.
>>>>
>>>> Don’t be silly about this.
>>>>
>>>> Even in textbooks, graduate texts are aimed at graduate students, not
>>>> undergraduate students and certainly not the general public. Graduate texts
>>>> are specifically written with assumptions about the background familiarity
>>>> of the reader — by design and with appropriate effect. Sure, you can walk
>>>> into a university library and sit down with a graduate-level text, and you
>>>> will find that it is impenetrable, precisely because the assumptions made
>>>> by the author about his audience do not apply to you.
>>>>
>>>> This is not an attempt to form an elite. This is not an attempt to exclude
>>>> the Everyman. It is a recognition that some courses of study take a long
>>>> time of dedicated and guided work, and that the materials will change in
>>>> their scope and presentation level as the student advances through that
>>>> course of study.
>>>>
>>>> You have silly, irrational, and unshared expectations of what level
>>>> resources should be written to. These you call “rules” but they are only
>>>> your “rules” and not those endorsed by others. They would serve your
>>>> purpose, but nobody cares what your purposes are.
>>>
>>> Well, ok, 'my rules' is acceptable.
>>>
>>> Such rules include internal consistancy, clearness of thought and
>>> mathematical correctness.
>>
>> Which there are no problems with in the paper, given the intended audience.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> I also would insist on certain formal criteria, because formal issues
>>> are not just aestetic issues.
>>
>> These “formal issues” are not ones that physicists care about, regardless
>> whether you insist.
>>
>> Again, the form of papers as accepted has NOTHING to do with what you would
>> prefer to see.
>
>
> Sure.
>
> But my 'setting' was, that I took the paper in question as the homework
> of a student.
>
> And in my role as a (hypothetical) professor writing corrections, I have
> to put a lot of emphasis on formal issues.

And when you chose to do that, your (hypothetical) professor focused on
things that a real professor would not, especially since it was not a
student submission but a professional paper.

The statements you found to be incomprehensible were completely
comprehensible to his audience. The use of variables you found to be
confusing, his audience considered completely transparent.

The problem is not with the author. It is not with his intended audience.
The communication between the author and the intended audience was
successful and clean. The problem is with you.

>
> I therefore wrote comments for every single formal case which I could find.
>
> But, to be fair, I dislike them personally, too.
>
> If professional physicists would allow such issues as incomprehencable
> statements or wrong variables in an equation, that is simply not my
> concern. I don't want that!
>
>
> ...
>
>
> TH
>

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

Re: Annotated version of SRT

<d1943317-19a3-41ff-8831-2e941e325b7fn@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=89598&group=sci.physics.relativity#89598

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
X-Received: by 2002:ad4:5bc1:0:b0:42c:3700:a6df with SMTP id t1-20020ad45bc1000000b0042c3700a6dfmr9345179qvt.94.1651491886208;
Mon, 02 May 2022 04:44:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:ad4:5c4c:0:b0:456:4d9e:db91 with SMTP id
a12-20020ad45c4c000000b004564d9edb91mr9300831qva.37.1651491886023; Mon, 02
May 2022 04:44:46 -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, 2 May 2022 04:44:45 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <t4oei1$1rqg$2@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: <c54cf8a6-fc9b-4f00-8e9e-94be68ee3ef9n@googlegroups.com>
<jccdb7F3tf6U1@mid.individual.net> <90eae6e0-539d-4edd-913e-a2772b9b5ca6n@googlegroups.com>
<jcf242Fjgq4U1@mid.individual.net> <t3ub67$3ji$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<jchimgF3l9qU1@mid.individual.net> <t40a6a$17t7$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<t40i8v$e99$1@gioia.aioe.org> <jck7oqFj9orU1@mid.individual.net>
<b3816797-e144-415f-a0cc-210dfb533137n@googlegroups.com> <jcn29aF5f6dU1@mid.individual.net>
<03cc52d5-9636-485a-a9f3-7c8350619c31n@googlegroups.com> <jcpcmoFj8lpU1@mid.individual.net>
<b5b02531-42cc-4714-9799-1043df76199fn@googlegroups.com> <jcr2n2Ftcv2U1@mid.individual.net>
<eacd0116-ac91-4cea-bcd2-35aa422bf510n@googlegroups.com> <jcum4nFjnusU1@mid.individual.net>
<t4eg8l$cal$5@gioia.aioe.org> <jd1egjF5iktU1@mid.individual.net>
<t4gn2d$103s$2@gioia.aioe.org> <jd6sulF6r8bU1@mid.individual.net>
<t4ltn8$18d6$1@gioia.aioe.org> <jd9ah1Fl21cU1@mid.individual.net> <t4oei1$1rqg$2@gioia.aioe.org>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <d1943317-19a3-41ff-8831-2e941e325b7fn@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Annotated version of SRT
From: maluwozn...@gmail.com (Maciej Wozniak)
Injection-Date: Mon, 02 May 2022 11:44:46 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Lines: 108
 by: Maciej Wozniak - Mon, 2 May 2022 11:44 UTC

On Monday, 2 May 2022 at 13:16:20 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Thomas Heger <ttt...@web.de> wrote:
> > Am 01.05.2022 um 14:16 schrieb Odd Bodkin:
> >
> >>>>>> Once again, Thomas, it is only up to the author to try to communicate to
> >>>>>> his intended audience, which you are not a member of. This does not prevent
> >>>>>> you from reading his communication to other people, but in so doing the
> >>>>>> failure to communicate to you is your fault, not the author’s.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> No
> >>>>>
> >>>>> A scientific paper is called 'publication', because it address the public.
> >>>>
> >>>> No, Thomas, that’s just a misbegotten aspiration, an expectation that is
> >>>> off basis.
> >>>> A publication is opened to others to read, but that does not entail that
> >>>> the target audience is the general public.
> >>>> Yes, the general public might well be able to access it, but this does not
> >>>> obligate the author to write the publication so that the general public can
> >>>> understand it.
> >>>>
> >>>> Don’t be silly about this.
> >>>>
> >>>> Even in textbooks, graduate texts are aimed at graduate students, not
> >>>> undergraduate students and certainly not the general public. Graduate texts
> >>>> are specifically written with assumptions about the background familiarity
> >>>> of the reader — by design and with appropriate effect. Sure, you can walk
> >>>> into a university library and sit down with a graduate-level text, and you
> >>>> will find that it is impenetrable, precisely because the assumptions made
> >>>> by the author about his audience do not apply to you.
> >>>>
> >>>> This is not an attempt to form an elite. This is not an attempt to exclude
> >>>> the Everyman. It is a recognition that some courses of study take a long
> >>>> time of dedicated and guided work, and that the materials will change in
> >>>> their scope and presentation level as the student advances through that
> >>>> course of study.
> >>>>
> >>>> You have silly, irrational, and unshared expectations of what level
> >>>> resources should be written to. These you call “rules” but they are only
> >>>> your “rules” and not those endorsed by others. They would serve your
> >>>> purpose, but nobody cares what your purposes are.
> >>>
> >>> Well, ok, 'my rules' is acceptable.
> >>>
> >>> Such rules include internal consistancy, clearness of thought and
> >>> mathematical correctness.
> >>
> >> Which there are no problems with in the paper, given the intended audience.
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>> I also would insist on certain formal criteria, because formal issues
> >>> are not just aestetic issues.
> >>
> >> These “formal issues” are not ones that physicists care about, regardless
> >> whether you insist.
> >>
> >> Again, the form of papers as accepted has NOTHING to do with what you would
> >> prefer to see.
> >
> >
> > Sure.
> >
> > But my 'setting' was, that I took the paper in question as the homework
> > of a student.
> >
> > And in my role as a (hypothetical) professor writing corrections, I have
> > to put a lot of emphasis on formal issues.
> And when you chose to do that, your (hypothetical) professor focused on
> things that a real professor would not, especially since it was not a
> student submission but a professional paper.
>
> The statements you found to be incomprehensible were completely
> comprehensible to his audience.

No, they weren't. If the audience ever understood that
what he was postulating was to abandon clock
synchronization for the sake of some moronic
symmetry - it would ROTFL.

Re: Annotated version of SRT

<t4oh9h$15ma$1@gioia.aioe.org>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=89599&group=sci.physics.relativity#89599

 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, 2 May 2022 12:02:57 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID: <t4oh9h$15ma$1@gioia.aioe.org>
References: <90eae6e0-539d-4edd-913e-a2772b9b5ca6n@googlegroups.com>
<jcf242Fjgq4U1@mid.individual.net>
<t3ub67$3ji$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<jchimgF3l9qU1@mid.individual.net>
<t40a6a$17t7$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<t40i8v$e99$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<jck7oqFj9orU1@mid.individual.net>
<b3816797-e144-415f-a0cc-210dfb533137n@googlegroups.com>
<jcn29aF5f6dU1@mid.individual.net>
<03cc52d5-9636-485a-a9f3-7c8350619c31n@googlegroups.com>
<jcpcmoFj8lpU1@mid.individual.net>
<b5b02531-42cc-4714-9799-1043df76199fn@googlegroups.com>
<jcr2n2Ftcv2U1@mid.individual.net>
<eacd0116-ac91-4cea-bcd2-35aa422bf510n@googlegroups.com>
<jcum4nFjnusU1@mid.individual.net>
<t4eg8l$cal$5@gioia.aioe.org>
<jd1egjF5iktU1@mid.individual.net>
<t4gn2d$103s$2@gioia.aioe.org>
<jd6sulF6r8bU1@mid.individual.net>
<t4ltn8$18d6$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<jd9ah1Fl21cU1@mid.individual.net>
<t4oei1$1rqg$2@gioia.aioe.org>
<d1943317-19a3-41ff-8831-2e941e325b7fn@googlegroups.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: gioia.aioe.org; logging-data="38602"; 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:/u7qsUg0KZo1nHQ+0bEPn5M4w7U=
 by: Odd Bodkin - Mon, 2 May 2022 12:02 UTC

Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, 2 May 2022 at 13:16:20 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Thomas Heger <ttt...@web.de> wrote:
>>> Am 01.05.2022 um 14:16 schrieb Odd Bodkin:
>>>
>>>>>>>> Once again, Thomas, it is only up to the author to try to communicate to
>>>>>>>> his intended audience, which you are not a member of. This does not prevent
>>>>>>>> you from reading his communication to other people, but in so doing the
>>>>>>>> failure to communicate to you is your fault, not the author’s.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A scientific paper is called 'publication', because it address the public.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, Thomas, that’s just a misbegotten aspiration, an expectation that is
>>>>>> off basis.
>>>>>> A publication is opened to others to read, but that does not entail that
>>>>>> the target audience is the general public.
>>>>>> Yes, the general public might well be able to access it, but this does not
>>>>>> obligate the author to write the publication so that the general public can
>>>>>> understand it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Don’t be silly about this.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Even in textbooks, graduate texts are aimed at graduate students, not
>>>>>> undergraduate students and certainly not the general public. Graduate texts
>>>>>> are specifically written with assumptions about the background familiarity
>>>>>> of the reader — by design and with appropriate effect. Sure, you can walk
>>>>>> into a university library and sit down with a graduate-level text, and you
>>>>>> will find that it is impenetrable, precisely because the assumptions made
>>>>>> by the author about his audience do not apply to you.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is not an attempt to form an elite. This is not an attempt to exclude
>>>>>> the Everyman. It is a recognition that some courses of study take a long
>>>>>> time of dedicated and guided work, and that the materials will change in
>>>>>> their scope and presentation level as the student advances through that
>>>>>> course of study.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You have silly, irrational, and unshared expectations of what level
>>>>>> resources should be written to. These you call “rules” but they are only
>>>>>> your “rules” and not those endorsed by others. They would serve your
>>>>>> purpose, but nobody cares what your purposes are.
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, ok, 'my rules' is acceptable.
>>>>>
>>>>> Such rules include internal consistancy, clearness of thought and
>>>>> mathematical correctness.
>>>>
>>>> Which there are no problems with in the paper, given the intended audience.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I also would insist on certain formal criteria, because formal issues
>>>>> are not just aestetic issues.
>>>>
>>>> These “formal issues” are not ones that physicists care about, regardless
>>>> whether you insist.
>>>>
>>>> Again, the form of papers as accepted has NOTHING to do with what you would
>>>> prefer to see.
>>>
>>>
>>> Sure.
>>>
>>> But my 'setting' was, that I took the paper in question as the homework
>>> of a student.
>>>
>>> And in my role as a (hypothetical) professor writing corrections, I have
>>> to put a lot of emphasis on formal issues.
>> And when you chose to do that, your (hypothetical) professor focused on
>> things that a real professor would not, especially since it was not a
>> student submission but a professional paper.
>>
>> The statements you found to be incomprehensible were completely
>> comprehensible to his audience.
>
> No, they weren't. If the audience ever understood that
> what he was postulating was to abandon clock
> synchronization for the sake of some moronic
> symmetry - it would ROTFL.
>
>

I see that it was incomprehensible to you as well.

As long as you’re going to be wrong, you might as well be confidently
wrong.

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

Re: Annotated version of SRT

<ac0b61b7-605e-47af-a856-fe11c18990a4n@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=89601&group=sci.physics.relativity#89601

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:102c:b0:69f:c056:43a1 with SMTP id a12-20020a05620a102c00b0069fc05643a1mr8162757qkk.526.1651493476644;
Mon, 02 May 2022 05:11:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:ac8:4e44:0:b0:2f3:a4b4:1d82 with SMTP id
e4-20020ac84e44000000b002f3a4b41d82mr4084188qtw.257.1651493476457; Mon, 02
May 2022 05:11:16 -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, 2 May 2022 05:11:16 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <t4oh9h$15ma$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: <90eae6e0-539d-4edd-913e-a2772b9b5ca6n@googlegroups.com>
<jcf242Fjgq4U1@mid.individual.net> <t3ub67$3ji$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<jchimgF3l9qU1@mid.individual.net> <t40a6a$17t7$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<t40i8v$e99$1@gioia.aioe.org> <jck7oqFj9orU1@mid.individual.net>
<b3816797-e144-415f-a0cc-210dfb533137n@googlegroups.com> <jcn29aF5f6dU1@mid.individual.net>
<03cc52d5-9636-485a-a9f3-7c8350619c31n@googlegroups.com> <jcpcmoFj8lpU1@mid.individual.net>
<b5b02531-42cc-4714-9799-1043df76199fn@googlegroups.com> <jcr2n2Ftcv2U1@mid.individual.net>
<eacd0116-ac91-4cea-bcd2-35aa422bf510n@googlegroups.com> <jcum4nFjnusU1@mid.individual.net>
<t4eg8l$cal$5@gioia.aioe.org> <jd1egjF5iktU1@mid.individual.net>
<t4gn2d$103s$2@gioia.aioe.org> <jd6sulF6r8bU1@mid.individual.net>
<t4ltn8$18d6$1@gioia.aioe.org> <jd9ah1Fl21cU1@mid.individual.net>
<t4oei1$1rqg$2@gioia.aioe.org> <d1943317-19a3-41ff-8831-2e941e325b7fn@googlegroups.com>
<t4oh9h$15ma$1@gioia.aioe.org>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <ac0b61b7-605e-47af-a856-fe11c18990a4n@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Annotated version of SRT
From: maluwozn...@gmail.com (Maciej Wozniak)
Injection-Date: Mon, 02 May 2022 12:11:16 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Lines: 119
 by: Maciej Wozniak - Mon, 2 May 2022 12:11 UTC

On Monday, 2 May 2022 at 14:03:01 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Monday, 2 May 2022 at 13:16:20 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Thomas Heger <ttt...@web.de> wrote:
> >>> Am 01.05.2022 um 14:16 schrieb Odd Bodkin:
> >>>
> >>>>>>>> Once again, Thomas, it is only up to the author to try to communicate to
> >>>>>>>> his intended audience, which you are not a member of. This does not prevent
> >>>>>>>> you from reading his communication to other people, but in so doing the
> >>>>>>>> failure to communicate to you is your fault, not the author’s.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> No
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> A scientific paper is called 'publication', because it address the public.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> No, Thomas, that’s just a misbegotten aspiration, an expectation that is
> >>>>>> off basis.
> >>>>>> A publication is opened to others to read, but that does not entail that
> >>>>>> the target audience is the general public.
> >>>>>> Yes, the general public might well be able to access it, but this does not
> >>>>>> obligate the author to write the publication so that the general public can
> >>>>>> understand it.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Don’t be silly about this.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Even in textbooks, graduate texts are aimed at graduate students, not
> >>>>>> undergraduate students and certainly not the general public. Graduate texts
> >>>>>> are specifically written with assumptions about the background familiarity
> >>>>>> of the reader — by design and with appropriate effect. Sure, you can walk
> >>>>>> into a university library and sit down with a graduate-level text, and you
> >>>>>> will find that it is impenetrable, precisely because the assumptions made
> >>>>>> by the author about his audience do not apply to you.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> This is not an attempt to form an elite. This is not an attempt to exclude
> >>>>>> the Everyman. It is a recognition that some courses of study take a long
> >>>>>> time of dedicated and guided work, and that the materials will change in
> >>>>>> their scope and presentation level as the student advances through that
> >>>>>> course of study.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> You have silly, irrational, and unshared expectations of what level
> >>>>>> resources should be written to. These you call “rules” but they are only
> >>>>>> your “rules” and not those endorsed by others. They would serve your
> >>>>>> purpose, but nobody cares what your purposes are.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Well, ok, 'my rules' is acceptable.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Such rules include internal consistancy, clearness of thought and
> >>>>> mathematical correctness.
> >>>>
> >>>> Which there are no problems with in the paper, given the intended audience.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I also would insist on certain formal criteria, because formal issues
> >>>>> are not just aestetic issues.
> >>>>
> >>>> These “formal issues” are not ones that physicists care about, regardless
> >>>> whether you insist.
> >>>>
> >>>> Again, the form of papers as accepted has NOTHING to do with what you would
> >>>> prefer to see.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Sure.
> >>>
> >>> But my 'setting' was, that I took the paper in question as the homework
> >>> of a student.
> >>>
> >>> And in my role as a (hypothetical) professor writing corrections, I have
> >>> to put a lot of emphasis on formal issues.
> >> And when you chose to do that, your (hypothetical) professor focused on
> >> things that a real professor would not, especially since it was not a
> >> student submission but a professional paper.
> >>
> >> The statements you found to be incomprehensible were completely
> >> comprehensible to his audience.
> >
> > No, they weren't. If the audience ever understood that
> > what he was postulating was to abandon clock
> > synchronization for the sake of some moronic
> > symmetry - it would ROTFL.
> >
> >
> I see that it was incomprehensible to you as well.

Fanatic idiots often see strange things, and even
more often they lie they see strange things.

Re: Annotated version of SRT

<jdbuklF5udlU1@mid.individual.net>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=89633&group=sci.physics.relativity#89633

 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: Tue, 03 May 2022 07:58:51 +0200
Lines: 356
Message-ID: <jdbuklF5udlU1@mid.individual.net>
References: <janhdiFsvsnU1@mid.individual.net> <jccdb7F3tf6U1@mid.individual.net> <90eae6e0-539d-4edd-913e-a2772b9b5ca6n@googlegroups.com> <jcf242Fjgq4U1@mid.individual.net> <t3ub67$3ji$1@gioia.aioe.org> <jchimgF3l9qU1@mid.individual.net> <t40a6a$17t7$1@gioia.aioe.org> <t40i8v$e99$1@gioia.aioe.org> <jck7oqFj9orU1@mid.individual.net> <b3816797-e144-415f-a0cc-210dfb533137n@googlegroups.com> <jcn29aF5f6dU1@mid.individual.net> <03cc52d5-9636-485a-a9f3-7c8350619c31n@googlegroups.com> <jcpcmoFj8lpU1@mid.individual.net> <b5b02531-42cc-4714-9799-1043df76199fn@googlegroups.com> <jcr2n2Ftcv2U1@mid.individual.net> <eacd0116-ac91-4cea-bcd2-35aa422bf510n@googlegroups.com> <jcum4nFjnusU1@mid.individual.net> <53605068-fc97-464b-95c6-75eb67e219cbn@googlegroups.com> <jd1dnlF5d0qU1@mid.individual.net> <74749391-9489-4833-9e2c-b880a3e59fa0n@googlegroups.com> <jd6tsrF70j2U1@mid.individual.net> <db452b9a-42ed-490c-834d-698ca3474dfan@googlegroups.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: individual.net XvuPiXX12blriR8wsXfRiAljcvdP7ytQyL1fGcKTVLayh3HjD+
Cancel-Lock: sha1:4K9JMTYUrcmHTXLH0MMIQMY2Fs4=
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.0; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0
In-Reply-To: <db452b9a-42ed-490c-834d-698ca3474dfan@googlegroups.com>
 by: Thomas Heger - Tue, 3 May 2022 05:58 UTC

Am 02.05.2022 um 09:15 schrieb JanPB:
> On Sunday, May 1, 2022 at 1:15:28 AM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
>> Am 30.04.2022 um 05:51 schrieb JanPB:
>>> On Thursday, April 28, 2022 at 11:08:58 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>> Am 28.04.2022 um 10:45 schrieb JanPB:
>>>>> On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 10:14:03 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>>>> Am 27.04.2022 um 02:35 schrieb JanPB:
>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 1:24:06 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>>>>>> Am 26.04.2022 um 08:52 schrieb JanPB:
>>>>>>>>> On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 10:02:19 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Am 25.04.2022 um 21:22 schrieb JanPB:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 12:52:14 AM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Am 24.04.2022 um 10:52 schrieb JanPB:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But even if so, x' would still be zero.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, you get x' = 0 for the emitter/receiver because its location
>>>>>>>>>>>>> by construction of this experimental setup satisfies x = vt at
>>>>>>>>>>>>> all times t, hence the corresponding x' value is:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> x' = x - vt = 0
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> throughout.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Here you actually agree, that x'=0 must be true.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> For the *light source*.
>>>>>>>>>> No, this is wrong because Einstein had a different setting:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> [quote]
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "From the origin of system k let a ray be emitted at the time τ'along
>>>>>>>>>> the X-axis to x' and at the time τ_1 be reflected thence to the origin of
>>>>>>>>>> the coordinates, ..."
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> [/quote]
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The system k was the moving system, hence Einstein wanted a moving
>>>>>>>>>> emitter and a stationary mirror.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Both the light source and the mirror are stationary in k because that's how
>>>>>>>>> the (1/2)*(tau_0 +tau_2) = tau_1 criterion has been set up previously (in section 1).
>>>>>>>> The coordinates in k had small Greek letters as names.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Therefore x' must be a coordinate from system K.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, it's an expression involving the K coordinates. But keep in mind
>>>>>>> that the following three statements are simultaneously true:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> (1) x' is an expression involving K coordinates,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> (2) if x' denotes the values of this expression for the mirror
>>>>>>> at different times t, then x' is constant and nonzero,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> (3) the mirror is stationary in k (the lower-case k).
>>>>>> You should keep in mind, that it is absolutely impossible, that an
>>>>>> author requires from the readers, that they would marter their brain to
>>>>>> develop, what actually the author should have written.
>>>>>
>>>>> But the author has written all that. I only rewrote it.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Einstein himself had to write, which coordinate systems were used and
>>>>>> for which quantities. These quantities need to be defined properly.
>>>>>
>>>>> They are.
>>>>>
>>>>>> But in contrast to common standards, we are now discussing the question,
>>>>>> whether the mirror moves (or not) in system K.
>>>>>
>>>>> The mirror is stationary in k. This is obvious from the description as well as
>>>>> from everything that went on before (e.g. the clock sync definition).
>>>>>
>>>>>> This is an information, an author needs to provide.
>>>>>
>>>>> It was provided.
>>>>>
>>>>>> We are now discussing this question on the basis on other constraints
>>>>>> like other equations or descriptions in the text.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But I have tried hard and found no possible setting, which violated non
>>>>>> of these constraints somewhere.
>>>>>
>>>>> I've described the setting by paraphrasing he paper slightly to underline
>>>>> the points we are discussing. There are no violations of anything there.
>>>> In a scientific paper the author has to tell his story. It is not the
>>>> duty of the reader to 'fill the blancs'.
>>>
>>> Einstein told his story. The reader can fill in the blanks. The blanks are
>>> present in every science paper (for obvious reasons).
>>>
>>> None of it created any problems to the readers.
>>>
>>>> But if we actually try to do that (as I did), we find self-contradicting
>>>> requirements, which cannot be all equally fulfilled.
>>>
>>> But that's your problem.
>>>
>>>> Einstein wrote about an emitter at the zero spot of the moving system k,
>>>> which sends out a ray, which is reflected by a mirror at the point x'.
>>>>
>>>> The only introduction of x' that can be found in the text stems from the
>>>> equation x' =x - v*t.
>>>>
>>>> Now we can assume, that Einstein wanted x' to be in constant distance to
>>>> the emitter, because otherwise the nect equation
>>>> (1/2)*(tau_0 +tau_2) = tau_1
>>>> cannot be fulfilled.
>>>>
>>>> But -v*t is obviously negative, while x has (apparently) a fixed value.
>>>
>>> Consider any object at rest in the system k. Let's say at time t_0 it's at x_0
>>> (according to K's coordinates). This means at any time t its position
>>> x satisfies:
>>>
>>> x = x_0 + v*(t - t_0)
>> No. The positions in k had the variable name 'xsi'.
>
> This is describing the K coordinates of an object at rest in k
> (moving at speed v wrt K). It's a formula relating the x and t
> coordinates of such object. x and t are K's coordinates.
> There is no "ksi" here.

Einstein defined his variable names on the previous page 5:

the coordinates in system K get small Latin letters as names and the
coordinates in k had small Greek letters as names.

However, Einstein did not say, how he wanted to use these variable names.

The most likely case is a numerical value without units for a component
of a vector and as interpretation of - say- x.

E.g the upper left corner of this room has the coordinates (2, 3, 3) in
my local frame of reference, which is based on SI-units. Therefore the
x-component of this vector has the value 2 and no unit.

On the other hand also 2m would be possible or the vector (2,0,0) or
(2m, 0m, 0m)

Now almost all of Einstein's equations are meant as scalar equations of
numerical values, hence we can chose the first option and assume, that
Einstein meant unitless numerals with 'coordinates'.

I'm a little insecure in this case, hence would allow you to opt for
something else.

In any case: Greek letter denote coordinates in k and Latin letter
coordinates in K, because Einstein defined the coordinates this way.

In fact I do not like his system of variable names, but it is more or
less ok.

What was actually not ok, that was Einstein's habit, to use general
varible names for special purposes and the missing distinction between
different types of mathematical objects.

This was especially annoying, as he used the same name 'tau' for

1) a function
2) the name of the time measure in k
3) a duration
4) a point in time


Click here to read the complete article
Re: Annotated version of SRT

<jdbvkjF63vlU1@mid.individual.net>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=89634&group=sci.physics.relativity#89634

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!usenet.goja.nl.eu.org!news.freedyn.de!speedkom.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, 03 May 2022 08:15:53 +0200
Lines: 57
Message-ID: <jdbvkjF63vlU1@mid.individual.net>
References: <c54cf8a6-fc9b-4f00-8e9e-94be68ee3ef9n@googlegroups.com> <jccdb7F3tf6U1@mid.individual.net> <90eae6e0-539d-4edd-913e-a2772b9b5ca6n@googlegroups.com> <jcf242Fjgq4U1@mid.individual.net> <t3ub67$3ji$1@gioia.aioe.org> <jchimgF3l9qU1@mid.individual.net> <t40a6a$17t7$1@gioia.aioe.org> <t40i8v$e99$1@gioia.aioe.org> <jck7oqFj9orU1@mid.individual.net> <b3816797-e144-415f-a0cc-210dfb533137n@googlegroups.com> <jcn29aF5f6dU1@mid.individual.net> <03cc52d5-9636-485a-a9f3-7c8350619c31n@googlegroups.com> <jcpcmoFj8lpU1@mid.individual.net> <b5b02531-42cc-4714-9799-1043df76199fn@googlegroups.com> <jcr2n2Ftcv2U1@mid.individual.net> <eacd0116-ac91-4cea-bcd2-35aa422bf510n@googlegroups.com> <jcum4nFjnusU1@mid.individual.net> <t4eg8l$cal$5@gioia.aioe.org> <jd1egjF5iktU1@mid.individual.net> <t4gn2d$103s$2@gioia.aioe.org> <jd6sulF6r8bU1@mid.individual.net> <t4ltn8$18d6$1@gioia.aioe.org> <jd9ah1Fl21cU1@mid.individual.net> <t4oei1$1rqg$2@gioia.aioe.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: individual.net ieGX8cIRVkO5l8NkwifVjgDdN9UY6wBE/FcIm4wmn2f4e7JRKW
Cancel-Lock: sha1:2pHRLfWG3W9/qjj132dS1b8ncHE=
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.0; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0
In-Reply-To: <t4oei1$1rqg$2@gioia.aioe.org>
 by: Thomas Heger - Tue, 3 May 2022 06:15 UTC

Am 02.05.2022 um 13:16 schrieb Odd Bodkin:

>>
>> But my 'setting' was, that I took the paper in question as the homework
>> of a student.
>>
>> And in my role as a (hypothetical) professor writing corrections, I have
>> to put a lot of emphasis on formal issues.
>
> And when you chose to do that, your (hypothetical) professor focused on
> things that a real professor would not, especially since it was not a
> student submission but a professional paper.

I think, that bad things follow from bad form.

So formal correctness is actually a requirement in theoretical physics.
There is actually no justification for avoiding formally correct methods.

My personal experience was more like this:
serious errors or other forms of trouble came often from an attempt to
find 'shortcuts' and avoid 'unnecessary' steps.

But such steps were most often necessary, even if I could not see their
need. So, I changed an important strategy and put more emphasis on
formal issues and tried to avoid 'shortcuts'.

Such shortcuts can be implemented in future versions of the same
procedure, when the principle route is already established.

So, even if it is annoying and takes time: the variable names are chosen
with care, the text gets structured well and the spelling is correct
(and so forth).

An abstract or abbreviated version can later be derived from the long
version (not the other way round).

> The statements you found to be incomprehensible were completely
> comprehensible to his audience. The use of variables you found to be
> confusing, his audience considered completely transparent.

This is an invitation to 'wishful reading', were you see things, which
are simply not there.

> The problem is not with the author. It is not with his intended audience.
> The communication between the author and the intended audience was
> successful and clean. The problem is with you.

Well, that is most likely true, because I'm the 'crackpot', who disturbs
the cosy slumber.

TH

Re: Annotated version of SRT

<jdef6bFkkvpU1@mid.individual.net>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=89661&group=sci.physics.relativity#89661

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.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: Wed, 04 May 2022 06:53:38 +0200
Lines: 61
Message-ID: <jdef6bFkkvpU1@mid.individual.net>
References: <jc76moF3oggU1@mid.individual.net> <jccdb7F3tf6U1@mid.individual.net> <90eae6e0-539d-4edd-913e-a2772b9b5ca6n@googlegroups.com> <jcf242Fjgq4U1@mid.individual.net> <t3ub67$3ji$1@gioia.aioe.org> <jchimgF3l9qU1@mid.individual.net> <t40a6a$17t7$1@gioia.aioe.org> <t40i8v$e99$1@gioia.aioe.org> <jck7oqFj9orU1@mid.individual.net> <b3816797-e144-415f-a0cc-210dfb533137n@googlegroups.com> <jcn29aF5f6dU1@mid.individual.net> <03cc52d5-9636-485a-a9f3-7c8350619c31n@googlegroups.com> <jcpcmoFj8lpU1@mid.individual.net> <b5b02531-42cc-4714-9799-1043df76199fn@googlegroups.com> <jcr2n2Ftcv2U1@mid.individual.net> <eacd0116-ac91-4cea-bcd2-35aa422bf510n@googlegroups.com> <jcum4nFjnusU1@mid.individual.net> <t4eg8l$cal$5@gioia.aioe.org> <jd1egjF5iktU1@mid.individual.net> <t4gn2d$103s$2@gioia.aioe.org> <jd6sulF6r8bU1@mid.individual.net> <t4ltn8$18d6$1@gioia.aioe.org> <jd9ah1Fl21cU1@mid.individual.net> <6d94bbeb-a2c5-419a-b266-9da8392b3870n@googlegroups.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: individual.net zB/4kCozOcBLUxDA7LjwTg3I1qH7qVgh9x7Tpt+QX9bNtqyiUG
Cancel-Lock: sha1:GmF6AcQECl3HvLzx7E7EchK13H8=
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.0; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0
In-Reply-To: <6d94bbeb-a2c5-419a-b266-9da8392b3870n@googlegroups.com>
 by: Thomas Heger - Wed, 4 May 2022 04:53 UTC

Am 02.05.2022 um 09:18 schrieb JanPB:

>>>>
>>>> I also would insist on certain formal criteria, because formal issues
>>>> are not just aestetic issues.
>>>
>>> These “formal issues” are not ones that physicists care about, regardless
>>> whether you insist.
>>>
>>> Again, the form of papers as accepted has NOTHING to do with what you would
>>> prefer to see.
>> Sure.
>>
>> But my 'setting' was, that I took the paper in question as the homework
>> of a student.
>

This is totally wrong!

It is actually a method, which was meant as a learning tool. And this
method works VERY good.

You don't see its value, because you use an entirely different paradigm
for education, as you are (apparently) a professional, while I'm an
amateur, who based his knowledge an 'homebrew' technology.

I had to develop a method, which could allow me to understand certain
topics. To get enough feedback, I needed to 'attack' people hard enough,
that they find incentive to reply.

The attacked object has to be of high enough statuts, otherwise my
attempts would be ignored.

The other benefit of this method is, that finding errors is a very good
training and helps a lot in understanding a topic.

The methods requires to disassemble a text into tiny pieces, which can
be analysed in detail.

This give a lot of insight into the topic in question. This learning
process is supported by discussions about the topic in public forums,
which are maintained by attacking the text and its author.

Now Einstein's text seems to have real errors in it, though a little
less than what I have written.

But these errors cannot be found, unless you try to find them and unless
you willing to spent a lot of time on the subject.

You also need to withstand a lot of pressure, what usually professionals
would not do.

So my methods is meant for amateurs with some time to waste, not for
professionals of any kind.

But for such a set of people, the method works just great.

TH

Re: Annotated version of SRT

<0837699b-4179-4249-9a72-98371b5c05b8n@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=89664&group=sci.physics.relativity#89664

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
X-Received: by 2002:a05:622a:1491:b0:2f3:8173:840a with SMTP id t17-20020a05622a149100b002f38173840amr18205658qtx.530.1651651347435;
Wed, 04 May 2022 01:02:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a05:622a:1301:b0:2f3:af1d:aa57 with SMTP id
v1-20020a05622a130100b002f3af1daa57mr5430213qtk.257.1651651347167; Wed, 04
May 2022 01:02:27 -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: Wed, 4 May 2022 01:02:26 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <jdef6bFkkvpU1@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: <jc76moF3oggU1@mid.individual.net> <jccdb7F3tf6U1@mid.individual.net>
<90eae6e0-539d-4edd-913e-a2772b9b5ca6n@googlegroups.com> <jcf242Fjgq4U1@mid.individual.net>
<t3ub67$3ji$1@gioia.aioe.org> <jchimgF3l9qU1@mid.individual.net>
<t40a6a$17t7$1@gioia.aioe.org> <t40i8v$e99$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<jck7oqFj9orU1@mid.individual.net> <b3816797-e144-415f-a0cc-210dfb533137n@googlegroups.com>
<jcn29aF5f6dU1@mid.individual.net> <03cc52d5-9636-485a-a9f3-7c8350619c31n@googlegroups.com>
<jcpcmoFj8lpU1@mid.individual.net> <b5b02531-42cc-4714-9799-1043df76199fn@googlegroups.com>
<jcr2n2Ftcv2U1@mid.individual.net> <eacd0116-ac91-4cea-bcd2-35aa422bf510n@googlegroups.com>
<jcum4nFjnusU1@mid.individual.net> <t4eg8l$cal$5@gioia.aioe.org>
<jd1egjF5iktU1@mid.individual.net> <t4gn2d$103s$2@gioia.aioe.org>
<jd6sulF6r8bU1@mid.individual.net> <t4ltn8$18d6$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<jd9ah1Fl21cU1@mid.individual.net> <6d94bbeb-a2c5-419a-b266-9da8392b3870n@googlegroups.com>
<jdef6bFkkvpU1@mid.individual.net>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <0837699b-4179-4249-9a72-98371b5c05b8n@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Annotated version of SRT
From: film...@gmail.com (JanPB)
Injection-Date: Wed, 04 May 2022 08:02:27 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Lines: 86
 by: JanPB - Wed, 4 May 2022 08:02 UTC

On Tuesday, May 3, 2022 at 9:53:35 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 02.05.2022 um 09:18 schrieb JanPB:
>
> >>>>
> >>>> I also would insist on certain formal criteria, because formal issues
> >>>> are not just aestetic issues.
> >>>
> >>> These “formal issues” are not ones that physicists care about, regardless
> >>> whether you insist.
> >>>
> >>> Again, the form of papers as accepted has NOTHING to do with what you would
> >>> prefer to see.
> >> Sure.
> >>
> >> But my 'setting' was, that I took the paper in question as the homework
> >> of a student.
> >
> > This is totally wrong!
>
> It is actually a method, which was meant as a learning tool. And this
> method works VERY good.
>
> You don't see its value, because you use an entirely different paradigm
> for education, as you are (apparently) a professional, while I'm an
> amateur, who based his knowledge an 'homebrew' technology.
>
> I had to develop a method, which could allow me to understand certain
> topics. To get enough feedback, I needed to 'attack' people hard enough,
> that they find incentive to reply.

This is a Procrustean strategy. It's much more effective to simply ask
questions and study. And writing "critiques" at that stage is a complete
waste of your time.
> The attacked object has to be of high enough statuts, otherwise my
> attempts would be ignored.

Whatever made you think so? Just ask questions on Internet forums,
there are many resources out there.

> The other benefit of this method is, that finding errors is a very good
> training and helps a lot in understanding a topic.

There are no errors there to find, so it's a waste of time. Obviously
it doesn't work.
> The methods requires to disassemble a text into tiny pieces, which can
> be analysed in detail.

You are not doing it though. What you are doing is going on
random tangents with no meaning.

> This give a lot of insight into the topic in question. This learning
> process is supported by discussions about the topic in public forums,
> which are maintained by attacking the text and its author.
>
> Now Einstein's text seems to have real errors in it, though a little
> less than what I have written.

It has no errors.

> But these errors cannot be found, unless you try to find them and unless
> you willing to spent a lot of time on the subject.
>
> You also need to withstand a lot of pressure, what usually professionals
> would not do.

What? Stop making stuff up.

> So my methods is meant for amateurs with some time to waste, not for
> professionals of any kind.
>
> But for such a set of people, the method works just great.

It doesn't because it leads to false conclusions.

--
Jan

Re: Annotated version of SRT

<jdhb42F6rmbU1@mid.individual.net>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=89701&group=sci.physics.relativity#89701

 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: Thu, 05 May 2022 09:02:25 +0200
Lines: 27
Message-ID: <jdhb42F6rmbU1@mid.individual.net>
References: <jc76moF3oggU1@mid.individual.net> <jcf242Fjgq4U1@mid.individual.net> <t3ub67$3ji$1@gioia.aioe.org> <jchimgF3l9qU1@mid.individual.net> <t40a6a$17t7$1@gioia.aioe.org> <t40i8v$e99$1@gioia.aioe.org> <jck7oqFj9orU1@mid.individual.net> <b3816797-e144-415f-a0cc-210dfb533137n@googlegroups.com> <jcn29aF5f6dU1@mid.individual.net> <03cc52d5-9636-485a-a9f3-7c8350619c31n@googlegroups.com> <jcpcmoFj8lpU1@mid.individual.net> <b5b02531-42cc-4714-9799-1043df76199fn@googlegroups.com> <jcr2n2Ftcv2U1@mid.individual.net> <eacd0116-ac91-4cea-bcd2-35aa422bf510n@googlegroups.com> <jcum4nFjnusU1@mid.individual.net> <t4eg8l$cal$5@gioia.aioe.org> <jd1egjF5iktU1@mid.individual.net> <t4gn2d$103s$2@gioia.aioe.org> <jd6sulF6r8bU1@mid.individual.net> <t4ltn8$18d6$1@gioia.aioe.org> <jd9ah1Fl21cU1@mid.individual.net> <6d94bbeb-a2c5-419a-b266-9da8392b3870n@googlegroups.com> <jdef6bFkkvpU1@mid.individual.net> <0837699b-4179-4249-9a72-98371b5c05b8n@googlegroups.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: individual.net h2YZRpET/Pj6z2OgD8nzNgZLheGIYt36ysG5ElvMXshHI4BFol
Cancel-Lock: sha1:A2QKI7+sbN95sXcmWSKlULP1Rdo=
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.0; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0
In-Reply-To: <0837699b-4179-4249-9a72-98371b5c05b8n@googlegroups.com>
 by: Thomas Heger - Thu, 5 May 2022 07:02 UTC

Am 04.05.2022 um 10:02 schrieb JanPB:
...

>> This give a lot of insight into the topic in question. This learning
>> process is supported by discussions about the topic in public forums,
>> which are maintained by attacking the text and its author.
>>
>> Now Einstein's text seems to have real errors in it, though a little
>> less than what I have written.
>
> It has no errors.

The text is FULL of errors.

I have listed a lot of them, but not all.

Some errors are too obvious to defend the text. But instead of defending
Einstein, most comments were attacks on me as a person.

I cannot recall any succesful disprove of any of my statements.

Instead there was a continous stream of insults, which called me 'Nazi'
or crackpot, while my comments and the statements they contain could not
be disproven.

TH

Crank Thomas Heger keeps on lying

<a4ccbeb2-c716-4cd9-b5c8-9e8352610d54n@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=89713&group=sci.physics.relativity#89713

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:44d4:b0:6a0:2342:c7c6 with SMTP id y20-20020a05620a44d400b006a02342c7c6mr4629442qkp.14.1651757908174;
Thu, 05 May 2022 06:38:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6214:e6a:b0:446:154a:7e02 with SMTP id
jz10-20020a0562140e6a00b00446154a7e02mr22023236qvb.82.1651757907943; Thu, 05
May 2022 06:38:27 -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: Thu, 5 May 2022 06:38:27 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <jdhb42F6rmbU1@mid.individual.net>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=2601:647:4f80:21c0:ec6d:8b9a:57f5:e9be;
posting-account=vma-PgoAAABrctSmMdefNKZ-c5S8buvP
NNTP-Posting-Host: 2601:647:4f80:21c0:ec6d:8b9a:57f5:e9be
References: <jc76moF3oggU1@mid.individual.net> <jcf242Fjgq4U1@mid.individual.net>
<t3ub67$3ji$1@gioia.aioe.org> <jchimgF3l9qU1@mid.individual.net>
<t40a6a$17t7$1@gioia.aioe.org> <t40i8v$e99$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<jck7oqFj9orU1@mid.individual.net> <b3816797-e144-415f-a0cc-210dfb533137n@googlegroups.com>
<jcn29aF5f6dU1@mid.individual.net> <03cc52d5-9636-485a-a9f3-7c8350619c31n@googlegroups.com>
<jcpcmoFj8lpU1@mid.individual.net> <b5b02531-42cc-4714-9799-1043df76199fn@googlegroups.com>
<jcr2n2Ftcv2U1@mid.individual.net> <eacd0116-ac91-4cea-bcd2-35aa422bf510n@googlegroups.com>
<jcum4nFjnusU1@mid.individual.net> <t4eg8l$cal$5@gioia.aioe.org>
<jd1egjF5iktU1@mid.individual.net> <t4gn2d$103s$2@gioia.aioe.org>
<jd6sulF6r8bU1@mid.individual.net> <t4ltn8$18d6$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<jd9ah1Fl21cU1@mid.individual.net> <6d94bbeb-a2c5-419a-b266-9da8392b3870n@googlegroups.com>
<jdef6bFkkvpU1@mid.individual.net> <0837699b-4179-4249-9a72-98371b5c05b8n@googlegroups.com>
<jdhb42F6rmbU1@mid.individual.net>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <a4ccbeb2-c716-4cd9-b5c8-9e8352610d54n@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Crank Thomas Heger keeps on lying
From: eggy2001...@gmail.com (Dono.)
Injection-Date: Thu, 05 May 2022 13:38:28 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Lines: 5
 by: Dono. - Thu, 5 May 2022 13:38 UTC

On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 12:02:30 AM UTC-7, crank Thomas Heger wrote:

> I cannot recall any succesful disprove of any of my statements.

Of course not, this is what makes you a crackpot.

Re: Annotated version of SRT

<aee5dec3-f2e0-4307-9827-14feb5a3ea8dn@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=89752&group=sci.physics.relativity#89752

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6214:c64:b0:449:7011:569d with SMTP id t4-20020a0562140c6400b004497011569dmr1270643qvj.90.1651814239377;
Thu, 05 May 2022 22:17:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:1257:b0:6a0:807:a5d9 with SMTP id
a23-20020a05620a125700b006a00807a5d9mr1233958qkl.0.1651814239143; Thu, 05 May
2022 22:17:19 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!209.85.160.216.MISMATCH!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Date: Thu, 5 May 2022 22:17:18 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <jdhb42F6rmbU1@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: <jc76moF3oggU1@mid.individual.net> <jcf242Fjgq4U1@mid.individual.net>
<t3ub67$3ji$1@gioia.aioe.org> <jchimgF3l9qU1@mid.individual.net>
<t40a6a$17t7$1@gioia.aioe.org> <t40i8v$e99$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<jck7oqFj9orU1@mid.individual.net> <b3816797-e144-415f-a0cc-210dfb533137n@googlegroups.com>
<jcn29aF5f6dU1@mid.individual.net> <03cc52d5-9636-485a-a9f3-7c8350619c31n@googlegroups.com>
<jcpcmoFj8lpU1@mid.individual.net> <b5b02531-42cc-4714-9799-1043df76199fn@googlegroups.com>
<jcr2n2Ftcv2U1@mid.individual.net> <eacd0116-ac91-4cea-bcd2-35aa422bf510n@googlegroups.com>
<jcum4nFjnusU1@mid.individual.net> <t4eg8l$cal$5@gioia.aioe.org>
<jd1egjF5iktU1@mid.individual.net> <t4gn2d$103s$2@gioia.aioe.org>
<jd6sulF6r8bU1@mid.individual.net> <t4ltn8$18d6$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<jd9ah1Fl21cU1@mid.individual.net> <6d94bbeb-a2c5-419a-b266-9da8392b3870n@googlegroups.com>
<jdef6bFkkvpU1@mid.individual.net> <0837699b-4179-4249-9a72-98371b5c05b8n@googlegroups.com>
<jdhb42F6rmbU1@mid.individual.net>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <aee5dec3-f2e0-4307-9827-14feb5a3ea8dn@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Annotated version of SRT
From: film...@gmail.com (JanPB)
Injection-Date: Fri, 06 May 2022 05:17:19 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
 by: JanPB - Fri, 6 May 2022 05:17 UTC

On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 12:02:30 AM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 04.05.2022 um 10:02 schrieb JanPB:
> ..
> >> This give a lot of insight into the topic in question. This learning
> >> process is supported by discussions about the topic in public forums,
> >> which are maintained by attacking the text and its author.
> >>
> >> Now Einstein's text seems to have real errors in it, though a little
> >> less than what I have written.
> >
> > It has no errors.
> The text is FULL of errors.

Einsteins' 1905 relativity papers has no errors.

> I have listed a lot of them, but not all.

This is merely a list of your misunderstandings of Einstein's paper.

> Some errors are too obvious to defend the text.

There are no errors in that paper.

> But instead of defending
> Einstein, most comments were attacks on me as a person.

That's simply because you don't react to facts like a normal person would.

> I cannot recall any succesful disprove of any of my statements.

This is THE standard crank response. You simply cannot understand our
responses and cannot see how our explanations completely destroy all your
arguments. All cranks and monomaniacs are that way, this is well-known and
has been well researched.

The problem is that in order to understand your errors, you must know *something*
of the subject in the first place. If you lack *that* (as you do), then you cannot
by definition understand why you are incorrect. It all appears to you as if it was
all some conspiracy or perhaps people worshiping something and in general
that people are just rude to you *for no reason*, etc. etc.

> Instead there was a continous stream of insults, which called me 'Nazi'
> or crackpot, while my comments and the statements they contain could not
> be disproven.

All of your claims have been disproved. Literally dozens of times. You merely
cannot see it. This is always the case with cranks, I'm not aware of a single
ignoramus on this NG ever being convinced something they did was wrong.

This is very characteristic, normally people always know where limits
of their knowledge lie and act accordingly, sort of like normally a person
instinctively stays away from an open flame. I'm not a psychologist so I don't
know what the formal diagnosis for this condition is. It's nothing serious
as it only manifests itself in very precisely defined circumstances,
like precise logical inference and the like.

That's why you cannot see why your "notes" on Einstein's paper
are 100% worthless. Not because they are wrong but because they
are devoid of content. That's why I frequently say "not even wrong" or
"gobbledygook". It's not me just being lazy when I say those things.

--
Jan

Re: Annotated version of SRT

<88b94e5f-4e8b-44bf-bb89-5fcae3860e36n@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=89755&group=sci.physics.relativity#89755

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
X-Received: by 2002:ac8:5b50:0:b0:2f3:ae99:8e0 with SMTP id n16-20020ac85b50000000b002f3ae9908e0mr1254490qtw.669.1651815291361;
Thu, 05 May 2022 22:34:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a05:622a:494:b0:2f3:c0b0:599c with SMTP id
p20-20020a05622a049400b002f3c0b0599cmr1332742qtx.95.1651815291040; Thu, 05
May 2022 22:34:51 -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: Thu, 5 May 2022 22:34:50 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <aee5dec3-f2e0-4307-9827-14feb5a3ea8dn@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: <jc76moF3oggU1@mid.individual.net> <jcf242Fjgq4U1@mid.individual.net>
<t3ub67$3ji$1@gioia.aioe.org> <jchimgF3l9qU1@mid.individual.net>
<t40a6a$17t7$1@gioia.aioe.org> <t40i8v$e99$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<jck7oqFj9orU1@mid.individual.net> <b3816797-e144-415f-a0cc-210dfb533137n@googlegroups.com>
<jcn29aF5f6dU1@mid.individual.net> <03cc52d5-9636-485a-a9f3-7c8350619c31n@googlegroups.com>
<jcpcmoFj8lpU1@mid.individual.net> <b5b02531-42cc-4714-9799-1043df76199fn@googlegroups.com>
<jcr2n2Ftcv2U1@mid.individual.net> <eacd0116-ac91-4cea-bcd2-35aa422bf510n@googlegroups.com>
<jcum4nFjnusU1@mid.individual.net> <t4eg8l$cal$5@gioia.aioe.org>
<jd1egjF5iktU1@mid.individual.net> <t4gn2d$103s$2@gioia.aioe.org>
<jd6sulF6r8bU1@mid.individual.net> <t4ltn8$18d6$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<jd9ah1Fl21cU1@mid.individual.net> <6d94bbeb-a2c5-419a-b266-9da8392b3870n@googlegroups.com>
<jdef6bFkkvpU1@mid.individual.net> <0837699b-4179-4249-9a72-98371b5c05b8n@googlegroups.com>
<jdhb42F6rmbU1@mid.individual.net> <aee5dec3-f2e0-4307-9827-14feb5a3ea8dn@googlegroups.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <88b94e5f-4e8b-44bf-bb89-5fcae3860e36n@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Annotated version of SRT
From: maluwozn...@gmail.com (Maciej Wozniak)
Injection-Date: Fri, 06 May 2022 05:34:51 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Lines: 17
 by: Maciej Wozniak - Fri, 6 May 2022 05:34 UTC

On Friday, 6 May 2022 at 07:17:20 UTC+2, JanPB wrote:
> On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 12:02:30 AM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
> > Am 04.05.2022 um 10:02 schrieb JanPB:
> > ..
> > >> This give a lot of insight into the topic in question. This learning
> > >> process is supported by discussions about the topic in public forums,
> > >> which are maintained by attacking the text and its author.
> > >>
> > >> Now Einstein's text seems to have real errors in it, though a little
> > >> less than what I have written.
> > >
> > > It has no errors.
> > The text is FULL of errors.
> Einsteins' 1905 relativity papers has no errors.

Poor idiot was mumbling inconsistently with basic
definitions, but a blind fanatic worshipper can never
see.

Re: Annotated version of SRT

<jdjv29Fm4q8U1@mid.individual.net>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=89759&group=sci.physics.relativity#89759

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.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: Fri, 06 May 2022 08:55:06 +0200
Lines: 46
Message-ID: <jdjv29Fm4q8U1@mid.individual.net>
References: <jc76moF3oggU1@mid.individual.net> <jchimgF3l9qU1@mid.individual.net> <t40a6a$17t7$1@gioia.aioe.org> <t40i8v$e99$1@gioia.aioe.org> <jck7oqFj9orU1@mid.individual.net> <b3816797-e144-415f-a0cc-210dfb533137n@googlegroups.com> <jcn29aF5f6dU1@mid.individual.net> <03cc52d5-9636-485a-a9f3-7c8350619c31n@googlegroups.com> <jcpcmoFj8lpU1@mid.individual.net> <b5b02531-42cc-4714-9799-1043df76199fn@googlegroups.com> <jcr2n2Ftcv2U1@mid.individual.net> <eacd0116-ac91-4cea-bcd2-35aa422bf510n@googlegroups.com> <jcum4nFjnusU1@mid.individual.net> <t4eg8l$cal$5@gioia.aioe.org> <jd1egjF5iktU1@mid.individual.net> <t4gn2d$103s$2@gioia.aioe.org> <jd6sulF6r8bU1@mid.individual.net> <t4ltn8$18d6$1@gioia.aioe.org> <jd9ah1Fl21cU1@mid.individual.net> <6d94bbeb-a2c5-419a-b266-9da8392b3870n@googlegroups.com> <jdef6bFkkvpU1@mid.individual.net> <0837699b-4179-4249-9a72-98371b5c05b8n@googlegroups.com> <jdhb42F6rmbU1@mid.individual.net> <aee5dec3-f2e0-4307-9827-14feb5a3ea8dn@googlegroups.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: individual.net Lzbxds5OtF/yIwb6jWZzIQuizH0WpqKdJ0rqRAXcmfmNiF7ePw
Cancel-Lock: sha1:TuJG7dXPtNno1Jq37bSZV3TIqac=
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.0; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0
In-Reply-To: <aee5dec3-f2e0-4307-9827-14feb5a3ea8dn@googlegroups.com>
 by: Thomas Heger - Fri, 6 May 2022 06:55 UTC

Am 06.05.2022 um 07:17 schrieb JanPB:
> On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 12:02:30 AM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
>> Am 04.05.2022 um 10:02 schrieb JanPB:
>> ..
>>>> This give a lot of insight into the topic in question. This learning
>>>> process is supported by discussions about the topic in public forums,
>>>> which are maintained by attacking the text and its author.
>>>>
>>>> Now Einstein's text seems to have real errors in it, though a little
>>>> less than what I have written.
>>>
>>> It has no errors.
>> The text is FULL of errors.
>
> Einsteins' 1905 relativity papers has no errors.

Impossiblity is very difficult to prove, but very easy to disprove.

It takes only one single error, which you are unable to reject and your
hypothesis is proven to be wrong.

I take this quote of Einstein from page 6:

"...a point at rest in the system k must have a system of values x', y,
z, independent of time. "

This 'point at rest in k' is called (xsi, 0, 0) in k-coordinates, where
xsi is a fixed but otherwise arbitrary value.

In four-vector form in K this point has the four-vector
(xsi- v*t, 0, 0, t)

which is not independent of time.

It cannot be independent of time, because a point at rest in k is moving
in K. And movement is depending on time.

The use of K as coordinate system would follow from the use of small
Latin letters x', y and z, because the variables were defined that way
(in k the variable names would be xsi, eta and zeta).

....

TH

Re: Annotated version of SRT

<b350576d-14cc-49fb-a22a-011ba34e5544n@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=89760&group=sci.physics.relativity#89760

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6214:b8e:b0:456:3674:ca6 with SMTP id fe14-20020a0562140b8e00b0045636740ca6mr1358283qvb.40.1651821874517;
Fri, 06 May 2022 00:24:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a37:ac2:0:b0:69f:bb93:aac7 with SMTP id
185-20020a370ac2000000b0069fbb93aac7mr1442846qkk.551.1651821874295; Fri, 06
May 2022 00:24:34 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!209.85.160.216.MISMATCH!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Date: Fri, 6 May 2022 00:24:34 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <jdjv29Fm4q8U1@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: <jc76moF3oggU1@mid.individual.net> <jchimgF3l9qU1@mid.individual.net>
<t40a6a$17t7$1@gioia.aioe.org> <t40i8v$e99$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<jck7oqFj9orU1@mid.individual.net> <b3816797-e144-415f-a0cc-210dfb533137n@googlegroups.com>
<jcn29aF5f6dU1@mid.individual.net> <03cc52d5-9636-485a-a9f3-7c8350619c31n@googlegroups.com>
<jcpcmoFj8lpU1@mid.individual.net> <b5b02531-42cc-4714-9799-1043df76199fn@googlegroups.com>
<jcr2n2Ftcv2U1@mid.individual.net> <eacd0116-ac91-4cea-bcd2-35aa422bf510n@googlegroups.com>
<jcum4nFjnusU1@mid.individual.net> <t4eg8l$cal$5@gioia.aioe.org>
<jd1egjF5iktU1@mid.individual.net> <t4gn2d$103s$2@gioia.aioe.org>
<jd6sulF6r8bU1@mid.individual.net> <t4ltn8$18d6$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<jd9ah1Fl21cU1@mid.individual.net> <6d94bbeb-a2c5-419a-b266-9da8392b3870n@googlegroups.com>
<jdef6bFkkvpU1@mid.individual.net> <0837699b-4179-4249-9a72-98371b5c05b8n@googlegroups.com>
<jdhb42F6rmbU1@mid.individual.net> <aee5dec3-f2e0-4307-9827-14feb5a3ea8dn@googlegroups.com>
<jdjv29Fm4q8U1@mid.individual.net>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <b350576d-14cc-49fb-a22a-011ba34e5544n@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Annotated version of SRT
From: maluwozn...@gmail.com (Maciej Wozniak)
Injection-Date: Fri, 06 May 2022 07:24:34 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
 by: Maciej Wozniak - Fri, 6 May 2022 07:24 UTC

On Friday, 6 May 2022 at 08:55:09 UTC+2, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 06.05.2022 um 07:17 schrieb JanPB:
> > On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 12:02:30 AM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
> >> Am 04.05.2022 um 10:02 schrieb JanPB:
> >> ..
> >>>> This give a lot of insight into the topic in question. This learning
> >>>> process is supported by discussions about the topic in public forums,
> >>>> which are maintained by attacking the text and its author.
> >>>>
> >>>> Now Einstein's text seems to have real errors in it, though a little
> >>>> less than what I have written.
> >>>
> >>> It has no errors.
> >> The text is FULL of errors.
> >
> > Einsteins' 1905 relativity papers has no errors.
> Impossiblity is very difficult to prove, but very easy to disprove.

You're trying for some years with no success. No, it's not.

Re: Annotated version of SRT

<60f21ac0-1bf9-49a7-9c86-89e270fc07cbn@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=89761&group=sci.physics.relativity#89761

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6214:21a7:b0:441:1434:eafd with SMTP id t7-20020a05621421a700b004411434eafdmr1469582qvc.77.1651824955312;
Fri, 06 May 2022 01:15:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:1036:b0:69f:d57d:8136 with SMTP id
a22-20020a05620a103600b0069fd57d8136mr1467243qkk.671.1651824955078; Fri, 06
May 2022 01:15:55 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!paganini.bofh.team!pasdenom.info!nntpfeed.proxad.net!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!209.85.160.216.MISMATCH!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Date: Fri, 6 May 2022 01:15:54 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <jdjv29Fm4q8U1@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: <jc76moF3oggU1@mid.individual.net> <jchimgF3l9qU1@mid.individual.net>
<t40a6a$17t7$1@gioia.aioe.org> <t40i8v$e99$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<jck7oqFj9orU1@mid.individual.net> <b3816797-e144-415f-a0cc-210dfb533137n@googlegroups.com>
<jcn29aF5f6dU1@mid.individual.net> <03cc52d5-9636-485a-a9f3-7c8350619c31n@googlegroups.com>
<jcpcmoFj8lpU1@mid.individual.net> <b5b02531-42cc-4714-9799-1043df76199fn@googlegroups.com>
<jcr2n2Ftcv2U1@mid.individual.net> <eacd0116-ac91-4cea-bcd2-35aa422bf510n@googlegroups.com>
<jcum4nFjnusU1@mid.individual.net> <t4eg8l$cal$5@gioia.aioe.org>
<jd1egjF5iktU1@mid.individual.net> <t4gn2d$103s$2@gioia.aioe.org>
<jd6sulF6r8bU1@mid.individual.net> <t4ltn8$18d6$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<jd9ah1Fl21cU1@mid.individual.net> <6d94bbeb-a2c5-419a-b266-9da8392b3870n@googlegroups.com>
<jdef6bFkkvpU1@mid.individual.net> <0837699b-4179-4249-9a72-98371b5c05b8n@googlegroups.com>
<jdhb42F6rmbU1@mid.individual.net> <aee5dec3-f2e0-4307-9827-14feb5a3ea8dn@googlegroups.com>
<jdjv29Fm4q8U1@mid.individual.net>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <60f21ac0-1bf9-49a7-9c86-89e270fc07cbn@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Annotated version of SRT
From: film...@gmail.com (JanPB)
Injection-Date: Fri, 06 May 2022 08:15:55 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
 by: JanPB - Fri, 6 May 2022 08:15 UTC

On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 11:55:09 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 06.05.2022 um 07:17 schrieb JanPB:
> > On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 12:02:30 AM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
> >> Am 04.05.2022 um 10:02 schrieb JanPB:
> >> ..
> >>>> This give a lot of insight into the topic in question. This learning
> >>>> process is supported by discussions about the topic in public forums,
> >>>> which are maintained by attacking the text and its author.
> >>>>
> >>>> Now Einstein's text seems to have real errors in it, though a little
> >>>> less than what I have written.
> >>>
> >>> It has no errors.
> >> The text is FULL of errors.
> >
> > Einsteins' 1905 relativity papers has no errors.
> Impossiblity is very difficult to prove, but very easy to disprove.

In this case it's very easy to prove. The paper describes a certain
whole and all its moving parts can be easily checked.

> It takes only one single error, which you are unable to reject and your
> hypothesis is proven to be wrong.

Sure, but in this case is a fantasy.

> I take this quote of Einstein from page 6:
>
> "...a point at rest in the system k must have a system of values x', y,
> z, independent of time. "
>
> This 'point at rest in k' is called (xsi, 0, 0) in k-coordinates, where
> xsi is a fixed but otherwise arbitrary value.
>
> In four-vector form in K this point has the four-vector
> (xsi- v*t, 0, 0, t)

It was explained to you many times that your reasoning is incorrect.
So I won't repeat the correct argument again.

> which is not independent of time.

Not even wrong.

> It cannot be independent of time,

It doesn't matter. You base this on an incorrect assumption, so
naturally you end up with a piece of nonsense.

--
Jan

Re: Annotated version of SRT

<8757c901-9240-4a19-bbad-79c6b4396469n@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=89762&group=sci.physics.relativity#89762

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:44d4:b0:6a0:2342:c7c6 with SMTP id y20-20020a05620a44d400b006a02342c7c6mr1567560qkp.14.1651826500661;
Fri, 06 May 2022 01:41:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:424c:b0:67d:2bad:4450 with SMTP id
w12-20020a05620a424c00b0067d2bad4450mr1533899qko.171.1651826500506; Fri, 06
May 2022 01:41:40 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!paganini.bofh.team!pasdenom.info!usenet-fr.net!fdn.fr!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!209.85.160.216.MISMATCH!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Date: Fri, 6 May 2022 01:41:40 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <60f21ac0-1bf9-49a7-9c86-89e270fc07cbn@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: <jc76moF3oggU1@mid.individual.net> <jchimgF3l9qU1@mid.individual.net>
<t40a6a$17t7$1@gioia.aioe.org> <t40i8v$e99$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<jck7oqFj9orU1@mid.individual.net> <b3816797-e144-415f-a0cc-210dfb533137n@googlegroups.com>
<jcn29aF5f6dU1@mid.individual.net> <03cc52d5-9636-485a-a9f3-7c8350619c31n@googlegroups.com>
<jcpcmoFj8lpU1@mid.individual.net> <b5b02531-42cc-4714-9799-1043df76199fn@googlegroups.com>
<jcr2n2Ftcv2U1@mid.individual.net> <eacd0116-ac91-4cea-bcd2-35aa422bf510n@googlegroups.com>
<jcum4nFjnusU1@mid.individual.net> <t4eg8l$cal$5@gioia.aioe.org>
<jd1egjF5iktU1@mid.individual.net> <t4gn2d$103s$2@gioia.aioe.org>
<jd6sulF6r8bU1@mid.individual.net> <t4ltn8$18d6$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<jd9ah1Fl21cU1@mid.individual.net> <6d94bbeb-a2c5-419a-b266-9da8392b3870n@googlegroups.com>
<jdef6bFkkvpU1@mid.individual.net> <0837699b-4179-4249-9a72-98371b5c05b8n@googlegroups.com>
<jdhb42F6rmbU1@mid.individual.net> <aee5dec3-f2e0-4307-9827-14feb5a3ea8dn@googlegroups.com>
<jdjv29Fm4q8U1@mid.individual.net> <60f21ac0-1bf9-49a7-9c86-89e270fc07cbn@googlegroups.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <8757c901-9240-4a19-bbad-79c6b4396469n@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Annotated version of SRT
From: maluwozn...@gmail.com (Maciej Wozniak)
Injection-Date: Fri, 06 May 2022 08:41:40 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
 by: Maciej Wozniak - Fri, 6 May 2022 08:41 UTC

On Friday, 6 May 2022 at 10:15:56 UTC+2, JanPB wrote:
> On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 11:55:09 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
> > Am 06.05.2022 um 07:17 schrieb JanPB:
> > > On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 12:02:30 AM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
> > >> Am 04.05.2022 um 10:02 schrieb JanPB:
> > >> ..
> > >>>> This give a lot of insight into the topic in question. This learning
> > >>>> process is supported by discussions about the topic in public forums,
> > >>>> which are maintained by attacking the text and its author.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Now Einstein's text seems to have real errors in it, though a little
> > >>>> less than what I have written.
> > >>>
> > >>> It has no errors.
> > >> The text is FULL of errors.
> > >
> > > Einsteins' 1905 relativity papers has no errors.
> > Impossiblity is very difficult to prove, but very easy to disprove.
> In this case it's very easy to prove.

A fanatic idiot will assert and wave his arms; it's very
easy.

Re: Annotated version of SRT

<t53a60$sct$1@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=89768&group=sci.physics.relativity#89768

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: mikko.le...@iki.fi (Mikko)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Subject: Re: Annotated version of SRT
Date: Fri, 6 May 2022 17:09:04 +0300
Organization: -
Lines: 23
Message-ID: <t53a60$sct$1@dont-email.me>
References: <jaaflrFde2kU1@mid.individual.net> <t40a6a$17t7$1@gioia.aioe.org> <t40i8v$e99$1@gioia.aioe.org> <jck7oqFj9orU1@mid.individual.net> <b3816797-e144-415f-a0cc-210dfb533137n@googlegroups.com> <jcn29aF5f6dU1@mid.individual.net> <03cc52d5-9636-485a-a9f3-7c8350619c31n@googlegroups.com> <jcpcmoFj8lpU1@mid.individual.net> <b5b02531-42cc-4714-9799-1043df76199fn@googlegroups.com> <jcr2n2Ftcv2U1@mid.individual.net> <eacd0116-ac91-4cea-bcd2-35aa422bf510n@googlegroups.com> <jcum4nFjnusU1@mid.individual.net> <t4eg8l$cal$5@gioia.aioe.org> <jd1egjF5iktU1@mid.individual.net> <t4gn2d$103s$2@gioia.aioe.org> <jd6sulF6r8bU1@mid.individual.net> <t4ltn8$18d6$1@gioia.aioe.org> <jd9ah1Fl21cU1@mid.individual.net> <6d94bbeb-a2c5-419a-b266-9da8392b3870n@googlegroups.com> <jdef6bFkkvpU1@mid.individual.net> <0837699b-4179-4249-9a72-98371b5c05b8n@googlegroups.com> <jdhb42F6rmbU1@mid.individual.net> <aee5dec3-f2e0-4307-9827-14feb5a3ea8dn@googlegroups.com> <jdjv29Fm4q8U1@mid.individual.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="5574b30bf5ce86abab3a64838ccbeb32";
logging-data="29085"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX198Sh752jxZ8DY4g0wLluCA"
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:unrqD/bmsDi88cDbZc9wF16RwMI=
 by: Mikko - Fri, 6 May 2022 14:09 UTC

On 2022-05-06 06:55:06 +0000, Thomas Heger said:

> It takes only one single error, which you are unable to reject and your
> hypothesis is proven to be wrong.

It takes only one single error in your annotations and all your
annotations are proven to be not worth of attention.

> This 'point at rest in k' is called (xsi, 0, 0) in k-coordinates, where
> xsi is a fixed but otherwise arbitrary value.
>
> In four-vector form in K this point has the four-vector
> (xsi- v*t, 0, 0, t)

Wrong. There is no ksi in K. In K this point has the four-vector
(x - vt, 0, 0, t)
which can be written
(x', 0, 0, t)
where x' is independent of time.

Mikko

Re: Annotated version of SRT

<jdmdrlF5vtoU1@mid.individual.net>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=89792&group=sci.physics.relativity#89792

 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, 07 May 2022 07:19:50 +0200
Lines: 79
Message-ID: <jdmdrlF5vtoU1@mid.individual.net>
References: <jc76moF3oggU1@mid.individual.net> <jck7oqFj9orU1@mid.individual.net> <b3816797-e144-415f-a0cc-210dfb533137n@googlegroups.com> <jcn29aF5f6dU1@mid.individual.net> <03cc52d5-9636-485a-a9f3-7c8350619c31n@googlegroups.com> <jcpcmoFj8lpU1@mid.individual.net> <b5b02531-42cc-4714-9799-1043df76199fn@googlegroups.com> <jcr2n2Ftcv2U1@mid.individual.net> <eacd0116-ac91-4cea-bcd2-35aa422bf510n@googlegroups.com> <jcum4nFjnusU1@mid.individual.net> <t4eg8l$cal$5@gioia.aioe.org> <jd1egjF5iktU1@mid.individual.net> <t4gn2d$103s$2@gioia.aioe.org> <jd6sulF6r8bU1@mid.individual.net> <t4ltn8$18d6$1@gioia.aioe.org> <jd9ah1Fl21cU1@mid.individual.net> <6d94bbeb-a2c5-419a-b266-9da8392b3870n@googlegroups.com> <jdef6bFkkvpU1@mid.individual.net> <0837699b-4179-4249-9a72-98371b5c05b8n@googlegroups.com> <jdhb42F6rmbU1@mid.individual.net> <aee5dec3-f2e0-4307-9827-14feb5a3ea8dn@googlegroups.com> <jdjv29Fm4q8U1@mid.individual.net> <60f21ac0-1bf9-49a7-9c86-89e270fc07cbn@googlegroups.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: individual.net AXw7rJ6tDHf51v3EaCLHRQtnDqL/pFGEzizbslT0fP+S8+8Kug
Cancel-Lock: sha1:UB8RF35DnIWoxz37iDUYdKDKxTg=
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.0; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0
In-Reply-To: <60f21ac0-1bf9-49a7-9c86-89e270fc07cbn@googlegroups.com>
 by: Thomas Heger - Sat, 7 May 2022 05:19 UTC

Am 06.05.2022 um 10:15 schrieb JanPB:
> On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 11:55:09 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
>> Am 06.05.2022 um 07:17 schrieb JanPB:
>>> On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 12:02:30 AM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>> Am 04.05.2022 um 10:02 schrieb JanPB:
>>>> ..
>>>>>> This give a lot of insight into the topic in question. This learning
>>>>>> process is supported by discussions about the topic in public forums,
>>>>>> which are maintained by attacking the text and its author.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Now Einstein's text seems to have real errors in it, though a little
>>>>>> less than what I have written.
>>>>>
>>>>> It has no errors.
>>>> The text is FULL of errors.
>>>
>>> Einsteins' 1905 relativity papers has no errors.
>> Impossiblity is very difficult to prove, but very easy to disprove.
>
> In this case it's very easy to prove. The paper describes a certain
> whole and all its moving parts can be easily checked.
>
>> It takes only one single error, which you are unable to reject and your
>> hypothesis is proven to be wrong.
>
> Sure, but in this case is a fantasy.
>
>> I take this quote of Einstein from page 6:
>>
>> "...a point at rest in the system k must have a system of values x', y,
>> z, independent of time. "
>>
>> This 'point at rest in k' is called (xsi, 0, 0) in k-coordinates, where
>> xsi is a fixed but otherwise arbitrary value.
>>
>> In four-vector form in K this point has the four-vector
>> (xsi- v*t, 0, 0, t)
>
> It was explained to you many times that your reasoning is incorrect.
> So I won't repeat the correct argument again.

Ok, you're right, because it should say x= xsi+ v*t, of course.

>> which is not independent of time.
>
> Not even wrong.

No, because 'independent of time' means 'its equation had a constant
value for time or no timer component at all'.

But x= xsi+ v*t contains t, which is not a constant.

>
>> It cannot be independent of time,
>
> It doesn't matter. You base this on an incorrect assumption, so
> naturally you end up with a piece of nonsense.

Would you be so kind and tell me, which assumption is wrong?

I see a VERY simple equation, which is not independet of time:
(x= xsi+ v*t)
while Einstein wrote, it would be independent of time.

To me this looks like an error and I would like to see, how you are able
to defend that statement.

You could just as well claim, that seven is an even number, what is
simply not the case. But you apparently hope, that nobody would follow
your arguments and wouldn't even care about what is right and what is wrong.

TH

Re: Annotated version of SRT

<jdmejrF64u5U1@mid.individual.net>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=89794&group=sci.physics.relativity#89794

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!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, 07 May 2022 07:32:44 +0200
Lines: 44
Message-ID: <jdmejrF64u5U1@mid.individual.net>
References: <jaaflrFde2kU1@mid.individual.net> <t40i8v$e99$1@gioia.aioe.org> <jck7oqFj9orU1@mid.individual.net> <b3816797-e144-415f-a0cc-210dfb533137n@googlegroups.com> <jcn29aF5f6dU1@mid.individual.net> <03cc52d5-9636-485a-a9f3-7c8350619c31n@googlegroups.com> <jcpcmoFj8lpU1@mid.individual.net> <b5b02531-42cc-4714-9799-1043df76199fn@googlegroups.com> <jcr2n2Ftcv2U1@mid.individual.net> <eacd0116-ac91-4cea-bcd2-35aa422bf510n@googlegroups.com> <jcum4nFjnusU1@mid.individual.net> <t4eg8l$cal$5@gioia.aioe.org> <jd1egjF5iktU1@mid.individual.net> <t4gn2d$103s$2@gioia.aioe.org> <jd6sulF6r8bU1@mid.individual.net> <t4ltn8$18d6$1@gioia.aioe.org> <jd9ah1Fl21cU1@mid.individual.net> <6d94bbeb-a2c5-419a-b266-9da8392b3870n@googlegroups.com> <jdef6bFkkvpU1@mid.individual.net> <0837699b-4179-4249-9a72-98371b5c05b8n@googlegroups.com> <jdhb42F6rmbU1@mid.individual.net> <aee5dec3-f2e0-4307-9827-14feb5a3ea8dn@googlegroups.com> <jdjv29Fm4q8U1@mid.individual.net> <t53a60$sct$1@dont-email.me>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: individual.net vf0zUtDpq/k9t+cGvHMdXQlNOx1sfQyiUEOBP8Hmpla1oaZqW0
Cancel-Lock: sha1:8lwiC4520+kLKg8RlrUmmEJJvuc=
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.0; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0
In-Reply-To: <t53a60$sct$1@dont-email.me>
 by: Thomas Heger - Sat, 7 May 2022 05:32 UTC

Am 06.05.2022 um 16:09 schrieb Mikko:
> On 2022-05-06 06:55:06 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
>
>> It takes only one single error, which you are unable to reject and
>> your hypothesis is proven to be wrong.
>
> It takes only one single error in your annotations and all your
> annotations are proven to be not worth of attention.
>
>> This 'point at rest in k' is called (xsi, 0, 0) in k-coordinates,
>> where xsi is a fixed but otherwise arbitrary value.
>>
>> In four-vector form in K this point has the four-vector
>> (xsi- v*t, 0, 0, t)
>
> Wrong. There is no ksi in K. In K this point has the four-vector
> (x - vt, 0, 0, t)

xsi is a variable, which contains a numerical value without a unit.

This value is the numerical value of the xsi-coordinate of a point at
rest in k.

The same point has a x-coordinate in K, too.

Now we like to perform a coordinate transformation between k and K and
convert (xsi, 0, 0 ) in k into (x,y,z) in K.

This is quite easy, as the system k is related to K as if a copy of K
would slide along the x-axis of K into the positive direction, which
leaves the other coordinates (y and z) unaltered.

Now a certain point at rest in k would move in K to the right (the
direction of higher values) according to x= xsi + v*t.

(If you have trouble with that equation, you should search for another
occupation.)

That point in four vector form in K would be
(xsi + v*t, 0, 0, t), what is not independent of time.

TH

Re: Annotated version of SRT

<59b45a30-48b0-430c-8910-fab1ff643051n@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=89803&group=sci.physics.relativity#89803

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
X-Received: by 2002:ac8:5742:0:b0:2f3:8678:2c1 with SMTP id 2-20020ac85742000000b002f3867802c1mr6058930qtx.465.1651909127033;
Sat, 07 May 2022 00:38:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a37:6786:0:b0:6a0:59f1:d8ae with SMTP id
b128-20020a376786000000b006a059f1d8aemr537633qkc.649.1651909126733; Sat, 07
May 2022 00:38:46 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!feeder1.feed.usenet.farm!feed.usenet.farm!news-out.netnews.com!news.alt.net!fdc2.netnews.com!peer01.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.com!peer01.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Date: Sat, 7 May 2022 00:38:46 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <jdmdrlF5vtoU1@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: <jc76moF3oggU1@mid.individual.net> <jck7oqFj9orU1@mid.individual.net>
<b3816797-e144-415f-a0cc-210dfb533137n@googlegroups.com> <jcn29aF5f6dU1@mid.individual.net>
<03cc52d5-9636-485a-a9f3-7c8350619c31n@googlegroups.com> <jcpcmoFj8lpU1@mid.individual.net>
<b5b02531-42cc-4714-9799-1043df76199fn@googlegroups.com> <jcr2n2Ftcv2U1@mid.individual.net>
<eacd0116-ac91-4cea-bcd2-35aa422bf510n@googlegroups.com> <jcum4nFjnusU1@mid.individual.net>
<t4eg8l$cal$5@gioia.aioe.org> <jd1egjF5iktU1@mid.individual.net>
<t4gn2d$103s$2@gioia.aioe.org> <jd6sulF6r8bU1@mid.individual.net>
<t4ltn8$18d6$1@gioia.aioe.org> <jd9ah1Fl21cU1@mid.individual.net>
<6d94bbeb-a2c5-419a-b266-9da8392b3870n@googlegroups.com> <jdef6bFkkvpU1@mid.individual.net>
<0837699b-4179-4249-9a72-98371b5c05b8n@googlegroups.com> <jdhb42F6rmbU1@mid.individual.net>
<aee5dec3-f2e0-4307-9827-14feb5a3ea8dn@googlegroups.com> <jdjv29Fm4q8U1@mid.individual.net>
<60f21ac0-1bf9-49a7-9c86-89e270fc07cbn@googlegroups.com> <jdmdrlF5vtoU1@mid.individual.net>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <59b45a30-48b0-430c-8910-fab1ff643051n@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Annotated version of SRT
From: film...@gmail.com (JanPB)
Injection-Date: Sat, 07 May 2022 07:38:47 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-Received-Bytes: 5500
 by: JanPB - Sat, 7 May 2022 07:38 UTC

On Friday, May 6, 2022 at 10:19:54 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 06.05.2022 um 10:15 schrieb JanPB:
> > On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 11:55:09 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
> >> Am 06.05.2022 um 07:17 schrieb JanPB:
> >>> On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 12:02:30 AM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
> >>>> Am 04.05.2022 um 10:02 schrieb JanPB:
> >>>> ..
> >>>>>> This give a lot of insight into the topic in question. This learning
> >>>>>> process is supported by discussions about the topic in public forums,
> >>>>>> which are maintained by attacking the text and its author.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Now Einstein's text seems to have real errors in it, though a little
> >>>>>> less than what I have written.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It has no errors.
> >>>> The text is FULL of errors.
> >>>
> >>> Einsteins' 1905 relativity papers has no errors.
> >> Impossiblity is very difficult to prove, but very easy to disprove.
> >
> > In this case it's very easy to prove. The paper describes a certain
> > whole and all its moving parts can be easily checked.
> >
> >> It takes only one single error, which you are unable to reject and your
> >> hypothesis is proven to be wrong.
> >
> > Sure, but in this case is a fantasy.
> >
> >> I take this quote of Einstein from page 6:
> >>
> >> "...a point at rest in the system k must have a system of values x', y,
> >> z, independent of time. "
> >>
> >> This 'point at rest in k' is called (xsi, 0, 0) in k-coordinates, where
> >> xsi is a fixed but otherwise arbitrary value.
> >>
> >> In four-vector form in K this point has the four-vector
> >> (xsi- v*t, 0, 0, t)
> >
> > It was explained to you many times that your reasoning is incorrect.
> > So I won't repeat the correct argument again.
> Ok, you're right, because it should say x= xsi+ v*t, of course.

No, this is also incorrect.

> >> which is not independent of time.
> >
> > Not even wrong.
> No, because 'independent of time' means 'its equation had a constant
> value for time or no timer component at all'.
>
> But x= xsi+ v*t contains t, which is not a constant.

You are running in circles. It's all incorrect.

> >> It cannot be independent of time,
> >
> > It doesn't matter. You base this on an incorrect assumption, so
> > naturally you end up with a piece of nonsense.
> Would you be so kind and tell me, which assumption is wrong?

Your entire understanding of both the experimental setup and how
the K-coordinates are used to track it is wrong.

> I see a VERY simple equation, which is not independet of time:
> (x= xsi+ v*t)

This equation is incorrect.

> while Einstein wrote, it would be independent of time.

Einstein has a different equation (which I explained in full detail twice).

> To me this looks like an error and I would like to see, how you are able
> to defend that statement.

I already described it in full detail.

> You could just as well claim, that seven is an even number, what is
> simply not the case. But you apparently hope, that nobody would follow
> your arguments and wouldn't even care about what is right and what is wrong.

No, I described the setup exactly as Einstein did it, except I included
the (elementary-school-level) intermediate steps that Einstein omitted.

--
Jan

Pages:123456789101112131415161718
server_pubkey.txt

rocksolid light 0.9.7
clearnet tor