Rocksolid Light

Welcome to novaBBS (click a section below)

mail  files  register  newsreader  groups  login

Message-ID:  

Life's the same, except for the shoes. -- The Cars


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

<t55j44$n5g$1@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=89806&group=sci.physics.relativity#89806

 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: Sat, 7 May 2022 13:53:56 +0300
Organization: -
Lines: 64
Message-ID: <t55j44$n5g$1@dont-email.me>
References: <jaaflrFde2kU1@mid.individual.net> <jck7oqFj9orU1@mid.individual.net> <b3816797-e144-415f-a0cc-210dfb533137n@googlegroups.com> <jcn29aF5f6dU1@mid.individual.net> <03cc52d5-9636-485a-a9f3-7c8350619c31n@googlegroups.com> <jcpcmoFj8lpU1@mid.individual.net> <b5b02531-42cc-4714-9799-1043df76199fn@googlegroups.com> <jcr2n2Ftcv2U1@mid.individual.net> <eacd0116-ac91-4cea-bcd2-35aa422bf510n@googlegroups.com> <jcum4nFjnusU1@mid.individual.net> <t4eg8l$cal$5@gioia.aioe.org> <jd1egjF5iktU1@mid.individual.net> <t4gn2d$103s$2@gioia.aioe.org> <jd6sulF6r8bU1@mid.individual.net> <t4ltn8$18d6$1@gioia.aioe.org> <jd9ah1Fl21cU1@mid.individual.net> <6d94bbeb-a2c5-419a-b266-9da8392b3870n@googlegroups.com> <jdef6bFkkvpU1@mid.individual.net> <0837699b-4179-4249-9a72-98371b5c05b8n@googlegroups.com> <jdhb42F6rmbU1@mid.individual.net> <aee5dec3-f2e0-4307-9827-14feb5a3ea8dn@googlegroups.com> <jdjv29Fm4q8U1@mid.individual.net> <t53a60$sct$1@dont-email.me> <jdmejrF64u5U1@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="7912ac9993fbda481c8510299799bb77";
logging-data="23728"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19QFzKM5lCaZyq1LVAbxwiC"
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:ADyPdcWmcq26aAffg8HBcunRTP4=
 by: Mikko - Sat, 7 May 2022 10:53 UTC

On 2022-05-07 05:32:44 +0000, Thomas Heger said:

> 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.

The article does not specify whether variables have units. It is
not important. But it does specify that it is a coordinate in k.
How it relates to coordinates in K is not yet determined, so it
cannot be used in expressions oc coordinates of K.

> 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.

Which is as I stated above.

> 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.

Indeed. But first we need to find out how.

> 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.

So far good, althogh not self-evident.

> 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.

But this is not correct. The correct formula is not yet determined
but when it will be it will be different.

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

I don't, I can uderstand that it is unjustified and wrong.

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

No it wouldn't, as will be shown later in the article.

Mikko

Re: Annotated version of SRT

<adc39ee9-f2d7-4089-9c8a-2a63f0cb7103n@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=89809&group=sci.physics.relativity#89809

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
X-Received: by 2002:ac8:110a:0:b0:2f1:ea84:b84 with SMTP id c10-20020ac8110a000000b002f1ea840b84mr6883962qtj.463.1651925455704;
Sat, 07 May 2022 05:10:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:1257:b0:6a0:807:a5d9 with SMTP id
a23-20020a05620a125700b006a00807a5d9mr5625844qkl.0.1651925455537; Sat, 07 May
2022 05:10:55 -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: Sat, 7 May 2022 05:10:55 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <t55j44$n5g$1@dont-email.me>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=89.206.14.16; posting-account=I3DWzAoAAACOmZUdDcZ-C0PqAZGVsbW0
NNTP-Posting-Host: 89.206.14.16
References: <jaaflrFde2kU1@mid.individual.net> <jck7oqFj9orU1@mid.individual.net>
<b3816797-e144-415f-a0cc-210dfb533137n@googlegroups.com> <jcn29aF5f6dU1@mid.individual.net>
<03cc52d5-9636-485a-a9f3-7c8350619c31n@googlegroups.com> <jcpcmoFj8lpU1@mid.individual.net>
<b5b02531-42cc-4714-9799-1043df76199fn@googlegroups.com> <jcr2n2Ftcv2U1@mid.individual.net>
<eacd0116-ac91-4cea-bcd2-35aa422bf510n@googlegroups.com> <jcum4nFjnusU1@mid.individual.net>
<t4eg8l$cal$5@gioia.aioe.org> <jd1egjF5iktU1@mid.individual.net>
<t4gn2d$103s$2@gioia.aioe.org> <jd6sulF6r8bU1@mid.individual.net>
<t4ltn8$18d6$1@gioia.aioe.org> <jd9ah1Fl21cU1@mid.individual.net>
<6d94bbeb-a2c5-419a-b266-9da8392b3870n@googlegroups.com> <jdef6bFkkvpU1@mid.individual.net>
<0837699b-4179-4249-9a72-98371b5c05b8n@googlegroups.com> <jdhb42F6rmbU1@mid.individual.net>
<aee5dec3-f2e0-4307-9827-14feb5a3ea8dn@googlegroups.com> <jdjv29Fm4q8U1@mid.individual.net>
<t53a60$sct$1@dont-email.me> <jdmejrF64u5U1@mid.individual.net> <t55j44$n5g$1@dont-email.me>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <adc39ee9-f2d7-4089-9c8a-2a63f0cb7103n@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Annotated version of SRT
From: maluwozn...@gmail.com (Maciej Wozniak)
Injection-Date: Sat, 07 May 2022 12:10:55 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
 by: Maciej Wozniak - Sat, 7 May 2022 12:10 UTC

On Saturday, 7 May 2022 at 12:53:59 UTC+2, Mikko wrote:
> On 2022-05-07 05:32:44 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
>
> > 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.
> The article does not specify whether variables have units. It is
> not important.

Yes, it is important, very much, and your assertion is
idiotic.

Re: Annotated version of SRT

<jdp5sgFls44U1@mid.individual.net>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=89849&group=sci.physics.relativity#89849

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!usenet.goja.nl.eu.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: Sun, 08 May 2022 08:22:10 +0200
Lines: 106
Message-ID: <jdp5sgFls44U1@mid.individual.net>
References: <jc76moF3oggU1@mid.individual.net> <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> <59b45a30-48b0-430c-8910-fab1ff643051n@googlegroups.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: individual.net 1+r+ruASSm5mOCCP2byX+A76v2bqnwDZ4PmRLx2vZgldopsAqB
Cancel-Lock: sha1:nuI2YGAjbJhxfytdFb9k8m0pHtE=
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.0; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0
In-Reply-To: <59b45a30-48b0-430c-8910-fab1ff643051n@googlegroups.com>
 by: Thomas Heger - Sun, 8 May 2022 06:22 UTC

Am 07.05.2022 um 09:38 schrieb JanPB:

>>>> 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.

WHAT is 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 take ONLY the actual text as meaningful, not any other unmentioned
material. The text itself is, what I'm talking about. Therefore you
cannot use any other material, which is not explicitly quoted within the
text.

So: what Einstein wrote is valid (as his intention), not what you think
he should have written.

That's why you need to prove your claim by a quote from Einstein's text.

This text does in fact contain an 'experimental setup', even if
Einstein's text is hard to understand.

Now we are still discussing the question, how Einstein's words should be
understood.

We have here a simple situation: a beam is sent out by some source and
reflected back to its origin.

The question is now: which variables belong to which quantities.

This should not be a subject to debate in a good paper, but is in this case.

I interpreted the setup this way:

the emitter is placed in the zero spot of k at point xsi_0

the mirror is placed at some positive distance at the point xsi_mirror in k

the hole thing moves in K to 'the right' with velocity v

the moving setup is watched and measured from K with measures from K

Now k is a copy of K, which 'slides' along the x-axis of K with velocity v.

this allows to define the points xsi_0 and xsi_mirror from the
perspective of K with K-coordinates:

x'= x(xsi_mirror)=xsi_mirror + v*t
x(xsi_0)= x_0 + v*t

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

that is like saying
1+1=2 is incorrect.

you need to say, at least, what is incorrect any why.

>> while Einstein wrote, it would be independent of time.
>
> Einstein has a different equation (which I explained in full detail twice).

I wrote, several times now, that Einstein's equation was wrong.

....

TH

Re: Annotated version of SRT

<jdp6h3FlvhoU1@mid.individual.net>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=89850&group=sci.physics.relativity#89850

 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: Sun, 08 May 2022 08:33:09 +0200
Lines: 62
Message-ID: <jdp6h3FlvhoU1@mid.individual.net>
References: <jaaflrFde2kU1@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$1@dont-email.me> <jdmejrF64u5U1@mid.individual.net> <t55j44$n5g$1@dont-email.me>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: individual.net S+MDPji53UY3WldR9T3aEQdFO4yDlz9P99+ihISdL/wk3u4umm
Cancel-Lock: sha1:YoN+31dm9IA+Z235NlNmnp+ne+0=
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.0; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0
In-Reply-To: <t55j44$n5g$1@dont-email.me>
 by: Thomas Heger - Sun, 8 May 2022 06:33 UTC

Am 07.05.2022 um 12:53 schrieb Mikko:
> On 2022-05-07 05:32:44 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
>
>> 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.
>
> The article does not specify whether variables have units. It is
> not important. But it does specify that it is a coordinate in k.
> How it relates to coordinates in K is not yet determined, so it
> cannot be used in expressions oc coordinates of K.

Sure, but the text should have specified the used variables.

A missing part cannot be used as justification of something. Instead
missing parts are always treated, as if the author meant the wrong thing.

But we are generous in this case and marter our current brains to find a
valid solution.

So: unitless numerical values area a possible interpretation for
'coordinates', which inherit their meaning from the related coordinate
system.

Another prossible interpretation for a coordinate x would be a vector,
which contains values only in the x-position, while the others contain
zeros.

But we can be generous only once, hence must apply one interpretation to
all other occurances of the term 'coordinate'.

In any case, the term 'coordinate' can only have one meaning, hence
coordinates in k and K are treated on the same basis.

From this would follow, that we in fact can do, what you have rejected
and derive coordinates in K from coordinates in k.

....

TH

Re: Annotated version of SRT

<e5809d4b-1a2c-4e9b-be80-e17bb43a273en@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=89866&group=sci.physics.relativity#89866

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
X-Received: by 2002:a05:622a:1008:b0:2f3:cded:9075 with SMTP id d8-20020a05622a100800b002f3cded9075mr8143619qte.550.1652038428031;
Sun, 08 May 2022 12:33:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:ac8:5ac6:0:b0:2f3:a72e:e68c with SMTP id
d6-20020ac85ac6000000b002f3a72ee68cmr12017982qtd.210.1652038427705; Sun, 08
May 2022 12:33:47 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!usenet.goja.nl.eu.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: Sun, 8 May 2022 12:33:47 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <jdp5sgFls44U1@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> <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>
<59b45a30-48b0-430c-8910-fab1ff643051n@googlegroups.com> <jdp5sgFls44U1@mid.individual.net>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <e5809d4b-1a2c-4e9b-be80-e17bb43a273en@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Annotated version of SRT
From: film...@gmail.com (JanPB)
Injection-Date: Sun, 08 May 2022 19:33:48 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
 by: JanPB - Sun, 8 May 2022 19:33 UTC

On Saturday, May 7, 2022 at 11:22:14 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 07.05.2022 um 09:38 schrieb JanPB:
>
> >>>> 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.
> WHAT is incorrect?

The formula "x= xsi+ v*t" is incorrect. It describes nothing, it's like
writing "2+2=5".

> >>>> 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 take ONLY the actual text as meaningful, not any other unmentioned
> material.

No, you are not taking the actual text as meaningful, you are
inventing stuff that's not there. You are throwing away what
Einstein wrote and replacing it with your own content (which happens
to be nonsensical).

> The text itself is, what I'm talking about. Therefore you
> cannot use any other material, which is not explicitly quoted within the
> text.

Of course I can - this is what the entire notion of "explaining" is about.
You got confused by the x'-notation so I supplied the steps Einstein omits
(because they are elementary).

> So: what Einstein wrote is valid (as his intention), not what you think
> he should have written.

No, this is a silly, science doesn't work that way. To the intended audience
the text was (and is) very clear. There is no "what I think he should
have written" element in it.

Here is what your reasoning is:

(1) "I am right,"

(2) "And if anyone tries to explain anything to me, their argument doesn't
count because they use different words than Einstein".

Of course by that sort of "reasoning" you can prove anything about anything.

> That's why you need to prove your claim by a quote from Einstein's text.

One cannot "quote from Einstein text" the steps that Einstein (intentionally)
omits. Again: one does not include elementary explanations in a science
research paper. It's just not done. It's been that way for a very long time
(centuries) and it remains true today.

> This text does in fact contain an 'experimental setup', even if
> Einstein's text is hard to understand.

Maybe it is to some. But not because of the lack of elementary detail which
is the norm.

> Now we are still discussing the question, how Einstein's words should be
> understood.
>
> We have here a simple situation: a beam is sent out by some source and
> reflected back to its origin.
>
> The question is now: which variables belong to which quantities.
>
> This should not be a subject to debate in a good paper, but is in this case.

It's not an object of debate among the intended audience of the paper.
The text admits only one interpretation.

> I interpreted the setup this way:
>
> the emitter is placed in the zero spot of k at point xsi_0

At the point ksi_0 = 0.

> the mirror is placed at some positive distance at the point xsi_mirror in k

OK.

> the hole thing moves in K to 'the right' with velocity v

OK.

> the moving setup is watched and measured from K with measures from K

OK.

> Now k is a copy of K, which 'slides' along the x-axis of K with velocity v.

OK, except for the bizarre phrase "a copy of K".

> this allows to define the points xsi_0 and xsi_mirror from the
> perspective of K with K-coordinates:
>
> x'= x(xsi_mirror)=xsi_mirror + v*t

No, this is wrong. If you want to express the light source and mirror
situation through the measurements made by K, then you can only
use K-coordinates (no ksi).

OTOH if you want to express ksi in terms of K-coordinates, then you
have to derive that relationship first (as Einstein does a bit later). You
cannot just assume some random formula like "x'= x(xsi_mirror)=xsi_mirror + v*t"
(you are confusing the actual physical positions with *coordinate values*.
I understand what your intent is but you are expressing it in a mathematically
nonsensical manner.

> x(xsi_0)= x_0 + v*t
> >> I see a VERY simple equation, which is not independet of time:
> >> (x= xsi+ v*t)
> >
> > This equation is incorrect.
> that is like saying
> 1+1=2 is incorrect.

No, it's like saying "I live on the 30th floor because I put a sign
on my door that says "30th Floor"".

> you need to say, at least, what is incorrect any why.

I (and others) have stated it many times. You are presuming a
relationship between K and k coordinates that had not
been established yet.

> >> while Einstein wrote, it would be independent of time.
> >
> > Einstein has a different equation (which I explained in full detail twice).
> I wrote, several times now, that Einstein's equation was wrong.

It's not wrong. Your understanding of it is.

--
Jan

Re: Annotated version of SRT

<f61a67e9-aea7-49f3-88f0-14976d053e9bn@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=89867&group=sci.physics.relativity#89867

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6214:528e:b0:45a:95ff:337f with SMTP id kj14-20020a056214528e00b0045a95ff337fmr11179976qvb.78.1652038493082;
Sun, 08 May 2022 12:34:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:ac8:7dc8:0:b0:2f3:db70:3406 with SMTP id
c8-20020ac87dc8000000b002f3db703406mr1491704qte.319.1652038492779; Sun, 08
May 2022 12:34:52 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!usenet.goja.nl.eu.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: Sun, 8 May 2022 12:34:52 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <jdp6h3FlvhoU1@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: <jaaflrFde2kU1@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$1@dont-email.me>
<jdmejrF64u5U1@mid.individual.net> <t55j44$n5g$1@dont-email.me> <jdp6h3FlvhoU1@mid.individual.net>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <f61a67e9-aea7-49f3-88f0-14976d053e9bn@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Annotated version of SRT
From: film...@gmail.com (JanPB)
Injection-Date: Sun, 08 May 2022 19:34:53 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
 by: JanPB - Sun, 8 May 2022 19:34 UTC

On Saturday, May 7, 2022 at 11:33:10 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 07.05.2022 um 12:53 schrieb Mikko:
> > On 2022-05-07 05:32:44 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
> >
> >> 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.
> >
> > The article does not specify whether variables have units. It is
> > not important. But it does specify that it is a coordinate in k.
> > How it relates to coordinates in K is not yet determined, so it
> > cannot be used in expressions oc coordinates of K.
> Sure, but the text should have specified the used variables.
>
> A missing part cannot be used as justification of something. Instead
> missing parts are always treated, as if the author meant the wrong thing.

Again, this is not a student textbook. The obvious steps are omitted.

--
Jan

Re: Annotated version of SRT

<jdrmk5F618sU1@mid.individual.net>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=89881&group=sci.physics.relativity#89881

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: ttt_...@web.de (Thomas Heger)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Subject: Re: Annotated version of SRT
Date: Mon, 09 May 2022 07:20:10 +0200
Lines: 70
Message-ID: <jdrmk5F618sU1@mid.individual.net>
References: <jaaflrFde2kU1@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$1@dont-email.me> <jdmejrF64u5U1@mid.individual.net> <t55j44$n5g$1@dont-email.me> <jdp6h3FlvhoU1@mid.individual.net> <f61a67e9-aea7-49f3-88f0-14976d053e9bn@googlegroups.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: individual.net DGqGGpyaFjg/+VRkUwccRAIljtCxdYMxLjQjn5JkFjm+XjTa3+
Cancel-Lock: sha1:kbOcYktFow38MaK2DJyDX4ZfO1I=
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.0; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0
In-Reply-To: <f61a67e9-aea7-49f3-88f0-14976d053e9bn@googlegroups.com>
 by: Thomas Heger - Mon, 9 May 2022 05:20 UTC

Am 08.05.2022 um 21:34 schrieb JanPB:
> On Saturday, May 7, 2022 at 11:33:10 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
>> Am 07.05.2022 um 12:53 schrieb Mikko:
>>> On 2022-05-07 05:32:44 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> The article does not specify whether variables have units. It is
>>> not important. But it does specify that it is a coordinate in k.
>>> How it relates to coordinates in K is not yet determined, so it
>>> cannot be used in expressions oc coordinates of K.
>> Sure, but the text should have specified the used variables.
>>
>> A missing part cannot be used as justification of something. Instead
>> missing parts are always treated, as if the author meant the wrong thing.
>
> Again, this is not a student textbook. The obvious steps are omitted.

I have no problem with missing obvious parts, but the with the missing
of necessary parts.

What I would regard as necessary and what was missing in Einstein's case
were:

a title for the introduction
a logical structure of the text with proper chapter systematic
numbers at the equations
usuable internal references
a list of used literature and other sources
quotes
mathematical proves
illustrations
definitions of used variables
definitions of selfcreated physical terms
a consistent naming system for variables

What I would regard as superflous were phrases like:

"...as usually understood at the present time..."
"...whereas the customary view draws a sharp distinction..."
"Insufficient consideration of this circumstance lies at the root of the
difficulties ..."
"In agreement with experience we further assume ..."
"In the first place it is clear that the equations must be linear..."
"After a simple calculation we obtain ..."
"In agreement with experiment and with other theories, we obtain ..."

TH

Re: Annotated version of SRT

<t5af19$und$1@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=89888&group=sci.physics.relativity#89888

 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: Mon, 9 May 2022 10:14:49 +0300
Organization: -
Lines: 48
Message-ID: <t5af19$und$1@dont-email.me>
References: <jaaflrFde2kU1@mid.individual.net> <jcn29aF5f6dU1@mid.individual.net> <03cc52d5-9636-485a-a9f3-7c8350619c31n@googlegroups.com> <jcpcmoFj8lpU1@mid.individual.net> <b5b02531-42cc-4714-9799-1043df76199fn@googlegroups.com> <jcr2n2Ftcv2U1@mid.individual.net> <eacd0116-ac91-4cea-bcd2-35aa422bf510n@googlegroups.com> <jcum4nFjnusU1@mid.individual.net> <t4eg8l$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$1@dont-email.me> <jdmejrF64u5U1@mid.individual.net> <t55j44$n5g$1@dont-email.me> <jdp6h3FlvhoU1@mid.individual.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="a53fbc0836eb6deba932b17b495cd9be";
logging-data="31469"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/KIuLPDBXOhG+GoS1G/cnj"
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:83yw2950lPqeNUPqMZ0BW9/UKOw=
 by: Mikko - Mon, 9 May 2022 07:14 UTC

On 2022-05-08 06:33:09 +0000, Thomas Heger said:

> Am 07.05.2022 um 12:53 schrieb Mikko:
>> On 2022-05-07 05:32:44 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> The article does not specify whether variables have units. It is
>> not important. But it does specify that it is a coordinate in k.
>> How it relates to coordinates in K is not yet determined, so it
>> cannot be used in expressions oc coordinates of K.
>
> Sure, but the text should have specified the used variables.

Common well known convetions need not be respecified. Everything else
is well specified in the article.

> A missing part cannot be used as justification of something. Instead
> missing parts are always treated, as if the author meant the wrong
> thing.

Note the title of the article: "Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper".
The first word "zur" means that this is not a complete presentation
but merely some comments that might be interesting. The focus of the
article is in the new ideas. What is already known need not be presented
beyond some comments about their relation to the new stuff. If anuthing
remains unclear that shall be resolved in future work.

Mikko

Re: Annotated version of SRT

<216d8e3a-9787-4105-9e37-283041cccb06n@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=89889&group=sci.physics.relativity#89889

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6214:1c83:b0:443:6749:51f8 with SMTP id ib3-20020a0562141c8300b00443674951f8mr12224476qvb.74.1652081139242;
Mon, 09 May 2022 00:25:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:1036:b0:69f:d57d:8136 with SMTP id
a22-20020a05620a103600b0069fd57d8136mr10683245qkk.671.1652081139124; Mon, 09
May 2022 00:25:39 -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, 9 May 2022 00:25:38 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <t5af19$und$1@dont-email.me>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=89.206.14.16; posting-account=I3DWzAoAAACOmZUdDcZ-C0PqAZGVsbW0
NNTP-Posting-Host: 89.206.14.16
References: <jaaflrFde2kU1@mid.individual.net> <jcn29aF5f6dU1@mid.individual.net>
<03cc52d5-9636-485a-a9f3-7c8350619c31n@googlegroups.com> <jcpcmoFj8lpU1@mid.individual.net>
<b5b02531-42cc-4714-9799-1043df76199fn@googlegroups.com> <jcr2n2Ftcv2U1@mid.individual.net>
<eacd0116-ac91-4cea-bcd2-35aa422bf510n@googlegroups.com> <jcum4nFjnusU1@mid.individual.net>
<t4eg8l$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$1@dont-email.me> <jdmejrF64u5U1@mid.individual.net>
<t55j44$n5g$1@dont-email.me> <jdp6h3FlvhoU1@mid.individual.net> <t5af19$und$1@dont-email.me>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <216d8e3a-9787-4105-9e37-283041cccb06n@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Annotated version of SRT
From: maluwozn...@gmail.com (Maciej Wozniak)
Injection-Date: Mon, 09 May 2022 07:25:39 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
 by: Maciej Wozniak - Mon, 9 May 2022 07:25 UTC

On Monday, 9 May 2022 at 09:14:52 UTC+2, Mikko wrote:
> On 2022-05-08 06:33:09 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
>
> > Am 07.05.2022 um 12:53 schrieb Mikko:
> >> On 2022-05-07 05:32:44 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
> >>
> >>> 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.
> >>
> >> The article does not specify whether variables have units. It is
> >> not important. But it does specify that it is a coordinate in k.
> >> How it relates to coordinates in K is not yet determined, so it
> >> cannot be used in expressions oc coordinates of K.
> >
> > Sure, but the text should have specified the used variables.
> Common well known convetions need not be respecified. Everything else
> is well specified in the article.

No it is not, and considering the set of valid in 1905
(external) definitions - it's just an inconsistent mumble
of an insane maniac.

Re: Annotated version of SRT

<277be4be-c193-4051-95fc-d8bd93ddeec4n@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=89892&group=sci.physics.relativity#89892

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
X-Received: by 2002:ac8:59d4:0:b0:2f3:d13b:24e5 with SMTP id f20-20020ac859d4000000b002f3d13b24e5mr8100255qtf.58.1652088263027;
Mon, 09 May 2022 02:24:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:573:b0:69f:cf74:720 with SMTP id
p19-20020a05620a057300b0069fcf740720mr10722972qkp.683.1652088262762; Mon, 09
May 2022 02:24:22 -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, 9 May 2022 02:24:22 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <jdrmk5F618sU1@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: <jaaflrFde2kU1@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$1@dont-email.me>
<jdmejrF64u5U1@mid.individual.net> <t55j44$n5g$1@dont-email.me>
<jdp6h3FlvhoU1@mid.individual.net> <f61a67e9-aea7-49f3-88f0-14976d053e9bn@googlegroups.com>
<jdrmk5F618sU1@mid.individual.net>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <277be4be-c193-4051-95fc-d8bd93ddeec4n@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Annotated version of SRT
From: film...@gmail.com (JanPB)
Injection-Date: Mon, 09 May 2022 09:24:23 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
 by: JanPB - Mon, 9 May 2022 09:24 UTC

On Sunday, May 8, 2022 at 10:20:08 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 08.05.2022 um 21:34 schrieb JanPB:
> > On Saturday, May 7, 2022 at 11:33:10 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
> >> Am 07.05.2022 um 12:53 schrieb Mikko:
> >>> On 2022-05-07 05:32:44 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
> >>>
> >>>> 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.
> >>>
> >>> The article does not specify whether variables have units. It is
> >>> not important. But it does specify that it is a coordinate in k.
> >>> How it relates to coordinates in K is not yet determined, so it
> >>> cannot be used in expressions oc coordinates of K.
> >> Sure, but the text should have specified the used variables.
> >>
> >> A missing part cannot be used as justification of something. Instead
> >> missing parts are always treated, as if the author meant the wrong thing.
> >
> > Again, this is not a student textbook. The obvious steps are omitted.
> I have no problem with missing obvious parts, but the with the missing
> of necessary parts.
>
> What I would regard as necessary and what was missing in Einstein's case
> were:
>
> a title for the introduction
> a logical structure of the text with proper chapter systematic
> numbers at the equations
> usuable internal references
> a list of used literature and other sources
> quotes
> mathematical proves
> illustrations
> definitions of used variables
> definitions of selfcreated physical terms
> a consistent naming system for variables

Again, this is not a student textbook.

> What I would regard as superflous were phrases like:
>
> "...as usually understood at the present time..."
> "...whereas the customary view draws a sharp distinction..."
> "Insufficient consideration of this circumstance lies at the root of the
> difficulties ..."
> "In agreement with experience we further assume ..."
> "In the first place it is clear that the equations must be linear...."
> "After a simple calculation we obtain ..."
> "In agreement with experiment and with other theories, we obtain ..."

They are perfectly fine, some of them are very important.

None of your objections are valid, ir's all just silly nonsense.

--
Jan

Re: Annotated version of SRT

<a41f0ee0-eed8-4531-90fd-60e14f7d5df6n@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=89893&group=sci.physics.relativity#89893

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
X-Received: by 2002:a0c:c24e:0:b0:456:4217:8cb6 with SMTP id w14-20020a0cc24e000000b0045642178cb6mr12685835qvh.12.1652090699561;
Mon, 09 May 2022 03:04:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:45a7:b0:6a0:3399:c9ce with SMTP id
bp39-20020a05620a45a700b006a03399c9cemr10843578qkb.590.1652090699438; Mon, 09
May 2022 03:04:59 -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, 9 May 2022 03:04:59 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <277be4be-c193-4051-95fc-d8bd93ddeec4n@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: <jaaflrFde2kU1@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$1@dont-email.me>
<jdmejrF64u5U1@mid.individual.net> <t55j44$n5g$1@dont-email.me>
<jdp6h3FlvhoU1@mid.individual.net> <f61a67e9-aea7-49f3-88f0-14976d053e9bn@googlegroups.com>
<jdrmk5F618sU1@mid.individual.net> <277be4be-c193-4051-95fc-d8bd93ddeec4n@googlegroups.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <a41f0ee0-eed8-4531-90fd-60e14f7d5df6n@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Annotated version of SRT
From: maluwozn...@gmail.com (Maciej Wozniak)
Injection-Date: Mon, 09 May 2022 10:04:59 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
 by: Maciej Wozniak - Mon, 9 May 2022 10:04 UTC

On Monday, 9 May 2022 at 11:24:24 UTC+2, JanPB wrote:
> On Sunday, May 8, 2022 at 10:20:08 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
> > Am 08.05.2022 um 21:34 schrieb JanPB:
> > > On Saturday, May 7, 2022 at 11:33:10 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
> > >> Am 07.05.2022 um 12:53 schrieb Mikko:
> > >>> On 2022-05-07 05:32:44 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
> > >>>
> > >>>> 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..
> > >>>
> > >>> The article does not specify whether variables have units. It is
> > >>> not important. But it does specify that it is a coordinate in k.
> > >>> How it relates to coordinates in K is not yet determined, so it
> > >>> cannot be used in expressions oc coordinates of K.
> > >> Sure, but the text should have specified the used variables.
> > >>
> > >> A missing part cannot be used as justification of something. Instead
> > >> missing parts are always treated, as if the author meant the wrong thing.
> > >
> > > Again, this is not a student textbook. The obvious steps are omitted.
> > I have no problem with missing obvious parts, but the with the missing
> > of necessary parts.
> >
> > What I would regard as necessary and what was missing in Einstein's case
> > were:
> >
> > a title for the introduction
> > a logical structure of the text with proper chapter systematic
> > numbers at the equations
> > usuable internal references
> > a list of used literature and other sources
> > quotes
> > mathematical proves
> > illustrations
> > definitions of used variables
> > definitions of selfcreated physical terms
> > a consistent naming system for variables
>
> Again, this is not a student textbook.
>
> > What I would regard as superflous were phrases like:
> >
> > "...as usually understood at the present time..."
> > "...whereas the customary view draws a sharp distinction..."
> > "Insufficient consideration of this circumstance lies at the root of the
> > difficulties ..."
> > "In agreement with experience we further assume ..."
> > "In the first place it is clear that the equations must be linear..."
> > "After a simple calculation we obtain ..."
> > "In agreement with experiment and with other theories, we obtain ..."
> They are perfectly fine, some of them are very important.
>
> None of your objections are valid, ir's all just silly nonsense.

The ingenious Shit of our ingenious Giant Guru is
just ingenious!!! And who's not believing - is a
stupid crank!!! And an odious nazi kapo, and a
drunken janitor licking toilets, etc, etc, etc.

>
> --
> Jan

Re: Annotated version of SRT

<jduah6Flc3uU1@mid.individual.net>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=89967&group=sci.physics.relativity#89967

 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: Tue, 10 May 2022 07:12:12 +0200
Lines: 99
Message-ID: <jduah6Flc3uU1@mid.individual.net>
References: <jc76moF3oggU1@mid.individual.net> <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> <59b45a30-48b0-430c-8910-fab1ff643051n@googlegroups.com> <jdp5sgFls44U1@mid.individual.net> <e5809d4b-1a2c-4e9b-be80-e17bb43a273en@googlegroups.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: individual.net HCMVBWkCWhqKkTwNFF20wA9RDp2gIF+5AzIYox8Om/EzluDXrR
Cancel-Lock: sha1:m3NHS6ayHs/PJa1p4t6s+qDYAWs=
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.0; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0
In-Reply-To: <e5809d4b-1a2c-4e9b-be80-e17bb43a273en@googlegroups.com>
 by: Thomas Heger - Tue, 10 May 2022 05:12 UTC

Am 08.05.2022 um 21:33 schrieb JanPB:

>> Now we are still discussing the question, how Einstein's words should be
>> understood.
>>
>> We have here a simple situation: a beam is sent out by some source and
>> reflected back to its origin.
>>
>> The question is now: which variables belong to which quantities.
>>
>> This should not be a subject to debate in a good paper, but is in this case.
>
> It's not an object of debate among the intended audience of the paper.
> The text admits only one interpretation.

Sure, the intended audience would never ever dare to criticise a single
word of Einstein.

But authors do not chose their audience.

>> I interpreted the setup this way:
>>
>> the emitter is placed in the zero spot of k at point xsi_0
>
> At the point ksi_0 = 0.
>
>> the mirror is placed at some positive distance at the point xsi_mirror in k
>
> OK.
>
>> the hole thing moves in K to 'the right' with velocity v
>
> OK.
>
>> the moving setup is watched and measured from K with measures from K
>
> OK.
>
>> Now k is a copy of K, which 'slides' along the x-axis of K with velocity v.
>
> OK, except for the bizarre phrase "a copy of K".

A coordinate system is an imaginary construct, which humans have
invented to describe spatial relations.

Now we 'materialize' this construct, hence K is a 'thing' (which is
actually not).

This 'thing' gets duplicated and set into motion.

Then system k is a moving copy of K, which moves with velocity v along
the x-axis of K.

This is a mutual relation, hence K is also a moving copy of k, which
moves along the xsi-axis of k.

>> this allows to define the points xsi_0 and xsi_mirror from the
>> perspective of K with K-coordinates:
>>
>> x'= x(xsi_mirror)=xsi_mirror + v*t
>
> No, this is wrong. If you want to express the light source and mirror
> situation through the measurements made by K, then you can only
> use K-coordinates (no ksi).

This is in fact true. But the coordinates in K are not arbitrary, but
defined by given relations.

The relation between K and k was given and also the relation between the
points of emitter and mirror.

Now the zero spot of k is moving with xsi_0= x_0 + v*t, we can simply
transform this equation by a trivial operation to x_0= xsi_0 - v*t,
which we find in the text in a quite similar form.

Now xsi_0 was the position of the emitter and xsi_mirror was the
position of the mirror.

For a linear transformation we would expect xsi_mirror= x_mirror - v*t.

Actually Einstein had not written so, but x' would fit to x_mirror and x
to 'position of the emitter at xsi_0 = x_0 + v*t'.

Therefore x'= xsi_mirror + v*t.

> OTOH if you want to express ksi in terms of K-coordinates, then you
> have to derive that relationship first (as Einstein does a bit later). You
> cannot just assume some random formula like "x'= x(xsi_mirror)=xsi_mirror + v*t"
> (you are confusing the actual physical positions with *coordinate values*.
> I understand what your intent is but you are expressing it in a mathematically
> nonsensical manner.

???

....

TH

Re: Annotated version of SRT

<52fe5433-4dcd-434c-905f-44e649e5b8f5n@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=89971&group=sci.physics.relativity#89971

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
X-Received: by 2002:ac8:5f83:0:b0:2f3:dc9e:bb43 with SMTP id j3-20020ac85f83000000b002f3dc9ebb43mr7198764qta.171.1652167174993;
Tue, 10 May 2022 00:19:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a37:9c8b:0:b0:69f:8793:f2ef with SMTP id
f133-20020a379c8b000000b0069f8793f2efmr14774943qke.300.1652167174768; Tue, 10
May 2022 00:19:34 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!news.uzoreto.com!feeder1.cambriumusenet.nl!feed.tweak.nl!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: Tue, 10 May 2022 00:19:34 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <jduah6Flc3uU1@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> <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>
<59b45a30-48b0-430c-8910-fab1ff643051n@googlegroups.com> <jdp5sgFls44U1@mid.individual.net>
<e5809d4b-1a2c-4e9b-be80-e17bb43a273en@googlegroups.com> <jduah6Flc3uU1@mid.individual.net>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <52fe5433-4dcd-434c-905f-44e649e5b8f5n@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Annotated version of SRT
From: film...@gmail.com (JanPB)
Injection-Date: Tue, 10 May 2022 07:19:34 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
 by: JanPB - Tue, 10 May 2022 07:19 UTC

On Monday, May 9, 2022 at 10:12:10 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 08.05.2022 um 21:33 schrieb JanPB:
>
> >> Now we are still discussing the question, how Einstein's words should be
> >> understood.
> >>
> >> We have here a simple situation: a beam is sent out by some source and
> >> reflected back to its origin.
> >>
> >> The question is now: which variables belong to which quantities.
> >>
> >> This should not be a subject to debate in a good paper, but is in this case.
> >
> > It's not an object of debate among the intended audience of the paper.
> > The text admits only one interpretation.
> Sure, the intended audience would never ever dare to criticise a single
> word of Einstein.

Stop fantasising. This is not a James Bond film. When I said "It's not an
object of debate among the intended audience of the paper", I meant the
mathematics and the physics content of the paper has only one interpretation.

> But authors do not chose their audience.

You are now descending into some Never-never-land. A physics journal
like Annalen der Physik worked just like any other science journal.
They presume a certain audience, that's it. Same for bee keeping journals, etc.

> >> I interpreted the setup this way:
> >>
> >> the emitter is placed in the zero spot of k at point xsi_0
> >
> > At the point ksi_0 = 0.
> >
> >> the mirror is placed at some positive distance at the point xsi_mirror in k
> >
> > OK.
> >
> >> the hole thing moves in K to 'the right' with velocity v
> >
> > OK.
> >
> >> the moving setup is watched and measured from K with measures from K
> >
> > OK.
> >
> >> Now k is a copy of K, which 'slides' along the x-axis of K with velocity v.
> >
> > OK, except for the bizarre phrase "a copy of K".
> A coordinate system is an imaginary construct, which humans have
> invented to describe spatial relations.
>
> Now we 'materialize' this construct, hence K is a 'thing' (which is
> actually not).
>
> This 'thing' gets duplicated and set into motion.

This is a meaningless phrase but I know what you're trying to say.

> Then system k is a moving copy of K, which moves with velocity v along
> the x-axis of K.
>
> This is a mutual relation, hence K is also a moving copy of k, which
> moves along the xsi-axis of k.

"Moving copy" is undefined (but ditto).

> >> this allows to define the points xsi_0 and xsi_mirror from the
> >> perspective of K with K-coordinates:
> >>
> >> x'= x(xsi_mirror)=xsi_mirror + v*t
> >
> > No, this is wrong. If you want to express the light source and mirror
> > situation through the measurements made by K, then you can only
> > use K-coordinates (no ksi).
> This is in fact true. But the coordinates in K are not arbitrary, but
> defined by given relations.

So?

> The relation between K and k was given and also the relation between the
> points of emitter and mirror.

The only relation that's presumed to hold is the one involving the tau
coordinate (in the form of the equation (1/2)*(tau_0 + tau_2) = tau_1).

It's not obvious a priori that this equation does not overconstrain the
problem. It turns out that it does not.

> Now the zero spot of k is moving with xsi_0= x_0 + v*t,

This is an incorrect equation. You need to think this through.
You are conflating points in space with their coordinate values.
Remember that in those types of equations ksi_0, x_0, v, and t are
just *numbers*. So "xsi_0= x_0 + v*t" is a nonsense equation.
I understand you want to express the obvious fact that the origin
of k moves with speed v wrt K but this equation does not express it.

> we can simply
> transform this equation by a trivial operation to x_0= xsi_0 - v*t,
> which we find in the text in a quite similar form.
>
> Now xsi_0 was the position of the emitter and xsi_mirror was the
> position of the mirror.
>
> For a linear transformation we would expect xsi_mirror= x_mirror - v*t.
>
> Actually Einstein had not written so, but x' would fit to x_mirror and x
> to 'position of the emitter at xsi_0 = x_0 + v*t'.
>
> Therefore x'= xsi_mirror + v*t.

This is all incorrect.

--
Jan

Re: Annotated version of SRT

<je11f5F6lumU1@mid.individual.net>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=90036&group=sci.physics.relativity#90036

 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: Wed, 11 May 2022 07:55:54 +0200
Lines: 98
Message-ID: <je11f5F6lumU1@mid.individual.net>
References: <jc76moF3oggU1@mid.individual.net> <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> <59b45a30-48b0-430c-8910-fab1ff643051n@googlegroups.com> <jdp5sgFls44U1@mid.individual.net> <e5809d4b-1a2c-4e9b-be80-e17bb43a273en@googlegroups.com> <jduah6Flc3uU1@mid.individual.net> <52fe5433-4dcd-434c-905f-44e649e5b8f5n@googlegroups.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: individual.net mPLabJ2PV+6uu2dF9MqEXQprRrQ1vQulHhjm6mRncq9IqVmwpn
Cancel-Lock: sha1:gTY6gOBUn3Z2uOa3spVa49TQ2C4=
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.0; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0
In-Reply-To: <52fe5433-4dcd-434c-905f-44e649e5b8f5n@googlegroups.com>
 by: Thomas Heger - Wed, 11 May 2022 05:55 UTC

Am 10.05.2022 um 09:19 schrieb JanPB:

>> The relation between K and k was given and also the relation between the
>> points of emitter and mirror.
>
> The only relation that's presumed to hold is the one involving the tau
> coordinate (in the form of the equation (1/2)*(tau_0 + tau_2) = tau_1).
>
> It's not obvious a priori that this equation does not overconstrain the
> problem. It turns out that it does not.
>
>> Now the zero spot of k is moving with xsi_0= x_0 + v*t,
>
> This is an incorrect equation. You need to think this through.
> You are conflating points in space with their coordinate values.
> Remember that in those types of equations ksi_0, x_0, v, and t are
> just *numbers*. So "xsi_0= x_0 + v*t" is a nonsense equation.
> I understand you want to express the obvious fact that the origin
> of k moves with speed v wrt K but this equation does not express it.

My main critique of Einstein's text is about the use of the term 'space'
in it.

'Space' denotes very different things.

In real word cosmology, we use the term 'space' as name of what is
outside of our own realm on Earth.

But such a 'space' is actually an image, which we receive from the past,
hence unreal.

So, what we see in the night sky is not real, but a very distorted
picture, which is not even internally consistent.

A more 'natural' space would be Newton's absolute space. But,
unfortunately, that space is invisible and Einstein rejected it
existence, anyhow.

Another use of the term 'space' stems from mathematics, where the span
of n linearly independent vectors is called 'space'.

Now we need to pick the appropriate mathematical construct, which would
behave like physical space.

In such a space a physical point has a position in a coordinate system,
which could be described by the position vector of that point.

But this would not make physical points equal to position vectors. The
position of a point is only one of its features, but not the only one.

>> we can simply
>> transform this equation by a trivial operation to x_0= xsi_0 - v*t,
>> which we find in the text in a quite similar form.
>>
>> Now xsi_0 was the position of the emitter and xsi_mirror was the
>> position of the mirror.
>>
>> For a linear transformation we would expect xsi_mirror= x_mirror - v*t.
>>
>> Actually Einstein had not written so, but x' would fit to x_mirror and x
>> to 'position of the emitter at xsi_0 = x_0 + v*t'.
>>
>> Therefore x'= xsi_mirror + v*t.
>
> This is all incorrect.
>

No.

Actually you call 'incorrect', what is a very trivial consequence of the
used settings.

We have two coordinate systems (K and k). k is moving with velocity v
along the x-axis of K.

Therefore

x_0 (= zero spot of K) and xsi_0 (zero spot of k) are related as

x_0 +v*t=xsi_0

Meant with these variables were not points or vectors, but the numerical
values of the scalar components of position vectors.

Hence to any coordinate value in k I can simply add v*t and get the
coordinate values of the same point in relation to the korresponding
system K.

Since the variable x' means the coordinates of a point in k, but
measured with coordinates from K, we can simply add v*t to the
coordinate of the mirror in k, to get the coordinate values of the same
point in K.

TH

Re: Annotated version of SRT

<t5frtf$uli$1@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=90042&group=sci.physics.relativity#90042

 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: Wed, 11 May 2022 11:25:19 +0300
Organization: -
Lines: 66
Message-ID: <t5frtf$uli$1@dont-email.me>
References: <jaaflrFde2kU1@mid.individual.net> <eacd0116-ac91-4cea-bcd2-35aa422bf510n@googlegroups.com> <jcum4nFjnusU1@mid.individual.net> <t4eg8l$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> <59b45a30-48b0-430c-8910-fab1ff643051n@googlegroups.com> <jdp5sgFls44U1@mid.individual.net> <e5809d4b-1a2c-4e9b-be80-e17bb43a273en@googlegroups.com> <jduah6Flc3uU1@mid.individual.net> <52fe5433-4dcd-434c-905f-44e649e5b8f5n@googlegroups.com> <je11f5F6lumU1@mid.individual.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="208dc724b93e9e5b351c6a58f6341084";
logging-data="31410"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18Mo8tRIwusghhYba2PLGIC"
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:6btsjP6Rdm8YIY1cWdTZS5A4YGs=
 by: Mikko - Wed, 11 May 2022 08:25 UTC

On 2022-05-11 05:55:54 +0000, Thomas Heger said:

> Am 10.05.2022 um 09:19 schrieb JanPB:
>
>>> The relation between K and k was given and also the relation between the
>>> points of emitter and mirror.
>>
>> The only relation that's presumed to hold is the one involving the tau
>> coordinate (in the form of the equation (1/2)*(tau_0 + tau_2) = tau_1).
>>
>> It's not obvious a priori that this equation does not overconstrain the
>> problem. It turns out that it does not.
>>
>>> Now the zero spot of k is moving with xsi_0= x_0 + v*t,
>>
>> This is an incorrect equation. You need to think this through.
>> You are conflating points in space with their coordinate values.
>> Remember that in those types of equations ksi_0, x_0, v, and t are
>> just *numbers*. So "xsi_0= x_0 + v*t" is a nonsense equation.
>> I understand you want to express the obvious fact that the origin
>> of k moves with speed v wrt K but this equation does not express it.
>
>
> My main critique of Einstein's text is about the use of the term 'space' in it.
>
> 'Space' denotes very different things.

Where is the word "space" used in a way that may cause problems?

...

> We have two coordinate systems (K and k). k is moving with velocity v
> along the x-axis of K.
>
> Therefore
>
> x_0 (= zero spot of K) and xsi_0 (zero spot of k) are related as
>
> x_0 +v*t=xsi_0

No. The x-coordinate of the "zero spot of K" is 0, so no need to call
it x_0. If you do anyway, x_0 = 0.

Likewise, the xi-coordinate of the "zero spot of k" is 0, so no need
to call it xsi_0. If you do anyway, xsi_0 = 0.

As both x_0 = 0 and xsi_0 = 0 your x_0 +v*t=xsi_0 cannot be correct.

> Hence to any coordinate value in k I can simply add v*t and get the
> coordinate values of the same point in relation to the korresponding
> system K.

This is wrong. The correct conversion rules to convert from one k to K
or K to k are derived in the article, and simply add v*t is not there.
Before the rules are derived no canversion is made.

> Since the variable x' means the coordinates of a point in k, but
> measured with coordinates from K, we can simply add v*t to the
> coordinate of the mirror in k, to get the coordinate values of the same
> point in K.

No, that would be unjustified at that point of the text and shown to
be wrong later in the text.

Mikko

Re: Annotated version of SRT

<je3ksnFlr06U1@mid.individual.net>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=90113&group=sci.physics.relativity#90113

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!news.uzoreto.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: ttt_...@web.de (Thomas Heger)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Subject: Re: Annotated version of SRT
Date: Thu, 12 May 2022 07:39:45 +0200
Lines: 104
Message-ID: <je3ksnFlr06U1@mid.individual.net>
References: <jaaflrFde2kU1@mid.individual.net> <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$1@gioia.aioe.org> <jd9ah1Fl21cU1@mid.individual.net> <6d94bbeb-a2c5-419a-b266-9da8392b3870n@googlegroups.com> <jdef6bFkkvpU1@mid.individual.net> <0837699b-4179-4249-9a72-98371b5c05b8n@googlegroups.com> <jdhb42F6rmbU1@mid.individual.net> <aee5dec3-f2e0-4307-9827-14feb5a3ea8dn@googlegroups.com> <jdjv29Fm4q8U1@mid.individual.net> <60f21ac0-1bf9-49a7-9c86-89e270fc07cbn@googlegroups.com> <jdmdrlF5vtoU1@mid.individual.net> <59b45a30-48b0-430c-8910-fab1ff643051n@googlegroups.com> <jdp5sgFls44U1@mid.individual.net> <e5809d4b-1a2c-4e9b-be80-e17bb43a273en@googlegroups.com> <jduah6Flc3uU1@mid.individual.net> <52fe5433-4dcd-434c-905f-44e649e5b8f5n@googlegroups.com> <je11f5F6lumU1@mid.individual.net> <t5frtf$uli$1@dont-email.me>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: individual.net 5eNXSldAe5bxyaZ+n2VBrg2SzovrFUH4JB2u7V1qWS27bN7MDA
Cancel-Lock: sha1:P7JcoWFuGVBYDofmFfJSdzaGIxk=
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.0; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0
In-Reply-To: <t5frtf$uli$1@dont-email.me>
 by: Thomas Heger - Thu, 12 May 2022 05:39 UTC

Am 11.05.2022 um 10:25 schrieb Mikko:
> On 2022-05-11 05:55:54 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
>
>> Am 10.05.2022 um 09:19 schrieb JanPB:
>>
>>>> The relation between K and k was given and also the relation between
>>>> the
>>>> points of emitter and mirror.
>>>
>>> The only relation that's presumed to hold is the one involving the tau
>>> coordinate (in the form of the equation (1/2)*(tau_0 + tau_2) = tau_1).
>>>
>>> It's not obvious a priori that this equation does not overconstrain the
>>> problem. It turns out that it does not.
>>>
>>>> Now the zero spot of k is moving with xsi_0= x_0 + v*t,
>>>
>>> This is an incorrect equation. You need to think this through.
>>> You are conflating points in space with their coordinate values.
>>> Remember that in those types of equations ksi_0, x_0, v, and t are
>>> just *numbers*. So "xsi_0= x_0 + v*t" is a nonsense equation.
>>> I understand you want to express the obvious fact that the origin
>>> of k moves with speed v wrt K but this equation does not
>>> express it.
>>
>>
>> My main critique of Einstein's text is about the use of the term
>> 'space' in it.
>>
>> 'Space' denotes very different things.
>
> Where is the word "space" used in a way that may cause problems?
>
> ...
>
>> We have two coordinate systems (K and k). k is moving with velocity v
>> along the x-axis of K.
>>
>> Therefore
>>
>> x_0 (= zero spot of K) and xsi_0 (zero spot of k) are related as
>>
>> x_0 +v*t=xsi_0
>
> No. The x-coordinate of the "zero spot of K" is 0, so no need to call
> it x_0. If you do anyway, x_0 = 0.

No.

You need to distinguish numbers, vectors and points.

A point in space is a physical object, while a number is a mathematical
construct and means a scalar. A vector is technically an ordered list of
of scalars, which belongs to a set of unit vectors, called 'coordinate
system'.

Anyhow: I made an error here here, but not the one you have mentioned.

My error was something, which I did wrong several times, because it is
actually tricky to remember the correct relation between the coordinate
systems K and k.

The vector of velocity v of k adds to the point x_0, but the numerical
value of xsi in k is smaller than the corresponding position vector in
K, hence you need to subtract the numerical values for the coordinates.
So: the x-coordinate of the zero spot of k xsi_0 is at point on the
x-axis x = x_0+v*t in K.

If you want to find the related coordinate in K to a point in k, you
need to add the term v*t. It you want to do the opposite and find the
coordinate for a point in K in k-coordinates, you need to subtract v*t.

> Likewise, the xi-coordinate of the "zero spot of k" is 0, so no need
> to call it xsi_0. If you do anyway, xsi_0 = 0.

No, since a point is not a number. Only the xsi-component of the
position vector of that point is a number.

The xsi-component of the position vector of the zero spot is called
xsi_0, which has the numerical value zero.

> As both x_0 = 0 and xsi_0 = 0 your x_0 +v*t=xsi_0 cannot be correct.

A vector belongs to a coordinate system. Therefore the same numerical
value zero does not mean the same thing, because that zero is a scalar,
which scales a different unit vector.

>
>> Hence to any coordinate value in k I can simply add v*t and get the
>> coordinate values of the same point in relation to the korresponding
>> system K.
>
> This is wrong. The correct conversion rules to convert from one k to K
> or K to k are derived in the article, and simply add v*t is not there.
> Before the rules are derived no canversion is made.

Sure, see above.

....

TH

Re: Annotated version of SRT

<t5id4g$k1a$1@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=90119&group=sci.physics.relativity#90119

 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: Thu, 12 May 2022 10:31:29 +0300
Organization: -
Lines: 82
Message-ID: <t5id4g$k1a$1@dont-email.me>
References: <jaaflrFde2kU1@mid.individual.net> <jcum4nFjnusU1@mid.individual.net> <t4eg8l$cal$5@gioia.aioe.org> <jd1egjF5iktU1@mid.individual.net> <t4gn2d$103s$2@gioia.aioe.org> <jd6sulF6r8bU1@mid.individual.net> <t4ltn8$18d6$1@gioia.aioe.org> <jd9ah1Fl21cU1@mid.individual.net> <6d94bbeb-a2c5-419a-b266-9da8392b3870n@googlegroups.com> <jdef6bFkkvpU1@mid.individual.net> <0837699b-4179-4249-9a72-98371b5c05b8n@googlegroups.com> <jdhb42F6rmbU1@mid.individual.net> <aee5dec3-f2e0-4307-9827-14feb5a3ea8dn@googlegroups.com> <jdjv29Fm4q8U1@mid.individual.net> <60f21ac0-1bf9-49a7-9c86-89e270fc07cbn@googlegroups.com> <jdmdrlF5vtoU1@mid.individual.net> <59b45a30-48b0-430c-8910-fab1ff643051n@googlegroups.com> <jdp5sgFls44U1@mid.individual.net> <e5809d4b-1a2c-4e9b-be80-e17bb43a273en@googlegroups.com> <jduah6Flc3uU1@mid.individual.net> <52fe5433-4dcd-434c-905f-44e649e5b8f5n@googlegroups.com> <je11f5F6lumU1@mid.individual.net> <t5frtf$uli$1@dont-email.me> <je3ksnFlr06U1@mid.individual.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="7d8c4f5431e8a3c03dc2baf9179413db";
logging-data="20522"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18Xgow8dS/mjVGYL56VM0z7"
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:M551W4kipjWySp/OswGA/4VOAbg=
 by: Mikko - Thu, 12 May 2022 07:31 UTC

On 2022-05-12 05:39:45 +0000, Thomas Heger said:

> Am 11.05.2022 um 10:25 schrieb Mikko:
>> On 2022-05-11 05:55:54 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
>>
>>> Am 10.05.2022 um 09:19 schrieb JanPB:
>>>
>>>>> The relation between K and k was given and also the relation between
>>>>> the
>>>>> points of emitter and mirror.
>>>>
>>>> The only relation that's presumed to hold is the one involving the tau
>>>> coordinate (in the form of the equation (1/2)*(tau_0 + tau_2) = tau_1).
>>>>
>>>> It's not obvious a priori that this equation does not overconstrain the
>>>> problem. It turns out that it does not.
>>>>
>>>>> Now the zero spot of k is moving with xsi_0= x_0 + v*t,
>>>>
>>>> This is an incorrect equation. You need to think this through.
>>>> You are conflating points in space with their coordinate values.
>>>> Remember that in those types of equations ksi_0, x_0, v, and t are
>>>> just *numbers*. So "xsi_0= x_0 + v*t" is a nonsense equation.
>>>> I understand you want to express the obvious fact that the origin
>>>> of k moves with speed v wrt K but this equation does not
>>>> express it.
>>>
>>>
>>> My main critique of Einstein's text is about the use of the term
>>> 'space' in it.
>>>
>>> 'Space' denotes very different things.
>>
>> Where is the word "space" used in a way that may cause problems?
>>
>> ...
>>
>>> We have two coordinate systems (K and k). k is moving with velocity v
>>> along the x-axis of K.
>>>
>>> Therefore
>>>
>>> x_0 (= zero spot of K) and xsi_0 (zero spot of k) are related as
>>>
>>> x_0 +v*t=xsi_0
>>
>> No. The x-coordinate of the "zero spot of K" is 0, so no need to call
>> it x_0. If you do anyway, x_0 = 0.
>
> No.
>
> You need to distinguish numbers, vectors and points.

In Einstein's text that is simple: all symbols represent scalars
unless otherwise specified.

You should be clear with your symbols. When discussing Einstein's text,
you should use the same conventions. Einstein's x and xi are scalars,
so for points you should use different symbols.

...

>> Likewise, the xi-coordinate of the "zero spot of k" is 0, so no need
>> to call it xsi_0. If you do anyway, xsi_0 = 0.
>
> No, since a point is not a number. Only the xsi-component of the
> position vector of that point is a number.

Coordinates are scalars. The xi-coordinate of "zero spot of k" is
zero because "zero spot of k" means the poit where xi = 0, eta = 0,
and zeta = 0.

> The xsi-component of the position vector of the zero spot is called
> xsi_0, which has the numerical value zero.

You don't need any position vectors because you already have coordinates.

More generally, you should know what you are saying, and tell that to
your readers, too. If you can't do that, it is not useful to say anything.

Mikko

Re: Annotated version of SRT

<4e587415-9f7b-4ad9-b5ad-8a7b498ccef9n@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=90144&group=sci.physics.relativity#90144

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
X-Received: by 2002:a05:622a:1210:b0:2f3:da26:3778 with SMTP id y16-20020a05622a121000b002f3da263778mr1149712qtx.173.1652380425573;
Thu, 12 May 2022 11:33:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a37:6253:0:b0:69f:b4e3:4853 with SMTP id
w80-20020a376253000000b0069fb4e34853mr1022568qkb.332.1652380425215; Thu, 12
May 2022 11:33:45 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!news.uzoreto.com!peer03.ams4!peer.am4.highwinds-media.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: Thu, 12 May 2022 11:33:45 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <je11f5F6lumU1@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> <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>
<59b45a30-48b0-430c-8910-fab1ff643051n@googlegroups.com> <jdp5sgFls44U1@mid.individual.net>
<e5809d4b-1a2c-4e9b-be80-e17bb43a273en@googlegroups.com> <jduah6Flc3uU1@mid.individual.net>
<52fe5433-4dcd-434c-905f-44e649e5b8f5n@googlegroups.com> <je11f5F6lumU1@mid.individual.net>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <4e587415-9f7b-4ad9-b5ad-8a7b498ccef9n@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Annotated version of SRT
From: film...@gmail.com (JanPB)
Injection-Date: Thu, 12 May 2022 18:33:45 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-Received-Bytes: 5947
 by: JanPB - Thu, 12 May 2022 18:33 UTC

On Tuesday, May 10, 2022 at 10:55:53 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 10.05.2022 um 09:19 schrieb JanPB:
>
> >> The relation between K and k was given and also the relation between the
> >> points of emitter and mirror.
> >
> > The only relation that's presumed to hold is the one involving the tau
> > coordinate (in the form of the equation (1/2)*(tau_0 + tau_2) = tau_1).
> >
> > It's not obvious a priori that this equation does not overconstrain the
> > problem. It turns out that it does not.
> >
> >> Now the zero spot of k is moving with xsi_0= x_0 + v*t,
> >
> > This is an incorrect equation. You need to think this through.
> > You are conflating points in space with their coordinate values.
> > Remember that in those types of equations ksi_0, x_0, v, and t are
> > just *numbers*. So "xsi_0= x_0 + v*t" is a nonsense equation.
> > I understand you want to express the obvious fact that the origin
> > of k moves with speed v wrt K but this equation does not express it.
> My main critique of Einstein's text is about the use of the term 'space'
> in it.
>
> 'Space' denotes very different things.

You are changing the subject.

> >> we can simply
> >> transform this equation by a trivial operation to x_0= xsi_0 - v*t,
> >> which we find in the text in a quite similar form.
> >>
> >> Now xsi_0 was the position of the emitter and xsi_mirror was the
> >> position of the mirror.
> >>
> >> For a linear transformation we would expect xsi_mirror= x_mirror - v*t.
> >>
> >> Actually Einstein had not written so, but x' would fit to x_mirror and x
> >> to 'position of the emitter at xsi_0 = x_0 + v*t'.
> >>
> >> Therefore x'= xsi_mirror + v*t.
> >
> > This is all incorrect.
> >
> No.
>
> Actually you call 'incorrect', what is a very trivial consequence of the
> used settings.

No. What you wrote is incorrect. As in: false.

> We have two coordinate systems (K and k). k is moving with velocity v
> along the x-axis of K.
> Therefore
>
> x_0 (= zero spot of K) and xsi_0 (zero spot of k) are related as
>
> x_0 +v*t=xsi_0

No, this is false. You seem to be stuck at an elementary school level
of the meaning of coordinates.

According to your definitions x_0 = 0 and ksi_0 = 0. Your equations would
then imply the nonsensical one: vt = 0.

I've already explained twice before what the correct equation is which
describes the given light source and mirror situation. It yields Einstein's
equation which is likewise correct.

> Meant with these variables were not points or vectors, but the numerical
> values of the scalar components of position vectors.
>
> Hence to any coordinate value in k I can simply add v*t and get the
> coordinate values of the same point in relation to the korresponding
> system K.

No, you cannot do that. What confuses you is your premature bringing in the
coordinates k into the derivation.

Think of it this way: you have the system K and the light source and the mirror
moving at speed v with respect to it.

Your task is to write down the equation of this motion as measured by K.
There are no k-coordinates involved yet.

> Since the variable x' means the coordinates of a point in k,

No. It's a combination of certain K-coordinates. It's introdcued only to
simplify the "tau" equation. I posted before what the "tau" equation would
look like if x' was never introduced.

> but
> measured with coordinates from K, we can simply add v*t to the
> coordinate of the mirror in k, to get the coordinate values of the same
> point in K.

I understand what you are saying, but your equation does not describe the
situation you are after. It's a nonsense equation.

--
Jan

Re: Annotated version of SRT

<je543mF186U1@mid.individual.net>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=90148&group=sci.physics.relativity#90148

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!usenet.goja.nl.eu.org!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: ttt_...@web.de (Thomas Heger)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Subject: Re: Annotated version of SRT
Date: Thu, 12 May 2022 21:05:22 +0200
Lines: 132
Message-ID: <je543mF186U1@mid.individual.net>
References: <jaaflrFde2kU1@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$1@gioia.aioe.org> <jd9ah1Fl21cU1@mid.individual.net> <6d94bbeb-a2c5-419a-b266-9da8392b3870n@googlegroups.com> <jdef6bFkkvpU1@mid.individual.net> <0837699b-4179-4249-9a72-98371b5c05b8n@googlegroups.com> <jdhb42F6rmbU1@mid.individual.net> <aee5dec3-f2e0-4307-9827-14feb5a3ea8dn@googlegroups.com> <jdjv29Fm4q8U1@mid.individual.net> <60f21ac0-1bf9-49a7-9c86-89e270fc07cbn@googlegroups.com> <jdmdrlF5vtoU1@mid.individual.net> <59b45a30-48b0-430c-8910-fab1ff643051n@googlegroups.com> <jdp5sgFls44U1@mid.individual.net> <e5809d4b-1a2c-4e9b-be80-e17bb43a273en@googlegroups.com> <jduah6Flc3uU1@mid.individual.net> <52fe5433-4dcd-434c-905f-44e649e5b8f5n@googlegroups.com> <je11f5F6lumU1@mid.individual.net> <t5frtf$uli$1@dont-email.me> <je3ksnFlr06U1@mid.individual.net> <t5id4g$k1a$1@dont-email.me>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: individual.net +6a0VHwNIyO5ai6NxCaOsAGvNohRKibHwaHTZ5gwqVn/hzQWnR
Cancel-Lock: sha1:gBz1u1trKhdtWqG41VKxIxLXjMM=
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.0; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0
In-Reply-To: <t5id4g$k1a$1@dont-email.me>
 by: Thomas Heger - Thu, 12 May 2022 19:05 UTC

Am 12.05.2022 um 09:31 schrieb Mikko:
> On 2022-05-12 05:39:45 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
>
>> Am 11.05.2022 um 10:25 schrieb Mikko:
>>> On 2022-05-11 05:55:54 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
>>>
>>>> Am 10.05.2022 um 09:19 schrieb JanPB:
>>>>
>>>>>> The relation between K and k was given and also the relation between
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> points of emitter and mirror.
>>>>>
>>>>> The only relation that's presumed to hold is the one involving the
>>>>> tau
>>>>> coordinate (in the form of the equation (1/2)*(tau_0 + tau_2) =
>>>>> tau_1).
>>>>>
>>>>> It's not obvious a priori that this equation does not overconstrain
>>>>> the
>>>>> problem. It turns out that it does not.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Now the zero spot of k is moving with xsi_0= x_0 + v*t,
>>>>>
>>>>> This is an incorrect equation. You need to think this through.
>>>>> You are conflating points in space with their coordinate values.
>>>>> Remember that in those types of equations ksi_0, x_0, v, and t are
>>>>> just *numbers*. So "xsi_0= x_0 + v*t" is a nonsense equation.
>>>>> I understand you want to express the obvious fact that the origin
>>>>> of k moves with speed v wrt K but this equation does not
>>>>> express it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> My main critique of Einstein's text is about the use of the term
>>>> 'space' in it.
>>>>
>>>> 'Space' denotes very different things.
>>>
>>> Where is the word "space" used in a way that may cause problems?
>>>
>>> ...
>>>
>>>> We have two coordinate systems (K and k). k is moving with velocity v
>>>> along the x-axis of K.
>>>>
>>>> Therefore
>>>>
>>>> x_0 (= zero spot of K) and xsi_0 (zero spot of k) are related as
>>>>
>>>> x_0 +v*t=xsi_0
>>>
>>> No. The x-coordinate of the "zero spot of K" is 0, so no need to call
>>> it x_0. If you do anyway, x_0 = 0.
>>
>> No.
>>
>> You need to distinguish numbers, vectors and points.
>
> In Einstein's text that is simple: all symbols represent scalars
> unless otherwise specified.

Well, no, I do not agree.

Einstein made no distinction between different types of mathematical
objects, but did not only use scalars.

So, any Latin letter can represent several types of objects and Einstein
gave no hints, which would allow to identify the intended meaning.

To assume, that only scalars were meant was plain wrong, because also
functions and vectors had similar symbols, which the reader was
requested to identify.

I have complained several times about this, but JanPB meant, that the
intended audience could decipher Einstein's intentions with ease.

I do not quite agree, but would accept, that professionals certainly
know, what Einstein wanted.

But still you cannot claim, that all symbols mean scalars. Which
interpretations was intended, that is a riddle, which the reader was
requested to solve.

And that riddle is not as easy as you apparently think.

>
> You should be clear with your symbols. When discussing Einstein's text,
> you should use the same conventions. Einstein's x and xi are scalars,
> so for points you should use different symbols.

Points had large Latin letters, like 'A' or 'B' (I guess there was also
a 'C', but as far as I can recall, there was no 'D').

> ...
>
>>> Likewise, the xi-coordinate of the "zero spot of k" is 0, so no need
>>> to call it xsi_0. If you do anyway, xsi_0 = 0.
>>
>> No, since a point is not a number. Only the xsi-component of the
>> position vector of that point is a number.
>
> Coordinates are scalars. The xi-coordinate of "zero spot of k" is
> zero because "zero spot of k" means the poit where xi = 0, eta = 0,
> and zeta = 0.

Not really. A component of a vector is a scalar, but 'coordinate' could
be interpreted as a vector, too. That would be a scaled version of the
unit vector in that direction.

But also 'numerical value of the entry of the position vector of a
point' would fit to the description, what is a scalar.

Usually the author should tell, how he liked his variables to be
interpreted. But Einstein left that more or less to the reader.

>> The xsi-component of the position vector of the zero spot is called
>> xsi_0, which has the numerical value zero.
>
> You don't need any position vectors because you already have coordinates.

A point has a location, which is represented by a position vector.
That vector has components, which we can call 'coordinates'.
If you add them together, you get the postion vector of thee point.

It's not really necessary to do so, because you could actually provide
only coordinates.

But still the position vector exists, whether you need it or not.

...
TH

Re: Annotated version of SRT

<je55eoF9taU1@mid.individual.net>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=90151&group=sci.physics.relativity#90151

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!usenet.goja.nl.eu.org!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: ttt_...@web.de (Thomas Heger)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Subject: Re: Annotated version of SRT
Date: Thu, 12 May 2022 21:28:19 +0200
Lines: 95
Message-ID: <je55eoF9taU1@mid.individual.net>
References: <jc76moF3oggU1@mid.individual.net> <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> <59b45a30-48b0-430c-8910-fab1ff643051n@googlegroups.com> <jdp5sgFls44U1@mid.individual.net> <e5809d4b-1a2c-4e9b-be80-e17bb43a273en@googlegroups.com> <jduah6Flc3uU1@mid.individual.net> <52fe5433-4dcd-434c-905f-44e649e5b8f5n@googlegroups.com> <je11f5F6lumU1@mid.individual.net> <4e587415-9f7b-4ad9-b5ad-8a7b498ccef9n@googlegroups.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: individual.net YSRqpRL79SVqlZE90e+zww+jjICdqMiuGr7UBm2PPLg7PIZqcI
Cancel-Lock: sha1:ZbRbSn7/RBnXIRBfM0KbdyPtwpw=
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.0; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0
In-Reply-To: <4e587415-9f7b-4ad9-b5ad-8a7b498ccef9n@googlegroups.com>
 by: Thomas Heger - Thu, 12 May 2022 19:28 UTC

Am 12.05.2022 um 20:33 schrieb JanPB:
....

>
>>>> we can simply
>>>> transform this equation by a trivial operation to x_0= xsi_0 - v*t,
>>>> which we find in the text in a quite similar form.
>>>>
>>>> Now xsi_0 was the position of the emitter and xsi_mirror was the
>>>> position of the mirror.
>>>>
>>>> For a linear transformation we would expect xsi_mirror= x_mirror - v*t.
>>>>
>>>> Actually Einstein had not written so, but x' would fit to x_mirror and x
>>>> to 'position of the emitter at xsi_0 = x_0 + v*t'.
>>>>
>>>> Therefore x'= xsi_mirror + v*t.
>>>
>>> This is all incorrect.
>>>
>> No.
>>
>> Actually you call 'incorrect', what is a very trivial consequence of the
>> used settings.
>
> No. What you wrote is incorrect. As in: false.

Sure, I made a mistake, because the vector for dislocation would add,
but the numerical values should be substracted.

IOW: the distance between the zero spot of K and the zero spot of k
increases according to distance(t) = v*t.

The zero spot of K has also xsi-coordinates in k, with xsi= xsi_0 - v*t.

>> We have two coordinate systems (K and k). k is moving with velocity v
>> along the x-axis of K.
>> Therefore
>>
>> x_0 (= zero spot of K) and xsi_0 (zero spot of k) are related as
>>
>> x_0 +v*t=xsi_0
>
> No, this is false. You seem to be stuck at an elementary school level
> of the meaning of coordinates.
>
> According to your definitions x_0 = 0 and ksi_0 = 0. Your equations would
> then imply the nonsensical one: vt = 0.

No.

A scalar 'scales'. The unit vector of the corresponding coordinate
system is multiplied by that scalar and out comes the corresponding
coordinate, here in the x/xsi direction.

But the coordinate system is not the same, hence we have different
coordinates in K for x=0 then what we have in k for xsi=0.

The difference is, of course, v*t.

> I've already explained twice before what the correct equation is which
> describes the given light source and mirror situation. It yields Einstein's
> equation which is likewise correct.

After a number of messages exchanged with JanPB, we came to the result,
that a mirror stationary in k at same distance to xsi_0 on the xsi-axis
would be a valid assumption for the intended setting.

These two items move with constant distance along the x/xsi-axis into
the direction of higher xsi-values.

This 'tandem' is observed from the zero spot of K, which moves with
velocity v relative to the system into the negative direction with -v*t.

But none of Einstein's equations would fit to that setting.

Instead of a coordinate transformation he developed an obscure partial
differential equation, which I think is faulty and which I'm unable to
associate with the setting from above.

I have complained about this point several times, too.

But apparently you know how to derive Einstein's equation. So, please
let me know, how that works.

....

TH

Re: Annotated version of SRT

<je6csbF77dpU1@mid.individual.net>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=90178&group=sci.physics.relativity#90178

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!news.uzoreto.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: ttt_...@web.de (Thomas Heger)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Subject: Re: Annotated version of SRT
Date: Fri, 13 May 2022 08:41:15 +0200
Lines: 117
Message-ID: <je6csbF77dpU1@mid.individual.net>
References: <jc76moF3oggU1@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> <59b45a30-48b0-430c-8910-fab1ff643051n@googlegroups.com> <jdp5sgFls44U1@mid.individual.net> <e5809d4b-1a2c-4e9b-be80-e17bb43a273en@googlegroups.com> <jduah6Flc3uU1@mid.individual.net> <52fe5433-4dcd-434c-905f-44e649e5b8f5n@googlegroups.com> <je11f5F6lumU1@mid.individual.net> <4e587415-9f7b-4ad9-b5ad-8a7b498ccef9n@googlegroups.com> <je55eoF9taU1@mid.individual.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: individual.net Rx69AJLEFdkYfl9DJaI3NAnbavsX+gns8REwdMp2xGAtQ5TH7S
Cancel-Lock: sha1:+X15AjaxpIgfzDkpvSrHmw/NU5c=
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.0; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0
In-Reply-To: <je55eoF9taU1@mid.individual.net>
 by: Thomas Heger - Fri, 13 May 2022 06:41 UTC

Am 12.05.2022 um 21:28 schrieb Thomas Heger:
> Am 12.05.2022 um 20:33 schrieb JanPB:
>
> IOW: the distance between the zero spot of K and the zero spot of k
> increases according to distance(t) = v*t.
>
> The zero spot of K has also xsi-coordinates in k, with xsi= xsi_0 - v*t.
>
>
>
>>> We have two coordinate systems (K and k). k is moving with velocity v
>>> along the x-axis of K.
>>> Therefore
>>>
>>> x_0 (= zero spot of K) and xsi_0 (zero spot of k) are related as
>>>
>>> x_0 +v*t=xsi_0
>>
>> No, this is false. You seem to be stuck at an elementary school level
>> of the meaning of coordinates.
>>
>> According to your definitions x_0 = 0 and ksi_0 = 0. Your
>> equations would
>> then imply the nonsensical one: vt = 0.
>
> No.
>
> A scalar 'scales'. The unit vector of the corresponding coordinate
> system is multiplied by that scalar and out comes the corresponding
> coordinate, here in the x/xsi direction.
>
> But the coordinate system is not the same, hence we have different
> coordinates in K for x=0 then what we have in k for xsi=0.
>
> The difference is, of course, v*t.
>
>
>> I've already explained twice before what the correct equation is which
>> describes the given light source and mirror situation. It yields
>> Einstein's
>> equation which is likewise correct.
>
>
> After a number of messages exchanged with JanPB, we came to the result,
> that a mirror stationary in k at same distance to xsi_0 on the xsi-axis
> would be a valid assumption for the intended setting.
>
> These two items move with constant distance along the x/xsi-axis into
> the direction of higher xsi-values.
>
> This 'tandem' is observed from the zero spot of K, which moves with
> velocity v relative to the system into the negative direction with -v*t.
>
> But none of Einstein's equations would fit to that setting.
>
> Instead of a coordinate transformation he developed an obscure partial
> differential equation, which I think is faulty and which I'm unable to
> associate with the setting from above.

This is the equation:

1/2*(1/(c −v) + 1/(c +v))* ∂τ/∂t = ∂τ/∂x' + 1/(c +v)* ∂τ/∂t

As justification for this equation Einstein wrote:

"Hence, if x' be chosen infinitesimally small,..."

I have complained, that x' cannot be chosen "infinitesimally small",
because x' was defined as position of the mirror at a fixed position in
k, but in K-coordinates.

This position is moving in K, to which the variable x' belongs.

The movement of x' in K is rather simple, because it moves with velocity
v along the x-axis of K.

Now my question was, what these partial derivatives were meant to
represent, if we have only a one-dimensional problem.

But there are more problems than that.

E.g. the term ∂τ/∂x' looks like an inverse of a velocity.

But that was not meant, because we have a very tricky problem here:
τ meant two different things, which were only named with the same symbol τ
(what I have regarded as very obscure).

One is a function τ, which converts coordinates from system k to
coordinates from system k (both in four-vector form), while the other τ
means a time measure in system k.

Here a still unknown function τ was meant in the partial differential
equation, not a time measure.

The equation looks faulty to me, because ∂x' can be zero, hence ∂τ/∂x'
would become infinite, for what I would not have an explanation.

> I have complained about this point several times, too.
>
> But apparently you know how to derive Einstein's equation. So, please
> let me know, how that works.

So, if you are able to derive that equation and justify its content,
than please let me know.

Einstein himself didn't write a single word about how he came to that
equation.

TH

Re: Annotated version of SRT

<je8qc9Flb5bU1@mid.individual.net>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=90220&group=sci.physics.relativity#90220

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Path: i2pn2.org!rocksolid2!i2pn.org!usenet.goja.nl.eu.org!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: ttt_...@web.de (Thomas Heger)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Subject: Re: Annotated version of SRT
Date: Sat, 14 May 2022 06:43:56 +0200
Lines: 88
Message-ID: <je8qc9Flb5bU1@mid.individual.net>
References: <jc76moF3oggU1@mid.individual.net> <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> <59b45a30-48b0-430c-8910-fab1ff643051n@googlegroups.com> <jdp5sgFls44U1@mid.individual.net> <e5809d4b-1a2c-4e9b-be80-e17bb43a273en@googlegroups.com> <jduah6Flc3uU1@mid.individual.net> <52fe5433-4dcd-434c-905f-44e649e5b8f5n@googlegroups.com> <je11f5F6lumU1@mid.individual.net> <4e587415-9f7b-4ad9-b5ad-8a7b498ccef9n@googlegroups.com> <je55eoF9taU1@mid.individual.net> <je6csbF77dpU1@mid.individual.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: individual.net j2C+V9KOjiHBqRWo3XIGQAA08tU87pq1/qHxS+ebCTaltraVvy
Cancel-Lock: sha1:BMXbzJJidKHHmyhKNffpkeSLC2Q=
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.0; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0
In-Reply-To: <je6csbF77dpU1@mid.individual.net>
 by: Thomas Heger - Sat, 14 May 2022 04:43 UTC

Am 13.05.2022 um 08:41 schrieb Thomas Heger:
....
>> After a number of messages exchanged with JanPB, we came to the result,
>> that a mirror stationary in k at same distance to xsi_0 on the xsi-axis
>> would be a valid assumption for the intended setting.
>>
>> These two items move with constant distance along the x/xsi-axis into
>> the direction of higher xsi-values.
>>
>> This 'tandem' is observed from the zero spot of K, which moves with
>> velocity v relative to the system into the negative direction with -v*t.
>>
>> But none of Einstein's equations would fit to that setting.
>>
>> Instead of a coordinate transformation he developed an obscure partial
>> differential equation, which I think is faulty and which I'm unable to
>> associate with the setting from above.
>
>
> This is the equation:
>
> 1/2*(1/(c −v) + 1/(c +v))* ∂τ/∂t = ∂τ/∂x' + 1/(c +v)* ∂τ/∂t
>
>
> As justification for this equation Einstein wrote:
>
> "Hence, if x' be chosen infinitesimally small,..."
>
> I have complained, that x' cannot be chosen "infinitesimally small",
> because x' was defined as position of the mirror at a fixed position in
> k, but in K-coordinates.
>
> This position is moving in K, to which the variable x' belongs.
>
> The movement of x' in K is rather simple, because it moves with velocity
> v along the x-axis of K.
>
> Now my question was, what these partial derivatives were meant to
> represent, if we have only a one-dimensional problem.
>

It was exceptionally nasty to name the function τ similar to the time
measure τ, because the function τ is actually a coordinate
transformation between K and k, which creates four vectors from four
vectors as input.

These four vectors in k have a time component, which was also called τ.

Now it very important to keep both meanings separated.

Here we have a term ∂τ/∂x', which means a partial derivative of the
function τ.

This function τ is taking four-vectors from K as input and 'spits' out
four vectors in system k.

But x' is NOT an independent variable of τ!

x' was defined as the position of a mirror, which had to be at rest in
respect to the emitter.

The emitter was assumed to be at rest in the center of k, hence has a
xsi-coordinate of zero.

For the mirror I take a xsi-coordinate of - say - 10.

Now I use the possible setting v=0.

In this case we have an identity of K and k and the x-position of the
mirror would be x'=10.

Now we plug x'=10 into ∂τ/∂x'.

But what is ∂10 ?????

Does not make much sense. Could be zero, anyhow, because x' is a
constant with x'=10, what would make ∂τ/∂x' infinite.

And there isn't anything to chose, what would violate Einstein's statement:

"Hence, if x' be chosen infinitesimally small,..."

TH

....

Re: Annotated version of SRT

<0787f688-0032-4f81-ac37-398fb4bcd077n@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=90254&group=sci.physics.relativity#90254

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
X-Received: by 2002:a37:de0c:0:b0:69e:cd37:7646 with SMTP id h12-20020a37de0c000000b0069ecd377646mr8543058qkj.449.1652581796846;
Sat, 14 May 2022 19:29:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a37:6786:0:b0:6a0:59f1:d8ae with SMTP id
b128-20020a376786000000b006a059f1d8aemr8111174qkc.649.1652581796530; Sat, 14
May 2022 19:29:56 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!paganini.bofh.team!pasdenom.info!nntpfeed.proxad.net!feeder1-1.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: Sat, 14 May 2022 19:29:56 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <je55eoF9taU1@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> <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>
<59b45a30-48b0-430c-8910-fab1ff643051n@googlegroups.com> <jdp5sgFls44U1@mid.individual.net>
<e5809d4b-1a2c-4e9b-be80-e17bb43a273en@googlegroups.com> <jduah6Flc3uU1@mid.individual.net>
<52fe5433-4dcd-434c-905f-44e649e5b8f5n@googlegroups.com> <je11f5F6lumU1@mid.individual.net>
<4e587415-9f7b-4ad9-b5ad-8a7b498ccef9n@googlegroups.com> <je55eoF9taU1@mid.individual.net>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <0787f688-0032-4f81-ac37-398fb4bcd077n@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Annotated version of SRT
From: film...@gmail.com (JanPB)
Injection-Date: Sun, 15 May 2022 02:29:56 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
 by: JanPB - Sun, 15 May 2022 02:29 UTC

On Thursday, May 12, 2022 at 12:28:28 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 12.05.2022 um 20:33 schrieb JanPB:
> ...
> >
> >>>> we can simply
> >>>> transform this equation by a trivial operation to x_0= xsi_0 - v*t,
> >>>> which we find in the text in a quite similar form.
> >>>>
> >>>> Now xsi_0 was the position of the emitter and xsi_mirror was the
> >>>> position of the mirror.
> >>>>
> >>>> For a linear transformation we would expect xsi_mirror= x_mirror - v*t.
> >>>>
> >>>> Actually Einstein had not written so, but x' would fit to x_mirror and x
> >>>> to 'position of the emitter at xsi_0 = x_0 + v*t'.
> >>>>
> >>>> Therefore x'= xsi_mirror + v*t.
> >>>
> >>> This is all incorrect.
> >>>
> >> No.
> >>
> >> Actually you call 'incorrect', what is a very trivial consequence of the
> >> used settings.
> >
> > No. What you wrote is incorrect. As in: false.
> Sure, I made a mistake, because the vector for dislocation would add,
> but the numerical values should be substracted.

"SubTRacted". There is no "s' before the "tr".

> IOW: the distance between the zero spot of K and the zero spot of k
> increases according to distance(t) = v*t.

No. It increases according to x = x_0 + v*(t - t_0), where
(t_0, x_0) is the initial condition.

That's why x - vt = x_0 - v*t_0 = constant.

> The zero spot of K has also xsi-coordinates in k, with xsi= xsi_0 - v*t.

No, this is incorrect. You are stuck at this elementary level and until
you understand what it is that you are doing wrong, you won't progress.
It's very clear what you are trying to do, the problem is that you are writing
the wrong equation to express it. Please think this through. We won't
get anyhwre until you figure this one out.

> >> We have two coordinate systems (K and k). k is moving with velocity v
> >> along the x-axis of K.
> >> Therefore
> >>
> >> x_0 (= zero spot of K) and xsi_0 (zero spot of k) are related as
> >>
> >> x_0 +v*t=xsi_0
> >
> > No, this is false. You seem to be stuck at an elementary school level
> > of the meaning of coordinates.
> >
> > According to your definitions x_0 = 0 and ksi_0 = 0. Your equations would
> > then imply the nonsensical one: vt = 0.
> No.

What do you mean, "no"? You wrote x_0 +v*t=xsi_0 and x_0 = 0 and ksi_0 = 0.

> A scalar 'scales'. The unit vector of the corresponding coordinate
> system is multiplied by that scalar and out comes the corresponding
> coordinate, here in the x/xsi direction.
>
> But the coordinate system is not the same, hence we have different
> coordinates in K for x=0 then what we have in k for xsi=0.
>
> The difference is, of course, v*t.

No. Your equations is menaingless, and wrong at best.

> > I've already explained twice before what the correct equation is which
> > describes the given light source and mirror situation. It yields Einstein's
> > equation which is likewise correct.
> After a number of messages exchanged with JanPB, we came to the result,
> that a mirror stationary in k at same distance to xsi_0 on the xsi-axis
> would be a valid assumption for the intended setting.

Sure but you cannot mix the K and k coordinates willy-nilly.
The result is in nonsense.

> These two items move with constant distance along the x/xsi-axis into
> the direction of higher xsi-values.
>
> This 'tandem' is observed from the zero spot of K, which moves with
> velocity v relative to the system into the negative direction with -v*t.
>
> But none of Einstein's equations would fit to that setting.

Again, you are expressing the physical situation in mathematical
terms that do not represent the physical situation.

> Instead of a coordinate transformation he developed an obscure partial
> differential equation, which I think is faulty and which I'm unable to
> associate with the setting from above.

It's a very simple equation. The coordinate transformation is
presumed linear, so the tau component of it is presumed
to look like this:

tau(x', y, z, t) = Ax' + By + Cz + Dt

This means that dtau/dx' = A, dtau/dy = B, dtau/dz = C, dtau/dt = D.

> I have complained about this point several times, too.

Without merit.

> But apparently you know how to derive Einstein's equation. So, please
> let me know, how that works.

It's written out in the paper. Given the equation (1/2)*(tau_0 + tau_2) = tau_1,
one differentiates it wrt x' and that yields the equation constraining the
A and D constants.

--
Jan

Re: Annotated version of SRT

<d9f83c3d-92b5-4e36-b91e-422111f71ba6n@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=90256&group=sci.physics.relativity#90256

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
X-Received: by 2002:a37:9442:0:b0:699:fd32:bc7d with SMTP id w63-20020a379442000000b00699fd32bc7dmr8231188qkd.615.1652582962630;
Sat, 14 May 2022 19:49:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:45a7:b0:6a0:3399:c9ce with SMTP id
bp39-20020a05620a45a700b006a03399c9cemr8350585qkb.590.1652582962255; Sat, 14
May 2022 19:49:22 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!news.mixmin.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: Sat, 14 May 2022 19:49:22 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <je6csbF77dpU1@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> <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> <59b45a30-48b0-430c-8910-fab1ff643051n@googlegroups.com>
<jdp5sgFls44U1@mid.individual.net> <e5809d4b-1a2c-4e9b-be80-e17bb43a273en@googlegroups.com>
<jduah6Flc3uU1@mid.individual.net> <52fe5433-4dcd-434c-905f-44e649e5b8f5n@googlegroups.com>
<je11f5F6lumU1@mid.individual.net> <4e587415-9f7b-4ad9-b5ad-8a7b498ccef9n@googlegroups.com>
<je55eoF9taU1@mid.individual.net> <je6csbF77dpU1@mid.individual.net>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <d9f83c3d-92b5-4e36-b91e-422111f71ba6n@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Annotated version of SRT
From: film...@gmail.com (JanPB)
Injection-Date: Sun, 15 May 2022 02:49:22 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
 by: JanPB - Sun, 15 May 2022 02:49 UTC

On Thursday, May 12, 2022 at 11:41:19 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 12.05.2022 um 21:28 schrieb Thomas Heger:
> > Am 12.05.2022 um 20:33 schrieb JanPB:
> >
> > IOW: the distance between the zero spot of K and the zero spot of k
> > increases according to distance(t) = v*t.
> >
> > The zero spot of K has also xsi-coordinates in k, with xsi= xsi_0 - v*t.
> >
> >
> >
> >>> We have two coordinate systems (K and k). k is moving with velocity v
> >>> along the x-axis of K.
> >>> Therefore
> >>>
> >>> x_0 (= zero spot of K) and xsi_0 (zero spot of k) are related as
> >>>
> >>> x_0 +v*t=xsi_0
> >>
> >> No, this is false. You seem to be stuck at an elementary school level
> >> of the meaning of coordinates.
> >>
> >> According to your definitions x_0 = 0 and ksi_0 = 0. Your
> >> equations would
> >> then imply the nonsensical one: vt = 0.
> >
> > No.
> >
> > A scalar 'scales'. The unit vector of the corresponding coordinate
> > system is multiplied by that scalar and out comes the corresponding
> > coordinate, here in the x/xsi direction.
> >
> > But the coordinate system is not the same, hence we have different
> > coordinates in K for x=0 then what we have in k for xsi=0.
> >
> > The difference is, of course, v*t.
> >
> >
> >> I've already explained twice before what the correct equation is which
> >> describes the given light source and mirror situation. It yields
> >> Einstein's
> >> equation which is likewise correct.
> >
> >
> > After a number of messages exchanged with JanPB, we came to the result,
> > that a mirror stationary in k at same distance to xsi_0 on the xsi-axis
> > would be a valid assumption for the intended setting.
> >
> > These two items move with constant distance along the x/xsi-axis into
> > the direction of higher xsi-values.
> >
> > This 'tandem' is observed from the zero spot of K, which moves with
> > velocity v relative to the system into the negative direction with -v*t..
> >
> > But none of Einstein's equations would fit to that setting.
> >
> > Instead of a coordinate transformation he developed an obscure partial
> > differential equation, which I think is faulty and which I'm unable to
> > associate with the setting from above.
> This is the equation:
>
> 1/2*(1/(c −v) + 1/(c +v))* ∂τ/∂t = ∂τ/∂x' + 1/(c +v)* ∂τ/∂t
>
>
> As justification for this equation Einstein wrote:
>
> "Hence, if x' be chosen infinitesimally small,..."
>
> I have complained, that x' cannot be chosen "infinitesimally small",

This is just the 1905 way of saying "let's differentiate this equation
with respect to x' ".

> because x' was defined as position of the mirror at a fixed position in
> k, but in K-coordinates.

The differentiation means we consider several instances of the experiment,
each at different x' value, and compute the limit of the relevant difference quotient.

In this case the transformation is presumed linear, so it's only necessary to
consider TWO instances of the experiment, each at different values of x',
so Einstein's use of calculus here is an overkill meant to shorten the process.

It's not wrong.

> This position is moving in K, to which the variable x' belongs.
>
> The movement of x' in K is rather simple, because it moves with velocity
> v along the x-axis of K.
> Now my question was, what these partial derivatives were meant to
> represent, if we have only a one-dimensional problem.

I don't think this is something I can teach you on a forum like this.

> But there are more problems than that.

There are no problems there.

> E.g. the term ∂τ/∂x' looks like an inverse of a velocity.

Sigh.

> But that was not meant, because we have a very tricky problem here:
> τ meant two different things, which were only named with the same symbol τ
> (what I have regarded as very obscure).

I think it's best to leave it at that. You are WAY too confused to be able
to follow an ASCII forum explanations. I mean it completely sympathetically,
it would be nice to have a beer in Paris (and visit Daniel Roth at St-Sulpice)
but one simply cannot physically teach anyone fluent German in 15 minutes.

--
Jan

Re: Annotated version of SRT

<jebl7qF7m7dU1@mid.individual.net>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=90261&group=sci.physics.relativity#90261

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!news.uzoreto.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: ttt_...@web.de (Thomas Heger)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Subject: Re: Annotated version of SRT
Date: Sun, 15 May 2022 08:34:37 +0200
Lines: 135
Message-ID: <jebl7qF7m7dU1@mid.individual.net>
References: <jc76moF3oggU1@mid.individual.net> <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> <59b45a30-48b0-430c-8910-fab1ff643051n@googlegroups.com> <jdp5sgFls44U1@mid.individual.net> <e5809d4b-1a2c-4e9b-be80-e17bb43a273en@googlegroups.com> <jduah6Flc3uU1@mid.individual.net> <52fe5433-4dcd-434c-905f-44e649e5b8f5n@googlegroups.com> <je11f5F6lumU1@mid.individual.net> <4e587415-9f7b-4ad9-b5ad-8a7b498ccef9n@googlegroups.com> <je55eoF9taU1@mid.individual.net> <je6csbF77dpU1@mid.individual.net> <d9f83c3d-92b5-4e36-b91e-422111f71ba6n@googlegroups.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: individual.net tuW0lg6O7jsrF82VREFVgQJ3OHrwUDVhyLTsYCfjIQAd4Kmp2k
Cancel-Lock: sha1:QBhZHE+cxZNf+ChST9ihMeZVZyk=
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.0; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0
In-Reply-To: <d9f83c3d-92b5-4e36-b91e-422111f71ba6n@googlegroups.com>
 by: Thomas Heger - Sun, 15 May 2022 06:34 UTC

Am 15.05.2022 um 04:49 schrieb JanPB:
...

>>>
>>>
>>> After a number of messages exchanged with JanPB, we came to the result,
>>> that a mirror stationary in k at same distance to xsi_0 on the xsi-axis
>>> would be a valid assumption for the intended setting.
>>>
>>> These two items move with constant distance along the x/xsi-axis into
>>> the direction of higher xsi-values.
>>>
>>> This 'tandem' is observed from the zero spot of K, which moves with
>>> velocity v relative to the system into the negative direction with -v*t.
>>>
>>> But none of Einstein's equations would fit to that setting.
>>>
>>> Instead of a coordinate transformation he developed an obscure partial
>>> differential equation, which I think is faulty and which I'm unable to
>>> associate with the setting from above.
>> This is the equation:
>>
>> 1/2*(1/(c −v) + 1/(c +v))* ∂τ/∂t = ∂τ/∂x' + 1/(c +v)* ∂τ/∂t
>>
>>
>> As justification for this equation Einstein wrote:
>>
>> "Hence, if x' be chosen infinitesimally small,..."
>>
>> I have complained, that x' cannot be chosen "infinitesimally small",
>
> This is just the 1905 way of saying "let's differentiate this equation
> with respect to x' ".

That function (NOT equation) was tau and can only differentiated to its
variables. But x' is not a variable.

In the meant context x' can be treated as a constant.

x' is actually moving in system K, but not in system k.

For the possible case v=0 we have K=k, hence this identity is a possible
setting, where x' is actually a constant.

Now you cannot differentiate function in respect to constants. That
would be nonsense, because 'small variations of a constant' are an oxymoron.

>> because x' was defined as position of the mirror at a fixed position in
>> k, but in K-coordinates.
>
> The differentiation means we consider several instances of the experiment,
> each at different x' value, and compute the limit of the relevant difference quotient.

'The experiment' cannot be carried out, anyhow, because inertial
movement of a pair of an emitter and a mirror, seen from a remote
location in (fast) relative motion, is nothing you could possibly do in
real.

So, we have here a 'thought experiment', which you do not need to carry
out with different values for the distance between mirror and emitter.

> In this case the transformation is presumed linear, so it's only necessary to
> consider TWO instances of the experiment, each at different values of x',
> so Einstein's use of calculus here is an overkill meant to shorten the process.

Well, I think this equation is plain wrong.

And as this particular equation is essential for the entire paper, there
will be no remainder, if the error is removed.

> It's not wrong.
>
>> This position is moving in K, to which the variable x' belongs.
>>
>> The movement of x' in K is rather simple, because it moves with velocity
>> v along the x-axis of K.
>> Now my question was, what these partial derivatives were meant to
>> represent, if we have only a one-dimensional problem.
>
> I don't think this is something I can teach you on a forum like this.

A link to the derivation would be sufficiant.

I think, this partial differential equation is nonsense.

reason:

he attempted to derive a function, which was meant as coordinate
transformation between system K and k.

As system k is actually the same as system K, but set into motion to
velocity v, I would simply add the displacement between K and k and the
case is closed.

For what reason did he develop that partial differential equation, in
the first place?

>> But there are more problems than that.
>
> There are no problems there.
>
>> E.g. the term ∂τ/∂x' looks like an inverse of a velocity.
>
> Sigh.
>
>> But that was not meant, because we have a very tricky problem here:
>> τ meant two different things, which were only named with the same symbol τ
>> (what I have regarded as very obscure).
>
> I think it's best to leave it at that. You are WAY too confused to be able
> to follow an ASCII forum explanations. I mean it completely sympathetically,
> it would be nice to have a beer in Paris (and visit Daniel Roth at St-Sulpice)
> but one simply cannot physically teach anyone fluent German in 15 minutes.

I see it like this:

Einstein tried to differentiate the (unknown) function tau in respect to
the constant x'. He used partial derivatives, for what there was no
reason, because the other variables (y/eta and z/zeta) were not involved.

That looks (at least at first sight) like complete nonsense to me.

If you are able to justify the equation, anyhow, I would like to hear
from you, how you would do that.

TH
>

Pages:123456789101112131415161718
server_pubkey.txt

rocksolid light 0.9.7
clearnet tor