Path: csiph.com!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!newsfeed.bofh.team!paganini.bofh.team!not-for-mail
From: The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.math
Subject: Re: New version of my annotations to SRT
Date: Sat, 18 May 2024 23:30:07 -0700
Organization: To protect and to server
Message-ID: <66499C6F.56C@ix.netcom.com>
References: <kr94rlFtdomU1@mid.individual.net> <kr9524FtdomU2@mid.individual.net> <uinpc7$2hvhs$1@paganini.bofh.team> <krc0t5FegngU3@mid.individual.net> <uir4sk$2rtia$1@paganini.bofh.team> <l2jaq6FitrdU1@mid.individual.net> <c563621f46c0b181dc4e999eca801ced@www.novabbs.com>
Reply-To: starmaker@ix.netcom.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: paganini.bofh.team; logging-data="3683271"; posting-host="nLYg9UBeoMWa070gP9wQcw.user.paganini.bofh.team"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@bofh.team"; posting-account="9dIQLXBM7WM9KzA+yjdR4A";
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.04Gold (WinNT; U)
X-Antivirus: Avast (VPS 240518-8, 05/18/2024), Outbound message
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.9.3
Xref: csiph.com sci.physics.relativity:653831 sci.physics:887651 sci.math:627721

JanPB wrote:
> 
> Thomas Heger wrote:
> 
> > Am 12.11.2023 um 19:17 schrieb Frauly Bagaryatsky:
> >> Thomas Heger wrote:
> >>
> >>>>> Actually you can read the annotations now online (without downloading
> >>>>> the file).
> >>>>
> >>>> nonsense, that's completely bullshit. It displays you never been study
> >>>> at an university with a 𝘃𝗶𝘀𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴_𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗳𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗼𝗿.
> > Most likely a few specialists exist in Germany, who actually know.
> 
> > I was actually a HYPOTHETICAL professor (in my role as writer of these
> > annotations).
> 
> > The method goes like this:
> 
> > imagine you were a professor and had to write corrections for the
> > homework of a student (Albert Einstein in this case).
> 
> > The 'homework' is the text in question ('On the electrodynamics of
> > moving bodies' in this case).
> 
> > So my 'duty' would be to write annotations, where I give the student a
> > few hints, how to avoid errors next time.
> 
> > I found 428 errors in Einstein's text and therefore wrote so many
> > annotations.
> 
> There are no errors in Einstein's paper. There are instances of sloppiness,
> bending over backwards, inconsequential omissions, and the like, all of which are
> typical of any science paper.


"inconsequential omissions"???? Like Albert Einstein's 1905 Relativity
paper NOT neven even mentioning ONCE 'Gravity'.


inconsequential omissions??? unimportant? irrelevant? of no
signficance?? poppycock;rubblish.







-- 
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, 
and challenge the unchallengeable.