Path: csiph.com!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!newsfeed.bofh.team!paganini.bofh.team!not-for-mail From: The Starmaker Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics Subject: Re: New version of my annotations to SRT Date: Mon, 20 May 2024 16:33:10 -0700 Organization: To protect and to server Message-ID: <664BDDB6.2986@ix.netcom.com> References: <66499C6F.56C@ix.netcom.com> <664A71C4.71A@ix.netcom.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="4080542"; posting-host="nLYg9UBeoMWa070gP9wQcw.user.paganini.bofh.team"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@bofh.team"; posting-account="9dIQLXBM7WM9KzA+yjdR4A"; X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.04Gold (WinNT; U) X-Antivirus-Status: Clean X-Antivirus: Avast (VPS 240520-6, 05/20/2024), Outbound message X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.9.3 Xref: csiph.com sci.physics.relativity:653860 sci.physics:887675 The Starmaker wrote: > > Volney wrote: > > > > On 5/19/2024 2:30 AM, The Starmaker wrote: > > > 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'. > > > > > Duh-h-h! That was a paper on special relativity, and special relativity > > doesn't involve gravity! > > Time dilation special relativity 1905 paper is caused by relativity or gravity? > If you *steal* somebodies homework you liable to make the same mistakes. -- The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge the unchallengeable.