Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #577051

Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT'

Show all headers | View raw

Am 13.02.2022 um 18:57 schrieb Michael Moroney:
> On 2/13/2022 3:15 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>> Am 13.02.2022 um 08:42 schrieb Michael Moroney:
>>> On 2/13/2022 2:19 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>> I also have found some more errors of Einstein.
>>>>
>>>> e.g. this is a real gem:
>>>>
>>>> "...and maintain the equation—mass × acceleration = force..."
>>>>
>>>> The cross product can only applied to vectors, but mass is certainly
>>>> not a vector. But supposed it would be a vector, the vector of force
>>>> and the vector of acceleration are not perpendicular.
>>>>
>>>> So, the use of the cross product was wrong here and the quantities
>>>> were not properly defined.
>>>
>>> Idjit.
>>>
>>> You don't even know of the ordinary multiplication sign "×"? Really?
>>>
>> Well, ordinary people may use it for multiplication.
>
> As do extraordinary people.
>>
>> But theoretical physics is another kind of thing, where symbols are
>> much more complicated than for common mortals.
>>
>> In theoretical physics there exist several types of multiplications,
>> for which different symbols are used. The 'x' used for multiplication
>> means 'cross product' and nothing else.
>
> That's just crap you made up from nothing.
>
> Whether "x" means multiplication or cross product is context dependent.
> In this context, when multiplying a vector quantity by a scalar to get
> another vector quantity, the context is obvious, it's multiplication.
> Remember, his target audience is other physicists of his time, not
> cranks on Usenet 115+ years later.


The equation was rubbish anyhow in a scientific paper for professional 
physicists, to whom you must not explain F=m*a.

But in case you do that, despite being unenecessary, you should stick to 
scientific principles.

But Einstein didn't and used the rather strange phrase 'Kraftzahl' in 
the German original (what means 'force number').

The German phrase is certainly a scalar quantity, while the x would be 
used for vectors.

>>
>> If you don't want to stick to what is common in the field, you could
>> use other symbols, if you define them properly.
>
> Like what? "x" for multiplication is common in the field!

In mathematics, what is the foundation of theoretical physics, there 
exist at least two different kinds of vector multiplication:
cross product and scalar product.

Now an author should say, which one he wanted to use.

If he uses a symbol, which could be interpreted as a cross, he had to 
mean 'cross', because otherwise he had to write, that he meant something 
else.

Now you may possibly argue, that Einstein meant a scalar with force and 
acceleration (what is actually true), but that would make matters worse, 
because these quantities are vectorial.

>>
>> But no such definitions can be found, hence the usual meaning must be
>> applied, what is 'cross product'.
>
> Or multiplication, which is really the default. It's context dependent,
> and his target audience never even slowed down when encountering the
> multiplication symbol "x".  Especially since he was simply repeating an
> extremely well-known physics relationship, F=ma.


I argue, that a scientific paper had to be interpreted as it is and not 
as you like it to be.

So, I interpret the text verbatim and would not introduce any background 
knowledge, whether it is obvious or not.

Therefore, I disagree to your statement, that scientific papers allow 
'context dependent' interpretations, because it is not the duty of the 
reader to do that, but of the author to say, what he wants to say.

>> If someone does not agree to the usual habbits in theoretical physics
>> and uses, what 'the man on the street' uses, he should aswell do, what
>> common people do and e.g. play Bingo and read the SUN.
>>
> His target audience (not you) had absolutely no issue with that.

Well, that is most likely true, but would not make the text better.

> You seem to be almost desperate to find anything at all that you can
> claim to be an error.

This is correct, because this was actually my setting:

pretend to be a physics professor, who aims to find every single error, 
however small.

This was actually meant as a learning tool and is equivalent to solve 
some kind of riddle.

It's aim was to find every single error, if possible, and leave non 
unmentioned.

TH

Back to sci.physics.relativity | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-02-12 20:18 +0100
  Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-02-12 20:23 +0100
    Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Darrel Angus <argus@iiehdc.mx> - 2022-02-12 19:43 +0000
  Crank Thomas Heger perseveres "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-02-12 11:38 -0800
    Re: Crank Dontknow perverses Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-02-12 20:48 +0100
      Re: Crank Dontknow perverses Darrel Angus <argus@iiehdc.mx> - 2022-02-12 21:19 +0000
      Re: Crank Dontknow perverses "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-02-12 15:21 -0800
        Re: Crank Dontknow perverses Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2022-02-13 00:01 +0000
  Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-12 20:26 +0000
  Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-12 22:12 +0000
    Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-02-13 08:19 +0100
      Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-02-13 02:42 -0500
        Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-02-13 09:15 +0100
          Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-13 13:30 +0000
          Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-02-13 12:57 -0500
            Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-02-14 08:24 +0100
              Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-14 14:13 +0000
              Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-02-14 18:48 -0500
                Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-02-17 07:52 +0100
                Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-02-17 03:23 -0500
                Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-02-17 00:28 -0800
          Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-02-14 10:16 +0200
            Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2022-02-14 14:01 +0100
              Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-02-15 10:49 +0100
                Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Python <python@example.invalid> - 2022-02-15 13:28 +0100
                Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-02-15 05:09 -0800
                Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-02-16 07:38 +0100
                Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-15 14:01 +0000
                Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-02-16 07:45 +0100
                Cretin Thomas Heger perseveres "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-02-15 22:54 -0800
                Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-16 13:32 +0000
                Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-02-17 07:27 +0100
                Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-17 13:57 +0000
                Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-02-16 13:12 +0200
                Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-02-17 07:34 +0100
            Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2022-02-14 14:34 +0100
        Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-02-14 16:35 -0800
      Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-02-13 09:36 +0100
        Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2022-02-13 19:08 +0100
          Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-02-13 17:09 -0500
      Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-13 13:30 +0000
  Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-02-12 23:04 -0800
    Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-02-13 09:17 +0100
      Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-13 13:30 +0000
        Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-02-13 05:54 -0800
      Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-02-13 10:35 -0500
      Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-02-13 13:31 -0800

csiph-web