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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #583129

Re: Annotated version of SRT

Show all headers | View raw

Am 16.04.2022 um 21:59 schrieb JanPB:
> On Saturday, April 16, 2022 at 1:23:06 AM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
>> Am 16.04.2022 um 00:46 schrieb JanPB:
>>> On Friday, April 15, 2022 at 9:29:29 AM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>> Am 14.04.2022 um 17:42 schrieb Odd Bodkin:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Anyone who is interested in promoting their own furniture that competes
>>>>> with IKEA is going to dump the contents of an IKEA kit, complain that the
>>>>> bags containing the bolts are not labeled with standard sizes, will
>>>>> deliberately lose the hex key and complain that it wasn’t fastened down,
>>>>> complain that if there are three identical wooden parts they aren’t labeled
>>>>> A, B, C or A1, A2, A3.
>>>> What I'm actually very good at, that are such mechanical tasks like to
>>>> assemble an IKEA shelve.
>>>>
>>>> I cannot really prove it. But just take my word for that.
>>>>> Likewise, TH has a desire to promote his own ideas that compete with
>>>>> relativity, and so he’s going to take a relativity paper and dump out the
>>>>> contents on the floor and have lots of complaints that it’s unusable for
>>>>> idiots, where idiots were not the intended audience of the relativity
>>>>> paper.
>>>> I'm not at all against relativity. I have analyzed a certain paper and
>>>> have presented my results. This paper has some connections to
>>>> relativity, but is not relativity itself.
>>>
>>> It's a paper that defined relativity. Other than that it has some
>>> connections to relativity.
>> Relativity is way older than even Einstein.
>
> By "relativity" on this NG we mean Einstein's 1905 theory.

Definetely not.

'Relativity' is actually a very trivial concept and most likely nobody 
would disagree.

But it started with Gillieo or even further.

Whether or not Einstein has something useful to say about the topic, 
that is a question of debate.

>> But it case of Einstein's 'on the electrodynics of moving bodies' we had
>> to analyse the ancestors of this theory, too.
>>
>> We had, for instance, Hendrik Lorentz and Henri Poincaré, who wrote
>> about similar topics.
>>
>> But far more interesting is actually Heinrich Hertz.
>>
>> He wrote about the distribution of electric fields a longish book.


see here

https://de.wikisource.org/wiki/Untersuchungen_%C3%BCber_die_Ausbreitung_der_elektrischen_Kraft

Unfortunately I don't know, if that book was translated into English.


>> Chapter 14 had the title (in German) like 'About the basic equations of
>> the electrodynamics of moving bodies'.
>>
>> That sounds familliar, doesn't it?
>>
>> Also a number of equations and basic concepts seem to stem from there.
>>
>> The book is remarkably well written, and combines great experimental
>> care with great mathematical and physical skills.
>>
>> Now Hertz wasn't forgottten, because he was actually a hero in physics
>> and invented radio waves. But his theory about the aether is wastly
>> forgotten, from which Einstein was apparently inspired.
>
> In the sense that Einstein's theory does not depend on aether.


Heinrich Hertz was an 'aetherist' and developed equations to describe 
the aether.

Now Einstein took these equations and used them to disprove the 
existence of an aether.

>> That is in fact odd, because Einstein took the equations about the
>> behaviour of the aether from Hertz and 'proved', that aether would not
>> exist.
>
> Einstein did not "prove" that. Instead, he created a theory which is agnostic
> wrt aether.


He used equations of Hertz, which meant 'aether', hence cannot derive 
the non-existence with such equations.

The prerequisites of his derivation were 'inherited' from Hertz, because 
he used his equations.



>>>> The results prove nothing about relativity, because errors prove
>>>> nothing, not right and not wrong.
>>>
>>> There are no errors in that paper.
>>>
>> At least the lack of a reference to used material was bad science, at best.
>
> No, it was a standard practice back then. Go to a good science library and
> flip through issues or Annalen der Physik from about that year. Or other
> physics journals. You'll see lots of papers in them that list no references.
> The readers knew very well what lines of inspiration were relevant
> without writing it explicitly (as is the fashion today when even someone
> mentioning something to you over a beer gets listed as "private communication").

He did not just use a few equations.

TH

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

Thread

Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-04-13 07:49 +0200
  Re: Annotated version of SRT Reinhardt Behm <rbehm@hushmail.com> - 2022-04-13 07:41 +0000
    Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-04-14 08:21 +0200
      Re: Annotated version of SRT Python <python@example.invalid> - 2022-04-14 14:38 +0200
        Re: Annotated version of SRT Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-04-14 07:47 -0700
        Re: Annotated version of SRT Reinhardt Behm <rbehm@hushmail.com> - 2022-04-14 15:26 +0000
          Re: Annotated version of SRT Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-14 15:42 +0000
            Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-04-15 18:29 +0200
              Re: Annotated version of SRT Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-15 17:00 +0000
              Re: Annotated version of SRT JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-04-15 15:46 -0700
                Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-04-16 10:23 +0200
                Re: Annotated version of SRT JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-04-16 12:59 -0700
                Re: Annotated version of SRT nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-04-16 23:13 +0200
                Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-04-17 10:04 +0200
                Re: Annotated version of SRT whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-04-17 04:46 -0500
                Re: Annotated version of SRT JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-04-17 17:11 -0700
                Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-04-18 09:33 +0200
                Re: Annotated version of SRT Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-18 12:38 +0000
                Re: Annotated version of SRT nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-04-18 16:05 +0200
                Re: Annotated version of SRT Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-04-18 09:24 -0700
                Crank Thomas Heger perseveres (in his imbecility) "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-04-18 08:49 -0700
                Re: Annotated version of SRT JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-04-18 13:02 -0700
                Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-04-19 09:29 +0200
                Re: Annotated version of SRT Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-04-19 01:03 -0700
                Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-04-19 11:42 +0200
                Re: Annotated version of SRT JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-04-19 03:01 -0700
                Re: Annotated version of SRT Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-04-19 03:33 -0700
                Re: Annotated version of SRT Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-04-19 11:05 -0400
                Re: Annotated version of SRT Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-04-19 08:25 -0700
                Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-04-21 08:53 +0200
                Re: Annotated version of SRT Reinhardt Behm <rbehm@hushmail.com> - 2022-04-21 13:13 +0000
                Re: Annotated version of SRT Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2022-04-21 07:32 -0700

csiph-web