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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #583344

Re: Annotated version of SRT

Show all headers | View raw

Am 18.04.2022 um 22:02 schrieb JanPB:

>>>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> If you want to change the subject, create a new thread. This thread
>>> is about your annotations to the 1905 paper.
>>>
>>>> Whether or not Einstein has something useful to say about the topic,
>>>> that is a question of debate.
>>>
>>> Actually, it is not. This period ended around 1906.
>> ???
>>
>> That is not how science works.
>>
>> Anything ever invented can be questioned at any time in the future.
>>
>> So, I could try to question Newton's laws, if I wanted to do so.
>>
>> That is legal, because this is how science works.
>
> This is a different topic. What you said was: "Whether or not Einstein has
> something useful to say about the topic, that is a question of debate."

Relativity is actually a daily observation. Practically everything is 
relative to something else.

So relativity per se cannot be questioned in any meaningful sense.

But we can, of course, question certain theories from this realm.

Now we are talking about a certain proposal from a guy named Albert 
Einstein, which he had published in 1905.

This proposal is about 'inertal frames of reference in streight lateral 
motion'. The relative velocity is assumed to be constant and very fast.

That is roughly the setting, about which Einstein wrote.

 From certain assumptions he came to certain results. And now we are 
discussing the question, whether or not these results are derived 
properly and have some value in physics.

I came to the conclusion, that the results themselves are possible, 
while the methods by which he came to them were not.

To derive a certain result from certain axioms, it is essential to make 
no formal errors of any kind. Especially mathematical errors are deadly 
in theoretical physics, which is based on mathematical perfectionism.

(But perfectionism was certainly not the main feature of Einstein.)


And: the axioms and other prerequisites should be chosen with care.

But in Einstein's case we have requirements, which are nowhere 
fulfilled, because we know from experience, that things do not move in 
streight lines and are always accelerated by something.


It was also illogic to take stuff from the work of a pronounced 
aetherist and try to prove the non-existence of the aether with that.


So, what to do with that paper?

I would say, a complete rewrite would be the best solution.


> ...and I responded that THAT particular question was not open to debate,
> even if relativity was experimentally falsified next week, for the same
> reason that Newton's or Maxwell's contributions are never going to be
> re-evaluated along the lines of "something useful to say about the topic",
> even though their theories have been disproved experimentally.


Ok, I should revoke that statement.

I meant something like: is the theory presented in that paper relevant 
for the topic of relativity today?

...


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> - 2022-04-15 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
                Re: Annotated version of SRT JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-04-21 13:51 -0700
                Re: Annotated version of SRT nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-04-21 23:24 +0200
                Re: Annotated version of SRT Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-04-21 21:10 -0700
                Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-04-22 08:38 +0200
                Re: Annotated version of SRT nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-04-22 11:00 +0200
                Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-04-23 08:07 +0200
                Re: Annotated version of SRT JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-04-21 13:48 -0700
                Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-04-22 09:00 +0200
                Re: Annotated version of SRT JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-04-22 01:41 -0700
                Re: Annotated version of SRT Python <python@example.invalid> - 2022-04-22 15:39 +0200
                Re: Annotated version of SRT Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-04-22 07:11 -0700
                Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-04-23 07:55 +0200
                Re: Annotated version of SRT Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-04-23 03:34 -0400
                Re: Annotated version of SRT Python <python@example.invalid> - 2022-04-23 11:52 +0200
                Re: Annotated version of SRT Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-04-23 05:49 -0700
                Re: Annotated version of SRT Cody Sakellariou <yall@ckcldcdd.ar> - 2022-04-23 07:59 +0000
                Re: Annotated version of SRT Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-23 12:56 +0000

csiph-web