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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #598550

Re: Updated crackpot index?

Show all headers | View raw

On 12/28/2022 2:38 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 28.12.2022 um 05:00 schrieb Volney:
>> On 12/27/2022 3:36 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>> Am 26.12.2022 um 20:10 schrieb Volney:
>>>> On 12/25/2022 5:17 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>>> Am 24.12.2022 um 21:32 schrieb Volney:
>>>>>> On 12/24/2022 3:57 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>> The claim is more or less, that cults took over science and 
>>>>>>> turned it
>>>>>>> away from the scientific method.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Then what is produced would not follow the scientific method, yet it
>>>>>> still does. Plus the "cult followers" bit is never supported with
>>>>>> evidence that such a "takeover" happened.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I personally think, that such a 'takeover' actually happened.
>>>>
>>>> Without evidence of that, nobody cares what you think.
>>>>>
>>>>> For instance I have studies Einstein's 'On the electrodynamics of
>>>>> moving bodies' for a very long time in detail. But I found a very
>>>>> large number of errors in it (well over 400).
>>>>
>>>> No, you haven't. As has been repeatedly explained to you.
>>>>>
>>>>> These errors could not been overlooked by Planck, who was a
>>>>> world-class physicist.
>>>>
>>>> Since there were no such errors, there was nothing for Planck to
>>>> overlook.
>>>
>>>
>>> I have discussed now lots of errors (in my view) and the result was
>>> always the same:
>>>
>>> the errors are simply denied, the critique was uttered by a crank (me)
>>> and the case is closed.
>>
>> The "errors" were refuted because all of them that anyone has looked at
>> were misunderstandings or errors by yourself, not in the paper.
>>>
>>> But I can provide something new for you to defend:
>>>
>>> it is actually a very simple error and belongs to a class called 'non
>>> sequitur'. (This means 'it does not follow'.)
>>>
>>> It is on page 8 in § 3 about 'Theory of the Transformation of
>>> Co-ordinates ...'
>>>
>>> There are two equations in the upper part of page 8, which both
>>> describe a certain point (x,y,z) in K coordinates, which was '...just
>>> attained by this wave,...'.
>>>
>>> Now the first equation describes the length of the path of a wave from
>>> the origin to that point by kind of '3d-pythagoras':
>>>
>>> x² +y² +z² = c²*t²
>>>
>>> That is certainly true and not particularily interesting.
>>>
>>> The second equation is this
>>> ξ² +η² +ζ² = c²* τ²
>>>
>>> This is the same point in coordinates from k.
>>>
>>> This is also not very spectacular, even if the coordinate system k is
>>> moving
>>
>> Only moving relative to K. Remember, motion is always relative.
>>
>>> and the equation does not make any attempt to compensate that movement.
>>
>> What is there to 'compensate'? Both are equations in inertial frames, K
>> and k. Remember the first postulate, the laws of physics are the same in
>> all inertial frames. Including K and k.
> 
> If you have a certain point ('.. just attained by the wave...') with 
> certain coordinates -like e.g.(1,2,3) - in system K and now want the 
> coordinates of that point in coordinates based on system k, you need to 
> conduct a so called 'coordinate transformation'.

Only if you need to swap from one frame to the other.
> 
> This was actually the topic of §3.
> 
> Now I would expect an influence of movement upon the coordinates in the 
> equation for the  moving system.

What movement? From frame k, frame k is stationary (tautology) but frame 
K is moving. Do remember "moving system" is essentially a NAME since the 
original frame K is described as stationary (relative to an unspecified 
original observer), so k is moving wrt this original observer because it 
is moving relative to K.
> 
> This is required, because the coordinates of the very same physical 
> point in coordinates k had to be derived, which have some other 
> coordinates in measures of system K, which is regarded as non-moving.

Relative to the unmentioned observer in the original description of K.
> 
> IOW: we have the same wave and the same point, but different 
> coordinates, because we have two different coordinate system. and one is 
> regarded as stationary and one as moving.

It appears you don't understand the concept of relative motion, you 
consider K as (absolutely) stationary and k as (absolutely) moving. This 
has been known wrong since Galileo.
> 
> The task is therefore to convert the coordinates of (1,2,3) in K to some 
> other coordinates in k.
> 
> But that was not, what Einstein had actually done.
> 
> Instead he implicitly created a new wave and made that expand in the 
> moving system k.

Not a new wave, he just shows how the same wave expands in k. Remember 
in k the time parameter is not t but τ.
> 
> Einstein should have provided a coordinate transformation, but didn't. 
> He simply wrote Greek letters instead od Latin ones.
> 
> The Greek letters mean coordinates in system k.
> 
> But that was already known, because he wanted to derive coordinates in 
> k. The interesting part would be to know, WHICH coordinates come out of 
> the coordinate transformation.
> 
> The exchange of letters was then used as justification of this statement:
> 
> "The wave under consideration is therefore no less a spherical  wave 
> with velocity of propagation c when viewed in the moving system.  This 
> shows that our two fundamental principles are compatible."

No, he derived how ξ² +η² +ζ² = c²* τ² was the result for the moving system.

You ignored the phrase "when viewed in the moving system."
> 
> But this statement cannot be justified by an exchange of letters.

Not "just" an exchange of letters, he DERIVED that.
> 
> To make matters worse, the statement is also wrong.
> 
> It is wrong, because a spherical wave stationary in system K is no 
> longer spherical if seen from a moving position,

You are frame jumping. You are implicitly using frame K's "t" when the 
result seen from frame k uses τ.

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

Thread

Re: Updated crackpot index? Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-12-23 02:00 -0500
  Re: Updated crackpot index? Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-12-22 23:21 -0800
    Re: Updated crackpot index? Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-12-24 01:32 -0500
      Re: Updated crackpot index? Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-12-23 23:15 -0800
  Re: Updated crackpot index? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-12-24 09:57 +0100
    Re: Updated crackpot index? Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-12-24 15:32 -0500
      Re: Updated crackpot index? Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-12-24 13:33 -0800
        Re: Updated crackpot index? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-12-29 09:34 +0100
          Re: Updated crackpot index? Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-12-29 00:48 -0800
            Re: Updated crackpot index? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-12-30 12:03 +0100
              Re: Updated crackpot index? Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-12-30 03:58 -0800
                Re: Updated crackpot index? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2023-01-01 10:10 +0100
                Re: Updated crackpot index? Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-01-01 03:47 -0800
                Re: Updated crackpot index? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2023-01-02 08:35 +0100
                Re: Updated crackpot index? Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-01-02 01:00 -0800
                Re: Updated crackpot index? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2023-01-03 07:59 +0100
      Re: Updated crackpot index? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-12-25 11:17 +0100
        Re: Updated crackpot index? Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2022-12-25 14:40 -0800
          Re: Updated crackpot index? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-12-26 10:23 +0100
        Re: Updated crackpot index? Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-12-26 14:10 -0500
          Re: Updated crackpot index? Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-12-26 12:37 -0800
          Re: Updated crackpot index? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-12-27 09:36 +0100
            Re: Updated crackpot index? Thurman De palma <eaan@phapremr.an> - 2022-12-27 13:57 +0000
            Re: Updated crackpot index? Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-12-27 23:00 -0500
              Re: Updated crackpot index? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-12-28 08:38 +0100
                Re: Updated crackpot index? Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-12-29 15:25 -0500
                Re: Updated crackpot index? Emmet Robustelli <uttl@etlmms.re> - 2022-12-29 21:28 +0000
                Re: Updated crackpot index? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-12-30 12:41 +0100
                Re: Updated crackpot index? Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-01-02 11:45 -0500
                Re: Updated crackpot index? Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-01-02 08:49 -0800
                Re: Updated crackpot index? Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-01-02 09:08 -0800
                Re: Updated crackpot index? Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-01-02 09:15 -0800
                Re: Updated crackpot index? Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-01-03 02:14 -0500
                Re: Updated crackpot index? Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-01-02 23:52 -0800
                Re: Updated crackpot index? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2023-01-03 08:27 +0100
              Re: Updated crackpot index? Ufonaut <ufonaut9@gmail.com> - 2022-12-28 06:12 -0800
                Re: Updated crackpot index? Ufonaut <ufonaut9@gmail.com> - 2022-12-28 06:23 -0800
                Re: Updated crackpot index? Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2022-12-28 08:27 -0800
                Re: Updated crackpot index? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-12-29 09:19 +0100
                Re: Updated crackpot index? Ufonaut <ufonaut9@gmail.com> - 2022-12-29 04:51 -0800
                Re: Updated crackpot index? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-12-30 12:52 +0100

csiph-web