Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #591990 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2022-09-18 22:39 +0000 |
| Last post | 2022-12-07 23:06 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 290 — 33 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
The error of relativistic physicists explained Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2022-09-18 22:39 +0000
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-09-18 17:14 -0700
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-09-18 17:37 -0700
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-09-18 17:55 -0700
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-09-18 23:17 -0700
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-09-18 19:32 -0700
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-09-18 20:12 -0700
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2022-09-19 09:35 +0000
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2022-09-19 09:44 +0000
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2022-09-19 09:53 +0000
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2022-09-20 13:59 +0000
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-09-20 08:23 -0700
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-09-19 12:10 +0300
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2022-09-19 11:29 +0000
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-09-19 19:42 -0700
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-09-20 13:18 +0300
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-09-20 15:15 -0400
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Justus Basurto <trso@subsrbob.au> - 2022-09-20 19:34 +0000
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Justus Basurto <trso@subsrbob.au> - 2022-09-20 19:47 +0000
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Justus Basurto <trso@subsrbob.au> - 2022-09-20 19:54 +0000
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2022-09-20 21:45 +0000
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Justus Basurto <trso@subsrbob.au> - 2022-09-20 21:56 +0000
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-09-20 15:47 -0700
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-09-20 19:51 -0400
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2022-09-21 10:59 +0000
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-09-21 06:32 -0700
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2022-09-21 23:20 +0000
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-09-21 16:53 -0700
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-09-21 19:29 -0400
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-09-21 23:14 -0700
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Jeiker Carboni <iree@eoaijoje.br> - 2022-09-22 14:26 +0000
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Jeiker Carboni <iree@eoaijoje.br> - 2022-09-22 15:27 +0000
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-09-20 22:42 -0700
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-09-20 22:51 -0700
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-09-23 07:03 +0200
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2022-09-23 11:50 +0000
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-09-23 07:22 -0700
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-09-23 12:55 -0700
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-09-24 08:21 +0200
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-09-23 23:59 -0700
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-09-24 09:24 +0200
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-09-24 11:24 -0700
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-09-25 08:44 +0200
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained "Paul B. Andersen" <pba@paulba.no> - 2022-09-25 14:56 +0200
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2022-09-26 20:32 +0000
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-11-01 07:40 +0100
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-11-01 00:23 -0700
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-11-05 08:22 +0100
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-11-05 11:08 -0700
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-11-06 08:41 +0100
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-11-06 10:35 -0800
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-11-07 14:06 -0500
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-11-08 07:19 +0100
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-11-08 00:09 -0800
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-11-08 10:27 -0500
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-11-08 08:54 -0800
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-11-09 09:10 -0500
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-11-16 08:15 +0100
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Athel Cornish-Bowden <acornish@imm.cnrs.fr> - 2022-11-16 09:14 +0100
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-11-16 12:59 -0500
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-11-16 10:37 -0800
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Jules Scotti <ujsl@ocjssuis.os> - 2022-11-16 18:40 +0000
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-11-18 08:33 +0100
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-11-20 20:56 -0500
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-11-23 08:55 +0100
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Everly Segreti <ille@leysgsei.re> - 2022-11-08 18:52 +0000
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-11-09 09:24 -0500
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Everly Segreti <ille@leysgsei.re> - 2022-11-09 16:17 +0000
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-11-09 12:34 -0500
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Everly Segreti <ille@leysgsei.re> - 2022-11-09 19:30 +0000
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-11-09 12:37 -0800
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Everly Segreti <ille@leysgsei.re> - 2022-11-10 06:21 +0000
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-11-09 23:19 -0800
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Everly Segreti <ille@leysgsei.re> - 2022-11-10 07:59 +0000
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Urbano Napoleoni <uiiu@ilaonpno.ai> - 2022-12-07 23:10 +0000
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-12-07 15:28 -0800
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Everly Segreti <ille@leysgsei.re> - 2022-11-10 06:47 +0000
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-11-10 08:34 +0100
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-11-12 01:32 -0500
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Stefano Martelli <ftor@asanlnit.ir> - 2022-11-12 09:06 +0000
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Athel Cornish-Bowden <acornish@imm.cnrs.fr> - 2022-11-12 11:27 +0100
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-11-13 09:58 +0100
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-11-13 11:17 -0500
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-11-14 08:11 +0100
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-11-14 11:31 -0500
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-11-15 09:20 +0100
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-11-16 08:06 +0100
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Athel Cornish-Bowden <acornish@imm.cnrs.fr> - 2022-11-16 09:12 +0100
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-11-16 12:56 -0500
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-11-17 09:03 +0100
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Athel Cornish-Bowden <acornish@imm.cnrs.fr> - 2022-11-17 10:22 +0100
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-11-18 08:03 +0100
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-11-20 21:01 -0500
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Blake Armanni <blea@arrkare.in> - 2022-11-21 10:41 +0000
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-11-21 13:37 -0500
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Blake Armanni <blea@arrkare.in> - 2022-11-21 20:33 +0000
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-11-23 13:21 -0500
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Forest Vaccaro <asoa@ctrsreca.vr> - 2022-11-23 19:10 +0000
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-11-23 09:14 +0100
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-11-17 13:10 +0100
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Athel Cornish-Bowden <acornish@imm.cnrs.fr> - 2022-11-17 15:07 +0100
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-11-18 08:10 +0100
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-11-09 07:57 +0100
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-11-08 23:15 -0800
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-11-09 12:03 -0500
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-11-10 08:21 +0100
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-11-12 01:55 -0500
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-11-20 09:19 +0100
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-11-20 21:18 -0500
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-11-20 22:12 -0800
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-11-21 08:52 +0100
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-11-22 08:37 +0100
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-11-23 18:31 -0500
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-11-23 22:32 -0800
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-11-24 08:49 +0100
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-09-25 13:08 -0700
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-09-26 08:46 +0200
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-09-26 09:25 -0700
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-09-26 15:42 -0700
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-09-27 08:33 +0200
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-09-27 13:01 -0700
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Nikki Baldini <inai@dilainii.ib> - 2022-09-27 23:17 +0000
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-09-28 08:15 +0200
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-09-28 00:04 -0700
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Nikki Baldini <inai@dilainii.ib> - 2022-09-28 16:10 +0000
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-09-28 11:55 -0700
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Nikki Baldini <inai@dilainii.ib> - 2022-09-28 19:23 +0000
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-09-28 12:46 -0700
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Nikki Baldini <inai@dilainii.ib> - 2022-09-28 21:28 +0000
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Nikki Baldini <inai@dilainii.ib> - 2022-09-28 21:34 +0000
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-09-28 16:17 -0500
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Urbano Napoleoni <uiiu@ilaonpno.ai> - 2022-12-07 23:25 +0000
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-12-07 15:29 -0800
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-09-28 11:53 -0700
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-09-29 08:48 +0200
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-09-29 10:54 -0700
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-09-30 09:12 +0200
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-10-01 16:05 -0700
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-10-02 09:58 +0200
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-10-02 03:34 -0700
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-10-03 08:55 +0200
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-10-03 01:02 -0700
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-10-06 08:21 +0200
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-10-06 00:57 -0700
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-10-06 20:04 +0200
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-10-06 12:00 -0700
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-10-07 07:21 +0200
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-10-07 14:14 -0700
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Urbano Stilo <nuor@riotlaur.iu> - 2022-10-08 03:37 +0000
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-10-08 08:19 +0200
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-10-08 03:37 -0400
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-10-08 14:29 -0700
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Michel Marconi <iinc@lcrallem.or> - 2022-10-08 22:21 +0000
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-10-10 08:37 +0200
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-10-10 01:56 -0700
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-10-11 08:03 +0200
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-10-11 01:06 -0700
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-10-11 01:25 -0700
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-10-12 08:17 +0200
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-10-11 23:32 -0700
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-10-12 11:27 -0700
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-10-13 09:33 +0200
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-10-13 13:58 -0700
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Woodrow Adessi <reds@odirsodo.er> - 2022-10-13 21:03 +0000
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-10-14 08:49 +0200
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-10-14 01:11 -0700
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-10-15 09:24 +0200
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-10-15 03:05 -0700
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-10-16 09:30 +0200
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-10-16 13:02 -0700
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-10-16 13:19 -0700
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-10-17 08:18 +0200
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-10-17 02:48 -0700
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-10-18 08:56 +0200
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-10-19 14:51 -0700
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-10-20 21:14 +0200
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-10-20 13:27 -0700
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-10-21 09:03 +0200
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-10-21 02:05 -0700
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-10-22 10:36 +0200
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Oscar Alcheri <ohci@iessicsr.rn> - 2022-10-22 08:42 +0000
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-10-22 12:04 -0700
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Oscar Alcheri <ohci@iessicsr.rn> - 2022-10-22 19:47 +0000
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-10-22 19:54 -0700
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-10-22 23:00 -0700
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-10-23 09:13 +0200
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-10-23 02:45 -0700
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-10-25 07:49 +0200
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-10-24 23:53 -0700
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-10-25 09:26 +0200
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-10-25 12:32 -0700
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-10-28 09:16 +0200
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-10-28 20:51 -0700
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-10-30 08:25 +0100
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-10-30 13:51 -0700
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-10-31 09:40 +0100
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-10-31 11:26 +0200
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-10-31 17:42 -0700
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-11-01 07:59 +0100
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-11-01 00:35 -0700
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-11-02 09:04 +0100
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-11-02 11:39 +0200
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-11-04 08:18 +0100
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-11-04 12:12 +0200
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-11-04 10:49 -0700
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-11-05 08:35 +0100
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-11-05 11:10 -0700
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-11-06 08:51 +0100
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-11-06 10:47 -0800
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-11-08 07:35 +0100
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-11-08 00:07 -0800
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Everly Segreti <ille@leysgsei.re> - 2022-11-08 19:28 +0000
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-10-26 08:48 +0200
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-10-22 22:31 -0400
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-10-22 22:57 -0700
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-10-23 09:24 +0200
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Oscar Alcheri <ohci@iessicsr.rn> - 2022-10-23 07:46 +0000
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-10-23 02:48 -0700
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-10-23 02:51 -0700
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-10-25 08:05 +0200
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-10-25 19:48 -0400
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-10-27 08:51 +0200
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Chase Rossini <asoi@riisscss.ho> - 2022-10-28 10:49 +0000
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Urbano Stilo <nuor@riotlaur.iu> - 2022-10-08 04:01 +0000
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-10-08 14:02 +0200
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-10-09 08:30 +0200
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Michel Marconi <iinc@lcrallem.or> - 2022-10-09 12:02 +0000
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-10-09 22:29 +0200
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-10-07 02:05 -0400
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Urbano Stilo <nuor@riotlaur.iu> - 2022-10-08 03:57 +0000
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-10-08 08:47 +0200
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-10-08 03:43 -0400
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-10-09 08:36 +0200
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Michel Marconi <iinc@lcrallem.or> - 2022-10-09 12:14 +0000
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-10-10 08:23 +0200
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Mandy Stabile <alts@ilnnnbsl.ed> - 2022-10-10 15:40 +0000
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-10-11 08:08 +0200
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained "Paul B. Andersen" <pba@paulba.no> - 2022-10-02 14:37 +0200
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-10-02 14:27 -0700
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-10-02 14:38 -0700
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-10-03 09:21 +0200
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-10-03 01:08 -0700
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-10-03 11:59 -0400
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Douglass Nervetti <dlul@esivlen.an> - 2022-10-03 18:31 +0000
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Urbano Napoleoni <uiiu@ilaonpno.ai> - 2022-12-07 23:03 +0000
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-12-07 15:24 -0800
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-10-06 08:29 +0200
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-10-06 00:58 -0700
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-10-06 20:11 +0200
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-10-06 11:31 -0700
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-10-06 11:33 -0700
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-11-30 09:19 +0100
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Lee Barsetti <erre@battaete.tr> - 2022-11-30 16:12 +0000
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-11-30 20:15 -0800
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-12-01 10:46 +0100
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-12-01 12:40 -0800
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-12-01 13:15 -0800
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-12-02 08:22 +0100
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-12-02 03:17 -0800
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-12-05 08:51 +0100
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-12-05 03:03 -0800
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Dallas Basurto <aarr@maramr.sa> - 2022-12-05 18:34 +0000
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-12-06 09:08 +0100
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-12-06 13:01 -0600
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-12-07 09:12 +0100
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-12-07 12:31 -0600
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-12-08 08:06 +0100
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-12-08 10:17 -0600
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-12-09 07:54 +0100
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-12-09 10:56 -0600
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-12-10 07:53 +0100
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2022-12-10 06:53 -0800
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-12-10 10:06 -0600
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-12-11 07:48 +0100
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-12-14 08:29 +0100
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-12-14 06:06 -0600
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Fabio Brambilla <oaab@llbaboaa.am> - 2022-12-14 17:36 +0000
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-12-14 13:48 -0600
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-12-15 10:15 +0100
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-12-15 01:17 -0800
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-12-15 05:57 -0600
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-12-16 12:45 -0800
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-12-15 05:52 -0600
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-12-16 08:43 +0100
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2022-12-07 11:23 -0800
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-12-02 01:25 -0500
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Nikki Baldini <inai@dilainii.ib> - 2022-09-28 21:46 +0000
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Nikki Baldini <inai@dilainii.ib> - 2022-09-27 16:39 +0000
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-09-27 12:34 -0700
Re: The error of relativistic physicists explained Urbano Napoleoni <uiiu@ilaonpno.ai> - 2022-12-07 23:06 +0000
Page 3 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 … 15 Next page →
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-09-24 09:24 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <jp7pkuFnd24U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #592204 |
Am 24.09.2022 um 08:59 schrieb JanPB: >>>> SRT covers no acceleration at all, even in situations, where >>>> accelerations would occur. >>> >>> This is false. SRT is a type of mechanics, like Newton's, and >>> both naturally deal with accelerated objects and accelerated >>> observers. Mathematically, this is what calculus is for. >>> >>>> This is especially the case for movement >>>> 'along any polygonal line'. >>>> >>>> This statement of Einstein was clearly nonsense. >>> >>> No, you merely misunderstood it. >> Sure. >> >> But I can take a statement litterally, if an author means something else >> than what his words say, like 'between the lines' or 'decipherable only >> for initiates'. In this case he cannot complain, if some non-initiate >> takes him verbatim. > > Scientists write papers for other scientists. They are not meant to > be student textbooks. Well, possibly. But the text in a scientific paper is not meant to be written in a hidden code, but must be understood as it is. So, the text of a paper had to be interpreted as if it were cast in stone and meant litterally verbatim. >> So, I took his statement varbatim, which said, that the previous results >> would also be valid for movement along any polygonal line. >> >> But that is clearly nonsense, > > Yeah, whatever. > > Pathetic. You ignored the problem, about which I have written. That was this: you claimed, that there are no errors in the text 'On the electrodynamics of moving bodies' by A. Einstein. Now I wrote something, which indicates, that contrary to your claim, there are in fact errors in this particular text (actually the number is huge - more than 400). But you failed to disprove my statements, but ignored them entirely and called them 'pathetic'. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-09-24 11:24 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f9e4efc1-2ecb-4769-acd3-999ac0f2fd1bn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #592206 |
On Saturday, September 24, 2022 at 12:24:18 AM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 24.09.2022 um 08:59 schrieb JanPB: > > >>>> SRT covers no acceleration at all, even in situations, where > >>>> accelerations would occur. > >>> > >>> This is false. SRT is a type of mechanics, like Newton's, and > >>> both naturally deal with accelerated objects and accelerated > >>> observers. Mathematically, this is what calculus is for. > >>> > >>>> This is especially the case for movement > >>>> 'along any polygonal line'. > >>>> > >>>> This statement of Einstein was clearly nonsense. > >>> > >>> No, you merely misunderstood it. > >> Sure. > >> > >> But I can take a statement litterally, if an author means something else > >> than what his words say, like 'between the lines' or 'decipherable only > >> for initiates'. In this case he cannot complain, if some non-initiate > >> takes him verbatim. > > > > Scientists write papers for other scientists. They are not meant to > > be student textbooks. > Well, possibly. Not possibly. Certainly. > But the text in a scientific paper is not meant to be written in a > hidden code, but must be understood as it is. Einstein's paper is written just like any other science paper. There is no "hidden code" there. > So, the text of a paper had to be interpreted as if it were cast in > stone and meant litterally verbatim. No, it is meant to be read with understanding by a reader presumed to be able to follow such texts without undue difficulty. Nobody reads science papers "verbatim" because they are never written explaining everything (as a student text would be). So science papers frequently contain things unexplained from a didactic POV. It is a part of the peer reviewer's job to check if this sort of thing is not being carried too far in the "too obfuscated" direction. > >> So, I took his statement varbatim, which said, that the previous results > >> would also be valid for movement along any polygonal line. > >> > >> But that is clearly nonsense, > > > > Yeah, whatever. > > > > Pathetic. > You ignored the problem, about which I have written. Yes. > That was this: > > you claimed, that there are no errors in the text 'On the > electrodynamics of moving bodies' by A. Einstein. Correct. There aren't any. > Now I wrote something, which indicates, that contrary to your claim, > there are in fact errors in this particular text (actually the number is > huge - more than 400). The number is zero. The 400 you mention is all your own misunderstandings. > But you failed to disprove my statements, but ignored them entirely and > called them 'pathetic'. Of course I failed, this is a very well-known phenomenon: it is practically IMPOSSIBLE to convince an arrogant ignoramus that he is wrong. As I had mentioned many times before, the reason I respond to such nonsense posts despite knowing full well that they won't work is: (1) entertainment, (2) to be read by others. I'm not trying to be mean here but you do have an emotional problem of some kind in that you feel absolutely nothing wrong with contradicting a theory you don't understand. This also leads you on the path of wasting your time on a false quest that leads nowhere. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-09-25 08:44 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <jpabmdF507bU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #592236 |
Am 24.09.2022 um 20:24 schrieb JanPB: ... >>>> So, I took his statement varbatim, which said, that the previous results >>>> would also be valid for movement along any polygonal line. >>>> >>>> But that is clearly nonsense, >>> >>> Yeah, whatever. >>> >>> Pathetic. >> You ignored the problem, about which I have written. > > Yes. > >> That was this: >> >> you claimed, that there are no errors in the text 'On the >> electrodynamics of moving bodies' by A. Einstein. > > Correct. There aren't any. > >> Now I wrote something, which indicates, that contrary to your claim, >> there are in fact errors in this particular text (actually the number is >> huge - more than 400). > > The number is zero. The 400 you mention is all your own misunderstandings. > >> But you failed to disprove my statements, but ignored them entirely and >> called them 'pathetic'. > > Of course I failed, this is a very well-known phenomenon: it is practically > IMPOSSIBLE to convince an arrogant ignoramus that he is wrong. As I > had mentioned many times before, the reason I respond to such nonsense > posts despite knowing full well that they won't work is: (1) entertainment, > (2) to be read by others. I had addressed an equation and the problem, which I have with it. The text contains an equation for the quantity 'Phi': Phi = omega*(t- (1/c)*(lx + my+ nz)) ( from §7 page 15) The values x, y and z are Carthesian coordinates in respect to the stationary system K and l, m and n are direction cosinus of a plane wave in respect to K. The wave sets point (x, y, z) into a wavy state. Time t was not defined, but can be assumed as the usual date and time, used by an observer stationary at the zero spot of system K. The plane wave is actually an approximation of a spherical wave, which originates from a certain point stationary in system K, but far away. This was in short the setting, which Einstein had used in §7. But now my question: what is Einstein actually doing here??????? ( I personally think, it was nonsense.) This function Phi is put into equations above, which are supposed to represent the electric and magnetic fields at point (x, y, z), caused by that plane wave. Now he was adding up the Carthesian coordinates times the direction cosinus and devides the result by c. This is some sort of distance related to the zero spot of K, which gets devided by c. The result would be a certain time value. This time value is constant, because the source and the point are not moving. But the wave did not originate from the zero spot of K, hence the distance of point (x, y, z) to the zero spot of K is irrelevant for the state of the fields at point (x, y, z). (This can be seen, if you relocate the system K somehow, which had no effect on the state of that point, but on its coordinates). I would interpret his attempt, as if he wanted to calculate a phase shift, but see neither any reason to do that, nor a possibility to do that with his equation. A phase shift is actually occuring, if the source shines light from a different angle or if the observer moves. But time t, to which that time value was added, is not synchronized to something, hence phase cannot be covered by Einstein's equations. So why did want to calculate a phase shift value? TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <pba@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-09-25 14:56 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <FdYXK.755499$JNZ4.36936@fx12.ams4> |
| In reply to | #592252 |
Den 25.09.2022 08:44, skrev Thomas Heger: > > The text contains an equation for the quantity 'Phi': > > Phi = omega*(t- (1/c)*(lx + my+ nz)) > > ( from §7 page 15) > > The values x, y and z are Carthesian coordinates in respect to the > stationary system K and l, m and n are direction cosinus of a plane wave > in respect to K. You have to be extremely ignorant not to immediately recognise this equation. > > The wave sets point (x, y, z) into a wavy state. ???? :-D > > Time t was not defined, but can be assumed as the usual date and time, > used by an observer stationary at the zero spot of system K. Phi(t,x,y,z) is the phase of the wave at the event (t,x,y,z) > > The plane wave is actually an approximation of a spherical wave, which > originates from a certain point stationary in system K, but far away. > > > This was in short the setting, which Einstein had used in §7. > > > But now my question: > what is Einstein actually doing here??????? > > ( I personally think, it was nonsense.) > > This function Phi is put into equations above, which are supposed to > represent the electric and magnetic fields at point (x, y, z), caused by > that plane wave. > > Now he was adding up the Carthesian coordinates times the direction > cosinus and devides the result by c. > > This is some sort of distance related to the zero spot of K, which gets > devided by c. The result would be a certain time value. > > This time value is constant, because the source and the point are not > moving. > > But the wave did not originate from the zero spot of K, hence the > distance of point (x, y, z) to the zero spot of K is irrelevant for the > state of the fields at point (x, y, z). > > (This can be seen, if you relocate the system K somehow, which had no > effect on the state of that point, but on its coordinates). > > I would interpret his attempt, as if he wanted to calculate a phase > shift, but see neither any reason to do that, nor a possibility to do > that with his equation. > > A phase shift is actually occuring, if the source shines light from a > different angle or if the observer moves. > > But time t, to which that time value was added, is not synchronized to > something, hence phase cannot be covered by Einstein's equations. > > So why did want to calculate a phase shift value? How is it possible to be so utterly ignorant of elementary physics, and then claim that the elementary equation you don't understand must be nonsense? Ignorance of own ignorance is the worst kind of ignorance. -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-09-26 20:32 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <AnKYZ2WpCBuGqRbQicHxBnqQBbM@jntp> |
| In reply to | #592254 |
Le 25/09/2022 à 14:56, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit : > Ignorance of own ignorance is the worst kind of ignorance. C'est ce que je n'arrête pas de vous dire. Mais moi, on ne me croit pas. Pire, on me crache dessus. Ce monde est vraiment dingue. R.H.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-11-01 07:40 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <jsbt9bFb9jfU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #592254 |
Am 25.09.2022 um 14:56 schrieb Paul B. Andersen: > Den 25.09.2022 08:44, skrev Thomas Heger: >> >> The text contains an equation for the quantity 'Phi': >> >> Phi = omega*(t- (1/c)*(lx + my+ nz)) >> >> ( from §7 page 15) >> >> The values x, y and z are Carthesian coordinates in respect to the >> stationary system K and l, m and n are direction cosinus of a plane >> wave in respect to K. > > You have to be extremely ignorant not to immediately > recognise this equation. As I do not speak in equations, such equations do not belong to my usual 'vocabulary'. I think as an engineer and tried to identify the intended meaning of the used variables in the context of the setting described by the author. So: (1/c)*(lx + my+ nz) had to be some sort of time value, because it gets subtracted from t. The only possible purpose for this term I could imagine was 'phase shift'. But the setting itself would not allow to define phase, because the source has no defined position. From 'undefined source' would follow 'undefined phase' at a certain point (x,y,z), hence no need to consider phase shift (because the phase is unknown in the first place). Now I tried to connect the variables x, y and z to the wave and failed, because the coordinates of the point (x, y, z) in respect to some coordinate system are irrelevant for the phase at that point, because the wave was not emitted from the center (or any other well defined point) in that coordinate system. Next I tried to connect the variables l, m and n to the setting and failed, too, because the direction of the wave at the position of the observer is irrelevant for the direction of the ray at point (x, y, z). In total: we have a nonsense setting, which is described by a nonsense equation, which contain six irrelvant variables. ... TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-11-01 00:23 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <979026ee-8a51-4932-a09b-6f1f03ab53b8n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #594543 |
On Monday, October 31, 2022 at 11:39:43 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 25.09.2022 um 14:56 schrieb Paul B. Andersen: > > Den 25.09.2022 08:44, skrev Thomas Heger: > >> > >> The text contains an equation for the quantity 'Phi': > >> > >> Phi = omega*(t- (1/c)*(lx + my+ nz)) > >> > >> ( from §7 page 15) > >> > >> The values x, y and z are Carthesian coordinates in respect to the > >> stationary system K and l, m and n are direction cosinus of a plane > >> wave in respect to K. > > > > You have to be extremely ignorant not to immediately > > recognise this equation. > > > As I do not speak in equations, such equations do not belong to my usual > 'vocabulary'. > > I think as an engineer and tried to identify the intended meaning of the > used variables in the context of the setting described by the author. > > So: (1/c)*(lx + my+ nz) had to be some sort of time value, because it > gets subtracted from t. > > The only possible purpose for this term I could imagine was 'phase shift'. > > But the setting itself would not allow to define phase, because the > source has no defined position. > > From 'undefined source' would follow 'undefined phase' at a certain > point (x,y,z), hence no need to consider phase shift (because the phase > is unknown in the first place). > > Now I tried to connect the variables x, y and z to the wave and failed, > because the coordinates of the point (x, y, z) in respect to some > coordinate system are irrelevant for the phase at that point, because > the wave was not emitted from the center (or any other well defined > point) in that coordinate system. > > Next I tried to connect the variables l, m and n to the setting and > failed, too, because the direction of the wave at the position of the > observer is irrelevant for the direction of the ray at point (x, y, z). > > In total: > > we have a nonsense setting, which is described by a nonsense equation, > which contain six irrelvant variables. So why are you writing critiques of something you don't understand? -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-11-05 08:22 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <jsmha2F4tbU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #594545 |
Am 01.11.2022 um 08:23 schrieb JanPB: >> As I do not speak in equations, such equations do not belong to my usual >> 'vocabulary'. >> >> I think as an engineer and tried to identify the intended meaning of the >> used variables in the context of the setting described by the author. >> >> So: (1/c)*(lx + my+ nz) had to be some sort of time value, because it >> gets subtracted from t. >> >> The only possible purpose for this term I could imagine was 'phase shift'. >> >> But the setting itself would not allow to define phase, because the >> source has no defined position. >> >> From 'undefined source' would follow 'undefined phase' at a certain >> point (x,y,z), hence no need to consider phase shift (because the phase >> is unknown in the first place). >> >> Now I tried to connect the variables x, y and z to the wave and failed, >> because the coordinates of the point (x, y, z) in respect to some >> coordinate system are irrelevant for the phase at that point, because >> the wave was not emitted from the center (or any other well defined >> point) in that coordinate system. >> >> Next I tried to connect the variables l, m and n to the setting and >> failed, too, because the direction of the wave at the position of the >> observer is irrelevant for the direction of the ray at point (x, y, z). >> >> In total: >> >> we have a nonsense setting, which is described by a nonsense equation, >> which contain six irrelvant variables. > > So why are you writing critiques of something you don't understand? Nonsense is not understandable. I meant, of course, that Einstein's derivation was nonsense, because it would require impossible settings. Einstein meant, that the angles at the observer and the angles (of the incoming wave) are equal for a point (x, y, z) in some vicinity to the observer, hence he could use the local angles there, too. This is a 'plane wave approximation' of a spherical wave. But Einstein used actually plane waves from end one of infinity to the other. This is nonsense, because that would require an emitter at infinity. The problems with an emitter at infinity: a signal from infinity could never reach us, because it takes an infinite amount of time infinity is not a location and has no coordinates the wave is also infinitely weak after such a journey. So, he had to use a spherical wave at some distance and had to approximate it by plane wave for some region. Now: 'approximation for some region' does not square well with movements at 'relativistic' pace, because anything at such speed would soon leave that region. This problem was 'solved' by infinite plane waves, even if they do not exist. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-11-05 11:08 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6ba51efd-b78b-40bb-904e-4726a6077bc7n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #594779 |
On Saturday, November 5, 2022 at 12:22:47 AM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 01.11.2022 um 08:23 schrieb JanPB: > > >> As I do not speak in equations, such equations do not belong to my usual > >> 'vocabulary'. > >> > >> I think as an engineer and tried to identify the intended meaning of the > >> used variables in the context of the setting described by the author. > >> > >> So: (1/c)*(lx + my+ nz) had to be some sort of time value, because it > >> gets subtracted from t. > >> > >> The only possible purpose for this term I could imagine was 'phase shift'. > >> > >> But the setting itself would not allow to define phase, because the > >> source has no defined position. > >> > >> From 'undefined source' would follow 'undefined phase' at a certain > >> point (x,y,z), hence no need to consider phase shift (because the phase > >> is unknown in the first place). > >> > >> Now I tried to connect the variables x, y and z to the wave and failed, > >> because the coordinates of the point (x, y, z) in respect to some > >> coordinate system are irrelevant for the phase at that point, because > >> the wave was not emitted from the center (or any other well defined > >> point) in that coordinate system. > >> > >> Next I tried to connect the variables l, m and n to the setting and > >> failed, too, because the direction of the wave at the position of the > >> observer is irrelevant for the direction of the ray at point (x, y, z). > >> > >> In total: > >> > >> we have a nonsense setting, which is described by a nonsense equation, > >> which contain six irrelvant variables. > > > > So why are you writing critiques of something you don't understand? > Nonsense is not understandable. But it's not nonsense. I'll ask again: why do you assume that something you don't understand is nonsense? Most people (not experts) can clearly distinguish between the two. > I meant, of course, that Einstein's derivation was nonsense, because it > would require impossible settings. Except it's not nonsense. You simply don't understand something there and, oddly, assume that your misunderstanding implies it's nonsense. Most people do not operate this way. They simply let it be. > Einstein meant, that the angles at the observer and the angles (of the > incoming wave) are equal for a point (x, y, z) in some vicinity to the > observer, hence he could use the local angles there, too. You sentence cannot be parsed. What are "the angles at the observer" and "the angles (of the incoming wave)"? What does "equal for a point (x, y, z)" mean and what is the relevance of "in some vicinity to the observer"? > This is a 'plane wave approximation' of a spherical wave. OK. > But Einstein used actually plane waves from end one of infinity to the > other. Yes. > This is nonsense, No, this is standard physics since before Maxwell. > because that would require an emitter at infinity. This doesn't matter. > The problems with an emitter at infinity: > > a signal from infinity could never reach us, because it takes an > infinite amount of time The setup is that the plane wave already exists. We don't care how it was created and that in real life it's an impossibility. If this bothers you, just think of it as a limit of a spherical wave with the source far away. > infinity is not a location and has no coordinates This doesn't matter. > the wave is also infinitely weak after such a journey. Ditto. You are complaining about certain modelling constructs that physics has been using since Newton, perhaps earlier. > So, he had to use a spherical wave at some distance and had to > approximate it by plane wave for some region. Yes, the approximation is called plane wave and its formula is as shown in the paper. > Now: 'approximation for some region' does not square well with movements > at 'relativistic' pace, because anything at such speed would soon leave > that region. Since the approximation can be made arbitrarily perfect, this takes care of any non-arbitrary constraint like the finite speed of light. > This problem was 'solved' by infinite plane waves, even if they do not > exist. Yes. Solved without the quotation marks. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-11-06 08:41 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <jsp6pkFcivsU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #594813 |
Am 05.11.2022 um 19:08 schrieb JanPB: > On Saturday, November 5, 2022 at 12:22:47 AM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote: >> Am 01.11.2022 um 08:23 schrieb JanPB: >> >>>> As I do not speak in equations, such equations do not belong to my usual >>>> 'vocabulary'. >>>> >>>> I think as an engineer and tried to identify the intended meaning of the >>>> used variables in the context of the setting described by the author. >>>> >>>> So: (1/c)*(lx + my+ nz) had to be some sort of time value, because it >>>> gets subtracted from t. >>>> >>>> The only possible purpose for this term I could imagine was 'phase shift'. >>>> >>>> But the setting itself would not allow to define phase, because the >>>> source has no defined position. >>>> >>>> From 'undefined source' would follow 'undefined phase' at a certain >>>> point (x,y,z), hence no need to consider phase shift (because the phase >>>> is unknown in the first place). >>>> >>>> Now I tried to connect the variables x, y and z to the wave and failed, >>>> because the coordinates of the point (x, y, z) in respect to some >>>> coordinate system are irrelevant for the phase at that point, because >>>> the wave was not emitted from the center (or any other well defined >>>> point) in that coordinate system. >>>> >>>> Next I tried to connect the variables l, m and n to the setting and >>>> failed, too, because the direction of the wave at the position of the >>>> observer is irrelevant for the direction of the ray at point (x, y, z). >>>> >>>> In total: >>>> >>>> we have a nonsense setting, which is described by a nonsense equation, >>>> which contain six irrelvant variables. >>> >>> So why are you writing critiques of something you don't understand? >> Nonsense is not understandable. > > But it's not nonsense. I'll ask again: why do you assume that something > you don't understand is nonsense? Most people (not experts) can > clearly distinguish between the two. > >> I meant, of course, that Einstein's derivation was nonsense, because it >> would require impossible settings. > > Except it's not nonsense. You simply don't understand something there and, > oddly, assume that your misunderstanding implies it's nonsense. Most > people do not operate this way. They simply let it be. > >> Einstein meant, that the angles at the observer and the angles (of the >> incoming wave) are equal for a point (x, y, z) in some vicinity to the >> observer, hence he could use the local angles there, too. > > You sentence cannot be parsed. What are "the angles at the observer" > and "the angles (of the incoming wave)"? What does "equal for a point (x, y, z)" > mean and what is the relevance of "in some vicinity to the observer"? That is simple geometry. You have a wave souce somewhere remote and an observer on or near the center of a coordinate system K. Now we can draw a line between these two points. This line has angles twards the axes of the coordinate system K. These angles have a cosine and those were, what Einstein used in his equation. So far, so good... But the observer was not meant with the equation, but a certain point (x, y, z). Now we have no restriction mentioned for that point (besides of 'to a sufficent approximation'). So we can take a point, where the same wave hits that point at different angles. One such point would be, for instance, a point in twice the distance as the wave source, but on the same line mentioned above. Now you will certainly exclude this point, because it is too far away and the source is at infinity anyhow. Now we come to a 'battle' about 'sufficent degree of approximation' and whether a point with different angles belong to the meant region or not. I solved this problem by excluding the observer from the setting and take the angles at that point only. But Einstein solved the same problem by expanding the plane waves to infinity. In my view, Einstein's 'solution' was nonsense, because no such waves are possible. >> This is a 'plane wave approximation' of a spherical wave. > > OK. > >> But Einstein used actually plane waves from end one of infinity to the >> other. > > Yes. > >> This is nonsense, > > No, this is standard physics since before Maxwell. Well, possibly, but it's still nonsense, because no souce of any real wave can stretch from one end of the universe to the other. Real waves obey Huigens principle and are more or less spherical. TH ...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-11-06 10:35 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <ef93d5af-4d32-46c4-b896-f8145a55e27an@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #594851 |
On Sunday, November 6, 2022 at 12:41:45 AM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 05.11.2022 um 19:08 schrieb JanPB:
> > On Saturday, November 5, 2022 at 12:22:47 AM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
> >> Am 01.11.2022 um 08:23 schrieb JanPB:
> >>
> >>>> As I do not speak in equations, such equations do not belong to my usual
> >>>> 'vocabulary'.
> >>>>
> >>>> I think as an engineer and tried to identify the intended meaning of the
> >>>> used variables in the context of the setting described by the author.
> >>>>
> >>>> So: (1/c)*(lx + my+ nz) had to be some sort of time value, because it
> >>>> gets subtracted from t.
> >>>>
> >>>> The only possible purpose for this term I could imagine was 'phase shift'.
> >>>>
> >>>> But the setting itself would not allow to define phase, because the
> >>>> source has no defined position.
> >>>>
> >>>> From 'undefined source' would follow 'undefined phase' at a certain
> >>>> point (x,y,z), hence no need to consider phase shift (because the phase
> >>>> is unknown in the first place).
> >>>>
> >>>> Now I tried to connect the variables x, y and z to the wave and failed,
> >>>> because the coordinates of the point (x, y, z) in respect to some
> >>>> coordinate system are irrelevant for the phase at that point, because
> >>>> the wave was not emitted from the center (or any other well defined
> >>>> point) in that coordinate system.
> >>>>
> >>>> Next I tried to connect the variables l, m and n to the setting and
> >>>> failed, too, because the direction of the wave at the position of the
> >>>> observer is irrelevant for the direction of the ray at point (x, y, z).
> >>>>
> >>>> In total:
> >>>>
> >>>> we have a nonsense setting, which is described by a nonsense equation,
> >>>> which contain six irrelvant variables.
> >>>
> >>> So why are you writing critiques of something you don't understand?
> >> Nonsense is not understandable.
> >
> > But it's not nonsense. I'll ask again: why do you assume that something
> > you don't understand is nonsense? Most people (not experts) can
> > clearly distinguish between the two.
> >
> >> I meant, of course, that Einstein's derivation was nonsense, because it
> >> would require impossible settings.
> >
> > Except it's not nonsense. You simply don't understand something there and,
> > oddly, assume that your misunderstanding implies it's nonsense. Most
> > people do not operate this way. They simply let it be.
> >
> >> Einstein meant, that the angles at the observer and the angles (of the
> >> incoming wave) are equal for a point (x, y, z) in some vicinity to the
> >> observer, hence he could use the local angles there, too.
> >
> > You sentence cannot be parsed. What are "the angles at the observer"
> > and "the angles (of the incoming wave)"? What does "equal for a point (x, y, z)"
> > mean and what is the relevance of "in some vicinity to the observer"?
> That is simple geometry.
>
> You have a wave souce somewhere remote and an observer on or near the
> center of a coordinate system K.
>
> Now we can draw a line between these two points.
>
> This line has angles twards the axes of the coordinate system K.
>
> These angles have a cosine and those were, what Einstein used in his
> equation.
>
> So far, so good...
OK.
> But the observer was not meant with the equation, but a certain point
> (x, y, z).
>
> Now we have no restriction mentioned for that point (besides of 'to a
> sufficent approximation').
The point can be chosen arbitrarily because the wave is plane.
> So we can take a point, where the same wave hits that point at different
> angles.
The angle is the same everywhere because the wave's direction is
(l, m, n) everywhere.
> One such point would be, for instance, a point in twice the
> distance as the wave source, but on the same line mentioned above.
>
> Now you will certainly exclude this point, because it is too far away
> and the source is at infinity anyhow.
Again, the wave is described by the equations for X, Y, Z and L, M, N
which are the standard, pre-Maxwell, expressions for a plane wave.
In particular, its intensity is the same everywhere in space:
intensity = Poynting vector averaged over one period = (c/8 pi).(X0^2 + Y0^2 + Z0^2)
(Gaussian units).
> Now we come to a 'battle' about 'sufficent degree of approximation' and
> whether a point with different angles belong to the meant region or not.
There is no battle, it's just an idealisation, just like point masses in
Newton, point charges in Maxwell, points in mathematics, etc. etc.
Since this idealisation can approximate real experiment arbitrarily closely
in principle, it follows that the formula (Doppler) so obtained is exact.
> I solved this problem by excluding the observer from the setting and
> take the angles at that point only.
>
> But Einstein solved the same problem by expanding the plane waves to
> infinity.
This is simplifying idealisation, like point masses, etc. Physics and
mathematics are full of those.
> In my view, Einstein's 'solution' was nonsense, because no such waves
> are possible.
This is an idealisation, like lines and curves in geometry are idealisations.
> >> This is a 'plane wave approximation' of a spherical wave.
> >
> > OK.
> >
> >> But Einstein used actually plane waves from end one of infinity to the
> >> other.
> >
> > Yes.
> >
> >> This is nonsense,
> >
> > No, this is standard physics since before Maxwell.
> Well, possibly, but it's still nonsense, because no souce of any real
> wave can stretch from one end of the universe to the other.
That doesn't matter. Point is this configuration can in principle approach the
real one arbitrarily closely. Hence the end result is exact.
--
Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-11-07 14:06 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <tkbl06$3l8ao$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #594851 |
On 11/6/2022 2:41 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 05.11.2022 um 19:08 schrieb JanPB: >> On Saturday, November 5, 2022 at 12:22:47 AM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote: >>> Am 01.11.2022 um 08:23 schrieb JanPB: >>> >>>>> As I do not speak in equations, such equations do not belong to my >>>>> usual >>>>> 'vocabulary'. >>>>> >>>>> I think as an engineer and tried to identify the intended meaning >>>>> of the >>>>> used variables in the context of the setting described by the author. >>>>> >>>>> So: (1/c)*(lx + my+ nz) had to be some sort of time value, because it >>>>> gets subtracted from t. >>>>> >>>>> The only possible purpose for this term I could imagine was 'phase >>>>> shift'. >>>>> >>>>> But the setting itself would not allow to define phase, because the >>>>> source has no defined position. >>>>> >>>>> From 'undefined source' would follow 'undefined phase' at a certain >>>>> point (x,y,z), hence no need to consider phase shift (because the >>>>> phase >>>>> is unknown in the first place). >>>>> >>>>> Now I tried to connect the variables x, y and z to the wave and >>>>> failed, >>>>> because the coordinates of the point (x, y, z) in respect to some >>>>> coordinate system are irrelevant for the phase at that point, because >>>>> the wave was not emitted from the center (or any other well defined >>>>> point) in that coordinate system. >>>>> >>>>> Next I tried to connect the variables l, m and n to the setting and >>>>> failed, too, because the direction of the wave at the position of the >>>>> observer is irrelevant for the direction of the ray at point (x, y, >>>>> z). >>>>> >>>>> In total: >>>>> >>>>> we have a nonsense setting, which is described by a nonsense equation, >>>>> which contain six irrelvant variables. >>>> >>>> So why are you writing critiques of something you don't understand? >>> Nonsense is not understandable. >> >> But it's not nonsense. I'll ask again: why do you assume that something >> you don't understand is nonsense? Most people (not experts) can >> clearly distinguish between the two. >> >>> I meant, of course, that Einstein's derivation was nonsense, because it >>> would require impossible settings. >> >> Except it's not nonsense. You simply don't understand something there >> and, >> oddly, assume that your misunderstanding implies it's nonsense. Most >> people do not operate this way. They simply let it be. >> >>> Einstein meant, that the angles at the observer and the angles (of the >>> incoming wave) are equal for a point (x, y, z) in some vicinity to the >>> observer, hence he could use the local angles there, too. >> >> You sentence cannot be parsed. What are "the angles at the observer" >> and "the angles (of the incoming wave)"? What does "equal for a point >> (x, y, z)" >> mean and what is the relevance of "in some vicinity to the observer"? > > > That is simple geometry. > > You have a wave souce somewhere remote and an observer on or near the > center of a coordinate system K. > > Now we can draw a line between these two points. > > This line has angles twards the axes of the coordinate system K. > > These angles have a cosine and those were, what Einstein used in his > equation. > > So far, so good... > > But the observer was not meant with the equation, but a certain point > (x, y, z). > > Now we have no restriction mentioned for that point (besides of 'to a > sufficent approximation'). That's how physics was done then. They often used Taylor expansion of functions, and if the expansion converged with higher terms becoming smaller and smaller, they'd stop after a certain number of terms. For example, the Taylor expansion of 1/(1-x) = 1 + x + x^2 + x^3... but only for |x| < 1. But if |x| is close to 0, the x^2 and higher terms may be considered to be small enough to be ignored, so they'll use the approximation 1/(1-x) = 1+x. They may mention the cutoff power indirectly by stating the "order" of the highest power used. For example, 1/(1-x) = 1+x "to the first order". > > So we can take a point, where the same wave hits that point at different > angles. One such point would be, for instance, a point in twice the > distance as the wave source, but on the same line mentioned above. The source of the wave is irrelevant to his discussion. The wave is just there, as a fact. > > Now you will certainly exclude this point, because it is too far away > and the source is at infinity anyhow. And this is irrelevant since he doesn't use such a point or the source anywhere. > > Now we come to a 'battle' about 'sufficent degree of approximation' and > whether a point with different angles belong to the meant region or not. Again, the physics of the time frequently used truncated Taylor series. This didn't need explanation since all physicists of the time were familiar with this, and the only point of importance was whether the truncation left sufficient accuracy. > > I solved this problem by excluding the observer from the setting and > take the angles at that point only. > > But Einstein solved the same problem by expanding the plane waves to > infinity. They are plane waves, so any location can be used. > > In my view, Einstein's 'solution' was nonsense, because no such waves > are possible. 'Einstein's solution' was not Einstein's. It was how physics was done during the time. > > >>> This is a 'plane wave approximation' of a spherical wave. >> >> OK. >> >>> But Einstein used actually plane waves from end one of infinity to the >>> other. >> >> Yes. >> >>> This is nonsense, >> >> No, this is standard physics since before Maxwell. > > Well, possibly, but it's still nonsense, because no souce of any real > wave can stretch from one end of the universe to the other. Not relevant. Plane waves are used because the math is simpler. Physics uses such simplifications all the time. There are no such things as frictionless surfaces, massless ropes or frictionless pulleys, but high school level physics (mechanics) uses these all the time since it makes the math MUCH simpler. Nothing to do with Einstein, this level of mechanics is Newtonian. > > Real waves obey Huigens principle and are more or less spherical. > Irrelevant. If a plane wave exists, its continued existence doesn't violate any laws or rules of physics. You'll find these types of proofs start out with something like "Let there be a plane wave...". Nobody cares whether that is exactly possible, whether sources at infinity exist etc. et. They can be approximated quite accurately. A set of parallel plates large enough can produce a plane electric field. A Helmholtz coil can generate a plane magnetic field (esp. with Maxwell's addon which makes it a plane field to the sixth order) TLDR: Nothing whatsoever wrong with "let there be a plane wave...". Not an error of Einstein's. Not even something unique to Einstein, just standard physics.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-11-08 07:19 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <jsuanhF61upU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #594928 |
Am 07.11.2022 um 20:06 schrieb Volney: ... >> I solved this problem by excluding the observer from the setting and >> take the angles at that point only. >> >> But Einstein solved the same problem by expanding the plane waves to >> infinity. > > They are plane waves, so any location can be used. >> >> In my view, Einstein's 'solution' was nonsense, because no such waves >> are possible. > > 'Einstein's solution' was not Einstein's. It was how physics was done > during the time. >> >> >>>> This is a 'plane wave approximation' of a spherical wave. >>> >>> OK. >>> >>>> But Einstein used actually plane waves from end one of infinity to the >>>> other. >>> >>> Yes. >>> >>>> This is nonsense, >>> >>> No, this is standard physics since before Maxwell. >> >> Well, possibly, but it's still nonsense, because no souce of any real >> wave can stretch from one end of the universe to the other. > > Not relevant. Plane waves are used because the math is simpler. Physics > uses such simplifications all the time. There are no such things as > frictionless surfaces, massless ropes or frictionless pulleys, but high > school level physics (mechanics) uses these all the time since it makes > the math MUCH simpler. Nothing to do with Einstein, this level of > mechanics is Newtonian. >> >> Real waves obey Huigens principle and are more or less spherical. >> > Irrelevant. If a plane wave exists, its continued existence doesn't > violate any laws or rules of physics. The meant laws are not the laws of physics, but the laws of nature. What physicists do or regard as law is entirely irrelevant. It is totally silly to justify something odd in physics, because that is common practise. Einstein insisted on 'flat' plane waves, while I insisted on Huigens principle. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-11-08 00:09 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <ac1909c6-38dc-4b0a-8b23-2b83473eaf6en@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #594949 |
On Monday, November 7, 2022 at 10:19:32 PM UTC-8, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 07.11.2022 um 20:06 schrieb Volney: > ... > >> I solved this problem by excluding the observer from the setting and > >> take the angles at that point only. > >> > >> But Einstein solved the same problem by expanding the plane waves to > >> infinity. > > > > They are plane waves, so any location can be used. > >> > >> In my view, Einstein's 'solution' was nonsense, because no such waves > >> are possible. > > > > 'Einstein's solution' was not Einstein's. It was how physics was done > > during the time. > >> > >> > >>>> This is a 'plane wave approximation' of a spherical wave. > >>> > >>> OK. > >>> > >>>> But Einstein used actually plane waves from end one of infinity to the > >>>> other. > >>> > >>> Yes. > >>> > >>>> This is nonsense, > >>> > >>> No, this is standard physics since before Maxwell. > >> > >> Well, possibly, but it's still nonsense, because no souce of any real > >> wave can stretch from one end of the universe to the other. > > > > Not relevant. Plane waves are used because the math is simpler. Physics > > uses such simplifications all the time. There are no such things as > > frictionless surfaces, massless ropes or frictionless pulleys, but high > > school level physics (mechanics) uses these all the time since it makes > > the math MUCH simpler. Nothing to do with Einstein, this level of > > mechanics is Newtonian. > >> > >> Real waves obey Huigens principle and are more or less spherical. > >> > > Irrelevant. If a plane wave exists, its continued existence doesn't > > violate any laws or rules of physics. > The meant laws are not the laws of physics, but the laws of nature. > > What physicists do or regard as law is entirely irrelevant. > > It is totally silly to justify something odd in physics, because that is > common practise. It is both common practice and not silly. > Einstein insisted on 'flat' plane waves, while I insisted on Huigens > principle. Plane waves had been in use before Einstein was born. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-11-08 10:27 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <tkdshc$3ucab$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #594949 |
On 11/8/2022 1:19 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 07.11.2022 um 20:06 schrieb Volney: > ... >>> I solved this problem by excluding the observer from the setting and >>> take the angles at that point only. >>> >>> But Einstein solved the same problem by expanding the plane waves to >>> infinity. >> >> They are plane waves, so any location can be used. >>> >>> In my view, Einstein's 'solution' was nonsense, because no such waves >>> are possible. >> >> 'Einstein's solution' was not Einstein's. It was how physics was done >> during the time. >>> >>> >>>>> This is a 'plane wave approximation' of a spherical wave. >>>> >>>> OK. >>>> >>>>> But Einstein used actually plane waves from end one of infinity to the >>>>> other. >>>> >>>> Yes. >>>> >>>>> This is nonsense, >>>> >>>> No, this is standard physics since before Maxwell. >>> >>> Well, possibly, but it's still nonsense, because no souce of any real >>> wave can stretch from one end of the universe to the other. >> >> Not relevant. Plane waves are used because the math is simpler. Physics >> uses such simplifications all the time. There are no such things as >> frictionless surfaces, massless ropes or frictionless pulleys, but high >> school level physics (mechanics) uses these all the time since it makes >> the math MUCH simpler. Nothing to do with Einstein, this level of >> mechanics is Newtonian. >>> >>> Real waves obey Huigens principle and are more or less spherical. >>> >> Irrelevant. If a plane wave exists, its continued existence doesn't >> violate any laws or rules of physics. > > The meant laws are not the laws of physics, but the laws of nature. You're trying to pick a nit that's not even there. Physics models nature so the laws of physics are modeling what nature is doing. Regardless, the existence of a plane wave in nature does not conflict with its continued existence. > > What physicists do or regard as law is entirely irrelevant. So why are you even here, arguing about physics which you consider irrelevant? > > It is totally silly to justify something odd in physics, because that is > common practise. No, it is not. It is a simple solution which physicists have been doing forever. Same with elementary mechanics with frictionless surfaces and massless ropes (I notice you snipped that part) > > Einstein insisted on 'flat' plane waves, while I insisted on Huigens > principle. Einstein was doing what all physicists of his time did, and still do.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-11-08 08:54 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <7de5dd86-e5d7-4347-82de-809fd294e2b0n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #594965 |
On Tuesday, 8 November 2022 at 16:27:43 UTC+1, Volney wrote: > On 11/8/2022 1:19 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: > > Am 07.11.2022 um 20:06 schrieb Volney: > > ... > >>> I solved this problem by excluding the observer from the setting and > >>> take the angles at that point only. > >>> > >>> But Einstein solved the same problem by expanding the plane waves to > >>> infinity. > >> > >> They are plane waves, so any location can be used. > >>> > >>> In my view, Einstein's 'solution' was nonsense, because no such waves > >>> are possible. > >> > >> 'Einstein's solution' was not Einstein's. It was how physics was done > >> during the time. > >>> > >>> > >>>>> This is a 'plane wave approximation' of a spherical wave. > >>>> > >>>> OK. > >>>> > >>>>> But Einstein used actually plane waves from end one of infinity to the > >>>>> other. > >>>> > >>>> Yes. > >>>> > >>>>> This is nonsense, > >>>> > >>>> No, this is standard physics since before Maxwell. > >>> > >>> Well, possibly, but it's still nonsense, because no souce of any real > >>> wave can stretch from one end of the universe to the other. > >> > >> Not relevant. Plane waves are used because the math is simpler. Physics > >> uses such simplifications all the time. There are no such things as > >> frictionless surfaces, massless ropes or frictionless pulleys, but high > >> school level physics (mechanics) uses these all the time since it makes > >> the math MUCH simpler. Nothing to do with Einstein, this level of > >> mechanics is Newtonian. > >>> > >>> Real waves obey Huigens principle and are more or less spherical. > >>> > >> Irrelevant. If a plane wave exists, its continued existence doesn't > >> violate any laws or rules of physics. > > > > The meant laws are not the laws of physics, but the laws of nature. > You're trying to pick a nit that's not even there. Physics models nature It did, up to 1905, stupid Mike. Since more than 100 years it models mostly some gedanken delusions of an insane crazie.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-11-09 09:10 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <tkgcct$82jt$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #594968 |
On 11/8/2022 11:54 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote: > On Tuesday, 8 November 2022 at 16:27:43 UTC+1, Volney wrote: >> On 11/8/2022 1:19 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: >>> Am 07.11.2022 um 20:06 schrieb Volney: >>> ... >>>>> I solved this problem by excluding the observer from the setting and >>>>> take the angles at that point only. >>>>> >>>>> But Einstein solved the same problem by expanding the plane waves to >>>>> infinity. >>>> >>>> They are plane waves, so any location can be used. >>>>> >>>>> In my view, Einstein's 'solution' was nonsense, because no such waves >>>>> are possible. >>>> >>>> 'Einstein's solution' was not Einstein's. It was how physics was done >>>> during the time. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> This is a 'plane wave approximation' of a spherical wave. >>>>>> >>>>>> OK. >>>>>> >>>>>>> But Einstein used actually plane waves from end one of infinity to the >>>>>>> other. >>>>>> >>>>>> Yes. >>>>>> >>>>>>> This is nonsense, >>>>>> >>>>>> No, this is standard physics since before Maxwell. >>>>> >>>>> Well, possibly, but it's still nonsense, because no souce of any real >>>>> wave can stretch from one end of the universe to the other. >>>> >>>> Not relevant. Plane waves are used because the math is simpler. Physics >>>> uses such simplifications all the time. There are no such things as >>>> frictionless surfaces, massless ropes or frictionless pulleys, but high >>>> school level physics (mechanics) uses these all the time since it makes >>>> the math MUCH simpler. Nothing to do with Einstein, this level of >>>> mechanics is Newtonian. >>>>> >>>>> Real waves obey Huigens principle and are more or less spherical. >>>>> >>>> Irrelevant. If a plane wave exists, its continued existence doesn't >>>> violate any laws or rules of physics. >>> >>> The meant laws are not the laws of physics, but the laws of nature. >> You're trying to pick a nit that's not even there. Physics models nature > > It did, up to 1905, stupid Mike. Since more than 100 years > it models mostly some gedanken delusions of an insane > crazie. Despite all of your raving and spitting, Einstein's SR and GR have been very successful models, being validated repeatedly and never refuted in their domains. Tissue?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-11-16 08:15 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <jtjh10Ffip6U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #595026 |
Am 09.11.2022 um 15:10 schrieb Volney: > On 11/8/2022 11:54 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote: >> On Tuesday, 8 November 2022 at 16:27:43 UTC+1, Volney wrote: >>> On 11/8/2022 1:19 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: >>>> Am 07.11.2022 um 20:06 schrieb Volney: >>>> ... >>>>>> I solved this problem by excluding the observer from the setting and >>>>>> take the angles at that point only. >>>>>> >>>>>> But Einstein solved the same problem by expanding the plane waves to >>>>>> infinity. >>>>> >>>>> They are plane waves, so any location can be used. >>>>>> >>>>>> In my view, Einstein's 'solution' was nonsense, because no such waves >>>>>> are possible. >>>>> >>>>> 'Einstein's solution' was not Einstein's. It was how physics was done >>>>> during the time. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>> This is a 'plane wave approximation' of a spherical wave. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> OK. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> But Einstein used actually plane waves from end one of infinity >>>>>>>> to the >>>>>>>> other. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Yes. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This is nonsense, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> No, this is standard physics since before Maxwell. >>>>>> >>>>>> Well, possibly, but it's still nonsense, because no souce of any real >>>>>> wave can stretch from one end of the universe to the other. >>>>> >>>>> Not relevant. Plane waves are used because the math is simpler. >>>>> Physics >>>>> uses such simplifications all the time. There are no such things as >>>>> frictionless surfaces, massless ropes or frictionless pulleys, but >>>>> high >>>>> school level physics (mechanics) uses these all the time since it >>>>> makes >>>>> the math MUCH simpler. Nothing to do with Einstein, this level of >>>>> mechanics is Newtonian. >>>>>> >>>>>> Real waves obey Huigens principle and are more or less spherical. >>>>>> >>>>> Irrelevant. If a plane wave exists, its continued existence doesn't >>>>> violate any laws or rules of physics. >>>> >>>> The meant laws are not the laws of physics, but the laws of nature. >>> You're trying to pick a nit that's not even there. Physics models nature >> >> It did, up to 1905, stupid Mike. Since more than 100 years >> it models mostly some gedanken delusions of an insane >> crazie. > > Despite all of your raving and spitting, Einstein's SR and GR have been > very successful models, being validated repeatedly and never refuted in > their domains. Tissue? You should distinguish between the theories themselves and the text, which Einstein had written. In my view, the text 'On the electrodynamics of moving bodies' contains a large amount of various errors. Since from errors follow nothing, it would also not follow, that SRT is wrong, even if that particular text is commonly called 'SRT'. So, the theory itself may eventually be correct, but its derivation was imho not. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Athel Cornish-Bowden <acornish@imm.cnrs.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-11-16 09:14 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <jtjke8Fg2e3U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #595470 |
On 2022-11-16 07:15:49 +0000, Thomas Heger said: > Am 09.11.2022 um 15:10 schrieb Volney: >> On 11/8/2022 11:54 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote: >>> On Tuesday, 8 November 2022 at 16:27:43 UTC+1, Volney wrote: >>>> On 11/8/2022 1:19 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: >>>>> Am 07.11.2022 um 20:06 schrieb Volney: >>>>> ... >>>>>>> I solved this problem by excluding the observer from the setting and >>>>>>> take the angles at that point only. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> But Einstein solved the same problem by expanding the plane waves to >>>>>>> infinity. >>>>>> >>>>>> They are plane waves, so any location can be used. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In my view, Einstein's 'solution' was nonsense, because no such waves >>>>>>> are possible. >>>>>> >>>>>> 'Einstein's solution' was not Einstein's. It was how physics was done >>>>>> during the time. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> This is a 'plane wave approximation' of a spherical wave. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> OK. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> But Einstein used actually plane waves from end one of infinity >>>>>>>>> to the >>>>>>>>> other. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Yes. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> This is nonsense, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> No, this is standard physics since before Maxwell. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Well, possibly, but it's still nonsense, because no souce of any real >>>>>>> wave can stretch from one end of the universe to the other. >>>>>> >>>>>> Not relevant. Plane waves are used because the math is simpler. >>>>>> Physics >>>>>> uses such simplifications all the time. There are no such things as >>>>>> frictionless surfaces, massless ropes or frictionless pulleys, but >>>>>> high >>>>>> school level physics (mechanics) uses these all the time since it >>>>>> makes >>>>>> the math MUCH simpler. Nothing to do with Einstein, this level of >>>>>> mechanics is Newtonian. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Real waves obey Huigens principle and are more or less spherical. >>>>>>> >>>>>> Irrelevant. If a plane wave exists, its continued existence doesn't >>>>>> violate any laws or rules of physics. >>>>> >>>>> The meant laws are not the laws of physics, but the laws of nature. >>>> You're trying to pick a nit that's not even there. Physics models nature >>> >>> It did, up to 1905, stupid Mike. Since more than 100 years >>> it models mostly some gedanken delusions of an insane >>> crazie. >> >> Despite all of your raving and spitting, Einstein's SR and GR have been >> very successful models, being validated repeatedly and never refuted in >> their domains. Tissue? > > You should distinguish between the theories themselves and the text, > which Einstein had written. > > In my view, the text 'On the electrodynamics of moving bodies' contains > a large amount of various errors. > > Since from errors follow nothing, it would also not follow, that SRT is > wrong, even if that particular text is commonly called 'SRT'. > > So, the theory itself may eventually be correct, but its derivation was > imho not. You should drop the h from that abbreviation. -- Athel -- French and British, living mainly in England until 1987.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-11-16 12:59 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <tl38ef$2del0$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #595470 |
On 11/16/2022 2:15 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 09.11.2022 um 15:10 schrieb Volney: >> On 11/8/2022 11:54 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote: >>> On Tuesday, 8 November 2022 at 16:27:43 UTC+1, Volney wrote: >>>> On 11/8/2022 1:19 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: >>>>> Am 07.11.2022 um 20:06 schrieb Volney: >>>>> ... >>>>>>> I solved this problem by excluding the observer from the setting and >>>>>>> take the angles at that point only. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> But Einstein solved the same problem by expanding the plane waves to >>>>>>> infinity. >>>>>> >>>>>> They are plane waves, so any location can be used. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In my view, Einstein's 'solution' was nonsense, because no such >>>>>>> waves >>>>>>> are possible. >>>>>> >>>>>> 'Einstein's solution' was not Einstein's. It was how physics was done >>>>>> during the time. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> This is a 'plane wave approximation' of a spherical wave. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> OK. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> But Einstein used actually plane waves from end one of infinity >>>>>>>>> to the >>>>>>>>> other. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Yes. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> This is nonsense, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> No, this is standard physics since before Maxwell. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Well, possibly, but it's still nonsense, because no souce of any >>>>>>> real >>>>>>> wave can stretch from one end of the universe to the other. >>>>>> >>>>>> Not relevant. Plane waves are used because the math is simpler. >>>>>> Physics >>>>>> uses such simplifications all the time. There are no such things as >>>>>> frictionless surfaces, massless ropes or frictionless pulleys, but >>>>>> high >>>>>> school level physics (mechanics) uses these all the time since it >>>>>> makes >>>>>> the math MUCH simpler. Nothing to do with Einstein, this level of >>>>>> mechanics is Newtonian. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Real waves obey Huigens principle and are more or less spherical. >>>>>>> >>>>>> Irrelevant. If a plane wave exists, its continued existence doesn't >>>>>> violate any laws or rules of physics. >>>>> >>>>> The meant laws are not the laws of physics, but the laws of nature. >>>> You're trying to pick a nit that's not even there. Physics models >>>> nature >>> >>> It did, up to 1905, stupid Mike. Since more than 100 years >>> it models mostly some gedanken delusions of an insane >>> crazie. >> >> Despite all of your raving and spitting, Einstein's SR and GR have been >> very successful models, being validated repeatedly and never refuted in >> their domains. Tissue? > > You should distinguish between the theories themselves and the text, > which Einstein had written. Considered one of the greatest science papers of all times. > > In my view, the text 'On the electrodynamics of moving bodies' contains > a large amount of various errors. Nobody cares about your mistaken views. All "errors" you have "found" so far are errors or misunderstandings by YOU. Don't blame Einstein for your mistakes. > > Since from errors follow nothing, it would also not follow, that SRT is > wrong, even if that particular text is commonly called 'SRT'. > > So, the theory itself may eventually be correct, but its derivation was > imho not. There are no errors in Einstein's 1905 SR paper.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 … 15 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web