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 9 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 11 … 15 Next page →
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-12 11:27 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f968ee76-1bc4-423c-97ae-1b51cedee169n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #593328 |
On Tuesday, October 11, 2022 at 11:17:33 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 11.10.2022 um 10:06 schrieb JanPB: > > On Monday, October 10, 2022 at 11:03:57 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote: > >> Am 10.10.2022 um 10:56 schrieb JanPB: > >> > >>>> Let me illustrate this setting a in a 'linguistic picture': > >>>> > >>>> we assume a box, which is filled with a plane wave. This wave is plane, > >>>> sinosoidal with constant frequency, coming parallel from some > >>>> unmentioned source with constant intensity and hits our box at a certin > >>>> angle, which we can adjust. > >>>> > >>>> The intensity is constant from source to the other end of infinity and > >>>> the wave is not spreading out forever. > >>>> > >>>> These assumption were quite unrealistic, but somehow possible. > >>> > >>> It's a very realistic approximation, with an error that can be reduced > >>> arbitrarily. Plane waves are used all the time, it's a standard tool. > >> Sure, but waves are usually not plane. > >> > >> This is Huygens principle, and plane waves require (almost) infinite > >> antennas. > > > > Yes but this is irrelevant. Here we want to calculate the Doppler effect > > at a specified frequency and direction. The directions is idealised to > > be fixed, i.e. the source is presumed as distant as we please. > > > >>>> What was not possible, however, that was the use of positions in the > >>>> equations. > >>>> > >>>> The reason: in this setting the box could be moved around and nothing > >>>> would change, because the wave is infinitely homogenous, non degrading > >>>> and parallel. > >>>> > >>>> If real spherical waves and a finite distance to the emitter were used, > >>>> the equations could not be used anymore. > >>> > >>> True but the error can be made as small as we please by positioning the > >>> source far enough. Moreover, the idea here is to calculate the "pure" Doppler > >>> effect in which the distance to the source and the details of the shape of > >>> the wavefront do not contaminate the formula. So for sources like stars > >>> the formula would work FAPP perfectly. > >> I do agree, of course. > >> > >> But my point was, that the term 1/c (l*x + m*y + n*z) in Einstein's > >> equation was wrong. > > > > This is not any "Einstein equation", is a standard plane wave formula. > https://atmos.washington.edu/~hakim/542/wave_properties.pdf > > Notice, please, that Einstein's setting was different. > > Einstein considered incoming waves at a certain point (coming from a > distant source), while the equations in the link above mean the relation > in respect to the source. No, they are the same. There is no source in the link you quoted. (The only difference is that the link does it in 2D and Einstein writes it in 3D.) > In the standard setting, the wave moves away from the center of the > coordinate system, while in Einstein's setting a certain point is > observed from there. No, those equations (both in Einstein and in the link) the waves are idealised so that the source is at infinity and the wavefronts are "flat" (planes in 3D or lines in 2D, as in that article you quoted). The origin plays no special role in this setup, besides being, well, the origin of the coordinates :-) But the wave looks the same everywhere. > The difference is, that the observer does not create the waves, hence > has only a passive role. Yes. That's because we want to calculate the Doppler effect which is only influenced by the frequency and direction. > Therefore his position is irrelevant for the wave and the points it > hits, because observation is not supposed to alter the fields at remote > points. Yes. The derivation (which Einstein skips) relies on the fact that the measurement could be done at any point. The origin is not distinguished in any way. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-13 09:33 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <jqptaeF9jqoU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #593340 |
Am 12.10.2022 um 20:27 schrieb JanPB: ... >>>> But my point was, that the term 1/c (l*x + m*y + n*z) in Einstein's >>>> equation was wrong. >>> >>> This is not any "Einstein equation", is a standard plane wave formula. >> https://atmos.washington.edu/~hakim/542/wave_properties.pdf >> >> Notice, please, that Einstein's setting was different. >> >> Einstein considered incoming waves at a certain point (coming from a >> distant source), while the equations in the link above mean the relation >> in respect to the source. > > No, they are the same. There is no source in the link you quoted. > (The only difference is that the link does it in 2D and Einstein > writes it in 3D.) > >> In the standard setting, the wave moves away from the center of the >> coordinate system, while in Einstein's setting a certain point is >> observed from there. > > No, those equations (both in Einstein and in the link) the waves are > idealised so that the source is at infinity and the wavefronts are > "flat" (planes in 3D or lines in 2D, as in that article you quoted). Well, actually 'flat' was also my own interpretation. I assumed, that the source was placed on the z-axis, but far away. Then the wave would arrive 'flat' at the center of K and would hit the xy-plane perpendicular. In this case the observer would move parallel to the wave crests and would eventually experience a transversal Doppler effect. > The origin plays no special role in this setup, besides being, well, > the origin of the coordinates :-) But the wave looks the same everywhere. If so, then how do you decide, whether or not you move? >> The difference is, that the observer does not create the waves, hence >> has only a passive role. > > Yes. That's because we want to calculate the Doppler effect which > is only influenced by the frequency and direction. The Doppler effect was already known much longer than SRT. So, Einstein wanted to derive something else. Apparently he wanted to derive the 'transversal Doppler effect' here. This could be done, if k moves perpendicular to the wave. But I don't see, how Einstein derived this effect (besides not naming it so). >> Therefore his position is irrelevant for the wave and the points it >> hits, because observation is not supposed to alter the fields at remote >> points. > > Yes. The derivation (which Einstein skips) relies on the fact that the > measurement could be done at any point. The origin is not distinguished > in any way. My point was, that Einstein used coordinates in his equations, which were ment to describe the state of a certain point, but these coordinates have no impact on the point. If so, then what are the coordinates good for in a physical sense? The coordinates relate to a coordinate system K, which is assumed to be stationary. And the source is placed stationary in K, but far away. Therefore, the wave source is assumed to be stationary, too. To be qualified as stationary, the velocity of the source in respect to K needs to be zero. Since infinity is always stationary, the source cannot be placed at infinity, but must have fixed coordinates in K. This is so because infinity plus any real distance is still infinitely far away, however you move. Because velocity in respect to K is zero, the source needs real coordinates in K, what would exclude infinite ones. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-13 13:58 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <63971fce-176a-443f-9549-ec469ce8b5fen@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #593371 |
On Thursday, October 13, 2022 at 12:33:39 AM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 12.10.2022 um 20:27 schrieb JanPB:
> ...
> >>>> But my point was, that the term 1/c (l*x + m*y + n*z) in Einstein's
> >>>> equation was wrong.
> >>>
> >>> This is not any "Einstein equation", is a standard plane wave formula.
> >> https://atmos.washington.edu/~hakim/542/wave_properties.pdf
> >>
> >> Notice, please, that Einstein's setting was different.
> >>
> >> Einstein considered incoming waves at a certain point (coming from a
> >> distant source), while the equations in the link above mean the relation
> >> in respect to the source.
> >
> > No, they are the same. There is no source in the link you quoted.
> > (The only difference is that the link does it in 2D and Einstein
> > writes it in 3D.)
> >
> >> In the standard setting, the wave moves away from the center of the
> >> coordinate system, while in Einstein's setting a certain point is
> >> observed from there.
> >
> > No, those equations (both in Einstein and in the link) the waves are
> > idealised so that the source is at infinity and the wavefronts are
> > "flat" (planes in 3D or lines in 2D, as in that article you quoted).
> Well, actually 'flat' was also my own interpretation.
>
> I assumed, that the source was placed on the z-axis, but far away.
>
> Then the wave would arrive 'flat' at the center of K and would hit the
> xy-plane perpendicular.
The linked note describes a plane wave in 2D (so not realistic). The
3D version would be:
f(x, y, z, t) = Re { A e^i(kx + ly + mz - nu t) } , etc.
I prefer omega ( = 2 pi nu) instead of nu in that context but this
is cosmetics.
> > The origin plays no special role in this setup, besides being, well,
> > the origin of the coordinates :-) But the wave looks the same everywhere.
> If so, then how do you decide, whether or not you move?
There is a "moving" coordinate system (k) and a "stationary" coordinate
system (K). This is established before Section 7.
> >> The difference is, that the observer does not create the waves, hence
> >> has only a passive role.
> >
> > Yes. That's because we want to calculate the Doppler effect which
> > is only influenced by the frequency and direction.
> The Doppler effect was already known much longer than SRT.
>
> So, Einstein wanted to derive something else.
He wanted to see whether the classic Doppler formula would change.
Not sure what his motivation for this check was exactly but it seems
like a good question to ask given the fact that the fields E and B as
well as the coordinates (including the time coordinate) change.
> Apparently he wanted to derive the 'transversal Doppler effect' here.
Not sure if he knew in advance what the formula would imply.
> This could be done, if k moves perpendicular to the wave.
>
> But I don't see, how Einstein derived this effect (besides not naming it
> so).
He omits the derivation. It's hard to type it in plain text, I can typeset
it more readably but I have a feeling this would create even more
<cough> confusion.
> >> Therefore his position is irrelevant for the wave and the points it
> >> hits, because observation is not supposed to alter the fields at remote
> >> points.
> >
> > Yes. The derivation (which Einstein skips) relies on the fact that the
> > measurement could be done at any point. The origin is not distinguished
> > in any way.
> My point was, that Einstein used coordinates in his equations, which
> were ment to describe the state of a certain point, but these
> coordinates have no impact on the point.
No, coordinates do not describe any "certain point", they describe
*coordinate domains* which, in the case of inertial coordinates of
special relativity refers to *entire space and time*.
IOW, we don't even know WHERE the K and k observers actually ARE.
We only know k's direction of movement, its speed, and certain
other convenience constraints like both coordinate origins coinciding
at t = 0 and tau = 0.
In fact, the word "observer" in relativity means simply "coordinate system".
A specific observer location is needed only in contexts requiring such
knowledge for some reason. In this Doppler case, the moving observer
can be positioned at any point (x, y, z) at any time t to perform
the measurement.
> If so, then what are the coordinates good for in a physical sense?
>
> The coordinates relate to a coordinate system K, which is assumed to be
> stationary. And the source is placed stationary in K, but far away.
>
> Therefore, the wave source is assumed to be stationary, too.
Yes.
> To be qualified as stationary, the velocity of the source in respect to
> K needs to be zero.
Yes.
> Since infinity is always stationary, the source cannot be placed at
> infinity, but must have fixed coordinates in K.
The only thing needed to derive the result is the description of the
wave. Assuming a plane wave amounts to putting the source
arbitrarily far.
--
Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Woodrow Adessi <reds@odirsodo.er> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-13 21:03 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ti9uep$1scjn$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #593388 |
JanPB wrote:
>> Then the wave would arrive 'flat' at the center of K and would hit the
>> xy-plane perpendicular.
>
> The linked note describes a plane wave in 2D (so not realistic). The 3D
> version would be: f(x, y, z, t) = Re { A e^i(kx + ly + mz - nu t) } ,
> etc. I prefer omega ( = 2 pi nu) instead of nu in that context but
> this is cosmetics.
then go regime change in america. Be a man.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-14 08:49 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <jqsf4mFlli3U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #593388 |
Am 13.10.2022 um 22:58 schrieb JanPB: >>>> The difference is, that the observer does not create the waves, hence >>>> has only a passive role. >>> >>> Yes. That's because we want to calculate the Doppler effect which >>> is only influenced by the frequency and direction. >> The Doppler effect was already known much longer than SRT. >> >> So, Einstein wanted to derive something else. > > He wanted to see whether the classic Doppler formula would change. > Not sure what his motivation for this check was exactly but it seems > like a good question to ask given the fact that the fields E and B as > well as the coordinates (including the time coordinate) change. > >> Apparently he wanted to derive the 'transversal Doppler effect' here. > > Not sure if he knew in advance what the formula would imply. Not sure, of he knew the equations afterwards. >> This could be done, if k moves perpendicular to the wave. >> >> But I don't see, how Einstein derived this effect (besides not naming it >> so). > > He omits the derivation. It's hard to type it in plain text, I can typeset > it more readably but I have a feeling this would create even more > <cough> confusion. > >>>> Therefore his position is irrelevant for the wave and the points it >>>> hits, because observation is not supposed to alter the fields at remote >>>> points. >>> >>> Yes. The derivation (which Einstein skips) relies on the fact that the >>> measurement could be done at any point. The origin is not distinguished >>> in any way. >> My point was, that Einstein used coordinates in his equations, which >> were ment to describe the state of a certain point, but these >> coordinates have no impact on the point. > > No, coordinates do not describe any "certain point", they describe > *coordinate domains* which, in the case of inertial coordinates of > special relativity refers to *entire space and time*. > > IOW, we don't even know WHERE the K and k observers actually ARE. > We only know k's direction of movement, its speed, and certain > other convenience constraints like both coordinate origins coinciding > at t = 0 and tau = 0. No, because the direction and velocity are also unknown. Direction and velocity can only be related to something else. Einstein used system K as reference and lets system k move with velocity v along the X-axis of K. Now system K is still undefined, because also system k could be called 'stationary'. There are also no 'direction anchors' or reference points for velocity available in SRT (space in SRT is a starless void). This is why we in fact don't know if, how fast and into which direction these system move. > In fact, the word "observer" in relativity means simply "coordinate system". I totally agree here, but used a human observer for as illustration, which is placed at the center of the coordinate system in question. This 'human observer' is assumed to be 'self-centered' and regards himself as at rest. Therefore the coordinate system with the observer is at rest by default. (allmost everything else moves) > A specific observer location is needed only in contexts requiring such > knowledge for some reason. In this Doppler case, the moving observer > can be positioned at any point (x, y, z) at any time t to perform > the measurement. The observer cannot be placed at arbitrary coordinates, because the observer rests permanently at (0,0,0) (by definition). >> If so, then what are the coordinates good for in a physical sense? >> >> The coordinates relate to a coordinate system K, which is assumed to be >> stationary. And the source is placed stationary in K, but far away. >> >> Therefore, the wave source is assumed to be stationary, too. > > Yes. > >> To be qualified as stationary, the velocity of the source in respect to >> K needs to be zero. > > Yes. > >> Since infinity is always stationary, the source cannot be placed at >> infinity, but must have fixed coordinates in K. > > The only thing needed to derive the result is the description of the > wave. Assuming a plane wave amounts to putting the source > arbitrarily far. Actually infinetely large emitters were also possible. We only need to assume, the emmitter is able to compensate the transversal phase shift (by kind of delay line system). TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-14 01:11 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <262b941b-956d-4a0c-b08f-cd2abfcfa1f5n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #593411 |
On Thursday, October 13, 2022 at 11:50:02 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 13.10.2022 um 22:58 schrieb JanPB: > > >>>> The difference is, that the observer does not create the waves, hence > >>>> has only a passive role. > >>> > >>> Yes. That's because we want to calculate the Doppler effect which > >>> is only influenced by the frequency and direction. > >> The Doppler effect was already known much longer than SRT. > >> > >> So, Einstein wanted to derive something else. > > > > He wanted to see whether the classic Doppler formula would change. > > Not sure what his motivation for this check was exactly but it seems > > like a good question to ask given the fact that the fields E and B as > > well as the coordinates (including the time coordinate) change. > > > >> Apparently he wanted to derive the 'transversal Doppler effect' here. > > > > Not sure if he knew in advance what the formula would imply. > Not sure, of he knew the equations afterwards. What makes you think so? > >> This could be done, if k moves perpendicular to the wave. > >> > >> But I don't see, how Einstein derived this effect (besides not naming it > >> so). > > > > He omits the derivation. It's hard to type it in plain text, I can typeset > > it more readably but I have a feeling this would create even more > > <cough> confusion. > > > >>>> Therefore his position is irrelevant for the wave and the points it > >>>> hits, because observation is not supposed to alter the fields at remote > >>>> points. > >>> > >>> Yes. The derivation (which Einstein skips) relies on the fact that the > >>> measurement could be done at any point. The origin is not distinguished > >>> in any way. > >> My point was, that Einstein used coordinates in his equations, which > >> were ment to describe the state of a certain point, but these > >> coordinates have no impact on the point. > > > > No, coordinates do not describe any "certain point", they describe > > *coordinate domains* which, in the case of inertial coordinates of > > special relativity refers to *entire space and time*. > > > > IOW, we don't even know WHERE the K and k observers actually ARE. > > We only know k's direction of movement, its speed, and certain > > other convenience constraints like both coordinate origins coinciding > > at t = 0 and tau = 0. > No, because the direction and velocity are also unknown. > > Direction and velocity can only be related to something else. > > Einstein used system K as reference and lets system k move with velocity > v along the X-axis of K. > > Now system K is still undefined, because also system k could be called > 'stationary'. > > There are also no 'direction anchors' or reference points for velocity > available in SRT (space in SRT is a starless void). Everything needed to proceed with the calculation had been defined and fixed. > This is why we in fact don't know if, how fast and into which direction > these system move. To calculate the effect all one needs is what you wrote above: an arbitrarily chosen system (K) and another one (k) moving at speed v in the positive x-axis (of K) direction. > > In fact, the word "observer" in relativity means simply "coordinate system". > I totally agree here, but used a human observer for as illustration, > which is placed at the center of the coordinate system in question. Why at the center? > This 'human observer' is assumed to be 'self-centered' and regards > himself as at rest. > > Therefore the coordinate system with the observer is at rest by default. > > (allmost everything else moves) > > A specific observer location is needed only in contexts requiring such > > knowledge for some reason. In this Doppler case, the moving observer > > can be positioned at any point (x, y, z) at any time t to perform > > the measurement. > The observer cannot be placed at arbitrary coordinates, because the > observer rests permanently at (0,0,0) (by definition). Here all we have (and all we need) is coordinates. In general, if a specific observer at some concrete location is needed, this location need not be the origin: there is nothing preventing a physical observer from moving around. But this is academic (unless the problem specifically involves the observer's concrete trajectory which is not the case here). > Actually infinetely large emitters were also possible. We only need to > assume, the emmitter is able to compensate the transversal phase shift > (by kind of delay line system). The emitter is an arbitrarily faraway pointlike source. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-15 09:24 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <jqv5goF3se6U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #593413 |
Am 14.10.2022 um 10:11 schrieb JanPB: > On Thursday, October 13, 2022 at 11:50:02 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote: >> Am 13.10.2022 um 22:58 schrieb JanPB: >> >>>>>> The difference is, that the observer does not create the waves, hence >>>>>> has only a passive role. >>>>> >>>>> Yes. That's because we want to calculate the Doppler effect which >>>>> is only influenced by the frequency and direction. >>>> The Doppler effect was already known much longer than SRT. >>>> >>>> So, Einstein wanted to derive something else. >>> >>> He wanted to see whether the classic Doppler formula would change. >>> Not sure what his motivation for this check was exactly but it seems >>> like a good question to ask given the fact that the fields E and B as >>> well as the coordinates (including the time coordinate) change. >>> >>>> Apparently he wanted to derive the 'transversal Doppler effect' here. >>> >>> Not sure if he knew in advance what the formula would imply. >> Not sure, of he knew the equations afterwards. > > What makes you think so? Einstein used the wrong variables (the coordinates in respect to K) to derive the transversal Doppler effect. In his 'picture', there arrive plane waves at the base plane (the x-y-plane) of system K and the observer moves with velocity v along the x-axis over this plane. Now I do not see, how one could derive any effect upon wavelength or frequency of the wave in this setting, because the same wave is assumed to extend with the exact same properties into all directions. ... TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-15 03:05 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <626dba73-99b9-4d3d-87e6-755a284f27e3n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #593472 |
On Saturday, October 15, 2022 at 12:24:13 AM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 14.10.2022 um 10:11 schrieb JanPB: > > On Thursday, October 13, 2022 at 11:50:02 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote: > >> Am 13.10.2022 um 22:58 schrieb JanPB: > >> > >>>>>> The difference is, that the observer does not create the waves, hence > >>>>>> has only a passive role. > >>>>> > >>>>> Yes. That's because we want to calculate the Doppler effect which > >>>>> is only influenced by the frequency and direction. > >>>> The Doppler effect was already known much longer than SRT. > >>>> > >>>> So, Einstein wanted to derive something else. > >>> > >>> He wanted to see whether the classic Doppler formula would change. > >>> Not sure what his motivation for this check was exactly but it seems > >>> like a good question to ask given the fact that the fields E and B as > >>> well as the coordinates (including the time coordinate) change. > >>> > >>>> Apparently he wanted to derive the 'transversal Doppler effect' here. > >>> > >>> Not sure if he knew in advance what the formula would imply. > >> Not sure, of he knew the equations afterwards. > > > > What makes you think so? > Einstein used the wrong variables (the coordinates in respect to K) to > derive the transversal Doppler effect. No, his derivation is correct. > In his 'picture', there arrive plane waves at the base plane (the > x-y-plane) of system K The way Einstein sets it up is that the xy-plane is not distinguished in any way as the direction of the light is allowed to be an arbitrary direction (l, m, n). The waves are emanating from a faraway source and are present in all of space (everywhere). Only the x-axis is distinguished as the trajectory of the moving observer. > and the observer moves with velocity v along the > x-axis over this plane. > > Now I do not see, how one could derive any effect upon wavelength or > frequency of the wave in this setting, because the same wave is assumed > to extend with the exact same properties into all directions. Well, the wave is not the same everywhere, it is waving in a certain pattern distributed in space. So it's no surprise that the perception of this spatial configuration by observers will depend on their state of motion. The key property Einstein uses for the derivation is that the phase of the wave at any given point (x, y, z) in space is independent of the observer. In other words, Phi' = Phi (Einstein assumes the reader knows that). -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-16 09:30 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <jr1q9fFg9guU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #593475 |
Am 15.10.2022 um 12:05 schrieb JanPB: >>>>>>> Yes. That's because we want to calculate the Doppler effect which >>>>>>> is only influenced by the frequency and direction. >>>>>> The Doppler effect was already known much longer than SRT. >>>>>> >>>>>> So, Einstein wanted to derive something else. >>>>> >>>>> He wanted to see whether the classic Doppler formula would change. >>>>> Not sure what his motivation for this check was exactly but it seems >>>>> like a good question to ask given the fact that the fields E and B as >>>>> well as the coordinates (including the time coordinate) change. >>>>> >>>>>> Apparently he wanted to derive the 'transversal Doppler effect' here. >>>>> >>>>> Not sure if he knew in advance what the formula would imply. >>>> Not sure, of he knew the equations afterwards. >>> >>> What makes you think so? >> Einstein used the wrong variables (the coordinates in respect to K) to >> derive the transversal Doppler effect. > > No, his derivation is correct. > >> In his 'picture', there arrive plane waves at the base plane (the >> x-y-plane) of system K > > The way Einstein sets it up is that the xy-plane is not distinguished > in any way as the direction of the light is allowed to be an arbitrary > direction (l, m, n). The waves are emanating from a faraway source > and are present in all of space (everywhere). Only the x-axis is > distinguished as the trajectory of the moving observer. Einstein had not defined his setting properly. Now we are requested to figure out a setting, which could possibly fit to what he had actually written. But no such thing exists, because the transversal Doppler effect would require a movement perpendicular to the incoming wave and any other angle would cause a combination of that with the usual Doppler effect. Now this would require to untangle both effects, what cannot be found in Einstein's paper. So movement perpendicular to the incoming wave is the only possible setting, which would make somehow sense. But in this case, there could be no effect of sideways motion, because the plane wave is assumed to extend into all directions evenly. Therefore, the realm of aplicability of Einstein's setting is zero. ... TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-16 13:02 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <81fb7299-1f52-4d1f-81d5-c872de3222b9n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #593548 |
On Sunday, October 16, 2022 at 12:30:58 AM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 15.10.2022 um 12:05 schrieb JanPB:
>
> >>>>>>> Yes. That's because we want to calculate the Doppler effect which
> >>>>>>> is only influenced by the frequency and direction.
> >>>>>> The Doppler effect was already known much longer than SRT.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> So, Einstein wanted to derive something else.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> He wanted to see whether the classic Doppler formula would change.
> >>>>> Not sure what his motivation for this check was exactly but it seems
> >>>>> like a good question to ask given the fact that the fields E and B as
> >>>>> well as the coordinates (including the time coordinate) change.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Apparently he wanted to derive the 'transversal Doppler effect' here.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Not sure if he knew in advance what the formula would imply.
> >>>> Not sure, of he knew the equations afterwards.
> >>>
> >>> What makes you think so?
> >> Einstein used the wrong variables (the coordinates in respect to K) to
> >> derive the transversal Doppler effect.
> >
> > No, his derivation is correct.
> >
> >> In his 'picture', there arrive plane waves at the base plane (the
> >> x-y-plane) of system K
> >
> > The way Einstein sets it up is that the xy-plane is not distinguished
> > in any way as the direction of the light is allowed to be an arbitrary
> > direction (l, m, n). The waves are emanating from a faraway source
> > and are present in all of space (everywhere). Only the x-axis is
> > distinguished as the trajectory of the moving observer.
> Einstein had not defined his setting properly.
What else do you need? Everything is set up for calculaying the
Doppler effect using the new tools just established (in previous
sections).
> Now we are requested to
> figure out a setting, which could possibly fit to what he had actually
> written.
Nothing to "figure", just apply the tools. As is always the case
in science publishing, the reader is presumed to fill in the
student-level blanks.
> But no such thing exists, because the transversal Doppler effect would
> require a movement perpendicular to the incoming wave and any other
> angle would cause a combination of that with the usual Doppler effect.
And that's what Einstein's formula covers: it calculates the effect depending
on the angle phi (the angle between the velocity of k and the wave
direction, as viewed by K):
nu' = beta * nu * (1 - cos(phi) * (v/c))
So in the transverse case we have phi = pi/2 hence cos(phi) = 0, and:
nu' = gamma * nu
...according to the moving observer k.
> Now this would require to untangle both effects, what cannot be found in
> Einstein's paper.
The derivation is omitted but his formula covers the general case (an arbitrary
angle). Einstein opmits the derivation, probably because it's a bit of
boring algebra. He does set up everything one needs for checking the
derivation, it's a standard publishing practice.
> So movement perpendicular to the incoming wave is the only possible
> setting, which would make somehow sense.
No, the formula applies to all directions (all angles phi as above).
> But in this case, there could be no effect of sideways motion, because
> the plane wave is assumed to extend into all directions evenly.
Well, it turns out in relativity there is an effect. This is a surprising
consequence of the theory and is called "transverse Doppler". There
is no such effect in the Newtonian mechanics setting. The effect
has been tested directly using fast-moving hydrogen atoms:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_Doppler_effect#Direct_measurement_of_transverse_Doppler_effect
(search www for other experiments).
> Therefore, the realm of aplicability of Einstein's setting is zero.
Therefore, no such "therefore".
--
Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-16 13:19 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7315fd84-e506-4e65-84d3-68e17997be11n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #593568 |
On Sunday, October 16, 2022 at 1:02:43 PM UTC-7, I wrote:
>
> And that's what Einstein's formula covers: it calculates the effect depending
> on the angle phi (the angle between the velocity of k and the wave
> direction, as viewed by K):
>
> nu' = beta * nu * (1 - cos(phi) * (v/c))
>
> So in the transverse case we have phi = pi/2 hence cos(phi) = 0, and:
>
> nu' = gamma * nu
>
> ...according to the moving observer k.
BTW, this formula covers the case of k moving perpendicular to
the wave _as observed by K_.
For the transverse effect observed by k when _he_ measures _his_
angle phi' = pi/2 (phi PRIME), one must substitute in the above
general formula for nu' the expression for cos(phi) in terms of
cos(phi'). This setup is more relevant to experiments:
cos(phi) = (v/c + cos(phi') / (1 + v/c * cos(phi'))
(just reverse the equation for cos(phi') given in Section 7).
The formula for nu' in terms of phi' is then (skipping the
simple algebra, hope you don't mind :-) ) :
nu' = nu / ( beta * (1 + v/c * cos(phi')) )
...so for phi' = pi/2:
nu' = nu/beta
(I'm using Einstein's "beta" where modern texts use "gamma".)
It's this sort of straightforward algebra that's typically skipped in
the literature.
I was cleaning my closet yesterday and found a copy of Brandon Carter's
original "Carter constant" paper. The amount of simple algebra Einstein
omits here is nothing compared to the computational details Carter skips.
--
Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-17 08:18 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <jr4ae5Ftd87U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #593568 |
Am 16.10.2022 um 22:02 schrieb JanPB: > Well, it turns out in relativity there is an effect. This is a surprising > consequence of the theory and is called "transverse Doppler". There > is no such effect in the Newtonian mechanics setting. The effect > has been tested directly using fast-moving hydrogen atoms: > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_Doppler_effect#Direct_measurement_of_transverse_Doppler_effect > (search www for other experiments). > >> Therefore, the realm of aplicability of Einstein's setting is zero. > > Therefore, no such "therefore". > Contrary than what you possibly think, I'm not at all against relativity. I was dealing with Einstein's paper alone and not with relativity. I was looking for errors in this particular paper and treated that as a singular paper, similar to the homework of a student. Therefore I did not look at the philosphical content of the paper, but on the words, methods and equations in Einstein's paper. I tried to find all errors in it and to write comments, why I think, that something was wrong. Here I missed a discussion about the intended puropse of the article and a proper derivation of the results. This cannot be replaced by other sources or articles or experiments, which came later, because this particular text is treated as singular and as all there is. The result was a count of well over four-hundred errrors of various kinds. These are still errors, even if the written text would somehow reflect actual truth. The actual truth, however, was not my concern in my annotations, but the used methods and the actual text. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-17 02:48 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <92488557-ab3a-4c1d-9d78-b3115a7e2866n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #593591 |
On Sunday, October 16, 2022 at 11:18:49 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 16.10.2022 um 22:02 schrieb JanPB: > > > Well, it turns out in relativity there is an effect. This is a surprising > > consequence of the theory and is called "transverse Doppler". There > > is no such effect in the Newtonian mechanics setting. The effect > > has been tested directly using fast-moving hydrogen atoms: > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_Doppler_effect#Direct_measurement_of_transverse_Doppler_effect > > (search www for other experiments). > > > >> Therefore, the realm of aplicability of Einstein's setting is zero. > > > > Therefore, no such "therefore". > > > Contrary than what you possibly think, I'm not at all against relativity. > > I was dealing with Einstein's paper alone and not with relativity. > > I was looking for errors in this particular paper and treated that as a > singular paper, similar to the homework of a student. You said this before several times but it's just a completely pointless concept. Why would anyone ever want to do such a thing? It would make sense to treat it as what it is: a science research paper. But what's the point of treating it as something it isn't? Why not treat it like a wardrobe or a pipe organ then? > Therefore I did not look at the philosphical content of the paper, but > on the words, methods and equations in Einstein's paper. > > I tried to find all errors in it and to write comments, why I think, > that something was wrong. > > Here I missed a discussion about the intended puropse of the article and > a proper derivation of the results. > > This cannot be replaced by other sources or articles or experiments, > which came later, because this particular text is treated as singular > and as all there is. > > The result was a count of well over four-hundred errrors of various kinds. That count is zero. This was explained to you many times. What you counted were instances of your misunderstanding. Why you call those moments "errors" remains a mystery. Normally people can differentiate between not understanding something and knowing something is wrong. Those are two entirely different things. > These are still errors, even if the written text would somehow reflect > actual truth. They are not errors, you simply don't understand the paper. > The actual truth, however, was not my concern in my annotations, but the > used methods and the actual text. You are wasting your time. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-18 08:56 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <jr7117FbnofU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #593597 |
Am 17.10.2022 um 11:48 schrieb JanPB: >> Contrary than what you possibly think, I'm not at all against relativity. >> >> I was dealing with Einstein's paper alone and not with relativity. >> >> I was looking for errors in this particular paper and treated that as a >> singular paper, similar to the homework of a student. > > You said this before several times but it's just a completely > pointless concept. Why would anyone ever want to do such > a thing? It would make sense to treat it as what it is: a science > research paper. But what's the point of treating it as something > it isn't? Why not treat it like a wardrobe or a pipe organ then? > >> Therefore I did not look at the philosphical content of the paper, but >> on the words, methods and equations in Einstein's paper. >> >> I tried to find all errors in it and to write comments, why I think, >> that something was wrong. >> >> Here I missed a discussion about the intended puropse of the article and >> a proper derivation of the results. >> >> This cannot be replaced by other sources or articles or experiments, >> which came later, because this particular text is treated as singular >> and as all there is. >> >> The result was a count of well over four-hundred errrors of various kinds. > > That count is zero. This was explained to you many times. What > you counted were instances of your misunderstanding. Why you > call those moments "errors" remains a mystery. Normally people > can differentiate between not understanding something and > knowing something is wrong. Those are two entirely different > things. It was kind of 'battle' with the regular 'Dono'. I stated, the text is full of errors and he said I'm a Nazi and a crank and have no right to criticise Einstein. I had the oppisite view and now was forced to actually prove my claim. But I found way more errors than expected. The number of things, which are wrong in some way, is just enormous. It is unlikely, that any sober physicists would have written anything alike, because the text looks, as if the author wanted to push as much errors in it as he could possibly could. I used the 'virtual marker function' of my pdf reader to mark such parts and almost a third of the text got marked. This is just an enormous amount an cannot be explained otherwise then by intention. The text can also be compared to related articles and books by Heinrich Hertz or Henry Poincaré. You will find, that the related articels are far better written and do not have this huge number of inconsistencies in it. ... > > You are wasting your time. > You do that all the time. But to write a critique of Einstein's paper wasn't, what I would regard as wasted time. It is actually a very good learning tool and that's why I have actually spent so much time on that. TH >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-19 14:51 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b0beb13c-5d54-416b-85b2-d35ab26a82c4n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #593653 |
On Tuesday, October 18, 2022 at 8:56:42 AM UTC+2, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 17.10.2022 um 11:48 schrieb JanPB: > > >> Contrary than what you possibly think, I'm not at all against relativity. > >> > >> I was dealing with Einstein's paper alone and not with relativity. > >> > >> I was looking for errors in this particular paper and treated that as a > >> singular paper, similar to the homework of a student. > > > > You said this before several times but it's just a completely > > pointless concept. Why would anyone ever want to do such > > a thing? It would make sense to treat it as what it is: a science > > research paper. But what's the point of treating it as something > > it isn't? Why not treat it like a wardrobe or a pipe organ then? > > > >> Therefore I did not look at the philosphical content of the paper, but > >> on the words, methods and equations in Einstein's paper. > >> > >> I tried to find all errors in it and to write comments, why I think, > >> that something was wrong. > >> > >> Here I missed a discussion about the intended puropse of the article and > >> a proper derivation of the results. > >> > >> This cannot be replaced by other sources or articles or experiments, > >> which came later, because this particular text is treated as singular > >> and as all there is. > >> > >> The result was a count of well over four-hundred errrors of various kinds. > > > > That count is zero. This was explained to you many times. What > > you counted were instances of your misunderstanding. Why you > > call those moments "errors" remains a mystery. Normally people > > can differentiate between not understanding something and > > knowing something is wrong. Those are two entirely different > > things. > It was kind of 'battle' with the regular 'Dono'. > > I stated, the text is full of errors and he said I'm a Nazi and a crank > and have no right to criticise Einstein. > > I had the oppisite view and now was forced to actually prove my claim. > > But I found way more errors than expected. You have found no errors. Maybe it's some language barrier but in English at least you cannot use the word "error" this way. "Error" means something is false (incorrect, non-factual, etc.) What you've found were instances of unclear (to you) line of reasoning. It's a very different thing. > The number of things, which are wrong in some way, is just enormous. That number is zero. Have you ever read any science paper at all? > It is unlikely, that any sober physicists would have written anything > alike, They write it all the time. > because the text looks, as if the author wanted to push as much > errors in it as he could possibly could. No, it's just an illusion which anyone normally would distinguish right away from reality. Again: normally people (even uneducated) can easily tell apart the feeling of non-understanding something versus knowing something is wrong. You (and many others on this NG) seem to lack this innate sense. It's VERY characteristic. > I used the 'virtual marker function' of my pdf reader to mark such parts > and almost a third of the text got marked. Yes, but it's your fault, not Einstein's. > This is just an enormous amount an cannot be explained otherwise then by > intention. No. To any competent reader the text is very clear, and it was so already in 1905. > The text can also be compared to related articles and books by Heinrich > Hertz or Henry Poincaré. You will find, that the related articels are > far better written and do not have this huge number of inconsistencies > in it. Again, it feels like you've never read any science paper. And, obviously, different authors have different writing styles. For example, the famous mathematician Élie Cartan was well-known for his very difficult writing style. Except what he wrote were pieces of great mathematics. OTOH Constantin Carathéodory was a great "mathematical stylist", his books are simply a great read. But this sort of quirkiness is considered simply a part of the trade: some people write in a more obfuscated way than the others. The peer review process can help. > > You are wasting your time. > > > You do that all the time. Not in this case. > It is actually a very good learning tool and that's why I have actually > spent so much time on that. You didn't seem to learn much so far but there is hope :-) -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-20 21:14 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <jrdl18FckcjU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #593762 |
Am 19.10.2022 um 23:51 schrieb JanPB: >>>> Therefore I did not look at the philosphical content of the paper, but >>>> on the words, methods and equations in Einstein's paper. >>>> >>>> I tried to find all errors in it and to write comments, why I think, >>>> that something was wrong. >>>> >>>> Here I missed a discussion about the intended puropse of the article and >>>> a proper derivation of the results. >>>> >>>> This cannot be replaced by other sources or articles or experiments, >>>> which came later, because this particular text is treated as singular >>>> and as all there is. >>>> >>>> The result was a count of well over four-hundred errrors of various kinds. >>> >>> That count is zero. This was explained to you many times. What >>> you counted were instances of your misunderstanding. Why you >>> call those moments "errors" remains a mystery. Normally people >>> can differentiate between not understanding something and >>> knowing something is wrong. Those are two entirely different >>> things. >> It was kind of 'battle' with the regular 'Dono'. >> >> I stated, the text is full of errors and he said I'm a Nazi and a crank >> and have no right to criticise Einstein. >> >> I had the oppisite view and now was forced to actually prove my claim. >> >> But I found way more errors than expected. > > You have found no errors. Maybe it's some language barrier but in > English at least you cannot use the word "error" this way. "Error" > means something is false (incorrect, non-factual, etc.) What you've > found were instances of unclear (to you) line of reasoning. It's > a very different thing. Actually I meant 'error' with the word 'error'. Yes, 'incorrect, non-factual, etc.' would also match the description, but 'error' is easier to write. > >> The number of things, which are wrong in some way, is just enormous. > > That number is zero. Have you ever read any science paper at all? Well, yes, quite a lot, but at least I have read one, which we are talking about. >> It is unlikely, that any sober physicists would have written anything >> alike, > > They write it all the time. How sad!!! >> because the text looks, as if the author wanted to push as much >> errors in it as he could possibly could. > > No, it's just an illusion which anyone normally would distinguish > right away from reality. Again: normally people (even uneducated) > can easily tell apart the feeling of non-understanding something versus > knowing something is wrong. You (and many others on this NG) seem > to lack this innate sense. It's VERY characteristic. I have spent a huge amount of time on the subject and checked every single annotation several times. I also used forums like this group to discuss certain aspects of the text. As you may have noticed: you and I had a discussion about a certain part of the text. You did not agree to my statement, that the variables in the equation, which Einstein had written in his article, would not cause the effect Einstein used the equation for. Einstein used the coordinates of a point in an equation, which is not influenced by anything related to that coordinate system, because the emitter of the wave in question needed to be placed at infinity to allow these waves to become plane waves. Since infinity is not a point and would be infinetely far away from any coordinate system, the coordinates of a point related to the coordinate system K are irrelevant for the problem in question. This was an error in my view. You don't agree to my conclusion, which is up to you, while I insist that this is wrong. >> I used the 'virtual marker function' of my pdf reader to mark such parts >> and almost a third of the text got marked. > > Yes, but it's your fault, not Einstein's. I'm actually not the author of this text. Therefore, anything written in it is definetely not my fault. >> This is just an enormous amount an cannot be explained otherwise then by >> intention. > > No. To any competent reader the text is very clear, and it was so already in > 1905. The text should be valid and free of errors. This is not a question of the qualification of the reader. If something is wrong in a scientific text, than it is wrong, even if the reader is smart. >> The text can also be compared to related articles and books by Heinrich >> Hertz or Henry Poincaré. You will find, that the related articels are >> far better written and do not have this huge number of inconsistencies >> in it. > > Again, it feels like you've never read any science paper. And, obviously, different > authors have different writing styles. For example, the famous mathematician > Élie Cartan was well-known for his very difficult writing style. Except what he > wrote were pieces of great mathematics. OTOH Constantin Carathéodory > was a great "mathematical stylist", his books are simply a great read. I have never read anything from Cartan, hence cannot answer to your statement. But if there were errors in his papers, these are errors, even if Cartan had written them. ... > >>> You are wasting your time. >>> >> You do that all the time. > > Not in this case. This is actually true: not all your time is wasted! I actually meant: time is running away, even if you do something useful. And its running at the same pace, if you do nothing. So: whether or not you waste your time, at the end the same amount of time is gone. >> It is actually a very good learning tool and that's why I have actually >> spent so much time on that. > > You didn't seem to learn much so far but there is hope :-) > I think, that my method is an increadibly good learning tool. TH >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-20 13:27 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <81ca2433-d07c-47dd-89c2-cf59c4dfa183n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #593827 |
On Thursday, October 20, 2022 at 9:14:52 PM UTC+2, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 19.10.2022 um 23:51 schrieb JanPB: > > >>>> Therefore I did not look at the philosphical content of the paper, but > >>>> on the words, methods and equations in Einstein's paper. > >>>> > >>>> I tried to find all errors in it and to write comments, why I think, > >>>> that something was wrong. > >>>> > >>>> Here I missed a discussion about the intended puropse of the article and > >>>> a proper derivation of the results. > >>>> > >>>> This cannot be replaced by other sources or articles or experiments, > >>>> which came later, because this particular text is treated as singular > >>>> and as all there is. > >>>> > >>>> The result was a count of well over four-hundred errrors of various kinds. > >>> > >>> That count is zero. This was explained to you many times. What > >>> you counted were instances of your misunderstanding. Why you > >>> call those moments "errors" remains a mystery. Normally people > >>> can differentiate between not understanding something and > >>> knowing something is wrong. Those are two entirely different > >>> things. > >> It was kind of 'battle' with the regular 'Dono'. > >> > >> I stated, the text is full of errors and he said I'm a Nazi and a crank > >> and have no right to criticise Einstein. > >> > >> I had the oppisite view and now was forced to actually prove my claim. > >> > >> But I found way more errors than expected. > > > > You have found no errors. Maybe it's some language barrier but in > > English at least you cannot use the word "error" this way. "Error" > > means something is false (incorrect, non-factual, etc.) What you've > > found were instances of unclear (to you) line of reasoning. It's > > a very different thing. > Actually I meant 'error' with the word 'error'. Then you are wrong. There are no errors in Einstein's paper. Besides Einstein, you also presume the peer reviewers for Annalen der Physik were idiots and that all physicists who read that paper since 1905 were/are idiots. This is an absurd proposition, pure Alice in Wonderland or Jabberwocky. > Yes, 'incorrect, non-factual, etc.' would also match the description, > but 'error' is easier to write. There is nothing "incorrect, non-factual, etc." in that paper. You are free to disagree with assumptions it makes but that's what they are: a set of assumptions, clearly stated. If you disagree with them, fine. But this is not what the word "error" means, unless those assumptions are in direct violation of some experimental result(s). This is obviously not the case here. > >> The number of things, which are wrong in some way, is just enormous. > > > > That number is zero. Have you ever read any science paper at all? > Well, yes, quite a lot, but at least I have read one, which we are > talking about. Well, then your claim is simply nonsense. > >> It is unlikely, that any sober physicists would have written anything > >> alike, > > > > They write it all the time. > How sad!!! Why? You don't think that the ball is in your court? Why not? Why do you blame everyone else (even if it means an unsustainable claim which necessarily follows, namely that all physicists since 1905 through 2022 were/are idiots) for the obstacles you encounter? > >> because the text looks, as if the author wanted to push as much > >> errors in it as he could possibly could. > > > > No, it's just an illusion which anyone normally would distinguish > > right away from reality. Again: normally people (even uneducated) > > can easily tell apart the feeling of non-understanding something versus > > knowing something is wrong. You (and many others on this NG) seem > > to lack this innate sense. It's VERY characteristic. > I have spent a huge amount of time on the subject and checked every > single annotation several times. Yes, I know. That's what I'm addressing. Normally people would not even embark on such a quest because it's immediately obvious to them that this would be a waste of their time. Your seeming inability to sense this is this mysterious emotional blind spot which I'm referring to. > I also used forums like this group to discuss certain aspects of the text. > > As you may have noticed: you and I had a discussion about a certain part > of the text. > > You did not agree to my statement, that the variables in the equation, > which Einstein had written in his article, would not cause the effect > Einstein used the equation for. That's because it's a part of standard, well-established, high school physics. It's like trigonometry, nobody debates it (except Archie Plutonium on sci.math :-) ) > Einstein used the coordinates of a point in an equation, which is not > influenced by anything related to that coordinate system, because the > emitter of the wave in question needed to be placed at infinity to allow > these waves to become plane waves. Again: (1) plane waves are an idealisation, just like point masses, (2) plane waves approximate real-life spherical waves from faraway sources arbitrarily accurately, just like point masses can approximate real bodies, (3) for the Doppler effect one only needs the properties of the wave itself as the input which the plane wave setup supplies. The details of the source are not needed in this regime. > Since infinity is not a point and would be infinetely far away from any > coordinate system, the coordinates of a point related to the coordinate > system K are irrelevant for the problem in question. All papers and books on the subject since Laplace (or earlier, I'm not a historian) used the concept the same way. Einstein in his paper is not doing anything different whatsoever. It's all an old, pre-Maxwell, hat. > This was an error in my view. Well, you are mistaken. I would take a very hard look in the mirror if I were you and asked myself why I would rather call everyone since Laplace (say) to be propagator of an error than to simply admit that I don't understand something correctly. This entire thread is beyond bizarre, BTW, to a normal person. It's getting like debating Archie P., who claims that the graph if the sine function consists of semicircles and that ellipse is not a conic section. > You don't agree to my conclusion, which is up to you, while I insist > that this is wrong. It's not a matter of opinion. You simply are wrong and I can prove it, and you cannot understand those proofs. This is a very common situation with certain people: instead of seeing immediately that they don't understand X, they claim that everyone who supports X is an idiot (not your words, of course, but that's the implication, it seems like you are not realising this either). > >> I used the 'virtual marker function' of my pdf reader to mark such parts > >> and almost a third of the text got marked. > > > > Yes, but it's your fault, not Einstein's. > I'm actually not the author of this text. Therefore, anything written in > it is definetely not my fault. I meant your markers are consequences of your fault (not Einstein's): in this case the fault consists of not understanding the text AND at the same time claiming the text is in error. This is not how normal adults operate. Again: normally people, even if they lack education in X) will instinctively and immediately be able to tell the difference between not understanding something related to X and being sure that something in X is wrong. This is an elementary psychological trait that most adults do possess. It's very characteristic that you lack this trait. This is very common on this forum, BTW. > >> This is just an enormous amount an cannot be explained otherwise then by > >> intention. > > > > No. To any competent reader the text is very clear, and it was so already in > > 1905. > The text should be valid and free of errors. It is. > This is not a question of > the qualification of the reader. It is. Obviously it is - what are you even talking about? Clearly if the reader does not know something, he cannot validly criticise it (or praise it). > If something is wrong in a scientific text, than it is wrong, even if > the reader is smart. But here there is nothing wrong with the scientific text and at the same time you don't understand not only the text: you don't understand the basic concepts that preceded it for 100 years or more. So your criticism of Einstein's paper means nothing. > >> The text can also be compared to related articles and books by Heinrich > >> Hertz or Henry Poincaré. You will find, that the related articels are > >> far better written and do not have this huge number of inconsistencies > >> in it. > > > > Again, it feels like you've never read any science paper. And, obviously, different > > authors have different writing styles. For example, the famous mathematician > > Élie Cartan was well-known for his very difficult writing style. Except what he > > wrote were pieces of great mathematics. OTOH Constantin Carathéodory > > was a great "mathematical stylist", his books are simply a great read. > I have never read anything from Cartan, hence cannot answer to your > statement. > > But if there were errors in his papers, these are errors, even if Cartan > had written them. I'm not aware of any errors in Cartan's papers and there are no errors in Einstein's 1905 one. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-21 09:03 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <jreuh9FijshU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #593831 |
Am 20.10.2022 um 22:27 schrieb JanPB: > On Thursday, October 20, 2022 at 9:14:52 PM UTC+2, Thomas Heger wrote: >> Am 19.10.2022 um 23:51 schrieb JanPB: >> >>>>>> Therefore I did not look at the philosphical content of the paper, but >>>>>> on the words, methods and equations in Einstein's paper. >>>>>> >>>>>> I tried to find all errors in it and to write comments, why I think, >>>>>> that something was wrong. >>>>>> >>>>>> Here I missed a discussion about the intended puropse of the article and >>>>>> a proper derivation of the results. >>>>>> >>>>>> This cannot be replaced by other sources or articles or experiments, >>>>>> which came later, because this particular text is treated as singular >>>>>> and as all there is. >>>>>> >>>>>> The result was a count of well over four-hundred errrors of various kinds. >>>>> >>>>> That count is zero. This was explained to you many times. What >>>>> you counted were instances of your misunderstanding. Why you >>>>> call those moments "errors" remains a mystery. Normally people >>>>> can differentiate between not understanding something and >>>>> knowing something is wrong. Those are two entirely different >>>>> things. >>>> It was kind of 'battle' with the regular 'Dono'. >>>> >>>> I stated, the text is full of errors and he said I'm a Nazi and a crank >>>> and have no right to criticise Einstein. >>>> >>>> I had the oppisite view and now was forced to actually prove my claim. >>>> >>>> But I found way more errors than expected. >>> >>> You have found no errors. Maybe it's some language barrier but in >>> English at least you cannot use the word "error" this way. "Error" >>> means something is false (incorrect, non-factual, etc.) What you've >>> found were instances of unclear (to you) line of reasoning. It's >>> a very different thing. >> Actually I meant 'error' with the word 'error'. > > Then you are wrong. There are no errors in Einstein's paper. > Besides Einstein, you also presume the peer reviewers for > Annalen der Physik were idiots and that all physicists who > read that paper since 1905 were/are idiots. Well, then I take a different example. I take the second last page and this quote: "...it is clear that the energy withdrawn from the electrostatic field has the value integral(epsilon*X*dx). " This integral has no bounderies, hence integrates over an infinite realm. Meant was, of course, something like work and the energy needed to push an electron inside a repelling static field or the opposite energy gained by the oposite direction. But work is force times distance and that distance is not infinite. X is the x-component of the electric field strength vector and epsilon the electrons charge. The product was meant as a force. Now the obvious restiction for the intergral would be start and finish of the movement. But since no such limits were mentioned, the integral integrates from minus infinity to plus infinity, what is nonsense. ... TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-21 02:05 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <319b1746-6a71-4f68-a669-74c4a6fcd7cdn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #593844 |
On Friday, October 21, 2022 at 12:03:21 AM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 20.10.2022 um 22:27 schrieb JanPB: > > On Thursday, October 20, 2022 at 9:14:52 PM UTC+2, Thomas Heger wrote: > >> Am 19.10.2022 um 23:51 schrieb JanPB: > >> > >>>>>> Therefore I did not look at the philosphical content of the paper, but > >>>>>> on the words, methods and equations in Einstein's paper. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I tried to find all errors in it and to write comments, why I think, > >>>>>> that something was wrong. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Here I missed a discussion about the intended puropse of the article and > >>>>>> a proper derivation of the results. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> This cannot be replaced by other sources or articles or experiments, > >>>>>> which came later, because this particular text is treated as singular > >>>>>> and as all there is. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> The result was a count of well over four-hundred errrors of various kinds. > >>>>> > >>>>> That count is zero. This was explained to you many times. What > >>>>> you counted were instances of your misunderstanding. Why you > >>>>> call those moments "errors" remains a mystery. Normally people > >>>>> can differentiate between not understanding something and > >>>>> knowing something is wrong. Those are two entirely different > >>>>> things. > >>>> It was kind of 'battle' with the regular 'Dono'. > >>>> > >>>> I stated, the text is full of errors and he said I'm a Nazi and a crank > >>>> and have no right to criticise Einstein. > >>>> > >>>> I had the oppisite view and now was forced to actually prove my claim. > >>>> > >>>> But I found way more errors than expected. > >>> > >>> You have found no errors. Maybe it's some language barrier but in > >>> English at least you cannot use the word "error" this way. "Error" > >>> means something is false (incorrect, non-factual, etc.) What you've > >>> found were instances of unclear (to you) line of reasoning. It's > >>> a very different thing. > >> Actually I meant 'error' with the word 'error'. > > > > Then you are wrong. There are no errors in Einstein's paper. > > Besides Einstein, you also presume the peer reviewers for > > Annalen der Physik were idiots and that all physicists who > > read that paper since 1905 were/are idiots. > Well, then I take a different example. > > I take the second last page and this quote: > > "...it is clear that the energy withdrawn from the electrostatic field > has the value integral(epsilon *X*dx). " > > This integral has no bounderies, hence integrates over an infinite realm. No, this integral is written in detail on the previous page where he calculates the work W using the first of the equations (A). The limits are omitted because they are obvious from the context. He puts them back in in the calculation of W. > Meant was, of course, something like work and the energy needed to push > an electron inside a repelling static field or the opposite energy > gained by the oposite direction. Yes. > But work is force times distance and that distance is not infinite. Sure, and it's clear what the intent is. Every reader is presumed to know undergraduate physics material, like the definition of work. And when it's time to do the actual integration, the limits are there. > X is the x-component of the electric field strength vector and epsilon > the electrons charge. > > The product was meant as a force. Yes. > Now the obvious restiction for the intergral would be start and finish > of the movement. Yes. That's what it is. Obvious things need not be written out in full detail. > But since no such limits were mentioned, Because that's what they are, as you said. They are obvious. > the integral integrates from > minus infinity to plus infinity, what is nonsense. It's obvious what the intent is. Scientists have always been writing that way, since before Newton. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-22 10:36 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <jrhobjF1c79U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #593846 |
Am 21.10.2022 um 11:05 schrieb JanPB: >>> Then you are wrong. There are no errors in Einstein's paper. >>> Besides Einstein, you also presume the peer reviewers for >>> Annalen der Physik were idiots and that all physicists who >>> read that paper since 1905 were/are idiots. >> Well, then I take a different example. >> >> I take the second last page and this quote: >> >> "...it is clear that the energy withdrawn from the electrostatic field >> has the value integral(epsilon *X*dx). " >> >> This integral has no bounderies, hence integrates over an infinite realm. > > No, this integral is written in detail on the previous page where he > calculates the work W using the first of the equations (A). > The limits are omitted because they are obvious from the context. > He puts them back in in the calculation of W. > >> Meant was, of course, something like work and the energy needed to push >> an electron inside a repelling static field or the opposite energy >> gained by the oposite direction. > > Yes. > >> But work is force times distance and that distance is not infinite. > > Sure, and it's clear what the intent is. Every reader is presumed to > know undergraduate physics material, like the definition of work. > And when it's time to do the actual integration, the limits are there. > >> X is the x-component of the electric field strength vector and epsilon >> the electrons charge. >> >> The product was meant as a force. > > Yes. > >> Now the obvious restiction for the intergral would be start and finish >> of the movement. > > Yes. That's what it is. Obvious things need not be written out in > full detail. > >> But since no such limits were mentioned, > > Because that's what they are, as you said. They are obvious. > >> the integral integrates from >> minus infinity to plus infinity, what is nonsense. > > It's obvious what the intent is. Scientists have always been > writing that way, since before Newton. > An error is an error, even if that is common practise and done so millions of times. You stated, there are no errors at all in the text and I wanted to prove you wrong. As sole justification you wrote, this would be common practise. Well, yes, but is also wrong. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 9 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 11 … 15 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web