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 10 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 … 8 9 [10] 11 12 … 15 Next page →
| From | Oscar Alcheri <ohci@iessicsr.rn> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-22 08:42 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <tj0aeh$skjv$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #593889 |
Thomas Heger wrote: >>> 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. integration is nothing but multiplication in continuum, the sign is irrelevant. Infact always positive.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-22 12:04 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9f6da19c-206f-41d5-81a9-e9c94d7ac632n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #593889 |
On Saturday, October 22, 2022 at 1:36:07 AM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote: > 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. Again, what you call "errors" in the text are not errors. > You stated, there are no errors at all in the text and I wanted to prove > you wrong. You can't. > As sole justification you wrote, this would be common practise. > > Well, yes, but is also wrong. It's a common practice and it's not wrong. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Oscar Alcheri <ohci@iessicsr.rn> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-22 19:47 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <tj1hd9$vra5$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #593934 |
JanPB wrote: >> An error is an error, even if that is common practise and done so >> millions of times. > > Again, what you call "errors" in the text are not errors. no shit scherlock. What are they so? Meanwhile watch this americanized khazar bitch making shit out of her mouth, openly declaring and wanting to *kill_you*, as far there can't be another reason. CDC director Walensky one year ago： “Vaccinated people do not carry the virus and don'tget sick”. https://%62%69%74%63%68%75%74%65.com/video/i07QQ79nBqja/ worse more than enough, but worst is these criminals are getting away with mass_murder genocide planetary scale. You go steal a chocolate and see whether you get away with it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-22 19:54 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <45f66d76-7afa-49e4-b0bf-42ecd429eaffn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #593942 |
On Saturday, October 22, 2022 at 12:47:57 PM UTC-7, Oscar Alcheri wrote: > JanPB wrote: > > >> An error is an error, even if that is common practise and done so > >> millions of times. > > > > Again, what you call "errors" in the text are not errors. > no shit scherlock. What are they so? Meanwhile watch this americanized > khazar bitch making shit out of her mouth, openly declaring and wanting to > *kill_you*, as far there can't be another reason. > > CDC director Walensky one year ago： “Vaccinated people do not carry the > virus and don'tget sick”. > https://%62%69%74%63%68%75%74%65.com/video/i07QQ79nBqja/ > > worse more than enough, but worst is these criminals are getting away with > mass_murder genocide planetary scale. You go steal a chocolate and see > whether you get away with it. Meanwhile, time dilation at the Zürich HB: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LowaE3ShnCw -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-22 23:00 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7a828f72-7559-419e-9908-a40fdf65288fn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #593968 |
On Sunday, 23 October 2022 at 04:54:03 UTC+2, JanPB wrote: > On Saturday, October 22, 2022 at 12:47:57 PM UTC-7, Oscar Alcheri wrote: > > JanPB wrote: > > > > >> An error is an error, even if that is common practise and done so > > >> millions of times. > > > > > > Again, what you call "errors" in the text are not errors. > > no shit scherlock. What are they so? Meanwhile watch this americanized > > khazar bitch making shit out of her mouth, openly declaring and wanting to > > *kill_you*, as far there can't be another reason. > > > > CDC director Walensky one year ago： “Vaccinated people do not carry the > > virus and don'tget sick”. > > https://%62%69%74%63%68%75%74%65.com/video/i07QQ79nBqja/ > > > > worse more than enough, but worst is these criminals are getting away with > > mass_murder genocide planetary scale. You go steal a chocolate and see > > whether you get away with it. > Meanwhile, time dilation at the Zürich HB: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LowaE3ShnCw Meanwhile, in the real world, forbidden by your bunch of idiots GPS and TAI keep measuring t'=t in forbidden by your bunch of idiots old seconds.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-23 09:13 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <jrk7suFcvlrU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #593934 |
Am 22.10.2022 um 21:04 schrieb JanPB: > On Saturday, October 22, 2022 at 1:36:07 AM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote: >> 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. > > Again, what you call "errors" in the text are not errors. > >> You stated, there are no errors at all in the text and I wanted to prove >> you wrong. > > You can't. > >> As sole justification you wrote, this would be common practise. >> >> Well, yes, but is also wrong. > > It's a common practice and it's not wrong. Of course, that was an error. And Einstein repeated the same error in subsequent equations. Meant with 'W' was apparently 'work', as the quantity was created by multiplying forces and distance. To leave the distance away and replace it with infinity (by leaving away the boundaries) is nonsense. This is an error, even if sometimes it could be done so in kind of sketch of a proof. But the text in question was supposed to be cutting edge professional physics, hence no such sloppy shorthand would be allowed. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-23 02:45 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6490b374-8c88-479c-aa22-a09f51bc9773n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #593984 |
On Sunday, October 23, 2022 at 12:13:38 AM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 22.10.2022 um 21:04 schrieb JanPB: > > On Saturday, October 22, 2022 at 1:36:07 AM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote: > >> 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. > > > > Again, what you call "errors" in the text are not errors. > > > >> You stated, there are no errors at all in the text and I wanted to prove > >> you wrong. > > > > You can't. > > > >> As sole justification you wrote, this would be common practise. > >> > >> Well, yes, but is also wrong. > > > > It's a common practice and it's not wrong. > Of course, that was an error. > > And Einstein repeated the same error in subsequent equations. There are no errors in Einstein's 1905 paper. > Meant with 'W' was apparently 'work', as the quantity was created by > multiplying forces and distance. Yes, it's work. > To leave the distance away and replace it with infinity Einstein didn't replace it with infinity. He merely wrote a generic definite integral formula for work with the limits suppressed. > (by leaving away > the boundaries) is nonsense. It's not nonsense, it's just being succinct. > This is an error, even if sometimes it could be done so in kind of > sketch of a proof. It's just being succinct. > But the text in question was supposed to be cutting edge professional > physics, hence no such sloppy shorthand would be allowed. Complete nonsense. Ludicrous. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-25 07:49 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <jrpbnjF6huvU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #593989 |
Am 23.10.2022 um 11:45 schrieb JanPB: >>>> An error is an error, even if that is common practise and done so >>>> millions of times. >>> >>> Again, what you call "errors" in the text are not errors. >>> >>>> You stated, there are no errors at all in the text and I wanted to prove >>>> you wrong. >>> >>> You can't. >>> >>>> As sole justification you wrote, this would be common practise. >>>> >>>> Well, yes, but is also wrong. >>> >>> It's a common practice and it's not wrong. >> Of course, that was an error. >> >> And Einstein repeated the same error in subsequent equations. > > There are no errors in Einstein's 1905 paper. > >> Meant with 'W' was apparently 'work', as the quantity was created by >> multiplying forces and distance. > > Yes, it's work. > >> To leave the distance away and replace it with infinity > > Einstein didn't replace it with infinity. He merely wrote a generic > definite integral formula for work with the limits suppressed. Besides of no limits the 'generic integral' missed something else. As you may have noticed, the integral contains no variable (besides of the x in dx). Therefore, there was no reason to provide limits in the first place, because the integral contained nothing, to which such limits could apply. Here is the integral again: integral(epsilon *X*dx) Now 'epsilon' means 'charge of an electron' X means 'electric field strength in the x-direction of K' From the context we know, that X was meant to be constant. And the charge of an electron should also be constant. Therefore the integral contains only two constants and dx. We could actually leave the integral away entirely and replace it by distance (flown by the electron). This would make much more sense, but would require, to mention the beginning and end of that distance. Now we also need an environment, where X can stay constant. This is simply a homogenous field between two large charged plates, oriented with the field parallel to and around the x-axis. But for practical reasons, these plates cannot be placed too far apart. Some meters are certainly possible, but not lightyears, for instance. So, we have a setting, where kind of large capacitor is switched on, which creates a field, which accelerates at least on electron along the x-axis of K. Now Einstein equated work with the energy withdrawn from the field and the kinetic energy of the electron after acceleration. He used a rather mechanical picture, which is similar to a spring operated toy pistol: the work done to squeeze the spring together is equal to the kinetic energy of the 'bullet'. So far that's ok, but for work we need this distance, by which the spring is compressed. Another good question would be, whether electrons actually behave that way. E.g. accelerated electrons are also a time-changig current, which would create a magnetic field. ... TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-24 23:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f1e19525-24cd-4548-9368-b530d686d4abn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #594123 |
On Monday, October 24, 2022 at 10:49:42 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 23.10.2022 um 11:45 schrieb JanPB:
>
> >>>> An error is an error, even if that is common practise and done so
> >>>> millions of times.
> >>>
> >>> Again, what you call "errors" in the text are not errors.
> >>>
> >>>> You stated, there are no errors at all in the text and I wanted to prove
> >>>> you wrong.
> >>>
> >>> You can't.
> >>>
> >>>> As sole justification you wrote, this would be common practise.
> >>>>
> >>>> Well, yes, but is also wrong.
> >>>
> >>> It's a common practice and it's not wrong.
> >> Of course, that was an error.
> >>
> >> And Einstein repeated the same error in subsequent equations.
> >
> > There are no errors in Einstein's 1905 paper.
> >
> >> Meant with 'W' was apparently 'work', as the quantity was created by
> >> multiplying forces and distance.
> >
> > Yes, it's work.
> >
> >> To leave the distance away and replace it with infinity
> >
> > Einstein didn't replace it with infinity. He merely wrote a generic
> > definite integral formula for work with the limits suppressed.
> Besides of no limits the 'generic integral' missed something else.
>
> As you may have noticed, the integral contains no variable (besides of
> the x in dx).
Of course. It's a standard shorthand.
> Therefore, there was no reason to provide limits in the first place,
> because the integral contained nothing, to which such limits could apply.
No, that's not the reason. It's very common to specify limits even if the
variable is not written down explicitly. Again, a very common shorthand.
> Here is the integral again:
>
> integral(epsilon *X*dx)
>
>
> Now 'epsilon' means 'charge of an electron'
>
> X means 'electric field strength in the x-direction of K'
>
> From the context we know, that X was meant to be constant.
This is not assumed. It could be.
> And the charge of an electron should also be constant.
Yes.
> Therefore the integral contains only two constants and dx.
Not necessarily. But it could be constant without loss of generality.
> We could actually leave the integral away entirely and replace it by
> distance (flown by the electron).
Yes (if we set X to be constant) but it would be useless because
it's the relation to the mass and the velocity that we're interested in.
> This would make much more sense, but would require, to mention the
> beginning and end of that distance.
Yes, but it would be useless.
> Now we also need an environment, where X can stay constant.
>
> This is simply a homogenous field between two large charged plates,
> oriented with the field parallel to and around the x-axis.
>
> But for practical reasons, these plates cannot be placed too far apart.
> Some meters are certainly possible, but not lightyears, for instance.
>
> So, we have a setting, where kind of large capacitor is switched on,
> which creates a field, which accelerates at least on electron along the
> x-axis of K.
OK.
> Now Einstein equated work with the energy withdrawn from the field and
> the kinetic energy of the electron after acceleration.
>
> He used a rather mechanical picture, which is similar to a spring
> operated toy pistol:
>
> the work done to squeeze the spring together is equal to the kinetic
> energy of the 'bullet'.
It's just standard mechanics, aka. "work-energy theorem".
> So far that's ok, but for work we need this distance, by which the
> spring is compressed.
We have a distance which can be specified explicitly but this is
not necessary because we immediately change variables in the
integral from x to v. This time the limits are obvious: from 0 to
some speed value denoted simply by v (another standard notational
abuse, very common).
> Another good question would be, whether electrons actually behave that way.
This is just F = ma with F = (charge)*(electric field).
> E.g. accelerated electrons are also a time-changig current, which would
> create a magnetic field.
The problem is radiation (and the leaking of energy as a result) because of
the acceleration. That's why this entire section is done in the regime of
acceleration->0 ("slowly accelerated electron").
--
Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-25 09:26 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <jrphdiF7d3jU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #594125 |
Am 25.10.2022 um 08:53 schrieb JanPB: > On Monday, October 24, 2022 at 10:49:42 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote: >> Am 23.10.2022 um 11:45 schrieb JanPB: >> >>>>>> An error is an error, even if that is common practise and done so >>>>>> millions of times. >>>>> >>>>> Again, what you call "errors" in the text are not errors. >>>>> >>>>>> You stated, there are no errors at all in the text and I wanted to prove >>>>>> you wrong. >>>>> >>>>> You can't. >>>>> >>>>>> As sole justification you wrote, this would be common practise. >>>>>> >>>>>> Well, yes, but is also wrong. >>>>> >>>>> It's a common practice and it's not wrong. >>>> Of course, that was an error. >>>> >>>> And Einstein repeated the same error in subsequent equations. >>> >>> There are no errors in Einstein's 1905 paper. >>> >>>> Meant with 'W' was apparently 'work', as the quantity was created by >>>> multiplying forces and distance. >>> >>> Yes, it's work. >>> >>>> To leave the distance away and replace it with infinity >>> >>> Einstein didn't replace it with infinity. He merely wrote a generic >>> definite integral formula for work with the limits suppressed. >> Besides of no limits the 'generic integral' missed something else. >> >> As you may have noticed, the integral contains no variable (besides of >> the x in dx). > > Of course. It's a standard shorthand. ??? To leave the independent variable away in an integral is 'standard shorthand'???? I have never encountered such a 'standard', but would regard it as sick, anyhow, if people would do that. >> Therefore, there was no reason to provide limits in the first place, >> because the integral contained nothing, to which such limits could apply. > > No, that's not the reason. It's very common to specify limits even if the > variable is not written down explicitly. Again, a very common shorthand. The problem is, the variable x could not be used in the integral, because that x should be the position of the electron after time t. But that position is not known and also not an independent variable. The only possible independent variable is actually time t, not x. To use x without any comment in connection to a force would suggest something like work, where distance is meant in a push or pull movement. But there is no push or pull on a free floating electron, but the electron is accelerated by the field. This field needs to be created by kind of machine. This machine uses energy to create that field and some part is used to accelerate the electron. But this field is not created by pushing or pulling something, hence no x is applicable there. ... TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-25 12:32 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <aab2f5a6-4d9a-44ea-bc9f-bd377bfa34ffn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #594127 |
On Tuesday, October 25, 2022 at 12:26:48 AM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 25.10.2022 um 08:53 schrieb JanPB: > > On Monday, October 24, 2022 at 10:49:42 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote: > >> Am 23.10.2022 um 11:45 schrieb JanPB: > >> > >>>>>> An error is an error, even if that is common practise and done so > >>>>>> millions of times. > >>>>> > >>>>> Again, what you call "errors" in the text are not errors. > >>>>> > >>>>>> You stated, there are no errors at all in the text and I wanted to prove > >>>>>> you wrong. > >>>>> > >>>>> You can't. > >>>>> > >>>>>> As sole justification you wrote, this would be common practise. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Well, yes, but is also wrong. > >>>>> > >>>>> It's a common practice and it's not wrong. > >>>> Of course, that was an error. > >>>> > >>>> And Einstein repeated the same error in subsequent equations. > >>> > >>> There are no errors in Einstein's 1905 paper. > >>> > >>>> Meant with 'W' was apparently 'work', as the quantity was created by > >>>> multiplying forces and distance. > >>> > >>> Yes, it's work. > >>> > >>>> To leave the distance away and replace it with infinity > >>> > >>> Einstein didn't replace it with infinity. He merely wrote a generic > >>> definite integral formula for work with the limits suppressed. > >> Besides of no limits the 'generic integral' missed something else. > >> > >> As you may have noticed, the integral contains no variable (besides of > >> the x in dx). > > > > Of course. It's a standard shorthand. > ??? > > To leave the independent variable away in an integral is 'standard > shorthand'???? Of course! Where have you been?! > I have never encountered such a 'standard', but would regard it as sick, > anyhow, if people would do that. You'll find it everywhere. > >> Therefore, there was no reason to provide limits in the first place, > >> because the integral contained nothing, to which such limits could apply. > > > > No, that's not the reason. It's very common to specify limits even if the > > variable is not written down explicitly. Again, a very common shorthand. > > The problem is, the variable x could not be used in the integral, > because that x should be the position of the electron after time t. x could be used. Again, it's a common abuse of notation to denote a variable and its specific value by the same letter in certain commonly encountered contexts. > But that position is not known and also not an independent variable. It is known. Reread the setup at the beginning of that section. > The only possible independent variable is actually time t, not x. Here (the work formula) it's x, not t. > To use x without any comment in connection to a force would suggest > something like work, where distance is meant in a push or pull movement. It is work, yes. > But there is no push or pull on a free floating electron, but the > electron is accelerated by the field. That's what does the work. > This field needs to be created by > kind of machine. This machine uses energy to create that field and some > part is used to accelerate the electron. Yes. That's what's happening behind the scenes. > But this field is not created by pushing or pulling something, hence no > x is applicable there. Yes, it is. The details of how the field is created are irrelevant. You can set them up any way you wish (a battery, a dynamo, whatever). -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-28 09:16 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <js1duiFltr8U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #594173 |
Am 25.10.2022 um 21:32 schrieb JanPB: > On Tuesday, October 25, 2022 at 12:26:48 AM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote: >> Am 25.10.2022 um 08:53 schrieb JanPB: >>> On Monday, October 24, 2022 at 10:49:42 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote: >>>> Am 23.10.2022 um 11:45 schrieb JanPB: >>>> >>>>>>>> An error is an error, even if that is common practise and done so >>>>>>>> millions of times. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Again, what you call "errors" in the text are not errors. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You stated, there are no errors at all in the text and I wanted to prove >>>>>>>> you wrong. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You can't. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> As sole justification you wrote, this would be common practise. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Well, yes, but is also wrong. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It's a common practice and it's not wrong. >>>>>> Of course, that was an error. >>>>>> >>>>>> And Einstein repeated the same error in subsequent equations. >>>>> >>>>> There are no errors in Einstein's 1905 paper. >>>>> >>>>>> Meant with 'W' was apparently 'work', as the quantity was created by >>>>>> multiplying forces and distance. >>>>> >>>>> Yes, it's work. >>>>> >>>>>> To leave the distance away and replace it with infinity >>>>> >>>>> Einstein didn't replace it with infinity. He merely wrote a generic >>>>> definite integral formula for work with the limits suppressed. >>>> Besides of no limits the 'generic integral' missed something else. >>>> >>>> As you may have noticed, the integral contains no variable (besides of >>>> the x in dx). >>> >>> Of course. It's a standard shorthand. >> ??? >> >> To leave the independent variable away in an integral is 'standard >> shorthand'???? > > Of course! Where have you been?! I'm not a physicist, but an engineer. Common math used by engineers is seemingly different to what phyicists call 'math'. That 'math' is odd in many aspects. For instance physicsts tend to mix mathematical and physical constructs. E.g. the term 'space' has a meaning in algebra and a different meaning in physics. And I would never mix both realms without good reason. Engineers have also certain common pratices, which physicists often don't apply. For instance, it is common pratice for an engineer to relate an equation to a certain setting, what would require to define the relation of variables to the meant aspekt of that setting. Not so in physics, where participants in a discussion are requested to know, what the discussion partner wanted to say by a certain equation. To me, this habit is a little strange, as I don't speak in equations. > >> I have never encountered such a 'standard', but would regard it as sick, >> anyhow, if people would do that. > > You'll find it everywhere. 'everywhere' is not that universal, as engineers wouldn't do that. >>>> Therefore, there was no reason to provide limits in the first place, >>>> because the integral contained nothing, to which such limits could apply. >>> >>> No, that's not the reason. It's very common to specify limits even if the >>> variable is not written down explicitly. Again, a very common shorthand. >> >> The problem is, the variable x could not be used in the integral, >> because that x should be the position of the electron after time t. > > x could be used. Again, it's a common abuse of notation to denote a variable > and its specific value by the same letter in certain commonly encountered > contexts. 'common' is not equal to 'good practice'. I personally regard it as very dangerous habit, because different types of mathematical objects should be named with different symbols. E.g. I really dislike equations like this one (which I have seen in a book about GR): y_1 = y_1(t) Here we have two different meanings of the same symbol y_1. One is a function and one is a scalar. It shouldn't be too difficult to write one in bold face, for instance. >> But that position is not known and also not an independent variable. > > It is known. Reread the setup at the beginning of that section. I did, of course. The setting was an electron in an electric field, which gets accelerated from x=0 to the position x=x. Now the position x is not independent from acceleration (of course) and we know only the force upon the electron and not the position after time t (without calculating that). From this would follow (for me), that t is the independent variable and x the dependent. This x depends on the mass of the electron (and possibly other resistances to acceleration, like e.g. the creation of a magnetic field or radiation) and the strength of the electric field. So, the integral should contain the field strength along the path as function of x and the change and mass of the electron (possibly also a function of t). But the actuall integral does not contain these functions of t, but actually only two constants and dx. >> The only possible independent variable is actually time t, not x. > > Here (the work formula) it's x, not t. Sure, but what work do have in this setting? Work is force times distance. This is typically used in e.g. pushing a spring together. But here we have no spring and no push or pull. The electron is assumed free floating and resisting acceleration solely by inertia. There we have only a force, but no distance. The distance flown by the electron cannot be used, because the electron resists acceleration by inertia, not by electric properties (in Einstein's setting). Iow: the electron is not pushed by external forces, but by the field itself. To use the push by the field is possible, of course, but then the field is 'used' already and cannot be used again as resistance, against which the electron is pushed. >> To use x without any comment in connection to a force would suggest >> something like work, where distance is meant in a push or pull movement. > > It is work, yes. sorry, but I don't agree here. ... TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-28 20:51 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2c7cfed8-62c1-4860-b816-7448c622a035n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #594305 |
On Friday, October 28, 2022 at 12:16:38 AM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 25.10.2022 um 21:32 schrieb JanPB: > > On Tuesday, October 25, 2022 at 12:26:48 AM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote: > >> Am 25.10.2022 um 08:53 schrieb JanPB: > >>> On Monday, October 24, 2022 at 10:49:42 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote: > >>>> Am 23.10.2022 um 11:45 schrieb JanPB: > >>>> > >>>>>>>> An error is an error, even if that is common practise and done so > >>>>>>>> millions of times. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Again, what you call "errors" in the text are not errors. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> You stated, there are no errors at all in the text and I wanted to prove > >>>>>>>> you wrong. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> You can't. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> As sole justification you wrote, this would be common practise. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Well, yes, but is also wrong. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> It's a common practice and it's not wrong. > >>>>>> Of course, that was an error. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> And Einstein repeated the same error in subsequent equations. > >>>>> > >>>>> There are no errors in Einstein's 1905 paper. > >>>>> > >>>>>> Meant with 'W' was apparently 'work', as the quantity was created by > >>>>>> multiplying forces and distance. > >>>>> > >>>>> Yes, it's work. > >>>>> > >>>>>> To leave the distance away and replace it with infinity > >>>>> > >>>>> Einstein didn't replace it with infinity. He merely wrote a generic > >>>>> definite integral formula for work with the limits suppressed. > >>>> Besides of no limits the 'generic integral' missed something else. > >>>> > >>>> As you may have noticed, the integral contains no variable (besides of > >>>> the x in dx). > >>> > >>> Of course. It's a standard shorthand. > >> ??? > >> > >> To leave the independent variable away in an integral is 'standard > >> shorthand'???? > > > > Of course! Where have you been?! > I'm not a physicist, but an engineer. > > Common math used by engineers is seemingly different to what phyicists > call 'math'. Not physicists. Everyone. It's common to suppress aspects of notation depending on context. > That 'math' is odd in many aspects. For instance physicsts tend to mix > mathematical and physical constructs. Whatever that means. > E.g. the term 'space' has a meaning in algebra and a different meaning > in physics. And I would never mix both realms without good reason. > > Engineers have also certain common pratices, which physicists often > don't apply. > > For instance, it is common pratice for an engineer to relate an equation > to a certain setting, what would require to define the relation of > variables to the meant aspekt of that setting. > > Not so in physics, where participants in a discussion are requested to > know, what the discussion partner wanted to say by a certain equation. This is common absolutely everywhere, not only in sciences. Pick a paper in a literary journal about Proust or Shakespeare. The paper will invariably assume certain body of knowledge on the reader's part. Pick an article about sundial construction or orchestration in Bruckner's symphonies (say) - same thing. You sound like you were either born yesterday or perhaps a space alien still learning the ways of normal human beings. > To me, this habit is a little strange, as I don't speak in equations. It's a habit that's an absolute necessity. How else are you going to communicate anything if you'd have to retell the entire story from the beginning first? Nobody in any domain ever works this way. > >> I have never encountered such a 'standard', but would regard it as sick, > >> anyhow, if people would do that. > > > > You'll find it everywhere. > 'everywhere' is not that universal, as engineers wouldn't do that. > >>>> Therefore, there was no reason to provide limits in the first place, > >>>> because the integral contained nothing, to which such limits could apply. > >>> > >>> No, that's not the reason. It's very common to specify limits even if the > >>> variable is not written down explicitly. Again, a very common shorthand. > >> > >> The problem is, the variable x could not be used in the integral, > >> because that x should be the position of the electron after time t. > > > > x could be used. Again, it's a common abuse of notation to denote a variable > > and its specific value by the same letter in certain commonly encountered > > contexts. > 'common' is not equal to 'good practice'. It is good practice. It's a part of the trade, like an organist is expected to know what flavour this or that organ stop is, even if he had not seen that particular organ before. You are expected to be competent in X if you want to contribute significantly to X. > I personally regard it as very dangerous habit, because different types > of mathematical objects should be named with different symbols. No, it's standard. It's a part of the subject. The reason for it is that the alternative (i.e., being very precise all the time) has been found to be worse. > E.g. I really dislike equations like this one (which I have seen in a > book about GR): > > y_1 = y_1(t) > > Here we have two different meanings of the same symbol y_1. One is a > function and one is a scalar. > > It shouldn't be too difficult to write one in bold face, for instance. Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. > >> But that position is not known and also not an independent variable. > > > > It is known. Reread the setup at the beginning of that section. > I did, of course. > > The setting was an electron in an electric field, which gets accelerated > from x=0 to the position x=x. > > Now the position x is not independent from acceleration (of course) and > we know only the force upon the electron and not the position after time > t (without calculating that). > > From this would follow (for me), that t is the independent variable and > x the dependent. Depends on what's being evaluated. Work involves x, not t. Of course one can change the variables from x to t. But here it's not necessary because we are only interested in a vanishingly small x whose explicit specification is a waste of reader's time. The setup and the goal of the setup is clear. And as soon as the actual calculation is to be performed, Einstein specifies the limits (0 and v, after the change of variables). > This x depends on the mass of the electron (and possibly other > resistances to acceleration, like e.g. the creation of a magnetic field > or radiation) and the strength of the electric field. Sure. We are just not interested in exact value(s) of x. > So, the integral should contain the field strength along the path as > function of x and the change and mass of the electron (possibly also a > function of t). It could but it would be immediately discarded. It's not necessary to know those values. > But the actuall integral does not contain these functions of t, but > actually only two constants and dx. As it would be in a work formula. The only thing that's important here is that this (not explicitly specified) integral equals another integral, after a change of variables, involving v. > >> The only possible independent variable is actually time t, not x. > > > > Here (the work formula) it's x, not t. > Sure, but what work do have in this setting? > > Work is force times distance. This is typically used in e.g. pushing a > spring together. > > But here we have no spring and no push or pull. > > The electron is assumed free floating and resisting acceleration solely > by inertia. > > There we have only a force, but no distance. The distance is there but unspecified because it's going to be immediately discarded and replaced by v. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-30 08:25 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <js6jloFfna2U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #594352 |
Am 29.10.2022 um 05:51 schrieb JanPB: > On Friday, October 28, 2022 at 12:16:38 AM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote: >> Am 25.10.2022 um 21:32 schrieb JanPB: >>> On Tuesday, October 25, 2022 at 12:26:48 AM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote: >>>> Am 25.10.2022 um 08:53 schrieb JanPB: >>>>> On Monday, October 24, 2022 at 10:49:42 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote: >>>>>> Am 23.10.2022 um 11:45 schrieb JanPB: >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> An error is an error, even if that is common practise and done so >>>>>>>>>> millions of times. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Again, what you call "errors" in the text are not errors. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> You stated, there are no errors at all in the text and I wanted to prove >>>>>>>>>> you wrong. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> You can't. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> As sole justification you wrote, this would be common practise. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Well, yes, but is also wrong. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> It's a common practice and it's not wrong. >>>>>>>> Of course, that was an error. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> And Einstein repeated the same error in subsequent equations. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> There are no errors in Einstein's 1905 paper. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Meant with 'W' was apparently 'work', as the quantity was created by >>>>>>>> multiplying forces and distance. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Yes, it's work. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> To leave the distance away and replace it with infinity >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Einstein didn't replace it with infinity. He merely wrote a generic >>>>>>> definite integral formula for work with the limits suppressed. >>>>>> Besides of no limits the 'generic integral' missed something else. >>>>>> >>>>>> As you may have noticed, the integral contains no variable (besides of >>>>>> the x in dx). >>>>> >>>>> Of course. It's a standard shorthand. >>>> ??? >>>> >>>> To leave the independent variable away in an integral is 'standard >>>> shorthand'???? >>> >>> Of course! Where have you been?! >> I'm not a physicist, but an engineer. >> >> Common math used by engineers is seemingly different to what phyicists >> call 'math'. > > Not physicists. Everyone. It's common to suppress aspects of > notation depending on context. > >> That 'math' is odd in many aspects. For instance physicsts tend to mix >> mathematical and physical constructs. > > Whatever that means. Time for instance is a physical quantity and t is a letter from the usual alphabet. Now the letter t is not time, but a symbol, which is used to represent time in an equation. In math we have symbols, which are used in an abstract manner, like e.g. x and y, where x means commonly an independent variable and y an depending variable. Now that x can as well represent time, hence the letter t is not necessary, while of course useful. But physicsts often think, their variables are the quantities they represent in an equation and the equation itself is real. This is what I meant with a 'mix of mathematical and physical constructs'. But that's not how mathematical constructs like equations are meant, as they represent certain relations, but belong to an entirely different realm than physical phenomena. >> E.g. the term 'space' has a meaning in algebra and a different meaning >> in physics. And I would never mix both realms without good reason. >> >> Engineers have also certain common pratices, which physicists often >> don't apply. >> >> For instance, it is common pratice for an engineer to relate an equation >> to a certain setting, what would require to define the relation of >> variables to the meant aspekt of that setting. >> >> Not so in physics, where participants in a discussion are requested to >> know, what the discussion partner wanted to say by a certain equation. > > This is common absolutely everywhere, not only in sciences. Pick > a paper in a literary journal about Proust or Shakespeare. The paper > will invariably assume certain body of knowledge on the reader's part. > Pick an article about sundial construction or orchestration in > Bruckner's symphonies (say) - same thing. Engineer separate between modells and the 'real thing'. It is therefore necessary, to tie connections between the model and the real world and to do that explicitly and understandable. > You sound like you were either born yesterday or perhaps a space > alien still learning the ways of normal human beings. As I have already written: 'common practice' is not equal to 'correct'. >> To me, this habit is a little strange, as I don't speak in equations. > > It's a habit that's an absolute necessity. How else are you going to > communicate anything if you'd have to retell the entire story from > the beginning first? Nobody in any domain ever works this way. Totally wrong. If you want to explain something or describe an observation, you certainly wouldn't do that with an equation. Most likely you would use words and illustrations of some kind. Equations belong to the realm of modells. Such modells are useful, of course, but not the main part of a description of some observation. > ... >> The setting was an electron in an electric field, which gets accelerated >> from x=0 to the position x=x. >> >> Now the position x is not independent from acceleration (of course) and >> we know only the force upon the electron and not the position after time >> t (without calculating that). >> >> From this would follow (for me), that t is the independent variable and >> x the dependent. > > Depends on what's being evaluated. Work involves x, not t. Of course > one can change the variables from x to t. But here it's not necessary > because we are only interested in a vanishingly small x whose explicit > specification is a waste of reader's time. The setup and the goal of > the setup is clear. My point was not, of course, how variables were named. My point was, that the quantity 'work' was used in an equation, but no work applied in the real world. > And as soon as the actual calculation is to be performed, Einstein > specifies the limits (0 and v, after the change of variables). The limits should be applied to the independent variable in usual integrals, but v is depending on t, while Einstein wrote his equation, as if t would depend on x. >> This x depends on the mass of the electron (and possibly other >> resistances to acceleration, like e.g. the creation of a magnetic field >> or radiation) and the strength of the electric field. > > Sure. We are just not interested in exact value(s) of x. Wouldn't it be nice, if an author made such a statement? Instead of saying anything alike, Einstein used x as independent variable, as can be seen in the sole use of 'dx' in the integral. >> So, the integral should contain the field strength along the path as >> function of x and the change and mass of the electron (possibly also a >> function of t). > > It could but it would be immediately discarded. It's not necessary > to know those values. > >> But the actuall integral does not contain these functions of t, but >> actually only two constants and dx. > > As it would be in a work formula. The only thing that's important here > is that this (not explicitly specified) integral equals another integral, > after a change of variables, involving v. If you equate two integral, which contain different quantities, you make a physical statement. You would say, that one quantity (calculated by that integral) is equal to some other quantity. But he equated work to something else, but cannot provide work in the first place. The problem with work is, that the x in work means something else then the x as position of the electron, because the x of work is meant as 'articficial displacement against resistance'. But no such displacement can be found, because the electron is not hooked to a handle. ... TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-30 13:51 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8855fb5d-87ac-4089-99a7-74a7d276e83dn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #594416 |
On Saturday, October 29, 2022 at 11:25:00 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 29.10.2022 um 05:51 schrieb JanPB:
> > On Friday, October 28, 2022 at 12:16:38 AM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
> >>
> >> E.g. the term 'space' has a meaning in algebra and a different meaning
> >> in physics. And I would never mix both realms without good reason.
> >>
> >> Engineers have also certain common pratices, which physicists often
> >> don't apply.
That's possible. They are different domains.
> >> For instance, it is common pratice for an engineer to relate an equation
> >> to a certain setting, what would require to define the relation of
> >> variables to the meant aspekt of that setting.
> >>
> >> Not so in physics, where participants in a discussion are requested to
> >> know, what the discussion partner wanted to say by a certain equation.
No, it's everywhere. Not only in physics. One simply could not communicate
any advanced concept if the author had to assume the reader did not
understand the subject. And in this case we are talking about high shool
concepts, like common notational conventions.
So no, your objections here are not even silly, they are just word salad.
> > This is common absolutely everywhere, not only in sciences. Pick
> > a paper in a literary journal about Proust or Shakespeare. The paper
> > will invariably assume certain body of knowledge on the reader's part.
> > Pick an article about sundial construction or orchestration in
> > Bruckner's symphonies (say) - same thing.
> Engineer separate between modells and the 'real thing'.
>
> It is therefore necessary, to tie connections between the model and the
> real world and to do that explicitly and understandable.
> > You sound like you were either born yesterday or perhaps a space
> > alien still learning the ways of normal human beings.
> As I have already written: 'common practice' is not equal to 'correct'.
Common practice need not be 100% correct. Correctness is in many
cases better traded for clarity. For example, all texts on Lagrangian
and Hamiltonian mechanics suppress variables in many contexts
since writing out everything 100% correctly would make the explanations
much harder to follow. For example, Hamiltonian is defined as:
H(q, p, t) = p_i . qdot^i - L
It's FAPP never written out explicitly:
H(q, p t) = p_i . qdot^i(q, p, t) - L(q, qdot(q, p, t), t)
It's only mentioned that the function qdot(q, p, t) is obtained by
solving the implicit equation:
p_i = dL/dqdot^i (q, qdot, t)
Another standard domain in which clarity is paramount is differential
geometry.
> >> To me, this habit is a little strange, as I don't speak in equations.
Then why are you doing physics? I mean, not just reading for fun but
criticising it? It makes no sense.
> > It's a habit that's an absolute necessity. How else are you going to
> > communicate anything if you'd have to retell the entire story from
> > the beginning first? Nobody in any domain ever works this way.
>
> Totally wrong.
>
> If you want to explain something or describe an observation, you
> certainly wouldn't do that with an equation.
But that is simply basic undergraduate wave stuff. Why would a scientist
want to retell the material every reader knows, having spent
several years at a university studying precisely that kind of stuff
full-time? What you are advocating here makes absolutely no sense.
Again: a mathematician writing a paper on differrential equations will not
define what the derivative of a function is in that paper. A physicists writing
about E&M research will not define the variables that go into the plane wave
equation or some trivial application of the formula for work done by a force.
This is simply never going to happen.
> Most likely you would use words and illustrations of some kind.
The relevant image is inside the reader's mind in seconds.
> Equations belong to the realm of modells.
>
> Such modells are useful, of course, but not the main part of a
> description of some observation.
>
> >
> ...
> >> The setting was an electron in an electric field, which gets accelerated
> >> from x=0 to the position x=x.
> >>
> >> Now the position x is not independent from acceleration (of course) and
> >> we know only the force upon the electron and not the position after time
> >> t (without calculating that).
> >>
> >> From this would follow (for me), that t is the independent variable and
> >> x the dependent.
> >
> > Depends on what's being evaluated. Work involves x, not t. Of course
> > one can change the variables from x to t. But here it's not necessary
> > because we are only interested in a vanishingly small x whose explicit
> > specification is a waste of reader's time. The setup and the goal of
> > the setup is clear.
> My point was not, of course, how variables were named.
>
> My point was, that the quantity 'work' was used in an equation, but no
> work applied in the real world.
There is energy drawn from the electric field pushing the electron.
It's equal to the integral of the force along the path.
This is high school mechanics, see e.g. Resnick-Halliday.
> > And as soon as the actual calculation is to be performed, Einstein
> > specifies the limits (0 and v, after the change of variables).
> The limits should be applied to the independent variable in usual
> integrals, but v is depending on t, while Einstein wrote his equation,
> as if t would depend on x.
No, you don't understand how substitution of variables
works in the integral calculus.
Bottom line is that in the second integral (the one from 0 to v)
the v variable is an INDEPENDENT variable. The integral is then
found quickly because the integrand beta^3.v happens to be
the derivative of c^2.beta, and beta(0) = 1, hence the formula
that follows. Incidentally, it approximates the Newtonian kinetic
energy as one can see by expanding beta into a power series:
beta = 1 + v^2/(2c^2) + (3/8)(v^4/c^4) + (5/16)(v^6/c^6) +...
which means:
W = mc^2.(beta - 1) = mv^2/2 + (3/8)mv^4/c^2 + (5/16)mv^6/c^4 +...
...the second and higher terms being of second order in v/c.
> >> This x depends on the mass of the electron (and possibly other
> >> resistances to acceleration, like e.g. the creation of a magnetic field
> >> or radiation) and the strength of the electric field.
> >
> > Sure. We are just not interested in exact value(s) of x.
> Wouldn't it be nice, if an author made such a statement?
Why? Does a mathematician stress in his paper that 2+2=4?
> Instead of saying anything alike, Einstein used x as independent
> variable, as can be seen in the sole use of 'dx' in the integral.
Yes, it's fine.
> >> So, the integral should contain the field strength along the path as
> >> function of x and the change and mass of the electron (possibly also a
> >> function of t).
> >
> > It could but it would be immediately discarded. It's not necessary
> > to know those values.
> >
> >> But the actuall integral does not contain these functions of t, but
> >> actually only two constants and dx.
> >
> > As it would be in a work formula. The only thing that's important here
> > is that this (not explicitly specified) integral equals another integral,
> > after a change of variables, involving v.
> If you equate two integral, which contain different quantities, you make
> a physical statement.
No, this is a mathematical identity, nothing to do with physics. It's
analogous to something like: 1/(1/3) = 3. Of course it is assumed
that v = dx/dt (i.e., v(t) = dx/dt(t), since you like notational pedantry :-) )
and then the equality follows from the first of the equations (A) and by
the mathematical identity relating pairs of integrals in a certain way
(the substitution theorem, aka. the change of variables).
> You would say, that one quantity (calculated by that integral) is equal
> to some other quantity.
>
> But he equated work to something else, but cannot provide work in the
> first place.
They are both work. Only expressed in terms of different variables treated as
independent. It's like expressing the work done on a particle of mass m
falling near the Earth's surface from the height h:
W = mgh
This is a function of h. But the same W can be expressed in terms
of some other quantity, like velocity, since: v = gt and v = dh/dt, hence
h = gt^2/2, and:
W = mg (gt^2/2) = m(gt)^2/2 = mv^2/2
Those two formulas are equal: mgh = mv^2/2 (it says that h = v^2/(2g)
which is correct).
In the Einstein case it's the same except the formula being integrated
is a bit more complicated than gt (X need not be constant).
> The problem with work is, that the x in work means something else then
> the x as position of the electron, because the x of work is meant as
> 'articficial displacement against resistance'.
No, that makes no difference.
> But no such displacement can be found, because the electron is not
> hooked to a handle.
Again, you are worrying about the influence of telepathy on the
functioning of a refrigerator.
--
Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-31 09:40 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <js9cdvFslvsU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #594445 |
Am 30.10.2022 um 21:51 schrieb JanPB: >>> This is common absolutely everywhere, not only in sciences. Pick >>> a paper in a literary journal about Proust or Shakespeare. The paper >>> will invariably assume certain body of knowledge on the reader's part. >>> Pick an article about sundial construction or orchestration in >>> Bruckner's symphonies (say) - same thing. >> Engineer separate between modells and the 'real thing'. >> >> It is therefore necessary, to tie connections between the model and the >> real world and to do that explicitly and understandable. >>> You sound like you were either born yesterday or perhaps a space >>> alien still learning the ways of normal human beings. >> As I have already written: 'common practice' is not equal to 'correct'. > > Common practice need not be 100% correct. Correctness is in many > cases better traded for clarity. For example, all texts on Lagrangian > and Hamiltonian mechanics suppress variables in many contexts > since writing out everything 100% correctly would make the explanations > much harder to follow. For example, Hamiltonian is defined as: > > H(q, p, t) = p_i . qdot^i - L > > It's FAPP never written out explicitly: > > H(q, p t) = p_i . qdot^i(q, p, t) - L(q, qdot(q, p, t), t) > > It's only mentioned that the function qdot(q, p, t) is obtained by > solving the implicit equation: > > p_i = dL/dqdot^i (q, qdot, t) > > Another standard domain in which clarity is paramount is differential > geometry. > >>>> To me, this habit is a little strange, as I don't speak in equations. > > Then why are you doing physics? I mean, not just reading for fun but > criticising it? It makes no sense. Speaking in equations is just a totally silly habit, in my view. But I can do physics without speaking in equations. My preferred method of expression are actually pictures. And to create illustrations is something which I'm quite good at. I have also some mathematical skills and being an engineer is also helpful. The rest I had to learn on my own. >>> It's a habit that's an absolute necessity. How else are you going to >>> communicate anything if you'd have to retell the entire story from >>> the beginning first? Nobody in any domain ever works this way. >> >> Totally wrong. >> >> If you want to explain something or describe an observation, you >> certainly wouldn't do that with an equation. > > But that is simply basic undergraduate wave stuff. Why would a scientist > want to retell the material every reader knows, having spent > several years at a university studying precisely that kind of stuff > full-time? What you are advocating here makes absolutely no sense. A scientist can certainly abreviate his derivation, as long as the derived equations remain correct. But we are discussing now the question, whether integration of the depending variable makes sense, limits could be left away or work was done in Einstein's setting in the first place. That's why I had complained about the derived results and wrote, that these results are wrong and the derivation missing. This is simply not a question of standards or abriviation of mathematical procedures, but about physical and mathematical correctness. One such error was, that a limited case was meant, but no limits were mentioned. Another issue was, that the integral integrates nothing but dx. This x is also wrong, because t is the only independent variable. In case you reject my claims, you actually need to prove, what I regard as faulty. ... TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-31 11:26 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <tjo4cq$ff05$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #594483 |
On 2022-10-31 08:40:38 +0000, Thomas Heger said: > But I can do physics without speaking in equations. This strong claim cannot be believed without some strong evidence to support it. Is there any? Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-31 17:42 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6b56e417-667c-4d9f-91ee-c101ea5adaf8n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #594483 |
On Monday, October 31, 2022 at 8:39:46 AM UTC+1, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 30.10.2022 um 21:51 schrieb JanPB:
>
> >>> This is common absolutely everywhere, not only in sciences. Pick
> >>> a paper in a literary journal about Proust or Shakespeare. The paper
> >>> will invariably assume certain body of knowledge on the reader's part.
> >>> Pick an article about sundial construction or orchestration in
> >>> Bruckner's symphonies (say) - same thing.
> >> Engineer separate between modells and the 'real thing'.
> >>
> >> It is therefore necessary, to tie connections between the model and the
> >> real world and to do that explicitly and understandable.
> >>> You sound like you were either born yesterday or perhaps a space
> >>> alien still learning the ways of normal human beings.
> >> As I have already written: 'common practice' is not equal to 'correct'.
> >
> > Common practice need not be 100% correct. Correctness is in many
> > cases better traded for clarity. For example, all texts on Lagrangian
> > and Hamiltonian mechanics suppress variables in many contexts
> > since writing out everything 100% correctly would make the explanations
> > much harder to follow. For example, Hamiltonian is defined as:
> >
> > H(q, p, t) = p_i . qdot^i - L
> >
> > It's FAPP never written out explicitly:
> >
> > H(q, p t) = p_i . qdot^i(q, p, t) - L(q, qdot(q, p, t), t)
> >
> > It's only mentioned that the function qdot(q, p, t) is obtained by
> > solving the implicit equation:
> >
> > p_i = dL/dqdot^i (q, qdot, t)
> >
> > Another standard domain in which clarity is paramount is differential
> > geometry.
> >
> >>>> To me, this habit is a little strange, as I don't speak in equations.
> >
> > Then why are you doing physics? I mean, not just reading for fun but
> > criticising it? It makes no sense.
> Speaking in equations is just a totally silly habit, in my view. But I
> can do physics without speaking in equations.
But you wrote an entire notebook of about 400 annotations related
to equations, remember? Even in this post you are criticising the
minutiae pertaining to the use of some equations notation.
So you do work in equations and you must be ready to argue
them. Otherwise your entire enterprise is a piece of poetry
(which is fine, just state clearly what it is: poetry).
> My preferred method of expression are actually pictures. And to create
> illustrations is something which I'm quite good at.
Pictures can be made very precise and helpful, see e.g. Feynman's
diagrams which faithfully encode integrals of complicated expressions,
or Penrose's cute tensor notation, or a very pretty piece of mathematics
which encodes 4D topological manifolds in terms of certain drawings
of knotted curves with numbers next to them (the "Kirby calculus").
So I support your quest here but it must refer to something concrete.
OTOH you do something akin to a recitativo (cue lyra background music).
> I have also some mathematical skills and being an engineer is also helpful.
OK, no problem with that.
> The rest I had to learn on my own.
> >>> It's a habit that's an absolute necessity. How else are you going to
> >>> communicate anything if you'd have to retell the entire story from
> >>> the beginning first? Nobody in any domain ever works this way.
> >>
> >> Totally wrong.
> >>
> >> If you want to explain something or describe an observation, you
> >> certainly wouldn't do that with an equation.
> >
> > But that is simply basic undergraduate wave stuff. Why would a scientist
> > want to retell the material every reader knows, having spent
> > several years at a university studying precisely that kind of stuff
> > full-time? What you are advocating here makes absolutely no sense.
> A scientist can certainly abreviate his derivation, as long as the
> derived equations remain correct.
>
> But we are discussing now the question, whether integration of the
> depending variable makes sense,
The integrals in question are in terms of _independent_ variables
("x" in the first, "v" in the second). Which variables are treated as
dependent or independent can be a matter of choice (depends on the
context). It's not an absolute.
> limits could be left away or work was
> done in Einstein's setting in the first place.
>
> That's why I had complained about the derived results and wrote, that
> these results are wrong and the derivation missing.
Several derivations are missing, yes. Again, this is common. I mentioned
Carter's paper some time ago in which he describes what's now known
as "Carter constant" in the Kerr geometry. He derives the constant under
the assumption that a certain PDE separates. But we don't know that it
actually separates, so we must verify that the expression _is_ in fact
constant along geodesics. And Carter does not do that! He simply says
that one can check it using the Poisson bracket (because it's simpler
than just differentiating, presumably). And this Poisson bracket calculation
is both non-trivial and tedious. People do this sort of thing all the time.
> This is simply not a question of standards or abriviation of
> mathematical procedures, but about physical and mathematical correctness.
In this paper's case it's just an instance of being brief, not incorrect.
The reader is presumed to able to follow this sort of thing easily.
> One such error was, that a limited case was meant, but no limits were
> mentioned.
This is the aforementioned instance of being brief, not incorrect.
Very common both in 1905 and in 2022.
> Another issue was, that the integral integrates nothing but dx.
The integrand is epsilon.X, and X need not be constant. Its exact
specification is unimportant, all that's important is that it obey the
equations (A). The rest need not be specified (it can be but it would
be a waste of time and an irrelevant distraction serving nothing of value).
> This x is also wrong, because t is the only independent variable.
No, x is the independent variable in that integration.
> In case you reject my claims, you actually need to prove, what I regard
> as faulty.
As I keep repeating, one almost never can prove to someone who does not
understand X that he is wrong about X. This is a well-known phenomenon,
Wikipedia mentions people like Goethe and Newton making note of this.
Exceptions do exist but they tend to be very rare.
--
Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-11-01 07:59 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <jsbud7Fbe90U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #594529 |
Am 01.11.2022 um 01:42 schrieb JanPB:
>>> Common practice need not be 100% correct. Correctness is in many
>>> cases better traded for clarity. For example, all texts on Lagrangian
>>> and Hamiltonian mechanics suppress variables in many contexts
>>> since writing out everything 100% correctly would make the explanations
>>> much harder to follow. For example, Hamiltonian is defined as:
>>>
>>> H(q, p, t) = p_i . qdot^i - L
>>>
>>> It's FAPP never written out explicitly:
>>>
>>> H(q, p t) = p_i . qdot^i(q, p, t) - L(q, qdot(q, p, t), t)
>>>
>>> It's only mentioned that the function qdot(q, p, t) is obtained by
>>> solving the implicit equation:
>>>
>>> p_i = dL/dqdot^i (q, qdot, t)
>>>
>>> Another standard domain in which clarity is paramount is differential
>>> geometry.
>>>
>>>>>> To me, this habit is a little strange, as I don't speak in equations.
>>>
>>> Then why are you doing physics? I mean, not just reading for fun but
>>> criticising it? It makes no sense.
>> Speaking in equations is just a totally silly habit, in my view. But I
>> can do physics without speaking in equations.
>
> But you wrote an entire notebook of about 400 annotations related
> to equations, remember? Even in this post you are criticising the
> minutiae pertaining to the use of some equations notation.
>
> So you do work in equations and you must be ready to argue
> them. Otherwise your entire enterprise is a piece of poetry
> (which is fine, just state clearly what it is: poetry).
I'm arguing all the time about equations!!!
But mainly I was arguing about the text itself.
I wrote my annotations from the perspective of a hypothetical professor,
who had to write corrections for the homework of a student.
This 'professor' aims to find all errors, misconceptions, wrong phrases,
violations of formal requirements and so forth.
Wrong math is only a small part of this.
>> My preferred method of expression are actually pictures. And to create
>> illustrations is something which I'm quite good at.
>
> Pictures can be made very precise and helpful, see e.g. Feynman's
> diagrams which faithfully encode integrals of complicated expressions,
> or Penrose's cute tensor notation, or a very pretty piece of mathematics
> which encodes 4D topological manifolds in terms of certain drawings
> of knotted curves with numbers next to them (the "Kirby calculus").
My goal in illustrations is different that in Feynman diagramms.
I usually try to convert equations into forms, which could be easier to
understand than mathematical symbols.
Then I connect these pictures to mechanisms, which I assume to occur in
nature.
This reflects in a way, in which I actually think. This is mainly visual
and does not include equations.
Other people have other habits, but pictures are a way to 'talk' for me.
> So I support your quest here but it must refer to something concrete.
> OTOH you do something akin to a recitativo (cue lyra background music).
???
>> I have also some mathematical skills and being an engineer is also helpful.
>
> OK, no problem with that.
>
>> The rest I had to learn on my own.
>>>>> It's a habit that's an absolute necessity. How else are you going to
>>>>> communicate anything if you'd have to retell the entire story from
>>>>> the beginning first? Nobody in any domain ever works this way.
>>>>
>>>> Totally wrong.
>>>>
>>>> If you want to explain something or describe an observation, you
>>>> certainly wouldn't do that with an equation.
>>>
>>> But that is simply basic undergraduate wave stuff. Why would a scientist
>>> want to retell the material every reader knows, having spent
>>> several years at a university studying precisely that kind of stuff
>>> full-time? What you are advocating here makes absolutely no sense.
>> A scientist can certainly abreviate his derivation, as long as the
>> derived equations remain correct.
>>
>> But we are discussing now the question, whether integration of the
>> depending variable makes sense,
>
> The integrals in question are in terms of _independent_ variables
> ("x" in the first, "v" in the second). Which variables are treated as
> dependent or independent can be a matter of choice (depends on the
> context). It's not an absolute.
In my view, it makes no sense to use x in the equation, which actually
means work and was based on the mass of the electron.
The electron is not pushed by external sources, but by the electric
field. This field will accelerate the electron, but is also 'embedding' it.
It's relation to the field is not that of a mechanichal object, like
e.g. a tiny ball. It is therefore nonsense to relate acceleration to the
mass of the electron, because inertia is not the only or even the main
component of the interaction of a charged particle and the E-field.
So, in the end the field accelerates the electron and that electron gets
a certain path in space and time.
Now you cannot integrate over distance, if that distance is not known
and is also irrelevant for the acceleration of the particle.
What is more relevant, however, that are field-strength, charge and time.
This acceleration will allow to determine, to where that electron went
after some time.
But Einstein did just the opposite and used x as independent variable
and aimed to calculate the consumed energy for acceleration.
..
TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-11-01 00:35 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <bebae4b1-1003-420a-b5c1-5e4f08b91d50n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #594544 |
On Monday, October 31, 2022 at 11:58:52 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 01.11.2022 um 01:42 schrieb JanPB:
>
> >>> Common practice need not be 100% correct. Correctness is in many
> >>> cases better traded for clarity. For example, all texts on Lagrangian
> >>> and Hamiltonian mechanics suppress variables in many contexts
> >>> since writing out everything 100% correctly would make the explanations
> >>> much harder to follow. For example, Hamiltonian is defined as:
> >>>
> >>> H(q, p, t) = p_i . qdot^i - L
> >>>
> >>> It's FAPP never written out explicitly:
> >>>
> >>> H(q, p t) = p_i . qdot^i(q, p, t) - L(q, qdot(q, p, t), t)
> >>>
> >>> It's only mentioned that the function qdot(q, p, t) is obtained by
> >>> solving the implicit equation:
> >>>
> >>> p_i = dL/dqdot^i (q, qdot, t)
> >>>
> >>> Another standard domain in which clarity is paramount is differential
> >>> geometry.
> >>>
> >>>>>> To me, this habit is a little strange, as I don't speak in equations.
> >>>
> >>> Then why are you doing physics? I mean, not just reading for fun but
> >>> criticising it? It makes no sense.
> >> Speaking in equations is just a totally silly habit, in my view. But I
> >> can do physics without speaking in equations.
> >
> > But you wrote an entire notebook of about 400 annotations related
> > to equations, remember? Even in this post you are criticising the
> > minutiae pertaining to the use of some equations notation.
> >
> > So you do work in equations and you must be ready to argue
> > them. Otherwise your entire enterprise is a piece of poetry
> > (which is fine, just state clearly what it is: poetry).
> I'm arguing all the time about equations!!!
>
> But mainly I was arguing about the text itself.
>
> I wrote my annotations from the perspective of a hypothetical professor,
> who had to write corrections for the homework of a student.
You said it many times but it doesn't make any sense. Why would
anyone, ever, want to go through such ludicrous exercise? A science
research paper is not a student paper, the requirements for them are
not even comparable.
> This 'professor' aims to find all errors, misconceptions, wrong phrases,
> violations of formal requirements and so forth.
What's the point of doing this? Would you call Puccini's operas full
of errors because his handwriting in his scores was atrocious?
> Wrong math is only a small part of this.
There is no wrong math there.
> >> My preferred method of expression are actually pictures. And to create
> >> illustrations is something which I'm quite good at.
> >
> > Pictures can be made very precise and helpful, see e.g. Feynman's
> > diagrams which faithfully encode integrals of complicated expressions,
> > or Penrose's cute tensor notation, or a very pretty piece of mathematics
> > which encodes 4D topological manifolds in terms of certain drawings
> > of knotted curves with numbers next to them (the "Kirby calculus").
> My goal in illustrations is different that in Feynman diagramms.
>
> I usually try to convert equations into forms, which could be easier to
> understand than mathematical symbols.
>
> Then I connect these pictures to mechanisms, which I assume to occur in
> nature.
>
> This reflects in a way, in which I actually think. This is mainly visual
> and does not include equations.
Why do you think this approach is correct?
> Other people have other habits, but pictures are a way to 'talk' for me.
Unless they are precise, like those of Feynman, etc., they cannot substitute
for the real thing. In general, if physics could be done without equations,
nobody would ever bother to study math, no physicist would want to
waste time in college - what for? If one could do physics and criticise
Einstein just by "thinking in pictures" and "not doing equations", then
everyone would be doing just that. But it's impossible to avoid it if
you want to write any critiques.
> > So I support your quest here but it must refer to something concrete.
> > OTOH you do something akin to a recitativo (cue lyra background music).
> ???
> >> I have also some mathematical skills and being an engineer is also helpful.
> >
> > OK, no problem with that.
> >
> >> The rest I had to learn on my own.
> >>>>> It's a habit that's an absolute necessity. How else are you going to
> >>>>> communicate anything if you'd have to retell the entire story from
> >>>>> the beginning first? Nobody in any domain ever works this way.
> >>>>
> >>>> Totally wrong.
> >>>>
> >>>> If you want to explain something or describe an observation, you
> >>>> certainly wouldn't do that with an equation.
> >>>
> >>> But that is simply basic undergraduate wave stuff. Why would a scientist
> >>> want to retell the material every reader knows, having spent
> >>> several years at a university studying precisely that kind of stuff
> >>> full-time? What you are advocating here makes absolutely no sense.
> >> A scientist can certainly abreviate his derivation, as long as the
> >> derived equations remain correct.
> >>
> >> But we are discussing now the question, whether integration of the
> >> depending variable makes sense,
> >
> > The integrals in question are in terms of _independent_ variables
> > ("x" in the first, "v" in the second). Which variables are treated as
> > dependent or independent can be a matter of choice (depends on the
> > context). It's not an absolute.
>
> In my view, it makes no sense to use x in the equation, which actually
> means work and was based on the mass of the electron.
Yes, it is work. Einstein wants to find the electron's energy which
is equal to the work done by the electric field on it.
> The electron is not pushed by external sources, but by the electric
> field. This field will accelerate the electron, but is also 'embedding' it.
>
> It's relation to the field is not that of a mechanichal object, like
> e.g. a tiny ball. It is therefore nonsense to relate acceleration to the
> mass of the electron, because inertia is not the only or even the main
> component of the interaction of a charged particle and the E-field.
It is in the limit of zero acceleration.
> So, in the end the field accelerates the electron and that electron gets
> a certain path in space and time.
>
> Now you cannot integrate over distance, if that distance is not known
> and is also irrelevant for the acceleration of the particle.
Yes, you can write that integral. And then equation (A) tells you what
this integral is equal to.
--
Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 10 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 … 8 9 [10] 11 12 … 15 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web