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 11 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 … 9 10 [11] 12 13 … 15 Next page →
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-11-02 09:04 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <jsemleFocl7U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #594546 |
Am 01.11.2022 um 08:35 schrieb JanPB: > 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 is kind of learning tool. You may also call it 'exercise', if you wish. It was not my aim to disproove relativity or to correct any erros in Einstein's text. My goal was to find any single error in it. This text was used as training subject and the final stage was achieved, once I have completely analyzed it. Actually it started as 'battle' with the regular 'Dono'. But then I took it as kind of challenge to find all errors in it. >> 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? Well, I'm not a musician and have no incentive to do anything alike. I wouldn't do that, anyhow, because the freedom of artistic expression would also allow imperfect works. >> Wrong math is only a small part of this. > > There is no wrong math there. Correct math is not sufficiant in physics. Physics requires also a correct choice of the used math and a correct connection between a phenomenon and its mathematical description. >>>> 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? I have not said 'correct', but 'my way of thinking'. It is actually not the usual way to approach problems in physics, but certainly a possibility. >> Other people have other habits, but pictures are a way to 'talk' for me. > ... >> 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. It's total nonsense to equate the mechanical kinetic energy of an electron with the field energy withdrawn by the electron. The main point of charged particles is, of course, the charge. It is now known, that charged particles of same polarity repell each other. From this would follow, that very small electrons could generate very fast signals. This is so, because the electron acts mainly over its field and that extends into space. Now it is obvious, that signal velocity and electron velocity do not relate according to simple mechanical principles like inertia and acceleration. So: Einstein's derivation was nonsense, because he did exactly that and calculated the mechanical kinetic energy of the tiny mass of the electron, but used the signal velocity c in his equations. ... TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-11-02 11:39 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <tjtdsg$14akr$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #594593 |
On 2022-11-02 08:04:58 +0000, Thomas Heger said: > This is kind of learning tool. Apparently you have learned nothing with this tool. Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-11-04 08:18 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <jsjsm5Fi7vmU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #594595 |
Am 02.11.2022 um 10:39 schrieb Mikko: > On 2022-11-02 08:04:58 +0000, Thomas Heger said: > >> This is kind of learning tool. > > Apparently you have learned nothing with this tool. That's simply wrong. I have learned a lot and can highly recommend my method. It is actually difficult to explain, what I did. My method is similar to certain puzzles, which were printed in some newspapers. You have there two pictures, one is called the 'origional' and one the 'fake'. Now you are requested to find ALL differences. Similarly I went through the text of Einstein and tried to find every single error in it. This would require to understand every single word and every single equation. It is actually not easy to do that, but leaves behind a lot of knowledge. TH TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-11-04 12:12 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <tk2oim$1o3mp$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #594680 |
On 2022-11-04 07:18:30 +0000, Thomas Heger said: > Am 02.11.2022 um 10:39 schrieb Mikko: >> On 2022-11-02 08:04:58 +0000, Thomas Heger said: >> >>> This is kind of learning tool. >> >> Apparently you have learned nothing with this tool. > > That's simply wrong. No, it is not. You really look like having learned nothing since you started with that "learning tool". > I have learned a lot and can highly recommend my method. Can you give an example of something true or useful that you have learned? Learning something false or harmful is less interesting. Anyway, without evidence we have no reason to believe you have learned anything. > It is actually difficult to explain, what I did. > > My method is similar to certain puzzles, which were printed in some newspapers. > > You have there two pictures, one is called the 'origional' and one the 'fake'. > > Now you are requested to find ALL differences. Except that you are trying to do it with only one picture. > Similarly I went through the text of Einstein and tried to find every > single error in it. And failed. > This would require to understand every single word and every single equation. Yes, for complete success. Less is needed for a partial success, and still less to avoid total failure. But you have demostrated that you didn't understand even that much. > It is actually not easy to do that, but leaves behind a lot of knowledge. We can believe the first half, but wihout more evidence not the second. Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-11-04 10:49 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0e9f8e17-8889-41b3-b01b-8e1d51abdc63n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #594680 |
On Friday, November 4, 2022 at 12:18:32 AM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 02.11.2022 um 10:39 schrieb Mikko: > > On 2022-11-02 08:04:58 +0000, Thomas Heger said: > > > >> This is kind of learning tool. > > > > Apparently you have learned nothing with this tool. > That's simply wrong. > > I have learned a lot and can highly recommend my method. > > It is actually difficult to explain, what I did. > > My method is similar to certain puzzles, which were printed in some > newspapers. > > You have there two pictures, one is called the 'origional' and one the > 'fake'. > > Now you are requested to find ALL differences. > > Similarly I went through the text of Einstein and tried to find every > single error in it. These are not errors. Perhaps if you gave those instances another name, it would not have generated so much heat for you. > This would require to understand every single word and every single > equation. > > It is actually not easy to do that, but leaves behind a lot of knowledge. You don't learn anything by this method (unless you count the discussions on this NG as a part of this learning). In fact, none of your notes pointed out the genuine translation typos present in the English version you are annotating. This indicates that you do not understand the text. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-11-05 08:35 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <jsmi2fF82oU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #594718 |
Am 04.11.2022 um 18:49 schrieb JanPB: > On Friday, November 4, 2022 at 12:18:32 AM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote: >> Am 02.11.2022 um 10:39 schrieb Mikko: >>> On 2022-11-02 08:04:58 +0000, Thomas Heger said: >>> >>>> This is kind of learning tool. >>> >>> Apparently you have learned nothing with this tool. >> That's simply wrong. >> >> I have learned a lot and can highly recommend my method. >> >> It is actually difficult to explain, what I did. >> >> My method is similar to certain puzzles, which were printed in some >> newspapers. >> >> You have there two pictures, one is called the 'origional' and one the >> 'fake'. >> >> Now you are requested to find ALL differences. >> >> Similarly I went through the text of Einstein and tried to find every >> single error in it. > > These are not errors. Perhaps if you gave those instances another name, > it would not have generated so much heat for you. > >> This would require to understand every single word and every single >> equation. >> >> It is actually not easy to do that, but leaves behind a lot of knowledge. > > You don't learn anything by this method (unless you count the discussions > on this NG as a part of this learning). In fact, none of your notes pointed > out the genuine translation typos present in the English version > you are annotating. This indicates that you do not understand the text. Well, in a few cases I have actually wrote annotations about translation errors, even if that was not my aim. One such error was the use of 'wave-train' for 'Wellenzug'. The error is quite difficult to explain, because both words do exist, but are not translations of each other. 'Zug' in German means 'train'. But many German words have several meanings and 'train' is only one possibility. Another is the noun derived from 'to pull'. Now drawing a single line is also called 'Zug' (with a feather). Since the English uses a certain linguistic picture in 'wave-train', (which the German doesn't know,) the translations are correct in direct translation, but equate words which do not exist in the other language. Meant by Einstein was something like 'wavy line, drawn in a single stroke', while the English word means something like 'passing by of wave crests like cars of a train on the track'. This was funny, because two possible translations have actually nothing in common. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-11-05 11:10 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3f0cc036-cc7e-43c4-8794-f283616bf989n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #594780 |
On Saturday, November 5, 2022 at 12:35:47 AM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 04.11.2022 um 18:49 schrieb JanPB: > > On Friday, November 4, 2022 at 12:18:32 AM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote: > >> Am 02.11.2022 um 10:39 schrieb Mikko: > >>> On 2022-11-02 08:04:58 +0000, Thomas Heger said: > >>> > >>>> This is kind of learning tool. > >>> > >>> Apparently you have learned nothing with this tool. > >> That's simply wrong. > >> > >> I have learned a lot and can highly recommend my method. > >> > >> It is actually difficult to explain, what I did. > >> > >> My method is similar to certain puzzles, which were printed in some > >> newspapers. > >> > >> You have there two pictures, one is called the 'origional' and one the > >> 'fake'. > >> > >> Now you are requested to find ALL differences. > >> > >> Similarly I went through the text of Einstein and tried to find every > >> single error in it. > > > > These are not errors. Perhaps if you gave those instances another name, > > it would not have generated so much heat for you. > > > >> This would require to understand every single word and every single > >> equation. > >> > >> It is actually not easy to do that, but leaves behind a lot of knowledge. > > > > You don't learn anything by this method (unless you count the discussions > > on this NG as a part of this learning). In fact, none of your notes pointed > > out the genuine translation typos present in the English version > > you are annotating. This indicates that you do not understand the text. > Well, in a few cases I have actually wrote annotations about translation > errors, even if that was not my aim. > > One such error was the use of 'wave-train' for 'Wellenzug'. I meant physics errors resulting from typos, not the German grammar. The word "wave train" is in use in English actually. I've seen it many times in books by English authors. Not very common and a bit quaint but not at all unusual. That's why the translator used it. > > Since the English uses a certain linguistic picture in 'wave-train', > (which the German doesn't know,) the translations are correct in direct > translation, but equate words which do not exist in the other language. No, this is incorrect. > Meant by Einstein was something like 'wavy line, drawn in a single > stroke', while the English word means something like 'passing by of wave > crests like cars of a train on the track'. No, this is incorrect. > This was funny, because two possible translations have actually nothing > in common. OK but irrelevant. You are wasting your time on this project 100%. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-11-06 08:51 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <jsp7boFcldmU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #594814 |
Am 05.11.2022 um 19:10 schrieb JanPB: ... >>> You don't learn anything by this method (unless you count the discussions >>> on this NG as a part of this learning). In fact, none of your notes pointed >>> out the genuine translation typos present in the English version >>> you are annotating. This indicates that you do not understand the text. >> Well, in a few cases I have actually wrote annotations about translation >> errors, even if that was not my aim. >> >> One such error was the use of 'wave-train' for 'Wellenzug'. > > I meant physics errors resulting from typos, not the German grammar. > The word "wave train" is in use in English actually. I've seen it many > times in books by English authors. Not very common and a bit > quaint but not at all unusual. That's why the translator used it. Actually I said so and admitted, that 'wave-train' is a word in English. But Einstein wrote in German and could therefore only use German words. In German the direct translation 'Wellenzug' (used by Einstein) does in fact exist, too. But these words do not mean the same thing! This is actually funny and quite difficult to understand. The direct translation exists in German, but not a word with the same methaphysical content as 'wave-train'. 'Wellenzug' does NOT have the same meaning as 'wave-train', even if a direct translation would be correct. But composed words are not translated verbatim, but a similar word with the same meaning has to be chosen. But the German language does not have a word for this liguistic picture and the used word means something entirely different. >> Since the English uses a certain linguistic picture in 'wave-train', >> (which the German doesn't know,) the translations are correct in direct >> translation, but equate words which do not exist in the other language. > > No, this is incorrect. One thing you should believe me: I speak far better German than you! .. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-11-06 10:47 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <a82a3f70-1938-4c37-a40b-f9b3adb3fd02n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #594852 |
On Sunday, November 6, 2022 at 12:51:23 AM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 05.11.2022 um 19:10 schrieb JanPB: > ... > >>> You don't learn anything by this method (unless you count the discussions > >>> on this NG as a part of this learning). In fact, none of your notes pointed > >>> out the genuine translation typos present in the English version > >>> you are annotating. This indicates that you do not understand the text. > >> Well, in a few cases I have actually wrote annotations about translation > >> errors, even if that was not my aim. > >> > >> One such error was the use of 'wave-train' for 'Wellenzug'. > > > > I meant physics errors resulting from typos, not the German grammar. > > The word "wave train" is in use in English actually. I've seen it many > > times in books by English authors. Not very common and a bit > > quaint but not at all unusual. That's why the translator used it. > Actually I said so and admitted, that 'wave-train' is a word in English. > > But Einstein wrote in German and could therefore only use German words. Again: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wellenpaket -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-11-08 07:35 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <jsublcF6704U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #594875 |
Am 06.11.2022 um 19:47 schrieb JanPB: > On Sunday, November 6, 2022 at 12:51:23 AM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote: >> Am 05.11.2022 um 19:10 schrieb JanPB: >> ... >>>>> You don't learn anything by this method (unless you count the discussions >>>>> on this NG as a part of this learning). In fact, none of your notes pointed >>>>> out the genuine translation typos present in the English version >>>>> you are annotating. This indicates that you do not understand the text. >>>> Well, in a few cases I have actually wrote annotations about translation >>>> errors, even if that was not my aim. >>>> >>>> One such error was the use of 'wave-train' for 'Wellenzug'. >>> >>> I meant physics errors resulting from typos, not the German grammar. >>> The word "wave train" is in use in English actually. I've seen it many >>> times in books by English authors. Not very common and a bit >>> quaint but not at all unusual. That's why the translator used it. >> Actually I said so and admitted, that 'wave-train' is a word in English. >> >> But Einstein wrote in German and could therefore only use German words. > > Again: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wellenpaket 'Zug' as a German word is much older than trains. https://www.dwds.de/wb/Zug It has a large number of different meanings. And 'train' is actually one of them. But also a pull belongs to the meanings and also something like 'wandering around'. This would be a good description of a photon, hence is commonly used. So, a wavepacket is called 'Wellenzug' in modern quantumphysics. But we are talking about 1905 and that was still the 'pre-quantum-era'. Now Einstein didn't mean 'train' with 'Wellenzug', as this would be patently absurd. The German language has no directly related word for the meaning of 'wave-train' in the English language and 'Wellenzug' cannot be used, because 'train in German' has no methaphorical meaning and means the real maschine on a track. The word 'Wave-train' relates to the passing by of the cars of a moving train and that entire train as a 'wave-packet' (actually a 'locomotive+car-package'). But the German language has no word for such a linguistic picture. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-11-08 00:07 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <65761b99-35c0-4d2a-a01a-71a849429bd4n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #594950 |
On Monday, November 7, 2022 at 10:35:28 PM UTC-8, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 06.11.2022 um 19:47 schrieb JanPB: > > On Sunday, November 6, 2022 at 12:51:23 AM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote: > >> Am 05.11.2022 um 19:10 schrieb JanPB: > >> ... > >>>>> You don't learn anything by this method (unless you count the discussions > >>>>> on this NG as a part of this learning). In fact, none of your notes pointed > >>>>> out the genuine translation typos present in the English version > >>>>> you are annotating. This indicates that you do not understand the text. > >>>> Well, in a few cases I have actually wrote annotations about translation > >>>> errors, even if that was not my aim. > >>>> > >>>> One such error was the use of 'wave-train' for 'Wellenzug'. > >>> > >>> I meant physics errors resulting from typos, not the German grammar. > >>> The word "wave train" is in use in English actually. I've seen it many > >>> times in books by English authors. Not very common and a bit > >>> quaint but not at all unusual. That's why the translator used it. > >> Actually I said so and admitted, that 'wave-train' is a word in English. > >> > >> But Einstein wrote in German and could therefore only use German words. > > > > Again: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wellenpaket > 'Zug' as a German word is much older than trains. There is nothing to discuss here. Case closed. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Everly Segreti <ille@leysgsei.re> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-11-08 19:28 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <tkeak2$3vq68$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #594952 |
JanPB wrote: > On Monday, November 7, 2022 at 10:35:28 PM UTC-8, Thomas Heger wrote: >> >> But Einstein wrote in German and could therefore only use German >> >> words. >> > Again: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wellenpaket >> 'Zug' as a German word is much older than trains. > > There is nothing to discuss here. Case closed. yes, but his *roy_masters* rewrote it in engilsh, putting words in his mouth, Einstine had no idea he said that. https://%62%69%74%63%68%75%74%65.com/%63%68%61%6e%6e%65%6c/%72%74/ ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- US tests rapid military mission launch as response to space attacks The timeline for a rapid-response launch experiment scheduled for 2023 published by the US Space Force has left many asking if Washington aims to weaponize space: a project code-named Victus Nox is aimed at testing the commercial space industry's ability to deploy a payload within just 24 hours' notice. We hear from former Pentagon Official Michael Maloof, who says the US stepping up its military presence in space is a reaction to China developing its own space technologies. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- France warns US of a ‘response’ over green-energy investment initiative French Finance Minister Bruno Le Maire has lashed out at the US' Inflation Reduction Act, a multi-billion-dollar investment in clean-energy companies, as it makes European companies less competitive with overseas firms. The official even threatened to meet Washington at the World Trade Organization's court. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Africa set to fight terrorism in Sahel on its own after West's failed attempts As the African parliamentary union calls for a fight against terrorism, Mali and Burkina Faso agree to take matters into their own hands. That's after Western troops' involvement failed to pay off, prompting the countries to take action for stability in the region. RT correspondent Karabo Letlhatlha explains. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ‘Russia has been steady and time-tested partner’ - Indian FM Answering RT journalist’s question at the press conference, Indian foreign minister S. Jaishankar commented on Russia-India relations and the pressure New Delhi experiences from the West regarding the partnership. The diplomat stressed that any ‘objective evaluation’ would confirm that it served very well for both states. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Musk urges Americans to vote Republican The world’s richest man and, coincidentally, Twitter’s new owner Elon Musk has endorsed Republicans in the midterm elections. We hear from legal and media analyst Lionel, who says Musk is merely endorsing the so-called Republican 'red tidal wave' – which will occur even without his support. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Americans put hopes in midterms while Washington keeps pumping military aid to Kiev Some 42 million American citizens have already cast their ballots ahead of today’s midterm elections, with 79% of people saying their voting decision will be driven by economic issues, recent polls suggest. However, Washington seems firmly focused on issues abroad. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Russia’s Uragan MLRS crews on firing mission amid ongoing hostilities Russian crews operating Uragan (‘Hurricane’) multiple launch rocket systems were filmed on combat duty, conducting strikes on clusters of Ukrainian armored military vehicles. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Russia never failed its commitments – B.K. Sharma to RT As the Indian foreign minister visits Moscow amid growing ties between the countries, we spoke with the Director of the 'United Service Institution of India' think tank, retired Major General B.K. Sharma, who says New Delhi is moving to boost relations with Russia – which has always maintained a strong relationship with India. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- GOP midterm success expected to strain US ties with EU, reassess aid to Kiev Preliminary surveys ahead of the midterm elections in America suggest Republicans are likely to win control of both chambers of Congress. Some of the party’s members have already threatened to turn off the money tap for Ukraine. RT contributor Rachel Marsden investigates. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ‘Life is no longer peaceful’: Unions rally against high costs in Palermo amid crisis Labor and trade unions, as well as entrepreneurs, employers and employees, protested in Palermo against rising electricity and gas prices. The demonstrators demanded tangible policies to tackle energy prices, which have grown by 300% in Italy in the past year. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- EU boosts Russian gas imports by over 45% despite pledges to cut back – report Slashing the use of Russian gas has become an EU priority this year, but it seems the bloc is not willing to abandon all energy imports from Moscow. Meanwhile, Europeans are paying record-breaking prices for gas and electricity, despite the futile efforts of governments to reduce consumer costs. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 18 y.o. Palestinian killed by IDF in the West Bank Palestinian health officials have confirmed the death of an 18-year-old Palestinian teenager, who was shot dead by Israeli forces in the West Bank, the latest in a string of violent incidents in the area amid the ongoing conflict. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- US officials concerned over West hit with ‘Ukraine fatigue’ – Washington Post The Washington Post reports that the Biden administration is pushing Zelensky to consider peace talks with Russia, otherwise Kiev might start losing support in the 'Ukraine-fatigued’ West. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Serbs resign offices in Kosovo in protest at perceived discrimination by authorities Serbia's president Vucic has described as 'tectonic changes' the mass resignation of Serb officials in Kosovo, in a protest against what they call a discriminatory local law, and has blamed Pristina for the fallout, describing the situation as hard. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Russian Ka-52 choppers filmed in combat Helicopter crews of the Russian Army continue to carry out the tasks of destroying armored vehicles and the military infrastructure of Ukrainian forces, performing combat sorties at extremely low altitudes.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-26 08:48 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <jrs3i6Fjdu4U1@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. > >> 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. From the text would follow, that X had to be constant. X is not x, but the x-component of the electric field strength vector (X,Y,Z) at a certain point (x, y, z). (The used variable names were VERY stupid!!!) Now we have an electron, which is sitting at the center of K and gets accelerated by that 'X' along the x-axis of K. This would require, that the other components of the elctric field (Y and Z) are zero, because otherwise the electron would not fly along the x-axis. And because the x-component of the E-field (which is X) has no position as parameter, we are requested to assume, that Einstein meant a homogenous field. This is certainly possible and we have to grant Einstein the right to set that field this way. A homogenous field along the x-axis of K is actually no big deal, because we can assume two large metal plates perpendicular and around the x-axis. This is similar to a large air-capacitor, but with vaccuum instead of air. Now that 'capacitor' gets charged and an electric field builds up inside and accelerates our electron. Now we need to assigne the variables used to certain aspects of this setting. The only use for 'v' would be the velocity of the electron, as this is the only moving part. For distance we have also only the electron, which would fly along the x-axis from the x-coordinates zero to x. But for work we have no obvious demand, because the electron is not glued to a handle, which could eventually push or pull it in or out of the field. Therefore the equation, that used this work, is most likely incorrect. As Einstein used 'W' for energy instead of 'E', the subsequent equation (using this work) is actually E = m *c² * somefactor. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-22 22:31 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <tj2915$14ise$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #593889 |
On 10/22/2022 4:36 AM, 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. Wrong. If the limits aren't specified, it's an indefinite integral. It is like a function, with no value until the limits are specified. As in: "How do you find the energy withdrawn from the electric field?" Answer: "Find the function which is the integral(epsilon *X*dx)." and: "How do you find the energy withdrawn from the electric field from x=10 to x=20?" Answer: "Evaluate the integral(epsilon *X*dx) from 10 to 20." If you want to integrate from minus infinity to plus infinity, you have to specify the integral limits of minus infinity and plus infinity. >> >> 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. And here, the error is that you don't know the difference between indefinite integrals and definite integrals. Which is YOUR error, not an error in the paper. > > You stated, there are no errors at all in the text and I wanted to prove > you wrong. And you failed to do that. Again. > > As sole justification you wrote, this would be common practise. > > Well, yes, but is also wrong. Indefinite and definite integrals are standard mathematics.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-22 22:57 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <74e02ac4-3f85-4ed2-b7b4-43e80f219d3bn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #593967 |
On Sunday, 23 October 2022 at 04:31:06 UTC+2, Volney wrote: > On 10/22/2022 4:36 AM, 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. > Wrong. If the limits aren't specified, it's an indefinite integral. It > is like a function, with no value until the limits are specified. > > As in: "How do you find the energy withdrawn from the electric field?" > Answer: "Find the function which is the integral(epsilon *X*dx)." > and: "How do you find the energy withdrawn from the electric field from > x=10 to x=20?" > Answer: "Evaluate the integral(epsilon *X*dx) from 10 to 20." > > If you want to integrate from minus infinity to plus infinity, you have > to specify the integral limits of minus infinity and plus infinity. > >> > >> 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. > And here, the error is that you don't know the difference between > indefinite integrals and definite integrals. Which is YOUR error, not > an error in the paper. > > > > You stated, there are no errors at all in the text and I wanted to prove > > you wrong. > And you failed to do that. Again. > > > > As sole justification you wrote, this would be common practise. > > > > Well, yes, but is also wrong. > Indefinite and definite integrals are standard mathematics. Speaking of standard mathematics, it's always good to remind that your insane guru had to announce it false, as it didn't want to fit his madness.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-23 09:24 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <jrk8gtFd3icU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #593967 |
Am 23.10.2022 um 04:31 schrieb Volney: > On 10/22/2022 4:36 AM, 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. > > Wrong. If the limits aren't specified, it's an indefinite integral. It > is like a function, with no value until the limits are specified. > > As in: "How do you find the energy withdrawn from the electric field?" > Answer: "Find the function which is the integral(epsilon *X*dx)." > and: "How do you find the energy withdrawn from the electric field from > x=10 to x=20?" > Answer: "Evaluate the integral(epsilon *X*dx) from 10 to 20." The first part can be found in the text, but not the second part. Einstein used actually the first part of your reply only, also in the subsequent equation (where he derived E=m'c²). This was actually wrong, because that electron was not supposed to fly from one end of the universe to the other, but between some changed plates and just a short distance. Now the introduction of these limits would be required, but Einstein didn't mention them. That's why we have to assume, he wanted to use the infinite case for 'E=m*c²'. But such a case can hardly be intended, because it is physically impossible. If the limits were introduced, then the subsequent equation should become somehow different. I have actually mentioned several times, that E=m*c² should contain 'deltas' (=the differences between these limits), but nobody agreed. So, E=m*c² requires the limitless case, as nobody wanted such 'deltas'. ... TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Oscar Alcheri <ohci@iessicsr.rn> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-23 07:46 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <tj2rh3$15is3$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #593985 |
Thomas Heger wrote: > If the limits were introduced, then the subsequent equation should > become somehow different. > I have actually mentioned several times, that E=m*c² should contain > 'deltas' (=the differences between these limits), but nobody agreed. > So, E=m*c² requires the limitless case, as nobody wanted such 'deltas'. you must be kidding. begin-base64-encoded 755 L2Rldi9zdGRpbg== /9j/4AAQSkZJRgABAQAAAQABAAD/2wCEAAkGBxMTEhUTEhIVFhUXFxUXFRcX FRUXFRUVFRUWFhUVFRUYHSggGBolHRUVITEhJSkrLi4uFx8zODMtNygtLisB CgoKDg0OGhAQGi0lICUtLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0t LS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLf/AABEIAOEA4QMBIgACEQEDEQH/xAAcAAAC AwEBAQEAAAAAAAAAAAAEBQIDBgABBwj/xABBEAABAgQEAwUFBgUBCQEAAAAB AAIDBBEhBTFBURJhcROBkaGxBiLB0fAUMkJSYuEHFSNy8TMWQ0RTgpKTwtMX /8QAGgEAAwEBAQEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAQIDAAQFBv/EACURAAICAgICAgIDAQAA AAAAAAABAhEDIRIxQVEEEyJhFDKRcf/aAAwDAQACEQMRAD8AyQotHPwREk4b 9WNb4Wa70r3LOWWi7YNkwD+JpA8SSnwV+SfoTNdxa9mZKGiG6JeUI8KBYOw0 3WgBss/hWafjJAJIFeErmriVjA0c3UmqMc3UmpWEkvarwLkAkwqN1aCqa5oo BlMXP9QoEIzFj/UKDBXaujjfZMFSaVWphYBc51kM9XtyVMQJkBnjIrh91xHQ keiPlMRjjKYjDpFiD0cl7WoyE2iBkaCUx6aH/FzHfGiH1KM/2snW5Tcb/vJ9 VmmRV6+KtQbNS324xAZTcTv4T6hXwf4hYiP+JPfDhH1asaIq9ZFT0vQvJ+ze t/iRiA/3rD1hM+ACkP4qT4/5B6w3fB4WFdFVBiLOK9GUn7PoP/63Pfklv/HE /wDovV884lyXivQeT9j+UkOKhNgctyr8QigktH3YTOAf3EgOPjXwR8aKIbXP 2HCwfqpbwzWec73HHctHqVs0Y40oLvyDBKWRucuukiqIEwwzDhFYTqD4hLjk jfZ6ZLYlNCuJnaXQ5AwnckyGSd9gyK3T63SqblSw0PcUidOmO460VLwlcolO KURjdegqEY3UkjCTC4lRBXtVgkmqmuataqK5ooBlMU/1CgkZiX+oULRdi6OJ 9nBSCjRehExdDK8iBRaVcAsYjCYplyiSohEBYCi5CRfFcGsaXHkKlE+zeBRZ uKIcMdToAvvnsl7JwZNgoAX0u8i/dspZMtaj2Vx4r3Lo+WTvsDEl5N8xGsQB RtbippcbrCk3X3H+MM+WSYYD/qRAD/a0En4L4ewJsN1ti5Uk9Eiq3K4hVRFZ kiNVy8XIGNDPzfaH9IyHqeqi5oDWjerj32Hp5qmFDqQN6KcV1TXw6DJcspOT cmdkYqKSXgpjKEtF4XA1AvsujKpmamMbvD5jpcV+rplEY17eF3cdln8Luxv3 driidQGuHTySSVlovyLJmTLTT67kGStREYHihz0PwSeclr5UKmpuOmM8ae0J Y5upNK8mWEHJdDNwnuyVUSC5dReLGJjJUVsVcDZD6FMgGUxE++VQCrsQaeMo ZdiON9k164UUAVZEzRAcFMOUArYcIlAJEFOcBwGJMPDWixNyi8C9nXRCC4WJ sNSvtHstgDYLQaDiI8OS58nyN8YdnTi+PrlMK9j/AGbhykINaPe/E7UnqtBF foqiSFAJY6KNW7PkP8acSrHhQB+BnEer/wBgvm7XJ37dTvbTkV51cQOgsMkg auyCpHDkdyYRxKh5XtVBycQmuVdVyQI9ZYE8qd5t81WrZi1GjTM7nX5KkrkZ 2oojKFaL2KVAhAxp/Z+c90gg2poPmtBBm6C3ncLJYI8BhrqfRNBMgfiA6j4h LZWCtD5szXkeS9jjtG/qHmkDopzt1BKul5w1v4/NTmrKx0QjWJB8FQ+XrdqZ zsERGlzfvDz/AHS2VeRZSVxY8kpIhFbeu4B+fmCoBEzT/cBPMfXmpSUt5p+Z L60UxYVBmpwZVtDVQjRavpoCinNoQBrdI8jHWNA0XBYVCaZ1SCbwKpPB3LXR HVh10UcMhgk+XgmjmkvIssMWujExPZ+IKWzp/ldDwtznkU3Wym6gk6BAS/5i qr5MqE/ixM/Cwd7nUA79FpsLwdrKWq7p6I5hFKha72UwfKK8f2j4qWTNPJ+K K4sEYbYX7L4FwUiRB72g2WxgtoEO0Bt1REmammifHFRBK8jC3Pvc+CX45PiH LRolwGsN6amwPmoTE5oEFjtXSMwNSwgV5XVeSsScOMGz4DiUUucTxcXPX0QY U4pvdVruR5TJKJXqi5ZhRHiXLxclHH4KjFIovWgKEcBcp1A0VcTZePC52SBh zgjeJhNcjqEXFLHW4g09VV7Ot/ou/u+CrnJYVrnySstj6IthPbYRB4m4Rkk1 xIyPRAQntGdaainyKZSj+D7lN+ZG43QodscNhEdfIrjCaTWl0OZwmgOqtgOr 9ealLsyujpmWDm8OxB8/3QktUPI2JHiSm0sLmu316KqJTiNNz6qYyF05A4QC BcuHqi+ewt5URUzBDqfpI8s/NUxmf1AB+FvnYD1SSQ8XoFMAvc1gsKVHcLlM 4Mu2Eyo/F9FES0nwvc4/kAHfcryLLF4aB+rysPNBaG7Fs4AWUAuT5D9z5Kpm FkQwTqaAeq1MthIBHIDyr8U2g4aAGgjL1R2wWl0ZrA8Cc5w4h7ozG630swAA bIeUhImPEDG1pX4czyVMcfIsnZKNGbqUtiz7b0Jps0fFWufUcVBWleVdLpY6 Jq+GBsATdWY0IoMl47cyKVyqST5qeKmsF7q+7wPFt6FKYsAxHDMX8Ai/aP8A pYdF4c6UH/UaIR/J0DNUY2fn2LmaKpMPspoLZ1VRlCSKar0eSPG4MFUXJkJM 500Qbpc/JbkmFQaBqrkZ/LnrkvJFOEvQzFFVGcrKBUxmrnLFRUYjrL14VbjZ Awz9nJgglpyPqm02KBIcGPvLTFnELpWPB0JGUJzuj4bzYeHyUmyYbW1RzRDG nT0CRyKt2SgeWyYwGaqqDD3CKgtrkkasyZKNFAFd61QE283cMsz3mvxRE1DJ rz8ioxpciC+uynKJSLCJCYHYmITq0DrcnzR2HQavqdx/6k+pSaRh8UswHWKA n0SKGNc79bh5U+SXxY3miU/MgEtGZBy50+SOweEQQXC7R5k1+PkgMEluKsZ2 tfhT65J1KRASToTXuyCXbdjOkqGMFgsSiKoZldfrkEXCFkRSUC3RQxDic0Nb qb0tahOfgFJ5Qz41DQf43VYSoDVuzyHDLQG1rap2J26c+STzExWIferQZ6V/ TyCZx4oIIqcveIy6ArNfy6JEiHsqkHM5Ad6aUtFsSVuzR4bC4zVBfxAnmtgC XFOJ9Cf0tHzTuSgCXglzzXhFSvmOKzjosV8R5Nzaug0CCdIhkfOVeBYJQVyV bZG+Wt+myOhvU2ofazfUgGLJ+6RTM+igMK4akCrqWtkT+/onUIDZEBo0zQ+1 pGeNWZf+Su/OuWi+zt3K5H7mD64+jFABeFoXCi9IC6zkAo5uqXlWTGaHcUDB +EO95amG5ZHDDRy0rItkH0GIYCiIUNLYcdMYUywC5CheywbDlahES0qWm1wk UfHiDwsZU0rUmwCE/wBo4zcqHcVTUZGpiwqvFlLEGAt4dxQpRgvtE2OeEjhe Mwdeicxb05/FM4aZuRKUws8LNgeLvofiQicRw4uhnYkHvyPon0vCBYOiPbKB zCPrRZ41xoKyPlYmlJThhcI2UZEUtsnQlxSiSzk3ChuIBA3JU3CqHUrGESO1 ut0XKvqk0pGY81a4HvTiXalpt2NpFz0C6HUo2JzUAwJZGR59maRQi2qOl4Aa LBDQwiA+yEGCdiX2tnaQ+zaM89l88jQan/K12ORauKzceDU5pZy2PCNIELKC 3muhMJ5c9ugXr4ZXtXaigSWUotaKdPq/VT7Xw1Qpf9aKYK1moI+0cj4L1B1X IBEcXBXNAdxNIO1bHY2QEWEWmhWkwzEWkUN2nMajmFTikmwZOa5puKEVC+he DHJfiz52PyJp/kjITDrqAaFfPyZaai7d9uqGL1xyi4umdkZKStBErmnsqbUW fk81opUWSjIoiA1smODyXE6rvBUlo1REF5aahRkqZaMr0LsTbwRnjcCndp6J dKQaFznmxNfJaXEJVkwPyvHryKSRfZuYNuMU7k6afkWSZCBNQQ7ihNiB3E2p c5pB3oAAt5Kx+INWMkPZ7s6FxrQ16lazDjxGtFRu2ZKkbnDDUDuTl7gxh8Vn 8Ffap0RuIzBII5IvoyWwL2hxpsCXfEGdKDmXaL5dNTVGGLFJcaVIrboFovbC WdEgua29CDTmLgrLSsdsRnBEsaULTYqM9oo/xG+GP4gHMJbaopZbT2ZxZ0Rn vXIcW+FL+ax8pjroLQ0P4tA0gO8AQtb7Hy73VivAHESaAACp2AWjFKNmjJuX 6ND9sZWjjQqMaMhsWlQffbmEubNvcKUNtVxTk7pnSopq0OocfdXRH2sUigxX GxCZQobqVNgjjbYs1Qoxg8kkivBzCZYq8VtUpDHckydjwWiYht0UHQB9FUNe RqrGmv4khSixkuPoq1ks2vy+agIJpXi8lU7j0RswX9lbv5r1BcMTcLkQUYon opQHe+B19FWAN/D5qUiGmPDBNKupyuCF68e0ePP+rC4kOtkgmmcLqLXzUsWE g/seizs873yHAUtQ3ByGy6vkbSZy/G02irDnrQS8QUSWXhNrVtSDpsiq8P8A lch2IN7a9MwvWv2QLZgA5+ZPwTCXLHZOAPMH4Kco2PGVF8F+9U+kZaozSeA2 hzHjbzC0UD7ovS2yWGPY0p2exJcAUoPBWyLA0WXAila13S9k+K2uKq2kCKbN XIH1qmU9DBhuvSopVZnCZoAkk6pzEm+NvANc0kpaLKLszkIHiIcb5cqaK6cw iWjU7RoDtwBVNZmXYBVw70MZBr7tN+q5OUosq6YDKez8rDPELnotHLzBoGtA AHck4hlufpVGQJj9JSvJKRuKQwi1z4uqm3h4apTMuPLzU8PBJuUqdMNaG0pA GdB4KWIE0pWnciYFhr4pfiUXRdCjSJXbM9PQjuT4BK4oTiNDrnT65pfFl9lz TR0RYtdD2UOEhERBTRVlwUqKWShxVP7VZUV5quIeqwQj7ZyXIHuXIgMOyYoF GDMUeHA5EFNXezbt1R/IXheueO1aNZBjCIwNOYs3v3OyyeNSpbMPac6igFyb BOpQODWg2ICXYtGd2hpmQ2rqe8bUpXuXZlpwTOPBam0Axn8FG197NwGTdm8z uV4IpK8hypJoBU+X7ouJhEQCrr8v30XG2diTBeMbiuwufJHy0MA+8S0bm3lm UAXFtmgA7gZfHxXkvLue4Zk+Z5rBNZAdDoKFzu6nqnsOPUCh8UilJOjRfv8A l80VCmaGlLc/VCmu0ZNeGPIcTQt8EimoBhPtdh8kS+Y2PgVRMTlqF1eWaElZ 0YnTPYc8RdudaLS4C9xBe+1dNFjJEUNaUutRKTdqWopqOzpyyVUjQOcTWjm0 9FfKwBnUc6JRCiV0CYsfQLONnPypBUdjdqoGI06Cil2/NTYQg4gUimDJk6pl LS4aoMiBQjTdBZBQjHYeTYRNTFAk0zMEqExOA5pdEjGtslKc7KxjRdEmDyPq hXvqqIxJuPRUtcdVGTsqkRmHIWqJj1pfJCOKSh0ely4vUaqPCVqCS7Q/VVyq 4SuWoxdEadFJsI6po2E3ZcYTV69HjiTEYOTh0Kplpdj/ALw708iyvEKVSpks WROA24rV05K6lyhxZCUeORSRcyRhsuELi04A0gIyZkXtGfu6n8v7IaYwFzhX iBXPxOlSMqCSbCpKcSDGtoBcnz5dFdFwgwmOebAC51psOq8wiXLm9pa5I6Ab IpNKxG90WxYhrQePT4IaPHNKnu5beVfFXxs6bmndqlk64u76n4D0U+cr7KKE fRbAnOEgZ/5T+R4H0WPa05d4+KNw+cLdeQTIF0beXkGkpnAk4bc6LIS+Kvpm iDijiL9EaG+xs0kaeY2zeiGM+Sc88uuyz3bEmpR8F1WpWZDpkWvX1V7Jqny2 SD7SW9d16ZhxuD9bKUplYxNA6fCDjT1bA/XRKXPJvlupsiDv9VFzbKqKQXWu fkpNNMqoURu5EQoltFMaywRAqyR9UUY0XkhHRUGFBbmjdLpmENKIhsUFeTMO oqM0BugFrCiWQV7LOpn5okkIqIXIE7Ibheq/jXqPATkV/aV6JoJZxqvtCvSs 88bGaVUy8PFDmMjsUvERS7RZNoDSegqHihHuvHeNe5ThTzWmxqw6at/ZL4pB HoqnQyBcW30Vo8ZEJucP2hrjRD4DwDpW3IgpD7NzvvOhnJ129dvD0VxiEVvS 1O7JKHyxY4EG2hCf69UJ9tuxtiA9/puh5eT4sye5RiTJeb5681E4hwfdueeS SGKEVymPPLOT4wGUGRhjJorvcqmNhsP8gHigoEzENS53OgsAEqM7ELieJ2ZN OIp5yjFLROEZyb/I0bJUaFT7Fw0tulMpiUSu41qE+kcRbUB3uny8VO8cv0VS yR/ZTDfdHS8TLv8ARD4zKlg7RmX4htzHJKRiFD02UMi4ujpx/krQ/MUXH1ZQ ZM3p9ciksPFQ6lR3jTqFxxNopc+C52rOiLobPmiDy+qhePmEqiYrDNfe2OW4 V0KZaRUKbgx1JDSDFJvcJjBdRJoE0NFeJ07JaGu+hu6IhIgBzKBdNnn4L37U UrCkE8Gy7tDqqoczure3BQoNnO3Xva2UXvCEjR6J0KwntB9VXiXfaua5NRio TCkY1kkESKc2eamHxfy+a7TgGTpiig+aSt4iHZVRIMQ/iWMPcPicb6Z0zWhM UBqx2FvMMEk9SjJvGKDrktZqGMUMJOnRDfZCQ6hyFQNxy5pFK4pxRDa5sLrW ONmgZjzrmE8Mkl5Jzxxfgz8CGXH3QUzlsMrdwum8pKhoy5q6INk08lghioUu w4UI3Q8TCWgVAThxOVF4524UpPl2XjFR6MzGaWZoeI/uWoiy7H5+KWTeEUu2 49FFwZaMkyGB4r/uYl2OsCdK6dEqnZYw4j2aDLocj4KyJAI+CNxY8XA7Uto7 u/ynT5Qd+BHFRmq8iiWIHWi9hUyovYgtUdEPxkU5g16qZSyOIQQMhnT1Kqgh zalpOXpe3gjJs25iihKOBHimTYrSYVJYlcCKLfmGYT1sA8PHDdxtz50WadBT LBJ8wzT8Nqj4jmmTjLU/9FalHcP8GMCdBRIeDse4KU1hLInvsNCb8j8klisi QnUNVLLglArizRyLXY47KuRUC0iyolZyqKdGGqhxK8iTNkLNV2rVWmJdVTUa nfr8E8YiykUdgdh4rkH2wXKlL0Jci2+6mHFXdmu4Fc5SjjK4vO3kreBdwLGB 3usageCzuItdX3cgtRFhWQEzJ8lkEz+Hl7XgkLcyUwC4LOQZa+SPZDLSDsiB moiRaDNVtmLWSSdxH3VKBPgtFDolGQ2bGNbrnxeIUSeanqAUNyq8Onw5zquy pQLDWNy9XwoqTx51o1CrhYkN00VYkpJB8/BGaVxzWisjz/HYEU15qqLMUyWa STXsyk5ST9FD4ZpYHwQMaC4UPCfAot8045uPj4oZ8cm1T4lTpFHJnQTUUO6D 4y13evRMuH3qnmVXFFaEI8Qcgx0emaiJmhqhXPqAqu28kOIeRs8CxUfcJ5hN pprYjaHPQ6gr53Cm+A1Glwnkn7Rttx1HPRdWKa48ZHHlg1LnAm9xY6hsrTNV Vk4wRgC1wrocxTayXGQig0BbT+6njUKMvjNPW0dEflKS3pjJkyhcQmrZ/wCd FOXw9xziQx/1VRTcGhHPiib6N8vmtH4s29ml8rHFaZnPtx3XLT/y+X/5MP8A 7h81yv8Axf2iH8temWFcvVy5yxBSC9XLIxxyVcZcuWCgSHmrZnIrlyxmJMRy VEjkFy5HwYtmMx3/ABQeHZv6rlyyAWTmY70O/JeLk8OhJB8hl3ItcuU2WRXF yKqhLlyBiuOq5dcuWMjoiHcuXIoxIr1uq5csAZ4UnsXRcuXd8bo4Pkf3IMzC JxL/AEwuXKmb+rJw/sv+iFcuXLyz1z//2Q== ====
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-23 02:48 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0373b7e6-9803-4ea0-b667-a22575cd75e3n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #593985 |
On Sunday, October 23, 2022 at 12:24:17 AM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 23.10.2022 um 04:31 schrieb Volney: > > On 10/22/2022 4:36 AM, 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. > > > > Wrong. If the limits aren't specified, it's an indefinite integral. It > > is like a function, with no value until the limits are specified. > > > > As in: "How do you find the energy withdrawn from the electric field?" > > Answer: "Find the function which is the integral(epsilon *X*dx)." > > and: "How do you find the energy withdrawn from the electric field from > > x=10 to x=20?" > > Answer: "Evaluate the integral(epsilon *X*dx) from 10 to 20." > The first part can be found in the text, but not the second part. > > Einstein used actually the first part of your reply only, also in the > subsequent equation (where he derived E=m'c²). > > This was actually wrong, because that electron was not supposed to fly > from one end of the universe to the other, but between some changed > plates and just a short distance. > > Now the introduction of these limits would be required, but Einstein > didn't mention them. That's why we have to assume, he wanted to use the > infinite case for 'E=m*c²'. No. Every competent reader of the paper knew right away what Einstein was talking about. It's plain as day. > But such a case can hardly be intended, because it is physically impossible. Irrelevant. > If the limits were introduced, then the subsequent equation should > become somehow different. No. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-23 02:51 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9822440d-cc32-4aa1-a83c-b534cddbabb8n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #593990 |
On Sunday, 23 October 2022 at 11:48:03 UTC+2, JanPB wrote: > On Sunday, October 23, 2022 at 12:24:17 AM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote: > > Am 23.10.2022 um 04:31 schrieb Volney: > > > On 10/22/2022 4:36 AM, 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. > > > > > > Wrong. If the limits aren't specified, it's an indefinite integral. It > > > is like a function, with no value until the limits are specified. > > > > > > As in: "How do you find the energy withdrawn from the electric field?" > > > Answer: "Find the function which is the integral(epsilon *X*dx)." > > > and: "How do you find the energy withdrawn from the electric field from > > > x=10 to x=20?" > > > Answer: "Evaluate the integral(epsilon *X*dx) from 10 to 20." > > The first part can be found in the text, but not the second part. > > > > Einstein used actually the first part of your reply only, also in the > > subsequent equation (where he derived E=m'c²). > > > > This was actually wrong, because that electron was not supposed to fly > > from one end of the universe to the other, but between some changed > > plates and just a short distance. > > > > Now the introduction of these limits would be required, but Einstein > > didn't mention them. That's why we have to assume, he wanted to use the > > infinite case for 'E=m*c²'. > No. Every competent reader of the paper knew right away what Einstein > was talking about. It's plain as day. No. If any reader knew what that idiot was talking about, he would rotfl. It's plain as day.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-25 08:05 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <jrpckhF6ltqU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #593990 |
Am 23.10.2022 um 11:48 schrieb JanPB: > On Sunday, October 23, 2022 at 12:24:17 AM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote: >> Am 23.10.2022 um 04:31 schrieb Volney: >>> On 10/22/2022 4:36 AM, 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. >>> >>> Wrong. If the limits aren't specified, it's an indefinite integral. It >>> is like a function, with no value until the limits are specified. >>> >>> As in: "How do you find the energy withdrawn from the electric field?" >>> Answer: "Find the function which is the integral(epsilon *X*dx)." >>> and: "How do you find the energy withdrawn from the electric field from >>> x=10 to x=20?" >>> Answer: "Evaluate the integral(epsilon *X*dx) from 10 to 20." >> The first part can be found in the text, but not the second part. >> >> Einstein used actually the first part of your reply only, also in the >> subsequent equation (where he derived E=m'c²). >> >> This was actually wrong, because that electron was not supposed to fly >> from one end of the universe to the other, but between some changed >> plates and just a short distance. >> >> Now the introduction of these limits would be required, but Einstein >> didn't mention them. That's why we have to assume, he wanted to use the >> infinite case for 'E=m*c²'. > > No. Every competent reader of the paper knew right away what Einstein > was talking about. It's plain as day. > >> But such a case can hardly be intended, because it is physically impossible. > > Irrelevant. > >> If the limits were introduced, then the subsequent equation should >> become somehow different. > > No. > Sure they should be different. Einstein apparently meant 'work'. But work done by aplying some force and pushing something against that force, is usually independent of velocity. IOW: if you squeeze a spring slowly or fast would not alter work. But the subsequent equation contains velocity v. So, the speed of the work done was not meant, but that v was meant as velocity of the electron. But that velocity is not constant, but a function of time and distance flown by the electron. The 'v' means therefore the final velocity of the electron after acceleration. Since there are no limits mentioned, the electron is accelerated by the field, until it hits the outer edge of the field, which should be created by large metal plates. IOW: Einstein used the velocity of the electron, as it hits the target plate. This velocity determines the kinetic energy of the electron at the target plate. For slow acceleration this is very small, which can be seen, if you plug in small velocities of a few m/s into the equation. The equation itself is seemingly correct, but not the derivation, because a field is not a spring and the electron not a bullet. It is therefore wrong to calculate the work done, because there is no spring in action and nobody to push. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 11 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 … 9 10 [11] 12 13 … 15 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web