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 6 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 15 Next page →
| From | Athel Cornish-Bowden <acornish@imm.cnrs.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-11-17 15:07 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <jtmth1F11msU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #595555 |
On 2022-11-17 12:10:20 +0000, J. J. Lodder said: > Athel Cornish-Bowden <acornish@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote: > >> On 2022-11-12 06:32:53 +0000, Volney said: >> >>> On 11/10/2022 2:34 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: >> >> >> [ … ] >>> >>> >>>> His niece was actually the girl-friend of Hitler (another bad-ass of >>>> epic proportions). >>> >>> More made-up fantasy? The only believable part of that is that Hitler >>> was a bad-ass. >> >> He's probably thinking of Unity Mitford, who wasn't exactly Churchill's >> niece, though they were related. > > Isn't that true of most of those in 'the upper classes'? Yes. It would never do to let your daughter marry a lower-class yobbo. -- Athel -- French and British, living mainly in England until 1987.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-11-18 08:10 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <jtopeoF9on4U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #595555 |
Am 17.11.2022 um 13:10 schrieb J. J. Lodder: > Athel Cornish-Bowden <acornish@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote: > >> On 2022-11-12 06:32:53 +0000, Volney said: >> >>> On 11/10/2022 2:34 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: >> >> >> [ … ] >>> >>> >>>> His niece was actually the girl-friend of Hitler (another bad-ass of >>>> epic proportions). >>> >>> More made-up fantasy? The only believable part of that is that Hitler >>> was a bad-ass. >> >> He's probably thinking of Unity Mitford, who wasn't exactly Churchill's >> niece, though they were related. > > Isn't that true of most of those in 'the upper classes'? People are often much closer related than what is commonly assume. This is simply because the number of ancestors dubbles every generation. Now 2^n , where n is the number of generations, exceeds the number of atoms in the universe after a few thousand years. Therefore partners from not so remote realms are acceptable for marriage among aristocrats, too. But too close relations are not that good for the blue blood, because that could become bluer than healthy. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-11-09 07:57 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <jt11a3Fiq9cU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #594965 |
Am 08.11.2022 um 16:27 schrieb Volney: >>>> Real waves obey Huigens principle and are more or less spherical. >>>> >>> Irrelevant. If a plane wave exists, its continued existence doesn't >>> violate any laws or rules of physics. >> >> The meant laws are not the laws of physics, but the laws of nature. > > You're trying to pick a nit that's not even there. Physics models nature > so the laws of physics are modeling what nature is doing. > > Regardless, the existence of a plane wave in nature does not conflict > with its continued existence. >> >> What physicists do or regard as law is entirely irrelevant. > > So why are you even here, arguing about physics which you consider > irrelevant? I didn't say 'physics' but 'physicists'. 'Physicsists' are people. They build in sum a sociotope, which has certain internal mechnisms and rules. Some of these rules are called 'pyhsical laws'. But these laws are not the laws of nature, but internal rules of a derailed sociotope. >> It is totally silly to justify something odd in physics, because that >> is common practise. > > No, it is not. It is a simple solution which physicists have been doing > forever. Same with elementary mechanics with frictionless surfaces and > massless ropes (I notice you snipped that part) You cannot justify silly rules by stating, that this was done so forever. >> Einstein insisted on 'flat' plane waves, while I insisted on Huigens >> principle. > > Einstein was doing what all physicists of his time did, and still do. Well, most at best.. But I actually didn't want to talk about common practice among physicists. I was arguing from a different perspective, which is apparently not the usual perspective of physicists. I wrote, that a real plane wave is impossible in nature, hence only usuable as an approximation to spherical waves inside of a small region. You did agree, more or less, but argued, that physicists used plane waves all the time and since long ago. What shall I say about this???? TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-11-08 23:15 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <c71493d7-6cd9-4e08-ab27-6bc134551e11n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #595007 |
On Tuesday, November 8, 2022 at 10:57:10 PM UTC-8, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 08.11.2022 um 16:27 schrieb Volney: > > >>>> Real waves obey Huigens principle and are more or less spherical. > >>>> > >>> Irrelevant. If a plane wave exists, its continued existence doesn't > >>> violate any laws or rules of physics. > >> > >> The meant laws are not the laws of physics, but the laws of nature. > > > > You're trying to pick a nit that's not even there. Physics models nature > > so the laws of physics are modeling what nature is doing. > > > > Regardless, the existence of a plane wave in nature does not conflict > > with its continued existence. > >> > >> What physicists do or regard as law is entirely irrelevant. > > > > So why are you even here, arguing about physics which you consider > > irrelevant? > I didn't say 'physics' but 'physicists'. > > 'Physicsists' are people. They build in sum a sociotope, which has > certain internal mechnisms and rules. > > Some of these rules are called 'pyhsical laws'. > > But these laws are not the laws of nature, but internal rules of a > derailed sociotope. > >> It is totally silly to justify something odd in physics, because that > >> is common practise. > > > > No, it is not. It is a simple solution which physicists have been doing > > forever. Same with elementary mechanics with frictionless surfaces and > > massless ropes (I notice you snipped that part) > > You cannot justify silly rules by stating, that this was done so forever. So you've just rejected all physics since more or less Galileo. > >> Einstein insisted on 'flat' plane waves, while I insisted on Huigens > >> principle. > > > > Einstein was doing what all physicists of his time did, and still do. > > Well, most at best.. > > But I actually didn't want to talk about common practice among physicists. > > I was arguing from a different perspective, which is apparently not the > usual perspective of physicists. > > I wrote, that a real plane wave is impossible in nature, hence only > usuable as an approximation to spherical waves inside of a small region. That's what physics has always been using: idealisation. Same as mathematics. > You did agree, more or less, but argued, that physicists used plane > waves all the time and since long ago. > > What shall I say about this???? What's there to say? It's just a fact. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-11-09 12:03 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <tkgmhq$94em$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #595007 |
On 11/9/2022 1:57 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 08.11.2022 um 16:27 schrieb Volney: > >>>>> Real waves obey Huigens principle and are more or less spherical. >>>>> >>>> Irrelevant. If a plane wave exists, its continued existence doesn't >>>> violate any laws or rules of physics. >>> >>> The meant laws are not the laws of physics, but the laws of nature. >> >> You're trying to pick a nit that's not even there. Physics models nature >> so the laws of physics are modeling what nature is doing. >> >> Regardless, the existence of a plane wave in nature does not conflict >> with its continued existence. >>> >>> What physicists do or regard as law is entirely irrelevant. >> >> So why are you even here, arguing about physics which you consider >> irrelevant? > > I didn't say 'physics' but 'physicists'. > > 'Physicsists' are people. They build in sum a sociotope, which has > certain internal mechnisms and rules. Which are known as 'physics'. Or are you whining that physicists are human and not perfect? > > Some of these rules are called 'pyhsical laws'. > > But these laws are not the laws of nature, but internal rules of a > derailed sociotope. Physicists create models, which try to emulate what nature does. They try to make their models as accurate as possible. > >>> It is totally silly to justify something odd in physics, because that >>> is common practise. >> >> No, it is not. It is a simple solution which physicists have been doing >> forever. Same with elementary mechanics with frictionless surfaces and >> massless ropes (I notice you snipped that part) > > > You cannot justify silly rules by stating, that this was done so forever. But what's wrong with it? If a plane wave somehow exists, it can be used to analyze a situation, with simpler math. If there is a frictionless surface, we can analyze it, again with simpler math. Were all physicists since Galileo wrong? > > >>> Einstein insisted on 'flat' plane waves, while I insisted on Huigens >>> principle. >> >> Einstein was doing what all physicists of his time did, and still do. > > Well, most at best.. All, to the required accuracy. > > But I actually didn't want to talk about common practice among physicists. > > I was arguing from a different perspective, which is apparently not the > usual perspective of physicists. > > I wrote, that a real plane wave is impossible in nature, hence only > usuable as an approximation to spherical waves inside of a small region. It is perfectly usable. There is nothing unusual or forbidden with such a wave, given that it exists. "Let there be a plane wave such that..." > > You did agree, more or less, but argued, that physicists used plane > waves all the time and since long ago. Because it's simpler, and leads to no violations. > > What shall I say about this???? Well, you *could* admit that this "mistake" which you attributed to Einstein is your own misunderstanding of how physicists work. (aside: I wonder if you could produce a plane wave electric field between the plates of a parallel plate capacitor with modified edges to compensate for the edge effects of an unmodified parallel plate capacitor)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-11-10 08:21 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <jt3n4fFtr2U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #595034 |
Am 09.11.2022 um 18:03 schrieb Volney: > On 11/9/2022 1:57 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: >> Am 08.11.2022 um 16:27 schrieb Volney: >> >>>>>> Real waves obey Huigens principle and are more or less spherical. >>>>>> >>>>> Irrelevant. If a plane wave exists, its continued existence doesn't >>>>> violate any laws or rules of physics. >>>> >>>> The meant laws are not the laws of physics, but the laws of nature. >>> >>> You're trying to pick a nit that's not even there. Physics models nature >>> so the laws of physics are modeling what nature is doing. >>> >>> Regardless, the existence of a plane wave in nature does not conflict >>> with its continued existence. >>>> >>>> What physicists do or regard as law is entirely irrelevant. >>> >>> So why are you even here, arguing about physics which you consider >>> irrelevant? >> >> I didn't say 'physics' but 'physicists'. >> >> 'Physicsists' are people. They build in sum a sociotope, which has >> certain internal mechnisms and rules. > > Which are known as 'physics'. Or are you whining that physicists are > human and not perfect? You are wrong, because 'pyhsics' is the name of a science and 'physicst' is the name of a profession. The problem is similar to 'medicine'. Medicine is not 'the sum of all professionals in healing', because the human body is not a property of some sort of group. You should abstract from the people, because those people do not define what is science or what is useful for health. For this reason it is almost entirely irrelevant, what the grand-masters of the physicists think or regard as valid rules. Scientific laws are abstract from human wishes or demands and are based on nature as nature is. To find out how nature functions is the main aim of science. And this will be found out by experiment and is not determined by decision. > >> Some of these rules are called 'pyhsical laws'. >> >> But these laws are not the laws of nature, but internal rules of a >> derailed sociotope. > > Physicists create models, which try to emulate what nature does. They > try to make their models as accurate as possible. Many try to create functioning modells. But these modells are actually not the main part of science. As an example I use the weather: To understand weather and to make good predictions are actually two different things. To make functioning modells is nice and certainly a good thing, but actually not the main goal of scientific research. Many things are too complicated to actually use knowledge for predictions and some things, like e.g. weather, are almost impossible to predict. But this wouldn't render understanding of the mechanisms in action (for instance in weather) useless. >> >>>> It is totally silly to justify something odd in physics, because that >>>> is common practise. >>> >>> No, it is not. It is a simple solution which physicists have been doing >>> forever. Same with elementary mechanics with frictionless surfaces and >>> massless ropes (I notice you snipped that part) >> >> >> You cannot justify silly rules by stating, that this was done so forever. > > But what's wrong with it? If a plane wave somehow exists, it can be used > to analyze a situation, with simpler math. If there is a frictionless > surface, we can analyze it, again with simpler math. Were all physicists > since Galileo wrong? Well, everybody is wrong all the time. We can only approximate the real laws of nature by crude modells, because we cannot do better, but can improve our modells. This is so since the dawn of science and humans made great progress on this way, but still are wrong in almost everything. That's no reason to complain, since we are on the still on the way to better solutions. >> >>>> Einstein insisted on 'flat' plane waves, while I insisted on Huigens >>>> principle. >>> >>> Einstein was doing what all physicists of his time did, and still do. >> >> Well, most at best.. > > All, to the required accuracy. In theoretical physics there exists no such thing as 'required accuracy'. The reason is: theoretical physics is based on the assumption, that the laws of nature are based on mathematical rules. It is therefore mandatory to identify such rules and to prove, that nature actually uses these laws. This idea requires 'infinite precision', because the derivation by the same methods, which nature actually uses, should come to the same results as some experiments. Therefore, theoretical results should be as close as possible to the results of experiments. In this case the real thing (a spherical wave) cannot be approximated by a plane wave, because that is easier. In theoretical physics it is madatory to modell the 'real thing' on what ever efforts are necessary. This would exclude approximations. >> But I actually didn't want to talk about common practice among >> physicists. >> >> I was arguing from a different perspective, which is apparently not >> the usual perspective of physicists. >> >> I wrote, that a real plane wave is impossible in nature, hence only >> usuable as an approximation to spherical waves inside of a small region. > > It is perfectly usable. There is nothing unusual or forbidden with such > a wave, given that it exists. "Let there be a plane wave such that..." Real plane waves cannot exist in nature. They are only an abstract approximation to spherical waves, but do not excist in real. ... TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-11-12 01:55 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <tkng0j$14c07$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #595091 |
On 11/10/2022 2:21 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 09.11.2022 um 18:03 schrieb Volney: >> On 11/9/2022 1:57 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: >>> Am 08.11.2022 um 16:27 schrieb Volney: >>> >>>>>>> Real waves obey Huigens principle and are more or less spherical. >>>>>>> >>>>>> Irrelevant. If a plane wave exists, its continued existence doesn't >>>>>> violate any laws or rules of physics. >>>>> >>>>> The meant laws are not the laws of physics, but the laws of nature. >>>> >>>> You're trying to pick a nit that's not even there. Physics models >>>> nature >>>> so the laws of physics are modeling what nature is doing. >>>> >>>> Regardless, the existence of a plane wave in nature does not conflict >>>> with its continued existence. >>>>> >>>>> What physicists do or regard as law is entirely irrelevant. >>>> >>>> So why are you even here, arguing about physics which you consider >>>> irrelevant? >>> >>> I didn't say 'physics' but 'physicists'. >>> >>> 'Physicsists' are people. They build in sum a sociotope, which has >>> certain internal mechnisms and rules. >> >> Which are known as 'physics'. Or are you whining that physicists are >> human and not perfect? > > You are wrong, because 'pyhsics' is the name of a science and > 'physicst' is the name of a profession. No, I said what you called "a sociotope, which has certain internal mechnisms and rules" is physics, not the people. And by physics, I mean the models created. [snip irrelevancies] >>> Some of these rules are called 'pyhsical laws'. >>> >>> But these laws are not the laws of nature, but internal rules of a >>> derailed sociotope. >> >> Physicists create models, which try to emulate what nature does. They >> try to make their models as accurate as possible. > > Many try to create functioning modells. But these modells are actually > not the main part of science. No, science is creating models of nature that describe it as best as possible, by applying the scientific method. > > As an example I use the weather: > Predicting the weather is an application of the science behind weather, and because it is chaotic it doesn't work very far into the future. >>>>> It is totally silly to justify something odd in physics, because that >>>>> is common practise. >>>> >>>> No, it is not. It is a simple solution which physicists have been doing >>>> forever. Same with elementary mechanics with frictionless surfaces and >>>> massless ropes (I notice you snipped that part) >>> >>> >>> You cannot justify silly rules by stating, that this was done so >>> forever. >> >> But what's wrong with it? If a plane wave somehow exists, it can be used >> to analyze a situation, with simpler math. If there is a frictionless >> surface, we can analyze it, again with simpler math. Were all physicists >> since Galileo wrong? > > Well, everybody is wrong all the time. Yet if a plane wave exists, it can be used to analyze the situation it is involved in. It doesn't matter how it was formed. Regardless, excellent approximations to plane waves can be produced, without sources at infinite distances. That's all that matters. > > We can only approximate the real laws of nature by crude modells, > because we cannot do better, but can improve our modells. Plane waves can be generated with a difference from the ideal smaller than other systematic errors. Regardless, "Let there be a plane wave..." is a perfectly valid approach to a problem. Same with "Let there be a frictionless pulley with a massless rope..." in high school mechanics. > > This is so since the dawn of science and humans made great progress on > this way, but still are wrong in almost everything. > > That's no reason to complain, since we are on the still on the way to > better solutions. >>> >>>>> Einstein insisted on 'flat' plane waves, while I insisted on Huigens >>>>> principle. >>>> >>>> Einstein was doing what all physicists of his time did, and still do. >>> >>> Well, most at best.. >> >> All, to the required accuracy. > > > In theoretical physics there exists no such thing as 'required accuracy'. "Required accuracy" would depend on the problem involved. In calculating the gravitational relationship of the earth and the sun, other planets can usually be ignored if their effects serve only to confuse matter, as can the gravity of the dust speck meteroid that passes close by. If you want a perfect answer, well, you can't. > In this case the real thing (a spherical wave) cannot be approximated by > a plane wave, because that is easier. A plane wave can be described by the same mathematical rules that any other wave does, and in fact the rules are easier to solve for a plane wave, which is why a plane wave is used in the first place. As I said, a plane wave doesn't violate anything merely by existing. "Let there be a plane wave, such that..." > > In theoretical physics it is madatory to modell the 'real thing' on what > ever efforts are necessary. This would exclude approximations. The math behind a plane wave will be exact, and there are no mathematical violations behind its continued existence. > > >>> But I actually didn't want to talk about common practice among >>> physicists. >>> >>> I was arguing from a different perspective, which is apparently not >>> the usual perspective of physicists. >>> >>> I wrote, that a real plane wave is impossible in nature, hence only >>> usuable as an approximation to spherical waves inside of a small region. >> >> It is perfectly usable. There is nothing unusual or forbidden with such >> a wave, given that it exists. "Let there be a plane wave such that..." > > Real plane waves cannot exist in nature. But if it does, it can continue to exist by following the existing laws of all other waves. > > They are only an abstract approximation to spherical waves, but do not > excist in real. > Yet physics continues to use point masses, frictionless surfaces, massless ropes through frictionless pulleys etc. Too bad for you.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-11-20 09:19 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <jtu68uF4bokU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #595221 |
Am 12.11.2022 um 07:55 schrieb Volney: > On 11/10/2022 2:21 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: >> Am 09.11.2022 um 18:03 schrieb Volney: >>> On 11/9/2022 1:57 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: >>>> Am 08.11.2022 um 16:27 schrieb Volney: >>>> >>>>>>>> Real waves obey Huigens principle and are more or less spherical. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Irrelevant. If a plane wave exists, its continued existence doesn't >>>>>>> violate any laws or rules of physics. >>>>>> >>>>>> The meant laws are not the laws of physics, but the laws of nature. >>>>> >>>>> You're trying to pick a nit that's not even there. Physics models >>>>> nature >>>>> so the laws of physics are modeling what nature is doing. >>>>> >>>>> Regardless, the existence of a plane wave in nature does not conflict >>>>> with its continued existence. >>>>>> >>>>>> What physicists do or regard as law is entirely irrelevant. >>>>> >>>>> So why are you even here, arguing about physics which you consider >>>>> irrelevant? >>>> >>>> I didn't say 'physics' but 'physicists'. >>>> >>>> 'Physicsists' are people. They build in sum a sociotope, which has >>>> certain internal mechnisms and rules. >>> >>> Which are known as 'physics'. Or are you whining that physicists are >>> human and not perfect? >> >> You are wrong, because 'pyhsics' is the name of a science and >> 'physicst' is the name of a profession. > > No, I said what you called "a sociotope, which has certain internal > mechnisms and rules" is physics, not the people. I knew already that you would mean that. But I have already rejected your claim. 'Physics' and 'what physicists do' are actually two different things, because physics does not require pyhsicists. This is similar to wheather, because wheather does not require metereologists or wheather forecasts. What you describe is actually a set of people, which share some kind of knowledge and certain signs and rituals. But that is not science at all, but something more related to occultism. ... >> Many try to create functioning modells. But these modells are actually >> not the main part of science. > > No, science is creating models of nature that describe it as best as > possible, by applying the scientific method. >> >> As an example I use the weather: >> > Predicting the weather is an application of the science behind weather, > and because it is chaotic it doesn't work very far into the future. Another good assumption is, that the modells used are not as valid as physicists think. I, for instance, think, that wheather is caused by entirely different reasons than what usual modells contain. I think, that wheather is mainly caused by the features of water and sunshine. The water-circle is just enormous and has an amount of water circulated of roughly 1 km³ per minute. The water in the air is a thin light gas, which can condensate at certain tempeatures to tiny droplets, which float in the sky. Now we can explain the entire wheather system by this reason alone, but cannot find anything related in common wheather models. So, we could think of the common wheather models as being as crappy as Einstein's papers. That would be commically funny, if not politicians took the crappy models and attempt to forbid heating. ... TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-11-20 21:18 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <tlen5i$3ksla$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #595745 |
On 11/20/2022 3:19 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 12.11.2022 um 07:55 schrieb Volney: >> On 11/10/2022 2:21 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: >>> Am 09.11.2022 um 18:03 schrieb Volney: >>>> On 11/9/2022 1:57 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: >>>>> Am 08.11.2022 um 16:27 schrieb Volney: >>>>> >>>>>>>>> Real waves obey Huigens principle and are more or less spherical. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Irrelevant. If a plane wave exists, its continued existence doesn't >>>>>>>> violate any laws or rules of physics. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The meant laws are not the laws of physics, but the laws of nature. >>>>>> >>>>>> You're trying to pick a nit that's not even there. Physics models >>>>>> nature >>>>>> so the laws of physics are modeling what nature is doing. >>>>>> >>>>>> Regardless, the existence of a plane wave in nature does not conflict >>>>>> with its continued existence. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> What physicists do or regard as law is entirely irrelevant. >>>>>> >>>>>> So why are you even here, arguing about physics which you consider >>>>>> irrelevant? >>>>> >>>>> I didn't say 'physics' but 'physicists'. >>>>> >>>>> 'Physicsists' are people. They build in sum a sociotope, which has >>>>> certain internal mechnisms and rules. >>>> >>>> Which are known as 'physics'. Or are you whining that physicists are >>>> human and not perfect? >>> >>> You are wrong, because 'pyhsics' is the name of a science and >>> 'physicst' is the name of a profession. >> >> No, I said what you called "a sociotope, which has certain internal >> mechnisms and rules" is physics, not the people. > > > I knew already that you would mean that. > But I have already rejected your claim. > > 'Physics' and 'what physicists do' are actually two different things, > because physics does not require pyhsicists. > > This is similar to wheather, because wheather does not require > metereologists or wheather forecasts. Physics, as one reads in a textbook or college class, is the sum of the knowledge of the physicists expressed as models. The underlying actions is never knowable, other than it really seems to match the models created by physicists. (and if it does, the MODEL gets discarded) > What you describe is actually a set of people, which share some kind of > knowledge and certain signs and rituals. Rituals? Physicists are the set of people studying nature and the models, hoping to produce better models that expand our knowledge and potential applications of that knowledge. > > But that is not science at all, but something more related to occultism. If it follows the scientific method, it's science. The occult does not follow the scientific method. Physicists do not apply the occult to their physics work. > > ... >>> Many try to create functioning modells. But these modells are actually >>> not the main part of science. >> >> No, science is creating models of nature that describe it as best as >> possible, by applying the scientific method. >>> >>> As an example I use the weather: >>> >> Predicting the weather is an application of the science behind weather, >> and because it is chaotic it doesn't work very far into the future. > > Another good assumption is, that the modells used are not as valid as > physicists think. > > I, for instance, think, that wheather is caused by entirely different > reasons than what usual modells contain. > > I think, that wheather is mainly caused by the features of water and > sunshine. It is. This is underneath every part of weather prediction. > > The water-circle is just enormous and has an amount of water circulated > of roughly 1 km³ per minute. > > The water in the air is a thin light gas, which can condensate at > certain tempeatures to tiny droplets, which float in the sky. > > Now we can explain the entire wheather system by this reason alone, but > cannot find anything related in common wheather models. Yes, and you won't see studies trying to analyze 2+2=4 in a nonlinear differential equations course. > > So, we could think of the common wheather models as being as crappy as > Einstein's papers. Weather systems are extremely chaotic. That's why weather predictions cannot be made for the next century. There's nothing about chaotic systems in Einstein's papers. The math is straightforward. There is no reason for this comparison. > > That would be commically funny, if not politicians took the crappy > models and attempt to forbid heating. ???
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-11-20 22:12 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <2f69f191-b11f-4e6b-8df0-b91fe9b1b26en@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #595827 |
On Monday, 21 November 2022 at 03:18:28 UTC+1, Volney wrote: > If it follows the scientific method, it's science. The occult does not > follow the scientific method. Physicists do not apply the occult to > their physics work. Only such an idiot, stupid Mike, can believe such a nonsensical lie.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-11-21 08:52 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <ju0p2oFgf97U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #595827 |
Am 21.11.2022 um 03:18 schrieb Volney: > On 11/20/2022 3:19 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: >> Am 12.11.2022 um 07:55 schrieb Volney: >>> On 11/10/2022 2:21 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: >>>> Am 09.11.2022 um 18:03 schrieb Volney: >>>>> On 11/9/2022 1:57 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: >>>>>> Am 08.11.2022 um 16:27 schrieb Volney: >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Real waves obey Huigens principle and are more or less spherical. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Irrelevant. If a plane wave exists, its continued existence >>>>>>>>> doesn't >>>>>>>>> violate any laws or rules of physics. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The meant laws are not the laws of physics, but the laws of nature. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You're trying to pick a nit that's not even there. Physics models >>>>>>> nature >>>>>>> so the laws of physics are modeling what nature is doing. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Regardless, the existence of a plane wave in nature does not >>>>>>> conflict >>>>>>> with its continued existence. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> What physicists do or regard as law is entirely irrelevant. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So why are you even here, arguing about physics which you consider >>>>>>> irrelevant? >>>>>> >>>>>> I didn't say 'physics' but 'physicists'. >>>>>> >>>>>> 'Physicsists' are people. They build in sum a sociotope, which has >>>>>> certain internal mechnisms and rules. >>>>> >>>>> Which are known as 'physics'. Or are you whining that physicists are >>>>> human and not perfect? >>>> >>>> You are wrong, because 'pyhsics' is the name of a science and >>>> 'physicst' is the name of a profession. >>> >>> No, I said what you called "a sociotope, which has certain internal >>> mechnisms and rules" is physics, not the people. >> >> >> I knew already that you would mean that. >> But I have already rejected your claim. >> >> 'Physics' and 'what physicists do' are actually two different things, >> because physics does not require pyhsicists. >> >> This is similar to wheather, because wheather does not require >> metereologists or wheather forecasts. > > Physics, as one reads in a textbook or college class, is the sum of the > knowledge of the physicists expressed as models. Well, no, it's the other way round. Physicists are people, who are able to create modells, that can predict the outcome of the behavior of physical systems. That is similar to medicine. Professionals in medicine earn their bread by healing people (or at least attempt to do that). But medicine is not only what doctors do. Instead in science you should abstract from the people involved. Physics does not require physicists at all. And healing does not require professionals in medicine. But professionals are most likely way more trained and prepared to heal, as physicist are much more prepared to create modells of the world around. Only: not all modells stem from physicists and other people than docotors can heal. But other people are not allowed in medicine, because the medieval guilds of the 16th century still exist and do not allow competion. Similar, the offspring of Galileo and Newton do not like amateurs in their realm, too, and claim, that nature belongs to them. .. > Rituals? Physicists are the set of people studying nature and the > models, hoping to produce better models that expand our knowledge and > potential applications of that knowledge. Well, no. Biologists, meterologist and geologists study nature, too. I'm personally an engineer and mechanical engineering has much in common with what pyhsicists do. Also chemistry is relatively cloely related. >> But that is not science at all, but something more related to occultism. > > If it follows the scientific method, it's science. The occult does not > follow the scientific method. Physicists do not apply the occult to > their physics work. One of the leading physicists was Newton, who was also an occultist, who wrote thousands of pages about alchemy and black magic. Now we could ask the question, whether other physicists had ties to occultism too. >>> Predicting the weather is an application of the science behind weather, >>> and because it is chaotic it doesn't work very far into the future. >> >> Another good assumption is, that the modells used are not as valid as >> physicists think. >> >> I, for instance, think, that wheather is caused by entirely different >> reasons than what usual modells contain. >> >> I think, that wheather is mainly caused by the features of water and >> sunshine. > > It is. This is underneath every part of weather prediction. Now the climate conference in Doha had ended. And the main 'buzz-word', repeated thousands of times, was 'carbon-dioxide', even if that gas is rare and has no influence on the wheather at all. The real important factor is water and that wasn't mentioned that often. Now I would conclude, that from wrong theoretical modells false political actions were derived. This is similar to other political actions derived from false scientific modells. A very nasty example was 'Eugenics', which was a direct consequence of the crappy and racist theory of Darwin. But still today that crap is regarded as good science. >> The water-circle is just enormous and has an amount of water >> circulated of roughly 1 km³ per minute. >> >> The water in the air is a thin light gas, which can condensate at >> certain tempeatures to tiny droplets, which float in the sky. >> >> Now we can explain the entire wheather system by this reason alone, >> but cannot find anything related in common wheather models. > > Yes, and you won't see studies trying to analyze 2+2=4 in a nonlinear > differential equations course. >> >> So, we could think of the common wheather models as being as crappy as >> Einstein's papers. > > Weather systems are extremely chaotic. That's why weather predictions > cannot be made for the next century. Water has a large influence on wheather. And water is very complicated stuff. For instance water can be 'structured' or decomposed into 'Browns gas' by electricity. We have all three phases of water in the air. (Only water can do this.) We have also complicated transitions from one phase to the others (in mid air). And water is a very light gas, what makes wet air lighter than dry air (what is very counter-intuitive). Last but not least: water is extremely common on planet Earth and 3/4 roughly of the Earth is covered with water. The dry air in contrast is extremely boring stuff and shows none of these characteristics. Now it would be logic to link all the interesting actions in the air to water and sunshine and treat the dry gas as kind of passive background. But that's not how wheather forecasts are made or how 'climate' modells work. From this I would conclude, that wheather/climate science is way off the right track. > There's nothing about chaotic systems in Einstein's papers. The math is > straightforward. There is no reason for this comparison. >> >> That would be commically funny, if not politicians took the crappy >> models and attempt to forbid heating. > > ??? We have here in Germany a lot of 'Greenies', who think, it should be made illegal to burn 'fussil fuel' (or whatever else). Besides of that such 'fussil fuels' do not stem from fossils, the reason to forbid heating is justified by false science. Instead of correcting false science, the intensity of propaganda is increased and every ten minutes one of the common 'buzz words' is inserted into whatever topic was depicted in that feature. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-11-22 08:37 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <ju3cgpFsleaU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #595841 |
Am 21.11.2022 um 08:52 schrieb Thomas Heger: ... >>> The water-circle is just enormous and has an amount of water >>> circulated of roughly 1 km³ per minute. >>> >>> The water in the air is a thin light gas, which can condensate at >>> certain tempeatures to tiny droplets, which float in the sky. >>> >>> Now we can explain the entire wheather system by this reason alone, >>> but cannot find anything related in common wheather models. >> >> Yes, and you won't see studies trying to analyze 2+2=4 in a nonlinear >> differential equations course. >>> >>> So, we could think of the common wheather models as being as crappy as >>> Einstein's papers. >> >> Weather systems are extremely chaotic. That's why weather predictions >> cannot be made for the next century. > > Water has a large influence on wheather. > > And water is very complicated stuff. For instance water can be > 'structured' or decomposed into 'Browns gas' by electricity. > > We have all three phases of water in the air. (Only water can do this.) > > We have also complicated transitions from one phase to the others (in > mid air). > > And water is a very light gas, what makes wet air lighter than dry air > (what is very counter-intuitive). > > Last but not least: water is extremely common on planet Earth and 3/4 > roughly of the Earth is covered with water. > > The dry air in contrast is extremely boring stuff and shows none of > these characteristics. > > Now it would be logic to link all the interesting actions in the air to > water and sunshine and treat the dry gas as kind of passive background. > > But that's not how wheather forecasts are made or how 'climate' modells > work. Only one example for errors in common 'climate' modells is the missing negative feedback between ground temperature upon cloud generation, which in turn cools the ground: Warmer soil evaporates more water vapour, because higher temperatur of the air on the surface would allow more moisture in that air. This air then rises up, because water is a lighter gas than the other components of the air. This air reaches a certain dew point and there water condensates and will build clouds. These clouds block the sunshine and cool the ground. This is a very simple mechanism, which a second grader could understand. But why then had this simple principle not founds its way into the common climate modells? > From this I would conclude, that wheather/climate science is way off > the right track. The problem is the involvement of politics and big money into what scientists should decide by the scientific method. The scientific method simply does not care for money and politics, but cares only for truth. But truth is apparently not the prime motiviation for big money and politics. >> There's nothing about chaotic systems in Einstein's papers. The math is >> straightforward. There is no reason for this comparison. >>> >>> That would be commically funny, if not politicians took the crappy >>> models and attempt to forbid heating. >> >> ??? > > We have here in Germany a lot of 'Greenies', who think, it should be > made illegal to burn 'fussil fuel' (or whatever else). > > Besides of that such 'fussil fuels' do not stem from fossils, the > reason to forbid heating is justified by false science. > > Instead of correcting false science, the intensity of propaganda is > increased and every ten minutes one of the common 'buzz words' is > inserted into whatever topic was depicted in that feature. You should take my word for it. But in germany we have a lot of politically controlled tv and there a lot of 'buzz words' from 'climate science'. In practically every topic thinkable the authors of films and features find ways to mention climate change. But 'climate change' isn't the issue to discuss. Especially I personally do not deny climate change at all. But the reasons for this change are imho entirely different than what is presented to the public as undeniable facts. I'm personally missing the human influence upon the water cycle and 'Growing Earth'. Especially missing in the discussion is the danger of deforestation, land use for agriculture and urbanisation and pollution of the oceans. And instead of adressing the real reasons for that problem an irrelvant solution is promoted. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-11-23 18:31 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <tlmah2$ff0t$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #595915 |
On 11/22/2022 2:37 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 21.11.2022 um 08:52 schrieb Thomas Heger: > ... >>>> The water-circle is just enormous and has an amount of water >>>> circulated of roughly 1 km³ per minute. >>>> >>>> The water in the air is a thin light gas, which can condensate at >>>> certain tempeatures to tiny droplets, which float in the sky. >>>> >>>> Now we can explain the entire wheather system by this reason alone, >>>> but cannot find anything related in common wheather models. >>> >>> Yes, and you won't see studies trying to analyze 2+2=4 in a nonlinear >>> differential equations course. >>>> >>>> So, we could think of the common wheather models as being as crappy as >>>> Einstein's papers. >>> >>> Weather systems are extremely chaotic. That's why weather predictions >>> cannot be made for the next century. >> >> Water has a large influence on wheather. >> >> And water is very complicated stuff. For instance water can be >> 'structured' or decomposed into 'Browns gas' by electricity. Meaning hydrogen and oxygen? Many substances can be electrolized into energetic substances. What does that have to do with weather? (Crackpot alert! "Brown's Gas" is also a crackpot term for a form of snake oil) >> >> We have all three phases of water in the air. (Only water can do this.) >> >> We have also complicated transitions from one phase to the others (in >> mid air). >> >> And water is a very light gas, what makes wet air lighter than dry air >> (what is very counter-intuitive). >> >> Last but not least: water is extremely common on planet Earth and 3/4 >> roughly of the Earth is covered with water. >> >> The dry air in contrast is extremely boring stuff and shows none of >> these characteristics. >> >> Now it would be logic to link all the interesting actions in the air to >> water and sunshine and treat the dry gas as kind of passive background. >> >> But that's not how wheather forecasts are made or how 'climate' modells >> work. It's all there. Just like they don't discuss 2+2=4 in nonlinear differential equations, they don't discuss the slightly more complex 2*3=6, either. Weather prediction has all the fun stuff water does as a trivial elementary foundation. > Only one example for errors in common 'climate' modells is the missing > negative feedback between ground temperature upon cloud generation, > which in turn cools the ground: > > Warmer soil evaporates more water vapour, because higher temperatur of > the air on the surface would allow more moisture in that air. > > This air then rises up, because water is a lighter gas than the other > components of the air. > > This air reaches a certain dew point and there water condensates and > will build clouds. > > These clouds block the sunshine and cool the ground. > > This is a very simple mechanism, which a second grader could understand. Again, all this is part of Weather Forecasting 101. > > But why then had this simple principle not founds its way into the > common climate modells? For the same reason 2*3=6 isn't discussed in nonlinear differential equations courses. >> From this I would conclude, that wheather/climate science is way off >> the right track. And I would conclude that you have no idea what you are talking about since all that is extremely well known in weather science. It's really high school level. > > > The problem is the involvement of politics and big money into what > scientists should decide by the scientific method. > > The scientific method simply does not care for money and politics, but > cares only for truth. > > But truth is apparently not the prime motiviation for big money and > politics. > >>> There's nothing about chaotic systems in Einstein's papers. The math is >>> straightforward. There is no reason for this comparison. >>>> >>>> That would be commically funny, if not politicians took the crappy >>>> models and attempt to forbid heating. >>> >>> ??? >> >> We have here in Germany a lot of 'Greenies', who think, it should be >> made illegal to burn 'fussil fuel' (or whatever else). >> >> Besides of that such 'fussil fuels' do not stem from fossils, the >> reason to forbid heating is justified by false science. >> >> Instead of correcting false science, the intensity of propaganda is >> increased and every ten minutes one of the common 'buzz words' is >> inserted into whatever topic was depicted in that feature. > > You should take my word for it. But in germany we have a lot of > politically controlled tv and there a lot of 'buzz words' from 'climate > science'. True everywhere, and the point is? > > In practically every topic thinkable the authors of films and features > find ways to mention climate change. > > But 'climate change' isn't the issue to discuss. Especially I personally > do not deny climate change at all. > > But the reasons for this change are imho entirely different than what is > presented to the public as undeniable facts. > > I'm personally missing the human influence upon the water cycle and > 'Growing Earth'. > > Especially missing in the discussion is the danger of deforestation, > land use for agriculture and urbanisation and pollution of the oceans. > > And instead of adressing the real reasons for that problem an irrelvant > solution is promoted. The relevance of all this is what? Real scientists seek to create the best models possible, and this process is science (or a more specific field like biology, physics etc.) That people can manipulate science for their own ends isn't relevant. Again, you were babbling about "rituals" and other nonsense. Physics, as one reads in a textbook or college class, is the sum of the knowledge of what physicists expressed as models. The unknown and unknowable "truth" causing this behavior (also called physics) is what they are modeling.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-11-23 22:32 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <307f2023-25d2-46ba-b866-a4b029eb8ae3n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #596049 |
On Thursday, 24 November 2022 at 00:31:48 UTC+1, Volney wrote: > On 11/22/2022 2:37 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: > > Am 21.11.2022 um 08:52 schrieb Thomas Heger: > > ... > >>>> The water-circle is just enormous and has an amount of water > >>>> circulated of roughly 1 km³ per minute. > >>>> > >>>> The water in the air is a thin light gas, which can condensate at > >>>> certain tempeatures to tiny droplets, which float in the sky. > >>>> > >>>> Now we can explain the entire wheather system by this reason alone, > >>>> but cannot find anything related in common wheather models. > >>> > >>> Yes, and you won't see studies trying to analyze 2+2=4 in a nonlinear > >>> differential equations course. > >>>> > >>>> So, we could think of the common wheather models as being as crappy as > >>>> Einstein's papers. > >>> > >>> Weather systems are extremely chaotic. That's why weather predictions > >>> cannot be made for the next century. > >> > >> Water has a large influence on wheather. > >> > >> And water is very complicated stuff. For instance water can be > >> 'structured' or decomposed into 'Browns gas' by electricity. > Meaning hydrogen and oxygen? Many substances can be electrolized into And do you still believe that your ISO idiocy shown useless in GPS - is a consequence of Newtonian physics, stupid Mike?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-11-24 08:49 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <ju8m08Fmu3kU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #596049 |
Am 24.11.2022 um 00:31 schrieb Volney: > On 11/22/2022 2:37 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: >> Am 21.11.2022 um 08:52 schrieb Thomas Heger: >> ... >>>>> The water-circle is just enormous and has an amount of water >>>>> circulated of roughly 1 km³ per minute. >>>>> >>>>> The water in the air is a thin light gas, which can condensate at >>>>> certain tempeatures to tiny droplets, which float in the sky. >>>>> >>>>> Now we can explain the entire wheather system by this reason alone, >>>>> but cannot find anything related in common wheather models. >>>> >>>> Yes, and you won't see studies trying to analyze 2+2=4 in a nonlinear >>>> differential equations course. >>>>> >>>>> So, we could think of the common wheather models as being as crappy as >>>>> Einstein's papers. >>>> >>>> Weather systems are extremely chaotic. That's why weather predictions >>>> cannot be made for the next century. >>> >>> Water has a large influence on wheather. >>> >>> And water is very complicated stuff. For instance water can be >>> 'structured' or decomposed into 'Browns gas' by electricity. > > Meaning hydrogen and oxygen? Many substances can be electrolized into > energetic substances. What does that have to do with weather? > > (Crackpot alert! "Brown's Gas" is also a crackpot term for a form of > snake oil) In German the term 'Knallgas' is used for such a mixture of hydrogen and oxygen gas. I don't really care for the name you use for this substance, but would reject your claim, this would not exist. 'Brown's gas' is certainly a possibility or maybe 'HHO'. But you know what I mean: You electrolyze water and what comes out of the electrolyzer is called 'Brown's gas' or whatever you like. >>> But that's not how wheather forecasts are made or how 'climate' modells >>> work. > > It's all there. Just like they don't discuss 2+2=4 in nonlinear > differential equations, they don't discuss the slightly more complex > 2*3=6, either. Weather prediction has all the fun stuff water does as a > trivial elementary foundation. I'm positively unable to decipher your statement. I would suggest you do less activities, which are harmful to the brain. .. >>> From this I would conclude, that wheather/climate science is way off >>> the right track. > > And I would conclude that you have no idea what you are talking about > since all that is extremely well known in weather science. It's really > high school level. Sure. But 'climate science' apparently ignores negative feedback loops in their alarmistic modells about CO2. It is therefore questionable, whether these wheather modelss are actually correct. I would say: kick CO2 out of the equation and look at the water alone. Water is actually difficult stuff and has a lot of influence upon the wheather. Water is also extremely abundant on our homeplanet. CO2 in contrast is extremely rare and has much less influence per molecule that HO2 upon the wheather. Therefore the prime mover of climate is water, not CO2. This tiny factor could be left entirely in first approximation. Humans have a lot of influence upon the water cycle, and this is how humans influence the wheather (mainly). But if you concentrate on CO2, you would 'bark up the wrong tree'. This is bad, because insignificant actions will be taken and which act upon irrelevant objects. Relevant would be, contrary to 'climate science', the human influences like deforestation, agriculture and urbanisation. Also pollution of the oceans is a mayor issue. But if you concentrate on the wrong mechanisms, and forbid, for instance, heating, you would not adress the real issues and get no positive effect whatsoever. ... TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-09-25 13:08 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9b8fac10-b82c-486d-b2ac-91b38bf85b49n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #592252 |
On Saturday, September 24, 2022 at 11:44:32 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 24.09.2022 um 20:24 schrieb JanPB: > ... > >>>> So, I took his statement varbatim, which said, that the previous results > >>>> would also be valid for movement along any polygonal line. > >>>> > >>>> But that is clearly nonsense, > >>> > >>> Yeah, whatever. > >>> > >>> Pathetic. > >> You ignored the problem, about which I have written. > > > > Yes. > > > >> That was this: > >> > >> you claimed, that there are no errors in the text 'On the > >> electrodynamics of moving bodies' by A. Einstein. > > > > Correct. There aren't any. > > > >> Now I wrote something, which indicates, that contrary to your claim, > >> there are in fact errors in this particular text (actually the number is > >> huge - more than 400). > > > > The number is zero. The 400 you mention is all your own misunderstandings. > > > >> But you failed to disprove my statements, but ignored them entirely and > >> called them 'pathetic'. > > > > Of course I failed, this is a very well-known phenomenon: it is practically > > IMPOSSIBLE to convince an arrogant ignoramus that he is wrong. As I > > had mentioned many times before, the reason I respond to such nonsense > > posts despite knowing full well that they won't work is: (1) entertainment, > > (2) to be read by others. > I had addressed an equation and the problem, which I have with it. > The text contains an equation for the quantity 'Phi': > > Phi = omega*(t- (1/c)*(lx + my+ nz)) > > ( from §7 page 15) > The values x, y and z are Carthesian coordinates in respect to the > stationary system K and l, m and n are direction cosinus of a plane wave > in respect to K. > > The wave sets point (x, y, z) into a wavy state. > > Time t was not defined, It was defined, you've just mentioned the system K yourself (as does Einstein a few lines earlier). > but can be assumed as the usual date and time, > used by an observer stationary at the zero spot of system K. > > The plane wave is actually an approximation of a spherical wave, which > originates from a certain point stationary in system K, but far away. You may think of it this way but this is irrelevant. We are simply considering a plane wave (just like in mechanics one considers point masses as idealisations). > This was in short the setting, which Einstein had used in §7. > > > But now my question: > what is Einstein actually doing here??????? > > ( I personally think, it was nonsense.) No, it's standard wave theory. Pick any EM text or any wave motion chapter in a mechanics book. > This function Phi is put into equations above, which are supposed to > represent the electric and magnetic fields at point (x, y, z), caused by > that plane wave. > > Now he was adding up the Carthesian coordinates times the direction > cosinus and devides the result by c. This is the standard formula for a plane wave whose wavefront is perpendicular to a given vector (in this case the vector (l, m, n), usually called the wave vector or the propagation vector). Its length is presumed equal to 1 for convenience (hence direction cosines). The expression lx+my+nz is the dot product of the position vector (x, y, z) and the direction vector (l, m, n). It means the phase (Phi) of the wave is determined by the length of the projection of the position vector in the (l, m, n) direction. In other words, the surfaces of constant phase are planes perpendicular to. (l, m, n). This is all standard, probably well pre-Maxwell. > This is some sort of distance related to the zero spot of K, which gets > devided by c. The result would be a certain time value. > > This time value is constant, because the source and the point are not > moving. > > But the wave did not originate from the zero spot of K, hence the > distance of point (x, y, z) to the zero spot of K is irrelevant for the > state of the fields at point (x, y, z). > > (This can be seen, if you relocate the system K somehow, which had no > effect on the state of that point, but on its coordinates). > > I would interpret his attempt, as if he wanted to calculate a phase > shift, but see neither any reason to do that, nor a possibility to do > that with his equation. See above. Study wave motion, it's a very old hat. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-09-26 08:46 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <jpd058FhfnqU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #592264 |
Am 25.09.2022 um 22:08 schrieb JanPB: >>>>> Pathetic. >>>> You ignored the problem, about which I have written. >>> >>> Yes. >>> >>>> That was this: >>>> >>>> you claimed, that there are no errors in the text 'On the >>>> electrodynamics of moving bodies' by A. Einstein. >>> >>> Correct. There aren't any. >>> >>>> Now I wrote something, which indicates, that contrary to your claim, >>>> there are in fact errors in this particular text (actually the number is >>>> huge - more than 400). >>> >>> The number is zero. The 400 you mention is all your own misunderstandings. >>> >>>> But you failed to disprove my statements, but ignored them entirely and >>>> called them 'pathetic'. >>> >>> Of course I failed, this is a very well-known phenomenon: it is practically >>> IMPOSSIBLE to convince an arrogant ignoramus that he is wrong. As I >>> had mentioned many times before, the reason I respond to such nonsense >>> posts despite knowing full well that they won't work is: (1) entertainment, >>> (2) to be read by others. >> I had addressed an equation and the problem, which I have with it. >> The text contains an equation for the quantity 'Phi': >> >> Phi = omega*(t- (1/c)*(lx + my+ nz)) >> >> ( from §7 page 15) >> The values x, y and z are Carthesian coordinates in respect to the >> stationary system K and l, m and n are direction cosinus of a plane wave >> in respect to K. >> >> The wave sets point (x, y, z) into a wavy state. >> >> Time t was not defined, > > It was defined, you've just mentioned the system K yourself (as > does Einstein a few lines earlier). K is a coordinate system in Euclidean space (which Einstein used) and such coordinate systems do not define time. Such a coordinate system is a 'three foot', with three perpendicular linear axes, called X, Y and Z. To use a time variable t in connection to phase of a wave, the time needs to be synchronized to something. Otherwise phase depending on t would not make sense (because t has no zero point). The implicity assumption of Einstein (and you) apparently was, that the time t starts together with the wave with a phase angle zero. BUT: the wave did NOT start at the same spot as where time t is measured!!! The wave originated from an emitter far away from the center of K. From that point some waves pass through space and hit a certain point (x, y, z), which I assume for simplicity to be closer to the source than the center of K. Now it is obvious, that the center of K or clocks there or the coordinates of that point have no influence on the electric or magnetic field at that point, because the system K cannot possibly have any influence upon these fields. >> but can be assumed as the usual date and time, >> used by an observer stationary at the zero spot of system K. >> >> The plane wave is actually an approximation of a spherical wave, which >> originates from a certain point stationary in system K, but far away. > > You may think of it this way but this is irrelevant. We are simply > considering a plane wave (just like in mechanics one considers > point masses as idealisations). > >> This was in short the setting, which Einstein had used in §7. >> >> >> But now my question: >> what is Einstein actually doing here??????? >> >> ( I personally think, it was nonsense.) > > No, it's standard wave theory. Pick any EM text or any wave motion > chapter in a mechanics book. It is simply not possible to justify nonsense by stating, that would be written somewhere. You need to get rid of the nonsense in the first place. Here an equation is under considertaion, where Einstein used variables for quantities, which have no impact on the phenomenon, which these equations shall describe. It is nonsense to use unrealted quantities, if you want to describe some phenomenon with an equation. Here the coordinates in respect to system K were used. But these coordinates are irrelvant, because system K was not involved in the first place, if the field strength at a certain point is derived from a wave, which does not originate from that coordinate system, but from some remote undefined point. >> This function Phi is put into equations above, which are supposed to >> represent the electric and magnetic fields at point (x, y, z), caused by >> that plane wave. >> >> Now he was adding up the Carthesian coordinates times the direction >> cosinus and devides the result by c. > > This is the standard formula for a plane wave whose wavefront is > perpendicular to a given vector (in this case the vector (l, m, n), usually > called the wave vector or the propagation vector). Its length is presumed > equal to 1 for convenience (hence direction cosines). I 'visualize' this as a unit sphere around the observer. The coordinates of a ray where it hits this sphere are the direction cosines of the ray in respect to the coordinate system of the observer. Sofar, so good. But what have these angles to do with the electric and magnetic field at a certain point (x,y,z) ???? The the vector (l, m, n) is imho entirely unrelated to the field strength at that point, because the vector (l, m, n) meant the direction in respect to the observer and not in respect to that point. Therefore, not only the coordinates are irrelevant, but also the angles, too. What comes out of this pile of nonsense, that is a small time value, which could at best generate a phase shift. But phase cannot be covered by Einstein's equations, because there was no zero point for t defined. That would mean, the emitters sends out waves with an undefined phase and without a specific beginning or end of emission. So, we find additional nonsense, piled upon another pile. Now you want to tell me, this is standard in physics? ... TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-09-26 09:25 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5f81cb2c-75a3-4dc7-8b7b-1c2536a6bdc3n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #592274 |
On Sunday, September 25, 2022 at 11:46:04 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote: > Now you want to tell me, this is standard in physics? It is, the problem is that you are an idiot who doesn't even know how phase is defined. In classical physics.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-09-26 15:42 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5a98413f-5c5a-4dd0-ad6b-9b686b328fcfn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #592274 |
On Monday, September 26, 2022 at 8:46:04 AM UTC+2, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 25.09.2022 um 22:08 schrieb JanPB: > > >>>>> Pathetic. > >>>> You ignored the problem, about which I have written. > >>> > >>> Yes. > >>> > >>>> That was this: > >>>> > >>>> you claimed, that there are no errors in the text 'On the > >>>> electrodynamics of moving bodies' by A. Einstein. > >>> > >>> Correct. There aren't any. > >>> > >>>> Now I wrote something, which indicates, that contrary to your claim, > >>>> there are in fact errors in this particular text (actually the number is > >>>> huge - more than 400). > >>> > >>> The number is zero. The 400 you mention is all your own misunderstandings. > >>> > >>>> But you failed to disprove my statements, but ignored them entirely and > >>>> called them 'pathetic'. > >>> > >>> Of course I failed, this is a very well-known phenomenon: it is practically > >>> IMPOSSIBLE to convince an arrogant ignoramus that he is wrong. As I > >>> had mentioned many times before, the reason I respond to such nonsense > >>> posts despite knowing full well that they won't work is: (1) entertainment, > >>> (2) to be read by others. > >> I had addressed an equation and the problem, which I have with it. > >> The text contains an equation for the quantity 'Phi': > >> > >> Phi = omega*(t- (1/c)*(lx + my+ nz)) > >> > >> ( from §7 page 15) > >> The values x, y and z are Carthesian coordinates in respect to the > >> stationary system K and l, m and n are direction cosinus of a plane wave > >> in respect to K. > >> > >> The wave sets point (x, y, z) into a wavy state. > >> > >> Time t was not defined, > > > > It was defined, you've just mentioned the system K yourself (as > > does Einstein a few lines earlier). > K is a coordinate system in Euclidean space (which Einstein used) and > such coordinate systems do not define time. K is a system of four coordinates (x, y, z, t), it's the one defined near the beginning of the paper (the "stationary system"). > Such a coordinate system is a 'three foot', with three perpendicular > linear axes, called X, Y and Z. No, see above. > To use a time variable t in connection to phase of a wave, the time > needs to be synchronized to something. Otherwise phase depending on t > would not make sense (because t has no zero point). Not even wrong. > The implicity assumption of Einstein (and you) apparently was, that the > time t starts together with the wave with a phase angle zero. > > BUT: > > the wave did NOT start at the same spot as where time t is measured!!! > > The wave originated from an emitter far away from the center of K. > > From that point some waves pass through space and hit a certain point > (x, y, z), which I assume for simplicity to be closer to the source than > the center of K. > > Now it is obvious, that the center of K or clocks there or the > coordinates of that point have no influence on the electric or magnetic > field at that point, because the system K cannot possibly have any > influence upon these fields. You need to study wave motion. Pick a textbook on the subject. Right now you are spinning wheels and I cannot post here an entire course on waves. > >> but can be assumed as the usual date and time, > >> used by an observer stationary at the zero spot of system K. > >> > >> The plane wave is actually an approximation of a spherical wave, which > >> originates from a certain point stationary in system K, but far away. > > > > You may think of it this way but this is irrelevant. We are simply > > considering a plane wave (just like in mechanics one considers > > point masses as idealisations). > > > >> This was in short the setting, which Einstein had used in §7. > >> > >> > >> But now my question: > >> what is Einstein actually doing here??????? > >> > >> ( I personally think, it was nonsense.) > > > > No, it's standard wave theory. Pick any EM text or any wave motion > > chapter in a mechanics book. > It is simply not possible to justify nonsense by stating, that would be > written somewhere. It's not "nonsense", that's what I'm telling you. Do you habitually call "nonsense" anything you don't understand? Normally people know quite well the difference between "I understand this" and "I don't understand this". The latter in normal people's minds does NOT imply that the thing that's not being understood is "nonsense". The two are very different. > You need to get rid of the nonsense in the first place. There is no nonsense there. You simply need to study wave motion. > Here an equation is under considertaion, where Einstein used variables > for quantities, which have no impact on the phenomenon, which these > equations shall describe. He used the standard wave motion equation for plane waves. > It is nonsense to use unrealted quantities, if you want to describe some > phenomenon with an equation. He used the standard wave motion equation for plane waves. See any electrodynamics text or a wave motion text. > Here the coordinates in respect to system K were used. But these > coordinates are irrelvant, because system K was not involved in the > first place, Einstein is looking at a plane wave expressed in K. > if the field strength at a certain point is derived from a > wave, which does not originate from that coordinate system, but from > some remote undefined point. You are terribly confused by all sort of fantastic irrelevancies. > >> This function Phi is put into equations above, which are supposed to > >> represent the electric and magnetic fields at point (x, y, z), caused by > >> that plane wave. > >> > >> Now he was adding up the Carthesian coordinates times the direction > >> cosinus and devides the result by c. > > > > This is the standard formula for a plane wave whose wavefront is > > perpendicular to a given vector (in this case the vector (l, m, n), usually > > called the wave vector or the propagation vector). Its length is presumed > > equal to 1 for convenience (hence direction cosines). > I 'visualize' this as a unit sphere around the observer. There is no sphere here, there is a plane wave moving in the direction (k, l, m). > The coordinates > of a ray where it hits this sphere are the direction cosines of the ray > in respect to the coordinate system of the observer. > > Sofar, so good. > > But what have these angles to do with the electric and magnetic field at > a certain point (x,y,z) ???? > > The the vector (l, m, n) is imho entirely unrelated to the field > strength at that point, because the vector (l, m, n) meant the direction > in respect to the observer and not in respect to that point. > > Therefore, not only the coordinates are irrelevant, but also the angles, > too. > > What comes out of this pile of nonsense, that is a small time value, > which could at best generate a phase shift. It's not any "pile of nonsense", it only seems that way to you because you refuse to learn the subject. The result is complete chaos inside your head regarding this thing. > But phase cannot be covered by Einstein's equations, because there was > no zero point for t defined. That would mean, the emitters sends out > waves with an undefined phase and without a specific beginning or end of > emission. > > So, we find additional nonsense, piled upon another pile. > > Now you want to tell me, this is standard in physics? Yes. Except it's of course not what you think it is. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-09-27 08:33 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <jpfjp4FtthgU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #592299 |
Am 27.09.2022 um 00:42 schrieb JanPB: > On Monday, September 26, 2022 at 8:46:04 AM UTC+2, Thomas Heger wrote: >> Am 25.09.2022 um 22:08 schrieb JanPB: >> >>>>>>> Pathetic. >>>>>> You ignored the problem, about which I have written. >>>>> >>>>> Yes. >>>>> >>>>>> That was this: >>>>>> >>>>>> you claimed, that there are no errors in the text 'On the >>>>>> electrodynamics of moving bodies' by A. Einstein. >>>>> >>>>> Correct. There aren't any. >>>>> >>>>>> Now I wrote something, which indicates, that contrary to your claim, >>>>>> there are in fact errors in this particular text (actually the number is >>>>>> huge - more than 400). >>>>> >>>>> The number is zero. The 400 you mention is all your own misunderstandings. >>>>> >>>>>> But you failed to disprove my statements, but ignored them entirely and >>>>>> called them 'pathetic'. >>>>> >>>>> Of course I failed, this is a very well-known phenomenon: it is practically >>>>> IMPOSSIBLE to convince an arrogant ignoramus that he is wrong. As I >>>>> had mentioned many times before, the reason I respond to such nonsense >>>>> posts despite knowing full well that they won't work is: (1) entertainment, >>>>> (2) to be read by others. >>>> I had addressed an equation and the problem, which I have with it. >>>> The text contains an equation for the quantity 'Phi': >>>> >>>> Phi = omega*(t- (1/c)*(lx + my+ nz)) >>>> >>>> ( from §7 page 15) >>>> The values x, y and z are Carthesian coordinates in respect to the >>>> stationary system K and l, m and n are direction cosinus of a plane wave >>>> in respect to K. >>>> >>>> The wave sets point (x, y, z) into a wavy state. >>>> >>>> Time t was not defined, >>> >>> It was defined, you've just mentioned the system K yourself (as >>> does Einstein a few lines earlier). >> K is a coordinate system in Euclidean space (which Einstein used) and >> such coordinate systems do not define time. > > K is a system of four coordinates (x, y, z, t), it's the one defined near the > beginning of the paper (the "stationary system"). Einstein didn't use four-vectors in SRT very often and K was not defined as system of four-vectors, but as 'three-foot' of the axes X, Y and Z. Time t was defined as what clocks say (stationary in system K). (For simplicity and to eliminate one of Einstein's other errors, I place the clock and the observer at the zero spot of K.) That is nice, but irrelevant, because the wave under consideration did not come from that point, but from some remote location, about which Einstein wrote, that it is very far away from the zero spot of K and located somewhere in the realm of this system. The place is therefore ill defined and we only know, it is not moving in respect to K. (Actually we can only guess, that point is not moving, because Einstein didn't even made such a statement.) Yet another issue is, that the source of the wave cannot be a point, if a plane wave is wanted for a larger area, (to allow system k to move in that plane wave, too). He wrote in §8, that § 7 was about plane waves. This would require, that the source is not pointlike, but needs to be extendend parallel to the movement of the observer in k (otherwise those waves would soon become non-parallel). These waves are not based on the clocks of K, at least there is no obvious connection between the clocks and the emitter. In effect, the phase cannot be covered by Einstein's equations, because phase is undefined already at the emitter. >> Such a coordinate system is a 'three foot', with three perpendicular >> linear axes, called X, Y and Z. > > No, see above. No, Euclidean coordinates X, Y and Z build a 'three-foot' and that space is time-less. >> To use a time variable t in connection to phase of a wave, the time >> needs to be synchronized to something. Otherwise phase depending on t >> would not make sense (because t has no zero point). > > Not even wrong. 'Phase shift' means the temporal relation of a particular wave in respect a wave with the same frequency, which starts with zero at time zero. But this would require a zero point of the wave and a zero point of time (for what we both have no reason). In effect the wave has an undefined phase, hence phase shift calculation of this wave would not make sense. (there is no other wave to compare with) >> The implicity assumption of Einstein (and you) apparently was, that the >> time t starts together with the wave with a phase angle zero. >> >> BUT: >> >> the wave did NOT start at the same spot as where time t is measured!!! >> >> The wave originated from an emitter far away from the center of K. >> >> From that point some waves pass through space and hit a certain point >> (x, y, z), which I assume for simplicity to be closer to the source than >> the center of K. >> >> Now it is obvious, that the center of K or clocks there or the >> coordinates of that point have no influence on the electric or magnetic >> field at that point, because the system K cannot possibly have any >> influence upon these fields. > > You need to study wave motion. Pick a textbook on the subject. > Right now you are spinning wheels and I cannot post here an entire > course on waves. But possibly you could ask a simple question: if the equation contains six values (x, y, z, l, m and n) which represent six degree of freedom of the zero spot of K and which all have no influence on the point in question, than how would you justify this equation ??? The coordinate system K could be moved up and down, left and right, back and forth and rotated around any of its axes, but this would not alter the state of a point, which gets hit by a wave from a distant source. So, what is the author actually saying with an equation, which contains only variables for quantities, which have no influence on the phenomenon, it is supposed to describe ???? ... TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 6 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 15 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web