Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #597019 > unrolled thread

Updated crackpot index?

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  Updated crackpot index? Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-12-08 14:46 -0500
    Re: Updated crackpot index? "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-12-08 12:08 -0800
    Re: Updated crackpot index? whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-12-08 14:14 -0600
    Re: Updated crackpot index? "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-12-08 12:16 -0800
      Re: Updated crackpot index? Athel Cornish-Bowden <acornish@imm.cnrs.fr> - 2022-12-08 21:26 +0100
      Re: Updated crackpot index? Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-12-08 14:11 -0800
        Re: Updated crackpot index? "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-12-08 14:43 -0800
        Re: Updated crackpot index? Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-12-09 02:56 -0500
          Re: Updated crackpot index? "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-12-09 09:07 -0800
          Re: Updated crackpot index? Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-12-09 12:19 -0800
          Re: Updated crackpot index? Hanoi Cuocco <ouco@ocaoch.ho> - 2022-12-09 21:02 +0000
            Re: Updated crackpot index? Lou Abatangelo <lbta@aooutala.nl> - 2022-12-10 20:28 +0000
              Re: Updated crackpot index? Lou Abatangelo <lbta@aooutala.nl> - 2022-12-10 21:19 +0000
                Re: Updated crackpot index? whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-12-10 16:18 -0600
                  Re: Updated crackpot index? Trolidan7 <Trolidan7@eternal-september.org> - 2022-12-10 14:42 -0800
                    Re: Updated crackpot index? whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-12-10 17:59 -0600
                Re: Updated crackpot index? Lou Abatangelo <lbta@aooutala.nl> - 2022-12-10 22:57 +0000
              Re: Updated crackpot index? whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-12-10 16:16 -0600
              Re: Updated crackpot index? Smokey Abbiati <asbk@atmakb.ai> - 2022-12-11 18:21 +0000
                Re: Updated crackpot index? Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2022-12-11 10:40 -0800
                Re: Updated crackpot index? whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-12-11 13:44 -0600
                  Re: Updated crackpot index? Smokey Abbiati <asbk@atmakb.ai> - 2022-12-11 21:37 +0000
                    Re: Updated crackpot index? whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-12-11 16:07 -0600
                Re: Updated crackpot index? Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-12-12 00:13 -0500
                  Re: Updated crackpot index? Darron Riva <orvd@raria.ar> - 2022-12-12 16:28 +0000
                    Re: Updated crackpot index? whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-12-12 13:41 -0600
            Re: Updated crackpot index? Lou Abatangelo <lbta@aooutala.nl> - 2022-12-10 23:33 +0000
    Re: Updated crackpot index? Stephan Russo <ptrp@susnon.sr> - 2022-12-08 20:58 +0000
      Note to Volney (was Re: Updated crackpot index?) whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-12-08 18:15 -0600
        Re: Note to Volney (was Re: Updated crackpot index?) Hanoi Cuocco <ouco@ocaoch.ho> - 2022-12-09 14:35 +0000
          Re: Note to Volney (was Re: Updated crackpot index?) whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-12-09 10:59 -0600
    Re: Updated crackpot index? Stephan Russo <ptrp@susnon.sr> - 2022-12-08 21:00 +0000
    Re: Updated crackpot index? patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-12-09 13:36 -0800
      Crank Pat Dolan demands an extra 150 points. And gets them. "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-12-09 13:39 -0800
        Re: Crank Pat Dolan demands an extra 150 points. And gets them. patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-12-09 17:47 -0800
          Re: Crank Pat Dolan demands an extra 150 points. And gets them. "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-12-09 17:52 -0800
          Re: Crank Pat Dolan demands an extra 150 points. And gets them. Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2022-12-09 19:17 -0800
            Re: Crank Pat Dolan demands an extra 150 points. And gets them. "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-12-09 19:26 -0800
      Re: Updated crackpot index? Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-12-10 18:24 -0500
        Re: Updated crackpot index? Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-12-10 17:07 -0800
        Re: Updated crackpot index? patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-12-10 18:41 -0800
          Re: Updated crackpot index? Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-12-11 22:33 -0500
            Re: Updated crackpot index? Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-12-12 04:15 -0800
            Re: Updated crackpot index? Darron Riva <orvd@raria.ar> - 2022-12-12 18:43 +0000
    Re: Updated crackpot index? nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-12-10 13:09 +0100
      Re: Updated crackpot index? patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-12-10 09:34 -0800
        Crank Pat Dolan comes to grips with the facts "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-12-10 09:46 -0800
    Re: Updated crackpot index? Lou Abatangelo <lbta@aooutala.nl> - 2022-12-10 23:22 +0000
    Re: Updated crackpot index? Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-12-18 14:53 -0500
      Re: Updated crackpot index? Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-12-18 12:37 -0800
        Re: Updated crackpot index? Vitaliy Bazzoli <zvt@viavzl.oi> - 2022-12-18 20:41 +0000
      Re: Updated crackpot index? "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-12-18 13:10 -0800
        Re: Updated crackpot index? Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-12-20 00:35 -0500
          Re: Updated crackpot index? patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-12-19 21:43 -0800
            Re: Updated crackpot index? Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-12-24 16:05 -0500
              Re: Updated crackpot index? Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-12-24 13:37 -0800
              Re: Updated crackpot index? Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-12-24 14:13 -0800
      Re: Updated crackpot index? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-12-22 09:29 +0100
        Re: Updated crackpot index? Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-12-23 02:00 -0500
          Re: Updated crackpot index? Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-12-22 23:21 -0800
            Re: Updated crackpot index? Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-12-24 01:32 -0500
              Re: Updated crackpot index? Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-12-23 23:15 -0800
          Re: Updated crackpot index? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-12-24 09:57 +0100
            Re: Updated crackpot index? Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-12-24 15:32 -0500
              Re: Updated crackpot index? Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-12-24 13:33 -0800
                Re: Updated crackpot index? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-12-29 09:34 +0100
                  Re: Updated crackpot index? Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-12-29 00:48 -0800
                    Re: Updated crackpot index? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-12-30 12:03 +0100
                      Re: Updated crackpot index? Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-12-30 03:58 -0800
                        Re: Updated crackpot index? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2023-01-01 10:10 +0100
                          Re: Updated crackpot index? Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-01-01 03:47 -0800
                            Re: Updated crackpot index? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2023-01-02 08:35 +0100
                              Re: Updated crackpot index? Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-01-02 01:00 -0800
                                Re: Updated crackpot index? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2023-01-03 07:59 +0100
                                  Re: Updated crackpot index? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2023-01-06 08:18 +0100
                                  Re: Updated crackpot index? Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-01-05 23:36 -0800
                                    Re: Updated crackpot index? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2023-01-09 08:57 +0100
                                      Re: Updated crackpot index? Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-01-09 00:08 -0800
                                      Re: Updated crackpot index? Luigi Tumicelli <llei@cumiicli.lu> - 2023-01-09 09:04 +0000
              Re: Updated crackpot index? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-12-25 11:17 +0100
                Re: Updated crackpot index? Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2022-12-25 14:40 -0800
                  Re: Updated crackpot index? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-12-26 10:23 +0100
                Re: Updated crackpot index? Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-12-26 14:10 -0500
                  Re: Updated crackpot index? Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-12-26 12:37 -0800
                  Re: Updated crackpot index? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-12-27 09:36 +0100
                    Re: Updated crackpot index? Thurman De palma <eaan@phapremr.an> - 2022-12-27 13:57 +0000
                    Re: Updated crackpot index? Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-12-27 23:00 -0500
                      Re: Updated crackpot index? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-12-28 08:38 +0100
                        Re: Updated crackpot index? Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-12-29 15:25 -0500
                          Re: Updated crackpot index? Emmet Robustelli <uttl@etlmms.re> - 2022-12-29 21:28 +0000
                          Re: Updated crackpot index? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-12-30 12:41 +0100
                            Re: Updated crackpot index? Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-01-02 11:45 -0500
                              Re: Updated crackpot index? Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-01-02 08:49 -0800
                                Re: Updated crackpot index? Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-01-02 09:08 -0800
                                  Re: Updated crackpot index? Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-01-02 09:15 -0800
                                  Re: Updated crackpot index? Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-01-03 02:14 -0500
                                    Re: Updated crackpot index? Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-01-02 23:52 -0800
                              Re: Updated crackpot index? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2023-01-03 08:27 +0100
                      Re: Updated crackpot index? Ufonaut <ufonaut9@gmail.com> - 2022-12-28 06:12 -0800
                        Re: Updated crackpot index? Ufonaut <ufonaut9@gmail.com> - 2022-12-28 06:23 -0800
                          Re: Updated crackpot index? Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2022-12-28 08:27 -0800
                        Re: Updated crackpot index? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-12-29 09:19 +0100
                          Re: Updated crackpot index? Ufonaut <ufonaut9@gmail.com> - 2022-12-29 04:51 -0800
                            Re: Updated crackpot index? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-12-30 12:52 +0100
    Re: Updated crackpot index? Hannu Poropudas <haporopuda@gmail.com> - 2022-12-20 23:32 -0800
      Re: Updated crackpot index? Athel Cornish-Bowden <acornish@imm.cnrs.fr> - 2022-12-21 09:24 +0100
        Re: Updated crackpot index? Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2022-12-21 10:10 -0800
          Re: Updated crackpot index? Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2022-12-21 10:25 -0800
            Re: Updated crackpot index? Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2022-12-21 10:40 -0800
              Re: Updated crackpot index? whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-12-21 12:51 -0600
            Re: Updated crackpot index? Celso Ardizzone <eodo@ceiozi.ci> - 2022-12-21 19:12 +0000
            Re: Updated crackpot index? Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-12-21 15:07 -0500
              Re: Updated crackpot index? Michelle Africano <nccr@amenica.he> - 2022-12-21 20:18 +0000
                Re: Updated crackpot index? Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2022-12-21 12:41 -0800
                  Re: Updated crackpot index? Michelle Africano <nccr@amenica.he> - 2022-12-21 21:14 +0000
                Re: Updated crackpot index? Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-12-21 16:15 -0500
                  Re: Updated crackpot index? Michelle Africano <nccr@amenica.he> - 2022-12-21 21:17 +0000
                    Re: Updated crackpot index? whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-12-21 16:14 -0600
              Re: Updated crackpot index? Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-12-21 13:10 -0800
                Re: Updated crackpot index? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2023-01-19 09:38 +0100
          Re: Updated crackpot index? Athel Cornish-Bowden <acornish@imm.cnrs.fr> - 2022-12-21 20:43 +0100
            Re: Updated crackpot index? nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-12-21 21:52 +0100
      Re: Updated crackpot index? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-12-22 09:17 +0100

Page 5 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7  Next page →

#598247

On Sunday, December 25, 2022 at 2:17:14 AM UTC-8, Thomas Heger wrote:

> For instance I have studies Einstein's 'On the electrodynamics of moving 
> bodies' for a very long time in detail. But I found a very large number 
> of errors in it (well over 400). 

You keep singing this same exact song, over and over again, year after year... only to have your silly tune be drowned out by folks here who know far more than you do about the subject matter, and tell you repeatedly that you have it all wrong. You have not found a single error in that paper and are not ever going to do so.

You are a lot like the guy who constantly hits his head against a brick wall only because it feels so good when he stops!

Give it a rest, it is going nowhere fast...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#598263

Am 25.12.2022 um 23:40 schrieb Paul Alsing:
> On Sunday, December 25, 2022 at 2:17:14 AM UTC-8, Thomas Heger wrote:
>
>> For instance I have studies Einstein's 'On the electrodynamics of moving
>> bodies' for a very long time in detail. But I found a very large number
>> of errors in it (well over 400).
>
> You keep singing this same exact song, over and over again, year after year... only to have your silly tune be drowned out by folks here who know far more than you do about the subject matter, and tell you repeatedly that you have it all wrong. You have not found a single error in that paper and are not ever going to do so.


Yopu need a really B I G  !!! carpet, to sweep all of Einstein's errors 
under the rug.
..


TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#598288

On 12/25/2022 5:17 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 24.12.2022 um 21:32 schrieb Volney:
>> On 12/24/2022 3:57 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:

>>> The claim is more or less, that cults took over science and turned it
>>> away from the scientific method.
>>
>> Then what is produced would not follow the scientific method, yet it
>> still does. Plus the "cult followers" bit is never supported with
>> evidence that such a "takeover" happened.
> 
> 
> I personally think, that such a 'takeover' actually happened.

Without evidence of that, nobody cares what you think.
> 
> For instance I have studies Einstein's 'On the electrodynamics of moving 
> bodies' for a very long time in detail. But I found a very large number 
> of errors in it (well over 400).

No, you haven't. As has been repeatedly explained to you.
> 
> These errors could not been overlooked by Planck, who was a world-class 
> physicist.

Since there were no such errors, there was nothing for Planck to overlook.
> 
> The only possibility is, that this particular article was knowingly 
> published with malicious intentions in a cooperation of at least two 
> people (Planck and Einstein).

Since this is based on a false assumption (400+ errors) all that follows 
from this assumption is irrelevant.

> Now you only need to assume a hidden connection and a malicious plan and 
> get a perfect 'conspiracy theory'.

Assumptions are worthless, plus are not part of science. Just because 
something COULD have happened (assuming it actually could) doesn't mean 
it DID happen.
> 
>>> Then, in the next step, the heritics were expelled and replaced by own
>>> people.

And these expelled "heretics" remained silent?
>>>
>>> This is assisted by a takeover of the media, which would not publish
>>> heretics anymore.

Yeah. Right. Another conspiracy necessary.

One part of conspiracies is that the larger they are, the more likely it 
is for someone/multiple someones to spill the beans.

(and it is interesting to know that somehow, the cranks know all about 
the conspiracies)
>>
>> Well conspiracy theories are a crank sign, but different cranks have
>> different beliefs. Specific to relativity, according to some, the
>> relativity cult started with Einstein as the cult leader, so there was
>> no takeover.
> 
> No.
> 
> 'Conspiracy theories' are usually not theories about conspiracies, but 
> assumptions about illegal activities of powerfull and secret groups.

What "powerful and secret groups" was Einstein, essentially unknown in 
1905, part of? Who let this unknown in?
> 
> These assumptions are certainly wrong in most cases, but certainly not 
> in all.

Again, because something COULD HAVE happened, doesn't mean it DID happen.
> 
> Therefore you cannot invalidate an assumption, just because you also may 
> call it 'Conspiracy theory'.

Occam's razor, without evidence.
> 
> Like always: an assumption is valid until proven wrong.

Occam's razor states bizarre complex assumptions can be ignored, at 
least without evidence.

>>> Sure, this system is certainly not scientific. But that was not the
>>> claim, but whether or not this would be real.
>>
>> The entry remains as someone claiming valid science according to the
>> scientific method is a religion or cult, implying faith is involved,
>> gets points for that, as faith is counter to the science being science.
> 
> Well, science and religion are certainly not the same thing. Religion is 
> based on believe and science also ;-)

No, religion has outright faith, beliefs without evidence.
Science has theories/models, these have scientific observations and 
experimental evidence which supports them. Science also knows that 
future evidence can come along which discredits the model but even in 
that case the old model may remain close in the future (like continuing 
to use Newtonian physics at low speeds and weak gravity).
> 
>>>
>>>>> For instance: here you need to discuss the question first, whether
>>>>> physicst build a sect or cult prior to claiming, that mentioning this
>>>>> is 'crackpottery'.
>>>>
>>>> No physicist is claiming crackpottery. The purported crackpot is
>>>> claiming science is a cult to "earn" points for this.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Most people are not destructive intentionally, hence actually seek
>>> real truth.
>>
>> That they make unsupported claims instead of seeking truth is what earns
>> them crackpot points.
>>>
>>> But obviously most scientists fail in their endeavour to find the
>>> lasts truth in the universe.
>>>
>>> So, most scientists are in an objective way wrong in what they believe.
>>
>> Science is finding the best model to demonstrate and predict what nature
>> is doing. Scientists know there is no "final" "last" truth. There will
>> be better models one day.
> 
> Predictions are not a valid goal of science, because you may possibly 
> know the mechanisms of natur, but cannot use this knowledge yourself, 
> because you are not nature.

Nope. Science is about finding the best model, and one of the 
definitions of "best" is being able to make accurate predictions.
> 
> Predictions would require a one to one correspondence between modell and 
> the real world, which only the real world can provide. >
> We can eventually find usuable modell in some cases, which predict 
> things to a sufficant degree, but can never ever get better than that, 
> because we cannot immitate nature precisely enough.

Predictions of models are good within a certain defined error range. A 
new model with
> 
> IOW: only the universe itself can predict the future of the universe 
> correctly.

Predict exactly, yes, but physics knows that is impossible so comes up 
with models which predict as best as possible.
> 
>>>
>>> This wrongness is not really 'crackpottery', but in most cases a
>>> necessary step in a long lasting project in search of true knowledge.
>>
>> What does all this have to do with crackpots rejecting science as a cult
>> or something?
> 
> Nothing.
> 
> I meant something else:
> even wrong theories are not 'crackpottery', because errors are a 
> necessary part in any research.

Sticking to already disproven, wrong theories, or to "theories" with no 
basis on science, is crackpottery.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#598291

On Monday, 26 December 2022 at 20:10:12 UTC+1, Volney wrote:

> No, religion has outright faith, beliefs without evidence. 
> Science has theories/models, these have scientific observations and 
> experimental evidence which supports them.

Outright faith, stupid Mike. Beliefs without evidence. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#598339

Am 26.12.2022 um 20:10 schrieb Volney:
> On 12/25/2022 5:17 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>> Am 24.12.2022 um 21:32 schrieb Volney:
>>> On 12/24/2022 3:57 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>
>>>> The claim is more or less, that cults took over science and turned it
>>>> away from the scientific method.
>>>
>>> Then what is produced would not follow the scientific method, yet it
>>> still does. Plus the "cult followers" bit is never supported with
>>> evidence that such a "takeover" happened.
>>
>>
>> I personally think, that such a 'takeover' actually happened.
>
> Without evidence of that, nobody cares what you think.
>>
>> For instance I have studies Einstein's 'On the electrodynamics of
>> moving bodies' for a very long time in detail. But I found a very
>> large number of errors in it (well over 400).
>
> No, you haven't. As has been repeatedly explained to you.
>>
>> These errors could not been overlooked by Planck, who was a
>> world-class physicist.
>
> Since there were no such errors, there was nothing for Planck to overlook.


I have discussed now lots of errors (in my view) and the result was 
always the same:

the errors are simply denied, the critique was uttered by a crank (me) 
and the case is closed.

But I can provide something new for you to defend:

it is actually a very simple error and belongs to a class called 'non 
sequitur'. (This means 'it does not follow'.)

It is on page 8 in § 3 about 'Theory of the Transformation of 
Co-ordinates ...'

There are two equations in the upper part of page 8, which both describe 
a certain point (x,y,z) in K coordinates, which was '...just attained by 
this wave,...'.

Now the first equation describes the length of the path of a wave from 
the origin to that point by kind of '3d-pythagoras':

x² +y² +z² = c²*t²

That is certainly true and not particularily interesting.

The second equation is this
ξ² +η² +ζ² = c²* τ²

This is the same point in coordinates from k.

This is also not very spectacular, even if the coordinate system k is 
moving and the equation does not make any attempt to compensate that 
movement. (Actually only Latin variable names are exchanged for small 
Greek letters.)

But for a single point it is not real necessary, if the coordinate 
systems K and k coincide for that instant in time.

But from this 'calculation' Einstein had drawn this conclusion:

"The wave under consideration is therefore no less a spherical  wave 
with velocity of propagation c when viewed in the moving system.  "

And this does not follow and is also wrong, because a spherical wave in 
motion gets red- or blueshifted, hence would not qualify as 'spherical' 
any more.

But more imprtant is, that the conclusion is not justified by the 
'result' of his 'calculation', because the same point (x,y,z) was meant 
and no wave whatsoever.


...


TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#598350

Thomas Heger wrote:

> Am 26.12.2022 um 20:10 schrieb Volney:
>> S̶i̶n̶c̶e̶ t̶h̶e̶r̶e̶ w̶e̶r̶e̶ n̶o̶ s̶u̶c̶h̶ e̶r̶r̶o̶r̶s̶, t̶h̶e̶r̶e̶ w̶a̶s̶ n̶o̶t̶h̶i̶n̶g̶ f̶o̶r̶ P̶l̶a̶n̶c̶k̶ t̶o̶
>> o̶v̶e̶r̶l̶o̶o̶k̶.
> 
> I have discussed now lots of errors (in my view) and the result was
> always the same: the errors are simply denied, the critique was uttered
> by a crank (me) and the case is closed.

so true indeed. This bad khazar mazafaka is saying *_you_are_an_wanker_* 
and cannot revolt, since *_you_can't_organize_*, in *_communist_* parties, 
unions etc. So they can do anything with your life an family, legal or 
not, lying, killing you etc. Revolts, according to this capitalist, is 
something from the 19th and 20th century.

Yuval Noah Harari： What to do with useless people 
https://%62%69%74%63%68%75%74%65.com/%76%69%64%65%6f/QqTLsjclymdx

🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥
🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥
🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥
🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥🟨🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥
🟥🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥🟥
🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥
🟥🟥🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥
🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟥🟨🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟥🟥
🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟥🟥
🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟨🟥🟨🟨🟨🟥🟥
🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟨🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥
🟥🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥🟥
🟥🟥🟨🟨🟨🟥🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥
🟥🟥🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟨🟥🟥🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥
🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥
🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥

when are you going to learn, that without a communist party, they are 
killing you and don't give a shit. Can you see they organize, with the 
money taken from you, can you see it??

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#598420

On 12/27/2022 3:36 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 26.12.2022 um 20:10 schrieb Volney:
>> On 12/25/2022 5:17 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>> Am 24.12.2022 um 21:32 schrieb Volney:
>>>> On 12/24/2022 3:57 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>
>>>>> The claim is more or less, that cults took over science and turned it
>>>>> away from the scientific method.
>>>>
>>>> Then what is produced would not follow the scientific method, yet it
>>>> still does. Plus the "cult followers" bit is never supported with
>>>> evidence that such a "takeover" happened.
>>>
>>>
>>> I personally think, that such a 'takeover' actually happened.
>>
>> Without evidence of that, nobody cares what you think.
>>>
>>> For instance I have studies Einstein's 'On the electrodynamics of
>>> moving bodies' for a very long time in detail. But I found a very
>>> large number of errors in it (well over 400).
>>
>> No, you haven't. As has been repeatedly explained to you.
>>>
>>> These errors could not been overlooked by Planck, who was a
>>> world-class physicist.
>>
>> Since there were no such errors, there was nothing for Planck to 
>> overlook.
> 
> 
> I have discussed now lots of errors (in my view) and the result was 
> always the same:
> 
> the errors are simply denied, the critique was uttered by a crank (me) 
> and the case is closed.

The "errors" were refuted because all of them that anyone has looked at 
were misunderstandings or errors by yourself, not in the paper.
> 
> But I can provide something new for you to defend:
> 
> it is actually a very simple error and belongs to a class called 'non 
> sequitur'. (This means 'it does not follow'.)
> 
> It is on page 8 in § 3 about 'Theory of the Transformation of 
> Co-ordinates ...'
> 
> There are two equations in the upper part of page 8, which both describe 
> a certain point (x,y,z) in K coordinates, which was '...just attained by 
> this wave,...'.
> 
> Now the first equation describes the length of the path of a wave from 
> the origin to that point by kind of '3d-pythagoras':
> 
> x² +y² +z² = c²*t²
> 
> That is certainly true and not particularily interesting.
> 
> The second equation is this
> ξ² +η² +ζ² = c²* τ²
> 
> This is the same point in coordinates from k.
> 
> This is also not very spectacular, even if the coordinate system k is 
> moving

Only moving relative to K. Remember, motion is always relative.

> and the equation does not make any attempt to compensate that 
> movement.

What is there to 'compensate'? Both are equations in inertial frames, K 
and k. Remember the first postulate, the laws of physics are the same in 
all inertial frames. Including K and k.

> (Actually only Latin variable names are exchanged for small 
> Greek letters.)

Yes, the Lorentz transformation is trivial in this case.
> 
> But for a single point it is not real necessary, if the coordinate 
> systems K and k coincide for that instant in time.
> 
> But from this 'calculation' Einstein had drawn this conclusion:
> 
> "The wave under consideration is therefore no less a spherical  wave 
> with velocity of propagation c when viewed in the moving system.  "
> 
> And this does not follow and is also wrong, because a spherical wave in 
> motion gets red- or blueshifted, hence would not qualify as 'spherical' 
> any more.

Did you miss this?

"The wave under consideration is therefore no less a spherical  wave
with velocity of propagation c WHEN VIEWED IN THE MOVING SYSTEM. "

That is, in the frame k with coordinates ξ η ζ τ. Specifically, the time 
τ is NOT t! You framejumped from the frame k with time τ to the frame K 
with time t!

Now in the K frame where the k frame is moving, the observer will see 
the light emitted by the moving (in frame K) source as red/blueshifted 
and not a spherical wavefront. It is spherical and not red/blueshifted 
in the k frame since the emitter is stationary in the k frame!  Also 
notice the observer stationary in frame k will see the wavefront emitted 
by the source stationary in K as NOT a spherical wavefront and it WILL 
be redshifted/blueshifted in frame k! Because the source is MOVING in 
frame k!

THIS is the type of mistake you have made some 400 times in your 
"analysis" of the 1905 SR paper. YOU have a misunderstanding, your 
misunderstanding leads to some problem and you blame Einstein for YOUR 
mistake!
> 
> But more imprtant is, that the conclusion is not justified by the 
> 'result' of his 'calculation', because the same point (x,y,z) was meant 
> and no wave whatsoever.

It has coordinates (ξ,η,ζ) in frame k. You have to do the Lorentz 
transformation to switch to (x,y,z).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#598427

Am 28.12.2022 um 05:00 schrieb Volney:
> On 12/27/2022 3:36 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>> Am 26.12.2022 um 20:10 schrieb Volney:
>>> On 12/25/2022 5:17 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>> Am 24.12.2022 um 21:32 schrieb Volney:
>>>>> On 12/24/2022 3:57 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> The claim is more or less, that cults took over science and turned it
>>>>>> away from the scientific method.
>>>>>
>>>>> Then what is produced would not follow the scientific method, yet it
>>>>> still does. Plus the "cult followers" bit is never supported with
>>>>> evidence that such a "takeover" happened.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I personally think, that such a 'takeover' actually happened.
>>>
>>> Without evidence of that, nobody cares what you think.
>>>>
>>>> For instance I have studies Einstein's 'On the electrodynamics of
>>>> moving bodies' for a very long time in detail. But I found a very
>>>> large number of errors in it (well over 400).
>>>
>>> No, you haven't. As has been repeatedly explained to you.
>>>>
>>>> These errors could not been overlooked by Planck, who was a
>>>> world-class physicist.
>>>
>>> Since there were no such errors, there was nothing for Planck to
>>> overlook.
>>
>>
>> I have discussed now lots of errors (in my view) and the result was
>> always the same:
>>
>> the errors are simply denied, the critique was uttered by a crank (me)
>> and the case is closed.
>
> The "errors" were refuted because all of them that anyone has looked at
> were misunderstandings or errors by yourself, not in the paper.
>>
>> But I can provide something new for you to defend:
>>
>> it is actually a very simple error and belongs to a class called 'non
>> sequitur'. (This means 'it does not follow'.)
>>
>> It is on page 8 in § 3 about 'Theory of the Transformation of
>> Co-ordinates ...'
>>
>> There are two equations in the upper part of page 8, which both
>> describe a certain point (x,y,z) in K coordinates, which was '...just
>> attained by this wave,...'.
>>
>> Now the first equation describes the length of the path of a wave from
>> the origin to that point by kind of '3d-pythagoras':
>>
>> x² +y² +z² = c²*t²
>>
>> That is certainly true and not particularily interesting.
>>
>> The second equation is this
>> ξ² +η² +ζ² = c²* τ²
>>
>> This is the same point in coordinates from k.
>>
>> This is also not very spectacular, even if the coordinate system k is
>> moving
>
> Only moving relative to K. Remember, motion is always relative.
>
>> and the equation does not make any attempt to compensate that movement.
>
> What is there to 'compensate'? Both are equations in inertial frames, K
> and k. Remember the first postulate, the laws of physics are the same in
> all inertial frames. Including K and k.

If you have a certain point ('.. just attained by the wave...') with 
certain coordinates -like e.g.(1,2,3) - in system K and now want the 
coordinates of that point in coordinates based on system k, you need to 
conduct a so called 'coordinate transformation'.

This was actually the topic of §3.

Now I would expect an influence of movement upon the coordinates in the 
equation for the  moving system.

This is required, because the coordinates of the very same physical 
point in coordinates k had to be derived, which have some other 
coordinates in measures of system K, which is regarded as non-moving.

IOW: we have the same wave and the same point, but different 
coordinates, because we have two different coordinate system. and one is 
regarded as stationary and one as moving.

The task is therefore to convert the coordinates of (1,2,3) in K to some 
other coordinates in k.

But that was not, what Einstein had actually done.

Instead he implicitly created a new wave and made that expand in the 
moving system k.

Einstein should have provided a coordinate transformation, but didn't. 
He simply wrote Greek letters instead od Latin ones.

The Greek letters mean coordinates in system k.

But that was already known, because he wanted to derive coordinates in 
k. The interesting part would be to know, WHICH coordinates come out of 
the coordinate transformation.

The exchange of letters was then used as justification of this statement:

"The wave under consideration is therefore no less a spherical  wave 
with velocity of propagation c when viewed in the moving system.  This 
shows that our two fundamental principles are compatible."

But this statement cannot be justified by an exchange of letters.

To make matters worse, the statement is also wrong.

It is wrong, because a spherical wave stationary in system K is no 
longer spherical if seen from a moving position, because of the Doppler 
effect.

...

TH
...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#598550

On 12/28/2022 2:38 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 28.12.2022 um 05:00 schrieb Volney:
>> On 12/27/2022 3:36 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>> Am 26.12.2022 um 20:10 schrieb Volney:
>>>> On 12/25/2022 5:17 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>>> Am 24.12.2022 um 21:32 schrieb Volney:
>>>>>> On 12/24/2022 3:57 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>> The claim is more or less, that cults took over science and 
>>>>>>> turned it
>>>>>>> away from the scientific method.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Then what is produced would not follow the scientific method, yet it
>>>>>> still does. Plus the "cult followers" bit is never supported with
>>>>>> evidence that such a "takeover" happened.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I personally think, that such a 'takeover' actually happened.
>>>>
>>>> Without evidence of that, nobody cares what you think.
>>>>>
>>>>> For instance I have studies Einstein's 'On the electrodynamics of
>>>>> moving bodies' for a very long time in detail. But I found a very
>>>>> large number of errors in it (well over 400).
>>>>
>>>> No, you haven't. As has been repeatedly explained to you.
>>>>>
>>>>> These errors could not been overlooked by Planck, who was a
>>>>> world-class physicist.
>>>>
>>>> Since there were no such errors, there was nothing for Planck to
>>>> overlook.
>>>
>>>
>>> I have discussed now lots of errors (in my view) and the result was
>>> always the same:
>>>
>>> the errors are simply denied, the critique was uttered by a crank (me)
>>> and the case is closed.
>>
>> The "errors" were refuted because all of them that anyone has looked at
>> were misunderstandings or errors by yourself, not in the paper.
>>>
>>> But I can provide something new for you to defend:
>>>
>>> it is actually a very simple error and belongs to a class called 'non
>>> sequitur'. (This means 'it does not follow'.)
>>>
>>> It is on page 8 in § 3 about 'Theory of the Transformation of
>>> Co-ordinates ...'
>>>
>>> There are two equations in the upper part of page 8, which both
>>> describe a certain point (x,y,z) in K coordinates, which was '...just
>>> attained by this wave,...'.
>>>
>>> Now the first equation describes the length of the path of a wave from
>>> the origin to that point by kind of '3d-pythagoras':
>>>
>>> x² +y² +z² = c²*t²
>>>
>>> That is certainly true and not particularily interesting.
>>>
>>> The second equation is this
>>> ξ² +η² +ζ² = c²* τ²
>>>
>>> This is the same point in coordinates from k.
>>>
>>> This is also not very spectacular, even if the coordinate system k is
>>> moving
>>
>> Only moving relative to K. Remember, motion is always relative.
>>
>>> and the equation does not make any attempt to compensate that movement.
>>
>> What is there to 'compensate'? Both are equations in inertial frames, K
>> and k. Remember the first postulate, the laws of physics are the same in
>> all inertial frames. Including K and k.
> 
> If you have a certain point ('.. just attained by the wave...') with 
> certain coordinates -like e.g.(1,2,3) - in system K and now want the 
> coordinates of that point in coordinates based on system k, you need to 
> conduct a so called 'coordinate transformation'.

Only if you need to swap from one frame to the other.
> 
> This was actually the topic of §3.
> 
> Now I would expect an influence of movement upon the coordinates in the 
> equation for the  moving system.

What movement? From frame k, frame k is stationary (tautology) but frame 
K is moving. Do remember "moving system" is essentially a NAME since the 
original frame K is described as stationary (relative to an unspecified 
original observer), so k is moving wrt this original observer because it 
is moving relative to K.
> 
> This is required, because the coordinates of the very same physical 
> point in coordinates k had to be derived, which have some other 
> coordinates in measures of system K, which is regarded as non-moving.

Relative to the unmentioned observer in the original description of K.
> 
> IOW: we have the same wave and the same point, but different 
> coordinates, because we have two different coordinate system. and one is 
> regarded as stationary and one as moving.

It appears you don't understand the concept of relative motion, you 
consider K as (absolutely) stationary and k as (absolutely) moving. This 
has been known wrong since Galileo.
> 
> The task is therefore to convert the coordinates of (1,2,3) in K to some 
> other coordinates in k.
> 
> But that was not, what Einstein had actually done.
> 
> Instead he implicitly created a new wave and made that expand in the 
> moving system k.

Not a new wave, he just shows how the same wave expands in k. Remember 
in k the time parameter is not t but τ.
> 
> Einstein should have provided a coordinate transformation, but didn't. 
> He simply wrote Greek letters instead od Latin ones.
> 
> The Greek letters mean coordinates in system k.
> 
> But that was already known, because he wanted to derive coordinates in 
> k. The interesting part would be to know, WHICH coordinates come out of 
> the coordinate transformation.
> 
> The exchange of letters was then used as justification of this statement:
> 
> "The wave under consideration is therefore no less a spherical  wave 
> with velocity of propagation c when viewed in the moving system.  This 
> shows that our two fundamental principles are compatible."

No, he derived how ξ² +η² +ζ² = c²* τ² was the result for the moving system.

You ignored the phrase "when viewed in the moving system."
> 
> But this statement cannot be justified by an exchange of letters.

Not "just" an exchange of letters, he DERIVED that.
> 
> To make matters worse, the statement is also wrong.
> 
> It is wrong, because a spherical wave stationary in system K is no 
> longer spherical if seen from a moving position,

You are frame jumping. You are implicitly using frame K's "t" when the 
result seen from frame k uses τ.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#598554

Volney wrote:

> W̶h̶a̶t̶ m̶o̶v̶e̶m̶e̶n̶t̶? F̶r̶o̶m̶ f̶r̶a̶m̶e̶ k̶, f̶r̶a̶m̶e̶ k̶ i̶s̶ s̶t̶a̶t̶i̶o̶n̶a̶r̶y̶ (t̶a̶u̶t̶o̶l̶o̶g̶y̶) b̶u̶t̶ f̶r̶a̶m̶e̶ K̶
> i̶s̶ m̶o̶v̶i̶n̶g̶. D̶o̶ r̶e̶m̶e̶m̶b̶e̶r̶ "m̶o̶v̶i̶n̶g̶ s̶y̶s̶t̶e̶m̶" i̶s̶ e̶s̶s̶e̶n̶t̶i̶a̶l̶l̶y̶ a̶ N̶A̶M̶E̶ s̶i̶n̶c̶e̶ t̶h̶e̶
> o̶r̶i̶g̶i̶n̶a̶l̶ f̶r̶a̶m̶e̶ K̶ i̶s̶ d̶e̶s̶c̶r̶i̶b̶e̶d̶ a̶s̶ s̶t̶a̶t̶i̶o̶n̶a̶r̶y̶ (r̶e̶l̶a̶t̶i̶v̶e̶ t̶o̶ a̶n̶ u̶n̶s̶p̶e̶c̶i̶f̶i̶e̶d̶
> o̶r̶i̶g̶i̶n̶a̶l̶ o̶b̶s̶e̶r̶v̶e̶r̶), s̶o̶ k̶ i̶s̶ m̶o̶v̶i̶n̶g̶ w̶r̶t̶ t̶h̶i̶s̶ o̶r̶i̶g̶i̶n̶a̶l̶ o̶b̶s̶e̶r̶v̶e̶r̶ b̶e̶c̶a̶u̶s̶e̶ i̶t̶
> i̶s̶ m̶o̶v̶i̶n̶g̶ r̶e̶l̶a̶t̶i̶v̶e̶ t̶o̶ K̶.

Estonia does not want “a new community” in the country “that doesn’t speak Estonian,” PM Kaja Kallas says 
https://%72%74.com/%72%75%73%73%69%61/569122-estonia-ukrainians-language-policy/

The PM’s comments on Estonian courses for Ukrainian refugees did not escape Moscow’s attention. Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova took to Telegram to respond: “Kaja, Adolf [Hitler] would be proud of you. Without you it would be much more difficult to prove the dehumanization of the collective West. Estonia for Estonians, right? Say it already, and stop palping the Universal Declaration of Human Rights with your sweaty palms.”

the nazis of uKraine admits severe */_war_crimes_/*.

Ukrainian Soldiers Execute Prisoners Of War – Admits U.S. Mercenary 12-28-22 The Jimmy Dore Show
https://%62%69%74%63%68%75%74%65.com/%76%69%64%65%6f/Q7NyWiFpgGvN

you are sold as *slave* already. You are fucking *patented*.

Listen closely to every single word. Israel is last for a reason. Khazarian Mafia.
https://%62%69%74%63%68%75%74%65.com/%76%69%64%65%6f/TLUG36poJytT

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#598623

Am 29.12.2022 um 21:25 schrieb Volney:
> On 12/28/2022 2:38 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>> Am 28.12.2022 um 05:00 schrieb Volney:
>>> On 12/27/2022 3:36 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>> Am 26.12.2022 um 20:10 schrieb Volney:
>>>>> On 12/25/2022 5:17 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>>>> Am 24.12.2022 um 21:32 schrieb Volney:
>>>>>>> On 12/24/2022 3:57 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The claim is more or less, that cults took over science and
>>>>>>>> turned it
>>>>>>>> away from the scientific method.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Then what is produced would not follow the scientific method, yet it
>>>>>>> still does. Plus the "cult followers" bit is never supported with
>>>>>>> evidence that such a "takeover" happened.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I personally think, that such a 'takeover' actually happened.
>>>>>
>>>>> Without evidence of that, nobody cares what you think.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For instance I have studies Einstein's 'On the electrodynamics of
>>>>>> moving bodies' for a very long time in detail. But I found a very
>>>>>> large number of errors in it (well over 400).
>>>>>
>>>>> No, you haven't. As has been repeatedly explained to you.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> These errors could not been overlooked by Planck, who was a
>>>>>> world-class physicist.
>>>>>
>>>>> Since there were no such errors, there was nothing for Planck to
>>>>> overlook.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I have discussed now lots of errors (in my view) and the result was
>>>> always the same:
>>>>
>>>> the errors are simply denied, the critique was uttered by a crank (me)
>>>> and the case is closed.
>>>
>>> The "errors" were refuted because all of them that anyone has looked at
>>> were misunderstandings or errors by yourself, not in the paper.
>>>>
>>>> But I can provide something new for you to defend:
>>>>
>>>> it is actually a very simple error and belongs to a class called 'non
>>>> sequitur'. (This means 'it does not follow'.)
>>>>
>>>> It is on page 8 in § 3 about 'Theory of the Transformation of
>>>> Co-ordinates ...'
>>>>
>>>> There are two equations in the upper part of page 8, which both
>>>> describe a certain point (x,y,z) in K coordinates, which was '...just
>>>> attained by this wave,...'.
>>>>
>>>> Now the first equation describes the length of the path of a wave from
>>>> the origin to that point by kind of '3d-pythagoras':
>>>>
>>>> x² +y² +z² = c²*t²
>>>>
>>>> That is certainly true and not particularily interesting.
>>>>
>>>> The second equation is this
>>>> ξ² +η² +ζ² = c²* τ²
>>>>
>>>> This is the same point in coordinates from k.
>>>>
>>>> This is also not very spectacular, even if the coordinate system k is
>>>> moving
>>>
>>> Only moving relative to K. Remember, motion is always relative.
>>>
>>>> and the equation does not make any attempt to compensate that movement.
>>>
>>> What is there to 'compensate'? Both are equations in inertial frames, K
>>> and k. Remember the first postulate, the laws of physics are the same in
>>> all inertial frames. Including K and k.
>>
>> If you have a certain point ('.. just attained by the wave...') with
>> certain coordinates -like e.g.(1,2,3) - in system K and now want the
>> coordinates of that point in coordinates based on system k, you need
>> to conduct a so called 'coordinate transformation'.
>
> Only if you need to swap from one frame to the other.
>>
>> This was actually the topic of §3.
>>
>> Now I would expect an influence of movement upon the coordinates in
>> the equation for the  moving system.
>
> What movement? From frame k, frame k is stationary (tautology) but frame
> K is moving. Do remember "moving system" is essentially a NAME since the
> original frame K is described as stationary (relative to an unspecified
> original observer), so k is moving wrt this original observer because it
> is moving relative to K.

Einstein have not mentioned the observer in system K. Instead he meant 
'stationary' as stationary in respect to the Euclidean space.

This served as unmentioned 'background' like Newton's absolute space.

That contradicted his own statement, that Newton's absolute space would 
not exist. But that did not hinder Einstein to use such a space as 
unmentioned reference.

You are in fact right, that the space of the coordinate system K would 
make most sense, if the observer rests in the center of his own 
coordinate system K. And with a change to the coordinate system k also 
the observer's position would change, hence k would be stationary, too.

But that wasn't Einstein's setting. He therefore meant, that system K is 
stationary and system k is moving.



>> This is required, because the coordinates of the very same physical
>> point in coordinates k had to be derived, which have some other
>> coordinates in measures of system K, which is regarded as non-moving.
>
> Relative to the unmentioned observer in the original description of K.

No. The point in system K was a certain fixed but otherwise unspecified 
point (x, y, z).

This same point in space has also coordinates in system k, which were, 
what Einstein wanted to derive (but didn't).

The (unmentioned) observer should be placed in the center of system K, 
hence we could use 'system K' and 'initial observer' interchangably.

Now Einstein wrote, that a coordinate transformation from system K to 
system k would be created by exchanging Latin for Greek letters. (what 
is nonsense)

He also seemed to assume, that in his setting two spherical waves were 
created, from which one symmetrically expands in system K and the other 
also symmetrically in system k.

But that was wrong, because the waves did not originate from the 
coordinate systems (whether moving or not), but from some kind of emitter.

This emitter emitts one spherical wave only, which is observed from a 
position stationary in respect to the emitter and from a different 
position moving in respect to the emitter.

This would cause the so called 'Doppler effect' and a distortion of the 
wave in the case, where the emitter is in relative motion.

In that case of a distorted wave, that wave would no longer be 
spherical, hence Einstein's claim was wrong.


>> IOW: we have the same wave and the same point, but different
>> coordinates, because we have two different coordinate system. and one
>> is regarded as stationary and one as moving.
>
> It appears you don't understand the concept of relative motion, you
> consider K as (absolutely) stationary and k as (absolutely) moving. This
> has been known wrong since Galileo.


I didn't, but interpreted Einstein's text that way.

This assumption (about Einstein's intentions) is justified, because 
Einstein used the word 'stationary', but nothing in respect to what that 
entity should be stationary.

The only possible interpretation for Einstein's words is, that he meant 
absolute space (despite having excluded that already).


>> The task is therefore to convert the coordinates of (1,2,3) in K to
>> some other coordinates in k.
>>
>> But that was not, what Einstein had actually done.
>>
>> Instead he implicitly created a new wave and made that expand in the
>> moving system k.
>
> Not a new wave, he just shows how the same wave expands in k. Remember
> in k the time parameter is not t but τ.
>>
>> Einstein should have provided a coordinate transformation, but didn't.
>> He simply wrote Greek letters instead od Latin ones.
>>
>> The Greek letters mean coordinates in system k.
>>
>> But that was already known, because he wanted to derive coordinates in
>> k. The interesting part would be to know, WHICH coordinates come out
>> of the coordinate transformation.
>>
>> The exchange of letters was then used as justification of this statement:
>>
>> "The wave under consideration is therefore no less a spherical  wave
>> with velocity of propagation c when viewed in the moving system.  This
>> shows that our two fundamental principles are compatible."
>
> No, he derived how ξ² +η² +ζ² = c²* τ² was the result for the moving
> system.
>
> You ignored the phrase "when viewed in the moving system."


No. I haven't ignored that phrase, of course.

I wanted to know, how these coordinates look like, not what their names 
were, because xi, eta and zeta are names of coordinates in k, but not 
equations or similar for that coordinates.

Equations for these coordinates should have the form:
ξ= ...something

and denote the same point, which was called (x,y,z) in coordinates of K.

Relatively close to the requirements are the equations in the middle of 
page 9.

Unfortunately they had a different meaning and were not meant for the 
coordinate transformation mentioned above.

But illegal is a simple exchange of the letters in the variable names.


>> But this statement cannot be justified by an exchange of letters.
>
> Not "just" an exchange of letters, he DERIVED that.


He derived WHAT ???

..
TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#598885

On 12/30/2022 6:41 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 29.12.2022 um 21:25 schrieb Volney:
>> On 12/28/2022 2:38 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>> Am 28.12.2022 um 05:00 schrieb Volney:
>>>> On 12/27/2022 3:36 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>>> Am 26.12.2022 um 20:10 schrieb Volney:
>>>>>> On 12/25/2022 5:17 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>>>>> Am 24.12.2022 um 21:32 schrieb Volney:
>>>>>>>> On 12/24/2022 3:57 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The claim is more or less, that cults took over science and
>>>>>>>>> turned it
>>>>>>>>> away from the scientific method.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Then what is produced would not follow the scientific method, 
>>>>>>>> yet it
>>>>>>>> still does. Plus the "cult followers" bit is never supported with
>>>>>>>> evidence that such a "takeover" happened.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I personally think, that such a 'takeover' actually happened.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Without evidence of that, nobody cares what you think.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For instance I have studies Einstein's 'On the electrodynamics of
>>>>>>> moving bodies' for a very long time in detail. But I found a very
>>>>>>> large number of errors in it (well over 400).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, you haven't. As has been repeatedly explained to you.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> These errors could not been overlooked by Planck, who was a
>>>>>>> world-class physicist.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Since there were no such errors, there was nothing for Planck to
>>>>>> overlook.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I have discussed now lots of errors (in my view) and the result was
>>>>> always the same:
>>>>>
>>>>> the errors are simply denied, the critique was uttered by a crank (me)
>>>>> and the case is closed.
>>>>
>>>> The "errors" were refuted because all of them that anyone has looked at
>>>> were misunderstandings or errors by yourself, not in the paper.
>>>>>
>>>>> But I can provide something new for you to defend:
>>>>>
>>>>> it is actually a very simple error and belongs to a class called 'non
>>>>> sequitur'. (This means 'it does not follow'.)
>>>>>
>>>>> It is on page 8 in § 3 about 'Theory of the Transformation of
>>>>> Co-ordinates ...'
>>>>>
>>>>> There are two equations in the upper part of page 8, which both
>>>>> describe a certain point (x,y,z) in K coordinates, which was '...just
>>>>> attained by this wave,...'.
>>>>>
>>>>> Now the first equation describes the length of the path of a wave from
>>>>> the origin to that point by kind of '3d-pythagoras':
>>>>>
>>>>> x² +y² +z² = c²*t²
>>>>>
>>>>> That is certainly true and not particularily interesting.
>>>>>
>>>>> The second equation is this
>>>>> ξ² +η² +ζ² = c²* τ²
>>>>>
>>>>> This is the same point in coordinates from k.
>>>>>
>>>>> This is also not very spectacular, even if the coordinate system k is
>>>>> moving
>>>>
>>>> Only moving relative to K. Remember, motion is always relative.
>>>>
>>>>> and the equation does not make any attempt to compensate that 
>>>>> movement.
>>>>
>>>> What is there to 'compensate'? Both are equations in inertial frames, K
>>>> and k. Remember the first postulate, the laws of physics are the 
>>>> same in
>>>> all inertial frames. Including K and k.
>>>
>>> If you have a certain point ('.. just attained by the wave...') with
>>> certain coordinates -like e.g.(1,2,3) - in system K and now want the
>>> coordinates of that point in coordinates based on system k, you need
>>> to conduct a so called 'coordinate transformation'.
>>
>> Only if you need to swap from one frame to the other.
>>>
>>> This was actually the topic of §3.
>>>
>>> Now I would expect an influence of movement upon the coordinates in
>>> the equation for the  moving system.
>>
>> What movement? From frame k, frame k is stationary (tautology) but frame
>> K is moving. Do remember "moving system" is essentially a NAME since the
>> original frame K is described as stationary (relative to an unspecified
>> original observer), so k is moving wrt this original observer because it
>> is moving relative to K.
> 
> Einstein have not mentioned the observer in system K. Instead he meant 
> 'stationary' as stationary in respect to the Euclidean space.

Read the beginning where Einstein introduced the stationary space.
Since Euclidean space has relative motion (see Galileo), this 
"stationary space" has to be stationary relative to something. The 
unmentioned observer.
> 
> This served as unmentioned 'background' like Newton's absolute space.

The unmentioned observer, which is stationary in the stationary space.
> 
> That contradicted his own statement, that Newton's absolute space would 
> not exist. But that did not hinder Einstein to use such a space as 
> unmentioned reference.

Einstein did not mention or use any absolute space.
> 
> You are in fact right, that the space of the coordinate system K would 
> make most sense, if the observer rests in the center of his own 
> coordinate system K. And with a change to the coordinate system k also 
> the observer's position would change, hence k would be stationary, too.
> 
> But that wasn't Einstein's setting. He therefore meant, that system K is 
> stationary and system k is moving.

For the unmentioned observer stationary in K.

>>> This is required, because the coordinates of the very same physical
>>> point in coordinates k had to be derived, which have some other
>>> coordinates in measures of system K, which is regarded as non-moving.
>>
>> Relative to the unmentioned observer in the original description of K.
> 
> No. The point in system K was a certain fixed but otherwise unspecified 
> point (x, y, z).

Call the unmentioned stationary observer to be at (x, y, z) = (0, 0, 0).
> 
> This same point in space has also coordinates in system k, which were, 
> what Einstein wanted to derive (but didn't).

He derives it where he derives the Lorentz transformation.

> Now Einstein wrote, that a coordinate transformation from system K to 
> system k would be created by exchanging Latin for Greek letters. (what 
> is nonsense)
> 
> He also seemed to assume, that in his setting two spherical waves were 
> created, from which one symmetrically expands in system K and the other 
> also symmetrically in system k.
> 
> But that was wrong, because the waves did not originate from the 
> coordinate systems (whether moving or not), but from some kind of emitter.

What is now called an event in modern physics. A point with coordinates 
(x, y, z, t). Events are instantaneous, they don't have the property of 
motion. (you need two events for that).

You are going off into the weeds again exactly the same as when you were 
whining "there are no plane waves".  Just because a real world flash of 
light would last a finite (even if incredibly tiny) time doesn't negate 
the concept.
> 
> This emitter emitts one spherical wave only, which is observed from a 
> position stationary in respect to the emitter and from a different 
> position moving in respect to the emitter.

And the emitter's physical details are irrelevant, it's the 
instantaneous event which matters.
> 
> This would cause the so called 'Doppler effect' and a distortion of the 
> wave in the case, where the emitter is in relative motion.

That requires two events at minimum where you can compare distances and 
times between them. An event is a point with a single value, (x, y, z, t).

>>> IOW: we have the same wave and the same point, but different
>>> coordinates, because we have two different coordinate system. and one
>>> is regarded as stationary and one as moving.
>>
>> It appears you don't understand the concept of relative motion, you
>> consider K as (absolutely) stationary and k as (absolutely) moving. This
>> has been known wrong since Galileo.
> 
> 
> I didn't, but interpreted Einstein's text that way.

So you misinterpreted Einstein.
> 
> This assumption (about Einstein's intentions) is justified, because 
> Einstein used the word 'stationary', but nothing in respect to what that 
> entity should be stationary.

"Stationary" in this case is the name of a frame.
> 
> The only possible interpretation for Einstein's words is, that he meant 
> absolute space (despite having excluded that already).

Nope. He didn't need to use, and did not use "absolute space" in any 
way.  Remember, absolute space violates the first postulate.
> 
> 
>>> The task is therefore to convert the coordinates of (1,2,3) in K to
>>> some other coordinates in k.
>>>
>>> But that was not, what Einstein had actually done.
>>>
>>> Instead he implicitly created a new wave and made that expand in the
>>> moving system k.
>>
>> Not a new wave, he just shows how the same wave expands in k. Remember
>> in k the time parameter is not t but τ.
>>>
>>> Einstein should have provided a coordinate transformation, but didn't.
>>> He simply wrote Greek letters instead od Latin ones.
>>>
>>> The Greek letters mean coordinates in system k.
>>>
>>> But that was already known, because he wanted to derive coordinates in
>>> k. The interesting part would be to know, WHICH coordinates come out
>>> of the coordinate transformation.
>>>
>>> The exchange of letters was then used as justification of this 
>>> statement:
>>>
>>> "The wave under consideration is therefore no less a spherical  wave
>>> with velocity of propagation c when viewed in the moving system.  This
>>> shows that our two fundamental principles are compatible."
>>
>> No, he derived how ξ² +η² +ζ² = c²* τ² was the result for the moving
>> system.
>>
>> You ignored the phrase "when viewed in the moving system."
> 
> 
> No. I haven't ignored that phrase, of course.

Yes, you did. That formula applies in the moving space, with an observer 
moving with it (stationary in k).
> 
> I wanted to know, how these coordinates look like, not what their names 
> were, because xi, eta and zeta are names of coordinates in k, but not 
> equations or similar for that coordinates.
> 
> Equations for these coordinates should have the form:
> ξ= ...something

He derived ξ² +η² +ζ² = c²*τ². Do you know enough algebra to solve for ξ?

>>> But this statement cannot be justified by an exchange of letters.
>>
>> Not "just" an exchange of letters, he DERIVED that.
> 
> 
> He derived WHAT ???

He derived ξ² +η² +ζ² = c²*τ² !

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#598887

On Monday, 2 January 2023 at 17:45:34 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
> On 12/30/2022 6:41 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: 
> > Am 29.12.2022 um 21:25 schrieb Volney: 
> >> On 12/28/2022 2:38 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: 
> >>> Am 28.12.2022 um 05:00 schrieb Volney: 
> >>>> On 12/27/2022 3:36 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: 
> >>>>> Am 26.12.2022 um 20:10 schrieb Volney: 
> >>>>>> On 12/25/2022 5:17 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: 
> >>>>>>> Am 24.12.2022 um 21:32 schrieb Volney: 
> >>>>>>>> On 12/24/2022 3:57 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: 
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>> The claim is more or less, that cults took over science and 
> >>>>>>>>> turned it 
> >>>>>>>>> away from the scientific method. 
> >>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>> Then what is produced would not follow the scientific method, 
> >>>>>>>> yet it 
> >>>>>>>> still does. Plus the "cult followers" bit is never supported with 
> >>>>>>>> evidence that such a "takeover" happened. 
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> I personally think, that such a 'takeover' actually happened. 
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> Without evidence of that, nobody cares what you think. 
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> For instance I have studies Einstein's 'On the electrodynamics of 
> >>>>>>> moving bodies' for a very long time in detail. But I found a very 
> >>>>>>> large number of errors in it (well over 400). 
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> No, you haven't. As has been repeatedly explained to you. 
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> These errors could not been overlooked by Planck, who was a 
> >>>>>>> world-class physicist. 
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> Since there were no such errors, there was nothing for Planck to 
> >>>>>> overlook. 
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> I have discussed now lots of errors (in my view) and the result was 
> >>>>> always the same: 
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> the errors are simply denied, the critique was uttered by a crank (me) 
> >>>>> and the case is closed. 
> >>>> 
> >>>> The "errors" were refuted because all of them that anyone has looked at 
> >>>> were misunderstandings or errors by yourself, not in the paper. 
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> But I can provide something new for you to defend: 
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> it is actually a very simple error and belongs to a class called 'non 
> >>>>> sequitur'. (This means 'it does not follow'.) 
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> It is on page 8 in § 3 about 'Theory of the Transformation of 
> >>>>> Co-ordinates ...' 
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> There are two equations in the upper part of page 8, which both 
> >>>>> describe a certain point (x,y,z) in K coordinates, which was '...just 
> >>>>> attained by this wave,...'. 
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> Now the first equation describes the length of the path of a wave from 
> >>>>> the origin to that point by kind of '3d-pythagoras': 
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> x² +y² +z² = c²*t² 
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> That is certainly true and not particularily interesting. 
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> The second equation is this 
> >>>>> ξ² +η² +ζ² = c²* τ² 
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> This is the same point in coordinates from k. 
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> This is also not very spectacular, even if the coordinate system k is 
> >>>>> moving 
> >>>> 
> >>>> Only moving relative to K. Remember, motion is always relative. 
> >>>> 
> >>>>> and the equation does not make any attempt to compensate that 
> >>>>> movement. 
> >>>> 
> >>>> What is there to 'compensate'? Both are equations in inertial frames, K 
> >>>> and k. Remember the first postulate, the laws of physics are the 
> >>>> same in 
> >>>> all inertial frames. Including K and k. 
> >>> 
> >>> If you have a certain point ('.. just attained by the wave...') with 
> >>> certain coordinates -like e.g.(1,2,3) - in system K and now want the 
> >>> coordinates of that point in coordinates based on system k, you need 
> >>> to conduct a so called 'coordinate transformation'. 
> >> 
> >> Only if you need to swap from one frame to the other. 
> >>> 
> >>> This was actually the topic of §3. 
> >>> 
> >>> Now I would expect an influence of movement upon the coordinates in 
> >>> the equation for the  moving system. 
> >> 
> >> What movement? From frame k, frame k is stationary (tautology) but frame 
> >> K is moving. Do remember "moving system" is essentially a NAME since the 
> >> original frame K is described as stationary (relative to an unspecified 
> >> original observer), so k is moving wrt this original observer because it 
> >> is moving relative to K. 
> > 
> > Einstein have not mentioned the observer in system K. Instead he meant 
> > 'stationary' as stationary in respect to the Euclidean space.
> Read the beginning where Einstein introduced the stationary space. 
> Since Euclidean space has relative motion (see Galileo), this 
> "stationary space" has to be stationary relative to something. The 
> unmentioned observer.

While Galileo's fairy tales of "obserwers" were lacking
any contact with the reality - the inconsistent mumble
of Einstein is even more funny.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#598888

On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 1:49:58 PM UTC-3, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:

<SNIP>

> While Galileo's fairy tales of "obserwers" were lacking 
> any contact with the reality - the inconsistent mumble 
> of Einstein is even more funny.

Galileo: The observer on the ground PERCEIVES that a ball being trowed up by a person in a train that passes at constant speed
v, in a path that is normal to the observer line of sight has a PARABOLIC TRAJECTORY, but it's an ILLUSION.

Einstein: It is perceived as following MY GEODESIC.

Rational people: Fuck off you both. Relativity is META-PHYSICS, PSEUDO-SCIENCE. Any of them.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#598889

On Monday, 2 January 2023 at 18:08:31 UTC+1, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 1:49:58 PM UTC-3, maluw...@gmail.com wrote: 
> 
> <SNIP>
> > While Galileo's fairy tales of "obserwers" were lacking 
> > any contact with the reality - the inconsistent mumble 
> > of Einstein is even more funny.
> Galileo: The observer on the ground PERCEIVES that a ball being trowed up by a person in a train that passes at constant speed 
> v, in a path that is normal to the observer line of sight has a PARABOLIC TRAJECTORY, but it's an ILLUSION. 

An observer is a complicated thingie. Too complicated
for puny formulas of an idiot physicist.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#598935

On 1/2/2023 12:08 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 1:49:58 PM UTC-3, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> <SNIP>
> 
>> While Galileo's fairy tales of "obserwers" were lacking
>> any contact with the reality - the inconsistent mumble
>> of Einstein is even more funny.
> 
> Galileo: The observer on the ground PERCEIVES that a ball being trowed up by a person in a train that passes at constant speed
> v, in a path that is normal to the observer line of sight has a PARABOLIC TRAJECTORY, but it's an ILLUSION.

No illusion. For the train rider, the ball really does go straight up 
and down. For the person outside the train, the ball really does go in a 
parabola.
> 
> Einstein:

You can't even handle Galileo! Einstein is WAY beyond your abilities!

> Rational people: Fuck off you both. Relativity is META-PHYSICS, PSEUDO-SCIENCE. Any of them.

You are projecting your own insanities onto "rational people".

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#598938

On Tuesday, 3 January 2023 at 08:14:29 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
> On 1/2/2023 12:08 PM, Richard Hertz wrote: 
> > On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 1:49:58 PM UTC-3, maluw...@gmail.com wrote: 
> > 
> > <SNIP> 
> > 
> >> While Galileo's fairy tales of "obserwers" were lacking 
> >> any contact with the reality - the inconsistent mumble 
> >> of Einstein is even more funny. 
> > 
> > Galileo: The observer on the ground PERCEIVES that a ball being trowed up by a person in a train that passes at constant speed 
> > v, in a path that is normal to the observer line of sight has a PARABOLIC TRAJECTORY, but it's an ILLUSION.
> No illusion. For the train rider, the ball really does go straight up 
> and down.

Bullshit, stupid Mike.  For a train rider - the train is going
to London, not London is going to train. Every train rider
knows his train is in motion, together with the ball and
himself. Your relativity is completely delusional for 400 
years, not  just for 100.


> You can't even handle Galileo! 

Galileo had no clue. An observer is a complicated thingie,
an observation is a complicated process. Too complicated
for Galileo, too complicated for Einstein, too complicated
for stupid Mike.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#598936

Am 02.01.2023 um 17:45 schrieb Volney:

>>>>>> But I can provide something new for you to defend:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> it is actually a very simple error and belongs to a class called 'non
>>>>>> sequitur'. (This means 'it does not follow'.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is on page 8 in § 3 about 'Theory of the Transformation of
>>>>>> Co-ordinates ...'
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There are two equations in the upper part of page 8, which both
>>>>>> describe a certain point (x,y,z) in K coordinates, which was '...just
>>>>>> attained by this wave,...'.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Now the first equation describes the length of the path of a wave
>>>>>> from
>>>>>> the origin to that point by kind of '3d-pythagoras':
>>>>>>
>>>>>> x² +y² +z² = c²*t²
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That is certainly true and not particularily interesting.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The second equation is this
>>>>>> ξ² +η² +ζ² = c²* τ²
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is the same point in coordinates from k.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is also not very spectacular, even if the coordinate system k is
>>>>>> moving
>>>>>
>>>>> Only moving relative to K. Remember, motion is always relative.
>>>>>
>>>>>> and the equation does not make any attempt to compensate that
>>>>>> movement.
>>>>>
>>>>> What is there to 'compensate'? Both are equations in inertial
>>>>> frames, K
>>>>> and k. Remember the first postulate, the laws of physics are the
>>>>> same in
>>>>> all inertial frames. Including K and k.
>>>>
>>>> If you have a certain point ('.. just attained by the wave...') with
>>>> certain coordinates -like e.g.(1,2,3) - in system K and now want the
>>>> coordinates of that point in coordinates based on system k, you need
>>>> to conduct a so called 'coordinate transformation'.
>>>
>>> Only if you need to swap from one frame to the other.
>>>>
>>>> This was actually the topic of §3.
>>>>
>>>> Now I would expect an influence of movement upon the coordinates in
>>>> the equation for the  moving system.
>>>
>>> What movement? From frame k, frame k is stationary (tautology) but frame
>>> K is moving. Do remember "moving system" is essentially a NAME since the
>>> original frame K is described as stationary (relative to an unspecified
>>> original observer), so k is moving wrt this original observer because it
>>> is moving relative to K.
>>
>> Einstein have not mentioned the observer in system K. Instead he meant
>> 'stationary' as stationary in respect to the Euclidean space.
>
> Read the beginning where Einstein introduced the stationary space.
> Since Euclidean space has relative motion (see Galileo), this
> "stationary space" has to be stationary relative to something. The
> unmentioned observer.
>>
>> This served as unmentioned 'background' like Newton's absolute space.
>
> The unmentioned observer, which is stationary in the stationary space.



The problem in relativity is, that EVERYTHING needs to be related to 
something else, even space.

But in respect to what is 'stationary space' stationary?

So: 'stationary' gets undefined, if nothing can serve as (external) 
'anchor', upon which vectors or positions could be based.

But 'stationary space' can only reference to 'stationary space', because 
there ain't anything else, what we could use as reference.

That would be no problem, if that 'stationary space' could be regarded 
as absolute space.

But Einstein could not assume that, because he had already excluded 
absolute space.

>> That contradicted his own statement, that Newton's absolute space
>> would not exist. But that did not hinder Einstein to use such a space
>> as unmentioned reference.
>
> Einstein did not mention or use any absolute space.

Sure, he meant 'relative space'.

But in that case he would need a relation to something.

The problem is, that only Newton's absolute space could reference to 
itself and Einstein already rejected its existence.

So, Einstein needed a reference point, that would not need a reference 
to itself.  But that would violate the principle above.

>> You are in fact right, that the space of the coordinate system K would
>> make most sense, if the observer rests in the center of his own
>> coordinate system K. And with a change to the coordinate system k also
>> the observer's position would change, hence k would be stationary, too.
>>
>> But that wasn't Einstein's setting. He therefore meant, that system K
>> is stationary and system k is moving.
>
> For the unmentioned observer stationary in K.

The observer could be placed in the center of K. That would also be 
useful to 'anchor' system K.

Other places are less obvious, hence we could leave it that way.

>>>> This is required, because the coordinates of the very same physical
>>>> point in coordinates k had to be derived, which have some other
>>>> coordinates in measures of system K, which is regarded as non-moving.
>>>
>>> Relative to the unmentioned observer in the original description of K.
>>
>> No. The point in system K was a certain fixed but otherwise
>> unspecified point (x, y, z).
>
> Call the unmentioned stationary observer to be at (x, y, z) = (0, 0, 0).

Well, yes and no.

Yes, because the observer should be placed there.

No, because (x, y, z) in Einstein's text meant a point 'just attained by 
the wave...', what cannot possibly be the zero-spot, because at the zero 
spot there is also the emitter.

>> This same point in space has also coordinates in system k, which were,
>> what Einstein wanted to derive (but didn't).
>
> He derives it where he derives the Lorentz transformation.

Actually he didn't derive anything, because he exchanged only letters.

>> Now Einstein wrote, that a coordinate transformation from system K to
>> system k would be created by exchanging Latin for Greek letters. (what
>> is nonsense)
>>
>> He also seemed to assume, that in his setting two spherical waves were
>> created, from which one symmetrically expands in system K and the
>> other also symmetrically in system k.
>>
>> But that was wrong, because the waves did not originate from the
>> coordinate systems (whether moving or not), but from some kind of
>> emitter.
>
> What is now called an event in modern physics. A point with coordinates
> (x, y, z, t). Events are instantaneous, they don't have the property of
> motion. (you need two events for that).

??

The system k moves in K, because that was Einstein's setting.
Since the emitter was placed in the center of k, the emitter moves in K.

That movement is not an event, because the emitter of a wave is a 
material device, which has a position and a state of movement.

A certain part of the emitted waves could be treated like an event, 
however, if the duration of the event is set to zero.

But that is not quite, how waves are created or meant to be, because a 
wave without an extension in time is no longer a wave.


...


TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#598438

On Wednesday, December 28, 2022 at 2:00:29 PM UTC+10, Volney wrote:
> On 12/27/2022 3:36 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: 
> > But from this 'calculation' Einstein had drawn this conclusion: 
> > 
> > "The wave under consideration is therefore no less a spherical  wave 
> > with velocity of propagation c when viewed in the moving system.  " 
> > 
> > And this does not follow and is also wrong, because a spherical wave in 
> > motion gets red- or blueshifted, hence would not qualify as 'spherical' 
> > any more.
> Did you miss this?
> "The wave under consideration is therefore no less a spherical wave
> with velocity of propagation c WHEN VIEWED IN THE MOVING SYSTEM. " 
> 
> That is, in the frame k with coordinates ξ η ζ τ. Specifically, the time 
> τ is NOT t! You framejumped from the frame k with time τ to the frame K 
> with time t! 
> 
> Now in the K frame where the k frame is moving, the observer will see 
> the light emitted by the moving (in frame K) source as red/blueshifted 

OK, but worth mentioning that red/blueshiftting are irrelevant to the point that Einstein is making, which merits repeating again :

"The wave under consideration is therefore no less a spherical wave
with velocity of propagation c WHEN VIEWED IN THE MOVING SYSTEM. " 

> and not a spherical wavefront. 

Generally I agree with your posts, but sorry - NO,  not this time. 

We have 4 scenarios :

1) Light source in k, observer(s) in k
2) Light source in K, observer(s) in K
3) Light source in k, observer(s) in K
4) Light source in K, observer(s) in k

Obviously, due to the mutual nature of the postulates and the Lorentz Transformations, these really boil down to just the two :
a) Observer(s) are stationary relative to the light source.  (ie, scenarios 1 and 2 above)
b) Observer(s) are moving relative to the light source   (ie, scenarios 3 and 4 above)

Obviously for (a), that the light sphere is a sphere is trivially true, so no more need be said.

It is (b) that we are discussing here, and that Einstein is discussing in this section.  Specifically, it is (b) that Einstein is referring to with his statement

"The wave under consideration is therefore no less a spherical wave
with velocity of propagation c WHEN VIEWED IN THE MOVING SYSTEM. " 

That statement is saying that for those observers in (b) , they WILL measure a spherical wavefront (and further, a spherical wavefront that remains centred on the origin of those observer's "moving" frame, despite the fact that that that origin is moving - and so will have moved - from the origin of the "stationary" frame).

Obviously, many find this counter-intuitive result difficult to grasp, so it's worth a little gedanken to illustrate what Einstein is saying - and equally important what he is NOT saying.

Let's have our two spacecraft K "stationary" and k "moving".  Let's add that K is actually a glass sphere with the Earth's surface painted on it (north pole directly on top, south pole directly below, and k is heading on the equatorial plane towards 28 degrees East) .  At the instant that k passes, K emits a spherical lightwave (ie, a brief pulse of light) , so that wave is carrying the image of the Earth's surface spreading outward with velocity c.

What do the observers in k "see" ?   ie, what does that expanding surface of the Earth look like when viewed in the moving system (or frame) "k" ?

As per Einstein's statement above, that expanding surface "is therefore no less a spherical wave with velocity of propagation c WHEN VIEWED IN THE MOVING SYSTEM. " (ie, when viewed in k).   That is, the moving observers - yes, they see red/blueshifts - but Einstein is explicitly stating here that they DO see a spherical wavefront.

However, did NOT say that the two spheres would look identical.  We have already mentioned (and agreed) that redshift/blueshift would be one differentiating factor.  Another factor is the layout of Earth's continents.

I said above that K has the North Pole directly above, and the South Pole directly below.  However, nothing that Einstein said means that that has to remain true for k as well.

On the contrary, imagine the photon representing Johannesburg at latitude 26 degrees South, 28 degrees East.  That means that K will emit that photon at an angle of 26 degrees down. 

 That therefore also means that k will (given an appropriate velocity relative to K) always have that photon directly beneath it (in other words, Johannesburg stays at x' = 0).  Likewise, that South Pole photon is dropping behind spaceship k (ie increasing x' < 0), and therefore TimeDilation and RoS take their toll meaning it has not had as much time, and therefore not dropped as far "down".   This preserves the spherical shape as measured by k.

In other words, k WILL measure itself to be at the centre of that expanding sphere, but it will have the same accurate layout of the Earth that K has (and Einstein never said nor implied that it would).

Final upshot is that an expanding light sphere (expanding at c naturally) in one frame does remain an expanding light sphere expanding at c as measured in other frames as well, just as Einstein said.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#598439

Have you heard that the "no! no!" second is one of the shortest periods of time known to man - being the time it takes from hitting "send" to spotting a big typo (like forgetting the word "not" in a sentence !! )

Yes, so that penultimate paragraph should have read :

"In other words, k WILL measure itself to be at the centre of that expanding sphere, but it will  === NOT === have the same accurate layout of the Earth that K has (and Einstein never said nor implied that it would)."

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 5 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web