Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #641703 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2024-02-11 11:00 +0100 |
| Last post | 2024-02-14 00:11 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 77 — 15 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Re: New version of my annotations to SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2024-02-11 11:00 +0100
Re: New version of my annotations to SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2024-02-13 07:44 +0100
Re: New version of my annotations to SRT "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2024-02-13 14:50 +0100
Re: New version of my annotations to SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2024-02-14 08:17 +0100
Re: New version of my annotations to SRT "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2024-02-14 11:05 +0100
Re: New version of my annotations to SRT Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-02-14 19:05 +0200
Re: New version of my annotations to SRT Python <python@invalid.org> - 2024-02-14 18:41 +0100
Re: New version of my annotations to SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2024-02-15 06:58 +0100
Re: New version of my annotations to SRT Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2024-02-15 01:21 -0500
Re: New version of my annotations to SRT mlwozniak@wp.pl (MaciejWozniak) - 2024-02-15 11:19 +0000
Re: New version of my annotations to SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2024-02-16 06:56 +0100
Re: New version of my annotations to SRT Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2024-02-16 13:50 -0500
Re: New version of my annotations to SRT Josey Forakis Stamatelos <ks@osfisek.gr> - 2024-02-16 20:19 +0000
Re: New version of my annotations to SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2024-02-17 10:28 +0100
Re: New version of my annotations to SRT Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2024-02-14 13:47 -0500
Re: New version of my annotations to SRT Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2024-02-14 13:59 -0500
Re: New version of my annotations to SRT Richard Hachel <pourquoi-pas@tiscali.fr> - 2024-02-14 19:12 +0000
Re: New version of my annotations to SRT mlwozniak@wp.pl (MaciejWozniak) - 2024-02-15 06:16 +0000
Re: New version of my annotations to SRT "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2024-02-13 13:40 +0100
Re: New version of my annotations to SRT Python <python@invalid.org> - 2024-02-13 18:18 +0100
Re: New version of my annotations to SRT Richard Hachel <pourquoi-pas@tiscali.fr> - 2024-02-14 01:46 +0000
Re: New version of my annotations to SRT Python <python@invalid.org> - 2024-02-14 18:12 +0100
Re: New version of my annotations to SRT Richard Hachel <pourquoi-pas@tiscali.fr> - 2024-02-14 18:59 +0000
Re: New version of my annotations to SRT Python <python@invalid.org> - 2024-02-14 20:07 +0100
Re: New version of my annotations to SRT Python <python@invalid.org> - 2024-02-14 20:09 +0100
Re: New version of my annotations to SRT Richard Hachel <pourquoi-pas@tiscali.fr> - 2024-02-14 19:21 +0000
Re: New version of my annotations to SRT Python <python@invalid.org> - 2024-02-14 20:26 +0100
Re: New version of my annotations to SRT Richard Hachel <pourquoi-pas@tiscali.fr> - 2024-02-14 20:23 +0000
Re: New version of my annotations to SRT Python <python@invalid.org> - 2024-02-14 21:26 +0100
Re: New version of my annotations to SRT film.art@gmail.com (JanPB) - 2024-02-13 16:25 +0000
Re: New version of my annotations to SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2024-02-14 08:34 +0100
Re: New version of my annotations to SRT "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2024-02-14 21:28 +0100
Re: New version of my annotations to SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2024-02-15 07:10 +0100
Re: New version of my annotations to SRT "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2024-02-15 11:32 +0100
Re: New version of my annotations to SRT Athel Cornish-Bowden <me@yahoo.com> - 2024-02-15 19:04 +0100
Re: New version of my annotations to SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2024-02-16 07:20 +0100
Re: New version of my annotations to SRT "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2024-02-16 09:43 +0100
Re: New version of my annotations to SRT Athel Cornish-Bowden <me@yahoo.com> - 2024-02-16 09:46 +0100
Re: New version of my annotations to SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2024-02-17 10:36 +0100
Re: New version of my annotations to SRT Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-02-17 12:47 +0200
Re: New version of my annotations to SRT Python <python@invalid.org> - 2024-02-17 14:33 +0100
Re: New version of my annotations to SRT Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-02-17 16:40 +0200
Re: New version of my annotations to SRT Athel Cornish-Bowden <me@yahoo.com> - 2024-02-17 15:55 +0100
Re: New version of my annotations to SRT Python <python@invalid.org> - 2024-02-17 17:16 +0100
Re: New version of my annotations to SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2024-02-18 06:48 +0100
Re: New version of my annotations to SRT Athel Cornish-Bowden <me@yahoo.com> - 2024-02-18 10:21 +0100
Re: New version of my annotations to SRT Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-02-18 13:00 +0200
Re: New version of my annotations to SRT mlwozniak@wp.pl (MaciejWozniak) - 2024-02-17 15:13 +0000
Re: New version of my annotations to SRT Python <python@invalid.org> - 2024-02-17 17:15 +0100
Re: New version of my annotations to SRT mlwozniak@wp.pl (MaciejWozniak) - 2024-02-17 17:17 +0000
Re: New version of my annotations to SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2024-02-18 06:25 +0100
Re: New version of my annotations to SRT Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-02-18 13:05 +0200
Re: New version of my annotations to SRT Python <python@invalid.org> - 2024-02-18 12:56 +0100
Re: New version of my annotations to SRT "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2024-02-18 22:05 +0100
Re: New version of my annotations to SRT mlwozniak@wp.pl (MaciejWozniak) - 2024-02-18 21:36 +0000
Re: New version of my annotations to SRT Python <python@invalid.org> - 2024-02-18 22:59 +0100
Re: New version of my annotations to SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2024-02-18 05:47 +0100
Re: New version of my annotations to SRT Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2024-02-18 01:07 -0500
Re: New version of my annotations to SRT mlwozniak@wp.pl (MaciejWozniak) - 2024-02-18 08:15 +0000
Re: New version of my annotations to SRT Preston Voß von Grimmelshausen <rsqt@osonevnpv.de> - 2024-02-18 12:35 +0000
Re: New version of my annotations to SRT Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-02-18 13:08 +0200
Re: New version of my annotations to SRT Royal Iñíguez Ortega <ygerr@oratoytra.es> - 2024-02-18 12:10 +0000
Re: New version of my annotations to SRT "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2024-02-18 13:28 +0100
Re: New version of my annotations to SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2024-02-19 06:56 +0100
Re: New version of my annotations to SRT Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-02-19 11:35 +0200
Re: New version of my annotations to SRT "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2024-02-19 21:47 +0100
Re: New version of my annotations to SRT Cheng Huang Zhong <sksn@nnoghz.cn> - 2024-02-19 21:59 +0000
Re: New version of my annotations to SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2024-02-20 09:01 +0100
Re: New version of my annotations to SRT Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2024-02-18 11:30 -0500
Re: New version of my annotations to SRT Wilbert Oláh Barabás <rfbml@otrb.hu> - 2024-02-18 19:39 +0000
Re: New version of my annotations to SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2024-02-19 07:02 +0100
Re: New version of my annotations to SRT Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2024-02-19 13:31 -0500
Re: New version of my annotations to SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2024-02-20 09:11 +0100
Re: New version of my annotations to SRT Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-02-21 11:52 +0200
Re: New version of my annotations to SRT Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-02-16 11:53 +0200
Re: New version of my annotations to SRT "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2024-02-16 13:59 +0100
Re: New version of my annotations to SRT Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2024-02-14 00:11 -0800
Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 Next page →
| From | Richard Hachel <pourquoi-pas@tiscali.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-02-14 01:46 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <QVa87ahgGMgIYMiq2_071sYR1tM@jntp> |
| In reply to | #644118 |
Le 13/02/2024 à 18:18, Python a écrit : > Paul B. Andersen wrote: Coucou, Python! Te revoilà? Well... It is sad to note that human stupidity continues to wreak havoc, filled as it is with imbecile narcissism and idiotic certainties. What is saddening is that Python, who does not like Verret, makes the same mistake as him and covers his ears so as not to hear, that is to say understand, what Doctor Hachel is saying. I have said it over and over for four years (oh my God forty years): you cannot "absolutely" synchronize two watches placed in different places, it's stupid and it's a simple abstract thought. What does Python, my little usenet angel, say? He says: t_B - t_A = t'_A - t_B He believes he has found the “most brilliant equation in the universe, the little angel. But he will be sad when he learns that good old Doctor Hachel, whose genius he adores and claims, does not agree and that this stupid equation makes him laugh. He poses for the outward journey t(to go)= t_B - t_A and for the return: t(return)=t'_A - t_B But WHO measures this time? Is it A? No. Is it B? Neither. This time is measured by C, a third observer being at the same distance from A and B, and for whom A and B are necessarily isochronous in nature, that is to say synchronized, that is to say forming part, for C, of the same plane of present time. He then asks: 2AB/(t'_A - t_A) = c Yes, that's right. Because noted with the same watch A. We put t_B = t_A + (AB)/c but for WHO? Still for C observing an electronic flash from A to B. But this is not what A notes, it is not what B notes, nor is it what the photon notes which notes t=0. Bon, je vois que comme d'habitude, personne n'y comprend que pouic. La notion d'anisochronie, que j'avais comprise à neuf ans restera un profond mystère pour les génies de usenet. On n'a pas fini d'en causer. R.H.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <python@invalid.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-02-14 18:12 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <uqisa7$2nvr1$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #644250 |
Le 14/02/2024 à 02:46, Richard Hachel a écrit : > Le 13/02/2024 à 18:18, Python a écrit : > [snip garbage] > He says: > t_B - t_A = t'_A - t_B > > [snip more garbage] > He poses for the outward journey t(to go)= t_B - t_A > and for the return: t(return)=t'_A - t_B > > But WHO measures this time? Is it A? No. Is it B? Neither. You've still not read this part of Einstein paper? Your question is pointless: all measured times here is measure by a given clock for an event happening at this very clock place! t_A is the time marked by clock A when the light ray is emmitted. t_B is the time marked by clock B when the light ray arrives t'_A is the time marked by clock A when the return light ray arrives. See? The question "measured by who" is stupid (it makes sense only when remote clocks are involved, this is not the case here. Einstein take much care about that in order to not rely on any arbitrary synchronization scheme). For any observer the time marked by a given clock when a given event happens at the very same place of this clock is the SAME! How can you cranks be thaaat stupid???
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Hachel <pourquoi-pas@tiscali.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-02-14 18:59 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <RPYPvU24gSvUmzh0UprsObmu_GI@jntp> |
| In reply to | #644562 |
Le 14/02/2024 à 18:12, Python a écrit : > t_A is the time marked by clock A when the light ray is emmitted. Je suis d'accord, t_A est l'heure indiquée quand le rayon est émis par A. > t_B is the time marked by clock B when the light ray arrives Magnifique. t_B est l'heure indiquée par B quand le rayon arrive sur B. > t'_A is the time marked by clock A when the return light ray arrives. t'_A est l'heure indiquée par A quand le retour de l'information arrive. Python, tu es génial! J'y avais pas pensé à ça. En plus, tu expliques vachement bien. Je vais te proposer pour le Nobel. Je crois que tu as loupé ta vocation, tu aurais pu faire un très grand vulgarisateur scientifique. Dommage que pour le reste, tu sois si bête. R.H.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <python@invalid.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-02-14 20:07 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <uqj31l$2p90n$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #644622 |
Le 14/02/2024 à 19:59, Richard Hachel a écrit : > Le 14/02/2024 à 18:12, Python a écrit : > >> t_A is the time marked by clock A when the light ray is emmitted. > > Je suis d'accord, t_A est l'heure indiquée quand le rayon est émis par A. Marked by A clock, you missed the crucial point. >> t_B is the time marked by clock B when the light ray arrives > t_B est l'heure indiquée par B quand le rayon arrive sur B. Marked by B clock, you, again, missed the point. >> t'_A is the time marked by clock A when the return light ray arrives. > > t'_A est l'heure indiquée par A quand le retour de l'information arrive. Notice that this time it is marked by a clock at A. > [snip garbage] You still fail to understand that there is no kind of C observer, and that the POINT of the procedure is to only consider time marked by clocks for events happening at the same time of the involved clock. We had the same discussion twenty years ago, go figure!!! And still you didn't get the point. How can you cranks be soooo stupid???
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <python@invalid.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-02-14 20:09 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <uqj34i$2p90n$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #644626 |
Le 14/02/2024 à 20:07, Python a écrit : ... > You still fail to understand that there is no kind of C observer, > and that the POINT of the procedure is to only consider time marked > by clocks for events happening at the same time of the involved > clock. typo: at the same *place*.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Hachel <pourquoi-pas@tiscali.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-02-14 19:21 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <8RiXbpu1Q7bWDbf7fTwGt1cG7Ho@jntp> |
| In reply to | #644626 |
Le 14/02/2024 à 20:07, Python a écrit : > Le 14/02/2024 à 19:59, Richard Hachel a écrit : >> Le 14/02/2024 à 18:12, Python a écrit : >> >>> t_A is the time marked by clock A when the light ray is emmitted. >> >> Je suis d'accord, t_A est l'heure indiquée quand le rayon est émis par A. > > Marked by A clock, you missed the crucial point. Bieeeeeen !!! >>> t_B is the time marked by clock B when the light ray arrives > t_B est l'heure >>> indiquée par B quand le rayon arrive sur B. > > Marked by B clock, you, again, missed the point. Bieeeeen ! >>> t'_A is the time marked by clock A when the return light ray arrives. >> >> t'_A est l'heure indiquée par A quand le retour de l'information arrive. > > Notice that this time it is marked by a clock at A. Bieeeeen ! > You still fail to understand that there is no kind of C observer, > and that the POINT of the procedure is to only consider time marked > by clocks for events happening at the same time of the involved > clock. > > We had the same discussion twenty years ago, go figure!!! And > still you didn't get the point. > > How can you cranks be soooo stupid? ? ? The opposite is more true. We've been having this discussion for 20 or 30 years. You are perfectly right. Except it's YOU who says: "You don't understand me, you're a crank". Do you really think I'm stupid enough not to understand what you're saying to me? Yes, yes, you're still really sick. Of course yes, I understand Einstein's synchronization. But I say it's bullshit. Get that into your head and finally ask yourself the real question. What python am I unable to understand in what Hachel has been saying for 40 years? and why can't I understand? Did this come from him? Is this coming from me?” Ask yourself the question first. Uses Descartes' methodical doubt. R.H.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <python@invalid.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-02-14 20:26 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <uqj453$2p90n$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #644632 |
Le 14/02/2024 à 20:21, Richard Hachel a écrit : > [snip garbage] > Do you really think I'm stupid enough not to understand what you're > saying to me? You are. You've shown that you don't understand it. You're not even trying because of stupidity AND hubris. > Of course yes, I understand Einstein's synchronization. Definitely NOT. You've shown you do not by mentioning your observer "C".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Hachel <pourquoi-pas@tiscali.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-02-14 20:23 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <3EzRBXpUgm5H6RX9eaogEqtwTIc@jntp> |
| In reply to | #644633 |
Le 14/02/2024 à 20:26, Python a écrit : > Le 14/02/2024 à 20:21, Richard Hachel a écrit : >> [snip garbage] > >> Do you really think I'm stupid enough not to understand what you're >> saying to me? > > You are. You've shown that you don't understand it. You're not > even trying because of stupidity AND hubris. > >> Of course yes, I understand Einstein's synchronization. > > Definitely NOT. You've shown you do not by mentioning > your observer "C". C'est toi qui ne comprends pas en quoi Einstein se trompe. Il postule sans le dire qu'il existe dans son référentiel un plan du temps présent absolu. Il postule que si je me place en M (milieu de AB) et que j'envoie un signal de même vitesse (qu'importe la vitesse) en A et en B, alors A et B le recevront simultanément. L'idée est fort simple, mais complétement fausse. Seul un observateur placé à égale distance de A et B considèrera que les deux signaux sont arrivés au même instant présent. D'où l'observateur C nécessaire. Idem pour le GPS basé sur un observateur C abstrait, mais fort utile. Mais bon, je sais, tu t'en fous, ça ne t'intéresse pas. Je sais tout ça. R.H.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <python@invalid.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-02-14 21:26 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <uqj7mh$2p90n$6@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #644641 |
Le 14/02/2024 à 21:23, Richard Hachel a écrit : > Le 14/02/2024 à 20:26, Python a écrit : >> Le 14/02/2024 à 20:21, Richard Hachel a écrit : >>> [snip garbage] >> >>> Do you really think I'm stupid enough not to understand what you're >>> saying to me? >> >> You are. You've shown that you don't understand it. You're not >> even trying because of stupidity AND hubris. >> >>> Of course yes, I understand Einstein's synchronization. >> >> Definitely NOT. You've shown you do not by mentioning >> your observer "C". > > C'est toi qui ne comprends pas en quoi Einstein se trompe. > > Il postule sans le dire qu'il existe dans son référentiel un plan du > temps présent absolu. > Il postule que si je me place en M (milieu de AB) et que j'envoie un > signal de même vitesse (qu'importe la vitesse) en A et en B, alors A et > B le recevront simultanément. This is absolutely not how Einstein's synchronization procedure is done. > Idem pour le GPS basé sur un observateur C abstrait, mais fort utile. This is also 100% wrong. > Je sais tout ça. You don't "know" that, because that is only stuff you made up.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | film.art@gmail.com (JanPB) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-02-13 16:25 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <def2f0bc24c77d1beb6fa90dd7b3a149@www.novabbs.com> |
| In reply to | #641703 |
Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 10.02.2024 um 19:51 schrieb Volney: >> On 2/10/2024 2:18 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: >>> Am 08.02.2024 um 15:51 schrieb Volney: >>>> On 2/8/2024 1:36 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: >>>> >>>>> I was actually a HYPOTHETICAL professor (in my role as writer of these >>>>> annotations). >>>> >>>> No, you weren't. You don't have the qualifications to be a professor, >>>> hypothetical or not. Self-awarded degrees/titles are worse than useless, >>>> they are signs of crackpottery. >>> >>> I am actually allowed to write a critique of anything I like. >> >> There is a BIG difference between "allowed to" and "qualified to" do >> something. You don't have the qualifications to be a professor >>> >>> This is one of the rules of science. >>> >>> It does not require any kind of qualification or any kind of title to >>> critizise any theory you like, because any critique, from whereever it >>> might come, is valid. >> >> You may write whatever garbage you wish to write. You are not qualified >> to expect your writings to have any effect on science, or even have >> anyone in science to look at them. >>> >>> And unless such critique is rejected on scientific grounds, it remains >>> valid. >>> >>> You simply cannot dismiss an argument, because the one who wrote it >>> has not the appropriate title. >> >> Sorry, qualifications are necessary to filter out crap. If the same >> paper appears as a non peer reviewed post on Usenet authored by Joe >> Schmo, Janitor vs. Dr. Schmo, PhD Physics in a peer reviewed document, >> which source will be ignored vs. studied? >>> >>> But in case you like to disprove any of my annotations, you are welcome. >>> >>> Simply download the file with my annotations (otherwise you can't read >>> the annotations), select one of them you regard as faulty and write, >>> what exactly is wrong with it. >> >> I asked before for you to post the most blatant, outrageous, ridiculous, >> obvious 'error' that you found to show us you can actually find real >> errors. It was ignored. Of the ones anyone has looked at, they are all >> simply your misunderstandings or not an error at all. Nobody is going to >> wade through 428 misunderstandings of yours hoping to find an actual >> error that somehow, nobody in the last 100+ years found. > Einstein made several serious errors. He made no errors, let alone "serious" ones. He did commit a few instances of sloppiness but then so does literally every single science paper that ever was. > One was his method of synchronisation. > he had (simplified) this picture in mind: > I receive a light signal, which originates from a remote clock and take > that signal as information about the remote time. > The error: > that signal does not contain the remote time, because light needs time > to travel. This discrepancy is called 'delay', but Einstein didn't > mention it with a single word. I won't even comment on that. Besides, I have just posted an article explaining in detail why clock synchronisation is actually an inessential part of special relativity. The beef lies elsewhere. > Another serious error: > he ascribed the effects of motion to the moving object, while it is > actually an effect, which is only visible at the side of the observer. Gobbledygook. > Annoying were Einstein's naming conventions. > Especially annoying were the reuse of variable names and the lack of > definitions of used symbols. No, his usage of symbols is standard. > Seriously unscientific were the lack references to the used materials. This was normal at the time. Go to the library and leaf through the issues of Annalen der Physik for the years around 1905 and you'll find many papers there with no references in them. It just wasn't a big thing at the time. > Especially missing were quotes or references to Poincaré and Heinrich Hertz. Not needed (see above). The paper was written for professionals, not students. > Also the quotes from Hertz were not verbatim, because Hertz used total > derivatives and Einstein partial (in an apparently quoted equation). Again, I won't EVEN comment on that. Bottomless incompetence on your part. Stop wasting your time on this "project". Your document is 100% nonsense. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-02-14 08:34 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <l338fdFgc98U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #644096 |
Am 13.02.2024 um 17:25 schrieb JanPB: > Thomas Heger wrote: > >> Am 10.02.2024 um 19:51 schrieb Volney: >>> On 2/10/2024 2:18 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: >>>> Am 08.02.2024 um 15:51 schrieb Volney: >>>>> On 2/8/2024 1:36 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I was actually a HYPOTHETICAL professor (in my role as writer of >>>>>> these >>>>>> annotations). >>>>> >>>>> No, you weren't. You don't have the qualifications to be a professor, >>>>> hypothetical or not. Self-awarded degrees/titles are worse than >>>>> useless, >>>>> they are signs of crackpottery. >>>> >>>> I am actually allowed to write a critique of anything I like. >>> >>> There is a BIG difference between "allowed to" and "qualified to" do >>> something. You don't have the qualifications to be a professor >>>> >>>> This is one of the rules of science. >>>> >>>> It does not require any kind of qualification or any kind of title to >>>> critizise any theory you like, because any critique, from whereever it >>>> might come, is valid. >>> >>> You may write whatever garbage you wish to write. You are not qualified >>> to expect your writings to have any effect on science, or even have >>> anyone in science to look at them. >>>> >>>> And unless such critique is rejected on scientific grounds, it remains >>>> valid. >>>> >>>> You simply cannot dismiss an argument, because the one who wrote it >>>> has not the appropriate title. >>> >>> Sorry, qualifications are necessary to filter out crap. If the same >>> paper appears as a non peer reviewed post on Usenet authored by Joe >>> Schmo, Janitor vs. Dr. Schmo, PhD Physics in a peer reviewed document, >>> which source will be ignored vs. studied? >>>> >>>> But in case you like to disprove any of my annotations, you are >>>> welcome. >>>> >>>> Simply download the file with my annotations (otherwise you can't read >>>> the annotations), select one of them you regard as faulty and write, >>>> what exactly is wrong with it. >>> >>> I asked before for you to post the most blatant, outrageous, ridiculous, >>> obvious 'error' that you found to show us you can actually find real >>> errors. It was ignored. Of the ones anyone has looked at, they are all >>> simply your misunderstandings or not an error at all. Nobody is going to >>> wade through 428 misunderstandings of yours hoping to find an actual >>> error that somehow, nobody in the last 100+ years found. > > >> Einstein made several serious errors. > > He made no errors, let alone "serious" ones. He did commit a few > instances of > sloppiness but then so does literally every single science paper that > ever was. > >> One was his method of synchronisation. > >> he had (simplified) this picture in mind: > >> I receive a light signal, which originates from a remote clock and >> take that signal as information about the remote time. > >> The error: > >> that signal does not contain the remote time, because light needs time >> to travel. This discrepancy is called 'delay', but Einstein didn't >> mention it with a single word. > > I won't even comment on that. Besides, I have just posted an article > explaining > in detail why clock synchronisation is actually an inessential part of > special > relativity. The beef lies elsewhere. > >> Another serious error: > >> he ascribed the effects of motion to the moving object, while it is >> actually an effect, which is only visible at the side of the observer. > > Gobbledygook. > >> Annoying were Einstein's naming conventions. > >> Especially annoying were the reuse of variable names and the lack of >> definitions of used symbols. > > No, his usage of symbols is standard. Einstein's variable names were EXTREMELY annoying! For instance: he had eight different uses of the letter 'A'. He also defined something, like the axes mof system k (named with large Greek letters), but didn't use that definition and used large Latin letters in the text instead. Also illogic where the names themselves. E.g. I had not understood, why he didn't use indices to adress different motions, but ' (prime). He also used no different symbols for different types of mathematical objects (like: vectors and scalars /functions and values/ cordinate values and axes names). Different type of objects (like e.g. function names) should be made distinguishable from values or vectors. He also used non-standard names like e.g. P for preassure or A_m for 'power of deflection' (whatever that is). In all cases he wrote no proper definitions and simply expected the reader to know his intentions. He also wrote equations, but no description, what these equations shall express. To make matters worse, he also changed the type of object occasionally without notice. For instance the speed of light is a scalar value, while velocity is a vector quantity. If you subtract c from v, you implicitly convert v to a scalar. These are all very nasty habits and definetely not standard in science. ... TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-02-14 21:28 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <Bn9zN.8681436$ee1.4230449@fx16.ams4> |
| In reply to | #644378 |
Den 14.02.2024 08:34, skrev Thomas Heger: > > Einstein's variable names were EXTREMELY annoying! > > For instance: > he had eight different uses of the letter 'A'. What is the single not annoying use of the letter 'A' ? -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-02-15 07:10 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <l35ntaFtdv4U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #644643 |
Am 14.02.2024 um 21:28 schrieb Paul B. Andersen: > Den 14.02.2024 08:34, skrev Thomas Heger: >> >> Einstein's variable names were EXTREMELY annoying! >> >> For instance: >> he had eight different uses of the letter 'A'. > > What is the single not annoying use of the letter 'A' ? > Many letters have different uses in physics. This is perfectly ok. But it is not ok to use the same symbol for different purposes within a single text. Einstein had to decide, what use he wanted for -say- the symbol 'A'. E.g. 'Area' is a common use or 'amplitude'. But both uses within a single text are wrong, because it is not possible to know, which particular meaning a symbol in an equation has, if both meanings use the same symbol. But Einstein gave this another kick and used the same symbol twice with different meanings within a single sentence. This is not really wrong, because it is actually possible to decipher the text. But it is fantastically rude. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-02-15 11:32 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <rKlzN.8682847$ee1.7408760@fx16.ams4> |
| In reply to | #644781 |
Den 15.02.2024 07:10, skrev Thomas Heger: >> Den 14.02.2024 08:34, skrev Thomas Heger: >>> >>> Einstein's variable names were EXTREMELY annoying! >>> >>> For instance: >>> he had eight different uses of the letter 'A'. In §1 the symbol 'A' is explicitly defined: "the point A of space", and this is the only meaning of 'A' in §1 to and including §5. In §6 the symbol 'A' is not used. In §7 the symbol 'A' is explicitly defined: "we call the amplitude of the electric or magnetic force A" and this is the only meaning of 'A' in §7 to and including §10. The numbering of an equation (A) is not another use of the symbol 'A'. This is two well defined uses of the letter 'A' used to identify a physical or mathematical entity. Can you name the other six? > But both uses within a single text are wrong, because it is not possible > to know, which particular meaning a symbol in an equation has, if both > meanings use the same symbol. > > But Einstein gave this another kick and used the same symbol twice with > different meanings within a single sentence. Can you quote the sentence in question? -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Athel Cornish-Bowden <me@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-02-15 19:04 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <l37221F66goU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #644901 |
On 2024-02-15 10:32:23 +0000, Paul B. Andersen said: > Den 15.02.2024 07:10, skrev Thomas Heger: >>> Den 14.02.2024 08:34, skrev Thomas Heger: >>>> >>>> Einstein's variable names were EXTREMELY annoying! >>>> >>>> For instance: >>>> he had eight different uses of the letter 'A'. > > > In §1 the symbol 'A' is explicitly defined: "the point A of space", > and this is the only meaning of 'A' in §1 to and including §5. > > In §6 the symbol 'A' is not used. > > In §7 the symbol 'A' is explicitly defined: > "we call the amplitude of the electric or magnetic force A" > and this is the only meaning of 'A' in §7 to and including §10. > > The numbering of an equation (A) is not another use of the symbol 'A'. > > This is two well defined uses of the letter 'A' used to identify > a physical or mathematical entity. > > Can you name the other six? > > >> But both uses within a single text are wrong, because it is not >> possible to know, which particular meaning a symbol in an equation has, >> if both meanings use the same symbol. >> >> But Einstein gave this another kick and used the same symbol twice with >> different meanings within a single sentence. > > Can you quote the sentence in question? I once -- consciously and deliberately -- used the same symbol i with two meanings in the same equation, both as an index, as the ith of n observations, and as an inhibitor concentration. As both meanings were standard, and no one (except perhaps Thomas Heger, if he happened to read it) would be confused, I thought it best to keep the equation as it was. Nonetheless, I put a footnote saying what I was doing. -- athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-02-16 07:20 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <l38cs7Fdpf1U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #644901 |
Am 15.02.2024 um 11:32 schrieb Paul B. Andersen: > Den 15.02.2024 07:10, skrev Thomas Heger: >>> Den 14.02.2024 08:34, skrev Thomas Heger: >>>> >>>> Einstein's variable names were EXTREMELY annoying! >>>> >>>> For instance: >>>> he had eight different uses of the letter 'A'. > > > In §1 the symbol 'A' is explicitly defined: "the point A of space", > and this is the only meaning of 'A' in §1 to and including §5. > > In §6 the symbol 'A' is not used. > > In §7 the symbol 'A' is explicitly defined: > "we call the amplitude of the electric or magnetic force A" > and this is the only meaning of 'A' in §7 to and including §10. > > The numbering of an equation (A) is not another use of the symbol 'A'. > > This is two well defined uses of the letter 'A' used to identify > a physical or mathematical entity. > > Can you name the other six? 'A' is an ASCII character and actually a very short text. To use it as a symbol, for instance as name of a variable, you need to connect text and variable by a definition. For instance you could write, that 'A' shall contain the value of a certain area. But Einstein didn't do that. Instead he seemingly assumed, that the reader could also read his mind. His uses of 'A' were: as name of a point in space as name of the local time at point A as 'A-time' for one end of a flying rod as index of the time value t_A as area in 'electric power of deflection' A_e in 'magnetic power of deflection' A_m as (only!) internal reference 'A' But why didn't he use other letters, like e.g. F or Q ??? > >> But both uses within a single text are wrong, because it is not >> possible to know, which particular meaning a symbol in an equation >> has, if both meanings use the same symbol. >> >> But Einstein gave this another kick and used the same symbol twice with >> different meanings within a single sentence. > > Can you quote the sentence in question? sure: page 22, roughly in the middle "We will now determine the kinetic energy of the electron. If an electron moves from rest at the origin of co-ordinates of the system K along the axis of X under the action of an electrostatic force X, ..." I disliked already the used of 'force' for electrical field strength. But anyhow... 'X' is here the x-component of the electric field-strength vector and called 'X' 'X' is also the name of the x-axis of system K. Therefore we have twice the symbol 'X' in the same sentence (actually also in the same line), but with two different meanings. It is not really wrong, but VERY bad writing style. At least Einstein could have made different types of symbols distinguishable by attributes like italic or bold fonts. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-02-16 09:43 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <NeFzN.8767691$ee1.3586784@fx16.ams4> |
| In reply to | #645700 |
Den 16.02.2024 07:20, skrev Thomas Heger: > Am 15.02.2024 um 11:32 schrieb Paul B. Andersen: >>>> Den 14.02.2024 08:34, skrev Thomas Heger: >>>>> >>>>> Einstein's variable names were EXTREMELY annoying! >>>>> >>>>> For instance: >>>>> he had eight different uses of the letter 'A'. https://paulba.no/paper/Electrodynamics.pdf >> >> In §1 the symbol 'A' is explicitly defined: "the point A of space", >> and this is the only meaning of 'A' in §1 to and including §5. >> >> In §7 the symbol 'A' is explicitly defined: >> "we call the amplitude of the electric or magnetic force A" >> and this is the only meaning of 'A' in §7 to and including §10. >> > > 'A' is an ASCII character and actually a very short text. > > To use it as a symbol, for instance as name of a variable, you need to > connect text and variable by a definition. Quite. Like this:: In §1 the symbol 'A' is explicitly defined: "the point A of space", and this is the only meaning of 'A' in §1 to and including §5. In §7 the symbol 'A' is explicitly defined: "we call the amplitude of the electric or magnetic force A" and this is the only meaning of 'A' in §7 to and including §10. > > For instance you could write, that 'A' shall contain the value of a > certain area. > > But Einstein didn't do that. You don't read what you are responding to, do you? -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Athel Cornish-Bowden <me@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-02-16 09:46 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <l38lo3Ffes0U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #645700 |
On 2024-02-16 06:20:15 +0000, Thomas Heger said: >> >> [ … ] >> >> Can you quote the sentence in question? > > sure: > page 22, roughly in the middle > > "We will now determine the kinetic energy of the electron. If an > electron moves from rest at the origin of co-ordinates of the system K > along the axis of X under the action of an electrostatic force X, ..." Is this your translation? Is "the axis of X" what is normally called the x-axis in English? Maybe you could quote it in German so that someone who knows more German than I do can comment. Anyway, I agree that calling the abscissa axis the x-axis is not ideal, but it's very commonly done. In that case X is not a variable. > > I disliked already the used of 'force' for electrical field strength. > > But anyhow... > > 'X' is here the x-component of the electric field-strength vector and > called 'X' > > 'X' is also the name of the x-axis of system K. > > Therefore we have twice the symbol 'X' in the same sentence (actually > also in the same line), but with two different meanings. > > It is not really wrong, but VERY bad writing style. > > At least Einstein could have made different types of symbols > distinguishable by attributes like italic or bold fonts. > > > TH -- athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-02-17 10:36 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <l3bcogFb2U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #645841 |
Am 16.02.2024 um 09:46 schrieb Athel Cornish-Bowden: > On 2024-02-16 06:20:15 +0000, Thomas Heger said: > >>> >>> [ … ] > >>> >>> Can you quote the sentence in question? >> >> sure: >> page 22, roughly in the middle >> >> "We will now determine the kinetic energy of the electron. If an >> electron moves from rest at the origin of co-ordinates of the system K >> along the axis of X under the action of an electrostatic force X, ..." > > Is this your translation? Is "the axis of X" what is normally called the > x-axis in English? Maybe you could quote it in German so that someone > who knows more German than I do can comment. Anyway, I agree that > calling the abscissa axis the x-axis is not ideal, but it's very > commonly done. In that case X is not a variable. I'm actually critizising a certain text, not the work of Einstein per se. So, my topic is this particular English translation. I take the text as homework of a student (in phyics in this case) and write annotations, like a (hypothetical) professor would do that. This is more or less an exercise and a learning method and does not deal with the actual author, but with a certain text. My aim was, to find absolutely all errors and not to make any false accusations. This is quite difficult and that's why it is such a good learning method. In this context I had critizised the prase 'axis of X', because 'X' was already the name of the x-axis of system K. ... TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-02-17 12:47 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <uqq2rl$c86g$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #646704 |
On 2024-02-17 09:36:42 +0000, Thomas Heger said: > Am 16.02.2024 um 09:46 schrieb Athel Cornish-Bowden: >> On 2024-02-16 06:20:15 +0000, Thomas Heger said: >> >>>> >>>> [ … ] >> >>>> >>>> Can you quote the sentence in question? >>> >>> sure: >>> page 22, roughly in the middle >>> >>> "We will now determine the kinetic energy of the electron. If an >>> electron moves from rest at the origin of co-ordinates of the system K >>> along the axis of X under the action of an electrostatic force X, ..." >> >> Is this your translation? Is "the axis of X" what is normally called the >> x-axis in English? Maybe you could quote it in German so that someone >> who knows more German than I do can comment. Anyway, I agree that >> calling the abscissa axis the x-axis is not ideal, but it's very >> commonly done. In that case X is not a variable. > > I'm actually critizising a certain text, not the work of Einstein per se. > > So, my topic is this particular English translation. When a real professor evaluates a translation the main criterion is whether the translation preseves the meaning of the text. -- Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web