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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #641703 > unrolled thread

Re: New version of my annotations to SRT

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.

Contents

  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 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4  Next page →

#646827

Le 17/02/2024 à 11:47, Mikko a écrit :
> 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.
> 

Anyway this kinda sloppy translation is not quite a big deal, there
is absolutely no ambiguity. Moreover Heger was pretending that "A"
was used with two different meanings in a single sentence, not "X",
so he is blatantly lying (again).

The point is still that the way misinterpret part I.1. in Einstein's
article is properly ridiculous. At first he didn't get that both clocks
A and B were mutually at rest (it comes from... the very title of the
whole paragraph), then he fantasized about clocks on Alpha Centaury
using alien units and mechanism, while Einstein specified that both
clocks were identical in all aspects. He persists, though, to consider
that this part of the article is about clocks separated by interstellar
distances while it is obviously about clocks involved in different part
of a experiment in a hypothetical lab.

And, worse, while Einstein never wrote that the time label of a distant
event should be the time marked by a clock at that event position when
the event happens (i.e. "no delay") he persists to affirm that this is
the case even if the two equations in this part directly imply that
the light propagation delay is taken into account.

The absence of the word "delay" is far to subtle for him to grasp:
you cannot talk about a delay (outside of a round-trip time) between
two separated events if you do not define how clocks at these places
are synchronized, which is the very point of the paragraph which
start with a round-trip delay.

Heger cannot admit he is not a member of the audience of such an
article. He chokes on the most basic stuff.

And, as most cranks down here, he is not only stupid and stubborn,
he also has no intellectual integrity.

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

#646863

On 2024-02-17 13:33:38 +0000, Python said:

> Le 17/02/2024 à 11:47, Mikko a écrit :
>> 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.
>> 
> 
> Anyway this kinda sloppy translation is not quite a big deal, there
> is absolutely no ambiguity. Moreover Heger was pretending that "A"
> was used with two different meanings in a single sentence, not "X",
> so he is blatantly lying (again).

The symbol A is indeed used in several different meanings but the
meaning is always specified. But Heger also claimed (falsely) that
Einstein used X in two different meanings in the same sentence:

On 2024-02-16 07:20, Thomas Heger said:
> Am 15.02.2024 um 11:32 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:
>> Den 15.02.2024 07:10, skrev Thomas Heger:

>>> 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, ..."

In Einstein's text "X-Achse" is clearly different from plain "X".

-- 
Mikko

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

#646874

On 2024-02-17 14:40:31 +0000, Mikko said:

> On 2024-02-17 13:33:38 +0000, Python said:
> 
>> Le 17/02/2024 à 11:47, Mikko a écrit :
>>> 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.

That's the first time you've claimed that, I think. If it's true, why 
do you keep writing "Einstein" when you mean someone else?
>>> 
>>> When a real professor evaluates a translation the main criterion is
>>> whether the translation preseves the meaning of the text.
>>> 
>> 
>> Anyway this kinda sloppy translation is not quite a big deal, there
>> is absolutely no ambiguity. Moreover Heger was pretending that "A"
>> was used with two different meanings in a single sentence, not "X",
>> so he is blatantly lying (again).
> 
> The symbol A is indeed used in several different meanings but the
> meaning is always specified. But Heger also claimed (falsely) that
> Einstein used X in two different meanings in the same sentence:
> 
> On 2024-02-16 07:20, Thomas Heger said:
>> Am 15.02.2024 um 11:32 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:
>>> Den 15.02.2024 07:10, skrev Thomas Heger:
> 
>>>> 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, ..."
> 
> In Einstein's text "X-Achse" is clearly different from plain "X".


-- 
athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots

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

#646912

Le 17/02/2024 à 15:40, Mikko a écrit :
> On 2024-02-17 13:33:38 +0000, Python said:
> 
>> Le 17/02/2024 à 11:47, Mikko a écrit :
>>> 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.
>>>
>>
>> Anyway this kinda sloppy translation is not quite a big deal, there
>> is absolutely no ambiguity. Moreover Heger was pretending that "A"
>> was used with two different meanings in a single sentence, not "X",
>> so he is blatantly lying (again).
> 
> The symbol A is indeed used in several different meanings but the
> meaning is always specified. But Heger also claimed (falsely) that
> Einstein used X in two different meanings in the same sentence:
> 
> On 2024-02-16 07:20, Thomas Heger said:
>> Am 15.02.2024 um 11:32 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:
>>> Den 15.02.2024 07:10, skrev Thomas Heger:
> 
>>>> 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, ..."
> 
> In Einstein's text "X-Achse" is clearly different from plain "X".

Definitely.

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

#647320

Am 17.02.2024 um 17:16 schrieb Python:
> Le 17/02/2024 à 15:40, Mikko a écrit :
>> On 2024-02-17 13:33:38 +0000, Python said:
>>
>>> Le 17/02/2024 à 11:47, Mikko a écrit :
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Anyway this kinda sloppy translation is not quite a big deal, there
>>> is absolutely no ambiguity. Moreover Heger was pretending that "A"
>>> was used with two different meanings in a single sentence, not "X",
>>> so he is blatantly lying (again).
>>
>> The symbol A is indeed used in several different meanings but the
>> meaning is always specified. But Heger also claimed (falsely) that
>> Einstein used X in two different meanings in the same sentence:
>>
>> On 2024-02-16 07:20, Thomas Heger said:
>>> Am 15.02.2024 um 11:32 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:
>>>> Den 15.02.2024 07:10, skrev Thomas Heger:
>>
>>>>> 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, ..."
>>
>> In Einstein's text "X-Achse" is clearly different from plain "X".
>
> Definitely.
>
the 'x-Achse' had a name, which was 'X'.

(with a capital 'X').

The values (coordinates) along that axis had a variable-name, too, which 
was 'x' in this case.

The difference is important, because it is important to distinguish 
between the coordinate system itself and coordinates.

In Einstein's text the system K had latin letters.

The axes had the names: X, Y, Z

the values along those axes had the names: x, y, z

In system k, the axes were named with tall Greek letters (Xsi, Eta, 
Zeta) and the values with small Greek letters (xsi, eta, zeta).

This naming system was rather annoying, but was more or less ok.


The problems came, when Einstein used the letters X,Y,Z also as 
variables in the electric field strength vector.

He called this 'force' and used such a vector: (X, Y, Z).

Here he created an ambiguity between the name of an axis of coordinate 
system K and a component of an electric field-strength vector.

To make matters worse, he used both meanings within a single sentence:

"...along the axis of X under the action of an electrostatic force X, ..."

This was comically twisted, because 'axis of X' was already an error 
(correct would be: 'x-axis' or simply 'X').


TH

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

#647397

On 2024-02-18 05:48:12 +0000, Thomas Heger said:

> 
> [ … ]
> 
> 
> The problems came, when Einstein used the letters X,Y,Z also as 
> variables in the electric field strength vector.

If you want to be taken seriously, rather than as a lying, ignorant 
crackpot, you need to stop referring to Perrett and Jeffery as 
"Einstein". Simple honesty requires this. Of course, no one is going to 
care in the slightest what you think of Perrett and Jeffery's skill as 
translators, so probably the best will be to stop promulgating your 
nonsense altogether.
> 
> He called this 'force' and used such a vector: (X, Y, Z).
> 
> Here he created an ambiguity between the name of an axis of coordinate 
> system K and a component of an electric field-strength vector.
> 
> To make matters worse, he used both meanings within a single sentence:
> 
> "...along the axis of X under the action of an electrostatic force X, ..."
> 
> This was comically twisted, because 'axis of X' was already an error 
> (correct would be: 'x-axis' or simply 'X').
> 
> 
> TH


-- 
athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots

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

#647420

On 2024-02-18 05:48:12 +0000, Thomas Heger said:

> Am 17.02.2024 um 17:16 schrieb Python:
>> Le 17/02/2024 à 15:40, Mikko a écrit :
>>> On 2024-02-17 13:33:38 +0000, Python said:
>>> 
>>>> Le 17/02/2024 à 11:47, Mikko a écrit :
>>>>> 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.
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Anyway this kinda sloppy translation is not quite a big deal, there
>>>> is absolutely no ambiguity. Moreover Heger was pretending that "A"
>>>> was used with two different meanings in a single sentence, not "X",
>>>> so he is blatantly lying (again).
>>> 
>>> The symbol A is indeed used in several different meanings but the
>>> meaning is always specified. But Heger also claimed (falsely) that
>>> Einstein used X in two different meanings in the same sentence:
>>> 
>>> On 2024-02-16 07:20, Thomas Heger said:
>>>> Am 15.02.2024 um 11:32 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:
>>>>> Den 15.02.2024 07:10, skrev Thomas Heger:
>>> 
>>>>>> 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, ..."
>>> 
>>> In Einstein's text "X-Achse" is clearly different from plain "X".
>> 
>> Definitely.
>> 
> the 'x-Achse' had a name,

True.

>  which was 'X'.

No, its name was "X-Achse", and still is.

-- 
Mikko

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

#646884

Python wrote:


>> whether the translation preseves the meaning of the text.
>> 

> Anyway this kinda sloppy 

Oh, stinker Python is opening its muzzle again,
and trying again to pretend he knows something.
Tell me, poor stinker, have you already learnt 
what a function is?

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

#646911

Le 17/02/2024 à 16:13, MaciejWozniak a écrit :
> Python wrote:
> 
> 
>>> whether the translation preseves the meaning of the text.
>>>
> 
>> Anyway this kinda sloppy 
> 
> Oh, stinker Python is opening its muzzle again,
> and trying again to pretend he knows something.
> Tell me, poor stinker, have you already learnt what a function is?

I can teach that to you, $50/hour. Consider that a lot of
hours would be needed, given your issues with basic logic.

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

#646950

Python wrote:

> Le 17/02/2024 à 16:13, MaciejWozniak a écrit :
>> Python wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>>> whether the translation preseves the meaning of the text.
>>>>
>> 
>>> Anyway this kinda sloppy 
>> 
>> Oh, stinker Python is opening its muzzle again,
>> and trying again to pretend he knows something.
>> Tell me, poor stinker, have you already learnt what a function is?

> I can teach that to you, $50/hour.

Great, so you have learnt! And do you
already know that  a function has 
"for any element of the domain" clause,
or is it still confusing you, poor stinker?

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

#647306

Am 17.02.2024 um 14:33 schrieb Python:
> Le 17/02/2024 à 11:47, Mikko a écrit :
>> 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.
>>
>
> Anyway this kinda sloppy translation is not quite a big deal, there
> is absolutely no ambiguity. Moreover Heger was pretending that "A"
> was used with two different meanings in a single sentence, not "X",
> so he is blatantly lying (again).
>
> The point is still that the way misinterpret part I.1. in Einstein's
> article is properly ridiculous. At first he didn't get that both clocks
> A and B were mutually at rest (it comes from... the very title of the
> whole paragraph), then he fantasized about clocks on Alpha Centaury
> using alien units and mechanism, while Einstein specified that both
> clocks were identical in all aspects. He persists, though, to consider
> that this part of the article is about clocks separated by interstellar
> distances while it is obviously about clocks involved in different part
> of a experiment in a hypothetical lab.
>
> And, worse, while Einstein never wrote that the time label of a distant
> event should be the time marked by a clock at that event position when
> the event happens (i.e. "no delay") he persists to affirm that this is
> the case even if the two equations in this part directly imply that
> the light propagation delay is taken into account.
>
> The absence of the word "delay" is far to subtle for him to grasp:
> you cannot talk about a delay (outside of a round-trip time) between
> two separated events if you do not define how clocks at these places
> are synchronized, which is the very point of the paragraph which
> start with a round-trip delay.

Actually Einstein wrote his paper, as if he wanted to ignore the delay 
or simply forgot to take it into consideration.

This is so, because Einstein had the idea, that clocks at different 
places show a different time (within the same frame of reference).

This would only make sense, if he had the plan to ignore the delay 
caused by the transit of the signal.

IMHO is this the opnly possible interpretation  of this part:
(page 3)

"Thus with the help of certain imaginary physical experiments we have 
settled what is to be understood by synchronous stationary clocks 
located at different places,  and have evidently obtained a definition of 
“simultaneous,” or “synchronous,” and of “time.” The “time” of an event 
is that which is given simultaneously with the event by a stationary 
clock located at the place of the event, this clock being synchronous, 
and indeed synchronous for all time determinations, with a specified 
stationary clock."

So, apparently Einstein wanted to make time dependent of the location 
(within a single frame of reference).

But time in locations that are stationary in respect to the coordinate 
system in question and in respect to the observer should have the same 
time, because 'frame of reference' means a combination of a time measure 
and a coordinate system, hence should not use different times for 
stationary points within that FoR.

But apparently Einstein had a different idea and wanted to assigne 
different time measures to different places.

This in turn would only make sense, if he wanted to ignore the delay and 
take the apparent time without compensation of the delay as remote time.

E.g.:

the delay from Moon to Earth is roughly a second.
A HUGE clock on the Moon would show (for instance) 1:00:00 p.m.

This clock is seen from Earth and shows  1:00:00 p.m.

What is the correct time on the Moon?

it is, of course  1:00:01 p.m., because that one second delay is not 
caused by a different time on the Moon, but by the delay.

But Einstein seemingly wanted  1:00:00 p.m. to be 'Moon-time', if 
1:00:00 p.m. is seen (hence ignored the delay).

TH

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

#647423

On 2024-02-18 05:25:18 +0000, Thomas Heger said:

> Am 17.02.2024 um 14:33 schrieb Python:
>> Le 17/02/2024 à 11:47, Mikko a écrit :
>>> 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.
>>> 
>> 
>> Anyway this kinda sloppy translation is not quite a big deal, there
>> is absolutely no ambiguity. Moreover Heger was pretending that "A"
>> was used with two different meanings in a single sentence, not "X",
>> so he is blatantly lying (again).
>> 
>> The point is still that the way misinterpret part I.1. in Einstein's
>> article is properly ridiculous. At first he didn't get that both clocks
>> A and B were mutually at rest (it comes from... the very title of the
>> whole paragraph), then he fantasized about clocks on Alpha Centaury
>> using alien units and mechanism, while Einstein specified that both
>> clocks were identical in all aspects. He persists, though, to consider
>> that this part of the article is about clocks separated by interstellar
>> distances while it is obviously about clocks involved in different part
>> of a experiment in a hypothetical lab.
>> 
>> And, worse, while Einstein never wrote that the time label of a distant
>> event should be the time marked by a clock at that event position when
>> the event happens (i.e. "no delay") he persists to affirm that this is
>> the case even if the two equations in this part directly imply that
>> the light propagation delay is taken into account.
>> 
>> The absence of the word "delay" is far to subtle for him to grasp:
>> you cannot talk about a delay (outside of a round-trip time) between
>> two separated events if you do not define how clocks at these places
>> are synchronized, which is the very point of the paragraph which
>> start with a round-trip delay.
> 
> Actually Einstein wrote his paper, as if he wanted to ignore the delay 
> or simply forgot to take it into consideration.

So you say but the truth is different.

-- 
Mikko

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

#647444

Le 18/02/2024 à 06:25, Thomas Heger a écrit :
> Am 17.02.2024 um 14:33 schrieb Python:
>> Le 17/02/2024 à 11:47, Mikko a écrit :
>>> 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.
>>>
>>
>> Anyway this kinda sloppy translation is not quite a big deal, there
>> is absolutely no ambiguity. Moreover Heger was pretending that "A"
>> was used with two different meanings in a single sentence, not "X",
>> so he is blatantly lying (again).
>>
>> The point is still that the way misinterpret part I.1. in Einstein's
>> article is properly ridiculous. At first he didn't get that both clocks
>> A and B were mutually at rest (it comes from... the very title of the
>> whole paragraph), then he fantasized about clocks on Alpha Centaury
>> using alien units and mechanism, while Einstein specified that both
>> clocks were identical in all aspects. He persists, though, to consider
>> that this part of the article is about clocks separated by interstellar
>> distances while it is obviously about clocks involved in different part
>> of a experiment in a hypothetical lab.
>>
>> And, worse, while Einstein never wrote that the time label of a distant
>> event should be the time marked by a clock at that event position when
>> the event happens (i.e. "no delay") he persists to affirm that this is
>> the case even if the two equations in this part directly imply that
>> the light propagation delay is taken into account.
>>
>> The absence of the word "delay" is far to subtle for him to grasp:
>> you cannot talk about a delay (outside of a round-trip time) between
>> two separated events if you do not define how clocks at these places
>> are synchronized, which is the very point of the paragraph which
>> start with a round-trip delay.
> 
> Actually Einstein wrote his paper, as if he wanted to ignore the delay 
> or simply forgot to take it into consideration.

No.

> This is so, because Einstein had the idea, that clocks at different 
> places show a different time (within the same frame of reference).

No. Quite the opposite: he starts by asking what it means for different
clocks to show the same time. Something that you overlook (as usual).

> This would only make sense, if he had the plan to ignore the delay 
> caused by the transit of the signal.

Definitely not, quite the opposite.

> IMHO is this the opnly possible interpretation  of this part:

You opinion is wrong.

> (page 3)
> 
> "Thus with the help of certain imaginary physical experiments we have 
> settled what is to be understood by synchronous stationary clocks 
> located at different places,  and have evidently obtained a definition of 
> “simultaneous,” or “synchronous,” and of “time.” The “time” of an event 
> is that which is given simultaneously with the event by a stationary 
> clock located at the place of the event, this clock being synchronous, 
> and indeed synchronous for all time determinations, with a specified 
> stationary clock."
> 
> So, apparently Einstein wanted to make time dependent of the location 
> (within a single frame of reference).

No. Quite the opposite: he wanted to make time marked by clock
independent of the location.


> But time in locations that are stationary in respect to the coordinate 
> system in question and in respect to the observer should have the same 
> time, because 'frame of reference' means a combination of a time measure 
> and a coordinate system, hence should not use different times for 
> stationary points within that FoR.
> 
> But apparently Einstein had a different idea and wanted to assigne 
> different time measures to different places.

Again: no.

> This in turn would only make sense, if he wanted to ignore the delay and 
> take the apparent time without compensation of the delay as remote time.

He didn't want to ignore the delay, he wanted to take the delay into
account without depending on a predefined arbitrary clock 
synchronization. As a matter of fact his procedure allows that.

> E.g.:
> 
> the delay from Moon to Earth is roughly a second.
> A HUGE clock on the Moon would show (for instance) 1:00:00 p.m.
> 
> This clock is seen from Earth and shows  1:00:00 p.m.
> 
> What is the correct time on the Moon?
> 
> it is, of course  1:00:01 p.m., because that one second delay is not 
> caused by a different time on the Moon, but by the delay.
> 
> But Einstein seemingly wanted  1:00:00 p.m. to be 'Moon-time', if 
> 1:00:00 p.m. is seen (hence ignored the delay).

How can you write "seemingly" while the whole point of part I.1 is
about NOT doing this. Anyway there is nothing of this kind in
the paper, this is something you made up.

The 400+ errors you claim to have found in Einstein's paper are
ALL errors on your part coming from YOUR misunderstandings of basic
stuff, reading issues, idiotic prejudices and stubbornness stupidity
Thomas.

I'm quite sure, also, that German suprematism and antisemitism play
a huge part on your behavior.

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

#647604

Den 18.02.2024 06:25, skrev Thomas Heger:
> 
> Actually Einstein wrote his paper, as if he wanted to ignore the delay 
> or simply forgot to take it into consideration.
> 
> This is so, because Einstein had the idea, that clocks at different 
> places show a different time (within the same frame of reference).
> 
> This would only make sense, if he had the plan to ignore the delay 
> caused by the transit of the signal.

 From whence do you get the weird idea that Einstein ignored
the transit time of a light beam?

Please read the following carefully.
====================================

Below I show how two real clocks in the real world can be
synchronised, strictly according to Einstein's method.

We have to equal clocks C_A and C_B. They are not synced in any way,
but they are using the same time unit, let's call it second.
The clocks run at the same rate.

In our very big lab, we have two points A and B which are
L = 299.792458 metres apart.
We know that the speed of light is c = 299792458 m/s.
The transit time for light to go from A to B is:
  t = L/c = 1.0E-6 seconds

(L and t do not have to be known, as t will be measured in
  the experiment.)

At point A we have:
Clock C_A, a light-detector, a flash-light and a computer.
The computer can register the time shown by C_A when
the flash-light is flashing, and when the light-detector
registers a light-flash.

At point B we have:
Clock C_B, a light-detector, a mirror and a computer.
The computer can register the time shown by C_A when
the light-detector registers a light-flash.

Now we let the flash-light at point A flash.
At this instant, C_A is showing tA = n seconds.
tA is measured by C_A at A.

When the flash hits the light-detector at B,
Clock C_B shows tB = m seconds.
tB is measured by C_B at B.

A short time later the light detector at A registers
the light reflected by the mirror at B.
At this instant Clock C_A shows t'A = n + 2.0E-6 seconds.
t'A is measured by C_A at A.

Einstein:
  "The two clocks synchronize if  tB − tA = t'A − tB."

Or: tB = (tA + t'A)/2 = (n+n+2.0E-6)/2 = (n + 1.0E6)

That is, to be synchronous clock C_B must show a time midway
between tA and t'A when the light is reflected by the mirror.
So  tB should show (n + 1.0E6) seconds when the light is reflected
by the mirror.
But at that instant tB is showing m seconds, so to make the two
clocks synchronous, we must adjust clock C_B by:
  δ = (n-m) + 1.0E-6 seconds.

After this correction, we have:

  tB  − tA = (m - n) seconds +  δ         = 1.0E-6 seconds
  t'A − tB = (n + 2.0E-6 - m) seconds - δ = 1.0E-6 seconds

The clocks are now synchronised.
-------

Do you miss the 'delay' of something?

What is:
  (tB  − tA) = 1 microsecond ?
and
  (t'A − tB) = 1 microsecond ?


> 
> IMHO is this the opnly possible interpretation  of this part:
> (page 3)
> 
> "Thus with the help of certain imaginary physical experiments we have 
> settled what is to be understood by synchronous stationary clocks 
> located at different places,  and have evidently obtained a definition of 
> “simultaneous,” or “synchronous,” and of “time.” The “time” of an event 
> is that which is given simultaneously with the event by a stationary 
> clock located at the place of the event, this clock being synchronous, 
> and indeed synchronous for all time determinations, with a specified 
> stationary clock."

A bit convoluted, but basically correct.

> 
> So, apparently Einstein wanted to make time dependent of the location 
> (within a single frame of reference).

No, you explained it awkwardly but correctly above:

"The “time” of an event is that which is given simultaneously with
  the event by a stationary clock located at the place of the event,
  this clock being synchronous, and indeed synchronous for all time
  determinations, with a specified stationary clock."

Simpler put:
  All stationary, synchronous clocks in an inertial frame
  are simultaneously showing the same.

If we say "the time of the event is t", then the time of the event
is t regardless of the position of the event.

The (coordinate) "time" of the frame is independent of the position.


> 
> But time in locations that are stationary in respect to the coordinate 
> system in question and in respect to the observer should have the same 
> time, because 'frame of reference' means a combination of a time measure 
> and a coordinate system, hence should not use different times for 
> stationary points within that FoR.

OF COURSE!

> 
> But apparently Einstein had a different idea and wanted to assigne 
> different time measures to different places.
> 
> This in turn would only make sense, if he wanted to ignore the delay and 
> take the apparent time without compensation of the delay as remote time.

Do you live down under, since you get everything upside down? :-D

> 
> E.g.:
> 
> the delay from Moon to Earth is roughly a second.

Close enough.
The transit time of light Moon-Earth is ≈ 1.26 seconds.

> A HUGE clock on the Moon would show (for instance) 1:00:00 p.m.

(Gravitation and motion of the Moon are ignored.
  Earth and Moon are stationary in an inertial system).

> 
> This clock is seen from Earth and shows  1:00:00 p.m.
> 
> What is the correct time on the Moon?

The time on the Moon when the clock on the Moon from Earth
is visually observed to show 1:00:00 p.m. is:
>  of course  1:00:01 p.m., because that one second delay is not 
> caused by a different time on the Moon, but by the delay.

What is the point with stating the bleeding obvious?

> 
> But Einstein seemingly wanted  1:00:00 p.m. to be 'Moon-time', if 
> 1:00:00 p.m. is seen (hence ignored the delay).

Again, from whence did you get this unbelievable stupid idea? :-D

Come on!
You can't seriously believe that Einstein thought
that the speed of light was infinitely high.

Have you missed that according to SR, the speed
of light is invariant c (which is finite).

Can you really be THAT ignorant?

-- 
Paul

https://paulba.no/

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

#647617

Paul B. Andersen wrote:

> Den 18.02.2024 06:25, skrev Thomas Heger:
>> 
>> Actually Einstein wrote his paper, as if he wanted to ignore the delay 
>> or simply forgot to take it into consideration.
>> 
>> This is so, because Einstein had the idea, that clocks at different 
>> places show a different time (within the same frame of reference).
>> 
>> This would only make sense, if he had the plan to ignore the delay 
>> caused by the transit of the signal.

>  From whence do you get the weird idea that Einstein ignored
> the transit time of a light beam?

> Please read the following carefully.
> ====================================

> Below I show how two real clocks in the real world can be
> synchronised, strictly according to Einstein's method.

You only believe that The Holiest Procedure
is somehow usable in the real world - because
you have no contact with the real wold.
Your gedankenland has replaced the reality
in your tiny, fanatic halfbrain. It happens.

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

#647621

Le 18/02/2024 à 22:36, MaciejWozniak a écrit :
> Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> 
>> Den 18.02.2024 06:25, skrev Thomas Heger:
>>>
>>> Actually Einstein wrote his paper, as if he wanted to ignore the 
>>> delay or simply forgot to take it into consideration.
>>>
>>> This is so, because Einstein had the idea, that clocks at different 
>>> places show a different time (within the same frame of reference).
>>>
>>> This would only make sense, if he had the plan to ignore the delay 
>>> caused by the transit of the signal.
> 
>>  From whence do you get the weird idea that Einstein ignored
>> the transit time of a light beam?
> 
>> Please read the following carefully.
>> ====================================
> 
>> Below I show how two real clocks in the real world can be
>> synchronised, strictly according to Einstein's method.
> 
> You only believe that The Holiest Procedure
> is somehow usable in the real world - because
> you have no contact with the real wold.

It is actually usable. You've never put a foot in a real
lab, have you Maciej?

> Your gedankenland has replaced the reality
> in your tiny, fanatic halfbrain. It happens.

I noticed that you've stopped posting your nonsensical
rants on early mornings for quite a few weeks. Are nurses
in your psychiatric ward restraining you in your bed?

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

#647297

Am 17.02.2024 um 11:47 schrieb Mikko:
> 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.
>

I'm, of course, not a real professor and my aim was not to evaluate a 
translation.

My aim was to find absolutely all errors in this text (in the English 
translation).


Therefore, I had only a limited scope and the German version was not 
part of it.

I had, however, mentioned the German text a few times. But in general I 
didn't want to compare both versions or find errrors in the translation.


I also didn't want to discuss relativity per se or the validity of the 
pyhsical content of this paper.

It's pointless, anyhow, because a paper with 400+ errors in it could 
hardly be used for anything of practical value.



TH

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

#647329

On 2/17/2024 11:47 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:

> It's pointless, anyhow, because a paper with 400+ errors in it could 
> hardly be used for anything of practical value.
> 
Fortunately, Einstein's paper doesn't have 400+ errors. Or any errors, 
for that matter.

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

#647375

Volney wrote:

> On 2/17/2024 11:47 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:

>> It's pointless, anyhow, because a paper with 400+ errors in it could 
>> hardly be used for anything of practical value.
>> 
> Fortunately, Einstein's paper doesn't have 400+ errors. Or any errors, 
> for that matter.

The mumble of your idiot guru was not even consistent,
stupid Mike, you've got a direct proof and your peans
to  his next to infinite wisdom are not going to 
change that.

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

#647451

Volney wrote:

> On 2/17/2024 11:47 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> 
>> It's pointless, anyhow, because a paper with 400+ errors in it could
>> hardly be used for anything of practical value.
>> 
> Fortunately, Einstein's paper doesn't have 400+ errors. Or any errors,
> for that matter.

'𝗥𝘂𝘀𝘀𝗼𝗽𝗵𝗼𝗯𝗶𝗰_𝗨𝗦_𝗘𝗹𝗶𝘁𝗲'_𝗦𝗼𝘂𝗴𝗵𝘁_𝘁𝗼_𝗪𝗲𝗮𝗸𝗲𝗻_𝗥𝘂𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗮_𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵_𝗘𝘂𝗿𝗼𝗺𝗮𝗶𝗱𝗮𝗻,_'𝗕𝘂𝘁_𝗙𝗮𝗶𝗹𝗲𝗱'_-_𝗘𝘅-𝗠𝗘𝗣
https://sputnikglobe.com/20240218/russophobic-us-elite-sought-to-weaken-russia-with-euromaidan-but-failed---ex-mep-1116842866.html
On the 10th anniversary of the events in Ukraine known as the Euromaidan (lit. "Euro Square") unrest, which eventually resulted in a coup and the ouster of then-President Viktor Yanukovych, a Spanish politician has shared his opinion on how the EU allowed itself to be drawn into the existing crisis 𝗳𝗼𝗿_𝘁𝗵𝗲_𝘀𝗮𝗸𝗲_𝗼𝗳_𝗨𝗦_𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘁𝘀.

𝗣𝘂𝘁𝗶𝗻_𝗦𝗮𝘆𝘀_𝗖𝘂𝗿𝗿𝗲𝗻𝘁_𝗚𝗲𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗻_𝗣𝗼𝗹𝗶𝗰𝗶𝗲𝘀_𝗖𝗮𝘂𝘀𝗲_'𝗘𝗻𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗼𝘂𝘀'_𝗗𝗮𝗺𝗮𝗴𝗲_𝘁𝗼_𝗚𝗲𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗻_𝗘𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗼𝗺𝘆
https://sputnikglobe.com/20240218/putin-says-current-german-policies-cause-enormous-damage-to-german-economy-1116856473.html

𝗨𝗞_𝗕𝗲𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗱_𝗔𝘁𝘁𝗮𝗰𝗸_𝗼𝗻_𝗥𝘂𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗮𝗻_𝗜𝗟-76_𝗪𝗶𝘁𝗵_𝗨𝗸𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗶𝗮𝗻_𝗣𝗢𝗪𝘀_-_𝗦𝗼𝘂𝗿𝗰𝗲
https://sputnikglobe.com/20240218/uk-behind-attack-on-russian-il-76-with-ukrainian-pows---source-1116854726.html

𝗨𝗸𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗲_𝗔𝗱𝗼𝗽𝘁𝘀_𝗧𝗮𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗰_𝗨𝘀𝗲𝗱_𝗯𝘆_𝗚𝗲𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗻_𝗡𝗮𝘇𝗶𝘀_𝗶𝗻_𝗪𝗪𝗜𝗜_-_𝗥𝗲𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁
https://sputnikglobe.com/20240217/did-nazi-that-coming-ukraine-adopts-tactic-used-by-german-nazis-in-wwii-1116850863.html

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

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

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

csiph-web