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 4 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4]

#647427

On 2024-02-18 04:47:38 +0000, Thomas Heger said:

> Am 17.02.2024 um 11:47 schrieb Mikko:
>> On 2024-02-17 09:36:42 +0000, Thomas Heger said:

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

If you only look at the translation you cannot evaluate anything else.

Anyway, it does not matter what your purpose was as you have already
demonstrated that you cannot acieve it.

-- 
Mikko

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

#647448

Thomas Heger wrote:

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

hey listen, if you name Einstine in a documentary, for absolutely no 
reason, you monthly income is safe. Which indicates the scientists in 
amrica are not stupid. This is one more proof for Einstine.

like also, as it was suspected, you can escape jail in amrica, because 
stupidity, but not being stupid enough to remain a "president". The man is 
most likely faking his stupidity to escape prison, for fuck sake. Like 
Einstine marring his cousin. With which he was sleeping in bed.


https://th%65%70eopl%65%73%76oice.tv/

𝗨𝗦_𝗧𝗮𝘅𝗽𝗮𝘆𝗲𝗿𝘀’_𝗠𝗼𝗻𝗲𝘆_𝗨𝘀𝗲𝗱_𝗧𝗼_𝗙𝘂𝗻𝗱_𝗥𝗲𝘀𝗲𝗮𝗿𝗰𝗵_𝗜𝗻𝘁𝗼_𝗧𝗿𝗮𝘀𝗵_𝗙𝗲𝗱_𝗖𝗿𝗶𝗰𝗸𝗲𝘁𝘀_𝗳𝗼𝗿_𝗛𝘂𝗺𝗮𝗻_𝗖𝗼𝗻𝘀𝘂𝗺𝗽𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻
The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) is funding research into trash-
derived cricket feed. The agency has allocated $130,000 in federal funds 
to support research into cultivating crickets, that have been fed 
municipal landfill waste, as […]

𝗔𝗺𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗰𝗮’𝘀_𝗙𝗶𝗿𝘀𝘁_15_𝗠𝗶𝗻𝘂𝘁𝗲_𝗖𝗶𝘁𝘆_𝗖𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗱_𝗜𝗻_𝗧𝗲𝗺𝗽𝗲,_𝗔𝗿𝗶𝘇𝗼𝗻𝗮
A Tempe, Arizona, neighborhood called Culdesac is the first community in 
the nation to be designed around car-free living. Culdesac is being 
described as America’s first example of a“15-minute city” – a vision 
promoted by […]

𝗭𝗲𝗹𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗸𝘆_𝗗𝗲𝗺𝗮𝗻𝗱𝘀_𝗠𝗼𝗿𝗲_𝗪𝗲𝗮𝗽𝗼𝗻𝘀_𝗙𝗿𝗼𝗺_𝗪𝗲𝘀𝘁
Volodymyr Zelenskyy warned his allies on Saturday that an “artificial 
deficit” of weapons for Ukraine was giving Russia breathing space. The 
Ukrainian president was speaking at the Munich Security Conference, an 
annual gathering of security […]

𝗛𝗼𝘂𝘀𝗲_𝗥𝗲𝗽𝘂𝗯𝗹𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗻𝘀_𝗗𝗲𝗺𝗮𝗻𝗱_𝗕𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗻_𝗧𝗮𝗸𝗲_𝗖𝗼𝗴𝗻𝗶𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲_𝗧𝗲𝘀𝘁
House Republicans are deamnding that President Biden take a cognitive test 
to prove his mental fitness for office. A former White House physician and 
83 other US House Republicans raised “grave concerns” about Biden’s 
cognitive […]

𝗕𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗻’𝘀_𝗧𝗿𝗮𝗻𝘀_𝗛𝗲𝗮𝗹𝘁𝗵_𝗦𝗲𝗰𝗿𝗲𝘁𝗮𝗿𝘆_𝗦𝗮𝘆𝘀_𝗖𝗹𝗶𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗲_𝗖𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗴𝗲_𝗗𝗶𝘀𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗹𝘆_𝗔𝗳𝗳𝗲𝗰𝘁𝘀_𝗕𝗹𝗮𝗰𝗸_𝗖𝗼𝗺𝗺𝘂𝗻𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗲𝘀’_𝗛𝗲𝗮𝗹𝘁𝗵
The Biden appointed Assistant Secretary of the Department of Health and 
Human Services (HHS), has managed to link climate change to racial 
disparities in health. In a video posted on X to honor black history […]

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

#647450

Den 18.02.2024 05:47, skrev Thomas Heger:
>> 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:
>>>>> Paul b. Andersen wrote:
>>>>>> 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.

You wrote:
  "But Einstein gave this another kick and used the same symbol
   twice with different meanings within a single sentence."

Einstein didn't use X as the name of the X-axis in §10,
he called it the  X-Axis.
In the translation is the phrase "the axis of X" is used so
the axis was NOT called X.

The English translation of the "single sentence" was NOT:
  "If an electron moves from rest at the origin of
   co-ordinates of the system K along X under the action of
   an electrostatic force X .."

The sentence wouldn't even have made sense if X had been used
as name of the X-Axis.
X is explicitly defined to be an "electrostatic force"

Since you have thoroughly scrutinized the text and failed to find
an example of "use of the same symbol twice with different meanings
within a single sentence", we can conclude that no such example exists.

Well done, and don't try to flee from the fact.

> 
> 
> 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.

It's rather 400+ cases of your failure to understand the text.

Let's review some of the alleged errors.

You, Thomas Heger, claimed:
  "Einstein's variable names were EXTREMELY annoying!
   "He had eight different uses of the letter 'A'."

And you list them up:
  His [Einstein's] uses of 'A' were:
#1: as name of a point in space
#2: as name of the local time at point A as 'A-time'
#3: for one end of a flying rod
#4: as index of the time value t_A
#5: as area
#6: in 'electric power of deflection' A_e
#7: in 'magnetic power of deflection' A_m
#8: as (only!) internal reference 'A'

This is actually too stupid to comment, but since
you are too ignorant to understand how stupid it is,
I will do it anyway:

#1: Right.
     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.

#2: "Einstein uses the symbol 'A' to mean 'A-time'" doesn't make sense.

#3: A is the name of the spatial point where one end of the rod
     is positioned.

#4: "Einstein uses the symbol 'A' to mean 't_A'" :-D
     Doesn't make sense.

#5: 'A' is never used as area in this paper.

#6: "Einstein uses the symbol 'A' to mean 'A_e'" :-D
#7: "Einstein uses the symbol 'A' to mean 'A_m'" :-D

However,
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.

#8: "Einstein uses the symbol 'A' to mean (A) " :-D
    The symbol for numbering of equations '(A)' is not
    equal to the symbol 'A', like the symbol '(1)' is not
    equal to the symbol '1'.


So there are only two different meanings of 'A' in the paper.
In §1 to and including §5 'A' is a point in space.
In §7 to and including §10 'A' is the amplitude of
the electric or magnetic force.


-- 
Paul

https://paulba.no/

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

#647955

Am 18.02.2024 um 13:28 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:
> Den 18.02.2024 05:47, skrev Thomas Heger:
>>> 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:
>>>>>> Paul b. Andersen wrote:
>>>>>>> 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.
>
> You wrote:
>   "But Einstein gave this another kick and used the same symbol
>    twice with different meanings within a single sentence."
>
> Einstein didn't use X as the name of the X-axis in §10,
> he called it the  X-Axis.
> In the translation is the phrase "the axis of X" is used so
> the axis was NOT called X.

The names of the axes in k were defined in § 3 page 8 in the footnote 
with the dagger.

quote:

"Editor’s note:  In Einstein’s original  paper, the symbols (Ξ, H, Z) 
for the co-ordinates of the moving system k were introduced without 
explicitly defining them. In the 1923 English translation, (X, Y, Z) were 
used, creating an ambiguity between X co-ordinates in the fixed  system K 
and the parallel axis in moving system k. Here and in  subsequent 
references we use Ξ when referring to the axis of system k along which 
the system is translating with respect to K. "

As I am writing about this translation, I use this footnote as defintion.

This means:

the axes have names, which consist of single large letters (Latin in 
case of system K and Greek in case of system k)

the coordinates have also names, but with small letters.


Now:

'x-axis' is correct

'X' is also a valid name of the same x-axis.


But "Let the axes of X of the two systems coincide, ..." is wrong.

(from § 3, first paragraph)

This is so, because his definitions require Greek letters for the x-axis 
of system k.

But Einstein didn't use his own definitions and ocasionally called the 
x-axis of k 'X', while it had to be 'Xsi'.

This is no big deal, of course, but still wrong.

It was also very annoying for the reader (me in this case), because I 
had to marter my brain, if I wanted to find out, to which system a 
certain variable should actually belong.

It is therefore a serious error, if the relation to the meant system is 
not properly defined, because the main point of relativity is the 
relation between systems moving in respect to each other.

This would require a proper assignement of any used variable to one of 
these systems.

And that in turn would not allow any wrong variable names.


TH




> The English translation of the "single sentence" was NOT:
>   "If an electron moves from rest at the origin of
>    co-ordinates of the system K along X under the action of
>    an electrostatic force X .."
>
> The sentence wouldn't even have made sense if X had been used
> as name of the X-Axis.
> X is explicitly defined to be an "electrostatic force"
>
> Since you have thoroughly scrutinized the text and failed to find
> an example of "use of the same symbol twice with different meanings
> within a single sentence", we can conclude that no such example exists.
>
> Well done, and don't try to flee from the fact.
>
>>
>>
>> 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.
>
> It's rather 400+ cases of your failure to understand the text.
>
> Let's review some of the alleged errors.
>
> You, Thomas Heger, claimed:
>   "Einstein's variable names were EXTREMELY annoying!
>    "He had eight different uses of the letter 'A'."
>
> And you list them up:
>   His [Einstein's] uses of 'A' were:
> #1: as name of a point in space
> #2: as name of the local time at point A as 'A-time'
> #3: for one end of a flying rod
> #4: as index of the time value t_A
> #5: as area
> #6: in 'electric power of deflection' A_e
> #7: in 'magnetic power of deflection' A_m
> #8: as (only!) internal reference 'A'
>
> This is actually too stupid to comment, but since
> you are too ignorant to understand how stupid it is,
> I will do it anyway:
>
> #1: Right.
>      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.
>
> #2: "Einstein uses the symbol 'A' to mean 'A-time'" doesn't make sense.
>
> #3: A is the name of the spatial point where one end of the rod
>      is positioned.
>
> #4: "Einstein uses the symbol 'A' to mean 't_A'" :-D
>      Doesn't make sense.
>
> #5: 'A' is never used as area in this paper.
>
> #6: "Einstein uses the symbol 'A' to mean 'A_e'" :-D
> #7: "Einstein uses the symbol 'A' to mean 'A_m'" :-D
>
> However,
> 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.
>
> #8: "Einstein uses the symbol 'A' to mean (A) " :-D
>     The symbol for numbering of equations '(A)' is not
>     equal to the symbol 'A', like the symbol '(1)' is not
>     equal to the symbol '1'.
>
>
> So there are only two different meanings of 'A' in the paper.
> In §1 to and including §5 'A' is a point in space.
> In §7 to and including §10 'A' is the amplitude of
> the electric or magnetic force.
>
>

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

#648173

On 2024-02-19 05:56:19 +0000, Thomas Heger said:

> Am 18.02.2024 um 13:28 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:
>> Den 18.02.2024 05:47, skrev Thomas Heger:
>>>> 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:
>>>>>>> Paul b. Andersen wrote:
>>>>>>>> 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.
>> 
>> You wrote:
>> "But Einstein gave this another kick and used the same symbol
>> twice with different meanings within a single sentence."
>> 
>> Einstein didn't use X as the name of the X-axis in §10,
>> he called it the  X-Axis.
>> In the translation is the phrase "the axis of X" is used so
>> the axis was NOT called X.
> 
> The names of the axes in k were defined in § 3 page 8 in the footnote 
> with the dagger.
> 
> quote:
> 
> "Editor’s note:  In Einstein’s original  paper, the symbols (Ξ, H, Z) 
> for the co-ordinates of the moving system k were introduced without 
> explicitly defining them. In the 1923 English translation, (X, Y, Z) 
> were used, creating an ambiguity between X co-ordinates in the fixed  
> system K and the parallel axis in moving system k. Here and in  
> subsequent references we use Ξ when referring to the axis of system k 
> along which the system is translating with respect to K. "
> 
> As I am writing about this translation, I use this footnote as defintion.
> 
> This means:
> 
> the axes have names, which consist of single large letters (Latin in 
> case of system K and Greek in case of system k)

Yes, the axes have names. But the footnote does not define those names,
only which letters are used in the names.

-- 
Mikko

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

#648844

Den 19.02.2024 06:56, skrev Thomas Heger:
> Am 18.02.2024 um 13:28 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:

>>>> On 2024-02-17 09:36:42 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
>>>>
>>>>> So, my topic is this particular English translation.

>>
>> You wrote:
>>   "But Einstein gave this another kick and used the same symbol
>>    twice with different meanings within a single sentence."

You can't blame Einstein for the alleged errors in the translation.

It is interesting to note that you have given up
claiming that Einstein in §10 used the same symbol
twice with different meanings within a single sentence.

Now you claim to have found it in §3. Let's see.

> 
> The names of the axes in k were defined in § 3 page 8 in the footnote 
> with the dagger.

This Editor's note is partly plain wrong, and partly meaningless.

> quote:
> 
> "Editor’s note:  In Einstein’s original  paper, the symbols (Ξ, H, Z) 
> for the co-ordinates of the moving system k were introduced without 
> explicitly defining them.  In the 1923 English translation, (X, Y, Z) were 
> used, creating an ambiguity between X co-ordinates in the fixed  system K 
> and the parallel axis in moving system k. Here and in  subsequent 
> references we use Ξ when referring to the axis of system k along which 
> the system is translating with respect to K. "
> 
> As I am writing about this translation, I use this footnote as defintion.

A definition of what?

Let's see what actually is written in §3 of the papers:

----------

Einstein's original paper:
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/andp.19053221004

§3:
The "stationary system" is called K, with coordinates x,y,z,t.
The "moving system" is called k, with coordinates ξ, η, ζ, τ.
The "third system" is called K', with coordinates x',y',z',t'.

The name of the axes of a "Koordinatensysteme" are:
  X-Achse, Y-Achse and  Z-Achse

The name of the axes of a specific "Koordinatensysteme" are:
Die X-Achse System K, Die X-Achse System k.

However, the X-Achse of system K' is called "Die Ξ-Achse"
This is the only use of the symbol 'Ξ' (capital ξ) in §3.
'Ξ' is the Greek equivalent of capital 'X'.
This seems like a typo.

The symbols capital 'X', 'Y', 'Z' or 'Ξ' alone are never used
as names of the axes in §3.

------------------

The English translation:
https://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
https://paulba.no/paper/Electrodynamics.pdf

§3:
The "stationary system" is called K, with coordinates x,y,z,t.
The "moving system" is called k, with coordinates ξ, η, ζ, τ.
The "third system" is called K', with coordinates x',y',z',t'

The name of the axes in a coordinate system are:
  The axis of X, the axis of Y and  the axes of Z

The name of the axes of a specific coordinate system are:
The axis of X of system K, The axis of X of system k.

However, The axis of X of K' is called "The axis of Ξ".
This is the only use of the symbol 'Ξ' (capital ξ) in §3.
This seems like a typo imported from Einstein's original text.

The symbols capital 'X', 'Y', 'Z' or 'Ξ' alone are never used
as names of the axes in §3.

---------------------

Do you claim that Einstein in §3 used the same symbol
twice with different meanings within a single sentence?



-- 
Paul

https://paulba.no/

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

#648920

Paul B. Andersen wrote:

> Den 19.02.2024 06:56, skrev Thomas Heger:
>>> You wrote:
>>>   "But Einstein gave this another kick and used the same symbol
>>>    twice with different meanings within a single sentence."
> 
> You can't blame Einstein for the alleged errors in the translation.
> It is interesting to note that you have given up claiming that Einstein
> in §10 used the same symbol twice with different meanings within a
> single sentence. Now you claim to have found it in §3. Let's see.

correct. The 𝗸𝗵𝗮𝘇𝗮𝗿_𝗴𝗼𝘆 appointed chef of the 𝗻𝗮𝘇𝗶_𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗿𝗼𝗿𝗶𝘀𝘁 organization said 
nato, named the 𝗦𝘁𝗼𝗹𝘁𝗲𝗻𝗯𝗲𝗿𝗴𝗲𝗿, guilty like shit, admitting the guilt, blowing 
𝗼𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿_𝘀𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗲𝘀_𝗶𝗻𝗳𝗿𝗮𝘀𝘁𝗿𝘂𝗰𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗲 at the bottom of the sea, as "𝗲𝘅𝗲𝗿𝗰𝗶𝘀𝗲𝘀", admits to 
China:

"- 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗱𝗲𝗮𝘁𝗵 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗲𝗿 𝗥𝘂𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗮𝗻 𝗰𝗶𝘁𝗶𝘇𝗲𝗻 𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗶𝘁𝗼𝗿 𝗡𝗮𝘃𝗮𝗹𝘀𝗸𝘆, 𝗶𝘀 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗮'𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗻𝗮𝗹 𝗥𝘂𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗮𝗻 𝗶𝘀𝘀𝘂𝗲'".

the stupid 𝗸𝗵𝗮𝘇𝗮𝗿_𝗴𝗼𝘆 is admitting the guilt!!

𝗟𝗶𝗻𝗱𝘀𝗲𝘆_𝘄𝗮𝗻𝘁𝘀_𝘁𝗼_𝗽𝘂𝗻𝗶𝘀𝗵_𝗥𝘂𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗮._𝗗𝗲𝗻𝗺𝗮𝗿𝗸,_𝗮𝗹𝗹_𝗮𝗺𝗺𝗼_𝘁𝗼_𝗨𝗸𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗲._𝗨𝗿𝘀𝘂𝗹𝗮,_𝗘𝗨_2𝗻𝗱_𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗺._𝗕𝗼𝗻𝗼,_𝘀𝗮𝘆_𝗡𝗮𝘃𝗮𝗹𝗻𝘆
https://youtu.be/vJLyQz6xTcE (page 11:34)

 𝗥𝘂𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗮𝗻_𝗺𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝗮𝗿𝘆_𝗽𝗶𝗹𝗼𝘁_𝘄𝗵𝗼_𝗱𝗲𝗳𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗲𝗱_𝘁𝗼_𝗨𝗸𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗲_𝗳𝗼𝘂𝗻𝗱_𝗱𝗲𝗮𝗱_𝗶𝗻_𝗦𝗽𝗮𝗶𝗻_–_𝗞𝗶𝗲𝘃
Maksim Kuzminov, who hijacked a military helicopter, has reportedly been 
gunned down 
https://r%74.com/news/592702-pilot-defector-killed-spain/

 𝗢𝗽𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗶𝘀𝗺_𝗼𝗻_𝗨𝗸𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗲_𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗳𝗹𝗶𝗰𝘁_𝘄𝗮𝘀_‘𝗽𝗿𝗲𝗺𝗮𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗲’_𝗼𝗿_‘𝗱𝗲𝗹𝘂𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗹’_–_𝗡𝗬𝗧
Western speculation that Kiev was on the verge of victory has reportedly 
given way to “despair and hedging” 
https://r%74.com/news/592704-ukraine-allies-optmism-fades/

 𝗨𝗸𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗲_𝗵𝗮𝘀_𝘂𝘀𝗲𝗱_𝗨𝗦-𝗺𝗮𝗱𝗲_𝗰𝗵𝗲𝗺𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹_𝘄𝗲𝗮𝗽𝗼𝗻𝘀_–_𝗥𝘂𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗮
Moscow claims that Washington and Kiev have violated the articles of the 
Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons 
https://r%74.com/russia/592680-ukraine-us-chemical-weapons/

 ‘𝗖𝗮𝘁𝗮𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗼𝗽𝗵𝗶𝗰’_𝗛𝗼𝘂𝘁𝗵𝗶_𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗮𝗰𝗸_𝗱𝗮𝗺𝗮𝗴𝗲𝘀_𝗕𝗿𝗶𝘁𝗶𝘀𝗵_𝘀𝗵𝗶𝗽 lol
The Yemeni group has claimed to have shot down a US drone as well 
https://r%74.com/news/592700-houthi-attack-yemen-rubymar/

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

#649291

Am 19.02.2024 um 21:47 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:

>>>>>> So, my topic is this particular English translation.
>
>>>
>>> You wrote:
>>>   "But Einstein gave this another kick and used the same symbol
>>>    twice with different meanings within a single sentence."
>
> You can't blame Einstein for the alleged errors in the translation.

Actually I don't.

for me the actual author is irrelevant and especially also his 
intentions, because I wrote a critique about a specific text.

Who wrote it, how, with which intentions and why, that was not my topic.

I took the text as it is and this translation.

Whether the text represented Einstein's intentions or not was not my 
concern.


>
> It is interesting to note that you have given up
> claiming that Einstein in §10 used the same symbol
> twice with different meanings within a single sentence.
>
> Now you claim to have found it in §3. Let's see.
>
>>
>> The names of the axes in k were defined in § 3 page 8 in the footnote
>> with the dagger.
>
> This Editor's note is partly plain wrong, and partly meaningless.

Actually the editors wrote, that Einstein used tall Greek letters in the 
German original.

See here:
>> quote:
>>
>> "Editor’s note:  In Einstein’s original  paper, the symbols (Ξ, H, Z)
>> for the co-ordinates of the moving system k were introduced without
>> explicitly defining them.

The lack of definitions by Einstein was also annoying.

This made it very difficult to decipher some of his equations.

Einstein had also not a single illustration in his paper. This required 
to behave like Sherlock Holmes on a crime scene, if you wanted to decode 
the meaning of the used symbols.

>>
>> As I am writing about this translation, I use this footnote as defintion.
>
> A definition of what?
??

If you say something like
 > The "stationary system" is called K, with coordinates x,y,z,t.
 > The "moving system" is called k, with coordinates ξ, η, ζ, τ.

you have defined two coordinate system and connected symbols like e.g. 
ξ, η, ζ with a certain meaning.

This process is commonly called 'definition'.

But good practise is, to define each symbol only once.

Also good practise is, that the same quantity or mathematical object has 
only one name.

Reuse of symbols or abiguity of names were therefore critizised by me.


And certainly you don't want to promote ambiguity of names and 
unidentifiable symbols in physics papers.

TH

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

#647521

On 2/17/2024 4:36 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> 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.

Nice moving of the goalposts!
> 
> In this context I had critizised the prase 'axis of X', because 'X' was 
> already the name of the x-axis of system K.
> ...
> 
Of course a translation of X-Achse to 'axis of X' rather than 'X_axis' 
is hardly the fault of Einstein or a flaw in relativity.
Not only are you unqualified to criticize the physics, you are 
apparently unqualified to criticize German-English translations as well.

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

#647582

Volney wrote:

> On 2/17/2024 4:36 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>> In this context I had critizised the prase 'axis of X', because 'X' was
>> already the name of the x-axis of system K.
>> 
> Of course a translation of X-Achse to 'axis of X' rather than 'X_axis'
> is hardly the fault of Einstein or a flaw in relativity. Not only are
> you unqualified to criticize the physics, you are apparently
> unqualified to criticize German-English translations as well.

lol, 𝘁𝗵𝗲_𝗦𝗺𝗲𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗸𝘆 to america, no joke:

"We will stop considering the United States a strategic partner, if they 
don't help us"

fuck me, this is better than television. He takes amrica in its ass. Fuck 
mee.

 𝗠𝘂𝗻𝗶𝗰𝗵_𝗙𝗿𝗲𝗲𝗱𝗼𝗺_𝗡𝗶𝗴𝗵𝘁._𝗗𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗸_𝘁𝗼_𝗱𝗲𝗳𝗲𝗮𝘁_𝗣𝘂𝘁𝗶𝗻. (page 19:58)
 𝗔𝘃𝗱𝗲𝘆𝗲𝘃𝗸𝗮_𝗮𝗻𝗴𝗲𝗿._𝗘𝗹𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗸𝘆_𝗶𝗻𝘃𝗶𝘁𝗲𝘀_𝗧𝗿𝘂𝗺𝗽_𝘁𝗼_𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗲
https://youtu.be/JdmAwAFiLVg

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

#647961

Am 18.02.2024 um 17:30 schrieb Volney:
> On 2/17/2024 4:36 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Nice moving of the goalposts!


Well, as I can define my own goals, I can define what I want to do.

And, as I had written, my aim was to write annotations into this version.

You can define your own goals as well, but you should not expect me, to 
share any of them.

>> In this context I had critizised the prase 'axis of X', because 'X'
>> was already the name of the x-axis of system K.
>> ...
>>
> Of course a translation of X-Achse to 'axis of X' rather than 'X_axis'
> is hardly the fault of Einstein or a flaw in relativity.
> Not only are you unqualified to criticize the physics, you are
> apparently unqualified to criticize German-English translations as well.

No, sinced English is a second language for me and German my first.

Therefore I'm actually qualified to check the translation.

But that wouldn't mean, that I'm obliged to do that.

I could check the translation, if I had the wish to do that, but hadn't.

TH

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

#648709

On 2/19/2024 1:02 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 18.02.2024 um 17:30 schrieb Volney:
>> On 2/17/2024 4:36 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>> 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.
>>
>> Nice moving of the goalposts!
> 
> 
> Well, as I can define my own goals, I can define what I want to do.

Of course. I'm pointing out how you started out stating that this was a 
poorly written paper and Einstein reused letters like X for the axis of 
X and elsewhere, someone pointed out that was a poor translation of 
"X-Achse' so you claim to switch to criticizing the translation rather 
than admit Einstein didn't reuse X there.  In other words, moving the 
goalposts.
> 
> And, as I had written, my aim was to write annotations into this version.
> 
> You can define your own goals as well, but you should not expect me, to 
> share any of them.

It's perfectly fine for you to move the goalposts all over the place. 
But don't expect not to get called out for that.
> 
>>> In this context I had critizised the prase 'axis of X', because 'X'
>>> was already the name of the x-axis of system K.
>>> ...
>>>
>> Of course a translation of X-Achse to 'axis of X' rather than 'X_axis'
>> is hardly the fault of Einstein or a flaw in relativity.
>> Not only are you unqualified to criticize the physics, you are
>> apparently unqualified to criticize German-English translations as well.
> 
> No, sinced English is a second language for me and German my first.
> 
> Therefore I'm actually qualified to check the translation.
> 
But you didn't catch that.

> But that wouldn't mean, that I'm obliged to do that.
> 
> I could check the translation, if I had the wish to do that, but hadn't.

You are attempting to criticize a translation of a paper rather than the 
paper itself. You should either stick to either criticizing the 
translator (not very useful, the translator wasn't very famous) or 
criticize the original paper in German if that's your first language. 
But again, your criticisms of the content is just your misunderstandings 
and not useful.

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

#649293

Am 19.02.2024 um 19:31 schrieb Volney:
  ...
>>
>> And, as I had written, my aim was to write annotations into this version.
>>
>> You can define your own goals as well, but you should not expect me,
>> to share any of them.
>
> It's perfectly fine for you to move the goalposts all over the place.
> But don't expect not to get called out for that.
>>
>>>> In this context I had critizised the prase 'axis of X', because 'X'
>>>> was already the name of the x-axis of system K.
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>> Of course a translation of X-Achse to 'axis of X' rather than 'X_axis'
>>> is hardly the fault of Einstein or a flaw in relativity.

Actually both are wrong, because the tall letters were the name of the 
axes themselves, while small letters were the coordinates.
'X-axes' is wrong
'X_axis' is wrong
'axis of X' is wrong, too.

('x-axis' is correct or possibly 'axis of x')



>>> Not only are you unqualified to criticize the physics, you are
>>> apparently unqualified to criticize German-English translations as well.
>>
>> No, sinced English is a second language for me and German my first.
>>
>> Therefore I'm actually qualified to check the translation.
>>
> But you didn't catch that.
>
>> But that wouldn't mean, that I'm obliged to do that.
>>
>> I could check the translation, if I had the wish to do that, but hadn't.
>
> You are attempting to criticize a translation of a paper rather than the
> paper itself. You should either stick to either criticizing the
> translator (not very useful, the translator wasn't very famous) or
> criticize the original paper in German if that's your first language.
> But again, your criticisms of the content is just your misunderstandings
> and not useful.

Other than you I can speak German very well.

But there is no point to do that in this UseNet group, were the language 
is English.

So, my decision was to write annotations into the English translation, 
which is most commonly used.

You may regard this as questionable, but I think, it is perfectly ok.


TH

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

#650401

On 2024-02-20 08:11:10 +0000, Thomas Heger said:

> Am 19.02.2024 um 19:31 schrieb Volney:
>   ...
>>> 
>>> And, as I had written, my aim was to write annotations into this version.
>>> 
>>> You can define your own goals as well, but you should not expect me,
>>> to share any of them.
>> 
>> It's perfectly fine for you to move the goalposts all over the place.
>> But don't expect not to get called out for that.
>>> 
>>>>> In this context I had critizised the prase 'axis of X', because 'X'
>>>>> was already the name of the x-axis of system K.
>>>>> ...
>>>>> 
>>>> Of course a translation of X-Achse to 'axis of X' rather than 'X_axis'
>>>> is hardly the fault of Einstein or a flaw in relativity.
> 
> Actually both are wrong, because the tall letters were the name of the 
> axes themselves, while small letters were the coordinates.
> 'X-axes' is wrong
> 'X_axis' is wrong
> 'axis of X' is wrong, too.

In Einstein's article its name is "X-Achse" which is correct. No other
name is used in the same article.

-- 
Mikko

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

#645904

On 2024-02-16 06:20:15 +0000, Thomas Heger said:

> 'X' is also the name of the x-axis of system K.

No, it isn't. The name of the axis is "X-axis" ("X-Achse" in the original).

-- 
Mikko

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

#645984

Den 16.02.2024 07:20, skrev Thomas Heger:
> Am 15.02.2024 um 11:32 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:
>> Den 15.02.2024 07:10, skrev Thomas Heger:
>>> 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 see you had to search through the whole text when you in
the last paragraph found what you thought was an example of
"the same symbol twice with different meanings within a single
  sentence".

But in the 'single sentence':
  "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 .."
X is defined to be an electrostatic force and nothing else.

The phrase "the axis of X" is however a sloppy translation,
because the German text is:

"Bevegt sich ein Electron vom Koordinatenursprung des Systems K
  aus mit der Anfangsgeschwindikeit 0 beständig auf der X-Axis unter
  der Wirkung  einer electrostaishe kraft X ..."


So "the axis of X" should be "the X-axis".

> 
> '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.

No.
The name of the X-Axis of system K, is "X-axis of system K", not "X".

Since you have thoroughly scrutinized the text and failed to find
an example of "use of the same symbol twice with different meanings
within a single sentence", we can conclude that no such example exists.

Well done! :-D

-- 
Paul

https://paulba.no/

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

#644391

On Tuesday 13 February 2024 at 17:26:09 UTC+1, JanPB wrote:
> 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.

The mumble of the idiot was not even consistent.
You've got a proof, your ravings won't change anything,
poor trash.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 4 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4]

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

csiph-web