Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #654629 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Richard Hachel <r.hachel@wanadou.fr> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2024-07-04 13:30 +0000 |
| Last post | 2024-07-12 11:04 +0200 |
| Articles | 17 on this page of 217 — 21 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Langevin's paradox again Richard Hachel <r.hachel@wanadou.fr> - 2024-07-04 13:30 +0000
Re: Langevin's paradox again Python <python@invalid.org> - 2024-07-04 17:27 +0200
Re: Langevin's paradox again Athel Cornish-Bowden <me@yahoo.com> - 2024-07-04 19:04 +0200
Re: Langevin's paradox again Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-07-04 20:23 +0200
Re: Langevin's paradox again Richard Hachel <r.hachel@wanadou.fr> - 2024-07-04 21:19 +0000
Re: Langevin's paradox again hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) - 2024-07-04 18:27 +0000
Re: Langevin's paradox again Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-07-04 21:06 +0200
Re: Langevin's paradox again Richard Hachel <r.hachel@wanadou.fr> - 2024-07-04 20:54 +0000
Re: Langevin's paradox again hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) - 2024-07-04 21:32 +0000
Re: Langevin's paradox again Emette Warszawski Wei <wetz@sssrmwzt.pl> - 2024-07-04 22:14 +0000
Re: Langevin's paradox again "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2024-07-07 23:05 +0200
Re: Langevin's paradox again Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-07-07 23:25 +0200
Re: Langevin's paradox again Richard Hachel <r.hachel@wanadou.fr> - 2024-07-07 22:49 +0000
Re: Langevin's paradox again Richard Hachel <r.hachel@wanadou.fr> - 2024-07-08 13:19 +0000
Re: Langevin's paradox again Python <python@invalid.org> - 2024-07-08 15:21 +0200
Re: Langevin's paradox again Richard Hachel <r.hachel@wanadou.fr> - 2024-07-08 13:37 +0000
Re: Langevin's paradox again Richard Hachel <r.hachel@wanadou.fr> - 2024-07-08 14:17 +0000
Re: Langevin's paradox again Richard Hachel <r.hachel@wanadou.fr> - 2024-07-08 16:07 +0000
Re: Langevin's paradox again Athel Cornish-Bowden <me@yahoo.com> - 2024-07-08 17:57 +0200
Re: Langevin's paradox again Python <python@invalid.org> - 2024-07-08 12:58 +0200
Re: Langevin's paradox again Athel Cornish-Bowden <me@yahoo.com> - 2024-07-08 16:00 +0200
Re: Langevin's paradox again "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2024-07-10 20:51 +0200
Re: Langevin's paradox again Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2024-07-11 00:26 +0000
Re: Langevin's paradox again Cornelio Somogyi Xing <innli@lcrr.hu> - 2024-07-11 17:20 +0000
Re: Langevin's paradox again Nesdy Pantelas <ssts@ynsap.gr> - 2024-07-11 17:42 +0000
Re: Langevin's paradox again "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2024-07-08 20:30 +0200
Re: Langevin's paradox again Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-07-08 21:05 +0200
Re: Langevin's paradox again Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-07-08 15:12 +0200
Re: Langevin's paradox again Python <python@invalid.org> - 2024-07-08 15:14 +0200
Re: Langevin's paradox again Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-07-08 15:56 +0200
Re: Langevin's paradox again nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2024-07-08 10:57 +0200
Re: Langevin's paradox again Python <python@invalid.org> - 2024-07-08 15:05 +0200
Re: Langevin's paradox again Richard Hachel <r.hachel@wanadou.fr> - 2024-07-08 13:33 +0000
Re: Langevin's paradox again Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-07-08 14:57 +0200
Re: Langevin's paradox again nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2024-07-08 16:25 +0200
Re: Langevin's paradox again Python <python@invalid.org> - 2024-07-08 13:11 +0200
Re: Langevin's paradox again Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2024-07-09 07:33 +0200
Re: Langevin's paradox again Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2024-07-09 13:47 +0000
Re: Langevin's paradox again Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-07-09 16:54 +0200
Re: Langevin's paradox again Python <python@invalid.org> - 2024-07-09 17:02 +0200
Re: Langevin's paradox again Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-07-09 17:35 +0200
Re: Langevin's paradox again Python <python@invalid.org> - 2024-07-09 17:47 +0200
Re: Langevin's paradox again Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-07-09 19:05 +0200
Re: Langevin's paradox again Python <python@invalid.org> - 2024-07-09 19:08 +0200
Re: Langevin's paradox again Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-07-09 19:55 +0200
Re: Langevin's paradox again "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2024-07-09 22:54 +0200
Re: Langevin's paradox again Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-07-09 23:17 +0200
Re: Langevin's paradox again Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2024-07-09 21:36 +0000
Re: Langevin's paradox again Python <python@invalid.org> - 2024-07-10 12:42 +0200
Re: Langevin's paradox again Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2024-07-10 12:25 +0000
Re: Langevin's paradox again Python <python@invalid.org> - 2024-07-10 14:49 +0200
Re: Langevin's paradox again Python <python@invalid.org> - 2024-07-10 14:51 +0200
Re: Langevin's paradox again Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2024-07-10 13:17 +0000
Re: Langevin's paradox again Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2024-07-10 13:19 +0000
Re: Langevin's paradox again Python <python@invalid.org> - 2024-07-11 13:55 +0200
Re: Langevin's paradox again Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2024-07-10 13:33 +0000
Re: Langevin's paradox again Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2024-07-10 18:06 +0200
Re: Langevin's paradox again Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2024-07-10 16:25 +0000
Re: Langevin's paradox again "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2024-07-10 21:01 +0200
Re: Langevin's paradox again Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-07-10 21:24 +0200
Re: Langevin's paradox again Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2024-07-10 20:41 +0000
Re: Langevin's paradox again Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2024-07-10 20:47 +0000
Re: Langevin's paradox again Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2024-07-11 00:02 +0000
Re: Langevin's paradox again "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2024-07-11 14:41 +0200
Re: Langevin's paradox again Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2024-07-11 12:39 +0000
Re: Langevin's paradox again Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2024-07-11 12:42 +0000
Re: Langevin's paradox again Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2024-07-11 12:49 +0000
Re: Langevin's paradox again Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2024-07-11 12:56 +0000
Re: Langevin's paradox again "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2024-07-12 14:03 +0200
Re: Langevin's paradox again Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-07-12 14:11 +0200
Re: Langevin's paradox again Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2024-07-12 13:44 +0000
Re: Langevin's paradox again "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2024-07-14 20:36 +0200
Re: Langevin's paradox again Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-07-14 20:46 +0200
Re: Langevin's paradox again Richard Hachel <r.hachel@wanadou.fr> - 2024-07-14 21:11 +0000
Re: Langevin's paradox again "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2024-07-15 13:32 +0200
Re: Langevin's paradox again Richard Hachel <r.hachel@wanadou.fr> - 2024-07-15 12:23 +0000
Re: Langevin's paradox again Python <python@invalid.org> - 2024-07-15 14:26 +0200
Re: Langevin's paradox again Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-07-15 14:58 +0200
Re: Langevin's paradox again "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2024-07-15 15:16 +0200
Re: Langevin's paradox again Richard Hachel <r.hachel@wanadou.fr> - 2024-07-15 13:23 +0000
Re: Langevin's paradox again "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2024-07-15 22:18 +0200
Re: Langevin's paradox again Richard Hachel <r.hachel@wanadou.fr> - 2024-07-15 20:39 +0000
Re: Langevin's paradox again "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2024-07-16 13:02 +0200
Re: Langevin's paradox again Richard Hachel <r.hachel@wanadou.fr> - 2024-07-16 12:35 +0000
Re: Langevin's paradox again "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2024-07-16 22:30 +0200
Re: Langevin's paradox again Richard Hachel <r.hachel@wanadou.fr> - 2024-07-16 20:43 +0000
Re: Langevin's paradox again "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2024-07-17 19:30 +0200
Re: Langevin's paradox again Richard Hachel <r.hachel@wanadou.fr> - 2024-07-17 17:34 +0000
Re: Langevin's paradox again "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2024-07-17 19:59 +0200
Re: Langevin's paradox again Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-07-15 15:28 +0200
Re: Langevin's paradox again Haynh Molnár Jue <hlrrhm@omrh.hu> - 2024-07-16 17:00 +0000
Re: Langevin's paradox again tomyee3@gmail.com (ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog) - 2024-07-12 15:27 +0000
Re: Langevin's paradox again Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-07-12 17:34 +0200
Re: Langevin's paradox again Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2024-07-12 17:46 +0000
Re: Langevin's paradox again Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-07-12 20:32 +0200
Re: Langevin's paradox again Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2024-07-12 20:27 +0000
Re: Langevin's paradox again Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-07-12 22:55 +0200
Re: Langevin's paradox again Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2024-07-12 20:39 +0000
Re: Langevin's paradox again Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-07-11 16:31 +0200
Re: Langevin's paradox again Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2024-07-11 18:29 +0000
Re: Langevin's paradox again Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-07-11 20:55 +0200
Re: Langevin's paradox again Athel Cornish-Bowden <me@yahoo.com> - 2024-07-11 21:04 +0200
Re: Langevin's paradox again Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-07-12 12:40 +0300
Re: Langevin's paradox again Athel Cornish-Bowden <me@yahoo.com> - 2024-07-12 11:58 +0200
Re: Langevin's paradox again Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-07-14 13:32 +0300
Re: Langevin's paradox again Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-07-14 15:34 +0200
Re: Langevin's paradox again Richard Hachel <r.hachel@wanadou.fr> - 2024-07-14 15:05 +0000
Re: Langevin's paradox again Finis Maryanna <mmin@isasmia.net> - 2024-07-14 18:43 +0000
Re: Langevin's paradox again Richard Hachel <r.hachel@wanadou.fr> - 2024-07-14 13:02 +0000
Re: Langevin's paradox again Athel Cornish-Bowden <me@yahoo.com> - 2024-07-14 18:31 +0200
Re: Langevin's paradox again "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2024-07-12 15:29 +0200
Re: Langevin's paradox again Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2024-07-12 13:55 +0000
Re: Langevin's paradox again "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2024-07-14 01:34 +0200
Re: Langevin's paradox again Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2024-07-14 02:02 +0000
Re: Langevin's paradox again "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2024-07-14 19:12 +0200
Re: Langevin's paradox again Conard Lèmmi <manc@mrm.it> - 2024-07-14 17:27 +0000
Re: Langevin's paradox again Richard Hachel <r.hachel@wanadou.fr> - 2024-07-14 17:29 +0000
Re: Langevin's paradox again Richard Hachel <r.hachel@wanadou.fr> - 2024-07-14 17:40 +0000
Re: Langevin's paradox again "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2024-07-14 21:33 +0200
Re: Langevin's paradox again Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-07-14 22:14 +0200
Re: Langevin's paradox again Richard Hachel <r.hachel@wanadou.fr> - 2024-07-14 21:16 +0000
Re: Langevin's paradox again Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2024-07-15 08:38 +0200
Re: Langevin's paradox again Richard Hachel <r.hachel@wanadou.fr> - 2024-07-14 18:01 +0000
Re: Langevin's paradox again Richard Hachel <r.hachel@wanadou.fr> - 2024-07-14 18:31 +0000
Re: Langevin's paradox again "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2024-07-14 22:30 +0200
Re: Langevin's paradox again Richard Hachel <r.hachel@wanadou.fr> - 2024-07-14 21:49 +0000
Re: Langevin's paradox again "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2024-07-15 15:02 +0200
Re: Langevin's paradox again Richard Hachel <r.hachel@wanadou.fr> - 2024-07-15 13:10 +0000
Re: Langevin's paradox again "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2024-07-15 20:19 +0200
Re: Langevin's paradox again Richard Hachel <r.hachel@wanadou.fr> - 2024-07-15 19:38 +0000
Re: Langevin's paradox again "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2024-07-16 13:42 +0200
Re: Langevin's paradox again Richard Hachel <r.hachel@wanadou.fr> - 2024-07-16 13:25 +0000
Re: Langevin's paradox again "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2024-07-16 20:33 +0200
Re: Langevin's paradox again Richard Hachel <r.hachel@wanadou.fr> - 2024-07-16 18:56 +0000
Re: Langevin's paradox again "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2024-07-16 21:31 +0200
Re: Langevin's paradox again Richard Hachel <r.hachel@wanadou.fr> - 2024-07-16 19:35 +0000
Re: Langevin's paradox again "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2024-07-17 19:42 +0200
Re: Langevin's paradox again Richard Hachel <r.hachel@wanadou.fr> - 2024-07-17 18:26 +0000
Re: Langevin's paradox again "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2024-07-18 21:38 +0200
Re: Langevin's paradox again Jean-Michel Affoinez y Lopez-Francos <jmaylf@wanadou.fr> - 2024-07-18 20:35 +0000
Re: Langevin's paradox again "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2024-07-19 21:09 +0200
Re: Langevin's paradox again Richard Hachel <r.hachel@wanadou.fr> - 2024-07-19 19:34 +0000
Re: Langevin's paradox again "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2024-07-20 22:32 +0200
Re: Langevin's paradox again nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2024-07-22 10:47 +0200
Re: Langevin's paradox again Tyrone Mokrousov <ysonon@yvosvoo.ru> - 2024-07-19 19:36 +0000
Re: Langevin's paradox again Richard Hachel <r.hachel@wanadou.fr> - 2024-07-18 21:02 +0000
Re: Langevin's paradox again nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2024-07-19 22:27 +0200
Re: Langevin's paradox again Richard Hachel <r.hachel@wanadou.fr> - 2024-07-19 20:51 +0000
Re: Langevin's paradox again nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2024-07-19 23:21 +0200
Re: Langevin's paradox again Richard Hachel <r.hachel@wanadou.fr> - 2024-07-19 21:45 +0000
Re: Langevin's paradox again nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2024-07-20 10:32 +0200
Re: Langevin's paradox again "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2024-07-20 22:19 +0200
Re: Langevin's paradox again "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2024-07-20 22:21 +0200
Re: Langevin's paradox again Python <python@invalid.org> - 2024-07-16 23:07 +0200
Re: Langevin's paradox again Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-07-16 23:34 +0200
Re: Langevin's paradox again Richard Hachel <r.hachel@wanadou.fr> - 2024-07-16 22:35 +0000
Re: Langevin's paradox again Python <python@invalid.org> - 2024-07-17 01:38 +0200
Re: Langevin's paradox again Richard Hachel <r.hachel@wanadou.fr> - 2024-07-16 22:44 +0000
Re: Langevin's paradox again Python <python@invalid.org> - 2024-07-17 01:41 +0200
Re: Langevin's paradox again Richard Hachel <r.hachel@wanadou.fr> - 2024-07-17 00:11 +0000
Re: Langevin's paradox again Python <python@invalid.org> - 2024-07-17 02:14 +0200
Re: Langevin's paradox again Richard Hachel <r.hachel@wanadou.fr> - 2024-07-17 00:35 +0000
Re: Langevin's paradox again Python <python@invalid.org> - 2024-07-17 03:04 +0200
Re: Langevin's paradox again Richard Hachel <r.hachel@wanadou.fr> - 2024-07-17 03:02 +0000
Re: Langevin's paradox again Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-07-17 07:16 +0200
Re: Langevin's paradox again Richard Hachel <r.hachel@wanadou.fr> - 2024-07-15 19:57 +0000
Re: Langevin's paradox again "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2024-07-16 14:06 +0200
Le piège parfait (the perfect trap) Richard Hachel <r.hachel@wanadou.fr> - 2024-07-16 13:38 +0000
Re: Le piège parfait (the perfect trap) Python <python@invalid.org> - 2024-07-16 17:27 +0200
Re: Le piège parfait (the perfect trap) "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2024-07-16 21:05 +0200
Re: Le piège parfait (the perfect trap) Richard Hachel <r.hachel@wanadou.fr> - 2024-07-16 19:11 +0000
Re: Le piège parfait (the perfect trap) "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2024-07-16 21:43 +0200
Re: Le piège parfait (the perfect trap) Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2024-07-17 09:14 +0200
Re: Le piège parfait (the perfect trap) "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2024-07-17 14:34 +0200
Re: Le piège parfait (the perfect trap) Python <python@invalid.org> - 2024-07-17 14:52 +0200
Re: Le piège parfait (the perfect trap) Richard Hachel <r.hachel@wanadou.fr> - 2024-07-17 13:14 +0000
Re: Le piège parfait (the perfect trap) Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-07-17 15:10 +0200
Re: Le piège parfait (the perfect trap) Richard Hachel <r.hachel@wanadou.fr> - 2024-07-17 13:13 +0000
Re: Le piège parfait (the perfect trap) Python <python@invalid.org> - 2024-07-17 15:17 +0200
Re: Le piège parfait (the perfect trap) Richard Hachel <r.hachel@wanadou.fr> - 2024-07-17 13:28 +0000
Re: Le piège parfait (the perfect trap) Python <python@invalid.org> - 2024-07-17 15:30 +0200
Re: Le piège parfait (the perfect trap) Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-07-17 15:36 +0200
Re: Le piège parfait (the perfect trap) Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2024-07-18 08:40 +0200
Re: Le piège parfait (the perfect trap) "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2024-07-18 19:54 +0200
Re: Le piège parfait (the perfect trap) "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2024-07-18 22:41 +0200
Re: Le piège parfait (the perfect trap) Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-07-20 13:02 +0300
Re: Le piège parfait (the perfect trap) Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2024-07-21 08:26 +0200
Re: Re: Le piège parfait (the perfect trap) Richard Hachel <r.hachel@wanadou.fr> - 2024-07-18 21:25 +0000
Re: Le piège parfait (the perfect trap) Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2024-07-19 12:16 +0200
Re: Le piège parfait (the perfect trap) Python <python@invalid.org> - 2024-07-19 12:21 +0200
Re: Le piège parfait (the perfect trap) Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2024-07-20 08:15 +0200
Re: Le piège parfait (the perfect trap) Python <python@invalid.org> - 2024-07-20 16:03 +0200
Re: Le piège parfait (the perfect trap) Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2024-07-21 08:55 +0200
Re: Langevin's paradox again Richard Hachel <r.hachel@wanadou.fr> - 2024-07-15 18:17 +0000
Re: Langevin's paradox again Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-07-14 06:37 +0200
Re: Langevin's paradox again Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2024-07-12 14:02 +0000
Re: Langevin's paradox again Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2024-07-12 14:17 +0000
Re: Langevin's paradox again Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-07-12 16:39 +0200
Re: Langevin's paradox again Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2024-07-12 14:42 +0000
Re: Langevin's paradox again Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2024-07-12 14:32 +0000
Re: Langevin's paradox again Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2024-07-12 14:39 +0000
Re: Langevin's paradox again Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-07-12 16:41 +0200
Re: Langevin's paradox again nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2024-07-11 13:14 +0200
Re: Langevin's paradox again Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2024-07-12 08:11 +0200
Re: Langevin's paradox again Athel Cornish-Bowden <me@yahoo.com> - 2024-07-12 09:32 +0200
Re: Langevin's paradox again Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2024-07-13 09:30 +0200
Re: Langevin's paradox again Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2024-07-13 10:27 +0200
Re: Langevin's paradox again Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2024-07-13 09:36 +0000
Re: Langevin's paradox again Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2024-07-14 10:22 +0200
Re: Langevin's paradox again Athel Cornish-Bowden <me@yahoo.com> - 2024-07-15 09:51 +0200
Re: Langevin's paradox again nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2024-07-15 11:50 +0200
Re: Langevin's paradox again Athel Cornish-Bowden <me@yahoo.com> - 2024-07-15 12:20 +0200
Re: Langevin's paradox again Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2024-07-16 09:10 +0200
Re: Langevin's paradox again Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2024-07-16 17:02 +0200
Re: Langevin's paradox again Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2024-07-16 09:22 +0200
Re: Langevin's paradox again Codey Pasternak Miao <yno@epaotte.pl> - 2024-07-13 13:01 +0000
Re: Langevin's paradox again nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2024-07-12 11:04 +0200
Page 11 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 9 10 [11]
| From | Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-07-12 14:39 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <D0VsqdQEZSnaNv7czGjngjN5qm8@jntp> |
| In reply to | #654854 |
Le 12/07/2024 à 15:24, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit : > Den 11.07.2024 20:29, skrev Richard Hachel: > So why do you claim that SR is wrong? That's not what I'm saying. Many things physicists say are correct. In this sense, SR is not false "in principle". But a lot of things became wrong when we started to believe that we could represent this by a Minkowskian block that was as stupid as it was abstract. R.H.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-07-12 16:41 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <17e17e34e3993dde$70085$505029$c2365abb@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #654861 |
W dniu 12.07.2024 o 16:39, Richard Hachel pisze: > Le 12/07/2024 à 15:24, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit : >> Den 11.07.2024 20:29, skrev Richard Hachel: > >> So why do you claim that SR is wrong? > > That's not what I'm saying. > Many things physicists say are correct. > In this sense, SR is not false "in principle". Oh, yes, it is. The mumble of your idiot guru was not even consistent.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-07-11 13:14 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <668fbea3$0$8223$426a74cc@news.free.fr> |
| In reply to | #654629 |
Richard Hachel <r.hachel@wanadou.fr> wrote: > Langevin's paradox. > The Langevin paradox is a very serious criticism against the theory of > relativity. Unfortunately, the canonization and divinization of Albert > Einstein as the new son of God on earth (it was excessive in both > substance and form) completely obscured the problem, and we only saw > dozens high-level theorists were right against him, and that their > grievances were audible. Here you have Langevin (seated in front of the blackboard) with Einstein and Ehrenfest. You can see how devastated Einstein is at his theory having been destroyed by Langevin, can't you? <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Langevin#/media/File:EinsteinEhrenfestKamerlingh-OnnesWeiss.jpg> BTW, Einstein is on record as having praised Langevin as 'the only Frenchman who understands relativity'. Langevin started lecturing on relativity in 1910. Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-07-12 08:11 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <lfbvoeFka8oU4@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #654809 |
Am Donnerstag000011, 11.07.2024 um 13:14 schrieb J. J. Lodder: > Richard Hachel <r.hachel@wanadou.fr> wrote: > >> Langevin's paradox. >> The Langevin paradox is a very serious criticism against the theory of >> relativity. Unfortunately, the canonization and divinization of Albert >> Einstein as the new son of God on earth (it was excessive in both >> substance and form) completely obscured the problem, and we only saw >> dozens high-level theorists were right against him, and that their >> grievances were audible. > > Here you have Langevin (seated in front of the blackboard) > with Einstein and Ehrenfest. > You can see how devastated Einstein is at his theory > having been destroyed by Langevin, can't you? > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Langevin#/media/File:EinsteinEhrenfestKamerlingh-OnnesWeiss.jpg> > > BTW, Einstein is on record as having praised Langevin > as 'the only Frenchman who understands relativity'. > Langevin started lecturing on relativity in 1910. I had assumed, that Einstein spoke French very well. He had several other opportunities to speak French. E.g. the works of Poincaré were written in French and seemingly Einstein knew them. He had attended the 'Solveig Conference' which was held in French. Einstein had also a number of contacts to people speaking French, like: Marie Curie Langvin George Lemaitre But when did he learn French? He had no particular talent for foreign languages, which can be seen at his very poor perfomance in English, after ten years in Princton!! So: where, when and why did he learn French? My current 'work hypothesis' goes like this: he was actually Swiss citizen from birth and born in the west of Szwizzerland, were they speak German and French. And possibly his CV was a complete fake and his name wasn't Einstein and he was possibly not even a Jew (which is why he declined the presidency of Israel). TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Athel Cornish-Bowden <me@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-07-12 09:32 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <lfc4g7FlhlhU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #654840 |
On 2024-07-12 06:11:26 +0000, Thomas Heger said: > Am Donnerstag000011, 11.07.2024 um 13:14 schrieb J. J. Lodder: >> Richard Hachel <r.hachel@wanadou.fr> wrote: >> >>> Langevin's paradox. >>> The Langevin paradox is a very serious criticism against the theory of >>> relativity. Unfortunately, the canonization and divinization of Albert >>> Einstein as the new son of God on earth (it was excessive in both >>> substance and form) completely obscured the problem, and we only saw >>> dozens high-level theorists were right against him, and that their >>> grievances were audible. >> >> Here you have Langevin (seated in front of the blackboard) >> with Einstein and Ehrenfest. >> You can see how devastated Einstein is at his theory >> having been destroyed by Langevin, can't you? >> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Langevin#/media/File:EinsteinEhrenfestKamerlingh-OnnesWeiss.jpg> >> >> >> BTW, Einstein is on record as having praised Langevin >> as 'the only Frenchman who understands relativity'. >> Langevin started lecturing on relativity in 1910. > > I had assumed, that Einstein spoke French very well. > > He had several other opportunities to speak French. > > E.g. the works of Poincaré were written in French and seemingly > Einstein knew them. Being able to read and understand French is not the same as beingg able to speak "French very well". I can read and understand written Portuguese, but I certainly can't speak it or understand it when spoken (in Portugal; in Brazil it is less impenetrable). > > He had attended the 'Solveig Conference' which was held in French. > > Einstein had also a number of contacts to people speaking French, like: > > Marie Curie > Langvin > George Lemaitre > > But when did he learn French? > > He had no particular talent for foreign languages, which can be seen at > his very poor perfomance in English, after ten years in Princton!! > > So: where, when and why did he learn French? > > My current 'work hypothesis' goes like this: > > he was actually Swiss citizen from birth and born in the west of > Szwizzerland, were they speak German and French. Nonsense. He was born in Ulm, which is not and never was in Switzerland. > > And possibly his CV was a complete fake and his name wasn't Einstein > and he was possibly not even a Jew (which is why he declined the > presidency of Israel). > > > TH -- Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 37 years; mainly in England until 1987.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-07-13 09:30 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <lfeoonF2u1kU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #654841 |
Am Freitag000012, 12.07.2024 um 09:32 schrieb Athel Cornish-Bowden: > On 2024-07-12 06:11:26 +0000, Thomas Heger said: > >> Am Donnerstag000011, 11.07.2024 um 13:14 schrieb J. J. Lodder: >>> Richard Hachel <r.hachel@wanadou.fr> wrote: >>> >>>> Langevin's paradox. >>>> The Langevin paradox is a very serious criticism against the theory of >>>> relativity. Unfortunately, the canonization and divinization of Albert >>>> Einstein as the new son of God on earth (it was excessive in both >>>> substance and form) completely obscured the problem, and we only saw >>>> dozens high-level theorists were right against him, and that their >>>> grievances were audible. >>> >>> Here you have Langevin (seated in front of the blackboard) >>> with Einstein and Ehrenfest. >>> You can see how devastated Einstein is at his theory >>> having been destroyed by Langevin, can't you? >>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Langevin#/media/File:EinsteinEhrenfestKamerlingh-OnnesWeiss.jpg> >>> >>> BTW, Einstein is on record as having praised Langevin >>> as 'the only Frenchman who understands relativity'. >>> Langevin started lecturing on relativity in 1910. >> >> I had assumed, that Einstein spoke French very well. >> >> He had several other opportunities to speak French. >> >> E.g. the works of Poincaré were written in French and seemingly >> Einstein knew them. > > Being able to read and understand French is not the same as beingg able > to speak "French very well". I can read and understand written > Portuguese, but I certainly can't speak it or understand it when spoken > (in Portugal; in Brazil it is less impenetrable). >> >> He had attended the 'Solveig Conference' which was held in French. >> >> Einstein had also a number of contacts to people speaking French, like: >> >> Marie Curie >> Langvin >> George Lemaitre >> >> But when did he learn French? >> >> He had no particular talent for foreign languages, which can be seen >> at his very poor perfomance in English, after ten years in Princton!! >> >> So: where, when and why did he learn French? >> >> My current 'work hypothesis' goes like this: >> >> he was actually Swiss citizen from birth and born in the west of >> Szwizzerland, were they speak German and French. > > Nonsense. He was born in Ulm, which is not and never was in Switzerland. I had the impression, that is CV didn't make sense. My alternative explanation was: he was neither Jew nor German, but a Swiss citizen from birth. Particularly inconvincing were these elements of his official biography: his parents left him back in Munich, when the Einsteins went to Italy at the age of fourteen. But what kind of parents do this???? Einstein went to school in Munich, but didn't finish school and went to Pavia, Italy, where the Einsteins lived then. But Einstein lived there for a year (according to the website of the Jesuit facility next door of the Einsteins) without going to school. But why didn't he attend school in Pavia, if he lived there with his family and was a teenager??? Einstein gave up German citizenship befor he left Germany. But as a German I have difficulty to except this story, because such an abendioning of citizenship was only possible, if the citizen gets another citizenship. And - of course- minors cannot do anything alike without their parents. Einstein went from Pavia to Aarau in Swizzerland, alone actually, to attend school there. This is at least a little unlikely, because he could as well go to New York or Sidney, if he didn't speak Italian, instead of to Aarau. But why did the Swiss allow an unattended sateless teenager to go to school in their beautiful country??? As far as I know, the Swiss were not very keen to have refugees of any origin. But after school he went to Zurich attended the ETH and studied physics (as teacher). After university he went to Bern and worked in the patent office there. But state officials (called 'Beamte' in German) needed to be born citizens (at least in Germany) in those days. TH >> And possibly his CV was a complete fake and his name wasn't Einstein >> and he was possibly not even a Jew (which is why he declined the >> presidency of Israel). >> >> >> TH > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-07-13 10:27 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <lfes2oF3dlmU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #654873 |
Am Samstag000013, 13.07.2024 um 09:30 schrieb Thomas Heger: ... > After university he went to Bern and worked in the patent office there. > > But state officials (called 'Beamte' in German) needed to be born > citizens (at least in Germany) in those days. > > The word 'Amt' is the critical point here! Usualy the German 'Patentamt' is translated to 'patent office'. But this would blur the distiction between private and state owned offices. 'Amt' means 'office', but has a certain important difference to the English word 'office'. The German 'Amt' necessarily means 'state owned' and is more related to the English 'agency'. The word 'Amt' is now the root of 'Beamter'. Beamter can be decomposed to 'be made a member of the staff of an Amt'. In such a position you get a certain status, which is usually very desirable, like lifelong emploiment and generous pensions. Such a status was usually granted only to born citizens in the German speaking world, because you need to represent the state as Beamter and had to swear a certain oath. Now the Germann word 'Patentamt' (patent office') contains the phrase 'Amt', hence only 'Beamte' were allowed to work there. And since only born citizens were allowed as 'Beamter' (state officials), Einstein needed to be born in Swizzerland. (today this is a little different, but in the early 20th century, the state was still very authoritarian and had certain ideas about how to recruit the state's employees) Iow: his CV was a most likely faked. And if something was wrong, all other parts are also questionable, too, especially his name and being jewish. The last sounds strange, but Einstein actually declined the presidency of Israel, which was offered to him. A good reason to do that would have been, if he wasn't a Jew. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-07-13 09:36 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ixLPO6ElsBZRkq7gjpZETQFHlNw@jntp> |
| In reply to | #654875 |
Le 13/07/2024 à 10:27, Thomas Heger a écrit : > Am Samstag000013, 13.07.2024 um 09:30 schrieb Thomas Heger: > ... >> After university he went to Bern and worked in the patent office there. >> >> But state officials (called 'Beamte' in German) needed to be born >> citizens (at least in Germany) in those days. >> >> > > The word 'Amt' is the critical point here! > > Usualy the German 'Patentamt' is translated to 'patent office'. > > But this would blur the distiction between private and state owned offices. > > 'Amt' means 'office', but has a certain important difference to the > English word 'office'. > > The German 'Amt' necessarily means 'state owned' and is more related to > the English 'agency'. > > The word 'Amt' is now the root of 'Beamter'. > > Beamter can be decomposed to 'be made a member of the staff of an Amt'. > > In such a position you get a certain status, which is usually very > desirable, like lifelong emploiment and generous pensions. > > Such a status was usually granted only to born citizens in the German > speaking world, because you need to represent the state as Beamter and > had to swear a certain oath. > > Now the Germann word 'Patentamt' (patent office') contains the phrase > 'Amt', hence only 'Beamte' were allowed to work there. > > And since only born citizens were allowed as 'Beamter' (state > officials), Einstein needed to be born in Swizzerland. > > (today this is a little different, but in the early 20th century, the > state was still very authoritarian and had certain ideas about how to > recruit the state's employees) > > > Iow: his CV was a most likely faked. > > And if something was wrong, all other parts are also questionable, too, > especially his name and being jewish. > > The last sounds strange, but Einstein actually declined the presidency > of Israel, which was offered to him. > > A good reason to do that would have been, if he wasn't a Jew. > > > TH There are indeed quite a few things that pose problems in the life of Albert Einstein. Perhaps the most important is this: he worked at the Berne patent office as a copyist, and he had the opportunity to read the patents he copied, to validate them. It is very strange that it took a few years for the greatest mathematician in the world, who communicated with Lorentz, Langevin and many others, and with considerable experience, to come out with the correct Lorentz transformations that everyone was looking for (Lorentz he himself wrote horrible pieces which were false). Poincaré will in fact release the correct transformations in June 1905 after much reflection. And bang, an unknown copyist from the copy office brought out a similar article with the same name "on the kinematics of the electron" with the same transformations in September 1905. Aged 27!!! Richard Hachel took 40 years to perfect his own SR. But there is more abnormal. Einstein said at the time that he did not know Poincaré, and that "his work was independent." Except that a few years before his death, he said: "I had read Poincaré's book, during our youth meetings with my few local friends, and I had been literally captivated by the style and knowledge of French" . He therefore lied by saying that he did not know Poincaré. For what? Did Poincaré smell like a fool that he was ashamed to report that he had been read? Things have been abnormal. A theory circulated that Albert Einstein was only a nominee for certain German physicists who did not want, in these times of Franco-German war, to give the primacy of the theory of relativity to a French mathematician-physicist. R.H.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-07-14 10:22 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <lfhg6tFf0pbU4@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #654879 |
Am Samstag000013, 13.07.2024 um 11:36 schrieb Richard Hachel: > Le 13/07/2024 à 10:27, Thomas Heger a écrit : >> Am Samstag000013, 13.07.2024 um 09:30 schrieb Thomas Heger: >> ... >>> After university he went to Bern and worked in the patent office there. >>> >>> But state officials (called 'Beamte' in German) needed to be born >>> citizens (at least in Germany) in those days. >>> >>> >> >> The word 'Amt' is the critical point here! >> >> Usualy the German 'Patentamt' is translated to 'patent office'. >> >> But this would blur the distiction between private and state owned >> offices. >> >> 'Amt' means 'office', but has a certain important difference to the >> English word 'office'. >> >> The German 'Amt' necessarily means 'state owned' and is more related >> to the English 'agency'. >> >> The word 'Amt' is now the root of 'Beamter'. >> >> Beamter can be decomposed to 'be made a member of the staff of an Amt'. >> >> In such a position you get a certain status, which is usually very >> desirable, like lifelong emploiment and generous pensions. >> >> Such a status was usually granted only to born citizens in the German >> speaking world, because you need to represent the state as Beamter and >> had to swear a certain oath. >> >> Now the Germann word 'Patentamt' (patent office') contains the phrase >> 'Amt', hence only 'Beamte' were allowed to work there. >> >> And since only born citizens were allowed as 'Beamter' (state >> officials), Einstein needed to be born in Swizzerland. >> >> (today this is a little different, but in the early 20th century, the >> state was still very authoritarian and had certain ideas about how to >> recruit the state's employees) >> >> >> Iow: his CV was a most likely faked. >> >> And if something was wrong, all other parts are also questionable, >> too, especially his name and being jewish. >> >> The last sounds strange, but Einstein actually declined the presidency >> of Israel, which was offered to him. >> >> A good reason to do that would have been, if he wasn't a Jew. >> >> >> TH > > There are indeed quite a few things that pose problems in the life of > Albert Einstein. > Perhaps the most important is this: he worked at the Berne patent office > as a copyist, and he had the opportunity to read the patents he copied, > to validate them. > It is very strange that it took a few years for the greatest > mathematician in the world, who communicated with Lorentz, Langevin and > many others, and with considerable experience, to come out with the > correct Lorentz transformations that everyone was looking for (Lorentz > he himself wrote horrible pieces which were false). > Poincaré will in fact release the correct transformations in June 1905 > after much reflection. > And bang, an unknown copyist from the copy office brought out a similar > article with the same name "on the kinematics of the electron" with the > same transformations in September 1905. > Aged 27!!! Not only his age was a problem. Einstein had a number of other problem, he had to overcome, to become a genius: he worked in the 'Patentamt' (patent office) of Bern for six days a week with ten hours each. This is a lot of time, but those were the conditions of work in the early 20th century. He had also a young family with a beautiful wife and a small kid, who would certainly occupy a few of the few hours left. In these few remaining hours he wrote in 1905 alone four ground-breaking papers, of which one won him a Nobel prize. Besides of that he also nwrote twenty reviews for 'Annalen der Physik' in the same year. (I wonder how he had managed to get at least some sleep). But there a few more problems to overcome: computers were not invented then, nor xerox copiers. Therefore, he had to have all books in physical form in his own posession. This was expensive and also a lot to read. It was also a lot to write, but without any kind of aid. Usual tools were pens (or ocasionally feathers and ink). Since only nights were left over for free thinking, he had to write his masterpieces at the kitchen table, lit by candle light (while his wife snores and the kind crys). ... TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Athel Cornish-Bowden <me@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-07-15 09:51 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <lfk2nnFrgr9U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #654892 |
On 2024-07-14 08:22:56 +0000, Thomas Heger said: >>> >>> [ … ] >>> > Not only his age was a problem. > > Einstein had a number of other problem, he had to overcome, to become a genius: > > he worked in the 'Patentamt' (patent office) of Bern for six days a > week with ten hours each. > > This is a lot of time, but those were the conditions of work in the > early 20th century. > > He had also a young family with a beautiful wife and a small kid, who > would certainly occupy a few of the few hours left. > > In these few remaining hours he wrote in 1905 alone four > ground-breaking papers, of which one won him a Nobel prize. > > Besides of that he also nwrote twenty reviews for 'Annalen der Physik' > in the same year. > (I wonder how he had managed to get at least some sleep). > > But there a few more problems to overcome: > > computers were not invented then, nor xerox copiers. > > Therefore, he had to have all books in physical form in his own posession. > > This was expensive and also a lot to read. Have you ever written and published a scientific paper? OK, if you're the Thomas Heger that wrote Thomas Heger and Madhukar C. Pandit "Optical wear assessment system for grinding tools," Journal of Electronic Imaging 13(3), (2004) and T. Heger and M. Pandit, “Automatisierte Verschleißbeurteilung von Schleifscheiben mit Mitteln der digitalen Bildverarbeitung,” in Automat. Praxis 4, 50–56 (2002). then maybe you have, though that's not exactly physics, or even science at all (technology, rather). Anyway, in 50 years of research I have frequently cited work in books and jounals of which I don't own personal copies. Research would be impossible otherwise. The thing is, though, that unlike you I know about libraries and how to use them. That was surely true of Einstein as well. If you belong to an appropriate institution that's not expensive, it's free. I have never worked in a patent office, but I feel sure that the work would include studying what had already been described. For that, access to a library would be essential. > > It was also a lot to write, but without any kind of aid. Usual tools > were pens (or ocasionally feathers and ink). > > Since only nights were left over for free thinking, he had to write his > masterpieces at the kitchen table, lit by candle light Are you serious? Electric lighting was widespread by the beginning of the 20th century, and had probably reached Switzerland by then. > (while his wife snores and the kind crys). > > ... > > TH -- Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 37 years; mainly in England until 1987.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-07-15 11:50 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <6694f101$0$3897$426a74cc@news.free.fr> |
| In reply to | #654929 |
Athel Cornish-Bowden <me@yahoo.com> wrote: > On 2024-07-14 08:22:56 +0000, Thomas Heger said: > > >>> > >>> [ … ] > > >>> > > Not only his age was a problem. > > > > Einstein had a number of other problem, he had to overcome, to become a > > genius: > > > > he worked in the 'Patentamt' (patent office) of Bern for six days a > > week with ten hours each. > > > > This is a lot of time, but those were the conditions of work in the > > early 20th century. > > > > He had also a young family with a beautiful wife and a small kid, who > > would certainly occupy a few of the few hours left. > > > > In these few remaining hours he wrote in 1905 alone four > > ground-breaking papers, of which one won him a Nobel prize. > > > > Besides of that he also nwrote twenty reviews for 'Annalen der Physik' > > in the same year. > > (I wonder how he had managed to get at least some sleep). > > > > But there a few more problems to overcome: > > > > computers were not invented then, nor xerox copiers. > > > > Therefore, he had to have all books in physical form in his own posession. > > > > This was expensive and also a lot to read. > > Have you ever written and published a scientific paper? OK, if you're > the Thomas Heger that wrote > > Thomas Heger and Madhukar C. Pandit "Optical wear assessment system for > grinding tools," Journal of Electronic Imaging 13(3), (2004) > > and > > T. Heger and M. Pandit, "Automatisierte Verschleißbeurteilung von > Schleifscheiben mit Mitteln der digitalen Bildverarbeitung," in > Automat. Praxis 4, 50–56 (2002). > > then maybe you have, though that's not exactly physics, or even science > at all (technology, rather). > > Anyway, in 50 years of research I have frequently cited work in books > and jounals of which I don't own personal copies. Research would be > impossible otherwise. The thing is, though, that unlike you I know > about libraries and how to use them. That was surely true of Einstein > as well. If you belong to an appropriate institution that's not > expensive, it's free. > > I have never worked in a patent office, but I feel sure that the work > would include studying what had already been described. For that, > access to a library would be essential. Of course, patent offices have huge libraries. Patent examiners must examine feasability and prior art. Merely understanding the patent may already require library work. > > It was also a lot to write, but without any kind of aid. Usual tools > > were pens (or ocasionally feathers and ink). > > > > Since only nights were left over for free thinking, he had to write his > > masterpieces at the kitchen table, lit by candle light > > Are you serious? Electric lighting was widespread by the beginning of > the 20th century, and had probably reached Switzerland by then. We have had this discussion about this particular fantasy of TH several times already. As a matter of fact Bern, and all other major European towns, had gas light, both in the street and in the houses. The Einstein house in Bern, nowadays a museum with period furniture, still has gas lamps in place. [1] (but converted for elecricity) Jan [1] In the museum they are hung too high, against the public touching. Einstein would have had a central gas lamp not too high above the table, for lighting it and turning it off. BTW, th standard thread for electrical fittings is still the 19th century British standard gas pipe.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Athel Cornish-Bowden <me@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-07-15 12:20 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <lfkbfaFsq6gU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #654932 |
On 2024-07-15 09:50:56 +0000, J. J. Lodder said: > Athel Cornish-Bowden <me@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> On 2024-07-14 08:22:56 +0000, Thomas Heger said: >> >>>>> >>>>> [ … ] >> >>>>> >>> Not only his age was a problem. >>> >>> Einstein had a number of other problem, he had to overcome, to become a >>> genius: >>> >>> he worked in the 'Patentamt' (patent office) of Bern for six days a >>> week with ten hours each. >>> >>> This is a lot of time, but those were the conditions of work in the >>> early 20th century. >>> >>> He had also a young family with a beautiful wife and a small kid, who >>> would certainly occupy a few of the few hours left. >>> >>> In these few remaining hours he wrote in 1905 alone four >>> ground-breaking papers, of which one won him a Nobel prize. >>> >>> Besides of that he also nwrote twenty reviews for 'Annalen der Physik' >>> in the same year. >>> (I wonder how he had managed to get at least some sleep). >>> >>> But there a few more problems to overcome: >>> >>> computers were not invented then, nor xerox copiers. >>> >>> Therefore, he had to have all books in physical form in his own posession. >>> >>> This was expensive and also a lot to read. >> >> Have you ever written and published a scientific paper? OK, if you're >> the Thomas Heger that wrote >> >> Thomas Heger and Madhukar C. Pandit "Optical wear assessment system for >> grinding tools," Journal of Electronic Imaging 13(3), (2004) >> >> and >> >> T. Heger and M. Pandit, "Automatisierte Verschleißbeurteilung von >> Schleifscheiben mit Mitteln der digitalen Bildverarbeitung," in >> Automat. Praxis 4, 50–56 (2002). >> >> then maybe you have, though that's not exactly physics, or even science >> at all (technology, rather). >> >> Anyway, in 50 years of research I have frequently cited work in books >> and jounals of which I don't own personal copies. Research would be >> impossible otherwise. The thing is, though, that unlike you I know >> about libraries and how to use them. That was surely true of Einstein >> as well. If you belong to an appropriate institution that's not >> expensive, it's free. >> >> I have never worked in a patent office, but I feel sure that the work >> would include studying what had already been described. For that, >> access to a library would be essential. > > Of course, patent offices have huge libraries. > Patent examiners must examine feasability and prior art. > Merely understanding the patent may already require library work. That's what I thought, but didn't actually know. > >>> It was also a lot to write, but without any kind of aid. Usual tools >>> were pens (or ocasionally feathers and ink). >>> >>> Since only nights were left over for free thinking, he had to write his >>> masterpieces at the kitchen table, lit by candle light >> >> Are you serious? Electric lighting was widespread by the beginning of >> the 20th century, and had probably reached Switzerland by then. > > We have had this discussion about this particular fantasy of TH > several times already. > As a matter of fact Bern, and all other major European towns, > had gas light, both in the street and in the houses. > The Einstein house in Bern, nowadays a museum with period furniture, > still has gas lamps in place. [1] (but converted for elecricity) > > Jan > > [1] In the museum they are hung too high, against the public touching. > Einstein would have had a central gas lamp not too high above the table, > for lighting it and turning it off. > BTW, th standard thread for electrical fittings is still the 19th > century British standard gas pipe. -- Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 37 years; mainly in England until 1987.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-07-16 09:10 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <lfmko0F7umpU8@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #654929 |
Am Montag000015, 15.07.2024 um 09:51 schrieb Athel Cornish-Bowden: > On 2024-07-14 08:22:56 +0000, Thomas Heger said: > >>>> >>>> [ … ] > >>>> >> Not only his age was a problem. >> >> Einstein had a number of other problem, he had to overcome, to become >> a genius: >> >> he worked in the 'Patentamt' (patent office) of Bern for six days a >> week with ten hours each. >> >> This is a lot of time, but those were the conditions of work in the >> early 20th century. >> >> He had also a young family with a beautiful wife and a small kid, who >> would certainly occupy a few of the few hours left. >> >> In these few remaining hours he wrote in 1905 alone four >> ground-breaking papers, of which one won him a Nobel prize. >> >> Besides of that he also nwrote twenty reviews for 'Annalen der Physik' >> in the same year. >> (I wonder how he had managed to get at least some sleep). >> >> But there a few more problems to overcome: >> >> computers were not invented then, nor xerox copiers. >> >> Therefore, he had to have all books in physical form in his own >> posession. >> >> This was expensive and also a lot to read. > > Have you ever written and published a scientific paper? OK, if you're > the Thomas Heger that wrote > > Thomas Heger and Madhukar C. Pandit "Optical wear assessment system for > grinding tools," Journal of Electronic Imaging 13(3), (2004) > > and > > T. Heger and M. Pandit, “Automatisierte Verschleißbeurteilung von > Schleifscheiben mit Mitteln der digitalen Bildverarbeitung,” in Automat. > Praxis 4, 50–56 (2002). > > then maybe you have, though that's not exactly physics, or even science > at all (technology, rather). I have never heard of that publication. But the VERY funny thing is, that the topic of my 'Diplomarbeit' (kind of 'master thesis' in German) was almost exactly the topic of this article. I have absolutely no idea, how that is possible, since 'wear of grinding tools' is such an extremely unlikely topic to assume simple coincidence. So: no idea how that happend! Absolutely nada... But my real name is really 'Thomas Heger' and I live really in Berlin and have really studied at TU-Berlin and got a real Diploma from professor Spur for a reasearch on wear on grinding tools. ... TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-07-16 17:02 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <lfngcjFcv4hU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #654982 |
Am Dienstag000016, 16.07.2024 um 09:10 schrieb Thomas Heger: > Am Montag000015, 15.07.2024 um 09:51 schrieb Athel Cornish-Bowden: >> On 2024-07-14 08:22:56 +0000, Thomas Heger said: >> >>>>> >>>>> [ … ] >> >>>>> >>> Not only his age was a problem. >>> >>> Einstein had a number of other problem, he had to overcome, to become >>> a genius: >>> >>> he worked in the 'Patentamt' (patent office) of Bern for six days a >>> week with ten hours each. >>> >>> This is a lot of time, but those were the conditions of work in the >>> early 20th century. >>> >>> He had also a young family with a beautiful wife and a small kid, who >>> would certainly occupy a few of the few hours left. >>> >>> In these few remaining hours he wrote in 1905 alone four >>> ground-breaking papers, of which one won him a Nobel prize. >>> >>> Besides of that he also nwrote twenty reviews for 'Annalen der >>> Physik' in the same year. >>> (I wonder how he had managed to get at least some sleep). >>> >>> But there a few more problems to overcome: >>> >>> computers were not invented then, nor xerox copiers. >>> >>> Therefore, he had to have all books in physical form in his own >>> posession. >>> >>> This was expensive and also a lot to read. >> >> Have you ever written and published a scientific paper? OK, if you're >> the Thomas Heger that wrote >> >> Thomas Heger and Madhukar C. Pandit "Optical wear assessment system >> for grinding tools," Journal of Electronic Imaging 13(3), (2004) >> >> and >> >> T. Heger and M. Pandit, “Automatisierte Verschleißbeurteilung von >> Schleifscheiben mit Mitteln der digitalen Bildverarbeitung,” in >> Automat. Praxis 4, 50–56 (2002). >> >> then maybe you have, though that's not exactly physics, or even >> science at all (technology, rather). > > > I have never heard of that publication. > > But the VERY funny thing is, that the topic of my 'Diplomarbeit' (kind > of 'master thesis' in German) was almost exactly the topic of this article. > > I have absolutely no idea, how that is possible, since 'wear of grinding > tools' is such an extremely unlikely topic to assume simple coincidence. > > So: no idea how that happend! > > > Absolutely nada... > > But my real name is really 'Thomas Heger' and I live really in Berlin > and have really studied at TU-Berlin and got a real Diploma from > professor Spur for a reasearch on wear on grinding tools. > I have checked it and there exists actually somebody else, bearing the same name, who also wrote about wear of grinding tools. My topic was slightly different, but about optimization of diamond grinding tools upon technical and oeconomical criteria. My name is not particulary common, but there are about six people in Germany having this name. But I had never heard about that guy from Kaiserslautern: https://www.eit.uni-kl.de/pandit/haupt/forschung/jahresbericht04.htm TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-07-16 09:22 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <lfmlefF7umpU9@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #654929 |
Am Montag000015, 15.07.2024 um 09:51 schrieb Athel Cornish-Bowden: ... > Anyway, in 50 years of research I have frequently cited work in books > and jounals of which I don't own personal copies. Research would be > impossible otherwise. The thing is, though, that unlike you I know about > libraries and how to use them. That was surely true of Einstein as well. > If you belong to an appropriate institution that's not expensive, it's > free. > > I have never worked in a patent office, but I feel sure that the work > would include studying what had already been described. For that, access > to a library would be essential. Sure, that is certainly possible. But 'work' usually meens 'work' in those days and not private studies. >> >> It was also a lot to write, but without any kind of aid. Usual tools >> were pens (or ocasionally feathers and ink). >> >> Since only nights were left over for free thinking, he had to write >> his masterpieces at the kitchen table, lit by candle light > > Are you serious? Electric lighting was widespread by the beginning of > the 20th century, and had probably reached Switzerland by then. No, of course. That was a 'dramatisation' to express the difficulties, that Einstein had to overcome. (iow: more or less a yoke) But the 'time problem' was obvious, anyhow, even if he had electric lighting at home. Also the use of a library would not make a huge difference, because you need to read a book, too, even if that is from the library. I personally write on a computer and kind of 'stepwise'. This is an iterative process, were I start with some kind of rough sketch and stepwise refine that. This could have been the method of Einstein, too, but would produce tons of wasted papers. These paper piles need to be somewhere, but were apparently lost. TH >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Codey Pasternak Miao <yno@epaotte.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-07-13 13:01 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <v6ttr9$1n68d$2@paganini.bofh.team> |
| In reply to | #654875 |
Thomas Heger wrote: > Am Samstag000013, 13.07.2024 um 09:30 schrieb Thomas Heger: ... >> After university he went to Bern and worked in the patent office there. >> But state officials (called 'Beamte' in German) needed to be born >> citizens (at least in Germany) in those days. > > The word 'Amt' is the critical point here! > Usualy the German 'Patentamt' is translated to 'patent office'. you are a 𝙉𝘼𝙏𝙊 lackey. You want to steal the world. Not defend, but 𝙨𝙩𝙚𝙖𝙡. You are a fucking aggressor, guilty of wars in Yugoslavia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria and the territory misnamed as ukurina. go tell them I said that. Tell them I sent you to tell them I said that. 𝗡𝗼_𝘄𝗮𝘆_𝗼𝘂𝘁_»_𝗠𝗼𝗿𝗲_𝗺𝗲𝗻_𝗳𝗹𝗲𝗲𝗶𝗻𝗴_𝗺𝗼𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘇𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻_𝗰𝗮𝘂𝗴𝗵𝘁_𝗼𝗻_𝗨𝗸𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗶𝗮𝗻_𝗯𝗼𝗿𝗱𝗲𝗿 https://old.b%69%74%63%68%75te.com/%76%69%64eo/plMayBWPVryP
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-07-12 11:04 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <6690f19d$0$3679$426a34cc@news.free.fr> |
| In reply to | #654840 |
Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote: > Am Donnerstag000011, 11.07.2024 um 13:14 schrieb J. J. Lodder: > > Richard Hachel <r.hachel@wanadou.fr> wrote: > > > >> Langevin's paradox. > >> The Langevin paradox is a very serious criticism against the theory of > >> relativity. Unfortunately, the canonization and divinization of Albert > >> Einstein as the new son of God on earth (it was excessive in both > >> substance and form) completely obscured the problem, and we only saw > >> dozens high-level theorists were right against him, and that their > >> grievances were audible. > > > > Here you have Langevin (seated in front of the blackboard) > > with Einstein and Ehrenfest. > > You can see how devastated Einstein is at his theory > > having been destroyed by Langevin, can't you? > > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Langevin#/media/File:EinsteinEhrenfestKa merlingh-OnnesWeiss.jpg> > > > > BTW, Einstein is on record as having praised Langevin > > as 'the only Frenchman who understands relativity'. > > Langevin started lecturing on relativity in 1910. > > I had assumed, that Einstein spoke French very well. In your fantasy world. > He had several other opportunities to speak French. > > E.g. the works of Poincaré were written in French and seemingly Einstein > knew them. Some of them. Being able to read and understand is quite different from being able to speak, let alone fluently. > He had attended the 'Solveig Conference' which was held in French. Incapable of looking up a correct spelling, as usual. And no, the Solvay conferences were not held in French. Speakers at the conferences spoke their own languages. That's why they always had Lorentz presiding. (who was fluent in all) > Einstein had also a number of contacts to people speaking French, like: > > Marie Curie > Langvin > George Lemaitre > > But when did he learn French? > > He had no particular talent for foreign languages, which can be seen at > his very poor perfomance in English, after ten years in Princton!! > > So: where, when and why did he learn French? > > My current 'work hypothesis' goes like this: > > he was actually Swiss citizen from birth and born in the west of > Szwizzerland, were they speak German and French. Your fantasy world again. > And possibly his CV was a complete fake and his name wasn't Einstein and > he was possibly not even a Jew (which is why he declined the presidency > of Israel). Even more fantasy. Have you considered that he may have been an extraterrestrial? Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 11 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 9 10 [11]
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web