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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #644096

Re: New version of my annotations to SRT

Show all headers | View raw

Thomas Heger wrote:

> Am 10.02.2024 um 19:51 schrieb Volney:
>> On 2/10/2024 2:18 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>> Am 08.02.2024 um 15:51 schrieb Volney:
>>>> On 2/8/2024 1:36 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I was actually a HYPOTHETICAL professor (in my role as writer of these
>>>>> annotations).
>>>>
>>>> No, you weren't. You don't have the qualifications to be a professor,
>>>> hypothetical or not. Self-awarded degrees/titles are worse than useless,
>>>> they are signs of crackpottery.
>>>
>>> I am actually allowed to write a critique of anything I like.
>>
>> There is a BIG difference between "allowed to" and "qualified to" do
>> something. You don't have the qualifications to be a professor
>>>
>>> This is one of the rules of science.
>>>
>>> It does not require any kind of qualification or any kind of title to
>>> critizise any theory you like, because any critique, from whereever it
>>> might come, is valid.
>>
>> You may write whatever garbage you wish to write. You are not qualified
>> to expect your writings to have any effect on science, or even have
>> anyone in science to look at them.
>>>
>>> And unless such critique is rejected on scientific grounds, it remains
>>> valid.
>>>
>>> You simply cannot dismiss an argument, because the one who wrote it
>>> has not the appropriate title.
>>
>> Sorry, qualifications are necessary to filter out crap. If the same
>> paper appears as a non peer reviewed post on Usenet authored by Joe
>> Schmo, Janitor vs. Dr. Schmo, PhD Physics in a peer reviewed document,
>> which source will be ignored vs. studied?
>>>
>>> But in case you like to disprove any of my annotations, you are welcome.
>>>
>>> Simply download the file with my annotations (otherwise you can't read
>>> the annotations), select one of them you regard as faulty and write,
>>> what exactly is wrong with it.
>>
>> I asked before for you to post the most blatant, outrageous, ridiculous,
>> obvious 'error' that you found to show us you can actually find real
>> errors. It was ignored.  Of the ones anyone has looked at, they are all
>> simply your misunderstandings or not an error at all. Nobody is going to
>> wade through 428 misunderstandings of yours hoping to find an actual
>> error that somehow, nobody in the last 100+ years found.


> Einstein made several serious errors.

He made no errors, let alone "serious" ones. He did commit a few instances of
sloppiness but then so does literally every single science paper that ever was.

> One was his method of synchronisation.

> he had (simplified) this picture in mind:

> I receive a light signal, which originates from a remote clock and take 
> that signal as information about the remote time.

> The error:

> that signal does not contain the remote time, because light needs time 
> to travel. This discrepancy is called 'delay', but Einstein didn't 
> mention it with a single word.

I won't even comment on that. Besides, I have just posted an article explaining
in detail why clock synchronisation is actually an inessential part of special
relativity. The beef lies elsewhere.

> Another serious error:

> he ascribed the effects of motion to the moving object, while it is 
> actually an effect, which is only visible at the side of the observer.

Gobbledygook.

> Annoying were Einstein's naming conventions.

> Especially annoying were the reuse of variable names and the lack of 
> definitions of used symbols.

No, his usage of symbols is standard.

> Seriously unscientific were the lack references to the used materials.

This was normal at the time. Go to the library and leaf through the issues of
Annalen der Physik for the years around 1905 and you'll find many papers there
with no references in them. It just wasn't a big thing at the time.

> Especially missing were quotes or references to Poincaré and Heinrich Hertz.

Not needed (see above). The paper was written for professionals, not students.

> Also the quotes from Hertz were not verbatim, because Hertz used total 
> derivatives and Einstein partial (in an apparently quoted equation).

Again, I won't EVEN comment on that. Bottomless incompetence on your part.


Stop wasting your time on this "project". Your document is 100% nonsense.

--
Jan

Back to sci.physics.relativity | Previous | Next — Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

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 Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2024-02-14 00:11 -0800

csiph-web