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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #577376

Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT'

Show all headers | View raw

Am 15.02.2022 um 00:48 schrieb Michael Moroney:
> On 2/14/2022 2:24 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>> Am 13.02.2022 um 18:57 schrieb Michael Moroney:
>>> On 2/13/2022 3:15 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>> Am 13.02.2022 um 08:42 schrieb Michael Moroney:
>>>>> On 2/13/2022 2:19 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>>>> I also have found some more errors of Einstein.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> e.g. this is a real gem:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "...and maintain the equation—mass × acceleration = force..."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The cross product can only applied to vectors, but mass is certainly
>>>>>> not a vector. But supposed it would be a vector, the vector of force
>>>>>> and the vector of acceleration are not perpendicular.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, the use of the cross product was wrong here and the quantities
>>>>>> were not properly defined.
>>>>>
>>>>> Idjit.
>>>>>
>>>>> You don't even know of the ordinary multiplication sign "×"? Really?
>>>>>
>>>> Well, ordinary people may use it for multiplication.
>>>
>>> As do extraordinary people.
>>>>
>>>> But theoretical physics is another kind of thing, where symbols are
>>>> much more complicated than for common mortals.
>>>>
>>>> In theoretical physics there exist several types of multiplications,
>>>> for which different symbols are used. The 'x' used for multiplication
>>>> means 'cross product' and nothing else.
>>>
>>> That's just crap you made up from nothing.
>>>
>>> Whether "x" means multiplication or cross product is context dependent.
>>> In this context, when multiplying a vector quantity by a scalar to get
>>> another vector quantity, the context is obvious, it's multiplication.
>>> Remember, his target audience is other physicists of his time, not
>>> cranks on Usenet 115+ years later.
>>
>>
>> The equation was rubbish anyhow in a scientific paper for professional
>> physicists, to whom you must not explain F=m*a.
>
> He doesn't "explain" f=ma, he just mentions that that's what's going on.
>>
>> But in case you do that, despite being unenecessary, you should stick
>> to scientific principles.
>
> The whole paper is written like that. It may have been the style of the
> time for papers or simply Einstein's style. Anyway, nobody seemed to
> have a problem with it then, and only you do now.

Annalen der Physik was just a small magazine, which was read by 
professional physicists.

There existed tons of similar papers in all sorts of science, which in 
most cases had only a small number of readers.

And these readers had most likely no intetion to analyse all the text in 
detail, because then they could do nothing else anymore.

So, like in Haarper's Bazar, if you don't like an article, you simply 
skip over to the next one.

>>
>> But Einstein didn't and used the rather strange phrase 'Kraftzahl' in
>> the German original (what means 'force number').
>>
>> The German phrase is certainly a scalar quantity, while the x would be
>> used for vectors.
>
> No, it's the multiplication symbol.  Any fool with enough math and
> physics knowledge to know mass is a scalar and/or what F=ma means, would
> never even consider whether the "x" is a multiplication symbol or is for
> cross products.

I don't like this argument, because a text is as it is and has to be 
taken verbatim.

To 'sieve out' errors is actually possible, but only by the origional 
author and only with a new edition.

No publisher, editor, translator or reader may alter the text.

> What would you do if Einstein used the dot "·" for multiplication
> instead? Exactly, you'd be here whining about how Einstein was trying to
> use the dot product of the scalar "m" and acceleration!  (I know this
> because you're so predictable!)  What if Einstein wrote "f=ma"?  You'd
> probably whine "why is Einstein calling for his mother ("Ma")?  Right?

The issue with the scalars and vectors is spreading all over the entire 
paper and Einstein almost never used the distiction between them correctly.

There were several equations or text passages, where he didn't take the 
difference into consideration.

To actually prove this, I took the most obvious example, which was by no 
means the only one.

But if you insist, I could list all the other cases, too.

>>
>>>>
>>>> If you don't want to stick to what is common in the field, you could
>>>> use other symbols, if you define them properly.
>>>
>>> Like what? "x" for multiplication is common in the field!
>>
>> In mathematics, what is the foundation of theoretical physics, there
>> exist at least two different kinds of vector multiplication:
>> cross product and scalar product.
>>
>> Now an author should say, which one he wanted to use.
>
> Why?  His audience (physicists, not imbeciles) knew exactly what that
> symbol meant.


The opposite to physicist is not 'imbecile'.

Your statement reminds me of Harry Potter and his naming of Non-Socerers 
as 'muggles'.

>> If he uses a symbol, which could be interpreted as a cross, he had to
>> mean 'cross', because otherwise he had to write, that he meant
>> something else.
>
> If he was doing so, he'd almost certainly mention cross product, at
> least in passing ('take the cross product "A⨯B",...'),  But again, you
> aren't the target audience, there was no need to explain that he's
> multiplying.

Where can that be found?

My pdf reader cannot find the text 'cross' in 'On the Electrodynamics of 
Moving Bodies'.

...


TH

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

Thread

New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-02-12 20:18 +0100
  Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-02-12 20:23 +0100
    Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Darrel Angus <argus@iiehdc.mx> - 2022-02-12 19:43 +0000
  Crank Thomas Heger perseveres "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-02-12 11:38 -0800
    Re: Crank Dontknow perverses Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-02-12 20:48 +0100
      Re: Crank Dontknow perverses Darrel Angus <argus@iiehdc.mx> - 2022-02-12 21:19 +0000
      Re: Crank Dontknow perverses "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-02-12 15:21 -0800
        Re: Crank Dontknow perverses Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2022-02-13 00:01 +0000
  Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-12 20:26 +0000
  Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-12 22:12 +0000
    Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-02-13 08:19 +0100
      Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-02-13 02:42 -0500
        Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-02-13 09:15 +0100
          Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-13 13:30 +0000
          Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-02-13 12:57 -0500
            Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-02-14 08:24 +0100
              Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-14 14:13 +0000
              Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-02-14 18:48 -0500
                Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-02-17 07:52 +0100
                Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-02-17 03:23 -0500
                Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-02-17 00:28 -0800
          Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-02-14 10:16 +0200
            Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2022-02-14 14:01 +0100
              Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-02-15 10:49 +0100
                Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Python <python@example.invalid> - 2022-02-15 13:28 +0100
                Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-02-15 05:09 -0800
                Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-02-16 07:38 +0100
                Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-15 14:01 +0000
                Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-02-16 07:45 +0100
                Cretin Thomas Heger perseveres "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-02-15 22:54 -0800
                Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-16 13:32 +0000
                Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-02-17 07:27 +0100
                Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-17 13:57 +0000
                Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-02-18 07:40 +0100
                Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-18 14:27 +0000
                Crank Thomas Heger admits he's a fool "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-02-18 10:53 -0800
                Re: Crank Do'no admits he's a fool Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-02-19 10:44 +0100
                Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-02-16 13:12 +0200
                Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-02-17 07:34 +0100
                Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-02-19 17:05 +0200
            Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2022-02-14 14:34 +0100
        Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-02-14 16:35 -0800
      Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-02-13 09:36 +0100
        Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2022-02-13 19:08 +0100
          Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-02-13 17:09 -0500
      Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-13 13:30 +0000
  Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-02-12 23:04 -0800
    Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-02-13 09:17 +0100
      Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-13 13:30 +0000
        Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-02-13 05:54 -0800
      Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-02-13 10:35 -0500
      Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-02-13 13:31 -0800

csiph-web