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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #580800

Re: Epistemology

Show all headers | View raw

Am 22.03.2022 um 15:18 schrieb Richard Hertz:
> On Tuesday, March 22, 2022 at 5:22:51 AM UTC-3, The Starmaker wrote:
>
>   <snip>
>
>> "When I think of the most able students I have encountered in my teaching -
>> I mean those who have distinguished themselves not only by skill but by independence of thought - then
>> I must confess that all have had a lively interest in epistemology."
>>
>> "Albert Einstein insists that his epistemology made his discovery of relativity possible."
>
> He was an inept even as a teacher. He was kicked out of his first real teaching position at Vienna in 1912, where he
> lasted 15 months. The previous one, since 1909, was a complete disaster even when he had THREE students and all
> the support of the FUCKING CABAL!
>
> And as  for epistemology, he didn't give a flying fuck for it. His 1905 papers on SR proof it, as he only mentioned Maxwell
> as a source. And THAT is not an epistemological reference.
>
> The cretin was the king of deceivers, thefts, plagiarists, backstabbers, misogynists, communists and sexual degenerates.
> He corrupted physics forever, thanks to his chosenite support from cabal.

After analysing Einstein's paper for some time, I came to the 
conclusion, that it contains simply too many errors.

The number is actually so large, that it would be hard to put that many 
in a paper, if you try that intentionally.

These errors fall into different categories, but are mainly something I 
would call 'bad habits' rather then physical errors.

The theory itself is roughly correct, but not derived properly.

So, what was actually wrong with that paper?

There are several categories:

formal errors
wrong methods
inconsitency
intellectual theft
weak language
'mathematism'
materialism
hostility to the reader

Among the formal errors I would count the actual form of the text, the 
missing quotes, the lack of footnotes, the used symbols, the missing 
equation numbers, the wrong numbers of the chapters, the missing 
definition of variables, the lack of illustrations, the lack of any kind 
of calculation with real values, the inconsistent use of typographical 
attributes.

'Wrong methods' would include things like how a conclusion was drawn for 
a certain input and how this was generalised.

'Inconsistency' means, that the same concept or definition or meaning of 
symbols was not maintained throughout the entire text.
E.g. the meaning of the term 'electron' changed or energy was symbolized 
by 'E' and by 'W'.

Plagiarism or intellectual theft is difficult to prove, but I found 
equations which were seemingly 'inspired' by Poincare (but no reference 
provided).

Linguistic weakness of is more visible in the German version. But that 
version is actually worse then the English and has a relatively low 
level in terms of language as an art.

'Mathematism' is kind of desease and means the habbit, to 'prove' how 
nature should behave by mathematical methods, but without experimental 
confirmation.

Einsteins text is actually extremely materialistic, because almost 
everything is a material object in his view, like points, electricity or 
coordinate systems.

'Hostility to the reader' was my impression, because Einstein made very 
little attempts to clearify his arguments. In most cases he simply 
requirred, that the reader would know anyhow, what he had in mind.


In total I would call it a very bad paper, which is not entirely 
incorrect. But the style and methods were mainly wrong.

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

Thread

Epistemology The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-03-21 23:48 -0700
  Re: Epistemology Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-03-22 00:27 -0700
  Re: Epistemology The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-03-22 01:23 -0700
    Re: Epistemology Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-03-22 07:18 -0700
      Re: Epistemology The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-03-22 11:43 -0700
      Re: Epistemology Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-23 09:10 +0100
  Re: Epistemology Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-22 10:47 +0100
    Re: Epistemology Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-22 14:51 +0000
      Re: Epistemology patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-03-22 08:56 -0700
        Re: Epistemology Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-22 16:18 +0000
      Re: Epistemology Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-03-23 01:54 -0700
    Re: Epistemology patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-03-22 08:51 -0700
      Re: Epistemology Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-23 08:44 +0100

csiph-web