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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #581156

Re: Annotated version of SRT

Show all headers | View raw

Am 27.03.2022 um 21:28 schrieb JanPB:
> On Sunday, March 27, 2022 at 10:35:06 AM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
>> Am 27.03.2022 um 11:11 schrieb JanPB:
>>> On Saturday, March 26, 2022 at 11:48:31 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>> Hi NG
>>>>
>>>> I have made a number of changes and are now happy to present my latest
>>>> version.
>>>>
>>>> Now it should be actually final, but I'm not really certain. Possibly
>>>> some errors are still in my comments, but actually I can't even find
>>>> typos anymore.
>>>>
>>>> The file can be found here:
>>>>
>>>> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1dlajModzLK4wgScoOLEMmzpzS2JTUft6/view?usp=sharing
>>>>
>>>> It is a google doc of the file type pdf.
>>>
>>> Who is the author of "Editor's notes" in this version? The footnote on p. 16 is
>>> incorrect: the text should in fact read l' there (not phi').
>> The 'editor's notes' in Einstein's text stem most likely from the
>> publisher. Sorry, but unfortunately I have no idea, who that actually
>> was (definetely not me!).
>
> OK.
>
>>> Also, on p. 13 that editor should have mentioned a typo in the English translation
>>> in the second formula of the set of equations in the middle of the page (the
>>> variables ksi and zeta are reversed).
>> Well, there remained some errors, which I have not found.
>>
>> Sorry..
>
> This is a typo by the English translator, not Einstein.


I have to admit, that missing an error is actually a fault, which I 
tried to avoid.

But I have not dealt with these equations, because I disliked Einstein's 
subtraction of magnetic field strength from electric field strength, anyhow.

I also found it totally illogic to aplly the geometric relations from 
the kinematic part to the 'length' of the field strength vector.

In my view the relation between electric field and magnetic field 
requires a rotation and complex numbers, which I wanted to modell with 
multiplicative connections of quaternions.

But these equations contain addition of things, which have different units.

So, I gave that set of equations a 'thumbs down' and went further.

The differences in translations were not my business, since I was 
discussing the English version, into which my comments were written, as 
if it were the only version in existence.


>>> As for your comments on this paper, they are 100% junk.
>>> Practically all of them are not even wrong. The remaining
>>> few are simply incorrect.
>> If you think so, then feel free to prove that for a single case.
>
> One cannot prove an arrogant individual that he is wrong. If I could,
> it would take a long time because it is also a fact of life that it's much
> more difficult to debunk a claim like "X is wrong" than to make such
> claim. The latter takes just a few words, the former requires a lecture
> that further presumes a solid background to understand the argument
> in the first place.

Well, I don't think, that Einstein was that arrogant.

But the person is irellevant, anyhow, because I was discussing a text, 
not a person.

The text is regarded as 'singular', meaning: it is as it is, whoever 
wrote that text and for whatever reason. (No secondary material is 
allow, besides of standard knowledge).


> In your case not only your comments are downright silly,
> you also frequently don't comment on genuine difficult or non-obvious
> points. It's clear that you don't understand the text.

Well, this is actually a valid critique of me as a person.

But you have to keep in mind, that I'm just a single hobbyist, without 
any support from any side and which is requested to do, what actually 
thousends of others should have done a century ago.

So, possibly I missed a few critical points, where the subject got a 
little too difficult for my abilities. But, after all, there remain 
roughly four hundred topic, about which we could discuss.

To remind you: the error margin in theoretical physics is not 
four-hundred but zero.



> And if you don't understand the text, you cannot meaningfully comment
> on it (other than for entertainment or - I don 't know - acting classes, when
> people practice reciting a telephone directory, etc.)


Actually I could comment that text, as I have proven already (simply 
look at my comments).

What you apparently tried to say: my comments are all invalid.

If so, you should easily be able disprove at least one.


> Here I can address the item I mentioned in my previous comment:
>
> p. 15, "Theory of Doppler's Principle and of Aberration".
>
> * your first two comments complain, in all naive seriousness, that the
> spherical wave is not 100% plane wave. It's like like complaining that
> Newton used point masses in his mechanics.

NO, Newton was correct, because he didn't mean points with 'point 
masses', while Einstein did.

In fact Einstein turned materialism into something absurd, because 
everything was 'stuff' in his view: points, coordinate systems, electricity.

> * vector notation vs. components is up to the author. Here he chose the
> components because he needs to transform them according to the
> formulas on p. 14 which are different for different components.

Well, actually you are right.

But in my role as a professor I have also the duty to educate the 
students to some kind of aestetic use of mathematics.

And I therefore marked as an error, what looks 'ugly', even if that 
wasn't really wrong.


> * those formulas involve maximum amplitude, not mean amplitude.


One of my main points of critique was Einstein's habit, that he didn't 
give any hint at all what he meant with certain symbols.

That is totally inacceptable, because the reader needs to know, what the 
author tries to say. The author is therefore responsible to make clear, 
what he's talking about. It's not the duty of a reader to reader the 
authors mind.

In my view this issue alone would have been actually enough to dismiss 
this paper without further consideration.

> * comments about the amplitude components naming convention
> are asinine.
>
> * the formula for the upper-case  Phi  is standard undergraduate
> physics. In pro science papers people normally don't define elementary
> concepts. It's not an undergrad textbook. There is no "riddle" in
> dividing by  c,  please educate yourself. Check any basic textbook
> on wave motion, either from a mechanical or E&M point of view.
>
> * "wave train" is the standard physics usage in English. The correct
> English translation of Einstein's paper (which you should have used
> in the first place) employs the same term:
> https://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol2-trans/174


Sure 'wave-train' is in common use in English. But in German 'Wellenzug' 
(literal translation of 'wave-train) is not used in connection with waves.

'Zug' in German means 'train', but is also the substantive related to 
'pull' ('ziehen' in German). 'Zug' is the movement of a chess piece, for 
instance.

It is also used to describe the result, if you draw a line. So 
'Wellenzug' is best approximated with 'wavy line'.

I have criticised the phrase, because I have regarded it as a funny 
translation error.

> * your comment regarding Einstein's phrase "when they are examined by an
> observer at rest in the moving system  k" is nonsensical. The entire point
> of the setup is to have the light source stationary wrt  K  and then having the
> observer  k  measure those waves.

But why?

My personal settings are usually: the observer is at rest and the things 
of interest move.

Therefore a stationary observer could as well observe a moving light 
source, instead of the other way round.

The system K is actually regarded as 'stationary', because it is 
'attatched' to the observer.

The observer sees from his position a moving light source, which is a 
very common setting.

>
> * your next comment demonstrates that you don't understand how Einstein
> calculates  omega',  l',  m',  n'.  Einstein DOES in fact substitute the Lorentz
> transformation but he skips this calculation (again, the paper is for
> professionals who can fill in those details easily).  He also does not
> mention another fact that both observers will measure the same
> phase when their positions coincide, despite their relative motion (this
> is another basic factoid about waves).

Two observers will most likely never coincide.

We could regard that another example of the Pauli exclusion principle.

Or simpy by: where I am you cannot be.


...


TH

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

Thread

Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-27 08:48 +0200
  Re: Annotated version of SRT JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-03-27 02:11 -0700
    Re: Annotated version of SRT Evodio Bayon <eba@nctps.mx> - 2022-03-27 09:54 +0000
    Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-27 19:35 +0200
      Re: Annotated version of SRT JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-03-27 12:28 -0700
        Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-28 08:47 +0200
          Re: Annotated version of SRT JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-03-28 02:50 -0700
            Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-29 08:19 +0200
              Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-29 08:52 +0200
              Re: Annotated version of SRT JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-03-29 02:06 -0700
                Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-30 09:13 +0200
                Re: Annotated version of SRT Python <python@example.invalid> - 2022-03-30 16:46 +0200
                Re: Annotated version of SRT Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-03-30 11:37 -0700
                Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-31 08:16 +0200
                Re: Annotated version of SRT JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-03-30 11:08 -0700
                Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-31 08:04 +0200
                Re: Annotated version of SRT JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-03-31 00:14 -0700
                Re: Annotated version of SRT Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-03-31 00:26 -0700
                Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-04-01 07:05 +0200
                Re: Annotated version of SRT JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-04-01 00:25 -0700
                Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-04-01 07:37 +0200
                Re: Annotated version of SRT JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-04-01 00:39 -0700
          Re: Annotated version of SRT Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-03-29 10:26 +0300
      Re: Annotated version of SRT Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-03-29 10:01 +0300
        Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2022-03-30 07:16 +0200
  Re: Annotated version of SRT Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-03-27 06:41 -0700
  Re: Annotated version of SRT "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-03-27 08:31 -0700
  Re: Annotated version of SRT Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-03-27 11:43 -0400
    Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-27 19:28 +0200
      Re: Annotated version of SRT Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-03-29 13:52 -0400

csiph-web