Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #582664

Re: Annotated version of SRT

From	Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de>
Newsgroups	sci.physics.relativity
Subject	Re: Annotated version of SRT
Date	2022-04-12 18:48 +0200
Message-ID	<jblor6Fnn10U1@mid.individual.net> (permalink)
References	(19 earlier) <jbfeeoFgs4lU1@mid.individual.net> <t30c1k$10rb$1@gioia.aioe.org> <acdebdda-e439-4528-9961-3df7ea1a8714n@googlegroups.com> <jbhtemFpi0U1@mid.individual.net> <90936380-6460-4254-9e3a-ffe1bb7a5994n@googlegroups.com>

Show all headers | View raw

Am 11.04.2022 um 21:38 schrieb JanPB:

>> But that was certainly not the case and most physicists would have
>> regarded Einstein's text as obscure crap, which they didn't find useful
>> to deal with.
>
> No, it's actually written somewhat more clearly and at a more
> explanatory level than Lorentz's paper  (again). The latter bothers
> with the reader much less and expects a higher competence level.
> You should bark at Hendrik Antoon instead.
>
>> So, Einstein's text remained within the continuous stream of nonsense,
>> we are permanently exposed to and which we usually simply ignore.
>
> There is no "continuous stream of nonsense", you simply don't understand
> this stuff.

This is hillarious!

To watch nonsense 24/7 you just need to switch on any tv-programm you like.

You could also read a magazine or listen to the radio. It's all the 
same: people are litterally bathed in nonsense.

...

>
>> This did change later, when a collosal hype was created, with which the
>> text of Einstein should be lifted to devine status.
>
> What hype? What are you talking about? Was there a "hype"
> created to "lift" Riemann's zeta function paper to "divine status"?

There was never any hype about Riemann, even if he had a little more 
brain than Einstein had.

> Why do cranks like you have to always invent those Hollywoodesque
> cuckoo conspiracies? The truth is far more boring: it's
> simply a good paper that established a new kind of
> classical mechanics, closer to reality than Newton's.

This 'closer to Newton' statement is actually correct. But that 
'mechanical' understanding of electricity by Einstein was also one of my 
points of critique.

Einstein's world view was just too 'materialistic'. Even points and 
coordinate systems were material objects.

Somehow electricity itself was treated as 'stuff', what is just twisted.
...

>
>> Then a number of physicists opposed, but it was already too late.
>
> Too late for what? Why would the scientists even accept a paper
> written by a semi-outsider if it wasn't exceptionally good?
> Did Einstein own oil wells in America and paid
> those established physicists off or something?
>
> Just what degree of unhinged stupidity must one accept
> to follow your line of "reasoning"?

I suggest this book:

https://www.amazon.de/True-Crime-Solving-History-Vol/dp/047311478X

>> For the intended audience of professional physicists it was strictly
>> forbidden to criticise Einstein in any way. If anyone dared to do that,
>> he was expelled from the 'community'.
>
> No, this was always false, and remains false to this day. In fact
> the opposite is true: the first physicist to disprove relativity by some means
> (necessarily, experimentally) will get an instant Nobel and obligation-free
> well-paid position at any university lucky enough to get him.

As you may have noticed, I didn't want to disprove relativity!

It was my aim, to show, that Einstein's paper is full of errors, no 
more, no less.

But errors prove nothing, not even something wrong. So tons of errors in 
Einstein's paper would not disprove relativity.

We just need to take Einstein out of the equation.

Instead of him we could have a look at Minkowski, Lorentz or Poincaré.


> What you describe OTOH is the usual movie fantasy.
> Real life is simply not like that.
>
> (Caveat: what you say DOES currently apply to university
> departments in the US with names ending in "...studies".
> It can also apply to a physicist if he crosses certain
> political lines. But not relativity (or any physical
> theory). This is a disgusting political development
> of recent years but unrelated to this topic.)
>
>> Many dared, anyhow, but were expelled and regared as 'crackpots',
>> 'Nazi', 'insane', 'antisemitic' or similar.
>
> No, may tried and ARE trying to this day, and very hard too.
> They all do retain their jobs.
> You are simply unaware of this because you enjoy
> your fantasies more than facets of real life.
>
>> That is for all practical purposes the case untill today,
>
> Nope, it's exactly the opposite. It just pleases your ego to
> make up those fantasies.

I have received COUNTLESS insulting replies, like: 'crackpot', 'Nazi', 
'insane', 'antisemitic' or worse.

(just take my word for that).

...

TH

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

Thread

Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-04-08 08:40 +0200
  Re: Annotated version of SRT JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-04-07 23:56 -0700
    Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-04-08 20:50 +0200
      Re: Annotated version of SRT Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-04-08 19:05 -0400
        Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-04-09 08:08 +0200
          Re: Annotated version of SRT JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-04-08 23:51 -0700
          Re: Annotated version of SRT Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-09 13:02 +0000
            Re: Annotated version of SRT Coke Hishikawa <uhva@blseummh.nm> - 2022-04-09 13:21 +0000
          Re: Annotated version of SRT Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-04-09 12:18 -0400
            Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-04-10 09:14 +0200
              Re: Annotated version of SRT Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-04-10 11:29 +0300
                Re: Annotated version of SRT nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-04-10 12:28 +0200
                Re: Annotated version of SRT Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-04-10 16:54 +0300
              Re: Annotated version of SRT Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-04-11 00:50 -0400
                Re: Annotated version of SRT Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-04-10 21:52 -0700
                Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-04-11 07:42 +0200
                Re: Annotated version of SRT Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-11 11:01 +0000
                Re: Annotated version of SRT Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-04-11 05:50 -0700
                Re: Annotated version of SRT nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-04-11 18:20 +0200
                Re: Annotated version of SRT Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-04-11 09:48 -0700
                Re: Annotated version of SRT Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-04-11 09:54 -0700
                Re: Annotated version of SRT Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-04-11 12:32 -0700
                Re: Annotated version of SRT Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-04-11 18:39 -0400
                Re: Annotated version of SRT Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-04-11 21:28 -0700
                Re: Annotated version of SRT Python <python@example.invalid> - 2022-04-12 06:36 +0200
                Re: Annotated version of SRT Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-04-11 21:38 -0700
                Re: Annotated version of SRT Python <python@example.invalid> - 2022-04-12 06:47 +0200
                Re: Annotated version of SRT Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-04-11 21:58 -0700
                Re: Annotated version of SRT Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2022-04-12 11:14 +0000
                Re: Annotated version of SRT Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2022-04-12 11:10 +0000
                Re: Annotated version of SRT JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-04-11 12:38 -0700
                Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-04-12 18:48 +0200
                Re: Annotated version of SRT JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-04-12 11:37 -0700
                Re: Annotated version of SRT Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-04-13 02:37 -0400
                Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-04-14 08:36 +0200
                Re: Annotated version of SRT JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-04-13 23:44 -0700
                Re: Annotated version of SRT Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-04-14 04:16 -0400
                Re: Annotated version of SRT Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-04-14 01:34 -0700
                Re: Annotated version of SRT Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-14 12:47 +0000
          Re: Annotated version of SRT Python <python@example.invalid> - 2022-04-10 13:06 +0200
      Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-04-09 07:48 +0200
  Re: Annotated version of SRT Python <python@example.invalid> - 2022-04-09 14:36 +0200
    Re: Annotated version of SRT Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-04-09 06:18 -0700
    Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-04-10 08:49 +0200
      Re: Annotated version of SRT Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-04-09 23:52 -0700
        Re: Annotated version of SRT Python <python@example.invalid> - 2022-04-10 12:54 +0200
      Re: Annotated version of SRT Python <python@example.invalid> - 2022-04-10 12:51 +0200
        Re: Annotated version of SRT Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-04-10 05:02 -0700
        Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-04-10 21:04 +0200
          Re: Annotated version of SRT Python <python@example.invalid> - 2022-04-10 22:08 +0200
            Re: Annotated version of SRT Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-04-10 21:20 -0700
            Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-04-11 07:48 +0200
              Re: Annotated version of SRT Reinhardt Behm <rbehm@hushmail.com> - 2022-04-11 08:43 +0000
                Re: Annotated version of SRT nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-04-11 13:55 +0200
                Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-04-11 21:09 +0200
                Re: Annotated version of SRT Reinhardt Behm <rbehm@hushmail.com> - 2022-04-12 02:52 +0000
                Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-04-13 07:49 +0200
                Re: Annotated version of SRT Reinhardt Behm <rbehm@hushmail.com> - 2022-04-13 07:41 +0000
                Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-04-14 08:21 +0200
                Re: Annotated version of SRT Python <python@example.invalid> - 2022-04-14 14:38 +0200
                Re: Annotated version of SRT Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-04-14 07:47 -0700
                Re: Annotated version of SRT Reinhardt Behm <rbehm@hushmail.com> - 2022-04-14 15:26 +0000
                Re: Annotated version of SRT Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-14 15:42 +0000
                Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-04-15 18:29 +0200
                Re: Annotated version of SRT Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-15 17:00 +0000
                Re: Annotated version of SRT JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-04-15 15:46 -0700
                Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-04-16 10:23 +0200
                Re: Annotated version of SRT JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-04-16 12:59 -0700
                Re: Annotated version of SRT nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-04-16 23:13 +0200
                Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-04-17 10:04 +0200
                Re: Annotated version of SRT whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-04-17 04:46 -0500

csiph-web