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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #583227

Re: Annotated version of SRT

Show all headers | View raw

Am 18.04.2022 um 02:11 schrieb JanPB:
> On Sunday, April 17, 2022 at 1:04:22 AM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
>> Am 16.04.2022 um 21:59 schrieb JanPB:
>>> On Saturday, April 16, 2022 at 1:23:06 AM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>> Am 16.04.2022 um 00:46 schrieb JanPB:
>>>>> On Friday, April 15, 2022 at 9:29:29 AM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>>>> Am 14.04.2022 um 17:42 schrieb Odd Bodkin:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Anyone who is interested in promoting their own furniture that competes
>>>>>>> with IKEA is going to dump the contents of an IKEA kit, complain that the
>>>>>>> bags containing the bolts are not labeled with standard sizes, will
>>>>>>> deliberately lose the hex key and complain that it wasn’t fastened down,
>>>>>>> complain that if there are three identical wooden parts they aren’t labeled
>>>>>>> A, B, C or A1, A2, A3.
>>>>>> What I'm actually very good at, that are such mechanical tasks like to
>>>>>> assemble an IKEA shelve.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I cannot really prove it. But just take my word for that.
>>>>>>> Likewise, TH has a desire to promote his own ideas that compete with
>>>>>>> relativity, and so he’s going to take a relativity paper and dump out the
>>>>>>> contents on the floor and have lots of complaints that it’s unusable for
>>>>>>> idiots, where idiots were not the intended audience of the relativity
>>>>>>> paper.
>>>>>> I'm not at all against relativity. I have analyzed a certain paper and
>>>>>> have presented my results. This paper has some connections to
>>>>>> relativity, but is not relativity itself.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's a paper that defined relativity. Other than that it has some
>>>>> connections to relativity.
>>>> Relativity is way older than even Einstein.
>>>
>>> By "relativity" on this NG we mean Einstein's 1905 theory.
>> Definetely not.
>>
>> 'Relativity' is actually a very trivial concept and most likely nobody
>> would disagree.
>>
>> But it started with Gillieo or even further.
>
> If you want to change the subject, create a new thread. This thread
> is about your annotations to the 1905 paper.
>
>> Whether or not Einstein has something useful to say about the topic,
>> that is a question of debate.
>
> Actually, it is not. This period ended around 1906.
???

That is not how science works.

Anything ever invented can be questioned at any time in the future.

So, I could try to question Newton's laws, if I wanted to do so.

That is legal, because this is how science works.

To put a limit to the time of criticism would hinder to sort out errors 
for no obvious benefit.


>>>> That is in fact odd, because Einstein took the equations about the
>>>> behaviour of the aether from Hertz and 'proved', that aether would not
>>>> exist.
>>>
>>> Einstein did not "prove" that. Instead, he created a theory which is agnostic
>>> wrt aether.
>> He used equations of Hertz, which meant 'aether', hence cannot derive
>> the non-existence with such equations.
>
> You don't read my responses. What I said, again, was NOT that any "non-existence"
> was "derived". What I said was that Einstein's theory was *agnostic* to aether.
> Einstein says so explicitly in the paper's introduction.
>
>> The prerequisites of his derivation were 'inherited' from Hertz, because
>> he used his equations.
>
> Irrelevant.

The books of Heinrich Hertz are actually very good and Hertz was a VERY 
good physicist of world wide reputation.

He had great mathematical skills, was an extremely good experimenter and 
a very good physicist.

His books are worth reading till today.

Now Einstein took a few things from Hertz' books, but without 
mentioning, from where.

This is today regarded as scientific offence and also was questionable 
in those times.

But even a missing reference does not allow to take something from a 
certain context, and then prove with that the prerequisites wrong, on 
which that context was based.

This would violate simple logic.

Therefore Einstein took also the axioms about the aether from Hertz, as 
he took his equations about the aether.


...


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> - 2022-04-14 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
                Re: Annotated version of SRT JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-04-17 17:11 -0700
                Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-04-18 09:33 +0200
                Re: Annotated version of SRT Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-18 12:38 +0000
                Re: Annotated version of SRT nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-04-18 16:05 +0200
                Re: Annotated version of SRT Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-04-18 09:24 -0700
                Crank Thomas Heger perseveres (in his imbecility) "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-04-18 08:49 -0700
                Re: Annotated version of SRT JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-04-18 13:02 -0700
                Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-04-19 09:29 +0200
                Re: Annotated version of SRT Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-04-19 01:03 -0700
                Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-04-19 11:42 +0200
                Re: Annotated version of SRT JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-04-19 03:01 -0700
                Re: Annotated version of SRT Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-04-19 03:33 -0700
                Re: Annotated version of SRT Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-04-19 11:05 -0400
                Re: Annotated version of SRT Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-04-19 08:25 -0700
                Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-04-21 08:53 +0200
                Re: Annotated version of SRT Reinhardt Behm <rbehm@hushmail.com> - 2022-04-21 13:13 +0000
                Re: Annotated version of SRT Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2022-04-21 07:32 -0700
                Re: Annotated version of SRT JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-04-21 13:51 -0700
                Re: Annotated version of SRT nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-04-21 23:24 +0200
                Re: Annotated version of SRT Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-04-21 21:10 -0700
                Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-04-22 08:38 +0200
                Re: Annotated version of SRT nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-04-22 11:00 +0200
                Re: Annotated version of SRT JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-04-21 13:48 -0700
                Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-04-22 09:00 +0200
                Re: Annotated version of SRT JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-04-22 01:41 -0700
                Re: Annotated version of SRT Python <python@example.invalid> - 2022-04-22 15:39 +0200
                Re: Annotated version of SRT Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-04-22 07:11 -0700

csiph-web