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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #583573

Re: Annotated version of SRT

Show all headers | View raw

Am 19.04.2022 um 12:01 schrieb JanPB:

>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> This is a different topic. What you said was: "Whether or not Einstein has
>>> something useful to say about the topic, that is a question of debate."
>> Relativity is actually a daily observation. Practically everything is
>> relative to something else.
>>
>> So relativity per se cannot be questioned in any meaningful sense.
>>
>> But we can, of course, question certain theories from this realm.
>>
>> Now we are talking about a certain proposal from a guy named Albert
>> Einstein, which he had published in 1905.
>>
>> This proposal is about 'inertal frames of reference in streight lateral
>> motion'. The relative velocity is assumed to be constant and very fast.
>>
>> That is roughly the setting, about which Einstein wrote.
>>
>>  From certain assumptions he came to certain results. And now we are
>> discussing the question, whether or not these results are derived
>> properly and have some value in physics.
>>
>> I came to the conclusion, that the results themselves are possible,
>> while the methods by which he came to them were not.
>
> And this conclusion is incorrect.
>
>> To derive a certain result from certain axioms, it is essential to make
>> no formal errors of any kind.
>
> There are no errors in Einstein's 1905, formal or otherwise. There are some
> instances of over-complicating things or bits of sloppiness but that standard
> in practically all science research papers.

The text is FULL of errors of all sorts.

Some of these errors were extremely stupid, some very small, some formal.

My counting was: more than four-hundred errors in the text.

Very simple example:
Einstein wrote in a footnote, that a sphere is a spherical body, when 
observed at rest.

I counted this as three errors:

1) it is not necessecary to explain the term 'sphere' to the intended 
audience of professional physicists

2) it is wrong to explain a term by reference to itself

3) a sphere is the two dimensional shell of a ball, hence not a body.


VERY serious was Einstein's habit, that he made no destinctions between 
vectors and scalars.

It was hard to say, what Einstein actually meant, because he gave no 
hints in the form of a different fort for different types of 
mathematical objects (for instance) or in any other form.

So he simply assumed, the reader would know anyhow, what he had in mind.

This was regarded as an error, because the author is responsible to make 
clear, what he wants to say.


But Einstein himself had seemingly trouble with the distinction between 
vectors and scalars, because he added - for instance- c and a velocity w.

Now c is a scalar, while velocity is a vectorial quantity, which you 
must not add or subtract from vectors.

> Textbooks strive for more "perfection" but this is not a student text.


Einstein made very serious physical errors, too.

E.g. he used work as equal to energy.

Or he attempted to redefine certain terms in common use, like mass.

He used the term 'mass' with the meaning 'amount of matter', what 'mass' 
does not mean.


>> Especially mathematical errors are deadly
>> in theoretical physics, which is based on mathematical perfectionism.
>
> Sure, but there aren't any there.

There are also mathematical errors.

E.g. the first equation on page 4:

'tau' is here the name of a linear function, which has four vectors as 
arguments.

since tau is a linear function, the argument on the right side of the 
equation must have zero at the first position, while it has actually x' 
there.

this doesn't actually matter, because x' = 0 must be true for some other 
reason.

But if x'=0 the equation would read as:

1/2 [tau(0,0,0,t) + tau(0,0,0,t)]= tau(0,0,0,t)


Well, that is certainly true, but hardly, what Einstein had in mind.

...


TH

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

Thread

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 Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-04-23 08:07 +0200
                Re: Annotated version of SRT RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2022-04-23 14:59 -0700
                Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-04-24 07:36 +0200
                Re: Annotated version of SRT nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-04-24 10:41 +0200
                Re: Annotated version of SRT Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-04-24 01:59 -0700
                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 Dong Vassilikos <saox@cowrpsho.rb> - 2022-04-24 12:23 +0000
                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
                Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-04-23 07:55 +0200
                Re: Annotated version of SRT Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-04-23 03:34 -0400
                Re: Annotated version of SRT Python <python@example.invalid> - 2022-04-23 11:52 +0200
                Re: Annotated version of SRT Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-04-23 05:49 -0700
                Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-04-24 08:07 +0200
                Re: Annotated version of SRT JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-04-24 01:52 -0700
                Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-04-25 09:52 +0200
                Re: Annotated version of SRT JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-04-25 12:22 -0700
                Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-04-24 07:49 +0200
                Re: Annotated version of SRT JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-04-24 01:23 -0700
                Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-04-24 11:08 +0200
                Re: Annotated version of SRT JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-04-24 05:14 -0700
                Re: Annotated version of SRT JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-04-24 12:46 -0700
                Re: Annotated version of SRT Dong Vassilikos <saox@cowrpsho.rb> - 2022-04-24 21:09 +0000
                Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-04-25 10:23 +0200
                Re: Annotated version of SRT Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-04-24 12:56 -0400
                Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-04-25 10:09 +0200
                Re: Annotated version of SRT Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-04-25 11:51 -0400
                Re: Annotated version of SRT Cody Sakellariou <yall@ckcldcdd.ar> - 2022-04-23 07:59 +0000
                Re: Annotated version of SRT Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-23 12:56 +0000
                Re: Annotated version of SRT Dong Vassilikos <saox@cowrpsho.rb> - 2022-04-24 21:21 +0000

csiph-web