Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #598623
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | sci.physics.relativity |
| Subject | Re: Updated crackpot index? |
| Date | 2022-12-30 12:41 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <k1813gFcnfuU1@mid.individual.net> (permalink) |
| References | (7 earlier) <tocrif$3be9n$1@dont-email.me> <k0vp3tF4fj1U1@mid.individual.net> <togf0q$3sg92$1@dont-email.me> <k12a45FgaaoU1@mid.individual.net> <tokt49$devb$1@dont-email.me> |
Am 29.12.2022 um 21:25 schrieb Volney:
> On 12/28/2022 2:38 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>> Am 28.12.2022 um 05:00 schrieb Volney:
>>> On 12/27/2022 3:36 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>> Am 26.12.2022 um 20:10 schrieb Volney:
>>>>> On 12/25/2022 5:17 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>>>> Am 24.12.2022 um 21:32 schrieb Volney:
>>>>>>> On 12/24/2022 3:57 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The claim is more or less, that cults took over science and
>>>>>>>> turned it
>>>>>>>> away from the scientific method.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Then what is produced would not follow the scientific method, yet it
>>>>>>> still does. Plus the "cult followers" bit is never supported with
>>>>>>> evidence that such a "takeover" happened.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I personally think, that such a 'takeover' actually happened.
>>>>>
>>>>> Without evidence of that, nobody cares what you think.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For instance I have studies Einstein's 'On the electrodynamics of
>>>>>> moving bodies' for a very long time in detail. But I found a very
>>>>>> large number of errors in it (well over 400).
>>>>>
>>>>> No, you haven't. As has been repeatedly explained to you.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> These errors could not been overlooked by Planck, who was a
>>>>>> world-class physicist.
>>>>>
>>>>> Since there were no such errors, there was nothing for Planck to
>>>>> overlook.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I have discussed now lots of errors (in my view) and the result was
>>>> always the same:
>>>>
>>>> the errors are simply denied, the critique was uttered by a crank (me)
>>>> and the case is closed.
>>>
>>> The "errors" were refuted because all of them that anyone has looked at
>>> were misunderstandings or errors by yourself, not in the paper.
>>>>
>>>> But I can provide something new for you to defend:
>>>>
>>>> it is actually a very simple error and belongs to a class called 'non
>>>> sequitur'. (This means 'it does not follow'.)
>>>>
>>>> It is on page 8 in § 3 about 'Theory of the Transformation of
>>>> Co-ordinates ...'
>>>>
>>>> There are two equations in the upper part of page 8, which both
>>>> describe a certain point (x,y,z) in K coordinates, which was '...just
>>>> attained by this wave,...'.
>>>>
>>>> Now the first equation describes the length of the path of a wave from
>>>> the origin to that point by kind of '3d-pythagoras':
>>>>
>>>> x² +y² +z² = c²*t²
>>>>
>>>> That is certainly true and not particularily interesting.
>>>>
>>>> The second equation is this
>>>> ξ² +η² +ζ² = c²* τ²
>>>>
>>>> This is the same point in coordinates from k.
>>>>
>>>> This is also not very spectacular, even if the coordinate system k is
>>>> moving
>>>
>>> Only moving relative to K. Remember, motion is always relative.
>>>
>>>> and the equation does not make any attempt to compensate that movement.
>>>
>>> What is there to 'compensate'? Both are equations in inertial frames, K
>>> and k. Remember the first postulate, the laws of physics are the same in
>>> all inertial frames. Including K and k.
>>
>> If you have a certain point ('.. just attained by the wave...') with
>> certain coordinates -like e.g.(1,2,3) - in system K and now want the
>> coordinates of that point in coordinates based on system k, you need
>> to conduct a so called 'coordinate transformation'.
>
> Only if you need to swap from one frame to the other.
>>
>> This was actually the topic of §3.
>>
>> Now I would expect an influence of movement upon the coordinates in
>> the equation for the moving system.
>
> What movement? From frame k, frame k is stationary (tautology) but frame
> K is moving. Do remember "moving system" is essentially a NAME since the
> original frame K is described as stationary (relative to an unspecified
> original observer), so k is moving wrt this original observer because it
> is moving relative to K.
Einstein have not mentioned the observer in system K. Instead he meant
'stationary' as stationary in respect to the Euclidean space.
This served as unmentioned 'background' like Newton's absolute space.
That contradicted his own statement, that Newton's absolute space would
not exist. But that did not hinder Einstein to use such a space as
unmentioned reference.
You are in fact right, that the space of the coordinate system K would
make most sense, if the observer rests in the center of his own
coordinate system K. And with a change to the coordinate system k also
the observer's position would change, hence k would be stationary, too.
But that wasn't Einstein's setting. He therefore meant, that system K is
stationary and system k is moving.
>> This is required, because the coordinates of the very same physical
>> point in coordinates k had to be derived, which have some other
>> coordinates in measures of system K, which is regarded as non-moving.
>
> Relative to the unmentioned observer in the original description of K.
No. The point in system K was a certain fixed but otherwise unspecified
point (x, y, z).
This same point in space has also coordinates in system k, which were,
what Einstein wanted to derive (but didn't).
The (unmentioned) observer should be placed in the center of system K,
hence we could use 'system K' and 'initial observer' interchangably.
Now Einstein wrote, that a coordinate transformation from system K to
system k would be created by exchanging Latin for Greek letters. (what
is nonsense)
He also seemed to assume, that in his setting two spherical waves were
created, from which one symmetrically expands in system K and the other
also symmetrically in system k.
But that was wrong, because the waves did not originate from the
coordinate systems (whether moving or not), but from some kind of emitter.
This emitter emitts one spherical wave only, which is observed from a
position stationary in respect to the emitter and from a different
position moving in respect to the emitter.
This would cause the so called 'Doppler effect' and a distortion of the
wave in the case, where the emitter is in relative motion.
In that case of a distorted wave, that wave would no longer be
spherical, hence Einstein's claim was wrong.
>> IOW: we have the same wave and the same point, but different
>> coordinates, because we have two different coordinate system. and one
>> is regarded as stationary and one as moving.
>
> It appears you don't understand the concept of relative motion, you
> consider K as (absolutely) stationary and k as (absolutely) moving. This
> has been known wrong since Galileo.
I didn't, but interpreted Einstein's text that way.
This assumption (about Einstein's intentions) is justified, because
Einstein used the word 'stationary', but nothing in respect to what that
entity should be stationary.
The only possible interpretation for Einstein's words is, that he meant
absolute space (despite having excluded that already).
>> The task is therefore to convert the coordinates of (1,2,3) in K to
>> some other coordinates in k.
>>
>> But that was not, what Einstein had actually done.
>>
>> Instead he implicitly created a new wave and made that expand in the
>> moving system k.
>
> Not a new wave, he just shows how the same wave expands in k. Remember
> in k the time parameter is not t but τ.
>>
>> Einstein should have provided a coordinate transformation, but didn't.
>> He simply wrote Greek letters instead od Latin ones.
>>
>> The Greek letters mean coordinates in system k.
>>
>> But that was already known, because he wanted to derive coordinates in
>> k. The interesting part would be to know, WHICH coordinates come out
>> of the coordinate transformation.
>>
>> The exchange of letters was then used as justification of this statement:
>>
>> "The wave under consideration is therefore no less a spherical wave
>> with velocity of propagation c when viewed in the moving system. This
>> shows that our two fundamental principles are compatible."
>
> No, he derived how ξ² +η² +ζ² = c²* τ² was the result for the moving
> system.
>
> You ignored the phrase "when viewed in the moving system."
No. I haven't ignored that phrase, of course.
I wanted to know, how these coordinates look like, not what their names
were, because xi, eta and zeta are names of coordinates in k, but not
equations or similar for that coordinates.
Equations for these coordinates should have the form:
ξ= ...something
and denote the same point, which was called (x,y,z) in coordinates of K.
Relatively close to the requirements are the equations in the middle of
page 9.
Unfortunately they had a different meaning and were not meant for the
coordinate transformation mentioned above.
But illegal is a simple exchange of the letters in the variable names.
>> But this statement cannot be justified by an exchange of letters.
>
> Not "just" an exchange of letters, he DERIVED that.
He derived WHAT ???
..
TH
Back to sci.physics.relativity | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Updated crackpot index? Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-12-08 14:46 -0500
Re: Updated crackpot index? "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-12-08 12:08 -0800
Re: Updated crackpot index? whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-12-08 14:14 -0600
Re: Updated crackpot index? "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-12-08 12:16 -0800
Re: Updated crackpot index? Athel Cornish-Bowden <acornish@imm.cnrs.fr> - 2022-12-08 21:26 +0100
Re: Updated crackpot index? Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-12-08 14:11 -0800
Re: Updated crackpot index? "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-12-08 14:43 -0800
Re: Updated crackpot index? Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-12-09 02:56 -0500
Re: Updated crackpot index? "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-12-09 09:07 -0800
Re: Updated crackpot index? Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-12-09 12:19 -0800
Re: Updated crackpot index? Hanoi Cuocco <ouco@ocaoch.ho> - 2022-12-09 21:02 +0000
Re: Updated crackpot index? Lou Abatangelo <lbta@aooutala.nl> - 2022-12-10 20:28 +0000
Re: Updated crackpot index? Lou Abatangelo <lbta@aooutala.nl> - 2022-12-10 21:19 +0000
Re: Updated crackpot index? whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-12-10 16:18 -0600
Re: Updated crackpot index? Trolidan7 <Trolidan7@eternal-september.org> - 2022-12-10 14:42 -0800
Re: Updated crackpot index? whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-12-10 17:59 -0600
Re: Updated crackpot index? Lou Abatangelo <lbta@aooutala.nl> - 2022-12-10 22:57 +0000
Re: Updated crackpot index? whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-12-10 16:16 -0600
Re: Updated crackpot index? Smokey Abbiati <asbk@atmakb.ai> - 2022-12-11 18:21 +0000
Re: Updated crackpot index? Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2022-12-11 10:40 -0800
Re: Updated crackpot index? whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-12-11 13:44 -0600
Re: Updated crackpot index? Smokey Abbiati <asbk@atmakb.ai> - 2022-12-11 21:37 +0000
Re: Updated crackpot index? whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-12-11 16:07 -0600
Re: Updated crackpot index? Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-12-12 00:13 -0500
Re: Updated crackpot index? Darron Riva <orvd@raria.ar> - 2022-12-12 16:28 +0000
Re: Updated crackpot index? whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-12-12 13:41 -0600
Re: Updated crackpot index? Lou Abatangelo <lbta@aooutala.nl> - 2022-12-10 23:33 +0000
Re: Updated crackpot index? Stephan Russo <ptrp@susnon.sr> - 2022-12-08 20:58 +0000
Note to Volney (was Re: Updated crackpot index?) whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-12-08 18:15 -0600
Re: Note to Volney (was Re: Updated crackpot index?) Hanoi Cuocco <ouco@ocaoch.ho> - 2022-12-09 14:35 +0000
Re: Note to Volney (was Re: Updated crackpot index?) whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-12-09 10:59 -0600
Re: Updated crackpot index? Stephan Russo <ptrp@susnon.sr> - 2022-12-08 21:00 +0000
Re: Updated crackpot index? patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-12-09 13:36 -0800
Crank Pat Dolan demands an extra 150 points. And gets them. "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-12-09 13:39 -0800
Re: Crank Pat Dolan demands an extra 150 points. And gets them. patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-12-09 17:47 -0800
Re: Crank Pat Dolan demands an extra 150 points. And gets them. "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-12-09 17:52 -0800
Re: Crank Pat Dolan demands an extra 150 points. And gets them. Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2022-12-09 19:17 -0800
Re: Crank Pat Dolan demands an extra 150 points. And gets them. "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-12-09 19:26 -0800
Re: Updated crackpot index? Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-12-10 18:24 -0500
Re: Updated crackpot index? Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-12-10 17:07 -0800
Re: Updated crackpot index? patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-12-10 18:41 -0800
Re: Updated crackpot index? Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-12-11 22:33 -0500
Re: Updated crackpot index? Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-12-12 04:15 -0800
Re: Updated crackpot index? Darron Riva <orvd@raria.ar> - 2022-12-12 18:43 +0000
Re: Updated crackpot index? nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-12-10 13:09 +0100
Re: Updated crackpot index? patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-12-10 09:34 -0800
Crank Pat Dolan comes to grips with the facts "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-12-10 09:46 -0800
Re: Updated crackpot index? Lou Abatangelo <lbta@aooutala.nl> - 2022-12-10 23:22 +0000
Re: Updated crackpot index? Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-12-18 14:53 -0500
Re: Updated crackpot index? Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-12-18 12:37 -0800
Re: Updated crackpot index? Vitaliy Bazzoli <zvt@viavzl.oi> - 2022-12-18 20:41 +0000
Re: Updated crackpot index? "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-12-18 13:10 -0800
Re: Updated crackpot index? Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-12-20 00:35 -0500
Re: Updated crackpot index? patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-12-19 21:43 -0800
Re: Updated crackpot index? Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-12-24 16:05 -0500
Re: Updated crackpot index? Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-12-24 13:37 -0800
Re: Updated crackpot index? Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-12-24 14:13 -0800
Re: Updated crackpot index? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-12-22 09:29 +0100
Re: Updated crackpot index? Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-12-23 02:00 -0500
Re: Updated crackpot index? Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-12-22 23:21 -0800
Re: Updated crackpot index? Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-12-24 01:32 -0500
Re: Updated crackpot index? Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-12-23 23:15 -0800
Re: Updated crackpot index? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-12-24 09:57 +0100
Re: Updated crackpot index? Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-12-24 15:32 -0500
Re: Updated crackpot index? Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-12-24 13:33 -0800
Re: Updated crackpot index? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-12-29 09:34 +0100
Re: Updated crackpot index? Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-12-29 00:48 -0800
Re: Updated crackpot index? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-12-30 12:03 +0100
Re: Updated crackpot index? Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-12-30 03:58 -0800
Re: Updated crackpot index? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2023-01-01 10:10 +0100
Re: Updated crackpot index? Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-01-01 03:47 -0800
Re: Updated crackpot index? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2023-01-02 08:35 +0100
Re: Updated crackpot index? Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-01-02 01:00 -0800
Re: Updated crackpot index? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2023-01-03 07:59 +0100
Re: Updated crackpot index? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2023-01-06 08:18 +0100
Re: Updated crackpot index? Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-01-05 23:36 -0800
Re: Updated crackpot index? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2023-01-09 08:57 +0100
Re: Updated crackpot index? Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-01-09 00:08 -0800
Re: Updated crackpot index? Luigi Tumicelli <llei@cumiicli.lu> - 2023-01-09 09:04 +0000
Re: Updated crackpot index? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-12-25 11:17 +0100
Re: Updated crackpot index? Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2022-12-25 14:40 -0800
Re: Updated crackpot index? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-12-26 10:23 +0100
Re: Updated crackpot index? Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-12-26 14:10 -0500
Re: Updated crackpot index? Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-12-26 12:37 -0800
Re: Updated crackpot index? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-12-27 09:36 +0100
Re: Updated crackpot index? Thurman De palma <eaan@phapremr.an> - 2022-12-27 13:57 +0000
Re: Updated crackpot index? Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-12-27 23:00 -0500
Re: Updated crackpot index? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-12-28 08:38 +0100
Re: Updated crackpot index? Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-12-29 15:25 -0500
Re: Updated crackpot index? Emmet Robustelli <uttl@etlmms.re> - 2022-12-29 21:28 +0000
Re: Updated crackpot index? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-12-30 12:41 +0100
Re: Updated crackpot index? Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-01-02 11:45 -0500
Re: Updated crackpot index? Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-01-02 08:49 -0800
Re: Updated crackpot index? Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-01-02 09:08 -0800
Re: Updated crackpot index? Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-01-02 09:15 -0800
Re: Updated crackpot index? Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-01-03 02:14 -0500
Re: Updated crackpot index? Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-01-02 23:52 -0800
Re: Updated crackpot index? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2023-01-03 08:27 +0100
Re: Updated crackpot index? Ufonaut <ufonaut9@gmail.com> - 2022-12-28 06:12 -0800
Re: Updated crackpot index? Ufonaut <ufonaut9@gmail.com> - 2022-12-28 06:23 -0800
Re: Updated crackpot index? Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2022-12-28 08:27 -0800
Re: Updated crackpot index? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-12-29 09:19 +0100
Re: Updated crackpot index? Ufonaut <ufonaut9@gmail.com> - 2022-12-29 04:51 -0800
Re: Updated crackpot index? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-12-30 12:52 +0100
Re: Updated crackpot index? Hannu Poropudas <haporopuda@gmail.com> - 2022-12-20 23:32 -0800
Re: Updated crackpot index? Athel Cornish-Bowden <acornish@imm.cnrs.fr> - 2022-12-21 09:24 +0100
Re: Updated crackpot index? Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2022-12-21 10:10 -0800
Re: Updated crackpot index? Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2022-12-21 10:25 -0800
Re: Updated crackpot index? Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2022-12-21 10:40 -0800
Re: Updated crackpot index? whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-12-21 12:51 -0600
Re: Updated crackpot index? Celso Ardizzone <eodo@ceiozi.ci> - 2022-12-21 19:12 +0000
Re: Updated crackpot index? Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-12-21 15:07 -0500
Re: Updated crackpot index? Michelle Africano <nccr@amenica.he> - 2022-12-21 20:18 +0000
Re: Updated crackpot index? Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2022-12-21 12:41 -0800
Re: Updated crackpot index? Michelle Africano <nccr@amenica.he> - 2022-12-21 21:14 +0000
Re: Updated crackpot index? Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-12-21 16:15 -0500
Re: Updated crackpot index? Michelle Africano <nccr@amenica.he> - 2022-12-21 21:17 +0000
Re: Updated crackpot index? whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-12-21 16:14 -0600
Re: Updated crackpot index? Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-12-21 13:10 -0800
Re: Updated crackpot index? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2023-01-19 09:38 +0100
Re: Updated crackpot index? Athel Cornish-Bowden <acornish@imm.cnrs.fr> - 2022-12-21 20:43 +0100
Re: Updated crackpot index? nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-12-21 21:52 +0100
Re: Updated crackpot index? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-12-22 09:17 +0100
csiph-web