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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #644378

Re: New version of my annotations to SRT

Show all headers | View raw

Am 13.02.2024 um 17:25 schrieb JanPB:
> Thomas Heger wrote:
>
>> Am 10.02.2024 um 19:51 schrieb Volney:
>>> On 2/10/2024 2:18 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>> Am 08.02.2024 um 15:51 schrieb Volney:
>>>>> On 2/8/2024 1:36 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I was actually a HYPOTHETICAL professor (in my role as writer of
>>>>>> these
>>>>>> annotations).
>>>>>
>>>>> No, you weren't. You don't have the qualifications to be a professor,
>>>>> hypothetical or not. Self-awarded degrees/titles are worse than
>>>>> useless,
>>>>> they are signs of crackpottery.
>>>>
>>>> I am actually allowed to write a critique of anything I like.
>>>
>>> There is a BIG difference between "allowed to" and "qualified to" do
>>> something. You don't have the qualifications to be a professor
>>>>
>>>> This is one of the rules of science.
>>>>
>>>> It does not require any kind of qualification or any kind of title to
>>>> critizise any theory you like, because any critique, from whereever it
>>>> might come, is valid.
>>>
>>> You may write whatever garbage you wish to write. You are not qualified
>>> to expect your writings to have any effect on science, or even have
>>> anyone in science to look at them.
>>>>
>>>> And unless such critique is rejected on scientific grounds, it remains
>>>> valid.
>>>>
>>>> You simply cannot dismiss an argument, because the one who wrote it
>>>> has not the appropriate title.
>>>
>>> Sorry, qualifications are necessary to filter out crap. If the same
>>> paper appears as a non peer reviewed post on Usenet authored by Joe
>>> Schmo, Janitor vs. Dr. Schmo, PhD Physics in a peer reviewed document,
>>> which source will be ignored vs. studied?
>>>>
>>>> But in case you like to disprove any of my annotations, you are
>>>> welcome.
>>>>
>>>> Simply download the file with my annotations (otherwise you can't read
>>>> the annotations), select one of them you regard as faulty and write,
>>>> what exactly is wrong with it.
>>>
>>> I asked before for you to post the most blatant, outrageous, ridiculous,
>>> obvious 'error' that you found to show us you can actually find real
>>> errors. It was ignored.  Of the ones anyone has looked at, they are all
>>> simply your misunderstandings or not an error at all. Nobody is going to
>>> wade through 428 misunderstandings of yours hoping to find an actual
>>> error that somehow, nobody in the last 100+ years found.
>
>
>> Einstein made several serious errors.
>
> He made no errors, let alone "serious" ones. He did commit a few
> instances of
> sloppiness but then so does literally every single science paper that
> ever was.
>
>> One was his method of synchronisation.
>
>> he had (simplified) this picture in mind:
>
>> I receive a light signal, which originates from a remote clock and
>> take that signal as information about the remote time.
>
>> The error:
>
>> that signal does not contain the remote time, because light needs time
>> to travel. This discrepancy is called 'delay', but Einstein didn't
>> mention it with a single word.
>
> I won't even comment on that. Besides, I have just posted an article
> explaining
> in detail why clock synchronisation is actually an inessential part of
> special
> relativity. The beef lies elsewhere.
>
>> Another serious error:
>
>> he ascribed the effects of motion to the moving object, while it is
>> actually an effect, which is only visible at the side of the observer.
>
> Gobbledygook.
>
>> Annoying were Einstein's naming conventions.
>
>> Especially annoying were the reuse of variable names and the lack of
>> definitions of used symbols.
>
> No, his usage of symbols is standard.


Einstein's variable names were EXTREMELY annoying!

For instance:
he had eight different uses of the letter 'A'.

He also defined something, like the axes mof system k (named with large 
Greek letters), but didn't use that definition and used large Latin 
letters in the text instead.

Also illogic where the names themselves. E.g. I had not understood, why 
he didn't use indices to adress different motions, but ' (prime).

He also used no different symbols for different types of mathematical 
objects (like: vectors and scalars /functions and values/ cordinate 
values and axes names). Different type of objects (like e.g. function 
names) should be made distinguishable from values or vectors.

He also used non-standard names like e.g. P for preassure or A_m for 
'power of deflection' (whatever that is).

In all cases he wrote no proper definitions and simply expected the 
reader to know his intentions.

He also wrote equations, but no description, what these equations shall 
express.

To make matters worse, he also changed the type of object occasionally 
without notice.

For instance the speed of light is a scalar value, while velocity is a 
vector quantity. If you subtract c from v, you implicitly convert v to a 
scalar.

These are all very nasty habits and definetely not standard in science.

...


TH

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

Thread

Re: New version of my annotations to SRT film.art@gmail.com (JanPB) - 2024-02-13 16:25 +0000
  Re: New version of my annotations to SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2024-02-14 08:34 +0100
    Re: New version of my annotations to SRT "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2024-02-14 21:28 +0100
      Re: New version of my annotations to SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2024-02-15 07:10 +0100
  Re: New version of my annotations to SRT Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2024-02-14 00:11 -0800

csiph-web