Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #598550
| From | Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | sci.physics.relativity |
| Subject | Re: Updated crackpot index? |
| Date | 2022-12-29 15:25 -0500 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <tokt49$devb$1@dont-email.me> (permalink) |
| References | (6 earlier) <k0qm96FbcbhU1@mid.individual.net> <tocrif$3be9n$1@dont-email.me> <k0vp3tF4fj1U1@mid.individual.net> <togf0q$3sg92$1@dont-email.me> <k12a45FgaaoU1@mid.individual.net> |
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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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."
>
> But this statement cannot be justified by an exchange of letters.
Not "just" an exchange of letters, he DERIVED that.
>
> To make matters worse, the statement is also wrong.
>
> It is wrong, because a spherical wave stationary in system K is no
> longer spherical if seen from a moving position,
You are frame jumping. You are implicitly using frame K's "t" when the
result seen from frame k uses τ.
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