Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #463479 > unrolled thread
| Started by | CENTRINO <none@nonelandia.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-07-05 12:25 +0100 |
| Last post | 2018-07-13 13:57 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 244 — 33 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? CENTRINO <none@nonelandia.com> - 2018-07-05 12:25 +0100
Re:Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-07-05 13:47 +0200
Re:Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? Oren Woodcock <uw@osiweoq.lp> - 2018-07-07 13:01 +0000
Re:Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-07-07 15:46 +0200
Re:Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? Oren Woodcock <uw@osiweoq.lp> - 2018-07-07 15:24 +0000
Re:Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-07-10 07:57 +0200
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-07-09 23:41 -0700
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-10 10:53 +0000
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-07-10 05:22 -0700
Re:Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? Galin
Itnik
Uskanov <van@vovwuk.ac> - 2018-07-10 11:41 +0000
Re:Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-07-10 14:47 +0200
Re:Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? Juan Winfrey <ho@ehwhddlr.do> - 2018-07-10 17:38 +0000
Re:Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-07-10 20:28 +0200
Re:Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? Juan Winfrey <ho@ehwhddlr.do> - 2018-07-10 18:57 +0000
Re:Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? Ování Bodrého <urh@nwroen.ol> - 2018-07-10 20:04 +0000
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-07-10 15:57 -0700
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-07-10 16:12 -0700
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-07-10 16:20 -0700
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-07-10 16:51 -0700
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-07-10 17:37 -0700
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-07-11 11:00 -0700
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-07-13 11:18 -0700
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-07-05 14:06 +0200
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-07-05 07:22 -0700
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-07-05 07:35 -0700
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-07-05 08:05 -0700
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-07-05 08:10 -0700
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-07-05 10:13 -0700
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? Oren Woodcock <uw@osiweoq.lp> - 2018-07-05 21:26 +0000
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-07-05 14:32 -0700
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? Oren Woodcock <uw@osiweoq.lp> - 2018-07-05 21:38 +0000
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-07-07 07:41 -0700
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-07 15:48 +0000
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-07-07 09:48 -0700
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-07-07 08:56 -0700
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? Galin
Itnik
Uskanov <van@vovwuk.ac> - 2018-07-09 14:09 +0000
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-07-09 12:03 -0700
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-05 18:17 +0000
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-07-07 07:23 -0700
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-07 15:48 +0000
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-07-05 11:09 -0400
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-07-05 10:12 -0700
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-07-07 07:38 -0700
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-07-07 09:00 -0700
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-07-05 12:49 -0700
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? Oren Woodcock <uw@osiweoq.lp> - 2018-07-05 21:44 +0000
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-07-05 15:21 -0700
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? Oren Woodcock <uw@osiweoq.lp> - 2018-07-05 22:55 +0000
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-07-05 20:58 -0700
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-07-07 14:26 +0200
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-07-07 09:18 -0700
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? Oren Woodcock <uw@osiweoq.lp> - 2018-07-07 17:04 +0000
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-07-07 10:11 -0700
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? Galin
Itnik Uskanov <van@vovwuk.ac> - 2018-07-09 13:27 +0000
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-07-09 12:01 -0700
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? Juan Winfrey <ho@ehwhddlr.do> - 2018-07-10 17:40 +0000
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-07-10 13:20 -0700
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? Ování Bodrého <urh@nwroen.ol> - 2018-07-10 21:08 +0000
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-07-10 14:25 -0700
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? Ování Bodrého <urh@nwroen.ol> - 2018-07-11 11:09 +0000
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-07-10 15:22 -0700
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? Ování Bodrého <urh@nwroen.ol> - 2018-07-11 11:07 +0000
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-07-11 16:55 -0700
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-07-11 18:42 -0700
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? Olin Hayton <toa@nahslao.nh> - 2018-07-12 11:19 +0000
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? Olin Hayton <toa@nahslao.nh> - 2018-07-12 10:54 +0000
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-07-07 19:19 +0200
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-07-07 21:57 -0700
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-07-08 12:56 +0200
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-07-08 09:45 -0700
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-07-08 18:46 +0200
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-07-08 11:01 -0700
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-07-09 05:00 +0200
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-07-09 07:03 -0700
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? Galin
Itnik
Uskanov <van@vovwuk.ac> - 2018-07-09 14:05 +0000
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-07-09 16:32 +0200
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-07-08 13:25 -0700
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-07-09 06:04 +0200
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-07-09 04:39 -0700
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-07-09 21:21 +0200
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-07-07 07:11 -0700
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-07 15:35 +0000
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-07-07 09:36 -0700
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? Galin
Itnik
Uskanov <van@vovwuk.ac> - 2018-07-09 14:55 +0000
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-07-09 12:27 -0700
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? Juan Winfrey <ho@ehwhddlr.do> - 2018-07-10 17:36 +0000
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-07-10 13:18 -0700
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? Ování Bodrého <urh@nwroen.ol> - 2018-07-10 21:06 +0000
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-07-10 15:21 -0700
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-07-10 22:17 -0700
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? Ování Bodrého <urh@nwroen.ol> - 2018-07-11 10:59 +0000
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-07-11 16:54 -0700
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-07-11 17:39 -0700
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? Olin Hayton <toa@nahslao.nh> - 2018-07-12 11:04 +0000
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-07-12 10:59 -0700
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-07-12 10:53 -0700
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-07-12 17:21 -0700
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-07-12 19:48 -0700
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-07-13 11:37 -0700
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? nobody@nowhere.com - 2018-07-12 21:25 -0400
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-07-13 11:42 -0700
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? Olin Hayton <toa@nahslao.nh> - 2018-07-12 10:55 +0000
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-07-12 10:58 -0700
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-07-12 17:25 -0700
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-07-12 21:11 -0700
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-07-13 11:39 -0700
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? Olin Hayton <toa@nahslao.nh> - 2018-07-13 23:16 +0000
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-07-13 20:23 -0700
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? Olin Hayton <toa@nahslao.nh> - 2018-07-14 14:50 +0000
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-07-14 22:14 -0700
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-07-05 07:53 -0700
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-07-05 08:05 -0700
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-07-05 11:28 -0700
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-07-05 14:48 -0700
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-07-05 10:08 -0700
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-07-06 00:08 +0200
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? HGW <HW@home.net> - 2018-07-07 09:24 +1000
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-07-06 16:48 -0700
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? Oren Woodcock <uw@osiweoq.lp> - 2018-07-07 12:43 +0000
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-07-07 09:23 -0700
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? Oren Woodcock <uw@osiweoq.lp> - 2018-07-07 17:00 +0000
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-07-07 10:13 -0700
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? Oren Woodcock <uw@osiweoq.lp> - 2018-07-07 18:24 +0000
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? HGW <HW@home.net> - 2018-07-09 09:01 +1000
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-07-07 21:09 +0200
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-05 18:17 +0000
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-07-05 11:35 -0700
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-05 18:48 +0000
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-07-05 12:04 -0700
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-07-05 12:58 -0700
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-07-05 13:51 -0700
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-06 10:57 +0000
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-07-06 04:45 -0700
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-06 20:41 +0000
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-07-06 13:59 -0700
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-07 00:51 +0000
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-07-06 22:25 -0700
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-07 09:30 +0000
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-07-07 03:31 -0700
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-07-05 21:54 -0700
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-07-05 23:53 -0700
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-07-07 12:33 +0200
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-07-07 05:36 -0700
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-07 15:35 +0000
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-07-07 09:40 -0700
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-07-07 09:52 -0700
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-07 19:57 +0000
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-07-07 14:35 -0700
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-07-07 14:47 -0700
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-07 23:42 +0000
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-07-07 21:59 -0700
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-07-07 22:15 -0700
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-07-07 22:26 -0700
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-07-07 23:19 -0700
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-07-08 14:39 -0700
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-07-08 23:31 -0700
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-07-08 23:46 -0700
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-07-09 14:36 -0700
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-07-09 14:46 -0700
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-07-10 05:42 +0200
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-07-09 21:43 -0700
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-07-09 22:12 -0700
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-10 10:53 +0000
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-07-10 10:49 -0700
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? Juan Winfrey <ho@ehwhddlr.do> - 2018-07-10 17:58 +0000
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-07-10 11:28 -0700
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-07-08 05:51 -0700
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-07-08 15:55 +0200
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-07-08 13:16 -0700
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-08 15:19 +0000
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-07-08 13:14 -0700
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-07-08 13:40 -0700
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-09 03:07 +0000
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-07-08 23:00 -0700
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-09 10:41 +0000
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-07-09 04:02 -0700
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-09 11:20 +0000
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-07-09 04:38 -0700
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-07-09 07:07 -0400
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-07-09 13:14 +0200
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-07-09 04:19 -0700
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-07-09 04:18 -0700
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-07-09 08:49 -0400
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-07-09 05:56 -0700
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-07-09 09:32 -0400
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-07-09 07:01 -0700
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-07-09 11:45 -0400
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-07-09 09:18 -0700
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-07-09 08:45 -0700
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-07-09 14:09 -0700
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-09 11:20 +0000
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-07-08 09:48 -0700
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-07-09 04:59 -0700
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-09 13:15 +0000
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-07-09 06:19 -0700
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-07-09 07:19 -0700
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-10 03:46 +0000
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-07-10 08:58 -0700
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-07-10 09:17 -0700
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-10 17:55 +0000
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-07-10 13:15 -0700
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-07-10 21:43 -0700
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-07-09 18:38 +0200
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-07-09 12:00 -0700
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-07-07 14:45 -0700
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-07-07 22:45 +0000
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-07 23:42 +0000
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-07-09 04:50 -0700
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? HGW <HW@home.net> - 2018-07-09 09:07 +1000
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? xip1415926@gmail.com - 2018-07-07 07:31 -0700
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-07-07 18:21 +0200
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? xip1415926@gmail.com - 2018-07-07 11:07 -0700
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-07-08 12:51 +0200
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? xip1415926@gmail.com - 2018-07-08 05:04 -0700
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-07-08 17:33 +0200
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? xip1415926@gmail.com - 2018-07-08 13:45 -0700
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-07-09 06:36 +0200
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? xip1415926@gmail.com - 2018-07-09 05:35 -0700
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-07-09 15:32 +0200
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? Galin Itnik Uskanov <van@vovwuk.ac> - 2018-07-09 13:38 +0000
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-07-09 16:24 +0200
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? Galin
Itnik
Uskanov <van@vovwuk.ac> - 2018-07-09 14:38 +0000
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? xip1415926@gmail.com - 2018-07-08 14:42 -0700
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? xip1415926@gmail.com - 2018-07-08 14:55 -0700
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-07-09 15:20 +0200
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? Galin Itnik Uskanov <van@vovwuk.ac> - 2018-07-09 13:33 +0000
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? xip1415926@gmail.com - 2018-07-08 19:05 -0700
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? HGW <HW@home.net> - 2018-07-10 09:32 +1000
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-10 03:46 +0000
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? consequently7990662@gmail.com - 2018-07-09 15:00 -0700
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? mikedwy@aol.com - 2018-07-09 22:18 -0700
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-07-10 07:40 +0200
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? Galin
Itnik
Uskanov <van@vovwuk.ac> - 2018-07-10 12:12 +0000
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-07-10 14:47 +0200
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? Juan Winfrey <ho@ehwhddlr.do> - 2018-07-10 17:23 +0000
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-10 10:53 +0000
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? Juan Winfrey <ho@ehwhddlr.do> - 2018-07-10 17:44 +0000
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-07-10 13:20 -0700
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-07-10 14:55 -0700
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-07-10 18:10 -0700
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-07-11 12:21 -0700
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? consequently7990662@gmail.com - 2018-07-11 15:45 -0700
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-07-13 13:54 -0700
Re: Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-07-13 13:57 -0700
Page 4 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 13 Next page →
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-10 15:22 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <795b105f-b843-4503-9565-fcd46598e1ca@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #464120 |
On Tuesday, July 10, 2018 at 2:08:34 PM UTC-7, Ování Bodrého wrote: > JanPB wrote: > > > On Tuesday, July 10, 2018 at 10:40:20 AM UTC-7, Juan Winfrey wrote: > >> JanPB wrote: > >> > >> >> You are not going to declare that one is attempting starting > >> >> correcting inherited theories without understanding them, > >> >> explanatory. It is like correcting, or SUPPORTING, relativity > >> >> without understanding it. Better luck next time, you really need it. > >> > > >> > Reread what I wrote. Reading comprehension next time! > >> > >> I am happy my _Divergent Matter of the Moving Bodies Model_ starts > >> taking shape, being capable to explain the moon tides as well. Your > >> theory don't. You have no mechanism. > > > > No theory in physics provides a "mechanism". The only thing physics > > theories MAY have (it's NOT a requirement) is another model underneath. > > You are confusing science with philosophy, like so many amateurs here. > > A theory not providing a mechanism is inapplicable in Science, Technology > and the Industry. But in no way you are capable to know that. No, I'm correct. You simply don't know what science is and conflate it with philosophy. A common confusion around here. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ování Bodrého <urh@nwroen.ol> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-11 11:07 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pi4odd$108o$5@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #464127 |
JanPB wrote: >> >> I am happy my _Divergent Matter of the Moving Bodies Model_ starts >> >> taking shape, being capable to explain the moon tides as well. Your >> >> theory don't. You have no mechanism. >> > >> > No theory in physics provides a "mechanism". The only thing physics >> > theories MAY have (it's NOT a requirement) is another model >> > underneath. >> > You are confusing science with philosophy, like so many amateurs >> > here. >> >> A theory not providing a mechanism is inapplicable in Science, >> Technology and the Industry. But in no way you are capable to know >> that. > > No, I'm correct. You simply don't know what science is and conflate it > with philosophy. A common confusion around here. Of course incorrect. Like giving a once multilateral developed country in the hands of an electrician. What a mess. A provided Mechanism is however the farthest from a philosophy as you can get. A _mechanism_ is pure Physics. Used and abused in Math Modelling and Scientific Computation. Vastly involving governing equations, predominately PDEs.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-11 16:55 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b4e6ef21-f6ee-4259-bba7-35f87e61d1fc@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #464157 |
On Wednesday, July 11, 2018 at 4:07:29 AM UTC-7, Ování Bodrého wrote: > JanPB wrote: > > >> >> I am happy my _Divergent Matter of the Moving Bodies Model_ starts > >> >> taking shape, being capable to explain the moon tides as well. Your > >> >> theory don't. You have no mechanism. > >> > > >> > No theory in physics provides a "mechanism". The only thing physics > >> > theories MAY have (it's NOT a requirement) is another model > >> > underneath. > >> > You are confusing science with philosophy, like so many amateurs > >> > here. > >> > >> A theory not providing a mechanism is inapplicable in Science, > >> Technology and the Industry. But in no way you are capable to know > >> that. > > > > No, I'm correct. You simply don't know what science is and conflate it > > with philosophy. A common confusion around here. > > Of course incorrect. Like giving a once multilateral developed country in > the hands of an electrician. What a mess. A provided Mechanism is however > the farthest from a philosophy as you can get. A _mechanism_ is pure > Physics. Used and abused in Math Modelling and Scientific Computation. > Vastly involving governing equations, predominately PDEs. Anybody can parse that? -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-11 18:42 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1360b954-10f2-408c-abfb-78c4b47f3172@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #464198 |
On Wednesday, July 11, 2018 at 6:55:30 PM UTC-5, JanPB wrote: > On Wednesday, July 11, 2018 at 4:07:29 AM UTC-7, Ování Bodrého wrote: > > Of course incorrect. Like giving a once multilateral developed country in > > the hands of an electrician. What a mess. A provided Mechanism is however > > the farthest from a philosophy as you can get. A _mechanism_ is pure > > Physics. Used and abused in Math Modelling and Scientific Computation. > > Vastly involving governing equations, predominately PDEs. > > Anybody can parse that? I imagine that the "electrician" could be Lech Wałęsa, which only makes the rest of his comments even more mystifying. The rest of his commentary seems to be a statement that real physics requires discovering the MECHANISMS underlying observed phenomena, i.e. the ability to accurately model and make accurate predictions accounts for nothing. Over-dependence on mathematics would represent a perversion of the true path or something. I think.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Olin Hayton <toa@nahslao.nh> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-12 11:19 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pi7dfo$1il8$6@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #464202 |
Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > On Wednesday, July 11, 2018 at 6:55:30 PM UTC-5, JanPB wrote: >> On Wednesday, July 11, 2018 at 4:07:29 AM UTC-7, Ování Bodrého wrote: > >> > Of course incorrect. Like giving a once multilateral developed >> > country in the hands of an electrician. What a mess. A provided >> > Mechanism is however the farthest from a philosophy as you can get. A >> > _mechanism_ is pure Physics. Used and abused in Math Modelling and >> > Scientific Computation. Vastly involving governing equations, >> > predominately PDEs. >> >> Anybody can parse that? > > I imagine that the "electrician" could be Lech Wałęsa, which only makes > the rest of his comments even more mystifying. You contradict yourself shamelessly, proka. You can't have it both understood and mystifying, same time. > > The rest of his commentary seems to be a statement that real physics > requires discovering the MECHANISMS underlying observed phenomena, > i.e. the ability to accurately model and make accurate predictions > accounts for nothing. You can't read, nor rationalize. Which indicates a severe incompetence. Real Physics today is about 90% Math Modelling and Scientific Computation. All of which are based around a Mechanism. That's a requirement, not up to debate. That's the only way you can simulate data, make predictions and so on. > Over-dependence on mathematics would represent a > perversion of the true path or something. I think. You think wrong. See above. The Nature IS mathematics.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Olin Hayton <toa@nahslao.nh> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-12 10:54 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pi7c0o$1il8$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #464198 |
JanPB wrote: >> A _mechanism_ is pure Physics. Used and abused in Math Modelling and >> Scientific Computation. Vastly involving governing equations, >> predominately PDEs. > > Anybody can parse that? reread >> A _mechanism_ is pure Physics. cretin. Which letter you are having problem with. How could a mechanism be "philosophic". You are a joke.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-07 19:19 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <7a16e601-7597-b7cd-21d5-b7fa90aee35d@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #463710 |
JanPB wrote:
> On Saturday, July 7, 2018 at 5:26:53 AM UTC-7, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> JanPB wrote:
>>> On Thursday, July 5, 2018 at 7:22:56 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote:
>>>> On Thursday, July 5, 2018 at 7:25:37 AM UTC-4, CENTRINO wrote:
>>>>> Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ?
>>>> Because Einstein’s SR copied the LET math
>>> Not even wrong. The truth is simply that Einstein's very INTENT was to
>>> REPRODUCE the Lorentz transform (already widely known at the time) by
>>> means of a certain DIFFERENT and MINIMAL set of assumptions. That was
>>> one of the GOALS of his 1905 paper.
>> Historian’s fallacy. Einstein provably was an admirer of Lorentz’ work, so
>> he knew at least portions of it.
>>
>> But unless Einstein has said so (and to my knowledge he has not), we can
>> only speculate about his motives.
>
> This is not a "speculation", it's the very content of the paper,
But there is no evidence of your claim that it was Einstein’s *motivation*
for OEoMB. In fact, as I just said, Einstein explicitly says what his
motivation was for OEoMB *in the introduction of OEoMB*, and it is not what
you claim.
If only you could read comprehensively.
>>> So from the start the Lorentz transform was presumed known, it was not
>>> any "copying" anything. […]
>> If *Lorentz’* transformation equations were known to Einstein, then at the
>> time he (Einstein) could have known it only as an incomplete ad-hoc
>> hypothesis to explain the Michelson–Morley experiment (which Lorentz had
>> admitted himself).
>
> Yes, of course. That's the point. I think you may have misunderstood my
> intent slightly. Obviously Einstein knew about the Lorentz transformation,
> this was standard expert knowledge for electrodynamics at the time.
No, it was not. As I have just showed, Lorentz published his final version
of the transformation equations in 1904-07. By then they were *still*
incomplete, and the underlying theory without an explanation for the used
concept of “local time”. At that time, Lorentz considered the equations
only a mathematical trick to make his aether theory work:
”One will notice that in this work the transformation equations of
Einstein’s Relativity Theory have not quite been attained. […]
On this circumstance depends the clumsiness of many of the further
considerations in this work.”
—Lorentz’ remark in a 1913 reprint of his 1904 paper
This was the year before Einstein submitted on OEoMB (1905-06-30), when
Einstein was still working as a clerk the Swiss Patent Office.
The explanation for local time in the context of aether theory was given,
but not published before 1906, by Poincaré (submitted 1905-06-05), at
approximately the same time that Einstein submitted OEoMB (1905-06-30; in
which he independently and based only on the two postulates found the
correct equations). It was Poincaré who in his paper called the equations
“Lorentz transformations” for the first time.
Why, despite and in light of freely available evidence to the contrary,
do you make up things and pretend that they are true?
--
PointedEars
Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-07 21:57 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <18df35f0-95b1-4bea-9c16-88e73603b64a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #463732 |
On Saturday, July 7, 2018 at 10:19:22 AM UTC-7, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > JanPB wrote: > > On Saturday, July 7, 2018 at 5:26:53 AM UTC-7, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > >> JanPB wrote: > >>> On Thursday, July 5, 2018 at 7:22:56 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: > >>>> On Thursday, July 5, 2018 at 7:25:37 AM UTC-4, CENTRINO wrote: > >>>>> Why so many do hate Albert Einstein in this group ? > >>>> Because Einstein’s SR copied the LET math > >>> Not even wrong. The truth is simply that Einstein's very INTENT was to > >>> REPRODUCE the Lorentz transform (already widely known at the time) by > >>> means of a certain DIFFERENT and MINIMAL set of assumptions. That was > >>> one of the GOALS of his 1905 paper. > >> Historian’s fallacy. Einstein provably was an admirer of Lorentz’ work, so > >> he knew at least portions of it. > >> > >> But unless Einstein has said so (and to my knowledge he has not), we can > >> only speculate about his motives. > > > > This is not a "speculation", it's the very content of the paper, > > But there is no evidence of your claim that it was Einstein’s *motivation* Well, OBVIOUSLY nobody knows what's inside anyone else's head. When people say things like "Mr. X's motivation was such-and-such" it OBVIOUSLY means the most plausible (by far) conclusion based on observation. So when you read Einstein's paper it's OBVIOUSLY motivated by the desire to justify the (well-known by then) Lorentz transformation as a true physical transformation of observed quantities and what this means for E and B so transformed. > for OEoMB. In fact, as I just said, Einstein explicitly says what his > motivation was for OEoMB *in the introduction of OEoMB*, and it is not what > you claim. > > If only you could read comprehensively. > > >>> So from the start the Lorentz transform was presumed known, it was not > >>> any "copying" anything. […] > >> If *Lorentz’* transformation equations were known to Einstein, then at the > >> time he (Einstein) could have known it only as an incomplete ad-hoc > >> hypothesis to explain the Michelson–Morley experiment (which Lorentz had > >> admitted himself). > > > > Yes, of course. That's the point. I think you may have misunderstood my > > intent slightly. Obviously Einstein knew about the Lorentz transformation, > > this was standard expert knowledge for electrodynamics at the time. > > No, it was not. Yes it was. It was not fully taught at the university at the time and Einstein complained that he had to learn this stuff himself. > As I have just showed, Lorentz published his final version > of the transformation equations in 1904-07. By then they were *still* > incomplete, I'm no historian so I'm relying on Wikipedia here: Lorentz (1892–1904) and Larmor (1897–1900) investigated what's known today as "Lorentz transformation" and Maxwell's equations' invariance properties. In particular, they noticed the need for the new time coordinate which most assumed was just a mathematical artefact. I'd be very surprised if Einstein was unaware of this. His paper's smoking gun is the fact that the transformed E and B fields can be treated on equal footing physically with the original E and B, so he must have known all that stuff before November 1905, obviously. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-08 12:56 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <84a90e01-8f36-2451-3716-8f2ff157f2f8@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #463778 |
JanPB wrote: > Well, OBVIOUSLY nobody knows what's inside anyone else's head. When people say > things like "Mr. X's motivation was such-and-such" it OBVIOUSLY means the most > plausible (by far) conclusion based on observation. So when you read Einstein's > paper it's OBVIOUSLY motivated by […] It is truly amazing how you manage to contradict yourself one sentence later. -- PointedEars Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-08 09:45 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0184ae36-3261-443a-8e3e-b360d6a36bfa@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #463793 |
On Sunday, July 8, 2018 at 3:56:37 AM UTC-7, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > JanPB wrote: > > Well, OBVIOUSLY nobody knows what's inside anyone else's head. When people say > > things like "Mr. X's motivation was such-and-such" it OBVIOUSLY means the most > > plausible (by far) conclusion based on observation. So when you read Einstein's > > paper it's OBVIOUSLY motivated by […] > > It is truly amazing how you manage to contradict yourself one sentence later. > > -- > PointedEars > > Twitter: @PointedEars2 > Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail. Resistance is futile :-) -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-08 18:46 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <98348641-3347-4868-ad3f-47d869b7e4e8@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #463778 |
JanPB wrote:
> On Saturday, July 7, 2018 at 10:19:22 AM UTC-7, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> JanPB wrote:
>>> On Saturday, July 7, 2018 at 5:26:53 AM UTC-7, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>>> JanPB wrote:
>>>>> So from the start the Lorentz transform was presumed known, it was not
>>>>> any "copying" anything. […]
>>>> If *Lorentz’* transformation equations were known to Einstein, then at the
>>>> time he (Einstein) could have known it only as an incomplete ad-hoc
>>>> hypothesis to explain the Michelson–Morley experiment (which Lorentz had
>>>> admitted himself).
>>>
>>> Yes, of course. That's the point. I think you may have misunderstood my
>>> intent slightly. Obviously Einstein knew about the Lorentz transformation,
>>> this was standard expert knowledge for electrodynamics at the time.
>>
>> No, it was not.
>
> Yes it was. It was not fully taught at the university at the time
Einstein studied for a physics teacher diploma at the Zurich Polytechnic
(now the ETH) from 1896 to 1900.
[A diploma in Switzerland is not necessarily a university degree; it can
also mean a formal certification to be able to take up work in a field.
Finding work as a physics teacher is what Einstein tried and failed
from 1900 to 1902, therefore the Patent Office job in 1902 he got
through is friend and former classmate Marcel Grossmann.]
Lorentz published *his* final version of the LT in 1904-07. That version
still contained *undefined* and *unexplained* factors.
Einstein submitted OEdoMB in 1905-06 when working as an assistant examiner
level III at the Swiss Patent Office in Bern (close to where I live).
*Of course* it was not taught “at the university” at the time! It was _not_
“standard expert knowledge”, but more like Lorentz’ pet theory (that,
provably and proved, he himself was not very much convinced of). [Lorentz
did _not_ receive his 1902 Nobel Prize for his aether theory.]
> and Einstein complained that he had to learn this stuff himself.
Once again your claim requires evidence. And I suspect that once again you
will not provide any, but open up another side show instead.
>> As I have just showed, Lorentz published his final version
>> of the transformation equations in 1904-07. By then they were *still*
>> incomplete,
>
> I'm no historian so I'm relying on Wikipedia here: […]
Which obviously you are unable to read *comprehensively* despite being
referred to the pertinent articles. Hopeless.
--
PointedEars
Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-08 11:01 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <34163118-db50-419b-aa3f-c1a1a3b90c5d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #463811 |
El domingo, 8 de julio de 2018, 11:46:48 (UTC-5), Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn escribió: > JanPB wrote: > > On Saturday, July 7, 2018 at 10:19:22 AM UTC-7, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > >> JanPB wrote: > >>> On Saturday, July 7, 2018 at 5:26:53 AM UTC-7, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > >>>> JanPB wrote: > >>>>> So from the start the Lorentz transform was presumed known, it was not > >>>>> any "copying" anything. […] > >>>> If *Lorentz’* transformation equations were known to Einstein, then at the > >>>> time he (Einstein) could have known it only as an incomplete ad-hoc > >>>> hypothesis to explain the Michelson–Morley experiment (which Lorentz had > >>>> admitted himself). > >>> > >>> Yes, of course. That's the point. I think you may have misunderstood my > >>> intent slightly. Obviously Einstein knew about the Lorentz transformation, > >>> this was standard expert knowledge for electrodynamics at the time. > >> > >> No, it was not. > > > > Yes it was. It was not fully taught at the university at the time > > Einstein studied for a physics teacher diploma at the Zurich Polytechnic > (now the ETH) from 1896 to 1900. > > [A diploma in Switzerland is not necessarily a university degree; it can > also mean a formal certification to be able to take up work in a field. > Finding work as a physics teacher is what Einstein tried and failed > from 1900 to 1902, therefore the Patent Office job in 1902 he got > through is friend and former classmate Marcel Grossmann.] > > Lorentz published *his* final version of the LT in 1904-07. That version > still contained *undefined* and *unexplained* factors. > > Einstein submitted OEdoMB in 1905-06 when working as an assistant examiner > level III at the Swiss Patent Office in Bern (close to where I live). > The exact submit date is clearly seen in the final page of the original paper (see last page of https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/andp.19053221004 ) as "Eingegangen 30. Juni 1905." So the paper was sent on June 30, 1905 and published on September 26, 1905.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-09 05:00 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <d5c20595-880e-9c77-d33c-c40bd5cf3759@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #463814 |
Paparios wrote:
> El domingo, 8 de julio de 2018, 11:46:48 (UTC-5), Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn escribió:
>> Einstein studied for a physics teacher diploma at the Zurich Polytechnic
>> (now the ETH) from 1896 to 1900.
>>
>> [A diploma in Switzerland is not necessarily a university degree; it can
>> also mean a formal certification to be able to take up work in a field.
>> Finding work as a physics teacher is what Einstein tried and failed
>> from 1900 to 1902, therefore the Patent Office job in 1902 he got
>> through is friend and former classmate Marcel Grossmann.]
>>
>> Lorentz published *his* final version of the LT in 1904-07. That version
>> still contained *undefined* and *unexplained* factors.
>>
>> Einstein submitted OEdoMB in 1905-06 when working as an assistant examiner
>> level III at the Swiss Patent Office in Bern (close to where I live).
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> The exact submit date is clearly seen in the final page of the original paper
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
That depends on how one defines “submit date”. You are correct if you mean
the date that the journal received the paper for consideration of
publication; you are incorrect if, as your statement at the bottom
indicates, you mean the date that the paper was sent by Einstein.
> (see last page of https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/andp.19053221004 )
Unbeknownst to me until now, it can now be found there because Wiley-VCH in
Weinheim, Baden-Württemberg, Germany (formerly Verlag Chemie, since 1996 a
wholly owned subsidiary of John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, NJ, USA), is
the publisher of the „Annalen der Physik“ since 1988.
An annotated copy and the official translation into English can be found in
“THE COLLECTED PAPERS OF ALBERT EINSTEIN, Vol. 2: The Swiss Years: Writings,
1900-1909”:
<https://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol2-doc/342>
> as "Eingegangen 30. Juni 1905."
^^^^^^^^^^^
„Eingegangen“ means “received” in German (“sent” would be „gesendet“), so
this is _not_ the date on which the paper was sent, but the date on which it
was received.
The official English translation makes that clear to those who do not know
German:
,-<https://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol2-trans/185>
|
| […]
|
| Bern, June 1905. (Received on 30 June 1905)
The first date is the month in which the paper was finished and probably
also submitted via mail. In the German original, it can be found on its own
line:
,-<https://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol2-doc/342>
|
| Bern, Juni 1905.
(„Juni“ is German for “June”)
It is possible, even likely, that this line was written by Einstein.
[In case the reader has not realized it yet: I, too, am a born German
living in Switzerland. The „Einsteinhaus“ in Bern, where Einstein
lived when he was in Bern; the Swiss Federal Institute of Intellectual
Property (IPI), formerly the Swiss Patent Office, where Einstein
worked; and the University of Bern where he later taught (and where
I am studying physics), are all only about 30 minutes by foot, train,
and tram/bus from where I am writing this.
You should come visit the excellent Einstein Museum exhibition in the
Bernisches Historisches Museum (Bern Historical Museum), where, among
other things, the original papers as published in the „Annalen“ can be
viewed. Maybe you even should visit the Einsteinhaus in the Kramgasse
(I have not been there yet, so I do not know if it is worth a visit,
too; it is comparably expensive). In August, you can visit the museum
for free on Saturdays. (I am not affiliated.)
<http://www.bhm.ch/en/exhibitions/einstein-museum/>
<https://www.einstein-bern.ch/>]
> So the paper was sent on June 30, 1905 and published on September 26, 1905.
No, it was *received* then by scientific journal „Annalen der Physik“
(“Annals of Physics”), probably by the then-editor, the German physicist
Paul Karl Ludwig Drude in Giessen (Hesse, Germany), on 1905-06-30; published
by the then-publisher, the “Verlag Johann Ambrosius Barth“ in Leipzig
(Saxonia, Germany), on 1905-09-26.
At the time, in Switzerland, mail was primarily transported by the
Schweizerische Post by train and motorcar, but also still by stagecoach;
in Germany, the Reichspost already had switched to bicycles, motorcars and
vans. Currently, according to the Schweizerische Post, it takes a standard
letter (“ECONOMY”) 4 to 8 days from Switzerland to Germany; so we can assume
that in 1905 the paper was finished and submitted by Einstein in Bern about
two weeks before it was received in Germany.
It is unclear, but also possible, that Einstein sent the paper first to
Max Planck in Berlin, or sent or gave it to his assistant Max von Laue who
was closer, in Göttingen, at the time (1903–1905; in one of the season 1
episodes 1 to 4 of the National Geographic Channel series “Genius”, von Laue
is depicted as having been sent by Planck to visit Einstein at the Patent
Office in 1905 *after* the publication), who then sent it to Drude or gave
it to him at a meeting at the Prussian Academy of Sciences in Berlin. Then
the reception date could also be that of von Laue’s in Göttingen or Planck’s
in Berlin instead.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annalen_der_Physik>
<https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annalen_der_Physik>
--
PointedEars
Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-09 07:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d82e23be-51ed-4ebf-a523-5b79903787a7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #463855 |
El domingo, 8 de julio de 2018, 22:00:51 (UTC-5), Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn escribió: > Paparios wrote: > > El domingo, 8 de julio de 2018, 11:46:48 (UTC-5), Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn escribió: > >> Einstein studied for a physics teacher diploma at the Zurich Polytechnic > >> (now the ETH) from 1896 to 1900. > >> > >> [A diploma in Switzerland is not necessarily a university degree; it can > >> also mean a formal certification to be able to take up work in a field. > >> Finding work as a physics teacher is what Einstein tried and failed > >> from 1900 to 1902, therefore the Patent Office job in 1902 he got > >> through is friend and former classmate Marcel Grossmann.] > >> > >> Lorentz published *his* final version of the LT in 1904-07. That version > >> still contained *undefined* and *unexplained* factors. > >> > >> Einstein submitted OEdoMB in 1905-06 when working as an assistant examiner > >> level III at the Swiss Patent Office in Bern (close to where I live). > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > The exact submit date is clearly seen in the final page of the original paper > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > That depends on how one defines “submit date”. You are correct if you mean > the date that the journal received the paper for consideration of > publication; you are incorrect if, as your statement at the bottom > indicates, you mean the date that the paper was sent by Einstein. > Do you really think that anybody actually makes a difference there. When I have sent a paper, the only relevant date is when the journal acknowledges its reception (which nowadays is the same time: I hit the PC button and the reception letter with the date and time the journal received the paper, is getting into my email) > > (see last page of https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/andp.19053221004 ) > > Unbeknownst to me until now, it can now be found there because Wiley-VCH in > Weinheim, Baden-Württemberg, Germany (formerly Verlag Chemie, since 1996 a > wholly owned subsidiary of John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, NJ, USA), is > the publisher of the „Annalen der Physik“ since 1988. > > An annotated copy and the official translation into English can be found in > “THE COLLECTED PAPERS OF ALBERT EINSTEIN, Vol. 2: The Swiss Years: Writings, > 1900-1909”: > > <https://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol2-doc/342> > > > as "Eingegangen 30. Juni 1905." > ^^^^^^^^^^^ > „Eingegangen“ means “received” in German (“sent” would be „gesendet“), so > this is _not_ the date on which the paper was sent, but the date on which it > was received. > Again, why is that relevant to you?. The paper was received by the journal on that date (June 30th, 1905) and not in 1906 as you wrongly stated.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Galin Itnik Uskanov <van@vovwuk.ac> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-09 14:05 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <phvq3q$jmr$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #463918 |
Paparios wrote: > Do you really think that anybody actually makes a difference there. When > I have sent a paper, the only relevant date is when the journal > acknowledges its reception (which nowadays is the same time: I hit the > PC button and the reception letter with the date and time the journal > received the paper, is getting into my email) No, for instance the theory of Strings was sent by snail mail. In paper format.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-09 16:32 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <ba61a975-cabc-30dd-bf15-3b96e2d3ec90@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #463918 |
Paparios wrote: > El domingo, 8 de julio de 2018, 22:00:51 (UTC-5), Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn escribió: >> Paparios wrote: >>> El domingo, 8 de julio de 2018, 11:46:48 (UTC-5), Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn escribió: >>>> Einstein submitted OEdoMB in 1905-06 when working as an assistant examiner >>>> level III at the Swiss Patent Office in Bern (close to where I live). >> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >>> The exact submit date is clearly seen in the final page of the original paper >> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >> That depends on how one defines “submit date”. You are correct if you mean >> the date that the journal received the paper for consideration of >> publication; you are incorrect if, as your statement at the bottom >> indicates, you mean the date that the paper was sent by Einstein. > > Do you really think that anybody actually makes a difference there. That is gibberish, but yes, it makes a difference. > [red herring] > is getting into my email) Those were different, slower times. E-mail did not exist yet. >>> as "Eingegangen 30. Juni 1905." >> ^^^^^^^^^^^ >> „Eingegangen“ means “received” in German (“sent” would be „gesendet“), so >> this is _not_ the date on which the paper was sent, but the date on which it >> was received. > > Again, why is that relevant to you?. You stated that Einstein had sent the paper on that date. Your statement was wrong and required correction. > The paper was received by the journal on that date (June 30th, 1905) Yes, but not sent by Einstein on that date “as *you* wrongly stated”. > and not in 1906 as you wrongly stated. I did not state that. -- PointedEars Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-08 13:25 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d578ba15-880c-40ef-a16c-4479986219bf@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #463811 |
On Sunday, July 8, 2018 at 9:46:48 AM UTC-7, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > JanPB wrote: > > On Saturday, July 7, 2018 at 10:19:22 AM UTC-7, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > >> JanPB wrote: > >>> On Saturday, July 7, 2018 at 5:26:53 AM UTC-7, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > >>>> JanPB wrote: > >>>>> So from the start the Lorentz transform was presumed known, it was not > >>>>> any "copying" anything. […] > >>>> If *Lorentz’* transformation equations were known to Einstein, then at the > >>>> time he (Einstein) could have known it only as an incomplete ad-hoc > >>>> hypothesis to explain the Michelson–Morley experiment (which Lorentz had > >>>> admitted himself). > >>> > >>> Yes, of course. That's the point. I think you may have misunderstood my > >>> intent slightly. Obviously Einstein knew about the Lorentz transformation, > >>> this was standard expert knowledge for electrodynamics at the time. > >> > >> No, it was not. > > > > Yes it was. It was not fully taught at the university at the time > > Einstein studied for a physics teacher diploma at the Zurich Polytechnic > (now the ETH) from 1896 to 1900. > > [A diploma in Switzerland is not necessarily a university degree; it can > also mean a formal certification to be able to take up work in a field. > Finding work as a physics teacher is what Einstein tried and failed > from 1900 to 1902, therefore the Patent Office job in 1902 he got > through is friend and former classmate Marcel Grossmann.] > > Lorentz published *his* final version of the LT in 1904-07. That version > still contained *undefined* and *unexplained* factors. Exactly. And one interesting thing Einstein does in his 1905 paper is showing how his postulates imply the multiplicative factor in transformed Maxwell is equal to 1. > Einstein submitted OEdoMB in 1905-06 when working as an assistant examiner > level III at the Swiss Patent Office in Bern (close to where I live). I must come more often :-) (I usually stay in Lauterbrunnen - long story.) > *Of course* it was not taught “at the university” at the time! It was _not_ > “standard expert knowledge”, but more like Lorentz’ pet theory (that, > provably and proved, he himself was not very much convinced of). [Lorentz > did _not_ receive his 1902 Nobel Prize for his aether theory.] Point is Einstein really was bothered by this and IIRC as a student he lobbied for an electrodynamics course but his pleas were ignored. > > and Einstein complained that he had to learn this stuff himself. > > Once again your claim requires evidence. And I suspect that once again you > will not provide any, but open up another side show instead. Another "side show"? <Manuel>Que?</Manuel> I'm sorry if my posts do not come with a full set of references, I have real life. If you're interested in finding out, do your own research. I can't remember where I read everything I know. It was in one of Einstein's biographies. When I post things like this, I'm usually quite sure it's correct but I don't always have the references handy. > >> As I have just showed, Lorentz published his final version > >> of the transformation equations in 1904-07. By then they were *still* > >> incomplete, > > > > I'm no historian so I'm relying on Wikipedia here: […] > > Which obviously you are unable to read *comprehensively* despite being > referred to the pertinent articles. Hopeless. So you are saying Wikipedia is wrong when they say that Lorentz (1892–1904) and Larmor (1897–1900) had the transformation worked out down to and including the appearance of the new time variable? And you are saying Einstein didn't know this and didn't want to show how to make the transformed electromagnetic fields physical? What are you saying, except splitting hairs? -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-09 06:04 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <c6c00e1c-8498-e2c9-2104-1e49ad2d706e@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #463828 |
JanPB wrote: > On Sunday, July 8, 2018 at 9:46:48 AM UTC-7, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn > wrote: >> JanPB wrote: >>> Yes it was. It was not fully taught at the university at the time >> >> Einstein studied for a physics teacher diploma at the Zurich >> Polytechnic (now the ETH) from 1896 to 1900. >> >> [A diploma in Switzerland is not necessarily a university degree; it >> can also mean a formal certification to be able to take up work in a >> field. Finding work as a physics teacher is what Einstein tried and >> failed from 1900 to 1902, therefore the Patent Office job in 1902 he >> got through is friend and former classmate Marcel Grossmann.] >> >> Lorentz published *his* final version of the LT in 1904-07. That >> version still contained *undefined* and *unexplained* factors. > > Exactly. And one interesting thing Einstein does in his 1905 paper is > showing how his postulates imply the multiplicative factor in transformed > Maxwell is equal to 1. Not even wrong. First of all, *maybe* known to Einstein, Lorentz had set the factor to 1 (unity) in 1904 already: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory#Lorentz_transformation> Second, none of this implies or proves your claim that *proving* the LT was Einstein’s *motivation* for OEdoMB. In fact, it is *evident in Einstein’s own words* that Einstein, although he was an admirer of Lorentz’ work in general, did NOT believe in Lorentz’ aether theory when writing OEdoMB: | Examples of a similar kind, and the failure of attempts to detect a | motion of the earth relative to the "light medium", lead to the conjecture | that not only in mechanics, but in electrodynamics as well, the phenomena | do not have any properties corresponding to the concept of absolute rest, | but that in all coordinate systems in which the mechanical equations are | valid, also the same electrodynamic and optical laws are valid, as has | already been shown for quantities of the first order. But the LT was merely a part of, and a mathematical justification for, that aether theory at the time (aether = “light medium”). So I guess Einstein must have been both surprised and satisfied when it turned out that the two principles that he postulated led to the LT of a theory that he did not believe in, as that showed that the aether of that theory that bothered him so much was a superfluous assumption after all. This is *evident* in the introduction: | […] | These two postulates suffice for arriving at a simple and consistent | electrodynamics of moving bodies on the basis of Maxwell's theory for | bodies at rest. Note: NOT Lorentz’ electrodynamics, which is comparably complicated as it requires many assumptions to be consistent. | The introduction of a "light ether" will prove superfluous, inasmuch as in | accordance with the concept to be developed here, no "space at absolute | rest" endowed with special properties will be introduced, nor will a | velocity vector be assigned to a point of empty space at which | electromagnetic processes are taking place. This is basically Einstein gloating, “look, I have found a simpler explanation”. The next sentence starts with | Like every other electrodynamics, […] and shows again Einstein’s strong conviction that *his* theory and *his* electrodynamics are the correct explanation for the observations, NOT Lorentz’ aether. Everyone who has the first clue about Einstein knows why: Although he ended up as a theoretical physicist, up to general relativity at least he was driven by experiment, and could not accept anything, even his own theories, that could not be experimentally demonstrated (that was one of his problems with early quantum mechanics, too). The Lorentzian aether could not be experimentally demonstrated *by definition* (Lorentz 1904), therefore Einstein in 1905 could not accept it as a given. AFAICS, in the paper, Einstein mentions Lorentz by name only two times, and there is no mention of a “Lorentz transformation” at all (of course not, Poincaré’s 1905 paper which introduced the term was published *in 1906*): | If the electric masses are conceived as permanently bound to small, | rigid bodies (ions, electrons), then these equations constitute the | electromagnetic foundation of Lorentz's electrodynamics and optics of | moving bodies. | […] we have thus demonstrated that with our kinematic principles taken | as a basis, the electrodynamic foundation of Lorentz's theory of the | electrodynamics of moving bodies agrees with the principle of relativity. Note: The “electrodynamic *foundation*”, so _not_ the aether part. > Point is Einstein really was bothered by this and IIRC as a student he > lobbied for an electrodynamics course but his pleas were ignored. > >>> and Einstein complained that he had to learn this stuff himself. >> >> Once again your claim requires evidence. And I suspect that once again >> you will not provide any, but open up another side show instead. > > Another "side show"? <Manuel>Que?</Manuel> I'm sorry if my posts do not > come with a full set of references, So far they come WITH NO REFERENCES AT ALL. > I have real life. If you're interested in finding out, do your own research. […] Fallacy: Shifting the burden of proof. All your assertions and bedtime stories are WORTHLESS as long as YOU do not SUBSTANTIATE them with EVIDENCE. That is a KEY concept of the SCIENTIFIC method. What you are claiming could all be just hearsay, and it probably is. -- PointedEars Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-09 04:39 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e2800e2d-5980-421e-ad3a-dce9930fcab6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #463828 |
On Sunday, July 8, 2018 at 4:25:15 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote: > On Sunday, July 8, 2018 at 9:46:48 AM UTC-7, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > > JanPB wrote: > > > On Saturday, July 7, 2018 at 10:19:22 AM UTC-7, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > > >> JanPB wrote: > > >>> On Saturday, July 7, 2018 at 5:26:53 AM UTC-7, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > > >>>> JanPB wrote: > > >>>>> So from the start the Lorentz transform was presumed known, it was not > > >>>>> any "copying" anything. […] > > >>>> If *Lorentz’* transformation equations were known to Einstein, then at the > > >>>> time he (Einstein) could have known it only as an incomplete ad-hoc > > >>>> hypothesis to explain the Michelson–Morley experiment (which Lorentz had > > >>>> admitted himself). > > >>> > > >>> Yes, of course. That's the point. I think you may have misunderstood my > > >>> intent slightly. Obviously Einstein knew about the Lorentz transformation, > > >>> this was standard expert knowledge for electrodynamics at the time. > > >> > > >> No, it was not. > > > > > > Yes it was. It was not fully taught at the university at the time > > > > Einstein studied for a physics teacher diploma at the Zurich Polytechnic > > (now the ETH) from 1896 to 1900. > > > > [A diploma in Switzerland is not necessarily a university degree; it can > > also mean a formal certification to be able to take up work in a field. > > Finding work as a physics teacher is what Einstein tried and failed > > from 1900 to 1902, therefore the Patent Office job in 1902 he got > > through is friend and former classmate Marcel Grossmann.] > > > > Lorentz published *his* final version of the LT in 1904-07. That version > > still contained *undefined* and *unexplained* factors. > > Exactly. And one interesting thing Einstein does in his 1905 paper is showing how > his postulates imply the multiplicative factor in transformed Maxwell is equal to 1. He reversed engineered the LT to fit his postulates. > > > Einstein submitted OEdoMB in 1905-06 when working as an assistant examiner > > level III at the Swiss Patent Office in Bern (close to where I live). > > I must come more often :-) (I usually stay in Lauterbrunnen - long story.) > > > *Of course* it was not taught “at the university” at the time! It was _not_ > > “standard expert knowledge”, but more like Lorentz’ pet theory (that, > > provably and proved, he himself was not very much convinced of). [Lorentz > > did _not_ receive his 1902 Nobel Prize for his aether theory.] > > Point is Einstein really was bothered by this and IIRC as a student he lobbied > for an electrodynamics course but his pleas were ignored. > > > > and Einstein complained that he had to learn this stuff himself. > > > > Once again your claim requires evidence. And I suspect that once again you > > will not provide any, but open up another side show instead. > > Another "side show"? <Manuel>Que?</Manuel> I'm sorry if my posts do not come with > a full set of references, I have real life. If you're interested in finding out, do your own > research. I can't remember where I read everything I know. It was in one of Einstein's > biographies. When I post things like this, I'm usually quite sure it's correct but I don't > always have the references handy. > > > >> As I have just showed, Lorentz published his final version > > >> of the transformation equations in 1904-07. By then they were *still* > > >> incomplete, > > > > > > I'm no historian so I'm relying on Wikipedia here: […] > > > > Which obviously you are unable to read *comprehensively* despite being > > referred to the pertinent articles. Hopeless. > > So you are saying Wikipedia is wrong when they say that Lorentz (1892–1904) and Larmor > (1897–1900) had the transformation worked out down to and including the appearance of > the new time variable? And you are saying Einstein didn't know this and didn't want > to show how to make the transformed electromagnetic fields physical? What are you > saying, except splitting hairs? > > > -- > Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-09 21:21 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <eb1117c4-a009-e77e-5958-e97e6afc6cd7@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #463890 |
kenseto wrote:
> [Einstein] reversed engineered the LT to fit his postulates.
Nonsense. Instead, the LT is the inevitable *consequence* of the two
postulates. Those postulates are not really Einstein’s idea, but merely
acknowledging, for the first time together, two experimental facts:
1. One cannot tell whether one is in inertial motion without external
reference. (principle of relativity)
2. The speed of light is constant in the chosen rest frame.
(principle of light constancy)
From (1) and (2) follows that the speed of light is the same in every frame
of reference, regardless of relative motion. And from that everything else
follows.
--
PointedEars
Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 13 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web