Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #616937 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2023-08-06 15:31 -0700 |
| Last post | 2023-08-23 08:26 +0200 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 104 — 25 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-08-06 15:31 -0700
Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-08-06 15:37 -0700
Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-08-06 18:07 -0700
Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2023-08-06 19:08 -0700
Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-08-06 20:34 -0700
Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-08-06 21:18 -0700
Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2023-08-07 01:04 -0700
Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-07 11:15 +0200
Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-08-07 08:24 -0700
Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-08-07 08:31 -0700
Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-08-07 10:21 -0700
Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-08-07 19:32 +0200
Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-08-07 12:39 -0500
Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-08-07 16:58 -0700
Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-08-07 18:41 -0700
Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-08-08 07:30 -0700
Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2023-08-08 12:26 -0700
Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2023-08-08 21:49 -0700
Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-08-08 08:47 +0200
Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2023-08-16 07:47 +0200
Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-08-08 09:04 -0700
Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-08-08 12:57 -0500
Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-08-08 11:47 -0700
Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-08-08 15:52 -0700
Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-08 21:37 -0700
Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2023-08-09 08:26 +0200
Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-09 12:43 +0200
Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-09 11:54 -0400
Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-09 18:25 +0200
Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-08-09 09:48 -0700
Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2023-08-09 11:14 -0700
Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-09 21:47 +0200
Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-08-09 13:05 -0700
Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-09 22:57 +0200
Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-08-09 15:21 -0700
Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-08-09 15:39 -0700
Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-10 11:37 +0200
Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-08-10 07:35 -0700
Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-10 07:37 -0700
Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-08-10 08:31 -0700
Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2023-08-09 16:16 -0700
Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-08-09 19:17 +0200
Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-09 21:47 +0200
Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2023-08-10 07:31 +0200
Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-10 11:37 +0200
Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2023-08-11 08:20 +0200
Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-16 18:19 -0400
Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2023-08-17 07:42 +0200
Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2023-08-23 00:53 -0700
Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-23 02:04 -0700
Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. Booker Martos <etrs@eoaksmao.tb> - 2023-08-23 10:09 +0000
Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. Richard Hachel <r.hachel@frite.fr> - 2023-08-23 16:33 +0000
Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. Python <python@invalid.org> - 2023-08-24 02:06 +0200
Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. Richard Hachel <r.hachel@frite.fr> - 2023-08-24 00:23 +0000
Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-24 13:25 -0400
Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-08-24 10:31 -0700
Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-24 13:09 -0700
Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. Richard Hachel <r.hachel@frite.fr> - 2023-08-24 21:45 +0000
Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2023-08-24 15:10 -0700
Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. Richard Hachel <r.hachel@frite.fr> - 2023-08-25 12:07 +0000
Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2023-08-26 14:09 -0700
Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. Lee Mihailovich <mmhc@eoeilhll.av> - 2023-08-26 21:20 +0000
Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2023-08-26 20:48 -0700
Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. Richard Hachel <r.hachel@frite.fr> - 2023-08-25 12:12 +0000
Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. Python <python@invalid.org> - 2023-08-25 14:34 +0200
Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. Richard Hachel <r.hachel@frite.fr> - 2023-08-25 15:47 +0000
Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-25 02:03 -0400
Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. Richard Hachel <r.hachel@frite.fr> - 2023-08-25 12:21 +0000
Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-26 19:54 -0400
Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. Ryker Libman <kmki@kkrmkaik.km> - 2023-08-27 08:25 +0000
Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. Physfitfreak <Physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-27 10:47 -0500
Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. Marcus Rempel <raer@rlsrmcaa.rr> - 2023-08-27 19:40 +0000
Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2023-08-26 09:13 +0200
Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-26 10:44 -0400
Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-26 08:09 -0700
Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2023-08-26 14:12 -0700
Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2023-08-31 08:35 +0200
Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-08-31 09:19 +0200
Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-31 00:31 -0700
Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2023-09-08 09:28 +0200
Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-09-08 00:43 -0700
Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-09-08 23:18 -0500
Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-09-08 22:16 -0700
Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2023-09-09 07:59 +0200
Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-09-08 23:47 -0700
Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2023-09-10 07:24 +0200
Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-09-09 22:45 -0700
Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2023-09-10 08:01 +0200
Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2023-08-24 11:07 -0700
Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-24 13:13 -0700
Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-08-26 11:25 +0200
Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2023-08-30 07:52 +0200
Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2023-08-28 12:22 -0700
Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-08-06 21:32 -0700
Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-08-08 12:28 -0700
Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2023-08-16 07:50 +0200
Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. Lukas Vainberger <asag@rkarueik.ub> - 2023-08-16 11:42 +0000
Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-08-09 09:18 -0700
Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2023-08-09 13:57 -0700
Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. Chadrick Mahno <mdah@cacamcmm.ro> - 2023-08-09 21:59 +0000
Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2023-08-10 13:18 -0700
Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-08-09 09:47 -0700
Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2023-08-09 11:03 -0700
Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2023-08-23 08:26 +0200
Page 5 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 Next page →
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-09-08 00:43 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6168fba9-2196-4ec0-a914-997dc2a7cac9n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #619892 |
On Friday, 8 September 2023 at 09:26:24 UTC+2, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 31.08.2023 um 09:31 schrieb Maciej Wozniak: > > On Thursday, 31 August 2023 at 09:19:22 UTC+2, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote: > > > >> Were your 400 "errors" less trivial than the 12 I've found in your > >> rather short text? > > > > Anyway, your beloved Shit was not even consistent. > > And that's been proven. > > > It is apparently illegal to criticise Einstein's SRT. Science is not what it pretends to be. Every institution pretends to be better, more honest and more noble than it really is, no matter whether it's a churrch, political party, FIFA or - science. > Unfortunately I dodn't know this and assumed, that science would be a > fair game. You've assumed incorrectly.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-09-08 23:18 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <vRadnUuIFMuUb2b5nZ2dnZfqlJ9j4p2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #619892 |
[The subject of this thread is as much a fantasy as the post to which I am responding.] On 9/8/23 2:28 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: > It is apparently illegal to criticise Einstein's SRT. That is complete and utter nonsense. Ditto for the "hundreds of errors" you fantasize that Einstein made in his 1905 paper. > I have absolutely no other explanation for the behaviour of > participants in these discussions here (and elsewhere) about this > topic. That's because you have no understanding of either physics or how physicists behave. When fools and idiots claim to have "refuted SR" with arguments that have been disproven dozens of times over the past century, or that completely misrepresent the theory, we are fully justified in ignoring them. That includes you and all the other cranks around here -- NONE of you have ever presented any real argument against SR, you merely fantasize that you do so, and are too ignorant and arrogant to accept that FACT that you have not. > So: you cannot correct SRT, because you are requested to believe > what you are told. Period. More nonsense. Period. Physicists would celebrate any actual refutation of SR, because it would necessarily teach us something new and VERY interesting -- that requires a new experiment, and posting nonsense around here simply cannot do it. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-09-08 22:16 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e7dfb8c3-d872-41e1-a74e-23f548cbaed1n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #619937 |
On Saturday, 9 September 2023 at 06:18:28 UTC+2, Tom Roberts wrote: > [The subject of this thread is as much a fantasy as the post to which I > am responding.] > On 9/8/23 2:28 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: > > It is apparently illegal to criticise Einstein's SRT. > That is complete and utter nonsense. Ditto for the "hundreds of Aren't we FORCED? To THE BEST Way? > Physicists would celebrate any actual refutation of SR, because it would > necessarily teach us something new and VERY interesting -- that requires > a new experiment No, trash. The mumble of your idiot guru was not even consistent, you've got a proof, the only thing you can do about it is pretending you didn't notice, so your fellow idiots, as expected from a bunch of clowns.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-09-09 07:59 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <km2fr1F4iv6U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #619937 |
Am 09.09.2023 um 06:18 schrieb Tom Roberts: > [The subject of this thread is as much a fantasy as the post to which I > am responding.] > > On 9/8/23 2:28 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: >> It is apparently illegal to criticise Einstein's SRT. > > That is complete and utter nonsense. Ditto for the "hundreds of > errors" you fantasize that Einstein made in his 1905 paper. > >> I have absolutely no other explanation for the behaviour of >> participants in these discussions here (and elsewhere) about this topic. > > That's because you have no understanding of either physics or how > physicists behave. > > When fools and idiots claim to have "refuted SR" with arguments that > have been disproven dozens of times over the past century, or that > completely misrepresent the theory, we are fully justified in ignoring > them. That includes you and all the other cranks around here -- NONE of > you have ever presented any real argument against SR, you merely > fantasize that you do so, and are too ignorant and arrogant to accept > that FACT that you have not. > >> So: you cannot correct SRT, because you are requested to believe what >> you are told. Period. > > More nonsense. Period. > > Physicists would celebrate any actual refutation of SR, because it would > necessarily teach us something new and VERY interesting -- that requires > a new experiment, and posting nonsense around here simply cannot do it. > It is and was not my aim to refute SRT, which I actually regard as correct. I had a totally different approach, which is actually not related to relativity. I was looking on 'technical' issues alone. E.g. I was looking for equivalence of a setting with the equation, which describes this setting. So, I have analysed, what Einstein wrote in words and whether or not the subsequent derivation of a mathematical description would match this setting. This was, unfortunately not always the case. Also really bad were certain habits, like to reuse variables, use generic variables for specific purposes, change the type of variables without notice or giving no hints in form of signs like e.g. different font for different types of mathematical objects. Also inconsistencies like defining names one way, but using actually another, was criticised. And I don't really see, how you could possibly defend any of these issues. Actually you didn't even try and mentioned alleged errors on my side, but didn't show any of them at all. This is actually my experience all the time and since roughly twenty years in this forum. It is simply impossible to discuss issues in Einstein's paper. MANY did that, like e.g. Androcles. But NOTHING has changed and most likely never will. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-09-08 23:47 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <da2724bf-e78c-47b3-8c1f-9febc6343995n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #619942 |
On Saturday, 9 September 2023 at 07:57:58 UTC+2, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 09.09.2023 um 06:18 schrieb Tom Roberts: > > [The subject of this thread is as much a fantasy as the post to which I > > am responding.] > > > > On 9/8/23 2:28 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: > >> It is apparently illegal to criticise Einstein's SRT. > > > > That is complete and utter nonsense. Ditto for the "hundreds of > > errors" you fantasize that Einstein made in his 1905 paper. > > > >> I have absolutely no other explanation for the behaviour of > >> participants in these discussions here (and elsewhere) about this topic. > > > > That's because you have no understanding of either physics or how > > physicists behave. > > > > When fools and idiots claim to have "refuted SR" with arguments that > > have been disproven dozens of times over the past century, or that > > completely misrepresent the theory, we are fully justified in ignoring > > them. That includes you and all the other cranks around here -- NONE of > > you have ever presented any real argument against SR, you merely > > fantasize that you do so, and are too ignorant and arrogant to accept > > that FACT that you have not. > > > >> So: you cannot correct SRT, because you are requested to believe what > >> you are told. Period. > > > > More nonsense. Period. > > > > Physicists would celebrate any actual refutation of SR, because it would > > necessarily teach us something new and VERY interesting -- that requires > > a new experiment, and posting nonsense around here simply cannot do it. > > > It is and was not my aim to refute SRT, which I actually regard as correct. > > I had a totally different approach, which is actually not related to > relativity. > > I was looking on 'technical' issues alone. It's your mistake treating fanatic shit seriously. You're legitimizing it this way.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-09-10 07:24 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <km524fFh3ppU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #619943 |
Am 09.09.2023 um 08:47 schrieb Maciej Wozniak: >>>> It is apparently illegal to criticise Einstein's SRT. >>> Thjat's what I actually think: physicists who dare to criticise 'On the electrodynamics of moving bodies' get fired and permanently banned from the scientific community. There seems to exist a hidden law, which only applies to physicists. It demands, that certain activities must not be done. Certain topics are apperently illegal, like growing Earth abiogenic oil theory free energy devices gyroscopes transmutation certain aspects of water any kind of criticism about SRT and/or Einstein as a person >>> That is complete and utter nonsense. Ditto for the "hundreds of >>> errors" you fantasize that Einstein made in his 1905 paper. >>> >>>> I have absolutely no other explanation for the behaviour of >>>> participants in these discussions here (and elsewhere) about this topic. >>> >>> That's because you have no understanding of either physics or how >>> physicists behave. >>> >>> When fools and idiots claim to have "refuted SR" with arguments that >>> have been disproven dozens of times over the past century, or that >>> completely misrepresent the theory, we are fully justified in ignoring >>> them. That includes you and all the other cranks around here -- NONE of >>> you have ever presented any real argument against SR, you merely >>> fantasize that you do so, and are too ignorant and arrogant to accept >>> that FACT that you have not. >>> >>>> So: you cannot correct SRT, because you are requested to believe what >>>> you are told. Period. >>> >>> More nonsense. Period. >>> >>> Physicists would celebrate any actual refutation of SR, because it would >>> necessarily teach us something new and VERY interesting -- that requires >>> a new experiment, and posting nonsense around here simply cannot do it. >>> >> It is and was not my aim to refute SRT, which I actually regard as correct. >> >> I had a totally different approach, which is actually not related to >> relativity. >> >> I was looking on 'technical' issues alone. > > It's your mistake treating fanatic shit seriously. > You're legitimizing it this way. > Einstein's paper was published in a scientific magazine, hence was at least meant scientific. Well, possibly the author had other intentions, but at least I thought, that particular paper was meant as serious science. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-09-09 22:45 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9833b04d-cf6b-4ffb-92d0-3c87d5e2bcfan@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #619994 |
On Saturday, September 9, 2023 at 10:22:27 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 09.09.2023 um 08:47 schrieb Maciej Wozniak: > > >>>> It is apparently illegal to criticise Einstein's SRT. > >>> > Thjat's what I actually think: physicists who dare to criticise 'On the > electrodynamics of moving bodies' get fired and permanently banned from > the scientific community. Can you name one or two of them? Do you have any evidence of any kind to support your claim? I'm pretty confident that the number of legitimate physicists the world around who doubt Einstein is minuscule when compared to the size of that community... and in any case, none of them have actually succeeded in their effort to bring Einstein down.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-09-10 08:01 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <km54b9FhdujU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #619996 |
Am 10.09.2023 um 07:45 schrieb Paul Alsing: > On Saturday, September 9, 2023 at 10:22:27 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote: >> Am 09.09.2023 um 08:47 schrieb Maciej Wozniak: >> >>>>>> It is apparently illegal to criticise Einstein's SRT. >>>>> >> Thjat's what I actually think: physicists who dare to criticise 'On the >> electrodynamics of moving bodies' get fired and permanently banned from >> the scientific community. > > Can you name one or two of them? Do you have any evidence of any kind to support your claim? I'm pretty confident that the number of legitimate physicists the world around who doubt Einstein is minuscule when compared to the size of that community... and in any case, none of them have actually succeeded in their effort to bring Einstein down. > Very prominent was Herbert Dingle, who was a physicist with some reputation. But after his book 'Science at the crossroads' had got efficiently expelled 'from the community'. I do not want to defend Dingle or his work, but wanted to mention his name. Actually I had chose a different approach (because of Dingle) and did not discuss relativity per se, but only 'technical' (formal) issues, like missing quotes or mathematical errors in this particular article. (What Einstein said elsewhere or actually wanted was not my concern.) TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-24 11:07 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4edfecdc-84fd-4596-ae44-97c6d2e5fd83n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #618683 |
On Wednesday, August 23, 2023 at 9:33:31 AM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote: > Le 23/08/2023 à 09:53, JanPB a écrit : > > On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 11:19:50 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote: > >> > >> I have spent a lot of time on analysing > >> > >> 'On the electrodynamics of moving bodies'. > >> > >> And I have found about four-hundred errors in it. > > > > You've found zero errors. > > > > What you call "errors" are just your misunderstandings. > > The solution to your problem is either to learn physics or > > to give up on this entirely and do something else. > > > > -- > > Jan > > There are many errors in the theory of relativity and they are errors of > concept. There are none. Stop wasting time chasing a fata morgana. > For example, I read someone who said: "The x and t coordinates in Lorentz > transformations". > > But these are not coordinates. Yes, they are. Learn the relevant physics (and mathematics). > x, y, z, ARE coordinates. > > t is not a coordinate. It is. > t, and more precisely To in Hachel writing, is the norm of a simple > hypotenuse and not a coordinate in an orthonormal frame. Word salad. > The components of the Lorentz transformations (x,y;z,To) are not > orthonormal frame coordinates. They are in a certain sense (the _word_ orthonormal refers to a certain property of those quantities). Again, my advice is for you to learn the subject before you attempt to "fix" it. You are like someone who wants to learn playing piano and you start by trying to play the 3rd movement of Beethiven's "Moonlight" sonata. It will never work, after all the time you spend on it, you'll end up with nothing. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-24 13:13 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9eec8eab-d556-43e7-a29a-56b47d29f689n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #618776 |
On Thursday, 24 August 2023 at 20:07:04 UTC+2, JanPB wrote: > On Wednesday, August 23, 2023 at 9:33:31 AM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote: > > Le 23/08/2023 à 09:53, JanPB a écrit : > > > On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 11:19:50 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote: > > >> > > >> I have spent a lot of time on analysing > > >> > > >> 'On the electrodynamics of moving bodies'. > > >> > > >> And I have found about four-hundred errors in it. > > > > > > You've found zero errors. > > > > > > What you call "errors" are just your misunderstandings. > > > The solution to your problem is either to learn physics or > > > to give up on this entirely and do something else. > > > > > > -- > > > Jan > > > > There are many errors in the theory of relativity and they are errors of > > concept. > There are none. Stop wasting time chasing a fata morgana. > > For example, I read someone who said: "The x and t coordinates in Lorentz > > transformations". > > > > But these are not coordinates. > Yes, they are. Learn the relevant physics (and mathematics). And speaking of mathematics - it's always good to remind that your idiot guru had to announce its oldest, very importamt part false, as it didn't want to fit his madness.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-26 11:25 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <kktup5F6g2iU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #618648 |
On 2023-08-23 07:53:35 +0000, JanPB said: > On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 11:19:50 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote: >> >> I have spent a lot of time on analysing>> 'On the electrodynamics of >> moving bodies'.>> And I have found about four-hundred errors in it. > You've found zero errors. > > What you call "errors" are just your misunderstandings. > The solution to your problem is either to learn physics or > to give up on this entirely and do something else. I don't doubt you for one moment (or Volney and others who have said similar things), but it would be useful if you could give us an example of a sentrnce that Thomas Heger calls an error, but which you consider to be an error on Thomas Heger's part. (I expect this has been done before, but I'm not able to dind it to find it.) -- athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-30 07:52 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <kl83laFrg12U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #618648 |
Am 23.08.2023 um 09:53 schrieb JanPB: > On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 11:19:50 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote: >> >> I have spent a lot of time on analysing >> >> 'On the electrodynamics of moving bodies'. >> >> And I have found about four-hundred errors in it. > > You've found zero errors. > > What you call "errors" are just your misunderstandings. > The solution to your problem is either to learn physics or > to give up on this entirely and do something else. I had used a certain method: I took the text 'On the electrodynamics of moving bodies' as the homework of a student (of e.g. physics), which I, as his (hypothetical) professor, have to write corrections for. This setting is certainly not real, but has actually benefits. The method is mainly a learning tool and meant as kind of 'critical reading'. In my role as 'teatcher', I don't know anything about relativity or what the student actually wants to prove. I have ONLY the text and nothing else than what a physics professor in 1905 would usually know. Therefore, what is in the text is in it, what is not written is not in it and ignored, if not standard physics and/or math. This could lead totally off the track, if that is a valid interpretation of the text. It is therefore not my aim, to bring any kind of background knowledge into the text, but to analyze the text itself and what it actually says. In general I took anything written as true representation of the will of the author. In case of any tiny error of whatever kind, I took the text verbatim, even if wrong. But if I find an error, I tried to analyze it and tried to estimate, what the author actually (most likely) wanted to express and where and how he went wrong. I also analysed every equation and tried to find the used symbols in the verbal discription. So, any variable name needs to be mentioned somewhere, where the text explains, what this variable shall express (besides of common varibles, like x or t, for instance). Now Einstein had the odd habbit to reuse variable names for other purposes. This caused an ambiguity between various uses of e.g. X, A or x'. I also wanted a consistency of the type of an object and do not want that type to be changed (e.g. from scalar to vector or from function to value). I also disliked ambiguity of types of operators. E.g. a(x,y,z,t) can be interpreted in different ways, e.g.: as a function 'a' with some variables x,y,z,t in the argument as a scalar a, which gets multiplied to a fourvector (x,y,z,t) I also disliked the ambiguity between scalars and vectors in general in Einstein's text. For instance c is a scalar quantity and v a vector. It is therefore illegal to perfom something like v+c. I also looked at formal requirements and precison of the used phrases, because I'm actually a (hypothetical) teatcher. Now any small deviation from good homework writing is marked and annotated by me, in the hope, the student would learn something from my corrections. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-28 12:22 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9dca95c6-f3d9-4e4f-a7df-060533f3b40cn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #617346 |
On August 10, Thomas Heger wrote: > I have spent a lot of time on analysing > 'On the electrodynamics of moving bodies'. > And I have found about four-hundred errors in it. No doubt you have. Your problem is, science is a social activity, conducted by humans, according to conventions and rules. Truth and error, within this realm, are determined by consensus, or at least democracy. They have no independent existence. Six billion hominids on this rock, maybe 2% know a little relativity. None of them accept your declarations of Einstein's errors. The problem looks insurmountable. Take heart, thus it ever was for jeenyuses and prophets - -- Rich
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-06 21:32 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1b460042-b1f9-4184-9473-8e10e6ea2d22n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #616937 |
Einstein Relations with the Royal Astronomical Society https://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1979QJRAS..20..251M
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-08 12:28 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <441ceddd-e4c9-4757-85ac-e3bc4afe36dcn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #616937 |
On Sunday, August 6, 2023 at 3:31:56 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote: > Plagiarism is an act of academic dishonesty. > > The three names in the topic, besides having an indelible thread that > connect them to 1915-1919 GR HOAX (Lorentz as the hub between > Einstein and Eddington during WWI), built their careers MAINLY on > plagiarism over other's people work. > > In the case of Eddington, and his infamous "contributions" to the internal constitution of the stars, he deserved a public accusation of James Jeans (1877–1946) and others about many of the fundamental issues concerning the internal structure of the stars. > > This extract is from a letter which Jeans published in The Observatory in November 1926 (Jeans, 1926): > > "May I conclude by assuring Prof. Eddington it would give me great pleasure if he could remove a long-standing source of friction between us by abstaining in future from making wild attacks on my work which he cannot substantiate, and by making the usual acknowledgements whenever he finds that my previous work is of use to him?" > > "I attach all the more importance to the second part of the request > because I find that some of the most fruitful ideas which I have introduced into astronomical physics –e.g., the annihilation of matter as the source of stellar energy, and highly dissociated atoms and free electrons as the substance of the stars – are by now fairly generally attributed to Prof. Eddington." > > But Eddington, the Plumian Professor of Astronomy in Cambridge since > 1913, where he was to remain for the rest of his career, and where he published over a dozen papers between 1916 and 1924 about the internal constitution of the stars, was "untouchable" because of his role in the > fudging and cooking of data of the 1919 eclipse, which launched Einstein > to the stardom. > > Lorentz, being the PR man for Einstein since 1910, and the communicating > hub between Eddington and Einstein during WWI and afterward, remained > the spokesperson for Einstein to the English media until 1921. > > In 1920, his famous comment: "Einstein is not an astronomer, but...." left > everyone puzzled about what he meant. A Freudian slip. > > Lorentz had also several dead bodies in the closet of plagiarism, like to > steal completely the results of Voigt's relativity (1887), which was credited > by Minkowski in June 1908 as THE SOLE ORIGIN of relativity. People don't own truth. Everyone can represent it. The truth doesn't answer to anyone Mitchell Raemsch
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-16 07:50 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <kk36acFqmm1U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #617142 |
Am 08.08.2023 um 21:28 schrieb mitchr...@gmail.com: > On Sunday, August 6, 2023 at 3:31:56 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote: >> Plagiarism is an act of academic dishonesty. >> ... >> Lorentz had also several dead bodies in the closet of plagiarism, like to >> steal completely the results of Voigt's relativity (1887), which was credited >> by Minkowski in June 1908 as THE SOLE ORIGIN of relativity. > > People don't own truth. Everyone can represent it. > The truth doesn't answer to anyone > Sure, but the presenter should give proper credit to those, from where they got their truth. Therefore quotes and references are mandatory in science. To leave them away is only one step away from fraud. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lukas Vainberger <asag@rkarueik.ub> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-16 11:42 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ubicn6$39j54$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #617879 |
Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 08.08.2023 um 21:28 schrieb mitchr...@gmail.com: >> People don't own truth. Everyone can represent it. >> The truth doesn't answer to anyone >> > Sure, but the presenter should give proper credit to those, from where > they got their truth. Therefore quotes and references are mandatory in > science. To leave them away is only one step away from fraud. fucking idiots. A truth is truth disregard appurtenance. Your nazi country is a shithole. They give big money to the nazis of ukurina, for you to be good. What a fucking nazi braindead regime. At least Hitler had a brain. Fuck youuu.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-09 09:18 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d079d13b-0336-4e5a-a8c2-6253ca51231cn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #616937 |
The jew network of communication and support for Einstein's HOAX: ************************************************ Gali Weinstein During World War I, copies of Einstein’s papers got to the Netherlands (to Leiden), in particular to Einstein’s friends Hendrik Antoon Lorentz and Willen de Sitter. De Sitter had sent copies of Einstein’s paper to Arthur Eddington in Britain. In the midst of World War I, two British expeditions were planned exclusively to test Einstein’s prediction of the deflection of light near the sun. In a letter of June 11, 1916, to Willem de Sitter Arthur Eddington wrote: We are having a discussion at the British Association [for the Advancement of Science] on gravitation — at Newcastle, Dec. 5–8. I wish we could have invited you to come over to take part; but we are not inviting any foreign guest this year because Newcastle is a “restricted area” and aliens are not allowed in it… I feel sure you will allow me to make use of the papers you send [Einstein’s papers on general relativity], in making my contribution to the discussion. Quoted in Stachel, John, “Eddington and Einstein”, Einstein from B to Z, Springer, 2002. It is reasonable to assume that De Sitter informed Einstein of Eddington’s meetings and plans. On June 16m 1919, Einstein wrote to his mother and told her (Collected Papers of Albert Einstein 9, Doc. 19): In a Dutch newspaper, it was reported that both expeditions obtained successful images of the solar eclipse, so the result should be publicized within 6 weeks. Thus, Einstein knew that two British expeditions were headed by Eddington and Frank Dyson and sent to observe the total solar eclipse with the sole purpose to observe a deflection of light predicted by his theory. On September 12, 1919, Einstein wrote to Paul Ehrenfest in Leiden on September 12, 1919 (Collected Papers of Albert Einstein 9, Doc. 103): ***** I wonder? Have you by any chance heard anything over there about the English solar-eclipse expedition? ****** Ten days later, on September 22, 1919, Lorentz informed Einstein of Eddington’s experimental results confirming Einstein’s prediction of the defection of light near the sun (Collected Papers of Albert Einstein 9, Doc. 110): ..... Thus, on October 7, 1919, Lorentz told Einstein that he heard about the result obtained by Eddington from a report by Balthasar van der Pol, who attended the meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science held on September 12, 1919, at Bournemouth, in which Arthur Eddington reported on the solar eclipse expeditions. Van der Pol told Lorentz upon his return to Leiden what Eddington had presented in Bournemouth. ----------------------------------------------------------- AND THIS, JUST IN 1919. DETAILS OF "THE NETWORK" BETWEEN 1915 AND 1918 ARE ABUNDANT, BUT YOU HAVE TO KNOW HOW TO SEEK DATA. EINSTEIN'S HOAX
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-09 13:57 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1e51fc83-5145-4676-8897-9fc88ca1fd9fn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #617184 |
On Wednesday, August 9, 2023 at 9:18:50 AM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote: > The jew network of communication and support for Einstein's HOAX: > > ************************************************ > Gali Weinstein > > During World War I, copies of Einstein’s papers got to the Netherlands (to Leiden), in particular to Einstein’s friends Hendrik > Antoon Lorentz and Willen de Sitter. De Sitter had sent copies of Einstein’s paper to Arthur Eddington in Britain. In the midst > of World War I, two British expeditions were planned exclusively to test Einstein’s prediction of the deflection of light near the sun. > > In a letter of June 11, 1916, to Willem de Sitter Arthur Eddington wrote: > > We are having a discussion at the British Association [for the Advancement of Science] on gravitation — at Newcastle, Dec. 5–8. > I wish we could have invited you to come over to take part; but we are not inviting any foreign guest this year because Newcastle > is a “restricted area” and aliens are not allowed in it… I feel sure you will allow me to make use of the papers you send > [Einstein’s papers on general relativity], in making my contribution to the discussion. > > Quoted in Stachel, John, “Eddington and Einstein”, Einstein from B to Z, Springer, 2002. > > It is reasonable to assume that De Sitter informed Einstein of Eddington’s meetings and plans. > > On June 16m 1919, Einstein wrote to his mother and told her (Collected Papers of Albert Einstein 9, Doc. 19): > > In a Dutch newspaper, it was reported that both expeditions obtained successful images of the solar eclipse, so the > result should be publicized within 6 weeks. > > Thus, Einstein knew that two British expeditions were headed by Eddington and Frank Dyson and sent to observe the > total solar eclipse with the sole purpose to observe a deflection of light predicted by his theory. > > On September 12, 1919, Einstein wrote to Paul Ehrenfest in Leiden on September 12, 1919 (Collected Papers of > Albert Einstein 9, Doc. 103): > > ***** I wonder? Have you by any chance heard anything over there about the English solar-eclipse expedition? ****** > > Ten days later, on September 22, 1919, Lorentz informed Einstein of Eddington’s experimental results confirming > Einstein’s prediction of the defection of light near the sun (Collected Papers of Albert Einstein 9, Doc. 110): > ..... > Thus, on October 7, 1919, Lorentz told Einstein that he heard about the result obtained by Eddington from a report by > Balthasar van der Pol, who attended the meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science held on > September 12, 1919, at Bournemouth, in which Arthur Eddington reported on the solar eclipse expeditions. Van der Pol > told Lorentz upon his return to Leiden what Eddington had presented in Bournemouth. > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > AND THIS, JUST IN 1919. > > DETAILS OF "THE NETWORK" BETWEEN 1915 AND 1918 ARE ABUNDANT, BUT YOU HAVE TO KNOW HOW TO SEEK DATA. > > EINSTEIN'S HOAX See a doctor. You may get a stroke if you let this imagined parallel reality affect you too much. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chadrick Mahno <mdah@cacamcmm.ro> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-09 21:59 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ub1273$2hs7$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #617220 |
JanPB wrote: > On Wednesday, August 9, 2023 at 9:18:50 AM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote: >> AND THIS, JUST IN 1919. >> DETAILS OF "THE NETWORK" BETWEEN 1915 AND 1918 ARE ABUNDANT, BUT YOU >> HAVE TO KNOW HOW TO SEEK DATA. EINSTEIN'S HOAX > > See a doctor. You may get a stroke if you let this imagined parallel > reality affect you too much. you are siphoning money from america. And you are peeing on the floor. Not even germony likes you anymore. Respectfully, you are a disgrace.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web