Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.

Dismiss

887 views

Skip to first unread message

Feb 18, 2023, 4:02:00 AM2/18/23

to

Hi NG

now I have finished my latest version after rewriting almost all

annotations from previous versions.

The idea behind writing aannotations is this:

take a certain text (here: 'On the electrodynamics of moving bodies' by

A. Einstein from 1905) and write annotations into it, similar to how a

professor writes annotations into the homework of a student.

It was actually meant as a learning tool and aimed to find ALL errors in

a text and to write into the annotations, why that is an error.

I wrote more than 400 annotations and most of them aare bout errors in

Einstein's text.

The errors stem from a great varfiety of topics, like:

formal errors

missing quotes

unclear formulations

wrong or reused variables

illogic resoning

wrong math

and so forth...

Many of my arguments were discussed in this forum extensively. Then I

had, if possible, taken hints and corrections by members of this board

and integrated them into this version, too.

A different class of improvements of this lates version came from my

attempt to identify the possibly sources, which Einstein had used (but

not quoted).

As I speak, of course, German, I could read the works of Heinrich Hertz

und could identify possible sources.

French is not that possible, but I can understand a little. So,

Poincare's 'Sur le dynamic de la electron' was another possible source.

(Dutch is impossible for me, hence I had to leave Hendrik Lorentz away.)

Also language, spelling and formats were improved in this version

(besides of rethinking and checking the annotations themselves).

So, here comes my latest annotated version of SRT:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1D2m4RV7StviWik2JiB1_Huk_7PR5Sxvi/view?usp=sharing

You need to download the pdf-file, because this is stored as google doc

and google will not show the annotations online.

Hope you like it...

TH

now I have finished my latest version after rewriting almost all

annotations from previous versions.

The idea behind writing aannotations is this:

take a certain text (here: 'On the electrodynamics of moving bodies' by

A. Einstein from 1905) and write annotations into it, similar to how a

professor writes annotations into the homework of a student.

It was actually meant as a learning tool and aimed to find ALL errors in

a text and to write into the annotations, why that is an error.

I wrote more than 400 annotations and most of them aare bout errors in

Einstein's text.

The errors stem from a great varfiety of topics, like:

formal errors

missing quotes

unclear formulations

wrong or reused variables

illogic resoning

wrong math

and so forth...

Many of my arguments were discussed in this forum extensively. Then I

had, if possible, taken hints and corrections by members of this board

and integrated them into this version, too.

A different class of improvements of this lates version came from my

attempt to identify the possibly sources, which Einstein had used (but

not quoted).

As I speak, of course, German, I could read the works of Heinrich Hertz

und could identify possible sources.

French is not that possible, but I can understand a little. So,

Poincare's 'Sur le dynamic de la electron' was another possible source.

(Dutch is impossible for me, hence I had to leave Hendrik Lorentz away.)

Also language, spelling and formats were improved in this version

(besides of rethinking and checking the annotations themselves).

So, here comes my latest annotated version of SRT:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1D2m4RV7StviWik2JiB1_Huk_7PR5Sxvi/view?usp=sharing

You need to download the pdf-file, because this is stored as google doc

and google will not show the annotations online.

Hope you like it...

TH

Feb 18, 2023, 4:25:45 AM2/18/23

to

On 2023-02-18 09:01:56 +0000, Thomas Heger said:

>

> [ … ]

used such an illiterate title (five errors in six words: "dynamique",

not "dynamic"; it is feminine, so "la" not "le"; "électron" has an

accent; and is masculine, so "du", not "de la", and anyway it's elided

beforea vowel: "de l'électron"). Can we assume that your list of

"errors" in Einstein's paper is as carelessly assembled as that?

athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots

>

> [ … ]

>

> The errors stem from a great varfiety of topics, like:

>

> formal errors

> missing quotes

> unclear formulations

> wrong or reused variables

> illogic resoning

> wrong math

> and so forth...

>

> [ … ]
> The errors stem from a great varfiety of topics, like:

>

> formal errors

> missing quotes

> unclear formulations

> wrong or reused variables

> illogic resoning

> wrong math

> and so forth...

>

>

> French is not that possible, but I can understand a little. So,

> Poincare's 'Sur le dynamic de la electron' was another possible source.

Poincaré was French. I find it impossible to believe that he would have
> French is not that possible, but I can understand a little. So,

> Poincare's 'Sur le dynamic de la electron' was another possible source.

used such an illiterate title (five errors in six words: "dynamique",

not "dynamic"; it is feminine, so "la" not "le"; "électron" has an

accent; and is masculine, so "du", not "de la", and anyway it's elided

beforea vowel: "de l'électron"). Can we assume that your list of

"errors" in Einstein's paper is as carelessly assembled as that?

>

> (Dutch is impossible for me, hence I had to leave Hendrik Lorentz away.)

>

> Also language, spelling and formats were improved in this version

> (besides of rethinking and checking the annotations themselves).

>

>

> So, here comes my latest annotated version of SRT:

>

> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1D2m4RV7StviWik2JiB1_Huk_7PR5Sxvi/view?usp=sharing

>

>

> You need to download the pdf-file, because this is stored as google doc

> and google will not show the annotations online.

>

>

> Hope you like it...

>

> TH

--
> (Dutch is impossible for me, hence I had to leave Hendrik Lorentz away.)

>

> Also language, spelling and formats were improved in this version

> (besides of rethinking and checking the annotations themselves).

>

>

> So, here comes my latest annotated version of SRT:

>

> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1D2m4RV7StviWik2JiB1_Huk_7PR5Sxvi/view?usp=sharing

>

>

> You need to download the pdf-file, because this is stored as google doc

> and google will not show the annotations online.

>

>

> Hope you like it...

>

> TH

athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots

Feb 18, 2023, 4:44:12 AM2/18/23

to

Am 18.02.2023 um 10:25 schrieb Athel Cornish-Bowden:

..

>>

>> French is not that possible, but I can understand a little. So,

>> Poincare's 'Sur le dynamic de la electron' was another possible source.

>

> Poincaré was French. I find it impossible to believe that he would have

> used such an illiterate title (five errors in six words: "dynamique",

> not "dynamic"; it is feminine, so "la" not "le"; "électron" has an

> accent; and is masculine, so "du", not "de la", and anyway it's elided

> beforea vowel: "de l'électron"). Can we assume that your list of

> "errors" in Einstein's paper is as carelessly assembled as that?

Poincaré was French and I am German.

French is something you can learn in German schools, by I didn't,

because to Learn Latin was the other option, which I had chosen.

French is something I can speaak on 'tourists level', like Italian,

Spanish and a few others.

Sorry for my very poor French. I can understand a few words, but not many.

English I can speak far better than French, while still not perfect.

The annotations are all written in English and I tried hard to make them

as perfect as possible. This wasn't that easy for me, but at least you

should be able to understand them.

TH

..

>>

>> French is not that possible, but I can understand a little. So,

>> Poincare's 'Sur le dynamic de la electron' was another possible source.

>

> Poincaré was French. I find it impossible to believe that he would have

> used such an illiterate title (five errors in six words: "dynamique",

> not "dynamic"; it is feminine, so "la" not "le"; "électron" has an

> accent; and is masculine, so "du", not "de la", and anyway it's elided

> beforea vowel: "de l'électron"). Can we assume that your list of

> "errors" in Einstein's paper is as carelessly assembled as that?

French is something you can learn in German schools, by I didn't,

because to Learn Latin was the other option, which I had chosen.

French is something I can speaak on 'tourists level', like Italian,

Spanish and a few others.

Sorry for my very poor French. I can understand a few words, but not many.

English I can speak far better than French, while still not perfect.

The annotations are all written in English and I tried hard to make them

as perfect as possible. This wasn't that easy for me, but at least you

should be able to understand them.

TH

Feb 18, 2023, 4:49:00 AM2/18/23

to

On Saturday, February 18, 2023 at 10:02:00 AM UTC+1, Thomas Heger wrote:

> Hi NG

>

> now I have finished my latest version after rewriting almost all

> annotations from previous versions.

>

> The idea behind writing aannotations is this:

>

> take a certain text (here: 'On the electrodynamics of moving bodies' by

> A. Einstein from 1905) and write annotations into it, similar to how a

> professor writes annotations into the homework of a student.

It only makes sense if it's truly a teacher-pupil relationship. In other words,
> Hi NG

>

> now I have finished my latest version after rewriting almost all

> annotations from previous versions.

>

> The idea behind writing aannotations is this:

>

> take a certain text (here: 'On the electrodynamics of moving bodies' by

> A. Einstein from 1905) and write annotations into it, similar to how a

> professor writes annotations into the homework of a student.

it only makes sense if the person making the annotations understands

the content.

> It was actually meant as a learning tool and aimed to find ALL errors in

> a text and to write into the annotations, why that is an error.

> I wrote more than 400 annotations and most of them aare bout errors in

> Einstein's text.

> The errors stem from a great varfiety of topics, like:

>

> formal errors

> missing quotes

> unclear formulations

> wrong or reused variables

conventions, most of them used to this day, everywhere.

> illogic resoning

There is none of that in the paper. There are instances of clumsiness, yes.

But they are not errors.

> wrong math

There is no wrong math in the paper. There are instances of clumsiness, yes.

But they are not errors.

> and so forth...

Again, there are no errors in Einstein's 1905 paper. There are instances of minor

sloppiness but this sort of thing is present in virtually all science papers.

> Many of my arguments were discussed in this forum extensively.

There is nothing to "discuss" here except your wasting your time on this

nonsensical "project" is a bit of a psychological mystery.

> Then I

> had, if possible, taken hints and corrections by members of this board

> and integrated them into this version, too.

in existence could benefit from. This is a non-issue.

> A different class of improvements of this lates version came from my

> attempt to identify the possibly sources, which Einstein had used (but

> not quoted).

that time and you'll see multitudes of papers with no references in them.

--

Jan

Feb 18, 2023, 4:49:19 AM2/18/23

to

On 2023-02-18 09:44:09 +0000, Thomas Heger said:

> Am 18.02.2023 um 10:25 schrieb Athel Cornish-Bowden:

> ..

>

>>>

>>> French is not that possible, but I can understand a little. So,

>>> Poincare's 'Sur le dynamic de la electron' was another possible source.

>>

>> Poincaré was French. I find it impossible to believe that he would have

>> used such an illiterate title (five errors in six words: "dynamique",

>> not "dynamic"; it is feminine, so "la" not "le"; "électron" has an

>> accent; and is masculine, so "du", not "de la", and anyway it's elided

>> beforea vowel: "de l'électron"). Can we assume that your list of

>> "errors" in Einstein's paper is as carelessly assembled as that?

>

> Poincaré was French and I am German.

>

> French is something you can learn in German schools, by I didn't,

> because to Learn Latin was the other option, which I had chosen.

>

> French is something I can speaak on 'tourists level', like Italian,

> Spanish and a few others.

>

> Sorry for my very poor French. I can understand a few words, but not many.

Yes, but surely you can copy a text of a few words without so many errors?
> Am 18.02.2023 um 10:25 schrieb Athel Cornish-Bowden:

> ..

>

>>>

>>> French is not that possible, but I can understand a little. So,

>>> Poincare's 'Sur le dynamic de la electron' was another possible source.

>>

>> Poincaré was French. I find it impossible to believe that he would have

>> used such an illiterate title (five errors in six words: "dynamique",

>> not "dynamic"; it is feminine, so "la" not "le"; "électron" has an

>> accent; and is masculine, so "du", not "de la", and anyway it's elided

>> beforea vowel: "de l'électron"). Can we assume that your list of

>> "errors" in Einstein's paper is as carelessly assembled as that?

>

> Poincaré was French and I am German.

>

> French is something you can learn in German schools, by I didn't,

> because to Learn Latin was the other option, which I had chosen.

>

> French is something I can speaak on 'tourists level', like Italian,

> Spanish and a few others.

>

> Sorry for my very poor French. I can understand a few words, but not many.

>

> English I can speak far better than French, while still not perfect.

>

> The annotations are all written in English and I tried hard to make

> them as perfect as possible. This wasn't that easy for me, but at least

> you should be able to understand them.

>

>

> TH

> English I can speak far better than French, while still not perfect.

>

> The annotations are all written in English and I tried hard to make

> them as perfect as possible. This wasn't that easy for me, but at least

> you should be able to understand them.

>

>

> TH

Feb 18, 2023, 5:17:06 AM2/18/23

to

Am 18.02.2023 um 10:48 schrieb JanPB:

> On Saturday, February 18, 2023 at 10:02:00 AM UTC+1, Thomas Heger wrote:

>> Hi NG

>>

>> now I have finished my latest version after rewriting almost all

>> annotations from previous versions.

>>

>> The idea behind writing aannotations is this:

>>

>> take a certain text (here: 'On the electrodynamics of moving bodies' by

>> A. Einstein from 1905) and write annotations into it, similar to how a

>> professor writes annotations into the homework of a student.

>

> It only makes sense if it's truly a teacher-pupil relationship. In other words,

> it only makes sense if the person making the annotations understands

> the content.

This is actually true.
> On Saturday, February 18, 2023 at 10:02:00 AM UTC+1, Thomas Heger wrote:

>> Hi NG

>>

>> now I have finished my latest version after rewriting almost all

>> annotations from previous versions.

>>

>> The idea behind writing aannotations is this:

>>

>> take a certain text (here: 'On the electrodynamics of moving bodies' by

>> A. Einstein from 1905) and write annotations into it, similar to how a

>> professor writes annotations into the homework of a student.

>

> It only makes sense if it's truly a teacher-pupil relationship. In other words,

> it only makes sense if the person making the annotations understands

> the content.

Iow: you can only learn to swim by swimming.

This is why the method works really great: you are forced to understand

every single word in the text, every equation, every picture or reference...

As I was not really an Einstein expert, it took me a very long time to

understand the entire text.

I have also rewritten my annotations several times.

Now I'm actually quite good and you wouldn't be able (most likely) to

find any error by me in them at all.

There will be a few remaining flaws, most likely, but certainly not

many, because every single of my annotation was checked for validity

many times (for instance in discussions here).

Now I'm quite confident, that I'm able to defend almost all of my

arguments, because I was able to do that here in this newsgroup several

times.

(If not and the errors were actually mine, I had ample opportunity to

change my annotations.)

>> It was actually meant as a learning tool and aimed to find ALL errors in

>> a text and to write into the annotations, why that is an error.

>

> Ergo, what you are doing cannot possibly serve as a "learning tool".

Practice is actually the best method for learning and writing is much

more practice than reading.

Far better are, of course, real experiments.

But theoretical physics is not a science of experiments.

So, reading, thinking and writing are the main tools, which could be

assisted by discussions and possibly by advice of a teatcher.

But unfortunately I have no teatcher, because I'm just a hobbyist.

>> I wrote more than 400 annotations and most of them aare bout errors in

>> Einstein's text.

>

> All of them are your errors only.

...

TH

Feb 18, 2023, 5:36:37 AM2/18/23

to

Thomas Heger <ttt...@web.de> wrote:

> Am 18.02.2023 um 10:48 schrieb JanPB:

> > On Saturday, February 18, 2023 at 10:02:00 AM UTC+1, Thomas Heger wrote:

> >> Hi NG

> >>

> >> now I have finished my latest version after rewriting almost all

> >> annotations from previous versions.

> >>

> >> The idea behind writing aannotations is this:

> >>

> >> take a certain text (here: 'On the electrodynamics of moving bodies' by

> >> A. Einstein from 1905) and write annotations into it, similar to how a

> >> professor writes annotations into the homework of a student.

> >

> > It only makes sense if it's truly a teacher-pupil relationship. In other

> > words, it only makes sense if the person making the annotations

> > understands the content.

>

>

> This is actually true.

>

> Iow: you can only learn to swim by swimming.

>

> This is why the method works really great: you are forced to understand

> every single word in the text, every equation, every picture or reference...

Your problem in a nutshell.
> Am 18.02.2023 um 10:48 schrieb JanPB:

> > On Saturday, February 18, 2023 at 10:02:00 AM UTC+1, Thomas Heger wrote:

> >> Hi NG

> >>

> >> now I have finished my latest version after rewriting almost all

> >> annotations from previous versions.

> >>

> >> The idea behind writing aannotations is this:

> >>

> >> take a certain text (here: 'On the electrodynamics of moving bodies' by

> >> A. Einstein from 1905) and write annotations into it, similar to how a

> >> professor writes annotations into the homework of a student.

> >

> > It only makes sense if it's truly a teacher-pupil relationship. In other

> > words, it only makes sense if the person making the annotations

> > understands the content.

>

>

> This is actually true.

>

> Iow: you can only learn to swim by swimming.

>

> This is why the method works really great: you are forced to understand

> every single word in the text, every equation, every picture or reference...

The point is not 'understanding the words'.

You need to get the contents.

(and of course any modern undergraduate textbook

is far more suitable for that)

Jan

Feb 18, 2023, 5:52:40 AM2/18/23

to

On Saturday, February 18, 2023 at 11:17:06 AM UTC+1, Thomas Heger wrote:

> Am 18.02.2023 um 10:48 schrieb JanPB:

> > On Saturday, February 18, 2023 at 10:02:00 AM UTC+1, Thomas Heger wrote:

> >> Hi NG

> >>

> >> now I have finished my latest version after rewriting almost all

> >> annotations from previous versions.

> >>

> >> The idea behind writing aannotations is this:

> >>

> >> take a certain text (here: 'On the electrodynamics of moving bodies' by

> >> A. Einstein from 1905) and write annotations into it, similar to how a

> >> professor writes annotations into the homework of a student.

> >

> > It only makes sense if it's truly a teacher-pupil relationship. In other words,

> > it only makes sense if the person making the annotations understands

> > the content.

> This is actually true.

>

> Iow: you can only learn to swim by swimming.

My point was that that's not what you are doing. What you are doing is
> Am 18.02.2023 um 10:48 schrieb JanPB:

> > On Saturday, February 18, 2023 at 10:02:00 AM UTC+1, Thomas Heger wrote:

> >> Hi NG

> >>

> >> now I have finished my latest version after rewriting almost all

> >> annotations from previous versions.

> >>

> >> The idea behind writing aannotations is this:

> >>

> >> take a certain text (here: 'On the electrodynamics of moving bodies' by

> >> A. Einstein from 1905) and write annotations into it, similar to how a

> >> professor writes annotations into the homework of a student.

> >

> > It only makes sense if it's truly a teacher-pupil relationship. In other words,

> > it only makes sense if the person making the annotations understands

> > the content.

> This is actually true.

>

> Iow: you can only learn to swim by swimming.

like trying to learn playing piano by exclusively studying the fabric of

the tuxedo (because piano players tend to wear tuxedo for recitals).

IOW, what you are doing does not even begin to touch the substance.

Your focus in your annotations is entirely in the land of the irrelevant.

> This is why the method works really great: you are forced to understand

> every single word in the text, every equation, every picture or reference...

all instances of genuine errors (typos in the text), genuine mistranslations

(since you are annotating an English translation), and you are not pointing out

instances of genuine leaps of argument (you are not even aware they exist).

Before you get into a fit, those leaps I mention are standard in any science paper.

> As I was not really an Einstein expert, it took me a very long time to

> understand the entire text.

> Now I'm quite confident, that I'm able to defend almost all of my

> arguments,

understand even *that*. This is a well-known psychological phenomenon,

known for centuries. It has even been somewhat quantified recently.

Basically in order to understand why a person is wrong, it requires that

that person possesses a certain minimum of the subject knowledge in

the first place.

Since you lack it, all arguments disproving your claims appear vacuous to you.

This cannot be fixed by you learning physics first.

> because I was able to do that here in this newsgroup several

> times.

--

Jan

Feb 18, 2023, 12:19:45 PM2/18/23

to

On 2/18/2023 5:17 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:

> Am 18.02.2023 um 10:48 schrieb JanPB:

>> On Saturday, February 18, 2023 at 10:02:00 AM UTC+1, Thomas Heger wrote:

>>> Hi NG

>>>

>>> now I have finished my latest version after rewriting almost all

>>> annotations from previous versions.

>>>

>>> The idea behind writing aannotations is this:

>>>

>>> take a certain text (here: 'On the electrodynamics of moving bodies' by

>>> A. Einstein from 1905) and write annotations into it, similar to how a

>>> professor writes annotations into the homework of a student.

>>

>> It only makes sense if it's truly a teacher-pupil relationship. In

>> other words,

>> it only makes sense if the person making the annotations understands

>> the content.

>

>

> This is actually true.

>

> Iow: you can only learn to swim by swimming.

>

> This is why the method works really great: you are forced to understand

> every single word in the text, every equation, every picture or

> reference...

>

> As I was not really an Einstein expert, it took me a very long time to

> understand the entire text.

And you apparently still haven't succeeded.
> Am 18.02.2023 um 10:48 schrieb JanPB:

>> On Saturday, February 18, 2023 at 10:02:00 AM UTC+1, Thomas Heger wrote:

>>> Hi NG

>>>

>>> now I have finished my latest version after rewriting almost all

>>> annotations from previous versions.

>>>

>>> The idea behind writing aannotations is this:

>>>

>>> take a certain text (here: 'On the electrodynamics of moving bodies' by

>>> A. Einstein from 1905) and write annotations into it, similar to how a

>>> professor writes annotations into the homework of a student.

>>

>> It only makes sense if it's truly a teacher-pupil relationship. In

>> other words,

>> it only makes sense if the person making the annotations understands

>> the content.

>

>

> This is actually true.

>

> Iow: you can only learn to swim by swimming.

>

> This is why the method works really great: you are forced to understand

> every single word in the text, every equation, every picture or

> reference...

>

> As I was not really an Einstein expert, it took me a very long time to

> understand the entire text.

>

> I have also rewritten my annotations several times.

>

> Now I'm actually quite good and you wouldn't be able (most likely) to

> find any error by me in them at all.

Except for the multitude of your errors already pointed out to you.
> I have also rewritten my annotations several times.

>

> Now I'm actually quite good and you wouldn't be able (most likely) to

> find any error by me in them at all.

Did you remove them? I didn't think so.

>

> There will be a few remaining flaws, most likely, but certainly not

> many, because every single of my annotation was checked for validity

> many times (for instance in discussions here).

And they were all found to be your mistakes/misunderstandings, not
> There will be a few remaining flaws, most likely, but certainly not

> many, because every single of my annotation was checked for validity

> many times (for instance in discussions here).

Einstein's.

>

>

> Now I'm quite confident, that I'm able to defend almost all of my

> arguments, because I was able to do that here in this newsgroup several

> times.

>

> (If not and the errors were actually mine, I had ample opportunity to

> change my annotations.)

So why didn't you do that?
>

> Now I'm quite confident, that I'm able to defend almost all of my

> arguments, because I was able to do that here in this newsgroup several

> times.

>

> (If not and the errors were actually mine, I had ample opportunity to

> change my annotations.)

>

> But theoretical physics is not a science of experiments.

>

> So, reading, thinking and writing are the main tools, which could be

> assisted by discussions and possibly by advice of a teatcher.

>

> But unfortunately I have no teatcher, because I'm just a hobbyist.

Get a new hobby.
> But theoretical physics is not a science of experiments.

>

> So, reading, thinking and writing are the main tools, which could be

> assisted by discussions and possibly by advice of a teatcher.

>

> But unfortunately I have no teatcher, because I'm just a hobbyist.

>

>>> I wrote more than 400 annotations and most of them aare bout errors in

>>> Einstein's text.

>>

>> All of them are your errors only.

>

>

> Well, then show me at least one.

Done, multiple times here.
>>> I wrote more than 400 annotations and most of them aare bout errors in

>>> Einstein's text.

>>

>> All of them are your errors only.

>

>

> Well, then show me at least one.

Feb 18, 2023, 1:11:41 PM2/18/23

to

On Saturday, 18 February 2023 at 18:19:45 UTC+1, Volney wrote:

> On 2/18/2023 5:17 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:

> > Am 18.02.2023 um 10:48 schrieb JanPB:

> >> On Saturday, February 18, 2023 at 10:02:00 AM UTC+1, Thomas Heger wrote:

> >>> Hi NG

> >>>

> >>> now I have finished my latest version after rewriting almost all

> >>> annotations from previous versions.

> >>>

> >>> The idea behind writing aannotations is this:

> >>>

> >>> take a certain text (here: 'On the electrodynamics of moving bodies' by

> >>> A. Einstein from 1905) and write annotations into it, similar to how a

> >>> professor writes annotations into the homework of a student.

> >>

> >> It only makes sense if it's truly a teacher-pupil relationship. In

> >> other words,

> >> it only makes sense if the person making the annotations understands

> >> the content.

> >

> >

> > This is actually true.

> >

> > Iow: you can only learn to swim by swimming.

> >

> > This is why the method works really great: you are forced to understand

> > every single word in the text, every equation, every picture or

> > reference...

> >

> > As I was not really an Einstein expert, it took me a very long time to

> > understand the entire text.

> And you apparently still haven't succeeded.

And do you still believe that adjusting
> On 2/18/2023 5:17 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:

> > Am 18.02.2023 um 10:48 schrieb JanPB:

> >> On Saturday, February 18, 2023 at 10:02:00 AM UTC+1, Thomas Heger wrote:

> >>> Hi NG

> >>>

> >>> now I have finished my latest version after rewriting almost all

> >>> annotations from previous versions.

> >>>

> >>> The idea behind writing aannotations is this:

> >>>

> >>> take a certain text (here: 'On the electrodynamics of moving bodies' by

> >>> A. Einstein from 1905) and write annotations into it, similar to how a

> >>> professor writes annotations into the homework of a student.

> >>

> >> It only makes sense if it's truly a teacher-pupil relationship. In

> >> other words,

> >> it only makes sense if the person making the annotations understands

> >> the content.

> >

> >

> > This is actually true.

> >

> > Iow: you can only learn to swim by swimming.

> >

> > This is why the method works really great: you are forced to understand

> > every single word in the text, every equation, every picture or

> > reference...

> >

> > As I was not really an Einstein expert, it took me a very long time to

> > understand the entire text.

> And you apparently still haven't succeeded.

clocks to your ISO idiocy means "Newton

mode"?

You're such an amazing idiot, stupid

Mike.

Feb 18, 2023, 1:28:42 PM2/18/23

to

On Saturday, February 18, 2023 at 11:52:40 AM UTC+1, JanPB wrote:

>

> This cannot be fixed by you learning physics first.

Typo, sorry. I meant:
>

> This cannot be fixed by you learning physics first.

This can be fixed only by you learning physics first.

IOW, forget "annotating" the masters. You are nowhere near that level yet.

At this point all of your annotations are drivel.

--

Jan

Feb 19, 2023, 3:36:25 PM2/19/23

to

Den 18.02.2023 11:17, skrev Thomas Heger:

> Am 18.02.2023 um 10:48 schrieb JanPB:

>> On Saturday, February 18, 2023 at 10:02:00 AM UTC+1, Thomas Heger wrote:

>>> Hi NG

>>>

>>> now I have finished my latest version after rewriting almost all

>>> annotations from previous versions.

>>>

>>> The idea behind writing aannotations is this:

>>>

>>> take a certain text (here: 'On the electrodynamics of moving bodies' by

>>> A. Einstein from 1905) and write annotations into it, similar to how a

>>> professor writes annotations into the homework of a student.

>>

>> It only makes sense if it's truly a teacher-pupil relationship. In

>> other words,

>> it only makes sense if the person making the annotations understands

>> the content.

>

>

> This is actually true.

>

> Iow: you can only learn to swim by swimming.

>

> This is why the method works really great: you are forced to understand

> every single word in the text, every equation, every picture or

> reference...

Let's see an example of how Thomas is "forced to understand
> Am 18.02.2023 um 10:48 schrieb JanPB:

>> On Saturday, February 18, 2023 at 10:02:00 AM UTC+1, Thomas Heger wrote:

>>> Hi NG

>>>

>>> now I have finished my latest version after rewriting almost all

>>> annotations from previous versions.

>>>

>>> The idea behind writing aannotations is this:

>>>

>>> take a certain text (here: 'On the electrodynamics of moving bodies' by

>>> A. Einstein from 1905) and write annotations into it, similar to how a

>>> professor writes annotations into the homework of a student.

>>

>> It only makes sense if it's truly a teacher-pupil relationship. In

>> other words,

>> it only makes sense if the person making the annotations understands

>> the content.

>

>

> This is actually true.

>

> Iow: you can only learn to swim by swimming.

>

> This is why the method works really great: you are forced to understand

> every single word in the text, every equation, every picture or

> reference...

every single word in the text".

In § 7. Theory of Doppler’s Principle and of Aberration

Einstein starts with defining an em-wave:

"In the system K, very far from the origin of co-ordinates,

let there be a source of electrodynamic waves, which in

a part of space containing the origin of co-ordinates may

be represented to a sufficient degree of approximation

by the equations

X = X₀ sin Φ, L = L₀ sin Φ,

Y = Y₀ sin Φ, M = M₀ sin Φ,

Z = Z₀ sin Φ, N = N₀ sin Φ,

where

Φ = ω {t − (lx + my + nz)/c } .

Here (X₀, Y₀, Z₀) and (L₀, M₀, N₀) are the vectors defining

the amplitude of the wave-train, and l, m, n the direction-cosines

of the wave-normals."

Thomas has two "annotations" for the equation of

the phase Φ(t,x,y,z):

"Phi is the product of a time interval and a frequency term.

If you multiply frequency and a duration, you get the number

of waves in a certain interval plus a phase angle. Such

dimensionless numbers are useful for the equations above,

where they describe the sinusoidal behaviour of the waves.

The 'time-interval' t is not time per se (as in our dates

and times of our clocks), because the start of the wave was

certainly not synchronized with the birth of Christ.

Instead t starts with a zero of the sinusoidal wave, while

the small term 1/c(lx + my + nz) could eventually be meant

as phase shift."

and:

"Einstein should have written, what he meant with the term

(lx + my + nz)/c. My guess would be, that the variables x, y and z

are coordinates in K of a certain point (x,y,z) and the variables

l, m and n stem from the direction of the incoming wave at the position

of the observer. This term would create a time value, which represents

the phase shift of the plane wave at that point. The problem is, that

the angles at point (x, y, z) are different for spherical waves, hence

Einstein had to use the unphysical case of plane waves."

>

> As I was not really an Einstein expert, it took me a very long time to

> understand the entire text.

--

Paul

https://paulba.no/

Feb 20, 2023, 4:30:36 AM2/20/23

to

stuff here he is trying to discuss.

And then he proceeds to completely ignore a genuine leap in reasoning

(such leaps are standard in science papers written for experts) which

states that Phi = Phi' (on which the subsequent derivation of the formulas

on top of page 16 is based). The independence of phase (Phi) on the observer

is a bit non-trivial and true for both Galilean/Newtonian and Lorentzian/Einsteinian

mechanics. Again, it's non-trivial but also well-known so that its derivation

does not belong in a pro science paper, just like the proof that the derivative

of x^2 equals 2x does not belong in a pro mathematics paper.

Otherwise, his annotations are practically 100% about the material used

to tailor the piano soloist's clothes while pretending they are about the music.

--

Jan

Feb 20, 2023, 3:25:33 PM2/20/23

to

My annotations are mainly about formal issues or wrong math or similar.

My aim is/was not to disprove relativity per se.

TH

Feb 20, 2023, 3:30:10 PM2/20/23

to

Am 18.02.2023 um 11:52 schrieb JanPB:

> On Saturday, February 18, 2023 at 11:17:06 AM UTC+1, Thomas Heger wrote:

>> Am 18.02.2023 um 10:48 schrieb JanPB:

>>> On Saturday, February 18, 2023 at 10:02:00 AM UTC+1, Thomas Heger wrote:

>>>> Hi NG

>>>>

>>>> now I have finished my latest version after rewriting almost all

>>>> annotations from previous versions.

>>>>

>>>> The idea behind writing aannotations is this:

>>>>

>>>> take a certain text (here: 'On the electrodynamics of moving bodies' by

>>>> A. Einstein from 1905) and write annotations into it, similar to how a

>>>> professor writes annotations into the homework of a student.

>>>

>>> It only makes sense if it's truly a teacher-pupil relationship. In other words,

>>> it only makes sense if the person making the annotations understands

>>> the content.

>> This is actually true.

>>

>> Iow: you can only learn to swim by swimming.

>

> My point was that that's not what you are doing. What you are doing is

> like trying to learn playing piano by exclusively studying the fabric of

> the tuxedo (because piano players tend to wear tuxedo for recitals).

I wrote annotations into the English version of Einstein's text.
> On Saturday, February 18, 2023 at 11:17:06 AM UTC+1, Thomas Heger wrote:

>> Am 18.02.2023 um 10:48 schrieb JanPB:

>>> On Saturday, February 18, 2023 at 10:02:00 AM UTC+1, Thomas Heger wrote:

>>>> Hi NG

>>>>

>>>> now I have finished my latest version after rewriting almost all

>>>> annotations from previous versions.

>>>>

>>>> The idea behind writing aannotations is this:

>>>>

>>>> take a certain text (here: 'On the electrodynamics of moving bodies' by

>>>> A. Einstein from 1905) and write annotations into it, similar to how a

>>>> professor writes annotations into the homework of a student.

>>>

>>> It only makes sense if it's truly a teacher-pupil relationship. In other words,

>>> it only makes sense if the person making the annotations understands

>>> the content.

>> This is actually true.

>>

>> Iow: you can only learn to swim by swimming.

>

> My point was that that's not what you are doing. What you are doing is

> like trying to learn playing piano by exclusively studying the fabric of

> the tuxedo (because piano players tend to wear tuxedo for recitals).

That is something legal and my hobby.

If you like to critizise my annotations, than feel free to do so.

Simply take any of my comments, quote that and show, where my commentens

were wrong.

Anything else like telling me what I need to do and what I should read

or learn, that is not related to the subject.

I surely apprecheate other comments, too, but mainly I'm interested in

comments about my annotations.

...

TH

Feb 20, 2023, 3:49:23 PM2/20/23

to

I think mainly like a programmer, who writes a code-review or something

similar.

I read a text and find a symbol like 'x', for instance.

Now x is not a variable and much less a physical quantity. Thaat 'x' is

simply a short text, which consists from a single ACII character 'x'.

That is is taken as the name of a variable.

Variables store something. The 'x' is a 'handle' by which that storage

is addressed.

Now I ask the question, what shall be stored at that storage.

So, I scimmed the text for possible meanings of 'x'.

The first occurance of 'x' denotes a scalar part of a postition vector

in coordinate system K.

So, ok, 'x' stores scalars, which mean a number, by which the unit

vector of that coordinate system shall be multiplied.

All together they build a vector (x,y,z), which belongs to system K.

That is nice and no problem at all.

But any further occurances of 'x' are therefore meant as scalar part of

position vector (x,y,z) from system K.

Similar with l, m, and n, which also occur in that equation.

These are 'direction cosines' and belong to angles of the incoming ray

at the position of the observer.

This is also nice and no problem at all.
But what does the author want to say with this equation, if the

position in K is not defined and the postion of the observer or a ray

arriving there were not under consideration?

I complained here about missing definitions of used variables and about

inconsisted or impossible interpretations of variables names already

used otherwise.

A computer programm would quit at that time with a general error message.

I wrote, that I do not understand, what the variables are supposed to

express.

My guess was, that phase angles were actually meant, but cannot read the

author's mind.

...

TH

Feb 21, 2023, 4:44:13 AM2/21/23

to

> or wrong math or similar.

There is no wrong math in the paper.

> My aim is/was not to disprove relativity per se.

I understand. But you are approaching this from a
completely nonsensical POV.

--

Jan

Feb 21, 2023, 5:44:40 AM2/21/23

to

wheel on one of the piano legs during a concert and submitting it as a review

of the concert performance by the soloist and the orchestra.

Your annotations don't even begin to touch any substance, while they

ignore completely instances of genuine (inessential) hiccups.

> I read a text and find a symbol like 'x', for instance.

>

> Now x is not a variable and much less a physical quantity. Thaat 'x' is

> simply a short text, which consists from a single ACII character 'x'.

>

> That is is taken as the name of a variable.

>

> Variables store something. The 'x' is a 'handle' by which that storage

> is addressed.

>

> Now I ask the question, what shall be stored at that storage.

>

> So, I scimmed the text for possible meanings of 'x'.

>

> The first occurance of 'x' denotes a scalar part of a postition vector

> in coordinate system K.

>

> So, ok, 'x' stores scalars, which mean a number, by which the unit

> vector of that coordinate system shall be multiplied.

>

> All together they build a vector (x,y,z), which belongs to system K.

>

> That is nice and no problem at all.

>

> But any further occurances of 'x' are therefore meant as scalar part of

> position vector (x,y,z) from system K.

>

> Similar with l, m, and n, which also occur in that equation.

the details of the piano's leg. You delude yourself if you think this sort

of thing is of any consequence.

> These are 'direction cosines' and belong to angles of the incoming ray

> at the position of the observer.

> This is also nice and no problem at all.

>

> But what does the author want to say with this equation, if the

> position in K is not defined and the postion of the observer or a ray

> arriving there were not under consideration?

don't understand high school physics (wave motion). One doesn't

even know how to answer your question, the sheer lack of any

understanding on your part simply paralysing. I can try though:

the position of the observer is chosen arbitrarily and fixed.

> I complained here about missing definitions of used variables and about

> inconsisted or impossible interpretations of variables names already

> used otherwise.

notational conventions is completely standard and it remains

in current use, even in high school.

> A computer programm would quit at that time with a general error message.

formalised as Goedel demonstrated in the 1930s.

> I wrote, that I do not understand, what the variables are supposed to

> express.

this problem by learning the subject.

> My guess was, that phase angles were actually meant, but cannot read the

> author's mind.

numbers) A*exp(i(wt - k.r)) is standard for plane waves, pick any elementary

E&M textbook. Your complaint about reading Einstein's mind here is like

complaining that a research mathematics paper just assumed that you knew

what logarithm was.

Einstein's notation is one of the many possible ones, all of them are covered

in any decent undergraduate physics textbook:

1. he uses the real numbers instead of the more compact "exp(i(...))" notation:

exp(i(wt - k.r)) = cos(wt - k.r) + i * sin(wt - k.r)

The amplitude A when considered as a complex number includes an overall

extra phase. In this case it can be taken to be zero, for obvious physics reasons.

So we can assume (as Einstein did) that the overal constant phase is zero and

X0, Y0, Z0 and L0, M0, N0 are real numbers,

2. he writes the 3 field components separately: X, Y, Z and L, M, N ,

3. he writes the vector I denoted by "k" above as "(l, m, n)" and the

position vector I denoted by "r" as "(x, y, z)",

4. so the dot product is:

k.r = (k) * (lx + my + nz),

where by "(k)" I denoted the length of the vector k (since Einstein assumes

the vector (l, m, n) is of unit length (that's what the phrase "direction

cosines" *means*,

4. he uses the standard formula relating the wave's (phase) speed to the wave

vector length:

w = (k) * v

where in this case we have, naturally, v = c.

5. This means that Phi is:

wt - k.r = wt - (k) * (lx + my + nz) = wt - (w/c) * (lx + my + nz) = w * { t - (lx + my + nz)/c }

6. Then he uses the (not stated explicitly but well-known) phase invariance:

Phi = Phi'

i.e.:

w * { t - (lx + my + nz)/c } = w' * { tau - (l' ksi + m' eta + n' zeta)/c }

...and derives from it (and from the fact that (x, y, z) can be chosen

arbitrarily, and from the Lorentz transformation) the four formulas that

follow (for w', l', m', n').

To derive the formula at the bottom of p. 15 (for A'^2) he also needs the

E and B Lorentz transformation formulas on p. 14 (middle). He omits

this derivation as well.

--

Jan

Feb 21, 2023, 3:48:31 PM2/21/23

to

- You don't know that Φ is the phase of the wave.

Or rather: you don't know what the phase of a wave is.

- You don't understand that (t,x,y,z) are the coordinates

of an event.

- You don't understand that the phase is a function

Φ(t,x,y,z) of these coordinates. Φ = ω{t-(lx + my + nz)/c}

And this is despite the fact that I (an probably several others)

have explained this to you before:

|03.04.2021 Paul B. Andersen wrote:

|> Look at this:

|> https://paulba.no/pdf/AberrationDoppler.pdf

|>

|> I am not expecting you to understand anything of it,

|> the point is that equation (1) and (2) are the equations

|> for the electric field in an EM wave moving in the positive

|> z direction. Equation (2) is the phase of the wave.

|> Equation (6) is the same equation as:

|> Φ = ω{t − (lx+my+nz)/c}

|> with the slight difference that this is the phase

|> of a wave propagating in a general direction.

|>

|> Anybody with the slightest knowledge of physics

|> will immediately recognize these equations, and will know

|> that the wavelength is 2πc/ω. (λ = c/f)

|06.04.2021 Paul B. Andersen wrote:

|> Thomas, in all elementary physics books you will find

|> a chapter with the name "Wave motion" or similar.

|>

|> I looked in the first physic book I ever read,

|> Margenau et al: Physics, from 1953.

|> Here I find as the equation for a wave (any wave):

|>

|> y = A⋅sin(2π(t/P-x/λ))

|>

|> where P is the period, P = 1/f, and λ is the wavelength

|>

|> The argument of a sinus is always a phase,(an angle in radians), so:

|> Φ(t,x) = 2π(t/P-x/λ)

|>

|> This equation can be written on several equivalent forms:

|>

|> Einstein's equation was:

|> Φ = ω{t − (lx+my+nz)/c}

|> In the case where the wave is moving along the x-axis,

|> the direction cosines are l = 1, m = 0 and n = 0,

|> and the equation for the phase can be written:

|> Φ(t,x) = ω(t - x/c) = (ω⋅t - (ω/c)⋅x)

|>

|> inserting ω = 2πf yields:

|> Φ(t,x) = (2πf⋅t − (2πf/c)⋅x) = 2π(f⋅t - (f/c)⋅x)

|>

|> inserting λ = c/f yields:

|> Φ(t,x) = 2π(f⋅t − (1/λ)⋅x)

|>

|> You don't have to be a physicist to know this,

|> it is _very_ elementary physics, and it was

|> known as such _long_ before 1905.

If you don't understand these equations, you are not

competent to read the paper where the equations occur.

>>

>> What he writes here is incredibly naive, this is high school wave motion

>> stuff here he is trying to discuss.

But you keep demonstrating that you understand nothing of the text:

>

> Actually not.

>

> I think mainly like a programmer, who writes a code-review or something

> similar.

> I read a text and find a symbol like 'x', for instance.

>

> Now x is not a variable and much less a physical quantity. Thaat 'x' is

> simply a short text, which consists from a single ACII character 'x'.

>

> That is is taken as the name of a variable.

>

> Variables store something. The 'x' is a 'handle' by which that storage

> is addressed.

>

> Now I ask the question, what shall be stored at that storage.

>

> So, I scimmed the text for possible meanings of 'x'.

>

> The first occurance of 'x' denotes a scalar part of a postition vector

> in coordinate system K.

>

> So, ok, 'x' stores scalars, which mean a number, by which the unit

> vector of that coordinate system shall be multiplied.

>

> All together they build a vector (x,y,z), which belongs to system K.

>

> That is nice and no problem at all.

>

> But any further occurances of 'x' are therefore meant as scalar part of

> position vector (x,y,z) from system K.

I can't find the cartoon, but the story goes like this:

Teacher solving equations on the blackboard, saying:

" .. and then x = 5"

Dilbert raising his hand, saying:

"Wait a darn minute! Yesterday you said x = 3!"

>

> Similar with l, m, and n, which also occur in that equation.

>

> These are 'direction cosines' and belong to angles of the incoming ray

> at the position of the observer.

>

> This is also nice and no problem at all.

>

> But what does the author want to say with this equation, if the

> position in K is not defined and the postion of the observer or a ray

> arriving there were not under consideration?

The equation is in the beginning of

§ 7. Theory of Doppler’s Principle and of Aberration

If you read on, you will find:
".. an observer is moving with velocity v relatively to

an infinitely distant source of light of frequency ν (nu),

in such a way that the connecting line “source-observer”

makes the angle φ with the velocity of the observer referred

to a system of co-ordinates which is at rest relatively to

the source of light,.."

You demonstrate that you do not understand what this means

in your "annotation".

"To define velocity in respect to infinity would be a very

bad idea, because ‘Infinitely distant' is remaining infinitely

distant, even if you move in respect to infinity. Velocity

is defined as v=dx/dt. And because that 'x' in dx is not

changing (stays always 'infinity'), v will remain zero, however

you move. Therefore, your velocity in respect to infinity is always

zero."

This is nonsense!

The source is stationary in K at infinity.

The observer is moving at the velocity v⃗ in K, in such a way

that the connecting line “source-observer” makes the angle φ with

the velocity.

Look.

A star with parallax - say < 1"- can be considered to be

infinitely far away, and stationary in the solar frame.(K)

And you are saying that the velocity of the Earth in the solar

frame is always zero because the star is so far away! :-D

https://paulba.no/pdf/Stellar_aberration.pdf

>

>

> I complained here about missing definitions of used variables and about

> inconsisted or impossible interpretations of variables names already

> used otherwise.

>

> A computer programm would quit at that time with a general error message.

>

> I wrote, that I do not understand, what the variables are supposed to

> express.

and you are not competent to read Einstein's paper.papaer

>

> My guess was, that phase angles were actually meant, but cannot read the

> author's mind.

The problem is rather that you cannot read a text about physics.
> My guess was, that phase angles were actually meant, but cannot read the

> author's mind.

--

Paul

https://paulba.no/

Feb 23, 2023, 2:39:15 AM2/23/23

to

formal and mathematical aspects.

I have, for instance, complained about the reuse vor variable names.

E.g. x' was used for different purposes or P or A.

Now, this is just a formal complaint, but about a serious issue.

The reuse of variable names for different quantities makes it difficult

to identify the intendend meaning.

Another issue was also formal:

you should not name the same quantity with different names.

I also wanted usual names like 'p' for pressure, because if other names

than common ones were used, then all variables need proper definitions.

But actually none of the variables were defined, what made the intended

meaning very difficult to identify.

These are simple formal issues, but they are not irrelevant.

Other formal issues were missing quotes.

Sure, that was just an article in a scientific paper.

But quotes are important and could not be left away, not even in 1905.

Yet another issue was, that quotes should be correct.

But Einstein quoted Heinrich Hertz implicitly, but not with the correct

equations. Hertz used absolute differentials and Einstein partial, while

calling that 'Maxwell-Hertz' equation, even it was not what Hertz had

written (as far as I could identify the source).

...

TH

Feb 23, 2023, 2:46:44 AM2/23/23

to

Infinity is not a location, but infinitly far away.

A signal from infinity would need infinite time to reach us, hence would

never be here.

Also velocity in respect to infinitity is always zero, because

inf- x= inf

for all x element of R.

If you reject this, you should try a different occupation or demand the

money back from whomever told you what you are believing.

> The source is stationary in K at infinity.

...

TH

Feb 23, 2023, 3:29:00 AM2/23/23

to

detrimental to understanding in scientific writing. This is well-known.

> I have, for instance, complained about the reuse vor variable names.

a certain degree of competence on the part of the writer and the reader.

> E.g. x' was used for different purposes or P or A.

> Now, this is just a formal complaint, but about a serious issue.

> The reuse of variable names for different quantities makes it difficult

> to identify the intendend meaning.

A scientist cannot write research papers as if his audience consisted of

beginners.

> Another issue was also formal:

>

> you should not name the same quantity with different names.

it can be overdone, that's why the concept of "taste" is important in

scientific writing. But to judge this aspect, one needs lots of experience.

> I also wanted usual names like 'p' for pressure, because if other names

> than common ones were used, then all variables need proper definitions.

>

> But actually none of the variables were defined, what made the intended

> meaning very difficult to identify.

> These are simple formal issues, but they are not irrelevant.

--

Jan

Feb 23, 2023, 3:53:00 AM2/23/23

to

modelling. In contexts like this, infinity refers to a limit of arbitrarily

large distance with the signal (the plane wave) already presumed

omnipresent.

It's an idealisation which represents reality arbitrarily closely, this

method has been in use since ancient Greece.

> Also velocity in respect to infinitity is always zero, because

> inf- x= inf

>

> for all x element of R.

very basics of scientific methodologies? In optics, for example

(lens design), rays from infinity are considered all the time when

evaluating the aberrations. Plane waves from infinity are used to

derive Snell's law from Maxwell's equations, etc.

> If you reject this, you should try a different occupation or demand the

> money back from whomever told you what you are believing.

> > The source is stationary in K at infinity.

> oh dear..

--

Jan

Feb 23, 2023, 2:33:03 PM2/23/23

to

Do you not read what you are responding to?

>> The source is stationary in K at infinity.

>> that the connecting line “source-observer” makes the angle φ with

>> the velocity.

>>

>> Look.

>> A star with parallax - say < 1"- can be considered to be

>> infinitely far away, and stationary in the solar frame.(K)

>> And you are saying that the velocity of the Earth in the solar

>> frame is always zero because the star is so far away! 😂
>>

>> Look.

>> A star with parallax - say < 1"- can be considered to be

>> infinitely far away, and stationary in the solar frame.(K)

>> And you are saying that the velocity of the Earth in the solar

Please bother to read the following this time!

Let us be concrete:

Let the source be a star in the ecliptic plane.

At the time of observation, the direction to the star is

such that the Sun, Earth and star are on the same line.

Your velocity in the Solar frame is ≈ 30 km/s, the direction

is perpendicular to said line.

Note that the distance to the star is irrelevant, it is

only the direction that matters. So it might as well

be considered to be infinitely far away.

So: (see Einstein's words above)

The connecting line “source-observer” makes the angle φ = 90⁰

with the velocity of the observer (you) referred to a system

of co-ordinates (the solar system) which is at rest relatively

to the source of light.

Do you now understand that your velocity is perfectly well defined

even if the distance to the star is unknown (considered to be infinite)?

It is indeed nonsensical to claim otherwise.

From the above, we can calculate at what angle φ' you will see the star:

Einstein's equation for aberration:

cosφ′ = (cosφ − v/c)/(1 − cosφ·v/c)

φ = 90⁰, cosφ = 0, v/c = 30000/3e8 = 1e-4

cosφ′ = -1e-4, φ′≈ (π/2 - 1e-4) radians = 90⁰-20.6"

To see the star, you have to point your telescope

20.6 arcseconds in front of the line Sun-Earth-star.

--

Paul

https://paulba.no/

Feb 23, 2023, 3:57:15 PM2/23/23

to

Einstein.

We must stop putting Einstein all over the place, it becomes ridiculous.

This is false, the calculation is derived by itself from the

Poincaré-Lorentz transformations.

Just take these transformations as I gave them myself, making them more

"physically obvious", and you get right away:

<http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?f39m55jBy0YQroBCrPBwVVIN-m4@jntp/Data.Media:1>

As we see, the angle has no relation to the distance from the star.

On the other hand, if we know the distance of the star in the solar

reference frame, we can know when its light was emitted (To=d/c),

but we can also know what its position will be in the reference frame of

the terrestrial observer (the star will be further away and its light

emitted earlier).

It's extremely simple and very obvious if you understand how

transformations work (it's high school level).

> To see the star, you have to point your telescope

> 20.6 arcseconds in front of the line Sun-Earth-star.

R.H.

Feb 23, 2023, 3:58:48 PM2/23/23

to

Feb 24, 2023, 2:47:25 AM2/24/23

to

From theoretical physicists I would actually expect great precison,

because there is not correction of thoughts by contradicting experiments.

Other physicists, which conduct experiments could behave a little

carelessly and adjust their results stepwise to fit to experiments.

But theoretical physicsts depend on valid proofs, which need to be

absolutely perfect.

Any small deviation from the best way possible whould render all their

efforts useless, because nothing would follow from an error.

>> I have, for instance, complained about the reuse vor variable names.

>

> Yes, this is standard and a great aid to exposition. But it presumes

> a certain degree of competence on the part of the writer and the reader.

Only one reason was the reuse of symbols for other purposes.

Another stumbling block was Einsteins habbit, to use the same symbols

for different types of mathematical objects.

For instance we have:

numbers

scalar quantities

vectors

functions

which are different types of objects.

But Einstein used vectors like e.g. velocity as if they were magnitudes

of the velocity vector.

He also treated v/c as a scalar, while it is actually a vector.

He also used tau as time measure and also as name of a function and

subesequently switched back and forth between such meanings.

This made

tau(x,y,z,t) hard to interpret, because it could be:

tau* (x,y,z,t) (where tau ist a time measure and (x,y,z,t) a four vector)

or

tau(x,y,z,t) (where tau is a function and (x,y,z,t) its argument).

This ambiguity could easily be avoided by using different fonts for

different types of objects.

For instance functions could be written in bold capital letters and

vectors in small bold letters.

Also the use of subscripts was inconstistent.

I would personally use _x as subscript, if a quantity belongs to the x-axis.

E.g. the x-componentent of the electric field strength vector could be

called E_x.

But instead of that Einstein used the variable name 'X', even if that X

was already in use as name of the x-axis of K.

He also treated that 'X' as a vector, even if components of vectors are

numerical values.

Even worse was the geometrical treatment of the 'length' of the field

strength vector.

>> E.g. x' was used for different purposes or P or A.

>

> Again, this is standard and a great aid to exposition.

I counted eight different uses of the tall letter 'A'.

E.g. One rather strange use of 'A' was his unitary sign 'A', used as

internal reference. But there was no 'B' (let alone 'C'), even if

numbers at equations were already invented.

...

>> I also wanted usual names like 'p' for pressure, because if other names

>> than common ones were used, then all variables need proper definitions.

>>

>> But actually none of the variables were defined, what made the intended

>> meaning very difficult to identify.

>

> Everything is defined to a sufficient degree in that paper.

There are certain conventions among physicist to name certain quantities.
>> than common ones were used, then all variables need proper definitions.

>>

>> But actually none of the variables were defined, what made the intended

>> meaning very difficult to identify.

>

> Everything is defined to a sufficient degree in that paper.

For instance v is a usually a velocity or t a time value.

But Einstein used unconventional names, too, like ny for frequency, P

for presssure or W for energy.

Therefore all variables need to be defined properly and explicitly,

because you cannot know, which other variable names are also unconventional.

...

TH

Feb 24, 2023, 8:39:59 AM2/24/23

to

>

> Just take these transformations as I gave them myself, making them more

> "physically obvious", and you get right away:

>

> <http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?f39m55jBy0YQroBCrPBwVVIN-m4@jntp/Data.Media:1>

>

--

Paul

https://paulba.no/

Feb 24, 2023, 9:28:13 AM2/24/23

to

fit in the theory of relativity.

The most difficult thing was not to say what, but why.

As for the invariance of the observable speed of light, I found it alone,

as well as the Lorentz transformations, as well as the general addition

equation of speeds, as well as the explanation of Langevin's paradox

(infinitely better for me but it seems that I am fat and arrogant), as

well as all that must be done to understand accelerated media (almost

everything that relativists say about it is false because their

mathematical space-time is not physical).

So yes, otherwise, I find the same thing as you, with the very simple

formulas that I gave yesterday in this post.

R.H.

--

"Mais ne nous trompons pas :

il n'y a pas de violence qu'avec des armes : il y a des situations de

violence."

Abbé Pierre"<http://news2.nemoweb.net/?DataID=f_7j6f7WjvnmIDjy8lqakhqKZVw@jntp>

Feb 24, 2023, 10:29:15 AM2/24/23

to

M.D. Richard "Hachel" Lengrand wrote:

> I am fat and arrogant

You are. Also ignorant and an imbecile.

> I am fat and arrogant

You are. Also ignorant and an imbecile.

Feb 24, 2023, 11:13:15 AM2/24/23

to

Le 24/02/2023 à 16:29, le très excellent Python (Jean-Pierre Messager

pour les intimes) a écrit de moi, bien qu'il soit incapable de comprendre

ce que c'est qu'une vitesse réelle, une vitesse observable et une vitesse

apparente dans la pensée hachelienne, qu'il me trouve fat et arrogant:

> You are. Also ignorant and an imbecile.

Mais parlez donc, beau sire!

Faites qu'on vous admire.

D'un point de vue plus pratique, que pensez-vous de ça?

<http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?fC_zg0U-o2x_RDBpAXaog5CaJAY@jntp/Data.Media:1>

De ça?

<http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?fC_zg0U-o2x_RDBpAXaog5CaJAY@jntp/Data.Media:2>

Ou de ça?

<http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?fC_zg0U-o2x_RDBpAXaog5CaJAY@jntp/Data.Media:3>

R.H.

<http://news2.nemoweb.net/?DataID=fC_zg0U-o2x_RDBpAXaog5CaJAY@jntp>

pour les intimes) a écrit de moi, bien qu'il soit incapable de comprendre

ce que c'est qu'une vitesse réelle, une vitesse observable et une vitesse

apparente dans la pensée hachelienne, qu'il me trouve fat et arrogant:

> You are. Also ignorant and an imbecile.

Faites qu'on vous admire.

D'un point de vue plus pratique, que pensez-vous de ça?

<http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?fC_zg0U-o2x_RDBpAXaog5CaJAY@jntp/Data.Media:1>

De ça?

<http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?fC_zg0U-o2x_RDBpAXaog5CaJAY@jntp/Data.Media:2>

Ou de ça?

<http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?fC_zg0U-o2x_RDBpAXaog5CaJAY@jntp/Data.Media:3>

R.H.

<http://news2.nemoweb.net/?DataID=fC_zg0U-o2x_RDBpAXaog5CaJAY@jntp>

Feb 25, 2023, 6:07:15 AM2/25/23

to

Infinity is further away than any numerical distance (or: inf >> x for

all x element of R).

You must not call 'resonably far away' 'infinity'.

Also 'plane waves' themselves are unphysical local approximations.

A real plane wave would require an infinetely long emitting antenna,

which we can safely exclude.

In the real world we have Huygen's principle and waves expand

spherically from the emitting points.

The plane waves are possible approximations for an area, where the

diameter of the area is small in comparison to the distance of the emitter.

But 'small area' would hinder fast relative motion in respect to that

area, because soon the area would be left, where the approximation is valid.

From this would follow, that Einstein could only treat the situation at

the spherical shell of the wave, where the wave normal hits

perpendicular to to that shell.

In this case the direction cosinus l, m and n would be l=1, m and n

would be zero.

That is sofar ok and would make sense, but would exclude, what Einstein

had written.

I have complained about this and you failed to defend Einstein's arguments.

> It's an idealisation which represents reality arbitrarily closely, this

> method has been in use since ancient Greece.

>

>> Also velocity in respect to infinitity is always zero, because

>> inf- x= inf

>>

>> for all x element of R.

>

> No, this is not how this works. How can you be so unaware of the

> very basics of scientific methodologies? In optics, for example

> (lens design), rays from infinity are considered all the time when

> evaluating the aberrations. Plane waves from infinity are used to

> derive Snell's law from Maxwell's equations, etc.

No idea, what you are trying to say.

Infinity is mathematically already defined, hence physicists cannot

redefine it otherwise.

..

TH

Feb 25, 2023, 6:32:01 AM2/25/23

to

it never does (you must know the basics before you can follow the

explanations or refutations).

> Anything else like telling me what I need to do and what I should read

> or learn, that is not related to the subject.

>

> I surely apprecheate other comments, too, but mainly I'm interested in

> comments about my annotations.

are all not even wrong. Again, it's as if someone started seriously debating

a music critic who focuses exclusively on the clothes the conductor wears.

--

Jan

Feb 25, 2023, 6:57:02 AM2/25/23

to

It's the same in any E&M textbook when deriving laws of reflection and

refraction, Brewster's angle, etc. In optics rays originating at infinity are

one of the standard tools to evaluate aberrations of a lens being optimised.

> Infinity is further away than any numerical distance (or: inf >> x for

> all x element of R).

>

> You must not call 'resonably far away' 'infinity'.

> Also 'plane waves' themselves are unphysical local approximations.

unphysical approximation.

> A real plane wave would require an infinetely long emitting antenna,

> which we can safely exclude.

> In the real world we have Huygen's principle and waves expand

> spherically from the emitting points.

> The plane waves are possible approximations for an area, where the

> diameter of the area is small in comparison to the distance of the emitter.

> But 'small area' would hinder fast relative motion in respect to that

> area, because soon the area would be left, where the approximation is valid.

> From this would follow, that Einstein could only treat the situation at

> the spherical shell of the wave, where the wave normal hits

> perpendicular to to that shell.

> In this case the direction cosinus l, m and n would be l=1, m and n

> would be zero.

>

> That is sofar ok and would make sense, but would exclude, what Einstein

> had written.

in any other paper would have written exactly the same if some aspects of waves

originating at an unspecified faraway distance were required.

> I have complained about this and you failed to defend Einstein's arguments.

100 years before Einstein. Also, I did not "fail to defend" those arguments

because there is nothing to "defend" here.

If you don't know how to model radiation from faraway sources using

plane waves, then there is nothing to discuss with you really. And you

certainly cannot "annotate" anything in Einstein's paper, you are just

engaging in pure nonsense.

> > It's an idealisation which represents reality arbitrarily closely, this

> > method has been in use since ancient Greece.

> >

> >> Also velocity in respect to infinitity is always zero, because

> >> inf- x= inf

> >>

> >> for all x element of R.

> >

> > No, this is not how this works. How can you be so unaware of the

> > very basics of scientific methodologies? In optics, for example

> > (lens design), rays from infinity are considered all the time when

> > evaluating the aberrations. Plane waves from infinity are used to

> > derive Snell's law from Maxwell's equations, etc.

> ??????

>

> No idea, what you are trying to say.

take a plane wave and a medium boundary, plug it into the equations

and you analyse the result. It turns out the lines perpendicular to

the wave fronts satisfy Snell's law.

> Infinity is mathematically already defined, hence physicists cannot

> redefine it otherwise.

--

Jan

Feb 26, 2023, 2:19:52 AM2/26/23

to

(You may equally quote the Pharao Ramses III.)

Today 'infinity' has a certain meaning and that is not what the ancient

thought about that topic.

Simply think about inf (short for infinity, because I'm too lazy to look

up nun-Ascii-characters) like this:

inf = 1/0

or:

inf - x = inf

inf + x = inf

or:

inf > x for all x element of R

>> Also 'plane waves' themselves are unphysical local approximations.

>

> Again, this doesn't matter. Netwon's calculus is similarly an

> unphysical approximation.

That calculus is a mathematical method and was actually developed by

Leibnitz.

>> A real plane wave would require an infinetely long emitting antenna,

>> which we can safely exclude.

>

> This is irrelevant. You miss the entire point of this setup.

long antennas.

What's the problem with that?

>> In the real world we have Huygen's principle and waves expand

>> spherically from the emitting points.

>

> Yes, correct (assuming an isotropic medium), but irrelevant.

non-spherical plane waves?

I meant, that planes waves are only an approximation for real world

waves and do not exist in reality.

>> The plane waves are possible approximations for an area, where the

>> diameter of the area is small in comparison to the distance of the emitter.

>

> Again, irrelevant.

>

>> But 'small area' would hinder fast relative motion in respect to that

>> area, because soon the area would be left, where the approximation is valid.

>

> Irrelevant.

Einstein's SRT belongs to theoretical physics, hence cannot allow

approximations.

This is so, because theoretical physics is based on mathematically

correct derivations of the result from valid axioms.

This would leave little space for approximation, if any at all.

>

>> From this would follow, that Einstein could only treat the situation at

>> the spherical shell of the wave, where the wave normal hits

>> perpendicular to to that shell.

>

> Irrelevanty and an unnecessary complication.

Einstein should have written, which situation he considered and how he

wanted his variables to be interpreted.

But he wrote an equation, which would not fit to the possible physical

case of a point (x, y, z) at the surface of a spherical wave.

So, instead of that point, which was actually meant?

A possible point to consider would be the observer himself, who moves

along the x-axis with velocity v.

But in this case the point would be simply (x, 0, 0) with x= v*t.

So, what else could he have meant with (x, y, z) if neither the observer

nor an arbitrary point at the surface?

Here you may read and read and read and cannot find an answer, because

Einstein simply didn't say what he meant with (x, y, z) and with the

angle to which the cosines l, m and n belong.

I regarded this as an error, because the author is obliged to tell the

reader, what he meant with his symbols like (x, y, z).

>> In this case the direction cosinus l, m and n would be l=1, m and n

>> would be zero.

>>

>> That is sofar ok and would make sense, but would exclude, what Einstein

>> had written.

>

> It's not "what Einstein had written", it's the standard approach. Any other author

> in any other paper would have written exactly the same if some aspects of waves

> originating at an unspecified faraway distance were required.

What any other author would have written is not relevant, but what

Einstein had actually written.

You cannot count what is not there. So, possibly many other authors

would do similar, possibly not.

But that is not relevant, because only what is actually written can be

counted, not what is not written.

>> I have complained about this and you failed to defend Einstein's arguments.

>

> These are not "Einstein arguments", they are standard arguments for at least

> 100 years before Einstein. Also, I did not "fail to defend" those arguments

> because there is nothing to "defend" here.

'Standard arguments for at least a hundred years' are not quotable.

Quotable are only specific authors, possibly Wikipedia or similar, (even

if wikipedia is not quotable for other reasons).

...

TH

Feb 26, 2023, 8:50:48 AM2/26/23

to

El sábado, 18 de febrero de 2023 a las 6:02:00 UTC-3, Thomas Heger escribió:

> Hi NG

>

> So, here comes my latest annotated version of SRT:

>

> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1D2m4RV7StviWik2JiB1_Huk_7PR5Sxvi/view?usp=sharing

>

> You need to download the pdf-file, because this is stored as google doc

> and google will not show the annotations online.

>

>

> Hope you like it...

>

> TH

The same nonsensical "review" of Einstein's paper.

The paper "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" was received by the Annalen der Physik on June 30, 1905 and reviewed and published on September 26, 1905 ("Annalen der Physik, 17 (1905), pp. 891-921").

As every scientific paper, the reviewing and publication of a paper by a journal, follows a very strict process. In the case of Einstein, his work has been reviewed and commented by thousands of physicists (and, of course, crackpots like yourself). 118 years after its publication, this paper continues to be flawless (except for the last sentence of section 4, where he considers the Earth to be spherical, which it is not).

Are all published scientific papers flawless? Of course not!!!

After publication, readers of those papers can detect errors and send comments to the journal, which can publish those comments and the authors can publish corrections to those found errors.

If the found errors are huge, the journal can retract the original publication.

One of the most notable errors in a published paper was the infamous Wakefield et al paper published by The Lancet (one of the top ten scientific journals) "Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children" which suggested that some vaccines children receive to prevent measles, mumps, and rubella could produce autism.

You can read the retracted version here (https://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lancet/PIIS0140-6736(97)11096-0.pdf).

It took a few years to discredit that paper as a complete disgrace, after their own authors started to reject the paper and the journal retracted it. The main author, Wakefield, lost his medical license and was fired from the hospital.

In this case the reviewing process got results.

> Hi NG

>

> So, here comes my latest annotated version of SRT:

>

> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1D2m4RV7StviWik2JiB1_Huk_7PR5Sxvi/view?usp=sharing

>

> You need to download the pdf-file, because this is stored as google doc

> and google will not show the annotations online.

>

>

> Hope you like it...

>

> TH

The same nonsensical "review" of Einstein's paper.

The paper "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" was received by the Annalen der Physik on June 30, 1905 and reviewed and published on September 26, 1905 ("Annalen der Physik, 17 (1905), pp. 891-921").

As every scientific paper, the reviewing and publication of a paper by a journal, follows a very strict process. In the case of Einstein, his work has been reviewed and commented by thousands of physicists (and, of course, crackpots like yourself). 118 years after its publication, this paper continues to be flawless (except for the last sentence of section 4, where he considers the Earth to be spherical, which it is not).

Are all published scientific papers flawless? Of course not!!!

After publication, readers of those papers can detect errors and send comments to the journal, which can publish those comments and the authors can publish corrections to those found errors.

If the found errors are huge, the journal can retract the original publication.

One of the most notable errors in a published paper was the infamous Wakefield et al paper published by The Lancet (one of the top ten scientific journals) "Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children" which suggested that some vaccines children receive to prevent measles, mumps, and rubella could produce autism.

You can read the retracted version here (https://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lancet/PIIS0140-6736(97)11096-0.pdf).

It took a few years to discredit that paper as a complete disgrace, after their own authors started to reject the paper and the journal retracted it. The main author, Wakefield, lost his medical license and was fired from the hospital.

In this case the reviewing process got results.

Feb 26, 2023, 10:11:25 AM2/26/23

to

On Sunday, 26 February 2023 at 14:50:48 UTC+1, Paparios wrote:

> El sábado, 18 de febrero de 2023 a las 6:02:00 UTC-3, Thomas Heger escribió:

> > Hi NG

> >

> > So, here comes my latest annotated version of SRT:

> >

> > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1D2m4RV7StviWik2JiB1_Huk_7PR5Sxvi/view?usp=sharing

> >

> > You need to download the pdf-file, because this is stored as google doc

> > and google will not show the annotations online.

> >

> >

> > Hope you like it...

> >

> > TH

>

> The same nonsensical "review" of Einstein's paper.

>

> The paper "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" was received by the Annalen der Physik on June 30, 1905 and reviewed and published on September 26, 1905 ("Annalen der Physik, 17 (1905), pp. 891-921").

>

> As every scientific paper, the reviewing and publication of a paper by a journal, follows a very strict process. In the case of Einstein, his work has been reviewed and commented by thousands of physicists (and, of course, crackpots like yourself). 118 years after its publication, this paper continues to be flawless (except for the last sentence of section 4, where he considers the Earth to be spherical, which it is not).

>

> Are all published scientific papers flawless? Of course not!!!

And the mumble of your idiot guru, for instance,
> El sábado, 18 de febrero de 2023 a las 6:02:00 UTC-3, Thomas Heger escribió:

> > Hi NG

> >

> > So, here comes my latest annotated version of SRT:

> >

> > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1D2m4RV7StviWik2JiB1_Huk_7PR5Sxvi/view?usp=sharing

> >

> > You need to download the pdf-file, because this is stored as google doc

> > and google will not show the annotations online.

> >

> >

> > Hope you like it...

> >

> > TH

>

> The same nonsensical "review" of Einstein's paper.

>

> The paper "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" was received by the Annalen der Physik on June 30, 1905 and reviewed and published on September 26, 1905 ("Annalen der Physik, 17 (1905), pp. 891-921").

>

> As every scientific paper, the reviewing and publication of a paper by a journal, follows a very strict process. In the case of Einstein, his work has been reviewed and commented by thousands of physicists (and, of course, crackpots like yourself). 118 years after its publication, this paper continues to be flawless (except for the last sentence of section 4, where he considers the Earth to be spherical, which it is not).

>

> Are all published scientific papers flawless? Of course not!!!

was obviously inconsistent.

Feb 26, 2023, 2:38:30 PM2/26/23

to

Paparios <mr...@ing.puc.cl> wrote:

> El sábado, 18 de febrero de 2023 a las 6:02:00 UTC-3, Thomas Heger escribió:

> > Hi NG

> >

> > So, here comes my latest annotated version of SRT:

> >

> > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1D2m4RV7StviWik2JiB1_Huk_7PR5Sxvi/view?usp=s

haring

> >

> > You need to download the pdf-file, because this is stored as google doc

> > and google will not show the annotations online.

> >

> >

> > Hope you like it...

> >

> > TH

>

> The same nonsensical "review" of Einstein's paper.

>

> The paper "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" was received by the

> Annalen der Physik on June 30, 1905 and reviewed and published on

> September 26, 1905 ("Annalen der Physik, 17 (1905), pp. 891-921").

>

> As every scientific paper, the reviewing and publication of a paper by a

> journal, follows a very strict process. In the case of Einstein, his work

> has been reviewed and commented by thousands of physicists (and, of

> course, crackpots like yourself). 118 years after its publication, this

> paper continues to be flawless (except for the last sentence of section 4,

> where he considers the Earth to be spherical, which it is not).

The error is yours. The last sentence of §4 reads:
> El sábado, 18 de febrero de 2023 a las 6:02:00 UTC-3, Thomas Heger escribió:

> > Hi NG

> >

> > So, here comes my latest annotated version of SRT:

> >

> > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1D2m4RV7StviWik2JiB1_Huk_7PR5Sxvi/view?usp=s

haring

> >

> > You need to download the pdf-file, because this is stored as google doc

> > and google will not show the annotations online.

> >

> >

> > Hope you like it...

> >

> > TH

>

> The same nonsensical "review" of Einstein's paper.

>

> The paper "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" was received by the

> Annalen der Physik on June 30, 1905 and reviewed and published on

> September 26, 1905 ("Annalen der Physik, 17 (1905), pp. 891-921").

>

> As every scientific paper, the reviewing and publication of a paper by a

> journal, follows a very strict process. In the case of Einstein, his work

> has been reviewed and commented by thousands of physicists (and, of

> course, crackpots like yourself). 118 years after its publication, this

> paper continues to be flawless (except for the last sentence of section 4,

> where he considers the Earth to be spherical, which it is not).

=========

Thence we conclude that a balance-clock at the equator must go more

slowly, by a very small amount, than a precisely similar clock situated

at one of the poles under otherwise identical conditions.

========

This is perfectly correct.

The problem may be with your understanding of German. (or English)

§4 starts with: Wir betrachten eine starre Kugel....

(E. We envisage a rigid sphere....)

This means in English: 'consider, as in 'Consider a spherical cow'.

Considering spherical cows doesn't imply

that cows (or the earth) are actually spherical.

You just consider them to be spherical

because that is good enough model for the purpose at hand.

This is standard scientific practice,

Jan

Feb 26, 2023, 2:58:21 PM2/26/23

to

infinitely thin lines in ancient Greece) are an ancient hat. It's nothing

new or suspicious.

> Simply think about inf (short for infinity, because I'm too lazy to look

> up nun-Ascii-characters) like this:

>

> inf = 1/0

> or:

>

> inf - x = inf

>

> inf + x = inf

> or:

>

> inf > x for all x element of R

> Any x is finite and 'in' means 'not', hence inf means 'not finite'.

> >> Also 'plane waves' themselves are unphysical local approximations.

> >

> > Again, this doesn't matter. Netwon's calculus is similarly an

> > unphysical approximation.

> ???

>

> That calculus is a mathematical method and was actually developed by

> Leibnitz.

Infinitesimal calculus uses the same modelling method: it treats limits

of expressions involving quantities which can be arbitrarily small. One

can do analogous things with quantities that are arbitrarily large.

If you are puzzled by any of this, you have a lot of work ahead of you.

It's a lot of fun doing this work but set aside a few years, preferably

with a good tutor to save time and make the process more efficient.

> >> A real plane wave would require an infinetely long emitting antenna,

> >> which we can safely exclude.

> >

> > This is irrelevant. You miss the entire point of this setup.

> Sure, I wanted to exclude elves, infinity as a location and infinitely

> long antennas.

have been for a very long time, a standard tool. Every time you

take a photograph, you use a lens designed by this sort of process.

> What's the problem with that?

> >> In the real world we have Huygen's principle and waves expand

> >> spherically from the emitting points.

> >

> > Yes, correct (assuming an isotropic medium), but irrelevant.

> If all waves are spherical to some extend, than how do you justify

> non-spherical plane waves?

phase) are planes, not spheres.

Perfect plane waves don't exist, just like geometric lines don't exist

or light rays don't exist. They are very useful models because they

can be made to approximate reality _as well as we please_ while

keeping things simple.

As you probably know, even the simplest spherical EM wave is

quite a complicated expression compared to the plane wave

expression which approximates it arbitrarily closely. That's how

models are commonly used in science.

Again, look at any E&M book.

> I meant, that planes waves are only an approximation for real world

> waves and do not exist in reality.

> >> The plane waves are possible approximations for an area, where the

> >> diameter of the area is small in comparison to the distance of the emitter.

> >

> > Again, irrelevant.

> >

> >> But 'small area' would hinder fast relative motion in respect to that

> >> area, because soon the area would be left, where the approximation is valid.

> >

> > Irrelevant.

> Not quite.

>

> Einstein's SRT belongs to theoretical physics, hence cannot allow

> approximations.

approximations like derivatives or densities in calculus: they can be made

arbitrarily close to reality. That's why lines and planes (infinitely thin) of

space geometry work. And they work, in a very immediate sense, *exactly*:

bridges and airplanes are built using them.

> >> From this would follow, that Einstein could only treat the situation at

> >> the spherical shell of the wave, where the wave normal hits

> >> perpendicular to to that shell.

> >

> > Irrelevanty and an unnecessary complication.

> Not quite.

>

> Einstein should have written, which situation he considered and how he

> wanted his variables to be interpreted.

>

> But he wrote an equation, which would not fit to the possible physical

> case of a point (x, y, z) at the surface of a spherical wave.

> So, instead of that point, which was actually meant?

>

> A possible point to consider would be the observer himself, who moves

> along the x-axis with velocity v.

point (x, y, z). As they instantaneously pass one another, they measure

the frequency and the amplitude. Einstein derives the relevant formulas

comparing the observers' measurements.

> But in this case the point would be simply (x, 0, 0) with x= v*t.

>

> So, what else could he have meant with (x, y, z) if neither the observer

> nor an arbitrary point at the surface?

>

> Here you may read and read and read and cannot find an answer, because

> Einstein simply didn't say what he meant with (x, y, z) and with the

> angle to which the cosines l, m and n belong.

this to you face to face. It's incredibly slow and inefficient to do this

over a text-based forum like this.

Bottom line is all of your objections are specious and/or irrelevant.

--

Jan

Feb 27, 2023, 1:48:40 AM2/27/23

to

On 2/25/2023 6:07 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:

> Am 23.02.2023 um 09:52 schrieb JanPB:

>> On Thursday, February 23, 2023 at 8:46:44 AM UTC+1, Thomas Heger wrote:

>>> Infinity is not a location, but infinitly far away.

>>>

>>> A signal from infinity would need infinite time to reach us, hence would

>>> never be here.

>>

>> This is the very basis of scientific (and mathematical)

>> modelling. In contexts like this, infinity refers to a limit of

>> arbitrarily

>> large distance with the signal (the plane wave) already presumed

>> omnipresent.

> Am 23.02.2023 um 09:52 schrieb JanPB:

>> On Thursday, February 23, 2023 at 8:46:44 AM UTC+1, Thomas Heger wrote:

>>> Infinity is not a location, but infinitly far away.

>>>

>>> A signal from infinity would need infinite time to reach us, hence would

>>> never be here.

>>

>> This is the very basis of scientific (and mathematical)

>> modelling. In contexts like this, infinity refers to a limit of

>> arbitrarily

>> large distance with the signal (the plane wave) already presumed

>> omnipresent.

> Infinity is further away than any numerical distance (or: inf >> x for

> all x element of R).

And...?
> all x element of R).

>

> You must not call 'resonably far away' 'infinity'.

And nobody does. "Reasonably far away" means "reasonably close to what
> You must not call 'resonably far away' 'infinity'.

happens at an infinite distance". And this is normal limit theory applied.>

>

> Also 'plane waves' themselves are unphysical local approximations.

They are quite physical. They'll propagate just fine if they happen to
> Also 'plane waves' themselves are unphysical local approximations.

exist.

>

> A real plane wave would require an infinetely long emitting antenna,

> which we can safely exclude.

So they (all physicists using a plane wave model) use a "reasonably far
> A real plane wave would require an infinetely long emitting antenna,

> which we can safely exclude.

away" source to be reasonably close to a plane wave.

>

> In the real world we have Huygen's principle and waves expand

> spherically from the emitting points.

>

> The plane waves are possible approximations for an area, where the

> diameter of the area is small in comparison to the distance of the emitter.

Which is what Einstein was doing...
> In the real world we have Huygen's principle and waves expand

> spherically from the emitting points.

>

> The plane waves are possible approximations for an area, where the

> diameter of the area is small in comparison to the distance of the emitter.

>

> But 'small area' would hinder fast relative motion in respect to that

> area, because soon the area would be left, where the approximation is

> valid.

Why did you say something so dumb?
> But 'small area' would hinder fast relative motion in respect to that

> area, because soon the area would be left, where the approximation is

> valid.

>

> From this would follow, that Einstein could only treat the situation at

> the spherical shell of the wave, where the wave normal hits

> perpendicular to to that shell.

"reasonably far away" source isn't "reasonably far away" enough, a more

distant source is needed.

But in such a paper, details of the plane wave's source are irrelevant.

"Assume there is a plane wave such that..." is perfectly fine.

Remember, you are not the intended audience. Other physicists who were

perfectly OK with the existence of plane waves were.

> I have complained about this and you failed to defend Einstein's arguments.

needing the simple math of a plane wave uses! So this "error" of yours

belongs in the "Heger doesn't understand standard usage" pile of

'notations'.

I assume you believe Achilles can never pass the tortoise in a race.

>> It's an idealisation which represents reality arbitrarily closely, this

>> method has been in use since ancient Greece.

>>

>>> Also velocity in respect to infinitity is always zero, because

>>> inf- x= inf

>>>

>>> for all x element of R.

Nobody is using the source of the plane wave as the origin!
>>> Also velocity in respect to infinitity is always zero, because

>>> inf- x= inf

>>>

>>> for all x element of R.

Einstein defines the origin he uses in S and S', and the math and

physics are just fine!

>>

>> No, this is not how this works. How can you be so unaware of the

>> very basics of scientific methodologies? In optics, for example

>> (lens design), rays from infinity are considered all the time when

>> evaluating the aberrations. Plane waves from infinity are used to

>> derive Snell's law from Maxwell's equations, etc.

>

>

> ??????

>

> No idea, what you are trying to say.

So all of this is way over your head. You admit to being unqualified to
>> No, this is not how this works. How can you be so unaware of the

>> very basics of scientific methodologies? In optics, for example

>> (lens design), rays from infinity are considered all the time when

>> evaluating the aberrations. Plane waves from infinity are used to

>> derive Snell's law from Maxwell's equations, etc.

>

>

> ??????

>

> No idea, what you are trying to say.

criticize this paper.

>

> Infinity is mathematically already defined, hence physicists cannot

> redefine it otherwise.

Nobody is "redefining infinity". They are just using a plane wave, or at
> Infinity is mathematically already defined, hence physicists cannot

> redefine it otherwise.

least a wave that is reasonably close to a plane wave by being

"reasonably far away". (and "reasonably far away" isn't infinity!)

This is such a STUPID criticism!

Feb 27, 2023, 4:34:54 PM2/27/23

to

On 18-Feb-23 8:01 pm, Thomas Heger wrote:

> Hi NG

>

> now I have finished my latest version after rewriting almost all

> annotations from previous versions.

>

> The idea behind writing aannotations is this:

>

> take a certain text (here: 'On the electrodynamics of moving bodies' by

> A. Einstein from 1905) and write annotations into it, similar to how a

> professor writes annotations into the homework of a student.

>

> It was actually meant as a learning tool and aimed to find ALL errors in
> Hi NG

>

> now I have finished my latest version after rewriting almost all

> annotations from previous versions.

>

> The idea behind writing aannotations is this:

>

> take a certain text (here: 'On the electrodynamics of moving bodies' by

> A. Einstein from 1905) and write annotations into it, similar to how a

> professor writes annotations into the homework of a student.

>

> a text and to write into the annotations, why that is an error.

>

> I wrote more than 400 annotations and most of them aare bout errors in

> Einstein's text.

>

> The errors stem from a great varfiety of topics, like:

>

> formal errors

> missing quotes

> unclear formulations

> wrong or reused variables

> illogic resoning

> wrong math

> and so forth...

>

> Many of my arguments were discussed in this forum extensively. Then I

> had, if possible, taken hints and corrections by members of this board

> and integrated them into this version, too.

>

> A different class of improvements of this lates version came from my

> attempt to identify the possibly sources, which Einstein had used (but

> not quoted).

>

> As I speak, of course, German, I could read the works of Heinrich Hertz

> und could identify possible sources.

>

> French is not that possible, but I can understand a little. So,

> Poincare's 'Sur le dynamic de la electron' was another possible source.

>

> (Dutch is impossible for me, hence I had to leave Hendrik Lorentz away.)

>

> Also language, spelling and formats were improved in this version

> (besides of rethinking and checking the annotations themselves).

>

>

> So, here comes my latest annotated version of SRT:

>

> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1D2m4RV7StviWik2JiB1_Huk_7PR5Sxvi/view?usp=sharing

>

> You need to download the pdf-file, because this is stored as google doc

> and google will not show the annotations online.

>

>

> Hope you like it...

>

> TH

Oh God. Not this again.
>

> So, here comes my latest annotated version of SRT:

>

> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1D2m4RV7StviWik2JiB1_Huk_7PR5Sxvi/view?usp=sharing

>

> You need to download the pdf-file, because this is stored as google doc

> and google will not show the annotations online.

>

>

> Hope you like it...

>

> TH

Sylvia.

Feb 27, 2023, 6:32:53 PM2/27/23