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 Historical content remains viewable.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

New annotated version of SRT

887 views
Skip to first unread message

Thomas Heger

unread,
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

Athel Cornish-Bowden

unread,
Feb 18, 2023, 4:25:45 AM2/18/23
to
On 2023-02-18 09:01:56 +0000, Thomas Heger said:

>
> [ … ]
>
> 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
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


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

Thomas Heger

unread,
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

JanPB

unread,
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,
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.

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

> I wrote more than 400 annotations and most of them aare bout errors in
> Einstein's text.

All of them are your errors only.

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

There are no "formal errors" in that paper.

> missing quotes
> unclear formulations
> wrong or reused variables

These are not errors. You simply are not familiar with certain notational
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.

Not really "discussed". Your arguments are all errors or misunderstandings.
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.

These are, again, microscopic changes which, again, every science paper
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).

This was the custom back then. Look up Annalen der Physik from around
that time and you'll see multitudes of papers with no references in them.

--
Jan

Athel Cornish-Bowden

unread,
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?
>
> 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


Thomas Heger

unread,
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.

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".

Well, wrong...

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.


Well, then show me at least one.

...


TH

J. J. Lodder

unread,
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.
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

JanPB

unread,
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
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...

But you don't understand it. This is very obvious. Not only that, you missed
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.

You still don't understand it. This is very obvious.

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

No, you can't. But the state of your ignorance is such that you cannot
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.

This means nothing. This is a lunchtime entertainment group.

--
Jan

Volney

unread,
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.
>
> 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.
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
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?
>
> 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.
>
>>> 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.

Maciej Wozniak

unread,
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
clocks to your ISO idiocy means "Newton
mode"?
You're such an amazing idiot, stupid
Mike.

JanPB

unread,
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 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

Paul B. Andersen

unread,
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
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.

But eventually you did understand it? :-D

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

JanPB

unread,
Feb 20, 2023, 4:30:36 AM2/20/23
to
What he writes here is incredibly naive, this is high school wave motion
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

Thomas Heger

unread,
Feb 20, 2023, 3:25:33 PM2/20/23
to
Actually I'm not dealing with the methaphysical content of Einstein's text.

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

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

TH

Thomas Heger

unread,
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.

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

Thomas Heger

unread,
Feb 20, 2023, 3:49:23 PM2/20/23
to
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.

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

JanPB

unread,
Feb 21, 2023, 4:44:13 AM2/21/23
to
They are either irrelevant or incorrect.

> 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

JanPB

unread,
Feb 21, 2023, 5:44:40 AM2/21/23
to
No, you are not. What you are writing is like writing details about the shape of the
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.

None of it is of any importance whatsoever. Again, you are here debating
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?

The very fact that you have to ask this question means that you
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.

Yes, but those are not valid complaints. Einstein's use of certain
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.

That's irrelevant. Mathematics alone (let alone physics) cannot be
formalised as Goedel demonstrated in the 1930s.

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

Yes. But you don't solve this problem by silly "annotating". You solve
this problem by learning the subject.

> My guess was, that phase angles were actually meant, but cannot read the
> author's mind.

You don't need to read the author's mind. The expression (using the complex
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

Paul B. Andersen

unread,
Feb 21, 2023, 3:48:31 PM2/21/23
to
Here you demonstrate:
- 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.

You said you were "forced to understand every single word in the text"
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.

This reminds me of a Dilbert story.
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?

This is defined:

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.

The reason is simple. You are ignorant of elementary physics,
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.

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

Thomas Heger

unread,
Feb 23, 2023, 2:39:15 AM2/23/23
to
Well, this is theoretical physics and that is based on perfectionism in
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

Thomas Heger

unread,
Feb 23, 2023, 2:46:44 AM2/23/23
to
Why is this nonsense??

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.
oh dear..


...


TH

JanPB

unread,
Feb 23, 2023, 3:29:00 AM2/23/23
to
No, this is most definitely not how this works. Perfectionism is in fact
detrimental to understanding in scientific writing. This is well-known.

> 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.

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

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

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

It's not an issue, just like rubato is not an "issue" in music performance.

> The reuse of variable names for different quantities makes it difficult
> to identify the intendend meaning.

To an inexperienced reader, yes. This is not the intended audience, however.
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.

This is standard and an aid in exposition and understanding. Obviously,
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.

Everything is defined to a sufficient degree in that paper.

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

They are mostly irrelevant.

--
Jan

JanPB

unread,
Feb 23, 2023, 3:53:00 AM2/23/23
to
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.

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.

> If you reject this, you should try a different occupation or demand the
> money back from whomever told you what you are believing.

Of course I reject this because what you've just said is not even wrong.

> > The source is stationary in K at infinity.
> oh dear..

Yes, oh dear (but this exclamation is not what you think).

--
Jan

Paul B. Andersen

unread,
Feb 23, 2023, 2:33:03 PM2/23/23
to
This was explained in the part you snipped.
Do you not read what you are responding to?

>> 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! 😂

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/

Richard Hachel

unread,
Feb 23, 2023, 3:57:15 PM2/23/23
to
What you say is entirely true, except that you say it was calculated by
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.

Absolutly.

R.H.

Richard Hachel

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

Thomas Heger

unread,
Feb 24, 2023, 2:47:25 AM2/24/23
to
In this case I have written about the authors and the text they write.

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.


sure, but I'm the reader and complained about unidentifiable variable names.

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.


It was actually very hard to keep track of Einsteins variables.

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.

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

Paul B. Andersen

unread,
Feb 24, 2023, 8:39:59 AM2/24/23
to
So it was NOT calculated by Einstein, but it WAS calculated by YOU? :-D

>
> 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>
>
> R.H.

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

Richard Hachel

unread,
Feb 24, 2023, 9:28:13 AM2/24/23
to
I remind you that I have always said that there were things that did not
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>

Python

unread,
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.



Richard Hachel

unread,
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>

Thomas Heger

unread,
Feb 25, 2023, 6:07:15 AM2/25/23
to
You could equally allow elves as scientific influence!


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

JanPB

unread,
Feb 25, 2023, 6:32:01 AM2/25/23
to
I may do that for other readers. It most likely not work for you because
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.

There can be no comments made about your annotations because they
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

JanPB

unread,
Feb 25, 2023, 6:57:02 AM2/25/23
to
No, this is a very basic (high school level) method of scientific modelling.
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'.

This sort of thing is very basic, straight from ancient Greece.

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

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

> 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.

> 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.

> 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.

> 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.

> 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.

> 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.

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.

Have you read any E&M textbook? You consider Maxwell's equations,
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.

Irrelevant. You are mixing apples and oranges.

--
Jan

Thomas Heger

unread,
Feb 26, 2023, 2:19:52 AM2/26/23
to
'Ancient Greece' is not quite the era, which you may call 'contemporary'.

(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

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.

>> 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.

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?

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.

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.


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.

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.

Well, no.

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.

Ooops


'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

Paparios

unread,
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.

Maciej Wozniak

unread,
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,
was obviously inconsistent.

J. J. Lodder

unread,
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:
=========
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


JanPB

unread,
Feb 26, 2023, 2:58:21 PM2/26/23
to
I was simply pointing out that idealisation (like infinity in this case or
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

This is false.

> or:
>
> inf - x = inf
>
> inf + x = inf

These are a bit better in some sense.

> or:
>
> inf > x for all x element of R

You can define "inf" that way, yes.

> 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.

Leibniz (no "t", although the misspelling is ancient).
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.

Again, you are barking a nonexistent tree. Plane waves are, and
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?

It's an irrelevancy. You are spinning wheels.

> >> 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?

Plane waves are not spherical. Their wave fronts (surfaces of constant
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.

Yes, exactly. Neither do light rays, planes or lines of geometry, etc. etc.

> >> 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.

These are not approximations in the sense you use the term. These are
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.

Nonsense.

> 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.

No, both the stationary and the moving observer are at an arbitrary (fixed)
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.

Hire a starving physics grad student from the nearest university to explain
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

Volney

unread,
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.

> Infinity is further away than any numerical distance (or: inf >> x for
> all x element of R).

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

And nobody does. "Reasonably far away" means "reasonably close to what
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
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
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...
>
> 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?

>
> 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.

If it looks too much like the shell of a spherical wave front, the
"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.

It's not "Einstein's arguments", it is what EVERY scientist and engineer
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.

Exactly.
>>
>>> 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!
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
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
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!

Sylvia Else

unread,
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
> 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.

Sylvia.

Connie Scutese

unread,
Feb 27, 2023, 6:32:53 PM2/27/23