New annotated version of SRT

[Thomas Heger]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

View by Nemo

<http://news2.nemoweb.net/?DataID=dAuhdCA-MTa4mn1f0yVPqbUk3qU@jntp>

R.H.

[Thomas Heger]

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]

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]

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]

M.D. Richard "Hachel" Lengrand wrote:
> I am fat and arrogant

You are. Also ignorant and an imbecile.

[Richard Hachel]

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]

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]

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]

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]

'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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

2 Full Minutes Of U.S. Politicians Threatening To Blow Up Nord Stream
Pipelines
https://%62%69%74%63%68%75%74%65.com/video/RMxr1H0ciIN2

no sane person on this planet will ever taking for good, the cacamerican
lying bitches, inbreed *_terrorists_* and liars, global scale. It was
clear along the *_death_vaccination_*, demanded and imposed along
continents. You repulsive cacamericans subhuman excrements. You are still
immigrants on that territory.

[Thomas Heger]

Einstein mentioned on page 16: '...if an observer is moving with
velocity v relatively to an infinitely distant source of light '.

I have complained about this statement, because velocity v in respect to
infinity is always zero.

It was therefor a VERY !!!! bad idea to make such a statement.

Also planes waves are not real world waves, but local approximations to
spherical waves from distant sources.

That approximation is actually ok, but not in the context, which
Einstein used.

The validity of this approximation would require, that the realm of
observation is not moved around with considerable velocity (what
Einstein actually wanted to do).


...

>>>> 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!

Sorry, but I cannot follow your arguments.

Waves have a source and that source was actually mentioned (see above).

Now plane waves are really plane and extend infinitely sideways without
any curvature.

But such waves do not exist, because they are physically impossible.

What in fact exists is a plane wave as local approximation for a limited
realm, which that wave hits.

>>> 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.

Actually the statement above is hard to interpret, which has nothing to
do with physics, but with unidentifiable intensions of the author.

I had complained, that real plane waves do not exist, hence could not be
used in Einstein's setting.

It is actually possible to use plane waves as approximations in many
practical applications, e.g. in lens design.

But lenses have no infinite extensions, like the space, where Einstein
wanted to move around with his observer.



...


TH

[Thomas Heger]

Am 26.02.2023 um 20:38 schrieb J. J. Lodder:

>>> 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 text was analysed by me. That was a project started by a dispute
with the local regular 'Dono', who spit out insults, because I had
complained about errors in this text.

I had regarded Einstein's text simply as 'bad science' and didn't care
too much about it.

But these constant insults annoyed me, hence I wanted to make my
critique a little more explicit.

I found later the topic interesting and the method I have used as quite
a good learning tool. So I have finished my project now and wanted to
let you know about my result.

> 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....)

A sphere the two-dimensional is the surface of a ball, hence has no
thickness.

'Kugel' means actually 'ball', what is a massive, solid object.

Two dimensional objects have no material content, hence cannot be
treated similar to 3d-objects. Especially the sphere is not rigid,
because the material is so strong, but because it is an imagined object
and you cannot bent imaginations.

> 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,

No scientist would ever call a cow 'spherical'.

You could, however, approximate cows by balls in a few special cases.

E.g. I could imagine a possible use of such a model for certain
situations, where e.g. a herd of cattle is forced into a cage.

But usually cows behave too different to balls, that such a modell would
be regarded as useless.


TH
>
>
>

[Thomas Heger]

Why not?


This is the relativity forum of the Usenet and my critique would
certainly fit to the subject of this board.


TH

[Sylvia Else]

How many times do you need to show that you have no understanding of
what Einstein wrote?

Sylvia.

[Mikko]

On 2023-02-28 08:43:55 +0000, Sylvia Else said:

> On 28-Feb-23 6:30 pm, Thomas Heger wrote:

...

> How many times do you need to show that you have no understanding of
> what Einstein wrote?

There is the risk that we forget him when we focus to those idiots
that have recently posted here.

Mikko

[Richard Hachel]

Le 28/02/2023 à 09:43, Sylvia Else a écrit :
>
> How many times do you need to show that you have no understanding of
> what Einstein wrote?
>
> Sylvia.

Uh... Do you really think that I understand everything that Einstein wrote
(or badly copied)?

No, I do not understand.

Minkowski block, I don't understand.

Contraction of distances and expansions of durations, I don't understand
the equations.

Bearholes, wormholes, white fountains and time travel, I don't understand.

Proper time of accelerated objects, I don't understand.

Relativistic instantaneous velocities of accelerated objects, I don't have
the same equations.

They tell me that I'm stupid and that I don't understand anything.

It's better, so everyone can sleep peacefully.

R.H.

[JanPB]

This is false. Think about it. And think what we've been telling you about
the meaning of infinitely far as a limit of arbitrary large distance.

> It was therefor a VERY !!!! bad idea to make such a statement.

No, it was a very standard idea.

> Also planes waves are not real world waves, but local approximations to
> spherical waves from distant sources.

Yes.

> That approximation is actually ok, but not in the context, which
> Einstein used.

It's very appropriate (also standard).

> The validity of this approximation would require, that the realm of
> observation is not moved around with considerable velocity (what
> Einstein actually wanted to do).

No, completely incorrect.

> >>>> 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!
> Sorry, but I cannot follow your arguments.
>
> Waves have a source and that source was actually mentioned (see above).

The wave is given as a plane wave. Wave planes have no sources, they are
unphysical and they are limits of physical waves with sources at finite
distances. Physics and mathematics are full of models of that kind,
the principle;e of using such models goes back to ancient Greece.

> Now plane waves are really plane and extend infinitely sideways without
> any curvature.
>
> But such waves do not exist, because they are physically impossible.

This is irrelevant in the context of the scientific method. What you demand
is some sort of Mediaeval Scholastics. It may have its domain of validity but
it's not science.

> What in fact exists is a plane wave as local approximation for a limited
> realm, which that wave hits.

Correct but irrelevant here.

> >>> 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.
> Actually the statement above is hard to interpret, which has nothing to
> do with physics, but with unidentifiable intensions of the author.

I simply said that if one takes a plane wave and puts it in the Maxwell's
equations, the resulting constraints on the wave will imply that at a
media boundary the light rays must refract according to Snell's law.
This is shown in any book on E&M.

> I had complained, that real plane waves do not exist, hence could not be
> used in Einstein's setting.

This is incorrect. And it's not "Einstein", it's everybody and his mother.
Just look inside any textbook on E&M, radiation, etc.

> It is actually possible to use plane waves as approximations in many
> practical applications, e.g. in lens design.
>
> But lenses have no infinite extensions, like the space, where Einstein
> wanted to move around with his observer.

The point I made was in response to your complaints about "putting"
the source "at infinity". I simply responded that this was a standard
application of a standard limiting process, as in geometry, calculus,
and other countless applications in physics and mathematics, like
in lens design where aberrations are calculated by considering light
sources at infinity (and at finite distances as well).

--
Jan

[Volney]

And he previously stated: "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 [plane wave
equation]". His intended audience (not you) knows he's about to use
plane waves for something, he's stating the source is far enough that
the approximation of a plane wave is less than some small error range.
At the time scientists typically discarded higher powers of some
polynomial or Taylor expansion.

>
> I have complained about this statement, because velocity v in respect to
> infinity is always zero.
>
> It was therefor a VERY !!!! bad idea to make such a statement.

He states the "very far from the origin" is in the system K. The wave
equations he lists are that of a stationary source in K.

>
> Also planes waves are not real world waves, but local approximations to
> spherical waves from distant sources.

Once again, SUCH APPROXIMATIONS ARE USED ALL THE TIME. Plane waves are
very convenient to work with. Especially with optics. Even cameras with
a focal distance setting have an "infinity" setting.

> That approximation is actually ok, but not in the context, which
> Einstein used.

It's just as valid there as anywhere else. The general attitude with
plane waves in a science or engineering work is that they exist for the
example, if, how or whether they can be formed is irrelevant. If they
exist they propagate just fine.

>
> The validity of this approximation would require, that the realm of
> observation is not moved around with considerable velocity (what
> Einstein actually wanted to do).

Sure it can! It just has to be far enough away. Einstein writes of the
distant source: "may be represented to a SUFFICIENT degree of
approximation". Not sufficient? Use a more distant source! His target
audience (again, not you) considers that statement as "boilerplate" to
define usage of a plane wave.

>
>
> ...
>
>>>>> 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!
>
>
> Sorry, but I cannot follow your arguments.
>
> Waves have a source and that source was actually mentioned (see above).

Irrelevant. He defined the origin of the system K, and even stated that
the source of the plane wave is "very far from the origin of
co-ordinates". I have no idea why you want to use its source as origin
when the origin of system K was already defined.

>
> Now plane waves are really plane and extend infinitely sideways without
> any curvature.
>
> But such waves do not exist, because they are physically impossible.

So what? He stated "may be represented to a sufficient degree of
approximation". Again, this is done all the freaking time!

>
> What in fact exists is a plane wave as local approximation for a limited
> realm, which that wave hits.

"May be represented to a sufficient degree of approximation".

>
>>>> 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.
>
>
> Actually the statement above is hard to interpret, which has nothing to
> do with physics, but with unidentifiable intensions of the author.

Maybe hard to interpret for you, but any scientist or engineer sees it
as a simple statement how plane waves are used as an ideal source to
work with.

>
> I had complained, that real plane waves do not exist, hence could not be
> used in Einstein's setting.

"May be represented to a sufficient degree of approximation".

>
> It is actually possible to use plane waves as approximations in many
> practical applications, e.g. in lens design.

And SR.

>
> But lenses have no infinite extensions, like the space, where Einstein
> wanted to move around with his observer.

Irrelevant. For a larger distance, you need a more distant source. If
you are fine with an "infinite extension" for the domain of SR, then you
should be fine with an infinitely distant source. And for the zillionth
time, his target audience, other scientists, weren't going to nitpick
over plane waves, they used them as well.

[Maciej Wozniak]

And do you still believe that adjusting
clocks to your ISO idiocy means some
"Newton mode"? You're such an amazing
idiot, stupid Mike.

[Thomas Heger]

There have been large amounts of 'standard ideas', which turned out to
be wrong:

'Miasma' as cause of desease, for instance.

It is therefore an exceptionally dangerous idea to justify believes by
'standard ideas'.

>> Also planes waves are not real world waves, but local approximations to
>> spherical waves from distant sources.
>
> Yes.
>
>> That approximation is actually ok, but not in the context, which
>> Einstein used.
>
> It's very appropriate (also standard).
>
>> The validity of this approximation would require, that the realm of
>> observation is not moved around with considerable velocity (what
>> Einstein actually wanted to do).
>
> No, completely incorrect.

No!

If you fly around in empty space with velocties near the speed of light,
than the 'realm of validity of that approximation' would be left very soon.

Therefore, relativistic effects require spherical waves and proper
definition of the intended angles.

>>>>>> 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!
>> Sorry, but I cannot follow your arguments.
>>
>> Waves have a source and that source was actually mentioned (see above).
>
> The wave is given as a plane wave. Wave planes have no sources, they are
> unphysical and they are limits of physical waves with sources at finite
> distances. Physics and mathematics are full of models of that kind,
> the principle;e of using such models goes back to ancient Greece.

'Planes waves have no sources' is another of these statements, which
'flatten' me.

>> Now plane waves are really plane and extend infinitely sideways without
>> any curvature.
>>
>> But such waves do not exist, because they are physically impossible.
>
> This is irrelevant in the context of the scientific method. What you demand
> is some sort of Mediaeval Scholastics. It may have its domain of validity but
> it's not science.

Why not elves, if existence is irrelevant?

...


TH

[JanPB]

Yes but the order of magnitude is important.

> 'Miasma' as cause of desease, for instance.

Yes but it's one thing to say "miasma causes diseases" and quite
another to say "2 + 2 = 5". They are not even comparable.

> It is therefore an exceptionally dangerous idea to justify believes by
> 'standard ideas'.

Therefore, you are wrong regarding plane waves.

> >> Also planes waves are not real world waves, but local approximations to
> >> spherical waves from distant sources.
> >
> > Yes.
> >
> >> That approximation is actually ok, but not in the context, which
> >> Einstein used.
> >
> > It's very appropriate (also standard).
> >
> >> The validity of this approximation would require, that the realm of
> >> observation is not moved around with considerable velocity (what
> >> Einstein actually wanted to do).
> >
> > No, completely incorrect.
> No!
>
> If you fly around in empty space with velocties near the speed of light,
> than the 'realm of validity of that approximation' would be left very soon.

No, it won't be. You need to think this through before posting.
Or hire a tutor first. Again, please try to understand that if something
appears wrong to you, it doesn't mean it's wrong.

> Therefore, relativistic effects require spherical waves and proper
> definition of the intended angles.

No, incorrect. You are missing the entire point of modelling, beginning
with 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!
> >>> Einstein defines the origin he uses in S and S', and the math and
> >>> physics are just fine!
> >> Sorry, but I cannot follow your arguments.
> >>
> >> Waves have a source and that source was actually mentioned (see above).
> >
> > The wave is given as a plane wave. Wave planes have no sources, they are
> > unphysical and they are limits of physical waves with sources at finite
> > distances. Physics and mathematics are full of models of that kind,
> > the principle;e of using such models goes back to ancient Greece.
> 'Planes waves have no sources' is another of these statements, which
> 'flatten' me.
> >> Now plane waves are really plane and extend infinitely sideways without
> >> any curvature.
> >>
> >> But such waves do not exist, because they are physically impossible.
> >
> > This is irrelevant in the context of the scientific method. What you demand
> > is some sort of Mediaeval Scholastics. It may have its domain of validity but
> > it's not science.
> Why not elves, if existence is irrelevant?

Same answer as using geometric concepts like lines and curves which
don't exist either. It's a method of acquiring knowledge that's very old.

--
Jan

[Tom Roberts]

On 3/1/23 2:27 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> [...]

Your fallacy is like the claim "there can be no square boards". Any
carpenter can cut a board so it is square, in the usual sense of
"square" in the context of carpentry. So within that context the claim
is wrong.

Similarly, your claim "there can be no plane waves" is wrong in the
context of physics.

The carpenter can cut a board to be square to within the accuracy and
precision of a carpenter's measuring tools. The physicist can consider
a wave with wavefronts that are planar to within the accuracy and
precision of a physicist's measuring tools.

Bottom line: context matters, and physics is not math.

Tom Roberts

[HGW]

On 25/2/23 00:39, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Den 23.02.2023 21:57, skrev Richard Hachel:
>> Le 23/02/2023 à 20:33, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :
Hello Paul. Nice to see you are still alive and just as deluded as ever.
You will be pleased to hear that I have now completed my great book
which summarizes the pros and cons of Einstein's theories and provides a
host of novel and relevant facts regarding their introduction and
acceptance.

Since you get a mention, I offer you first chance to read it on the
condition of course that you do not plagiarize any of my many
sensational discoveries.
You can read the introduction here:

http://www.ralfslab.net/books/IntroBit.pdf

The book will be for sale soon.

[Thomas Heger]

Am 01.03.2023 um 19:26 schrieb Tom Roberts:
> On 3/1/23 2:27 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>> [...]
>
> Your fallacy is like the claim "there can be no square boards". Any
> carpenter can cut a board so it is square, in the usual sense of
> "square" in the context of carpentry. So within that context the claim
> is wrong.
>
> Similarly, your claim "there can be no plane waves" is wrong in the
> context of physics.

Actually I have written, that plane waves would exist as approximations
of real world waves, were the source is far away and the realm of
observation is small in comparison to the distance of the source.

So far there is no problem at all.

But the question was, whether or not this approxination is possible in
the context of SRT.

I wrote, that this would not be the case, because SRT is about fast
movements mainly.

In this case a very large spherical wave, which was created by a very
distant emitter, would soon turn out to be curved, if you pace along
that sphere near the speed of light.

Not that the issue would matter too much.

But actually I was critizised for mentioning that.

Therefore, I was forced to insist, that the problem might be of minor
importance, but it was nevertheless an error in the text, which I could
rightfully critizise.

> The carpenter can cut a board to be square to within the accuracy and
> precision of a carpenter's measuring tools. The physicist can consider
> a wave with wavefronts that are planar to within the accuracy and
> precision of a physicist's measuring tools.
>
> Bottom line: context matters, and physics is not math.

Well yes.

But theoretical physics, like SRT, is an exception from this rule,
because theoretical physics rests mainly on math.


TH

[Thomas Heger]

You can do that and focus on the clothes, which someone wears.

But certainly you do not want to make this claim about my annotations to
Einstein's text.

My annotations do not cover the person Einstein at all, especially not
his clothes.

I could have mentioned a few odd habbits of Einstein, but actually
didn't (at least not in my annotations).

As I have written before, my annotations follow a certain perspective
and serve a specific purpose.

The perspective is that of a hypothetical physics professor, who had to
written corrections for the homework of a student (Einstein in this case).

The aim was not, to correct the errors in Einstein's text or critizise
Einstein himself.

The method used was actually a certain variant of what is called
'critical reading', which is actually a learning tool.

But finally I got a certain result, which I have presented here.

In case you don't like my result, you may eventually write a critique
about my annotations and show errors in them.

But you should stick to the subject which are my annotations and not my
clothes or me as a person.


TH

[Thomas Heger]

Am 28.02.2023 um 09:43 schrieb Sylvia Else:

>> This is the relativity forum of the Usenet and my critique would
>> certainly fit to the subject of this board.
>>
>
> How many times do you need to show that you have no understanding of
> what Einstein wrote?
>

My understanding of what Einstein wrote is written in my annotations.

In case you think that my annotations contain errors, you need to tell
me, which annotation you have in mind and what is wrong with it.


TH

[Sylvia Else]

Did that before. You didn't understand then, and I've no reason to think
that you will now.

Sylvia.

[JanPB]

I know. Look up "simile".

--
Jan

[JanPB]

This has been done dozens of times already. You simply ignore
what people are telling you.

--
Jan

[Thomas Heger]

Am 03.03.2023 um 13:03 schrieb Sylvia Else:

>>> How many times do you need to show that you have no understanding of
>>> what Einstein wrote?
>>>
>>
>>
>> My understanding of what Einstein wrote is written in my annotations.
>>
>> In case you think that my annotations contain errors, you need to tell
>> me, which annotation you have in mind and what is wrong with it.
>>
>>
>> TH
>
> Did that before. You didn't understand then, and I've no reason to think
> that you will now.

Well, I have a certain approach to writing a text, which is based on
stepwise refinement.

This process isn't particularily fast, but can bring very good results.

Now I have rewritten my annotations several times and are therefore
confident, that almost all errors in it were eliminated.

A few errors are certainly still remaining in these annotations. That's
why I asked you to tell me, were you have found any flaws in them.

So, in case you like to do so, then please tell me, were you have found
something wrong in them.

TH

[Thomas Heger]

No, that's wrong.

I have discussed a great number of topics in this forum in great detail.

From these discussion I took as hints, what ever was possible.

Such hints went into my annotations, hence I had to rewrite them (what I
did).

This is a certain method of writing, which I frequently use. It is based
on the idea that you start with a rough sketch and make this better in a
large number of steps.

Therefore I assume, that my annotations get better over time.

Now I'm (almost) certain, that only a few annotations could be attacked
succesfully.


A little polish would be nice, nevertheless, hence I would like to
discuss them.

But apparently you are unwilling to do so, possibly because you haven't
found an error yet.

TH

[Sylvia Else]

On 05-Mar-23 5:59 pm, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 03.03.2023 um 13:03 schrieb Sylvia Else:
>
>>>> How many times do you need to show that you have no understanding of
>>>> what Einstein wrote?
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> My understanding of what Einstein wrote is written in my annotations.
>>>
>>> In case you think that my annotations contain errors, you need to tell
>>> me, which annotation you have in mind and what is wrong with it.
>>>
>>>
>>> TH
>>
>> Did that before. You didn't understand then, and I've no reason to think
>> that you will now.
>
> Well, I have a certain approach to writing a text, which is based on
> stepwise refinement.

You mean writing nonsense, and getting other people to correct it for you.

Sylvia.

[JanPB]

On Saturday, March 4, 2023 at 11:05:03 PM UTC-8, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 03.03.2023 um 18:10 schrieb JanPB:
> > On Thursday, March 2, 2023 at 11:47:58 PM UTC-8, Thomas Heger wrote:
> >> Am 28.02.2023 um 09:43 schrieb Sylvia Else:
> >>
> >>>> This is the relativity forum of the Usenet and my critique would
> >>>> certainly fit to the subject of this board.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> How many times do you need to show that you have no understanding of
> >>> what Einstein wrote?
> >>>
> >> My understanding of what Einstein wrote is written in my annotations.
> >>
> >> In case you think that my annotations contain errors, you need to tell
> >> me, which annotation you have in mind and what is wrong with it.
> >
> > This has been done dozens of times already. You simply ignore
> > what people are telling you.
> No, that's wrong.
>
> I have discussed a great number of topics in this forum in great detail.
>
> From these discussion I took as hints, what ever was possible.
>
> Such hints went into my annotations, hence I had to rewrite them (what I
> did).

You still don't understand what people are telling you: all of your
annotations are either incorrect or at best correct but trivial and useless,
and should be removed, with the entire project scrapped. Its continued
existence only creates the fractally self-perpetuating and self-similar
mythological patterns of confusion. To use a musical analogy again,
you are like a piano student who, through some perverse sequence of events,
was misled into learning by studying the quirks and ages-old conventions
of sheet music engraving. Your annotations are like: "It's sloppy to have
the stem of the flat sign printed with a non-uniform width, therefore Beethoven
was being sloppy", etc. (Yes, the nonuniform width of those stems
are intentional. It's just like the Greek columns: they are not
perfectly conical because of the way optical illusions work: the
columns (and the flat signs) would look ugly if they were mathematically
completely correct. For the same reason the Parthenon columns are
not 100% parallel.)

> This is a certain method of writing, which I frequently use. It is based
> on the idea that you start with a rough sketch and make this better in a
> large number of steps.

Sure, it's a very good approach.

> Therefore I assume, that my annotations get better over time.

No, because you don't have even a rough sketch here. You have,
instead, a fantasy with practically zero content. It's best
abandoned completely. It only serves to mislead you into
thinking you have something worth continuing or improving.

Sometimes a project is best abandoned rather than attempted to
be improved upon ad infinitum.

> But apparently you are unwilling to do so, possibly because you haven't
> found an error yet.

Practically all of your annotations are errors. You simply refuse
to accept this fact. I can understand that, it's not a nice feeling
to be told that all the time spent on them was a waste. But maybe
not 100%: if you are going to be honest with yourself, it could be
a good experience which would proof you against similar
useless exercises in self-deception in the future.

Please understand: generations of scientists that have been
working around the planet, across all continents and cultures
over the centuries were/are REALLY not stupid.

--
Jan

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

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

> 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.

To be taken seriously you need to find out what Poincaré's publication
was called. Three errors in six words is too many, if you want to be
more than a joke.

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

Why is it impossible? If you know German and English you should be able
to make some sense of it. I don't speak Portuguese, but if there was an
important paper in Portuguese I needed to read I could manage to get
most of the sense (with the help of Spanish).

>
> 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

[J. J. Lodder]

Yes, and there is historic precedent for that.
It is known that Maxwell learned some Dutch
because there was a paper by Van der Waals
that he wanted to understand,

Jan

[Thomas Heger]

I have written my annotations entirely myself.

I had actually the impression, that you think my annotations contain
errors. In that case it would be nice, if you tell me, where you have
found something wrong.

TH

[Thomas Heger]

Am 05.03.2023 um 19:28 schrieb JanPB:

>>>>>
>>>>> How many times do you need to show that you have no understanding of
>>>>> what Einstein wrote?
>>>>>
>>>> My understanding of what Einstein wrote is written in my annotations.
>>>>
>>>> In case you think that my annotations contain errors, you need to tell
>>>> me, which annotation you have in mind and what is wrong with it.
>>>
>>> This has been done dozens of times already. You simply ignore
>>> what people are telling you.
>> No, that's wrong.
>>
>> I have discussed a great number of topics in this forum in great detail.
>>
>> From these discussion I took as hints, what ever was possible.
>>
>> Such hints went into my annotations, hence I had to rewrite them (what I
>> did).
>
> You still don't understand what people are telling you: all of your
> annotations are either incorrect or at best correct but trivial and useless,
> and should be removed, with the entire project scrapped. Its continued
> existence only creates the fractally self-perpetuating and self-similar
> mythological patterns of confusion.

'Useless' is not a scientific criterion, because many scientific
discoveries do not serve any obvious purpose.

I wrote my annotations as kind of hobby. And hobbies do not serve any
obvious purpose, neither.

Su, well, yes, my annotations are seemingly useless.

But I could live with 'uselessness', because 'useful' was not really my aim.

These annotations stem from a dispute with a guy named 'Dono' and should
be counted as reply.

The specific form is something that I frequently use as a learning aid.

But in case you like to disprove the content of any of my annotations,

than feel free to do so.

...

TH

[Thomas Heger]

Sorry, but I have never claimed to speak French.

I understand a little, but correct spelling is beyond my abilities.

>>> (Dutch is impossible for me, hence I had to leave Hendrik Lorentz away.)
>>
>> Why is it impossible? If you know German and English you should be able

>> to make some sense of it. ...

Possibly. But why should I?

> Yes, and there is historic precedent for that.
> It is known that Maxwell learned some Dutch
> because there was a paper by Van der Waals
> that he wanted to understand,

Poincare was actually translated into German and English, but very
difficult to understand and not really my topic.

Therefore I only mentioned the text of Poincare about the electron,
which I have 'read' in French.

I was actually interested in the question, whether or not there are
similarities between Einstein's text and that of Poincaré.

And there are some similarities.

This is astonishing, because the text of Poincare was published a few
days after Einstein handed in his paper.

Missing quotes and references was critizised by me, too.

But the name 'Poincaré' was missing entirely in Einstein's text, even if
Poincare's text is seemingly related.

Lorentz is also translated into German. But to read his works was still
beyond my temporal limits.

The original Dutch is not really an option for me, because I hardly
understand a word in that language.



TH

[Volney]

You have been repeatedly told where your annotations are wrong or at
best irrelevant. You ignore that and come back with "I wish someone
would tell me where errors were found in my annotations".

[Maciej Wozniak]

On Monday, 6 March 2023 at 09:16:21 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
> On 3/6/2023 2:26 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> > Am 05.03.2023 um 08:49 schrieb Sylvia Else:
> >> On 05-Mar-23 5:59 pm, Thomas Heger wrote:
> >>> Am 03.03.2023 um 13:03 schrieb Sylvia Else:
> >>>
> >>>>>> How many times do you need to show that you have no understanding of
> >>>>>> what Einstein wrote?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> My understanding of what Einstein wrote is written in my annotations.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> In case you think that my annotations contain errors, you need to tell
> >>>>> me, which annotation you have in mind and what is wrong with it.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> TH
> >>>>
> >>>> Did that before. You didn't understand then, and I've no reason to
> >>>> think
> >>>> that you will now.
> >>>
> >>> Well, I have a certain approach to writing a text, which is based on
> >>> stepwise refinement.
> >>
> >> You mean writing nonsense, and getting other people to correct it for
> >> you.
> >
> > I have written my annotations entirely myself.
> >
> > I had actually the impression, that you think my annotations contain
> > errors. In that case it would be nice, if you tell me, where you have
> > found something wrong.
> You have been repeatedly told where your annotations are wrong

And adjusting the clocks to your ISO idiocy is
some "Newton mode".

[J. J. Lodder]

You obviously haven't even bothered to look for it.
Most of Lorentz' original work was published in German,
much less of it in English, very little in French.

Go find a better excuse for your ignorance,

Jan

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

(Sorry, but you'll all need to work out who said what. The server
thought my original version was in HTML. I can't imagine why it thought
that.)

Copying and pasting doesn't require expertise in spelling.

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

Why is it impossible? If you know German and English you should be able
to make some sense of it. ...

Possibly. But why should I?

Because you yourself said that you "*had* to leave Hendrik Lorentz
away" (my emphasis.

[JanPB]

On Monday, March 6, 2023 at 8:34:57 AM UTC+1, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 05.03.2023 um 19:28 schrieb JanPB:
>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> How many times do you need to show that you have no understanding of
> >>>>> what Einstein wrote?
> >>>>>
> >>>> My understanding of what Einstein wrote is written in my annotations.
> >>>>
> >>>> In case you think that my annotations contain errors, you need to tell
> >>>> me, which annotation you have in mind and what is wrong with it.
> >>>
> >>> This has been done dozens of times already. You simply ignore
> >>> what people are telling you.
> >> No, that's wrong.
> >>
> >> I have discussed a great number of topics in this forum in great detail.
> >>
> >> From these discussion I took as hints, what ever was possible.
> >>
> >> Such hints went into my annotations, hence I had to rewrite them (what I
> >> did).
> >
> > You still don't understand what people are telling you: all of your
> > annotations are either incorrect or at best correct but trivial and useless,
> > and should be removed, with the entire project scrapped. Its continued
> > existence only creates the fractally self-perpetuating and self-similar
> > mythological patterns of confusion.
>
> 'Useless' is not a scientific criterion, because many scientific
> discoveries do not serve any obvious purpose.

Isn't it obvious what I mean? "Obvious" in the sense your work on those
notes does not teach you anything.

> I wrote my annotations as kind of hobby. And hobbies do not serve any
> obvious purpose, neither.
>
> Su, well, yes, my annotations are seemingly useless.
>
> But I could live with 'uselessness', because 'useful' was not really my aim.
>
> These annotations stem from a dispute with a guy named 'Dono' and should
> be counted as reply.
>
> The specific form is something that I frequently use as a learning aid.

It isn't. My point is that it's an excellent deception generator.

> But in case you like to disprove the content of any of my annotations,
> than feel free to do so.

This cannot be done, as was explained many times on this NG: the problem
is that in order for someone (like you) to understand our disproofs, you need
to know a bit about the subject matter in the first place. But if things like
plane waves are a problem, then there is really nothing anyone can do for you
unless you start studying physics from the beginning.

--
Jan

[Volney]

Once again, not even wrong.

[Maciej Wozniak]

Wrong, stupid Mike. Just wrong. And - absolutely
- yours. Or did you learn, maybe?

[Volney]

Janitor, you're "not even wrong". See Wolfgang Pauli. He was quoted as
saying "That is not only not right; it is not even wrong". Which
describes your statement perfectly.

[Thomas Heger]

Am 06.03.2023 um 09:16 schrieb Volney:

>>> You mean writing nonsense, and getting other people to correct it for
>>> you.
>>
>> I have written my annotations entirely myself.
>>
>> I had actually the impression, that you think my annotations contain
>> errors. In that case it would be nice, if you tell me, where you have
>> found something wrong.
>
> You have been repeatedly told where your annotations are wrong or at
> best irrelevant. You ignore that and come back with "I wish someone
> would tell me where errors were found in my annotations".
>

And I have repeatedly asked, what's wrong with them.

'Irrelevant' is ok, but not really an argument, because relevance is as
irrelevant as usefulness, if you don't say, in respect to what that is
irrelevant.

If you refuse to say, where you have found an error, this is equivalent
to say, that you have found no error.

That's ok for me, too.


TH

[Maciej Wozniak]

On Tuesday, 7 March 2023 at 06:20:45 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
> On 3/6/2023 1:57 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > On Monday, 6 March 2023 at 18:35:37 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
> >> On 3/6/2023 3:42 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >>> On Monday, 6 March 2023 at 09:16:21 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
> >>>> On 3/6/2023 2:26 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> >>
> >>>>> I have written my annotations entirely myself.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I had actually the impression, that you think my annotations contain
> >>>>> errors. In that case it would be nice, if you tell me, where you have
> >>>>> found something wrong.
> >>>> You have been repeatedly told where your annotations are wrong
> >>>
> >>> And adjusting the clocks to your ISO idiocy is
> >>> some "Newton mode".
>
> >> Once again, not even wrong.
> >
> > Wrong, stupid Mike. Just wrong.
> Janitor, you're "not even wrong".

But you absolutely are wrong. You believe
that adjusting clocks to your ISO idiocy
means some "Newton mode". An amazing
idiocy, even considering usual level
of relativistic halfbrains.

[Thomas Heger]

Since I can almost sing Einstein's text now and have analysed it in
great length an detail, you can hardly bring me into trouble, if you
write anything about it.

But most people want to discuss the methaphysical content of Einstein's
text and defend it by references to experiments and other texts.

But that was NOT my topic.

So, I don't want to discuss relativity per se, but whether or not
Einstein's text contains errors.

Such errors are of a different kind and cover also formal subjects like
an appropriate naming system or the form of internal references.

Therefore, I discuss the valitity of derivations and not the validity of
the results.

This is so, because valid results can also be drived by wrong methods,
what makes a text wrong, even if the result is correct.

In case you like to disprove any of my statements, you at least need to
tell me, which statement you have in mind.

TH

[Thomas Heger]

I don't need an excuse, because Lorentz wasn't my topic.

I should certainly read something of Lorentz, but this was simply not a
part of my subject.

Sure, there is always something nice and useful. But somehow time is
limitted and you need to cut off things somewhere. Unfortunately Lorentz
fell under this restriction.

But I have also no obligation to read anything of Hendrik Lorentz, but
could, if I like and haved time.


TH

[Thomas Heger]

Am 06.03.2023 um 13:05 schrieb Athel Cornish-Bowden:

> (Dutch is impossible for me, hence I had to leave Hendrik Lorentz away.)
>
> Why is it impossible? If you know German and English you should be able
> to make some sense of it. ...
>
> Possibly. But why should I?
>
> Because you yourself said that you "*had* to leave Hendrik Lorentz away"
> (my emphasis.
>

I can't understand Dutch, hence cannot read the works of Lorentz in
Dutch language.

I can obtain translations, of course, but usually prefer original works.

So, well, yes, Hendrik Lorentz' works fell beyond the limits of my efforts.

Sorry, but that is how it is: you alway miss something.

IOW: it is simply impossible to read all relevant literatur about a topic.

The reason: any single topic is discussed thousands of times and you
simply have not the time to read them all.

Especially SRT is a topic, which is discussed way to often to read all
contributions to that topic in a single lifetime.


TH

[Volney]

On 3/7/2023 3:10 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 06.03.2023 um 09:16 schrieb Volney:
>
>>>> You mean writing nonsense, and getting other people to correct it for
>>>> you.
>>>
>>> I have written my annotations entirely myself.
>>>
>>> I had actually the impression, that you think my annotations contain
>>> errors. In that case it would be nice, if you tell me, where you have
>>> found something wrong.
>>
>> You have been repeatedly told where your annotations are wrong or at
>> best irrelevant. You ignore that and come back with "I wish someone
>> would tell me where errors were found in my annotations".
>>
>
> And I have repeatedly asked, what's wrong with them.

And we repeatedly told you what is wrong with them.

>
> 'Irrelevant' is ok, but not really an argument, because relevance is as
> irrelevant as usefulness, if you don't say, in respect to what that is
> irrelevant.
>
> If you refuse to say, where you have found an error, this is equivalent
> to say, that you have found no error.

Again we *have* told you what the error is, and you ignore us. You
pretend there are no errors and leave the erroneous annotations in.

Since you ignore us, we can only assume you aren't interested in any
corrections so this is just masturbation for you.

[J. J. Lodder]

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

> Am 06.03.2023 um 13:05 schrieb Athel Cornish-Bowden:
>
> > (Dutch is impossible for me, hence I had to leave Hendrik Lorentz away.)
> >
> > Why is it impossible? If you know German and English you should be able
> > to make some sense of it. ...
> >
> > Possibly. But why should I?
> >
> > Because you yourself said that you "*had* to leave Hendrik Lorentz away"
> > (my emphasis.
> >
>
>
>
> I can't understand Dutch, hence cannot read the works of Lorentz in
> Dutch language.
>
> I can obtain translations, of course, but usually prefer original works.
>
> So, well, yes, Hendrik Lorentz' works fell beyond the limits of my efforts.
>
> Sorry, but that is how it is: you alway miss something.

Yes, you have fallen through.
Why not admit you never even looked it up?

FYI, Lorentz seminal works were published in German originally,
less so in French, a few in English,
and English translations exist. Dutch doesn't come into it,

Jan

[JanPB]

On Tuesday, March 7, 2023 at 9:11:01 AM UTC+1, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 06.03.2023 um 09:16 schrieb Volney:
>
> >>> You mean writing nonsense, and getting other people to correct it for
> >>> you.
> >>
> >> I have written my annotations entirely myself.
> >>
> >> I had actually the impression, that you think my annotations contain
> >> errors. In that case it would be nice, if you tell me, where you have
> >> found something wrong.
> >
> > You have been repeatedly told where your annotations are wrong or at
> > best irrelevant. You ignore that and come back with "I wish someone
> > would tell me where errors were found in my annotations".
> >
> And I have repeatedly asked, what's wrong with them.

You were told in detail.

> 'Irrelevant' is ok, but not really an argument,

It's one of the arguments, it addresses one type of error you make.

> because relevance is as
> irrelevant as usefulness, if you don't say, in respect to what that is
> irrelevant.

Many of them are irrelevant. How else one can say that?

> If you refuse to say, where you have found an error,

Nobody is "refusing" except you. Specific technical errors were
pointed out many times, you simply ignore them and keep
asking the same question as if nothing happened.

> this is equivalent
> to say, that you have found no error.

Your notes are literally only errors or at best irrelevancies.
Nothing else.

--
Jan

[Dono.]

On Tuesday, March 7, 2023 at 12:25:04 AM UTC-8, Thomas Heger wrote:

> So, I don't want to discuss relativity per se, but whether or not
> Einstein's text contains errors.

It doesn't . But this will not dissuade you from your idee fixe

[Thomas Heger]

Am 07.03.2023 um 17:15 schrieb JanPB:
> On Tuesday, March 7, 2023 at 9:11:01 AM UTC+1, Thomas Heger wrote:
>> Am 06.03.2023 um 09:16 schrieb Volney:
>>
>>>>> You mean writing nonsense, and getting other people to correct it for
>>>>> you.
>>>>
>>>> I have written my annotations entirely myself.
>>>>
>>>> I had actually the impression, that you think my annotations contain
>>>> errors. In that case it would be nice, if you tell me, where you have
>>>> found something wrong.
>>>
>>> You have been repeatedly told where your annotations are wrong or at
>>> best irrelevant. You ignore that and come back with "I wish someone
>>> would tell me where errors were found in my annotations".
>>>
>> And I have repeatedly asked, what's wrong with them.
>
> You were told in detail.

Sure.

That's why I have rewitten almost all of my annotations.

So, you should refer to errors in my LATEST version, which can be found
here:

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



...

TH

[Thomas Heger]

I have actually no idea what you are trying to tell me.

I have not read anything written by Lorentz, because that was not my
topic (which was 'On the electrodynamics of moving bodies' by A. Einstein).

Sure, I could read Lorentz in case I want to do so, but are in no way
obliged to do that, because the ideas of Hendrik Lorentz did not belong
to my topic.


TH

[Volney]

Did you actually remove all the "annotations" which you were told were
your misunderstandings, irrelevant or simply nonsense? In other words,
is there a decrease in count of about 20?

[Volney]

On 3/7/2023 3:23 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:

> Since I can almost sing Einstein's text now

You may be able to sing it, but can you understand it?

(many singers sing in a language they don't understand in performances)

[Maciej Wozniak]

You were told many times, stupid Mike, that
adjusting clocks to your ISO idiocy isn't
any Newton mode. An effect? No.

[JanPB]

On Thursday, March 9, 2023 at 1:06:35 AM UTC-8, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 07.03.2023 um 17:15 schrieb JanPB:
> > On Tuesday, March 7, 2023 at 9:11:01 AM UTC+1, Thomas Heger wrote:
> >> Am 06.03.2023 um 09:16 schrieb Volney:
> >>
> >>>>> You mean writing nonsense, and getting other people to correct it for
> >>>>> you.
> >>>>
> >>>> I have written my annotations entirely myself.
> >>>>
> >>>> I had actually the impression, that you think my annotations contain
> >>>> errors. In that case it would be nice, if you tell me, where you have
> >>>> found something wrong.
> >>>
> >>> You have been repeatedly told where your annotations are wrong or at
> >>> best irrelevant. You ignore that and come back with "I wish someone
> >>> would tell me where errors were found in my annotations".
> >>>
> >> And I have repeatedly asked, what's wrong with them.
> >
> > You were told in detail.
> Sure.
>
> That's why I have rewitten almost all of my annotations.

Had you understood those comments, you'd have removed all
of your annotations and abandoned the project entirely. The point
is they cannot be "fixed" or "rewritten".

> So, you should refer to errors in my LATEST version, which can be found
> here:

No, it won't work because you don't understand the problem. You'll
just keep rewriting and deluding yourself in a typical
"fractally wrong" way. It will never end until you wake up.

--
Jan

[Thomas Heger]

I have removed some and written new ones. The amount remained roughly
the same (about 420).

Since many of my annotation cover more than one error, the text of
Einstein contains a spectacular amount of flaws.

It is so large, that almost as much of the text was marked as error as
was not.


I have speculated, how this could have happened and who was responsible.

I would exclude the possibility, that Planck did not recognize these
errors.

So, he could have published this article as a result of some kind of
advice or order by third parties.

Actually I had also doubts, that the article was written by Einstein
himself.

Among several reasons was, that the text may be full of errors, but is
by no means an easy piece. And Einstein was young, worked six days a
week and ten hours each and had a young family at home.

And it would hinder thinking about length contraction and relativity of
time very efficiently, if the wife complains and the baby cries, while
the kitchen table, where had to write after a long workday, is dimmly
lit by a candle.

TH

[Volney]

So you shuffled around and rearranged things? You learned nothing from
your mistakes? You should have gone through them all and removed the
"annotations" where you made a similar mistake.

> The amount remained roughly
> the same (about 420).
>
> Since many of my annotation cover more than one error, the text of
> Einstein contains a spectacular amount of flaws.

There are no "spectacular number of flaws". In the rather unlikely event
you actually found one or two flaws, they'll be lost in the noise of
your own misunderstandings, anachronisms and nonsense.

>
> It is so large, that almost as much of the text was marked as error as
> was not.

That should tell you that your "errors" in a paper considered as a
landmark paper are bogus. Being such a breakthrough, this paper has been
analyzed under a microscope by scientists and nothing wrong has been
found. There's simply no way such a paper has as many errors as text.

> I have speculated, how this could have happened and who was responsible.

You found a windmill to tilt at, that's all. You are responsible.

>
> I would exclude the possibility, that Planck did not recognize these
> errors.

He didn't recognize those "errors" because there were none to recognize.

Certainly it went through the normal review process where Planck and
others pointed out _real_ issues, sent it back, Einstein addressed them
and resubmitted it. Possibly repeat a few times. Once this was done, the
paper was published.

>
> So, he could have published this article as a result of some kind of
> advice or order by third parties.

???

> Actually I had also doubts, that the article was written by Einstein
> himself.
>
> Among several reasons was, that the text may be full of errors, but is
> by no means an easy piece. And Einstein was young, worked six days a
> week and ten hours each and had a young family at home.

Or he had some dead time between handling patents.

>
> And it would hinder thinking about length contraction and relativity of
> time very efficiently, if the wife complains and the baby cries, while
> the kitchen table, where had to write after a long workday, is dimmly
> lit by a candle.

Candle? You do realize when the electric light bulb was invented and
available?

[JanPB]

On Thursday, March 9, 2023 at 11:39:10 PM UTC-8, Thomas Heger wrote:
>
> Since many of my annotation cover more than one error,

None of them cover any error. You are just daydreaming.

> the text of
> Einstein contains a spectacular amount of flaws.

It contains no errors. It does contain instances of slight carelessness but
literally every scientific paper in existence contains those so this is simply
not saying anything anyway.

> It is so large, that almost as much of the text was marked as error as
> was not.

It's not large, gthe actual count is zero. You are simply living a fantasy,
probably for a little ego trip or something.

> I have speculated, how this could have happened and who was responsible.

Nothing "happened" and nobody is "responsible". Your annotations are
discussions of the elements of the empty set.

> I would exclude the possibility, that Planck did not recognize these
> errors.
>
> So, he could have published this article as a result of some kind of
> advice or order by third parties.

Vast majority of science papers are written while seeking advice of
colleagues. Again, what you are saying is true but contains no
information.

> Actually I had also doubts, that the article was written by Einstein
> himself.

This paper and Einstein'snotes were dissected by generations of
scientists and historians. I suggest you look into this if you are
historically minded. There is no need to guess, the facts and the
evidence is readily available.

> Among several reasons was, that the text may be full of errors,

It's not. It's a little fantasy of yours. The sooner you let go
of this idiocy, the better of you'll be. Right now you are
drowning in self-deception.

> but is
> by no means an easy piece. And Einstein was young, worked six days a
> week and ten hours each and had a young family at home.

That's false. Again, read the historical record, eyewitnesses from the
period, etc. The fact is that Einstein's work at the patent office did
leave him with a reasonable amount of free time. He kept the physics
books and his notes right there inside his office desk drawer (which he
called "my physics department").

> And it would hinder thinking about length contraction and relativity of
> time very efficiently, if the wife complains and the baby cries, while
> the kitchen table, where had to write after a long workday, is dimmly
> lit by a candle.

I've advised you several times to sign up with an agent in Los Angeles.

--
Jan

[Maciej Wozniak]

And do you still believe that adjusting clocks
to your ISO idiocy means some "Newton mode"?
You're an amazing idiot, stupid Mike - even
considering the relativistic standards.

[Volney]

On 3/10/2023 1:45 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

> And do you still believe that adjusting clocks
> to your ISO idiocy means some "Newton mode"?

How could I believe in something that's simply "not even wrong"?

I'll give you a hint: The ISO definition of the second has nothing to do
with whether Newtonian or SR/GR physics is used.

Do you understand the difference between mass and the kilogram?

[Maciej Wozniak]

On Saturday, 11 March 2023 at 03:26:24 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
> On 3/10/2023 1:45 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>
> > And do you still believe that adjusting clocks
> > to your ISO idiocy means some "Newton mode"?
> How could I believe in something that's simply "not even wrong"?

Well, you're a lacking any logic idiot, so you
can; if you couldn't - why would you claim it
so many times?

> I'll give you a hint: The ISO definition of the second has nothing to do
> with whether Newtonian or SR/GR physics is used.

Well, your assertion is not any argument, stupid
Mike, and it happens that I know better. We could
discuss it - if you weren't such an arrogant, incompetent
idiot.

> Do you understand the difference between mass and the kilogram?

Will you be also stupid enough to insist that
the kilogram has nothing to do to mass?

[Thomas Heger]

Am 10.03.2023 um 17:20 schrieb Volney:
...

>> I have speculated, how this could have happened and who was responsible.
>
> You found a windmill to tilt at, that's all. You are responsible.
>>
>> I would exclude the possibility, that Planck did not recognize these
>> errors.
>
> He didn't recognize those "errors" because there were none to recognize.

In case you disagree, you should write, with what you disagree.

Feel free to critizise any of my comments. But you need to tell me,
which comment you have in mind.

> Certainly it went through the normal review process where Planck and
> others pointed out _real_ issues, sent it back, Einstein addressed them
> and resubmitted it. Possibly repeat a few times. Once this was done, the
> paper was published.
>>
>> So, he could have published this article as a result of some kind of
>> advice or order by third parties.
>
> ???

Planck was the publisher of 'Annalen der Physik'. Possibly he had an
employer or somebody else, who could give him orders.

That assumption is actually not far fetched.

>
>> Actually I had also doubts, that the article was written by Einstein
>> himself.
>>
>> Among several reasons was, that the text may be full of errors, but is
>> by no means an easy piece. And Einstein was young, worked six days a
>> week and ten hours each and had a young family at home.
>
> Or he had some dead time between handling patents.
>>
>> And it would hinder thinking about length contraction and relativity
>> of time very efficiently, if the wife complains and the baby cries,
>> while the kitchen table, where had to write after a long workday, is
>> dimmly lit by a candle.
>
> Candle? You do realize when the electric light bulb was invented and
> available?
>

Electricity was extremely expensive in the late 19th and early 20th century.

Possibly the Einsteins had already electric light, but possibly not.

A young family with two infants is usually not well off, even if
Einstein had a job.

But I cannot think about a separate writing room for Einstein and his
studies, because that would certainly overstretch the budget.

I think, that Einstein would write at the kitchtable, where had
certainly neither much space nor time to write, because a young family
could occupy a lot of attention. The remainder of his time was certainly
absorbed by his job, hence little time remained available for
theoretical physics.

But where would the writing of four seminal articls in 1905 alone fit
into his time budget?

TH