Annotated version of SRT

[Thomas Heger]

Hi NG

I have made a number of changes and are now happy to present my latest
version.

Now it should be actually final, but I'm not really certain. Possibly
some errors are still in my comments, but actually I can't even find
typos anymore.

The file can be found here:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1dlajModzLK4wgScoOLEMmzpzS2JTUft6/view?usp=sharing

It is a google doc of the file type pdf.

It is technically a public domain version of Einstein's 'On the
electrodynamics of moving bodies', into which I have written comments.

The file needs to be downloaded, because google does not show the
comments in the online version.

The comments are written under the (fictional!) assumption, that I would
be a professor and the text under consideration would be the homework of
a student.

The idea behind that is, that by doing so, you could actually learn a
lot about the subject in question.

To write these annotations took a lot of time and a number of longish
discussions on this board.

But now it looks like a finished product.

Initially I had the idea to sell it in some way, but decided to leave it
as a free-to-download pdf - at leat for the near future.


Any comments?

TH

[JanPB]

On Saturday, March 26, 2022 at 11:48:31 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Hi NG
>
> I have made a number of changes and are now happy to present my latest
> version.
>
> Now it should be actually final, but I'm not really certain. Possibly
> some errors are still in my comments, but actually I can't even find
> typos anymore.
>
> The file can be found here:
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1dlajModzLK4wgScoOLEMmzpzS2JTUft6/view?usp=sharing
>
> It is a google doc of the file type pdf.

Who is the author of "Editor's notes" in this version? The footnote on p. 16 is
incorrect: the text should in fact read l' there (not phi').

Also, on p. 13 that editor should have mentioned a typo in the English translation
in the second formula of the set of equations in the middle of the page (the
variables ksi and zeta are reversed).

As for your comments on this paper, they are 100% junk.
Practically all of them are not even wrong. The remaining
few are simply incorrect.

A total waste of your time.

--
Jan

[Evodio Bayon]

JanPB wrote:

>> It is a google doc of the file type pdf.
>
> Who is the author of "Editor's notes" in this version? The footnote on
> p. 16 is incorrect: the text should in fact read l' there (not
> phi').
> Also, on p. 13 that editor should have mentioned a typo in the English
> translation in the second formula of the set of equations in the middle
> of the page (the variables ksi and zeta are reversed).
> As for your comments on this paper, they are 100% junk.
> Practically all of them are not even wrong. The remaining few are
> simply incorrect. A total waste of your time.

must be something you still don't understand. The below average Einstine
had the physics mathematics wrong. *_Physics_mathematics_* is not the same
as mathematics. Anyhow, the text is obvious written by *a_woman*, so it
must be Mileva, *_his_wife_*. Much more intelligent than him, in many
aspects.

[Paparios]

Yes, it was BS before and it continues to be BS now.

You still do not understand what the rol of a professor is and what a homework is.

[Dono.]

> Any comments?
>
You are still the same idiot. Nothing changed.

[Michael Moroney]

On 3/27/2022 2:48 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Hi NG
>
> I have made a number of changes and are now happy to present my latest
> version.
>
> Now it should be actually final, but I'm not really certain.

The final version until the *next* final version.

Just like the last zillion "final" versions.

[Thomas Heger]

This time I think, that it's enough.

But possibly I try the same method on other subjects.

It is quite difficult and remotely similar to solving a puzzle.

But now I've certainly spent enough time on that text.


TH

[Thomas Heger]

Am 27.03.2022 um 11:11 schrieb JanPB:
> On Saturday, March 26, 2022 at 11:48:31 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
>> Hi NG
>>
>> I have made a number of changes and are now happy to present my latest
>> version.
>>
>> Now it should be actually final, but I'm not really certain. Possibly
>> some errors are still in my comments, but actually I can't even find
>> typos anymore.
>>
>> The file can be found here:
>>
>> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1dlajModzLK4wgScoOLEMmzpzS2JTUft6/view?usp=sharing
>>
>> It is a google doc of the file type pdf.
>
> Who is the author of "Editor's notes" in this version? The footnote on p. 16 is
> incorrect: the text should in fact read l' there (not phi').

The 'editor's notes' in Einstein's text stem most likely from the
publisher. Sorry, but unfortunately I have no idea, who that actually
was (definetely not me!).

> Also, on p. 13 that editor should have mentioned a typo in the English translation
> in the second formula of the set of equations in the middle of the page (the
> variables ksi and zeta are reversed).

Well, there remained some errors, which I have not found.

Sorry..

> As for your comments on this paper, they are 100% junk.
> Practically all of them are not even wrong. The remaining
> few are simply incorrect.

If you think so, then feel free to prove that for a single case.


TH

[JanPB]

On Sunday, March 27, 2022 at 10:35:06 AM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 27.03.2022 um 11:11 schrieb JanPB:
> > On Saturday, March 26, 2022 at 11:48:31 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
> >> Hi NG
> >>
> >> I have made a number of changes and are now happy to present my latest
> >> version.
> >>
> >> Now it should be actually final, but I'm not really certain. Possibly
> >> some errors are still in my comments, but actually I can't even find
> >> typos anymore.
> >>
> >> The file can be found here:
> >>
> >> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1dlajModzLK4wgScoOLEMmzpzS2JTUft6/view?usp=sharing
> >>
> >> It is a google doc of the file type pdf.
> >
> > Who is the author of "Editor's notes" in this version? The footnote on p. 16 is
> > incorrect: the text should in fact read l' there (not phi').
> The 'editor's notes' in Einstein's text stem most likely from the
> publisher. Sorry, but unfortunately I have no idea, who that actually
> was (definetely not me!).

OK.

> > Also, on p. 13 that editor should have mentioned a typo in the English translation
> > in the second formula of the set of equations in the middle of the page (the
> > variables ksi and zeta are reversed).
> Well, there remained some errors, which I have not found.
>
> Sorry..

This is a typo by the English translator, not Einstein.

> > As for your comments on this paper, they are 100% junk.
> > Practically all of them are not even wrong. The remaining
> > few are simply incorrect.
> If you think so, then feel free to prove that for a single case.

One cannot prove an arrogant individual that he is wrong. If I could,
it would take a long time because it is also a fact of life that it's much
more difficult to debunk a claim like "X is wrong" than to make such
claim. The latter takes just a few words, the former requires a lecture
that further presumes a solid background to understand the argument
in the first place.

In your case not only your comments are downright silly,
you also frequently don't comment on genuine difficult or non-obvious
points. It's clear that you don't understand the text.

And if you don't understand the text, you cannot meaningfully comment
on it (other than for entertainment or - I don 't know - acting classes, when
people practice reciting a telephone directory, etc.)

Here I can address the item I mentioned in my previous comment:

p. 15, "Theory of Doppler's Principle and of Aberration".

* your first two comments complain, in all naive seriousness, that the
spherical wave is not 100% plane wave. It's like like complaining that
Newton used point masses in his mechanics.

* vector notation vs. components is up to the author. Here he chose the
components because he needs to transform them according to the
formulas on p. 14 which are different for different components.

* those formulas involve maximum amplitude, not mean amplitude.

* comments about the amplitude components naming convention
are asinine.

* the formula for the upper-case Phi is standard undergraduate
physics. In pro science papers people normally don't define elementary
concepts. It's not an undergrad textbook. There is no "riddle" in
dividing by c, please educate yourself. Check any basic textbook
on wave motion, either from a mechanical or E&M point of view.

* "wave train" is the standard physics usage in English. The correct
English translation of Einstein's paper (which you should have used
in the first place) employs the same term:
https://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol2-trans/174

* your comment regarding Einstein's phrase "when they are examined by an
observer at rest in the moving system k" is nonsensical. The entire point
of the setup is to have the light source stationary wrt K and then having the
observer k measure those waves.

* your next comment demonstrates that you don't understand how Einstein
calculates omega', l', m', n'. Einstein DOES in fact substitute the Lorentz
transformation but he skips this calculation (again, the paper is for
professionals who can fill in those details easily). He also does not
mention another fact that both observers will measure the same
phase when their positions coincide, despite their relative motion (this
is another basic factoid about waves). Because of that we have the
equation Phi' = Phi which is the starting point of the derivation. There
is one more step there which Einstein does not mention and
which the reader is presumed to be able to see instantly: using the fact
that those formulas must hold in principle for arbitrary ksi, eta, zeta, tau.

* another comment you make: "the important quantity omega was not
defined anywhere in this paper" is another eye-roller.

On and on it goes.

--
Jan

[Thomas Heger]

I have to admit, that missing an error is actually a fault, which I
tried to avoid.

But I have not dealt with these equations, because I disliked Einstein's
subtraction of magnetic field strength from electric field strength, anyhow.

I also found it totally illogic to aplly the geometric relations from
the kinematic part to the 'length' of the field strength vector.

In my view the relation between electric field and magnetic field
requires a rotation and complex numbers, which I wanted to modell with
multiplicative connections of quaternions.

But these equations contain addition of things, which have different units.

So, I gave that set of equations a 'thumbs down' and went further.

The differences in translations were not my business, since I was
discussing the English version, into which my comments were written, as
if it were the only version in existence.

>>> As for your comments on this paper, they are 100% junk.
>>> Practically all of them are not even wrong. The remaining
>>> few are simply incorrect.
>> If you think so, then feel free to prove that for a single case.
>
> One cannot prove an arrogant individual that he is wrong. If I could,
> it would take a long time because it is also a fact of life that it's much
> more difficult to debunk a claim like "X is wrong" than to make such
> claim. The latter takes just a few words, the former requires a lecture
> that further presumes a solid background to understand the argument
> in the first place.

Well, I don't think, that Einstein was that arrogant.

But the person is irellevant, anyhow, because I was discussing a text,
not a person.

The text is regarded as 'singular', meaning: it is as it is, whoever
wrote that text and for whatever reason. (No secondary material is
allow, besides of standard knowledge).

> In your case not only your comments are downright silly,
> you also frequently don't comment on genuine difficult or non-obvious
> points. It's clear that you don't understand the text.

Well, this is actually a valid critique of me as a person.

But you have to keep in mind, that I'm just a single hobbyist, without
any support from any side and which is requested to do, what actually
thousends of others should have done a century ago.

So, possibly I missed a few critical points, where the subject got a
little too difficult for my abilities. But, after all, there remain
roughly four hundred topic, about which we could discuss.

To remind you: the error margin in theoretical physics is not
four-hundred but zero.

> And if you don't understand the text, you cannot meaningfully comment
> on it (other than for entertainment or - I don 't know - acting classes, when
> people practice reciting a telephone directory, etc.)

Actually I could comment that text, as I have proven already (simply
look at my comments).

What you apparently tried to say: my comments are all invalid.

If so, you should easily be able disprove at least one.

> Here I can address the item I mentioned in my previous comment:
>
> p. 15, "Theory of Doppler's Principle and of Aberration".
>
> * your first two comments complain, in all naive seriousness, that the
> spherical wave is not 100% plane wave. It's like like complaining that
> Newton used point masses in his mechanics.

NO, Newton was correct, because he didn't mean points with 'point
masses', while Einstein did.

In fact Einstein turned materialism into something absurd, because
everything was 'stuff' in his view: points, coordinate systems, electricity.

> * vector notation vs. components is up to the author. Here he chose the
> components because he needs to transform them according to the
> formulas on p. 14 which are different for different components.

Well, actually you are right.

But in my role as a professor I have also the duty to educate the
students to some kind of aestetic use of mathematics.

And I therefore marked as an error, what looks 'ugly', even if that
wasn't really wrong.

> * those formulas involve maximum amplitude, not mean amplitude.

One of my main points of critique was Einstein's habit, that he didn't
give any hint at all what he meant with certain symbols.

That is totally inacceptable, because the reader needs to know, what the
author tries to say. The author is therefore responsible to make clear,
what he's talking about. It's not the duty of a reader to reader the
authors mind.

In my view this issue alone would have been actually enough to dismiss
this paper without further consideration.

> * comments about the amplitude components naming convention
> are asinine.
>
> * the formula for the upper-case Phi is standard undergraduate
> physics. In pro science papers people normally don't define elementary
> concepts. It's not an undergrad textbook. There is no "riddle" in
> dividing by c, please educate yourself. Check any basic textbook
> on wave motion, either from a mechanical or E&M point of view.
>
> * "wave train" is the standard physics usage in English. The correct
> English translation of Einstein's paper (which you should have used
> in the first place) employs the same term:
> https://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol2-trans/174

Sure 'wave-train' is in common use in English. But in German 'Wellenzug'
(literal translation of 'wave-train) is not used in connection with waves.

'Zug' in German means 'train', but is also the substantive related to
'pull' ('ziehen' in German). 'Zug' is the movement of a chess piece, for
instance.

It is also used to describe the result, if you draw a line. So
'Wellenzug' is best approximated with 'wavy line'.

I have criticised the phrase, because I have regarded it as a funny
translation error.

> * your comment regarding Einstein's phrase "when they are examined by an
> observer at rest in the moving system k" is nonsensical. The entire point
> of the setup is to have the light source stationary wrt K and then having the
> observer k measure those waves.

But why?

My personal settings are usually: the observer is at rest and the things
of interest move.

Therefore a stationary observer could as well observe a moving light
source, instead of the other way round.

The system K is actually regarded as 'stationary', because it is
'attatched' to the observer.

The observer sees from his position a moving light source, which is a
very common setting.

>
> * your next comment demonstrates that you don't understand how Einstein
> calculates omega', l', m', n'. Einstein DOES in fact substitute the Lorentz
> transformation but he skips this calculation (again, the paper is for
> professionals who can fill in those details easily). He also does not
> mention another fact that both observers will measure the same
> phase when their positions coincide, despite their relative motion (this
> is another basic factoid about waves).

Two observers will most likely never coincide.

We could regard that another example of the Pauli exclusion principle.

Or simpy by: where I am you cannot be.


...


TH

[JanPB]

It's nothing peculiar to Einstein, it's the Gaussian system of units.

> I also found it totally illogic to aplly the geometric relations from
> the kinematic part to the 'length' of the field strength vector.

These are Lorentz's formulas from his 1904 paper (or earlier,
I forget). It's not any more or less illogical than Maxwell's
equations. Einstein uses the same "geometric relations" as
Lorentz in 1904 to derive those formulas.

> In my view the relation between electric field and magnetic field
> requires a rotation and complex numbers, which I wanted to modell with
> multiplicative connections of quaternions.

One can do that but it's not required and in the context of the paper
(and Lorentz's 1904 paper) it would only obfuscate things by
gratuitous over-generalisation.

> But these equations contain addition of things, which have different units.

No, in the Gaussian system of units electric and magnetic fields
have the same dimensions.

> So, I gave that set of equations a 'thumbs down' and went further.

And it never gave you a pause that such a trivial "mistake" as the
"wrong" units would have gone unnoticed by the Annalen der
Physik editors in 1905, let alone the generations of physicists
for the past 117 years? You really go about living your life with
that mode of making assumptions about facts and people?
What?

> The differences in translations were not my business, since I was
> discussing the English version, into which my comments were written, as
> if it were the only version in existence.

There are two English versions. The corrected one is in the
link I cited.

> >>> As for your comments on this paper, they are 100% junk.
> >>> Practically all of them are not even wrong. The remaining
> >>> few are simply incorrect.
> >> If you think so, then feel free to prove that for a single case.
> >
> > One cannot prove an arrogant individual that he is wrong. If I could,
> > it would take a long time because it is also a fact of life that it's much
> > more difficult to debunk a claim like "X is wrong" than to make such
> > claim. The latter takes just a few words, the former requires a lecture
> > that further presumes a solid background to understand the argument
> > in the first place.
> Well, I don't think, that Einstein was that arrogant.
>
> But the person is irellevant, anyhow, because I was discussing a text,
> not a person.

You are not discussing it. What you wrote is at best poetry.

> The text is regarded as 'singular', meaning: it is as it is, whoever
> wrote that text and for whatever reason. (No secondary material is
> allow, besides of standard knowledge).
> > In your case not only your comments are downright silly,
> > you also frequently don't comment on genuine difficult or non-obvious
> > points. It's clear that you don't understand the text.
> Well, this is actually a valid critique of me as a person.
>
> But you have to keep in mind, that I'm just a single hobbyist, without
> any support from any side and which is requested to do, what actually
> thousends of others should have done a century ago.

But why are you doing this? It's a completely pointless activity.
(Unless your goal is writing some sort of modern poetry.)

> So, possibly I missed a few critical points, where the subject got a
> little too difficult for my abilities. But, after all, there remain
> roughly four hundred topic, about which we could discuss.
>
> To remind you: the error margin in theoretical physics is not
> four-hundred but zero.

It is zero as far as Einstein's 1905 paper is concerned.

> > And if you don't understand the text, you cannot meaningfully comment
> > on it (other than for entertainment or - I don 't know - acting classes, when
> > people practice reciting a telephone directory, etc.)
> Actually I could comment that text, as I have proven already (simply
> look at my comments).

They are not comments, they are gobbledygook.

> What you apparently tried to say: my comments are all invalid.

Yes.

> If so, you should easily be able disprove at least one.

No. That's impossible. This phenomenon is well-known.

> > Here I can address the item I mentioned in my previous comment:
> >
> > p. 15, "Theory of Doppler's Principle and of Aberration".
> >
> > * your first two comments complain, in all naive seriousness, that the
> > spherical wave is not 100% plane wave. It's like like complaining that
> > Newton used point masses in his mechanics.
> NO, Newton was correct, because he didn't mean points with 'point
> masses', while Einstein did.

Newton meant point masses, just like Einstein. They are an idealisation,
just like a source at infinity or perfectly plane waves.

> In fact Einstein turned materialism into something absurd, because
> everything was 'stuff' in his view: points, coordinate systems, electricity.

He didn't change anything in that sense that had not been changed
already. Points, coordinate systems, and electricity were all in use
before him.

> > * vector notation vs. components is up to the author. Here he chose the
> > components because he needs to transform them according to the
> > formulas on p. 14 which are different for different components.
> Well, actually you are right.
>
> But in my role as a professor I have also the duty to educate the
> students to some kind of aestetic use of mathematics.

But this is nonsense.

> And I therefore marked as an error, what looks 'ugly', even if that
> wasn't really wrong.

It's not ugly and it's not wrong. It's exactly what's needed there.

> > * those formulas involve maximum amplitude, not mean amplitude.
> One of my main points of critique was Einstein's habit, that he didn't
> give any hint at all what he meant with certain symbols.

Because this paper was not an undegraduate textbook. It's a research
communication written in a scientific shorthand for people who know
all that basic stuff.

> That is totally inacceptable, because the reader needs to know, what the
> author tries to say.

The reader knows that very well.

> The author is therefore responsible to make clear,
> what he's talking about. It's not the duty of a reader to reader the
> authors mind.

This is not applicable because the text was written for people who
already know all this. This is how all physics or math papers are
written.

> In my view this issue alone would have been actually enough to dismiss
> this paper without further consideration.

This statement is beyond nonsensical.

> > * comments about the amplitude components naming convention
> > are asinine.
> >
> > * the formula for the upper-case Phi is standard undergraduate
> > physics. In pro science papers people normally don't define elementary
> > concepts. It's not an undergrad textbook. There is no "riddle" in
> > dividing by c, please educate yourself. Check any basic textbook
> > on wave motion, either from a mechanical or E&M point of view.
> >
> > * "wave train" is the standard physics usage in English. The correct
> > English translation of Einstein's paper (which you should have used
> > in the first place) employs the same term:
> > https://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol2-trans/174
> Sure 'wave-train' is in common use in English. But in German 'Wellenzug'
> (literal translation of 'wave-train) is not used in connection with waves.

It is: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wellenpaket

> I have criticised the phrase, because I have regarded it as a funny
> translation error.

No, it's correct and perfectly appropriate in both English and German.

> > * your comment regarding Einstein's phrase "when they are examined by an
> > observer at rest in the moving system k" is nonsensical. The entire point
> > of the setup is to have the light source stationary wrt K and then having the
> > observer k measure those waves.
> But why?

To measure the Doppler effect.

> > * your next comment demonstrates that you don't understand how Einstein
> > calculates omega', l', m', n'. Einstein DOES in fact substitute the Lorentz
> > transformation but he skips this calculation (again, the paper is for
> > professionals who can fill in those details easily). He also does not
> > mention another fact that both observers will measure the same
> > phase when their positions coincide, despite their relative motion (this
> > is another basic factoid about waves).
> Two observers will most likely never coincide.

The point is that Phi' = Phi. The proof involves a situation in which
the observers coincide (the point, again, is that it's a possibility so the
world must account for it).

--
Jan

[Thomas Heger]

I have actually problems with subtracting electric field strength from
magnetic field strength.

This is like subtracting 1 V from 1 A.

To me this doesn't make any sense at all.

Einstein gave absolutely no hints, what he actually tried to figure out
and I'm personally lost with that situation, which I'm unable to interpret.

So, possibly you are able to tell me, what ' ...(N - v/c* Y)..' is meant
to be?

N ist the magnetic field strength in the z-direction and Y the electric
field strength in the y-direction.

So: what is that????????

I would say, he meant, that the vectors look like 'pinched together', if
the field moves at velocities near the spead of light.

This is most likely actually true, but Einstein gave no hint whatever,
what he tried to figure out.

>> I also found it totally illogic to aplly the geometric relations from
>> the kinematic part to the 'length' of the field strength vector.
>
> These are Lorentz's formulas from his 1904 paper (or earlier,
> I forget). It's not any more or less illogical than Maxwell's
> equations. Einstein uses the same "geometric relations" as
> Lorentz in 1904 to derive those formulas.

But you cannot apply geometric relations to field strength vectors,
because the 'length' of the vectors is arbitrary.

If the field strength is actually changing with velocity, this would be
a physical problem, not a geometrical one.

If fields behave in a geometric fashion and change upon velocity, this
would indicate a physical relation between fields and geometry itself.

I actually think, this is the case, but Einstein didn't say anything alike.

Besides of this, Einstein wrote, the field strength would not change
upon movement, what is IMHO wrong.

>> In my view the relation between electric field and magnetic field
>> requires a rotation and complex numbers, which I wanted to modell with
>> multiplicative connections of quaternions.
>
> One can do that but it's not required and in the context of the paper
> (and Lorentz's 1904 paper) it would only obfuscate things by
> gratuitous over-generalisation.
>
>> But these equations contain addition of things, which have different units.
>
> No, in the Gaussian system of units electric and magnetic fields
> have the same dimensions.

Unfortunately yes.

But still you should not subtract apples from oranges.

I have actually trouble to find any reasonable meaning for the
difference of a magnetic field strength vector and an electric one.

What could that possibly be?

>> So, I gave that set of equations a 'thumbs down' and went further.
>
> And it never gave you a pause that such a trivial "mistake" as the
> "wrong" units would have gone unnoticed by the Annalen der
> Physik editors in 1905, let alone the generations of physicists
> for the past 117 years? You really go about living your life with
> that mode of making assumptions about facts and people?
> What?

I would guess, that most people 'consume' such articles similar to how
they read 'Haarper's Bazar'.

To carefully analyse an article word for word takes time and effort,
which most readers are not willing to invest.

We have also massive advertising of this article and super-hero status
of the author, what would most certainly hinder people to actually
critise it.

...

>>> One cannot prove an arrogant individual that he is wrong. If I could,
>>> it would take a long time because it is also a fact of life that it's much
>>> more difficult to debunk a claim like "X is wrong" than to make such
>>> claim. The latter takes just a few words, the former requires a lecture
>>> that further presumes a solid background to understand the argument
>>> in the first place.
>> Well, I don't think, that Einstein was that arrogant.
>>
>> But the person is irellevant, anyhow, because I was discussing a text,
>> not a person.
>
> You are not discussing it. What you wrote is at best poetry.

Well, I'm actually discussing it now (with you, of course).

...

>>> * "wave train" is the standard physics usage in English. The correct
>>> English translation of Einstein's paper (which you should have used
>>> in the first place) employs the same term:
>>> https://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol2-trans/174
>> Sure 'wave-train' is in common use in English. But in German 'Wellenzug'
>> (literal translation of 'wave-train) is not used in connection with waves.
>
> It is: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wellenpaket

I have thought about this particular phrase for a long time.

To me the word 'Wellenzug' (in the German version) didn't make sense.

The German language allows, different than English, to create new words
according to certain general rules.

One such rule is to make nouns from verbs, like here: 'Zug' (train) from
'ziehen' ('to pull').

To make it possible, that newly created words are understood by
everyone, there exist general rules for how such new words are created
and how they have to be interpreted.

Such nouns created from verbs must have a relation to the verb, from
which they were derived.

So: 'Zug' MUST have a connection to something pulling something!!!

As this is a general rule, it overrides even dictionaries.

Same thig with composed words:

German alllows to piece words together like 'Lego' bricks.

Such composits are interpreted as string of related things.

Therefore 'Wellenzug' is interpreted as 'Wellen' + 'Zug'. (waves + train)

Since 'train' is not derived from a verb, it might be translated to 'Zug'.

But the part 'Zug' in German is prohibitted by this general rule for
substantivated verbs, because the waves in pyhsics are not pulled, hence
'ziehen' is inappropriate for physical waves. This would disallow to
connect physical waves with 'Zug'.

The English phrase 'wave train' is a 'linguistic picture', which has no
counterpart in German. It is related to the sound a long train makes, it
it rattles over a gap in the track. It means the passing by of the waves
like train-cars on a track. This phenomenon it not associated with any
German word, hence needs to be described with a few additional words.

Therefore the German phrase is a literal translation of the English
phrase 'wave train', but 'Wellenzug' is not allowed in German.

This would indicate, that the German version is actually a translation
from English and not the other way round.

>> I have criticised the phrase, because I have regarded it as a funny
>> translation error.
>
> No, it's correct and perfectly appropriate in both English and German.

Here I claim to have a little more practise than you have.

...


TH

[Thomas Heger]

Am 29.03.2022 um 08:19 schrieb Thomas Heger:
...
>
>>>> * "wave train" is the standard physics usage in English. The correct
>>>> English translation of Einstein's paper (which you should have used
>>>> in the first place) employs the same term:
>>>> https://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol2-trans/174
>>> Sure 'wave-train' is in common use in English. But in German 'Wellenzug'
>>> (literal translation of 'wave-train) is not used in connection with
>>> waves.
>>
>> It is: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wellenpaket
>
> I have thought about this particular phrase for a long time.
>
> To me the word 'Wellenzug' (in the German version) didn't make sense.
>
> The German language allows, different than English, to create new words
> according to certain general rules.
>
> One such rule is to make nouns from verbs, like here: 'Zug' (train) from
> 'ziehen' ('to pull').
>
> To make it possible, that newly created words are understood by
> everyone, there exist general rules for how such new words are created
> and how they have to be interpreted.
>
> Such nouns created from verbs must have a relation to the verb, from
> which they were derived.
>
> So: 'Zug' MUST have a connection to something pulling something!!!

Lines are actually something, you could use 'Zug' for, because 'ziehen
is also similar to 'to draw'. In the German linguistic picture a feather
is dragged over a paper, what leaves a line.

> As this is a general rule, it overrides even dictionaries.
>
> Same thig with composed words:
>
> German alllows to piece words together like 'Lego' bricks.
>
> Such composits are interpreted as string of related things.
>
> Therefore 'Wellenzug' is interpreted as 'Wellen' + 'Zug'. (waves + train)
>
> Since 'train' is not derived from a verb, it might be translated to 'Zug'.
>
> But the part 'Zug' in German is prohibitted by this general rule for
> substantivated verbs, because the waves in pyhsics are not pulled, hence
> 'ziehen' is inappropriate for physical waves. This would disallow to
> connect physical waves with 'Zug'.
>
> The English phrase 'wave train' is a 'linguistic picture', which has no
> counterpart in German. It is related to the sound a long train makes, it
> it rattles over a gap in the track. It means the passing by of the waves
> like train-cars on a track. This phenomenon it not associated with any
> German word, hence needs to be described with a few additional words.

My fault:

'Wellenzug' is actually a German word, too, but does not mean the same
thing as 'wave train'.

(this is called 'false friend').

The German phrase means

" Linie des wellenförmigen Verlaufs einer Welle"
(= line along which a wave moves)

The English phrase means something like a wave-packet:

https://context.reverso.net/%C3%BCbersetzung/englisch-deutsch/wave+train

"There, the particles were captured by the electric field of the second
pulse, an infrared wave train lasting less than five femtoseconds. "


TH

[Mikko]

The proof will be better if you first pick the best comment and
post it here. When we prove that the best comment is junk, we
can safely infer that all other comments are junk, too.

Mikko

[Mikko]

On 2022-03-28 06:47:00 +0000, Thomas Heger said:

> Sure 'wave-train' is in common use in English. But in German
> 'Wellenzug' (literal translation of 'wave-train) is not used in
> connection with waves.

What was Helmholtz talking about when he said "Bei der Interferenz zweier
Wellenzüge findet keine Vernichtung der lebendigen Kraft statt, sondern
nur eine andere Vertheilung."?

The word "Wellenzug" has been used in physics during 19th and 20th
centuries.

Mikko

[JanPB]

That's your problem then. If you want to resolve this, you must
learn how various systems of units work.

> Einstein gave absolutely no hints, what he actually tried to figure out
> and I'm personally lost with that situation, which I'm unable to interpret.
>
> So, possibly you are able to tell me, what ' ...(N - v/c* Y)..' is meant
> to be?

You can rewrite this in the SI system: ...(N - vY), etc.

> N ist the magnetic field strength in the z-direction and Y the electric
> field strength in the y-direction.
>
> So: what is that????????

The values of the fields measured by the k observer.
Ultimately they are the way they are because Maxwell's equations
are the way they are.

> I would say, he meant, that the vectors look like 'pinched together', if
> the field moves at velocities near the spead of light.

It can look that way.

> This is most likely actually true, but Einstein gave no hint whatever,
> what he tried to figure out.

He only wanted to show that his method yields the same formulas
for the transformed fields as those obtained by Lorentz. He also
does it more elegantly by being able to get rid of the extra multiplicative
factor by quick geometric considerations while Lorentz works quite
hard on that one detail in his 1904 paper.

> >> I also found it totally illogic to aplly the geometric relations from
> >> the kinematic part to the 'length' of the field strength vector.
> >
> > These are Lorentz's formulas from his 1904 paper (or earlier,
> > I forget). It's not any more or less illogical than Maxwell's
> > equations. Einstein uses the same "geometric relations" as
> > Lorentz in 1904 to derive those formulas.
> But you cannot apply geometric relations to field strength vectors,
> because the 'length' of the vectors is arbitrary.

Measured values of those fields are not arbitrary.

> If the field strength is actually changing with velocity, this would be
> a physical problem, not a geometrical one.

But the fields do change with the observer, this had been known for
a long time. For example, according to one observer there is only an
electric field at some location while the moving observer detects
a magnetic field as well (say).

> If fields behave in a geometric fashion and change upon velocity, this
> would indicate a physical relation between fields and geometry itself.
>
> I actually think, this is the case, but Einstein didn't say anything alike.
>
> Besides of this, Einstein wrote, the field strength would not change
> upon movement, what is IMHO wrong.
> >> In my view the relation between electric field and magnetic field
> >> requires a rotation and complex numbers, which I wanted to modell with
> >> multiplicative connections of quaternions.
> >
> > One can do that but it's not required and in the context of the paper
> > (and Lorentz's 1904 paper) it would only obfuscate things by
> > gratuitous over-generalisation.
> >
> >> But these equations contain addition of things, which have different units.
> >
> > No, in the Gaussian system of units electric and magnetic fields
> > have the same dimensions.
> Unfortunately yes.
>
> But still you should not subtract apples from oranges.

> I have actually trouble to find any reasonable meaning for the
> difference of a magnetic field strength vector and an electric one.
>
> What could that possibly be?

You are forgetting the v factor. Also, why are you then not bothered
by the Lorentz force formula which involves the same type of
expression for the components: E + vB (or E + (v/c)B in the Gaussian
system)?

> >> So, I gave that set of equations a 'thumbs down' and went further.
> >
> > And it never gave you a pause that such a trivial "mistake" as the
> > "wrong" units would have gone unnoticed by the Annalen der
> > Physik editors in 1905, let alone the generations of physicists
> > for the past 117 years? You really go about living your life with
> > that mode of making assumptions about facts and people?
> > What?
> I would guess, that most people 'consume' such articles similar to how
> they read 'Haarper's Bazar'.
>
> To carefully analyse an article word for word takes time and effort,
> which most readers are not willing to invest.

But you are not carefully analysing this paper. You are simply fantasising.

> We have also massive advertising of this article and super-hero status
> of the author, what would most certainly hinder people to actually
> critise it.

There may be some of it but not in the professional circles. Contrary to
the canonical legends on this forum, the first physicist do disprove
relativity experimentally would be showered with awards and fighting
off princely job offers left and right.

> >>> * "wave train" is the standard physics usage in English. The correct
> >>> English translation of Einstein's paper (which you should have used
> >>> in the first place) employs the same term:
> >>> https://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol2-trans/174
> >> Sure 'wave-train' is in common use in English. But in German 'Wellenzug'
> >> (literal translation of 'wave-train) is not used in connection with waves.
> >
> > It is: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wellenpaket
> I have thought about this particular phrase for a long time.
>
> To me the word 'Wellenzug' (in the German version) didn't make sense.

But it's used in physics in German, at least according to Duden which
I consider reliable: https://www.duden.de/rechtschreibung/Wellenzug
("Linie des wellenförmigen Verlaufs einer Welle", "Gebrauch: Physik".)

--
Jan

[Michael Moroney]

On 3/27/2022 1:28 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 27.03.2022 um 17:43 schrieb Michael Moroney:
>> On 3/27/2022 2:48 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>> Hi NG
>>>
>>> I have made a number of changes and are now happy to present my latest
>>> version.
>>>
>>> Now it should be actually final, but I'm not really certain.
>>
>> The final version until the *next* final version.
>>
>> Just like the last zillion "final" versions.
>
> This time I think, that it's enough.

Exactly what you said the last zillion times.
So this will be the final version until the next final version...

> But now I've certainly spent enough time on that text.

Certainly true.

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

Mikko wrote:

> When we prove that the best comment is junk, we
> can safely infer that all other comments are junk, too.

That is a (classical) fallacy: “Poisoning the well”.


PointedEars
--
I heard that entropy isn't what it used to be.

(from: WolframAlpha)

[Thomas Heger]

Am 29.03.2022 um 11:06 schrieb JanPB:

>>>>>>> Also, on p. 13 that editor should have mentioned a typo in the English translation
>>>>>>> in the second formula of the set of equations in the middle of the page (the
>>>>>>> variables ksi and zeta are reversed).
>>>>>> Well, there remained some errors, which I have not found.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sorry..
>>>>>
>>>>> This is a typo by the English translator, not Einstein.
>>>> I have to admit, that missing an error is actually a fault, which I
>>>> tried to avoid.
>>>>
>>>> But I have not dealt with these equations, because I disliked Einstein's
>>>> subtraction of magnetic field strength from electric field strength, anyhow.
>>>
>>> It's nothing peculiar to Einstein, it's the Gaussian system of units.
>> I have actually problems with subtracting electric field strength from
>> magnetic field strength.
>>
>> This is like subtracting 1 V from 1 A.
>>
>> To me this doesn't make any sense at all.
>
> That's your problem then. If you want to resolve this, you must
> learn how various systems of units work.

No.

In the cgs system electric field strength and magnetic field strength
have the same unit of force, because the fields were equated with the
process of measuring them.

These measuring devices contained deformable springs, which measure a force.

Such springs are contained in many analog measuring devices, like a
pressure gauge, a cithen balance or a volt-meter.

All of them measure something by a reference to a deformable spring.

But you cannot subtract Volts from psi, just because both were measured
with a deformable spring.

To do so would require a physical justification, which was entirely
missing in Einstein's text.

>> Einstein gave absolutely no hints, what he actually tried to figure out
>> and I'm personally lost with that situation, which I'm unable to interpret.
>>
>> So, possibly you are able to tell me, what ' ...(N - v/c* Y)..' is meant
>> to be?
>
> You can rewrite this in the SI system: ...(N - vY), etc.

???

N is a vector component of the magnetic field strength vector and Y of
the electric field strength vector.

To subtract Y from N would require some justification. Bu usually you
cannot do that, because both have different units.

In cgs system they have the same units, but still cannot be added,
because the same unit measures different quantities.

>
>> N ist the magnetic field strength in the z-direction and Y the electric
>> field strength in the y-direction.
>>
>> So: what is that????????
>
> The values of the fields measured by the k observer.
> Ultimately they are the way they are because Maxwell's equations
> are the way they are.

I wouldn't count that as an explanation.

>> I would say, he meant, that the vectors look like 'pinched together', if
>> the field moves at velocities near the spead of light.
>
> It can look that way.
>
>> This is most likely actually true, but Einstein gave no hint whatever,
>> what he tried to figure out.
>
> He only wanted to show that his method yields the same formulas
> for the transformed fields as those obtained by Lorentz. He also
> does it more elegantly by being able to get rid of the extra multiplicative
> factor by quick geometric considerations while Lorentz works quite
> hard on that one detail in his 1904 paper.

Here a quote from some text written by Lorentz would be required.

If he actually wanted to do, what you assume he wanted to do, he had to
write that himself.

>>>> I also found it totally illogic to aplly the geometric relations from
>>>> the kinematic part to the 'length' of the field strength vector.
>>>
>>> These are Lorentz's formulas from his 1904 paper (or earlier,
>>> I forget). It's not any more or less illogical than Maxwell's
>>> equations. Einstein uses the same "geometric relations" as
>>> Lorentz in 1904 to derive those formulas.
>> But you cannot apply geometric relations to field strength vectors,
>> because the 'length' of the vectors is arbitrary.
>
> Measured values of those fields are not arbitrary.

Sure. But 'length of the field strength vector' is arbitrary, because it
is only a geometric representation of field strength.

To apply the methods of the kinematic part to the length of the field
strength vector is imho nonsense.

>> If the field strength is actually changing with velocity, this would be
>> a physical problem, not a geometrical one.
>
> But the fields do change with the observer, this had been known for

> a long time. ...

Why then wrote Einstein the opposite?



...

>>>>> * "wave train" is the standard physics usage in English. The correct
>>>>> English translation of Einstein's paper (which you should have used
>>>>> in the first place) employs the same term:
>>>>> https://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol2-trans/174
>>>> Sure 'wave-train' is in common use in English. But in German 'Wellenzug'
>>>> (literal translation of 'wave-train) is not used in connection with waves.
>>>
>>> It is: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wellenpaket
>> I have thought about this particular phrase for a long time.
>>
>> To me the word 'Wellenzug' (in the German version) didn't make sense.
>
> But it's used in physics in German, at least according to Duden which
> I consider reliable: https://www.duden.de/rechtschreibung/Wellenzug
> ("Linie des wellenförmigen Verlaufs einer Welle", "Gebrauch: Physik".)
>

Yes, but the use in German means something else than the same word in
English, what is called 'false friend'.

To the context it was used, the English term fits better, while the
German use does not make much sense.

That's why we have to consider the possibility, that the text was
translated from English to German and not the other way round.


TH

[Python]

Thomas Heger wrote:
...

> That's why we have to consider the possibility, that the text was
> translated from English to German and not the other way round.

Let me guess... A MI6 agent wrote it, right?

[JanPB]

No, this is how units of systems work (Gaussian, in this case).

But you haven't answered my question why exactly the same
addition or subtraction does not bother you when it's written
in the Lorentz force law:

F/q = E + (v/c) x B

> > The values of the fields measured by the k observer.
> > Ultimately they are the way they are because Maxwell's equations
> > are the way they are.
>
> I wouldn't count that as an explanation.

That's where the formula comes from. Can't you derive it for
yourself?

> > He only wanted to show that his method yields the same formulas
> > for the transformed fields as those obtained by Lorentz. He also
> > does it more elegantly by being able to get rid of the extra multiplicative
> > factor by quick geometric considerations while Lorentz works quite
> > hard on that one detail in his 1904 paper.
> Here a quote from some text written by Lorentz would be required.

If it was a textbook, yes. In a research paper devoted to a topic everyone
is talking about - no. It's excessive pedantry in most contexts of this type
and considered a defect by some.

> If he actually wanted to do, what you assume he wanted to do, he had to
> write that himself.

Not needed, he was writing for the professional audience. Another author
might have said it. Point is, this is a non-issue. Even less than non-issue.

> >>>> I also found it totally illogic to aplly the geometric relations from
> >>>> the kinematic part to the 'length' of the field strength vector.
> >>>
> >>> These are Lorentz's formulas from his 1904 paper (or earlier,
> >>> I forget). It's not any more or less illogical than Maxwell's
> >>> equations. Einstein uses the same "geometric relations" as
> >>> Lorentz in 1904 to derive those formulas.
> >> But you cannot apply geometric relations to field strength vectors,
> >> because the 'length' of the vectors is arbitrary.
> >
> > Measured values of those fields are not arbitrary.
> Sure. But 'length of the field strength vector' is arbitrary, because it
> is only a geometric representation of field strength.
>
> To apply the methods of the kinematic part to the length of the field
> strength vector is imho nonsense.

This is simple mathematics: there are fields E and B at every point
in space and at every instant, as measured by K. In other words,
there are two vector functions: E(x, y, z, t) and B(x, y, z, t).

Those E and B functions satisfy Maxwell's equations. Meanwhile,
the observer k assigns the quadruple of numbers (ksi, eta, zeta, tau)
to every point in space and a time instant. If both K and k consider
the same event, its corresponding descriptive quadruples (x, y, z, t)
and (ksi, eta, zeta, tau) are related by a certain linear map called
"Lorentz transformation". When you apply this transformation, you'll
discover that the only way to maintain Maxwell's equations is by
altering E and B according to the formulas you object to (despite
the fact that identical formulas have been used in the Lorentz force
formula which never bothered you for some reason).

The entire POINT of Einstein's paper (as originally intended by Einstein) was
to show that one can sensibly justify the claim that those transformed
E and B fields would be exactly as physical (according to k) as the
original E and B were (according to K). This e.g. resolves the
magnet-and-coil question Einstein mentions in the introduction.

It was only a bit later (weeks?) that everyone noticed that the main
achievement here was establishing a new kinematics and dynamics,
with the electrodynamics aspects being "merely" a corollary.

> >> If the field strength is actually changing with velocity, this would be
> >> a physical problem, not a geometrical one.
> >
> > But the fields do change with the observer, this had been known for
> > a long time. ...
>
> Why then wrote Einstein the opposite?

He didn't write the opposite.

> >>>>> * "wave train" is the standard physics usage in English. The correct
> >>>>> English translation of Einstein's paper (which you should have used
> >>>>> in the first place) employs the same term:
> >>>>> https://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol2-trans/174
> >>>> Sure 'wave-train' is in common use in English. But in German 'Wellenzug'
> >>>> (literal translation of 'wave-train) is not used in connection with waves.
> >>>
> >>> It is: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wellenpaket
> >> I have thought about this particular phrase for a long time.
> >>
> >> To me the word 'Wellenzug' (in the German version) didn't make sense.
> >
> > But it's used in physics in German, at least according to Duden which
> > I consider reliable: https://www.duden.de/rechtschreibung/Wellenzug
> > ("Linie des wellenförmigen Verlaufs einer Welle", "Gebrauch: Physik".)
> >
> Yes, but the use in German means something else than the same word in
> English, what is called 'false friend'.

I have just shown you the link from Duden proving the opposite.

--
Jan

[Maciej Wozniak]

Oh, stinker Python is opening its muzzle again,
and trying to pretend he knows something.
Tell me, poor stinker, what is your definition of
a "theory" in the terms of Peano arithmetic?
See: if a theorem is going to be a part of a theory,
it has to be formulable in the language of the
theory. Do you get it? Or are you too stupid even for
that, poor stinker?

[Thomas Heger]

Am 30.03.2022 um 20:08 schrieb JanPB:

>>>>>> But I have not dealt with these equations, because I disliked Einstein's
>>>>>> subtraction of magnetic field strength from electric field strength, anyhow.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's nothing peculiar to Einstein, it's the Gaussian system of units.
>>>> I have actually problems with subtracting electric field strength from
>>>> magnetic field strength.
>>>>
>>>> This is like subtracting 1 V from 1 A.
>>>>
>>>> To me this doesn't make any sense at all.
>>>
>>> That's your problem then. If you want to resolve this, you must
>>> learn how various systems of units work.
>> No.
>>
>> In the cgs system electric field strength and magnetic field strength
>> have the same unit of force, because the fields were equated with the
>> process of measuring them.
>>
>> These measuring devices contained deformable springs, which measure a force.
>>
>> Such springs are contained in many analog measuring devices, like a
>> pressure gauge, a cithen balance or a volt-meter.
>>
>> All of them measure something by a reference to a deformable spring.
>>
>> But you cannot subtract Volts from psi, just because both were measured
>> with a deformable spring.
>>
>> To do so would require a physical justification, which was entirely
>> missing in Einstein's text.
>
> No, this is how units of systems work (Gaussian, in this case).

I have given you already the example, that many anolg measuring devices
work with deformable springs, which emasure ultimatively a force.

But still you must not add or subtract different units, like pressure
and weigth, for instance, even if a pressure gauge and a kitchen scale
work with a spring.

It is fantastically stupid nonsese to even advocate such use of values.

> But you haven't answered my question why exactly the same
> addition or subtraction does not bother you when it's written
> in the Lorentz force law:
>
> F/q = E + (v/c) x B

Actually it did bother me, that Einstein tried to subtract electric from
magnetic field strength, but I have not written a comment to all
occurances of the same topic.

Einstein had not used the 'x' of the cross product correctly, but in one
case, where it does not belong, while leaving it away in an equation
(related to your equation from above), where it would belong.

>>> The values of the fields measured by the k observer.
>>> Ultimately they are the way they are because Maxwell's equations
>>> are the way they are.
>>
>> I wouldn't count that as an explanation.
>
> That's where the formula comes from. Can't you derive it for
> yourself?

Actually I have read a book of Maxwell and was not able to find the
equations Einstein used.

So, he had apparently other sources, but didn't consider it necessary to
inform the reader, which his sources were.

>>> He only wanted to show that his method yields the same formulas
>>> for the transformed fields as those obtained by Lorentz. He also
>>> does it more elegantly by being able to get rid of the extra multiplicative
>>> factor by quick geometric considerations while Lorentz works quite
>>> hard on that one detail in his 1904 paper.
>> Here a quote from some text written by Lorentz would be required.
>
> If it was a textbook, yes. In a research paper devoted to a topic everyone
> is talking about - no. It's excessive pedantry in most contexts of this type
> and considered a defect by some.

Don't you think it would be nice to know, WHICH textbook Einstein used?

>> If he actually wanted to do, what you assume he wanted to do, he had to
>> write that himself.
>
> Not needed, he was writing for the professional audience. Another author
> might have said it. Point is, this is a non-issue. Even less than non-issue.

I think, it is in fact an issue!

Actually Einstein mentioned Heinrich Hertz and his adaptation of
Maxwell's equation.

As far as I can tell, Herth did that and developed an own form of
Maxwell's equations. But Hertz died young and his version got more or
less lost.

Now it is hard to say, to what Einstein actually referred with his
equations.

I have read, the Hertz Ansatz used total derivatives, while Einstein
wrote partial differential equation.

Now: what guarantees, that at least Hertz was quoted correctly?

>>>>>> I also found it totally illogic to aplly the geometric relations from
>>>>>> the kinematic part to the 'length' of the field strength vector.
>>>>>
>>>>> These are Lorentz's formulas from his 1904 paper (or earlier,
>>>>> I forget). It's not any more or less illogical than Maxwell's
>>>>> equations. Einstein uses the same "geometric relations" as
>>>>> Lorentz in 1904 to derive those formulas.
>>>> But you cannot apply geometric relations to field strength vectors,
>>>> because the 'length' of the vectors is arbitrary.
>>>
>>> Measured values of those fields are not arbitrary.
>> Sure. But 'length of the field strength vector' is arbitrary, because it
>> is only a geometric representation of field strength.
>>
>> To apply the methods of the kinematic part to the length of the field
>> strength vector is imho nonsense.
>
> This is simple mathematics: there are fields E and B at every point
> in space and at every instant, as measured by K. In other words,
> there are two vector functions: E(x, y, z, t) and B(x, y, z, t).

The term 'space' is undefined, if no reference system is provided.

That is actually the main point of relativity itself: space is 'relative'.

Therefore you cannot refer to coordinates without an anchor, to where
you base these coordinates on.

Space itself does not provide any 'anchor' hence you cannot use
coordinates without a reference point.

This, btw, is also the case for time, because time also requires a
reference point, from which we measure time intervals.

So: 'instant of time' and 'position in space' are illegal constructs, if
you have no reference system.

> Those E and B functions satisfy Maxwell's equations. Meanwhile,
> the observer k assigns the quadruple of numbers (ksi, eta, zeta, tau)
> to every point in space and a time instant. If both K and k consider
> the same event, its corresponding descriptive quadruples (x, y, z, t)
> and (ksi, eta, zeta, tau) are related by a certain linear map called
> "Lorentz transformation". When you apply this transformation, you'll
> discover that the only way to maintain Maxwell's equations is by
> altering E and B according to the formulas you object to (despite
> the fact that identical formulas have been used in the Lorentz force
> formula which never bothered you for some reason).

k and K were coordinate systems. The observers had different names in
Einsteins text. I would prefer to use 'A' as name of the stationary
observer located at the zero spot of K.

The system k moves along the X-axis of K with velocity v into the
positive x-direction.

The system k has also an observer located at its center, for which I
would chose the name 'B'.

This system is also stationary, but only in respect to B, while A moves.

The Lorentz tranformations should now convert observation from K to k or
vice versa.

To do so, also the fields stationary in k and moving in K or vice versa
had to be transformed, too.

To do this we had to read Henry Poincaré, who developed such
transformations and named them after Hendrik Lorentz.

> The entire POINT of Einstein's paper (as originally intended by Einstein) was
> to show that one can sensibly justify the claim that those transformed
> E and B fields would be exactly as physical (according to k) as the
> original E and B were (according to K). This e.g. resolves the
> magnet-and-coil question Einstein mentions in the introduction.

Einstein actual intentions were not my topic. I have only studied a
certain text, into which I wrote annotations.

...

>>>> If the field strength is actually changing with velocity, this would be
>>>> a physical problem, not a geometrical one.
>>>
>>> But the fields do change with the observer, this had been known for
>>> a long time. ...
>>
>> Why then wrote Einstein the opposite?
>
> He didn't write the opposite.

Actually he did:

he wrote on page 14 (roughly in the middle)

X'=X


That 'X' means 'electric field strenth in the x-direction'.

The ' sign ('prime') means 'moving'.


Therefore Einstein assumed, that the electric field strength would not
change upon movement.

But that is apparently wrong, at least Mmaxwell wrote so in 1864.


...


TH

[Thomas Heger]

I have made no assumption so far.

But in case of Einstein there were other possible influences, rather
than MI6 (which was very unlikely the source).

At first: Einstein was a Swiss citizen, he went to school, studied and
worked in Switzerland.

So, something related to Switzerland would be required.

Then he apparently had connections to the Jesuits.

E.g. he lived next door to a Jesuit facility in Italy. He also had a lot
of connections to George LeMaitre (possibly he spoke French).

But Einstein spoke VERY poor English, even after decades in the USA.

Einstein also lived in a relative large number of countries:
Germany
Italy
Switzerland
Chech Republik
USA
..?

And a relatively large number of persons he had contact with were
involved in the research of nuclear energy:

Leo Szillard
Marie Curie
Liese Meitner
Otto Hahn
Max Plank
Nils Bohr
...?



No idea, what to make out of this, just wanted to mention, that MI6
would not fit.



TH

[JanPB]

They are not different units in the Gaussian system.

> like pressure
> and weigth,

N/A. Learn about X if you want to discuss X (esp. if you want to
criticise X).

> for instance, even if a pressure gauge and a kitchen scale
> work with a spring.
>
> It is fantastically stupid nonsese to even advocate such use of values.

No. You simply don't understand how this works. Some people, when
they don't understand something, tend to blame everyone but themselves
for this. I cannot fix this problem for you.

> > But you haven't answered my question why exactly the same
> > addition or subtraction does not bother you when it's written
> > in the Lorentz force law:
> >
> > F/q = E + (v/c) x B
> Actually it did bother me, that Einstein tried to subtract electric from
> magnetic field strength,

So why it doesn't bother you when Lorentz does exactly the same?

> Einstein had not used the 'x' of the cross product correctly,

The point is that the components of the Lorentz force law formula
look exactly like those of the Lorentz-transformed E and B fields.

"Einstein had not used the 'x' of the cross product correctly" is,
incidentally, the funniest part of your post.

> >>> The values of the fields measured by the k observer.
> >>> Ultimately they are the way they are because Maxwell's equations
> >>> are the way they are.
> >>
> >> I wouldn't count that as an explanation.
> >
> > That's where the formula comes from. Can't you derive it for
> > yourself?
> Actually I have read a book of Maxwell and was not able to find the
> equations Einstein used.

The transformed E and B fields were derived by Lorentz, not Maxwell.
Einstein only re-derived them to demonstrate the power of his new approach.

> So, he had apparently other sources, but didn't consider it necessary to
> inform the reader, which his sources were.

It's obvious what his sources were: Lorentz's big paper from the
previous year.

> >>> He only wanted to show that his method yields the same formulas
> >>> for the transformed fields as those obtained by Lorentz. He also
> >>> does it more elegantly by being able to get rid of the extra multiplicative
> >>> factor by quick geometric considerations while Lorentz works quite
> >>> hard on that one detail in his 1904 paper.
> >> Here a quote from some text written by Lorentz would be required.
> >
> > If it was a textbook, yes. In a research paper devoted to a topic everyone
> > is talking about - no. It's excessive pedantry in most contexts of this type
> > and considered a defect by some.
> Don't you think it would be nice to know, WHICH textbook Einstein used?

No. This is a research paper, not a textbook. The reader knows exactly
where the previous stuff comes from.

> >> If he actually wanted to do, what you assume he wanted to do, he had to
> >> write that himself.
> >
> > Not needed, he was writing for the professional audience. Another author
> > might have said it. Point is, this is a non-issue. Even less than non-issue.
> I think, it is in fact an issue!
>
> Actually Einstein mentioned Heinrich Hertz and his adaptation of
> Maxwell's equation.
>
> As far as I can tell, Herth did that and developed an own form of
> Maxwell's equations. But Hertz died young and his version got more or
> less lost.
>
> Now it is hard to say, to what Einstein actually referred with his
> equations.

Einstein just wrote Maxwell's equations.

> I have read, the Hertz Ansatz used total derivatives, while Einstein
> wrote partial differential equation.

This is irrelevant.

> Now: what guarantees, that at least Hertz was quoted correctly?

Irrelevant.

> >>>>>> I also found it totally illogic to aplly the geometric relations from
> >>>>>> the kinematic part to the 'length' of the field strength vector.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> These are Lorentz's formulas from his 1904 paper (or earlier,
> >>>>> I forget). It's not any more or less illogical than Maxwell's
> >>>>> equations. Einstein uses the same "geometric relations" as
> >>>>> Lorentz in 1904 to derive those formulas.
> >>>> But you cannot apply geometric relations to field strength vectors,
> >>>> because the 'length' of the vectors is arbitrary.
> >>>
> >>> Measured values of those fields are not arbitrary.
> >> Sure. But 'length of the field strength vector' is arbitrary, because it
> >> is only a geometric representation of field strength.
> >>
> >> To apply the methods of the kinematic part to the length of the field
> >> strength vector is imho nonsense.
> >
> > This is simple mathematics: there are fields E and B at every point
> > in space and at every instant, as measured by K. In other words,
> > there are two vector functions: E(x, y, z, t) and B(x, y, z, t).
> The term 'space' is undefined, if no reference system is provided.

It is defined. Two systems in fact, one called K and another called k.

> That is actually the main point of relativity itself: space is 'relative'.

Meaningless. Word salad.

> Therefore

There is no "therefore" following a nonsensical sentence.

> Space itself does not provide any 'anchor' hence you cannot use
> coordinates without a reference point.

Word salad.

> This, btw, is also the case for time, because time also requires a
> reference point, from which we measure time intervals.

Word salad. Pseudoscience.

> So: 'instant of time' and 'position in space' are illegal constructs, if
> you have no reference system.

Word salad. Pseudoscience.

> >>>> If the field strength is actually changing with velocity, this would be
> >>>> a physical problem, not a geometrical one.
> >>>
> >>> But the fields do change with the observer, this had been known for
> >>> a long time. ...
> >>
> >> Why then wrote Einstein the opposite?
> >
> > He didn't write the opposite.
> Actually he did:
>
> he wrote on page 14 (roughly in the middle)
>
> X'=X

This only means that the field's x-coordinate does not change. But the other
two coordinates change, in other words, the field changes.

>
> That 'X' means 'electric field strenth in the x-direction'.
>
> The ' sign ('prime') means 'moving'.
>
> Therefore Einstein assumed, that the electric field strength would not
> change upon movement.

No. It only says the X component does not change.

> But that is apparently wrong, at least Mmaxwell wrote so in 1864.

No, this is correct and never changed since 1904. Maxwell didn't
know the Lorentz transformation and how altered the E and B fields.

--
Jan

[Maciej Wozniak]

On Thursday, 31 March 2022 at 09:14:35 UTC+2, JanPB wrote:
>
> N/A. Learn about X if you want to discuss X (esp. if you want to
> criticise X).

How dare you criticising communism, fool!!! Have
you studied the works of comerade Lenin?

[Thomas Heger]

Well, I could study communism quite easily without reading Lenin.

In Berlin (where I live) it took only a ticket for the subway and a
'entrence fee' (of 25 DM), if you wanted to study communism extensively.

But, to be fair, communism didn't work that well (with Lenin or without).


TH

[Thomas Heger]

I understand, that magnetic field and electric field have different
effects, hence are different things, even if related.

So: I cannot subtract 1 amp from 1 Volt, because that does not make much
more sense then subtraction weigth from pressure.

Both fields are related, but actually different things.

Now Einstein used magnetic field strength in the z-direction callen 'N'
and subtracted an electric field strength called 'Y' from that (times a
real valued factor v/c).

I have asked the question, how this equation is related to physical reality.

Now you replied, that electric and magnetic 'force' have the same units
in the cgs system (these units are called 'dyne') and therefore might be
subtracted.

To me this is total nonsense. Actually the term 'force' was already
wrong, because actually meant was 'field strength'.

That 19th century physics didn't know better would not count as an excuse.

>>> But you haven't answered my question why exactly the same
>>> addition or subtraction does not bother you when it's written
>>> in the Lorentz force law:
>>>
>>> F/q = E + (v/c) x B
>> Actually it did bother me, that Einstein tried to subtract electric from
>> magnetic field strength,
>
> So why it doesn't bother you when Lorentz does exactly the same?

Lorentz and his books and papers were not my topic.

If Einstein wanted to incorporate some parts from Lorentz' works into
his own paper, he had to write quotes (what he didn't).

>> Einstein had not used the 'x' of the cross product correctly,
>
> The point is that the components of the Lorentz force law formula
> look exactly like those of the Lorentz-transformed E and B fields.
>
> "Einstein had not used the 'x' of the cross product correctly" is,
> incidentally, the funniest part of your post.

Here we use an 'ACII only' medium, hence that cross is written as 'x'.

Actually it has a different code in ASCII extensions, but I prefer to
stick to 'ACII only'. That's why 'x' is an ASCII letter, which
occasionally means the cross from the cross product and not the letter x.

>>>>> The values of the fields measured by the k observer.
>>>>> Ultimately they are the way they are because Maxwell's equations
>>>>> are the way they are.
>>>>
>>>> I wouldn't count that as an explanation.
>>>
>>> That's where the formula comes from. Can't you derive it for
>>> yourself?
>> Actually I have read a book of Maxwell and was not able to find the
>> equations Einstein used.
>
> The transformed E and B fields were derived by Lorentz, not Maxwell.
> Einstein only re-derived them to demonstrate the power of his new approach.

???

Actually Maxwell was the guy, who developed the equations, that were
named after him, not Hendrik Lorentz half a century later.

>> So, he had apparently other sources, but didn't consider it necessary to
>> inform the reader, which his sources were.
>
> It's obvious what his sources were: Lorentz's big paper from the
> previous year.

'Obvious' is an illegal phrase in theoretical physics.

>>>>> He only wanted to show that his method yields the same formulas
>>>>> for the transformed fields as those obtained by Lorentz. He also
>>>>> does it more elegantly by being able to get rid of the extra multiplicative
>>>>> factor by quick geometric considerations while Lorentz works quite
>>>>> hard on that one detail in his 1904 paper.
>>>> Here a quote from some text written by Lorentz would be required.
>>>
>>> If it was a textbook, yes. In a research paper devoted to a topic everyone
>>> is talking about - no. It's excessive pedantry in most contexts of this type
>>> and considered a defect by some.
>> Don't you think it would be nice to know, WHICH textbook Einstein used?
>
> No. This is a research paper, not a textbook. The reader knows exactly
> where the previous stuff comes from.

'Textbook' is not meant as equivalent to 'book printed on paper'.

I prefer the simple phrase 'text', which is applicable to any kind of
written material, on whatever medium.

>>>> If he actually wanted to do, what you assume he wanted to do, he had to
>>>> write that himself.
>>>
>>> Not needed, he was writing for the professional audience. Another author
>>> might have said it. Point is, this is a non-issue. Even less than non-issue.
>> I think, it is in fact an issue!
>>
>> Actually Einstein mentioned Heinrich Hertz and his adaptation of
>> Maxwell's equation.
>>
>> As far as I can tell, Herth did that and developed an own form of
>> Maxwell's equations. But Hertz died young and his version got more or
>> less lost.
>>
>> Now it is hard to say, to what Einstein actually referred with his
>> equations.
>
> Einstein just wrote Maxwell's equations.

'Maxwell's equation's' (as we know them today) were actually not
written by Maxwell himself.

The origional 20 quaternion equations of Maxwell were altered by a guy
named Heaviside after Maxwell died.

Such equations should therefore bear the name 'Heaviside equations'.

Einstein menationed 'Maxwell-Hertz equations', but didn't regard it
necessary to inform the reader, from where he got them.

So we are now forced to estimate, to which equations he actually referred.

Since Heinrich Hertz was mentioned, he meant something like 'Hertz
equations', which Hertz had apparently published somewhere.

Since his works are far less 'obvious' than Maxwell's, we need a
reference to the meant source. But this was missing here as in all other
cases.

Now you argue, that this is actually obvious to the intended audience of
professional physicists.

Therefore you should be able to tell me the source and provide a
reference to the quoted material.

>> I have read, the Hertz Ansatz used total derivatives, while Einstein
>> wrote partial differential equation.
>
> This is irrelevant.

Not at all.

If the 'Hertz ansatz' is actually quoted correctly, than everything is
ok, otherwise not.

...


TH

[JanPB]

On Thursday, March 31, 2022 at 10:05:46 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
>
> In Berlin (where I live) it took only a ticket for the subway and a
> 'entrence fee' (of 25 DM), if you wanted to study communism extensively.
>
> But, to be fair, communism didn't work that well (with Lenin or without).

I used to go to Berlin in the 1970s and 1980s, still have Bhf. Friedrichstr. stamps
in my old passport. Or an announcement at an U-Bahn station, always
intoned twice: "Kochstrasse. Letzter Bahnhof Berlin West, letzter Bahnhof
Berlin West."

Zurückbleiben :-)

--
Jan

[JanPB]

You don't subtract 1 A from 1 V.

> Both fields are related, but actually different things.
>
> Now Einstein used magnetic field strength in the z-direction callen 'N'
> and subtracted an electric field strength called 'Y' from that (times a
> real valued factor v/c).

It's not Einstein, and it's not even Lorentz (who started it), it's simply
the mathematics of Maxwell's equations.

> I have asked the question, how this equation is related to physical reality.
>
> Now you replied, that electric and magnetic 'force' have the same units

Not force but force per charge.

> in the cgs system (these units are called 'dyne') and therefore might be
> subtracted.
>
> To me this is total nonsense. Actually the term 'force' was already
> wrong, because actually meant was 'field strength'.

Well, this is basic physics. Although units can be a notoriously confusing
subject. Just ask a mathematician what the units of Riemann curvature are :-)

> That 19th century physics didn't know better would not count as an excuse.

It did know better, this part is exactly the same today.

> >>> But you haven't answered my question why exactly the same
> >>> addition or subtraction does not bother you when it's written
> >>> in the Lorentz force law:
> >>>
> >>> F/q = E + (v/c) x B
> >> Actually it did bother me, that Einstein tried to subtract electric from
> >> magnetic field strength,
> >
> > So why it doesn't bother you when Lorentz does exactly the same?
> Lorentz and his books and papers were not my topic.

But then you cannot write notes singling out Einstein. If you want your
notes to have any meaning, you have to find out the actual layout of
the land so to speak.

> If Einstein wanted to incorporate some parts from Lorentz' works into
> his own paper, he had to write quotes (what he didn't).

No. That's not how science papers work in general. Authors of course
may do this sort of thing but the appropriateness of it in a particular
instance is 100% the author's discretion. In cases where this sort of
thing is truly misleading, the reviewers will point it out.

> occasionally means the cross from the cross product and not the letter x.
> >>>>> The values of the fields measured by the k observer.
> >>>>> Ultimately they are the way they are because Maxwell's equations
> >>>>> are the way they are.
> >>>>
> >>>> I wouldn't count that as an explanation.
> >>>
> >>> That's where the formula comes from. Can't you derive it for
> >>> yourself?
> >> Actually I have read a book of Maxwell and was not able to find the
> >> equations Einstein used.
> >
> > The transformed E and B fields were derived by Lorentz, not Maxwell.
> > Einstein only re-derived them to demonstrate the power of his new approach.
> ???
>
> Actually Maxwell was the guy, who developed the equations, that were
> named after him, not Hendrik Lorentz half a century later.

Lookslike we are talking past each other. I was referring to the transformed
E and B fields which are Lorentz's work.

> >> So, he had apparently other sources, but didn't consider it necessary to
> >> inform the reader, which his sources were.
> >
> > It's obvious what his sources were: Lorentz's big paper from the
> > previous year.
> 'Obvious' is an illegal phrase in theoretical physics.

No, it's a standard procedure. It is simply not required to state the
obvious things. In a math research paper about PDEs the author is
not going to say what derivative is. Etc.

> >>>>> He only wanted to show that his method yields the same formulas
> >>>>> for the transformed fields as those obtained by Lorentz. He also
> >>>>> does it more elegantly by being able to get rid of the extra multiplicative
> >>>>> factor by quick geometric considerations while Lorentz works quite
> >>>>> hard on that one detail in his 1904 paper.
> >>>> Here a quote from some text written by Lorentz would be required.
> >>>
> >>> If it was a textbook, yes. In a research paper devoted to a topic everyone
> >>> is talking about - no. It's excessive pedantry in most contexts of this type
> >>> and considered a defect by some.
> >> Don't you think it would be nice to know, WHICH textbook Einstein used?
> >
> > No. This is a research paper, not a textbook. The reader knows exactly
> > where the previous stuff comes from.
> 'Textbook' is not meant as equivalent to 'book printed on paper'.
>
> I prefer the simple phrase 'text', which is applicable to any kind of
> written material, on whatever medium.

Either way, it was perfectly standard for Einstein not to mention it.

> >>>> If he actually wanted to do, what you assume he wanted to do, he had to
> >>>> write that himself.
> >>>
> >>> Not needed, he was writing for the professional audience. Another author
> >>> might have said it. Point is, this is a non-issue. Even less than non-issue.
> >> I think, it is in fact an issue!
> >>
> >> Actually Einstein mentioned Heinrich Hertz and his adaptation of
> >> Maxwell's equation.
> >>
> >> As far as I can tell, Herth did that and developed an own form of
> >> Maxwell's equations. But Hertz died young and his version got more or
> >> less lost.
> >>
> >> Now it is hard to say, to what Einstein actually referred with his
> >> equations.
> >
> > Einstein just wrote Maxwell's equations.
> 'Maxwell's equation's' (as we know them today) were actually not
> written by Maxwell himself.

True but irrelevant. He simply wrote Maxwell's equations as they
were known at the time of publication (Lorentz did the same in his paper).

> The origional 20 quaternion equations of Maxwell were altered by a guy
> named Heaviside after Maxwell died.
>
> Such equations should therefore bear the name 'Heaviside equations'.

No.

> Now you argue, that this is actually obvious to the intended audience of
> professional physicists.
>
> Therefore you should be able to tell me the source and provide a
> reference to the quoted material.

No. It would be obvious to you if you were a part of the intended audience.

> >> I have read, the Hertz Ansatz used total derivatives, while Einstein
> >> wrote partial differential equation.
> >
> > This is irrelevant.
> Not at all.
>
> If the 'Hertz ansatz' is actually quoted correctly, than everything is
> ok, otherwise not.

Irrelevant.

--
Jan

[Thomas Heger]

From this experience in socialism the Germans kept the memories, that
the system didn't really work.

It was a long and tough time, but afterwards there was a long party,
once that system passed away.

And very few miss it, with the exception of a few Marxists like e.g.
Klaus Schwab.

These guys are actually dangerous, because they are very influential.


TH

[Thomas Heger]

Am 01.04.2022 um 09:39 schrieb JanPB:
...

>>>> So, he had apparently other sources, but didn't consider it necessary to
>>>> inform the reader, which his sources were.
>>>
>>> It's obvious what his sources were: Lorentz's big paper from the
>>> previous year.
>> 'Obvious' is an illegal phrase in theoretical physics.
>
> No, it's a standard procedure. It is simply not required to state the
> obvious things. In a math research paper about PDEs the author is
> not going to say what derivative is. Etc.

If things are obvious, you may eventually write that.

But if things are difficult or not obvious at all, you must not write that.

...

>>>> Now it is hard to say, to what Einstein actually referred with his
>>>> equations.
>>>
>>> Einstein just wrote Maxwell's equations.
>> 'Maxwell's equation's' (as we know them today) were actually not
>> written by Maxwell himself.
>
> True but irrelevant. He simply wrote Maxwell's equations as they
> were known at the time of publication (Lorentz did the same in his paper).

Other peoples faults are no excuse.

A quote was mandatory for the source of what he called 'Maxwell-Hertz
equations'.

>> The origional 20 quaternion equations of Maxwell were altered by a guy
>> named Heaviside after Maxwell died.
>>
>> Such equations should therefore bear the name 'Heaviside equations'.
>
> No.
>

Yes!

The vector notation used today was not Maxwell's method. Maxwell used
quaternions and though about an 'aether'.

The quaternions were composed from a scalar and a vector part. The
scalar part was omitted by Heaviside without Maxwell's permission,
because Maxwell was already dead.

Because such equations do not stem from Maxwell, but from Heaviside,
they should bear his name.

>> Now you argue, that this is actually obvious to the intended audience of
>> professional physicists.
>>
>> Therefore you should be able to tell me the source and provide a
>> reference to the quoted material.
>
> No. It would be obvious to you if you were a part of the intended audience.

Einstein had to write about the axioms, upon which he wanted to base his
theory.

Instead of writing that, he did the same as you do: he referred to
unmentioned authorities by the name 'currently believed' or 'common sense'.

But there is no such thing as 'current believes', because it is nonsense
to assume, that all phyisicst have the same ideas.

There is only a subset of all physicists, who share the believe in the
validity of Einstein's axioms.

To find out, what these axioms actually were, was difficult, because
Einstein didn't mention them, because he thought, the readers would know
them anyhow.

But it is totally wrong to even mention 'current understanding' in
theoretical physics, because only written material can be quoted, not
'current understanding' (whatever that might be).

But his axioms could be estimated, anyhow:

Euclidean geometry in Euclidean space
Cartesian coordinates
Newtons mechanics
a totally materialistic world view
19th century stile of understanding of electricity

He also mentioned Heinrich Hertz and Hendrik Lorentz, but no title of
any of their works.

>>>> I have read, the Hertz Ansatz used total derivatives, while Einstein
>>>> wrote partial differential equation.
>>>
>>> This is irrelevant.
>> Not at all.
>>
>> If the 'Hertz ansatz' is actually quoted correctly, than everything is
>> ok, otherwise not.
>

No!

Hertz was mentioned and therefore his works were among Einstein's axioms.

It is absolutely essential, that Hertz was quoted correctly.

TH

[Richie Cruze]

JanPB wrote:

>> So: I cannot subtract 1 amp from 1 Volt, because that does not make
>> much more sense then subtraction weigth from pressure.
>
> You don't subtract 1 A from 1 V.

Yes, sure, but Russia had to chose between giving gas and oil to europe on
fake money, or as now, getting invaded from all directions, making the gas
and oil they own, now free liquefied to the western capitalist europe.

I bet they are preparing to attack Russia from all directions. It may be
the reason for which the russians are going back.

Also, strange that brother slavic countries, as Poland, Tchekoslovakia,
Bulgaria, Estonia, Lituania, and the other one, not even to mention the
fictitious "ukraine", are bending asses to capitalist western europe
subjugation, and hence, are not there to help anymore.

The liberal capitalist EU were about to kick Poland out, just a month ago.
Incredible, my friend.

[Michael Moroney]

On 4/2/2022 2:17 PM, Richie Cruze wrote:

> Also, strange that brother slavic countries, as Poland, Tchekoslovakia,
> Bulgaria, Estonia, Lituania, and the other one, not even to mention the
> fictitious "ukraine", are bending asses to capitalist western europe
> subjugation, and hence, are not there to help anymore.

Yes, it really is strange how the war criminal 卐Путин卐 attacked his
fellow Slavs in Ukraine, targeting civilians! Especially when so many
Russians are married to Ukrainians, or are half Russian and half
Ukrainians. That's why many Russian soldiers sabotaged their own
equipment, they have FAMILY there.

What kind of insane war criminal 卐Путин卐 must be, to kill fellow Slavs
just so he can have his Третий Рейх! Maybe his real name is 卐Путлер卐.

卐Путин卐 хуйло!

[Richie Cruze]

Michael Moroney wrote:

>> Also, strange that brother slavic countries, as Poland, Tchekoslovakia,
>> Bulgaria, Estonia, Lituania, and the other one, not even to mention the
>> fictitious "ukraine", are bending asses to capitalist western europe
>> subjugation, and hence, are not there to help anymore.
>
> Yes, it really is strange how the war criminal 卐Путин卐 attacked his
> fellow Slavs in Ukraine, targeting civilians! Especially when so many
> Russians are married to Ukrainians, or are half Russian and half
> Ukrainians. That's

You are deluded, without the entire liberal capitalist western illegal
nato, actively participating with military crap and personnel, the "war"
had been over in two (2) days. But now it looks like they are preparing to
attack Russia, to get the gas and oil for free, from all directions.

Does not matter, Putin or another from the continuity of government would
possibly make the western liberal capitalis europe not habitable for
decades and centuries. I really don't understand Poland participating to
the crime, with own people killed in masses by the "ukrainian" nazis,
written in history, then also just a month ago, about to be kicked out of
EU for a capitalist reason.

Liberal capitalism eats your mind, friend. Turns friends into enemies.

[Michael Moroney]

On 4/2/2022 3:07 PM, Richie Cruze wrote:
> Michael Moroney wrote:
>
>>> Also, strange that brother slavic countries, as Poland, Tchekoslovakia,
>>> Bulgaria, Estonia, Lituania, and the other one, not even to mention the
>>> fictitious "ukraine", are bending asses to capitalist western europe
>>> subjugation, and hence, are not there to help anymore.
>>
>> Yes, it really is strange how the war criminal 卐Путин卐 attacked his
>> fellow Slavs in Ukraine, targeting civilians! Especially when so many
>> Russians are married to Ukrainians, or are half Russian and half
>> Ukrainians. That's
>
> You are deluded, without the entire liberal capitalist western illegal
> nato, actively participating with military crap and personnel, the "war"
> had been over in two (2) days.

Is that what you are crying about? The Russian generals didn't expect
the Ukrainians to fight back in order to protect themselves from 卐Путлер卐.

Speaking of Russian generals, how many do you have left?

> But now it looks like they are preparing to
> attack Russia, to get the gas and oil for free, from all directions.

Funny you should mention that.. Russia all upset that the Ukrainians
"violated their sovereignty" when Ukraine bombed their fuel depot. (And
where was the Russian air defenses?)

BTW why did you snip this part of my post?

[JanPB]

On Saturday, April 2, 2022 at 12:07:24 PM UTC-7, Richie Cruze wrote:
> Michael Moroney wrote:
>
> >> Also, strange that brother slavic countries, as Poland, Tchekoslovakia,
> >> Bulgaria, Estonia, Lituania, and the other one, not even to mention the
> >> fictitious "ukraine", are bending asses to capitalist western europe
> >> subjugation, and hence, are not there to help anymore.
> >
> > Yes, it really is strange how the war criminal 卐Путин卐 attacked his
> > fellow Slavs in Ukraine, targeting civilians! Especially when so many
> > Russians are married to Ukrainians, or are half Russian and half
> > Ukrainians. That's
> You are deluded, without the entire liberal capitalist western illegal
> nato, actively participating with military crap and personnel, the "war"
> had been over in two (2) days.

No, that's not the reason it lasts more than 2 days. Also, contrary to the
popular theory, NATO expansion had practically nothing to do with
Putin's invasion. It serves merely as a very convenient excuse for him.
In general, whenever you have both Noam Chomsky and Henry Kissinger
agreeing on a theory, it should raise a red flag :-)

--
Jan

[Richie Cruze]

*_卐Michael_Moroney卐_* wrote:

>> You are deluded, without the entire liberal capitalist western illegal
>> nato, actively participating with military crap and personnel, the
>> "war"
>> had been over in two (2) days.
>
> Is that what you are crying about? The Russian generals didn't expect
> the Ukrainians to fight back in order to protect themselves from
> 卐Путлер卐.

It's NOT the "ukrainians", you fucking imbecile. They are gone. They are
not stupid giving their lives for the oligarchs, keeping them in deep
poverty for now 30 years now. It's 卐Michael_Moroney卐 not understanding
shit, making things worse for everybody. They said, you want atomic bombs,
they give you atomic bombs. What part you don't understand. For a puppet
wanker, an actor (lying for money) talking in your parliament.

recently

US thanks Russia for returning astronaut NASA grateful for Roscosmos’ safe
return of astronaut Mark Vande Hei
https://www.rt.com/news/553078-nasa-thanks-roscosmos-vande-hei/

where is your consideration?

[Richie Cruze]

JanPB wrote:

>> > Yes, it really is strange how the war criminal 卐Путин卐 attacked his
>> > fellow Slavs in Ukraine, targeting civilians! Especially when so many
>> > Russians are married to Ukrainians, or are half Russian and half
>> > Ukrainians. That's
>> You are deluded, without the entire liberal capitalist western illegal
>> nato, actively participating with military crap and personnel, the
>> "war"
>> had been over in two (2) days.
>
> No, that's not the reason it lasts more than 2 days. Also, contrary to
> the popular theory, NATO expansion had practically nothing to do with
> Putin's invasion. It serves merely as a very convenient excuse for him.
> In general, whenever you have both Noam Chomsky and Henry Kissinger
> agreeing on a theory, it should raise a red flag

I can use my two brain cells to realize, that there are not the
"ukrainians", emigrated from poverty, pushing this war. But certainly the
nazis and the nato mercenaries, recently crashed in a helicopter. France,
UK and some others from Africa.

Trapped!!! American and UK Military “Advisors”, Plus France Intel
Operatives with Azov Nazis in Mariupol – Now Trapped by Russian Forces
https://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=251691

Overnight, Ukraine sent two military helicopters to Mariupol to try to
rescue the trapped US, UK, and Ukrainian Secret Police persons. Both
those helicopters landed without incident, but when they took off, both
were SHOT DOWN.

One of those helicopters had 17 aboard, 15 of whom died when the chopper
was hit and crashed into the earth. The two survivors have been taken
prisoner by Russian forces.

The second helicopter was hit several kilometers off the coast of
Mariupol, and fell into the Sea of Azov. Rescue craft were sent, but no
word yet on finding anything or anyone in the water.

One of the Mi-8 helicopters was shot down by . . . . . . . An American
STINGER anti-aircraft, man-launched missile, supplied to Ukraine by the
United States and later captured from the Ukrainian forces by Russian
forces.

From the helicopter that crashed into the earth, COVERT INTEL SOURCES now
tell me, the bodies of two French Intelligence operatives, allegedly with
DGSE credentials, were also said to have been recovered.

If true, this would explain French President Macron’s desperate attempts
to have a French-led evacuation out of Mariupol last week! Macron’s
requests to Putin were declined. If French Intelligence Agents were
embedded with AZOV NAZI troops, then this is a massive PR problem for both
France and for NATO.

Updated: Nazi High Command Dead in Failed Zelensky/CIA Rescue Attempt
(warning/graphic)
https://www.veteranstoday.com/2022/03/31/march-31-nazi-high-command-dead-
in-failed-zelensky-cia-rescue-attempt-warning-graphic/

[Thomas Heger]

Am 01.04.2022 um 09:39 schrieb JanPB:

Electric field strength (commonly called 'E') was subtracted from
magnetic field strength (commonly called 'H') by Einstein.

E has [V/m] as units and H has [A/m].

To subtract E from H would mean [A/m - V/m] =[(A - V)/m].

(Einstein used only the X-components called 'N' and 'Y', which should
have similar units, nevertheless. The used phrase 'force' instead of
'field strength' was actually wrong.)

Now ... ..(N - v/c*Y)... contains an illegal operation, because it
requires to subtract Volts from Amps. (sorry: I wrote it the other way
round, but that does not matter, because subtraction is also a form of
addition).

I have complained about this operation and you are still not able to
justify that by other means then by referencing to the same units used
in the cgs system.

My argument, that this would justify other operations, which are
regarded as illegal, like subtraction pressure from weight, hence must
be illegal itself, you were unable to disprove.

So in effect you are unable to defend Einstein's position.


TH


...

[JanPB]

Bottom line is Putin invaded, not anyone else.

--
Jan

[JanPB]

You are arguing basic undergraduate E&M. It has nothing to do
with Einstein. So if you have problems with the Gaussian system,
create a new thread and remove your gripes about it from your
notes about the 1905 paper.

> My argument, that this would justify other operations, which are
> regarded as illegal, like subtraction pressure from weight, hence must
> be illegal itself, you were unable to disprove.

I'm not going to "disprove" anything, it is you who now has to learn how
units work.

> So in effect you are unable to defend Einstein's position.

I don't need to "defend" any "Einstein position" because, first of all, it's
basic physics, not anything specific to Einstein. Secondly, you need to
simply learn this stuff. It cannot be taught on a text-based short-form
forum like this. If such a thing had been possible, universities would've
disappeared long time ago.

--
Jan

[Elmer Joss]

For protecting his country and the majority of russian people subjugated
along 30 years by those nazis, playing kings, you fucking idiot. You can't
read nor understand. Recentlu your gay actor zelenske (from Germany) made
"illegal" 11 political parties, fired tens of generals etc. The wikipedia
says those nazis killed in masses the people of Poland. How the fuck can
you be this imbecile??

[Odd Bodkin]

How about in cgs units? You know about those?

>
> To subtract E from H would mean [A/m - V/m] =[(A - V)/m].
>
> (Einstein used only the X-components called 'N' and 'Y', which should
> have similar units, nevertheless. The used phrase 'force' instead of
> 'field strength' was actually wrong.)
>
> Now ... ..(N - v/c*Y)... contains an illegal operation, because it
> requires to subtract Volts from Amps. (sorry: I wrote it the other way
> round, but that does not matter, because subtraction is also a form of
> addition).
>
> I have complained about this operation and you are still not able to
> justify that by other means then by referencing to the same units used
> in the cgs system.
>
> My argument, that this would justify other operations, which are
> regarded as illegal, like subtraction pressure from weight, hence must
> be illegal itself, you were unable to disprove.
>
> So in effect you are unable to defend Einstein's position.
>
>
> TH
>
>
> ...
>
>

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[Michael Moroney]

The Gaussian/CGS system uses different definitions for electric and
magnetic fields. Both are defined as force per unit charge.

The magnetic field also needs a speed/velocity component, but CGS uses a
_ratio_ of v/c which is unitless. Since both the magnetic and electric
fields have the same units, they can be added or subtracted from each other.

CGS was much more popular during Einstein's time. Many people these
days aren't familiar with it.

Note that under MKS, the electric field is _also_ defined as a force per
unit charge. You can rearrange its units (volts/meter) and get
(newtons/coulomb), which is obviously a force/unit charge.

>
> My argument, that this would justify other operations, which are
> regarded as illegal, like subtraction pressure from weight, hence must
> be illegal itself, you were unable to disprove.

No, in CGS pressure and weight don't have the same units so that is not
possible.

>
> So in effect you are unable to defend Einstein's position.
>

It's not "Einstein's position", the Gaussian system was the customary
units of the time.

[JanPB]

By killing women and children, yes? That's some "protection". This line of
argument is also oddly reminiscent of the justification for the invasion of
Czechoslovakia or Hungary which was also "defending" against "imperialists".

The real reason for Putin's invasion is that he has the ambition of "restoring"
the Russian empire. This has been a fixation of his for decades, and he never
made a big secret about it. And he is not the first Russian leader to fall victim
to that illusion. What happened to him is the standard progressive
delusion over 22 years of his power, surrounded by yes-men too afraid to
tell him, for example, that Russian army was non-functional, both in terms
of the hardware and the logistics.

Detachment from reality is the standard trap all despots fall into eventually.

The root cause of the problem is that Russia *looks* like a superpower simply
on the map, but is *in reality* a small country (its GDP is about equal to that
of Italy) which never had what it took to actually BE a superpower.
And so it happened that when the time has come, it was *China* that made
the right moves in the 1970s, while Russia put Solzhenitsyn under house arrest
for suggesting to Brezhnev exactly the same thing. Yet again Russia earned
an "F" and has let the *other* (China this time) to become the power instead.
50 years have been wasted this way.

And now when the time has come to pay off the "empire dream" credit bill,
Putin is instead, yet again, acting up like a thug and murderer that he is.
The thought to simply become a part of the adult world of adult nations
simply does not occur to him.

This love/hate fixation/inferiority complex with the West has been a fixture
in Russia for centuries, it's nothing new and nothing related to "NATO expansion"
or "Nazis in Ukraine" (I'm not saying BTW that there are no bad elements in
Ukrainian politics - that's another Very Long Story). If NATO had not expanded,
Putin would have likely attacked sooner AND not only Ukraine.

He was only waiting for the moment he considered "right", i.e. when in his
judgment the West would react least. His exact reasons for the timing one
can hypothesise about but we won't know for sure until the obligatory
tell-all memoirs written by his current top advisors have been published by
Amazon :-)

Forget it, the Russian empire is never coming back, just like Austria, UK,
Portugal, etc. Russia must face this reality if it wants to be treated as
an equal.

So to Putin I have this to say: Noblesse oblige. Or perhaps better:
Adel verpflichtet. (Putin is intoxicated by Germany and its culture.)

--
Jan

[Vance Rera]

JanPB wrote:

>> > Bottom line is Putin invaded, not anyone else.
>> For protecting his country and the majority of russian people
>> subjugated along 30 years by those nazis, playing kings, you fucking
>> idiot.
>
> By killing women and children, yes? That's some "protection". This line
> of

You certainly failed the invented *eugenicist* IQ-test, in your try to emigrate to america or cacanada, you disgusting subhuman excrement.
Knowingly the "ukrainian" nazis are war_criminals, doing these things, snipping the juicy part.

Massacres of Poles in Volhynia and Eastern Galicia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacres_of_Poles_in_Volhynia_and_Eastern_Galicia

In 2008, the massacres which were committed by the Ukrainian nationalists against the Poles in Volhynia and Galicia were described by Poland's Institute of National Remembrance as bearing the distinct characteristics of a genocide,[14][15] and on 22 July 2016, the Parliament of Poland passed a resolution recognizing the massacres as genocide.[16][17] This classification is disputed by Ukraine and non-Polish historians. According to a 2016 article in Slavic Review, there is a "scholarly consensus that this was a case of ethnic cleansing as opposed to genocide".[18]

❌What Ukraine is Hiding ❌ https://www.bitchute.com/video/tqRoHbjzmwCE/

Russian Forces RETREAT From Kyiv as Ukraine Regains the City, Zelensky Declares Total War
https://www.bitchute.com/video/bnAI8mb9uuU/

[Paul B. Andersen]

Den 03.04.2022 08:07, skrev Thomas Heger:
>
>
> Electric field strength (commonly called 'E') was subtracted from
> magnetic field strength (commonly called 'H') by Einstein.
>
> E has [V/m] as units and H has [A/m].
>
> To subtract E from H would mean [A/m - V/m] =[(A - V)/m].

Quite.
Why are you stating the obvious?
Nobody would subtract E from H!

>
> (Einstein used only the X-components called 'N' and 'Y',

???
'N' is the z-component of H and 'Y' is the y-component of E

>
> Now ... ..(N - v/c*Y)... contains an illegal operation, because it
> requires to subtract Volts from Amps. (sorry: I wrote it the other way
> round, but that does not matter, because subtraction is also a form of
> addition).

The equation you are referring to must be
the last equation on page 14 in:
https://paulba.no/paper/Electrodynamics.pdf

N' = β(N - (v/c)⋅Y) β = 1/√(1−v²/c²)

Note that this equation can be written:
c⋅N' = β(c⋅N - v⋅Y)

In the CGS system B = c⋅H, (SI: B = μ₀⋅H)

So the same equation written in the SI system is:
Bz' = β(Bz - v⋅Ey)

This means that the dimension of B and v⋅E must be the same.
Are they?

The Maxwell equation: ∇XB⃗ = ∂E⃗/∂t
shows that [dimension(B)]/[m] = [dimension(E)]/[s]
or [dimension(B)] = [dimension(E)]⋅[m]/[s] = [V/m]⋅[m/s] = [V/s]
[dimension(v⋅E)] = [(m/s)⋅(V/m)] = [V/s]

[dimension(B)] = [dimension(v⋅E)]

This must be valid independent of unit system.

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

[Vance Rera]

Thomas Heger wrote:

> But in case of Einstein there were other possible influences, rather
> than MI6 (which was very unlikely the source).
> At first: Einstein was a Swiss citizen, he went to school, studied and
> worked in Switzerland.

Watch the cocaine addicted *gay_actor* khazar, puppeted as "president".
The guy trying to engage in a serious discussion, many times more sober
and intelligent. Cocaine addicted zelenske is total parallel to
everything. But can read from the teleprompter.

❌Zelenski "I AM NOT A SUCKER"❌
https://www.bitchute.com/video/C8ZwIqMpPMEF/

UKRAINE - NO ONE'S IN CONTROL... Zelenski is a sucker and a shithead.
He is a puppet of the Deep State and a pedophile. An actor that was
trained this bullshit by World Economic Forum. He had to be a psychopath
to get this position.

[JanPB]

On Sunday, April 3, 2022 at 1:24:47 PM UTC-7, Vance Rera wrote:
> JanPB wrote:
>
> >> > Bottom line is Putin invaded, not anyone else.
> >> For protecting his country and the majority of russian people
> >> subjugated along 30 years by those nazis, playing kings, you fucking
> >> idiot.
> >
> > By killing women and children, yes? That's some "protection". This line
> > of
> You certainly failed the invented *eugenicist* IQ-test, in your try to emigrate to america or cacanada, you disgusting subhuman excrement.

And now I've reduced you to a babbling idiot with no arguments, just personal
attacks.

Again, the bottom line is that it's Putin who attacked Ukraine. It is Putin who
is bombing hospitals there. You can twist in pretzels all you want over this,
it will change nothing.

Meanwhile, notice how correct my assessment was of Putin and how to talk
to goons like him: the news just came out there is likely going to be a
Putin-Zelensky face-to-face negotiation, probably in Turkey, either in
Istambul or Ankara.

Why is this happening? I have no proof, of course, but I'm quite certain that
Biden's remark "we'll respond in kind" was a decisive factor. That remark
by Biden (whom I don't like in general) was treated by the stupid-as-normal
mainstream media as a goof and a mistake but in my opinion it was a rare
(too rare!) moment of Biden's lucidity. It must have stung in Moscow VERY
badly, exactly like Reagan's famous "evil empire" remark in the 1980s. Ditto
for Biden's hinting at replacing Putin. The White House has backpedalled
on those, of course, to make things "internationally proper" but the point
is that those things cannot really be unsaid, and for a very good reason.

Putin has fallen into a trap 100% of his own stupid making, he has
completely *squandered* his chance to make Russia into a proper, strong
member of nations at long last, after hundreds of years. But he turned out
to be a just yet another small-minded tyrant who will be lucky if he extricates
himself from this fiasco alive.

Of course the Nazi influence in Ukraine must be addressed but the
murder of the civilian population is a bit more important at the moment and
the guy responsible for it must be dealt with as the first priority. Only
after that has been taken care of we can discuss other issues.

--
Jan

[Vance Rera]

JanPB wrote:

>> You certainly failed the invented *eugenicist* IQ-test, in your try to
>> emigrate to america or cacanada, you disgusting subhuman excrement.
>
> And now I've reduced you to a babbling idiot with no arguments, just
> personal attacks.
> Again, the bottom line is that it's Putin who attacked Ukraine. It is
> Putin who is bombing hospitals there. You can twist in pretzels all you
> want over this, it will change nothing.

You deplorable nazi excrement, stop snipping the facts, proving the nazi hoaxes. The russians just saved your ass, for free, from about a more than 15 *bio_weapon_labs*, killing your agriculture, pigs, chicken etc by swine-flu, chicken-flu, to begin with, then ethnic targeted TB and so on.

Here's you hospital, you corrupt nazi idiot.

Interview with Marianna Vyshemirskaya
https://youtu.be/f0rqHB41__A

here are the people saying it

Residents of #Mariupol - those who managed to escape the clutches of the Neo-Nazis - tells the TRUTH
https://www.bitchute.com/video/wd6FKJCLuwG6/

[JanPB]

On Sunday, April 3, 2022 at 5:25:24 PM UTC-7, Vance Rera wrote:
> JanPB wrote:
>
> >> You certainly failed the invented *eugenicist* IQ-test, in your try to
> >> emigrate to america or cacanada, you disgusting subhuman excrement.
> >
> > And now I've reduced you to a babbling idiot with no arguments, just
> > personal attacks.
> > Again, the bottom line is that it's Putin who attacked Ukraine. It is
> > Putin who is bombing hospitals there. You can twist in pretzels all you
> > want over this, it will change nothing.
> You deplorable nazi excrement, stop snipping the facts, proving the nazi hoaxes.

Again, the bottom line is that it's Putin who attacked Ukraine and is bombing
hospitals, women and children. You can scream all you want.
(BTW, I agreed with you about the Nazi element twice already (a fact you
conveniently ignore)).

Putin now knows he is a hairline away from sharing the fate of Ceausescu who
made the same classic dumb mistakes as he. It will be a happy end for him if it
all ends with just the military escorting him from the Kremlin at the gunpoint.

Has anyone noticed that pathetic meeting Putin had with his advisors
few days before the invasion? It was on TV, he was sitting 20 metres away
from them and proudly *scolded* in public a couple of them when they tried
to say something he didn't like to hear, making fun of them stammering.
He thought he was showing his TV audience how big his dick was but it was
in fact exactly the kind of thing that has finally caught up with him.

Too bad Russians are paying for all this, it's always the people who suffer.

--
Jan

[Thomas Heger]

Do you really want to defend the same idocities as Einstein?

(Einstein wrote something like things would change if the definitions
were changed.)


But, in fact, there is the demand, that definitions should fit to the
object which is defined.

In case of the magnetic field strength we would like magnets to create
such a field.

For the electric fields we certainly like to include static electric
fields into the definition.

Now the question: how can you subtract a static electric field from a
static magnetic field in any reasonable way?

...

TH

[Thomas Heger]

I'm totally speachless!

No!!!

In physics you cannot randomly add or subtract numbers, just because
they have no or the same units!

In physics you have always real physical systems, which need to
correspond to the numbers in some way.

Here we have electric and magnetic field strength, which the cgs-system
unfortunately measures with the same units.

But to add or subtract these values would require, to add or subtract
those fields, what you cannot do (at least should not do).

TH

[JanPB]

Again, in the Gaussian system their units are both force per charge.
Einstein does not enter into this.

--
Jan

[J. J. Lodder]

So that is the level of the 'errors' you discovered in Einstein 1905.
All you demonstate with it is your own utter incompetence in physics,

Jan

[J. J. Lodder]

That is a completely incredible statement.
If true, stop posting your nonsense.

> No!!!
>
> In physics you cannot randomly add or subtract numbers, just because
> they have no or the same units!

Physical quantities do not *have* units or dimensions.
Units and dimensions are *assigned* human constructs.
The only constraint upon units and dimension is
that the system must be consistent.

> In physics you have always real physical systems, which need to
> correspond to the numbers in some way.
>
> Here we have electric and magnetic field strength, which the cgs-system
> unfortunately measures with the same units.

Fortunately. The cgs system, or better, Heaviside-Lorentz units,
reflect physical reality.
It is still the system of choice for doing fundametal physics,
with c=\hbar=1 (called natural units)
The SI system introduced extra unphysical constants.

From first priciples it is immediately obvious
that E and B are the same kind of thing,
for they transform into each other under Lorentz.

> But to add or subtract these values would require, to add or subtract
> those fields, what you cannot do (at least should not do).

Your confusion no doubt result from an SI-only education.

It is actually the SI fields which are unphysical.
The real physical fields are E / \sqrt(\eps_0) and \sqrt(\mu_0) * B

The physical fields have the same dimension,

Jan

[Hagan Koon]

nazi excrement JanPB failed the eugenicist IQ-test:

>> You deplorable nazi excrement, stop snipping the facts, proving the
>> nazi hoaxes.
>
> Again, the bottom line is that it's Putin who attacked Ukraine and is

You keep snipping evidences, you stinking nazi_excrement. That woman was published in all newspapers in the "west". Then she came out telling the truth, no jets, just two bombs outside the hospital, where after "journalists" were there in 10 minutes, similar the mercenary "white_helmets" hoaxing the "chemical_atack" in Syria, being there *in_minutes* "saving" people from the fake attack.

You stinking excrement, you slavic_germans are all nazi *excrement*. The fictitious "ukraine" was taken over by the nazis in 2014, killing people in Odessa and the east since then. About 100 people burned alive in a government building in Odessa 2014.

You certainly failed the eugenicist IQ-test, to emigrate to america or cacanada. Read along.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Odessa_clashes
46 anti-Maidan and two pro-Maidan activists died and over 200 people were injured as a result of the confrontations. (what they say)

Witness Describes How the nazi NATO Lie Machine Staged the Mariupol Hospital...
https://www.veteranstoday.com/2022/04/02/blockbuster-witness-describes-how-the-nato-lie-machine-staged-the-mariupol-hospital-attack-white-helmets-style/
https://youtu.be/f0rqHB41__A Listen to Marianna Vyshemirskaya tell about
how the new “White Helmets” used her to stage a fake Russian bombing…one
they staged themselves with their own explosives just like done in Syria
with Israeli help over and over and over…bombs, gas, no gas, kidnapped
kids and doctors at gunpoint…

Iskander Missile Wipes Out Kharkiv Merc Compound, 100+ Foreign Fighters
Dead
https://www.veteranstoday.com/2022/04/02/iskander-missile-wipes-out-kharkiv-merc-compound-100-foreign-fighters-dead/
“As a result of a high-precision strike with th e Iskander
operational-tactical complex on the defense headquarters in the city of
Kharkiv on March 31, the elimination of more than 100 nationalists and
mercenaries from Western countries was confirmed,” Konashenkov said.
The Russian MoD released footage of the pinpoint strike, which was
apparently carried out with an Iskander-K cruise missile.

Ukraine: Who Are the Americans Running Bioweapons Research?
https://www.veteranstoday.com/2022/04/01/ukraine-who-are-the-americans-running-bioweapons-research/
Emails published by the MoD revealed she directly supervised experiments
with deadly pathogens, including the UP-2 Project for “mapping highly
infectious diseases in Ukraine,” including anthrax; the UP-4 Project,
described as a “risk assessment of particularly dangerous pathogens
transmitted by birds in Ukraine during migration”; the UP-8 Project
studying “spread of Crimean-Congo hemorrhagic fever virus and hantaviruses
in Ukraine and the potential need for differential diagnosis of patients
with suspected leptospirosis. Previously released documents showed she
also oversaw Project P-782, conducting research into the transmission of
diseases through bats.

Russia Vows to Target British Weapons Being Supplied to *Nazis* in Ukraine
https://www.veteranstoday.com/2022/04/02/russia-vows-to-target-british-weapons-being-supplied-to-nazis-in-ukraine/
Ambassador to the UK, Andrey Kelin, said in an interview with the TASS
news agency on April 2.
“All arms supplies are destabilizing, particularly those mentioned by [UK
Defense Secretary Ben] Wallace,” Kelin said. “They exacerbate the
situation, making it even bloodier. Apparently, those are new,
high-precision weapons. Naturally, our armed forces will view them as a
legitimate target if those supplies get through the Ukrainian border.”

British intelligence notified Zelensky how the eastern grouping of the
Armed Forces of Ukraine will be destroyed – source
https://www.veteranstoday.com/2022/04/02/british-intelligence-notified-zelensky-how-the-eastern-grouping-of-the-armed-forces-of-ukraine-will-be-destroyed-source/

‘Mengele of Ukraine’, Now Russian Captive, Begs Her Nazi Friends to
Release Mariupol Hostages
https://www.veteranstoday.com/2022/04/02/mengele-of-ukraine-now-russian-captive-begs-her-nazi-friends-to-release-mariupol-hostages/
She wanted to escape from Mariupol along the humanitarian corridor,
dressed in civilian clothes and mingled with the locals. Didn’t work out,
figured it out!
Her grandfather was a veteran of the Great Patriotic War, and since 2014
she has been helping Hitler’s followers exclusively. Started with a coup
d’état on the Maidan. Then, in pursuit of thrills, she went to the ATO,
and created her own “peaceful” division – “Angels of Tyra”.

It Begins: Bioweapon Infected Phony Cash Scattered Over School in Lugansk
(censored)
https://www.veteranstoday.com/2022/04/02/breaking-us-tested-asian-tuberculosis-bioweapon-on-lugansk-school-children/
In the area of ​​​​one of the schools in 2020, counterfeit banknotes were
thrown out, the study of which showed that they were infected with the
Asian strain of tuberculosis About Biolabs

As the official representative of the Russian Ministry of Defense, Major
General Igor Konashenkov, said earlier, during a special military
operation, the facts of an emergency cleansing by the Kiev regime of
traces of a military biological program being implemented in Ukraine,
funded by the US Department of Defense, were revealed. According to him,
information was received from employees of Ukrainian biological
laboratories about the emergency destruction of especially dangerous
pathogens on February 24: plague, anthrax, tularemia, cholera, and other
deadly diseases.

On March 9, Victoria Nuland, speaking at a hearing in the Foreign
Relations Committee of the Senate of the US Congress, admitted that there
are objects in Ukraine where research in the field of biology is carried
out, Washington is trying to prevent them from falling under the control
of the Russian forces.

According to her, the State Department is “concerned that the Russian
military may be trying to take control of them,” and is working with the
Ukrainian side to ensure that Kyiv can “prevent any of these research
materials from falling into the hands of Russian forces.” In response, the
Russian Defense Ministry noted that with these words it confirmed the
participation of the Pentagon in military biological programs in Ukraine.

Here is an imbecile, destroying his once prosperous wannabe
communist country, now a shithole fucked up by western liberal capitalism.
Void of people able to work, emigrated as slaves to the fake_money west.
Hard learning the lesson, but they will.

Deputy Prime Minister Jaroslaw Kaczynski says stationing US nukes in
eastern Europe would “make sense”
https://www.rt.com/news/553214-polish-official-wants-us-nukes-eastern-europe/
“fundamentally, it makes sense to expand nuclear sharing to the eastern flank,” meaning, bombing Russia, their brother folk.

khazar Madeleine Albright’s Epitaph: “Half a Million Dead Children? We Think The
Lie It’s Worth It”
https://www.veteranstoday.com/2022/03/23/madeleine-albrights-epitaph-half-a-million-dead-children-we-think-its-worth-it/

[Odd Bodkin]

Well, actually, if two numbers have no units, yes, absolutely you can add
or subtract them. As in, 1-v/c.

>
> In physics you have always real physical systems, which need to
> correspond to the numbers in some way.

Yes, and there are different systems of units, which you don’t seem to be
familiar with.

>
> Here we have electric and magnetic field strength, which the cgs-system
> unfortunately measures with the same units.
>
> But to add or subtract these values would require, to add or subtract
> those fields, what you cannot do (at least should not do).

Depends on the system of units.

>
> TH

[Odd Bodkin]

I don’t think systems of units are idiocies.

Why do you think that anything other than SI units are idiocies?

>
> (Einstein wrote something like things would change if the definitions
> were changed.)
>
>
> But, in fact, there is the demand, that definitions should fit to the
> object which is defined.
>
> In case of the magnetic field strength we would like magnets to create
> such a field.
>
> For the electric fields we certainly like to include static electric
> fields into the definition.
>
> Now the question: how can you subtract a static electric field from a
> static magnetic field in any reasonable way?
>
> ...
>
> TH
>
>

[JanPB]

On Monday, April 4, 2022 at 5:30:37 AM UTC-7, Hagan Koon wrote:
> nazi excrement JanPB failed the eugenicist IQ-test:
> >> You deplorable nazi excrement, stop snipping the facts, proving the
> >> nazi hoaxes.
> >
> > Again, the bottom line is that it's Putin who attacked Ukraine and is
> You keep snipping evidences, you stinking nazi_excrement. That woman was published in all newspapers in the "west". Then she came out telling the truth, no jets, just two bombs outside the hospital, where after "journalists" were there in 10 minutes, similar the mercenary "white_helmets" hoaxing the "chemical_atack" in Syria, being there *in_minutes* "saving" people from the fake attack.
>
> You stinking excrement, you slavic_germans are all nazi *excrement*. The fictitious "ukraine" was taken over by the nazis in 2014, killing people in Odessa and the east since then. About 100 people burned alive in a government building in Odessa 2014.

Since you are just repeating stuff which I never denied or affirmed anyway,
we might as well stop this. Point being none of this justifies bombing
hospitals, etc. Life is complicated and Putin turned out to be an
incompetent fool and a mass murderer in the end. I'm done.

--
Jan

[Lamar Main]

JanPB wrote:

>> > Again, the bottom line is that it's Putin who attacked Ukraine and is
>> You keep snipping evidences, you stinking nazi_excrement. That woman
>> was published in all newspapers in the "west". Then she came out
>> telling the truth, no jets, just two bombs outside the hospital, where
>> after "journalists" were there in 10 minutes, similar the mercenary
>> "white_helmets" hoaxing the "chemical_atack" in Syria, being there
>> *in_minutes* "saving" people from the fake attack.
>> You stinking excrement, you slavic_germans are all nazi *excrement*.
>> The fictitious "ukraine" was taken over by the nazis in 2014, killing
>> people in Odessa and the east since then. About 100 people burned alive
>> in a government building in Odessa 2014.
>
> Since you are just repeating stuff which I never denied or affirmed
> anyway,

This must be the reason you delete the given data, proving you a nazi
bitch. You lying little nazi excrement. I never know it was this bad. Most
likely the shithole polakia will be divided small pieces, given back to
the countries is been stolen from.

Read this paper. Lots of data.

The virus of Nazism is rampant in today's #Ukraine. ❓Who is behind that
❓ Who is responsible fo https://www.bitchute.com/video/98KTKBipqgHt/

Proof Of False Flag - Video Shows “Bucha Massacre” Dead Bodies Moving
Around https://www.bitchute.com/video/jgK3TvsUoKCk/

[JanPB]

On Monday, April 4, 2022 at 12:23:09 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
> On Monday, April 4, 2022 at 5:30:37 AM UTC-7, Hagan Koon wrote:
> > nazi excrement JanPB failed the eugenicist IQ-test:
> > >> You deplorable nazi excrement, stop snipping the facts, proving the
> > >> nazi hoaxes.
> > >
> > > Again, the bottom line is that it's Putin who attacked Ukraine and is
> > You keep snipping evidences, you stinking nazi_excrement. That woman was published in all newspapers in the "west". Then she came out telling the truth, no jets, just two bombs outside the hospital, where after "journalists" were there in 10 minutes, similar the mercenary "white_helmets" hoaxing the "chemical_atack" in Syria, being there *in_minutes* "saving" people from the fake attack.
> >
> > You stinking excrement, you slavic_germans are all nazi *excrement*.

Are you the person I was talking to or someone else? I'm done with this topic,
you guys are talking to yourselves from now on.

--
Jan

[Paul Alsing]

On Monday, April 4, 2022 at 2:04:49 PM UTC-7, Lamar Main wrote:

> The virus of Nazism is rampant in today's #Ukraine. ❓Who is behind that
> ❓ Who is responsible fo https://www.bitchute.com/video/98KTKBipqgHt/
>
> Proof Of False Flag - Video Shows “Bucha Massacre” Dead Bodies Moving
> Around https://www.bitchute.com/video/jgK3TvsUoKCk/

UK

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/bitchute/

"Overall, we rate BitChute extreme right and Questionable based on the promotion of conspiracy theories, propaganda, hate speech, poor sourcing, fake news, and a lack of transparency. This source is not credible for accurate information and may be offensive to some (most)."

You are a complete fool to quote BitChute... they do nothing but lie...

[Michael Moroney]

That depends.

> Here we have electric and magnetic field strength, which the cgs-system
> unfortunately measures with the same units.
>
> But to add or subtract these values would require, to add or subtract
> those fields, what you cannot do (at least should not do).

You do realize, don't you, that when you do a Lorentz transformation of
a system with electric and magnetic fields, you can get a DIFFERENT
system of electric and magnetic fields?

Did you also know that magnetic fields can be explained by SR length
contraction/time dilation of moving electrons in wires? Even though the
electrons themselves move at a very slow speed?

[Michael Moroney]

It seems there is an extreme surplus of foolishness in Russia these
days. Not just the nymshifter quoting BitChute, but 卐Putin卐 starting
a war for no reason with a completely unready military and
underestimation of the Ukrainian people.

[whodat]

Unprepared military is, IMO, a superficial analysis. I see this more as
a disagreement between the Kremlin and field officers. Their active army
probably doesn't mind doing some killing and generalized destruction but
appears to refuse victory to those in charge. Which does Occam's Razor
choose? IMO both. Perhaps both have equal validity. One thing is for
certain, Putin didn't expect this outcome. I wonder if he'll follow
Stalin's example by executing a significant segment of his officer
corps. Perhaps an even bigger question is whether or not he has the
power to do that if he sees that as a solution to his current dilemma.

Can he hope to improve the likelihood of a successful military in
his lifetime? IMO not likely. Indeed, my analysis has Putin himself
at significant risk. The biggest problem for Russia is what sort of
a person will replace Putin?

Most western people fail to recognize an important factor.

Russian-Slavic thinking is Oriental in nature, quite alien to western
philosophy.

[JanPB]

On Monday, April 4, 2022 at 10:17:53 PM UTC-7, whodat wrote:
> On 4/4/2022 8:09 PM, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > On 4/4/2022 8:41 PM, Paul Alsing wrote:
> >> On Monday, April 4, 2022 at 2:04:49 PM UTC-7, Lamar Main wrote:
> >>
> >>> The virus of Nazism is rampant in today's #Ukraine. ❓Who is behind that
> >>> ❓ Who is responsible fo https://www.bitchute.com/video/98KTKBipqgHt/
> >>>
> >>> Proof Of False Flag - Video Shows “Bucha Massacre” Dead Bodies Moving
> >>> Around https://www.bitchute.com/video/jgK3TvsUoKCk/
> >> UK
> >>
> >> https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/bitchute/
> >>
> >> "Overall, we rate BitChute extreme right and Questionable based on the
> >> promotion of conspiracy theories, propaganda, hate speech, poor
> >> sourcing, fake news, and a lack of transparency. This source is not
> >> credible for accurate information and may be offensive to some (most)."
> >>
> >> You are a complete fool to quote BitChute... they do nothing but lie...
> >
> > It seems there is an extreme surplus of foolishness in Russia these
> > days. Not just the nymshifter quoting BitChute, but 卐Putin卐 starting
> > a war for no reason with a completely unready military and
> > underestimation of the Ukrainian people.
> Unprepared military is, IMO, a superficial analysis. I see this more as
> a disagreement between the Kremlin and field officers.

I think this is the classic case of a despot falling into the information
bubble trap that inevitably results. His advisors know that it's more
important to please the boss than to tell him the truth.

> Can he hope to improve the likelihood of a successful military in
> his lifetime? IMO not likely. Indeed, my analysis has Putin himself
> at significant risk. The biggest problem for Russia is what sort of
> a person will replace Putin?

Yes, this is a risk.

> Most western people fail to recognize an important factor.
>
> Russian-Slavic thinking is Oriental in nature, quite alien to western
> philosophy.

Yes. And one of its features is the centuries-long schizophrenic split
between wanting to be like the West while remaining completely
foreign to its democratic ideals. It shows up even in such stupid
details like Putin's wristwatch, a very expensive GERMAN watch
by A. Lange u. Söhne.

--
Jan

[Thomas Heger]

Who will most liekly suffer? Most likely Putin will not.

Putin had allegedly sent his family to Switzerland.

That is VERY interesting, because that country is the only one in the
world, that has enough atomic-bomb-shelters for all citizens.

The country is also home to many organisations, which are assumed to
have conncetions to the so called 'New World Order'.

E.g. we have a pharma giant named 'Novartis' there, which had given the
founders of BionTech a few billions.

We have the World Bank, the WEF of Klaus Schwab or the WHO there. Also
the 'Round Table', the 'Bilderberg Group' and the 'Kneights Templars'
are assumed to be there.

So, let's assume that Putin wants to go there, too, if things get 'hot'.

But what will YOU do?


TH

[Michael Moroney]

One thing I read somewhere (I forget where) was a theory why Russia
essentially annihilated Mariupol, which seems very odd once you realize
that Mariupol is substantially ethnically Russian (NOT Ukrainian) and
mostly Russian speakers. The theory was that it is punishment/revenge
for Mariupol not revolting against Ukraine and joining Russia when
Russia grabbed Crimea, like they expected they would. Scary if true.

[Thomas Heger]

Am 04.04.2022 um 10:44 schrieb JanPB:

>>>>
>>>> Electric field strength (commonly called 'E') was subtracted from
>>>> magnetic field strength (commonly called 'H') by Einstein.
>>>>
>>>> E has [V/m] as units and H has [A/m].
>>>
>>> How about in cgs units? You know about those?
>> Do you really want to defend the same idocities as Einstein?
>>
>> (Einstein wrote something like things would change if the definitions
>> were changed.)
>>
>>
>> But, in fact, there is the demand, that definitions should fit to the
>> object which is defined.
>>
>> In case of the magnetic field strength we would like magnets to create
>> such a field.
>>
>> For the electric fields we certainly like to include static electric
>> fields into the definition.
>>
>> Now the question: how can you subtract a static electric field from a
>> static magnetic field in any reasonable way?
>
> Again, in the Gaussian system their units are both force per charge.
> Einstein does not enter into this.
>

There is a HUGE 'but'...

Assume there is a machine, which measures something. Inside the box is a
mechanism, which includes a deformable spring. The force upon that
spring is now fed to a dial, which presents the value of deformation in
units like 'dyne'.

So far so good.

But the scale of the device contains another inscription, like e.g.
'magnetic field strength'.

It could also state, that atmospheric pressure is measured or the the
temperature in the room.

Now you should NOT mix readings from different machines, just because
all have the same dimension 'dyne'.


TH

[Thomas Heger]

Not the system of units, of course, but the use of these units.

The cgs system boild the fields down to 'force', which is measured in
'dyne'.

This force was meant as real mechanical force like with what we measure
weight, for instance.

This was justified by measuring a force inside the measuring device,
which ultimately was a mechanical force.

(Einstein actually wrote so, when he wrote about the connection of an
electron to a spring balance).

Now the same units 'dyne' are not appropriate for electrical fields of
different kind, because the dyne is 'not electric'.

The units simply ignore this different origins of the fields and their
different nature.

But the differences are real, hence the same untis do not allow
algebraic operations between them just because the units are similar.



...


TH

[Thomas Heger]

Am 04.04.2022 um 15:55 schrieb Odd Bodkin:

You can add the number of people on the internation space station to the
number of holes in your socks, if you like to do that.

But the question is, whether such an opreation makes sense.

In theoretical physics you are simply not allowed to add random numbers,
just because the units match.

>>
>> In physics you have always real physical systems, which need to
>> correspond to the numbers in some way.
>
> Yes, and there are different systems of units, which you don’t seem to be
> familiar with.

What had this to do with the question, whether or not electric field
strength might be subtracted from magnetic field strength?

It where not the units, which caused my concerns, but the physical
meaning of that operation.

So: what is actually the difference of a magnetic field of -say- 300
Gauss and an electric field of say 100 V/m?

>>
>> Here we have electric and magnetic field strength, which the cgs-system
>> unfortunately measures with the same units.
>>
>> But to add or subtract these values would require, to add or subtract
>> those fields, what you cannot do (at least should not do).
>
> Depends on the system of units.
>

In the cgs system 'dyne' were used. And now N should be 100 dynes and
v/c*Y should be 90 dynes.

the result is 10 dynes.

But is this an electric field or a magnetic field or both combined?


TH
>
>

[Michael Moroney]

On 4/5/2022 2:25 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:

> Now the same units 'dyne' are not appropriate for electrical fields of
> different kind, because the dyne is 'not electric'.
>
> The units simply ignore this different origins of the fields and their
> different nature.

The units of the fields are not force but force per unit charge.

[J. J. Lodder]

I may surprise you very much to learn this,
but people who actually do theoretical physics
never do things at random.
They know what they are doing. (hint hint)

> >> In physics you have always real physical systems, which need to
> >> correspond to the numbers in some way.
> >
> > Yes, and there are different systems of units, which you don't seem to be
> > familiar with.
>
>
> What had this to do with the question, whether or not electric field
> strength might be subtracted from magnetic field strength?
>
> It where not the units, which caused my concerns, but the physical
> meaning of that operation.
>
> So: what is actually the difference of a magnetic field of -say- 300
> Gauss and an electric field of say 100 V/m?

Not at random example: people often calculate the Lorentz force.
It equals F = e(E + v/c x B), in sane units.
Since v/c is obviously dimensionless this adds an E
to (a multiple of) a B, in a context that makes sense. [1]

Jan

[1] E^2 and B^2 are both an energy density, so also a pressure.
(see the Lagrangian for electromagnetism)
So both E and B both have the same dimension, \sqrt(pressure),
and units that have more practical names.

[Lamar Main]

Paul Alsing wrote:

>> The virus of Nazism is rampant in today's #Ukraine. ❓Who is behind
that
>> ❓ Who is responsible fo https://www.bitchute.com/video/98KTKBipqgHt/
>>
>> Proof Of False Flag - Video Shows “Bucha Massacre” Dead Bodies Moving
>> Around https://www.bitchute.com/video/jgK3TvsUoKCk/
> UK
>
> https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/bitchute/
>
> "Overall, we rate BitChute extreme right and Questionable based on the
> promotion of conspiracy theories, propaganda, hate speech, poor
> sourcing,
> fake news, and a lack of transparency. This source is not credible for

The bitchute is a platform, having nothing to do with the data presented.
It either makes sense or not, it's up to you, a braindead imbecile, not
understanding the data from the paper is printed on. You fucking cretin.

[Lamar Main]

JanPB wrote:

>> Unprepared military is, IMO, a superficial analysis. I see this more as
>> a disagreement between the Kremlin and field officers.
>
> I think this is the classic case of a despot falling into the
> information bubble trap that inevitably results. His advisors know that
> it's more important to please the boss than to tell him the truth.

Saved the europe from the illegal *_bioweapon_labs*, as a minimum, you
stinking nazi fag.

[Lamar Main]

JanPB wrote:

> > You keep snipping evidences, you stinking nazi_excrement. That woman
>> > was published in all newspapers in the "west". Then she came out
>> > telling the truth, no jets, just two bombs outside the hospital,
>> > where after "journalists" were there in 10 minutes, similar the
>> > mercenary "white_helmets" hoaxing the "chemical_atack" in Syria,
>> > being there *in_minutes* "saving" people from the fake attack.
>> >
>> > You stinking excrement, you slavic_germans are all nazi *excrement*.
>
> Are you the person I was talking to or someone else? I'm done with this
> topic,
> you guys are talking to yourselves from now on.

But we can't snip the evidences, you nazi homo. The selected actor playing
"president" in nazi "ukraine" is lying bitch nazi khazar, now knighted to
the "president of europe". Not member of anything, nazi nato, EU etc, but
still the president of europe, in the absolute poorest country, playing
his dick on a piano.

Exclusive - Biological Weapons Expert Exposes Labs In Ukraine And China
Run By U.S. Government https://www.bitchute.com/video/eIHDuMud7LHB/

Fake genocide orchestrated by the "ukrainian" nazis
https://www.bitchute.com/video/Ljak1Hdca5sK/

Here it is, the nature of khokhlyatskaya nazi soul (Ukrainian),
lickspittle: in the video, some do not know how to speak Ukrainian at all,
but they try so hard, distorting words. 😂 If only the speech didn’t sound
Russian! They hurry to curry favor, tell where the Russians stood. And a
woman who crossed herself and thanked a policeman – is generally a circus.
If another army comes there tomorrow, they will abruptly forget Ukrainian
and will kiss other shoes, telling how hard life was for them under the
Kiev regime. I’m sure. I know this type of people.

[JanPB]

Not even wrong.

--
Jan

[Maciej Wozniak]

And when they scream, that "we all are FORCED!!!
To THE BEST WAY!!!" - they know it for sure.

[Odd Bodkin]

This may come as a shock to you, but combining quantities of the same units
and same transformation properties is commonplace in physics. For example,
the combination of angular kinetic energy and translational kinetic energy
in ordinary energy conservation scenarios.

>
> The cgs system boild the fields down to 'force', which is measured in
> 'dyne'.
>
> This force was meant as real mechanical force like with what we measure
> weight, for instance.
>
> This was justified by measuring a force inside the measuring device,
> which ultimately was a mechanical force.
>
> (Einstein actually wrote so, when he wrote about the connection of an
> electron to a spring balance).
>
> Now the same units 'dyne' are not appropriate for electrical fields of
> different kind, because the dyne is 'not electric'.
>
> The units simply ignore this different origins of the fields and their
> different nature.

I think you’re going to be generally flummoxed by the realization that
there is one electromagnetic field, not physically distinct electric and
magnetic fields.

I’m frankly surprised you were not taught this essential fact in school.

>
> But the differences are real, hence the same untis do not allow
> algebraic operations between them just because the units are similar.
>
>
>
> ...
>
>
> TH
>

[Odd Bodkin]

It depends on what the quantity denotes. You could take the units to be
people and holes, in which case they are clearly no commensurate.

>
> In theoretical physics you are simply not allowed to add random numbers,
> just because the units match.

Well, they’re not really random.

For example, it’s not particularly surprising that pressure times volume
has dimensions of energy — work if you like. The ideal gas law is an energy
relation. This is even more abundantly clear if you divide the ideal gas
law by Avogadro’s number.

>
>>>
>>> In physics you have always real physical systems, which need to
>>> correspond to the numbers in some way.
>>
>> Yes, and there are different systems of units, which you don’t seem to be
>> familiar with.
>
>
> What had this to do with the question, whether or not electric field
> strength might be subtracted from magnetic field strength?
>
> It where not the units, which caused my concerns, but the physical
> meaning of that operation.
>
> So: what is actually the difference of a magnetic field of -say- 300
> Gauss and an electric field of say 100 V/m?

V/m is an SI unit. Do you want to try to find the electric field units in
the same set of units as have for the magnetic field.

It’s rather stunning that you are wholly incapable of working in any system
of units other than SI. What do you attribute that to?

>
>
>>>
>>> Here we have electric and magnetic field strength, which the cgs-system
>>> unfortunately measures with the same units.
>>>
>>> But to add or subtract these values would require, to add or subtract
>>> those fields, what you cannot do (at least should not do).
>>
>> Depends on the system of units.
>>
>
> In the cgs system 'dyne' were used. And now N should be 100 dynes and
> v/c*Y should be 90 dynes.
>
> the result is 10 dynes.
>
> But is this an electric field or a magnetic field or both combined?
>

Please remember that electric and magnetic fields are not physically
distinct. They are components of a single electromagnetic field tensor. The
fact that there is really only one field is represented clearly by QED
having a *single* coupling strength given by the fine structure constant.
Furthermore, you say you know the 1905 paper by Einstein inside and out,
and yet you seem to have missed the whole point of the section of the paper
about how the electromagnetic field components transform under boosts.

[Michael Moroney]

Different units! Humans per space station vs. holes per sock. :-)

>
> In theoretical physics you are simply not allowed to add random numbers,
> just because the units match.
>
>>>
>>> In physics you have always real physical systems, which need to
>>> correspond to the numbers in some way.
>>
>> Yes, and there are different systems of units, which you don’t seem to be
>> familiar with.
>
>
> What had this to do with the question, whether or not electric field
> strength might be subtracted from magnetic field strength?
>
> It where not the units, which caused my concerns, but the physical
> meaning of that operation.
>
> So: what is actually the difference of a magnetic field of -say- 300
> Gauss and an electric field of say 100 V/m?
>
>
>>>
>>> Here we have electric and magnetic field strength, which the cgs-system
>>> unfortunately measures with the same units.
>>>
>>> But to add or subtract these values would require, to add or subtract
>>> those fields, what you cannot do (at least should not do).
>>
>> Depends on the system of units.
>>
>
> In the cgs system 'dyne' were used. And now N should be 100 dynes and
> v/c*Y should be 90 dynes.
>
> the result is 10 dynes.
>
> But is this an electric field or a magnetic field or both combined?

There really is a single electromagnetic field, which manifests itself
as electric and magnetic fields depending on the SR frame referenced.

Electric and magnetic fields have units of dynes/ESU (or
dynes/statcoulomb or dynes/franklin if you prefer). A force due to
gravity cannot be added to that (dynes/gram) If there is a fixed charge
on an object, the dynes/ESU will produce a force in dynes, and if the
mass is known the force due to gravity can be added to the
electromagnetic force. (dynes+dynes)

[Michael Moroney]

Also the SI units of the electric field can have its fundamental units
rearranged in such a way it comes out as newtons/coulomb, a force per
charge, just like Gauss/cgs units.

[Odd Bodkin]

Of course.

Thomas seems to be spectacularly unequipped with systems of units.

[Thomas Heger]

Sure, because the number of units mean dimensionless numbers and
'inherit' the units from the corresponding coordinate system.

That system is now 'normed' to provide the appropriate units and located
somewhere.

Now we attatch a coordinate system to an electron and norm it with V/m,
while the electrons position vector is normed with length units in
reference to a certain coordinate system which provides positions.

Position vectors have the form (x,y,z) and electric field-strength
vectors the form (X,Y,Z) and magnetic field-strength vectors the form
(L, M, N).

The coordinate systems of the fields are 'half-normed', because they
contain already the length units from the position system, but not the
units for field strength.

A vector component is now e.g. a postion along the x-axis (x, 0, 0),
which is also a vector.

For the x-component of the electric field-strength of an electron we
have (X, 0, 0).

x, y, z, L, M, N, Y, X and Z are dimensionless numbers, because the
coordinate system provides the units.

Since you can add dimensionless numbers, you could add N and Y.


But still such an operation has to make sense.


TH

[Thomas Heger]

I know magnets and I know electric fields. These fields do not behave
equal, at least not in the static realm.

They may be ultimately two manifestations of the same thing, but still
these static manifestations behave different.

If we now use the features of one of these manifestions and apply them
to the other one, we find, these description does not match.

Magnetic fields behave inertial and make things spin, while electric
fields push or pull other charged objects, what is not quite the same.


Your statement is not entirely wrong, but is actually a disprove of one
of Einstein's main assumptions:

The electric field itself was modelled by Einstein by means of
electrons, which were assumed as very tiny balls, to which a certain
amount of charge was added.

But if electric and magnetic fields are actually only one thing, than
how would you like to modell the electric charge of an electron?


...

TH

[Thomas Heger]

Am 05.04.2022 um 12:15 schrieb Maciej Wozniak:

>>>> Well, actually, if two numbers have no units, yes, absolutely you can add
>>>> or subtract them. As in, 1-v/c.

1- v/c is actually just a number.

>>> You can add the number of people on the internation space station to the
>>> number of holes in your socks, if you like to do that.
>>>
>>> But the question is, whether such an opreation makes sense.
>>>
>>> In theoretical physics you are simply not allowed to add random numbers,
>>> just because the units match.
>> I may surprise you very much to learn this,
>> but people who actually do theoretical physics
>> never do things at random.

Actually, random behaviour is quite common in the real world.

Many things behave in unpredictable ways, hence are certainly modelled
with random numbers. (at least they should be).

>> They know what they are doing. (hint hint)

I have doubts.

Human nature is often only half-concess.

> And when they scream, that "we all are FORCED!!!
> To THE BEST WAY!!!" - they know it for sure.

If coherence is introduced by force, we had a guarantee, that things go
wrong.

TH

[Thomas Heger]

Am 05.04.2022 um 19:58 schrieb Michael Moroney:
> On 4/5/2022 2:35 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>> Am 04.04.2022 um 15:55 schrieb Odd Bodkin:
>>> Thomas Heger <ttt...@web.de> wrote:
>>>> Am 03.04.2022 um 21:42 schrieb Michael Moroney:
>>>>
>>>>>>>> I understand, that magnetic field and electric field have different
>>>>>>>> effects, hence are different things, even if related.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So: I cannot subtract 1 amp from 1 Volt, because that does not make
>>>>>>>> much
>>>>>>>> more sense then subtraction weigth from pressure.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You don't subtract 1 A from 1 V.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Electric field strength (commonly called 'E') was subtracted from
>>>>>> magnetic field strength (commonly called 'H') by Einstein.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> E has [V/m] as units and H has [A/m].
>>>>>>
>>>>>> To subtract E from H would mean [A/m - V/m] =[(A - V)/m].
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (Einstein used only the X-components called 'N' and 'Y', which should
>>>>>> have similar units, nevertheless. The used phrase 'force' instead of
>>>>>> 'field strength' was actually wrong.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Now ... ..(N - v/c*Y)... contains an illegal operation, because it
>>>>>> requires to subtract Volts from Amps. (sorry: I wrote it the other
>>>>>> way

Here I made a mistake.

I regarded the equations on page 13 as equations with vectors, because
Einstein defined the symbols 'Y' and 'N' as electric and magnetic force
on page 22 as "...an electric force Y and a magnetic force N ".

My error was now, that I have used the definition of page 22 and applied
that to page 13.

This was justified by the common practice, that a definitions remains
valid throughout the entire text, which also would operate backwards.

But instead of this, Einstein had the EXTREMELY NASTY habit, to reuse
or redefine symbols, what would excluse such backwards operations.

So: 'N' on page 13 means something else than 'N' on page 22 and only the
definition from pages prior to page 13 are valid there.

On page 13 N and Y do not mean vector or vector component, but the
actual numbers at a certain position within a vector.


It was blatantly stupid, anyhow, to use such number from vectors
belonging to different coordinate systems in a single term.

The equations on page 13 are partial differential eqautions, which are
based on two different coordinate system, which are in relative motion.

To mix them into one term would require to add numbers, which do not
belong together, but to two different systems.

Sure, that is all fine...

But why not dynes/psi, dynes/m or dynes/°celsius?


TH

[Odd Bodkin]

Well, sure. For one thing, currents are the source of one, but as you know,
whether a charge is stationary or in motion is an accident of choice of
reference frame.

Horizontal behaviors are often different than vertical behaviors as well,
but this doesn’t mean that horizontal and vertical displacements are
incommensurate, nor does it mean that horizontal displacements cannot be
combined with vertical displacements because of a clash of units.

>
> If we now use the features of one of these manifestions and apply them
> to the other one, we find, these description does not match.
>
> Magnetic fields behave inertial and make things spin, while electric
> fields push or pull other charged objects, what is not quite the same.
>
>
> Your statement is not entirely wrong, but is actually a disprove of one
> of Einstein's main assumptions:
>
> The electric field itself was modelled by Einstein by means of
> electrons, which were assumed as very tiny balls, to which a certain
> amount of charge was added.
>
> But if electric and magnetic fields are actually only one thing, than
> how would you like to modell the electric charge of an electron?
>

The same way. Look at Maxwell’s equations. Gauss’s law has a charge density
as a source. Ampere’s law has a charge current density as a source.

[Maciej Wozniak]

What is a "horizontal behavior", poor halfbrain?

[Odd Bodkin]

Like the surface of a static water pool following a horizontal.

[Maciej Wozniak]

Odd, poor halfbrain, is that how they taught you to
define terms before they did you your precious "applied
math" degree?

[Thomas Heger]

The magnetic field is NOT caused by currents!!!
Currents in a coil can cause a magnetic field, but the field itself does
not require any current.

Fields are in general properties of space. So we need to assign
properties to points, which are not material objects.

The material objects are actually certain patterns, which these
properties could build, but the points themselves are immaterial, but
still can have properties, which we call 'field-strength-vectors'.

Also the electric field does not require material objects of any kind,
whether flowing through a wire or static.

> Horizontal behaviors are often different than vertical behaviors as well,
> but this doesn’t mean that horizontal and vertical displacements are
> incommensurate, nor does it mean that horizontal displacements cannot be
> combined with vertical displacements because of a clash of units.

Well, yes. On Earth we have a gravitational field and it does in fact
make a difference, if you move horizontal or upwards.

This gravitational field has a lot of influence on other things, which
have no mass, like e.g. time or light.

>> If we now use the features of one of these manifestions and apply them
>> to the other one, we find, these description does not match.
>>
>> Magnetic fields behave inertial and make things spin, while electric
>> fields push or pull other charged objects, what is not quite the same.
>>
>>
>> Your statement is not entirely wrong, but is actually a disprove of one
>> of Einstein's main assumptions:
>>
>> The electric field itself was modelled by Einstein by means of
>> electrons, which were assumed as very tiny balls, to which a certain
>> amount of charge was added.
>>
>> But if electric and magnetic fields are actually only one thing, than
>> how would you like to modell the electric charge of an electron?
>>
>
> The same way. Look at Maxwell’s equations. Gauss’s law has a charge density
> as a source. Ampere’s law has a charge current density as a source.

And the universe has a 'big-bang' as a source.

But does such a source in an equation make the source a real material
object?

Th

[Thomas Heger]

It is worth to have a closer look at the equations on page 13 again.

Einstein did something repeatedly wrong:
he used scalar for quatities, which are inherently vectorial (or vice
versa):

forces got scalar units in the form 'number of dynes', where the number
were treated as the physical quantity instead of number with units

velocity and accelaration have a direction, hence require vectors, but
were treated as scalars (also occasionally as vectors)

electric and magnetic field strength were treated as scalar values
(occasionally)

c was treated as vector occasionally, but is actually a scalar


So, something was seriously wrong with Einstein's treatment of vectors.

The first 'wrongness' was his habbit, that he made no distinction in the
used fonts or by other signs between vectors and scalar.

That made it very difficult to find out, what a certain symbol shall
express.

But not only that, he also changed the meaning from scalar to vector (or
back) without notice.

(This is in fact a very serious flaw and would invalidate the paper usually.

But not so in this case, which is actually regarded as a masterpiece and
pinnacle of all of science.)

Now we need to take a look at one of these equations on page 13, and
ask, which symbol means a vector and which a scalar.

1/c* ∂X/∂τ = ∂/∂η { β (N − v/c *Y)} − ∂/∂ζ { β (M+ v/c *Z)}

Now at least v is a vector and c a scalar.

Field strength should be a vector, too, but actually we don't know, how
Einstein meant his variable names, because he didn't define them anywhere.

so, lets assume he meant scalars with X, N, Y, M and Z.

In this case the vector v/c would hinder to add N and Y, because scalar
times vector is a vector and you cannot add scalars to vectors.

Therefore the field strength symbols X, Y,Z, N, M cannot mean scalars.

So lets assume vectors.

In this case we have a problem with adding electric field strength
vectors to magnetic field strength vectors, because they have different
units and belong to different coordinate systems.

The character 'moving' for the electric field can be seen in the use of
velocity v, which was the velocity of the moving coordinate system k in
respect to K.

But the time tau is the time measure from k, which does not move in
respect to itself. Therefore the use of v requires a second coordinate
system K, which also provides values.

To add vectors from one coordinate systems to vectors from the other is
certainly not allowed.



TH

[Thomas Heger]

Am 05.04.2022 um 20:06 schrieb Odd Bodkin:

>>>> What had this to do with the question, whether or not electric field
>>>> strength might be subtracted from magnetic field strength?
>>>>
>>>> It where not the units, which caused my concerns, but the physical
>>>> meaning of that operation.
>>>>
>>>> So: what is actually the difference of a magnetic field of -say- 300
>>>> Gauss and an electric field of say 100 V/m?
>>>
>>> V/m is an SI unit. Do you want to try to find the electric field units in
>>> the same set of units as have for the magnetic field.
>>
>> Also the SI units of the electric field can have its fundamental units
>> rearranged in such a way it comes out as newtons/coulomb, a force per
>> charge, just like Gauss/cgs units.
>>>
>>> It’s rather stunning that you are wholly incapable of working in any system
>>> of units other than SI. What do you attribute that to?
>>
>
> Of course.
>
> Thomas seems to be spectacularly unequipped with systems of units.
>

As an engineer I was actually trained to use SI units only. But I have
also some experience with other system, but not that much.

To me it is actually irrelevant, which unit system you use, because the
units do not create any kind of reality and are only a tool to describe
something, hence are no things themselves.

TH

[JanPB]

Both pages refer to components of the relevant fields (electric or magnetic).

> This was justified by the common practice, that a definitions remains
> valid throughout the entire text, which also would operate backwards.
>
> But instead of this, Einstein had the EXTREMELY NASTY habit, to reuse
> or redefine symbols, what would excluse such backwards operations.
>
> So: 'N' on page 13 means something else than 'N' on page 22 and only the
> definition from pages prior to page 13 are valid there.

No, both "N" mean the same thing. Einstein says "electric force Y" when
he means "the y-component of the electric field". It may have been
standard usage back then. Its meaning is obvious regardless.

> On page 13 N and Y do not mean vector or vector component, but the
> actual numbers at a certain position within a vector.

Everywhere in the paper they denote components of the electric or
magnetic field ((X, Y, Z) and (L, M, N), respectively.

> It was blatantly stupid, anyhow, to use such number from vectors
> belonging to different coordinate systems in a single term.

N/A.

--
Jan

[JanPB]

No, he never does that. Why do you constantly assume that:

(1) Einstein made high-school-level mistake,

(2) That such mistake was not caught by the Annalen der Physik
editors,

(3) That such was not caught by all physicists in the world
for past 117 years?

It's just completely cuckoo on your part.

> forces got scalar units in the form 'number of dynes', where the number
> were treated as the physical quantity instead of number with units
>
> velocity and accelaration have a direction, hence require vectors, but
> were treated as scalars (also occasionally as vectors)

This never happens in the paper (or any other paper for that matter).

> electric and magnetic field strength were treated as scalar values
> (occasionally)

No, components are used.

Skipping a bit because it's a repetition of similar errors on your part.

> Now we need to take a look at one of these equations on page 13, and
> ask, which symbol means a vector and which a scalar.
>
> 1/c* ∂X/∂τ = ∂/∂η { β (N − v/c *Y)} − ∂/∂ζ { β (M+ v/c *Z)}
>
> Now at least v is a vector and c a scalar.

v is the x-component of the velocity of k wrt K.
It's not a vector.

> Field strength should be a vector, too, but actually we don't know, how
> Einstein meant his variable names, because he didn't define them anywhere.

They are defined immediately below the formulas, quote:
"where (X,Y,Z) denotes the vector of the electric force, and
(L,M,N) that of the magnetic force."

Again, he writes "force" for "field". I'm not a historian, perhaps
this was the standard usage back then.

Anyway, this means X, Y, Z, L, M, N are components of vectors.

> so, lets assume he meant scalars with X, N, Y, M and Z.
>
> In this case the vector v/c would hinder to add N and Y, because scalar
> times vector is a vector and you cannot add scalars to vectors.

You got into this nonsense because you assumed nonsense.

> Therefore the field strength symbols X, Y,Z, N, M cannot mean scalars.

They are not scalars, they are vector components. Both vector components
and scalars are numbers but they have different transformation properties.

> So lets assume vectors.

They are vector components (so they are numbers).

> In this case we have a problem

No, we don't. The problem is entirely made up by you. It doesn't exist.

--
Jan

[Odd Bodkin]

Oh, Thomas, oh dear.

I’m afraid you’ve forgotten some of the basic of electrodynamics. Would you
like a recommendation for a beginner’s book on the subject to remind you of
what you’ve forgotten?

That depends on your definition of “material”. In the physical sciences,
matter means that which has mass and occupies volume. Electrons have mass
but do not occupy measurable volume, so they do not satisfy the physical
sciences definition of matter.

>
> Th

[Odd Bodkin]

Thomas Heger <ttt...@web.de> wrote:
> Am 05.04.2022 um 20:06 schrieb Odd Bodkin:
>
>>>>> What had this to do with the question, whether or not electric field
>>>>> strength might be subtracted from magnetic field strength?
>>>>>
>>>>> It where not the units, which caused my concerns, but the physical
>>>>> meaning of that operation.
>>>>>
>>>>> So: what is actually the difference of a magnetic field of -say- 300
>>>>> Gauss and an electric field of say 100 V/m?
>>>>
>>>> V/m is an SI unit. Do you want to try to find the electric field units in
>>>> the same set of units as have for the magnetic field.
>>>
>>> Also the SI units of the electric field can have its fundamental units
>>> rearranged in such a way it comes out as newtons/coulomb, a force per
>>> charge, just like Gauss/cgs units.
>>>>
>>>> It’s rather stunning that you are wholly incapable of working in any system
>>>> of units other than SI. What do you attribute that to?
>>>
>>
>> Of course.
>>
>> Thomas seems to be spectacularly unequipped with systems of units.
>>
>
>
> As an engineer I was actually trained to use SI units only. But I have
> also some experience with other system, but not that much.

And that has hurt you.

>
> To me it is actually irrelevant, which unit system you use, because the
> units do not create any kind of reality and are only a tool to describe
> something, hence are no things themselves.
>
> TH
>