SRT critique

[Thomas Heger]

Hi Ng

this is a reply to Tom Roberts on the subject of my critique of SRT. The
discussion started in thread about LIGO, but I wanted my text (which I
have written last night and which follows now) to be found more easily
than in the 'backyard' of an old thread about LIGO.

This text is actually the rewritten version from what I have written
earlier in German and covers now only a certain part (first part of §3)
of 'On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies' by A. Einstein from 1905,
translated into English in this version in 1923:
https://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/specrel.pdf

----------------------------------------------------------------

§ 3. Theory of the Transformation of Co-ordinates and Times from a
Stationary System to another System in Uniform Motion of Translation
Relatively to the Former
1) Let us in “stationary” space take two systems of co-ordinates, i.e.
two systems, each of three rigid material lines, perpendicular to one
another, and issuing from a point. Let the axes of X of the two systems
coincide, and their axes of Y and Z respectively be parallel. Let each
system be provided with a rigid measuring-rod and a number of clocks,
and let the two measuring-rods, and likewise all the clocks of the two
systems, be in all respects alike.

2) Now to the origin of one of the two systems (k) let a constant
velocity v be imparted in the direction of the increasing x of the other
stationary system (K), and let this velocity be communicated to the axes
of the co-ordinates, the relevant measuring-rod, and the clocks. To any
time of the stationary system K there then will correspond a definit
position of the axes of the moving system, and from reasons of symmetry
we are entitled to assume that the motion of k may be such that the axes
of the moving system are at the time t (this “t” always denotes a time
of the stationary system) parallel to the axes of the stationary system.

3) We now imagine space to be measured from the stationary system K by
means of the stationary measuring-rod, and also from the moving system k
by means of the measuring-rod moving with it; and that we thus obtain
the co-ordinates x, y, z, and ξ, η, ζ respectively.

4) Further, let the time t of the stationary system be determined for
all points thereof at which there are clocks by means of light signals
in the manner indicated in § 1; similarly let the time τ of the moving
system be determined for all points of the moving system at which there
are clocks at rest relatively to that system by applying the method,
given in § 1, of light signals between the points at which the latter
clocks are located.

5) To any system of values x, y, z, t, which completely defines the
place and time of an event in the stationary system, there belongs a
system of values ξ, η, ζ, τ, determining that event relatively to the
system k, and our task is now to find the system of equations connecting
these quantities.

6) In the first place it is clear that the equations must be linear on
account of the properties of homogeneity which we attribute to space and
time. If we place x’= x − vt, it is clear that a point at rest in the
system k must have a system of values x’, y, z, independent of time.

7) We first define τ as a function of x’, y, z, and t. To do this we have
to express in equations that τ is nothing else than the summary of the
data of clocks at rest in system k, which have been synchronized
according to the rule given in § 1.

8) From the origin of system k let a ray be emitted at the time τ0 along
the X-axis to x’, and at the time τ1 be reflected thence to the origin of
the coordinates, arriving there at the time τ2 ; we then must have
1/2(τ0 + τ2 ) = τ1 ,
or, by inserting the arguments of the function τ and applying the
principle of the constancy of the velocity of light in the stationary
system:

½[τ(0, 0, 0, t) + τ(0, 0, 0, t +x’/(c – v)+x’/(c + v)]= τ(x’, 0, 0, t
+x’/(c – v)).

remarks

Ad 1) lines are NOT material. The concept of one-dimensional lines is a
human brain child, since in nature we do not have anything material with
only one dimension.
Material objects are three-dimensional. A ‘rigid line’ is a product of
thought, hence not material.
Space cannot be measured by rigid rods. Only material objects in close
proximity and at rest in respect to the measuring device could be
measured that way.
The length of the ‘rigid rod’ is certainly not well defined, if we don’t
find other means than the rod itself.
Length of material objects is also subject to change by certain influences.
A frame of reference should consist of coordinates and a definition of
time, which is valid throughout all of that frame of reference (I call
that ‘f-o-r’ in the future).
Einstein used a different concept, where time is a function of the
location in a certain f-o-r.
This is possible, but very strange. I personally would reject this concept.

Ad 2) “and let this velocity be communicated to the axes of the
co-ordinates..” is quite funny.
I have no idea, what Einstein actually meant, but certainly he didn’t
want to communicate with lines.

Ad 3) You cannot measure space with rods.
So imagine you had a long rod and start to measure space. You could
eventually carry that around and hold it in all directions possible, but
that would be a measurement of anything.

Ad 4) This is the main conceptual error of SRT:
Light is quite fast, but has finite velocity. So it takes time for light
to pass from A to B. Now, where do you put that time of transition of
the signal?
Einstein used a method, where that transit time is not taken into
consideration, but the time ‘seen’ at remote clocks is taken for time at
that position.
I personally would reject this concept entirely, since the real time
required for light signals to travel would then vanish and apparent time
seen at remote clocks is taken as real instead.
That is conceptually wrong.

Ad 5) Seems to be ok.

Ad 6) I had a lot of trouble with “If we place x’= x – vt”.
The small Latin letters are used as coordinates in K. So all of them
belong to f-o-r K.
‘x’ seems to belong to a certain spot in K. But Einstein was writing
about a certain fixed spot in k. This spot has small Greek letters as
coordinates names.
The f-o-rs K and k are related in this way: xsi= x+ v*t.
So what relation does x’= x – vt mean?
I use the orientation of the axis, that higher values of x or xsi pint
to the right (as we usually do on paper). So that equation would
describe a movement to the left, while the entire f-o-r k would move to
the right with velocity v in respect to K.
The equation would in effect nullify the movement of k in respect to K,
since its own movement gets subtracted.
If ‘x’ is actually wrong and xsi is meant instead, then this would
cause, that moving f-o-r and non-moving f-o-r change their position,
since now K is moving to the left in respect to k.
That is certainly correct and actually a good idea, but does not relate
to the problem in consideration, since a point at rest in k is not
independent of time t (from K). It is independent of time tau in k and
has coordinates named with small Greek letters.
Measured in coordinates of K we had to add something for the movement of
k and that would be: xsi(t)= x+ vt, while eta and zeta are not affected.

Ad 7) I actually do not understand, what quantity is meant with x’.
So how is the correct interpretation of x’?

Ad 8) Since k is moving in respect to K, a ray emitted from the origin
of k and reflected in K would not have equal length to travel on the way
to the mirror and on the way back. Actually the way back is longer,
since the emitter moves in respect to the mirror ‘to the left’ (away).
If we flip the relation and say, that k is at rest and K moving, than
the length to travel for the signal is influenced by the movement, but
the time to travel back and forth would be equal.
(This apparent contradiction is quite interesting, but was not covered
in SRT.)
The equation
½[τ(0, 0, 0, t) + τ(0, 0, 0, t +x’/(c – v)+x’/(c + v)]= τ(x’, 0, 0, t
+x’/(c – v))
is in my opinion wrong, since tau is a linear function, that has four
vectors as arguments.
‘Linear function’ allows to multiply the argument with a constant
factor. So we could multiply the factor ½ inside the function. Then we
could multiply ½ to all of the components of the vector.
This would make all of the first three components zero. Another rule
for linear functions is
f(a) + f(b) = f(a+b).
So the right side of the equation could not have any non-zero value in
the first position of the vector.


Thomas Heger

[JanPB]

You should learn physics first. Right now you are wasting your time.

--
Jan

[maluw...@gmail.com]

Words are cheap, my dear queen of England.
But there is nothing behind them in this case.

[Ike Mcvicker]

JanPB wrote:

>> The equation ½[τ(0, 0, 0, t) + τ(0, 0, 0, t +x’/(c – v)+x’/(c + v)]=
>> τ(x’, 0, 0, t +x’/(c – v)) is in my opinion wrong, since tau is a
>> linear function, that has four vectors as arguments.
>> ‘Linear function’ allows to multiply the argument with a constant
>> factor. So we could multiply the factor ½ inside the function. Then we
>> could multiply ½ to all of the components of the vector.
>> This would make all of the first three components zero. Another rule
>> for linear functions is f(a) + f(b) = f(a+b).
>> So the right side of the equation could not have any non-zero value in
>> the first position of the vector. Thomas Heger
>
> You should learn physics first. Right now you are wasting your time.

seemingly you just wasted yours. Quote less if have nothing to add or
subtract.

[Paparios]

Not a single one of the hundreds of thousands physicists that have read and
studied SR and GR, have had any problem in reading and understanding Einstein's
papers. Thousands published scientific books are being used to learn and teach
relativity and all of them just re-print most of the equations Einstein
introduced in his 1905 paper.

The above Einstein derivation of the Lorentz Transformations Equations is one of the many possible ways of deriving them. There are also the derivations which
use 4 dimensional rotation (in spacetime) using hyperbolic functions (see
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_transformation).

[Ike Mcvicker]

Paparios wrote:

>> So the right side of the equation could not have any non-zero value in
>> the first position of the vector. Thomas Heger
>
> Not a single one of the hundreds of thousands physicists that have read
> and studied SR and GR, have had any problem in reading and understanding
> Einstein's papers. Thousands published scientific books are being used
> to learn and teach relativity and all of them just re-print most of the
> equations Einstein introduced in his 1905 paper.

Not true, I never do that. If I need equations, I write my own. Same
thing with programming, If I need a program, I program my own.

[maluw...@gmail.com]

Stoop fucking, trash. You were shown you don't know
the most basic definition of your idiot guru.

[Dono,]

On Wednesday, March 25, 2020 at 12:57:35 AM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:

>snip regurgitated imbecilities<

[Thomas Heger]

Am 25.03.2020 um 15:43 schrieb Paparios:
..

> Not a single one of the hundreds of thousands physicists that have read and
> studied SR and GR, have had any problem in reading and understanding Einstein's
> papers. Thousands published scientific books are being used to learn and teach
> relativity and all of them just re-print most of the equations Einstein
> introduced in his 1905 paper.

Wrong.


For instance there are several regulars in this forum, who have
criticized SRT for several reasons.

There were also others, like - for instance- Herbert Dingle, who wrote a
massive book, which criticized SRT ('Science at the crossroads').

So, there is and was critique.

I personally didn't like SRT and simply ignored it.

But from time to time people (like you for instance or several others)
annoyed me and so I made the decision to actually read it.

Then I tried to make my way through this book and wrote a lot of
annotations. Then I went through the book again (and again) and tried to
find out, what was actually meant with certain statements and whether or
not I would agree.

Like in another book of Einstein, I do not agree to most of his
statements. I actually think, the entire thing is a hoax and carefully
crafted by unknown sources, to divert physicist from proper science.

That is certainly a severe statement, so I had to justify it.

To do this, I listed any single error or mistake, however small.

I found about three hundred.

From these I wrote a brief version, which I have posted now here.

It covers only a very small part of the text. But you could extrapolate
the numbers of errors.

A few errors are certainly on my side. So I would admit, that eventually
up to one half of my points are actually my own errors.

That would leave 'only' about 150 errors, at least.

But how many errors are acceptable in a paper in theoretical physics?


TH



...

[Odd Bodkin]

Thomas Heger <ttt...@web.de> wrote:
> Am 25.03.2020 um 15:43 schrieb Paparios:
> ..
>> Not a single one of the hundreds of thousands physicists that have read and
>> studied SR and GR, have had any problem in reading and understanding Einstein's
>> papers. Thousands published scientific books are being used to learn and teach
>> relativity and all of them just re-print most of the equations Einstein
>> introduced in his 1905 paper.
> Wrong.
>
>
> For instance there are several regulars in this forum, who have
> criticized SRT for several reasons.

For the record, most of the posters here with objections about SR don’t
actually understand SR. It is a misconception that, because there is
controversy in this little pocket, then the subject is controversial. This
is like attending a meeting of the Flat Earth Society and concluding that
the earth’s shape is controversial.

>
> There were also others, like - for instance- Herbert Dingle, who wrote a
> massive book, which criticized SRT ('Science at the crossroads').

There have been a number of books written by flakes. Some of them are quite
big books. This doesn’t mean that the authors had a valid criticism. Dingle
in particular was famous for misunderstanding relativity.

>
> So, there is and was critique.
>
> I personally didn't like SRT and simply ignored it.
>
> But from time to time people (like you for instance or several others)
> annoyed me and so I made the decision to actually read it.

Your choice to start with the 1905 paper was the mistake. Why didn’t you
choose to read a book designed to teach it to beginners?

>
> Then I tried to make my way through this book and wrote a lot of
> annotations. Then I went through the book again (and again) and tried to
> find out, what was actually meant with certain statements and whether or
> not I would agree.
>
> Like in another book of Einstein, I do not agree to most of his
> statements. I actually think, the entire thing is a hoax and carefully
> crafted by unknown sources, to divert physicist from proper science.

What do you consider “proper science”?

>
> That is certainly a severe statement, so I had to justify it.

And this is WHOLLY an improper stance. You took a gut-feel stance driven by
suspicion and emotion and then looked for evidence to support that stance.
That’s the way conspiracy nuts operate.

>
> To do this, I listed any single error or mistake, however small.
>
> I found about three hundred.
>
> From these I wrote a brief version, which I have posted now here.
>
> It covers only a very small part of the text. But you could extrapolate
> the numbers of errors.
>
> A few errors are certainly on my side. So I would admit, that eventually
> up to one half of my points are actually my own errors.

No, much more than that. MUCH more. Sorry.

>
> That would leave 'only' about 150 errors, at least.
>
> But how many errors are acceptable in a paper in theoretical physics?
>
>
> TH
>
>
>
> ...
>
>

--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[Dono,]

On Wednesday, March 25, 2020 at 11:46:25 AM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:

> There were also others, like - for instance- Herbert Dingle, who wrote a
> massive book, which criticized SRT ('Science at the crossroads').
>

laughable imbecile: https://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath024/kmath024.htm

[JanPB]

My point was basically that one cannot reasonably add anything to
a discussion with someone whose entire argument consists of non-sequiturs
(FAPP).

--
Jan

[JanPB]

On Wednesday, March 25, 2020 at 11:46:25 AM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:

> Am 25.03.2020 um 15:43 schrieb Paparios:
> ..
> > Not a single one of the hundreds of thousands physicists that have read and
> > studied SR and GR, have had any problem in reading and understanding Einstein's
> > papers. Thousands published scientific books are being used to learn and teach
> > relativity and all of them just re-print most of the equations Einstein
> > introduced in his 1905 paper.
> Wrong.
>
>
> For instance there are several regulars in this forum, who have
> criticized SRT for several reasons.
>
> There were also others, like - for instance- Herbert Dingle, who wrote a
> massive book, which criticized SRT ('Science at the crossroads').
>
> So, there is and was critique.
>
> I personally didn't like SRT and simply ignored it.
>
> But from time to time people (like you for instance or several others)
> annoyed me and so I made the decision to actually read it.

The intellectual trap you've fallen into has been discussed here many
times over the, literally, decades (this forum exists since ca. 1995).

Here is what makes this trap so characteristic and insidious: SR happens
to be the only theory in physics which is BOTH fundamental AND requiring
an extremely small set of mathematical prerequisites. This lures many
hobbyists into a "serious" investigation of it since the very easy
mathematics can easily fool one into thinking one "understands it".

Obviously, anyone with some knack for easy mathematics and a logical
cast of mind will _immediately_ be able to poke seeming "holes" through
the theory. The problem is that it's _everything else_ that makes
SR go, and that _everything else_ is completely unknown to the naive
hobbyist.

That's why I said that what you need to do first (assuming you are being
honest with yourself about your desire to understand relativity) is to
learn all that _everything else_: meaning, simply, physics.

SR is _impossible_ to _really_ understand and appreciate its true
ramifications without getting both Newtonian mechanics and - especially -
Maxwell's electrodynamics under your belt. So Maxwell's equations
in full detail, the potential formulation, radiation, all that stuff.

Only _then_ you can begin to understand the depth of the problem the
physics was facing in the late 19th century and why SR was accepted so
quickly by everyone. Consider:

1. Einstein was a FAPP complete unknown at the time,
2. Einstein did not own an oil well in Texas to pay his way to fame,
3. Einstein was Jewish which was a strike against at the time,
4. There already WAS a resident saint of physics and mathematics,
a Christian one and very well liked and respected: Henri Poincare: it
would be extremely easy to assign the credit to him instead of some
unknown patent clerk,
5. Many, MANY, famous names have been trying to solve the "aether problem".

You cannot sensibly critique SR without understanding what it's based on
IN FACT. Your understanding of its mere mathematical layer is what's
deluding you.

No other major theory in physics has such an amazingly low-mathematical
barrier to entry, that's why SR is so singularly susceptible to this sort
of amateur mucking around and shouting "Eureka!" on Internet forums (this
is not the only one devoted to the topic). You've certainly noticed that
there are no hobbyists dissecting the fine points of Feynman diagrams?
Same thing happens on sci.math: the unending 100%-nonsensical discussions
about (at best) elementary calculus, it's never about characteristic
classes of vector bundles, say.

Don't waste your time trying to play Chopin's Revolutionary Etude when
you cannot even play a G major scale without confusion. Start your
honest "piano lessons" now, come back to the SR problem in +/-10 years.

For now, lay off it, it will only now lead you to an ever-expanding
maze of seeming nonsense and phantoms.

--
Jan

[Vání Biganska]

JanPB wrote:

> 1. Einstein was a FAPP complete unknown at the time,
> 2. Einstein did not own an oil well in Texas to pay his way to fame,
> 3. Einstein was Jewish which was a strike against at the time,
> 4. There already WAS a resident saint of physics and mathematics,
> a Christian one and very well liked and respected: Henri Poincare: it
> would be extremely easy to assign the credit to him instead of some
> unknown patent clerk,
> 5. Many, MANY, famous names have been trying to solve the "aether
> problem

No, he was american. European american, If not mistaken. He had no
friends in europe, so he left.

[Michael Moroney]

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

>Am 25.03.2020 um 15:43 schrieb Paparios:
>..
>> Not a single one of the hundreds of thousands physicists that have read and
>> studied SR and GR, have had any problem in reading and understanding Einstein's
>> papers. Thousands published scientific books are being used to learn and teach
>> relativity and all of them just re-print most of the equations Einstein
>> introduced in his 1905 paper.
>Wrong.


>For instance there are several regulars in this forum, who have
>criticized SRT for several reasons.

He said hundreds of thousands [of] physicists, not regulars here, who are
mostly cranks and crackpots.

>There were also others, like - for instance- Herbert Dingle, who wrote a
>massive book, which criticized SRT ('Science at the crossroads').

That a crackpot is able to write a "massive" book isn't evidence of anything
useful. Archie Pu in sci.math/sci.physics has written about 100 "books" in a
year, every one of them wrong. Crackpot galore.

>So, there is and was critique.

Not by physicists, there isn't.

>I personally didn't like SRT and simply ignored it.

>But from time to time people (like you for instance or several others)
>annoyed me and so I made the decision to actually read it.

>Like in another book of Einstein, I do not agree to most of his
>statements. I actually think, the entire thing is a hoax and carefully
>crafted by unknown sources, to divert physicist from proper science.

What is "proper science", and why isn't Einstein's SR paper "proper science"?

>That is certainly a severe statement, so I had to justify it.

>To do this, I listed any single error or mistake, however small.

>I found about three hundred.

> From these I wrote a brief version, which I have posted now here.

>It covers only a very small part of the text. But you could extrapolate
>the numbers of errors.

You need to put up the 5 most awful, egregious or boneheaded errors you think
you have, and post them here, and let's see what happens. So far the errors
you put up were your own.

[Thomas Heger]

Am 25.03.2020 um 23:34 schrieb Michael Moroney:
> Thomas Heger <ttt...@web.de> writes:
>
>> Am 25.03.2020 um 15:43 schrieb Paparios:
>> ..
>>> Not a single one of the hundreds of thousands physicists that have read and
>>> studied SR and GR, have had any problem in reading and understanding Einstein's
>>> papers. Thousands published scientific books are being used to learn and teach
>>> relativity and all of them just re-print most of the equations Einstein
>>> introduced in his 1905 paper.
>> Wrong.
>
>
>> For instance there are several regulars in this forum, who have
>> criticized SRT for several reasons.
>
> He said hundreds of thousands [of] physicists, not regulars here, who are
> mostly cranks and crackpots.
>
>> There were also others, like - for instance- Herbert Dingle, who wrote a
>> massive book, which criticized SRT ('Science at the crossroads').
>
> That a crackpot is able to write a "massive" book isn't evidence of anything
> useful. Archie Pu in sci.math/sci.physics has written about 100 "books" in a
> year, every one of them wrong. Crackpot galore.

As far as I know Herbert Dingle was a physics professor at a large
university.

I have not read his book 'Science at the crossroads' yet. But I have
heard it is mainly composed from critical statements of other physicists.

>> So, there is and was critique.
>
> Not by physicists, there isn't.

If you define 'physicist' as 'a person, who believes in Einstein and
everything he said or wrote'.

I personally think, that most of what we are told is wrong.

For instance I think, that 'Growing Earth' is actually true, since I
have spent several years on this subject and have found tons of evidence.

But GE is simply ignored and if not, the proponents are called crackpots
or similar.

Same with SRT. Who is against SRT is apparently regarded as heretic and
will be expelled from the community of 'science', what becomes therefor
a mere farce.


...

TH

[maluw...@gmail.com]

He is a fanatic idiot. His mumble is simply praising The Shit
any way possible; trying to find any logic in it is a waste
of time, because fanatic idiots don't use logic.

[Thomas Heger]

A paper in theoretical physics should not contain any algebraic errors.

This is so because in this realm everything depends on consistent logic.
So at least there should be zero mathematical errors.

If there are such errors, the paper could be thrown into the bin,
without further considerations.

Of course it should be possible to correct the errors and create a new
paper, which is better, at least mathematically.

The idea could be still wrong. But any mathematical error would derail
the paper immediately.

Here I tried to show, that a certain important equation of SRT is wrong.

In a better world, the theory would be done, if the error would be
regarded as error.

But seemingly we have here believes and opposing such quasi-religious
statements is not considered as possible argument, but as heresy and the
person, who said so should be excommunicated and burned at the stake.

But this would be the death of science in general, if such behavior
would be allowed.

TH

[maluw...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, 26 March 2020 10:06:40 UTC+1, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 25.03.2020 um 21:50 schrieb JanPB:
>
> >>
> >>>> The equation ½[τ(0, 0, 0, t) + τ(0, 0, 0, t +x’/(c – v)+x’/(c + v)]=
> >>>> τ(x’, 0, 0, t +x’/(c – v)) is in my opinion wrong, since tau is a
> >>>> linear function, that has four vectors as arguments.
> >>>> ‘Linear function’ allows to multiply the argument with a constant
> >>>> factor. So we could multiply the factor ½ inside the function. Then we
> >>>> could multiply ½ to all of the components of the vector.
> >>>> This would make all of the first three components zero. Another rule
> >>>> for linear functions is f(a) + f(b) = f(a+b).
> >>>> So the right side of the equation could not have any non-zero value in
> >>>> the first position of the vector. Thomas Heger
> >>>
> >>> You should learn physics first. Right now you are wasting your time.
> >>
> >> seemingly you just wasted yours. Quote less if have nothing to add or
> >> subtract.
> >
> > My point was basically that one cannot reasonably add anything to
> > a discussion with someone whose entire argument consists of non-sequiturs
>
> A paper in theoretical physics should not contain any algebraic errors.

But listen to Jan. One cannot reasonably add anything to
a discussion with him.

[Vání Biganska]

Thomas Heger wrote:

> Hi Ng
> this is a reply to Tom Roberts on the subject of my critique of SRT. The
> discussion started in thread about LIGO, but I wanted my text (which I
> have written last night and which follows now) to be found more easily
> than in the 'backyard' of an old thread about LIGO.
> This text is actually the rewritten version from what I have written
> earlier in German and covers now only a certain part (first part of §3)
> of 'On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies' by A. Einstein from 1905,
> translated into English in this version in 1923:
> https://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/specrel.pdf

intrinsting, you _climate warming_, _sustaineity_ vaccine proponents
freaks, are about to crash the planet. No bullshit anymore.
The _Nuremberg Process_ will very soon look like a picnic.

Dr Joel Kettner s professor of Community Health Sciences and Surgery at
Manitoba University, former Chief Public Health Officer for Manitoba
province and Medical Director of the International Centre for Infectious
Diseases. What he says:
I have never seen anything like this, anything anywhere near like
this. I’m not talking about the pandemic, because I’ve seen 30 of them,
one every year. It is called influenza. And other respiratory illness
viruses, we don’t always know what they are. But I’ve never seen this
reaction, and I’m trying to understand why.

[Vání Biganska]

Dr Yoram Lass is an Israeli physician, politician and former Director
General of the Health Ministry. He also worked as Associate Dean of the
Tel Aviv University Medical School and during the 1980s presented the
science-based television show Tatzpit.

What he says:

Italy is known for its enormous morbidity in respiratory problems,
more than three times any other European country. In the US about 40,000
people die in a regular flu season and so far 40-50 people have died of
the coronavirus, most of them in a nursing home in Kirkland, Washington.

[…]

In every country, more people die from regular flu compared with
those who die from the coronavirus.

[…]

…there is a very good example that we all forget: the swine flu in
2009. That was a virus that reached the world from Mexico and until today
there is no vaccination against it. But what? At that time there was no
Facebook or there maybe was but it was still in its infancy. The
coronavirus, in contrast, is a virus with public relations.

Whoever thinks that governments end viruses is wrong.

– Interview in Globes, March 22nd 2020

[Vání Biganska]

JanPB wrote:

>> > You should learn physics first. Right now you are wasting your time.
>>
>> seemingly you just wasted yours. Quote less if have nothing to add or
>> subtract.
>
> My point was basically that one cannot reasonably add anything to a
> discussion with someone whose entire argument consists of non-sequiturs
> (FAPP).

Winter smog (NO2) in Northern Italy in February 2020 (ESA)
https://i.redd.it/3o8r96bsrmi31.jpg

Belgium, Holland and norther Italy are liberal capitalist shitholes. It
has not much to do with any virus. The air they inhale constantly is
farts. The satellite picture is not lying.

[Paparios]

El jueves, 26 de marzo de 2020, 6:06:40 (UTC-3), Thomas Heger escribió:
> Am 25.03.2020 um 21:50 schrieb JanPB:
>
> >>
> >>>> The equation ½[τ(0, 0, 0, t) + τ(0, 0, 0, t +x’/(c – v)+x’/(c + v)]=
> >>>> τ(x’, 0, 0, t +x’/(c – v)) is in my opinion wrong, since tau is a
> >>>> linear function, that has four vectors as arguments.
> >>>> ‘Linear function’ allows to multiply the argument with a constant
> >>>> factor. So we could multiply the factor ½ inside the function. Then we
> >>>> could multiply ½ to all of the components of the vector.
> >>>> This would make all of the first three components zero. Another rule
> >>>> for linear functions is f(a) + f(b) = f(a+b).
> >>>> So the right side of the equation could not have any non-zero value in
> >>>> the first position of the vector. Thomas Heger
> >>>
> >>> You should learn physics first. Right now you are wasting your time.
> >>
> >> seemingly you just wasted yours. Quote less if have nothing to add or
> >> subtract.
> >
> > My point was basically that one cannot reasonably add anything to
> > a discussion with someone whose entire argument consists of non-sequiturs
>
> A paper in theoretical physics should not contain any algebraic errors.
>

Are you a reviewer for a journal?

If not you appear to have no knowledge about how a scientific journal reviews and then accepts or rejects a given submitted paper.

I am a reviewer for some ISI papers (ISI is the main index used by research
institutions to differentiate good from bad). I have also written over a dozen
ISI papers.

Usually a submitted paper is assigned for reviewing ,by the journal editor, to
three reviewers. Each reviewer is a peer of the author(s) of the paper, that is,
he/she works in the scientific area the paper is addressing.

The first thing one, as a reviewer, checks is how well written the paper is. Then the reviewer checks the contributions the author(s) claim the paper brings.
Third, the mathematical aspects the paper may or not include is verified, etc
etc. Finally, a report indicating all the errors or mistakes, and the reviewer
conclusions, which may be accept, or accept with minor revisions, or accept with
major revisions, or reject is sent to the editor. The editor, based on the
reviers conclusions makes his final decision informing the author(s) about it.

This process takes, usually, two to three steps, that is a paper may be accepted
with major revisions, which means the author(s) will have to re-write the paper
to address the reviewers objections, and then re-submit the paper again to be
reviewed. In time some papers will take longer than a year from being submitted
to be published.

Einstein's papers were so reviewed. At that time (1905) the journal Annalen der
Physik (see https://www.wiley-vch.de/en/shop/journals/292) had two editors:
Max Plank and Paul Drude. Plank was the reviewer of the paper.

[Odd Bodkin]

Thomas Heger <ttt...@web.de> wrote:
> Am 25.03.2020 um 23:34 schrieb Michael Moroney:
>> Thomas Heger <ttt...@web.de> writes:
>>
>>> Am 25.03.2020 um 15:43 schrieb Paparios:
>>> ..
>>>> Not a single one of the hundreds of thousands physicists that have read and
>>>> studied SR and GR, have had any problem in reading and understanding Einstein's
>>>> papers. Thousands published scientific books are being used to learn and teach
>>>> relativity and all of them just re-print most of the equations Einstein
>>>> introduced in his 1905 paper.
>>> Wrong.
>>
>>
>>> For instance there are several regulars in this forum, who have
>>> criticized SRT for several reasons.
>>
>> He said hundreds of thousands [of] physicists, not regulars here, who are
>> mostly cranks and crackpots.
>>
>>> There were also others, like - for instance- Herbert Dingle, who wrote a
>>> massive book, which criticized SRT ('Science at the crossroads').
>>
>> That a crackpot is able to write a "massive" book isn't evidence of anything
>> useful. Archie Pu in sci.math/sci.physics has written about 100 "books" in a
>> year, every one of them wrong. Crackpot galore.
>
> As far as I know Herbert Dingle was a physics professor at a large
> university.

Yes he was. And he was also a crackpot.

>
> I have not read his book 'Science at the crossroads' yet. But I have
> heard it is mainly composed from critical statements of other physicists.
>
>
>>> So, there is and was critique.
>>
>> Not by physicists, there isn't.
>
> If you define 'physicist' as 'a person, who believes in Einstein and
> everything he said or wrote'.
>
> I personally think, that most of what we are told is wrong.

Again, this is a stance fueled by suspicion and emotion. Then you go
looking for evidence to support your suspicions. That’s what a conspiracy
nut does.

>
> For instance I think, that 'Growing Earth' is actually true, since I
> have spent several years on this subject and have found tons of evidence.
>
> But GE is simply ignored and if not, the proponents are called crackpots
> or similar.
>
> Same with SRT. Who is against SRT is apparently regarded as heretic and
> will be expelled from the community of 'science', what becomes therefor
> a mere farce.

I think the real question is about the WHY behind your “against”.

So far the reasons you’ve cited about being against relativity are:

1. The paper you elected to read was not written in the optimal way for a
novice to the subject. And therefore Einstein and his work should be
rejected.

2. You think most of what scientists say is a hoax, flat out. So if a
scientist says it, your default position is to be against it.

>
>
> ...
>
> TH

[Engr. Ravi]

I second this. To really understand STR, you have to understand ELECTRODYNAMICS.

One way to understand the success of STR is via an analogy to Ptolemy's geocentric model of the solar system. With its epicycles, orbs, equants, etc., it was PHYSICALLY ABSURD, but was far more ACCURATE than Copernicus' heliocentric system:

http://tofspot.blogspot.com/2013/08/the-great-ptolemaic-smackdown.html

Similarly, STR is also physically absurd, but it is the most accurate model so far. Deep down, I intuitively feel that STR, like Ptolemy's model, is an absurd approximation to a simpler, physically sensible reality. I think it is worth the effort to figure out what this simpler, sensible model of reality is. But, it is really a hard problem, and at the minimum you have to understand electrodynamics thoroughly.

Some people might ask what is the point of trying to find a 'better' model when STR matches all known data, but that is like asking Kepler why he was wasting his time trying to fit the orbits of the planets into platonic solids, instead of making "more accurate" astrological predictions:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannes_Kepler#Mysterium_Cosmographicum

Carl Sagan's Cosmos Episode 3 The Harmony of the Worlds
https://youtu.be/R6TdNbiAUnE?t=2006

Without Kepler's deep Protestant [☩] conviction that the 'mind of God' could not have created the absurd mess that was Ptolemy's model, there would have been no Newton [another Protestant] and his 'De mundi systemate' (The System of the World).

[☩] Compare this with the Catholic's/relativist's motto: 'Credo quia absurdum' or "I believe because it is absurd".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credo_quia_absurdum

[Dono,]

On Thursday, March 26, 2020 at 11:13:16 AM UTC-7, Engr. Ravi wrote:

> Similarly, STR is also physically absurd,

Another day, another old fart imbecile feels compelled to chime in....

[Vání Biganska]

Paparios wrote:

>> A paper in theoretical physics should not contain any algebraic errors.
>
> Are you a reviewer for a journal?
> If not you appear to have no knowledge about how a scientific journal
> reviews and then accepts or rejects a given submitted paper.
> I am a reviewer for some ISI papers (ISI is the main index used by
> research institutions to differentiate good from bad). I have also
> written over a dozen ISI papers.
> Usually a submitted paper is assigned for reviewing ,by the journal
> editor, to three reviewers. Each reviewer is a peer of the author(s) of
> the paper, that is, he/she works in the scientific area the paper is
> addressing.

you derailed completely from the question, it makes one wonders why.

[JanPB]

On Thursday, March 26, 2020 at 2:06:40 AM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 25.03.2020 um 21:50 schrieb JanPB:
>
> >>
> >>>> The equation ½[τ(0, 0, 0, t) + τ(0, 0, 0, t +x’/(c – v)+x’/(c + v)]=
> >>>> τ(x’, 0, 0, t +x’/(c – v)) is in my opinion wrong, since tau is a
> >>>> linear function, that has four vectors as arguments.
> >>>> ‘Linear function’ allows to multiply the argument with a constant
> >>>> factor. So we could multiply the factor ½ inside the function. Then we
> >>>> could multiply ½ to all of the components of the vector.
> >>>> This would make all of the first three components zero. Another rule
> >>>> for linear functions is f(a) + f(b) = f(a+b).
> >>>> So the right side of the equation could not have any non-zero value in
> >>>> the first position of the vector. Thomas Heger
> >>>
> >>> You should learn physics first. Right now you are wasting your time.
> >>
> >> seemingly you just wasted yours. Quote less if have nothing to add or
> >> subtract.
> >
> > My point was basically that one cannot reasonably add anything to
> > a discussion with someone whose entire argument consists of non-sequiturs
>
> A paper in theoretical physics should not contain any algebraic errors.

It doesn't. The English _Dover_ translation does have a few typos. One
algebraic one is in the second ("Electrodynamical") part. Use the new,
correct, English translation here:
https://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol2-trans/154

> This is so because in this realm everything depends on consistent logic.
> So at least there should be zero mathematical errors.

There are zero mathematical errors. As I mentioned in another posting on
this thread (I recommend you read it), the level of mathematics in the
_first part_ of the paper ("Kinematical") is very basic, FAPP high-school,
so no error at this level would even survive the Annalen der Physik peer
review, let alone the 115 years of scrutiny worldwide.

Just stop daydreaming, it's a waste of your time.

> If there are such errors, the paper could be thrown into the bin,
> without further considerations.

There are no errors in the paper.

> Of course it should be possible to correct the errors and create a new
> paper, which is better, at least mathematically.

Sure in general but N/A in this case.

> The idea could be still wrong. But any mathematical error would derail
> the paper immediately.

Sure but it doesn't in this case.

> Here I tried to show, that a certain important equation of SRT is wrong.

Stop wasting your time. Read the corrections to your posts and try to
understand them. This may be difficult without the necessary background
that you lack at this moment.

> In a better world, the theory would be done, if the error would be
> regarded as error.

This is how it is in this world, actually. The world is not perfect, there
do happen abuses now and then but in this case what you are trying to
suggest is simply ludicrous.

> But seemingly we have here believes and opposing such quasi-religious
> statements

All right all right, just stop it. It's all nonsense. Just learn physics
if that's what you want. Fantasising won't get you anywhere.

--
Jan

[Tom Roberts]

On 3/26/20 1:13 PM, Engr. Ravi wrote:
> To really understand STR, you have to understand ELECTRODYNAMICS.

That is just plain not true. To understand SR you need to understand
GEOMETRY.

It is merely an historical accident that Einstein discovered SR via
electrodynamics. The actual underlying basis of SR is GEOMETRY. Today we
can easily derive all the equations of SR without any mention of light
or electrodynamics -- what is needed is SYMMETRY (i.e. group theory).

> STR is also physically absurd,

Only to fools who attempt to write about it without understanding it.

> I intuitively feel that STR, like Ptolemy's model, is an absurd
> approximation to a simpler, physically sensible reality.

Only because you do not understand the elegant simplicity of SR.

"Intuitive feelings" are not very reliable in regimes
far removed from the realm in which you acquired them.
When your daily life includes phenomena at an
appreciable fraction of c, then your intuition will
learn how to deal with it. There are thousands of
physicists for whom this is old hat, and YOU are not
one of them; I am, and applying SR is easy for me
and thousands of my peers.

> Some people might ask what is the point of trying to find a 'better'

> model when STR matches all known data,[...]

No PHYSICIST would ask that -- seeking better models is what physics is
all about. It's just that YOU do not understand physics, or physicists,
or our motivations.

And, of course, alternatives to SR are VERY difficult to imagine. Look
up "Doubly Special Relativity" or "String theory". It appears that at
the fundamental level, relativity and quantum mechanics may well be
inextricably intertwined. The incompatibility between QM and GR seems
to be indicative that somewhere we have gotten something wrong....

But YOU are not going to resolve that, unless you change
your approach completely. In the entire history of physics
there is not a single instance of someone making an
important contribution without understanding and being
familiar with the then-current theories. Your ONLY hope
of doing anything useful is to STUDY what is already known.
Your abysmal ignorance of basic physics and experiments
is an insurmountable barrier for you, which you display
in everything you write around here.
You are not alone in that.

Tom Roberts

[Tom Roberts]

On 3/25/20 2:57 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> this is a reply to Tom Roberts [...]

Such nonsense you write! You merely show that you did not understand my
points at all.

Tom Roberts

[JanPB]

On Thursday, March 26, 2020 at 7:07:46 PM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 3/26/20 1:13 PM, Engr. Ravi wrote:
> > To really understand STR, you have to understand ELECTRODYNAMICS.
>
> That is just plain not true. To understand SR you need to understand
> GEOMETRY.

I strongly disagree. Geometry is just mathematics, it doesn't say anything about
the context and why geometry ended up relevant in the first place. And why it was
accepted so easily.

> It is merely an historical accident that Einstein discovered SR via
> electrodynamics.

That may be but the justification for it remains electrodynamics. Theories that
followed (QED, etc) are consistent with this, of course, but nobody can study
QED without studying SR first and SR cannot be understood without the theories
that have led to it.

--
Jan

[Ned Latham]

Tom Roberts wrote:

> The incompatibility between QM and GR seems
> to be indicative that somewhere we have gotten something wrong....

Ya think?

[maluw...@gmail.com]

On Friday, 27 March 2020 03:07:46 UTC+1, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 3/26/20 1:13 PM, Engr. Ravi wrote:
> > To really understand STR, you have to understand ELECTRODYNAMICS.
>
> That is just plain not true. To understand SR you need to understand
> GEOMETRY.
>
> It is merely an historical accident that Einstein discovered SR via
> electrodynamics. The actual underlying basis of SR is GEOMETRY. Today we
> can easily derive all the equations of SR without any mention of light
> or electrodynamics -- what is needed is SYMMETRY (i.e. group theory).

Today you almost stopped to pretend that your
insane Shit is based on anything real. Indeed.

> > STR is also physically absurd,
>
> Only to fools who attempt to write about it without understanding it.

No, sorry. You're too dumb and incompetent to know,
but "absurd" is just another name of "lack of common
sense" you're so proud about.

>
> > I intuitively feel that STR, like Ptolemy's model, is an absurd
> > approximation to a simpler, physically sensible reality.
>
> Only because you do not understand the elegant simplicity of SR.
>
> "Intuitive feelings" are not very reliable in regimes
> far removed from the realm in which you acquired them.

But they are still absolutely valid when recognizing a
fanatic brainwashed mystician.

> When your daily life includes phenomena at an
> appreciable fraction of c, then your intuition will
> learn how to deal with it.

But having everyday contact with stupidity, insanity and
fanatism it has learned to deal with it.

> And, of course, alternatives to SR are VERY difficult to imagine.

A lie, as expected from a fanatic trash.

[maluw...@gmail.com]

On Friday, 27 March 2020 04:05:37 UTC+1, JanPB wrote:
> On Thursday, March 26, 2020 at 7:07:46 PM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote:
> > On 3/26/20 1:13 PM, Engr. Ravi wrote:
> > > To really understand STR, you have to understand ELECTRODYNAMICS.
> >
> > That is just plain not true. To understand SR you need to understand
> > GEOMETRY.
>
> I strongly disagree. Geometry is just mathematics, it doesn't say anything about
> the context and why geometry ended up relevant in the first place. And why it was
> accepted so easily.

Easily accepted, eh? Jan, poor trash, even you're able
to notice that your insane Shit attracts the hostility
like nothing else in science. Usually you're admitting
it.

[Vání Biganska]

Tom Roberts wrote:

> On 3/26/20 1:13 PM, Engr. Ravi wrote:
>> To really understand STR, you have to understand ELECTRODYNAMICS.
>
> That is just plain not true. To understand SR you need to understand
> GEOMETRY.
> It is merely an historical accident that Einstein discovered SR via
> electrodynamics. The actual underlying basis of SR is GEOMETRY. Today we
> can easily derive all the equations of SR without any mention of light
> or electrodynamics -- what is needed is SYMMETRY (i.e. group theory).

not at all, it's a logical step to take, for instance, suspecting EM
travelling same speed as light. I believe at that time it wasn't overall
established that light is EM. The young Einstein was not extremely
clever, but clever enough. Which makes all the difference.

Then it has nothing to do with _geometry_, I'm tired of this nonsense.
Nowhere in his papers are references to geometry. No sin, no cos etc.
Mostly you can say is projection on some given coordinates/references, of
course you get some axis and unit vectors, but that's not to say
_geometry_. The young Einstein is my hero.

[Vání Biganska]

JanPB wrote:

> On Thursday, March 26, 2020 at 7:07:46 PM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote:
>> On 3/26/20 1:13 PM, Engr. Ravi wrote:
>> > To really understand STR, you have to understand ELECTRODYNAMICS.
>>
>> That is just plain not true. To understand SR you need to understand
>> GEOMETRY.
>
> I strongly disagree. Geometry is just mathematics, it doesn't say
> anything about the context and why geometry ended up relevant in the
> first place. And why it was accepted so easily.
>
>> It is merely an historical accident that Einstein discovered SR via
>> electrodynamics.
>
> That may be but the justification for it remains electrodynamics.

Yes, sure, the young Einstein dared taking the next logical step,
implying indirectly, that the light was EM. (not particle yet). A
derivation based on mistake, leading to something shown to be correct. I
guess he gotten a lot of enemies those days.

[beda pietanza]

It is very instructive to follow you and Tom Roberts, your disagreement here is close to the core of the total disagreement of many vs the SR theory.
It is a very understandable accident that SR geometrical structure based on the magic of the SR gamma factor gives the very approximate experimental results, notwithstanding its absurdity.
Your suggestion to study before criticize is correct, but war cannot be handled only by army generals since the dying are the naïve soldiers.

Regards
Beda pietanza

[Thomas Heger]

I had recently have read a small part of Maxwell's book on
electrodynamics and I found it really well written (other than SRT).

It is easy to read, even if subject and mathematics are difficult and
even if it's more than 150 years old. You should really have a look.

SRT does not quote Maxwell properly and I could not find in the book,
what Einstein called Maxwell's equations.

> One way to understand the success of STR is via an analogy to Ptolemy's geocentric model of the solar system. With its epicycles, orbs, equants, etc., it was PHYSICALLY ABSURD, but was far more ACCURATE than Copernicus' heliocentric system:
>
> http://tofspot.blogspot.com/2013/08/the-great-ptolemaic-smackdown.html
>
> Similarly, STR is also physically absurd, but it is the most accurate model so far. Deep down, I intuitively feel that STR, like Ptolemy's model, is an absurd approximation to a simpler, physically sensible reality. I think it is worth the effort to figure out what this simpler, sensible model of reality is. But, it is really a hard problem, and at the minimum you have to understand electrodynamics thoroughly.

As I see it, Einstein had 'smuggled away' the transit time of a light
signal.

Instead of adding the delay time to the time signal of a remote source,
he assumed the reading of the remote clock to be the real time at that
remote location.

This is simply wrong, since we know, that light is fast, but has finite
velocity.

The time it takes for light to travel belongs therefor to the transit
and should be added to a time signal.

But Einstein didn't do that. Instead he assumed, that time is dependent
from the location. But his definition is nonsense, since to a frame of
reference also belongs a measure of time, which should be valid
throughout this f-o-r.

The next thing he 'smuggled away' is the Doppler effect.

The real Doppler effect therefor resurfaces somewhere else as 'Gamma
factor'.

> Some people might ask what is the point of trying to find a 'better' model when STR matches all known data, but that is like asking Kepler why he was wasting his time trying to fit the orbits of the planets into platonic solids, instead of making "more accurate" astrological predictions:
>

When I was much younger and lived near Hamburg, my neighbors had the
name 'Kepler' and were grand-grand-grand-something of Johannes Kepler.

That always impressed me and was among my own motivations to do
something in Physics.

Another one was a book, that I got in school as a little incentive,
because I was the second best in my class.
It's name was 'Knauers Buch der modernen Physik'.

There was a chapter about Einstein and SRT. Since then I was 'chewing'
on SRT.
(I didn't like the concept and still don't like it.)

I prefer other versions of relativity, like the one of Hermann
Minkowski, which he presented in lectures shortly before his sudden death.

I have also written a 'book' about the question you have asked:

https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6

The idea is to take spacetime of GR and 'make' particles out of it. The
concept I have called 'structured spacetime'.

...

TH

[Thomas Heger]

Am 26.03.2020 um 16:27 schrieb Odd Bodkin:
...

>>
>> I have not read his book 'Science at the crossroads' yet. But I have
>> heard it is mainly composed from critical statements of other physicists.
>>
>>
>>>> So, there is and was critique.
>>>
>>> Not by physicists, there isn't.
>>
>> If you define 'physicist' as 'a person, who believes in Einstein and
>> everything he said or wrote'.
>>
>> I personally think, that most of what we are told is wrong.
>
> Again, this is a stance fueled by suspicion and emotion. Then you go
> looking for evidence to support your suspicions. That’s what a conspiracy
> nut does.

Well, I actually do that, too.

One of my favorite theories goes like this:

the creator of UNESCO and head of 'Eugenics' was Sir Julian Huxley. He
was also an agent in Churchill's Naval Intelligence Service. He went to
Bavaria in 1912 for a year.

My theory is, that the Brits faked the suicide of his brother Noel
Trevenen Huxley. Instead he went to Munich with his brother and he then
lived in the house of Isolde Beidler, the daughter of Richard Wagner, at
Prinzregentenplatz 16.

There he learned German (with Bavarian accent) and stayed there quite a
while.

He became a German soldier in the Bavarian regiment and stayed a little
off the danger zone in Flanders in WW I. For doing nothing he receive an
Iron Cross and later went away for several years home, while his double
stayed in hospital.

Later he became famous as leader of a faked coup. Then he went to prison
for a few month and came back with a two volume book known as
'Mein Kampf'.

>>
>> For instance I think, that 'Growing Earth' is actually true, since I
>> have spent several years on this subject and have found tons of evidence.
>>
>> But GE is simply ignored and if not, the proponents are called crackpots
>> or similar.
>>
>> Same with SRT. Who is against SRT is apparently regarded as heretic and
>> will be expelled from the community of 'science', what becomes therefor
>> a mere farce.
>
> I think the real question is about the WHY behind your “against”.

What is so difficult to understand, when I say I found more than a
hundred different errors in that text and therefor think it's wrong.

Actually I was not against SRT, because of the errors. What I didn't
like was the concept of SRT.

So I tried to justify my 'dislike' by searching for errors and found way
more than expected.

..

TH

[Odd Bodkin]

Thomas Heger <ttt...@web.de> wrote:
> Am 26.03.2020 um 16:27 schrieb Odd Bodkin:
> ...
>>>
>>> I have not read his book 'Science at the crossroads' yet. But I have
>>> heard it is mainly composed from critical statements of other physicists.
>>>
>>>
>>>>> So, there is and was critique.
>>>>
>>>> Not by physicists, there isn't.
>>>
>>> If you define 'physicist' as 'a person, who believes in Einstein and
>>> everything he said or wrote'.
>>>
>>> I personally think, that most of what we are told is wrong.
>>
>> Again, this is a stance fueled by suspicion and emotion. Then you go
>> looking for evidence to support your suspicions. That’s what a conspiracy
>> nut does.
>
> Well, I actually do that, too.

Yes I know.
It’s not smart.

For one thing, what you insist on calling errors are not errors. There
isn’t a physicist alive that would agree that anything you’ve classed as an
error is in fact an error.

What they are, are manufactured reasons to support your aim to find a
problem with SRT, just because you don’t like the concept.

>
> Actually I was not against SRT, because of the errors. What I didn't
> like was the concept of SRT.

Exactly. Which is not a sound scientific reason to be against it. And even
less of a sound reason to manufacture reasons you incorrectly call errors.

>
> So I tried to justify my 'dislike' by searching for errors and found way
> more than expected.
>

Self justification of a gut feeling is not a sensible intellectual
practice. It is not what rational people do.

[Dono,]

On Friday, March 27, 2020 at 11:00:53 AM UTC-7, beda pietanza wrote:
> snip imbecilities<

[Vání Biganska]

>> I guess he gotten a lot of enemies those days... who made
> Einstein's Dinglebery "Vání Biganska" shed all those bitter
> <http://tinyurl.com/Tears-for-Einsteins-Misery>

kiss my ass, which is just a continuation of my skin. Stay in line before
the supermarket 6 feet away, which is all about control, not health. They
wouldn't give a dam on your health and old people.

[Vání Biganska]

beda pietanza wrote:

>> > It is merely an historical accident that Einstein discovered SR via
>> > electrodynamics.
>>
>> That may be but the justification for it remains electrodynamics.
>> Theories that followed (QED, etc) are consistent with this, of course,
>> but nobody can study QED without studying SR first and SR cannot be
>> understood without the theories that have led to it.
>
> It is very instructive to follow you and Tom Roberts, your disagreement
> here is close to the core of the total disagreement of many vs the SR
> theory.
> It is a very understandable accident that SR geometrical structure based
> on the magic of the SR gamma factor gives the very approximate
> experimental results, notwithstanding its absurdity.
> Your suggestion to study before criticize is correct, but war cannot be
> handled only by army generals since the dying are the naïve soldiers.

I don't get it. Could you please put some numbers where you mouth is,
before selling it? You are just canceling the pension to old people,
nothing new here. It's the century old eugenic sustaining greta thunberg
liberal *_capitalist_* doctrine, pushed into the millennium number three.

[JanPB]

On Friday, March 27, 2020 at 11:00:53 AM UTC-7, beda pietanza wrote:

> Il giorno venerdì 27 marzo 2020 10:05:37 UTC+7, JanPB ha scritto:
> > On Thursday, March 26, 2020 at 7:07:46 PM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote:
> > > On 3/26/20 1:13 PM, Engr. Ravi wrote:
> > > > To really understand STR, you have to understand ELECTRODYNAMICS.
> > >
> > > That is just plain not true. To understand SR you need to understand
> > > GEOMETRY.
> >
> > I strongly disagree. Geometry is just mathematics, it doesn't say anything about
> > the context and why geometry ended up relevant in the first place. And why it was
> > accepted so easily.
> >
> > > It is merely an historical accident that Einstein discovered SR via
> > > electrodynamics.
> >
> > That may be but the justification for it remains electrodynamics. Theories that
> > followed (QED, etc) are consistent with this, of course, but nobody can study
> > QED without studying SR first and SR cannot be understood without the theories
> > that have led to it.
> >
>
> It is very instructive to follow you and Tom Roberts, your disagreement here is close to the core of the total disagreement of many vs the SR theory.

Our disagreement is only in the pedagogy. I agree with Tom that the current
understanding of SR (as a geometry) is correct. Problem with it that to an
newbie or a hobbyist without experience of the relevant physics such understanding
will frequently appear whimsical and/or without foundation and/or devoid of common
sense and/or stupid and/or absurd and/or etc. etc.

Explaining SR to a newbie by using geometry is a bit like explaining Newtonian
mechanics by starting with the Hamilton-Jacobi theory. It's correct and powerful
and supremely elegant and also quite incomprehensible.

> It is a very understandable accident that SR geometrical structure based on the magic of the SR gamma factor gives the very approximate experimental results, notwithstanding its absurdity.

There is no absurdity. Certainly Hamiltonian mechanics let alone QED is much more "absurd".

--
Jan

[maluw...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, 28 March 2020 04:25:31 UTC+1, JanPB wrote:

> There is no absurdity. Certainly Hamiltonian mechanics let alone QED is much more "absurd".

Jan, poor puffed trash, check any dictionary. "absurdity"
is just another name of the "lack of common sense"
your bunch of idiots is so proud about.

[Vání Biganska]

JanPB wrote:

> Explaining SR to a newbie by using geometry is a bit like explaining
> Newtonian mechanics by starting with the Hamilton-Jacobi theory. It's
> correct and powerful and supremely elegant and also quite
> incomprehensible.

The correct way to explain SR would be by using tensors, something the
young Einstein never did. Not even post-GR. It's just a hype nowhere to
find anywhere on internet. Try again if you can, but you can't.

[Thomas Heger]

Am 27.03.2020 um 20:26 schrieb Odd Bodkin:
..

>> What is so difficult to understand, when I say I found more than a
>> hundred different errors in that text and therefor think it's wrong.
>
> For one thing, what you insist on calling errors are not errors. There
> isn’t a physicist alive that would agree that anything you’ve classed as an
> error is in fact an error.

This is first untrue and second irrelevant.

There is only one truth and that is not subject to democratic decision.

> What they are, are manufactured reasons to support your aim to find a
> problem with SRT, just because you don’t like the concept.
>
>>
>> Actually I was not against SRT, because of the errors. What I didn't
>> like was the concept of SRT.
>
> Exactly. Which is not a sound scientific reason to be against it. And even
> less of a sound reason to manufacture reasons you incorrectly call errors.
>
>>
>> So I tried to justify my 'dislike' by searching for errors and found way
>> more than expected.
>>
>
> Self justification of a gut feeling is not a sensible intellectual
> practice. It is not what rational people do.

Actually wrong, since that is what most people do all the time.

But I did not, since I didn't write: I don't like SRT.
Instead I have written, that I have found these errors (providing a long
list of errors).

You asked me for my motivation to search for errors and I have correctly
responded, that I didn't like SRT for 'gut feelings' as you call it.

But I do not want to talk about my feelings, but about the errors.

You insist on feelings and majority decisions, even if these are by no
means a valid argument in a scientific discussion.


TH

[beda pietanza]

Look water falling down from a hill find its way down without knowing physics

so does a lion chasing a prey, in the same way a open minded person uses the common sense to point out absurdities, he doesn’t need knowing physics (whose errors may obliterate his vision).

To come to the absurdities of SR: a material ruler has length which is real in any given situation so it is absolute, and so does a clock with its absolute time rate associate with it.

The physical dimension of an atom is determined by intrinsic force balanced against the action exerted by the entire universal masses; therefore the dimension of a material ruler is absolute in any given situation.

Any change in the local environment can affect the absolute physical dimension of the material ruler, when this change happens the new dimension is absolute.

This is true for any observer local, distant stationary, relatively moving, etc

Being able for those observers to measure or be aware of the changes requires technics based on the above premises and SR is not.

The SR geometric construction to transform the physical change of the length of the rulers in just geometric projections uses deformed geometry and ad hoc thwarted coordinates.

You can picture perfectly SR in a 3D plus time representation, where the rulers really contract and clocks really dilate, still this representation is not realistic for the obvious reason based on my premises above:

Material rulers can be made of different materials and they reacts differently to any environmental change, and this points out another major error in SR, even if we consider its geometrical construction, with abstract, rulers correct.

The SR formula of Doppler Effect can be obtained using the classic Doppler formulae using the time rate of the source clock and the time rate of the receiver clock taking in account their absolute changes according to their absolute speeds, (I posted time ago the demonstration of this perfect equivalence, I am not able to recover it now, but I will try).

Best regards

Beda pietanza

[Odd Bodkin]

Thomas Heger <ttt...@web.de> wrote:
> Am 27.03.2020 um 20:26 schrieb Odd Bodkin:
> ..
>>> What is so difficult to understand, when I say I found more than a
>>> hundred different errors in that text and therefor think it's wrong.
>>
>> For one thing, what you insist on calling errors are not errors. There
>> isn’t a physicist alive that would agree that anything you’ve classed as an
>> error is in fact an error.
>
> This is first untrue and second irrelevant.
>
> There is only one truth and that is not subject to democratic decision.

But you are not the source of truth here. No matter how much you wish to
believe it.

When you cite a lack of table of contents as an error, when not a physicist
alive would call that an error, you are not speaking the truth. You are
speaking your fabrications.

>
>> What they are, are manufactured reasons to support your aim to find a
>> problem with SRT, just because you don’t like the concept.
>>
>>>
>>> Actually I was not against SRT, because of the errors. What I didn't
>>> like was the concept of SRT.
>>
>> Exactly. Which is not a sound scientific reason to be against it. And even
>> less of a sound reason to manufacture reasons you incorrectly call errors.
>>
>>>
>>> So I tried to justify my 'dislike' by searching for errors and found way
>>> more than expected.
>>>
>>
>> Self justification of a gut feeling is not a sensible intellectual
>> practice. It is not what rational people do.
>
> Actually wrong, since that is what most people do all the time.

Nor rational people. Lots of people do irrational things for a variety of
reasons and motivations. That doesn’t make them sound.

>
> But I did not, since I didn't write: I don't like SRT.

Look just above, where you yourself said: “Actually I was not against SRT,
because of the errors. What I didn't like was the concept of SRT.”

If you cannot keep track of your own motivations, then you are either not
honest with yourself or not honest with others.

> Instead I have written, that I have found these errors (providing a long
> list of errors).
>
> You asked me for my motivation to search for errors and I have correctly
> responded, that I didn't like SRT for 'gut feelings' as you call it.
>
> But I do not want to talk about my feelings, but about the errors.

I know you don’t want to talk about your feelings or motivations. However,
those feelings and motivations have driven you to do irrational things,
which is exactly the point. There is no point in looking at these
emotionally driven fabrications you call errors which really are not
errors. Period.

>
> You insist on feelings and majority decisions, even if these are by no
> means a valid argument in a scientific discussion.
>
>
> TH
>

[maluw...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, 28 March 2020 14:33:01 UTC+1, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> Thomas Heger <ttt...@web.de> wrote:
> > Am 27.03.2020 um 20:26 schrieb Odd Bodkin:
> > ..
> >>> What is so difficult to understand, when I say I found more than a
> >>> hundred different errors in that text and therefor think it's wrong.
> >>
> >> For one thing, what you insist on calling errors are not errors. There
> >> isn’t a physicist alive that would agree that anything you’ve classed as an
> >> error is in fact an error.
> >
> > This is first untrue and second irrelevant.
> >
> > There is only one truth and that is not subject to democratic decision.
>
> But you are not the source of truth here. No matter how much you wish to
> believe it.

The idiot wood worker is the obvious source of truth here;
he wants to believe it so much...

[Thomas Heger]

In science we aim to find truth. But that can be a very long way.
It is similar to other difficult tasks: it is accomplished in steps and
some go into the wrong direction.

Progress is most of the time made in this manner: two steps ahead and
one step back.

But that is not bad at all. You check things out and if there seems to
be a promising path, you try to progress. But from time to time you end
up in a dead alley and must go back.

Then you can check the next possibility and so forth.

But if you insist on an error, you will remain in that dead end.

Therefor it is very important to identify things, that are not good as
possible and try better solutions.

TH

[Thomas Heger]

Am 28.03.2020 um 14:32 schrieb Odd Bodkin:
> Thomas Heger <ttt...@web.de> wrote:
>> Am 27.03.2020 um 20:26 schrieb Odd Bodkin:
>> ..
>>>> What is so difficult to understand, when I say I found more than a
>>>> hundred different errors in that text and therefor think it's wrong.
>>>
>>> For one thing, what you insist on calling errors are not errors. There
>>> isn’t a physicist alive that would agree that anything you’ve classed as an
>>> error is in fact an error.
>>
>> This is first untrue and second irrelevant.
>>
>> There is only one truth and that is not subject to democratic decision.
>
> But you are not the source of truth here. No matter how much you wish to
> believe it.
>
> When you cite a lack of table of contents as an error, when not a physicist
> alive would call that an error, you are not speaking the truth. You are
> speaking your fabrications.

I counted the several violations of formal standards of scientific
papers as an error. That's true.

That is not only the missing table of content. That would be no issue at
all, but adds to the other deficits:
no quotes
no references to used sources
no credits to prior knowledge
no illustrations
no numbers (or any other sign) at the equations
no table of variable names
no numerical values of any kind
no experiments or observations

I regarded his naming system also as an error, even if this is more a
formal violation of certain standards.

So: these things are not really errors, but would have been (in my eyes)
sufficient to reject this paper.

What I would also dislike, but not really know, is help by other people
not mentioned (e.g. Grassman, Minkowski and others).

I also dislike the stile of the language. It is not strict and precise
enough and often hard to understand (both in German and English).


...

TH

[Dono,]

On Saturday, March 28, 2020 at 12:00:39 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:

> Therefor it is very important to identify things, that are not good as
> possible and try better solutions.
>

These corrections and "solutions" cannot come from ignorant imbeciles. Like you.

[Dono,]

On Saturday, March 28, 2020 at 12:15:43 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:

> I counted the several violations of formal standards of scientific
> papers as an error. That's true.
>
> That is not only the missing table of content.

Current papers do not have a table of content

That would be no issue at
> all, but adds to the other deficits:
> no quotes

Not the norm at that time, imbecile

> no references to used sources

There weren't any since his paper was so ahead of its time, old nazi

> no credits to prior knowledge

There wasn't any, cretinoid


> no illustrations

He didn't feel like adding cartoons for the like of you

> no numbers (or any other sign) at the equations

Not the norm at that time

> no table of variable names

Not necessary, thousands of people understand the paper perfectly. The fact that you can't is attributable to your imbecility

> no numerical values of any kind

Are you nuts? that was a rhetorical question.


> no experiments or observations

It is a theoretical paper, imbecile

> What I would also dislike, but not really know, is help by other people
> not mentioned (e.g. Grassman, Minkowski and others).
>

There wasn't any yet, cretinoid. It came later.

[Odd Bodkin]

Thomas Heger <ttt...@web.de> wrote:
> Am 28.03.2020 um 14:32 schrieb Odd Bodkin:
>> Thomas Heger <ttt...@web.de> wrote:
>>> Am 27.03.2020 um 20:26 schrieb Odd Bodkin:
>>> ..
>>>>> What is so difficult to understand, when I say I found more than a
>>>>> hundred different errors in that text and therefor think it's wrong.
>>>>
>>>> For one thing, what you insist on calling errors are not errors. There
>>>> isn’t a physicist alive that would agree that anything you’ve classed as an
>>>> error is in fact an error.
>>>
>>> This is first untrue and second irrelevant.
>>>
>>> There is only one truth and that is not subject to democratic decision.
>>
>> But you are not the source of truth here. No matter how much you wish to
>> believe it.
>>
>> When you cite a lack of table of contents as an error, when not a physicist
>> alive would call that an error, you are not speaking the truth. You are
>> speaking your fabrications.
>
>
> I counted the several violations of formal standards of scientific
> papers as an error. That's true.

And as I said, these are not errors. Physicists do not regard them as
errors. There is no SOUND reason for you to insist they are anyway.

>
> That is not only the missing table of content. That would be no issue at
> all, but adds to the other deficits:
> no quotes
> no references to used sources
> no credits to prior knowledge
> no illustrations
> no numbers (or any other sign) at the equations
> no table of variable names
> no numerical values of any kind
> no experiments or observations
>
> I regarded his naming system also as an error, even if this is more a
> formal violation of certain standards.
>
> So: these things are not really errors, but would have been (in my eyes)
> sufficient to reject this paper.

And you are not a physics journal referee by any credential, so what does
it matter what you would prefer to see?

>
> What I would also dislike, but not really know, is help by other people
> not mentioned (e.g. Grassman, Minkowski and others).
>
> I also dislike the stile of the language. It is not strict and precise
> enough and often hard to understand (both in German and English).
>
>

And once again, what you DISLIKE is not counted as an error by anyone but
you. That’s your problem.

> ...

[Odd Bodkin]

Let me just add that you have made a pretty silly choice in trying to learn
electrodynamics and relativity by reading professional physics papers.

If you have a reason for not using a more sensible learning tool like a
textbook, I’d be curious what that reason is.

[Tom Roberts]

On 3/28/20 2:00 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> In science  we aim to find truth.

That is completely WRONG. This misunderstanding is a major part of your
confusion.

We have learned that "truth" is inapplicable to science in general, and
physics in particular, because we can never really know what nature is
actually doing. The best we can do is MODEL what nature does, and then
refine and improve the model via experiments and observations.

This is called "science". You should learn about it.

After all, models are how humans survive in the world. You cannot find
your bed at night without a model of your domicile -- you mentally
traverse that model to your bed, and manipulate your body correspondingly.

Tom Roberts

[hanson]

"Vání Biganska", the Polack <va...@uucp2ul.en> wrote:
> "JanPB" the Polack <fil...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> "JanPlumberBrain" <film...@gmail.com>wrote:

>> Explaining SR to a newbie by using geometry is a bit like explaining
>> Newtonian mechanics by starting with the Hamilton-Jacobi theory. It's
>> correct and powerful and supremely elegant and also quite
>> incomprehensible.
>

"Vání Piganska" <va...@uucp2ul.en> wrote:
> The correct way to explain SR would be by using tensors, something the
> young Einstein never did. Not even post-GR. It's just a hype nowhere to
> find anywhere on internet. Try again if you can, but you can't.
>

hanson wrote:
The above 2 Polish Einstein Dingleberries impressed
each other with Buzz words which they lifted from
the web, then cut&pasted'em into the USEnet to
glorify themselves in the warm breeze of the farts
that emanated from Albert's sphincter. ((((-LOL-)))
>
Little did they worry over all those bitter crocodile
<http://tinyurl.com/Tears-for-Einsteins-Misery> in
which AE, the twice arrested wife-beater, palavered
in 1954 in his letter to Besso in which he said:
>
"I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based
on the field concept, i.e., on continuous structures. In that
case nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation
theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics." .
[& elsewhere] "why would anyone be interested in getting
exact solutions of such an ephemeral set of equations?"
>
AE continued: "All these 50 years of conscious brooding
have brought me [= Einstein] NO nearer to the answer
to the question, 'What are light quanta?' aka photons"
>
AE concluded: "If I had my life to live over again, I'd be a
plumber"... [and I would make blouses instead (see link)]
<http://tinyurl.com/Blouse-Plumber-Einstein>



ahahaha.... <snicker>-<chuckle>-<chortle>- ROTFLMAO

[Vaní Biganska]

hanson wrote:

> "Vání Biganska", the Polack <va...@uucp2ul.en> wrote:
>> "JanPB" the Polack <fil...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> "JanPlumberBrain" <film...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>> Explaining SR to a newbie by using geometry is a bit like explaining
>>> Newtonian mechanics by starting with the Hamilton-Jacobi theory. It's
>>> correct and powerful and supremely elegant and also quite
>>> incomprehensible.
>>
> "Vání Piganska" <va...@uucp2ul.en> wrote:
> > The correct way to explain SR would be by using tensors, something
> > the
>> young Einstein never did. Not even post-GR. It's just a hype nowhere to
>> find anywhere on internet. Try again if you can, but you can't.
>>
> hanson wrote:
> concept, i.e., on continuous structures. In that case nothing remains of
> my entire castle in the air, gravitation theory included, [and of] the
> rest of modern physics." .
> [& elsewhere] "why would anyone be interested in getting exact solutions
> of such an ephemeral set of equations?"

but _tensor description_ has nothing to do with existence of fields,
tensors can be used to many other things, you stupid usenet user crap
account. Think again.

[maluw...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, 29 March 2020 07:19:11 UTC+2, tjrob137 wrote:

> We have learned that "truth" is inapplicable to science in general, and
> physics in particular, because we can never really know what nature is
> actually doing.

nd - are you sure the above is true, poor halfbrain?

[Vaní Biganska]

no, but that you are stupid like a door, it pretty much plausible.

[beda pietanza]

You and TH saying, about increasing knowledge, is the same concept, said in different manner.

Knowledge is a process of accumulation of certainties through continuous search and verification.

What is very important is the emerging of nature hidden potentialities, stimulated by the human activities.

Coping with these (most of time unexpected) emergings can be extremely hard and challenging or even fatal.

Science is the most powerful tool to squeeze out nature potentialities, since what comes out can be very dangerous,each science participant have a persoal responsibility.

Regards

Beda pietanza

[Vaní Biganska]

beda pietanza wrote:

>> After all, models are how humans survive in the world. You cannot find
>> your bed at night without a model of your domicile -- you mentally
>> traverse that model to your bed, and manipulate your body
>> correspondingly. Tom Roberts
>
> You and TH saying, about increasing knowledge, is the same concept, said
> in different manner.
> Knowledge is a process of accumulation of certainties through continuous
> search and verification.
> What is very important is the emerging of nature hidden potentialities,
> stimulated by the human activities.

yes, absolutely, please take a look at the data for these

*_year 2025 population forecasts_*:
http://www.deagel.com/country/Germany_c0078.aspx
Population: 28 million, Density: 79 inhabitants / sq. km.
http://www.deagel.com/country/France_c0072.aspx
Population: 39 million, Density: 72 inhabitants / sq. km.
http://www.deagel.com/country/Italy_c0101.aspx
Population: 44 million, Density: 145 inhabitants / sq. km.

do you still don't you think so?

[hanson]

"Vaní PigBrainanska" <va...@uucv2ul.ec> oinked:

>
>> "Vání Biganska", the Polack <va...@uucp2ul.en> wrote:
>>> "JanPB" the Polack <fil...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> "JanPlumberBrain" <film...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>>> Explaining SR to a newbie by using geometry is a bit like explaining
>>>> Newtonian mechanics by starting with the Hamilton-Jacobi theory. It's
>>>> correct and powerful and supremely elegant and also quite
>>>> incomprehensible.
>>>
>> "Vání Piganska" <va...@uucp2ul.en> wrote:
>> > The correct way to explain SR would be by using tensors, something
>> > the
>>> young Einstein never did. Not even post-GR. It's just a hype nowhere to
>>> find anywhere on internet. Try again if you can, but you can't.
>>>

>> hanson cited AE who said what Piganska could not fathom:

>> concept, i.e., on continuous structures. In that case nothing remains of
>> my entire castle in the air, gravitation theory included, [and of] the
>> rest of modern physics." .
>> [& elsewhere] "why would anyone be interested in getting exact solutions
>> of such an ephemeral set of equations?"
>

"Vaní PigBrainanska" <va...@uucv2ul.ec> mutilated the post & palavered:

> but _tensor description_ has nothing to do with existence of fields,
> tensors can be used to many other things, you stupid usenet user crap
> account. Think again.
>

hanson wrote:
"Vaní PigBrainanska" didn't know what he was talking
about and so he oinked & cranked himself (((-LOL-)))
>
Thanks for the laughs you blossom of Polish humor.

=========== OP =============
Here is the original post with all the AE references
which gave PigBrainanska problems to "think again"

"Vání Biganska", the Polack <va...@uucp2ul.en> wrote:
> "JanPB" the Polack <fil...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> "JanPlumberBrain" <film...@gmail.com>wrote:
>> Explaining SR to a newbie by using geometry is a bit like explaining
>> Newtonian mechanics by starting with the Hamilton-Jacobi theory. It's
>> correct and powerful and supremely elegant and also quite
>> incomprehensible.
>
"Vání Piganska" <va...@uucp2ul.en> wrote:
> The correct way to explain SR would be by using tensors, something the
> young Einstein never did. Not even post-GR. It's just a hype nowhere to
> find anywhere on internet. Try again if you can, but you can't.
>
hanson wrote:

The above 2 Polish Einstein Dingleberries impressed
each other with Buzz words which they lifted from
the web, then cut&pasted'em into the USEnet to
glorify themselves in the warm breeze of the farts
that emanated from Albert's sphincter. ((((-LOL-)))
>
Little did they worry over all those bitter crocodile
<http://tinyurl.com/Tears-for-Einsteins-Misery> in
which AE, the twice arrested wife-beater, palavered
in 1954 in his letter to Besso in which he said:
>
"I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based

on the field concept, i.e., on continuous structures. In that

case nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation
theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics." .
[& elsewhere] "why would anyone be interested in getting
exact solutions of such an ephemeral set of equations?"
>

[RichD]

On March 26, JanPB wrote:
>>> To really understand STR, you have to understand ELECTRODYNAMICS.
>
>> That is just plain not true. To understand SR you need to understand
>> GEOMETRY.

>> It is merely an historical accident that Einstein discovered SR via
>> electrodynamics.
>
> That may be but the justification for it remains electrodynamics.

> ... SR cannot be understood without the theories

> that have led to it.

Is it conceivable that someone might have developed relativity
at that time, strictly from geometric and symmetry
considerations, without reference to electrodynamics?

--
Rich

[Dr. Wheat Faartz]

infact there is no reference to electrodynamics in his 1905 paper. If
any, that's nut much, but only explanatory.

[maluw...@gmail.com]

And - if poor idiot Tom is not sure the above is true -
why is he expecting anyone to treat it seriously?

The problem is - while the "truth" concept has only
medium complexity, it's still far, far, far too much
for a primitive brain of a physicist like Tom, or
pseudophysicist like you.

[Thomas Heger]

I don't understand, what you are trying to say.

A model of a certain phenomenon in nature is a description of this
phenomenon by appropriate methods.

If we are lucky, we could find a mathematical description. We could also
use a computer and let a simulation run or use other means, like
animations or illustrations.

But after all, these means are descriptive and not the 'real thing'.

What we really want is not a description of a phenomenon, but an
understanding of the 'machinery' and how things function.

If our models, based on such an understanding of the phenomenon, turn
out to be a good description, we are happy with our theories.

TH

[Thomas Heger]

Am 27.03.2020 um 03:08 schrieb Tom Roberts:
> On 3/25/20 2:57 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>> this is a reply to Tom Roberts [...]
>
> Such nonsense you write! You merely show that you did not understand my
> points at all.
>
Which of your points do you mean?

TH

[maluw...@gmail.com]

On Monday, 30 March 2020 10:34:17 UTC+2, Thomas Heger wrote:

> What we really want is not a description of a phenomenon, but an
> understanding of the 'machinery' and how things function.

Surely, that's what you really want; that's why
you follow idiot gurus promising you pears on a
willow.

[Anass Rhammar]

maluwozniak wrote:

> The problem is - while the "truth" concept has only medium complexity,
> it's still far, far, far too much for a primitive brain of a physicist
> like Tom, or pseudophysicist like you.

I can't make sense of anything, all I see are words.

[Nicolaas Vroom]

On Sunday, 29 March 2020 07:19:11 UTC+2, tjrob137 wrote:

> On 3/28/20 2:00 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> > In science we aim to find truth.
>
> That is completely WRONG. This misunderstanding is a major part of your
> confusion.
>
> We have learned that "truth" is inapplicable to science in general, and
> physics in particular, because we can never really know what nature is
> actually doing.

IMO the purpose of science is to try to predict the future as accurately as possible.
With future I mean the evolution of any (physical) process you want (to study)

> The best we can do is MODEL what nature does, and then
> refine and improve the model via experiments and observations.

You can not define a model, starting from nothing.
The first step is to do observations.
The second step is to do experiments.
The third step is to define a model. A model means to subdivide a physical
process into different parts and to see how they influence each other.
With a model in a more general context I have in mind: a theory, a law
or some mathematical equations (or the periodic table)

I advise for further reading this document:
http://users.telenet.be/nicvroom/The_purpose_of_Science.htm

> This is called "science". You should learn about it.
>
> After all, models are how humans survive in the world. You cannot find
> your bed at night without a model of your domicile -- you mentally
> traverse that model to your bed, and manipulate your body correspondingly.

To discuss models as part of human behaviour is not what I have in mind,
but this is also in medicine and economics.

Nicolaas Vroom.

[Thomas Heger]

Not really.

To find out, how things work, is certainly difficult. But science is
usually able to find solutions.

But it's not necessarily found by a single 'guru', but by distributed
efforts. This is actually more like 'trail and error', since many
findings turn out to be wrong (somehow).

If somethings was thought to be a valid theory, it could be found later,
that it is not. Or something thought to be wrong was in fact not.

So there is nothing wrong with theories, that are insufficient after
some examinations. It is only one more attempt at a difficult problem.

TH

[Thomas Heger]

Am 30.03.2020 um 18:40 schrieb Nicolaas Vroom:
> On Sunday, 29 March 2020 07:19:11 UTC+2, tjrob137 wrote:
>> On 3/28/20 2:00 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>> In science we aim to find truth.
>>
>> That is completely WRONG. This misunderstanding is a major part of your
>> confusion.
>>
>> We have learned that "truth" is inapplicable to science in general, and
>> physics in particular, because we can never really know what nature is
>> actually doing.
>
> IMO the purpose of science is to try to predict the future as accurately as possible.
> With future I mean the evolution of any (physical) process you want (to study)

Well, actually not.

There are many things in science, which are not oriented into the
future. History, for instance, is also a science, but about the past.

E.g. if you dig out Dinosaur remains, you don't think about making them
alive.

Other scientific endeavors are related to subjects so chaotic, remote,
small or otherwise inaccessible, that science is happy with less then
predictions.

>> The best we can do is MODEL what nature does, and then
>> refine and improve the model via experiments and observations.
>
> You can not define a model, starting from nothing.
> The first step is to do observations.
> The second step is to do experiments.
> The third step is to define a model. A model means to subdivide a physical
> process into different parts and to see how they influence each other.
> With a model in a more general context I have in mind: a theory, a law
> or some mathematical equations (or the periodic table)
>
> I advise for further reading this document:
> http://users.telenet.be/nicvroom/The_purpose_of_Science.htm

I generally like the site, but think this is wrong:

"Experiment 1

Consider a point O as the origin of a coordination system.
Consider a space ship A at a distance l in the -x direction from
point O. This can also be Observer A, clock A or point A. ..."

In a dark corner of the universe it is not possible to define a point by
other means than a material object.

In the example there are only spaceships present and one of these ships
is therefore the only choice for the definition of a coordinate system
and its center.

Also directions are hard to define, if there is nothing stable.

TH

[Dono,]

On Monday, March 30, 2020 at 10:11:40 AM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:

> I generally like the site, but think this is wrong:
>

Kookfight

[Ned Latham]

Yes, you're right. He should have used "mind" instead of "brain".

[JanPB]

Probably, but it would have been rejected as a bit of self-consistent but
otherwise random nonsense if electrodynamics hadn't been known.

--
Jan

[JanPB]

His 1905 paper is about electrodynamics, its second part ("Electrodynamical
part") is what the paper is REALLY about. The first part ("Kinematical part")
was intended only to provide a modified kinematics for its use in the second
part AND the first part also showed that it was strong enough to derive the
known (by then) Lorentz transformation as well as provide a better
justification for it than just saying "Maxwell's equations are invariant
under it".

Of course what happened very soon after the publication was that everyone
realised the paper's first part was in fact the more fundamental part: it
affected the whole of physics. So today hardly anyone
even READS the second part (it requires more mathematical sophistication
to understand it anyway) and esp. amateurs get from it the idea that the
first part is all there was to SR originally, with the usual result:
the false conclusion that the theory is somehow "wrong" or "stupid", etc.

--
Jan

[Tom Roberts]

On 3/30/20 1:33 AM, Dr. Wheat Faartz wrote:
> infact there is no reference to electrodynamics in his 1905 paper.

Why do you just make stuff up and pretend it is true? -- It is QUITE
CLEAR that you have never read his 1905 paper, or even looked at it. In
fact, its title (translated to English) is "On the Electrodynamics of
Moving Bodies". As JanPB pointed out, the bulk of the paper is about
electrodynamics.

Tom Roberts

[Tom Roberts]

On 3/30/20 3:34 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 29.03.2020 um 07:19 schrieb Tom Roberts:

>> [...]

> I don't understand, what you are trying to say.

No surprise, as you are so abysmally ignorant and uneducated in physics,
which you demonstrate in everything you write around here. You really
need to STUDY -- wasting your time posting nonsense to the net is useless.

> What we really want is not a description of a phenomenon, but an
> understanding of the 'machinery' and how things function.

That may be what you WANT, but the world we inhabit does not actually
permit that. The BEST we humans can do is make models of various aspects
of the world, and refine and improve them via experiment and
observation. Any understanding that ANYBODY has is of the model, not
"how nature actually works". Including you.

Tom Roberts

[maluw...@gmail.com]

Of course you can't.
And you're trying to deal with "truth" and
"modelling" stuff. Amusing.

[maluw...@gmail.com]

On Monday, 30 March 2020 18:40:49 UTC+2, Nicolaas Vroom wrote:
> On Sunday, 29 March 2020 07:19:11 UTC+2, tjrob137 wrote:
> > On 3/28/20 2:00 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> > > In science we aim to find truth.
> >
> > That is completely WRONG. This misunderstanding is a major part of your
> > confusion.
> >
> > We have learned that "truth" is inapplicable to science in general, and
> > physics in particular, because we can never really know what nature is
> > actually doing.
>
> IMO the purpose of science is to try to predict the future as accurately as possible.
> With future I mean the evolution of any (physical) process you want (to study)
>
> > The best we can do is MODEL what nature does, and then
> > refine and improve the model via experiments and observations.
>
> You can not define a model, starting from nothing.

Of course you can. Face it: a model is not a physical
being, you're simply incompetent on the subject.

[maluw...@gmail.com]

Jan, poor trash, your idiot guru was admitting himself
that his theory is lacking common sense. You're too dumb to
know, but you can check in any dictionary: "lacking
common sense" and "stupid" mean the same.

[maluw...@gmail.com]

And your nonsensical screams "THAT'S NOT HOW THE WORLD WE
INHABIT WORKS!!!" are always completely baseless.

[Thomas Heger]

Am 31.03.2020 um 05:32 schrieb Tom Roberts:
> On 3/30/20 3:34 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>> Am 29.03.2020 um 07:19 schrieb Tom Roberts:
>>> [...]
>> I don't understand, what you are trying to say.
>
> No surprise, as you are so abysmally ignorant and uneducated in physics,
> which you demonstrate in everything you write around here. You really
> need to STUDY -- wasting your time posting nonsense to the net is useless.

I'm not a physicist, that's true. But I'm not ignorant and also not
uneducated.

>> What we really want is not a description of a phenomenon, but an
>> understanding of the 'machinery' and how things function.
>
> That may be what you WANT, but the world we inhabit does not actually
> permit that.

Well, maybe you think so, but I don't mind.

TH

[Thomas Heger]

The paper starts with a serious error about induction and how magnets
induce currents into wires.

I also disagree with Einstein's quotes of Maxwell.

In fact there are no quotes at all, but the name Maxwell is mentioned.
But If I look at the original book of Maxwell, I cannot find the
equations that Einstein 'quoted'.

So: where do they come from?


TH

[maluw...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, 31 March 2020 09:08:16 UTC+2, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 31.03.2020 um 05:32 schrieb Tom Roberts:
> > On 3/30/20 3:34 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> >> Am 29.03.2020 um 07:19 schrieb Tom Roberts:
> >>> [...]
> >> I don't understand, what you are trying to say.
> >
> > No surprise, as you are so abysmally ignorant and uneducated in physics,
> > which you demonstrate in everything you write around here. You really
> > need to STUDY -- wasting your time posting nonsense to the net is useless.
>
> I'm not a physicist, that's true. But I'm not ignorant and also not
> uneducated.

But you're taking to an arrogant, fanatic idiot. Everyone
is ignorant and uneducated for him, except the ones agreeing
him.

[JanPB]

On Tuesday, March 31, 2020 at 12:12:17 AM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 31.03.2020 um 05:26 schrieb Tom Roberts:
> > On 3/30/20 1:33 AM, Dr. Wheat Faartz wrote:
> >> infact there is no reference to electrodynamics in his 1905 paper.
> >
> > Why do you just make stuff up and pretend it is true? -- It is QUITE
> > CLEAR that you have never read his 1905 paper, or even looked at it. In
> > fact, its title (translated to English) is "On the Electrodynamics of
> > Moving Bodies". As JanPB pointed out, the bulk of the paper is about
> > electrodynamics.
>
> The paper starts with a serious error about induction and how magnets
> induce currents into wires.

There is no error.

> I also disagree with Einstein's quotes of Maxwell.

Whatever.

> In fact there are no quotes at all,

Ditto.

> but the name Maxwell is mentioned.
> But If I look at the original book of Maxwell, I cannot find the
> equations that Einstein 'quoted'.
>
> So: where do they come from?

What are you talking about?

--
Jan

[Eddy Bucher]

Thomas Heger wrote:

> Am 31.03.2020 um 05:26 schrieb Tom Roberts:
>> On 3/30/20 1:33 AM, Dr. Wheat Faartz wrote:
>>> infact there is no reference to electrodynamics in his 1905 paper.
>>
>> Why do you just make stuff up and pretend it is true? -- It is QUITE
>> CLEAR that you have never read his 1905 paper, or even looked at it. In
>> fact, its title (translated to English) is "On the Electrodynamics of
>> Moving Bodies". As JanPB pointed out, the bulk of the paper is about
>> electrodynamics.
>
> The paper starts with a serious error about induction and how magnets
> induce currents into wires.

So true, that's basic electricity, not _Electrodynamics_, which involves
large amount of partial differential equations and tensor, the young
Einstein knew nothing about. Once again, Dr. Tom is overtrumped by by Dr.
Wheat. The relativists don't know how big the electrodynamics is.

[Eddy Bucher]

He said "not much", ether way, that's not much "electrodynamics", but
rather simply _electricity_. There are no tensors equations in that
paper, going into the details.

[maluw...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, 31 March 2020 10:50:09 UTC+2, JanPB wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 31, 2020 at 12:12:17 AM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
> > Am 31.03.2020 um 05:26 schrieb Tom Roberts:
> > > On 3/30/20 1:33 AM, Dr. Wheat Faartz wrote:
> > >> infact there is no reference to electrodynamics in his 1905 paper.
> > >
> > > Why do you just make stuff up and pretend it is true? -- It is QUITE
> > > CLEAR that you have never read his 1905 paper, or even looked at it. In
> > > fact, its title (translated to English) is "On the Electrodynamics of
> > > Moving Bodies". As JanPB pointed out, the bulk of the paper is about
> > > electrodynamics.
> >
> > The paper starts with a serious error about induction and how magnets
> > induce currents into wires.
>
> There is no error.

Listen to Jan Queen of England.

[Engr. Ravi]

On Tuesday, March 31, 2020 at 12:42:17 PM UTC+5:30, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 31.03.2020 um 05:26 schrieb Tom Roberts:
> > On 3/30/20 1:33 AM, Dr. Wheat Faartz wrote:
> >> infact there is no reference to electrodynamics in his 1905 paper.
> >
> > Why do you just make stuff up and pretend it is true? -- It is QUITE
> > CLEAR that you have never read his 1905 paper, or even looked at it. In
> > fact, its title (translated to English) is "On the Electrodynamics of
> > Moving Bodies". As JanPB pointed out, the bulk of the paper is about
> > electrodynamics.

> The paper starts with a serious error about induction and how magnets
> induce currents into wires.

What error?

> I also disagree with Einstein's quotes of Maxwell.
>
> In fact there are no quotes at all, but the name Maxwell is mentioned.
> But If I look at the original book of Maxwell, I cannot find the
> equations that Einstein 'quoted'.
>
> So: where do they come from?

The equations in the 1905 paper are the Maxwell-Hertz equations.

Maxwell's original set of 20 equations published in the 1879 Treatise contained both the E, B fields as well as the scalar potential (phi) and vector potential (A).

Both Heaviside and Hertz "didn't like" the potentials and eliminated them to get equivalent equations.

The modern form using the ∇ operator are due to Heaviside, and the ones in Einstein's paper are due to Hertz.

[Eddy Bucher]

JanPB wrote:

> Of course what happened very soon after the publication was that
> everyone realised the paper's first part was in fact the more
> fundamental part: it affected the whole of physics. So today hardly
> anyone even READS the second part (it requires more mathematical
> sophistication to understand it anyway) and esp. amateurs get from it
> the idea that the first part is all there was to SR originally, with the
> usual result: the false conclusion that the theory is somehow "wrong"
> or "stupid", etc.

Reading the title "On the Electrodynamics of the Moving Bodies", I
already know too much. It's not about the electrodynamics, as a _field of
study_, but about a couple of moving bodies. Why, because nobody
understood the Maxwell Equations at that time.

[Engr. Ravi]

On Friday, March 27, 2020 at 7:37:46 AM UTC+5:30, tjrob137 wrote:

> On 3/26/20 1:13 PM, Engr. Ravi wrote:
> > To really understand STR, you have to understand ELECTRODYNAMICS.
>
> That is just plain not true. To understand SR you need to understand
> GEOMETRY.
>
> It is merely an historical accident that Einstein discovered SR via

> electrodynamics. The actual underlying basis of SR is GEOMETRY. Today we
> can easily derive all the equations of SR without any mention of light
> or electrodynamics -- what is needed is SYMMETRY (i.e. group theory).
>

Trying to teach STR as KINEMATICS or worse ABSTRACT GEOMETRY has been a PEDAGOGICAL DISASTER. It is likely that 99% of the posts in this newsgroup would not have existed if the educational establishment had heeded V.I.Arnold's advice instead of the Bourbaki school.

https://www.uni-muenster.de/Physik.TP/~munsteg/arnold.html

Almost any high school student interested in science, who happens to read through Chapters 15-17/Volume-I of Feynman's Lectures on Special Relativity comes away thinking that this is one load of BS/bollocks. Most such students quickly decide that such absurd physics is simply not for them.

https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_toc.html

But, if such a student is persistent and decides to major in physics in university, then he goes through Chapters 18-21, 25-28 of Volume II of Feynman's Lectures on Electrodynamics and eventually realizes that if Maxwell's model of electrodynamics and the principle of relativity are both experimentally thoroughly validated, then the LT and maybe STR would have to be accepted.

https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_toc.html

The KINEMATICAL and ABSTRACT GEOMETRICAL approaches are false shortcuts to understanding STR. To understand STR, one has to understand ELECTRODYNAMICS.

[maluw...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, 31 March 2020 12:46:50 UTC+2, Engr. Ravi wrote:
> On Friday, March 27, 2020 at 7:37:46 AM UTC+5:30, tjrob137 wrote:
> > On 3/26/20 1:13 PM, Engr. Ravi wrote:
> > > To really understand STR, you have to understand ELECTRODYNAMICS.
> >
> > That is just plain not true. To understand SR you need to understand
> > GEOMETRY.
> >
> > It is merely an historical accident that Einstein discovered SR via
> > electrodynamics. The actual underlying basis of SR is GEOMETRY. Today we
> > can easily derive all the equations of SR without any mention of light
> > or electrodynamics -- what is needed is SYMMETRY (i.e. group theory).
> >
>
> Trying to teach STR as KINEMATICS or worse ABSTRACT GEOMETRY has been a PEDAGOGICAL DISASTER.

Don't worry. Trying to teach The Shit any other way would be the
same disaster.

[Nicolaas Vroom]

On Saturday, 28 March 2020 04:25:31 UTC+1, JanPB wrote:
> On Friday, 27 March 2020 at 11:00:53 AM UTC-7, beda pietanza wrote:

> > It is very instructive to follow you and Tom Roberts, your disagreement
> > here is close to the core of the total disagreement of many vs the SR
> > theory.
>
> Our disagreement is only in the pedagogy. I agree with Tom that the current
> understanding of SR (as a geometry) is correct.

I'm not arguing if the current explanation of SR is correct.
My question is if the current explanation using spacetime is required.
IMO you can do it simpler.
But before you can answer the question you must first answer the question:
What is SR? What type of physical issue do we want to solve using SR?
It's like you wrote before:
| Geometry is just mathematics, it doesn't say anything about
| the context and why geometry ended up relevant in the first place.
It is the physical context in which we want to use SR.
Do we want to use SR, to describe the physical behaviour of a clock?
If yes then first we should define the experiments on how to test the
behaviour of a clock.
Please read: http://users.telenet.be/nicvroom/The_purpose_of_Science.htm

> Problem with it that to a newbie or a hobbyist without experience
> of the relevant physics such understanding will frequently appear
> whimsical and/or without foundation and/or devoid of common sense
> and/or stupid and/or absurd and/or etc. etc.

We should not blame the students of science.
Part of the problem is that both concepts SR and GR are not clearly defined.
SR looks like an amalgamation of certain concepts like time dilation,
length contraction, Lorentz transformation, the relativity of simultaneity
and the speed of light, which are each difficult to demonstrate and to
understand.
For GR the picture is more or less the same. GR is more than the Einstein
field equations, the cosmological constant, gravity waves, invariance
and Black holes, which are each difficult to demonstrate and understand.

In that sense, Newton's Law is much simpler because its main purpose is
to describe the movement of the planets around the Sun.
Maybe that's also true for GR, but my impression is that its purpose
is much broader.

Nicolaas Vroom

[Nicolaas Vroom]

> Of course, you can. Face it: a model is not a physical being,

When I was a small boy I made a 3D drawing of a castle.
I also made a 3D model of a house.
You can only do these things if you have either seen a castle or a house
in real, from a painting or from another drawing.
That means an effort first requires certain observations.

> you're simply incompetent on the subject.

Maybe. But who is competent?

Nicolaas Vroom

[maluw...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, 31 March 2020 14:42:55 UTC+2, Nicolaas Vroom wrote:
> On Saturday, 28 March 2020 04:25:31 UTC+1, JanPB wrote:
> > On Friday, 27 March 2020 at 11:00:53 AM UTC-7, beda pietanza wrote:
>
> > > It is very instructive to follow you and Tom Roberts, your disagreement
> > > here is close to the core of the total disagreement of many vs the SR
> > > theory.
> >
> > Our disagreement is only in the pedagogy. I agree with Tom that the current
> > understanding of SR (as a geometry) is correct.
>
> I'm not arguing if the current explanation of SR is correct.
> My question is if the current explanation using spacetime is required.
> IMO you can do it simpler.
> But before you can answer the question you must first answer the question:
> What is SR? What type of physical issue do we want to solve using SR?

Your assumption that you want SR to solve any physical issue
is totally wrong. You want it to feel guru-like, high above
mortal worms. And if not you, Jan and Tom for sure.

[maluw...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, 31 March 2020 14:45:09 UTC+2, Nicolaas Vroom wrote:
> On Tuesday, 31 March 2020 07:56:11 UTC+2, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Monday, 30 March 2020 18:40:49 UTC+2, Nicolaas Vroom wrote:
> > > On Sunday, 29 March 2020 07:19:11 UTC+2, tjrob137 wrote:
>
> > > > The best we can do is MODEL what nature does, and then
> > > > refine and improve the model via experiments and observations.
> > >
> > > You can not define a model, starting from nothing.
> >
> > Of course, you can. Face it: a model is not a physical being,
>
> When I was a small boy I made a 3D drawing of a castle.
> I also made a 3D model of a house.
> You can only do these things if you have either seen a castle or a house

How about modelling alien civilizations, Millenium Falcon
or - being more TG - event horizons?

> in real, from a painting or from another drawing.
> That means an effort first requires certain observations.
>
> > you're simply incompetent on the subject.
> Maybe. But who is competent?

About modelling - informaticians. We're doing
it every day and have written many, many books
about it. About truth - Tarski has done a piece
of good work.

[Nicolaas Vroom]

On Tuesday, 31 March 2020 14:42:55 UTC+2, Nicolaas Vroom wrote:

> On Saturday, 28 March 2020 04:25:31 UTC+1, JanPB wrote:

> > Problem with it that to a newbie or a hobbyist without experience
> > of the relevant physics such understanding will frequently appear
> > whimsical and/or without foundation and/or devoid of common sense
> > and/or stupid and/or absurd and/or etc. etc.
>
> We should not blame the students of science.

To get a better understanding about the subject please read this document:
"Student_understanding of time in SR" by Rachel E. Scherr e.a.
http://cds.cern.ch/record/573634/files/0207109.pdf

I have also written a review of this article. Please read:
http://users.telenet.be/nicvroom/Article_Review_Student_understanding_of_time_in_SR.htm

Nicolaas Vroom