Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism.

[Richard Hertz]

Plagiarism is an act of academic dishonesty.

The three names in the topic, besides having an indelible thread that
connect them to 1915-1919 GR HOAX (Lorentz as the hub between
Einstein and Eddington during WWI), built their careers MAINLY on
plagiarism over other's people work.

In the case of Eddington, and his infamous "contributions" to the internal constitution of the stars, he deserved a public accusation of James Jeans (1877–1946) and others about many of the fundamental issues concerning the internal structure of the stars.

This extract is from a letter which Jeans published in The Observatory in November 1926 (Jeans, 1926):

"May I conclude by assuring Prof. Eddington it would give me great pleasure if he could remove a long-standing source of friction between us by abstaining in future from making wild attacks on my work which he cannot substantiate, and by making the usual acknowledgements whenever he finds that my previous work is of use to him?"

"I attach all the more importance to the second part of the request
because I find that some of the most fruitful ideas which I have introduced into astronomical physics –e.g., the annihilation of matter as the source of stellar energy, and highly dissociated atoms and free electrons as the substance of the stars – are by now fairly generally attributed to Prof. Eddington."

But Eddington, the Plumian Professor of Astronomy in Cambridge since
1913, where he was to remain for the rest of his career, and where he published over a dozen papers between 1916 and 1924 about the internal constitution of the stars, was "untouchable" because of his role in the
fudging and cooking of data of the 1919 eclipse, which launched Einstein
to the stardom.

Lorentz, being the PR man for Einstein since 1910, and the communicating
hub between Eddington and Einstein during WWI and afterward, remained
the spokesperson for Einstein to the English media until 1921.

In 1920, his famous comment: "Einstein is not an astronomer, but...." left
everyone puzzled about what he meant. A Freudian slip.

Lorentz had also several dead bodies in the closet of plagiarism, like to
steal completely the results of Voigt's relativity (1887), which was credited
by Minkowski in June 1908 as THE SOLE ORIGIN of relativity.

[Richard Hertz]

A common trait of homosexuals:

No decency, no moral, no honesty, no guilt, no shame and no limits to their degeneracy in every aspect of life.

[Richard Hertz]

Eddington and the 1.75" starlight deflection 1919 HOAX, in order to not go to prison for homosexual and coward (WWI license).

The nest of homos at Cambridge and the Royal Society were good covering their dirty secrets. Pedos during all the Victorians age.

[JanPB]

See a doctor.

--
Jan

[Paul Alsing]

As soon as possible...

[Richard Hertz]

On Sunday, August 6, 2023 at 7:31:56 PM UTC-3, Richard Hertz wrote:

Partners in crime: Ehrenfest and Lorentz were the bridge between Einstein and Freundlich during WWI, as any connection
between UK and Germany was an act of treason.

Here are partying, 4 years after the end of WWI, to celebrate the HOAX.

Einstein, Ehrenfest, De Sitter; Eddington and Lorentz, 26 September 1923, Leiden.jpg
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Einstein,_Ehrenfest,_De_Sitter;_Eddington_and_Lorentz,_26_September_1923,_Leiden.jpg

[Richard Hertz]

Einstein Relations with the Royal Astronomical Society

https://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1979QJRAS..20..251M

[JanPB]

Your posts are complete idiocies.

--
Jan

[J. J. Lodder]

JanPB <fil...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sunday, August 6, 2023 at 9:18:58?PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
[-]

> > Partners in crime: Ehrenfest and Lorentz were the bridge between
> > Einstein and Freundlich during WWI, as any connection between UK and
> > Germany was an act of treason.
> >
> > Here are partying, 4 years after the end of WWI, to celebrate the HOAX.
> >
> > Einstein, Ehrenfest, De Sitter; Eddington and Lorentz, 26 September
> > 1923, Leiden.jpg
> > https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Einstein,_Ehrenfest,_De_Sitter;_
> > Eddington_and_Lorentz,_26_September_1923,_Leiden.jpg
>
> Your posts are complete idiocies.

Indeed, and changing idiocies too.
Sometime ago RH had evil Einstein stealing relativity
from good Lorentz.
Now, perhaps because our nutcase has learned in the meantime
(from my postings perhaps) that Einstein and Lorentz were friends,
and that Lorentz had wanted to have Einstein as his succesor
on his chair in Leyden Lorentz has become a baddie too.

BTW, I write this reply to correct another misunderstanding:
Einstein, having the Swiss nationality, travelled on a Swiss passport.
As a citizen of a neutral country he could have gone to Britain.
(by way of Holland)
He didn't want to, because he felt that it was his duty
to stay in Berlin with family and friends,
and suffer the hardships of food shortages and rationing with them,

Jan

[Richard Hertz]

https://www.timesofisrael.com/einstein-letter-written-the-day-he-renounced-german-citizenship-sold-at-auction/

A letter written by Albert Einstein on the day he renounced his German citizenship, after realizing he could not return due to the rise of the Nazis, has been sold at auction.

The letter written on board the S.S. Belgenland and dated March 28, 1933, sold for $30,250 at the Nate D. Sanders Auction House in Los Angeles. Bidding for Thursday night’s auction started at $25,000.


https://best-citizenships.com/2020/08/08/how-many-citizenships-albert-einstein-had/

Albert Einstein Citizenships

Kingdom of Württemberg German Empire (1879–1896) *****
Stateless (1896–1901)
Switzerland (1901–1955)
Austria during the Austro-Hungarian Empire (1911–1912)
Kingdom of Prussia during the German Empire (1914–1918) *****
Free State of Prussia (Germany, 1918–1933) *****
United States (1940–1955)

[Richard Hertz]

https://aeon.co/essays/einstein-on-the-practical-matters-of-being-german-and-jewish

Einstein sketched out an array of identifications here, noting that they worked to make his own Germanness impossible.

In 1922, while in Japan, Einstein was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics for the previous year, an event that proved an inconvenience
for his non-German Swissness. Nobel Prizes needed to be received in person; if the laureate were not personally able, an ambassador
would stand in. Naturally, the Swiss ambassador presented himself for the honour, given that Einstein was at that very moment travelling
as a citizen of the canton of Zurich. So did Rudolf Nadolny, the German ambassador to Sweden.

The Germans maintained that German citizenship attached to Einstein as a requirement of his Berlin post. Einstein had objected to this
clause during negotiations in December 1913, and the Germans had not felt it necessary to contest the point later during the war. With
the Nobel Prize, circumstances had changed, and Nadolny accepted the award on his behalf. Einstein at first protested his symbolic
de-Swissification, but within a year relinquished his opposition to the state’s narrative, and settled in as a German citizen.

[patdolan]

Richard, thank you for the excellent scholarship into the dark side of early 20th century physics. Naturally, I am scandalized, as any right-thinking person would be.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

On 2023-08-07 15:24:14 +0000, Richard Hertz said:
>
> Albert Einstein Citizenships
>
> Kingdom of Württemberg German Empire (1879–1896) *****
> Stateless (1896–1901)
> Switzerland (1901–1955)
> Austria during the Austro-Hungarian Empire (1911–1912) Kingdom
> of Prussia during the German Empire (1914–1918) *****
> Free State of Prussia (Germany, 1918–1933) *****
> United States (1940–1955)

And your point is?

"Richard Hertz" does not strike me as an obviously Argentinian name. I
would guess that either you or a recent ancestor changed citizenship at
some point. So what?


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

[whodat]

On 8/7/2023 12:32 PM, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> On 2023-08-07 15:24:14 +0000, Richard Hertz said:
>>
>> Albert Einstein Citizenships
>>
>>     Kingdom of Württemberg  German Empire (1879–1896) *****
>>     Stateless (1896–1901)
>>     Switzerland (1901–1955)
>>     Austria during the Austro-Hungarian Empire (1911–1912)    Kingdom
>> of Prussia during the German Empire (1914–1918)   *****
>>     Free State of Prussia (Germany, 1918–1933)  *****
>>     United States (1940–1955)
>
> And your point is?
>
> "Richard Hertz" does not strike me as an obviously Argentinian name. I
> would guess that either you or a recent ancestor changed citizenship at
> some point. So what?

Idiocy is a marriage eternal.

[Prokaryotic Capase Homolog]

On Monday, August 7, 2023 at 12:32:10 PM UTC-5, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> On 2023-08-07 15:24:14 +0000, Richard Hertz said:
> >
> > Albert Einstein Citizenships
> >
> > Kingdom of Württemberg German Empire (1879–1896) *****
> > Stateless (1896–1901)
> > Switzerland (1901–1955)
> > Austria during the Austro-Hungarian Empire (1911–1912) Kingdom
> > of Prussia during the German Empire (1914–1918) *****
> > Free State of Prussia (Germany, 1918–1933) *****
> > United States (1940–1955)
> And your point is?
>
> "Richard Hertz" does not strike me as an obviously Argentinian name. I
> would guess that either you or a recent ancestor changed citizenship at
> some point. So what?

Argentina has a fairly substantial population of citizens
of German ancestry, which contributed to Argentina's
decision to maintain neutrality during both the First and
Second World Wars. And of course, after WWII, the Peron
administration helped establish escape routes for many
ex-SS officials, of whom Josef Mengele and Adolf Eichmann
are perhaps the best-known.

[Richard Hertz]

https://villageneralbelgrano.gob.ar/

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

> administration helped establish escape routes for manyex-SS officials,

> of whom Josef Mengele and Adolf Eichmann
> are perhaps the best-known.

Yes, I know all that, but it doesn't affect my point.

[patdolan]

Very enjoyable video. Though my name is as Irish as Paddy's pig, I am half German by genetics. The German/Irish mix is the most common miscegenation in the USA. And Americans of German ancestry make up the largest cultural plurality in the country.

[Dono.]

Dick is a jew, of the scummiest type, the kapo type.

[whodat]

Godwin Alert!!!!!!!!

[Richard Hertz]

On Tuesday, August 8, 2023 at 1:04:42 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:

<snip>

> Dick is a jew, of the scummiest type, the kapo type.

Not true, fucking imbecile & self-hating jew. Keep trying.

[The Starmaker]

Do you like the TV show...Hogan's Heroes?


Tom Hagen : I'm German-Irish. Jack Woltz : Well, let me tell you something, my kraut-mick friend, I'm gonna make so much trouble for you, you won t know what hit you!

--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge
the unchallengeable.

[mitchr...@gmail.com]

People don't own truth. Everyone can represent it.
The truth doesn't answer to anyone

Mitchell Raemsch

[Dono.]

On Tuesday, August 8, 2023 at 11:47:21 AM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 8, 2023 at 1:04:42 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
>
> <snip>
> > Dick is a jew, of the scummiest type, the kapo type.

>true, i am a fucking imbecile & self-hating jew.

Yeah, we know....

[Maciej Wozniak]

No, he didn't write it. Poor idiot Dono is lying impudently,
as expected from relativistic scum.

[The Starmaker]

I do notice patdolan that it appears that you have an "aggressive
mentality".


The style of your posts seems aggressive..

actung, actung

[Thomas Heger]

Am 07.08.2023 um 17:24 schrieb Richard Hertz:

> https://best-citizenships.com/2020/08/08/how-many-citizenships-albert-einstein-had/
>
> Albert Einstein Citizenships
>
> Kingdom of Württemberg German Empire (1879–1896) *****

As far as I know the Einsteins moved to Munich, which is the capital of
the Kingdom of Bavaria.

As young Albert was a baby at that time of movement to Bavaria, he would
have needed Bavarian citizenship in Munich, at least to attend school there.

> Stateless (1896–1901)

As far as I know you could not become intentionally stateless in Germany.

German citizenship could not be laid off by Einstein, because actually
he had Würtemberg citizenship (or possibly Bavarian).

But you could not renounce it on your own. Citizenship in those kingdoms
wasn't something you wanted to have, but was a qualifier of the person,
because the person was supposed to be owned by the king in those times.

And you cannot declare yourself to be not owned by the monarch.
Eventually the king would let you go, anyhow, but only if some other
country would accept you.


> Switzerland (1901–1955)

The Swiss were and are VERY restrictive with the grant of citicenship.
Usually you need to apply for Swiss citizenship a thousand times, pass
several tests, wear leather trousers and blow an Alphorn, before you
could even dream to become a Swiss.

> Austria during the Austro-Hungarian Empire (1911–1912)

Like the Germans the Austrians didn't like dual citizenships (much less
triple).

So. how and why did he become an Austrian???

> Kingdom of Prussia during the German Empire (1914–1918) *****

This was a time known as 'World War I', when the Germans had other
worries than theoretical physics and granting citizenship to
Würtembergo-Swiss-Hungaro-Austrian Bavarians.

> Free State of Prussia (Germany, 1918–1933) *****

Prussia was actually not free in those days, as the German Empire had
just recently lost WWI and was now occupied and the Kingdom of Prussia
was wiped from the map.

> United States (1940–1955)

Later Swiss again and also Israel.

Isreal wanted Einstein to become president, but he rejected that offer.

TH

[J. J. Lodder]

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

> Am 07.08.2023 um 17:24 schrieb Richard Hertz:
>
> > https://best-citizenships.com/2020/08/08/how-many-citizenships-albert-einste
in-had/
> >
> > Albert Einstein Citizenships
> >
> > Kingdom of Württemberg German Empire (1879–1896) *****
>
> As far as I know the Einsteins moved to Munich, which is the capital of
> the Kingdom of Bavaria.
>
> As young Albert was a baby at that time of movement to Bavaria, he would
> have needed Bavarian citizenship in Munich, at least to attend school there.

Not really. Moving house within the German empire
(which was really a federation of kingdoms)
didn't involve changing citizenships all the time.
If Einstein had been called up for military service
it would have been by the king Wurtemberg.
In WWI German soldiers usually served by state.
(just like the British by county)
There would be Prussian regiments, Bavarian ones, etc.

> > Stateless (1896–1901)
>
> As far as I know you could not become intentionally stateless in Germany.

Your knowledge doesn't go far enough.

> German citizenship could not be laid off by Einstein, because actually
> he had Würtemberg citizenship (or possibly Bavarian).

Yes, there was no such thing as generalised german citizenship.
Even Prussians were subjects of the king of Prussia,
not of the emperor of Germany.

> But you could not renounce it on your own. Citizenship in those kingdoms
> wasn't something you wanted to have, but was a qualifier of the person,
> because the person was supposed to be owned by the king in those times.
>
> And you cannot declare yourself to be not owned by the monarch.
> Eventually the king would let you go, anyhow, but only if some other
> country would accept you.

Einstein is a counterexample to your assertions.

> > Switzerland (1901–1955)
>
> The Swiss were and are VERY restrictive with the grant of citicenship.
> Usually you need to apply for Swiss citizenship a thousand times, pass
> several tests, wear leather trousers and blow an Alphorn, before you
> could even dream to become a Swiss.

Even nowadays a silly caricature,
but they were not like that a hundred years ago.

> > Austria during the Austro-Hungarian Empire (1911–1912)
>
> Like the Germans the Austrians didn't like dual citizenships (much less
> triple).
>
> So. how and why did he become an Austrian???
>
> > Kingdom of Prussia during the German Empire (1914–1918) *****
>
> This was a time known as 'World War I', when the Germans had other
> worries than theoretical physics and granting citizenship to
> Würtembergo-Swiss-Hungaro-Austrian Bavarians.
>
>
> > Free State of Prussia (Germany, 1918–1933) *****
>
> Prussia was actually not free in those days, as the German Empire had
> just recently lost WWI and was now occupied and the Kingdom of Prussia
> was wiped from the map.

All German kingdoms ceased to exist in 1918,
along with all German nobility.
Titles remained, but they became an optional part of the family name.

> > United States (1940–1955)
>
> Later Swiss again and also Israel.

Einstein never ceased to be a Swiss citizen.
The USA doesn't require you to give up other citizenships you may have
when acquiring an American one. It is voluntary.
What the USA will do is protect you, now a free American citizen,
from all claims upon you that foreign potentates might think they have.

And are you sure about that Isaelian citizenship?
AFAIK he never had it.

Jan

[Volney]

On 8/9/2023 6:43 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:

>> Later Swiss again and also Israel.

> And are you sure about that Isaelian citizenship?
> AFAIK he never had it.

Israel has the "right of return" where any Jew can show up and request
citizenship and it's essentially automatically granted.

AFAIK Einstein never requested this, but Israeli citizenship would have
been trivial for him to obtain. But without evidence he did this,
Israeli citizenship would be false.

[Richard Hertz]

The jew network of communication and support for Einstein's HOAX:

************************************************
Gali Weinstein

During World War I, copies of Einstein’s papers got to the Netherlands (to Leiden), in particular to Einstein’s friends Hendrik
Antoon Lorentz and Willen de Sitter. De Sitter had sent copies of Einstein’s paper to Arthur Eddington in Britain. In the midst
of World War I, two British expeditions were planned exclusively to test Einstein’s prediction of the deflection of light near the sun.

In a letter of June 11, 1916, to Willem de Sitter Arthur Eddington wrote:

We are having a discussion at the British Association [for the Advancement of Science] on gravitation — at Newcastle, Dec. 5–8.
I wish we could have invited you to come over to take part; but we are not inviting any foreign guest this year because Newcastle
is a “restricted area” and aliens are not allowed in it… I feel sure you will allow me to make use of the papers you send
[Einstein’s papers on general relativity], in making my contribution to the discussion.

Quoted in Stachel, John, “Eddington and Einstein”, Einstein from B to Z, Springer, 2002.

It is reasonable to assume that De Sitter informed Einstein of Eddington’s meetings and plans.

On June 16m 1919, Einstein wrote to his mother and told her (Collected Papers of Albert Einstein 9, Doc. 19):

In a Dutch newspaper, it was reported that both expeditions obtained successful images of the solar eclipse, so the
result should be publicized within 6 weeks.

Thus, Einstein knew that two British expeditions were headed by Eddington and Frank Dyson and sent to observe the
total solar eclipse with the sole purpose to observe a deflection of light predicted by his theory.

On September 12, 1919, Einstein wrote to Paul Ehrenfest in Leiden on September 12, 1919 (Collected Papers of
Albert Einstein 9, Doc. 103):

***** I wonder? Have you by any chance heard anything over there about the English solar-eclipse expedition? ******

Ten days later, on September 22, 1919, Lorentz informed Einstein of Eddington’s experimental results confirming
Einstein’s prediction of the defection of light near the sun (Collected Papers of Albert Einstein 9, Doc. 110):
.....
Thus, on October 7, 1919, Lorentz told Einstein that he heard about the result obtained by Eddington from a report by
Balthasar van der Pol, who attended the meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science held on
September 12, 1919, at Bournemouth, in which Arthur Eddington reported on the solar eclipse expeditions. Van der Pol
told Lorentz upon his return to Leiden what Eddington had presented in Bournemouth.
-----------------------------------------------------------

AND THIS, JUST IN 1919.

DETAILS OF "THE NETWORK" BETWEEN 1915 AND 1918 ARE ABUNDANT, BUT YOU HAVE TO KNOW HOW TO SEEK DATA.

EINSTEIN'S HOAX

[J. J. Lodder]

Right, he never did.
If, yes and that is -if-, he had accepted to become president of Israel
he would have become citizen of Israel automatically,
but (as we both said) he didn't, [1]

Jan

[1] Eistein did what he could to help to get a university in Jerusalem
established, but there his direct involvement ended. (1923)
Einstein cited his own shortcomings as the apparent reason
for not wanting to become president of Israel,
but the real reason was that he wanted nothing to do
with the Jewish terrorists who were conducting
an ethnical cleansing campaign to obtain Arab-free 'Jewish' territory.

[Richard Hertz]

THE DEEP HATE OF EINSTEIN OVER GERMANY AND GERMANS:



https://erenow.net/biographies/einsteinhislifeanduniverse/10.php

Einstein also became an early member of the liberal and cautiously pacifist New Fatherland League, a club that pushed for an early peace and the establishment of a federal structure in Europe to avoid future conflicts. It published a pamphlet titled “The Creation of the United States of Europe,” and it helped get pacifist literature into prisons and other places. Elsa went with Einstein to some of the Monday evening meetings until the group was banned in early 1916.48
....
As they sat on a hotel terrace amid swarms of bees plundering the flowering vines, Einstein joked about the faculty meetings in Berlin where each of the professors would anguish over the topic “why are we Germans hated in the world” and then would “carefully steer clear of the truth.”

******** Daringly, maybe even recklessly, Einstein openly said that he thought Germany could not be reformed and therefore hoped the allies would win, “which would smash the power of Prussia and the dynasty.”49 *******

The following month, Einstein got into a bitter exchange with Paul Hertz, a noted mathematician in Göttingen who was, or had been, a friend. Hertz was an associate member of the New Fatherland League with Einstein, but he had shied away from becoming a full member when it became controversial. “This type of cautiousness, not standing up for one’s rights, is the cause of the entire wretched political situation,” Einstein berated. “You have that type of valiant mentality the ruling powers love so much in Germans.”

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

[Dono.]

On Wednesday, August 9, 2023 at 9:25:31 AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:

> but the real reason was that he wanted nothing to do
> with the Jewish terrorists who were conducting
> an ethnical cleansing campaign to obtain Arab-free 'Jewish' territory.

Did he ever say that or you made it all up?

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

They still are, long after Einstein's death.

[The Starmaker]

> -------------------------------------

"Valiant"?

the oposite of "valiant" is cowardly...like getting on a train to get
killed without putting up a fight, cowardly.


Einstein sureeee did a study on 'other people's' mentality.


I guess he told people..."I don't like your attitude!", "I don't like
the way you think.", "GET THE FUCK OUT OF MY HOUSE!!!!"


That's why Albert Einstein made sure his communist friends passed atomic
secrets to the Russians, so that the Russians
would use it against Germany.

But during that war, whose side was the USA suppose to be on???? Russia
or Germany?

Of course the answer is Germany.


The USA didn't want to bomb the trains in Germany heading for the
concentration camps.


why fix dat isn't broken?

[The Starmaker]

https://www.palestineremembered.com/images/Einistein-attachment.jpg

[J. J. Lodder]

Yes, it is of course impossible to know what Einstein
would have said about it if still alive,
but it seems quite likely that he would have been very unhappy
with the way things have been going,

Jan

[J. J. Lodder]

The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

> Dono. wrote:
> >
> > On Wednesday, August 9, 2023 at 9:25:31╯AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> >
> > > but the real reason was that he wanted nothing to do
> > > with the Jewish terrorists who were conducting
> > > an ethnical cleansing campaign to obtain Arab-free 'Jewish' territory.
> >
> > Did he ever say that or you made it all up?
>
>
> https://www.palestineremembered.com/images/Einistein-attachment.jpg

Thanks for saving me the trouble to dig that one up again.
Einstein was in a very difficult position, after 1948.
Given his immense public weight he didn't want to say anything
detrimental to the nascent state of Israel,
but he didn't want to support terrorism either.
He had seen more than enough of it in earlier phases of his life.

He probably hoped that Ben Gurion would be able to set things staight,

Jan

[Dono.]

I asked you to support your claim about Einstein referring to "ethnic cleansing" . The crank you are thanking to could not dig out anything. Looks like some of you still suffer the british butthurt of being kicked out of the former colonies. To the extent of sucking up to the real terrorists, the palis.

[J. J. Lodder]

Dono. <eggy20...@gmail.com> wrote:

You are quote mining. Einstein explicitly mentions
"the Terrorist organizations build up from our side"
and calls them "misled and criminal people"
'ethic cleansing' was my rendition of it, not Einstein's.
It couldn't have been his, because the term hadn't been invented yet.

Einstein wanted to have nothing to do with them
and he didn't want to support them in any way.

FYI, Lohamei Herut Yisrael, (Fighters for the Freedom of Israel)
aka LOHI, aka the Stern gang
was an extremist Zionist organisation that engaged in terrorism.
The "American Friends of the Fighters for the Freedom of Isreal"
was their American support branch.
In this letter Einstein makes it abundantly clear
that he wants to have nothing to do with them.
Neither did the moderate leaders in Israel.
The organisation was disbanded after 1948.

The date, April 1o, is highly significant.
It is the day after the Deir Yassin massacre.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deir_Yassin_massacre>
(LOHI and Irgun massacred the inhabitants of Deir Yassin,
a village near Jerusalem)
Einstein, and many other supporters of Israel protested strongly.

But, apart from Einstein's involvement, this is not the right place
for discussions about Israel,

Jan

[JanPB]

See a doctor. You may get a stroke if you let this imagined parallel reality affect you too much.

--
Jan

[Chadrick Mahno]

you are siphoning money from america. And you are peeing on the floor. Not
even germony likes you anymore. Respectfully, you are a disgrace.

[Dono.]

I am not mining any quotes, you obviously do not understand the meaning of the expression.

> 'ethic cleansing' was my rendition of it, not Einstein's.

Ahh, it was your exaggeration. You should gave made clear that it is your way of sucking up to the palis.

> But, apart from Einstein's involvement, this is not the right place
> for discussions about Israel,
>

I agree, it was no point in your bringing it up.

[Richard Hertz]

Einstein thought that chinese, palestinians, brazilians, south-east asian and many others were just sub-human.

This is the 2023 Israel's doctrine to deal with palestinians (and many others, like turks and iranians). Nothing changed.

Yet, he sucked Japanese's asses all the way in the 1920's. He liked to be worshiped by racist races, and he supported
One World Government publicly since 1912 (englismen, north-americans, japanese), but denied germans any position
on the old WEF (Schwabb)

He wanted germans to be annihilated since WWI. He was a con man, a fucking scumbag, highly protected by central powers
since the beginning. The NETWORK did the job to create this POS. He only had to obey and collect $$$.

[The Starmaker]

Israel has a contract out on Jesus Christ if He returns. Since
Jesus Christ was born in Palestine...Israel's mission is to kill
every baby born in Palestine. Already the Christian population
has dispeared in Palestine. Don't name your baby Jesus if you
live in Palestine.

[Thomas Heger]

Am 09.08.2023 um 12:43 schrieb J. J. Lodder:
> Thomas Heger <ttt...@web.de> wrote:
>
>> Am 07.08.2023 um 17:24 schrieb Richard Hertz:
>>
>>> https://best-citizenships.com/2020/08/08/how-many-citizenships-albert-einste
> in-had/
>>>
>>> Albert Einstein Citizenships
>>>
>>> Kingdom of Württemberg German Empire (1879–1896) *****
>>

...

>>> Kingdom of Prussia during the German Empire (1914–1918) *****
>>
>> This was a time known as 'World War I', when the Germans had other
>> worries than theoretical physics and granting citizenship to
>> Würtembergo-Swiss-Hungaro-Austrian Bavarians.
>>
>>
>>> Free State of Prussia (Germany, 1918–1933) *****
>>
>> Prussia was actually not free in those days, as the German Empire had
>> just recently lost WWI and was now occupied and the Kingdom of Prussia
>> was wiped from the map.
>
> All German kingdoms ceased to exist in 1918,
> along with all German nobility.

Sure, but how could you become a citizen of a kingdom, that does not
exist anymore?

> Titles remained, but they became an optional part of the family name.
>
>>> United States (1940–1955)
>>
>> Later Swiss again and also Israel.
>
> Einstein never ceased to be a Swiss citizen.

I personally think, that 'Einstein' was Swiss citizen from birth. This
is so, because otherwise certain events in his life would not make sense
(like attentidng school in Aarau, while his family lived in Pavia, Italy).

In effect I have also doubts about his identity and also, if he was
actually a Jew.

That -btw- would be the perfect reason to reject presidency of Israel,
because there they could demand some proof of Jewishness (like read a
little from the Thora or to make 'gefillte fish').

Einstein had also relatively close connections to the Jesuits.

For instance behind the garden wall of the Einsteins in Pavia was a
Jesuit facility.

Also his long term friend George LeMaitre was a Jesuit priest.

He also needed to speak good French, for instance to talk to Marie
Curie, Langvin, Poincare or LeMaitre or to attend the Solveig conference.

But for this knowledge we have no obvious source, because foreign
languages were not his thing (as can be seen in his poor performance in
English after a decade at Princton).

So I have actually doubts about his identity (like: wether or not his
name was actually 'Einstein').

I could be totally wrong, I admit, but actually have doubts.

...


TH

[J. J. Lodder]

Yes you are,
and no, you are incapable of the amount sanity
that would be involved in really doubting
your completely crazy historical fantasies,

Jan

[J. J. Lodder]

Dono. <eggy20...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wednesday, August 9, 2023 at 1:57:36?PM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > Dono. <eggy20...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, August 9, 2023 at 12:47:42?PM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > > The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Dono. wrote:
> > > > > >

> > > > > > On Wednesday, August 9, 2023 at 9:25:31╯AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder:

> > > > > >
> > > > > > > but the real reason was that he wanted nothing to do with the
> > > > > > > Jewish terrorists who were conducting an ethnical cleansing
> > > > > > > campaign to obtain Arab-free 'Jewish' territory.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Did he ever say that or you made it all up?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > https://www.palestineremembered.com/images/Einistein-attachment.jpg
> > > > Thanks for saving me the trouble to dig that one up again.
> > > > Einstein was in a very difficult position, after 1948.
> > > > Given his immense public weight he didn't want to say anything
> > > > detrimental to the nascent state of Israel,
> > > > but he didn't want to support terrorism either.
> > > > He had seen more than enough of it in earlier phases of his life.
> > > >
> > > > He probably hoped that Ben Gurion would be able to set things staight,
> > > >
> > > > Jan
> > > I asked you to support your claim about Einstein referring to "ethnic
> > > cleansing" . The crank you are thanking to could not dig out anything.
> > > Looks like some of you still suffer the british butthurt of being kicked
> > > out of the former colonies. To the extent of sucking up to the real
> > > terrorists, the palis.
> > You are quote mining.
>
>
> I am not mining any quotes, you obviously do not understand the meaning of
> the expression.

You mined 'Einstein referring to ethnic cleansing'
by means of falsely quoting from my text.
(while also snipping everything of relevance to understanding
of what it was about)

> > 'ethic cleansing' was my rendition of it, not Einstein's.
>
> Ahh, it was your exaggeration. You should gave made clear that it is your
> way of sucking up to the palis.

No exageration at all, just using the modern terminology
for what it was. Btw, it was not just Einstein who was aghast.
Again, see the Wikiparticle on it, for a list of names of people
who protested just like Einstein did.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deir_Yassin_massacre>

Einstein and many other 'names' also signed a letter
in the New York times protesting the rise
of Begin's new fascism in Israel.
(urging the US not to support it)

> > But, apart from Einstein's involvement, this is not the right place
> > for discussions about Israel,
> >
> I agree, it was no point in your bringing it up.

It was quite to the point.
The discussion was on Einstein having an Israelian citizenship, yes/no,
(the answer is no)
and on the why's of Einstein not wanting to become
the first president of Isreal.
(after having been invited to take the post by Ben Gurion)

I didn't introduce these matters,
but once there we shouldn't let stayed innocent kiddies
get incorrect ideas about it all,

Jan

[Dono.]

I quote your imbecilities ad literam. As in the other thread. <shrug>

[Maciej Wozniak]

Kookfight!

[Dono.]

On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 7:37:18 AM UTC-7, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

> Kookfight!
Who are you fighting with, janitor?

[JanPB]

You too see a doctor.

--
Jan

[Thomas Heger]

Am 10.08.2023 um 11:37 schrieb J. J. Lodder:
> Thomas Heger <ttt...@web.de> wrote:
>
>> Am 09.08.2023 um 12:43 schrieb J. J. Lodder:
>>> Thomas Heger <ttt...@web.de> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Am 07.08.2023 um 17:24 schrieb Richard Hertz:
>>>>
>>>>> https://best-citizenships.com/2020/08/08/how-many-citizenships-albert-eins
> te
>>> in-had/
>>>>>
>>>>> Albert Einstein Citizenships
>>>>>
>>>>> Kingdom of Württemberg German Empire (1879–1896) *****
>>>>
>> ...
>>>>> Kingdom of Prussia during the German Empire (1914–1918) *****

This is the silliest thing a person could possibly do:

obtain Prussian citizenship in the midst of WWI!!!

The reason: WWI was also one of the deadliest wars ever and the medium
survival period for a soldier at the Western Front was two weeks.


But nobody in sane mind intentionally wanted to become a Prussian in
those days, because citzenship also included conscription.

>>>> This was a time known as 'World War I', when the Germans had other
>>>> worries than theoretical physics and granting citizenship to
>>>> Würtembergo-Swiss-Hungaro-Austrian Bavarians.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Free State of Prussia (Germany, 1918–1933) *****
>>>>
>>>> Prussia was actually not free in those days, as the German Empire had
>>>> just recently lost WWI and was now occupied and the Kingdom of Prussia
>>>> was wiped from the map.
>>>
>>> All German kingdoms ceased to exist in 1918,
>>> along with all German nobility.

Total nonsense.

The nobility lost their titles but still existed (at least partially).

The kingdoms were actually not all kingdoms, but Germany was fused
together in 1871 from about fifty tiny and some larger states, which had
several different forms of government.

Some were city states, some were dutchies, some belonged to the church.

Prussia was the largest of these states and was ruled by the
Hohenzollerns as a monarchy.

I have spent a lot of time on analysing

'On the electrodynamics of moving bodies'.

And I have found about four-hundred errors in it.

These errors are all 'conventional' and not related to the actual
metaphysical content of this paper.

So I missed internal references and quotes, criticised the naming
conventions and certain mathematical derivations.

This summed to a fantastically large numer of issues, which I had annoted.

Now I would not assume for a second, that Planck had not seen these
errors himself.

So another plausible assumption is, that he didn't wanted to see the errors.

But this would be equivalent to a scam, where several parties participated.


Now: why shouldn't be the person 'Einstein' himself be part of such a
plot, if the paper itself is -well- 'questionable'?

I mean: false identities of public figueres are all over the place (or
do you really think, the name of Madonna is really 'Madonna'?)


Here I had doubts about Einstein reasons to leave his family behind in
Pavia, Italy and attend school in Swizerland.

This is not how teenagers behave!

So, possibly this was part of a plot, too, and Einstein was actually a
Swiss citizen and only pretended to be German (for whatever reason).

(This btw would also make it a lot easier to loose German citizenship
and dodge conscription into WWI.)

E.g. it would be very natural for a Swiss student to attend school in
e.g. Aarau und to study in Zurich and subsequently work in Bern.

So my assumption is actually very simply and fit very well to Einstein's
actual CV, while it does in fact require something commonly called
'conspiracy'.

So what?



TH

[Thomas Heger]

Am 08.08.2023 um 01:58 schrieb Prokaryotic Capase Homolog:

>> "Richard Hertz" does not strike me as an obviously Argentinian name. I
>> would guess that either you or a recent ancestor changed citizenship at
>> some point. So what?
>
> Argentina has a fairly substantial population of citizens
> of German ancestry, which contributed to Argentina's
> decision to maintain neutrality during both the First and
> Second World Wars. And of course, after WWII, the Peron
> administration helped establish escape routes for many
> ex-SS officials, of whom Josef Mengele and Adolf Eichmann
> are perhaps the best-known.
>

Argentina was also the 'playground' of the British lower aristocracy
('gentry').

TH

[Thomas Heger]

Am 08.08.2023 um 21:28 schrieb mitchr...@gmail.com:
> On Sunday, August 6, 2023 at 3:31:56 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
>> Plagiarism is an act of academic dishonesty.
>>
...
>> Lorentz had also several dead bodies in the closet of plagiarism, like to
>> steal completely the results of Voigt's relativity (1887), which was credited
>> by Minkowski in June 1908 as THE SOLE ORIGIN of relativity.
>
> People don't own truth. Everyone can represent it.
> The truth doesn't answer to anyone
>
Sure, but the presenter should give proper credit to those, from where
they got their truth.

Therefore quotes and references are mandatory in science. To leave them
away is only one step away from fraud.

TH

[Volney]

On 8/11/2023 2:20 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 10.08.2023 um 11:37 schrieb J. J. Lodder:
>> Thomas Heger <ttt...@web.de> wrote:

>>> So I have actually doubts about his identity (like: wether or not his
>>> name was actually 'Einstein').
>>>
>>> I could be totally wrong, I admit, but actually have doubts.
>>
>> Yes you are,
>> and no, you are incapable of the amount sanity
>> that would be involved in really doubting
>> your completely crazy historical fantasies,
>
> I have spent a lot of time on analysing
>
> 'On the electrodynamics of moving bodies'.
>
> And I have found about four-hundred errors in it.

No, you haven't.

>
> These errors are all 'conventional' and not related to the actual
> metaphysical content of this paper.
>
> So I missed internal references and quotes, criticised the naming
> conventions and certain mathematical derivations.
>
> This summed to a fantastically large numer of issues, which I had annoted.
>
> Now I would not assume for a second, that Planck had not seen these
> errors himself.

Planck wouldn't see things which didn't exist.

>
> So another plausible assumption is, that he didn't wanted to see the
> errors.
>
> But this would be equivalent to a scam, where several parties participated.

Of course the real reason is that there are no such errors which you
claimed to have found.

>
>
> Now: why shouldn't be the person 'Einstein' himself be part of such a
> plot, if the paper itself is -well- 'questionable'?
>
> I mean: false identities of public figueres are all over the place (or
> do you really think, the name of Madonna is really 'Madonna'?)

That's a performer, not a scientist. It was and is very common for
performers to have a stage name, particularly when the birth name is
awkward. And her (first) name at birth really is Madonna. Madonna Louise
Ciccone.

> Here I had doubts about Einstein reasons to leave his family behind in
> Pavia, Italy and attend school in Swizerland.
>
> This is not how teenagers behave!

Not necessarily.

I am very interested in genealogy/my family history.

I found one set of my g-g-grandparents in an 1855 census, with a newborn
daughter Margaret.

In an 1865 census, I found them again, Margaret was 10, and she had
siblings now.

In an 1870 census, I found my g-g-grandparents, the siblings with some
new ones (incl. my g-grandmother), but not Margaret. I assumed Margaret
had died.

However, I found Margaret living in California, 3000 miles away, in
1870. She was living with a family who were neighbors in the 1865
census. So the neighbors went west, and for some strange reason,
Margaret went with them. She would be between 10 and 15 when she did so.

Family lore also said my g-grandmother had a sister in California who
actually was rather wealthy. Between this, the name and age of Margaret,
the names and ages of the neighbors and their children and being a DNA
match with one of Margaret's descendants, I am quite sure my g-g-great
aunt Margaret went to California with her neighbors when she was 15
years old or less. Why?

Perhaps the neighbors were actually also relatives, which makes it less
odd but still odd. But tldr; what Einstein did wasn't unheard of.

>
> So, possibly this was part of a plot, too, and Einstein was actually a
> Swiss citizen and only pretended to be German (for whatever reason).
>

Or there was no plot and Einstein really was a German who did attend
school in Switzerland when his family was in Italy.

[Thomas Heger]

The text of Einstein is FULL of errors of all kinds.

Some are formal, like a misiing title of the introduction, missing
illustrations or missing internal references.

Some other formal errors are about the used variable names.

E.g. the system k (the moving system) was introduced with large Greek
letters as names of the axes, but also large Latin letters were used to
name the same axes in other parts of the same text.

The values of the coordinates got small letters, Latin in the case of K
and Greek in case of k.

But also this naming convention were not used all the time and e.g. x'
was at one time meant as a coordinate value in k.

This was worsened by the fact, that a third coordinate system K' was
introduced, which got also small Latin letters (x', y', z'), but with a
' (prime) sign.

This caused an ambiguity of symbols (x' and x'), what made the text hard
to interpret, because also other symbols were used with several
meanings. Especially the symbol x' was difficult to interpret, because
actually Einstein didn't define the symbols at all and left it to the
reader to identify the intended meaning.

For e.g. the tall 'A' I found eight different uses.

Also questionable was the use of generic variables like e.g. t for
special purposes (instead of using e.g. a subscript).


Another serious issue were missing external references like quotes or a
list of used material.

This was especially critical in case of Poincare and Heinrich Hertz.

Hertz was mentioned, but Einstein left open, to which of the works of
Hertz he referred.

I found possible sources in one of the books of Hertz (which btw
included the title) but found differences in the equations Hertz worte
and what Einstein wrote were 'Maxwell Hertz equations'.


Einstein had also the VERY odd habbit to add scalars to vectors or to
switch between different types of objects without notice, while
maintainig the same name (e.g. from vectors to scalars or from values to
functions).

Also the inclusion of the reader was inappropriate in most cases, as I
personally wouldn't call his equations 'our equations'.

In the methaphysical realm was most promenently the total lack of a
consideration of signal delay for light signals and how to deal with that.

Also missing was a comparison of the own results to the classical
Doppler effect, because it is actually possible, that Einstein
(unknowingly) wrote about the Doppler effect (or a certain variant of
that), but ascribed the effect to the source instead of to the influence
of relative movement upon observation.

Also odd was Einstein's discription of induction.

Actually the word 'induction' was entirely missing, but wires and moving
magnets would suggest, that he something like induction in mind.

Also missing were quotes from Maxwell, e.g. about the asymmetries in his
works, which he tried to fix.

and this goes on and on and on..

I had written about 420 annottions for a text of only 23 pages, what
made the text look predominently yellow (yellow was the color I had
chosen for my virtual marker for errors).


TH





...


TH

[Thomas Heger]

Am 09.08.2023 um 18:47 schrieb Richard Hertz:
> THE DEEP HATE OF EINSTEIN OVER GERMANY AND GERMANS:
>
>
>
> https://erenow.net/biographies/einsteinhislifeanduniverse/10.php
>
> Einstein also became an early member of the liberal and cautiously pacifist New Fatherland League, a club that pushed for an early peace and the establishment of a federal structure in Europe to avoid future conflicts. It published a pamphlet titled “The Creation of the United States of Europe,” and it helped get pacifist literature into prisons and other places. Elsa went with Einstein to some of the Monday evening meetings until the group was banned in early 1916.48
> ....
> As they sat on a hotel terrace amid swarms of bees plundering the flowering vines, Einstein joked about the faculty meetings in Berlin where each of the professors would anguish over the topic “why are we Germans hated in the world” and then would “carefully steer clear of the truth.”
>
> ******** Daringly, maybe even recklessly, Einstein openly said that he thought Germany could not be reformed and therefore hoped the allies would win, “which would smash the power of Prussia and the dynasty.”49 *******

This hate for Germany was rather strange for a German.

But actually I think, that Einstein was a Swiss citzen from birth and
his name was not 'Einstein'.

This sounds really far fetched, but would make Einstein's CV much more
plausible.

E.g. it would explain:

why he spoke French but really bad English
why he hated Germany
why he got Swiss citizenship
why he went alone to a different country then were his parents lived,
why he got access to the prestigious ETH in Zurich
why he was allowed to have access to the patent office in Bern
and why he was never drafted into German military.


All these points speak agiants German citizenship.

And the easiest way to solve these problems would be, to give up the
assumption of German citizenship and to assume, that he was Swiss from
birth (possibly born with a different name).

TH

[JanPB]

On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 11:19:50 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
>
> I have spent a lot of time on analysing
>
> 'On the electrodynamics of moving bodies'.
>
> And I have found about four-hundred errors in it.

You've found zero errors.

What you call "errors" are just your misunderstandings.
The solution to your problem is either to learn physics or
to give up on this entirely and do something else.

--
Jan

[Maciej Wozniak]

The Shit is flawless!! Because its worshippers are
the best!! And know the best!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Booker Martos]

US is used 𝘁𝗼_𝗳𝗶𝗴𝗵𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴_𝘄𝗼𝗺𝗲𝗻, farmers, from 𝘁𝗵𝗲_𝘃𝗮𝗻𝘁𝗮𝗴𝗲_𝗼𝗳_𝘁𝗮𝗻𝗸𝘀 with complete
𝗮𝗶𝗿_𝘀𝘂𝗽𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗼𝗿𝗶𝘁𝘆, bombing cities to complete oblivion. They've never fought a
war at an disadvantage 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗹𝗹 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝗹𝗼𝘀𝘁 𝗶𝗻 𝗔𝗳𝗴𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗻 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗩𝗶𝗲𝘁𝗻𝗮𝗺.

now, the khazar goy driven capitalist america, wants to kill the world
with 𝘃𝗮𝗰𝗰𝗶𝗻𝗲𝘀 and 𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗶𝘀𝗰𝗹𝗼𝘀𝗲𝗱_𝗯𝗶𝗼_𝘄𝗲𝗮𝗽𝗼𝗻𝘀. They can't fight like a man. Their
𝗺𝗼𝗼𝗻_𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴𝘀 and 𝗠𝗮𝗿𝘀_𝗠𝗶𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 are / were done 𝗶𝗻_𝗔𝗹𝗮𝘀𝗸𝗮.

[Richard Hachel]

There are many errors in the theory of relativity and they are errors of
concept.

For example, I read someone who said: "The x and t coordinates in Lorentz
transformations".

But these are not coordinates.

x, y, z, ARE coordinates.

t is not a coordinate.

t, and more precisely To in Hachel writing, is the norm of a simple
hypotenuse and not a coordinate in an orthonormal frame.

The components of the Lorentz transformations (x,y;z,To) are not
orthonormal frame coordinates.

This is also why I always differentiate To from t.

I write the value in capital letters.

For those who want to understand my geometry (it can happen: in France
there are a lot of morons, but France only represents 1%
of the world's population) and why I say this, I ask them to picture in
their minds (if possible after a cup or two of coffee) the following
image.

Look carefully, x, and y (y always invariant) are coordinates and they
change by change of reference frame.

<http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?gD1_zs4NoP-6_Bt_-GwHQf3G28o@jntp/Data.Media:1>

To (here -15) and To'(here -41) are hypotenuse values and not proper
orthonormal coordinates.

Thank you for listening.

R.H.

[Python]

Yeah! Sure! (Itiot!)

This is room 12 anyway, not 12A.

tic tac tac tac tic...

[Richard Hachel]

Le 24/08/2023 à 02:06, Python a écrit :
> Le 23/08/2023 à 18:33, Richard Hachel a écrit :

> Yeah! Sure! (Itiot!)

Itiot, toi-même.

T'es qu'un bouffon.

R.H.

[Volney]

On 8/23/2023 12:33 PM, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 23/08/2023 à 09:53, JanPB a écrit :
>> On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 11:19:50 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>
>>> I have spent a lot of time on analysing
>>> 'On the electrodynamics of moving bodies'.
>>> And I have found about four-hundred errors in it.
>>
>> You've found zero errors.
>>
>> What you call "errors" are just your misunderstandings.
>> The solution to your problem is either to learn physics or
>> to give up on this entirely and do something else.
>>
>> --
>> Jan
>
> There are many errors in the theory of relativity and they are errors of
> concept.

No, there are no errors other than one or two instances of awkward text.

>
> For example, I read someone who said: "The x and t coordinates in
> Lorentz transformations".
>
> But these are not coordinates.
>
> x, y, z, ARE coordinates.
>
> t is not a coordinate.

You miss the entire point of what made SR so important. Time is a
coordinate, but different from x y z. They can transform between them
and t, just like transforming between x and y by simple rotations. That
was the breakthrough of SR.

[mitchr...@gmail.com]

Why would accepted science not be used in a new way
by a new person?

[JanPB]

On Wednesday, August 23, 2023 at 9:33:31 AM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 23/08/2023 à 09:53, JanPB a écrit :
> > On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 11:19:50 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
> >>
> >> I have spent a lot of time on analysing
> >>
> >> 'On the electrodynamics of moving bodies'.
> >>
> >> And I have found about four-hundred errors in it.
> >
> > You've found zero errors.
> >
> > What you call "errors" are just your misunderstandings.
> > The solution to your problem is either to learn physics or
> > to give up on this entirely and do something else.
> >
> > --
> > Jan
>
> There are many errors in the theory of relativity and they are errors of
> concept.

There are none. Stop wasting time chasing a fata morgana.

> For example, I read someone who said: "The x and t coordinates in Lorentz
> transformations".
>
> But these are not coordinates.

Yes, they are. Learn the relevant physics (and mathematics).

> x, y, z, ARE coordinates.
>
> t is not a coordinate.

It is.

> t, and more precisely To in Hachel writing, is the norm of a simple
> hypotenuse and not a coordinate in an orthonormal frame.

Word salad.

> The components of the Lorentz transformations (x,y;z,To) are not
> orthonormal frame coordinates.

They are in a certain sense (the _word_ orthonormal refers to a certain
property of those quantities).

Again, my advice is for you to learn the subject before you attempt
to "fix" it. You are like someone who wants to learn playing piano and
you start by trying to play the 3rd movement of Beethiven's "Moonlight"
sonata.

It will never work, after all the time you spend on it, you'll end up with nothing.

--
Jan

[Maciej Wozniak]

Sure, stupid Mike, and your ISO idiocy is an obvious
Newton mode.

[Maciej Wozniak]

On Thursday, 24 August 2023 at 20:07:04 UTC+2, JanPB wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 23, 2023 at 9:33:31 AM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
> > Le 23/08/2023 à 09:53, JanPB a écrit :
> > > On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 11:19:50 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
> > >>
> > >> I have spent a lot of time on analysing
> > >>
> > >> 'On the electrodynamics of moving bodies'.
> > >>
> > >> And I have found about four-hundred errors in it.
> > >
> > > You've found zero errors.
> > >
> > > What you call "errors" are just your misunderstandings.
> > > The solution to your problem is either to learn physics or
> > > to give up on this entirely and do something else.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Jan
> >
> > There are many errors in the theory of relativity and they are errors of
> > concept.
> There are none. Stop wasting time chasing a fata morgana.
> > For example, I read someone who said: "The x and t coordinates in Lorentz
> > transformations".
> >
> > But these are not coordinates.
> Yes, they are. Learn the relevant physics (and mathematics).

And speaking of mathematics - it's always good
to remind that your idiot guru had to announce its
oldest, very importamt part false, as it didn't want to fit
his madness.

[Richard Hachel]

No, spatial coordinates cannot be transformed into temporal coordinates,
nor temporal coordinates into time.

This is a misunderstanding of the theory.

Time is time.

Metric units are metric units.

We do not change with each other by making rotations, as we can do between
x, y, z.

Also, the time used in Lorentz transformations is not an orthonormal
coordinate system like x, y, and z.

It's just the segment sqrt(x²+y²+z²) divided by c.

R.H.

[JanPB]

Yes, they can. Look at the Newtonian mechanics: x' = x - vt.
See? Time coordinate transformed into spatial. You can invert this:
t = (x - x')/v, spatial transformed into temporal.

> nor temporal coordinates into time.

See above. You are making stuff up as you go along.
You are doing voodoo, not science.

> This is a misunderstanding of the theory.
>
> Time is time.
>
> Metric units are metric units.
>
> We do not change with each other by making rotations, as we can do between
> x, y, z.

Not even wrong. Why do attempt to do something you don't
understands the first concepts of? What's the point? What kind of
satisfaction do you get from doodling with something with such
incompetence?

> Also, the time used in Lorentz transformations is not an orthonormal
> coordinate system like x, y, and z.
>
> It's just the segment sqrt(x²+y²+z²) divided by c.

Not even wrong. Just nonsense. Pathetic nonsense, a total waste.

--
Jan

[Volney]

On 8/24/2023 5:45 PM, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 24/08/2023 à 19:25, Volney a écrit :
>> On 8/23/2023 12:33 PM, Richard Hachel wrote:

>>> For example, I read someone who said: "The x and t coordinates in
>>> Lorentz transformations".
>>>
>>> But these are not coordinates.
>>>
>>> x, y, z, ARE coordinates.
>>>
>>> t is not a coordinate.
>>
>> You miss the entire point of what made SR so important. Time is a
>> coordinate, but different from x y z. They can transform between them
>> and t, just like transforming between x and y by simple rotations.
>> That was the breakthrough of SR.
>
> No, spatial coordinates cannot be transformed into temporal coordinates,
> nor temporal coordinates into time.

Yet SR does just that. A velocity changes the time coordinate into a
distance coordinate.

> We do not change with each other by making rotations, as we can do
> between x, y, z.

SR does just that.

>
> Also, the time used in Lorentz transformations is not an orthonormal
> coordinate system like x, y, and z.

It is; it is not a spatial dimension however.

>
> It's just the segment sqrt(x²+y²+z²) divided by c.

That's completely wrong. But if it was correct, it is converting spacial
dimensions into time, which you claim is wrong.
>
> R.H.

[Richard Hachel]

Le 25/08/2023 à 00:10, JanPB a écrit :
> On Thursday, August 24, 2023 at 2:45:06 PM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:

> Yes, they can. Look at the Newtonian mechanics: x' = x - vt.
> See? Time coordinate transformed into spatial. You can invert this:
> t = (x - x')/v, spatial transformed into temporal.
>
>> nor temporal coordinates into time.
>
> See above. You are making stuff up as you go along.
> You are doing voodoo, not science.

That's not what I'm saying.
I say that the time is, on the diagram, the length sqrt(x²+y²+z²)/c
and that it is not, strictly speaking, a coordinate.
I also say that time is not length, nor the length of time. We therefore
transform x into x', and t into t', but not x into t' or t into x'.
To say that, depending on how you look at them, time becomes space, and
space becomes time, is for me to advocate an abstract theory.

> Jan

R.H.

[Richard Hachel]

Le 25/08/2023 à 00:10, JanPB a écrit :

> Not even wrong. Why do attempt to do something you don't
> understands the first concepts of? What's the point? What kind of
> satisfaction do you get from doodling with something with such
> incompetence?

No, it is YOU who say that there is incompetence in all my demonstrations
and concepts.

R.H.

[Richard Hachel]

Le 25/08/2023 à 08:03, Volney a écrit :
> It is; it is not a spatial dimension however.
>>
>> It's just the segment sqrt(x²+y²+z²) divided by c.
>
> That's completely wrong. But if it was correct, it is converting spacial
> dimensions into time, which you claim is wrong.
>>

Breathe, blow!

Take baby steps!

It's just the segment sqrt(x²+y²+z²) divided by c.

> That's completely wrong. But if it was correct, it is converting spatial

dimensions into time, which you claim is wrong.

What is wrong is that you consider t as a coordinate in the proper sense,
it is not an orthonormal coordinate, but a hypotenuse.

You then say to me: "We can convert distance into time", but what's the
point?

It's like saying "a dog is a dog".

What does x=t/c mean?

This means that the distance traveled by light is equal to the time it
travels by the speed of the photon.

But duration is not distance, nor the reverse.

R.H.

[Python]

Crank and M.D. Richard "Hachel" Lengrand a écrit :

Sure, HE said that. But, also, he is undoubtedly RIGHT.

[Richard Hachel]

Le 25/08/2023 à 14:34, Python a écrit :

>> No, it is YOU who say that there is incompetence in all my
>> demonstrations and concepts.

> Sure, HE said that. But, also, he is undoubtedly RIGHT.

J'explique ici ce qu'il advient de la position et de la longueur d'onde
d'une impulsion électromagnétique monochromatique par changement de
référentiel.

3 petites pages.

Tu conteste où, par exemple?

Ou tu contestes pour le plaisir de contester.

Tu es ridicule. C'est le comportement d'un bouffon, ça.

-----

I explain here what happens to the position and the wavelength of a
monochromatic electromagnetic pulse by change of reference frame.

3 small pages.

Where are you contesting, for example?

Or you contest for the sake of contesting.

You're ridiculous. That's the behavior of a buffoon, that.


-----

<http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?ntk8tpA4nIROmCHjfTcQfpW26eQ@jntp/Data.Media:1>

R.H.

[Thomas Heger]

Am 24.08.2023 um 19:25 schrieb Volney:

>>
>> There are many errors in the theory of relativity and they are errors
>> of concept.
>
> No, there are no errors other than one or two instances of awkward text.

I think, the text is FULL of errors.

The amount of errors is just tremendous (>400).

>> For example, I read someone who said: "The x and t coordinates in
>> Lorentz transformations".
>>
>> But these are not coordinates.
>>
>> x, y, z, ARE coordinates.
>>
>> t is not a coordinate.
>
> You miss the entire point of what made SR so important. Time is a
> coordinate, but different from x y z. They can transform between them
> and t, just like transforming between x and y by simple rotations. That
> was the breakthrough of SR.

Time is not belonging to the set of numbers in euclidean space, which
denote positions (Einstein used Euclidean space).

Time may eventually be unified to a construct called 'four-vector' and
the space of all posiible events in spacetime.

But Einstein didn't use four-vectors in his 1905 paper.

The rotation of the time-axis into spatial dimensions was also not
considered in his paper.

Instead time was defined as what a clock says. That clock was defined by
Einstein as 'my watch'.

(which not a very useful definition, btw.)

TH

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

I don't doubt you for one moment (or Volney and others who have said
similar things), but it would be useful if you could give us an example
of a sentrnce that Thomas Heger calls an error, but which you consider
to be an error on Thomas Heger's part. (I expect this has been done
before, but I'm not able to dind it to find it.)


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

[Volney]

On 8/26/2023 3:13 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 24.08.2023 um 19:25 schrieb Volney:
>
>>>
>>> There are many errors in the theory of relativity and they are errors
>>> of concept.
>>
>> No, there are no errors other than one or two instances of awkward text.
>
>
> I think, the text is FULL of errors.

It's not; ALL the errors anyone has looked at are yours.

>
> The amount of errors is just tremendous (>400).

Except there aren't any.

>
>
>>> For example, I read someone who said: "The x and t coordinates in
>>> Lorentz transformations".
>>>
>>> But these are not coordinates.
>>>
>>> x, y, z, ARE coordinates.
>>>
>>> t is not a coordinate.
>>
>> You miss the entire point of what made SR so important. Time is a
>> coordinate, but different from x y z. They can transform between them
>> and t, just like transforming between x and y by simple rotations. That
>> was the breakthrough of SR.
>
>
> Time is not belonging to the set of numbers in euclidean space, which
> denote positions (Einstein used Euclidean space).

The whole point was the end result was non-Euclidean once time was included.

>
> Time may eventually be unified to a construct called 'four-vector' and
> the space of all posiible events in spacetime.

Key word: "spacetime".

>
> But Einstein didn't use four-vectors in his 1905 paper.

The concept wasn't fully developed yet. The 1905 paper wasn't the end of
SR development.

>
> The rotation of the time-axis into spatial dimensions was also not
> considered in his paper.
>
> Instead time was defined as what a clock says. That clock was defined by
> Einstein as 'my watch'.

And then he goes to show what the clocks (time) will say.

>
> (which not a very useful definition, btw.)

What's a better definition that's actually real?

[Maciej Wozniak]

On Saturday, 26 August 2023 at 16:44:45 UTC+2, Volney wrote:

> > Instead time was defined as what a clock says. That clock was defined by
> > Einstein as 'my watch'.
> And then he goes to show what the clocks (time) will say.

Poor idiot never understood what a clock is and what it is for,
so no surprise that real clocks ignore his moronic prophecies.

[JanPB]

On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 5:07:37 AM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 25/08/2023 à 00:10, JanPB a écrit :
> > On Thursday, August 24, 2023 at 2:45:06 PM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
>
> > Yes, they can. Look at the Newtonian mechanics: x' = x - vt.
> > See? Time coordinate transformed into spatial. You can invert this:
> > t = (x - x')/v, spatial transformed into temporal.
> >
> >> nor temporal coordinates into time.
> >
> > See above. You are making stuff up as you go along.
> > You are doing voodoo, not science.
> That's not what I'm saying.
> I say that the time is, on the diagram, the length sqrt(x²+y²+z²)/c
> and that it is not, strictly speaking, a coordinate.

Length is not a coordinate, yes (and not only "strictly speaking").

> I also say that time is not length, nor the length of time.

Sure.

> We therefore
> transform x into x', and t into t', but not x into t' or t into x'.

That doesn't follow. Think carefully about it. Forget relativity,
just think this through. It's simply false.

> To say that, depending on how you look at them, time becomes space, and
> space becomes time,

No, it doesn't mean that. That's the mistake you're making. (Although many
pop-sci presentations make similar silly claims for the shock value.)

--
Jan

[JanPB]

On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 12:12:06 AM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 24.08.2023 um 19:25 schrieb Volney:
>
> >>
> >> There are many errors in the theory of relativity and they are errors
> >> of concept.
> >
> > No, there are no errors other than one or two instances of awkward text.
> I think, the text is FULL of errors.
>
> The amount of errors is just tremendous (>400).

No, it's zero. It would be good for you to stop living in
a fantasy world. It's emotionally neither healthy not, ultimately,
satisfying. One day you'll wake up with your hand in the chamber pot.

> >> For example, I read someone who said: "The x and t coordinates in
> >> Lorentz transformations".
> >>
> >> But these are not coordinates.
> >>
> >> x, y, z, ARE coordinates.

t is also a coordinate.

> >> t is not a coordinate.

It is. If you don't understand this, you have no business "doing" physics.

The rest of your post is too confused to answer in a post that's
shorter than 20 screenfuls or so, so I'll skip it.

--
Jan

[Lee Mihailovich]

JanPB wrote:

> On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 5:07:37 AM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
>> That's not what I'm saying.
>> I say that the time is, on the diagram, the length sqrt(x²+y²+z²)/c and
>> that it is not, strictly speaking, a coordinate.
>
> Length is not a coordinate, yes (and not only "strictly speaking").

not true. It's a dimension, as such, it always can be taken as a
coordinate to represent something else. However, Smellensky is going to
conscript military canon fodder from polakia, "as long as it takes". You
can only dream on the money this Smellensky made. I don't give a shit,
ukurina ukurina.

[Volney]

On 8/25/2023 8:21 AM, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 25/08/2023 à 08:03, Volney a écrit :
>> It is; it is not a spatial dimension however.
>>>
>>> It's just the segment sqrt(x²+y²+z²) divided by c.
>>
>> That's completely wrong. But if it was correct, it is converting
>> spacial dimensions into time, which you claim is wrong.

> It's just the segment sqrt(x²+y²+z²) divided by c.

That's not time directly, that is a hypotenuse. It could be the time
light moves that distance, but now you are talking about a relationship
between time and the distance (of the hypotenuse).

> What is wrong is that you consider t as a coordinate in the proper
> sense, it is not an orthonormal coordinate, but a hypotenuse.

That sqrt(x²+y²+z²) is a hypotenuse. Time is a different coordinate.

[JanPB]

On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 2:20:42 PM UTC-7, Lee Mihailovich wrote:
> JanPB wrote:
>
> > On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 5:07:37 AM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
> >> That's not what I'm saying.
> >> I say that the time is, on the diagram, the length sqrt(x²+y²+z²)/c and
> >> that it is not, strictly speaking, a coordinate.
> >
> > Length is not a coordinate, yes (and not only "strictly speaking").
> not true.

It is true. Get over it.

--
Jan

[Ryker Libman]

Volney wrote:

> On 8/25/2023 8:21 AM, Richard Hachel wrote:
>> It's just the segment sqrt(x²+y²+z²) divided by c.
>
> That's not time directly, that is a hypotenuse. It could be the time
> light moves that distance, but now you are talking about a relationship
> between time and the distance (of the hypotenuse).

ohh yes, sure.

𝗧𝘂𝗰𝗸𝗲𝗿_𝗖𝗮𝗿𝗹𝘀𝗼𝗻_𝗯𝗹𝗮𝘀𝘁𝘀_‘𝗰𝗿𝗲𝗲𝗽’_𝗨𝗦_𝗮𝗺𝗯𝗮𝘀𝘀𝗮𝗱𝗼𝗿
https://rt.com/news/581891-tucker-carlson-blasts-us-ambassador-to-hungary/

Former Fox News host Tucker Carlson has called for the firing of US
Ambassador to Hungary 𝗗𝗮𝘃𝗶𝗱_𝗣𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗺𝗮𝗻, saying the diplomat has undermined
the interests of Americans by trying to impose an LGBTQ agenda rather than
building stronger relations with Budapest.

wow yeah, a david pressman. Yet another 𝗦𝗺𝗲𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗸𝘆 with changed name, moved
to america, most probably with his cousiness, promoting gay propaganda to
countries which are not theirs.

[Physfitfreak]

Fuck you Hanson.

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com

[Marcus Rempel]

Physfitfreak wrote:

>> 𝗧𝘂𝗰𝗸𝗲𝗿_𝗖𝗮𝗿𝗹𝘀𝗼𝗻_𝗯𝗹𝗮𝘀𝘁𝘀_‘𝗰𝗿𝗲𝗲𝗽’_𝗨𝗦_𝗮𝗺𝗯𝗮𝘀𝘀𝗮𝗱𝗼𝗿

>> https://r%74.com/news/581891-tucker-carlson-blasts-us-ambassador-to-hungary/

>> Former Fox News host Tucker Carlson has called for the firing of US
>> Ambassador to Hungary 𝗗𝗮𝘃𝗶𝗱_𝗣𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗺𝗮𝗻, saying the diplomat has
>> undermined the interests of Americans by trying to impose an LGBTQ
>> agenda rather than building stronger relations with Budapest.
>>
>> wow yeah, a david pressman. Yet another 𝗦𝗺𝗲𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗸𝘆 with changed name,
>> moved to america, most probably with his cousiness, promoting gay
>> propaganda to countries which are not theirs.
>
> Fuck you Hanson.

you gay, you have a hole in your ass. You stupid nazi khazar with a changed name.

[RichD]

On August 10, Thomas Heger wrote:
> I have spent a lot of time on analysing
> 'On the electrodynamics of moving bodies'.
> And I have found about four-hundred errors in it.

No doubt you have.

Your problem is, science is a social activity, conducted
by humans, according to conventions and rules. Truth
and error, within this realm, are determined by consensus,
or at least democracy. They have no independent existence.

Six billion hominids on this rock, maybe 2% know a little
relativity. None of them accept your declarations of Einstein's
errors. The problem looks insurmountable.

Take heart, thus it ever was for jeenyuses and prophets -

--
Rich

[Thomas Heger]

Am 23.08.2023 um 09:53 schrieb JanPB:

> On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 11:19:50 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>
>> I have spent a lot of time on analysing
>>
>> 'On the electrodynamics of moving bodies'.
>>
>> And I have found about four-hundred errors in it.
>

> You've found zero errors.
>
> What you call "errors" are just your misunderstandings.
> The solution to your problem is either to learn physics or
> to give up on this entirely and do something else.

I had used a certain method:

I took the text 'On the electrodynamics of moving bodies' as the
homework of a student (of e.g. physics), which I, as his (hypothetical)
professor, have to write corrections for.


This setting is certainly not real, but has actually benefits.

The method is mainly a learning tool and meant as kind of 'critical
reading'.

In my role as 'teatcher', I don't know anything about relativity or what
the student actually wants to prove.

I have ONLY the text and nothing else than what a physics professor in
1905 would usually know.



Therefore, what is in the text is in it, what is not written is not in
it and ignored, if not standard physics and/or math.

This could lead totally off the track, if that is a valid interpretation
of the text.

It is therefore not my aim, to bring any kind of background knowledge
into the text, but to analyze the text itself and what it actually says.

In general I took anything written as true representation of the will of
the author.

In case of any tiny error of whatever kind, I took the text verbatim,
even if wrong.


But if I find an error, I tried to analyze it and tried to estimate,
what the author actually (most likely) wanted to express and where and
how he went wrong.


I also analysed every equation and tried to find the used symbols in the
verbal discription. So, any variable name needs to be mentioned
somewhere, where the text explains, what this variable shall express
(besides of common varibles, like x or t, for instance).

Now Einstein had the odd habbit to reuse variable names for other purposes.

This caused an ambiguity between various uses of e.g. X, A or x'.

I also wanted a consistency of the type of an object and do not want
that type to be changed (e.g. from scalar to vector or from function to
value).

I also disliked ambiguity of types of operators. E.g.

a(x,y,z,t) can be interpreted in different ways, e.g.:

as a function 'a' with some variables x,y,z,t in the argument

as a scalar a, which gets multiplied to a fourvector (x,y,z,t)


I also disliked the ambiguity between scalars and vectors in general in
Einstein's text.

For instance c is a scalar quantity and v a vector. It is therefore
illegal to perfom something like v+c.

I also looked at formal requirements and precison of the used phrases,
because I'm actually a (hypothetical) teatcher.

Now any small deviation from good homework writing is marked and
annotated by me, in the hope, the student would learn something from my
corrections.

TH

[Thomas Heger]

Am 26.08.2023 um 23:12 schrieb JanPB:
> On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 12:12:06 AM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
>> Am 24.08.2023 um 19:25 schrieb Volney:
>>
>>>>
>>>> There are many errors in the theory of relativity and they are errors
>>>> of concept.
>>>
>>> No, there are no errors other than one or two instances of awkward text.
>> I think, the text is FULL of errors.
>>
>> The amount of errors is just tremendous (>400).
>
> No, it's zero. It would be good for you to stop living in
> a fantasy world. It's emotionally neither healthy not, ultimately,
> satisfying. One day you'll wake up with your hand in the chamber pot.

Well, I found about 420 parts of the text 'On the electrodynamics of
moving bodies' which I have annoated.

These are not all errors, but also remarks about something important or
what I had to rethink.

But most were about erros and its really hard to defend the text against
critique.

You and others on this board had several discussions with me about my
comments. In many cases I had to rewrite my annotations (what I did),
but you were next to never able to disprove my critique of a certain
part altogether.

This summed up over all to an 'error count' in the four hundreds.

Actually I have not counted them recently. Its also a little dificult,
because some errors were commented more than once and some annotations
cover more than one error.

But a few hundred errors is actually a lot, give or take a hundred.

Only you were not able to disprove a hundred of my comments. (You hardly
were able to disprove ten.)

>>>> For example, I read someone who said: "The x and t coordinates in
>>>> Lorentz transformations".
>>>>
>>>> But these are not coordinates.
>>>>
>>>> x, y, z, ARE coordinates.
>
> t is also a coordinate.

Only in case of timetravel.

In all other circumstances you are bound to your local time and simply
cannot escape.

>
>>>> t is not a coordinate.
>
> It is. If you don't understand this, you have no business "doing" physics.
>

..


TH

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

On 2023-08-31 06:35:45 +0000, Thomas Heger said:

Well,let's apply you method to your own text:

> Well, I found about 420 parts of the text

I don't know what "420 parts of the text" means. It's not a normal
English expression.

> 'On the electrodynamics of moving bodies' which I have annoated.

annotated

>
> These are not all errors, but also remarks about something important or what

which

> I had to rethink.
>
> But most were about erros

errors

> and its really hard to defend the text against critique.

criticism -- word salad, even with correction

>
> You and others on this board had several discussions with me about my
> comments. In many cases I had to rewrite my annotations (what I did),

which I did

> but you were next to never able to disprove my critique

criticism

> of a certain part altogether.

I don't know what "a certain part" means
>
> This

What is "This"?

> summed up over all

overall

> to an 'error count' in the four hundreds.
>
> Actually I have not counted them recently. Its

It's

> also a little dificult, because some errors were commented more than
> once and some annotations cover more than one error.
>
> But a few hundred errors is actually a lot, give or take a hundred.
>
> Only you were not able to disprove a hundred of my comments.

Any normal person woould get bored long before reaching 100. So it's
not that they "were not able", more "had better things to do than"

> (You hardly were able to disprove ten.)

That needs to be more precise if it's to mean something.

=====

Spelling errors, typos, wrong word choices, imprecision, grammatical errors!

Were your 400 "errors" less trivial than the 12 I've found in your
rather short text?



--
Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 36 years; mainly
in England until 1987.

[Maciej Wozniak]

On Thursday, 31 August 2023 at 09:19:22 UTC+2, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:

> Were your 400 "errors" less trivial than the 12 I've found in your
> rather short text?

Anyway, your beloved Shit was not even consistent.
And that's been proven.

[Thomas Heger]

It is apparently illegal to criticise Einstein's SRT.

I have absolutely no other explanation for the behaviour of participants
in these discussions here (and elsewhere) about this topic.

You can say whatever you like, but still proponents of Einstein reject
everything you write without further considerations.

It's actually nonsense, what 'Athel Cornish-Bowden' wrote, because he
didn't even quote anything from my 'annotated version of SRT', but
totally ignored that work of mine, while complainig about typos and
similar in my latest post.

This is how that game went for the better part of the last hundred years
and many critics were swept under the rug (together with their critique).

So: you cannot correct SRT, because you are requested to believe what
you are told. Period.

Whatever Einstein actually wrote is out of the reach of common mortals
and must not be analysed. Period.

Unfortunately I dodn't know this and assumed, that science would be a
fair game.


TH

[Maciej Wozniak]

On Friday, 8 September 2023 at 09:26:24 UTC+2, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 31.08.2023 um 09:31 schrieb Maciej Wozniak:
> > On Thursday, 31 August 2023 at 09:19:22 UTC+2, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> >
> >> Were your 400 "errors" less trivial than the 12 I've found in your
> >> rather short text?
> >
> > Anyway, your beloved Shit was not even consistent.
> > And that's been proven.
> >
> It is apparently illegal to criticise Einstein's SRT.

Science is not what it pretends to be. Every institution
pretends to be better, more honest and more noble
than it really is, no matter whether it's a churrch,
political party, FIFA or - science.

> Unfortunately I dodn't know this and assumed, that science would be a
> fair game.

You've assumed incorrectly.

[Tom Roberts]

[The subject of this thread is as much a fantasy as the post to which I
am responding.]

On 9/8/23 2:28 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> It is apparently illegal to criticise Einstein's SRT.

That is complete and utter nonsense. Ditto for the "hundreds of
errors" you fantasize that Einstein made in his 1905 paper.

> I have absolutely no other explanation for the behaviour of
> participants in these discussions here (and elsewhere) about this
> topic.

That's because you have no understanding of either physics or how
physicists behave.

When fools and idiots claim to have "refuted SR" with arguments that
have been disproven dozens of times over the past century, or that
completely misrepresent the theory, we are fully justified in ignoring
them. That includes you and all the other cranks around here -- NONE of
you have ever presented any real argument against SR, you merely
fantasize that you do so, and are too ignorant and arrogant to accept
that FACT that you have not.

> So: you cannot correct SRT, because you are requested to believe
> what you are told. Period.

More nonsense. Period.

Physicists would celebrate any actual refutation of SR, because it would
necessarily teach us something new and VERY interesting -- that requires
a new experiment, and posting nonsense around here simply cannot do it.

Tom Roberts

[Maciej Wozniak]

On Saturday, 9 September 2023 at 06:18:28 UTC+2, Tom Roberts wrote:
> [The subject of this thread is as much a fantasy as the post to which I
> am responding.]
> On 9/8/23 2:28 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> > It is apparently illegal to criticise Einstein's SRT.
> That is complete and utter nonsense. Ditto for the "hundreds of

Aren't we FORCED? To THE BEST Way?

> Physicists would celebrate any actual refutation of SR, because it would
> necessarily teach us something new and VERY interesting -- that requires
> a new experiment

No, trash. The mumble of your idiot guru was not even consistent,
you've got a proof, the only thing you can do about it is pretending
you didn't notice, so your fellow idiots, as expected from a bunch
of clowns.

[Thomas Heger]

It is and was not my aim to refute SRT, which I actually regard as correct.

I had a totally different approach, which is actually not related to
relativity.

I was looking on 'technical' issues alone.


E.g. I was looking for equivalence of a setting with the equation, which
describes this setting.

So, I have analysed, what Einstein wrote in words and whether or not the
subsequent derivation of a mathematical description would match this
setting.

This was, unfortunately not always the case.

Also really bad were certain habits, like to reuse variables, use
generic variables for specific purposes, change the type of variables
without notice or giving no hints in form of signs like e.g. different
font for different types of mathematical objects.

Also inconsistencies like defining names one way, but using actually
another, was criticised.

And I don't really see, how you could possibly defend any of these issues.

Actually you didn't even try and mentioned alleged errors on my side,
but didn't show any of them at all.


This is actually my experience all the time and since roughly twenty
years in this forum.

It is simply impossible to discuss issues in Einstein's paper.

MANY did that, like e.g. Androcles.

But NOTHING has changed and most likely never will.


TH