New version of my annotations to SRT

[Thomas Heger]

HI NG

here comes my latest version:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RkhX-B5u7X4ga0QH-C53RddjQGctZVdo/view

The file should be downloaded, if you want to read the annotations.

(Sorry, but somehow google managed to reformat all my annotation windows
and pushed them to the right side.

this is not the best position to read them, but you can place them
wherever you want and save the file.)


TH

[Thomas Heger]

Post by Thomas Heger
HI NG
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RkhX-B5u7X4ga0QH-C53RddjQGctZVdo/view
The file should be downloaded, if you want to read the annotations.
(Sorry, but somehow google managed to reformat all my annotation windows
and pushed them to the right side.
this is not the best position to read them, but you can place them
wherever you want and save the file.)

Actually you can read the annotations now online (without downloading
the file).

[Stefano Bilbasov]

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Thomas Heger
The file should be downloaded, if you want to read the annotations.
(Sorry, but somehow google managed to reformat all my annotation
windows and pushed them to the right side. this is not the best
position to read them, but you can place them wherever you want and
save the file.)

Actually you can read the annotations now online (without downloading
the file).

nonsense, that's completely bullshit. It displays you never been study at
an university with a 𝘃𝗶𝘀𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴_𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗳𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗼𝗿. It's not the translation, fucking
stupid, but understanding of the subject. You germons are gays. And hitler
was gay too. The poorest sorry asses in the entire europe.

𝗘𝗨_𝗰𝗮𝗻_𝗰𝗶𝗿𝗰𝘂𝗺𝘃𝗲𝗻𝘁_𝗛𝘂𝗻𝗴𝗮𝗿𝗶𝗮𝗻_𝘃𝗲𝘁𝗼_𝗼𝗻_𝗨𝗸𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗲_𝗮𝗶𝗱_–_𝗺𝗲𝗱𝗶𝗮
Brussels will ask bloc members to set up their own aid packages for Kiev
if Budapest resists, Reuters has reported
https://r%74.com/news/587050-eu-bypass-hungary-veto-ukraine/

Here we go, making up the rules as we see fitting. Its a mess of using
forked tongue. Worship of the golden calf.

Ursula v.d. L.: not democratically elected, not transparent about her
deals with Pfizer (she and her husband are personally financially involved
in there), and now even laying the ax on European cooperation itself with
a proposal like this. This woman is the evil in itself, unreliable and
criminal. She should be fired immediately and be put in jail.

Budapest holding everyone hostage,” NOOOO that's Kiev and 𝗮𝗺𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗮𝗮𝗮!!

And suddenly the EU is collapsed...

[Thomas Heger]

Post by Stefano Bilbasov

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Thomas Heger
The file should be downloaded, if you want to read the annotations.
(Sorry, but somehow google managed to reformat all my annotation
windows and pushed them to the right side. this is not the best
position to read them, but you can place them wherever you want and
save the file.)

Actually you can read the annotations now online (without downloading
the file).

nonsense, that's completely bullshit. It displays you never been study at
an university with a 𝘃𝗶𝘀𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴_𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗳𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗼𝗿.

Actually we had professors at our university, but most of them were
always there.


TH

[Frauly Bagaryatsky]

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Stefano Bilbasov

Post by Thomas Heger
Actually you can read the annotations now online (without downloading
the file).

nonsense, that's completely bullshit. It displays you never been study
at an university with a 𝘃𝗶𝘀𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴_𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗳𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗼𝗿.

Actually we had professors at our university, but most of them were
always there.

this german doesn't know what a 𝘃𝗶𝘀𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴_𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗳𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗼𝗿 is. A visiting professor is
a one coming from another country, ie Brasil, talking english bad.

[Thomas Heger]

Post by Stefano Bilbasov

Post by Thomas Heger
Actually you can read the annotations now online (without downloading
the file).

nonsense, that's completely bullshit. It displays you never been study
at an university with a 𝘃𝗶𝘀𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴_𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗳𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗼𝗿.

Most likely a few specialists exist in Germany, who actually know.

I was actually a HYPOTHETICAL professor (in my role as writer of these
annotations).

The method goes like this:

imagine you were a professor and had to write corrections for the
homework of a student (Albert Einstein in this case).

The 'homework' is the text in question ('On the electrodynamics of
moving bodies' in this case).

So my 'duty' would be to write annotations, where I give the student a
few hints, how to avoid errors next time.

I found 428 errors in Einstein's text and therefore wrote so many
annotations.


TH

[Mikko]

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Stefano Bilbasov

Post by Thomas Heger
Actually you can read the annotations now online (without downloading
the file).

nonsense, that's completely bullshit. It displays you never been study
at an university with a 𝘃𝗶𝘀𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴_𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗳𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗼𝗿.

Most likely a few specialists exist in Germany, who actually know.
I was actually a HYPOTHETICAL professor (in my role as writer of these
annotations).
imagine you were a professor and had to write corrections for the
homework of a student (Albert Einstein in this case).
The 'homework' is the text in question ('On the electrodynamics of
moving bodies' in this case).
So my 'duty' would be to write annotations, where I give the student a
few hints, how to avoid errors next time.
I found 428 errors in Einstein's text and therefore wrote so many annotations.

As the hypothesis that you be a professor is counterfactual, so
is the hypothesis that the annotations be worth of consideration.

[Thomas Heger]

Post by Mikko

Post by Thomas Heger
I was actually a HYPOTHETICAL professor (in my role as writer of these
annotations).
imagine you were a professor and had to write corrections for the
homework of a student (Albert Einstein in this case).
The 'homework' is the text in question ('On the electrodynamics of
moving bodies' in this case).
So my 'duty' would be to write annotations, where I give the student a
few hints, how to avoid errors next time.
I found 428 errors in Einstein's text and therefore wrote so many annotations.

As the hypothesis that you be a professor is counterfactual, so
is the hypothesis that the annotations be worth of consideration.

I have not said, that I'm a professor.

I wrote, that I play the role of a hypothetical professor, who had to
write annotations into the homework of a student.

This is actually a form of 'critical reading' and has absolutely nothing
to do with my profession.

It is a learning method and an itellectual challenge.

But I do NOT pretend to be a real professor (like in a college or
university).


'TH

[Mikko]

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Mikko

Post by Thomas Heger
I was actually a HYPOTHETICAL professor (in my role as writer of these
annotations).
imagine you were a professor and had to write corrections for the
homework of a student (Albert Einstein in this case).
The 'homework' is the text in question ('On the electrodynamics of
moving bodies' in this case).
So my 'duty' would be to write annotations, where I give the student a
few hints, how to avoid errors next time.
I found 428 errors in Einstein's text and therefore wrote so many annotations.

As the hypothesis that you be a professor is counterfactual, so
is the hypothesis that the annotations be worth of consideration.

I have not said, that I'm a professor.

Doesn't matter, your annotations wouldn't be worth of consderation
even if you were.

Post by Thomas Heger
I wrote, that I play the role of a hypothetical professor, who had to
write annotations into the homework of a student.
This is actually a form of 'critical reading' and has absolutely
nothing to do with my profession.
It is a learning method and an itellectual challenge.

If it were an effective learning method you would have learned already.

Post by Thomas Heger
But I do NOT pretend to be a real professor (like in a college or university).

[Volney]

Post by Thomas Heger
I was actually a HYPOTHETICAL professor (in my role as writer of these
annotations).

No, you weren't. You don't have the qualifications to be a professor,
hypothetical or not. Self-awarded degrees/titles are worse than useless,
they are signs of crackpottery.

Post by Thomas Heger
I found 428 errors in Einstein's text

No, you did not.

[Ross Finlayson]

Post by Volney

Post by Thomas Heger
I was actually a HYPOTHETICAL professor (in my role as writer of these
annotations).

No, you weren't. You don't have the qualifications to be a professor,
hypothetical or not. Self-awarded degrees/titles are worse than useless,
they are signs of crackpottery.

Post by Thomas Heger
I found 428 errors in Einstein's text

No, you did not.

I found that Einstein in "Out of My Later Years" makes for a few things
that include 1) SR is local, 2) a clock hypothesis, 3), grounds for
space contraction, 4) Einstein's bridge, 5) grounds for Einstein's
re-interpretation of classical motion about the linear and rotational,
and that otherwise these would point out, many, "errors", in the
theory altogether, Relativity: errors in usual sub-fields ignorant
of same, or only having a "partial" or incomplete picture.

One great thing about Baez' index is that more than half of the points
also go to Einstein 2 or Zweistein, whoever that may be, of course
that it's a sort of asymptotic anti-inductive excellence, of which
most would be unawares.

So, if you want to read Einstein's theory, then it's surely recommended
that you read Einstein's book "Out of My Later Years", if only the
middle chapters about physics and not necessarily the first or last
few, it's better than usual coffee-table summaries.

I read these in my podcasts "Reading from Einstein: Out of My Later
Years", with quite a running commentary, where of course any mistakes
there are my own, yet I do at some point remark how Einstein stated
something inaccurate, then explain it as with regards to a generous
reading and Einstein as a much appreciated "grandiose hedge".

[Troy Vilaró Escarrà]

Post by Ross Finlayson

Post by Volney

Post by Thomas Heger
I found 428 errors in Einstein's text

No, you did not.

One great thing about Baez' index is that more than half of the points
also go to Einstein 2 or Zweistein, whoever that may be, of course that
it's a sort of asymptotic anti-inductive excellence, of which most would
be unawares.

nonsense. Those are not Einstine's papers. He was 𝗮_𝗽𝘂𝗽𝗽𝗲𝘁 like 𝘀𝗺𝗲𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗸𝘆 of
ukurina (an imbecile gay actor with no military experience, firing
generals, lol). What a gay of a country. The Einstine couldn't even speak
gearmon. And was gay, like 𝘀𝗺𝗲𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗸𝘆.

https://th%65%70eopl%65%73%76oice.tv/

𝗡𝗲𝘁𝗮𝗻𝘆𝗮𝗵𝘂_𝗥𝗲𝗷𝗲𝗰𝘁𝘀_𝗛𝗮𝗺𝗮𝘀_𝗖𝗲𝗮𝘀𝗲𝗳𝗶𝗿𝗲_𝗣𝗿𝗼𝗽𝗼𝘀𝗮𝗹,_𝗦𝗮𝘆𝘀_‘𝗢𝗻𝗹𝘆_𝗦𝗼𝗹𝘂𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻_𝗜𝘀_𝗧𝗼𝘁𝗮𝗹_𝗩𝗶𝗰𝘁𝗼𝗿𝘆’
Benjamin Netanyahu has rejected a Hamas-proposed plan to end the conflict
in Gaza. In a press conference on Wednesday The israeli Prime Minister
vowed to continue Israel’smilitary offensive in Gaza until “total victory”
was secured. […]

𝗖𝗹𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗼𝗻_𝗦𝗮𝘆𝘀_𝗖𝗮𝗿𝘀𝗹𝗼𝗻_𝗜𝘀_𝗔_𝗨𝘀𝗲𝗳𝘂𝗹_𝗜𝗱𝗶𝗼𝘁_𝗙𝗼𝗿_𝗣𝘂𝘁𝗶𝗻
Hillary Clinton has blasted former Fox news host Tucker Carlson following
his meeting and interview with Russian president Vladimir Putin. Speaking
during an interview with MSNBC’s Alex Wagner, the former first lady
highlighted comments made […]

𝗣𝗲𝗲𝗿-𝗥𝗲𝘃𝗶𝗲𝘄𝗲𝗱_𝗦𝘁𝘂𝗱𝘆_𝗙𝗶𝗻𝗱𝘀_𝗖𝗼𝘃𝗶𝗱_𝗩𝗮𝗰𝗰𝗶𝗻𝗲𝘀_𝗞𝗶𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗱_14𝘅_𝗠𝗼𝗿𝗲_𝗣𝗲𝗼𝗽𝗹𝗲_𝗧𝗵𝗮𝗻_𝗧𝗵𝗲𝘆_𝗦𝗮𝘃𝗲𝗱
A new peer-reviewed study has confirmed what the eye-test suggested all
along, proving that experimental Covid-19 mRNA vaccines killed far more
people than they saved. The study published in the prestigious Cureus
journal analyzed reports […]

𝗜𝘀𝗿𝗮𝗲𝗹_𝗧𝗼_𝗣𝘂𝗻𝗶𝘀𝗵_𝗔𝗻𝘆𝗼𝗻𝗲_𝗪𝗵𝗼_𝗤𝘂𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀_𝗢𝗰𝘁_7𝘁𝗵_‘𝗢𝗳𝗳𝗶𝗰𝗶𝗮𝗹_𝗡𝗮𝗿𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲’_𝗪𝗶𝘁𝗵_5_𝗬𝗲𝗮𝗿𝘀_𝗶𝗻_𝗣𝗿𝗶𝘀𝗼𝗻
Israeli lawmakers are moving forward with a bill to punish anybody accused
of “questioning” the “official narrative” from the Netanyahu government
about the details of what happened on October 7th. Under the new law,
anybody […]

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Post by Volney

Post by Thomas Heger
I was actually a HYPOTHETICAL professor (in my role as writer of these
annotations).

No, you weren't. You don't have the qualifications to be a professor,
hypothetical or not. Self-awarded degrees/titles are worse than
useless, they are signs of crackpottery.

For a long time I laboured under the delusion that Thomas Heger was a
cut above the collection of other crackpots we have in this group.
Recently he's made it clear that he's in the same class as Ken
Seto,"Dr" Hachel, etc.

Post by Volney

Post by Thomas Heger
I found 428 errors in Einstein's text

No, you did not.

[ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog]

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Volney

Post by Thomas Heger
I was actually a HYPOTHETICAL professor (in my role as writer of these
annotations).

No, you weren't. You don't have the qualifications to be a professor,
hypothetical or not. Self-awarded degrees/titles are worse than
useless, they are signs of crackpottery.

For a long time I laboured under the delusion that Thomas Heger was a
cut above the collection of other crackpots we have in this group.
Recently he's made it clear that he's in the same class as Ken
Seto,"Dr" Hachel, etc.

In the years that I've followed this group, I have
known exactly two fringe/crackpot posters who eventually
reformed. All others have deteriorated with time. I won't
name names, because one is still an active poster, and
there are those who would disagree with my assessment
that he is reformed enough not to be deserving of the
"crackpot" label.

[Thomas Heger]

Post by Volney

Post by Thomas Heger
I was actually a HYPOTHETICAL professor (in my role as writer of these
annotations).

No, you weren't. You don't have the qualifications to be a professor,
hypothetical or not. Self-awarded degrees/titles are worse than useless,
they are signs of crackpottery.

I am actually allowed to write a critique of anything I like.

This is one of the rules of science.

It does not require any kind of qualification or any kind of title to
critizise any theory you like, because any critique, from whereever it
might come, is valid.

And unless such critique is rejected on scientific grounds, it remains
valid.

You simply cannot dismiss an argument, because the one who wrote it has
not the appropriate title.

But in case you like to disprove any of my annotations, you are welcome.

Simply download the file with my annotations (otherwise you can't read
the annotations), select one of them you regard as faulty and write,
what exactly is wrong with it.

Post by Volney

Post by Thomas Heger
I found 428 errors in Einstein's text

No, you did not.

Actually I did, because I wrote them all myself.

So: the content of all of these annotations are solely my own work.

If you find any error in them, it would would be nice, if you tell me
where and what is wrong.

There are in fact a few still remaining, as I have already found a few
myself.


TH

[Mikko]

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Volney

Post by Thomas Heger
I was actually a HYPOTHETICAL professor (in my role as writer of these
annotations).

No, you weren't. You don't have the qualifications to be a professor,
hypothetical or not. Self-awarded degrees/titles are worse than useless,
they are signs of crackpottery.

I am actually allowed to write a critique of anything I like.
This is one of the rules of science.
It does not require any kind of qualification or any kind of title to
critizise any theory you like, because any critique, from whereever it
might come, is valid.
And unless such critique is rejected on scientific grounds, it remains valid.
You simply cannot dismiss an argument, because the one who wrote it has
not the appropriate title.
But in case you like to disprove any of my annotations, you are welcome.
Simply download the file with my annotations (otherwise you can't read
the annotations), select one of them you regard as faulty and write,
what exactly is wrong with it.

Post by Volney

Post by Thomas Heger
I found 428 errors in Einstein's text

No, you did not.

Actually I did, because I wrote them all myself.

That you are allowed to write rubbish does not mean that it be a good
idea to do so.

[Volney]

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Volney

Post by Thomas Heger
I was actually a HYPOTHETICAL professor (in my role as writer of these
annotations).

No, you weren't. You don't have the qualifications to be a professor,
hypothetical or not. Self-awarded degrees/titles are worse than useless,
they are signs of crackpottery.

I am actually allowed to write a critique of anything I like.

There is a BIG difference between "allowed to" and "qualified to" do
something. You don't have the qualifications to be a professor

Post by Thomas Heger
This is one of the rules of science.
It does not require any kind of qualification or any kind of title to
critizise any theory you like, because any critique, from whereever it
might come, is valid.

You may write whatever garbage you wish to write. You are not qualified
to expect your writings to have any effect on science, or even have
anyone in science to look at them.

Post by Thomas Heger
And unless such critique is rejected on scientific grounds, it remains
valid.
You simply cannot dismiss an argument, because the one who wrote it has
not the appropriate title.

Sorry, qualifications are necessary to filter out crap. If the same
paper appears as a non peer reviewed post on Usenet authored by Joe
Schmo, Janitor vs. Dr. Schmo, PhD Physics in a peer reviewed document,
which source will be ignored vs. studied?

Post by Thomas Heger
But in case you like to disprove any of my annotations, you are welcome.
Simply download the file with my annotations (otherwise you can't read
the annotations), select one of them you regard as faulty and write,
what exactly is wrong with it.

I asked before for you to post the most blatant, outrageous, ridiculous,
obvious 'error' that you found to show us you can actually find real
errors. It was ignored. Of the ones anyone has looked at, they are all
simply your misunderstandings or not an error at all. Nobody is going to
wade through 428 misunderstandings of yours hoping to find an actual
error that somehow, nobody in the last 100+ years found.

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Volney

Post by Thomas Heger
I found 428 errors in Einstein's text

No, you did not.

Actually I did, because I wrote them all myself.

You didn't find 428 (or even 1) errors.
Sure you wrote 428 'annotations', but you claimed to have found 428
errors, which you did not.

[Thomas Heger]

Post by Volney

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Volney

Post by Thomas Heger
I was actually a HYPOTHETICAL professor (in my role as writer of these
annotations).

No, you weren't. You don't have the qualifications to be a professor,
hypothetical or not. Self-awarded degrees/titles are worse than useless,
they are signs of crackpottery.

I am actually allowed to write a critique of anything I like.

There is a BIG difference between "allowed to" and "qualified to" do
something. You don't have the qualifications to be a professor

Post by Thomas Heger
This is one of the rules of science.
It does not require any kind of qualification or any kind of title to
critizise any theory you like, because any critique, from whereever it
might come, is valid.

You may write whatever garbage you wish to write. You are not qualified
to expect your writings to have any effect on science, or even have
anyone in science to look at them.

Post by Thomas Heger
And unless such critique is rejected on scientific grounds, it remains
valid.
You simply cannot dismiss an argument, because the one who wrote it
has not the appropriate title.

Sorry, qualifications are necessary to filter out crap. If the same
paper appears as a non peer reviewed post on Usenet authored by Joe
Schmo, Janitor vs. Dr. Schmo, PhD Physics in a peer reviewed document,
which source will be ignored vs. studied?

Post by Thomas Heger
But in case you like to disprove any of my annotations, you are welcome.
Simply download the file with my annotations (otherwise you can't read
the annotations), select one of them you regard as faulty and write,
what exactly is wrong with it.

I asked before for you to post the most blatant, outrageous, ridiculous,
obvious 'error' that you found to show us you can actually find real
errors. It was ignored. Of the ones anyone has looked at, they are all
simply your misunderstandings or not an error at all. Nobody is going to
wade through 428 misunderstandings of yours hoping to find an actual
error that somehow, nobody in the last 100+ years found.

Einstein made several serious errors.

One was his method of synchronisation.

he had (simplified) this picture in mind:

I receive a light signal, which originates from a remote clock and take
that signal as information about the remote time.

The error:

that signal does not contain the remote time, because light needs time
to travel. This discrepancy is called 'delay', but Einstein didn't
mention it with a single word.

Another serious error:

he ascribed the effects of motion to the moving object, while it is
actually an effect, which is only visible at the side of the observer.

That is very similar to the Doppler effect, which is also not audible at
the side of the moving source of a sound, but audible at the side of the
road, where someone listens to a sirene of a police car passing by.

Annoying were Einstein's naming conventions.

Especially annoying were the reuse of variable names and the lack of
definitions of used symbols.

Seriously unscientific were the lack references to the used materials.

Especially missing were quotes or references to Poincaré and Heinrich Hertz.

This is so, because a few of Einstein's equations were seemingly
inspired by Poincare's 'Sur le dynamic de l'electron' (or something
similar in French).

Heinrich-Hertz was also used, but no references were provided.

Also the quotes from Hertz were not verbatim, because Hertz used total
derivatives and Einstein partial (in an apparently quoted equation).

It ook me quite a while to identify, what Einstein called 'Maxwell-Hertz
equation', but found his quote was different to the origional (besides
of the obviously missing reference).

...


TH

[Thomas Heger]

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Volney

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Volney

Post by Thomas Heger
I was actually a HYPOTHETICAL professor (in my role as writer of these
annotations).

No, you weren't. You don't have the qualifications to be a professor,
hypothetical or not. Self-awarded degrees/titles are worse than useless,
they are signs of crackpottery.

I am actually allowed to write a critique of anything I like.

There is a BIG difference between "allowed to" and "qualified to" do
something. You don't have the qualifications to be a professor

Post by Thomas Heger
This is one of the rules of science.
It does not require any kind of qualification or any kind of title to
critizise any theory you like, because any critique, from whereever it
might come, is valid.

You may write whatever garbage you wish to write. You are not qualified
to expect your writings to have any effect on science, or even have
anyone in science to look at them.

Post by Thomas Heger
And unless such critique is rejected on scientific grounds, it remains
valid.
You simply cannot dismiss an argument, because the one who wrote it
has not the appropriate title.

Sorry, qualifications are necessary to filter out crap. If the same
paper appears as a non peer reviewed post on Usenet authored by Joe
Schmo, Janitor vs. Dr. Schmo, PhD Physics in a peer reviewed document,
which source will be ignored vs. studied?

Post by Thomas Heger
But in case you like to disprove any of my annotations, you are welcome.
Simply download the file with my annotations (otherwise you can't read
the annotations), select one of them you regard as faulty and write,
what exactly is wrong with it.

I asked before for you to post the most blatant, outrageous, ridiculous,
obvious 'error' that you found to show us you can actually find real
errors. It was ignored. Of the ones anyone has looked at, they are all
simply your misunderstandings or not an error at all. Nobody is going to
wade through 428 misunderstandings of yours hoping to find an actual
error that somehow, nobody in the last 100+ years found.

Einstein made several serious errors.
One was his method of synchronisation.
I receive a light signal, which originates from a remote clock and take
that signal as information about the remote time.
that signal does not contain the remote time, because light needs time
to travel. This discrepancy is called 'delay', but Einstein didn't
mention it with a single word.

I want to express this point a little more explicit, because it is
actually a main point of my critique and actually not limited to SRT.



So, let's take a simplified picture and use a HUGE telescope and and a
HUGE clock on the Moon.

Now we peep through this telecope and see the hands of the gigantic
watch on the Moon.

We can see the hand with the seconds moving around once a minute.


Now (at precisely this moment) the watch shows exactly 1 pm and zero
seconds.

What is then the time on the Moon ?

It is, of cause, NOT 1:00:00 pm, but 1:00:01 pm (supposed the watch is
one light second away).



Therefore it is not allowed to take the actually reading as remote time,
but we need to add the delay.

To do this, we would need to know that delay, hence need to measure it.


But this is NOT what Einstein had done.

In fact he made no efforts at all, to calculate, let alone measure that
delay.

Therefore we are allowed to assume, that he didn't want to do this and
simply forgot the delay.


BTW: A very similar problem occurs in common cosmology, because
'stargazers' simply ignore, that the stars seen do not belong to the
same time 'sheet'.

This is a very serious and VERY obscure error, because you certainly do
not want to assume, that events at different times would influence each
other both ways.


TH

[Paul B. Andersen]

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Thomas Heger
that signal does not contain the remote time, because light needs time
to travel. This discrepancy is called 'delay', but Einstein didn't
mention it with a single word.

I want to express this point a little more explicit, because it is
actually a main point of my critique and actually not limited to SRT.
So, let's take a simplified picture and use a HUGE telescope and and a
HUGE clock on the Moon.

Since your point is to illustrate Einstein' definition of
simultaneity, we will assume, like you do below, that the clock
on the Moon and the clock on the Earth are synchronous according
to said definition.

Post by Thomas Heger
Now we peep through this telecope and see the hands of the gigantic
watch on the Moon.
We can see the hand with the seconds moving around once a minute.

And we can see that the clock at the Moon showed tB
when the light left the clock on the Moon.

Post by Thomas Heger
Now (at precisely this moment) the watch shows exactly 1 pm and zero
seconds.

The clock on the Earth shows t'A when
the clock in the telescope shows tB.

Post by Thomas Heger
What is then the time on the Moon ?

The time on the Moon is obviously:
the point in time t'A + the duration (t'A-tB).
Where (t'A-tB) = D/c where D is the distance Earth-Moon.

Post by Thomas Heger
It is, of cause, NOT 1:00:00 pm, but 1:00:01 pm (supposed the watch is
one light second away).
Therefore it is not allowed to take the actually reading as remote time,
but we need to add the delay.
To do this, we would need to know that delay, hence need to measure it.

The 'delay' IS obviously measured!
It is the time t'A shown by the Earth clock
minus the time tB shown by the clock in the telescope.
(t'A-tB)

Post by Thomas Heger
But this is NOT what Einstein had done.

So what is (t'A-tB) in Einstein's definition:
"In accordance with definition the two clocks synchronize if
tB − tA = t'A − tB
"
?

Post by Thomas Heger
In fact he made no efforts at all, to calculate, let alone measure that
delay.

Is the 'professor' a bit confused? :-D

Post by Thomas Heger
Therefore we are allowed to assume, that he didn't want to do this and
simply forgot the delay.
BTW: A very similar problem occurs in common cosmology, because
'stargazers' simply ignore, that the stars seen do not belong to the
same time 'sheet'.
This is a very serious and VERY obscure error, because you certainly do
not want to assume, that events at different times would influence each
other both ways.
TH

You don't even misunderstand Einstein's text.

Well done! :-D

[Thomas Heger]

Post by Paul B. Andersen

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Thomas Heger
that signal does not contain the remote time, because light needs time
to travel. This discrepancy is called 'delay', but Einstein didn't
mention it with a single word.

I want to express this point a little more explicit, because it is
actually a main point of my critique and actually not limited to SRT.
So, let's take a simplified picture and use a HUGE telescope and and a
HUGE clock on the Moon.

Since your point is to illustrate Einstein' definition of
simultaneity, we will assume, like you do below, that the clock
on the Moon and the clock on the Earth are synchronous according
to said definition.

Post by Thomas Heger
Now we peep through this telecope and see the hands of the gigantic
watch on the Moon.
We can see the hand with the seconds moving around once a minute.

And we can see that the clock at the Moon showed tB
when the light left the clock on the Moon.

The measure 't_B' is actually NOT measured in units of 'Moon-time', but
instead both measures t_A and t_B are values, which are based on the
local time of the observer (called 'A-time' in Einstein's text).


Since time is a LOCAL (!!!!!) measure, the observer simply cannot use
anything else than his own time measure.

It is therefore illogic to assume, that t_B is measured on the Moon.

It is actually entirely irrelevant, which time a clock on the Moon would
show or if there is any or if there is anybody to read the time from
such a clock, because Moon-time was irrelevant.

therefore both measures (t_A and t'_A) are measured on Earth and what
clocks say on the Moon is unknown.

This is no problem, because t_B (the time of arrival of the signal on
the Moon) didn't make it into the equation in question.

Post by Paul B. Andersen

Post by Thomas Heger
Now (at precisely this moment) the watch shows exactly 1 pm and zero
seconds.

The clock on the Earth shows t'A when
the clock in the telescope shows tB.

No.

One reason: there is no clock on the Moon, you could possibly read.

But even if there where a gigantic watch (maintained by the
Man-in-the-Moon), that clock would show Moon-time in Moon-time-units.

That watch would be very hard to interpret, because it is certainly not
synchronized with the birth of Christ and will most likely use different
units.

But supposed we could actually read the values, we certainly would not
want to subtract such values from an Earth-based time-values.

Therefore, the value t_B MUST be based on Earth-time and measured in
Earth-time-units.

Post by Paul B. Andersen

Post by Thomas Heger
What is then the time on the Moon ?

the point in time t'A + the duration (t'A-tB).
Where (t'A-tB) = D/c where D is the distance Earth-Moon.

Would you please make some kind of interpretable statement, like which
time measure is used on the Moon and which time is meant as equivalent
Earth time.

My own interpretation is this:

there exist a hypothetical 'timelike sheet', where events happen, which
are synchronous with our own events on planet Earth.

These events are those, that a hypothetical signal with infinite
velocity would connect.

Such a signal does not exist, hence such events are initially invisible
and get visible with a certain delay, which is based on the distance in
space to those events.

Post by Paul B. Andersen

Post by Thomas Heger
It is, of cause, NOT 1:00:00 pm, but 1:00:01 pm (supposed the watch is
one light second away).
Therefore it is not allowed to take the actually reading as remote
time, but we need to add the delay.
To do this, we would need to know that delay, hence need to measure it.

The 'delay' IS obviously measured!

Sure, but not so in Einstein's text.

Actually the word 'delay' or anything equivalent does not occur in his text.

Post by Paul B. Andersen
It is the time t'A shown by the Earth clock
minus the time tB shown by the clock in the telescope.
(t'A-tB)

A clock on the Moon cannot show t_B, because the man-in-the-Moon is not
baptised and the birth of Christ unknown there.

t_B must be a time-value, which is based on Earth-time.


...


TH

[Paul B. Andersen]

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Paul B. Andersen

Post by Thomas Heger
So, let's take a simplified picture and use a HUGE telescope and and a
HUGE clock on the Moon.

Since your point is to illustrate Einstein' definition of
simultaneity, we will assume, like you do below, that the clock
on the Moon and the clock on the Earth are synchronous according
to said definition.

Post by Thomas Heger
Now we peep through this telecope and see the hands of the gigantic
watch on the Moon.
We can see the hand with the seconds moving around once a minute.

And we can see that the clock at the Moon showed tB
when the light left the clock on the Moon.

The measure 't_B' is actually NOT measured in units of 'Moon-time', but
instead both measures t_A and t_B are values, which are based on the
local time of the observer (called 'A-time' in Einstein's text).

'nuff said!

Your confusion is beyond what I thought was possible.

No point in going on.

[Mikko]

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Paul B. Andersen

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Thomas Heger
that signal does not contain the remote time, because light needs time
to travel. This discrepancy is called 'delay', but Einstein didn't
mention it with a single word.

I want to express this point a little more explicit, because it is
actually a main point of my critique and actually not limited to SRT.
So, let's take a simplified picture and use a HUGE telescope and and a
HUGE clock on the Moon.

Since your point is to illustrate Einstein' definition of
simultaneity, we will assume, like you do below, that the clock
on the Moon and the clock on the Earth are synchronous according
to said definition.

Post by Thomas Heger
Now we peep through this telecope and see the hands of the gigantic
watch on the Moon.
We can see the hand with the seconds moving around once a minute.

And we can see that the clock at the Moon showed tB
when the light left the clock on the Moon.

The measure 't_B' is actually NOT measured in units of 'Moon-time', but
instead both measures t_A and t_B are values, which are based on the
local time of the observer (called 'A-time' in Einstein's text).
Since time is a LOCAL (!!!!!) measure, the observer simply cannot use
anything else than his own time measure.
It is therefore illogic to assume, that t_B is measured on the Moon.
It is actually entirely irrelevant, which time a clock on the Moon
would show or if there is any or if there is anybody to read the time
from such a clock, because Moon-time was irrelevant.

Perhaps you should go back to the message you tried to answer
with that irrelevancy and answer again without any irrelevances.

[Python]

Thomas Heger wrote:
[snip]

Post by Thomas Heger
But even if there where a gigantic watch (maintained by the
Man-in-the-Moon), that clock would show Moon-time in Moon-time-units.
That watch would be very hard to interpret, because it is certainly not
synchronized with the birth of Christ and will most likely use different
units.
But supposed we could actually read the values, we certainly would not
want to subtract such values from an Earth-based time-values.
Therefore, the value t_B MUST be based on Earth-time and measured in
Earth-time-units.

[snip]

Post by Thomas Heger
A clock on the Moon cannot show t_B, because the man-in-the-Moon is not
baptised and the birth of Christ unknown there.

*facepalm* Is there any limit to your craziness? This is
not even remotely related to anything Einstein wrote.

Clock A and B are clocks involved in a physic apparatus
it is absolutely stupid to assume that clock B would be
operated by unknown aliens on Alpha Centaury (as you
ever did) or the Moon, with unknowns units or origins.

Moreover measures made by clock A and made by clock B can
be communicated to the other clock in order to set them
up properly. THIS IS THE VERY POINT OF THIS PART OF THE
ARTICLE!!! How can you so miserably fail to understand
the obvious.

Post by Thomas Heger
t_B must be a time-value, which is based on Earth-time.

It is :

"If at the point A of space there is a clock, an observer at A can
determine the time values of events in the immediate proximity of A
by finding the positions of the hands which are simultaneous with
these events. If there is at the point B of space another clock in
*all respects resembling* the one at A."

Seriously Thomas, what's wrong with you?

[Thomas Heger]

Post by Python
[snip]

Post by Thomas Heger
But even if there where a gigantic watch (maintained by the
Man-in-the-Moon), that clock would show Moon-time in Moon-time-units.
That watch would be very hard to interpret, because it is certainly
not synchronized with the birth of Christ and will most likely use
different units.
But supposed we could actually read the values, we certainly would not
want to subtract such values from an Earth-based time-values.
Therefore, the value t_B MUST be based on Earth-time and measured in
Earth-time-units.

[snip]

Post by Thomas Heger
A clock on the Moon cannot show t_B, because the man-in-the-Moon is
not baptised and the birth of Christ unknown there.

*facepalm* Is there any limit to your craziness? This is
not even remotely related to anything Einstein wrote.
Clock A and B are clocks involved in a physic apparatus
it is absolutely stupid to assume that clock B would be
operated by unknown aliens on Alpha Centaury (as you
ever did) or the Moon, with unknowns units or origins.

If you try to communicate over cosmological distances and attempt to
synchronize clocks at both ends, you could certainly face the problem,
that at the other end of such communications are 'aliens'.

Actually all other assumptions are rather strange and in my view far
stranger than the assumption of aliens.

But WHO sits at the far end of a long distance communication is patently
irrelevant in the context of SRT, anyhow.

SRT uses a certain 'backdrop', which is a starless void without gravity.

Through this dark space spaceships drift 'inertially'.

This not really real, but a possible assumption for 'thought experiments'.

If so, you could also assume aliens (at not additional cost).

But if you prefer Earth-based aliens, you could also assume, that all
spaceships mentioned are owned by NASA and have all exactly similar
clocks onboard of their ships.

But in any case:

you need to make measurements of the delay, if you like to synchronize
clocks.

(In case of alien aliens, you need to negotiate time units, too.)

This is easy, if both ships involved would not move in respect to each
other.

In this case (and only in this case !) Einstein's equation is true and
you could cut the two-way travel in half and get time t_B by deviding
t'_A-t_A by two.

The problem is here, that t'_A is later than t_B, hence the aliens at
the far end cannot possibly know it. Therefore, YOU need to calculate
t_B and send a signal with a coded time value back to B.

This signal (the one from here at A to point B with the time-value t_B),
needs to be corrected by subtracting the delay from t_B and coding the
result into the signal.

That is another reason why you should know the delay.

But Einstein didn't even mention the delay-problem with a single word.


TH


...

[Volney]

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Python
[snip]

Post by Thomas Heger
But even if there where a gigantic watch (maintained by the
Man-in-the-Moon), that clock would show Moon-time in Moon-time-units.
That watch would be very hard to interpret, because it is certainly
not synchronized with the birth of Christ and will most likely use
different units.
But supposed we could actually read the values, we certainly would not
want to subtract such values from an Earth-based time-values.
Therefore, the value t_B MUST be based on Earth-time and measured in
Earth-time-units.

[snip]

Post by Thomas Heger
A clock on the Moon cannot show t_B, because the man-in-the-Moon is
not baptised and the birth of Christ unknown there.

*facepalm* Is there any limit to your craziness? This is
not even remotely related to anything Einstein wrote.
Clock A and B are clocks involved in a physic apparatus
it is absolutely stupid to assume that clock B would be
operated by unknown aliens on Alpha Centaury (as you
ever did) or the Moon, with unknowns units or origins.

If you try to communicate over cosmological distances and attempt to
synchronize clocks at both ends, you could certainly face the problem,
that at the other end of such communications are 'aliens'.
Actually all other assumptions are rather strange and in my view far
stranger than the assumption of aliens.
But WHO sits at the far end of a long distance communication is patently
irrelevant in the context of SRT, anyhow.
SRT uses a certain 'backdrop', which is a starless void without gravity.
Through this dark space spaceships drift 'inertially'.
This not really real, but a possible assumption for 'thought experiments'.
If so, you could also assume aliens (at not additional cost).
But if you prefer Earth-based aliens, you could also assume, that all
spaceships mentioned are owned by NASA and have all exactly similar
clocks onboard of their ships.
you need to make measurements of the delay, if you like to synchronize
clocks.
(In case of alien aliens, you need to negotiate time units, too.)
This is easy, if both ships involved would not move in respect to each
other.
In this case (and only in this case !) Einstein's equation is true and
you could cut the two-way travel in half and get time t_B by deviding
t'_A-t_A by two.
The problem is here, that t'_A is later than t_B, hence the aliens at
the far end cannot possibly know it. Therefore, YOU need to calculate
t_B and send a signal with a coded time value back to B.
This signal (the one from here at A to point B with the time-value t_B),
needs to be corrected by subtracting the delay from t_B and coding the
result into the signal.
That is another reason why you should know the delay.
But Einstein didn't even mention the delay-problem with a single word.

Einstein explicitly stated the twp clocks are IDENTICAL. That
essentially rules out alien monkey business. Also, Einstein never
mentioned cosmological distances. SR works fine for two clocks in a lab
10' apart. So your whining is bogus.

[MaciejWozniak]

Post by Volney

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Python
[snip]

Post by Thomas Heger
But even if there where a gigantic watch (maintained by the
Man-in-the-Moon), that clock would show Moon-time in Moon-time-units.
That watch would be very hard to interpret, because it is certainly
not synchronized with the birth of Christ and will most likely use
different units.
But supposed we could actually read the values, we certainly would not
want to subtract such values from an Earth-based time-values.
Therefore, the value t_B MUST be based on Earth-time and measured in
Earth-time-units.

[snip]

Post by Thomas Heger
A clock on the Moon cannot show t_B, because the man-in-the-Moon is
not baptised and the birth of Christ unknown there.

*facepalm* Is there any limit to your craziness? This is
not even remotely related to anything Einstein wrote.
Clock A and B are clocks involved in a physic apparatus
it is absolutely stupid to assume that clock B would be
operated by unknown aliens on Alpha Centaury (as you
ever did) or the Moon, with unknowns units or origins.

If you try to communicate over cosmological distances and attempt to
synchronize clocks at both ends, you could certainly face the problem,
that at the other end of such communications are 'aliens'.
Actually all other assumptions are rather strange and in my view far
stranger than the assumption of aliens.
But WHO sits at the far end of a long distance communication is patently
irrelevant in the context of SRT, anyhow.
SRT uses a certain 'backdrop', which is a starless void without gravity.
Through this dark space spaceships drift 'inertially'.
This not really real, but a possible assumption for 'thought experiments'.
If so, you could also assume aliens (at not additional cost).
But if you prefer Earth-based aliens, you could also assume, that all
spaceships mentioned are owned by NASA and have all exactly similar
clocks onboard of their ships.
you need to make measurements of the delay, if you like to synchronize
clocks.
(In case of alien aliens, you need to negotiate time units, too.)
This is easy, if both ships involved would not move in respect to each
other.
In this case (and only in this case !) Einstein's equation is true and
you could cut the two-way travel in half and get time t_B by deviding
t'_A-t_A by two.
The problem is here, that t'_A is later than t_B, hence the aliens at
the far end cannot possibly know it. Therefore, YOU need to calculate
t_B and send a signal with a coded time value back to B.
This signal (the one from here at A to point B with the time-value t_B),
needs to be corrected by subtracting the delay from t_B and coding the
result into the signal.
That is another reason why you should know the delay.
But Einstein didn't even mention the delay-problem with a single word.

Einstein explicitly stated the twp clocks are IDENTICAL.

And you, stupid Mike, explicitely stated that IDENTIOCAL
clocks are some "Newton mode". You're such an agnorant
idiot...

[Thomas Heger]

Post by MaciejWozniak

Post by Volney

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Python
[snip]

Post by Thomas Heger
But even if there where a gigantic watch (maintained by the
Man-in-the-Moon), that clock would show Moon-time in Moon-time-units.
That watch would be very hard to interpret, because it is certainly
not synchronized with the birth of Christ and will most likely use
different units.
But supposed we could actually read the values, we certainly would not
want to subtract such values from an Earth-based time-values.
Therefore, the value t_B MUST be based on Earth-time and measured in
Earth-time-units.

[snip]

Post by Thomas Heger
A clock on the Moon cannot show t_B, because the man-in-the-Moon is
not baptised and the birth of Christ unknown there.

*facepalm* Is there any limit to your craziness? This is
not even remotely related to anything Einstein wrote.
Clock A and B are clocks involved in a physic apparatus
it is absolutely stupid to assume that clock B would be
operated by unknown aliens on Alpha Centaury (as you
ever did) or the Moon, with unknowns units or origins.

If you try to communicate over cosmological distances and attempt to
synchronize clocks at both ends, you could certainly face the
problem, that at the other end of such communications are 'aliens'.
Actually all other assumptions are rather strange and in my view far
stranger than the assumption of aliens.
But WHO sits at the far end of a long distance communication is
patently irrelevant in the context of SRT, anyhow.
SRT uses a certain 'backdrop', which is a starless void without gravity.
Through this dark space spaceships drift 'inertially'.
This not really real, but a possible assumption for 'thought
experiments'.
If so, you could also assume aliens (at not additional cost).
But if you prefer Earth-based aliens, you could also assume, that all
spaceships mentioned are owned by NASA and have all exactly similar
clocks onboard of their ships.
you need to make measurements of the delay, if you like to
synchronize clocks.
(In case of alien aliens, you need to negotiate time units, too.)
This is easy, if both ships involved would not move in respect to
each other.
In this case (and only in this case !) Einstein's equation is true
and you could cut the two-way travel in half and get time t_B by
deviding t'_A-t_A by two.
The problem is here, that t'_A is later than t_B, hence the aliens at
the far end cannot possibly know it. Therefore, YOU need to calculate
t_B and send a signal with a coded time value back to B.
This signal (the one from here at A to point B with the time-value
t_B), needs to be corrected by subtracting the delay from t_B and
coding the result into the signal.
That is another reason why you should know the delay.
But Einstein didn't even mention the delay-problem with a single word.

Einstein explicitly stated the twp clocks are IDENTICAL.

And you, stupid Mike, explicitely stated that IDENTIOCAL
clocks are some "Newton mode". You're such an agnorant idiot...

'Identical' clocks (actually mentioned were watches) are mechanically
the same.

But watches of 1905 were adjustable in the rate of ticks, hence could be
synchronized to the local environment.

That's why it is complicated to synchronize clocks.

First you need to establish an agreement about the time units and tick
rates.

Theses tick rates already differ with hight (already on planet Earth).

This would require (already on Earth) agrements about the length of the
second.

To do this we could use some sort of 'master clock', located on or near
sea-level.

This master station would send out radio signals with timing information
and all other clocks can adjust themselves to these signals.

But this would still require to know the delay, which is caused by the
finite speed of light.


A radio signals travel about 7.5 times round the globe in one second.

Since half of an equator length is the maximal distance you could have
on Earth, you could have a maximum of discrepancy of 1/14 of a second.

This is a very large discrepancy for precision timing purposes, hence
needs to be corrected.

This is actually simple: simply add the delay to the coded time, which
is coming with the signal from the master clock.

But you need to know the delay in the first place, if you like to add it.

But for uncertain reasons Einstein didn't mention this, even if
synchronization over long distances was his topic.

TH

[Josey Forakis Stamatelos]

Post by Thomas Heger
But you need to know the delay in the first place, if you like to add it.

Which Einstein calculates, it's 1/2 times t'_a - t_a.

so true indeed. Watch this picture, and remark Khazaria. What these "germans" want to do, right now, as it was those days. The unbelievable truth about relativity you don't want to see. And certify.

Loading Image...

𝗨𝗸𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗶𝗮𝗻𝘀_‘𝘇𝗼𝗺𝗯𝗶𝗳𝗶𝗲𝗱’_𝗯𝘆_𝗭𝗲𝗹𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗸𝘆’𝘀_𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗽𝗮𝗴𝗮𝗻𝗱𝗮_–_𝗲𝘅-𝗣𝗠 lol
The country’s citizens are constantly hammered by news of ‘Russian orcs,’ but they still want peace, Nikolay Azarov said
https://r%74.com/russia/592554-ukrainians-zombified-propaganda-azarov/
However, Azarov also pointed out that a significant part of Ukrainian society has been “zombified” by national TV. “Every 5–10 minutes they get pummeled by news about ‘Russian orcs’. Many are now being brought up in the spirit of hatred, resentment, and so on,” he noted.

He added, however, that this does not mean 90% of Ukrainians are “ready to grab a weapon and run into the trenches and die for no reason.”

Azarov lamented that the Ukrainian political elite has been virtually wiped out over the past 10 years. “There are practically no people there who have even an ounce of common sense left. There are [only] opportunists, blank spaces. They will do whatever the Americans tell them”.

“Ukraine can only recover if its current leaders are replaced, the ex-PM argued.” The same can be said of every Anglo Saxon country. They are khazar goys.

The Ukrainians don't want conflict, why does the military not take out Zelensky? Apparently the far right is protecting the khazar goy mafia in Kiev. Hard to beat those 2 together, and the same is going to happen in the west.

[Thomas Heger]

Post by Josey Forakis Stamatelos

Post by Thomas Heger
But you need to know the delay in the first place, if you like to add it.

Which Einstein calculates, it's 1/2 times t'_a - t_a.

so true indeed. Watch this picture, and remark Khazaria. What these "germans" want to do, right now, as it was those days. The unbelievable truth about relativity you don't want to see. And certify.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler#/media/File:Greater_Germanic_Reich.png

It's an interesting topic, but definetely historic, since present
Germany has absolutely no intentions to fulfill the plans of the former
kanzler 'Hitler'.

I personally think, that Greg Hallet was actually correct and 'Hitler'
was actually an English spy.

https://www.amazon.de/Hitler-Britischer-Agent-Solving-History/dp/0985227818

My own guess was (in extension of the book of Hallet), that it was Noel
Trevenen Huxley, who went to Germany already in 1913 (together with his
brother Julian Huxley) and stayed at the home of Isolde Beidler
(daughter of Richard Wagner) in Munich (Prinzregentplatz 16), to learn
good German.

The real Hitler was later captured and replaced by the spy in the early
1920th.

TH

[Volney]

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Paul B. Andersen

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Thomas Heger
that signal does not contain the remote time, because light needs time
to travel. This discrepancy is called 'delay', but Einstein didn't
mention it with a single word.

I want to express this point a little more explicit, because it is
actually a main point of my critique and actually not limited to SRT.
So, let's take a simplified picture and use a HUGE telescope and and a
HUGE clock on the Moon.

Since your point is to illustrate Einstein' definition of
simultaneity, we will assume, like you do below, that the clock
on the Moon and the clock on the Earth are synchronous according
to said definition.

Post by Thomas Heger
Now we peep through this telecope and see the hands of the gigantic
watch on the Moon.
We can see the hand with the seconds moving around once a minute.

And we can see that the clock at the Moon showed tB
when the light left the clock on the Moon.

The measure 't_B' is actually NOT measured in units of 'Moon-time', but
instead both measures t_A and t_B are values, which are based on the
local time of the observer (called 'A-time' in Einstein's text).

What the hell is it that you call 'Moon-time'? If the moon is considered
stationary (or moving slow enough not to matter) there is no time
dilation so 'Moon-time' ticks the same as 'Earth-Time'.

Post by Thomas Heger
Since time is a LOCAL (!!!!!) measure, the observer simply cannot use
anything else than his own time measure.
It is therefore illogic to assume, that t_B is measured on the Moon.

But you just said there is a HUGE clock on the moon measuring the time.

Post by Thomas Heger
It is actually entirely irrelevant, which time a clock on the Moon would
show or if there is any or if there is anybody to read the time from
such a clock, because Moon-time was irrelevant.
therefore both measures (t_A and t'_A) are measured on Earth and what
clocks say on the Moon is unknown.
This is no problem, because t_B (the time of arrival of the signal on
the Moon) didn't make it into the equation in question.

This will be t_B if the clocks are synchronized, or considered set to
t_B to synchronize them.

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Paul B. Andersen

Post by Thomas Heger
Now (at precisely this moment) the watch shows exactly 1 pm and zero
seconds.

The clock on the Earth shows t'A when
the clock in the telescope shows tB.

No.
One reason: there is no clock on the Moon, you could possibly read.

But you said there was.

Post by Thomas Heger
But even if there where a gigantic watch (maintained by the
Man-in-the-Moon), that clock would show Moon-time in Moon-time-units.

It wouldn't matter, since there will be a conversion between
Moon-time-units and Earth time units (better known as the second). If
there are no Moon residents and no (earth origin) clocks there, there
isn't even such a thing as Moon-time-units so we can use anything we
want, such as the second. Even if there were little green men using
Moon-time-units we can *still* use Earth units for Earthbound users,
converting to Moon-time-units if and when necessary to communicate with
the little green men.

It appears you are confusing clocks with time. Clocks measure time, not
clocks are time. The janitor has the very same problem when whining
about old time definitions based on earth rotation.

Post by Thomas Heger
That watch would be very hard to interpret, because it is certainly not
synchronized with the birth of Christ and will most likely use different
units.

We can synchronize the clocks using Einstein's method, so that some
clock on the moon reading whatever it reads when we measure it is t_B.

Post by Thomas Heger
But supposed we could actually read the values, we certainly would not
want to subtract such values from an Earth-based time-values.
Therefore, the value t_B MUST be based on Earth-time and measured in
Earth-time-units.

Irrelevant.

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Paul B. Andersen

Post by Thomas Heger
It is, of cause, NOT 1:00:00 pm, but 1:00:01 pm (supposed the watch is
one light second away).
Therefore it is not allowed to take the actually reading as remote
time, but we need to add the delay.
To do this, we would need to know that delay, hence need to measure it.

The 'delay' IS obviously measured!

Sure, but not so in Einstein's text.
Actually the word 'delay' or anything equivalent does not occur in his text.

He is using the time it takes the signal to travel (D/c) as the delay.

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Paul B. Andersen
It is the time t'A shown by the Earth clock
minus the time tB shown by the clock in the telescope.
(t'A-tB)

A clock on the Moon cannot show t_B, because the man-in-the-Moon is not
baptised and the birth of Christ unknown there.

Yet you are talking about some HUGE clock on the moon viewed using a
HUGE telescope on earth.

Post by Thomas Heger
t_B must be a time-value, which is based on Earth-time.

Because it is calculated on earth to see what time it is on the moon.

Your obvious confusion here extends to your "420 errors" which are
nothing more than 420 examples of your confusion.

[Volney]

Post by Volney

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Paul B. Andersen

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Thomas Heger
that signal does not contain the remote time, because light needs time
to travel. This discrepancy is called 'delay', but Einstein didn't
mention it with a single word.

I want to express this point a little more explicit, because it is
actually a main point of my critique and actually not limited to SRT.
So, let's take a simplified picture and use a HUGE telescope and and a
HUGE clock on the Moon.

Since your point is to illustrate Einstein' definition of
simultaneity, we will assume, like you do below, that the clock
on the Moon and the clock on the Earth are synchronous according
to said definition.

Post by Thomas Heger
Now we peep through this telecope and see the hands of the gigantic
watch on the Moon.
We can see the hand with the seconds moving around once a minute.

And we can see that the clock at the Moon showed tB
when the light left the clock on the Moon.

The measure 't_B' is actually NOT measured in units of 'Moon-time',
but instead both measures t_A and t_B are values, which are based on
the local time of the observer (called 'A-time' in Einstein's text).

What the hell is it that you call 'Moon-time'? If the moon is considered
stationary (or moving slow enough not to matter) there is no time
dilation so 'Moon-time' ticks the same as 'Earth-Time'.

Post by Thomas Heger
Since time is a LOCAL (!!!!!) measure, the observer simply cannot use
anything else than his own time measure.
It is therefore illogic to assume, that t_B is measured on the Moon.

But you just said there is a HUGE clock on the moon measuring the time.

Post by Thomas Heger
It is actually entirely irrelevant, which time a clock on the Moon
would show or if there is any or if there is anybody to read the time
from such a clock, because Moon-time was irrelevant.
therefore both measures (t_A and t'_A) are measured on Earth and what
clocks say on the Moon is unknown.
This is no problem, because t_B (the time of arrival of the signal on
the Moon) didn't make it into the equation in question.

This will be t_B if the clocks are synchronized, or considered set to
t_B to synchronize them.

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Paul B. Andersen

Post by Thomas Heger
Now (at precisely this moment) the watch shows exactly 1 pm and zero
seconds.

The clock on the Earth shows t'A when
the clock in the telescope shows tB.

No.
One reason: there is no clock on the Moon, you could possibly read.

But you said there was.

Post by Thomas Heger
But even if there where a gigantic watch (maintained by the
Man-in-the-Moon), that clock would show Moon-time in Moon-time-units.

It wouldn't matter, since there will be a conversion between
Moon-time-units and Earth time units (better known as the second).  If
there are no Moon residents and no (earth origin) clocks there, there
isn't even such a thing as Moon-time-units so we can use anything we
want, such as the second. Even if there were little green men using
Moon-time-units we can *still* use Earth units for Earthbound users,
converting to Moon-time-units if and when necessary to communicate with
the little green men.
It appears you are confusing clocks with time. Clocks measure time, not
clocks are time. The janitor has the very same problem when whining
about old time definitions based on earth rotation.

Post by Thomas Heger
That watch would be very hard to interpret, because it is certainly
not synchronized with the birth of Christ and will most likely use
different units.

We can synchronize the clocks using Einstein's method, so that some
clock on the moon reading whatever it reads when we measure it is t_B.

Post by Thomas Heger
But supposed we could actually read the values, we certainly would not
want to subtract such values from an Earth-based time-values.
Therefore, the value t_B MUST be based on Earth-time and measured in
Earth-time-units.

Irrelevant.

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Paul B. Andersen

Post by Thomas Heger
It is, of cause, NOT 1:00:00 pm, but 1:00:01 pm (supposed the watch is
one light second away).
Therefore it is not allowed to take the actually reading as remote
time, but we need to add the delay.
To do this, we would need to know that delay, hence need to measure it.

The 'delay' IS obviously measured!

Sure, but not so in Einstein's text.
Actually the word 'delay' or anything equivalent does not occur in his text.

He is using the time it takes the signal to travel (D/c) as the delay.

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Paul B. Andersen
It is the time t'A shown by the Earth clock
minus the time tB shown by the clock in the telescope.
(t'A-tB)

A clock on the Moon cannot show t_B, because the man-in-the-Moon is
not baptised and the birth of Christ unknown there.

Yet you are talking about some HUGE clock on the moon viewed using a
HUGE telescope on earth.

Post by Thomas Heger
t_B must be a time-value, which is based on Earth-time.

Because it is calculated on earth to see what time it is on the moon.
Your obvious confusion here extends to your "420 errors" which are
nothing more than 420 examples of your confusion.

As Python points out, both clocks are assumed IDENTICAL by Einstein, so
any hokum about little green men on the moon or Moon-time-units is
irrelevant so much of what I wrote here isn't applicable to anything.
The Moon clock is identical to the Earth clock.

[Richard Hachel]

Post by Volney
As Python points out, both clocks are assumed IDENTICAL by Einstein, so
any hokum about little green men on the moon or Moon-time-units is
irrelevant so much of what I wrote here isn't applicable to anything.
The Moon clock is identical to the Earth clock.

The lunar clock is mechanically identical to the terrestrial clock. That
is to say that it has the same chronotropy.
It is completely ridiculous and completely absurd to take two clocks that
beat at different rates.
No one would think of putting a clock on the Eiffel Tower that beats six
times faster than another, placed at the Arc de Triomphe, simply to fool
around or to distance themselves from science.
As everyone knows, chronotropy is obviously invariant by positional change
in the same frame of reference.
Now comes HAchl (a true genius in the history of humanity), and he says:
"Yes, it's true, chronotropy is invariant."

What a man! What a cock! What a God!!!

Problem: the poor idiots who squat on this forum saying, full of
stupidity, their narcissism, even their hatred: "No, no, Hachel is a
troll".

Poor fools.

R.H.

[MaciejWozniak]

Post by Volney

Post by Volney

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Paul B. Andersen

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Thomas Heger
that signal does not contain the remote time, because light needs time
to travel. This discrepancy is called 'delay', but Einstein didn't
mention it with a single word.

I want to express this point a little more explicit, because it is
actually a main point of my critique and actually not limited to SRT.
So, let's take a simplified picture and use a HUGE telescope and and a
HUGE clock on the Moon.

Since your point is to illustrate Einstein' definition of
simultaneity, we will assume, like you do below, that the clock
on the Moon and the clock on the Earth are synchronous according
to said definition.

Post by Thomas Heger
Now we peep through this telecope and see the hands of the gigantic
watch on the Moon.
We can see the hand with the seconds moving around once a minute.

And we can see that the clock at the Moon showed tB
when the light left the clock on the Moon.

The measure 't_B' is actually NOT measured in units of 'Moon-time',
but instead both measures t_A and t_B are values, which are based on
the local time of the observer (called 'A-time' in Einstein's text).

What the hell is it that you call 'Moon-time'? If the moon is considered
stationary (or moving slow enough not to matter) there is no time
dilation so 'Moon-time' ticks the same as 'Earth-Time'.

Post by Thomas Heger
Since time is a LOCAL (!!!!!) measure, the observer simply cannot use
anything else than his own time measure.
It is therefore illogic to assume, that t_B is measured on the Moon.

But you just said there is a HUGE clock on the moon measuring the time.

Post by Thomas Heger
It is actually entirely irrelevant, which time a clock on the Moon
would show or if there is any or if there is anybody to read the time
from such a clock, because Moon-time was irrelevant.
therefore both measures (t_A and t'_A) are measured on Earth and what
clocks say on the Moon is unknown.
This is no problem, because t_B (the time of arrival of the signal on
the Moon) didn't make it into the equation in question.

This will be t_B if the clocks are synchronized, or considered set to
t_B to synchronize them.

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Paul B. Andersen

Post by Thomas Heger
Now (at precisely this moment) the watch shows exactly 1 pm and zero
seconds.

The clock on the Earth shows t'A when
the clock in the telescope shows tB.

No.
One reason: there is no clock on the Moon, you could possibly read.

But you said there was.

Post by Thomas Heger
But even if there where a gigantic watch (maintained by the
Man-in-the-Moon), that clock would show Moon-time in Moon-time-units.

It wouldn't matter, since there will be a conversion between
Moon-time-units and Earth time units (better known as the second).  If
there are no Moon residents and no (earth origin) clocks there, there
isn't even such a thing as Moon-time-units so we can use anything we
want, such as the second. Even if there were little green men using
Moon-time-units we can *still* use Earth units for Earthbound users,
converting to Moon-time-units if and when necessary to communicate with
the little green men.
It appears you are confusing clocks with time. Clocks measure time, not
clocks are time. The janitor has the very same problem when whining
about old time definitions based on earth rotation.

Post by Thomas Heger
That watch would be very hard to interpret, because it is certainly
not synchronized with the birth of Christ and will most likely use
different units.

We can synchronize the clocks using Einstein's method, so that some
clock on the moon reading whatever it reads when we measure it is t_B.

Post by Thomas Heger
But supposed we could actually read the values, we certainly would not
want to subtract such values from an Earth-based time-values.
Therefore, the value t_B MUST be based on Earth-time and measured in
Earth-time-units.

Irrelevant.

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Paul B. Andersen

Post by Thomas Heger
It is, of cause, NOT 1:00:00 pm, but 1:00:01 pm (supposed the watch is
one light second away).
Therefore it is not allowed to take the actually reading as remote
time, but we need to add the delay.
To do this, we would need to know that delay, hence need to measure it.

The 'delay' IS obviously measured!

Sure, but not so in Einstein's text.
Actually the word 'delay' or anything equivalent does not occur in his text.

He is using the time it takes the signal to travel (D/c) as the delay.

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Paul B. Andersen
It is the time t'A shown by the Earth clock
minus the time tB shown by the clock in the telescope.
(t'A-tB)

A clock on the Moon cannot show t_B, because the man-in-the-Moon is
not baptised and the birth of Christ unknown there.

Yet you are talking about some HUGE clock on the moon viewed using a
HUGE telescope on earth.

Post by Thomas Heger
t_B must be a time-value, which is based on Earth-time.

Because it is calculated on earth to see what time it is on the moon.
Your obvious confusion here extends to your "420 errors" which are
nothing more than 420 examples of your confusion.

As Python points out, both clocks are assumed IDENTICAL by Einstein, so

so your moronic ravings of "GR" ,corrections are just
some moronic ravings. Yes, identical clocks are whar
your idiot guru was assuming - and GPS has verified
his absurd assumption and switched it off.

[Paul B. Andersen]

Post by Thomas Heger
Einstein made several serious errors.
One was his method of synchronisation.
I receive a light signal, which originates from a remote clock and take
that signal as information about the remote time.
that signal does not contain the remote time, because light needs time
to travel. This discrepancy is called 'delay', but Einstein didn't
mention it with a single word.
mention it with a single word.

Einstein's definition of simultaneity:
"Let a ray of light start at the “A time” tA from A towards B,
let it at the “B time” tB be reflected at B in the direction of A,
and arrive again at A at the “A time” t'A.

In accordance with definition the two clocks synchronize if
tB − tA = t'A − tB.
"
What is the time (tB − tA), and what is the time (t'A − tB)?

[Python]

Post by Paul B. Andersen

Post by Thomas Heger
Einstein made several serious errors.
One was his method of synchronisation.
I receive a light signal, which originates from a remote clock and
take that signal as information about the remote time.
that signal does not contain the remote time, because light needs time
to travel. This discrepancy is called 'delay', but Einstein didn't
mention it with a single word.
mention it with a single word.

"Let a ray of light start at the “A time” tA from A towards B,
 let it at the “B time” tB be reflected at B in the direction of A,
 and arrive again at A at the “A time” t'A.
 In accordance with definition the two clocks synchronize if
 tB − tA = t'A − tB.
"
What is the time (tB − tA), and what is the time (t'A − tB)?

This has been explained to Thomas several times, for instance there:

https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics.relativity/c/H4eAqzd4OVA/m/q14EU8u3AQAJ

Post by Paul B. Andersen
t_B - t_A = t'_A - t_B
2AB/(t'_A - t_A) = c
t_B = t_A + (AB)/c
which is a way to express that the light propagation time is taken
into account when synchronizing clocks. (AB)/c is *exactly*
this very delay.

Thomas has never understood a single word of this part of Einstein's
paper, while it is obvious to anyone with a minimal intelligence that
the whole point is about light taking propagation time in clock
synchronization. What expose his profound dishonesty is that he
continues to spread the same nonsense *after* it has been shown
to him, in details, how wrong he is.

His arguments is that the word "delay" is not written down explicitly
(LOL!!!) and that clocks A and B could be made by aliens on Alpha
Centaury as if part. I.1 in Einstein's article was about extra-
terrestrial with unknown units and unknown rates. This is pathetically
stupid.

Einstein's paper does not mention that the Moon is not made of cheese,
hence he assumes that the Moon is made of cheese, this is the kind
of "reasoning" Thomas is familiar with.

[Richard Hachel]

Coucou, Python!

Te revoilà?

Well...

It is sad to note that human stupidity continues to wreak havoc, filled as
it is with imbecile narcissism and idiotic certainties.

What is saddening is that Python, who does not like Verret, makes the same
mistake as him and covers his ears so as not to hear, that is to say
understand, what Doctor Hachel is saying.

I have said it over and over for four years (oh my God forty years): you
cannot "absolutely" synchronize two watches placed in different places,
it's stupid and it's a simple abstract thought.

What does Python, my little usenet angel, say?

He says:
t_B - t_A = t'_A - t_B

He believes he has found the “most brilliant equation in the universe,
the little angel.

But he will be sad when he learns that good old Doctor Hachel, whose
genius he adores and claims, does not agree and that this stupid equation
makes him laugh.

He poses for the outward journey t(to go)= t_B - t_A
and for the return: t(return)=t'_A - t_B

But WHO measures this time? Is it A? No. Is it B? Neither.

This time is measured by C, a third observer being at the same distance
from A and B, and for whom A and B are necessarily isochronous in nature,
that is to say synchronized, that is to say forming part, for C, of the
same plane of present time.

He then asks:
2AB/(t'_A - t_A) = c

Yes, that's right. Because noted with the same watch A.

We put t_B = t_A + (AB)/c but for WHO?

Still for C observing an electronic flash from A to B.

But this is not what A notes, it is not what B notes, nor is it what the
photon notes which notes t=0.

Bon, je vois que comme d'habitude, personne n'y comprend que pouic.

La notion d'anisochronie, que j'avais comprise à neuf ans restera un
profond mystère pour les génies de usenet.

On n'a pas fini d'en causer.

R.H.

[Python]

[snip garbage]
 t_B - t_A = t'_A - t_B
[snip more garbage]
He poses for the outward journey t(to go)= t_B - t_A
and for the return: t(return)=t'_A - t_B
But WHO measures this time? Is it A? No. Is it B? Neither.

You've still not read this part of Einstein paper?

Your question is pointless: all measured times here is
measure by a given clock for an event happening at this
very clock place!

t_A is the time marked by clock A when the light ray is emmitted.
t_B is the time marked by clock B when the light ray arrives
t'_A is the time marked by clock A when the return light ray arrives.

See? The question "measured by who" is stupid (it makes sense only
when remote clocks are involved, this is not the case here. Einstein
take much care about that in order to not rely on any arbitrary
synchronization scheme).

For any observer the time marked by a given clock when a given
event happens at the very same place of this clock is the SAME!

How can you cranks be thaaat stupid???

[Richard Hachel]

Post by Python
t_A is the time marked by clock A when the light ray is emmitted.

Je suis d'accord, t_A est l'heure indiquée quand le rayon est émis par
A.

Post by Python
t_B is the time marked by clock B when the light ray arrives

Magnifique.

t_B est l'heure indiquée par B quand le rayon arrive sur B.

Post by Python
t'_A is the time marked by clock A when the return light ray arrives.

t'_A est l'heure indiquée par A quand le retour de l'information arrive.

Python, tu es génial!

J'y avais pas pensé à ça.

En plus, tu expliques vachement bien. Je vais te proposer pour le Nobel.

Je crois que tu as loupé ta vocation, tu aurais pu faire un très grand
vulgarisateur scientifique.

Dommage que pour le reste, tu sois si bête.

R.H.

[Python]

Post by Python
t_A is the time marked by clock A when the light ray is emmitted.

Je suis d'accord, t_A est l'heure indiquée quand le rayon est émis par A.

Marked by A clock, you missed the crucial point.

Post by Python
t_B is the time marked by clock B when the light ray arrives > t_B est l'heure indiquée par B quand le rayon arrive sur B.

Marked by B clock, you, again, missed the point.

Post by Python
t'_A is the time marked by clock A when the return light ray arrives.

t'_A est l'heure indiquée par A quand le retour de l'information arrive.

Notice that this time it is marked by a clock at A.

[snip garbage]

You still fail to understand that there is no kind of C observer,
and that the POINT of the procedure is to only consider time marked
by clocks for events happening at the same time of the involved
clock.

We had the same discussion twenty years ago, go figure!!! And
still you didn't get the point.

How can you cranks be soooo stupid???

[Python]

Le 14/02/2024 à 20:07, Python a écrit :
...

Post by Python
You still fail to understand that there is no kind of C observer,
and that the POINT of the procedure is to only consider time marked
by clocks for events happening at the same time of the involved
clock.

typo: at the same *place*.

[Richard Hachel]

Post by Python

Post by Python
t_A is the time marked by clock A when the light ray is emmitted.

Je suis d'accord, t_A est l'heure indiquée quand le rayon est émis par A.

Marked by A clock, you missed the crucial point.

Bieeeeeen !!!

Post by Python

Post by Python
t_B is the time marked by clock B when the light ray arrives > t_B est l'heure
indiquée par B quand le rayon arrive sur B.

Marked by B clock, you, again, missed the point.

Bieeeeen !

Post by Python

Post by Python
t'_A is the time marked by clock A when the return light ray arrives.

t'_A est l'heure indiquée par A quand le retour de l'information arrive.

Notice that this time it is marked by a clock at A.

Bieeeeen !

Post by Python
You still fail to understand that there is no kind of C observer,
and that the POINT of the procedure is to only consider time marked
by clocks for events happening at the same time of the involved
clock.
We had the same discussion twenty years ago, go figure!!! And
still you didn't get the point.
How can you cranks be soooo stupid? ? ?

The opposite is more true.

We've been having this discussion for 20 or 30 years.
You are perfectly right.

Except it's YOU who says: "You don't understand me, you're a crank".

Do you really think I'm stupid enough not to understand what you're saying
to me?

Yes, yes, you're still really sick.

Of course yes, I understand Einstein's synchronization.

But I say it's bullshit.

Get that into your head and finally ask yourself the real question.

What python am I unable to understand in what Hachel has been saying for
40 years? and why can't I understand? Did this come from him? Is this
coming from me?”

Ask yourself the question first.

Uses Descartes' methodical doubt.

R.H.

[Python]

[snip garbage]
Do you really think I'm stupid enough not to understand what you're
saying to me?

You are. You've shown that you don't understand it. You're not
even trying because of stupidity AND hubris.

Of course yes, I understand Einstein's synchronization.

Definitely NOT. You've shown you do not by mentioning
your observer "C".

[Richard Hachel]

Post by Python

[snip garbage]
Do you really think I'm stupid enough not to understand what you're
saying to me?

You are. You've shown that you don't understand it. You're not
even trying because of stupidity AND hubris.

Of course yes, I understand Einstein's synchronization.

Definitely NOT. You've shown you do not by mentioning
your observer "C".

C'est toi qui ne comprends pas en quoi Einstein se trompe.

Il postule sans le dire qu'il existe dans son référentiel un plan du
temps présent absolu.

Il postule que si je me place en M (milieu de AB) et que j'envoie un
signal de même vitesse (qu'importe la vitesse)
en A et en B, alors A et B le recevront simultanément.

L'idée est fort simple, mais complétement fausse.

Seul un observateur placé à égale distance de A et B considèrera que
les deux signaux sont arrivés au même instant présent.

D'où l'observateur C nécessaire.

Idem pour le GPS basé sur un observateur C abstrait, mais fort utile.

Mais bon, je sais, tu t'en fous, ça ne t'intéresse pas.

Je sais tout ça.

R.H.

[Python]

Post by Richard Hachel

Post by Python

[snip garbage]
Do you really think I'm stupid enough not to understand what you're
saying to me?

You are. You've shown that you don't understand it. You're not
even trying because of stupidity AND hubris.

Of course yes, I understand Einstein's synchronization.

Definitely NOT. You've shown you do not by mentioning
your observer "C".

C'est toi qui ne comprends pas en quoi Einstein se trompe.
Il postule sans le dire qu'il existe dans son référentiel un plan du
temps présent absolu.
Il postule que si je me place en M (milieu de AB) et que j'envoie un
signal de même vitesse (qu'importe la vitesse) en A et en B, alors A et
B le recevront simultanément.

This is absolutely not how Einstein's synchronization procedure
is done.

Post by Richard Hachel
Idem pour le GPS basé sur un observateur C abstrait, mais fort utile.

This is also 100% wrong.

Post by Richard Hachel
Je sais tout ça.

You don't "know" that, because that is only stuff you made up.

[JanPB]

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Volney

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Volney

Post by Thomas Heger
I was actually a HYPOTHETICAL professor (in my role as writer of these
annotations).

No, you weren't. You don't have the qualifications to be a professor,
hypothetical or not. Self-awarded degrees/titles are worse than useless,
they are signs of crackpottery.

I am actually allowed to write a critique of anything I like.

There is a BIG difference between "allowed to" and "qualified to" do
something. You don't have the qualifications to be a professor

Post by Thomas Heger
This is one of the rules of science.
It does not require any kind of qualification or any kind of title to
critizise any theory you like, because any critique, from whereever it
might come, is valid.

You may write whatever garbage you wish to write. You are not qualified
to expect your writings to have any effect on science, or even have
anyone in science to look at them.

Post by Thomas Heger
And unless such critique is rejected on scientific grounds, it remains
valid.
You simply cannot dismiss an argument, because the one who wrote it
has not the appropriate title.

Sorry, qualifications are necessary to filter out crap. If the same
paper appears as a non peer reviewed post on Usenet authored by Joe
Schmo, Janitor vs. Dr. Schmo, PhD Physics in a peer reviewed document,
which source will be ignored vs. studied?

Post by Thomas Heger
But in case you like to disprove any of my annotations, you are welcome.
Simply download the file with my annotations (otherwise you can't read
the annotations), select one of them you regard as faulty and write,
what exactly is wrong with it.

I asked before for you to post the most blatant, outrageous, ridiculous,
obvious 'error' that you found to show us you can actually find real
errors. It was ignored. Of the ones anyone has looked at, they are all
simply your misunderstandings or not an error at all. Nobody is going to
wade through 428 misunderstandings of yours hoping to find an actual
error that somehow, nobody in the last 100+ years found.

Einstein made several serious errors.

He made no errors, let alone "serious" ones. He did commit a few instances of
sloppiness but then so does literally every single science paper that ever was.

Post by Thomas Heger
One was his method of synchronisation.
I receive a light signal, which originates from a remote clock and take
that signal as information about the remote time.
that signal does not contain the remote time, because light needs time
to travel. This discrepancy is called 'delay', but Einstein didn't
mention it with a single word.

I won't even comment on that. Besides, I have just posted an article explaining
in detail why clock synchronisation is actually an inessential part of special
relativity. The beef lies elsewhere.

Post by Thomas Heger
he ascribed the effects of motion to the moving object, while it is
actually an effect, which is only visible at the side of the observer.

Gobbledygook.

Post by Thomas Heger
Annoying were Einstein's naming conventions.
Especially annoying were the reuse of variable names and the lack of
definitions of used symbols.

No, his usage of symbols is standard.

Post by Thomas Heger
Seriously unscientific were the lack references to the used materials.

This was normal at the time. Go to the library and leaf through the issues of
Annalen der Physik for the years around 1905 and you'll find many papers there
with no references in them. It just wasn't a big thing at the time.

Post by Thomas Heger
Especially missing were quotes or references to Poincaré and Heinrich Hertz.

Not needed (see above). The paper was written for professionals, not students.

Post by Thomas Heger
Also the quotes from Hertz were not verbatim, because Hertz used total
derivatives and Einstein partial (in an apparently quoted equation).

Again, I won't EVEN comment on that. Bottomless incompetence on your part.


Stop wasting your time on this "project". Your document is 100% nonsense.

--
Jan

[Thomas Heger]

Post by JanPB

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Volney

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Volney

Post by Thomas Heger
I was actually a HYPOTHETICAL professor (in my role as writer of these
annotations).

No, you weren't. You don't have the qualifications to be a professor,
hypothetical or not. Self-awarded degrees/titles are worse than useless,
they are signs of crackpottery.

I am actually allowed to write a critique of anything I like.

There is a BIG difference between "allowed to" and "qualified to" do
something. You don't have the qualifications to be a professor

Post by Thomas Heger
This is one of the rules of science.
It does not require any kind of qualification or any kind of title to
critizise any theory you like, because any critique, from whereever it
might come, is valid.

You may write whatever garbage you wish to write. You are not qualified
to expect your writings to have any effect on science, or even have
anyone in science to look at them.

Post by Thomas Heger
And unless such critique is rejected on scientific grounds, it remains
valid.
You simply cannot dismiss an argument, because the one who wrote it
has not the appropriate title.

Sorry, qualifications are necessary to filter out crap. If the same
paper appears as a non peer reviewed post on Usenet authored by Joe
Schmo, Janitor vs. Dr. Schmo, PhD Physics in a peer reviewed document,
which source will be ignored vs. studied?

Post by Thomas Heger
But in case you like to disprove any of my annotations, you are welcome.
Simply download the file with my annotations (otherwise you can't read
the annotations), select one of them you regard as faulty and write,
what exactly is wrong with it.

I asked before for you to post the most blatant, outrageous, ridiculous,
obvious 'error' that you found to show us you can actually find real
errors. It was ignored. Of the ones anyone has looked at, they are all
simply your misunderstandings or not an error at all. Nobody is going to
wade through 428 misunderstandings of yours hoping to find an actual
error that somehow, nobody in the last 100+ years found.

Einstein made several serious errors.

He made no errors, let alone "serious" ones. He did commit a few instances of
sloppiness but then so does literally every single science paper that ever was.

Post by Thomas Heger
One was his method of synchronisation.
I receive a light signal, which originates from a remote clock and
take that signal as information about the remote time.
that signal does not contain the remote time, because light needs time
to travel. This discrepancy is called 'delay', but Einstein didn't
mention it with a single word.

I won't even comment on that. Besides, I have just posted an article explaining
in detail why clock synchronisation is actually an inessential part of special
relativity. The beef lies elsewhere.

Post by Thomas Heger
he ascribed the effects of motion to the moving object, while it is
actually an effect, which is only visible at the side of the observer.

Gobbledygook.

Post by Thomas Heger
Annoying were Einstein's naming conventions.
Especially annoying were the reuse of variable names and the lack of
definitions of used symbols.

No, his usage of symbols is standard.

Einstein's variable names were EXTREMELY annoying!

For instance:
he had eight different uses of the letter 'A'.

He also defined something, like the axes mof system k (named with large
Greek letters), but didn't use that definition and used large Latin
letters in the text instead.

Also illogic where the names themselves. E.g. I had not understood, why
he didn't use indices to adress different motions, but ' (prime).

He also used no different symbols for different types of mathematical
objects (like: vectors and scalars /functions and values/ cordinate
values and axes names). Different type of objects (like e.g. function
names) should be made distinguishable from values or vectors.

He also used non-standard names like e.g. P for preassure or A_m for
'power of deflection' (whatever that is).

In all cases he wrote no proper definitions and simply expected the
reader to know his intentions.

He also wrote equations, but no description, what these equations shall
express.

To make matters worse, he also changed the type of object occasionally
without notice.

For instance the speed of light is a scalar value, while velocity is a
vector quantity. If you subtract c from v, you implicitly convert v to a
scalar.

These are all very nasty habits and definetely not standard in science.

...


TH

[Paul B. Andersen]

Post by Thomas Heger
Einstein's variable names were EXTREMELY annoying!
he had eight different uses of the letter 'A'.

What is the single not annoying use of the letter 'A' ?

[Thomas Heger]

Post by Paul B. Andersen

Post by Thomas Heger
Einstein's variable names were EXTREMELY annoying!
he had eight different uses of the letter 'A'.

What is the single not annoying use of the letter 'A' ?

Many letters have different uses in physics.

This is perfectly ok.

But it is not ok to use the same symbol for different purposes within a
single text.

Einstein had to decide, what use he wanted for -say- the symbol 'A'.

E.g. 'Area' is a common use or 'amplitude'.

But both uses within a single text are wrong, because it is not possible
to know, which particular meaning a symbol in an equation has, if both
meanings use the same symbol.

But Einstein gave this another kick and used the same symbol twice with
different meanings within a single sentence.

This is not really wrong, because it is actually possible to decipher
the text. But it is fantastically rude.


TH

[Paul B. Andersen]

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Thomas Heger
Einstein's variable names were EXTREMELY annoying!
he had eight different uses of the letter 'A'.

In §1 the symbol 'A' is explicitly defined: "the point A of space",
and this is the only meaning of 'A' in §1 to and including §5.

In §6 the symbol 'A' is not used.

In §7 the symbol 'A' is explicitly defined:
"we call the amplitude of the electric or magnetic force A"
and this is the only meaning of 'A' in §7 to and including §10.

The numbering of an equation (A) is not another use of the symbol 'A'.

This is two well defined uses of the letter 'A' used to identify
a physical or mathematical entity.

Can you name the other six?

Post by Thomas Heger
But both uses within a single text are wrong, because it is not possible
to know, which particular meaning a symbol in an equation has, if both
meanings use the same symbol.
But Einstein gave this another kick and used the same symbol twice with
different meanings within a single sentence.

Can you quote the sentence in question?

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Post by Paul B. Andersen

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Thomas Heger
Einstein's variable names were EXTREMELY annoying!
he had eight different uses of the letter 'A'.

In §1 the symbol 'A' is explicitly defined: "the point A of space",
and this is the only meaning of 'A' in §1 to and including §5.
In §6 the symbol 'A' is not used.
"we call the amplitude of the electric or magnetic force A"
and this is the only meaning of 'A' in §7 to and including §10.
The numbering of an equation (A) is not another use of the symbol 'A'.
This is two well defined uses of the letter 'A' used to identify
a physical or mathematical entity.
Can you name the other six?

Post by Thomas Heger
But both uses within a single text are wrong, because it is not
possible to know, which particular meaning a symbol in an equation has,
if both meanings use the same symbol.
But Einstein gave this another kick and used the same symbol twice with
different meanings within a single sentence.

Can you quote the sentence in question?

I once -- consciously and deliberately -- used the same symbol i with
two meanings in the same equation, both as an index, as the ith of n
observations, and as an inhibitor concentration. As both meanings were
standard, and no one (except perhaps Thomas Heger, if he happened to
read it) would be confused, I thought it best to keep the equation as
it was. Nonetheless, I put a footnote saying what I was doing.

[Paul B. Andersen]

Post by Paul B. Andersen

Post by Thomas Heger
Einstein's variable names were EXTREMELY annoying!
he had eight different uses of the letter 'A'.

https://paulba.no/paper/Electrodynamics.pdf

Post by Paul B. Andersen
In §1 the symbol 'A' is explicitly defined: "the point A of space",
and this is the only meaning of 'A' in §1 to and including §5.
  "we call the amplitude of the electric or magnetic force A"
and this is the only meaning of 'A' in §7 to and including §10.

'A' is an ASCII character and actually a very short text.
To use it as a symbol, for instance as name of a variable, you need to
connect text and variable by a definition.

Quite. Like this::
In §1 the symbol 'A' is explicitly defined: "the point A of space",
and this is the only meaning of 'A' in §1 to and including §5.

In §7 the symbol 'A' is explicitly defined:
"we call the amplitude of the electric or magnetic force A"
and this is the only meaning of 'A' in §7 to and including §10.

For instance you could write, that 'A' shall contain the value of a
certain area.
But Einstein didn't do that.

You don't read what you are responding to, do you?

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Post by Paul B. Andersen
[ … ]
Can you quote the sentence in question?

page 22, roughly in the middle
"We will now determine the kinetic energy of the electron. If an
electron moves from rest at the origin of co-ordinates of the system K
along the axis of X under the action of an electrostatic force X, ..."

Is this your translation? Is "the axis of X" what is normally called
the x-axis in English? Maybe you could quote it in German so that
someone who knows more German than I do can comment. Anyway, I agree
that calling the abscissa axis the x-axis is not ideal, but it's very
commonly done. In that case X is not a variable.

I disliked already the used of 'force' for electrical field strength.
But anyhow...
'X' is here the x-component of the electric field-strength vector and
called 'X'
'X' is also the name of the x-axis of system K.
Therefore we have twice the symbol 'X' in the same sentence (actually
also in the same line), but with two different meanings.
It is not really wrong, but VERY bad writing style.
At least Einstein could have made different types of symbols
distinguishable by attributes like italic or bold fonts.
TH

[Thomas Heger]

Post by Paul B. Andersen
[ … ]
Can you quote the sentence in question?

page 22, roughly in the middle
"We will now determine the kinetic energy of the electron. If an
electron moves from rest at the origin of co-ordinates of the system K
along the axis of X under the action of an electrostatic force X, ..."

Is this your translation? Is "the axis of X" what is normally called the
x-axis in English? Maybe you could quote it in German so that someone
who knows more German than I do can comment. Anyway, I agree that
calling the abscissa axis the x-axis is not ideal, but it's very
commonly done. In that case X is not a variable.

I'm actually critizising a certain text, not the work of Einstein per se.

So, my topic is this particular English translation.

I take the text as homework of a student (in phyics in this case) and
write annotations, like a (hypothetical) professor would do that.

This is more or less an exercise and a learning method and does not deal
with the actual author, but with a certain text.

My aim was, to find absolutely all errors and not to make any false
accusations.

This is quite difficult and that's why it is such a good learning method.

In this context I had critizised the prase 'axis of X', because 'X' was
already the name of the x-axis of system K.
...

TH

[Mikko]

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Paul B. Andersen
[ … ]
Can you quote the sentence in question?

page 22, roughly in the middle
"We will now determine the kinetic energy of the electron. If an
electron moves from rest at the origin of co-ordinates of the system K
along the axis of X under the action of an electrostatic force X, ..."

Is this your translation? Is "the axis of X" what is normally called the
x-axis in English? Maybe you could quote it in German so that someone
who knows more German than I do can comment. Anyway, I agree that
calling the abscissa axis the x-axis is not ideal, but it's very
commonly done. In that case X is not a variable.

I'm actually critizising a certain text, not the work of Einstein per se.
So, my topic is this particular English translation.

When a real professor evaluates a translation the main criterion is
whether the translation preseves the meaning of the text.

[Python]

Post by Mikko

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Paul B. Andersen
[ … ]
Can you quote the sentence in question?

page 22, roughly in the middle
"We will now determine the kinetic energy of the electron. If an
electron moves from rest at the origin of co-ordinates of the system K
along the axis of X under the action of an electrostatic force X, ..."

Is this your translation? Is "the axis of X" what is normally called the
x-axis in English? Maybe you could quote it in German so that someone
who knows more German than I do can comment. Anyway, I agree that
calling the abscissa axis the x-axis is not ideal, but it's very
commonly done. In that case X is not a variable.

I'm actually critizising a certain text, not the work of Einstein per se.
So, my topic is this particular English translation.

When a real professor evaluates a translation the main criterion is
whether the translation preseves the meaning of the text.

Anyway this kinda sloppy translation is not quite a big deal, there
is absolutely no ambiguity. Moreover Heger was pretending that "A"
was used with two different meanings in a single sentence, not "X",
so he is blatantly lying (again).

The point is still that the way misinterpret part I.1. in Einstein's
article is properly ridiculous. At first he didn't get that both clocks
A and B were mutually at rest (it comes from... the very title of the
whole paragraph), then he fantasized about clocks on Alpha Centaury
using alien units and mechanism, while Einstein specified that both
clocks were identical in all aspects. He persists, though, to consider
that this part of the article is about clocks separated by interstellar
distances while it is obviously about clocks involved in different part
of a experiment in a hypothetical lab.

And, worse, while Einstein never wrote that the time label of a distant
event should be the time marked by a clock at that event position when
the event happens (i.e. "no delay") he persists to affirm that this is
the case even if the two equations in this part directly imply that
the light propagation delay is taken into account.

The absence of the word "delay" is far to subtle for him to grasp:
you cannot talk about a delay (outside of a round-trip time) between
two separated events if you do not define how clocks at these places
are synchronized, which is the very point of the paragraph which
start with a round-trip delay.

Heger cannot admit he is not a member of the audience of such an
article. He chokes on the most basic stuff.

And, as most cranks down here, he is not only stupid and stubborn,
he also has no intellectual integrity.

[Mikko]

Post by Python

Post by Mikko

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Paul B. Andersen
[ … ]
Can you quote the sentence in question?

page 22, roughly in the middle
"We will now determine the kinetic energy of the electron. If an
electron moves from rest at the origin of co-ordinates of the system K
along the axis of X under the action of an electrostatic force X, ..."

Is this your translation? Is "the axis of X" what is normally called the
x-axis in English? Maybe you could quote it in German so that someone
who knows more German than I do can comment. Anyway, I agree that
calling the abscissa axis the x-axis is not ideal, but it's very
commonly done. In that case X is not a variable.

I'm actually critizising a certain text, not the work of Einstein per se.
So, my topic is this particular English translation.

When a real professor evaluates a translation the main criterion is
whether the translation preseves the meaning of the text.

Anyway this kinda sloppy translation is not quite a big deal, there
is absolutely no ambiguity. Moreover Heger was pretending that "A"
was used with two different meanings in a single sentence, not "X",
so he is blatantly lying (again).

The symbol A is indeed used in several different meanings but the
meaning is always specified. But Heger also claimed (falsely) that

Post by Python

Post by Mikko

Post by Thomas Heger
But Einstein gave this another kick and used the same symbol twice with
different meanings within a single sentence.

Can you quote the sentence in question?

page 22, roughly in the middle
"We will now determine the kinetic energy of the electron. If an
electron moves from rest at the origin of co-ordinates of the system K
along the axis of X under the action of an electrostatic force X, ..."

In Einstein's text "X-Achse" is clearly different from plain "X".

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Post by Mikko

Post by Python

Post by Mikko

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Paul B. Andersen
[ … ]
Can you quote the sentence in question?

page 22, roughly in the middle
"We will now determine the kinetic energy of the electron. If an
electron moves from rest at the origin of co-ordinates of the system K
along the axis of X under the action of an electrostatic force X, ..."

Is this your translation? Is "the axis of X" what is normally called the
x-axis in English? Maybe you could quote it in German so that someone
who knows more German than I do can comment. Anyway, I agree that
calling the abscissa axis the x-axis is not ideal, but it's very
commonly done. In that case X is not a variable.

I'm actually critizising a certain text, not the work of Einstein per se.
So, my topic is this particular English translation.

That's the first time you've claimed that, I think. If it's true, why
do you keep writing "Einstein" when you mean someone else?

Post by Mikko

Post by Python

Post by Mikko
When a real professor evaluates a translation the main criterion is
whether the translation preseves the meaning of the text.

Anyway this kinda sloppy translation is not quite a big deal, there
is absolutely no ambiguity. Moreover Heger was pretending that "A"
was used with two different meanings in a single sentence, not "X",
so he is blatantly lying (again).

The symbol A is indeed used in several different meanings but the
meaning is always specified. But Heger also claimed (falsely) that

Post by Python

Post by Mikko

Post by Thomas Heger
But Einstein gave this another kick and used the same symbol twice with
different meanings within a single sentence.

Can you quote the sentence in question?

page 22, roughly in the middle
"We will now determine the kinetic energy of the electron. If an
electron moves from rest at the origin of co-ordinates of the system K
along the axis of X under the action of an electrostatic force X, ..."

In Einstein's text "X-Achse" is clearly different from plain "X".

[Python]

Post by Mikko

Post by Python

Post by Mikko

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Paul B. Andersen
[ … ]
Can you quote the sentence in question?

page 22, roughly in the middle
"We will now determine the kinetic energy of the electron. If an
electron moves from rest at the origin of co-ordinates of the system K
along the axis of X under the action of an electrostatic force X, ..."

Is this your translation? Is "the axis of X" what is normally called the
x-axis in English? Maybe you could quote it in German so that someone
who knows more German than I do can comment. Anyway, I agree that
calling the abscissa axis the x-axis is not ideal, but it's very
commonly done. In that case X is not a variable.

I'm actually critizising a certain text, not the work of Einstein per se.
So, my topic is this particular English translation.

When a real professor evaluates a translation the main criterion is
whether the translation preseves the meaning of the text.

Anyway this kinda sloppy translation is not quite a big deal, there
is absolutely no ambiguity. Moreover Heger was pretending that "A"
was used with two different meanings in a single sentence, not "X",
so he is blatantly lying (again).

The symbol A is indeed used in several different meanings but the
meaning is always specified. But Heger also claimed (falsely) that

Post by Python

Post by Mikko

Post by Thomas Heger
But Einstein gave this another kick and used the same symbol twice with
different meanings within a single sentence.

Can you quote the sentence in question?

page 22, roughly in the middle
"We will now determine the kinetic energy of the electron. If an
electron moves from rest at the origin of co-ordinates of the system K
along the axis of X under the action of an electrostatic force X, ..."

In Einstein's text "X-Achse" is clearly different from plain "X".

Definitely.

[Thomas Heger]

Post by Python

Post by Mikko

Post by Python

Post by Mikko

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Paul B. Andersen
[ … ]
Can you quote the sentence in question?

page 22, roughly in the middle
"We will now determine the kinetic energy of the electron. If an
electron moves from rest at the origin of co-ordinates of the system K
along the axis of X under the action of an electrostatic force X, ..."

Is this your translation? Is "the axis of X" what is normally called the
x-axis in English? Maybe you could quote it in German so that someone
who knows more German than I do can comment. Anyway, I agree that
calling the abscissa axis the x-axis is not ideal, but it's very
commonly done. In that case X is not a variable.

I'm actually critizising a certain text, not the work of Einstein per se.
So, my topic is this particular English translation.

When a real professor evaluates a translation the main criterion is
whether the translation preseves the meaning of the text.

Anyway this kinda sloppy translation is not quite a big deal, there
is absolutely no ambiguity. Moreover Heger was pretending that "A"
was used with two different meanings in a single sentence, not "X",
so he is blatantly lying (again).

The symbol A is indeed used in several different meanings but the
meaning is always specified. But Heger also claimed (falsely) that

Post by Python

Post by Mikko

Post by Thomas Heger
But Einstein gave this another kick and used the same symbol twice with
different meanings within a single sentence.

Can you quote the sentence in question?

page 22, roughly in the middle
"We will now determine the kinetic energy of the electron. If an
electron moves from rest at the origin of co-ordinates of the system
K along the axis of X under the action of an electrostatic force X, ..."

In Einstein's text "X-Achse" is clearly different from plain "X".

Definitely.

the 'x-Achse' had a name, which was 'X'.

(with a capital 'X').

The values (coordinates) along that axis had a variable-name, too, which
was 'x' in this case.

The difference is important, because it is important to distinguish
between the coordinate system itself and coordinates.

In Einstein's text the system K had latin letters.

The axes had the names: X, Y, Z

the values along those axes had the names: x, y, z

In system k, the axes were named with tall Greek letters (Xsi, Eta,
Zeta) and the values with small Greek letters (xsi, eta, zeta).

This naming system was rather annoying, but was more or less ok.


The problems came, when Einstein used the letters X,Y,Z also as
variables in the electric field strength vector.

He called this 'force' and used such a vector: (X, Y, Z).

Here he created an ambiguity between the name of an axis of coordinate
system K and a component of an electric field-strength vector.

To make matters worse, he used both meanings within a single sentence:

"...along the axis of X under the action of an electrostatic force X, ..."

This was comically twisted, because 'axis of X' was already an error
(correct would be: 'x-axis' or simply 'X').


TH

[Mikko]

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Python

Post by Mikko

Post by Python

Post by Mikko

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Paul B. Andersen
[ … ]
Can you quote the sentence in question?

page 22, roughly in the middle
"We will now determine the kinetic energy of the electron. If an
electron moves from rest at the origin of co-ordinates of the system K
along the axis of X under the action of an electrostatic force X, ..."

Is this your translation? Is "the axis of X" what is normally called the
x-axis in English? Maybe you could quote it in German so that someone
who knows more German than I do can comment. Anyway, I agree that
calling the abscissa axis the x-axis is not ideal, but it's very
commonly done. In that case X is not a variable.

I'm actually critizising a certain text, not the work of Einstein per se.
So, my topic is this particular English translation.

When a real professor evaluates a translation the main criterion is
whether the translation preseves the meaning of the text.

Anyway this kinda sloppy translation is not quite a big deal, there
is absolutely no ambiguity. Moreover Heger was pretending that "A"
was used with two different meanings in a single sentence, not "X",
so he is blatantly lying (again).

The symbol A is indeed used in several different meanings but the
meaning is always specified. But Heger also claimed (falsely) that

Post by Python

Post by Mikko

Post by Thomas Heger
But Einstein gave this another kick and used the same symbol twice with
different meanings within a single sentence.

Can you quote the sentence in question?

page 22, roughly in the middle
"We will now determine the kinetic energy of the electron. If an
electron moves from rest at the origin of co-ordinates of the system
K along the axis of X under the action of an electrostatic force X, ..."

In Einstein's text "X-Achse" is clearly different from plain "X".

Definitely.

the 'x-Achse' had a name,

True.

Post by Thomas Heger
which was 'X'.

No, its name was "X-Achse", and still is.

[Python]

Post by Python

Post by Mikko
whether the translation preseves the meaning of the text.

Anyway this kinda sloppy

Oh, stinker Python is opening its muzzle again,
and trying again to pretend he knows something.
Tell me, poor stinker, have you already learnt what a function is?

I can teach that to you, $50/hour. Consider that a lot of
hours would be needed, given your issues with basic logic.

[Thomas Heger]

Post by Python

Post by Mikko

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Paul B. Andersen
[ … ]
Can you quote the sentence in question?

page 22, roughly in the middle
"We will now determine the kinetic energy of the electron. If an
electron moves from rest at the origin of co-ordinates of the system K
along the axis of X under the action of an electrostatic force X, ..."

Is this your translation? Is "the axis of X" what is normally called the
x-axis in English? Maybe you could quote it in German so that someone
who knows more German than I do can comment. Anyway, I agree that
calling the abscissa axis the x-axis is not ideal, but it's very
commonly done. In that case X is not a variable.

I'm actually critizising a certain text, not the work of Einstein per se.
So, my topic is this particular English translation.

When a real professor evaluates a translation the main criterion is
whether the translation preseves the meaning of the text.

Anyway this kinda sloppy translation is not quite a big deal, there
is absolutely no ambiguity. Moreover Heger was pretending that "A"
was used with two different meanings in a single sentence, not "X",
so he is blatantly lying (again).
The point is still that the way misinterpret part I.1. in Einstein's
article is properly ridiculous. At first he didn't get that both clocks
A and B were mutually at rest (it comes from... the very title of the
whole paragraph), then he fantasized about clocks on Alpha Centaury
using alien units and mechanism, while Einstein specified that both
clocks were identical in all aspects. He persists, though, to consider
that this part of the article is about clocks separated by interstellar
distances while it is obviously about clocks involved in different part
of a experiment in a hypothetical lab.
And, worse, while Einstein never wrote that the time label of a distant
event should be the time marked by a clock at that event position when
the event happens (i.e. "no delay") he persists to affirm that this is
the case even if the two equations in this part directly imply that
the light propagation delay is taken into account.
you cannot talk about a delay (outside of a round-trip time) between
two separated events if you do not define how clocks at these places
are synchronized, which is the very point of the paragraph which
start with a round-trip delay.

Actually Einstein wrote his paper, as if he wanted to ignore the delay
or simply forgot to take it into consideration.

This is so, because Einstein had the idea, that clocks at different
places show a different time (within the same frame of reference).

This would only make sense, if he had the plan to ignore the delay
caused by the transit of the signal.

IMHO is this the opnly possible interpretation of this part:
(page 3)

"Thus with the help of certain imaginary physical experiments we have
settled what is to be understood by synchronous stationary clocks
located at different places, and have evidently obtained a definition of
“simultaneous,” or “synchronous,” and of “time.” The “time” of an event
is that which is given simultaneously with the event by a stationary
clock located at the place of the event, this clock being synchronous,
and indeed synchronous for all time determinations, with a specified
stationary clock."

So, apparently Einstein wanted to make time dependent of the location
(within a single frame of reference).

But time in locations that are stationary in respect to the coordinate
system in question and in respect to the observer should have the same
time, because 'frame of reference' means a combination of a time measure
and a coordinate system, hence should not use different times for
stationary points within that FoR.

But apparently Einstein had a different idea and wanted to assigne
different time measures to different places.

This in turn would only make sense, if he wanted to ignore the delay and
take the apparent time without compensation of the delay as remote time.

E.g.:

the delay from Moon to Earth is roughly a second.
A HUGE clock on the Moon would show (for instance) 1:00:00 p.m.

This clock is seen from Earth and shows 1:00:00 p.m.

What is the correct time on the Moon?

it is, of course 1:00:01 p.m., because that one second delay is not
caused by a different time on the Moon, but by the delay.

But Einstein seemingly wanted 1:00:00 p.m. to be 'Moon-time', if
1:00:00 p.m. is seen (hence ignored the delay).

TH

[Mikko]

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Python

Post by Mikko

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Paul B. Andersen
[ … ]
Can you quote the sentence in question?

page 22, roughly in the middle
"We will now determine the kinetic energy of the electron. If an
electron moves from rest at the origin of co-ordinates of the system K
along the axis of X under the action of an electrostatic force X, ..."

Is this your translation? Is "the axis of X" what is normally called the
x-axis in English? Maybe you could quote it in German so that someone
who knows more German than I do can comment. Anyway, I agree that
calling the abscissa axis the x-axis is not ideal, but it's very
commonly done. In that case X is not a variable.

I'm actually critizising a certain text, not the work of Einstein per se.
So, my topic is this particular English translation.

When a real professor evaluates a translation the main criterion is
whether the translation preseves the meaning of the text.

Anyway this kinda sloppy translation is not quite a big deal, there
is absolutely no ambiguity. Moreover Heger was pretending that "A"
was used with two different meanings in a single sentence, not "X",
so he is blatantly lying (again).
The point is still that the way misinterpret part I.1. in Einstein's
article is properly ridiculous. At first he didn't get that both clocks
A and B were mutually at rest (it comes from... the very title of the
whole paragraph), then he fantasized about clocks on Alpha Centaury
using alien units and mechanism, while Einstein specified that both
clocks were identical in all aspects. He persists, though, to consider
that this part of the article is about clocks separated by interstellar
distances while it is obviously about clocks involved in different part
of a experiment in a hypothetical lab.
And, worse, while Einstein never wrote that the time label of a distant
event should be the time marked by a clock at that event position when
the event happens (i.e. "no delay") he persists to affirm that this is
the case even if the two equations in this part directly imply that
the light propagation delay is taken into account.
you cannot talk about a delay (outside of a round-trip time) between
two separated events if you do not define how clocks at these places
are synchronized, which is the very point of the paragraph which
start with a round-trip delay.

Actually Einstein wrote his paper, as if he wanted to ignore the delay
or simply forgot to take it into consideration.

So you say but the truth is different.

[MaciejWozniak]

Post by Thomas Heger
Actually Einstein wrote his paper, as if he wanted to ignore the delay
or simply forgot to take it into consideration.
This is so, because Einstein had the idea, that clocks at different
places show a different time (within the same frame of reference).
This would only make sense, if he had the plan to ignore the delay
caused by the transit of the signal.

From whence do you get the weird idea that Einstein ignored
the transit time of a light beam?
Please read the following carefully.
====================================
Below I show how two real clocks in the real world can be
synchronised, strictly according to Einstein's method.

You only believe that The Holiest Procedure
is somehow usable in the real world - because
you have no contact with the real wold.
Your gedankenland has replaced the reality
in your tiny, fanatic halfbrain. It happens.

[Python]

Post by MaciejWozniak

Post by Thomas Heger
Actually Einstein wrote his paper, as if he wanted to ignore the
delay or simply forgot to take it into consideration.
This is so, because Einstein had the idea, that clocks at different
places show a different time (within the same frame of reference).
This would only make sense, if he had the plan to ignore the delay
caused by the transit of the signal.

 From whence do you get the weird idea that Einstein ignored
the transit time of a light beam?
Please read the following carefully.
====================================
Below I show how two real clocks in the real world can be
synchronised, strictly according to Einstein's method.

You only believe that The Holiest Procedure
is somehow usable in the real world - because
you have no contact with the real wold.

It is actually usable. You've never put a foot in a real
lab, have you Maciej?

Post by MaciejWozniak
Your gedankenland has replaced the reality
in your tiny, fanatic halfbrain. It happens.

I noticed that you've stopped posting your nonsensical
rants on early mornings for quite a few weeks. Are nurses
in your psychiatric ward restraining you in your bed?

[Thomas Heger]

Post by Mikko

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Paul B. Andersen
[ … ]
Can you quote the sentence in question?

page 22, roughly in the middle
"We will now determine the kinetic energy of the electron. If an
electron moves from rest at the origin of co-ordinates of the system K
along the axis of X under the action of an electrostatic force X, ..."

Is this your translation? Is "the axis of X" what is normally called the
x-axis in English? Maybe you could quote it in German so that someone
who knows more German than I do can comment. Anyway, I agree that
calling the abscissa axis the x-axis is not ideal, but it's very
commonly done. In that case X is not a variable.

I'm actually critizising a certain text, not the work of Einstein per se.
So, my topic is this particular English translation.

When a real professor evaluates a translation the main criterion is
whether the translation preseves the meaning of the text.

I'm, of course, not a real professor and my aim was not to evaluate a
translation.

My aim was to find absolutely all errors in this text (in the English
translation).


Therefore, I had only a limited scope and the German version was not
part of it.

I had, however, mentioned the German text a few times. But in general I
didn't want to compare both versions or find errrors in the translation.


I also didn't want to discuss relativity per se or the validity of the
pyhsical content of this paper.

It's pointless, anyhow, because a paper with 400+ errors in it could
hardly be used for anything of practical value.



TH

[Volney]

Post by Thomas Heger
It's pointless, anyhow, because a paper with 400+ errors in it could
hardly be used for anything of practical value.

Fortunately, Einstein's paper doesn't have 400+ errors. Or any errors,
for that matter.

[MaciejWozniak]

Post by Volney

Post by Thomas Heger
It's pointless, anyhow, because a paper with 400+ errors in it could
hardly be used for anything of practical value.

Fortunately, Einstein's paper doesn't have 400+ errors. Or any errors,
for that matter.

The mumble of your idiot guru was not even consistent,
stupid Mike, you've got a direct proof and your peans
to his next to infinite wisdom are not going to
change that.

[Preston Voß von Grimmelshausen]

Post by Volney

Post by Thomas Heger
It's pointless, anyhow, because a paper with 400+ errors in it could
hardly be used for anything of practical value.

Fortunately, Einstein's paper doesn't have 400+ errors. Or any errors,
for that matter.

'𝗥𝘂𝘀𝘀𝗼𝗽𝗵𝗼𝗯𝗶𝗰_𝗨𝗦_𝗘𝗹𝗶𝘁𝗲'_𝗦𝗼𝘂𝗴𝗵𝘁_𝘁𝗼_𝗪𝗲𝗮𝗸𝗲𝗻_𝗥𝘂𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗮_𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵_𝗘𝘂𝗿𝗼𝗺𝗮𝗶𝗱𝗮𝗻,_'𝗕𝘂𝘁_𝗙𝗮𝗶𝗹𝗲𝗱'_-_𝗘𝘅-𝗠𝗘𝗣
https://sputnikglobe.com/20240218/russophobic-us-elite-sought-to-weaken-russia-with-euromaidan-but-failed---ex-mep-1116842866.html
On the 10th anniversary of the events in Ukraine known as the Euromaidan (lit. "Euro Square") unrest, which eventually resulted in a coup and the ouster of then-President Viktor Yanukovych, a Spanish politician has shared his opinion on how the EU allowed itself to be drawn into the existing crisis 𝗳𝗼𝗿_𝘁𝗵𝗲_𝘀𝗮𝗸𝗲_𝗼𝗳_𝗨𝗦_𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘁𝘀.

𝗣𝘂𝘁𝗶𝗻_𝗦𝗮𝘆𝘀_𝗖𝘂𝗿𝗿𝗲𝗻𝘁_𝗚𝗲𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗻_𝗣𝗼𝗹𝗶𝗰𝗶𝗲𝘀_𝗖𝗮𝘂𝘀𝗲_'𝗘𝗻𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗼𝘂𝘀'_𝗗𝗮𝗺𝗮𝗴𝗲_𝘁𝗼_𝗚𝗲𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗻_𝗘𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗼𝗺𝘆
https://sputnikglobe.com/20240218/putin-says-current-german-policies-cause-enormous-damage-to-german-economy-1116856473.html

𝗨𝗞_𝗕𝗲𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗱_𝗔𝘁𝘁𝗮𝗰𝗸_𝗼𝗻_𝗥𝘂𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗮𝗻_𝗜𝗟-76_𝗪𝗶𝘁𝗵_𝗨𝗸𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗶𝗮𝗻_𝗣𝗢𝗪𝘀_-_𝗦𝗼𝘂𝗿𝗰𝗲
https://sputnikglobe.com/20240218/uk-behind-attack-on-russian-il-76-with-ukrainian-pows---source-1116854726.html

𝗨𝗸𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗲_𝗔𝗱𝗼𝗽𝘁𝘀_𝗧𝗮𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗰_𝗨𝘀𝗲𝗱_𝗯𝘆_𝗚𝗲𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗻_𝗡𝗮𝘇𝗶𝘀_𝗶𝗻_𝗪𝗪𝗜𝗜_-_𝗥𝗲𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁
https://sputnikglobe.com/20240217/did-nazi-that-coming-ukraine-adopts-tactic-used-by-german-nazis-in-wwii-1116850863.html

[Mikko]

Post by Thomas Heger
I'm, of course, not a real professor and my aim was not to evaluate a
translation.

If you only look at the translation you cannot evaluate anything else.

Anyway, it does not matter what your purpose was as you have already
demonstrated that you cannot acieve it.

[Royal Iñíguez Ortega]

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Mikko
When a real professor evaluates a translation the main criterion is
whether the translation preseves the meaning of the text.

I'm, of course, not a real professor and my aim was not to evaluate a
translation. My aim was to find absolutely all errors in this text (in
the English translation).

hey listen, if you name Einstine in a documentary, for absolutely no
reason, you monthly income is safe. Which indicates the scientists in
amrica are not stupid. This is one more proof for Einstine.

like also, as it was suspected, you can escape jail in amrica, because
stupidity, but not being stupid enough to remain a "president". The man is
most likely faking his stupidity to escape prison, for fuck sake. Like
Einstine marring his cousin. With which he was sleeping in bed.


https://th%65%70eopl%65%73%76oice.tv/

𝗨𝗦_𝗧𝗮𝘅𝗽𝗮𝘆𝗲𝗿𝘀’_𝗠𝗼𝗻𝗲𝘆_𝗨𝘀𝗲𝗱_𝗧𝗼_𝗙𝘂𝗻𝗱_𝗥𝗲𝘀𝗲𝗮𝗿𝗰𝗵_𝗜𝗻𝘁𝗼_𝗧𝗿𝗮𝘀𝗵_𝗙𝗲𝗱_𝗖𝗿𝗶𝗰𝗸𝗲𝘁𝘀_𝗳𝗼𝗿_𝗛𝘂𝗺𝗮𝗻_𝗖𝗼𝗻𝘀𝘂𝗺𝗽𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻
The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) is funding research into trash-
derived cricket feed. The agency has allocated $130,000 in federal funds
to support research into cultivating crickets, that have been fed
municipal landfill waste, as […]

𝗔𝗺𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗰𝗮’𝘀_𝗙𝗶𝗿𝘀𝘁_15_𝗠𝗶𝗻𝘂𝘁𝗲_𝗖𝗶𝘁𝘆_𝗖𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗱_𝗜𝗻_𝗧𝗲𝗺𝗽𝗲,_𝗔𝗿𝗶𝘇𝗼𝗻𝗮
A Tempe, Arizona, neighborhood called Culdesac is the first community in
the nation to be designed around car-free living. Culdesac is being
described as America’s first example of a“15-minute city” – a vision
promoted by […]

𝗭𝗲𝗹𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗸𝘆_𝗗𝗲𝗺𝗮𝗻𝗱𝘀_𝗠𝗼𝗿𝗲_𝗪𝗲𝗮𝗽𝗼𝗻𝘀_𝗙𝗿𝗼𝗺_𝗪𝗲𝘀𝘁
Volodymyr Zelenskyy warned his allies on Saturday that an “artificial
deficit” of weapons for Ukraine was giving Russia breathing space. The
Ukrainian president was speaking at the Munich Security Conference, an
annual gathering of security […]

𝗛𝗼𝘂𝘀𝗲_𝗥𝗲𝗽𝘂𝗯𝗹𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗻𝘀_𝗗𝗲𝗺𝗮𝗻𝗱_𝗕𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗻_𝗧𝗮𝗸𝗲_𝗖𝗼𝗴𝗻𝗶𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲_𝗧𝗲𝘀𝘁
House Republicans are deamnding that President Biden take a cognitive test
to prove his mental fitness for office. A former White House physician and
83 other US House Republicans raised “grave concerns” about Biden’s
cognitive […]

𝗕𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗻’𝘀_𝗧𝗿𝗮𝗻𝘀_𝗛𝗲𝗮𝗹𝘁𝗵_𝗦𝗲𝗰𝗿𝗲𝘁𝗮𝗿𝘆_𝗦𝗮𝘆𝘀_𝗖𝗹𝗶𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗲_𝗖𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗴𝗲_𝗗𝗶𝘀𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗹𝘆_𝗔𝗳𝗳𝗲𝗰𝘁𝘀_𝗕𝗹𝗮𝗰𝗸_𝗖𝗼𝗺𝗺𝘂𝗻𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗲𝘀’_𝗛𝗲𝗮𝗹𝘁𝗵
The Biden appointed Assistant Secretary of the Department of Health and
Human Services (HHS), has managed to link climate change to racial
disparities in health. In a video posted on X to honor black history […]

[Paul B. Andersen]

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Paul B. Andersen
Can you quote the sentence in question?

page 22, roughly in the middle
"We will now determine the kinetic energy of the electron. If an
electron moves from rest at the origin of co-ordinates of the system K
along the axis of X under the action of an electrostatic force X, ..."

Is this your translation? Is "the axis of X" what is normally called the
x-axis in English? Maybe you could quote it in German so that someone
who knows more German than I do can comment. Anyway, I agree that
calling the abscissa axis the x-axis is not ideal, but it's very
commonly done. In that case X is not a variable.

I'm actually critizising a certain text, not the work of Einstein per se.
So, my topic is this particular English translation.

You wrote:
"But Einstein gave this another kick and used the same symbol
twice with different meanings within a single sentence."

Einstein didn't use X as the name of the X-axis in §10,
he called it the X-Axis.
In the translation is the phrase "the axis of X" is used so
the axis was NOT called X.

The English translation of the "single sentence" was NOT:
"If an electron moves from rest at the origin of
co-ordinates of the system K along X under the action of
an electrostatic force X .."

The sentence wouldn't even have made sense if X had been used
as name of the X-Axis.
X is explicitly defined to be an "electrostatic force"

Since you have thoroughly scrutinized the text and failed to find
an example of "use of the same symbol twice with different meanings
within a single sentence", we can conclude that no such example exists.

Well done, and don't try to flee from the fact.

Post by Thomas Heger
I also didn't want to discuss relativity per se or the validity of the
pyhsical content of this paper.
It's pointless, anyhow, because a paper with 400+ errors in it could
hardly be used for anything of practical value.

It's rather 400+ cases of your failure to understand the text.

Let's review some of the alleged errors.

You, Thomas Heger, claimed:
"Einstein's variable names were EXTREMELY annoying!
"He had eight different uses of the letter 'A'."

And you list them up:
His [Einstein's] uses of 'A' were:
#1: as name of a point in space
#2: as name of the local time at point A as 'A-time'
#3: for one end of a flying rod
#4: as index of the time value t_A
#5: as area
#6: in 'electric power of deflection' A_e
#7: in 'magnetic power of deflection' A_m
#8: as (only!) internal reference 'A'

This is actually too stupid to comment, but since
you are too ignorant to understand how stupid it is,
I will do it anyway:

#1: Right.
In §1 the symbol 'A' is explicitly defined: "the point A of space",
and this is the only meaning of 'A' in §1 to and including §5.

#2: "Einstein uses the symbol 'A' to mean 'A-time'" doesn't make sense.

#3: A is the name of the spatial point where one end of the rod
is positioned.

#4: "Einstein uses the symbol 'A' to mean 't_A'" :-D
Doesn't make sense.

#5: 'A' is never used as area in this paper.

#6: "Einstein uses the symbol 'A' to mean 'A_e'" :-D
#7: "Einstein uses the symbol 'A' to mean 'A_m'" :-D

However,
In §7 the symbol 'A' is explicitly defined:
"we call the amplitude of the electric or magnetic force A"
and this is the only meaning of 'A' in §7 to and including §10.

#8: "Einstein uses the symbol 'A' to mean (A) " :-D
The symbol for numbering of equations '(A)' is not
equal to the symbol 'A', like the symbol '(1)' is not
equal to the symbol '1'.


So there are only two different meanings of 'A' in the paper.
In §1 to and including §5 'A' is a point in space.
In §7 to and including §10 'A' is the amplitude of
the electric or magnetic force.

[Thomas Heger]

Post by Paul B. Andersen

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Paul B. Andersen
Can you quote the sentence in question?

page 22, roughly in the middle
"We will now determine the kinetic energy of the electron. If an
electron moves from rest at the origin of co-ordinates of the system K
along the axis of X under the action of an electrostatic force X, ..."

Is this your translation? Is "the axis of X" what is normally called the
x-axis in English? Maybe you could quote it in German so that someone
who knows more German than I do can comment. Anyway, I agree that
calling the abscissa axis the x-axis is not ideal, but it's very
commonly done. In that case X is not a variable.

I'm actually critizising a certain text, not the work of Einstein per se.
So, my topic is this particular English translation.

"But Einstein gave this another kick and used the same symbol
twice with different meanings within a single sentence."
Einstein didn't use X as the name of the X-axis in §10,
he called it the X-Axis.
In the translation is the phrase "the axis of X" is used so
the axis was NOT called X.

The names of the axes in k were defined in § 3 page 8 in the footnote
with the dagger.

quote:

"Editor’s note: In Einstein’s original paper, the symbols (Ξ, H, Z)
for the co-ordinates of the moving system k were introduced without
explicitly defining them. In the 1923 English translation, (X, Y, Z) were
used, creating an ambiguity between X co-ordinates in the fixed system K
and the parallel axis in moving system k. Here and in subsequent
references we use Ξ when referring to the axis of system k along which
the system is translating with respect to K. "

As I am writing about this translation, I use this footnote as defintion.

This means:

the axes have names, which consist of single large letters (Latin in
case of system K and Greek in case of system k)

the coordinates have also names, but with small letters.


Now:

'x-axis' is correct

'X' is also a valid name of the same x-axis.


But "Let the axes of X of the two systems coincide, ..." is wrong.

(from § 3, first paragraph)

This is so, because his definitions require Greek letters for the x-axis
of system k.

But Einstein didn't use his own definitions and ocasionally called the
x-axis of k 'X', while it had to be 'Xsi'.

This is no big deal, of course, but still wrong.

It was also very annoying for the reader (me in this case), because I
had to marter my brain, if I wanted to find out, to which system a
certain variable should actually belong.

It is therefore a serious error, if the relation to the meant system is
not properly defined, because the main point of relativity is the
relation between systems moving in respect to each other.

This would require a proper assignement of any used variable to one of
these systems.

And that in turn would not allow any wrong variable names.


TH

Post by Paul B. Andersen
"If an electron moves from rest at the origin of
co-ordinates of the system K along X under the action of
an electrostatic force X .."
The sentence wouldn't even have made sense if X had been used
as name of the X-Axis.
X is explicitly defined to be an "electrostatic force"
Since you have thoroughly scrutinized the text and failed to find
an example of "use of the same symbol twice with different meanings
within a single sentence", we can conclude that no such example exists.
Well done, and don't try to flee from the fact.

Post by Thomas Heger
I also didn't want to discuss relativity per se or the validity of the
pyhsical content of this paper.
It's pointless, anyhow, because a paper with 400+ errors in it could
hardly be used for anything of practical value.

It's rather 400+ cases of your failure to understand the text.
Let's review some of the alleged errors.
"Einstein's variable names were EXTREMELY annoying!
"He had eight different uses of the letter 'A'."
#1: as name of a point in space
#2: as name of the local time at point A as 'A-time'
#3: for one end of a flying rod
#4: as index of the time value t_A
#5: as area
#6: in 'electric power of deflection' A_e
#7: in 'magnetic power of deflection' A_m
#8: as (only!) internal reference 'A'
This is actually too stupid to comment, but since
you are too ignorant to understand how stupid it is,
#1: Right.
In §1 the symbol 'A' is explicitly defined: "the point A of space",
and this is the only meaning of 'A' in §1 to and including §5.
#2: "Einstein uses the symbol 'A' to mean 'A-time'" doesn't make sense.
#3: A is the name of the spatial point where one end of the rod
is positioned.
#4: "Einstein uses the symbol 'A' to mean 't_A'" :-D
Doesn't make sense.
#5: 'A' is never used as area in this paper.
#6: "Einstein uses the symbol 'A' to mean 'A_e'" :-D
#7: "Einstein uses the symbol 'A' to mean 'A_m'" :-D
However,
"we call the amplitude of the electric or magnetic force A"
and this is the only meaning of 'A' in §7 to and including §10.
#8: "Einstein uses the symbol 'A' to mean (A) " :-D
The symbol for numbering of equations '(A)' is not
equal to the symbol 'A', like the symbol '(1)' is not
equal to the symbol '1'.
So there are only two different meanings of 'A' in the paper.
In §1 to and including §5 'A' is a point in space.
In §7 to and including §10 'A' is the amplitude of
the electric or magnetic force.

[Mikko]

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Paul B. Andersen

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Paul B. Andersen
Can you quote the sentence in question?

page 22, roughly in the middle
"We will now determine the kinetic energy of the electron. If an
electron moves from rest at the origin of co-ordinates of the system K
along the axis of X under the action of an electrostatic force X, ..."

Is this your translation? Is "the axis of X" what is normally called the
x-axis in English? Maybe you could quote it in German so that someone
who knows more German than I do can comment. Anyway, I agree that
calling the abscissa axis the x-axis is not ideal, but it's very
commonly done. In that case X is not a variable.

I'm actually critizising a certain text, not the work of Einstein per se.
So, my topic is this particular English translation.

"But Einstein gave this another kick and used the same symbol
twice with different meanings within a single sentence."
Einstein didn't use X as the name of the X-axis in §10,
he called it the X-Axis.
In the translation is the phrase "the axis of X" is used so
the axis was NOT called X.

The names of the axes in k were defined in § 3 page 8 in the footnote
with the dagger.
"Editor’s note: In Einstein’s original paper, the symbols (Ξ, H, Z)
for the co-ordinates of the moving system k were introduced without
explicitly defining them. In the 1923 English translation, (X, Y, Z)
were used, creating an ambiguity between X co-ordinates in the fixed
system K and the parallel axis in moving system k. Here and in
subsequent references we use Ξ when referring to the axis of system k
along which the system is translating with respect to K. "
As I am writing about this translation, I use this footnote as defintion.
the axes have names, which consist of single large letters (Latin in
case of system K and Greek in case of system k)

Yes, the axes have names. But the footnote does not define those names,
only which letters are used in the names.

[Paul B. Andersen]

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Thomas Heger
So, my topic is this particular English translation.

  "But Einstein gave this another kick and used the same symbol
   twice with different meanings within a single sentence."

You can't blame Einstein for the alleged errors in the translation.

It is interesting to note that you have given up
claiming that Einstein in §10 used the same symbol
twice with different meanings within a single sentence.

Now you claim to have found it in §3. Let's see.

Post by Thomas Heger
The names of the axes in k were defined in § 3 page 8 in the footnote
with the dagger.

This Editor's note is partly plain wrong, and partly meaningless.

Post by Thomas Heger
"Editor’s note:  In Einstein’s original  paper, the symbols (Ξ, H, Z)
for the co-ordinates of the moving system k were introduced without
explicitly defining them. In the 1923 English translation, (X, Y, Z) were
used, creating an ambiguity between X co-ordinates in the fixed  system K
and the parallel axis in moving system k. Here and in  subsequent
references we use Ξ when referring to the axis of system k along which
the system is translating with respect to K. "
As I am writing about this translation, I use this footnote as defintion.

A definition of what?

Let's see what actually is written in §3 of the papers:

----------

Einstein's original paper:
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/andp.19053221004

§3:
The "stationary system" is called K, with coordinates x,y,z,t.
The "moving system" is called k, with coordinates ξ, η, ζ, τ.
The "third system" is called K', with coordinates x',y',z',t'.

The name of the axes of a "Koordinatensysteme" are:
X-Achse, Y-Achse and Z-Achse

The name of the axes of a specific "Koordinatensysteme" are:
Die X-Achse System K, Die X-Achse System k.

However, the X-Achse of system K' is called "Die Ξ-Achse"
This is the only use of the symbol 'Ξ' (capital ξ) in §3.
'Ξ' is the Greek equivalent of capital 'X'.
This seems like a typo.

The symbols capital 'X', 'Y', 'Z' or 'Ξ' alone are never used
as names of the axes in §3.

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

The English translation:
https://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
https://paulba.no/paper/Electrodynamics.pdf

§3:
The "stationary system" is called K, with coordinates x,y,z,t.
The "moving system" is called k, with coordinates ξ, η, ζ, τ.
The "third system" is called K', with coordinates x',y',z',t'

The name of the axes in a coordinate system are:
The axis of X, the axis of Y and the axes of Z

The name of the axes of a specific coordinate system are:
The axis of X of system K, The axis of X of system k.

However, The axis of X of K' is called "The axis of Ξ".
This is the only use of the symbol 'Ξ' (capital ξ) in §3.
This seems like a typo imported from Einstein's original text.

The symbols capital 'X', 'Y', 'Z' or 'Ξ' alone are never used
as names of the axes in §3.

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

Do you claim that Einstein in §3 used the same symbol
twice with different meanings within a single sentence?

[Cheng Huang Zhong]

Post by Paul B. Andersen

  "But Einstein gave this another kick and used the same symbol
   twice with different meanings within a single sentence."

You can't blame Einstein for the alleged errors in the translation.
It is interesting to note that you have given up claiming that Einstein
in §10 used the same symbol twice with different meanings within a
single sentence. Now you claim to have found it in §3. Let's see.

correct. The 𝗸𝗵𝗮𝘇𝗮𝗿_𝗴𝗼𝘆 appointed chef of the 𝗻𝗮𝘇𝗶_𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗿𝗼𝗿𝗶𝘀𝘁 organization said
nato, named the 𝗦𝘁𝗼𝗹𝘁𝗲𝗻𝗯𝗲𝗿𝗴𝗲𝗿, guilty like shit, admitting the guilt, blowing
𝗼𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿_𝘀𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗲𝘀_𝗶𝗻𝗳𝗿𝗮𝘀𝘁𝗿𝘂𝗰𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗲 at the bottom of the sea, as "𝗲𝘅𝗲𝗿𝗰𝗶𝘀𝗲𝘀", admits to
China:

"- 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗱𝗲𝗮𝘁𝗵 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗲𝗿 𝗥𝘂𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗮𝗻 𝗰𝗶𝘁𝗶𝘇𝗲𝗻 𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗶𝘁𝗼𝗿 𝗡𝗮𝘃𝗮𝗹𝘀𝗸𝘆, 𝗶𝘀 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗮'𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗻𝗮𝗹 𝗥𝘂𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗮𝗻 𝗶𝘀𝘀𝘂𝗲'".

the stupid 𝗸𝗵𝗮𝘇𝗮𝗿_𝗴𝗼𝘆 is admitting the guilt!!

𝗟𝗶𝗻𝗱𝘀𝗲𝘆_𝘄𝗮𝗻𝘁𝘀_𝘁𝗼_𝗽𝘂𝗻𝗶𝘀𝗵_𝗥𝘂𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗮._𝗗𝗲𝗻𝗺𝗮𝗿𝗸,_𝗮𝗹𝗹_𝗮𝗺𝗺𝗼_𝘁𝗼_𝗨𝗸𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗲._𝗨𝗿𝘀𝘂𝗹𝗮,_𝗘𝗨_2𝗻𝗱_𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗺._𝗕𝗼𝗻𝗼,_𝘀𝗮𝘆_𝗡𝗮𝘃𝗮𝗹𝗻𝘆

(page 11:34)

𝗥𝘂𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗮𝗻_𝗺𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝗮𝗿𝘆_𝗽𝗶𝗹𝗼𝘁_𝘄𝗵𝗼_𝗱𝗲𝗳𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗲𝗱_𝘁𝗼_𝗨𝗸𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗲_𝗳𝗼𝘂𝗻𝗱_𝗱𝗲𝗮𝗱_𝗶𝗻_𝗦𝗽𝗮𝗶𝗻_–_𝗞𝗶𝗲𝘃
Maksim Kuzminov, who hijacked a military helicopter, has reportedly been
gunned down
https://r%74.com/news/592702-pilot-defector-killed-spain/

𝗢𝗽𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗶𝘀𝗺_𝗼𝗻_𝗨𝗸𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗲_𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗳𝗹𝗶𝗰𝘁_𝘄𝗮𝘀_‘𝗽𝗿𝗲𝗺𝗮𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗲’_𝗼𝗿_‘𝗱𝗲𝗹𝘂𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗹’_–_𝗡𝗬𝗧
Western speculation that Kiev was on the verge of victory has reportedly
given way to “despair and hedging”
https://r%74.com/news/592704-ukraine-allies-optmism-fades/

𝗨𝗸𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗲_𝗵𝗮𝘀_𝘂𝘀𝗲𝗱_𝗨𝗦-𝗺𝗮𝗱𝗲_𝗰𝗵𝗲𝗺𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹_𝘄𝗲𝗮𝗽𝗼𝗻𝘀_–_𝗥𝘂𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗮
Moscow claims that Washington and Kiev have violated the articles of the
Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
https://r%74.com/russia/592680-ukraine-us-chemical-weapons/

‘𝗖𝗮𝘁𝗮𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗼𝗽𝗵𝗶𝗰’_𝗛𝗼𝘂𝘁𝗵𝗶_𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗮𝗰𝗸_𝗱𝗮𝗺𝗮𝗴𝗲𝘀_𝗕𝗿𝗶𝘁𝗶𝘀𝗵_𝘀𝗵𝗶𝗽 lol
The Yemeni group has claimed to have shot down a US drone as well
https://r%74.com/news/592700-houthi-attack-yemen-rubymar/

[Thomas Heger]

Post by Paul B. Andersen

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Paul B. Andersen

Post by Thomas Heger
So, my topic is this particular English translation.

"But Einstein gave this another kick and used the same symbol
twice with different meanings within a single sentence."

You can't blame Einstein for the alleged errors in the translation.

Actually I don't.

for me the actual author is irrelevant and especially also his
intentions, because I wrote a critique about a specific text.

Who wrote it, how, with which intentions and why, that was not my topic.

I took the text as it is and this translation.

Whether the text represented Einstein's intentions or not was not my
concern.

Post by Paul B. Andersen
It is interesting to note that you have given up
claiming that Einstein in §10 used the same symbol
twice with different meanings within a single sentence.
Now you claim to have found it in §3. Let's see.

Post by Thomas Heger
The names of the axes in k were defined in § 3 page 8 in the footnote
with the dagger.

This Editor's note is partly plain wrong, and partly meaningless.

Actually the editors wrote, that Einstein used tall Greek letters in the
German original.

Post by Paul B. Andersen

Post by Thomas Heger
"Editor’s note: In Einstein’s original paper, the symbols (Ξ, H, Z)
for the co-ordinates of the moving system k were introduced without
explicitly defining them.

The lack of definitions by Einstein was also annoying.

This made it very difficult to decipher some of his equations.

Einstein had also not a single illustration in his paper. This required
to behave like Sherlock Holmes on a crime scene, if you wanted to decode
the meaning of the used symbols.

Post by Paul B. Andersen

Post by Thomas Heger
As I am writing about this translation, I use this footnote as defintion.

A definition of what?

??

If you say something like

Post by Paul B. Andersen
The "stationary system" is called K, with coordinates x,y,z,t.
The "moving system" is called k, with coordinates ξ, η, ζ, τ.

you have defined two coordinate system and connected symbols like e.g.
ξ, η, ζ with a certain meaning.

This process is commonly called 'definition'.

But good practise is, to define each symbol only once.

Also good practise is, that the same quantity or mathematical object has
only one name.

Reuse of symbols or abiguity of names were therefore critizised by me.


And certainly you don't want to promote ambiguity of names and
unidentifiable symbols in physics papers.

TH

[Volney]

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Paul B. Andersen
[ … ]
Can you quote the sentence in question?

page 22, roughly in the middle
"We will now determine the kinetic energy of the electron. If an
electron moves from rest at the origin of co-ordinates of the system K
along the axis of X under the action of an electrostatic force X, ..."

Is this your translation? Is "the axis of X" what is normally called the
x-axis in English? Maybe you could quote it in German so that someone
who knows more German than I do can comment. Anyway, I agree that
calling the abscissa axis the x-axis is not ideal, but it's very
commonly done. In that case X is not a variable.

I'm actually critizising a certain text, not the work of Einstein per se.
So, my topic is this particular English translation.

Nice moving of the goalposts!

Post by Thomas Heger
In this context I had critizised the prase 'axis of X', because 'X' was
already the name of the x-axis of system K.
...

Of course a translation of X-Achse to 'axis of X' rather than 'X_axis'
is hardly the fault of Einstein or a flaw in relativity.
Not only are you unqualified to criticize the physics, you are
apparently unqualified to criticize German-English translations as well.

[Wilbert Oláh Barabás]

Post by Volney

Post by Thomas Heger
In this context I had critizised the prase 'axis of X', because 'X' was
already the name of the x-axis of system K.

Of course a translation of X-Achse to 'axis of X' rather than 'X_axis'
is hardly the fault of Einstein or a flaw in relativity. Not only are
you unqualified to criticize the physics, you are apparently
unqualified to criticize German-English translations as well.

lol, 𝘁𝗵𝗲_𝗦𝗺𝗲𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗸𝘆 to america, no joke:

"We will stop considering the United States a strategic partner, if they
don't help us"

fuck me, this is better than television. He takes amrica in its ass. Fuck
mee.

𝗠𝘂𝗻𝗶𝗰𝗵_𝗙𝗿𝗲𝗲𝗱𝗼𝗺_𝗡𝗶𝗴𝗵𝘁._𝗗𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗸_𝘁𝗼_𝗱𝗲𝗳𝗲𝗮𝘁_𝗣𝘂𝘁𝗶𝗻. (page 19:58)
𝗔𝘃𝗱𝗲𝘆𝗲𝘃𝗸𝗮_𝗮𝗻𝗴𝗲𝗿._𝗘𝗹𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗸𝘆_𝗶𝗻𝘃𝗶𝘁𝗲𝘀_𝗧𝗿𝘂𝗺𝗽_𝘁𝗼_𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗲

[Thomas Heger]

Post by Volney

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Paul B. Andersen
[ … ]
Can you quote the sentence in question?

page 22, roughly in the middle
"We will now determine the kinetic energy of the electron. If an
electron moves from rest at the origin of co-ordinates of the system K
along the axis of X under the action of an electrostatic force X, ..."

Is this your translation? Is "the axis of X" what is normally called the
x-axis in English? Maybe you could quote it in German so that someone
who knows more German than I do can comment. Anyway, I agree that
calling the abscissa axis the x-axis is not ideal, but it's very
commonly done. In that case X is not a variable.

I'm actually critizising a certain text, not the work of Einstein per se.
So, my topic is this particular English translation.

Nice moving of the goalposts!

Well, as I can define my own goals, I can define what I want to do.

And, as I had written, my aim was to write annotations into this version.

You can define your own goals as well, but you should not expect me, to
share any of them.

Post by Volney

Post by Thomas Heger
In this context I had critizised the prase 'axis of X', because 'X'
was already the name of the x-axis of system K.
...

Of course a translation of X-Achse to 'axis of X' rather than 'X_axis'
is hardly the fault of Einstein or a flaw in relativity.
Not only are you unqualified to criticize the physics, you are
apparently unqualified to criticize German-English translations as well.

No, sinced English is a second language for me and German my first.

Therefore I'm actually qualified to check the translation.

But that wouldn't mean, that I'm obliged to do that.

I could check the translation, if I had the wish to do that, but hadn't.

TH

[Volney]

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Volney

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Paul B. Andersen
[ … ]
Can you quote the sentence in question?

page 22, roughly in the middle
"We will now determine the kinetic energy of the electron. If an
electron moves from rest at the origin of co-ordinates of the system K
along the axis of X under the action of an electrostatic force X, ..."

Is this your translation? Is "the axis of X" what is normally called the
x-axis in English? Maybe you could quote it in German so that someone
who knows more German than I do can comment. Anyway, I agree that
calling the abscissa axis the x-axis is not ideal, but it's very
commonly done. In that case X is not a variable.

I'm actually critizising a certain text, not the work of Einstein per se.
So, my topic is this particular English translation.

Nice moving of the goalposts!

Well, as I can define my own goals, I can define what I want to do.

Of course. I'm pointing out how you started out stating that this was a
poorly written paper and Einstein reused letters like X for the axis of
X and elsewhere, someone pointed out that was a poor translation of
"X-Achse' so you claim to switch to criticizing the translation rather
than admit Einstein didn't reuse X there. In other words, moving the
goalposts.

Post by Thomas Heger
And, as I had written, my aim was to write annotations into this version.
You can define your own goals as well, but you should not expect me, to
share any of them.

It's perfectly fine for you to move the goalposts all over the place.
But don't expect not to get called out for that.

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Volney

Post by Thomas Heger
In this context I had critizised the prase 'axis of X', because 'X'
was already the name of the x-axis of system K.
...

Of course a translation of X-Achse to 'axis of X' rather than 'X_axis'
is hardly the fault of Einstein or a flaw in relativity.
Not only are you unqualified to criticize the physics, you are
apparently unqualified to criticize German-English translations as well.

No, sinced English is a second language for me and German my first.
Therefore I'm actually qualified to check the translation.

But you didn't catch that.

Post by Thomas Heger
But that wouldn't mean, that I'm obliged to do that.
I could check the translation, if I had the wish to do that, but hadn't.

You are attempting to criticize a translation of a paper rather than the
paper itself. You should either stick to either criticizing the
translator (not very useful, the translator wasn't very famous) or
criticize the original paper in German if that's your first language.
But again, your criticisms of the content is just your misunderstandings
and not useful.

[Thomas Heger]

Am 19.02.2024 um 19:31 schrieb Volney:
...

Post by Volney

Post by Thomas Heger
And, as I had written, my aim was to write annotations into this version.
You can define your own goals as well, but you should not expect me,
to share any of them.

It's perfectly fine for you to move the goalposts all over the place.
But don't expect not to get called out for that.

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Volney

Post by Thomas Heger
In this context I had critizised the prase 'axis of X', because 'X'
was already the name of the x-axis of system K.
...

Of course a translation of X-Achse to 'axis of X' rather than 'X_axis'
is hardly the fault of Einstein or a flaw in relativity.

Actually both are wrong, because the tall letters were the name of the
axes themselves, while small letters were the coordinates.
'X-axes' is wrong
'X_axis' is wrong
'axis of X' is wrong, too.

('x-axis' is correct or possibly 'axis of x')

Post by Volney

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Volney
Not only are you unqualified to criticize the physics, you are
apparently unqualified to criticize German-English translations as well.

No, sinced English is a second language for me and German my first.
Therefore I'm actually qualified to check the translation.

But you didn't catch that.

Post by Thomas Heger
But that wouldn't mean, that I'm obliged to do that.
I could check the translation, if I had the wish to do that, but hadn't.

You are attempting to criticize a translation of a paper rather than the
paper itself. You should either stick to either criticizing the
translator (not very useful, the translator wasn't very famous) or
criticize the original paper in German if that's your first language.
But again, your criticisms of the content is just your misunderstandings
and not useful.

Other than you I can speak German very well.

But there is no point to do that in this UseNet group, were the language
is English.

So, my decision was to write annotations into the English translation,
which is most commonly used.

You may regard this as questionable, but I think, it is perfectly ok.


TH

[Mikko]

Post by Thomas Heger
...

Post by Volney

Post by Thomas Heger
And, as I had written, my aim was to write annotations into this version.
You can define your own goals as well, but you should not expect me,
to share any of them.

It's perfectly fine for you to move the goalposts all over the place.
But don't expect not to get called out for that.

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Volney

Post by Thomas Heger
In this context I had critizised the prase 'axis of X', because 'X'
was already the name of the x-axis of system K.
...

Of course a translation of X-Achse to 'axis of X' rather than 'X_axis'
is hardly the fault of Einstein or a flaw in relativity.

Actually both are wrong, because the tall letters were the name of the
axes themselves, while small letters were the coordinates.
'X-axes' is wrong
'X_axis' is wrong
'axis of X' is wrong, too.

In Einstein's article its name is "X-Achse" which is correct. No other
name is used in the same article.

[Volney]

Post by Thomas Heger
 ...

Post by Volney

Post by Thomas Heger
And, as I had written, my aim was to write annotations into this version.
You can define your own goals as well, but you should not expect me,
to share any of them.

It's perfectly fine for you to move the goalposts all over the place.
But don't expect not to get called out for that.

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Volney

Post by Thomas Heger
In this context I had critizised the prase 'axis of X', because 'X'
was already the name of the x-axis of system K.
...

Of course a translation of X-Achse to 'axis of X' rather than 'X_axis'
is hardly the fault of Einstein or a flaw in relativity.

Actually both are wrong, because the tall letters were the name of the
axes themselves, while small letters were the coordinates.
'X-axes' is wrong
'X_axis' is wrong
'axis of X' is wrong, too.
('x-axis' is correct or possibly 'axis of x')

Why do you claim this? The name of the x axis is just that, a name. It
could be nearly anything. The sensible part would be to associate the
names of the X (Y or Z) axis with the names of the x (y or z) variables
without using the exact same name. Which is what was done, calling the
axis 'X-Achse' and the associated variable 'x'. Similarly for

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Volney

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Volney
Not only are you unqualified to criticize the physics, you are
apparently unqualified to criticize German-English translations as well.

No, sinced English is a second language for me and German my first.
Therefore I'm actually qualified to check the translation.

But you didn't catch that.

Post by Thomas Heger
But that wouldn't mean, that I'm obliged to do that.
I could check the translation, if I had the wish to do that, but hadn't.

You are attempting to criticize a translation of a paper rather than the
paper itself. You should either stick to either criticizing the
translator (not very useful, the translator wasn't very famous) or
criticize the original paper in German if that's your first language.
But again, your criticisms of the content is just your misunderstandings
and not useful.

Other than you I can speak German very well.

That by itself isn't a qualification.

Post by Thomas Heger
But there is no point to do that in this UseNet group, were the language
is English.

You could pick it apart in German with English translations of the
faulty and correct German, and why the faulty German is faulty.
Criticizing a slightly erroneous English translation of both the
original paper and the translation isn't useful.

Post by Thomas Heger
So, my decision was to write annotations into the English translation,
which is most commonly used.
You may regard this as questionable, but I think, it is perfectly ok.

The correct procedure would be to annotate the German version and list
the alleged faults and why they are faults separately. But that's a
waste of time, as over the last 100+ years many scientists have pored
over the paper looking for issues but have found none.

Post by Thomas Heger
TH

[Teodro Narváez Zuñiga]

Post by Volney

Post by Thomas Heger
So, my decision was to write annotations into the English translation,
which is most commonly used.
You may regard this as questionable, but I think, it is perfectly ok.

The correct procedure would be to annotate the German version and list
the alleged faults and why they are faults separately. But that's a
waste of time, as over the last 100+ years many scientists have pored
over the paper looking for issues but have found none.

you missed the point entirely. Those "scientists" make Einstine celebrity. There are no scientists, lol. And it's strict forbidden in gearmony to say the "scientists" of Einstine were no scientists. I realized the gearmons were so fucking stupid seeing them waiting in queues on parking lots to take the covid vaccine. Extremely stupid people. And poor. I believe they are the poorest in EU.

𝗡𝗛𝗦_𝗪𝗵𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗹𝗲𝗯𝗹𝗼𝘄𝗲𝗿:_𝗚𝗼𝘃’𝘁_𝗦𝗲𝗰𝗿𝗲𝘁𝗹𝘆_𝗢𝗿𝗱𝗲𝗿𝗲𝗱_𝗠𝗶𝗹𝗹𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀_𝗼𝗳_𝗘𝘂𝘁𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗮𝘀𝗶𝗮_𝗗𝗿𝘂𝗴𝘀_𝗕𝗲𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗲_𝗣𝗮𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗺𝗶𝗰_
https://th%65%70%65%6f%70%6c%65%73%76oice.tv/nhs-whistleblower-govt-secretly-ordered-millions-of-euthanasia-drugs-before-pandemic/
The British government ordered millions of euthanasia drugs months before the COVID pandemic was publicly declared, according to a senior NHS whistleblower. Graham Atkinson is a pharmacist with over 30 years of senior NHS management experience, […]

𝗖𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗲𝘀𝗲_𝗡𝗼𝗻-𝗔𝗺𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗻_𝗠𝗶𝗴𝗿𝗮𝗻𝘁_𝗪𝗶𝗹𝗹_𝗢𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗲𝗲_𝗦𝗮𝗻_𝗙𝗿𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗶𝘀𝗰𝗼'𝘀_𝗩𝗼𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴
https://b%69%74%63%68ute.com/video/rV22x7az6sVq

𝗡𝗲𝗼𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘀_𝗗𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗼𝘆𝗶𝗻𝗴_𝘁𝗵𝗲_𝗨𝗦-𝗡𝗲𝘁𝗮𝗻𝘆𝗮𝗵𝘂_𝗜𝘀𝗼𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴_𝗜𝘀𝗿𝗮𝗲𝗹-𝗖𝗼𝗹._𝗟𝗮𝗿𝗿𝘆_𝗪𝗶𝗹𝗸𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗼𝗻
https://b%69%74%63%68ute.com/video/mco1NBILkNdE

𝗨𝗸𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗲_𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗳𝗹𝗶𝗰𝘁_𝗶𝘀_𝗪𝗲𝘀𝘁'𝘀_'𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗴𝗶𝗰_𝗲𝘅𝗽𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁'_-_𝗦𝗰𝗼𝘁𝘁_𝗕𝗲𝗻𝗻𝗲𝘁
https://bi%74%63%68ute.com/video/a8qvmbPhgOPJ/

[Thomas Heger]

Post by Volney

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Volney

Post by Thomas Heger
In this context I had critizised the prase 'axis of X', because 'X'
was already the name of the x-axis of system K.
...

Of course a translation of X-Achse to 'axis of X' rather than 'X_axis'
is hardly the fault of Einstein or a flaw in relativity.

Actually both are wrong, because the tall letters were the name of the
axes themselves, while small letters were the coordinates.
'X-axes' is wrong
'X_axis' is wrong
'axis of X' is wrong, too.
('x-axis' is correct or possibly 'axis of x')

Why do you claim this? The name of the x axis is just that, a name. It
could be nearly anything. The sensible part would be to associate the
names of the X (Y or Z) axis with the names of the x (y or z) variables
without using the exact same name. Which is what was done, calling the
axis 'X-Achse' and the associated variable 'x'. Similarly for

Actually symbols in equations are 'case sensitive'.

Therefore, 'X' is not equal to 'x'.

(If you think otherwise, you should ask a specialist.)

What is commonly done or used by the public is patently irrelevant in
theoretical physics.

...

TH

[Igarashi Sawamatsu]

Post by Volney
Why do you claim this? The name of the x axis is just that, a name. It
could be nearly anything. The sensible part would be to associate the
names of the X (Y or Z) axis with the names of the x (y or z) variables
without using the exact same name. Which is what was done, calling the
axis 'X-Achse' and the associated variable 'x'. Similarly for

Actually symbols in equations are 'case sensitive'. Therefore, 'X' is
not equal to 'x'. (If you think otherwise, you should ask a specialist.)
What is commonly done or used by the public is patently irrelevant in
theoretical physics.

actually I start to think you have a big point. These relativists are not
even reading Einstines papers. And if they read, they stupidly go forward
thinking they undrestand. Also, why don't you kill your corrupt terrorist
stupid government, by simply asking:
"𝘄𝗵𝗼_𝗯𝗼𝗺𝗯𝗲𝗱_𝘁𝗵𝗲_𝗲𝗻𝗲𝗿𝗴𝘆_𝗽𝗶𝗽𝗲𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗲𝘀_𝗡𝗼𝗿𝗱𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗺1_𝗔𝗡𝗗_𝗡𝗼𝗿𝗱𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗺2??"

𝗞𝗶𝗲𝘃’𝘀_𝘀𝗽𝗼𝗻𝘀𝗼𝗿𝘀_𝘀𝗵𝗼𝘂𝗹𝗱_𝗵𝗼𝗹𝗱_‘𝗱𝗶𝘀𝗰𝗿𝗲𝗲𝘁’_𝘁𝗮𝗹𝗸𝘀_𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵_𝗠𝗼𝘀𝗰𝗼𝘄_–_𝗨𝗸𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗶𝗮𝗻_𝗮𝗺𝗯𝗮𝘀𝘀𝗮𝗱𝗼𝗿
Engaging in such discussions wouldn’t mean that the West is giving up on
its interests, Andrey Melnik said
https://r%74.com/news/592993-ukraine-talks-melnik-germany/

I'm waiting to see the Russians appear on the border with Poland and
Romania. European farmers are also looking forward to it; Ukrainian wheat
has better destinations than Europe

This is a big problem with Western foreign relations. They confuse
diplomacy with 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗸𝗵𝗮𝘇𝗮𝗿 𝗴𝗼𝘆𝘀 𝗰𝗼𝗿𝗿𝘂𝗽𝘁 𝗺𝗲𝗱𝗶𝗮 𝗿𝗲𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀. Running their mouth in the
media has cut off their options for compromise.

It seems that for the vast majority of European leaders the brain is not
located inside the skull, but near the anus. Scientists are at work

Does not this Melnik know there is a law in Ukraine against talks with
Moscow ? That's exactly why he's asking others to go ask Russia on
Ukraine's behalf

these ugly 𝗸𝗵𝗮𝘇𝗮𝗿_𝗴𝗼𝘆𝘀_𝗯𝗶𝘁𝗰𝗵𝗲𝘀 lost the war so badly.

[Physfitfreak]

Post by Igarashi Sawamatsu
these ugly 𝗸𝗵𝗮𝘇𝗮𝗿_𝗴𝗼𝘆𝘀_𝗯𝗶𝘁𝗰𝗵𝗲𝘀 lost the war so badly.

Idiot Hanson....


Your "West" won when you began sucking up to them.

You were fooled by transitory situations, leading to think that they are
people to learn from, and be like.

You never recovered from that blunder, Hanson. Are you Russian? Be
responsible and go explain this to Putin.

[Volney]

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Volney

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Volney

Post by Thomas Heger
In this context I had critizised the prase 'axis of X', because 'X'
was already the name of the x-axis of system K.
...

Of course a translation of X-Achse to 'axis of X' rather than 'X_axis'
is hardly the fault of Einstein or a flaw in relativity.

Actually both are wrong, because the tall letters were the name of the
axes themselves, while small letters were the coordinates.
'X-axes' is wrong
'X_axis' is wrong
'axis of X' is wrong, too.
('x-axis' is correct or possibly 'axis of x')

Why do you claim this? The name of the x axis is just that, a name. It
could be nearly anything. The sensible part would be to associate the
names of the X (Y or Z) axis with the names of the x (y or z) variables
without using the exact same name. Which is what was done, calling the
axis 'X-Achse' and the associated variable 'x'. Similarly for

Actually symbols in equations are 'case sensitive'.
Therefore, 'X' is not equal to 'x'.
(If you think otherwise, you should ask a specialist.)

However in German nouns are always capitalized. The word 'X-Achse' would
always be capitalized as a noun. You didn't mention that, plus you wrote
that translations to 'X_axis' and 'axis of X' are wrong but 'x-axis' and
'axis of x' are correct when in reality you can't differentiate.

You claimed you were qualified to check the translation but you didn't
account for that. A qualified translator would account for that and
would know the German author may not differentiate between capital and
small letters because of the capitalization of nouns introduces ambiguity.

Post by Thomas Heger
What is commonly done or used by the public is patently irrelevant in
theoretical physics.

And in many cases, what is done in modern papers doesn't apply to 100+
year old papers.

[Mikko]

'X' is also the name of the x-axis of system K.

No, it isn't. The name of the axis is "X-axis" ("X-Achse" in the original).

[Paul B. Andersen]

Post by Paul B. Andersen

Post by Thomas Heger
But both uses within a single text are wrong, because it is not
possible to know, which particular meaning a symbol in an equation
has, if both meanings use the same symbol.
But Einstein gave this another kick and used the same symbol twice with
different meanings within a single sentence.

Can you quote the sentence in question?

page 22, roughly in the middle
"We will now determine the kinetic energy of the electron. If an
electron moves from rest at the origin of co-ordinates of the system K
along the axis of X under the action of an electrostatic force X, ..."

I see you had to search through the whole text when you in
the last paragraph found what you thought was an example of
"the same symbol twice with different meanings within a single
sentence".

But in the 'single sentence':
"If an electron moves from rest at the origin of co-ordinates
of the system K along the axis of X under the action of
an electrostatic force X .."
X is defined to be an electrostatic force and nothing else.

The phrase "the axis of X" is however a sloppy translation,
because the German text is:

"Bevegt sich ein Electron vom Koordinatenursprung des Systems K
aus mit der Anfangsgeschwindikeit 0 beständig auf der X-Axis unter
der Wirkung einer electrostaishe kraft X ..."


So "the axis of X" should be "the X-axis".

'X' is here the x-component of the electric field-strength vector and
called 'X'
'X' is also the name of the x-axis of system K.

No.
The name of the X-Axis of system K, is "X-axis of system K", not "X".

Since you have thoroughly scrutinized the text and failed to find
an example of "use of the same symbol twice with different meanings
within a single sentence", we can conclude that no such example exists.

Well done! :-D

[Maciej Wozniak]

Post by JanPB

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Volney

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Volney

Post by Thomas Heger
I was actually a HYPOTHETICAL professor (in my role as writer of these
annotations).

No, you weren't. You don't have the qualifications to be a professor,
hypothetical or not. Self-awarded degrees/titles are worse than useless,
they are signs of crackpottery.

I am actually allowed to write a critique of anything I like.

There is a BIG difference between "allowed to" and "qualified to" do
something. You don't have the qualifications to be a professor

Post by Thomas Heger
This is one of the rules of science.
It does not require any kind of qualification or any kind of title to
critizise any theory you like, because any critique, from whereever it
might come, is valid.

You may write whatever garbage you wish to write. You are not qualified
to expect your writings to have any effect on science, or even have
anyone in science to look at them.

Post by Thomas Heger
And unless such critique is rejected on scientific grounds, it remains
valid.
You simply cannot dismiss an argument, because the one who wrote it
has not the appropriate title.

Sorry, qualifications are necessary to filter out crap. If the same
paper appears as a non peer reviewed post on Usenet authored by Joe
Schmo, Janitor vs. Dr. Schmo, PhD Physics in a peer reviewed document,
which source will be ignored vs. studied?

Post by Thomas Heger
But in case you like to disprove any of my annotations, you are welcome.
Simply download the file with my annotations (otherwise you can't read
the annotations), select one of them you regard as faulty and write,
what exactly is wrong with it.

I asked before for you to post the most blatant, outrageous, ridiculous,
obvious 'error' that you found to show us you can actually find real
errors. It was ignored. Of the ones anyone has looked at, they are all
simply your misunderstandings or not an error at all. Nobody is going to
wade through 428 misunderstandings of yours hoping to find an actual
error that somehow, nobody in the last 100+ years found.

Einstein made several serious errors.

He made no errors, let alone "serious" ones.

The mumble of the idiot was not even consistent.
You've got a proof, your ravings won't change anything,
poor trash.

[Ryann Kagawa Hanabusa]

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Stefano Bilbasov

Post by Thomas Heger
Actually you can read the annotations now online (without
downloading the file).

nonsense, that's completely bullshit. It displays you never been
study at an university with a 𝘃𝗶𝘀𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴_𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗳𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗼𝗿.

Most likely a few specialists exist in Germany, who actually know.
I was actually a HYPOTHETICAL professor (in my role as writer of these

you don't even know what 𝙖_𝙫𝙞𝙨𝙞𝙩𝙞𝙣𝙜_𝙥𝙧𝙤𝙛𝙚𝙨𝙨𝙤𝙧 is, and how he looks like. The
fucking EU and gearmony are a 𝙘𝙖𝙣_𝙤𝙛_𝙬𝙤𝙧𝙢𝙨_𝙙𝙚𝙢𝙤𝙘𝙧𝙖𝙘𝙮 kiss my ass.

The Hitler was 𝙖_𝙥𝙪𝙥𝙥𝙚𝙩 like 𝙨𝙢𝙚𝙡𝙡𝙚𝙣𝙨𝙠𝙮, where 𝙩𝙝𝙚_𝙘𝙖𝙥𝙞𝙩𝙖𝙡𝙞𝙨𝙩_𝙬𝙚𝙨𝙩 armed him to
kill Russia.

after WW1 the gearmony was 𝙖𝙣_𝙚𝙘𝙤𝙣𝙤𝙢𝙞𝙘𝙖𝙡_𝙘𝙖𝙩𝙖𝙨𝙩𝙧𝙤𝙥𝙝𝙚, few years later becomes a
world power. Anybody is asking about, you fucking traitor.

𝗘𝗨_𝗿𝘂𝗹𝗲𝘀_𝗼𝘂𝘁_𝗧𝘂𝗰𝗸𝗲𝗿_𝗖𝗮𝗿𝗹𝘀𝗼𝗻_𝘀𝗮𝗻𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀_–_𝗧𝗔𝗦𝗦
Lawmakers had reportedly claimed that the bloc could place restrictions on
the American journalist for interviewing Vladimir Putin
https://r%74.com/news/592057-eu-rules-out-tucker-carlson/

Ukraine put Tucker Carlson on their kill list. Which is angering
republicans within the US given his popularity.

Perhaps the International Criminal Court can declare Tucker Carlson a "war
criminal" for interviewing Putin just as they declared Vladimir Putin a
"war criminal" for saving 2,000 children.

We should keep watching CNN for our news... right?

EU paper shufflers are incompetent corrupt losers. A joke.

[Thomas Heger]

Post by Ryann Kagawa Hanabusa

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Stefano Bilbasov

Post by Thomas Heger
Actually you can read the annotations now online (without
downloading the file).

nonsense, that's completely bullshit. It displays you never been
study at an university with a 𝘃𝗶𝘀𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴_𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗳𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗼𝗿.

Most likely a few specialists exist in Germany, who actually know.
I was actually a HYPOTHETICAL professor (in my role as writer of these

you don't even know what 𝙖_𝙫𝙞𝙨𝙞𝙩𝙞𝙣𝙜_𝙥𝙧𝙤𝙛𝙚𝙨𝙨𝙤𝙧 is, and how he looks like. The

Well, possibly you have something else in mind than I do. But I can
assure you, that I have heard the words 'visiting' and 'professor' before.

Post by Ryann Kagawa Hanabusa
The Hitler was 𝙖_𝙥𝙪𝙥𝙥𝙚𝙩 like 𝙨𝙢𝙚𝙡𝙡𝙚𝙣𝙨𝙠𝙮, where 𝙩𝙝𝙚_𝙘𝙖𝙥𝙞𝙩𝙖𝙡𝙞𝙨𝙩_𝙬𝙚𝙨𝙩 armed him to
kill Russia.

Actually I have heard this theory before.

It was a guy from New Zealand, named 'Greg Hallet, who wrote a book with
the title 'Hitler was a British agent'.

He wrote, that his book was based on kind of 'life time confessions' of
a high ranked MI6 agent, whom he called 'spymaster'.

I had extended this theory a little bit and purely speculative and
assumed, this guy was in fact Noel Trevenen Huxley (younger brother of
Julian and Aldous Huxley).

The reason why this guy are very complicated, but would fit to
historical facts.
...

TH

[Moody Yamakage Okakura]

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Ryann Kagawa Hanabusa

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Stefano Bilbasov

Post by Thomas Heger
Actually you can read the annotations now online (without
downloading the file).

nonsense, that's completely bullshit. It displays you never been
study at an university with a 𝘃𝗶𝘀𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴_𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗳𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗼𝗿.

Most likely a few specialists exist in Germany, who actually know.
I was actually a HYPOTHETICAL professor (in my role as writer of these

you don't even know what 𝙖_𝙫𝙞𝙨𝙞𝙩𝙞𝙣𝙜_𝙥𝙧𝙤𝙛𝙚𝙨𝙨𝙤𝙧 is, and how he looks
like. The

Well, possibly you have something else in mind than I do. But I can
assure you, that I have heard the words 'visiting' and 'professor' before.

Post by Ryann Kagawa Hanabusa
The Hitler was 𝙖_𝙥𝙪𝙥𝙥𝙚𝙩 like 𝙨𝙢𝙚𝙡𝙡𝙚𝙣𝙨𝙠𝙮, where 𝙩𝙝𝙚_𝙘𝙖𝙥𝙞𝙩𝙖𝙡𝙞𝙨𝙩_𝙬𝙚𝙨𝙩
armed him to kill Russia.

Actually I have heard this theory before.

which emphasise, you don't fucking know what 𝙖_𝙫𝙞𝙨𝙞𝙩𝙞𝙣𝙜_𝙥𝙧𝙤𝙛𝙚𝙨𝙨𝙤𝙧 is, and, you
never had your ass on an university. Most of my colleges and professor are
𝙫𝙞𝙨𝙞𝙩𝙞𝙣𝙜_𝙥𝙧𝙖𝙛𝙚𝙨𝙨𝙖𝙧𝙨, and therefore, 𝙞𝙩'𝙨_𝙉𝙊𝙏 their bad english or gearmon you
should evaluate, but 𝙩𝙝𝙚_𝙧𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣𝙖𝙡𝙞𝙩𝙮 in their thinking, 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙨𝙩𝙪𝙛𝙛 𝙮𝙤𝙪 𝙝𝙖𝙫𝙚 𝙩𝙤 𝙡𝙚𝙖𝙧𝙣.
Not the language, fucking stoopid.

And the Hitler was wrong because of what?? Not because his nazi national
socialistic, 𝙬𝙖𝙣𝙣𝙖𝙗𝙚 𝙧𝙚𝙜𝙞𝙢𝙚, but that 𝙝𝙚 𝙬𝙖𝙨 𝙖 𝙥𝙪𝙥𝙥𝙚𝙩 𝙤𝙛 𝙖𝙢𝙧𝙞𝙘𝙖, armed and
supported with money etc, to attack other countries 𝙩𝙤_𝙠𝙞𝙡𝙡_𝙍𝙪𝙨𝙨𝙞𝙖. Then, as
it is today. These 𝙠𝙝𝙖𝙯𝙖𝙧_𝙜𝙤𝙮𝙨 of 𝙘𝙤𝙡𝙡𝙚𝙘𝙩𝙞𝙫𝙚_𝙬𝙚𝙨𝙩 will never stop sucking the
dick from Russia.

[Physfitfreak]

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Stefano Bilbasov

Post by Thomas Heger
Actually you can read the annotations now online (without downloading
the file).

nonsense, that's completely bullshit. It displays you never been study
at an university with a 𝘃𝗶𝘀𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴_𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗳𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗼𝗿.

Most likely a few specialists exist in Germany, who actually know.
I was actually a HYPOTHETICAL professor (in my role as writer of these
annotations).
imagine you were a professor and had to write corrections for the
homework of a student (Albert Einstein in this case).
The 'homework' is the text in question ('On the electrodynamics of
moving bodies' in this case).
So my 'duty' would be to write annotations, where I give the student a
few hints, how to avoid errors next time.
I found 428 errors in Einstein's text and therefore wrote so many
annotations.
TH

You're a high school drop-out. You can't fool anyone. Jump inside my
kill-file bag :)

[Zamir Matzkovsky Bazunov]

Post by Physfitfreak

Post by Thomas Heger
I found 428 errors in Einstein's text and therefore wrote so many
annotations. TH

You're a high school drop-out. You can't fool anyone. Jump inside my
kill-file bag

for you guys, from amrica, whom still don't undrestand Physics, and whom
𝗽𝘂𝗽𝗽𝗲𝘁 Einstine was. He most probably was 𝗮𝗿𝗯𝗶𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗿𝘆_𝗴𝗮𝘆, in bed with his
cousin. Terribly Disgusting. I would never touch a hand with that man.

𝗥𝗘𝗣𝗢𝗥𝗧!_𝗭𝗲𝗹𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗸𝘆_𝘀𝗲𝘁_𝘁𝗼_𝗳𝗹𝗲𝗲_𝗨𝗸𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗲_𝘁𝗼_𝗹𝗶𝘃𝗲_𝗶𝗻_𝗗𝘂𝗯𝗮𝗶_𝗮𝗳𝘁𝗲𝗿_𝗡𝘂𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗱_𝘃𝗶𝘀𝗶𝘁_-𝗥𝗲𝗱𝗮𝗰𝘁𝗲𝗱_𝗡𝗲𝘄𝘀
https://bi%74%63hute.com/video/yCexyK3I3izH

[JanPB]

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Stefano Bilbasov

Post by Thomas Heger
Actually you can read the annotations now online (without downloading
the file).

nonsense, that's completely bullshit. It displays you never been study
at an university with a 𝘃𝗶𝘀𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴_𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗳𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗼𝗿.

Most likely a few specialists exist in Germany, who actually know.
I was actually a HYPOTHETICAL professor (in my role as writer of these
annotations).
imagine you were a professor and had to write corrections for the
homework of a student (Albert Einstein in this case).
The 'homework' is the text in question ('On the electrodynamics of
moving bodies' in this case).
So my 'duty' would be to write annotations, where I give the student a
few hints, how to avoid errors next time.

This assumes you are qualified to do this. (Otherwise the result is just
a waste of everyone's time.) But your annotations show you don't
understand the text you are critiquing. Practically 100% of the time you
point out things that are not errors while not mentioning
genuine points for which the author could be criticised, like skipping
certain parts of arguments (although this is practically the rule in
science papers, but we are talking splitting hairs here - you
cannot do even that correctly).

Post by Thomas Heger
I found 428 errors in Einstein's text and therefore wrote so many
annotations.

They are not errors. They are virtually 100% your misunderstanding of
the subject and of science paper writing in general.

Whatever floats your boat, of course, but to call your work "errors in
Einstein's paper" with a straight face is the height of naivete. Why
don't you devote all this time to learning physics instead? It's
obviously something of interest to you.

--
Jan

[patdolan]

Post by Thomas Heger
HI NG
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RkhX-B5u7X4ga0QH-C53RddjQGctZVdo/view
The file should be downloaded, if you want to read the annotations.
(Sorry, but somehow google managed to reformat all my annotation windows
and pushed them to the right side.
this is not the best position to read them, but you can place them
wherever you want and save the file.)
TH

Thomas Heger, I have not been able to completely follow your magnum opus because of the time requirement needed to absorb your level of fine detail. Can you please sum up your conclusions for this forum in no more than three (3) concise statements? Thank you.