Discussion:
Simple formulae in physics vs. GR formulae (which have physical meaning?)
Richard Hertz
2021-09-14 18:56:38 UTC
Simple, useful formulae that shaped the modern world:

F = m.a
v = x/t
E = 1/2 m.v²
U = F . d
P . V = n . R . T
V = I . R
W = I . V
∇ x E = - ∂B/∂t and ∇ x B = μₒ.εₒ ∂E/∂t, with c = 1/√μₒ.εₒ
...
E = h . f
etc.

Now, compare this simple formula:

F = G.M.m/r² (Newton Law of Gravitational Force)

with this, pretending to substitute the product of the greatest mind in history:

Rᵤᵥ - 1/2 R gᵤᵥ = 8πG/c⁴ Tᵤᵥ , Hilbert-Einstein field equation for GR.

and tell me if something didn't started to be fucked up 115 years ago.

SOME DETAILS (and only are details. Real things are messier):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1) gᵤᵥ =gᵥᵤ , is the metric tensor and can be represented by a 4 x 4 matrix
(gᵘᵛ) for u,v = 0,1,2,3. The most studied component of the GFE.

The metric determines the invariant square of an infinitesimal line
element ds, often referred to as an interval, being

ds² = gᵤᵥ dxᵘ dxᵛ, for u,v = 0,1,2,3.

ds² has so many properties that has occupied the entire professional life
of ten of thousand of physicists in the last 100 years. Brought to life
black holes, worm holes, white holes, ΛCDM cosmology, etc. You name it.

2) R: Scalar curvature (not a tensor).

3) Rᵤᵥ = ∂ᵢ Γⁱᵤᵥ - ∂ᵤ Γⁱᵥᵢ + Γⁱᵢᵣ Γʳᵤᵥ - Γⁱᵤᵣ Γʳᵢᵥ , Ricci curvature tensor

where

Γᵛᵢᵤ = 1/2 gᵛˣ (∂ᵢ gᵤₓ + ∂ᵥ gᵢₓ - ∂ₓ gᵢᵤ) , Christoffel symbols

4) Tᵤᵥ = (Tᵘᵛ) for u,v = 0,1,2,3 , Stress-energy tensor (4 x 4)

being Tᵘᵛ = Tᵛᵘ and

4.1) T⁰⁰ = ρ = 1/c² (1/2 εₒ E² + 1/(2μₒ) B²) , the relativistic mass per unit
volume ρ for an electromagnetic field in the space.

4.2) T⁰ᵉ = Tᵉ⁰ , the flux of relativistic mass across the xᵉ surface,
equivalent to the density of the e_th component of linear momentum.

4.3) Tᵏˡ represent flux of kth component of linear momentum across the xˡ
surface. In particular

Tᵏᵏ , (k = 1, 2, 3) represents normal stress ("pressure") in the kth
co-ordinate direction.

4.4) Remaining components Tᵏˡ (k ≠ l) represent shear (co-planar) stress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Do you notice anything about the real work of nature?
Or just mathematics?
Dirk Van de moortel
2021-09-14 19:19:25 UTC
Post by Richard Hertz
F = m.a
v = x/t
E = 1/2 m.v²
U = F . d
P . V = n . R . T
V = I . R
W = I . V
∇ x E = - ∂B/∂t and ∇ x B = μₒ.εₒ ∂E/∂t, with c = 1/√μₒ.εₒ
...
E = h . f
etc.
That's not simple for people like, say, Ed Lake. Not even close.
Poor Ed.
Post by Richard Hertz
F = G.M.m/r² (Newton Law of Gravitational Force)
Rᵤᵥ - 1/2 R gᵤᵥ = 8πG/c⁴ Tᵤᵥ , Hilbert-Einstein field equation for GR.
and tell me if something didn't started to be fucked up 115 years ago.
It clearly started to be too difficult for simple engineers.
Poor Richard.

Dirk Vdm
Richard Hertz
2021-09-14 19:40:57 UTC
On Tuesday, September 14, 2021 at 4:19:29 PM UTC-3, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:

<snip>
Post by Dirk Van de moortel
F = G.M.m/r² (Newton Law of Gravitational Force)
Rᵤᵥ - 1/2 R gᵤᵥ = 8πG/c⁴ Tᵤᵥ , Hilbert-Einstein field equation for GR.
and tell me if something didn't started to be fucked up 115 years ago.
It clearly started to be too difficult for simple engineers.
Poor Richard.
Obviously you're in deep pain due to your butthurt. Probably you find difficult to digest
the correct summary of such a fucking theory using HTML and in 10 lines.

Or did you find ANY MISTAKE in my post? There is NOT A SINGLE ONE.

Maybe you can learn how to express things in a compact way, like I did!

Wait! You can't, because you are not an engineer, so life is tortuous, difficult and
full of wording and rhetoric. Read and learn, DICK!
Dirk Van de moortel
2021-09-14 19:47:35 UTC
Post by Richard Hertz
<snip>
Post by Dirk Van de moortel
F = G.M.m/r² (Newton Law of Gravitational Force)
Rᵤᵥ - 1/2 R gᵤᵥ = 8πG/c⁴ Tᵤᵥ , Hilbert-Einstein field equation for GR.
and tell me if something didn't started to be fucked up 115 years ago.
It clearly started to be too difficult for simple engineers.
Poor Richard.
Obviously you're in deep pain due to your butthurt. Probably you find difficult to digest
the correct summary of such a fucking theory using HTML and in 10 lines.
Or did you find ANY MISTAKE in my post? There is NOT A SINGLE ONE.
The mistake lies in the getting together of your parents, way back.

Dirk Vdm
Richard Hertz
2021-09-14 21:25:14 UTC
On Tuesday, September 14, 2021 at 4:47:39 PM UTC-3, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:

<snip>
Post by Dirk Van de moortel
The mistake lies in the getting together of your parents, way back.
Dirk Vdm
Nice, Dick. Now apply that to your Einstein and five generations of retarded who followed the math in my OP.

Oh, wait a minute! Are you one 5th. generation descendant of some of your grand-grand-grand father who was
indoctrinated at the beginning of the stupidity chain?

Still, mathematics is not physics, Dick. And GR is a mathematical fairy tail pretended to be physics.

No matter how much do you dislike that, you can't change the truth embedded into such simple statement.
Dirk Van de moortel
2021-09-14 23:22:42 UTC
Post by Richard Hertz
<snip>
Post by Dirk Van de moortel
The mistake lies in the getting together of your parents, way back.
Dirk Vdm
Nice, Dick. Now apply that to your Einstein
I don't have an Einstein. Otoh, you seem to be someone who has one.
Must be hell in there. Poor Richard ;-)

Dirk Vdm
Dono.
2021-09-14 23:20:39 UTC
Post by Richard Hertz
F = m.a
False, F=dp/dt
Post by Richard Hertz
v = x/t
False v=dx/dt
Post by Richard Hertz
E = 1/2 m.v²
False, the above shows only a part of energy
Post by Richard Hertz
U = F . d
False , U=\int{\vec{F} \dot \vec{dx}}

Face it Dick, you are a cretin.
John Doe
2021-09-15 04:05:34 UTC
Post by Richard Hertz
F = m.a
v = x/t
E = 1/2 m.v²
U = F . d
P . V = n . R . T
V = I . R
W = I . V
∇ x E = - ∂B/∂t and ∇ x B = μₒ.εₒ ∂E/∂t, with c = 1/√μₒ.εₒ
...
E = h . f
etc.
F = G.M.m/r² (Newton Law of Gravitational Force)
Rᵤᵥ - 1/2 R gᵤᵥ = 8πG/c⁴ Tᵤᵥ , Hilbert-Einstein field equation for GR.
and tell me if something didn't started to be fucked up 115 years ago.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------
1) gᵤᵥ =gᵥᵤ , is the metric tensor and can be represented by a 4 x 4 matrix
(gᵘᵛ) for u,v = 0,1,2,3. The most studied component of the GFE.
The metric determines the invariant square of an infinitesimal line
element ds, often referred to as an interval, being
ds² = gᵤᵥ dxᵘ dxᵛ, for u,v = 0,1,2,3.
ds² has so many properties that has occupied the entire professional life
of ten of thousand of physicists in the last 100 years. Brought to life
black holes, worm holes, white holes, ΛCDM cosmology, etc. You name it.
2) R: Scalar curvature (not a tensor).
3) Rᵤᵥ = ∂ᵢ Γⁱᵤᵥ - ∂ᵤ Γⁱᵥᵢ + Γⁱᵢᵣ Γʳᵤᵥ - Γⁱᵤᵣ Γʳᵢᵥ , Ricci curvature tensor
where
Γᵛᵢᵤ = 1/2 gᵛˣ (∂ᵢ gᵤₓ + ∂ᵥ gᵢₓ - ∂ₓ gᵢᵤ) , Christoffel symbols
4) Tᵤᵥ = (Tᵘᵛ) for u,v = 0,1,2,3 , Stress-energy tensor (4 x 4)
being Tᵘᵛ = Tᵛᵘ and
4.1) T⁰⁰ = ρ = 1/c² (1/2 εₒ E² + 1/(2μₒ) B²) , the relativistic mass per
unit
volume ρ for an electromagnetic field in the space.
4.2) T⁰ᵉ = Tᵉ⁰ , the flux of relativistic mass across the xᵉ surface,
equivalent to the density of the e_th component of linear momentum.
4.3) Tᵏˡ represent flux of kth component of linear momentum across the xˡ
surface. In particular
Tᵏᵏ , (k = 1, 2, 3) represents normal stress ("pressure") in the kth
co-ordinate direction.
4.4) Remaining components Tᵏˡ (k ≠ l) represent shear (co-planar) stress.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------
Do you notice anything about the real work of nature?
Or just mathematics?
This rings a bell. It is the case that sometimes the simple is deeper and more
difficult to see than the complex.
JanPB
2021-09-15 07:59:55 UTC
Post by John Doe
Post by Richard Hertz
F = m.a
v = x/t
E = 1/2 m.v²
U = F . d
P . V = n . R . T
V = I . R
W = I . V
∇ x E = - ∂B/∂t and ∇ x B = μₒ.εₒ ∂E/∂t, with c = 1/√μₒ.εₒ
...
E = h . f
etc.
F = G.M.m/r² (Newton Law of Gravitational Force)
Rᵤᵥ - 1/2 R gᵤᵥ = 8πG/c⁴ Tᵤᵥ , Hilbert-Einstein field equation for GR.
and tell me if something didn't started to be fucked up 115 years ago.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------
1) gᵤᵥ =gᵥᵤ , is the metric tensor and can be represented by a 4 x 4 matrix
(gᵘᵛ) for u,v = 0,1,2,3. The most studied component of the GFE.
The metric determines the invariant square of an infinitesimal line
element ds, often referred to as an interval, being
ds² = gᵤᵥ dxᵘ dxᵛ, for u,v = 0,1,2,3.
ds² has so many properties that has occupied the entire professional life
of ten of thousand of physicists in the last 100 years. Brought to life
black holes, worm holes, white holes, ΛCDM cosmology, etc. You name it.
2) R: Scalar curvature (not a tensor).
3) Rᵤᵥ = ∂ᵢ Γⁱᵤᵥ - ∂ᵤ Γⁱᵥᵢ + Γⁱᵢᵣ Γʳᵤᵥ - Γⁱᵤᵣ Γʳᵢᵥ , Ricci curvature tensor
where
Γᵛᵢᵤ = 1/2 gᵛˣ (∂ᵢ gᵤₓ + ∂ᵥ gᵢₓ - ∂ₓ gᵢᵤ) , Christoffel symbols
4) Tᵤᵥ = (Tᵘᵛ) for u,v = 0,1,2,3 , Stress-energy tensor (4 x 4)
being Tᵘᵛ = Tᵛᵘ and
4.1) T⁰⁰ = ρ = 1/c² (1/2 εₒ E² + 1/(2μₒ) B²) , the relativistic mass per
unit
volume ρ for an electromagnetic field in the space.
4.2) T⁰ᵉ = Tᵉ⁰ , the flux of relativistic mass across the xᵉ surface,
equivalent to the density of the e_th component of linear momentum.
4.3) Tᵏˡ represent flux of kth component of linear momentum across the xˡ
surface. In particular
Tᵏᵏ , (k = 1, 2, 3) represents normal stress ("pressure") in the kth
co-ordinate direction.
4.4) Remaining components Tᵏˡ (k ≠ l) represent shear (co-planar) stress.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------
Do you notice anything about the real work of nature?
Or just mathematics?
This rings a bell. It is the case that sometimes the simple is deeper and more
difficult to see than the complex.
Sometimes things work out that way, sometimes they don't. In this case they don't.

--
Jan
John Doe
2021-09-16 04:14:30 UTC
Post by JanPB
Post by John Doe
This rings a bell. It is the case that sometimes the simple is deeper and more
difficult to see than the complex.
Sometimes things work out that way, sometimes they don't. In this case they don't.
--
Jan
True. I am not a physicist, but I like this topic. I would like to understand
why Einstein assumed the velocity of light as constant and started measuring
everything with it, and then started to get weird results like time dilation
and lenght contraction as a result. I am understanding this right?
Richard Hertz
2021-09-16 06:51:48 UTC
On Thursday, September 16, 2021 at 1:14:33 AM UTC-3, John Doe wrote:

<snip>
Post by John Doe
True. I am not a physicist, but I like this topic. I would like to understand
why Einstein assumed the velocity of light as constant and started measuring
everything with it, and then started to get weird results like time dilation
and lenght contraction as a result. I am understanding this right?
John, I copy an explanation (mi idea) about why Einstein assumed the constancy of "c". It's extracted

and now I'm modifying it a little bit:

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

IMHO, SR has everything to do with light because at its foundations, tracing back to the first attempt to
describe relativistic behaviors due to the invariance of "c": Woldemar Voigt and his 1887 paper.

His goal was to find what were the formulae for a linear transform of E(x,y,z,t) into another domain E'(x',y',z',t')
in such a way that the WAVE EQUATION be invariant under such linear transformation. Voigt used these three
general wave equations in 1887, one for each dimension (x,y,z). The value ω is the universal velocity of the wave,
independent of any direction x, y, z (represents the modern c).

∂²u/∂t² = ω² Δu = ω² ( ∂²u/∂x² + ∂²u/∂y² + ∂²u/∂z²)
∂²v/∂t² = ω² Δv = ω² ( ∂²v/∂x² + ∂²v/∂y² + ∂²v/∂z²)
∂²w/∂t² = ω² Δw = ω² ( ∂²w/∂x² + ∂²w/∂y² + ∂²w/∂z²)

verifying that the gradient for the general wave function u(x,y,z,t) is:

∂u/∂x + ∂v/∂y + ∂w/∂z = 0

where ∇ is the Gradient operator, Δ is the Laplacian operator, and is

Usually, the wave equation is analyzed traveling only in one direction, and is usually u(x):

∂²u/∂t² = ω² . ∂²u/∂x²

This apply for Maxwell's equation application for a light wave traveling on a unidimensional x direction:

∂²u/∂t² = ω² . ∂²u/∂x² = 1/(μₒ.εₒ) . ∂²u/∂x², where ω² = c² = 1/(μₒ.εₒ)

For Einstein 2nd. postulate of 1905 SR:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"We will raise this conjecture (the purport of which will hereafter be called the “Principle of Relativity”)
to the status of a postulate, and also introduce ANOTHER POSTULATE, which is only apparently
irreconcilable with the former, namely, that LIGHT is always propagated in empty space with a definite
velocity c which is INDEPENDENT OF THE STATE OF MOTION OF THE EMITTING BODY. These two
postulates suffice for the attainment of a simple and consistent theory of the electrodynamics of
moving bodies based on Maxwell’s theory for stationary bodies."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

is crucial (as it was for Voigt, Lorentz and Poincaré) that "c" be invariant under any linear transform, so
any beam light emitted from one frame reference E' be received and measured with "c" speed at E, and
reciprocally. Its independence of the inertial motion at a relative velocity "v" makes c independent of v.

So, Einstein claims that measurements of c+v or c-v are IMPOSSIBLE, otherwise Lorentz transforms
can´t be applied and the wave function of light would DEPEND on the selected inertial frame, moving
with any constant velocity v.

Accepting the 2nd. Postulate with the meaning stated above, everything else is valid within SR domain
of applicability.

Most physicists adhere to this constancy. Others don't agree and say that the measure value can be:
c' = c + v OR c' = c - v. The discussion is on for the last 100 years. If the constancy of c is disproved,
the entire theory of special relativity collapses, and everything in modern physics has to be reformulated.

Personally, I don't believe in the universal constancy of "c" value. Too big and too old is the universe for
this be hold as true in the last 10 billion years or at 10 bly away. But this is just me.

Also, the domain of applicability of SR requires the absence of gravity and a flat (euclidean) space, void
of any trace of matter or energy. And this is obviously NOT TRUE.

But relativists insist into applying SR here on Earth: mean life of cosmic muons coming down from 10-16 Km
from above, suffering permanent gravitational acceleration; kinematic time dilation in Hafele–Keating
experiment, CERN LHC and the huge presence of electric and magnetic energy, and many other experiments
which violate the domain of applicability for SR.

Special Relativity allows muons to make it to sea level (page 11)
https://physics.nyu.edu/NYSCPT/summer02/sb1.pdf

Hafele–Keating experiment
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele%E2%80%93Keating_experiment

Restarting the LHC: Why 13 Tev?
https://home.cern/science/engineering/restarting-lhc-why-13-tev
John Doe
2021-09-16 11:03:24 UTC
Post by Richard Hertz
If the constancy of c is disproved,
the entire theory of special relativity collapses, and everything in modern
physics has to be reformulated.
I understand, this would be a monumental task. What a conundrum we have. I
believe the reason of doing science and Physics in particular is to understand
what's going on. But also we do it to get real numbers, to get real results.
Due to my lack of knowledge I can not assert this but if we are getting good
numbers then we could continue to do it Einstein's way, while at the same time
creating a fork just beginning at the time SR was formulated and look for
alternatives, until the fork catches up with current science. Then we can
chose wich branch of the fork we keep. I am sure there must be young scientist
up to the task of making new science, just like Einstein was.
Don't know, this are just some ideas.

Thanks for all the replies.
Maciej Wozniak
2021-09-16 12:29:51 UTC
Post by John Doe
Post by Richard Hertz
If the constancy of c is disproved,
the entire theory of special relativity collapses, and everything in modern
physics has to be reformulated.
I understand, this would be a monumental task. What a conundrum we have. I
believe the reason of doing science and Physics in particular is to understand
what's going on.
Do you consider a possibility that your faith can be mistaken?
John Doe
2021-09-16 12:39:03 UTC
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by John Doe
Post by Richard Hertz
If the constancy of c is disproved,
the entire theory of special relativity collapses, and everything in modern
physics has to be reformulated.
I understand, this would be a monumental task. What a conundrum we have. I
believe the reason of doing science and Physics in particular is to understand
what's going on.
Do you consider a possibility that your faith can be mistaken?
Faith as in religion? I am not e religious person.
Maciej Wozniak
2021-09-16 17:04:28 UTC
Post by John Doe
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by John Doe
Post by Richard Hertz
If the constancy of c is disproved,
the entire theory of special relativity collapses, and everything in modern
physics has to be reformulated.
I understand, this would be a monumental task. What a conundrum we have. I
believe the reason of doing science and Physics in particular is to understand
what's going on.
Do you consider a possibility that your faith can be mistaken?
Faith as in religion? I am not e religious person.
Faith/believing is similiar in religion and outside. So, do you
consider or not?
John Doe
2021-09-16 12:57:52 UTC
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by John Doe
Post by Richard Hertz
If the constancy of c is disproved,
the entire theory of special relativity collapses, and everything in modern
physics has to be reformulated.
I understand, this would be a monumental task. What a conundrum we have. I
believe the reason of doing science and Physics in particular is to understand
what's going on.
Do you consider a possibility that your faith can be mistaken?
I tend to believe in what I can understand.
Maciej Wozniak
2021-09-16 17:08:43 UTC
Post by John Doe
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by John Doe
Post by Richard Hertz
If the constancy of c is disproved,
the entire theory of special relativity collapses, and everything in modern
physics has to be reformulated.
I understand, this would be a monumental task. What a conundrum we have. I
believe the reason of doing science and Physics in particular is to understand
what's going on.
Do you consider a possibility that your faith can be mistaken?
I tend to believe in what I can understand.
Everyone does. Well, that's a trick science is using to
take the control of your brain and use it for its own purposes.
Religion is doing the same, BTW, but there are significant
differences in the technique and other details.
JanPB
2021-09-16 19:24:33 UTC
Post by Richard Hertz
<snip>
Post by John Doe
True. I am not a physicist, but I like this topic. I would like to understand
why Einstein assumed the velocity of light as constant and started measuring
everything with it, and then started to get weird results like time dilation
and lenght contraction as a result. I am understanding this right?
John, I copy an explanation (mi idea) about why Einstein assumed the constancy of "c". It's extracted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IMHO, SR has everything to do with light because at its foundations, tracing back to the first attempt to
describe relativistic behaviors due to the invariance of "c": Woldemar Voigt and his 1887 paper.
Einstein's work or inspiration was not based on Voigt's work. Amateurs frequently assume that
literal semblance of formulas implies the actual source of a theory.
Post by Richard Hertz
His goal was to find what were the formulae for a linear transform of E(x,y,z,t) into another domain E'(x',y',z',t')
in such a way that the WAVE EQUATION be invariant under such linear transformation.
No. Einstein's inspiration was Lorentz's 1904 paper and its transformation formulas for E and B fields
in _Maxwell's equations_ (not merely the wave equation), esp. the curious fact that those fields
could not be transformed _at all_ under the standard Newtonian change of coordinates but they
_did_ transform if one imposed an extra coordinate change involving _time_. Lorentz himself did
not recognise the importance of this fact and simply treated the transformed time as a
mathematical property or "abstract parameter". Einstein realised there was a way to
make this transformation and the transformed E and B fields "real" in the sense that their values
would be what the "moving" observer would actually measure.
Post by Richard Hertz
Voigt used these three
general wave equations in 1887, one for each dimension (x,y,z).
[etc.] Yes, but this didn't lead anywhere, similarities notwithstanding.

--
Jan
Maciej Wozniak
2021-09-17 06:10:22 UTC
mathematical property or "abstract parameter". Einstein realised there was a way to
make this transformation and the transformed E and B fields "real" in the sense that their values
would be what the "moving" observer would actually measure.
Common sense was warning your idiot guru, and, of course, now,
having GPS we know that what he "realised" was a delusion of
a mystical crank.
Thomas Heger
2021-09-17 07:01:13 UTC
Post by JanPB
Post by Richard Hertz
<snip>
Post by John Doe
True. I am not a physicist, but I like this topic. I would like to understand
why Einstein assumed the velocity of light as constant and started measuring
everything with it, and then started to get weird results like time dilation
and lenght contraction as a result. I am understanding this right?
John, I copy an explanation (mi idea) about why Einstein assumed the constancy of "c". It's extracted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IMHO, SR has everything to do with light because at its foundations, tracing back to the first attempt to
describe relativistic behaviors due to the invariance of "c": Woldemar Voigt and his 1887 paper.
Einstein's work or inspiration was not based on Voigt's work. Amateurs frequently assume that
literal semblance of formulas implies the actual source of a theory.
Einstein's text contains equations and concepts, which were seemingly
inpisred by Poincaré's 'sur la electrodynamic de la electron'. This was
handed to the publisher two weeks after Einstein's 'On the
electrodynamics of moving bodies'.

There are two possible ways, how that could happen:

1st possibility:

the date of the presentation of the text to the journal 'Annalen der
Physik' was wrong and it was actually handed in a few weeks later.

2nd possibility

Hermann Minkowski was a friend of Poincaré (who didn't like Einstein)
and Minkowski gave Einstein a few hints.

...
TH
Richard Hertz
2021-09-17 07:17:43 UTC
Post by Thomas Heger
Post by JanPB
Post by Richard Hertz
<snip>
Post by John Doe
True. I am not a physicist, but I like this topic. I would like to understand
why Einstein assumed the velocity of light as constant and started measuring
everything with it, and then started to get weird results like time dilation
and lenght contraction as a result. I am understanding this right?
John, I copy an explanation (mi idea) about why Einstein assumed the constancy of "c". It's extracted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IMHO, SR has everything to do with light because at its foundations, tracing back to the first attempt to
describe relativistic behaviors due to the invariance of "c": Woldemar Voigt and his 1887 paper.
Einstein's work or inspiration was not based on Voigt's work. Amateurs frequently assume that
literal semblance of formulas implies the actual source of a theory.
Einstein's text contains equations and concepts, which were seemingly
inpisred by Poincaré's 'sur la electrodynamic de la electron'. This was
handed to the publisher two weeks after Einstein's 'On the
electrodynamics of moving bodies'.
the date of the presentation of the text to the journal 'Annalen der
Physik' was wrong and it was actually handed in a few weeks later.
2nd possibility
Hermann Minkowski was a friend of Poincaré (who didn't like Einstein)
and Minkowski gave Einstein a few hints.
...
TH
Try to find connections between Langevin (Poincaré) and Solovine (Einstein).
Same epoch, direct connections on each side. Minkowski (german) also fits, as Poincaré (french)
embodied his major competitor at Europe (only in math, as Poincaré was a polymath
way above Minkowski in knowledge and intelligence). It was pre-WWI time, and sentiments
between France and Germany had been mounting since 1872 (remember the Dreyfus affair).

If, in any possible way, one national could top the other, it was perfect for the sentiments around.
It didn't matter what or how, it was a brutal and silent pre-war.
Thomas Heger
2021-09-18 06:05:01 UTC
Am 17.09.2021 um 09:17 schrieb Richard Hertz:
...
Post by Richard Hertz
Post by Thomas Heger
Post by JanPB
Einstein's work or inspiration was not based on Voigt's work. Amateurs frequently assume that
literal semblance of formulas implies the actual source of a theory.
Einstein's text contains equations and concepts, which were seemingly
inpisred by Poincaré's 'sur la electrodynamic de la electron'. This was
handed to the publisher two weeks after Einstein's 'On the
electrodynamics of moving bodies'.
the date of the presentation of the text to the journal 'Annalen der
Physik' was wrong and it was actually handed in a few weeks later.
2nd possibility
Hermann Minkowski was a friend of Poincaré (who didn't like Einstein)
and Minkowski gave Einstein a few hints.
...
TH
Try to find connections between Langevin (Poincaré) and Solovine (Einstein).
Same epoch, direct connections on each side. Minkowski (german) also fits, as Poincaré (french)
embodied his major competitor at Europe (only in math, as Poincaré was a polymath
way above Minkowski in knowledge and intelligence). It was pre-WWI time, and sentiments
between France and Germany had been mounting since 1872 (remember the Dreyfus affair).
Hermann Minkowski was a world-class mathematician as Poincaré. Both were
not really physicists, but extended math into the natural science.

Both were actually friends and sent lots of letters to the other one.

Therefore, I would not think, they regarded themselves as competitors,
but as cooperators.

Both were not the type of nationalistic war-lovers, but communcated
about other stuff than national pride.
Post by Richard Hertz
If, in any possible way, one national could top the other, it was perfect for the sentiments around.
It didn't matter what or how, it was a brutal and silent pre-war.
???

Einstein lived actually in Bern and was a Swiss citizen.

TH
Richard Hertz
2021-09-18 07:11:31 UTC
On Saturday, September 18, 2021 at 3:05:06 AM UTC-3, Thomas Heger wrote:

<skip>
Post by Thomas Heger
Einstein lived actually in Bern and was a Swiss citizen.
He was obliged to respond to german physicists or he wouldn't published at the Annalen, since 1902.

Forced by circumstances of life. He was a german ex-pat, and dreamed to comeback with glory to Germany, not Prussia.
Planck found an sponsor ($$) for him by 1912 at Berlin University, with a "special professorship position": no duties for teaching, as the retarded couldn't put one word after the next and was always digressing in class in his two years as professor in prior positions. In short, he sucked as a teacher and was always lost and wrong in his math at the board. He depended 100% on german physicists at the Annalen der Physik to publish every paper and revisions (they gave some money to him by doing this: comments about other's papers. Wien and Planck, since 1902 were fundamental for that). JanPB 2021-09-18 13:51:07 UTC Reply Permalink Post by Richard Hertz <skip> Post by Thomas Heger Einstein lived actually in Bern and was a Swiss citizen. He was obliged to respond to german physicists or he wouldn't published at the Annalen, since 1902. Forced by circumstances of life. He was a german ex-pat, and dreamed to comeback with glory to Germany, not Prussia. Planck found an sponsor ($$\$) for him by 1912 at Berlin University, with a "special professorship position": no duties for
teaching, as the retarded couldn't put one word after the next and was always digressing in class in his two years as
professor in prior positions. In short, he sucked as a teacher and was always lost and wrong in his math at the board.
He depended 100% on german physicists at the Annalen der Physik to publish every paper and revisions (they gave some
money to him by doing this: comments about other's papers. Wien and Planck, since 1902 were fundamental for that).
You should get an agent in Hollywood.

--
Jan
Dono.
2021-09-18 14:58:21 UTC
nazi propaganda<
JanPB
2021-09-17 19:38:04 UTC
Post by Thomas Heger
Post by JanPB
Post by Richard Hertz
<snip>
Post by John Doe
True. I am not a physicist, but I like this topic. I would like to understand
why Einstein assumed the velocity of light as constant and started measuring
everything with it, and then started to get weird results like time dilation
and lenght contraction as a result. I am understanding this right?
John, I copy an explanation (mi idea) about why Einstein assumed the constancy of "c". It's extracted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IMHO, SR has everything to do with light because at its foundations, tracing back to the first attempt to
describe relativistic behaviors due to the invariance of "c": Woldemar Voigt and his 1887 paper.
Einstein's work or inspiration was not based on Voigt's work. Amateurs frequently assume that
literal semblance of formulas implies the actual source of a theory.
Einstein's text contains equations and concepts, which were seemingly
inpisred by Poincaré's 'sur la electrodynamic de la electron'. This was
handed to the publisher two weeks after Einstein's 'On the
electrodynamics of moving bodies'.
the date of the presentation of the text to the journal 'Annalen der
Physik' was wrong and it was actually handed in a few weeks later.
2nd possibility
Hermann Minkowski was a friend of Poincaré (who didn't like Einstein)
and Minkowski gave Einstein a few hints.
...
TH
As I said, my take at it that neither of the above is true and Einstein simply
got his inspiration from Lorentz's paper (which apparently created quite
a stir when it was published).

Lorentz himself a bit later, in 1908, in a memoir devoted to Poincare,
mentions Einstein's contribution and specifically how he (Lorentz) missed
the importance of the altered time coordinate. I'm assuming Lorentz
was not paid millions in gold by Einstein in order to state this in print while
not mentioning Minkowski and others in that context.

--
Jan
Thomas Heger
2021-09-18 05:56:55 UTC
Post by JanPB
Post by Thomas Heger
Post by JanPB
Post by Richard Hertz
<snip>
Post by John Doe
True. I am not a physicist, but I like this topic. I would like to understand
why Einstein assumed the velocity of light as constant and started measuring
everything with it, and then started to get weird results like time dilation
and lenght contraction as a result. I am understanding this right?
John, I copy an explanation (mi idea) about why Einstein assumed the constancy of "c". It's extracted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IMHO, SR has everything to do with light because at its foundations, tracing back to the first attempt to
describe relativistic behaviors due to the invariance of "c": Woldemar Voigt and his 1887 paper.
Einstein's work or inspiration was not based on Voigt's work. Amateurs frequently assume that
literal semblance of formulas implies the actual source of a theory.
Einstein's text contains equations and concepts, which were seemingly
inpisred by Poincaré's 'sur la electrodynamic de la electron'. This was
handed to the publisher two weeks after Einstein's 'On the
electrodynamics of moving bodies'.
the date of the presentation of the text to the journal 'Annalen der
Physik' was wrong and it was actually handed in a few weeks later.
2nd possibility
Hermann Minkowski was a friend of Poincaré (who didn't like Einstein)
and Minkowski gave Einstein a few hints.
...
TH
As I said, my take at it that neither of the above is true and Einstein simply
got his inspiration from Lorentz's paper (which apparently created quite
a stir when it was published).
Lorentz himself a bit later, in 1908, in a memoir devoted to Poincare,
mentions Einstein's contribution and specifically how he (Lorentz) missed
the importance of the altered time coordinate. I'm assuming Lorentz
was not paid millions in gold by Einstein in order to state this in print while
not mentioning Minkowski and others in that context.
I personally think, that Poincarè had not copied the work of Lorentz,
but had developed entirely new ideas about relativity on his own, which
were ahead of those of Lorentz.

So I think, that Poincaré's ideas found their way into Einstein's text.

For instance the titles of both papers were quite similar.

Einstein used also Poincare's odd Greek variables: xsi, eta and zeta.

But in my opinon, this is not the correct translation of x, y and z into
Greek, because I would translate y to epsilon.

Also some equations look quite similar.

Therefore, it could be a good idea to compare the papers of Einstein and
Poincare for similarities.

TH
Richard Hertz
2021-09-18 06:59:28 UTC
On Saturday, September 18, 2021 at 2:57:00 AM UTC-3, Thomas Heger wrote:

<snip>
Post by Thomas Heger
Post by JanPB
As I said, my take at it that neither of the above is true and Einstein simply
got his inspiration from Lorentz's paper (which apparently created quite
a stir when it was published).
Lorentz himself a bit later, in 1908, in a memoir devoted to Poincare,
mentions Einstein's contribution and specifically how he (Lorentz) missed
the importance of the altered time coordinate. I'm assuming Lorentz
was not paid millions in gold by Einstein in order to state this in print while
not mentioning Minkowski and others in that context.
I personally think, that Poincarè had not copied the work of Lorentz,
but had developed entirely new ideas about relativity on his own, which
were ahead of those of Lorentz.
So I think, that Poincaré's ideas found their way into Einstein's text.
For instance the titles of both papers were quite similar.
Einstein used also Poincare's odd Greek variables: xsi, eta and zeta.
But in my opinon, this is not the correct translation of x, y and z into
Greek, because I would translate y to epsilon.
Also some equations look quite similar.
Therefore, it could be a good idea to compare the papers of Einstein and
Poincare for similarities.
Try with Voigt (1887 paper). It is a better match and, as Internet wasn't working by then, the
fucking retarded, plagiarist and copycat thought that nobody was going to seek 18 year before
for a forgotten paper that nobody noticed (except Lorentz, who publicly apologized to Voigt in
1910 regarding the "invention" of local time). Watch this:

Einstein 1905:

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

Voigt 1887:

"If we substitute in U , V , W , respectively,

x by ξ
y by η
z by ζ
t by τ

and describe the resulting functions, respectively, ..............................................."

Sound familiar?. And don't forget that Voigt is the recognized grandfather of relativity.
Lorentz used his work "without knowing" and apologized publicly for borrowing Voigt
formulae for local time and, PARTICULARLY, for the first ever introduction of γ factor,
both derived by Voigt on his 1887 paper.

Voigt used q = 1/√(1 - v²/c²), later γ, and τ = t - v.x/c² 16-17 years before Lorentz and Einstein.

Regarding the choice of greek names for variables, there is no reason except plagiarism.

The greek alfabet for small letters goes as:

small alpha α
small beta β ------------------> This for γ in 1905 Einstein (k for Lorentz)
small gamma γ -----------> introduced years after 1905
small delta δ
small epsilon ε
small zeta ζ ------------------> This for z (z' for Lorentz)
small eta η ------------------> This for y (y' for Lorentz)
small theta θ
small iota ι
small kappa κ
small lamda λ
small mu μ
small nu ν
small xi ξ ------------------> This for x (x' for Lorentz)
small pi π
small rho ρ
small sigma σ
small tau τ ------------------> This for t (t' for Lorentz)
small upsilon υ
small phi φ
small chi χ
small psi ψ
small omega ω

There is not a logical pattern for choices in the mind of Einstein, the copycat, isn't it?
Richard Hertz
2021-09-18 07:15:45 UTC
On Saturday, September 18, 2021 at 3:59:30 AM UTC-3, Richard Hertz wrote:

Correcting typo (or miss of it, better):

<snip>

Einstein 1905:

"To any system of values x, y, z, t, which completely defines the place and time of an event in the
stationary system, there belongs a system of values ξ, η, ζ, τ determining that event relatively
to the system k, and our task is now to find the system of equations connecting these quantities."
Maciej Wozniak
2021-09-18 18:19:43 UTC
Post by Thomas Heger
Post by JanPB
Post by Thomas Heger
Post by JanPB
Post by Richard Hertz
<snip>
Post by John Doe
True. I am not a physicist, but I like this topic. I would like to understand
why Einstein assumed the velocity of light as constant and started measuring
everything with it, and then started to get weird results like time dilation
and lenght contraction as a result. I am understanding this right?
John, I copy an explanation (mi idea) about why Einstein assumed the constancy of "c". It's extracted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IMHO, SR has everything to do with light because at its foundations, tracing back to the first attempt to
describe relativistic behaviors due to the invariance of "c": Woldemar Voigt and his 1887 paper.
Einstein's work or inspiration was not based on Voigt's work. Amateurs frequently assume that
literal semblance of formulas implies the actual source of a theory.
Einstein's text contains equations and concepts, which were seemingly
inpisred by Poincaré's 'sur la electrodynamic de la electron'. This was
handed to the publisher two weeks after Einstein's 'On the
electrodynamics of moving bodies'.
the date of the presentation of the text to the journal 'Annalen der
Physik' was wrong and it was actually handed in a few weeks later.
2nd possibility
Hermann Minkowski was a friend of Poincaré (who didn't like Einstein)
and Minkowski gave Einstein a few hints.
...
TH
As I said, my take at it that neither of the above is true and Einstein simply
got his inspiration from Lorentz's paper (which apparently created quite
a stir when it was published).
Lorentz himself a bit later, in 1908, in a memoir devoted to Poincare,
mentions Einstein's contribution and specifically how he (Lorentz) missed
the importance of the altered time coordinate. I'm assuming Lorentz
was not paid millions in gold by Einstein in order to state this in print while
not mentioning Minkowski and others in that context.
I personally think, that Poincarè had not copied the work of Lorentz,
but had developed entirely new ideas about relativity on his own, which
were ahead of those of Lorentz.
So I think, that Poincaré's ideas found their way into Einstein's text.
No, Einstein's entire line of reasoning is different.
Post by Thomas Heger
For instance the titles of both papers were quite similar.
Einstein used also Poincare's odd Greek variables: xsi, eta and zeta.
I have no time to check this right now but my guess this was a common
piece of notation.
Post by Thomas Heger
But in my opinon, this is not the correct translation of x, y and z into
Greek, because I would translate y to epsilon.
Well, that's how it was.
Post by Thomas Heger
Also some equations look quite similar.
Of course they have to.
Post by Thomas Heger
Therefore, it could be a good idea to compare the papers of Einstein and
Poincare for similarities.
I agree. I guess there would be no connection (other than some of the formulas, which,
of course, must be so by definition) while connections with Lorentz's 1904 paper are
very visible. Large parts of "Electrodynamical part" are devoted to re-deriving
Lorentz's formulas for the coordinate transformation and for the transformed
E and B fields. Einstein's way leads to those formulas much faster, Lorentz
gets his transformation by splitting it into two steps: the Newtonian-like first,
then the time-coordinate change second. And even then he still has an overall
multiplicative factor he works quite a bit to prove it's equal to 1 identically.
In the meantime in the real worlf, GPS clocks keep indicating t'=t,
just like all serious clocks always did.
Michael Moroney
2021-09-19 03:10:13 UTC
Post by Thomas Heger
So I think, that Poincaré's ideas found their way into Einstein's text.
No, Einstein's entire line of reasoning is different.
That's the important part.
Post by Thomas Heger
For instance the titles of both papers were quite similar.
Einstein used also Poincare's odd Greek variables: xsi, eta and zeta.
I have no time to check this right now but my guess this was a common
piece of notation.
Nothing odd, he used the closest Greek letters to t, x, z. Y has no
Greek equivalent but if it were me, I would have chosen upsilon since
upper case upsilon looks like Y, plus Y ultimately descended from
upsilon. This is something not used any longer (people usually use x'
instead) so perhaps it was common notation.
Post by Thomas Heger
But in my opinon, this is not the correct translation of x, y and z into
Greek, because I would translate y to epsilon.
Well, that's how it was.
One odd translation of four letters. But even Richard's choice of
epsilon vs. upsilon (assuming not a typo) shows there is no agreement of
the "right" equivalent for y.
Post by Thomas Heger
Also some equations look quite similar.
Of course they have to.
Post by Thomas Heger
Therefore, it could be a good idea to compare the papers of Einstein and
Poincare for similarities.
I agree. I guess there would be no connection (other than some of the formulas, which,
of course, must be so by definition) while connections with Lorentz's 1904 paper are
very visible. Large parts of "Electrodynamical part" are devoted to re-deriving
Lorentz's formulas for the coordinate transformation and for the transformed
E and B fields. Einstein's way leads to those formulas much faster, Lorentz
gets his transformation by splitting it into two steps: the Newtonian-like first,
then the time-coordinate change second. And even then he still has an overall
multiplicative factor he works quite a bit to prove it's equal to 1 identically.
The important part of the 1905 paper was showing why something like
Lorentz's formula worked, plus working out many other resulting things.
Plus giving an actual derivation of it from only two postulates in the
first place. Lorentz figured out what worked, but he really didn't know
why it worked, instead he credited it to an undetectable ether.
Maciej Wozniak
2021-09-19 04:33:50 UTC
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Thomas Heger
So I think, that Poincaré's ideas found their way into Einstein's text.
No, Einstein's entire line of reasoning is different.
That's the important part.
Post by Thomas Heger
For instance the titles of both papers were quite similar.
Einstein used also Poincare's odd Greek variables: xsi, eta and zeta.
I have no time to check this right now but my guess this was a common
piece of notation.
Nothing odd, he used the closest Greek letters to t, x, z. Y has no
Greek equivalent but if it were me, I would have chosen upsilon since
upper case upsilon looks like Y, plus Y ultimately descended from
upsilon. This is something not used any longer (people usually use x'
instead) so perhaps it was common notation.
Post by Thomas Heger
But in my opinon, this is not the correct translation of x, y and z into
Greek, because I would translate y to epsilon.
Well, that's how it was.
One odd translation of four letters. But even Richard's choice of
epsilon vs. upsilon (assuming not a typo) shows there is no agreement of
the "right" equivalent for y.
Post by Thomas Heger
Also some equations look quite similar.
Of course they have to.
Post by Thomas Heger
Therefore, it could be a good idea to compare the papers of Einstein and
Poincare for similarities.
I agree. I guess there would be no connection (other than some of the formulas, which,
of course, must be so by definition) while connections with Lorentz's 1904 paper are
very visible. Large parts of "Electrodynamical part" are devoted to re-deriving
Lorentz's formulas for the coordinate transformation and for the transformed
E and B fields. Einstein's way leads to those formulas much faster, Lorentz
gets his transformation by splitting it into two steps: the Newtonian-like first,
then the time-coordinate change second. And even then he still has an overall
multiplicative factor he works quite a bit to prove it's equal to 1 identically.
The important part of the 1905 paper was showing why something like
Lorentz's formula worked, plus working out many other resulting things.
Plus giving an actual derivation of it from only two postulates in the
first place. Lorentz figured out what worked, but he really didn't know
why it worked, instead he credited it to an undetectable ether.
In the meantime in the real world, however, the clocks of GPS
keep indicating t'=t, just like all serious clocks always did.
Richard Hertz
2021-09-19 05:31:29 UTC
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Thomas Heger
So I think, that Poincaré's ideas found their way into Einstein's text.
No, Einstein's entire line of reasoning is different.
That's the important part.
Post by Thomas Heger
For instance the titles of both papers were quite similar.
Einstein used also Poincare's odd Greek variables: xsi, eta and zeta.
I have no time to check this right now but my guess this was a common
piece of notation.
Nothing odd, he used the closest Greek letters to t, x, z. Y has no
Greek equivalent but if it were me, I would have chosen upsilon since
upper case upsilon looks like Y, plus Y ultimately descended from
upsilon. This is something not used any longer (people usually use x'
instead) so perhaps it was common notation.
Post by Thomas Heger
But in my opinon, this is not the correct translation of x, y and z into
Greek, because I would translate y to epsilon.
Well, that's how it was.
One odd translation of four letters. But even Richard's choice of
epsilon vs. upsilon (assuming not a typo) shows there is no agreement of
the "right" equivalent for y.
Post by Thomas Heger
Also some equations look quite similar.
Of course they have to.
Post by Thomas Heger
Therefore, it could be a good idea to compare the papers of Einstein and
Poincare for similarities.
I agree. I guess there would be no connection (other than some of the formulas, which,
of course, must be so by definition) while connections with Lorentz's 1904 paper are
very visible. Large parts of "Electrodynamical part" are devoted to re-deriving
Lorentz's formulas for the coordinate transformation and for the transformed
E and B fields. Einstein's way leads to those formulas much faster, Lorentz
gets his transformation by splitting it into two steps: the Newtonian-like first,
then the time-coordinate change second. And even then he still has an overall
multiplicative factor he works quite a bit to prove it's equal to 1 identically.
The important part of the 1905 paper was showing why something like
Lorentz's formula worked, plus working out many other resulting things.
Plus giving an actual derivation of it from only two postulates in the
first place. Lorentz figured out what worked, but he really didn't know
why it worked, instead he credited it to an undetectable ether.
In the meantime in the real world, however, the clocks of GPS
keep indicating t'=t, just like all serious clocks always did.
You are shortening your motto week after week. Soon I'll read only:

"In the meantime in the real world, however, ..................."

And that will do the job! Smooth!
Thomas Heger
2021-09-19 07:47:57 UTC
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Thomas Heger
So I think, that Poincaré's ideas found their way into Einstein's text.
No, Einstein's entire line of reasoning is different.
That's the important part.
Post by Thomas Heger
For instance the titles of both papers were quite similar.
Einstein used also Poincare's odd Greek variables: xsi, eta and zeta.
I have no time to check this right now but my guess this was a common
piece of notation.
Nothing odd, he used the closest Greek letters to t, x, z. Y has no
Greek equivalent but if it were me, I would have chosen upsilon since
upper case upsilon looks like Y, plus Y ultimately descended from
upsilon. This is something not used any longer (people usually use x'
instead) so perhaps it was common notation.
Post by Thomas Heger
But in my opinon, this is not the correct translation of x, y and z into
Greek, because I would translate y to epsilon.
Well, that's how it was.
One odd translation of four letters. But even Richard's choice of
epsilon vs. upsilon (assuming not a typo) shows there is no agreement of
the "right" equivalent for y.
The reason to choose small eta instead of small epsilon was, that italic
'v' and small Greek epsilon look too similar.

So a different letter was chosen and Poincaré used eta.

I found it quite odd, that these letters were chosen (but in Einstein's
text).

Another strange coincidence is the use of the small Greek 'rho'.

Einstein used it for 'density of electricity' and Poincare, too.

But 'electricity' in English is not the same 'electricite' in French.

Poincare used the French term similar to 'current' (actually I'm

This is called a 'false friend' and an indication, that something was
copied without thinking too much.

...

TH
Thomas Heger
2021-09-22 05:46:25 UTC
Post by Thomas Heger
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Thomas Heger
So I think, that Poincaré's ideas found their way into Einstein's text.
No, Einstein's entire line of reasoning is different.
That's the important part.
Post by Thomas Heger
For instance the titles of both papers were quite similar.
Einstein used also Poincare's odd Greek variables: xsi, eta and zeta.
I have no time to check this right now but my guess this was a common
piece of notation.
Nothing odd, he used the closest Greek letters to t, x, z. Y has no
Greek equivalent but if it were me, I would have chosen upsilon since
upper case upsilon looks like Y, plus Y ultimately descended from
upsilon. This is something not used any longer (people usually use x'
instead) so perhaps it was common notation.
Post by Thomas Heger
But in my opinon, this is not the correct translation of x, y and z into
Greek, because I would translate y to epsilon.
Well, that's how it was.
One odd translation of four letters. But even Richard's choice of
epsilon vs. upsilon (assuming not a typo) shows there is no agreement of
the "right" equivalent for y.
The reason to choose small eta instead of small epsilon was, that italic
'v' and small Greek epsilon look too similar.
So a different letter was chosen and Poincaré used eta.
I found it quite odd, that these letters were chosen (but in Einstein's
text).
Another strange coincidence is the use of the small Greek 'rho'.
Einstein used it for 'density of electricity' and Poincare, too.
But 'electricity' in English is not the same 'electricite' in French.
Poincare used the French term similar to 'current' (actually I'm
This is called a 'false friend' and an indication, that something was
copied without thinking too much.
I understand Poincaré's use of rho now as 'density of free electrons',
which he called 'density of electricity'.

The reason is the following equation in 'Sur la dynamic de l'electron',
which was u= df/dt + rho*xsi

u was the x component of the current vector and xsi the x-component of
the electrons velocity.

The only thing, that would make sense would be 'electron density'.

Einstein used actually a similar concept, but treated electricity as
'substance', like a strange fluid, which could be added to an atom and
turn it into an ion.

He also used the same greek letter, but for other things.

TH
Thomas Heger
2021-09-24 08:39:17 UTC
Post by Thomas Heger
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Thomas Heger
So I think, that Poincaré's ideas found their way into Einstein's text.
No, Einstein's entire line of reasoning is different.
That's the important part.
Post by Thomas Heger
For instance the titles of both papers were quite similar.
Einstein used also Poincare's odd Greek variables: xsi, eta and zeta.
I have no time to check this right now but my guess this was a common
piece of notation.
Nothing odd, he used the closest Greek letters to t, x, z. Y has no
Greek equivalent but if it were me, I would have chosen upsilon since
upper case upsilon looks like Y, plus Y ultimately descended from
upsilon. This is something not used any longer (people usually use x'
instead) so perhaps it was common notation.
Post by Thomas Heger
But in my opinon, this is not the correct translation of x, y and z into
Greek, because I would translate y to epsilon.
Well, that's how it was.
One odd translation of four letters. But even Richard's choice of
epsilon vs. upsilon (assuming not a typo) shows there is no agreement of
the "right" equivalent for y.
The reason to choose small eta instead of small epsilon was, that italic
'v' and small Greek epsilon look too similar.
So a different letter was chosen and Poincaré used eta.
I found it quite odd, that these letters were chosen (but in Einstein's
text).
Another strange coincidence is the use of the small Greek 'rho'.
Einstein used it for 'density of electricity' and Poincare, too.
But 'electricity' in English is not the same 'electricite' in French.
Poincare used the French term similar to 'current' (actually I'm
This is called a 'false friend' and an indication, that something was
copied without thinking too much.
I really think, that Poincare invented the main concepts of relativity,
much more than Hendrik Lorentz.

Poincare was a mathematician and used a mathematical approach.

He had the idea, that physical system should behave similar in inertial
motion, which required a certain kind of symmetry in descriptive equations.

As a mathematician he worked on the electrodynamics of Maxwell and on
the ideas of Lorentz for a long time, until they had the symmetries,
which he though were necessary.

This is, what I would call 'mathematical approach' (to a problem is
physics).

was handed in to the publisher on 23rd of July 1905, which was roughly
three weeks later, than when Einstein handed his paper 'Zur
Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper' to the journal 'Annalen der Physik'.

TH
Ruben Pike
2021-09-24 09:16:19 UTC
Post by Thomas Heger
was handed in to the publisher on 23rd of July 1905, which was roughly
three weeks later, than when Einstein handed his paper 'Zur
Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper' to the journal 'Annalen der Physik'.
you mean one year before.

Richard Hertz
2021-09-17 07:06:24 UTC
On Thursday, September 16, 2021 at 4:24:35 PM UTC-3, JanPB wrote:

<snip>
Post by JanPB
No. Einstein's inspiration was Lorentz's 1904 paper and its transformation formulas for E and B fields
in _Maxwell's equations_ (not merely the wave equation), esp. the curious fact that those fields
could not be transformed _at all_ under the standard Newtonian change of coordinates but they
_did_ transform if one imposed *********an extra coordinate change involving _time***********.
Einstein's inspiration was multi-source, from where he could plagiarize and fudge to hide origins: Voigt, Lorentz,
FitzGerald, Larmor, Poincaré, Heaviside, Michelson, Thomson, Maxwell, Hertz, Planck, Lenard, Wien, Boltzmann, ....
Post by JanPB
Lorentz himself did not recognise the importance of this fact and simply treated the transformed time as a
mathematical property or "abstract parameter". Einstein realised there was a way to make this transformation
and the transformed E and B fields "real" in the sense that their values would be what the "moving" observer
would actually measure.
Even when radiowaves were widely known and used worldwide by 1905, Einstein wouldn't had known what an
electromagnetic wave was even if he was just about to be vaporized by one EM beam, by standing in front of
an antenna at that epoch. The only thing he knew was how to gather vast amount of information by himself, at
the huge library of the patent office, or through his network of friends/lovers along Europe. Then, he did "cherry

He was a retarded plagiarist and copycat, while you are just a retarded fanatic who's wondering why invested your
life decodifying relativity as if it is some kind of Book of the Secrets, in your particular sect. Keep doing so, and
maybe you'll decode the encrypted message repeated all along his work: "IF YOU CAN READ THIS, THEN YOU
ARE AN IDIOT. THANKS FOR PARTICIPATE".

Oh! The irony! A life invested in nothing, while expecting everything.

E ≠ mc².
Dono.
2021-09-17 14:30:17 UTC
Post by Richard Hertz
Even when radiowaves were widely known and used worldwide by 1905, Einstein wouldn't had known what an
electromagnetic wave was even if he was just about to be vaporized by one EM beam, by standing in front of
an antenna at that epoch. The only thing he knew was how to gather vast amount of information by himself, at
the huge library of the patent office, or through his network of friends/lovers along Europe. Then, he did "cherry
He was a retarded plagiarist and copycat, while you are just a retarded fanatic who's wondering why invested your
life decodifying relativity as if it is some kind of Book of the Secrets, in your particular sect. Keep doing so, and
maybe you'll decode the encrypted message repeated all along his work: "IF YOU CAN READ THIS, THEN YOU
ARE AN IDIOT. THANKS FOR PARTICIPATE".
You have a serious hard on for Einstein. This is because he was a genius and you are just a piece of shit. Your only consolation is that you will die a piece of shit and you will be remembered a piece of shit.
Post by Richard Hertz
E ≠ mc².
Of course not, cretinoid, E=\sqrt{(pc)^2+(mc^2)^2}
I have shown you that countless times but you are too cretin to learn.
Maciej Wozniak
2021-09-17 15:09:37 UTC
Post by Dono.
You have a serious hard on for Einstein. This is because he was a genius and you are just a piece of shit.
In the meantime in the real world, the clocks of GPS keep indicating t'=t,
just like all serious clocks always did.
JanPB
2021-09-17 19:41:36 UTC
Post by Dono.
Post by Richard Hertz
Even when radiowaves were widely known and used worldwide by 1905, Einstein wouldn't had known what an
electromagnetic wave was even if he was just about to be vaporized by one EM beam, by standing in front of
an antenna at that epoch. The only thing he knew was how to gather vast amount of information by himself, at
the huge library of the patent office, or through his network of friends/lovers along Europe. Then, he did "cherry
He was a retarded plagiarist and copycat, while you are just a retarded fanatic who's wondering why invested your
life decodifying relativity as if it is some kind of Book of the Secrets, in your particular sect. Keep doing so, and
maybe you'll decode the encrypted message repeated all along his work: "IF YOU CAN READ THIS, THEN YOU
ARE AN IDIOT. THANKS FOR PARTICIPATE".
You have a serious hard on for Einstein.
99% of the time on this NG once you have drilled deep enough into a "denier"(*),
it will in the end reveal a simple deep hatred of Albert Einstein as a person.

(*)about 3/4 of the time it's a male retired EE (for some reason)

--
Jan
Odd Bodkin
2021-09-17 21:10:12 UTC
Post by JanPB
Post by Dono.
Post by Richard Hertz
Even when radiowaves were widely known and used worldwide by 1905,
Einstein wouldn't had known what an
electromagnetic wave was even if he was just about to be vaporized by
one EM beam, by standing in front of
an antenna at that epoch. The only thing he knew was how to gather vast
amount of information by himself, at
the huge library of the patent office, or through his network of
friends/lovers along Europe. Then, he did "cherry
picking" over that pile of data and, even at such simple task, he
He was a retarded plagiarist and copycat, while you are just a retarded
fanatic who's wondering why invested your
life decodifying relativity as if it is some kind of Book of the
Secrets, in your particular sect. Keep doing so, and
"IF YOU CAN READ THIS, THEN YOU
ARE AN IDIOT. THANKS FOR PARTICIPATE".
You have a serious hard on for Einstein.
99% of the time on this NG once you have drilled deep enough into a "denier"(*),
it will in the end reveal a simple deep hatred of Albert Einstein as a person.
(*)about 3/4 of the time it's a male retired EE (for some reason)
--
Jan
Isn’t it actually hatred for hero-worship? Hatred in particular for the
idea that everyone would know the name of a famous physicist, but names of
famous engineers are less ethereal?

Never mind that it’s Barnes & Noble popularizations that mound adulation on
Einstein, not physicists.

Never mind that in fact there are lots of famous engineers, like Steve
Wozniak, Charles Babbage, Henry Ford, Alexander Bell, Rudolph Diesel, Amar
Bose, Elon Musk. Still hurting for attention?
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Maciej Wozniak
2021-09-18 05:02:57 UTC
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by JanPB
Post by Dono.
Post by Richard Hertz
Even when radiowaves were widely known and used worldwide by 1905,
Einstein wouldn't had known what an
electromagnetic wave was even if he was just about to be vaporized by
one EM beam, by standing in front of
an antenna at that epoch. The only thing he knew was how to gather vast
amount of information by himself, at
the huge library of the patent office, or through his network of
friends/lovers along Europe. Then, he did "cherry
picking" over that pile of data and, even at such simple task, he
He was a retarded plagiarist and copycat, while you are just a retarded
fanatic who's wondering why invested your
life decodifying relativity as if it is some kind of Book of the
Secrets, in your particular sect. Keep doing so, and
"IF YOU CAN READ THIS, THEN YOU
ARE AN IDIOT. THANKS FOR PARTICIPATE".
You have a serious hard on for Einstein.
99% of the time on this NG once you have drilled deep enough into a "denier"(*),
it will in the end reveal a simple deep hatred of Albert Einstein as a person.
(*)about 3/4 of the time it's a male retired EE (for some reason)
--
Jan
Isn’t it actually hatred for hero-worship? Hatred in particular for the
idea that everyone would know the name of a famous physicist, but names of
famous engineers are less ethereal?
Never mind that it’s Barnes & Noble popularizations that mound adulation on
Einstein, not physicists.
Never mind that in fact there are lots of famous engineers, like Steve
Wozniak, Charles Babbage, Henry Ford, Alexander Bell, Rudolph Diesel, Amar
Bose, Elon Musk. Still hurting for attention?
Never mind, indeed. What matters is that the mumble
of your idiot guru is violating common sense, basic
mathematics, elementary definitions and is not even
consistent.
JanPB
2021-09-19 10:27:50 UTC
Post by Richard Hertz
<snip>
Post by JanPB
No. Einstein's inspiration was Lorentz's 1904 paper and its transformation formulas for E and B fields
in _Maxwell's equations_ (not merely the wave equation), esp. the curious fact that those fields
could not be transformed _at all_ under the standard Newtonian change of coordinates but they
_did_ transform if one imposed *********an extra coordinate change involving _time***********.
Einstein's inspiration was multi-source, from where he could plagiarize and fudge to hide origins: Voigt, Lorentz,
FitzGerald, Larmor, Poincaré, Heaviside, Michelson, Thomson, Maxwell, Hertz, Planck, Lenard, Wien, Boltzmann, ....
No, this is false. You're just making stuff up because you don't like the guy. This is not science, it's
throwing a tantrum.

Where do those types get this idea that Einstein "plagiarized" something? They have no clue what the
theory actually *is*, they have no clue how it originated, so how would they know about any possible
plagiarizing in the first place?
Post by Richard Hertz
Post by JanPB
Lorentz himself did not recognise the importance of this fact and simply treated the transformed time as a
mathematical property or "abstract parameter". Einstein realised there was a way to make this transformation
and the transformed E and B fields "real" in the sense that their values would be what the "moving" observer
would actually measure.
Even when radiowaves were widely known and used worldwide by 1905, Einstein wouldn't had known what an
electromagnetic wave was
He knew it very well. In fact, electrodynamics AFAIK was not taught at regular physics lectures at the ETH at
that time and Einstein, as a student, had to organize something along those lines. Perhaps someone here
has more historical details about that.

Either way, it's perfectly obvious from his 1905 paper that he knew very well how to work with EM waves.
His "Electrodynamical part", for example, contains a few quite complex derivations which he skips
(he wrote the paper for professional physicists, not for students). The fact alone that he even noticed the
need to derive the transverse Doppler effect (a new effect defined in this paper for the first time) tells
you he knew how to work with EM radiation backwards and forwards.
Post by Richard Hertz
even if he was just about to be vaporized by one EM beam, by standing in front of
an antenna at that epoch.
Looks like antennas are your professional field of work, hence you keep barking this tree all
the time. It's irrelevant to your fabricated claim of "plagiarism".
Post by Richard Hertz
The only thing he knew was how to gather vast amount of information by himself, at
the huge library of the patent office, or through his network of friends/lovers along Europe.
No. Your ignorance shows here. You simply make up a story that keeps your ego happy and feeds your
bizarre Einstein Derangement Syndrome and your ignorance allows this to happen by NOT throwing
IMMEDIATE brakes upon this idyllic scenario.

It's only ignorant people who have the "courage" to state nonsense without the immediate
feeling of a contradiction (which is what an expert immediately senses in such cases).
Post by Richard Hertz
Then, he did "cherry
You talk like Pentcho Valev here. He is also forever harping on the (false) idea of Einstein's
"cherrypicking". Again, it is the lack of knowledge of the theory that allows you to create
those fantasies at will, without any intellectual consequences that would normally follow and
immediately arrest that line of development. But you need to know this stuff first.

From your first posts on this NG you've been spinning wheels getting nowhere.
Post by Richard Hertz
He was a retarded plagiarist and copycat,
No, it's a dear fantasy of yours, and other deranged people like you.
Post by Richard Hertz
while you are just a retarded fanatic who's wondering why invested your
life decodifying relativity as if it is some kind of Book of the Secrets, in your particular sect. Keep doing so, and
maybe you'll decode the encrypted message repeated all along his work: "IF YOU CAN READ THIS, THEN YOU
ARE AN IDIOT. THANKS FOR PARTICIPATE".
Exactly right. If you don't know X, you cannot critique X and you cannot contribute ANY valid
opinion on the process of the creation of X by its creator. There are no exceptions to this rule.
Sorry to burst your bubble but you'll never get anywhere with your argument. You are just
mentally masturbating in public, that's all.

--
Jan
Maciej Wozniak
2021-09-19 10:42:28 UTC
Post by JanPB
Exactly right. If you don't know X, you cannot critique X and you cannot contribute ANY valid
opinion on the process of the creation of X by its creator.
How dare you criticising communism, fool!!! Have you ever
studied the works of comerade Lenin?
Post by JanPB
There are no exceptions to this rule.
Or, at least, poor fanatic idiot Jan says so. A kind of the same thing.

In the meantime in the real world, however, the clocks
of GPS keep indicating t'=t, just like all serious clocks
always did.
Thomas Heger
2021-09-20 05:23:27 UTC
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by JanPB
Exactly right. If you don't know X, you cannot critique X and you cannot contribute ANY valid
opinion on the process of the creation of X by its creator.
How dare you criticising communism, fool!!! Have you ever
studied the works of comerade Lenin?
There is and was always a gap between theories and realitity.

So, lets hope, that Lenin had at least good intentions.

But did you know, that the German emperor Wilhelm II send Lenin to
Russia, with the intentions, that this would harm the enemy?

'Stalin' was actually much more important for Russia than Lenin, anyhow.

He was allegdly sent by British intelligence for the very same reason:
https://www.abebooks.co.uk/9780473120733/Stalins-British-Training-Greg-Hallett-0473120739/plp

To Germany they sent a guy, who is commonly called 'Hitler':

https://www.amazon.com/Hitler-British-Agent-Solving-History/dp/047311478X

..

TH
JanPB
2021-09-20 10:36:25 UTC
Post by Thomas Heger
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by JanPB
Exactly right. If you don't know X, you cannot critique X and you cannot contribute ANY valid
opinion on the process of the creation of X by its creator.
How dare you criticising communism, fool!!! Have you ever
studied the works of comerade Lenin?
There is and was always a gap between theories and realitity.
The point is, of course, that a person living under communism is
an expert in Leninism (from the practical side). So such person
can obviously validly criticise Lenin without reading a word of Lenin.

But science is not like that. Instead, it relies 100% on the purely
intellectual expertise. So if one didn't learn physics, one
cannot critcise it. There are no exceptions.

--
Jan
Maciej Wozniak
2021-09-20 11:32:02 UTC
Post by JanPB
Post by Thomas Heger
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by JanPB
Exactly right. If you don't know X, you cannot critique X and you cannot contribute ANY valid
opinion on the process of the creation of X by its creator.
How dare you criticising communism, fool!!! Have you ever
studied the works of comerade Lenin?
There is and was always a gap between theories and realitity.
The point is, of course, that a person living under communism is
an expert in Leninism (from the practical side).
Samely, a person listening to Tom's insane screams "We're FORCED!!!
To THE BEST WAY!!! We are THE COMMUNITY OF PHYSICISTS!!!!"
becomes an expert in relativity. Without studying your Holy Scripts.
Your Holy Scripts are just insignificant ideological fiction, just like
the works of Lenin were.
Richard Hertz
2021-09-20 14:25:15 UTC
Why don't you stop derailing this thread, based on the stupidity of general relativity equations
and pay attention to my prove that Einstein HACKED the first and only public explanation of
Mercury's perihelion shift in Nov.4, 1915 just three weeks before his final presentation of GR
theory, completed with Hilbert solution for gravitational field equation?

It's on the Lorentz thread, here:

Lorentz 1920: Einstein is not an astronomer, yet.......

It started with my intention to show how much a lame sucker Lorentz was.

Then, I finally decided to make a FORENSIC ANALYSIS of the Einstein's paper using the tools
provided by mathematics (which I can manage very well), to finish FINDING how Einstein
HACKED his paper just at the beginning by introducing Sun Mass and Newton's gravitational
potential into the otherwise STERILE set of non-linear set of geometric equations.

In this FALSE WAY, Einstein connected BY HAND an artificial relationship between spacetime
and mass, which proves that SINCE TIME ZERO GR is false, void of ANY physical meaning, and
it's a joke on everyone of the idiot relativists, who bought Einstein's theories without THINKING!
Dono.
2021-09-21 14:18:51 UTC
Post by Richard Hertz
Then, I finally decided to make a FORENSIC ANALYSIS of the Einstein's paper using the tools
provided by mathematics (which I can manage very well),
Actually, you CAN'T. Because you are an imbecile. All that you managed over the tears is to demonstrate how BIG of an imbecile you are. Keep up the entertainment, old clown fart.
Thomas Heger
2021-09-21 05:53:29 UTC
Am 20.09.2021 um 12:36 schrieb JanPB:
...
Post by JanPB
Post by Thomas Heger
Post by Maciej Wozniak
How dare you criticising communism, fool!!! Have you ever
studied the works of comerade Lenin?
There is and was always a gap between theories and realitity.
The point is, of course, that a person living under communism is
an expert in Leninism (from the practical side). So such person
can obviously validly criticise Lenin without reading a word of Lenin.
A wast amount of time and paper was wasted on the scripts of Marx and
Lenin (and others).

This was 19th-century style of indoctrination with pure
pseudo-scientific crap.
Post by JanPB
But science is not like that. Instead, it relies 100% on the purely
intellectual expertise. So if one didn't learn physics, one
cannot critcise it. There are no exceptions.
I'm sorry, but I do not agree.

A scientific discovery can be made by all possible means. The discovery
can be seen in a vision, which was sent from heaven, can be found on the
street or encoutered after the consumption of illegal drugs.

It is not at all important, how someone came to a certain insight.
Important is its quality.

Good quality is unlikely, however, if someone has no proper training.

But pure luck is also valid and pure guesswork, too, if it produces good
results.

TH
JanPB
2021-09-21 13:46:03 UTC
Post by Thomas Heger
...
Post by JanPB
Post by Thomas Heger
Post by Maciej Wozniak
How dare you criticising communism, fool!!! Have you ever
studied the works of comerade Lenin?
There is and was always a gap between theories and realitity.
The point is, of course, that a person living under communism is
an expert in Leninism (from the practical side). So such person
can obviously validly criticise Lenin without reading a word of Lenin.
A wast amount of time and paper was wasted on the scripts of Marx and
Lenin (and others).
This was 19th-century style of indoctrination with pure
pseudo-scientific crap.
And the relevance of this remark is...?
Post by Thomas Heger
Post by JanPB
But science is not like that. Instead, it relies 100% on the purely
intellectual expertise. So if one didn't learn physics, one
cannot critcise it. There are no exceptions.
I'm sorry, but I do not agree.
It's not up to you to agree or disagree.
Post by Thomas Heger
No, I'm talking about certain FACTS. If you don't know them, you cannot
sensibly comment on them. It's very simple.
Post by Thomas Heger
A scientific discovery can be made by all possible means. The discovery
can be seen in a vision, which was sent from heaven, can be found on the
street or encoutered after the consumption of illegal drugs.
We are not talking about that. The point under discussion is your
attempt to criticise Einstein while not understanding physics. This
approach will never work.
Post by Thomas Heger
It is not at all important, how someone came to a certain insight.
Important is its quality.
That's not what's under discussion here.
Post by Thomas Heger
Good quality is unlikely, however, if someone has no proper training.
But pure luck is also valid and pure guesswork, too, if it produces good
results.
Sometimes. But not valid criticism which is a purely intellectual endeavour and
as such requires the knowledge of the relevant facts. You are not there yet.

--
Jan
Maciej Wozniak
2021-09-21 14:01:44 UTC
Post by JanPB
Post by Thomas Heger
No, I'm talking about certain FACTS.
In the meantime in the real world, the FACTS are: GPS
clocks are indicating t'=t, just like all serious clocks
always did.
Michael Moroney
2021-09-16 06:57:51 UTC
Post by JanPB
Post by John Doe
This rings a bell. It is the case that sometimes the simple is deeper and more
difficult to see than the complex.
Sometimes things work out that way, sometimes they don't. In this case they don't.
--
Jan
I would like to understand why Einstein assumed the velocity of light as constant and started measuring
everything with it,
He didn't assume the speed of light was constant. It is what the
scientists of the time kept measuring. The speed of light was always
the same. They knew it was constant, even though they did not know why.
All Einstein did was make it into a postulate, that it was some
unknown law of physics that the speed of light is constant.
Maciej Wozniak
2021-09-16 07:47:46 UTC
He didn't assume the speed of light was constant. It is what the
scientists of the time kept measuring.
Only such an idiot, stupid Mike, can believe such an impudent
lie; of course, with unit of time valid also in physics in the time
of your idiot guru was making such a result completely impossible.
Thomas Heger
2021-09-22 05:36:14 UTC
Post by John Doe
Post by Richard Hertz
F = m.a
v = x/t
E = 1/2 m.v²
U = F . d
P . V = n . R . T
V = I . R
W = I . V
∇ x E = - ∂B/∂t and ∇ x B = μₒ.εₒ ∂E/∂t, with c = 1/√μₒ.εₒ
...
E = h . f
etc.
F = G.M.m/r² (Newton Law of Gravitational Force)
Rᵤᵥ - 1/2 R gᵤᵥ = 8πG/c⁴ Tᵤᵥ , Hilbert-Einstein field equation for GR.
and tell me if something didn't started to be fucked up 115 years ago.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------
1) gᵤᵥ =gᵥᵤ , is the metric tensor and can be represented by a 4 x 4 matrix
(gᵘᵛ) for u,v = 0,1,2,3. The most studied component of the GFE.
The metric determines the invariant square of an infinitesimal line
element ds, often referred to as an interval, being
ds² = gᵤᵥ dxᵘ dxᵛ, for u,v = 0,1,2,3.
ds² has so many properties that has occupied the entire professional life
of ten of thousand of physicists in the last 100 years. Brought to life
black holes, worm holes, white holes, ΛCDM cosmology, etc. You name it.
2) R: Scalar curvature (not a tensor).
3) Rᵤᵥ = ∂ᵢ Γⁱᵤᵥ - ∂ᵤ Γⁱᵥᵢ + Γⁱᵢᵣ Γʳᵤᵥ - Γⁱᵤᵣ Γʳᵢᵥ , Ricci curvature tensor
where
Γᵛᵢᵤ = 1/2 gᵛˣ (∂ᵢ gᵤₓ + ∂ᵥ gᵢₓ - ∂ₓ gᵢᵤ) , Christoffel symbols
4) Tᵤᵥ = (Tᵘᵛ) for u,v = 0,1,2,3 , Stress-energy tensor (4 x 4)
being Tᵘᵛ = Tᵛᵘ and
4.1) T⁰⁰ = ρ = 1/c² (1/2 εₒ E² + 1/(2μₒ) B²) , the relativistic mass per
unit
volume ρ for an electromagnetic field in the space.
4.2) T⁰ᵉ = Tᵉ⁰ , the flux of relativistic mass across the xᵉ surface,
equivalent to the density of the e_th component of linear momentum.
4.3) Tᵏˡ represent flux of kth component of linear momentum across the xˡ
surface. In particular
Tᵏᵏ , (k = 1, 2, 3) represents normal stress ("pressure") in the kth
co-ordinate direction.
4.4) Remaining components Tᵏˡ (k ≠ l) represent shear (co-planar) stress.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------
Do you notice anything about the real work of nature?
Or just mathematics?
This rings a bell. It is the case that sometimes the simple is deeper and more
difficult to see than the complex.
This is a pattern, which universally valid:

things start from chaos

then something very complicated is the result of attempts to sort that out

another huge amount of effort is needed to simplify that.

Therefore the simple solution is the most difficult one.

('Non-solutions' look quite similar, but are called primitive).

TH
JanPB
2021-09-15 07:58:46 UTC
Post by Richard Hertz
F = m.a
v = x/t
E = 1/2 m.v²
U = F . d
P . V = n . R . T
V = I . R
W = I . V
∇ x E = - ∂B/∂t and ∇ x B = μₒ.εₒ ∂E/∂t, with c = 1/√μₒ.εₒ
...
E = h . f
etc.
F = G.M.m/r² (Newton Law of Gravitational Force)
Rᵤᵥ - 1/2 R gᵤᵥ = 8πG/c⁴ Tᵤᵥ , Hilbert-Einstein field equation for GR.
and tell me if something didn't started to be fucked up 115 years ago.
Why? Just because it's more complex? Since when this is a criterion for
anything?
Post by Richard Hertz
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) gᵤᵥ =gᵥᵤ , is the metric tensor and can be represented by a 4 x 4 matrix
(gᵘᵛ) for u,v = 0,1,2,3. The most studied component of the GFE.
The metric determines the invariant square of an infinitesimal line
element ds, often referred to as an interval, being
ds² = gᵤᵥ dxᵘ dxᵛ, for u,v = 0,1,2,3.
ds² has so many properties that has occupied the entire professional life
of ten of thousand of physicists in the last 100 years. Brought to life
black holes, worm holes, white holes, ΛCDM cosmology, etc. You name it.
Why are you focusing on GR then? Particle physics is MUCH more weird than
anything in GR. Oh, I see, particle physics uses more advanced mathematics,
so you cannot doodle with it.
Post by Richard Hertz
2) R: Scalar curvature (not a tensor).
3) Rᵤᵥ = ∂ᵢ Γⁱᵤᵥ - ∂ᵤ Γⁱᵥᵢ + Γⁱᵢᵣ Γʳᵤᵥ - Γⁱᵤᵣ Γʳᵢᵥ , Ricci curvature tensor
where
Γᵛᵢᵤ = 1/2 gᵛˣ (∂ᵢ gᵤₓ + ∂ᵥ gᵢₓ - ∂ₓ gᵢᵤ) , Christoffel symbols
4) Tᵤᵥ = (Tᵘᵛ) for u,v = 0,1,2,3 , Stress-energy tensor (4 x 4)
being Tᵘᵛ = Tᵛᵘ and
4.1) T⁰⁰ = ρ = 1/c² (1/2 εₒ E² + 1/(2μₒ) B²) , the relativistic mass per unit
volume ρ for an electromagnetic field in the space.
4.2) T⁰ᵉ = Tᵉ⁰ , the flux of relativistic mass across the xᵉ surface,
equivalent to the density of the e_th component of linear momentum.
4.3) Tᵏˡ represent flux of kth component of linear momentum across the xˡ
surface. In particular
Tᵏᵏ , (k = 1, 2, 3) represents normal stress ("pressure") in the kth
co-ordinate direction.
4.4) Remaining components Tᵏˡ (k ≠ l) represent shear (co-planar) stress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you notice anything about the real work of nature?
Or just mathematics?
You simply don't know what those tensors mean in real experimental terms. To
you it all looks just like a bunch of math.

It's been a very common thread on this NG since its inception: "I don't understand
it, therefore it's inferior. I understand F=ma, therefore it's superior." Etc. etc.

To your credit, you haven't yet claimed that the LACK of knowledge is "superior" to
knowledge because it allows "my superior physics intuition to blossom unfettered
by the mathematics" - another very common claim here by people who want to do
physics but cannot be bothered to learn it.

--
Jan
Richard Hertz
2021-09-15 14:36:56 UTC
On Wednesday, September 15, 2021 at 4:58:48 AM UTC-3, JanPB wrote:

<snip>
F = G.M.m/r² (Newton Law of Gravitational Force)
Rᵤᵥ - 1/2 R gᵤᵥ = 8πG/c⁴ Tᵤᵥ , Hilbert-Einstein field equation for GR.
and tell me if something didn't started to be fucked up 115 years ago.
Why? Just because it's more complex? Since when this is a criterion for anything?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) gᵤᵥ =gᵥᵤ , is the metric tensor and can be represented by a 4 x 4 matrix
(gᵘᵛ) for u,v = 0,1,2,3. The most studied component of the GFE.
The metric determines the invariant square of an infinitesimal line
element ds, often referred to as an interval, being
ds² = gᵤᵥ dxᵘ dxᵛ, for u,v = 0,1,2,3.
ds² has so many properties that has occupied the entire professional life
of ten of thousand of physicists in the last 100 years. Brought to life
black holes, worm holes, white holes, ΛCDM cosmology, etc. You name it.
Why are you focusing on GR then? Particle physics is MUCH more weird than
anything in GR. Oh, I see, particle physics uses more advanced mathematics,
so you cannot doodle with it.
I'm focusing on GR, Jan, because I want to know as exactly as I'm able to do it,
WHY the GR movement started after 1910 and Minkowski. Call it curiosity, but
this particular contest involved about ten competing theories between 1911 and
1915, as well as different personalities with different backgrounds.

In particular, I'm trying to understand every step that was done by Einstein and
friends. This approach is VERY telling, for me, because I'll be able to find the
roots of every particular modification (in the GR timeline) to tune up the underlying
mathematical basis so they could satisfy both fields: mathematics and physics, as
they were nurtured by external influences on the minds of those involved: Not only
Einstein but the "supervisors" at the Prussian Academy of Sciences (in particular Mie).

And this is a novel and entertaining approach for me. Instead of heavy rhetoric and
philosophically supported rants (based on my logic and knowledge), I've decided that's
more fruitful to be involved into the mathematical framework and how it was linked to
physical meanings (if any). New hobby, fascinating, and started to pay off when I
decided to trace back when the concepts of GPS alleged relativistic corrections were
born. It did pay off, and I wrote my post about the genesis in the March 1911 paper.

Not only that, but also the deflection of light theory as developed between March 1911
(it was von Soldner's work, rearranged), and twice that value by Nov. 1915, which is
explained in the Nov. 1915 Einstein's paper about approximations of his incomplete
GR math (not Hilbert influenced yet) to explain Mercury's perihelion which, in turn,
moved Schwarzschild to find an exact analytical solution (which Einstein didn't believe
that was possible).

The above concepts also will help me to understand WHY Einstein kept developing a theory,
about which he was convinced that nobody could refute without crippling it with approximations.
This, and alone this, is very telling for me about the psychological drive for Einstein to keep going:
Maybe that he was too much involved in efforts to NOT RUIN his "career", so he couldn't either
drop the work or publicly accept that such work was OUT OF HIS HANDS and have life on its own.
And all of this because of MATHEMATICAL FORMALISM, not PHYSICAL COHERENCE.

I know that it must hit you that I dare to do what I'm starting to do, as this topic is very important
for you, and for a long time. But, besides your feelings, I have every right to do what I'm doing.

Now, if you have to resort (again) to "ad-hominem" attacks like: "You can't do it because you don't
have the required expertise" OR "How dare you to mess with this sacred body of "knowledge" when
you don't even understand what's the meaning of the simplest term", then you are the one who has
a problem, Jan, not me. Prejudices are a horrible manifestation of human flaws, moves people to
the wrong direction AND, most of the time, are based on jealousy and incorrect feelings of superiority.
2) R: Scalar curvature (not a tensor).
3) Rᵤᵥ = ∂ᵢ Γⁱᵤᵥ - ∂ᵤ Γⁱᵥᵢ + Γⁱᵢᵣ Γʳᵤᵥ - Γⁱᵤᵣ Γʳᵢᵥ , Ricci curvature tensor
where
Γᵛᵢᵤ = 1/2 gᵛˣ (∂ᵢ gᵤₓ + ∂ᵥ gᵢₓ - ∂ₓ gᵢᵤ) , Christoffel symbols
4) Tᵤᵥ = (Tᵘᵛ) for u,v = 0,1,2,3 , Stress-energy tensor (4 x 4)
being Tᵘᵛ = Tᵛᵘ and
4.1) T⁰⁰ = ρ = 1/c² (1/2 εₒ E² + 1/(2μₒ) B²) , the relativistic mass per unit
volume ρ for an electromagnetic field in the space.
4.2) T⁰ᵉ = Tᵉ⁰ , the flux of relativistic mass across the xᵉ surface,
equivalent to the density of the e_th component of linear momentum.
4.3) Tᵏˡ represent flux of kth component of linear momentum across the xˡ
surface. In particular
Tᵏᵏ , (k = 1, 2, 3) represents normal stress ("pressure") in the kth
co-ordinate direction.
4.4) Remaining components Tᵏˡ (k ≠ l) represent shear (co-planar) stress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you notice anything about the real work of nature?
Or just mathematics?
You simply don't know what those tensors mean in real experimental terms. To
you it all looks just like a bunch of math.
Read my above statement, and stop forecasting people's behavior or capabilities.
Try to switch to weather forecasting and, maybe, you'll be more certain than with
It's been a very common thread on this NG since its inception: "I don't understand
it, therefore it's inferior. I understand F=ma, therefore it's superior." Etc. etc.
To your credit, you haven't yet claimed that the LACK of knowledge is "superior" to
knowledge because it allows "my superior physics intuition to blossom unfettered
by the mathematics" - another very common claim here by people who want to do
physics but cannot be bothered to learn it.
I find this digression a complement to prove my previous comments.
Gale Binz
2021-09-15 14:40:57 UTC
Post by Richard Hertz
Post by JanPB
Why are you focusing on GR then? Particle physics is MUCH more weird
than anything in GR. Oh, I see, particle physics uses more advanced
mathematics,
so you cannot doodle with it.
I'm focusing on GR, Jan, because I want to know as exactly as I'm able to do it,
WHY the GR movement started after 1910 and Minkowski. Call it curiosity,
but this particular contest involved about ten competing theories
between 1911 and 1915, as well as different personalities with different
backgrounds.

Professor of ethic has been fired from Canadian university, her video has
been deleted by Youtube (Gafa are involved in the "great reset" that use
covid and vaccin to transform societies)
https://www.brighteon.com/096beca3-b66d-4dbe-94ab-a4e284fee107
Dono.
2021-09-15 15:31:07 UTC
Post by Richard Hertz
Not only that, but also the deflection of light theory as developed between March 1911
(it was von Soldner's work, rearranged),
Soldner result was off by 50%, lying piece of shit. You need to stop licking nazi boots, kapo.
JanPB
2021-09-15 22:00:27 UTC
Post by Richard Hertz
<snip>
F = G.M.m/r² (Newton Law of Gravitational Force)
Rᵤᵥ - 1/2 R gᵤᵥ = 8πG/c⁴ Tᵤᵥ , Hilbert-Einstein field equation for GR.
and tell me if something didn't started to be fucked up 115 years ago.
Why? Just because it's more complex? Since when this is a criterion for anything?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) gᵤᵥ =gᵥᵤ , is the metric tensor and can be represented by a 4 x 4 matrix
(gᵘᵛ) for u,v = 0,1,2,3. The most studied component of the GFE.
The metric determines the invariant square of an infinitesimal line
element ds, often referred to as an interval, being
ds² = gᵤᵥ dxᵘ dxᵛ, for u,v = 0,1,2,3.
ds² has so many properties that has occupied the entire professional life
of ten of thousand of physicists in the last 100 years. Brought to life
black holes, worm holes, white holes, ΛCDM cosmology, etc. You name it.
Why are you focusing on GR then? Particle physics is MUCH more weird than
anything in GR. Oh, I see, particle physics uses more advanced mathematics,
so you cannot doodle with it.
I'm focusing on GR, Jan, because I want to know as exactly as I'm able to do it,
If you want to know THAT, it means, by definition, that you cannot criticise it (yet).
Post by Richard Hertz
WHY the GR movement started after 1910 and Minkowski. Call it curiosity, but
this particular contest involved about ten competing theories between 1911 and
1915, as well as different personalities with different backgrounds.
In particular, I'm trying to understand every step that was done by Einstein and
friends.
That's fine, but in that case you cannot criticise it. You can only ask questions.
Post by Richard Hertz
This approach is VERY telling, for me, because I'll be able to find the
roots of every particular modification (in the GR timeline) to tune up the underlying
mathematical basis so they could satisfy both fields: mathematics and physics,
No, it's an illusion. You cannot find any roots of anything if you don't understand
the subject.
Post by Richard Hertz
as they were nurtured by external influences on the minds of those involved: Not only
Einstein but the "supervisors" at the Prussian Academy of Sciences (in particular Mie).
Ditto. Your approach to all this is one colossal waste of your time.

The rest of your answer is not worth responding to. You insist on plying
Godowski's Chopin transcriptions while not being able to play scales.

--
Jan
Richard Hertz
2021-09-15 23:46:17 UTC
On Wednesday, September 15, 2021 at 7:00:32 PM UTC-3, JanPB wrote:

<snip>
Post by JanPB
Post by Richard Hertz
I'm focusing on GR, Jan, because I want to know as exactly as I'm able to do it,
WHY the GR movement started after 1910 and Minkowski. Call it curiosity, but
this particular contest involved about ten competing theories between 1911 and
1915, as well as different personalities with different backgrounds.
In particular, I'm trying to understand every step that was done by Einstein and
friends.
This approach is VERY telling, for me, because I'll be able to find the
roots of every particular modification (in the GR timeline) to tune up the underlying
mathematical basis so they could satisfy both fields: mathematics and physics,
as they were nurtured by external influences on the minds of those involved: Not only
Einstein but the "supervisors" at the Prussian Academy of Sciences (in particular Mie).
If you want to know THAT, it means, by definition, that you cannot criticise it (yet).
That's fine, but in that case you cannot criticise it. You can only ask questions.
No, it's an illusion. You cannot find any roots of anything if you don't understand the subject.
Ditto. Your approach to all this is one colossal waste of your time.
<snip>

Inserting your comments in the middle of my sentences (and with the same fixation on "cannot")
reveals to me that you are a fucking idiot who deserve no respect from me.

I had pity on you, and because of that, I answered to you politely in the last months.

But I'm sorry to confirm that you're some kind of self-entitled retarded person, who doesn't deserve
the slightest consideration nor any kind of response to your replies on my posts to you.

Follow your journey and live long and prosper, but forget about me. You brought to me memories
any pleasure to defeat arrogant persons like you, as I found that it's better to let them to consume
themselves into their bitterness and stupidity about judging and telling others what can or can't do.

A true imbecile are you, Jan. Just keep away.
Dono.
2021-09-16 01:27:42 UTC
But I'm sorry to confirm that I am some kind of self-entitled retarded person, who doesn't deserve
the slightest consideration
A true imbecile
Yep
Maciej Wozniak
2021-09-16 04:28:33 UTC
But I'm sorry to confirm that I am some kind of self-entitled retarded person, who doesn't deserve
the slightest consideration
A true imbecile
Yep
No, he didn't. But, of course, a fanatic relativistic piece of shit
will lie shamelessly for his religion.
JanPB
2021-09-16 18:58:19 UTC
Post by Richard Hertz
<snip>
Post by JanPB
Post by Richard Hertz
I'm focusing on GR, Jan, because I want to know as exactly as I'm able to do it,
WHY the GR movement started after 1910 and Minkowski. Call it curiosity, but
this particular contest involved about ten competing theories between 1911 and
1915, as well as different personalities with different backgrounds.
In particular, I'm trying to understand every step that was done by Einstein and
friends.
This approach is VERY telling, for me, because I'll be able to find the
roots of every particular modification (in the GR timeline) to tune up the underlying
mathematical basis so they could satisfy both fields: mathematics and physics,
as they were nurtured by external influences on the minds of those involved: Not only
Einstein but the "supervisors" at the Prussian Academy of Sciences (in particular Mie).
If you want to know THAT, it means, by definition, that you cannot criticise it (yet).
That's fine, but in that case you cannot criticise it. You can only ask questions.
No, it's an illusion. You cannot find any roots of anything if you don't understand the subject.
Ditto. Your approach to all this is one colossal waste of your time.
<snip>
Inserting your comments in the middle of my sentences (and with the same fixation on "cannot")
reveals to me that you are a fucking idiot who deserve no respect from me.
I don't care. The point is that as far as physics is concerned you keep posting nothing but
insults and idiocies.
Post by Richard Hertz
A true imbecile are you, Jan. Just keep away.
No. That will happen only if I feel like it.

--
Jan
Richard Hertz
2021-09-15 14:48:13 UTC
On Wednesday, September 15, 2021 at 4:58:48 AM UTC-3, JanPB wrote:

<snip>
Post by JanPB
Why are you focusing on GR then? Particle physics is MUCH more weird than
anything in GR. Oh, I see, particle physics uses more advanced mathematics,
so you cannot doodle with it.
I forgot to comment about the last part of the above comment.

I wonder why you do have such "visions". Besides the childish desire that someone
CAN'T DO something, so you feel safe and protected at your "ivory tower" of superior
knowledge, I read "FEAR" at it, in the same way a professional musician fears to be
beaten by natural talent of an improvised musician who can find the notes that are
beyond the "mathematics" of music composition: "You CAN'T DO THAT!" says the
professional musician, in denial of what the amateur one achieved. Pathetic, lame!
Richard Hertz
2021-09-15 20:56:25 UTC
100% higher values in 4 years, after someone (in the world, following his claim to astronomers)
hinted him about the results of observations in 9 solar eclipses between 1911 and 1915: Fishy!!

---------------------------------------------------------1911------------------------------------------------------------
On the Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light
By A. Einstein.
Annalen der Physik, 35, pp. 898-908, 1911

******* Excerpt ****************************
§ 4. Bending of Light-Rays in the Gravitational Field

..........
α = 2kM/c²Δ

where k denotes the constant of gravitation, M the mass of the heavenly body, Δ the
distance of the ray from the center of the body.......

A light-ray going past the Sun would accordingly undergo deflection by the amount of
4 x 10^6 = 0.83 seconds of arc.
..........

It would be urgently wished that astronomers TAKE UP the question here raised, even though the
considerations presented above may seem INSUFICIENTLY established or even BIZARRE.

For, apart from any theory, there is the question whether it is possible with the equipment at present
available to detect an influence of gravitational fields on the propagation of light.

Prague, June 1911. (Submitted 21 June 1911.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And, 4 years and 100% increase later:

---------------------------------------------------------1915 ------------------------------------------------------------
Erklarung der Perihelbewegung des Merkur aus der allgemeinen Realtivitatstheorie
Von A. Einstein
Published 25 November 1915 in Koniglich Preußische Akademie der Wissenschaften (Berlin)
Translated in 1923 (UK)
.............
.............
First Approximation
.............
We will see later that hereby there is no difference between Newton’s law (in the first order approximation).
However, it gives a somewhat different influence of the gravitational field on the light ray as in my previous
work; as the light velocity is introduced through the equation

Σ gᵤᵥ dxᵤ dxᵥ = 0.

By use of the Huygens principle, one finds from (5) and (4b) through a simple calculation, that a light ray
from the Sun at distance Δ undergoes an angular deflection of magnitude 2α/Δ, while the earlier calculation,
by which the Hypothesis Σ Tᵘᵤ = 0 was not involved, had given the value α/Δ,. A corresponding light ray from
the surface rim of the Sun should give a deviation of 1.7′′ (instead of 0.85′′).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NOTE: He's talking about his previous paper earlier in November 1915, where he kept OBTAINING THE SAME VALUE
as in his 1911 paper (a plagiarism of 1801 von Soldner work). So, who hinted him 1 month before 25 Nov. 1915?

1915 - Fundamental Ideas of the General Theory of Relativity and the Application of this Theory in Astronomy -
Prussian Academy of Sciences, Proceedings, 4 November 1915 (part 1), 315
Dono.
2021-09-15 22:47:55 UTC
Post by Richard Hertz
By use of the Huygens principle, one finds from (5) and (4b) through a simple calculation, that a light ray
from the Sun at distance Δ undergoes an angular deflection of magnitude 2α/Δ, while the earlier calculation,
by which the Hypothesis Σ Tᵘᵤ = 0 was not involved, had given the value α/Δ,. A corresponding light ray from
the surface rim of the Sun should give a deviation of 1.7′′ (instead of 0.85′′).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dumbestfuck

It is right in the text, Newtonian theory gives half of the result, GR is needed for the correct result.
When Eichmann lived in Argentina did you go every day to lick his boots, stinking kapo?
Maciej Wozniak
2021-09-16 04:27:13 UTC