Discussion:
Some annotations about SRT
Add Reply
Thomas Heger
2021-02-25 09:14:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Hy NG

My 'book' is now finished. I have rewritten a lot of my annotations and
removed several of my own errors.

I hope, that you are all satisfied with my latest version. That can be
found here:


https://drive.google.com/file/d/1nVaZMBj5eK6vOenG5yPqGl3aunn3Uar3

It is a commented version of Einstein's 'On the electrodynamics of
moving bodies'.

It contains 428 annotations.

The idea behind these annotation was the following:

assume, that you are a professor (in this case of physics) and the text
in question was the homework of a student. Now your duty would be, to go
through the text and write annotations into it, to tell the student,
what he made wrong.

This is, of course, a ficticious setting. The idea is, that you could
learn better and more in depth, what the author had to say.

So my method was more or less a learning tool and did not aim to write a
review.

But in this case I extended it into that direction, because the text
contains a little too many errors in my oppinion (roughly 400+).

To actually read the annotations, the text had to be downloaded to your
computer, because Google does not show them online.

The local file should then be opened with one of the better pdf-readers.

(kindle or mobiles or similar do not work, as far as I know.)


TH
Eber Sandrelli
2021-02-25 10:09:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Thomas Heger
Hy NG
My 'book' is now finished. I have rewritten a lot of my annotations and
removed several of my own errors.
Or, you just removed your own errors only.
Thomas Heger
2021-02-25 19:44:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Eber Sandrelli
Post by Thomas Heger
Hy NG
My 'book' is now finished. I have rewritten a lot of my annotations and
removed several of my own errors.
Or, you just removed your own errors only.
Well, yes. I wrote several versions, which were all enhanced with the
new edition.

In the end I have rewritten the entire thing roughly three times.
that).

But possibly there are still some errors in it. If someone finds
something wrong in my comments, then please let me know.

TH
Python
2021-02-27 01:26:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Thomas Heger
Post by Eber Sandrelli
Post by Thomas Heger
Hy NG
My 'book' is now finished. I have rewritten a lot of my annotations and
removed several of my own errors.
Or, you just removed your own errors only.
Well, yes. I wrote several versions, which were all enhanced with the
new edition.
In the end I have rewritten the entire thing roughly three times.
that).
But possibly there are still some errors in it. If someone finds
something wrong in my comments, then please let me know.
I did, you ignored it. You are a liar Thomas.
Thomas Heger
2021-02-27 15:54:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Python
Post by Thomas Heger
Post by Eber Sandrelli
Post by Thomas Heger
Hy NG
My 'book' is now finished. I have rewritten a lot of my annotations and
removed several of my own errors.
Or, you just removed your own errors only.
Well, yes. I wrote several versions, which were all enhanced with the
new edition.
In the end I have rewritten the entire thing roughly three times.
that).
But possibly there are still some errors in it. If someone finds
something wrong in my comments, then please let me know.
I did, you ignored it. You are a liar Thomas.
I wanted hints for errors in THIS version, of course. And so far you
have not mentioned any.

So: what do you complain about?

TH
Python
2021-02-27 16:07:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
...
Post by Thomas Heger
Post by Python
Post by Thomas Heger
But possibly there are still some errors in it. If someone finds
something wrong in my comments, then please let me know.
I did, you ignored it. You are a liar Thomas.
I wanted hints for errors in THIS version, of course. And so far you
have not mentioned any.
So: what do you complain about?
The part I've adressed, in full details: § 1 (Definition of
Simultaneity). You didn't change much things as far as I can
tell : ALL of what wrote in your comment are either: completely
unrelated to this part's actual content, a complete misunderstanding
of his actually written or a plain lie (especially this :"because the
delay was not removed.")

I've shown where and how in this part the delay is taken into account.
This is FACT, Thomas, facts are stubborn.
Python
2021-02-27 17:28:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Python
...
Post by Thomas Heger
Post by Python
Post by Thomas Heger
But possibly there are still some errors in it. If someone finds
something wrong in my comments, then please let me know.
I did, you ignored it. You are a liar Thomas.
I wanted hints for errors in THIS version, of course. And so far you
have not mentioned any.
So: what do you complain about?
The part I've adressed, in full details: § 1 (Definition of
Simultaneity). You didn't change much things as far as I can
tell : ALL of what wrote in your comment are either: completely
unrelated to this part's actual content, a complete misunderstanding
of his actually written or a plain lie (especially this :"because the
delay was not removed.")
I've shown where and how in this part the delay is taken into account.
This is FACT, Thomas, facts are stubborn.
Some of you comments are actually so silly than one may wonder
if you've ever studied basic maths:

"The sign for ‘distance’ is missing here, but was present in the German
version."

The German version is using \overline{AB} instead of AB, which, in
the context, are both the distance AB.
Thomas Heger
2021-02-28 10:42:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Am 27.02.2021 um 18:28 schrieb Python:
..
Post by Python
Post by Python
Post by Thomas Heger
I wanted hints for errors in THIS version, of course. And so far you
have not mentioned any.
So: what do you complain about?
The part I've adressed, in full details: § 1 (Definition of
Simultaneity). You didn't change much things as far as I can
tell : ALL of what wrote in your comment are either: completely
unrelated to this part's actual content, a complete misunderstanding
of his actually written or a plain lie (especially this :"because the
delay was not removed.")
I've shown where and how in this part the delay is taken into account.
This is FACT, Thomas, facts are stubborn.
Some of you comments are actually so silly than one may wonder
"The sign for ‘distance’ is missing here, but was present in the German
version."
The German version is using \overline{AB} instead of AB, which, in
the context, are both the distance AB.
Sorry. I was looking for the English name for this line on top of AB,
but have not found it.

So I have called it 'sign for distance'. The real name is 'overline'.
Well, thanks for the hint.

The sign was there in the German version and the publisher removed it
apparently, for no obvious reason.

Since the line belongs there, I wrote a comment about this.

And you are in fact wrong with pretending, that 'AB' means the distance
between A and B.

A and B are position vectors and AB would be the scalar product of these
vectors, what would not make much sense.

To introduce missing parts by the reader was not allowed in my approach,
because I wanted to write annotations like a teacher would correct the
homework of a student.

The teatcher may eventually know the correct answer, but that is not the
question, but if the student uses the correct formalism.


TH
Python
2021-02-28 11:55:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Thomas Heger
..
Post by Python
Post by Python
Post by Thomas Heger
I wanted hints for errors in THIS version, of course. And so far you
have not mentioned any.
So: what do you complain about?
The part I've adressed, in full details: § 1 (Definition of
Simultaneity). You didn't change much things as far as I can
tell : ALL of what wrote in your comment are either: completely
unrelated to this part's actual content, a complete misunderstanding
of his actually written or a plain lie (especially this :"because the
delay was not removed.")
I've shown where and how in this part the delay is taken into account.
This is FACT, Thomas, facts are stubborn.
Some of you comments are actually so silly than one may wonder
"The sign for ‘distance’ is missing here, but was present in the German
  version."
The German version is using \overline{AB} instead of AB, which, in
the context, are both the distance AB.
Sorry. I was looking for the English name for this line on top of AB,
but have not found it.
So I have called it 'sign for distance'. The real name is 'overline'.
Well, thanks for the hint.
The sign was there in the German version and the publisher removed it
apparently, for no obvious reason.
The obvious reason is that usual notation for distance changed between
1905 and the end of XXth century.
Post by Thomas Heger
Since the line belongs there, I wrote a comment about this.
And you are in fact wrong with pretending, that 'AB' means the distance
between A and B.
A and B are position vectors and AB would be the scalar product of these
vectors, what would not make much sense.
*facepalm* Thomas you just do not have the basic knowledge in math to
adress this kind of articles...

A and B are points in an affine space, the position vector you're
talking about are OA and OB (usually with a arrow over it) not
A and B.

There is ABSOLUTELY no context either back in 1905 or now where
AB would mean a product of vectors (either vectorial or scalar).

In ALL modern maths paper and school books you would see AB used to
for the distance between A and B if A and B are points in a geometric
affine space. The English translation you've taken as a source uses
modern conventions all along.
Post by Thomas Heger
To introduce missing parts by the reader was not allowed in my approach,
because I wanted to write annotations like a teacher would correct the
homework of a student.
The teatcher may eventually know the correct answer, but that is not the
question, but if the student uses the correct formalism.
Not only you do not know the correct answer, but you don't understand a
single sentence of what is written in the whole paper, especially
paragraph I.1.

You are not in the position of a teacher in your comments, you're in
the position of the worst student in a class pretending to critic what
the best student did when he got an A and you've only got Fs all the
year long.

You are pathetic Thomas.
Thomas Heger
2021-02-28 12:06:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Python
...
Post by Thomas Heger
Post by Python
Some of you comments are actually so silly than one may wonder
"The sign for ‘distance’ is missing here, but was present in the German
version."
The German version is using \overline{AB} instead of AB, which, in
the context, are both the distance AB.
Sorry. I was looking for the English name for this line on top of AB,
but have not found it.
So I have called it 'sign for distance'. The real name is 'overline'.
Well, thanks for the hint.
The sign was there in the German version and the publisher removed it
apparently, for no obvious reason.
The obvious reason is that usual notation for distance changed between
1905 and the end of XXth century.
Post by Thomas Heger
Since the line belongs there, I wrote a comment about this.
And you are in fact wrong with pretending, that 'AB' means the
distance between A and B.
A and B are position vectors and AB would be the scalar product of
these vectors, what would not make much sense.
*facepalm* Thomas you just do not have the basic knowledge in math to
adress this kind of articles...
A and B are points in an affine space, the position vector you're
talking about are OA and OB (usually with a arrow over it) not
A and B.
There is ABSOLUTELY no context either back in 1905 or now where
AB would mean a product of vectors (either vectorial or scalar).
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skalarprodukt

Quote

"wenn klar ist, was gemeint ist, das Multiplikationszeichen manchmal
weggelassen"

That is German, of course, because I am German.

But it roughly says, that the dot from the dot product (aka 'scalar
product') is occasionally left away.

Therefore AB can be interpreted as scalar-product.


Actually Einstein wanted A and B to be points (what is worse than
position vectors).

But points are not possible in an equation, because they are physical
objects, while equations need mathematical objects.

...

TH
Python
2021-02-28 12:12:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Thomas Heger
Post by Python
...
Post by Thomas Heger
Post by Python
Some of you comments are actually so silly than one may wonder
"The sign for ‘distance’ is missing here, but was present in the German
  version."
The German version is using \overline{AB} instead of AB, which, in
the context, are both the distance AB.
Sorry. I was looking for the English name for this line on top of AB,
but have not found it.
So I have called it 'sign for distance'. The real name is 'overline'.
Well, thanks for the hint.
The sign was there in the German version and the publisher removed it
apparently, for no obvious reason.
The obvious reason is that usual notation for distance changed between
1905 and the end of XXth century.
Post by Thomas Heger
Since the line belongs there, I wrote a comment about this.
And you are in fact wrong with pretending, that 'AB' means the
distance between A and B.
A and B are position vectors and AB would be the scalar product of
these vectors, what would not make much sense.
*facepalm* Thomas you just do not have the basic knowledge in math to
adress this kind of articles...
A and B are points in an affine space, the position vector you're
talking about are OA and OB (usually with a arrow over it) not
A and B.
There is ABSOLUTELY no context either back in 1905 or now where
AB would mean a product of vectors (either vectorial or scalar).
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skalarprodukt
Quote
"wenn klar ist, was gemeint ist, das Multiplikationszeichen manchmal
weggelassen"
That is German, of course, because I am German.
But it roughly says, that the dot from the dot product (aka 'scalar
product') is occasionally left away.
Therefore AB can be interpreted as scalar-product.
Actually Einstein wanted A and B to be points (what is worse than
position vectors).
But points are not possible in an equation, because they are physical
objects, while equations need mathematical objects.
Thomas, you're digging from ignorance to complete nonsense.

Points are mathematical objects :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affine_space

(they are physical also when an affine space is part of a mathematical
model in physics, which is the case here).

AB is the distance between point A an point B in ALL modern school
books and article.

There is absolutely no way to interpret AB as a scalar product in
part I.1. unless being a complete doofus.

Well, you are a complete doofus.
JanPB
2021-02-27 03:28:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Thomas Heger
Hy NG
My 'book' is now finished. I have rewritten a lot of my annotations and
removed several of my own errors.
I hope, that you are all satisfied with my latest version. That can be
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1nVaZMBj5eK6vOenG5yPqGl3aunn3Uar3
It is a commented version of Einstein's 'On the electrodynamics of
moving bodies'.
It contains 428 annotations.
assume, that you are a professor (in this case of physics) and the text
in question was the homework of a student. Now your duty would be, to go
through the text and write annotations into it, to tell the student,
what he made wrong.
This is, of course, a ficticious setting. The idea is, that you could
learn better and more in depth, what the author had to say.
So my method was more or less a learning tool and did not aim to write a
review.
But in this case I extended it into that direction, because the text
contains a little too many errors in my oppinion (roughly 400+).
To actually read the annotations, the text had to be downloaded to your
computer, because Google does not show them online.
The local file should then be opened with one of the better pdf-readers.
(kindle or mobiles or similar do not work, as far as I know.)
TH
You are not knowledgeable enough (nowhere near) to waste your time or energy on that
sort of project. It's utter garbage and simply complete idiocy.

Don't waste any more of your time on this, it leads nowhere.

--
Jan
Thomas Heger
2021-02-27 15:59:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JanPB
Post by Thomas Heger
Hy NG
My 'book' is now finished. I have rewritten a lot of my annotations and
removed several of my own errors.
I hope, that you are all satisfied with my latest version. That can be
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1nVaZMBj5eK6vOenG5yPqGl3aunn3Uar3
It is a commented version of Einstein's 'On the electrodynamics of
moving bodies'.
It contains 428 annotations.
assume, that you are a professor (in this case of physics) and the text
in question was the homework of a student. Now your duty would be, to go
through the text and write annotations into it, to tell the student,
what he made wrong.
This is, of course, a ficticious setting. The idea is, that you could
learn better and more in depth, what the author had to say.
So my method was more or less a learning tool and did not aim to write a
review.
But in this case I extended it into that direction, because the text
contains a little too many errors in my oppinion (roughly 400+).
To actually read the annotations, the text had to be downloaded to your
computer, because Google does not show them online.
The local file should then be opened with one of the better pdf-readers.
(kindle or mobiles or similar do not work, as far as I know.)
TH
You are not knowledgeable enough (nowhere near) to waste your time or energy on that
sort of project. It's utter garbage and simply complete idiocy.
Don't waste any more of your time on this, it leads nowhere.
Well, its actually my time and I can waste it on any project I want to.

In fact in times of CoViD-19 it is difficult to find something useful to
do at home in 'lock-down'.

Therefore many people do things now, which they wouldn't do in other times.

I would guess, you are not in 'lock-down' and still do, what you always do.

But many people really try to find things, that are at least a little
useful.

And to write annotations into a pdf file of SRT could not possibly harm
anybody and will eventually bring some insight into the minds of people
like you.


TH
Odd Bodkin
2021-02-27 16:50:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Thomas Heger
Post by JanPB
Post by Thomas Heger
Hy NG
My 'book' is now finished. I have rewritten a lot of my annotations and
removed several of my own errors.
I hope, that you are all satisfied with my latest version. That can be
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1nVaZMBj5eK6vOenG5yPqGl3aunn3Uar3
It is a commented version of Einstein's 'On the electrodynamics of
moving bodies'.
It contains 428 annotations.
assume, that you are a professor (in this case of physics) and the text
in question was the homework of a student. Now your duty would be, to go
through the text and write annotations into it, to tell the student,
what he made wrong.
This is, of course, a ficticious setting. The idea is, that you could
learn better and more in depth, what the author had to say.
So my method was more or less a learning tool and did not aim to write a
review.
But in this case I extended it into that direction, because the text
contains a little too many errors in my oppinion (roughly 400+).
To actually read the annotations, the text had to be downloaded to your
computer, because Google does not show them online.
The local file should then be opened with one of the better pdf-readers.
(kindle or mobiles or similar do not work, as far as I know.)
TH
You are not knowledgeable enough (nowhere near) to waste your time or energy on that
sort of project. It's utter garbage and simply complete idiocy.
Don't waste any more of your time on this, it leads nowhere.
Well, its actually my time and I can waste it on any project I want to.
In fact in times of CoViD-19 it is difficult to find something useful to
do at home in 'lock-down'.
Therefore many people do things now, which they wouldn't do in other times.
I would guess, you are not in 'lock-down' and still do, what you always do.
But many people really try to find things, that are at least a little
useful.
And to write annotations into a pdf file of SRT could not possibly harm
anybody
All true up to this point. Your choice to spend your time however you wish.
Post by Thomas Heger
and will eventually bring some insight into the minds of people
like you.
But that statement is false and is the delusional part of your thinking.
Post by Thomas Heger
TH
--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Thomas Heger
2021-02-28 10:46:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Am 27.02.2021 um 17:50 schrieb Odd Bodkin:
...
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Thomas Heger
Post by JanPB
Don't waste any more of your time on this, it leads nowhere.
Well, its actually my time and I can waste it on any project I want to.
In fact in times of CoViD-19 it is difficult to find something useful to
do at home in 'lock-down'.
Therefore many people do things now, which they wouldn't do in other times.
I would guess, you are not in 'lock-down' and still do, what you always do.
But many people really try to find things, that are at least a little
useful.
And to write annotations into a pdf file of SRT could not possibly harm
anybody
All true up to this point. Your choice to spend your time however you wish.
Post by Thomas Heger
and will eventually bring some insight into the minds of people
like you.
But that statement is false and is the delusional part of your thinking.
I agree, sigh...

Unfortunately it is not possible to bring some insight into the minds of
people like you.

TH
Python
2021-02-28 12:01:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Thomas Heger
...
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Thomas Heger
Post by JanPB
Don't waste any more of your time on this, it leads nowhere.
Well, its actually my time and I can waste it on any project I want to.
In fact in times of CoViD-19 it is difficult to find something useful to
do at home in 'lock-down'.
Therefore many people do things now, which they wouldn't do in other times.
I would guess, you are not in 'lock-down' and still do, what you always do.
But many people really try to find things, that are at least a little
useful.
And to write annotations into a pdf file of SRT could not possibly harm
anybody
All true up to this point. Your choice to spend your time however you wish.
Post by Thomas Heger
and will eventually bring some insight into the minds of people
like you.
But that statement is false and is the delusional part of your thinking.
I agree, sigh...
Unfortunately it is not possible to bring some insight into the minds of
people like you.
People like Odd? I guess you mean people knowledgeable in physics,
people with intellectual integrity, people not falling in idiotic
conspiracy theories and people not being racist douchebags? I mean
contrarily to you, Thomas Heger?

So you're right. But you didn't meant "insights" you meant "nonsense".
Maciej Wozniak
2021-02-28 13:32:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Python
Post by Thomas Heger
...
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Thomas Heger
Post by JanPB
Don't waste any more of your time on this, it leads nowhere.
Well, its actually my time and I can waste it on any project I want to.
In fact in times of CoViD-19 it is difficult to find something useful to
do at home in 'lock-down'.
Therefore many people do things now, which they wouldn't do in other times.
I would guess, you are not in 'lock-down' and still do, what you always do.
But many people really try to find things, that are at least a little
useful.
And to write annotations into a pdf file of SRT could not possibly harm
anybody
All true up to this point. Your choice to spend your time however you wish.
Post by Thomas Heger
and will eventually bring some insight into the minds of people
like you.
But that statement is false and is the delusional part of your thinking.
I agree, sigh...
Unfortunately it is not possible to bring some insight into the minds of
people like you.
People like Odd? I guess you mean people knowledgeable in physics,
people with intellectual integrity, people not falling in idiotic
conspiracy theories and people not being racist douchebags?
You guess wrong, like always, he means dumb, brainwashed
religious fanatics.
Python
2021-02-28 13:34:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Python
Post by Thomas Heger
...
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Thomas Heger
Post by JanPB
Don't waste any more of your time on this, it leads nowhere.
Well, its actually my time and I can waste it on any project I want to.
In fact in times of CoViD-19 it is difficult to find something useful to
do at home in 'lock-down'.
Therefore many people do things now, which they wouldn't do in other times.
I would guess, you are not in 'lock-down' and still do, what you always do.
But many people really try to find things, that are at least a little
useful.
And to write annotations into a pdf file of SRT could not possibly harm
anybody
All true up to this point. Your choice to spend your time however you wish.
Post by Thomas Heger
and will eventually bring some insight into the minds of people
like you.
But that statement is false and is the delusional part of your thinking.
I agree, sigh...
Unfortunately it is not possible to bring some insight into the minds of
people like you.
People like Odd? I guess you mean people knowledgeable in physics,
people with intellectual integrity, people not falling in idiotic
conspiracy theories and people not being racist douchebags?
You guess wrong, like always, he means dumb, brainwashed
religious fanatics.
Don't be jealous, Woz, you're a douchebag too. Happy now?
Odd Bodkin
2021-02-28 13:35:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Thomas Heger
...
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Thomas Heger
Post by JanPB
Don't waste any more of your time on this, it leads nowhere.
Well, its actually my time and I can waste it on any project I want to.
In fact in times of CoViD-19 it is difficult to find something useful to
do at home in 'lock-down'.
Therefore many people do things now, which they wouldn't do in other times.
I would guess, you are not in 'lock-down' and still do, what you always do.
But many people really try to find things, that are at least a little
useful.
And to write annotations into a pdf file of SRT could not possibly harm
anybody
All true up to this point. Your choice to spend your time however you wish.
Post by Thomas Heger
and will eventually bring some insight into the minds of people
like you.
But that statement is false and is the delusional part of your thinking.
I agree, sigh...
Unfortunately it is not possible to bring some insight into the minds of
people like you.
You’re going to find that you’re unable to bring some insight to others in
general because you don’t have insight to bring.

I know this is perhaps shockingly offensive to you, but you really
shouldn’t expect to have insights into physics when you are so poorly
educated in the subject. Nor should you expect people to treat your ideas
as insights until you prove you know what you’re talking about. Which you
have not done.
--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Jim Bunce
2021-02-27 19:54:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Thomas Heger
Post by JanPB
You are not knowledgeable enough (nowhere near) to waste your time or
energy on that sort of project. It's utter garbage and simply complete
idiocy. Don't waste any more of your time on this, it leads nowhere.
Well, its actually my time and I can waste it on any project I want to.
In fact in times of CoViD-19 it is difficult to find something useful to
do at home in 'lock-down'.
So true. You hit the nail. The Astra Zeneca vaccines sheet is fascinating
to read. At the top it states of the fact sheet it states.

One dose (0.5 ml) contains:
ChAdOx1 nCoV- 19 Corona Virus Vaccine (Recombinant) 5 × 1010 viral
particles (vp)
*Recombinant, replication-deficient *chimpanzee_adenovirus* vector
encoding the SARS-CoV-2 Spike (S)
glycoprotein. Produced in genetically modified human embryonic kidney
(HEK) 293 cells.
This product contains genetically modified organisms (GMOs).

Now if you look up what genetically modified human embryonic kidney (HEK)
293 cells are in Wikipedia, it states

"Human embryonic kidney 293 cells, also often referred to as HEK 293,
HEK-293, 293 cells, or less precisely as HEK cells, are a specific cell
line originally derived from human embryonic kidney cells grown in tissue
culture taken from a female fetus.

HEK 293 cells have been widely used in cell biology research for many
years, because of their reliable growth and propensity for transfection.
They are also used by the biotechnology industry to produce therapeutic
proteins and viruses for gene therapy.

HEK 293 cells were generated in 1973 by transfection of cultures of
normal human embryonic kidney cells with sheared adenovirus 5 DNA in Alex
van der Eb's laboratory in Leiden, the Netherlands. The cells were
obtained from a single, healthy fetus, the precise origin of which is
unclear"
Loading...