• Re: New annotated version of SRT

    From gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com@21:1/5 to Thomas Heger on Fri Apr 21 07:36:27 2023
    On Saturday, April 15, 2023 at 1:58:18 PM UTC+5, Thomas Heger wrote:
    Am 12.04.2023 um 08:21 schrieb Thomas Heger:
    Am 07.04.2023 um 11:39 schrieb Python:

    Part I.1 of the article deals with the synchronization of clocks
    in relative rest. This is the basis that allows us to speak of a repository(one more thing you will never understand). The procedure that
    ...

    Hello Thomas

    I am going through your document, and it seems reasonable enough at first slight, however it is very difficult
    to comment on annotations.

    A write up in the form of a book would be best to review, not sure if you can manage that.

    Wait. Is there a way to print annotations only?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Python@21:1/5 to gehan.am...@gmail.com on Fri Apr 21 18:09:20 2023
    gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Saturday, April 15, 2023 at 1:58:18 PM UTC+5, Thomas Heger wrote:
    Am 12.04.2023 um 08:21 schrieb Thomas Heger:
    Am 07.04.2023 um 11:39 schrieb Python:

    Part I.1 of the article deals with the synchronization of clocks
    in relative rest. This is the basis that allows us to speak of a
    repository(one more thing you will never understand). The procedure that
    ...

    Hello Thomas

    I am going through your document, and it seems reasonable enough at first slight, however it is very difficult
    to comment on annotations.

    If you intend to learn anything about Relativity, Thomas comments are definitely the *worse* choice of reference. Except if you take it as
    an (easy) challenge about debunking his bunch of fractal mistakes, misunderstanding, non sequitur and demented rant.

    A write up in the form of a book would be best to review, not sure if you can manage that.

    Wait. Is there a way to print annotations only?

    There should be some open source tool in you really want to do
    that... At least the open source PDF viewer Evince is able to
    display only comments on the side.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to Python on Fri Apr 21 22:13:27 2023
    On Friday, 21 April 2023 at 18:09:23 UTC+2, Python wrote:
    gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Saturday, April 15, 2023 at 1:58:18 PM UTC+5, Thomas Heger wrote:
    Am 12.04.2023 um 08:21 schrieb Thomas Heger:
    Am 07.04.2023 um 11:39 schrieb Python:

    Part I.1 of the article deals with the synchronization of clocks
    in relative rest. This is the basis that allows us to speak of a
    repository(one more thing you will never understand). The procedure that >> ...

    Hello Thomas

    I am going through your document, and it seems reasonable enough at first slight, however it is very difficult
    to comment on annotations.
    If you intend to learn anything about Relativity, Thomas comments are


    Oh, stinker Python is opening its muzzle again,
    and trying again to pretend he knows something.
    Tell me, poor stinker, how are the velocities
    of Gdansk and Warsaw wrt an observer in the
    center of Earth?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Thomas Heger@21:1/5 to All on Sat Apr 22 08:21:02 2023
    Am 21.04.2023 um 16:36 schrieb gehan.am...@gmail.com:
    On Saturday, April 15, 2023 at 1:58:18 PM UTC+5, Thomas Heger wrote:
    Am 12.04.2023 um 08:21 schrieb Thomas Heger:
    Am 07.04.2023 um 11:39 schrieb Python:

    Part I.1 of the article deals with the synchronization of clocks
    in relative rest. This is the basis that allows us to speak of a
    repository(one more thing you will never understand). The procedure that
    ...

    Hello Thomas

    I am going through your document, and it seems reasonable enough at first slight, however it is very difficult
    to comment on annotations.

    A write up in the form of a book would be best to review, not sure if you can manage that.

    This is a plan, which I have for the future.

    The current form is caused by the initial purpose of this document.

    It started as a 'battle' with the regular 'Dono'. And I simply wanted to
    show, that Einstein's text did in fact contain errors.


    Wait. Is there a way to print annotations only?

    I think, that certain versions of the software I have used
    ('PDF-exchange viewer') are capable of exporting the annotations to any
    format you like.

    But the freeware version is not able to do that.


    TH

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Thomas Heger@21:1/5 to All on Thu Apr 27 07:12:08 2023
    Am 09.03.2023 um 16:40 schrieb Volney:
    On 3/7/2023 3:23 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:

    Since I can almost sing Einstein's text now

    You may be able to sing it, but can you understand it?

    (many singers sing in a language they don't understand in performances)


    I had no intention to sing Einstein's text!

    I wanted to express, that I know this particular paper extremly well,
    because I have spent an enormous amout of time on that.

    If you like to challenge my knowledge and understanding, than feel free
    to do so.

    But I can assure you, that I know this paper VERY well.


    TH

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Volney@21:1/5 to Thomas Heger on Fri Apr 28 11:15:04 2023
    On 4/27/2023 1:12 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
    Am 09.03.2023 um 16:40 schrieb Volney:
    On 3/7/2023 3:23 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:

    Since I can almost sing Einstein's text now

    You may be able to sing it, but can you understand it?

    (many singers sing in a language they don't understand in performances)


    I had no intention to sing Einstein's text!

    We're all glad to hear that, I'm sure.

    I wanted to express, that I know this particular paper extremly well,
    because I have spent an enormous amout of time on that.

    Again, you may "know" it like a parrot "knows" phrases to repeat, but
    given your "annotations", you just don't understand it.

    If you like to challenge my knowledge and understanding, than feel free
    to do so.

    We already have. You blow everything off and later act as if nothing
    ever happened. Just like now, "feel free to challenge my knowledge and understanding" when we already have. Repeatedly.

    But I can assure you, that I know this paper VERY well.

    And again, the real question is whether you understand any of it.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Dono.@21:1/5 to Thomas Heger on Fri Apr 28 09:33:57 2023
    On Wednesday, April 26, 2023 at 10:12:08 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:

    I wanted to express, that I know this particular paper extremly well, because I have spent an enormous amout of time on that.

    You sure spent an enormous amount of time. The only thing that you have to show for the time spent is that you understood....absolutely nothing.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From J. J. Lodder@21:1/5 to Dono. on Fri Apr 28 22:09:45 2023
    Dono. <eggy20011951@gmail.com> wrote:

    On Wednesday, April 26, 2023 at 10:12:08?PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:

    I wanted to express, that I know this particular paper extremly well, because I have spent an enormous amout of time on that.

    You sure spent an enormous amount of time. The only thing that you have to show for the time spent is that you understood....absolutely nothing.

    OTOH, the statement -is- good for 10 points on the crackpot index,

    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Thomas Heger@21:1/5 to All on Sun Apr 30 07:06:39 2023
    Am 28.04.2023 um 18:33 schrieb Dono.:
    On Wednesday, April 26, 2023 at 10:12:08 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:

    I wanted to express, that I know this particular paper extremly well,
    because I have spent an enormous amout of time on that.

    You sure spent an enormous amount of time. The only thing that you have to show for the time spent is that you understood....absolutely nothing.


    I would actually recommend my method as a learning tool.

    The idea goes like this:

    pretend to be a professor in that particular science and your duty would
    be to writte corrections for the homework of a student.

    This 'homework' could be any scinetific paper of your choice.

    Now you need to find all errors in it and write annotations, why you
    think it would be an error.

    The challenge is, that you should not leave out any error and should not
    mark something correct as an error.

    This is actually quite a difficult task, because it requires perfect understanding of the text.

    And this understanding of the text is actually the motivation of this
    method.

    And even if the method is slow and annoying, it is very efficient as a
    learning tool.


    TH

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Volney@21:1/5 to Thomas Heger on Sun Apr 30 15:26:46 2023
    On 4/30/2023 1:06 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
    Am 28.04.2023 um 18:33 schrieb Dono.:
    On Wednesday, April 26, 2023 at 10:12:08 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:

    I wanted to express, that I know this particular paper extremly well,
    because I have spent an enormous amout of time on that.

    You sure spent an enormous amount of time. The only thing that you
    have to show for the time spent is that you understood....absolutely
    nothing.


    I would actually recommend my method as a learning tool.

    Only as an example of a bad example.

    The challenge is, that you should not leave out any error and should not
    mark something correct as an error.

    A challenge which you have failed. Repeatedly.

    This is actually quite a difficult task, because it requires perfect understanding of the text.

    Since you don't understand the text, you are unable to perform this task.

    And even if the method is slow and annoying, it is very efficient as a learning tool.

    Again, only as an example of a bad example.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From J. J. Lodder@21:1/5 to Thomas Heger on Sun Apr 30 22:21:44 2023
    Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:

    Am 28.04.2023 um 18:33 schrieb Dono.:
    On Wednesday, April 26, 2023 at 10:12:08?PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:

    I wanted to express, that I know this particular paper extremly well,
    because I have spent an enormous amout of time on that.

    You sure spent an enormous amount of time. The only thing that you have
    to show for the time spent is that you understood....absolutely nothing.


    I would actually recommend my method as a learning tool.
    The idea goes like this:
    pretend to be a professor in that particular science and your duty would
    be to writte corrections for the homework of a student.
    This 'homework' could be any scinetific paper of your choice.
    Now you need to find all errors in it and write annotations, why you
    think it would be an error.
    [-]

    Historically, Max Planck was such a professor.
    When he read the Einstein 1905 paper he said something like:
    'this is a good one, print it as is',
    and he passed it on to the printer of the Annalen.

    You think that you are better than Max Planck?

    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Thomas Heger@21:1/5 to All on Mon May 1 08:25:39 2023
    Am 30.04.2023 um 22:21 schrieb J. J. Lodder:

    I would actually recommend my method as a learning tool.
    The idea goes like this:
    pretend to be a professor in that particular science and your duty would
    be to writte corrections for the homework of a student.
    This 'homework' could be any scinetific paper of your choice.
    Now you need to find all errors in it and write annotations, why you
    think it would be an error.
    [-]

    Historically, Max Planck was such a professor.
    When he read the Einstein 1905 paper he said something like:
    'this is a good one, print it as is',
    and he passed it on to the printer of the Annalen.

    You think that you are better than Max Planck?


    Definetely not, because Planck was actually a world class physicist.

    But this statement would not render any of my comments wrong, because
    Planck could have had other than scientific reasons to print this paper
    (like e.g.: following orders from 'above'...).

    TH

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Athel Cornish-Bowden@21:1/5 to Thomas Heger on Mon May 1 12:08:31 2023
    On 2023-05-01 06:25:39 +0000, Thomas Heger said:

    Am 30.04.2023 um 22:21 schrieb J. J. Lodder:

    I would actually recommend my method as a learning tool.
    The idea goes like this:
    pretend to be a professor in that particular science and your duty would >>> be to writte corrections for the homework of a student.
    This 'homework' could be any scinetific paper of your choice.
    Now you need to find all errors in it and write annotations, why you
    think it would be an error.
    [-]

    Historically, Max Planck was such a professor.
    When he read the Einstein 1905 paper he said something like:
    'this is a good one, print it as is',
    and he passed it on to the printer of the Annalen.

    You think that you are better than Max Planck?


    Definetely not, because Planck was actually a world class physicist.

    But this statement would not render any of my comments wrong, because
    Planck could have had other than scientific reasons to print this paper
    (like e.g.: following orders from 'above'...).

    Even by your standards that's a profoundly silly suggestion. Who in
    1905 do you think was in a position to give Planck orders?


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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Thomas Heger@21:1/5 to All on Tue May 2 07:34:34 2023
    Am 01.05.2023 um 12:08 schrieb Athel Cornish-Bowden:
    On 2023-05-01 06:25:39 +0000, Thomas Heger said:

    Am 30.04.2023 um 22:21 schrieb J. J. Lodder:

    I would actually recommend my method as a learning tool.
    The idea goes like this:
    pretend to be a professor in that particular science and your duty
    would
    be to writte corrections for the homework of a student.
    This 'homework' could be any scinetific paper of your choice.
    Now you need to find all errors in it and write annotations, why you
    think it would be an error.
    [-]

    Historically, Max Planck was such a professor.
    When he read the Einstein 1905 paper he said something like:
    'this is a good one, print it as is',
    and he passed it on to the printer of the Annalen.

    You think that you are better than Max Planck?


    Definetely not, because Planck was actually a world class physicist.

    But this statement would not render any of my comments wrong, because
    Planck could have had other than scientific reasons to print this
    paper (like e.g.: following orders from 'above'...).

    Even by your standards that's a profoundly silly suggestion. Who in 1905
    do you think was in a position to give Planck orders?


    His wife, the Pope, Emperor Kaiser Wilhelm IInd, the owner of his paper...

    TH

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From JanPB@21:1/5 to Thomas Heger on Tue May 2 00:04:49 2023
    On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 10:06:38 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
    Am 28.04.2023 um 18:33 schrieb Dono.:
    On Wednesday, April 26, 2023 at 10:12:08 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:

    I wanted to express, that I know this particular paper extremly well,
    because I have spent an enormous amout of time on that.

    You sure spent an enormous amount of time. The only thing that you have to show for the time spent is that you understood....absolutely nothing.

    I would actually recommend my method as a learning tool.

    The idea goes like this:

    pretend to be a professor in that particular science and your duty would
    be to writte corrections for the homework of a student.

    This will never work as a learning tool unless you are at a professor level. Without it it's just a silly waste of time.

    --
    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Thomas Heger@21:1/5 to All on Wed May 3 08:20:06 2023
    Am 02.05.2023 um 09:04 schrieb JanPB:
    On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 10:06:38 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
    Am 28.04.2023 um 18:33 schrieb Dono.:
    On Wednesday, April 26, 2023 at 10:12:08 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote: >>>
    I wanted to express, that I know this particular paper extremly well,
    because I have spent an enormous amout of time on that.

    You sure spent an enormous amount of time. The only thing that you have to show for the time spent is that you understood....absolutely nothing.

    I would actually recommend my method as a learning tool.

    The idea goes like this:

    pretend to be a professor in that particular science and your duty would
    be to writte corrections for the homework of a student.

    This will never work as a learning tool unless you are at a professor level. Without it it's just a silly waste of time.

    Learning is never a waste of time.

    OK, well, sometimes you learn things which have no obvious use.

    And you could actually obtain skills, which you shouldn's aquirre.

    But most knowledge is somehow usefull, even if the direct benefits are
    not always visible.

    My method is an advanced version of 'critical reading' and related to
    that idea.

    This method is quite good as a learning tool, even if it is very slow.

    (this was at least my own impression)


    TH

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Athel Cornish-Bowden@21:1/5 to Thomas Heger on Wed May 3 09:45:35 2023
    On 2023-05-03 06:20:06 +0000, Thomas Heger said:

    Am 02.05.2023 um 09:04 schrieb JanPB:
    On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 10:06:38 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
    Am 28.04.2023 um 18:33 schrieb Dono.:
    On Wednesday, April 26, 2023 at 10:12:08 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote: >>>>
    I wanted to express, that I know this particular paper extremly well, >>>>> because I have spent an enormous amout of time on that.

    You sure spent an enormous amount of time. The only thing that you have >>>> to show for the time spent is that you understood....absolutely nothing. >>>>
    I would actually recommend my method as a learning tool.

    The idea goes like this:

    pretend to be a professor in that particular science and your duty would >>> be to writte corrections for the homework of a student.

    This will never work as a learning tool unless you are at a professor level. >> Without it it's just a silly waste of time.

    Learning is never a waste of time.

    OK, well, sometimes you learn things which have no obvious use.

    And you could actually obtain skills, which you shouldn's aquirre.

    But most knowledge is somehow usefull, even if the direct benefits are
    not always visible.

    My method is an advanced version of 'critical reading' and related to
    that idea.

    This method is quite good as a learning tool, even if it is very slow.

    (this was at least my own impression)

    You haven't shown that you learned anything at all from this exercise.
    Please give an example (one will do) of something significant you
    learned from your studies of the 1905 paper.

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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Thomas Heger@21:1/5 to All on Thu May 4 07:32:19 2023
    Am 03.05.2023 um 09:45 schrieb Athel Cornish-Bowden:
    On 2023-05-03 06:20:06 +0000, Thomas Heger said:

    Am 02.05.2023 um 09:04 schrieb JanPB:
    On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 10:06:38 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote: >>>> Am 28.04.2023 um 18:33 schrieb Dono.:
    On Wednesday, April 26, 2023 at 10:12:08 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote: >>>>>
    I wanted to express, that I know this particular paper extremly well, >>>>>> because I have spent an enormous amout of time on that.

    You sure spent an enormous amount of time. The only thing that you
    have to show for the time spent is that you
    understood....absolutely nothing.

    I would actually recommend my method as a learning tool.

    The idea goes like this:

    pretend to be a professor in that particular science and your duty
    would
    be to writte corrections for the homework of a student.

    This will never work as a learning tool unless you are at a professor
    level.
    Without it it's just a silly waste of time.

    Learning is never a waste of time.

    OK, well, sometimes you learn things which have no obvious use.

    And you could actually obtain skills, which you shouldn's aquirre.

    But most knowledge is somehow usefull, even if the direct benefits are
    not always visible.

    My method is an advanced version of 'critical reading' and related to
    that idea.

    This method is quite good as a learning tool, even if it is very slow.

    (this was at least my own impression)

    You haven't shown that you learned anything at all from this exercise.
    Please give an example (one will do) of something significant you
    learned from your studies of the 1905 paper.



    Actually I have written 420 annotations, which all deal with the content
    of this article.

    (see here:


    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1D2m4RV7StviWik2JiB1_Huk_7PR5Sxvi/view?usp=sharing

    )

    Each of these annotations adress a certain aspect of this text and
    discusses the validity of Einstein's statements.

    This would, of course, require to understand every aspect of this paper.

    This in turn creates a learning effect (because you need to understand
    the text) and that is finally the benefit from this method.


    TH

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Athel Cornish-Bowden@21:1/5 to Thomas Heger on Thu May 4 08:35:17 2023
    On 2023-05-04 05:32:19 +0000, Thomas Heger said:

    Am 03.05.2023 um 09:45 schrieb Athel Cornish-Bowden:
    On 2023-05-03 06:20:06 +0000, Thomas Heger said:

    Am 02.05.2023 um 09:04 schrieb JanPB:
    On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 10:06:38 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote: >>>>> Am 28.04.2023 um 18:33 schrieb Dono.:
    On Wednesday, April 26, 2023 at 10:12:08 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote: >>>>>>
    I wanted to express, that I know this particular paper extremly well, >>>>>>> because I have spent an enormous amout of time on that.

    You sure spent an enormous amount of time. The only thing that you >>>>>> have to show for the time spent is that you
    understood....absolutely nothing.

    I would actually recommend my method as a learning tool.

    The idea goes like this:

    pretend to be a professor in that particular science and your duty
    would
    be to writte corrections for the homework of a student.

    This will never work as a learning tool unless you are at a professor
    level.
    Without it it's just a silly waste of time.

    Learning is never a waste of time.

    OK, well, sometimes you learn things which have no obvious use.

    And you could actually obtain skills, which you shouldn's aquirre.

    But most knowledge is somehow usefull, even if the direct benefits are
    not always visible.

    My method is an advanced version of 'critical reading' and related to
    that idea.

    This method is quite good as a learning tool, even if it is very slow.

    (this was at least my own impression)

    You haven't shown that you learned anything at all from this exercise.
    Please give an example (one will do) of something significant you
    learned from your studies of the 1905 paper.



    Actually I have written 420 annotations, which all deal with the
    content of this article.

    (see here:


    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1D2m4RV7StviWik2JiB1_Huk_7PR5Sxvi/view?usp=sharing

    )

    Each of these annotations adress a certain aspect of this text and
    discusses the validity of Einstein's statements.

    This would, of course, require to understand every aspect of this paper.

    This in turn creates a learning effect (because you need to understand
    the text) and that is finally the benefit from this method.

    OK, so you're not able to give a single example of something
    significant you learned.

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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From J. J. Lodder@21:1/5 to Athel Cornish-Bowden on Thu May 4 15:56:47 2023
    Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> wrote:

    On 2023-02-18 09:01:56 +0000, Thomas Heger said:


    [ … ]

    The errors stem from a great varfiety of topics, like:

    formal errors
    missing quotes
    unclear formulations
    wrong or reused variables
    illogic resoning
    wrong math
    and so forth...

    [ … ]

    French is not that possible, but I can understand a little. So,
    Poincare's 'Sur le dynamic de la electron' was another possible source.

    Poincaré was French. I find it impossible to believe that he would have
    used such an illiterate title (five errors in six words: "dynamique",
    not "dynamic"; it is feminine, so "la" not "le"; "électron" has an
    accent; and is masculine, so "du", not "de la", and anyway it's elided beforea vowel: "de l'électron"). Can we assume that your list of
    "errors" in Einstein's paper is as carelessly assembled as that?

    Yes, and he is also incapable
    of doing even elementary literature searching.
    Doing so would have revealed that Poincare's work
    appeared nominally in 1906, but actually in 1908,
    so it cannot heve been a source for Einstein 1905,

    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Thomas Heger@21:1/5 to All on Fri May 5 08:03:53 2023
    Am 04.05.2023 um 15:56 schrieb J. J. Lodder:
    Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> wrote:

    On 2023-02-18 09:01:56 +0000, Thomas Heger said:


    [ … ]

    The errors stem from a great varfiety of topics, like:

    formal errors
    missing quotes
    unclear formulations
    wrong or reused variables
    illogic resoning
    wrong math
    and so forth...

    [ … ]

    French is not that possible, but I can understand a little. So,
    Poincare's 'Sur le dynamic de la electron' was another possible source.

    Poincaré was French. I find it impossible to believe that he would have
    used such an illiterate title (five errors in six words: "dynamique",
    not "dynamic"; it is feminine, so "la" not "le"; "électron" has an
    accent; and is masculine, so "du", not "de la", and anyway it's elided
    beforea vowel: "de l'électron").

    Well, sorry for speaking only poor French.

    But how about your German?


    Yes, and he is also incapable
    of doing even elementary literature searching.
    Doing so would have revealed that Poincare's work
    appeared nominally in 1906, but actually in 1908,
    so it cannot heve been a source for Einstein 1905,

    The book of Poincare was accepted in July 1905 (afaik 15th) and the
    article of Einstein roughly two weeks earlier.

    If Einstein's text contains quotes from Poincare's text, than this would
    be a proof, that Einstein's date at the beginning of his article was wrong.

    This would mean, that a certain date of Einstein's text would be the
    date of publication of the article, which was afaik in November 1905.



    TH

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Athel Cornish-Bowden@21:1/5 to Thomas Heger on Fri May 5 09:44:49 2023
    On 2023-05-05 06:03:53 +0000, Thomas Heger said:

    Am 04.05.2023 um 15:56 schrieb J. J. Lodder:
    Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> wrote:

    On 2023-02-18 09:01:56 +0000, Thomas Heger said:


    [ … ]

    The errors stem from a great varfiety of topics, like:

    formal errors
    missing quotes
    unclear formulations
    wrong or reused variables
    illogic resoning
    wrong math
    and so forth...

    [ … ]

    French is not that possible, but I can understand a little. So,
    Poincare's 'Sur le dynamic de la electron' was another possible source. >>>
    Poincaré was French. I find it impossible to believe that he would have >>> used such an illiterate title (five errors in six words: "dynamique",
    not "dynamic"; it is feminine, so "la" not "le"; "électron" has an
    accent; and is masculine, so "du", not "de la", and anyway it's elided
    beforea vowel: "de l'électron").

    Well, sorry for speaking only poor French.

    It's not a matter of speaking; it's matter of being able to copy a
    title accurately.

    But how about your German?

    Perfectly adequate for copying the titles of papers. Perfectly adequate
    also when I want to quote a longer piece of text, for example

    Die Gesellschaft ist ein autopoietisches System auf der Basis von
    sinnhafter Kommunikation. Sie besteht aus Kommunikationen, sie besteht
    nur aus Kommunikationen, sie besteht aus allen Kommunikationen. Sie reproduziert Kommunikation durch Kommunikation.... Gesellschaft ist
    also ein geschlossenes und ein offenes System zugleich, und
    Kommunikation ist die Form der elementaren Operation, die diese
    Kombination laufend leistet und reproduziert.

    Any obvious errors of German you see there? To get a better idea of
    what it means...

    (Society is an autopoietic system based on meaningful communication. It consists of communications, it consists only of communications, it
    consists of all communi- cations. It reproduces communication through communication.... Society is therefore a closed and an open system at
    the same time, and communication is the form of the elementary
    operation that constantly makes this combination and reproduces it.)
    ...I consulted a German-speaking colleague. That seems the normal
    scholarly thing to do, not to write any old rubbish and then claim poor knowledge of German as an excuse.

    Yes, and he is also incapable
    of doing even elementary literature searching.
    Doing so would have revealed that Poincare's work
    appeared nominally in 1906, but actually in 1908,
    so it cannot heve been a source for Einstein 1905,

    The book of Poincare was accepted in July 1905 (afaik 15th) and the
    article of Einstein roughly two weeks earlier.

    If Einstein's text contains quotes from Poincare's text, than this
    would be a proof, that Einstein's date at the beginning of his article
    was wrong.

    This would mean, that a certain date of Einstein's text would be the
    date of publication of the article, which was afaik in November 1905.

    More important, you (Thomas Heger) haven't given an example of anything significant you learned from your study of the 1905 paper. I'm still
    waiting.


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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From carl eto@21:1/5 to All on Fri May 5 16:16:01 2023
    hey bitch does SR include Maxwell's equations?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Thomas Heger@21:1/5 to All on Sat May 6 07:40:10 2023
    Am 04.05.2023 um 08:35 schrieb Athel Cornish-Bowden:

    You haven't shown that you learned anything at all from this exercise.
    Please give an example (one will do) of something significant you
    learned from your studies of the 1905 paper.



    Actually I have written 420 annotations, which all deal with the
    content of this article.

    (see here:


    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1D2m4RV7StviWik2JiB1_Huk_7PR5Sxvi/view?usp=sharing

    )

    Each of these annotations adress a certain aspect of this text and
    discusses the validity of Einstein's statements.

    This would, of course, require to understand every aspect of this paper.

    This in turn creates a learning effect (because you need to understand
    the text) and that is finally the benefit from this method.

    OK, so you're not able to give a single example of something significant
    you learned.


    I have learnt something from reading ther paper: its content.

    What else do you expect?


    TH

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From carl eto@21:1/5 to All on Sat May 6 10:21:48 2023
    Huygens (1690) describes the propagation of light using spherical waves formed by the motion of an ether, composed of matter, (Huygens, p. 5 – 11) yet light propagates in a vacuum that is void of an ether. Fresnel (1819) established the wave theory of
    light by deriving a diffraction intensity equation using Huygens’ spherical waves (Fresnel, 43) but diffraction forms in vacuum that is void of an ether. Michelson (1881) tested for the existence of the ether but the result was negative; consequently,
    Lorentz (1899) reverses the negative result of Michelson's experiment to justify the ether (Lorentz, § 9).

    Lenard (1902) proves light is composed of particles (Lenard, Intro) which negates the continuity of Maxwell's electromagnetic field. Planck (1901) supports Maxwell's theory (Planck, Intro) that Lenard invalidates by deriving an energy element that
    represents the energy of a photon but an expanding electromagnetic field cannot form a particle structure. Plus, Planck’s ether (diathermic media) (Planck, § 7) that motion forms Planck's standing wave (resonator) does not exist (vacuum).

    Einstein's (1905) special relativity is used to justify Maxwell's theory by transforming Maxwell's equations (Einstein1, § 6) but altering the dimensions of Maxwell's equations does not change the fact that induction is not luminous. In addition,
    Einstein states the ether is superfluous (Einstein2, Intro) but Einstein does not explain how altering the coordinate system of Maxwell's equations renders the ether superfluous since the ether is the foundation of the wave theory of light.

    Minkowski (1908) describes an electromagnetic aether using Maxwell's equations (Minkowski, § 2) but a massless electromagnetic ether conflicts with Huygens' ether that is composed of matter. In 1910, Einstein supported Minkowski's electromagnetic aether
    (Einstein2, § 1). Einstein (1917) uses the inertial mass (m = E/c2) (Einstein3, § 15) that is used to structurally unify Maxwell's electromagnetic field with matter to confirm the electromagnetic ether but Einstein's inertial mass is massless since E
    represents the energy of a photon. Compton's photon momentum (p = h/λ) is used to support Einstein’s inertial mass but the units of Compton's photon momentum (g m/s) contain the unit of the mass (g) yet a photon is massless.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)