• Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism.

    From Thomas Heger@21:1/5 to All on Wed Aug 23 08:26:18 2023
    Am 09.08.2023 um 18:47 schrieb Richard Hertz:
    THE DEEP HATE OF EINSTEIN OVER GERMANY AND GERMANS:



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

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

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

    This hate for Germany was rather strange for a German.

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

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

    E.g. it would explain:

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


    All these points speak agiants German citizenship.

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

    TH

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From JanPB@21:1/5 to Thomas Heger on Wed Aug 23 00:53:35 2023
    On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 11:19:50 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:

    I have spent a lot of time on analysing

    'On the electrodynamics of moving bodies'.

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

    You've found zero errors.

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

    --
    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to JanPB on Wed Aug 23 02:04:30 2023
    On Wednesday, 23 August 2023 at 09:53:37 UTC+2, JanPB wrote:
    On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 11:19:50 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:

    I have spent a lot of time on analysing

    'On the electrodynamics of moving bodies'.

    And I have found about four-hundred errors in it.
    You've found zero errors.

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

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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Hachel@21:1/5 to All on Wed Aug 23 16:33:28 2023
    Le 23/08/2023 à 09:53, JanPB a écrit :
    On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 11:19:50 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:

    I have spent a lot of time on analysing

    'On the electrodynamics of moving bodies'.

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

    You've found zero errors.

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

    --
    Jan

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

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

    But these are not coordinates.

    x, y, z, ARE coordinates.

    t is not a coordinate.

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

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

    This is also why I always differentiate To from t.

    I write the value in capital letters.

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

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

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

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

    Thank you for listening.

    R.H.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Python@21:1/5 to All on Thu Aug 24 02:06:45 2023
    Le 23/08/2023 à 18:33, Richard Hachel a écrit :
    Le 23/08/2023 à 09:53, JanPB a écrit :
    On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 11:19:50 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:

    I have spent a lot of time on analysing
    'On the electrodynamics of moving bodies'.
    And I have found about four-hundred errors in it.

    You've found zero errors.

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

    --
    Jan

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

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

    But these are not coordinates.

    x, y, z, ARE coordinates.

    t is not a coordinate.

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

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

    This is also why I always differentiate To from t.

    I write the value in capital letters.

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

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

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

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

    Thank you for listening.

    R.H.

    Yeah! Sure! (Itiot!)

    This is room 12 anyway, not 12A.

    tic tac tac tac tic...

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Hachel@21:1/5 to All on Thu Aug 24 00:23:25 2023
    Le 24/08/2023 à 02:06, Python a écrit :
    Le 23/08/2023 à 18:33, Richard Hachel a écrit :

    Yeah! Sure! (Itiot!)

    Itiot, toi-même.

    T'es qu'un bouffon.

    R.H.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From mitchrae3323@gmail.com@21:1/5 to All on Thu Aug 24 10:31:32 2023
    Why would accepted science not be used in a new way
    by a new person?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Volney@21:1/5 to Richard Hachel on Thu Aug 24 13:25:39 2023
    On 8/23/2023 12:33 PM, Richard Hachel wrote:
    Le 23/08/2023 à 09:53, JanPB a écrit :
    On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 11:19:50 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:

    I have spent a lot of time on analysing
    'On the electrodynamics of moving bodies'.
    And I have found about four-hundred errors in it.

    You've found zero errors.

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

    --
    Jan

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

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

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

    But these are not coordinates.

    x, y, z, ARE coordinates.

    t is not a coordinate.

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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From JanPB@21:1/5 to Richard Hachel on Thu Aug 24 11:07:01 2023
    On Wednesday, August 23, 2023 at 9:33:31 AM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
    Le 23/08/2023 à 09:53, JanPB a écrit :
    On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 11:19:50 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:

    I have spent a lot of time on analysing

    'On the electrodynamics of moving bodies'.

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

    You've found zero errors.

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

    --
    Jan

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

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

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

    But these are not coordinates.

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

    x, y, z, ARE coordinates.

    t is not a coordinate.

    It is.

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

    Word salad.

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

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

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

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

    --
    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to Volney on Thu Aug 24 13:09:43 2023
    On Thursday, 24 August 2023 at 19:25:45 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
    On 8/23/2023 12:33 PM, Richard Hachel wrote:
    Le 23/08/2023 à 09:53, JanPB a écrit :
    On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 11:19:50 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote: >>>
    I have spent a lot of time on analysing
    'On the electrodynamics of moving bodies'.
    And I have found about four-hundred errors in it.

    You've found zero errors.

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

    --
    Jan

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

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

    But these are not coordinates.

    x, y, z, ARE coordinates.

    t is not a coordinate.
    You miss the entire point of what made SR so important. Time is a coordinate, but different from x y z. They can transform between them
    and t, just like transforming between x and y by simple rotations. That
    was the breakthrough of SR.

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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to JanPB on Thu Aug 24 13:13:07 2023
    On Thursday, 24 August 2023 at 20:07:04 UTC+2, JanPB wrote:
    On Wednesday, August 23, 2023 at 9:33:31 AM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
    Le 23/08/2023 à 09:53, JanPB a écrit :
    On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 11:19:50 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:

    I have spent a lot of time on analysing

    'On the electrodynamics of moving bodies'.

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

    You've found zero errors.

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

    --
    Jan

    There are many errors in the theory of relativity and they are errors of concept.
    There are none. Stop wasting time chasing a fata morgana.
    For example, I read someone who said: "The x and t coordinates in Lorentz transformations".

    But these are not coordinates.
    Yes, they are. Learn the relevant physics (and mathematics).

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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Hachel@21:1/5 to All on Thu Aug 24 21:45:03 2023
    Le 24/08/2023 à 19:25, Volney a écrit :
    On 8/23/2023 12:33 PM, Richard Hachel wrote:
    Le 23/08/2023 à 09:53, JanPB a écrit :
    On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 11:19:50 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote: >>>>
    I have spent a lot of time on analysing
    'On the electrodynamics of moving bodies'.
    And I have found about four-hundred errors in it.

    You've found zero errors.

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

    --
    Jan

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

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

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

    But these are not coordinates.

    x, y, z, ARE coordinates.

    t is not a coordinate.

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

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

    This is a misunderstanding of the theory.

    Time is time.

    Metric units are metric units.

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

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

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

    R.H.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From JanPB@21:1/5 to Richard Hachel on Thu Aug 24 15:10:33 2023
    On Thursday, August 24, 2023 at 2:45:06 PM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
    Le 24/08/2023 à 19:25, Volney a écrit :
    On 8/23/2023 12:33 PM, Richard Hachel wrote:
    Le 23/08/2023 à 09:53, JanPB a écrit :
    On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 11:19:50 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote: >>>>
    I have spent a lot of time on analysing
    'On the electrodynamics of moving bodies'.
    And I have found about four-hundred errors in it.

    You've found zero errors.

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

    --
    Jan

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

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

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

    But these are not coordinates.

    x, y, z, ARE coordinates.

    t is not a coordinate.

    You miss the entire point of what made SR so important. Time is a coordinate, but different from x y z. They can transform between them
    and t, just like transforming between x and y by simple rotations. That was the breakthrough of SR.
    No, spatial coordinates cannot be transformed into temporal coordinates,

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

    nor temporal coordinates into time.

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

    This is a misunderstanding of the theory.

    Time is time.

    Metric units are metric units.

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

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

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

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

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

    --
    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Volney@21:1/5 to Richard Hachel on Fri Aug 25 02:03:30 2023
    On 8/24/2023 5:45 PM, Richard Hachel wrote:
    Le 24/08/2023 à 19:25, Volney a écrit :
    On 8/23/2023 12:33 PM, Richard Hachel wrote:

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

    But these are not coordinates.

    x, y, z, ARE coordinates.

    t is not a coordinate.

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

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

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

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

    SR does just that.

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

    It is; it is not a spatial dimension however.

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

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

    R.H.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Hachel@21:1/5 to All on Fri Aug 25 12:07:34 2023
    Le 25/08/2023 à 00:10, JanPB a écrit :
    On Thursday, August 24, 2023 at 2:45:06 PM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:

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

    nor temporal coordinates into time.

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

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

    Jan

    R.H.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Hachel@21:1/5 to All on Fri Aug 25 12:12:26 2023
    Le 25/08/2023 à 00:10, JanPB a écrit :
    Not even wrong. Why do attempt to do something you don't
    understands the first concepts of? What's the point? What kind of satisfaction do you get from doodling with something with such
    incompetence?

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

    R.H.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Python@21:1/5 to All on Fri Aug 25 14:34:26 2023
    Crank and M.D. Richard "Hachel" Lengrand a écrit :
    Le 25/08/2023 à 00:10, JanPB a écrit :
    Not even wrong. Why do attempt to do something you don't
    understands the first concepts of? What's the point? What kind of
    satisfaction do you get from doodling with something with such
    incompetence?

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

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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Hachel@21:1/5 to All on Fri Aug 25 12:21:40 2023
    Le 25/08/2023 à 08:03, Volney a écrit :
    It is; it is not a spatial dimension however.

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

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


    Breathe, blow!

    Take baby steps!

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

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

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

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

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

    What does x=t/c mean?

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

    But duration is not distance, nor the reverse.

    R.H.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Hachel@21:1/5 to All on Fri Aug 25 15:47:48 2023
    Le 25/08/2023 à 14:34, Python a écrit :

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

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

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

    3 petites pages.

    Tu conteste où, par exemple?

    Ou tu contestes pour le plaisir de contester.

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

    -----

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

    3 small pages.

    Where are you contesting, for example?

    Or you contest for the sake of contesting.

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


    -----

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

    R.H.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Thomas Heger@21:1/5 to All on Sat Aug 26 09:13:31 2023
    Am 24.08.2023 um 19:25 schrieb Volney:


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

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


    I think, the text is FULL of errors.

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


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

    But these are not coordinates.

    x, y, z, ARE coordinates.

    t is not a coordinate.

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


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

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

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

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

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

    (which not a very useful definition, btw.)

    TH

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Athel Cornish-Bowden@21:1/5 to JanPB on Sat Aug 26 11:25:57 2023
    On 2023-08-23 07:53:35 +0000, JanPB said:

    On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 11:19:50 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:

    I have spent a lot of time on analysing>> 'On the electrodynamics of
    moving bodies'.>> And I have found about four-hundred errors in it.
    You've found zero errors.

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

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


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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Volney@21:1/5 to Thomas Heger on Sat Aug 26 10:44:40 2023
    On 8/26/2023 3:13 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
    Am 24.08.2023 um 19:25 schrieb Volney:


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

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


    I think, the text is FULL of errors.

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

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

    Except there aren't any.


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

    But these are not coordinates.

    x, y, z, ARE coordinates.

    t is not a coordinate.

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


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

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

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

    Key word: "spacetime".

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

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

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

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

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

    (which not a very useful definition, btw.)

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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to Volney on Sat Aug 26 08:09:36 2023
    On Saturday, 26 August 2023 at 16:44:45 UTC+2, Volney wrote:

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

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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From JanPB@21:1/5 to Richard Hachel on Sat Aug 26 14:09:43 2023
    On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 5:07:37 AM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
    Le 25/08/2023 à 00:10, JanPB a écrit :
    On Thursday, August 24, 2023 at 2:45:06 PM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:

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

    nor temporal coordinates into time.

    See above. You are making stuff up as you go along.
    You are doing voodoo, not science.
    That's not what I'm saying.
    I say that the time is, on the diagram, the length sqrt(x²+y²+z²)/c
    and that it is not, strictly speaking, a coordinate.

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

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

    Sure.

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

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

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

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

    --
    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From JanPB@21:1/5 to Thomas Heger on Sat Aug 26 14:12:53 2023
    On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 12:12:06 AM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
    Am 24.08.2023 um 19:25 schrieb Volney:


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

    No, there are no errors other than one or two instances of awkward text.
    I think, the text is FULL of errors.

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

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

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

    But these are not coordinates.

    x, y, z, ARE coordinates.

    t is also a coordinate.

    t is not a coordinate.

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

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

    --
    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Volney@21:1/5 to Richard Hachel on Sat Aug 26 19:54:40 2023
    On 8/25/2023 8:21 AM, Richard Hachel wrote:
    Le 25/08/2023 à 08:03, Volney a écrit :
    It is; it is not a spatial dimension however.

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

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

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

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

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

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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From JanPB@21:1/5 to Lee Mihailovich on Sat Aug 26 20:48:57 2023
    On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 2:20:42 PM UTC-7, Lee Mihailovich wrote:
    JanPB wrote:

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

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

    It is true. Get over it.

    --
    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From RichD@21:1/5 to Thomas Heger on Mon Aug 28 12:22:24 2023
    On August 10, Thomas Heger wrote:
    I have spent a lot of time on analysing
    'On the electrodynamics of moving bodies'.
    And I have found about four-hundred errors in it.

    No doubt you have.

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

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

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

    --
    Rich

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Thomas Heger@21:1/5 to All on Wed Aug 30 07:52:05 2023
    Am 23.08.2023 um 09:53 schrieb JanPB:
    On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 11:19:50 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:

    I have spent a lot of time on analysing

    'On the electrodynamics of moving bodies'.

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

    You've found zero errors.

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

    I had used a certain method:

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


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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

    TH

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Thomas Heger@21:1/5 to All on Thu Aug 31 08:35:45 2023
    Am 26.08.2023 um 23:12 schrieb JanPB:
    On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 12:12:06 AM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
    Am 24.08.2023 um 19:25 schrieb Volney:


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

    No, there are no errors other than one or two instances of awkward text.
    I think, the text is FULL of errors.

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

    But these are not coordinates.

    x, y, z, ARE coordinates.

    t is also a coordinate.

    Only in case of timetravel.

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


    t is not a coordinate.

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


    ..


    TH

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Athel Cornish-Bowden@21:1/5 to Thomas Heger on Thu Aug 31 09:19:15 2023
    On 2023-08-31 06:35:45 +0000, Thomas Heger said:

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

    Well, I found about 420 parts of the text

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

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

    annotated


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

    which

    I had to rethink.

    But most were about erros

    errors

    and its really hard to defend the text against critique.

    criticism -- word salad, even with correction

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

    which I did

    but you were next to never able to disprove my critique

    criticism

    of a certain part altogether.

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

    This

    What is "This"?

    summed up over all

    overall

    to an 'error count' in the four hundreds.

    Actually I have not counted them recently. Its

    It's

    also a little dificult, because some errors were commented more than
    once and some annotations cover more than one error.

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

    Only you were not able to disprove a hundred of my comments.

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

    (You hardly were able to disprove ten.)

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

    =====

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

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



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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to Athel Cornish-Bowden on Thu Aug 31 00:31:37 2023
    On Thursday, 31 August 2023 at 09:19:22 UTC+2, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:

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

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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Thomas Heger@21:1/5 to All on Fri Sep 8 09:28:02 2023
    Am 31.08.2023 um 09:31 schrieb Maciej Wozniak:
    On Thursday, 31 August 2023 at 09:19:22 UTC+2, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:

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

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


    It is apparently illegal to criticise Einstein's SRT.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


    TH

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to Thomas Heger on Fri Sep 8 00:43:06 2023
    On Friday, 8 September 2023 at 09:26:24 UTC+2, Thomas Heger wrote:
    Am 31.08.2023 um 09:31 schrieb Maciej Wozniak:
    On Thursday, 31 August 2023 at 09:19:22 UTC+2, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:

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

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

    It is apparently illegal to criticise Einstein's SRT.

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


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

    You've assumed incorrectly.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Tom Roberts@21:1/5 to Thomas Heger on Fri Sep 8 23:18:17 2023
    [The subject of this thread is as much a fantasy as the post to which I
    am responding.]

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

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

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

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

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

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

    More nonsense. Period.

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

    Tom Roberts

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Thomas Heger@21:1/5 to All on Sat Sep 9 07:59:38 2023
    Am 09.09.2023 um 06:18 schrieb Tom Roberts:
    [The subject of this thread is as much a fantasy as the post to which I
    am responding.]

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

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

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

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

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

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

    More nonsense. Period.

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


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

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

    I was looking on 'technical' issues alone.


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

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

    This was, unfortunately not always the case.

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

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

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

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


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

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

    MANY did that, like e.g. Androcles.

    But NOTHING has changed and most likely never will.


    TH

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to Tom Roberts on Fri Sep 8 22:16:57 2023
    On Saturday, 9 September 2023 at 06:18:28 UTC+2, Tom Roberts wrote:
    [The subject of this thread is as much a fantasy as the post to which I
    am responding.]
    On 9/8/23 2:28 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
    It is apparently illegal to criticise Einstein's SRT.
    That is complete and utter nonsense. Ditto for the "hundreds of

    Aren't we FORCED? To THE BEST Way?



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

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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to Thomas Heger on Fri Sep 8 23:47:08 2023
    On Saturday, 9 September 2023 at 07:57:58 UTC+2, Thomas Heger wrote:
    Am 09.09.2023 um 06:18 schrieb Tom Roberts:
    [The subject of this thread is as much a fantasy as the post to which I
    am responding.]

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

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

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

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

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

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

    More nonsense. Period.

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

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

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

    I was looking on 'technical' issues alone.

    It's your mistake treating fanatic shit seriously.
    You're legitimizing it this way.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Paul Alsing@21:1/5 to Thomas Heger on Sat Sep 9 22:45:22 2023
    On Saturday, September 9, 2023 at 10:22:27 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
    Am 09.09.2023 um 08:47 schrieb Maciej Wozniak:

    It is apparently illegal to criticise Einstein's SRT.

    Thjat's what I actually think: physicists who dare to criticise 'On the electrodynamics of moving bodies' get fired and permanently banned from
    the scientific community.

    Can you name one or two of them? Do you have any evidence of any kind to support your claim? I'm pretty confident that the number of legitimate physicists the world around who doubt Einstein is minuscule when compared to the size of that community... and
    in any case, none of them have actually succeeded in their effort to bring Einstein down.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Thomas Heger@21:1/5 to All on Sun Sep 10 07:24:09 2023
    Am 09.09.2023 um 08:47 schrieb Maciej Wozniak:

    It is apparently illegal to criticise Einstein's SRT.


    Thjat's what I actually think: physicists who dare to criticise 'On the electrodynamics of moving bodies' get fired and permanently banned from
    the scientific community.

    There seems to exist a hidden law, which only applies to physicists. It demands, that certain activities must not be done.

    Certain topics are apperently illegal, like

    growing Earth
    abiogenic oil theory
    free energy devices
    gyroscopes
    transmutation
    certain aspects of water
    any kind of criticism about SRT and/or Einstein as a person

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

    I have absolutely no other explanation for the behaviour of
    participants in these discussions here (and elsewhere) about this topic. >>>
    That's because you have no understanding of either physics or how
    physicists behave.

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

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

    More nonsense. Period.

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

    It is and was not my aim to refute SRT, which I actually regard as correct. >>
    I had a totally different approach, which is actually not related to
    relativity.

    I was looking on 'technical' issues alone.

    It's your mistake treating fanatic shit seriously.
    You're legitimizing it this way.


    Einstein's paper was published in a scientific magazine, hence was at
    least meant scientific.

    Well, possibly the author had other intentions, but at least I thought,
    that particular paper was meant as serious science.



    TH

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Thomas Heger@21:1/5 to All on Sun Sep 10 08:01:55 2023
    Am 10.09.2023 um 07:45 schrieb Paul Alsing:
    On Saturday, September 9, 2023 at 10:22:27 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
    Am 09.09.2023 um 08:47 schrieb Maciej Wozniak:

    It is apparently illegal to criticise Einstein's SRT.

    Thjat's what I actually think: physicists who dare to criticise 'On the
    electrodynamics of moving bodies' get fired and permanently banned from
    the scientific community.

    Can you name one or two of them? Do you have any evidence of any kind to support your claim? I'm pretty confident that the number of legitimate physicists the world around who doubt Einstein is minuscule when compared to the size of that community...
    and in any case, none of them have actually succeeded in their effort to bring Einstein down.


    Very prominent was Herbert Dingle, who was a physicist with some
    reputation. But after his book 'Science at the crossroads' had got
    efficiently expelled 'from the community'.

    I do not want to defend Dingle or his work, but wanted to mention his name.

    Actually I had chose a different approach (because of Dingle) and did
    not discuss relativity per se, but only 'technical' (formal) issues,
    like missing quotes or mathematical errors in this particular article.

    (What Einstein said elsewhere or actually wanted was not my concern.)


    TH

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Hertz@21:1/5 to Paul Alsing on Sun Sep 10 19:12:49 2023
    On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 2:45:25 AM UTC-3, Paul Alsing wrote:

    <snip>

    Can you name one or two of them? Do you have any evidence of any kind to support your claim? I'm pretty confident that the number of legitimate physicists the world around who doubt Einstein is minuscule when compared to the size of that community...
    and in any case, none of them have actually succeeded in their effort to bring Einstein down.

    Here you have 20, not 2, cretinoid.


    1- Halton Arp, PhD
    2- Franklin Anariba, PhD
    3- Nikias Stavroulakis, PhD
    4- Leonard S. Abrams, MS
    5- Hermann Weyl, PhD
    6- Regind T. Cahill, MS
    7- Wallace Thornhill, MS
    8- David Talbott, PhD
    9- Donald Scott, PhD
    10- Ben Davidson, PhD
    11- Jerry Pollack, PhD
    12- Michael Clarage, PhD
    13- Lowell Morgan, PhD
    14- Paul Anderson, PhD
    15- Kongpop U-yen, PhD
    16- Michael Shermer, PhD
    17- C.J. Ransom, PhD
    18- Stephens Crothers, MS
    18- Franklin Anariba, PhD
    19- Eugene Bagashov, PhD
    20- Robert Straitt, PhD

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Paul Alsing@21:1/5 to Richard Hertz on Sun Sep 10 19:22:47 2023
    On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 7:12:52 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
    On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 2:45:25 AM UTC-3, Paul Alsing wrote:

    <snip>
    Can you name one or two of them? Do you have any evidence of any kind to support your claim? I'm pretty confident that the number of legitimate physicists the world around who doubt Einstein is minuscule when compared to the size of that community...
    and in any case, none of them have actually succeeded in their effort to bring Einstein down.
    Here you have 20, not 2, cretinoid.


    1- Halton Arp, PhD
    2- Franklin Anariba, PhD
    3- Nikias Stavroulakis, PhD
    4- Leonard S. Abrams, MS
    5- Hermann Weyl, PhD
    6- Regind T. Cahill, MS
    7- Wallace Thornhill, MS
    8- David Talbott, PhD
    9- Donald Scott, PhD
    10- Ben Davidson, PhD
    11- Jerry Pollack, PhD
    12- Michael Clarage, PhD
    13- Lowell Morgan, PhD
    14- Paul Anderson, PhD
    15- Kongpop U-yen, PhD
    16- Michael Shermer, PhD
    17- C.J. Ransom, PhD
    18- Stephens Crothers, MS
    18- Franklin Anariba, PhD
    19- Eugene Bagashov, PhD
    20- Robert Straitt, PhD

    Listen, Dick, you ignoramus, you snipped the most important part of the thread, the part where Crossen made this claim..."Thjat's what I actually think: physicists who dare to criticise 'On the electrodynamics of moving bodies' get fired and permanently
    banned from the scientific community"... and I asked him to name one or two of them.

    So, Dick, you are claiming that all of these fine folks have all been fired and permanently banned from the scientific community? I knew Chip Arp way back when and he was clearly never fired or banned from the scientific community!

    I think we all know just who the cretinoid here is, Dick... and it is not likely to be me!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to Paul Alsing on Sun Sep 10 22:42:41 2023
    On Sunday, 10 September 2023 at 07:45:25 UTC+2, Paul Alsing wrote:
    On Saturday, September 9, 2023 at 10:22:27 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
    Am 09.09.2023 um 08:47 schrieb Maciej Wozniak:

    It is apparently illegal to criticise Einstein's SRT.

    Thjat's what I actually think: physicists who dare to criticise 'On the electrodynamics of moving bodies' get fired and permanently banned from the scientific community.
    Can you name one or two of them? Do you have any evidence of any kind to support your claim? I'm pretty confident that the number of legitimate physicists the world around who doubt Einstein is minuscule when compared to the size of that community...


    Al, poor trash, that's what he saying - those who dare criticizing
    your insane Shit can'r be a part of your insane community.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Hertz@21:1/5 to Paul Alsing on Sun Sep 10 22:55:48 2023
    On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 11:22:49 PM UTC-3, Paul Alsing wrote:

    <snip>

    So, Dick, you are claiming that all of these fine folks have all been fired and permanently banned from the scientific community? I knew Chip Arp way back when and he was clearly never fired or banned from the scientific community!

    I think we all know just who the cretinoid here is, Dick... and it is not likely to be me!


    You MAYBE knew Arp by seeing him at a distance, and maybe you waved hands at him.

    But you are not only a fucking cretin, liar and deceiver. You also are a fucking imbecile!

    The history of Halton Arp is widely known, in detail.

    His last line of research put SERIOUS QUESTIONS to the entire body of cosmology based on the BB. The conflict between
    "allegedly" infinitely far quasars with high z BEING ACTUALLY close to galaxies with low z KILLED the entire LCDM narrative,
    as well as the alleged truth of Hubble's historical concepts about red/blue shift and distances.

    He fell from being a widely recognized astronomer with UNLIMITED ACCESS to Mount Palomar to Mr. NOBODY, with access
    denied (slowly but lethal). Why had he to finish his professional life at Planck Institute, being even there slowly cancelled?

    I insist: You are a decrepit liar, deceiver relativist SOB.


    *********************************************************************** https://www.amazon.com/Seeing-Red-Redshifts-Cosmology-Academic/dp/0968368905

    Seeing Red: Redshifts, Cosmology and Academic Science Paperback – June 1, 1997
    by Halton Arp (Author)

    Review
    This book lays down a lifetime of seeing the world differently, looking at alternative explanations for a complex, beautiful universe. -- Sky & Telescope, June 1999

    About the Author
    Halton Arp graduated cum laude from Harvard in 1949 and earned a Ph.D. from Caltech in 1953 (also cum laude). His first postdoctoral position was as an assistant to Edwin Hubble. He worked as a staff astronomer at Mt. Wilson and Mt. Palomar for 29 years
    before moving to Max-Planck-Institute for Astrophysics in Munich.
    Arp's observations of quasars and galaxies are world-renowned. He is the author of the Atlas of Peculiar Galaxies (1963: a collectors' item), Quasars, Redshifts and Controversies (1987), as well as numerous articles in scholarly journals. He has been
    awarded the Helen B. Warner Prize of the American Astronomical Society and the Newcomb Cleveland award of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and served as president of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific from 1980 to 1983. In
    1984, he received the Alexander von Humboldt Senior Scientist Award.



    SOME COMMENTS IN THE AMAZON'S LINK THAT I'VE POSTED ABOVE

    **********************************
    If you believe the mainstream view of the universe, and want to continue believing in it, this is not the book for you. Quasars (quasi-stellar objects) have a high redshift - which astronomers have assumed is solely a Doppler effect and meant that
    quasars are receding from us at a fantastically high velocity. Halton Arp - whose credentials were good enough that he was at one time the assistant of Hubble himself - had the audacity to question that. This book is one of several that shows clearly
    that quasars often appear in front of low-redshift galaxies. Mainstream astronomy has built its whole house of cards on theory, starting with Einstein's theories of relatively, and it was using quasars to claim that the universe is rapidly expanding. As
    it turns out, based on the work of plasma physics, high redshift can also be a sign of the youth of an object. So they blackballed Arp. He could not get telescope time anywhere in the USA. He had to leave the country to get access to a telescope, and
    actually ended up with an even better telescope than he'd had before, where he was able to continue his work. And by the way, Einstein ended up doubting his own relativity theories, and Hubble remained unconvinced that redshift was completely explained
    as a Doppler effect. By today, one would not be able to practice astronomy unless they accept the Big Bang, Black Holes, thermo-nuclear stars, and an expanding universe.

    **********************************

    I am a research chemist who has been skeptical for many years about the current dogma that the universe originated suddenly billions of years ago with a Big Bang and has been expanding ever since. In order to maintain the now widely accepted Big Bang/
    expanding universe theory in the face of various discoveries which conflict with it astronomers and cosmologists have repeatedly promulgated various ad hoc -- but unproven -- concepts, including the existence of cold dark matter and dark energy. In this
    book eminent astronomer Halton Arp presents an alternative view of cosmology, based on his own astronomical observations, which roundly challenges the currently accepted dogma. Arp has been severely ridiculed for his challenge of currently accepted
    theory and has been denied access to prestigious journals and conferences, but he has also developed a following of iconoclastic scientists who now give his assertions serious consideration. If you are open minded, you may well find this book both
    interesting and informative.

    **********************************

    One solution to Einstein's General Theory calls for the universe to be expanding. Shortly after Einstein published it, Hubble published observations that purported to support Einstein by showing that stars farther away from Earth were moving away faster,
    as shown by their red shift.

    Arp questions the validity of red shift as a measure of distance or recessional velocity. The book includes astronomical photos of objects that are obviously connected by streams of gas, but which have vastly different red shifts. At the very least, this
    puts into question the validity of red shift as a measure of distance or recessional velocity.

    Well worth reading.

    **********************************

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Thomas Heger@21:1/5 to All on Mon Sep 11 08:44:40 2023
    Am 28.08.2023 um 21:22 schrieb RichD:
    On August 10, Thomas Heger wrote:
    I have spent a lot of time on analysing
    'On the electrodynamics of moving bodies'.
    And I have found about four-hundred errors in it.

    No doubt you have.

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

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

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

    No, you are entirely wrong.

    Science is not concerned with democracy and is by its very nature
    independent of what people believe.

    Science has to do with truth and whether or not assumptions are actually correct. And truth is not altered by even billions of people, who
    believe otherwise.

    Actually something could be true and scientific, if absolutely nobody
    believes in it.

    Social life is an entirely different thing, even social life in science.

    People are as people are, and that is not always governed by rational
    thinking. So social interactions in such environments does not
    necessarily produce truth. Instead it does generate some kind of
    consensus, which is an expression of social life among the participants
    in a certain community, but not per se of scientific truth.


    TH

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to Thomas Heger on Sun Sep 10 23:46:08 2023
    On Monday, 11 September 2023 at 08:42:58 UTC+2, Thomas Heger wrote:

    Science has to do with truth and whether or not assumptions are actually correct. And truth is not altered by even billions of people, who
    believe otherwise.

    Sorry, but it's not the truth. Actually, it's a very naive and
    lacking any competence faith of yours.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Paul Alsing@21:1/5 to Richard Hertz on Mon Sep 11 07:29:10 2023
    On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 10:55:51 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
    On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 11:22:49 PM UTC-3, Paul Alsing wrote:

    <snip>
    So, Dick, you are claiming that all of these fine folks have all been fired and permanently banned from the scientific community? I knew Chip Arp way back when and he was clearly never fired or banned from the scientific community!

    I think we all know just who the cretinoid here is, Dick... and it is not likely to be me!
    You MAYBE knew Arp by seeing him at a distance, and maybe you waved hands at him.

    But you are not only a fucking cretin, liar and deceiver. You also are a fucking imbecile!

    The history of Halton Arp is widely known, in detail.

    His last line of research put SERIOUS QUESTIONS to the entire body of cosmology based on the BB. The conflict between
    "allegedly" infinitely far quasars with high z BEING ACTUALLY close to galaxies with low z KILLED the entire LCDM narrative,
    as well as the alleged truth of Hubble's historical concepts about red/blue shift and distances.

    He fell from being a widely recognized astronomer with UNLIMITED ACCESS to Mount Palomar to Mr. NOBODY, with access
    denied (slowly but lethal). Why had he to finish his professional life at Planck Institute, being even there slowly cancelled?

    I insist: You are a decrepit liar, deceiver relativist SOB.


    *********************************************************************** https://www.amazon.com/Seeing-Red-Redshifts-Cosmology-Academic/dp/0968368905

    Seeing Red: Redshifts, Cosmology and Academic Science Paperback – June 1, 1997
    by Halton Arp (Author)

    Review
    This book lays down a lifetime of seeing the world differently, looking at alternative explanations for a complex, beautiful universe. -- Sky & Telescope, June 1999

    About the Author
    Halton Arp graduated cum laude from Harvard in 1949 and earned a Ph.D. from Caltech in 1953 (also cum laude). His first postdoctoral position was as an assistant to Edwin Hubble. He worked as a staff astronomer at Mt. Wilson and Mt. Palomar for 29
    years before moving to Max-Planck-Institute for Astrophysics in Munich.
    Arp's observations of quasars and galaxies are world-renowned. He is the author of the Atlas of Peculiar Galaxies (1963: a collectors' item), Quasars, Redshifts and Controversies (1987), as well as numerous articles in scholarly journals. He has been
    awarded the Helen B. Warner Prize of the American Astronomical Society and the Newcomb Cleveland award of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and served as president of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific from 1980 to 1983. In
    1984, he received the Alexander von Humboldt Senior Scientist Award.



    SOME COMMENTS IN THE AMAZON'S LINK THAT I'VE POSTED ABOVE

    **********************************
    If you believe the mainstream view of the universe, and want to continue believing in it, this is not the book for you. Quasars (quasi-stellar objects) have a high redshift - which astronomers have assumed is solely a Doppler effect and meant that
    quasars are receding from us at a fantastically high velocity. Halton Arp - whose credentials were good enough that he was at one time the assistant of Hubble himself - had the audacity to question that. This book is one of several that shows clearly
    that quasars often appear in front of low-redshift galaxies. Mainstream astronomy has built its whole house of cards on theory, starting with Einstein's theories of relatively, and it was using quasars to claim that the universe is rapidly expanding. As
    it turns out, based on the work of plasma physics, high redshift can also be a sign of the youth of an object. So they blackballed Arp. He could not get telescope time anywhere in the USA. He had to leave the country to get access to a telescope, and
    actually ended up with an even better telescope than he'd had before, where he was able to continue his work. And by the way, Einstein ended up doubting his own relativity theories, and Hubble remained unconvinced that redshift was completely explained
    as a Doppler effect. By today, one would not be able to practice astronomy unless they accept the Big Bang, Black Holes, thermo-nuclear stars, and an expanding universe.

    **********************************

    I am a research chemist who has been skeptical for many years about the current dogma that the universe originated suddenly billions of years ago with a Big Bang and has been expanding ever since. In order to maintain the now widely accepted Big Bang/
    expanding universe theory in the face of various discoveries which conflict with it astronomers and cosmologists have repeatedly promulgated various ad hoc -- but unproven -- concepts, including the existence of cold dark matter and dark energy. In this
    book eminent astronomer Halton Arp presents an alternative view of cosmology, based on his own astronomical observations, which roundly challenges the currently accepted dogma. Arp has been severely ridiculed for his challenge of currently accepted
    theory and has been denied access to prestigious journals and conferences, but he has also developed a following of iconoclastic scientists who now give his assertions serious consideration. If you are open minded, you may well find this book both
    interesting and informative.

    **********************************

    One solution to Einstein's General Theory calls for the universe to be expanding. Shortly after Einstein published it, Hubble published observations that purported to support Einstein by showing that stars farther away from Earth were moving away
    faster, as shown by their red shift.

    Arp questions the validity of red shift as a measure of distance or recessional velocity. The book includes astronomical photos of objects that are obviously connected by streams of gas, but which have vastly different red shifts. At the very least,
    this puts into question the validity of red shift as a measure of distance or recessional velocity.

    Well worth reading.

    **********************************

    You failed to answer my question, Dick, about all those people on your list... I would like you to back up your claim with evidence, if you have any.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Thomas Heger@21:1/5 to All on Wed Sep 13 08:33:37 2023
    Am 11.09.2023 um 08:46 schrieb Maciej Wozniak:
    On Monday, 11 September 2023 at 08:42:58 UTC+2, Thomas Heger wrote:

    Science has to do with truth and whether or not assumptions are actually
    correct. And truth is not altered by even billions of people, who
    believe otherwise.

    Sorry, but it's not the truth. Actually, it's a very naive and
    lacking any competence faith of yours.


    If science that does not, at least, try to discover actual truth, it is
    not science.

    I would call it 'scienentific carneval', where people in white coats
    perform obscure rituals.

    That may eventually look scientific, but mainly because of the titles,
    the machinery and the white coats.

    But if the scientific method is not applied, then it's only something
    remotely similar, but not science.


    TH

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to Thomas Heger on Tue Sep 12 23:47:58 2023
    On Wednesday, 13 September 2023 at 08:31:52 UTC+2, Thomas Heger wrote:
    Am 11.09.2023 um 08:46 schrieb Maciej Wozniak:
    On Monday, 11 September 2023 at 08:42:58 UTC+2, Thomas Heger wrote:

    Science has to do with truth and whether or not assumptions are actually >> correct. And truth is not altered by even billions of people, who
    believe otherwise.

    Sorry, but it's not the truth. Actually, it's a very naive and
    lacking any competence faith of yours.

    If science that does not, at least, try to discover actual truth, it is
    not science.

    Nope. You simply know practically nothing
    about science and the same about truth.

    Anyway, you're not the one deciding what is
    science and what is not, sorry.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Thomas Heger@21:1/5 to All on Fri Sep 15 08:42:23 2023
    Am 13.09.2023 um 08:47 schrieb Maciej Wozniak:

    Science has to do with truth and whether or not assumptions are actually >>>> correct. And truth is not altered by even billions of people, who
    believe otherwise.

    Sorry, but it's not the truth. Actually, it's a very naive and
    lacking any competence faith of yours.

    If science that does not, at least, try to discover actual truth, it is
    not science.

    Nope. You simply know practically nothing
    about science and the same about truth.

    Anyway, you're not the one deciding what is
    science and what is not, sorry.


    Sure, the men and women in white coats do.

    They also decide, what is right and what is wrong (by means of consensus).

    But, as I told you, truth is not concerned with democracy and you cannot
    not decide by vote about actual truth.


    TH

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to Thomas Heger on Fri Sep 15 00:35:40 2023
    On Friday, 15 September 2023 at 08:40:37 UTC+2, Thomas Heger wrote:
    Am 13.09.2023 um 08:47 schrieb Maciej Wozniak:

    Science has to do with truth and whether or not assumptions are actually >>>> correct. And truth is not altered by even billions of people, who
    believe otherwise.

    Sorry, but it's not the truth. Actually, it's a very naive and
    lacking any competence faith of yours.

    If science that does not, at least, try to discover actual truth, it is
    not science.

    Nope. You simply know practically nothing
    about science and the same about truth.

    Anyway, you're not the one deciding what is
    science and what is not, sorry.

    Sure, the men and women in white coats do.

    They also decide, what is right and what is wrong (by means of consensus).

    While not all of them wear white coats - yes. You
    don't have to like it, it's still the reality.

    But, as I told you, truth is not concerned with democracy and you cannot
    not decide by vote about actual truth.

    As I told you - it's not the truth. You're mistaken.

    You don't know what the truth is, where it
    came from and how it works. Don't get
    offended, if you approach rationally to the
    subject you'll have to admit you don't know
    that.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Thomas Heger@21:1/5 to All on Sat Sep 16 07:35:04 2023
    Am 15.09.2023 um 09:35 schrieb Maciej Wozniak:
    On Friday, 15 September 2023 at 08:40:37 UTC+2, Thomas Heger wrote:
    Am 13.09.2023 um 08:47 schrieb Maciej Wozniak:

    Science has to do with truth and whether or not assumptions are actually >>>>>> correct. And truth is not altered by even billions of people, who
    believe otherwise.

    Sorry, but it's not the truth. Actually, it's a very naive and
    lacking any competence faith of yours.

    If science that does not, at least, try to discover actual truth, it is >>>> not science.

    Nope. You simply know practically nothing
    about science and the same about truth.

    Anyway, you're not the one deciding what is
    science and what is not, sorry.

    Sure, the men and women in white coats do.

    They also decide, what is right and what is wrong (by means of consensus).

    While not all of them wear white coats - yes. You
    don't have to like it, it's still the reality.

    But, as I told you, truth is not concerned with democracy and you cannot
    not decide by vote about actual truth.

    As I told you - it's not the truth. You're mistaken.

    Actually I know what you mean with that realm without truth, where the particpants in the show wear white coats.

    I usually call that 'academia' and mean that is the sense of an
    infectuous desease.


    You don't know what the truth is, where it
    came from and how it works.

    Sure, nobody knows actual truth. That's why we got science to find out.

    ...


    TH

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to Thomas Heger on Fri Sep 15 22:45:55 2023
    On Saturday, 16 September 2023 at 07:33:16 UTC+2, Thomas Heger wrote:

    Sure, nobody knows actual truth. That's why we got science to find out.

    But science is not finding it out. It's building it.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From JanPB@21:1/5 to Thomas Heger on Sat Sep 16 01:02:42 2023
    On Wednesday, August 30, 2023 at 11:34:13 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
    Am 26.08.2023 um 23:12 schrieb JanPB:
    On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 12:12:06 AM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
    Am 24.08.2023 um 19:25 schrieb Volney:


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

    No, there are no errors other than one or two instances of awkward text. >> I think, the text is FULL of errors.

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

    No, it's zero. It would be good for you to stop living in
    a fantasy world. It's emotionally neither healthy not, ultimately, satisfying. One day you'll wake up with your hand in the chamber pot.
    Well, I found about 420 parts of the text 'On the electrodynamics of
    moving bodies' which I have annoated.

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

    But most were about erros

    There are no errors in Einstein's paper. Grow up, stop fantasising.
    You are an adult now. There is no longer any need for you to
    employ an emotional crutch, let alone a silly one like this.

    --
    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From JanPB@21:1/5 to Thomas Heger on Sat Sep 16 01:03:41 2023
    On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 12:26:24 AM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
    Am 31.08.2023 um 09:31 schrieb Maciej Wozniak:
    On Thursday, 31 August 2023 at 09:19:22 UTC+2, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:

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

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

    It is apparently illegal to criticise Einstein's SRT.

    Don't be silly. Of course it's perfectly legal and encouraged. But
    that's not what you are doing.

    --
    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From JanPB@21:1/5 to Richard Hertz on Sat Sep 16 01:08:35 2023
    On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 7:12:52 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
    On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 2:45:25 AM UTC-3, Paul Alsing wrote:

    <snip>
    Can you name one or two of them? Do you have any evidence of any kind to support your claim? I'm pretty confident that the number of legitimate physicists the world around who doubt Einstein is minuscule when compared to the size of that community...
    and in any case, none of them have actually succeeded in their effort to bring Einstein down.
    Here you have 20, not 2, cretinoid.


    1- Halton Arp, PhD
    2- Franklin Anariba, PhD
    3- Nikias Stavroulakis, PhD
    4- Leonard S. Abrams, MS
    5- Hermann Weyl, PhD
    6- Regind T. Cahill, MS
    7- Wallace Thornhill, MS
    8- David Talbott, PhD
    9- Donald Scott, PhD
    10- Ben Davidson, PhD
    11- Jerry Pollack, PhD
    12- Michael Clarage, PhD
    13- Lowell Morgan, PhD
    14- Paul Anderson, PhD
    15- Kongpop U-yen, PhD
    16- Michael Shermer, PhD
    17- C.J. Ransom, PhD
    18- Stephens Crothers, MS
    18- Franklin Anariba, PhD
    19- Eugene Bagashov, PhD
    20- Robert Straitt, PhD

    The only way to disprove SR is by experiment (and even then the
    theory will never go away, just like Maxwell's electrodynamics and
    Newtonian mechanics, both of which have been falsified by experiment).

    The 20 people you listed above either make mathematical
    mistakes (like Stephen Crothers) or argue philosophical aspects
    of relativity (which is fine with me). Logically or mathematically
    they cannot have a claim (because demonstrating a logical flaw
    in Minkowski's geometry would automatically demonstrate a
    corresponding flaw in Euclidean geometry).

    --
    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to JanPB on Sat Sep 16 01:26:42 2023
    On Saturday, 16 September 2023 at 10:08:37 UTC+2, JanPB wrote:
    On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 7:12:52 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
    On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 2:45:25 AM UTC-3, Paul Alsing wrote:

    <snip>
    Can you name one or two of them? Do you have any evidence of any kind to support your claim? I'm pretty confident that the number of legitimate physicists the world around who doubt Einstein is minuscule when compared to the size of that community..
    . and in any case, none of them have actually succeeded in their effort to bring Einstein down.
    Here you have 20, not 2, cretinoid.


    1- Halton Arp, PhD
    2- Franklin Anariba, PhD
    3- Nikias Stavroulakis, PhD
    4- Leonard S. Abrams, MS
    5- Hermann Weyl, PhD
    6- Regind T. Cahill, MS
    7- Wallace Thornhill, MS
    8- David Talbott, PhD
    9- Donald Scott, PhD
    10- Ben Davidson, PhD
    11- Jerry Pollack, PhD
    12- Michael Clarage, PhD
    13- Lowell Morgan, PhD
    14- Paul Anderson, PhD
    15- Kongpop U-yen, PhD
    16- Michael Shermer, PhD
    17- C.J. Ransom, PhD
    18- Stephens Crothers, MS
    18- Franklin Anariba, PhD
    19- Eugene Bagashov, PhD
    20- Robert Straitt, PhD
    The only way to disprove SR is by experiment (and even then the

    Sure, we need to perform an experiment to disprove
    that "we re FORCED to THE BEST WAY".

    No, trash - we don't need it, as your Shit is not even
    consistent.
    Not that such idiocies need ANY disprovement.

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