XPost: rec.arts.tv, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh   
   From: relativity@paulba.no   
      
   Den 29.10.2025 09:32, skrev Thomas Heger:   
   > Am Sonntag000026, 26.10.2025 um 21:58 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:   
   >> Den 26.10.2025 08:08, skrev Thomas Heger:   
   >>>   
   >>> But Einstein could have been a tiny cog in a huge system, which was   
   >>> meant to derail science in general.   
   >>>   
   >>> I actually assume, that 'On the electrodynamics of moving bodies' was   
   >>> meant as such a means, which intentionally tried to divert science   
   >>> from their supposed course.   
   >>>   
   >>> I think so, because that particular article contains an enormous   
   >>> amount of errors of all sorts.   
   >>>   
   >>> Some of them are actually comically stupid.   
   >>   
   >>   
   >> The metric below defines The Special Theory of Relativity (SR).   
   >> What can be deduced from this metric is what SR predicts.   
   >>     (c⋅dτ)² = (c⋅dt)² − dx² − dy² − dz²   
   >   
   > This was not from Einstein's text 'On the electrodynamics of moving   
   > bodies'!!   
   >   
   > Sure, it is actually correct (mainly), but still not a part of the   
   > article I was talking about.   
   >   
   > Therefore, it doesn't help Einstein's paper, if you succesfully defend   
   > this equation.   
      
   It was Minkowski, not Einstein, who introduced four dimensionally   
   spacetime and the geometric approach.   
      
   In 1908 Minkowski presented a paper named "Space and Time" for   
   the "80th Assembly of German Natural Scientists and Physicians".   
      
   In the introduction he writes:   
   "Henceforth space by itself, and time by itself, are doomed to   
     fade away into mere shadows, and only a kind of union of the two   
     will preserve an independent reality."   
      
   This "union" is what we now call Minkowski spacetime (flat spacetime)   
      
   In the paper Minkowski presented the metric:   
      dτ² =  − dx² − dy² − dz² − ds²   
   where s =  √(−1)⋅t,  so ds² = - dt²   
   so the metric becomes:   
      dτ² = dt² − dx² − dy² − dz²   
      
   This is a reformulation of Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity.   
      
   Allegedly Einstein has said:   
   "Since the mathematicians have invaded the theory of relativity,   
     I do not understand it myself any more."   
      
   Note that this statement implies that Einstein considered   
   Minkowski's geometric approach to be a formulation of his theory of   
   relativity   
      
      
   But Einstein had to learn more mathematics, and in the introduction   
   of the paper "The Foundation of the General Theory of Relativity"   
   he writes:   
   "The generalization of the theory of relativity has been   
     facilitated considerably by _Minkowski_, a mathematician   
     who was the first one to recognize the formal equivalence   
     of space coordinates and the time coordinate, and utilized   
     this in the construction of the theory."   
      
   Einstein's spacetime (which is not necessarily   
   flat) is a generalisation of Minkowski spacetime.   
      
      
   >>   
   >> The theory Einstein defined in "On the electrodynamics of moving   
   >> bodies" is identical to the theory defined by the metric above.   
   >   
   > No!   
   >   
      
   That the theory Einstein defined in "On the electrodynamics of   
   moving bodies" is identical to the theory defined by the metric:   
     (c⋅dτ)² = (c⋅dt)² − dx² − dy² − dz²   
   is a historical fact, and not disputable.   
      
   That you, due to your serious reading comprehension problem   
   and mathematical illiteracy, don't understand Einstein's paper   
   doesn't mean that the paper: "contains an enormous amount of   
   errors of all sorts".   
      
   When this is settled, you can read what you snipped:   
      
   No professional physicist will dispute that SR is a consistent theory.   
   (There have been physicists who have claimed that SR is inconsistent,   
     look up Herbert Dingle. But Dingle's arguments are long since proven   
     wrong.)   
      
   So we can consider it to be a fact that SR is a logically   
   consistent theory.   
      
   But the predictions of a logically consistent theory   
   do not have to be in accordance with measurements.   
   Only real experiments can show that.   
      
   Some of the experiments testing SR:   
   https://paulba.no/paper/Fizeau_by_Michelson.pdf   
   https://paulba.no/paper/Michelson_1887.pdf   
   https://paulba.no/paper/Kennedy_Thorndike.pdf   
   https://paulba.no/paper/Ives_Stilwell.pdf   
   https://paulba.no/paper/Ives_Stilwell_II.pdf   
   https://paulba.no/paper/Babcock_Bergman.pdf   
   https://paulba.no/paper/Frisch_Smith.pdf   
   https://paulba.no/paper/Alvager_et_al.pdf   
   https://paulba.no/paper/Beckmann_Mandics.pdf   
   https://paulba.no/paper/Filippas_Fox.pdf   
   https://paulba.no/paper/Brecher.pdf   
   https://paulba.no/paper/Brillet_Hall.pdf   
      
   Newtonian Mechanics (NM) and SR are both logically consistent   
   theories.   
   All the experiments above confirm SR, none falsify SR.   
   Most of the experiments above falsify NM.   
   (It takes but one experiment to falsify a theory.)   
      
   Now you can assume that all physicists are idiots, and   
   that all the experimental physicist who performed   
   the experiments are frauds who have faked their results.   
      
   That will make you look very smart.   
      
   --   
   Paul   
      
   https://paulba.no/   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)