XPost: rec.arts.tv, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh   
   From: relativity@paulba.no   
      
   Den 30.10.2025 09:11, skrev Thomas Heger:   
   > Am Mittwoch000029, 29.10.2025 um 20:29 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:   
   >> 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".   
      
   >   
   > I didn't discuss the SRT itself, but a certain very specific article   
   > written by Einstein in 1905 (no more, no less).   
   >   
   > I used a certain perspective:   
   >   
   > I treated the paper as homework of a student and myself as a professor,   
   > who had to write corrections for that paper.   
   >   
   > I didn't discuss SRT, but this paper (only).   
   >   
   > Then I tried to find every single error or inconsistency within it.   
   >   
   > The number was enormous and ranges beyond 400 errors, depending on how   
   > you count them.   
   >   
   > Whether the actually meant theory was correct or not, that was NOT my   
   > topic.   
   >   
   > First I had focussed on formal questions, expressions, spelling and so   
   > forth.   
   >   
   > Then I was looking for physical issues, which could be eventually debated   
   >   
   > And then I marked those issues, which were realy serious flaws and why I   
   > think they were.   
   >   
   > Since the paper itself was 'dead' after the very first error, I had to   
   > disconnect it from the underlying theory altogether, because otherwise   
   > it wouldn't make sense to search for all errors.   
   >   
   > So, yes, SRT might be correct (or not). But that wasn't my topic, even   
   > if I think, that relativity per se is correct.   
      
   Your motivation for writing nonsense is irrelevant.   
      
   The fact remains:   
   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   
      
   This is a historical fact, and not disputable.   
      
      
   >   
   >> 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.)   
   >   
   >   
   > Herbert Dingle was actually a physics professor with some reputation. He   
   > wrote 'Science at the crossroads' and demanded, that such a farce should   
   > be stopped immediately (what obviously didn't happen).   
      
   Dingle was wrong. Historical fact!   
      
   >   
   > That's why I actually think, that professional physics today is a total   
   > farce.   
   Your opinion can't change the _fact_:   
   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.)   
      
   Do you understand this, or will you claim that all physicists   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)