XPost: rec.arts.tv, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh   
   From: relativity@paulba.no   
      
   Den 01.11.2025 08:04, skrev Thomas Heger:   
   > Am Freitag000031, 31.10.2025 um 19:43 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:   
   >> 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:   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> 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."   
      
   The "flat" SR metric is in   
   "The Foundation of the General Theory of Relativity" .   
      
   >>>>   
   >>>> 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   
      
   >   
   > Possibly this equation is compatible with what Einstein had written in   
   > 1905, even if I don't think so.   
      
   What you believe is irrelevant.   
      
   It is a fact 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   
      
   >   
   > But that equation wasn't part of Einstein's text in 1905.   
   >   
   > Therefore that equation isn't part of Einstein's 1905 version of SRT,   
   > even if that is somehow compatible with what is called 'SRT' today.   
   >   
   > The very simple reason: a text (article, book, paper) is what it is and   
   > not what you make out of it.   
   >   
   > If an equation is not written in this paper, it is not a part of that   
   > paper.   
   >   
   > period!   
      
   Good Grief!   
   I have explained all that above.   
   Minkowski wrote the Minkowski metric in 1908 so it   
   was obviously not in Einstein's 1905 paper.   
   >>   
   >> This is a historical fact, and not disputable.   
      
   > That statement is wrong by itself, because EVERYTHING is disputable.   
      
   Of course YOU can dispute anything, even facts.   
   But an "indisputable fact" means that the fact is a fact.   
      
   >   
   > More often than not, such debates make no sense.   
   >   
   > But you may rightfully debate whatever you like.   
      
   Of course YOU can dispute indisputable facts.   
   It is however a stupid behaviour.   
      
      
   >   
   >>   
   >>>   
   >>>> 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).   
      
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)