XPost: rec.arts.tv, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: starmaker@ix.netcom.com
On Sat, 1 Nov 2025 08:04:31 +0100, Thomas Heger
wrote:
>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:
>>>>>> 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?d?)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:
>>>> d?² = ? dx² ? dy² ? dz² ? ds²
>>>> where s = ?(?1)?t, so ds² = - dt²
>>>> so the metric becomes:
>>>> d?² = 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?d?)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?d?)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.
>
>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!
E=Mc^2 is part of the 1905 paper but has nothing to do with
Relativity.
It is Einsten's formula for atomic bombs, but has nothing to do with
Relativity.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
