XPost: rec.arts.tv, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh   
   From: ttt_heg@web.de   
      
   Am Samstag000001, 01.11.2025 um 17:48 schrieb The Starmaker:   
   ...   
   >>>>>>> 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   
      
   Einstein wrote this about tau:   
      
   τ = φ(v)β(t − vx/c²)   
   β =1/(1 − sqrt(v²/c²))   
   φ(v)=1   
      
   Also the word 'metric' cannot be found in Einstein's paper.   
      
   >> 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.   
      
   Actually it's not.   
      
   There is an equation on page 22, however, which came quite close:   
      
   W = m c² {-1 + sqrt(1/(1- v²/c²))}   
      
   That 'W' meant actually 'work', but Einstein used 'work' (erroneously)   
   as a synonym for energy.   
      
   > It is Einsten's formula for atomic bombs,  but has nothing to do with   
   > Relativity.   
   >   
   Afaik that equition was known already, long before 1905.   
      
   TH   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)