XPost: rec.arts.tv, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: relativity@paulba.no
Den 02.11.2025 08:30, skrev Thomas Heger:
> Am Samstag000001, 01.11.2025 um 17:48 schrieb The Starmaker:
DON'T SKIP THE ATTRIBTIONS!
> ...
> 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:
>>>>>>>> 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⋅dτ)² = (c⋅dt)² − dx² − dy² − dz²
If you want to respond to someting I, Paul B. Andersen, have written,
why didn't you respond to my post of Novemper 1. in stead of
my post of October 31. quoted in a post by Starmaker of Novemper 1.?
> Einstein wrote this about tau:
>
> τ = φ(v)β(t − vx/c²)
> β =1/(1 − sqrt(v²/c²))
> φ(v)=1
https://paulba.no/pdf/Dilbert.pdf
You can change the text to:
Paul: (c⋅dτ)² = (c⋅dt)² − dx² − dy² − dz²
Thomas: Just a darn minute, yesterday you said τ = φ(v)β(t − vx/c²)
You probably don't get the point, but I won't bother to explainut.
--------------------------
Please respond to my post of November 1.
--
Paul
https://paulba.no/
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
