XPost: rec.arts.tv, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh   
   From: ttt_heg@web.de   
      
   Am Sonntag000002, 02.11.2025 um 22:33 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen:   
   > Den 02.11.2025 08:30, skrev Thomas Heger:   
   ...   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> 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.   
   What I have written is by no means nonsense.   
      
   If this particular article is regarded as masterpiece and pinnacle of   
   science, I would expect from that article to be flawless.   
      
   But that is not exactly the case, because the article contains way more   
   than fourhundred errors.   
      
   In other words: the article isn't even on the lowest level which a   
   student of physics would need to pass an exam.   
      
   In usual terms, the article gets an 'F' (in the US system) or a '6' in   
   the German.   
      
   And if so, someone had to be responsible why that piece of garbage was   
   printed anyhow.   
      
   >>>>> 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.   
   >   
   >   
   YOU have introduced derivatives, which were not present in Einstein's paper.   
      
   And I wrote, that you must not alter a certain text, which is as it is.   
      
   It does not help, if your solution could be derived from the article   
   with ease, if the author didn't do that.   
      
   TH   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)