XPost: rec.arts.tv, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh   
   From: relativity@paulba.no   
      
   Den 03.11.2025 08:09, skrev Thomas Heger:   
      
   > 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.   
      
   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".   
      
   This is a historical fact:   
   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   
      
      
   > YOU have introduced derivatives, which were not present in Einstein's   
   > paper.   
      
   Are you saying that I have introduced derivatives into Einstein's text?   
   :-D   
      
   >   
   > And I wrote, that you must not alter a certain text, which is as it is.   
      
   This is Einstein's paper "On the electrodynamics of moving bodies"   
   https://paulba.no/paper/Electrodynamics.pdf   
      
   Nobody has altered anything, the text is as it was in 1905.   
   (With derivatives!)   
      
   >   
   > It does not help, if your solution could be derived from the article   
   > with ease, if the author didn't do that.   
   What "solution" of mine are you talking about?   
      
   Einstein's 1905 formulation of SR can be summed up   
   in the Lorentz transform [LT}:   
     t' = γ(t - v⋅x/c²)   
     x' = γ(x - v⋅t)   
     y' = y   
     z' = z   
      
   Minkowski's reformulation of SR is the metric:   
     dτ² = dt² − dx² − dy² − dz²   
      
   You can derive the metric from the LT,   
   and you can derive the LT from the metric.   
      
   Any prediction of SR can be derived equal well from   
   the LT or the metric.   
      
   There are two formulations of the one and only   
   Special Theory of Relativity.   
      
   Why is this so hard to understand?   
      
   ----------------------------------   
      
   Please respond to the following:   
      
   No professional physicist will dispute that SR is a consistent theory.   
      
   So it is a fact that SR is a logically consistent theory.   
      
   But the predictions of a logically consistent theory   
   do not have to be in accordance with measurements.   
   Only real experiments can show that.   
      
   Some of the experiments testing SR:   
   https://paulba.no/paper/Fizeau_by_Michelson.pdf   
   https://paulba.no/paper/Michelson_1887.pdf   
   https://paulba.no/paper/Kennedy_Thorndike.pdf   
   https://paulba.no/paper/Ives_Stilwell.pdf   
   https://paulba.no/paper/Ives_Stilwell_II.pdf   
   https://paulba.no/paper/Babcock_Bergman.pdf   
   https://paulba.no/paper/Frisch_Smith.pdf   
   https://paulba.no/paper/Alvager_et_al.pdf   
   https://paulba.no/paper/Beckmann_Mandics.pdf   
   https://paulba.no/paper/Filippas_Fox.pdf   
   https://paulba.no/paper/Brecher.pdf   
   https://paulba.no/paper/Brillet_Hall.pdf   
      
   Newtonian Mechanics (NM) and SR are both logically   
   consistent theories.   
   All the experiments above confirm SR, none falsify SR.   
   Most of the experiments above falsify NM.   
   (It takes but one experiment to falsify a theory.)   
      
   Do you understand this, or will you claim that all physicists   
   are idiots, and that all the experimental physicist who performed   
   the experiments are frauds who have faked their results?   
      
   --   
   Paul   
      
   https://paulba.no/   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)