From: ttt_heg@web.de   
      
   Am Samstag000022, 22.11.2025 um 13:23 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:   
   > Den 22.11.2025 09:50, skrev Thomas Heger:   
   >> Am Samstag000022, 22.11.2025 um 04:28 schrieb Python:   
   >>> Le 21/11/2025 à 11:40, Thomas Heger a écrit :   
   >>>> Am Dienstag000018, 18.11.2025 um 21:39 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:   
   >>>> ...   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> It is an indisputable fact that SR and GR give precise   
   >>>>> predictions for what will be measured in well defined experiments.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Again: you are a hopeless case!   
   >>>   
   >>> Says the one who didn't understand a single word of Einstein's paper   
   >>> on SR.   
   >>   
   >> I can almost sing the entire paper and absolutely understand every   
   >> single word or equation in it.   
   >>   
   >> I have spent a lot of time upon that particular paper. And now you   
   >> could ask me everthing about it.   
   > OK.   
   >   
   > Q1:   
   > Have you understood that the Special Theory of Physics (SR)   
   > can be summarised in the Lorentz transform (LT)?   
      
   No, because Einstein has not written anything alike.   
      
   He mentioned the name 'Lorentz' and that was about it.   
      
   > Given two frames of references: K(t,x,y,z) and K'(t',x',y',z')   
   > The axes are parallel, x with x', y with y' etc.   
   > The origin of K' is moving along the positive x-axis with   
   > the speed v.   
   >   
   >    c = the speed of light, γ = 1/√(1 − v²/c²)   
      
   Einstein used the term 'Geschwindigkeit', which is commonly translated   
   to 'velocity'. This is in fact wrong, because 'velocity' is a vectorial   
   quantity, while the German word 'Geschwindigkeit' is not and means 'speed'.   
      
   Einstein used the letter 'V' for speed of light and the term   
   'Geschwindigkeit des Lichtes'.   
      
   I didn't agree about his concept of velocity in the first place, because   
   velocity is 'relative' (to something).   
      
   Einstein used 'Gescchwindigkeit' like you in 'speed of light', but   
   without a reference to something, in respect to what that speed is measured.   
      
   In effect he refered to something like 'absolute space', even if he   
   directly excluded such an 'absolute space'.   
      
   He never wrote, what else would be the reference, against which that   
   speed should be measured.   
      
   >    t' = γ⋅(t - v⋅x/c²)   
   >    x' = γ⋅(x - v⋅t)   
   >    y' = y   
   >    z' = z   
   >   
   >    t = γ⋅(t' + v⋅x'/c²)   
   >    x = γ⋅(x' + v⋅t')   
   >    y = y'   
   >    z = z'   
   >   
   > Q2:   
   > Have you understood that the LT and thus SR is logically consistent?   
      
   sure, but that wasn't a part of Einstein's paper.   
      
   I have in fact not touched the 'physical' content with my critique.   
      
   I have treated that article like a professor of physics would treat the   
   homework of a student.   
      
   I had therefore wrote comments to all statements, which by themselves   
   contained errors.   
      
   Whether the text itself was right or wrong in sense of methaphysics,   
   that was not my topic.   
      
   Therefore it was not my aim to write a critique about relativity.   
      
   My aim was to write a critique about that article.   
      
   This required to continue, even if the text was already faulty.   
      
   > Q4:   
   > Have you understood that all predictions of SR can be derived from   
   > the LT?   
      
   Hendrik Lorentz is a different story and was not covered by my analysis.   
      
   > Q5:   
   > Have you understood that a lot of those prediction are confirmed   
   > to be in accordance with measurements in the real world?   
   >   
   > Some tests of SR:   
      
   I didn't want to write a critique of SRT, but of Einstein's paper 'On   
   the electrodynamics of moving bodies'.   
      
   So, yes, I agree upon most of SRT, but not about the content of that   
   article.   
      
   It is therefore entirely irrelevant, whether SRT is experimentally   
   confirmed or not.   
      
   I have found, that Einstein's article is total crap, because it contains   
   an insane amout of errors of all kinds.   
      
   The number (btw: 400+) is in fact extremely large and even larger than a   
   student would dare to make in his first semester.   
      
   TH   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)