From: relativity@paulba.no   
      
   Den 23.11.2025 09:28, skrev Thomas Heger:   
   > Am Samstag000022, 22.11.2025 um 13:23 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:   
   >> Den 22.11.2025 09:50, skrev Thomas Heger:   
      
   >>>   
   >>> 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.   
      
   Why can't you read one statement without writing stupid   
   comments?   
      
   Not even you can be ignorant of the fact that the transform   
   Einstein called:   
   "The Transformation of Co-ordinates and Times from a Stationary   
     System to another System in Uniform Motion of Translation   
     Relatively to the Former"   
   is the same transform as in all English books is called   
   "the Lorentz transform "(LT).   
      
   So please answer Q1:   
   Do you understand that the Special Theory of Physics (SR)   
   can be summarised in the Lorentz transform (LT)?   
      
   The LT is below:   
      
   >> 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.   
      
   What's your point with these comments?   
      
   Have you a problem with this:   
      
     c = the speed of light,   
     γ = 1/√(1 − v²/c²)   
      
      
   >>    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:   
   >> Do you understand that the LT and thus SR is logically consistent?   
      
   > sure, but that wasn't a part of Einstein's paper.   
      
   You are boasting of your knowledge of Einstein's paper,   
   but don't know what it contains!   
      
   So you didn't sing what is at the bottom of page 9,   
   the last equations in §3   
   https://paulba.no/paper/Electrodynamics.pdf   
      
   They are the most important equations in the paper since   
   all predictions of SR can be derived from them.   
      
       τ = β(t−vx/c²),   
       ξ = β(x−vt),   
       η = y,   
       ζ = z,   
      
       β =1/√(1−v²/c²)   
      
   This is the Lorentz transform, the exact same as the one I wrote   
   above if you set β = γ, τ = t', ξ = x', η = y' and ζ = z'   
      
   But you have answered the question:   
   Do you understand that the LT and thus SR is logically consistent?   
      
   Your answer is the affirmative "sure".   
      
   >   
   > 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.   
      
   To say that the text is faulty, but the physical content   
   of the text is correct is nonsensical!   
      
   >   
   >> Q4:   
   >> Do you understand that all predictions of SR can be derived from   
   >> the LT?   
      
   > Hendrik Lorentz is a different story and was not covered by my analysis.   
      
   Yes, Hendrik Antoon Lorentz is a different story.   
      
   But now you know that the "Lorentz transform" in this case is   
   the name of Einstein's coordinate transform.   
      
   >> Q5:   
   >> Do you understand that a lot of those prediction are confirmed   
   >> to be in accordance with measurements in the real world?   
      
   > 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.   
      
   The content of Einstein's paper "On the Electrodynamics of Moving   
   Bodies" is the Special Theory of Relativity.   
      
   To say that you didn't criticise the theory, but only the content   
   the paper is ridiculous.   
      
   >   
   > 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.   
      
   This is absolutely nonsensical!   
      
   Please address the issue!   
      
   You have answered that you understand that the Lorentz transform   
   and thus the Special Theory of Relativity is a consistent theory.   
      
   But the predictions of a consistent theory doesn't have to be   
   in accordance with measurements, so the only relevant question is:   
      
   Do you understood that a lot of those prediction are confirmed   
   to be in accordance with measurements in the real world?   
      
   Some tests of SR:   
   https://paulba.no/paper/Fizeau_by_Michelson.pdf   
   https://paulba.no/paper/Michelson_1887.pdf   
   https://paulba.no/paper/Michelson_1913.pdf   
   https://paulba.no/paper/Michelson_Gale_I.pdf   
   https://paulba.no/paper/Michelson_Gale_II.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/Filippas_Fox.pdf   
      
   Facts:   
   "The Special Theory of Relativity (SR)" as defined in Einstein's   
     paper "ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES" is a logically   
     consistent theory which make precise predictions for what will   
     be measured in the real world, and many of these predictions   
     are proved to be in accordance with the measurements, and no   
     prediction of SR is proven wrong.   
      
   Do you understand that these facts make it rather stupid to claim   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)