From: ttt_heg@web.de   
      
   Am Sonntag000023, 23.11.2025 um 21:22 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen:   
   > 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).   
   >   
      
   Sure, but Lorentz or the so called 'Lorentz transform' were NOT my topic!   
      
   I wrote something about Einstein's paper 'On the electrodynamics of   
   moving bodies' and not about 'Lorentz transform'.   
      
   Also SRT per se wasn't my topic.   
      
   I had written a critique based on Einstein's words published in this   
   article.   
      
   And Einstein wasn't Hendrik Lorentz.   
      
      
      
   > 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?   
      
   This is a critique about Einstein's statements.   
      
   At first he said, that 'absolute space' would not exist, but later used   
   that space as hidden reference.   
      
   This is so, because all velocities are relative to something.   
      
   But to what is 'v' relative, if you don't mention anything as reference??   
      
   It can't be anything else but 'the universe' or something like that.   
      
   Now both statements contradict each other.   
      
   Iow: if you exclude 'absolute space', then you need some other 'anchor'   
   instead, because any line of movement needs two ends: one beginning and   
   one at the time in question.   
      
   Also any time value is actually meant as an interval, which has a   
   beginning and an end, even if the beginning is often not mentioned.   
      
   If you have no refence defined, you can't use the term 'velocity' (or   
   'time') to beginn with.   
      
   And if you do that, anyhow, you would use a hidden reference, which you   
   regard as so obvious, that it is not worth mentioning.   
      
   But THAT is not only faulty, but in contradiction with Einstein's own   
   concept of relativity.   
   ...   
      
      
   TH   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)