HI NG

here comes my latest version:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RkhX-B5u7X4ga0QH-C53RddjQGctZVdo/view

The file should be downloaded, if you want to read the annotations.

(Sorry, but somehow google managed to reformat all my annotation windows
and pushed them to the right side.

this is not the best position to read them, but you can place them
wherever you want and save the file.)

TH

Am 11.11.2023 um 11:57 schrieb Thomas Heger:
> HI NG
>
> here comes my latest version:
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RkhX-B5u7X4ga0QH-C53RddjQGctZVdo/view
>
> The file should be downloaded, if you want to read the annotations.
>
> (Sorry, but somehow google managed to reformat all my annotation windows
> and pushed them to the right side.
>
> this is not the best position to read them, but you can place them
> wherever you want and save the file.)

Actually you can read the annotations now online (without downloading
the file).

Thomas Heger wrote:

>> The file should be downloaded, if you want to read the annotations.
>> (Sorry, but somehow google managed to reformat all my annotation
>> windows and pushed them to the right side. this is not the best
>> position to read them, but you can place them wherever you want and
>> save the file.)
> Actually you can read the annotations now online (without downloading
> the file).

nonsense, that's completely bullshit. It displays you never been study at
an university with a ๐˜ƒ๐—ถ๐˜€๐—ถ๐˜๐—ถ๐—ป๐—ด_๐—ฝ๐—ฟ๐—ผ๐—ณ๐—ฒ๐˜€๐˜€๐—ผ๐—ฟ. It's not the translation, fucking
stupid, but understanding of the subject. You germons are gays. And hitler
was gay too. The poorest sorry asses in the entire europe.

๐—˜๐—จ_๐—ฐ๐—ฎ๐—ป_๐—ฐ๐—ถ๐—ฟ๐—ฐ๐˜‚๐—บ๐˜ƒ๐—ฒ๐—ป๐˜_๐—›๐˜‚๐—ป๐—ด๐—ฎ๐—ฟ๐—ถ๐—ฎ๐—ป_๐˜ƒ๐—ฒ๐˜๐—ผ_๐—ผ๐—ป_๐—จ๐—ธ๐—ฟ๐—ฎ๐—ถ๐—ป๐—ฒ_๐—ฎ๐—ถ๐—ฑ_โ€“_๐—บ๐—ฒ๐—ฑ๐—ถ๐—ฎ
Brussels will ask bloc members to set up their own aid packages for Kiev
if Budapest resists, Reuters has reported
https://r%74.com/news/587050-eu-bypass-hungary-veto-ukraine/

Here we go, making up the rules as we see fitting. Its a mess of using
forked tongue. Worship of the golden calf.

Ursula v.d. L.: not democratically elected, not transparent about her
deals with Pfizer (she and her husband are personally financially involved
in there), and now even laying the ax on European cooperation itself with
a proposal like this. This woman is the evil in itself, unreliable and
criminal. She should be fired immediately and be put in jail.

Budapest holding everyone hostage,โ€ NOOOO that's Kiev and ๐—ฎ๐—บ๐—ฒ๐—ฟ๐—ถ๐—ฐ๐—ฎ๐—ฎ๐—ฎ๐—ฎ!!

And suddenly the EU is collapsed...

On Saturday, November 11, 2023 at 2:54:50โ€ฏAM UTC-8, Thomas Heger wrote:
> HI NG
>
> here comes my latest version:
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RkhX-B5u7X4ga0QH-C53RddjQGctZVdo/view
>
> The file should be downloaded, if you want to read the annotations.
>
> (Sorry, but somehow google managed to reformat all my annotation windows
> and pushed them to the right side.
>
> this is not the best position to read them, but you can place them
> wherever you want and save the file.)
>
>
> TH
Thomas Heger, I have not been able to completely follow your magnum opus because of the time requirement needed to absorb your level of fine detail. Can you please sum up your conclusions for this forum in no more than three (3) concise statements? Thank you.

Am 11.11.2023 um 12:43 schrieb Stefano Bilbasov:
> Thomas Heger wrote:
>
>>> The file should be downloaded, if you want to read the annotations.
>>> (Sorry, but somehow google managed to reformat all my annotation
>>> windows and pushed them to the right side. this is not the best
>>> position to read them, but you can place them wherever you want and
>>> save the file.)
>> Actually you can read the annotations now online (without downloading
>> the file).
>
> nonsense, that's completely bullshit. It displays you never been study at
> an university with a ๐˜ƒ๐—ถ๐˜€๐—ถ๐˜๐—ถ๐—ป๐—ด_๐—ฝ๐—ฟ๐—ผ๐—ณ๐—ฒ๐˜€๐˜€๐—ผ๐—ฟ.
Actually we had professors at our university, but most of them were
always there.

TH

Thomas Heger wrote:

>>> Actually you can read the annotations now online (without downloading
>>> the file).
>>
>> nonsense, that's completely bullshit. It displays you never been study
>> at an university with a ๐˜ƒ๐—ถ๐˜€๐—ถ๐˜๐—ถ๐—ป๐—ด_๐—ฝ๐—ฟ๐—ผ๐—ณ๐—ฒ๐˜€๐˜€๐—ผ๐—ฟ.
> Actually we had professors at our university, but most of them were
> always there.

this german doesn't know what a ๐˜ƒ๐—ถ๐˜€๐—ถ๐˜๐—ถ๐—ป๐—ด_๐—ฝ๐—ฟ๐—ผ๐—ณ๐—ฒ๐˜€๐˜€๐—ผ๐—ฟ is. A visiting professor is
a one coming from another country, ie Brasil, talking english bad.

Am 12.11.2023 um 19:17 schrieb Frauly Bagaryatsky:
> Thomas Heger wrote:
>
>>>> Actually you can read the annotations now online (without downloading
>>>> the file).
>>>
>>> nonsense, that's completely bullshit. It displays you never been study
>>> at an university with a ๐˜ƒ๐—ถ๐˜€๐—ถ๐˜๐—ถ๐—ป๐—ด_๐—ฝ๐—ฟ๐—ผ๐—ณ๐—ฒ๐˜€๐˜€๐—ผ๐—ฟ.
Most likely a few specialists exist in Germany, who actually know.

I was actually a HYPOTHETICAL professor (in my role as writer of these
annotations).

The method goes like this:

imagine you were a professor and had to write corrections for the
homework of a student (Albert Einstein in this case).

The 'homework' is the text in question ('On the electrodynamics of
moving bodies' in this case).

So my 'duty' would be to write annotations, where I give the student a
few hints, how to avoid errors next time.

I found 428 errors in Einstein's text and therefore wrote so many
annotations.

TH

On 2024-02-08 06:36:03 +0000, Thomas Heger said:

> Am 12.11.2023 um 19:17 schrieb Frauly Bagaryatsky:
>> Thomas Heger wrote:
>>
>>>>> Actually you can read the annotations now online (without downloading
>>>>> the file).
>>>>
>>>> nonsense, that's completely bullshit. It displays you never been study
>>>> at an university with a ๐˜ƒ๐—ถ๐˜€๐—ถ๐˜๐—ถ๐—ป๐—ด_๐—ฝ๐—ฟ๐—ผ๐—ณ๐—ฒ๐˜€๐˜€๐—ผ๐—ฟ.
> Most likely a few specialists exist in Germany, who actually know.
>
> I was actually a HYPOTHETICAL professor (in my role as writer of these
> annotations).
>
> The method goes like this:
>
> imagine you were a professor and had to write corrections for the
> homework of a student (Albert Einstein in this case).
>
> The 'homework' is the text in question ('On the electrodynamics of
> moving bodies' in this case).
>
> So my 'duty' would be to write annotations, where I give the student a
> few hints, how to avoid errors next time.
>
> I found 428 errors in Einstein's text and therefore wrote so many annotations.

As the hypothesis that you be a professor is counterfactual, so
is the hypothesis that the annotations be worth of consideration.

--
Mikko

On 2/8/2024 1:36 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:

> I was actually a HYPOTHETICAL professor (in my role as writer of these
> annotations).

No, you weren't. You don't have the qualifications to be a professor,
hypothetical or not. Self-awarded degrees/titles are worse than useless,
they are signs of crackpottery.
>
> I found 428 errors in Einstein's text

No, you did not.

On 02/08/2024 06:51 AM, Volney wrote:
> On 2/8/2024 1:36 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>
>> I was actually a HYPOTHETICAL professor (in my role as writer of these
>> annotations).
>
> No, you weren't. You don't have the qualifications to be a professor,
> hypothetical or not. Self-awarded degrees/titles are worse than useless,
> they are signs of crackpottery.
>>
>> I found 428 errors in Einstein's text
>
> No, you did not.

I found that Einstein in "Out of My Later Years" makes for a few things
that include 1) SR is local, 2) a clock hypothesis, 3), grounds for
space contraction, 4) Einstein's bridge, 5) grounds for Einstein's
re-interpretation of classical motion about the linear and rotational,
and that otherwise these would point out, many, "errors", in the
theory altogether, Relativity: errors in usual sub-fields ignorant
of same, or only having a "partial" or incomplete picture.

One great thing about Baez' index is that more than half of the points
also go to Einstein 2 or Zweistein, whoever that may be, of course
that it's a sort of asymptotic anti-inductive excellence, of which
most would be unawares.

So, if you want to read Einstein's theory, then it's surely recommended
that you read Einstein's book "Out of My Later Years", if only the
middle chapters about physics and not necessarily the first or last
few, it's better than usual coffee-table summaries.

I read these in my podcasts "Reading from Einstein: Out of My Later
Years", with quite a running commentary, where of course any mistakes
there are my own, yet I do at some point remark how Einstein stated
something inaccurate, then explain it as with regards to a generous
reading and Einstein as a much appreciated "grandiose hedge".

On 2024-02-08 14:51:24 +0000, Volney said:

> On 2/8/2024 1:36 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>
>> I was actually a HYPOTHETICAL professor (in my role as writer of these
>> annotations).
>
> No, you weren't. You don't have the qualifications to be a professor,
> hypothetical or not. Self-awarded degrees/titles are worse than
> useless, they are signs of crackpottery.

For a long time I laboured under the delusion that Thomas Heger was a
cut above the collection of other crackpots we have in this group.
Recently he's made it clear that he's in the same class as Ken
Seto,"Dr" Hachel, etc.
>>
>> I found 428 errors in Einstein's text
>
> No, you did not.

--
athel cb : Biochemical Evolution, Garland Science, 2016

Ross Finlayson wrote:

> On 02/08/2024 06:51 AM, Volney wrote:
>>> I found 428 errors in Einstein's text
>> No, you did not.
>
> One great thing about Baez' index is that more than half of the points
> also go to Einstein 2 or Zweistein, whoever that may be, of course that
> it's a sort of asymptotic anti-inductive excellence, of which most would
> be unawares.

nonsense. Those are not Einstine's papers. He was ๐—ฎ_๐—ฝ๐˜‚๐—ฝ๐—ฝ๐—ฒ๐˜ like ๐˜€๐—บ๐—ฒ๐—น๐—น๐—ฒ๐—ป๐˜€๐—ธ๐˜† of
ukurina (an imbecile gay actor with no military experience, firing
generals, lol). What a gay of a country. The Einstine couldn't even speak
gearmon. And was gay, like ๐˜€๐—บ๐—ฒ๐—น๐—น๐—ฒ๐—ป๐˜€๐—ธ๐˜†.

https://th%65%70eopl%65%73%76oice.tv/

๐—ก๐—ฒ๐˜๐—ฎ๐—ป๐˜†๐—ฎ๐—ต๐˜‚_๐—ฅ๐—ฒ๐—ท๐—ฒ๐—ฐ๐˜๐˜€_๐—›๐—ฎ๐—บ๐—ฎ๐˜€_๐—–๐—ฒ๐—ฎ๐˜€๐—ฒ๐—ณ๐—ถ๐—ฟ๐—ฒ_๐—ฃ๐—ฟ๐—ผ๐—ฝ๐—ผ๐˜€๐—ฎ๐—น,_๐—ฆ๐—ฎ๐˜†๐˜€_โ€˜๐—ข๐—ป๐—น๐˜†_๐—ฆ๐—ผ๐—น๐˜‚๐˜๐—ถ๐—ผ๐—ป_๐—œ๐˜€_๐—ง๐—ผ๐˜๐—ฎ๐—น_๐—ฉ๐—ถ๐—ฐ๐˜๐—ผ๐—ฟ๐˜†โ€™
Benjamin Netanyahu has rejected a Hamas-proposed plan to end the conflict
in Gaza. In a press conference on Wednesday The israeli Prime Minister
vowed to continue Israelโ€™smilitary offensive in Gaza until โ€œtotal victoryโ€
was secured. [โ€ฆ]

๐—–๐—น๐—ถ๐—ป๐˜๐—ผ๐—ป_๐—ฆ๐—ฎ๐˜†๐˜€_๐—–๐—ฎ๐—ฟ๐˜€๐—น๐—ผ๐—ป_๐—œ๐˜€_๐—”_๐—จ๐˜€๐—ฒ๐—ณ๐˜‚๐—น_๐—œ๐—ฑ๐—ถ๐—ผ๐˜_๐—™๐—ผ๐—ฟ_๐—ฃ๐˜‚๐˜๐—ถ๐—ป
Hillary Clinton has blasted former Fox news host Tucker Carlson following
his meeting and interview with Russian president Vladimir Putin. Speaking
during an interview with MSNBCโ€™s Alex Wagner, the former first lady
highlighted comments made [โ€ฆ]

๐—ฃ๐—ฒ๐—ฒ๐—ฟ-๐—ฅ๐—ฒ๐˜ƒ๐—ถ๐—ฒ๐˜„๐—ฒ๐—ฑ_๐—ฆ๐˜๐˜‚๐—ฑ๐˜†_๐—™๐—ถ๐—ป๐—ฑ๐˜€_๐—–๐—ผ๐˜ƒ๐—ถ๐—ฑ_๐—ฉ๐—ฎ๐—ฐ๐—ฐ๐—ถ๐—ป๐—ฒ๐˜€_๐—ž๐—ถ๐—น๐—น๐—ฒ๐—ฑ_14๐˜…_๐— ๐—ผ๐—ฟ๐—ฒ_๐—ฃ๐—ฒ๐—ผ๐—ฝ๐—น๐—ฒ_๐—ง๐—ต๐—ฎ๐—ป_๐—ง๐—ต๐—ฒ๐˜†_๐—ฆ๐—ฎ๐˜ƒ๐—ฒ๐—ฑ
A new peer-reviewed study has confirmed what the eye-test suggested all
along, proving that experimental Covid-19 mRNA vaccines killed far more
people than they saved. The study published in the prestigious Cureus
journal analyzed reports [โ€ฆ]

๐—œ๐˜€๐—ฟ๐—ฎ๐—ฒ๐—น_๐—ง๐—ผ_๐—ฃ๐˜‚๐—ป๐—ถ๐˜€๐—ต_๐—”๐—ป๐˜†๐—ผ๐—ป๐—ฒ_๐—ช๐—ต๐—ผ_๐—ค๐˜‚๐—ฒ๐˜€๐˜๐—ถ๐—ผ๐—ป๐˜€_๐—ข๐—ฐ๐˜_7๐˜๐—ต_โ€˜๐—ข๐—ณ๐—ณ๐—ถ๐—ฐ๐—ถ๐—ฎ๐—น_๐—ก๐—ฎ๐—ฟ๐—ฟ๐—ฎ๐˜๐—ถ๐˜ƒ๐—ฒโ€™_๐—ช๐—ถ๐˜๐—ต_5_๐—ฌ๐—ฒ๐—ฎ๐—ฟ๐˜€_๐—ถ๐—ป_๐—ฃ๐—ฟ๐—ถ๐˜€๐—ผ๐—ป
Israeli lawmakers are moving forward with a bill to punish anybody accused
of โ€œquestioningโ€ the โ€œofficial narrativeโ€ from the Netanyahu government
about the details of what happened on October 7th. Under the new law,
anybody [โ€ฆ]

Thomas Heger wrote:

> Am 12.11.2023 um 19:17 schrieb Frauly Bagaryatsky:
>> Thomas Heger wrote:
>>
>>>>> Actually you can read the annotations now online (without
>>>>> downloading the file).
>>>>
>>>> nonsense, that's completely bullshit. It displays you never been
>>>> study at an university with a ๐˜ƒ๐—ถ๐˜€๐—ถ๐˜๐—ถ๐—ป๐—ด_๐—ฝ๐—ฟ๐—ผ๐—ณ๐—ฒ๐˜€๐˜€๐—ผ๐—ฟ.
> Most likely a few specialists exist in Germany, who actually know.
> I was actually a HYPOTHETICAL professor (in my role as writer of these
> annotations). The method goes like this:

you don't even know what ๐™–_๐™ซ๐™ž๐™จ๐™ž๐™ฉ๐™ž๐™ฃ๐™œ_๐™ฅ๐™ง๐™ค๐™›๐™š๐™จ๐™จ๐™ค๐™ง is, and how he looks like. The
fucking EU and gearmony are a ๐™˜๐™–๐™ฃ_๐™ค๐™›_๐™ฌ๐™ค๐™ง๐™ข๐™จ_๐™™๐™š๐™ข๐™ค๐™˜๐™ง๐™–๐™˜๐™ฎ kiss my ass.

The Hitler was ๐™–_๐™ฅ๐™ช๐™ฅ๐™ฅ๐™š๐™ฉ like ๐™จ๐™ข๐™š๐™ก๐™ก๐™š๐™ฃ๐™จ๐™ ๐™ฎ, where ๐™ฉ๐™๐™š_๐™˜๐™–๐™ฅ๐™ž๐™ฉ๐™–๐™ก๐™ž๐™จ๐™ฉ_๐™ฌ๐™š๐™จ๐™ฉ armed him to
kill Russia.

after WW1 the gearmony was ๐™–๐™ฃ_๐™š๐™˜๐™ค๐™ฃ๐™ค๐™ข๐™ž๐™˜๐™–๐™ก_๐™˜๐™–๐™ฉ๐™–๐™จ๐™ฉ๐™ง๐™ค๐™ฅ๐™๐™š, few years later becomes a
world power. Anybody is asking about, you fucking traitor.

๐—˜๐—จ_๐—ฟ๐˜‚๐—น๐—ฒ๐˜€_๐—ผ๐˜‚๐˜_๐—ง๐˜‚๐—ฐ๐—ธ๐—ฒ๐—ฟ_๐—–๐—ฎ๐—ฟ๐—น๐˜€๐—ผ๐—ป_๐˜€๐—ฎ๐—ป๐—ฐ๐˜๐—ถ๐—ผ๐—ป๐˜€_โ€“_๐—ง๐—”๐—ฆ๐—ฆ
Lawmakers had reportedly claimed that the bloc could place restrictions on
the American journalist for interviewing Vladimir Putin
https://r%74.com/news/592057-eu-rules-out-tucker-carlson/

Ukraine put Tucker Carlson on their kill list. Which is angering
republicans within the US given his popularity.

Perhaps the International Criminal Court can declare Tucker Carlson a "war
criminal" for interviewing Putin just as they declared Vladimir Putin a
"war criminal" for saving 2,000 children.

We should keep watching CNN for our news... right?

EU paper shufflers are incompetent corrupt losers. A joke.

Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:

> On 2024-02-08 14:51:24 +0000, Volney said:

>> On 2/8/2024 1:36 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>
>>> I was actually a HYPOTHETICAL professor (in my role as writer of these
>>> annotations).
>>
>> No, you weren't. You don't have the qualifications to be a professor,
>> hypothetical or not. Self-awarded degrees/titles are worse than
>> useless, they are signs of crackpottery.

> For a long time I laboured under the delusion that Thomas Heger was a
> cut above the collection of other crackpots we have in this group.
> Recently he's made it clear that he's in the same class as Ken
> Seto,"Dr" Hachel, etc.

In the years that I've followed this group, I have
known exactly two fringe/crackpot posters who eventually
reformed. All others have deteriorated with time. I won't
name names, because one is still an active poster, and
there are those who would disagree with my assessment
that he is reformed enough not to be deserving of the
"crackpot" label.

On 2/8/2024 12:36 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 12.11.2023 um 19:17 schrieb Frauly Bagaryatsky:
>> Thomas Heger wrote:
>>
>>>>> Actually you can read the annotations now online (without downloading
>>>>> the file).
>>>>
>>>> nonsense, that's completely bullshit. It displays you never been study
>>>> at an university with a ๐˜ƒ๐—ถ๐˜€๐—ถ๐˜๐—ถ๐—ป๐—ด_๐—ฝ๐—ฟ๐—ผ๐—ณ๐—ฒ๐˜€๐˜€๐—ผ๐—ฟ.
> Most likely a few specialists exist in Germany, who actually know.
>
> I was actually a HYPOTHETICAL professor (in my role as writer of these
> annotations).
>
> The method goes like this:
>
> imagine you were a professor and had to write corrections for the
> homework of a student (Albert Einstein in this case).
>
> The 'homework' is the text in question ('On the electrodynamics of
> moving bodies' in this case).
>
> So my 'duty' would be to write annotations, where I give the student a
> few hints, how to avoid errors next time.
>
> I found 428 errors in Einstein's text and therefore wrote so many
> annotations.
>
>
> TH
>

You're a high school drop-out. You can't fool anyone. Jump inside my
kill-file bag :)

Physfitfreak wrote:

> On 2/8/2024 12:36 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>> I found 428 errors in Einstein's text and therefore wrote so many
>> annotations. TH
>
> You're a high school drop-out. You can't fool anyone. Jump inside my
> kill-file bag

for you guys, from amrica, whom still don't undrestand Physics, and whom
๐—ฝ๐˜‚๐—ฝ๐—ฝ๐—ฒ๐˜ Einstine was. He most probably was ๐—ฎ๐—ฟ๐—ฏ๐—ถ๐˜๐—ฟ๐—ฎ๐—ฟ๐˜†_๐—ด๐—ฎ๐˜†, in bed with his
cousin. Terribly Disgusting. I would never touch a hand with that man.

๐—ฅ๐—˜๐—ฃ๐—ข๐—ฅ๐—ง!_๐—ญ๐—ฒ๐—น๐—ฒ๐—ป๐˜€๐—ธ๐˜†_๐˜€๐—ฒ๐˜_๐˜๐—ผ_๐—ณ๐—น๐—ฒ๐—ฒ_๐—จ๐—ธ๐—ฟ๐—ฎ๐—ถ๐—ป๐—ฒ_๐˜๐—ผ_๐—น๐—ถ๐˜ƒ๐—ฒ_๐—ถ๐—ป_๐——๐˜‚๐—ฏ๐—ฎ๐—ถ_๐—ฎ๐—ณ๐˜๐—ฒ๐—ฟ_๐—ก๐˜‚๐—น๐—ฎ๐—ป๐—ฑ_๐˜ƒ๐—ถ๐˜€๐—ถ๐˜_-๐—ฅ๐—ฒ๐—ฑ๐—ฎ๐—ฐ๐˜๐—ฒ๐—ฑ_๐—ก๐—ฒ๐˜„๐˜€
https://bi%74%63hute.com/video/yCexyK3I3izH

Am 08.02.2024 um 18:43 schrieb Ryann Kagawa Hanabusa:

>>>>>> Actually you can read the annotations now online (without
>>>>>> downloading the file).
>>>>>
>>>>> nonsense, that's completely bullshit. It displays you never been
>>>>> study at an university with a ๐˜ƒ๐—ถ๐˜€๐—ถ๐˜๐—ถ๐—ป๐—ด_๐—ฝ๐—ฟ๐—ผ๐—ณ๐—ฒ๐˜€๐˜€๐—ผ๐—ฟ.
>> Most likely a few specialists exist in Germany, who actually know.
>> I was actually a HYPOTHETICAL professor (in my role as writer of these
>> annotations). The method goes like this:
>
> you don't even know what ๐™–_๐™ซ๐™ž๐™จ๐™ž๐™ฉ๐™ž๐™ฃ๐™œ_๐™ฅ๐™ง๐™ค๐™›๐™š๐™จ๐™จ๐™ค๐™ง is, and how he looks like. The

Well, possibly you have something else in mind than I do. But I can
assure you, that I have heard the words 'visiting' and 'professor' before.
>
> The Hitler was ๐™–_๐™ฅ๐™ช๐™ฅ๐™ฅ๐™š๐™ฉ like ๐™จ๐™ข๐™š๐™ก๐™ก๐™š๐™ฃ๐™จ๐™ ๐™ฎ, where ๐™ฉ๐™๐™š_๐™˜๐™–๐™ฅ๐™ž๐™ฉ๐™–๐™ก๐™ž๐™จ๐™ฉ_๐™ฌ๐™š๐™จ๐™ฉ armed him to
> kill Russia.

Actually I have heard this theory before.

It was a guy from New Zealand, named 'Greg Hallet, who wrote a book with
the title 'Hitler was a British agent'.

He wrote, that his book was based on kind of 'life time confessions' of
a high ranked MI6 agent, whom he called 'spymaster'.

I had extended this theory a little bit and purely speculative and
assumed, this guy was in fact Noel Trevenen Huxley (younger brother of
Julian and Aldous Huxley).

The reason why this guy are very complicated, but would fit to
historical facts.

>

....

TH

Am 08.02.2024 um 10:05 schrieb Mikko:

>> I was actually a HYPOTHETICAL professor (in my role as writer of these
>> annotations).
>>
>> The method goes like this:
>>
>> imagine you were a professor and had to write corrections for the
>> homework of a student (Albert Einstein in this case).
>>
>> The 'homework' is the text in question ('On the electrodynamics of
>> moving bodies' in this case).
>>
>> So my 'duty' would be to write annotations, where I give the student a
>> few hints, how to avoid errors next time.
>>
>> I found 428 errors in Einstein's text and therefore wrote so many
>> annotations.
>
> As the hypothesis that you be a professor is counterfactual, so
> is the hypothesis that the annotations be worth of consideration.

I have not said, that I'm a professor.

I wrote, that I play the role of a hypothetical professor, who had to
write annotations into the homework of a student.

This is actually a form of 'critical reading' and has absolutely nothing
to do with my profession.

It is a learning method and an itellectual challenge.

But I do NOT pretend to be a real professor (like in a college or
university).

'TH

Am 08.02.2024 um 15:51 schrieb Volney:
> On 2/8/2024 1:36 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>
>> I was actually a HYPOTHETICAL professor (in my role as writer of these
>> annotations).
>
> No, you weren't. You don't have the qualifications to be a professor,
> hypothetical or not. Self-awarded degrees/titles are worse than useless,
> they are signs of crackpottery.

I am actually allowed to write a critique of anything I like.

This is one of the rules of science.

It does not require any kind of qualification or any kind of title to
critizise any theory you like, because any critique, from whereever it
might come, is valid.

And unless such critique is rejected on scientific grounds, it remains
valid.

You simply cannot dismiss an argument, because the one who wrote it has
not the appropriate title.

But in case you like to disprove any of my annotations, you are welcome.

Simply download the file with my annotations (otherwise you can't read
the annotations), select one of them you regard as faulty and write,
what exactly is wrong with it.

>>
>> I found 428 errors in Einstein's text
>
> No, you did not.

Actually I did, because I wrote them all myself.

So: the content of all of these annotations are solely my own work.

If you find any error in them, it would would be nice, if you tell me
where and what is wrong.

There are in fact a few still remaining, as I have already found a few
myself.

TH

On 2024-02-10 07:08:11 +0000, Thomas Heger said:

> Am 08.02.2024 um 10:05 schrieb Mikko:
>
>>> I was actually a HYPOTHETICAL professor (in my role as writer of these
>>> annotations).
>>>
>>> The method goes like this:
>>>
>>> imagine you were a professor and had to write corrections for the
>>> homework of a student (Albert Einstein in this case).
>>>
>>> The 'homework' is the text in question ('On the electrodynamics of
>>> moving bodies' in this case).
>>>
>>> So my 'duty' would be to write annotations, where I give the student a
>>> few hints, how to avoid errors next time.
>>>
>>> I found 428 errors in Einstein's text and therefore wrote so many
>>> annotations.
>>
>> As the hypothesis that you be a professor is counterfactual, so
>> is the hypothesis that the annotations be worth of consideration.
>
> I have not said, that I'm a professor.

Doesn't matter, your annotations wouldn't be worth of consderation
even if you were.

> I wrote, that I play the role of a hypothetical professor, who had to
> write annotations into the homework of a student.
>
> This is actually a form of 'critical reading' and has absolutely
> nothing to do with my profession.
>
> It is a learning method and an itellectual challenge.

If it were an effective learning method you would have learned already.

> But I do NOT pretend to be a real professor (like in a college or university).

--
Mikko

On 2024-02-10 07:18:15 +0000, Thomas Heger said:

> Am 08.02.2024 um 15:51 schrieb Volney:
>> On 2/8/2024 1:36 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>
>>> I was actually a HYPOTHETICAL professor (in my role as writer of these
>>> annotations).
>>
>> No, you weren't. You don't have the qualifications to be a professor,
>> hypothetical or not. Self-awarded degrees/titles are worse than useless,
>> they are signs of crackpottery.
>
> I am actually allowed to write a critique of anything I like.
>
> This is one of the rules of science.
>
> It does not require any kind of qualification or any kind of title to
> critizise any theory you like, because any critique, from whereever it
> might come, is valid.
>
> And unless such critique is rejected on scientific grounds, it remains valid.
>
> You simply cannot dismiss an argument, because the one who wrote it has
> not the appropriate title.
>
> But in case you like to disprove any of my annotations, you are welcome.
>
> Simply download the file with my annotations (otherwise you can't read
> the annotations), select one of them you regard as faulty and write,
> what exactly is wrong with it.
>
>>>
>>> I found 428 errors in Einstein's text
>>
>> No, you did not.
>
> Actually I did, because I wrote them all myself.

That you are allowed to write rubbish does not mean that it be a good
idea to do so.

--
Mikko

Thomas Heger wrote:

> Am 12.11.2023 um 19:17 schrieb Frauly Bagaryatsky:
>> Thomas Heger wrote:
>>
>>>>> Actually you can read the annotations now online (without downloading
>>>>> the file).
>>>>
>>>> nonsense, that's completely bullshit. It displays you never been study
>>>> at an university with a ๐˜ƒ๐—ถ๐˜€๐—ถ๐˜๐—ถ๐—ป๐—ด_๐—ฝ๐—ฟ๐—ผ๐—ณ๐—ฒ๐˜€๐˜€๐—ผ๐—ฟ.
> Most likely a few specialists exist in Germany, who actually know.

> I was actually a HYPOTHETICAL professor (in my role as writer of these
> annotations).

> The method goes like this:

> imagine you were a professor and had to write corrections for the
> homework of a student (Albert Einstein in this case).

> The 'homework' is the text in question ('On the electrodynamics of
> moving bodies' in this case).

> So my 'duty' would be to write annotations, where I give the student a
> few hints, how to avoid errors next time.

This assumes you are qualified to do this. (Otherwise the result is just
a waste of everyone's time.) But your annotations show you don't
understand the text you are critiquing. Practically 100% of the time you
point out things that are not errors while not mentioning
genuine points for which the author could be criticised, like skipping
certain parts of arguments (although this is practically the rule in
science papers, but we are talking splitting hairs here - you
cannot do even that correctly).

> I found 428 errors in Einstein's text and therefore wrote so many
> annotations.

They are not errors. They are virtually 100% your misunderstanding of
the subject and of science paper writing in general.

Whatever floats your boat, of course, but to call your work "errors in
Einstein's paper" with a straight face is the height of naivete. Why
don't you devote all this time to learning physics instead? It's
obviously something of interest to you.

--
Jan

On 2/10/2024 2:18 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 08.02.2024 um 15:51 schrieb Volney:
>> On 2/8/2024 1:36 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>
>>> I was actually a HYPOTHETICAL professor (in my role as writer of these
>>> annotations).
>>
>> No, you weren't. You don't have the qualifications to be a professor,
>> hypothetical or not. Self-awarded degrees/titles are worse than useless,
>> they are signs of crackpottery.
>
> I am actually allowed to write a critique of anything I like.

There is a BIG difference between "allowed to" and "qualified to" do
something. You don't have the qualifications to be a professor
>
> This is one of the rules of science.
>
> It does not require any kind of qualification or any kind of title to
> critizise any theory you like, because any critique, from whereever it
> might come, is valid.

You may write whatever garbage you wish to write. You are not qualified
to expect your writings to have any effect on science, or even have
anyone in science to look at them.
>
> And unless such critique is rejected on scientific grounds, it remains
> valid.
>
> You simply cannot dismiss an argument, because the one who wrote it has
> not the appropriate title.

Sorry, qualifications are necessary to filter out crap. If the same
paper appears as a non peer reviewed post on Usenet authored by Joe
Schmo, Janitor vs. Dr. Schmo, PhD Physics in a peer reviewed document,
which source will be ignored vs. studied?
>
> But in case you like to disprove any of my annotations, you are welcome.
>
> Simply download the file with my annotations (otherwise you can't read
> the annotations), select one of them you regard as faulty and write,
> what exactly is wrong with it.

I asked before for you to post the most blatant, outrageous, ridiculous,
obvious 'error' that you found to show us you can actually find real
errors. It was ignored. Of the ones anyone has looked at, they are all
simply your misunderstandings or not an error at all. Nobody is going to
wade through 428 misunderstandings of yours hoping to find an actual
error that somehow, nobody in the last 100+ years found.
>
>>>
>>> I found 428 errors in Einstein's text
>>
>> No, you did not.
>
> Actually I did, because I wrote them all myself.

You didn't find 428 (or even 1) errors.
Sure you wrote 428 'annotations', but you claimed to have found 428
errors, which you did not.

Thomas Heger wrote:

> Am 08.02.2024 um 18:43 schrieb Ryann Kagawa Hanabusa:
>
>>>>>>> Actually you can read the annotations now online (without
>>>>>>> downloading the file).
>>>>>> nonsense, that's completely bullshit. It displays you never been
>>>>>> study at an university with a ๐˜ƒ๐—ถ๐˜€๐—ถ๐˜๐—ถ๐—ป๐—ด_๐—ฝ๐—ฟ๐—ผ๐—ณ๐—ฒ๐˜€๐˜€๐—ผ๐—ฟ.
>>> Most likely a few specialists exist in Germany, who actually know.
>>> I was actually a HYPOTHETICAL professor (in my role as writer of these
>>> annotations). The method goes like this:
>> you don't even know what ๐™–_๐™ซ๐™ž๐™จ๐™ž๐™ฉ๐™ž๐™ฃ๐™œ_๐™ฅ๐™ง๐™ค๐™›๐™š๐™จ๐™จ๐™ค๐™ง is, and how he looks
>> like. The
> Well, possibly you have something else in mind than I do. But I can
> assure you, that I have heard the words 'visiting' and 'professor'
> before.
>>
>> The Hitler was ๐™–_๐™ฅ๐™ช๐™ฅ๐™ฅ๐™š๐™ฉ like ๐™จ๐™ข๐™š๐™ก๐™ก๐™š๐™ฃ๐™จ๐™ ๐™ฎ, where ๐™ฉ๐™๐™š_๐™˜๐™–๐™ฅ๐™ž๐™ฉ๐™–๐™ก๐™ž๐™จ๐™ฉ_๐™ฌ๐™š๐™จ๐™ฉ
>> armed him to kill Russia.
>
> Actually I have heard this theory before.

which emphasise, you don't fucking know what ๐™–_๐™ซ๐™ž๐™จ๐™ž๐™ฉ๐™ž๐™ฃ๐™œ_๐™ฅ๐™ง๐™ค๐™›๐™š๐™จ๐™จ๐™ค๐™ง is, and, you
never had your ass on an university. Most of my colleges and professor are
๐™ซ๐™ž๐™จ๐™ž๐™ฉ๐™ž๐™ฃ๐™œ_๐™ฅ๐™ง๐™–๐™›๐™š๐™จ๐™จ๐™–๐™ง๐™จ, and therefore, ๐™ž๐™ฉ'๐™จ_๐™‰๐™Š๐™ their bad english or gearmon you
should evaluate, but ๐™ฉ๐™๐™š_๐™ง๐™–๐™ฉ๐™ž๐™ค๐™ฃ๐™–๐™ก๐™ž๐™ฉ๐™ฎ in their thinking, ๐™ฉ๐™๐™š ๐™จ๐™ฉ๐™ช๐™›๐™› ๐™ฎ๐™ค๐™ช ๐™๐™–๐™ซ๐™š ๐™ฉ๐™ค ๐™ก๐™š๐™–๐™ง๐™ฃ.
Not the language, fucking stoopid.

And the Hitler was wrong because of what?? Not because his nazi national
socialistic, ๐™ฌ๐™–๐™ฃ๐™ฃ๐™–๐™—๐™š ๐™ง๐™š๐™œ๐™ž๐™ข๐™š, but that ๐™๐™š ๐™ฌ๐™–๐™จ ๐™– ๐™ฅ๐™ช๐™ฅ๐™ฅ๐™š๐™ฉ ๐™ค๐™› ๐™–๐™ข๐™ง๐™ž๐™˜๐™–, armed and
supported with money etc, to attack other countries ๐™ฉ๐™ค_๐™ ๐™ž๐™ก๐™ก_๐™๐™ช๐™จ๐™จ๐™ž๐™–. Then, as
it is today. These ๐™ ๐™๐™–๐™ฏ๐™–๐™ง_๐™œ๐™ค๐™ฎ๐™จ of ๐™˜๐™ค๐™ก๐™ก๐™š๐™˜๐™ฉ๐™ž๐™ซ๐™š_๐™ฌ๐™š๐™จ๐™ฉ will never stop sucking the
dick from Russia.

Am 10.02.2024 um 19:51 schrieb Volney:
> On 2/10/2024 2:18 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>> Am 08.02.2024 um 15:51 schrieb Volney:
>>> On 2/8/2024 1:36 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>
>>>> I was actually a HYPOTHETICAL professor (in my role as writer of these
>>>> annotations).
>>>
>>> No, you weren't. You don't have the qualifications to be a professor,
>>> hypothetical or not. Self-awarded degrees/titles are worse than useless,
>>> they are signs of crackpottery.
>>
>> I am actually allowed to write a critique of anything I like.
>
> There is a BIG difference between "allowed to" and "qualified to" do
> something. You don't have the qualifications to be a professor
>>
>> This is one of the rules of science.
>>
>> It does not require any kind of qualification or any kind of title to
>> critizise any theory you like, because any critique, from whereever it
>> might come, is valid.
>
> You may write whatever garbage you wish to write. You are not qualified
> to expect your writings to have any effect on science, or even have
> anyone in science to look at them.
>>
>> And unless such critique is rejected on scientific grounds, it remains
>> valid.
>>
>> You simply cannot dismiss an argument, because the one who wrote it
>> has not the appropriate title.
>
> Sorry, qualifications are necessary to filter out crap. If the same
> paper appears as a non peer reviewed post on Usenet authored by Joe
> Schmo, Janitor vs. Dr. Schmo, PhD Physics in a peer reviewed document,
> which source will be ignored vs. studied?
>>
>> But in case you like to disprove any of my annotations, you are welcome.
>>
>> Simply download the file with my annotations (otherwise you can't read
>> the annotations), select one of them you regard as faulty and write,
>> what exactly is wrong with it.
>
> I asked before for you to post the most blatant, outrageous, ridiculous,
> obvious 'error' that you found to show us you can actually find real
> errors. It was ignored. Of the ones anyone has looked at, they are all
> simply your misunderstandings or not an error at all. Nobody is going to
> wade through 428 misunderstandings of yours hoping to find an actual
> error that somehow, nobody in the last 100+ years found.

Einstein made several serious errors.

One was his method of synchronisation.

he had (simplified) this picture in mind:

I receive a light signal, which originates from a remote clock and take
that signal as information about the remote time.

The error:

that signal does not contain the remote time, because light needs time
to travel. This discrepancy is called 'delay', but Einstein didn't
mention it with a single word.

Another serious error:

he ascribed the effects of motion to the moving object, while it is
actually an effect, which is only visible at the side of the observer.

That is very similar to the Doppler effect, which is also not audible at
the side of the moving source of a sound, but audible at the side of the
road, where someone listens to a sirene of a police car passing by.

Annoying were Einstein's naming conventions.

Especially annoying were the reuse of variable names and the lack of
definitions of used symbols.

Seriously unscientific were the lack references to the used materials.

Especially missing were quotes or references to Poincarรฉ and Heinrich Hertz.

This is so, because a few of Einstein's equations were seemingly
inspired by Poincare's 'Sur le dynamic de l'electron' (or something
similar in French).

Heinrich-Hertz was also used, but no references were provided.

Also the quotes from Hertz were not verbatim, because Hertz used total
derivatives and Einstein partial (in an apparently quoted equation).

It ook me quite a while to identify, what Einstein called 'Maxwell-Hertz
equation', but found his quote was different to the origional (besides
of the obviously missing reference).

....

TH