Physfitfreak wrote:

> On 1/20/2024 6:34 AM, Raydel Walentowicz Dubanowski wrote:
>> 𝙒𝙀'𝙍𝙀_𝙉𝙀𝘼𝙍𝙄𝙉𝙂_𝙅𝙐𝘿𝙂𝙀𝙈𝙀𝙉𝙏_𝘿𝘼𝙔_𝙁𝙊𝙍_𝙏𝙃𝙀_𝘿𝙀𝙈𝙊𝙉𝙎_2024-01-17_𝙆𝙀𝙉𝘼𝙉_(𝙑𝙄𝘿𝙀𝙊)
>> https://bi%74%63hute.com/video/Kh6E0AG0qrJ1
>
> Hahhahah Heil fucking Hitler!
> Hanson, go screw yourself. You're a baby compared to a Jew. Hang
> yourself, that's better.

you don't even know what a "jew" is, you stinkening 𝗸𝗵𝗮𝘇𝗮𝗿_𝗴𝗼𝘆 (a dog not
to sit at a table with), written about it in The Bible. You soon will be
sent back to what is left from nazi polakia and nazi ukurina, the
𝗸𝗵𝗮𝘇𝗮𝗿_𝗴𝗼𝘆 shithole countries of your residence. Read more

𝗝𝗲𝘀𝘂𝘀_𝗰𝗮𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗱_𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗺_𝗹𝗶𝗮𝗿𝘀,_𝘃𝗶𝗽𝗲𝗿𝘀_𝗮𝗻𝗱_𝗵𝘆𝗽𝗼𝗰𝗿𝗶𝘁𝗲𝘀_(𝗠𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗵𝗲𝘄_23)

𝗥𝘂𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗮_𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗰𝘁𝘀_𝘁𝗼_𝗚𝗲𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗻𝘆’𝘀_𝘀𝘂𝗽𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁_𝗳𝗼𝗿_𝗜𝘀𝗿𝗮𝗲𝗹_𝗶𝗻_𝗴𝗲𝗻𝗼𝗰𝗶𝗱𝗲_𝗰𝗮𝘀𝗲
Berlin has declared itself an expert in mass extermination of people by
making the move, Russia’s Foreign Ministry spokeswoman says
https://r%74.com/russia/591020-israel-germany-genocide-zakharova/

On 1/21/2024 2:02 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 19.01.2024 um 17:37 schrieb Volney:
>
>>>>>> In the formula TA' = TA + 2AB/c, what do you think the AB/c term
>>>>>> means?
>>>>>> Where does the 2 come from?
>>>>>
>>>>> I know, of course, what that equation means.
>>>>>
>>>>> A is a point in space and B is a point in space. The signal starts
>>>>> from A in direction of B, gets reflected there and reaches A again.
>>>>>
>>>>> 2AB/c is incorrect, because a scalar-product of a position vector A
>>>>> and a position vector B is not a distance.
>>>>
>>>> Why did you write such a goofball statement like that? Einstein never
>>>> used the scalar products, those are distances.
>>>
>>> What do you mean are distances?
>>
>> As Einstein stated, AB is the distance from A to B and BA is the
>> distance from B to A. Since he was discussing the simple one dimensional
>> light beam from A to B and back, there's absolutely no reason for
>> obfuscation like scalar products and position vectors.
>
> A and B were defined as points in space.

And AB is the distance from A to B.
>
> But since when is space one dimensional?
>
Since the light goes from A to B and back to A, everything happens in
one dimension. Define the X axis as along the AB axis and the Y and Z
axes can be ignored as irrelevant.

On 1/20/2024 4:39 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 19.01.2024 um 17:39 schrieb Volney:
>> On 1/17/2024 1:58 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>
>>> But 2AB is not twice the distance from A to B.
>>
>> And why do you claim that?
>
> Multiplication is assumed, if no operator is present between two
> variables in an equation.

A and B are points, not variables. AB is the distance between A and B.
>
> This is standard in usual mathematics.
>
> Since A and B are variables,

They are not. They are points.

> '2AB' means in long form:
>
> 2 * A * B

No, it means two times the distance AB.
>
> But that was, of course, not meant.

Of course Einstein doesn't mean your irrelevancies.
>
> Actually meant was:
>
> 2*distance (A, B)

Or 2*AB.
>
>
> (with 'distancce' as name of a function with two parameters, which are
> the endpoints of a streigth line in euclidean space.
>
> In this case the function 'distance' spits out the length of the
> connecting line between two points, which are here A and B.)

Gobbledygook.
>
>
> TH
>
>

On 1/21/2024 2:00 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 21.01.2024 um 06:31 schrieb Volney:
>> On 1/20/2024 4:39 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>> Am 19.01.2024 um 17:39 schrieb Volney:
>>>> On 1/17/2024 1:58 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> But 2AB is not twice the distance from A to B.
>>>>
>>>> And why do you claim that?
>>>
>>> Multiplication is assumed, if no operator is present between two
>>> variables in an equation.
>>
>> No, it is also a common way to indicate the distance between two points
>> A and B, as long as they were previously identified as being points,
>> which Einstein did.
>>>
>>> This is standard in usual mathematics.
>>
>> One standard.
>>>
>>> Since A and B are variables, '2AB' means in long form:
>>>
>>> 2 * A * B
>>
>> No, it means twice the distance between points A and B.

> That was meant, but not written.

No, 2AB is what was written, meaning twice the distance AB. He never
wrote A*B.
>
> The real name is actually 'line segment':
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line_segment
>
> this is the part of a streigth line through A and B, which is between A
> and B.
>
> A and B are symbols, which were used as names of points by Einstein.

And AB is the length of that line segment.
>
> But points cannot be put into an equation (like 2AB), because points are
> physical objects and equations can only deal with mathematical objects.

Meaning that AB as the length of the line segment is obviously the
correct one.
>
> Since Einstein didn't say that often, how his symbols had to be
> interpreted, he left it essentially to the reader to make sense out of
> his text.
>
> Since I'm a reader, too,

You are not part of his intended audience. His audience was the educated
physicists of his time. He never imagined crackpots would be arguing
over tiny details well over 100 years later. Nor would he care.

> I had chosen the next possible mathematical
> interpretation of A and B, which is the position vector.

Don't blame Einstein for your mistakes.
>
> If Einstein wanted that, he could, but had to make a statement, what he
> wanted instead.

He did just that by defining A and B are points.
>
> Because he didn't, I'm free to interpret his text in the next plausible
> way, which leads to a wrong equation.
> ...
>
Don't blame Einstein for your mistakes.

Am 21.01.2024 um 19:58 schrieb Volney:
> On 1/20/2024 4:39 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>> Am 19.01.2024 um 17:39 schrieb Volney:
>>> On 1/17/2024 1:58 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>
>>>> But 2AB is not twice the distance from A to B.
>>>
>>> And why do you claim that?
>>
>> Multiplication is assumed, if no operator is present between two
>> variables in an equation.
>
> A and B are points, not variables. AB is the distance between A and B.

Sure.

But usually the path from A to B is a vector.

The length of this vector is called 'distance'.

therefore distance(A,B) = |vect(A->B)|

AB is not really a distance, but a shorthand for distance (used by a
lazy physicist).

I had ciriticised this, because I had the role of a professor, who had
to write corrections for the homework of a student (Albert Einstein in
this case) and have a policy of formal striktness.

It is a very small error, but is not correct neither.

So I took my virtuall pen and marked this equation as faulty.

Not that small was Einstein's habit to switch between vectors and
scalars without any notice and not to mark vectors as such at all.

....

TH

Am 21.01.2024 um 19:51 schrieb Volney:
> On 1/21/2024 2:02 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>> Am 19.01.2024 um 17:37 schrieb Volney:
>>
>>>>>>> In the formula TA' = TA + 2AB/c, what do you think the AB/c term
>>>>>>> means?
>>>>>>> Where does the 2 come from?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I know, of course, what that equation means.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A is a point in space and B is a point in space. The signal starts
>>>>>> from A in direction of B, gets reflected there and reaches A again.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2AB/c is incorrect, because a scalar-product of a position vector A
>>>>>> and a position vector B is not a distance.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why did you write such a goofball statement like that? Einstein never
>>>>> used the scalar products, those are distances.
>>>>
>>>> What do you mean are distances?
>>>
>>> As Einstein stated, AB is the distance from A to B and BA is the
>>> distance from B to A. Since he was discussing the simple one dimensional
>>> light beam from A to B and back, there's absolutely no reason for
>>> obfuscation like scalar products and position vectors.
>>
>> A and B were defined as points in space.
>
> And AB is the distance from A to B.
>>
>> But since when is space one dimensional?
>>
> Since the light goes from A to B and back to A, everything happens in
> one dimension. Define the X axis as along the AB axis and the Y and Z
> axes can be ignored as irrelevant.

I know what you mean, of course.

But you're nevertheless wrong, because 'everything happens in one
dimension' is nonsense.

Actually 'everything happens in three dimensions' (if you ignore time).

A ray of light could be approximated by a single line, but simply is not
a one-dimensional line.

Lines are mathematical objects and rays are physical objects, hence
cannot possibly become equal.

TH

On 1/22/2024 1:28 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 21.01.2024 um 19:58 schrieb Volney:
>> On 1/20/2024 4:39 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>> Am 19.01.2024 um 17:39 schrieb Volney:
>>>> On 1/17/2024 1:58 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> But 2AB is not twice the distance from A to B.
>>>>
>>>> And why do you claim that?
>>>
>>> Multiplication is assumed, if no operator is present between two
>>> variables in an equation.
>>
>> A and B are points, not variables. AB is the distance between A and B.
>
> Sure.
>
> But usually the path from A to B is a vector.

This is an extremely simple case, out and back. One dimension is all
that is needed, the distance is a simple real number.
>
> The length of this vector is called 'distance'.
>
> therefore distance(A,B) = |vect(A->B)|

Solving problems in physics involves taking advantage of
simplifications. If you need explanation, align the X axis with the line
segment AB, and Y and Z are ignored, and the length is a simple number
along the X axis. Any real physicist does this automatically.
>
> AB is not really a distance, but a shorthand for distance (used by a
> lazy physicist).

No, AB is a simple distance between points A and B.
>
> I had ciriticised this, because I had the role of a professor, who had
> to write corrections for the homework of a student (Albert Einstein in
> this case) and have a policy of formal striktness.

Remember, that stupidity of your "corrections" was shot down in flames,
repeatedly. Only a few of your zillion "corrections" were looked at by
anyone, but every single one was either not incorrect, your own mistake
or lack of understanding, weird terminology mistakes by you (saying
segment AB must be A*B for example) or an unnecessary complication where
a simple distance between two points becomes vector analysis. I would
say your overcomplication of the AB distance has every single one of
those mistakes of yours.

This paper has been examined under a microscope, both by cranks and
actual physicists. The only real "mistake" was saying a clock at the
equator ran slower than a clock at the north pole, and that's because
Einstein hadn't discovered GR yet. And there's some awkward language,
which, if I recall, you didn't even notice.

On 1/22/2024 1:34 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 21.01.2024 um 19:51 schrieb Volney:
>> On 1/21/2024 2:02 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>> Am 19.01.2024 um 17:37 schrieb Volney:
>>>
>>>>>>>> In the formula TA' = TA + 2AB/c, what do you think the AB/c term
>>>>>>>> means?
>>>>>>>> Where does the 2 come from?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I know, of course, what that equation means.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A is a point in space and B is a point in space. The signal starts
>>>>>>> from A in direction of B, gets reflected there and reaches A again.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2AB/c is incorrect, because a scalar-product of a position vector A
>>>>>>> and a position vector B is not a distance.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why did you write such a goofball statement like that? Einstein never
>>>>>> used the scalar products, those are distances.
>>>>>
>>>>> What do you mean are distances?
>>>>
>>>> As Einstein stated, AB is the distance from A to B and BA is the
>>>> distance from B to A. Since he was discussing the simple one
>>>> dimensional
>>>> light beam from A to B and back, there's absolutely no reason for
>>>> obfuscation like scalar products and position vectors.
>>>
>>> A and B were defined as points in space.
>>
>> And AB is the distance from A to B.
>>>
>>> But since when is space one dimensional?
>>>
>> Since the light goes from A to B and back to A, everything happens in
>> one dimension. Define the X axis as along the AB axis and the Y and Z
>> axes can be ignored as irrelevant.
>
> I know what you mean, of course.
>
> But you're nevertheless wrong, because 'everything happens in  one
> dimension'  is nonsense.

Since 'everything' in this part of the paper is light along a line
segment going out and back, everything there IS in just one dimension.

See my other reply I just posted.
>
> Actually 'everything happens in three dimensions' (if you ignore time).
>
> A ray of light could be approximated by a single line, but simply is not
> a one-dimensional line.

It's not an approximation. It is a simplification.
>
> Lines are mathematical objects and rays are physical objects, hence
> cannot possibly become equal.
>
Rays are also mathematical objects, they have one end point and go off
infinitely in a given direction. Like half of a mathematical line.

Regardless, light in this problem moves along two coincident line segments.

On 2024-01-22 17:28:11 +0000, Volney said:
>>
>> I had ciriticised this, because I had the role of a professor, who had
>> to write corrections for the homework of a student (Albert Einstein in
>> this case) and have a policy of formal striktness.
>
> Remember, that stupidity of your "corrections" was shot down in flames,
> repeatedly. Only a few of your zillion "corrections" were looked at by
> anyone, but every single one was either not incorrect, your own mistake
> or lack of understanding, weird terminology mistakes by you (saying
> segment AB must be A*B for example) or an unnecessary complication
> where a simple distance between two points becomes vector analysis. I
> would say your overcomplication of the AB distance has every single one
> of those mistakes of yours.
>
> This paper has been examined under a microscope, both by cranks and
> actual physicists. The only real "mistake" was saying a clock at the
> equator ran slower than a clock at the north pole, and that's because
> Einstein hadn't discovered GR yet. And there's some awkward language,
> which, if I recall, you didn't even notice.

Not surprising in someone who hasn't understood yet not to set off a
defining clause with a comma in English (unlike German): "I had the
role of a professor, who had to write corrections for the homework". I
wince every time I see one of Thomas Heger's incorrect commas. I don't
complain about "ciriticised" (obviously a typo) or "striktness" (a
spelling error that any German speaker might make).

As for the whole sentence, I am continually amazed that crackpots (not
just Thomas Heger -- also "Dr." Hachel, Lou, patdolan, etc.) see
themselves as professors qualified to "correct" Einstein's "errors".

--
athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots

Le 22/01/2024 à 19:31, Athel Cornish-Bowden a écrit :

> As for the whole sentence, I am continually amazed that crackpots (not
> just Thomas Heger -- also "Dr." Hachel, Lou, patdolan, etc.) see
> themselves as professors qualified to "correct" Einstein's "errors".

I think you're the weirdo. To deify a man as you do, when he is only 27
years old, a common copyist of the greatest mathematician in the world, I
believe that one must not have an intellect beyond reproach.

You are, you, a crackpot.

R.H.

On Monday, January 22, 2024 at 10:31:29 AM UTC-8, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:

> As for the whole sentence, I am continually amazed that crackpots (not
> just Thomas Heger -- also "Dr." Hachel, Lou, patdolan, etc.) see
> themselves as professors qualified to "correct" Einstein's "errors".
This is a good example of an appeal to authority fallacy so typical of relativists. How can the professors be qualified when they can't recognize elementary logical fallacies? Einstein and relativity employ these fallacies regularly (reification fallacy, ad hoc, etc). One doesn't require titles to be qualified to criticize pseudoscience like relativity.
>
>
> --
> athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots

Le 22/01/2024 à 12:51, Richard Hachel a écrit :
> Le 22/01/2024 à 19:31, Athel Cornish-Bowden a écrit :
>
>> As for the whole sentence, I am continually amazed that crackpots (not
>> just Thomas Heger -- also "Dr." Hachel, Lou, patdolan, etc.) see
>> themselves as professors qualified to "correct" Einstein's "errors".
>
> I think you're the weirdo. To deify a man as you do, when he is only 27 years
> old, a common copyist of the greatest mathematician in the world, I believe that
> one must not have an intellect beyond reproach.
>
> You are, you, a crackpot.
>
>
> R.H.

Look who's talking!

Am 22.01.2024 um 19:31 schrieb Athel Cornish-Bowden:
> On 2024-01-22 17:28:11 +0000, Volney said:
>>>
>>> I had ciriticised this, because I had the role of a professor, who
>>> had to write corrections for the homework of a student (Albert
>>> Einstein in this case) and have a policy of formal striktness.
>>
>> Remember, that stupidity of your "corrections" was shot down in
>> flames, repeatedly. Only a few of your zillion "corrections" were
>> looked at by anyone, but every single one was either not incorrect,
>> your own mistake or lack of understanding, weird terminology mistakes
>> by you (saying segment AB must be A*B for example) or an unnecessary
>> complication where a simple distance between two points becomes vector
>> analysis. I would say your overcomplication of the AB distance has
>> every single one of those mistakes of yours.
>>
>> This paper has been examined under a microscope, both by cranks and
>> actual physicists. The only real "mistake" was saying a clock at the
>> equator ran slower than a clock at the north pole, and that's because
>> Einstein hadn't discovered GR yet. And there's some awkward language,
>> which, if I recall, you didn't even notice.
>
> Not surprising in someone who hasn't understood yet not to set off a
> defining clause with a comma in English (unlike German): "I had the role
> of a professor, who had to write corrections for the homework". I wince
> every time I see one of Thomas Heger's incorrect commas. I don't
> complain about "ciriticised" (obviously a typo) or "striktness" (a
> spelling error that any German speaker might make).

Well, I would like to see YOU writing in a second language without the
assistence of a spell-checker.

(Unfortunately there are no more updates available for this version of
thunderbird, which is the last one, that runs under Windows VISTA).

So, try some German and let me correct your posts in my own language.

In case of commas: well, yes, maybe you are right. But I use mostly
'comma-logic' from German, even if that is not quite correct.

...

> As for the whole sentence, I am continually amazed that crackpots (not
> just Thomas Heger -- also "Dr." Hachel, Lou, patdolan, etc.) see
> themselves as professors qualified to "correct" Einstein's "errors".
>
I had written these annotations as means to pack into one file the
arguments against those of the regular 'Dono'.

He had attacked me and call me (like you ) 'crackpot' or similar.

I had dared to say, that Einstein's text is full of errors.

Since Dono didn't believe me, I had to mark all the (400+) errors in it.

In case you like to defend Einstein's text, you simply need to disprove
my 400+ comments (or at least a few).

But you will most likely fail, because most tries to disprove any of my
arguments failed sofar.

Not all, because I made some errors, too.

But since I had removed my own errors and polished the annotations a
bit, you will have a hard time to find anything fault in them.

I case you like to try that anyhow, you would make me quite happy.

So: here comes the text of Einstein with my annotations:

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

You need to download it to your own computer, because google does not
show the annotations in the online version.

If you find any error, then please let me know.

TH

>

Am 22.01.2024 um 18:40 schrieb Volney:

>>> Since the light goes from A to B and back to A, everything happens in
>>> one dimension. Define the X axis as along the AB axis and the Y and Z
>>> axes can be ignored as irrelevant.
>>
>> I know what you mean, of course.
>>
>> But you're nevertheless wrong, because 'everything happens in one
>> dimension' is nonsense.
>
> Since 'everything' in this part of the paper is light along a line
> segment going out and back, everything there IS in just one dimension.
>
> See my other reply I just posted.
>>
>> Actually 'everything happens in three dimensions' (if you ignore time).
>>
>> A ray of light could be approximated by a single line, but simply is
>> not a one-dimensional line.
>
> It's not an approximation. It is a simplification.

Sure, but the line is an approximate simplification of a ray, but not a ray.

This line belongs to a different realm than a ray, because nothing in
the universe is actually one-dimensional.

Lines, circles, squares and so forth are simply non-existent in the real
world.

>>
>> Lines are mathematical objects and rays are physical objects, hence
>> cannot possibly become equal.
>>
> Rays are also mathematical objects, they have one end point and go off
> infinitely in a given direction. Like half of a mathematical line.

I wonder how physicists could survive in the real world, if they confuse
real objects and mathematical objects.

TH

On 2024-01-23 08:47:19 +0000, Thomas Heger said:

> Am 22.01.2024 um 19:31 schrieb Athel Cornish-Bowden:
>> On 2024-01-22 17:28:11 +0000, Volney said:
>>>>
>>>> I had ciriticised this, because I had the role of a professor, who
>>>> had to write corrections for the homework of a student (Albert
>>>> Einstein in this case) and have a policy of formal striktness.
>>>
>>> Remember, that stupidity of your "corrections" was shot down in
>>> flames, repeatedly. Only a few of your zillion "corrections" were
>>> looked at by anyone, but every single one was either not incorrect,
>>> your own mistake or lack of understanding, weird terminology mistakes
>>> by you (saying segment AB must be A*B for example) or an unnecessary
>>> complication where a simple distance between two points becomes vector
>>> analysis. I would say your overcomplication of the AB distance has
>>> every single one of those mistakes of yours.
>>>
>>> This paper has been examined under a microscope, both by cranks and
>>> actual physicists. The only real "mistake" was saying a clock at the
>>> equator ran slower than a clock at the north pole, and that's because
>>> Einstein hadn't discovered GR yet. And there's some awkward language,
>>> which, if I recall, you didn't even notice.
>>
>> Not surprising in someone who hasn't understood yet not to set off a
>> defining clause with a comma in English (unlike German): "I had the role
>> of a professor, who had to write corrections for the homework". I wince
>> every time I see one of Thomas Heger's incorrect commas. I don't
>> complain about "ciriticised" (obviously a typo) or "striktness" (a
>> spelling error that any German speaker might make).
>
> Well, I would like to see YOU writing in a second language without the
> assistence of a spell-checker.

I've written articles in Spanish and French without using
acomputer-based spell checker, though I've used nativespeakers to check
the results (not just the spelling -- as easy in Spanish as it is in
German).
>
> (Unfortunately there are no more updates available for this version of
> thunderbird, which is the last one, that runs under Windows VISTA).
>
> So, try some German and let me correct your posts in my own language.
>
> In case of commas: well, yes, maybe you are right. But I use mostly
> 'comma-logic' from German, even if that is not quite correct.
>
> ..
>
>> As for the whole sentence, I am continually amazed that crackpots (not
>> just Thomas Heger -- also "Dr." Hachel, Lou, patdolan, etc.) see
>> themselves as professors qualified to "correct" Einstein's "errors".
>>
> I had written these annotations as means to pack into one file the
> arguments against those of the regular 'Dono'.
>
> He had attacked me and call me (like you ) 'crackpot' or similar.
>
> I had dared to say, that Einstein's text is full of errors.
>
> Since Dono didn't believe me, I had to mark all the (400+) errors in it.
>
> In case you like to defend Einstein's text, you simply need to disprove
> my 400+ comments (or at least a few).
>
> But you will most likely fail, because most tries to disprove any of my
> arguments failed sofar.
>
> Not all, because I made some errors, too.
>
> But since I had removed my own errors and polished the annotations a
> bit, you will have a hard time to find anything fault in them.
>
> I case you like to try that anyhow, you would make me quite happy.
>
> So: here comes the text of Einstein with my annotations:
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RkhX-B5u7X4ga0QH-C53RddjQGctZVdo/view
>
> You need to download it to your own computer, because google does not
> show the annotations in the online version.
>
> If you find any error, then please let me know.
>
> TH

--
Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 36 years; mainly
in England until 1987.

On 2024-01-23 08:47:19 +0000, Thomas Heger said:

> Am 22.01.2024 um 19:31 schrieb Athel Cornish-Bowden:
>> On 2024-01-22 17:28:11 +0000, Volney said:
>>>>
>>>> I had ciriticised this, because I had the role of a professor, who
>>>> had to write corrections for the homework of a student (Albert
>>>> Einstein in this case) and have a policy of formal striktness.
>>>
>>> Remember, that stupidity of your "corrections" was shot down in
>>> flames, repeatedly. Only a few of your zillion "corrections" were
>>> looked at by anyone, but every single one was either not incorrect,
>>> your own mistake or lack of understanding, weird terminology mistakes
>>> by you (saying segment AB must be A*B for example) or an unnecessary
>>> complication where a simple distance between two points becomes vector
>>> analysis. I would say your overcomplication of the AB distance has
>>> every single one of those mistakes of yours.
>>>
>>> This paper has been examined under a microscope, both by cranks and
>>> actual physicists. The only real "mistake" was saying a clock at the
>>> equator ran slower than a clock at the north pole, and that's because
>>> Einstein hadn't discovered GR yet. And there's some awkward language,
>>> which, if I recall, you didn't even notice.
>>
>> Not surprising in someone who hasn't understood yet not to set off a
>> defining clause with a comma in English (unlike German): "I had the role
>> of a professor, who had to write corrections for the homework". I wince
>> every time I see one of Thomas Heger's incorrect commas. I don't
>> complain about "ciriticised" (obviously a typo) or "striktness" (a
>> spelling error that any German speaker might make).
>
> Well, I would like to see YOU writing in a second language without the
> assistence of a spell-checker.
>
> (Unfortunately there are no more updates available for this version of
> thunderbird, which is the last one, that runs under Windows VISTA).
>
> So, try some German and let me correct your posts in my own language.
>
> In case of commas: well, yes, maybe you are right.

No maybe about it. It is plain wrong.

> But I use mostly 'comma-logic' from German, even if that is not quite correct.

Not correct _at all_. English is not German.

>
> ..
>
>> As for the whole sentence, I am continually amazed that crackpots (not
>> just Thomas Heger -- also "Dr." Hachel, Lou, patdolan, etc.) see
>> themselves as professors qualified to "correct" Einstein's "errors".
>>
> I had written these annotations as means to pack into one file the
> arguments against those of the regular 'Dono'.
>
> He had attacked me and call me (like you ) 'crackpot' or similar.
>
> I had dared to say, that Einstein's text is full of errors.
>
> Since Dono didn't believe me, I had to mark all the (400+) errors in it.
>
> In case you like to defend Einstein's text, you simply need to disprove
> my 400+ comments (or at least a few).

Others more expert than I am have done that.
>
> But you will most likely fail, because most tries to disprove any of my
> arguments failed sofar.
>
> Not all, because I made some errors, too.
>
> But since I had removed my own errors and polished the annotations a
> bit, you will have a hard time to find anything fault in them.
>
> I case you like to try that anyhow, you would make me quite happy.
>
> So: here comes the text of Einstein with my annotations:
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RkhX-B5u7X4ga0QH-C53RddjQGctZVdo/view
>
> You need to download it to your own computer, because google does not
> show the annotations in the online version.
>
> If you find any error, then please let me know.
>
> TH

--
athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots

On Tuesday 23 January 2024 at 11:24:03 UTC+1, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:

> > In case you like to defend Einstein's text, you simply need to disprove
> > my 400+ comments (or at least a few).
> Others more expert than I am have done that.

Still, the mumble of your beloved guru was
not even consistent, it has been proven
directly, and neither you, nor your "more
expert" fellow idiots can do anything about
it.

On 1/23/2024 3:53 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 22.01.2024 um 18:40 schrieb Volney:
>
>>>> Since the light goes from A to B and back to A, everything happens in
>>>> one dimension. Define the X axis as along the AB axis and the Y and Z
>>>> axes can be ignored as irrelevant.
>>>
>>> I know what you mean, of course.
>>>
>>> But you're nevertheless wrong, because 'everything happens in  one
>>> dimension'  is nonsense.
>>
>> Since 'everything' in this part of the paper is light along a line
>> segment going out and back, everything there IS in just one dimension.
>>
>> See my other reply I just posted.
>>>
>>> Actually 'everything happens in three dimensions' (if you ignore time).
>>>
>>> A ray of light could be approximated by a single line, but simply is
>>> not a one-dimensional line.
>>
>> It's not an approximation. It is a simplification.
>
> Sure, but the line is an approximate simplification of a ray, but not a
> ray.

So use a ray then.
(actually for this part we use a line segment, one with endpoints A and B)
>
> This line belongs to a different realm than a ray, because nothing in
> the universe is actually one-dimensional.

A line and a ray are both 1 dimensional mathematical objects, as is a
line segment. As a simplification (not an approximation) they are used
for the mathematical analysis of the problem.
>
> Lines, circles, squares and so forth are simply non-existent in the real
> world.

Once again, they are simplifications.
>
>>>
>>> Lines are mathematical objects and rays are physical objects, hence
>>> cannot possibly become equal.
>>>
>> Rays are also mathematical objects, they have one end point and go off
>> infinitely in a given direction. Like half of a mathematical line.
>
> I wonder how physicists could survive in the real world, if they confuse
> real objects and mathematical objects.

They don't. They use simplifications and know they are simplifications.
Scientists these days also calculate errors potentially induced by
measurements and simplifications, and will publish error bars to
indicate the quality of their analysis.

On 1/22/2024 3:51 PM, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 22/01/2024 à 19:31, Athel Cornish-Bowden a écrit :
>
>> As for the whole sentence, I am continually amazed that crackpots (not
>> just Thomas Heger -- also "Dr." Hachel, Lou, patdolan, etc.) see
>> themselves as professors qualified to "correct" Einstein's "errors".
>
> I think you're the weirdo. To deify a man as you do, when he is only 27
> years old, a common copyist of the greatest mathematician in the world,
> I believe that one must not have an intellect beyond reproach.
>
> You are, you, a crackpot.
>
No, the opposite is true. Claiming scientists "deify" or "worship"
Einstein or claim that relativity is a "religion" or "cult" are CLASSIC
signs of a relativity crackpot. Classic. Congratulations for admitting
your crackpottedness.

On Tuesday 23 January 2024 at 17:59:00 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
> On 1/22/2024 3:51 PM, Richard Hachel wrote:
> > Le 22/01/2024 à 19:31, Athel Cornish-Bowden a écrit :
> >
> >> As for the whole sentence, I am continually amazed that crackpots (not
> >> just Thomas Heger -- also "Dr." Hachel, Lou, patdolan, etc.) see
> >> themselves as professors qualified to "correct" Einstein's "errors".
> >
> > I think you're the weirdo. To deify a man as you do, when he is only 27
> > years old, a common copyist of the greatest mathematician in the world,
> > I believe that one must not have an intellect beyond reproach.
> >
> > You are, you, a crackpot.
> >
> No, the opposite is true. Claiming scientists "deify" or "worship"
> Einstein or claim that relativity is a "religion" or "cult" are

sad truth unacceptable for idiots like you.

On 2024-01-23 16:58:58 +0000, Volney said:

> On 1/22/2024 3:51 PM, Richard Hachel wrote:
>> Le 22/01/2024 à 19:31, Athel Cornish-Bowden a écrit :
>>
>>> As for the whole sentence, I am continually amazed that crackpots (not
>>> just Thomas Heger -- also "Dr." Hachel, Lou, patdolan, etc.) see
>>> themselves as professors qualified to "correct" Einstein's "errors".
>>
>> I think you're the weirdo. To deify a man as you do, when he is only 27
>> years old,

Isn't that what Christians do, when they worship someone who (if he
lived at all) died at around that age?

>> a common copyist of the greatest mathematician in the world, I believe
>> that one must not have an intellect beyond reproach.
>>
>> You are, you, a crackpot.
>>
> No, the opposite is true. Claiming scientists "deify" or "worship"
> Einstein or claim that relativity is a "religion" or "cult" are CLASSIC
> signs of a relativity crackpot. Classic. Congratulations for admitting
> your crackpottedness.

--
athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots

Le 23/01/2024 à 17:58, Volney a écrit :
> On 1/22/2024 3:51 PM, Richard Hachel wrote:
>> Le 22/01/2024 à 19:31, Athel Cornish-Bowden a écrit :
>>
>>> As for the whole sentence, I am continually amazed that crackpots (not
>>> just Thomas Heger -- also "Dr." Hachel, Lou, patdolan, etc.) see
>>> themselves as professors qualified to "correct" Einstein's "errors".
>>
>> I think you're the weirdo. To deify a man as you do, when he is only 27
>> years old, a common copyist of the greatest mathematician in the world,
>> I believe that one must not have an intellect beyond reproach.
>>
>> You are, you, a crackpot.
>>
> No, the opposite is true. Claiming scientists "deify" or "worship"
> Einstein or claim that relativity is a "religion" or "cult" are CLASSIC
> signs of a relativity crackpot. Classic. Congratulations for admitting
> your crackpottedness.

Einstein is not a scientist, but a prophet.

It is also very interesting to note this incredible coincidence.

1905: separation of Church and State. The state finds itself without
christian God.
1905: a new prophet appears on the world scene.

The match is perfect.

However, it is not difficult to dismantle the theory of relativity, even
in front of the world's biggest pundits.

I mean logically, scientifically, mathematically.

But then we will be confronted with a huge religious problem.

Physicists will immediately behave like religious fundamentalists and how
many times have I heard: “If our prophet was wrong, we would know it”.

It's the same as "the earth is flat because otherwise the water in the
seas would flow in a vacuum"

The problem is that, with the theory wonderfully tinged with bullshit
plastering, even the world's greatest physicists are getting caught.

Wanting to explain where the errors are then becomes an insurmountable
task.

R.H.

Le 23/01/2024 à 19:11, Athel Cornish-Bowden a écrit :
> Isn't that what Christians do, when they worship someone who (if he
> lived at all) died at around that age?

Not exactly.
It is attested that Jesus Christ was born during the reign of King Herod
the Great.
Some exegetes speak (and I tend to follow them as a learned theologian) of
a birth in Bethlehem around -17 BC.

Which would make him, judged and crucified under Pontius Pilate in April
of the year 30, a man who was approaching 50 years old.

A historian says: "He died already old and exhausted"

Another testimony says "Caesar set fire to Rome in the year 66
of our era, 33 years after Crestos, the prophet of the Christians was
tortured". Which also corresponds to the year 30 of our era.

And so on for a lot of things that I don't say here, not wanting to be
responsible for epileptic seizures among sci.physics.relativity readers

I have enough trouble just explaining things as trivial as the Langevin
Paradox or the Ehrenfest Paradox without driving them all completely
crazy.

R.H.

On Tuesday, January 23, 2024 at 5:33:25 AM UTC-8, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Tuesday 23 January 2024 at 11:24:03 UTC+1, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>
> > > In case you like to defend Einstein's text, you simply need to disprove
> > > my 400+ comments (or at least a few).
> > Others more expert than I am have done that.
> Still, the mumble of your beloved guru was
> not even consistent, it has been proven
> directly, and neither you, nor your "more
> expert" fellow idiots can do anything about
> it.
They pretend it's tremendously consistent and everyone agrees but a child can see the emperor has no clothes.

On 1/23/2024 5:11 PM, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 23/01/2024 à 17:58, Volney a écrit :
>> On 1/22/2024 3:51 PM, Richard Hachel wrote:
>>> Le 22/01/2024 à 19:31, Athel Cornish-Bowden a écrit :
>>>
>>>> As for the whole sentence, I am continually amazed that crackpots
>>>> (not just Thomas Heger -- also "Dr." Hachel, Lou, patdolan, etc.)
>>>> see themselves as professors qualified to "correct" Einstein's
>>>> "errors".
>>>
>>> I think you're the weirdo. To deify a man as you do, when he is only
>>> 27 years old, a common copyist of the greatest mathematician in the
>>> world, I believe that one must not have an intellect beyond reproach.
>>>
>>> You are, you, a crackpot.
>>>
>> No, the opposite is true. Claiming scientists "deify" or "worship"
>> Einstein or claim that relativity is a "religion" or "cult" are
>> CLASSIC signs of a relativity crackpot. Classic. Congratulations for
>> admitting your crackpottedness.
>
> Einstein is not a scientist, but a prophet.

There you go again, proving to us that you are a full-blown crackpot.
Or maybe just a bit less than full-blown crackpot since you wrote
'prophet' and not 'god'.
>
>  It is also very interesting to note this incredible coincidence.
>
> 1905: separation of Church and State. The state finds itself without
> christian God.

Separation of church and state is from the United States Bill of Rights,
1789, not 1905. And probably elsewhere as a concept before that.

> 1905: a new prophet appears on the world scene.

There you go, firmly establishing yourself as a crackpot.
>
> However, it is not difficult to dismantle the theory of relativity, even
> in front of the world's biggest pundits.
>
> I mean logically, scientifically, mathematically.

Mathematically consistent, fully supported scientifically. And quite
logical when going through the relativity papers.
>
> But then we will be confronted with a huge religious problem.
>
> Physicists will immediately behave like religious fundamentalists and
> how many times have I heard: “If our prophet was wrong, we would know it”.

Which "physicist" even uses the word "prophet"? None?
>
> The problem is that, with the theory wonderfully tinged with bullshit
> plastering, even the world's greatest physicists are getting caught.

Where?
>
> Wanting to explain where the errors are then becomes an insurmountable
> task.
What errors?