Am 14.02.2024 um 21:28 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:
> Den 14.02.2024 08:34, skrev Thomas Heger:
>>
>> Einstein's variable names were EXTREMELY annoying!
>>
>> For instance:
>> he had eight different uses of the letter 'A'.
>
> What is the single not annoying use of the letter 'A' ?
>

Many letters have different uses in physics.

This is perfectly ok.

But it is not ok to use the same symbol for different purposes within a
single text.

Einstein had to decide, what use he wanted for -say- the symbol 'A'.

E.g. 'Area' is a common use or 'amplitude'.

But both uses within a single text are wrong, because it is not possible
to know, which particular meaning a symbol in an equation has, if both
meanings use the same symbol.

But Einstein gave this another kick and used the same symbol twice with
different meanings within a single sentence.

This is not really wrong, because it is actually possible to decipher
the text. But it is fantastically rude.

TH

Volney wrote:

> On 2/14/2024 1:47 PM, Volney wrote:
>> On 2/14/2024 2:17 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>> Am 13.02.2024 um 14:50 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:
>>>> Den 13.02.2024 07:44, skrev Thomas Heger:
>>>>> Am 11.02.2024 um 11:00 schrieb Thomas Heger:
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>> I want to express this point a little more explicit, because it is
>>>>> actually a main point of my critique and actually not limited to SRT.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> So, let's take a simplified picture and use a HUGE telescope and and a
>>>>> HUGE clock on the Moon.
>>>>
>>>> Since your point is to illustrate Einstein' definition of
>>>> simultaneity, we will assume, like you do below, that the clock
>>>> on the Moon and the clock on the Earth are synchronous according
>>>> to said definition.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Now we peep through this telecope and see the hands of the gigantic
>>>>> watch on the Moon.
>>>>>
>>>>> We can see the hand with the seconds moving around once a minute.
>>>>
>>>> And we can see that the clock at the Moon showed tB
>>>> when the light left the clock on the Moon.
>>>
>>>
>>> The measure 't_B' is actually NOT measured in units of 'Moon-time',
>>> but instead both measures t_A and t_B are values, which are based on
>>> the local time of the observer (called 'A-time' in Einstein's text).
>>
>> What the hell is it that you call 'Moon-time'? If the moon is considered
>> stationary (or moving slow enough not to matter) there is no time
>> dilation so 'Moon-time' ticks the same as 'Earth-Time'.
>>>
>>>
>>> Since time is a LOCAL (!!!!!) measure, the observer simply cannot use
>>> anything else than his own time measure.
>>>
>>> It is therefore illogic to assume, that t_B is measured on the Moon.
>>
>> But you just said there is a HUGE clock on the moon measuring the time.
>>>
>>> It is actually entirely irrelevant, which time a clock on the Moon
>>> would show or if there is any or if there is anybody to read the time
>>> from such a clock, because Moon-time was irrelevant.
>>>
>>> therefore both measures (t_A and t'_A) are measured on Earth and what
>>> clocks say on the Moon is unknown.
>>>
>>> This is no problem, because t_B (the time of arrival of the signal on
>>> the Moon) didn't make it into the equation in question.
>>
>> This will be t_B if the clocks are synchronized, or considered set to
>> t_B to synchronize them.
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Now (at precisely this moment) the watch shows exactly 1 pm and zero
>>>>> seconds.
>>>>
>>>> The clock on the Earth shows t'A when
>>>> the clock in the telescope shows tB.
>>>
>>> No.
>>>
>>> One reason: there is no clock on the Moon, you could possibly read.
>>
>> But you said there was.
>>>
>>> But even if there where a gigantic watch (maintained by the
>>> Man-in-the-Moon), that clock would show Moon-time in Moon-time-units.
>>
>> It wouldn't matter, since there will be a conversion between
>> Moon-time-units and Earth time units (better known as the second).  If
>> there are no Moon residents and no (earth origin) clocks there, there
>> isn't even such a thing as Moon-time-units so we can use anything we
>> want, such as the second. Even if there were little green men using
>> Moon-time-units we can *still* use Earth units for Earthbound users,
>> converting to Moon-time-units if and when necessary to communicate with
>> the little green men.
>>
>> It appears you are confusing clocks with time. Clocks measure time, not
>> clocks are time. The janitor has the very same problem when whining
>> about old time definitions based on earth rotation.
>>>
>>> That watch would be very hard to interpret, because it is certainly
>>> not synchronized with the birth of Christ and will most likely use
>>> different units.
>>
>> We can synchronize the clocks using Einstein's method, so that some
>> clock on the moon reading whatever it reads when we measure it is t_B.
>>>
>>> But supposed we could actually read the values, we certainly would not
>>> want to subtract such values from an Earth-based time-values.
>>>
>>> Therefore, the value t_B MUST be based on Earth-time and measured in
>>> Earth-time-units.
>>
>> Irrelevant.
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It is, of cause, NOT 1:00:00 pm, but 1:00:01 pm (supposed the watch is
>>>>> one light second away).
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Therefore it is not allowed to take the actually reading as remote
>>>>> time, but we need to add the delay.
>>>>>
>>>>> To do this, we would need to know that delay, hence need to measure it.
>>>>
>>>> The 'delay' IS obviously measured!
>>>
>>> Sure, but not so in Einstein's text.
>>>
>>> Actually the word 'delay' or anything equivalent does not occur in his
>>> text.
>>
>> He is using the time it takes the signal to travel (D/c) as the delay.
>>>
>>>> It is the time t'A shown by the Earth clock
>>>> minus the time tB shown by the clock in the telescope.
>>>> (t'A-tB)
>>>
>>> A clock on the Moon cannot show t_B, because the man-in-the-Moon is
>>> not baptised and the birth of Christ unknown there.
>>
>> Yet you are talking about some HUGE clock on the moon viewed using a
>> HUGE telescope on earth.
>>>
>>> t_B must be a time-value, which is based on Earth-time.
>>
>> Because it is calculated on earth to see what time it is on the moon.
>>
>> Your obvious confusion here extends to your "420 errors" which are
>> nothing more than 420 examples of your confusion.

> As Python points out, both clocks are assumed IDENTICAL by Einstein, so

so your moronic ravings of "GR" ,corrections are just
some moronic ravings. Yes, identical clocks are whar
your idiot guru was assuming - and GPS has verified
his absurd assumption and switched it off.

On 2/15/2024 12:58 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 14.02.2024 um 18:41 schrieb Python:
>> Thomas Heger wrote:
>> [snip]
>>> But even if there where a gigantic watch (maintained by the
>>> Man-in-the-Moon), that clock would show Moon-time in Moon-time-units.
>>>
>>> That watch would be very hard to interpret, because it is certainly
>>> not synchronized with the birth of Christ and will most likely use
>>> different units.
>>>
>>> But supposed we could actually read the values, we certainly would not
>>> want to subtract such values from an Earth-based time-values.
>>>
>>> Therefore, the value t_B MUST be based on Earth-time and measured in
>>> Earth-time-units.
>> [snip]
>>> A clock on the Moon cannot show t_B, because the man-in-the-Moon is
>>> not baptised and the birth of Christ unknown there.
>>
>> *facepalm* Is there any limit to your craziness? This is
>> not even remotely related to anything Einstein wrote.
>>
>> Clock A and B are clocks involved in a physic apparatus
>> it is absolutely stupid to assume that clock B would be
>> operated by unknown aliens on Alpha Centaury (as you
>> ever did) or the Moon, with unknowns units or origins.
>
>
> If you try to communicate over cosmological distances and attempt to
> synchronize clocks at both ends, you could certainly face the problem,
> that at the other end of such communications are 'aliens'.
>
> Actually all other assumptions are rather strange and in my view far
> stranger than the assumption of aliens.
>
> But WHO sits at the far end of a long distance communication is patently
> irrelevant in the context of SRT, anyhow.
>
> SRT uses a certain 'backdrop', which is a starless void without gravity.
>
> Through this dark space spaceships drift 'inertially'.
>
> This not really real, but a possible assumption for 'thought experiments'.
>
> If so, you could also assume aliens (at not additional cost).
>
> But if you prefer Earth-based aliens, you could also assume, that all
> spaceships mentioned are owned by NASA and have all exactly similar
> clocks onboard of their ships.
>
> But in any case:
>
> you need to make measurements of the delay, if you like to synchronize
> clocks.
>
> (In case of alien aliens, you need to negotiate time units, too.)
>
> This is easy, if both ships involved would not move in respect to each
> other.
>
> In this case (and only in this case !) Einstein's equation is true and
> you could cut the two-way travel in half and get time t_B by deviding
> t'_A-t_A by two.
>
> The problem is here, that t'_A is later than t_B, hence the aliens at
> the far end cannot possibly know it. Therefore, YOU need to calculate
> t_B and send a signal with a coded time value back to B.
>
> This signal (the one from here at A to point B with the time-value t_B),
> needs to be corrected by subtracting the delay from t_B and coding the
> result into the signal.
>
> That is another reason why you should know the delay.
>
> But Einstein didn't even mention the delay-problem with a single word.
>
>
Einstein explicitly stated the twp clocks are IDENTICAL. That
essentially rules out alien monkey business. Also, Einstein never
mentioned cosmological distances. SR works fine for two clocks in a lab
10' apart. So your whining is bogus.

Den 15.02.2024 07:10, skrev Thomas Heger:
>> Den 14.02.2024 08:34, skrev Thomas Heger:
>>>
>>> Einstein's variable names were EXTREMELY annoying!
>>>
>>> For instance:
>>> he had eight different uses of the letter 'A'.

In §1 the symbol 'A' is explicitly defined: "the point A of space",
and this is the only meaning of 'A' in §1 to and including §5.

In §6 the symbol 'A' is not used.

In §7 the symbol 'A' is explicitly defined:
"we call the amplitude of the electric or magnetic force A"
and this is the only meaning of 'A' in §7 to and including §10.

The numbering of an equation (A) is not another use of the symbol 'A'.

This is two well defined uses of the letter 'A' used to identify
a physical or mathematical entity.

Can you name the other six?

> But both uses within a single text are wrong, because it is not possible
> to know, which particular meaning a symbol in an equation has, if both
> meanings use the same symbol.
>
> But Einstein gave this another kick and used the same symbol twice with
> different meanings within a single sentence.

Can you quote the sentence in question?

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

Volney wrote:

> On 2/15/2024 12:58 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>> Am 14.02.2024 um 18:41 schrieb Python:
>>> Thomas Heger wrote:
>>> [snip]
>>>> But even if there where a gigantic watch (maintained by the
>>>> Man-in-the-Moon), that clock would show Moon-time in Moon-time-units.
>>>>
>>>> That watch would be very hard to interpret, because it is certainly
>>>> not synchronized with the birth of Christ and will most likely use
>>>> different units.
>>>>
>>>> But supposed we could actually read the values, we certainly would not
>>>> want to subtract such values from an Earth-based time-values.
>>>>
>>>> Therefore, the value t_B MUST be based on Earth-time and measured in
>>>> Earth-time-units.
>>> [snip]
>>>> A clock on the Moon cannot show t_B, because the man-in-the-Moon is
>>>> not baptised and the birth of Christ unknown there.
>>>
>>> *facepalm* Is there any limit to your craziness? This is
>>> not even remotely related to anything Einstein wrote.
>>>
>>> Clock A and B are clocks involved in a physic apparatus
>>> it is absolutely stupid to assume that clock B would be
>>> operated by unknown aliens on Alpha Centaury (as you
>>> ever did) or the Moon, with unknowns units or origins.
>>
>>
>> If you try to communicate over cosmological distances and attempt to
>> synchronize clocks at both ends, you could certainly face the problem,
>> that at the other end of such communications are 'aliens'.
>>
>> Actually all other assumptions are rather strange and in my view far
>> stranger than the assumption of aliens.
>>
>> But WHO sits at the far end of a long distance communication is patently
>> irrelevant in the context of SRT, anyhow.
>>
>> SRT uses a certain 'backdrop', which is a starless void without gravity.
>>
>> Through this dark space spaceships drift 'inertially'.
>>
>> This not really real, but a possible assumption for 'thought experiments'.
>>
>> If so, you could also assume aliens (at not additional cost).
>>
>> But if you prefer Earth-based aliens, you could also assume, that all
>> spaceships mentioned are owned by NASA and have all exactly similar
>> clocks onboard of their ships.
>>
>> But in any case:
>>
>> you need to make measurements of the delay, if you like to synchronize
>> clocks.
>>
>> (In case of alien aliens, you need to negotiate time units, too.)
>>
>> This is easy, if both ships involved would not move in respect to each
>> other.
>>
>> In this case (and only in this case !) Einstein's equation is true and
>> you could cut the two-way travel in half and get time t_B by deviding
>> t'_A-t_A by two.
>>
>> The problem is here, that t'_A is later than t_B, hence the aliens at
>> the far end cannot possibly know it. Therefore, YOU need to calculate
>> t_B and send a signal with a coded time value back to B.
>>
>> This signal (the one from here at A to point B with the time-value t_B),
>> needs to be corrected by subtracting the delay from t_B and coding the
>> result into the signal.
>>
>> That is another reason why you should know the delay.
>>
>> But Einstein didn't even mention the delay-problem with a single word.
>>
>>
> Einstein explicitly stated the twp clocks are IDENTICAL.

And you, stupid Mike, explicitely stated that IDENTIOCAL
clocks are some "Newton mode". You're such an agnorant
idiot...

On 2024-02-15 10:32:23 +0000, Paul B. Andersen said:

> Den 15.02.2024 07:10, skrev Thomas Heger:
>>> Den 14.02.2024 08:34, skrev Thomas Heger:
>>>>
>>>> Einstein's variable names were EXTREMELY annoying!
>>>>
>>>> For instance:
>>>> he had eight different uses of the letter 'A'.
>
>
> In §1 the symbol 'A' is explicitly defined: "the point A of space",
> and this is the only meaning of 'A' in §1 to and including §5.
>
> In §6 the symbol 'A' is not used.
>
> In §7 the symbol 'A' is explicitly defined:
> "we call the amplitude of the electric or magnetic force A"
> and this is the only meaning of 'A' in §7 to and including §10.
>
> The numbering of an equation (A) is not another use of the symbol 'A'.
>
> This is two well defined uses of the letter 'A' used to identify
> a physical or mathematical entity.
>
> Can you name the other six?
>
>
>> But both uses within a single text are wrong, because it is not
>> possible to know, which particular meaning a symbol in an equation has,
>> if both meanings use the same symbol.
>>
>> But Einstein gave this another kick and used the same symbol twice with
>> different meanings within a single sentence.
>
> Can you quote the sentence in question?

I once -- consciously and deliberately -- used the same symbol i with
two meanings in the same equation, both as an index, as the ith of n
observations, and as an inhibitor concentration. As both meanings were
standard, and no one (except perhaps Thomas Heger, if he happened to
read it) would be confused, I thought it best to keep the equation as
it was. Nonetheless, I put a footnote saying what I was doing.

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

Am 15.02.2024 um 12:19 schrieb MaciejWozniak:
> Volney wrote:
>
>> On 2/15/2024 12:58 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>> Am 14.02.2024 um 18:41 schrieb Python:
>>>> Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>> [snip]
>>>>> But even if there where a gigantic watch (maintained by the
>>>>> Man-in-the-Moon), that clock would show Moon-time in Moon-time-units.
>>>>>
>>>>> That watch would be very hard to interpret, because it is certainly
>>>>> not synchronized with the birth of Christ and will most likely use
>>>>> different units.
>>>>>
>>>>> But supposed we could actually read the values, we certainly would not
>>>>> want to subtract such values from an Earth-based time-values.
>>>>>
>>>>> Therefore, the value t_B MUST be based on Earth-time and measured in
>>>>> Earth-time-units.
>>>> [snip]
>>>>> A clock on the Moon cannot show t_B, because the man-in-the-Moon is
>>>>> not baptised and the birth of Christ unknown there.
>>>>
>>>> *facepalm* Is there any limit to your craziness? This is
>>>> not even remotely related to anything Einstein wrote.
>>>>
>>>> Clock A and B are clocks involved in a physic apparatus
>>>> it is absolutely stupid to assume that clock B would be
>>>> operated by unknown aliens on Alpha Centaury (as you
>>>> ever did) or the Moon, with unknowns units or origins.
>>>
>>>
>>> If you try to communicate over cosmological distances and attempt to
>>> synchronize clocks at both ends, you could certainly face the
>>> problem, that at the other end of such communications are 'aliens'.
>>>
>>> Actually all other assumptions are rather strange and in my view far
>>> stranger than the assumption of aliens.
>>>
>>> But WHO sits at the far end of a long distance communication is
>>> patently irrelevant in the context of SRT, anyhow.
>>>
>>> SRT uses a certain 'backdrop', which is a starless void without gravity.
>>>
>>> Through this dark space spaceships drift 'inertially'.
>>>
>>> This not really real, but a possible assumption for 'thought
>>> experiments'.
>>>
>>> If so, you could also assume aliens (at not additional cost).
>>>
>>> But if you prefer Earth-based aliens, you could also assume, that all
>>> spaceships mentioned are owned by NASA and have all exactly similar
>>> clocks onboard of their ships.
>>>
>>> But in any case:
>>>
>>> you need to make measurements of the delay, if you like to
>>> synchronize clocks.
>>>
>>> (In case of alien aliens, you need to negotiate time units, too.)
>>>
>>> This is easy, if both ships involved would not move in respect to
>>> each other.
>>>
>>> In this case (and only in this case !) Einstein's equation is true
>>> and you could cut the two-way travel in half and get time t_B by
>>> deviding t'_A-t_A by two.
>>>
>>> The problem is here, that t'_A is later than t_B, hence the aliens at
>>> the far end cannot possibly know it. Therefore, YOU need to calculate
>>> t_B and send a signal with a coded time value back to B.
>>>
>>> This signal (the one from here at A to point B with the time-value
>>> t_B), needs to be corrected by subtracting the delay from t_B and
>>> coding the result into the signal.
>>>
>>> That is another reason why you should know the delay.
>>>
>>> But Einstein didn't even mention the delay-problem with a single word.
>>>
>>>
>> Einstein explicitly stated the twp clocks are IDENTICAL.
>
> And you, stupid Mike, explicitely stated that IDENTIOCAL
> clocks are some "Newton mode". You're such an agnorant idiot...

'Identical' clocks (actually mentioned were watches) are mechanically
the same.

But watches of 1905 were adjustable in the rate of ticks, hence could be
synchronized to the local environment.

That's why it is complicated to synchronize clocks.

First you need to establish an agreement about the time units and tick
rates.

Theses tick rates already differ with hight (already on planet Earth).

This would require (already on Earth) agrements about the length of the
second.

To do this we could use some sort of 'master clock', located on or near
sea-level.

This master station would send out radio signals with timing information
and all other clocks can adjust themselves to these signals.

But this would still require to know the delay, which is caused by the
finite speed of light.

A radio signals travel about 7.5 times round the globe in one second.

Since half of an equator length is the maximal distance you could have
on Earth, you could have a maximum of discrepancy of 1/14 of a second.

This is a very large discrepancy for precision timing purposes, hence
needs to be corrected.

This is actually simple: simply add the delay to the coded time, which
is coming with the signal from the master clock.

But you need to know the delay in the first place, if you like to add it.

But for uncertain reasons Einstein didn't mention this, even if
synchronization over long distances was his topic.

TH

Am 15.02.2024 um 11:32 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:
> Den 15.02.2024 07:10, skrev Thomas Heger:
>>> Den 14.02.2024 08:34, skrev Thomas Heger:
>>>>
>>>> Einstein's variable names were EXTREMELY annoying!
>>>>
>>>> For instance:
>>>> he had eight different uses of the letter 'A'.
>
>
> In §1 the symbol 'A' is explicitly defined: "the point A of space",
> and this is the only meaning of 'A' in §1 to and including §5.
>
> In §6 the symbol 'A' is not used.
>
> In §7 the symbol 'A' is explicitly defined:
> "we call the amplitude of the electric or magnetic force A"
> and this is the only meaning of 'A' in §7 to and including §10.
>
> The numbering of an equation (A) is not another use of the symbol 'A'.
>
> This is two well defined uses of the letter 'A' used to identify
> a physical or mathematical entity.
>
> Can you name the other six?

'A' is an ASCII character and actually a very short text.

To use it as a symbol, for instance as name of a variable, you need to
connect text and variable by a definition.

For instance you could write, that 'A' shall contain the value of a
certain area.

But Einstein didn't do that.

Instead he seemingly assumed, that the reader could also read his mind.

His uses of 'A' were:

as name of a point in space

as name of the local time at point A as 'A-time'

for one end of a flying rod

as index of the time value t_A

as area

in 'electric power of deflection' A_e

in 'magnetic power of deflection' A_m

as (only!) internal reference 'A'

But why didn't he use other letters, like e.g. F or Q ???

>
>> But both uses within a single text are wrong, because it is not
>> possible to know, which particular meaning a symbol in an equation
>> has, if both meanings use the same symbol.
>>
>> But Einstein gave this another kick and used the same symbol twice with
>> different meanings within a single sentence.
>
> Can you quote the sentence in question?

sure:
page 22, roughly in the middle

"We will now determine the kinetic energy of the electron. If an
electron moves from rest at the origin of co-ordinates of the system K
along the axis of X under the action of an electrostatic force X, ..."

I disliked already the used of 'force' for electrical field strength.

But anyhow...

'X' is here the x-component of the electric field-strength vector and
called 'X'

'X' is also the name of the x-axis of system K.

Therefore we have twice the symbol 'X' in the same sentence (actually
also in the same line), but with two different meanings.

It is not really wrong, but VERY bad writing style.

At least Einstein could have made different types of symbols
distinguishable by attributes like italic or bold fonts.

TH

Den 16.02.2024 07:20, skrev Thomas Heger:
> Am 15.02.2024 um 11:32 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:
>>>> Den 14.02.2024 08:34, skrev Thomas Heger:
>>>>>
>>>>> Einstein's variable names were EXTREMELY annoying!
>>>>>
>>>>> For instance:
>>>>> he had eight different uses of the letter 'A'.

https://paulba.no/paper/Electrodynamics.pdf

>>
>> In §1 the symbol 'A' is explicitly defined: "the point A of space",
>> and this is the only meaning of 'A' in §1 to and including §5.
>>
>> In §7 the symbol 'A' is explicitly defined:
>>   "we call the amplitude of the electric or magnetic force A"
>> and this is the only meaning of 'A' in §7 to and including §10.
>>

>
> 'A' is an ASCII character and actually a very short text.
>
> To use it as a symbol, for instance as name of a variable, you need to
> connect text and variable by a definition.

Quite. Like this::
In §1 the symbol 'A' is explicitly defined: "the point A of space",
and this is the only meaning of 'A' in §1 to and including §5.

In §7 the symbol 'A' is explicitly defined:
"we call the amplitude of the electric or magnetic force A"
and this is the only meaning of 'A' in §7 to and including §10.

>
> For instance you could write, that 'A' shall contain the value of a
> certain area.
>
> But Einstein didn't do that.

You don't read what you are responding to, do you?

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

On 2024-02-16 06:20:15 +0000, Thomas Heger said:

>>
>> [ … ]

>>
>> Can you quote the sentence in question?
>
> sure:
> page 22, roughly in the middle
>
> "We will now determine the kinetic energy of the electron. If an
> electron moves from rest at the origin of co-ordinates of the system K
> along the axis of X under the action of an electrostatic force X, ..."

Is this your translation? Is "the axis of X" what is normally called
the x-axis in English? Maybe you could quote it in German so that
someone who knows more German than I do can comment. Anyway, I agree
that calling the abscissa axis the x-axis is not ideal, but it's very
commonly done. In that case X is not a variable.
>
> I disliked already the used of 'force' for electrical field strength.
>
> But anyhow...
>
> 'X' is here the x-component of the electric field-strength vector and
> called 'X'
>
> 'X' is also the name of the x-axis of system K.
>
> Therefore we have twice the symbol 'X' in the same sentence (actually
> also in the same line), but with two different meanings.
>
> It is not really wrong, but VERY bad writing style.
>
> At least Einstein could have made different types of symbols
> distinguishable by attributes like italic or bold fonts.
>
>
> TH

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

On 2024-02-16 06:20:15 +0000, Thomas Heger said:

> 'X' is also the name of the x-axis of system K.

No, it isn't. The name of the axis is "X-axis" ("X-Achse" in the original).

--
Mikko

Den 16.02.2024 07:20, skrev Thomas Heger:
> Am 15.02.2024 um 11:32 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:
>> Den 15.02.2024 07:10, skrev Thomas Heger:
>>> But both uses within a single text are wrong, because it is not
>>> possible to know, which particular meaning a symbol in an equation
>>> has, if both meanings use the same symbol.
>>>
>>> But Einstein gave this another kick and used the same symbol twice with
>>> different meanings within a single sentence.
>>

>> Can you quote the sentence in question?
>
> sure:
> page 22, roughly in the middle
>
> "We will now determine the kinetic energy of the electron. If an
> electron moves from rest at the origin of co-ordinates of the system K
> along the axis of X under the action of an electrostatic force X, ..."

I see you had to search through the whole text when you in
the last paragraph found what you thought was an example of
"the same symbol twice with different meanings within a single
sentence".

But in the 'single sentence':
"If an electron moves from rest at the origin of co-ordinates
of the system K along the axis of X under the action of
an electrostatic force X .."
X is defined to be an electrostatic force and nothing else.

The phrase "the axis of X" is however a sloppy translation,
because the German text is:

"Bevegt sich ein Electron vom Koordinatenursprung des Systems K
aus mit der Anfangsgeschwindikeit 0 beständig auf der X-Axis unter
der Wirkung einer electrostaishe kraft X ..."

So "the axis of X" should be "the X-axis".

>
> 'X' is here the x-component of the electric field-strength vector and
> called 'X'
>
> 'X' is also the name of the x-axis of system K.

No.
The name of the X-Axis of system K, is "X-axis of system K", not "X".

Since you have thoroughly scrutinized the text and failed to find
an example of "use of the same symbol twice with different meanings
within a single sentence", we can conclude that no such example exists.

Well done! :-D

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

On 2/16/2024 12:56 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 15.02.2024 um 12:19 schrieb MaciejWozniak:
>> Volney wrote:
>>
>>> On 2/15/2024 12:58 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>> Am 14.02.2024 um 18:41 schrieb Python:
>>>>> Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>>> [snip]
>>>>>> But even if there where a gigantic watch (maintained by the
>>>>>> Man-in-the-Moon), that clock would show Moon-time in Moon-time-units.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That watch would be very hard to interpret, because it is certainly
>>>>>> not synchronized with the birth of Christ and will most likely use
>>>>>> different units.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But supposed we could actually read the values, we certainly would
>>>>>> not
>>>>>> want to subtract such values from an Earth-based time-values.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Therefore, the value t_B MUST be based on Earth-time and measured in
>>>>>> Earth-time-units.
>>>>> [snip]
>>>>>> A clock on the Moon cannot show t_B, because the man-in-the-Moon is
>>>>>> not baptised and the birth of Christ unknown there.
>>>>>
>>>>> *facepalm* Is there any limit to your craziness? This is
>>>>> not even remotely related to anything Einstein wrote.
>>>>>
>>>>> Clock A and B are clocks involved in a physic apparatus
>>>>> it is absolutely stupid to assume that clock B would be
>>>>> operated by unknown aliens on Alpha Centaury (as you
>>>>> ever did) or the Moon, with unknowns units or origins.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If you try to communicate over cosmological distances and attempt to
>>>> synchronize clocks at both ends, you could certainly face the
>>>> problem, that at the other end of such communications are 'aliens'.
>>>>
>>>> Actually all other assumptions are rather strange and in my view far
>>>> stranger than the assumption of aliens.
>>>>
>>>> But WHO sits at the far end of a long distance communication is
>>>> patently irrelevant in the context of SRT, anyhow.
>>>>
>>>> SRT uses a certain 'backdrop', which is a starless void without
>>>> gravity.
>>>>
>>>> Through this dark space spaceships drift 'inertially'.
>>>>
>>>> This not really real, but a possible assumption for 'thought
>>>> experiments'.
>>>>
>>>> If so, you could also assume aliens (at not additional cost).
>>>>
>>>> But if you prefer Earth-based aliens, you could also assume, that all
>>>> spaceships mentioned are owned by NASA and have all exactly similar
>>>> clocks onboard of their ships.
>>>>
>>>> But in any case:
>>>>
>>>> you need to make measurements of the delay, if you like to
>>>> synchronize clocks.
>>>>
>>>> (In case of alien aliens, you need to negotiate time units, too.)
>>>>
>>>> This is easy, if both ships involved would not move in respect to
>>>> each other.
>>>>
>>>> In this case (and only in this case !) Einstein's equation is true
>>>> and you could cut the two-way travel in half and get time t_B by
>>>> deviding t'_A-t_A by two.
>>>>
>>>> The problem is here, that t'_A is later than t_B, hence the aliens at
>>>> the far end cannot possibly know it. Therefore, YOU need to calculate
>>>> t_B and send a signal with a coded time value back to B.
>>>>
>>>> This signal (the one from here at A to point B with the time-value
>>>> t_B), needs to be corrected by subtracting the delay from t_B and
>>>> coding the result into the signal.
>>>>
>>>> That is another reason why you should know the delay.
>>>>
>>>> But Einstein didn't even mention the delay-problem with a single word.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Einstein explicitly stated the twp clocks are IDENTICAL.
>>
>> And you, stupid Mike, explicitely stated that IDENTIOCAL
>> clocks are some "Newton mode". You're such an agnorant idiot...
>
> 'Identical' clocks (actually mentioned were watches) are mechanically
> the same.
>
> But watches of 1905 were adjustable in the rate of ticks, hence could be
> synchronized to the local environment.

And if the tick rate is adjusted, they are no longer identical, are they.
>
> That's why it is complicated to synchronize clocks.

In these thought experiments, it is assumed either the clocks are
'perfect' or they have a specified margin of error.
>
> First you need to establish an agreement about the time units and tick
> rates.

Since the clocks are identical, they are already in agreement.
>
> Theses tick rates already differ with hight (already on planet Earth).

Now you are talking about GR when discussing an SR problem. In SR either
there is no gravity or the effects of gravity are smaller than
measurement errors, so is irrelevant.
>
> This would require (already on Earth) agrements about the length of the
> second.

This was already defined during Einstein's time.

In Einstein's time it was based on the rotation of the earth, now it is
defined in terms of the Cs atom in a local clock.

But this isn't relevant, the clocks are identical so they have the same
definition for the length of the second.
>
[snip nonsense]

> This is actually simple: simply add the delay to the coded time,

Which is what Einstein does when determining t_B for the remote clock.
>
> But you need to know the delay in the first place, if you like to add it.

Which Einstein calculates, it's 1/2 times t'_a - t_a.
>
> But for uncertain reasons Einstein didn't mention this, even if
> synchronization over long distances was his topic.
>
What do you think his calculations for t_B are?

Volney wrote:

> On 2/16/2024 12:56 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>> But you need to know the delay in the first place, if you like to add
>> it.
>
> Which Einstein calculates, it's 1/2 times t'_a - t_a.

so true indeed. Watch this picture, and remark Khazaria. What these "germans" want to do, right now, as it was those days. The unbelievable truth about relativity you don't want to see. And certify.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler#/media/File:Greater_Germanic_Reich.png

𝗨𝗸𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗶𝗮𝗻𝘀_‘𝘇𝗼𝗺𝗯𝗶𝗳𝗶𝗲𝗱’_𝗯𝘆_𝗭𝗲𝗹𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗸𝘆’𝘀_𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗽𝗮𝗴𝗮𝗻𝗱𝗮_–_𝗲𝘅-𝗣𝗠 lol
The country’s citizens are constantly hammered by news of ‘Russian orcs,’ but they still want peace, Nikolay Azarov said
https://r%74.com/russia/592554-ukrainians-zombified-propaganda-azarov/
However, Azarov also pointed out that a significant part of Ukrainian society has been “zombified” by national TV. “Every 5–10 minutes they get pummeled by news about ‘Russian orcs’. Many are now being brought up in the spirit of hatred, resentment, and so on,” he noted.

He added, however, that this does not mean 90% of Ukrainians are “ready to grab a weapon and run into the trenches and die for no reason.”

Azarov lamented that the Ukrainian political elite has been virtually wiped out over the past 10 years. “There are practically no people there who have even an ounce of common sense left. There are [only] opportunists, blank spaces. They will do whatever the Americans tell them”.

“Ukraine can only recover if its current leaders are replaced, the ex-PM argued.” The same can be said of every Anglo Saxon country. They are khazar goys.

The Ukrainians don't want conflict, why does the military not take out Zelensky? Apparently the far right is protecting the khazar goy mafia in Kiev. Hard to beat those 2 together, and the same is going to happen in the west.

Am 16.02.2024 um 21:19 schrieb Josey Forakis Stamatelos:
> Volney wrote:
>
>> On 2/16/2024 12:56 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>> But you need to know the delay in the first place, if you like to add
>>> it.
>>
>> Which Einstein calculates, it's 1/2 times t'_a - t_a.
>
> so true indeed. Watch this picture, and remark Khazaria. What these "germans" want to do, right now, as it was those days. The unbelievable truth about relativity you don't want to see. And certify.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler#/media/File:Greater_Germanic_Reich.png
>

It's an interesting topic, but definetely historic, since present
Germany has absolutely no intentions to fulfill the plans of the former
kanzler 'Hitler'.

I personally think, that Greg Hallet was actually correct and 'Hitler'
was actually an English spy.

https://www.amazon.de/Hitler-Britischer-Agent-Solving-History/dp/0985227818

My own guess was (in extension of the book of Hallet), that it was Noel
Trevenen Huxley, who went to Germany already in 1913 (together with his
brother Julian Huxley) and stayed at the home of Isolde Beidler
(daughter of Richard Wagner) in Munich (Prinzregentplatz 16), to learn
good German.

The real Hitler was later captured and replaced by the spy in the early
1920th.

TH

Am 16.02.2024 um 09:46 schrieb Athel Cornish-Bowden:
> On 2024-02-16 06:20:15 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
>
>>>
>>> [ … ]
>
>>>
>>> Can you quote the sentence in question?
>>
>> sure:
>> page 22, roughly in the middle
>>
>> "We will now determine the kinetic energy of the electron. If an
>> electron moves from rest at the origin of co-ordinates of the system K
>> along the axis of X under the action of an electrostatic force X, ..."
>
> Is this your translation? Is "the axis of X" what is normally called the
> x-axis in English? Maybe you could quote it in German so that someone
> who knows more German than I do can comment. Anyway, I agree that
> calling the abscissa axis the x-axis is not ideal, but it's very
> commonly done. In that case X is not a variable.

I'm actually critizising a certain text, not the work of Einstein per se.

So, my topic is this particular English translation.

I take the text as homework of a student (in phyics in this case) and
write annotations, like a (hypothetical) professor would do that.

This is more or less an exercise and a learning method and does not deal
with the actual author, but with a certain text.

My aim was, to find absolutely all errors and not to make any false
accusations.

This is quite difficult and that's why it is such a good learning method.

In this context I had critizised the prase 'axis of X', because 'X' was
already the name of the x-axis of system K.
....

TH

On 2024-02-17 09:36:42 +0000, Thomas Heger said:

> Am 16.02.2024 um 09:46 schrieb Athel Cornish-Bowden:
>> On 2024-02-16 06:20:15 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
>>
>>>>
>>>> [ … ]
>>
>>>>
>>>> Can you quote the sentence in question?
>>>
>>> sure:
>>> page 22, roughly in the middle
>>>
>>> "We will now determine the kinetic energy of the electron. If an
>>> electron moves from rest at the origin of co-ordinates of the system K
>>> along the axis of X under the action of an electrostatic force X, ..."
>>
>> Is this your translation? Is "the axis of X" what is normally called the
>> x-axis in English? Maybe you could quote it in German so that someone
>> who knows more German than I do can comment. Anyway, I agree that
>> calling the abscissa axis the x-axis is not ideal, but it's very
>> commonly done. In that case X is not a variable.
>
> I'm actually critizising a certain text, not the work of Einstein per se.
>
> So, my topic is this particular English translation.

When a real professor evaluates a translation the main criterion is
whether the translation preseves the meaning of the text.

--
Mikko

Le 17/02/2024 à 11:47, Mikko a écrit :
> On 2024-02-17 09:36:42 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
>
>> Am 16.02.2024 um 09:46 schrieb Athel Cornish-Bowden:
>>> On 2024-02-16 06:20:15 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> [ … ]
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Can you quote the sentence in question?
>>>>
>>>> sure:
>>>> page 22, roughly in the middle
>>>>
>>>> "We will now determine the kinetic energy of the electron. If an
>>>> electron moves from rest at the origin of co-ordinates of the system K
>>>> along the axis of X under the action of an electrostatic force X, ..."
>>>
>>> Is this your translation? Is "the axis of X" what is normally called the
>>> x-axis in English? Maybe you could quote it in German so that someone
>>> who knows more German than I do can comment. Anyway, I agree that
>>> calling the abscissa axis the x-axis is not ideal, but it's very
>>> commonly done. In that case X is not a variable.
>>
>> I'm actually critizising a certain text, not the work of Einstein per se.
>>
>> So, my topic is this particular English translation.
>
> When a real professor evaluates a translation the main criterion is
> whether the translation preseves the meaning of the text.
>

Anyway this kinda sloppy translation is not quite a big deal, there
is absolutely no ambiguity. Moreover Heger was pretending that "A"
was used with two different meanings in a single sentence, not "X",
so he is blatantly lying (again).

The point is still that the way misinterpret part I.1. in Einstein's
article is properly ridiculous. At first he didn't get that both clocks
A and B were mutually at rest (it comes from... the very title of the
whole paragraph), then he fantasized about clocks on Alpha Centaury
using alien units and mechanism, while Einstein specified that both
clocks were identical in all aspects. He persists, though, to consider
that this part of the article is about clocks separated by interstellar
distances while it is obviously about clocks involved in different part
of a experiment in a hypothetical lab.

And, worse, while Einstein never wrote that the time label of a distant
event should be the time marked by a clock at that event position when
the event happens (i.e. "no delay") he persists to affirm that this is
the case even if the two equations in this part directly imply that
the light propagation delay is taken into account.

The absence of the word "delay" is far to subtle for him to grasp:
you cannot talk about a delay (outside of a round-trip time) between
two separated events if you do not define how clocks at these places
are synchronized, which is the very point of the paragraph which
start with a round-trip delay.

Heger cannot admit he is not a member of the audience of such an
article. He chokes on the most basic stuff.

And, as most cranks down here, he is not only stupid and stubborn,
he also has no intellectual integrity.

On 2024-02-17 13:33:38 +0000, Python said:

> Le 17/02/2024 à 11:47, Mikko a écrit :
>> On 2024-02-17 09:36:42 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
>>
>>> Am 16.02.2024 um 09:46 schrieb Athel Cornish-Bowden:
>>>> On 2024-02-16 06:20:15 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [ … ]
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Can you quote the sentence in question?
>>>>>
>>>>> sure:
>>>>> page 22, roughly in the middle
>>>>>
>>>>> "We will now determine the kinetic energy of the electron. If an
>>>>> electron moves from rest at the origin of co-ordinates of the system K
>>>>> along the axis of X under the action of an electrostatic force X, ..."
>>>>
>>>> Is this your translation? Is "the axis of X" what is normally called the
>>>> x-axis in English? Maybe you could quote it in German so that someone
>>>> who knows more German than I do can comment. Anyway, I agree that
>>>> calling the abscissa axis the x-axis is not ideal, but it's very
>>>> commonly done. In that case X is not a variable.
>>>
>>> I'm actually critizising a certain text, not the work of Einstein per se.
>>>
>>> So, my topic is this particular English translation.
>>
>> When a real professor evaluates a translation the main criterion is
>> whether the translation preseves the meaning of the text.
>>
>
> Anyway this kinda sloppy translation is not quite a big deal, there
> is absolutely no ambiguity. Moreover Heger was pretending that "A"
> was used with two different meanings in a single sentence, not "X",
> so he is blatantly lying (again).

The symbol A is indeed used in several different meanings but the
meaning is always specified. But Heger also claimed (falsely) that
Einstein used X in two different meanings in the same sentence:

On 2024-02-16 07:20, Thomas Heger said:
> Am 15.02.2024 um 11:32 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:
>> Den 15.02.2024 07:10, skrev Thomas Heger:

>>> But Einstein gave this another kick and used the same symbol twice with
>>> different meanings within a single sentence.

>> Can you quote the sentence in question?

> sure:
> page 22, roughly in the middle
>
> "We will now determine the kinetic energy of the electron. If an
> electron moves from rest at the origin of co-ordinates of the system K
> along the axis of X under the action of an electrostatic force X, ..."

In Einstein's text "X-Achse" is clearly different from plain "X".

--
Mikko

On 2024-02-17 14:40:31 +0000, Mikko said:

> On 2024-02-17 13:33:38 +0000, Python said:
>
>> Le 17/02/2024 à 11:47, Mikko a écrit :
>>> On 2024-02-17 09:36:42 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
>>>
>>>> Am 16.02.2024 um 09:46 schrieb Athel Cornish-Bowden:
>>>>> On 2024-02-16 06:20:15 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [ … ]
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Can you quote the sentence in question?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> sure:
>>>>>> page 22, roughly in the middle
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "We will now determine the kinetic energy of the electron. If an
>>>>>> electron moves from rest at the origin of co-ordinates of the system K
>>>>>> along the axis of X under the action of an electrostatic force X, ..."
>>>>>
>>>>> Is this your translation? Is "the axis of X" what is normally called the
>>>>> x-axis in English? Maybe you could quote it in German so that someone
>>>>> who knows more German than I do can comment. Anyway, I agree that
>>>>> calling the abscissa axis the x-axis is not ideal, but it's very
>>>>> commonly done. In that case X is not a variable.
>>>>
>>>> I'm actually critizising a certain text, not the work of Einstein per se.
>>>>
>>>> So, my topic is this particular English translation.

That's the first time you've claimed that, I think. If it's true, why
do you keep writing "Einstein" when you mean someone else?
>>>
>>> When a real professor evaluates a translation the main criterion is
>>> whether the translation preseves the meaning of the text.
>>>
>>
>> Anyway this kinda sloppy translation is not quite a big deal, there
>> is absolutely no ambiguity. Moreover Heger was pretending that "A"
>> was used with two different meanings in a single sentence, not "X",
>> so he is blatantly lying (again).
>
> The symbol A is indeed used in several different meanings but the
> meaning is always specified. But Heger also claimed (falsely) that
> Einstein used X in two different meanings in the same sentence:
>
> On 2024-02-16 07:20, Thomas Heger said:
>> Am 15.02.2024 um 11:32 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:
>>> Den 15.02.2024 07:10, skrev Thomas Heger:
>
>>>> But Einstein gave this another kick and used the same symbol twice with
>>>> different meanings within a single sentence.
>
>>> Can you quote the sentence in question?
>
>> sure:
>> page 22, roughly in the middle
>>
>> "We will now determine the kinetic energy of the electron. If an
>> electron moves from rest at the origin of co-ordinates of the system K
>> along the axis of X under the action of an electrostatic force X, ..."
>
> In Einstein's text "X-Achse" is clearly different from plain "X".

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

Python wrote:

>> whether the translation preseves the meaning of the text.
>>

> Anyway this kinda sloppy

Oh, stinker Python is opening its muzzle again,
and trying again to pretend he knows something.
Tell me, poor stinker, have you already learnt
what a function is?

Le 17/02/2024 à 16:13, MaciejWozniak a écrit :
> Python wrote:
>
>
>>> whether the translation preseves the meaning of the text.
>>>
>
>> Anyway this kinda sloppy
>
> Oh, stinker Python is opening its muzzle again,
> and trying again to pretend he knows something.
> Tell me, poor stinker, have you already learnt what a function is?

I can teach that to you, $50/hour. Consider that a lot of
hours would be needed, given your issues with basic logic.

Le 17/02/2024 à 15:40, Mikko a écrit :
> On 2024-02-17 13:33:38 +0000, Python said:
>
>> Le 17/02/2024 à 11:47, Mikko a écrit :
>>> On 2024-02-17 09:36:42 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
>>>
>>>> Am 16.02.2024 um 09:46 schrieb Athel Cornish-Bowden:
>>>>> On 2024-02-16 06:20:15 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [ … ]
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Can you quote the sentence in question?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> sure:
>>>>>> page 22, roughly in the middle
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "We will now determine the kinetic energy of the electron. If an
>>>>>> electron moves from rest at the origin of co-ordinates of the
>>>>>> system K
>>>>>> along the axis of X under the action of an electrostatic force X,
>>>>>> ..."
>>>>>
>>>>> Is this your translation? Is "the axis of X" what is normally
>>>>> called the
>>>>> x-axis in English? Maybe you could quote it in German so that someone
>>>>> who knows more German than I do can comment. Anyway, I agree that
>>>>> calling the abscissa axis the x-axis is not ideal, but it's very
>>>>> commonly done. In that case X is not a variable.
>>>>
>>>> I'm actually critizising a certain text, not the work of Einstein
>>>> per se.
>>>>
>>>> So, my topic is this particular English translation.
>>>
>>> When a real professor evaluates a translation the main criterion is
>>> whether the translation preseves the meaning of the text.
>>>
>>
>> Anyway this kinda sloppy translation is not quite a big deal, there
>> is absolutely no ambiguity. Moreover Heger was pretending that "A"
>> was used with two different meanings in a single sentence, not "X",
>> so he is blatantly lying (again).
>
> The symbol A is indeed used in several different meanings but the
> meaning is always specified. But Heger also claimed (falsely) that
> Einstein used X in two different meanings in the same sentence:
>
> On 2024-02-16 07:20, Thomas Heger said:
>> Am 15.02.2024 um 11:32 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:
>>> Den 15.02.2024 07:10, skrev Thomas Heger:
>
>>>> But Einstein gave this another kick and used the same symbol twice with
>>>> different meanings within a single sentence.
>
>>> Can you quote the sentence in question?
>
>> sure:
>> page 22, roughly in the middle
>>
>> "We will now determine the kinetic energy of the electron. If an
>> electron moves from rest at the origin of co-ordinates of the system K
>> along the axis of X under the action of an electrostatic force X, ..."
>
> In Einstein's text "X-Achse" is clearly different from plain "X".

Definitely.

Python wrote:

> Le 17/02/2024 à 16:13, MaciejWozniak a écrit :
>> Python wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> whether the translation preseves the meaning of the text.
>>>>
>>
>>> Anyway this kinda sloppy
>>
>> Oh, stinker Python is opening its muzzle again,
>> and trying again to pretend he knows something.
>> Tell me, poor stinker, have you already learnt what a function is?

> I can teach that to you, $50/hour.

Great, so you have learnt! And do you
already know that a function has
"for any element of the domain" clause,
or is it still confusing you, poor stinker?

Am 17.02.2024 um 11:47 schrieb Mikko:
> On 2024-02-17 09:36:42 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
>
>> Am 16.02.2024 um 09:46 schrieb Athel Cornish-Bowden:
>>> On 2024-02-16 06:20:15 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> [ … ]
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Can you quote the sentence in question?
>>>>
>>>> sure:
>>>> page 22, roughly in the middle
>>>>
>>>> "We will now determine the kinetic energy of the electron. If an
>>>> electron moves from rest at the origin of co-ordinates of the system K
>>>> along the axis of X under the action of an electrostatic force X, ..."
>>>
>>> Is this your translation? Is "the axis of X" what is normally called the
>>> x-axis in English? Maybe you could quote it in German so that someone
>>> who knows more German than I do can comment. Anyway, I agree that
>>> calling the abscissa axis the x-axis is not ideal, but it's very
>>> commonly done. In that case X is not a variable.
>>
>> I'm actually critizising a certain text, not the work of Einstein per se.
>>
>> So, my topic is this particular English translation.
>
> When a real professor evaluates a translation the main criterion is
> whether the translation preseves the meaning of the text.
>

I'm, of course, not a real professor and my aim was not to evaluate a
translation.

My aim was to find absolutely all errors in this text (in the English
translation).

Therefore, I had only a limited scope and the German version was not
part of it.

I had, however, mentioned the German text a few times. But in general I
didn't want to compare both versions or find errrors in the translation.

I also didn't want to discuss relativity per se or the validity of the
pyhsical content of this paper.

It's pointless, anyhow, because a paper with 400+ errors in it could
hardly be used for anything of practical value.

TH