Am 17.02.2024 um 14:33 schrieb Python:
> 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.

Actually Einstein wrote his paper, as if he wanted to ignore the delay
or simply forgot to take it into consideration.

This is so, because Einstein had the idea, that clocks at different
places show a different time (within the same frame of reference).

This would only make sense, if he had the plan to ignore the delay
caused by the transit of the signal.

IMHO is this the opnly possible interpretation of this part:
(page 3)

"Thus with the help of certain imaginary physical experiments we have
settled what is to be understood by synchronous stationary clocks
located at different places, and have evidently obtained a definition of
“simultaneous,” or “synchronous,” and of “time.” The “time” of an event
is that which is given simultaneously with the event by a stationary
clock located at the place of the event, this clock being synchronous,
and indeed synchronous for all time determinations, with a specified
stationary clock."

So, apparently Einstein wanted to make time dependent of the location
(within a single frame of reference).

But time in locations that are stationary in respect to the coordinate
system in question and in respect to the observer should have the same
time, because 'frame of reference' means a combination of a time measure
and a coordinate system, hence should not use different times for
stationary points within that FoR.

But apparently Einstein had a different idea and wanted to assigne
different time measures to different places.

This in turn would only make sense, if he wanted to ignore the delay and
take the apparent time without compensation of the delay as remote time.

E.g.:

the delay from Moon to Earth is roughly a second.
A HUGE clock on the Moon would show (for instance) 1:00:00 p.m.

This clock is seen from Earth and shows 1:00:00 p.m.

What is the correct time on the Moon?

it is, of course 1:00:01 p.m., because that one second delay is not
caused by a different time on the Moon, but by the delay.

But Einstein seemingly wanted 1:00:00 p.m. to be 'Moon-time', if
1:00:00 p.m. is seen (hence ignored the delay).

TH

Am 17.02.2024 um 17:16 schrieb Python:
> 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.
>
the 'x-Achse' had a name, which was 'X'.

(with a capital 'X').

The values (coordinates) along that axis had a variable-name, too, which
was 'x' in this case.

The difference is important, because it is important to distinguish
between the coordinate system itself and coordinates.

In Einstein's text the system K had latin letters.

The axes had the names: X, Y, Z

the values along those axes had the names: x, y, z

In system k, the axes were named with tall Greek letters (Xsi, Eta,
Zeta) and the values with small Greek letters (xsi, eta, zeta).

This naming system was rather annoying, but was more or less ok.

The problems came, when Einstein used the letters X,Y,Z also as
variables in the electric field strength vector.

He called this 'force' and used such a vector: (X, Y, Z).

Here he created an ambiguity between the name of an axis of coordinate
system K and a component of an electric field-strength vector.

To make matters worse, he used both meanings within a single sentence:

"...along the axis of X under the action of an electrostatic force X, ..."

This was comically twisted, because 'axis of X' was already an error
(correct would be: 'x-axis' or simply 'X').

TH

On 2/17/2024 11:47 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:

> It's pointless, anyhow, because a paper with 400+ errors in it could
> hardly be used for anything of practical value.
>
Fortunately, Einstein's paper doesn't have 400+ errors. Or any errors,
for that matter.

Volney wrote:

> On 2/17/2024 11:47 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:

>> It's pointless, anyhow, because a paper with 400+ errors in it could
>> hardly be used for anything of practical value.
>>
> Fortunately, Einstein's paper doesn't have 400+ errors. Or any errors,
> for that matter.

The mumble of your idiot guru was not even consistent,
stupid Mike, you've got a direct proof and your peans
to his next to infinite wisdom are not going to
change that.

On 2024-02-18 05:48:12 +0000, Thomas Heger said:

>
> [ … ]
>
>
> The problems came, when Einstein used the letters X,Y,Z also as
> variables in the electric field strength vector.

If you want to be taken seriously, rather than as a lying, ignorant
crackpot, you need to stop referring to Perrett and Jeffery as
"Einstein". Simple honesty requires this. Of course, no one is going to
care in the slightest what you think of Perrett and Jeffery's skill as
translators, so probably the best will be to stop promulgating your
nonsense altogether.
>
> He called this 'force' and used such a vector: (X, Y, Z).
>
> Here he created an ambiguity between the name of an axis of coordinate
> system K and a component of an electric field-strength vector.
>
> To make matters worse, he used both meanings within a single sentence:
>
> "...along the axis of X under the action of an electrostatic force X, ..."
>
> This was comically twisted, because 'axis of X' was already an error
> (correct would be: 'x-axis' or simply 'X').
>
>
> TH

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

On 2024-02-18 05:48:12 +0000, Thomas Heger said:

> Am 17.02.2024 um 17:16 schrieb Python:
>> 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.
>>
> the 'x-Achse' had a name,

True.

> which was 'X'.

No, its name was "X-Achse", and still is.

--
Mikko

On 2024-02-18 05:25:18 +0000, Thomas Heger said:

> Am 17.02.2024 um 14:33 schrieb Python:
>> 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.
>
> Actually Einstein wrote his paper, as if he wanted to ignore the delay
> or simply forgot to take it into consideration.

So you say but the truth is different.

--
Mikko

On 2024-02-18 04:47:38 +0000, Thomas Heger said:

> Am 17.02.2024 um 11:47 schrieb Mikko:
>> On 2024-02-17 09:36:42 +0000, Thomas Heger said:

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

If you only look at the translation you cannot evaluate anything else.

Anyway, it does not matter what your purpose was as you have already
demonstrated that you cannot acieve it.

--
Mikko

Le 18/02/2024 à 06:25, Thomas Heger a écrit :
> Am 17.02.2024 um 14:33 schrieb Python:
>> 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.
>
> Actually Einstein wrote his paper, as if he wanted to ignore the delay
> or simply forgot to take it into consideration.

No.

> This is so, because Einstein had the idea, that clocks at different
> places show a different time (within the same frame of reference).

No. Quite the opposite: he starts by asking what it means for different
clocks to show the same time. Something that you overlook (as usual).

> This would only make sense, if he had the plan to ignore the delay
> caused by the transit of the signal.

Definitely not, quite the opposite.

> IMHO is this the opnly possible interpretation  of this part:

You opinion is wrong.

> (page 3)
>
> "Thus with the help of certain imaginary physical experiments we have
> settled what is to be understood by synchronous stationary clocks
> located at different places,  and have evidently obtained a definition of
> “simultaneous,” or “synchronous,” and of “time.” The “time” of an event
> is that which is given simultaneously with the event by a stationary
> clock located at the place of the event, this clock being synchronous,
> and indeed synchronous for all time determinations, with a specified
> stationary clock."
>
> So, apparently Einstein wanted to make time dependent of the location
> (within a single frame of reference).

No. Quite the opposite: he wanted to make time marked by clock
independent of the location.

> But time in locations that are stationary in respect to the coordinate
> system in question and in respect to the observer should have the same
> time, because 'frame of reference' means a combination of a time measure
> and a coordinate system, hence should not use different times for
> stationary points within that FoR.
>
> But apparently Einstein had a different idea and wanted to assigne
> different time measures to different places.

Again: no.

> This in turn would only make sense, if he wanted to ignore the delay and
> take the apparent time without compensation of the delay as remote time.

He didn't want to ignore the delay, he wanted to take the delay into
account without depending on a predefined arbitrary clock
synchronization. As a matter of fact his procedure allows that.

> E.g.:
>
> the delay from Moon to Earth is roughly a second.
> A HUGE clock on the Moon would show (for instance) 1:00:00 p.m.
>
> This clock is seen from Earth and shows  1:00:00 p.m.
>
> What is the correct time on the Moon?
>
> it is, of course  1:00:01 p.m., because that one second delay is not
> caused by a different time on the Moon, but by the delay.
>
> But Einstein seemingly wanted  1:00:00 p.m. to be 'Moon-time', if
> 1:00:00 p.m. is seen (hence ignored the delay).

How can you write "seemingly" while the whole point of part I.1 is
about NOT doing this. Anyway there is nothing of this kind in
the paper, this is something you made up.

The 400+ errors you claim to have found in Einstein's paper are
ALL errors on your part coming from YOUR misunderstandings of basic
stuff, reading issues, idiotic prejudices and stubbornness stupidity
Thomas.

I'm quite sure, also, that German suprematism and antisemitism play
a huge part on your behavior.

Thomas Heger wrote:

> Am 17.02.2024 um 11:47 schrieb Mikko:
>> 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).

hey listen, if you name Einstine in a documentary, for absolutely no
reason, you monthly income is safe. Which indicates the scientists in
amrica are not stupid. This is one more proof for Einstine.

like also, as it was suspected, you can escape jail in amrica, because
stupidity, but not being stupid enough to remain a "president". The man is
most likely faking his stupidity to escape prison, for fuck sake. Like
Einstine marring his cousin. With which he was sleeping in bed.

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

𝗨𝗦_𝗧𝗮𝘅𝗽𝗮𝘆𝗲𝗿𝘀’_𝗠𝗼𝗻𝗲𝘆_𝗨𝘀𝗲𝗱_𝗧𝗼_𝗙𝘂𝗻𝗱_𝗥𝗲𝘀𝗲𝗮𝗿𝗰𝗵_𝗜𝗻𝘁𝗼_𝗧𝗿𝗮𝘀𝗵_𝗙𝗲𝗱_𝗖𝗿𝗶𝗰𝗸𝗲𝘁𝘀_𝗳𝗼𝗿_𝗛𝘂𝗺𝗮𝗻_𝗖𝗼𝗻𝘀𝘂𝗺𝗽𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻
The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) is funding research into trash-
derived cricket feed. The agency has allocated $130,000 in federal funds
to support research into cultivating crickets, that have been fed
municipal landfill waste, as […]

𝗔𝗺𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗰𝗮’𝘀_𝗙𝗶𝗿𝘀𝘁_15_𝗠𝗶𝗻𝘂𝘁𝗲_𝗖𝗶𝘁𝘆_𝗖𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗱_𝗜𝗻_𝗧𝗲𝗺𝗽𝗲,_𝗔𝗿𝗶𝘇𝗼𝗻𝗮
A Tempe, Arizona, neighborhood called Culdesac is the first community in
the nation to be designed around car-free living. Culdesac is being
described as America’s first example of a“15-minute city” – a vision
promoted by […]

𝗭𝗲𝗹𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗸𝘆_𝗗𝗲𝗺𝗮𝗻𝗱𝘀_𝗠𝗼𝗿𝗲_𝗪𝗲𝗮𝗽𝗼𝗻𝘀_𝗙𝗿𝗼𝗺_𝗪𝗲𝘀𝘁
Volodymyr Zelenskyy warned his allies on Saturday that an “artificial
deficit” of weapons for Ukraine was giving Russia breathing space. The
Ukrainian president was speaking at the Munich Security Conference, an
annual gathering of security […]

𝗛𝗼𝘂𝘀𝗲_𝗥𝗲𝗽𝘂𝗯𝗹𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗻𝘀_𝗗𝗲𝗺𝗮𝗻𝗱_𝗕𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗻_𝗧𝗮𝗸𝗲_𝗖𝗼𝗴𝗻𝗶𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲_𝗧𝗲𝘀𝘁
House Republicans are deamnding that President Biden take a cognitive test
to prove his mental fitness for office. A former White House physician and
83 other US House Republicans raised “grave concerns” about Biden’s
cognitive […]

𝗕𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗻’𝘀_𝗧𝗿𝗮𝗻𝘀_𝗛𝗲𝗮𝗹𝘁𝗵_𝗦𝗲𝗰𝗿𝗲𝘁𝗮𝗿𝘆_𝗦𝗮𝘆𝘀_𝗖𝗹𝗶𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗲_𝗖𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗴𝗲_𝗗𝗶𝘀𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗹𝘆_𝗔𝗳𝗳𝗲𝗰𝘁𝘀_𝗕𝗹𝗮𝗰𝗸_𝗖𝗼𝗺𝗺𝘂𝗻𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗲𝘀’_𝗛𝗲𝗮𝗹𝘁𝗵
The Biden appointed Assistant Secretary of the Department of Health and
Human Services (HHS), has managed to link climate change to racial
disparities in health. In a video posted on X to honor black history […]

Den 18.02.2024 05:47, skrev Thomas Heger:
>> 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:
>>>>> Paul b. Andersen wrote:
>>>>>> 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.

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

Einstein didn't use X as the name of the X-axis in §10,
he called it the X-Axis.
In the translation is the phrase "the axis of X" is used so
the axis was NOT called X.

The English translation of the "single sentence" was NOT:
"If an electron moves from rest at the origin of
co-ordinates of the system K along X under the action of
an electrostatic force X .."

The sentence wouldn't even have made sense if X had been used
as name of the X-Axis.
X is explicitly defined to be an "electrostatic force"

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, and don't try to flee from the fact.

>
>
> 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.

It's rather 400+ cases of your failure to understand the text.

Let's review some of the alleged errors.

You, Thomas Heger, claimed:
"Einstein's variable names were EXTREMELY annoying!
"He had eight different uses of the letter 'A'."

And you list them up:
His [Einstein's] uses of 'A' were:
#1: as name of a point in space
#2: as name of the local time at point A as 'A-time'
#3: for one end of a flying rod
#4: as index of the time value t_A
#5: as area
#6: in 'electric power of deflection' A_e
#7: in 'magnetic power of deflection' A_m
#8: as (only!) internal reference 'A'

This is actually too stupid to comment, but since
you are too ignorant to understand how stupid it is,
I will do it anyway:

#1: Right.
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.

#2: "Einstein uses the symbol 'A' to mean 'A-time'" doesn't make sense.

#3: A is the name of the spatial point where one end of the rod
is positioned.

#4: "Einstein uses the symbol 'A' to mean 't_A'" :-D
Doesn't make sense.

#5: 'A' is never used as area in this paper.

#6: "Einstein uses the symbol 'A' to mean 'A_e'" :-D
#7: "Einstein uses the symbol 'A' to mean 'A_m'" :-D

However,
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.

#8: "Einstein uses the symbol 'A' to mean (A) " :-D
The symbol for numbering of equations '(A)' is not
equal to the symbol 'A', like the symbol '(1)' is not
equal to the symbol '1'.

So there are only two different meanings of 'A' in the paper.
In §1 to and including §5 'A' is a point in space.
In §7 to and including §10 'A' is the amplitude of
the electric or magnetic force.

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

Volney wrote:

> On 2/17/2024 11:47 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>
>> It's pointless, anyhow, because a paper with 400+ errors in it could
>> hardly be used for anything of practical value.
>>
> Fortunately, Einstein's paper doesn't have 400+ errors. Or any errors,
> for that matter.

'𝗥𝘂𝘀𝘀𝗼𝗽𝗵𝗼𝗯𝗶𝗰_𝗨𝗦_𝗘𝗹𝗶𝘁𝗲'_𝗦𝗼𝘂𝗴𝗵𝘁_𝘁𝗼_𝗪𝗲𝗮𝗸𝗲𝗻_𝗥𝘂𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗮_𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵_𝗘𝘂𝗿𝗼𝗺𝗮𝗶𝗱𝗮𝗻,_'𝗕𝘂𝘁_𝗙𝗮𝗶𝗹𝗲𝗱'_-_𝗘𝘅-𝗠𝗘𝗣
https://sputnikglobe.com/20240218/russophobic-us-elite-sought-to-weaken-russia-with-euromaidan-but-failed---ex-mep-1116842866.html
On the 10th anniversary of the events in Ukraine known as the Euromaidan (lit. "Euro Square") unrest, which eventually resulted in a coup and the ouster of then-President Viktor Yanukovych, a Spanish politician has shared his opinion on how the EU allowed itself to be drawn into the existing crisis 𝗳𝗼𝗿_𝘁𝗵𝗲_𝘀𝗮𝗸𝗲_𝗼𝗳_𝗨𝗦_𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘁𝘀.

𝗣𝘂𝘁𝗶𝗻_𝗦𝗮𝘆𝘀_𝗖𝘂𝗿𝗿𝗲𝗻𝘁_𝗚𝗲𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗻_𝗣𝗼𝗹𝗶𝗰𝗶𝗲𝘀_𝗖𝗮𝘂𝘀𝗲_'𝗘𝗻𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗼𝘂𝘀'_𝗗𝗮𝗺𝗮𝗴𝗲_𝘁𝗼_𝗚𝗲𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗻_𝗘𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗼𝗺𝘆
https://sputnikglobe.com/20240218/putin-says-current-german-policies-cause-enormous-damage-to-german-economy-1116856473.html

𝗨𝗞_𝗕𝗲𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗱_𝗔𝘁𝘁𝗮𝗰𝗸_𝗼𝗻_𝗥𝘂𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗮𝗻_𝗜𝗟-76_𝗪𝗶𝘁𝗵_𝗨𝗸𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗶𝗮𝗻_𝗣𝗢𝗪𝘀_-_𝗦𝗼𝘂𝗿𝗰𝗲
https://sputnikglobe.com/20240218/uk-behind-attack-on-russian-il-76-with-ukrainian-pows---source-1116854726.html

𝗨𝗸𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗲_𝗔𝗱𝗼𝗽𝘁𝘀_𝗧𝗮𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗰_𝗨𝘀𝗲𝗱_𝗯𝘆_𝗚𝗲𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗻_𝗡𝗮𝘇𝗶𝘀_𝗶𝗻_𝗪𝗪𝗜𝗜_-_𝗥𝗲𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁
https://sputnikglobe.com/20240217/did-nazi-that-coming-ukraine-adopts-tactic-used-by-german-nazis-in-wwii-1116850863.html

On 2/17/2024 4:36 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> 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.

Nice moving of the goalposts!
>
> In this context I had critizised the prase 'axis of X', because 'X' was
> already the name of the x-axis of system K.
> ...
>
Of course a translation of X-Achse to 'axis of X' rather than 'X_axis'
is hardly the fault of Einstein or a flaw in relativity.
Not only are you unqualified to criticize the physics, you are
apparently unqualified to criticize German-English translations as well.

Volney wrote:

> On 2/17/2024 4:36 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>> In this context I had critizised the prase 'axis of X', because 'X' was
>> already the name of the x-axis of system K.
>>
> Of course a translation of X-Achse to 'axis of X' rather than 'X_axis'
> is hardly the fault of Einstein or a flaw in relativity. Not only are
> you unqualified to criticize the physics, you are apparently
> unqualified to criticize German-English translations as well.

lol, 𝘁𝗵𝗲_𝗦𝗺𝗲𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗸𝘆 to america, no joke:

"We will stop considering the United States a strategic partner, if they
don't help us"

fuck me, this is better than television. He takes amrica in its ass. Fuck
mee.

𝗠𝘂𝗻𝗶𝗰𝗵_𝗙𝗿𝗲𝗲𝗱𝗼𝗺_𝗡𝗶𝗴𝗵𝘁._𝗗𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗸_𝘁𝗼_𝗱𝗲𝗳𝗲𝗮𝘁_𝗣𝘂𝘁𝗶𝗻. (page 19:58)
𝗔𝘃𝗱𝗲𝘆𝗲𝘃𝗸𝗮_𝗮𝗻𝗴𝗲𝗿._𝗘𝗹𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗸𝘆_𝗶𝗻𝘃𝗶𝘁𝗲𝘀_𝗧𝗿𝘂𝗺𝗽_𝘁𝗼_𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗲
https://youtu.be/JdmAwAFiLVg

Den 18.02.2024 06:25, skrev Thomas Heger:
>
> Actually Einstein wrote his paper, as if he wanted to ignore the delay
> or simply forgot to take it into consideration.
>
> This is so, because Einstein had the idea, that clocks at different
> places show a different time (within the same frame of reference).
>
> This would only make sense, if he had the plan to ignore the delay
> caused by the transit of the signal.

From whence do you get the weird idea that Einstein ignored
the transit time of a light beam?

Please read the following carefully.
====================================

Below I show how two real clocks in the real world can be
synchronised, strictly according to Einstein's method.

We have to equal clocks C_A and C_B. They are not synced in any way,
but they are using the same time unit, let's call it second.
The clocks run at the same rate.

In our very big lab, we have two points A and B which are
L = 299.792458 metres apart.
We know that the speed of light is c = 299792458 m/s.
The transit time for light to go from A to B is:
t = L/c = 1.0E-6 seconds

(L and t do not have to be known, as t will be measured in
the experiment.)

At point A we have:
Clock C_A, a light-detector, a flash-light and a computer.
The computer can register the time shown by C_A when
the flash-light is flashing, and when the light-detector
registers a light-flash.

At point B we have:
Clock C_B, a light-detector, a mirror and a computer.
The computer can register the time shown by C_A when
the light-detector registers a light-flash.

Now we let the flash-light at point A flash.
At this instant, C_A is showing tA = n seconds.
tA is measured by C_A at A.

When the flash hits the light-detector at B,
Clock C_B shows tB = m seconds.
tB is measured by C_B at B.

A short time later the light detector at A registers
the light reflected by the mirror at B.
At this instant Clock C_A shows t'A = n + 2.0E-6 seconds.
t'A is measured by C_A at A.

Einstein:
"The two clocks synchronize if tB − tA = t'A − tB."

Or: tB = (tA + t'A)/2 = (n+n+2.0E-6)/2 = (n + 1.0E6)

That is, to be synchronous clock C_B must show a time midway
between tA and t'A when the light is reflected by the mirror.
So tB should show (n + 1.0E6) seconds when the light is reflected
by the mirror.
But at that instant tB is showing m seconds, so to make the two
clocks synchronous, we must adjust clock C_B by:
δ = (n-m) + 1.0E-6 seconds.

After this correction, we have:

tB − tA = (m - n) seconds + δ = 1.0E-6 seconds
t'A − tB = (n + 2.0E-6 - m) seconds - δ = 1.0E-6 seconds

The clocks are now synchronised.
-------

Do you miss the 'delay' of something?

What is:
(tB − tA) = 1 microsecond ?
and
(t'A − tB) = 1 microsecond ?

>
> IMHO is this the opnly possible interpretation  of this part:
> (page 3)
>
> "Thus with the help of certain imaginary physical experiments we have
> settled what is to be understood by synchronous stationary clocks
> located at different places,  and have evidently obtained a definition of
> “simultaneous,” or “synchronous,” and of “time.” The “time” of an event
> is that which is given simultaneously with the event by a stationary
> clock located at the place of the event, this clock being synchronous,
> and indeed synchronous for all time determinations, with a specified
> stationary clock."

A bit convoluted, but basically correct.

>
> So, apparently Einstein wanted to make time dependent of the location
> (within a single frame of reference).

No, you explained it awkwardly but correctly above:

"The “time” of an event is that which is given simultaneously with
the event by a stationary clock located at the place of the event,
this clock being synchronous, and indeed synchronous for all time
determinations, with a specified stationary clock."

Simpler put:
All stationary, synchronous clocks in an inertial frame
are simultaneously showing the same.

If we say "the time of the event is t", then the time of the event
is t regardless of the position of the event.

The (coordinate) "time" of the frame is independent of the position.

>
> But time in locations that are stationary in respect to the coordinate
> system in question and in respect to the observer should have the same
> time, because 'frame of reference' means a combination of a time measure
> and a coordinate system, hence should not use different times for
> stationary points within that FoR.

OF COURSE!

>
> But apparently Einstein had a different idea and wanted to assigne
> different time measures to different places.
>
> This in turn would only make sense, if he wanted to ignore the delay and
> take the apparent time without compensation of the delay as remote time.

Do you live down under, since you get everything upside down? :-D

>
> E.g.:
>
> the delay from Moon to Earth is roughly a second.

Close enough.
The transit time of light Moon-Earth is ≈ 1.26 seconds.

> A HUGE clock on the Moon would show (for instance) 1:00:00 p.m.

(Gravitation and motion of the Moon are ignored.
Earth and Moon are stationary in an inertial system).

>
> This clock is seen from Earth and shows  1:00:00 p.m.
>
> What is the correct time on the Moon?

The time on the Moon when the clock on the Moon from Earth
is visually observed to show 1:00:00 p.m. is:
> of course  1:00:01 p.m., because that one second delay is not
> caused by a different time on the Moon, but by the delay.

What is the point with stating the bleeding obvious?

>
> But Einstein seemingly wanted  1:00:00 p.m. to be 'Moon-time', if
> 1:00:00 p.m. is seen (hence ignored the delay).

Again, from whence did you get this unbelievable stupid idea? :-D

Come on!
You can't seriously believe that Einstein thought
that the speed of light was infinitely high.

Have you missed that according to SR, the speed
of light is invariant c (which is finite).

Can you really be THAT ignorant?

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

Paul B. Andersen wrote:

> Den 18.02.2024 06:25, skrev Thomas Heger:
>>
>> Actually Einstein wrote his paper, as if he wanted to ignore the delay
>> or simply forgot to take it into consideration.
>>
>> This is so, because Einstein had the idea, that clocks at different
>> places show a different time (within the same frame of reference).
>>
>> This would only make sense, if he had the plan to ignore the delay
>> caused by the transit of the signal.

> From whence do you get the weird idea that Einstein ignored
> the transit time of a light beam?

> Please read the following carefully.
> ====================================

> Below I show how two real clocks in the real world can be
> synchronised, strictly according to Einstein's method.

You only believe that The Holiest Procedure
is somehow usable in the real world - because
you have no contact with the real wold.
Your gedankenland has replaced the reality
in your tiny, fanatic halfbrain. It happens.

Le 18/02/2024 à 22:36, MaciejWozniak a écrit :
> Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>
>> Den 18.02.2024 06:25, skrev Thomas Heger:
>>>
>>> Actually Einstein wrote his paper, as if he wanted to ignore the
>>> delay or simply forgot to take it into consideration.
>>>
>>> This is so, because Einstein had the idea, that clocks at different
>>> places show a different time (within the same frame of reference).
>>>
>>> This would only make sense, if he had the plan to ignore the delay
>>> caused by the transit of the signal.
>
>>  From whence do you get the weird idea that Einstein ignored
>> the transit time of a light beam?
>
>> Please read the following carefully.
>> ====================================
>
>> Below I show how two real clocks in the real world can be
>> synchronised, strictly according to Einstein's method.
>
> You only believe that The Holiest Procedure
> is somehow usable in the real world - because
> you have no contact with the real wold.

It is actually usable. You've never put a foot in a real
lab, have you Maciej?

> Your gedankenland has replaced the reality
> in your tiny, fanatic halfbrain. It happens.

I noticed that you've stopped posting your nonsensical
rants on early mornings for quite a few weeks. Are nurses
in your psychiatric ward restraining you in your bed?

Am 18.02.2024 um 13:28 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:
> Den 18.02.2024 05:47, skrev Thomas Heger:
>>> 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:
>>>>>> Paul b. Andersen wrote:
>>>>>>> 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.
>
> You wrote:
> "But Einstein gave this another kick and used the same symbol
> twice with different meanings within a single sentence."
>
> Einstein didn't use X as the name of the X-axis in §10,
> he called it the X-Axis.
> In the translation is the phrase "the axis of X" is used so
> the axis was NOT called X.

The names of the axes in k were defined in § 3 page 8 in the footnote
with the dagger.

quote:

"Editor’s note: In Einstein’s original paper, the symbols (Ξ, H, Z)
for the co-ordinates of the moving system k were introduced without
explicitly defining them. In the 1923 English translation, (X, Y, Z) were
used, creating an ambiguity between X co-ordinates in the fixed system K
and the parallel axis in moving system k. Here and in subsequent
references we use Ξ when referring to the axis of system k along which
the system is translating with respect to K. "

As I am writing about this translation, I use this footnote as defintion.

This means:

the axes have names, which consist of single large letters (Latin in
case of system K and Greek in case of system k)

the coordinates have also names, but with small letters.

Now:

'x-axis' is correct

'X' is also a valid name of the same x-axis.

But "Let the axes of X of the two systems coincide, ..." is wrong.

(from § 3, first paragraph)

This is so, because his definitions require Greek letters for the x-axis
of system k.

But Einstein didn't use his own definitions and ocasionally called the
x-axis of k 'X', while it had to be 'Xsi'.

This is no big deal, of course, but still wrong.

It was also very annoying for the reader (me in this case), because I
had to marter my brain, if I wanted to find out, to which system a
certain variable should actually belong.

It is therefore a serious error, if the relation to the meant system is
not properly defined, because the main point of relativity is the
relation between systems moving in respect to each other.

This would require a proper assignement of any used variable to one of
these systems.

And that in turn would not allow any wrong variable names.

TH

> The English translation of the "single sentence" was NOT:
> "If an electron moves from rest at the origin of
> co-ordinates of the system K along X under the action of
> an electrostatic force X .."
>
> The sentence wouldn't even have made sense if X had been used
> as name of the X-Axis.
> X is explicitly defined to be an "electrostatic force"
>
> 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, and don't try to flee from the fact.
>
>>
>>
>> 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.
>
> It's rather 400+ cases of your failure to understand the text.
>
> Let's review some of the alleged errors.
>
> You, Thomas Heger, claimed:
> "Einstein's variable names were EXTREMELY annoying!
> "He had eight different uses of the letter 'A'."
>
> And you list them up:
> His [Einstein's] uses of 'A' were:
> #1: as name of a point in space
> #2: as name of the local time at point A as 'A-time'
> #3: for one end of a flying rod
> #4: as index of the time value t_A
> #5: as area
> #6: in 'electric power of deflection' A_e
> #7: in 'magnetic power of deflection' A_m
> #8: as (only!) internal reference 'A'
>
> This is actually too stupid to comment, but since
> you are too ignorant to understand how stupid it is,
> I will do it anyway:
>
> #1: Right.
> 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.
>
> #2: "Einstein uses the symbol 'A' to mean 'A-time'" doesn't make sense.
>
> #3: A is the name of the spatial point where one end of the rod
> is positioned.
>
> #4: "Einstein uses the symbol 'A' to mean 't_A'" :-D
> Doesn't make sense.
>
> #5: 'A' is never used as area in this paper.
>
> #6: "Einstein uses the symbol 'A' to mean 'A_e'" :-D
> #7: "Einstein uses the symbol 'A' to mean 'A_m'" :-D
>
> However,
> 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.
>
> #8: "Einstein uses the symbol 'A' to mean (A) " :-D
> The symbol for numbering of equations '(A)' is not
> equal to the symbol 'A', like the symbol '(1)' is not
> equal to the symbol '1'.
>
>
> So there are only two different meanings of 'A' in the paper.
> In §1 to and including §5 'A' is a point in space.
> In §7 to and including §10 'A' is the amplitude of
> the electric or magnetic force.
>
>

Am 18.02.2024 um 17:30 schrieb Volney:
> On 2/17/2024 4:36 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Nice moving of the goalposts!

Well, as I can define my own goals, I can define what I want to do.

And, as I had written, my aim was to write annotations into this version.

You can define your own goals as well, but you should not expect me, to
share any of them.

>> In this context I had critizised the prase 'axis of X', because 'X'
>> was already the name of the x-axis of system K.
>> ...
>>
> Of course a translation of X-Achse to 'axis of X' rather than 'X_axis'
> is hardly the fault of Einstein or a flaw in relativity.
> Not only are you unqualified to criticize the physics, you are
> apparently unqualified to criticize German-English translations as well.

No, sinced English is a second language for me and German my first.

Therefore I'm actually qualified to check the translation.

But that wouldn't mean, that I'm obliged to do that.

I could check the translation, if I had the wish to do that, but hadn't.

TH

On 2024-02-19 05:56:19 +0000, Thomas Heger said:

> Am 18.02.2024 um 13:28 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:
>> Den 18.02.2024 05:47, skrev Thomas Heger:
>>>> 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:
>>>>>>> Paul b. Andersen wrote:
>>>>>>>> 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.
>>
>> You wrote:
>> "But Einstein gave this another kick and used the same symbol
>> twice with different meanings within a single sentence."
>>
>> Einstein didn't use X as the name of the X-axis in §10,
>> he called it the X-Axis.
>> In the translation is the phrase "the axis of X" is used so
>> the axis was NOT called X.
>
> The names of the axes in k were defined in § 3 page 8 in the footnote
> with the dagger.
>
> quote:
>
> "Editor’s note: In Einstein’s original paper, the symbols (Ξ, H, Z)
> for the co-ordinates of the moving system k were introduced without
> explicitly defining them. In the 1923 English translation, (X, Y, Z)
> were used, creating an ambiguity between X co-ordinates in the fixed
> system K and the parallel axis in moving system k. Here and in
> subsequent references we use Ξ when referring to the axis of system k
> along which the system is translating with respect to K. "
>
> As I am writing about this translation, I use this footnote as defintion.
>
> This means:
>
> the axes have names, which consist of single large letters (Latin in
> case of system K and Greek in case of system k)

Yes, the axes have names. But the footnote does not define those names,
only which letters are used in the names.

--
Mikko

On 2/19/2024 1:02 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 18.02.2024 um 17:30 schrieb Volney:
>> On 2/17/2024 4:36 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>> 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.
>>
>> Nice moving of the goalposts!
>
>
> Well, as I can define my own goals, I can define what I want to do.

Of course. I'm pointing out how you started out stating that this was a
poorly written paper and Einstein reused letters like X for the axis of
X and elsewhere, someone pointed out that was a poor translation of
"X-Achse' so you claim to switch to criticizing the translation rather
than admit Einstein didn't reuse X there. In other words, moving the
goalposts.
>
> And, as I had written, my aim was to write annotations into this version.
>
> You can define your own goals as well, but you should not expect me, to
> share any of them.

It's perfectly fine for you to move the goalposts all over the place.
But don't expect not to get called out for that.
>
>>> In this context I had critizised the prase 'axis of X', because 'X'
>>> was already the name of the x-axis of system K.
>>> ...
>>>
>> Of course a translation of X-Achse to 'axis of X' rather than 'X_axis'
>> is hardly the fault of Einstein or a flaw in relativity.
>> Not only are you unqualified to criticize the physics, you are
>> apparently unqualified to criticize German-English translations as well.
>
> No, sinced English is a second language for me and German my first.
>
> Therefore I'm actually qualified to check the translation.
>
But you didn't catch that.

> But that wouldn't mean, that I'm obliged to do that.
>
> I could check the translation, if I had the wish to do that, but hadn't.

You are attempting to criticize a translation of a paper rather than the
paper itself. You should either stick to either criticizing the
translator (not very useful, the translator wasn't very famous) or
criticize the original paper in German if that's your first language.
But again, your criticisms of the content is just your misunderstandings
and not useful.

Den 19.02.2024 06:56, skrev Thomas Heger:
> Am 18.02.2024 um 13:28 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:

>>>> On 2024-02-17 09:36:42 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
>>>>
>>>>> So, my topic is this particular English translation.

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

You can't blame Einstein for the alleged errors in the translation.

It is interesting to note that you have given up
claiming that Einstein in §10 used the same symbol
twice with different meanings within a single sentence.

Now you claim to have found it in §3. Let's see.

>
> The names of the axes in k were defined in § 3 page 8 in the footnote
> with the dagger.

This Editor's note is partly plain wrong, and partly meaningless.

> quote:
>
> "Editor’s note:  In Einstein’s original  paper, the symbols (Ξ, H, Z)
> for the co-ordinates of the moving system k were introduced without
> explicitly defining them. In the 1923 English translation, (X, Y, Z) were
> used, creating an ambiguity between X co-ordinates in the fixed  system K
> and the parallel axis in moving system k. Here and in  subsequent
> references we use Ξ when referring to the axis of system k along which
> the system is translating with respect to K. "
>
> As I am writing about this translation, I use this footnote as defintion.

A definition of what?

Let's see what actually is written in §3 of the papers:

----------

Einstein's original paper:
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/andp.19053221004

§3:
The "stationary system" is called K, with coordinates x,y,z,t.
The "moving system" is called k, with coordinates ξ, η, ζ, τ.
The "third system" is called K', with coordinates x',y',z',t'.

The name of the axes of a "Koordinatensysteme" are:
X-Achse, Y-Achse and Z-Achse

The name of the axes of a specific "Koordinatensysteme" are:
Die X-Achse System K, Die X-Achse System k.

However, the X-Achse of system K' is called "Die Ξ-Achse"
This is the only use of the symbol 'Ξ' (capital ξ) in §3.
'Ξ' is the Greek equivalent of capital 'X'.
This seems like a typo.

The symbols capital 'X', 'Y', 'Z' or 'Ξ' alone are never used
as names of the axes in §3.

------------------

The English translation:
https://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
https://paulba.no/paper/Electrodynamics.pdf

§3:
The "stationary system" is called K, with coordinates x,y,z,t.
The "moving system" is called k, with coordinates ξ, η, ζ, τ.
The "third system" is called K', with coordinates x',y',z',t'

The name of the axes in a coordinate system are:
The axis of X, the axis of Y and the axes of Z

The name of the axes of a specific coordinate system are:
The axis of X of system K, The axis of X of system k.

However, The axis of X of K' is called "The axis of Ξ".
This is the only use of the symbol 'Ξ' (capital ξ) in §3.
This seems like a typo imported from Einstein's original text.

The symbols capital 'X', 'Y', 'Z' or 'Ξ' alone are never used
as names of the axes in §3.

---------------------

Do you claim that Einstein in §3 used the same symbol
twice with different meanings within a single sentence?

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

Paul B. Andersen wrote:

> Den 19.02.2024 06:56, skrev Thomas Heger:
>>> You wrote:
>>>   "But Einstein gave this another kick and used the same symbol
>>>    twice with different meanings within a single sentence."
>
> You can't blame Einstein for the alleged errors in the translation.
> It is interesting to note that you have given up claiming that Einstein
> in §10 used the same symbol twice with different meanings within a
> single sentence. Now you claim to have found it in §3. Let's see.

correct. The 𝗸𝗵𝗮𝘇𝗮𝗿_𝗴𝗼𝘆 appointed chef of the 𝗻𝗮𝘇𝗶_𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗿𝗼𝗿𝗶𝘀𝘁 organization said
nato, named the 𝗦𝘁𝗼𝗹𝘁𝗲𝗻𝗯𝗲𝗿𝗴𝗲𝗿, guilty like shit, admitting the guilt, blowing
𝗼𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿_𝘀𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗲𝘀_𝗶𝗻𝗳𝗿𝗮𝘀𝘁𝗿𝘂𝗰𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗲 at the bottom of the sea, as "𝗲𝘅𝗲𝗿𝗰𝗶𝘀𝗲𝘀", admits to
China:

"- 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗱𝗲𝗮𝘁𝗵 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗲𝗿 𝗥𝘂𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗮𝗻 𝗰𝗶𝘁𝗶𝘇𝗲𝗻 𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗶𝘁𝗼𝗿 𝗡𝗮𝘃𝗮𝗹𝘀𝗸𝘆, 𝗶𝘀 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗮'𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗻𝗮𝗹 𝗥𝘂𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗮𝗻 𝗶𝘀𝘀𝘂𝗲'".

the stupid 𝗸𝗵𝗮𝘇𝗮𝗿_𝗴𝗼𝘆 is admitting the guilt!!

𝗟𝗶𝗻𝗱𝘀𝗲𝘆_𝘄𝗮𝗻𝘁𝘀_𝘁𝗼_𝗽𝘂𝗻𝗶𝘀𝗵_𝗥𝘂𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗮._𝗗𝗲𝗻𝗺𝗮𝗿𝗸,_𝗮𝗹𝗹_𝗮𝗺𝗺𝗼_𝘁𝗼_𝗨𝗸𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗲._𝗨𝗿𝘀𝘂𝗹𝗮,_𝗘𝗨_2𝗻𝗱_𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗺._𝗕𝗼𝗻𝗼,_𝘀𝗮𝘆_𝗡𝗮𝘃𝗮𝗹𝗻𝘆
https://youtu.be/vJLyQz6xTcE (page 11:34)

𝗥𝘂𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗮𝗻_𝗺𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝗮𝗿𝘆_𝗽𝗶𝗹𝗼𝘁_𝘄𝗵𝗼_𝗱𝗲𝗳𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗲𝗱_𝘁𝗼_𝗨𝗸𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗲_𝗳𝗼𝘂𝗻𝗱_𝗱𝗲𝗮𝗱_𝗶𝗻_𝗦𝗽𝗮𝗶𝗻_–_𝗞𝗶𝗲𝘃
Maksim Kuzminov, who hijacked a military helicopter, has reportedly been
gunned down
https://r%74.com/news/592702-pilot-defector-killed-spain/

𝗢𝗽𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗶𝘀𝗺_𝗼𝗻_𝗨𝗸𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗲_𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗳𝗹𝗶𝗰𝘁_𝘄𝗮𝘀_‘𝗽𝗿𝗲𝗺𝗮𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗲’_𝗼𝗿_‘𝗱𝗲𝗹𝘂𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗹’_–_𝗡𝗬𝗧
Western speculation that Kiev was on the verge of victory has reportedly
given way to “despair and hedging”
https://r%74.com/news/592704-ukraine-allies-optmism-fades/

𝗨𝗸𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗲_𝗵𝗮𝘀_𝘂𝘀𝗲𝗱_𝗨𝗦-𝗺𝗮𝗱𝗲_𝗰𝗵𝗲𝗺𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹_𝘄𝗲𝗮𝗽𝗼𝗻𝘀_–_𝗥𝘂𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗮
Moscow claims that Washington and Kiev have violated the articles of the
Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
https://r%74.com/russia/592680-ukraine-us-chemical-weapons/

‘𝗖𝗮𝘁𝗮𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗼𝗽𝗵𝗶𝗰’_𝗛𝗼𝘂𝘁𝗵𝗶_𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗮𝗰𝗸_𝗱𝗮𝗺𝗮𝗴𝗲𝘀_𝗕𝗿𝗶𝘁𝗶𝘀𝗵_𝘀𝗵𝗶𝗽 lol
The Yemeni group has claimed to have shot down a US drone as well
https://r%74.com/news/592700-houthi-attack-yemen-rubymar/

Am 19.02.2024 um 21:47 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:

>>>>>> So, my topic is this particular English translation.
>
>>>
>>> You wrote:
>>> "But Einstein gave this another kick and used the same symbol
>>> twice with different meanings within a single sentence."
>
> You can't blame Einstein for the alleged errors in the translation.

Actually I don't.

for me the actual author is irrelevant and especially also his
intentions, because I wrote a critique about a specific text.

Who wrote it, how, with which intentions and why, that was not my topic.

I took the text as it is and this translation.

Whether the text represented Einstein's intentions or not was not my
concern.

>
> It is interesting to note that you have given up
> claiming that Einstein in §10 used the same symbol
> twice with different meanings within a single sentence.
>
> Now you claim to have found it in §3. Let's see.
>
>>
>> The names of the axes in k were defined in § 3 page 8 in the footnote
>> with the dagger.
>
> This Editor's note is partly plain wrong, and partly meaningless.

Actually the editors wrote, that Einstein used tall Greek letters in the
German original.

See here:
>> quote:
>>
>> "Editor’s note: In Einstein’s original paper, the symbols (Ξ, H, Z)
>> for the co-ordinates of the moving system k were introduced without
>> explicitly defining them.

The lack of definitions by Einstein was also annoying.

This made it very difficult to decipher some of his equations.

Einstein had also not a single illustration in his paper. This required
to behave like Sherlock Holmes on a crime scene, if you wanted to decode
the meaning of the used symbols.

>>
>> As I am writing about this translation, I use this footnote as defintion.
>
> A definition of what?
??

If you say something like
> The "stationary system" is called K, with coordinates x,y,z,t.
> The "moving system" is called k, with coordinates ξ, η, ζ, τ.

you have defined two coordinate system and connected symbols like e.g.
ξ, η, ζ with a certain meaning.

This process is commonly called 'definition'.

But good practise is, to define each symbol only once.

Also good practise is, that the same quantity or mathematical object has
only one name.

Reuse of symbols or abiguity of names were therefore critizised by me.

And certainly you don't want to promote ambiguity of names and
unidentifiable symbols in physics papers.

TH

Am 19.02.2024 um 19:31 schrieb Volney:
...
>>
>> And, as I had written, my aim was to write annotations into this version.
>>
>> You can define your own goals as well, but you should not expect me,
>> to share any of them.
>
> It's perfectly fine for you to move the goalposts all over the place.
> But don't expect not to get called out for that.
>>
>>>> In this context I had critizised the prase 'axis of X', because 'X'
>>>> was already the name of the x-axis of system K.
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>> Of course a translation of X-Achse to 'axis of X' rather than 'X_axis'
>>> is hardly the fault of Einstein or a flaw in relativity.

Actually both are wrong, because the tall letters were the name of the
axes themselves, while small letters were the coordinates.
'X-axes' is wrong
'X_axis' is wrong
'axis of X' is wrong, too.

('x-axis' is correct or possibly 'axis of x')

>>> Not only are you unqualified to criticize the physics, you are
>>> apparently unqualified to criticize German-English translations as well.
>>
>> No, sinced English is a second language for me and German my first.
>>
>> Therefore I'm actually qualified to check the translation.
>>
> But you didn't catch that.
>
>> But that wouldn't mean, that I'm obliged to do that.
>>
>> I could check the translation, if I had the wish to do that, but hadn't.
>
> You are attempting to criticize a translation of a paper rather than the
> paper itself. You should either stick to either criticizing the
> translator (not very useful, the translator wasn't very famous) or
> criticize the original paper in German if that's your first language.
> But again, your criticisms of the content is just your misunderstandings
> and not useful.

Other than you I can speak German very well.

But there is no point to do that in this UseNet group, were the language
is English.

So, my decision was to write annotations into the English translation,
which is most commonly used.

You may regard this as questionable, but I think, it is perfectly ok.

TH