Re: New version of my annotations to SRT

On 2024-05-18 06:20:57 +0000, Thomas Heger said:

Am Freitag000005, 05.04.2024 um 10:39 schrieb Mikko:

On 2024-04-05 08:00:52 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
 

Am 10.02.2024 um 09:42 schrieb Mikko:

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

Am 08.02.2024 um 10:05 schrieb Mikko:
 

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

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

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

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

 I don't see it like that.
 In science any critique should be dealt with, from wherever this critique may come.

 "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" is a historical document.
After its publication science has moved on so much that no comment
to it is relevant to today's education or science.

 But that wasn't my topic.
 I had a different problem:
 Max Planck was certainly a very good physicist and certainly able to see the errors in Einstein's text.
 But why did he publish it, if it contains so many errors?

The answer is obvious: the text did not contain any significant errors.
It is easy to overlook some insignificant presentational errors as long
as there are not too many and no substantial errors.
--
Mikko