Basic postulates of SR
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: curvature of spacetime
Next: Hard SR questions?
From: Paul B. Andersen on 10 Aug 2006 09:33 Sergey Karavashkin wrote: > Harry ?????(?): > > >> Sergey, about the translation of: >> >> "Die elektromagnetischen Felder erscheinen als letzte, nicht weiter >> zurückführbare Realitäten, und es erscheint zunächst überflüssig, ein >> homogenes, intropes Äthermedium zu postulieren, als dessen Zustände >> jene Felder aufzufassen wären. >> Anderseits läßt sich aber zugunsten der Ätherhypothese ein wichtiges >> Argument anführen." , >> >> as I said, that's the machine translation, to compare the official Russian >> and English translations. >> Obviously the machine didn't know that word (just like it doesn't know >> "svodimoy"), and probably it was a scanning error for "isotropes". >> >> I can improve it, also removing a few surprising grammatical errors, so that >> the very literal translation becomes: >> >> "The electromagnetic fields appear as last, not further reducible realities, >> and it appears at first redundant, to postulate a homogeneous, isotropic >> ether medium when its conditions would be interpretable to be those fields. >> On the other hand however an important argument can be stated in favor of >> the ether hypothesis." >> >> But that's without interest except as third, independent opinion (and as >> unbiased as a computer translation can be). >> >> It makes sense to quote from the full official English version in those >> cases that you have it. This one is on the internet, for example: >> http://www.tu-harburg.de/rzt/rzt/it/Ether.html >> >> Cheers, >> Harald > > Thank you again, dear Harald. But now I understand nothing at all. Here > is our translation from Russian: > > << Electromagnetic field is a primordial cause, a reality that cannot > be reduced to something, so it is absolutely excessive to postulate > additionally the existence of homogeneous and isotropic ether and > imagine the field as a state of this aether >> > > This is your translation from German: > > "The electromagnetic fields appear as last, not further reducible > realities, > and it appears at first redundant, to postulate a homogeneous, > isotropic > ether medium when its conditions would be interpretable to be those > fields. > On the other hand however an important argument can be stated in favor > of > the ether hypothesis." > > Now the official English version from your first post: > > "The electromagnetic fields appear as ultimate, irreducible realities, > and > at first it seems superfluous to postulate a homogeneous, isotropic > ether-medium, and to envisage electromagnetic fields as states of this > medium. > But on the other hand there is a weighty argument to be adduced in > favour of > the ether hypothesis." > > The difference of official English version from your German-English > translation is “at first it seems ...”. In this citation it looks > like an ungrounded alternative to the second, and in absence of it > looks like a statement that has a second side of medal. Namely so > translated you and we. Namely so state other citations from other > Einstein’s works. So it appears that the official English translation > is not so solid as Nauka’s? Do I understand you well, Harald? > > Sergey > There is no difference between Harald's translation and the "official" English version. They are both correct translations. "es erscheint zunächst überflüssig" can be translated: "at first it seems superfluous" or "it appears at first redundant" But it can NOT be translated as Nauka did: "it is absolutely excessive" Nauka's translation is so bad that it is almost unintelligible. What is the phrase: "a reality that cannot be reduced to something" supposed to mean? :-) Paul
From: Sergey Karavashkin on 10 Aug 2006 15:57 Paul B. Andersen пиÑ?ал(а): > There is no difference between Harald's translation and > the "official" English version. They are both correct > translations. > > "es erscheint zunächst überflüssig" > can be translated: > "at first it seems superfluous" > or > "it appears at first redundant" > > But it can NOT be translated as Nauka did: > "it is absolutely excessive" > > Nauka's translation is so bad that it is almost unintelligible. > What is the phrase: > "a reality that cannot be reduced to something" > supposed to mean? :-) > > > Paul How about the formulas, Paul? Have you any more claims? Let us continue? :) Sergey
From: Harry on 11 Aug 2006 05:43 "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen(a)hiadeletethis.no> wrote in message news:ebfcio$sd8$1(a)dolly.uninett.no... > Sergey Karavashkin wrote: > > Harry ?????(?): > > > > > >> Sergey, about the translation of: > >> > >> "Die elektromagnetischen Felder erscheinen als letzte, nicht weiter > >> zurckfhrbare Realitten, und es erscheint zunchst berflssig, ein > >> homogenes, intropes thermedium zu postulieren, als dessen Zustnde > >> jene Felder aufzufassen wren. > >> Anderseits lt sich aber zugunsten der therhypothese ein wichtiges > >> Argument anfhren." , > >> > >> as I said, that's the machine translation, to compare the official Russian > >> and English translations. > >> Obviously the machine didn't know that word (just like it doesn't know > >> "svodimoy"), and probably it was a scanning error for "isotropes". > >> > >> I can improve it, also removing a few surprising grammatical errors, so that > >> the very literal translation becomes: > >> > >> "The electromagnetic fields appear as last, not further reducible realities, > >> and it appears at first redundant, to postulate a homogeneous, isotropic > >> ether medium when its conditions would be interpretable to be those fields. > >> On the other hand however an important argument can be stated in favor of > >> the ether hypothesis." > >> > >> But that's without interest except as third, independent opinion (and as > >> unbiased as a computer translation can be). > >> > >> It makes sense to quote from the full official English version in those > >> cases that you have it. This one is on the internet, for example: > >> http://www.tu-harburg.de/rzt/rzt/it/Ether.html > >> > >> Cheers, > >> Harald > > > > Thank you again, dear Harald. But now I understand nothing at all. Here > > is our translation from Russian: > > > > << Electromagnetic field is a primordial cause, a reality that cannot > > be reduced to something, so it is absolutely excessive to postulate > > additionally the existence of homogeneous and isotropic ether and > > imagine the field as a state of this aether >> > > > > This is your translation from German: > > > > "The electromagnetic fields appear as last, not further reducible > > realities, > > and it appears at first redundant, to postulate a homogeneous, > > isotropic > > ether medium when its conditions would be interpretable to be those > > fields. > > On the other hand however an important argument can be stated in favor > > of > > the ether hypothesis." > > > > Now the official English version from your first post: > > > > "The electromagnetic fields appear as ultimate, irreducible realities, > > and > > at first it seems superfluous to postulate a homogeneous, isotropic > > ether-medium, and to envisage electromagnetic fields as states of this > > medium. > > But on the other hand there is a weighty argument to be adduced in > > favour of > > the ether hypothesis." > > > > The difference of official English version from your German-English > > translation is "at first it seems ...". In this citation it looks > > like an ungrounded alternative to the second, and in absence of it > > looks like a statement that has a second side of medal. Namely so > > translated you and we. Namely so state other citations from other > > Einstein's works. So it appears that the official English translation > > is not so solid as Nauka's? Do I understand you well, Harald? > > > > Sergey > > > > There is no difference between Harald's translation and > the "official" English version. They are both correct > translations. > > "es erscheint zunchst berflssig" > can be translated: > "at first it seems superfluous" > or > "it appears at first redundant" > > But it can NOT be translated as Nauka did: > "it is absolutely excessive" > > Nauka's translation is so bad that it is almost unintelligible. Exactly. Cheers, Harald > What is the phrase: > "a reality that cannot be reduced to something" > supposed to mean? :-) > > > Paul
From: Sergey Karavashkin on 12 Aug 2006 11:54 Dear Tom, second time now we clash with the same result. You come into discussion to show your authority and erudition. You even wrote here to rambus (rambus2...(a)yahoo.com): << 77 From: Tom Roberts Date: Wen 9 Aug 2006 04:20 Around here I take everyone seriously until they prove they are not serious. To me that is the only fair thing to do. >> As far as I can understand, you were strongly sure, you are right. But where is your rightness? Where is your reply to my post? It is the same case now as in the discussion "Dayton Miller's Experiment. Was Indeed Flawed" http://groups.google.com/groups?dq=&hl=ru&lr=&ie=UTF-8&inlang=ru&selm=40bb2cea.0211291522.7420845a%40posting.google.com&rnum=36 where you defamed Miller and the Fizeau experiment. Then you also went away from the discussion in English manner, without good-bye. But once you ought to reply to the opponent's arguments - or admit, you were incorrect, if you have put the question of principle, who was right. Or will you make a scandal instead? Sergey
From: Sergey Karavashkin on 15 Aug 2006 01:41
xray4abc пиÑ?ал(а): > Hi > I am very interested in the subject, yet I have to > conclude at my first sight at your paper, that it is not > written in the most comfortable manner to be read. > I could use better a more traditional presentation. > Shorter and right on the subject ! > If you got one, I would appreciate sending it > to me or directing me to it. > Secondly, I think, You are looking for mistakes > in SR in the wrong part of this theory ! > The "flaw" is in my opinion more in > our interpretation than the postulates themselves. > > All the bests, LL Unfortunately, dear Colleague, SRT is discrepant not only in its interpretation. It contains the basic discrepancy just stated in the paper. The Lorentz transforms do not fit the physical logic, as they violate the conditions for which they have been derived. This is a hard violation and the mistake cannot be improved, it is too fundamental. As to â??be shorterâ?? â?? kindly read conclusions, there you can find an extract. But in the paper we had to analyse different aspects, or you would disagree with a short version, as your doubts would remain concerning just the omitted points. So we have to write completely, which provides the proof. Sergey |