Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #367469

Re: Let's talk about "TECHNICAL aspects".

Show all headers | View raw

On 19/10/2015 7:25 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote:
> W dniu poniedziałek, 19 października 2015 09:52:06 UTC+2 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał:
>> On 19/10/2015 5:01 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote:
>>> W dniu poniedziałek, 19 października 2015 07:36:55 UTC+2 użytkownik
>>> Sylvia Else napisał:
>>>> On 18/10/2015 11:27 PM, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Użytkownik "JanPB"  napisał w wiadomości grup
>>>>> dyskusyjnych:ca7b185d-0432-4ed9-b275-15f8feceeec7@googlegroups.com...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>> |What Maciej does OTOH is reaching conclusions (like "all physicists are
>>>>> |idiots") which are not of that type - they can only be reached
>>>>> after |a serious and detailed study of TECHNICAL aspects.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> So, let's talk about TECHNICAL aspects of The Shit, will we? How
>>>>> to determine your moronic interval between two real events, for
>>>>> instance, battle of Waterloo and battle of Gaugamela?
>>>>
>>>> About -4.6 million square light-years.
>>>
>>> :) "About" is not enough for me, and my question is "how to
>>> determine". Can we measure it, somehow? I've heard physical
>>> quantities are to be measured... or is it just one of these "common
>>> sense prejudices" refuted by Great Guru?
>>
>> It's not a problem. It's just a matter of measuring the distance and
>> time separation between the events in some frame, combining them
>> according to the rule
>
> I guess, there is no problem for brilliant relativistic
> theoretician.
> But I'm  just a dumb engineer... For me, there
> is some major problems, not counting a lot of
> minor problems.
>
>
>>> In this instance, the major
>>>> separation is in time, with the distance separation being
>>>> insignificant by comparison.
>>>
>>> WHAT distance? Or - distance measured by which observer?
>>>
>>
>> The distance and time separations must be measured in the same inertial
>> frame,
>
> Unfortunately, I don't see ANY inertial frame around.
> "Locally inertial" - is not enough this time, is it?
> And, even if I had such a frame, I'm afraid, my dumb
> engineer's  brain is not prepared to measure now
> something, that  happened 2300 years ago.
> So, can Your spiritual guidance be more precise?
>

I'm not sure what your concern is. If it's that there are gravitational 
effects that distort the result, that's true. But it's also true of 
simple time and distance measurements, so the space-time interval is no 
less valid than those.

As for doing the measurements - we know where and when these events 
occurred - that is, most of the measuring has already been done. To get 
the space-time interval, we need only transform those measurements into 
some arbitrary inertial frame, and combine the results.

In practice, of course, neither event is a point in space-time - both 
are diffuse both in time and in space. That completely overwhelms any 
possible error introduced by ignoring the various gravitational fields.

Sylvia.

Back to sci.physics.relativity | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Let's talk about "TECHNICAL aspects". Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-10-18 14:27 +0200
  Re: Let's talk about "TECHNICAL aspects". JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-10-18 18:53 -0700
    Re: Let's talk about "TECHNICAL aspects". mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-10-18 23:13 -0700
  Re: Let's talk about "TECHNICAL aspects". Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-10-19 16:36 +1100
    Re: Let's talk about "TECHNICAL aspects". mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-10-18 23:01 -0700
      Re: Let's talk about "TECHNICAL aspects". Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-10-19 18:52 +1100
        Re: Let's talk about "TECHNICAL aspects". mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-10-19 01:25 -0700
          Re: Let's talk about "TECHNICAL aspects". Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-10-19 19:56 +1100
            Re: Let's talk about "TECHNICAL aspects". mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-10-19 02:57 -0700
              Re: Let's talk about "TECHNICAL aspects". Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-10-20 12:22 +1100
                Re: Let's talk about "TECHNICAL aspects". mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-10-19 23:27 -0700
                Re: Let's talk about "TECHNICAL aspects". Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-10-20 19:29 +1100
                Re: Let's talk about "TECHNICAL aspects". mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-10-20 02:14 -0700
                Re: Let's talk about "TECHNICAL aspects". Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-10-20 20:29 +1100
                Re: Let's talk about "TECHNICAL aspects". mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-10-20 02:45 -0700
    Re: Let's talk about "TECHNICAL aspects". alsor@interia.pl - 2015-10-19 12:02 -0700
      Re: Let's talk about "TECHNICAL aspects". paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2015-10-19 12:25 -0700
        Re: Let's talk about "TECHNICAL aspects". Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-10-19 22:55 +0200
          Re: Let's talk about "TECHNICAL aspects". paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2015-10-19 17:14 -0700
            Re: Let's talk about "TECHNICAL aspects". mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-10-19 23:39 -0700
      Re: Let's talk about "TECHNICAL aspects". Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-10-20 12:24 +1100

csiph-web