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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #367597

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

Show all headers | View raw

On 20/10/2015 8:14 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote:
> W dniu wtorek, 20 października 2015 10:29:18 UTC+2 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał:
>> On 20/10/2015 5:27 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote:
>>> W dniu wtorek, 20 października 2015 03:22:42 UTC+2 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał:
>>>> On 19/10/2015 8:57 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote:
>>>>> W dniu poniedziałek, 19 października 2015 10:56:34 UTC+2 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał:
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>> What a heresy. There is no gravitational distortion
>>>>> in time and distance measurements. They are valid -
>>>>> in our non-inertial frame, from our non-inertial
>>>>> point of view. And they can't be used to determine
>>>>> interval, at least the simple way.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As for doing the measurements - we know where and when these events
>>>>>> occurred - that is, most of the measuring has already been done.
>>>>>
>>>>> In non-inertial frame. You can't put results to inertial
>>>>> formula. Neither the time, nor the distance matches.
>>>>
>>>> You can transform them into an inertial frame.
>>>
>>> :)
>>> Can Your spiritual guidance be more precise?
>>>
>>>
>>>> You cannot make any measurements at all without a theoretical framework.
>>>> Even using a metre rule requires a theory that says that distances
>>>> compose by simple addition.
>>>
>>> Fine, You're starting to think.
>>> Now - will You still claim, that Your
>>> relativity is a simple consequence of
>>> measurements?
>>> After the conclusion above?
>>>
>>
>> It's an internally consistent mathematical model of reality.
>
> Well, no, it's not internally consistent. And it's not
> mathematical. Mathematics is to weak to include models
> of reality. Yes, it uses a lot of mathematical procedures.
>
>
>> When
>> measurements are interpreted within the model, they are found to be
>> consistent with it.
>
> :)
> Measurements? Sylvia, neither You, nor anyone else
> here can't even tell me, how to do them.
> But You already know the results and include
> them as evidence.

If you want to measure time, use a clock. If you want to measure length, 
use a ruler. If you want to measure velocity, or space-time interval, 
use a combination thereof.

There are hardly difficult operations.

>
>> Science doesn't claim any more than that.
>
> And this is, actually, completely false. It claims
> much, much more, than that. It even claims I'm a
> jobless gay with a McDonald's fee.
>
>> You're welcome to propose an alternate model, but finding one that's
>> consistent is not so easy.
>
> Oh, yes, it is. That's why Great Guru didn't make it.
> But it's not even the beginning.
>

If it's so easy do it.

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