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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #420270

Re: Einstein-Poincare synchronization procedure

Show all headers | View raw

Am 17.05.2017 18:04, schrieb Odd Bodkin:
> On 5/17/17 6:27 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>> Am 15.05.2017 14:54, schrieb Odd Bodkin:
>>> On 5/15/17 4:34 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>> Am 11.05.2017 21:32, schrieb Odd Bodkin:
>>>>> On 5/11/17 1:20 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>>>> Am 10.05.2017 16:20, schrieb Jean-Pierre Framboise:
>>>>>>> mlwozniak wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I don't care about your moronic Physics, unfortunately.
>>>>>>>> And, notice: - if the above is false - it's worthless - if the
>>>>>>>> above is
>>>>>>>> true - it's worthless as well (for non-mathematical aproach).
>>>>>>>> Reassuming,
>>>>>>>> it's worthless in any case And, assuming the only worthy aproach is
>>>>>>>> mathematical aproach,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You must be thinking math is something mystical. Quite the
>>>>>>> contrary. The
>>>>>>> Math is the simple bit. It is something we DO understand. Cats, are,
>>>>>>> what
>>>>>>> is complicated. What is it, those eyes, hair, moustache making up a
>>>>>>> cat? I
>>>>>>> have no idea. Let's be really clear, you look at a cat, but you
>>>>>>> have no
>>>>>>> idea.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The problem isn't math, but a disease called 'mathematism'.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you perform mathematical tricks, without a reason to do so, you do
>>>>>> something sick.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> TH
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm not sure I know what you mean by "mathematical tricks". There
>>>>> are no
>>>>> mathematical tricks. There are lots of procedures in mathematics, like
>>>>> substitutions, moving things from one side to the other of an
>>>>> equation,
>>>>> dividing through by common numbers, taking limits, integrating, and so
>>>>> on... But these procedures are all individually both legitimized and
>>>>> understood. The end result is always producing something that is
>>>>> easily
>>>>> recognized and evaluated. But as long as the steps are individually
>>>>> sound, it doesn't matter which of them you take.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's very much like trying to cross a river, and you choose the next
>>>>> rock to jump on to help you get to the other side. First this rock,
>>>>> then
>>>>> this next one, then the next one, and so on. The objective isn't the
>>>>> rock, it's getting to the other side. Alternatively, you could take a
>>>>> different set of stones in a different sequence to do the same
>>>>> thing in
>>>>> the end.
>>>>>
>>>> What I tried describe is a certain behaviour, which is common in many
>>>> publications about physics:
>>>>
>>>> the proof is attempted by mathematical means, but without proper
>>>> explanation, what is to be proven and why by the used method.
>>>>
>>>> The result is something useless, like performing tricks. It's like
>>>> walking on a rope across the Niagara Falls. This is an impressive
>>>> stunt, but does not serve any obvious purpose.
>>>>
>>>> So, if you do not say, what is the thing about and do not explain,
>>>> what you try to show, the performance is useless - thou impressive.
>>>
>>> I think this is just a problem on the part of the reader. Some readers
>>> want to have explanations laid out a certain way that is easier for them
>>> to follow. If the writer does not follow that way, then the reader will
>>> sometimes go into a snit, saying that they could not follow what was
>>> being done because it wasn't presented in the desired way. This does not
>>> make the author's explanation a trick or a stunt.
>>>
>>> Mathematics is just a toolbox and a language. When physicists use
>>> mathematics, they fully expect the reader to be FLUENT with it, not just
>>> passable.
>>>
>>
>> Well, yes.
>>
>> But let me give an example about what I mean:
>>
>> the equation E=m*c² uses variables and those have a valid
>> interpretation in physics as attributes of physical systems.
>>
>> The term 'E' - for instance - means energy. But physicists had to say,
>> what is the system, the term is an attribute of. (what they don't do)
>>
>> In fact meant is the radioactive decay, where a ray is emitted from a
>> radioactive sample.
>
> Actually no. It is the rest energy associated with mass. It is not
> specific to radioactive decay.


'mass' is a term in physics, which is used to denote a behaviour of 
material objects called 'inertia'.

Rays do not have inertia, hence have mass zero.

And certainly light (and equivalent rays) has no rest mass.

So what system is actually attributed with which unit?

In the example of a gamma ray emitted by a radioactive sample, the 
sample has mass and the rays has energy.

If ascribe the energy to the sample and equal this to the mass of the 
ray, things get mess up.

The interesting point here is, that the sample looses mass by emitting a 
ray.

This would suggest, that matter is somehow related to rays and not 
really material by itself.

But this relation is covered by ascribing the attribute 'mass' to the 
wrong system (the ray). And this is essentially 'bad practise'.

> This same formula applies to the binding energy of an electron in a
> stable atom, and so has nothing to do with radioactive decay.


No. We find similar phenomena is other circumstance, but actually the 
equation stems from nuclear decay.

> This same formula applies to electron-positron collisions, for example,
> which has nothing to do with radioactive decay.
>
> You should be a little more careful not to overspecify the meaning of a
> variable based on a single application of the principle.
>

NO!!
'bad practise' is just that: bad practise.

And to criticise this habit is not 'overspecific'.

I had - for instance - fought for years in favour of 'Growing Earth 
theory'. This is mainly rejected, even if I had found tons of examples 
in favour of this concept.

But if you allow to deny, what is not in the own interest, then science 
is doomed.


TH

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

Thread

Einstein-Poincare synchronization procedure mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-10 02:29 -0700
  Re: Einstein-Poincare synchronization procedure Lissa Hermes <isussui@aeawwih.es> - 2017-05-10 13:18 +0000
    Re: Einstein-Poincare synchronization procedure mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-10 07:00 -0700
      Re: Einstein-Poincare synchronization procedure Jean-Pierre Framboise <nctedetne@ewmnwerwr.cn> - 2017-05-10 14:20 +0000
        Re: Einstein-Poincare synchronization procedure mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-10 09:18 -0700
          Re: Einstein-Poincare synchronization procedure Jean-Pierre Framboise <nctede@pmdcehr.cc> - 2017-05-10 16:28 +0000
            Re: Einstein-Poincare synchronization procedure mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-10 10:12 -0700
        Re: Einstein-Poincare synchronization procedure Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-05-11 20:20 +0200
          Re: Einstein-Poincare synchronization procedure Jean-Pierre Framboise <nctede@pmdcehr.cc> - 2017-05-11 18:23 +0000
          Re: Einstein-Poincare synchronization procedure JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-05-11 11:32 -0700
          Re: Einstein-Poincare synchronization procedure Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-11 14:32 -0500
            Re: Einstein-Poincare synchronization procedure mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-11 21:41 -0700
            Re: Einstein-Poincare synchronization procedure Houchiko Inatsuki <uatci@swckskuwe.io> - 2017-05-12 13:38 +0000
            Re: Einstein-Poincare synchronization procedure Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-05-15 11:34 +0200
              Re: Einstein-Poincare synchronization procedure Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-15 07:54 -0500
                Re: Einstein-Poincare synchronization procedure Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-05-17 13:27 +0200
                Re: Einstein-Poincare synchronization procedure Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-17 11:04 -0500
                Re: Einstein-Poincare synchronization procedure Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-05-17 18:28 +0200
                Re: Einstein-Poincare synchronization procedure Houchiko Inatsuki <uatci@swckskuwe.io> - 2017-05-19 18:02 +0000
                Re: Einstein-Poincare synchronization procedure Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-05-22 20:19 +0200
                Re: Einstein-Poincare synchronization procedure Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-22 14:00 -0500
  Re: Einstein-Poincare synchronization procedure JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-05-10 14:58 -0700
    Re: Einstein-Poincare synchronization procedure mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-10 23:25 -0700
      Re: Einstein-Poincare synchronization procedure JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-05-11 11:07 -0700
        Re: Einstein-Poincare synchronization procedure Jean-Pierre Framboise <nctede@pmdcehr.cc> - 2017-05-11 18:15 +0000

csiph-web