Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #433947
Show key headers only | View raw
Am 25.09.2017 um 22:10 schrieb mlwozniak@wp.pl:
> W dniu poniedziałek, 25 września 2017 21:14:29 UTC+2 użytkownik Thomas Heger napisał:
>> Am 25.09.2017 um 11:07 schrieb mlwozniak@wp.pl:
>>>>> Possible questions are: what is actually time? Is matter for one
>>>>> observer also matter for all possible others? Is mass constant?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> (And so forth...)
>>>>>
>>>>> You make a statement about coordinates ('Coordinates are to be COMMON').
>>>>>
>>>>> But how do you justify this demand?
>>> And how do you justify the demand of making an axe
>>> of steel instead plasticine? A plasticine axe won't
>>> cut a tree? Right. And observer dependent coordinates
>>> are useless in observer-to-observer communication.
>>>
>>
>> Usability is not a scientific requirement.
>
> That's VERY bad for your science.
'Usability' is based on human demands. But science is about nature and
based on observations that are not necessarily connected to human
experience, let alone human demands.
But quite often scientific knowledge could be used in unexpected
circumstance. Therefore science is possible in realms like remote
galaxies or in times shortly after the big bang, what serves not
practical purpose.
Scientists are also unable to deal with special interest groups, since
science can only be done in the way, that only positively true results
are the goal of research.
This could eventually harm certain interest. But science cannot
intentionally produce results, which are a little off the right track.
Technology is more related to the production of things. And produced
things should be useful and should function well. But technology is not
the same thing as science.
>
>> So interstellar communication is a problem, which falls into a practical
>> realm and usually technicians deal with that.
>
> We can already see it: GPS clocks indicate t'=t
> with the precision of an acceptable error.
> And you're teaching of angels dancing on a pinhead.
>
Personally I think, that SRT is not correct.
The reason is, that SRT hinges on velocity, while I assume effects by
acceleration.
E.g. the so called 'twin paradox' cold be 'de-paradoxed' by focusing on
acceleration.
(This would also explain the 'Pioneer anomaly'.)
So in this case I would take (almost) your position.
TH
Back to sci.physics.relativity | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Failures of the Galilean transformation (was: The Song of Lt. Cdr. Data) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-09-20 17:23 +0200
Failures of the Galilean transformation (was: The Song of Lt. Cdr. Data) "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-09-20 08:36 -0700
Re: Failures of the Galilean transformation Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-09-21 15:10 +0200
Re: Failures of the Galilean transformation mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-09-21 06:29 -0700
Re: Failures of the Galilean transformation Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-09-22 20:27 +0200
Re: Failures of the Galilean transformation mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-09-22 12:13 -0700
Re: Failures of the Galilean transformation Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-09-22 21:36 +0200
Re: Failures of the Galilean transformation Kos Etrakis <uar@ksskkwi.ck> - 2017-09-22 20:09 +0000
Re: Failures of the Galilean transformation Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-09-23 12:10 +0200
Re: Failures of the Galilean transformation mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-09-22 13:30 -0700
Re: Failures of the Galilean transformation Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-09-23 12:56 +0200
Re: Failures of the Galilean transformation mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-09-23 05:09 -0700
Re: Failures of the Galilean transformation Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-09-24 21:31 +0200
Re: Failures of the Galilean transformation Poutnik <poutnik@privacy.net> - 2017-09-24 21:43 +0200
Re: Failures of the Galilean transformation Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-09-25 21:26 +0200
Re: Failures of the Galilean transformation Poutnik <poutnik@privacy.net> - 2017-09-25 22:00 +0200
Re: Failures of the Galilean transformation Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-09-26 21:45 +0200
Re: Failures of the Galilean transformation Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-09-29 01:52 +0200
Re: Failures of the Galilean transformation Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-09-27 09:50 +0200
Re: Failures of the Galilean transformation mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-09-24 22:57 -0700
Re: Failures of the Galilean transformation Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-09-25 10:23 +0200
Re: Failures of the Galilean transformation mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-09-25 02:07 -0700
Re: Failures of the Galilean transformation Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-09-25 21:14 +0200
Re: Failures of the Galilean transformation mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-09-25 13:10 -0700
Re: Failures of the Galilean transformation Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-09-26 22:12 +0200
Re: Failures of the Galilean transformation mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-09-26 22:41 -0700
Re: Failures of the Galilean transformation Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-09-28 21:09 +0200
Re: Failures of the Galilean transformation mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-09-28 13:14 -0700
Re: Failures of the Galilean transformation Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-09-29 14:10 +0200
Re: Failures of the Galilean transformation mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-09-29 06:09 -0700
Re: Failures of the Galilean transformation Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-09-30 16:39 +0200
Re: Failures of the Galilean transformation mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-09-30 08:12 -0700
csiph-web