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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #434322

Re: Failures of the Galilean transformation

Show all headers | View raw

Am 27.09.2017 um 07:41 schrieb mlwozniak@wp.pl:

>>>>>>> (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.
>
> So are human observations. And that's why NO
> HUMAN observes trees running around him. That means
> - you're  not basing on observations, you're basing
> on  "ideal observations", i.e. your imagined
> should-be-observed.
>
>> But science is about nature
>
> Coordinates, like time, are not natural and
> they never were.

Well, possibly correct..

But what 'natural' is hard to define, if nature is not properly understood.

So: coordinates are at least useful constructs. But possibly nature does 
not use anything alike.

But whether or no nature had a 'sense' of space and time, that is not 
well understood.

I would say: things in nature are 'coordinates free'.

This would - btw- be in conflict with big-bang theory, since 'time since 
big bang' is a certain coordinate in time.

Also distance to the 'center' (or the universe) could be an absolute 
measure of some sort of coordinate, what is most likely also not 
utilized in reality.


So we need to find something completely different.

My proposal was the principle of self-centered objects, that move along 
their personal timeline and are equipped with a personal universe.

This would be kind of coordinates, too, but 'relative' (to the object).

In case of humans on Earth this object would be planet Earth and we 
would base coordinates on positions relative to us.

If you think about it, you would find, this is, what we actually do.

What we regard as space (or 'universe') is then more like an optical 
illusion, since we see things, that do not exist anymore at the place, 
where we see them.

We could extent these Earth based coordinates as far as we want, if we 
introduce (hypothetical) signals with infinite velocity.

This would be a consistent method, but would not be 'universal'.





>> But quite often scientific knowledge could be used in unexpected
>> circumstance.
>
> It could. When science followed common sense. Common sense,
> you know, doesn't care about "what muons will do".
> It cares about "what you should do to obtain useful
> results".
>

Well, yes.

But 'common sense' and theoretical physics do not fit together, since 
that is not, what common thinkers do.

>
>>  Therefore science is possible in realms like remote
>> galaxies or in times shortly after the big bang,
>
> And it can also determine whether angels on a pinhead
> will dance tango or samba.

Next I see them, I'll ask them about their favorite music.

>
>> 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.
>
> :)
> So naive, so innocent.

Not quite..

I wrote about what scientists should do, if they want to perform 
something, you could call 'science'.

If scientists would produce dishonest results, this could not be 
regarded as science, but as disinformation or propaganda.


>>> 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.
>
> There is no paradox, however. Human age is counted in years,
> not in seconds, and according to year's definition
> http://www.dictionary.com/browse/year (for instance)
> the "paradox" is an obvious logical nonsense.
>

If there is more than one possible timeline, than we have no single 
continuous flow of time and we could not use Earth years (or seconds)as 
universal measure for time.

This would make things a little difficult, since the assumption of 
universal validity of our understanding of time is an important 
foundation of most of our theories.

E.g. we assume, that entropy increases in all possible futures.

But it is actually possible, that a world exist, where time runs 
backwards (in our view).

This we cannot know, since it could our world, where time runs 
backwards. And that we cannot find out, since our (local) time is all we 
have in comparison.


TH

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

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