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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #367423 > unrolled thread

Let's talk about "TECHNICAL aspects".

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  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

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#367423 — Let's talk about "TECHNICAL aspects".

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?

See, halfbrain? this is  how a "TECHNICAL aspect" look.
Do you like it?

You can believe me, I have a diplomma of an engineer - something
you're obviously lacking. 

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#367454

On Sunday, October 18, 2015 at 5:27:19 AM UTC-7, 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?

Not until you clean your language.

> How to determine your moronic interval between two real
> events, for instance, battle of Waterloo and battle of Gaugamela?

I never heard of "moronic interval", sorry...

> See, halfbrain? this is  how a "TECHNICAL aspect" look.
> Do you like it?

You understand nothing. It's a very easy question BTW with a very easy answer.

> You can believe me, I have a diplomma of an engineer - something
> you're obviously lacking.

"Never try to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and it annoys the pig."

--
Jan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#367460

W dniu poniedziałek, 19 października 2015 03:53:35 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał:
> On Sunday, October 18, 2015 at 5:27:19 AM UTC-7, 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?
> 
> Not until you clean your language.

It didn't stop your answers before I showed you
you can't distinguish between "technical aspect"
and kangaroo.
Of course, your answers were 

> 
> > How to determine your moronic interval between two real
> > events, for instance, battle of Waterloo and battle of Gaugamela?
> 
> I never heard of "moronic interval", sorry...

And have you heard of moronic "interval", maybe?
 

> You understand nothing. It's a very easy question BTW with a very easy answer.

Though you've never heard about "moronic interval"?
I understand you've never shown me this very easy
answer, though I asked you - 5 times? 10 times?



> > You can believe me, I have a diplomma of an engineer - something
> > you're obviously lacking.
> 
> "Never try to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and it annoys the pig."

Wise words. But, I'm not trying to teach you anything.
I just like to keep you annoyed. It's some fun, you 
know.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#367458

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. In this instance, the major 
separation is in time, with the distance separation being insignificant 
by comparison.

Sylvia.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#367459

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?

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?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#367467

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, and giving a readout in square light-years, or 
whatever other square length measure seems appropriate.

>
> 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, but it doesn't matter which inertial frame is used, since the 
resulting space-time interval is the same in all cases. So it doesn't 
matter which observer does the measuring.

Sylvia.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#367468

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?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#367469

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.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#367476

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.


 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. 

In practic, "a point" can be whole Earth. Or just a 
city. Or a corner of two streets. Or something
smaller, too. Depending on context.
In practic, "event" is a 4 dimensional equivalent of 
"point", and it always was.


> That completely overwhelms any 
> possible error introduced by ignoring the various gravitational fields.

Maybe. But, suppose I want a precise value?
And, not just calculated. Calculations are theory
dependent. To be sure I should measure, shouldn't 
I?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#367569

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.

>
>
>   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.
>
> In practic, "a point" can be whole Earth. Or just a
> city. Or a corner of two streets. Or something
> smaller, too. Depending on context.
> In practic, "event" is a 4 dimensional equivalent of
> "point", and it always was.
>
>
>> That completely overwhelms any
>> possible error introduced by ignoring the various gravitational fields.
>
> Maybe. But, suppose I want a precise value?
> And, not just calculated. Calculations are theory
> dependent. To be sure I should measure, shouldn't
> I?
>

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.

Time measurements are even more complicated, and typically involve 
calculations even if they're being done by analogue machinery.

Sylvia.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#367586

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?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#367593

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. When 
measurements are interpreted within the model, they are found to be 
consistent with it. Science doesn't claim any more than that.

You're welcome to propose an alternate model, but finding one that's 
consistent is not so easy.

Sylvia.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#367596

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. 


> 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.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#367597

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.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#367598

W dniu wtorek, 20 października 2015 11:30:05 UTC+2 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał:
> 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. 

Unfortunately, when I do, time of GPS fits
t'=t rule, with precision of acceptable error...

>If you want to measure length,  use a ruler.

Get conscious. A ruler?

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

:) Can Your spiritual guidance about this interval of
yours be more precise?
No, it can't.

> There are hardly difficult operations.

Still, You can't tell me, how they should be done.


> >> 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.

A mistake. It is not easy.  That's why Great Guru didn't make it.
But it's not even the beginning.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#367520

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. In this instance, the major 
> separation is in time, with the distance separation being insignificant 
> by comparison.
> 
> Sylvia.

a square of metre is a measure of surface, not a distance, bebe.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#367523

On Monday, October 19, 2015 at 4:02:39 PM UTC-3, al...@interia.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. In this instance, the major 
> > separation is in time, with the distance separation being insignificant 
> > by comparison.
> > 
> > Sylvia.
> 
> a square of metre is a measure of surface, not a distance, bebe.

Learn first what an interval is, before spouting nonsense.

Hint: ds^2=c^2dt-dx^2-dy^2-dz^2

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#367530

Użytkownik "paparios"  napisał w wiadomości grup 
dyskusyjnych:9447c43d-18d0-43cf-ad6c-5c70e170ccd9@googlegroups.com...


> a square of metre is a measure of surface, not a distance, bebe.

|Learn first what an interval is, before spouting nonsense.

BTW, dear relativistic morons, and what is a "square meter"
in New, Better Physics?
According to common sense prejudices, it would be a surface
of a square 1x1m. Unfortunately, or fortunately,  Great Guru
has refuted squares. There is no such figure, according to The
Shit.

So, what is a square meter?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#367562

El lunes, 19 de octubre de 2015, 17:55:36 (UTC-3), Maciej Woźniak  escribió:
> Użytkownik "paparios"  napisał w wiadomości grup 
> dyskusyjnych:9447c43d-18d0-43cf-ad6c-5c70e170ccd9@googlegroups.com...
> 
> 
> > a square of metre is a measure of surface, not a distance, bebe.
> 
> |Learn first what an interval is, before spouting nonsense.
> 
> BTW, dear relativistic morons, and what is a "square meter"
> in New, Better Physics?
> According to common sense prejudices, it would be a surface
> of a square 1x1m. Unfortunately, or fortunately,  Great Guru
> has refuted squares. There is no such figure, according to The
> Shit.
> 
> So, what is a square meter?

The are of the ground covered with the shit you spread every hour in this forum.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#367587

W dniu wtorek, 20 października 2015 02:14:05 UTC+2 użytkownik paparios napisał:

> > BTW, dear relativistic morons, and what is a "square meter"
> > in New, Better Physics?
> > According to common sense prejudices, it would be a surface
> > of a square 1x1m. Unfortunately, or fortunately,  Great Guru
> > has refuted squares. There is no such figure, according to The
> > Shit.
> > 
> > So, what is a square meter?
> 
> The are of the ground covered with the shit you spread every hour in this forum.

For a serious answer, relativistic moron would have
to know something.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web