Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #375419 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-02-02 10:24 -0800 |
| Last post | 2016-02-04 07:58 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 189 — 22 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-02 10:24 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity jamesl51165@gmail.com - 2016-02-02 11:05 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity shan <shan@enterapps.org> - 2016-02-02 21:20 +0000
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-02-02 13:32 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity shan <shan@enterapps.org> - 2016-02-02 21:37 +0000
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-03 00:44 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-03 22:07 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-03 23:24 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-03 04:54 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-03 05:10 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-03 06:25 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-03 06:59 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-03 19:29 +0100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-03 11:24 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-03 20:32 +0100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-03 14:16 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity shan <shan@enterapps.org> - 2016-02-03 23:07 +0000
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-03 18:21 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-03 23:16 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-03 23:13 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-04 04:48 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-04 05:12 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-04 05:16 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-04 06:03 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-02-04 10:53 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-04 21:21 +0100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-02-03 11:48 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-03 20:56 +0100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-04 10:15 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-02-03 20:26 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-03 23:20 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-04 19:31 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-04 01:45 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-04 21:59 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-04 05:11 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-05 12:18 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-04 23:25 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-02-04 23:32 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-05 00:06 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-05 20:22 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-05 20:21 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-05 02:20 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-05 22:05 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-02-05 03:34 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-05 05:15 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-05 05:44 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-05 05:52 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-05 06:02 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-02-05 11:14 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-05 12:34 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-05 21:51 +0100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-05 05:26 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-05 04:35 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-06 12:18 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-06 09:23 +0100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-06 19:46 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-06 10:52 +0100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-06 22:34 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-06 13:08 +0100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-07 09:48 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-07 08:50 +0100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-07 09:31 +0100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-07 22:49 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-07 13:17 +0100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-07 14:15 +0100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-08 13:46 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-08 18:15 +0100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-09 11:23 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-08 22:43 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-09 23:01 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-09 04:42 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-10 17:18 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-02-09 22:56 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-09 23:29 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-10 18:51 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-10 00:42 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-10 22:48 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-10 04:16 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-02-10 05:51 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-10 06:27 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-10 07:15 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-10 18:16 +0100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-10 09:24 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Muddy Shoes <shoes@muddyshoes.org> - 2016-02-10 17:31 +0000
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-11 13:36 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-10 22:56 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-11 18:50 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-11 00:58 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-11 21:41 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-11 04:02 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-11 05:29 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-11 06:40 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-11 07:30 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-11 17:12 +0100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-11 14:27 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-12 16:44 +0100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-12 11:48 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-13 00:54 +0100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-13 11:14 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-13 08:43 +0100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-13 22:18 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-13 12:54 +0100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-13 23:02 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Muddy Shoes <shoes@muddyshoes.org> - 2016-02-13 12:17 +0000
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-14 18:28 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Céline Desirée Hedwig <celinedh@bernhardine.org> - 2016-02-14 21:13 +0000
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-15 12:05 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Céline Desirée Hedwig <celinedh@bernhardine.org> - 2016-02-15 15:54 +0000
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-16 11:19 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-16 02:53 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-02-16 03:26 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-16 04:17 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-02-16 05:04 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-17 12:14 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-17 06:32 +0100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-17 17:22 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-16 23:06 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-17 22:21 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-17 03:26 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-17 18:34 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-17 23:00 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Monique de Brabant <moniqb@cafedelmar.org> - 2016-02-18 15:45 +0000
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-18 09:19 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-19 11:23 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Stzepan Zdrobněliny <stzepan282@guadalajara.org> - 2016-02-20 22:47 +0000
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-21 13:29 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-21 10:12 +0100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-02-13 06:04 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-13 16:27 +0100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Muddy Shoes <shoes@muddyshoes.org> - 2016-02-13 15:29 +0000
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-02-13 08:28 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Muddy Shoes <shoes@muddyshoes.org> - 2016-02-13 16:40 +0000
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-02-13 13:32 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-14 10:12 +0100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-14 08:53 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-13 16:11 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-14 12:20 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-14 10:15 +0100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-14 10:17 +0100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-14 10:13 +0100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-14 22:31 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-14 15:55 +0100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-02-13 10:08 -0600
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Muddy Shoes <shoes@muddyshoes.org> - 2016-02-13 16:32 +0000
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-14 10:10 +0100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-14 20:12 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-14 10:21 +0100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-14 22:09 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-02-14 07:57 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Céline Desirée Hedwig <celinedh@bernhardine.org> - 2016-02-14 21:04 +0000
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-02-11 08:13 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Muddy Shoes <shoes@muddyshoes.org> - 2016-02-11 17:54 +0000
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-02-11 13:55 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-11 14:30 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Muddy Shoes <shoes@muddyshoes.org> - 2016-02-11 17:45 +0000
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-11 14:28 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-02-06 13:31 +0100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity shan <shan@enterapps.org> - 2016-02-06 12:35 +0000
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-06 07:29 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Éibhear <eibhear@no-email.net> - 2016-02-06 20:54 +0000
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity shan <shan@enterapps.org> - 2016-02-06 12:59 +0000
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-07 09:51 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Éibhear <eibhear@no-email.net> - 2016-02-06 23:17 +0000
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-07 10:46 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Éibhear <eibhear@no-email.net> - 2016-02-07 00:46 +0000
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity jamesl51165@gmail.com - 2016-02-06 15:48 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-02-06 18:39 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-07 10:11 +0100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity ˌsōlər ˈpleksəs <solar@plexus.org> - 2016-02-07 19:34 +0000
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-02-07 14:04 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-02-08 09:12 +0100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-02-06 21:57 -0600
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Καλυψώ <calipso214@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-08 15:33 +0000
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-02-08 09:16 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Heiðr Einherjar <einherjar@notformail.org> - 2016-02-08 17:24 +0000
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-08 18:25 +0100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-09 11:24 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-08 22:53 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-09 23:02 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-09 04:43 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-10 17:20 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-02-09 23:05 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-10 18:58 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-02-10 00:32 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-10 22:55 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-02-08 23:13 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-09 00:04 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-02-04 06:58 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity jamesl51165@gmail.com - 2016-02-04 07:58 -0800
Page 3 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 … 10 Next page →
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-05 20:21 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dhj7rsF7v2dU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #375577 |
On 5/02/2016 6:25 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > W dniu piątek, 5 lutego 2016 02:18:43 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >> On 5/02/2016 12:11 AM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>> W dniu czwartek, 4 lutego 2016 11:59:23 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >>>> On 4/02/2016 8:45 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>>>> W dniu czwartek, 4 lutego 2016 09:31:57 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >>>>>> On 4/02/2016 6:20 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>>>>>> W dniu czwartek, 4 lutego 2016 00:15:25 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >>>>>>>> On 3/02/2016 11:54 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>>>>>>>> W dniu środa, 3 lutego 2016 12:07:12 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >>>>>>>>>> If the doors close simultaneously in Sarah's frame, then they don't in >>>>>>>>>> Adam's frame. Both Sarah and Adam agree that the trains gets through >>>>>>>>>> unscathed. How often does this paradox nonsense have to be debunked? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> And if Adam is going through a forest, from his own point of view >>>>>>>>> he observes he is immobile and trees are running around him. >>>>>>>>> So said a bunch of Gurus! >>>>>>>>> Must be the truth. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> That's a pretty classic strawman - misrepresent someone's position >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Quorting Gary: >>>>>>> This actually Galileo's concept, but I'm glad the babbling baboon finally >>>>>>> embraces the correct concept. >>>>>>> End of quote. >>>>>>> No, it isn't any misrepresentation. That's exactly >>>>>>> what Your physics represents. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> You characterise the motion of the trees as "running around". Not only >>>>>> do the trees not run, but their motion is all in the same direction, >>>>>> being the opposite of the direction is moving in in the frame of the >>>>>> trees. So there's no sense in which it can be said to be "around". >>>>> >>>>> :) >>>>> A nice try, but, I'm afraid, it's never as easy in >>>>> the common language. "trees are running around him" >>>>> can mean "trees around him" as well, as "running around >>>>> him". >>>>> Keep practicing, but there is still much to learn. >>>>> >>>> >>>> So, despite the picturesque language, you're accepting that if Adam has >>>> a velocity v (a vector) in the frame of the trees, then the trees have >>>> velocity -v in Adam's frame. >>> >>> No. I'm only accepting that You're saying so. >> >> So what do you suggest is how things work? > > If You mean trees, they usually don't work. > But if You mean an observer, he works better > when operating a single own velocity, than > operating with thousands velocities of trees. > Particularly, when main purpose of his all > observations is - controlling his movement > and avoiding killing himself by collision > with a tree. All the trees have the same velocity. >> I don't remember agreeing to that, and you do like to twist things >> and/or have poor understanding. > > And You have a poor and selective memory. > I think not. Give the URL of the relevant posting in Google Groups. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-05 02:20 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <8cdcf4d7-f1e7-4afd-a568-cda29c150c34@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #375584 |
W dniu piątek, 5 lutego 2016 10:21:03 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > On 5/02/2016 6:25 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > > W dniu piątek, 5 lutego 2016 02:18:43 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > >> On 5/02/2016 12:11 AM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > >>> W dniu czwartek, 4 lutego 2016 11:59:23 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > >>>> On 4/02/2016 8:45 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > >>>>> W dniu czwartek, 4 lutego 2016 09:31:57 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > >>>>>> On 4/02/2016 6:20 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > >>>>>>> W dniu czwartek, 4 lutego 2016 00:15:25 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > >>>>>>>> On 3/02/2016 11:54 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > >>>>>>>>> W dniu środa, 3 lutego 2016 12:07:12 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > >>>>>>>>>> If the doors close simultaneously in Sarah's frame, then they don't in > >>>>>>>>>> Adam's frame. Both Sarah and Adam agree that the trains gets through > >>>>>>>>>> unscathed. How often does this paradox nonsense have to be debunked? > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> And if Adam is going through a forest, from his own point of view > >>>>>>>>> he observes he is immobile and trees are running around him. > >>>>>>>>> So said a bunch of Gurus! > >>>>>>>>> Must be the truth. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> That's a pretty classic strawman - misrepresent someone's position > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Quorting Gary: > >>>>>>> This actually Galileo's concept, but I'm glad the babbling baboon finally > >>>>>>> embraces the correct concept. > >>>>>>> End of quote. > >>>>>>> No, it isn't any misrepresentation. That's exactly > >>>>>>> what Your physics represents. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> You characterise the motion of the trees as "running around". Not only > >>>>>> do the trees not run, but their motion is all in the same direction, > >>>>>> being the opposite of the direction is moving in in the frame of the > >>>>>> trees. So there's no sense in which it can be said to be "around". > >>>>> > >>>>> :) > >>>>> A nice try, but, I'm afraid, it's never as easy in > >>>>> the common language. "trees are running around him" > >>>>> can mean "trees around him" as well, as "running around > >>>>> him". > >>>>> Keep practicing, but there is still much to learn. > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> So, despite the picturesque language, you're accepting that if Adam has > >>>> a velocity v (a vector) in the frame of the trees, then the trees have > >>>> velocity -v in Adam's frame. > >>> > >>> No. I'm only accepting that You're saying so. > >> > >> So what do you suggest is how things work? > > > > If You mean trees, they usually don't work. > > But if You mean an observer, he works better > > when operating a single own velocity, than > > operating with thousands velocities of trees. > > Particularly, when main purpose of his all > > observations is - controlling his movement > > and avoiding killing himself by collision > > with a tree. > > All the trees have the same velocity. Yes, and it's 0. It's not about imagined twins in imagined rockets. Millions of people go through forests every day. They all consider trees as immobile from their points of view, as long, as these trees are not falling. Take ANY person form the street and ask him/her whether he/she is observing these trees/lanterns/ buildings around moving with any speed. Your brilliant relativitic "point of view of an observer" is completely primitive, and thus easy and simple enough for formalizing. And this is the end of its advantages. Nobody uses it, and nobody ever will. > > >> I don't remember agreeing to that, and you do like to twist things > >> and/or have poor understanding. > > > > And You have a poor and selective memory. > > > > I think not. Give the URL of the relevant posting in Google Groups. https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/sci.physics.relativity/m2BKfSHsHio I quoted Your fellow Tom: > Quoting Tom: > This is wrong. In relativity and essentially all of modern physics there is > more: a frame of reference consists of a 3-D rectangular FRAME (latticework) of > rulers with a clock located at each junction; the clocks must all be mutually > synchronized. Constructing such a FRAME requires that the entire FRAME be at > rest in some inertial frame. It is NOT coincidence that the same word is used. > This _IS_ what "frame" means in modern physics. > End of quoting. Well, after reading carefully , Your answer was indeed one of these "yes, but no" answers relativists often use. Took it as yes. Seems, I've made a mistake.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-05 22:05 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dhjdvbF9h4lU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #375587 |
On 5/02/2016 9:20 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > W dniu piątek, 5 lutego 2016 10:21:03 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >> On 5/02/2016 6:25 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>> W dniu piątek, 5 lutego 2016 02:18:43 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >>>> On 5/02/2016 12:11 AM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>>>> W dniu czwartek, 4 lutego 2016 11:59:23 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >>>>>> On 4/02/2016 8:45 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>>>>>> W dniu czwartek, 4 lutego 2016 09:31:57 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >>>>>>>> On 4/02/2016 6:20 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>>>>>>>> W dniu czwartek, 4 lutego 2016 00:15:25 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >>>>>>>>>> On 3/02/2016 11:54 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> W dniu środa, 3 lutego 2016 12:07:12 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >>>>>>>>>>>> If the doors close simultaneously in Sarah's frame, then they don't in >>>>>>>>>>>> Adam's frame. Both Sarah and Adam agree that the trains gets through >>>>>>>>>>>> unscathed. How often does this paradox nonsense have to be debunked? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> And if Adam is going through a forest, from his own point of view >>>>>>>>>>> he observes he is immobile and trees are running around him. >>>>>>>>>>> So said a bunch of Gurus! >>>>>>>>>>> Must be the truth. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> That's a pretty classic strawman - misrepresent someone's position >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Quorting Gary: >>>>>>>>> This actually Galileo's concept, but I'm glad the babbling baboon finally >>>>>>>>> embraces the correct concept. >>>>>>>>> End of quote. >>>>>>>>> No, it isn't any misrepresentation. That's exactly >>>>>>>>> what Your physics represents. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You characterise the motion of the trees as "running around". Not only >>>>>>>> do the trees not run, but their motion is all in the same direction, >>>>>>>> being the opposite of the direction is moving in in the frame of the >>>>>>>> trees. So there's no sense in which it can be said to be "around". >>>>>>> >>>>>>> :) >>>>>>> A nice try, but, I'm afraid, it's never as easy in >>>>>>> the common language. "trees are running around him" >>>>>>> can mean "trees around him" as well, as "running around >>>>>>> him". >>>>>>> Keep practicing, but there is still much to learn. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> So, despite the picturesque language, you're accepting that if Adam has >>>>>> a velocity v (a vector) in the frame of the trees, then the trees have >>>>>> velocity -v in Adam's frame. >>>>> >>>>> No. I'm only accepting that You're saying so. >>>> >>>> So what do you suggest is how things work? >>> >>> If You mean trees, they usually don't work. >>> But if You mean an observer, he works better >>> when operating a single own velocity, than >>> operating with thousands velocities of trees. >>> Particularly, when main purpose of his all >>> observations is - controlling his movement >>> and avoiding killing himself by collision >>> with a tree. >> >> All the trees have the same velocity. > > Yes, and it's 0. > It's not about imagined twins in imagined rockets. > Millions of people go through forests every day. > They all consider trees as immobile from their > points of view, as long, as these trees are not > falling. Take ANY person form the street and ask > him/her whether he/she is observing these trees/lanterns/ > buildings around moving with any speed. > > Your brilliant relativitic "point of view of an > observer" is completely primitive, and thus easy > and simple enough for formalizing. And this is > the end of its advantages. > Nobody uses it, and nobody ever will. > Do you understand that the purpose behind all this is to obtain a correct mathematical description of the world, so that we can make predictions about it? An incorrect mathematical description is no use at all. It turns out that if we want a correct mathematical description, the only thing that works is to accept that only relative velocities matter. If we don't accept that, then the maths comes out wrong - the predictions don't fit reality. Physicists don't pull this stuff out of the air - it's forced on them by the universe itself. > > >> >>>> I don't remember agreeing to that, and you do like to twist things >>>> and/or have poor understanding. >>> >>> And You have a poor and selective memory. >>> >> >> I think not. Give the URL of the relevant posting in Google Groups. > > https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/sci.physics.relativity/m2BKfSHsHio > I quoted Your fellow Tom: >> Quoting Tom: >> This is wrong. In relativity and essentially all of modern physics there is >> more: a frame of reference consists of a 3-D rectangular FRAME (latticework) of >> rulers with a clock located at each junction; the clocks must all be mutually >> synchronized. Constructing such a FRAME requires that the entire FRAME be at >> rest in some inertial frame. It is NOT coincidence that the same word is used. >> This _IS_ what "frame" means in modern physics. >> End of quoting. > > Well, after reading carefully , Your answer was indeed one > of these "yes, but no" answers relativists often use. Took it > as yes. Seems, I've made a mistake. > Sometimes distinctions can be subtle, but that doesn't mean they're unimportant. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-05 03:34 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <871474bb-1315-49c5-825b-b4b50dedc603@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #375588 |
On Friday, February 5, 2016 at 3:05:20 AM UTC-8, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 5/02/2016 9:20 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > > W dniu piątek, 5 lutego 2016 10:21:03 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > >> On 5/02/2016 6:25 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > >>> W dniu piątek, 5 lutego 2016 02:18:43 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > >>>> On 5/02/2016 12:11 AM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > >>>>> W dniu czwartek, 4 lutego 2016 11:59:23 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > >>>>>> On 4/02/2016 8:45 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > >>>>>>> W dniu czwartek, 4 lutego 2016 09:31:57 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > >>>>>>>> On 4/02/2016 6:20 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > >>>>>>>>> W dniu czwartek, 4 lutego 2016 00:15:25 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > >>>>>>>>>> On 3/02/2016 11:54 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> W dniu środa, 3 lutego 2016 12:07:12 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > >>>>>>>>>>>> If the doors close simultaneously in Sarah's frame, then they don't in > >>>>>>>>>>>> Adam's frame. Both Sarah and Adam agree that the trains gets through > >>>>>>>>>>>> unscathed. How often does this paradox nonsense have to be debunked? > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> And if Adam is going through a forest, from his own point of view > >>>>>>>>>>> he observes he is immobile and trees are running around him. > >>>>>>>>>>> So said a bunch of Gurus! > >>>>>>>>>>> Must be the truth. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> That's a pretty classic strawman - misrepresent someone's position > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Quorting Gary: > >>>>>>>>> This actually Galileo's concept, but I'm glad the babbling baboon finally > >>>>>>>>> embraces the correct concept. > >>>>>>>>> End of quote. > >>>>>>>>> No, it isn't any misrepresentation. That's exactly > >>>>>>>>> what Your physics represents. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> You characterise the motion of the trees as "running around". Not only > >>>>>>>> do the trees not run, but their motion is all in the same direction, > >>>>>>>> being the opposite of the direction is moving in in the frame of the > >>>>>>>> trees. So there's no sense in which it can be said to be "around". > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> :) > >>>>>>> A nice try, but, I'm afraid, it's never as easy in > >>>>>>> the common language. "trees are running around him" > >>>>>>> can mean "trees around him" as well, as "running around > >>>>>>> him". > >>>>>>> Keep practicing, but there is still much to learn. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> So, despite the picturesque language, you're accepting that if Adam has > >>>>>> a velocity v (a vector) in the frame of the trees, then the trees have > >>>>>> velocity -v in Adam's frame. > >>>>> > >>>>> No. I'm only accepting that You're saying so. > >>>> > >>>> So what do you suggest is how things work? > >>> > >>> If You mean trees, they usually don't work. > >>> But if You mean an observer, he works better > >>> when operating a single own velocity, than > >>> operating with thousands velocities of trees. > >>> Particularly, when main purpose of his all > >>> observations is - controlling his movement > >>> and avoiding killing himself by collision > >>> with a tree. > >> > >> All the trees have the same velocity. > > > > Yes, and it's 0. > > It's not about imagined twins in imagined rockets. > > Millions of people go through forests every day. > > They all consider trees as immobile from their > > points of view, as long, as these trees are not > > falling. Take ANY person form the street and ask > > him/her whether he/she is observing these trees/lanterns/ > > buildings around moving with any speed. > > > > Your brilliant relativitic "point of view of an > > observer" is completely primitive, and thus easy > > and simple enough for formalizing. And this is > > the end of its advantages. > > Nobody uses it, and nobody ever will. > > > > Do you understand that the purpose behind all this is to obtain a > correct mathematical description of the world, so that we can make > predictions about it? > > An incorrect mathematical description is no use at all. > > It turns out that if we want a correct mathematical description, the > only thing that works is to accept that only relative velocities matter. > If we don't accept that, then the maths comes out wrong - the > predictions don't fit reality. > > Physicists don't pull this stuff out of the air - it's forced on them by > the universe itself. He thinks science is philosophy. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-05 05:15 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <ab1f94c6-2396-4358-b32b-265b7b026b40@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #375590 |
On Friday, February 5, 2016 at 4:34:14 AM UTC-7, JanPB wrote: > > He [mlwo] thinks science is philosophy. > > -- > Jan If what he spews is "philosophy" then ISIS is a benevolent organization. It's obvious that people such as he, Pentcho and "Wilson" are seriously disturbed with severe mental problems.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-05 05:44 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <35315330-54c8-4e97-a042-b20588010174@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #375595 |
W dniu piątek, 5 lutego 2016 14:15:27 UTC+1 użytkownik Gary Harnagel napisał: > On Friday, February 5, 2016 at 4:34:14 AM UTC-7, JanPB wrote: > > > > He [mlwo] thinks science is philosophy. > > > > -- > > Jan > > If what he spews is "philosophy" then ISIS is a benevolent organization. > It's obvious that people such as he, Pentcho and "Wilson" are seriously > disturbed with severe mental problems. Rave, moron, and spit. What else can you do.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-05 05:52 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <a8b69deb-80d0-485e-aba0-31ff61951cbf@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #375599 |
On Friday, February 5, 2016 at 6:44:28 AM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > W dniu piątek, 5 lutego 2016 14:15:27 UTC+1 użytkownik Gary Harnagel napisał: > > > > On Friday, February 5, 2016 at 4:34:14 AM UTC-7, JanPB wrote: > > > > > > He [mlwo] thinks science is philosophy. > > > > > > -- > > > Jan > > > > If what he spews is "philosophy" then ISIS is a benevolent organization. > > It's obvious that people such as he, Pentcho and "Wilson" are seriously > > disturbed with severe mental problems. > > Rave, moron, and spit. What else can you do. The only one raving and spitting is you, mental case. You are so far gone, you don't even realize it :-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-05 06:02 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <473e703e-9390-4776-8d68-cac4a3bc95b4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #375600 |
W dniu piątek, 5 lutego 2016 14:52:38 UTC+1 użytkownik Gary Harnagel napisał: > On Friday, February 5, 2016 at 6:44:28 AM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > > > W dniu piątek, 5 lutego 2016 14:15:27 UTC+1 użytkownik Gary Harnagel napisał: > > > > > > On Friday, February 5, 2016 at 4:34:14 AM UTC-7, JanPB wrote: > > > > > > > > He [mlwo] thinks science is philosophy. > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Jan > > > > > > If what he spews is "philosophy" then ISIS is a benevolent organization. > > > It's obvious that people such as he, Pentcho and "Wilson" are seriously > > > disturbed with severe mental problems. > > > > Rave, moron, and spit. What else can you do. > > The only one raving and spitting is you, mental case. You are so far gone, > you don't even realize it :-) Rave, moron, and spit. What else can you do.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-05 11:14 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <218505fd-aa1c-4300-a1cf-d64496f2d9a1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #375595 |
On Friday, February 5, 2016 at 5:15:27 AM UTC-8, Gary Harnagel wrote: > On Friday, February 5, 2016 at 4:34:14 AM UTC-7, JanPB wrote: > > > > He [mlwo] thinks science is philosophy. > > > > -- > > Jan > > If what he spews is "philosophy" then ISIS is a benevolent organization. > It's obvious that people such as he, Pentcho and "Wilson" are seriously > disturbed with severe mental problems. Perhaps his philosophy is in the same league as his science :-) -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-05 12:34 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <f9ef047e-9de9-4f63-b2e9-535bfa59f906@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #375619 |
On Friday, February 5, 2016 at 12:14:24 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote: > On Friday, February 5, 2016 at 5:15:27 AM UTC-8, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > On Friday, February 5, 2016 at 4:34:14 AM UTC-7, JanPB wrote: > > > > > > He [mlwo] thinks science is philosophy. > > > > > > -- > > > Jan > > > > If what he spews is "philosophy" then ISIS is a benevolent organization. > > It's obvious that people such as he, Pentcho and "Wilson" are seriously > > disturbed with severe mental problems. > > Perhaps his philosophy is in the same league as his science :-) > > -- > Jan If he had a philosophy, he would deny that too. Denial is a common thing in two-year-olds :-) Gary
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-05 21:51 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n931vu$v7p$1@node1.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #375631 |
Użytkownik "Gary Harnagel" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:f9ef047e-9de9-4f63-b2e9-535bfa59f906@googlegroups.com... On Friday, February 5, 2016 at 12:14:24 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote: > On Friday, February 5, 2016 at 5:15:27 AM UTC-8, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > On Friday, February 5, 2016 at 4:34:14 AM UTC-7, JanPB wrote: > > > > > > He [mlwo] thinks science is philosophy. > > > > > > -- > > > Jan > > > > If what he spews is "philosophy" then ISIS is a benevolent organization. > > It's obvious that people such as he, Pentcho and "Wilson" are seriously > > disturbed with severe mental problems. > > Perhaps his philosophy is in the same league as his science :-) > > -- > Jan |If he had a philosophy, he would deny that too. Denial is a common thing |in two-year-olds :-) Rave, moron, and spit. What else can you do.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-05 05:26 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <52c01bea-7584-4f18-b0e7-db4795073ebe@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #375590 |
W dniu piątek, 5 lutego 2016 12:34:14 UTC+1 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > On Friday, February 5, 2016 at 3:05:20 AM UTC-8, Sylvia Else wrote: > > On 5/02/2016 9:20 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > > > W dniu piątek, 5 lutego 2016 10:21:03 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > > >> On 5/02/2016 6:25 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > > >>> W dniu piątek, 5 lutego 2016 02:18:43 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > > >>>> On 5/02/2016 12:11 AM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > > >>>>> W dniu czwartek, 4 lutego 2016 11:59:23 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > > >>>>>> On 4/02/2016 8:45 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > > >>>>>>> W dniu czwartek, 4 lutego 2016 09:31:57 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > > >>>>>>>> On 4/02/2016 6:20 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > > >>>>>>>>> W dniu czwartek, 4 lutego 2016 00:15:25 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > > >>>>>>>>>> On 3/02/2016 11:54 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>> W dniu środa, 3 lutego 2016 12:07:12 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > > >>>>>>>>>>>> If the doors close simultaneously in Sarah's frame, then they don't in > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Adam's frame. Both Sarah and Adam agree that the trains gets through > > >>>>>>>>>>>> unscathed. How often does this paradox nonsense have to be debunked? > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> And if Adam is going through a forest, from his own point of view > > >>>>>>>>>>> he observes he is immobile and trees are running around him. > > >>>>>>>>>>> So said a bunch of Gurus! > > >>>>>>>>>>> Must be the truth. > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> That's a pretty classic strawman - misrepresent someone's position > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> Quorting Gary: > > >>>>>>>>> This actually Galileo's concept, but I'm glad the babbling baboon finally > > >>>>>>>>> embraces the correct concept. > > >>>>>>>>> End of quote. > > >>>>>>>>> No, it isn't any misrepresentation. That's exactly > > >>>>>>>>> what Your physics represents. > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> You characterise the motion of the trees as "running around". Not only > > >>>>>>>> do the trees not run, but their motion is all in the same direction, > > >>>>>>>> being the opposite of the direction is moving in in the frame of the > > >>>>>>>> trees. So there's no sense in which it can be said to be "around". > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> :) > > >>>>>>> A nice try, but, I'm afraid, it's never as easy in > > >>>>>>> the common language. "trees are running around him" > > >>>>>>> can mean "trees around him" as well, as "running around > > >>>>>>> him". > > >>>>>>> Keep practicing, but there is still much to learn. > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> So, despite the picturesque language, you're accepting that if Adam has > > >>>>>> a velocity v (a vector) in the frame of the trees, then the trees have > > >>>>>> velocity -v in Adam's frame. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> No. I'm only accepting that You're saying so. > > >>>> > > >>>> So what do you suggest is how things work? > > >>> > > >>> If You mean trees, they usually don't work. > > >>> But if You mean an observer, he works better > > >>> when operating a single own velocity, than > > >>> operating with thousands velocities of trees. > > >>> Particularly, when main purpose of his all > > >>> observations is - controlling his movement > > >>> and avoiding killing himself by collision > > >>> with a tree. > > >> > > >> All the trees have the same velocity. > > > > > > Yes, and it's 0. > > > It's not about imagined twins in imagined rockets. > > > Millions of people go through forests every day. > > > They all consider trees as immobile from their > > > points of view, as long, as these trees are not > > > falling. Take ANY person form the street and ask > > > him/her whether he/she is observing these trees/lanterns/ > > > buildings around moving with any speed. > > > > > > Your brilliant relativitic "point of view of an > > > observer" is completely primitive, and thus easy > > > and simple enough for formalizing. And this is > > > the end of its advantages. > > > Nobody uses it, and nobody ever will. > > > > > > > Do you understand that the purpose behind all this is to obtain a > > correct mathematical description of the world, so that we can make > > predictions about it? > > > > An incorrect mathematical description is no use at all. > > > > It turns out that if we want a correct mathematical description, the > > only thing that works is to accept that only relative velocities matter. > > If we don't accept that, then the maths comes out wrong - the > > predictions don't fit reality. > > > > Physicists don't pull this stuff out of the air - it's forced on them by > > the universe itself. > > He thinks science is philosophy. No, poor idiot. YOU think your mathematics is the world.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-05 04:35 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <8e1d7795-5966-4fa0-83d4-0937c3d736d6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #375588 |
W dniu piątek, 5 lutego 2016 12:05:20 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > On 5/02/2016 9:20 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > > W dniu piątek, 5 lutego 2016 10:21:03 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > >> On 5/02/2016 6:25 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > >>> W dniu piątek, 5 lutego 2016 02:18:43 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > >>>> On 5/02/2016 12:11 AM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > >>>>> W dniu czwartek, 4 lutego 2016 11:59:23 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > >>>>>> On 4/02/2016 8:45 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > >>>>>>> W dniu czwartek, 4 lutego 2016 09:31:57 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > >>>>>>>> On 4/02/2016 6:20 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > >>>>>>>>> W dniu czwartek, 4 lutego 2016 00:15:25 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > >>>>>>>>>> On 3/02/2016 11:54 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> W dniu środa, 3 lutego 2016 12:07:12 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > >>>>>>>>>>>> If the doors close simultaneously in Sarah's frame, then they don't in > >>>>>>>>>>>> Adam's frame. Both Sarah and Adam agree that the trains gets through > >>>>>>>>>>>> unscathed. How often does this paradox nonsense have to be debunked? > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> And if Adam is going through a forest, from his own point of view > >>>>>>>>>>> he observes he is immobile and trees are running around him. > >>>>>>>>>>> So said a bunch of Gurus! > >>>>>>>>>>> Must be the truth. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> That's a pretty classic strawman - misrepresent someone's position > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Quorting Gary: > >>>>>>>>> This actually Galileo's concept, but I'm glad the babbling baboon finally > >>>>>>>>> embraces the correct concept. > >>>>>>>>> End of quote. > >>>>>>>>> No, it isn't any misrepresentation. That's exactly > >>>>>>>>> what Your physics represents. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> You characterise the motion of the trees as "running around". Not only > >>>>>>>> do the trees not run, but their motion is all in the same direction, > >>>>>>>> being the opposite of the direction is moving in in the frame of the > >>>>>>>> trees. So there's no sense in which it can be said to be "around". > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> :) > >>>>>>> A nice try, but, I'm afraid, it's never as easy in > >>>>>>> the common language. "trees are running around him" > >>>>>>> can mean "trees around him" as well, as "running around > >>>>>>> him". > >>>>>>> Keep practicing, but there is still much to learn. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> So, despite the picturesque language, you're accepting that if Adam has > >>>>>> a velocity v (a vector) in the frame of the trees, then the trees have > >>>>>> velocity -v in Adam's frame. > >>>>> > >>>>> No. I'm only accepting that You're saying so. > >>>> > >>>> So what do you suggest is how things work? > >>> > >>> If You mean trees, they usually don't work. > >>> But if You mean an observer, he works better > >>> when operating a single own velocity, than > >>> operating with thousands velocities of trees. > >>> Particularly, when main purpose of his all > >>> observations is - controlling his movement > >>> and avoiding killing himself by collision > >>> with a tree. > >> > >> All the trees have the same velocity. > > > > Yes, and it's 0. > > It's not about imagined twins in imagined rockets. > > Millions of people go through forests every day. > > They all consider trees as immobile from their > > points of view, as long, as these trees are not > > falling. Take ANY person form the street and ask > > him/her whether he/she is observing these trees/lanterns/ > > buildings around moving with any speed. > > > > Your brilliant relativitic "point of view of an > > observer" is completely primitive, and thus easy > > and simple enough for formalizing. And this is > > the end of its advantages. > > Nobody uses it, and nobody ever will. > > > > Do you understand that the purpose behind all this is to obtain a > correct mathematical description of the world, so that we can make > predictions about it? What "world" do You mean? These REAL people going through REAL forest - aren't they a part of Your "world"? How about these clocks of GPS, indicating t'=t in very clear, mathematical numbers? And, when this person from the street is saying "I went through a forest" - what do You think she is describing? What do You think GPS clocks and their indications are for? > > It turns out that if we want a correct mathematical description, the > only thing that works is to accept that only relative velocities matter. Correct mathematical description? Of what? Where, exactly, in the world, can I find Your "correctly described" observers? > If we don't accept that, then the maths comes out wrong - the > predictions don't fit reality. No. If You accept that, Your predictions don't fit the reality, because reality is simply DIFFERENT THAN YOU IMAGINE IT. And they don't.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-06 12:18 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dhkvvvFlunmU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #375592 |
On 5/02/2016 11:35 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > W dniu piątek, 5 lutego 2016 12:05:20 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >> On 5/02/2016 9:20 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>> W dniu piątek, 5 lutego 2016 10:21:03 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >>>> On 5/02/2016 6:25 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>>>> W dniu piątek, 5 lutego 2016 02:18:43 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >>>>>> On 5/02/2016 12:11 AM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>>>>>> W dniu czwartek, 4 lutego 2016 11:59:23 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >>>>>>>> On 4/02/2016 8:45 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>>>>>>>> W dniu czwartek, 4 lutego 2016 09:31:57 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >>>>>>>>>> On 4/02/2016 6:20 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> W dniu czwartek, 4 lutego 2016 00:15:25 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/02/2016 11:54 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> W dniu środa, 3 lutego 2016 12:07:12 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the doors close simultaneously in Sarah's frame, then they don't in >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Adam's frame. Both Sarah and Adam agree that the trains gets through >>>>>>>>>>>>>> unscathed. How often does this paradox nonsense have to be debunked? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> And if Adam is going through a forest, from his own point of view >>>>>>>>>>>>> he observes he is immobile and trees are running around him. >>>>>>>>>>>>> So said a bunch of Gurus! >>>>>>>>>>>>> Must be the truth. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> That's a pretty classic strawman - misrepresent someone's position >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Quorting Gary: >>>>>>>>>>> This actually Galileo's concept, but I'm glad the babbling baboon finally >>>>>>>>>>> embraces the correct concept. >>>>>>>>>>> End of quote. >>>>>>>>>>> No, it isn't any misrepresentation. That's exactly >>>>>>>>>>> what Your physics represents. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> You characterise the motion of the trees as "running around". Not only >>>>>>>>>> do the trees not run, but their motion is all in the same direction, >>>>>>>>>> being the opposite of the direction is moving in in the frame of the >>>>>>>>>> trees. So there's no sense in which it can be said to be "around". >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> :) >>>>>>>>> A nice try, but, I'm afraid, it's never as easy in >>>>>>>>> the common language. "trees are running around him" >>>>>>>>> can mean "trees around him" as well, as "running around >>>>>>>>> him". >>>>>>>>> Keep practicing, but there is still much to learn. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> So, despite the picturesque language, you're accepting that if Adam has >>>>>>>> a velocity v (a vector) in the frame of the trees, then the trees have >>>>>>>> velocity -v in Adam's frame. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> No. I'm only accepting that You're saying so. >>>>>> >>>>>> So what do you suggest is how things work? >>>>> >>>>> If You mean trees, they usually don't work. >>>>> But if You mean an observer, he works better >>>>> when operating a single own velocity, than >>>>> operating with thousands velocities of trees. >>>>> Particularly, when main purpose of his all >>>>> observations is - controlling his movement >>>>> and avoiding killing himself by collision >>>>> with a tree. >>>> >>>> All the trees have the same velocity. >>> >>> Yes, and it's 0. >>> It's not about imagined twins in imagined rockets. >>> Millions of people go through forests every day. >>> They all consider trees as immobile from their >>> points of view, as long, as these trees are not >>> falling. Take ANY person form the street and ask >>> him/her whether he/she is observing these trees/lanterns/ >>> buildings around moving with any speed. >>> >>> Your brilliant relativitic "point of view of an >>> observer" is completely primitive, and thus easy >>> and simple enough for formalizing. And this is >>> the end of its advantages. >>> Nobody uses it, and nobody ever will. >>> >> >> Do you understand that the purpose behind all this is to obtain a >> correct mathematical description of the world, so that we can make >> predictions about it? > > What "world" do You mean? > These REAL people going through REAL forest - > aren't they a part of Your "world"? How about > these clocks of GPS, indicating t'=t in very > clear, mathematical numbers? > And, when this person from the street is saying > "I went through a forest" - what do You think > she is describing? > What do You think GPS clocks and their indications > are for? > Essentially, the problem for an observer is "If I make some measurement X, can I work out, in advance, what the result of the measurement will be." X is anything that can be measured, whether by using some instrument, or observing (or more likely, having someone else observe) the size of the dent in a skull after it's impacted a rock. >> >> It turns out that if we want a correct mathematical description, the >> only thing that works is to accept that only relative velocities matter. > > Correct mathematical description? Of what? > Where, exactly, in the world, can I find > Your "correctly described" observers? There are no correctly described observers. There are just poor everyday guys who prefer not to have to achieve everything by trial and error. With a correct mathematical description, these poor everyday guys can work out what will happen in any given set of circumstances, and thereby determine whether they want to create those circumstances, not care about them, or actively avoid them. > >> If we don't accept that, then the maths comes out wrong - the >> predictions don't fit reality. > > No. If You accept that, Your predictions don't fit the > reality, because reality is simply DIFFERENT THAN YOU > IMAGINE IT. > And they don't. > Well, so you say, but people spend their entire careers testing theories to see whether they can be found wanting. Relativity (and in particular general relativity) has stood those tests exceptionally well. You on the other hand, have yet to propose any single measurement whose result conflicts with the theory. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-06 09:23 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n94ahn$dve$1@node2.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #375656 |
Użytkownik "Sylvia Else" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:dhkvvvFlunmU1@mid.individual.net... On 5/02/2016 11:35 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > W dniu piątek, 5 lutego 2016 12:05:20 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else > napisał: >> On 5/02/2016 9:20 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>> W dniu piątek, 5 lutego 2016 10:21:03 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else >>> napisał: >>>> On 5/02/2016 6:25 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>>>> W dniu piątek, 5 lutego 2016 02:18:43 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else >>>>> napisał: >>>>>> On 5/02/2016 12:11 AM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>>>>>> W dniu czwartek, 4 lutego 2016 11:59:23 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else >>>>>>> napisał: >>>>>>>> On 4/02/2016 8:45 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>>>>>>>> W dniu czwartek, 4 lutego 2016 09:31:57 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia >>>>>>>>> Else napisał: >>>>>>>>>> On 4/02/2016 6:20 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> W dniu czwartek, 4 lutego 2016 00:15:25 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia >>>>>>>>>>> Else napisał: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/02/2016 11:54 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> W dniu środa, 3 lutego 2016 12:07:12 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia >>>>>>>>>>>>> Else napisał: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the doors close simultaneously in Sarah's frame, then they >>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't in >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Adam's frame. Both Sarah and Adam agree that the trains gets >>>>>>>>>>>>>> through >>>>>>>>>>>>>> unscathed. How often does this paradox nonsense have to be >>>>>>>>>>>>>> debunked? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> And if Adam is going through a forest, from his own point of >>>>>>>>>>>>> view >>>>>>>>>>>>> he observes he is immobile and trees are running around him. >>>>>>>>>>>>> So said a bunch of Gurus! >>>>>>>>>>>>> Must be the truth. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> That's a pretty classic strawman - misrepresent someone's >>>>>>>>>>>> position >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Quorting Gary: >>>>>>>>>>> This actually Galileo's concept, but I'm glad the babbling >>>>>>>>>>> baboon finally >>>>>>>>>>> embraces the correct concept. >>>>>>>>>>> End of quote. >>>>>>>>>>> No, it isn't any misrepresentation. That's exactly >>>>>>>>>>> what Your physics represents. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> You characterise the motion of the trees as "running around". Not >>>>>>>>>> only >>>>>>>>>> do the trees not run, but their motion is all in the same >>>>>>>>>> direction, >>>>>>>>>> being the opposite of the direction is moving in in the frame of >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> trees. So there's no sense in which it can be said to be >>>>>>>>>> "around". >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> :) >>>>>>>>> A nice try, but, I'm afraid, it's never as easy in >>>>>>>>> the common language. "trees are running around him" >>>>>>>>> can mean "trees around him" as well, as "running around >>>>>>>>> him". >>>>>>>>> Keep practicing, but there is still much to learn. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> So, despite the picturesque language, you're accepting that if Adam >>>>>>>> has >>>>>>>> a velocity v (a vector) in the frame of the trees, then the trees >>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>> velocity -v in Adam's frame. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> No. I'm only accepting that You're saying so. >>>>>> >>>>>> So what do you suggest is how things work? >>>>> >>>>> If You mean trees, they usually don't work. >>>>> But if You mean an observer, he works better >>>>> when operating a single own velocity, than >>>>> operating with thousands velocities of trees. >>>>> Particularly, when main purpose of his all >>>>> observations is - controlling his movement >>>>> and avoiding killing himself by collision >>>>> with a tree. >>>> >>>> All the trees have the same velocity. >>> >>> Yes, and it's 0. >>> It's not about imagined twins in imagined rockets. >>> Millions of people go through forests every day. >>> They all consider trees as immobile from their >>> points of view, as long, as these trees are not >>> falling. Take ANY person form the street and ask >>> him/her whether he/she is observing these trees/lanterns/ >>> buildings around moving with any speed. >>> >>> Your brilliant relativitic "point of view of an >>> observer" is completely primitive, and thus easy >>> and simple enough for formalizing. And this is >>> the end of its advantages. >>> Nobody uses it, and nobody ever will. >>> >> >> Do you understand that the purpose behind all this is to obtain a >> correct mathematical description of the world, so that we can make >> predictions about it? > > What "world" do You mean? > These REAL people going through REAL forest - > aren't they a part of Your "world"? How about > these clocks of GPS, indicating t'=t in very > clear, mathematical numbers? > And, when this person from the street is saying > "I went through a forest" - what do You think > she is describing? > What do You think GPS clocks and their indications > are for? > |Essentially, the problem for an observer is "If I make some measurement |X, can I work out, in advance, what the result of the measurement will be." So, are they a part of Your "world" or not? >> It turns out that if we want a correct mathematical description, the >> only thing that works is to accept that only relative velocities matter. > > Correct mathematical description? Of what? > Where, exactly, in the world, can I find > Your "correctly described" observers? |There are no correctly described observers. And, as You can't do the task correctly, instead You imagine they are different, than they are. |Well, so you say, but people spend their entire careers testing theories |to see whether they can be found wanting. Relativity (and in particular |general relativity) has stood those tests exceptionally well. Well, so You say, and unfortunately, it's a total bullshit. |You on the other hand, have yet to propose any single measurement whose |result conflicts with the theory. Check the clocks of GPS. They indicate t'=t. Clocks indicate, so it's a DIRECT MEASUREMENT result, right from the real world, not from your gedankens. Game over. And - do You know, why they are set differently, than Your relativity ordered to set clocks? Because GPS is a serious device designed to do REAL measurements and REAL calculations with the REAL results. Not a toy for people like You to puff about their imagined wisdom.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-06 19:46 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dhlq86FrlkhU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #375664 |
On 6/02/2016 7:23 PM, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > > Użytkownik "Sylvia Else" napisał w wiadomości grup > dyskusyjnych:dhkvvvFlunmU1@mid.individual.net... > > On 5/02/2016 11:35 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >> W dniu piątek, 5 lutego 2016 12:05:20 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else >> napisał: >>> On 5/02/2016 9:20 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>>> W dniu piątek, 5 lutego 2016 10:21:03 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else >>>> napisał: >>>>> On 5/02/2016 6:25 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>>>>> W dniu piątek, 5 lutego 2016 02:18:43 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else >>>>>> napisał: >>>>>>> On 5/02/2016 12:11 AM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>>>>>>> W dniu czwartek, 4 lutego 2016 11:59:23 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia >>>>>>>> Else napisał: >>>>>>>>> On 4/02/2016 8:45 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>>>>>>>>> W dniu czwartek, 4 lutego 2016 09:31:57 UTC+1 użytkownik >>>>>>>>>> Sylvia Else napisał: >>>>>>>>>>> On 4/02/2016 6:20 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> W dniu czwartek, 4 lutego 2016 00:15:25 UTC+1 użytkownik >>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia Else napisał: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/02/2016 11:54 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> W dniu środa, 3 lutego 2016 12:07:12 UTC+1 użytkownik >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia Else napisał: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the doors close simultaneously in Sarah's frame, then >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they don't in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Adam's frame. Both Sarah and Adam agree that the trains >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gets through >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unscathed. How often does this paradox nonsense have to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be debunked? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> And if Adam is going through a forest, from his own point >>>>>>>>>>>>>> of view >>>>>>>>>>>>>> he observes he is immobile and trees are running around him. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> So said a bunch of Gurus! >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Must be the truth. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> That's a pretty classic strawman - misrepresent someone's >>>>>>>>>>>>> position >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Quorting Gary: >>>>>>>>>>>> This actually Galileo's concept, but I'm glad the babbling >>>>>>>>>>>> baboon finally >>>>>>>>>>>> embraces the correct concept. >>>>>>>>>>>> End of quote. >>>>>>>>>>>> No, it isn't any misrepresentation. That's exactly >>>>>>>>>>>> what Your physics represents. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> You characterise the motion of the trees as "running around". >>>>>>>>>>> Not only >>>>>>>>>>> do the trees not run, but their motion is all in the same >>>>>>>>>>> direction, >>>>>>>>>>> being the opposite of the direction is moving in in the frame >>>>>>>>>>> of the >>>>>>>>>>> trees. So there's no sense in which it can be said to be >>>>>>>>>>> "around". >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> :) >>>>>>>>>> A nice try, but, I'm afraid, it's never as easy in >>>>>>>>>> the common language. "trees are running around him" >>>>>>>>>> can mean "trees around him" as well, as "running around >>>>>>>>>> him". >>>>>>>>>> Keep practicing, but there is still much to learn. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> So, despite the picturesque language, you're accepting that if >>>>>>>>> Adam has >>>>>>>>> a velocity v (a vector) in the frame of the trees, then the >>>>>>>>> trees have >>>>>>>>> velocity -v in Adam's frame. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> No. I'm only accepting that You're saying so. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So what do you suggest is how things work? >>>>>> >>>>>> If You mean trees, they usually don't work. >>>>>> But if You mean an observer, he works better >>>>>> when operating a single own velocity, than >>>>>> operating with thousands velocities of trees. >>>>>> Particularly, when main purpose of his all >>>>>> observations is - controlling his movement >>>>>> and avoiding killing himself by collision >>>>>> with a tree. >>>>> >>>>> All the trees have the same velocity. >>>> >>>> Yes, and it's 0. >>>> It's not about imagined twins in imagined rockets. >>>> Millions of people go through forests every day. >>>> They all consider trees as immobile from their >>>> points of view, as long, as these trees are not >>>> falling. Take ANY person form the street and ask >>>> him/her whether he/she is observing these trees/lanterns/ >>>> buildings around moving with any speed. >>>> >>>> Your brilliant relativitic "point of view of an >>>> observer" is completely primitive, and thus easy >>>> and simple enough for formalizing. And this is >>>> the end of its advantages. >>>> Nobody uses it, and nobody ever will. >>>> >>> >>> Do you understand that the purpose behind all this is to obtain a >>> correct mathematical description of the world, so that we can make >>> predictions about it? >> >> What "world" do You mean? >> These REAL people going through REAL forest - >> aren't they a part of Your "world"? How about >> these clocks of GPS, indicating t'=t in very >> clear, mathematical numbers? >> And, when this person from the street is saying >> "I went through a forest" - what do You think >> she is describing? >> What do You think GPS clocks and their indications >> are for? >> > > |Essentially, the problem for an observer is "If I make some measurement > |X, can I work out, in advance, what the result of the measurement will > be." > > So, are they a part of Your "world" or not? What are "they"? > > >>> It turns out that if we want a correct mathematical description, the >>> only thing that works is to accept that only relative velocities matter. >> >> Correct mathematical description? Of what? >> Where, exactly, in the world, can I find >> Your "correctly described" observers? > > |There are no correctly described observers. > > And, as You can't do the task correctly, instead You imagine they > are different, than they are. I have not idea what you intend by that. > > > |Well, so you say, but people spend their entire careers testing theories > |to see whether they can be found wanting. Relativity (and in particular > |general relativity) has stood those tests exceptionally well. > > Well, so You say, and unfortunately, it's a total bullshit. > > |You on the other hand, have yet to propose any single measurement whose > |result conflicts with the theory. > > Check the clocks of GPS. They indicate t'=t. Clocks indicate, so it's > a DIRECT MEASUREMENT result, right from the real world, not from > your gedankens. At the risk of raising the dreaded GPS clock topic, I'll just say that the atomic clocks on board GPS satellites are configured so that they count seconds slightly slowly compared with an accurate clock sitting next to them. They do this so that they count seconds at the same rate that a clock sitting on Earth counts them. The required adjustment was calculated using general relativity. > Game over. > > And - do You know, why they are set differently, than Your relativity > ordered to set clocks? > Because GPS is a serious device designed to do REAL measurements > and REAL calculations with the REAL results. Not a toy for people > like You to puff about their imagined wisdom. > They do what they are intended to do. Making them do that required a solid knowledge of the physics of space, time and gravity. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-06 10:52 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n94fp6$j22$1@node2.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #375665 |
Użytkownik "Sylvia Else" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:dhlq86FrlkhU1@mid.individual.net... On 6/02/2016 7:23 PM, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > > Użytkownik "Sylvia Else" napisał w wiadomości grup > dyskusyjnych:dhkvvvFlunmU1@mid.individual.net... > > On 5/02/2016 11:35 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >> W dniu piątek, 5 lutego 2016 12:05:20 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else >> napisał: >>> On 5/02/2016 9:20 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>>> W dniu piątek, 5 lutego 2016 10:21:03 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else >>>> napisał: >>>>> On 5/02/2016 6:25 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>>>>> W dniu piątek, 5 lutego 2016 02:18:43 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else >>>>>> napisał: >>>>>>> On 5/02/2016 12:11 AM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>>>>>>> W dniu czwartek, 4 lutego 2016 11:59:23 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia >>>>>>>> Else napisał: >>>>>>>>> On 4/02/2016 8:45 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>>>>>>>>> W dniu czwartek, 4 lutego 2016 09:31:57 UTC+1 użytkownik >>>>>>>>>> Sylvia Else napisał: >>>>>>>>>>> On 4/02/2016 6:20 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> W dniu czwartek, 4 lutego 2016 00:15:25 UTC+1 użytkownik >>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia Else napisał: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/02/2016 11:54 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> W dniu środa, 3 lutego 2016 12:07:12 UTC+1 użytkownik >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia Else napisał: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the doors close simultaneously in Sarah's frame, then >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they don't in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Adam's frame. Both Sarah and Adam agree that the trains >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gets through >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unscathed. How often does this paradox nonsense have to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be debunked? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> And if Adam is going through a forest, from his own point >>>>>>>>>>>>>> of view >>>>>>>>>>>>>> he observes he is immobile and trees are running around him. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> So said a bunch of Gurus! >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Must be the truth. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> That's a pretty classic strawman - misrepresent someone's >>>>>>>>>>>>> position >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Quorting Gary: >>>>>>>>>>>> This actually Galileo's concept, but I'm glad the babbling >>>>>>>>>>>> baboon finally >>>>>>>>>>>> embraces the correct concept. >>>>>>>>>>>> End of quote. >>>>>>>>>>>> No, it isn't any misrepresentation. That's exactly >>>>>>>>>>>> what Your physics represents. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> You characterise the motion of the trees as "running around". >>>>>>>>>>> Not only >>>>>>>>>>> do the trees not run, but their motion is all in the same >>>>>>>>>>> direction, >>>>>>>>>>> being the opposite of the direction is moving in in the frame >>>>>>>>>>> of the >>>>>>>>>>> trees. So there's no sense in which it can be said to be >>>>>>>>>>> "around". >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> :) >>>>>>>>>> A nice try, but, I'm afraid, it's never as easy in >>>>>>>>>> the common language. "trees are running around him" >>>>>>>>>> can mean "trees around him" as well, as "running around >>>>>>>>>> him". >>>>>>>>>> Keep practicing, but there is still much to learn. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> So, despite the picturesque language, you're accepting that if >>>>>>>>> Adam has >>>>>>>>> a velocity v (a vector) in the frame of the trees, then the >>>>>>>>> trees have >>>>>>>>> velocity -v in Adam's frame. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> No. I'm only accepting that You're saying so. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So what do you suggest is how things work? >>>>>> >>>>>> If You mean trees, they usually don't work. >>>>>> But if You mean an observer, he works better >>>>>> when operating a single own velocity, than >>>>>> operating with thousands velocities of trees. >>>>>> Particularly, when main purpose of his all >>>>>> observations is - controlling his movement >>>>>> and avoiding killing himself by collision >>>>>> with a tree. >>>>> >>>>> All the trees have the same velocity. >>>> >>>> Yes, and it's 0. >>>> It's not about imagined twins in imagined rockets. >>>> Millions of people go through forests every day. >>>> They all consider trees as immobile from their >>>> points of view, as long, as these trees are not >>>> falling. Take ANY person form the street and ask >>>> him/her whether he/she is observing these trees/lanterns/ >>>> buildings around moving with any speed. >>>> >>>> Your brilliant relativitic "point of view of an >>>> observer" is completely primitive, and thus easy >>>> and simple enough for formalizing. And this is >>>> the end of its advantages. >>>> Nobody uses it, and nobody ever will. >>>> >>> >>> Do you understand that the purpose behind all this is to obtain a >>> correct mathematical description of the world, so that we can make >>> predictions about it? >> >> What "world" do You mean? >> These REAL people going through REAL forest - >> aren't they a part of Your "world"? How about >> these clocks of GPS, indicating t'=t in very >> clear, mathematical numbers? >> And, when this person from the street is saying >> "I went through a forest" - what do You think >> she is describing? >> What do You think GPS clocks and their indications >> are for? >> > > |Essentially, the problem for an observer is "If I make some measurement > |X, can I work out, in advance, what the result of the measurement will > be." > > So, are they a part of Your "world" or not? |What are "they"? These REAL people going through REAL forest - aren't they a part of this "world" You're trying to describe? >> Correct mathematical description? Of what? >> Where, exactly, in the world, can I find >> Your "correctly described" observers? > > |There are no correctly described observers. > > And, as You can't do the task correctly, instead You imagine they > are different, than they are. |I have not idea what you intend by that. Maybe You should read? > |You on the other hand, have yet to propose any single measurement whose > |result conflicts with the theory. > > Check the clocks of GPS. They indicate t'=t. Clocks indicate, so it's > a DIRECT MEASUREMENT result, right from the real world, not from > your gedankens. |At the risk of raising the dreaded GPS clock topic, I'll just say that |the atomic clocks on board GPS satellites are configured so that they You know, in the reality clocks are always configured somehow, and still the measurement procedure of time is - reading their indications. So, measurement result still is - t'=t. Don't You configure clocks in this "world" of Yours? |that a clock sitting on Earth counts them. The required adjustment was |calculated using general relativity. No, it was not. Your relativity requires adjusting clocks to stay unsynchronized and indicate its marvelous time dilation. > Because GPS is a serious device designed to do REAL measurements > and REAL calculations with the REAL results. Not a toy for people > like You to puff about their imagined wisdom. > |They do what they are intended to do. Yes. Real measurements and real calculations on real results. Something Your brilliant, revolutionary, unsynchronizing "proper clocks" are completely useless for. |Making them do that required a solid knowledge of the |physics of space, time and gravity. And ignoring the "standards" this physics announced.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-06 22:34 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dhm426Fu59lU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #375666 |
On 6/02/2016 8:52 PM, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > > Użytkownik "Sylvia Else" napisał w wiadomości grup > dyskusyjnych:dhlq86FrlkhU1@mid.individual.net... > > On 6/02/2016 7:23 PM, Maciej Woźniak wrote: >> >> >> Użytkownik "Sylvia Else" napisał w wiadomości grup >> dyskusyjnych:dhkvvvFlunmU1@mid.individual.net... >> >> On 5/02/2016 11:35 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>> W dniu piątek, 5 lutego 2016 12:05:20 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else >>> napisał: >>>> On 5/02/2016 9:20 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>>>> W dniu piątek, 5 lutego 2016 10:21:03 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else >>>>> napisał: >>>>>> On 5/02/2016 6:25 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>>>>>> W dniu piątek, 5 lutego 2016 02:18:43 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else >>>>>>> napisał: >>>>>>>> On 5/02/2016 12:11 AM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>>>>>>>> W dniu czwartek, 4 lutego 2016 11:59:23 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia >>>>>>>>> Else napisał: >>>>>>>>>> On 4/02/2016 8:45 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> W dniu czwartek, 4 lutego 2016 09:31:57 UTC+1 użytkownik >>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia Else napisał: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/02/2016 6:20 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> W dniu czwartek, 4 lutego 2016 00:15:25 UTC+1 użytkownik >>>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia Else napisał: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/02/2016 11:54 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> W dniu środa, 3 lutego 2016 12:07:12 UTC+1 użytkownik >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia Else napisał: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the doors close simultaneously in Sarah's frame, then >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they don't in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Adam's frame. Both Sarah and Adam agree that the trains >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gets through >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unscathed. How often does this paradox nonsense have to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be debunked? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And if Adam is going through a forest, from his own point >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of view >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> he observes he is immobile and trees are running around him. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So said a bunch of Gurus! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Must be the truth. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's a pretty classic strawman - misrepresent someone's >>>>>>>>>>>>>> position >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Quorting Gary: >>>>>>>>>>>>> This actually Galileo's concept, but I'm glad the babbling >>>>>>>>>>>>> baboon finally >>>>>>>>>>>>> embraces the correct concept. >>>>>>>>>>>>> End of quote. >>>>>>>>>>>>> No, it isn't any misrepresentation. That's exactly >>>>>>>>>>>>> what Your physics represents. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> You characterise the motion of the trees as "running around". >>>>>>>>>>>> Not only >>>>>>>>>>>> do the trees not run, but their motion is all in the same >>>>>>>>>>>> direction, >>>>>>>>>>>> being the opposite of the direction is moving in in the frame >>>>>>>>>>>> of the >>>>>>>>>>>> trees. So there's no sense in which it can be said to be >>>>>>>>>>>> "around". >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> :) >>>>>>>>>>> A nice try, but, I'm afraid, it's never as easy in >>>>>>>>>>> the common language. "trees are running around him" >>>>>>>>>>> can mean "trees around him" as well, as "running around >>>>>>>>>>> him". >>>>>>>>>>> Keep practicing, but there is still much to learn. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> So, despite the picturesque language, you're accepting that if >>>>>>>>>> Adam has >>>>>>>>>> a velocity v (a vector) in the frame of the trees, then the >>>>>>>>>> trees have >>>>>>>>>> velocity -v in Adam's frame. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> No. I'm only accepting that You're saying so. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> So what do you suggest is how things work? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If You mean trees, they usually don't work. >>>>>>> But if You mean an observer, he works better >>>>>>> when operating a single own velocity, than >>>>>>> operating with thousands velocities of trees. >>>>>>> Particularly, when main purpose of his all >>>>>>> observations is - controlling his movement >>>>>>> and avoiding killing himself by collision >>>>>>> with a tree. >>>>>> >>>>>> All the trees have the same velocity. >>>>> >>>>> Yes, and it's 0. >>>>> It's not about imagined twins in imagined rockets. >>>>> Millions of people go through forests every day. >>>>> They all consider trees as immobile from their >>>>> points of view, as long, as these trees are not >>>>> falling. Take ANY person form the street and ask >>>>> him/her whether he/she is observing these trees/lanterns/ >>>>> buildings around moving with any speed. >>>>> >>>>> Your brilliant relativitic "point of view of an >>>>> observer" is completely primitive, and thus easy >>>>> and simple enough for formalizing. And this is >>>>> the end of its advantages. >>>>> Nobody uses it, and nobody ever will. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Do you understand that the purpose behind all this is to obtain a >>>> correct mathematical description of the world, so that we can make >>>> predictions about it? >>> >>> What "world" do You mean? >>> These REAL people going through REAL forest - >>> aren't they a part of Your "world"? How about >>> these clocks of GPS, indicating t'=t in very >>> clear, mathematical numbers? >>> And, when this person from the street is saying >>> "I went through a forest" - what do You think >>> she is describing? >>> What do You think GPS clocks and their indications >>> are for? >>> >> >> |Essentially, the problem for an observer is "If I make some measurement >> |X, can I work out, in advance, what the result of the measurement will >> be." >> >> So, are they a part of Your "world" or not? > > |What are "they"? > > These REAL people going through REAL forest - > aren't they a part of this "world" You're trying > to describe? A real person going through a real forest, who fails to take sufficient care will collide with a tree. Now, you might think that the pain that results depends only the velocity of the person. However, this is wrong, because it entails an assumption that the forest is not moving. If the forest is moving, any calculation of the pain that takes into account only the velocity of the person will give the wrong answer. To get the right answer - the real answer - the calculation has to be done using the difference in velocities of the person and the forest. I can see you already getting ready to object that forests don't move. Yet that is plainly absurd. A forest on the Earth shares the rotation of the Earth's surface, the motion of the Earth round the sun, the motion of the sun round the galaxy, and so on. In reality, people measure their own speed not as an absolute, but relative to their surroundings. >>> Correct mathematical description? Of what? >>> Where, exactly, in the world, can I find >>> Your "correctly described" observers? >> >> |There are no correctly described observers. >> >> And, as You can't do the task correctly, instead You imagine they >> are different, than they are. > > |I have not idea what you intend by that. > > Maybe You should read? Have done. What you said still makes no sense. > > >> |You on the other hand, have yet to propose any single measurement whose >> |result conflicts with the theory. >> >> Check the clocks of GPS. They indicate t'=t. Clocks indicate, so it's >> a DIRECT MEASUREMENT result, right from the real world, not from >> your gedankens. > > |At the risk of raising the dreaded GPS clock topic, I'll just say that > |the atomic clocks on board GPS satellites are configured so that they > > You know, in the reality clocks are always configured somehow, > and still the measurement procedure of time is - reading their indications. > So, measurement result still is - t'=t. > Don't You configure clocks in this "world" of Yours? > > |that a clock sitting on Earth counts them. The required adjustment was > |calculated using general relativity. > > No, it was not. Your relativity requires adjusting clocks to stay > unsynchronized and indicate its marvelous time dilation. General relativity does not say that GPS clocks will not stay in step with Earth clocks. Synchronisation is a different issue entirely. You've heard about it, but you don't understand it. > >> Because GPS is a serious device designed to do REAL measurements >> and REAL calculations with the REAL results. Not a toy for people >> like You to puff about their imagined wisdom. >> > |They do what they are intended to do. > > Yes. Real measurements and real calculations on real results. > Something Your brilliant, revolutionary, unsynchronizing > "proper clocks" are completely useless for. > > |Making them do that required a solid knowledge of the > |physics of space, time and gravity. > > And ignoring the "standards" this physics announced. > No, they do exactly what the physics says they will. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-06 13:08 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n94nnn$kgi$1@node1.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #375671 |
Użytkownik "Sylvia Else" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:dhm426Fu59lU1@mid.individual.net... On 6/02/2016 8:52 PM, Maciej Woźniak wrote: >> >> So, are they a part of Your "world" or not? > > |What are "they"? > > These REAL people going through REAL forest - > aren't they a part of this "world" You're trying > to describe? |A real person going through a real forest, who fails to take sufficient Once again. ARE such persons a part of Your "world"? The one You're describing? Or, aren't they? > |I have not idea what you intend by that. > > Maybe You should read? |Have done. What you said still makes no sense. Try again. > > You know, in the reality clocks are always configured somehow, > and still the measurement procedure of time is - reading their > indications. > So, measurement result still is - t'=t. > Don't You configure clocks in this "world" of Yours? > > |that a clock sitting on Earth counts them. The required adjustment was > |calculated using general relativity. > > No, it was not. Your relativity requires adjusting clocks to stay > unsynchronized and indicate its marvelous time dilation. |General relativity does not say that GPS clocks will not stay in step |with Earth clocks. Really, doesn't it? So, what is this "time dilation" of yours? I thought, "time dilation" is when clocks are not staying in step with each other? Was I wrong? And, do You, physicists, configure clocks in this "world" of Yours? > >> Because GPS is a serious device designed to do REAL measurements >> and REAL calculations with the REAL results. Not a toy for people >> like You to puff about their imagined wisdom. >> > |They do what they are intended to do. > > Yes. Real measurements and real calculations on real results. > Something Your brilliant, revolutionary, unsynchronizing > "proper clocks" are completely useless for. > > |Making them do that required a solid knowledge of the > |physics of space, time and gravity. > > And ignoring the "standards" this physics announced. > |No, they do exactly what the physics says they will. And what is the "standard" of clock Your physics announced? Physics did announced a "standard" here, didn't it? Do these clock match this standard, or ignore it?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-07 09:48 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dhnbhbF9mofU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #375675 |
On 6/02/2016 11:08 PM, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > > Użytkownik "Sylvia Else" napisał w wiadomości grup > dyskusyjnych:dhm426Fu59lU1@mid.individual.net... > > On 6/02/2016 8:52 PM, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > >>> >>> So, are they a part of Your "world" or not? >> >> |What are "they"? >> >> These REAL people going through REAL forest - >> aren't they a part of this "world" You're trying >> to describe? > > |A real person going through a real forest, who fails to take sufficient > > Once again. ARE such persons a part of Your "world"? > The one You're describing? > Or, aren't they? > > >> |I have not idea what you intend by that. >> >> Maybe You should read? > > |Have done. What you said still makes no sense. > > Try again. > >> >> You know, in the reality clocks are always configured somehow, >> and still the measurement procedure of time is - reading their >> indications. >> So, measurement result still is - t'=t. >> Don't You configure clocks in this "world" of Yours? >> >> |that a clock sitting on Earth counts them. The required adjustment was >> |calculated using general relativity. >> >> No, it was not. Your relativity requires adjusting clocks to stay >> unsynchronized and indicate its marvelous time dilation. > > |General relativity does not say that GPS clocks will not stay in step > |with Earth clocks. > > Really, doesn't it? So, what is this "time dilation" of yours? > I thought, "time dilation" is when clocks are not staying in step > with each other? Was I wrong? More like not even wrong. > And, do You, physicists, configure clocks in this "world" of Yours? You're conflating two different meanings for the word "clock". In relativity, a "clock" is an ideal clock that precisely measures time in its own frame. It's a device used to aid understanding of the theory. A GPS clock is a different kind of object. It's not an ideal clock, though part of its mechanism is designed to be as close to an ideal clock as can be achieved. But another part of its mechanism is used to take the output from its nearly-ideal clock, and produce time signals that correspond as nearly as possible to those that would be produced by an ideal clock on the ground. > >> >>> Because GPS is a serious device designed to do REAL measurements >>> and REAL calculations with the REAL results. Not a toy for people >>> like You to puff about their imagined wisdom. >>> >> |They do what they are intended to do. >> >> Yes. Real measurements and real calculations on real results. >> Something Your brilliant, revolutionary, unsynchronizing >> "proper clocks" are completely useless for. >> >> |Making them do that required a solid knowledge of the >> |physics of space, time and gravity. >> >> And ignoring the "standards" this physics announced. >> > > |No, they do exactly what the physics says they will. > > And what is the "standard" of clock Your physics announced? I haven't heard the expression, other than for you. But it sounds like it would be what I've termed an ideal clock. > Physics did announced a "standard" here, didn't it? > Do these clock match this standard, or ignore it? > Again, you're conflating two different meanings. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 … 10 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web