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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #418980 > unrolled thread

Einstein-Poincare synchronization procedure

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

Contents

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

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#418980 — Einstein-Poincare synchronization procedure

I'm afraid this obviously ingenious concept of 2 incredibly
wise gurus is too primitive to be used in real world.


Am I wrong? Do you have any evidence of a succesful
use of Einstein-Poincare synchronization procedure
in real world to synchronize real clocks? 

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#418995

mlwozniak wrote:

> I'm afraid this obviously ingenious concept of 2 incredibly wise gurus
> is too primitive to be used in real world.  Am I wrong? Do you have any
> evidence of a succesful use of Einstein-Poincare synchronization
> procedure in real world to synchronize
> real clocks?

There is no need to synchronize anything. Demand your money back for that 
book you read. Worthless. If in its title stays something around "A non-
mathematical approach", that book is not worth the paper and the trouble 
printing it. It is because the author has no idea what is going on in 
Physics.

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

#418998

W dniu środa, 10 maja 2017 15:18:21 UTC+2 użytkownik Lissa Hermes napisał:
> mlwozniak wrote:
> 
> > I'm afraid this obviously ingenious concept of 2 incredibly wise gurus
> > is too primitive to be used in real world.  Am I wrong? Do you have any
> > evidence of a succesful use of Einstein-Poincare synchronization
> > procedure in real world to synchronize
> > real clocks?
> 
> There is no need to synchronize anything. Demand your money back for that 
> book you read. Worthless. If in its title stays something around "A non-
> mathematical approach", that book is not worth the paper and the trouble 
> printing it. It is because the author has no idea what is going on in 
> Physics.

I don't care about your moronic Physics, unfortunately.
And, notice:
- if the above is false - it's worthless
- if the above is true - it's worthless as well 
(for non-mathematical aproach).

Reassuming, it's worthless in any case



And, assuming the only worthy aproach is mathematical aproach,

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

#418999

mlwozniak wrote:

> I don't care about your moronic Physics, unfortunately.
> And, notice: - if the above is false - it's worthless - if the above is
> true - it's worthless as well (for non-mathematical aproach). Reassuming,
> it's worthless in any case And, assuming the only worthy aproach is
> mathematical aproach,

You must be thinking math is something mystical. Quite the contrary. The 
Math is the simple bit. It is something we DO understand. Cats, are, what 
is complicated. What is it, those eyes, hair, moustache making up a cat? I 
have no idea. Let's be really clear, you look at a cat, but you have no 
idea.

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

#419033

W dniu środa, 10 maja 2017 16:20:08 UTC+2 użytkownik Jean-Pierre Framboise napisał:
> mlwozniak wrote:
> 
> > I don't care about your moronic Physics, unfortunately.
> > And, notice: - if the above is false - it's worthless - if the above is
> > true - it's worthless as well (for non-mathematical aproach). Reassuming,
> > it's worthless in any case And, assuming the only worthy aproach is
> > mathematical aproach,
> 
> You must be thinking math is something mystical. Quite the contrary. The 
> Math is the simple bit. It is something we DO understand. 

That's right. It's rather primitive and simple enough 
for you to understand. And, as you're unable to 
understand anything more, you believe there is 
nothing more. You're wrong, there is.

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

#419036

mlwozniak wrote:

>> You must be thinking math is something mystical. Quite the contrary.
>> The Math is the simple bit. It is something we DO understand.
> 
> That's right. It's rather primitive and simple enough for you to
> understand. And, as you're unable to understand anything more, you
> believe there is nothing more. You're wrong, there is.

Wrong again. Giving me the opportunity. Hey listen, or maybe not.

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

#419046

W dniu środa, 10 maja 2017 18:28:16 UTC+2 użytkownik Jean-Pierre Framboise napisał:
> mlwozniak wrote:
> 
> >> You must be thinking math is something mystical. Quite the contrary.
> >> The Math is the simple bit. It is something we DO understand.
> > 
> > That's right. It's rather primitive and simple enough for you to
> > understand. And, as you're unable to understand anything more, you
> > believe there is nothing more. You're wrong, there is.
> 
> Wrong again. Giving me the opportunity. Hey listen, or maybe not.

I may listen. So, am I wrong? Do you have any evidence of a 
succesful use of Einstein-Poincare synchronization procedure 
in real world to synchronize real clocks? 

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

#419158

Am 10.05.2017 16:20, schrieb Jean-Pierre Framboise:
> mlwozniak wrote:
>
>> I don't care about your moronic Physics, unfortunately.
>> And, notice: - if the above is false - it's worthless - if the above is
>> true - it's worthless as well (for non-mathematical aproach). Reassuming,
>> it's worthless in any case And, assuming the only worthy aproach is
>> mathematical aproach,
>
> You must be thinking math is something mystical. Quite the contrary. The
> Math is the simple bit. It is something we DO understand. Cats, are, what
> is complicated. What is it, those eyes, hair, moustache making up a cat? I
> have no idea. Let's be really clear, you look at a cat, but you have no
> idea.

The problem isn't math, but a disease called 'mathematism'.

If you perform mathematical tricks, without a reason to do so, you do 
something sick.

TH

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

#419161

Thomas Heger wrote:

>> You must be thinking math is something mystical. Quite the contrary.
>> The Math is the simple bit. It is something we DO understand. Cats,
>> are, what is complicated. What is it, those eyes, hair, moustache
>> making up a cat? I have no idea. Let's be really clear, you look at a
>> cat, but you have no idea.
> 
> The problem isn't math, but a disease called 'mathematism'. 
> If you perform mathematical tricks, without a reason to do so, you do
> something sick.

No shit, according to whom? thomas pointedhead? You thomases must be like 
brother, stupid like wood.

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

#419162

On Thursday, May 11, 2017 at 11:20:13 AM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 10.05.2017 16:20, schrieb Jean-Pierre Framboise:
> > mlwozniak wrote:
> >
> >> I don't care about your moronic Physics, unfortunately.
> >> And, notice: - if the above is false - it's worthless - if the above is
> >> true - it's worthless as well (for non-mathematical aproach). Reassuming,
> >> it's worthless in any case And, assuming the only worthy aproach is
> >> mathematical aproach,
> >
> > You must be thinking math is something mystical. Quite the contrary. The
> > Math is the simple bit. It is something we DO understand. Cats, are, what
> > is complicated. What is it, those eyes, hair, moustache making up a cat? I
> > have no idea. Let's be really clear, you look at a cat, but you have no
> > idea.
> 
> The problem isn't math, but a disease called 'mathematism'.
> 
> If you perform mathematical tricks, without a reason to do so, you do 
> something sick.
> 
> TH

You guys are completely out to lunch.

--
Jan

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

#419170

On 5/11/17 1:20 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 10.05.2017 16:20, schrieb Jean-Pierre Framboise:
>> mlwozniak wrote:
>>
>>> I don't care about your moronic Physics, unfortunately.
>>> And, notice: - if the above is false - it's worthless - if the above is
>>> true - it's worthless as well (for non-mathematical aproach). 
>>> Reassuming,
>>> it's worthless in any case And, assuming the only worthy aproach is
>>> mathematical aproach,
>>
>> You must be thinking math is something mystical. Quite the contrary. The
>> Math is the simple bit. It is something we DO understand. Cats, are, what
>> is complicated. What is it, those eyes, hair, moustache making up a 
>> cat? I
>> have no idea. Let's be really clear, you look at a cat, but you have no
>> idea.
> 
> The problem isn't math, but a disease called 'mathematism'.
> 
> If you perform mathematical tricks, without a reason to do so, you do 
> something sick.
> 
> TH

I'm not sure I know what you mean by "mathematical tricks". There are no 
mathematical tricks. There are lots of procedures in mathematics, like 
substitutions, moving things from one side to the other of an equation, 
dividing through by common numbers, taking limits, integrating, and so 
on... But these procedures are all individually both legitimized and 
understood. The end result is always producing something that is easily 
recognized and evaluated. But as long as the steps are individually 
sound, it doesn't matter which of them you take.

It's very much like trying to cross a river, and you choose the next 
rock to jump on to help you get to the other side. First this rock, then 
this next one, then the next one, and so on. The objective isn't the 
rock, it's getting to the other side. Alternatively, you could take a 
different set of stones in a different sequence to do the same thing in 
the end.

-- 
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#419202

W dniu czwartek, 11 maja 2017 21:32:25 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:

> I'm not sure I know what you mean by "mathematical tricks". There are no 
> mathematical tricks. There are lots of procedures in mathematics, like 
> substitutions, moving things from one side to the other of an equation, 
> dividing through by common numbers, taking limits, integrating, and so 
> on... But these procedures are all individually both legitimized and 
> understood. The end result is always producing something that is easily 
> recognized and evaluated.

And how about evaluation of EP synchronization?
Is it usable or not?

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

#419220

Odd Bodkin wrote:

> It's very much like trying to cross a river, and you choose the next
> rock to jump on to help you get to the other side. First this rock, then
> this next one, then the next one, and so on. The objective isn't the
> rock, it's getting to the other side. Alternatively, you could take a
> different set of stones in a different sequence to do the same thing in
> the end.

You are completely out to lunch.

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

#419495

Am 11.05.2017 21:32, schrieb Odd Bodkin:
> On 5/11/17 1:20 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>> Am 10.05.2017 16:20, schrieb Jean-Pierre Framboise:
>>> mlwozniak wrote:
>>>
>>>> I don't care about your moronic Physics, unfortunately.
>>>> And, notice: - if the above is false - it's worthless - if the above is
>>>> true - it's worthless as well (for non-mathematical aproach).
>>>> Reassuming,
>>>> it's worthless in any case And, assuming the only worthy aproach is
>>>> mathematical aproach,
>>>
>>> You must be thinking math is something mystical. Quite the contrary. The
>>> Math is the simple bit. It is something we DO understand. Cats, are,
>>> what
>>> is complicated. What is it, those eyes, hair, moustache making up a
>>> cat? I
>>> have no idea. Let's be really clear, you look at a cat, but you have no
>>> idea.
>>
>> The problem isn't math, but a disease called 'mathematism'.
>>
>> If you perform mathematical tricks, without a reason to do so, you do
>> something sick.
>>
>> TH
>
> I'm not sure I know what you mean by "mathematical tricks". There are no
> mathematical tricks. There are lots of procedures in mathematics, like
> substitutions, moving things from one side to the other of an equation,
> dividing through by common numbers, taking limits, integrating, and so
> on... But these procedures are all individually both legitimized and
> understood. The end result is always producing something that is easily
> recognized and evaluated. But as long as the steps are individually
> sound, it doesn't matter which of them you take.
>
> It's very much like trying to cross a river, and you choose the next
> rock to jump on to help you get to the other side. First this rock, then
> this next one, then the next one, and so on. The objective isn't the
> rock, it's getting to the other side. Alternatively, you could take a
> different set of stones in a different sequence to do the same thing in
> the end.
>
  What I tried describe is a certain behaviour, which is common in many 
publications about physics:

the proof is attempted by mathematical means, but without proper 
explanation, what is to be proven and why by the used method.

The result is something useless, like performing tricks. It's like 
walking on a rope across the Niagara Falls. This is an impressive stunt, 
but does not serve any obvious purpose.

So, if you do not say, what is the thing about and do not explain, what 
you try to show, the performance is useless - thou impressive.

TH

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

#419505

On 5/15/17 4:34 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 11.05.2017 21:32, schrieb Odd Bodkin:
>> On 5/11/17 1:20 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>> Am 10.05.2017 16:20, schrieb Jean-Pierre Framboise:
>>>> mlwozniak wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I don't care about your moronic Physics, unfortunately.
>>>>> And, notice: - if the above is false - it's worthless - if the 
>>>>> above is
>>>>> true - it's worthless as well (for non-mathematical aproach).
>>>>> Reassuming,
>>>>> it's worthless in any case And, assuming the only worthy aproach is
>>>>> mathematical aproach,
>>>>
>>>> You must be thinking math is something mystical. Quite the contrary. 
>>>> The
>>>> Math is the simple bit. It is something we DO understand. Cats, are,
>>>> what
>>>> is complicated. What is it, those eyes, hair, moustache making up a
>>>> cat? I
>>>> have no idea. Let's be really clear, you look at a cat, but you have no
>>>> idea.
>>>
>>> The problem isn't math, but a disease called 'mathematism'.
>>>
>>> If you perform mathematical tricks, without a reason to do so, you do
>>> something sick.
>>>
>>> TH
>>
>> I'm not sure I know what you mean by "mathematical tricks". There are no
>> mathematical tricks. There are lots of procedures in mathematics, like
>> substitutions, moving things from one side to the other of an equation,
>> dividing through by common numbers, taking limits, integrating, and so
>> on... But these procedures are all individually both legitimized and
>> understood. The end result is always producing something that is easily
>> recognized and evaluated. But as long as the steps are individually
>> sound, it doesn't matter which of them you take.
>>
>> It's very much like trying to cross a river, and you choose the next
>> rock to jump on to help you get to the other side. First this rock, then
>> this next one, then the next one, and so on. The objective isn't the
>> rock, it's getting to the other side. Alternatively, you could take a
>> different set of stones in a different sequence to do the same thing in
>> the end.
>>
>   What I tried describe is a certain behaviour, which is common in many 
> publications about physics:
> 
> the proof is attempted by mathematical means, but without proper 
> explanation, what is to be proven and why by the used method.
> 
> The result is something useless, like performing tricks. It's like 
> walking on a rope across the Niagara Falls. This is an impressive stunt, 
> but does not serve any obvious purpose.
> 
> So, if you do not say, what is the thing about and do not explain, what 
> you try to show, the performance is useless - thou impressive.

I think this is just a problem on the part of the reader. Some readers 
want to have explanations laid out a certain way that is easier for them 
to follow. If the writer does not follow that way, then the reader will 
sometimes go into a snit, saying that they could not follow what was 
being done because it wasn't presented in the desired way. This does not 
make the author's explanation a trick or a stunt.

Mathematics is just a toolbox and a language. When physicists use 
mathematics, they fully expect the reader to be FLUENT with it, not just 
passable.

-- 
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#419718

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

Well, yes.

But let me give an example about what I mean:

the equation E=m*c² uses variables and those have a valid interpretation 
in physics as attributes of physical systems.

The term 'E' - for instance - means energy. But physicists had to say, 
what is the system, the term is an attribute of. (what they don't do)

In fact meant is the radioactive decay, where a ray is emitted from a 
radioactive sample.

The ray has a certain energy, while the sample looses some mass.

So far so good. But this would require a different equation:

E_ray = - delta (m_sample) * c²

Instead the term 'E' is not an attribute of something anymore, but a 
'thing' itself.

This shall be equal to inertia times c squared.

And that is ***** ...


TH

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

#419744

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

Actually no. It is the rest energy associated with mass. It is not 
specific to radioactive decay.

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

This same formula applies to electron-positron collisions, for example, 
which has nothing to do with radioactive decay.

You should be a little more careful not to overspecify the meaning of a 
variable based on a single application of the principle.

> 
> The ray has a certain energy, while the sample looses some mass.
> 
> So far so good. But this would require a different equation:
> 
> E_ray = - delta (m_sample) * c²
> 
> Instead the term 'E' is not an attribute of something anymore, but a 
> 'thing' itself.
> 
> This shall be equal to inertia times c squared.
> 
> And that is ***** ...
> 
> 
> TH
> 


-- 
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#419748

On 05/17/2017 06:04 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:

>
> Actually no. It is the rest energy associated with mass. It is not
> specific to radioactive decay.
>

Similarly, chemical compounds have lower mass
than free atoms they consist from.

Free atoms have lower mass
than free electrons and nuclei they consist from.

A could piece of matter has lower mass
than the same piece, but hot.

A Earth-Moon bound system
has lower mass than sum of Earth and Moon masses if alone.




-- 
Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )

A wise man guards words he says,
as they say about him more,
than he says about the subject.

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

#419934

Poutnik wrote:

>> Actually no. It is the rest energy associated with mass. It is not
>> specific to radioactive decay.
>>
>>
> Similarly, chemical compounds have lower mass than free atoms they
> consist from.

vedlejsi paprsky laseru.

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

#420270

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


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

Rays do not have inertia, hence have mass zero.

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

So what system is actually attributed with which unit?

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

And to criticise this habit is not 'overspecific'.

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

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


TH

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

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

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

csiph-web