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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #433035 > unrolled thread

Failures of the Galilean transformation (was: The Song of Lt. Cdr. Data)

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

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Failures of the Galilean transformation (was: The Song of Lt. Cdr. Data) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-09-20 17:23 +0200
    Failures of the Galilean transformation (was: The Song of Lt. Cdr. Data) "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-09-20 08:36 -0700
    Re: Failures of the Galilean transformation Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-09-21 15:10 +0200
      Re: Failures of the Galilean transformation mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-09-21 06:29 -0700
        Re: Failures of the Galilean transformation Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-09-22 20:27 +0200
          Re: Failures of the Galilean transformation mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-09-22 12:13 -0700
            Re: Failures of the Galilean transformation Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-09-22 21:36 +0200
              Re: Failures of the Galilean transformation Kos Etrakis <uar@ksskkwi.ck> - 2017-09-22 20:09 +0000
                Re: Failures of the Galilean transformation Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-09-23 12:10 +0200
              Re: Failures of the Galilean transformation mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-09-22 13:30 -0700
                Re: Failures of the Galilean transformation Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-09-23 12:56 +0200
                  Re: Failures of the Galilean transformation mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-09-23 05:09 -0700
                    Re: Failures of the Galilean transformation Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-09-24 21:31 +0200
                      Re: Failures of the Galilean transformation Poutnik <poutnik@privacy.net> - 2017-09-24 21:43 +0200
                        Re: Failures of the Galilean transformation Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-09-25 21:26 +0200
                          Re: Failures of the Galilean transformation Poutnik <poutnik@privacy.net> - 2017-09-25 22:00 +0200
                            Re: Failures of the Galilean transformation Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-09-26 21:45 +0200
                              Re: Failures of the Galilean transformation Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-09-29 01:52 +0200
                            Re: Failures of the Galilean transformation Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-09-27 09:50 +0200
                      Re: Failures of the Galilean transformation mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-09-24 22:57 -0700
                        Re: Failures of the Galilean transformation Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-09-25 10:23 +0200
                          Re: Failures of the Galilean transformation mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-09-25 02:07 -0700
                            Re: Failures of the Galilean transformation Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-09-25 21:14 +0200
                              Re: Failures of the Galilean transformation mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-09-25 13:10 -0700
                                Re: Failures of the Galilean transformation Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-09-26 22:12 +0200
                                  Re: Failures of the Galilean transformation mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-09-26 22:41 -0700
                                    Re: Failures of the Galilean transformation Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-09-28 21:09 +0200
                                      Re: Failures of the Galilean transformation mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-09-28 13:14 -0700
                                        Re: Failures of the Galilean transformation Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-09-29 14:10 +0200
                                          Re: Failures of the Galilean transformation mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-09-29 06:09 -0700
                                            Re: Failures of the Galilean transformation Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-09-30 16:39 +0200
                                              Re: Failures of the Galilean transformation mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-09-30 08:12 -0700

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#433730 — Re: Failures of the Galilean transformation

Am 25.09.2017 um 07:57 schrieb mlwozniak@wp.pl:
> W dniu niedziela, 24 września 2017 21:31:15 UTC+2 użytkownik Thomas Heger napisał:
>
>> The laws of nature are not changing in time.
>
> "Laws" and "nature" are excluding each other.
>
>> So, something wrong in times of Galileo is still wrong today.
>
> Right. Nobody was seeing trees and buildings running around
> him in Galileo's time and nobody is seeing them now.
> Coordinate - what does this word mean? Co-ord - does it sound
> a bit familiar?
> Coordinates are to be COMMON, poor idiot.  Your
> observer dependent frames are a functional nonsense.
> And nature has nothing to do with them.
>


Sure. But WE have something to do with 'observer dependent frames'.

IOW: common human beings regard themselves as more or less at rest, even 
if this not true.

Earth rotates around its axis and swirls together with the entire solar 
system around the center of our galaxy. But still we think, that our 
chair is not moving, while we sit on it.

So, physical truth and common sense do not match. But if common sense 
could not be used in physics, how do we define something correct then?

Possible questions are: what is actually time? Is matter for one 
observer also matter for all possible others? Is mass constant?


(And so forth...)

You make a statement about coordinates ('Coordinates are to be COMMON').

But how do you justify this demand? If space and time are in fact 
'relative', then coordinates are not common at all, but 'relative'.

Since we lack any other possible references, 'relative' means 'relative 
to the observer' (what you rejected).


TH

..

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

#433732 — Re: Failures of the Galilean transformation

W dniu poniedziałek, 25 września 2017 10:23:47 UTC+2 użytkownik Thomas Heger napisał:
> Am 25.09.2017 um 07:57 schrieb mlwozniak@wp.pl:
> > W dniu niedziela, 24 września 2017 21:31:15 UTC+2 użytkownik Thomas Heger napisał:
> >
> >> The laws of nature are not changing in time.
> >
> > "Laws" and "nature" are excluding each other.
> >
> >> So, something wrong in times of Galileo is still wrong today.
> >
> > Right. Nobody was seeing trees and buildings running around
> > him in Galileo's time and nobody is seeing them now.
> > Coordinate - what does this word mean? Co-ord - does it sound
> > a bit familiar?
> > Coordinates are to be COMMON, poor idiot.  Your
> > observer dependent frames are a functional nonsense.
> > And nature has nothing to do with them.
> >
> 
> 
> Sure. But WE have something to do with 'observer dependent frames'.

YOU have. WE don't. WE don't want them. They are nice
and symmetric, but practically useless.
> 
> IOW: common human beings regard themselves as more or less at rest, even 
> if this not true.

"Not true" according to - your postulates?
A bullshit. Since Copernicus we're using two
frames instead one, that's all.
We have some more of them now, since his 
breakthrough it's quite easy to create new, 
but it's still less than  10. Not 6 billions. 
Occam's razor, have you heard of it?
And, no matter whether we use geocentric model 
or heliocentric model or galaxycentric model,
they are all common.

> So, physical truth and common sense do not match.

Too bad for your physical truth. Have you heard
of Tarski? The truth of metalanguage trumps the
truth of theories. 

> But if common sense 
> could not be used in physics, how do we define something correct then?

We define things how we want to. How WE want to.
Not how a mad guru wants to. And usually we don't
define them at all. You don't understand how
the language works - no surprise, it's complicated.
But it still works.





> 
> Possible questions are: what is actually time? Is matter for one 
> observer also matter for all possible others? Is mass constant?
> 
> 
> (And so forth...)
> 
> You make a statement about coordinates ('Coordinates are to be COMMON').
> 
> But how do you justify this demand? 

And how do you justify the demand of making an axe
of steel instead plasticine? A plasticine axe won't
cut a tree? Right. And observer dependent coordinates
are useless in observer-to-observer communication.

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

#433805 — Re: Failures of the Galilean transformation

Am 25.09.2017 um 11:07 schrieb mlwozniak@wp.pl:
>> >Possible questions are: what is actually time? Is matter for one
>> >observer also matter for all possible others? Is mass constant?
>> >
>> >
>> >(And so forth...)
>> >
>> >You make a statement about coordinates ('Coordinates are to be COMMON').
>> >
>> >But how do you justify this demand?
> And how do you justify the demand of making an axe
> of steel instead plasticine? A plasticine axe won't
> cut a tree? Right. And observer dependent coordinates
> are useless in observer-to-observer communication.
>

Usability is not a scientific requirement. The realm of usable things 
is, what engineer, designers and similar deal with.

Physics is (like most other sciences) not per se useful. Most scientific 
insights are quite useful, nevertheless. But we could investigate 
scientific problems, which we do not even dream about to take advantage of.

Communication between remote places in the universe is therefor not an 
issue for theoretical physics, but falls into the realm of technical 
problems.

Usually technical problems are solved by people, who have more technical 
experience than physicists or mathematicians have.

So interstellar communication is a problem, which falls into a practical 
realm and usually technicians deal with that.

Physicists could provide help in this process, even if it is not really 
their business.

Theoretical physics provides the scientific foundations for other 
sciences and technical developments.

So science tries to make statements, that are in an objective sense true 
(whether such insight is useful or not).

It is also questionable to provide theoretical foundations for practical 
purposes, that we do not have in reality. IOW interstellar communication 
requires interstellar flight and to the best of my knowledge we have not 
achieved this phase in human development.


TH

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

#433814 — Re: Failures of the Galilean transformation

W dniu poniedziałek, 25 września 2017 21:14:29 UTC+2 użytkownik Thomas Heger napisał:
> Am 25.09.2017 um 11:07 schrieb mlwozniak@wp.pl:
> >> >Possible questions are: what is actually time? Is matter for one
> >> >observer also matter for all possible others? Is mass constant?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >(And so forth...)
> >> >
> >> >You make a statement about coordinates ('Coordinates are to be COMMON').
> >> >
> >> >But how do you justify this demand?
> > And how do you justify the demand of making an axe
> > of steel instead plasticine? A plasticine axe won't
> > cut a tree? Right. And observer dependent coordinates
> > are useless in observer-to-observer communication.
> >
> 
> Usability is not a scientific requirement.

That's VERY bad for your science.


> So interstellar communication is a problem, which falls into a practical 
> realm and usually technicians deal with that.

We can already see it: GPS clocks indicate t'=t 
with the precision of an acceptable error.
And you're teaching of angels dancing on a pinhead.

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

#433947 — Re: Failures of the Galilean transformation

Am 25.09.2017 um 22:10 schrieb mlwozniak@wp.pl:
> W dniu poniedziałek, 25 września 2017 21:14:29 UTC+2 użytkownik Thomas Heger napisał:
>> Am 25.09.2017 um 11:07 schrieb mlwozniak@wp.pl:
>>>>> Possible questions are: what is actually time? Is matter for one
>>>>> observer also matter for all possible others? Is mass constant?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> (And so forth...)
>>>>>
>>>>> You make a statement about coordinates ('Coordinates are to be COMMON').
>>>>>
>>>>> But how do you justify this demand?
>>> And how do you justify the demand of making an axe
>>> of steel instead plasticine? A plasticine axe won't
>>> cut a tree? Right. And observer dependent coordinates
>>> are useless in observer-to-observer communication.
>>>
>>
>> Usability is not a scientific requirement.
>
> That's VERY bad for your science.

'Usability' is based on human demands. But science is about nature and 
based on observations that are not necessarily connected to human 
experience, let alone human demands.

But quite often scientific knowledge could be used in unexpected 
circumstance. Therefore science is possible in realms like remote 
galaxies or in times shortly after the big bang, what serves not 
practical purpose.

Scientists are also unable to deal with special interest groups, since 
science can only be done in the way, that only positively true results 
are the goal of research.

This could eventually harm certain interest. But science cannot 
intentionally produce results, which are a little off the right track.

Technology is more related to the production of things. And produced 
things should be useful and should function well. But technology is not 
the same thing as science.


>
>> So interstellar communication is a problem, which falls into a practical
>> realm and usually technicians deal with that.
>
> We can already see it: GPS clocks indicate t'=t
> with the precision of an acceptable error.
> And you're teaching of angels dancing on a pinhead.
>

Personally I think, that SRT  is not correct.

The reason is, that SRT hinges on velocity, while I assume effects by 
acceleration.

E.g. the so called 'twin paradox' cold be 'de-paradoxed' by focusing on 
acceleration.

(This would also explain the 'Pioneer anomaly'.)

So in this case I would take (almost) your position.


TH

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

#434035 — Re: Failures of the Galilean transformation

W dniu wtorek, 26 września 2017 22:13:00 UTC+2 użytkownik Thomas Heger napisał:
> Am 25.09.2017 um 22:10 schrieb mlwozniak@wp.pl:
> > W dniu poniedziałek, 25 września 2017 21:14:29 UTC+2 użytkownik Thomas Heger napisał:
> >> Am 25.09.2017 um 11:07 schrieb mlwozniak@wp.pl:
> >>>>> Possible questions are: what is actually time? Is matter for one
> >>>>> observer also matter for all possible others? Is mass constant?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> (And so forth...)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> You make a statement about coordinates ('Coordinates are to be COMMON').
> >>>>>
> >>>>> But how do you justify this demand?
> >>> And how do you justify the demand of making an axe
> >>> of steel instead plasticine? A plasticine axe won't
> >>> cut a tree? Right. And observer dependent coordinates
> >>> are useless in observer-to-observer communication.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Usability is not a scientific requirement.
> >
> > That's VERY bad for your science.
> 
> 'Usability' is based on human demands.

So are human observations. And that's why NO
HUMAN observes trees running around him. That means
- you're  not basing on observations, you're basing 
on  "ideal observations", i.e. your imagined 
should-be-observed.

> But science is about nature 

Coordinates, like time, are not natural and
they never were.

> But quite often scientific knowledge could be used in unexpected 
> circumstance.

It could. When science followed common sense. Common sense,
you know, doesn't care about "what muons will do".
It cares about "what you should do to obtain useful
results". 



>  Therefore science is possible in realms like remote 
> galaxies or in times shortly after the big bang,

And it can also determine whether angels on a pinhead
will dance tango or samba. 


> Scientists are also unable to deal with special interest groups, since 
> science can only be done in the way, that only positively true results 
> are the goal of research.

:)
So naive, so innocent.

> > We can already see it: GPS clocks indicate t'=t
> > with the precision of an acceptable error.
> > And you're teaching of angels dancing on a pinhead.
> >
> 
> Personally I think, that SRT  is not correct.
> 
> The reason is, that SRT hinges on velocity, while I assume effects by 
> acceleration.
> 
> E.g. the so called 'twin paradox' cold be 'de-paradoxed' by focusing on 
> acceleration.

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

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

#434322 — Re: Failures of the Galilean transformation

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

>>>>>>> (And so forth...)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You make a statement about coordinates ('Coordinates are to be COMMON').
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But how do you justify this demand?
>>>>> And how do you justify the demand of making an axe
>>>>> of steel instead plasticine? A plasticine axe won't
>>>>> cut a tree? Right. And observer dependent coordinates
>>>>> are useless in observer-to-observer communication.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Usability is not a scientific requirement.
>>>
>>> That's VERY bad for your science.
>>
>> 'Usability' is based on human demands.
>
> So are human observations. And that's why NO
> HUMAN observes trees running around him. That means
> - you're  not basing on observations, you're basing
> on  "ideal observations", i.e. your imagined
> should-be-observed.
>
>> But science is about nature
>
> Coordinates, like time, are not natural and
> they never were.

Well, possibly correct..

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

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

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

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

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

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


So we need to find something completely different.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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





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

Well, yes.

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

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

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

>
>> Scientists are also unable to deal with special interest groups, since
>> science can only be done in the way, that only positively true results
>> are the goal of research.
>
> :)
> So naive, so innocent.

Not quite..

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

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


>>> We can already see it: GPS clocks indicate t'=t
>>> with the precision of an acceptable error.
>>> And you're teaching of angels dancing on a pinhead.
>>>
>>
>> Personally I think, that SRT  is not correct.
>>
>> The reason is, that SRT hinges on velocity, while I assume effects by
>> acceleration.
>>
>> E.g. the so called 'twin paradox' cold be 'de-paradoxed' by focusing on
>> acceleration.
>
> There is no paradox, however. Human age is counted in years,
> not in seconds, and according to year's definition
> http://www.dictionary.com/browse/year (for instance)
> the "paradox" is an obvious logical nonsense.
>

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

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

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

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

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


TH

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

#434337 — Re: Failures of the Galilean transformation

W dniu czwartek, 28 września 2017 21:09:02 UTC+2 użytkownik Thomas Heger napisał:
> Am 27.09.2017 um 07:41 schrieb mlwozniak@wp.pl:
> 
> >>>>>>> (And so forth...)
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> You make a statement about coordinates ('Coordinates are to be COMMON').
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> But how do you justify this demand?
> >>>>> And how do you justify the demand of making an axe
> >>>>> of steel instead plasticine? A plasticine axe won't
> >>>>> cut a tree? Right. And observer dependent coordinates
> >>>>> are useless in observer-to-observer communication.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Usability is not a scientific requirement.
> >>>
> >>> That's VERY bad for your science.
> >>
> >> 'Usability' is based on human demands.
> >
> > So are human observations. And that's why NO
> > HUMAN observes trees running around him. That means
> > - you're  not basing on observations, you're basing
> > on  "ideal observations", i.e. your imagined
> > should-be-observed.
> >
> >> But science is about nature
> >
> > Coordinates, like time, are not natural and
> > they never were.
> 
> Well, possibly correct..
> 
> But what 'natural' is hard to define, if nature is not properly understood.
> 
> So: coordinates are at least useful constructs. But possibly nature does 
> not use anything alike.
> 
> But whether or no nature had a 'sense' of space and time, that is not 
> well understood.
> 
> I would say: things in nature are 'coordinates free'.
> 
> This would - btw- be in conflict with big-bang theory, since 'time since 
> big bang' is a certain coordinate in time.
> 
> Also distance to the 'center' (or the universe) could be an absolute 
> measure of some sort of coordinate, what is most likely also not 
> utilized in reality.
> 
> 
> So we need to find something completely different.


No. You need to get conscious and return to reality.


> My proposal was the principle of self-centered objects, that move along 
> their personal timeline and are equipped with a personal universe.
> 
> This would be kind of coordinates, too, but 'relative' (to the object).
> 
> In case of humans on Earth this object would be planet Earth and we 
> would base coordinates on positions relative to us.
> 
> If you think about it, you would find, this is, what we actually do.
> 
> What we regard as space (or 'universe') is then more like an optical 
> illusion, since we see things, that do not exist anymore at the place, 
> where we see them.
> 
> We could extent these Earth based coordinates as far as we want, if we 
> introduce (hypothetical) signals with infinite velocity.
> 
> This would be a consistent method, but would not be 'universal'.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> >> But quite often scientific knowledge could be used in unexpected
> >> circumstance.
> >
> > It could. When science followed common sense. Common sense,
> > you know, doesn't care about "what muons will do".
> > It cares about "what you should do to obtain useful
> > results".
> >
> 
> Well, yes.
> 
> But 'common sense' and theoretical physics do not fit together, since 
> that is not, what common thinkers do.

Right. Your theoretical physics has rejected common sense. 
It could as well write "I'm stupid" on the forehead.

> > And it can also determine whether angels on a pinhead
> > will dance tango or samba.
> 
> Next I see them, I'll ask them about their favorite music.

And I will ask your big bang about some things. When I see it.


> >> Scientists are also unable to deal with special interest groups, since
> >> science can only be done in the way, that only positively true results
> >> are the goal of research.
> >
> > :)
> > So naive, so innocent.
> 
> Not quite..
> 
> I wrote about what scientists should do, if they want to perform 
> something, you could call 'science'.
> 
> If scientists would produce dishonest results, this could not be 
> regarded as science, but as disinformation or propaganda.

Science always produced dishonest results, but before
it rejected common sense these results generally worked.

> >>> We can already see it: GPS clocks indicate t'=t
> >>> with the precision of an acceptable error.
> >>> And you're teaching of angels dancing on a pinhead.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Personally I think, that SRT  is not correct.
> >>
> >> The reason is, that SRT hinges on velocity, while I assume effects by
> >> acceleration.
> >>
> >> E.g. the so called 'twin paradox' cold be 'de-paradoxed' by focusing on
> >> acceleration.
> >
> > There is no paradox, however. Human age is counted in years,
> > not in seconds, and according to year's definition
> > http://www.dictionary.com/browse/year (for instance)
> > the "paradox" is an obvious logical nonsense.
> >
> 
> If there is more than one possible timeline, than we have no single 
> continuous flow of time and we could not use Earth years (or seconds)as 
> universal measure for time.

But, very unfortunately, we can fuck your interdict and that's what
we actually do.

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

Oh... So say good bye to most of your magnificient theories.
Because we're not going to count time your way. No matter 
how beautiful you are and how important you feel, counting 
time your way is stupid. Just like that.

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

#434451 — Re: Failures of the Galilean transformation

Am 28.09.2017 um 22:14 schrieb mlwozniak@wp.pl:
..

>> This would make things a little difficult, since the assumption of
>> universal validity of our understanding of time is an important
>> foundation of most of our theories.
>
> Oh... So say good bye to most of your magnificient theories.
> Because we're not going to count time your way. No matter
> how beautiful you are and how important you feel, counting
> time your way is stupid. Just like that.
>
>

It is entirely unimportant, what you do or what is compatible to your 
imagination. Also your personal preferences of goals of life are not, 
what nature will worry about too much.

It is irrelevant, whether we like a certain idea about the foundations 
of physics, if this idea is compatible to how nature actually functions.

So: there is only one kind of true fundamental model possible and this 
is dictated by nature.

If this behavior of the world is actually pleasing or supporting own 
interest is not a necessity.


TH

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

#434454 — Re: Failures of the Galilean transformation

W dniu piątek, 29 września 2017 14:10:25 UTC+2 użytkownik Thomas Heger napisał:
> Am 28.09.2017 um 22:14 schrieb mlwozniak@wp.pl:
> ..
> 
> >> This would make things a little difficult, since the assumption of
> >> universal validity of our understanding of time is an important
> >> foundation of most of our theories.
> >
> > Oh... So say good bye to most of your magnificient theories.
> > Because we're not going to count time your way. No matter
> > how beautiful you are and how important you feel, counting
> > time your way is stupid. Just like that.
> >
> >
> 
> It is entirely unimportant, what you do or what is compatible to your 
> imagination. Also your personal preferences of goals of life are not, 
> what nature will worry about too much.

It is entirely unimportant, what you do or what is compatible to your 
imagination. Also your personal preferences of goals of life are not, 
what nature will worry about too much. Even worse - WE won't worry
about it either, and WE outnumber YOU at least 1000:1.


> So: there is only one kind of true fundamental model possible and this 
> is dictated by nature.

Oh, surely your Shit is dictated by Nature itself; your mouth
participate in the process purely accidentally. Right, poor
idiot?

> If this behavior of the world is actually pleasing or supporting own 
> interest is not a necessity.

That's right. Thus, whatever your Shit imagined, nobody
observes trees running around him. And GPS clocks indicate
t'=t (with the precision of an acceptable error). Just 
like serious clocks always did.

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

#434638 — Re: Failures of the Galilean transformation

Am 29.09.2017 um 15:09 schrieb mlwozniak@wp.pl:

>>>> This would make things a little difficult, since the assumption of
>>>> universal validity of our understanding of time is an important
>>>> foundation of most of our theories.
>>>
>>> Oh... So say good bye to most of your magnificient theories.
>>> Because we're not going to count time your way. No matter
>>> how beautiful you are and how important you feel, counting
>>> time your way is stupid. Just like that.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> It is entirely unimportant, what you do or what is compatible to your
>> imagination. Also your personal preferences of goals of life are not,
>> what nature will worry about too much.
>
> It is entirely unimportant, what you do or what is compatible to your
> imagination. Also your personal preferences of goals of life are not,
> what nature will worry about too much. Even worse - WE won't worry
> about it either, and WE outnumber YOU at least 1000:1.
>
>
Even if I think, this is true, I don't know, what you try to prove with 
your statement.

I had told you already, that nature dictates, how fundamental processes 
had to be understood.

It is irrelevant, whether or not you like something or how many 
supporters you could find, if your ideas are not supported by reality.


TH

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

#434647 — Re: Failures of the Galilean transformation

W dniu sobota, 30 września 2017 16:39:06 UTC+2 użytkownik Thomas Heger napisał:
> Am 29.09.2017 um 15:09 schrieb mlwozniak@wp.pl:
> 
> >>>> This would make things a little difficult, since the assumption of
> >>>> universal validity of our understanding of time is an important
> >>>> foundation of most of our theories.
> >>>
> >>> Oh... So say good bye to most of your magnificient theories.
> >>> Because we're not going to count time your way. No matter
> >>> how beautiful you are and how important you feel, counting
> >>> time your way is stupid. Just like that.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> It is entirely unimportant, what you do or what is compatible to your
> >> imagination. Also your personal preferences of goals of life are not,
> >> what nature will worry about too much.
> >
> > It is entirely unimportant, what you do or what is compatible to your
> > imagination. Also your personal preferences of goals of life are not,
> > what nature will worry about too much. Even worse - WE won't worry
> > about it either, and WE outnumber YOU at least 1000:1.
> >
> >
> Even if I think, this is true, I don't know, what you try to prove with 
> your statement.
> 
> I had told you already, that nature dictates,

Yeah, sure, nature, nature itself has dictated your
moronic mumble.
I'm sorry I didn't notice it earlier.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

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

csiph-web