Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #390111 > unrolled thread
| Started by | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-08-16 06:01 -0700 |
| Last post | 2016-08-23 18:17 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 115 — 8 participants |
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.
Re: SR on accelerating frame of reference mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-08-16 06:01 -0700
Re: SR on accelerating frame of reference mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-08-16 06:06 -0700
Re: SR on accelerating frame of reference Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2016-08-18 02:13 -0700
Re: SR on accelerating frame of reference mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-08-18 03:16 -0700
Re: SR on accelerating frame of reference Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2016-08-18 03:46 -0700
Re: SR on accelerating frame of reference mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-08-18 04:01 -0700
Re: SR on accelerating frame of reference Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2016-08-18 04:46 -0700
Re: SR on accelerating frame of reference mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-08-18 05:10 -0700
Re: SR on accelerating frame of reference Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2016-08-18 07:13 -0700
Re: SR on accelerating frame of reference Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-08-18 20:40 +0200
Re: SR on accelerating frame of reference Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2016-08-19 05:54 -0700
Re: SR on accelerating frame of reference mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-08-19 06:22 -0700
Re: SR on accelerating frame of reference paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-08-19 06:43 -0700
Re: SR on accelerating frame of reference Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-08-21 12:00 +0200
Re: SR on accelerating frame of reference Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2016-08-19 08:10 -0700
Re: SR on accelerating frame of reference JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-08-18 15:22 -0700
Re: SR on accelerating frame of reference mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-08-18 23:41 -0700
Re: SR on accelerating frame of reference Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2016-08-19 06:05 -0700
Re: SR on accelerating frame of reference mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-08-19 06:40 -0700
Re: SR on accelerating frame of reference paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-08-19 06:57 -0700
Re: SR on accelerating frame of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-19 10:26 -0500
Re: SR on accelerating frame of reference Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-08-21 12:07 +0200
Re: SR on accelerating frame of reference paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-08-21 07:20 -0700
Re: SR on accelerating frame of reference Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-08-21 18:41 +0200
Re: SR on accelerating frame of reference Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2016-08-19 08:26 -0700
Re: SR on accelerating frame of reference Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-08-21 12:13 +0200
Re: SR on accelerating frame of reference Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2016-08-22 01:52 -0700
Re: SR on accelerating frame of reference mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-08-22 02:17 -0700
Re: SR on accelerating frame of reference Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2016-08-22 06:32 -0700
Re: SR on accelerating frame of reference mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-08-22 23:09 -0700
Re: SR on accelerating frame of reference Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2016-08-25 05:29 -0700
Re: SR on accelerating frame of reference mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-08-25 06:26 -0700
Re: SR on accelerating frame of reference paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-08-25 06:46 -0700
Re: SR on accelerating frame of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-25 09:02 -0500
Re: SR on accelerating frame of reference mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-08-25 23:35 -0700
Re: SR on accelerating frame of reference mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-08-25 23:38 -0700
Re: SR on accelerating frame of reference John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-29 19:36 -0700
Re: SR on accelerating frame of reference mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-08-25 23:33 -0700
Re: SR on accelerating frame of reference paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-08-26 07:14 -0700
Re: SR on accelerating frame of reference Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-26 07:42 -0700
Re: SR on accelerating frame of reference Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-08-26 23:32 +0200
Re: SR on accelerating frame of reference JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-08-27 17:59 -0700
Re: SR on accelerating frame of reference mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-08-28 23:20 -0700
Re: SR on accelerating frame of reference JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-08-29 16:03 -0700
Re: SR on accelerating frame of reference mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-08-29 22:58 -0700
Re: SR on accelerating frame of reference JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-08-30 11:55 -0700
Re: SR on accelerating frame of reference mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-08-30 23:12 -0700
Re: SR on accelerating frame of reference Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2016-08-26 03:40 -0700
Re: SR on accelerating frame of reference mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-08-26 05:19 -0700
Re: SR on accelerating frame of reference Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2016-08-27 07:06 -0700
Re: SR on accelerating frame of reference Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-08-27 18:14 +0200
Re: SR on accelerating frame of reference Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2016-08-27 12:02 -0700
Re: SR on accelerating frame of reference Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-08-28 11:16 +0200
Re: SR on accelerating frame of reference Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2016-08-29 04:27 -0700
Re: SR on accelerating frame of reference mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-08-29 06:58 -0700
Re: SR on accelerating frame of reference Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2016-08-31 02:27 -0700
Re: SR on accelerating frame of reference mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-08-31 03:22 -0700
Re: SR on accelerating frame of reference Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2016-09-02 05:38 -0700
Re: SR on accelerating frame of reference Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-09-02 16:33 +0200
Re: SR on accelerating frame of reference Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2016-09-03 02:57 -0700
Re: SR on accelerating frame of reference mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-09-05 00:31 -0700
Re: SR on accelerating frame of reference Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2016-09-05 18:35 -0700
Re: SR on accelerating frame of reference mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-09-05 22:51 -0700
Re: SR on accelerating frame of reference Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2016-09-06 07:19 -0700
Re: SR on accelerating frame of reference Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-09-06 20:29 +0200
Re: SR on accelerating frame of reference Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2016-09-07 05:31 -0700
Re: SR on accelerating frame of reference mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-09-07 23:08 -0700
Re: SR on accelerating frame of reference Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2016-09-08 06:22 -0700
Re: SR on accelerating frame of reference Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-09-08 23:25 +0200
Re: SR on accelerating frame of reference Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2016-09-09 05:51 -0700
Re: SR on accelerating frame of reference Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2016-09-09 09:32 -0700
Re: SR on accelerating frame of reference Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-09-10 08:53 +0200
Re: SR on accelerating frame of reference Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2016-09-10 07:34 -0700
Re: SR on accelerating frame of reference Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-09-11 10:38 +0200
Re: SR on accelerating frame of reference Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2016-09-11 10:10 -0700
Re: SR on accelerating frame of reference mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-09-11 23:32 -0700
Re: SR on accelerating frame of reference Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2016-09-12 03:50 -0700
Re: SR on accelerating frame of reference mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-09-12 05:02 -0700
Re: SR on accelerating frame of reference Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2016-09-12 10:20 -0700
Re: SR on accelerating frame of reference Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-09-12 21:11 +0200
Re: SR on accelerating frame of reference Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2016-09-14 02:59 -0700
Re: SR on accelerating frame of reference mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-09-14 05:55 -0700
Re: SR on accelerating frame of reference Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2016-09-15 06:38 -0700
Re: SR on accelerating frame of reference mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-09-15 23:03 -0700
Re: SR on accelerating frame of reference mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-09-15 23:31 -0700
Re: SR on accelerating frame of reference Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2016-09-16 10:29 -0700
Re: SR on accelerating frame of reference Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-09-16 21:39 +0200
Re: SR on accelerating frame of reference Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2016-09-20 07:24 -0700
Re: SR on accelerating frame of reference mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-09-20 23:08 -0700
Re: SR on accelerating frame of reference JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-08-29 15:55 -0700
Re: SR on accelerating frame of reference mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-08-29 22:46 -0700
Re: SR on accelerating frame of reference JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-08-30 11:43 -0700
Re: SR on accelerating frame of reference mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-08-30 23:03 -0700
Re: SR on accelerating frame of reference JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-08-22 14:37 -0700
Re: SR on accelerating frame of reference mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-08-22 23:12 -0700
Re: SR on accelerating frame of reference JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-08-23 18:06 -0700
Re: SR on accelerating frame of reference mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-08-23 23:21 -0700
Re: SR on accelerating frame of reference mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-08-23 01:11 -0700
Re: SR on accelerating frame of reference paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-08-23 04:30 -0700
Re: SR on accelerating frame of reference mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-08-23 05:33 -0700
Re: SR on accelerating frame of reference paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-08-23 06:19 -0700
Re: SR on accelerating frame of reference mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-08-23 06:34 -0700
Re: SR on accelerating frame of reference paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-08-23 11:32 -0700
Re: SR on accelerating frame of reference mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-08-23 23:09 -0700
Re: SR on accelerating frame of reference paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-08-24 06:32 -0700
Re: SR on accelerating frame of reference mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-08-24 23:33 -0700
Re: SR on accelerating frame of reference paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-08-25 03:52 -0700
Re: SR on accelerating frame of reference mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-08-25 04:14 -0700
Re: SR on accelerating frame of reference paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-08-25 04:21 -0700
Re: SR on accelerating frame of reference mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-08-25 05:20 -0700
Re: SR on accelerating frame of reference John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-23 18:13 -0700
Re: SR on accelerating frame of reference JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-08-23 18:19 -0700
Re: SR on accelerating frame of reference mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-08-23 23:27 -0700
Re: SR on accelerating frame of reference mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-08-23 23:49 -0700
Re: SR on accelerating frame of reference JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-08-23 18:17 -0700
Page 3 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 Next page →
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-26 23:32 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <npqch1$njc$1@node2.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #390982 |
Użytkownik "paparios" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:d3680b24-6d10-4f78-a6c0-ea7d29b8806a@googlegroups.com... > > So relativity of movement is something that exists in Nature and that > > observations do depend on the observer location. > > No. Such observations don't exist. |You are as boring as Seto or as an idiot software programmer can be. |Ask a Second World War bomber how he sees the bomb falling and ask a german soldier on the ground how he sees the same bomb falling and they will tell different stories. You are as boring as Jan or as a relativistic moron can be. Ask a man on a street how he sees the buildings moving from his point of view. |Physics has advanced a lot in 500 years. We do know now that everything is moving and that even lead is transparent for neutrinos, so nothing is really solid. You are at the cro-magnon era regarding science. Physics has went completely insane and yes, you know that everything. Your idiot guru told you, so you know.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-27 17:59 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <82b90eb5-e80e-4f7d-8b47-d162006495d9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #391003 |
On Friday, August 26, 2016 at 2:32:19 PM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > Użytkownik "paparios" napisał w wiadomości grup > dyskusyjnych:d3680b24-6d10-4f78-a6c0-ea7d29b8806a@googlegroups.com... > > > So relativity of movement is something that exists in Nature and that > > > observations do depend on the observer location. > > > > No. Such observations don't exist. > > |You are as boring as Seto or as an idiot software programmer can be. > |Ask a Second World War bomber how he sees the bomb falling and ask a german > soldier on the ground how he sees the same bomb falling and they will tell > different stories. > > You are as boring as Jan or as a relativistic moron can be. > Ask a man on a street how he sees the buildings moving > from his point of view. This is irrelevant. You keep mixing non-scientific aspects with the details of the actual mathematical model used by the physics. > |Physics has advanced a lot in 500 years. We do know now that everything is > moving and that even lead is transparent for neutrinos, so nothing is really > solid. You are at the cro-magnon era regarding science. > > Physics has went completely insane and yes, you know that everything. > Your idiot guru told you, so you know. No, it didn't go "insane". What happened was simply that one day you realised you could not understand it, and instead of simply switching to a different hobby, you decided to go on the Internet and yell at people who do understand it. This is very common. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-28 23:20 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <94092fe4-fcf3-4512-ba2e-7a7dd301fa7d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #391079 |
W dniu niedziela, 28 sierpnia 2016 02:59:05 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > On Friday, August 26, 2016 at 2:32:19 PM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > Użytkownik "paparios" napisał w wiadomości grup > > dyskusyjnych:d3680b24-6d10-4f78-a6c0-ea7d29b8806a@googlegroups.com... > > > > So relativity of movement is something that exists in Nature and that > > > > observations do depend on the observer location. > > > > > > No. Such observations don't exist. > > > > |You are as boring as Seto or as an idiot software programmer can be. > > |Ask a Second World War bomber how he sees the bomb falling and ask a german > > soldier on the ground how he sees the same bomb falling and they will tell > > different stories. > > > > You are as boring as Jan or as a relativistic moron can be. > > Ask a man on a street how he sees the buildings moving > > from his point of view. > > This is irrelevant. This is real. Reality, you know. This thing you pretend you're modelling, poor idiot. > > Physics has went completely insane and yes, you know that everything. > > Your idiot guru told you, so you know. > > No, it didn't go "insane". Yes, it did. > What happened was simply that one day you realised > you could not understand it Oh, yes, I do understand it. A bunch of idiots mumble and scream "we are GURUS!!!". Nothing especially complicated.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-29 16:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c98c19f2-2d5c-494c-b24d-f53fd82466fc@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #391158 |
On Sunday, August 28, 2016 at 11:20:45 PM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > W dniu niedziela, 28 sierpnia 2016 02:59:05 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > > On Friday, August 26, 2016 at 2:32:19 PM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > > Użytkownik "paparios" napisał w wiadomości grup > > > dyskusyjnych:d3680b24-6d10-4f78-a6c0-ea7d29b8806a@googlegroups.com... > > > > > So relativity of movement is something that exists in Nature and that > > > > > observations do depend on the observer location. > > > > > > > > No. Such observations don't exist. > > > > > > |You are as boring as Seto or as an idiot software programmer can be. > > > |Ask a Second World War bomber how he sees the bomb falling and ask a german > > > soldier on the ground how he sees the same bomb falling and they will tell > > > different stories. > > > > > > You are as boring as Jan or as a relativistic moron can be. > > > Ask a man on a street how he sees the buildings moving > > > from his point of view. > > > > This is irrelevant. > > This is real. Reality, you know. This thing you > pretend you're modelling, poor idiot. No. This is irrelevant because you are abusing common English meanings of words to stand for properties that aren't there in other contexts. > > > Physics has went completely insane and yes, you know that everything. > > > Your idiot guru told you, so you know. > > > > No, it didn't go "insane". > > Yes, it did. No, you simply don't understand it, as your above quote above the "moving trees" proves it. You have a very basic misunderstanding of pretty much all the basics. Why you are on this group while carrying such deficiency is anybody's guess. Obviously all you're going to get here is abuse, this will never change unless you change your attitude, so good luck. > > What happened was simply that one day you realised > > you could not understand it > > Oh, yes, I do understand it. No, you don't. You've just said, several times, that "Ask a man on a street how he sees the buildings moving". > > > from his point of view. > A bunch of idiots > mumble and scream "we are GURUS!!!". Nothing > especially complicated. It happens to be the truth: compared to you we are gurus. Why do you resent it? What's wrong with having a guru? Don't be such a child. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-29 22:58 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <bd07c514-45ea-46ee-b3df-f1e3bbe01397@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #391194 |
W dniu wtorek, 30 sierpnia 2016 01:03:57 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > > > > You are as boring as Jan or as a relativistic moron can be. > > > > Ask a man on a street how he sees the buildings moving > > > > from his point of view. > > > > > > This is irrelevant. > > > > This is real. Reality, you know. This thing you > > pretend you're modelling, poor idiot. > > No. This is irrelevant because you are abusing common English meanings > of words to stand for properties that aren't there in other contexts. Have you heard of Tarski? It's quite easy to create a theory true in the context of itself, every theory has this property, poor idiot self-appointed guru. The trick is - a theory inconsitent with the metalanguage is - false. But these are things far beyond the ability of your tiny, brainwashed head.... > > > > Physics has went completely insane and yes, you know that everything. > > > > Your idiot guru told you, so you know. > > > > > > No, it didn't go "insane". > > > > Yes, it did. > > No, you simply don't understand it, as your above quote above the "moving > trees" proves it. A bunch of idiots mumbles, with occasional shouts "we are GURUS!!!!". Believe, poor idiot, nothing complicated with it. > It happens to be the truth: compared to you we are gurus. Why do you No. Imagination of a poor idiot. You're just a common bunch of arrogant fools.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-30 11:55 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <520840b3-093d-4b92-a00f-9cc6a146781c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #391217 |
On Monday, August 29, 2016 at 10:58:57 PM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > W dniu wtorek, 30 sierpnia 2016 01:03:57 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > > > > > You are as boring as Jan or as a relativistic moron can be. > > > > > Ask a man on a street how he sees the buildings moving > > > > > from his point of view. > > > > > > > > This is irrelevant. > > > > > > This is real. Reality, you know. This thing you > > > pretend you're modelling, poor idiot. > > > > No. This is irrelevant because you are abusing common English meanings > > of words to stand for properties that aren't there in other contexts. > > Have you heard of Tarski? Yes, he has a common room named after him at the UC Berkeley Math Dept. :-) > It's quite easy to create a theory true in the > context of itself, every theory has this > property, poor idiot self-appointed guru. Irrelevant. You are making mountains out of molehills. Here I'm addressing what you said about trees moving with respect to a person walking down the street. It's simply a property of certain smooth functions (called "coordinate systems"), and you twist it to "imply" as if physicists insisted the trees actually "moved" (in some unspecified sense) with respect to the observer. > The trick is - a theory inconsitent with > the metalanguage is - false. Irrelevant. > But these are things far beyond the ability > of your tiny, brainwashed head.... Yada yada yada. [skipping the rest of your post, it's just venting some silly frustrations as usual]. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-30 23:12 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3c7e04db-2025-427d-825b-9d8d5ff70093@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #391245 |
W dniu wtorek, 30 sierpnia 2016 20:55:13 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > On Monday, August 29, 2016 at 10:58:57 PM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > W dniu wtorek, 30 sierpnia 2016 01:03:57 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > > > > > > You are as boring as Jan or as a relativistic moron can be. > > > > > > Ask a man on a street how he sees the buildings moving > > > > > > from his point of view. > > > > > > > > > > This is irrelevant. > > > > > > > > This is real. Reality, you know. This thing you > > > > pretend you're modelling, poor idiot. > > > > > > No. This is irrelevant because you are abusing common English meanings > > > of words to stand for properties that aren't there in other contexts. > > > > Have you heard of Tarski? > > Yes, he has a common room named after him at the UC Berkeley Math Dept. :-) > > > It's quite easy to create a theory true in the > > context of itself, every theory has this > > property, poor idiot self-appointed guru. > > Irrelevant. No. > You are making mountains out of molehills. Here I'm addressing > what you said about trees moving with respect to a person walking down the > street. It's simply a property of certain smooth functions (called "coordinate > systems") You know, poor idiot, a competent man talking about properties of certain smooth functions (called "coordinate systems") would say: "coordinate systems have properties". A relativistic moron will yell "observers observe!!!! Experiments confirm!!!!" and other bullshit. BTW, creating coordinate systems, poor idiot, is intended for coordination. Not for a nice symmetry, so precious for your bunch of idiots. And that's why time (as defined by your idiot guru himself) is galilean, as we can see at GPS. > > The trick is - a theory inconsitent with > > the metalanguage is - false. > > Irrelevant. No. [skipping the rest of your post, it's just venting some silly frustrations as usual].
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-26 03:40 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c9f2adf8-7b51-4eac-b324-2494d178414c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #390857 |
On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 8:26:42 AM UTC-5, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > W dniu czwartek, 25 sierpnia 2016 14:29:04 UTC+2 użytkownik Jonathan Doolin napisał: > > > > No. It's absolutely lied. You know it. > > > A classical fanatic lie for the > > > "absolutely right" insane ideology. > > > Of course, I won't prove you anything. > > > > Perhaps you cannot prove anything to me. But try presenting a correction to my idea, which you think represents the truth. > > OK. > So, you can create phrases with "movement" > word and receive such phrases from others. > Your brain is trained to deal with this word. > And the training you received is inconsistent. > One training procedure taught you, that you > shouldn't apply this word to buildings, trees > and alike (except the moments they're falling). > The second procedure taught you movement is > symmetrical, as Galileo imagined it's a good > idea. > So, now, when asking yourself what do you see, > you're getting two inconsistent answers. > You're using the first to survive and function > properly in the community and the second to > feel ideologically correct. Yes, I do like to feel both ideologically correct. The other option is to feel ideologically incorrect. I like to feel that the ideological ground where I stand is well tested. I like to be able to say to others "I think I have found a sturdy place to stand. Unless you have a better spot, come join me." I also like to survive and function properly in the community. The other option is to die, or fail to function properly in the community. My statement was that each of us has our own point-of-view. We are trapped within that point-of-view, unless we join someone else to "walk-a-mile-in-their-shoes" or if we try to examine another point-of-view through simulation. My brain is trained to deal with the word "movement", indeed. In general, I say "I am moving" while the ground is standing still. There is nothing wrong with saying such a thing, unless you reject other perspectives. One can and should accept that other unique perspectives and backgrounds exist, and when teaching and learning from them, try to understand "where they are coming from". You acknowledge the definitions of the words they use. You acknowledge the existence of their hypotheses. If you are going to reject what they are saying, you try to understand what they are saying. > If you asked a christian "do you love your > neigbour?" the situation would be quite > similiar. This is no hypothetical for me. I have talked to Christians. (1) Some Christians say "Love even your enemies." Matthew 5:43-48. For these Christians I would ask no further questions, because I believe as they do. (2) Other Christians just say "Love each other." John 15:9-17. For those Christians, I would try to get them to answer, "who is each other?" If they answered that every human being is each-other, then I would ask no further questions, because I believe as they do. (3) For those who would say "Only those who share in the body of Christ" (1 Corinthians 12:12-31) I would ask who they believe shares in the Body of Christ? Must we literally eat his body and drink his blood, as suggested in John 6:52-66 or is it enough just to breathe in the air he breathed, as suggested in John 20:22. If they answered, "everyone who breathes the same air" then I would ask no further questions, because everyone breathes the same air. (4) If they answered "everyone who accepts that Jesus is the Son of God" I would ask, "Do you mean, in the sense that we are all Children of God?" (Matthew 6:9) and if they said yes, then I would ask no further questions, because they believe as I do. (5) If they answered, "Everyone who accepts that Jesus is the only begotten Son of God" then I would begin to argue. I would ask them if they were making this statement based on Pascal's wager, and whether this wager meets the definition of faith--that they truly hope all the nonbelievers go to hell and are tortured for eternity. If they answered "it is not my choice." I would say, "Perhaps it is not your choice what you fear. But it should be your choice what to hope for." If they answered "Fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom." I would say "Perhaps it is time to step into the adolescence of wisdom; see with your eyes, hear with your ears, understand with both mind and heart."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-26 05:19 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <303b66d7-7775-44ea-b8d2-91ef21488538@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #390977 |
W dniu piątek, 26 sierpnia 2016 12:40:35 UTC+2 użytkownik Jonathan Doolin napisał: > On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 8:26:42 AM UTC-5, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > W dniu czwartek, 25 sierpnia 2016 14:29:04 UTC+2 użytkownik Jonathan Doolin napisał: > > > > > > No. It's absolutely lied. You know it. > > > > A classical fanatic lie for the > > > > "absolutely right" insane ideology. > > > > Of course, I won't prove you anything. > > > > > > Perhaps you cannot prove anything to me. But try presenting a correction to my idea, which you think represents the truth. > > > > OK. > > So, you can create phrases with "movement" > > word and receive such phrases from others. > > Your brain is trained to deal with this word. > > And the training you received is inconsistent. > > One training procedure taught you, that you > > shouldn't apply this word to buildings, trees > > and alike (except the moments they're falling). > > The second procedure taught you movement is > > symmetrical, as Galileo imagined it's a good > > idea. > > So, now, when asking yourself what do you see, > > you're getting two inconsistent answers. > > You're using the first to survive and function > > properly in the community and the second to > > feel ideologically correct. > > > My statement was that each of us has our own point-of-view. We are trapped within that point-of-view, unless we join someone else to "walk-a-mile-in-their-shoes" or if we try to examine another point-of-view through simulation. > > My brain is trained to deal with the word "movement", indeed. In general, I say "I am moving" while the ground is standing still. There is nothing wrong with saying such a thing, unless you reject other perspectives. And didn't zillions of experiments performed by your lunatic fellows convince you, that the one and only proper way to use this word is the relativistic way? From your point of view you're NOT moving. Ever. EXPERIMENTS!!! MATHEMATICS!!!! THE WORLD WE INHABIT!!!! And you simply say "nothing wrong with it"? And if a twins returning from his space travel say "I was born in 2050, now is 2090 so I'm 40, samely as my brother - will you also say "nothing wrong with it"????!!! > You acknowledge the definitions of the words they use. You acknowledge the existence of their hypotheses. If you are going to reject what they are saying, you try to understand what they are saying. Your insane guru didn't try, he simply revolutionized it. Neither ANY of your puffed fellows. I have 20 years of experience in talking to you. During this 20 years it never happened. And, BTW, in the world we inhabit only the simplest words have definitions you can rely on. > > If you asked a christian "do you love your > > neigbour?" the situation would be quite > > similiar. > > This is no hypothetical for me. I have talked to Christians. So did I. I was one of them. Until I grew up.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-27 07:06 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1a65bf3b-05e9-4ff8-8e1a-b52f38ea8bf4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #390980 |
On Friday, August 26, 2016 at 7:19:30 AM UTC-5, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > > > > > > > No. It's absolutely lied. You know it. > > > > > A classical fanatic lie for the > > > > > "absolutely right" insane ideology. > > > > > Of course, I won't prove you anything. > > > > > > > > Perhaps you cannot prove anything to me. But try presenting a correction to my idea, which you think represents the truth. > > > > > > OK. > > > So, you can create phrases with "movement" > > > word and receive such phrases from others. > > > Your brain is trained to deal with this word. > > > And the training you received is inconsistent. > > > One training procedure taught you, that you > > > shouldn't apply this word to buildings, trees > > > and alike (except the moments they're falling). > > > The second procedure taught you movement is > > > symmetrical, as Galileo imagined it's a good > > > idea. > > > So, now, when asking yourself what do you see, > > > you're getting two inconsistent answers. > > > You're using the first to survive and function > > > properly in the community and the second to > > > feel ideologically correct. > > > > > > My statement was that each of us has our own point-of-view. We are trapped within that point-of-view, unless we join someone else to "walk-a-mile-in-their-shoes" or if we try to examine another point-of-view through simulation. > > > > My brain is trained to deal with the word "movement", indeed. In general, I say "I am moving" while the ground is standing still. There is nothing wrong with saying such a thing, unless you reject other perspectives. > > And didn't zillions of experiments performed > by your lunatic fellows convince you, that > the one and only proper way to use this word > is the relativistic way? As with any word, one should acknowledge the different definitions, and not require others to use the same definition in every context. > From your point of view you're NOT moving. > Ever. EXPERIMENTS!!! MATHEMATICS!!!! THE > WORLD WE INHABIT!!!! And you simply say > "nothing wrong with it"? Experiments and mathematics are good methods by which to see and or model things from other perspectives than your own. > And if a twins returning from his space > travel say "I was born in 2050, now is 2090 > so I'm 40, samely as my brother - will you > also say "nothing wrong with it"????!!! > I was trying to convey exactly what I thought was "wrong" with it when I bumped this 11 year-old thread https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics.relativity/QATOqgx21Lg/Ky3MPXrTAQAJ > > You acknowledge the definitions of the words they use. You acknowledge the existence of their hypotheses. If you are going to reject what they are saying, you try to understand what they are saying. > > Your insane guru didn't try, he simply revolutionized > it. I've read some insane guru papers; they're marked by • Variables not defined explicitly • Text does not properly describe what's going on in the math • Conclusions drawn that don't actually follow, and are not actually used in the math • Statements made that could be interpreted in half a dozen ways that lead to misunderstanding. • Statements where a correct interpretation is inconsistent with the common understanding of the statement.. It seems to me, that the best way to achieve understanding is to point to these issues, and list possible interpretations, and see if any of those interpretations lead to truth. This is an exercise I would call either "acknowledging your impressions" or "acknowledging the hypothesis". >Neither ANY of your puffed fellows. I have 20 > years of experience in talking to you. During this > 20 years it never happened. I don't know what instances you are referring to from the last 20 years, but I have, in the past, thought that "spoonfeeding" of Special Relativity theory was possible. And when I began this process, I thought I was in the mainstream... Of course, the mainstream hasn't poured out to endorse my ideas. Rather, the people who disagreed have poured out to argue with me. There are basically three groups.. (1) Endorsers of well-defined models, who have a different hypothesis than mine. (2) Cynics, who do not have their own hypothesis, but are happy to mock everyone who does. (3) People who are so used to arguing, they don't even recognize when they agree. > And, BTW, in the world we inhabit only the simplest > words have definitions you can rely on. > That's not true. Surely with a little creativity, I could come up with some way to misinterpret even your simplest word. But it would be a grand waste of my time to do so. Even if I couldn't misinterpret it, I could render it meaningless by failing to acknowledge it. (for instance, in his last reply to me, mlwo called me a "liar.") This has saved him a great deal of time, because labeling me thusly means he no longer has to listen to anything I am saying! It's easy to misinterpret, and call someone a liar. However, it takes a lot more work to find an interpretation of what hearing that offers correction, or leads to the truth.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-27 18:14 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <npse8k$4ej$1@node1.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #391045 |
Użytkownik "Jonathan Doolin" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:1a65bf3b-05e9-4ff8-8e1a-b52f38ea8bf4@googlegroups.com... > And didn't zillions of experiments performed > by your lunatic fellows convince you, that > the one and only proper way to use this word > is the relativistic way? |As with any word, one should acknowledge the different definitions, and not require others to use the same definition in every context. A nonsense. How many possible combinations are there? > And if a twins returning from his space > travel say "I was born in 2050, now is 2090 > so I'm 40, samely as my brother - will you > also say "nothing wrong with it"????!!! > |I was trying to convey exactly what I thought was "wrong" with it when I bumped this 11 year-old thread |https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics.relativity/QATOqgx21Lg/Ky3MPXrTAQAJ I would prefer the answer. |I've read some insane guru papers; they're marked by |• Variables not defined explicitly |• Text does not properly describe what's going on in the math |• Conclusions drawn that don't actually follow, and are not actually used in the math |• Statements made that could be interpreted in half a dozen ways that lead to misunderstanding. |• Statements where a correct interpretation is inconsistent with the common understanding of the statement.. You can find such things anywhere. The problem with Great Guru is: he tried to revolutionize mechanisms he had no real clue about. Revolution was trendy that time. >Neither ANY of your puffed fellows. I have 20 > years of experience in talking to you. During this > 20 years it never happened. |I don't know what instances you are referring to from the last 20 years, but I have, in the past, thought that "spoonfeeding" of Special Relativity theory was possible. And when I began this process, I thought I was in the mainstream... Of course, the mainstream hasn't poured out to |endorse my ideas. Rather, the people who disagreed have poured out to argue with me. There are basically three groups.. |(1) Endorsers of well-defined models, who have a different hypothesis than mine. |(2) Cynics, who do not have their own hypothesis, but are happy to mock everyone who does. |(3) People who are so used to arguing, they don't even recognize when they agree. And? > And, BTW, in the world we inhabit only the simplest > words have definitions you can rely on. > |That's not true. Surely with a little creativity, I could come up with some way to misinterpret even your simplest word. But it would be a grand waste of my time to do so. Exactly. |(for instance, in his last reply to me, mlwo called me a "liar.") This has saved him a great deal of time, because labeling me thusly means he no longer has to listen to anything I am saying! Not quite. You wrote "Took me several readings to realize you are trolling yourself." And you still do some listening. |It's easy to misinterpret, and call someone a liar. However, it takes a lot more work to find an interpretation of what hearing that offers correction, or leads to the truth. It's not always misinterpretation.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-27 12:02 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ff1725b1-ad62-41bd-89a9-98049666217e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #391053 |
On Saturday, August 27, 2016 at 11:14:14 AM UTC-5, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > > And didn't zillions of experiments performed > > by your lunatic fellows convince you, that > > the one and only proper way to use this word > > is the relativistic way? > > |As with any word, one should acknowledge the different definitions, and not > require others to use the same definition in every context. > > A nonsense. How many possible combinations are there? > Well, for an example, here you can see the definition for the word "up" https://www.google.com/#q=up+definition 3 verb definitions, 1 noun definition, 5 adjective definition, 1 preposition definition, and 8 adverb definitions. Yet, if I said to someone. "Hey, I got my up today." you would still have to ask me "What do you mean?" because it doesn't seem to be a familiar usage. And to that I would probably answer, "Actually, it was intended to be gibberish," which would be the truth. Or I could pretend the words have meaning, and accuse those who don't understand me, of stupidity. It should be absolutely clear though, that if I did this second thing, that this is not what someone with a real idea would do. At best, this is someone who once had an idea, but has forgotten the reasoning behind it; and may not even know the reasoning behind it, or whether it is valid. > > And if a twins returning from his space > > travel say "I was born in 2050, now is 2090 > > so I'm 40, samely as my brother - will you > > also say "nothing wrong with it"????!!! > > > > |I was trying to convey exactly what I thought was "wrong" with it when I > bumped this 11 year-old thread > |https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics.relativity/QATOqgx21Lg/Ky3MPXrTAQAJ > I would prefer the answer. > One can do the problem one of two ways. One is to do a path integral of the space-time metric in the rest-frame of the stay-at-home twin. (But it would be impossible for the traveling twin to view the events around him from this perspective.) The other way is to consider it from the changing point-of-view of the traveling twin. (When I say changing, here, I am saying the coordinates of events move around him... but he never has the choice to observe anything from an inertial reference frame. He is trapped in his own perspective.) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Lorentz_Transformations_of_Twin_Paradox_Minkowski_Diagram.gif If you look at the animation, you can see the time between event O and E, then the time between event E and D. > |I've read some insane guru papers; they're marked by > |• Variables not defined explicitly > |• Text does not properly describe what's going on in the math > |• Conclusions drawn that don't actually follow, and are not actually used > in the math > |• Statements made that could be interpreted in half a dozen ways that lead > to misunderstanding. > |• Statements where a correct interpretation is inconsistent with the common > understanding of the statement.. > > You can find such things anywhere. The problem with Great Guru > is: he tried to revolutionize mechanisms he had no real clue about. > > Revolution was trendy that time. > Are you talking about Jesus or Einstein? > > >Neither ANY of your puffed fellows. I have 20 > > years of experience in talking to you. During this > > 20 years it never happened. > > |I don't know what instances you are referring to from the last 20 years, > but I have, in the past, thought that "spoonfeeding" of Special Relativity > theory was possible. And when I began this process, I thought I was in the > mainstream... Of course, the mainstream hasn't poured out to |endorse my > ideas. Rather, the people who disagreed have poured out to argue with me. > There are basically three groups.. > |(1) Endorsers of well-defined models, who have a different hypothesis than > mine. > |(2) Cynics, who do not have their own hypothesis, but are happy to mock > everyone who does. > |(3) People who are so used to arguing, they don't even recognize when they > agree. > > And? > And, they may all have something of value to say? > > And, BTW, in the world we inhabit only the simplest > > words have definitions you can rely on. > > > > |That's not true. Surely with a little creativity, I could come up with > some way to misinterpret even your simplest word. But it would be a grand > waste of my time to do so. > > Exactly. > > > |(for instance, in his last reply to me, mlwo called me a "liar.") This has > saved him a great deal of time, because labeling me thusly means he no > longer has to listen to anything I am saying! > > Not quite. You wrote > "Took me several readings to realize you are trolling yourself." > And you still do some listening. > It's very different to say "troll" and "liar". A troll is one who criticizes everything. A troll could say "you're fat" to a fat person. Or "you're an idiot" to a person who has made a mistake. Maciej Wazniak said, having no argument, I used "ad personam" rhetoric. (I thought at that time you and mlwo were both the same person... I'm still not sure.) It was true, I had no argument. I couldn't really tell whether mlwo posted two comments to argue with Tom Roberts, or if he was calling himself an idiot. When you responded, I had to look up ad personam, and I found it here: https://www.quora.com/What-are-concrete-examples-of-ad-hominem-and-ad-personam-Are-they-the-same-or-is-there-a-difference/answer/Sam-Austin-1?srid=tNZH ...where it said "Ad personam arguments appeal to the personal interest of the arguer's audience. To modulate my previous example, the ad personam version would be: "You'd better agree with me on this point or I'm going to tell everyone you're an evil person." Another example would be: "You ought to think more like I do if you want people to like you" (or anything that suggests that it is in your interest to agree with the speaker's point of view irrespective of its validity)." And indeed, my suggestion is precisely this "You'd better think more like I do if you want people to like you." So I said "you nailed me." Of course, it sounds HORRIBLE to a cynic to have someone suggest that they should be motivated by people liking them, which makes it all the more humorous. > > |It's easy to misinterpret, and call someone a liar. However, it takes a > lot more work to find an interpretation of what hearing that offers > correction, or leads to the truth. > > It's not always misinterpretation. No, I suppose not.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-28 11:16 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <npua6d$e05$1@node2.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #391061 |
Użytkownik "Jonathan Doolin" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:ff1725b1-ad62-41bd-89a9-98049666217e@googlegroups.com... > |As with any word, one should acknowledge the different definitions, and > not > require others to use the same definition in every context. > > A nonsense. How many possible combinations are there? > |Well, for an example, here you can see the definition for the word "up" |https://www.google.com/#q=up+definition |3 verb definitions, 1 noun definition, 5 adjective definition, 1 preposition definition, and 8 adverb definitions. Well, 18. And what if there were 6 bilions x 18 versions? Would you still insist to know them all? |Or I could pretend the words have meaning, and accuse those who don't understand me, of stupidity. It should be absolutely clear though, that if I did this second thing, that this is not what someone with a real idea would do. But that's exactly what people with real ideas do, and that's exactly what they should do. Do you know what happens then? In the ideal case the idea with most possibilities wins. In real case - sometimes a Shit wins because idiots like Jan scream : "I'm a Bach-like GURU!!!!" loudly. But not often, usually winning ideas have some value. |One can do the problem one of two ways. One is to do a path integral of the space-time metric in the rest-frame of the stay-at-home twin. (But it would be impossible for the traveling twin to view the events around him from this perspective.) |The other way is to consider it from the changing point-of-view of the traveling twin. What world do you live? Dp you live in a world you have to integrate a proper path of spacetime to know what time it is? "point of view of travelling twins"? Which one - "these buildings are moving" or "I'm moving"? > You can find such things anywhere. The problem with Great Guru > is: he tried to revolutionize mechanisms he had no real clue about. > > Revolution was trendy that time. > |Are you talking about Jesus or Einstein? Einstein. > |(1) Endorsers of well-defined models, who have a different hypothesis > than > mine. > |(2) Cynics, who do not have their own hypothesis, but are happy to mock > everyone who does. > |(3) People who are so used to arguing, they don't even recognize when > they > agree. > > And? > |And, they may all have something of value to say? Seeking a random text with a hope "maybe something of value" is suicidal. You'll end brainwashed by some shit - unless you have more luck than wit. > saved him a great deal of time, because labeling me thusly means he no > longer has to listen to anything I am saying! > > Not quite. You wrote > "Took me several readings to realize you are trolling yourself." > And you still do some listening. > |It's very different to say "troll" and "liar". A troll is one who criticizes everything. A troll could say "you're fat" to a fat person. Or "you're an idiot" to a person who has made a mistake. |Maciej Wazniak said, having no argument, I used "ad personam" rhetoric. (I thought at that time you and mlwo were both the same person... I'm still not sure.) Of course we are. Do you want a proof you're lying? And do I look like a prosecutor to you? I see you're lying, so I say "you're lying". Of course, my ideas are influenting what I see - I can be wrong, but I don't think so. You saw I'm a troll, so you said.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-29 04:27 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f607fbfe-dcb1-4af9-906f-143115b9d87b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #391108 |
On Sunday, August 28, 2016 at 4:17:03 AM UTC-5, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > |As with any word, one should acknowledge the different definitions, and > > not > > require others to use the same definition in every context. > > > > A nonsense. How many possible combinations are there? > > > > |Well, for an example, here you can see the definition for the word "up" > > |https://www.google.com/#q=up+definition > |3 verb definitions, 1 noun definition, 5 adjective definition, 1 > preposition definition, and 8 adverb definitions. > > Well, 18. > And what if there were 6 bilions x 18 versions? > Would you still insist to know them all? > No. But I would only be wondering one definition. The definition of the one person who used the word. That is what that one person meant by it. > > |Or I could pretend the words have meaning, and accuse those who don't > understand me, of stupidity. It should be absolutely clear though, that if > I did this second thing, that this is not what someone with a real idea > would do. > > But that's exactly what people with real ideas do, and that's exactly > what they should do. It's what people with real ideas do. I've done it myself, and I'm sure I'll do it again. But that doesn't mean it is what they should do. It's perfectly legitimate to say "I don't have time to explain this right now." or "I am under no obligation to MAKE you understand what I'm saying." Or "Your ability to misunderstand does not detract from the quality of an idea." But to say "You're too stupid to understand" is not right. > Do you know what happens then? In the ideal case > the idea with most possibilities wins. In real case - sometimes a Shit > wins because idiots like Jan scream : "I'm a Bach-like GURU!!!!" loudly. > But not often, usually winning ideas have some value. > > |One can do the problem one of two ways. One is to do a path integral of > the space-time metric in the rest-frame of the stay-at-home twin. (But it > would be impossible for the traveling twin to view the events around him > from this perspective.) > |The other way is to consider it from the changing point-of-view of the > traveling twin. > > What world do you live? > Dp you live in a world you have to integrate a proper path > of spacetime to know what time it is? To my knowledge, you can predict the time on a moving clock by doing this, yes. But my point was to offer another method that would give the same answer, and consider things from the point-of-view of the clock. > "point of view of travelling twins"? Which one - "these buildings > are moving" or "I'm moving"? > The traveling twin is the one who undergoes greater acceleration between meetings. He might claim "I'm moving relative to earth" or he might claim "The earth is moving, relative to me." When he sees the image of the earth zoom away from him on turnaround, he should probably come to the latter conclusion... as far as visceral experience goes. > > > > You can find such things anywhere. The problem with Great Guru > > is: he tried to revolutionize mechanisms he had no real clue about. > > > > Revolution was trendy that time. > > > > |Are you talking about Jesus or Einstein? > > Einstein. > > > > |(1) Endorsers of well-defined models, who have a different hypothesis > > than > > mine. > > |(2) Cynics, who do not have their own hypothesis, but are happy to mock > > everyone who does. > > |(3) People who are so used to arguing, they don't even recognize when > > they > > agree. > > > > And? > > > > |And, they may all have something of value to say? > > Seeking a random text with a hope "maybe something > of value" is suicidal. You'll end brainwashed by some > shit - unless you have more luck than wit. > Yet this is what every teacher has to contend with every day. They collect papers from their students, and read through the answers, seeking "maybe something of value." But in general, they are looking mainly for one thing... Whether or not the student has understood what they have been teaching. And it's generally pretty clear whether the student has understood or not. > > saved him a great deal of time, because labeling me thusly means he no > > longer has to listen to anything I am saying! > > > > Not quite. You wrote > > "Took me several readings to realize you are trolling yourself." > > And you still do some listening. > > > > |It's very different to say "troll" and "liar". A troll is one who > criticizes everything. A troll could say "you're fat" to a fat person. > Or "you're an idiot" to a person who has made a mistake. > |Maciej Wazniak said, having no argument, I used "ad personam" rhetoric. (I > thought at that time you and mlwo were both the same person... I'm still > not sure.) > > Of course we are. Do you want a proof you're lying? > And do I look like a prosecutor to you? > I see you're lying, so I say "you're lying". Prosecution: continue with (a course of action) with a view to its completion. If you want to call me a liar, I would like to see your evidence against me. You call me a liar... That means you believe I have told a lie. Perhaps I have said something that is untrue. Perhaps I have knowingly said something untrue. Do you have evidence that I am saying something untrue? Am I repeating someone else's untruth, because I believe it? Or did I maliciously come up with the untruth on my own? Or did I say some untruth when I was being sarcastic, or joking around? Or are you calling me a liar because I said something you don't believe to be true, but I do? What reason did you have for calling me a liar? > Of course, my > ideas are influenting what I see - I can be wrong, but > I don't think so. > You saw I'm a troll, so you said. You exhibit trolling behavior, and the argumentative philosophy of a troll. When I said "I could pretend the words have meaning, and accuse those who don't understand me, of stupidity. " ...you responded... "But that's exactly what people with real ideas do, and that's exactly what they should do." You offer me, here, a moral statement about what people "should" do. I would offer the moral statement that what people "should" do is to try to understand, as much as possible, and clarify, as much as possible, and never give up on the possibility that the other person will eventually understand your meaning. I cannot say "I see you are a troll" but I can say "I see you have acknowledged a troll-moral-standard" But what do I hope for? If this is a moral standard that you cannot abandon, that you SHOULD call people stupid and liars, when you disagree with them, then I hope you will realize that you are a troll. If I can get you to abandon this moral standard, and realize you SHOULDN'T call people stupid and liars, you can stop being a troll. Just to be clear, though. I'm not above trolling myself. I've certainly done it, but I realize it wasn't something I "should" do. =================== As for relativity, let me pose this scenario. Barbara lives at a house next to the route of a trolley. At 5AM she wakes up in her house. Meanwhile, a trolley is 15 km west of her house, and coming east toward her house east at 5 km per hour. Barbara has breakfast, reads the paper, checks her email, and at 8AM she gets on the trolley. A man in the trolley asks her, "where did you get up this morning?" To which Barbara answers by pointing back at her house. "I woke up there, at my house, this morning at 5AM." The man looks at her with concern, then looks at his watch, does some calculation in his head, and finally says, "No, you didn't. You got up there..." pointing in the opposite direction. "15 km that way, at 5AM this morning." Which of them is more correct?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-29 06:58 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <65b90120-18fc-4566-b01e-dd17410d01d9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #391165 |
W dniu poniedziałek, 29 sierpnia 2016 13:27:24 UTC+2 użytkownik Jonathan Doolin napisał: > On Sunday, August 28, 2016 at 4:17:03 AM UTC-5, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > > |As with any word, one should acknowledge the different definitions, and > > > not > > > require others to use the same definition in every context. > > > > > > A nonsense. How many possible combinations are there? > > > > > > > |Well, for an example, here you can see the definition for the word "up" > > > > |https://www.google.com/#q=up+definition > > |3 verb definitions, 1 noun definition, 5 adjective definition, 1 > > preposition definition, and 8 adverb definitions. > > > > Well, 18. > > And what if there were 6 bilions x 18 versions? > > Would you still insist to know them all? > > > > No. But I would only be wondering one definition. The definition of the one person who used the word. That is what that one person meant by it. With more complicated words it's very unlikely. And, well, your choice. For me, when someone says "the pears grow on a willow" I don't have to ask him, what he means by "pear". > > > > > |Or I could pretend the words have meaning, and accuse those who don't > > understand me, of stupidity. It should be absolutely clear though, that if > > I did this second thing, that this is not what someone with a real idea > > would do. > > > > But that's exactly what people with real ideas do, and that's exactly > > what they should do. > > It's what people with real ideas do. I've done it myself, and I'm sure I'll do it again. But that doesn't mean it is what they should do. > > It's perfectly legitimate to say "I don't have time to explain this right now." or "I am under no obligation to MAKE you understand what I'm saying." Or "Your ability to misunderstand does not detract from the quality of an idea." > > But to say "You're too stupid to understand" is not right. And who told you science is right? Or moral? > To my knowledge, you can predict the time on a moving clock by doing this, yes. You can. And these predictions are worthless. Clocks are our tools. They're not any avatars of the Essence. They show what we want them to. And in real world it is NOT what the Shit predicted. Check at GPS. > > > "point of view of travelling twins"? Which one - "these buildings > > are moving" or "I'm moving"? > > > > The traveling twin is the one who undergoes greater acceleration between meetings. How did you get it? I have constant 1g. He can have 0.5gduring the whole travel. > He might claim "I'm moving relative to earth" or he might claim "The earth is moving, relative to me." And he might claim "maluku salatan abra cadabra", too. > When he sees the image of the earth zoom away from him on turnaround, he should probably come to the latter conclusion... as far as visceral experience goes. Is it the same experience that told you that from my point of view I should see buildings moving? > > Of course we are. Do you want a proof you're lying? > > And do I look like a prosecutor to you? > > I see you're lying, so I say "you're lying". > > Prosecution: continue with (a course of action) with a view to its completion. > If you want to call me a liar, I would like to see your evidence against me. " But in the sense that "I have no other perspective than my own; I am immobile within my own viewpoint." It is absolutely true. " You know perfectly that if we meet on the street and I asked you "This building has moved! Did you see?" you would think i'm a crazie. You know you would say oppositely in most cases. And yet - "absolutely true". A lie. And a lying person is a liar. Sorry. Maybe your definition of a "liar" is different? Well, if it is, I don't care. > You call me a liar... That means you believe I have told a lie. Perhaps I have said something that is untrue. Perhaps I have knowingly said something untrue. Exactly. You said "It is absolutely true" knowing it isn't. > > Do you have evidence that I am saying something untrue? Am I repeating someone else's untruth, because I believe it? Or did I maliciously come up with the untruth on my own? Or did I say some untruth when I was being sarcastic, or joking around? > > Or are you calling me a liar because I said something you don't believe to be true, but I do? > > What reason did you have for calling me a liar? > > > Of course, my > > ideas are influenting what I see - I can be wrong, but > > I don't think so. > > You saw I'm a troll, so you said. > > You exhibit trolling behavior, and the argumentative philosophy of a troll. > > When I said "I could pretend the words have meaning, and accuse those who don't understand me, of stupidity. " > > ...you responded... > > "But that's exactly what people with real ideas do, and that's exactly what they should do." > > You offer me, here, a moral statement about what people "should" do. "one should" can mean three main different things (maybe more, at the moment I can consider three). 1)if he don't it will be unmoral 2)if he don't it will be uneffective 3)if he don't I'll be surprised. No. I didn't offer you a moral statement. > But what do I hope for? If this is a moral standard that you cannot abandon, that you SHOULD call people stupid and liars, when you disagree with them "Stupid" is rather rarely applied to people agreeing with the caster, isn't it? What do you think this word is intended for? And why do you're trying to teach ME, not Gary Harmagel, for instance? "Liar" is different. But as you say "absolutely true" knowing you would say oppositely in most cases.... > Barbara lives at a house next to the route of a trolley. At 5AM she wakes up in her house. Meanwhile, a trolley is 15 km west of her house, and coming east toward her house east at 5 km per hour. Barbara has breakfast, reads the paper, checks her email, and at 8AM she gets on the trolley. > > A man in the trolley asks her, "where did you get up this morning?" To which Barbara answers by pointing back at her house. "I woke up there, at my house, this morning at 5AM." > > The man looks at her with concern, then looks at his watch, does some calculation in his head, and finally says, "No, you didn't. You got up there..." pointing in the opposite direction. "15 km that way, at 5AM this morning." > > Which of them is more correct? Barbara. Now my question for you: which one is stupider?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-31 02:27 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8771ade3-dabf-44db-90c5-c68c89dc66b2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #391175 |
On Monday, August 29, 2016 at 8:58:42 AM UTC-5, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > W dniu poniedziałek, 29 sierpnia 2016 13:27:24 UTC+2 użytkownik Jonathan Doolin napisał: > > On Sunday, August 28, 2016 at 4:17:03 AM UTC-5, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > > > |As with any word, one should acknowledge the different definitions, and > > > > not > > > > require others to use the same definition in every context. > > > > > > > > A nonsense. How many possible combinations are there? > > > > > > > > > > |Well, for an example, here you can see the definition for the word "up" > > > > > > |https://www.google.com/#q=up+definition > > > |3 verb definitions, 1 noun definition, 5 adjective definition, 1 > > > preposition definition, and 8 adverb definitions. > > > > > > Well, 18. > > > And what if there were 6 bilions x 18 versions? > > > Would you still insist to know them all? > > > > > > > No. But I would only be wondering one definition. The definition of the one person who used the word. That is what that one person meant by it. > > With more complicated words it's very unlikely. > And, well, your choice. For me, when someone says > "the pears grow on a willow" I don't have to ask > him, what he means by "pear". > Actually, I think I see you're point. You're saying that if the words used to convey an idea fail, it is entirely the fault of the speaker. Not yours. My point is just that this should be a shared responsibility. There is something called three way communication. For instance. 1. Initial communication (Speaker) 2. Repeat initial communication, in own words. (Listener) 3. Confirmation of understanding (Speaker) If the listener doesn't understand what the speaker meant, he can choose either to say "I didn't understand what you meant." and try to get the speaker to start over at step 1. Or he can simply repeat the exact words, and pretend to understanding, with step 3. Or he can give up on the process entirely, because of the many possible perils of each step. If you want to understand the speaker, it would make perfect sense to ask I'm confused. What do you mean by "the pears grow on a willow"? > > > > > > > > > > > |Or I could pretend the words have meaning, and accuse those who don't > > > understand me, of stupidity. It should be absolutely clear though, that if > > > I did this second thing, that this is not what someone with a real idea > > > would do. > > > > > > But that's exactly what people with real ideas do, and that's exactly > > > what they should do. > > > > It's what people with real ideas do. I've done it myself, and I'm sure I'll do it again. But that doesn't mean it is what they should do. > > > > It's perfectly legitimate to say "I don't have time to explain this right now." or "I am under no obligation to MAKE you understand what I'm saying." Or "Your ability to misunderstand does not detract from the quality of an idea." > > > > But to say "You're too stupid to understand" is not right. > > And who told you science is right? Or moral? > > > > To my knowledge, you can predict the time on a moving clock by doing this, yes. > > You can. And these predictions are worthless. > Clocks are our tools. They're not any avatars > of the Essence. They show what we want them to. > And in real world it is NOT what the Shit > predicted. Check at GPS. > From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Error_analysis_for_the_Global_Positioning_System It says that gravitational time dilation causes the clocks to go about 45 microseconds per day faster, and path-based time-dilation causes the clocks to go about 7 microseconds per day slower. The article has a "factual dispute" tag, but I didn't see any mention of the dispute on the talk page. > > > > > > > "point of view of travelling twins"? Which one - "these buildings > > > are moving" or "I'm moving"? > > > > > > > The traveling twin is the one who undergoes greater acceleration between meetings. > > How did you get it? I have constant 1g. > He can have 0.5gduring the whole travel. > > > He might claim "I'm moving relative to earth" or he might claim "The earth is moving, relative to me." > > And he might claim "maluku salatan abra cadabra", too. > > > When he sees the image of the earth zoom away from him on turnaround, he should probably come to the latter conclusion... as far as visceral experience goes. > > Is it the same experience that told you that > from my point of view I should see buildings > moving? > Of course, you'll see the buildings moving. If the buildings stay at the same place in your retina, you'll end up bumping into them! > > > > Of course we are. Do you want a proof you're lying? > > > And do I look like a prosecutor to you? > > > I see you're lying, so I say "you're lying". > > > > Prosecution: continue with (a course of action) with a view to its completion. > > If you want to call me a liar, I would like to see your evidence against me. > > " But in the sense that "I have no other perspective than my own; I am immobile within my own viewpoint." It is absolutely true. " > > You know perfectly that if we meet on the street > and I asked you "This building has moved! Did you > see?" you would think i'm a crazie. You know you > would say oppositely in most cases. And yet - > "absolutely true". A lie. And a lying person is a > liar. Sorry. > Maybe your definition of a "liar" is different? Well, > if it is, I don't care. > > > You call me a liar... That means you believe I have told a lie. Perhaps I have said something that is untrue. Perhaps I have knowingly said something untrue. > > Exactly. You said "It is absolutely true" knowing it isn't. > > Your point-of-view is whatever arrives at your ears, your eyes, your body. The experiences of these senses are "viewed or existing independently and not in relation to other things; not relative or comparative." That's the definition of absolute. > > > > Do you have evidence that I am saying something untrue? Am I repeating someone else's untruth, because I believe it? Or did I maliciously come up with the untruth on my own? Or did I say some untruth when I was being sarcastic, or joking around? > > > > Or are you calling me a liar because I said something you don't believe to be true, but I do? > > > > What reason did you have for calling me a liar? > > > > > Of course, my > > > ideas are influenting what I see - I can be wrong, but > > > I don't think so. > > > You saw I'm a troll, so you said. > > > > You exhibit trolling behavior, and the argumentative philosophy of a troll. > > > > When I said "I could pretend the words have meaning, and accuse those who don't understand me, of stupidity. " > > > > ...you responded... > > > > "But that's exactly what people with real ideas do, and that's exactly what they should do." > > > > You offer me, here, a moral statement about what people "should" do. > > "one should" can mean three main different things (maybe more, > at the moment I can consider three). > 1)if he don't it will be unmoral > 2)if he don't it will be uneffective > 3)if he don't I'll be surprised. > No. I didn't offer you a moral statement. > Yes you did. You just don't know what I mean by moral statement. Moral: 1. concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character. 2. holding or manifesting high principles for proper conduct. A moral is a principle for proper conduct. Your 1st principle for proper conduct is "not unmoral." Your 2nd principle for proper conduct is that it should be effective Your 3rd principle for proper conduct is that it shouldn't surprise you. I will say, if every time someone surprises you, you are telling them "you shouldn't do that." I don't think the problem is necessarily with them. > > But what do I hope for? If this is a moral standard that you cannot abandon, that you SHOULD call people stupid and liars, when you disagree with them > > "Stupid" is rather rarely applied to people agreeing with > the caster, isn't it? What do you think this word is > intended for? And why do you're trying to teach ME, not > Gary Harmagel, for instance? > "Liar" is different. But as you say "absolutely true" > knowing you would say oppositely in most cases.... > > > > > Barbara lives at a house next to the route of a trolley. At 5AM she wakes up in her house. Meanwhile, a trolley is 15 km west of her house, and coming east toward her house east at 5 km per hour. Barbara has breakfast, reads the paper, checks her email, and at 8AM she gets on the trolley. > > > > A man in the trolley asks her, "where did you get up this morning?" To which Barbara answers by pointing back at her house. "I woke up there, at my house, this morning at 5AM." > > > > The man looks at her with concern, then looks at his watch, does some calculation in his head, and finally says, "No, you didn't. You got up there..." pointing in the opposite direction. "15 km that way, at 5AM this morning." > > > > Which of them is more correct? > > Barbara. Now my question for you: which one > is stupider? They're viewing the events from the point-of-view of the train. The man is correct, because he's pointing along a vector in spacetime that actually makes sense. Barbara is incorrect, because she's pointing toward the house where she got up--not where it was when she got up in it. I'd rather not get into labeling people as "stupid" but Barbara does not have "mathematically justifiable semantic freedom" to claim that that she got up in a direction toward the back of the trolley.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-31 03:22 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9a744859-35be-4233-92a0-5ac63b230928@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #391285 |
W dniu środa, 31 sierpnia 2016 11:27:12 UTC+2 użytkownik Jonathan Doolin > > And, well, your choice. For me, when someone says > > "the pears grow on a willow" I don't have to ask > > him, what he means by "pear". > > > > Actually, I think I see you're point. You're saying that if the words used to convey an idea fail, it is entirely the fault of the speaker. Not yours. No. Saying the above I'm saying the above. > If you want to understand the speaker, it would make perfect sense to ask I'm confused. What do you mean by "the pears grow on a willow"? 1)Why would I want to understand an arrogant idiot imagining that standards of common mortals don't touch him? 2)With einsteinians it doesn't work. Usually they simply pretend they don't see the question. More devoted scream "this is not a question!!! This is a RANT!!!". That's all. > > And in real world it is NOT what the Shit > > predicted. Check at GPS. > > > > From > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Error_analysis_for_the_Global_Positioning_System > > It says that gravitational time dilation causes the clocks to go about 45 microseconds per day faster, and path-based time-dilation causes the clocks to go about 7 microseconds per day slower. And it's a bullshit. http://www.leapsecond.com/java/gpsclock.htm By saying "clocks indicate" relativistic moron means only "if they were proper, they would". > > Is it the same experience that told you that > > from my point of view I should see buildings > > moving? > > > > Of course, you'll see the buildings moving. No, I won't. Yeah, yeah. I know. Your guru has said I should. If I won't it will mean I'm stupid and not understanding the brilliant ideas of your guru. Screw it, I won't. > Your point-of-view is whatever arrives at your ears, your eyes, your body. The experiences of these senses are "viewed or existing independently and not in relation to other things; not relative or comparative." That's the definition of absolute. And what you said doesn't match this definition at all. That's because you were lying. > > "one should" can mean three main different things (maybe more, > > at the moment I can consider three). > > 1)if he don't it will be unmoral > > 2)if he don't it will be uneffective > > 3)if he don't I'll be surprised. > > No. I didn't offer you a moral statement. > > > > Yes you did. You just don't know what I mean by moral statement. No, I didn't. 1)it doesn't match your definition 2)Even if it did, according to your principles it's my definition that counts when I speak. > > > Barbara lives at a house next to the route of a trolley. At 5AM she wakes up in her house. Meanwhile, a trolley is 15 km west of her house, and coming east toward her house east at 5 km per hour. Barbara has breakfast, reads the paper, checks her email, and at 8AM she gets on the trolley. > > > > > > A man in the trolley asks her, "where did you get up this morning?" To which Barbara answers by pointing back at her house. "I woke up there, at my house, this morning at 5AM." > > > > > > The man looks at her with concern, then looks at his watch, does some calculation in his head, and finally says, "No, you didn't. You got up there..." pointing in the opposite direction. "15 km that way, at 5AM this morning." > > > > > > Which of them is more correct? > > > > Barbara. Now my question for you: which one > > is stupider? > > They're viewing the events from the point-of-view of the train. Who told you such a horrible bullshit? Trains have no points of view. They never had. Well, maybe with the exception of trains from some childs cartoons. Get conscious, man... > I'd rather not get into labeling people as "stupid" but Barbara does not have "mathematically justifiable semantic freedom" You have no "mathematically justifiable semantic freedom" to say Barbara does not have "mathematically justifiable semantic freedom". But you did anyway. Barbara can do the same.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-02 05:38 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a6eeed3d-83fe-46d3-83d4-24fad0cc1856@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #391288 |
On Wednesday, August 31, 2016 at 5:22:57 AM UTC-5, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > W dniu środa, 31 sierpnia 2016 11:27:12 UTC+2 użytkownik Jonathan Doolin > > > > And, well, your choice. For me, when someone says > > > "the pears grow on a willow" I don't have to ask > > > him, what he means by "pear". > > > > > > > Actually, I think I see you're point. You're saying that if the words used to convey an idea fail, it is entirely the fault of the speaker. Not yours. > > No. Saying the above I'm saying the above. > > > If you want to understand the speaker, it would make perfect sense to ask I'm confused. What do you mean by "the pears grow on a willow"? > > 1)Why would I want to understand an arrogant idiot imagining > that standards of common mortals don't touch him? > 2)With einsteinians it doesn't work. Usually they simply > pretend they don't see the question. More devoted scream > "this is not a question!!! This is a RANT!!!". That's all. > Well, it seems you can be relied on to respond, at least. You see the question. I'll give you that. > > > And in real world it is NOT what the Shit > > > predicted. Check at GPS. > > > > > > > From > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Error_analysis_for_the_Global_Positioning_System > > > > It says that gravitational time dilation causes the clocks to go about 45 microseconds per day faster, and path-based time-dilation causes the clocks to go about 7 microseconds per day slower. > > And it's a bullshit. > http://www.leapsecond.com/java/gpsclock.htm > By saying "clocks indicate" relativistic moron > means only "if they were proper, they would". > I don't understand how this website makes clear that gravitational time dilation is "bullshit" but it does appear to have some different numbers. https://confluence.qps.nl/display/KBE/UTC+to+GPS+Time+Correction Look at the table. The difference between UTC and GPS have been changing. 17 seconds since 1980. 17 seconds from 1980 to 2015 is 17/(35 years)(365.25 days/year) = 1.33 milliseconds per day That comes out about three times higher than the 45 microseconds per day reported on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Error_analysis_for_the_Global_Positioning_System > > > Is it the same experience that told you that > > > from my point of view I should see buildings > > > moving? > > > > > > > Of course, you'll see the buildings moving. > > No, I won't. > Yeah, yeah. I know. Your guru has said I should. > If I won't it will mean I'm stupid and not > understanding the brilliant ideas of your guru. > Screw it, I won't. > My guru has nothing to do with it. When I turn my head, I see motion. If I didn't then I would always be looking at the same spot on the wall, and life would be quite dull. > > Your point-of-view is whatever arrives at your ears, your eyes, your body. The experiences of these senses are "viewed or existing independently and not in relation to other things; not relative or comparative." That's the definition of absolute. > > And what you said doesn't match this definition at all. > That's because you were lying. > I wasn't lying. You have made me a liar in your own eyes by reinterpreting the words I am using and giving them false meaning, or meaning you believe to be false. > > > "one should" can mean three main different things (maybe more, > > > at the moment I can consider three). > > > 1)if he don't it will be unmoral > > > 2)if he don't it will be uneffective > > > 3)if he don't I'll be surprised. > > > No. I didn't offer you a moral statement. > > > > > > > Yes you did. You just don't know what I mean by moral statement. > > No, I didn't. > 1)it doesn't match your definition > 2)Even if it did, according to your principles > it's my definition that counts when I speak. > My definition of "absolute" is a dictionary definition "viewed or existing independently and not in relation to other things; not relative or comparative". I think that this definition applies very well to the activation of rods and cones in the retina. That these absorptions of energy of rods and cones in the retina can be viewed independently; not in relation to other things outside the retina. Not relative or comparitive with anything outside the retina. According to my principles, it is the definition meant by the speaker that matters. When you say that I am a liar because you are able to assign definitions to my words which I did not mean or even intend, it is you who are assigning the false definitions to my words. These things happen. People misunderstand each other. The question is whether you are DELIBERATELY misinterpreting and misunderstanding my words, and assigning false meaning to what I am saying. And I genuinely think you are. I think you have cynical principles that somehow justify this kind of activity. Indeed, there may be some good that comes out of it, if by accusing me of lying that either one of us could come closer to understanding truth. At least you are not deleting my posts, which happens on moderated forums. However, I think you are much more likely to get the effect of greater understanding by, for instance, asking for clarification--rather than making accusations of deliberate falsehood. > > > > Barbara lives at a house next to the route of a trolley. At 5AM she wakes up in her house. Meanwhile, a trolley is 15 km west of her house, and coming east toward her house east at 5 km per hour. Barbara has breakfast, reads the paper, checks her email, and at 8AM she gets on the trolley. > > > > > > > > A man in the trolley asks her, "where did you get up this morning?" To which Barbara answers by pointing back at her house. "I woke up there, at my house, this morning at 5AM." > > > > > > > > The man looks at her with concern, then looks at his watch, does some calculation in his head, and finally says, "No, you didn't. You got up there..." pointing in the opposite direction. "15 km that way, at 5AM this morning." > > > > > > > > Which of them is more correct? > > > > > > Barbara. Now my question for you: which one > > > is stupider? > > > > They're viewing the events from the point-of-view of the train. > > Who told you such a horrible bullshit? > Trains have no points of view. They never > had. Well, maybe with the exception of > trains from some childs cartoons. Get > conscious, man... > Again, your protests against a train having a "point-of-view" being "horrible bullshit" seems a rather pointless temper-tantrum. Of course a train has a point-of-view. It is the place where you would put eyes, or a camera to observe, or film the point-of-view. You may throw all the tantrums you wish, but the fact is that every surface of the train represents a unique perspective, and a unique point-of-view. And you don't even need a surface to describe a unique point-of-view. You could describe what things would look like, even from a position at which there are no particles. > > > I'd rather not get into labeling people as "stupid" but Barbara does not have "mathematically justifiable semantic freedom" > > You have no "mathematically justifiable semantic freedom" > to say Barbara does not have "mathematically justifiable > semantic freedom". But you did anyway. Barbara can do > the same. I don't think it takes any great mathematical mind to demonstrate that Barbara got up 15 km in front of the trolley. But I'd be very impressed if you could show me mathematically justifiable semantic freedom to say that Barbara got up behind the trolley. (Okay, that was a lie. I suspect that any such attempt would be resoundingly unimpressive, since there is no WAY, within the context of the problem that Barbara got up behind the trolley, without deliberate misinterpretation of the context.)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-02 16:33 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nqc2jb$ge1$1@node2.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #391403 |
Użytkownik "Jonathan Doolin" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:a6eeed3d-83fe-46d3-83d4-24fad0cc1856@googlegroups.com... > > > And in real world it is NOT what the Shit > > > predicted. Check at GPS. > > > > > > > From > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Error_analysis_for_the_Global_Positioning_System > > > > It says that gravitational time dilation causes the clocks to go about > > 45 microseconds per day faster, and path-based time-dilation causes the > > clocks to go about 7 microseconds per day slower. > > And it's a bullshit. > http://www.leapsecond.com/java/gpsclock.htm > By saying "clocks indicate" relativistic moron > means only "if they were proper, they would". > |I don't understand how this website makes clear that gravitational time dilation is "bullshit" The clocks don't go slower for real. As I've said, when these morons write "clocks go slower" they only mean "they obviously would if they were proper". |That comes out about three times higher than the 45 microseconds per day reported on |https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Error_analysis_for_the_Global_Positioning_System And it has completely nothing in common with them. > > > Is it the same experience that told you that > > > from my point of view I should see buildings > > > moving? > > > > > > > Of course, you'll see the buildings moving. > > No, I won't. > Yeah, yeah. I know. Your guru has said I should. > If I won't it will mean I'm stupid and not > understanding the brilliant ideas of your guru. > Screw it, I won't. > |My guru has nothing to do with it. Wrong. |When I turn my head, I see motion. As I've said, that's a lie, and you'll never said this idiocy for real. You only do it for theoretical consideration. Anway, I'm NOT going to follow. I don't see moving buildings and I won't see them, even if a million of gurus will shout "you're stupid". > And what you said doesn't match this definition at all. > That's because you were lying. > |I wasn't lying. Yes, you were. > > > "one should" can mean three main different things (maybe more, > > > at the moment I can consider three). > > > 1)if he don't it will be unmoral > > > 2)if he don't it will be uneffective > > > 3)if he don't I'll be surprised. > > > No. I didn't offer you a moral statement. > > > > > > > Yes you did. You just don't know what I mean by moral statement. > > No, I didn't. > 1)it doesn't match your definition > 2)Even if it did, according to your principles > it's my definition that counts when I speak. > |My definition of "absolute" is a dictionary definition "viewed or existing independently and not in relation to other things; not relative or comparative". If we met at the street, you would say exactly oppositely. Is this is your " independently and not in relation to other things; not relative or comparative"? |According to my principles, it is the definition meant by the speaker that matters. Yes, but at almost the same moment you say "By effective you mean moral because my definition says so". I can guess you invented your principles to demand them from others, only. Not surprising. > > > > Barbara lives at a house next to the route of a trolley. At 5AM she > > > > wakes up in her house. Meanwhile, a trolley is 15 km west of her > > > > house, and coming east toward her house east at 5 km per hour. > > > > Barbara has breakfast, reads the paper, checks her email, and at 8AM > > > > she gets on the trolley. > > > > > > > > A man in the trolley asks her, "where did you get up this morning?" > > > > To which Barbara answers by pointing back at her house. "I woke up > > > > there, at my house, this morning at 5AM." > > > > > > > > The man looks at her with concern, then looks at his watch, does > > > > some calculation in his head, and finally says, "No, you didn't. > > > > You got up there..." pointing in the opposite direction. "15 km > > > > that way, at 5AM this morning." > > > > > > > > Which of them is more correct? > > > > > > Barbara. Now my question for you: which one > > > is stupider? > > > > They're viewing the events from the point-of-view of the train. > > Who told you such a horrible bullshit? > Trains have no points of view. They never > had. Well, maybe with the exception of > trains from some childs cartoons. Get > conscious, man... > |Again, your protests against a train having a "point-of-view" being "horrible bullshit" |seems a rather pointless temper-tantrum. Of course a train has a point-of-view. Again, it seems. Again, no, it hasn't. And pears don't grow on a willow. |And you don't even need a surface to describe a unique point-of-view. |You could describe what things would look like, even from a position at which there are no particles. Yes, I could describe. Buildings are not moving, pears don't grow on willow and Barbara woke up in her house. > You have no "mathematically justifiable semantic freedom" > to say Barbara does not have "mathematically justifiable > semantic freedom". But you did anyway. Barbara can do > the same. |I don't think it takes any great mathematical mind to demonstrate that Barbara got up 15 km in front of the trolley. Yes, it doesn't take any great mathematical mind. It takes a brainwashed moron instead. |But I'd be very impressed if you could show me mathematically justifiable semantic freedom to say that Barbara got up behind the trolley. Do you know what mathematics is? There is NO mathematical theories of Barbaras, houses, trolleys and waking up. And even if they existed, mathematics obeys the GIGO rule (if you take stupid axioms, you'll get stupid statements). (Okay, that was a lie. I suspect that any such attempt would be resoundingly unimpressive, since there is no WAY, within the context of the problem that Barbara got up behind the trolley, without deliberate misinterpretation of the context.)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-03 02:57 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4a2739a6-1dea-4631-bd44-fb21b9c6ab54@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #391408 |
On Friday, September 2, 2016 at 9:33:17 AM UTC-5, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > > > And in real world it is NOT what the Shit > > > > predicted. Check at GPS. > > > > > > > > > > From > > > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Error_analysis_for_the_Global_Positioning_System > > > > > > It says that gravitational time dilation causes the clocks to go about > > > 45 microseconds per day faster, and path-based time-dilation causes the > > > clocks to go about 7 microseconds per day slower. > > > > And it's a bullshit. > > http://www.leapsecond.com/java/gpsclock.htm > > By saying "clocks indicate" relativistic moron > > means only "if they were proper, they would". > > > > |I don't understand how this website makes clear that gravitational time > dilation is "bullshit" > > The clocks don't go slower for real. As I've said, when these morons > write "clocks go slower" they only mean "they obviously would if they > were proper". > Having a false understanding doesn't make you a moron. It just makes you wrong. > |That comes out about three times higher than the 45 microseconds per day > reported on > |https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Error_analysis_for_the_Global_Positioning_System > > And it has completely nothing in common with them. > > > > > > Is it the same experience that told you that > > > > from my point of view I should see buildings > > > > moving? > > > > > > > > > > Of course, you'll see the buildings moving. > > > > No, I won't. > > Yeah, yeah. I know. Your guru has said I should. > > If I won't it will mean I'm stupid and not > > understanding the brilliant ideas of your guru. > > Screw it, I won't. > > > > |My guru has nothing to do with it. > > Wrong. > > |When I turn my head, I see motion. > > As I've said, that's a lie, and you'll never said this idiocy for real. > You only do it for theoretical consideration. > Anway, I'm NOT going to follow. I don't see moving buildings > and I won't see them, even if a million of gurus will shout > "you're stupid". > > > > And what you said doesn't match this definition at all. > > That's because you were lying. > > > > |I wasn't lying. > > Yes, you were. > > > > > "one should" can mean three main different things (maybe more, > > > > at the moment I can consider three). > > > > 1)if he don't it will be unmoral > > > > 2)if he don't it will be uneffective > > > > 3)if he don't I'll be surprised. > > > > No. I didn't offer you a moral statement. > > > > > > > > > > Yes you did. You just don't know what I mean by moral statement. > > > > No, I didn't. > > 1)it doesn't match your definition > > 2)Even if it did, according to your principles > > it's my definition that counts when I speak. > > > > |My definition of "absolute" is a dictionary definition "viewed or existing > independently and not in relation to other things; not relative or > comparative". > > If we met at the street, you would say exactly oppositely. > Is this is your " independently and not in relation to other > things; not relative or comparative"? > If we met on the street, I would tell you that a coordinate system tied to Jupiter would be just as valid as a coordinate system tied to Venus, Earth, or Mars. A coordinate system attached to my current point-of-view is also valid. Some astronomers will argue that the earth goes around the sun, and the earth spins on its axis. So they picture things from that "sidereal" perspective. However, we, as humans, do not have the option to actually view the world from that sidereal perspective. We can only send out probes, and live vicariously through them. Or we can view the world from our own eyes. Some points-of-view give greater knowledge than others, but all those points-of-view are "existing independently and not in relation to" other points-of-view. > |According to my principles, it is the definition meant by the speaker that > matters. > > Yes, but at almost the same moment you say "By effective you mean moral > because my definition says so". I can guess you invented your principles > to demand them from others, only. Not surprising. > One of those moral standards I have is that I try to understand what people mean when they speak. I try not to misrepresent them. I try to understand what they say, and repeat it back to them in my own words, and hope they will politely clarify, if I have misunderstood. When, instead, someone mocks my words, deliberately misrepresents my ideas, and calls a liar, I think it makes sense to request that the other tries to adopt (or raise himself to) my moral standards. It's meant to be a polite request. I don't plan on "demanding" that you adopt my principles, or suing you for defamation of character. I'm just pointing out that you have your principles, which seem to allow you to reject dictionary definitions of words on your whim, so that you can testify against other's character and intelligence. And I have my principles, among which is "Judge not, lest ye be judged" and "Do not do unto others what you wouldn't want to have done to you." and "Before you judge someone, take a walk in their shoes." But I've already walked in these shoes your wearing... You think... • I "should" call people stupid when they are wrong. Or • I "should" cling to my own definitions of words when listening to others, or • I "should not" ask your strawman what he means by "the pears grow on a willow", and that • I "should not" make ad personam arguments, I've been down that road before. I've called people stupid when I thought they were wrong. I've insisted on using my own definitions when listening to others. I've mocked ideas because they sounded absurd. And I've rejected things that I thought were fallacy, but were not fallacy. I've walked far enough in those shoes to know "Judge not" doesn't apply here. I have walked a mile in those shoes, and those shoes are no good. I am not going to put those shoes back on, and I am not going to take your advice on what I "should" or "should not" do unless it is consistent with my own principles, or represents some actual improvement on my principles. > > > > > > Barbara lives at a house next to the route of a trolley. At 5AM she > > > > > wakes up in her house. Meanwhile, a trolley is 15 km west of her > > > > > house, and coming east toward her house east at 5 km per hour. > > > > > Barbara has breakfast, reads the paper, checks her email, and at 8AM > > > > > she gets on the trolley. > > > > > > > > > > A man in the trolley asks her, "where did you get up this morning?" > > > > > To which Barbara answers by pointing back at her house. "I woke up > > > > > there, at my house, this morning at 5AM." > > > > > > > > > > The man looks at her with concern, then looks at his watch, does > > > > > some calculation in his head, and finally says, "No, you didn't. > > > > > You got up there..." pointing in the opposite direction. "15 km > > > > > that way, at 5AM this morning." > > > > > > > > > > Which of them is more correct? > > > > > > > > Barbara. Now my question for you: which one > > > > is stupider? > > > > > > They're viewing the events from the point-of-view of the train. > > > > Who told you such a horrible bullshit? > > Trains have no points of view. They never > > had. Well, maybe with the exception of > > trains from some childs cartoons. Get > > conscious, man... > > > > |Again, your protests against a train having a "point-of-view" being > "horrible bullshit" > |seems a rather pointless temper-tantrum. Of course a train has a > point-of-view. > > Again, it seems. Again, no, it hasn't. And pears don't grow on a willow. > Other than your proven ability to mock and misunderstand words, is there any reason that I should stop saying "point-of-view?" > |And you don't even need a surface to describe a unique point-of-view. > |You could describe what things would look like, even from a position at > which there are no particles. > > Yes, I could describe. Buildings are not moving, pears don't grow > on willow and Barbara woke up in her house. > Barbara woke up in her house.... Well, that's true... A million gurus screaming "your stupid" would not make you wrong, but this answer doesn't show me they are wrong either. The question wasn't whether Barbara woke up in her house or not. The question was where was Barbara and her house when she woke up? Was her house behind the trolley when she woke up, or was it in front of the trolley when she woke up? Barbara pointed behind the trolley, at the current location of her house. The man pointed in front of the trolley, at the past location of her house. Which one is more correct? We're talking about an event in the past, so the one pointing to the past location of the house is more correct.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web