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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #417997 > unrolled thread

Common sense and Great Guru

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

Contents

  Common sense and Great Guru mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-03 23:33 -0700
    Re: Common sense and Great Guru Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-04 10:04 -0500
      Re: Common sense and Great Guru mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-04 08:54 -0700
        Re: Common sense and Great Guru Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-04 12:13 -0500
          Re: Common sense and Great Guru mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-04 12:31 -0700
            Re: Common sense and Great Guru Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-04 14:41 -0500
              Re: Common sense and Great Guru mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-04 14:39 -0700
                Re: Common sense and Great Guru Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-04 16:44 -0500
                  Re: Common sense and Great Guru mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-04 14:58 -0700
                    Re: Common sense and Great Guru Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-04 17:16 -0500
                      Re: Common sense and Great Guru mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-04 23:00 -0700
                        Re: Common sense and Great Guru Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-05 04:16 -0700
                        Re: Common sense and Great Guru Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-05 08:59 -0500
                          Re: Common sense and Great Guru mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-05 08:09 -0700
                            Re: Common sense and Great Guru Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-05 13:05 -0500
                              Re: Common sense and Great Guru mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-05 22:00 -0700
                                Re: Common sense and Great Guru Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-06 06:09 -0500
                                  Re: Common sense and Great Guru mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-06 08:22 -0700
                                    Re: Common sense and Great Guru Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-06 14:33 -0500
                                      Re: Common sense and Great Guru mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-06 13:55 -0700
                                        Re: Common sense and Great Guru Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-06 16:05 -0500
                                          Re: Common sense and Great Guru mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-06 14:22 -0700
                                            Re: Common sense and Great Guru Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-05-07 11:45 +0200
                                              Re: Common sense and Great Guru mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-07 04:54 -0700
    Re: Common sense and Great Guru Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-08 10:40 -0500
      Re: Common sense and Great Guru mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-08 09:19 -0700
        Re: Common sense and Great Guru Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-08 12:05 -0500
          Re: Common sense and Great Guru mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-08 10:25 -0700
            Re: Common sense and Great Guru Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-08 15:14 -0500
              Re: Common sense and Great Guru mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-08 20:21 -0700
                Re: Common sense and Great Guru Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-09 03:51 -0700
                Re: Common sense and Great Guru Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-09 07:46 -0500
                  Re: Common sense and Great Guru mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-09 06:06 -0700

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#417997 — Common sense and Great Guru

- Clocks should be synchronized - said common sense.
- Synchronized clocks are useful.

- A set of prejudices! - said Great Guru.
- Clocks should unsynchronize and give us a precious symmetry we love so much.

Poor idiot.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#418057

On 5/4/17 1:33 AM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote:
> - Clocks should be synchronized - said common sense.

Says whose common sense? Why do you believe this is more important than 
the symmetry of physical laws?

> - Synchronized clocks are useful.
> 
> - A set of prejudices! - said Great Guru.
> - Clocks should unsynchronize and give us a precious symmetry we love so much.
> 
> Poor idiot.
> 


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

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

#418068

W dniu czwartek, 4 maja 2017 17:04:58 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:
> On 5/4/17 1:33 AM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote:
> > - Clocks should be synchronized - said common sense.
> 
> Says whose common sense? Why do you believe this is more important than 
> the symmetry of physical laws?

Surely, pathetic usefulness is no match 
to the beauty of your beloved equations
and the Great Mystical Symmetry.

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

#418085

On 5/4/17 10:54 AM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote:
> W dniu czwartek, 4 maja 2017 17:04:58 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:
>> On 5/4/17 1:33 AM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote:
>>> - Clocks should be synchronized - said common sense.
>>
>> Says whose common sense? Why do you believe this is more important than
>> the symmetry of physical laws?
> 
> Surely, pathetic usefulness is no match
> to the beauty of your beloved equations
> and the Great Mystical Symmetry.
> 

Physical laws are very useful. The symmetry of those laws is also very 
useful.

Why do you think that having universally synchronized clocks is MORE 
useful than this?

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

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

#418109

W dniu czwartek, 4 maja 2017 19:13:44 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:

> Physical laws are very useful. The symmetry of those laws is also very 
> useful.
> Why do you think that having universally synchronized clocks is MORE 
> useful than this?

We can easily test it. 
Let's unsynchronize the clocks of GPS. Let them
count their local, proper time on their own,
just like your guru said clocks  should...
Let's see how useful your symmetry is for real.
Will we?

Well, you're outdated. Laws of physics WERE useful.
It happens that  usefulness is ruled by the common 
sense, this set of prejudices.

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

#418110

On 5/4/17 2:31 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote:
> W dniu czwartek, 4 maja 2017 19:13:44 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:
> 
>> Physical laws are very useful. The symmetry of those laws is also very
>> useful.
>> Why do you think that having universally synchronized clocks is MORE
>> useful than this?
> 
> We can easily test it.
> Let's unsynchronize the clocks of GPS. Let them
> count their local, proper time on their own,
> just like your guru said clocks  should...
> Let's see how useful your symmetry is for real.
> Will we?

It would be very useful. I don't know why you think the symmetry of laws 
of physics is not useful.

Tell me. You want to build a pendulum for a clock. It will have a heavy 
mass at one end and a rather expensive carbon fiber rod where the mass 
will be fixed. Do you want to use a law of physics to build that 
pendulum, or do you think you'll just buy plenty of that carbon fiber 
rod to get the pendulum working after the ninth or tenth trial by guessing?

> 
> Well, you're outdated. Laws of physics WERE useful.
> It happens that  usefulness is ruled by the common
> sense, this set of prejudices.

What makes you believe that usefulness is ruled by common sense?


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

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

#418127

W dniu czwartek, 4 maja 2017 21:41:49 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:
> On 5/4/17 2:31 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote:
> > W dniu czwartek, 4 maja 2017 19:13:44 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:
> > 
> >> Physical laws are very useful. The symmetry of those laws is also very
> >> useful.
> >> Why do you think that having universally synchronized clocks is MORE
> >> useful than this?
> > 
> > We can easily test it.
> > Let's unsynchronize the clocks of GPS. Let them
> > count their local, proper time on their own,
> > just like your guru said clocks  should...
> > Let's see how useful your symmetry is for real.
> > Will we?
> 
> It would be very useful. I don't know why you think the symmetry of laws 
> of physics is not useful.

Ok. It would be useful...
And why isn't it applied?


> > Well, you're outdated. Laws of physics WERE useful.
> > It happens that  usefulness is ruled by the common
> > sense, this set of prejudices.
> 
> What makes you believe that usefulness is ruled by common sense?

I'm an engineer. We know about usefulness.

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

#418129

On 5/4/17 4:39 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote:
> W dniu czwartek, 4 maja 2017 21:41:49 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:
>> On 5/4/17 2:31 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote:
>>> W dniu czwartek, 4 maja 2017 19:13:44 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:
>>>
>>>> Physical laws are very useful. The symmetry of those laws is also very
>>>> useful.
>>>> Why do you think that having universally synchronized clocks is MORE
>>>> useful than this?
>>>
>>> We can easily test it.
>>> Let's unsynchronize the clocks of GPS. Let them
>>> count their local, proper time on their own,
>>> just like your guru said clocks  should...
>>> Let's see how useful your symmetry is for real.
>>> Will we?
>>
>> It would be very useful. I don't know why you think the symmetry of laws
>> of physics is not useful.
> 
> Ok. It would be useful...
> And why isn't it applied?

Because good engineers have more than one way to accomplish a task.
Some engineers do not build in a correction into a design and then 
handle the correction outside the design. Some build it into the design.

> 
> 
>>> Well, you're outdated. Laws of physics WERE useful.
>>> It happens that  usefulness is ruled by the common
>>> sense, this set of prejudices.
>>
>> What makes you believe that usefulness is ruled by common sense?
> 
> I'm an engineer. We know about usefulness.

So do I. I am a craftsman. I don't believe that engineers have a 
monopoly on understanding usefulness. Nor do I believe that what some 
engineer might say is useful is to be taken as gospel, especially if the 
only thing they have to say in defense of their position is, "I'm an 
engineer, trust me on what I say is useful."

So again, do you have a particular rationale for believing that 
usefulness is ruled by common sense? Or is that just a personal opinion?


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

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

#418133

W dniu czwartek, 4 maja 2017 23:44:57 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:
> On 5/4/17 4:39 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote:
> > W dniu czwartek, 4 maja 2017 21:41:49 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:
> >> On 5/4/17 2:31 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote:
> >>> W dniu czwartek, 4 maja 2017 19:13:44 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:
> >>>
> >>>> Physical laws are very useful. The symmetry of those laws is also very
> >>>> useful.
> >>>> Why do you think that having universally synchronized clocks is MORE
> >>>> useful than this?
> >>>
> >>> We can easily test it.
> >>> Let's unsynchronize the clocks of GPS. Let them
> >>> count their local, proper time on their own,
> >>> just like your guru said clocks  should...
> >>> Let's see how useful your symmetry is for real.
> >>> Will we?
> >>
> >> It would be very useful. I don't know why you think the symmetry of laws
> >> of physics is not useful.
> > 
> > Ok. It would be useful...
> > And why isn't it applied?
> 
> Because good engineers have more than one way to accomplish a task.
> Some engineers do not build in a correction into a design and then 
> handle the correction outside the design. 

Really? Who, precisely,  are they?


> >> What makes you believe that usefulness is ruled by common sense?
> > 
> > I'm an engineer. We know about usefulness.
> 
> So do I. I am a craftsman. I don't believe that engineers have a 
> monopoly on understanding usefulness. 

They don't have a monopoly, for sure.
Obviously mathematicians can calculate usefulness
with their formulas, and physicist can measure it
with their equipment, right?
Well, wrong.
The only way to determine whether it's useful or
not is - using common sense. This totally unscientific
set of prejudices. 

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

#418138

On 5/4/17 4:58 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote:
> W dniu czwartek, 4 maja 2017 23:44:57 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:
>> On 5/4/17 4:39 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote:
>>> W dniu czwartek, 4 maja 2017 21:41:49 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:
>>>> On 5/4/17 2:31 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote:
>>>>> W dniu czwartek, 4 maja 2017 19:13:44 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Physical laws are very useful. The symmetry of those laws is also very
>>>>>> useful.
>>>>>> Why do you think that having universally synchronized clocks is MORE
>>>>>> useful than this?
>>>>>
>>>>> We can easily test it.
>>>>> Let's unsynchronize the clocks of GPS. Let them
>>>>> count their local, proper time on their own,
>>>>> just like your guru said clocks  should...
>>>>> Let's see how useful your symmetry is for real.
>>>>> Will we?
>>>>
>>>> It would be very useful. I don't know why you think the symmetry of laws
>>>> of physics is not useful.
>>>
>>> Ok. It would be useful...
>>> And why isn't it applied?
>>
>> Because good engineers have more than one way to accomplish a task.
>> Some engineers do not build in a correction into a design and then
>> handle the correction outside the design.
> 
> Really? Who, precisely,  are they?

Well, I worked with a couple not too long ago. One of them was named 
Charles Overby, and the other was named Glenn Hinderliter. They had a 
discussion in fact about whether to build in a correction for a known 
factor into the design or to leave the factor out and build an 
adjustment wheel which would accomplish the same thing in an ad hoc 
fashion.

> 
> 
>>>> What makes you believe that usefulness is ruled by common sense?
>>>
>>> I'm an engineer. We know about usefulness.
>>
>> So do I. I am a craftsman. I don't believe that engineers have a
>> monopoly on understanding usefulness.
> 
> They don't have a monopoly, for sure.
> Obviously mathematicians can calculate usefulness
> with their formulas, and physicist can measure it
> with their equipment, right?

No, I don't think physicists are limited in thinking by using equipment, 
anymore than I think engineers are limited in thinking by using common 
sense.

> Well, wrong.
> The only way to determine whether it's useful or
> not is - using common sense. 

Well, you seem to have repeated the statement, but you haven't yet 
explained any rationale WHY you think the only way to determine 
usefulness is common sense. Is it something you just believe to be true, 
but can't explain WHY you think it's true?

> This totally unscientific
> set of prejudices.
> 
> 
> 


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

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

#418169

W dniu piątek, 5 maja 2017 00:16:20 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:

> >> Because good engineers have more than one way to accomplish a task.
> >> Some engineers do not build in a correction into a design and then
> >> handle the correction outside the design.
> > 
> > Really? Who, precisely,  are they?
> 
> Well, I worked with a couple not too long ago. One of them was named 
> Charles Overby, and the other was named Glenn Hinderliter. They had a 
> discussion in fact about whether to build in a correction for a known 
> factor into the design or to leave the factor out and build an 
> adjustment wheel which would accomplish the same thing in an ad hoc 
> fashion.

Well, returning to GPS, there is no discussion
and clocks are synchronized.
Even the hardest fanatics of The Shit don't protest,
somehow. That means something.

> > They don't have a monopoly, for sure.
> > Obviously mathematicians can calculate usefulness
> > with their formulas, and physicist can measure it
> > with their equipment, right?
> 
> No, I don't think physicists are limited in thinking by using equipment, 

And you're wrong.
OK. So, why should I believe your symmetry is useful?
As for now, I see you insisting it is and GPS working
fine ignoring it. What did I miss?

g.
> > The only way to determine whether it's useful or
> > not is - using common sense. 
> 
> Well, you seem to have repeated the statement, but you haven't yet 
> explained any rationale WHY you think the only way to determine 
> usefulness is common sense. 

Elimination. Mathematics can't do it. Measurements 
can't do it.
So? Any alternative?

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

#418181

On Friday, May 5, 2017 at 12:00:10 AM UTC-6, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote:
>
> Well, returning to GPS, there is no discussion
> and clocks are synchronized.

Approximately synchronized by changing the frequency of the clocks before
launch.  Repeating that they are "synchronized" is a lie of omission.

> Even the hardest fanatics of The Shit don't protest,
> somehow. That means something.

Yes, it means you are a dishonest weasel.

[Stupid ranting deleted]

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

#418221

On 5/5/17 1:00 AM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote:
> W dniu piątek, 5 maja 2017 00:16:20 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:
> 
>>>> Because good engineers have more than one way to accomplish a task.
>>>> Some engineers do not build in a correction into a design and then
>>>> handle the correction outside the design.
>>>
>>> Really? Who, precisely,  are they?
>>
>> Well, I worked with a couple not too long ago. One of them was named
>> Charles Overby, and the other was named Glenn Hinderliter. They had a
>> discussion in fact about whether to build in a correction for a known
>> factor into the design or to leave the factor out and build an
>> adjustment wheel which would accomplish the same thing in an ad hoc
>> fashion.
> 
> Well, returning to GPS, there is no discussion
> and clocks are synchronized.
> Even the hardest fanatics of The Shit don't protest,
> somehow. That means something.

I don't know what you think it means. There was a correction built into 
the apparatus so that the desynchronized clocks would then be kept 
synchronous. There is NO REASON in this particular apparatus to allow 
the clocks to remain desynchronized just to show the principle in force. 
In fact, it is completely adequate to document the CORRECTION made in 
the design for the principle, and this demonstrates that the principle 
is real. In the same way, correcting for the Coriolis effect for 
long-range projectiles so that the projectiles will NOT miss their 
targets, is a fine demonstration that the Coriolis effect is real.

> 
>>> They don't have a monopoly, for sure.
>>> Obviously mathematicians can calculate usefulness
>>> with their formulas, and physicist can measure it
>>> with their equipment, right?
>>
>> No, I don't think physicists are limited in thinking by using equipment,
> 
> And you're wrong.
> OK. So, why should I believe your symmetry is useful?
> As for now, I see you insisting it is and GPS working
> fine ignoring it. What did I miss?

It depends on the application. I gave you another application to think 
about where the symmetry would be more useful.

> 
> g.
>>> The only way to determine whether it's useful or
>>> not is - using common sense.
>>
>> Well, you seem to have repeated the statement, but you haven't yet
>> explained any rationale WHY you think the only way to determine
>> usefulness is common sense.
> 
> Elimination. Mathematics can't do it. Measurements
> can't do it.
> So? Any alternative?

Sure. Ease of use. Subscription rate. Prevalence of the technology. All 
of these are more indicators of usefulness than your pet "common sense".

I fully appreciate that you LOVE common sense, to the degree where if 
anyone challenges your common sense, then you take offense. But it seems 
apparent that you cannot provide any sensible rationale for why you 
think it is so valuable. So perhaps your love for it is misplaced.

I'll give you a simple test of common sense's value. Let's see how well 
common sense does in a simple application. If common sense provides the 
wrong answer, will you agree that perhaps common sense isn't as valuable 
as you thought it was?

Suppose you have a ramp, and at the top you place two objects, of 
identical mass and comparable dimensions. One of them is a box, Teflon 
coated, like the ramp. The other is a cylinder, covered with fine-grit 
sandpaper. The two objects are released at the top of the ramp. The 
cylinder rolls down the ramp, and the box slides down the ramp with very 
low friction. Which one makes it down to the bottom first and why? What 
does common sense tell you?


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

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

#418236

W dniu piątek, 5 maja 2017 15:59:26 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:
> On 5/5/17 1:00 AM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote:
> > W dniu piątek, 5 maja 2017 00:16:20 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:
> > 
> >>>> Because good engineers have more than one way to accomplish a task.
> >>>> Some engineers do not build in a correction into a design and then
> >>>> handle the correction outside the design.
> >>>
> >>> Really? Who, precisely,  are they?
> >>
> >> Well, I worked with a couple not too long ago. One of them was named
> >> Charles Overby, and the other was named Glenn Hinderliter. They had a
> >> discussion in fact about whether to build in a correction for a known
> >> factor into the design or to leave the factor out and build an
> >> adjustment wheel which would accomplish the same thing in an ad hoc
> >> fashion.
> > 
> > Well, returning to GPS, there is no discussion
> > and clocks are synchronized.
> > Even the hardest fanatics of The Shit don't protest,
> > somehow. That means something.
> 
> I don't know what you think it means. There was a correction built into 
> the apparatus so that the desynchronized clocks would then be kept 
> synchronous. There is NO REASON in this particular apparatus to allow 
> the clocks to remain desynchronized just to show the principle in force. 

Sure, there is no reason to use useless clocks
invented by your idiot guru and announced as "standard"
by a bunch of his moronic followers. It's just - as
they are not used, all your tales of observers
measuring relativistic wonders with their clocks
are pure fabrication:(. 
And that's exactly what they are.

> In fact, it is completely adequate to document the CORRECTION made in 
> the design for the principle, and this demonstrates that the principle 
> is real. In the same way, correcting for the Coriolis effect for 
> long-range projectiles so that the projectiles will NOT miss their 
> targets, is a fine demonstration that the Coriolis effect is real.

The difference is: nobody is mad enough to insist
proper rockets are rockets without these correction. 
Am I wrong?



> > And you're wrong.
> > OK. So, why should I believe your symmetry is useful?
> > As for now, I see you insisting it is and GPS working
> > fine ignoring it. What did I miss?
> 
> It depends on the application. I gave you another application to think 
> about where the symmetry would be more useful.

?????
Somehow I didn't notice you gave me anything.

> > g.
> >>> The only way to determine whether it's useful or
> >>> not is - using common sense.
> >>
> >> Well, you seem to have repeated the statement, but you haven't yet
> >> explained any rationale WHY you think the only way to determine
> >> usefulness is common sense.
> > 
> > Elimination. Mathematics can't do it. Measurements
> > can't do it.
> > So? Any alternative?
> 
> Sure. Ease of use. Subscription rate. Prevalence of the technology. All 
> of these are more indicators of usefulness than your pet "common sense".

Do you have any mathematical proof they are?
Did you measure they are?
Or maybe your common sense told you they are?

> I'll give you a simple test of common sense's value. Let's see how well 
> common sense does in a simple application. If common sense provides the 
> wrong answer, will you agree that perhaps common sense isn't as valuable 
> as you thought it was?
> 
> Suppose you have a ramp, and at the top you place two objects, of 
> identical mass and comparable dimensions. One of them is a box, Teflon 
> coated, like the ramp. The other is a cylinder, covered with fine-grit 
> sandpaper. The two objects are released at the top of the ramp. The 
> cylinder rolls down the ramp, and the box slides down the ramp with very 
> low friction. Which one makes it down to the bottom first and why? What 
> does common sense tell you?

That the case is simple enough for physics to
resolve it correctly. Box.

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

#418259

On 5/5/17 10:09 AM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote:
> W dniu piątek, 5 maja 2017 15:59:26 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:
>> On 5/5/17 1:00 AM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote:
>>> W dniu piątek, 5 maja 2017 00:16:20 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:
>>>
>>>>>> Because good engineers have more than one way to accomplish a task.
>>>>>> Some engineers do not build in a correction into a design and then
>>>>>> handle the correction outside the design.
>>>>>
>>>>> Really? Who, precisely,  are they?
>>>>
>>>> Well, I worked with a couple not too long ago. One of them was named
>>>> Charles Overby, and the other was named Glenn Hinderliter. They had a
>>>> discussion in fact about whether to build in a correction for a known
>>>> factor into the design or to leave the factor out and build an
>>>> adjustment wheel which would accomplish the same thing in an ad hoc
>>>> fashion.
>>>
>>> Well, returning to GPS, there is no discussion
>>> and clocks are synchronized.
>>> Even the hardest fanatics of The Shit don't protest,
>>> somehow. That means something.
>>
>> I don't know what you think it means. There was a correction built into
>> the apparatus so that the desynchronized clocks would then be kept
>> synchronous. There is NO REASON in this particular apparatus to allow
>> the clocks to remain desynchronized just to show the principle in force.
> 
> Sure, there is no reason to use useless clocks
> invented by your idiot guru and announced as "standard"
> by a bunch of his moronic followers. 

Yes there are. There are other applications where the standard becomes 
important and universal synchronization offers no better usefulness.

> It's just - as
> they are not used, all your tales of observers
> measuring relativistic wonders with their clocks
> are pure fabrication:(.
> And that's exactly what they are.

No, they're not fabrications. Nor is the Coriolis effect, which is 
corrected for when launching long-range projectiles. The correction is 
done precisely so that the hit on target will not be affected by the 
Coriolis effect. But by compensating for it so that the effect will NOT 
be noticed, the effect is validated by design. The Coriolis effect is 
not fabricated, and either is time dilation.

> 
>> In fact, it is completely adequate to document the CORRECTION made in
>> the design for the principle, and this demonstrates that the principle
>> is real. In the same way, correcting for the Coriolis effect for
>> long-range projectiles so that the projectiles will NOT miss their
>> targets, is a fine demonstration that the Coriolis effect is real.
> 
> The difference is: nobody is mad enough to insist
> proper rockets are rockets without these correction.
> Am I wrong?

There's nothing to be mad about. Either rockets perform or they don't. 
If you build in a correction that allows them to function in the manner 
you want, then the reason for the correction is validated. There is no 
"proper"ness associated with that. It's a purely practical matter.

> 
> 
> 
>>> And you're wrong.
>>> OK. So, why should I believe your symmetry is useful?
>>> As for now, I see you insisting it is and GPS working
>>> fine ignoring it. What did I miss?
>>
>> It depends on the application. I gave you another application to think
>> about where the symmetry would be more useful.
> 
> ?????
> Somehow I didn't notice you gave me anything.

Somehow indeed. I've mentioned a pendulum with a carbon fiber rod 
several times now and you've steadfastly declined to address it. I 
wonder why.

> 
>>> g.
>>>>> The only way to determine whether it's useful or
>>>>> not is - using common sense.
>>>>
>>>> Well, you seem to have repeated the statement, but you haven't yet
>>>> explained any rationale WHY you think the only way to determine
>>>> usefulness is common sense.
>>>
>>> Elimination. Mathematics can't do it. Measurements
>>> can't do it.
>>> So? Any alternative?
>>
>> Sure. Ease of use. Subscription rate. Prevalence of the technology. All
>> of these are more indicators of usefulness than your pet "common sense".
> 
> Do you have any mathematical proof they are?
> Did you measure they are?
> Or maybe your common sense told you they are?

No, not common sense. I have no idea why you place such value on common 
sense. Since you can't explain why you do, then you don't have any idea 
why either.

> 
>> I'll give you a simple test of common sense's value. Let's see how well
>> common sense does in a simple application. If common sense provides the
>> wrong answer, will you agree that perhaps common sense isn't as valuable
>> as you thought it was?
>>
>> Suppose you have a ramp, and at the top you place two objects, of
>> identical mass and comparable dimensions. One of them is a box, Teflon
>> coated, like the ramp. The other is a cylinder, covered with fine-grit
>> sandpaper. The two objects are released at the top of the ramp. The
>> cylinder rolls down the ramp, and the box slides down the ramp with very
>> low friction. Which one makes it down to the bottom first and why? What
>> does common sense tell you?
> 
> That the case is simple enough for physics to
> resolve it correctly. Box.

Why? What does common sense tell you?


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

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

#418352

W dniu piątek, 5 maja 2017 20:05:12 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:
> On 5/5/17 10:09 AM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote:
> > W dniu piątek, 5 maja 2017 15:59:26 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:
> >> On 5/5/17 1:00 AM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote:
> >>> W dniu piątek, 5 maja 2017 00:16:20 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:
> >>>
> >>>>>> Because good engineers have more than one way to accomplish a task.
> >>>>>> Some engineers do not build in a correction into a design and then
> >>>>>> handle the correction outside the design.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Really? Who, precisely,  are they?
> >>>>
> >>>> Well, I worked with a couple not too long ago. One of them was named
> >>>> Charles Overby, and the other was named Glenn Hinderliter. They had a
> >>>> discussion in fact about whether to build in a correction for a known
> >>>> factor into the design or to leave the factor out and build an
> >>>> adjustment wheel which would accomplish the same thing in an ad hoc
> >>>> fashion.
> >>>
> >>> Well, returning to GPS, there is no discussion
> >>> and clocks are synchronized.
> >>> Even the hardest fanatics of The Shit don't protest,
> >>> somehow. That means something.
> >>
> >> I don't know what you think it means. There was a correction built into
> >> the apparatus so that the desynchronized clocks would then be kept
> >> synchronous. There is NO REASON in this particular apparatus to allow
> >> the clocks to remain desynchronized just to show the principle in force.
> > 
> > Sure, there is no reason to use useless clocks
> > invented by your idiot guru and announced as "standard"
> > by a bunch of his moronic followers. 
> 
> Yes there are. There are other applications where the standard becomes 
> important and universal synchronization offers no better usefulness.

Again - such as?


> 
> > It's just - as
> > they are not used, all your tales of observers
> > measuring relativistic wonders with their clocks
> > are pure fabrication:(.
> > And that's exactly what they are.
> 
> No, they're not fabrications. 


Yes, they are. As we're not using your brilliant
unsynchronized clocks, all your tales of observers
measuring relativistic wonders with their clocks
are pure fabrication. There is no such observers
in the real world. Or, at least, they are limited to
your bunch of idiots.
Too bad for you.

> >> In fact, it is completely adequate to document the CORRECTION made in
> >> the design for the principle, and this demonstrates that the principle
> >> is real. In the same way, correcting for the Coriolis effect for
> >> long-range projectiles so that the projectiles will NOT miss their
> >> targets, is a fine demonstration that the Coriolis effect is real.
> > 
> > The difference is: nobody is mad enough to insist
> > proper rockets are rockets without these correction.
> > Am I wrong?
> 
> There's nothing to be mad about. Either rockets perform or they don't. 
> If you build in a correction that allows them to function in the manner 
> you want, then the reason for the correction is validated. There is no 
> "proper"ness associated with that. It's a purely practical matter.

And that's the difference. The case of
clock corrections is not.
Either your moronic clocks showing your 
moronic time dilation are proper, 
or they are not. If they are proper, 
they are not corrected. They are corrected, 
so they can't be proper. As they are not proper,
your Shit has no measurement confirmation and
your time dilation doesn't exist; instead you
have good, old clock error.
Too bad for you.



> 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >>> And you're wrong.
> >>> OK. So, why should I believe your symmetry is useful?
> >>> As for now, I see you insisting it is and GPS working
> >>> fine ignoring it. What did I miss?
> >>
> >> It depends on the application. I gave you another application to think
> >> about where the symmetry would be more useful.
> > 
> > ?????
> > Somehow I didn't notice you gave me anything.
> 
> Somehow indeed. I've mentioned a pendulum with a carbon fiber rod 

You've mentioned it some times, but you gave me no
application to think about where the symmetry 
would be more useful.


> > Do you have any mathematical proof they are?
> > Did you measure they are?
> > Or maybe your common sense told you they are?
> 
> No, not common sense.

So, where, precisely, did you get the info they 
are good indicators of usefulness?

> > That the case is simple enough for physics to
> > resolve it correctly. Box.
> 
> Why? What does common sense tell you?

Again: it says the case is simple enough (and 
unreal enough, too) to rely on physics.

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

#418374

On 5/6/17 12:00 AM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote:
> W dniu piątek, 5 maja 2017 20:05:12 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:
>> On 5/5/17 10:09 AM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote:
>>> W dniu piątek, 5 maja 2017 15:59:26 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:
>>>> On 5/5/17 1:00 AM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote:
>>>>> W dniu piątek, 5 maja 2017 00:16:20 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Because good engineers have more than one way to accomplish a task.
>>>>>>>> Some engineers do not build in a correction into a design and then
>>>>>>>> handle the correction outside the design.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Really? Who, precisely,  are they?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well, I worked with a couple not too long ago. One of them was named
>>>>>> Charles Overby, and the other was named Glenn Hinderliter. They had a
>>>>>> discussion in fact about whether to build in a correction for a known
>>>>>> factor into the design or to leave the factor out and build an
>>>>>> adjustment wheel which would accomplish the same thing in an ad hoc
>>>>>> fashion.
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, returning to GPS, there is no discussion
>>>>> and clocks are synchronized.
>>>>> Even the hardest fanatics of The Shit don't protest,
>>>>> somehow. That means something.
>>>>
>>>> I don't know what you think it means. There was a correction built into
>>>> the apparatus so that the desynchronized clocks would then be kept
>>>> synchronous. There is NO REASON in this particular apparatus to allow
>>>> the clocks to remain desynchronized just to show the principle in force.
>>>
>>> Sure, there is no reason to use useless clocks
>>> invented by your idiot guru and announced as "standard"
>>> by a bunch of his moronic followers.
>>
>> Yes there are. There are other applications where the standard becomes
>> important and universal synchronization offers no better usefulness.
> 
> Again - such as?

Let's build a pendulum clock.... Remember I've asked you how to do this. 
You don't seem to have an answer.

> 
> 
>>
>>> It's just - as
>>> they are not used, all your tales of observers
>>> measuring relativistic wonders with their clocks
>>> are pure fabrication:(.
>>> And that's exactly what they are.
>>
>> No, they're not fabrications.
> 
> 
> Yes, they are. As we're not using your brilliant
> unsynchronized clocks, all your tales of observers
> measuring relativistic wonders with their clocks
> are pure fabrication. There is no such observers
> in the real world. Or, at least, they are limited to
> your bunch of idiots.
> Too bad for you.

Hey, if relativity does not do anything for you, then don't use it. 
Stick with Galilean physics if it does everything you need. Just don't 
expect the rest of the world to fall in line with your practices.

> 
>>>> In fact, it is completely adequate to document the CORRECTION made in
>>>> the design for the principle, and this demonstrates that the principle
>>>> is real. In the same way, correcting for the Coriolis effect for
>>>> long-range projectiles so that the projectiles will NOT miss their
>>>> targets, is a fine demonstration that the Coriolis effect is real.
>>>
>>> The difference is: nobody is mad enough to insist
>>> proper rockets are rockets without these correction.
>>> Am I wrong?
>>
>> There's nothing to be mad about. Either rockets perform or they don't.
>> If you build in a correction that allows them to function in the manner
>> you want, then the reason for the correction is validated. There is no
>> "proper"ness associated with that. It's a purely practical matter.
> 
> And that's the difference. The case of
> clock corrections is not.
> Either your moronic clocks showing your
> moronic time dilation are proper,
> or they are not. If they are proper,
> they are not corrected. They are corrected,
> so they can't be proper. As they are not proper,
> your Shit has no measurement confirmation and
> your time dilation doesn't exist; instead you
> have good, old clock error.
> Too bad for you.

Sorry, but as I said, there is no "properness" involved. Devices are 
designed to serve an end result. Good devices quite often have built-in 
corrections. Examples abound. You might have in your quaint idea of the 
world that no proper device needs a built-in correction, but that's just 
YOUR view.

> 
> 
> 
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>> And you're wrong.
>>>>> OK. So, why should I believe your symmetry is useful?
>>>>> As for now, I see you insisting it is and GPS working
>>>>> fine ignoring it. What did I miss?
>>>>
>>>> It depends on the application. I gave you another application to think
>>>> about where the symmetry would be more useful.
>>>
>>> ?????
>>> Somehow I didn't notice you gave me anything.
>>
>> Somehow indeed. I've mentioned a pendulum with a carbon fiber rod
> 
> You've mentioned it some times, but you gave me no
> application to think about where the symmetry
> would be more useful.

So how do you build it? Hmmmm?

> 
> 
>>> Do you have any mathematical proof they are?
>>> Did you measure they are?
>>> Or maybe your common sense told you they are?
>>
>> No, not common sense.
> 
> So, where, precisely, did you get the info they
> are good indicators of usefulness?

I've already told you.

> 
>>> That the case is simple enough for physics to
>>> resolve it correctly. Box.
>>
>> Why? What does common sense tell you?
> 
> Again: it says the case is simple enough (and
> unreal enough, too) to rely on physics.

So.... no idea why?


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

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

#418403

W dniu sobota, 6 maja 2017 13:09:37 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:
> On 5/6/17 12:00 AM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote:
> > W dniu piątek, 5 maja 2017 20:05:12 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:
> >> On 5/5/17 10:09 AM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote:
> >>> W dniu piątek, 5 maja 2017 15:59:26 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:
> >>>> On 5/5/17 1:00 AM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote:
> >>>>> W dniu piątek, 5 maja 2017 00:16:20 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Because good engineers have more than one way to accomplish a task.
> >>>>>>>> Some engineers do not build in a correction into a design and then
> >>>>>>>> handle the correction outside the design.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Really? Who, precisely,  are they?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Well, I worked with a couple not too long ago. One of them was named
> >>>>>> Charles Overby, and the other was named Glenn Hinderliter. They had a
> >>>>>> discussion in fact about whether to build in a correction for a known
> >>>>>> factor into the design or to leave the factor out and build an
> >>>>>> adjustment wheel which would accomplish the same thing in an ad hoc
> >>>>>> fashion.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Well, returning to GPS, there is no discussion
> >>>>> and clocks are synchronized.
> >>>>> Even the hardest fanatics of The Shit don't protest,
> >>>>> somehow. That means something.
> >>>>
> >>>> I don't know what you think it means. There was a correction built into
> >>>> the apparatus so that the desynchronized clocks would then be kept
> >>>> synchronous. There is NO REASON in this particular apparatus to allow
> >>>> the clocks to remain desynchronized just to show the principle in force.
> >>>
> >>> Sure, there is no reason to use useless clocks
> >>> invented by your idiot guru and announced as "standard"
> >>> by a bunch of his moronic followers.
> >>
> >> Yes there are. There are other applications where the standard becomes
> >> important and universal synchronization offers no better usefulness.
> > 
> > Again - such as?
> 
> Let's build a pendulum clock....

And let's sing a song.
And how, precisely,  is your "standard" important 
and useful in the task?
> > Yes, they are. As we're not using your brilliant
> > unsynchronized clocks, all your tales of observers
> > measuring relativistic wonders with their clocks
> > are pure fabrication. There is no such observers
> > in the real world. Or, at least, they are limited to
> > your bunch of idiots.
> > Too bad for you.
> 
> Hey, if relativity does not do anything for you, then don't use it. 
> Stick with Galilean physics if it does everything you need. Just don't 
> expect the rest of the world to fall in line with your practices.


As the rest of the world has to follow 
and obey your idiot guru, in the name of
Great Mystical Symmetry. 
Well, I don't think so.

> > And that's the difference. The case of
> > clock corrections is not.
> > Either your moronic clocks showing your
> > moronic time dilation are proper,
> > or they are not. If they are proper,
> > they are not corrected. They are corrected,
> > so they can't be proper. As they are not proper,
> > your Shit has no measurement confirmation and
> > your time dilation doesn't exist; instead you
> > have good, old clock error.
> > Too bad for you.
> 
> Sorry, but as I said, there is no "properness" involved. 

Sorry, but as I said, it is.


> Devices are  designed to serve an end result. 

Bingo! They're not designed to support some
mumble of an insane idiot, not at all. To
bad for your guru. Too bad for your Shit - 
without clocks especially designed to support 
it (and practically useless in any serious task) 
it has nothing.


> Good devices quite often have built-in 
> corrections. 

Of course. The ones confirming your idiocies
didn't have it, but good ones do. And good
clocks indicate t'=t, just like good clocks 
should.

> >>>>> And you're wrong.
> >>>>> OK. So, why should I believe your symmetry is useful?
> >>>>> As for now, I see you insisting it is and GPS working
> >>>>> fine ignoring it. What did I miss?
> >>>>
> >>>> It depends on the application. I gave you another application to think
> >>>> about where the symmetry would be more useful.
> >>>
> >>> ?????
> >>> Somehow I didn't notice you gave me anything.
> >>
> >> Somehow indeed. I've mentioned a pendulum with a carbon fiber rod
> > 
> > You've mentioned it some times, but you gave me no
> > application to think about where the symmetry
> > would be more useful.
> 
> So how do you build it? Hmmmm?

Again: and what should it do? You know,
it's important to know such things when
designing.

> > So, where, precisely, did you get the info they
> > are good indicators of usefulness?
> 
> I've already told you.

No, you didn't.

> > Again: it says the case is simple enough (and
> > unreal enough, too) to rely on physics.
> 
> So.... no idea why?

Because you imagined such conditions.

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

#418450

On 5/6/17 10:22 AM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote:
> W dniu sobota, 6 maja 2017 13:09:37 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:
>> On 5/6/17 12:00 AM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote:
>>> W dniu piątek, 5 maja 2017 20:05:12 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:
>>>> On 5/5/17 10:09 AM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote:
>>>>> W dniu piątek, 5 maja 2017 15:59:26 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:
>>>>>> On 5/5/17 1:00 AM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote:
>>>>>>> W dniu piątek, 5 maja 2017 00:16:20 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Because good engineers have more than one way to accomplish a task.
>>>>>>>>>> Some engineers do not build in a correction into a design and then
>>>>>>>>>> handle the correction outside the design.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Really? Who, precisely,  are they?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Well, I worked with a couple not too long ago. One of them was named
>>>>>>>> Charles Overby, and the other was named Glenn Hinderliter. They had a
>>>>>>>> discussion in fact about whether to build in a correction for a known
>>>>>>>> factor into the design or to leave the factor out and build an
>>>>>>>> adjustment wheel which would accomplish the same thing in an ad hoc
>>>>>>>> fashion.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Well, returning to GPS, there is no discussion
>>>>>>> and clocks are synchronized.
>>>>>>> Even the hardest fanatics of The Shit don't protest,
>>>>>>> somehow. That means something.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't know what you think it means. There was a correction built into
>>>>>> the apparatus so that the desynchronized clocks would then be kept
>>>>>> synchronous. There is NO REASON in this particular apparatus to allow
>>>>>> the clocks to remain desynchronized just to show the principle in force.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sure, there is no reason to use useless clocks
>>>>> invented by your idiot guru and announced as "standard"
>>>>> by a bunch of his moronic followers.
>>>>
>>>> Yes there are. There are other applications where the standard becomes
>>>> important and universal synchronization offers no better usefulness.
>>>
>>> Again - such as?
>>
>> Let's build a pendulum clock....
> 
> And let's sing a song.
> And how, precisely,  is your "standard" important
> and useful in the task?

When you tell me how you would design it, then this will become 
apparent. Go ahead. Tell me how you would design a pendulum.


>>> Yes, they are. As we're not using your brilliant
>>> unsynchronized clocks, all your tales of observers
>>> measuring relativistic wonders with their clocks
>>> are pure fabrication. There is no such observers
>>> in the real world. Or, at least, they are limited to
>>> your bunch of idiots.
>>> Too bad for you.
>>
>> Hey, if relativity does not do anything for you, then don't use it.
>> Stick with Galilean physics if it does everything you need. Just don't
>> expect the rest of the world to fall in line with your practices.
> 
> 
> As the rest of the world has to follow
> and obey your idiot guru, in the name of
> Great Mystical Symmetry.
> Well, I don't think so.

Heck no, it's a matter of individual choice. If YOU personally don't 
want to use relativity, then don't. Let others choose as they will. 
You'll find that most will choose differently than you do in science.

> 
>>> And that's the difference. The case of
>>> clock corrections is not.
>>> Either your moronic clocks showing your
>>> moronic time dilation are proper,
>>> or they are not. If they are proper,
>>> they are not corrected. They are corrected,
>>> so they can't be proper. As they are not proper,
>>> your Shit has no measurement confirmation and
>>> your time dilation doesn't exist; instead you
>>> have good, old clock error.
>>> Too bad for you.
>>
>> Sorry, but as I said, there is no "properness" involved.
> 
> Sorry, but as I said, it is.

OK, you say so, but I don't think many people CARE what you say things are.

> 
> 
>> Devices are  designed to serve an end result.
> 
> Bingo! They're not designed to support some
> mumble of an insane idiot, not at all. 

Practical devices are NEVER designed to support a physical theory. They 
are often built to EXPLOIT physical theories.

Photodiodes, for example, EXPLOIT some features of quantum mechanics, 
but they are not built to demonstrate support for quantum mechanics.

You have some funny ideas about science.

> To
> bad for your guru. Too bad for your Shit -
> without clocks especially designed to support
> it (and practically useless in any serious task)
> it has nothing.
> 
> 
>> Good devices quite often have built-in
>> corrections.
> 
> Of course. The ones confirming your idiocies
> didn't have it, but good ones do. And good
> clocks indicate t'=t, just like good clocks
> should.

I'm sorry, but there IS a correction built into GPS clocks. You know this.

> 
>>>>>>> And you're wrong.
>>>>>>> OK. So, why should I believe your symmetry is useful?
>>>>>>> As for now, I see you insisting it is and GPS working
>>>>>>> fine ignoring it. What did I miss?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It depends on the application. I gave you another application to think
>>>>>> about where the symmetry would be more useful.
>>>>>
>>>>> ?????
>>>>> Somehow I didn't notice you gave me anything.
>>>>
>>>> Somehow indeed. I've mentioned a pendulum with a carbon fiber rod
>>>
>>> You've mentioned it some times, but you gave me no
>>> application to think about where the symmetry
>>> would be more useful.
>>
>> So how do you build it? Hmmmm?
> 
> Again: and what should it do? You know,
> it's important to know such things when
> designing.

It should keep local time. So what do you use to design it?
Go ahead. You seem pretty bent on avoiding a simple design problem. Why?

> 
>>> So, where, precisely, did you get the info they
>>> are good indicators of usefulness?
>>
>> I've already told you.
> 
> No, you didn't.
> 
>>> Again: it says the case is simple enough (and
>>> unreal enough, too) to rely on physics.
>>
>> So.... no idea why?
> 
> Because you imagined such conditions.
> 


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

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

#418469

W dniu sobota, 6 maja 2017 21:33:28 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:


> When you tell me how you would design it, then this will become 
> apparent. Go ahead. Tell me how you would design a pendulum.

Doing what?

> >>> Yes, they are. As we're not using your brilliant
> >>> unsynchronized clocks, all your tales of observers
> >>> measuring relativistic wonders with their clocks
> >>> are pure fabrication. There is no such observers
> >>> in the real world. Or, at least, they are limited to
> >>> your bunch of idiots.
> >>> Too bad for you.
> >>
> >> Hey, if relativity does not do anything for you, then don't use it.
> >> Stick with Galilean physics if it does everything you need. Just don't
> >> expect the rest of the world to fall in line with your practices.
> > 
> > 
> > As the rest of the world has to follow
> > and obey your idiot guru, in the name of
> > Great Mystical Symmetry.
> > Well, I don't think so.
> 
> Heck no, it's a matter of individual choice. 

Heck no, it's a matter of very impudent brainwashing.



> >> Sorry, but as I said, there is no "properness" involved.
> > 
> > Sorry, but as I said, it is.
> 
> OK, you say so, but I don't think many people CARE what you say things are.

And still, as I said, it is.


> >> Devices are  designed to serve an end result.
> > 
> > Bingo! They're not designed to support some
> > mumble of an insane idiot, not at all. 
> 
> Practical devices are NEVER designed to support a physical theory.

And that's why your shit's tales will never come true.
Your spells "PROPER!!!!!STANDARD!!!!!" won't help.
The spells are strong, OK, but what you're demanding 
is simply too stupid.



> > bad for your guru. Too bad for your Shit -
> > without clocks especially designed to support
> > it (and practically useless in any serious task)
> > it has nothing.
> > 
> > 
> >> Good devices quite often have built-in
> >> corrections.
> > 
> > Of course. The ones confirming your idiocies
> > didn't have it, but good ones do. And good
> > clocks indicate t'=t, just like good clocks
> > should.
> 
> I'm sorry, but there IS a correction built into GPS clocks. You know this.

Of course I know. What's so surprising?
As you said - good devices often have it.
Thus  - GOOD clocks indicate t'=t. Just like
GOOD clocks always did.
Poor and useless clocks agreeing with  your 
Shit are not especially interesting.



> 
> > 
> >>>>>>> And you're wrong.
> >>>>>>> OK. So, why should I believe your symmetry is useful?
> >>>>>>> As for now, I see you insisting it is and GPS working
> >>>>>>> fine ignoring it. What did I miss?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> It depends on the application. I gave you another application to think
> >>>>>> about where the symmetry would be more useful.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> ?????
> >>>>> Somehow I didn't notice you gave me anything.
> >>>>
> >>>> Somehow indeed. I've mentioned a pendulum with a carbon fiber rod
> >>>
> >>> You've mentioned it some times, but you gave me no
> >>> application to think about where the symmetry
> >>> would be more useful.
> >>
> >> So how do you build it? Hmmmm?
> > 
> > Again: and what should it do? You know,
> > it's important to know such things when
> > designing.
> 
> It should keep local time. 

So I won't do it. It's too stupid and
too unprofessional. Do your idiocies 
yourself.

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

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

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

csiph-web