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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #419718

Re: Einstein-Poincare synchronization procedure

Show all headers | View raw

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

Well, yes.

But let me give an example about what I mean:

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

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

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

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

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

E_ray = - delta (m_sample) * c²

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

This shall be equal to inertia times c squared.

And that is ***** ...


TH

Back to sci.physics.relativity | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

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

csiph-web