Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #391408

Re: SR on accelerating frame of reference

From	Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl>
Newsgroups	sci.physics.relativity
Subject	Re: SR on accelerating frame of reference
Date	2016-09-02 16:33 +0200
Organization	ATMAN - ATM S.A.
Message-ID	<nqc2jb$ge1$1@node2.news.atman.pl> (permalink)
References	(13 earlier) <f607fbfe-dcb1-4af9-906f-143115b9d87b@googlegroups.com> <65b90120-18fc-4566-b01e-dd17410d01d9@googlegroups.com> <8771ade3-dabf-44db-90c5-c68c89dc66b2@googlegroups.com> <9a744859-35be-4233-92a0-5ac63b230928@googlegroups.com> <a6eeed3d-83fe-46d3-83d4-24fad0cc1856@googlegroups.com>

Show all headers | View raw


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.)

Thread

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

csiph-web