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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #419744

Re: Einstein-Poincare synchronization procedure

Show all headers | View raw

On 5/17/17 6:27 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> 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.

Actually no. It is the rest energy associated with mass. It is not 
specific to radioactive decay.

This same formula applies to the binding energy of an electron in a 
stable atom, and so has nothing to do with radioactive decay.

This same formula applies to electron-positron collisions, for example, 
which has nothing to do with radioactive decay.

You should be a little more careful not to overspecify the meaning of a 
variable based on a single application of the principle.

> 
> 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
> 


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

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