LTE
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Properties of a preferred frame, an inertial frame in SR andan inertial frame in IRT
Next: About the maximal electrostatic potential energy U(r) of a pair electron-positron at rest with distance r
From: .... on 28 Jul 2010 15:10 "Androcles" <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote in news:kTM3o.372609$Hs4.339685(a)hurricane: > > C'mon, Wabnigga, trial-and error, remember. > Yeah, and you are the error. What kind of brainfucked idiot are you? >
From: xxein on 30 Jul 2010 21:57 On Jul 20, 7:35 am, harald <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote: > On Jul 19, 10:49 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > On Jul 18, 6:16 pm, harald <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote: > > > > On Jul 17, 12:39 am,xxein<xxxx...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Geez! Doesn't anybody know how to think logically of the physic > > > > beyond the archaic sceintific method? > > > >< Yes of course - there are at least several people who contribute to this group and who understand this very well. For sure Lorentz and Poincare understood it! The later generation of "geometers" lost grip with reality but physical modeling [i.e. METAPHYSICS] is certainly part of science. > > > Glird, physical models are erroneously identified with "metaphysics" - > except of course if one wishes to change the meaning of words. For > example atom models have never been regarded as metaphysics, as far as > I can tell; they were always part of *physics*. > > > Metaphysics, which is the study of the things that exist and how > > their mechanisms physically work, is not only "part of science" it was > > and -- despite being ignored by today's physicists -- remains the most > > important part! > > Physical models are indeed an important part of physics that is > currently being neglected. Newton's mechanics was based on physical > modeling, although with strong mathematical modeling on top of it. SRT > is mathematical modeling that was - as Einstein admitted - based on > Maxwell's and Lorentz's physical theories. It is the combination of > such two approaches that is most effective. > > Note: Sam Wormley provided a good link about physics vs metaphysics. > > Regards, > Harald xxein: So, Harald. What is the logically physical modeling that describes velocity addition (sans gravity)? What is it's physical cause to be measured as such? I don't dispute the math but what kind of space medium is needed to make it so for this observation of our's?
From: Androcles on 31 Jul 2010 19:26 "xxein" <xxxxein(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:34e5cc99-aa30-4ce7-b1c8-88c7d5159aec(a)q35g2000yqn.googlegroups.com... On Jul 20, 7:35 am, harald <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote: > On Jul 19, 10:49 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > On Jul 18, 6:16 pm, harald <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote: > > > > On Jul 17, 12:39 am,xxein<xxxx...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Geez! Doesn't anybody know how to think logically of the physic > > > > beyond the archaic sceintific method? > > > >< Yes of course - there are at least several people who contribute to > > >this group and who understand this very well. For sure Lorentz and > > >Poincare understood it! The later generation of "geometers" lost grip > > >with reality but physical modeling [i.e. METAPHYSICS] is certainly part > > >of science. > > > Glird, physical models are erroneously identified with "metaphysics" - > except of course if one wishes to change the meaning of words. For > example atom models have never been regarded as metaphysics, as far as > I can tell; they were always part of *physics*. > > > Metaphysics, which is the study of the things that exist and how > > their mechanisms physically work, is not only "part of science" it was > > and -- despite being ignored by today's physicists -- remains the most > > important part! > > Physical models are indeed an important part of physics that is > currently being neglected. Newton's mechanics was based on physical > modeling, although with strong mathematical modeling on top of it. SRT > is mathematical modeling that was - as Einstein admitted - based on > Maxwell's and Lorentz's physical theories. It is the combination of > such two approaches that is most effective. > > Note: Sam Wormley provided a good link about physics vs metaphysics. > > Regards, > Harald xxein: So, Harald. What is the logically physical modeling that describes velocity addition (sans gravity)? =================================== An artefactual/superficially imposed yin-yang of sorts What is it's physical cause to be measured as such? =================================== An artefactual/superficially imposed yin-yang of sorts I don't dispute the math but what kind of space medium is needed to make it so for this observation of our's? =================================== An artefactual/superficially imposed yin-yang of sorts
From: xxein on 31 Jul 2010 19:47 On Jul 31, 7:26 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote: > "xxein" <xxxx...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:34e5cc99-aa30-4ce7-b1c8-88c7d5159aec(a)q35g2000yqn.googlegroups.com... > On Jul 20, 7:35 am, harald <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 19, 10:49 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > > On Jul 18, 6:16 pm, harald <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote: > > > > > On Jul 17, 12:39 am,xxein<xxxx...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > Geez! Doesn't anybody know how to think logically of the physic > > > > > beyond the archaic sceintific method? > > > > >< Yes of course - there are at least several people who contribute to > > > >this group and who understand this very well. For sure Lorentz and > > > >Poincare understood it! The later generation of "geometers" lost grip > > > >with reality but physical modeling [i.e. METAPHYSICS] is certainly part > > > >of science. > > > > Glird, physical models are erroneously identified with "metaphysics" - > > except of course if one wishes to change the meaning of words. For > > example atom models have never been regarded as metaphysics, as far as > > I can tell; they were always part of *physics*. > > > > Metaphysics, which is the study of the things that exist and how > > > their mechanisms physically work, is not only "part of science" it was > > > and -- despite being ignored by today's physicists -- remains the most > > > important part! > > > Physical models are indeed an important part of physics that is > > currently being neglected. Newton's mechanics was based on physical > > modeling, although with strong mathematical modeling on top of it. SRT > > is mathematical modeling that was - as Einstein admitted - based on > > Maxwell's and Lorentz's physical theories. It is the combination of > > such two approaches that is most effective. > > > Note: Sam Wormley provided a good link about physics vs metaphysics. > > > Regards, > > Harald > > xxein: So, Harald. What is the logically physical modeling that > describes velocity addition (sans gravity)? > =================================== > An artefactual/superficially imposed yin-yang of sorts > > What is it's physical > cause to be measured as such? > > =================================== > An artefactual/superficially imposed yin-yang of sorts > > I don't dispute the math but what kind of space medium is needed to > make it so for this observation of our's? > > =================================== > An artefactual/superficially imposed yin-yang of sorts- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - xxein: And you still don't know what that means. Pitiful.
From: Hayek on 1 Aug 2010 06:10
Tom Roberts wrote: > xxein wrote: >> Does anyone out there know how velocity addition >> works to describe how we measure it besides a math? What is the >> physical reason? > [..math view..] > As for "why" hyperbolic geometry applies rather than Euclidean geometry, > that is outside the realm of science. In the world we inhabit it just does. It is inertia increasing exponentially (gamma factor). If inertia becomes almost infinite it becomes almost infinitely difficult to accelerate. Lots of things were "outside the realm of science", until they simply became science. Just a hundred years ago, not even half of the people believed in the existence of atoms. That was also considered "outside the realm of science". Uwe Hayek. > > >> I know what it is but I doubt that anyone else does. > > Such hubris! Such cowardice! > > > Tom Roberts -- We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion : the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history. -- Ayn Rand I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them. -- Thomas Jefferson. Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. -- Winston Churchill. |