The conflict between Einstein's GR and his SR and its solution

On Aug 16, 7:10 pm, Tom Roberts wrote:
Luigi Batazzi wrote:

It looks like Google newsgroups are back on line. That is good news.
shrug

“Oh, no!” --- Some Einstein Dingleberries would be ever so horrified
that Koobee Wublee is back on line. shrug

Indeed, nightmares among Einstein Dingleberries do come true when
Koobee Wublee shows up. shrug

objects are subject to both sr and gr all the time anywhere

This depends on what you mean by "subject to". I can easily interpret it to be
consistent with what I said. I can also interpret your phrase to be flat-out
wrong (see my final paragraph below).

You and anyone can interpret all you want that suit your fantasy. As
long as you do not have a sound and self-consistent mathematical
model, you have nothing. shrug

Here's a much better way to describe this:
Both SR and GR are models of the world we inhabit.

No, they are not. They are not even self-consistent in which we have
talked about before, and you have no arguments on why SR and GR have
mathematical models that are self-consistent. shrug

They have different domains
of applicability, with GR's considerably larger than SR's.

You are wrong on this one. SR is GR. shrug

SR uses displacements --- actual distance. GR uses coordinate
measurements. The connection is that displacement = metric *
coordinate system. That is why the metric plays a big role in GR.
shrug

In theory, SR should also work well when spacetime is curved. After
all, the Lorentz transform deals with displacement and not coordinate
system itself. See the difference?

Hint: Displacement = Metric * Coordinate system shrug

[…]

More confusion between coordinate itself and displacement snipped
shrug

I don't think we disagree, but I do think we use very different words, and
apparently have different understandings of the relationship between physical
theories and the world we inhabit.

You only look like a scholar of physics when discussing with someone
who is very ignorant of physics. shrug

For instance, I would NEVER say some object is "subject to" any theory, as that
phrase implies the theory is somehow controlling the object's behavior, which is
just plain wrong -- the theory MODELS how the object behaves, however it is that
nature happens to make it behave.

Who gives a damn? When you don’t have any mathematics to back up your
silly claims, your guess is as good or as bad as his. Physics without
math in which you seems to find comfort in is merely philosophy. No
one can be proven definitively right on a philosophical issue.
shrug

On Aug 17, 2:12*am, Koobee Wublee wrote:
On Aug 16, 7:10 pm, Tom Roberts wrote:

Luigi Batazzi wrote:

It looks like Google newsgroups are back on line. *That is good news.
shrug

“Oh, no!” --- Some Einstein Dingleberries would be ever so horrified
that Koobee Wublee is back on line. *shrug

Indeed, nightmares among Einstein Dingleberries do come true when
Koobee Wublee shows up. *shrug

objects are subject to both sr and gr all the time anywhere

This depends on what you mean by "subject to". I can easily interpret it to be
consistent with what I said. I can also interpret your phrase to be flat-out
wrong (see my final paragraph below).

You and anyone can interpret all you want that suit your fantasy. *As
long as you do not have a sound and self-consistent mathematical
model, you have nothing. *shrug

Here's a much better way to describe this:
Both SR and GR are models of the world we inhabit.

No, they are not. *They are not even self-consistent in which we have
talked about before, and you have no arguments on why SR and GR have
mathematical models that are self-consistent. *shrug

They have different domains
of applicability, with GR's considerably larger than SR's.

You are wrong on this one. *SR is GR. *shrug

SR uses displacements --- actual distance. *GR uses coordinate
measurements. *The connection is that displacement = metric *
coordinate system. *That is why the metric plays a big role in GR.
shrug

In theory, SR should also work well when spacetime is curved. *After
all, the Lorentz transform deals with displacement and not coordinate
system itself. *See the difference?

Hint: *Displacement = Metric * Coordinate system *shrug

[…]

More confusion between coordinate itself and displacement snipped
shrug

I don't think we disagree, but I do think we use very different words, and
apparently have different understandings of the relationship between physical
theories and the world we inhabit.

You only look like a scholar of physics when discussing with someone
who is very ignorant of physics. *shrug

For instance, I would NEVER say some object is "subject to" any theory, as that
phrase implies the theory is somehow controlling the object's behavior, which is
just plain wrong -- the theory MODELS how the object behaves, however it is that
nature happens to make it behave.

Who gives a damn? *When you don’t have any mathematics to back up your
silly claims, your guess is as good or as bad as his. *Physics without
math in which you seems to find comfort in is merely philosophy. *No
one can be proven definitively right on a philosophical issue.
shrug

xxein: Philosophical? What about physical? And the universe doesn't
need math to work.

Who would care about a physics and math if it didn't describe anything
real? Just a believer?

On Aug 17, 4:15*pm, xxein wrote:
On Aug 17, 2:12*am, Koobee Wublee wrote:





On Aug 16, 7:10 pm, Tom Roberts wrote:

Luigi Batazzi wrote:

It looks like Google newsgroups are back on line. *That is good news.
shrug

“Oh, no!” --- Some Einstein Dingleberries would be ever so horrified
that Koobee Wublee is back on line. *shrug

Indeed, nightmares among Einstein Dingleberries do come true when
Koobee Wublee shows up. *shrug

objects are subject to both sr and gr all the time anywhere

This depends on what you mean by "subject to". I can easily interpret it to be
consistent with what I said. I can also interpret your phrase to be flat-out
wrong (see my final paragraph below).

You and anyone can interpret all you want that suit your fantasy. *As
long as you do not have a sound and self-consistent mathematical
model, you have nothing. *shrug

Here's a much better way to describe this:
Both SR and GR are models of the world we inhabit.

No, they are not. *They are not even self-consistent in which we have
talked about before, and you have no arguments on why SR and GR have
mathematical models that are self-consistent. *shrug

They have different domains
of applicability, with GR's considerably larger than SR's.

You are wrong on this one. *SR is GR. *shrug

SR uses displacements --- actual distance. *GR uses coordinate
measurements. *The connection is that displacement = metric *
coordinate system. *That is why the metric plays a big role in GR.
shrug

In theory, SR should also work well when spacetime is curved. *After
all, the Lorentz transform deals with displacement and not coordinate
system itself. *See the difference?

Hint: *Displacement = Metric * Coordinate system *shrug

[…]

More confusion between coordinate itself and displacement snipped
shrug

I don't think we disagree, but I do think we use very different words, and
apparently have different understandings of the relationship between physical
theories and the world we inhabit.

You only look like a scholar of physics when discussing with someone
who is very ignorant of physics. *shrug

For instance, I would NEVER say some object is "subject to" any theory, as that
phrase implies the theory is somehow controlling the object's behavior, which is
just plain wrong -- the theory MODELS how the object behaves, however it is that
nature happens to make it behave.

Who gives a damn? *When you don’t have any mathematics to back up your
silly claims, your guess is as good or as bad as his. *Physics without
math in which you seems to find comfort in is merely philosophy. *No
one can be proven definitively right on a philosophical issue.
shrug

xxein: *Philosophical? *What about physical? *And the universe doesn't
need math to work.

Who would care about a physics and math if it didn't describe anything
real? *Just a believer?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The immaterial is physicslity just as the matterial is.

Mitchell Raemsch