"Greg Neill" wrote in message
. ..
| Is there any other way? Describe a physical and a non
| physical measurement and show how they differ
| fundamentally. Be sure to account for all physical
| processes involved in each, and name the forces of
| nature involved.

Greg,
you sure are one great twister.
If you don't know the difference between physical
and abstract, there is nothing I can say to you
to show you such difference.
You can not even grasp time as an abstract measurement,
you actualyl think it is a physical measurement.
You are truly lost in "spacetime" and there is no way
I could ever save you because you keep slappping my
hand when I try to reach and grab you..
Poor Greg..
He is lost in spacetime forever and refuses to allow
help to escape.


snipped the rest of the insultation physics Greg is so good at

"Spaceman" wrote in message news

"Greg Neill" wrote in message
. ..
| Is there any other way? Describe a physical and a non
| physical measurement and show how they differ
| fundamentally. Be sure to account for all physical
| processes involved in each, and name the forces of
| nature involved.

Greg,
you sure are one great twister.
If you don't know the difference between physical
and abstract, there is nothing I can say to you
to show you such difference.

Translation: You cannot answer.

You can not even grasp time as an abstract measurement,
you actualyl think it is a physical measurement.

It's no different than any other measurement. You
take a standard and count the number of standard
units that go into whatever it is that you are
measuring.

How would a clock's measurement of time differ from,
say, a pressure guage's measurement of pressure?

You are truly lost in "spacetime" and there is no way
I could ever save you because you keep slappping my
hand when I try to reach and grab you..

It's not your hand that's getting slapped, James.

Poor Greg..
He is lost in spacetime forever and refuses to allow
help to escape.


snipped the rest of the insultation physics Greg is so good at

"Greg Neill" wrote in message
. ..
| "Spaceman" wrote in message
news |
| "Greg Neill" wrote in message
| . ..
| | Is there any other way? Describe a physical and a non
| | physical measurement and show how they differ
| | fundamentally. Be sure to account for all physical
| | processes involved in each, and name the forces of
| | nature involved.
|
| Greg,
| you sure are one great twister.
| If you don't know the difference between physical
| and abstract, there is nothing I can say to you
| to show you such difference.
|
| Translation: You cannot answer.

Not at all,
I simply can not teach those that refuse to learn.

|
| You can not even grasp time as an abstract measurement,
| you actualyl think it is a physical measurement.
|
| It's no different than any other measurement. You
| take a standard and count the number of standard
| units that go into whatever it is that you are
| measuring.

It is different,
and in your silly world, you have variable standard units
anyway so don't even really have standards anymore.
LOL


| How would a clock's measurement of time differ from,
| say, a pressure guage's measurement of pressure?

Both are abstract measurements so it does not matter.
The only true physical measurement is distance.
all other measurements are abstracted using distance and
some other type of (abstract) measurement system.
Of course, you would know this if you had a clue
what physical reality is at all.
LOL

"Spaceman" wrote in message
. ..

"Greg Neill" wrote in message
. ..
| "Spaceman" wrote in message
news


| Greg,
| you sure are one great twister.
| If you don't know the difference between physical
| and abstract, there is nothing I can say to you
| to show you such difference.
|
| Translation: You cannot answer.

Not at all,
I simply can not teach those that refuse to learn.

Translation: I cannot answer so I make up an excuse.


|
| You can not even grasp time as an abstract measurement,
| you actualyl think it is a physical measurement.
|
| It's no different than any other measurement. You
| take a standard and count the number of standard
| units that go into whatever it is that you are
| measuring.

It is different,
and in your silly world, you have variable standard units
anyway so don't even really have standards anymore.

The standard units are fixed in every frame of reference.
Furthermore, the units are identical in all frames when
appropriate (Lorentz) frame transforms are applied.
So your reasoning is specious. Again.


LOL


| How would a clock's measurement of time differ from,
| say, a pressure guage's measurement of pressure?

Both are abstract measurements so it does not matter.
The only true physical measurement is distance.
all other measurements are abstracted using distance and
some other type of (abstract) measurement system.
Of course, you would know this if you had a clue
what physical reality is at all.

Then why are you prattling on about the science of
measurement if the only thing you can measure is
distance? If by your own personal definition no other
measurements are real measurements, why on Earth would
you take exception to the fact that science chooses
a viable procedure for measuring them that agrees with
empirical observation?

By your own definition you can't even guarantee that
any distance measurement you take will be real, since
you cannot trust that the end points of an object can
be measured at the same time (since time is abstract).
Further, since no physical objects ever actually touch
save through the medium of force fields, you cannot
eliminate the 'abstract' from *any* measurement you
might want to make.

Your model is even more broken than I had imagined.
You don't need to fix it, you need to discard it
entirely and start over.

"Spaceman" wrote in message
...

"OG" wrote in message
...
| What makes you think that observer (B) would measure the same as
observer
| (A). He's not in the same coordinate frame at all is he?

He is passing by the same coordinate frame as the guy that
measured the lines physically and marked them.

| Ah, but your measurement would not be made by observer (B), would it?
After
| all, while you have stopped, gone back and measured the separation
between
| two successive lines, maybe double checked them etc etc, observer (B)
has
| whistled off into the distance at a speed of .5c. Not the same thing at
all
| is it? Again, by stopping to measure the distances, you are removing
(B)'s
| involvement in the measurement.

No,
I am simply making sure I am getting a physical measurement.

But you seem to say that in order that you can measure the distance between
the lines you have to stop moving relative to the lines.

| The reason that (B) does not agree is because when you have one
coordinate
| frame moving relative to another, distance measurements made in one
frame
| are contracted relative to the measurements made in the other.

I do not.
I have an observer (B) moving through a coordinate frame that
observer (A) is in hence it is simply the same frame.
(one is moving through it, the other one stays in it.)
and..
distance does not contract ever.
where are you getting such bull**** from?

I think it's now time that we go back to the question I asked in one of my
original responses:-
How would (B) measure the separation of the lines whilst they are whipping
past at .5c ?

"Greg Neill" wrote in message
. ..
| The standard units are fixed in every frame of reference.

Yet variable between references in your silly world.
LOL


| Furthermore, the units are identical in all frames when
| appropriate (Lorentz) frame transforms are applied.
| So your reasoning is specious. Again.

There is that silly transform needed because of the
problem of using a speed (lightspeed) to create a distance
(meter).
LOL

| Then why are you prattling on about the science of
| measurement if the only thing you can measure is
| distance?

Because with the stupid definition of the meter used
today you have lost the actual physical measurement.
You have substituted an abstract measurment (speed of light)
with a physical measurement (the old standard meter stick)
You are stuck in abstract land and have lost the
physical measurement completely now.

"OG" wrote in message
...
| But you seem to say that in order that you can measure the distance
between
| the lines you have to stop moving relative to the lines.

To physically measure such, yes.
and if you are going to use an abstract measurement,
you should not be using an abstract measurement that lost
all physical measurements now, such as the meter has.
this sad length contraction crap is only proof
that lightspeed is not "constant to all"
and the distance being different to a moving observer
compared to an "at rest" observer is proof you have a
problem with the new "standard" of a meter.
(you should not need transformations to measure stuff.)
If the ship is passing by 186,000 miles per second.
then that is what it is doing,
If you have some crap that comes up with it is not doing such,
your crap is broken in some form of it's abstraction of
the speed.

| I think it's now time that we go back to the question I asked in one of my
| original responses:-
| How would (B) measure the separation of the lines whilst they are whipping
| past at .5c ?

Ok,
more gedanken stuff here so bear with it.
If a wheel was placed on the gedanken ground we
created, and it was 1 mile in circumference,
(1 roll per line)
would it not spin at 93,000 rotations per second
if traveling at 0.5c past such lines?

"Spaceman" wrote in message
. ..

"Greg Neill" wrote in message
. ..
| The standard units are fixed in every frame of reference.

Yet variable between references in your silly world.

Well, my world is the empirically measured real world,
so how silly can that be. Wait, don't answer that...

LOL


| Furthermore, the units are identical in all frames when
| appropriate (Lorentz) frame transforms are applied.
| So your reasoning is specious. Again.

There is that silly transform needed because of the
problem of using a speed (lightspeed) to create a distance
(meter).

Light speed is conveniently constant in all frames. If you
can find another universal constant (that's invariant with
respect to frame of reference), please suggest it.

LOL

| Then why are you prattling on about the science of
| measurement if the only thing you can measure is
| distance?

Because with the stupid definition of the meter used
today you have lost the actual physical measurement.

How? The standard meter as produced by the definition
is as constant in length (if not more so) as any
artefact you could produce.

You have substituted an abstract measurment (speed of light)
with a physical measurement (the old standard meter stick)

The old standard meter stick suffered from the fact that
there was only one, it could not be transported without
risk of damage, was subject to wear, temperature and
pressure changes, and was just bloody inconvenient.

You are stuck in abstract land and have lost the
physical measurement completely now.

You're stuck in 15th century physics. Who's worse off?

"Spaceman" wrote in message
. ..

"OG" wrote in message
...
| But you seem to say that in order that you can measure the distance
between
| the lines you have to stop moving relative to the lines.

To physically measure such, yes.

Note that James refuses to define "physically measure"
and explain how it is fundamentally different from any
other type of measurement (hint: there really are no
different kinds).

[snip]

| I think it's now time that we go back to the question I asked in one of my
| original responses:-
| How would (B) measure the separation of the lines whilst they are whipping
| past at .5c ?

Ok,
more gedanken stuff here so bear with it.
If a wheel was placed on the gedanken ground we
created, and it was 1 mile in circumference,
(1 roll per line)
would it not spin at 93,000 rotations per second
if traveling at 0.5c past such lines?

If all measurements are taken in the rest frame
of the lines, then yes, of course.

"Spaceman" wrote in message
. ..

"OG" wrote in message
...
| But you seem to say that in order that you can measure the distance
between
| the lines you have to stop moving relative to the lines.

To physically measure such, yes.
and if you are going to use an abstract measurement,
you should not be using an abstract measurement that lost
all physical measurements now, such as the meter has.
this sad length contraction crap is only proof
that lightspeed is not "constant to all"
and the distance being different to a moving observer
compared to an "at rest" observer is proof you have a
problem with the new "standard" of a meter.
(you should not need transformations to measure stuff.)
If the ship is passing by 186,000 miles per second.
then that is what it is doing,
If you have some crap that comes up with it is not doing such,
your crap is broken in some form of it's abstraction of
the speed.

You say "you should not need transformations to measure stuff.", and indeed
you don't need transformations to measure stuff. What you do need is
transformations to take measurements in one reference frame (B) and express
them in another reference frame (A). Measurement isn't a problem so long as
you stick to the same frame of reference.


| I think it's now time that we go back to the question I asked in one of
my
| original responses:-
| How would (B) measure the separation of the lines whilst they are
whipping
| past at .5c ?

Ok,
more gedanken stuff here so bear with it.
If a wheel was placed on the gedanken ground we
created, and it was 1 mile in circumference,
(1 roll per line)
would it not spin at 93,000 rotations per second
if traveling at 0.5c past such lines?

You won't want to hear this, but if the wheel is spinning at that speed, (B)
would find that the diameter is no longer 1/2pi miles.