Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #429558

Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow?

Path	csiph.com!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From	"HGW..." <hgw@....>
Newsgroups	sci.physics.relativity
Subject	Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow?
Date	Mon, 21 Aug 2017 09:16:00 +1000
Organization	Aioe.org NNTP Server
Lines	62
Message-ID	<ond57f$1eo7$1@gioia.aioe.org> (permalink)
References	<om97e7$11kh$1@gioia.aioe.org> <2e696ab8-dc47-4a6f-811c-949762dbaf73@googlegroups.com> <omas8c$1rrt$1@gioia.aioe.org> <676387ec-1a88-48f3-b045-44336a3ff654@googlegroups.com> <omdl99$9io$1@gioia.aioe.org> <39830391-e4a4-44fa-9ac5-8d895e9458cc@googlegroups.com> <3b1e7b6d-b698-4081-a348-25d8f619b8d7@googlegroups.com> <459395c0-08ea-43b0-924d-6b48a6a42f36@googlegroups.com> <omtkpg$ck3$1@gioia.aioe.org> <9eab92f1-dac0-4414-b99d-5529c37d56a7@googlegroups.com> <on14hv$1djh$1@gioia.aioe.org> <11a73817-68f0-4a0a-bd96-35f083e33470@googlegroups.com> <on2fij$1h78$1@gioia.aioe.org> <36f747a1-bdfb-4617-b58a-d7954499180d@googlegroups.com> <on542j$1c58$1@gioia.aioe.org> <5caf367b-a2da-4f21-8222-9b1650f6faea@googlegroups.com> <on7tu0$a2$1@gioia.aioe.org> <e2cdb569-fcef-4a54-81ff-a5f3adfa1d8e@googlegroups.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host	w45I5McIoXWGwOLPK8L4yQ.user.gioia.aioe.org
Mime-Version	1.0
Content-Type	text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding	7bit
X-Complaints-To	abuse@aioe.org
User-Agent	Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.1.1
Content-Language	en-US
X-Notice	Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2
Xref	csiph.com sci.physics.relativity:429558

Show key headers only | View raw

On 19/08/17 15:50, dancouriann@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, August 18, 2017 at 4:40:53 PM UTC-7, HGW... wrote:
>> You cannot assume photons and gamma rays do not have mass.
> 
> I don't need not assume it.  You need to prove that it is logically impossible for them not to have rest mass.  You
> said you could do it, but you haven't done it.

Where did I say it was logically impossible?

> And your overall claim, which you also have not proven, is that it's logically impossible for the speed of light to
> be c in terms of every system of inertial coordinates.

According to LET, OWLS would always be measured as c because lengths and times are claimed to be contracted by the same 
factor...depending on absolute speed.  However, since there is no absolute aether, the whole idea is just an amusing but 
quite clever piece of SciFi. Einstein stole the idea from Lorentz and Poincare and established himself as the world's 
best SciFi writer......

>> That is a plain fact according to he definition of a frame.
> 
> Not true.  Please look closely at the statement that you claim to be able to prove is logically impossible.  It does
> not contain the word "frame", so you definition of that word is irrelevant.  It refers to inertial coordinate
> systems, which are defined in terms of inertia, and if energy has inertia, it follows by simple grade school algebra
> that inertial coordinate systems are related by Lorentz transformations.  So, you need to prove that it is logically
> impossible for energy to have inertia, which amounts to provide that E=mc^2 is logically impossible.  You cannot do
> this.

What nonsense is this?

>>> The speed of light is c in terms of every system of inertial coordinates.
>> 
>> It cannot be and I have shown that it is not.
> 
> No, you have not proven that it is logically impossible.
> 
>> Light speed from orbiting stars moves at c+v towards Earth....and gives an impression that the star is varying in
>> brightness.
> 
> That is easily ruled out by examining the frequencies and other characteristics, but it is also irrelevant, because
> you claimed to be able to prove that special relativity is logically impossible, not just that it is empirically
> false.

That is true. I have done both.

> You see, there is an abundance of empirical evidence ruling out your belefs, but you reject all the evidence on the
> grounds that it has been falsified... 


None of that 'evidence' exists. The experiments which are claimed to support Einstein are fabricated by the 
conspirators. You only have to read some of them to see how stupid they are.

>  but when asked why you can be sure the evidence has been falsified, you say
> it's because special relativity is logically impossible.  Well, okay, but unfortunately whenever you are challenged
> to show that it is logically impossible, you revert to saying it is empirically false.  And around the circle you
> go.

Idiot! If a thing is logically flawed it will naturally be empirically impossible to prove correct.
Go away and get a brain. You're more clueless than Mickey Moron-y and little gawy combined....


--

Thread

(Thread has 618 articles, showing 500 — browse group in flat view)

csiph-web