Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #431366

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

From	Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com>
Newsgroups	sci.physics.relativity
Subject	Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow?
Date	2017-09-06 13:01 -0500
Organization	Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID	<oopd6c$bl$2@gioia.aioe.org> (permalink)
References	(26 earlier) <ooltfj$1n2s$1@gioia.aioe.org> <oomac0$ftk$2@gioia.aioe.org> <oonabi$c5u$1@gioia.aioe.org> <ooouui$10ol$1@gioia.aioe.org> <oop33o$1al7$1@gioia.aioe.org>

Show all headers | View raw

On 9/6/17 10:09 AM, HGW, DSc. wrote:
> On 06/09/17 23:58, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> On 9/5/17 6:01 PM, HGW wrote:
>>> On 05/09/17 23:55, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>> On 9/5/17 5:15 AM, HGW wrote:
>>>>> On 05/09/17 10:42, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>>> HGW <HW@home.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So '5 apples in a box' can mean '4 apples in a box' if you are 
>>>>>>>>> moving
>>>>>>>>> fast enough, Is that the kind of thing you
>>>>>>>>> are saying Bodkin?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You apparently cannot read. Read again the paragraph above that 
>>>>>>>> starts
>>>>>>>> "Some sets of measured numbers...."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I see now. So 1 2 3 4 5 can be 3 9 6 7 5 if one moves in the 
>>>>>>> right way?
>>>>>>> Is that what you are saying.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Are they measurements?
>>>>>
>>>>> Do they look like anything in particular?
>>>>
>>>> They should if you look carefully enough. Idiots will pretend that 
>>>> measurements aren't measurements by squinting. Are you an idiot?
>>>
>>> They are just numbers. They don't refer to anything in particular. 
>>> But in Einstein's RoS derivation, the numbers on the clock faces are 
>>> both the same and refer to the same thing.
>>
>> Some numbers are measurements. You seem to be in denial about this.
> 
> Not at all. You are confusing measurements with units. Naturally if two 
> identical units refer to different quantities, they have entirely 
> difference significance. 10345 seconds is obviously different from 10345 
> hours....or flying pigs. 10 apples are not the same as 10 potatoes 
> either but the numbers have the same meaning in all reference frames.

And a measured speed of 50 mph for a car in the rest frame of the light 
pole is different than the measured speed of 90 mph for the same car in 
the rest frame of the police cruiser going the opposite way.

It's really a pity that you do not understand that some sets of measured 
numbers are observer dependent. Hell, even Newton knew that.

> 
> 
>>>> Precisely! And in the cases you're talking about, the rods are not 
>>>> sufficiently stable to declare the nonrigidity negligible! Simple 
>>>> back-of-envelope calculations are sufficient for this purpose. So, 
>>>> Henry, pick a substance and let's look up the speed of sound in that 
>>>> material.
>>>
>>> Bodkin, any instability will disappear in a very short time after 
>>> inertial state is re-established.
>>
>> Let's calculate that short time and see if it is insignificant 
>> compared to the times involved in the relativistic examples you are 
>> posing.
> 
> Bodkin, procrastinaing will not help you. My examples are those Einstein 
> used to create his bogus RoS. Any transients involved are the same for 
> him and me. The fact that he later claimed the moving rod was contracted 
> makes no difference to my proof that his theory leads to a logical 
> impossibility.

So you can't calculate it? How about if I tell you the speed of sound in 
the material you pick. In other words, if I lift a little finger for 
you, where you can't.


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

Thread

csiph-web