Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #431367

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 13:06 -0500
Organization	Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID	<oopdfo$1e9$1@gioia.aioe.org> (permalink)
References	(20 earlier) <a5a1e1d8-f573-495b-b098-acbf2c614f32@googlegroups.com> <oombc6$ib8$1@gioia.aioe.org> <42d68e94-91a2-476b-8289-3bf3d46a6b05@googlegroups.com> <oon3s3$143$5@gioia.aioe.org> <b255a892-8d36-4018-a590-97f66c55cea0@googlegroups.com>

Show all headers | View raw

On 9/6/17 9:12 AM, kenseto wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 5, 2017 at 5:10:31 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> On 9/5/17 10:36 AM, kenseto wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, September 5, 2017 at 10:12:27 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>> On 9/5/17 9:03 AM, kenseto wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, September 5, 2017 at 9:56:08 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>>> On 9/3/17 11:01 AM, kenseto wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thursday, August 31, 2017 at 3:11:08 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 8/31/17 1:39 PM, kenseto wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, August 31, 2017 at 10:05:58 AM UTC-4, Python wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> kenseto wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> If it made sense, how come neither you, Ralph Rabbidge, nor Mr Seto
>>>>>>>>>>>> can answser my very basic question: two objects intersect in space,
>>>>>>>>>>>> this is an event, what is the meaning of “speed wrt this tevent"?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I didn’t say “speed wrt any event”.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You did. You wrote about being at rest wrt to an event. If it made
>>>>>>>>>> sense to be at rest wrt an event, so it would make sense to have
>>>>>>>>>> a speed wrt to it. N.B. This is not the case
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I said that an observer can have speed wrt the source of the event.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> There. Is. No. Meaning. In. The. Expression. *the* source of the event.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That’s your problem......every event have a source.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Not a unique one.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Here are two passing cars       CAR -->     <-- CAR
>>>>>>>> Which car, the one on the left or the one on the right is the source of
>>>>>>>> the event that is the meeting of the two cars?
>>>>>>>> Which one of these two cars would the observer be asking about speed
>>>>>>>> relative to the source?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The source of this one event is the meeting of the cars.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The meeting of the two cars has no duration. You cannot be at rest (or
>>>>>> moving) with respect to anything with no duration.
>>>>>
>>>>> Idiot you can be at rest wrt the positions of the events as in Einstein’s train gadenken. Gee you are so stupid.
>>>>
>>>> Ken, as Einstein discussed that gedanken, he NEVER SAID that the
>>>> observers were at rest relative to the events. Not once. That's because
>>>> you cannot be at rest relative to the events.
>>>
>>> Fucking idiot the train observer is at rest with respect to the positions of the event (the ends of the train).
>>
>> Ken, I will ask you to re-read the gedanken. Notice that Einstein says
>> that the events are the lightning strikes, not the ends of the train.
> 
> He said that lightning strikes at the ends of the train (that means the positions of the events) at the moment when M and M’ are coincided. If not there is no way to determine if the strikes were happened at equal distance from M or M’.

You did not re-read the gedanken. You are relying on your faulty memory.

> 
> 
>> Notice also that he stipulates that the lightning hits BOTH the end of
>> the train AND the track, where the end of the train and the track meet.
>>
>> Notice that there are thus TWO sets of positions: one at the ends of the
>> train and one at the marks on the track.
>>
>> Notice that the train observer is at rest relative to the ends of the
>> train, but is NOT at rest relative to the marks on the track. Notice
>> that the track observer is at rest relative to the marks on the track
>> but NOT at rest relative to the ends of the train.
>>
>> There is no priority given to whether the positions should be followed
>> with the train or whether the positions should be followed with the
>> track marks.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> What you're going to find is another example of where you inserted
>>>> something that YOU MADE UP into someone else's words. Then you are going
>>>> to stare at it a while and ask yourself how you got to be so convinced
>>>> that the part you made up was there, when it isn't. Then you're going to
>>>> say that Einstein IMPLIED it when in fact you just made it up.
>>>>
>>>> Like "material length contraction" where Einstein never used or implied
>>>> that it was material at all. It was just something you made up.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Back to square one.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We are talking about measuring the simultaneity of two events....in this case you only have one event.
>>>>>>> Also I said that the observer must be at rest at the mid-point wrt the positions of these two events to do such measurement. The speed relative to the source  is not mentioned.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -- 
>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables


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

Thread

csiph-web