Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #432725

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

From	moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
Newsgroups	sci.physics.relativity
Subject	Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow?
Date	2017-09-17 22:37 +0000
Organization	The World : www.TheWorld.com : Since 1989
Message-ID	<opmteq$p0d$3@pcls7.std.com> (permalink)
References	(22 earlier) <opfc7v$1hhr$1@gioia.aioe.org> <opgkro$1iod$2@gioia.aioe.org> <ophja2$1c1v$1@gioia.aioe.org> <opjpkg$3f4$1@pcls7.std.com> <opk650$190b$1@gioia.aioe.org>

Show all headers | View raw

Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge <HW@home.net> writes:

>On 17/09/17 04:13, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> HGW <HW@home.net> writes:

>>>> Flashes have no duration. They have no state of motion as a result.
>> 
>>> That shows how little you know about physics. The flashes are essentially
>>> one dimensional but that is sufficient to
>>> provide them with locations and horizontal velocities in all frames.
>> 
>> No, Ralph, the whole gedanken involves events which not only have no
>> duration, they don't have any length. You are taking the lightning bolt
>> thing too literally by thinking of lightning jumping from here to there,
>> apparently. Think of a literal flash, not a lightning bolt, Ralph.

>Poor idiot! The flashes are meant to represent point events.

Exactly, Ralph.

> Those points have locations and velocities in all frames.

No, Ralph, they have locations, but no velocities. Remember, an event in
physics takes no time.  It is a point in time as well as position. It
cannot have a velocity because it simply does not make sense.

OK, Ralph, let's use this as an example.  The train and embankment both
have rods sticking out, which make contact when the train passes. The
train has one at each end. The flashes are caused when the train's rod
touches the embankment rod when it passes. Understand, Ralph?  What is the
velocity of the flash when the train rod touches the embankment rod?
Give a valid reason for your answer. Remember the train rod is stationary
relative to the train and the embankment rod is stationary relative to the
embankment.

(Ralph won't answer this, although he may provide insults)

>.....that's tod hard for Moron-y obviously.....

Too hard for Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge, anyway.

>>>> Therefore it is silly to attribute to them (arbitrarily) a motion, 
>>>> just for the sake of doing so.

>> Ralph, you can't be at rest relative to something like a flash/event
>> which takes no time, and therefore doesn't have the property of motion.

>What crap!....typical!

I see you have no reason why it's "crap", Ralph.  That's because there is
no reason, Ralph.

>>> Simple, eh?
>> 
>> The problem is, if the description is simplified so much that even you can
>> understand it, it becomes just plain wrong.

>Simple.... but far too hard for mentally disabled mickey moron....

Too hard for Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge, who is mentally stuck on c+v and
DirtyBaThWater, despite DirtyBaThWater being proven incorrect over and
over and over again.

Thread

csiph-web