Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #427580 > unrolled thread

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

Started by	"HGW..." <hgw@....>
First post	2017-08-07 18:12 +1000
Last post	2017-08-20 15:35 -0700
Articles	20 on this page of 237 — 18 participants

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Page 10 of 12 — ← Prev page 1 … 8 9 [10] 11 12 Next page →

#428475

From	rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com>
Date	2017-08-12 19:40 -0700
Message-ID	<b939aa9d-2840-4381-aa4d-8f748d6bfd3e@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#428465

On Saturday, August 12, 2017 at 8:25:50 PM UTC-4, HGW... wrote:
> On 12/08/17 12:22, rotchm wrote:

> > No, that's NOT what the title asks. As I said, the oscillator is 
> > irrelevant. The device (clock) has some inner workings which will
> > not change the formula t' = (t-xv)g.
> 
> The title asks what in meant by the notion of 'clocks running slow'

And I gave you the answer: It means that two values are different; it meant that when you compare the two values of the clock, you get t' < t. 

For instance, say yo buy two cheap watches at the dollar store. You start them indicating noon. A few hours later you cheng them and they read 3:22 & 3:38 resp. since these two values differ, you would say that the 3:22 watch is slower than the other; it "runs slow". To say this, you did not need to know the inner workings of those watches. If two values differ, then t' < t and they casually call that "runs slow". But a smart person would realize that it does not run slow; only that the empirical fact was that t' < t. 
It is the " t' < t " that we casually translate in words as "run slow".  

> The question is asked BECAUSE a clock is a counter of oscillator cycles
> and there is a direct connection between the counter and the oscillator.

Perhaps, but irrelevant, as in the example above. 

> What do Dingleberries actually mean when they claim that the natural 
> resonant frequency of a quartz crystal is altered by a speed change?

Those who say it that way are being casual, vulgarizing, or being sloppy. 
All those casual words simply stem from the fact of t' < t. 
So again I tell you, now that you know that those words are very sloppy, just use t' < t from now on, since its much more concise. 

> You obviously have no idea of how physics operates

I guess thats why I succeeded to get several houses here & there and several luxury & sports cars (& motorcycle etc..) !? What has your understanding of physics gotten you? See, I will trust my beliefs since they got me more than what your beliefs brought you. 

> >> ..and why should it indicate that the oscillator has changed when 
> >> we know it could not have done so?
> > 
> > It does not indicate that "the oscillator has changed". it indicates 
> > a *VALUE*. Are you saying that if a device displays the number 7, 
> > then this means that a white cat is crossing the street ? How can
> > you infer that??? Are you nuttier than idiot dono??
> 
> Don't evade the question again. If the oscillator has not changed, what 
> has?

*if* ?  What does that have to do with anything? Whether the oscillator changed or not, the clock  displays a *value*, no? 

> I see! The count is unimportant because it is the number shown on the 
> clock which IS important.

YES!!! You finally got it!

> Are you mentally disabled or something?

Having got all that I own, doubtful that Im "mentally ill". I must be doing something right to posses all that I have, no?

> 
>   But
> > yes, we "say" that it counts oscillations" , but that's a gross 
> > description & should be avoided for better clarity in the 
> > discussions.
> 
> It is the main description and it clarifies the discussion.

No it doesn't, since you are still requesting explanations, as many others have. 

> I see, when you can't answer physics question you call it metaphysics....
> Nice try!

One cant answer questions that do not apply. Like if t' < t, then you ask " is this because there may be white cats on some exoplanet?" The questions does not apply. Your problem is that you do not see that your question of "why..." does not apply. 

> The question did not ask what is meant by two numbers on clocks.
> It asks what is meant by the claim that 'clocks run slow' because of 
> movement.

All in my above reply. 

> So what is meant by time<>time'? 

All in my above reply. Simply put, comparing two clocks, that their values differ. 

> given that those times are measured by 
> counting the cycles of oscillators, which do not change 
> PHYSICALLY  because of movement..

Thats your claim. it might be true, or it might be not. Moreover, "because" is too vague of a concept and is irrelevant. And more importantly,  your inquiry/reason wont change the fact that 3 <> 4; it wont change that 
t' = (t-xv)g.  

> You are claiming an equation you found in a book and which is not in 
> agreement with any known experiment. 

You are a reality denier. The equation is fully in agreement with exp's. That is why it is still used. 

> Nature is not your way at all. 

EXACTLY!!! that why I dont lay forward a "way"; I dont tell nature what are the "causes" of such and such effects. However, YOU DO; you are imposeing your beliefs on nature. But as you just said, "Nature is not your way at all.". 

> Your vague t' = (t-xv)g. wont change t=t'.

But actually exp's vindicate t' = (t-xv)g and refute t=t'.
Have you never looked at your watch/cell and compared it to someone next to you (or a clock on your wall etc)? Have you never noticed that they usually all differ? See, t' <> t. 

> > To date, all exp's support it.
> 
> Not one experiment has supported the silly idea....

You are a reality denier. 

>  What do you dingleberries mean when you say time changes with 
> movement?

All in my above reply. 

> We are not getting anywhere fast, are we....we're still a stage 1.

yes, you are stuck at stage one. Me, I progressed to a much higher stage (houses, cars, vacations all year long,...). 

> and you are certainly incapable of answering it.

But I did. Whats going on, is that you dont accept it because you are a reality denier. And a trademark of reality deniers is that they are stuck in a low level livelihood. Does that sound like you? Realizing this might be your first step in improving your situation.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#428498

From	"HGW..." <hgw@....>
Date	2017-08-13 20:53 +1000
Message-ID	<ompb2d$1vf5$1@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to	#428475

On 13/08/17 12:40, rotchm wrote:
> On Saturday, August 12, 2017 at 8:25:50 PM UTC-4, HGW... wrote:
>> On 12/08/17 12:22, rotchm wrote:
> 
>>> No, that's NOT what the title asks. As I said, the oscillator is 
>>> irrelevant. The device (clock) has some inner workings which will
>>> not change the formula t' = (t-xv)g.
>> 
>> The title asks what in meant by the notion of 'clocks running 
>> slow'
> 
> And I gave you the answer: It means that two values are different; it
> meant that when you compare the two values of the clock, you get t' <
> t.
> 
> For instance, say yo buy two cheap watches at the dollar store. You 
> start them indicating noon. A few hours later you cheng them and they
> read 3:22 & 3:38 resp. since these two values differ, you would say
> that the 3:22 watch is slower than the other; it "runs slow". To say
> this, you did not need to know the inner workings of those watches.
> If two values differ, then t' < t and they casually call that "runs
> slow". But a smart person would realize that it does not run slow;
> only that the empirical fact was that t' < t. It is the " t' < t "
> that we casually translate in words as "run slow".

Ah! this is good. You are admitting that GPS clocks that change rates
after being sent into orbit actually do physically change. It has
nothing to do with Einstein after all. Thank you Rotty.

>> The question is asked BECAUSE a clock is a counter of oscillator 
>> cycles and there is a direct connection between the counter and the
>> oscillator.
> 
> Perhaps, but irrelevant, as in the example above.
> 
>> What do Dingleberries actually mean when they claim that the 
>> natural resonant frequency of a quartz crystal is altered by a 
>> speed change?
> 
> Those who say it that way are being casual, vulgarizing, or being 
> sloppy. All those casual words simply stem from the fact of t' < t. 
> So again I tell you, now that you know that those words are very 
> sloppy, just use t' < t from now on, since its much more concise.

Well, now let's see. Say a GPS clock emits N ticks during the time the
Earth rotates precisely once. Let the same clock emit N+n ticks per
rotation when in orbit. Wouldn't you agree that this is a direct
indication that the clock has been physically affected by being launched
into orbit?
...Or to put hat another way, if you wanted to know if a clock had
changed after being sent into orbit, would it not be a good idea to
compare its rate before and after launch with the Earth's rotation
period, which can be used in both locations and certainly does not
change significantly in a few days?

>> You obviously have no idea of how physics operates
> 
> I guess thats why I succeeded to get several houses here & there and
>  several luxury & sports cars (& motorcycle etc..) !? What has your 
> understanding of physics gotten you? See, I will trust my beliefs 
> since they got me more than what your beliefs brought you.

I think my situation is at least as good as yours. My main car is a
Prius, naturally. my second car is only a Kia but very reliable. I live
on 3 acres in one of the best places and climates in the world.

>> Don't evade the question again. If the oscillator has not changed,
>>  what has?
> 
> *if* ?  What does that have to do with anything? Whether the 
> oscillator changed or not, the clock  displays a *value*, no?

I will ask you again. SINCE the oscillator has not changed, what has?
What factors could possibly make the clock 'value' change?

Maybe you can now understand the question.

>> I see! The count is unimportant because it is the number shown on 
>> the clock which IS important.
> 
> YES!!! You finally got it!

So I have got it that Rotty reckons the clock number is both important
and not important.

>> Are you mentally disabled or something?
> 
> Having got all that I own, doubtful that Im "mentally ill". I must be
> doing something right to posses all that I have, no?

Not necessarily. There are plenty of rich people that have few brains.

>> But
>>> yes, we "say" that it counts oscillations" , but that's a gross 
>>> description & should be avoided for better clarity in the 
>>> discussions.
>> 
>> It is the main description and it clarifies the discussion.
> 
> No it doesn't, since you are still requesting explanations, as many 
> others have.
> 
>> I see, when you can't answer physics question you call it 
>> metaphysics.... Nice try!
> 
> One cant answer questions that do not apply. Like if t' < t, then you
> ask " is this because there may be white cats on some exoplanet?" The
> questions does not apply. Your problem is that you do not see that
> your question of "why..." does not apply.

Well if you are defining time as that which is on the dial of a clock, I
can only feel sorry for you. If you have ten clocks together and they
all read differently, what would you say about time at their location?

>> The question did not ask what is meant by two numbers on clocks. It
>> asks what is meant by the claim that 'clocks run slow' because of
>> movement.
> 
> All in my above reply.

You have provided no reply to my question and obviously do not have one.

>> So what is meant by time<>time'?
> 
> All in my above reply. Simply put, comparing two clocks, that their 
> values differ.

Clock A say 1 o'clock, clock B next to it says 2 o'clock. What time is
it in your dingleberry universe?

>> given that those times are measured by counting the cycles of 
>> oscillators, which do not change PHYSICALLY  because of movement..
> 
> Thats your claim. it might be true, or it might be not. Moreover, 
> "because" is too vague of a concept and is irrelevant. And more 
> importantly,  your inquiry/reason wont change the fact that 3 <> 4; 
> it wont change that t' = (t-xv)g.

t' was never = (t-xv)g. That was only a nightmare Fitzgerald and Lorentz
had.

>> You are claiming an equation you found in a book and which is not 
>> in agreement with any known experiment.
> 
> You are a reality denier. The equation is fully in agreement with 
> exp's. That is why it is still used.

there are no such experiments except in dingleberry journals. If there
were, there wouldn't be such desperate attempts to link the name
Einstein with any new physics development.

>> Nature is not your way at all.
> 
> EXACTLY!!! that why I dont lay forward a "way"; I dont tell nature 
> what are the "causes" of such and such effects. However, YOU DO; you
>  are imposeing your beliefs on nature. But as you just said, "Nature
>  is not your way at all.".

I don't have beliefs. I just follow what I see and know is correct.

>> Your vague t' = (t-xv)g. wont change t=t'.
> 
> But actually exp's vindicate t' = (t-xv)g and refute t=t'. Have you 
> never looked at your watch/cell and compared it to someone next to 
> you (or a clock on your wall etc)? Have you never noticed that they 
> usually all differ? See, t' <> t.

Oh dear! I'm beginning to feel really sorry for you now. Are you related
to our little gawy, by any chance?

>>> To date, all exp's support it.
>> 
>> Not one experiment has supported the silly idea....
> 
> You are a reality denier.
> 
>> What do you dingleberries mean when you say time changes with 
>> movement?
> 
> All in my above reply.

No, you still haven't even understood the question.

>> We are not getting anywhere fast, are we....we're still a stage 1.
> 
> yes, you are stuck at stage one. Me, I progressed to a much higher 
> stage (houses, cars, vacations all year long,...).

..all paid for by the Grand Conspiracy, I presume.

>> and you are certainly incapable of answering it.
> 
> But I did. Whats going on, is that you dont accept it because you are
> a reality denier. And a trademark of reality deniers is that they are
> stuck in a low level livelihood. Does that sound like you? Realizing
> this might be your first step in improving your situation.

All you have repeated over and over is that two clocks are set 
differently if their readings are different. A two year old kid would 
probably know that



--

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#428502

From	Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com>
Date	2017-08-13 05:42 -0700
Message-ID	<5b18a291-d078-4d99-9c17-31096683da09@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#428498

On Sunday, August 13, 2017 at 4:53:03 AM UTC-6, HGW... wrote:
>
> Ah! this is good. You are admitting that GPS clocks that change rates
> after being sent into orbit actually do physically change. It has
> nothing to do with Einstein after all.

Nope.  Cs atoms in atomic clocks operate in free fall, whether on earth
or in orbit.  There is no mechanism by which they can "physically change."

One of your objections to invariant light-speed is that there is no
mechanism to make light invariant, therefore it can't be.  But you ignore
that argument in the GPS question when it suits you.

> Well, now let's see. Say a GPS clock emits N ticks during the time the
> Earth rotates precisely once. Let the same clock emit N+n ticks per
> rotation when in orbit. Wouldn't you agree that this is a direct
> indication that the clock has been physically affected by being launched
> into orbit?

Where is the mechanism for this?  The clock is OFF during launch and the
atoms are in freefall before and after launch.

> ...Or to put hat another way, if you wanted to know if a clock had
> changed after being sent into orbit, would it not be a good idea to
> compare its rate before and after launch with the Earth's rotation
> period, which can be used in both locations and certainly does not
> change significantly in a few days?

That doesn't make any sense whatever.  The earth's rotation period varies
with every earthquake and even every rocket launched into space.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5b/Deviation_of_day_length_from_SI_day.svg

As you can see, the length of the day varies by milliseconds whereas the
time difference of atomic clocks in orbit is only 0.038 milliseconds.

Obviously, one would compare it to a similar clock that remained on the
ground.  Your words amount to drivel.

> there are no such experiments except in dingleberry journals.

Keep up your delusional denial of reality.  It's very entertaining :-)

> If there were, there wouldn't be such desperate attempts to link the name
> Einstein with any new physics development.

The only desperation I see here is in your futile attempts to deny reality.

> I don't have beliefs. I just follow what I see and know is correct.

Yeah, like you "know" that there are no superior beings in the entire
universe :-))

“we think everything in this universe has to conform to our paradigm
of what makes sense. Do you have any idea how arrogant that view
is and on how little of this universe we base it?” ― Robert Buettner

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#428503

From	mlwozniak@wp.pl
Date	2017-08-13 05:52 -0700
Message-ID	<5a92704f-cbd8-46da-92e9-0f6d77fcae01@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#428502

W dniu niedziela, 13 sierpnia 2017 14:42:47 UTC+2 użytkownik Gary Harnagel napisał:

> Nope.  Cs atoms in atomic clocks operate in free fall, whether on earth
> or in orbit.  There is no mechanism by which they can "physically change."

Such mechanism exists of course, it's called "a human",
poor idiot.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#428798

From	"HGW..." <hgw@....>
Date	2017-08-15 12:14 +1000
Message-ID	<omtldq$dr4$1@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to	#428502

On 13/08/17 22:42, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Sunday, August 13, 2017 at 4:53:03 AM UTC-6, HGW... wrote:
>>
>> Ah! this is good. You are admitting that GPS clocks that change rates
>> after being sent into orbit actually do physically change. It has
>> nothing to do with Einstein after all.
> 
> Nope.  Cs atoms in atomic clocks operate in free fall, whether on earth
> or in orbit.  There is no mechanism by which they can "physically change."

But the only way to check that is to send one into orbit and then 
compare its new rate against that of a clock on the ground. If the clock 
hasn't changed, what has, shithead?.

> One of your objections to invariant light-speed is that there is no
> mechanism to make light invariant, therefore it can't be.  But you ignore
> that argument in the GPS question when it suits you.
> 
>> Well, now let's see. Say a GPS clock emits N ticks during the time the
>> Earth rotates precisely once. Let the same clock emit N+n ticks per
>> rotation when in orbit. Wouldn't you agree that this is a direct
>> indication that the clock has been physically affected by being launched
>> into orbit?
> 
> Where is the mechanism for this?  The clock is OFF during launch and the
> atoms are in freefall before and after launch.

The atoms are doing lots of things after launch that they were not doing 
beforehand....like whizzing through the Earth;s magnetic and gravity 
fields....so we can check for physical changes by checking its new rate.

>> ...Or to put hat another way, if you wanted to know if a clock had
>> changed after being sent into orbit, would it not be a good idea to
>> compare its rate before and after launch with the Earth's rotation
>> period, which can be used in both locations and certainly does not
>> change significantly in a few days?
> 
> That doesn't make any sense whatever.  The earth's rotation period varies
> with every earthquake and even every rocket launched into space.

It varies very little...too small to prevent clock checking. ...and its 
average period is actually monitored on a clock...which is naturally 
what one would use.

> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5b/Deviation_of_day_length_from_SI_day.svg
> 
> As you can see, the length of the day varies by milliseconds whereas the
> time difference of atomic clocks in orbit is only 0.038 milliseconds.
> 
> Obviously, one would compare it to a similar clock that remained on the
> ground.  Your words amount to drivel.

The rate of the clock on the ground matches the average rate of the 
Earth. That gets rid of spurious varations.


--

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#428810

From	Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com>
Date	2017-08-14 21:06 -0700
Message-ID	<610885fe-241e-4e8c-92c0-28aee56d3033@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#428798

On Monday, August 14, 2017 at 8:14:24 PM UTC-6, HGW... wrote:
>
> On 13/08/17 22:42, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > On Sunday, August 13, 2017 at 4:53:03 AM UTC-6, HGW... wrote:
> > >
> > > Ah! this is good. You are admitting that GPS clocks that change rates
> > > after being sent into orbit actually do physically change. It has
> > > nothing to do with Einstein after all.
> > 
> > Nope.  Cs atoms in atomic clocks operate in free fall, whether on earth
> > or in orbit.  There is no mechanism by which they can "physically change."
> 
> But the only way to check that is to send one into orbit and then 
> compare its new rate against that of a clock on the ground. If the clock 
> hasn't changed, what has,

How it is being measured, of course.

> shithead?.

"If you can't be interesting without profanity, then let's face it:  You're not
that interesting." -- Michael Hyatt

> > One of your objections to invariant light-speed is that there is no
> > mechanism to make light invariant, therefore it can't be.  But you ignore
> > that argument in the GPS question when it suits you.

Which demonstrates your hypocrisy.  You would really like to forget about
that, wouldn't you.

> > > Well, now let's see. Say a GPS clock emits N ticks during the time the
> > > Earth rotates precisely once. Let the same clock emit N+n ticks per
> > > rotation when in orbit. Wouldn't you agree that this is a direct
> > > indication that the clock has been physically affected by being launched
> > > into orbit?
> > 
> > Where is the mechanism for this?  The clock is OFF during launch and the
> > atoms are in freefall before and after launch.
> 
> The atoms are doing lots of things after launch that they were not doing 
> beforehand....like whizzing through the Earth;s magnetic and gravity
> fields

The earth has a magnetic and gravitational field on the ground, too,
obfuscating one.

> ....so we can check for physical changes by checking its new rate.

The new rate of the clock?  According to astronauts on the ISS, their
clocks are running at the correct rate but those on the ground are running
slow.  Want to take bets on the ACES experiment that will launch next
year?  Oh, yeah, they're all part of the "conspiracy."

> > > ...Or to put hat another way, if you wanted to know if a clock had
> > > changed after being sent into orbit, would it not be a good idea to
> > > compare its rate before and after launch with the Earth's rotation
> > > period, which can be used in both locations and certainly does not
> > > change significantly in a few days?
> > 
> > That doesn't make any sense whatever.  The earth's rotation period varies
> > with every earthquake and even every rocket launched into space.
> 
> It varies very little...too small to prevent clock checking. ...and its 
> average period is actually monitored on a clock...which is naturally 
> what one would use.

You are really one dishonest weasel, Ralphie-boy.  I guess you didn't
even LOOk at the info that proves you dead wrong:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5b/Deviation_of_day_length_from_SI_day.svg

> > As you can see, the length of the day varies by milliseconds whereas the
> > time difference of atomic clocks in orbit is only 0.038 milliseconds.
> > 
> > Obviously, one would compare it to a similar clock that remained on the
> > ground.  Your words amount to drivel.

Yeah, it's compared to clocks on the ground, baloney-butt.  Are you trying
to weasel out of one of your stupid assertions again?

> The rate of the clock on the ground matches the average rate of the 
> Earth. That gets rid of spurious varations.

More stupid assertions from stupid ignorant Ralphie-boy who can't keep
track of all his lies.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#428918

From	"HGW..." <hgw@....>
Date	2017-08-16 11:47 +1000
Message-ID	<on086t$8qh$1@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to	#428810

On 15/08/17 14:06, Gary Harnagel contributed his usual Conspiracy material.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#428921

From	Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com>
Date	2017-08-15 18:56 -0700
Message-ID	<35784542-cd20-4bde-ba80-bb9f555c4931@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#428918

On Tuesday, August 15, 2017 at 7:47:14 PM UTC-6, HGW... wrote:
>
> On 15/08/17 14:06, Gary Harnagel contributed his usual Conspiracy material.

Typical commie techniques:  black is white, truth is falsehood, etc.

Stupid, ignorant, dishonest Henral Rabwil conducts his usual disinformation
agenda.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#428975

From	"HGW..." <hgw@....>
Date	2017-08-16 20:22 +1000
Message-ID	<on16cn$1g20$2@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to	#428921

On 16/08/17 11:56, Gary Harnagel wrote: I was born a mental retard and 
am quite content to go through life that way.

--

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#429011

From	Prudence Oppenheimer <phow@innfldo.sp>
Date	2017-08-16 15:45 +0000
Message-ID	<on1pa7$csj$1@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to	#428975

HGW... wrote:

> On 16/08/17 11:56, Gary Harnagel wrote: I was born a mental retard and
> am quite content to go through life that way.

I disagree. He might not be mental, just acid to the extreme.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#428513

From	rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com>
Date	2017-08-13 07:19 -0700
Message-ID	<b0129348-b1f2-428b-a984-9c9d64a3d269@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#428498

On Sunday, August 13, 2017 at 6:53:03 AM UTC-4, HGW... wrote:
> On 13/08/17 12:40, rotchm wrote:

> > For instance, say yo buy two cheap watches at the dollar store. You 
> > start them indicating noon. A few hours later you cheng them and they
> > read 3:22 & 3:38 resp. since these two values differ, you would say
> > that the 3:22 watch is slower than the other; it "runs slow". To say
> > this, you did not need to know the inner workings of those watches.
> > If two values differ, then t' < t and they casually call that "runs
> > slow". But a smart person would realize that it does not run slow;
> > only that the empirical fact was that t' < t. It is the " t' < t "
> > that we casually translate in words as "run slow".
> 
> Ah! this is good. You are admitting that GPS clocks that change rates
> after being sent into orbit actually do physically change.

Where do I say that in the above? You must have a severe reading deficiency. 

> It has nothing to do with Einstein after all. 

Nature, clocks, have nothing to do with E. We agreed on this already. 

> Well, now let's see. Say a GPS clock emits N ticks during the time the
> Earth rotates precisely once. Let the same clock emit N+n ticks per
> rotation when in orbit. Wouldn't you agree that this is a direct
> indication that the clock has been physically affected by being launched
> into orbit?

No, I would not describe it that way since its too vague & misleading. I told you that already. You must have a severe memory problem. 

> ...Or to put hat another way, if you wanted to know if a clock had
> changed after being sent into orbit, would it not be a good idea to
> compare its rate before and after launch 

That is what is done. They are careful and regularly compare *values*. 
Recall that "rates" is simple the measurement (noting/logging) *values*

> I think my situation is at least as good as yours. 

Delusions & lies. We know you & your situation. 

> > *if* ?  What does that have to do with anything? Whether the 
> > oscillator changed or not, the clock  displays a *value*, no?
> 
> I will ask you again. SINCE the oscillator has not changed, what has?

The question does not apply. Might as well ask why the cat crossed the street! 

> What factors could possibly make the clock 'value' change?

You already said it: Nature.
Nature does what it does. It changes the values of its clocks. 
We realized that we will never know why nor how, so
we just model/predict those values. You are still stuck in the area that you believe that you can know "why". 

> >> I see! The count is unimportant because it is the number shown on 
> >> the clock which IS important.
> > 
> > YES!!! You finally got it!
> 
> So I have got it that Rotty reckons the clock number is both important
> and not important.

You have a severe reading problem. The process/mechanism of counting is unimportant. The end result/value is. 

> Well if you are defining time as that which is on the dial of a clock, I
> can only feel sorry for you. 

But that is the definition! When YOU speak of 'time' you mean the value on a clock.  If you mean something else, then use a different word, because 'time' is already used for something else. You do know the use of a 'definition' right?

> If you have ten clocks together and they
> all read differently, what would you say about time at their location?

You have timeS. [many books describe it that way btw]. 'time' is relative to a given clock; you have time on that clock, time on this clock etc...
You seem ignorant of the basic concepts & definitions used. If you want to speak relativity or physics, you should first learn the language, the definitions of the words used! If you doubt, you will be lost (which is why you are)

> >> The question did not ask what is meant by two numbers on clocks. It
> >> asks what is meant by the claim that 'clocks run slow' because of
> >> movement.
> > 
> > All in my above reply.
> 
> You have provided no reply to my question and obviously do not have one.

Yes I did. So now you resort to direct lies. 
I give you the answer again: it means that the two values differed. 

> >> So what is meant by time<>time'?
> > 
> > All in my above reply. Simply put, comparing two clocks, that their 
> > values differ.

Soo diot wilson, the answer is there too. Cant afford any glasses?

> Clock A say 1 o'clock, clock B next to it says 2 o'clock. What time is
> it in your dingleberry universe?

Click A displays 1. Clock B displays 2. Simple, no?
Its 1 o'clock on A and 2 o'clock on B. This is a kindergarten question! You need to catch up! Say that in your world you have a watch on each arm. You notice now that one indicates 1 & the other indicates 2. What time is it?
The only thing you can conclude is that one indicates 1 & the other indicates 2. Well, thats relativity, but relativity gives a formula that will predict those values! 

> t' was never = (t-xv).

You Are a reality denier. 

> >> You are claiming an equation you found in a book and which is not 
> >> in agreement with any known experiment.
> > 
> > You are a reality denier. The equation is fully in agreement with 
> > exp's. That is why it is still used.
> 
> there are no such experiments except in dingleberry journals.

And according to you there are no proof that the earth is round because all such 'proofs' are made by scientist & past philosophers. 

> If there were, there wouldn't be such desperate attempts to link 
> the name Einstein with any new physics development.

That does not follow. Your logic is failing you. The above is irrelevant since it wont change the fact that 1 <> 2, no matter who you praise.  They are  merely confirming a prediction of relativity. . 

> >> Nature is not your way at all.
> > 
> > EXACTLY!!! that why I dont lay forward a "way"; I dont tell nature 
> > what are the "causes" of such and such effects. However, YOU DO; you
> >  are imposeing your beliefs on nature. But as you just said, "Nature
> >  is not your way at all.".
> 
> I don't have beliefs. I just follow what I see and know is correct.

You should not do that. Havent you ever seen a magician in action? 
Or the illusions such as
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Checker_shadow_illusion
or
http://sploid.gizmodo.com/what-kind-of-sorcery-illusion-lets-these-two-blocks-be-1478431828
or
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-ss0kAzJFeDw/T3War4AIhYI/AAAAAAAADSg/8CepxdMCArQ/s1600/optical-illusion-01.jpg

and MANY more fascinating ones. 

> and know is correct.

How do you know "its correct"?

> > But actually exp's vindicate t' = (t-xv)g and refute t=t'. Have you 
> > never looked at your watch/cell and compared it to someone next to 
> > you (or a clock on your wall etc)? Have you never noticed that they 
> > usually all differ? See, t' <> t.

No answer? Stumped again? Its a simple yes/no answer btw!

> No, you still haven't even understood the question.

You mean that you still did not understand it, due to your skewed beliefs and very limited reasoning power. 

> ..all paid for by the Grand Conspiracy, I presume.

Dont matter from where. But it works!

> All you have repeated over and over is that two clocks are set 
> differently if their readings are different. 

Thats a lie, I never said that. So thats how you argue, by making direct lies. That wont get you far and make you look like a fool moreso.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#428799

From	"HGW..." <hgw@....>
Date	2017-08-15 12:26 +1000
Message-ID	<omtm4i$ffk$1@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to	#428513

On 14/08/17 00:19, rotchm wrote:
> On Sunday, August 13, 2017 at 6:53:03 AM UTC-4, HGW... wrote:
>> On 13/08/17 12:40, rotchm wrote:
> 
>>> For instance, say yo buy two cheap watches at the dollar store. You
>>> start them indicating noon. A few hours later you cheng them and they
>>> read 3:22 & 3:38 resp. since these two values differ, you would say
>>> that the 3:22 watch is slower than the other; it "runs slow". To say
>>> this, you did not need to know the inner workings of those watches.
>>> If two values differ, then t' < t and they casually call that "runs
>>> slow". But a smart person would realize that it does not run slow;
>>> only that the empirical fact was that t' < t. It is the " t' < t "
>>> that we casually translate in words as "run slow".
>>
>> Ah! this is good. You are admitting that GPS clocks that change rates
>> after being sent into orbit actually do physically change.
> 
> Where do I say that in the above? You must have a severe reading deficiency.
> 
>> It has nothing to do with Einstein after all.
> 
> Nature, clocks, have nothing to do with E. We agreed on this already.

Ah we agree again. All changes in clock rates are due to real physical 
changes in the clocks.

>> Well, now let's see. Say a GPS clock emits N ticks during the time the
>> Earth rotates precisely once. Let the same clock emit N+n ticks per
>> rotation when in orbit. Wouldn't you agree that this is a direct
>> indication that the clock has been physically affected by being launched
>> into orbit?
> 
> No, I would not describe it that way since its too vague & misleading. I told you that already. You must have a severe memory problem.
> 
>> ...Or to put hat another way, if you wanted to know if a clock had
>> changed after being sent into orbit, would it not be a good idea to
>> compare its rate before and after launch
> 
> That is what is done. They are careful and regularly compare *values*.
> Recall that "rates" is simple the measurement (noting/logging) *values*

..and that is how to measure any difference between the pre-launch and 
after launch rate.


>>
>> I will ask you again. SINCE the oscillator has not changed, what has?
> 
> The question does not apply. Might as well ask why the cat crossed the street!

The question my not apply to anyone as brainless as the cat across the 
road...but since a clock is merely a counter of oscillator cycles, any 
change in its count must be indicative of a change in the oscillator 
itself. Can you understand that?

>> What factors could possibly make the clock 'value' change?
> 
> You already said it: Nature.
> Nature does what it does. It changes the values of its clocks.
> We realized that we will never know why nor how, so
> we just model/predict those values. You are still stuck in the area that you believe that you can know "why".

I know why my clocks run slow and fast. I think you are a very confused 
person.

>>>> I see! The count is unimportant because it is the number shown on
>>>> the clock which IS important.
>>>
>>> YES!!! You finally got it!
>>
>> So I have got it that Rotty reckons the clock number is both important
>> and not important.
> 
> You have a severe reading problem. The process/mechanism of counting is unimportant. The end result/value is.
> 
> 
>> Well if you are defining time as that which is on the dial of a clock, I
>> can only feel sorry for you.
> 
> But that is the definition! When YOU speak of 'time' you mean the value on a clock.  If you mean something else, then use a different word, because 'time' is already used for something else. You do know the use of a 'definition' right?

Oh dear! I think it is time to give up this silly conversation. Rotty is 
apparently unaware of the fact that time existed long before the first 
clocks were made.

>> If you have ten clocks together and they
>> all read differently, what would you say about time at their location?
> 
> You have timeS. [many books describe it that way btw]. 'time' is relative to a given clock; you have time on that clock, time on this clock etc...

Would those times be related to the fairies at the bottom of the garden?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#428807

From	rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com>
Date	2017-08-14 20:03 -0700
Message-ID	<ef115a5c-e0ac-4ce4-ae7b-9825cf531ebd@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#428799

On Monday, August 14, 2017 at 10:26:31 PM UTC-4, HGW... wrote:
> On 14/08/17 00:19, rotchm wrote:

> > Nature, clocks, have nothing to do with E. We agreed on this already.
> 
> Ah we agree again. All changes in clock rates are due to real physical 
> changes in the clocks.

So says who? And irrelevant because true or not, nature will do what it does, as agreed by you.

> > The question does not apply. Might as well ask why the cat crossed 
> > the street!
> 
> The question my not apply to anyone as brainless as the cat across the 
> road...but since a clock is merely a counter of oscillator cycles, any 
> change in its count must be indicative of a change in the oscillator 
> itself. Can you understand that?

I understand why you dont understand. Cant you just accept that clocks indicate *values*, no matter "how" they work !? 

> > But that is the definition! When YOU speak of 'time' you mean the 
> > value on a clock.  If you mean something else, ...
>
> Oh dear! I think it is time to give up this silly conversation. Rotty is 
> apparently unaware of the fact that time existed long before the first 
> clocks were made.

You are not aware of the various definitions of 'time'? You're too ignorant to discuss physics & relativity then. Relativity has a very specific definition for 'time'. Thats the definition I'm using, and which you must too. If you mean something else, chose a different word. LEARN THE MEANING OF THE WORDS before you try to discuss. 

> > You have timeS. [many books describe it that way btw]. 
> > 'time' is relative to a given clock; you have time on that 
> > clock, time on this clock etc...
> 
> Would those times be related to the fairies at the bottom of the garden?

Perhaps or not. But irrelevant because that wont change the fact that 1+1=2, that t' = (t-xv)g.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#428819

From	mlwozniak@wp.pl
Date	2017-08-14 22:30 -0700
Message-ID	<50156cf3-0349-4412-a1bc-31cee74ce51e@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#428807

W dniu wtorek, 15 sierpnia 2017 05:03:43 UTC+2 użytkownik rotchm napisał:

> You are not aware of the various definitions of 'time'? You're too ignorant to discuss physics & relativity then. Relativity has a very specific definition for 'time'. Thats the definition I'm using, and which you must too. If you mean something else, chose a different word. LEARN THE MEANING OF THE WORDS before you try to discuss. 

Why won't you LEARN THE MEANING OF THE WORDS and
choose another word than "time"? "time in the meaning
of relativistic moron" would be fine, don't you 
think, poor idiot?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#428968

From	"HGW..." <hgw@....>
Date	2017-08-16 19:42 +1000
Message-ID	<on142g$1crb$1@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to	#428807

On 15/08/17 13:03, rotchm wrote:
> On Monday, August 14, 2017 at 10:26:31 PM UTC-4, HGW... wrote:
>> On 14/08/17 00:19, rotchm wrote:
> 
>>> Nature, clocks, have nothing to do with E. We agreed on this
>>> already.
>> 
>> Ah we agree again. All changes in clock rates are due to real
>> physical changes in the clocks.
> 
> So says who? And irrelevant because true or not, nature will do what
> it does, as agreed by you.

Nature does what the laws of physics demand.

>>> The question does not apply. Might as well ask why the cat
>>> crossed the street!
>> 
>> The question my not apply to anyone as brainless as the cat across
>> the road...but since a clock is merely a counter of oscillator
>> cycles, any change in its count must be indicative of a change in
>> the oscillator itself. Can you understand that?
> 
> I understand why you dont understand. Cant you just accept that
> clocks indicate *values*, no matter "how" they work !?

The reason clocks indicate values is that are designe dto count hte 
numbers of cycles made by an oscillator in a certain time.

>>> But that is the definition! When YOU speak of 'time' you mean
>>> the value on a clock.  If you mean something else, ...
>> 
>> Oh dear! I think it is time to give up this silly conversation.
>> Rotty is apparently unaware of the fact that time existed long
>> before the first clocks were made.
> 
> You are not aware of the various definitions of 'time'? 

There is no definition of time. It is just a  basic dimension, like 
space. However the cycle of an oscillator can be used to define an 
absolute interval of time.

> You're too
> ignorant to discuss physics & relativity then. 

My theory, BaTh, is the true version of relativity. I see no point in 
discussing a sham version other than to point out its flaws.

>  Relativity has a very
> specific definition for 'time'. Thats the definition I'm using, and
> which you must too. If you mean something else, chose a different
> word. LEARN THE MEANING OF THE WORDS before you try to discuss.

It is a ridiculous definition, made with the sole intention of making 
Einstein's silly theory impossible to refute.


--

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#428994

From	rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com>
Date	2017-08-16 07:31 -0700
Message-ID	<47138cc3-ee67-4de2-ad7a-c0dbc2f9137b@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#428968

On Wednesday, August 16, 2017 at 5:42:44 AM UTC-4, HGW... wrote:
> On 15/08/17 13:03, rotchm wrote:

> > So says who? And irrelevant because true or not, nature will do what
> > it does, as agreed by you.
> 
> Nature does what the laws of physics demand.

And we dont know the laws of physics, and we will never know. We can only find models (some of which we call "law of physics"). But here, depends what we mean by "law of physics". And all this is irrelevant to the discussion. The point being that nature does what it does, as you agreed to. So YOU cant tell us nor her, how nature works behind the scenes.  

> > I understand why you dont understand. Cant you just accept that
> > clocks indicate *values*, no matter "how" they work !?
> 
> The reason clocks indicate values is that are designe dto count hte 
> numbers of cycles made by an oscillator in a certain time.

They do what they do. 

> > You are not aware of the various definitions of 'time'? 
> 
> There is no definition of time. 

A lie or great ignorance on your part. There are such definitions, and in SR specifically, and in applied physics (particle physics in particular); they have a clear definition of 'time' and even operation definitions. 

> It is just a  basic dimension, like space. 

Color too is a dimension. Temperature too... Whatever parameter we can play with, we can model it via symbols & math. The *values* of clocks we can play with, so its a dimension. We define 'time' via these clocks, so we can play with 'time'. Thus time is a dimension, symbolized as "t". 

> However the cycle of an oscillator can be used to define an 
> absolute interval of time.

One cycle is one cycle. 

> My theory, BaTh, is the true version of relativity. I see no point in 
> discussing a sham version other than to point out its flaws.

But your model doesnt make correct predictions. 

> >  Relativity has a very
> > specific definition for 'time'. Thats the definition I'm using,
>
> It is a ridiculous definition, made with the sole intention of making 
> Einstein's silly theory impossible to refute.

But such a definition WORKS! It makes correct predictions, permits is to advance technology etc. contrary to your model.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#429005

From	mlwozniak@wp.pl
Date	2017-08-16 08:12 -0700
Message-ID	<073bcf73-f2bb-49f4-888e-1d1d5f22ee90@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#428994

W dniu środa, 16 sierpnia 2017 16:31:40 UTC+2 użytkownik rotchm napisał:
> On Wednesday, August 16, 2017 at 5:42:44 AM UTC-4, HGW... wrote:
> > On 15/08/17 13:03, rotchm wrote:
> 
> > > So says who? And irrelevant because true or not, nature will do what
> > > it does, as agreed by you.
> > 
> > Nature does what the laws of physics demand.
> 
> And we dont know the laws of physics, and we will never know. We can only find models (some of which we call "law of physics"). But here, depends what we mean by "law of physics". And all this is irrelevant to the discussion. The point being that nature does what it does, as you agreed to. So YOU cant tell us nor her, how nature works behind the scenes.  
> 
> 
> 
> > > I understand why you dont understand. Cant you just accept that
> > > clocks indicate *values*, no matter "how" they work !?
> > 
> > The reason clocks indicate values is that are designe dto count hte 
> > numbers of cycles made by an oscillator in a certain time.
> 
> They do what they do. 
> 
> 
> 
> > > You are not aware of the various definitions of 'time'? 
> > 
> > There is no definition of time. 
> 
> A lie or great ignorance on your part. There are such definitions, and in SR specifically, and in applied physics (particle physics in particular); they have a clear definition of 'time' and even operation definitions. 
> 
> > It is just a  basic dimension, like space. 
> 
> Color too is a dimension. Temperature too... Whatever parameter we can play with, we can model it via symbols & math. The *values* of clocks we can play with, so its a dimension. We define 'time' via these clocks, so we can play with 'time'. Thus time is a dimension, symbolized as "t". 
> 
> > However the cycle of an oscillator can be used to define an 
> > absolute interval of time.
> 
> One cycle is one cycle. 
> 
> 
> > My theory, BaTh, is the true version of relativity. I see no point in 
> > discussing a sham version other than to point out its flaws.
> 
> But your model doesnt make correct predictions. 
> 
> > >  Relativity has a very
> > > specific definition for 'time'. Thats the definition I'm using,
> >
> > It is a ridiculous definition, made with the sole intention of making 
> > Einstein's silly theory impossible to refute.
> 
> But such a definition WORKS!

Surely it does, and according to it the time of GPS is
galilean, wih the precision of an acceptable error.
The definiotion was the only reasonable thing  your
idiot guru has ever wrote about time.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#429089

From	"HGW..." <hgw@....>
Date	2017-08-17 08:42 +1000
Message-ID	<on2hp5$1k69$1@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to	#428994

On 17/08/17 00:31, rotchm wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 16, 2017 at 5:42:44 AM UTC-4, HGW... wrote:
>> On 15/08/17 13:03, rotchm wrote:
> 
>>> So says who? And irrelevant because true or not, nature will do
>>> what it does, as agreed by you.
>> 
>> Nature does what the laws of physics demand.
> 
> And we dont know the laws of physics, and we will never know. We can
> only find models (some of which we call "law of physics"). But here,
> depends what we mean by "law of physics". And all this is irrelevant
> to the discussion. The point being that nature does what it does, as
> you agreed to. So YOU cant tell us nor her, how nature works behind
> the scenes.
> 
> 
> 
>>> I understand why you dont understand. Cant you just accept that 
>>> clocks indicate *values*, no matter "how" they work !?
>> 
>> The reason clocks indicate values is that are designe dto count
>> hte numbers of cycles made by an oscillator in a certain time.
> 
> They do what they do.

A long time ago, a few smart people realized that there was a thing 
called time which kept on 'passing'. They decided to try to measure it 
somehow and found that the Earth's rotation seemed like a good place to 
start. At no time did anyone imagine that measuring its flow would 
constitute a definition. Similarly with space. Space cannot be DEFINED 
as 'that which a ruler measures' even though it is precisely what a 
ruler does measure. Space came before the ruler, just as time existed 
before the first clock.

One can correctly say that a ruler measures an interval of space or a 
clock measures an interval of time but those statements do not 
constitute a definition.

>>> You are not aware of the various definitions of 'time'?
>> 
>> There is no definition of time.
> 
> A lie or great ignorance on your part. There are such definitions,
> and in SR specifically, and in applied physics (particle physics in
> particular); they have a clear definition of 'time' and even
> operation definitions.

Einstein defined time as 'that which a clock measures' and subsequently 
became famous for concocting the most ridiculous theory of all time 
based on that definition.

>> It is just a  basic dimension, like space.
> 
> Color too is a dimension. Temperature too... Whatever parameter we
> can play with, we can model it via symbols & math. The *values* of
> clocks we can play with, so its a dimension. We define 'time' via
> these clocks, so we can play with 'time'. Thus time is a dimension,
> symbolized as "t".

Wrong approach altogether. You wouldn't define lightning by a photograph 
of a flash.

>> However the cycle of an oscillator can be used to define an 
>> absolute interval of time.
> 
> One cycle is one cycle.

Yes...and it occupies and defines an absolute interval of time.

>> My theory, BaTh, is the true version of relativity. I see no point
>> in discussing a sham version other than to point out its flaws.
> 
> But your model doesnt make correct predictions.

Of course it does. It predicts the result of the only legitimate check 
of OWLS ever carried out...that of using orbiting stars as moving light 
sources.
BaTh predicts and matches most variable star curves by simply assuming 
that light travels at c+v. What better proof can you get?
No other theory can explain the vast majority of star brightness 
variability. BaTh does it is one simple hit.

>>> Relativity has a very specific definition for 'time'. Thats the
>>> definition I'm using,
>> 
>> It is a ridiculous definition, made with the sole intention of
>> making Einstein's silly theory impossible to refute.
> 
> But such a definition WORKS! It makes correct predictions, permits is
> to advance technology etc. contrary to your model.

None of its predictions has been verified.
> 
> 

--

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#429097

From	rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com>
Date	2017-08-16 17:13 -0700
Message-ID	<7c165f97-25b6-490c-8365-3481bc377204@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#429089

On Wednesday, August 16, 2017 at 6:42:51 PM UTC-4, HGW... wrote:
> On 17/08/17 00:31, rotchm wrote:

> > They do what they do.
> 
> A long time ago, a few smart people realized that there was a thing 
> called time which kept on 'passing'. They decided to try to measure it

And soon after, they found out that they cant measure what they have yet to define. How can they measure 'time' if no one agrees on its meaning!? 
So they have been knowingly using the vague idea of 'time' until they can figure out & agree on a concise definition. 

> somehow and found that the Earth's rotation seemed like a good place to 
> start. 

Yes. And they quickly dropped that since it wasn't convenient, for many reasons!

> At no time did anyone imagine that measuring its flow would 
> constitute a definition. 

Wrong. many philosophers BC have been pondering that. Newton even wrote about it. 

> Similarly with space. Space cannot be DEFINED 

It can be defined to the whim of the definer. This is one of the many standards bureaus. Note that distance & time have operational definitions. 

> >> There is no definition of time.
> > 
> > A lie or great ignorance on your part. There are such definitions,
> > and in SR specifically, and in applied physics (particle physics in
> > particular); they have a clear definition of 'time' and even
> > operation definitions.
> 
> Einstein defined time as 'that which a clock measures' and subsequently 
> became famous for concocting the most ridiculous 

Actually Poincare defined 'time' that way, prior to 1905. Recall that he was appointed head engineer of Europe to define time and to synch clocks, hence Poincare's many treaties on 'time' 'science' & 'conventions'.   

> >> It is just a  basic dimension, like space.
> > 
> > Color too is a dimension. Temperature too... Whatever parameter we
> > can play with, we can model it via symbols & math. The *values* of
> > clocks we can play with, so its a dimension. We define 'time' via
> > these clocks, so we can play with 'time'. Thus time is a dimension,
> > symbolized as "t".
> 
> Wrong approach altogether. 

Maybe YOU dont like it, but that approach WORKS and is very convenient.  

> You wouldn't define lightning by a photograph of a flash.

Well, you could define it that way, but that would not be convenient. There are more convenient definitions. 

> > One cycle is one cycle.
> 
> Yes...and it occupies and defines an absolute interval of time.

Call it that if you want. But saying it that way is unnecessary salad & ambiguous. Much more concise to say,  "One cycle is one cycle", or "the counter/clock displays 0 then 1". 

> > But your model doesnt make correct predictions.
> 
> Of course it does. 

So you say. 

> None of its predictions has been verified.

Again, you are a reality denier.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#429197

From	"HGW..." <hgw@....>
Date	2017-08-18 08:59 +1000
Message-ID	<on574j$1fv1$1@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to	#429097

On 17/08/17 10:13, rotchm wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 16, 2017 at 6:42:51 PM UTC-4, HGW... wrote:
>> On 17/08/17 00:31, rotchm wrote:
> 
>>> They do what they do.
>> 
>> A long time ago, a few smart people realized that there was a thing called time which kept on 'passing'. They
>> decided to try to measure it
> 
> And soon after, they found out that they cant measure what they have yet to define. How can they measure 'time' if no
> one agrees on its meaning!? So they have been knowingly using the vague idea of 'time' until they can figure out &
> agree on a concise definition.
> 
>> somehow and found that the Earth's rotation seemed like a good place to start.
> 
> Yes. And they quickly dropped that since it wasn't convenient, for many reasons!

I wouldn't call ten thousand years 'quickly' compared with twenty.

>> At no time did anyone imagine that measuring its flow would constitute a definition.
> 
> Wrong. many philosophers BC have been pondering that. Newton even wrote about it.
> 
>> Similarly with space. Space cannot be DEFINED
> 
> It can be defined to the whim of the definer. This is one of the many standards bureaus. Note that distance & time
> have operational definitions.

Specifying a length standard does not DEFINE length or space itself.

>> 
>> Einstein defined time as 'that which a clock measures' and subsequently became famous for concocting the most
>> ridiculous
> 
> Actually Poincare defined 'time' that way, prior to 1905. Recall that he was appointed head engineer of Europe to
> define time and to synch clocks, hence Poincare's many treaties on 'time' 'science' & 'conventions'.

Well, since Einstein blatantly plagiarized Poincare's entire theory, the does not surprise me at all.

>>>> It is just a  basic dimension, like space.
>>> 
>>> Color too is a dimension.

This is possible.

 > Temperature too...

No, temperature can be defined in terms of the four dimensions we know.

>>> Whatever parameter we can play with, we can model it via symbols & math. The *values* of clocks we can play with,
>>> so its a dimension. We define 'time' via these clocks, so we can play with 'time'. Thus time is a dimension, 
>>> symbolized as "t".

No Rotty, we recognize the dimension we call time and we have devised ways to measure it based on the concept that the
period of an oscillator DEFINE an absolute time interval.. We use the symbol 't' for obvious reasons.

>> Wrong approach altogether.
> 
> Maybe YOU dont like it, but that approach WORKS and is very convenient.
> 
>> You wouldn't define lightning by a photograph of a flash.
> 
> Well, you could define it that way, but that would not be convenient. There are more convenient definitions.

I can define TIME as just being an infinite axis, the coordinates of which represent the ordering of events.... No
mention of clocks.....

>>> One cycle is one cycle.
>> 
>> Yes...and it occupies and defines an absolute interval of time.
> 
> Call it that if you want. But saying it that way is unnecessary salad & ambiguous. Much more concise to say,  "One
> cycle is one cycle", or "the counter/clock displays 0 then 1".

I can't see how that would achieve anything. Such a clock might just as well display yellow then red.



--

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 10 of 12 — ← Prev page 1 … 8 9 [10] 11 12 Next page →

csiph-web

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

Contents

#428475

#428498

#428502

#428503

#428798

#428810

#428918

#428921

#428975

#429011

#428513

#428799

#428807

#428819

#428968

#428994

#429005

#429089

#429097

#429197