Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #430040 > unrolled thread

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

Started by	HGW <HW@home.net>
First post	2017-08-26 09:09 +1000
Last post	2017-09-09 17:12 -0700
Articles	20 on this page of 27 — 7 participants

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

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Page 1 of 2 [1] 2 Next page →

#430040 — Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow?

From	HGW <HW@home.net>
Date	2017-08-26 09:09 +1000
Subject	Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow?
Message-ID	<onqans$1drr$1@gioia.aioe.org>

On 25/08/17 10:54, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> HGW <HW@home.net> wrote:

>>> As I said, while beginning students have no problem distinguishing the
>>> concepts of speed and velocity, this is too
>>> complicated for you and you want to eliminate one so you only have to think about one.
>>
>> Bodkin, none of your examples has refuted what I said. 'Sameness' is not
>> frame dependent. How could it be? Your examples
>> all involve things that are NOT the same in any frame.
> 
> Not so!

Bodkin you are arguing purely to be an annoyance.
Anyway, as far as my proof that Einstein's RoS is logically impossible requires that two NUMBERS which are the same in 
one frame be the same in all frames.

Do you not agree that number is frame independent?

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#430043

From	Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com>
Date	2017-08-26 01:42 +0000
Message-ID	<onqjmj$1qu3$1@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to	#430040

HGW <HW@home.net> wrote:
> On 25/08/17 10:54, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> HGW <HW@home.net> wrote:
> 
>>>> As I said, while beginning students have no problem distinguishing the
>>>> concepts of speed and velocity, this is too
>>>> complicated for you and you want to eliminate one so you only have to think about one.
>>> 
>>> Bodkin, none of your examples has refuted what I said. 'Sameness' is not
>>> frame dependent. How could it be? Your examples
>>> all involve things that are NOT the same in any frame.
>> 
>> Not so!
> 
> Bodkin you are arguing purely to be an annoyance.
> Anyway, as far as my proof that Einstein's RoS is logically impossible
> requires that two NUMBERS which are the same in 
> one frame be the same in all frames.
> 
> Do you not agree that number is frame independent?
> 

Not if the numbers are measurements. Didn't I say this already?


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

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

#430111

From	HGW <HW@home.net>
Date	2017-08-27 09:17 +1000
Message-ID	<onsvig$1mkj$1@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to	#430043

On 26/08/17 11:42, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> HGW <HW@home.net> wrote:

>> Bodkin you are arguing purely to be an annoyance. Anyway, as far as my proof that Einstein's RoS is logically
>> impossible requires that two NUMBERS which are the same in one frame be the same in all frames.
>> 
>> Do you not agree that number is frame independent?
>> 
> 
> Not if the numbers are measurements. Didn't I say this already?

...another interesting claim.

Two clocks are connected by a rod and are synchronized with light.

C1________________________________C2

Using identical guns, bullets are fired between them in opposite directions, (the guns being fixed to the rod). As 
expected, the readings of both clocks advance by the same number N during the opposite transits of the bullets.

Readers now note: Bodkin is so stupid he believes the number N is frame dependent because the bullet speeds are.

Bodkin, you seem to be quite good at ancient Aristotlean philosophy. Why don't you stick with that and leave physics to 
those who are capable of understanding it?
-- 

    HGW, DSc.

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

#430246

From	Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com>
Date	2017-08-28 08:52 -0500
Message-ID	<oo1772$1s1h$1@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to	#430111

On 8/26/17 6:17 PM, HGW wrote:
> On 26/08/17 11:42, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> HGW <HW@home.net> wrote:
> 
>>> Bodkin you are arguing purely to be an annoyance. Anyway, as far as 
>>> my proof that Einstein's RoS is logically
>>> impossible requires that two NUMBERS which are the same in one frame 
>>> be the same in all frames.
>>>
>>> Do you not agree that number is frame independent?
>>>
>>
>> Not if the numbers are measurements. Didn't I say this already?
> 
> ...another interesting claim.
> 
> Two clocks are connected by a rod and are synchronized with light.
> 
> C1________________________________C2
> 
> Using identical guns, bullets are fired between them in opposite 
> directions, (the guns being fixed to the rod). As expected, the readings 
> of both clocks advance by the same number N during the opposite transits 
> of the bullets.
> 
> Readers now note: Bodkin is so stupid he believes the number N is frame 
> dependent because the bullet speeds are.

No. It is sometimes possible in some circumstances (like a ballistic 
case) to make two measured numbers frame-independent. This does not 
translate into some rule that says ALL sameness of ALL measured numbers 
is frame dependent. Nor does countering that claim imply that NO 
sameness of ALL measured numbers is frame dependent.

Some sets of measured numbers that are the same in one frame will be the 
same in other frames. Other sets of measured numbers that are the same 
in one frame will not be the same in another frame.

Therefore the hypothesized "rule" that "sameness is frame invariant" 
which you are arguing is LOGICALLY obvious, is obviously false, 
demonstrating that you wouldn't know Logic if Logic had a big nametag 
that said "Hi, I'm Logic" and walked up and kissed on the lips.

> 
> Bodkin, you seem to be quite good at ancient Aristotlean philosophy. Why 
> don't you stick with that and leave physics to those who are capable of 
> understanding it?

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

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

#430328

From	HGW <HW@home.net>
Date	2017-08-29 08:24 +1000
Message-ID	<oo2570$1fu3$1@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to	#430246

On 28/08/17 23:52, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 8/26/17 6:17 PM, HGW wrote:

>>>>
>>>> Do you not agree that number is frame independent?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Not if the numbers are measurements. Didn't I say this already?
>>
>> ...another interesting claim.
>>
>> Two clocks are connected by a rod and are synchronized with light.
>>
>> C1________________________________C2
>>
>> Using identical guns, bullets are fired between them in opposite directions, (the guns being fixed to the rod). As 
>> expected, the readings of both clocks advance by the same number N during the opposite transits of the bullets.
>>
>> Readers now note: Bodkin is so stupid he believes the number N is frame dependent because the bullet speeds are.
> 
> No. It is sometimes possible in some circumstances (like a ballistic case) to make two measured numbers 
> frame-independent. This does not translate into some rule that says ALL sameness of ALL measured numbers is frame 
> dependent. Nor does countering that claim imply that NO sameness of ALL measured numbers is frame dependent.

I take that to indicate that this is far too hard for a wood worker and he is not sure how to answer.

> Some sets of measured numbers that are the same in one frame will be the same in other frames. Other sets of measured 
> numbers that are the same in one frame will not be the same in another frame.
> 
> Therefore the hypothesized "rule" that "sameness is frame invariant" which you are arguing is LOGICALLY obvious, is 
> obviously false, demonstrating that you wouldn't know Logic if Logic had a big nametag that said "Hi, I'm Logic" and 
> walked up and kissed on the lips.

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?

Bodkin, in Einstein's RoS, there are two rigidly connected clocks, the readings of which are known to both advance by 
the SAME NUMBERS during opposite transits of light signals between them (if the light sources are connected to them).
Will you, as the woodworker, still insist that those numbers are frame dependent or will you, as the 
would-be-if-could-be physicist, agree with the obvious that they are not.


-- 

    HGW, DSc.

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

#430568

From	Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com>
Date	2017-08-31 13:37 -0500
Message-ID	<oo9l17$srs$2@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to	#430328

On 8/28/17 5:24 PM, HGW wrote:
> On 28/08/17 23:52, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> On 8/26/17 6:17 PM, HGW wrote:
> 
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you not agree that number is frame independent?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Not if the numbers are measurements. Didn't I say this already?
>>>
>>> ...another interesting claim.
>>>
>>> Two clocks are connected by a rod and are synchronized with light.
>>>
>>> C1________________________________C2
>>>
>>> Using identical guns, bullets are fired between them in opposite 
>>> directions, (the guns being fixed to the rod). As expected, the 
>>> readings of both clocks advance by the same number N during the 
>>> opposite transits of the bullets.
>>>
>>> Readers now note: Bodkin is so stupid he believes the number N is 
>>> frame dependent because the bullet speeds are.
>>
>> No. It is sometimes possible in some circumstances (like a ballistic 
>> case) to make two measured numbers frame-independent. This does not 
>> translate into some rule that says ALL sameness of ALL measured 
>> numbers is frame dependent. Nor does countering that claim imply that 
>> NO sameness of ALL measured numbers is frame dependent.
> 
> I take that to indicate that this is far too hard for a wood worker and 
> he is not sure how to answer.
> 
>> Some sets of measured numbers that are the same in one frame will be 
>> the same in other frames. Other sets of measured numbers that are the 
>> same in one frame will not be the same in another frame.
>>
>> Therefore the hypothesized "rule" that "sameness is frame invariant" 
>> which you are arguing is LOGICALLY obvious, is obviously false, 
>> demonstrating that you wouldn't know Logic if Logic had a big nametag 
>> that said "Hi, I'm Logic" and walked up and kissed on the lips.
> 
> 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...."

> 
> Bodkin, in Einstein's RoS, there are two rigidly connected clocks, 

Rigid connections are impossible, even in an ideal world. They violate 
the known laws of physics. Attempting to make a point by supposing the 
existence of something that cannot possibly exist proves nothing.

> the 
> readings of which are known to both advance by the SAME NUMBERS during 
> opposite transits of light signals between them (if the light sources 
> are connected to them).
> Will you, as the woodworker, still insist that those numbers are frame 
> dependent or will you, as the would-be-if-could-be physicist, agree with 
> the obvious that they are not.
> 
> 


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

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

#431009

From	HGW <HW@home.net>
Date	2017-09-04 20:24 +1000
Message-ID	<ooj9kb$1ffa$1@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to	#430568

On 01/09/17 04:37, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 8/28/17 5:24 PM, HGW wrote:

>> I take that to indicate that this is far too hard for a wood worker and he is not sure how to answer.
>> 
>>> Some sets of measured numbers that are the same in one frame will be the same in other frames. Other sets of
>>> measured numbers that are the same in one frame will not be the same in another frame.
>>> 
>>> Therefore the hypothesized "rule" that "sameness is frame invariant" which you are arguing is LOGICALLY obvious,
>>> is obviously false, demonstrating that you wouldn't know Logic if Logic had a big nametag that said "Hi, I'm
>>> Logic" and walked up and kissed on the lips.
>> 
>> 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.

>> Bodkin, in Einstein's RoS, there are two rigidly connected clocks,
> 
> Rigid connections are impossible, even in an ideal world. They violate the known laws of physics. Attempting to make
> a point by supposing the existence of something that cannot possibly exist proves nothing.

Bodkin, you should not try to argue with a physicist. You simply do not understand the subject. Einstein's whole SR was
based in thought experiments and rigid rods are perfectly legitimate in such experiments.

>> the readings of which are known to both advance by the SAME NUMBERS during opposite transits of light signals
>> between them (if the light sources are connected to them). Will you, as the woodworker, still insist that those
>> numbers are frame dependent or will you, as the would-be-if-could-be physicist, agree with the obvious that they
>> are not.

    HGW, DSc.

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

#431052

From	moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
Date	2017-09-04 16:35 +0000
Message-ID	<oojvd2$5ml$3@pcls7.std.com>
In reply to	#431009

HGW <HW@home.net> writes:

>On 01/09/17 04:37, Odd Bodkin wrote:

>>> Bodkin, in Einstein's RoS, there are two rigidly connected clocks,
>> 
>> Rigid connections are impossible, even in an ideal world. They violate the known laws of physics. Attempting to make
>> a point by supposing the existence of something that cannot possibly exist proves nothing.

>Bodkin, you should not try to argue with a physicist.

Bodkin's not arguing with a physicist.  He is arguing with you, Ralph 
Rabbidge, who pretends to be physicist Henry Wilson.

Photoshopping a diploma does not a physicist make.

> You simply do not understand the subject. Einstein's whole SR was
>based in thought experiments and rigid rods are perfectly legitimate in 
>such experiments.

Ralph, a perfectly rigid rod would require infinite stiffness and
therefore a speed of sound in the rod that exceeds the speed of light
(infinite speed).  Even a non-physicist such as yourself should understand
that's impossible.

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

#431106

From	HGW <HW@home.net>
Date	2017-09-05 08:49 +1000
Message-ID	<ookl9d$1tjh$1@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to	#431052

On 05/09/17 02:35, Michael Moroney wrote:
> HGW <HW@home.net> writes:
> 
>> On 01/09/17 04:37, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> 
>>>> Bodkin, in Einstein's RoS, there are two rigidly connected clocks,
>>>
>>> Rigid connections are impossible, even in an ideal world. They violate the known laws of physics. Attempting to make
>>> a point by supposing the existence of something that cannot possibly exist proves nothing.
> 
>> Bodkin, you should not try to argue with a physicist.
> 
> Bodkin's not arguing with an ordinary physicist.  He is arguing with an exceptional physicist, Henry Wilson.
> 
> Photoshopping a diploma does not a physicist make.
> 
>> You simply do not understand the subject. Einstein's whole SR was
>> based in thought experiments and rigid rods are perfectly legitimate in
>> such experiments.
> 
> Henry, a perfectly rigid rod would require infinite stiffness and
> therefore a speed of sound in the rod that exceeds the speed of light
> (infinite speed).  Even a non-physicist such as yourself should understand

> that's impossible .

Mickey the Moron, country shithouse owner, should not argue with anyone who does not understand country shithouses.



-- 

    HGW, DSc.

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

#431107

From	Ethel Ocallaghan <unlgclo@awlwaac.ag>
Date	2017-09-04 22:52 +0000
Message-ID	<ooklg9$1sp2$2@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to	#431106

HGW wrote:

> On 05/09/17 02:35, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> Henry, a perfectly rigid rod would require infinite stiffness and
>> therefore a speed of sound in the rod that exceeds the speed of light
>> (infinite speed).  Even a non-physicist such as yourself should
>> understand that's impossible .
> 
> Mickey the Moron, country shithouse owner, should not argue with anyone
> who does not understand country shithouses.

This looks like a perfectly valid argument.

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

#431198

From	moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
Date	2017-09-05 14:55 +0000
Message-ID	<oomdst$bop$3@pcls7.std.com>
In reply to	#431106

HGW <HW@home.net> writes:

>On 05/09/17 02:35, Michael Moroney did not write:
>> HGW <HW@home.net> writes:
>> 
>>> Bodkin, you should not try to argue with a physicist.
>> 
>> Bodkin's not arguing with an ordinary physicist.  He is arguing with an exceptional physicist, Henry Wilson.

Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge, you are only proving your own insanity by changing
what I wrote, Ralph.  Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge, you know perfectly well that
you are no physicist, you merely pretend to be one (poorly at that) here,
Ralph.  Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge, there is no physicist "Henry Wilson", Ralph.

>> Photoshopping a diploma does not a physicist make.

No matter how many diplomas you photoshop together, Ralph,
nothing will change the fact that all you are is a kook kooking away
from his basement in Australia, Ralph.

>>> You simply do not understand the subject. Einstein's whole SR was
>>> based in thought experiments and rigid rods are perfectly legitimate in
>>> such experiments.
>> 
>> Ralph, a perfectly rigid rod would require infinite stiffness and
>> therefore a speed of sound in the rod that exceeds the speed of light
>> (infinite speed).  Even a non-physicist such as yourself should understand
>> that's impossible .

>Mickey the Moron, country shithouse owner, should not argue with anyone
>who does not understand country shithouses.

So no answer to the impossibility of the perfectly rigid rod you'd need,
Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge?  All you have is insults, Ralph?

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

#431116

From	Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com>
Date	2017-09-05 00:42 +0000
Message-ID	<ookrtc$77c$3@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to	#431009

HGW <HW@home.net> wrote:
> On 01/09/17 04:37, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> On 8/28/17 5:24 PM, HGW wrote:
> 
>>> I take that to indicate that this is far too hard for a wood worker and
>>> he is not sure how to answer.
>>> 
>>>> Some sets of measured numbers that are the same in one frame will be
>>>> the same in other frames. Other sets of
>>>> measured numbers that are the same in one frame will not be the same in another frame.
>>>> 
>>>> Therefore the hypothesized "rule" that "sameness is frame invariant"
>>>> which you are arguing is LOGICALLY obvious,
>>>> is obviously false, demonstrating that you wouldn't know Logic if
>>>> Logic had a big nametag that said "Hi, I'm
>>>> Logic" and walked up and kissed on the lips.
>>> 
>>> 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?

> 
>>> Bodkin, in Einstein's RoS, there are two rigidly connected clocks,
>> 
>> Rigid connections are impossible, even in an ideal world. They violate
>> the known laws of physics. Attempting to make
>> a point by supposing the existence of something that cannot possibly exist proves nothing.
> 
> Bodkin, you should not try to argue with a physicist. You simply do not
> understand the subject. Einstein's whole SR was
> based in thought experiments and rigid rods are perfectly legitimate in such experiments.

Nope. Not cool in thought experiments to suppose the breaking of laws of
physics. 

> 
>>> the readings of which are known to both advance by the SAME NUMBERS
>>> during opposite transits of light signals
>>> between them (if the light sources are connected to them). Will you, as
>>> the woodworker, still insist that those
>>> numbers are frame dependent or will you, as the would-be-if-could-be
>>> physicist, agree with the obvious that they
>>> are not.
> 
>    HGW, DSc.
> 



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

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

#431141

From	HGW <HW@home.net>
Date	2017-09-05 20:15 +1000
Message-ID	<ooltfj$1n2s$1@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to	#431116

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?

>>>> Bodkin, in Einstein's RoS, there are two rigidly connected clocks,
>>>
>>> Rigid connections are impossible, even in an ideal world. They violate
>>> the known laws of physics. Attempting to make
>>> a point by supposing the existence of something that cannot possibly exist proves nothing.
>>
>> Bodkin, you should not try to argue with a physicist. You simply do not
>> understand the subject. Einstein's whole SR was
>> based in thought experiments and rigid rods are perfectly legitimate in such experiments.
> 
> Nope. Not cool in thought experiments to suppose the breaking of laws of
> physics.

Bodkin, when one talks about a 'rigid rod' or a 'perfect clock', one means a rod or a clock that is sufficiently stable 
for any errors due to lack of rigidity to be insignificant in the experiment in question.

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

#431175

From	Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com>
Date	2017-09-05 08:55 -0500
Message-ID	<oomac0$ftk$2@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to	#431141

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?

> 
>>>>> Bodkin, in Einstein's RoS, there are two rigidly connected clocks,
>>>>
>>>> Rigid connections are impossible, even in an ideal world. They violate
>>>> the known laws of physics. Attempting to make
>>>> a point by supposing the existence of something that cannot possibly 
>>>> exist proves nothing.
>>>
>>> Bodkin, you should not try to argue with a physicist. You simply do not
>>> understand the subject. Einstein's whole SR was
>>> based in thought experiments and rigid rods are perfectly legitimate 
>>> in such experiments.
>>
>> Nope. Not cool in thought experiments to suppose the breaking of laws of
>> physics.
> 
> Bodkin, when one talks about a 'rigid rod' or a 'perfect clock', one 
> means a rod or a clock that is sufficiently stable for any errors due to 
> lack of rigidity to be insignificant in the experiment in question.

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.


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

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

#431262

From	HGW <HW@home.net>
Date	2017-09-06 09:01 +1000
Message-ID	<oonabi$c5u$1@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to	#431175

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.

>>>>>> Bodkin, in Einstein's RoS, there are two rigidly connected clocks,
>>>>>
>>>>> Rigid connections are impossible, even in an ideal world. They violate
>>>>> the known laws of physics. Attempting to make
>>>>> a point by supposing the existence of something that cannot possibly exist proves nothing.
>>>>
>>>> Bodkin, you should not try to argue with a physicist. You simply do not
>>>> understand the subject. Einstein's whole SR was
>>>> based in thought experiments and rigid rods are perfectly legitimate in such experiments.
>>>
>>> Nope. Not cool in thought experiments to suppose the breaking of laws of
>>> physics.
>>
>> Bodkin, when one talks about a 'rigid rod' or a 'perfect clock', one means a rod or a clock that is sufficiently 
>> stable for any errors due to lack of rigidity to be insignificant in the experiment in question.
> 
> 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.



-- 

    HGW, DSc.

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

#431338

From	Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com>
Date	2017-09-06 08:58 -0500
Message-ID	<ooouui$10ol$1@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to	#431262

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.

> 
>>>>>>> Bodkin, in Einstein's RoS, there are two rigidly connected clocks,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Rigid connections are impossible, even in an ideal world. They 
>>>>>> violate
>>>>>> the known laws of physics. Attempting to make
>>>>>> a point by supposing the existence of something that cannot 
>>>>>> possibly exist proves nothing.
>>>>>
>>>>> Bodkin, you should not try to argue with a physicist. You simply do 
>>>>> not
>>>>> understand the subject. Einstein's whole SR was
>>>>> based in thought experiments and rigid rods are perfectly 
>>>>> legitimate in such experiments.
>>>>
>>>> Nope. Not cool in thought experiments to suppose the breaking of 
>>>> laws of
>>>> physics.
>>>
>>> Bodkin, when one talks about a 'rigid rod' or a 'perfect clock', one 
>>> means a rod or a clock that is sufficiently stable for any errors due 
>>> to lack of rigidity to be insignificant in the experiment in question.
>>
>> 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.


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

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

#431350

From	"HGW, DSc." <HG@....>
Date	2017-09-07 01:09 +1000
Message-ID	<oop33o$1al7$1@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to	#431338

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.


>>> 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.

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

#431366

From	Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com>
Date	2017-09-06 13:01 -0500
Message-ID	<oopd6c$bl$2@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to	#431350

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

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

#431453

From	"HGW, DSc." <HG@....>
Date	2017-09-07 21:22 +1000
Message-ID	<oora5t$140a$1@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to	#431366

On 07/09/17 04:01, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 9/6/17 10:09 AM, HGW, DSc. wrote:


>> 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.

A number has a specific meaning. It describes how many are in a group.
I will concede however that these days, we are often asked to rate
something on a scale, such as '0 to 10'. That is really a misuse of
number because it is not specific enough. Numbers have exact values.

Anyway, this nonsense has gone on long enough. You are just trying to
waste my time.
I repeat, "if two things are identical in one frame, they are identical
in all frames. Sameness is not frame dependent...and that fact brings
down Einstein RoS.


>>>> 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.
> 
>

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

#431454

From	Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com>
Date	2017-09-07 04:35 -0700
Message-ID	<252df2ea-5b07-4f7a-b218-66912e3c5463@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#431453

On Thursday, September 7, 2017 at 6:22:41 AM UTC-5, HGW, DSc. wrote:

> Anyway, this nonsense has gone on long enough. You are just trying to
> waste my time.
> I repeat, "if two things are identical in one frame, they are identical
> in all frames. Sameness is not frame dependent...and that fact brings
> down Einstein RoS.

Physics by fiat. Thanks, God, for your profound insight.

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

Page 1 of 2 [1] 2 Next page →

csiph-web

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

Contents

#430040 — Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow?

#430043

#430111

#430246

#430328

#430568

#431009

#431052

#431106

#431107

#431198

#431116

#431141

#431175

#431262

#431338

#431350

#431366

#431453

#431454