Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #427844

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

From	"HGW..." <hgw@....>
Newsgroups	sci.physics.relativity
Subject	Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow?
Date	2017-08-09 20:15 +1000
Organization	Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID	<omenc1$1idu$1@gioia.aioe.org> (permalink)
References	(3 earlier) <omb6ne$852$2@gioia.aioe.org> <ed31ac46-1a76-45e1-bdaa-bb3514c24e30@googlegroups.com> <omc74s$1ua1$4@gioia.aioe.org> <omdm7q$aj4$1@gioia.aioe.org> <f977fc51-a28c-4491-80a3-dbcc6619c979@googlegroups.com>

Show all headers | View raw

On 09/08/17 12:23, rotchm wrote:

> On Tuesday, August 8, 2017 at 8:44:37 PM UTC-4, HGW... wrote:

>> You certainly are. You are missing the fact that the clocks are
>> mere counters of cycles,
> 
> Nope. Its implicit.
> 
>> eg, a crystal in a tuned circuit.. Did you mean 'Tor1<>Tor2' where
>> the Tors are the oscillator periods.
> 
> Yes. The *values* differ; t' <> t. very simple concept.
> 
> 
>> If so, what are you actually saying?
> 
> The clocks indicate different values; t' <> t.
> 
>> You know nothing has happened to the oscillators physically,
> 
> Irrelevant. Maybe there has, maybe not.

No 'maybe' about it. NOTHING HAPPENS TO THE OSCILLATOR.

Nonetheless, if their values differ, that is, if t' <> t, then this is
grossly called TD.

The values do not differ. Nothing happens to either oscillator..so why
should the clocks count different numbers of cycles?

>> so are you claiming that accelerating a crystal can change time
>> flow in its vicinity?
> 
> That is not what I claimed. I said that if their values differ, then
> we call this TD.

what fucking values? We are talking about the oscillators, the cycles of
which the clock counts. That is what a clock does you know...

> 
>> That is plainly stupid because the crystal will slow down or speed
>> up when a force is applied depending on the reference...so will
>> time slow or quicken?
> 
> This is a totally different subject. Dont mix up 'time' with the
> value indicated on a particular clock.

Christ! you are so bloody stupid you cannot even understand the
question! It is not a different subject. It is the subject we are
discussing.
I'll ask you again. Why should the clocks count different numbers of
cycles when the oscillators do not change in any way no matter how they
move?

> 'time' implicitly makes references to a set of clocks (many clocks)
> in a given reference frame, and where a synch procedure has been
> given. The value of a clock however, needs not a synch procedure.

This has nothing to do with what we are trying to discuss. You are
obviously completely lost. This subject is far too hard for you.

> If you push (accelerate) a clock, then we can *expect* it to change
> its properties, break, or whatever. BUT once the acceleration done
> and is inertial, **if** it still functions as its specifications
> requires (in essence we put ourselves in the same inertial frame as
> it and verify it), then we call this a 'good clock', or simply a
> 'clock'.  Note that if we have a (good) clock, then exps have shown
> that even under great accelerations its change in value (proper time
> (interval)) still satisfied  Δt' = ∫ dt/g, where g = 1/√(1-v²),
> where v = v(t) = dx/dt, where x = x(t), its trajectory during its
> acceleration. This is sometimes called a "hidden postulate" of SR,
> the "clock hypothesis": 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clock_hypothesis

faked...absolute bullshit!

> IOW, *its value* will change by the amount Δt' = ∫ dt/g. Dont call
> this 'time slows down" or TD. call it Δt' = ∫ dt/g. Its much more
> concise that way, just as t' <> t.

If the oscillators do not change, as we know, how can their movement
change time itself?



--

Thread

csiph-web