Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #427949

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	2017-08-10 08:30 +1000
Organization	Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID	<omg2db$1tv4$1@gioia.aioe.org> (permalink)
References	(3 earlier) <676387ec-1a88-48f3-b045-44336a3ff654@googlegroups.com> <omdl99$9io$1@gioia.aioe.org> <39830391-e4a4-44fa-9ac5-8d895e9458cc@googlegroups.com> <omenjg$1iui$1@gioia.aioe.org> <4385d6f2-897c-4fb9-920b-556d7db381b4@googlegroups.com>

Show all headers | View raw

On 10/08/17 00:48, dancouriann@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 9, 2017 at 3:19:37 AM UTC-7, HGW... wrote:

>>>> A clock is a counter of oscillator cycles. Changing the speed
>>>> of a piezo-electric crystal reasonably carefully will not
>>>> change it in any noticeable way. That is well established.
>>> 
>>> Again, in terms of its own in inertial rest frame coordinates a
>>> well constructed clock will continue to accurately represent the
>>> temporal characteristics of all physical processes at rest in its
>>> own rest frame.  However, if such a clock is at rest in S', it
>>> runs slow compared with the time coordinate of S, and likewise a
>>> clock at rest in S runs slow compared with the time coordinate of
>>> S'.  Those two sentences may seem impossible to reconcile, but
>>> they are not.  It is all explained by the fact that energy has
>>> inertia, which implies that S and S' are related by a Lorentz
>>> transformation.
>> 
>> It is not explained and it neds no explaining because it does not 
>> happen. It is pure nonsense from start to finish.
> 
> Those are two separate criticisms, i.e., (1) it does not happen, and
> (2) it is pure nonsense.  I think the reason you are so convinced of
> (1), to the point of believing that all experimental results showing
> that it does indeed happen are falsified, etc., is because you
> believe (2) so firmly.  But (2) is easily shown to be false.  It is
> not nonsense, it is very simply derivable by simple logic and grade
> school algebra from fundamental premises that everyone (including
> you) accepts.  If you focused on this, and came to understand why (2)
> is false, you would then be more able to accept all the experimental
> evidence that (1) is also false.

There is zero experimental evidence that any of Eimstein's silly theory 
is correct.
there is plenty of evidence that proves light is ballistic.

>>> It's important to realize that special relativity is a ballistic 
>>> theory, differing from Newtonian theory only by the incorporation
>>> of the one fact that Newton missed, namely, that all forms of
>>> energy have inertia.
>> 
>> That's a new angle  :)  ....please explain if you can....
> 
> It isn't a new angle, I've explained it to you before, in detail.
> Again, in summary, all of special relativity follows from the inertia
> of energy.  Specifically, if m0 is the inertial mass of a particle at
> rest in some inertial frame, then as the particle is accelerated it
> gains kinetic energy, and this extra energy itself has inertia (as do
> all forms of energy, with constant or proportionality equal to c^2),
> and it takes only grade school algebra to show that the inertial mass
> of the particle moving at speed v in this frame is m0/sqrt(1 -
> (v/c)^2).  This dependence of inertial mass on speed has been
> demonstrated countless times in many different ways (for example,
> look at the Sun), and all of special relativity follows from this.
> In the past you have even agreed that this dependence exists, and you
> attributed it to the Wilson Bubble SomethingOrOther.  It doesn't
> matter what you call it.  If you agree that energy has inertia, you
> agree with special relativity.

What an extraordinary series of statements....absolute garbage but quite 
well expressed. Maybe you should take up preaching for a living.



--

Thread

csiph-web