Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #427959

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 09:03 +1000
Organization	Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID	<omg4at$1k7$1@gioia.aioe.org> (permalink)
References	(5 earlier) <omc74s$1ua1$4@gioia.aioe.org> <omdm7q$aj4$1@gioia.aioe.org> <f977fc51-a28c-4491-80a3-dbcc6619c979@googlegroups.com> <omenc1$1idu$1@gioia.aioe.org> <d76b5e72-7ba4-4aa9-b3c7-90406963cb02@googlegroups.com>

Show all headers | View raw

On 09/08/17 23:49, rotchm wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 9, 2017 at 6:15:38 AM UTC-4, HGW... wrote:
>> On 09/08/17 12:23, rotchm wrote:
> 
> 
>>>> You know nothing has happened to the oscillators physically,
>>> 
>>> Irrelevant. Maybe there has, maybe not.
>> 
>> No 'maybe' about it. NOTHING HAPPENS TO THE OSCILLATOR.
> 
> How do you know this? God told you? And as I said, its totally
> irrelevant if something happened to the oscillator. What matters is,
> if the (good) clock still functions well *after* the acceleration.

The clock will only function as well as its oscillator. You seem to be 
having trouble understanding what a clock is.
Anyway, nobody is interested in what happens during the acceleration 
period. Anything that does happen is purely transient and the thing will 
soon settle down to its original state after the applied force is removed.
The proof that no physical change occurs because of an acceleration is 
trivial. The 'acceleration' will be a deceleration in half the reference 
frames in the universe and so any change would have to be both positive 
and negative.....an obvious impossibility.

>> 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?
> 
> Empirical fact. We cant argue with that. As to why this is so, dont
> matter: we have formulas that predict this.

It isn't an empirical fact at all.

>>> 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...
> 
> Yes, the devices (clocks) count the # of oscillations. This # is what
> I call the "value"; The clock counts # displays 6 oscillations: Its
> value is t = 6. Simple concept...

OK, you finally got that.. Now, since the oscillator does not change in 
any way, why should the count of its cycles change?

>> 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.
> 
> The subject I'm discussing, is the sole question in the title. Re
> read your title.

Well answer the last question. If the clock's count rate changes as 
claimed but the oscillator does not change in any way, what is the 
explanation?

> 
>> 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?
> 
> That's NOT the title, hence is not the subject I am (nor was)
> discussing with you. Nonetheless, I answered you that too. Again,
> 
> YOU are the one who claims that # of cycles when the oscillators do
> not change in any way no matter how they move. That is perhaps a
> false premise on your part. I told you to this that its irrelevant
> what happens to the clock during acceleration. 

For christs sake I am talking about the situations before the 
acceleration and after it has ceased. There has been a speed change and 
for some insane reason, you dingleberries reckon the oscillator 
frequency is now different from what it was before.

I just want you to explain what that actually means.

And to your "why
> should..." is not a physics question but a philosophical question.
> The "why" is irrelevant since what is of interest is to have
> equations that predict the values (a model).

Anyone can make up an equation....like 2+2 =5...

> 
> 
>> If the oscillators do not change,
> 
> So sayeth God ?

No! So sayeth trivial logic...

>> as we know,
> 
> We do?
> 
>> how can their movement change time itself?
> 
> "how" as "why" are irrelevant; its a philosophical (& metaphysical)
> question. We have a model (formulas) that predict their values, and
> that is all that is of interest.

The whole model is based on a fallacious postulate. What it predicts is 
of no value to anyone.

--

Thread

csiph-web