Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #428163

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	2017-08-11 09:31 +1000
Organization	Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID	<omiqc0$9tk$1@gioia.aioe.org> (permalink)
References	(7 earlier) <f977fc51-a28c-4491-80a3-dbcc6619c979@googlegroups.com> <omenc1$1idu$1@gioia.aioe.org> <d76b5e72-7ba4-4aa9-b3c7-90406963cb02@googlegroups.com> <omg4at$1k7$1@gioia.aioe.org> <35cd2b0a-358a-4d26-895e-c818b29878b6@googlegroups.com>

Show all headers | View raw

On 10/08/17 10:06, rotchm wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 9, 2017 at 7:03:04 PM UTC-4, HGW... wrote:

> 

> 
> Always have. It is you that still doesnt get that, as your argument
> above where you thing that 'clock' and 'oscillator' are different
> concepts (for the discussion).

The 'clock' is just a peripheral to the oscillator. It is what happens 
to the oscillator that we must consider.

>> Now, since the oscillator does not change in any way, why should
>> the count of its cycles change?
> 
> Did you not comprehend what I told you?  "why" is irrelevant; its
> metaphysics. We have a model that predicts the values, in agreement
> with empirical facts  ( t' <> t ).

'Why' is certainly not in physics, about which you apparently know 
nothing. If such empirical facts exist, I am asking you to explain in 
simple terms what they mean.
I gather you believe that applying a force to an oscillator somehow 
affects time. Which time do you have in mind? Is is just local to the 
oscillator?
So what actually does t<>t' mean in terms of the oscillators?

Can you understand that question?

>> 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?
> 
> *if* the clock's count rate changes... ???  So what if it does or
> not; its irrelevant. 1+1=2 no matter if it changes or not.  t' =
> (t-xv)g no matter if it changes or not.
> 
> 
>> For christs sake I am talking about the situations before the 
>> acceleration and after it has ceased.
> 
> So am I.
> 
>> 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.
> 
> ?? Im not aware of anybody claiming that here. Ell, Im not anw.
> 
>> I just want you to explain what that actually means.
> 
> Its the same answer as in my first reply to you: Its a play on words;
> its sloppy verbose. TD, time slows down, ticks slower,... etc are all
> gross vulgerizations. Best to say t' = (t-xv)g which is clear &
> concise.

OK you said it. "time slows down". Can you now enlarge on that 
statement. Are you claiming that whenever a force is applied to 
something, eg an oscillator, time slows down. Do you mean time slows 
everywhere or just in the oscillator itself?

> 
>> Anyone can make up an equation....like 2+2 =5...
> 
> But that is wrong and can be shown that its false (if one takes the
> usual meaning of these symbols).

and t' = (t-xv)g is wrong and has been shown to be meaningless and 
impossible.

>>>> If the oscillators do not change,
>>> 
>>> So sayeth God ?
>> 
>> No! So sayeth trivial logic...
> 
> But where is the logic? You only made void claims. You did dot show
> from the premises, that "oscillators do not change". Show the
> mathematical logical steps that lead to this conclusion.

In he absence of an absolute frame, speed dependency of an intrinsic 
property or quantity is impossible for the simple reason that a change 
in speed is always about equally positive and negative.

>> The whole model is based on a fallacious postulate.
> 
> Perhaps. nonetheless, its conclusions agree with empirical facts.

there are no such empirical facts.

>> What it predicts is of no value to anyone.
> 
> False... It greatly helped the advancement of technology.

None of Einstein's theory has ever been used in technology.
> 

--

Thread

csiph-web