Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #428360

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	2017-08-12 10:17 +1000
Organization	Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID	<omlhf8$jd1$1@gioia.aioe.org> (permalink)
References	(9 earlier) <d76b5e72-7ba4-4aa9-b3c7-90406963cb02@googlegroups.com> <omg4at$1k7$1@gioia.aioe.org> <35cd2b0a-358a-4d26-895e-c818b29878b6@googlegroups.com> <omiqc0$9tk$1@gioia.aioe.org> <9c418168-e421-4c7e-964e-b51e28c4c7ac@googlegroups.com>

Show all headers | View raw

On 11/08/17 12:00, rotchm wrote:
> On Thursday, August 10, 2017 at 7:31:25 PM UTC-4, HGW... wrote:
>> On 10/08/17 10:06, rotchm wrote:
> 
>> The 'clock' is just a peripheral to the oscillator. It is what 
>> happens to the oscillator that we must consider.
> 
> Im using clock/counter interchangeably here; they mean the same 
> thing; A device, no matter its inner workings, displays a value.

Stop avoiding the question with nonsense. The 'clock' bit is just the
counter. The oscillator and particularly its period is what we are
discussing.

>> 'Why' is certainly not in physics,
> 
> Yes, thats what I said. Glad to see that you agree.

Why is not IRRELEVANT in physics, which is contrary to what you said.

>> I gather you believe that applying a force to an oscillator somehow
>> affects time.
> 
> No. I say that we have a formula that will predict the value 
> indicated by the device (clock) as we look/note/log/stop/observe it.

..and why should it indicate that the oscillator has changed when we
know it could not have done so?

>> Which time do you have in mind? Is is just local to the 
>> oscillator?
> 
> The value indicated by the device (the clock, no matter its inner 
> workings).

The clock indicates the number of oscillator cycles that have occurred
since its arbitrary zero.

>> So what actually does t<>t' mean in terms of the oscillators?
> 
> Irrelevant for the "oscillators". t<>t' means that two values
> differ. Like 0 <> 1, 2 <> π.

To a simple person that might appear true....but the real answer is that
movement of the oscillator has somehow changed the number of cycles that
have been counted compared with those experienced by the clock at rest.
What in your mind has brought about that change?

> 
>>> 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".
> 
> Read carefully. I said that that expression is inaccurate & should 
> not be used. Its a vulgarization, and a gross one at that. I said to 
> say t' = (t-xv)g  [or whatever formula the topic dictates].

>> Can you now enlarge on that statement.
> 
> The clear expression "t' <> t" is often grossly and inaccurately 
> stated as "time slows down" by people as you, who fear to be
> concise. Say t' <> t instead!

so what does that mean?... t<>t'?
I can only assume that your interpretation of the difference in cycle
count is due to time changing because the oscillator certainly has not.
..and you are not making any sense at all...If the oscillator has
changed, then so be it! It has physically altered.

>>> Are you claiming that whenever a force is applied to something,
>>> eg
>> an oscillator, time slows down.
> 
> No. I say that we have a formula that will predict the value 
> indicated by the device (clock) as we look/note/log/stop/observe it.

maybe the formula is quite wrong....after all, there is no proof that it
is correct and there is no apparent definition of what it means.

>> Do you mean time slows everywhere or just in the oscillator 
>> itself?
> 
> I mean that t' <> t. Meaning that when we compare the two values of 
> interest, they differ. If two clocks coincide and they display 2 &
> 3, then the values differ. very simple concept. "everywhere" or
> "over there" means nothing until one is there with a clock (or many)
> to log/note their values.

the concept is indeed simple. The moving oscillator is claimed to
now tick at a slower rate than the stationary one. ..But we know it has
not changed at all....so what are you trying to say?

>> and t' = (t-xv)g is wrong and has been shown to be meaningless and
>>  impossible.
> 
> You are a reality denier. You fear actual data because it doesnt fit 
> with your limited beliefs and thus scares you.

But you cannot even define your own version of reality so how can you 
comment on mine?
You cannot explain why the moving oscillator period should be any 
different from the stationary one...and even if you tried, you couldn't 
explain how that fits in with the fact that nothing at all has happened 
to the moving oscillator to make it any different from the stationary one.

Thread

csiph-web