Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #428462

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	2017-08-13 09:41 +1000
Organization	Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID	<omo3nc$dqf$1@gioia.aioe.org> (permalink)
References	(10 earlier) <omhoe7$hbo$1@gioia.aioe.org> <omioec$6kk$1@gioia.aioe.org> <c6c46284-fcbf-472e-a5d1-3c2d516bd44b@googlegroups.com> <omlfr5$hi4$1@gioia.aioe.org> <76184cfa-1e5e-4f73-8fa8-b673588e68a1@googlegroups.com>

Show all headers | View raw

On 12/08/17 14:06, dancouriann@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, August 11, 2017 at 4:50:01 PM UTC-7, HGW... wrote:
>> ... SR is fully consistent with its second postulate and its
>> supporters are able to demonstrate that consistency by referring to
>> ... logic and equations...
> 
> Your previous position was that special relativity is logically
> inconsistent.  Are you now saying that it is consistent?  If so, then
> we're in agreement.
> 
>> ... because SR is fully consistent... the untrained mind is 
>> eventually misled into believing the theory must be true.
> 
> Wait, we agreed that the question of whether the theory is
> empirically true is distinct from the question of whether it is
> logically consistent.  Based on what you've said, I think we're in
> agreement that special relativity is logically consistent.

If you are going to omit specific words from my quotes you are only
serving to prove your own stupidity and desperation.

I said and meant that SR is consistent with the flawed and logically
impossible second postulate.

>> SR did not involve any experiments and nor does my proof that its
>> P2 is impossible.
> 
> Now it sounds like you are saying (again) that special relativity is
> logically impossible.  In response to my request for an explanation
> of why it is logically impossible, you say

It sounds like you are a typical slimey dingleberry bastard who has no 
interest in physics at all. Your lies do you no favours.

>> Basically all speeds MUST BE frame dependent because of he very 
>> definition of a frame.
> 
> That's not true at all.  Special relativity refers to inertial
> coordinate systems, defined as systems of coordinates in terms of
> which the equations of Newtonian mechanics hold good to the first
> approximation (which suffices to unambiguously define the coordinate
> systems).  

There is no mention of any 'first approximation' in Einstein's 1905 paper.

> If we neglect the inertia of energy, it would follow that
> inertial coordinate systems would be related by Galilean
> transformations, and all finite speeds would be frame dependent.

Energy has no inertia.. The very idea is meaningless and ridiculous..

> However, if we take the inertia of energy into account, it follows
> that inertial coordinate systems are related by Lorentz
> transformations, which implies that there is an invariant speed
> corresponding to the speed of massless energy in vacuum.  So, your
> purported proof of logical inconsistency fails because it neglects
> the possibility that energy has inertia.
> 
>> No form of energy is frame dependent.
> 
> That's not true at all.  You yourself just stated that "all speeds
> are frame dependent", and kinetic energy is proportional to the
> squared speed, so it is obviously frame dependent.  I wonder if this
> is just a problem of semantics.  With any particle of mass m moving
> at speed v, it is possible to compute the number mv^2/2, and since v
> is frame dependent, this quantity is frame dependent.  Agreed?

Not at all. Kinetic energy is NOT frame dependent.
I have fully explained why in previous posts.
Before you start screaming, do a few sums and see how the creation of an 
amount of KE is the same in all frames.

I know that is far too hard for an idiot like you.


--

Thread

csiph-web