Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #428465
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 10:25 +1000
Organization	Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID	<omo6a9$goc$1@gioia.aioe.org> (permalink)
References	(11 earlier) <35cd2b0a-358a-4d26-895e-c818b29878b6@googlegroups.com> <omiqc0$9tk$1@gioia.aioe.org> <9c418168-e421-4c7e-964e-b51e28c4c7ac@googlegroups.com> <omlhf8$jd1$1@gioia.aioe.org> <28d564bf-9bdc-4b45-b0ab-f69f5b9b3584@googlegroups.com>
Show all headers | View raw
On 12/08/17 12:22, rotchm wrote:
> On Friday, August 11, 2017 at 8:17:49 PM UTC-4, HGW... wrote:
>> On 11/08/17 12:00, rotchm wrote:
>>> On Thursday, August 10, 2017 at 7:31:25 PM UTC-4, HGW... wrote:
> 
>>> 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.
> 
> Its not nonsense. I am explaining to you the meaning of the words so 
> as we may understand each other.
> 
>> The 'clock' bit is just the counter. The oscillator and 
>> particularly its period is what we are discussing.
> 
> No, that's NOT what the title asks. As I said, the oscillator is 
> irrelevant. The device (clock) has some inner workings which will
> not change the formula t' = (t-xv)g.

The title asks what in meant by the notion of 'clocks running slow'
(because of movement)
The question is asked BECAUSE a clock is a counter of oscillator cycles
and there is a direct connection between the counter and the oscillator.

So if you like, I will rephrase the question so that it is easier for 
you to understand.
What do Dingleberries actually mean when they claim that the natural 
resonant frequency of a quartz crystal is altered by a speed change?

>> Why is not IRRELEVANT in physics,
> 
> Thats your deluded beliefs "why" has nothing to do with physics but 
> of philosophy or metaphysics.

You obviously have no idea of how physics operates
Probably its main aim is to explain 'why'.

>>> 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?
> 
> It does not indicate that "the oscillator has changed". it indicates 
> a *VALUE*. Are you saying that if a device displays the number 7, 
> then this means that a white cat is crossing the street ? How can
> you infer that??? Are you nuttier than idiot dono??

Don't evade the question again. If the oscillator has not changed, what 
has?

>> The clock indicates the number of oscillator cycles that have 
>> occurred since its arbitrary zero.
> 
> Well, the clock is counting something. This something is irrelevant 
> since its only the value the clock displays is of importance.

I see! The count is unimportant because it is the number shown on the 
clock which IS important.
Are you mentally disabled or something?

  But
> yes, we "say" that it counts oscillations" , but that's a gross 
> description & should be avoided for better clarity in the 
> discussions.

It is the main description and it clarifies the discussion.

>>> 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.
> 
> Perhaps, but wont change the fact that as the clock indicates "3",
> it indicates "3".

Gawd you're brilliance is really showing through today!  hahhhah!

>> What in your mind has brought about that change?
> 
> Irrelevant. Metaphysics is NOT physics.

I see, when you can't answer physics question you call it metaphysics....
Nice try!

> 
>>> 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 told you many times. This is basic grade 2 stuff!! It means that 
> the numbers differ. It means that the two values taken from the 
> clocks differ.

The question did not ask what is meant by two numbers on clocks.
It asks what is meant by the claim that 'clocks run slow' because of 
movement.
So what is meant by time<>time'? given that those times are measured by 
counting the cycles of oscillators, which do not change PHYSICALLY 
because of movement..


>> I can only assume that your interpretation of the difference in 
>> cycle count is due to time changing because the oscillator 
>> certainly has not.
> 
> Your assumptions are wrong. I simply claim that t' = (t-xv)g, and 
> this is in agreement with experiments. 

You are claiming an equation you found in a book and which is not in 
agreement with any known experiment. You are not explaining what it 
actually means.

> As to "why" nature is this 
> way, or the "inner causes" is totally irrelevant.

Nature is not your way at all. I know you would like it to be so your 
idol's name would remain the world's symbol of genius..

>> ..and you are not making any sense at all...If the oscillator has 
>> changed, then so be it! It has physically altered.
> 
> Those vague descriptions or vague words wont change t' = (t-xv)g.

Your vague t' = (t-xv)g. wont change t=t'.

>>> 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....
> 
> To date, all exp's support it.

Not one experiment has supported the silly idea....but that is not the 
issue here. Even if evidence DID support it, what would it actually 
mean? What do you dingleberries mean when you say time changes with 
movement?
We are not getting anywhere fast, are we....we're still a stage 1.

>> after all, there is no proof that it is correct
> 
> This is because you are a reality denier. This is why you are stuck 
> in your "dead end life" ...
> 
>> the concept is indeed simple. The moving oscillator is claimed to 
>> now tick at a slower rate than the stationary one. ..
> 
> Nope, because those words are meaningless; they are way to vague to 
> convey whats going on.

It is hardly meaningless to include the principle of clock operation in 
discussions about possible changes in its rate. What kind of mental 
institution are you confined to?

>> But you cannot even define your own version of reality so how can 
>> you comment on mine?
> 
> The value on a clock & logged is "eral"; it can be logged and 
> accessed.

Sorry, you don't seem to have any understanding of the question I have 
been asking....and you are certainly incapable of answering it.



--
Thread

csiph-web