Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #428487

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 17:39 +1000
Organization	Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID	<omovo3$1ff2$1@gioia.aioe.org> (permalink)
References	(12 earlier) <c6c46284-fcbf-472e-a5d1-3c2d516bd44b@googlegroups.com> <omlfr5$hi4$1@gioia.aioe.org> <76184cfa-1e5e-4f73-8fa8-b673588e68a1@googlegroups.com> <omo3nc$dqf$1@gioia.aioe.org> <feebd636-3253-464f-89bb-db4fcd50ad9d@googlegroups.com>

Show all headers | View raw

On 13/08/17 11:29, dancouriann@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, August 12, 2017 at 4:41:37 PM UTC-7, HGW... wrote:
>> I said and meant that SR is consistent with the flawed and
>> logically impossible second postulate.
> 
> Yes, but I'm still trying to find out WHY it is logically impossible.
> Every time I ask, you answers seems to end up being that it's
> logically impossible because it's not true (all evidence supporting
> it has been falsified).  And when I ask why you are so sure it is not
> true (all the evidence has been falsified), you say because the
> theory is logically impossible.  Then I ask again for an explanation
> of why it is logically impossible, and we go around the circle
> again...

The second postulate is leads to the RoS on which the rest of SR
crucially depends and which is logically impossible.

It is not esy to see why it is logically impossible, which is why I have
written up a comprehensive paper about it. Read this and stop
complaining: www.scisite.info/RoS1.html
> 
> Please, could you explain why it is logically impossible for the
> speed of light (in an inertial coordinate system) to be independent
> of the motion of the source?  I'm not asking if you think this is
> true, I'm asking why you think it is logically impossible.

The speed of light will always be measured as having the value c in the
aether theory Lorentz and Poincare because they postulates that lengths
and times are similarly dependent on absolute speed. Einstein's SR has
no unifying mechanism for light speeds from different sources and
therefore assumes that the aether exists by including its function in
his P2...(as Einstein himself eventually stated)
>> There is no mention of any 'first approximation' in Einstein's 1905
>> paper.
> 
> Are you morphing into Rafael Gato?  The later clarifying footnote was
> already self-evident to anyone reading with comprehension.  Do you
> dispute that the first order Newtonian relations are sufficient to
> define inertial coordinate systems?
> 
>> Energy has no inertia.. The very idea is meaningless and
>> ridiculous..
> 
> Do you accept that mass has inertia?

If you are defining Inertia generally as 'resistance to change', in
terms of speed changes, Mass has and only needs 'Mass' itself.

If I said "Mass has no inertia.. The very idea is meaningless and
ridiculous", would you agree?

Mass is its inertia.

Simply saying something is meaningless and ridiculous doesn't make it
so, and isn't persuasive.  Do you accept conservation of energy?  I.e.,
that energy can neither be created or destroyed, but only moved from
place to place... just like mass?  If so, how could energy NOT have inertia?

You got that wrong. Energy can neither be created or destroyed, but can
be transformed from one form to another. As for being movable from one
place to another, I'm not sure what you have in mind. Sure you can carry
gasoline around in a car but so what? It is its mass which resists such
movement, not the chemical energy it contains.

>> Kinetic energy is NOT frame dependent.
> 
> You yourself said speed (v) is frame dependent, and so the quantity
> mv^2/2 is frame dependent, right?

Kinetic energy does not really exist as a property of any particular
object. The term 1/2mv^2 is a convenience, related to the amount of
energy that can be derived from bringing a moving abject to rest. That
amount is NEVER equal to that term because stopping one object will
cause another to gain momentum and KE. As I have shown many times,
assuming no heat loss, the amount lost by the moving object equals the
amount gained by the object that absorbs it...and the total amount is
the same in all frames.
Similarly, it is easy to show that whenever an object is caused to move,
  its gained KE plus that gained in recoil by whatever accelerated it is
the same in all frames. That applies no matter what the mass ratios are.
Even an accelerating car causes the Earth to move and gain the same KE
less heat energy loss.
If the calculation is performed on a passing asteroid, the same amount
of total '1/2mv^2 energy' will result.

1/2mv^2 is obviously frame dependent and that fact is used widely,
particularly as the Earth barely moves and most speeds are referred to
it.... but it is not a quantity that should be considered separately as
energy.

>> Do a few sums and see how the creation of an amount of KE is the
>> same in all frames.
> 
> The question isn't whether the change in kinetic energy from state 1
> to state 2 is the same for all frames, the question is whether the
> kinetic energy in state 1 (for example) is the same in all frames.
> This is the same as speed, which you yourself have insisted is frame
> dependent.  The change in speed between states 1 and 2 may be the
> same in all frames, but this doesn't mean the speed is the same in
> all frames.  And since the speed v is frame dependent (as you said),
> the quantity mv^2/2 is also frame dependent.

Of course...and we use KE for convenience because like I said, the
Earth's recoil is negligible and that is usually what matters..

Consider, for instance, the energy derived from a wind farm. It wouldn't 
produce any energy if the Earth had zero mass and he wind only blew in 
one direction.

--

Thread

csiph-web