Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #428799

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	2017-08-15 12:26 +1000
Organization	Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID	<omtm4i$ffk$1@gioia.aioe.org> (permalink)
References	(15 earlier) <28d564bf-9bdc-4b45-b0ab-f69f5b9b3584@googlegroups.com> <omo6a9$goc$1@gioia.aioe.org> <b939aa9d-2840-4381-aa4d-8f748d6bfd3e@googlegroups.com> <ompb2d$1vf5$1@gioia.aioe.org> <b0129348-b1f2-428b-a984-9c9d64a3d269@googlegroups.com>

Show all headers | View raw

On 14/08/17 00:19, rotchm wrote:
> On Sunday, August 13, 2017 at 6:53:03 AM UTC-4, HGW... wrote:
>> On 13/08/17 12:40, rotchm wrote:
> 
>>> For instance, say yo buy two cheap watches at the dollar store. You
>>> start them indicating noon. A few hours later you cheng them and they
>>> read 3:22 & 3:38 resp. since these two values differ, you would say
>>> that the 3:22 watch is slower than the other; it "runs slow". To say
>>> this, you did not need to know the inner workings of those watches.
>>> If two values differ, then t' < t and they casually call that "runs
>>> slow". But a smart person would realize that it does not run slow;
>>> only that the empirical fact was that t' < t. It is the " t' < t "
>>> that we casually translate in words as "run slow".
>>
>> Ah! this is good. You are admitting that GPS clocks that change rates
>> after being sent into orbit actually do physically change.
> 
> Where do I say that in the above? You must have a severe reading deficiency.
> 
>> It has nothing to do with Einstein after all.
> 
> Nature, clocks, have nothing to do with E. We agreed on this already.

Ah we agree again. All changes in clock rates are due to real physical 
changes in the clocks.

>> Well, now let's see. Say a GPS clock emits N ticks during the time the
>> Earth rotates precisely once. Let the same clock emit N+n ticks per
>> rotation when in orbit. Wouldn't you agree that this is a direct
>> indication that the clock has been physically affected by being launched
>> into orbit?
> 
> No, I would not describe it that way since its too vague & misleading. I told you that already. You must have a severe memory problem.
> 
>> ...Or to put hat another way, if you wanted to know if a clock had
>> changed after being sent into orbit, would it not be a good idea to
>> compare its rate before and after launch
> 
> That is what is done. They are careful and regularly compare *values*.
> Recall that "rates" is simple the measurement (noting/logging) *values*

..and that is how to measure any difference between the pre-launch and 
after launch rate.


>>
>> I will ask you again. SINCE the oscillator has not changed, what has?
> 
> The question does not apply. Might as well ask why the cat crossed the street!

The question my not apply to anyone as brainless as the cat across the 
road...but since a clock is merely a counter of oscillator cycles, any 
change in its count must be indicative of a change in the oscillator 
itself. Can you understand that?

>> What factors could possibly make the clock 'value' change?
> 
> You already said it: Nature.
> Nature does what it does. It changes the values of its clocks.
> We realized that we will never know why nor how, so
> we just model/predict those values. You are still stuck in the area that you believe that you can know "why".

I know why my clocks run slow and fast. I think you are a very confused 
person.

>>>> I see! The count is unimportant because it is the number shown on
>>>> the clock which IS important.
>>>
>>> YES!!! You finally got it!
>>
>> So I have got it that Rotty reckons the clock number is both important
>> and not important.
> 
> You have a severe reading problem. The process/mechanism of counting is unimportant. The end result/value is.
> 
> 
>> Well if you are defining time as that which is on the dial of a clock, I
>> can only feel sorry for you.
> 
> But that is the definition! When YOU speak of 'time' you mean the value on a clock.  If you mean something else, then use a different word, because 'time' is already used for something else. You do know the use of a 'definition' right?

Oh dear! I think it is time to give up this silly conversation. Rotty is 
apparently unaware of the fact that time existed long before the first 
clocks were made.

>> If you have ten clocks together and they
>> all read differently, what would you say about time at their location?
> 
> You have timeS. [many books describe it that way btw]. 'time' is relative to a given clock; you have time on that clock, time on this clock etc...

Would those times be related to the fairies at the bottom of the garden?

Thread

csiph-web