Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #429089

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	2017-08-17 08:42 +1000
Organization	Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID	<on2hp5$1k69$1@gioia.aioe.org> (permalink)
References	(19 earlier) <b0129348-b1f2-428b-a984-9c9d64a3d269@googlegroups.com> <omtm4i$ffk$1@gioia.aioe.org> <ef115a5c-e0ac-4ce4-ae7b-9825cf531ebd@googlegroups.com> <on142g$1crb$1@gioia.aioe.org> <47138cc3-ee67-4de2-ad7a-c0dbc2f9137b@googlegroups.com>

Show all headers | View raw

On 17/08/17 00:31, rotchm wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 16, 2017 at 5:42:44 AM UTC-4, HGW... wrote:
>> On 15/08/17 13:03, rotchm wrote:
> 
>>> So says who? And irrelevant because true or not, nature will do
>>> what it does, as agreed by you.
>> 
>> Nature does what the laws of physics demand.
> 
> And we dont know the laws of physics, and we will never know. We can
> only find models (some of which we call "law of physics"). But here,
> depends what we mean by "law of physics". And all this is irrelevant
> to the discussion. The point being that nature does what it does, as
> you agreed to. So YOU cant tell us nor her, how nature works behind
> the scenes.
> 
> 
> 
>>> I understand why you dont understand. Cant you just accept that 
>>> clocks indicate *values*, no matter "how" they work !?
>> 
>> The reason clocks indicate values is that are designe dto count
>> hte numbers of cycles made by an oscillator in a certain time.
> 
> They do what they do.

A long time ago, a few smart people realized that there was a thing 
called time which kept on 'passing'. They decided to try to measure it 
somehow and found that the Earth's rotation seemed like a good place to 
start. At no time did anyone imagine that measuring its flow would 
constitute a definition. Similarly with space. Space cannot be DEFINED 
as 'that which a ruler measures' even though it is precisely what a 
ruler does measure. Space came before the ruler, just as time existed 
before the first clock.

One can correctly say that a ruler measures an interval of space or a 
clock measures an interval of time but those statements do not 
constitute a definition.

>>> You are not aware of the various definitions of 'time'?
>> 
>> There is no definition of time.
> 
> A lie or great ignorance on your part. There are such definitions,
> and in SR specifically, and in applied physics (particle physics in
> particular); they have a clear definition of 'time' and even
> operation definitions.

Einstein defined time as 'that which a clock measures' and subsequently 
became famous for concocting the most ridiculous theory of all time 
based on that definition.

>> It is just a  basic dimension, like space.
> 
> Color too is a dimension. Temperature too... Whatever parameter we
> can play with, we can model it via symbols & math. The *values* of
> clocks we can play with, so its a dimension. We define 'time' via
> these clocks, so we can play with 'time'. Thus time is a dimension,
> symbolized as "t".

Wrong approach altogether. You wouldn't define lightning by a photograph 
of a flash.

>> However the cycle of an oscillator can be used to define an 
>> absolute interval of time.
> 
> One cycle is one cycle.

Yes...and it occupies and defines an absolute interval of time.

>> My theory, BaTh, is the true version of relativity. I see no point
>> in discussing a sham version other than to point out its flaws.
> 
> But your model doesnt make correct predictions.

Of course it does. It predicts the result of the only legitimate check 
of OWLS ever carried out...that of using orbiting stars as moving light 
sources.
BaTh predicts and matches most variable star curves by simply assuming 
that light travels at c+v. What better proof can you get?
No other theory can explain the vast majority of star brightness 
variability. BaTh does it is one simple hit.

>>> Relativity has a very specific definition for 'time'. Thats the
>>> definition I'm using,
>> 
>> It is a ridiculous definition, made with the sole intention of
>> making Einstein's silly theory impossible to refute.
> 
> But such a definition WORKS! It makes correct predictions, permits is
> to advance technology etc. contrary to your model.

None of its predictions has been verified.
> 
> 

--

Thread

csiph-web