Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #429357

Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow?

From	Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com>
Newsgroups	sci.physics.relativity
Subject	Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow?
Date	2017-08-19 02:47 +0000
Organization	Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID	<on88sh$br1$2@gioia.aioe.org> (permalink)
References	(19 earlier) <on2etc$1g2d$1@gioia.aioe.org> <on2fo6$1he3$1@gioia.aioe.org> <on534b$1adm$1@gioia.aioe.org> <on6o0o$1h0f$1@gioia.aioe.org> <on7sq6$1uva$1@gioia.aioe.org>

Show all headers | View raw

HGW... <hgw@....> wrote:
> On 18/08/17 22:53, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> On 8/17/17 4:51 PM, HGW... wrote:
> 
>>>>> Bodkin, if a clock is located at each light source, its reading will
>>>>> advance by N as a light pulse goes from L to R 
>>>>> and by the same number N as a pulse goes from R to L. That is obvious from symmetry.
>>>> 
>>>> No, it won't. Not as seen in any frame where the both sources are
>>>> moving. Whatever symmetry you imagine in the rest 
>>>> frame of the sources vanishes in any other reference frame. This is obvious.
>>> 
>>> Bodkin, the symmetry relates to pure numbers on the dials of both
>>> clocks. Do you think number itself is frame dependent? 
>> 
>> I think some measurements are frame dependent. Interesting that you
>> think these aren't measurements.
> 
> Bodkin see this number '5'.
> 
> Does its value change if you look at it while moving?

Depends whether the number is associated with a measurement. Just got
through saying that. 

> 
>>> More to the point, do you think 'sameness' is frame dependent...because
>>> that is what is at issue here.
>> 
>> Absolutely sameness is frame dependent.
>> Simple example:
>> You're standing on the median of a north-south highway. Cars headed
>> north and cars headed south have equal speeds in 
>> this reference frame.
>> Now get in one of the cars headed north. Now the speed of the cars
>> headed south is much different than the speed of the 
>> cars headed north.
> 
> HAHAHHAHHAHHA! Very funny, Bodkin!
> Speed isn't relevant here because direction is an issue. You must use
> velocity. Any physicist would know that.
> In fact speed is not a scientific term...it is just a convenience.

Is "sameness" a scientific term? We were talking about the frame dependence
of sameness, so we checked that with the frame dependence of speeds. So
sameness only applies to certain things that are the same?

> 
>> Interesting that your "logic" would tell you otherwise about sameness.
> 
> The velocities are quite different. They remain different in all frames.
> 
>>>> In a frame in which both sources are moving, the light from one of the
>>>> sources is moving in the same direction as the 
>>>> two sources, and the light from the other source is moving in the
>>>> opposite direction as the two sources. See? 
>>>> Symmetry busted.
>>> 
>>> Of course...and for the simple reason that the pulses move at c+v and c-v.
>>> 
>>>> Rest of the spew ignored.
>>> 
>>> That tactic is a sure sign of desperation and defeat.
>> 
>> You wish.
>> 
>> 
> 
> 



-- 
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Thread

csiph-web