Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #429510

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	2017-08-20 12:50 +0000
Organization	Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID	<onc0ja$1j72$1@gioia.aioe.org> (permalink)
References	(18 earlier) <32fb2a62-724c-4431-9c62-e29d446f0650@googlegroups.com> <ona99c$19d0$2@gioia.aioe.org> <e7384d4c-9d18-482b-9e49-5fdc13a15238@googlegroups.com> <onaf6o$1j69$3@gioia.aioe.org> <0bf9bb54-5e5d-4396-b134-ff10f7680b8c@googlegroups.com>

Show all headers | View raw

<mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote:
> W dniu niedziela, 20 sierpnia 2017 00:47:56 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:
>> <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote:
>>> W dniu sobota, 19 sierpnia 2017 23:06:56 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:
>>>> <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote:
>>>>> W dniu sobota, 19 sierpnia 2017 21:19:42 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:
>>>>>> <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote:
>>>>>>> W dniu sobota, 19 sierpnia 2017 13:13:58 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:
>>>>>>>> <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> W dniu piątek, 18 sierpnia 2017 22:12:48 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:
>>>>>>>>>> <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> W dniu piątek, 18 sierpnia 2017 14:53:49 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> And your own car doesn't move at all. Gurus said!
>>>>>>>>>>> Gurus can't be wrong! It's speedometer obviously lies.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Well if the speedometer reads 0 when it's parked in the driveway, and I
>>>>>>>>>> know the driveway is moving at 500mph as the earth rotates under the sun,
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> But, of course, sitting in a car moving north you
>>>>>>>>> would never know you're sitting in a car moving
>>>>>>>>> north.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> I would know that the car is moving relative to the earth's surface
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> And you will know that speed of the cars headed south is NOT
>>>>>>> much different than the speed of the cars headed north.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> , which
>>>>>>>> common sense tells you is also moving, and about which the speedometer is
>>>>>>>> telling you nothing. Remind me again why common sense would rightfully tell
>>>>>>>> you that the only sensible reference frame is the one tied to the earth's
>>>>>>>> surface. 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> It is not the only, poor idiot. there are 3 or 4 others.
>>>>>>> Still, your gurus observercentrical approach is obviously
>>>>>>> the most primitive possible and totally useless.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> And all of these 3 or 4 are earth-centric, right?
>>>>> 
>>>>> No, poor idiot, not all of them. But most
>>>>> important of them.
>>>> 
>>>> Based on what criteria of importance?
>>> 
>>> :)
>>> Common sense criteria. Do you know any other 
>>> criteria of importance, poor idiot?
>> 
>> What? In other words, because it FEELS right? 
> 
> Yeah, I know. According to you I should follow
> your moronic gurus feelings, instead my own.
> Just like you do.
> Well, both approaches have advantages and
> disadvantages. 
> 
> 
>> What's the rationale that
>> common sense provides for this claim? 
> 
> Odd, poor idiot.There is no way to calculate importance.
> There is no way to measure it. So, the choice is:
> feelings or nothing. Feelings can fail. Nothing 
> will fail for sure.  Have you heard of game theory?
> Is it "rationale" enough for you?
> 
> 
>> 
>>> 
>>>>> You surely know how important observers are 
>>>>> for your moronic physics, don't you? Both in your
>>>>> precious QM and in your precious relativity.
>>>>> And it happens that in real world all observers
>>>>> we know about are living on Earth. What's more
>>>>> important, the culture that is training them to
>>>>> observe is also living on Earth.
>>>> 
>>>> And do the laws of physics pertain everywhere or just in the area where
>>>> physicists live? 
>>> 
>>> Laws of physics, poor idiot, pertain the brains
>>> of physicists and other brains taught physics.
>> 
>> Really? So they didn't apply before they were discovered? 
> 
> Odd, poor idiot. "fifrac=faflic*furfus". Does it apply?
> 1000 years ago "E=mc^2" was samely meaningless. in
> 1000 years  "fifrac=faflic*furfus" may become a law
> of physics. Why not? So, does it apply?
> Laws of physics are NOT discovered. They are constructed.
> 
> 
>> Energy wasn't
>> conserved before someone conceived of conservation of momentum? So laws of
>> physics can't explain anything before human civilization because no human
>> brain held them? Really???
> 
> Of course they can explain it NOW. But 1000 years
> ago "E=mc^2" cold explain nothing to anyone.
> 
> To take it generally:
> "[something] at time t" is true now
> doesn't imply
> "something" was true at time t.
> 
> Truth is a bit complicated construct, however,
> and you're just a poor woodworker following some
> crazy gurus.
> 

Every week I realize even more how far apart our world views are.

You, with your view of science not being about matching theoretical
predictions with experiment.
You, who thinks the gauges of truth are feelings or nothing.
You, who thinks the laws of physics did not operate or even exist before
humans were around.

Wow. Just wow.

And you're here why?


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

Thread

(Thread has 618 articles, showing 500 — browse group in flat view)

csiph-web