Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #429555

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 17:39 -0500
Organization	Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID	<ond329$1ae7$1@gioia.aioe.org> (permalink)
References	(19 earlier) <e7384d4c-9d18-482b-9e49-5fdc13a15238@googlegroups.com> <onaf6o$1j69$3@gioia.aioe.org> <0bf9bb54-5e5d-4396-b134-ff10f7680b8c@googlegroups.com> <onc0ja$1j72$1@gioia.aioe.org> <5e37c502-9e16-4ff7-bb6c-48b5806dc757@googlegroups.com>

Show all headers | View raw

On 8/20/17 8:49 AM, kenseto wrote:
> On Sunday, August 20, 2017 at 8:50:55 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> <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.
> 
> That doesn’t mean that your world view is more solid.

When it comes to physics, the thoughts of a retired, feeble chemical 
engineer and a coder from Poland don't stand up to the thoughts of 
physicists. I'll go with the physicists.

>>
>> You, with your view of science not being about matching theoretical
>> predictions with experiment.
> 
> Sure his world view is also matching theoretical predictions with experiment. 

Now, in what you state below, you're inserting YOUR thoughts into HIS 
mouth. This is a bad habit.

> For example: SR copied LET math to give the exact same predictions that are confirmed by experiments. This means that the same math can have different explanations (different world view).
> The SR explanation is based on the two postulates that give rise to all sorts of paradoxes.....the aether explanations have no paradox. Therefore the aether explanation is preferred.
> 
>> 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


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

Thread

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

csiph-web