Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #429582

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	2017-08-21 20:15 +1000
Organization	Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID	<onebsk$14ur$1@gioia.aioe.org> (permalink)
References	(15 earlier) <5caf367b-a2da-4f21-8222-9b1650f6faea@googlegroups.com> <on7tu0$a2$1@gioia.aioe.org> <e2cdb569-fcef-4a54-81ff-a5f3adfa1d8e@googlegroups.com> <ond57f$1eo7$1@gioia.aioe.org> <b76eaf88-37cf-4484-b15e-6fe798d57a20@googlegroups.com>

Show all headers | View raw

On 21/08/17 14:17, dancouriann@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, August 20, 2017 at 4:16:04 PM UTC-7, HGW... wrote:
>> On 19/08/17 15:50, danco wrote:
>>> You need to prove that it is logically impossible for [photons] not to have rest mass.
>> 
>> Where did I say it was logically impossible?
> 
> If it isn't logically impossible, then your whole argument fails.

Look , I don't know why I am bothering to reply to your posts... maybe I just feel sorry for you.
1) It is impossible for any speed to be frame independent.
2) It is possible to concoct an impossible set of conditions that would make light speed appear to always be measured as c.
3)

>> According to LET, OWLS would always be measured as c because lengths and times are claimed to be contracted by the
>> same factor...depending on tabsolute speed.
> 
> First, that's a woefully inaccurate description of the LET explanation, because you've omitted the crucial fact of
> the temporal skew in the Lorentz transformation.  

Nonsense. I said lengths and times are both contracted in the same proportion...

> Second, you are disproving your own argument, because LET is a
> prima facie proof that it's not logically impossible for the speed of light to be c in terms of every system of
> coordinates related by Lorentz transformations (which are the inertial coordinates).

LET is logically impossible because it requires an absolute aether frame, in which lengths and times vary with absolute 
speed. TIME cannot be a function of speed because speed has dimensions L/T.

>> However, since there is no absolute aether, the whole idea is just an amusing but quite clever piece of SciFi.
> 
> First, your conclusion doesn't follow from your premise.  Second, the invariance of light speed in terms of every
> systems of inertial coordinates follows directly from ballistic theory in vacuum, with only the added recognition
> that all forms of energy have inertia.

That is more nonsense. Light moves at c relative to its source and at c+v relative to an observer approaching the source 
at v. That is proved quite emphatically by Doppler shift. TWLS is always c assuming the source and mirror are MAR...and 
that proves BaTh is correct.

>> What nonsense is this?
> 
> What part of the explanation don't you understand?
> 
>> If a thing is logically flawed it will naturally be empirically impossible to prove correct.
> 
> Right, but you haven't shown that special relativity is logically flawed.  You pointed to a claimed "paradox" that
> was shown to be no paradox at all.  

The paradox is that according to SR, the moving clocks advance by the same amounts during the opposite transits and also 
by different amounts, depending on where the light sources are located......We are talking about pure numbers. Two 
numbers cannot be the same in one frame and different in another.

> Aside from that, you've not advanced any argument at all. 

It was obviously far too hard for you....I'm not surprised.

> And your belief in the
> conspiracy to falsify all the data is based solely on your belief that relativity is logically impossible, even
> though you haven't provided any argument to support that.  So, both your logical and your empirical claims appear to
> be completely unfounded, based purely on misunderstandings.

Well no doubt you would like that to be true because you obviously worship Einstein...I'm sorry if you world is 
collapsing around you because of my discoveries.
> 

--

Thread

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

csiph-web