Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #429651

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	2017-08-22 07:46 +1000
Organization	Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID	<onfkc8$1bql$1@gioia.aioe.org> (permalink)
References	(17 earlier) <e2cdb569-fcef-4a54-81ff-a5f3adfa1d8e@googlegroups.com> <ond57f$1eo7$1@gioia.aioe.org> <b76eaf88-37cf-4484-b15e-6fe798d57a20@googlegroups.com> <onebsk$14ur$1@gioia.aioe.org> <5abdca9b-847c-4d6e-bcaf-ea266d840492@googlegroups.com>

Show all headers | View raw

On 22/08/17 05:17, dancouriann@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, August 21, 2017 at 3:15:52 AM UTC-7, HGW... wrote:
>> 1) It is impossible for any speed to be frame independent.
> 
> The assertion of special relativity is that the speed of light is c in terms of every system of inertial coordinates.
> These coordinates are, by definition, coordinates in terms of which inertia is homogeneous, isotropic, and normalized
> for reciprocity.

Well you got that wrong for obvious reasons.

Now, if all forms of energy have inertia (which you have conceded is not logically impossible), in the proportion 1/c^2,
then applying a constant force to a particle will ultimately increase its speed (expressed in terms of any inertial
coordinate system) not to infinity, but to an asymptotic limit of c.  Likewise the speed of propagation of any massless
energy must be c.  You have not provided any hint of an explanation for why this is logically impossible.

You are violating the principle of relativity and Einstein's first postulate....which is basically correct.

>> 2) It is possible to concoct an impossible set of conditions that would make light speed appear to always be
>> measured as c.
> 
> Your sentence states that is it possible to do something impossible.  It sounds like you are conceding that it is
> logically possible to define relatively moving systems of coordinates, in each of which the speed of light is c.
> This is obviously true.  But then, after admitting it's logically possible, you hasten to add that it is logically
> impossible.  Your position seems terribly conflicted.

Not at all. I would have thought you read a lot of science fiction and realize why it is just that.

>>>> According to LET, OWLS would always be measured as c

>>> 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...
> 
> I know, and that's a woefully inaccurate description of the LET explanation, for the reason given above.  Systems
> with just re-scaled space and time coordinates would be logically incompatible with the relativity principle, and
> would contradict experiment as well.  This is your straw man, not LET (or special relativity).

In aether theory, it is impossible to detect one's own absolute speed or detect any of the claimed contractions. (That
stuffs up anyone who claims they don't exist.)

>> 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.
> 
> The Lorentz transformations and the Minkowski metric (and all the other equations of special relativity) are all
> manifestly dimensionally correct, so your comment makes no sense.

Irrelevant

>> Light moves at c relative to its source...
> 
> More precisely, a pulse of light moves at speed c in terms of the inertial coordinates in which the source is at
> rest.

Why complicate what is simple? Does it make you feel intelligent...using three times the number of words to say the same
thing?

>> and at c+v relative to an observer approaching the source
> 
> Well, speeds are coordinate dependent, and it's certainly possible to define coordinates in which the speed of the
> pulse is c+v, but in terms of the inertial coordinates in which the observer is at rest the speed of the pulse is c,
> not c+v.

This is refute by variable star analyses that shows quite clearly that light moves at c+v.

>> That is proved quite emphatically by Doppler shift.
> 
> The precisely-verified Doppler effect is consistent (even to second order) with special relativity, and not
> consistent with the class of theories you espouse.

That is bullshit. To verify SR's Doppler prediction, a frequency would have to be measured. That cannot be done with
light and radio does not provide sufficient accuracy to distinguish between Newton and Einstein.

  But this is straying from our task, which is for you to explain why special relativity is *logically impossible*, not
to explain why you believe all the data supporting it has been falsified.  So far you have failed to come up with any
hint of an explanation.

The second postulate leads to an insoluble paradox that basically requires that 'sameness' is frame dependent.

>> 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.
> 
> No, we can easily write down the exact times that each clock reads for each emission and reception event, and there
> is no contradiction.  You are just confused by the fact that two events can be simultaneous in one system of inertial
> coordinates and not in another.  

You are confused because you believe simultaneity is related to light and what human eyes perceive.

(Remember, this is the crucial point you omitted from your description of LET above.
> Until you actually understand the subject you aren't in a good position to criticize it.)

HAHAHHHAH! That's a joke! You are the one you is totally indoctrinated and relies on faith alone to support your 
arguments. You should learnt o talk science, not religion.
> 

--

Thread

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

csiph-web