Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #429868

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

From	HGW <HW@home.net>
Newsgroups	sci.physics.relativity
Subject	Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow?
Date	2017-08-24 08:34 +1000
Organization	Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID	<onkvu8$1b5g$1@gioia.aioe.org> (permalink)
References	(23 earlier) <onia6t$1d9r$1@gioia.aioe.org> <onif41$1jav$4@gioia.aioe.org> <oniksa$1pm1$1@gioia.aioe.org> <onim2j$1r6i$3@gioia.aioe.org> <599ce163$0$54198$c3e8da3$12bcf670@news.astraweb.com>

Show all headers | View raw

On 23/08/17 11:58, benj wrote:
> On 8/22/2017 9:34 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> HGW <HW@home.net> wrote:
>>> On 23/08/17 09:35, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>> HGW <HW@home.net> wrote:
>>>>> On 22/08/17 09:42, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> It's funny that your original argument was the frame
>>>>>> dependence of sameness as a general concept, and now you are
>>>>>> idly back pedaling about what things can apply when
>>>>>> discussing sameness. Speed, kinetic energy, magnetic field strengths, none of these things are allowed to fit in the
>>>>>> sameness test even though you proposed it as a general
>>>>>> principle. General, but only in carefully tailored cases. I
>>>>>> see.
>>>>>
>>>>> You see wrongly. Two 'speeds' that have the same value but are
>>>>> in different directions are not 'the same'. They are not even
>>>>> 'speeds'.
>>>>
>>>> You just a bit ago reminded yourself that a speed is a scalar
>>>> without direction ("magnitude of velocity", remember?) Now you
>>>> are trying to say that you can't conceive of a scalar magnitude
>>>> without direction.
>>>
>>> Not at all. I am saying they are not identical even though their
>>> magnitudes are the same. A speed of +80 is not the same as a speed
>>> of +80 in the opposite direction.
>>
>> I think I'll just leave that idiocy to sit there. You will literally
>> say anything to get a response. Anything.
> 
> Obviously Boinker knows too little science to properly answer the question so he just blathers and does political ad 
> hominems.
> 
> Answer is that speed has no direction. Velocity does. Speed of 80 in opposite directions is indeed two different 
> phenomena, but they are two different velocities with identical speeds. Things make sense if you just follow the words 
> and don't make up your own as Odd does.

The word 'speed' is never legitimate if direction is important....velocity is the only scientifically correct term.

> A scalar HAS no direction by definition. Hence one can no more conceive of a scalar with direction than one can conceive 
> of waves without a medium or behavior without something doing the behaving. When a word is a modifier for another 
> property trying to make the modifier stand alone without something to modify is just senile babble. Odd is good at that.
> 
> 
> 
>>>> Fine, Henry, if you are saying that the 19th century Newtonian
>>>> physics you adore doesn't even make sense you, we will just leave
>>>> it there.
>>>
>>> Bodkin, if two objects have identical shapes, can they have
>>> dissimilar shapes in any other frame?
>>
>> Yes!
> 
> No they can't. Boinker is a moron true believer in all the idiot dogma of modern physics. It can be SHOWN that length of 
> objects does not change. What changes is the APPEARANCE of their length to observers!

Even that does not change after the appropriate corrections for finite light speed is made.

> Yeah, it's subtle, but important.
> 
> 
>>> If two objects are the same colour, can that fact change depending
>>> on frame?
>>
>> Yes!
> 
> Boinker is correct, however, you should note that since unlike sound, the speed of light does not depend upon the 
> velocity of the source, this frequency shift is not strictly Doppler as in sound, but a relativistic effect.

You have missed the point here altogether. The question is whether the 'sameness' of two entities is frame dependent, 
not whether the value of each one is.

>>> If two objects emit a continuous sound of the same frequency, can
>>> that be frame dependent?
> 
>> Yes!
> 
> This is obviously by the above answer. However if you measure the speed of the light from each  source it is always c no 
> matter what
> the frame.
>>> You will have to think about the last one....
> 
> So will Odd, because all he does is parrot dogma and has zero understanding of any of this stuff. Books tell him things 
> and no matter how illogical and insane he immediately becomes a true believer.

This is correct. He is a typical member of the relativist ratpack, employed by the Grand Conspiracy to disrupt any 
criticism of the hoaxer Einstein.



-- 

    HGW, DSc.

Thread

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

csiph-web