Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #429908

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	2017-08-24 10:41 -0500
Organization	Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID	<onms2h$3vn$1@gioia.aioe.org> (permalink)
References	(24 earlier) <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> <onkvu8$1b5g$1@gioia.aioe.org>

Show all headers | View raw

On 8/23/17 5:34 PM, HGW wrote:
> 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.

As I said, while beginning students have no problem distinguishing the 
concepts of speed and velocity, this is too complicated for you and you 
want to eliminate one so you only have to think about one.

> 
>> 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.

Let's take the entities of speed.
Oh, now we're going to get into you fussing about what things are 
legitimate entities?

This is your typical HW chain-jerk: "I'm going to state what seems to be 
a general principle, but when pressed, I'm going to make it clear that I 
did not mean it to be as general as I sounded. I do this only to hump 
your leg."

> 
>>>> 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.

I do like your notion of an international Grand Conspiracy Agency. Where 
are the headquarters? How are they funded?


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

Thread

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

csiph-web