Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #429944

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	2017-08-25 09:26 +1000
Organization	Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID	<onnnab$1dmg$1@gioia.aioe.org> (permalink)
References	(24 earlier) <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> <onms2h$3vn$1@gioia.aioe.org>

Show all headers | View raw

On 25/08/17 01:41, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 8/23/17 5:34 PM, HGW wrote:

>>
>> 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.

Bodkin, none of your examples has refuted what I said. 'Sameness' is not frame dependent. How could it be? Your examples 
all involve things that are NOT the same in any frame.


>>>>> 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.

>>>>> 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?

Two speeds are indentical only if they are in the same direction and along a particular line.

> 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."

I asked you to name two things that were the same in one frame and different in others. All you have done is talk about 
things that are different to start with.

>>>>> 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?

I would have thought you knew the answers to those. I can think of a good place to start looking....but I wont tell 
about that.....


-- 

    HGW, DSc.

Thread

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

csiph-web