Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #430256

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	2017-08-28 10:09 -0500
Organization	Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID	<oo1bnk$452$2@gioia.aioe.org> (permalink)
References	(14 earlier) <15aee34c-4b23-4161-a5ba-dbb691a92b4e@googlegroups.com> <d436ba8e-cd72-44bb-8b7d-2da9dbe850b6@googlegroups.com> <425a2c38-04bf-43bc-8bf1-26ecf52dd4b9@googlegroups.com> <oo1706$1r1e$4@gioia.aioe.org> <1898c781-40ff-4980-b383-bf2cb2179718@googlegroups.com>

Show all headers | View raw

On 8/28/17 9:22 AM, kenseto wrote:
> On Monday, August 28, 2017 at 9:48:58 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> On 8/27/17 10:16 AM, dancouriann@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Sunday, August 27, 2017 at 7:29:39 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote:
>>>> Here’s what I said:
>>>> 1. To measure the simultaneity of any two events the
>>>> observer must be at rest wrt these two events.
>>>
>>> Not true, for the reason explained in the previous post.  Again, any inertial coordinate system consists of a set of (in principle) measured space and time coordinates, and these measurements need not be (and ordinarily are not) made by observers at rest in terms of the things being observed.  If they were, it would imply that there can be only one inertial coordinate system, which is obviously not true.
>>
>> Plus the fact that an event, by definition, has no time duration and so
>> one cannot be at rest or moving with respect to an event at all.
> 
> So how can you assert that any two events are simultaneous or not? 

There is more than one way to determine simultaneity. The example given 
of the observer that is midway between the two events is only one of 
many, and under no circumstances should you ever take one example to be 
the only possible way.

> In any case , simultaneity got nothing to do with physics. 
> It was invented by Einstein 

Ken, if you think the concept of simultaneity was invented by Einstein, 
then you have lost contact with basic reality, not just physics.

> to explain the paradoxes of his false P2--the constancy of the speed of light.
> 
>>
>>>
>>>> 2. The observer must be at the mid-point between these two events.
>>>
>>> Again, this is untrue for the same reason that 1. is untrue.
>>>    
>>>> 3. After the measurement the observer uses the LT to transform
>>>> his result to other interested observers.
>>>
>>> Well, this means you agree that simultaneity is relative, because the phrase "simultaneity is relative" simply means that inertial coordinate systems are related by Lorentz transformations.
>>>
>>> Remember, every observer is at rest (at least instantaneously) in some inertial coordinate system, which can (in principle) be operationally established, assigning time and space coordinates to every event.  In terms of these coordinates, the simultaneity (or lack thereof) of any two events is manifestly measurable.  If you agree that inertial coordinate systems are related by Lorentz transformations, then we are in agreement.
>>>
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables


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

Thread

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

csiph-web