Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #431247

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	2017-09-05 16:10 -0500
Organization	Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID	<oon3s3$143$5@gioia.aioe.org> (permalink)
References	(19 earlier) <c9e6ecb2-64a8-4eeb-9186-02b3b0427d38@googlegroups.com> <oomadi$ftk$3@gioia.aioe.org> <a5a1e1d8-f573-495b-b098-acbf2c614f32@googlegroups.com> <oombc6$ib8$1@gioia.aioe.org> <42d68e94-91a2-476b-8289-3bf3d46a6b05@googlegroups.com>

Show all headers | View raw

On 9/5/17 10:36 AM, kenseto wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 5, 2017 at 10:12:27 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> On 9/5/17 9:03 AM, kenseto wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, September 5, 2017 at 9:56:08 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>> On 9/3/17 11:01 AM, kenseto wrote:
>>>>> On Thursday, August 31, 2017 at 3:11:08 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>>> On 8/31/17 1:39 PM, kenseto wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thursday, August 31, 2017 at 10:05:58 AM UTC-4, Python wrote:
>>>>>>>> kenseto wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> If it made sense, how come neither you, Ralph Rabbidge, nor Mr Seto
>>>>>>>>>> can answser my very basic question: two objects intersect in space,
>>>>>>>>>> this is an event, what is the meaning of “speed wrt this tevent"?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I didn’t say “speed wrt any event”.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You did. You wrote about being at rest wrt to an event. If it made
>>>>>>>> sense to be at rest wrt an event, so it would make sense to have
>>>>>>>> a speed wrt to it. N.B. This is not the case
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I said that an observer can have speed wrt the source of the event.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There. Is. No. Meaning. In. The. Expression. *the* source of the event.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That’s your problem......every event have a source.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not a unique one.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Here are two passing cars       CAR -->     <-- CAR
>>>>>> Which car, the one on the left or the one on the right is the source of
>>>>>> the event that is the meeting of the two cars?
>>>>>> Which one of these two cars would the observer be asking about speed
>>>>>> relative to the source?
>>>>>
>>>>> The source of this one event is the meeting of the cars.
>>>>
>>>> The meeting of the two cars has no duration. You cannot be at rest (or
>>>> moving) with respect to anything with no duration.
>>>
>>> Idiot you can be at rest wrt the positions of the events as in Einstein’s train gadenken. Gee you are so stupid.
>>
>> Ken, as Einstein discussed that gedanken, he NEVER SAID that the
>> observers were at rest relative to the events. Not once. That's because
>> you cannot be at rest relative to the events.
> 
> Fucking idiot the train observer is at rest with respect to the positions of the event (the ends of the train).

Ken, I will ask you to re-read the gedanken. Notice that Einstein says 
that the events are the lightning strikes, not the ends of the train. 
Notice also that he stipulates that the lightning hits BOTH the end of 
the train AND the track, where the end of the train and the track meet.

Notice that there are thus TWO sets of positions: one at the ends of the 
train and one at the marks on the track.

Notice that the train observer is at rest relative to the ends of the 
train, but is NOT at rest relative to the marks on the track. Notice 
that the track observer is at rest relative to the marks on the track 
but NOT at rest relative to the ends of the train.

There is no priority given to whether the positions should be followed 
with the train or whether the positions should be followed with the 
track marks.


> 
> 
>>
>> What you're going to find is another example of where you inserted
>> something that YOU MADE UP into someone else's words. Then you are going
>> to stare at it a while and ask yourself how you got to be so convinced
>> that the part you made up was there, when it isn't. Then you're going to
>> say that Einstein IMPLIED it when in fact you just made it up.
>>
>> Like "material length contraction" where Einstein never used or implied
>> that it was material at all. It was just something you made up.
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Back to square one.
>>>>
>>>>> We are talking about measuring the simultaneity of two events....in this case you only have one event.
>>>>> Also I said that the observer must be at rest at the mid-point wrt the positions of these two events to do such measurement. The speed relative to the source  is not mentioned.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -- 
>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables


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

Thread

csiph-web