Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #431338

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	2017-09-06 08:58 -0500
Organization	Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID	<ooouui$10ol$1@gioia.aioe.org> (permalink)
References	(26 earlier) <ooj9kb$1ffa$1@gioia.aioe.org> <ookrtc$77c$3@gioia.aioe.org> <ooltfj$1n2s$1@gioia.aioe.org> <oomac0$ftk$2@gioia.aioe.org> <oonabi$c5u$1@gioia.aioe.org>

Show all headers | View raw

On 9/5/17 6:01 PM, HGW wrote:
> On 05/09/17 23:55, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> On 9/5/17 5:15 AM, HGW wrote:
>>> On 05/09/17 10:42, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>> HGW <HW@home.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So '5 apples in a box' can mean '4 apples in a box' if you are 
>>>>>>> moving
>>>>>>> fast enough, Is that the kind of thing you
>>>>>>> are saying Bodkin?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You apparently cannot read. Read again the paragraph above that 
>>>>>> starts
>>>>>> "Some sets of measured numbers...."
>>>>>
>>>>> I see now. So 1 2 3 4 5 can be 3 9 6 7 5 if one moves in the right 
>>>>> way?
>>>>> Is that what you are saying.
>>>>
>>>> Are they measurements?
>>>
>>> Do they look like anything in particular?
>>
>> They should if you look carefully enough. Idiots will pretend that 
>> measurements aren't measurements by squinting. Are you an idiot?
> 
> They are just numbers. They don't refer to anything in particular. But 
> in Einstein's RoS derivation, the numbers on the clock faces are both 
> the same and refer to the same thing.

Some numbers are measurements. You seem to be in denial about this.

> 
>>>>>>> Bodkin, in Einstein's RoS, there are two rigidly connected clocks,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Rigid connections are impossible, even in an ideal world. They 
>>>>>> violate
>>>>>> the known laws of physics. Attempting to make
>>>>>> a point by supposing the existence of something that cannot 
>>>>>> possibly exist proves nothing.
>>>>>
>>>>> Bodkin, you should not try to argue with a physicist. You simply do 
>>>>> not
>>>>> understand the subject. Einstein's whole SR was
>>>>> based in thought experiments and rigid rods are perfectly 
>>>>> legitimate in such experiments.
>>>>
>>>> Nope. Not cool in thought experiments to suppose the breaking of 
>>>> laws of
>>>> physics.
>>>
>>> Bodkin, when one talks about a 'rigid rod' or a 'perfect clock', one 
>>> means a rod or a clock that is sufficiently stable for any errors due 
>>> to lack of rigidity to be insignificant in the experiment in question.
>>
>> Precisely! And in the cases you're talking about, the rods are not 
>> sufficiently stable to declare the nonrigidity negligible! Simple 
>> back-of-envelope calculations are sufficient for this purpose. So, 
>> Henry, pick a substance and let's look up the speed of sound in that 
>> material.
> 
> Bodkin, any instability will disappear in a very short time after 
> inertial state is re-established.

Let's calculate that short time and see if it is insignificant compared 
to the times involved in the relativistic examples you are posing.


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

Thread

csiph-web