Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #431899

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	2017-09-11 08:41 -0500
Organization	Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID	<op63q7$spl$4@gioia.aioe.org> (permalink)
References	(19 earlier) <532749e8-e2ba-49e8-9fda-87f491799235@googlegroups.com> <oou6c4$1tc1$2@gioia.aioe.org> <6585eea0-88f0-45f0-adec-de726eeaa4ff@googlegroups.com> <oouh7k$jcq$1@gioia.aioe.org> <27d058b8-352a-4117-a1cd-85c34a763190@googlegroups.com>

Show all headers | View raw

On 9/9/17 10:06 AM, kenseto wrote:
> On Friday, September 8, 2017 at 12:41:29 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> On 9/8/17 9:44 AM, kenseto wrote:
>>> On Friday, September 8, 2017 at 9:36:07 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>> On 9/8/17 8:25 AM, kenseto wrote:
>>>>> On Thursday, September 7, 2017 at 4:53:06 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>>> On 9/7/17 9:17 AM, kenseto wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wednesday, September 6, 2017 at 2:06:53 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 9/6/17 9:12 AM, kenseto wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, September 5, 2017 at 5:10:31 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> He said that lightning strikes at the ends of the train (that means the positions of the events) at the moment when M and M’ are coincided. If not there is no way to determine if the strikes were happened at equal distance from M or M’.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You did not re-read the gedanken. You are relying on your faulty memory.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's right you didn't.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ....The strikes hit the ends of the train and leave marks on the track when M and M’ are coincided.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So how does a strike that hits the end of a train leave a mark on the
>>>>>> track, Ken?
>>>>>
>>>>> Maybe you should contact Einstein through spirit and ask him how.
>>>>
>>>> Or perhaps you should read what he actually wrote, where he explained how.
>>>
>>> Moron, it’s a gedanken.....the flashes can hit both the ends of the train as well as making marks on the track.
>>
>> Especially if you re-read the gedanken itself to find what it says.
>>
>> So, Ken, you have landed on the realization that each lightning strike
>> makes a mark on one end of the train and also on the track.
> 
> Yes.....so?
> 
>>
>> The train observer will verify that he is midway between the marks at
>> the ends of the train and was motionless with respect to the ends of the
>> train. He is therefore qualified to judge the simultaneity of the
>> events, according to you.
> 
> Yes.....so?
>>
>> The track observer will verify that he is midway between the marks on
>> the track and was motionlessless with respect to those marks on the
>> track. He is therefore qualified to judge the simultaneity of the
>> events, according to you.
> 
> Yes.....so?
> 
>>
>> The two qualified observers disagree on whether the events were
>> simultaneous.
> 
> No moron....both observer agree that the strikes were simultaneous but the simultaneity occurred at different time intervals according to each of their clock.

That's certainly not what Einstein describes in the gedanken and it is 
not what is seen in equivalent experiments.

> 
>>
>> What now?
>>
> 
> So go and make some toy.....physics is out of your competency.
> 


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

Thread

csiph-web