Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #432187
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	2017-09-13 12:38 -0500
Organization	Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID	<opbqfa$1ni1$4@gioia.aioe.org> (permalink)
References	(18 earlier) <27d058b8-352a-4117-a1cd-85c34a763190@googlegroups.com> <op63q7$spl$4@gioia.aioe.org> <491f1e32-8847-4d05-a84d-7dd8f26e5d0a@googlegroups.com> <op6fae$1ose$4@gioia.aioe.org> <161cb723-e343-4fee-8437-96dc69a10078@googlegroups.com>
Show all headers | View raw
On 9/13/17 10:20 AM, kenseto wrote:
> On Monday, September 11, 2017 at 12:57:53 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> On 9/11/17 9:57 AM, kenseto wrote:
>>> On Monday, September 11, 2017 at 9:41:29 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>> 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 part of what I said disagree with Einstein’s description?
>>
>> Einstein stated specifically that one observer will say that the strikes
>> were simultaneous and the other observer will say that the strikes are
>> NOT simultaneous.
> 
> Einstein’s specified assertions are not valid. 

But they are. Equivalent experiments have shown he was right.

> Both observers (M and M’) are qualified observers because they are at the mid-point of the strikes when they happened simultaneously.

Yes, they are qualified observers. But as Einstein noted, they come to 
different conclusions about simultaneity of the two strikes.

> 
>>
>> You said both observers will agree that the strikes were simultaneous.
> 
> Moron, the track observer measures the distance from the marks on the track (L_track) and the time interval for the signal to arrive simultaneously at the track observer is (L_track/c). The train observer does the same procedure, he measures the distance from the ends of the train (L_train) and the time interval for the light front from the ends of the train to arrive at the train observer simultaneously is (L_train/c)

That's not the procedure that Einstein described.

> 
> The two time intervals is related via the LT as follows:
> (L_train/c) =gamma*(L_track/c)
> 
> Gee you are so stupid.
> 
> 
>>
>> Why don't you take a week or so to reread what Einstein wrote. It's only
>> a couple of pages. It may take you a while to read that though.
>>
>>> What I said agrees with equivalent experiments.
>>
>> Nope, it does not agree.
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables


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

csiph-web