What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow?

[HGW...]

Let's get to the bottom of this insane claim.
A clock is a counter of the cycles of an oscillator. To claim a clock
runs slow is a claim that the oscillator period increases when it is
caused to move relative to an observer.
Yet we know that nothing at all happens PHYSICALLY to anything as a
result of a speed change...
So what are dingleberries trying to say?
--

[Earline Loar]

Colossal observation. Except that you neglect that there are involved BOTH
Periods and Wavelength into this scenario. It is somehow merging into each
other, the time dimension and the space dimension. Very colossal funny
indeed. You are infact giving the proof for the existence of "spacetime"
as a merged institution. Very funny indeed.

[danco...@gmail.com]

On Monday, August 7, 2017 at 1:12:57 AM UTC-7, HGW... wrote:
> ... nothing at all happens PHYSICALLY to anything as a

> result of a speed change...

Not true. An object initially at rest and in equilibrium in terms of inertial coordinates S undergoes changes, both intrinsic and extrinsic, if a force is temporarily applied to accelerate the object until it is at rest in another system of inertial coordinates S' and then allowed to reach equilibrium. The precise details of the changes during and after the acceleration process depend on the precise way in which the force is applied (pushing on one end, pulling on the other end, etc.).

Assuming the limit of elastic deformation is not exceeded during the acceleration, the object will eventually settle into an equilibrium configuration whose description in terms of S' is formally similar to it's original equilibrium state description in terms of S, modulo differences in the phase relations between different parts of the object that unavoidably occur as the result of acceleration. The changes in an object, such as a clock, result in the characteristic periods of any physical process being slowed compared with the time coordinate of S. Likewise an identically constructed clock that remained at rest in S runs slow compared with the time coordinate of S'. (Inertial coordinate systems are defined to ensure this reciprocity.)

This is discussed in more detail in any good book on relativity.

[hanson]

"Earline Loar" <ur...@wwarao.ei>, the nymshifter wrote:

>
Henry Wilson/Ralph Rabbidge "HGW..." <hgw@....> wrote:
>> Let's get to the bottom of this insane claim.
>> A clock is a counter of the cycles of an oscillator. To claim a clock
>> runs slow is a claim that the oscillator period increases when it is
>> caused to move relative to an observer.
>> Yet we know that nothing at all happens PHYSICALLY to anything as a
>> result of a speed change... So what are dingleberries trying to say?
>

The nymshifter wrote:
> Colossal observation. Except that you neglect that there are involved BOTH
> Periods and Wavelength into this scenario. It is somehow merging into each
> other, the time dimension and the space dimension. Very colossal funny
> indeed. You are infact giving the proof for the existence of "spacetime"

> as a merged institution. Very funny indeed... and the there are
> <http://tinyurl.com/Tears-for-Einsteins-Misery>

[Odd Bodkin]

On 8/7/17 3:12 AM, HGW... wrote:
> Let's get to the bottom of this insane claim.
> A clock is a counter of the cycles of an oscillator. To claim a clock
> runs slow is a claim that the oscillator period increases when it is
> caused to move relative to an observer.
> Yet we know that nothing at all happens PHYSICALLY to anything as a
> result of a speed change...

And what about the rate of the clock is intrinsic to the clock?

> So what are dingleberries trying to say?


--

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

[HGW...]

On 08/08/17 01:02, danco...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, August 7, 2017 at 1:12:57 AM UTC-7, HGW... wrote:
>> ... nothing at all happens PHYSICALLY to anything as a result of a
>> speed change...
>
> Not true. An object initially at rest and in equilibrium in terms
> of inertial coordinates S undergoes changes, both intrinsic and
> extrinsic, if a force is temporarily applied to accelerate the
> object until it is at rest in another system of inertial coordinates
> S' and then allowed to reach equilibrium.

Did you not observe that I specifically wrote 'a speed change', not 'an
acceleration?

> The precise details of the changes during and after the acceleration
> process depend on the precise way in which the force is applied
> (pushing on one end, pulling on the other end, etc.).

This is quite irrelevant to the argument...and is nonsense anyway.
Perfect clocks do not deform

> Assuming the limit of elastic deformation is not exceeded during the
> acceleration, the object will eventually settle into an equilibrium
> configuration whose description in terms of S' is formally similar
> to it's original equilibrium state description in terms of S, modulo
> differences in the phase relations between different parts of the
> object that unavoidably occur as the result of acceleration. The
> changes in an object, such as a clock, result in the characteristic
> periods of any physical process being slowed compared with the time
> coordinate of S.

That is complete crap. Totally unproven....

> Likewise an identically constructed clock that remained at rest in S
> runs slow compared with the time coordinate of S'. (Inertial
> coordinate systems are defined to ensure this reciprocity.)

More crap....

> This is discussed in more detail in any good book on relativity.

The terms 'good book' and 'relativity' are mutually exclusive in the one
sentence.


--

[HGW...]

On 08/08/17 04:27, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 8/7/17 3:12 AM, HGW... wrote:
>> Let's get to the bottom of this insane claim. A clock is a counter
>> of the cycles of an oscillator. To claim a clock runs slow is a
>> claim that the oscillator period increases when it is caused to
>> move relative to an observer. Yet we know that nothing at all
>> happens PHYSICALLY to anything as a result of a speed change...
>
> And what about the rate of the clock is intrinsic to the clock?

It's time you brushed up on your sentence construction, Bodkin. Can you
suggest a good interpretor

[rotchm]

On Monday, August 7, 2017 at 4:12:57 AM UTC-4, HGW... wrote:

It means that if for a pair of clocks we have t' <> t then we call that 'TD'.
Of the two values differ, we say TD or "run slow". But this latter expression is quite misleading. Best just to say what it is: t' <> t upon comparison.

Of course I'm omitting important details, but that's the essence of those meanings.

[danco...@gmail.com]

On Monday, August 7, 2017 at 4:14:24 PM UTC-7, HGW... wrote:
> Did you not observe that I specifically wrote 'a speed
> change', not 'an acceleration?

An active speed change is an acceleration. A passive speed change refers to an object that does not undergo any acceleration but is described in terms of a differently moving system of inertial coordinates. Both of those, and the reciprocity between them, were explained in my message.

> Perfect clocks do not deform.

Not true. Any active change in the state of motion of an object results in either spatial or temporal deformation (the latter consisting of phase skews) or both. And this is reciprocal to the descriptive features of the corresponding passive transformations.

> That [special relativity] is complete crap. Totally unproven....

To the contrary, the local Lorentz invariance of all (known) physical phenomena has been empirically demonstrated and confirmed countless times, to extremely high levels of precision.

[Odd Bodkin]

Good grief. Is clock rate an intrinsic property of the clock?

>
>>> So what are dingleberries trying to say?
>>
>>
>
>



--

[mlwo...@wp.pl]

W dniu wtorek, 8 sierpnia 2017 04:13:08 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:

> Good grief. Is clock rate an intrinsic property of the clock?

Of course it's not, poor idiot. Sometimes it can be treated
this way with good enough precision. And that's all.

[Odd Bodkin]

Right!
Of course, Henry is trying to claim that it is.

[kenseto]

On Monday, August 7, 2017 at 10:13:08 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> HGW... <hgw@....> wrote:
> > On 08/08/17 04:27, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >> On 8/7/17 3:12 AM, HGW... wrote:
> >>> Let's get to the bottom of this insane claim. A clock is a counter
> >>> of the cycles of an oscillator. To claim a clock runs slow is a
> >>> claim that the oscillator period increases when it is caused to
> >>> move relative to an observer. Yet we know that nothing at all
> >>> happens PHYSICALLY to anything as a result of a speed change...
> >>
> >> And what about the rate of the clock is intrinsic to the clock?
> >
> > It's time you brushed up on your sentence construction, Bodkin. Can you
> > suggest a good interpretor
>
> Good grief. Is clock rate an intrinsic property of the clock?

The rate of a clock accumulates clock seconds is an intrinsic properties of the clock.

[HGW...]

On 08/08/17 10:02, danco...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, August 7, 2017 at 4:14:24 PM UTC-7, HGW... wrote:
>> Did you not observe that I specifically wrote 'a speed change', not
>> 'an acceleration?
>
> An active speed change is an acceleration. A passive speed change
> refers to an object that does not undergo any acceleration but is
> described in terms of a differently moving system of inertial
> coordinates. Both of those, and the reciprocity between them, were
> explained in my message.

It matters not one iota how an object's speed changes...(within reason)
the object will be exactly as it was before, assuming no other physical
effects. What happens in the acceleration phase is purely transient.

>> Perfect clocks do not deform.
>
> Not true. Any active change in the state of motion of an object
> results in either spatial or temporal deformation (the latter
> consisting of phase skews) or both. And this is reciprocal to the
> descriptive features of the corresponding passive transformations.

Only in the minds of indoctrinated dingleberries....
A clock is a counter of oscillator cycles. Changing the speed of a
piezo-electric crystal reasonably carefully will not change it in any
noticeable way. That is well established.

>> That [special relativity] is complete crap. Totally unproven....
>
> To the contrary, the local Lorentz invariance of all (known) physical
> phenomena has been empirically demonstrated and confirmed countless
> times, to extremely high levels of precision.

I cannot understand how seemingly intelligent people like you can still
believe that kind of nonsense.



--

[HGW...]

On 08/08/17 09:32, rotchm wrote:
> On Monday, August 7, 2017 at 4:12:57 AM UTC-4, HGW... wrote:
>
> It means that if for a pair of clocks we have t' <> t then we call that 'TD'.
> Of the two values differ, we say TD or "run slow". But this latter expression is quite misleading. Best just to say what it is: t' <> t upon comparison.
>

> Of course I'm omitting important details, ...

You certainly are. You are missing the fact that the clocks are mere
counters of cycles, eg, a crystal in a tuned circuit.. Did you mean
'Tor1<>Tor2' where the Tors are the oscillator periods.

If so, what are you actually saying? You know nothing has happened to
the oscillators physically, so are you claiming that accelerating a
crystal can change time flow in its vicinity?
That is plainly stupid because the crystal will slow down or speed up
when a force is applied depending on the reference...so will time slow
or quicken?


--

[HGW...]

On 08/08/17 21:26, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> <mlwo...@wp.pl> wrote:
>> W dniu wtorek, 8 sierpnia 2017 04:13:08 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:
>>
>>> Good grief. Is clock rate an intrinsic property of the clock?

Ah! Is that what you meant?

>>
>> Of course it's not, poor idiot. Sometimes it can be treated
>> this way with good enough precision. And that's all.
>>
>
> Right!
> Of course, Henry is trying to claim that it is.

I have not made any such claim.
A clock is nothing but a counter. The numbers on its display or the
momentary positions of its hands might be considered intrinsic....but
what you should be asking is, "is the period of the oscillator intrinsic?'
That's a tricky one because I can't recall anyone suggesting that a time
interval can be a property of anything, either intrinsic or extrinsic.



--

[rotchm]

On Tuesday, August 8, 2017 at 8:44:37 PM UTC-4, HGW... wrote:
> On 08/08/17 09:32, rotchm wrote:
> > On Monday, August 7, 2017 at 4:12:57 AM UTC-4, HGW... wrote:
> >
> > It means that if for a pair of clocks we have t' <> t then we
> > call that 'TD'.

> > ...

> > Of course I'm omitting important details, ...
>
> You certainly are. You are missing the fact that the clocks are mere
> counters of cycles,

Nope. Its implicit.

> eg, a crystal in a tuned circuit.. Did you mean
> 'Tor1<>Tor2' where the Tors are the oscillator periods.

Yes. The *values* differ; t' <> t. very simple concept.

> If so, what are you actually saying?

The clocks indicate different values; t' <> t.

> You know nothing has happened to
> the oscillators physically,

Irrelevant. Maybe there has, maybe not. Nonetheless, if their values differ, that is, if t' <> t, then this is grossly called TD.

> so are you claiming that accelerating a
> crystal can change time flow in its vicinity?

That is not what I claimed. I said that if their values differ, then we call this TD.

> That is plainly stupid because the crystal will slow down or speed up
> when a force is applied depending on the reference...so will time slow
> or quicken?

This is a totally different subject. Dont mix up 'time' with the value indicated on a particular clock.
'time' implicitly makes references to a set of clocks (many clocks) in a given reference frame, and where a synch procedure has been given.

The value of a clock however, needs not a synch procedure.

If you push (accelerate) a clock, then we can *expect* it to change its properties, break, or whatever. BUT once the acceleration done and is inertial, **if** it still functions as its specifications requires (in essence we put ourselves in the same inertial frame as it and verify it), then we call this a 'good clock', or simply a 'clock'. Note that if we have a (good) clock, then exps have shown that even under great accelerations
its change in value (proper time (interval)) still satisfied Δt' = ∫ dt/g, where g = 1/√(1-v²), where
v = v(t) = dx/dt, where x = x(t), its trajectory during its acceleration.
This is sometimes called a "hidden postulate" of SR, the "clock hypothesis":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clock_hypothesis

IOW, *its value* will change by the amount Δt' = ∫ dt/g.
Dont call this 'time slows down" or TD. call it Δt' = ∫ dt/g. Its much more concise that way, just as t' <> t.

[danco...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, August 8, 2017 at 5:33:53 PM UTC-7, HGW... wrote:
> It matters not one iota how an object's speed changes...(within reason)
> the object will be exactly as it was before, assuming no other physical
> effects. What happens in the acceleration phase is purely transient.

It's true that if a solid object is initially at rest and in equilibrium in S, and then it is temporarily accelerated (without exceeding its limit of elastic deformation) and allowed to come to rest and reach equilibrium in S', it will eventually settle into an equilibrium configuration whose state description in terms of S' is the same as its original equilibrium state description in terms of S (modulo differences in the phase relations between different parts of the object that unavoidably arise as the result of the transitory acceleration).

However, the description of the object in terms of S is now different, essentially because the inertial mass of each part of the object is increased, corresponding to a reduction in the natural frequencies of all physical processes, from which it follows that S and S' are related by a Lorentz transformation, with all the consequences that entails (reciprocal length contraction and time dilation, etc).

> A clock is a counter of oscillator cycles. Changing the speed of a
> piezo-electric crystal reasonably carefully will not change it in any
> noticeable way. That is well established.

Again, in terms of its own in inertial rest frame coordinates a well constructed clock will continue to accurately represent the temporal characteristics of all physical processes at rest in its own rest frame. However, if such a clock is at rest in S', it runs slow compared with the time coordinate of S, and likewise a clock at rest in S runs slow compared with the time coordinate of S'. Those two sentences may seem impossible to reconcile, but they are not. It is all explained by the fact that energy has inertia, which implies that S and S' are related by a Lorentz transformation.

It's important to realize that special relativity is a ballistic theory, differing from Newtonian theory only by the incorporation of the one fact that Newton missed, namely, that all forms of energy have inertia.

[HGW...]

On 09/08/17 12:23, rotchm wrote:

> On Tuesday, August 8, 2017 at 8:44:37 PM UTC-4, HGW... wrote:

>> You certainly are. You are missing the fact that the clocks are
>> mere counters of cycles,
>
> Nope. Its implicit.
>
>> eg, a crystal in a tuned circuit.. Did you mean 'Tor1<>Tor2' where
>> the Tors are the oscillator periods.
>
> Yes. The *values* differ; t' <> t. very simple concept.
>
>
>> If so, what are you actually saying?
>
> The clocks indicate different values; t' <> t.
>
>> You know nothing has happened to the oscillators physically,
>
> Irrelevant. Maybe there has, maybe not.

No 'maybe' about it. NOTHING HAPPENS TO THE OSCILLATOR.

Nonetheless, if their values differ, that is, if t' <> t, then this is
grossly called TD.

The values do not differ. Nothing happens to either oscillator..so why
should the clocks count different numbers of cycles?

>> so are you claiming that accelerating a crystal can change time
>> flow in its vicinity?
>
> That is not what I claimed. I said that if their values differ, then
> we call this TD.

what fucking values? We are talking about the oscillators, the cycles of
which the clock counts. That is what a clock does you know...

>
>> That is plainly stupid because the crystal will slow down or speed
>> up when a force is applied depending on the reference...so will
>> time slow or quicken?
>
> This is a totally different subject. Dont mix up 'time' with the
> value indicated on a particular clock.

Christ! you are so bloody stupid you cannot even understand the
question! It is not a different subject. It is the subject we are
discussing.
I'll ask you again. Why should the clocks count different numbers of
cycles when the oscillators do not change in any way no matter how they
move?

> 'time' implicitly makes references to a set of clocks (many clocks)
> in a given reference frame, and where a synch procedure has been
> given. The value of a clock however, needs not a synch procedure.

This has nothing to do with what we are trying to discuss. You are
obviously completely lost. This subject is far too hard for you.

> If you push (accelerate) a clock, then we can *expect* it to change
> its properties, break, or whatever. BUT once the acceleration done
> and is inertial, **if** it still functions as its specifications
> requires (in essence we put ourselves in the same inertial frame as
> it and verify it), then we call this a 'good clock', or simply a
> 'clock'. Note that if we have a (good) clock, then exps have shown
> that even under great accelerations its change in value (proper time
> (interval)) still satisfied Δt' = ∫ dt/g, where g = 1/√(1-v²),
> where v = v(t) = dx/dt, where x = x(t), its trajectory during its
> acceleration. This is sometimes called a "hidden postulate" of SR,
> the "clock hypothesis":
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clock_hypothesis

faked...absolute bullshit!

> IOW, *its value* will change by the amount Δt' = ∫ dt/g. Dont call
> this 'time slows down" or TD. call it Δt' = ∫ dt/g. Its much more
> concise that way, just as t' <> t.

If the oscillators do not change, as we know, how can their movement
change time itself?



--

[HGW...]

On 09/08/17 15:54, danco...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 8, 2017 at 5:33:53 PM UTC-7, HGW... wrote:
>> It matters not one iota how an object's speed changes...(within
>> reason) the object will be exactly as it was before, assuming no
>> other physical effects. What happens in the acceleration phase is
>> purely transient.
>
> It's true that if a solid object is initially at rest and in
> equilibrium in S, and then it is temporarily accelerated (without
> exceeding its limit of elastic deformation) and allowed to come to
> rest and reach equilibrium in S', it will eventually settle into an
> equilibrium configuration whose state description in terms of S' is
> the same as its original equilibrium state description in terms of S
> (modulo differences in the phase relations between different parts of
> the object that unavoidably arise as the result of the transitory
> acceleration).
>
> However, the description of the object in terms of S is now
> different, essentially because the inertial mass of each part of the
> object is increased, corresponding to a reduction in the natural
> frequencies of all physical processes, from which it follows that S
> and S' are related by a Lorentz transformation, with all the
> consequences that entails (reciprocal length contraction and time
> dilation, etc).

load of crap....stop preaching Ensteiniana nonsense

>> A clock is a counter of oscillator cycles. Changing the speed of a
>> piezo-electric crystal reasonably carefully will not change it in
>> any noticeable way. That is well established.
>
> Again, in terms of its own in inertial rest frame coordinates a well
> constructed clock will continue to accurately represent the temporal
> characteristics of all physical processes at rest in its own rest
> frame. However, if such a clock is at rest in S', it runs slow
> compared with the time coordinate of S, and likewise a clock at rest
> in S runs slow compared with the time coordinate of S'. Those two
> sentences may seem impossible to reconcile, but they are not. It is
> all explained by the fact that energy has inertia, which implies that
> S and S' are related by a Lorentz transformation.

It is not explained and it neds no explaining because it does not
happen. It is pure nonsense from start to finish.

> It's important to realize that special relativity is a ballistic
> theory, differing from Newtonian theory only by the incorporation of
> the one fact that Newton missed, namely, that all forms of energy
> have inertia.

That's a new angle :) ....please explain if you can....



--

[rotchm]

On Wednesday, August 9, 2017 at 6:15:38 AM UTC-4, HGW... wrote:
> On 09/08/17 12:23, rotchm wrote:


> >> You know nothing has happened to the oscillators physically,
> >
> > Irrelevant. Maybe there has, maybe not.
>
> No 'maybe' about it. NOTHING HAPPENS TO THE OSCILLATOR.

How do you know this? God told you? And as I said, its totally irrelevant if something happened to the oscillator. What matters is, if the (good) clock
still functions well *after* the acceleration.

> Nonetheless, if their values differ, that is, if t' <> t, then this is
> grossly called TD.
>
> The values do not differ. Nothing happens to either oscillator..so why
> should the clocks count different numbers of cycles?

Empirical fact. We cant argue with that. As to why this is so, dont matter: we have formulas that predict this.

> > That is not what I claimed. I said that if their values differ, then
> > we call this TD.
>
> what fucking values? We are talking about the oscillators, the cycles of
> which the clock counts. That is what a clock does you know...

Yes, the devices (clocks) count the # of oscillations. This # is what I call the "value"; The clock counts # displays 6 oscillations: Its value is t = 6.
Simple concept...

> Christ! you are so bloody stupid you cannot even understand the
> question! It is not a different subject. It is the subject we are
> discussing.

The subject I'm discussing, is the sole question in the title.
Re read your title.

> I'll ask you again. Why should the clocks count different numbers of
> cycles when the oscillators do not change in any way no matter how they
> move?

That's NOT the title, hence is not the subject I am (nor was) discussing with you. Nonetheless, I answered you that too. Again,

YOU are the one who claims that # of cycles when the oscillators do not change in any way no matter how they move. That is perhaps a false premise on your part. I told you to this that its irrelevant what happens to the clock during acceleration. And to your "why should..." is not a physics question but a philosophical question. The "why" is irrelevant since what is of interest is to have equations that predict the values (a model).

> > 'time' implicitly makes references to a set of clocks (many clocks)
> > in a given reference frame, and where a synch procedure has been
> > given. The value of a clock however, needs not a synch procedure.
>
> This has nothing to do with what we are trying to discuss.

Thats what I told you <sigh>.

> faked...absolute bullshit!

You would call empirical evidence as 'faked' ... <sigh>.

> If the oscillators do not change,

So sayeth God ?

> as we know,

We do?

> how can their movement change time itself?

"how" as "why" are irrelevant; its a philosophical (& metaphysical) question. We have a model (formulas) that predict their values, and that is all that is of interest.

[Odd Bodkin]

On 8/8/17 2:35 PM, kenseto wrote:
> On Monday, August 7, 2017 at 10:13:08 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> HGW... <hgw@....> wrote:
>>> On 08/08/17 04:27, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>> On 8/7/17 3:12 AM, HGW... wrote:
>>>>> Let's get to the bottom of this insane claim. A clock is a counter
>>>>> of the cycles of an oscillator. To claim a clock runs slow is a
>>>>> claim that the oscillator period increases when it is caused to
>>>>> move relative to an observer. Yet we know that nothing at all
>>>>> happens PHYSICALLY to anything as a result of a speed change...
>>>>
>>>> And what about the rate of the clock is intrinsic to the clock?
>>>
>>> It's time you brushed up on your sentence construction, Bodkin. Can you
>>> suggest a good interpretor
>>
>> Good grief. Is clock rate an intrinsic property of the clock?
>
> The rate of a clock accumulates clock seconds is an intrinsic properties of the clock.

On what basis is such a claim made?

[Odd Bodkin]

On 8/9/17 5:15 AM, HGW... wrote:
> If the oscillators do not change, as we know, how can their movement
> change time itself?

What gave you the idea that the claim is time itself is changed?
Time is a coordinate component of spacetime. A change in motion of the
observer doesn't change spacetime, though it does change coordinates.

[danco...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, August 9, 2017 at 3:19:37 AM UTC-7, HGW... wrote:

> On 09/08/17 15:54, danco wrote:
> > It's true that if a solid object is initially at rest and in
> > equilibrium in S, and then it is temporarily accelerated (without
> > exceeding its limit of elastic deformation) and allowed to come to
> > rest and reach equilibrium in S', it will eventually settle into an
> > equilibrium configuration whose state description in terms of S' is
> > the same as its original equilibrium state description in terms of S
> > (modulo differences in the phase relations between different parts of
> > the object that unavoidably arise as the result of the transitory
> > acceleration).
> >
> > However, the description of the object in terms of S is now
> > different, essentially because the inertial mass of each part of the
> > object is increased, corresponding to a reduction in the natural
> > frequencies of all physical processes, from which it follows that S
> > and S' are related by a Lorentz transformation, with all the
> > consequences that entails (reciprocal length contraction and time
> > dilation, etc).
>
> load of crap....stop preaching Ensteiniana nonsense

That isn't a substantive rebuttal. If you see something wrong, point it out. If you see something that's unclear or that needs further explanation, point it out.

> >> A clock is a counter of oscillator cycles. Changing the speed of a
> >> piezo-electric crystal reasonably carefully will not change it in
> >> any noticeable way. That is well established.
> >
> > Again, in terms of its own in inertial rest frame coordinates a well
> > constructed clock will continue to accurately represent the temporal
> > characteristics of all physical processes at rest in its own rest
> > frame. However, if such a clock is at rest in S', it runs slow
> > compared with the time coordinate of S, and likewise a clock at rest
> > in S runs slow compared with the time coordinate of S'. Those two
> > sentences may seem impossible to reconcile, but they are not. It is
> > all explained by the fact that energy has inertia, which implies that
> > S and S' are related by a Lorentz transformation.
>
> It is not explained and it neds no explaining because it does not
> happen. It is pure nonsense from start to finish.

Those are two separate criticisms, i.e., (1) it does not happen, and (2) it is pure nonsense. I think the reason you are so convinced of (1), to the point of believing that all experimental results showing that it does indeed happen are falsified, etc., is because you believe (2) so firmly. But (2) is easily shown to be false. It is not nonsense, it is very simply derivable by simple logic and grade school algebra from fundamental premises that everyone (including you) accepts. If you focused on this, and came to understand why (2) is false, you would then be more able to accept all the experimental evidence that (1) is also false.

> > It's important to realize that special relativity is a ballistic
> > theory, differing from Newtonian theory only by the incorporation of
> > the one fact that Newton missed, namely, that all forms of energy
> > have inertia.
>
> That's a new angle :) ....please explain if you can....

It isn't a new angle, I've explained it to you before, in detail. Again, in summary, all of special relativity follows from the inertia of energy. Specifically, if m0 is the inertial mass of a particle at rest in some inertial frame, then as the particle is accelerated it gains kinetic energy, and this extra energy itself has inertia (as do all forms of energy, with constant or proportionality equal to c^2), and it takes only grade school algebra to show that the inertial mass of the particle moving at speed v in this frame is m0/sqrt(1 - (v/c)^2). This dependence of inertial mass on speed has been demonstrated countless times in many different ways (for example, look at the Sun), and all of special relativity follows from this. In the past you have even agreed that this dependence exists, and you attributed it to the Wilson Bubble SomethingOrOther. It doesn't matter what you call it. If you agree that energy has inertia, you agree with special relativity.

[HGW...]

There is zero experimental evidence that any of Eimstein's silly theory
is correct.
there is plenty of evidence that proves light is ballistic.

>>> It's important to realize that special relativity is a ballistic
>>> theory, differing from Newtonian theory only by the incorporation
>>> of the one fact that Newton missed, namely, that all forms of
>>> energy have inertia.
>>
>> That's a new angle :) ....please explain if you can....
>
> It isn't a new angle, I've explained it to you before, in detail.
> Again, in summary, all of special relativity follows from the inertia
> of energy. Specifically, if m0 is the inertial mass of a particle at
> rest in some inertial frame, then as the particle is accelerated it
> gains kinetic energy, and this extra energy itself has inertia (as do
> all forms of energy, with constant or proportionality equal to c^2),
> and it takes only grade school algebra to show that the inertial mass
> of the particle moving at speed v in this frame is m0/sqrt(1 -
> (v/c)^2). This dependence of inertial mass on speed has been
> demonstrated countless times in many different ways (for example,
> look at the Sun), and all of special relativity follows from this.
> In the past you have even agreed that this dependence exists, and you
> attributed it to the Wilson Bubble SomethingOrOther. It doesn't
> matter what you call it. If you agree that energy has inertia, you
> agree with special relativity.

What an extraordinary series of statements....absolute garbage but quite
well expressed. Maybe you should take up preaching for a living.



--

[JanPB]

Except, in the real world:
https://rd.springer.com/article/10.12942/lrr-2014-4
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html

--
Jan

[HGW...]

On 10/08/17 00:24, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 8/9/17 5:15 AM, HGW... wrote:
>> If the oscillators do not change, as we know, how can their movement
>> change time itself?
>
> What gave you the idea that the claim is time itself is changed?

What else can it mean? The oscillator does not physically change because
of an acceleration...so if the clock counting rate changes, when viewed
in the original frame, that can only indicate a change in time itself,
in the whole moving frame. Maybe you will now realize why that does not
make any sense.

> Time is a coordinate component of spacetime. A change in motion of the
> observer doesn't change spacetime, though it does change coordinates.

Not in the correct version of space/time.



--

[HGW...]

On 09/08/17 23:49, rotchm wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 9, 2017 at 6:15:38 AM UTC-4, HGW... wrote:
>> On 09/08/17 12:23, rotchm wrote:
>
>
>>>> You know nothing has happened to the oscillators physically,
>>>
>>> Irrelevant. Maybe there has, maybe not.
>>
>> No 'maybe' about it. NOTHING HAPPENS TO THE OSCILLATOR.
>
> How do you know this? God told you? And as I said, its totally
> irrelevant if something happened to the oscillator. What matters is,
> if the (good) clock still functions well *after* the acceleration.

The clock will only function as well as its oscillator. You seem to be
having trouble understanding what a clock is.
Anyway, nobody is interested in what happens during the acceleration
period. Anything that does happen is purely transient and the thing will
soon settle down to its original state after the applied force is removed.
The proof that no physical change occurs because of an acceleration is
trivial. The 'acceleration' will be a deceleration in half the reference
frames in the universe and so any change would have to be both positive
and negative.....an obvious impossibility.

>> Nonetheless, if their values differ, that is, if t' <> t, then this
>> is grossly called TD.
>>
>> The values do not differ. Nothing happens to either oscillator..so
>> why should the clocks count different numbers of cycles?
>
> Empirical fact. We cant argue with that. As to why this is so, dont
> matter: we have formulas that predict this.

It isn't an empirical fact at all.

>>> That is not what I claimed. I said that if their values differ,
>>> then we call this TD.
>>
>> what fucking values? We are talking about the oscillators, the
>> cycles of which the clock counts. That is what a clock does you
>> know...
>
> Yes, the devices (clocks) count the # of oscillations. This # is what
> I call the "value"; The clock counts # displays 6 oscillations: Its
> value is t = 6. Simple concept...

OK, you finally got that.. Now, since the oscillator does not change in
any way, why should the count of its cycles change?

>> Christ! you are so bloody stupid you cannot even understand the
>> question! It is not a different subject. It is the subject we are
>> discussing.
>
> The subject I'm discussing, is the sole question in the title. Re
> read your title.

Well answer the last question. If the clock's count rate changes as
claimed but the oscillator does not change in any way, what is the
explanation?

>
>> I'll ask you again. Why should the clocks count different numbers
>> of cycles when the oscillators do not change in any way no matter
>> how they move?
>
> That's NOT the title, hence is not the subject I am (nor was)
> discussing with you. Nonetheless, I answered you that too. Again,
>
> YOU are the one who claims that # of cycles when the oscillators do
> not change in any way no matter how they move. That is perhaps a
> false premise on your part. I told you to this that its irrelevant
> what happens to the clock during acceleration.

For christs sake I am talking about the situations before the
acceleration and after it has ceased. There has been a speed change and
for some insane reason, you dingleberries reckon the oscillator
frequency is now different from what it was before.

I just want you to explain what that actually means.

And to your "why
> should..." is not a physics question but a philosophical question.
> The "why" is irrelevant since what is of interest is to have
> equations that predict the values (a model).

Anyone can make up an equation....like 2+2 =5...

>
>
>> If the oscillators do not change,
>
> So sayeth God ?

No! So sayeth trivial logic...

>> as we know,
>
> We do?
>
>> how can their movement change time itself?
>
> "how" as "why" are irrelevant; its a philosophical (& metaphysical)
> question. We have a model (formulas) that predict their values, and
> that is all that is of interest.

The whole model is based on a fallacious postulate. What it predicts is
of no value to anyone.



--

[danco...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, August 9, 2017 at 3:30:12 PM UTC-7, HGW... wrote:

> There is zero experimental evidence that any of Eimstein's silly theory
> is correct.

I think (hope) you would agree that there is an abundance of CLAIMED evidence in support of special (and general) relativity, since we can cite any number of text books, papers, etc., listing a wide variety of experimental confirmations. My understanding (correct me if I'm wrong) is that you discount all of this CLAIMED evidence on the grounds that it has been falsified.

It's difficult to go forward with any productive discussion of empirical evidence if you believe all your fellow human beings are conspiring to lie and deceive you. That's precisely why I think it would be more productive (and certainly more interesting) to talk about the rational basis for the theory, which you said was total nonsense. We don't need to rely on the truthfulness of any third parties (who might be lying to us) to discuss whether or not the theory is nonsense.

> there is plenty of evidence that proves light is ballistic.

Right... as I said, special relativity is a ballistic theory. It's not mere coincidence that Einstein wrote his EMB paper just weeks after finishing his paper showing the ballistic properties of light (and everyone, including Planck, said he was wrong). It differs from Newtonian theory essentially only by including the fact that energy has inertia.

> What an extraordinary series of statements....absolute garbage...

Again, that's not a substantive rebuttal. All your questions about, and criticisms of, special relativity have been answered. Do you HAVE any substantive rebuttal?

[Odd Bodkin]

HGW... <hgw@....> wrote:
> On 10/08/17 00:24, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> On 8/9/17 5:15 AM, HGW... wrote:
>>> If the oscillators do not change, as we know, how can their movement
>>> change time itself?
>>
>> What gave you the idea that the claim is time itself is changed?
>
> What else can it mean? The oscillator does not physically change because
> of an acceleration...so if the clock counting rate changes, when viewed
> in the original frame, that can only indicate a change in time itself,
> in the whole moving frame. Maybe you will now realize why that does not
> make any sense.

False dichotomy. You say, "well, there are only two choices, A and D" and I
ask, "what about B or C?" and you say, "I can't make any sense out of these
B and C you mention, therefore they cease to exist as possibilities."

>
>> Time is a coordinate component of spacetime. A change in motion of the
>> observer doesn't change spacetime, though it does change coordinates.
>
> Not in the correct version of space/time.
>
>
>

Well, Henry, I'm aware you can't figure relativity out. So it's easy for
you to say that the only things it could possibly mean are what lies
outside what you don't understand.

[rotchm]

On Wednesday, August 9, 2017 at 7:03:04 PM UTC-4, HGW... wrote:

> On 09/08/17 23:49, rotchm wrote:

> > How do you know this? God told you? And as I said, its totally
> > irrelevant if something happened to the oscillator. What matters is,
> > if the (good) clock still functions well *after* the acceleration.
>
> The clock will only function as well as its oscillator. You seem to be
> having trouble understanding what a clock is.

No, you are. I use 'clock' or 'oscillator' interchangeably; they are the same thing for our discussion. If you havent realized that, then this discussion & NG is not for you.

> Anyway, nobody is interested in what happens during the acceleration

As I said. So why did you invoke it!?

> >> The values do not differ. Nothing happens to either oscillator..so
> >> why should the clocks count different numbers of cycles?
> >
> > Empirical fact. We cant argue with that. As to why this is so, dont
> > matter: we have formulas that predict this.
>
> It isn't an empirical fact at all.

Again, you maintain your denial of empirical facts.

> > Yes, the devices (clocks) count the # of oscillations. This # is what
> > I call the "value"; The clock counts # displays 6 oscillations: Its
> > value is t = 6. Simple concept...
>
> OK, you finally got that..

Always have. It is you that still doesnt get that, as your argument above where you thing that 'clock' and 'oscillator' are different concepts (for the discussion).

> Now, since the oscillator does not change in
> any way, why should the count of its cycles change?

Did you not comprehend what I told you? "why" is irrelevant; its metaphysics. We have a model that predicts the values, in agreement with empirical facts ( t' <> t ).

> Well answer the last question. If the clock's count rate changes as
> claimed but the oscillator does not change in any way, what is the
> explanation?

*if* the clock's count rate changes... ??? So what if it does or not; its irrelevant. 1+1=2 no matter if it changes or not. t' = (t-xv)g no matter if it changes or not.

> For christs sake I am talking about the situations before the
> acceleration and after it has ceased.

So am I.

> There has been a speed change and
> for some insane reason, you dingleberries reckon the oscillator
> frequency is now different from what it was before.

?? Im not aware of anybody claiming that here. Ell, Im not anw.

> I just want you to explain what that actually means.

Its the same answer as in my first reply to you: Its a play on words; its sloppy verbose. TD, time slows down, ticks slower,... etc are all gross vulgerizations. Best to say t' = (t-xv)g which is clear & concise.

> Anyone can make up an equation....like 2+2 =5...

But that is wrong and can be shown that its false (if one takes the usual meaning of these symbols).

> >> If the oscillators do not change,
> >
> > So sayeth God ?
>
> No! So sayeth trivial logic...

But where is the logic? You only made void claims. You did dot show from the premises, that "oscillators do not change". Show the mathematical logical steps that lead to this conclusion.

> The whole model is based on a fallacious postulate.

Perhaps. nonetheless, its conclusions agree with empirical facts.

> What it predicts is of no value to anyone.

False... It greatly helped the advancement of technology.

[mlwo...@wp.pl]

W dniu czwartek, 10 sierpnia 2017 00:34:41 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał:

> Except, in the real world:
> https://rd.springer.com/article/10.12942/lrr-2014-4
> http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html

In the real world of web pages driven by a bunch
of brainwashed morons.

[Odd Bodkin]

On 8/9/17 6:13 PM, danco...@gmail.com wrote:
> Again, that's not a substantive rebuttal. All your questions about, and criticisms of, special relativity have been answered. Do you HAVE any substantive rebuttal?

No, of course he doesn't.

He cycles through a short list of empty rejoinders, exhibiting the lack
of imagination and drive to even lengthen that list or make it more
interesting. Among the short list items:

- "The only experiments that count are the ones I like."
- "Of course relativity is self-consistent, it's just obviously wrong
because of some premise that need not be shown true."
- "Relativity is completely self-contradictory, as I've shown by
repeated arguments whose rebuttals I have ignored."
- "No experiments have been done that support relativity."
- "The experiments that have been done that support relativity have
results that have error bars and are therefore inconclusive, because
true science provides only black or white answers with no error bars
whatsoever."
- "The experiments that have been done that support relativity are all
fake, and there is a massive conspiracy to cover that up."
- "A true scientist doubts everything, which is why Newton's treatment
is to be considered infallible."
- "No true properties of anything can be observer dependent, because I
define 'properties' so that this is impossible."

All Henry is doing is demonstrating is that he can spark a response even
by saying things as stupid as these. This he gets some fun from.

[kenseto]

On Wednesday, August 9, 2017 at 1:54:17 AM UTC-4, danco...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 8, 2017 at 5:33:53 PM UTC-7, HGW... wrote:
> > It matters not one iota how an object's speed changes...(within reason)
> > the object will be exactly as it was before, assuming no other physical
> > effects. What happens in the acceleration phase is purely transient.
>
> It's true that if a solid object is initially at rest and in equilibrium in S, and then it is temporarily accelerated (without exceeding its limit of elastic deformation) and allowed to come to rest and reach equilibrium in S', it will eventually settle into an equilibrium configuration whose state description in terms of S' is the same as its original equilibrium state description in terms of S (modulo differences in the phase relations between different parts of the object that unavoidably arise as the result of the transitory acceleration).
>
> However, the description of the object in terms of S is now different, essentially because the inertial mass of each part of the object is increased, corresponding to a reduction in the natural frequencies of all physical processes, from which it follows that S and S’ are related by a Lorentz transformation, with all the consequences that entails (reciprocal length contraction and time dilation, etc).

There is no reciprocity between S and S’.
For example:
According to SR math the S clock will accumulate more clock seconds than the S’ clock between meetings. This means that the S’ clock was definitely running slower (accumulate clock seconds at a slower rate) than the S clock during relative motion......thus no reciprocity.

IRT resolves the TP nicely. The IRT math says that:
1. The S clock accumulates clock seconds at a faster rate than the S’ clock during relative motion.
2. The S’ clock accumulate clock seconds at a slower rate than the S clock during relative motion.
3. At no time the S’ clock accumulates clock seconds at faster rate than the S clock during relative motion.....thus no reciprocity.
4. A paper on IRT is available in the following link:
http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015irt.pdf

[kenseto]

On Wednesday, August 9, 2017 at 10:21:08 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 8/8/17 2:35 PM, kenseto wrote:
> > On Monday, August 7, 2017 at 10:13:08 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >> HGW... <hgw@....> wrote:
> >>> On 08/08/17 04:27, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >>>> On 8/7/17 3:12 AM, HGW... wrote:
> >>>>> Let's get to the bottom of this insane claim. A clock is a counter
> >>>>> of the cycles of an oscillator. To claim a clock runs slow is a
> >>>>> claim that the oscillator period increases when it is caused to
> >>>>> move relative to an observer. Yet we know that nothing at all
> >>>>> happens PHYSICALLY to anything as a result of a speed change...
> >>>>
> >>>> And what about the rate of the clock is intrinsic to the clock?
> >>>
> >>> It's time you brushed up on your sentence construction, Bodkin. Can you
> >>> suggest a good interpretor
> >>
> >> Good grief. Is clock rate an intrinsic property of the clock?
> >
> > The rate of a clock accumulates clock seconds is an intrinsic properties of the clock.
>
> On what basis is such a claim made?

The unmodified GPS clock accumulates clock seconds at a faster rate than the ground clock by a factor of 38us/day. This means that the unmodified GPS clock is running at different intrinsic rate than the ground clock.

[Odd Bodkin]

Yes

> This means that the unmodified GPS clock is running at different intrinsic rate than the ground clock.

No. You apparently don't understand relativity.

[danco...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, August 10, 2017 at 7:39:33 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote:
> There is no reciprocity between S and S’. The S clock will

> accumulate more clock seconds than the S’ clock between
> meetings.

A clock at rest in S doesn't have more than one meeting with a clock at rest in S'. The symbols S and S' signify inertial coordinate systems. A clock at rest in S runs slow compared with the time coordinate of S', and a clock at rest in S' runs slow compared with the time coordinate of S. This is what is meant by reciprocity of time dilation. Of course, if two clocks meet twice, they would generally not exhibit reciprocal lapses of time.

In general, if x,t is any system of inertial coordinates, the elapsed time for a clock moving an incremental distance dx in an incremental time dt is simply sqrt[(dt)^2 - (dx/c)^2]. This simple expression applies to any clock in any state of motion.

> IRT resolves the TP nicely.

According to IRT, what is the relationship between two inertial coordinate systems x,t and x',t'?

[JanPB]

I'm afraid you have to work a bit harder than that to defeat those, as you
call them, "web pages".

--
Jan

[HGW...]

On 10/08/17 23:52, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 8/9/17 6:13 PM, danco...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Again, that's not a substantive rebuttal. All your questions about,
>> and criticisms of, special relativity have been answered. Do you HAVE
>> any substantive rebuttal?
>
> No, of course he doesn't.

Bodkin, I have clearly and consistently explained all my rebuttals of
Einstein's ridiculous theory.

> He cycles through a short list of empty rejoinders, exhibiting the lack
> of imagination and drive to even lengthen that list or make it more
> interesting. Among the short list items:
>
> - "The only experiments that count are the ones I like."

I don't count experiments that rely on dozens of vague assumptions and
estimates in order to produce a desired answer. I don't count
experiments that are based on flawed theory or have other interpretations.

> - "Of course relativity is self-consistent, it's just obviously wrong
> because of some premise that need not be shown true."

Relativity is perfectly consistent with its flawed and logically
impossible P2.

> - "Relativity is completely self-contradictory, as I've shown by
> repeated arguments whose rebuttals I have ignored."

This is nonsense. I have shown quite clearly that Einstein's whole
theory is based on a flawed postulate which cannot be true because it
leads to a logical impossibility. The fact that my diagnosis is far too
hard for any Einstein worshipper does not worry me one iota.
Any average idiot can understand and preach Einstein's SR to fellow
idiots. Understanding why it is impossible takes real genius.

> - "No experiments have been done that support relativity."

If there had been then there wouldn't be such desperation to find just
one that actually does...... Hahahhha!

> - "The experiments that have been done that support relativity have
> results that have error bars and are therefore inconclusive, because
> true science provides only black or white answers with no error bars
> whatsoever."

That is basically correct. "Out of the mouths of babes come occasional
truths"...Confucius

> - "The experiments that have been done that support relativity are all
> fake, and there is a massive conspiracy to cover that up."

A have resorted to using the word 'fake' for convenience. I accept that
in some cases, the authors might not have been deliberately cheating but
were merely fiddling the results in order to appease their superiors and
prop up their own careers. Most significant is the way any new discovery
in physics is immediately pounced on by dingleberries in order to
associate the name Einstein with it, gravitational waves, purely
Newtonian, being the latest example. The GPS is another.

> - "A true scientist doubts everything, which is why Newton's treatment
> is to be considered infallible."

No Bodkin. A scientist never regards any law as being the final word.
There may be refinements. Newton's laws have adequately satisfied all
astronomical predictions since they were formulated.

> - "No true properties of anything can be observer dependent, because I
> define 'properties' so that this is impossible."

HAHHHAHAHA! Ah Bodkin, you learned that idea from Einstein's definition
of clock synchronization. "A pair of clocks is only correctly
synchronized if they are set to measure OWLS as being c".
I'm don't operate like that plagiarizing hoaxer.

>
> All Henry is doing is demonstrating is that he can spark a response even
> by saying things as stupid as these. This he gets some fun from.

I get fun arguing with non-scientists like you, Bodkin, because you are
so easy to beat.



--

[HGW...]

On 11/08/17 00:39, kenseto wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 9, 2017 at 1:54:17 AM UTC-4, danco...@gmail.com
>
>>

>> However, the description of the object in terms of S is now
>> different, essentially because the inertial mass of each part of
>> the object is increased, corresponding to a reduction in the
>> natural frequencies of all physical processes, from which it
>> follows that S and S’ are related by a Lorentz transformation, with
>> all the consequences that entails (reciprocal length contraction
>> and time dilation, etc).
>
> There is no reciprocity between S and S’. For example: According to
> SR math the S clock will accumulate more clock seconds than the S’
> clock between meetings. This means that the S’ clock was definitely
> running slower (accumulate clock seconds at a slower rate) than the S
> clock during relative motion......thus no reciprocity.
>
> IRT resolves the TP nicely. The IRT math says that: 1. The S clock
> accumulates clock seconds at a faster rate than the S’ clock during
> relative motion. 2. The S’ clock accumulate clock seconds at a slower
> rate than the S clock during relative motion.

That can only happen if an absolute frame exists.

> 3. At no time the S’ clock accumulates clock seconds at faster rate
> than the S clock during relative motion.....thus no reciprocity. 4. A
> paper on IRT is available in the following link:
> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015irt.pdf

useless aether theory stuff....


--

[HGW...]

We have systematically discussed all those experiments over the years
and have revealed and fully explained their flaws.

> --
> Jan
>


--

[HGW...]

On 10/08/17 10:06, rotchm wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 9, 2017 at 7:03:04 PM UTC-4, HGW... wrote:

>

>
> Always have. It is you that still doesnt get that, as your argument
> above where you thing that 'clock' and 'oscillator' are different
> concepts (for the discussion).

The 'clock' is just a peripheral to the oscillator. It is what happens
to the oscillator that we must consider.

>> Now, since the oscillator does not change in any way, why should
>> the count of its cycles change?
>
> Did you not comprehend what I told you? "why" is irrelevant; its
> metaphysics. We have a model that predicts the values, in agreement
> with empirical facts ( t' <> t ).

'Why' is certainly not in physics, about which you apparently know
nothing. If such empirical facts exist, I am asking you to explain in
simple terms what they mean.
I gather you believe that applying a force to an oscillator somehow
affects time. Which time do you have in mind? Is is just local to the
oscillator?
So what actually does t<>t' mean in terms of the oscillators?

Can you understand that question?

>> Well answer the last question. If the clock's count rate changes
>> as claimed but the oscillator does not change in any way, what is
>> the explanation?
>
> *if* the clock's count rate changes... ??? So what if it does or
> not; its irrelevant. 1+1=2 no matter if it changes or not. t' =
> (t-xv)g no matter if it changes or not.
>
>
>> For christs sake I am talking about the situations before the
>> acceleration and after it has ceased.
>
> So am I.
>
>> There has been a speed change and for some insane reason, you
>> dingleberries reckon the oscillator frequency is now different from
>> what it was before.
>
> ?? Im not aware of anybody claiming that here. Ell, Im not anw.
>
>> I just want you to explain what that actually means.
>
> Its the same answer as in my first reply to you: Its a play on words;
> its sloppy verbose. TD, time slows down, ticks slower,... etc are all
> gross vulgerizations. Best to say t' = (t-xv)g which is clear &
> concise.

OK you said it. "time slows down". Can you now enlarge on that
statement. Are you claiming that whenever a force is applied to
something, eg an oscillator, time slows down. Do you mean time slows
everywhere or just in the oscillator itself?

>
>> Anyone can make up an equation....like 2+2 =5...
>
> But that is wrong and can be shown that its false (if one takes the
> usual meaning of these symbols).

and t' = (t-xv)g is wrong and has been shown to be meaningless and
impossible.

>>>> If the oscillators do not change,
>>>
>>> So sayeth God ?
>>
>> No! So sayeth trivial logic...
>
> But where is the logic? You only made void claims. You did dot show
> from the premises, that "oscillators do not change". Show the
> mathematical logical steps that lead to this conclusion.

In he absence of an absolute frame, speed dependency of an intrinsic
property or quantity is impossible for the simple reason that a change
in speed is always about equally positive and negative.

>> The whole model is based on a fallacious postulate.
>
> Perhaps. nonetheless, its conclusions agree with empirical facts.

there are no such empirical facts.

>> What it predicts is of no value to anyone.
>
> False... It greatly helped the advancement of technology.

None of Einstein's theory has ever been used in technology.
>


--

[Winfred Tucker]

HGW... wrote:

>> Always have. It is you that still doesnt get that, as your argument
>> above where you thing that 'clock' and 'oscillator' are different
>> concepts (for the discussion).
>
> The 'clock' is just a peripheral to the oscillator. It is what happens
> to the oscillator that we must consider.

No, that's a watch. But yes, you are completely right otherwise.

[danco...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, August 10, 2017 at 3:58:33 PM UTC-7, HGW... wrote:
> I have shown quite clearly that Einstein's whole theory
> is based on a flawed postulate which cannot be true because
> it leads to a logical impossibility.

This is precisely what I've been trying to get from you: An explanation of the logical impossibility of special relativity. This doesn't involve any experiments at all, because it isn't a question of whether physics actually is Lorentz invariant, it is merely a question of whether Lorentz invariance is logically impossible.

As understand it, your argument is focused on the proposition that, in terms of at least one inertial coordinate system (i.e., a system in which the equations of Newtonian mechanics hold good to the first order), light propagates in vacuum with the speed c, independent of the speed of the source. Combining this with the relativity principle (with which you presumably agree), and discounting any possible "ether" in the vacuum, this proposition implies that light propagates at c in terms of every system of inertial coordinates.

As you surely know, the first time anyone hears this they think "That can't possibly be true! It's a logical impossibility!" However, most people, after thinking about it carefully for a few minutes, come to think that their initial reaction was wrong, and that it isn't logically impossible after all. In fact, if inertia has energy with proportionality constant c^2, the Lorentz invariance of all physical phenomena becomes self-evident... or so they think.

But after many long years of careful thought, you have decided that their initial reaction was correct, and that special relativity really is logically inconsistent. So, I'm very interested to hear your explanation of the logical inconsistency. Can you explain?

[HGW...]

On 10/08/17 09:50, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> HGW... <hgw@....> wrote:
>> On 10/08/17 00:24, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>> On 8/9/17 5:15 AM, HGW... wrote:
>>>> If the oscillators do not change, as we know, how can their movement
>>>> change time itself?
>>>
>>> What gave you the idea that the claim is time itself is changed?
>>
>> What else can it mean? The oscillator does not physically change because
>> of an acceleration...so if the clock counting rate changes, when viewed
>> in the original frame, that can only indicate a change in time itself,
>> in the whole moving frame. Maybe you will now realize why that does not
>> make any sense.
>
> False dichotomy.

Not according to your colleague Rotchm. He admitted that from the
dingleberry POV, TIME itself is what changes.

You say, "well, there are only two choices, A and D" and I
> ask, "what about B or C?" and you say, "I can't make any sense out of these
> B and C you mention, therefore they cease to exist as possibilities."
>
>>
>>> Time is a coordinate component of spacetime. A change in motion of the
>>> observer doesn't change spacetime, though it does change coordinates.
>>
>> Not in the correct version of space/time.
>>
>>
>>
>
> Well, Henry, I'm aware you can't figure relativity out. So it's easy for
> you to say that the only things it could possibly mean are what lies
> outside what you don't understand.

Bodkin, I am asking for a simple answer. I didn't want a continuous play
on words from someone who is a self confessed scientific ignoramus.

What does the average dingleberry actually mean when he/she makes the
somewhat amusing claim that the application of a force to an oscillator
for a period of time will cause its subsequent period to be different
from that before the application?



--

[HGW...]

No that's just the prediction of a funny little piece of SciFi.



--

[Odd Bodkin]

Thank you, Henry the Ralph (or is it Ralph the Henry?) for completely
standing by my summary of your short list of idiotic rejoinders. It's
good that you are honest with yourself about having absolutely no
dignity left in that chasm that perhaps once contained grey matter.

[Odd Bodkin]

On 8/10/17 6:45 PM, HGW... wrote:
> On 10/08/17 09:50, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> HGW... <hgw@....> wrote:
>>> On 10/08/17 00:24, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>> On 8/9/17 5:15 AM, HGW... wrote:
>>>>> If the oscillators do not change, as we know, how can their movement
>>>>> change time itself?
>>>>
>>>> What gave you the idea that the claim is time itself is changed?
>>>
>>> What else can it mean? The oscillator does not physically change because
>>> of an acceleration...so if the clock counting rate changes, when viewed
>>> in the original frame, that can only indicate a change in time itself,
>>> in the whole moving frame. Maybe you will now realize why that does not
>>> make any sense.
>>
>> False dichotomy.
>
> Not according to your colleague Rotchm. He admitted that from the
> dingleberry POV, TIME itself is what changes.

Nice try. Not biting.

>
> You say, "well, there are only two choices, A and D" and I
>> ask, "what about B or C?" and you say, "I can't make any sense out of
>> these
>> B and C you mention, therefore they cease to exist as possibilities."
>>
>>>
>>>> Time is a coordinate component of spacetime. A change in motion of the
>>>> observer doesn't change spacetime, though it does change coordinates.
>>>
>>> Not in the correct version of space/time.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Well, Henry, I'm aware you can't figure relativity out. So it's easy for
>> you to say that the only things it could possibly mean are what lies
>> outside what you don't understand.
>
> Bodkin, I am asking for a simple answer. I didn't want a continuous play
> on words from someone who is a self confessed scientific ignoramus.
>
> What does the average dingleberry actually mean when he/she makes the
> somewhat amusing claim that the application of a force to an oscillator
> for a period of time will cause its subsequent period to be different
> from that before the application?

This is neatly explained in any decent book on relativity, which I know
make you shriek when they suddenly appear in your vicinity. Why are you
asking something that is so elementary that anyone professing to know
ANYTHING about relativity would know it?

[Gary Harnagel]

Ri-i-i-ght. The flaw of all of them is that they are grand conspiracies
and the ones who performed those experiments were dishonest. It's obvious
that YOU are the one that fits that description and you are projecting
your own persona on them.

And denial of fact is NOT explanation nor a "systematic discussion."

[rotchm]

On Thursday, August 10, 2017 at 7:31:25 PM UTC-4, HGW... wrote:
> On 10/08/17 10:06, rotchm wrote:

> The 'clock' is just a peripheral to the oscillator. It is what happens
> to the oscillator that we must consider.

Im using clock/counter interchangeably here; they mean the same thing; A device, no matter its inner workings, displays a value.

> 'Why' is certainly not in physics,

Yes, thats what I said. Glad to see that you agree.

> If such empirical facts exist, I am asking you to explain in
> simple terms what they mean.

I did. See below *again*. <sigh>.

> I gather you believe that applying a force to an oscillator somehow
> affects time.

No. I say that we have a formula that will predict the value indicated by the device (clock) as we look/note/log/stop/observe it.

> Which time do you have in mind? Is is just local to the
> oscillator?

The value indicated by the device (the clock, no matter its inner workings).

> So what actually does t<>t' mean in terms of the oscillators?

Irrelevant for the "oscillators". t<>t' means that two values differ. Like 0 <> 1, 2 <> π.

> > Its the same answer as in my first reply to you: Its a play on words;
> > its sloppy verbose. TD, time slows down, ticks slower,... etc are all
> > gross vulgerizations. Best to say t' = (t-xv)g which is clear &
> > concise.
>
>
> OK you said it. "time slows down".

Read carefully. I said that that expression is inaccurate & should not be used. Its a vulgarization, and a gross one at that. I said to say
t' = (t-xv)g [or whatever formula the topic dictates].

> Can you now enlarge on that statement.

The clear expression "t' <> t" is often grossly and inaccurately stated as "time slows down" by people as you, who fear to be concise. Say t' <> t instead!

> Are you claiming that whenever a force is applied to
> something, eg an oscillator, time slows down.

No. I say that we have a formula that will predict the value indicated by the device (clock) as we look/note/log/stop/observe it.

> Do you mean time slows everywhere or just in the oscillator itself?

I mean that t' <> t. Meaning that when we compare the two values of interest, they differ. If two clocks coincide and they display 2 & 3, then the values differ. very simple concept.
"everywhere" or "over there" means nothing until one is there with a clock (or many) to log/note their values.

> and t' = (t-xv)g is wrong and has been shown to be meaningless and
> impossible.

You are a reality denier. You fear actual data because it doesnt fit with your limited beliefs and thus scares you.

> > Perhaps. nonetheless, its conclusions agree with empirical facts.
>
> there are no such empirical facts.

Again, you are a reality denier.

> > False... It greatly helped the advancement of technology.
>
> None of Einstein's theory has ever been used in technology.

You are a reality denier or just very ignorant. The atomic bomb, atomic energy (for your electricity), particle accelerators, your tv's, etc... used relativity to conceive the devices. Then they were built, and they worked as the model dictated.

[kenseto]

Moron......when the unmodified GPS clock accumulates more clock seconds per day than the ground clock then they are running at different intrinsic rates. Gee you are so fucking stupid.

[kenseto]

On Thursday, August 10, 2017 at 12:32:38 PM UTC-4, danco...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, August 10, 2017 at 7:39:33 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote:
> > There is no reciprocity between S and S’. The S clock will
> > accumulate more clock seconds than the S’ clock between
> > meetings.
>
> A clock at rest in S doesn't have more than one meeting with a clock at rest in S'. The symbols S and S' signify inertial coordinate systems. A clock at rest in S runs slow compared with the time coordinate of S', and a clock at rest in S' runs slow compared with the time coordinate of S. This is what is meant by reciprocity of time dilation. Of course, if two clocks meet twice, they would generally not exhibit reciprocal lapses of time.

The LT doesn’t distinguish how many meetings the clocks meet. It predicts that the S ‘clock accumulate clock seconds at a slower rate and the inverse transform confirms that the S’ clock accumulate clock seconds at a slower rate. That means that there is no reciprocity.

>
> In general, if x,t is any system of inertial coordinates, the elapsed time for a clock moving an incremental distance dx in an incremental time dt is simply sqrt[(dt)^2 - (dx/c)^2]. This simple expression applies to any clock in any state of motion.
>
> > IRT resolves the TP nicely.
>
> According to IRT, what is the relationship between two inertial coordinate systems x,t and x’,t'?

Please read the paper in the following link:
http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015irt.pdf

[Odd Bodkin]

No, it doesn't mean that. You THINK it means that, because it's the only
thing you understand that could account for it. But it's not the only
thing that accounts for it. You just don't understand the real thing
that accounts for it. You don't understand relativity.

And because you don't understand the explanation in relativity, you say,
"Well it can't be something I don't understand, it must be this other
thing then."

[kenseto]

On Tuesday, August 8, 2017 at 8:44:37 PM UTC-4, HGW... wrote:
> On 08/08/17 09:32, rotchm wrote:
> > On Monday, August 7, 2017 at 4:12:57 AM UTC-4, HGW... wrote:
> >
> > It means that if for a pair of clocks we have t' <> t then we call that 'TD'.
> > Of the two values differ, we say TD or "run slow". But this latter expression is quite misleading. Best just to say what it is: t' <> t upon comparison.
> >
> > Of course I'm omitting important details, ...
>
> You certainly are. You are missing the fact that the clocks are mere
> counters of cycles, eg, a crystal in a tuned circuit.. Did you mean
> ‘Tor1<>Tor2' where the Tors are the oscillator periods.

You seem to think that a cycle of the counter represents the same amount of absolute time in different frames. It does not. That’s why clocks in relative motion are accumulate clock seconds at different rates.

>
> If so, what are you actually saying? You know nothing has happened to
> the oscillators physically, so are you claiming that accelerating a
> crystal can change time flow in its vicinity?
> That is plainly stupid because the crystal will slow down or speed up
> when a force is applied depending on the reference...so will time slow
> or quicken?
>
>
> --

[Odd Bodkin]

On 8/11/17 8:23 AM, kenseto wrote:
> The LT doesn’t distinguish how many meetings the clocks meet.

Yes it does. The LT explicitly applies to INERTIAL motion.
Two objects, each at rest in a different inertial reference frame, can
only meet once. This is obvious.

[kenseto]

On Thursday, August 10, 2017 at 7:04:10 PM UTC-4, HGW... wrote:
> On 11/08/17 00:39, kenseto wrote:
> > On Wednesday, August 9, 2017 at 1:54:17 AM UTC-4, danco...@gmail.com
> >
> >>
> >> However, the description of the object in terms of S is now
> >> different, essentially because the inertial mass of each part of
> >> the object is increased, corresponding to a reduction in the
> >> natural frequencies of all physical processes, from which it
> >> follows that S and S’ are related by a Lorentz transformation, with
> >> all the consequences that entails (reciprocal length contraction
> >> and time dilation, etc).
> >
> > There is no reciprocity between S and S’. For example: According to
> > SR math the S clock will accumulate more clock seconds than the S’
> > clock between meetings. This means that the S’ clock was definitely
> > running slower (accumulate clock seconds at a slower rate) than the S
> > clock during relative motion......thus no reciprocity.
> >
> > IRT resolves the TP nicely. The IRT math says that: 1. The S clock
> > accumulates clock seconds at a faster rate than the S’ clock during
> > relative motion. 2. The S’ clock accumulate clock seconds at a slower
> > rate than the S clock during relative motion.
>
> That can only happen if an absolute frame exists.

There is only one absolute frame.....the aether frame or the E-Matrix frame). But both the S and S’ frame are not at rest in this absolute aether frame.

>
> > 3. At no time the S’ clock accumulates clock seconds at faster rate
> > than the S clock during relative motion.....thus no reciprocity. 4. A
> > paper on IRT is available in the following link:
> > http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015irt.pdf
>
> useless aether theory stuff....

Assertion is not a valid argument.
>
>
> --

[kenseto]

The point is that SR and IRT have different explanations. The SR explanations are more cumbersome and give rise to paradoxes. The IRT explanation eliminate all paradoxes and thus it is a better explanation of relativity.

[Odd Bodkin]

No, they are not more cumbersome. They are easy to understand, if you
apply yourself. Even a woodworker understands the SR explanations,
because I read up on them and worked to understand them. You see?

> and give rise to paradoxes.

There are no internal contradictions in relativity. This is well known.
Don't confuse a paradox with a disagreement with what you believe. A
disagreement with what you believe is not an internal contradiction.

[danco...@gmail.com]

On Friday, August 11, 2017 at 6:23:46 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote:
> The LT doesn’t distinguish how many meetings the clocks meet.

The Lorentz transformation gives the relationship between two systems of inertial coordinates, S and S', and if two clocks are at rest in these coordinate systems they cannot meet more than once. Agreed?

> The LT predicts that the S' clock accumulate clock seconds

> at a slower rate and the inverse transform confirms that
> the S’ clock accumulate clock seconds at a slower rate.

Not true. The LT shows that a clock at rest in S accumulates clock seconds at a slower rate than the time coordinate of S', and also that a clock at rest in S' accumulates clock seconds more slowly than the time coordinate of S.

This is easy to see, because the transformation is x'=(x-vt)g, t'=(t-vx/c^2)g where g=1/sqrt(1-(v/c)^2). For a clock at rest in S we have x=constant, so the derivative of the t' equation with respect to t gives dt'/dt=g, which shows that t increases more slowly than t' for this clock.

The inverse transformation is x=(x'+vt')g, t=(t'+vx'/c^2)g. For a clock at rest in S' we have x'=constant, so the derivative of the t equation with respect to t' gives dt/dt'=g, which shows that t' increases more slowly than t for this clock.

This proves that the relations between S and S' are completely reciprocal. Please note that this applies only to clocks at rest in these coordinate systems, so they cannot meet more than once.

For clocks that meet more than once, at least one of them must not be at rest in an inertial coordinate system for the entire time. In that case, we can easily compute the elapsed time on each clock from the fact that, if x,t is any system of inertial coordinates, the elapsed time for a clock moving an incremental distance dx in an incremental time dt is simply sqrt[(dt)^2 - (dx/c)^2]. This simple expression applies to any clock in any state of motion, even if the clock is accelerating. So we can answer any question about the clock's time simply by integrating this expression along the path of the clock.

> > According to IRT, what is the relationship between
> > two inertial coordinate systems x,t and x’,t'?
>
> Please read the paper in the following link:

I read it, but it doesn't answer my question. So I ask again: According to IRT, what is the relationship between two inertial coordinate systems x,t and x’,t'?

[mlwo...@wp.pl]

W dniu piątek, 11 sierpnia 2017 16:12:48 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:

> There are no internal contradictions in relativity. This is well known.

This is well known by some brainwashed fanatic
idiots.

[JanPB]

No, this has been proved. Specifically, it's been shown that Lorentz
geometry is as consistent as Euclidean geometry.

So if you've found an internal contradiction in relativity, you've found
one in Euclidean geometry. If you can do that, you'll likely collect
the Fields medal, even if you're too old for it. I'm pretty sure for
discovery of that magnitude they'll bend the rules.

--
Jan

[mlwo...@wp.pl]

W dniu piątek, 11 sierpnia 2017 22:44:13 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał:
> On Friday, August 11, 2017 at 1:08:56 PM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote:
> > W dniu piątek, 11 sierpnia 2017 16:12:48 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:
> >
> > > There are no internal contradictions in relativity. This is well known.
> >
> > This is well known by some brainwashed fanatic
> > idiots.
>
> No, this has been proved.

That's too bad:( Goedel has proven that
theory proving its consistency is inconsistent
for sure.

> Specifically, it's been shown that Lorentz
> geometry is as consistent as Euclidean geometry.

Jan, poor idiot. Your Shit doesn't rely
on Lorentz geometry. Your idiot guru has
invented another one. Haven't you heard
of it?

[HGW...]

On 11/08/17 11:50, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Thursday, August 10, 2017 at 5:06:29 PM UTC-6, HGW... wrote:
>>
>> On 11/08/17 05:35, JanPB wrote:
>>>
>>> I'm afraid you have to work a bit harder than that to defeat those, as you
>>> call them, "web pages".
>>
>> We have systematically discussed all those experiments over the years
>> and have revealed and fully explained their flaws.
>
> Ri-i-i-ght. The flaw of all of them is that they are grand conspiracies
> and the ones who performed those experiments were dishonest.

You got it!


--

[JanPB]

You insist on posting nonsense 24/7/365. When someone says "internal
contradictions in relativity", it means Lorentz geometry. Other possible
mathematical fundamentals are considered uncontestable for the purpose
of the discussion (the internal consistency of Zermelo-Frankel, the
internal consistency of Peano Axioms, etc.)

Stop wasting your time here and ask for that Fields medal. If they give
you hard time, let me know. I know a couple of laureates personally,
I could push for the prize for you. It unfortunately does not involve
much cash but the prestige is OK.

--
Jan

[HGW...]

On 11/08/17 09:40, danco...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, August 10, 2017 at 3:58:33 PM UTC-7, HGW... wrote:
>> I have shown quite clearly that Einstein's whole theory is based on
>> a flawed postulate which cannot be true because it leads to a
>> logical impossibility.
>
> This is precisely what I've been trying to get from you: An
> explanation of the logical impossibility of special relativity.

I have given you the reference several times. www.scisite,info/ros1.html

Basically all speeds MUST BE frame dependent because of he very
definition of a frame. Einstein tried to make light speed violate that
fundamental principle and ended up with a very 'interesting' universe
that made good SciFi reading.

> This
> doesn't involve any experiments at all, because it isn't a question
> of whether physics actually is Lorentz invariant, it is merely a
> question of whether Lorentz invariance is logically impossible.

Correct. SR did not involve any experiments and nor does my proof that
its P2 is impossible.

> As understand it, your argument is focused on the proposition that,
> in terms of at least one inertial coordinate system (i.e., a system
> in which the equations of Newtonian mechanics hold good to the first
> order), light propagates in vacuum with the speed c, independent of
> the speed of the source. Combining this with the relativity
> principle (with which you presumably agree), and discounting any
> possible "ether" in the vacuum, this proposition implies that light
> propagates at c in terms of every system of inertial coordinates.
>
> As you surely know, the first time anyone hears this they think "That
> can't possibly be true! It's a logical impossibility!"

...and the more one thinks about it the more ridiculous it becomes....
However, because SR is fully consistent with its second postulate and
its supporters are able to demonstrate that consistency by referring to
complicated logic and equations, the untrained mind is eventually misled
into believing the theory must be true.

> However,
> most people, after thinking about it carefully for a few minutes,
> come to think that their initial reaction was wrong, and that it
> isn't logically impossible after all. In fact, if inertia has energy
> with proportionality constant c^2, the Lorentz invariance of all
> physical phenomena becomes self-evident... or so they think.

No form of energy is frame dependent. I have shown why on this NG many
times.

> But after many long years of careful thought, you have decided that
> their initial reaction was correct, and that special relativity
> really is logically inconsistent. So, I'm very interested to hear
> your explanation of the logical inconsistency. Can you explain?

Read the article....but I doubt if you will have the intelligence to
understand it...



--

[HGW...]

there is no aether or E-matrix, Ken. You and Einstein are wrong.



--

[HGW...]

On 11/08/17 12:00, rotchm wrote:
> On Thursday, August 10, 2017 at 7:31:25 PM UTC-4, HGW... wrote:
>> On 10/08/17 10:06, rotchm wrote:
>
>> The 'clock' is just a peripheral to the oscillator. It is what
>> happens to the oscillator that we must consider.
>
> Im using clock/counter interchangeably here; they mean the same
> thing; A device, no matter its inner workings, displays a value.

Stop avoiding the question with nonsense. The 'clock' bit is just the
counter. The oscillator and particularly its period is what we are
discussing.

>> 'Why' is certainly not in physics,
>
> Yes, thats what I said. Glad to see that you agree.

Why is not IRRELEVANT in physics, which is contrary to what you said.

>> I gather you believe that applying a force to an oscillator somehow
>> affects time.
>
> No. I say that we have a formula that will predict the value
> indicated by the device (clock) as we look/note/log/stop/observe it.

..and why should it indicate that the oscillator has changed when we
know it could not have done so?

>> Which time do you have in mind? Is is just local to the
>> oscillator?
>
> The value indicated by the device (the clock, no matter its inner
> workings).

The clock indicates the number of oscillator cycles that have occurred
since its arbitrary zero.

>> So what actually does t<>t' mean in terms of the oscillators?
>
> Irrelevant for the "oscillators". t<>t' means that two values
> differ. Like 0 <> 1, 2 <> π.

To a simple person that might appear true....but the real answer is that
movement of the oscillator has somehow changed the number of cycles that
have been counted compared with those experienced by the clock at rest.
What in your mind has brought about that change?

>
>>> Its the same answer as in my first reply to you: Its a play on
>>> words; its sloppy verbose. TD, time slows down, ticks slower,...
>>> etc are all gross vulgerizations. Best to say t' = (t-xv)g which
>>> is clear & concise.
>>
>>
>> OK you said it. "time slows down".
>
> Read carefully. I said that that expression is inaccurate & should
> not be used. Its a vulgarization, and a gross one at that. I said to
> say t' = (t-xv)g [or whatever formula the topic dictates].

>> Can you now enlarge on that statement.
>
> The clear expression "t' <> t" is often grossly and inaccurately
> stated as "time slows down" by people as you, who fear to be
> concise. Say t' <> t instead!

so what does that mean?... t<>t'?
I can only assume that your interpretation of the difference in cycle
count is due to time changing because the oscillator certainly has not.
..and you are not making any sense at all...If the oscillator has
changed, then so be it! It has physically altered.

>>> Are you claiming that whenever a force is applied to something,
>>> eg
>> an oscillator, time slows down.
>
> No. I say that we have a formula that will predict the value
> indicated by the device (clock) as we look/note/log/stop/observe it.

maybe the formula is quite wrong....after all, there is no proof that it
is correct and there is no apparent definition of what it means.

>> Do you mean time slows everywhere or just in the oscillator
>> itself?
>
> I mean that t' <> t. Meaning that when we compare the two values of
> interest, they differ. If two clocks coincide and they display 2 &
> 3, then the values differ. very simple concept. "everywhere" or
> "over there" means nothing until one is there with a clock (or many)
> to log/note their values.

the concept is indeed simple. The moving oscillator is claimed to
now tick at a slower rate than the stationary one. ..But we know it has
not changed at all....so what are you trying to say?

>> and t' = (t-xv)g is wrong and has been shown to be meaningless and
>> impossible.
>
> You are a reality denier. You fear actual data because it doesnt fit
> with your limited beliefs and thus scares you.

But you cannot even define your own version of reality so how can you
comment on mine?
You cannot explain why the moving oscillator period should be any
different from the stationary one...and even if you tried, you couldn't
explain how that fits in with the fact that nothing at all has happened
to the moving oscillator to make it any different from the stationary one.

[HGW...]

On 11/08/17 10:04, Odd Bodkin wrote:

>>>
>>> Well, Henry, I'm aware you can't figure relativity out. So it's easy for
>>> you to say that the only things it could possibly mean are what lies
>>> outside what you don't understand.
>>
>> Bodkin, I am asking for a simple answer. I didn't want a continuous
>> play on words from someone who is a self confessed scientific ignoramus.
>>
>> What does the average dingleberry actually mean when he/she makes the
>> somewhat amusing claim that the application of a force to an
>> oscillator for a period of time will cause its subsequent period to be
>> different from that before the application?
>
> This is neatly explained in any decent book on relativity, which I know
> make you shriek when they suddenly appear in your vicinity. Why are you
> asking something that is so elementary that anyone professing to know
> ANYTHING about relativity would know it?

Well I would like you to save me the trouble of buying the book and
summarize what it says. How does the application of a force cause the
oscillator period to permanently change?


--

[Odd Bodkin]

And what on earth would be the motivation for me to cater to your inertia?
Do you get grapes dropped into your mouth at your request too?

[rotchm]

On Friday, August 11, 2017 at 8:17:49 PM UTC-4, HGW... wrote:
> On 11/08/17 12:00, rotchm wrote:
> > On Thursday, August 10, 2017 at 7:31:25 PM UTC-4, HGW... wrote:

> > Im using clock/counter interchangeably here; they mean the same
> > thing; A device, no matter its inner workings, displays a value.
>
> Stop avoiding the question with nonsense.

Its not nonsense. I am explaining to you the meaning of the words so as we may understand each other.

> The 'clock' bit is just the counter. The oscillator and particularly
> its period is what we are discussing.

No, that's NOT what the title asks.
As I said, the oscillator is irrelevant. The device (clock) has some inner workings which will not change the formula t' = (t-xv)g.

> Why is not IRRELEVANT in physics,

Thats your deluded beliefs "why" has nothing to do with physics but of philosophy or metaphysics.

> > No. I say that we have a formula that will predict the value
> > indicated by the device (clock) as we look/note/log/stop/observe it.
>
> ..and why should it indicate that the oscillator has changed when we
> know it could not have done so?

It does not indicate that "the oscillator has changed". it indicates a *VALUE*. Are you saying that if a device displays the number 7, then this means that a white cat is crossing the street ? How can you infer that??? Are you nuttier than idiot dono??

> The clock indicates the number of oscillator cycles that have occurred
> since its arbitrary zero.

Well, the clock is counting something. This something is irrelevant since its only the value the clock displays is of importance. But yes, we "say" that it counts oscillations" , but that's a gross description & should be avoided for better clarity in the discussions.

> > Irrelevant for the "oscillators". t<>t' means that two values
> > differ. Like 0 <> 1, 2 <> π.
>
> To a simple person that might appear true....but the real answer is that
> movement of the oscillator has somehow changed the number of cycles that
> have been counted compared with those experienced by the clock at rest.

Perhaps, but wont change the fact that as the clock indicates "3", it indicates "3".

> What in your mind has brought about that change?

Irrelevant. Metaphysics is NOT physics.

> > The clear expression "t' <> t" is often grossly and inaccurately
> > stated as "time slows down" by people as you, who fear to be
> > concise. Say t' <> t instead!
>
> so what does that mean?... t<>t'?

I told you many times. This is basic grade 2 stuff!!
It means that the numbers differ. It means that the two values taken from the clocks differ.

> I can only assume that your interpretation of the difference in cycle
> count is due to time changing because the oscillator certainly has not.

Your assumptions are wrong. I simply claim that t' = (t-xv)g, and this is in agreement with experiments. As to "why" nature is this way, or the "inner causes" is totally irrelevant.

> ..and you are not making any sense at all...If the oscillator has
> changed, then so be it! It has physically altered.

Those vague descriptions or vague words wont change t' = (t-xv)g.

> > No. I say that we have a formula that will predict the value
> > indicated by the device (clock) as we look/note/log/stop/observe it.
>
> maybe the formula is quite wrong....

To date, all exp's support it.

> after all, there is no proof that it is correct

This is because you are a reality denier. This is why you are stuck in your "dead end life" ...

> the concept is indeed simple. The moving oscillator is claimed to
> now tick at a slower rate than the stationary one. ..

Nope, because those words are meaningless; they are way to vague to convey whats going on.

> But you cannot even define your own version of reality so how can you
> comment on mine?

The value on a clock & logged is "eral"; it can be logged and accessed.

[Gary Harnagel]

You are incapable of seeing just how sick you are.

[danco...@gmail.com]

On Friday, August 11, 2017 at 4:50:01 PM UTC-7, HGW... wrote:
> ... SR is fully consistent with its second postulate and

> its supporters are able to demonstrate that consistency by

> referring to ... logic and equations...

Your previous position was that special relativity is logically inconsistent. Are you now saying that it is consistent? If so, then we're in agreement.

> ... because SR is fully consistent... the untrained mind is

> eventually misled into believing the theory must be true.

Wait, we agreed that the question of whether the theory is empirically true is distinct from the question of whether it is logically consistent. Based on what you've said, I think we're in agreement that special relativity is logically consistent.

> SR did not involve any experiments and nor does my proof that
> its P2 is impossible.

Now it sounds like you are saying (again) that special relativity is logically impossible. In response to my request for an explanation of why it is logically impossible, you say

> Basically all speeds MUST BE frame dependent because of he very
> definition of a frame.

That's not true at all. Special relativity refers to inertial coordinate systems, defined as systems of coordinates in terms of which the equations of Newtonian mechanics hold good to the first approximation (which suffices to unambiguously define the coordinate systems). If we neglect the inertia of energy, it would follow that inertial coordinate systems would be related by Galilean transformations, and all finite speeds would be frame dependent.

However, if we take the inertia of energy into account, it follows that inertial coordinate systems are related by Lorentz transformations, which implies that there is an invariant speed corresponding to the speed of massless energy in vacuum. So, your purported proof of logical inconsistency fails because it neglects the possibility that energy has inertia.

> No form of energy is frame dependent.

That's not true at all. You yourself just stated that "all speeds are frame dependent", and kinetic energy is proportional to the squared speed, so it is obviously frame dependent. I wonder if this is just a problem of semantics. With any particle of mass m moving at speed v, it is possible to compute the number mv^2/2, and since v is frame dependent, this quantity is frame dependent. Agreed?

[mlwo...@wp.pl]

W dniu piątek, 11 sierpnia 2017 23:44:12 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał:
> On Friday, August 11, 2017 at 2:16:38 PM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote:
> > W dniu piątek, 11 sierpnia 2017 22:44:13 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał:
> > > On Friday, August 11, 2017 at 1:08:56 PM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote:
> > > > W dniu piątek, 11 sierpnia 2017 16:12:48 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:
> > > >
> > > > > There are no internal contradictions in relativity. This is well known.
> > > >
> > > > This is well known by some brainwashed fanatic
> > > > idiots.
> > >
> > > No, this has been proved.
> >
> > That's too bad:( Goedel has proven that
> > theory proving its consistency is inconsistent
> > for sure.
> >
> >
> > > Specifically, it's been shown that Lorentz
> > > geometry is as consistent as Euclidean geometry.
> >
> > Jan, poor idiot. Your Shit doesn't rely
> > on Lorentz geometry. Your idiot guru has
> > invented another one. Haven't you heard
> > of it?
>
> You insist on posting nonsense 24/7/365. When someone says "internal
> contradictions in relativity", it means Lorentz geometry.

You can as well insist that "pears growing on a willow" means
"pears growing on a pear tree", poor idiot.

[kenseto]

On Friday, August 11, 2017 at 11:53:49 AM UTC-4, danco...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, August 11, 2017 at 6:23:46 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote:
> > The LT doesn’t distinguish how many meetings the clocks meet.
>
> The Lorentz transformation gives the relationship between two systems of inertial coordinates, S and S', and if two clocks are at rest in these coordinate systems they cannot meet more than once. Agreed?
>
> > The LT predicts that the S' clock accumulate clock seconds
> > at a slower rate and the inverse transform confirms that
> > the S’ clock accumulate clock seconds at a slower rate.
>
> Not true. The LT shows that a clock at rest in S accumulates clock seconds at a slower rate than the time coordinate of S’, and also that a clock at rest in S' accumulates clock seconds more slowly than the time coordinate of S.

Not according to the delta form of the transform......it says that:
Delta(t’)=g*delta(t)
This means that a second of the primed clock is worth gamma seconds of the unprimed clock. This means that as the primed clock accumulated 1 second the unprimed clock accumulated g*seconds.

This is supported by all experiments

>
> This is easy to see, because the transformation is x'=(x-vt)g, t'=(t-vx/c^2)g where g=1/sqrt(1-(v/c)^2). For a clock at rest in S we have x=constant, so the derivative of the t' equation with respect to t gives dt'/dt=g, which shows that t increases more slowly than t' for this clock.
>
> The inverse transformation is x=(x'+vt')g, t=(t'+vx'/c^2)g. For a clock at rest in S' we have x'=constant, so the derivative of the t equation with respect to t' gives dt/dt'=g, which shows that t' increases more slowly than t for this clock.
>
> This proves that the relations between S and S' are completely reciprocal. Please note that this applies only to clocks at rest in these coordinate systems, so they cannot meet more than once.

You can manipulate the math to give anything you want. The fact is that no experiment supports reciprocity. One of the clock will accumulate less clock seconds than the other when they meet again.

I think the problem is that both the S and S’ observers assume the preferred inertial frame and thus both predict that clock moving wrt him is running slower. I real life, one of the clock will accumulate clock second at a slower rate and this is confirmed by experiments.

>
> For clocks that meet more than once, at least one of them must not be at rest in an inertial coordinate system for the entire time. In that case, we can easily compute the elapsed time on each clock from the fact that, if x,t is any system of inertial coordinates, the elapsed time for a clock moving an incremental distance dx in an incremental time dt is simply sqrt[(dt)^2 - (dx/c)^2]. This simple expression applies to any clock in any state of motion, even if the clock is accelerating. So we can answer any question about the clock's time simply by integrating this expression along the path of the clock.
>
> > > According to IRT, what is the relationship between
> > > two inertial coordinate systems x,t and x’,t'?
> >
> > Please read the paper in the following link:
>
> I read it, but it doesn't answer my question. So I ask again: According to IRT, what is the relationship between two inertial coordinate systems x,t and x’,t’?

IRT says:
From the unprimed frame point of view:
Delta(t’) = g*Delta(t)
OR
Delt(t’) = Delta(t)/g

Only one of the above equation will give the correct answer for any pair of clocks.

Delta(x’)= g*Delta(x)
OR
Delta(x’)= Delta(x)/g

Only one of the above predictions will give the correct answer.

As you can see, IRT does not specified whether the primed or the unprimed system is in the preferred inertial frame as SR math does.

[Odd Bodkin]

On 8/11/17 6:49 PM, HGW... wrote:
> Basically all speeds MUST BE frame dependent because of he very
> definition of a frame.

Certainly not by the definition used by physicists.
You may have a different definition, but you see, nobody cares.

[danco...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, August 12, 2017 at 7:03:16 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote:
> IRT says: From the unprimed frame point of view:

> Delta(t’) = g*Delta(t) OR Delta(t’) = Delta(t)/g

The left hand equation is correct for a clock at rest in S, and the righthand equation is correct for a clock at rest in S'.

> Only one of the above equation will give the correct
> answer for any pair of clocks.

No, the left equation gives the derivative of t' with respect to t along the path of a clock at rest in S, and the right equation gives the derivative of t' with respect to t along the path of a clock at rest in S'.

In order to understand this, you need to answer my question: What is the relationship between two inertial coordinates x,t and x',t'. IRT cannot answer this question, so it isn't a real theory, whereas special relativity can easily answer this question. According to special relativity, inertial coordinates x,t and x',t' are related by Lorentz transformation, which we can write in the "Delta form" (using dx instead of Delta(x), and so on) as dx'=(dx-vdt)g, dt'=(dt-vdx/c^2)g where g=1/sqrt(1-(v/c)^2).

Now, using the equation for dt', notice that if a clock is at rest at the origin of the S coordinates we have dx=0, and so dt' = dt g. This is the same as your first "Delta" equation.

Now consider a clock at rest at the origin of the S' coordinate, which means it is moving at speed v in S. For this clock we have dx = v dt. So, we replace dx with v dt in the delta equation for dt', and we get

dt' = (dt-vdx/c^2)g = (dt - v [v dt]/c^2)g

Now we can factor out dt and write this as

dt' = dt(1 - v^2/c^2)g

But remember that g = 1/(1 - v^2/c^2), so this equation can be simplified to

dt' = dt/g

So, we have shown that for a clock at rest in S we have dt' = dt g, and for a clock at rest in S' we have dt' = dt/g.

> You can manipulate the math to give anything you want.

Not true. The math gives only one answer, if inertial coordinate systems are related by Lorentz transformations. So, if you get a different answer, you are either making a math mistake, or you are assuming inertial coordinate systems are not related by Lorentz transformations. That's why I keep asking you how inertial coordinates are related in IRT, but you can't answer, so IRT is not a real theory.

> One of the clock will accumulate less clock seconds
> than the other when they meet again.

Right, but that doesn't contradict reciprocity between clocks at rest in inertial coordinate systems, because such clocks cannot meet more than once. Again, for clocks that meet more than once, the simple way to predict which one will show more elapsed time is to integrate the delta form. Let T denote the time reading on a particular clock. Special relativity says

dT = sqrt[(dt)^2 - (dx/c)^2]

This is the formula that answers every question. You just need to add up all the incremental dT values along the paths of each clock between the two meetings, and compare their T values when the meet again.

[mlwo...@wp.pl]

W dniu sobota, 12 sierpnia 2017 17:37:54 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:
> On 8/11/17 6:49 PM, HGW... wrote:
> > Basically all speeds MUST BE frame dependent because of he very
> > definition of a frame.
>
> Certainly not by the definition used by physicists.
> You may have a different definition, but you see, nobody cares.

Oppositely, poor idiot. Your moronic bunch can have
different definitions, but nobody cares.

[Odd Bodkin]

I once saw a guy at a baseball game who was drunk, an angry drunk. He booed
the batters, he booed the umpires, he booed the fielders. He booed everyone
on both teams. In the fifth inning, he stood up and bellowed, "This game
SUCKS! Baseball and everyone in it SUCKS!" Then the gentleman sitting next
to him said, "You paid twelve bucks to spend three hours of your time here.
Why?" The drunk had no answer of course. He didn't really know why he felt
the need to be there and foam at the mouth, but he did. And he did for
another half inning until he spilled his beer on a kid, and he was escorted
out of the ballpark. And though he didn't get ejected until late in the
game, he was a complete ass for the whole game.

[mlwo...@wp.pl]

And?

[Odd Bodkin]

Keep booing bubba. Watch your beer.

[kenseto]

As I said before: assertion is not a valid argument. Your failed theory have no aether and my successful theory has an aether called the E-matrix.

[mlwo...@wp.pl]

Keep raving and spitting, poor idiot.
I don't like beer.

[kenseto]

On Saturday, August 12, 2017 at 11:53:59 AM UTC-4, danco...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, August 12, 2017 at 7:03:16 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote:
> > IRT says: From the unprimed frame point of view:
> > Delta(t’) = g*Delta(t) OR Delta(t’) = Delta(t)/g
>
> The left hand equation is correct for a clock at rest in S, and the righthand equation is correct for a clock at rest in S’.

No there is only one S’ clock and it is always moving wrt to the S clock. The S observer predicts that a clock second on the S’ clock is worth gamma seconds on the S clock or worth 1/gamma seconds on the S clock but only one of these predictions is correct.

>
> > Only one of the above equation will give the correct
> > answer for any pair of clocks.
>
> No, the left equation gives the derivative of t’ with respect to t along the path of a clock at rest in S, and the right equation gives the derivative of t' with respect to t along the path of a clock at rest in S'.

Again there is only one S’ clock and one S clock.
The S observer predicts that:
One primed second is worth gamma second on the S clock....that means that the S’ clock is running slower than the S clock or the S’ clocks accumulating clock seconds at a slower rate.

But the S observer cannot assume that he is more inertial than S’
So he must also predicts that the S’ clock is accumulating clock seconds at a faster rate as follows:
One primed second is worth 1/gamma seconds on the S clock.....that means that the S’ clock is running at a faster rate than the Sclock or the S’ clock is accumulating clock seconds at a faster rate.

>
> In order to understand this, you need to answer my question: What is the relationship between two inertial coordinates x,t and x',t'. IRT cannot answer this question, so it isn't a real theory, whereas special relativity can easily answer this question. According to special relativity, inertial coordinates x,t and x',t' are related by Lorentz transformation, which we can write in the "Delta form" (using dx instead of Delta(x), and so on) as dx'=(dx-vdt)g, dt'=(dt-vdx/c^2)g where g=1/sqrt(1-(v/c)^2).

IRT has the same transforms in the Delta form. So I don’t understand what you are talking about.

[danco...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, August 12, 2017 at 3:06:29 PM UTC-7, kenseto wrote:
> On Saturday, August 12, 2017 at 11:53:59 AM UTC-4, danco...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Saturday, August 12, 2017 at 7:03:16 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote:
> > > IRT says: From the unprimed frame point of view:
> > > Delta(t’) = g*Delta(t) OR Delta(t’) = Delta(t)/g
> >
> > The left hand equation is correct for a clock at rest in S, and the righthand equation is correct for a clock at rest in S’.
>
> No there is only one S’ clock and it is always moving wrt to the S clock.

We're talking about two inertial coordinate systems, S and S', and we have two clocks, one at rest at the spatial origin of S and one at rest at the spatial origin of S'. Agreed?

> The S observer predicts that a clock second on the S’

> clock is worth gamma seconds on the S clock...

That isn't correct, because the phrase "is worth" is undefined. It's crucial to use clearly defined expressions. For example, here is a true statement corresponding to what you were probably trying to say: One second on the clock at rest in S' takes gamma seconds of the time coordinate of S. (Symbolically, we have dt' = dt/g for the clock at rest in S'.)

> or worth 1/gamma seconds on the S clock but only one
> of these predictions is correct.

No, for the clock at rest in S' we have dt' = dt/g, and for the clock at rest in S we have dt' = dt g. This was explained in detail in the previous post.

> The S observer predicts that the S’ clock is running slower
> than the S clock or the S’ clocks... But the S observer also

> predicts that the S’ clock is accumulating clock seconds at

> a faster rate...

That makes no sense. You're saying that, in terms of the S system of coordinates, the clock at rest in S' is both fast and slow. That is logically self-contradictory.

> > According to special relativity, inertial coordinates x,t
> > and x',t' are related by Lorentz transformation, which we
> > can write in the "Delta form" (using dx instead of Delta(x),
> > and so on) as dx'=(dx-vdt)g, dt'=(dt-vdx/c^2)g where
> > g=1/sqrt(1-(v/c)^2).
>
> IRT has the same transforms in the Delta form. So I don’t understand what you are talking about.

I know you don't, that's why I explained it in the text that you deleted. Again, using the equation for dt', for a clock at rest at the origin of the S coordinates we have dx = 0, and so dt' = dt g. This is the same as your first "Delta" equation.

But a clock at rest at the origin of the S' coordinate is moving at speed v in S, so for this clock we have dx = v dt. Replacing dx with v dt in the delta equation for dt', we get

dt' = (dt - v [v dt]/c^2)g = dt(1 - v^2/c^2)g = dt/g

So, in summary, we have shown that for a clock at rest in S we have dt' = dt g, and for a clock at rest in S' we have dt' = dt/g.

[HGW...]

On 12/08/17 14:06, danco...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, August 11, 2017 at 4:50:01 PM UTC-7, HGW... wrote:
>> ... SR is fully consistent with its second postulate and its
>> supporters are able to demonstrate that consistency by referring to
>> ... logic and equations...
>
> Your previous position was that special relativity is logically
> inconsistent. Are you now saying that it is consistent? If so, then
> we're in agreement.
>
>> ... because SR is fully consistent... the untrained mind is
>> eventually misled into believing the theory must be true.
>
> Wait, we agreed that the question of whether the theory is
> empirically true is distinct from the question of whether it is
> logically consistent. Based on what you've said, I think we're in
> agreement that special relativity is logically consistent.

If you are going to omit specific words from my quotes you are only
serving to prove your own stupidity and desperation.

I said and meant that SR is consistent with the flawed and logically
impossible second postulate.

>> SR did not involve any experiments and nor does my proof that its
>> P2 is impossible.
>
> Now it sounds like you are saying (again) that special relativity is
> logically impossible. In response to my request for an explanation
> of why it is logically impossible, you say

It sounds like you are a typical slimey dingleberry bastard who has no
interest in physics at all. Your lies do you no favours.

>> Basically all speeds MUST BE frame dependent because of he very
>> definition of a frame.
>
> That's not true at all. Special relativity refers to inertial
> coordinate systems, defined as systems of coordinates in terms of
> which the equations of Newtonian mechanics hold good to the first
> approximation (which suffices to unambiguously define the coordinate
> systems).

There is no mention of any 'first approximation' in Einstein's 1905 paper.

> If we neglect the inertia of energy, it would follow that
> inertial coordinate systems would be related by Galilean
> transformations, and all finite speeds would be frame dependent.

Energy has no inertia.. The very idea is meaningless and ridiculous..

> However, if we take the inertia of energy into account, it follows
> that inertial coordinate systems are related by Lorentz
> transformations, which implies that there is an invariant speed
> corresponding to the speed of massless energy in vacuum. So, your
> purported proof of logical inconsistency fails because it neglects
> the possibility that energy has inertia.
>
>> No form of energy is frame dependent.
>
> That's not true at all. You yourself just stated that "all speeds
> are frame dependent", and kinetic energy is proportional to the
> squared speed, so it is obviously frame dependent. I wonder if this
> is just a problem of semantics. With any particle of mass m moving
> at speed v, it is possible to compute the number mv^2/2, and since v
> is frame dependent, this quantity is frame dependent. Agreed?

Not at all. Kinetic energy is NOT frame dependent.
I have fully explained why in previous posts.
Before you start screaming, do a few sums and see how the creation of an
amount of KE is the same in all frames.

I know that is far too hard for an idiot like you.


--

[HGW...]

Yes, Gary Harnagel certainly should be escorted out of this NG.
>


--

[HGW...]

Ken, my very theory has very successfully explained one of the great
mysteries of Astronomy, the reason for star variability. It has also
discovered millions of planetary systems throughout the Milky Way, while
even the 'experts' only claim to have discovered a few hundred.

Whilst original emission theories lacked certain important features, my
upgraded theory can now squash any criticism leveled at it.



--

[HGW...]

On 12/08/17 12:22, rotchm wrote:
> On Friday, August 11, 2017 at 8:17:49 PM UTC-4, HGW... wrote:
>> On 11/08/17 12:00, rotchm wrote:
>>> On Thursday, August 10, 2017 at 7:31:25 PM UTC-4, HGW... wrote:
>
>>> Im using clock/counter interchangeably here; they mean the same
>>> thing; A device, no matter its inner workings, displays a value.
>>
>> Stop avoiding the question with nonsense.
>
> Its not nonsense. I am explaining to you the meaning of the words so
> as we may understand each other.
>
>> The 'clock' bit is just the counter. The oscillator and
>> particularly its period is what we are discussing.
>
> No, that's NOT what the title asks. As I said, the oscillator is
> irrelevant. The device (clock) has some inner workings which will
> not change the formula t' = (t-xv)g.

The title asks what in meant by the notion of 'clocks running slow'
(because of movement)
The question is asked BECAUSE a clock is a counter of oscillator cycles
and there is a direct connection between the counter and the oscillator.

So if you like, I will rephrase the question so that it is easier for
you to understand.
What do Dingleberries actually mean when they claim that the natural
resonant frequency of a quartz crystal is altered by a speed change?

>> Why is not IRRELEVANT in physics,
>
> Thats your deluded beliefs "why" has nothing to do with physics but
> of philosophy or metaphysics.

You obviously have no idea of how physics operates
Probably its main aim is to explain 'why'.

>>> No. I say that we have a formula that will predict the value
>>> indicated by the device (clock) as we look/note/log/stop/observe
>>> it.
>>
>> ..and why should it indicate that the oscillator has changed when
>> we know it could not have done so?
>
> It does not indicate that "the oscillator has changed". it indicates
> a *VALUE*. Are you saying that if a device displays the number 7,
> then this means that a white cat is crossing the street ? How can
> you infer that??? Are you nuttier than idiot dono??

Don't evade the question again. If the oscillator has not changed, what
has?

>> The clock indicates the number of oscillator cycles that have
>> occurred since its arbitrary zero.
>
> Well, the clock is counting something. This something is irrelevant
> since its only the value the clock displays is of importance.

I see! The count is unimportant because it is the number shown on the
clock which IS important.
Are you mentally disabled or something?

But
> yes, we "say" that it counts oscillations" , but that's a gross
> description & should be avoided for better clarity in the
> discussions.

It is the main description and it clarifies the discussion.

>>> Irrelevant for the "oscillators". t<>t' means that two values
>>> differ. Like 0 <> 1, 2 <> π.
>>
>> To a simple person that might appear true....but the real answer
>> is that movement of the oscillator has somehow changed the number
>> of cycles that have been counted compared with those experienced
>> by the clock at rest.
>
> Perhaps, but wont change the fact that as the clock indicates "3",
> it indicates "3".

Gawd you're brilliance is really showing through today! hahhhah!

>> What in your mind has brought about that change?
>
> Irrelevant. Metaphysics is NOT physics.

I see, when you can't answer physics question you call it metaphysics....
Nice try!

>
>>> The clear expression "t' <> t" is often grossly and inaccurately
>>> stated as "time slows down" by people as you, who fear to be
>>> concise. Say t' <> t instead!
>>
>> so what does that mean?... t<>t'?
>
> I told you many times. This is basic grade 2 stuff!! It means that
> the numbers differ. It means that the two values taken from the
> clocks differ.

The question did not ask what is meant by two numbers on clocks.
It asks what is meant by the claim that 'clocks run slow' because of
movement.
So what is meant by time<>time'? given that those times are measured by
counting the cycles of oscillators, which do not change PHYSICALLY
because of movement..

>> I can only assume that your interpretation of the difference in
>> cycle count is due to time changing because the oscillator
>> certainly has not.
>
> Your assumptions are wrong. I simply claim that t' = (t-xv)g, and
> this is in agreement with experiments.

You are claiming an equation you found in a book and which is not in
agreement with any known experiment. You are not explaining what it
actually means.

> As to "why" nature is this
> way, or the "inner causes" is totally irrelevant.

Nature is not your way at all. I know you would like it to be so your
idol's name would remain the world's symbol of genius..

>> ..and you are not making any sense at all...If the oscillator has
>> changed, then so be it! It has physically altered.
>
> Those vague descriptions or vague words wont change t' = (t-xv)g.

Your vague t' = (t-xv)g. wont change t=t'.

>>> No. I say that we have a formula that will predict the value
>>> indicated by the device (clock) as we look/note/log/stop/observe
>>> it.
>>
>> maybe the formula is quite wrong....
>
> To date, all exp's support it.

Not one experiment has supported the silly idea....but that is not the
issue here. Even if evidence DID support it, what would it actually
mean? What do you dingleberries mean when you say time changes with
movement?
We are not getting anywhere fast, are we....we're still a stage 1.

>> after all, there is no proof that it is correct
>
> This is because you are a reality denier. This is why you are stuck
> in your "dead end life" ...
>
>> the concept is indeed simple. The moving oscillator is claimed to
>> now tick at a slower rate than the stationary one. ..
>
> Nope, because those words are meaningless; they are way to vague to
> convey whats going on.

It is hardly meaningless to include the principle of clock operation in
discussions about possible changes in its rate. What kind of mental
institution are you confined to?

>> But you cannot even define your own version of reality so how can
>> you comment on mine?
>
> The value on a clock & logged is "eral"; it can be logged and
> accessed.

Sorry, you don't seem to have any understanding of the question I have
been asking....and you are certainly incapable of answering it.



--

[HGW...]

On 12/08/17 11:22, Odd Bodkin wrote:

> HGW... <hgw@....> wrote:

>>> This is neatly explained in any decent book on relativity, which I know
>>> make you shriek when they suddenly appear in your vicinity. Why are you
>>> asking something that is so elementary that anyone professing to know
>>> ANYTHING about relativity would know it?
>>
>> Well I would like you to save me the trouble of buying the book and
>> summarize what it says. How does the application of a force cause the
>> oscillator period to permanently change?
>>
>>
>
> And what on earth would be the motivation for me to cater to your inertia?
> Do you get grapes dropped into your mouth at your request too?

Can't do it, eh, Bodkin....I thought not....
>


--

[HGW...]

On 11/08/17 23:36, kenseto wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 8, 2017 at 8:44:37 PM UTC-4, HGW... wrote:
>> On 08/08/17 09:32, rotchm wrote:
>>> On Monday, August 7, 2017 at 4:12:57 AM UTC-4, HGW... wrote:
>>>
>>> It means that if for a pair of clocks we have t' <> t then we
>>> call that 'TD'. Of the two values differ, we say TD or "run
>>> slow". But this latter expression is quite misleading. Best just
>>> to say what it is: t' <> t upon comparison.
>>>
>>> Of course I'm omitting important details, ...
>>
>> You certainly are. You are missing the fact that the clocks are
>> mere counters of cycles, eg, a crystal in a tuned circuit.. Did you
>> mean ‘Tor1<>Tor2' where the Tors are the oscillator periods.
>
> You seem to think that a cycle of the counter represents the same
> amount of absolute time in different frames. It does not. That’s why
> clocks in relative motion are accumulate clock seconds at different
> rates.

Ken, I must congratulate you on being the only person so far that has
understood the question. That puts you streets ahead of the average
dingleberry on the physics ability scale....so well might you continue
to mock them!
Now you will have to enlarge on that claim about absolute time being
different in each frame.
You are claiming that if two oscillators are identical together and one
is given a push so it moves away, it will still oscillate at the same
frequency but there will be less time in each of its cycles than in a
cycle of the stationary oscillator.

If an aether exists, that might be possible, although you wouldn't know
which way the change would occur if you didn't know the absolute speed.
However, in relativity, NO physical change occurs in the oscillator, so
what do relativists might mean when they claim the period of an
oscillator will vary with movement.

[danco...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, August 12, 2017 at 4:41:37 PM UTC-7, HGW... wrote:
> I said and meant that SR is consistent with the flawed and logically
> impossible second postulate.

Yes, but I'm still trying to find out WHY it is logically impossible. Every time I ask, you answers seems to end up being that it's logically impossible because it's not true (all evidence supporting it has been falsified). And when I ask why you are so sure it is not true (all the evidence has been falsified), you say because the theory is logically impossible. Then I ask again for an explanation of why it is logically impossible, and we go around the circle again...

Please, could you explain why it is logically impossible for the speed of light (in an inertial coordinate system) to be independent of the motion of the source? I'm not asking if you think this is true, I'm asking why you think it is logically impossible.

> There is no mention of any 'first approximation' in Einstein's 1905 paper.

Are you morphing into Rafael Gato? The later clarifying footnote was already self-evident to anyone reading with comprehension. Do you dispute that the first order Newtonian relations are sufficient to define inertial coordinate systems?

> Energy has no inertia.. The very idea is meaningless and ridiculous..

Do you accept that mass has inertia? If I said "Mass has no inertia.. The very idea is meaningless and ridiculous", would you agree? Simply saying something is meaningless and ridiculous doesn't make it so, and isn't persuasive. Do you accept conservation of energy? I.e., that energy can neither be created or destroyed, but only moved from place to place... just like mass? If so, how could energy NOT have inertia?

> Kinetic energy is NOT frame dependent.

You yourself said speed (v) is frame dependent, and so the quantity mv^2/2 is frame dependent, right?

> Do a few sums and see how the creation of an

> amount of KE is the same in all frames.

The question isn't whether the change in kinetic energy from state 1 to state 2 is the same for all frames, the question is whether the kinetic energy in state 1 (for example) is the same in all frames. This is the same as speed, which you yourself have insisted is frame dependent. The change in speed between states 1 and 2 may be the same in all frames, but this doesn't mean the speed is the same in all frames. And since the speed v is frame dependent (as you said), the quantity mv^2/2 is also frame dependent.

[Odd Bodkin]

And you can't? Why not?

[rotchm]

On Saturday, August 12, 2017 at 8:25:50 PM UTC-4, HGW... wrote:
> On 12/08/17 12:22, rotchm wrote:

> > No, that's NOT what the title asks. As I said, the oscillator is
> > irrelevant. The device (clock) has some inner workings which will
> > not change the formula t' = (t-xv)g.
>
> The title asks what in meant by the notion of 'clocks running slow'

And I gave you the answer: It means that two values are different; it meant that when you compare the two values of the clock, you get t' < t.

For instance, say yo buy two cheap watches at the dollar store. You start them indicating noon. A few hours later you cheng them and they read 3:22 & 3:38 resp. since these two values differ, you would say that the 3:22 watch is slower than the other; it "runs slow". To say this, you did not need to know the inner workings of those watches. If two values differ, then t' < t and they casually call that "runs slow". But a smart person would realize that it does not run slow; only that the empirical fact was that t' < t.
It is the " t' < t " that we casually translate in words as "run slow".

> The question is asked BECAUSE a clock is a counter of oscillator cycles
> and there is a direct connection between the counter and the oscillator.

Perhaps, but irrelevant, as in the example above.

> What do Dingleberries actually mean when they claim that the natural
> resonant frequency of a quartz crystal is altered by a speed change?

Those who say it that way are being casual, vulgarizing, or being sloppy.
All those casual words simply stem from the fact of t' < t.
So again I tell you, now that you know that those words are very sloppy, just use t' < t from now on, since its much more concise.

> You obviously have no idea of how physics operates

I guess thats why I succeeded to get several houses here & there and several luxury & sports cars (& motorcycle etc..) !? What has your understanding of physics gotten you? See, I will trust my beliefs since they got me more than what your beliefs brought you.

> >> ..and why should it indicate that the oscillator has changed when
> >> we know it could not have done so?
> >
> > It does not indicate that "the oscillator has changed". it indicates
> > a *VALUE*. Are you saying that if a device displays the number 7,
> > then this means that a white cat is crossing the street ? How can
> > you infer that??? Are you nuttier than idiot dono??
>
> Don't evade the question again. If the oscillator has not changed, what
> has?

*if* ? What does that have to do with anything? Whether the oscillator changed or not, the clock displays a *value*, no?

> I see! The count is unimportant because it is the number shown on the
> clock which IS important.

YES!!! You finally got it!

> Are you mentally disabled or something?

Having got all that I own, doubtful that Im "mentally ill". I must be doing something right to posses all that I have, no?

>
> But
> > yes, we "say" that it counts oscillations" , but that's a gross
> > description & should be avoided for better clarity in the
> > discussions.
>
> It is the main description and it clarifies the discussion.

No it doesn't, since you are still requesting explanations, as many others have.

> I see, when you can't answer physics question you call it metaphysics....
> Nice try!

One cant answer questions that do not apply. Like if t' < t, then you ask " is this because there may be white cats on some exoplanet?" The questions does not apply. Your problem is that you do not see that your question of "why..." does not apply.

> The question did not ask what is meant by two numbers on clocks.
> It asks what is meant by the claim that 'clocks run slow' because of
> movement.

All in my above reply.

> So what is meant by time<>time'?

All in my above reply. Simply put, comparing two clocks, that their values differ.

> given that those times are measured by
> counting the cycles of oscillators, which do not change
> PHYSICALLY because of movement..

Thats your claim. it might be true, or it might be not. Moreover, "because" is too vague of a concept and is irrelevant. And more importantly, your inquiry/reason wont change the fact that 3 <> 4; it wont change that
t' = (t-xv)g.

> You are claiming an equation you found in a book and which is not in
> agreement with any known experiment.

You are a reality denier. The equation is fully in agreement with exp's. That is why it is still used.

> Nature is not your way at all.

EXACTLY!!! that why I dont lay forward a "way"; I dont tell nature what are the "causes" of such and such effects. However, YOU DO; you are imposeing your beliefs on nature. But as you just said, "Nature is not your way at all.".

> Your vague t' = (t-xv)g. wont change t=t'.

But actually exp's vindicate t' = (t-xv)g and refute t=t'.
Have you never looked at your watch/cell and compared it to someone next to you (or a clock on your wall etc)? Have you never noticed that they usually all differ? See, t' <> t.

> > To date, all exp's support it.
>
> Not one experiment has supported the silly idea....

You are a reality denier.

> What do you dingleberries mean when you say time changes with
> movement?

All in my above reply.

> We are not getting anywhere fast, are we....we're still a stage 1.

yes, you are stuck at stage one. Me, I progressed to a much higher stage (houses, cars, vacations all year long,...).

> and you are certainly incapable of answering it.

But I did. Whats going on, is that you dont accept it because you are a reality denier. And a trademark of reality deniers is that they are stuck in a low level livelihood. Does that sound like you? Realizing this might be your first step in improving your situation.

[RichD]

On August 8, danco...@gmail.com wrote:
> It's important to realize that special relativity is a ballistic theory,

What does that mean?
How many flavors of theories are there?

> differing from Newtonian theory only by the incorporation
> of the one fact that Newton missed, namely, that all forms of
> energy have inertia.

Newton knew only kinetic energy. I don't see how that
has inertia, it isn't a 'thing', it's merely a formula
derived from the observed speed of an object.

As Feynman remarked, we have no idea what energy is, we
can't measure it directly, it's an accounting method,
which has great predictive power of physical processes.

In classical EM, the field has momentum, but still,
I don't see that momentum equals inertia. Inertia
indicates the resistance against a push, how does
one 'push' the field?

Anyway, in the modern view, inertia of massive objects
results from interactions with Higgs bosons. Remove that
field, and your claim that energy has inertia becomes vacuous.


--
Rich

[HGW...]

On 13/08/17 11:29, danco...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, August 12, 2017 at 4:41:37 PM UTC-7, HGW... wrote:
>> I said and meant that SR is consistent with the flawed and
>> logically impossible second postulate.
>
> Yes, but I'm still trying to find out WHY it is logically impossible.
> Every time I ask, you answers seems to end up being that it's
> logically impossible because it's not true (all evidence supporting
> it has been falsified). And when I ask why you are so sure it is not
> true (all the evidence has been falsified), you say because the
> theory is logically impossible. Then I ask again for an explanation
> of why it is logically impossible, and we go around the circle
> again...

The second postulate is leads to the RoS on which the rest of SR
crucially depends and which is logically impossible.

It is not esy to see why it is logically impossible, which is why I have
written up a comprehensive paper about it. Read this and stop
complaining: www.scisite.info/RoS1.html

>
> Please, could you explain why it is logically impossible for the
> speed of light (in an inertial coordinate system) to be independent
> of the motion of the source? I'm not asking if you think this is
> true, I'm asking why you think it is logically impossible.

The speed of light will always be measured as having the value c in the
aether theory Lorentz and Poincare because they postulates that lengths
and times are similarly dependent on absolute speed. Einstein's SR has
no unifying mechanism for light speeds from different sources and
therefore assumes that the aether exists by including its function in
his P2...(as Einstein himself eventually stated)

>> There is no mention of any 'first approximation' in Einstein's 1905
>> paper.
>
> Are you morphing into Rafael Gato? The later clarifying footnote was
> already self-evident to anyone reading with comprehension. Do you
> dispute that the first order Newtonian relations are sufficient to
> define inertial coordinate systems?
>
>> Energy has no inertia.. The very idea is meaningless and
>> ridiculous..
>
> Do you accept that mass has inertia?

If you are defining Inertia generally as 'resistance to change', in
terms of speed changes, Mass has and only needs 'Mass' itself.

If I said "Mass has no inertia.. The very idea is meaningless and
ridiculous", would you agree?

Mass is its inertia.

Simply saying something is meaningless and ridiculous doesn't make it
so, and isn't persuasive. Do you accept conservation of energy? I.e.,
that energy can neither be created or destroyed, but only moved from
place to place... just like mass? If so, how could energy NOT have inertia?

You got that wrong. Energy can neither be created or destroyed, but can
be transformed from one form to another. As for being movable from one
place to another, I'm not sure what you have in mind. Sure you can carry
gasoline around in a car but so what? It is its mass which resists such
movement, not the chemical energy it contains.

>> Kinetic energy is NOT frame dependent.
>
> You yourself said speed (v) is frame dependent, and so the quantity
> mv^2/2 is frame dependent, right?

Kinetic energy does not really exist as a property of any particular
object. The term 1/2mv^2 is a convenience, related to the amount of
energy that can be derived from bringing a moving abject to rest. That
amount is NEVER equal to that term because stopping one object will
cause another to gain momentum and KE. As I have shown many times,
assuming no heat loss, the amount lost by the moving object equals the
amount gained by the object that absorbs it...and the total amount is

the same in all frames.

Similarly, it is easy to show that whenever an object is caused to move,
its gained KE plus that gained in recoil by whatever accelerated it is
the same in all frames. That applies no matter what the mass ratios are.
Even an accelerating car causes the Earth to move and gain the same KE
less heat energy loss.
If the calculation is performed on a passing asteroid, the same amount
of total '1/2mv^2 energy' will result.

1/2mv^2 is obviously frame dependent and that fact is used widely,
particularly as the Earth barely moves and most speeds are referred to
it.... but it is not a quantity that should be considered separately as
energy.

>> Do a few sums and see how the creation of an amount of KE is the
>> same in all frames.
>
> The question isn't whether the change in kinetic energy from state 1
> to state 2 is the same for all frames, the question is whether the
> kinetic energy in state 1 (for example) is the same in all frames.
> This is the same as speed, which you yourself have insisted is frame
> dependent. The change in speed between states 1 and 2 may be the
> same in all frames, but this doesn't mean the speed is the same in
> all frames. And since the speed v is frame dependent (as you said),
> the quantity mv^2/2 is also frame dependent.

Of course...and we use KE for convenience because like I said, the
Earth's recoil is negligible and that is usually what matters..

Consider, for instance, the energy derived from a wind farm. It wouldn't
produce any energy if the Earth had zero mass and he wind only blew in
one direction.


--

[HGW...]

On 13/08/17 12:40, rotchm wrote:
> On Saturday, August 12, 2017 at 8:25:50 PM UTC-4, HGW... wrote:
>> On 12/08/17 12:22, rotchm wrote:
>
>>> No, that's NOT what the title asks. As I said, the oscillator is
>>> irrelevant. The device (clock) has some inner workings which will
>>> not change the formula t' = (t-xv)g.
>>
>> The title asks what in meant by the notion of 'clocks running
>> slow'
>
> And I gave you the answer: It means that two values are different; it
> meant that when you compare the two values of the clock, you get t' <
> t.
>
> For instance, say yo buy two cheap watches at the dollar store. You
> start them indicating noon. A few hours later you cheng them and they
> read 3:22 & 3:38 resp. since these two values differ, you would say
> that the 3:22 watch is slower than the other; it "runs slow". To say
> this, you did not need to know the inner workings of those watches.
> If two values differ, then t' < t and they casually call that "runs
> slow". But a smart person would realize that it does not run slow;
> only that the empirical fact was that t' < t. It is the " t' < t "
> that we casually translate in words as "run slow".

Ah! this is good. You are admitting that GPS clocks that change rates
after being sent into orbit actually do physically change. It has
nothing to do with Einstein after all. Thank you Rotty.

>> The question is asked BECAUSE a clock is a counter of oscillator
>> cycles and there is a direct connection between the counter and the
>> oscillator.
>
> Perhaps, but irrelevant, as in the example above.
>
>> What do Dingleberries actually mean when they claim that the
>> natural resonant frequency of a quartz crystal is altered by a
>> speed change?
>
> Those who say it that way are being casual, vulgarizing, or being
> sloppy. All those casual words simply stem from the fact of t' < t.
> So again I tell you, now that you know that those words are very
> sloppy, just use t' < t from now on, since its much more concise.

Well, now let's see. Say a GPS clock emits N ticks during the time the
Earth rotates precisely once. Let the same clock emit N+n ticks per
rotation when in orbit. Wouldn't you agree that this is a direct
indication that the clock has been physically affected by being launched
into orbit?
...Or to put hat another way, if you wanted to know if a clock had
changed after being sent into orbit, would it not be a good idea to
compare its rate before and after launch with the Earth's rotation
period, which can be used in both locations and certainly does not
change significantly in a few days?

>> You obviously have no idea of how physics operates
>
> I guess thats why I succeeded to get several houses here & there and
> several luxury & sports cars (& motorcycle etc..) !? What has your
> understanding of physics gotten you? See, I will trust my beliefs
> since they got me more than what your beliefs brought you.

I think my situation is at least as good as yours. My main car is a
Prius, naturally. my second car is only a Kia but very reliable. I live
on 3 acres in one of the best places and climates in the world.

>> Don't evade the question again. If the oscillator has not changed,
>> what has?
>
> *if* ? What does that have to do with anything? Whether the
> oscillator changed or not, the clock displays a *value*, no?

I will ask you again. SINCE the oscillator has not changed, what has?
What factors could possibly make the clock 'value' change?

Maybe you can now understand the question.

>> I see! The count is unimportant because it is the number shown on
>> the clock which IS important.
>
> YES!!! You finally got it!

So I have got it that Rotty reckons the clock number is both important
and not important.

>> Are you mentally disabled or something?
>
> Having got all that I own, doubtful that Im "mentally ill". I must be
> doing something right to posses all that I have, no?

Not necessarily. There are plenty of rich people that have few brains.

>> But
>>> yes, we "say" that it counts oscillations" , but that's a gross
>>> description & should be avoided for better clarity in the
>>> discussions.
>>
>> It is the main description and it clarifies the discussion.
>
> No it doesn't, since you are still requesting explanations, as many
> others have.
>
>> I see, when you can't answer physics question you call it
>> metaphysics.... Nice try!
>
> One cant answer questions that do not apply. Like if t' < t, then you
> ask " is this because there may be white cats on some exoplanet?" The
> questions does not apply. Your problem is that you do not see that
> your question of "why..." does not apply.

Well if you are defining time as that which is on the dial of a clock, I
can only feel sorry for you. If you have ten clocks together and they
all read differently, what would you say about time at their location?

>> The question did not ask what is meant by two numbers on clocks. It
>> asks what is meant by the claim that 'clocks run slow' because of
>> movement.
>
> All in my above reply.

You have provided no reply to my question and obviously do not have one.

>> So what is meant by time<>time'?
>
> All in my above reply. Simply put, comparing two clocks, that their
> values differ.

Clock A say 1 o'clock, clock B next to it says 2 o'clock. What time is
it in your dingleberry universe?

>> given that those times are measured by counting the cycles of
>> oscillators, which do not change PHYSICALLY because of movement..
>
> Thats your claim. it might be true, or it might be not. Moreover,
> "because" is too vague of a concept and is irrelevant. And more
> importantly, your inquiry/reason wont change the fact that 3 <> 4;
> it wont change that t' = (t-xv)g.

t' was never = (t-xv)g. That was only a nightmare Fitzgerald and Lorentz
had.

>> You are claiming an equation you found in a book and which is not
>> in agreement with any known experiment.
>
> You are a reality denier. The equation is fully in agreement with
> exp's. That is why it is still used.

there are no such experiments except in dingleberry journals. If there
were, there wouldn't be such desperate attempts to link the name
Einstein with any new physics development.

>> Nature is not your way at all.
>
> EXACTLY!!! that why I dont lay forward a "way"; I dont tell nature
> what are the "causes" of such and such effects. However, YOU DO; you
> are imposeing your beliefs on nature. But as you just said, "Nature
> is not your way at all.".

I don't have beliefs. I just follow what I see and know is correct.

>> Your vague t' = (t-xv)g. wont change t=t'.
>
> But actually exp's vindicate t' = (t-xv)g and refute t=t'. Have you
> never looked at your watch/cell and compared it to someone next to
> you (or a clock on your wall etc)? Have you never noticed that they
> usually all differ? See, t' <> t.

Oh dear! I'm beginning to feel really sorry for you now. Are you related
to our little gawy, by any chance?

>>> To date, all exp's support it.
>>
>> Not one experiment has supported the silly idea....
>
> You are a reality denier.
>
>> What do you dingleberries mean when you say time changes with
>> movement?
>
> All in my above reply.

No, you still haven't even understood the question.

>> We are not getting anywhere fast, are we....we're still a stage 1.
>
> yes, you are stuck at stage one. Me, I progressed to a much higher
> stage (houses, cars, vacations all year long,...).

..all paid for by the Grand Conspiracy, I presume.

>> and you are certainly incapable of answering it.
>
> But I did. Whats going on, is that you dont accept it because you are
> a reality denier. And a trademark of reality deniers is that they are
> stuck in a low level livelihood. Does that sound like you? Realizing
> this might be your first step in improving your situation.

All you have repeated over and over is that two clocks are set
differently if their readings are different. A two year old kid would
probably know that



--

[Gary Harnagel]

On Sunday, August 13, 2017 at 4:53:03 AM UTC-6, HGW... wrote:
>
> Ah! this is good. You are admitting that GPS clocks that change rates
> after being sent into orbit actually do physically change. It has
> nothing to do with Einstein after all.

Nope. Cs atoms in atomic clocks operate in free fall, whether on earth
or in orbit. There is no mechanism by which they can "physically change."

One of your objections to invariant light-speed is that there is no
mechanism to make light invariant, therefore it can't be. But you ignore
that argument in the GPS question when it suits you.

> Well, now let's see. Say a GPS clock emits N ticks during the time the
> Earth rotates precisely once. Let the same clock emit N+n ticks per
> rotation when in orbit. Wouldn't you agree that this is a direct
> indication that the clock has been physically affected by being launched
> into orbit?

Where is the mechanism for this? The clock is OFF during launch and the
atoms are in freefall before and after launch.

> ...Or to put hat another way, if you wanted to know if a clock had
> changed after being sent into orbit, would it not be a good idea to
> compare its rate before and after launch with the Earth's rotation
> period, which can be used in both locations and certainly does not
> change significantly in a few days?

That doesn't make any sense whatever. The earth's rotation period varies
with every earthquake and even every rocket launched into space.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5b/Deviation_of_day_length_from_SI_day.svg

As you can see, the length of the day varies by milliseconds whereas the
time difference of atomic clocks in orbit is only 0.038 milliseconds.

Obviously, one would compare it to a similar clock that remained on the
ground. Your words amount to drivel.

> there are no such experiments except in dingleberry journals.

Keep up your delusional denial of reality. It's very entertaining :-)

> If there were, there wouldn't be such desperate attempts to link the name
> Einstein with any new physics development.

The only desperation I see here is in your futile attempts to deny reality.

> I don't have beliefs. I just follow what I see and know is correct.

Yeah, like you "know" that there are no superior beings in the entire
universe :-))

“we think everything in this universe has to conform to our paradigm
of what makes sense. Do you have any idea how arrogant that view
is and on how little of this universe we base it?” ― Robert Buettner

[mlwo...@wp.pl]

W dniu niedziela, 13 sierpnia 2017 14:42:47 UTC+2 użytkownik Gary Harnagel napisał:

> Nope. Cs atoms in atomic clocks operate in free fall, whether on earth
> or in orbit. There is no mechanism by which they can "physically change."

Such mechanism exists of course, it's called "a human",
poor idiot.