The SRians Said: Time is What the Clock Measures

"EL" wrote in message oups.com...
[EL]
I sincerely apologize for wasting your time George.
You seemed to be quite qualified technically to take the task but I
will be betraying my own intelligence after becoming certain that you
are not psychologically qualified to face any shocking truth or
carrying this heavy burden with me.

http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/di...MolBioBra.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/di...olBioBra2.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/di.../Conclude.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/di...bles/Hbar.html

If you cannot handle the pure idea of infinite time eternity and insist
on boxing yourself like many others into a very limited conception of
time, then I am doomed to fail in making you see what I clearly see.
They said "You can take a horse to the river but you cannot make it
drink", the horse has to be thirsty on its own.
I drank the cup relativity out of my thirst, but it ****ed me, I who
drank it.
Alas, you have prepared yourself for a rescue mission to convert the
heretic.
You have threatened me of being branded as a crank if I did not wise
up.

You *are* a crank, Hemetis.
A first class one.

I am sorry to disappoint you, I do not succumb to threats.

You don't even succumb after having been caught with your pants down:
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/di...adySanity.html

It was a pleasure playing hide and seek with you, because it is fun
when played with a clever minded player more than being played with in
easy catch.
I admit that you have escaped answering the symmetrical trap, and you
know very well the details of its mechanism. I can hardly blame you for
being yourself.

Good luck with your safe and cosy life.

Regards to Lady Sanity - don't forget!

Dirk Vdm

EL wrote:

[EL]
I sincerely apologize for wasting your time George.
You seemed to be quite qualified technically to take the task but I
will be betraying my own intelligence after becoming certain that you
are not psychologically qualified to face any shocking truth or
carrying this heavy burden with me.
If you cannot handle the pure idea of infinite time eternity and insist
on boxing yourself like many others into a very limited conception of
time,

If you were playing chess with someone and they refused to let you move
your bishop off diagonal, would you accuse them of narrow mindedness?

Everything about a physical theory is defined (just like a chess game) -
there's no basis for expanding on the meanings of theoretical entities
(e.g. time in Relativity).

then I am doomed to fail in making you see what I clearly see.
They said "You can take a horse to the river but you cannot make it
drink", the horse has to be thirsty on its own.
I drank the cup relativity out of my thirst, but it ****ed me, I who
drank it.
Alas, you have prepared yourself for a rescue mission to convert the
heretic.
You have threatened me of being branded as a crank if I did not wise
up.
I am sorry to disappoint you, I do not succumb to threats.
It was a pleasure playing hide and seek with you, because it is fun
when played with a clever minded player more than being played with in
easy catch.
I admit that you have escaped answering the symmetrical trap, and you
know very well the details of its mechanism. I can hardly blame you for
being yourself.

Good luck with your safe and cosy life.

"EL" wrote in message
oups.com...
[EL]
I sincerely apologize for wasting your time George.

That's ok, it's always fun sparring a little,
but my offer as always was genuine.

You seemed to be quite qualified technically to take the task but I
will be betraying my own intelligence after becoming certain that you
are not psychologically qualified to face any shocking truth or
carrying this heavy burden with me.
If you cannot handle the pure idea of infinite time eternity

On the contrary, the current picture afforded
by cosmology is of a universe infinite in
extent and with an infinite future leading to
thermodynamic 'heat death', a universe with
only a few burnt out stars in a clump and
everything else beyond the horizon formed by
acceleration due to dark enery. There seem to
be many people who have trouble with that
rather bleak picture. I am not one of them.

and insist
on boxing yourself like many others into a very limited conception of
time, then I am doomed to fail in making you see what I clearly see.
They said "You can take a horse to the river but you cannot make it
drink", the horse has to be thirsty on its own.

I'll happily look and learn, but you have to
offer consistency and you cannot do that by
mixing equations.

I drank the cup relativity out of my thirst, but it ****ed me, I who
drank it.

Sadly I have seem no evidence of that. Every
view you have expressed has been purely
Newtonian, with a few relativistic terms
altered to fit ratios of Newtonian values.

Alas, you have prepared yourself for a rescue mission to convert the
heretic.
You have threatened me of being branded as a crank if I did not wise
up.

Not at all, understanding relativity doesn't
imply adopting it. I was careful to include
the old exam phrase of "compare and contrast"
to make sure you couldn't read it as a threat.

I am sorry to disappoint you, I do not succumb to threats.
It was a pleasure playing hide and seek with you, because it is fun
when played with a clever minded player more than being played with in
easy catch.
I admit that you have escaped answering the symmetrical trap,

Add pulses sent from A to B and we can easily
deal with symmetry, but that you think it a
"trap" only reinforces my opinion that you
have never grasped relativity at all. You'll
never become an "insider" as you put it if
you refuse to look inside.

and you
know very well the details of its mechanism. I can hardly blame you for
being yourself.

Good luck with your safe and cosy life.

And to you EL, it was fun regardless. Feel
free to open it up again any time.

George

[George Dishman wrote]
I admit that you have escaped answering the symmetrical trap,

Add pulses sent from A to B and we can easily
deal with symmetry, but that you think it a
"trap" only reinforces my opinion that you
have never grasped relativity at all. You'll
never become an "insider" as you put it if
you refuse to look inside.
[EL]
I _AM_ an insider.
I did not refuse to look inside what I had to learn by heart to get my
degree.
Intelligence is not a divisible concept, one either _is_ or _is not_.
You proved amply that you are a very intelligent person.
Why do you think I would debate with you what I already agree with you!
I do not wish to debate against you what would be my position on
debating others.
Why is it so difficult to understand that I do not wish to enter the
roulette room? ;-)
I never gamble when I am supposed to be the dealer.
Do I have to post a couple of posts with orthodox relativistic
equations to convince you!
Certainly not, as it is too childish to my taste to post what any crank
can copy from a book to try to prove that he was not what he really is.
I am simply not what you have been painting along some of your posts.
That is why I see no point in "bribing" you if all I needed was your
honest debate.
There will come a time when you shall see me on your side debating
others, but not this time in this thread on time concept confusion in
relativity.
Here is my hint for you to find what I found on your own.
Expand the dimensional analysis equivalent of any relativistic equation
using the gamma factor with time dilation marking and identifying every
concept of time you find by not merging similar symbols.
Examine the physical essence of all time symbols especially those in
denominators and their relation to time symbols in the numerators.
Notice the unjustified transition of the spatially-relevant scale of
time while the constant speed of light is being invariantly appreciated
between multiple local spatial domains of variant time scales. This
should lead you to admit that there are multiple time scales at the
same spacetime event which logically must be a contradiction.
I know I used very difficult English to parse, but that is a very good
excuse for a contradiction that was hidden for over hundred years.
Every time you verbally find yourself saying "Per Second" ask yourself,
which second is that, and is it an invariant second or a variant
second, and is it legal to talk about a constant speed of light that
wonders across differently sized "second", and if it can, would it
still be an invariant speed?
Then check the postulates of SR.
Then start to post some posts in which others accuse you of being a
crank or a candidate of a crank. ;-)

Kindest regards.

EL



and you know very well the details of its mechanism.
I can hardly blame you for being yourself.


Good luck with your safe and cosy life.

And to you EL, it was fun regardless. Feel
free to open it up again any time.

George

EL wrote:

[snip 150 lines of crap]

We have both proven to have the stamina to arrive at any equation
rather than apply one of choice under the pressure of previous dogma. I
am quite confident that I have enough credentials to qualify me

http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/di...bles/Hbar.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/di...MolBioBra.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/di...olBioBra2.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/di.../Conclude.html

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf

A cockroach looked up to the Great Pyramid and said to itself, "What a
mess" .

"EL" wrote in message
oups.com...
[George Dishman wrote]
I admit that you have escaped answering the symmetrical trap,

Add pulses sent from A to B and we can easily
deal with symmetry, but that you think it a
"trap" only reinforces my opinion that you
have never grasped relativity at all. You'll
never become an "insider" as you put it if
you refuse to look inside.
[EL]
I _AM_ an insider.

I decide on the understanding you display, not on
your claims. There are a couple of points in this
post alone that tell me that you may have learned
every equation but never grasped the underlying
physics. I think every one of your posts to this
thread has had at least one example. I'll snip
a bit to the bottom to show you what I mean:

Notice the unjustified transition of the spatially-relevant scale of
time while the constant speed of light is being invariantly appreciated
between multiple local spatial domains of variant time scales.

"variant time scales" is how many beginners look at
relativity. In the example we were discussing, the
transmissions events could be used to define units
of time, and since the same events were 0.5s apart
as judged by A but 0.433s apart as judged by B, it
appears obvious that different scales must be being
used. That's not the case but you have to move on
to a better understanding before you can grasp that.

This
should lead you to admit that there are multiple time scales at the
same spacetime event which logically must be a contradiction.

Again you say "multiple time scales ... must be a
contradiction." but the only thing it contradicts
is Newton's universal time, so your protestation
only further demonstrates the fact that you have
been able to throw off that mindset.

I know I used very difficult English to parse,

Phrases like "speed of light is being invariantly
appreciated" are difficult. I seldom sit down in
front of a light bulb and 'appreciate' the speed
of light, nor have I ever done it in an 'invariant'
manner. However, despite flowery language, I can
grasp what you meant because I have seen the same
thing said many times by people with only a
superficial knowledge of the subject, those who
read the books, memorised what they needed to pass
the exams but never really grasped the implications.

but that is a very good
excuse for a contradiction that was hidden for over hundred years.
Every time you verbally find yourself saying "Per Second" ask yourself,
which second is that, and is it an invariant second or a variant
second, and is it legal to talk about a constant speed of light that
wonders across differently sized "second", ....

Again, "differently sized 'second'" is a phrase
that shows conclusively you are an outsider. If
B measures 0.433s while A measures 0.5s between
the same events, how can they possibly be using
the same scale of time? It's exactly the sort of
question a beginner asks.

moved from earlier

I did not refuse to look inside what I had to learn by heart to get my
degree.
Intelligence is not a divisible concept, one either _is_ or _is not_.
You proved amply that you are a very intelligent person.

Understanding isn't the same as intelligence. You
obviously have the ability to argue well and you
have certainly studied SR to some level, but the
fundamental difference between SR and Newton has
clearly eluded you. If you take that as a hint
and go back to the books you might now find it
yourself. If you ask in the groups and listen,
you certainly could get it, but given the
arrogance you have displayed throughout this
thread, I doubt you have the character to do
that, and if you had the same attitude during your
degree, I can understand why you never learned the
subject, you probably thought it was all too
obvious. I also very much doubt that this is the
first time someone has suggested arrogance is a
problem for you.

Why do you think I would debate with you what I already agree with you!
I do not wish to debate against you what would be my position on
debating others.
Why is it so difficult to understand that I do not wish to enter the
roulette room? ;-)
I never gamble when I am supposed to be the dealer.


If you want to talk in metaphors, you never were
the dealer, I let you have all the cards but you
dropped them when you tried to shuffle the pack.

Do I have to post a couple of posts with orthodox relativistic
equations to convince you!

No, what you need to do if you want to convince
anyone that you are an insider is show that you
understand the model that goes with the equations.
So far every attempt you have made has shown the
opposite.

After that, if you want to teach an alternative
then you have to start with the _same_ equations
and outline a different _model_ that can go with
them. It is the equations that are empirically
determined from experiment, they are correlations
between observables, so it is they that must be
your starting point.

That was what I was explaining to you about your
web page, if you start from the classical Doppler
equation then you are automatically discarding
relativity whether you intended to or not.

best regards
George

"EL" wrote in message
oups.com...
A cockroach looked up to the Great Pyramid and said to itself, "What a
mess" .

It was a dung beetle, they assume all constructions
must be spherical.

;-)

[George Dishman wrote]
"EL" wrote in message
oups.com...
A cockroach looked up to the Great Pyramid and said to itself, "What a
mess" .

It was a dung beetle,
they assume all constructions must be spherical.

;-)
[EL]
I like that wit. :-)
However, that roach was predicting a coincidence of coordinates between
himself and a tourist's foot within a proper second. LOL.
It was the last thing it said to itself anyway. ;-)