Clock Synching Experiment Again Demonstrates Einstein's Stupidity.
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: New Theory --- The Theory of Quantum Wave Sources
Next: Properties of the elements or different atoms
From: Androcles on 3 Feb 2010 20:10 "kenseto" <kenseto(a)erinet.com> wrote in message news:a649523b-9e63-46e9-8998-9d088699c320(a)n33g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... On Feb 3, 5:33 pm, Tom Roberts <tjrob...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > Henry Wilson DSc wrote: > > If two clocks are synched whilst together and then moved apart, they > > will > > remain absolutely synched. > > Nope. There is nothing "absolute" about this kind of synchronization. > > > (If anyone wants to argue, let the clocks be moved apart identically in > > opposite directions). > > I assume your "identically in opposite directions" is applied in some > inertial > frame. Then they remain synchronized in that inertial frame, AND ONLY IN > THAT FRAME. Then why don't you use those two spatially separated and synchronized clocks to measure OWLS????? Ken Seto =================================== Hey cretin! The speed of light is 300,000 km/sec relative to its source, close enough for government work. Why the obsession with measurement?
From: Tom Roberts on 3 Feb 2010 20:27 Henry Wilson DSc wrote: > On Wed, 03 Feb 2010 16:33:36 -0600, Tom Roberts <tjrob137(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> Henry Wilson DSc wrote: >>> If two clocks are synched whilst together and then moved apart, they will >>> remain absolutely synched. >> Nope. There is nothing "absolute" about this kind of synchronization. > > Do you deny that two clocks are absolutely synched when synched together? I would not use the word "absolutely" for this. But yes, clocks that are synchronized and co-located will be observed to be synchronized by all observers. >>> (If anyone wants to argue, let the clocks be moved apart identically in >>> opposite directions). >> I assume your "identically in opposite directions" is applied in some inertial >> frame. Then they remain synchronized in that inertial frame, AND ONLY IN THAT FRAME. > > They can be separated by a symmetrical mechanical system if you wish. It is > identical in ALL frames. No, the clocks cannot possibly be separated in a manner "identical in all frames". You REALLY NEED to do this exercise: >> Exercise for Henry: if they are moved apart "identically in >> opposite directions" in inertial frame A, are they also moved >> apart "identically in opposite directions" in inertial frame B >> that is moving relative to A along the direction the clocks >> were moved apart in A? > The world works they way I see it working. As I said, your hubris is OUTRAGEOUS. Tom Roberts
From: eric gisse on 3 Feb 2010 21:05 ...@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > On Wed, 03 Feb 2010 16:33:36 -0600, Tom Roberts <tjrob137(a)sbcglobal.net> > wrote: > >>Henry Wilson DSc wrote: >>> If two clocks are synched whilst together and then moved apart, they >>> will remain absolutely synched. >> >>Nope. There is nothing "absolute" about this kind of synchronization. > > Do you deny that two clocks are absolutely synched when synched together? Hafele & Keating, Henri. Its' been done, and doesn't work the way you demand. > >>> (If anyone wants to argue, let the clocks be moved apart identically in >>> opposite directions). >> >>I assume your "identically in opposite directions" is applied in some >>inertial frame. Then they remain synchronized in that inertial frame, AND >>ONLY IN THAT FRAME. > > They can be separated by a symmetrical mechanical system if you wish. It > is identical in ALL frames. > >>Exercise for Henry: if they are moved apart "identically in >>opposite directions" in inertial frame A, are they also moved >>apart "identically in opposite directions" in inertial frame B >>that is moving relative to A along the direction the clocks >>were moved apart in A? > > Clocks are not altered in any way by movement. So these two must remain in > absolute synch no matter who looks at them. Kinetic energy is not altered by movement either, yet the observed kinetic energy depends on the reference frame. Length is not altered by movement either, yet if you view a ruler at different angles you'll get different lengths. Time is not altered by movement either, yet one clock on the ground runs differently from another clock that's above it. Alter your notions before forcing everyone else to change theirs. > >>Once again your post comes down to: "I am Henri Wilson, and the world >>simply must work the way I want it to work". The hubris in your approach >>is OUTRAGEOUS, and of course it is not at all related to science. > > The world works they way I see it working..... Really? It does? You do not perform observations, do experiments, read literature, or anything else scientists do. Yet you claim to know better. > that is with light moving > at c wrt its source and c+v wrt an observer moving at -v wrt the source. Really, and where on Earth is that observed? > There is any amount of evidence in support of that concept and zero > against it. http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html#moving- >>source_tests Plenty against it and none for it. You can't refute any of the references, so just keep on pretending they don't exist. > >>Tom Roberts > > > Henry Wilson... > > .......provider of free physics lessons
From: Henry Wilson DSc on 3 Feb 2010 21:48 On Wed, 03 Feb 2010 18:05:01 -0800, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nospam(a)gmail.com> wrote: >..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > >> On Wed, 03 Feb 2010 16:33:36 -0600, Tom Roberts <tjrob137(a)sbcglobal.net> >> wrote: >> >>>Henry Wilson DSc wrote: >>>> If two clocks are synched whilst together and then moved apart, they >>>> will remain absolutely synched. >>> >>>Nope. There is nothing "absolute" about this kind of synchronization. >> >> Do you deny that two clocks are absolutely synched when synched together? > >Hafele & Keating, Henri. > >Its' been done, and doesn't work the way you demand. > >> >>>> (If anyone wants to argue, let the clocks be moved apart identically in >>>> opposite directions). >>> >>>I assume your "identically in opposite directions" is applied in some >>>inertial frame. Then they remain synchronized in that inertial frame, AND >>>ONLY IN THAT FRAME. >> >> They can be separated by a symmetrical mechanical system if you wish. It >> is identical in ALL frames. >> >>>Exercise for Henry: if they are moved apart "identically in >>>opposite directions" in inertial frame A, are they also moved >>>apart "identically in opposite directions" in inertial frame B >>>that is moving relative to A along the direction the clocks >>>were moved apart in A? >> >> Clocks are not altered in any way by movement. So these two must remain in >> absolute synch no matter who looks at them. > >Kinetic energy is not altered by movement either, yet the observed kinetic >energy depends on the reference frame. > >Length is not altered by movement either, yet if you view a ruler at >different angles you'll get different lengths. > >Time is not altered by movement either, yet one clock on the ground runs >differently from another clock that's above it. > >Alter your notions before forcing everyone else to change theirs. > >> >>>Once again your post comes down to: "I am Henri Wilson, and the world >>>simply must work the way I want it to work". The hubris in your approach >>>is OUTRAGEOUS, and of course it is not at all related to science. >> >> The world works they way I see it working..... > >Really? It does? > >You do not perform observations, do experiments, read literature, or >anything else scientists do. Yet you claim to know better. > >> that is with light moving >> at c wrt its source and c+v wrt an observer moving at -v wrt the source. > >Really, and where on Earth is that observed? > >> There is any amount of evidence in support of that concept and zero >> against it. > >http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html#moving- >>>source_tests > >Plenty against it and none for it. You can't refute any of the references, >so just keep on pretending they don't exist. poor boy...definitely subnormal... Henry Wilson... ........provider of free physics lessons
From: PD on 3 Feb 2010 21:51
On Feb 3, 6:53 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > On Feb 3, 5:33 pm, Tom Roberts <tjrob...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > > > Henry Wilson DSc wrote: > > > If two clocks are synched whilst together and then moved apart, they will > > > remain absolutely synched. > > > Nope. There is nothing "absolute" about this kind of synchronization. > > > > (If anyone wants to argue, let the clocks be moved apart identically in > > > opposite directions). > > > I assume your "identically in opposite directions" is applied in some inertial > > frame. Then they remain synchronized in that inertial frame, AND ONLY IN THAT FRAME. > > Then why don't you use those two spatially separated and synchronized > clocks to measure OWLS????? This has been answered many times, Ken. Because the details of this experimental test contains sources of experimental error that are not present in indirect measurements. That is the art of experimental design, and why some indirect tests produce results of higher quality than direct measurements. I realize that you have no idea why this is. The fact is that experimentally, the direct OWLS measurement would not produce a result that is competitive or better than the quality of the combined results from TWLS and anisotropy measurements. PD > > Ken Seto > > > > > Exercise for Henry: if they are moved apart "identically in > > opposite directions" in inertial frame A, are they also moved > > apart "identically in opposite directions" in inertial frame B > > that is moving relative to A along the direction the clocks > > were moved apart in A? > > > Once again your post comes down to: "I am Henri Wilson, and the world simply > > must work the way I want it to work". The hubris in your approach is OUTRAGEOUS, > > and of course it is not at all related to science. > > > Tom Roberts > > |