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: PD on 6 Feb 2010 21:47 On Feb 6, 3:01 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > On Sat, 6 Feb 2010 12:41:40 -0800 (PST), PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >On Feb 6, 2:30 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > >> On Sat, 6 Feb 2010 08:59:59 -0800 (PST), PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >> >The question is, is the theory supported by the body of experimental > >> >evidence? > >> >If there is a theory T1 that is supported by experiments A, B, C, D, > >> >E, F, G, H, and I, then it makes no difference whether experiment A is > >> >also supported by theory T2, B is also supported by theory T3, C is > >> >also supported by theory T4, D is also supported by T5, E is also > >> >supported by theory T6, F is also supported by theory T7, G is also > >> >supported by theory T8, H is also supported by theory T9, and I is > >> >also supported by theory T10. > > >> >The fact remains that A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, and I all support theory > >> >T1. And given the choice of supporting all those results with one > >> >theory or ten theories, physicists tend to choose the first. > > >> There has never been a convincing experiment that supports Einstein's silly > >> theory and no other. > > >As I said, Henri, no experiment aims to do this. It is NEVER the case > >and NEVER HAS BEEN THE CASE that an experiment shows one theory is > >correct and no others could be correct. Nor should this be the case. > > >The acceptance of a theory is based on how many experimental results > >over the WHOLE body of evidence are accurately accounted for by the > >model. > > Why then are so many deluded physicists still trying so desperately to find > just one scrap of evidence that might support Einstein? They're not. They're trying to disprove this. I've told you this a half dozen times. Are you senile? > > >> Eddington, for instance didn't have a hope in hell of > >> accurately measuring the bending of light by the sun. > > >> Henry Wilson... > > >> .......provider of free physics lessons > > Henry Wilson... > > .......provider of free physics lessons
From: Henry Wilson DSc on 7 Feb 2010 04:31 On Sat, 06 Feb 2010 13:34:48 -0800, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nospam(a)gmail.com> wrote: >..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > >> On Sat, 06 Feb 2010 03:38:59 -0800, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nospam(a)gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>>Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>> >>>[..] >>> >>>I'm going to guess either his cookie-cutter 'willusion' or 'cutting >>>fields' excuses, neither of which he can fashion into a testable >>>prediction. >> >> ........cocky want a cracker...? > >Looks like you didn't even try to offer an explanation. > >Do you ever sit and wonder why so many different people all manage to >believe the same thing and all offer the same evidence to you? Have you ever >- once - thought that your understanding might be wrong? I have all the evidence I need to know I'm right. Light speed is 100% source dependent in remote vacuum.. Henry Wilson... ........provider of free physics lessons
From: kenseto on 7 Feb 2010 08:07 On Feb 6, 3:01 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > On Sat, 6 Feb 2010 10:15:55 -0800 (PST), kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > >On Feb 6, 10:28 am, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > >> On Sat, 6 Feb 2010 04:31:11 -0800 (PST), kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > >> >On Feb 6, 3:43 am, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > >> >> On Fri, 5 Feb 2010 23:11:36 -0800 (PST), Charlie Monk > > >> >> <charliejm...(a)googlemail.com> wrote: > >> >> >On Feb 5, 2:54 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >> On Feb 3, 9:36 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > > >> >> >> > >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. > > >> >> >> > hahahahhahaha! > > >> >> >> > Do you know of any of those that uses a moving source? > > >> >> >> Yes indeed! And those have been mentioned to you before. > >> >> >> If you don't intend to pay attention to the answers to your questions, > >> >> >> why do you repeat the questions? > > >> >> >> > >PD > > >> >> >> > Henry Wilson... > > >> >> >> > .......provider of free physics lessons- Hide quoted text - > > >> >> >> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > >> >> >> - Show quoted text - > > >> >> >Henry Wilson's assumption: "Since [the clocks] don't change one iota > >> >> >with movement, they must remain in absolute synch when separated" > >> >> >seems to be at the bottom of this argument. This is true of constant > >> >> >velocity movement but my understanding is that in order to be > >> >> >separated they must each undergo differing acceleration vectors which > >> >> >is the cause of the de-synchronising. > > >> >> Perfect clocks are not physically affected by acceleration. > >> >> The two in my experiment undergo exactly the same accelerations and > >> >> decelerations in the opposite directions. They end up MAR. SR agrees that > >> >> nothing physical happens to the clocks. > >> >> For some insane reason, relativists think that moving a clock somehow causes > >> >> time to flow at a different rate in the vicinity of the clock. > > >> >The rate of a clock is dependent on its state of absolute motion. > >> >Clocks in relative motion are in different states of absolute motions > >> >and therefore they are running at different rates. > > >> My clocks are always MAR except when being moved to new positions....and they > >> DO NOT change at all while being moved except in your nonexistant absolute > >> aether. > > >What is MAR? > > Mutually At Rest. > > >But they do change when accelerated. The arther exits. > > It doesn't. They do not. Assertions are not valid arguement. Ken Seto
From: kenseto on 7 Feb 2010 08:14 On Feb 6, 11:55 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 6, 6:35 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Feb 5, 3:17 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Feb 5, 9:55 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 4, 10:56 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Feb 4, 8:08 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Feb 3, 9:51 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > ROTFLOL.....more excuses not to measure OWLS directly. > > > > > > You view it as an excuse, Ken. For physicists, it is proper > > > > > experimental design and rationale. I get that you don't like it, and I > > > > > get that you know nothing about it. > > > > > > > Truth be known > > > > > > direct measurement of OWLS give values of OWLS to be distance > > > > > > dependent. > > > > > > OWLS distance dependence would show up in TWLS measurements also. Not > > > > > seen. > > > > > No ....the value of TWLS is also physical distance dependent. > > > > Then it would have been detected already. There are dozens of TWLS > > > measurements, all done with different distances. This distance > > > dependence would have been immediately obvious from those results. > > > You've never looked at the results. > > > If you measure the distance with a physical ruler instead of light > > then you will find the value of TWLS is distance dependent. > > I'm sorry, Ken, but that is not historically correct. The values from > the light survey *agree* with the values by using a physical ruler. For a short distance maybe be not for a long distance.
From: Paul B. Andersen on 7 Feb 2010 10:02
On 06.02.2010 21:43, Henry Wilson DSc wrote: > On Sat, 06 Feb 2010 16:29:34 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen"<someone(a)somewhere.no> > wrote: > >> On 05.02.2010 22:30, Henry Wilson DSc wrote: >>> On Fri, 05 Feb 2010 19:58:11 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen"<someone(a)somewhere.no> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> On 03.02.2010 22:30, Henry Wilson DSc wrote: >>>>> If two clocks are synched whilst together and then moved apart, they will >>>>> remain absolutely synched. >>>>> (If anyone wants to argue, let the clocks be moved apart identically in >>>>> opposite directions). >>>>> >>>>> O C1|C2 (ABSOLUTELY synched whilst together) >>>>> >>>>> C1 | C2 (still in absolute synch when separated) >>>>> >>>>> OK so far? >>>>> ********************** >>>>> >>>>> Now, if two clocks, WHICH ARE COMOVING in the frame of a particular observer, >>>>> are absolutely synched whilst together and then moved apart identically, why >>>>> should they not remain in absolute synch in that observer's frame? >>>>> >>>>> O C1|C2->v (adjacent comoving clocks absolutely synched) >>>>> >>>>> C1 |->v C2 (clocks are identically separated) >>>>> *********************** >>>>> >>>>> Therefore any pair of clocks that are synched and separated in this manner MUST >>>>> remain absolutely synched in ALL observer frames. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Henry Wilson... >>>>> >>>>> .......provider of free physics lessons >>>> >>>> >>>> Which experiment are you referring to, Henry? >>>> This isn't even a thought experiment, it is but an assertion. >>>> >>>> An ever ongoing 'experiment' prove your wrong. >>>> Clocks at different longitudes which are synchronised to UTC >>>> (or GPS) are not synchronous according to Einstein procedure. >>> >>> ...so obviously, Einstein's procedure is wrong. >>> Good! That's settled. >> >> OK. Let's analyse the experiment according to the emission theory. >> >> The following is a thought experiment. >> It is however based on the results from real 'experiments' which >> are performed daily when the UTC clocks are synchronized. >> So there is no point in disputing that a real experiment would >> show different results from what I state below. >> (The required precision is probably not practically attainable, though.) >> >> At equator we have two ground stations which are separated >> by 100 km. Station A has a clock, a laser and a light detector. >> Station B has a clock, a mirror and a light detector. >> The equipment is placed in towers so that they are in plain sight >> of each other. >> There is no wind, the air is stationary with respect to the ground. >> >> Using the GPS, both clocks are synched to UTC to within 0.1 ns. > > Hahahhaha!...go on.... > >> ---------------------------------------------------------- >> Are the clocks in synch according to the emission theory, Henry? >> If yes, - are they in 'absolute synch'? >> If no, why are they not in synch? > > I assume the clock RATES are identical. > If their readings are not in absolute synch then the difference between their > readings is absolute. Don't evade the question, Ralph. Even you know that you can sync clocks to UTC using the GPS. So the question is: Are clocks showing UTC in synch with each other? If yes, are they in absolute synch with each other? If no, why are clocks which are showing UTC not in sync with each other? Don't flee the question with your tail between your legs again, please. Give a clear answer. >> When A's clock shows exactly tA = 0 (00:00:00 UTC) a pulse >> is emitted. >> The reflected pulse is detected when clock A shows: >> tA' = 667.1282 us >> >> At station B, the pulse is reflected off the mirror >> and detected by the detector when B's clock shows: >> tB = 333.5636 us > >> The readings of the clocks are compared, and it is found >> that tB = (tA + tA')/2 - 0.5 ns >> >> Are the clocks in synch according to the emission theory, Henry? > > No. Why should they be? So your answer is that clocks which are synced to UTC are not in synch with each other according to the emission theory. That is the correct answer. The emission theory and SR are no different when it comes to definition of simultaneity. So according to SR as well as the emission theory, clocks (at different longitude) showing UTC are not in synch with each other. >> If yes, - are they in 'absolute synch'? >> If no, why are they not in synch? > > Because they were not originally synched whilst adjacent. OK, answer this. Two clocks are synchronized while adjacent and stationary on the ground. Both are moved away at the same speed until the distance between them is 100 km. A pulse is sent from A at tA on A's clock, the pulse is reflected off B at tB on B's clock, and is received by A at tA' on A's clock. No wind, the air is stationary with respect to the ground. The emission theory predicts that: tB = (tA + tA')/2 Do you refute that? Of course you don't because even you understand that it is correct. If we had made the measurements without knowing whether or not the clocks were synchronous, and found that: tB = (tA + tA')/2 the inevitable conclusion would be that the clocks are synchronized, just as they would be if they were synched side by side, and moved away with the same speed. Do you refute that? Of course you don't, because not even you can refute that this follows from the emission theory. > > Why dont you read my original post again. Your question is not related. Not even you can refute that Einstein's synchronization procedure works equally well according to the emission theory. If two clocks are synced while adjacent and moved away with the same speed, the emission theory predicts that Einstein's synchronization procedure will show that they are in synch. And the other way around: If Einstein's synchronization procedure show that the clocks are in synch, the emission theory predicts that if the clocks are moved together with the same speed, they will still be in synch when they are adjacent. -- Paul http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/ |