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: glird on 7 Feb 2010 10:39 On Feb 7, 10:02 am, "Paul B. Andersen" <some...(a)somewhere.no> wrote: > > 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. "In synch" in which system, Paul? (In STR, if they are synchronous in system 1 they are NOT in synch in any differently moving system.) glird
From: eric gisse on 7 Feb 2010 14:17 ...@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > 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. You KNOW you are right even though you are routinely wrong? Interesting. > Light speed is 100% > source dependent in remote vacuum.. ....except your only evidence for this are curve fits of light curves in a program with as many adjustable parameters as you need. Even when the program gives you answers you *know* are wrong, like a fantastically wrong distance to the star, you mutter 'extinction has happened' and ignore that you are wrong. Even when you tell me personally that you hardly get all of the light curves right, you are still correct? You ignore all other experiments and observations that prove you wrong. You are yet to even field a GUESS as to why Filippas and Fox's experiment does not confirm ballistic theory despite the experiment being 45 years old, and having been pointed out to you literally hundreds of times over the previous decade. Does that sound like science to you? Or the behavior of a crank? > > > > Henry Wilson... > > .......provider of free physics lessons
From: eric gisse on 7 Feb 2010 19:36 ...@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: [...] >>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. > > Because either your figures are faked or the method is flawed. So Henri, given you are sure it is one of those, why don't you establish which? The methodology is well documented, and the figures are easily checked in an independent fashion. Atomic clocks of sufficient precision are easy to come by in 2010, so there really is no excuse for you. [...] >>So your answer is that clocks which are synced to UTC >>are not in synch with each other according to >>the emission theory. > > they aren't in synch anywhere. there has been a timing error somewhere. Ah, so it is another one of those 'willusions' that conspires to make reality behave as if relativity were true? [...] > >>So according to SR as well as the emission theory, clocks >>(at different longitude) showing UTC are not in synch with >>each other. > > NOW here is NOW everywhere. Where does this confidence come from, Henri? You were just given an entirely true scenario in which this is false, and you simply resort to assigning blame to malfeasence or 'timing errors'. [...] > > I cannot see what you are trying to prove. this is all simple stuff. > You have not discussed my original point at all. Why Henri, were you not listening? Your 'original point' was that your *THOUGHT* experiment (remember, thought experiments are not real experiments) with the *ASSUMPTION* that synchronicity is absolute manages to 'show' that Einstein is 'stupid'. Paul gave you an example in which simultaneity is broken. I've given you one previously: Hafele-Keating, in which all you do is laugh and dismiss the experiment with a handwave because you haven't figured out how to address it despite a decade of it being shoved in your goddamn face. > > > Henry Wilson... > > .......provider of free physics lessons
From: PD on 8 Feb 2010 10:48 On Feb 7, 7:14 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > 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. What's "long". From here to Mars? How do you propose to lay out a physical ruler from here to Mars?
From: PD on 8 Feb 2010 10:50
On Feb 6, 2:27 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > On Sat, 6 Feb 2010 08:52:25 -0800 (PST), PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >On Feb 6, 1:11 am, 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: > > >> 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. > > >Well no. If you separate the two clocks slowly, you can make the > >effects of the acceleration negligible. If the two clocks end up > >separated but relatively at rest, then they will still be synchronized > >in the frame in which they are both at rest. However, they will not be > >synchronized in any frame in which they are both moving. > > >Henri's confusion comes from this scenario: > > I am not in the slightest confused. > I am merely pointing out that neither neither TIME nor simultaneity is > dependent on how the way light travels from A to B. > > >Take two clocks that are at the same place and both moving together in > >some frame. Because they are in the same place, then it is certainly > >possible to synchronize those clocks even in this frame in which they > >are moving. Now let the clocks slowly separate in this frame, making > >the acceleration as small as you like, and bring them to a state where > >they are now moving in this frame but separated by some distance. > > Acceleration doesn't affect perfect clocks. There are no such things as perfectly rigid rods or perfect clocks, even in principle, any more than there is instantaneous communication even in principle. Just saying the words does not make it something that is relevant to our universe. > > >What, Henri asks, happened so that the clocks are no longer > >synchronized? > > Nothing happens to the clocks. They remain absolutely synched IN ALL FRAMES. That's in conflict with experiment. Assertion does not overrule experiment. > > >> Charlie > > Henry Wilson... > > .......provider of free physics lessons |