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: Paul B. Andersen on 9 Feb 2010 16:33 On 08.02.2010 23:11, Henry Wilson DSc wrote: > On Mon, 08 Feb 2010 15:24:27 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen" > <paul.b.andersen(a)somewhere.no> wrote: >> Two clocks at equator which are 100 km apart and showing UTC >> are really 0.5 ns out of sync (in the ground frame) according >> to Einstein's procedure. > > Is this a 'well known fact' or just something relativists dreamed up? > >> This fact is very well known because it has to be considered >> when the clocks are synced to UTC. > > Is this a 'well known fact' or just something relativists dreamed up? You are making a fool of yourself gain, Ralph. :-) Actually, I found it a bit surprising that you didn't know this fact after having discussed related issues for years. It has been mentioned often enough in this forum. UTC clocks are synced, that is - they are simultaneously showing the same - in the non rotating ECI frame. But the Earth is rotating, so the instant inertial rest frame ("ground frame") of our two clocks are moving relative to the ECI frame. That's why they are NOT synced (simultaneously showing the same) in the ground frame. The effect is called the "Sagnac effect". >> You agree that Einstein's procedure for synchronizing clocks >> works as well according to the emission theory as according to SR. > > It works because the emission theory says it must. Sure it works. And it proves that UTC clocks which are synced in the non rotating ECI-frame, are not synchronous in the ground frame. This is a practical, everyday observation of the fact that simultaneity is relative. You are proven wrong. > >> The discrepancy is that you claim that these clocks will >> be "absolute in sync", while they according to SR are >> in synch only in the frame of reference where they are >> stationary, in our case in the ground frame. >> >> So let's return to the original question. >> You claim that clocks showing UTC are NOT in synch. >> (SR agree - they are not in sync _in the ground frame_) >> Since you claim that that simultaneity is independent of >> frames, that can only mean that you claim that UTC clocks >> not are in sync in any frame. >> >> So can you please explain why the UTC is defined as it is? >> >> The answer to the question can be found >> in the following thought experiment. >> Imagine a chain of clocks around equator. >> We start somewhere, syncing two clocks according >> to the procedure we agree upon, and keep doing >> that all around the chain. >> When we have synced the last clock in the chain, >> we see if it is in sync with the first one. >> >> Can you tell me what we will find, Henry? >> Do you think all the clocks in the chain will >> be in sync with each other? > > Are you assuming no prevailing wind? > > Anyway, NO. The earth is rotating. This is a sagnac situation. The receiving > clock moves radially during the travel time of the signal. The use of rotating > frames leads to errors. Exactly. Clocks can't be pairwise E-synced all around a rotating Earth, that's why they are synced in the non rotating ECI-frame. But if NOW IS NOW EVERYWHERE (simultaneity is frame independent) then it shouldn't matter in which frame they were synced. The fact that it does prove you wrong. >> I will give you a chance to answer before >> I tell you what happens in the real world. > > The experiment involves a rotating frame.... > forget it... SO NOW ISN'T NECESSARILY NOW EVERYWHERE IN A ROTATING FRAME! :-) Rest assured, I won't forget it. You are proven wrong. Cased closed. -- Paul http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/
From: Henry Wilson DSc on 9 Feb 2010 17:02 On Tue, 09 Feb 2010 22:33:48 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen" <someone(a)somewhere.no> wrote: >On 08.02.2010 23:11, Henry Wilson DSc wrote: >> On Mon, 08 Feb 2010 15:24:27 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen" >> <paul.b.andersen(a)somewhere.no> wrote: > >>> Two clocks at equator which are 100 km apart and showing UTC >>> are really 0.5 ns out of sync (in the ground frame) according >>> to Einstein's procedure. >> >> Is this a 'well known fact' or just something relativists dreamed up? >> >>> This fact is very well known because it has to be considered >>> when the clocks are synced to UTC. >> >> Is this a 'well known fact' or just something relativists dreamed up? > >You are making a fool of yourself again, Henry. :-) > >Actually, I found it a bit surprising that you didn't know >this fact after having discussed related issues for years. >It has been mentioned often enough in this forum. ...hahahaha! mentioned BY relativists FOR relativists..... >UTC clocks are synced, that is - they are simultaneously showing >the same - in the non rotating ECI frame. How are they synched? Are you saying they are synched against the same GPS clock 85 us away? >But the Earth is rotating, so the instant inertial rest frame >("ground frame") of our two clocks are moving relative to the ECI frame. > >That's why they are NOT synced (simultaneously showing the same) >in the ground frame. > >The effect is called the "Sagnac effect". there are imaginary effects because you are using a rotating frame. >>> You agree that Einstein's procedure for synchronizing clocks >>> works as well according to the emission theory as according to SR. >> >> It works because the emission theory says it must. > >Sure it works. And it proves that UTC clocks which are >synced in the non rotating ECI-frame, are not synchronous >in the ground frame. How exactly are they synched in the non frame? >This is a practical, everyday observation of the fact >that simultaneity is relative. > >You are proven wrong. Hahahahhaha! >>> The discrepancy is that you claim that these clocks will >>> be "absolute in sync", while they according to SR are >>> in synch only in the frame of reference where they are >>> stationary, in our case in the ground frame. >>> >>> So let's return to the original question. >>> You claim that clocks showing UTC are NOT in synch. >>> (SR agree - they are not in sync _in the ground frame_) >>> Since you claim that that simultaneity is independent of >>> frames, that can only mean that you claim that UTC clocks >>> not are in sync in any frame. >>> >>> So can you please explain why the UTC is defined as it is? >>> >>> The answer to the question can be found >>> in the following thought experiment. >>> Imagine a chain of clocks around equator. >>> We start somewhere, syncing two clocks according >>> to the procedure we agree upon, and keep doing >>> that all around the chain. >>> When we have synced the last clock in the chain, >>> we see if it is in sync with the first one. >>> >>> Can you tell me what we will find, Henry? >>> Do you think all the clocks in the chain will >>> be in sync with each other? >> >> Are you assuming no prevailing wind? >> >> Anyway, NO. The earth is rotating. This is a sagnac situation. The receiving >> clock moves radially during the travel time of the signal. The use of rotating >> frames leads to errors. > >Exactly. Clocks can't be pairwise E-synced all around a rotating Earth, >that's why they are synced in the non rotating ECI-frame. > >But if NOW IS NOW EVERYWHERE (simultaneity is frame independent) >then it shouldn't matter in which frame they were synced. Simultaneity has nothing to do with the time taken for light to travel. >The fact that it does prove you wrong. > >>> I will give you a chance to answer before >>> I tell you what happens in the real world. >> >> The experiment involves a rotating frame.... >> forget it... > >SO NOW ISN'T NECESSARILY NOW EVERYWHERE IN A ROTATING FRAME! :-) This is one of the imaginary effects that can make the user of a rotating frame look like a fool. I have mentioned before in my sagnac explanation that there is an imaginary time factor involved in the rotating frame....just as there are imaginary forces. Henry Wilson... ........provider of free physics lessons
From: Paul B. Andersen on 10 Feb 2010 07:24 On 09.02.2010 23:02, Henry Wilson DSc wrote: > On Tue, 09 Feb 2010 22:33:48 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen"<someone(a)somewhere.no> > wrote: > >> On 08.02.2010 23:11, Henry Wilson DSc wrote: >>> On Mon, 08 Feb 2010 15:24:27 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen" >>> <paul.b.andersen(a)somewhere.no> wrote: >> >>>> Two clocks at equator which are 100 km apart and showing UTC >>>> are really 0.5 ns out of sync (in the ground frame) according >>>> to Einstein's procedure. >>> >>> Is this a 'well known fact' or just something relativists dreamed up? >>> >>>> This fact is very well known because it has to be considered >>>> when the clocks are synced to UTC. >>> >>> Is this a 'well known fact' or just something relativists dreamed up? >> >> You are making a fool of yourself again, Henry. :-) >> >> Actually, I found it a bit surprising that you didn't know >> this fact after having discussed related issues for years. >> It has been mentioned often enough in this forum. > > ..hahahaha! mentioned BY relativists FOR relativists..... Quite. Since it is a real effect observed in the real world, it wouldn't be read by the inhabitants of Wonderland to whom only imaginary effects are of interest. > >> UTC clocks are synced, that is - they are simultaneously showing >> the same - in the non rotating ECI frame. > > How are they synched? > Are you saying they are synched against the same GPS clock 85 us away? > >> But the Earth is rotating, so the instant inertial rest frame >> ("ground frame") of our two clocks are moving relative to the ECI frame. >> >> That's why they are NOT synced (simultaneously showing the same) >> in the ground frame. >> >> The effect is called the "Sagnac effect". > > there are imaginary effects because you are using a rotating frame. > >>>> You agree that Einstein's procedure for synchronizing clocks >>>> works as well according to the emission theory as according to SR. >>> >>> It works because the emission theory says it must. >> >> Sure it works. And it proves that UTC clocks which are >> synced in the non rotating ECI-frame, are not synchronous >> in the ground frame. > > How exactly are they synched in the non frame? > >> This is a practical, everyday observation of the fact >> that simultaneity is relative. >> >> You are proven wrong. > > Hahahahhaha! You can't refute the irrefutable, so you laugh. Embarrasment? Self irony? >>>> The discrepancy is that you claim that these clocks will >>>> be "absolute in sync", while they according to SR are >>>> in synch only in the frame of reference where they are >>>> stationary, in our case in the ground frame. >>>> >>>> So let's return to the original question. >>>> You claim that clocks showing UTC are NOT in synch. >>>> (SR agree - they are not in sync _in the ground frame_) >>>> Since you claim that that simultaneity is independent of >>>> frames, that can only mean that you claim that UTC clocks >>>> not are in sync in any frame. >>>> >>>> So can you please explain why the UTC is defined as it is? >>>> >>>> The answer to the question can be found >>>> in the following thought experiment. >>>> Imagine a chain of clocks around equator. >>>> We start somewhere, syncing two clocks according >>>> to the procedure we agree upon, and keep doing >>>> that all around the chain. >>>> When we have synced the last clock in the chain, >>>> we see if it is in sync with the first one. >>>> >>>> Can you tell me what we will find, Henry? >>>> Do you think all the clocks in the chain will >>>> be in sync with each other? >>> >>> Are you assuming no prevailing wind? >>> >>> Anyway, NO. The earth is rotating. This is a sagnac situation. The receiving >>> clock moves radially during the travel time of the signal. The use of rotating >>> frames leads to errors. >> >> Exactly. Clocks can't be pairwise E-synced all around a rotating Earth, >> that's why they are synced in the non rotating ECI-frame. >> >> But if NOW IS NOW EVERYWHERE (simultaneity is frame independent) >> then it shouldn't matter in which frame they were synced. > > Simultaneity has nothing to do with the time taken for light to travel. > >> The fact that it does prove you wrong. >> >>>> I will give you a chance to answer before >>>> I tell you what happens in the real world. >>> >>> The experiment involves a rotating frame.... >>> forget it... >> >> SO NOW ISN'T NECESSARILY NOW EVERYWHERE IN A ROTATING FRAME! :-) On 03.02.2010 Ralph Rabbidge 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). On 7 Feb 2010 Paul B. Andersen wrote: | 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 | | 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? On 07.02.2010 22:33, Ralph Rabbidge responsed: | Why should I? I've been telling you for years it's | the only thing Einstein got right. | | It only works BECAUSE light is ballistic. So according to Ralph Rabbidge, two clocks on the ground which are synced whilst together and then moved apart, will remain absolutely synced and Einstein's synchronisation procedure will confirm that they are in sync. But wait ... Ralph Rabbidge has changed his mind! > This is one of the imaginary effects that can make the user of a rotating frame > look like a fool. > I have mentioned before in my sagnac explanation that there is an imaginary > time factor involved in the rotating frame....just as there are imaginary > forces. The clocks are not absolutely synced after all! Some imaginary time factor has made Ralph Rabbidge, user of the ground frame, look like a fool! Most effects are imaginary in Wonderland. :-) But inhabitants of the real world know that the fact that UTC clocks are not synchronous in the ground frame is a practical, everyday observation of relativity of simultaneity. -- Paul http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/
From: Henry Wilson DSc on 11 Feb 2010 18:33 On Wed, 10 Feb 2010 13:24:42 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen(a)somewhere.no> wrote: >On 09.02.2010 23:02, Henry Wilson DSc wrote: >> On Tue, 09 Feb 2010 22:33:48 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen"<someone(a)somewhere.no> >> wrote: >> >>> On 08.02.2010 23:11, Henry Wilson DSc wrote: >>>> On Mon, 08 Feb 2010 15:24:27 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen" >>>> <paul.b.andersen(a)somewhere.no> wrote: >>> >>>>> Two clocks at equator which are 100 km apart and showing UTC >>>>> are really 0.5 ns out of sync (in the ground frame) according >>>>> to Einstein's procedure. >>>> >>>> Is this a 'well known fact' or just something relativists dreamed up? >>>> >>>>> This fact is very well known because it has to be considered >>>>> when the clocks are synced to UTC. >>>> >>>> Is this a 'well known fact' or just something relativists dreamed up? >>> >>> You are making a fool of yourself again, Henry. :-) >>> >>> Actually, I found it a bit surprising that you didn't know >>> this fact after having discussed related issues for years. >>> It has been mentioned often enough in this forum. >> >> ..hahahaha! mentioned BY relativists FOR relativists..... > >Quite. >Since it is a real effect observed in the real world, >it wouldn't be read by the inhabitants of Wonderland >to whom only imaginary effects are of interest. > >> >>> UTC clocks are synced, that is - they are simultaneously showing >>> the same - in the non rotating ECI frame. >> >> How are they synched? >> Are you saying they are synched against the same GPS clock 85 us away? >> >>> But the Earth is rotating, so the instant inertial rest frame >>> ("ground frame") of our two clocks are moving relative to the ECI frame. >>> >>> That's why they are NOT synced (simultaneously showing the same) >>> in the ground frame. >>> >>> The effect is called the "Sagnac effect". >> >> there are imaginary effects because you are using a rotating frame. >> >>>>> You agree that Einstein's procedure for synchronizing clocks >>>>> works as well according to the emission theory as according to SR. >>>> >>>> It works because the emission theory says it must. >>> >>> Sure it works. And it proves that UTC clocks which are >>> synced in the non rotating ECI-frame, are not synchronous >>> in the ground frame. >> >> How exactly are they synched in the non frame? >> >>> This is a practical, everyday observation of the fact >>> that simultaneity is relative. >>> >>> You are proven wrong. >> >> Hahahahhaha! > >You can't refute the irrefutable, so you laugh. >Embarrasment? >Self irony? > >>>>> The discrepancy is that you claim that these clocks will >>>>> be "absolute in sync", while they according to SR are >>>>> in synch only in the frame of reference where they are >>>>> stationary, in our case in the ground frame. >>>>> >>>>> So let's return to the original question. >>>>> You claim that clocks showing UTC are NOT in synch. >>>>> (SR agree - they are not in sync _in the ground frame_) >>>>> Since you claim that that simultaneity is independent of >>>>> frames, that can only mean that you claim that UTC clocks >>>>> not are in sync in any frame. >>>>> >>>>> So can you please explain why the UTC is defined as it is? >>>>> >>>>> The answer to the question can be found >>>>> in the following thought experiment. >>>>> Imagine a chain of clocks around equator. >>>>> We start somewhere, syncing two clocks according >>>>> to the procedure we agree upon, and keep doing >>>>> that all around the chain. >>>>> When we have synced the last clock in the chain, >>>>> we see if it is in sync with the first one. >>>>> >>>>> Can you tell me what we will find, Henry? >>>>> Do you think all the clocks in the chain will >>>>> be in sync with each other? >>>> >>>> Are you assuming no prevailing wind? >>>> >>>> Anyway, NO. The earth is rotating. This is a sagnac situation. The receiving >>>> clock moves radially during the travel time of the signal. The use of rotating >>>> frames leads to errors. >>> >>> Exactly. Clocks can't be pairwise E-synced all around a rotating Earth, >>> that's why they are synced in the non rotating ECI-frame. >>> >>> But if NOW IS NOW EVERYWHERE (simultaneity is frame independent) >>> then it shouldn't matter in which frame they were synced. >> >> Simultaneity has nothing to do with the time taken for light to travel. >> >>> The fact that it does prove you wrong. >>> >>>>> I will give you a chance to answer before >>>>> I tell you what happens in the real world. >>>> >>>> The experiment involves a rotating frame.... >>>> forget it... >>> >>> SO NOW ISN'T NECESSARILY NOW EVERYWHERE IN A ROTATING FRAME! :-) > >On 03.02.2010 Ralph Rabbidge 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). > >On 7 Feb 2010 Paul B. Andersen wrote: >| 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 >| >| 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? > >On 07.02.2010 22:33, Ralph Rabbidge responsed: >| Why should I? I've been telling you for years it's >| the only thing Einstein got right. >| >| It only works BECAUSE light is ballistic. > >So according to Ralph Rabbidge, two clocks on the ground >which are synced whilst together and then moved apart, >will remain absolutely synced and Einstein's synchronisation >procedure will confirm that they are in sync. > >But wait ... >Ralph Rabbidge has changed his mind! > >> This is one of the imaginary effects that can make the user of a rotating frame >> look like a fool. >> I have mentioned before in my sagnac explanation that there is an imaginary >> time factor involved in the rotating frame....just as there are imaginary >> forces. > >The clocks are not absolutely synced after all! >Some imaginary time factor has made Ralph Rabbidge, >user of the ground frame, look like a fool! > > >Most effects are imaginary in Wonderland. :-) > >But inhabitants of the real world know that the fact >that UTC clocks are not synchronous in the ground frame >is a practical, everyday observation of relativity >of simultaneity. see my latest thread. Henry Wilson... ........provider of free physics lessons
From: Paul B. Andersen on 15 Feb 2010 10:14
On 12.02.2010 00:33, Henry Wilson DSc wrote: > On Wed, 10 Feb 2010 13:24:42 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen" > <paul.b.andersen(a)somewhere.no> wrote: > >> On 09.02.2010 23:02, Henry Wilson DSc wrote: >>> On Tue, 09 Feb 2010 22:33:48 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen"<someone(a)somewhere.no> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> On 08.02.2010 23:11, Henry Wilson DSc wrote: >>>>> On Mon, 08 Feb 2010 15:24:27 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen" >>>>> <paul.b.andersen(a)somewhere.no> wrote: >>>> >>>>>> Two clocks at equator which are 100 km apart and showing UTC >>>>>> are really 0.5 ns out of sync (in the ground frame) according >>>>>> to Einstein's procedure. >>>>> >>>>> Is this a 'well known fact' or just something relativists dreamed up? >>>>> >>>>>> This fact is very well known because it has to be considered >>>>>> when the clocks are synced to UTC. >>>>> >>>>> Is this a 'well known fact' or just something relativists dreamed up? >>>> >>>> You are making a fool of yourself again, Henry. :-) >>>> >>>> Actually, I found it a bit surprising that you didn't know >>>> this fact after having discussed related issues for years. >>>> It has been mentioned often enough in this forum. >>> >>> ..hahahaha! mentioned BY relativists FOR relativists..... >> >> Quite. >> Since it is a real effect observed in the real world, >> it wouldn't be read by the inhabitants of Wonderland >> to whom only imaginary effects are of interest. >> >>> >>>> UTC clocks are synced, that is - they are simultaneously showing >>>> the same - in the non rotating ECI frame. >>> >>> How are they synched? >>> Are you saying they are synched against the same GPS clock 85 us away? >>> >>>> But the Earth is rotating, so the instant inertial rest frame >>>> ("ground frame") of our two clocks are moving relative to the ECI frame. >>>> >>>> That's why they are NOT synced (simultaneously showing the same) >>>> in the ground frame. >>>> >>>> The effect is called the "Sagnac effect". >>> >>> there are imaginary effects because you are using a rotating frame. >>> >>>>>> You agree that Einstein's procedure for synchronizing clocks >>>>>> works as well according to the emission theory as according to SR. >>>>> >>>>> It works because the emission theory says it must. >>>> >>>> Sure it works. And it proves that UTC clocks which are >>>> synced in the non rotating ECI-frame, are not synchronous >>>> in the ground frame. >>> >>> How exactly are they synched in the non frame? >>> >>>> This is a practical, everyday observation of the fact >>>> that simultaneity is relative. >>>> >>>> You are proven wrong. >>> >>> Hahahahhaha! >> >> You can't refute the irrefutable, so you laugh. >> Embarrasment? >> Self irony? >> >>>>>> The discrepancy is that you claim that these clocks will >>>>>> be "absolute in sync", while they according to SR are >>>>>> in synch only in the frame of reference where they are >>>>>> stationary, in our case in the ground frame. >>>>>> >>>>>> So let's return to the original question. >>>>>> You claim that clocks showing UTC are NOT in synch. >>>>>> (SR agree - they are not in sync _in the ground frame_) >>>>>> Since you claim that that simultaneity is independent of >>>>>> frames, that can only mean that you claim that UTC clocks >>>>>> not are in sync in any frame. >>>>>> >>>>>> So can you please explain why the UTC is defined as it is? >>>>>> >>>>>> The answer to the question can be found >>>>>> in the following thought experiment. >>>>>> Imagine a chain of clocks around equator. >>>>>> We start somewhere, syncing two clocks according >>>>>> to the procedure we agree upon, and keep doing >>>>>> that all around the chain. >>>>>> When we have synced the last clock in the chain, >>>>>> we see if it is in sync with the first one. >>>>>> >>>>>> Can you tell me what we will find, Henry? >>>>>> Do you think all the clocks in the chain will >>>>>> be in sync with each other? >>>>> >>>>> Are you assuming no prevailing wind? >>>>> >>>>> Anyway, NO. The earth is rotating. This is a sagnac situation. The receiving >>>>> clock moves radially during the travel time of the signal. The use of rotating >>>>> frames leads to errors. >>>> >>>> Exactly. Clocks can't be pairwise E-synced all around a rotating Earth, >>>> that's why they are synced in the non rotating ECI-frame. >>>> >>>> But if NOW IS NOW EVERYWHERE (simultaneity is frame independent) >>>> then it shouldn't matter in which frame they were synced. >>> >>> Simultaneity has nothing to do with the time taken for light to travel. >>> >>>> The fact that it does prove you wrong. >>>> >>>>>> I will give you a chance to answer before >>>>>> I tell you what happens in the real world. >>>>> >>>>> The experiment involves a rotating frame.... >>>>> forget it... >>>> >>>> SO NOW ISN'T NECESSARILY NOW EVERYWHERE IN A ROTATING FRAME! :-) >> >> On 03.02.2010 Ralph Rabbidge 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). >> >> On 7 Feb 2010 Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> | 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 >> | >> | 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? >> >> On 07.02.2010 22:33, Ralph Rabbidge responsed: >> | Why should I? I've been telling you for years it's >> | the only thing Einstein got right. >> | >> | It only works BECAUSE light is ballistic. >> >> So according to Ralph Rabbidge, two clocks on the ground >> which are synced whilst together and then moved apart, >> will remain absolutely synced and Einstein's synchronisation >> procedure will confirm that they are in sync. >> >> But wait ... >> Ralph Rabbidge has changed his mind! >> >>> This is one of the imaginary effects that can make the user of a rotating frame >>> look like a fool. >>> I have mentioned before in my sagnac explanation that there is an imaginary >>> time factor involved in the rotating frame....just as there are imaginary >>> forces. >> >> The clocks are not absolutely synced after all! >> Some imaginary time factor has made Ralph Rabbidge, >> user of the ground frame, look like a fool! >> >> >> Most effects are imaginary in Wonderland. :-) >> >> But inhabitants of the real world know that the fact >> that UTC clocks are not synchronous in the ground frame >> is a practical, everyday observation of relativity >> of simultaneity. > > see my latest thread. Why? Do you think that staring a new thread can change the fact that you are proven wrong? -- Paul http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/ |