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: Henry Wilson DSc on 15 Feb 2010 17:10 On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 16:14:09 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen(a)somewhere.no> wrote: >On 12.02.2010 00:33, Henry Wilson DSc wrote: >> On Wed, 10 Feb 2010 13:24:42 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen" >>>> 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? How was I proved wrong. I don't need an interfrometer for this version of sagnac. There are 4000062 pulses in one path and 3999938 in the other. By counting the ticks arriving from each direction in a certain time interval, I can calculate the Earth's rotation rate....all based solely on BaTh. I think that fully supports BaTh don't you? Henry Wilson... ........provider of free physics lessons
From: Inertial on 15 Feb 2010 17:20 "Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message news:dahjn5pokai6a82ugojvvi0vukrc1m3919(a)4ax.com... > On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 16:14:09 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen" > <paul.b.andersen(a)somewhere.no> wrote: > >>On 12.02.2010 00:33, Henry Wilson DSc wrote: >>> On Wed, 10 Feb 2010 13:24:42 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen" > >>>>> 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? > > How was I proved wrong. By me > I don't need an interfrometer for this version of > sagnac. > > There are 4000062 pulses in one path and 3999938 in the other. At any time there are the same number of pulses going one way as the other in the 'tube'. You only get the numbers you show if you count some of them twice and ignore others (ie if you cheat .. or if you have pulse fairies doing magic for you). > By counting the ticks arriving from each direction in a certain time > interval, > I can calculate the Earth's rotation rate....all based solely on BaTh. Nope .. not according to any emission theory. The arrival rate is the same as the departure rate because the time in transit is the same in both directions. It is physically impossible for that to NOT be the case. > I think that fully supports BaTh don't you? Noone but you is fooled by your delusions and lies.
From: Henry Wilson DSc on 15 Feb 2010 17:30 On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 09:20:05 +1100, "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> wrote: > >"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message >news:dahjn5pokai6a82ugojvvi0vukrc1m3919(a)4ax.com... >> On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 16:14:09 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen" >> <paul.b.andersen(a)somewhere.no> wrote: >> >>>On 12.02.2010 00:33, Henry Wilson DSc wrote: >>>> On Wed, 10 Feb 2010 13:24:42 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen" >> >>>>>> 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? >> >> How was I proved wrong. > >By me > >> I don't need an interfrometer for this version of >> sagnac. >> >> There are 4000062 pulses in one path and 3999938 in the other. > >At any time there are the same number of pulses going one way as the other >in the 'tube'. The tube length is NOT the path length, dopey. >You only get the numbers you show if you count some of them >twice and ignore others (ie if you cheat .. or if you have pulse fairies >doing magic for you). > >> By counting the ticks arriving from each direction in a certain time >> interval, >> I can calculate the Earth's rotation rate....all based solely on BaTh. > >Nope .. not according to any emission theory. The arrival rate is the same >as the departure rate because the time in transit is the same in both >directions. It is physically impossible for that to NOT be the case. > >> I think that fully supports BaTh don't you? > >Noone but you is fooled by your delusions and lies. > Henry Wilson... ........provider of free physics lessons
From: Inertial on 15 Feb 2010 17:37 "Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message news:8gijn5pgeakuhc06lksj68mssifruq98bv(a)4ax.com... > On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 09:20:05 +1100, "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> > wrote: > >> >>"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message >>news:dahjn5pokai6a82ugojvvi0vukrc1m3919(a)4ax.com... >>> On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 16:14:09 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen" >>> <paul.b.andersen(a)somewhere.no> wrote: >>> >>>>On 12.02.2010 00:33, Henry Wilson DSc wrote: >>>>> On Wed, 10 Feb 2010 13:24:42 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen" >>> >>>>>>> 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? >>> >>> How was I proved wrong. >> >>By me >> >>> I don't need an interfrometer for this version of >>> sagnac. >>> >>> There are 4000062 pulses in one path and 3999938 in the other. >> >>At any time there are the same number of pulses going one way as the other >>in the 'tube'. > > The tube length is NOT the path length, dopey. I didn't say it was. When you count the pulses in the path, you count some twice and others not at all. That's called cheating. And in order to know the path length, you need to know the rotation rate .. so you cannot use the number of pulses in a path length to work out rotation rate. Your claim that the pulses arrival rate (ie how many pulses arrive per second) is different for the two directions is totally refuted. >>You only get the numbers you show if you count some of them >>twice and ignore others (ie if you cheat .. or if you have pulse fairies >>doing magic for you). >> >>> By counting the ticks arriving from each direction in a certain time >>> interval, >>> I can calculate the Earth's rotation rate....all based solely on BaTh. >> >>Nope .. not according to any emission theory. The arrival rate is the >>same >>as the departure rate because the time in transit is the same in both >>directions. It is physically impossible for that to NOT be the case. >> >>> I think that fully supports BaTh don't you? >> >>Noone but you is fooled by your delusions and lies. >> > > > Henry Wilson... > > .......provider of free physics lessons
From: Henry Wilson DSc on 15 Feb 2010 17:59
On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 09:37:46 +1100, "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> wrote: > >"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message >news:8gijn5pgeakuhc06lksj68mssifruq98bv(a)4ax.com... >>>At any time there are the same number of pulses going one way as the other >>>in the 'tube'. >> >> The tube length is NOT the path length, dopey. > >I didn't say it was. When you count the pulses in the path, you count some >twice and others not at all. That's called cheating. And in order to know >the path length, you need to know the rotation rate .. so you cannot use the >number of pulses in a path length to work out rotation rate. > >Your claim that the pulses arrival rate (ie how many pulses arrive per >second) is different for the two directions is totally refuted. .......OH! is that why the theory produces the correct equation and matches the experimental results. >>>You only get the numbers you show if you count some of them >>>twice and ignore others (ie if you cheat .. or if you have pulse fairies >>>doing magic for you). >>> >>>> By counting the ticks arriving from each direction in a certain time >>>> interval, >>>> I can calculate the Earth's rotation rate....all based solely on BaTh. >>> >>>Nope .. not according to any emission theory. The arrival rate is the >>>same >>>as the departure rate because the time in transit is the same in both >>>directions. It is physically impossible for that to NOT be the case. >>> >>>> I think that fully supports BaTh don't you? >>> >>>Noone but you is fooled by your delusions and lies. Henry Wilson... ........provider of free physics lessons |