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: Inertial on 15 Feb 2010 18:03 "Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message news:rbkjn5pf3b8c38q39rv090njppvjl96nfg(a)4ax.com... > 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. It doesn't do either. Your lying about it doesn't make it true (except in your poor deluded little excuse for a brain)
From: Henry Wilson DSc on 15 Feb 2010 21:51 On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 10:03:15 +1100, "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> wrote: > >"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message >news:rbkjn5pf3b8c38q39rv090njppvjl96nfg(a)4ax.com... >> 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. > >It doesn't do either. Your lying about it doesn't make it true (except in >your poor deluded little excuse for a brain) When are you going to say something intelligent? Henry Wilson... ........provider of free physics lessons
From: eric gisse on 15 Feb 2010 22:38 ...@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 10:03:15 +1100, "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> > wrote: > >> >>"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message >>news:rbkjn5pf3b8c38q39rv090njppvjl96nfg(a)4ax.com... >>> 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. >> >>It doesn't do either. Your lying about it doesn't make it true (except in >>your poor deluded little excuse for a brain) > > When are you going to say something intelligent? When are you going to apologize for posting forged degrees? > > > > Henry Wilson... > > .......provider of free physics lessons
From: Paul B. Andersen on 17 Feb 2010 06:38 On 15.02.2010 23:10, Henry Wilson DSc wrote: > 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. What the hell are you talking about? Your claim was that two clocks which are synced while adjacent and moved away from each other at equal speed will stay in sync in all frames of reference. THIS claim is proven false by real world measurements. Do you think that babbling something about Sagnac can change the fact that you are proven wrong? -- Paul http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/
From: Henry Wilson DSc on 17 Feb 2010 16:28
On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 12:38:08 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen(a)somewhere.no> wrote: >On 15.02.2010 23:10, Henry Wilson DSc wrote: >> 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. > >What the hell are you talking about? > >Your claim was that two clocks which are synced while adjacent >and moved away from each other at equal speed will stay >in sync in all frames of reference. > >THIS claim is proven false by real world measurements. Hahahahhaa! Which experiments? >Do you think that babbling something about Sagnac >can change the fact that you are proven wrong? It was YOU who introduced rotation into the argument. Henry Wilson... ........provider of free physics lessons |