Prev: New Theory --- The Theory of Quantum Wave Sources
Next: Properties of the elements or different atoms
From: Henry Wilson DSc on 3 Feb 2010 21:53 On Wed, 03 Feb 2010 19:27:28 -0600, Tom Roberts <tjroberts137(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >Henry Wilson DSc wrote: >> On Wed, 03 Feb 2010 16:33:36 -0600, Tom Roberts <tjrob137(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. >> >> Do you deny that two clocks are absolutely synched when synched together? > >I would not use the word "absolutely" for this. But yes, clocks that are >synchronized and co-located will be observed to be synchronized by all observers. 'Synchronisation' means their rates and readings are adjusted to be the same. ABSOLUTELY the same. 'Same' is absolute by definition. >>>> (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. >> >> They can be separated by a symmetrical mechanical system if you wish. It is >> identical in ALL frames. > >No, the clocks cannot possibly be separated in a manner "identical in all >frames". You REALLY NEED to do this exercise: >>> Exercise for Henry: if they are moved apart "identically in >>> opposite directions" in inertial frame A, are they also moved >>> apart "identically in opposite directions" in inertial frame B >>> that is moving relative to A along the direction the clocks >>> were moved apart in A? It doesn't matter how they are moved. Nothing at all happens to them. When they stop moving and become MAR again, they must be still in absolute synch. >> The world works they way I see it working. > >As I said, your hubris is OUTRAGEOUS. > > >Tom Roberts Henry Wilson... ........provider of free physics lessons
From: Henry Wilson DSc on 3 Feb 2010 21:54 On Wed, 03 Feb 2010 17:11:51 -0800, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nospam(a)gmail.com> wrote: >..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > >> On Wed, 03 Feb 2010 16:23:15 -0800, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nospam(a)gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>>..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: >>> >>>Remember, Henri Wilson finds relativity to be 'incoherent'. Let's see if >>>that causes a problem somewhere. >>> >>>> If two clocks are synched whilst together and then moved apart, they >>>> will remain absolutely synched. >>> >>>Oh, there we go. Only took one sentence to make a critical error: >>>simultaneity in relativity is *relative*. >> >> Poor boy....doesn't understand that two clocks synched WHEN TOGETHER are >> ABSOLUTELY synched. > >Demonstrably and strongly false: Hafele-Keating. don't embarrass us any more with your naivety please... Henry Wilson... ........provider of free physics lessons
From: eric gisse on 3 Feb 2010 22:12 ...@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > On Wed, 03 Feb 2010 17:11:51 -0800, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nospam(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > >>..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: >> >>> On Wed, 03 Feb 2010 16:23:15 -0800, eric gisse >>> <jowr.pi.nospam(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>>..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: >>>> >>>>Remember, Henri Wilson finds relativity to be 'incoherent'. Let's see if >>>>that causes a problem somewhere. >>>> >>>>> If two clocks are synched whilst together and then moved apart, they >>>>> will remain absolutely synched. >>>> >>>>Oh, there we go. Only took one sentence to make a critical error: >>>>simultaneity in relativity is *relative*. >>> >>> Poor boy....doesn't understand that two clocks synched WHEN TOGETHER are >>> ABSOLUTELY synched. >> >>Demonstrably and strongly false: Hafele-Keating. > > don't embarrass us any more with your naivety please... No response other than an attempt at wit, Ralph? Experiment disproves your claims - man up and admit you are wrong. > > > Henry Wilson... > > .......provider of free physics lessons
From: eric gisse on 3 Feb 2010 22:13 ...@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: [...] >>You do not perform observations, do experiments, read literature, or >>anything else scientists do. Yet you claim to know better. All of this is true, otherwise you'd have a response. >> >>> that is with light moving >>> at c wrt its source and c+v wrt an observer moving at -v wrt the source. >> >>Really, and where on Earth is that observed? Apparently nowhere, since you don't have a response. >> >>> There is any amount of evidence in support of that concept and zero >>> against it. >> >>http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html#moving- >>>>source_tests >> >>Plenty against it and none for it. You can't refute any of the references, >>so just keep on pretending they don't exist. No arguments against the evidence, just another sad little rejoinder. > > poor boy...definitely subnormal... > > Henry Wilson... > > .......provider of free physics lessons
From: eric gisse on 3 Feb 2010 22:15
...@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: [...] > 'Synchronisation' means their rates and readings are adjusted to be the > same. ABSOLUTELY the same. 'Same' is absolute by definition. Really? If two reference frames say the energy of an object is the same, it is ABSOLUTELY the same? > >>>>> (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. >>> >>> They can be separated by a symmetrical mechanical system if you wish. It >>> is identical in ALL frames. >> >>No, the clocks cannot possibly be separated in a manner "identical in all >>frames". You REALLY NEED to do this exercise: >>>> Exercise for Henry: if they are moved apart "identically in >>>> opposite directions" in inertial frame A, are they also moved >>>> apart "identically in opposite directions" in inertial frame B >>>> that is moving relative to A along the direction the clocks >>>> were moved apart in A? > > It doesn't matter how they are moved. Nothing at all happens to them. When > they stop moving and become MAR again, they must be still in absolute > synch. Hafele-Keating Have you figured out an argument yet? > >>> The world works they way I see it working. >> >>As I said, your hubris is OUTRAGEOUS. >> >> >>Tom Roberts > > > Henry Wilson... > > .......provider of free physics lessons |