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: kenseto on 4 Feb 2010 09:08 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. Truth be known direct measurement of OWLS give values of OWLS to be distance dependent. > > The fact is that experimentally, the direct OWLS measurement would not > produce a result that is competitive or better than the quality of the > combined results from TWLS and anisotropy measurements. > > PD > > > > > > > Ken Seto > > > > 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? > > > > Once again your post comes down to: "I am Henri Wilson, and the world simply > > > must work the way I want it to work". The hubris in your approach is OUTRAGEOUS, > > > and of course it is not at all related to science. > > > > Tom Roberts- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: PD on 4 Feb 2010 10:54 On Feb 3, 9:36 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > On Wed, 3 Feb 2010 18:51:31 -0800 (PST), 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. > > >The fact is that experimentally, the direct OWLS measurement would not > >produce a result that is competitive or better than the quality of the > >combined results from TWLS and anisotropy measurements. > > hahahahhahaha! > > Do you know of any of those that uses a moving source? Yes indeed! And those have been mentioned to you before. If you don't intend to pay attention to the answers to your questions, why do you repeat the questions? > > > > >PD > > Henry Wilson... > > .......provider of free physics lessons
From: PD on 4 Feb 2010 10:56 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. > > > > > The fact is that experimentally, the direct OWLS measurement would not > > produce a result that is competitive or better than the quality of the > > combined results from TWLS and anisotropy measurements. > > > PD > > > > Ken Seto > > > > > 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? > > > > > Once again your post comes down to: "I am Henri Wilson, and the world simply > > > > must work the way I want it to work". The hubris in your approach is OUTRAGEOUS, > > > > and of course it is not at all related to science. > > > > > Tom Roberts- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > >
From: PD on 4 Feb 2010 10:56 On Feb 3, 8:53 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > On Wed, 03 Feb 2010 19:27:28 -0600, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> > wrote: > > >Henry Wilson DSc wrote: > >> On Wed, 03 Feb 2010 16:33:36 -0600, 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. > > >> 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. No it does not. Why do you make stuff up like this? > > >>>> (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: PD on 4 Feb 2010 14:22
On Feb 4, 10:34 am, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > On Thu, 4 Feb 2010 07:54:20 -0800 (PST), PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >On Feb 3, 9:36 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > >> On Wed, 3 Feb 2010 18:51:31 -0800 (PST), PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >> >The fact is that experimentally, the direct OWLS measurement would not > >> >produce a result that is competitive or better than the quality of the > >> >combined results from TWLS and anisotropy measurements. > > >> hahahahhahaha! > > >> Do you know of any of those that uses a moving source? > > >Yes indeed! And those have been mentioned to you before. > >If you don't intend to pay attention to the answers to your questions, > >why do you repeat the questions? > > They were not genuine 'moving sources'. They were certainly moving sources. Of course, they may not be 'moving sources', because there's no telling what you mean when you put those single quote marks around a term. > > Henry Wilson... > > .......provider of free physics lessons |