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: PD on 4 Feb 2010 14:23 On Feb 4, 10:36 am, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > On Thu, 4 Feb 2010 07:56:08 -0800 (PST), PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >On Feb 4, 8:08 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > >> On Feb 3, 9:51 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >> > 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. > > Ken doesn't actually mean 'distance dependent'. > He means it is dependent on LENGTH.....which is now determined using light > speed. No, he means distance dependent. By which he means that light speed 300 m from a source might be different than light speed 3 m from a source. Read his other posts. > > Henry Wilson... > > .......provider of free physics lessons
From: PD on 4 Feb 2010 14:23 On Feb 4, 10:37 am, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > On Thu, 4 Feb 2010 07:56:40 -0800 (PST), PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >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? > > Because that's what real physicists do. Make stuff up? Are you making that up too? > > Henry Wilson... > > .......provider of free physics lessons
From: PD on 5 Feb 2010 10:33 On Feb 4, 4:47 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > On Thu, 4 Feb 2010 11:23:32 -0800 (PST), PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >On Feb 4, 10:37 am, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > >> On Thu, 4 Feb 2010 07:56:40 -0800 (PST), PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >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? > > >> Because that's what real physicists do. > > >Make stuff up? Are you making that up too? > > You two are again hopelessly confused. > > If two clocks are synched WHILST ADJACENT they are in perfect synch. They are > absolutely synched. No, they are locally synched. > > If the ends of two rods are perfectly aligned whilst the rods are adjacent, the > rods are absolutely identical in LENGTH. No, they are locally the same length. > > If the two rods are subsequently moved apart and then brought to mutual rest, > their lengths will remain absolutely identical in ALL frames. Yes, that's because they are locally the same length. > > Similarly, if the two clocks are moved apart and then brought to mutual rest, > they must still be absolutely synched in ALL frames. No, they are still locally synched. > > Henry Wilson... > > .......provider of free physics lessons
From: PD on 5 Feb 2010 10:36 On Feb 4, 4:37 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > On Thu, 4 Feb 2010 11:22:07 -0800 (PST), PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >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. > > They either stopped before they decayed or they split into pieces that > continued on at the same speed. Bull. Stop guessing and read the paper. > > Henry Wilson... > > .......provider of free physics lessons
From: kenseto on 5 Feb 2010 10:55
On Feb 4, 10:56 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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. No ....the value of TWLS is also physical distance dependent. |