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: Paul B. Andersen on 5 Feb 2010 13:58 On 03.02.2010 22:30, Henry Wilson DSc wrote: > If two clocks are synched whilst together and then moved apart, they will > remain absolutely synched. > (If anyone wants to argue, let the clocks be moved apart identically in > opposite directions). > > O C1|C2 (ABSOLUTELY synched whilst together) > > C1 | C2 (still in absolute synch when separated) > > OK so far? > ********************** > > Now, if two clocks, WHICH ARE COMOVING in the frame of a particular observer, > are absolutely synched whilst together and then moved apart identically, why > should they not remain in absolute synch in that observer's frame? > > O C1|C2->v (adjacent comoving clocks absolutely synched) > > C1 |->v C2 (clocks are identically separated) > *********************** > > Therefore any pair of clocks that are synched and separated in this manner MUST > remain absolutely synched in ALL observer frames. > > > Henry Wilson... > > .......provider of free physics lessons Which experiment are you referring to, Ralph? This isn't even a thought experiment, it is but an assertion. An ever ongoing 'experiment' prove your wrong. Clocks at different longitudes which are synchronised to UTC (or GPS) are not synchronous according to Einstein procedure. But don't try to understand why this experimentally verified fact prove you wrong. You are too ignorant and stupid to understand it. -- Paul http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/
From: PD on 5 Feb 2010 15:17 On Feb 5, 9:55 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > 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. Then it would have been detected already. There are dozens of TWLS measurements, all done with different distances. This distance dependence would have been immediately obvious from those results. You've never looked at the results.
From: Henry Wilson DSc on 5 Feb 2010 16:30 On Fri, 05 Feb 2010 19:58:11 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen" <someone(a)somewhere.no> wrote: >On 03.02.2010 22:30, Henry Wilson DSc wrote: >> If two clocks are synched whilst together and then moved apart, they will >> remain absolutely synched. >> (If anyone wants to argue, let the clocks be moved apart identically in >> opposite directions). >> >> O C1|C2 (ABSOLUTELY synched whilst together) >> >> C1 | C2 (still in absolute synch when separated) >> >> OK so far? >> ********************** >> >> Now, if two clocks, WHICH ARE COMOVING in the frame of a particular observer, >> are absolutely synched whilst together and then moved apart identically, why >> should they not remain in absolute synch in that observer's frame? >> >> O C1|C2->v (adjacent comoving clocks absolutely synched) >> >> C1 |->v C2 (clocks are identically separated) >> *********************** >> >> Therefore any pair of clocks that are synched and separated in this manner MUST >> remain absolutely synched in ALL observer frames. >> >> >> Henry Wilson... >> >> .......provider of free physics lessons > > >Which experiment are you referring to, Henry? >This isn't even a thought experiment, it is but an assertion. > >An ever ongoing 'experiment' prove your wrong. >Clocks at different longitudes which are synchronised to UTC >(or GPS) are not synchronous according to Einstein procedure. ....so obviously, Einstein's procedure is wrong. Good! That's settled. >But don't try to understand why this experimentally verified >fact prove you wrong. You are too ignorant and stupid to >understand it. I know what definitely IS eperimentally verified. Ligth from distant stars moves at c+v towards Earth. Henry Wilson... ........provider of free physics lessons
From: PD on 5 Feb 2010 16:49 On Feb 5, 3:27 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > On Fri, 5 Feb 2010 07:33:59 -0800 (PST), PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >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 they are synched whilst together they are in absolute synch with each other. > > >> 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. > > That's exactly what I said. The distance between their ends occupies the same > absolute spatial interval. > > >> 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. > > It is because the distance between their ends occupies the same absolute > spatial interval. > > >> 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. > > The clocks are not affected by movement. They remain absolutely synched. > > Henry Wilson... > > .......provider of free physics lessons Repeating your nonsense doesn't make it so. In a battle between opposing statements without resolution, that's where experiments determine the answer.
From: Androcles on 5 Feb 2010 17:20
"PD" <thedraperfamily(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:80be10ca-0467-4e61-aefc-5c9fff63befc(a)u26g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... On Feb 5, 3:27 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > On Fri, 5 Feb 2010 07:33:59 -0800 (PST), PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > >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 they are synched whilst together they are in absolute synch with each > other. > > >> 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. > > That's exactly what I said. The distance between their ends occupies the > same > absolute spatial interval. > > >> 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. > > It is because the distance between their ends occupies the same absolute > spatial interval. > > >> 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. > > The clocks are not affected by movement. They remain absolutely synched. > > Henry Wilson... > > .......provider of free physics lessons Repeating your nonsense doesn't make it so. In a battle between opposing statements without resolution, that's where experiments determine the answer. ============================================= Repeating your idiot drool doesn't make it so. ============================================= |