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 5 Feb 2010 17:37 On Feb 5, 4:20 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_u> wrote: > "PD" <thedraperfam...(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. > ============================================= That's right. That's where experiments determine the answer.
From: Androcles on 5 Feb 2010 18:28 "PD" <thedraperfamily(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:ba598bcd-b55d-42fc-98d2-1df20b5b9054(a)s12g2000yqj.googlegroups.com... On Feb 5, 4:20 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_u> wrote: > "PD" <thedraperfam...(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. > ============================================= That's right. That's where experiments determine the answer. =============================================== Nature determines the answer, not your nonsensical thunk-it-so "experiments".
From: PD on 5 Feb 2010 18:36 On Feb 5, 5:28 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_u> wrote: > "PD" <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:ba598bcd-b55d-42fc-98d2-1df20b5b9054(a)s12g2000yqj.googlegroups.com... > On Feb 5, 4:20 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_u> wrote: > > > > > "PD" <thedraperfam...(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. > > ============================================= > > That's right. That's where experiments determine the answer. > =============================================== > Nature determines the answer, not your nonsensical thunk-it-so > "experiments". I'm not talking about "thought experiments", I'm talking about REAL experiments. And how do you know what nature says about the answer, without REAL experiments? Ah yes, I remember, if Newton's laws say so, then why consult nature?
From: Androcles on 5 Feb 2010 19:31 "PD" <thedraperfamily(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:e197b97b-9d88-4fde-8f12-55780aa335fc(a)19g2000yql.googlegroups.com... On Feb 5, 5:28 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_u> wrote: > "PD" <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:ba598bcd-b55d-42fc-98d2-1df20b5b9054(a)s12g2000yqj.googlegroups.com... > On Feb 5, 4:20 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_u> wrote: > > > > > "PD" <thedraperfam...(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. > > ============================================= > > That's right. That's where experiments determine the answer. > =============================================== > Nature determines the answer, not your nonsensical thunk-it-so > "experiments". I'm not talking about "thought experiments", I'm talking about REAL experiments. ================================================= Nonsense, you've never done any real experiments. And how do you know what nature says about the answer, without REAL experiments? ================================================= Repeating your idiot drool doesn't make it so. You don't even know what the question is. Ah yes, I remember, if Newton's laws say so, then why consult nature? ================================================= Ah yes, I remember: You are not entitled to be educated. Someone who insists on being willfully ignorant does not deserve to be dissuaded. Nobody owes you anything. Nobody *should* do anything for you. It's your choice to learn or not to learn.
From: Charlie Monk on 6 Feb 2010 02:11
On Feb 5, 2:54 am, 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: > > >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- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Henry Wilson's assumption: "Since [the clocks] don't change one iota with movement, they must remain in absolute synch when separated" seems to be at the bottom of this argument. This is true of constant velocity movement but my understanding is that in order to be separated they must each undergo differing acceleration vectors which is the cause of the de-synchronising. Charlie |