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: Charlie Monk on 6 Feb 2010 03:58 On Feb 6, 7:43 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > On Fri, 5 Feb 2010 23:11:36 -0800 (PST), Charlie Monk > > > > > > <charliejm...(a)googlemail.com> wrote: > >On Feb 5, 2:54 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Feb 3, 9:36 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) 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? > > >> > >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. > > Perfect clocks are not physically affected by acceleration. > The two in my experiment undergo exactly the same accelerations and > decelerations in the opposite directions. 'in opposite directions' - So not the same. They end up MAR. SR agrees that > nothing physical happens to the clocks. > For some insane reason, relativists think that moving a clock somehow causes > time to flow at a different rate in the vicinity of the clock. Not a 'moving' clock, an 'accelerating' clock - as also for a clock held up against gravity. It does indeed flow at a different rate, as has been physically demonstrated without controversy. > > How moronic can you get?. > > >Charlie > > Henry Wilson... > > .......provider of free physics lessons- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Charlie
From: kenseto on 6 Feb 2010 07:31 On Feb 6, 3:43 am, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > On Fri, 5 Feb 2010 23:11:36 -0800 (PST), Charlie Monk > > > > > > <charliejm...(a)googlemail.com> wrote: > >On Feb 5, 2:54 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Feb 3, 9:36 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) 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? > > >> > >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. > > Perfect clocks are not physically affected by acceleration. > The two in my experiment undergo exactly the same accelerations and > decelerations in the opposite directions. They end up MAR. SR agrees that > nothing physical happens to the clocks. > For some insane reason, relativists think that moving a clock somehow causes > time to flow at a different rate in the vicinity of the clock. The rate of a clock is dependent on its state of absolute motion. Clocks in relative motion are in different states of absolute motions and therefore they are running at different rates. Ken Seto > > How moronic can you get?. > > >Charlie > > Henry Wilson... > > .......provider of free physics lessons- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: kenseto on 6 Feb 2010 07:35 On Feb 5, 3:17 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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. If you measure the distance with a physical ruler instead of light then you will find the value of TWLS is distance dependent. - Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: Paul B. Andersen on 6 Feb 2010 10:29 On 05.02.2010 22:30, Henry Wilson DSc wrote: > 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. OK. Let's analyse the experiment according to the emission theory. The following is a thought experiment. It is however based on the results from real 'experiments' which are performed daily when the UTC clocks are synchronized. So there is no point in disputing that a real experiment would show different results from what I state below. (The required precision is probably not practically attainable, though.) At equator we have two ground stations which are separated by 100 km. Station A has a clock, a laser and a light detector. Station B has a clock, a mirror and a light detector. The equipment is placed in towers so that they are in plain sight of each other. There is no wind, the air is stationary with respect to the ground. Using the GPS, both clocks are synched to UTC to within 0.1 ns. ---------------------------------------------------------- Are the clocks in synch according to the emission theory, Ralph? If yes, - are they in 'absolute synch'? If no, why are they not in synch? When A's clock shows exactly tA = 0 (00:00:00 UTC) a pulse is emitted. The reflected pulse is detected when clock A shows: tA' = 667.1282 us At station B, the pulse is reflected off the mirror and detected by the detector when B's clock shows: tB = 333.5636 us The readings of the clocks are compared, and it is found that tB = (tA + tA')/2 - 0.5 ns Are the clocks in synch according to the emission theory, Ralph? If yes, - are they in 'absolute synch'? If no, why are they not in synch? -- Paul http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/
From: PD on 6 Feb 2010 11:52
On Feb 6, 1:11 am, Charlie Monk <charliejm...(a)googlemail.com> wrote: > 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. Well no. If you separate the two clocks slowly, you can make the effects of the acceleration negligible. If the two clocks end up separated but relatively at rest, then they will still be synchronized in the frame in which they are both at rest. However, they will not be synchronized in any frame in which they are both moving. Henri's confusion comes from this scenario: Take two clocks that are at the same place and both moving together in some frame. Because they are in the same place, then it is certainly possible to synchronize those clocks even in this frame in which they are moving. Now let the clocks slowly separate in this frame, making the acceleration as small as you like, and bring them to a state where they are now moving in this frame but separated by some distance. What, Henri asks, happened so that the clocks are no longer synchronized? > > Charlie |