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 6 Feb 2010 11:53 On Feb 6, 2:43 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 One wonders what you mean by "perfect clocks", like one wonders what you mean by "perfectly rigid rods", since the latter are not compatible with the laws of physics, even in principle. > 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. > > How moronic can you get?. > > >Charlie > > Henry Wilson... > > .......provider of free physics lessons
From: PD on 6 Feb 2010 11:55 On Feb 6, 6:35 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > 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. I'm sorry, Ken, but that is not historically correct. The values from the light survey *agree* with the values by using a physical ruler. > > - Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text - > >
From: PD on 6 Feb 2010 11:59 On Feb 5, 5:46 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > On Fri, 5 Feb 2010 15:36:41 -0800 (PST), PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >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: > > >> > 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. > > There haven't been ANY experiments that seem to support your silly theory and > don't have an alternative explanation.. Any experiment can have an alternate explanation. It is not necessary for an experiment to support ONE theory and EXCLUDE ALL OTHER explanations. The question is, is the theory supported by the body of experimental evidence? If there is a theory T1 that is supported by experiments A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, and I, then it makes no difference whether experiment A is also supported by theory T2, B is also supported by theory T3, C is also supported by theory T4, D is also supported by T5, E is also supported by theory T6, F is also supported by theory T7, G is also supported by theory T8, H is also supported by theory T9, and I is also supported by theory T10. The fact remains that A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, and I all support theory T1. And given the choice of supporting all those results with one theory or ten theories, physicists tend to choose the first. > > >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? > > Henry Wilson... > > .......provider of free physics lessons
From: PD on 6 Feb 2010 12:01 On Feb 5, 6:31 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_u> wrote: > "PD" <thedraperfam...(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. Quite wrong about that. My record is public. You can look me up. > > 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. And you are a case in point. > Nobody owes you anything. Nobody *should* do anything for > you. It's your choice to learn or not to learn.
From: kenseto on 6 Feb 2010 13:15
On Feb 6, 10:28 am, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > On Sat, 6 Feb 2010 04:31:11 -0800 (PST), kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > >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. > > My clocks are always MAR except when being moved to new positions....and they > DO NOT change at all while being moved except in your nonexistant absolute > aether. What is MAR? But they do change when accelerated. The arther exits. > > >Ken Seto > > Henry Wilson... > > .......provider of free physics lessons- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - |