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: eric gisse on 6 Feb 2010 06:38 Paul B. Andersen wrote: [..] I'm going to guess either his cookie-cutter 'willusion' or 'cutting fields' excuses, neither of which he can fashion into a testable prediction.
From: PD on 6 Feb 2010 15:41 On Feb 6, 2:30 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > On Sat, 6 Feb 2010 08:59:59 -0800 (PST), PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >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. > > There has never been a convincing experiment that supports Einstein's silly > theory and no other. As I said, Henri, no experiment aims to do this. It is NEVER the case and NEVER HAS BEEN THE CASE that an experiment shows one theory is correct and no others could be correct. Nor should this be the case. The acceptance of a theory is based on how many experimental results over the WHOLE body of evidence are accurately accounted for by the model. > Eddington, for instance didn't have a hope in hell of > accurately measuring the bending of light by the sun. > > Henry Wilson... > > .......provider of free physics lessons
From: Henry Wilson DSc on 6 Feb 2010 15:43 On Sat, 06 Feb 2010 16:29:34 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen" <someone(a)somewhere.no> wrote: >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. Hahahhaha!...go on.... >---------------------------------------------------------- >Are the clocks in synch according to the emission theory, Henry? >If yes, - are they in 'absolute synch'? >If no, why are they not in synch? I assume the clock RATES are identical. If their readings are not in absolute synch then the difference between their readings is absolute. >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, Henry? No. Why should they be? >If yes, - are they in 'absolute synch'? >If no, why are they not in synch? Because they were not originally synched whilst adjacent. Why dont you read my original post again. Your question is not related. Henry Wilson... ........provider of free physics lessons
From: Henry Wilson DSc on 6 Feb 2010 15:44 On Sat, 06 Feb 2010 03:38:59 -0800, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nospam(a)gmail.com> wrote: >Paul B. Andersen wrote: > >[..] > >I'm going to guess either his cookie-cutter 'willusion' or 'cutting fields' >excuses, neither of which he can fashion into a testable prediction. .........cocky want a cracker...? Henry Wilson... ........provider of free physics lessons
From: eric gisse on 6 Feb 2010 16:34
...@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > On Sat, 06 Feb 2010 03:38:59 -0800, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nospam(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > >>Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> >>[..] >> >>I'm going to guess either his cookie-cutter 'willusion' or 'cutting >>fields' excuses, neither of which he can fashion into a testable >>prediction. > > ........cocky want a cracker...? Looks like you didn't even try to offer an explanation. Do you ever sit and wonder why so many different people all manage to believe the same thing and all offer the same evidence to you? Have you ever - once - thought that your understanding might be wrong? > > Henry Wilson... > > .......provider of free physics lessons |