Cranks on the endangered species list
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: The spinor nature of spacetime - Fictitious motion in a Minkowski spacetime
Next: QCD Meson Mass Paper -- Full Draft
From: Dr. Henri Wilson on 12 Dec 2008 15:56 On Fri, 12 Dec 2008 06:31:34 -0800 (PST), PD <TheDraperFamily(a)gmail.com> wrote: >On Dec 12, 3:54�am, hw@..(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote: >> >A refutation of relativity would be reproducible experimental evidence >> >in direct contradiction with the predictions of relativity. To date, >> >nothing of that sort has been provided, and nothing else will suffice. >> >> There is plenty.... and it is obvious. You are too blind to see it. > >Just one example, please. One. Faith causes psychological blindness. Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T) www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm. ......
From: bjones on 12 Dec 2008 16:05 On Fri, 12 Dec 2008 06:31:34 -0800 (PST), PD <TheDraperFamily(a)gmail.com> wrote: --------------------------snip--------------------------------------- >On Dec 12, 2008, hw@..(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote: >> >A refutation of relativity would be reproducible experimental evidence >> >in direct contradiction with the predictions of relativity. To date, >> >nothing of that sort has been provided, and nothing else will suffice. >> >> There is plenty.... and it is obvious. You are too blind to see it. > >Just one example, please. One. 1. Use synchronous clocks to measure light's one-way speed. (Do _not_ use clocks related per Einstein's definition because they have been baselessly forced to get "c"; "synchronous" here means "absolutely synchronized.") 2. Perform the Michelson-Morley experiment with an unshrunken ruler. 3. Perform the Kennedy-Thorndike experiment with an unslowed clock. 4. Try to apply Einstein's "synchronization" definition to more than one frame. For example, use two frames, A and B. Let A carry the light source S at A's origin. Let both distant clocks be the same (ruler-measured) distance from each frame's origin clock, and let S emit a light ray toward the distant clocks when the origin clocks are adjacent and read zero. According to Einstein, the two distant clocks must both be preset to read X/c, where X is is the distance from the each origin to each distant clock. However, when this experiment is performed, ALL observers in ALL frames will SEE that the distant clocks are started at (absolutely) different times by the light ray (because these clocks are spatially _separated_, and a light ray cannot reach separated clocks at the same time - in an absolute sense, as is required for correct or absolute synchronization). Why do all of these experiments refute relativity theory? The answer should be obvious - light is an _absolute frame_. (It has the required attributes, viz., (i) it has an unchanging speed in space, and (ii) this speed is known (via Maxwell). /bjones/
From: doug on 12 Dec 2008 16:14 Dr. Henri Wilson wrote: > On Fri, 12 Dec 2008 06:31:34 -0800 (PST), PD <TheDraperFamily(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >>On Dec 12, 3:54 am, hw@..(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote: > > >>>>A refutation of relativity would be reproducible experimental evidence >>>>in direct contradiction with the predictions of relativity. To date, >>>>nothing of that sort has been provided, and nothing else will suffice. >>> >>>There is plenty.... and it is obvious. You are too blind to see it. >> >>Just one example, please. One. > > > Faith causes psychological blindness. Yes, and that is ralph's problem. The statement ralph made also is an admission that he knows there no experiments that contradict relativity. > > > Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T) > > www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm. > > .....
From: PD on 12 Dec 2008 16:48 On Dec 12, 2:34 pm, ni...(a)4sure.com (bjones) wrote: > On Thu, 11 Dec 2008 12:43:57 -0800 (PST), > > PD <TheDraperFam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >For record, the statement above "b jones is a crank", appears nowhere > >in any post I've made on this thread. Therefore you've either made a > >mistake in quoting it in this attribution style, or you are lying > >about what I said. > > >PD > > Hmmm...I've known some pretty dumb people, but it seems > that you take the cake. > > Apparently, you actually believe that a thread entitled > "Cranks on the endangered species list" and containing > a list with my name does not say > > "b jones is a crank" You are certainly free to interpret and paraphrase as you see fit. Attributing your interpretation and paraphrasing to me as a direct quote is dishonest, and you know it. I said what I said and exactly what I said. Any conclusion you would draw from that would be attributable to you. > > Are you or are you not saying that? I noted that you said you were quitting. Then you didn't quit. This appears to be the second bit of dishonesty on your part in a short period of time. I thought being dishonest was repugnant to you. If it is repugnant, why do you indulge in it? > > If you are, then, for the record, I need to again point out the fact > that you have presented zero evidence of this damaging charge. You've presented no case that damage has been inflicted. Considering the reputation you already have, it will be difficult to establish that your reputation has been damaged. > > And if you are not, then, I am both surprised and pleased. > > /bjones/
From: PD on 12 Dec 2008 16:48
On Dec 12, 2:56 pm, hw@..(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote: > On Fri, 12 Dec 2008 06:31:34 -0800 (PST), PD <TheDraperFam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >On Dec 12, 3:54 am, hw@..(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote: > >> >A refutation of relativity would be reproducible experimental evidence > >> >in direct contradiction with the predictions of relativity. To date, > >> >nothing of that sort has been provided, and nothing else will suffice.. > > >> There is plenty.... and it is obvious. You are too blind to see it. > > >Just one example, please. One. > > Faith causes psychological blindness. > Just one example, please. One. |