Was Einstein Guilty of Scientific Fraud?
in [Relativity]
|
From: Henry Wilson DSc on 26 Mar 2010 17:02 On Fri, 26 Mar 2010 19:48:03 +1100, "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> wrote: > >"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message >news:plnoq55acbl4fdce216re4g2lv81f6jek7(a)4ax.com... >> On Fri, 26 Mar 2010 09:30:21 +1100, "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> >> wrote: >> >>> >>>>>This is a typical retort, Henri. When confronted with the inanity of >>>>>the content of your original post, you attempt to deflect attention >>>>>from the inanity with a cloud of chaff, a barrage of propaganda and >>>>>cavalier statements that are even more shamelessly outlandish. >>>>> >>>>>PD >>>> >>>> If the clocks don't give you the answer you want, just fake their >>>> readings....Einstein 1905 >>> >>>Total lie .. as expected from the well known liar and fraud Henry >> >> Aww! Did I upset the ratpack? > >No .. not at all. We're well used to you lying. > >> Einstein said "if two synched clocks DO NOT show that tAB =\= tBA, then >> simply >> change one of the clocks so it will. > >What he said was that the time tAB must be equal to the time tBA (and even >you agree that that is the case .. even in ballistic theory). So if you >have two clocks that do *not* show that, they cannot be in sync (ie they are >showing something wrong). Careful....if you keep this up you might be converted... >So .. if you want two clocks to be synchronised, then you need to adjust >them to make them in sync. There is nothing fraudulent about doing that. >It is simply a calibration. > >> "THEN MY THEORY WILL WORK AND THE DINGLEBERRIES WONT SEE THAT I HAVE >> COMPLETELY >> FOOLED THEM. Hooray!". > >Again. A total lie. > Henry Wilson... ........A person's IQ = his snipping ability.
From: PD on 26 Mar 2010 17:12 On Mar 26, 3:49 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > On Fri, 26 Mar 2010 05:48:36 -0700 (PDT), PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >On Mar 26, 2:13 am, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > >> On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 17:45:11 -0700 (PDT), rotchm <rot...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >> >> >Simplifying: 'Time' at a location is the value indicated by the > >> >> >(synched) clock at the location of the event. This clock has been > >> >> >synched as follows: Send an EM From Master_clock to Synched_clock, > >> >> >reflected_back to the Master_clock. Note the value (interval) > >> >> >indicated by the master clock. Divide this value by two. This is the > >> >> >value that the synched clock will take (as it has received the EM).. > > >> >> Hahahhahaha! > > >> >> thanks for pointing out that because light is balistic, this is indeed a valid > >> >> way to absolutely synch clocks. > > >> >No, that procedure, (also called Einstein synch) does not produce an > >> >absolute synch in LET nor in your 'Bath'. > > >> Einstein's clock synch definition when carried out in vacuum and flat gravity > >> is a perfectly sound way to absolutely synch two clocks. BaTh says so. > > >> >> SR is indeed unintuiutive..and completely wrong. > > >> >Yes it is intuitive to most, as indicated in all the papers, > >> >specifically in AJP a nd education journals. As for completely > >> >wrong...I havent seen anything wrong in it yet. > > >> I have. > > >> Variable star curves behave as though light speed is source dependent. > > >They also behave as though light speed is source independent. > > OH?? PLease show me how... You don't know how variable stars are truly variable at the source, and what physically makes that happen? And when that happens, the constancy of the speed of light does not alter that variability? > > >There being two contrary models supported by the same experimental > >evidence, a scientist would normally come to the conclusion that this > >experimental observation does not discriminate between the two models. > > >So one then asks two questions: > >1. What was the evidence counter to relativity again? > >2. Why is this experimental observation being used as a discriminator? > > Variable star curves show that light speed is source dependent. > END OF STORY Well, since you've come to that conclusion despite the unanswered questions above, it's obvious your position is a religious one. There's no sense trying to extract a rationale from someone in a religious fervor. They just say it's so -- END OF STORY. > > Henry Wilson... > > .......A person's IQ = his snipping ability.
From: Inertial on 27 Mar 2010 06:56 "Tom Potter" <xprivatnews(a)mailinator.com> wrote in message news:hoiilb$gsh$2(a)news.eternal-september.org... > > "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> wrote in message > news:4babeeb9$0$8832$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com... >> >> "Tom Potter" <xprivatnews(a)mailinator.com> wrote in message >> news:hofi7l$qq$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... >>> >>> "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> wrote in message >>> news:4baacb25$0$8848$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com... >>>> "glird" <glird(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>>> news:d52259ff-9ab7-4997-92c5-b9982c781f55(a)z4g2000yqa.googlegroups.com... >>>>> On Mar 24, 2:08 pm, rotchm <rot...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>< The 'v' is based on the (definition) of time. This is why that even >>>>>>though the out and in speed of light may be different, the TWLS is >>>>>>always >>>>>>insured to be constant due to the definition. > >>>> >>>> In the 1905 paper, isotropic light speed is a postulate. It is assumed >>>> true throughout the paper (as it should be) >>> >>> Events propagate >> >> Events don't propagate. >> >>> at a constant speed ONLY in >>> lossless homogeneous media. >> >> Or empty space .. which is lossless and homogenous >> >>> The velocity of an electro-magnetic wave >>> is a function of the permeability and permittivity of the medium, >>> and many lossless homogeneous medium exist. >> >> Noone is saying they don't >> >> You post does not seem to address anything that I'd said that you appear >> to be replying to. >> >>> I suggest that the poster do a BING search on "slow glass". >> >> Which poster is that .. the OP? There's certainly no need for me to do >> it, as I'm already familiar with the term. > > I am pleased to see that my pal "Inertial" > comprehends that unlike Maxwell's model, > which works with space, sparse matter, liquids, > solids, and crystals, > > Relativity only works with space devoid of matter. Nope > My pal "Inertial" did make a good point when he pointed out > that "Events < Like the fictional photon.> don't propagate." A photon is not an event > The fictional photon being simply an event > associated with a change in the energy level of > an electron. Nope > Les lesser minds than "Inertial" miss the point, > photons are fictional and photon propagation is fictional, Yet they seem to get from point A to point B > and the ONLY thing that can be measured between > two events is an interaction time. Wrong Gees .. do you know ANY physics at all?
From: Inertial on 27 Mar 2010 06:57 "Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message news:268qq5tdl38bj6bom5c2j5b9l9qssnkgra(a)4ax.com... > On Fri, 26 Mar 2010 19:48:03 +1100, "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> > wrote: > >> >>"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message >>news:plnoq55acbl4fdce216re4g2lv81f6jek7(a)4ax.com... >>> On Fri, 26 Mar 2010 09:30:21 +1100, "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> > >>>>>>This is a typical retort, Henri. When confronted with the inanity of >>>>>>the content of your original post, you attempt to deflect attention >>>>>>from the inanity with a cloud of chaff, a barrage of propaganda and >>>>>>cavalier statements that are even more shamelessly outlandish. >>>>>> >>>>>>PD >>>>> >>>>> If the clocks don't give you the answer you want, just fake their >>>>> readings....Einstein 1905 >>>> >>>>Total lie .. as expected from the well known liar and fraud Henry >>> >>> Aww! Did I upset the ratpack? >> >>No .. not at all. We're well used to you lying. >> >>> Einstein said "if two synched clocks DO NOT show that tAB =\= tBA, then >>> simply >>> change one of the clocks so it will. >> >>What he said was that the time tAB must be equal to the time tBA (and even >>you agree that that is the case .. even in ballistic theory). So if you >>have two clocks that do *not* show that, they cannot be in sync (ie they >>are >>showing something wrong). > > > Careful....if you keep this up you might be converted... I only respect valid physics. >>So .. if you want two clocks to be synchronised, then you need to adjust >>them to make them in sync. There is nothing fraudulent about doing that. >>It is simply a calibration. >> >>> "THEN MY THEORY WILL WORK AND THE DINGLEBERRIES WONT SEE THAT I HAVE >>> COMPLETELY >>> FOOLED THEM. Hooray!". >> >>Again. A total lie. >> > > > Henry Wilson... > > .......A person's IQ = his snipping ability.
From: Paul B. Andersen on 28 Mar 2010 16:33
On 24.03.2010 11:01, Henry Wilson DSc wrote: > Einstein effectively said to do exactly this. > > Take two presynched clocks A and B and separate them by a distance D. > > Send time signals from A to B and from B to A. > > If tAB =\= tBA then....don't worry about it. Just change one of the clocks so > tAB DOES equal tBA....then my whole theory becomes true. I see. A repetition of your claim that: "Einstein's synchronization method can make the TWLS isotropic even if it isn't." Which reminds me of our conversation back in 2003, where Ralph Rabbidge aka Henri/Henry Wilson after being hard pressed, ended up with this gem: | Irrespective of what I might have said or what you claim that | I might have said or what I might have been mistakenly interpreted | to have said, my only claim is that a synch method can make | TWLS appear isotropic along a particular axis. Hilarious, no? :-) -- Paul http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/ |