Was Einstein Guilty of Scientific Fraud?
in [Relativity]
|
From: harald on 31 Mar 2010 05:54 On Mar 24, 12:01 pm, ..@..(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. > > Now, as any scientist knows, the deliberate falsification of experimental > results to fit the theory is a crime that would normally see the perpetrator > expelled for life. > > I want to know how Einstein has been let off the hook for so long..... > > Henry Wilson... > > .......A person's IQ = his snipping ability. Actually it wasn't his "fault", but Poincare's. And he in turn claimed that it wasn't his idea either, but of the astronomers. It was the result of a long process, as one has to make assumptions in order to measure anything; and the fact of the matter was that one had no other means to synchronize clocks, even if it was thought to be in principle slightly erroneous. The astronomers who started it certainly thought that it was a temporary rule, until "absolute velocity" could be measured; next with the assumption that such can not be measured, it had to be the final standard. Harald
From: Inertial on 31 Mar 2010 08:04 "Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message news:tip5r5p0ueejc439p87n40apu8m70qramg(a)4ax.com... > On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 11:11:51 +1100, "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> > wrote: > >> >>"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message >>news:rut4r557lr2mdpg955hlpjlh97m5js49at(a)4ax.com... >>> On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 09:56:39 +1100, "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>>"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message >>>>news:3h32r51havo2auhjqfb3h2f06najt4mf63(a)4ax.com... >>>>> On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 13:43:07 +1100, "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> >>> >>>>>>> I understand that Einstein's mathematical approach is valid, though >>>>>>> somewhat hyperbolized in a few areas, but fundamentally flawed in >>>>>>> premise >>>>>>> as to why nature behaves as it does. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I doubt that he intentionally perpetrated a hoax, though the results >>>>>>> of >>>>>>> his efforts prove to be as bad as a hoax, and a very big, serious >>>>>>> one, >>>>>>> setting science back 75 years. >>>>>> >>>>>>Hardly .. it advanced greatly due to his work and the other physicists >>>>>>of >>>>>>his time. >>>>> >>>>> What about all those floundering astronomers who try to formulate >>>>> ridiculous >>>>> theories based on the fairytale that all starlight travels towards >>>>> little >>>>> planet Earth at precisely c? >>>> >>>>Why would you expect it to travel any differently toward earth than any >>>>other planet? >>> >>> Because light moves at c wrt its source. >> >>And everything else. > > ...only in fairyland You'd know .. you have your little pulse fairies mysteriously creating and destroying pulses in sagnac.
From: Henry Wilson DSc on 31 Mar 2010 16:27 On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 02:54:58 -0700 (PDT), harald <hvan(a)swissonline.ch> wrote: >On Mar 24, 12:01�pm, ..@..(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. >> >> Now, as any scientist knows, the deliberate falsification of experimental >> results to fit the theory is a crime that would normally see the perpetrator >> expelled for life. >> >> I want to know how Einstein has been let off the hook for so long..... >> >> Henry Wilson... >> >> .......A person's IQ = his snipping ability. > >Actually it wasn't his "fault", but Poincare's. And he in turn claimed >that it wasn't his idea either, but of the astronomers. It was the >result of a long process, as one has to make assumptions in order to >measure anything; and the fact of the matter was that one had no other >means to synchronize clocks, even if it was thought to be in principle >slightly erroneous. The astronomers who started it certainly thought >that it was a temporary rule, until "absolute velocity" could be >measured; next with the assumption that such can not be measured, it >had to be the final standard. Now we have atomic clocks that are sufficiently accurate to be presynched then separated by considerable distances and used to measure OWLS. Relativists still argue that the clocks will not be in absolute synch when separated. I cannot recall any OWLS isotropy experiment that operates in this way. It would need to be done in a vacuum. > >Harald Henry Wilson... ........A person's IQ = his snipping ability.
From: Henry Wilson DSc on 1 Apr 2010 03:22 On Thu, 1 Apr 2010 13:08:15 +0800, "Tom Potter" <xprivatnews(a)mailinator.com> wrote: > >"Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> wrote in message >news:4bb2be63$0$8787$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com... >> >> "rotchm" <rotchm(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >> news:9a446ccc-57b2-4875-88c7-7d87b3d20538(a)d33g2000vbu.googlegroups.com... >>> >>>> > I will be looking forward to seeing "Inertial" explain what >>>> > "can be measured between two events <other than> an interaction time. >>>> >>>> Distance >>>> >>>> Thanks for playing.- >>> >>> >>> I too want to play... >>> >>> Distance is an interaction time between two events. Distance is >>> defined by the measurement of time: >>> >>> http://www.bipm.org/jsp/en/ListCGPMResolution.jsp?CGPM=17 >> >> Distance is not an 'interaction time'. >> >> Event 'interaction' is also only one-way .. so is not really 'inter' >> action. > >As a Greek philospher said about 2500 years ago >"You cannot step into the same river twice." Didn't they have two legs in ancient Greece? Henry Wilson... ........A person's IQ = his snipping ability.
From: Inertial on 1 Apr 2010 05:11
"Tom Potter" <xprivatnews(a)mailinator.com> wrote in message news:hp1bi6$5mg$4(a)news.eternal-september.org... > > "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> wrote in message > news:4bb2953b$0$8753$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com... >> >> "Tom Potter" <xprivatnews(a)mailinator.com> wrote in message >> news:hos3d8$2f5$6(a)news.eternal-september.org... >>> >>> "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> wrote in message >>> news:4badec3f$0$27813$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com... >>>> >>>> "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? >>> >>> I will be looking forward to seeing "Inertial" explain what >>> "can be measured between two events <other than> an interaction time. >> >> Distance >> >> Thanks for playing. > > It is interesting to see that my pal "Inertial" > does not seem to know I know far more than you [snip waffle] |