Was Einstein Guilty of Scientific Fraud?
in [Relativity]
|
From: Inertial on 24 Mar 2010 18:24 "Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message news:elnjq55ctjtds37055t0goo4c4kg0522p8(a)4ax.com... No .. he wasn't Lets's see what the REAL scientific fraud Henry has to say... > Einstein effectively said to do exactly this. > > Take two presynched clocks A and B and separate them by a distance D. Fine > Send time signals from A to B and from B to A. Fine > If tAB =\= tBA They won't be. because they are in synch > then....don't worry about it. Just change one of the clocks so > tAB DOES equal tBA....then my whole theory becomes true. If the times are not equal that means the clocks were NOT really in synch, because they do not show as equal two equal times. > 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. Is that why you post here . you were expelled? Probably not, as you are no scientist > I want to know how Einstein has been let off the hook for so long..... Because real scientists are not morons like you
From: eric gisse on 24 Mar 2010 19:03 ...@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: [...] > when are you going to say something intelligent? When are you? > > Henry Wilson... > > .......A person's IQ = his snipping ability.
From: rotchm on 24 Mar 2010 22:12 > Einstein, following Poincare's lead, merely presented a method of > setting clocks that would allow both of Poincare's suggestions to hold > good. Einstein "presented" a method of setting clocks... this method was analized many years before by Poincare and was the method he used to set clocks in Europe many years before 1905. Moreover, in his works he also mentions that this method to set clocks is/was the method used many many years before and called the telegraphers synch procedure. Poincare went on to discuss this method and its implications and why it will be used in the future...
From: Inertial on 24 Mar 2010 22:32 "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) and so the theory derived from that only applies if it really IS true. Experiment supports that it is. > It is just the opposite: The TWLS is always insured to be constant > due to the length deformations in variously moving systems, and even > though the out and in speed of light may be different, it is always > insured to be constant due to the definition. The 'length deformations' (as you call them) that are predicted as a result of the speed being constant in all frames must (seeing they are derived from the postulate) be consistent with that postulate. They don't 'insure' it .. they are a consequence of it. Of course, if you start with different postulate, you can end up with the speed being constant as a consequence. The main point is that constant speed of light in all frames and lorentz transforms are consequences of (and consistent with) each other. The definition of what it means for clocks to be in synch is a direct consequence of the second postulate.
From: PD on 25 Mar 2010 09:14
On Mar 24, 3:55 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 13:13:37 -0700 (PDT), PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >On Mar 24, 3:00 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > >> On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 11:16:12 -0700 (PDT), PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> >On Mar 24, 5:01 am, ..@..(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. > > >> >Oh dear. Henri, Henri, Henri. > > >> >I don't mind you stirring the pot just for the hell of it, but could > >> >you at least put some thought into it first so that it isn't so > >> >patently obvious that what you're saying is ill-considered? > > >> >So if there are two unsynchronized clocks, and one follows a procedure > >> >to synchronize them, this is falsification of data and scientific > >> >fraud? > > >> >So if there is an uncalibrated pH meter, and one starts off an > >> >analysis of a solution by calibrating the pH meter, is that > >> >falsification of data and scientific fraud? > > >> >Really, Henri? Really? Don't you feel the eensiest bit embarrassed? > > >> Not at all. I'm way ahead of you (and Einstein) on this one. > > >> The plain fact is, Einstein thought that if an 'aether wind' was blowing > >> between the clocks, then tAB =\= tBA. > > >Still have to synchronize the clocks before making that measurement. > >If you don't synchronize the clocks, tAB =\= tBA doesn't tell you > >anything about aether wind or the absence of it. > > >Similarly, if you don't calibrate a pH meter, then any measurements > >from the pH meter are useless. > > >> He had to make the aether redundant...so > >> he concocted his fraudulent methods of doing just that. Little did the > >> scientific world realise that Fitzgerald and Lorentz had already done that with > >> their LTs. > > >> In that era, there were no accurate clocks, so he knew he could say and do > >> virtually anything he liked and nobody could prove him wrong. > > >> ......Enter the cesium clock......goodbye Einstein..... > > >Nope. Synchronized atomic clocks confirm Einstein's claim. > > >> Of course, in actual fact Einstein's definition was perfectly sound because it > >> is the exact procedure any normal person would use to synch clocks, according > >> to ballistic theory. > > >Yes, that's so, so you should have no complaint with it. The synch > >procedure is not specific to SR at all, and in fact it is the > >procedure that ANY sensible person would use. That was Einstein's > >point when he said that this is what we MEAN when we say two clocks > >are synchronized. > > >This is still not falsification of data or scientific fraud, > >especially since (as you say) the very same procedure would be used > >according to ballistic theory. This is why it was patently obvious to > >anyone reading your post that it was ill-considered. You are probably > >deeply embarrassed by having posted it in the first place. > > Not at all Diaper. > > Einstein plainly advocated the deliberate fabrication of experimental results > in order that his theory would appear to be correct. His concern was that the > aether, in which he clearly believed, would render his concept of relativity > inoperable. > Frankly, I cannot see why all the fuss when Lorentz had already shown that all > observers would measure OWLS as 'c' because of the LTs. > > Einstein ended up with the same formulae...surprise, surprise...... > In other words, he didn't contribute anything new...and unwittingly, he managed > to get clock synching right because his definition was straight BaTh. > > Einstein was nothing but a fraudulent con man..... 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 > > Henry Wilson... > > .......A person's IQ = his snipping ability. |