Was Einstein Guilty of Scientific Fraud?
in [Relativity]
|
From: valls on 25 Mar 2010 10:37 On 24 mar, 11:41, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_w> wrote: > <va...(a)icmf.inf.cu> wrote in message > > news:717ab57f-c60d-4108-9a26-21dd693ec79f(a)k19g2000yqn.googlegroups.com... > On 24 mar, 05:01, ..@..(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. > > (Hello Wilson, do you remember me?) > > tAB =\= tBA CAN'T be true for the simple reason that Einstein > establish the equality of tAB and tBA BY DEFINITION. > ============================================== > The existence of Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato CAN'T be true for the simple > reason that the two Suns with two times he believes in was established > by Androcles not to exist. See the rest of my comment where I consider an equivalent definition of "time" with no relation at all with light velocity and its theories. In my opinion, 1905 Einstein uses an isotropic constant vacuum light velocity in his definition of "time" in order to be coherent with his believe on Maxwell's equations holding true in any frame where "the equations of Newtonian mechanics hold true". By the way, do you share or not with 1905 Einstein that believe? RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)
From: Androcles on 25 Mar 2010 11:06 <valls(a)icmf.inf.cu> wrote in message news:163b162e-1aaf-49cb-a607-6470dcd89fa3(a)g19g2000yqe.googlegroups.com... > On 24 mar, 11:41, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_w> wrote: >> <va...(a)icmf.inf.cu> wrote in message >> >> news:717ab57f-c60d-4108-9a26-21dd693ec79f(a)k19g2000yqn.googlegroups.com... >> On 24 mar, 05:01, ..@..(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. >> >> (Hello Wilson, do you remember me?) >> >> tAB =\= tBA CAN'T be true for the simple reason that Einstein >> establish the equality of tAB and tBA BY DEFINITION. >> ============================================== >> The existence of Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato CAN'T be true for the simple >> reason that the two Suns with two times he believes in was established >> by Androcles not to exist. > See the rest of my comment where I consider an equivalent definition > of "time" with no relation at all with light velocity and its > theories. > In my opinion, 1905 Einstein uses an isotropic constant vacuum light > velocity in his definition of "time" in order to be coherent with his > believe on Maxwell's equations holding true in any frame where "the > equations of Newtonian mechanics hold true". By the way, do you share > or not with 1905 Einstein that believe? > > RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato) I MY opinion, which carries FAR more weight than your miserable opinion, one of the many Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gatoes believes in two Suns, each of which synchronizes with a different one of Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato's many times. Your opinion doesn't count for anything. I have decided to establish by definition that you do not exist.
From: valls on 25 Mar 2010 11:07 On 24 mar, 13:08, rotchm <rot...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > tAB =\= tBA CAN'T be true for the simple reason that Einstein > > establish the equality of tAB and tBA BY DEFINITION. The literal words > > in his first relativity paper (30 June 1905) are the following: > > > [ we establish BY DEFINITION that the time required by light to > > travel from A to B equals the time it requires to travel from B to > > A.] > > Correct, that was/is the (re) definition of "time". > > > we can substitute the light by ANY OTHER entity moving at ANY constant > > v velocity, > > The requirement that v must be constant is not needed. The 'v' can be > variable. I don't see how can you consider here a variable v in a definition of "time" compatible with human intuition about tAB=tBA at equal v velocity. > The 'v' is bases on the (definition) of time. This is why that > eventhough the out and in speed of light may be different, the TWLS is > always insured to be constant due to the definition. > Why you introduce again "light speed"? My intention was precisely to separate the "time" definition from any light theory. > > I don't know about any other person before Einstein defining "time" in > > that way. > > See Poincare 1889-1904 works on the various definitions of 'time', > especially "La mesure du temps". Note that Poincare was the head > engineer to define/calibrate time in Europe in the late 1800rds. Thanks a lot for your very valuable information about Poincaré. RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)
From: valls on 25 Mar 2010 12:26 On 25 mar, 10:06, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_w> wrote: > <va...(a)icmf.inf.cu> wrote in message > > news:163b162e-1aaf-49cb-a607-6470dcd89fa3(a)g19g2000yqe.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > On 24 mar, 11:41, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_w> wrote: > >> <va...(a)icmf.inf.cu> wrote in message > > >>news:717ab57f-c60d-4108-9a26-21dd693ec79f(a)k19g2000yqn.googlegroups.com.... > >> On 24 mar, 05:01, ..@..(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. > > >> (Hello Wilson, do you remember me?) > > >> tAB =\= tBA CAN'T be true for the simple reason that Einstein > >> establish the equality of tAB and tBA BY DEFINITION. > >> ============================================== > >> The existence of Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato CAN'T be true for the simple > >> reason that the two Suns with two times he believes in was established > >> by Androcles not to exist. > > See the rest of my comment where I consider an equivalent definition > > of "time" with no relation at all with light velocity and its > > theories. > > In my opinion, 1905 Einstein uses an isotropic constant vacuum light > > velocity in his definition of "time" in order to be coherent with his > > believe on Maxwell's equations holding true in any frame where "the > > equations of Newtonian mechanics hold true". By the way, do you share > > or not with 1905 Einstein that believe? > > > RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato) > > I MY opinion, which carries FAR more weight than your miserable opinion, > one of the many Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gatoes believes in two Suns, each of > which synchronizes with a different one of Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato's > many times. Your opinion doesn't count for anything. I have decided to > establish by definition that you do not exist.- Ocultar texto de la cita - > > - Mostrar texto de la cita - OK, if you don't take into account my opinions and also reject to express yours when I request them, you are breaking any possible communication between us. As in the past, I remain open to talk with you when you want. RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)
From: rotchm on 25 Mar 2010 14:03
> I don't see how can you consider here a variable v in a definition of > "time" compatible with human intuition The definition of 'time' does not depend on v nor the speed of light. The definition of 'time' does depend on light (or EM) but not on its speed. 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). There are equivalent variants/formulation of this definition of time. Note that the role of the speed of light is not part of the definition nor does it play any role. 'speed' is defined *after* the definition of 'time'. Human intuition has nothing to do with the "modern" definition of time. That is a reason why SR is so unintuitive for the Lay ( and "experts" ). |