Was Einstein Guilty of Scientific Fraud?
in [Relativity]
|
From: Inertial on 25 Mar 2010 18:30 "Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message news:lvgnq5hrg1c9bt7j1u3p94706a4povngq6(a)4ax.com... > On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 06:14:47 -0700 (PDT), PD <thedraperfamily(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > >>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: > >>> >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 > > 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
From: rotchm on 25 Mar 2010 20:45 > >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'. > 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.
From: Inertial on 25 Mar 2010 20:55 "Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message news:3qgnq5t06ec8jsnisksq26eeml1ehkkfio(a)4ax.com... > On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 11:03:11 -0700 (PDT), rotchm <rotchm(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> >>> 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). > > Hahahhahaha! > > thanks for pointing out that because light is balistic, this is indeed a > valid > way to absolutely synch clocks. He did not 'point out' that light is ballistic. Nothing in what he said depends on light being ballistic. But *IF* light were ballistic, and reality Galilean/Newtonian, then in that model, the same procedure would ALSO work for synching clocks. And as time is not relative in that model, it would trivially be absolutely in sync. But we know that time is not absolute (from experimental evidence) .. so that does not in any way validate ballistic theory. >> >>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" ). > > SR is indeed unintuiutive.. Which just shows that some people's intuition is not always right > and completely wrong. Except that it has never been shown to be wrong, despite a century and more of experimental tests
From: Henry Wilson DSc on 26 Mar 2010 03:13 On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 17:45:11 -0700 (PDT), rotchm <rotchm(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. Henry Wilson... ........A person's IQ = his snipping ability.
From: Henry Wilson DSc on 26 Mar 2010 03:17
On Fri, 26 Mar 2010 09:30:21 +1100, "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> wrote: > >"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message >news:lvgnq5hrg1c9bt7j1u3p94706a4povngq6(a)4ax.com... >> On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 06:14:47 -0700 (PDT), PD <thedraperfamily(a)gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>>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: >> >>>> >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 >> >> 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? Einstein said "if two synched clocks DO NOT show that tAB =\= tBA, then simply change one of the clocks so it will. "THEN MY THEORY WILL WORK AND THE DINGLEBERRIES WONT SEE THAT I HAVE COMPLETELY FOOLED THEM. Hooray!". Henry Wilson... ........A person's IQ = his snipping ability. |