Was Einstein Guilty of Scientific Fraud?
in [Relativity]
|
From: Inertial on 26 Mar 2010 04:48 "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: > >> >>"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? 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). 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.
From: PD on 26 Mar 2010 08:48 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. 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? > > Henry Wilson... > > .......A person's IQ = his snipping ability.
From: rotchm on 26 Mar 2010 11:22 > 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. Self correction/typo: It should read... Yes it is NON-intuitive to most, as indicated...
From: Jerry on 26 Mar 2010 11:39 On Mar 26, 7:48 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 26, 2:13 am, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > > Variable star curves behave as though light speed is source dependent. > > They also behave as though light speed is source independent. > > There being two contrary models supported by the same experimental > evidence, False statement. BaTh is NOT supported by variable star light curves at all! For the benefit of newbies, I should point out that Henry has succeeded in matching only LIMITED ASPECTS of variable star light curves in the following special circumstances ONLY: 1) Amplitude measurements of SINGLE CYCLES and/or TIME-AVERAGED cycles of a modest subset of pulsating stars measured in a single wavelength band ONLY. 2) Amplitude measurements of a limited range of eclipsing binaries measured in a single wavelength band ONLY. For pulsating stars, Henry has been totally unable to explain: 1) Period noise and amplitude noise in their light curves. 2) Secular changes in the periods and shapes of their light cycles resulting from stellar evolution as the stars pass rapidly through the instability band. 3) Color changes during their light cycles, related to changes in temperature as they expand and contract. 4) The relation between radial velocity (Doppler shifts as they expand and contract) and amplitude. 5) Humps in their light curves, save by placement of dark, high mass third bodies in totally implausible, unstable orbits. 6) Interferometric measurements of changes in their diameters. 7) Dramatic changes in the light curves of selected Cepheids such as RU Cam (an "ex-Cepheid") and Polaris. 8) The period-luminosity relationship that makes Cepheids so useful for astronomical distance calibration. 9) ...and so on and so forth... For eclipsing binaries, Henry has been totally unable to explain: 1) Differences in shape and amplitude of their light curves when measured in different wavelength bands. 2) The relationship between Doppler shift and amplitude. His theory gets the phases completely wrong. 3) Changes in color during the light cycle consistent with stars of differing spectral characteristics becoming eclipsed. 4) In those cases where the spectra of the two components can be resolved, the relation between the separation of the spectral lines and phase of the light curve. 5) Fine details in the shapes of the light curves of contact binaries corresponding to, among other things, "hot spots" where accreting material from a donor star forms a shock wave as it falls onto the recipient. 6) In the case of those eclipsing systems which have been studied in the xray band (for example, Algol), the fact that the xray emissions typically show no systematic variation in amplitude during the light cycle, while the xray Doppler shifts are typically opposite in phase to visible light Doppler shifts. 7) ...and so on and so forth... > 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? Jerry
From: Henry Wilson DSc on 26 Mar 2010 16:49
On Fri, 26 Mar 2010 05:48:36 -0700 (PDT), PD <thedraperfamily(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... >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 Henry Wilson... ........A person's IQ = his snipping ability. |