"A TIME interval must be measured by a single clock at rest in an inertial frame, not by multiple clocks..... As soon as you use multiple clocks at different locations, there is a spatial component to the interval, and the issue of how you synchronize the clocks becomes important -- that is frame dependent."
....end of quote.
Having expressed that opinion, it is surprising then that he persistently supports a theory that relies crucially on the validity of Einstein's
RoS derivation, in which Einstein deliberately de-synched two moving clocks in order to make two time intervals appear the same. He did this in spite of the fact that the readings of both those clocks, were KNOWN to advance by DIFFERENT amounts
during those same intervals. In other words, his attempt to support his second postulate resulted in a conflict with his own calculations. The intervals had already been firmly established as being different....and by a 'single clock at rest in its inertial frame' as Tom demanded.
Note, neither clock was required to perform an actual measurement of the intervals. A comparison of those times was mathematically derivable and sufficient to prove the fact.
Tom might like to comment on the following experiment:
An observer with a clock attaches another clock to the end of a long rod before setting that rod in motion.
(Assume both clocks are stable and let the rate of moving clock C1 be R times that of C.)
Using light sources at rest in his frame, the observer sends signals in both directions across the moving rod, as per Einstein's RoS derivation.
He correctly calculates that those signals take time intervals of L/c+v) and L/(c-v) to transit the rod in opposite directions, in terms of his clock C calibration. It follows that those intervals are RL/c+v) and RL/(c-v) according to moving clock C1. Thus, the ratio of those time intervals is firmly established as (c+v)/(c-v), according to the readings of both C and C1, ie., by single clocks in BOTH frames of reference.
In light of his quoted remarks, can Tom please explain how Einstein's little trick of adding a second, 'de-synched' clock to the moving rod could possibly alter that known ratio.
On Oct 5, 6:30 pm, Henry Wilson <hnrwl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In a recent message Tom Roberts wrote, quote:
> "A TIME interval must be measured by a single clock...”
The issue here is not whether Tom Roberts and other self-styled
physicists understand relativity or not. It is about why they BELIEVE
IN relativity. <shrug>
We are constantly reminded that relativity has not been falsified by
any experiments. Over time, that concept even if false will sink in.
That is how lies can become truths through repeated same lies.
<shrug>
In experimental verifications of relativity, there is some truth to
that since no experiments have shown relativity to be false. However,
these same experimental verifications have shown the antitheses to
relativity to be also valid, and no experiments have shown the
antitheses to relativity to be false.
What are antitheses to relativity? They are all the other infinite
transforms that Lorentz, Larmor, and Voigt had discovered that also
satisfy the null results of the MMX. In these transforms (other than
the Lorentz transform), they say the Aether must exist, and the
principle of relativity only holds for low speeds. Since these
antitheses cannot co-exist where one invalidates the other and vice
versa, these experiments that Tom Roberts have compiled actually do
nothing to validate relativity in any way. <shrug>
Any scholars at this point would go back and re-examine how relativity
was derived in the first place. Koobee Wublee did just that and found
that relativity was fudged into place without any mathematical
consistencies. Relativity is a set of man-made laws of physics that
manifest paradoxes. It is a big embarrassment to science.
The most famous paradox is the twins’ paradox, and the most common
mathemaGical trick to show non-existence of this paradox can be found
in the little professor andersen’s java applet where he mathemaGically
switch a quantity around. Realizing there is no hope to dissolve the
paradox in mathematics. The gun-ho ones are championing the mythical
substance called the proper time where everything ages in proper time
instead of real time. Since the proper time is so mythical, no
experiment can touch it, and the myth to relativity is able to
proliferate among the idiot bunch also known as Einstein
Dingleberries.
From the experimental blunders, the self-styled physicists do not
understand scientific method in which that disqualifies them to be
scientists. From analytical blunders, the self-styled physicists fail
in logical reasoning. They are a bunch of clowns who do not know what
they are doing. When anyone can come up with a good excuse for their
stupidities and gross blunders, Koobee Wublee would gladly retract all
the criticisms about the self-styled physicists. <shrug>
In the meantime, let’s see how the self-styled physicists dig
themselves out of this hole. Koobee Wublee predicts they will just
sit there with their thumbs plugged in the asses doing nothing and
allow Koobee Wublee to slap their faces all day long. A bunch of very
fvcked up group who call themselves scientists. <shrug>
On Friday, 5 October 2012 22:27:54 UTC-7, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> On Oct 5, 6:30 pm, Henry Wilson <hnrwl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > In a recent message Tom Roberts wrote, quote:
> > "A TIME interval must be measured by a single clock...”
> The issue here is not whether Tom Roberts and other self-styled
> physicists understand relativity or not. It is about why they BELIEVE
> IN relativity. <shrug>
> We are constantly reminded that relativity has not been falsified by
> any experiments. Over time, that concept even if false will sink in.
> That is how lies can become truths through repeated same lies.
> <shrug>
> In experimental verifications of relativity, there is some truth to
> that since no experiments have shown relativity to be false. However,
> these same experimental verifications have shown the antitheses to
> relativity to be also valid, and no experiments have shown the
> antitheses to relativity to be false.
> What are antitheses to relativity? They are all the other infinite
> transforms that Lorentz, Larmor, and Voigt had discovered that also
> satisfy the null results of the MMX. In these transforms (other than
> the Lorentz transform), they say the Aether must exist, and the
> principle of relativity only holds for low speeds. Since these
> antitheses cannot co-exist where one invalidates the other and vice
> versa, these experiments that Tom Roberts have compiled actually do
> nothing to validate relativity in any way. <shrug>
> Any scholars at this point would go back and re-examine how relativity
> was derived in the first place. Koobee Wublee did just that and found
> that relativity was fudged into place without any mathematical
> consistencies. Relativity is a set of man-made laws of physics that
> manifest paradoxes. It is a big embarrassment to science.
> The most famous paradox is the twins’ paradox, and the most common
> mathemaGical trick to show non-existence of this paradox can be found
> in the little professor andersen’s java applet where he mathemaGically
> switch a quantity around. Realizing there is no hope to dissolve the
> paradox in mathematics. The gun-ho ones are championing the mythical
> substance called the proper time where everything ages in proper time
> instead of real time. Since the proper time is so mythical, no
> experiment can touch it, and the myth to relativity is able to
> proliferate among the idiot bunch also known as Einstein
> Dingleberries.
> From the experimental blunders, the self-styled physicists do not
> understand scientific method in which that disqualifies them to be
> scientists. From analytical blunders, the self-styled physicists fail
> in logical reasoning. They are a bunch of clowns who do not know what
> they are doing. When anyone can come up with a good excuse for their
> stupidities and gross blunders, Koobee Wublee would gladly retract all
> the criticisms about the self-styled physicists. <shrug>
> In the meantime, let’s see how the self-styled physicists dig
> themselves out of this hole. Koobee Wublee predicts they will just
> sit there with their thumbs plugged in the asses doing nothing and
> allow Koobee Wublee to slap their faces all day long. A bunch of very
> fvcked up group who call themselves scientists. <shrug>
Koobee, it's good to have you onside as far as criticizing the dingleberries is concerned but you are never going to beat them with your approach even if most of what you say is pretty sound stuff. Your problem is that you are an aetherist....and so was Einstein. SR is nothing but a cleverly disguised version of LET... which is why the two theories produce exactly the same results. However, At least LET would work if an aether existed whereas SR has no physical foundation at all. LET provides a plausible mechanism for the source independence of light speed as well as contractions that make the measurement of absolute speed impossible. SR merely lays down those two essentials in a postulate and produces the same equations by working backwards.
The problem, koobee, is that no single aether exists...and both SR and LET are completely wrong...with the former being far more 'completely wrong' than the latter.
I want to see what Roberts has to say in response to my revelation..
> On Oct 5, 6:30 pm, Henry Wilson <hnrwl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> In a recent message Tom Roberts wrote, quote:
>> "A TIME interval must be measured by a single clock...”
> The issue here is not whether Tom Roberts and other self-styled
> physicists understand relativity or not. It is about why they BELIEVE
> IN relativity. <shrug>
> We are constantly reminded that relativity has not been falsified by
> any experiments. Over time, that concept even if false will sink in.
> That is how lies can become truths through repeated same lies.
> <shrug>
> In experimental verifications of relativity, there is some truth to
> that since no experiments have shown relativity to be false.
You are right up to here.
> However,
> these same experimental verifications have shown the antitheses to
> relativity to be also valid, and no experiments have shown the
> antitheses to relativity to be false.
On Fri, 05 Oct 2012 18:30:16 -0700, Henry Wilson wrote:
> In a recent message Tom Roberts wrote, quote:
> "A TIME interval must be measured by a single clock at rest in an
> inertial frame, not by multiple clocks.....
> As soon as you use multiple clocks at different locations, there is a
> spatial component to the interval, and the issue of how you synchronize
> the clocks becomes important -- that is frame dependent."
> ....end of quote.
this is funny, because relativity was invented in order
to do exactly that, synchronize
at any instant of time you may apply a formulae and get
the time reading for the other guy !!!
But knowing that it is impossible for you to admit
being wrong, I look forward to your explanation of
why you were right when claiming that LET an SR could
produce different results.
> But knowing that it is impossible for you to admit
> being wrong, I look forward to your explanation of
> why you were right when claiming that LET an SR could
> produce different results.
Paul, my time is valuable. It is easier for me to provoke YOU into doing the work than doing it myself. I thank you for that. You convincingly proved that Einstein merely plagiarized Lorentz's theory and contributed nothing new to science.
Now, are you prepared to discuss what is in THIS thread or simply divert attention and waste time like you usually do?
On Sat, 06 Oct 2012 13:08:33 -0700, Henry Wilson wrote:
> On Saturday, 6 October 2012 10:30:56 UTC-7, Pete Weber wrote:
>> On Fri, 05 Oct 2012 18:30:16 -0700, Henry Wilson wrote:
>> > In a recent message Tom Roberts wrote, quote:
>> > "A TIME interval must be measured by a single clock at rest in an
>> > inertial frame, not by multiple clocks.....
>> > As soon as you use multiple clocks at different locations, there is a
>> > spatial component to the interval, and the issue of how you
>> > synchronize
>> > the clocks becomes important -- that is frame dependent."
>> > ....end of quote.
>> this is funny, because relativity was invented in order
>> to do exactly that, synchronize
>> at any instant of time you may apply a formulae and get
>> the time reading for the other guy !!!
> Would that be an ABSOLUTE TIME reading?
you have a point here, if he can do the trick for one guy,
then he can do it for any amount of guys
thus yes, although i dont really know what an absolute time is
In experimental verifications of relativity, there is some truth to
that since no experiments have shown relativity to be false. However,
these same experimental verifications have shown the antitheses to
relativity to be also valid, and no experiments have shown the
antitheses to relativity to be false.
What are antitheses to relativity? They are all the other infinite
transforms that Lorentz, Larmor, and Voigt had discovered that also
satisfy the null results of the MMX. In these transforms (other than
the Lorentz transform), they say the Aether must exist, and the
principle of relativity only holds for low speeds.
_________________________________________________
Ohhh dearie me. You made a basic mistake of logic. In the first paragraph, you talk generically about experiments that test relativity. In the second paragraph, you talk only about the MMX. For paragraph 2 to logically follow from the first paragraph, it needs to consider all tests of relativity. Tell us how the Larmor and Voigt transformations correctly predict the decay rates of closely coupled neutron star binaries, as GR does to many decimal places. Can't do it? Gee, I guess that is an experiment that is consistent with Relativity (specifically GR) but not the alternate theories. Which makes you wrong.
The MMX is only one experimental test of Relativity. For these alternate theories to be valid, they will need to pass all experimental tests, as does Relativity. Unfortunately they don't; there are dozens or hundreds of experiments which SR passes but these other theories don't.
You should learn about the many, many other experimental tests of SR other than the MMX. Just because this is the only experiment you have heard of doesn't mean its the only experiment that has been done. Learn some of the others, and if you can come up with a theory which is consistent with all experiments but mathematically distinguishable from SR then publish it here - if it is correct then you can publish it in a proper journal and immediately become famous. But first you have to LEARN SOME PHYSICS.
On Oct 6, 9:02 pm, "Peter Webb" <webbfamily@DIE_SPAMoptusnet.com.au>
wrote:
> In experimental verifications of relativity, there is some truth to
> that since no experiments have shown relativity to be false. However,
> these same experimental verifications have shown the antitheses to
> relativity to be also valid, and no experiments have shown the
> antitheses to relativity to be false.
> What are antitheses to relativity? They are all the other infinite
> transforms that Lorentz, Larmor, and Voigt had discovered that also
> satisfy the null results of the MMX. In these transforms (other than
> the Lorentz transform), they say the Aether must exist, and the
> principle of relativity only holds for low speeds.
> _________________________________________________
> Ohhh dearie me. You made a basic mistake of logic.
No, the joke is on peter webb. <shrug>
> In the first paragraph,
> you talk generically about experiments that test relativity. In the second
> paragraph, you talk only about the MMX. For paragraph 2 to logically follow
> from the first paragraph, it needs to consider all tests of relativity.
The best explanation is that peter webb is mentally retarded. <shrug>
> Tell
> us how the Larmor and Voigt transformations correctly predict the decay
> rates of closely coupled neutron star binaries, as GR does to many decimal
> places.
Does it look like Koobee Wublee is your teacher? Go study Larmor’s
and the Voigt transform by yourself. If you insist to be spoon-fed by
Koobee Wublee, can you afford the tuition? If not, get the fvck
lost. <shrug>
> On Friday, 5 October 2012 22:27:54 UTC-7, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > The issue here is not whether Tom Roberts and other self-styled
> > physicists understand relativity or not. It is about why they BELIEVE
> > IN relativity. <shrug>
> > We are constantly reminded that relativity has not been falsified by
> > any experiments. Over time, that concept even if false will sink in.
> > That is how lies can become truths through repeated same lies.
> > <shrug>
> > In experimental verifications of relativity, there is some truth to
> > that since no experiments have shown relativity to be false. However,
> > these same experimental verifications have shown the antitheses to
> > relativity to be also valid, and no experiments have shown the
> > antitheses to relativity to be false.
> > What are antitheses to relativity? They are all the other infinite
> > transforms that Lorentz, Larmor, and Voigt had discovered that also
> > satisfy the null results of the MMX. In these transforms (other than
> > the Lorentz transform), they say the Aether must exist, and the
> > principle of relativity only holds for low speeds. Since these
> > antitheses cannot co-exist where one invalidates the other and vice
> > versa, these experiments that Tom Roberts have compiled actually do
> > nothing to validate relativity in any way. <shrug>
> > Any scholars at this point would go back and re-examine how relativity
> > was derived in the first place. Koobee Wublee did just that and found
> > that relativity was fudged into place without any mathematical
> > consistencies. Relativity is a set of man-made laws of physics that
> > manifest paradoxes. It is a big embarrassment to science.
> > The most famous paradox is the twins’ paradox, and the most common
> > mathemaGical trick to show non-existence of this paradox can be found
> > in the little professor andersen’s java applet where he mathemaGically
> > switch a quantity around. Realizing there is no hope to dissolve the
> > paradox in mathematics. The gun-ho ones are championing the mythical
> > substance called the proper time where everything ages in proper time
> > instead of real time. Since the proper time is so mythical, no
> > experiment can touch it, and the myth to relativity is able to
> > proliferate among the idiot bunch also known as Einstein
> > Dingleberries.
> > From the experimental blunders, the self-styled physicists do not
> > understand scientific method in which that disqualifies them to be
> > scientists. From analytical blunders, the self-styled physicists fail
> > in logical reasoning. They are a bunch of clowns who do not know what
> > they are doing. When anyone can come up with a good excuse for their
> > stupidities and gross blunders, Koobee Wublee would gladly retract all
> > the criticisms about the self-styled physicists. <shrug>
> > In the meantime, let’s see how the self-styled physicists dig
> > themselves out of this hole. Koobee Wublee predicts they will just
> > sit there with their thumbs plugged in the asses doing nothing and
> > allow Koobee Wublee to slap their faces all day long. A bunch of very
> > fvcked up group who call themselves scientists. <shrug>
> Koobee, it's good to have you onside as far as criticizing
> the dingleberries is concerned but you are never going to
> beat them with your approach even if most of what you say is
> pretty sound stuff.
Well, by choice, Koobee Wublee criticizes anyone who is totally
mystified in science regardless Einstein Dingleberries or not. Koobee
Wublee would also disagree with crackpots who still believe in
Michell’s ballistic theory of light, but Einstein Dingleberries are
doing a fine job of demystifying the bunch including Andro and
yourself. <shrug>
> Your problem is that you are an aetherist...
That should not be regarded as a problem. <shrug>
> and so was Einstein.
Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar was merely a nitwit,
a plagiarist, and a liar. The nitwit was nobody. <shrug>
> SR is nothing but a cleverly disguised version of LET...
It depends on what you mean by LET. If your LET utilizes the Lorentz
transform, then SR = LET where both SR and LET satisfy the principle
of relativity. If your LET utilizes Larmor’s transform, then SR is
not LET where LET says the Aether must exist. See a difference?
<shrug>
> which is why the two theories produce exactly the same results.
Sounds like you are associating LET with the Lorentz transform.
<shrug>
> However, At least LET would work if an aether existed whereas
> SR has no physical foundation at all. LET provides a plausible
> mechanism for the source independence of light speed as well as
> contractions that make the measurement of absolute speed
> impossible. SR merely lays down those two essentials in a postulate
> and produces the same equations by working backwards.
Your version of LET and SR are indistinguishable, and no experiments
can tell them apart. <shrug>
> The problem, koobee, is that no single aether exists...and both
> SR and LET are completely wrong...with the former being far more
> 'completely wrong' than the latter.
All SR, LET (the Lorentz transform), and LET (Larmor’s transform)
manifest some sorts of time paradox, and they are all wrong, but that
does not mean the Aether does not exist. No experiments have shown
the Aether not to exist. <shrug>
> I want to see what Roberts has to say in response to my revelation..
Tom would not bother with your petty remarks. Maybe you can get that
little professor from Norway to put his foot in his mouth again. He
hates to deal with Koobee Wublee. He seems to have no problems of
walking over guys who still believe in Michell’s ballistic theory of
light. <shrug>
> "A TIME interval must be measured by a single clock at rest in an inertial frame, not by multiple clocks.....
> As soon as you use multiple clocks at different locations, there is a spatial component to the
> interval, and the issue of how you synchronize the clocks becomes important -- that is frame dependent."
> ....end of quote.
> Having expressed that opinion, it is surprising then that he persistently supports a theory that relies crucially on the validity of Einstein's
> RoS derivation, in which Einstein deliberately de-synched two moving clocks in order to make two time intervals
> appear the same. He did this in spite of the fact that the readings of both those clocks, were KNOWN to advance by DIFFERENT amounts
> during those same intervals. In other words, his attempt to support his second postulate resulted in a conflict with his own calculations.
> The intervals had already been firmly established as being different....and by a 'single clock at rest in its inertial frame' as Tom demanded.
> Note, neither clock was required to perform an actual measurement of the intervals. A comparison of those times was mathematically derivable and sufficient to prove the fact.
> Tom might like to comment on the following experiment:
> An observer with a clock attaches another clock to the end of a long rod before setting that rod in motion.
> (Assume both clocks are stable and let the rate of moving clock C1 be R times that of C.)
> Using light sources at rest in his frame, the observer sends signals in both directions across the moving rod, as per Einstein's RoS derivation.
> He correctly calculates that those signals take time intervals of L/c+v) and L/(c-v) to transit the rod in opposite directions, in terms of his clock C calibration. It follows that those intervals are RL/c+v) and RL/(c-v) according to moving clock C1. Thus, the ratio of those time intervals is firmly established as (c+v)/(c-v), according to the readings of both C and C1, ie., by single clocks in BOTH frames of reference.
> In light of his quoted remarks, can Tom please explain how Einstein's little trick of adding a second, 'de-synched' clock to the moving rod could possibly alter that known ratio.
Tom Roberts is confused.
Time interval of what can be measured by a single clock? It can be
used only for local events, such as heart beats, number of rotations,
number of local oscillations etc. When we wish to measure velocity of
a particle, there is no option but to place two synch clocks at some
measured distance. When we wish to measure velocity of a rod of some
measurable length then we can measure it by a single clock.
In your gedanken, there is no option but to use pulse of light (or
pulses but a pulse is marked). This pulse acts like a particle and so
there is no option but to use two clocks.
When we contradict SR, we do this in two ways. First is to find
contradictions in the basic postulates. If there are any (and there
are), then there is no need to proceed further. However if you want to
attack SR for its contradictions (for contradictions will be present
if basic postulates are wrong) then, we must assume these postulates
to be correct and then proceed to find contradictions in applications.
In your present example, you are pointing out basic contradiction in
the use of constant velocity in the moving frame to decide time
duration, the way Einstein used it. Therefore, it is necessary to
assume constancy of light velocity. Once we assume that velocity of
light is constant in any frame then it is clear that by sending light
signals to clocks separated spatially, from mid point, we can
synchronize them or in other words, when we assume constant velocity
of light, we assume that clocks will be synchronized. So where is the
problem in synchronization?
His other point that time coordinate involves spatial distance is not
valid in the present case, as it has no bearing on the present set
up.
In the rod’s frame, there are two synch clocks at ends of the rod and
they measure time for light pulses to travel across it in both the
directions as t’=L/c.
In the stationary frame, we have to keep large number of clocks at
every point. When a light pulse enters the rod end A, then this event
is noted on corresponding clock of the stationary frame. When this
pulse leaves end B of the rod, this event is noted by another
corresponding clock of the stationary frame. Time durations will be L/
(c+v) and L/(c-v). It is to be noted that L will now be contracted
length but it is not accounted as it simply changes value of R in your
equations. Thus it can be shown that unless we take average of the
time durations, we arrive at two different time durations. In short,
what we get is t1=R1 t’ and t2=R2 t’; and so comparison of time
duration is not possible.
Your deductions in your previous post were excellent. Don’t change
those simply because somebody tries to find a fault in vain.
El lunes, 8 de octubre de 2012 08:44:25 UTC-4, Vilas Tamhane escribió:
> Tom Roberts is confused.
Several people in this forum are showing everyday a great amount of ignorance and confusion about what SR, GR and QM say. You and Wilson are two of the typical members with such characteristic.
> Time interval of what can be measured by a single clock? It can be
> used only for local events, such as heart beats, number of rotations,
> number of local oscillations etc.
A single clock, in SR like in the rest of physics, is used to measure the time of occurrence of events (like at 10:58 we detected a nuclear blast light coming from the -x direction and at 11:37 we detected a second nuclear blast light coming from the +x direction). It is also used, as the previous example shows, to determine the simultaneity of events (in that example, for the given observer's clock, the two events were not simultaneous).
The at rest observer installs a row of clocks that are synchronized. Now, the object is moved along the clock row and every clock stores the exact time when the left or the right end of the object passes by. After that, the observer only has to look after the position of a clock A that stored the time when the left end of the object was passing by, and a clock B at which the right end of the object was passing by at the same time. It's clear that distance AB is equal to length L of the moving object.
> When we wish to measure velocity of
> a particle, there is no option but to place two synch clocks at some
> measured distance. When we wish to measure velocity of a rod of some
> measurable length then we can measure it by a single clock.
Clearly this is nonsense. To measure a length of a moving rod (from the frame of reference of the at rest observer) you have to ensure that the location of the front end and of the back end are measured at the same time, which obviously requires the use of two synchronized clocks.
> In your gedanken, there is no option but to use pulse of light (or
> pulses but a pulse is marked). This pulse acts like a particle and so
> there is no option but to use two clocks.
> When we contradict SR, we do this in two ways. First is to find
> contradictions in the basic postulates. If there are any (and there
> are), then there is no need to proceed further.
This is clearly utterly nonsense. By definition, postulates can't be contradictory. What is it that you consider contradictory in SR postulates "The laws by which the states of physical systems undergo change are not affected, whether these changes of state be referred to the one or the other of two systems of co-ordinates in uniform translatory motion." and "Any ray of light moves in the “stationary” system of co-ordinates with the determined velocity c, whether the ray be emitted by a stationary or by a moving body."?
> On Oct 6, 9:02 pm, "Peter Webb" <webbfamily@DIE_SPAMoptusnet.com.au>
>> Tell
>> us how the Larmor and Voigt transformations correctly predict the decay
>> rates of closely coupled neutron star binaries, as GR does to many decimal
>> places.
> Does it look like Koobee Wublee is your teacher? Go study Larmor s
> and the Voigt transform by yourself. If you insist to be spoon-fed by
> Koobee Wublee, can you afford the tuition? If not, get the fvck
> lost. <shrug>
In other words, you feel free to make grand, sweeping statements, but are not inclined to back them up, nor to point to any references where the backup can be found.
Koobee, you're a fucking liar, and a shameless one.
> On Oct 5, 6:30 pm, Henry Wilson <hnrwl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > In a recent message Tom Roberts wrote, quote:
> > "A TIME interval must be measured by a single clock...”
> The issue here is not whether Tom Roberts and other self-styled
> physicists understand relativity or not. It is about why they BELIEVE
> IN relativity. <shrug>
> We are constantly reminded that relativity has not been falsified by
> any experiments. Over time, that concept even if false will sink in.
> That is how lies can become truths through repeated same lies.
> <shrug>
> In experimental verifications of relativity, there is some truth to
> that since no experiments have shown relativity to be false. However,
> these same experimental verifications have shown the antitheses to
> relativity to be also valid, and no experiments have shown the
> antitheses to relativity to be false.
> What are antitheses to relativity? They are all the other infinite
> transforms that Lorentz, Larmor, and Voigt had discovered that also
> satisfy the null results of the MMX. In these transforms (other than
> the Lorentz transform), they say the Aether must exist, and the
> principle of relativity only holds for low speeds. Since these
> antitheses cannot co-exist where one invalidates the other and vice
> versa, these experiments that Tom Roberts have compiled actually do
> nothing to validate relativity in any way. <shrug>
> Any scholars at this point would go back and re-examine how relativity
> was derived in the first place. Koobee Wublee did just that and found
> that relativity was fudged into place without any mathematical
> consistencies. Relativity is a set of man-made laws of physics that
> manifest paradoxes. It is a big embarrassment to science.
> The most famous paradox is the twins’ paradox, and the most common
> mathemaGical trick to show non-existence of this paradox can be found
> in the little professor andersen’s java applet where he mathemaGically
> switch a quantity around. Realizing there is no hope to dissolve the
> paradox in mathematics. The gun-ho ones are championing the mythical
> substance called the proper time where everything ages in proper time
> instead of real time. Since the proper time is so mythical, no
> experiment can touch it, and the myth to relativity is able to
> proliferate among the idiot bunch also known as Einstein
> Dingleberries.
> From the experimental blunders, the self-styled physicists do not
> understand scientific method in which that disqualifies them to be
> scientists. From analytical blunders, the self-styled physicists fail
> in logical reasoning. They are a bunch of clowns who do not know what
> they are doing. When anyone can come up with a good excuse for their
> stupidities and gross blunders, Koobee Wublee would gladly retract all
> the criticisms about the self-styled physicists. <shrug>
> In the meantime, let’s see how the self-styled physicists dig
> themselves out of this hole. Koobee Wublee predicts they will just
> sit there with their thumbs plugged in the asses doing nothing and
> allow Koobee Wublee to slap their faces all day long. A bunch of very
> fvcked up group who call themselves scientists. <shrug>
“But where is the proof for god?”
“Idiot, god is a question of faith.”
“You mean to say, we should believe in god without applying reason?”
“When we can feel presence of god, where is the need for reason?”
“Why, this is the characteristic that separates us from non thinking
animals.”
“Idiot! Animals can’t do mathematics and mathematicians can’t think
and so we don’t need any reason to prove god.”
“I don’t agree. I need proof for everything.”
“Very existence of this universe is a sufficient proof for god.”
“If it is the creation of god then we must find proof for his direct
interference.”
“Can you tell how universe came into existence? If not our present
theory that god created this universe holds and this is how faith
works. It is not dependent on reason or philosophy.”
“That is wrong.”
“Who cares for your opinion? 99 percent of us believe in god.”
Thereafter god never died.
> But where is the proof for god?
> Idiot, god is a question of faith.
> You mean to say, we should believe in god without applying reason?
> When we can feel presence of god, where is the need for reason?
> Why, this is the characteristic that separates us from non thinking
> animals.
> Idiot! Animals can t do mathematics and mathematicians can t think
> and so we don t need any reason to prove god.
> I don t agree. I need proof for everything.
> Very existence of this universe is a sufficient proof for god.
> If it is the creation of god then we must find proof for his direct
> interference.
> Can you tell how universe came into existence? If not our present
> theory that god created this universe holds and this is how faith
> works. It is not dependent on reason or philosophy.
> That is wrong.
> Who cares for your opinion? 99 percent of us believe in god.
> Thereafter god never died.
This dialog has nothing to do with science. The propositions of science are not tested with the application of reason. They are tested by making predictions of unanticipated phenomena, and then checking those unanticipated predictions with experimental measurement.
Now then, if you wanted to talk about the distinction between science and religion, it would go like this:
"But where is there proof for god?"
"God is a question of faith."
"You mean to say, we should believe in god without applying reason?"
"Apply reason all you would like. Many have tried, and there are many logical arguments for god, but it proves nothing."
"How else, then, would we go about investigating god?"
"Humans distinguish themselves from animals by doing scientific investigation."
"What do you mean by scientific investigation, other than the application of reason?"
"Reason is not sufficient. What is necessary is the development of the hypothesis of god into a testable prediction of an observation or observations that would be true if god existed that could not be true by other hypotheses. And then the actual making of those observations to see if the predictions are correct."
"But there are no predictions that come from the hypothesis of god that follow that description."
"That's why god is not a matter of scientific interest."
"But lots of people believe in god."
"Lots of people believe in lots of things without scientific thinking behind it."
"But does there not have to be a logical, sensible proof of god first?"
"Not in science. There only has to be a hypothesis of god, which is then developed into those discriminating predictions."
"That is not my idea of what science should be."
"As I said, lots of people believe lots of things without scientific thinking behind it."
>> But knowing that it is impossible for you to admit
>> being wrong, I look forward to your explanation of
>> why you were right when claiming that LET an SR could
>> produce different results.
> Paul, my time is valuable. It is easier for me to provoke YOU into doing the work than doing it myself. I thank you for that. You convincingly proved that Einstein merely plagiarized Lorentz's theory and contributed nothing new to science.
Does that mean that you are admitting that you knew all along
that your claims in these posting were wrong?
I know of course that you knew all the time that your
claims quoted in those papers were wrong.
You succeeded in provoking me to tell you what was right.
So now you know.
Right?
On Monday, 8 October 2012 23:44:25 UTC+11, Vilas Tamhane wrote:
> On Oct 6, 6:30 am, Henry Wilson <hnrwl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > In a recent message Tom Roberts wrote, quote:
> > "A TIME interval must be measured by a single clock at rest in an inertial frame, not by multiple clocks.....
> > As soon as you use multiple clocks at different locations, there is a spatial component to the
> > interval, and the issue of how you synchronize the clocks becomes important -- that is frame dependent."
> > ....end of quote.
> > Having expressed that opinion, it is surprising then that he persistently supports a theory that relies crucially on the validity of Einstein's
> > RoS derivation, in which Einstein deliberately de-synched two moving clocks in order to make two time intervals
> > appear the same. He did this in spite of the fact that the readings of both those clocks, were KNOWN to advance by DIFFERENT amounts
> > during those same intervals. In other words, his attempt to support his second postulate resulted in a conflict with his own calculations.
> > The intervals had already been firmly established as being different....and by a 'single clock at rest in its inertial frame' as Tom demanded.
> > Note, neither clock was required to perform an actual measurement of the intervals. A comparison of those times was mathematically derivable and sufficient to prove the fact.
> > Tom might like to comment on the following experiment:
> > An observer with a clock attaches another clock to the end of a long rod before setting that rod in motion.
> > (Assume both clocks are stable and let the rate of moving clock C1 be R times that of C.)
> > Using light sources at rest in his frame, the observer sends signals in both directions across the moving rod, as per Einstein's RoS derivation.
> > He correctly calculates that those signals take time intervals of L/c+v) and L/(c-v) to transit the rod in opposite directions, in terms of his clock C calibration. It follows that those intervals are RL/c+v) and RL/(c-v) according to moving clock C1. Thus, the ratio of those time intervals is firmly established as (c+v)/(c-v), according to the readings of both C and C1, ie., by single clocks in BOTH frames of reference.
> > In light of his quoted remarks, can Tom please explain how Einstein's little trick of adding a second, 'de-synched' clock to the moving rod could possibly alter that known ratio.
> Tom Roberts is confused.
> Time interval of what can be measured by a single clock? It can be
> used only for local events, such as heart beats, number of rotations,
> number of local oscillations etc. When we wish to measure velocity of
> a particle, there is no option but to place two synch clocks at some
> measured distance. When we wish to measure velocity of a rod of some
> measurable length then we can measure it by a single clock.
We don't need to measure the speed of the rod. Just call it 'v'.
> In your gedanken, there is no option but to use pulse of light (or
> pulses but a pulse is marked). This pulse acts like a particle and so
> there is no option but to use two clocks.
> When we contradict SR, we do this in two ways. First is to find
> contradictions in the basic postulates. If there are any (and there
> are), then there is no need to proceed further. However if you want to
> attack SR for its contradictions (for contradictions will be present
> if basic postulates are wrong) then, we must assume these postulates
> to be correct and then proceed to find contradictions in applications.
> In your present example, you are pointing out basic contradiction in
> the use of constant velocity in the moving frame to decide time
> duration, the way Einstein used it.
Correct.
Therefore, it is necessary to
> assume constancy of light velocity. Once we assume that velocity of
> light is constant in any frame then it is clear that by sending light
> signals to clocks separated spatially, from mid point, we can
> synchronize them or in other words, when we assume constant velocity
> of light, we assume that clocks will be synchronized. So where is the
> problem in synchronization?
This is correct. Correct synchronization requires that the light sources be at rest with the clocks.
Einstein used light travelling at c+v and c-v and wrongly claimed the clocks were out of synch.
> His other point that time coordinate involves spatial distance is not
> valid in the present case, as it has no bearing on the present set
> up.
In my experiment, only ONE clock is needed to prove Einstein wrong. Study it again.
Synchronization is not an issue....nor is any measurement. Two light speeds are effectively COMPARED, using only ONE CLOCK and legitimate theory (After all, it WAS Einstein's).
> In the rod’s frame, there are two synch clocks at ends of the rod and
> they measure time for light pulses to travel across it in both the
> directions as t’=L/c.
> In the stationary frame, we have to keep large number of clocks at
> every point. When a light pulse enters the rod end A, then this event
> is noted on corresponding clock of the stationary frame. When this
> pulse leaves end B of the rod, this event is noted by another
> corresponding clock of the stationary frame. Time durations will be L/
> (c+v) and L/(c-v). It is to be noted that L will now be contracted
> length but it is not accounted as it simply changes value of R in your
> equations.
L does not change. The whole theory behind 'contraction' and gamma transforms followed from and depended crucially on the RoS.
...but it wouldn't matter if it did.
>Thus it can be shown that unless we take average of the
> time durations, we arrive at two different time durations. In short,
> what we get is t1=R1 t’ and t2=R2 t’; and so comparison of time
> duration is not possible.
Yes. That reveals Einstein's error.
> Your deductions in your previous post were excellent. Don’t change
> those simply because somebody tries to find a fault in vain.
Those who are criticizing me are the usual religious fanatics who can never say anything scientific.
El lunes, 8 de octubre de 2012 08:44:25 UTC-4, Vilas Tamhane escribió:
> Tom Roberts is confused. > Several people in this forum are showing everyday a great amount of ignorance and confusion about what SR, GR > and QM say. You and Wilson are two of the typical members with such characteristic.
Do you wish to comment on my experiment or just rant and rave as you usually do?
>> Time interval of what can be measured by a single clock? It can be
>> used only for local events, such as heart beats, number of rotations,
>> number of local oscillations etc. > A single clock, in SR like in the rest of physics, is used to measure the time of occurrence of events (like > at 10:58 we detected a nuclear blast light coming from the -x direction and at 11:37 we detected a second > nuclear blast light coming from the +x direction). It is also used, as the previous example shows, to > determine the simultaneity of events (in that example, for the given observer's > clock, the two events were not simultaneous).
You are totally ignorant. A single clock can easily be used to COMPARE two speeds....which is what my experiment does.
It corrects Einstein's flawed logic.
>> In your gedanken, there is no option but to use pulse of light (or
>> pulses but a pulse is marked). This pulse acts like a particle and so
>> there is no option but to use two clocks.
>> When we contradict SR, we do this in two ways. First is to find
>> contradictions in the basic postulates. If there are any (and there
>> are), then there is no need to proceed further. >This is clearly utterly nonsense. By definition, postulates can't be contradictory.
Sorry, the application of Einstein's P2 results in a contradiction...as my experiment proves.
> On Monday, 8 October 2012 23:44:25 UTC+11, Vilas Tamhane wrote:
> > On Oct 6, 6:30 am, Henry Wilson <hnrwl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > In a recent message Tom Roberts wrote, quote:
> > > "A TIME interval must be measured by a single clock at rest in an inertial frame, not by multiple clocks.....
> > > As soon as you use multiple clocks at different locations, there is a spatial component to the
> > > interval, and the issue of how you synchronize the clocks becomes important -- that is frame dependent."
> > > ....end of quote.
> > > Having expressed that opinion, it is surprising then that he persistently supports a theory that relies crucially on the validity of Einstein's
> > > RoS derivation, in which Einstein deliberately de-synched two moving clocks in order to make two time intervals
> > > appear the same. He did this in spite of the fact that the readings of both those clocks, were KNOWN to advance by DIFFERENT amounts
> > > during those same intervals. In other words, his attempt to support his second postulate resulted in a conflict with his own calculations.
> > > The intervals had already been firmly established as being different....and by a 'single clock at rest in its inertial frame' as Tom demanded.
> > > Note, neither clock was required to perform an actual measurement of the intervals. A comparison of those times was mathematically derivable and sufficient to prove the fact.
> > > Tom might like to comment on the following experiment:
> > > An observer with a clock attaches another clock to the end of a long rod before setting that rod in motion.
> > > (Assume both clocks are stable and let the rate of moving clock C1 be R times that of C.)
> > > Using light sources at rest in his frame, the observer sends signals in both directions across the moving rod, as per Einstein's RoS derivation.
> > > He correctly calculates that those signals take time intervals of L/c+v) and L/(c-v) to transit the rod in opposite directions, in terms of his clock C calibration. It follows that those intervals are RL/c+v) and RL/(c-v) according to moving clock C1. Thus, the ratio of those time intervals is firmly established as (c+v)/(c-v), according to the readings of both C and C1, ie., by single clocks in BOTH frames of reference.
> > > In light of his quoted remarks, can Tom please explain how Einstein's little trick of adding a second, 'de-synched' clock to the moving rod could possibly alter that known ratio.
> > Tom Roberts is confused.
> > Time interval of what can be measured by a single clock? It can be
> > used only for local events, such as heart beats, number of rotations,
> > number of local oscillations etc. When we wish to measure velocity of
> > a particle, there is no option but to place two synch clocks at some
> > measured distance. When we wish to measure velocity of a rod of some
> > measurable length then we can measure it by a single clock.
> We don't need to measure the speed of the rod. Just call it 'v'.
> > In your gedanken, there is no option but to use pulse of light (or
> > pulses but a pulse is marked). This pulse acts like a particle and so
> > there is no option but to use two clocks.
> > When we contradict SR, we do this in two ways. First is to find
> > contradictions in the basic postulates. If there are any (and there
> > are), then there is no need to proceed further. However if you want to
> > attack SR for its contradictions (for contradictions will be present
> > if basic postulates are wrong) then, we must assume these postulates
> > to be correct and then proceed to find contradictions in applications.
> > In your present example, you are pointing out basic contradiction in
> > the use of constant velocity in the moving frame to decide time
> > duration, the way Einstein used it.
> Correct.
> Therefore, it is necessary to
> > assume constancy of light velocity. Once we assume that velocity of
> > light is constant in any frame then it is clear that by sending light
> > signals to clocks separated spatially, from mid point, we can
> > synchronize them or in other words, when we assume constant velocity
> > of light, we assume that clocks will be synchronized. So where is the
> > problem in synchronization?
> This is correct. Correct synchronization requires that the light sources be at rest with the clocks.
> Einstein used light travelling at c+v and c-v and wrongly claimed the clocks were out of synch.
> > His other point that time coordinate involves spatial distance is not
> > valid in the present case, as it has no bearing on the present set
> > up.
> In my experiment, only ONE clock is needed to prove Einstein wrong. Study it again.
> Synchronization is not an issue....nor is any measurement. Two light speeds are effectively COMPARED, using only ONE CLOCK and legitimate theory (After all, it WAS Einstein's).
> > In the rod’s frame, there are two synch clocks at ends of the rod and
> > they measure time for light pulses to travel across it in both the
> > directions as t’=L/c.
> > In the stationary frame, we have to keep large number of clocks at
> > every point. When a light pulse enters the rod end A, then this event
> > is noted on corresponding clock of the stationary frame. When this
> > pulse leaves end B of the rod, this event is noted by another
> > corresponding clock of the stationary frame. Time durations will be L/
> > (c+v) and L/(c-v). It is to be noted that L will now be contracted
> > length but it is not accounted as it simply changes value of R in your
> > equations.
> L does not change. The whole theory behind 'contraction' and gamma transforms followed from and depended crucially on the RoS.
> ...but it wouldn't matter if it did.
> >Thus it can be shown that unless we take average of the
> > time durations, we arrive at two different time durations. In short,
> > what we get is t1=R1 t’ and t2=R2 t’; and so comparison of time
> > duration is not possible.
> Yes. That reveals Einstein's error.
> > Your deductions in your previous post were excellent. Don’t change
> > those simply because somebody tries to find a fault in vain.
> Those who are criticizing me are the usual religious fanatics who can never say anything scientific.
I read your post again and I think if Tom reads it he will be further
confused. So for the benefit of others let me explain your thoughts.
There is a clock c in the stationary frame which keeps time in that
frame. There is another clock c1 in the frame of moving rod which
keeps time in the moving frame. However according to SR c1 ticks
differently, in the ratio of R, as measured by stationary observer.
The clocks are not used to measure actual time required for the pulses
of light to travel from one end of the rod to the other. They simply
keep the record of time flow in their respective frames. Without
actually measuring time required for the pulses to move across the
rod, it can be calculated as L/(c+v) and L/(c-v). The clock c must
show this time and nobody can have any objection to this proposition.
According to c1 these two readings have to be RL/(c+v) and RL/(c-v).
In other words, events which are not simultaneous in the stationary
frame cannot be simultaneous in the frame of rod. Still in other
words, when, according to SR, it is only the rate of ticking of clocks
change due to change in inertial frames, this ratio of time durations
can be used to prove that if events are simultaneous in one frame they
must be so in other frame.
On Oct 8, 8:12 am, Big Dog <big.fing....@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/7/2012 2:48 AM, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > Does it look like Koobee Wublee is your teacher? Go study Larmor’s
> > and the Voigt transform by yourself. If you insist to be spoon-fed by
> > Koobee Wublee, can you afford the tuition? If not, get the fvck
> > lost. <shrug>
> In other words, you feel free to make grand, sweeping statements, but
> are not inclined to back them up, nor to point to any references where
> the backup can be found.
Koobee Wublee meant every word He said here. <shrug>
What has to be backed up? You can find the Voigt and Larmor’s
original transform on the web. <shrug>
> Koobee, you're a fucking liar, and a shameless one.
What lies? The Voigt transform? The little bitch is out of its
fvcking mind and still feels sore as per the little professor. :-)
