Relativity Well and Truly Cornered.
HenriWilson
retiterate:
Take two very long, identical and perfectly rigid rods. Lay them side by side
and mark adjacent points at each end.
|__________________________|
|__________________________|
On the upper rod, fasten two clocks exactly at these end points. Both clocks
are equipped with minute photo-detectors.
c__________________________c
On the lower rod, fix two lasers emitting very fine vertical beams.
L__________________________L
The positions of clocks and lasers are finely adjusted whilst the two rods are
at rest and adjacent so that each laser beam is exactly aligned with a fine
slits on the corresponding photocell.
The experiment involves moving the lower rod rapidly wrt the upper one
while both are parallel and in very close proximity:
c__________________________c
L__________________________L-------------v->
This is done.
When the L and R laser beams flash onto the respective clocks, each clock takes
a reading. After the first run, the two clocks are adjusted so that their
readings are identical. The procedure is repeated to verify the
synchronization. (note: the time taken for the laser beam to travel to the
photocell can be ignored)
The next step is to vary the speed of the moving rod.
If, as anticipated, the rod's PHYSICAL length does NOT change with movement,
the RH laser should always be aligned exactly with the RH clock when the LH one
flashes into the LH cell, IRRESPECTIVE OF ROD SPEED.
Since both clocks are empirically adjusted so that they always read the
same when flashes are received, then it can only be assumed that the clocks are
in some kind of 'absolute synch'. By repeating this procedure ad infinitum,
using ONE of the synched clocks and any other, a grid of 'absolutely synched'
clocks can be set up throughout the universe so as to define a universal
'instant in time'.
Now, if, as some might argue, the physical length of a rod DOES
change with velocity, then a simple way to eliminate such an effect is to
acccelerate both rods in opposite directions by the same amount. This does not
affect the synching procedure or principle.
However, if they are right and the rod does contract physically with speed, we
now have a way to measure the Lorentz contraction. We simply synch the clocks
initially when the lower rod moves at v, then we increase its velocity to say
10v and look for any differences in clock readings.
We now find ourselves in an interesting situation. Without even performing the
experiment we know that its results can only reveal that either the clock
readings are always identical irrespective of lower rod speed OR they are not.
If the former is true, then the clocks must be in absolute synch and the rod
lengths do NOT physically alter with changes in speed. If on the other hand,
the readings DO turn out to be dependent on rod velocity, then the length of
the moving rod must have PHYSICAL changed.
That requires an absolute spatial reference, otherwise the magnitude and
direction of such a change would depend on an infinite number of relatively
moving observers.
So either way, relativity is refuted. Either SPACE or TIME must be absolute.
PS: just for the record, since rod lengths can be measured very accurately
using two-way light speed measurements, I suspect that an experiment of this
nature can actually be performed using interferometry in the lab or maybe pairs
of space capsules.
Henri Wilson.
See my animations and physics book at:
http://www.users.bigpond.com/HeWn/index.htm
kenseto
"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message
news:v73vlvo34of9h7164...@4ax.com...
How do you do that? By agreeing that they set their respective clocks to a
specific time when the light pulse hits the detector?
>The procedure is repeated to verify the
> synchronization. (note: the time taken for the laser beam to travel to the
> photocell can be ignored)
>
> The next step is to vary the speed of the moving rod.
>
> If, as anticipated, the rod's PHYSICAL length does NOT change with
movement,
> the RH laser should always be aligned exactly with the RH clock when the
LH one
> flashes into the LH cell, IRRESPECTIVE OF ROD SPEED.
>
> Since both clocks are empirically adjusted so that they always read the
> same when flashes are received, then it can only be assumed that the
clocks are
> in some kind of 'absolute synch'. By repeating this procedure ad
infinitum,
> using ONE of the synched clocks and any other, a grid of 'absolutely
synched'
> clocks can be set up throughout the universe so as to define a universal
> 'instant in time'.
How do you set the third clock so that it is synchroneous with the two
already synchronized clocks?
Ken Seto
mijoon
"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message
news:v73vlvo34of9h7164...@4ax.com...
Eric Prebys
seeing two ugly people holding hands.
But on to the point....
"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message
news:v73vlvo34of9h7164...@4ax.com...
Not a very original problem. There are many variations on this
which are standard university homework problems (you know, in
those classes you never took, Ralph).
The key point is that even if the clocks are synchronized, you
can not assume they will remain synchronized in their own frame
when they are accelerated. Solving for the accelerated system
is tricky, but it's easy if you remember that an accelerating
system is equivalent to a uniform gravitational field; i.e the
forward clock is effectively higher in the gravitational well.
>
>
> PS: just for the record, since rod lengths can be measured very accurately
> using two-way light speed measurements, I suspect that an experiment of
this
> nature can actually be performed using interferometry in the lab or maybe
pairs
> of space capsules.
>
Yes, like most people who have never actually done an experiment,
you haven't any idea how hard it would be to do this one.
How fast do you think spaceships go, Ralph?
-Eric
Bill Rowe
He...@the.edge(HenriWilson) wrote:
> In case you are unfamiliar with my recent 'Two-Rod Experiment', I will
> retiterate:
> Take two very long, identical and perfectly rigid rods.
I see you are starting with an assumption that is both inconsistent with
relativity and inconsitent with experimental observation. To wit, there
is no such thing as perfectly rigid rod. And the assumption that
perfectly rigid rods exist is equivalent to assuming relativity is
invalid.
<big snip>
> So either way, relativity is refuted. Either SPACE or TIME must be absolute.
Bzzz... Try again. You cannot arrive at a valid refutation of relativity
when you start with an assumption known to be incompatible with
relativity.
Minor Crank
news:v73vlvo34of9h7164...@4ax.com...
> retiterate:
>
> Take two very long, identical and perfectly rigid rods.
You have gone astray with your very first sentence. There is no such thing
as a "perfectly rigid rod." You cannot prove anything starting with a false
assumption.
(yawn)
Minor Crank
Minor Crank
news:IsS7b.416081$uu5.75160@sccrnsc04...
In case you don't understand what is wrong with perfectly rigid rods, your
opening statement is equivalent to saying, "Take two very long, identical
rods capable of propagating disturbances at infinite velocity."
Surely you agree that the speed of sound is less than infinite? Indeed, most
people would agree that the speed of sound is less than the speed of light.
Except possibly you.
Minor Crank
HenriWilson
That's easy. Just subtract the difference in readings from the that is ahead.
It is assumed that the clocks are running at the same rate. Because they are at
rest, wrt each other, their rates can be directly compared. The synching
process can be repeated any time.
>
>>The procedure is repeated to verify the
>> synchronization. (note: the time taken for the laser beam to travel to the
>> photocell can be ignored)
>>
>> The next step is to vary the speed of the moving rod.
>>
>> If, as anticipated, the rod's PHYSICAL length does NOT change with
>movement,
>> the RH laser should always be aligned exactly with the RH clock when the
>LH one
>> flashes into the LH cell, IRRESPECTIVE OF ROD SPEED.
>>
>> Since both clocks are empirically adjusted so that they always read the
>> same when flashes are received, then it can only be assumed that the
>clocks are
>> in some kind of 'absolute synch'. By repeating this procedure ad
>infinitum,
>> using ONE of the synched clocks and any other, a grid of 'absolutely
>synched'
>> clocks can be set up throughout the universe so as to define a universal
>> 'instant in time'.
>
>How do you set the third clock so that it is synchroneous with the two
>already synchronized clocks?
You just repeat the experiment using the new clock and one of those which has
been already synched.
>
>Ken Seto
HenriWilson
wrote:
>Well, watching you and Seto discuss "science" is sort of like
>seeing two ugly people holding hands.
Is that the most intelligent thing you can say Prebys?
Oh! Really! Please tell me about them.
>
>The key point is that even if the clocks are synchronized, you
>can not assume they will remain synchronized in their own frame
>when they are accelerated. Solving for the accelerated system
>is tricky, but it's easy if you remember that an accelerating
>system is equivalent to a uniform gravitational field; i.e the
>forward clock is effectively higher in the gravitational well.
Whoever mentioned acceleration?
Why the hell would anyone want to accelerate a huge grid of clocks.
I can only assume you are getting desperate, Prebys.
The grid of clocks is set up in remote space. It is then used for light speed
experiments and for checking relativity arguments.
>
>
>>
>>
>> PS: just for the record, since rod lengths can be measured very accurately
>> using two-way light speed measurements, I suspect that an experiment of
>this
>> nature can actually be performed using interferometry in the lab or maybe
>pairs
>> of space capsules.
>>
>
>Yes, like most people who have never actually done an experiment,
>you haven't any idea how hard it would be to do this one.
I don't have to do it prebys any more than Einstein had to arrange for
lightning to strike both ends of a train simultaneously.
Whatever the outcome of this experiment, SR is refuted.
Just the fact tat it can be conceived is enough to make a mockery of the whole
theory.
>
>How fast do you think spaceships go, Ralph?
Henry to you Prebys. I'll pass on your messages to Rabbo if you wish. He's
returns to this area sometimes.
HenriWilson
Oh! Another desperate SRian looking for a way out!
HenriWilson
Crank, plenty of available rods are rigid enough for this experiment.
>
>(yawn)
>
>Minor Crank
HenriWilson
<blue_whal...@comcast.net> wrote:
>"Minor Crank" <blue_whal...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:IsS7b.416081$uu5.75160@sccrnsc04...
>> "HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message
>> news:v73vlvo34of9h7164...@4ax.com...
>> > In case you are unfamiliar with my recent 'Two-Rod Experiment', I will
>> > retiterate:
>> >
>> > Take two very long, identical and perfectly rigid rods.
>>
>> You have gone astray with your very first sentence. There is no such thing
>> as a "perfectly rigid rod." You cannot prove anything starting with a
>false
>> assumption.
>
>In case you don't understand what is wrong with perfectly rigid rods, your
>opening statement is equivalent to saying, "Take two very long, identical
>rods capable of propagating disturbances at infinite velocity."
Crank, there are plenty of ways around the rod rigidity problem.
This is a thought experiment anyway - just like Einstein's train gedanken.
Do you really believe he actually made lightning strike the train at both ends?
I suppose you believe christ walked on water too..
>
>Surely you agree that the speed of sound is less than infinite? Indeed, most
>people would agree that the speed of sound is less than the speed of light.
>
>Except possibly you.
Crank the rod can be moving for years before the experiment is carried out for
all I care.
>
>Minor Crank
Paul R. Mays
"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message
> On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 04:01:45 GMT, "Minor Crank"
> <blue_whal...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message
> >news:v73vlvo34of9h7164...@4ax.com...
> >> In case you are unfamiliar with my recent 'Two-Rod Experiment', I will
> >> retiterate:
> >>
> >> Take two very long, identical and perfectly rigid rods.
> >
> >You have gone astray with your very first sentence. There is no such
thing
> >as a "perfectly rigid rod." You cannot prove anything starting with a
false
> >assumption.
>
> Crank, plenty of available rods are rigid enough for this experiment.
No Henry they are not... if you push on any rod
of any length and flash a light along the length as you
push, you flash the light, the light will always beat
the push because the energy will traverse the rod at
a maximum the reduced rate of an EM wave through
the medium of the rod..
Minor Crank
> On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 04:48:43 GMT, "Minor Crank"
> <blue_whal...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >"Minor Crank" <blue_whal...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> >news:IsS7b.416081$uu5.75160@sccrnsc04...
> >> "HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message
> >> news:v73vlvo34of9h7164...@4ax.com...
> >> > In case you are unfamiliar with my recent 'Two-Rod Experiment', I
will
> >> > retiterate:
> >> >
> >> > Take two very long, identical and perfectly rigid rods.
> >>
> >> You have gone astray with your very first sentence. There is no such
thing
> >> as a "perfectly rigid rod." You cannot prove anything starting with a
> >false
> >> assumption.
> >
> >In case you don't understand what is wrong with perfectly rigid rods,
your
> >opening statement is equivalent to saying, "Take two very long, identical
> >rods capable of propagating disturbances at infinite velocity."
>
> Crank, there are plenty of ways around the rod rigidity problem.
Then fix the problem. Your thought experiment, as it currently stands, is
nonsense.
Minor Crank
kenseto
"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message
How is this synchronizes the two clocks? I thought that when the lasers hit
the stationary clocks they are set to an pre-agreed time so that they are
synchroneous.
Or perhaps you mean that the RH laser hits the LH clock you note the reading
and then the LH laser hits the LH clock and you note the reading on the LH
clock again. The difference of these two LH clock readings is subtracted
from the RH clock? But I don't see how this is synchronizing the two clocks.
Besides how is this difference is communicated to the RH clock?
> It is assumed that the clocks are running at the same rate. Because they
are at
> rest, wrt each other, their rates can be directly compared. The synching
> process can be repeated any time.
I don't see how your procedure synchronize the two clocks unless you do as I
suggested.
But that would knock the other already synch clock out of synch with the two
newly synched clocks.
Ken Seto
Paul Cardinale
that "logic is bull."
Paul Cardinale
Minor Crank
Henri, I already wrote to you about this.
Your opening sentence is equivalent to the following:
"Take two very long, identical rods capable of propagating disturbances at
infinite velocity."
Minor Crank
Paul B. Andersen
"Minor Crank" <blue_whal...@comcast.net> skrev i melding news:R9_7b.416078$Ho3.65637@sccrnsc03...
Indeed it is.
But the rigidity of the rods isn't the problem.
The rods are inertial. No problem.
It is _this_ statement that is the problem:
Henry Wilson wrote:
| If, as anticipated, the rod's PHYSICAL length does NOT change with movement,
| the RH laser should always be aligned exactly with the RH clock when the LH one
| flashes into the LH cell, IRRESPECTIVE OF ROD SPEED.
Note the "when". It can only mean simultaneously in this context.
Thus we have:
"The ends of the two rods will always be aligned simultaneously,
irrespective of the relative speed of the rods."
This is the same as postulating that time and thus simultaneity is absolute.
Henry ALWAYS assume that time is absolute and that the Galilean transform
applies. That is what he calls "assuming nothing", because he is utterly
incapable of imagining any other kind of reality than a Galilean.
That is how Nature MUST be, according to him. It doesn't matter how
much experimental evidence it is to the opposite.
And in a Galilean world with absolute time and simultaneity, his
synchronization method would indeed synchronize clocks "absolutely".
But so would any other synchronization method, of course,
because there wouldn't be any other kind of synchronization.
This is yet another variation of:
"Since time is absolute, SR must be wrong."
Every crank's fatal blow to SR.
Paul
kenseto
"Eric Prebys" <ericp...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:tqCcnVVuAfR...@comcast.com...
> Well, watching you and Seto discuss "science" is sort of like
> seeing two ugly people holding hands.
Not as ugly as your use of the SR concept of mutual time dilation to prove
reciprocity. You are so stupid that you don't realize that mutual time
dilation already means reciprocity. When this was pointed out to you, you
then made the absurd statement that there is no such thing as mutual time
dilation in SR. <shrugg>
Minor Crank
news:bjq23q$q6n$1...@dolly.uninett.no...
>
> "Minor Crank" <blue_whal...@comcast.net> skrev i melding
news:R9_7b.416078$Ho3.65637@sccrnsc03...
> > "HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message
> > news:1jg0mvcii69a8dv2o...@4ax.com...
> > > On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 04:48:43 GMT, "Minor Crank"
> > > <blue_whal...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > Crank, there are plenty of ways around the rod rigidity problem.
> >
> > Then fix the problem. Your thought experiment, as it currently stands,
is
> > nonsense.
>
> Indeed it is.
> But the rigidity of the rods isn't the problem.
> The rods are inertial. No problem.
I stopped reading after the first sentence.
Had I read further, I probably would have seen what you point out. But I
didn't see much point to reading past the first stupid assertion.
Minor Crank
Dirk Van de moortel
> seeing two ugly people holding hands.
>
> But on to the point....
Never mind, the first point was sharp enough.
Good one :-))
Dirk Vdm
tadchem
"kenseto" <ken...@erinet.com> wrote in message
news:vlv67u6...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message
> news:v73vlvo34of9h7164...@4ax.com...
> > In case you are unfamiliar with my recent 'Two-Rod Experiment', I will
> > retiterate:
> >
> > Take two very long, identical and perfectly rigid rods. Lay them side by
> side
The first and (to me most obvious) flaw in Henri's treatise was the
introduction of "identical and perfectly rigid" objects in an experiment in
which the curvature of space becomes significant. I'm surprised you failed
to point that out.
Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA
HenriWilson
No Ken. The RH laser only hits the RH clock, the LH laser hits the LH clock.
(Or you can just move the rod backwards and forwards past the clocks if you
like). The experiment is terminated at that stage and the clock readings (when
the laser beams hit the photocells) compared.
After the first run, the clock readings are made the same by simple adjustment.
>
>> It is assumed that the clocks are running at the same rate. Because they
>are at
>> rest, wrt each other, their rates can be directly compared. The synching
>> process can be repeated any time.
>
>I don't see how your procedure synchronize the two clocks unless you do as I
>suggested.
Remember rod lengths does not PHYSICALLY change with velocity according to SR
(but an aetherian like you will justifiably say it does). Therefore, no matter
what the speed of the 'laser rod', at the instant the LH laser is adacent to
the LH clock, the RH one will always be adjacent to the RH one.
The two events become virtually one. If the clocks are made to read the same
when the cells fire, the clocks are in absolute synch. What is more this can be
checked repeatedly, unike the slow transport method..
No Ken once a clock has ben synched, it is not changed. the new one is
adjusted.
1) synch A and B by adjusting either.
2) synch C with A or B by adjusting C
3) synch D with A, B or C by adjusting D....
etc.
HenriWilson
Say something intelligent please Dirk.
Dirk Van de moortel
"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message
> On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 19:23:25 GMT, "Dirk Van de moortel"
> <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Eric Prebys" <ericp...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> >news:tqCcnVVuAfR...@comcast.com...
> >> Well, watching you and Seto discuss "science" is sort of like
> >> seeing two ugly people holding hands.
> >>
> >> But on to the point....
> >
> >Never mind, the first point was sharp enough.
> >Good one :-))
> >
> >Dirk Vdm
> >
>
> Say something intelligent please Dirk.
I tried many times.
To the both of you, Kenny and Ralphie.
But it always bounced.
Dirk Vdm
HenriWilson
Crank, the rods can be 1 metre long pure crystals if you like. The length only
affects the acuracy of mesurement. The shorter the rod, the higher the speed
necessary and the finer the photocell slits.
I only proposed long rods in order to make the experiment appear more feasible.
It is the principle that matters no whether or not the experiment can actually
be performed.
You concern about compression waves along the rod pales to insignificance
compared with lightning striking Einy's train and blowing the whole bloody
thing off the rails.
>
>Minor Crank
HenriWilson
<blue_whal...@comcast.net> wrote:
You mean you would like it to be.
Just tell me Crank, after the two clocks are initially synched by this method,
do they always read the same on subsequent trials when the 'laser rod' speed is
varied?
HenriWilson
wrote:
>
>"Minor Crank" <blue_whal...@comcast.net> skrev i melding news:R9_7b.416078$Ho3.65637@sccrnsc03...
>> "HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message
>> news:1jg0mvcii69a8dv2o...@4ax.com...
>> > On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 04:48:43 GMT, "Minor Crank"
>> > <blue_whal...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> >
>> > Crank, there are plenty of ways around the rod rigidity problem.
>>
>> Then fix the problem. Your thought experiment, as it currently stands, is
>> nonsense.
>
>Indeed it is.
>But the rigidity of the rods isn't the problem.
>The rods are inertial. No problem.
Thankyou Paul.
As you can see, desperate men will stoop to any level of argument in order to
avoid the truth.
>
>It is _this_ statement that is the problem:
>
>Henry Wilson wrote:
>| If, as anticipated, the rod's PHYSICAL length does NOT change with movement,
>| the RH laser should always be aligned exactly with the RH clock when the LH one
>| flashes into the LH cell, IRRESPECTIVE OF ROD SPEED.
>
>Note the "when". It can only mean simultaneously in this context.
>Thus we have:
>"The ends of the two rods will always be aligned simultaneously,
> irrespective of the relative speed of the rods."
Correct.
That defines absolute simultaneity.
The two events are virtually one, since they are separated by a constant
length.
The instant when the LH laser and LH clock coincide is exactly the same
'absolute instant' as when the RH ones do the same.
It make no diference how either rod moves. The whole apparatus can be taken to
Aplha centuri and the two clocks will still read the same when the lasers move
past them.
>
>This is the same as postulating that time and thus simultaneity is absolute.
>Henry ALWAYS assume that time is absolute and that the Galilean transform
>applies. That is what he calls "assuming nothing", because he is utterly
>incapable of imagining any other kind of reality than a Galilean.
>That is how Nature MUST be, according to him. It doesn't matter how
>much experimental evidence it is to the opposite.
Paul, just answer the question. Will the clocks always read the same
irrespective of the (laser) rod speed?
>
>And in a Galilean world with absolute time and simultaneity, his
>synchronization method would indeed synchronize clocks "absolutely".
>But so would any other synchronization method, of course,
>because there wouldn't be any other kind of synchronization.
>
>This is yet another variation of:
>"Since time is absolute, SR must be wrong."
The point is Paul, a line or an array of clocks synched in this way effectively
defines an instantaneous region of space.
No longer do we have to define the universe in terms of the way we see it using
light - which is the way it should be. Believe it or not, events occur even
without any observers.
We can perform experiments free of the limitations imposed by light speed, ie,
in an instantaneous environment.
>
>Every crank's fatal blow to SR.
>
>Paul
>
HenriWilson
<blue_whal...@comcast.net> wrote:
>"Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@hia.no> wrote in message
>news:bjq23q$q6n$1...@dolly.uninett.no...
>>
>> >
>> > Then fix the problem. Your thought experiment, as it currently stands,
>is
>> > nonsense.
>>
>> Indeed it is.
>> But the rigidity of the rods isn't the problem.
>> The rods are inertial. No problem.
>
>I stopped reading after the first sentence.
Ah! The slave is humbled by his master's repremand!!!
Run Crank, Run!
Maybe my experiment raises issues that are too hard for you to understand
Crank. - and you cannot find it in a text book.
I tell you what. How about I run up little animation so you (and Seto) can
actually see it happening?
HenriWilson
wrote:
>
>"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message
>news:5dg0mvo5ksus7qa33...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 04:01:45 GMT, "Minor Crank"
>> <blue_whal...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> >"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message
>> >news:v73vlvo34of9h7164...@4ax.com...
>> >> In case you are unfamiliar with my recent 'Two-Rod Experiment', I will
>> >> retiterate:
>> >>
>> >> Take two very long, identical and perfectly rigid rods.
>> >
>> >You have gone astray with your very first sentence. There is no such
>thing
>> >as a "perfectly rigid rod." You cannot prove anything starting with a
>false
>> >assumption.
>>
>> Crank, plenty of available rods are rigid enough for this experiment.
>
>No Henry they are not... if you push on any rod
>of any length and flash a light along the length as you
>push, you flash the light, the light will always beat
>the push because the energy will traverse the rod at
>a maximum the reduced rate of an EM wave through
>the medium of the rod..
As Paul pointed out, all this is irrelevant because the rods are inertial in
the experiment.
Stop trying to divert attention from the main issue.
Eric Prebys
"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message
> On Wed, 10 Sep 2003 19:50:42 -0500, "Eric Prebys" <ericp...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Well, watching you and Seto discuss "science" is sort of like
> >seeing two ugly people holding hands.
>
> Is that the most intelligent thing you can say Prebys?
>
Just the most appropriate. Actually it's kind of cute when
you two "play scientist".
You synchronized the clocks when the rods were stationary,
and then started one moving. Since you've obviously never studied
physics, I'll explain it to you slowly:
not moving -> moving = acceleration.
If that's not clear, I'll try to make some drawings.
> Why the hell would anyone want to accelerate a huge grid of clocks.
> I can only assume you are getting desperate, Prebys.
> The grid of clocks is set up in remote space. It is then used for light
speed
> experiments and for checking relativity arguments.
>
> >
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> PS: just for the record, since rod lengths can be measured very
accurately
> >> using two-way light speed measurements, I suspect that an experiment of
> >this
> >> nature can actually be performed using interferometry in the lab or
maybe
> >pairs
> >> of space capsules.
> >>
> >
> >Yes, like most people who have never actually done an experiment,
> >you haven't any idea how hard it would be to do this one.
>
> I don't have to do it prebys any more than Einstein had to arrange for
> lightning to strike both ends of a train simultaneously.
> Whatever the outcome of this experiment, SR is refuted.
>
Then why are you talking about doing an experiment?
> Just the fact tat it can be conceived is enough to make a mockery of the
whole
> theory.
>
Nope. I just proves you're an idiot. But that was established
a long time ago.
> >
> >How fast do you think spaceships go, Ralph?
>
> Henry to you Prebys. I'll pass on your messages to Rabbo if you wish. He's
> returns to this area sometimes.
>
Eh, yeah, whatever.
-Eric
HenriWilson
wrote:
Who cares.
For the purpose of carrying out certain relativity like experiments, just
consider that the array of clocks is inertial and in flat gravity.
>
>
>Tom Davidson
>Richmond, VA
HenriWilson
wrote:
The rod is moving inertially during the experiment. That should be clear to an
'expert' like you Prebys.
>
>> Why the hell would anyone want to accelerate a huge grid of clocks.
>> I can only assume you are getting desperate, Prebys.
>> The grid of clocks is set up in remote space. It is then used for light
>speed
>> experiments and for checking relativity arguments.
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> PS: just for the record, since rod lengths can be measured very
>accurately
>> >> using two-way light speed measurements, I suspect that an experiment of
>> >this
>> >> nature can actually be performed using interferometry in the lab or
>maybe
>> >pairs
>> >> of space capsules.
>> >>
>> >
>> >Yes, like most people who have never actually done an experiment,
>> >you haven't any idea how hard it would be to do this one.
>>
>> I don't have to do it prebys any more than Einstein had to arrange for
>> lightning to strike both ends of a train simultaneously.
>> Whatever the outcome of this experiment, SR is refuted.
>>
>
>Then why are you talking about doing an experiment?
If you care to read what I said Prebys, you will se that I emphasized that the
experiment does not even have to be performed to make a mockery of relativity.
Just the fact that the experiment exists is enough.
>
>> Just the fact tat it can be conceived is enough to make a mockery of the
>whole
>> theory.
>>
>
>Nope. I just proves you're an idiot. But that was established
>a long time ago.
So, after the clocks have been H-synched Prebys, do they subsequently read the
same or different times as the rod goes past, when the rod speed is varied ?
>
>> >
>> >How fast do you think spaceships go, Ralph?
Who the fuck are you talking to Prebys?
>>
>> Henry to you Prebys. I'll pass on your messages to Rabbo if you wish. He's
>> returns to this area sometimes.
>>
>Eh, yeah, whatever.
>
I doubt if you can even understand the experiment I have proposed - or its
significance.
Minor Crank
> Maybe my experiment raises issues that are too hard for you to understand
> Crank. - and you cannot find it in a text book.
>
> I tell you what. How about I run up little animation so you (and Seto) can
> actually see it happening?
Who cares? You are a total waste of everybody's time.
Minor Crank
Minor Crank
> As Paul pointed out, all this is irrelevant because the rods are inertial
in
> the experiment.
> Stop trying to divert attention from the main issue.
You remind me of students who, in trying to answer an essay question, write
down everything that comes to mind however nonsensical and irrelevant to the
problem.
Buried deep within paragraphs of nonsense would be one or two sentences that
don't happen to be completely false. When I mark the essay with a big fat
zero for overall irrelevancy and demonstrated lack of comprehension, they
complain.
You, Henri, complain because I gave you an "F" for an absurdity in the first
sentence, when I should have given you an "F" for falsehoods further down in
your essay.
Why are you complaining? Do you want an F minus?
Minor Crank
Double-A
> using two-way light speed measurements, I suspect that an experiment of this
> nature can actually be performed using interferometry in the lab or maybe pairs
> of space capsules.
>
>
> See my animations and physics book at:
> http://www.users.bigpond.com/HeWn/index.htm
An observer on C would perceive L as shortened, so the left clock on C
would get set before the right clock. But an observer on L would
perceive C as shortened, and so would observe the right clock on C
being set before the left clock. So where is the absolute time?
Double-A
Bill Rowe
He...@the.edge(HenriWilson) wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 03:21:40 GMT, Bill Rowe <bjr...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >In article <v73vlvo34of9h7164...@4ax.com>,
> > He...@the.edge(HenriWilson) wrote:
> >> In case you are unfamiliar with my recent 'Two-Rod Experiment', I will
> >> retiterate:
> >> Take two very long, identical and perfectly rigid rods.
> >I see you are starting with an assumption that is both inconsistent with
> >relativity and inconsitent with experimental observation. To wit, there
> >is no such thing as perfectly rigid rod. And the assumption that
> >perfectly rigid rods exist is equivalent to assuming relativity is
> >invalid.
> >
> ><big snip>
> >> So either way, relativity is refuted. Either SPACE or TIME must be
> >> absolute.
> >Bzzz... Try again. You cannot arrive at a valid refutation of relativity
> >when you start with an assumption known to be incompatible with
> >relativity.
> Oh! Another desperate SRian looking for a way out!
No, simply someone who understands elementary logic which you apparently
don't understand. That is an arguement that starts with a false premise
is fatally flawed.
HenriWilson
There are NO observers.
What an observer would 'perceive' is of no consequence here.
The rod does not physically shorten with speed. Ask Paul Anderson.
The two Lasers will always be exactly opposite the clocks at the same absolute
instant.
- unless of course you are an aetherist like Seto, in which case you are
justified in believing that it might shorten - or it might lengthen depending
on its absolute state.
HenriWilson
Crank, you haven't commented intelligently on the experiment. All you have done
is rant and rave about how stupid I am.
Why don't you answer the question. Will the clocks always read the same time
when hit by the signals or wont they?
Don't you know the answer?
HenriWilson
In the experiment, the rods are inertial as Paul so kindly pointed out.
Harry
"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message
> In case you are unfamiliar with my recent 'Two-Rod Experiment', I will
> retiterate:
SNIP
> We now find ourselves in an interesting situation. Without even performing
the
> experiment we know that its results can only reveal that either the clock
> readings are always identical irrespective of lower rod speed OR they are
not.
> If the former is true, then the clocks must be in absolute synch and the
rod
> lengths do NOT physically alter with changes in speed. If on the other
hand,
> the readings DO turn out to be dependent on rod velocity, then the length
of
> the moving rod must have PHYSICAL changed.
> That requires an absolute spatial reference, otherwise the magnitude and
> direction of such a change would depend on an infinite number of
relatively
> moving observers.
>
> So either way, relativity is refuted. Either SPACE or TIME must be
absolute.
>
>
> PS: just for the record, since rod lengths can be measured very accurately
> using two-way light speed measurements, I suspect that an experiment of
this
> nature can actually be performed using interferometry in the lab or maybe
pairs
> of space capsules.
I think you may be on the right track...but you are following a number of
wrong tracks as well!
Perhaps SRT (not relativity!) can be refuted by a strict application of
rules of logic.
I wonder, did anyone try?
For example, is a theory compatible with rules of scientific logic if from
it follows that {a=b} is TRUE (corresponding to reality) AND {a=2b} is TRUE
as well?
Harald
Dirk Van de moortel
"Harry" <harald.v...@epfl.ch> wrote in message news:3f6188f6$1...@epflnews.epfl.ch...
>
[snip]
> I think you may be on the right track...but you are following
> a number of wrong tracks as well!
>
> Perhaps SRT (not relativity!) can be refuted by a strict
> application of rules of logic.
> I wonder, did anyone try?
Wilson tried:
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/LogicBull.html
but somewhere down the line he failed.
> For example, is a theory compatible with rules of scientific
> logic if from it follows that {a=b} is TRUE (corresponding
> to reality) AND {a=2b} is TRUE as well?
Yes, if a = b = 0.
Are you serious?
Dirk Vdm
Minor Crank
> Why don't you answer the question.
Because your questions have -already- been adequately answered by others on
this thread.
Because I cannot figure a way to restate what has -already- been pointed out
to you in a manner capable of penetrating your dense skull, which is must be
constructed from scrith (Larry Niven's impossibly strong construction
material, used by Protectors in building the Ringworld.)
Because you will ignore what I have to say the same that you ignore
everybody else.
Because it is 5:20 AM and I have real work to do.
Minor Crank
Harry
Yes, I am serious. I have the feeling that SRT is self-contradictory, and a
number of scientists (such as Essen) have claimed so in the past.
Despite that, the only widely known serious attempt to do so in a formal way
was I think that of Dingle and he messed up.
Harald
Dirk Van de moortel
"Harry" <harald.v...@epfl.ch> wrote in message news:3f61a1e4$1...@epflnews.epfl.ch...
So it is your turn then.
Make sure you don't try to prove that linear algebra
and analytic geometry are self-contradictory :-)
Dirk Vdm
Paul B. Andersen
"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> skrev i melding news:hqo1mvcnof762svot...@4ax.com...
> >It is _this_ statement that is the problem:
> >
> >Henry Wilson wrote:
> >| If, as anticipated, the rod's PHYSICAL length does NOT change with movement,
> >| the RH laser should always be aligned exactly with the RH clock when the LH one
> >| flashes into the LH cell, IRRESPECTIVE OF ROD SPEED.
> >
> >Note the "when". It can only mean simultaneously in this context.
> >Thus we have:
> >"The ends of the two rods will always be aligned simultaneously,
> > irrespective of the relative speed of the rods."
>
> Correct.
> That defines absolute simultaneity.
> The two events are virtually one, since they are separated by a constant
> length.
> The instant when the LH laser and LH clock coincide is exactly the same
> 'absolute instant' as when the RH ones do the same.
>
> It make no diference how either rod moves. The whole apparatus can be taken to
> Aplha centuri and the two clocks will still read the same when the lasers move
> past them.
Note the following:
> >This is the same as postulating that time and thus simultaneity is absolute.
> >Henry ALWAYS assume that time is absolute and that the Galilean transform
> >applies. That is what he calls "assuming nothing", because he is utterly
> >incapable of imagining any other kind of reality than a Galilean.
> >That is how Nature MUST be, according to him. It doesn't matter how
> >much experimental evidence it is to the opposite.
>
> Paul, just answer the question. Will the clocks always read the same
> irrespective of the (laser) rod speed?
>
> >
> >And in a Galilean world with absolute time and simultaneity, his
> >synchronization method would indeed synchronize clocks "absolutely".
> >But so would any other synchronization method, of course,
> >because there wouldn't be any other kind of synchronization.
> >
> >This is yet another variation of:
> >"Since time is absolute, SR must be wrong."
>
> The point is Paul, a line or an array of clocks synched in this way effectively
> defines an instantaneous region of space.
> No longer do we have to define the universe in terms of the way we see it using
> light - which is the way it should be. Believe it or not, events occur even
> without any observers.
>
> We can perform experiments free of the limitations imposed by light speed, ie,
> in an instantaneous environment.
Thanks for confirming my words.
Paul
kenseto
"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message
> On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 09:16:56 -0400, "kenseto" <ken...@erinet.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message
> >news:u6f0mvsh7prviiqab...@4ax.com...
> >> On Wed, 10 Sep 2003 17:36:09 -0400, "kenseto" <ken...@erinet.com>
wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message
>
> >
> >> It is assumed that the clocks are running at the same rate. Because
they
> >are at
> >> rest, wrt each other, their rates can be directly compared. The
synching
> >> process can be repeated any time.
> >
> >I don't see how your procedure synchronize the two clocks unless you do
as I
> >suggested.
>
> Remember rod lengths does not PHYSICALLY change with velocity according to
SR
> (but an aetherian like you will justifiably say it does). Therefore, no
matter
> what the speed of the 'laser rod', at the instant the LH laser is adacent
to
> the LH clock, the RH one will always be adjacent to the RH one.
>
> The two events become virtually one. If the clocks are made to read the
same
> when the cells fire, the clocks are in absolute synch. What is more this
can be
> checked repeatedly, unike the slow transport method..
Here's the problem: You said: "If the clocks are made to read the same when
the cells fire, the clocks are in absolute synch". Now how do you make the
clocks to read the same without pre-agreeing the time (the clock reading)
each clock is to be set the when the lasers hit the clocks? You can
pre-agree a time to set the first and second clocks but how do you make the
third clock to read the same as the second clock when the lasers hit them
simultaneously?
>
> >has
> >> been already synched.
> >
> >But that would knock the other already synch clock out of synch with the
two
> >newly synched clocks.
>
> No Ken once a clock has ben synched, it is not changed. the new one is
> adjusted.
OK but how do you adjust the new clock? What reading are you going to set
the new clock when the laser hits it? Remember that the reading for the
already synched clock will need time to convey this information to the new
clock.
>
> 1) synch A and B by adjusting either.
OK...This can be done by pre-agreeing the reading to be set on each clock
when the laser hits each clock.
> 2) synch C with A or B by adjusting C
But what reading you are going to adjust C to? Remember that B's reading
need time to communicate to C.
> 3) synch D with A, B or C by adjusting D....
> etc.
But what reading you are going to adjust D to? Remember that A, B or C's
reading needs time to communicate to D.
Ken Seto
Harry
Indeed, this is tricky stuff. Thanks for the warning. ;-))
First of all I should define very accurately what I try to disprove.
What I object to is the common interpretation of SRT that distinguishes it
operationally from LET in a very subtle way: that light *"really"* (that is,
in observer-independent reality) propagates isotropically in every inertial
reference frame.
I may have to deal with Aristotle, and even risk to encounter Schrodinger's
cat! :-(
Harald
kenseto
"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message
> On 11 Sep 2003 20:42:47 -0700, doub...@hush.com (Double-A) wrote:
>
> >He...@the.edge(HenriWilson) wrote in message
news:<v73vlvo34of9h7164...@4ax.com>...
> >
> >
> >An observer on C would perceive L as shortened, so the left clock on C
> >would get set before the right clock. But an observer on L would
> >perceive C as shortened, and so would observe the right clock on C
> >being set before the left clock. So where is the absolute time?
> >
> >Double-A
>
> There are NO observers.
>
> What an observer would 'perceive' is of no consequence here.
>
> The rod does not physically shorten with speed. Ask Paul Anderson.
> The two Lasers will always be exactly opposite the clocks at the same
absolute
> instant.
> - unless of course you are an aetherist like Seto, in which case you are
> justified in believing that it might shorten - or it might lengthen
depending
> on its absolute state.
You are making a false statement about my theory. My theory says: the
physical length of a rod remains the same in all frames of reference. The
light-path length of a rod changes according to the state of absolute motion
of the rod. The higher is the state of absolute motion of the rod the longer
is the light path length.
Ken Seto
Dirk Van de moortel
"Harry" <harald.v...@epfl.ch> wrote in message news:3f61c533$1...@epflnews.epfl.ch...
Many have tried. All have failed.
> First of all I should define very accurately what I try to disprove.
If taken literally, that's going to be a tough one.
For starters, you might start defining what "defining"
and "disproving" is.
>
> What I object to is the common interpretation of SRT that distinguishes it
> operationally from LET in a very subtle way: that light *"really"* (that is,
> in observer-independent reality) propagates isotropically in every inertial
> reference frame.
Well, in that case, what *"really"* happens (that is,
in observer-independent reality, like you say), we
will never know - by definition.
> I may have to deal with Aristotle, and even risk to
> encounter Schrodinger's cat! :-(
Never mind, they are both dead by now.
Enjoy though :-)
Dirk Vdm
HenriWilson
Please direct me to an answer to my question.
>
>Because it is 5:20 AM and I have real work to do.
>
>Minor Crank
>
>
HenriWilson
You first synch A with C, using my method.
Then you replace C with B and adjust IT to be in synch with A.
Note: 'absolute time'doesn't have an absolute zero or rate.
>>
>
>> >has
>> >> been already synched.
>> >
>> >But that would knock the other already synch clock out of synch with the
>two
>> >newly synched clocks.
>>
>> No Ken once a clock has ben synched, it is not changed. the new one is
>> adjusted.
>
>OK but how do you adjust the new clock? What reading are you going to set
>the new clock when the laser hits it? Remember that the reading for the
>already synched clock will need time to convey this information to the new
>clock.
No, you synch it with the moving rod method again.
>>
>> 1) synch A and B by adjusting either.
>
>OK...This can be done by pre-agreeing the reading to be set on each clock
>when the laser hits each clock.
Yes. Let's make it zero oin both.
>
>> 2) synch C with A or B by adjusting C
>
>But what reading you are going to adjust C to? Remember that B's reading
>need time to communicate to C.
No No. C replaces B on the 'clock rod'.
The laser rod is then moved as before.
B will stop when its cell fires. Say its reading is 4E16
Say C's reading when its cell fired was 4.5E16.
So C's reading must have 0.5E16 subtracted from it. This is just a simple
sofware correction.
>
>> 3) synch D with A, B or C by adjusting D....
>> etc.
>
>But what reading you are going to adjust D to? Remember that A, B or C's
>reading needs time to communicate to D.
No we use the rod again.
Alternatively the clocks could be brought together in close enough proximity
for the travel time to be ignored.
While the clocks are ticking merrily away, it is a simple operation to
(software) adjust the clock readings so that they are identical.
Note: it is assumed that the RATES of the clocks is identical.
Since they are at rest WRT each other, any rate drift between the two can be
monitored and corrected out.
>
>Ken Seto
HenriWilson
wrote:
Thanks for confirming my suspicion that Ken Seto is much more capable of making
intelligent comments than you apparently are.
HenriWilson
You'll have to explain that in simple terms Harry.
HenriWilson
OK Sorry. My mistake.
I should not have confused yours with standard aether theories.
My point was that rods can only be 'physically' affected by movement if space
has an absolute reference.
>
>Ken Seto
ghytrfvbnmju7654
>
> length does NOT change with movement,
> the RH laser should always be aligned
> exactly with the RH clock when the LH one
> flashes into the LH cell, IRRESPECTIVE
> OF ROD SPEED.
Wrong, wrong, wrong. This is like saying that since the width of a
table doesn't PHYSICALLY change when I tilt it, and the table is
wider than the door, then tilting the table won't help me get it
through the door because the table will remain the same width.
time
^ right angle
| |
| / V __/
| / __-- /
| / / /
| *laser / __/ *laser
| / pulse /_-- / pulse
| / __-- /
| / __-- /
| /-- ^ /
| / | /
| / invariant /
| / "physical" /
| / length /
| / of rod /
| / /
+-------------------------------------> space
> If on the other hand,
> the readings DO turn out to be dependent
> on rod velocity, then the length of
> the moving rod must have PHYSICAL changed.
> That requires an absolute spatial reference,
No, it does not. See the above diagram. What has changed
is the length of the cross section of the rod in the "now"
instant that the lasers fire. This length is dependent on
the orientation of the "now" cross section, or in other
words, on your frame of reference.
Stop looking for internal inconsistencies in special
relativity. There aren't any. The geometry of SR
is just ordinary geometry with an extra dimension
(time) added, and a conversion factor: c=i. If there
was an internal inconsistency in SR, there would be
a corresponding one in ordinary geometry. Somehow
I doubt that ordinary geometry is inconsistent with
itself.
Bill Rowe
He...@the.edge(HenriWilson) wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 04:06:31 GMT, Bill Rowe <bjr...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >In article <mbg0mvkete0e9bu7j...@4ax.com>,
> > He...@the.edge(HenriWilson) wrote:
> >> On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 03:21:40 GMT, Bill Rowe <bjr...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >> >In article <v73vlvo34of9h7164...@4ax.com>,
> >> > He...@the.edge(HenriWilson) wrote:
> >> >> In case you are unfamiliar with my recent 'Two-Rod Experiment', I will
> >> >> retiterate:
> >> >> Take two very long, identical and perfectly rigid rods.
> >> >Bzzz... Try again. You cannot arrive at a valid refutation of relativity
> >> >when you start with an assumption known to be incompatible with
> >> >relativity.
> >> Oh! Another desperate SRian looking for a way out!
> >No, simply someone who understands elementary logic which you apparently
> >don't understand. That is an arguement that starts with a false premise
> >is fatally flawed.
> In the experiment, the rods are inertial as Paul so kindly pointed out.
And your point is? Stating the rods are inertial doesn't alter the
logical problems with your arguement.
Dirk Van de moortel
"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message news:6jo4mvch1i2cp2oor...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 10:52:46 +0200, "Harry" <harald.v...@epfl.ch> wrote:
[snip]
> >
> >I think you may be on the right track...but you are following a number of
> >wrong tracks as well!
> >
> >Perhaps SRT (not relativity!) can be refuted by a strict application of
> >rules of logic.
> >I wonder, did anyone try?
> >For example, is a theory compatible with rules of scientific logic if from
> >it follows that {a=b} is TRUE (corresponding to reality) AND {a=2b}
> >is TRUE as well?
> >
> >Harald
> >
>
> You'll have to explain that in simple terms Harry.
Harry, copy that? In *simple* terms, preferably in
logic-is-bull-terms.
Good luck. You'll need it.
Dirk Vdm
Dirk Van de moortel
"ghytrfvbnmju7654" <ghytrfvb...@mail.com> wrote in message news:cb623e6.03091...@posting.google.com...
You must be new here.
Proving that geometry and even algebra are inconsistent
is the very reason of existence of this newsgroup.
You'd be surprised of the number of sods who already
broke their teeth on it. The funny thing is, they always
come back for getting some more broken, even if they
have been kicked toothless a long time ago.
You're going to love it.
Enjoy :-)
Dirk Vdm
kenseto
"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message
> On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 08:51:19 -0400, "kenseto" <ken...@erinet.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message
> >news:c2n1mvghjltlesgl4...@4ax.com...
> >> On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 09:16:56 -0400, "kenseto" <ken...@erinet.com>
wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message
> >> >news:u6f0mvsh7prviiqab...@4ax.com...
> >> >> On Wed, 10 Sep 2003 17:36:09 -0400, "kenseto" <ken...@erinet.com>
> >wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message
> >
> >
when
> >the cells fire, the clocks are in absolute synch". Now how do you make
the
> >clocks to read the same without pre-agreeing the time (the clock reading)
> >each clock is to be set the when the lasers hit the clocks? You can
> >pre-agree a time to set the first and second clocks but how do you make
the
> >third clock to read the same as the second clock when the lasers hit them
> >simultaneously?
>
> You first synch A with C, using my method.
> Then you replace C with B and adjust IT to be in synch with A.
But how do you adjust B to the same reading as A after you already synched A
with C? Remember that A's reading will take time to reach to B
>
> >>
> >> 1) synch A and B by adjusting either.
> >
> >OK...This can be done by pre-agreeing the reading to be set on each clock
> >when the laser hits each clock.
>
> Yes. Let's make it zero oin both.
>
> >
> >> 2) synch C with A or B by adjusting C
> >
> >But what reading you are going to adjust C to? Remember that B's reading
> >need time to communicate to C.
>
> No No. C replaces B on the 'clock rod'.
I don't understand. How can C replaces B when they are in line as A, B and
C?
>
> The laser rod is then moved as before.
>
> B will stop when its cell fires. Say its reading is 4E16
Now you atre saying that you are trying to synch C with the B clock is that
right? I don't understand why B would stop when its cell fires. Woudn't that
make B to be out of synch with A?
>
> Say C's reading when its cell fired was 4.5E16.
>
> So C's reading must have 0.5E16 subtracted from it. This is just a simple
> sofware correction.
Ah ....so you are saying that:
When the laser hits B and B reads Tb and when the laser hits C and C reads
Tc. The difference between (Tb-Tc) is the adjustment needed on clock C. If
Tc is less than Tb then you advance the C clock reading by an amount of
(Tb-Tc). If Tc is greater than Tb then you reduce the C clock reading by an
amount of (Tb-Tc). Is that right?
This would synchronize the clocks OK. But what is the purpose of this
synchronization procedure when SR already acknowledge that using two truly
synchroneous clock to measure OWLS you will not get c. BTW that's why the
SRians refuse to measure OWLS with two truly synched clocks.
You must use e-synched clocks to get OWLS equal to c.
Ken Seto
HenriWilson
>
>"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message
>news:ven4mvo7i08phut8t...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 08:51:19 -0400, "kenseto" <ken...@erinet.com> wrote:
>>
>> >third clock to read the same as the second clock when the lasers hit them
>> >simultaneously?
>>
>> You first synch A with C, using my method.
>> Then you replace C with B and adjust IT to be in synch with A.
>
>But how do you adjust B to the same reading as A after you already synched A
>with C? Remember that A's reading will take time to reach to B
All synching is done with the 'moving rod' method.
You just replace one clock by the next one to be synched.
>>
>> >>
>> >> 1) synch A and B by adjusting either.
>> >
>> >OK...This can be done by pre-agreeing the reading to be set on each clock
>> >when the laser hits each clock.
>>
>> Yes. Let's make it zero oin both.
>>
>> >
>> >> 2) synch C with A or B by adjusting C
>> >
>> >But what reading you are going to adjust C to? Remember that B's reading
>> >need time to communicate to C.
>>
>> No No. C replaces B on the 'clock rod'.
>
>I don't understand. How can C replaces B when they are in line as A, B and
>C?
There are only two clocks involved at any time.
One pair of clocks (A,B) is initially synched using the 'moving rod method'.
Then B is replaced by a third clock C, which is subsequently adjusted until it
is synched with A. A's reading is not changed.
So A, B and C end up all in synch.
By this method, it is possible to set up any number of absolutely synched
clocks. If they are separated by fixed rods of known length, their synch can be
checked regularly.
>>
>> The laser rod is then moved as before.
>>
>> B will stop when its cell fires. Say its reading is 4E16
>
>Now you atre saying that you are trying to synch C with the B clock is that
>right? I don't understand why B would stop when its cell fires. Woudn't that
>make B to be out of synch with A?
Yes OK, sorry, it takes a reading but doesn't stop.
>>
>> Say C's reading when its cell fired was 4.5E16.
>>
>> So C's reading must have 0.5E16 subtracted from it. This is just a simple
>> sofware correction.
>
>Ah ....so you are saying that:
>When the laser hits B and B reads Tb and when the laser hits C and C reads
>Tc. The difference between (Tb-Tc) is the adjustment needed on clock C. If
>Tc is less than Tb then you advance the C clock reading by an amount of
>(Tb-Tc). If Tc is greater than Tb then you reduce the C clock reading by an
>amount of (Tb-Tc). Is that right?
>This would synchronize the clocks OK. But what is the purpose of this
>synchronization procedure when SR already acknowledge that using two truly
>synchroneous clock to measure OWLS you will not get c.
The advantage of my method is that the synch can be checked continuosly without
moving the clocks.
>BTW that's why the
>SRians refuse to measure OWLS with two truly synched clocks.
>You must use e-synched clocks to get OWLS equal to c.
I know. It is SO funny.
Incidentally I just discovered this interesting fact:
Here is an experiment.
We have two 'absolutely synched' clocks.
...........C__________________________C
O -->v
Let an object move past them from left to right.
The readings on the clocks when the object is adjacent to them can be used to
determine the object's precise velocity.
That cannot be done using E-synched clocks (for instance if the object's
velocity is near c).
This demonstrates how stupid E-synching really is.
HenriWilson
>In article <1n13mv8ueovu4ipr9...@4ax.com>,
> He...@the.edge(HenriWilson) wrote:
>> >> >relativity.
>
>> >> Oh! Another desperate SRian looking for a way out!
>
>> >No, simply someone who understands elementary logic which you apparently
>> >don't understand. That is an arguement that starts with a false premise
>> >is fatally flawed.
>
>> In the experiment, the rods are inertial as Paul so kindly pointed out.
>
>And your point is? Stating the rods are inertial doesn't alter the
>logical problems with your arguement.
and what logical problems might they be?
Do you not understand the exact procedure that defines my 'moving rod' clock
synching method?
HenriWilson
wrote:
What a load of crap.
Rod lengths are NOT physically affected by movement. Ask Paul Anderson.
Bill Rowe
He...@the.edge(HenriWilson) wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 04:15:59 GMT, Bill Rowe <bjr...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >And your point is? Stating the rods are inertial doesn't alter the
> >logical problems with your arguement.
> and what logical problems might they be?
You started with a false premise, one known to be incompatible wit SR.
> Do you not understand the exact procedure that defines my 'moving rod' clock
> synching method?
Given you started with a false premise, I saw no point to the rest of
your post and didn't bother with it.
ghytrfvbnmju7654
> What a load of crap.
I must have backed you into a corner; you offer no real counterargument.
> Rod lengths are NOT physically affected by movement. Ask Paul Anderson.
Your entire argument rests on your equivocation of the word "length."
The width of a table is NOT physically affected by rotation. Ask Paul
Anderson. Therefore, tilting a table will never help you get it
through a door.
Paul B. Andersen
"ghytrfvbnmju7654" <ghytrfvb...@mail.com> skrev i melding news:cb623e6.03091...@posting.google.com...
You see, Henry Wilson is very keen when it comes
to confirming what I have said about him.
Some time ago, I wrote to Henry Wilson:
| - According to SR, the moving rod does NOT retain its length
| of 100 m when measured in the stationary frame.
|
| - According to SR, the intrinsic, physical, proper length
| of the rod does NOT change by being measured by an arbitrary
| moving observer.
|
| There is no dispute among people knowing SR about these
| two statements.
|
| Did you think it were, Henry? Why?
|
| I know why, of course.
| It is because your very limited mind is unable to fathom
| that my two statements above are not contradictory.
| So when you see someone stating one of them, you insist
| that he has stated the opposite of the other.
|
| And will keep insisting.
And that's exactly what he is doing - over and over,
thus confirming my words - over and over.
Paul
Paul B. Andersen
"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> skrev i melding news:leo4mv41mg36e3i6i...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 14:37:36 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@hia.no>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> skrev i melding news:hqo1mvcnof762svot...@4ax.com...
> >> On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 16:50:16 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@hia.no>
> >> wrote:
> >
> >> >It is _this_ statement that is the problem:
> >> >
> >> >Henry Wilson wrote:
> >> >| If, as anticipated, the rod's PHYSICAL length does NOT change with movement,
> >> >| the RH laser should always be aligned exactly with the RH clock when the LH one
> >> >| flashes into the LH cell, IRRESPECTIVE OF ROD SPEED.
Henry, here are "my words":
> >> >Note the "when". It can only mean simultaneously in this context.
> >> >Thus we have:
> >> >"The ends of the two rods will always be aligned simultaneously,
> >> > irrespective of the relative speed of the rods."
> >> >This is the same as postulating that time and thus simultaneity is absolute.
> >> >Henry ALWAYS assume that time is absolute and that the Galilean transform
> >> >applies. That is what he calls "assuming nothing", because he is utterly
> >> >incapable of imagining any other kind of reality than a Galilean.
> >> >That is how Nature MUST be, according to him. It doesn't matter how
> >> >much experimental evidence it is to the opposite.
> >> >
>>> >This is yet another variation of:
>>> >"Since time is absolute, SR must be wrong."
Read them again, please.
"Henry ALAWAYS assume that time is absolute.."
Did you read them?
Henry, here are your confirmation of my words above:
> >> The point is Paul, a line or an array of clocks synched in this way effectively
> >> defines an instantaneous region of space.
> >> No longer do we have to define the universe in terms of the way we see it using
> >> light - which is the way it should be. Believe it or not, events occur even
> >> without any observers.
> >>
> >> We can perform experiments free of the limitations imposed by light speed, ie,
> >> in an instantaneous environment.
> >
> >Thanks for confirming my words.
>
> Thanks for confirming my suspicion that Ken Seto is much more capable of making
> intelligent comments than you apparently are.
Intelligent or not, my comment was only an observation,
namely of the fact that you confirmed my words.
You are very predictable, Henry.
I predict you will keep confirming my words above.
Over and over.
Paul
HenriWilson
How can a couple of rods with clocks and lasers stuck on the ends constitute a
'false premise'.
You are being plain stubborn. Even Paul Anderson agrees your argument is
nonsense - and he should know.
Henri Wilson.
See my animations at:
http://www.users.bigpond.com/HeWn/index.htm
HenriWilson
wrote:
I will keep confirming that your words indeed make Seto appear immeasureably
more intelligent that you.
>
>Paul
>
Henri Wilson.
See my animations at:
http://www.users.bigpond.com/HeWn/index.htm
HenriWilson
wrote:
>
Paul, you have repeatedly assured me that all Srians KNOW that rods DO NOT
PHYSICALLY change with movement.
ghytrfvbnmju7654 is apparently one who does not know this.
In my experiment, both lasers will always be aligned with the clocks
'absolutely simultaneously' irrespective of rod speed. That is the point of the
whole exercise. It provides a method of establishing 'absolute simultaneity'.
RoS is just a direct result of the fact that light takes time to get from A to
B. So where's the big deal on that?
Henri Wilson.
See my animations at:
http://www.users.bigpond.com/HeWn/index.htm
dlzc@aol.com (formerly)
"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message
news:eko9mvs09g67jierl...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 14 Sep 2003 00:03:09 GMT, Bill Rowe <bjr...@earthlink.net> wrote:
...
> How can a couple of rods with clocks and lasers stuck on the ends
constitute a
> 'false premise'.
What *kind* of rods, Henri?
David A. Smith
Bill Rowe
He...@the.edge(HenriWilson) wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Sep 2003 00:03:09 GMT, Bill Rowe <bjr...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >Given you started with a false premise, I saw no point to the rest of
> >your post and didn't bother with it.
> How can a couple of rods with clocks and lasers stuck on the ends
> constitute a 'false premise'.
You started with the premise "perfectly rigid rods", a false premise.
> You are being plain stubborn. Even Paul Anderson agrees your argument is
> nonsense - and he should know.
From what I've seen of Paul Anderson's posts I very much doubt he would
claim "prefectly rigid rods" to not be a false premise. But if he did
assert perfectly rigid rods were possible and tried to show SR invalid
from this starting point, he would be as incorrect as you are in this
thread.
Minor Crank
news:eko9mvs09g67jierl...@4ax.com...
> How can a couple of rods with clocks and lasers stuck on the ends
constitute a
> 'false premise'.
You wrote "perfectly rigid" rods. Your opening sentence was equivalent to
"Take two very long, identical rods capable of propagating disturbances at
infinite velocity."
It is perfectly understandable to me why Bill would stop reading IMMEDIATELY
after encountering such nonsense. Reliance on "perfectly rigid" rods is part
of the standard arsenal of anti-relativistic crackpots.
DO YOU OR DON'T YOU AGREE THAT "PERFECTLY RIGID" RODS ARE IMPOSSIBLE?
Minor Crank
HenriWilson
It is totally irrelevant whether or not perfect rods are available.
Since they are inertial and in flat gravity during the expt, the fact that they
can be conceived is sufficient to make my point.
SR is therefore dead!
HenriWilson
wrote:
Inertial rods.
Made of the same stuff Einy used in his train expt.
>
>David A. Smith
Minor Crank
> >What *kind* of rods, Henri?
>
> Inertial rods.
>
> Made of the same stuff Einy used in his train expt.
No. You wrote "perfectly rigid" rods.
Minor Crank
Minor Crank
> SR is therefore dead!
Your brain is dead. You have demonstrated that fact conclusively.
What I don't understand is how your body can continue to operate reflexively
to type out such spew.
Minor Crank
Randy Poe
> On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 02:13:41 GMT, "Minor Crank"
> <blue_whal...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message
> >news:eko9mvs09g67jierl...@4ax.com...
> >
> >> How can a couple of rods with clocks and lasers stuck on the ends
> constitute a
> >> 'false premise'.
> >
> >You wrote "perfectly rigid" rods. Your opening sentence was equivalent to
> >"Take two very long, identical rods capable of propagating disturbances at
> >infinite velocity."
> >
> >It is perfectly understandable to me why Bill would stop reading IMMEDIATELY
> >after encountering such nonsense. Reliance on "perfectly rigid" rods is part
> >of the standard arsenal of anti-relativistic crackpots.
> >
> >DO YOU OR DON'T YOU AGREE THAT "PERFECTLY RIGID" RODS ARE IMPOSSIBLE?
> >
> >Minor Crank
> >
> It is totally irrelevant whether or not perfect rods are available.
Not "available", "theoretically possible".
>
> Since they are inertial and in flat gravity during the expt, the fact that they
> can be conceived is sufficient to make my point.
Huh? This is breathtaking illogic, even for you. "Anything I
can conceive of is therefore consistent with the laws of physics.
Physics must conform to my imagination."
> SR is therefore dead!
You start out by assuming the rules of SR are invalid. From
this you derive a violation of SR. Well, duh. If you started
out assuming the rules are broken, you don't have to *do*
any derivation. Once you've got an infinitely-rigid rod,
you've got FTL communication, FTL motion, a whole host
of things. No derivation necessary.
- Randy
ghytrfvbnmju7654
>
> Paul, you have repeatedly assured me that all Srians KNOW that rods DO NOT
> PHYSICALLY change with movement.
>
> ghytrfvbnmju7654 is apparently one who does not know this.
Look at the diagram again. The rod has _not_ changed; it has been
rotated. It is the cross section of the rod in the frame of
reference of the lasers that changes.
HenriWilson
If Einy's trein was of variable length, his experiment would be meaningless.
>
>Minor Crank
>
Henri Wilson.
See my animations at:
http://www.users.bigpond.com/HeWn/index.htm
HenriWilson
You two obviously cannot comprehend the significance of my experiment so I have
animated it for you.
see: http://www.users.bigpond.com/HeWn/movingrod.exe
It takes only a second or two.
Henri Wilson.
See my animations at:
http://www.users.bigpond.com/HeWn/index.htm
HenriWilson
wrote:
see my hands-on animation: http://www.users.bigpond.com/HeWn/movingrod.exe
Henri Wilson.
See my animations at:
http://www.users.bigpond.com/HeWn/index.htm
dlzc@aol.com (formerly)
"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message
news:khmcmvg2a907qg0d2...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 06:43:27 GMT, "Minor Crank"
> <blue_whal...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message
> >news:kclamvgpfplk98t3m...@4ax.com...
> >> >What *kind* of rods, Henri?
> >>
> >> Inertial rods.
> >>
> >> Made of the same stuff Einy used in his train expt.
> >
> >No. You wrote "perfectly rigid" rods.
>
> If Einy's trein was of variable length, his experiment would be
meaningless.
Einy's train was measured to have variable length, in agreement with
experiment. His experiment is in agreement with a lot of then-known
behaviours. Things like "perfectly rigid rods don't exist".
David A. Smith
Minor Crank
> see my hands-on animation: http://www.users.bigpond.com/HeWn/movingrod.exe
Why should anybody want to run a potentially virus-infected exe file? Learn
Java.
Minor Crank
HenriWilson
wrote:
>Dear HenriWilson:
>
>"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message
>news:khmcmvg2a907qg0d2...@4ax.com...
>>
>> If Einy's trein was of variable length, his experiment would be
>meaningless.
>
>Einy's train was measured to have variable length, in agreement with
>experiment. His experiment is in agreement with a lot of then-known
>behaviours. Things like "perfectly rigid rods don't exist".
>
>David A. Smith
>
It matters not if they are not perfect. Any variations will average out and
they are inertial anyway.. Besides, the experiment does not have to be
performed to prove the point. Simultaneity is absolute.
See my animation: movingrod.exe
HenriWilson
I am learning Java but don't like it much.
Nothing wrong with good old basic.
My demos contain NO viruses Crank. They are only a few lines of code that I
wrote myself. How the hell could they?
Oh, sorry must apologize . I accidentally inserted a line saying: "on 17th
September, wipe Crank's C drive clean".
Minor Crank
> My demos contain NO viruses Crank. They are only a few lines of code that
I
> wrote myself. How the hell could they?
That sort of ignorant comment makes me all the more scared of your demos.
Minor Crank
Paul B. Andersen
"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> skrev i melding news:h2p9mv0ons8ej9rda...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 14 Sep 2003 22:15:27 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@hia.no>
> wrote:
> >
> >You see, Henry Wilson is very keen when it comes
> >to confirming what I have said about him.
> >
> >Some time ago, I wrote to Henry Wilson:
> >| - According to SR, the moving rod does NOT retain its length
> >| of 100 m when measured in the stationary frame.
> >|
> >| - According to SR, the intrinsic, physical, proper length
> >| of the rod does NOT change by being measured by an arbitrary
> >| moving observer.
> >|
> >| There is no dispute among people knowing SR about these
> >| two statements.
> >|
> >| Did you think it were, Henry? Why?
> >|
> >| I know why, of course.
> >| It is because your very limited mind is unable to fathom
> >| that my two statements above are not contradictory.
> >| So when you see someone stating one of them, you insist
> >| that he has stated the opposite of the other.
> >|
> >| And will keep insisting.
> >
> >And that's exactly what he is doing - over and over,
> >thus confirming my words - over and over.
> >
> >Paul
> >
>
> Paul, you have repeatedly assured me that all Srians KNOW that rods DO NOT
> PHYSICALLY change with movement.
Indeed.
> ghytrfvbnmju7654 is apparently one who does not know this.
" So when you see someone stating one of them, you insist
that he has stated the opposite of the other."
Thanks for confirming my words - yet again.
Paul
kenseto
"dl...@aol.com (formerly)" <dlzc1.cox@net> wrote in message
news:tqt9b.56843$Qy4.53685@fed1read05...
This is a lie. Einy's train was never measured and it is not know to have
variable lengths. SR predicts that the train's length is contracted. But
this prediction is apparent. The SR prediction can be more realistically
represented as that the length of the rod remains the same in the train as
in the track but the light path length of the rod in the train is longer as
compared to that in the track. The up shot of this is that both the train
observer and the track observer will see the lighnings to be simultaneous.
The track observer will see the lightings to be simultaneous at an earlier
time because the light path length in the track is shorter.
BTW, the length of the train is not in question. Einy stipulated that the
lightning strikes occur simultaneously when the train observer is coincide
with the track observer.
Ken Seto
dlzc@aol.com (formerly)
"kenseto" <ken...@erinet.com> wrote in message
news:vme1gnj...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "dl...@aol.com (formerly)" <dlzc1.cox@net> wrote in message
> news:tqt9b.56843$Qy4.53685@fed1read05...
...
> This is a lie. Einy's train was never measured and it is not know to have
> variable lengths. SR predicts that the train's length is contracted. But
There are variants of "Einy's train" where it is measured. And its length
is a function of the train's velocity. See the barn-pole paradox.
...
> BTW, the length of the train is not in question. Einy stipulated that the
> lightning strikes occur simultaneously when the train observer is
coincide
> with the track observer.
Tell this to HenriWilson
> > If Einy's trein was of variable length, his experiment would be
> meaningless
David A. Smith
Randy Poe
> On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 04:01:34 GMT, "Minor Crank"
> <blue_whal...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message
> >news:jpmcmvc3qo2p695fv...@4ax.com...
> >
> >> see my hands-on animation: http://www.users.bigpond.com/HeWn/movingrod.exe
> >
> >Why should anybody want to run a potentially virus-infected exe file? Learn
> >Java.
>
> I am learning Java but don't like it much.
> Nothing wrong with good old basic.
>
> My demos contain NO viruses Crank. They are only a few lines of code that I
> wrote myself. How the hell could they?
Read up on viruses sometime, and how they spread, before
making pronouncements like this.
Hint: One of the things good virus-protection programs
do is monitor the size of existing executable files.
Why would they do that, Henry? Do you think that the
authors of those programs are reaching out to your hard
disk to modify the length?
- RAndy
Randy Poe
> My demos contain NO viruses Crank. They are only a few lines of code that I
> wrote myself. How the hell could they?
NOBODY is going to trust an executable distributed by
a guy who is so ignorant he says things like "this file
can't contain a virus since I didn't put one there
myself."
ghytrfvbnmju7654
Your animation is incorrect because it shows that the length of the
cross-section of the rod in the instant the lasers fire does not
vary with velocity.
A rod is a four-dimensional object. A rod at an instant of time is a
three-dimensional object, a cross-section of the four-dimensional one.
The length of a cross-section depends on the angle at which it is cut.
To show that your animation is not following the rules of SR,
I write an equation describing a rod:
Using the coordinate system (tau, xi, eta, zeta):
0 < (xi) < l
(eta)^2 + (zeta)^2 < r^2
(l = length of rod, r = radius)
Applying the Lorentz transformations (These equations can be found
in Einstein's original paper, "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies") :
tau = (beta)*(t - vx/c^2),
xi = (beta)*(x - vt),
eta = y,
zeta = z,
where beta = 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2).
This yields:
0 < (x-vt)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) < l
y^2 + z^2 < r^2
Simplifying the first equation gives:
0 < x-vt < l*sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
vt < x < l*sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) + vt
So these equations describe a rod of length l and radius r,
moving at velocity v:
vt < x < l*sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) + vt
y^2 + z^2 < r^2
The instant the lasers fire is given by:
t = 0
Combining these two equations to find the cross section of the
rod in the instant the lasers fire:
t = 0
0 < x < l*sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
y^2 + z^2 < r^2
Therefore, the cross-section has length l*sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) and radius r.
HenriWilson
wrote:
>Dear kenseto:
>
>"kenseto" <ken...@erinet.com> wrote in message
>news:vme1gnj...@corp.supernews.com...
>>
>> "dl...@aol.com (formerly)" <dlzc1.cox@net> wrote in message
>> news:tqt9b.56843$Qy4.53685@fed1read05...
>...
>> This is a lie. Einy's train was never measured and it is not know to have
>> variable lengths. SR predicts that the train's length is contracted. But
>
>There are variants of "Einy's train" where it is measured. And its length
>is a function of the train's velocity. See the barn-pole paradox.
Physical lengths do not change with velocity. Ask Paul.
If they did, a rod would have a different 'physical' length for every
relatively moving observer.
>
>...
>> BTW, the length of the train is not in question. Einy stipulated that the
>> lightning strikes occur simultaneously when the train observer is
>coincide
>> with the track observer.
>
>Tell this to HenriWilson
>> > If Einy's trein was of variable length, his experiment would be
>> meaningless
His expeiment was meaningless anyway. It is simply a result of light taking
time to travel from A to B.
RoS disappears in an instantaneous universe.
>
>David A. Smith
HenriWilson
Just run the program from sirte and shut up. It doesn't stay on your computer.
It can't do any harm anyway. I just ran it and my monitor didn't explode.
You fellows are hidng behind your paranoia in order to avoid the truth.
Pathetic.
HenriWilson
wrote:
Are you a moron? I couldn't make the experiment more obvious but you still
cannot understand it.
The lasers are on all the time. They are merely a convenient way to determine
when the marks on the rods coincide. You don't need lasers at all.
>
>A rod is a four-dimensional object. A rod at an instant of time is a
>three-dimensional object, a cross-section of the four-dimensional one.
>The length of a cross-section depends on the angle at which it is cut.
What the hell has the rod's cross section to do with this experiment. I think
you should learn some physics before you make a complete fool of yourself
again.
You haven't a clue.
HenriWilson
wrote:
Did you really mean to say that?
>
>Thanks for confirming my words - yet again.
>
>Paul
>
When are you going to make a sensible comment about my animation?
It clearly defines absilute simultaneity.
dlzc@aol.com (formerly)
"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message
news:vj2fmv4bfuagvoo4a...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 06:58:15 -0700, "dl...@aol.com \(formerly\)"
<dlzc1.cox@net>
> wrote:
>
> >Dear kenseto:
> >
> >"kenseto" <ken...@erinet.com> wrote in message
> >news:vme1gnj...@corp.supernews.com...
> >>
> >> "dl...@aol.com (formerly)" <dlzc1.cox@net> wrote in message
> >> news:tqt9b.56843$Qy4.53685@fed1read05...
> >...
> >> This is a lie. Einy's train was never measured and it is not know to
have
> >> variable lengths. SR predicts that the train's length is contracted.
But
> >
> >There are variants of "Einy's train" where it is measured. And its
length
> >is a function of the train's velocity. See the barn-pole paradox.
>
> Physical lengths do not change with velocity. Ask Paul.
> If they did, a rod would have a different 'physical' length for every
> relatively moving observer.
They do *appear* to change length, as we all would agree, based on
measurement providing the "appearance". Paul is not currently on this
branch of the thread.
...
> >> BTW, the length of the train is not in question. Einy stipulated that
the
> >> lightning strikes occur simultaneously when the train observer is
> >coincide
> >> with the track observer.
> >
> >Tell this to HenriWilson
> >> > If Einy's trein was of variable length, his experiment would be
> >> meaningless
>
> His expeiment was meaningless anyway. It is simply a result of light
taking
> time to travel from A to B.
> RoS disappears in an instantaneous universe.
Zeno isn't really an answer either, HenriWilson.
David A. Smith
YBM
[...]
> When are you going to make a sensible comment about my animation?
> It clearly defines absilute simultaneity.
It defines nothing. You are still unable to realize that a computer
canvas (bitmap widget) as you use it in your stupid programs, aka
directly, is a implicit physical hypothesis (absolute time). A canvas
*is* an instaneous black board. It is a well know problem for anyone
working in simulation (even non-relativistic), it has been told you
several times...
I gave you this link before, a real SR simulation program :
http://lightspeed.sourceforge.net/
Here's another one :
http://www.maths.qmul.ac.uk/~mh/
(Einstein Exprorer - SR)
If you don't like real programs, you can find animation here :
http://www.fourmilab.ch/cship/cship.html
http://jean-luc.ncsa.uiuc.edu/Exhibits/
(yep, I know it doesn't "have variables" ;-P , but there are real
physical animations)
Minor Crank
> Just run the program from sirte and shut up. It doesn't stay on your
computer.
> It can't do any harm anyway. I just ran it and my monitor didn't explode.
>
> You fellows are hidng behind your paranoia in order to avoid the truth.
> Pathetic.
Henri -
Last year I had to reformat my wife's hard drive because of a virus. She
lost many important files.
Paranoid? You bet.
Now go learn Java.
Minor Crank