Hence it is obviously possible to synchronize clocks at a distance, without
the aid of Einstein's incorrect, antiquated and redundant method of
synchronization or definition of simultaneity.
However, some may still question if two clocks can be synchronized
perfectly, and so I'll now provide a method that this might be achieved to
any desired accuracy. By the use of a modern day discovery called 'radio',
discovered by various inventors and scientists not to be confuse with a car
rental company, we separate the electronic oscillator from its counter. Even
though this separation has occurred, the oscillator and counter combination
is still a clock.
Now we are can place any two identical oscillators remotely from each other,
and the two counters adjacent, which may also be adjacent to one or the
other oscillator, and by pressing the green button marked "reset both
counters", instantly synchronize the counters, rendering those that would
deny it as either fools or trolls, living in the past of 1905.
In the event of one oscillator being of a different phase to the other, use
a faster oscillator until the desired accuracy is achieved. There is a
corresponding footnote to this in Einstein's paper, "We shall not here
discuss the inexactitude which lurks in the concept of simultaneity of two
events at approximately the same place, which can only be removed by an
abstraction".
If it should happen to be that the remote oscillator is moving away from its
counter
and the other is not, then it will be noticed that the counts will differ.
This is the result of something we call doppler shift, named for a scientist
that studied sound and died in 1853, before the upstart Einstein was born.
Although the moron Einstein tried to modify the exact equations the
scientist Doppler provided us with, he did not succeed (or forgot) in making
the shift seen by one oscillator of the other differ from the shift seen by
the later of the former. Hence the count of oscillations, when the
oscillator is returned to the other oscillator, still transmitting it pulses
via radio, will be in exact agreement with the other oscillator's count,
whether by the idiot Einstein's variation of the brilliant Doppler's
equations or by the true equations of Doppler.
Should a "twin" carry an oscillator on an exotic escapade to some distant
star, its count will still be in full agreement with that of a "twin"
remaining behind, throughout the entire journey, and upon reunion the counts
of the oscillations will be exactly the same. If it were otherwise, some
count of oscillations would have vanished into thin aether, another peculiar
substance that has no physical existence.
Thus we conclude that those who write or endorse the Relativity FAQs on the
FREQUENTLY Asked twin paradox Question (and we all know their names) are not
only wrong, forgetting about FREQUENCY, but stupid, moronic imbeciles
incapable of understanding the simplest logic, masquerading themselves as
"theoretical physicists" with a list of useless credentials behind their
names for writing nonsense, when in fact they are nothing more than the same
deceitful fools that pretended the Emperor's invisible new suit was of the
finest weave and cut.
This, then, is the Androclean method of synchronizing clocks, far superior
to the method of the pseudo-scientist Einstein, and designed by an Engineer.
Androcles
[snip]
> This, then, is the Androclean method of synchronizing clocks, far superior
> to the method of the pseudo-scientist Einstein, and designed by an Engineer
... who didn't have a clue about partial differentials
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/PartialDiff2.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/PartialDiff.html
Fresh Troll Turd Alert -- Mind Your Shoes!
Dirk Vdm
I prefer my method of synchronization. Even the Reichenbach one introduces
inertial forces (see last issue of AJP).
See my very recent calculation-"derivation" of the Doppler effect and the
Lorentz invariance of the phase of an EM plane wave and learn a little.
Apart from that, I do not endorse 1 or 2 entries in the FAQ, but because of
subtle points.
In that case, am I in your moron list? I would be very honored of entering
that list, because someone outside of it (supporting your ideas) must be
really a fool.
Produce it. I'm not going to hunt the internet for some obscure reference to
"see my...", the search engine I use needs a little more than that.
Read, absorb, understand the above and learn a little.
> Apart from that, I do not endorse 1 or 2 entries in the FAQ, but because
of
> subtle points.
I do not endorse many of the entries in the FAQs, the answers are written by
witch doctors.
> In that case, am I in your moron list?
Tell me which you do endorse, or place yourself there accordingly. It is
quite common for a moron to not understand he is a moron.
The determination is usually decided (by onlookers) on his ability to debate
in a logical and consistent manner, not on his ability to shout names at his
adversary, or duck any issue his adversary may raise, or to obfuscate the
issue with personal abuse.
The writers of the FAQs are morons because they refuse to present an
argument in logical and consistent manner.
Many morons corresponding here duck the issue I raise, or insinuate I am a
fool without making any remark on the physics content of my post, as you are
doing.
> I would be very honored of entering
> that list, because someone outside of it (supporting your ideas) must be
> really a fool.
That honor will be bestowed by the sensible readers, should they decide to
do so.
Present your equations, not your assertions and abuse, and be judged
accordingly.
Androcles
Notice the lack of response so far, and I predict it will remain so
for a while.
Either it is full of errors (very unlikely) or the crackpots here are
puzzled about it. They will not acknowledge something is completely
right. They will only attack "ad hominem" when someone makes an error.
You are welcome to comment it.
> > Apart from that, I do not endorse 1 or 2 entries in the FAQ, but because
> of
> > subtle points.
> I do not endorse many of the entries in the FAQs, the answers are written by
> witch doctors.
The entries in the FAQ are nice, but they are considered as Bible
facts here.
Quite curious when many of them were writing by people I have never
seen in the peer-reviewed journals.
> > In that case, am I in your moron list?
>
> Tell me which you do endorse, or place yourself there accordingly. It is
> quite common for a moron to not understand he is a moron.
> The determination is usually decided (by onlookers) on his ability to debate
> in a logical and consistent manner, not on his ability to shout names at his
> adversary, or duck any issue his adversary may raise, or to obfuscate the
> issue with personal abuse.
> The writers of the FAQs are morons because they refuse to present an
> argument in logical and consistent manner.
> Many morons corresponding here duck the issue I raise, or insinuate I am a
> fool without making any remark on the physics content of my post, as you are
> doing.
I have pointed you what the mistakes were, and the equations. I have
put myself in the point of view of "etherists". I cannot make more...
> > I would be very honored of entering
> > that list, because someone outside of it (supporting your ideas) must be
> > really a fool.
>
> That honor will be bestowed by the sensible readers, should they decide to
> do so.
> Present your equations, not your assertions and abuse, and be judged
> accordingly.
> Androcles
This "abuse" will not be repeated unless you insist on calling me "a
moron".
There is only one error that I can see. "Then, by Lorentz tranform,".
Otherwise, there is nothing wrong with it.
What you haven't done is derived the Lorentz transform, you've assumed it.
If you wanted me to ''learn a little'', you didn't succeed, I already know
how to assume something and I already know how to spot it when others do the
same.
Assertion carries no weight.
Learn a little. This is called 'proof'. No assertion here.
Reference :
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
Eq. 1) Einstein defines x' = x-vt. (not me, Einstein. see section 3 of
Electrodynamics)
Eq. 2) Einstein takes x' to be infinitessimally small. (not me, Einstein)
The Lorentz transform, as given in Electrodynamics, is
Eq. 3a) xi = (x-vt) / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) and
Eq. 3b) tau = (t-vx/c^2(/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
which you cannot sensibly deny, you've used it.
So far, I have done nothing.
Now.
Any child learning algebra will agree that if
x' = x-vt (eq. 1)
then
x = x' +vt. (eq. 4)
If that child does not agree, that child is not pass his/her examinations.
When x' is infinitessimally small ( eq 2),
x' = 0+h as h tends to zero.
Eq. 4) x = h + vt.
If we substitute x for its value in (3a)
Eq. 5)
xi = (h+ vt-vt) / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
= h / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
= 0 in the limit of h.
So, in time t, the displacement of xi from the origin of the 'stationary'
(inertial, non accelerative, fancy named) frame is nearly nothing = 0,
hence
Eq. 6) v = 0 for all v, t > 0.
Applying our value we have found for v (eq. 6) in (eq. 3b),
Eq. 7) tau = (t - 0.x/c^2)/sqrt(1- 0^2/c^2) = t.
Conclusion:
The Lorentz transforms are valid for all v = 0, otherwise they are
nonsense.
Quad Erat Demonstrandum.
You are invited to fault the logic. You are not invited to call me moron.
Now, your assessment of doppler shift that you so cleverly derived is valid
whenever
v = 0.
I have given the reason the error in the derivation of the Lorentz transform
occurs on my page,
http://www.androc1es.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Fundamental_rev_2.1.htm
which you despise so much. It will remain there. I may add the contents of
this post at some time in the future, to further clarify that the Lorentz
transforms are crap.
> > > I would be very honored of entering
> > > that list, because someone outside of it (supporting your ideas) must
be
> > > really a fool.
You are now certain of that, are you?
> > That honor will be bestowed by the sensible readers, should they decide
to
> > do so.
> > Present your equations, not your assertions and abuse, and be judged
> > accordingly.
> > Androcles
>
> This "abuse" will not be repeated unless you insist on calling me "a
> moron".
I did not called you a moron until after you lost your temper and called me
one.
I will let others sensibly decide whether you are a moron or not, and
reserve my own judgment until I have your response. You still have the
opportunity to redeem yourself, all it takes is honesty.
Or you can compound your error with bluster, or simply vanish without trace.
The choice is yours. I recommend honesty, you may yet be a 'born again'
scientist.
Think it over carefully, I will be relentless in my castigation of
relativists and their faith.
Aetherialists are small fry, MMX deals with them, they can be swatted like
flies.
Androcles
[snip crap]
Invalid assumptions made by the anrocles:
1. SR says that separated clocks not moving wrt each other can't be
synchronized in one frame.
2. A clock moving wrt an observer will be observed to run at the same
rate as one that is stationary wrt the observer.
Paul Cardinale
Androcles
>
>"Cesar Sirvent" <8UMU...@SPAxMterrMAPSa.esSPAxM> wrote in message
>>
Strangely, the problem of 'undoing indoctrination' has never been seriously
studied. When we are young and gullible we need to have absolute confidence in
our mentors whose teaching are virtually impossible to reject in later life.
This flaw in the human memory system renders many humans (eg. suicide bombers,
SRians) as useless as a computer with no 'delete' button .
Trying to convince any 'believer' that he or she is wrong, is an almost
impossible task requiring utmost patience and tact.
Relativists cling to their inane theory in spite of the fact that it is clearly
based on fantasy. The fundamental concept that a vertical light ray somehow
leans over diagonally in a moving frame is plainly wrong yet SRians possess
insufficient spatial ability or geometric skill to understand why. Similarly,
the ballistic theory of light answers all known questions but is stubbornly
rejected.
If occasionally relativity DOES produce an approximately correct result, it is
a pure coincindence that has nothing to do with the principles behind theory
itself.
-------
Incidentally, A, the classical doppler equation for an approaching source
involves c/(c-v). Under source dependency, it becomes (c+v)/c. The two are of
course quite similar at low 'v'.
Henri Wilson.
Since I have no training in psychology or sociology and have nothing more to
offer but a few vague suspicions, I really don't wish to be taken seriously
in the comments I am about to make, but perhaps I should make them anyway,
based on life's experience.
I lived in the USA for 20 years, not as a child indoctrinated in American
culture, but as an adult, initially as a visitor on business and later as a
resident. The first impression I had was of a hard working people, eager to
'make a buck'. The second impression was their friendliness. The third was
of the criminals in their society, eager to be violent. The fourth was their
strong religious belief. The fifth was their strong sense of belonging to
one nation under God. The sixth was their desire to succeed, whether in
sport or war. I do not place these impressions in any particular order, and
they don't apply to any one individual. Liked any generalisation there are
individual exceptions.
The reason I (admittedly subjectively, what else can an impression be)
gained these impressions was that these traits are counter to that of
British society and stand out in contrast to the British way of life. The
majority of British are hard working too, but not so hard as the American.
Taxes will penalize the hard worker, and he resents giving his hard earned
money to the government. Okay, that maybe true in any society, but the
resentment it is proportional to the level of taxation. So he doesn't work
quite as hard, and since Britain has had a socialist history, it is quite
possible, and indeed easy, to survive here living off the state. That is
not so in the USA. A gratuity is considered the norm in the USA, and unusual
in
Britain. This provides for a more friendly service from waitresses and
bartenders, promotes a congenial atmosphere and a general prosperity for
all, and is sharply contrasted with Britain's surly service, given only
because the boss might be watching. Crime in Britain is on the increase and
becoming more violent, but is still way below that in the USA. I suspect
this is because of the number of "African Americans" resenting their slave
history, a resentment built into their own seperate culture. Certainly the
speech of a black person raised in Britain is no different to that of a
white, whereas in the USA the language they use is clearly distinctive and
recognisable, and black children today, going to the same school as a white
child, will develop that difference of speech from the white, whether the
white be of Polish, German, Russian, Jewish, Italian or Irish descent.
British churches do not thrive, many have closed down, and few will utter
"Goddamn" or "Thank God" as the Americans do. There is a resignation
among the average Britons that they have little control of the future, what
will be will be. An apathy, I suppose. When I told one person that I had
recently returned, the response was "What do you want to come back here
for?"
and that is indeed the general attitude. American children pledge their
allegiance
to the flag at school every day, even though at such an age they can have
no true sense of the meaning of what they are saying, and the National
Anthem is played (or sung) at sporting events. Neither is true here in
Britain, although I recall
when it was played in cinemas at the end of the film during the rush to get
out.
Yet... Britain will still rally round the flag when called upon.
This is the birth place of Newton, and, to a lesser extent, Hawking, a
relativist that is no longer certain but would be in trouble now that he
also has the tiger by the tail and cannot recant.
So what I'm trying to say, but cannot pin down, is that there is something
in the cultural difference that produces the indoctrination and lack of
individual thought you speak of, and it comes out of Europe and has spread
to the USA. But of course I must stress once again that this is a
generalisation, and doesn't apply to individuals.
> Relativists cling to their inane theory in spite of the fact that it is
clearly
> based on fantasy. The fundamental concept that a vertical light ray
somehow
> leans over diagonally in a moving frame is plainly wrong yet SRians
possess
> insufficient spatial ability or geometric skill to understand why.
Similarly,
> the ballistic theory of light answers all known questions but is
stubbornly
> rejected.
>
> If occasionally relativity DOES produce an approximately correct result,
it is
> a pure coincindence that has nothing to do with the principles behind
theory
> itself.
>
> -------
> Incidentally, A, the classical doppler equation for an approaching source
> involves c/(c-v). Under source dependency, it becomes (c+v)/c. The two are
of
> course quite similar at low 'v'.
> Henri Wilson.
>
> www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
I think if you look in
http://www.androc1es.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/C_Program_for_Copernicus.htm
you'll find
if(Androcles) Doppler =(c+v)/c;
else if (Einstein) Doppler = sqrt((1.0+v/c)/(1.0-v/c));
else Doppler = c/(c-v); //Lorentz aether;
I wrote that program in 1990, almost 14 years ago, H :-)
Androcles
>
>"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message
>life.
I would agree with what you say here.
Where I live there is still a fair semblance of the good old British way of
life but this is rapidly being replaced by US style free-for-all as governments
of all persuasions sell off everything the people once owned.
Australia's main threat now comes from illegal immigration, which threatens to
reintroduce much of the ignorance and primitiveness that had been vitually
eradicated from what had become an almost completely free-thinking society.
Frankly, I regard myself very lucky to be living right here I am at present.
>> -------
>> Incidentally, A, the classical doppler equation for an approaching source
>> involves c/(c-v). Under source dependency, it becomes (c+v)/c. The two are
>of
>> course quite similar at low 'v'.
>
>> Henri Wilson.
>>
>> www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
>
>I think if you look in
>http://www.androc1es.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/C_Program_for_Copernicus.htm
>you'll find
>
>if(Androcles) Doppler =(c+v)/c;
>else if (Einstein) Doppler = sqrt((1.0+v/c)/(1.0-v/c));
>else Doppler = c/(c-v); //Lorentz aether;
>
>I wrote that program in 1990, almost 14 years ago, H :-)
>
>Androcles
>
OK. I presumed you would have known that. But it's interesting.
>
>
Henri Wilson.
Yep. It's gotten so bad here that when I returned I was asked if I was
seeking asylum as a matter of routine, yet I produced a British Passport,
issued in the USA. Now the place is riddled with knife-toting ex-Yugoslavs.
Heck, I'm no racist, but that's a reality.
>
> >> -------
> >> Incidentally, A, the classical doppler equation for an approaching
source
> >> involves c/(c-v). Under source dependency, it becomes (c+v)/c. The two
are
> >of
> >> course quite similar at low 'v'.
> >
> >> Henri Wilson.
> >>
> >> www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
> >
> >I think if you look in
> >http://www.androc1es.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/C_Program_for_Copernicus.htm
> >you'll find
> >
> >if(Androcles) Doppler =(c+v)/c;
> >else if (Einstein) Doppler = sqrt((1.0+v/c)/(1.0-v/c));
> >else Doppler = c/(c-v); //Lorentz aether;
>
>
> >
> >I wrote that program in 1990, almost 14 years ago, H :-)
> >
> >Androcles
> >
>
> OK. I presumed you would have known that. But it's interesting.
Doppler's equation for sound,
f' = f(m+u)/(m+v), m the speed of sound in the medium (usually air), v the
speed of the source, u the speed of the observer.
At Mach 1 and above, you can hear the plane you are following, but he cannot
hear you.
A.
>
> Henri Wilson.
>
> www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
Since you did just that with such a perfection,
we won't have to.
> You are not invited to call me moron.
Since you so convincingly demonstrated what you are,
we won't have to.
Paul
[snip]
> Logic isn't your strong point, eh?
> You are still invited to fault the logic,
What logic?
This logic?
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Gibberish.html
Dirk Vdm
>
>"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message
>> Australia's main threat now comes from illegal immigration, which
>threatens to
>> reintroduce much of the ignorance and primitiveness that had been vitually
>> eradicated from what had become an almost completely free-thinking
>society.
>>
>> Frankly, I regard myself very lucky to be living right here I am at
>present.
>
>Yep. It's gotten so bad here that when I returned I was asked if I was
>seeking asylum as a matter of routine, yet I produced a British Passport,
>issued in the USA. Now the place is riddled with knife-toting ex-Yugoslavs.
>Heck, I'm no racist, but that's a reality.
We have the lot here now - Plus plenty of knives and handguns. Inner Sydney has
been divided into racial ghettos of muslim, vietnamese, slavs, chinese and all
the others. Drug rings and crime syndicates are constantly fighting each other.
The police are not or CAN NOT do much to stop it.
The original aussies are fleeing Sydney in droves.
Bloody disgrace the whole business.
>
>>
>> >> -------
>> >> Incidentally, A, the classical doppler equation for an approaching
>source
>> >> involves c/(c-v). Under source dependency, it becomes (c+v)/c. The two
>are
>> >of
>> >> course quite similar at low 'v'.
>> >
>> >> Henri Wilson.
>> >>
>> >> www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
>> >
>> >I think if you look in
>> >http://www.androc1es.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/C_Program_for_Copernicus.htm
>> >you'll find
>> >
>> >if(Androcles) Doppler =(c+v)/c;
>> >else if (Einstein) Doppler = sqrt((1.0+v/c)/(1.0-v/c));
>> >else Doppler = c/(c-v); //Lorentz aether;
>>
>>
>> >
>> >I wrote that program in 1990, almost 14 years ago, H :-)
>> >
>> >Androcles
>> >
>>
>> OK. I presumed you would have known that. But it's interesting.
>
>Doppler's equation for sound,
>f' = f(m+u)/(m+v), m the speed of sound in the medium (usually air), v the
>speed of the source, u the speed of the observer.
>At Mach 1 and above, you can hear the plane you are following, but he cannot
>hear you.
>A.
Without source dependency, light can have infinite doppler shift from an
approaching source but only a 50% drop from one that is leaving. WITH source
dependency, observed wavelengths can shift from 0 to infinity.
>> Henri Wilson.
>>
>> www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
>
Henri Wilson.
One interesting aspect of Einstein's 'sit on the fence' version,
f' = f.sqrt((1-v/c)/(1+v/c)) is to calculate the velocity from observed
shift.
Rearranging the equation, and let f = 1, c = 1 for simplicity.
v = [1-f '^2] / [1+f '^2]
Now calculate v for f' = 0 to 2 (in) steps (of) 0.01
plot the curve of v against f' and see what you get.
Compare that with Lorentz
v = 1/f' - 1
and
Galilean
v = 1- f'.
Androcles
Your incoherent babble is void of logic to fault.
However, it can be made fun of.
Look at this hilarious conclusion:
xi = 0
implies according to Androcles:
| So, in time t, the displacement of xi from the origin of the
| 'stationary' (inertial, non accelerative, fancy named) frame
| is nearly nothing = 0, hence v = 0 for all v, t > 0.
And you, Androcles, are unable to see why this is so funny,
which makes it even more hilarious.
Paul
[snip]
> > > > Quad Erat Demonstrandum.
> > > > You are invited to fault the logic.
> > >
> > > Since you did just that with such a perfection,
> > > we won't have to.
> > >
> > > > You are not invited to call me moron.
> > >
> > > Since you so convincingly demonstrated what you are,
> > > we won't have to.
> > >
> > > Paul
> > Logic isn't your strong point, eh?
> > You are still invited to fault the logic, and clearly your remarks
> > demonstrate your inability to do so. Taken to trolling as an argument, Paul?
> > Androcles
>
> Your incoherent babble is void of logic to fault.
> However, it can be made fun of.
>
> Look at this hilarious conclusion:
> xi = 0
> implies according to Androcles:
> | So, in time t, the displacement of xi from the origin of the
> | 'stationary' (inertial, non accelerative, fancy named) frame
> | is nearly nothing = 0, hence v = 0 for all v, t > 0.
>
> And you, Androcles, are unable to see why this is so funny,
> which makes it even more hilarious.
"Assertion carries no weight":
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Assertion.html
Perhaps somewhat inspired by (but less subtle than) Marcel Luttgens,
but a nice one indeed.
Dirk Vdm