I've proved Einstein Wring. What Happens Now?
Henry Wilson DSc
Consider two observers, one moving towards the other at v. O1 has a light
source whilst O2 has a mirror and two synched and rigidly joined clocks. They
are arranged in O1's frame, as follows:
O1,S----------------------------------------------------v<--C1___d___ |M,C2,O2
O2 can synch his clocks at any time using Einstein's defined method since they
are at rest in his frame.
In the experiment, a light pulse is emitted by S towards O2's mirror, M. The
two clocks register the times when the pulse passes them.
According to SR, all light moves at c in O1's frame. Therefore, in O1's frame,
the closing speed of the pulse on M is c+v and its separation speed after
reflection is c-v.
C1 reads t0 when the pulse initially passes by. C2 reads t1 when the pulse
reaches the mirror. C1 reads t2 when the reflected pulse passes on the return
trip.
According to Einstein, the pulse always moves at c in O1's frame.
Therefore, in O1's frame, the pulse's travel time between C1 and C2 on forward
trip is = d/(c+v). This is NUMERICALLY recorded by the clocks as t1-t0.
After reflection, its travel time between C2 and C1 on the return trip is =
d/(c-v) and is recorded by the clocks as t2-t1.
Note: the SR claim that d is contracted and both clocks run slow by 1/gamma in
O1's frame does not alter the fact that t1-t0 and t2-t1 have different
numerical values.
According to SR, the pulse should also move at c in O2's frame both before
and after reflection.
However, O2 can only conclude that the pulse DOES NOT reflect from his
mirror at its incident speed, since his clocks clearly indicate that the pulse
travel times are DIFFERENT in the two directions.
The experiment proves that light speed is NOT independent of source speed and
that Einstein's second postulate is clearly wrong.
Henry Wilson...www.scisite.info/index.htm
Einstein...World's greatest SciFi writer..
Inertial
news:1v4ei5le2boju92jd...@4ax.com...
Wring? I think you meant "Wrong" .. but you haven't done that either
> This experiment shows why Einstein's theory is a load of crap. Read
> carefully.
Oh .. I will .. I enjoy a good laugh. You never fail to deliver on that
> Consider two observers, one moving towards the other at v.
This is all sounding very familiar . were the last few holes you dug for
yourself not to your liking, so you're trying again with the same shovel?
> O1 has a light
> source whilst O2 has a mirror and two synched and rigidly joined clocks.
> They
> are arranged in O1's frame, as follows:
>
> O1,S----------------------------------------------------v<--C1___d___
> |M,C2,O2
Fine .. filling in the blanks for you .. I am guessing that
* S is the light source at O1,
* C1 and C2 are the two clocks (synched in O2's frame as you said O2 "has
two synced clocks")
* They are a distance d apart in O1's frame (will be other than 'd' in O2's
frame, of course)
* M s the mirror.
> O2 can synch his clocks at any time using Einstein's defined method since
> they
> are at rest in his frame.
Indeed he could, though once would be enough
> In the experiment, a light pulse is emitted by S towards O2's mirror, M.
> The
> two clocks register the times when the pulse passes them.
Fine
> According to SR, all light moves at c in O1's frame.
Yes .. and in O2's
> Therefore, in O1's frame,
> the closing speed of the pulse on M is c+v and its separation speed after
> reflection is c-v.
Yes
> C1 reads t0 when the pulse initially passes by. C2 reads t1 when the pulse
> reaches the mirror. C1 reads t2 when the reflected pulse passes on the
> return
> trip.
Fine
> According to Einstein, the pulse always moves at c in O1's frame.
Yeup ... you already said that
> Therefore, in O1's frame, the pulse's travel time between C1 and C2 on
> forward
> trip is = d/(c+v). This is NUMERICALLY recorded by the clocks as t1-t0.
So d is a measurement of distance in O1's inertial frame
But they aren't in sync in O1's frame. Only in O2's.
So you are wrong .. t1-t0 is NOT the travel time taken in O1's frame
So anything you conclude from here on is wrong.
Well.. you've done it again, Henry .. screwed up your description of an SR
thought experiment that you mistakenly concluded refuted SR. You really
should try harder.
eric gisse
[snip repeated misunderstandings]
Shouting from the rooftops about how you do not understand SR, which is
exactly what you are doing, will not make the theory go away.
Henry Wilson DSc
hahahahhahahhahahaha! Hey moron, I told YOU that.....and it is of no
consequence.
You snipped that bit. Here it is again:
"Note: the SR claim that d is contracted and both clocks run slow by 1/gamma in
O1's frame does not alter the fact that t1-t0 and t2-t1 have different
numerical values."
Put simply, BOTH clock are supposed to RUN SLOW by the same gamma in O1's
frame. That doesn't put them out of synch. What matters are the numbers on
their dials when the pulses pass. It is easy to show that t1-t0 and t2-t1 are
different....and they are measures of the incoming and reflected speeds in O2's
frame.
>So anything you conclude from here on is wrong.
Hey moron, think again.
>Well.. you've done it again, Henry .. screwed up your description of an SR
>thought experiment that you mistakenly concluded refuted SR. You really
>should try harder.
Yes You've done it again. Proved you cannot read properly.
t1, t2 and t0 are numbers on a dial. t1-t0 does not equal t2-t1.
Einstein was wrong.
End of story.
eric gisse
[...]
What's funny is that the 'light clock' description of SR hasn't been used
for decades, as SR is defined entirely in terms of group theory.
Congratulations on your ineffective and pointless assault on the irrelevant,
Ralph. Clearly we can now see what was meant about how precious your time
really is.
Henry Wilson DSc
wrote:
Why don't you say something intelligent.
whoever
Nope
> .....and it is of no
> consequence.
Its of the utmost consequence
> You snipped that bit. Here it is again:
>
> "Note: the SR claim that d is contracted and both clocks run slow by
> 1/gamma in
> O1's frame does not alter the fact that t1-t0 and t2-t1 have different
> numerical values."
How do you know?
> Put simply, BOTH clock are supposed to RUN SLOW by the same gamma in O1's
> frame.
But they are not in sync in O1
> That doesn't put them out of synch.
RoS does
> What matters are the numbers on
> their dials when the pulses pass.
Yeup
> It is easy to show that t1-t0 and t2-t1 are
> different....
Nope .. they aren't
> and they are measures of the incoming and reflected speeds in O2's
> frame.
And so will show the same time intervals
>>So anything you conclude from here on is wrong.
>
> Hey moron, think again.
No need .. you are the one that is wrong .. again
>>Well.. you've done it again, Henry .. screwed up your description of an SR
>>thought experiment that you mistakenly concluded refuted SR. You really
>>should try harder.
>
> Yes You've done it again. Proved you cannot read properly.
I read perfectly
> t1, t2 and t0 are numbers on a dial. t1-t0 does not equal t2-t1.
Wrong
> Einstein was wrong.
No .. Henry is wrong
> End of story.
If only it were. You'll now spend tens or hundreds of posts trying to save
face. BAHAHA.
Inertial
> On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 22:19:16 -0800, eric gisse <jowr.pi...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>HW@..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote:
>>
>>[...]
>>
>>What's funny is that the 'light clock' description of SR hasn't been used
>>for decades, as SR is defined entirely in terms of group theory.
>>
>>Congratulations on your ineffective and pointless assault on the
>>irrelevant,
>>Ralph. Clearly we can now see what was meant about how precious your time
>>really is.
>
> Why don't you say something intelligent.
In response to what? Your stupid mistakes? Actually .. I do do you the
courtesy of addressing your stupidity with the correct physics.
Henry Wilson DSc
All you can say is, "the clocks aren't synched in O1's frame".
You know what, dopey, that wouldn't matter one iota even it it were true.
The plain fact is, t1-t0 will never equal t2-t1. ...and these are readings on
synched clocks in the O2 frame. So the light reflects at a speed that is NOT
the incident speed.
Einstein is DEAD
QED
Inertial
> On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 22:23:16 +1100, "Inertial" <relat...@rest.com>
> wrote:
>
>>"Henry Wilson DSc." <HW@..> wrote in message
>>news:6riei59vrq0tv2s35...@4ax.com...
>>> On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 22:19:16 -0800, eric gisse
>>> <jowr.pi...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>HW@..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote:
>>>>
>>>>[...]
>>>>
>>>>What's funny is that the 'light clock' description of SR hasn't been
>>>>used
>>>>for decades, as SR is defined entirely in terms of group theory.
>>>>
>>>>Congratulations on your ineffective and pointless assault on the
>>>>irrelevant,
>>>>Ralph. Clearly we can now see what was meant about how precious your
>>>>time
>>>>really is.
>>>
>>> Why don't you say something intelligent.
>>
>>In response to what? Your stupid mistakes? Actually .. I do do you the
>>courtesy of addressing your stupidity with the correct physics.
>
> All you can say is, "the clocks aren't synched in O1's frame".
That's right. A fact that you don't appreciate
> You know what, dopey, that wouldn't matter one iota even it it were true.
Of course it does. AS it shows you are totally wrong .. yet again.
> The plain fact is, t1-t0 will never equal t2-t1.
Wrong ... they are equal.
> ...and these are readings on
> synched clocks in the O2 frame.
Yes .. exactly .. in in the O2 frame light travels at c on incident and c on
reflection and so the two time intervals are the same in that frame and so
the clocks will show that fact.
> So the light reflects at a speed that is NOT
> the incident speed.
Wrong .. as usual
> Einstein is DEAD
Of course he is .. he's been dead for years. But his theories live on
despite you not understanding them.
> QED
No .. your are just wrong yet again. You need a new hobby .. your Einstein
bashing is an abject failure.
Inertial
> This experiment shows why Einstein's theory is a load of crap. Read
> carefully.
The 'experiment' shows you still don't understand what SR actually says.
So you've not proved anything wrong other than yourself
What happens now ... you'll waste everyone's time trying to weasel out of
your mistakes, and then after you are suitably humiliated, you'll post yet
ANOTHER "proof" that SR is wrong that we'll all laugh at. It never ends.
Henry Wilson DSc
they don't have to be.
Why aren't they in synch, anyway.
How can a pair of co-moving clocks be synched?
>> That doesn't put them out of synch.
>
>RoS does
Only a madman would try to synch two clocks with light from a moving source.
>> What matters are the numbers on
>> their dials when the pulses pass.
>
>Yeup
>
>> It is easy to show that t1-t0 and t2-t1 are
>> different....
>
>Nope .. they aren't
O1---------pulse---->-------v<-C1_____ct___|vt|v<-C2
In O1's frame, C2 moves vt while the pulse reaches it from C1....so t =d/(c+v)
On the way back, t = d/(c-v)
Even if d becomes d.gamma in O2's frame and the time runs slower, the pulse
travel times between the two clocks must remain different in O2's frame.
>
>> and they are measures of the incoming and reflected speeds in O2's
>> frame.
>
>And so will show the same time intervals
>
>>>So anything you conclude from here on is wrong.
>>
>> Hey moron, think again.
>
>No need .. you are the one that is wrong .. again
>
>>>Well.. you've done it again, Henry .. screwed up your description of an SR
>>>thought experiment that you mistakenly concluded refuted SR. You really
>>>should try harder.
>>
>> Yes You've done it again. Proved you cannot read properly.
>
>I read perfectly
>
>> t1, t2 and t0 are numbers on a dial. t1-t0 does not equal t2-t1.
>
>Wrong
If two connnected clocks are in synch in their own frame, why should their
movement in another frame throw them out of synch? Even if you claim the
distance between them contracts, that makes no difference to their synch.
Accordng to SR their rates are decreased by identical amounts in the rest
frame. That woudn't put them out of synch in that frame either.
>> Einstein was wrong.
>
>No .. Henry is wrong
>
>> End of story.
>
>If only it were. You'll now spend tens or hundreds of posts trying to save
>face. BAHAHA.
You haven't contributed anything useful. The plain truth is you cannot find
anything wrong with my argument.
If two time intervals are different in one frame, they must be different in all
frames...just two comoving rods of different length must be different in ALL
frames.
Inertial
Yeup
> Even if d becomes d.gamma in O2's frame and the time runs slower, the
> pulse
> travel times between the two clocks must remain different in O2's frame.
Nope . you forgot RoS. The clocks are not just running slower (as seen by
observerse in O1's frame), they are also out of sync
>>> and they are measures of the incoming and reflected speeds in O2's
>>> frame.
>>
>>And so will show the same time intervals
>>
>>>>So anything you conclude from here on is wrong.
>>>
>>> Hey moron, think again.
>>
>>No need .. you are the one that is wrong .. again
>>
>>>>Well.. you've done it again, Henry .. screwed up your description of an
>>>>SR
>>>>thought experiment that you mistakenly concluded refuted SR. You really
>>>>should try harder.
>>>
>>> Yes You've done it again. Proved you cannot read properly.
>>
>>I read perfectly
>>
>>> t1, t2 and t0 are numbers on a dial. t1-t0 does not equal t2-t1.
>>
>>Wrong
>
> If two connnected clocks are in synch in their own frame,
Yes
> why should their
> movement in another frame throw them out of synch?
They don't get "thrown out of sync". Nothing happens to the sync of the
clocks in their own frame. Synch is different in each frame.
> Even if you claim the
> distance between them contracts, that makes no difference to their synch.
It is the sync difference that makes the distance contract
> Accordng to SR their rates are decreased by identical amounts in the rest
> frame. That woudn't put them out of synch in that frame either.
SR says their rates are different AND they are out of sync.
You are inventing an inconsistent strawman that has time dilation without
RoS .. and not surprisingly getting self-contradictory results. You then
incorrectly claim this means Sr is wrong.
>>> Einstein was wrong.
>>
>>No .. Henry is wrong
>>
>>> End of story.
>>
>>If only it were. You'll now spend tens or hundreds of posts trying to
>>save
>>face. BAHAHA.
>
> You haven't contributed anything useful.
I've pointed out your errors.
> The plain truth is you cannot find
> anything wrong with my argument.
Wrong
> If two time intervals are different in one frame, they must be different
> in all
> frames...
Nope
> just two comoving rods of different length must be different in ALL
> frames.
An invalid analogy
Henry Wilson DSc
That's what you have been taught...
But the clock readings indicate that this is plainly not true. t1-t0 does not
equal t2-t1...and those readings indicate the travel times over the same
distance in O2's frame.
>> So the light reflects at a speed that is NOT
>> the incident speed.
>
>Wrong .. as usual
>
>> Einstein is DEAD
>
>Of course he is .. he's been dead for years. But his theories live on
>despite you not understanding them.
>
>> QED
>
>No .. your are just wrong yet again. You need a new hobby .. your Einstein
>bashing is an abject failure.
You haven't refuted anything I have said..
You are totally lost. This is far too hard for you.
Inertial
That is what SR predicts. You are discussing SR predictions and trying to
show them to be inconsistent (and failing to do so)
> But the clock readings indicate that this is plainly not true.
Wrong
> t1-t0 does not
> equal t2-t1...
Wrong
> and those readings indicate the travel times over the same
> distance in O2's frame.
And they are the same differences in readings
>>> So the light reflects at a speed that is NOT
>>> the incident speed.
>>
>>Wrong .. as usual
>>
>>> Einstein is DEAD
>>
>>Of course he is .. he's been dead for years. But his theories live on
>>despite you not understanding them.
>>
>>> QED
>>
>>No .. your are just wrong yet again. You need a new hobby .. your
>>Einstein
>>bashing is an abject failure.
>
> You haven't refuted anything I have said..
Yes I did
> You are totally lost. This is far too hard for you.
No .. *you* are lost and it is too hard for you. We all know this.
You simply do not understand what SR predicts and then embarrass yourself by
making such nonsense posts as the one starting this thread.
Your argument is only valid if relativity of synchronization does not occur
... but, of course, it does occur in SR.
eric gisse
> On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 22:19:16 -0800, eric gisse <jowr.pi...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>HW@..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote:
>>
>>[...]
>>
>>What's funny is that the 'light clock' description of SR hasn't been used
>>for decades, as SR is defined entirely in terms of group theory.
>>
>>Congratulations on your ineffective and pointless assault on the
>>irrelevant, Ralph. Clearly we can now see what was meant about how
>>precious your time really is.
>
> Why don't you say something intelligent.
Since there's only a slight chance of it registering and nobody else's
efforts across the previous decade have had any impact, I will settle for
making fun of you.
Does it not bother you that there are only really a handful of people who
even pay attention to you anymore, Ralph? After a decade of hard 'work'
posting here, you have no fans. Nobody is flocking to you for guidance. You
have no publications, and you have performed no experiments.
What would you do if the handful of people who paid attention finally decide
you are - finally - too boring to even talk to? What then?
PD
> This experiment shows why Einstein's theory is a load of crap. Read carefully.
OK, first of all this is not an experiment. It is a "gedanken". And
since you're not comparing anything to experimental data, your attempt
to discredit relativity must be based on a claimed internal
inconsistency of SR. A small wager is in order, where my claim would
be that any perceived inconsistency is merely the fact that you do not
understand what SR actually says.
>
> Consider two observers, one moving towards the other at v. O1 has a light
> source whilst O2 has a mirror and two synched and rigidly joined clocks. They
> are arranged in O1's frame, as follows:
>
> O1,S----------------------------------------------------v<--C1___d___ |M,C2,O2
>
> O2 can synch his clocks at any time using Einstein's defined method since they
> are at rest in his frame.
And they are of course not synched in 01's frame.
>
> In the experiment, a light pulse is emitted by S towards O2's mirror, M. The
> two clocks register the times when the pulse passes them.
>
> According to SR, all light moves at c in O1's frame. Therefore, in O1's frame,
> the closing speed of the pulse on M is c+v and its separation speed after
> reflection is c-v.
>
> C1 reads t0 when the pulse initially passes by. C2 reads t1 when the pulse
> reaches the mirror. C1 reads t2 when the reflected pulse passes on the return
> trip.
These clocks, of course, should not be used by 01 to measure any speed
for 01, because they are not synched in 01's frame, they are synched
in 02's frame.
>
> According to Einstein, the pulse always moves at c in O1's frame.
>
> Therefore, in O1's frame, the pulse's travel time between C1 and C2 on forward
> trip is = d/(c+v). This is NUMERICALLY recorded by the clocks as t1-t0.
No, it's not, because those two clocks are not synched in 01's frame.
>
> After reflection, its travel time between C2 and C1 on the return trip is =
> d/(c-v) and is recorded by the clocks as t2-t1.
No, it's not, because those two clocks are not synched in 01's frame.
>
> Note: the SR claim that d is contracted and both clocks run slow by 1/gamma in
> O1's frame does not alter the fact that t1-t0 and t2-t1 have different
> numerical values.
But of course they WOULDN'T have different values. t1-t0 = t2-t1
observationally.
What IS true is that 01 *calculates* the times to be different [ d/(c-
v) =/= d/(c+v) ], and the fact that the measured time differences are
numerically equal is due to the fact that they aren't synchronized in
01's frame.
>
> According to SR, the pulse should also move at c in O2's frame both before
> and after reflection.
>
> However, O2 can only conclude that the pulse DOES NOT reflect from his
> mirror at its incident speed, since his clocks clearly indicate that the pulse
> travel times are DIFFERENT in the two directions.
>
> The experiment proves that light speed is NOT independent of source speed and
> that Einstein's second postulate is clearly wrong.
It appears I've won the small wager.
Paul Cardinale
You misrepresent what SR says (because you don't know what SR says,
because you're too lazy to try to learn what SR says (and you're too
stupid to understand even if you did try)).
Then you go on to show that your misrepresentation is nonsensical.
Being an arrogant SOB, you proclaim that you've accomplished something
(well, I guess you have, if you count publicly displaying ignorance &
stupidity as an accomplishment).
The thread title is perfect. The answer to the question it contains:
Everybody laughs. (Yes, everybody).
Paul Cardinale
Henry Wilson DSc
My only interest in SR predictions is in showing that they prove SR wrong.
That I have done.
>Your argument is only valid if relativity of synchronization does not occur
>... but, of course, it does occur in SR.
The clocks do not go out synch in O1's frame.
How do you hope to synch moving clocks anyway?
There is only one way to synch two clocks that are connected. Send time signals
between the two and adjust each so tAB = tBA. Even Einstein fluked that one
right. It is plain BaTh.
Henry Wilson DSc
wrote:
>HW@..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 22:19:16 -0800, eric gisse <jowr.pi...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>HW@..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote:
>>>
>>>[...]
>>>
>>>What's funny is that the 'light clock' description of SR hasn't been used
>>>for decades, as SR is defined entirely in terms of group theory.
>>>
>>>Congratulations on your ineffective and pointless assault on the
>>>irrelevant, Ralph. Clearly we can now see what was meant about how
>>>precious your time really is.
>>
>> Why don't you say something intelligent.
>
>Since there's only a slight chance of it registering and nobody else's
>efforts across the previous decade have had any impact, I will settle for
>making fun of you.
>
>Does it not bother you that there are only really a handful of people who
>even pay attention to you anymore, Ralph? After a decade of hard 'work'
>posting here, you have no fans. Nobody is flocking to you for guidance. You
>have no publications, and you have performed no experiments.
>
>What would you do if the handful of people who paid attention finally decide
>you are - finally - too boring to even talk to? What then?
Hahahahhahah...the words of a defeated man. You can't even refer to me by name.
Henry Wilson DSc
Oh yeah? Show me how that happens, bright boy!
>>>> and they are measures of the incoming and reflected speeds in O2's
>>>> frame.
>>>
>>>And so will show the same time intervals
>>>
>>>>>So anything you conclude from here on is wrong.
>>>>
>>>> Hey moron, think again.
>>>
>>>No need .. you are the one that is wrong .. again
>>>
>>>>>Well.. you've done it again, Henry .. screwed up your description of an
>>>>>SR
>>>>>thought experiment that you mistakenly concluded refuted SR. You really
>>>>>should try harder.
>>>>
>>>> Yes You've done it again. Proved you cannot read properly.
>>>
>>>I read perfectly
>>>
>>>> t1, t2 and t0 are numbers on a dial. t1-t0 does not equal t2-t1.
>>>
>>>Wrong
>>
>> If two connnected clocks are in synch in their own frame,
>
>Yes
>
>> why should their
>> movement in another frame throw them out of synch?
>
>They don't get "thrown out of sync". Nothing happens to the sync of the
>clocks in their own frame. Synch is different in each frame.
It is not. Where is your proof? You have none....
>> Even if you claim the
>> distance between them contracts, that makes no difference to their synch.
>
>It is the sync difference that makes the distance contract
...what crap....This is not fairyland, boy.
>> Accordng to SR their rates are decreased by identical amounts in the rest
>> frame. That woudn't put them out of synch in that frame either.
>
>SR says their rates are different AND they are out of sync.
SR does not say that. Where do you think SR states that?
SR says that if clocks are E-synched using a moving light source they will be
out of synch. Of course they will. ...and whoever tried to do it was a madman.
>You are inventing an inconsistent strawman that has time dilation without
>RoS .. and not surprisingly getting self-contradictory results. You then
>incorrectly claim this means Sr is wrong.
In O1's frame, the pulse travel times are clearly different on the forward and
return trips.
Show me how two time intervals that are different in one frame can be the same
in another.
>>>> Einstein was wrong.
>>>
>>>No .. Henry is wrong
>>>
>>>> End of story.
>>>
>>>If only it were. You'll now spend tens or hundreds of posts trying to
>>>save
>>>face. BAHAHA.
>>
>> You haven't contributed anything useful.
>
>I've pointed out your errors.
You have revealed absolutely nothing I didn't already know about.
You simply don't see the significance of the experiment.
>> The plain truth is you cannot find
>> anything wrong with my argument.
>
>Wrong
Well give it!
>> If two time intervals are different in one frame, they must be different
>> in all
>> frames...
>
>Nope
>
>> just two comoving rods of different length must be different in ALL
>> frames.
>
>An invalid analogy
Don't ramble on...Prove it..
Henry Wilson DSc
>On Dec 14, 10:44�pm, HW@..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote:
>> This experiment shows why Einstein's theory is a load of crap. Read carefully.
>
>OK, first of all this is not an experiment. It is a "gedanken". And
>since you're not comparing anything to experimental data, your attempt
>to discredit relativity must be based on a claimed internal
>inconsistency of SR. A small wager is in order, where my claim would
>be that any perceived inconsistency is merely the fact that you do not
>understand what SR actually says.
>
>>
>> Consider two observers, one moving towards the other at v. O1 has a light
>> source whilst O2 has a mirror and two synched and rigidly joined clocks. They
>> are arranged in O1's frame, as follows:
>>
>> O1,S----------------------------------------------------v<--C1___d___ |M,C2,O2
>>
>> O2 can synch his clocks at any time using Einstein's defined method since they
>> are at rest in his frame.
>
>And they are of course not synched in 01's frame.
Why are they not synched in O1's frame?
How would a genius like you synch two clocks that are comoving in your frame?
>> In the experiment, a light pulse is emitted by S towards O2's mirror, M. The
>> two clocks register the times when the pulse passes them.
>>
>> According to SR, all light moves at c in O1's frame. Therefore, in O1's frame,
>> the closing speed of the pulse on M is c+v and its separation speed after
>> reflection is c-v.
>>
>> C1 reads t0 when the pulse initially passes by. C2 reads t1 when the pulse
>> reaches the mirror. C1 reads t2 when the reflected pulse passes on the return
>> trip.
>
>These clocks, of course, should not be used by 01 to measure any speed
>for 01, because they are not synched in 01's frame, they are synched
>in 02's frame.
They are synched in ALL frames.
Their movement in another frame merely slows both by the same amount according
to SR. That would not put them out of synch.
>> According to Einstein, the pulse always moves at c in O1's frame.
>>
>> Therefore, in O1's frame, the pulse's travel time between C1 and C2 on forward
>> trip is = d/(c+v). This is NUMERICALLY recorded by the clocks as t1-t0. �
>
>No, it's not, because those two clocks are not synched in 01's frame.
You keep repeating that because you think it gives you an escape route...but
you have no idea what you are saying.
PROVE THAT THE CLOCKS ARE OUT OF SYNCH IN O1's FRAME.
>> After reflection, its travel time between C2 and C1 on the return trip is =
>> d/(c-v) and is recorded by the clocks as t2-t1.
>
>No, it's not, because those two clocks are not synched in 01's frame.
PROVE THAT THE CLOCKS ARE OUT OF SYNCH IN O1's FRAME.
>> Note: the SR claim that d is contracted and both clocks run slow by 1/gamma in
>> O1's frame does not alter the fact that t1-t0 and t2-t1 have different
>> numerical values.
>
>But of course they WOULDN'T have different values. t1-t0 = t2-t1
>observationally.
>What IS true is that 01 *calculates* the times to be different [ d/(c-
>v) =/= d/(c+v) ], and the fact that the measured time differences are
>numerically equal is due to the fact that they aren't synchronized in
>01's frame.
PROVE THAT THE CLOCKS ARE OUT OF SYNCH IN O1's FRAME.
>> According to SR, the pulse should also move at c in O2's frame both before
>> and after reflection.
>>
>> However, O2 can only conclude that the pulse DOES NOT reflect from his
>> mirror at its incident speed, since his clocks clearly indicate that the pulse
>> travel times are DIFFERENT in the two directions.
>>
>> The experiment proves that light speed is NOT independent of source speed and
>> that Einstein's second postulate is clearly wrong.
>
>It appears I've won the small wager.
PROVE THAT THE CLOCKS ARE OUT OF SYNCH IN O1's FRAME.
eric gisse
I'm sorry, Ralph Rabbidge.
I am clearly not pointing out with enough veracity that your name is Ralph
Rabbidge. You say you are Henri Wilson but as you have recently explained,
it is up to the readers to see through your deliberate deceptions and
understand what you _meant_ as opposed to what you _said_.
But I'm glad you, Ralph Rabbidge, decided I'm no longer an idiot! Just last
week you said you wouldn't respond to 'this idiot' anymore. Clearly your
continued responses to me either mean I am no longer an idiot, or the
assessment of Ralph Rabbidge was in error.
Ralph Rabbidge, Ralph Rabbidge, Ralph Rabbidge, and Ralph Rabbidge.
>
>
>
> Henry Wilson...www.scisite.info/index.htm
lawl@blacktop /tmp $ whois scisite.info
Access to INFO WHOIS information is provided to assist persons in
determining the contents of a domain name registration record in the
Afilias registry database. The data in this record is provided by
Afilias Limited for informational purposes only, and Afilias does not
guarantee its accuracy. This service is intended only for query-based
access. You agree that you will use this data only for lawful purposes
and that, under no circumstances will you use this data to: (a) allow,
enable, or otherwise support the transmission by e-mail, telephone, or
facsimile of mass unsolicited, commercial advertising or solicitations
to entities other than the data recipient's own existing customers; or
(b) enable high volume, automated, electronic processes that send
queries or data to the systems of Registry Operator, a Registrar, or
Afilias except as reasonably necessary to register domain names or
modify existing registrations. All rights reserved. Afilias reserves
the right to modify these terms at any time. By submitting this query,
you agree to abide by this policy.
Domain ID:D29703178-LRMS
Domain Name:SCISITE.INFO
Created On:15-Sep-2009 21:38:26 UTC
Last Updated On:15-Nov-2009 20:37:54 UTC
Expiration Date:15-Sep-2010 21:38:26 UTC
Sponsoring Registrar:Melbourne IT Ltd. (R141-LRMS)
Status:OK
Registrant ID:B125303275498915
Registrant Name:Ralph Rabbidge
Registrant Organization:Ralph Rabbidge
Registrant Street1:8 Barlings Drive
Registrant Street2:
Registrant Street3:
Registrant City:Tomakin
Registrant State/Province:NSW
Registrant Postal Code:2537
Registrant Country:AU
Registrant Phone:+61.732492500
Registrant Phone Ext.:
Registrant FAX:+61.738322604
Registrant FAX Ext.:
Registrant Email:rm...@bigpond.com
Admin ID:B125303275498913
Admin Name:Ralph Rabbidge
Admin Organization:Ralph Rabbidge
Admin Street1:8 Barlings Drive
Admin Street2:
Admin Street3:
Admin City:Tomakin
Admin State/Province:NSW
Admin Postal Code:2537
Admin Country:AU
Admin Phone:+61.732492500
Admin Phone Ext.:
Admin FAX:+61.732492633
Admin FAX Ext.:
Admin Email:rm...@bigpond.com
Billing ID:A12530376603336
Billing Name:Hostmaster Telstra
Billing Organization:Telstra Corporation
Billing Street1:Level 5
Billing Street2:400 George St
Billing Street3:
Billing City:Sydney
Billing State/Province:NSW
Billing Postal Code:2000
Billing Country:AU
Billing Phone:+61.286552942
Billing Phone Ext.:
Billing FAX:+61.282252998
Billing FAX Ext.:
Billing Email:domai...@server-dns.com
Tech ID:B125303275498914
Tech Name:Hostmaster Telstra
Tech Organization:Telstra Corporation
Tech Street1:Level 5
Tech Street2:400 George St
Tech Street3:
Tech City:Sydney
Tech State/Province:NSW
Tech Postal Code:2000
Tech Country:AU
Tech Phone:+61.286552942
Tech Phone Ext.:
Tech FAX:+61.282252998
Tech FAX Ext.:
Tech Email:domai...@server-dns.com
Name Server:BR-DNS10.TMNS.NET.AU
Name Server:BR-DNS11.TMNS.NET.AU
Name Server:SJ-DNS01.TMNS.NET.AU
Name Server:
Name Server:
Name Server:
Name Server:
Name Server:
Name Server:
Name Server:
Name Server:
Name Server:
Name Server:
Remember that time you faked your degrees and you were caught?
Finally, http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Cult_of_Relativity
Henry Wilson DSc
wrote:
I explained to you that I'm was still using his/our joint site but then
transfered to this one after teaching his grandson (of the same name) how to
set it up.
But I'll let you keep making fool of yourself for as long as you wish.
Henry Wilson...www.scisite.info/index.htm
Henry Wilson DSc
......a typical burst of agression and meaningless drivel from another
desperate member of the EPG who was dragged out of his cage to try to stop the
truth from emerging.
>Paul Cardinale
glird
> On Dec 14, 10:44 pm, HW@..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote:
>
><< Note: the SR claim that d is contracted and both clocks run slow by 1/gamma in O1's frame does not alter the fact that t1-t0 and t2-t1 have different numerical values.>
>
t1-t0 = t2-t1 observationally.
What IS true is that 01 *calculates* the times to be different [ d/(c-
v) =/= d/(c+v) ], and the fact that the measured time differences are
numerically equal is due to the fact that they aren't synchronized in
01's frame.>
>
><< According to SR, the pulse should also move at c in O2's frame both before and after reflection.
However, O2 can only conclude that the pulse DOES NOT reflect from
his mirror at its incident speed, since his clocks clearly indicate
that the pulse travel times are DIFFERENT in the two directions. >
>
Yes; against Henry Wilson you did. Now how about trying your hand
wrt MY bet that i can prove to YOU that the present doctrine that the
universe will inevitably end in a "heat death" is not only wrong, but
is based on SEVERAL basic misconceptions; one being what "heat"
physically is, and another being a failure to consider the role of the
Compton Effect in why there is a CBMR even though the Big Bang never
happened.
glird
PD
> On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 11:40:07 -0800 (PST), PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Dec 14, 10:44 pm, HW@..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote:
> >> This experiment shows why Einstein's theory is a load of crap. Read carefully.
>
> >OK, first of all this is not an experiment. It is a "gedanken". And
> >since you're not comparing anything to experimental data, your attempt
> >to discredit relativity must be based on a claimed internal
> >inconsistency of SR. A small wager is in order, where my claim would
> >be that any perceived inconsistency is merely the fact that you do not
> >understand what SR actually says.
>
> >> Consider two observers, one moving towards the other at v. O1 has a light
> >> source whilst O2 has a mirror and two synched and rigidly joined clocks. They
> >> are arranged in O1's frame, as follows:
>
> >> O1,S----------------------------------------------------v<--C1___d___ |M,C2,O2
>
> >> O2 can synch his clocks at any time using Einstein's defined method since they
> >> are at rest in his frame.
>
> >And they are of course not synched in 01's frame.
>
> Why are they not synched in O1's frame?
Because they're not. Relativity matches experimental observation.
Relativity notes that clocks synchronized in one frame are not
synchronized in another frame.
As I said originally, if it was your intent to disprove relativity,
the only way you can do it with a gedanken is to demonstrate an
INTERNAL inconsistency. But SR is fully self-consistent. Just because
you don't know what SR says (such as "clocks synchronized in one frame
are not synchronized in another frame") is not SR's problem -- it's
yours.
> How would a genius like you synch two clocks that are comoving in your frame?
You don't have to. You just have to have a way to check that they are
not synchronized, and that's straightforward.
>
> >> In the experiment, a light pulse is emitted by S towards O2's mirror, M. The
> >> two clocks register the times when the pulse passes them.
>
> >> According to SR, all light moves at c in O1's frame. Therefore, in O1's frame,
> >> the closing speed of the pulse on M is c+v and its separation speed after
> >> reflection is c-v.
>
> >> C1 reads t0 when the pulse initially passes by. C2 reads t1 when the pulse
> >> reaches the mirror. C1 reads t2 when the reflected pulse passes on the return
> >> trip.
>
> >These clocks, of course, should not be used by 01 to measure any speed
> >for 01, because they are not synched in 01's frame, they are synched
> >in 02's frame.
>
> They are synched in ALL frames.
Not so. Not according to experiment. And certainly not according to
SR. And SR matches experiment.
> Their movement in another frame merely slows both by the same amount according
> to SR.
No, that is NOT what SR says about the clocks. I can't help it if you
don't know what SR says.
> That would not put them out of synch.
>
> >> According to Einstein, the pulse always moves at c in O1's frame.
>
> >> Therefore, in O1's frame, the pulse's travel time between C1 and C2 on forward
> >> trip is = d/(c+v). This is NUMERICALLY recorded by the clocks as t1-t0.
>
> >No, it's not, because those two clocks are not synched in 01's frame.
>
> You keep repeating that because you think it gives you an escape route...but
> you have no idea what you are saying.
>
> PROVE THAT THE CLOCKS ARE OUT OF SYNCH IN O1's FRAME.
There is no proof in science. There is comparison with experimental
data. SR says the clocks are out of synch in 01's frame. There is no
internal inconsistency. SR successfully matches experimental data.
>
> >> After reflection, its travel time between C2 and C1 on the return trip is =
> >> d/(c-v) and is recorded by the clocks as t2-t1.
>
> >No, it's not, because those two clocks are not synched in 01's frame.
>
> PROVE THAT THE CLOCKS ARE OUT OF SYNCH IN O1's FRAME.
It's really a pity that you started this whole boondoggle out claiming
to have found an internal inconsistency in SR, and you didn't even
know what SR says.
PD
> On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 12:56:14 -0800 (PST), Paul Cardinale
>
> >Ah yes, the usual from the ralf.
> >You misrepresent what SR says (because you don't know what SR says,
> >because you're too lazy to try to learn what SR says (and you're too
> >stupid to understand even if you did try)).
> >Then you go on to show that your misrepresentation is nonsensical.
> >Being an arrogant SOB, you proclaim that you've accomplished something
> >(well, I guess you have, if you count publicly displaying ignorance &
> >stupidity as an accomplishment).
>
> >The thread title is perfect. The answer to the question it contains:
> >Everybody laughs. (Yes, everybody).
>
> ......a typical burst of agression and meaningless drivel from another
> desperate member of the EPG who was dragged out of his cage to try to stop the
> truth from emerging.
>
What truth? That you don't know what SR says? Or that SR matches
experiment?
PD
> On Dec 15, 2:40 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:> On Dec 14, 10:44 pm, HW@..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote:
>
> ><< Note: the SR claim that d is contracted and both clocks run slow by 1/gamma in O1's frame does not alter the fact that t1-t0 and t2-t1 have different numerical values.>
>
> >< But of course they WOULDN'T have different values {in 02's frame}.
>
> t1-t0 = t2-t1 observationally.
> What IS true is that 01 *calculates* the times to be different [ d/(c-
> v) =/= d/(c+v) ], and the fact that the measured time differences are
> numerically equal is due to the fact that they aren't synchronized in
> 01's frame.>
>
> ><< According to SR, the pulse should also move at c in O2's frame both before and after reflection.
>
> However, O2 can only conclude that the pulse DOES NOT reflect from
> his mirror at its incident speed, since his clocks clearly indicate
> that the pulse travel times are DIFFERENT in the two directions. >
>
>
>
> > It appears I've won the small wager. >
>
> Yes; against Henry Wilson you did. Now how about trying your hand
> wrt MY bet that i can prove to YOU that the present doctrine that the
> universe will inevitably end in a "heat death" is not only wrong,
You had settled with me on sending me $100 and your paper for me to
review to see if I concurred that you had disproven the present
doctrine, according to my own judgment.
I've given you all the information required to do so. Ball's in your
court.
Inertial
> On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 12:56:14 -0800 (PST), Paul Cardinale
> <pcard...@volcanomail.com> wrote:
>
>>Ah yes, the usual from the ralf.
>>You misrepresent what SR says (because you don't know what SR says,
>>because you're too lazy to try to learn what SR says (and you're too
>>stupid to understand even if you did try)).
>>Then you go on to show that your misrepresentation is nonsensical.
>>Being an arrogant SOB, you proclaim that you've accomplished something
>>(well, I guess you have, if you count publicly displaying ignorance &
>>stupidity as an accomplishment).
>>
>>The thread title is perfect. The answer to the question it contains:
>>Everybody laughs. (Yes, everybody).
>
> ......a typical burst of agression and meaningless drivel from another
> desperate member of the EPG who was dragged out of his cage to try to stop
> the
> truth from emerging.
There is no danger of the truth emerging from a known liar such as yourself.
But it is, as always, good for a laugh. And a bit of fun finding where
exactly your mistake(s) occur.]
Inertial
> On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 00:01:42 +1100, "Inertial" <relat...@rest.com>
> wrote:
>>You simply do not understand what SR predicts and then embarrass yourself
>>by
>>making such nonsense posts as the one starting this thread.
>
> My only interest in SR predictions is in showing that they prove SR wrong.
Which the don't
> That I have done.
Nope .. because you have not discussed what SR predicts .. only what your
misunderstandings lead to
>>Your argument is only valid if relativity of synchronization does not
>>occur
>>... but, of course, it does occur in SR.
>
> The clocks do not go out synch in O1's frame.
They don't (go* out of sync. They *are* out of sync SR tells us the clocks
cannot be in sync in both frames
> How do you hope to synch moving clocks anyway?
As you said .. O2 syncs them. They are in sync in O2's frame. They are not
in sync in O1's frame.
> There is only one way to synch two clocks that are connected. Send time
> signals
> between the two and adjust each so tAB = tBA.
Yeup
> Even Einstein fluked that one
> right. It is plain BaTh.
You mean its something you fluked .. but I guess even you can't get
something that basic and simple wrong. Its blatantly obvious that a pair of
in-sync clocks must show two equal time intervals as being equal time
intervals .. and if they show them as non-equal, then they are not in sync.
Mind you, Androcles still doesn't get it.
Inertial
> On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 23:39:11 +1100, "Inertial" <relat...@rest.com>
> wrote:
>
>>"Henry Wilson DSc." <HW@..> wrote in message
>>news:a3uei5tlothmhf7af...@4ax.com...
>>> anything wrong with my argument.
>>
>>Wrong
>
> Well give it!
I have .. so has PD .. you're too much of a moron to understand it .. its
something called physics .. maybe you've heard of it?
eric gisse
[...]
> I explained to you that I'm was still using his/our joint site but then
> transfered to this one after teaching his grandson (of the same name) how
> to set it up.
And you seriously expect us to believe that?
Then again, you still think people have forgotten you posted degrees forged
with microsoft paint. There's also the time you posted your error-filled
physics 'book' that had Ralph's name in the document metainfo, and the many
years you had your website hosted on his webspace.
Let's go back to 2002.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/af5f8de9d7c4b918?dmode=source
"Rabbo" sounds a lot like you, Henri. Henry. I mean Ralph.
I've never had the urge to change my name from 'eric' to 'erik', yet you
seem to alternate every few years. Odd. Anyway...
Stephen Speicher made an interesting set of observations about the
similarities between "Rabbo" and "Henry".
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/d5ce726868bc0c07?dmode=source
So "Henry" and "Rabbo" each happen to be physicists and
mathematicians who worked in the field for 45 years, and they
both also have degrees in psychology and genetics. And, the
headers of their posts both bear the imprint "Organization:
Customer of Telstra Big Pond Direct." What an amazing
coincidence!
>
> But I'll let you keep making fool of yourself for as long as you wish.
Ok.
A program I have been holding onto since 2005 is called 'unmask'.
Its' homepage has been gone for a few years, but it is held on the internet
archive for posterity.
http://web.archive.org/web/20040213215530/http://www.immunitysec.com/unmask.html
What do you think? There's lots of writing from the "both" of you.
Henry Wilson DSc
>"Henry Wilson DSc." <HW@..> wrote in message
>news:clrfi5t66k28c9qc9...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 00:01:42 +1100, "Inertial" <relat...@rest.com>
>> wrote:
>>>You simply do not understand what SR predicts and then embarrass yourself
>>>by
>>>making such nonsense posts as the one starting this thread.
>>
>> My only interest in SR predictions is in showing that they prove SR wrong.
>
>Which the don't
>
>> That I have done.
>
>Nope .. because you have not discussed what SR predicts .. only what your
>misunderstandings lead to
>
>>>Your argument is only valid if relativity of synchronization does not
>>>occur
>>>... but, of course, it does occur in SR.
>>
>> The clocks do not go out synch in O1's frame.
>
>They don't (go* out of sync. They *are* out of sync SR tells us the clocks
>cannot be in sync in both frames
>
>> How do you hope to synch moving clocks anyway?
>
>As you said .. O2 syncs them. They are in sync in O2's frame. They are not
>in sync in O1's frame.
How come?
Tell me exactly how you would establish that.
>> There is only one way to synch two clocks that are connected. Send time
>> signals
>> between the two and adjust each so tAB = tBA.
>
>Yeup
>
>> Even Einstein fluked that one
>> right. It is plain BaTh.
>
>You mean its something you fluked .. but I guess even you can't get
>something that basic and simple wrong. Its blatantly obvious that a pair of
>in-sync clocks must show two equal time intervals as being equal time
>intervals .. and if they show them as non-equal, then they are not in sync.
>Mind you, Androcles still doesn't get it.
There is nothing to 'get'.
You argument is not relevant here.
You haven't explained why two clocks that are in synch in their own frame are
not in synch in all other frames.
I would like to see your proof of that. Do you have one? I feel like a good
laugh.
Henry Wilson DSc
>"Henry Wilson DSc." <HW@..> wrote in message
>news:14ufi51med9jtgafu...@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 23:39:11 +1100, "Inertial" <relat...@rest.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>"Henry Wilson DSc." <HW@..> wrote in message
>>>news:a3uei5tlothmhf7af...@4ax.com...
>>>> The plain truth is you cannot find
>>>> anything wrong with my argument.
>>>
>>>Wrong
>>
>> Well give it!
>
>I have .. so has PD .. you're too much of a moron to understand it .. its
>something called physics .. maybe you've heard of it?
You haven't made any constructive statements. You haven't told me anything I
didn't already know.
Henry Wilson DSc
>On Dec 15, 3:14�pm, HW@..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote:
>> On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 11:40:07 -0800 (PST), PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >On Dec 14, 10:44�pm, HW@..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote:
>> >> This experiment shows why Einstein's theory is a load of crap. Read carefully.
>>
>> >OK, first of all this is not an experiment. It is a "gedanken". And
>> >since you're not comparing anything to experimental data, your attempt
>> >to discredit relativity must be based on a claimed internal
>> >inconsistency of SR. A small wager is in order, where my claim would
>> >be that any perceived inconsistency is merely the fact that you do not
>> >understand what SR actually says.
>>
>> >> Consider two observers, one moving towards the other at v. O1 has a light
>> >> source whilst O2 has a mirror and two synched and rigidly joined clocks. They
>> >> are arranged in O1's frame, as follows:
>>
>> >> O1,S----------------------------------------------------v<--C1___d___ |M,C2,O2
>>
>> >> O2 can synch his clocks at any time using Einstein's defined method since they
>> >> are at rest in his frame.
>>
>> >And they are of course not synched in 01's frame.
>>
>> Why are they not synched in O1's frame?
>
>Because they're not. Relativity matches experimental observation.
Haahahahhahahahhahaha! here we go again...this imaginary 'experimental
observation' that Diaper and others dream about.
When are you going to show me proof that two comoving clocks that are in synch
in their own frame are not in synch in ALL frames.
>Relativity notes that clocks synchronized in one frame are not
>synchronized in another frame.
It doesn't 'note it'. It requires it to work.
>As I said originally, if it was your intent to disprove relativity,
>the only way you can do it with a gedanken is to demonstrate an
>INTERNAL inconsistency. But SR is fully self-consistent. Just because
>you don't know what SR says (such as "clocks synchronized in one frame
>are not synchronized in another frame") is not SR's problem -- it's
>yours.
SR doesn't have a proof that the clocks are out of synch in O1's frame.
therefore the gedanken proves SR contradicts itself.
>> How would a genius like you synch two clocks that are comoving in your frame?
>
>You don't have to. You just have to have a way to check that they are
>not synchronized, and that's straightforward.
Hahahahahhahahhahahhahha! How exactly do you do that, Diaper?
>> >> In the experiment, a light pulse is emitted by S towards O2's mirror, M. The
>> >> two clocks register the times when the pulse passes them.
>>
>> >> According to SR, all light moves at c in O1's frame. Therefore, in O1's frame,
>> >> the closing speed of the pulse on M is c+v and its separation speed after
>> >> reflection is c-v.
>>
>> >> C1 reads t0 when the pulse initially passes by. C2 reads t1 when the pulse
>> >> reaches the mirror. C1 reads t2 when the reflected pulse passes on the return
>> >> trip.
>>
>> >These clocks, of course, should not be used by 01 to measure any speed
>> >for 01, because they are not synched in 01's frame, they are synched
>> >in 02's frame.
>>
>> They are synched in ALL frames.
>
>Not so. Not according to experiment. And certainly not according to
>SR. And SR matches experiment.
hahahhahahhahahaha! The 'imaginary experiments' again.
Tell me about them Diaper. In which dream did they appear?
>> Their movement in another frame merely slows both by the same amount according
>> to SR.
>
>No, that is NOT what SR says about the clocks. I can't help it if you
>don't know what SR says.
But you claim to know all about it.
Why can't you show me why the clocks are not synched in O1's frame.
A) Diaper doesn't know why.
>> That would not put them out of synch.
>>
>> >> According to Einstein, the pulse always moves at c in O1's frame.
>>
>> >> Therefore, in O1's frame, the pulse's travel time between C1 and C2 on forward
>> >> trip is = d/(c+v). This is NUMERICALLY recorded by the clocks as t1-t0. �
>>
>> >No, it's not, because those two clocks are not synched in 01's frame.
>>
>> You keep repeating that because you think it gives you an escape route...but
>> you have no idea what you are saying.
>>
>> PROVE THAT THE CLOCKS ARE OUT OF SYNCH IN O1's FRAME.
>
>There is no proof in science. There is comparison with experimental
>data. SR says the clocks are out of synch in 01's frame. There is no
>internal inconsistency. SR successfully matches experimental data.
There is NO experimental data that supports SR.
SR cannot prove that the clocks are out of synch in O1's frame. Therefore SR
contradicts itself.
>> >> After reflection, its travel time between C2 and C1 on the return trip is =
>> >> d/(c-v) and is recorded by the clocks as t2-t1.
>>
>> >No, it's not, because those two clocks are not synched in 01's frame.
>>
>> PROVE THAT THE CLOCKS ARE OUT OF SYNCH IN O1's FRAME.
>
>It's really a pity that you started this whole boondoggle out claiming
>to have found an internal inconsistency in SR, and you didn't even
>know what SR says.
DIAPER, PROVE THAT THE CLOCKS ARE OUT OF SYNCH IN O1's FRAME or ADMIT YOU ARE
WRONG AND SHUT UP.
Henry Wilson DSc
The EPG has no answer to my proof that Einstein was a hoaxer and a complete
idiot.
End of story.
I will publish my world shattering experiment before it is plagiarized.
Henry Wilson DSc
wrote:
>HW@..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote:
poor little eric....hopelessly confused....
glird
> On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 14:29:37 -0800 (PST), PD wrote:
>< When are you going to show me proof that two comoving clocks that are in synch in their own frame are not in synch in ALL frames.
>
> >Relativity notes that clocks synchronized in one frame are not synchronized in another frame. >
>
> It doesn't 'note it'. It requires it to work.
True. But so what?
>< SR doesn't have a proof that the clocks are out of synch in O1's frame; therefore the gedanken proves SR contradicts itself. >
> >> >> According to SR, all light moves at c in O1's frame. According to Einstein, the pulse always moves at c in O1's frame. >
It travels at c AS MEASUREDTherefore, in O1's frame, the pulse's
travel time between C1 and C2 on forward trip is = d/(c+v). This is
NUMERICALLY recorded by the clocks as t1-t0. >
><<< PROVE THAT THE CLOCKS ARE OUT OF SYNCH IN O1's FRAME.>
>
><<
>There is no proof in science.
> There is NO experimental data that supports SR. SR cannot prove that the clocks are out of synch in O1's frame. Therefore SR contradicts itself.
>
> >> PROVE THAT THE CLOCKS ARE OUT OF SYNCH IN O1's FRAME.
>
>
Inertial
You haven't published any such proof. You've certainly not posted anything
that shows SR is inconsistent/contradictory All you do is post your own
mistaken misinterpretation of SR and then claim it proves SR is wrong..
you're an idiot for doing so, and a bigger idiot for not listening to those
pointing out where you got it wrong. No wonder you never seem to learn.
> End of story.
Unfortunately not .. you still keep posting nonsense
> I will publish my world shattering experiment before it is plagiarized.
BAHAHAHAHA .. who would plagiarise your shit?
Inertial
Read up on SR .. you know.. the theory you are supposedly saying predicts
some sort of contradiction.
>>> There is only one way to synch two clocks that are connected. Send time
>>> signals
>>> between the two and adjust each so tAB = tBA.
>>
>>Yeup
>>
>>> Even Einstein fluked that one
>>> right. It is plain BaTh.
>>
>>You mean its something you fluked .. but I guess even you can't get
>>something that basic and simple wrong. Its blatantly obvious that a pair
>>of
>>in-sync clocks must show two equal time intervals as being equal time
>>intervals .. and if they show them as non-equal, then they are not in
>>sync.
>>Mind you, Androcles still doesn't get it.
>
> There is nothing to 'get'.
There is
> You argument is not relevant here.
*You* are not relevant
> You haven't explained why two clocks that are in synch in their own frame
> are
> not in synch in all other frames.
Read up on SR .. you know.. the theory you are supposedly saying predicts
some sort of contradiction.
> I would like to see your proof of that. Do you have one? I feel like a
> good
> laugh.
Read up on SR .. you know.. the theory you are supposedly saying predicts
some sort of contradiction.
Inertial
> On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 09:48:29 +1100, "Inertial" <relat...@rest.com>
> wrote:
>
>>"Henry Wilson DSc." <HW@..> wrote in message
>>news:14ufi51med9jtgafu...@4ax.com...
>>> On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 23:39:11 +1100, "Inertial" <relat...@rest.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Henry Wilson DSc." <HW@..> wrote in message
>>>>news:a3uei5tlothmhf7af...@4ax.com...
>>>>> The plain truth is you cannot find
>>>>> anything wrong with my argument.
>>>>
>>>>Wrong
>>>
>>> Well give it!
>>
>>I have .. so has PD .. you're too much of a moron to understand it .. its
>>something called physics .. maybe you've heard of it?
>
> You haven't made any constructive statements.
Wrong
> You haven't told me anything I
> didn't already know.
You apparently know next to nothing about SR .. or you wouldn't make such
blatant mistakes about what you say it says
Inertial
There's a century of it .. but you are too much of a liar to admit it
YBM
> On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 09:39:51 +1100, "Inertial" <relat...@rest.com> wrote:
>
>> "Henry Wilson DSc." <HW@..> wrote in message
>> news:pk2gi5ho6cd0m8huf...@4ax.com...
>>> On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 12:56:14 -0800 (PST), Paul Cardinale
>>> <pcard...@volcanomail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Ah yes, the usual from the ralf.
>>>> You misrepresent what SR says (because you don't know what SR says,
>>>> because you're too lazy to try to learn what SR says (and you're too
>>>> stupid to understand even if you did try)).
>>>> Then you go on to show that your misrepresentation is nonsensical.
>>>> Being an arrogant SOB, you proclaim that you've accomplished something
>>>> (well, I guess you have, if you count publicly displaying ignorance &
>>>> stupidity as an accomplishment).
>>>>
>>>> The thread title is perfect. The answer to the question it contains:
>>>> Everybody laughs. (Yes, everybody).
>>> ......a typical burst of agression and meaningless drivel from another
>>> desperate member of the EPG who was dragged out of his cage to try to stop
>>> the
>>> truth from emerging.
>> There is no danger of the truth emerging from a known liar such as yourself.
>> But it is, as always, good for a laugh. And a bit of fun finding where
>> exactly your mistake(s) occur.]
>
> The EPG has no answer to my proof that Einstein was a hoaxer and a complete
> idiot.
We would all be delighted to see you applying full Lorentz
Transformations to your gedanken so that you could realize how
misleading could be to think in term of 'time dilatation' (which is a
very specific case of LTs), you could as well read A.E. 1905 paper in
order to read again what 'synchronized' means.
As a matter of fact you've NEVER applied ONCE Lorentz Transformations
to any case, Ralph [(02) 4471 7965]. Every of your so-called refutation
implied some use of a inapropriate 'time slowing' or 'lenght
contraction'. Anyway you've admitted once having never read more than
a few lines about SR.
Why don't you try?
Don't you think that in order to refute something you'd better know
it?
Remember what I've told you once: LTs is consistently equivalent to
hyperbolic geometry which is consistently equivalent to Euclidian
Geometry which has been proven... consistent.
You won't be able to find any incoherence in SR, this is a math theorem,
Ralph.
Henry Wilson DSc
>"Henry Wilson DSc." <HW@..> wrote in message
>news:sa8gi5thl99k9m5t0...@4ax.com...
>>>> How do you hope to synch moving clocks anyway?
>>>
>>>As you said .. O2 syncs them. They are in sync in O2's frame. They are
>>>not
>>>in sync in O1's frame.
>>
>> How come?
>> Tell me exactly how you would establish that.
>
>Read up on SR .. you know.. the theory you are supposedly saying predicts
>some sort of contradiction.
Just as I thought. You haven't a clue...
>>>> There is only one way to synch two clocks that are connected. Send time
>>>> signals
>>>> between the two and adjust each so tAB = tBA.
>>>
>>>Yeup
>>>
>>>> Even Einstein fluked that one
>>>> right. It is plain BaTh.
>>>
>>>You mean its something you fluked .. but I guess even you can't get
>>>something that basic and simple wrong. Its blatantly obvious that a pair
>>>of
>>>in-sync clocks must show two equal time intervals as being equal time
>>>intervals .. and if they show them as non-equal, then they are not in
>>>sync.
>>>Mind you, Androcles still doesn't get it.
>>
>> There is nothing to 'get'.
>
>There is
>
>> You argument is not relevant here.
>
>*You* are not relevant
hahahahahhaha! You hate it when your religion is threatened....and this time it
has been well and truly destroyed for good.
>> You haven't explained why two clocks that are in synch in their own frame
>> are
>> not in synch in all other frames.
>
>Read up on SR .. you know.. the theory you are supposedly saying predicts
>some sort of contradiction.
No, I want YOU to tell me. You are so knowledgeable. hahahahhahahhah!
>> I would like to see your proof of that. Do you have one? I feel like a
>> good
>> laugh.
>
>Read up on SR .. you know.. the theory you are supposedly saying predicts
>some sort of contradiction.
It does.
You on the other hand believe that if you accept a certain SR's claim and that
claim leads to to a certain result that supports SR, then you have shown that
SR is proved correct.
I think you should do a course in logic.
Henry Wilson DSc
>"Henry Wilson DSc." <HW@..> wrote in message
>news:9h8gi55p2b4ler8sp...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 09:48:29 +1100, "Inertial" <relat...@rest.com>
>> wrote:
>>>I have .. so has PD .. you're too much of a moron to understand it .. its
>>>something called physics .. maybe you've heard of it?
>>
>> You haven't made any constructive statements.
>
>Wrong
>
>> You haven't told me anything I
>> didn't already know.
>
>You apparently know next to nothing about SR .. or you wouldn't make such
>blatant mistakes about what you say it says
Well if you are such an expert, you should be able to tell me in simple terms
why two comoving clocks that are in synch in their own frame are NOT in synch
in all others.
I think you are just a clueless bastard.
Henry Wilson DSc
>On Dec 15, 7:09�pm, HW@..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote:
>> On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 14:29:37 -0800 (PST), PD wrote:
>
>>< When are you going to show me proof that two comoving clocks that are in synch in their own frame are not in synch in ALL frames.
>>
>> >Relativity notes that clocks synchronized in one frame are not synchronized in another frame. >
>>
>> It doesn't 'note it'. It requires it to work.
>
> True. But so what?
Using one postulate to support another is hardly a convincing argument.
>>< SR doesn't have a proof that the clocks are out of synch in O1's frame; therefore the gedanken proves SR contradicts itself. >
>
>> >> >> According to SR, all light moves at c in O1's frame. According to Einstein, the pulse always moves at c in O1's frame. >
>
> It travels at c AS MEASUREDTherefore, in O1's frame, the pulse's
>travel time between C1 and C2 on forward trip is = d/(c+v). This is
>NUMERICALLY recorded by the clocks as t1-t0. �>
>
>><<< PROVE THAT THE CLOCKS ARE OUT OF SYNCH IN O1's FRAME.>
>>
>><<
>
> >There is no proof in science.
>> There is NO experimental data that supports SR. SR cannot prove that the clocks are out of synch in O1's frame. Therefore SR contradicts itself.
>>
>> >> PROVE THAT THE CLOCKS ARE OUT OF SYNCH IN O1's FRAME.
>>
>
>>
>> � � � �Einstein...World's greatest SciFi writer..
Henry Wilson...www.scisite.info/index.htm
Henry Wilson DSc
I will not waste any more of my valuable time replying to this idiot.
Henry Wilson DSc
If there is so much supporting evidence already, why the hell are so many
deluded scientists desperately looking for more?
Henry Wilson DSc
>Henry Wilson DSc a �crit :
>> On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 09:39:51 +1100, "Inertial" <relat...@rest.com> wrote:
>>
>>> "Henry Wilson DSc." <HW@..> wrote in message
>>> news:pk2gi5ho6cd0m8huf...@4ax.com...
>>>> On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 12:56:14 -0800 (PST), Paul Cardinale
>>>> <pcard...@volcanomail.com> wrote:
>> The EPG has no answer to my proof that Einstein was a hoaxer and a complete
>> idiot.
>
>We would all be delighted to see you applying full Lorentz
>Transformations to your gedanken so that you could realize how
>misleading could be to think in term of 'time dilatation' (which is a
>very specific case of LTs), you could as well read A.E. 1905 paper in
>order to read again what 'synchronized' means.
Hey dopey, I've read it. It's bullshit....except for his clock synching
definition.
He fluked the correct BaTh method.
>As a matter of fact you've NEVER applied ONCE Lorentz Transformations
>to any case, Ralph [(02) 4471 7965]. Every of your so-called refutation
>implied some use of a inapropriate 'time slowing' or 'lenght
>contraction'. Anyway you've admitted once having never read more than
>a few lines about SR.
>
>Why don't you try?
Why don't you try to tell me why my gedanken does not clearly refute SR.
>Don't you think that in order to refute something you'd better know
>it?
>
>Remember what I've told you once: LTs is consistently equivalent to
>hyperbolic geometry which is consistently equivalent to Euclidian
>Geometry which has been proven... consistent.
I will not waste any more of my valuable time replying to this idiot
glird
> On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 12:00:39 +1100, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
> >"Henry Wilson DSc." <HW@..> wrote in message
> >news:mm8gi5phhfgqs0t9m...@4ax.com...
>
> If there is so much supporting evidence already, why the hell are so many deluded scientists desperately looking for more? >
Because we, the people, unaware that they ARE deluded, PAY them LOTS
and LOTS of $$$$$$$$ to do so.
"Where ignorance is bliss [moolah} tis folly to be wise.'
In two years, when everything is correctly understood, nobody will
pay them to continue "pure research". Maybe THAT'S why they refuse to
listen to common sense and human reason based on the evidence given by
our GOD given senses, honed by millions of years of survival of the
fittest.
glird
Inertial
You've been proven an idiot again .. and again you run and hide. What a
liar and a coward you are. BAHAHA. You're pathetic.
Inertial
> On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 02:07:17 +0100, YBM <ybm...@nooos.fr.invalid> wrote:
>
>>Henry Wilson DSc a �crit :
>>> On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 09:39:51 +1100, "Inertial" <relat...@rest.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Henry Wilson DSc." <HW@..> wrote in message
>>>> news:pk2gi5ho6cd0m8huf...@4ax.com...
>>>>> On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 12:56:14 -0800 (PST), Paul Cardinale
>>>>> <pcard...@volcanomail.com> wrote:
>
>>> The EPG has no answer to my proof that Einstein was a hoaxer and a
>>> complete
>>> idiot.
>>
>>We would all be delighted to see you applying full Lorentz
>>Transformations to your gedanken so that you could realize how
>>misleading could be to think in term of 'time dilatation' (which is a
>>very specific case of LTs), you could as well read A.E. 1905 paper in
>>order to read again what 'synchronized' means.
>
> Hey dopey, I've read it.
Unlikely .. if you did, you clearly did not understand it
> It's bullshit....except for his clock synching
> definition.
See ,, you don't understand it
> He fluked the correct BaTh method.
It's not a 'BaTH method' .. its just common sense
>>As a matter of fact you've NEVER applied ONCE Lorentz Transformations
>>to any case, Ralph [(02) 4471 7965]. Every of your so-called refutation
>>implied some use of a inapropriate 'time slowing' or 'lenght
>>contraction'. Anyway you've admitted once having never read more than
>>a few lines about SR.
>>
>>Why don't you try?
>
> Why don't you try to tell me why my gedanken does not clearly refute SR.
We have. You make claims that are not what SR says, so it all it refutes is
what you misunderstand about SR
>>Don't you think that in order to refute something you'd better know
>>it?
>>
>>Remember what I've told you once: LTs is consistently equivalent to
>>hyperbolic geometry which is consistently equivalent to Euclidian
>>Geometry which has been proven... consistent.
>
> I will not waste any more of my valuable time replying to this idiot
You've been proven an idiot again .. and again you run and hide. What a
Inertial
> On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 11:59:21 +1100, "Inertial" <relat...@rest.com>
> wrote:
>
>>"Henry Wilson DSc." <HW@..> wrote in message
>>news:sa8gi5thl99k9m5t0...@4ax.com...
>
>>>>> How do you hope to synch moving clocks anyway?
>>>>
>>>>As you said .. O2 syncs them. They are in sync in O2's frame. They are
>>>>not
>>>>in sync in O1's frame.
>>>
>>> How come?
>>> Tell me exactly how you would establish that.
>>
>>Read up on SR .. you know.. the theory you are supposedly saying predicts
>>some sort of contradiction.
>
> Just as I thought. You haven't a clue...
I understand it just fine .. You don't You're the one clearly without a
clue.
>>>>> There is only one way to synch two clocks that are connected. Send
>>>>> time
>>>>> signals
>>>>> between the two and adjust each so tAB = tBA.
>>>>
>>>>Yeup
>>>>
>>>>> Even Einstein fluked that one
>>>>> right. It is plain BaTh.
>>>>
>>>>You mean its something you fluked .. but I guess even you can't get
>>>>something that basic and simple wrong. Its blatantly obvious that a
>>>>pair
>>>>of
>>>>in-sync clocks must show two equal time intervals as being equal time
>>>>intervals .. and if they show them as non-equal, then they are not in
>>>>sync.
>>>>Mind you, Androcles still doesn't get it.
>>>
>>> There is nothing to 'get'.
>>
>>There is
>>
>>> You argument is not relevant here.
>>
>>*You* are not relevant
>
> hahahahahhaha! You hate it when your religion is threatened....
I have no religion
> and this time it
> has been well and truly destroyed for good.
You've done nothing because you are a worthless stupid lying cowardly shit
>>> You haven't explained why two clocks that are in synch in their own
>>> frame
>>> are
>>> not in synch in all other frames.
>>
>>Read up on SR .. you know.. the theory you are supposedly saying predicts
>>some sort of contradiction.
>
> No, I want YOU to tell me. You are so knowledgeable. hahahahhahahhah!
The one thing you got right
>>> I would like to see your proof of that. Do you have one? I feel like a
>>> good
>>> laugh.
>>
>>Read up on SR .. you know.. the theory you are supposedly saying predicts
>>some sort of contradiction.
>
> It does.
Nope
> You on the other hand believe that if you accept a certain SR's claim and
> that
> claim leads to to a certain result that supports SR, then you have shown
> that
> SR is proved correct.
Nope .. just that it is consistent
> I think you should do a course in logic.
My logic is fine .. yours is totally flawed .. just like your personality
Inertial
> On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 12:00:02 +1100, "Inertial" <relat...@rest.com>
> wrote:
>
>>"Henry Wilson DSc." <HW@..> wrote in message
>>news:9h8gi55p2b4ler8sp...@4ax.com...
>>> On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 09:48:29 +1100, "Inertial" <relat...@rest.com>
>>> wrote:
>
>>>>I have .. so has PD .. you're too much of a moron to understand it ..
>>>>its
>>>>something called physics .. maybe you've heard of it?
>>>
>>> You haven't made any constructive statements.
>>
>>Wrong
>>
>>> You haven't told me anything I
>>> didn't already know.
>>
>>You apparently know next to nothing about SR .. or you wouldn't make such
>>blatant mistakes about what you say it says
>
> Well if you are such an expert, you should be able to tell me in simple
> terms
> why two comoving clocks that are in synch in their own frame are NOT in
> synch
> in all others.
You wouldn't understand .. its beyond your feeble little excuse for a brain
> I think you are just a clueless bastard.
You don't think. You've been proven an idiot again .. and again you run and
Inertial
Its called science .. testing to greater accuracy and under different
scenarios. But you wouldn't understand science. I'm sure you'd rather
there have been no experiments that support SR .. you lie about them not
existing .. but it still wouldn't make your illogical 'proofs' of
contradiction in your strawman misunderstandings of SR any more relevant.
But thanks for the laughs yet again.
Inertial
news:e444e665-8cac-48a3...@e20g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
BAHAHAHA
eric gisse
[...]
> I will publish my world shattering experiment before it is plagiarized.
There are two issues here:
Which name would you publish it under?
Are you aware that you need to perform an experiment to call something an
experiment?
eric gisse
[...]
>
> If there is so much supporting evidence already, why the hell are so many
> deluded scientists desperately looking for more?
Ah, so you think the evidence supporting SR isn't real because there's so
much of it?
But wait...you yourself seem to think there's lots of evidence for your
ballistic theory. If there is so much supporting evidence already, why the
hell are you desperately looking for more?
eric gisse
[...]
> poor little eric....hopelessly confused....
Nothing says 'strong argument' like a dismissive one liner response to a
substantial reply.
Henry Wilson DSc
Where am I hiding moron? I haev asked you to prove that two comoving clocks tat
are in synch in their own frame are not in synch in all frames.
You're such a dope you wouldn't even know where to start even if you did
understand the question.
Henry Wilson DSc
You're a total waste of time
<plonk>
YBM
Easy: apply Lorentz Transformations. You know they are somewhat related
to Special Relativity, don't you? Reminder: you're supposed to say
something about SR, aren't you?
Would you try?
Are you even able to? Do you even know what are coordinates, frames,
etc?
Henry Wilson DSc
You have been plonked.
YBM
>> ...
>> But thanks for the laughs yet again.
>
> You have been plonked.
You don't know what 'plonked' means, do you?
Thanks for the laughs!
Inertial
There you go again .. you lying coward Henry/Henri/Ralph
Inertial
Behind your 'plonk'ing and your 'not wasting more time' nonsense. You do
that every time you are shown to be wrong .. which is often
> I haev asked you to prove that two comoving clocks tat
> are in synch in their own frame are not in synch in all frames.
Its all in SR. You're just trying to divert from yet another of your
pathetic mistakes and lies.
> You're such a dope you wouldn't even know where to start even if you did
> understand the question.
I am not the one making idiotic claims about SR. YOU need to prove that
what you claim SR says is what SR actually says. HINT: It isn't
Henry Wilson DSc
wrote:
>HW@..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote:
>[...]
>
>> I will publish my world shattering experiment before it is plagiarized.
>
>There are two issues here:
>
>Which name would you publish it under?
>
>Are you aware that you need to perform an experiment to call something an
>experiment?
I that why Enstein arranged for lightning to strike the ends of a train
simultaneously.
Henry Wilson DSc
wrote:
>HW@..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote:
>[...]
>
>>
>> If there is so much supporting evidence already, why the hell are so many
>> deluded scientists desperately looking for more?
>
>Ah, so you think the evidence supporting SR isn't real because there's so
>much of it?
>
>But wait...you yourself seem to think there's lots of evidence for your
>ballistic theory. If there is so much supporting evidence already, why the
>hell are you desperately looking for more?
BaTh doesn't have a bun.ch of religious follows who will die for their cause no
matter how stupid it is. Nor does it want them
Inertial
See.. you're a coward.
Henry Wilson DSc
The LTs make both clocks run slower and move closer in O1's frame. That doesn't
put them out of synch. It makes no diffrence to the fact that the clock
readings will be such that t1-t0 =\= t2-t1
>Would you try?
>
>Are you even able to? Do you even know what are coordinates, frames,
>etc?
Moron...
Inertial
> On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 19:54:11 -0800, eric gisse <jowr.pi...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>HW@..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote:
>>[...]
>>
>>>
>>> If there is so much supporting evidence already, why the hell are so
>>> many
>>> deluded scientists desperately looking for more?
>>
>>Ah, so you think the evidence supporting SR isn't real because there's so
>>much of it?
>>
>>But wait...you yourself seem to think there's lots of evidence for your
>>ballistic theory. If there is so much supporting evidence already, why the
>>hell are you desperately looking for more?
>
> BaTh doesn't have a bun.ch of religious follows who will die for their
> cause no
> matter how stupid it is. Nor does it want them
Because it is a load of crap
eric gisse
> On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 19:51:39 -0800, eric gisse <jowr.pi...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>HW@..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote:
>>[...]
>>
>>> I will publish my world shattering experiment before it is plagiarized.
>>
>>There are two issues here:
>>
>>Which name would you publish it under?
>>
>>Are you aware that you need to perform an experiment to call something an
>>experiment?
>
> I that why Enstein arranged for lightning to strike the ends of a train
> simultaneously.
That's a "thought experiment".
A "thought experiment" is different from a real experiment because real
experiments don't take place entirely in your head. But given you've never
done a real experiment nor even read the details of one, I can see how you'd
be confused.
SR = Maxwell's equations + SO(3,1). Find the logical flaw.
YBM
> On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 05:24:01 +0100, YBM <ybm...@nooos.fr.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Henry Wilson DSc a �crit :
>>> On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 13:45:27 +1100, "Inertial" <relat...@rest.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Henry Wilson DSc." <HW@..> wrote in message
>>>> news:stfgi5h4dillpa8q7...@4ax.com...
>>>>> On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 11:59:21 +1100, "Inertial" <relat...@rest.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>
>>>> You've been proven an idiot again .. and again you run and hide. What a
>>>> liar and a coward you are. BAHAHA. You're pathetic.
>>> Where am I hiding moron? I haev asked you to prove that two comoving clocks tat
>>> are in synch in their own frame are not in synch in all frames.
>> Easy: apply Lorentz Transformations. You know they are somewhat related
>> to Special Relativity, don't you? Reminder: you're supposed to say
>> something about SR, aren't you?
>
> The LTs make both clocks run slower
"running slower" is fuzzy words.
> and move closer in O1's frame. That doesn't
> put them out of synch. It makes no diffrence to the fact that the clock
> readings will be such that t1-t0 =\= t2-t1
Write it down Ralph, using Lorentz Transformations from start to end.
Perhaps you could learn something then.
But you won't do it, will you?
eric gisse
> On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 19:54:11 -0800, eric gisse <jowr.pi...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>HW@..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote:
>>[...]
>>
>>>
>>> If there is so much supporting evidence already, why the hell are so
>>> many deluded scientists desperately looking for more?
>>
>>Ah, so you think the evidence supporting SR isn't real because there's so
>>much of it?
>>
>>But wait...you yourself seem to think there's lots of evidence for your
>>ballistic theory. If there is so much supporting evidence already, why the
>>hell are you desperately looking for more?
>
> BaTh doesn't have a bun.ch of religious follows who will die for their
> cause no matter how stupid it is. Nor does it want them
Mostly because "BaTh" has no followers as the theory has been tremendously
discredited for roughly 90 years now.
eric gisse
> On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 05:24:01 +0100, YBM <ybm...@nooos.fr.invalid> wrote:
>
>>Henry Wilson DSc a �crit :
>>> On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 13:45:27 +1100, "Inertial" <relat...@rest.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Henry Wilson DSc." <HW@..> wrote in message
>>>> news:stfgi5h4dillpa8q7...@4ax.com...
>>>>> On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 11:59:21 +1100, "Inertial" <relat...@rest.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>
>>>>
>>>> You've been proven an idiot again .. and again you run and hide. What
>>>> a
>>>> liar and a coward you are. BAHAHA. You're pathetic.
>>>
>>> Where am I hiding moron? I haev asked you to prove that two comoving
>>> clocks tat are in synch in their own frame are not in synch in all
>>> frames.
>>
>>Easy: apply Lorentz Transformations. You know they are somewhat related
>>to Special Relativity, don't you? Reminder: you're supposed to say
>>something about SR, aren't you?
>
> The LTs make both clocks run slower and move closer in O1's frame. That
> doesn't put them out of synch. It makes no diffrence to the fact that the
> clock readings will be such that t1-t0 =\= t2-t1
Seriously? The clock runs slower...but isn't out of synch?
Moron.
Inertial
> The LTs make both clocks run slower and move closer in O1's frame. That doesn't
> put them out of synch.
> It makes no diffrence to the fact that the clock
> readings will be such that t1-t0 =\= t2-t1
Don't you know that time dilation means there must be RoS.
Consider two clocks, C1 and C2 at rest together in frame S as a poont P
S: ------------C1PC2-------------
You move them apart with the same speed, v, but in opposite directions.
S: ---v<-C1------P------C2->v----
Time dilation says they both slow by the same amount and so both still show the same time.
Now consider those same two clocks from a different frame S', where P is moving at 2v
S': ---C1PC2->2v-----------------------
In that frame, when the clocks move apart, one slows to v, and the speeds up to 3v
S': ---------C1->v---P->2v---C2->3v----
So in S', one clock rate has sped up and the other clock rate has slowed down, so in S' they must be showing different times.
So you have RoS.
>>Would you try?
>>
>>Are you even able to? Do you even know what are coordinates, frames,
>>etc?
>
> Moron...
Inertial
> On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 19:51:39 -0800, eric gisse <jowr.pi...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>HW@..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote:
>>[...]
>>
>>> I will publish my world shattering experiment before it is plagiarized.
>>
>>There are two issues here:
>>
>>Which name would you publish it under?
>>
>>Are you aware that you need to perform an experiment to call something an
>>experiment?
>
> I that why Enstein arranged for lightning to strike the ends of a train
> simultaneously.
What .. you think that was a real experiment? Not heard of a gedanken?
BAHAHAHA.
Androcles
"Henry Wilson DSc ." <HW@..> wrote in message
news:riggi597jhshtd97d...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 11:56:43 +1100, "Inertial" <relat...@rest.com>
> wrote:
>
>>"Henry Wilson DSc." <HW@..> wrote in message
>>> On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 09:39:51 +1100, "Inertial" <relat...@rest.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Henry Wilson DSc." <HW@..> wrote in message
>>>>> On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 12:56:14 -0800 (PST), Paul Cardinale
>>>>> <pcard...@volcanomail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Ah yes, the usual from the ralf.
>>>>>>You misrepresent what SR says (because you don't know what SR says,
>>>>>>because you're too lazy to try to learn what SR says (and you're too
>>>>>>stupid to understand even if you did try)).
>>>>>>Then you go on to show that your misrepresentation is nonsensical.
>>>>>>Being an arrogant SOB, you proclaim that you've accomplished something
>>>>>>(well, I guess you have, if you count publicly displaying ignorance &
>>>>>>stupidity as an accomplishment).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The thread title is perfect. The answer to the question it contains:
>>>>>>Everybody laughs. (Yes, everybody).
>>>>>
>>>>> ......a typical burst of agression and meaningless drivel from another
>>>>> desperate member of the EPG who was dragged out of his cage to try to
>>>>> stop
>>>>> the
>>>>> truth from emerging.
>>>>
>>>>There is no danger of the truth emerging from a known liar such as
>>>>yourself.
>>>>But it is, as always, good for a laugh. And a bit of fun finding where
>>>>exactly your mistake(s) occur.]
>>>
>>> The EPG has no answer to my proof that Einstein was a hoaxer and a
>>> complete
>>> idiot.
>>
>>You haven't published any such proof. You've certainly not posted
>>anything
>>that shows SR is inconsistent/contradictory All you do is post your own
>>mistaken misinterpretation of SR and then claim it proves SR is wrong..
>>you're an idiot for doing so, and a bigger idiot for not listening to
>>those
>>pointing out where you got it wrong. No wonder you never seem to learn.
>>
>>> End of story.
>>
>>Unfortunately not .. you still keep posting nonsense
>>
>>> I will publish my world shattering experiment before it is plagiarized.
>>
>
> I will not waste any more of my valuable time replying to this idiot.
>
Promises, promises. Perhaps if you shut the fuck up he would too.
Inertial
news:5W2Wm.15101$RF5....@newsfe02.ams2...
No .. got more interesting things than Henry's repeated failed attempts to
show SR is wrong (when he doesn't even understand what SR actually says).
But it is funny watching him squirm and good to have a laugh at him digging
himself deeper and deeper with post after post.
PD
> On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 14:29:37 -0800 (PST), PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Dec 15, 3:14 pm, HW@..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote:
> >> On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 11:40:07 -0800 (PST), PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >On Dec 14, 10:44 pm, HW@..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote:
> >> >> This experiment shows why Einstein's theory is a load of crap. Read carefully.
>
> >> >OK, first of all this is not an experiment. It is a "gedanken". And
> >> >since you're not comparing anything to experimental data, your attempt
> >> >to discredit relativity must be based on a claimed internal
> >> >inconsistency of SR. A small wager is in order, where my claim would
> >> >be that any perceived inconsistency is merely the fact that you do not
> >> >understand what SR actually says.
>
> >> >> Consider two observers, one moving towards the other at v. O1 has a light
> >> >> source whilst O2 has a mirror and two synched and rigidly joined clocks. They
> >> >> are arranged in O1's frame, as follows:
>
> >> >> O1,S----------------------------------------------------v<--C1___d___ |M,C2,O2
>
> >> >> O2 can synch his clocks at any time using Einstein's defined method since they
> >> >> are at rest in his frame.
>
> >> >And they are of course not synched in 01's frame.
>
> >> Why are they not synched in O1's frame?
>
> >Because they're not. Relativity matches experimental observation.
>
> Haahahahhahahahhahaha! here we go again...this imaginary 'experimental
> observation' that Diaper and others dream about.
Sorry, Henry, but denying reality is a personality defect and is a
sign of psychosis.
>
> When are you going to show me proof that two comoving clocks that are in synch
> in their own frame are not in synch in ALL frames.
"Proof" comes in the form of experiment. You are asking to be
convinced by *argument*, as you reject all experimental evidence.
Science uses experimental evidence for support of a proposition, not
argument. You must be confused about what science is.
>
> >Relativity notes that clocks synchronized in one frame are not
> >synchronized in another frame.
>
> It doesn't 'note it'. It requires it to work.
No. It makes that observation about nature, and that agrees with
experiment.
>
> >As I said originally, if it was your intent to disprove relativity,
> >the only way you can do it with a gedanken is to demonstrate an
> >INTERNAL inconsistency. But SR is fully self-consistent. Just because
> >you don't know what SR says (such as "clocks synchronized in one frame
> >are not synchronized in another frame") is not SR's problem -- it's
> >yours.
>
> SR doesn't have a proof that the clocks are out of synch in O1's frame.
> therefore the gedanken proves SR contradicts itself.
Oh, Ralph, you've outdone yourself for stupidity. Rampant and
shameless stupidity.
Let's recap.
SR makes the statement that the clocks are synched in 02's frame.
SR makes the statement that the clocks are not synched in 01's frame.
You are not convinced of the truth of the second statement so you
assume the opposite, and then deduce that SR produces a contradiction.
>
> >> How would a genius like you synch two clocks that are comoving in your frame?
>
> >You don't have to. You just have to have a way to check that they are
> >not synchronized, and that's straightforward.
>
> Hahahahahhahahhahahhahha! How exactly do you do that, Diaper?
Lots of ways. One way is when they pass a pair of sensors
simultaneously in the 01 frame, signals are sent along equal-length
cables with time-stamp information from the sensors to a common
comparator. If the two time stamps don't match, then they aren't
synched. What is so difficult about that, Henri? Do you have no
imagination?
>
>
>
> >> >> In the experiment, a light pulse is emitted by S towards O2's mirror, M. The
> >> >> two clocks register the times when the pulse passes them.
>
> >> >> According to SR, all light moves at c in O1's frame. Therefore, in O1's frame,
> >> >> the closing speed of the pulse on M is c+v and its separation speed after
> >> >> reflection is c-v.
>
> >> >> C1 reads t0 when the pulse initially passes by. C2 reads t1 when the pulse
> >> >> reaches the mirror. C1 reads t2 when the reflected pulse passes on the return
> >> >> trip.
>
> >> >These clocks, of course, should not be used by 01 to measure any speed
> >> >for 01, because they are not synched in 01's frame, they are synched
> >> >in 02's frame.
>
> >> They are synched in ALL frames.
>
> >Not so. Not according to experiment. And certainly not according to
> >SR. And SR matches experiment.
>
> hahahhahahhahahaha! The 'imaginary experiments' again.
No. Real, documented experiments. You do not that denial of reality is
a mental disease, right?
>
> Tell me about them Diaper. In which dream did they appear?
>
> >> Their movement in another frame merely slows both by the same amount according
> >> to SR.
>
> >No, that is NOT what SR says about the clocks. I can't help it if you
> >don't know what SR says.
>
> But you claim to know all about it.
> Why can't you show me why the clocks are not synched in O1's frame.
Are you asking for an explanation of what SR actually says? Why don't
you just ask for it? Better yet, why don't you READ something about SR
to see what it actually says, rather than just fumbling around,
claiming that SR says things it doesn't and then claiming you've
discovered a contradiction, thereby PROVING that you're an ignoramus?
>
> A) Diaper doesn't know why.
>
>
>
> >> That would not put them out of synch.
>
> >> >> According to Einstein, the pulse always moves at c in O1's frame.
>
> >> >> Therefore, in O1's frame, the pulse's travel time between C1 and C2 on forward
> >> >> trip is = d/(c+v). This is NUMERICALLY recorded by the clocks as t1-t0.
>
> >> >No, it's not, because those two clocks are not synched in 01's frame.
>
> >> You keep repeating that because you think it gives you an escape route...but
> >> you have no idea what you are saying.
>
> >> PROVE THAT THE CLOCKS ARE OUT OF SYNCH IN O1's FRAME.
>
> >There is no proof in science. There is comparison with experimental
> >data. SR says the clocks are out of synch in 01's frame. There is no
> >internal inconsistency. SR successfully matches experimental data.
>
> There is NO experimental data that supports SR.
> SR cannot prove that the clocks are out of synch in O1's frame. Therefore SR
> contradicts itself.
>
> >> >> After reflection, its travel time between C2 and C1 on the return trip is =
> >> >> d/(c-v) and is recorded by the clocks as t2-t1.
>
> >> >No, it's not, because those two clocks are not synched in 01's frame.
>
> >> PROVE THAT THE CLOCKS ARE OUT OF SYNCH IN O1's FRAME.
>
> >It's really a pity that you started this whole boondoggle out claiming
> >to have found an internal inconsistency in SR, and you didn't even
> >know what SR says.
>
> DIAPER, PROVE THAT THE CLOCKS ARE OUT OF SYNCH IN O1's FRAME or ADMIT YOU ARE
> WRONG AND SHUT UP.
The proof is in experimental measurements. You don't want to look at
experimental measurements and this is your avenue for denial of
reality.
PD
> On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 12:00:39 +1100, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
> >"Henry Wilson DSc." <HW@..> wrote in message
>
> deluded scientists desperately looking for more?
This has been explained to you hundreds of times. A theory continues
to be tested long after there is ample support for it. This is because
the more surprising the exception the more significant it is.
Experimental Nobels are awarded for discovering just these kinds of
surprises. Big scientific payoff in the surprises you see.
But then again, you don't understand how science works in general. You
keep asking for proof of propositions other than experimental
evidence, which you dismiss. You think that once a theory has some
experimental support, then people should stop testing it, or if they
keep testing it there must be something wrong with the theory. Etc.
Etc. Etc.
PD
PD
>
> > If there is so much supporting evidence already, why the hell are so many deluded scientists desperately looking for more? >
>
> and LOTS of $$$$$$$$ to do so.
How much money do you think the average physicist makes?
> "Where ignorance is bliss [moolah} tis folly to be wise.'
>
> In two years, when everything is correctly understood, nobody will
> pay them to continue "pure research". Maybe THAT'S why they refuse to
> listen to common sense and human reason based on the evidence given by
> our GOD given senses, honed by millions of years of survival of the
> fittest.
>
> glird
PD
> On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 09:39:51 +1100, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
> >"Henry Wilson DSc." <HW@..> wrote in message
> >> On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 12:56:14 -0800 (PST), Paul Cardinale
> >> <pcardin...@volcanomail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>Ah yes, the usual from the ralf.
> >>>You misrepresent what SR says (because you don't know what SR says,
> >>>because you're too lazy to try to learn what SR says (and you're too
> >>>stupid to understand even if you did try)).
> >>>Then you go on to show that your misrepresentation is nonsensical.
> >>>Being an arrogant SOB, you proclaim that you've accomplished something
> >>>(well, I guess you have, if you count publicly displaying ignorance &
> >>>stupidity as an accomplishment).
>
> >>>The thread title is perfect. The answer to the question it contains:
> >>>Everybody laughs. (Yes, everybody).
>
> >> ......a typical burst of agression and meaningless drivel from another
> >> desperate member of the EPG who was dragged out of his cage to try to stop
> >> the
> >> truth from emerging.
>
> >There is no danger of the truth emerging from a known liar such as yourself.
> >But it is, as always, good for a laugh. And a bit of fun finding where
> >exactly your mistake(s) occur.]
>
> The EPG has no answer to my proof that Einstein was a hoaxer and a complete
> idiot.
>
and you're sticking with it.
I'm sure that strategy has worked well with women, too.
>
> I will publish my world shattering experiment before it is plagiarized.
>
Please do. It's easy to self-publish. Ken Seto has piles of his book
in his linen closet.
PD
> On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 19:51:39 -0800, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >HW@..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote:
> >[...]
>
> >> I will publish my world shattering experiment before it is plagiarized.
>
> >There are two issues here:
>
> >Which name would you publish it under?
>
> >Are you aware that you need to perform an experiment to call something an
> >experiment?
>
> I that why Enstein arranged for lightning to strike the ends of a train
> simultaneously.
You apparently don't know what the difference is between a gedanken
and an experiment is.
This is exemplified by your demanding gedankens for proof of
assertions and rejecting all real experiments.
PD
> On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 05:24:01 +0100, YBM <ybm...@nooos.fr.invalid> wrote:
> >> On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 13:45:27 +1100, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
>
> >>> "Henry Wilson DSc." <HW@..> wrote in message
> >>>news:stfgi5h4dillpa8q7...@4ax.com...
> >>>> wrote:
>
> >>> You've been proven an idiot again .. and again you run and hide. What a
> >>> liar and a coward you are. BAHAHA. You're pathetic.
>
> >> Where am I hiding moron? I haev asked you to prove that two comoving clocks tat
> >> are in synch in their own frame are not in synch in all frames.
>
> >Easy: apply Lorentz Transformations. You know they are somewhat related
> >to Special Relativity, don't you? Reminder: you're supposed to say
> >something about SR, aren't you?
>
> The LTs make both clocks run slower and move closer in O1's frame. That doesn't
> put them out of synch.
I'm sorry, Henri, but this is just a flat-out mistake. Actually doing
the LT's once or twice might help.
Paul B. Andersen
> On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 11:40:07 -0800 (PST), PD<thedrap...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Dec 14, 10:44 pm, HW@..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote:
>>> This experiment shows why Einstein's theory is a load of crap. Read carefully.
>>
>> OK, first of all this is not an experiment. It is a "gedanken". And
>> since you're not comparing anything to experimental data, your attempt
>> to discredit relativity must be based on a claimed internal
>> inconsistency of SR. A small wager is in order, where my claim would
>> be that any perceived inconsistency is merely the fact that you do not
>> understand what SR actually says.
>>
>>>
>>> Consider two observers, one moving towards the other at v. O1 has a light
>>> source whilst O2 has a mirror and two synched and rigidly joined clocks. They
>>> are arranged in O1's frame, as follows:
>>>
>>> O1,S----------------------------------------------------v<--C1___d___ |M,C2,O2
>>>
>>> O2 can synch his clocks at any time using Einstein's defined method since they
>>> are at rest in his frame.
>>
>> And they are of course not synched in 01's frame.
>
> Why are they not synched in O1's frame?
>
>>> two clocks register the times when the pulse passes them.
>>>
>>> According to SR, all light moves at c in O1's frame. Therefore, in O1's frame,
>>> the closing speed of the pulse on M is c+v and its separation speed after
>>> reflection is c-v.
>>>
>>> C1 reads t0 when the pulse initially passes by. C2 reads t1 when the pulse
>>> reaches the mirror. C1 reads t2 when the reflected pulse passes on the return
>>> trip.
>>
>> These clocks, of course, should not be used by 01 to measure any speed
>> for 01, because they are not synched in 01's frame, they are synched
>> in 02's frame.
>
> They are synched in ALL frames.
Yet another boring demonstration of your naivety, ignorance and stupidity!
--
Paul
John Kennaugh
>On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 14:29:37 -0800 (PST), PD <thedrap...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Dec 15, 3:14�pm, HW@..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote:
>>> On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 11:40:07 -0800 (PST), PD
>>><thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >On Dec 14, 10:44�pm, HW@..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote:
>>> >> This experiment shows why Einstein's theory is a load of crap.
>>> >>Read carefully.
>>>
>>> >OK, first of all this is not an experiment. It is a "gedanken". And
>>> >since you're not comparing anything to experimental data, your attempt
>>> >to discredit relativity must be based on a claimed internal
>>> >inconsistency of SR. A small wager is in order, where my claim would
>>> >be that any perceived inconsistency is merely the fact that you do not
>>> >understand what SR actually says.
>>>
>>> >> Consider two observers, one moving towards the other at v. O1 has a light
>>> >> source whilst O2 has a mirror and two synched and rigidly joined
>>> >>clocks. They
>>> >> are arranged in O1's frame, as follows:
>>>
>>> >>
>>>
>>>
>>> >>>>>>O1,S----------------------------------------------------v<--C1___d___ |M,C2,O2
>>>
>>> >> O2 can synch his clocks at any time using Einstein's defined
>>> >>method since they
>>> >> are at rest in his frame.
>>>
>>> >And they are of course not synched in 01's frame.
>>>
>>> Why are they not synched in O1's frame?
>>
>
>Haahahahhahahahhahaha! here we go again...this imaginary 'experimental
>observation' that Diaper and others dream about.
>
>in their own frame are not in synch in ALL frames.
>
>>Relativity notes that clocks synchronized in one frame are not
>>synchronized in another frame.
>
>It doesn't 'note it'. It requires it to work.
As someone who is not naturally hostile to critics of SR I would on
this occasion suggest that you are on a hiding to nothing. You do need
to learn the basics before attacking SR. I would also advise that if you
find yourself in a hole you should stop digging.
Beginner's guide to relativity chapter 1
| * |
A flash of light occurs in the centre of a railway carriage. In The
trains FoR it reaches the ends of the carriage simultaneously:
|* ^ *|
i.e. synchronised clocks on the train will register the same time
On the embankment however the second postulate says
|* ^ * |-->v
Flash hits the back of the carriage first as it is moving to meet it
while in the forward direction it is having to catch up the front of the
carriage so hasn't reached it yet. Sound familiar?
So do the flashes reach the end of the carriage simultaneously or don't
they? The basic "genius" of Einstein is that when others would have
abandoned a theory on the grounds that it was silly - in this case
implying contradictory results - he just ploughed straight on declaring
that what is simultaneous in one FoR isn't in another. The extension of
this is that the two observers will fail to agree as to what time the
light reached the ends and will disagree as to whether the time
intervals were the same or different.
As an encore he reconciled other contradictory results by declaring that
the length of the carriage needn't be the same nor the clock go at the
same rate.
As Essan says. Having already a definition of Time and Distance which
leads to a derived unit of Velocity Einstein broke a fundamental rule of
measurement theory. In declaring the speed of light as a constant BY
DEFINITION he duplicated units. Thus he introduced a new definition of
length and of time which both vary as a function of v^2/c^c. When
measured in these NEW units the speed of light is constant.
If BY DEFINITION you decide that a meter is always a meter and a second
is always a second then the speed of light is not always constant - you
pays your money ......
--
John Kennaugh
Paul Cardinale
> On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 19:51:39 -0800, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >HW@..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote:
> >[...]
>
> >> I will publish my world shattering experiment before it is plagiarized.
>
> >There are two issues here:
>
> >Which name would you publish it under?
>
> >Are you aware that you need to perform an experiment to call something an
> >experiment?
>
> I that why Enstein arranged for lightning to strike the ends of a train
> simultaneously.
>
> Henry Wilson...www.scisite.info/index.htm
>
That response perfectly illustrates the intellect of the ralf.
Androcles
"Paul Cardinale" <pcard...@volcanomail.com> wrote in message
news:ac8d5e4d-f09f-46c2...@m25g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
========================================
Yes, he obviously outclasses an idiot troll you.
His only problem is he can't spell "is" or punctuate
with a question mark.
Answer the question, Cardinale.
Are you aware that Einstein needed to perform an experiment to
call something an experiment, or did Einstein have some special
privilege the rest of us don't have, dumbfuck?
Darwin123
> On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 00:01:42 +1100, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
> >"Henry Wilson DSc." <HW@..> wrote in message
> >> On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 22:58:25 +1100, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >>>"Henry Wilson DSc." <HW@..> wrote in message
> >>>> On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 22:23:16 +1100, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com>
> >>>> wrote:
>
> >>>>>"Henry Wilson DSc." <HW@..> wrote in message
> >>>>>> On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 22:19:16 -0800, eric gisse
> >>>>>> <jowr.pi.nos...@gmail.com>
> >>>>>> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>HW@..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>[...]
>
> >>>>>>>used
> >>>>>>>for decades, as SR is defined entirely in terms of group theory.
>
> >>>>>>>Congratulations on your ineffective and pointless assault on the
> >>>>>>>irrelevant,
> >>>>>>>Ralph. Clearly we can now see what was meant about how precious your
> >>>>>>>time
> >>>>>>>really is.
>
> >>>>>> Why don't you say something intelligent.
>
> >>>>>In response to what? Your stupid mistakes? Actually .. I do do you the
> >>>>>courtesy of addressing your stupidity with the correct physics.
>
> >>>> All you can say is, "the clocks aren't synched in O1's frame".
>
> >>>That's right. A fact that you don't appreciate
>
> >>>> You know what, dopey, that wouldn't matter one iota even it it were
> >>>> true.
>
> >>>Of course it does. AS it shows you are totally wrong .. yet again.
>
> >>>> The plain fact is, t1-t0 will never equal t2-t1.
>
> >>>Wrong ... they are equal.
>
> >>>> ...and these are readings on
> >>>> synched clocks in the O2 frame.
>
> >>>Yes .. exactly .. in in the O2 frame light travels at c on incident and c
> >>>on
> >>>reflection and so the two time intervals are the same in that frame and so
> >>>the clocks will show that fact.
>
> >> That's what you have been taught...
>
> >That is what SR predicts. You are discussing SR predictions and trying to
> >show them to be inconsistent (and failing to do so)
>
> >> But the clock readings indicate that this is plainly not true.
>
> >Wrong
>
> >> t1-t0 does not
> >> equal t2-t1...
>
> >Wrong
>
> >> and those readings indicate the travel times over the same
> >> distance in O2's frame.
>
> >And they are the same differences in readings
>
> >>>> So the light reflects at a speed that is NOT
> >>>> the incident speed.
>
> >>>Wrong .. as usual
>
> >>>> Einstein is DEAD
>
> >>>Of course he is .. he's been dead for years. But his theories live on
> >>>despite you not understanding them.
>
> >>>> QED
>
> >>>No .. your are just wrong yet again. You need a new hobby .. your
> >>>Einstein
> >>>bashing is an abject failure.
>
> >> You haven't refuted anything I have said..
>
> >Yes I did
>
> >> You are totally lost. This is far too hard for you.
>
> >No .. *you* are lost and it is too hard for you. We all know this.
>
> >You simply do not understand what SR predicts and then embarrass yourself by
> >making such nonsense posts as the one starting this thread.
>
> My only interest in SR predictions is in showing that they prove SR wrong.
> That I have done.
>
> >Your argument is only valid if relativity of synchronization does not occur
> >... but, of course, it does occur in SR.
>
> The clocks do not go out synch in O1's frame.
>
> How do you hope to synch moving clocks anyway?
>
same time. It doesn't matter if they are moving or not.
If A is moving in B's frame, one can synch them at the time A and B
are close together (i.e., nearly coincident). At that point,
regardless of the speed of light, the exchange signal is
instantaneous. If two clocks are 0 inches apart, and one sends a
signal at velocity c, then the delay time of the signal is 0c=0.
That is one of your errors. You are assuming that the clocks, if
they are synched at one point, they have to be synched at every point.
One of the assumptions in Relativity, stated but not numbered, is that
the only real physical measurements are those describing coincidences.
By coincidence, I mean two separate events occurring at the same time
and the same place.
If A is moving relative to B, and if A and B are not at the same
place at the same time, then the delay time of the signal adds
"ambiguity" to their "synching protocol." Among other things,
relativity provides a way to make physical, verifiable predictions
despite this ambiguity. If one rejects the possibility that one can
synch clocks not at the same time and the same place, then there is no
ambiguity.
Darwin123
> On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 05:24:01 +0100, YBM <ybm...@nooos.fr.invalid> wrote:
> >> On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 13:45:27 +1100, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
>
> >>> "Henry Wilson DSc." <HW@..> wrote in message
> >>>news:stfgi5h4dillpa8q7...@4ax.com...
> >>>> wrote:
>
> >>> You've been proven an idiot again .. and again you run and hide. What a
> >>> liar and a coward you are. BAHAHA. You're pathetic.
>
> >> Where am I hiding moron? I haev asked you to prove that two comoving clocks tat
> >> are in synch in their own frame are not in synch in all frames.
>
> >Easy: apply Lorentz Transformations. You know they are somewhat related
> >to Special Relativity, don't you? Reminder: you're supposed to say
> >something about SR, aren't you?
>
> The LTs make both clocks run slower and move closer in O1's frame. That doesn't
> put them out of synch. It makes no diffrence to the fact that the clock
> readings will be such that t1-t0 =\= t2-t1
>
are at the same time and the same place. As soon as they are a
distance apart, t1-t0 does not have to equal t2-t0.
The Lorentz time dilation is not the only thing going on here.
There is a distance term in the Lorentz transformation that you
decided not to include.
Darwin123
wrote:
> "Paul Cardinale" <pcardin...@volcanomail.com> wrote in message
properties of the real world. You don't understand, or rather you
don't believe, in simultaneous events. As consequence, you can't even
visualize contact forces.
As far as I can tell, you only believe in remote measurements.
When you make up a thought experiment, the only measurements that you
allow are measurements made at a distance. You describe Doppler
measurements, and exchange of light signals at large distances.
However, you never mention measurements made when the two objects are
close together. When you describe yourself sitting in a chair, you
refuse to believe that the chair is pushing you upward. You reject the
tactile feeling of force of the chair on your butt as a measurement.
In your universe, measurements of distance and time don't require
forces. A pendulum can oscillate in free fall even though there is no
tension on the string. In your imagination, there is never any tension
on the string even when it is fixed to the ceiling. You don't seem to
know what the word "tension" means.
Most of the forces we use for measurements involve forces that
are short range. If you reject the possibility of simultaneous events,
or the limiting case of contact forces, you have a serious
contradiction with reality.
I would say that you differ from most people on this forum in
that you don't believe in simultaneity. This also makes you different
from Einstein. Einstein made up thought experiments where measurements
were occasionally made between objects that are close together. In
this, I don't think Einstein was much different from the rest of us.
Most of us would make up "thought experiments" where proximal
measurements were central. You don't. Or maybe you can't |:-)
Androcles
"Darwin123" <drose...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:fe66e626-6cfa-4f0b...@k17g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
Does A meet B when B meets A, you cretin?
Answer choices are:
i) No.
ii) Yes.
If your answer was ii) then you've defined "simultaneous".
If you answer was i) then you've defined "insanity".
Henry Wilson DSc
I am quite familiar with this.
If you read my original posting again you will see that it does not involve
simultaneity (which of course is absolute anyway, as I have shown previously).
The basic question is whether or not two clocks that are in synch in one frame
are in synch in ALL frames.
So far I have not been given any reason to believe otherwise.
>So do the flashes reach the end of the carriage simultaneously or don't
>they? The basic "genius" of Einstein is that when others would have
>abandoned a theory on the grounds that it was silly - in this case
>implying contradictory results - he just ploughed straight on declaring
>that what is simultaneous in one FoR isn't in another. The extension of
>this is that the two observers will fail to agree as to what time the
>light reached the ends and will disagree as to whether the time
>intervals were the same or different.
>As an encore he reconciled other contradictory results by declaring that
>the length of the carriage needn't be the same nor the clock go at the
>same rate.
>
>As Essan says. Having already a definition of Time and Distance which
>leads to a derived unit of Velocity Einstein broke a fundamental rule of
>measurement theory. In declaring the speed of light as a constant BY
>DEFINITION he duplicated units. Thus he introduced a new definition of
>length and of time which both vary as a function of v^2/c^c. When
>measured in these NEW units the speed of light is constant.
That has nothing to do with reality. Einstein's theory describes a fantasy
universe based on unproven postulates.
>If BY DEFINITION you decide that a meter is always a meter and a second
>is always a second then the speed of light is not always constant - you
>pays your money ......
Henry Wilson...www.scisite.info/index.htm
Selling something that doesn't exist is a serious crime....unless it's called god.
Henry Wilson DSc
The EPG keeps telling me this but never provides a reason.
...I wonder why....
Henry Wilson DSc
wrote:
>On Dec 17, 10:58�am, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics_q>
>wrote:
>> "Paul Cardinale" <pcardin...@volcanomail.com> wrote in message
>> ========================================
What kind of idiocy is this?
By mumbling 'close together' you are inferring that size is absolute. ....quite
an extraordinary statement from a relativist.
Anyway, simultaneity is absolute for the simple reason that is it not based on
the human sensory system which in turn usually relies on light for
communication.
If two differently moving observers time events with personal arrays of synched
clocks, they get the same timing answers.
Henry Wilson DSc
wrote:
>On Dec 15, 11:48�pm, HW@..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote:
>> On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 05:24:01 +0100, YBM <ybm...@nooos.fr.invalid> wrote:
>> >Henry Wilson DSc a �crit :
>> >> On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 13:45:27 +1100, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
>>
>> >>> "Henry Wilson DSc." <HW@..> wrote in message
>> >>>news:stfgi5h4dillpa8q7...@4ax.com...
>> >>>> On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 11:59:21 +1100, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com>
>> >>>> wrote:
>>
>> >>> You've been proven an idiot again .. and again you run and hide. �What a
>> >>> liar and a coward you are. �BAHAHA. �You're pathetic.
>>
>> >> Where am I hiding moron? I haev asked you to prove that two comoving clocks tat
>> >> are in synch in their own frame are not in synch in all frames.
>>
>> >Easy: apply Lorentz Transformations. You know they are somewhat related
>> >to Special Relativity, don't you? Reminder: you're supposed to say
>> >something about SR, aren't you?
>>
>> The LTs make both clocks run slower and move closer in O1's frame. That doesn't
>> put them out of synch. It makes no diffrence to the fact that the clock
>> readings will be such that t1-t0 =\= t2-t1
>>
> It makes a difference that they can only be synched at when they
>are at the same time and the same place. As soon as they are a
>distance apart, t1-t0 does not have to equal t2-t0.
That's plainly wrong. Einstein's own clock synching definition is perfectly OK
in flat gravity. It is the only part of his theory that he got right...even if
it was a fluke.
> The Lorentz time dilation is not the only thing going on here.
>There is a distance term in the Lorentz transformation that you
>decided not to include.
Stop procrastinating. Just tell me straight out why two clocks that are in
synch in one frame are not in synch in other frames.
Henry Wilson DSc
wrote:
>On Dec 15, 3:56�pm, HW@..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote:
>> On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 00:01:42 +1100, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
>> >"Henry Wilson DSc." <HW@..> wrote in message
>> >news:n91fi5lr8duttgucc...@4ax.com...
>> >> On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 22:58:25 +1100, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com>
>>
>> >Your argument is only valid if relativity of synchronization does not occur
>> >... but, of course, it does occur in SR.
>>
>> The clocks do not go out synch in O1's frame.
>>
>> How do you hope to synch moving clocks anyway?
>>
>You can synch two clocks only when they are at the same place at the
>same time. It doesn't matter if they are moving or not.
> If A is moving in B's frame, one can synch them at the time A and B
>are close together (i.e., nearly coincident). At that point,
>regardless of the speed of light, the exchange signal is
>instantaneous. If two clocks are 0 inches apart, and one sends a
>signal at velocity c, then the delay time of the signal is 0c=0.
This is nonsense. Any two clocks that are MAR can be absolutely synched using
Einstein's method.
> That is one of your errors. You are assuming that the clocks, if
>they are synched at one point, they have to be synched at every point.
>One of the assumptions in Relativity, stated but not numbered, is that
>the only real physical measurements are those describing coincidences.
>By coincidence, I mean two separate events occurring at the same time
>and the same place.
A line of clocks can easily be absolutely synched by sending time signals in
both dirrections between them.
C1...C2...C3...C4...C5...C6...C7...C8...O
An observer can then use them to time all events (the nearest clock records the
even time) and establish simultaneity relationships. All such observers will
get the same results and agree on the absolute time interval between any two
events anywhere.
> If A is moving relative to B, and if A and B are not at the same
>place at the same time, then the delay time of the signal adds
>"ambiguity" to their "synching protocol." Among other things,
>relativity provides a way to make physical, verifiable predictions
>despite this ambiguity. If one rejects the possibility that one can
>synch clocks not at the same time and the same place, then there is no
>ambiguity.
There is no ambiguity anyway. Simultaneity is absolute and universal if
communication travel time is corrected out.
Inertial
Yes, it certainly does involve simultaneity issues. The problem is that you
ignored them and hence got an inconsistent result. SR is no inconsistent ..
that has been mathematically proven, however, that does not on its own imply
SR is correct. You attempts to disprove SR by finding internal
inconsistencies is a waste of everyone's time. You would be better trying
to find reasons why, though self-consistent, it is not a good model of
reality.
> The basic question is whether or not two clocks that are in synch in one
> frame
> are in synch in ALL frames.
That is exactly the question in you gedanken
> So far I have not been given any reason to believe otherwise.
If you are trying to refute SR, you have to use what SR says .. not make up
your own non-SR bastardized theory and refute that.