 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Natural Science Forum / Physics / Relativity / February 2006Why TWLS=OWLS=c in any ONE Frame.
A____________L______________B A and B are two observers equipped with light sources and clocks, at each end of a long rigid rod of length L. Because the clocks are at mutually at rest, the clock rates can be absolutely synched. When A's clock reads 0.000000000000, A sends a light pulse towards B. Its speed is 'c' relative to A, and therefore also 'c' relative to B. Its travel time is L/c (but at this stage we don't know the value of c). When the pulse arrives, B instantly adjusts his own clock to 0.0000000000000 and immediately sends a return pulse towards A. It travels at 'c' wrt B and therefore also 'c' wrt A. Its travel time is also L/c (but at this stage we still don't know the value of c). This is sufficient to demonstrate that tAB=tBA. They are both numerically equal to L/c. Only an aethrist would disagree. Next, A reads his clock when B's pulse arrives. It reads x.yxyeycjfmflfldfdgdkg. This reading, 't', is light's total travel time from A to B and back again to A. From this A calculates c as being 2L/t. Note: A can replace B with a mirror and do the same thing, knowing that the travel times in each direction must be the same. To synch the clocks A and B according to Einstein, B simply adjusts his current clock reading upwards by (x.yxyeycjfmflfldfdgdkg)/2. Now, if A sends a pulse to B at time To, B receives it at (To+L/c), at which instant A's clock must also read exactly (To+L/c). If B sends a pulse towards A at time T1, A receives it at (T1+L/c), at which instant B's clock must also read exactly (T1+L/c) The clocks are now 'absolutely' synched. Poor old Einy didn't know what he actually achieved!!!! HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm > A____________L______________B > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > is 'c' relative to A, and therefore also 'c' relative to B. Its travel time is > L/c (but at this stage we don't know the value of c). xxein: That's why you don't know anything about OWLS and TWLS. >> A____________L______________B >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >> speed >> is 'c' relative to A, and therefore also 'c' relative to B. When A's clock reads 0.000000000000, A sends a light pulse towards B. Its VELOCITY is MINUS 'c' relative to A (receding), and therefore PLUS 'c' relative to B (approaching). Wilson is a drooling drunken moron. Its travel time is >> L/c (but at this stage we don't know the value of c). > > xxein: That's why you don't know anything about OWLS and TWLS. You got it. http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Wilson/Wilson.htm Androcles. >>> A____________L______________B >>> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > >Wilson is a drooling drunken moron. You've lost yer marbles.... >Its travel time is >>> L/c (but at this stage we don't know the value of c). [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Wilson/Wilson.htm >Androcles. HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm In sci.physics.relativity, HW@..(Henri Wilson) <HW@> wrote on Sun, 29 Jan 2006 00:48:54 GMT <3v3ot1ple8nn8mdb1mg948lju9t3tjr340@4ax.com>: > A____________L______________B > > A and B are two observers equipped with light sources and clocks, > at each end of a long rigid rod of length L. Because the clocks > are at mutually at rest, the clock rates can be absolutely synched. [OWLS/TWLS snipped for brevity] > Poor old Einy didn't know what he actually achieved!!!! No one is disputing lightspeed relative to its source. The question is: if B is moving, what does he measure the lightspeed from A to be? [.sigsnip]  Signature#191, ewill3@earthlink.net It's still legal to go .sigless. >In sci.physics.relativity, HW@..(Henri Wilson) ><HW@> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >question is: if B is moving, what does he measure the >lightspeed from A to be? Ghost, sometimes I am very concerned about your ability to comprehend what you read. Are you trying to catch Androcles in the dementia competition? Didn't you see the part about A and B being connected by a rigid rod? >[.sigsnip] HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm In sci.physics.relativity, HW@..(Henri Wilson) <HW@> wrote on Sun, 29 Jan 2006 05:10:58 GMT <vajot15e81r2r36vo305nd8fdj7tg0mhh6@4ax.com>: >>In sci.physics.relativity, HW@..(Henri Wilson) >><HW@> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Didn't you see the part about A and B being connected by a rigid rod? I did. That's a bit pointless, actually (nobody's disagreeing there); I'm more interested in the measurement of light's velocity when B is moving. So I detached it. Is this a problem? >>[.sigsnip] > > HW. > www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Signature#191, ewill3@earthlink.net It's still legal to go .sigless. >In sci.physics.relativity, HW@..(Henri Wilson) ><HW@> [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > >So I detached it. Is this a problem? Just a small one Ghost. It becomes a different subject altogether. The principle, TWLS=OWLS=c, only applies in a single frame ..... so why the hell do you want to introduce other frames. HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm In sci.physics.relativity, HW@..(Henri Wilson) <HW@> wrote on Sun, 29 Jan 2006 22:38:37 GMT <vhgqt1hoj0dfdn2as63ppjldothep3m9qj@4ax.com>: >>In sci.physics.relativity, HW@..(Henri Wilson) >><HW@> [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > The principle, TWLS=OWLS=c, only applies in a single frame ..... > so why the hell do you want to introduce other frames. Well, for starters, SR also postulates TLWS=OWLS=c for a stationary light source. For a moving light source SR postulates c; AFAICT your theory postulates c'=c+kv where k is a variable factor depending on length of traversal and whatever's between the light and the measurement point. > HW. > www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Signature#191, ewill3@earthlink.net It's still legal to go .sigless. >In sci.physics.relativity, HW@..(Henri Wilson) ><HW@> > wrote >>>>>> A____________L______________B >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] >Well, for starters, SR also postulates TLWS=OWLS=c for a stationary >light source. I don't care Ghost. >For a moving light source SR postulates c; That's why it is nonsense...or at best just an aether theory. >AFAICT your theory postulates c'=c+kv where k is a variable >factor depending on length of traversal and whatever's >between the light and the measurement point. Ghost, we are not discussing other frames. We are simply getting the mesage across that according to the BaTh, TWLS = OWLS = c if measured in one frame. >> HW. >> www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm > A____________L______________B > [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > > Poor old Einy didn't know what he actually achieved!!!! Now imagine A and B and the rod accelerate a bit (fire rocket engines for a minute). After the acceleration is turned off again, will their clocks be still in sync (according to the procedure above)? -- Jan Bielawski >> A____________L______________B >> [quoted text clipped - 55 lines] > -- > Jan Bielawski It's already been done. http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Synchronize/Synchronize.htm Clocks stay in synch whether you shine a light at them or not. Androcles. >> A____________L______________B >> [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] >for a minute). After the acceleration is turned off again, will their >clocks be still in sync (according to the procedure above)? They should be, but if they were physically affected by the acceleration they can easily be resynched with the above method. HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm > >Now imagine A and B and the rod accelerate a bit (fire rocket engines > >for a minute). After the acceleration is turned off again, will their > >clocks be still in sync (according to the procedure above)? > > They should be, but if they were physically affected by the acceleration they > can easily be resynched with the above method. Well, it's not an absolute sync then. -- Jan Bielawski >> >Now imagine A and B and the rod accelerate a bit (fire rocket engines >> >for a minute). After the acceleration is turned off again, will their [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > -- > Jan Bielawski Yep. [300,000 + (-300,000)]/2 = 300,000/1 -- Wilson and Einstein. Androcles. > >> >Now imagine A and B and the rod accelerate a bit (fire rocket engines > >> >for a minute). After the acceleration is turned off again, will their [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Yep. Nop. > [300,000 + (-300,000)]/2 = 300,000/1 -- Wilson and Einstein. He said "They should be, but if they were physically affected by the acceleration they can easily be resynched" - which means they could go out of sync. -- Jan Bielawski >> >> >Now imagine A and B and the rod accelerate a bit (fire rocket engines >> >> >for a minute). After the acceleration is turned off again, will their [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >acceleration they can easily be resynched" - which means they could go >out of sync. Androcles doesn't understand that time is a scalar. HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm In sci.physics.relativity, HW@..(Henri Wilson) <HW@> wrote on Mon, 30 Jan 2006 03:38:59 GMT <pe2rt1dmsgiuhac1l1eq6d2oi8dljde3cp@4ax.com>: >>> >> >Now imagine A and B and the rod accelerate a bit (fire rocket engines >>> >> >for a minute). After the acceleration is turned off again, will their [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Androcles doesn't understand that time is a scalar. Time is a scalar, yes. However, velocity is a vector. Androcles' logic apparently is that SR logic dictates the light beam starts at zero and ends at zero, and therefore that lightspeed is zero, thereby invalidating SR. (Erm..........yeah.) [.sigsnip] Signature#191, ewill3@earthlink.net It's still legal to go .sigless. > In sci.physics.relativity, HW@..(Henri Wilson) <HW@> > wrote [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > Time is a scalar, yes. "scalar" is often -- perhaps usually -- taken to mean "scalar field on the manifold" and hence something which is also "invariant", or independent of choice of coordinates. Time's not, so time's not a scalar, either. > However, velocity is a vector. Androcles' logic > apparently is that SR logic dictates the light beam starts at zero and [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > [.sigsnip] SignatureNospam becomes physicsinsights to fix the email > "scalar" is often -- perhaps usually -- taken to mean "scalar field on the > manifold" and hence something which is also "invariant", or independent > of choice of coordinates. Yes. A real-valued field on the manifold (occasionally a complex value is used). > Time's not, so time's not a scalar, either. Well, be careful. The time coordinate of a specified observer _is_ a scalar field on the manifold. Specifically: for observer A, observer A's coordinates apply a real value t_A(P) to every point P of a given region of the manifold, and is therefore a scalar field on that region; all observers will agree that A's time coordinate has the value t_A(P) at each point P in that region (of course different observers will naturally use different time coordinates; that's irrelevant). This has been called an "observer-dependent invariant", which about sums it up. In the abstract, "time" without specifying an observer has no meaning in relativity (or at least no _observable_ meaning). Tom Roberts tjroberts@lucent.com "Now ..just LET go" Theory. < Re: What is LET? >: > >> As soon as you admit absolute simultaneity, even in principle, > >> you have a galilean invariant theory. > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/STM/Scoundrels.htm#Bilge > Androcles. $$ ^. No more GR. $$ [ GR's OUT of liNE. ] GR, a WORLD=point (at an END of it's WORLD-line) ..having DECLARED; .. [[[ "..NO _PRiOR_ GEOMETRY.!!" ]]] .. .. [[ "GR .._NOW_, has _NO_ WORLD-line." ]] .. [[ So, "It's ALL OVER _NOW_ ..just LET go." ]]. .. Tom (between error-bars) means "simultaneity" _BETWEEN error-bars_ [[..but he ABSOLUTELY _NEVER_ means "vacuum" _BETWEEN error-bars_]]. NOW ..of course, THERE isN'T MUCH LEFT of GR except the DisGRUNTLEs. It's OVER (finished). ```Brian. > > "scalar" is often -- perhaps usually -- taken to mean "scalar field on the > > manifold" and hence something which is also "invariant", or independent [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Tom Roberts tjroberts@lucent.com Re: Why TWLS= 0 <> OWLS in any ONE Frame. Re: GR's OUT of LiNE. >> "scalar" is often -- perhaps usually -- taken to mean "scalar field >> on the manifold" and hence something which is also "invariant", or [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Well, be careful. The time coordinate of a specified observer _is_ a > scalar field on the manifold. Yes, of course, you're right, at least as long as we stick with SR. In GR, where particular coordinate systems may cover a subset of the manifold, the statement is a little less clear-cut. And of course we shouldn't forget that other neglected invariant, either: the relativistic mass (OH NO NOT THAT!): the inner product of the 4-momentum of an object with the 4-velocity of a particular observer is the mass/energy of the object, aka relativistic mass, as measured in that observer's rest frame.... so, since the inner product of two vectors is an invariant, so's the (frame-dependent) relativistic mass. > Specifically: for observer A, observer A's coordinates apply a real > value t_A(P) to every point P of a given region of the manifold, and [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > In the abstract, "time" without specifying an observer has no > meaning in relativity (or at least no _observable_ meaning). If a tree falls in the forest and nobody's there to observe it .... what makes you think it really fell? SignatureNospam becomes physicsinsights to fix the email >>> "scalar" is often -- perhaps usually -- taken to mean "scalar field >>> on the manifold" and hence something which is also "invariant", or [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > If a tree falls in the forest and nobody's there to observe it .... > what makes you think it really fell? You come along "later" (a time word) and find a dead theory tree "lying" as usual. c is a vector, -c is a vector, c-c = c when 2AB/(t'A-tA) = c because nobody knows what tB is. Find out. Ask Cassini the time. http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Synchronize/Synchronize.htm It is so, so nice to see two in-denial grieving shitheads in a kook fight. Androcles Dumbledore, B.A., M.Sc., Ph.D., N.R., F.R.S., Queen's Award for Export and Technology, Headmaster - hogwarts.physics, der alte Hexenmeister. PS. We all impressed by fancy titles, right? N.R. is Necromancer of Relativity. F.R.S. is Flight Really Simulated, and should not be confused with Fellow of the Royal Society. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen's_Award_to_Industry That award and 50 cents bought me a cup of coffee in McDonalds, which wasn't quite so expensive in 1984. I'm not too sure if the two quarters carried the greater weight or not, the little gal who served me seemed impressed by my blue tie and yellow emblem to the point of asking me what it was. PPS. "Necromancer" is a wiz wurd for the muggle equivalent "Pathologist". A. Dumbledore exhumes dead theories and autopsies them to see why they are past their expiration (or sell-by) date. We can't have dead theories walking, they stink like tords. "Dr. John Parker" is a pseudonym for the sole purpose of the muggle electoral register, used by Androcles Dumbledore, B.A., M.Sc., Ph.D., N.R., F.R.S., Queen's Award for Export and Technology, Headmaster - hogwarts.physics, der alte Hexenmeister. http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/ >> Well, be careful. The time coordinate of a specified observer _is_ a >> scalar field on the manifold. > > Yes, of course, you're right, at least as long as we stick with SR. > In GR, where particular coordinate systems may cover a subset of the > manifold, the statement is a little less clear-cut. That's why in my discussion I specified a region of the manifold, not the whole thing. It is clear-cut in the region in which the coordinate system in question is valid. > And of course we shouldn't forget that other neglected invariant, > either: the relativistic mass (OH NO NOT THAT!): the inner product of [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > of two vectors is an invariant, so's the (frame-dependent) > relativistic mass. Sure. That's another observer-dependent invariant. But it is not a field on spacetime, it is a relationship between a specific object's worldline and the observer specified. Basically the vocabulary is not always precise, and people often/usually leave of the second word of "tensor field", so one must be careful when discussing tensors whether one is talking about a tensor at a specific point or trajectory (such as the 4-velocity of an object), or a tensor field on the manifold (such as the metric -- in this last usage I omitted both "tensor" and "field", which is quite common). Tom Roberts tjroberts@lucent.com >>> Well, be careful. The time coordinate of a specified observer _is_ a >>> scalar field on the manifold. [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > Tom Roberts tjroberts@lucent.com `When *I* use a word,' Humpty Roberts said, in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.' `The question is,' said Alice, `whether you can make words mean so many different things.' `The question is,' said Tom Dumpty, `which is to be master -- that's all.' http://www.sabian.org/Alice/lgchap06.htm Androcles. >>> Androcles doesn't understand that time is a scalar. >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >Time's not, so time's not a scalar, either. Are you refering to 'time instant' (eg, "what time did it start?") or 'time interval' (eg, "how long does it take?") or 'time flow' (eg, It's taking longer than usual...") ....What hope is there for the world, when scientists can't even recognize the differences? HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm >>> Androcles doesn't understand that time is a scalar. >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Time's not, so time's not a scalar, either. >> However, velocity is a vector. Androcles' logic >> apparently is that SR logic dictates the light beam starts at zero and >> ends at zero, and therefore that lightspeed is zero, thereby invalidating >> SR. >> (Erm..........yeah.) 'c' is a velocity vector or you cannot compute t = x'/(c-v), "But the ray moves relatively to the initial point of k, when measured in the stationary system, with the velocity c-v..."--Einstein. In units of c = 1 as Lawrence likes to use, 1 - 1 = c.-- Einstein and Wilson, shitheads. My report to the coroner: I pronounce the Special Theory of Relativity dead. It was still-born and died of a logic attack. Mourners still in the denial stage should consult a psychiatrist, or they may find some solace here: http://www.caringinfo.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=1 http://www.griefhealing.com/ http://www.aarp.org/families/grief_loss/ http://www.griefnet.org/ http://www.petloss.com/ As is normal with most pathologists, I shall not be attending the funeral. Androcles Dumbledore, B.A., M.Sc., Ph.D., N.R., F.R.S., Queen's Award for Export and Technology, Headmaster - hogwarts.physics, der alte Hexenmeister. PS. We all impressed by fancy titles, right? N.R. is Necromancer of Relativity. F.R.S. is Flight Really Simulated, and should not be confused with Fellow of the Royal Society. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen's_Award_to_Industry That award and 50 cents bought me a cup of coffee in McDonalds, which wasn't quite so expensive in 1983. I'm not too sure if the two quarters carried the greater weight or not, the little gal who served me seemed impressed by my blue tie and yellow emblem to the point of asking me what it was. PPS. "Necromancer" is a wiz wurd for the muggle equivalent "Pathologist". A. Dumbledore exhumes dead theories and autopsies them to see why they are past their expiration (or sell-by) date. We can't have dead theories walking, they stink. "Dr. John Parker" is a pseudonym used for the sole purpose of the muggle electoral register by Androcles Dumbledore, B.A., M.Sc., Ph.D., N.R., F.R.S., Queen's Award for Export and Technology, Headmaster - hogwarts.physics, der alte Hexenmeister. "sal" is a pseudonym for Steven Allshit Lawrence, stupid bunny rabbit lover and f.cking treacherous muggle bastard, who provided my pseudonym to the dumbest c.nt on Earth, Dork Van de merde. http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/ >> >> >Now imagine A and B and the rod accelerate a bit (fire rocket engines >> >> >for a minute). After the acceleration is turned off again, will their [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > acceleration they can easily be resynched" - which means they could go > out of sync. Sure. I've never seen a grandfather clock on a ship stay in synch with a shore-based clock yet. They are physically affected by acceleration. They can be easily put back in synch, though, so he is right and so are you. The moons of Jupiter are out of synch with Earth based clocks too. That FACT was used by Roemer to measure the speed of light. I fully expect a phuckwit like you to contradict himself with "Nop" and a halfwit like Henri to agree with Einstein. Androcles. >>> [300,000 + (-300,000)]/2 = 300,000/1 -- Wilson and Einstein. >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >I fully expect a phuckwit like you to contradict himself with "Nop" >and a halfwit like Henri to agree with Einstein. Einstein only did one thing right and that was a fluke. He devised a way to absolutely synch clocks. >Androcles. HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm >> >Now imagine A and B and the rod accelerate a bit (fire rocket engines >> >for a minute). After the acceleration is turned off again, will their [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >Well, it's not an absolute sync then. I said 'physically affect'..... Naturally if two clocks are accelerated at say, 100 gs they are likely to alter their characteristics. So it might be necessary to re-synch them. So what? I didn't say anything about accelerating them. HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm > A____________L______________B > > A and B are two observers equipped with light sources and clocks, at each end > of a long rigid rod of length L. Because the clocks are at mutually at rest, > the clock rates can be absolutely synched. [snip] > The clocks are now 'absolutely' synched. A sends a signal to B when his clock reads T1 and receives an echo when his clocks reads T2. With the echo signal he also receives B's clock reading TB from the echo event. He defines the time of the echo event to be TA = 1/2(T1+T2). He calculates the difference TA-TB and sends that number to B, who then adds this number to his own current clock reading. Clocks A and B are now synchronized in their common inertial restframe. You haven't mentioned any other frame, so you have no right to talk about 'absoluteness'. > Poor old Einy didn't know what he actually achieved!!!! I think you missed an essential part of something ;-) Dirk Vdm >> A____________L______________B >> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >You haven't mentioned any other frame, so you have no >right to talk about 'absoluteness'. >> Poor old Einy didn't know what he actually achieved!!!! > >I think you missed an essential part of something ;-) I don't think so. Rod lengths and clock rates do not physically change as a result of a velocity change. However, even if your theory was NOT complete nonsense and the clocks DID somehow change, they would both change by the same amount in any second frame. So the above clocks remain in 'absolute synch' in all frames. Note: the method makes no attempt to absolutely synch clocks in different frames. That may be the source of your confusion. >Dirk Vdm HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm > >> A____________L______________B > >> [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > However, even if your theory was NOT complete nonsense and the clocks DID > somehow change, they would both change by the same amount in any second frame. Not so: I've already given a detailed calculation example which includes the impossibility of such "absolute synching": http://tinyurl.com/bykde > So the above clocks remain in 'absolute synch' in all frames. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > HW. > www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm >> >"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message >news:3v3ot1ple8nn8mdb1mg948lju9t3tjr340@4ax.com... [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] >Not so: I've already given a detailed calculation example which includes the >impossibility of such "absolute synching": http://tinyurl.com/bykde That's aether theory. there ain't no aether. >> So the above clocks remain in 'absolute synch' in all frames. >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >> HW. >> www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm > >> >"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message > >news:3v3ot1ple8nn8mdb1mg948lju9t3tjr340@4ax.com... [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >> > > >> >> The clocks are now 'absolutely' synched. SNIP > >> >> Poor old Einy didn't know what he actually achieved!!!! > >> > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > That's aether theory. > there ain't no aether. You can call it what you like and claim what you like; it still disproves your above statement that "even if the clocks DID somehow change, they would both change by the same amount in any second frame" - *if* I correctly understand what you mean with it. Perhaps you like to elaborate? BTW, that clocks can only be synchronized for a certain frame was explained by both Poincare and Einstein, and they understood it perfectly well. Harald >> On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 14:11:45 +0100, "Harry" <harald.vanlintel@epfl.ch> >wrote: [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] >BTW, that clocks can only be synchronized for a certain frame was explained >by both Poincare and Einstein, and they understood it perfectly well. They were both wrong. Even Dinky agrees that clocks dont change when they are moved. So you can synch two clocks in the same frame then accelerate one into a different frame knowing full well that it will not have changed. they will still be in synch wherever they are. >Harald HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm > >> On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 14:11:45 +0100, "Harry" <harald.vanlintel@epfl.ch> > >wrote: [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > > they will still be in synch wherever they are. In that case time dilation and the LT would be wrong, while experiments confirm them. Note that you forgot to explain what you exactly meant with "they would both change by the same amount in any second frame", if not that according to you a clock slowdown due to speed would also be measured as slowdown in a co-moving frame - and which I disproved. Harald >> On Wed, 1 Feb 2006 12:03:36 +0100, "Harry" <harald.vanlintel@epfl.ch> >wrote: >> They were both wrong. >> Even Dinky agrees that clocks dont change when they are moved. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >In that case time dilation and the LT would be wrong, while experiments >confirm them. No believable experiment confirms them. >Note that you forgot to explain what you exactly meant with "they would both >change by the same amount in any second frame", if not that according to you >a clock slowdown due to speed would also be measured as slowdown in a >co-moving frame - and which I disproved. I don't really want to speculate about something that doesn't actually happen ..but if it did both clokcs would be affected by the same amount because your so called contractions would be identical for both clocks. Obviously they would remain in absolute synch. >Harald HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm > >> On Wed, 1 Feb 2006 12:03:36 +0100, "Harry" <harald.vanlintel@epfl.ch> > >wrote: [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > No believable experiment confirms them. You disbelieve all such experiments, probably because of your erroneous belief below. > >Note that you forgot to explain what you exactly meant with "they would both > >change by the same amount in any second frame", if not that according to you [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > so called contractions would be identical for both clocks. > Obviously they would remain in absolute synch. But you *did* speculate about it in error, as you now confirm. What you call "obvious" was disproved mathematically in 1905. For those who don't "get" it, one year ago I replaced the LT with a simple number example that does the same, and I gave you the link again a few days ago, and now I give it again here: http://tinyurl.com/bykde Thus, if you continue like this, I must conclude that you simply don't want to know it. Harald [snip] > Thus, if you continue like this, I must conclude that you simply don't want > to know it. Henri has stated many times he does not want to learn SR. > Harald >[snip] > >> Thus, if you continue like this, I must conclude that you simply don't want >> to know it. > >Henri has stated many times he does not want to learn SR. see: http://tinyurl.com/bykde >> Harald HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm > >[snip] > > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > see: http://tinyurl.com/bykde LET is not SR. Thanks for proving my point for me, once again. > >> Harald > > HW. > www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm >> On Thu, 2 Feb 2006 14:54:55 +0100, "Harry" <harald.vanlintel@epfl.ch> >wrote: [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] >Thus, if you continue like this, I must conclude that you simply don't want >to know it. That page doesn't exist. Check the address.. >Harald HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm > >> On Thu, 2 Feb 2006 14:54:55 +0100, "Harry" <harald.vanlintel@epfl.ch> > >wrote: [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > > That page doesn't exist. Check the address.. This is weird: not only it does exist, but with the same time stamp the following posting by you arrived in this same thread: [Henri writes:] > >Harry wrote: > > > >[snip] > > > >> Thus, if you continue like this, I must conclude that you simply don't want > >> to know it. > > > >Henri has stated many times he does not want to learn SR. > > see: http://tinyurl.com/bykde If indeed you don't even want to understand Lorentz symmetry which is at the heart of SR, then why do you take the liberty of criticizing it? Harald >http://tinyurl.com/bykde I can get it now. All crap... HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm > >http://tinyurl.com/bykde > > I can get it now. > > All crap... 1. Just show a calculation error (there could be a typo or two); it should become clear to you that observation of Lorentz contraction + time dilation is symmetrical, as discovered in 1905 by Poincare and Einstein. Now it's 2006... Harald >> On Mon, 6 Feb 2006 10:12:35 +0100, "Harry" <harald.vanlintel@epfl.ch> >wrote: [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >is symmetrical, as discovered in 1905 by Poincare and Einstein. Now it's >2006... There is no length contraction or time dilation. Rods don't change when you move them. Time is universal and absolute. NOW here is NOW everywhere. >Harald HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm >>> On Mon, 6 Feb 2006 10:12:35 +0100, "Harry" >>> <harald.vanlintel@epfl.ch> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Rods don't change when you move them. True, just their measements do. > Time is universal and absolute. Not true. > NOW here is NOW everywhere. True. > >> On Mon, 6 Feb 2006 10:12:35 +0100, "Harry" <harald.vanlintel@epfl.ch> > >wrote: [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > There is no length contraction or time dilation. Look here, it's not me but you who claimed that IF there is "time dilation" and "length contraction", those won't affect synchronization. Changing the subject doesn't help. > Rods don't change when you move them. Time is universal and absolute. NOW here > is NOW everywhere. Recanting mantra's won't help either. Harald > >> A____________L______________B > >> [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > Rod lengths and clock rates do not physically change as a result of a velocity > change. No problem, but since there were no velocity changes in anything you or I wrote above, this remark is irrelevant. Since you haven't mentioned any other frame in anything you said, you have no right to talk about 'absoluteness'. > However, even if your theory was NOT complete nonsense and the clocks DID > somehow change, they would both change by the same amount in any second frame. According to the theory you still don't seem to understand nothing changes about the clock. If you would understand it, you wouldn't repeat this at least 10 times each day. When you are far away from me, your 'aperture angle' is smaller than when you are close by. Depending on where you are, nothing changes to you, but some measurements I make of you, change. The results of measurements on clocks and rods, as made in second frames differ from frame to frame. That is the entire idea of the theory. It is amazing that you still pretend not to know this after all these years. > So the above clocks remain in 'absolute synch' in all frames. Since you have only considered the rest frame of the A-B-system, you have no right to say that. First you have to specify some arbitrary frame in relative movement to your A-B system, and specify exactly how you make the measurements of the lengths and time durations of processes in this A-B system, and how you would synchronize the A and B clocks. > Note: the method makes no attempt to absolutely synch clocks in different > frames. That may be the source of your confusion. That is the point we are trying to make to you. Since about 6 years now. It's not going to happen I guess :-) Dirk Vdm >> I don't think so. >> Rod lengths and clock rates do not physically change as a result of a velocity [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >nothing changes about the clock. If you would understand >it, you wouldn't repeat this at least 10 times each day. I have to because your colleagues are too dumb to understand that fact. >When you are far away from me, your 'aperture angle' is >smaller than when you are close by. Depending on where >you are, nothing changes to you, but some measurements >I make of you, change. That's not related to different frames. Why mention it? >The results of measurements on clocks and rods, as made >in second frames differ from frame to frame. Only because the measuring techniques are flawed. >That is the entire idea of the theory. >It is amazing that you still pretend not to know this after >all these years. If you know something doesn't change and you observe it to change, what conclusion would any intelligent person reach? Try it on GPS clocks. >> So the above clocks remain in 'absolute synch' in all frames. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >in this A-B system, and how you would synchronize the >A and B clocks. In an instantaneous universe all frame are equal. 'Absolute' in one frame is 'absolute' in another. >> Note: the method makes no attempt to absolutely synch clocks in different >> frames. That may be the source of your confusion. > >That is the point we are trying to make to you. >Since about 6 years now. It's not going to happen >I guess :-) You didn't read what I said... If two clocks are synched (absolutely) in any one frame, they will be in absolute synch in all frames. However the method cannot be used to su\ynch a clock in one frame with a clock in another frame. They obviously have to be brought together to do that. >Dirk Vdm HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm > >> I don't think so. > >> Rod lengths and clock rates do not physically change as a result of a velocity [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > That's not related to different frames. Why mention it? Because it is an analogous situation: - observers at different distances <==> observers with relative velocity - measured aperture angle <==> measured times and lengths - distance correction factor <==> gamma correction factor - real height of distant tree <==> proper lengths and times You (and I) outlined a synchronization procedure in one single frame. That does not imply any absoluteness - but perhaps you have something different in mind - see below. > >The results of measurements on clocks and rods, as made > >in second frames differ from frame to frame. > > Only because the measuring techniques are flawed. The techniques being what they are, we have built a nice consistent theory around it that seems to be compatible with them. > >That is the entire idea of the theory. > >It is amazing that you still pretend not to know this after > >all these years. > > If you know something doesn't change and you observe it to change, what > conclusion would any intelligent person reach? Yes, we observe a time or a length, and we all get different results depending on the relative velocity. Okay, but intelligent persons as we are, we noticed that when we make one specific calculation with what we just measured, we all *do* get the same results... so we gave them names: proper time and proper length. And as it happens, these results have exactly the same values that someone who is at rest in the frame of the measured object would measure with exactly the same procedure that we used. That is at least interesting and useful. > Try it on GPS clocks. > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > In an instantaneous universe all frame are equal. In the usual sense an "instantaneous universe" could be the collection of all events that are simultaneous according to some observer in his own particular reference frame. With this in mind the phrase "all frames are equal" is a bit meaningless. > 'Absolute' in one frame is 'absolute' in another. Depends what you mean - see below. > >> Note: the method makes no attempt to absolutely synch clocks in different > >> frames. That may be the source of your confusion. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > clock in one frame with a clock in another frame. They obviously have to be > brought together to do that. But when brought together, they are in the same frame, right. Okay, you say that "If two clocks are synched (absolutely) in any one frame, they will be in absolute synch in all frames" So first let's omit "(absolute)" and concentrate on "synched": (1) If synched means that two simultaneous ticks in their own rest frame are also simultaneous in any other frame, then they are not synched. So surely that's not what you meant? Exercise: according to standard theory, what time difference would another frame with relativity velocity v measure between two simultaneous rest-frame ticks, supposing A and B are separated by a proper distance L in their common rest frame? (2) If synched means that they must show the same time value for any arbitrary event, then they are obviously trivially synched "in any other frame". You could just as well have said that if they are made of wood in one frame, they are made of wood "in any other frame". Surely that's not what you meant either? (3) So if you meant something else, what do you mean? and (4) what is the difference between synched and what you call "(absolutely) synched"? Dirk Vdm >But when brought together, they are in the same frame, >right. [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] >(4) what is the difference between synched and what you >call "(absolutely) synched"? 'Now' here is NOW everywhere. Synch a million clocks here. Send them throughout space. Anyone reading the time on any clock will know that all the other clocks are reading exactly the same 'time' at that INSTANT (universal throughout space) >Dirk Vdm HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm > >But when brought together, they are in the same frame, > >right. [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > Anyone reading the time on any clock will know that all the other clocks are > reading exactly the same 'time' at that INSTANT (universal throughout space) So you haven't even tried to understand the questions. Can't help you if you think you don't need help. Dirk Vdm >>But when brought together, they are in the same frame, >>right. [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > Anyone reading the time on any clock will know that all the other clocks are > reading exactly the same 'time' at that INSTANT (universal throughout space) If we bring all the million clocks back together again, it is experimentally proven that the INSTANT will recur a million times at the co-located clocks. So 'Now' here is NOW here NOW and NOW and NOW and ... Paul >>>But when brought together, they are in the same frame, >>>right. [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > it is experimentally proven that the INSTANT will recur > a million times at the co-located clocks. Yep... > So 'Now' here is NOW here NOW and NOW and NOW and ... Agreed. (I know how to take yes for an answer.) Androcles. > Paul >> 'Now' here is NOW everywhere. >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >it is experimentally proven that the INSTANT will recur >a million times at the co-located clocks. ..experimentally proven!!! Hohohohahahahahahh!! >So 'Now' here is NOW here NOW and NOW and NOW and ... > >Paul HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm >>>'Now' here is NOW everywhere. >>> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > ..experimentally proven!!! Hohohohahahahahahh!! Indeed. In the Alley experiment a number of clocks were synced and 'sent through space' in separate aeroplanes. When they came back together, the clocks didn't read the same. So your INSTANT (universal through space) recurred several times. Funny, isn't it? Well worth a laugh. Paul >>>>'Now' here is NOW everywhere. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Well worth a laugh. You sure are. So is your college. http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/STM/HIA.JPG http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/STM/Scoundrels.htm#Andersen Androcles >>>>Anyone reading the time on any clock will know that all the other clocks are >>>>reading exactly the same 'time' at that INSTANT (universal throughout space) [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >and 'sent through space' in separate aeroplanes. >When they came back together, the clocks didn't read the same. Hohohhahahah! So what actually happened to the clocks Paul? >So your INSTANT (universal through space) recurred several times. > >Funny, isn't it? > >Well worth a laugh. Do you want to know something. Alley's clocks would have changed anyway. Haven't you heard of 'clock drift'? >Paul HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm >>>>>Anyone reading the time on any clock will know that all the other clocks are >>>>>reading exactly the same 'time' at that INSTANT (universal throughout space) [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Hohohhahahah! Keep laughing at experimental evidence, Henri. You look so intelligent when you do. > So what actually happened to the clocks Paul? They behaved as predicted by GR. That is, nothing happened to the clocks - they kept ticking at their normal rate. They experienced different proper times because the proper time along their respective word lines were different. That, however, you will never understand. You are too dumb. Paul >>>>>>Anyone reading the time on any clock will know that all the other >>>>>>clocks are [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > Paul Word lines, huh? That, however, you will never understand. You are too dumb. http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/STM/Scoundrels.htm#Andersen Androcles. >>>>>>Anyone reading the time on any clock will know that all the other clocks are >>>>>>reading exactly the same 'time' at that INSTANT (universal throughout space) [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > >That, however, you will never understand. I will never....because it makes no sense at all. I can never understand that the undefined expression 'timeflow' somehow depends on the way clocks moves past. >You are too dumb. > >Paul HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm >>>>>>>Anyone reading the time on any clock will know that all the other clocks are >>>>>>>reading exactly the same 'time' at that INSTANT (universal throughout space) [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > I will never....because it makes no sense at all. Quite. And it would make no sense to you even if we change the "word lines" to "world lines". What makes sense to normal people makes no sense to dumb ones. > I can never understand that the undefined expression 'timeflow' somehow depends > on the way clocks moves past. That statement is void of meaning. Did you try to say something? Paul >>>They behaved as predicted by GR. >>>That is, nothing happened to the clocks - they kept ticking [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >And it would make no sense to you even if we change the "word lines" to "world lines". >What makes sense to normal people makes no sense to dumb ones. Paul, you seem to think that the clocks, like hte odometers, in two cars read differently if the two cars take different routes from A to B. >> I can never understand that the undefined expression 'timeflow' somehow depends >> on the way clocks moves past. > >That statement is void of meaning. It is a claim of SR...hence completely devoid of meaning. >Did you try to say something? > >Paul HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm > >>>They behaved as predicted by GR. > >>>That is, nothing happened to the clocks - they kept ticking [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > It is a claim of SR...hence completely devoid of meaning. Except you claim you do not understand SR. So how can you claim anything about SR? > >Did you try to say something? > > > >Paul > > HW. > www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm >>>>They behaved as predicted by GR. >>>>That is, nothing happened to the clocks - they kept ticking [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Paul, you seem to think that the clocks, like hte odometers, in two cars read > differently if the two cars take different routes from A to B. No. But I know that it is experimentally proven that two clocks may measure different proper time between the same two events if they take different routes between them. It is Nature that make no sense to you, Henri. It does not behave as you think it should, and you are unable to accept that you cannot command Nature. That's why you keep asserting that Nature MUST behave in ways it demonstrable doesn't. >>>I can never understand that the undefined expression 'timeflow' somehow depends >>>on the way clocks moves past. >> >>That statement is void of meaning. > > It is a claim of SR...hence completely devoid of meaning. So according to Henri Wilson, SR claims: "The undefined expression 'timeflow' depend on the way clocks moves past." Another demonstration of your understanding of SR. Paul >>>>>They behaved as predicted by GR. >>>>>That is, nothing happened to the clocks - they kept ticking [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > > Paul Another computer simulation of SR. http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Doppler/Doppler.htm See anything wrong? And just for fun to twist Wilson's tail beause I'm jealous of his programming skills: http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Wilson/SpinWilson.htm Still, I don't mind him calling himself a physicist, they are all failures anyway, just like schoolteachers. Androcles. Androcles. >>>>>>They behaved as predicted by GR. >>>>>>That is, nothing happened to the clocks - they kept ticking [quoted text clipped - 56 lines] >just like schoolteachers. >Androcles. If you want to do something useful, why don't you program the BaTh predicted brightness curves for so-called 'gravitationally lensing' stars. I have...and guess what... a perfect match. >Androcles. HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm >>>>>They behaved as predicted by GR. >>>>>That is, nothing happened to the clocks - they kept ticking [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > >No. Why not. You claim exactly that, below. >But I know that it is experimentally proven that two clocks may >measure different proper time between the same two events if they >take different routes between them. Hohohohhahahhawhawhawhawhaw!!!!! So will they read different times when reunited? You said yourself that clocks don't change in any way when moved. According to your theory, two standard rods would not be the same length when reunited either. >It is Nature that make no sense to you, Henri. >It does not behave as you think it should, and >you are unable to accept that you cannot command Nature. >That's why you keep asserting that Nature MUST behave in ways >it demonstrable doesn't. Hohohohhahahhawhawhawhawhaw!!!!! 'demonstrably'...Hahwahwhawhawhawhaw! >>>>I can never understand that the undefined expression 'timeflow' somehow depends >>>>on the way clocks moves past. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >Another demonstration of your understanding of SR. What DOES Sr say then? It's a bit hard to follow Paul. First you say that clocks don't change when moved but then you claim they will not read the same when reunited after traveling different spatial routes. Where is the actual connection between spatial movement and time flow? >Paul HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm > >>>>>They behaved as predicted by GR. > >>>>>That is, nothing happened to the clocks - they kept ticking [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > So will they read different times when reunited? > You said yourself that clocks don't change in any way when moved. A deliberate misunderstanding on your part. > According to your theory, two standard rods would not be the same length when > reunited either. A lie. > >It is Nature that make no sense to you, Henri. > >It does not behave as you think it should, and [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > What DOES Sr say then? It's a bit hard to follow Paul. A deliberate misunderstanding on your part. > First you say that clocks don't change when moved but then you claim they will > not read the same when reunited after traveling different spatial routes. Where > is the actual connection between spatial movement and time flow? A deliberate misunderstanding on your part. > >Paul > > HW. > www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm >>>>>>They behaved as predicted by GR. >>>>>>That is, nothing happened to the clocks - they kept ticking [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > So will they read different times when reunited? Experimentally proven. > You said yourself that clocks don't change in any way when moved. Right. > According to your theory, two standard rods would not be the same length when > reunited either. Another demonstration of your understanding of SR. No clue whatsoever. After years in this forum. How dumb can you get? >>It is Nature that make no sense to you, Henri. >>It does not behave as you think it should, and [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > 'demonstrably'...Hahwahwhawhawhawhaw! Indeed. Demonstrably and demonstrated. >>>>>I can never understand that the undefined expression 'timeflow' somehow depends >>>>>on the way clocks moves past. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > What DOES Sr say then? It's a bit hard to follow Paul. I have noticed that. You will never get it. > First you say that clocks don't change when moved but then you claim they will > not read the same when reunited after traveling different spatial routes. Where > is the actual connection between spatial movement and time flow? ds^2 = dt^2 - dr^2 But that's beyond you. Laugh at it. Paul [snip] > ds^2 = dt^2 - dr^2 > > But that's beyond you. > Laugh at it. I tried explaining the concept of the metric to him but he just laughed at it, even though it was completely seperate from SR or GR. There is no way in this blue earth that Henri has a degree in anything mathematical. > Paul >>>But I know that it is experimentally proven that two clocks may >>>measure different proper time between the same two events if they [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >Experimentally proven. Hohohhahahahhawhawahhawhaw! .....because the Earth was spinning, eh? >> You said yourself that clocks don't change in any way when moved. > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >After years in this forum. >How dumb can you get? You claim that if you move clocks around in different spatial paths, their readings will not agree when reunited. Exactly the same argument should apply to rods. If not, please explain the difference. >>>It is Nature that make no sense to you, Henri. >>>It does not behave as you think it should, and [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >Indeed. >Demonstrably and demonstrated. Hohohohhahahhawhawhawhawhaw!!!!! Not the H&K again!!! Did anyone try changing the Earth's spin rate during the experiment? >>>Another demonstration of your understanding of SR. >> >> What DOES Sr say then? It's a bit hard to follow Paul. > >I have noticed that. >You will never get it. What does it say paul? >> First you say that clocks don't change when moved but then you claim they will >> not read the same when reunited after traveling different spatial routes. Where [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >But that's beyond you. >Laugh at it. It is the difference between the distance traveled by a light ray between relatively moving points and their true absolute separation if one assumes that light speed is source independent. It is just a direct consequence of the unproven second popstulate. Circular maths doesn't impress me Paul. >Paul HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm [snip] > It is just a direct consequence of the unproven second popstulate. > Circular maths doesn't impress me Paul. The second postulate is derivable from the first, Henri. Since you don't learn, I didn't expect you to already know this. [sigsnip] >[snip] > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >The second postulate is derivable from the first, Henri. Since you >don't learn, I didn't expect you to already know this. Frankly, I think the first postulate is some kind of teenage joke. >[sigsnip] HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm > >[snip] > > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Frankly, I think the first postulate is some kind of teenage joke. Considering you won't take the time to understand SR while still bleating about what you think it says, nobody is going to worry about your personal opinion of SR's first postulate. So what if you think it is a joke, what does that mean for the rest of the universe? NOTHING. All that you will do is complain about how bad you think it is while not making any actual effort towards constructing an experiment that disproves it. Remember experiments, Henri? Since you refuse to accept any experimental evidence that supports SR, you have to do the experiments yourself. How are those going? > >[sigsnip] > > HW. > www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm >> >[snip] >> > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >experimental evidence that supports SR, you have to do the experiments >yourself. How are those going? Geesey, there seem to be many interpretations of the first postulate, none being particularly meaningful. Would you like to contribute another. >> >[sigsnip] >> >> HW. >> www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm > >> >[snip] > >> > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > Geesey, there seem to be many interpretations of the first postulate, none > being particularly meaningful. Would you like to contribute another. No, but I would like you to answer my question. Are you working on any experiments or are you just wasting your time blubbering about how much SR chafes your balls? > >> >[sigsnip] > >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > HW. > www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm >> >> >[snip] >> >> > [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] >experiments or are you just wasting your time blubbering about how much >SR chafes your balls? Poor boy! ..tries hard....but.... HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm > >> >> >[snip] > >> >> > [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > ..tries hard....but.... So is it safe for me to assume you are not doing any experiments? Hell, of course it is. You dread doing any work, theoretical or experimental. > HW. > www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm >>> >[snip] >>> > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > Geesey, there seem to be many interpretations of the first postulate, none > being particularly meaningful. Would you like to contribute another. Bullshit, Wabo, Einstein's example is correct but it is only a copy of Copernicus's PoR anyway. So is this: http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Wilson/SpinWilson.htm The time for the bottle to go from Wilson's left hand to his right does not equal the time to go from right hand to left in a single frame. Pity you are too incompetent to program Sagnac. The bottle takes a curved path in Mickey Wilson's frame. Therefore TWLS <> OWLS and you are f.cking wrong, shithead. At least you are not a total fuckwit like Goose. Androcles. >>>> >[snip] >>>> > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] >Bullshit, Wabo, Einstein's example is correct but it is only a copy >of Copernicus's PoR anyway. What the f.ck does that mean? >So is this: > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Wilson/SpinWilson.htm >The time for the bottle to go from Wilson's left hand to his right >does not equal the time to go from right hand to left in a single frame. Wilson wont pass around any bottles until his gout improves. >Pity you are too incompetent to program Sagnac. The bottle takes a >curved path in Mickey Wilson's frame. >Therefore TWLS <> OWLS and you are f.cking wrong, shithead. >At least you are not a total fuckwit like Goose You still think grandpa watches from the ground...... >Androcles. HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm >>>>> >[snip] >>>>> > [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > What the f.ck does that mean? It means this is correct: "Take, for example, the reciprocal electrodynamic action of a magnet and a conductor. The observable phenomenon here depends only on the relative motion of the conductor and the magnet, ...[yada yada yada] "Examples of this sort ...[yada yada yada]... will hereafter be called the ``Principle of Relativity''. -- Einstein. (paragraphs 1 and 2 of ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES By A. Einstein) He discovered it in an exam paper he failed, but he |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message