"HenriWilson" skrev i melding ...
On Thu, 4 Sep 2003 15:32:07 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:


"Arfur Dogfrey" skrev i melding om...
(HenriWilson) wrote in message . ..
Consider a long line of clocks separated by identical rods of length ,say, 100
metres..
C---C---C---C---C---C---C---C---C---C---C---C---C---C

Another identical rod has perpendicular lasers attached to each end, exactly
100 metres apart.

|___|

We will now move the lower rod along the line of clocks at a constant speed and
in close proximity. As its ends pass the clocks, the clocks record the times
the laser beams are detected.

Because no PHYSICAL change occurs in the rod due to motion, (as all SRians will
surely agree) the rod always retains its length of 100 m.


Not sure what you mean by "PHYSICAL change" but all SRians will agree that
the rod has different lengths when measured in different inertial frames.

Therefore it follows that the LH end of the rod will be aligned with one clock
at exactly the same 'instant in absolute time' as the RH one is aligned with
the next clock.


"absolute time" I have no idea what you are talking about there. Are you
ASSUMING absolute time and then using that to derive the existence of absolute
time?

Henry isn't assuming anything.
He knows with absolute certainty that time is absolute
and Galilean relativity applies.
Since this is obvius to Henry, Nature must comply.
Henry has proven this conclusively in his computer animations,
and what is clearly shown on a computer screen can't be wrong.

If real experiments show otherwise, it is obviously because
they are faked.

Didn't you know?

Paul


I notice you haven't commented on the main subject of this thread.
Does that mean you know I am right and have been panicked into using
diversionary tactics again.
Do you see anything wrong with my experiment?

You didn't describe an experiment.
You described:
"A way to Absolutely Synchronise Clocks."

It's not worth a serious response.

Paul

(Mark Szlazak) wrote in message . com...
(Paul Cardinale) wrote in message . com...
(Mark Szlazak) wrote in message . com...
(HenriWilson) wrote in message . ..
We will now move the lower rod along the line of clocks at a constant speed and
in close proximity. As its ends pass the clocks, the clocks record the times
the laser beams are detected.

I'm a new to this SR stuff, so please excuse the naivete. I thought
that SR was meant to be general at least in regards to
non-accelerating frames. If so then doesn't close proximity count? How
would you know OWLS at close proximity?

Henri Wilson is an ineducable imbecile who hasn't even the faintest
understanding of SR (there are lot's of people like that on this NG).
Once, when shown that one if his arguments wasn't logical, he
declared: "Logic is bull!".

Paul Cardinale

Thanks for the warning Paul. I've been noticing the posts on this
group, they do seem a bit odd, and I don't think it's entirely from my
lack of understanding. I never got that lala land feeling in web
programming NG's even though I was a novice there at one time. What's
the attraction in SR?

SR is very counter-intuitive. Some people cannot cast their intuition
aside and this prevents them from grasping SR; some others are just
plain too dumb to understand it. Amongst those people is a arogant
and vociferous subset whose ego is so large that they can't accept a
theory they don't understand. The only way they can maintain their
ego is to attack the theory as invalid.

Paul Cardinale

(HenriWilson) wrote in message . ..
On 4 Sep 2003 14:48:17 -0700, (Paul Cardinale)
wrote:

(Mark Szlazak) wrote in message . com...
(HenriWilson) wrote in message . ..
We will now move the lower rod along the line of clocks at a constant speed and
in close proximity. As its ends pass the clocks, the clocks record the times
the laser beams are detected.

I'm a new to this SR stuff, so please excuse the naivete. I thought
that SR was meant to be general at least in regards to
non-accelerating frames. If so then doesn't close proximity count? How
would you know OWLS at close proximity?

Henri Wilson is an ineducable imbecile who hasn't even the faintest
understanding of SR (there are lot's of people like that on this NG).
Once, when shown that one if his arguments wasn't logical, he
declared: "Logic is bull!".

Cardinale, Seto is right about you.

You and seto make a good pair.

You contribute nothing worthwhile.

That sort of comment, coming from you, Ralph, should always be
considered an inadvertant compliment.

Would you now explain why the Wilsonian method of absolutely synching clocks
will not work?


I would to someone who is willing and able to learn.
You're disqualified on both counts.

Paul Cardinale

P.S. I notice that you didn't retract your assertion that "Logic is
bull".
I guess you stand by that.

"Paul B. Andersen" wrote in message ...
"Perfectly Innocent" skrev i melding
om...
"Paul B. Andersen" wrote in message ...
Henry isn't assuming anything.
He knows with absolute certainty that time is absolute
and Galilean relativity applies.
Since this is obvius to Henry, Nature must comply.
Henry has proven this conclusively in his computer animations,
and what is clearly shown on a computer screen can't be wrong.

If real experiments show otherwise, it is obviously because
they are faked.

Didn't you know?

Paul

The funny thing is Henri Wilson is right about the existence of a
Galilean synchronization between any two inertial frames of reference.

"Galilean synchronization" ?
If you mean that it is possible to synchronize clocks which are
stationary in frame A in such a way that they are synchronous
in frame B in relative motion, that is obviously true.
This may even be sensible in some cases.
For example if frame A is the rotating Earth frame, and
frame B is the ECI frame.
Clocks showing UTC are synchronous in the ECI frame.

But what is "Galilean" about that?

Paul

Theorem 1:
Any two inertial frames of reference have a Galilean synchronization.

That means that events as recorded in the two frames of reference are
connected by the Galilean transformation:

x'=x-uT
T'=T

That's what's Galilean about a Galilean synchronization.

http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/

Eugene Shubert

On Wed, 03 Sep 2003 23:08:39 GMT, (HenriWilson) wrote:

Consider a long line of clocks separated by identical rods of length ,say, 100
metres..
C---C---C---C---C---C---C---C---C---C---C---C---C---C

Another identical rod has perpendicular lasers attached to each end, exactly
100 metres apart.

|___|

We will now move the lower rod along the line of clocks at a constant speed and
in close proximity. As its ends pass the clocks, the clocks record the times
the laser beams are detected.

Because no PHYSICAL change occurs in the rod due to motion, (as all SRians will
surely agree) the rod always retains its length of 100 m.


I doubt we all would agree. Anyway, lets take v/c 1 for your sync.
and move on..

Therefore it follows that the LH end of the rod will be aligned with one clock
at exactly the same 'instant in absolute time' as the RH one is aligned with
the next clock.

By subsequently adjusting each adjacent pair of clocks and repeating this in
sequence along the line, it is thus possible to synchronise them all
absolutely.


Absolutely? Use a better word, or leave that word out. Nothing is
absolute. I can always define my own time system different from
yours.. clocks have errors.. etc..

Note: the velocity of the rod is unimportant as long as it is fast enough to
make the laser pulses sufficiently sharp.


Why would you need the rod to move fast? Either the clock detects the
light to threshold or not, this is always sufficiently sharp (it will
just take longer for slower rod)

A true OWLS experiment is now possible using these absolutely synched clocks.

Not quite... how did you measure the speed of the rod?


Henri Wilson.

See my animations and physics book at:
http://www.users.bigpond.com/HeWn/index.htm

(HenriWilson) wrote in message . ..
Would you now explain why the Wilsonian method of absolutely synching clocks
will not work?

Don't your two light sources have to be synchronized (i.e, their
pulses or wave forms)?

On 5 Sep 2003 17:17:37 -0700, (Mark Szlazak) wrote:

(HenriWilson) wrote in message . ..
Would you now explain why the Wilsonian method of absolutely synching clocks
will not work?

Don't your two light sources have to be synchronized (i.e, their
pulses or wave forms)?

Maybe I didn't explain my method properly.

The laser emit very fine continuous beams. These are merely used to signal when
the ends pass the clocks (assume the clocks have photocells). If very long rods
are used, this is a pretty accurate method of doing just that. There are other
ways, of course. Light does not have to be used at all.
The main thing is, no matter what the speed of the rod, when one of its ends is
adjacent to one clock, the other will also be exactly adjacent to the next.

If both clocks are subsequently set at the same reading when this happens, then
they are absolutely synched.

It matters not how fast the rod moves. Nor does the clock frame speed enter
into the equation.
They are absolutely synched in all frames.


Henri Wilson.

See my animations and physics book at:
http://www.users.bigpond.com/HeWn/index.htm

On Fri, 05 Sep 2003 15:55:46 -0400, funk420 wrote:

On Wed, 03 Sep 2003 23:08:39 GMT, (HenriWilson) wrote:

Consider a long line of clocks separated by identical rods of length ,say, 100
metres..
C---C---C---C---C---C---C---C---C---C---C---C---C---C

Another identical rod has perpendicular lasers attached to each end, exactly
100 metres apart.

|___|

We will now move the lower rod along the line of clocks at a constant speed and
in close proximity. As its ends pass the clocks, the clocks record the times
the laser beams are detected.

Because no PHYSICAL change occurs in the rod due to motion, (as all SRians will
surely agree) the rod always retains its length of 100 m.


I doubt we all would agree.

HEY PAUL!!!! DID YOU READ THIS?

Anyway, lets take v/c 1 for your sync.
and move on..


No physical change occurs in rods when they change speed.


Therefore it follows that the LH end of the rod will be aligned with one clock
at exactly the same 'instant in absolute time' as the RH one is aligned with
the next clock.

By subsequently adjusting each adjacent pair of clocks and repeating this in
sequence along the line, it is thus possible to synchronise them all
absolutely.


Absolutely? Use a better word, or leave that word out. Nothing is
absolute. I can always define my own time system different from
yours.. clocks have errors.. etc..

These clocks are synchronised so taht there measurements dfine an instantaneous
universe.
If that isn't absolute what is?
What is more, they are absolutely synched in all frames.


Note: the velocity of the rod is unimportant as long as it is fast enough to
make the laser pulses sufficiently sharp.


Why would you need the rod to move fast? Either the clock detects the
light to threshold or not, this is always sufficiently sharp (it will
just take longer for slower rod)

A true OWLS experiment is now possible using these absolutely synched clocks.

Not quite... how did you measure the speed of the rod?

You are very confused.

The accuracy of the rod speed doesn't matter for the purpose of absoutely
synching the clocks. That is the beauty of my method.

Once the clocks have been absolutely synched, they can be used to measure light
speed in both directions. Any anisotropy will suggest that OWLS is not always
constant.
However a null result will not reveal anything because a true OWLS experiment
requires that the source and observer move relative to each other.



Henri Wilson.

See my animations and physics book at:
http://www.users.bigpond.com/HeWn/index.htm


Henri Wilson.

See my animations and physics book at:
http://www.users.bigpond.com/HeWn/index.htm

(HenriWilson) wrote in message . ..
On 5 Sep 2003 17:17:37 -0700, (Mark Szlazak) wrote:

(HenriWilson) wrote in message . ..
Would you now explain why the Wilsonian method of absolutely synching clocks
will not work?

Don't your two light sources have to be synchronized (i.e, their
pulses or wave forms)?

Maybe I didn't explain my method properly.

The laser emit very fine continuous beams. These are merely used to signal when
the ends pass the clocks (assume the clocks have photocells). If very long rods
are used, this is a pretty accurate method of doing just that. There are other
ways, of course. Light does not have to be used at all.
The main thing is, no matter what the speed of the rod, when one of its ends is
adjacent to one clock, the other will also be exactly adjacent to the next.

If both clocks are subsequently set at the same reading when this happens, then
they are absolutely synched.

It matters not how fast the rod moves. Nor does the clock frame speed enter
into the equation.

I'm still having a problem with the light beams. Viewing them as
waves, wouldn't you need to make sure there peaks and troughs align
up?

Switching to just the ends of the constantly moving rod triggering
pairs of adjacent clocks. This also seems to have problems. Your
method needs the length of the rod to be the same as the distance
between the triggers on the clocks. You could separate the clocks by
using the rod, but after that you need to move that rod up to some
speed. This requires pushing or pulling which deforms its shape since
no instantaneous propagation of the push at one end moves the other
end. Now once the rod is at some velocity, doesn't it maintain a
different length. How would you overcome this deformation problem?

"Perfectly Innocent" skrev i melding
om...
"Paul B. Andersen" wrote in message ...
"Perfectly Innocent" skrev i melding
om...
"Paul B. Andersen" wrote in message ...
Henry isn't assuming anything.
He knows with absolute certainty that time is absolute
and Galilean relativity applies.
Since this is obvius to Henry, Nature must comply.
Henry has proven this conclusively in his computer animations,
and what is clearly shown on a computer screen can't be wrong.

If real experiments show otherwise, it is obviously because
they are faked.

Didn't you know?

Paul

The funny thing is Henri Wilson is right about the existence of a
Galilean synchronization between any two inertial frames of reference.

"Galilean synchronization" ?
If you mean that it is possible to synchronize clocks which are
stationary in frame A in such a way that they are synchronous
in frame B in relative motion, that is obviously true.
This may even be sensible in some cases.
For example if frame A is the rotating Earth frame, and
frame B is the ECI frame.
Clocks showing UTC are synchronous in the ECI frame.

But what is "Galilean" about that?

Paul

Theorem 1:
Any two inertial frames of reference have a Galilean synchronization.

That means that events as recorded in the two frames of reference are
connected by the Galilean transformation:

x'=x-uT
T'=T

That's what's Galilean about a Galilean synchronization.

In other words, there is no such thing as
"Galilean synchronized clocks" in the real world.

Paul