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.

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.

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

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

Henri Wilson.

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

(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?


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.

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

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


The clocks might be synchronized in one frame but there are other equivalent
inertial frames in which they will not be synchronized. This "ontological
proof" of absolute time falls way short of being meaningful.

Arf!
Arfur

Henri Wilson.

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

On 3 Sep 2003 23:50:59 -0700, (Arfur Dogfrey) wrote:

(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.

Please tell that to Paul Anderson.
The rod does not change in any way no matter how it is moved. Therefore it
remains the same 'physical' length as those separating the clocks.


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?

I have proposed a method whereby clocks anywhere can be adjusted to be in
absolute synch. I will define that expression as synchronisation under
conditions of instantaneous communication.



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.

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

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


The clocks might be synchronized in one frame but there are other equivalent
inertial frames in which they will not be synchronized. This "ontological
proof" of absolute time falls way short of being meaningful.

Bull. They are synchronised as for an instantaneous universe in which light
plays no part in communication.
The movement of observers does not affect the synch of the clocks. It makes no
difference how that observer views them. They are in 'instantaneous' synch.

Arf!
Arfur

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" skrev i melding ...
On 3 Sep 2003 23:50:59 -0700, (Arfur Dogfrey) wrote:


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.

Please tell that to Paul Anderson.

As if he doesn't know!
Of course I agree that the length of the rod is different
when measured in different inertial frames.
Arfur does also agree that the intrinsic, physical properties
of the rod, including its proper length, are unaffected by
being measured by arbitrary observers.

This is trivially obvious to anybody knowing SR.
There is no dispute about it.

But you, Henry, are as confused as ever.
You keep asserting what "SRists" say and mean.
You are invariably wrong.

Paul

"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

(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?

"Paul B. Andersen" wrote in message ...
"HenriWilson" skrev i melding ...
On 3 Sep 2003 23:50:59 -0700, (Arfur Dogfrey) wrote:


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.

Please tell that to Paul Anderson.

As if he doesn't know!
Of course I agree that the length of the rod is different
when measured in different inertial frames.
Arfur does also agree that the intrinsic, physical properties
of the rod, including its proper length, are unaffected by
being measured by arbitrary observers.

This is trivially obvious to anybody knowing SR.
There is no dispute about it.

But you, Henry, are as confused as ever.
You keep asserting what "SRists" say and mean.
You are invariably wrong.

Paul

xxein: "This is trivially obvious to anybody knowing SR. There is no
dispute about it".

"This is trivially obvious to anybody knowing Shintuism. There is no
dispute about it".

(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?

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?

Henri Wilson.

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

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 contribute nothing worthwhile.

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


Paul Cardinale


Henri Wilson.

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