By now you are all familiar with my 'moving rod' method for establishing
absolute simultaneity anywhere in the universe. It is demonstrated at:

www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/movingrod.exe


To reiterate, it involves two identical rods, one of which is moved inertially
past the other in close proximity. The one at rest has detectors on each end
that can sense when the ends of the moving rod are adjacent.

A___________________________B
C___________________________D--v

Rod C-D is moved past A-B.
When the ends are adjacent, clocks A and B take readings. One is then adjusted
so that the two will register the same reading on subsequent runs. (the
experiment can be performed using quite low velocities depending on the
sensitivity of the 'end detecting' mechanism)

Since the rod lengths DO NOT physically change with velocity, it can be assumed
that the clocks are now in absolute synch. The same 'instant in time' is
established at both ends of the rod (which can be LY's in length)

By repeating this procedure using one of the synched clocks and a third clock,
an infinite array of absolutely synched clocks can be theoretically set up
throughout the universe.
If all exeriments use these clocks for measuring events, this setup simulates
an instantaneous universe.
Two such frames, synched initially at rest but now moving relatively, will
register the same absolute time for any event anywhere. This folows because
clock rates, like rod lengths, do NOT physically alter with velocity changes.

It has been argued (quite wrongly) that the moving rod WILL not maintain
constant length. (To see proof why it is wrong see
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/contractions.exe)

Even if that were true, I have two responses.

Firstly, instead of moving just ONE rod past the other, both rods can be moved
in opposite directions, identically, so that any length changes will be
cancelled out.

Secondly, by repeating the experiment using different rod velocities, it should
be possible to actually measure the contraction of the moving rod, if any.

So my method EITHER establishes absolute synch anywhere OR it provides a
practical way to measure the supposed Lorentz length contraction.

Either way I will be happy to accept a Nobel Prize.


Henri Wilson.
See the Stupidity of Relativity.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

HenriWilson wrote:

By now you are all familiar with my 'moving rod' method for establishing
absolute simultaneity anywhere in the universe. It is demonstrated at:

www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/movingrod.exe


To reiterate, it involves two identical rods, one of which is moved inertially
past the other in close proximity. The one at rest has detectors on each end
that can sense when the ends of the moving rod are adjacent.

A___________________________B
C___________________________D--v

Rod C-D is moved past A-B.
When the ends are adjacent, clocks A and B take readings. One is then adjusted
so that the two will register the same reading on subsequent runs. (the
experiment can be performed using quite low velocities depending on the
sensitivity of the 'end detecting' mechanism)

Since the rod lengths DO NOT physically change with velocity, it can be assumed
that the clocks are now in absolute synch. The same 'instant in time' is
established at both ends of the rod (which can be LY's in length)

To establish this, you must prove that the lengths do not change.

By repeating this procedure using one of the synched clocks and a third clock,
an infinite array of absolutely synched clocks can be theoretically set up
throughout the universe.
If all exeriments use these clocks for measuring events, this setup simulates
an instantaneous universe.
Two such frames, synched initially at rest but now moving relatively, will
register the same absolute time for any event anywhere. This folows because
clock rates, like rod lengths, do NOT physically alter with velocity changes.

You assume that time dilation does not exist, and conclude that time is
absolute. You will probably want to prove that as well.

It has been argued (quite wrongly) that the moving rod WILL not maintain
constant length. (To see proof why it is wrong see
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/contractions.exe)

As we have discussed, your proof assumes its conclusion.

Even if that were true, I have two responses.

Firstly, instead of moving just ONE rod past the other, both rods can be moved
in opposite directions, identically, so that any length changes will be
cancelled out.

That provides synchronization in a particular inertial frame, but the
clocks will not be synchronized for other velocities.

Secondly, by repeating the experiment using different rod velocities, it should
be possible to actually measure the contraction of the moving rod, if any.

So my method EITHER establishes absolute synch anywhere OR it provides a
practical way to measure the supposed Lorentz length contraction.

Either way I will be happy to accept a Nobel Prize.

BTW, I don't think you are stupid. I just think you are not aware of
your unconscious assumptions about simultaneity. That unacknowledged
assumption is at the root of your demonstrations (except your MMX
explanation, which is based on an error about aberration).



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

"HenriWilson" wrote in message ...

Yes. (It had to be said)

Martin Hogbin

"HenriWilson" wrote in message "Am I completely Stupid?
By now you are all familiar with my 'moving rod' method for establishing
absolute simultaneity anywhere in the universe. SNIP

Either way I will be happy to accept a Nobel Prize.

And thus you answer your own question.

On Tue, 2 Dec 2003 16:06:37 -0700, "Mu-Pi" wrote:


"HenriWilson" wrote in message "Am I completely Stupid?
By now you are all familiar with my 'moving rod' method for establishing
absolute simultaneity anywhere in the universe. SNIP

Either way I will be happy to accept a Nobel Prize.

And thus you answer your own question.


OK enough joking. Let's talk physics - if you know what that is of course.

Henri Wilson.
See the Stupidity of Relativity.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

"HenriWilson" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 2 Dec 2003 16:06:37 -0700, "Mu-Pi" wrote:


"HenriWilson" wrote in message "Am I completely Stupid?
By now you are all familiar with my 'moving rod' method for
establishing
absolute simultaneity anywhere in the universe. SNIP

Either way I will be happy to accept a Nobel Prize.

And thus you answer your own question.


OK enough joking. Let's talk physics - if you know what that is of course.

Sure. Come back in a few decades and perhaps you will have learned enough
not to make such a fool of yourself.

On Tue, 2 Dec 2003 20:54:06 -0700, "Mu-Pi" wrote:


"HenriWilson" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 2 Dec 2003 16:06:37 -0700, "Mu-Pi" wrote:


"HenriWilson" wrote in message "Am I completely Stupid?
By now you are all familiar with my 'moving rod' method for
establishing
absolute simultaneity anywhere in the universe. SNIP

Either way I will be happy to accept a Nobel Prize.

And thus you answer your own question.


OK enough joking. Let's talk physics - if you know what that is of course.

Sure. Come back in a few decades and perhaps you will have learned enough
not to make such a fool of yourself.


If you know nothing about physics, what are you doing on this NG?
Go away idiot!

Henri Wilson.
See the Stupidity of Relativity.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

"HenriWilson" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 2 Dec 2003 20:54:06 -0700, "Mu-Pi" wrote:


"HenriWilson" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 2 Dec 2003 16:06:37 -0700, "Mu-Pi"
wrote:


"HenriWilson" wrote in message "Am I completely
Stupid?
By now you are all familiar with my 'moving rod' method for
establishing
absolute simultaneity anywhere in the universe. SNIP

Either way I will be happy to accept a Nobel Prize.

And thus you answer your own question.


OK enough joking. Let's talk physics - if you know what that is of
course.

Sure. Come back in a few decades and perhaps you will have learned
enough
not to make such a fool of yourself.


If you know nothing about physics, what are you doing on this NG?
Go away idiot!


You forgot to put quotes around that and quote your source. Or were you
simply paraphrasing my comment?

Instead of repeating others, I simply add:

"Brian Kennelly" wrote in message
...
HenriWilson wrote:

By now you are all familiar with my 'moving rod' method for establishing
absolute simultaneity anywhere in the universe. It is demonstrated at:

www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/movingrod.exe


To reiterate, it involves two identical rods, one of which is moved
inertially
past the other in close proximity. The one at rest has detectors on each
end
that can sense when the ends of the moving rod are adjacent.

A___________________________B
C___________________________D--v

Rod C-D is moved past A-B.
When the ends are adjacent, clocks A and B take readings.

Note that "when" is open for discussion. You can only assure to take
readings when A is adjacent with C, and when D is adjacent with B.
So at those times these two pairs of clocks are truly synchronized. You have
ignored synchronization of C with D, or A with B...

One is then adjusted
so that the two will register the same reading on subsequent runs. (the
experiment can be performed using quite low velocities depending on the
sensitivity of the 'end detecting' mechanism)

Since the rod lengths DO NOT physically change with velocity, it can be
assumed
that the clocks are now in absolute synch. The same 'instant in time' is
established at both ends of the rod (which can be LY's in length)

To establish this, you must prove that the lengths do not change.

Indeed, Henry did not do so. Neither did he synchronize A with B.

By repeating this procedure using one of the synched clocks and a third
clock,
an infinite array of absolutely synched clocks can be theoretically set
up
throughout the universe.
If all exeriments use these clocks for measuring events, this setup
simulates
an instantaneous universe.
Two such frames, synched initially at rest but now moving relatively,
will
register the same absolute time for any event anywhere. This folows
because
clock rates, like rod lengths, do NOT physically alter with velocity
changes.

You assume that time dilation does not exist, and conclude that time is
absolute. You will probably want to prove that as well.

Exactly. Obviously, if time dilation does not exist, clock synchronization
is easy: just put all clocks together and then go off in all directions!

It has been argued (quite wrongly) that the moving rod WILL not maintain
constant length. (To see proof why it is wrong see
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/contractions.exe)

As we have discussed, your proof assumes its conclusion.

Even if that were true, I have two responses.

Firstly, instead of moving just ONE rod past the other, both rods can be
moved
in opposite directions, identically, so that any length changes will be
cancelled out.

That provides synchronization in a particular inertial frame, but the
clocks will not be synchronized for other velocities.

Secondly, by repeating the experiment using different rod velocities, it
should
be possible to actually measure the contraction of the moving rod, if
any.

I think you will mostly measure time dilation effects. Such tests have been
done. I don't know of any test that was sensitive enough for length
contraction, except Marinov's (his conclusion was: no length contraction).

So my method EITHER establishes absolute synch anywhere OR it provides a
practical way to measure the supposed Lorentz length contraction.

Practical?!
Please give an example with real values!

Either way I will be happy to accept a Nobel Prize.

BTW, I don't think you are stupid. I just think you are not aware of
your unconscious assumptions about simultaneity. That unacknowledged
assumption is at the root of your demonstrations (except your MMX
explanation, which is based on an error about aberration).

Indeed, Henry it looks like you never studied the basics about
synchronization and the Lorentz transformations - the resulting
impossibility to determine simultaneity was already explained by Poincare in
1904... so you are almost 100 years behind now! ;-)

Harald

On Wed, 3 Dec 2003 10:05:21 +0100, "Harry" wrote:

Instead of repeating others, I simply add:

"Brian Kennelly" wrote in message
...
HenriWilson wrote:

By now you are all familiar with my 'moving rod' method for establishing
absolute simultaneity anywhere in the universe. It is demonstrated at:

www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/movingrod.exe


To reiterate, it involves two identical rods, one of which is moved
inertially
past the other in close proximity. The one at rest has detectors on each
end
that can sense when the ends of the moving rod are adjacent.

A___________________________B
C___________________________D--v

Rod C-D is moved past A-B.
When the ends are adjacent, clocks A and B take readings.

Note that "when" is open for discussion. You can only assure to take
readings when A is adjacent with C, and when D is adjacent with B.
So at those times these two pairs of clocks are truly synchronized. You have
ignored synchronization of C with D, or A with B...

Sorry you seem to have misunderstood the experiment.
C and D are not clocks. They are the ends of the moving rod.


One is then adjusted
so that the two will register the same reading on subsequent runs. (the
experiment can be performed using quite low velocities depending on the
sensitivity of the 'end detecting' mechanism)

Since the rod lengths DO NOT physically change with velocity, it can be
assumed
that the clocks are now in absolute synch. The same 'instant in time' is
established at both ends of the rod (which can be LY's in length)

To establish this, you must prove that the lengths do not change.

Indeed, Henry did not do so. Neither did he synchronize A with B.

They are set to the same reading when the rod ends coincide.
You do not understand this at all. Read it again. Better still, run my simple
demo.


By repeating this procedure using one of the synched clocks and a third
clock,
an infinite array of absolutely synched clocks can be theoretically set
up
throughout the universe.
If all exeriments use these clocks for measuring events, this setup
simulates
an instantaneous universe.
Two such frames, synched initially at rest but now moving relatively,
will
register the same absolute time for any event anywhere. This folows
because
clock rates, like rod lengths, do NOT physically alter with velocity
changes.

You assume that time dilation does not exist, and conclude that time is
absolute. You will probably want to prove that as well.

Exactly. Obviously, if time dilation does not exist, clock synchronization
is easy: just put all clocks together and then go off in all directions!

don't babble about irrelevancies.
Read the experiment again please. You did not understand it at all.


It has been argued (quite wrongly) that the moving rod WILL not maintain
constant length. (To see proof why it is wrong see
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/contractions.exe)

As we have discussed, your proof assumes its conclusion.

Even if that were true, I have two responses.

Firstly, instead of moving just ONE rod past the other, both rods can be
moved
in opposite directions, identically, so that any length changes will be
cancelled out.

That provides synchronization in a particular inertial frame, but the
clocks will not be synchronized for other velocities.

Secondly, by repeating the experiment using different rod velocities, it
should
be possible to actually measure the contraction of the moving rod, if
any.

I think you will mostly measure time dilation effects.

They are not a feature of my experiment. You have not understood it.

Such tests have been
done. I don't know of any test that was sensitive enough for length
contraction, except Marinov's (his conclusion was: no length contraction).

Of course there is no length contraction.
the LT's are an illusion.


So my method EITHER establishes absolute synch anywhere OR it provides a
practical way to measure the supposed Lorentz length contraction.

Practical?!
Please give an example with real values!

Either way I will be happy to accept a Nobel Prize.

BTW, I don't think you are stupid. I just think you are not aware of
your unconscious assumptions about simultaneity. That unacknowledged
assumption is at the root of your demonstrations (except your MMX
explanation, which is based on an error about aberration).

Indeed, Henry it looks like you never studied the basics about
synchronization and the Lorentz transformations - the resulting
impossibility to determine simultaneity was already explained by Poincare in
1904... so you are almost 100 years behind now! ;-)

Simultaneity cannot be determined absolutely if light is used for detection.

However if synched clocks make all the measurements, that is not true.


Harald



Henri Wilson.
See the Stupidity of Relativity.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm