Re: Proof That OWLS is Source Dependent.

From: Henri Wilson (H_at_..(Henri)
Date: 12/30/04 

Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2004 22:37:45 GMT

On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 19:11:36 +0000, JP <jp@nospam.com> wrote:

>On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 09:51:54 +0000, H wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 23:07:24 +0000, JP <jp@nospam.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 21:34:06 +0000, H wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 22:46:09 +0000, JP <jp@nospam.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 22:08:31 +0000, H wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Consider this experiment.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> v<-A--c--c--c--c--c--c--c--c--c--c--c--c--c--c--c--c--c--
>>>>>> T
>>>>>> ->vB--c--c--c--c--c--c--c--c--c--c--c--c--c--c--c--c--c--
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A and B are two light sources that are moving in opposite directions with
>>>>>> velocity v, relative to target, T.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Both have long rods attached with regularly spaced and pre-synched clocks. Each
>>>>>> clock records the arrival times of light pulses emitted by the corresponding
>>>>>> source, A and B.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A and B are moving in the same line at the same speed in opposite directions
>>>>>> wrt T. (This makes any claimed 'relativistic clock slowing' equal for both A
>>>>>> and B)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When A and B are adjacent, they each emit a light pulse. According to both SR
>>>>>> and the ballistic theory, light from each source should move along its
>>>>>> corresponding rod at c. Therefore the nth clock on each rod should record the
>>>>>> same arrival times for its corresponding pulse.
>>>>>
>>>>>According to whom?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But clearly, when the mth clock on A's rod passes T, the mth clock on B's rod
>>>>>> will be nowhere near T.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Consequently is must be concluded that the pulses from A and B DO NOT and
>>>>>> CANNOT reach T at the same instant.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>FALSE. There is no such thing as absolute simultaneity. You make this
>>>>>claim repeatedly and it falls at the same problem.
>>>>
>>>> Go and read a few books. You obviously don't even understand your own pet
>>>> theory.
>>>>
>>>I have. You clearly skipped the pre-reading.
>>>
>>>There is no such thing as absolute simultanaeity. I know its one of those
>>>subjects you declaim from on high, but frankly its no more bollocks now
>>>than it has been for the last 100 years.
>>
>> Of course there is absolute simultaneity. Just because you cannot 'see' it
>> doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
>
>Proof by assertion, Wilson-style.
>>
>> NOW here is NOW everywhere.
>
>Proof by assertion, Wilson-style.
>>
>> Even your own god Einstein knew that. His E-synching of clocks sets them in
>> absolute synch.
>
>Bollocks. Not once have you proven any of the above. not once have you
>demonstrated that you even know what you are talking about.

Bloody hell!

I can know what happens on the moon ABSOLUTELY NOW if I wait 1.3 seconds to see
it.

NOW is everywhere RIGHT THIS INSTANT.

Why try to complicate the issue?

HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

"If it's repeated often enough they'll eventually believe it" __Albert Bush

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Uncle Als "Negative Energy"
    ... Mati gave you a correction that involved knowing ... >about absolute values and you didn't seem to understand ... in direct response to my own assertion that " binding energy is not ... Do you now accept that I was correct in this assertion? ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: relativistic centrifuge
    ... Please support your assertion that for any quantity X, "X is absolute" ... means "X is non-zero is all CSs". ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: The Beaver
    ... As is making an assertion of an absolute which in all likelihood cannot be ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: What is LET?
    ... of absolute simultaneity in mathematical form rather than the philosophical ... point out that the definitions is inconsistent with an absolute frame. ... that hyperplane divides spacetime into ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
Quantcast