Re: Why TWLS= 0 <> OWLS in any ONE Frame.


"JanPB" <filmart@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1138588289.632422.139170@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Hexenmeister wrote:
>> "JanPB" <filmart@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> news:1138582423.455005.238750@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> > Henri Wilson wrote:
>> >> On 28 Jan 2006 22:27:58 -0800, "JanPB" <filmart@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >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
>>
>> 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.

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.


.