Path: csiph.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail From: Sylvia Else Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity Subject: Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2017 11:31:47 +1000 Lines: 72 Message-ID: References: <359ac3ef-1823-4e4d-9c98-238aafe1d4b3@googlegroups.com> <83f4ba90-744a-4416-a0f9-b91464793d2b@googlegroups.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: individual.net St7vRjQVxTaClkSJAOoK3wZuE6cr0XU2fQpsZon9MeAooDBzt7 Cancel-Lock: sha1:ND2dhGYR+HMbfm4yfVQi3EPiylg= User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.2.1 In-Reply-To: <83f4ba90-744a-4416-a0f9-b91464793d2b@googlegroups.com> Content-Language: en-US Xref: csiph.com sci.physics.relativity:426229 On 26/07/2017 11:41 PM, Robert Winn wrote: > On Tuesday, July 25, 2017 at 8:28:26 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: >> On 24/07/2017 1:25 PM, Robert Winn wrote: >>> On Sunday, July 23, 2017 at 7:14:51 PM UTC-7, HGW... wrote: >>>> On 23/07/17 16:55, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>>> On 22/07/2017 11:24 PM, Robert Winn wrote: >>>> >>>>>>> You'll still be wrong. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sylvia. >>>>>> >>>>>> No, I am not wrong, and I do not ignore a century of research. I just >>>>>> do the mathematics correctly. Einstein's revolutionary idea was that >>>>>> there was a "time dilation", in other words, a slower clock in S', the >>>>>> frame of reference in motion. Scientists tested his idea and found >>>>>> that clocks did slow down when placed in motion. Then they >>>>>> experimented some more and found that clocks speeded up if subjected >>>>>> to less gravitation. So they concluded that Isaac Newton was wrong, >>>>>> and clocks that were working correctly did not all agree with one >>>>>> another as Newton believed in his absolute time interpretation of the >>>>>> Galilean transformation equations. The Galilean transformation >>>>>> equations were thrown into the trash. >>>>> >>>>> Einstein showed what the equations have to be if the laws of physics are >>>>> to be the same in all inertial frames. Your equations don't satisfy that >>>>> requirement. >>>> >>>> Why are dingleberries so plainly dumb? The fact that the laws of physics >>>> are the same does not mean the parameter VALUES have to be the same. >>>> >>>>> Sylvia. >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>> >>> Oh, well, I did not know. Scientists just seem to make up whatever rules they think they need to have as they go along. I like Galileo, though. He was right about the earth rotating on its axis. >>> >> >> Scientists try to discover what the rules are. It's not always at all >> obvious, and sometimes the rules turn out to be highly counter-intuitive. >> >> The preamble to Einsteins paper "On the Electrodynamics of Moving >> Bodies" shows why he was motivated to postulate that the laws of physics >> should be the same for all inertial observers and that only relative >> motions matter. >> >> Experiments already indicated that the speed of light was constant >> (which would have to be true for the postulate to stand). Einstein then >> shows that the postulate unavoidably leads to the Lorentz transformation. >> >> So the Lorentz transformation is the rule if the laws of physics are the >> same for all inertial observers. It is not "made up", but is deduced by >> applying mathematics to the postulate. >> >> You may not like it, but the only way to avoid it is to show that the >> postulate is wrong. >> >> Sylvia. > > I already did, which you ignored. So I will demonstrate again. Suppose we have a railroad car in motion. We drop a ball from the top of the railroad car to the floor. We time the descent of the ball using two clocks, one inside the railroad car and one on the ground beside the railroad track. Einstein says that the clock in the railroad car is slower than the clock on the ground. So, according to the clock in the railroad car, the ball is falling faster than it is according to the clock on the ground. > So go ahead and wave your hands again. Say some meaningless scientific jargon. The fact remains that according to Einstein's mathematics, the law of gravitation is not the same in the moving railroad car as it is on the ground. So all of the laws of physics are not the same in the two frames of reference. That is just the way it is. > The key to this is the word "inertial". Apparently you don't know what it means, because the clocks in your thought experiment are manifestly NOT in inertial frames since they're sitting in a gravitational field. The requirement that the laws of physics be the same was expressly restricted to inertial frames, and does not apply to the clocks in your thought experiment. Sylvia.