Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #457285 > unrolled thread

And you Mr.Voley need to learn Stein's Law eh!

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  And you Mr.Voley need to learn Stein's Law eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-05-01 18:23 +0100
    Re: And you Mr.Voley need to learn Stein's Law eh! Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-05-01 13:38 -0400
      Re: And you Mr.Voley need to learn Stein's Law eh! Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-02 15:43 -0700
        Re: And you Mr.Voley need to learn Stein's Law eh! Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-05-02 16:16 -0700
          Re: And you Mr.Voley need to learn Stein's Law eh! "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-05-03 15:46 +0200
            Re: And you Mr.Voley need to learn Stein's Law eh! Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-05-03 10:44 -0700
              Re: And you Mr.Voley need to learn Stein's Law eh! "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-05-03 21:29 +0200
                Re: And you Mr.Voley need to learn Stein's Law eh! Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-04 13:54 -0700
                  Re: And you Mr.Voley need to learn Stein's Law eh! Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-05-04 15:18 -0700
                    Re: And you Mr.Voley need to learn Stein's Law eh! Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-04 17:47 -0700
                Re: And you Mr.Voley need to learn Stein's Law eh! Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-05-04 15:14 -0700
                  Re: And you Mr.Voley need to learn Stein's Law eh! "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-05-05 21:04 +0200
                    Re: And you Mr.Voley need to learn Stein's Law eh! Otto Wahl <tlow@wtiwor.oc> - 2018-05-05 19:24 +0000
                      Re: And you Mr.Voley need to learn Stein's Law eh! moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-05-06 00:54 +0000
                        Re: And you Mr.Voley need to learn Stein's Law eh! "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-05-06 20:26 +0200
                          Re: And you Mr.Voley need to learn Stein's Law eh! Rusty Willard <wuut@yaiw.wu> - 2018-05-07 14:39 +0000
                    Re: And you Mr.Voley need to learn Stein's Law eh! Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-05-05 17:21 -0700
                      Re: And you Mr.Voley need to learn Stein's Law eh! "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-05-06 11:31 +0200
                      Re: And you Mr.Voley need to learn Stein's Law eh! Otto Wahl <tlow@wtiwor.oc> - 2018-05-06 19:59 +0000
            Re: And you Mr.Voley need to learn Stein's Law eh! Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-03 12:27 -0700
        Re: And you Mr.Voley need to learn Stein's Law eh! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-02 22:09 -0700
    Re: And you Mr.Voley need to learn Stein's Law eh! Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-02 15:44 -0500
      Re: And you Mr.Voley need to learn Stein's Law eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-05-03 19:06 +0100
        Re: And you Mr.Voley need to learn Stein's Law eh! Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-03 14:27 -0500
          Re: And you Mr.Voley need to learn Stein's Law eh! benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-03 21:29 -0400
            Re: And you Mr.Voley need to learn Stein's Law eh! Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-03 23:52 -0500
              Re: And you Mr.Voley need to learn Stein's Law eh! benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-04 03:41 -0400
        Re: And you Mr.Voley need to learn Stein's Law eh! Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-03 12:40 -0700
        Re: And you Mr.Voley need to learn Stein's Law eh! Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-03 14:15 -0700
        Re: And you Mr.Voley need to learn Stein's Law eh! Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-05-03 20:23 -0700
    Re: And you Mr.Voley need to learn Stein's Law eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-05-05 11:05 +0100

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#457394

On Thursday, 3 May 2018 00:43:28 UTC+2, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog  wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 1, 2018 at 12:39:44 PM UTC-5, Volney wrote:
> > On 5/1/2018 1:23 PM, Keith Stein wrote:
> > > 
> > <snip repost>
> > 
> > All asked and answered.
> > 
> > >  > Nobody cares about your self-proclaimed "law".
> > > 
> > > Someday someone will take a couple of clocks to the ISS, or its 
> > > successor, and prove that indeed Stein's Law is correct, and one week 
> > > later everyone will wonder how anyone could ever of doubted it eh!
> > > 
> > > keith stein
> > 
> > It would be nice just to have one more data point and to shut up the 
> > anti-relativity nuts, but of course the last won't happen regardless of 
> > the outcome.
> 
> Some of the GPS satellites have been in service for over two decades.
> 
> If Keith is correct, an earth-bound cesium clock which is running in sync with a GPS clock that has been up for two decades will, if transported to the 
> satellite, be mismatched with the GPS clock by over 1/4 of a second. 

And if your Shit is correct, they should indicate your time
dilation madness. But, no, they don't. Goodbye, The Shit.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#457379

On 5/1/2018 12:23 PM, Keith Stein wrote:
> 
> On 30/04/2018 21:57, Volney wrote:
>> On 4/30/2018 3:23 PM, Keith Stein wrote:
>>> On 30/04/2018 19:40, Volney wrote:
>>>> On 4/30/2018 2:14 PM, Keith Stein wrote:
> 
>>>>> But think about it Ken, how is a clock in free fall going to know
> what orbit it's in, in order to know whether to go fast or slow. It
> ain't eh!
> 
>>>> It doesn't know. The clock will always run at the normal rate as far
> as a local comoving observer is concerned. The clock will see itself run
> at its normal rate.
> 
>>> And if it really does run at its normal rate then clearly the two
> clocks will agree when reunited, on the ISS, or indeed anywhere eh!
> 
>>>> Seeing a clock run slow or fast ONLY happens when there are two
> observers/clocks in different states. Such as a stationary clock on the
> ground and a clock in orbit on the ISS.
> 
>>> Of course clocks which are moving relative to each other appear to
> run at different rates, but, unless one of the clocks has REALLY changed
> rate, the clocks must agree when reunited.
> 
>> Why would they? SR doesn't state that. It's like saying that if two
> cars drive from New York to Chicago and their odometers are identical at
> the start of the trip, they must be identical at the end of the trip as
> well, no matter which route they took.
> 
> No Mr. Volney, but it is exactly like saying that if two cars drive from
> New York to Chicago and their CLOCKS are identical at the start of the
> trip, they must be identical at the end as well, no matter which route
> they took eh!
> 
>> If the two twins take different routes through spacetime, their clocks
> won't agree.
> 
> There is space, measured by odometers,
>  and there is time, measured by clocks,
>  and there is spacetime, measured by idiots eh!
> 
>>>>> Also if you look at how Einstein derived the SR time dilation it's
> obvious that it's bull shit. He assumed the velocity of light, unlike
> any other velocity, is independent of the velocity of the observer.
> 
>>>> And all measurements confirm that Einstein was correct in doing this.
> 
> no measurement ever confirmed that the velocity of light relative to the
> observer is independent  of the velocity of the observer, and none ever
> will, because actually it's an impossibility.
> 
>>> No one has ever successfully demonstrated the SR twin effect, ever eh!
> 
>> Demonstrated daily with particle accelerators.
> 
> Another impossibility eh!
> 
>>>>> Me i think clocks would just go on ticking at the same old rate
> whatever
> 
>>>> Finally you said something correct.
> 
> Thank you Mr.Voley, and what i actually said was:
> 
> "Me i think clocks would just go on ticking at the same old rate
> whatever bull shit Einstein comes out with eh!"
> 
>>>> You need to learn SR and GR.
> 
>>> And you Mr.Voley need to learn Stein's Law:
>>>
>>>      "ANY DISCREPANCY BETWEEN PREVIOUSLY SYNCRONISED CLOCKS,
>>>       WHICH CAN BE FULLY ACCOUNTED FOR BY THE FINITE SPEED OF THE
>>>       SIGNAL CONNECTING THE CLOCKS, MUST DISAPPEAR WHENEVER THOSE
>>>      CLOCKS ARE REUNITED."
> 
>> Nobody cares about your self-proclaimed "law".
> 
> Someday someone will take a couple of clocks to the ISS, or its
> successor, and prove that indeed Stein's Law is correct, and one week
> later everyone will wonder how anyone could ever of doubted it eh!
> 
> keith stein


Hafele–Keating experiment 1971,

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#457433

On 02/05/2018 21:44, Sergio wrote:
> On 5/1/2018 12:23 PM, Keith Stein wrote:
>>
>> On 30/04/2018 21:57, Volney wrote:
>>> On 4/30/2018 3:23 PM, Keith Stein wrote:
>>>> On 30/04/2018 19:40, Volney wrote:
>>>>> On 4/30/2018 2:14 PM, Keith Stein wrote:
>>
>>>>>> But think about it Ken, how is a clock in free fall going to know
>> what orbit it's in, in order to know whether to go fast or slow. It
>> ain't eh!
>>
>>>>> It doesn't know. The clock will always run at the normal rate as far
>> as a local comoving observer is concerned. The clock will see itself run
>> at its normal rate.
>>
>>>> And if it really does run at its normal rate then clearly the two
>> clocks will agree when reunited, on the ISS, or indeed anywhere eh!
>>
>>>>> Seeing a clock run slow or fast ONLY happens when there are two
>> observers/clocks in different states. Such as a stationary clock on the
>> ground and a clock in orbit on the ISS.
>>
>>>> Of course clocks which are moving relative to each other appear to
>> run at different rates, but, unless one of the clocks has REALLY changed
>> rate, the clocks must agree when reunited.
>>
>>> Why would they? SR doesn't state that. It's like saying that if two
>> cars drive from New York to Chicago and their odometers are identical at
>> the start of the trip, they must be identical at the end of the trip as
>> well, no matter which route they took.
>>
>> No Mr. Volney, but it is exactly like saying that if two cars drive from
>> New York to Chicago and their CLOCKS are identical at the start of the
>> trip, they must be identical at the end as well, no matter which route
>> they took eh!
>>
>>> If the two twins take different routes through spacetime, their clocks
>> won't agree.
>>
>> There is space, measured by odometers,
>>   and there is time, measured by clocks,
>>   and there is spacetime, measured by idiots eh!
>>
>>>>>> Also if you look at how Einstein derived the SR time dilation it's
>> obvious that it's bull shit. He assumed the velocity of light, unlike
>> any other velocity, is independent of the velocity of the observer.
>>
>>>>> And all measurements confirm that Einstein was correct in doing this.
>>
>> no measurement ever confirmed that the velocity of light relative to the
>> observer is independent  of the velocity of the observer, and none ever
>> will, because actually it's an impossibility.
>>
>>>> No one has ever successfully demonstrated the SR twin effect, ever eh!
>>
>>> Demonstrated daily with particle accelerators.
>>
>> Another impossibility eh!
>>
>>>>>> Me i think clocks would just go on ticking at the same old rate
>> whatever
>>
>>>>> Finally you said something correct.
>>
>> Thank you Mr.Voley, and what i actually said was:
>>
>> "Me i think clocks would just go on ticking at the same old rate
>> whatever bull shit Einstein comes out with eh!"
>>
>>>>> You need to learn SR and GR.
>>
>>>> And you Mr.Voley need to learn Stein's Law:
>>>>
>>>>        "ANY DISCREPANCY BETWEEN PREVIOUSLY SYNCRONISED CLOCKS,
>>>>         WHICH CAN BE FULLY ACCOUNTED FOR BY THE FINITE SPEED OF THE
>>>>         SIGNAL CONNECTING THE CLOCKS, MUST DISAPPEAR WHENEVER THOSE
>>>>        CLOCKS ARE REUNITED."
>>
>>> Nobody cares about your self-proclaimed "law".
>>
>> Someday someone will take a couple of clocks to the ISS, or its
>> successor, and prove that indeed Stein's Law is correct, and one week
>> later everyone will wonder how anyone could ever of doubted it eh!


> Hafele–Keating experiment 1971,

Thank you Sergio. Yes that would seem to be relevant, but if you had
the benefit of seeing the original Hafele (confidential) internal report
to the US navy,you would know that those results are worthless. Before
the heavy massaging of the result which was done before the published
report the clock readings were all over the place, and Hafele himself
concludes in the original report that nothing could be concluded from
their results.  In any case the magnitude of the dilations in the H-K
experiment were orders of magnitude smaller than should be obtained on
the ISS.

keith stein

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#457435

On 5/3/2018 1:06 PM, Keith Stein wrote:
> On 02/05/2018 21:44, Sergio wrote:
>> On 5/1/2018 12:23 PM, Keith Stein wrote:
>>>
>>> On 30/04/2018 21:57, Volney wrote:
>>>> On 4/30/2018 3:23 PM, Keith Stein wrote:
>>>>> On 30/04/2018 19:40, Volney wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/30/2018 2:14 PM, Keith Stein wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>> But think about it Ken, how is a clock in free fall going to know
>>> what orbit it's in, in order to know whether to go fast or slow. It
>>> ain't eh!
>>>
>>>>>> It doesn't know. The clock will always run at the normal rate as far
>>> as a local comoving observer is concerned. The clock will see itself run
>>> at its normal rate.
>>>
>>>>> And if it really does run at its normal rate then clearly the two
>>> clocks will agree when reunited, on the ISS, or indeed anywhere eh!
>>>
>>>>>> Seeing a clock run slow or fast ONLY happens when there are two
>>> observers/clocks in different states. Such as a stationary clock on the
>>> ground and a clock in orbit on the ISS.
>>>
>>>>> Of course clocks which are moving relative to each other appear to
>>> run at different rates, but, unless one of the clocks has REALLY changed
>>> rate, the clocks must agree when reunited.
>>>
>>>> Why would they? SR doesn't state that. It's like saying that if two
>>> cars drive from New York to Chicago and their odometers are identical at
>>> the start of the trip, they must be identical at the end of the trip as
>>> well, no matter which route they took.
>>>
>>> No Mr. Volney, but it is exactly like saying that if two cars drive from
>>> New York to Chicago and their CLOCKS are identical at the start of the
>>> trip, they must be identical at the end as well, no matter which route
>>> they took eh!
>>>
>>>> If the two twins take different routes through spacetime, their clocks
>>> won't agree.
>>>
>>> There is space, measured by odometers,
>>>   and there is time, measured by clocks,
>>>   and there is spacetime, measured by idiots eh!
>>>
>>>>>>> Also if you look at how Einstein derived the SR time dilation it's
>>> obvious that it's bull shit. He assumed the velocity of light, unlike
>>> any other velocity, is independent of the velocity of the observer.
>>>
>>>>>> And all measurements confirm that Einstein was correct in doing this.
>>>
>>> no measurement ever confirmed that the velocity of light relative to the
>>> observer is independent  of the velocity of the observer, and none ever
>>> will, because actually it's an impossibility.
>>>
>>>>> No one has ever successfully demonstrated the SR twin effect, ever eh!
>>>
>>>> Demonstrated daily with particle accelerators.
>>>
>>> Another impossibility eh!
>>>
>>>>>>> Me i think clocks would just go on ticking at the same old rate
>>> whatever
>>>
>>>>>> Finally you said something correct.
>>>
>>> Thank you Mr.Voley, and what i actually said was:
>>>
>>> "Me i think clocks would just go on ticking at the same old rate
>>> whatever bull shit Einstein comes out with eh!"
>>>
>>>>>> You need to learn SR and GR.
>>>
>>>>> And you Mr.Voley need to learn Stein's Law:
>>>>>
>>>>>        "ANY DISCREPANCY BETWEEN PREVIOUSLY SYNCRONISED CLOCKS,
>>>>>         WHICH CAN BE FULLY ACCOUNTED FOR BY THE FINITE SPEED OF THE
>>>>>         SIGNAL CONNECTING THE CLOCKS, MUST DISAPPEAR WHENEVER THOSE
>>>>>        CLOCKS ARE REUNITED."
>>>
>>>> Nobody cares about your self-proclaimed "law".
>>>
>>> Someday someone will take a couple of clocks to the ISS, or its
>>> successor, and prove that indeed Stein's Law is correct, and one week
>>> later everyone will wonder how anyone could ever of doubted it eh!
> 
> 
>> Hafele–Keating experiment 1971,
> 
> Thank you Sergio. Yes that would seem to be relevant, but if you had
> the benefit of seeing the original Hafele (confidential) internal report
> to the US navy,you would know that those results are worthless. Before
> the heavy massaging of the result which was done before the published
> report the clock readings were all over the place, and Hafele himself
> concludes in the original report that nothing could be concluded from
> their results.  In any case the magnitude of the dilations in the H-K
> experiment were orders of magnitude smaller than should be obtained on
> the ISS.
> 
> keith stein
> 
> 

here are two MIT clips about 30 min each, that prove relativistic time
dialation etc.  from 1960's   Interesting in the method they used and
the equipment.  one can do the muon one from parts off ebay

interesting measurement here, using muons,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tnao7JWo8mA


another one timing electrons at MIT
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B0BOpiMQXQA

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#457448

On 5/3/2018 3:27 PM, Sergio wrote:
> On 5/3/2018 1:06 PM, Keith Stein wrote:
>> On 02/05/2018 21:44, Sergio wrote:
>>> On 5/1/2018 12:23 PM, Keith Stein wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 30/04/2018 21:57, Volney wrote:
>>>>> On 4/30/2018 3:23 PM, Keith Stein wrote:
>>>>>> On 30/04/2018 19:40, Volney wrote:
>>>>>>> On 4/30/2018 2:14 PM, Keith Stein wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>>> But think about it Ken, how is a clock in free fall going to know
>>>> what orbit it's in, in order to know whether to go fast or slow. It
>>>> ain't eh!
>>>>
>>>>>>> It doesn't know. The clock will always run at the normal rate as far
>>>> as a local comoving observer is concerned. The clock will see itself run
>>>> at its normal rate.
>>>>
>>>>>> And if it really does run at its normal rate then clearly the two
>>>> clocks will agree when reunited, on the ISS, or indeed anywhere eh!
>>>>
>>>>>>> Seeing a clock run slow or fast ONLY happens when there are two
>>>> observers/clocks in different states. Such as a stationary clock on the
>>>> ground and a clock in orbit on the ISS.
>>>>
>>>>>> Of course clocks which are moving relative to each other appear to
>>>> run at different rates, but, unless one of the clocks has REALLY changed
>>>> rate, the clocks must agree when reunited.
>>>>
>>>>> Why would they? SR doesn't state that. It's like saying that if two
>>>> cars drive from New York to Chicago and their odometers are identical at
>>>> the start of the trip, they must be identical at the end of the trip as
>>>> well, no matter which route they took.
>>>>
>>>> No Mr. Volney, but it is exactly like saying that if two cars drive from
>>>> New York to Chicago and their CLOCKS are identical at the start of the
>>>> trip, they must be identical at the end as well, no matter which route
>>>> they took eh!
>>>>
>>>>> If the two twins take different routes through spacetime, their clocks
>>>> won't agree.
>>>>
>>>> There is space, measured by odometers,
>>>>    and there is time, measured by clocks,
>>>>    and there is spacetime, measured by idiots eh!
>>>>
>>>>>>>> Also if you look at how Einstein derived the SR time dilation it's
>>>> obvious that it's bull shit. He assumed the velocity of light, unlike
>>>> any other velocity, is independent of the velocity of the observer.
>>>>
>>>>>>> And all measurements confirm that Einstein was correct in doing this.
>>>>
>>>> no measurement ever confirmed that the velocity of light relative to the
>>>> observer is independent  of the velocity of the observer, and none ever
>>>> will, because actually it's an impossibility.
>>>>
>>>>>> No one has ever successfully demonstrated the SR twin effect, ever eh!
>>>>
>>>>> Demonstrated daily with particle accelerators.
>>>>
>>>> Another impossibility eh!
>>>>
>>>>>>>> Me i think clocks would just go on ticking at the same old rate
>>>> whatever
>>>>
>>>>>>> Finally you said something correct.
>>>>
>>>> Thank you Mr.Voley, and what i actually said was:
>>>>
>>>> "Me i think clocks would just go on ticking at the same old rate
>>>> whatever bull shit Einstein comes out with eh!"
>>>>
>>>>>>> You need to learn SR and GR.
>>>>
>>>>>> And you Mr.Voley need to learn Stein's Law:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>         "ANY DISCREPANCY BETWEEN PREVIOUSLY SYNCRONISED CLOCKS,
>>>>>>          WHICH CAN BE FULLY ACCOUNTED FOR BY THE FINITE SPEED OF THE
>>>>>>          SIGNAL CONNECTING THE CLOCKS, MUST DISAPPEAR WHENEVER THOSE
>>>>>>         CLOCKS ARE REUNITED."
>>>>
>>>>> Nobody cares about your self-proclaimed "law".
>>>>
>>>> Someday someone will take a couple of clocks to the ISS, or its
>>>> successor, and prove that indeed Stein's Law is correct, and one week
>>>> later everyone will wonder how anyone could ever of doubted it eh!
>>
>>
>>> Hafele–Keating experiment 1971,
>>
>> Thank you Sergio. Yes that would seem to be relevant, but if you had
>> the benefit of seeing the original Hafele (confidential) internal report
>> to the US navy,you would know that those results are worthless. Before
>> the heavy massaging of the result which was done before the published
>> report the clock readings were all over the place, and Hafele himself
>> concludes in the original report that nothing could be concluded from
>> their results.  In any case the magnitude of the dilations in the H-K
>> experiment were orders of magnitude smaller than should be obtained on
>> the ISS.
>>
>> keith stein
>>
>>
> 
> here are two MIT clips about 30 min each, that prove relativistic time
> dialation etc.  from 1960's   Interesting in the method they used and
> the equipment.  one can do the muon one from parts off ebay
> 
> interesting measurement here, using muons,
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tnao7JWo8mA
> 
> 
> another one timing electrons at MIT
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B0BOpiMQXQA
> 
Sergio, where did you find the magnificent old piece of shit! Oh man! 
did you see that narrow tie! TUBE electronics! Old Hog oscilloscope! 
Using a freaking SLIDE RULE to calculate numbers! How in the hell did 
anyone EVER do any real science back in those days?

Cute little Van de Graff. Only I've got a bigger one stored in my 
garage. One day I should put it back together again! So cool to have 
million volts around just for fun. Love that old hog O'scope. I had one 
like that and traded it to a tech where I worked for a hog car (about a 
block long Chrysler) Drove that old piece of shit FOREVER! Was great if 
you didn't care what you spent on gas.

OF course the experiment doesn't show anything about clocks, just that 
electrons using electric fields can't be accelerated faster than the 
speed of light. Note that electric fields TRAVEL at the speed of light. 
Duh.

Loved that primitive lab though.

Do I win the "smarter than Einstein" prize yet? (However to maintain 
sanity I usually refrain from discussing relativity on the INTERNET.)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#457459

On 5/3/2018 8:29 PM, benj wrote:
> On 5/3/2018 3:27 PM, Sergio wrote:
>> On 5/3/2018 1:06 PM, Keith Stein wrote:
>>> On 02/05/2018 21:44, Sergio wrote:
>>>> On 5/1/2018 12:23 PM, Keith Stein wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 30/04/2018 21:57, Volney wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/30/2018 3:23 PM, Keith Stein wrote:
>>>>>>> On 30/04/2018 19:40, Volney wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 4/30/2018 2:14 PM, Keith Stein wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> But think about it Ken, how is a clock in free fall going to know
>>>>> what orbit it's in, in order to know whether to go fast or slow. It
>>>>> ain't eh!
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It doesn't know. The clock will always run at the normal rate as
>>>>>>>> far
>>>>> as a local comoving observer is concerned. The clock will see
>>>>> itself run
>>>>> at its normal rate.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> And if it really does run at its normal rate then clearly the two
>>>>> clocks will agree when reunited, on the ISS, or indeed anywhere eh!
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Seeing a clock run slow or fast ONLY happens when there are two
>>>>> observers/clocks in different states. Such as a stationary clock on
>>>>> the
>>>>> ground and a clock in orbit on the ISS.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Of course clocks which are moving relative to each other appear to
>>>>> run at different rates, but, unless one of the clocks has REALLY
>>>>> changed
>>>>> rate, the clocks must agree when reunited.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Why would they? SR doesn't state that. It's like saying that if two
>>>>> cars drive from New York to Chicago and their odometers are
>>>>> identical at
>>>>> the start of the trip, they must be identical at the end of the
>>>>> trip as
>>>>> well, no matter which route they took.
>>>>>
>>>>> No Mr. Volney, but it is exactly like saying that if two cars drive
>>>>> from
>>>>> New York to Chicago and their CLOCKS are identical at the start of the
>>>>> trip, they must be identical at the end as well, no matter which route
>>>>> they took eh!
>>>>>
>>>>>> If the two twins take different routes through spacetime, their
>>>>>> clocks
>>>>> won't agree.
>>>>>
>>>>> There is space, measured by odometers,
>>>>>    and there is time, measured by clocks,
>>>>>    and there is spacetime, measured by idiots eh!
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Also if you look at how Einstein derived the SR time dilation it's
>>>>> obvious that it's bull shit. He assumed the velocity of light, unlike
>>>>> any other velocity, is independent of the velocity of the observer.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And all measurements confirm that Einstein was correct in doing
>>>>>>>> this.
>>>>>
>>>>> no measurement ever confirmed that the velocity of light relative
>>>>> to the
>>>>> observer is independent  of the velocity of the observer, and none
>>>>> ever
>>>>> will, because actually it's an impossibility.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> No one has ever successfully demonstrated the SR twin effect,
>>>>>>> ever eh!
>>>>>
>>>>>> Demonstrated daily with particle accelerators.
>>>>>
>>>>> Another impossibility eh!
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Me i think clocks would just go on ticking at the same old rate
>>>>> whatever
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Finally you said something correct.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you Mr.Voley, and what i actually said was:
>>>>>
>>>>> "Me i think clocks would just go on ticking at the same old rate
>>>>> whatever bull shit Einstein comes out with eh!"
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You need to learn SR and GR.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> And you Mr.Voley need to learn Stein's Law:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>         "ANY DISCREPANCY BETWEEN PREVIOUSLY SYNCRONISED CLOCKS,
>>>>>>>          WHICH CAN BE FULLY ACCOUNTED FOR BY THE FINITE SPEED OF THE
>>>>>>>          SIGNAL CONNECTING THE CLOCKS, MUST DISAPPEAR WHENEVER THOSE
>>>>>>>         CLOCKS ARE REUNITED."
>>>>>
>>>>>> Nobody cares about your self-proclaimed "law".
>>>>>
>>>>> Someday someone will take a couple of clocks to the ISS, or its
>>>>> successor, and prove that indeed Stein's Law is correct, and one week
>>>>> later everyone will wonder how anyone could ever of doubted it eh!
>>>
>>>
>>>> Hafele–Keating experiment 1971,
>>>
>>> Thank you Sergio. Yes that would seem to be relevant, but if you had
>>> the benefit of seeing the original Hafele (confidential) internal report
>>> to the US navy,you would know that those results are worthless. Before
>>> the heavy massaging of the result which was done before the published
>>> report the clock readings were all over the place, and Hafele himself
>>> concludes in the original report that nothing could be concluded from
>>> their results.  In any case the magnitude of the dilations in the H-K
>>> experiment were orders of magnitude smaller than should be obtained on
>>> the ISS.
>>>
>>> keith stein
>>>
>>>
>>
>> here are two MIT clips about 30 min each, that prove relativistic time
>> dialation etc.  from 1960's   Interesting in the method they used and
>> the equipment.  one can do the muon one from parts off ebay
>>
>> interesting measurement here, using muons,
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tnao7JWo8mA
>>
>>
>> another one timing electrons at MIT
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B0BOpiMQXQA
>>
> Sergio, where did you find the magnificent old piece of shit! Oh man!
> did you see that narrow tie! TUBE electronics! Old Hog oscilloscope!
> Using a freaking SLIDE RULE to calculate numbers! How in the hell did
> anyone EVER do any real science back in those days?
> 
> Cute little Van de Graff. Only I've got a bigger one stored in my
> garage. One day I should put it back together again! So cool to have
> million volts around just for fun. Love that old hog O'scope. I had one
> like that and traded it to a tech where I worked for a hog car (about a
> block long Chrysler) Drove that old piece of shit FOREVER! Was great if
> you didn't care what you spent on gas.
> 
> OF course the experiment doesn't show anything about clocks, just that
> electrons using electric fields can't be accelerated faster than the
> speed of light. Note that electric fields TRAVEL at the speed of light.
> Duh.
> 
> Loved that primitive lab though.
> 
> Do I win the "smarter than Einstein" prize yet? (However to maintain
> sanity I usually refrain from discussing relativity on the INTERNET.)

yes, you recognized some of those boat anchors, they were using T
connectors, like type N or UHF,
those scopes are old, big on carts, lots of switches, not much
bandwidth, main problem with them is the custom power transformer, and
the display Tube, and all those descrete parts, no microprocessor...

and you have a great gerage queen, that van de graph, one guy I know had
an AM radio transmitter in his garage from 1940's it is 8   seven foot
tall racks  2.5 by 2.5 foot sq,  one rack  with a big, huge, water
cooled transmitter tube 2 foot long, another rack had the phasor, to
tune the transmitter to the antenna tower (am is hot antenna tower), the
phasor cabnet looked like it was out of a 1940's sci fi movie. very cool

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#457466

On 5/4/2018 12:52 AM, Sergio wrote:
> On 5/3/2018 8:29 PM, benj wrote:
>> On 5/3/2018 3:27 PM, Sergio wrote:
>>> On 5/3/2018 1:06 PM, Keith Stein wrote:
>>>> On 02/05/2018 21:44, Sergio wrote:
>>>>> On 5/1/2018 12:23 PM, Keith Stein wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 30/04/2018 21:57, Volney wrote:
>>>>>>> On 4/30/2018 3:23 PM, Keith Stein wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 30/04/2018 19:40, Volney wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 4/30/2018 2:14 PM, Keith Stein wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> But think about it Ken, how is a clock in free fall going to know
>>>>>> what orbit it's in, in order to know whether to go fast or slow. It
>>>>>> ain't eh!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It doesn't know. The clock will always run at the normal rate as
>>>>>>>>> far
>>>>>> as a local comoving observer is concerned. The clock will see
>>>>>> itself run
>>>>>> at its normal rate.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And if it really does run at its normal rate then clearly the two
>>>>>> clocks will agree when reunited, on the ISS, or indeed anywhere eh!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Seeing a clock run slow or fast ONLY happens when there are two
>>>>>> observers/clocks in different states. Such as a stationary clock on
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> ground and a clock in orbit on the ISS.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Of course clocks which are moving relative to each other appear to
>>>>>> run at different rates, but, unless one of the clocks has REALLY
>>>>>> changed
>>>>>> rate, the clocks must agree when reunited.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why would they? SR doesn't state that. It's like saying that if two
>>>>>> cars drive from New York to Chicago and their odometers are
>>>>>> identical at
>>>>>> the start of the trip, they must be identical at the end of the
>>>>>> trip as
>>>>>> well, no matter which route they took.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No Mr. Volney, but it is exactly like saying that if two cars drive
>>>>>> from
>>>>>> New York to Chicago and their CLOCKS are identical at the start of the
>>>>>> trip, they must be identical at the end as well, no matter which route
>>>>>> they took eh!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If the two twins take different routes through spacetime, their
>>>>>>> clocks
>>>>>> won't agree.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There is space, measured by odometers,
>>>>>>     and there is time, measured by clocks,
>>>>>>     and there is spacetime, measured by idiots eh!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Also if you look at how Einstein derived the SR time dilation it's
>>>>>> obvious that it's bull shit. He assumed the velocity of light, unlike
>>>>>> any other velocity, is independent of the velocity of the observer.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And all measurements confirm that Einstein was correct in doing
>>>>>>>>> this.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> no measurement ever confirmed that the velocity of light relative
>>>>>> to the
>>>>>> observer is independent  of the velocity of the observer, and none
>>>>>> ever
>>>>>> will, because actually it's an impossibility.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No one has ever successfully demonstrated the SR twin effect,
>>>>>>>> ever eh!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Demonstrated daily with particle accelerators.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Another impossibility eh!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Me i think clocks would just go on ticking at the same old rate
>>>>>> whatever
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Finally you said something correct.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thank you Mr.Voley, and what i actually said was:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Me i think clocks would just go on ticking at the same old rate
>>>>>> whatever bull shit Einstein comes out with eh!"
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You need to learn SR and GR.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And you Mr.Voley need to learn Stein's Law:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>          "ANY DISCREPANCY BETWEEN PREVIOUSLY SYNCRONISED CLOCKS,
>>>>>>>>           WHICH CAN BE FULLY ACCOUNTED FOR BY THE FINITE SPEED OF THE
>>>>>>>>           SIGNAL CONNECTING THE CLOCKS, MUST DISAPPEAR WHENEVER THOSE
>>>>>>>>          CLOCKS ARE REUNITED."
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nobody cares about your self-proclaimed "law".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Someday someone will take a couple of clocks to the ISS, or its
>>>>>> successor, and prove that indeed Stein's Law is correct, and one week
>>>>>> later everyone will wonder how anyone could ever of doubted it eh!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Hafele–Keating experiment 1971,
>>>>
>>>> Thank you Sergio. Yes that would seem to be relevant, but if you had
>>>> the benefit of seeing the original Hafele (confidential) internal report
>>>> to the US navy,you would know that those results are worthless. Before
>>>> the heavy massaging of the result which was done before the published
>>>> report the clock readings were all over the place, and Hafele himself
>>>> concludes in the original report that nothing could be concluded from
>>>> their results.  In any case the magnitude of the dilations in the H-K
>>>> experiment were orders of magnitude smaller than should be obtained on
>>>> the ISS.
>>>>
>>>> keith stein
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> here are two MIT clips about 30 min each, that prove relativistic time
>>> dialation etc.  from 1960's   Interesting in the method they used and
>>> the equipment.  one can do the muon one from parts off ebay
>>>
>>> interesting measurement here, using muons,
>>>
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tnao7JWo8mA
>>>
>>>
>>> another one timing electrons at MIT
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B0BOpiMQXQA
>>>
>> Sergio, where did you find the magnificent old piece of shit! Oh man!
>> did you see that narrow tie! TUBE electronics! Old Hog oscilloscope!
>> Using a freaking SLIDE RULE to calculate numbers! How in the hell did
>> anyone EVER do any real science back in those days?
>>
>> Cute little Van de Graff. Only I've got a bigger one stored in my
>> garage. One day I should put it back together again! So cool to have
>> million volts around just for fun. Love that old hog O'scope. I had one
>> like that and traded it to a tech where I worked for a hog car (about a
>> block long Chrysler) Drove that old piece of shit FOREVER! Was great if
>> you didn't care what you spent on gas.
>>
>> OF course the experiment doesn't show anything about clocks, just that
>> electrons using electric fields can't be accelerated faster than the
>> speed of light. Note that electric fields TRAVEL at the speed of light.
>> Duh.
>>
>> Loved that primitive lab though.
>>
>> Do I win the "smarter than Einstein" prize yet? (However to maintain
>> sanity I usually refrain from discussing relativity on the INTERNET.)
> 
> yes, you recognized some of those boat anchors, they were using T
> connectors, like type N or UHF,
> those scopes are old, big on carts, lots of switches, not much
> bandwidth, main problem with them is the custom power transformer, and
> the display Tube, and all those descrete parts, no microprocessor...
> 
> and you have a great gerage queen, that van de graph, one guy I know had
> an AM radio transmitter in his garage from 1940's it is 8   seven foot
> tall racks  2.5 by 2.5 foot sq,  one rack  with a big, huge, water
> cooled transmitter tube 2 foot long, another rack had the phasor, to
> tune the transmitter to the antenna tower (am is hot antenna tower), the
> phasor cabnet looked like it was out of a 1940's sci fi movie. very cool
> 
Luckily I've come to my senses enough to get rid of SOME (but not all) 
of my old junk. (Wish I could find my old Univac quad tube flip flop 
chassis. would make a FINE decorator item today. Would go well with my 
Violet Ray quack machines. A million volts electrostatic can be fun but 
really doesn't have much spectacular poop. For real voltage fun you need 
to score a pole pig and build one of these:

https://www.liveleak.com/view?i=3b6_1187215494

This is the kind of stuff people who are REALLY interested in science 
build!

PS. my pride and joy is my U2 aerial lens. (also in garage) f4, 12" 
diameter, 12 elements, made by Kodak, weighs about 300 pounds. One day I 
plan to make it into a sky camera on a trailer so I can drive it to dark 
places.

Benj's law of lenses: as diameter doubles (f# in half) price squares and 
weight cubes.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#457437

On Thursday, May 3, 2018 at 1:06:52 PM UTC-5, Keith Stein wrote:
> On 02/05/2018 21:44, Sergio wrote:
> > On 5/1/2018 12:23 PM, Keith Stein wrote:
> >>
> >> On 30/04/2018 21:57, Volney wrote:
> >>> On 4/30/2018 3:23 PM, Keith Stein wrote:
> >>>> On 30/04/2018 19:40, Volney wrote:
> >>>>> On 4/30/2018 2:14 PM, Keith Stein wrote:
> >>
> >>>>>> But think about it Ken, how is a clock in free fall going to know
> >> what orbit it's in, in order to know whether to go fast or slow. It
> >> ain't eh!
> >>
> >>>>> It doesn't know. The clock will always run at the normal rate as far
> >> as a local comoving observer is concerned. The clock will see itself run
> >> at its normal rate.
> >>
> >>>> And if it really does run at its normal rate then clearly the two
> >> clocks will agree when reunited, on the ISS, or indeed anywhere eh!
> >>
> >>>>> Seeing a clock run slow or fast ONLY happens when there are two
> >> observers/clocks in different states. Such as a stationary clock on the
> >> ground and a clock in orbit on the ISS.
> >>
> >>>> Of course clocks which are moving relative to each other appear to
> >> run at different rates, but, unless one of the clocks has REALLY changed
> >> rate, the clocks must agree when reunited.
> >>
> >>> Why would they? SR doesn't state that. It's like saying that if two
> >> cars drive from New York to Chicago and their odometers are identical at
> >> the start of the trip, they must be identical at the end of the trip as
> >> well, no matter which route they took.
> >>
> >> No Mr. Volney, but it is exactly like saying that if two cars drive from
> >> New York to Chicago and their CLOCKS are identical at the start of the
> >> trip, they must be identical at the end as well, no matter which route
> >> they took eh!
> >>
> >>> If the two twins take different routes through spacetime, their clocks
> >> won't agree.
> >>
> >> There is space, measured by odometers,
> >>   and there is time, measured by clocks,
> >>   and there is spacetime, measured by idiots eh!
> >>
> >>>>>> Also if you look at how Einstein derived the SR time dilation it's
> >> obvious that it's bull shit. He assumed the velocity of light, unlike
> >> any other velocity, is independent of the velocity of the observer.
> >>
> >>>>> And all measurements confirm that Einstein was correct in doing this.
> >>
> >> no measurement ever confirmed that the velocity of light relative to the
> >> observer is independent  of the velocity of the observer, and none ever
> >> will, because actually it's an impossibility.
> >>
> >>>> No one has ever successfully demonstrated the SR twin effect, ever eh!
> >>
> >>> Demonstrated daily with particle accelerators.
> >>
> >> Another impossibility eh!
> >>
> >>>>>> Me i think clocks would just go on ticking at the same old rate
> >> whatever
> >>
> >>>>> Finally you said something correct.
> >>
> >> Thank you Mr.Voley, and what i actually said was:
> >>
> >> "Me i think clocks would just go on ticking at the same old rate
> >> whatever bull shit Einstein comes out with eh!"
> >>
> >>>>> You need to learn SR and GR.
> >>
> >>>> And you Mr.Voley need to learn Stein's Law:
> >>>>
> >>>>        "ANY DISCREPANCY BETWEEN PREVIOUSLY SYNCRONISED CLOCKS,
> >>>>         WHICH CAN BE FULLY ACCOUNTED FOR BY THE FINITE SPEED OF THE
> >>>>         SIGNAL CONNECTING THE CLOCKS, MUST DISAPPEAR WHENEVER THOSE
> >>>>        CLOCKS ARE REUNITED."
> >>
> >>> Nobody cares about your self-proclaimed "law".
> >>
> >> Someday someone will take a couple of clocks to the ISS, or its
> >> successor, and prove that indeed Stein's Law is correct, and one week
> >> later everyone will wonder how anyone could ever of doubted it eh!
> 
> 
> > Hafele–Keating experiment 1971,
> 
> Thank you Sergio. Yes that would seem to be relevant, but if you had
> the benefit of seeing the original Hafele (confidential) internal report
> to the US navy,you would know that those results are worthless. Before
> the heavy massaging of the result which was done before the published
> report the clock readings were all over the place, and Hafele himself
> concludes in the original report that nothing could be concluded from
> their results.  In any case the magnitude of the dilations in the H-K
> experiment were orders of magnitude smaller than should be obtained on
> the ISS.
> 
> keith stein

They were indeed baffled until informed by a National Bureau of Standards 
(now NIST) expert of the analysis technique known as "correlated rate change
analysis."

Ever heard of that technique? You have to understand something about the
types of errors displayed by atomic clocks to appreciate it. 

With four clocks, glitches in rate experienced by any one clock would be
immediately apparent when comparing against the other three clocks, which
generally could be expected not to glitch at the same time. Using software
supplied by NBS, they were able to identify and correct for the glitches in
time which their clocks displayed.

Currently, of course, atomic clocks have improved in accuracy by multiple
orders of magnitude. Hafele and Keating were working at the bleeding edge of
technology. Nowadays, portable atomic clocks are accurate and glitch-free
enough that ONE clock is sufficient to demonstrate the relativistic effects
that it took four clocks and highly sophisticated analysis for H&K to 
demonstrate.

 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#457442

On Thursday, May 3, 2018 at 12:06:52 PM UTC-6, Keith Stein wrote:
>
> On 02/05/2018 21:44, Sergio wrote:
> >
> > On 5/1/2018 12:23 PM, Keith Stein wrote:
> > >
> > > no measurement ever confirmed that the velocity of light relative to the
> > > observer is independent  of the velocity of the observer, and none ever
> > > will, because actually it's an impossibility.

Dead wrong, fantasy-breath.

> > Hafele–Keating experiment 1971,
> 
> Thank you Sergio. Yes that would seem to be relevant, but if you had
> the benefit of seeing the original Hafele (confidential) internal report
> to the US navy,you would know that those results are worthless. Before
> the heavy massaging of the result which was done before the published
> report the clock readings were all over the place, and Hafele himself
> concludes in the original report that nothing could be concluded from
> their results.  In any case the magnitude of the dilations in the H-K
> experiment were orders of magnitude smaller than should be obtained on
> the ISS.
> 
> keith stein

Irrelevant, one-rut-breath.  The H-K experiment has been repeated many
times with much better equipment:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele%E2%80%93Keating_experiment#Repetitions

"A more complex and precise experiment of this kind was performed by a
research group at the University of Maryland between September 1975 and
January 1976. Three atomic clocks were brought to an altitude of 10 km
above Chesapeake Bay in Maryland, and three other atomic clocks were at
the ground. A turboprop plane was used, flying at only 500 km/h, in order
to minimize the velocity effect. The plane was steadily observed using
radar, and its position and velocity were measured every second. Five
flights were carried out, each of 15 hours duration. Special containers
protected the clocks from external influences such as vibrations, magnetic
fields, or temperature variations. The time difference was measured by
direct clock comparison at the ground before and after the flight, as well
as during the flight by laser pulses of 0.1 ns duration. Those signals
were sent to the plane, reflected, and again received at the ground
station. The time difference was observable during the flight, before
later analysis. An overall difference of 47.1 ns was measured, which
consisted of the velocity effect of −5.7 ns and a gravitational effect of
52.8 ns. This agrees with the relativistic predictions to a precision of
about 1.6%"

So it's time you shut your big, fat, dishonest yap about dissing the H-K
experiment and admitted your despicable dishonesty.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#457456

On Thursday, May 3, 2018 at 2:06:52 PM UTC-4, Keith Stein wrote:
> On 02/05/2018 21:44, Sergio wrote:
> > On 5/1/2018 12:23 PM, Keith Stein wrote:
> >>
> >> On 30/04/2018 21:57, Volney wrote:
> >>> On 4/30/2018 3:23 PM, Keith Stein wrote:
> >>>> On 30/04/2018 19:40, Volney wrote:
> >>>>> On 4/30/2018 2:14 PM, Keith Stein wrote:
> >>
> >>>>>> But think about it Ken, how is a clock in free fall going to know
> >> what orbit it's in, in order to know whether to go fast or slow. It
> >> ain't eh!
> >>
> >>>>> It doesn't know. The clock will always run at the normal rate as far
> >> as a local comoving observer is concerned. The clock will see itself run
> >> at its normal rate.
> >>
> >>>> And if it really does run at its normal rate then clearly the two
> >> clocks will agree when reunited, on the ISS, or indeed anywhere eh!
> >>
> >>>>> Seeing a clock run slow or fast ONLY happens when there are two
> >> observers/clocks in different states. Such as a stationary clock on the
> >> ground and a clock in orbit on the ISS.
> >>
> >>>> Of course clocks which are moving relative to each other appear to
> >> run at different rates, but, unless one of the clocks has REALLY changed
> >> rate, the clocks must agree when reunited.
> >>
> >>> Why would they? SR doesn't state that. It's like saying that if two
> >> cars drive from New York to Chicago and their odometers are identical at
> >> the start of the trip, they must be identical at the end of the trip as
> >> well, no matter which route they took.
> >>
> >> No Mr. Volney, but it is exactly like saying that if two cars drive from
> >> New York to Chicago and their CLOCKS are identical at the start of the
> >> trip, they must be identical at the end as well, no matter which route
> >> they took eh!
> >>
> >>> If the two twins take different routes through spacetime, their clocks
> >> won't agree.
> >>
> >> There is space, measured by odometers,
> >>   and there is time, measured by clocks,
> >>   and there is spacetime, measured by idiots eh!
> >>
> >>>>>> Also if you look at how Einstein derived the SR time dilation it's
> >> obvious that it's bull shit. He assumed the velocity of light, unlike
> >> any other velocity, is independent of the velocity of the observer.
> >>
> >>>>> And all measurements confirm that Einstein was correct in doing this.
> >>
> >> no measurement ever confirmed that the velocity of light relative to the
> >> observer is independent  of the velocity of the observer, and none ever
> >> will, because actually it's an impossibility.
> >>
> >>>> No one has ever successfully demonstrated the SR twin effect, ever eh!
> >>
> >>> Demonstrated daily with particle accelerators.
> >>
> >> Another impossibility eh!
> >>
> >>>>>> Me i think clocks would just go on ticking at the same old rate
> >> whatever
> >>
> >>>>> Finally you said something correct.
> >>
> >> Thank you Mr.Voley, and what i actually said was:
> >>
> >> "Me i think clocks would just go on ticking at the same old rate
> >> whatever bull shit Einstein comes out with eh!"
> >>
> >>>>> You need to learn SR and GR.
> >>
> >>>> And you Mr.Voley need to learn Stein's Law:
> >>>>
> >>>>        "ANY DISCREPANCY BETWEEN PREVIOUSLY SYNCRONISED CLOCKS,
> >>>>         WHICH CAN BE FULLY ACCOUNTED FOR BY THE FINITE SPEED OF THE
> >>>>         SIGNAL CONNECTING THE CLOCKS, MUST DISAPPEAR WHENEVER THOSE
> >>>>        CLOCKS ARE REUNITED."
> >>
> >>> Nobody cares about your self-proclaimed "law".
> >>
> >> Someday someone will take a couple of clocks to the ISS, or its
> >> successor, and prove that indeed Stein's Law is correct, and one week
> >> later everyone will wonder how anyone could ever of doubted it eh!
> 
> 
> > Hafele–Keating experiment 1971,
> 
> Thank you Sergio. Yes that would seem to be relevant, but if you had
> the benefit of seeing the original Hafele (confidential) internal report
> to the US navy,you would know that those results are worthless. Before
> the heavy massaging of the result which was done before the published
> report the clock readings were all over the place, and Hafele himself
> concludes in the original report that nothing could be concluded from
> their results.  In any case the magnitude of the dilations in the H-K
> experiment were orders of magnitude smaller than should be obtained on
> the ISS.
> 
> keith stein

And HK has been repeated since then. Are there unpublished
reports invalidating all of those experiments? No.
Sorry, but we have gone over this.

Ed

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#457517

On 01/05/2018 18:23, Keith Stein wrote:


>  >>      "ANY DISCREPANCY BETWEEN PREVIOUSLY SYNCHRONIZED CLOCKS,
>  >>       WHICH CAN BE FULLY ACCOUNTED FOR BY THE FINITE SPEED OF THE
>  >>       SIGNAL CONNECTING THE CLOCKS, MUST DISAPPEAR WHENEVER THOSE
>  >>      CLOCKS ARE REUNITED."

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web