Was Einstein Guilty of Scientific Fraud?
in [Relativity]
|
From: Henry Wilson DSc on 25 Mar 2010 16:05 On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 20:54:48 -0000, "Androcles" <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_w> wrote: > >"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message >news:ibskq594ocn11so173p2s6j87qs68hm3d8(a)4ax.com... >> On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 14:52:09 -0000, "Androcles" >> <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_w> >> wrote: >> >>> >>>"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message >>>news:elnjq55ctjtds37055t0goo4c4kg0522p8(a)4ax.com... >>>> Einstein <snip> >>>> If tAB =\= tBA then...<snip> >>>> I want to know how Einstein has been let off the hook <snip> >>> >>>That's easy. YOU were one of the cretins that told me tB= tA and Einstein >>>was right about that. >> >> He was..but for entirely the wrong reason. >> >I can always add you to this list, it's pretty old now; but thanks for >highlighting the problem. > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/QUESTION.htm You are talking here about an entirely different situation. WE ARE discussing two clocks that are MAR. >>>Now you know why he hasn't been let off the hook. >> >>> >>>Androcles, with a 1.3 IQ on the cretin Awilson's snipping scale. >>> Henry Wilson... ........A person's IQ = his snipping ability.
From: Henry Wilson DSc on 25 Mar 2010 16:13 On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 11:03:11 -0700 (PDT), rotchm <rotchm(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> I don't see how can you consider here a variable v in a definition of >> "time" compatible with human intuition > > >The definition of 'time' does not depend on v nor the speed of light. >The definition of 'time' does depend on light (or EM) but not on its >speed. > >Simplifying: 'Time' at a location is the value indicated by the >(synched) clock at the location of the event. This clock has been >synched as follows: Send an EM From Master_clock to Synched_clock, >reflected_back to the Master_clock. Note the value (interval) >indicated by the master clock. Divide this value by two. This is the >value that the synched clock will take (as it has received the EM). Hahahhahaha! thanks for pointing out that because light is balistic, this is indeed a valid way to absolutely synch clocks. > >There are equivalent variants/formulation of this definition of time. >Note that the role of the speed of light is not part of the definition >nor does it play any role. 'speed' is defined *after* the definition >of 'time'. > >Human intuition has nothing to do with the "modern" definition of >time. That is a reason why SR is so unintuitive for the Lay ( and >"experts" ). SR is indeed unintuiutive..and completely wrong. Henry Wilson... ........A person's IQ = his snipping ability.
From: Henry Wilson DSc on 25 Mar 2010 16:14 On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 06:14:47 -0700 (PDT), PD <thedraperfamily(a)gmail.com> wrote: >On Mar 24, 3:55�pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: >> On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 13:13:37 -0700 (PDT), PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >On Mar 24, 3:00�pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: >> >> On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 11:16:12 -0700 (PDT), PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >This is still not falsification of data or scientific fraud, >> >especially since (as you say) the very same procedure would be used >> >according to ballistic theory. This is why it was patently obvious to >> >anyone reading your post that it was ill-considered. You are probably >> >deeply embarrassed by having posted it in the first place. >> >> Not at all Diaper. >> >> Einstein plainly advocated the deliberate fabrication of experimental results >> in order that his theory would appear to be correct. His concern was that the >> aether, in which he clearly believed, would render his concept of relativity >> inoperable. >> Frankly, I cannot see why all the fuss when Lorentz had already shown that all >> observers would measure OWLS as 'c' because of the LTs. >> >> Einstein ended up with the same formulae...surprise, surprise...... >> In other words, he didn't contribute anything new...and unwittingly, he managed >> to get clock synching right because his definition was straight BaTh. >> >> Einstein was nothing but a fraudulent con man..... > >This is a typical retort, Henri. When confronted with the inanity of >the content of your original post, you attempt to deflect attention >from the inanity with a cloud of chaff, a barrage of propaganda and >cavalier statements that are even more shamelessly outlandish. > >PD If the clocks don't give you the answer you want, just fake their readings....Einstein 1905 Henry Wilson... ........A person's IQ = his snipping ability.
From: Androcles on 25 Mar 2010 16:52 "Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message news:qcgnq5tcjc15phnvn7me38f18a89gd8lk1(a)4ax.com... > On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 20:54:48 -0000, "Androcles" > <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_w> > wrote: > >> >>"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message >>news:ibskq594ocn11so173p2s6j87qs68hm3d8(a)4ax.com... >>> On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 14:52:09 -0000, "Androcles" >>> <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_w> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>>"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message >>>>news:elnjq55ctjtds37055t0goo4c4kg0522p8(a)4ax.com... >>>>> Einstein <snip> >>>>> If tAB =\= tBA then...<snip> >>>>> I want to know how Einstein has been let off the hook <snip> >>>> >>>>That's easy. YOU were one of the cretins that told me tB= tA and >>>>Einstein >>>>was right about that. >>> >>> He was..but for entirely the wrong reason. >>> >>I can always add you to this list, it's pretty old now; but thanks for >>highlighting the problem. >> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/QUESTION.htm > > You are talking here about an entirely different situation. WE ARE > discussing > two clocks that are MAR. Bullshit! "We have not defined a common ``time'' for A and B, for the latter cannot be defined at all unless we establish by definition that the ``time'' required by light to travel from A to B equals the ``time'' it requires to travel from B to A. " There is nothing about any fuckin' "MAR" in that, so you have no hook to hang Einstein on, you babbling cretin. You can only hang him for what he said, not what he didn't say. He's off the hook because you have no hook, you don't know what he said. He's not even discussing clocks, let alone "MAR" clocks, your argument is marred. >>>>Now you know why he hasn't been let off the hook. >>> >>>> >>>>Androcles, with a 130,000 IQ on the cretin Awilson's snipping scale. >>>> > > > Henry Wilson... > > .......A person's IQ is proportional to his lying ability, and you are > poor liar that fools nobody, "Dr."
From: Henry Wilson DSc on 25 Mar 2010 17:08
On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 20:52:28 -0000, "Androcles" <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_w> wrote: > >"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message >news:qcgnq5tcjc15phnvn7me38f18a89gd8lk1(a)4ax.com... >> You are talking here about an entirely different situation. WE ARE >> discussing >> two clocks that are MAR. > >Bullshit! >"We have not defined a common ``time'' for A and B, for the latter cannot be >defined at all unless we establish by >definition that the ``time'' required by light to travel from A to B equals >the ``time'' it requires to travel from B to A. " > >There is nothing about any fuckin' "MAR" in that, so you have no hook to >hang Einstein on, you babbling cretin. You can only hang him for what he >said, not what he didn't say. He's off the hook because you have no hook, >you don't know what he said. He's not even discussing clocks, let alone >"MAR" clocks, your argument is marred. > > Androcles, with a 0.13 IQ on the Awilson's snipping scale. Henry Wilson... ........A person's IQ = his snipping ability. |