1 Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake.

I take it you've abandoned this claim

"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."

in favour of a general rant.

Consider two trains in relative movement. Each has an observer and a ball which is initially held high. When the motion of the trains brings the balls next to each other, the balls are released to fall under gravity[*] Now, you might expect the balls to land on the respective train floors simultaneously. Problem is, that would have to be for each observer, and spatially separated events that are simultaneous in one frame cannot be simultaneous in a frame that has motion in the direction between the events.

If I were a relativity denier, I'd now be going on about how the situation is symmetrical (which it is), and how I'd found a huge contradiction in special relativity (which I haven't).

Over to you.

Sylvia.

[*] I was toying with you earlier - while the observers are not inertial, they don't move up or down in the gravitational field, so gravity doesn't matter for this purpose.

2 Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake.

>

Consider two trains in relative movement. Each has an observer and a ball which is initially held high. When the motion of the trains brings the balls next to each other, the balls are released to fall under gravity[*] Now, you might expect the balls to land on the respective train floors simultaneously. Problem is, that would have to be for each observer, and spatially separated events that are simultaneous in one frame cannot be simultaneous in a frame that has motion in the direction between the events.

Simultaneity has nothing to do with light or what separated people might 'see'. If the two balls were dropped simultaneously by means of a mechanical system, the two events can be assumed to be simultaneous in all frames, even though they wont appear to be because of information's finite travel time. That should be obvious....

>

If I were a relativity denier, I'd now be going on about how the situation is symmetrical (which it is), and how I'd found a huge contradiction in special relativity (which I haven't). Over to you. Sylvia. [*] I was toying with you earlier - while the observers are not inertial, they don't move up or down in the gravitational field, so gravity doesn't matter for this purpose.

What a lying confused hypocrite you are. Next you will be telling us that GPS clocks WHICH ARE NOT INERTIAL and muons in a ring WHICH ARE NOT INERTIAL all obey Einstein's shitty theory.

3 Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake.

If we had two trains running in opposite directions, at the same speed, relative to our initial observer (in S). Let them be S' and S''. So the clocks in S' and S'' have to be running at the same slower rate.

So now let them measure the speed of a ray of light running from top to bottom and back again in S'. They have to conclude that it takes the same time, but in S'' the ray travels a larger distance. Thus they reach different conclusions about the speed of the ray. This is inconsistent with the experimental results that say the speed of a ray of light is the same for all observers.

The problem with your theory is that it gives the wrong answers.

Sylvia.

4 Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake.

Lying ignorant corrupt weasel, I said NON-simultaneity. You are such a corrupt piece of work! Time dilation is a consequence of non-simultaneity, and the GPS experience refutes your abysmally-asinine absolute time, thus non-simultaneity is confirmed and DirtyBaThWater is refuted.

> > > >

So where does that leave your abysmally-stupid DirtyBaThWater? In the wormhole. Of course a dishonest liar like you would deny all the evidence. That's because you are a delusional dishonest atheist.

> > >

Have you found any of those under your bed lately?

> >	Anyone claiming to be an atheist is either dishonest or ignorant.

>	..or someone who get under widdle gawy's bed....

So you ARE under my bed. PERVERT!

> > > >

“To hate being wrong is to change your opinion when you are proven wrong; whereas pride, even when proven wrong, decides to go on being wrong.” ? Criss Jami

> > >

So where does that leave you after you read this: www.scisite.info/ros.html

> >	Why would I read ANYTHING written by a dishonst ignoramus who photoshopped his diploma?

>	OK. I'll come clean. I admit I DID borrow the late Rabbo's degree and diploma and alter his name to mine. I did that because mine, which were actually the same, were lost in a fire.

Sure, we all believe you because we know that you are completely honest ... NOT!

> > > >

Does your sentence make any sense to ANYONE?

> > >

'it' typo poor idiot. Using typos to avoid answering difficult questions is the poorest form of debate.

> >	Blaming a typo to avoid explaining what the typo was supposed to be is even poorer than the poorest.

>	why don't you shuddup!

Make me, you miserable excuse for a human being.

5 Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake.

I assume there is a third observer P at rest. As such there are three frames S, S' and S'' This is a very tricky example because in each of the frames S, S' and S'' the train, the observer and the ball have the same speed i.e. 0, +v and -v.

> >	Now, you might expect the balls to land on the respective train floors simultaneously.

Yes from the point of view of S. Not from the point of view of S' and S''

> >	Problem is, that would have to be for each observer, and spatially separated events that are simultaneous in one frame cannot be simultaneous in a frame that has motion in the direction between the events.

Make the example simpler. Forget the falling balls. Consider an observer P at rest on a platform near a track. Al of a sudden lightning strikes (hits) the track at equal distances twice left and right from the observer. This leaves two marks.
The observer sees both hits simultaneous and observer P declares them as (are) two simultaneous events.
At the same time when the lightning strikes, a train passes, going towards the right, with observer P' exactly at the same position as observer P. Observer P', going towards the right, observes the right hit before the left one i.e. observer P' does not see the two hits simultaneous. Observer P'', going towards the left, observes the opposite (left before the right)

Now we modify this experiment. Place a light source between two mirrors. This source emits one flash, which will be reflected against the two mirrors (this are the two simultaneous events). The observer P (at rest) will observe both reflections at the same time. Now we perform the same experiment in each in two moving trains. Observer P' will claim that in his case the two events are simultaneous. Observer P'' will claim the same. Who is correct? P, P', P'' or P'''?

>

Simultaneity has nothing to do with light or what separated people might 'see'. If the two balls were dropped simultaneously by means of a mechanical system, the two events can be assumed to be simultaneous in all frames, even though they wont appear to be because of information's finite travel time. That should be obvious....

How important are the experiments discussed above using lightsignals when I want to understand the laws that describe the movement of the planets in the solar system or the stars in our galaxy. IMO not because these laws are not based on photons, but on forces, gravitational fields and gravitons. You need light to make your initial and final observations, but not inbetween. The best way to unravel these laws is to use only one reference frame.

>	What a lying confused hypocrite you are. Next you will be telling us that GPS clocks WHICH ARE NOT INERTIAL and muons in a ring WHICH ARE NOT INERTIAL all obey Einstein's shitty theory.

Science is an art which progresses in small steps with respect and regard for all participants.

Nicolaas Vroom

6 Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake.

7 Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake.

>>>>>

And non-simultaneity has been MEASURED, stupid ignorant lying weasel.

>>>>	Please tell us when it was measured, poor god fearing moron.....

>>>	The GPS, stupid ignorant dishonest atheist.

>>	Oh really! Tell me precisely how GPS measures simultaneity....

>	Lying ignorant corrupt weasel, I said NON-simultaneity. You are such a corrupt piece of work! Time dilation is a consequence of non-simultaneity, and the GPS experience refutes your abysmally-asinine absolute time, thus non-simultaneity is confirmed and DirtyBaThWater is refuted.

Now this is getting really interesting. widdle gawy can measure non-things...Maybe he uses a non-clock to measure non-time and a non-ruler to measure non-lengths. I wonder if he is actually a non-person. do you drive a non-car, widdle gawy?

8 Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake.

It should be noted that I'm trying to discuss the situation as it is according to Winn, and showing that that leads to a contradiction.

SR, of course, addresses these scenarios without difficulty.

Sylvia.

9 Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake.

Er, no. Winn tried to show that SR does not preserve physical laws across inertial frames, by using an argument using a falling ball, arguing that the ball falls at a different rate in the other frame. So we need the balls.

I suggested a different version using two balls. Winn made no attempt to address it. What he failed to realise is that the law of gravity does not require the same rate of acceleration to all objects. The thought experiment readily shows that the velocity an object already has enters into the equation. Indeed, this is rather obvious, since if it didn't, an object free-falling in a gravitational field would exceed the speed of light relative to a non-inertial observer in a finite time.

Sylvia.

10 Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake.

The problem with this discussion it leads to nothing if we, all, do not agree on something.

IMO to decide between simultaneity or non-simultaneity is both as difficult, specific if you don't define first (and agree) what simultaneity means. One of the first step is to agree that there is a difference between that two events are simultaneous versus that I see two events simultaneous. As such it is possible that we can have two events, which are simultaneous but I do not see (observe) them as simultaneous. The reverse is also possible: I observe two events simultaneous but they are not simultaneous.

Starting point is to agree upon that simultaneous events are points in one coordinate system valid at time t. This also implies that all these events happen at the same time. Two points, one in a coordinate system at time t1 and a point in that same coordinate system at time t2 are always non-simultaneous. The issue is now: when I observe an event to calculate the position and time of that event in the agreed upon coordinate system. (*) When I observe two events and the times are the same: they are simultaneous when different: they are non-simultaneous.

(*) The difficult part are the details of such a calculation because if different observations are considered my position with the agreed upon coordinate system can also change. What this boils down to is to calculate the time of the observed events in an unambiguous manner.

If Time dilation has anything to do with this I doubt, specific if no moving clocks are involved.

Nicolaas Vroom

11 Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake.

I respectfully disagree. There is truth and there is falsehood, and which is which is NOT a matter of "discussion": it's either one or the other and is independent of one's beliefs.

>	IMO to decide between simultaneity or non-simultaneity is both as difficult,

No, it's not. All one needs do is ascertain whether clocks stay in sync or not.

>	specific if you don't define first (and agree) what simultaneity means.

Do you REALLY disagree with what I said?

>	One of the first step is to agree that there is a difference between that two events are simultaneous versus that I see two events simultaneous.

You are conflating two meanings of the word. That gets you nowhere.

>	[Rambling word salad deleted]

12 Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake.

When you try to mix SR with GR (gravity becomes involved) you are open for all sorts of problems. When you want to discuss SR you should not introduce falling balls that is tricky when moving observers are involved who drop balls. These balls all have their own speeds.

>	I suggested a different version using two balls. Winn made no attempt to address it. What he failed to realise is that the law of gravity does not require the same rate of acceleration to all objects.

Also here gravity becomes involved which make things difficult.

>	The thought experiment readily shows that the velocity an object already has enters into the equation.

You have lost me.

>	Indeed, this is rather obvious, since if it didn't, an object free-falling in a gravitational field would exceed the speed of light relative to a non-inertial observer in a finite time.

Sorry, you have lost me. What has this to do with the basics of simultaneity?

On Sunday, 30 July 2017 01:30:40 UTC+2, HGW... wrote:

>

Simultaneity has nothing to do with light or what separated people might 'see'. If the two balls were dropped simultaneously by means of a mechanical system, the two events can be assumed to be simultaneous in all frames, even though they wont appear to be because of information's finite travel time. That should be obvious....

The problem is there is a difference between if events ARE simultaneous versus if I see events simultaneous. When you want to discuss if events ARE simultaneous you should only consider one coordinate system (as a function of time). HGW... assumes many. In such a coor. system light is not important. The problem starts when you want introduce new observations. To mingle these observations into the coor.system ofcourse the speed of light is important.

Nicolaas Vroom

13 Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake.

14 Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake.

Galileo did not do the experiment with two lead weights, one of which had a transverse velocity that was a significant fraction of the speed of light. His experiment related to different masses with no transverse velocity, and his results are limited to that scenario.

You seem to think that gravity is insensitive to transverse velocity. Quite why you think that escapes me, since you have no reason to suppose that it is the case.

As for the clock on the ground and the clock on the satellite, you not only have the transverse velocity issue, but now you really have introduced the issue of whether the observers are inertial, since the free-falling observers on the satellite are inertial, but the ones on the ground are not.

Sylvia.

15 Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake.

>

The problem with this discussion it leads to nothing if we, all, do not agree on something. IMO to decide between simultaneity or non-simultaneity is both as difficult, specific if you don't define first (and agree) what simultaneity means. One of the first step is to agree that there is a difference between that two events are simultaneous versus that I see two events simultaneous. As such it is possible that we can have two events, which are simultaneous but I do not see (observe) them as simultaneous. The reverse is also possible: I observe two events simultaneous but they are not simultaneous.

Can you people not understand that the timing of any two events is not at all related to how or when humans receive information about their occurences.

Synch two adjacent clocks and arrange for them to both emit simultaneous light pulses at regular intervals. Then move them to the ends of a long rod, which is subsequently fired into space.

Different observers throughout the universe would receive the pulses non-simultaneously and by different degrees, depending on their relative speeds. The point is, no matter how anyone receives them, the pulses were emitted simultaneously and if all observers could correct for their travel times and distances, they would all agree that the emission of the pulses was indeed simultaneous....and therefore absolutely simultaneous.

>	Nicolaas Vroom

--

16 Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake.

But that movement to the ends, and the launching into space, certainly can affect the simultaneity of the clocks -- that is an EXPERIMENTAL issue. EXPERIMENTS show that such motions do indeed unsynchronize clocks (and thus change simultaneity for the clocks).

>	The point is, no matter how anyone receives them, the pulses were emitted simultaneously

You assume what you are trying to prove: you have ASSUMED "absolute simultaneity" throughout.

You REALLY need to learn something about the subject before attempting to write about it. And you also need to learn about basic logic.

Tom Roberts

17 Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake.

You can have a collection of clocks (together). You can reset them all at the same time, they all show the same time and they run simultaneous together.

> >>	Then move them

As soon as you move them they do not run any more simultaneous.

> >>	to the ends of a long rod, which is subsequently fired into space.

> >	But that movement to the ends, and the launching into space, certainly can affect the simultaneity of the clocks -- that is an EXPERIMENTAL issue. EXPERIMENTS show that such motions do indeed unsynchronize clocks (and thus change simultaneity for the clocks).

>	It is not a fact. You only think it is a fact because dingleberries keep telling each other about all those wonderful experiments they dream about that all end up believing they happen.

I do not understand what you are saying.

> >>	The point is, no matter how anyone receives them, the pulses were emitted simultaneously

Before you moved the clocks they run simultaneous. Immediate when you moved them they did not run simultaneous any more.

> >	You assume what you are trying to prove: you have ASSUMED "absolute simultaneity" throughout.

>	Two clocks synched while together are absolutely synched.

Two clocks synched are synched. The word absolutely is redundant.

>	Moving them apart will not affect them one iota so they must remain in absolute synch.

I do not think so.

>	Clock synchronization is not at all related to light or what humans see.

I agree what humans observe is not important. But what is important is the inner workings of clocks, how they function, how they tick. This ticking is causes by reflection of light signals. That means when you move a clock the ticking rate is influenced. AS such IMO when you study science you should not use moving clocks.

Nicolaas Vroom

18 Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake.

>>>	But that movement to the ends, and the launching into space, certainly can affect the simultaneity of the clocks -- that is an EXPERIMENTAL issue. EXPERIMENTS show that such motions do indeed unsynchronize clocks (and thus change simultaneity for the clocks).

>>	It is not a fact. You only think it is a fact because dingleberries keep telling each other about all those wonderful experiments they dream about that all end up believing they happen.

>	I do not understand what you are saying.

You wouldn't because you are indoctrinated beyond the point of no return.

>>>>	The point is, no matter how anyone receives them, the pulses were emitted simultaneously

>	Before you moved the clocks they run simultaneous. Immediate when you moved them they did not run simultaneous any more.

Silly fellow! Do you really believe hat they are out of synch simply because they now don't measure the speed of the original light to be c? You must be raving mad. What he hell has simultaneity to do with light? Nothing!

>>>	You assume what you are trying to prove: you have ASSUMED "absolute simultaneity" throughout.

>>	Two clocks synched while together are absolutely synched.

>	Two clocks synched are synched. The word absolutely is redundant.

>>	Moving them apart will not affect them one iota so they must remain in absolute synch.

>	I do not think so.

Nature doesn't care what you think.

>>	Clock synchronization is not at all related to light or what humans see.

>	I agree what humans observe is not important. But what is important ...

19 Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake.

WHY they are out of sync is irrelevant. EXPRIMENT shows that they ARE out of sync.

>	Nature doesn't care what you think.

Indeed she doesn't. And she doesn't care what YOU think either. She KNOWS, however, that DirtyBaThWater is bull plop.

>	A clock is simply a counter of oscillator periods. A good oscillator DEFINES a time interval and it does not change with movement.

Good boy! You're beginning to understand, but you have a LONG way to go.

20 Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake.

The answer can also be something of both. Anyway we should first agree on

something.

> >	IMO to decide between simultaneity or non-simultaneity is both as difficult,

>	No, it's not. All one needs do is ascertain whether clocks stay in sync or not.

And how do you do that? The first step is to agree what in sync means.

> >	specific if you don't define first (and agree) what simultaneity means.

>	Do you REALLY disagree with what I said?

Where ? In the above quoted text many different concepts are used.

> >	One of the first step is to agree that there is a difference between that two events are simultaneous versus that I see two events simultaneous.

>	You are conflating two meanings of the word. That gets you nowhere.

In the above text I'm using the word simultaneous in two different "settings". There is IMO a difference if I see two flashes simultaneous versus if the... Show trimmed content

21 Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake.

Well, we can try, but if one is not willing to embrace reality, it is hopeless.

> > >

IMO to decide between simultaneity or non-simultaneity is both as difficult,

> >	No, it's not. All one needs do is ascertain whether clocks stay in sync or not.

>	And how do you do that? The first step is to agree what in sync means.

This is a well-understood concept in physics:

22 Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake.

You are wrong.......the completion of a cycle of the Cs 133 atom is dependent on the arrival of a specific amount of energy from the aether (the E-matrix) which ,in turn, is dependent on the arrival speed of the incoming energy (light) from the aether (the E-Matrix) which, in turn, is dependent on the absolute motion of the Cs clock in the aether (the E-Matrix). The higher is the absolute motion of the Cs 133 clock the higher amount of absolute time to complete a transition and thus the slower rate is the Cs 133 clock to accumulate clock seconds.

23 Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake.

>>	A clock is simply a counter of oscillator periods. A good oscillator DEFINES a time interval and it does not change with movement.

>

You are wrong.......the completion of a cycle of the Cs 133 atom is dependent on the arrival of a specific amount of energy from the aether (the E-matrix) which ,in turn, is dependent on the arrival speed of the incoming energy (light) from the aether (the E-Matrix) which, in turn, is dependent on the absolute motion of the Cs clock in the aether (the E-Matrix). The higher is the absolute motion of the Cs 133 clock the higher amount of absolute time to complete a transition and thus the slower rate is the Cs 133 clock to accumulate clock seconds.

Ken, if you can produce any evidence for an aether, then your theory might have some credibility....but so far, no such evidence has been forthcoming.

Having said that, BaTh does accept that fields might be related to classical aether and regions containing strong fields might indeed affect material objects and the speed of passing EM.

The biggest failure of Physics is its persistent refusal to recognize the fact there is plenty of physics behind the mathematics of fields. We currently have no idea of what fields are made of and until we do, physics will remain in its present state of stagnation.

24 Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake.

Readers note, this poor little twisted fellow really believes the nonsense he writes..... --

25 Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake.

Who is more twisted, the one who accepts experimental confirmations or the one who denies them and believes his own crackpot idea of DirtyBaThWater?

26 Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake.

Just what does stupid ignorant degenerate Ralphie-boy mean whejn he says "gravity"? Certainly, the ACCELERATION of gravity affects "everything else," but it obviously does NOT affect an atomic clock.

>	A raised pendulum clock will not speed up. It will slow down. That stuffs your theory well and truly....

As it turns out, stupid ignorant Ralphie-boy is wrong about that, just as he is wrong about almost everything else. Man, he is one STUPID fool.