Re: c = constant

On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 14:21:14 -0700, Brian Kennelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:

>HenriWilson wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 18:35:37 -0700, Brian Kennelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>>HenriWilson wrote:
>>>
>> 
>> 
>>>>Actually, I can prove that the length doesn't contract, using this very same
>>>>experiment.
>>>>I can simply vary the speed of the rod. I say the clock readings will be the
>>>>same for all speeds but you are claiming that the rod will shrink more as its
>>>>speed increases. Therefore one clock should read higher than the other by a
>>>>factor that should confirm gamma.
>>>
>>>Yes, if we can determine the readings to sufficient accuracy.  The 
>>>primary effect is a first order term (~L*v/2c^2), which would be easier 
>>>to measure.  Whichever direction we move the rod, the rear clock will be 
>>>set first, so it will be ahead of the front clock.
>> 
>> 
>> So I now have a method for EITHER detecting length contraction OR for
>> establishing absolute simultaneity throughout the universe. 
>> 
>As I posted before, if length contraction does not occur, you method is 
>fine, so that is not new.
>
>What is new is that you see how the success of your method depends on 
>length invariance.  You cannot claim to have a successful method until 
>you prove length invariance.
>
>
>> I don't care which it is. I will be quite happy to accept the Nobel prize for
>> either..
>> I will give you a mention.
>> 
>Don't hold your breath.  This is not original work.

can't you even read what I said. 

If you are correct then I have devised a way to measure the Lorentz transforms.
If that is not original what is?

>
>> 
>>>>What you can't get into your head is that moving the rod doesn't give you an
>>>>absolute value for 'v' which you can shove into your gamma term. 
>>>>
>>>
>>>I think we can agree that we can determine the velocity of the rod, so 
>>>we have a value for 'v'.
>> 
>> 
>> and it varies between observers.
>> can you not see your error now?
>> 
>No.  Where is it?  The only velocity that is needed to determine the 
>difference between the clock settings is the relative velocity of the 
>two rods.

What idiocy is this?
There is an infinite number of other objects that can observe the experiment.
Why choose the other rod? Do you really believe that the moving rod changes its
length just becasue another rod is positioned next to it?
If you do, there is absolutely no hope for you I'm afraid.

>


Henri Wilson. 
See the Stupidity of Relativity.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm