Re: The Special Theory of Relativity is dead

On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 09:39:14 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Evens) wrote:

>On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 20:19:19 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED](HenriWilson) wrote:
>>On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 18:00:17 -0600, Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>Robert Calvert wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Answer a few simple questions if you can: Two clocks (a and b) are placed
>>>> 100 light hours apart and are both synchronized. Then the clocks are
>>>> accelerated toward each other at the same time and at the same rate until
>>>> they both meet.
>>>
>>>Neither times nor velocities are absolute within the theory of special
>>>relativity. You must specify wrt which frame the departure times occur
>>>in. If your reference frame is moving wrt the rest frame, then the
>>>departure times will differ, thus even though one clock has a head start
>>>they still end up meeting in the middle of segment that originally
>>>separated them. And though one clock ticked faster than the other, it
>>>was just catching up to the reading on the other, which was already
>>>ahead at the start. Synchronized clocks at rest along a line only have
>>>the same reading wrt the rest frame, for any frame in motion along that
>>>line the clocks will not agree in their time-readings, even though they
>>>are ticking at the same rate. This is the part that trips everyone up.
>>
>>Nonsense. I have provided a perfect method for absolutely synching clocks,
>>anywhere. The frames in which they are absolutely synched can be moved without
>>affecting that synch. Therefore any number of moving frames can all establish
>>the same particular time instant, anywhere.
>>Thus, if an event happens anywhere in the universe, all frames will register
>>the same time for that event.
>
>Why haven't you ever described this method?  All you have ever talked
>about is this thing you invented by ignoring observations.

Idiot! I have been publicising this experiment for months.

I even made up a demo of it so you simpletons could maybe get the message.. 

>
>>>Just for the record, I still don't like it, LET is the correct
>>>interpretation.
>>>
>>>Richard Perry


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