Science > Physics > the essence of science: propose a theory, then test it eh!
| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Keith Stein" |
| Date: |
20 Apr 2004 10:39:44 AM |
| Object: |
the essence of science: propose a theory, then test it eh! |
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote in
message news:nle3k1-1q4.ln1@lexi2.athghost7038suus.net...
#> Of course this is the essence of science: propose a theory, then
test it.
Right Ghost, and here's my theory:
"ANY DISCREPANCY BETWEEN PREVIOUSLY SYNCRONISED CLOCKS,
WHICH CAN BE FULLY ACCOUNTED FOR BY THE FINITE VELOCITY OF
THE SIGNAL CONNECTING THE CLOCKS, MUST DISAPPEAR WHENEVER
THE CLOCKS ARE BROUGHT TO ANY COMMON LOCATION"
I want to see this theory tested by the very simple proceedure
of taking a couple of clocks up to the International Space Station on
separate flights. This is a good experimental technique because this
way both clocks have been subjected to virtually idendical accelerations,
yet,according to relativity theory, they will differ by an unmistakable
25 microseconds per day.
There has only been one attempt to measure the claimed SR time dilations
using ADJACENT clocks, and this failed! I know of course that Mssrs
Hafele and Keating did claim their experiment as a success for SR, but
if you read Dr.Kelly's "Reliability of Relativistic Effect Tests on
Airborne Claocks", Published by The Institution of Engineers of Ireland,
February 1996,(ISNB 1 787012 22 9), then you would see that this was
only acheived by flagrantly massaging their results, in a totally
unscientific manner.
Please don't anyone tell me about the 'GPS'. Those clocks being compared
on GPS tests are 20,000 km apart. That's a long way from 'ADJACENT'!
Also the GPS time dilations are in the opposite sense to the predictions
of SR. Yes i do know how you claim they are as predicted by GR, but
that's not the point. I want to see the 'SR time dilations' on adjacent
clocks. You relativists keep claiming that in principle it is possible
to send one twin on a journey, and on his/her return discover that
he/she is years younger than his/her stay at home brother/sister. Yet no
one has been able to show me an experiment which confirms even a few
microseconds of 'SR' time dilation' on 'ADJACENT' clocks, even though it
should be very easy to demonstrate this 'SR twin effect', on the
International Space Station, for example.
keith stein
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=keith+stein&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&site=groups
.
|
|
| User: "Ed Keane III" |
|
| Title: Re: the essence of science: propose a theory, then test it eh! |
20 Apr 2004 02:42:59 PM |
|
|
"Keith Stein" <ks012a2355@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:6vbhc.49$ZZ.16@pathologist.blueyonder.net...
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote in
message news:nle3k1-1q4.ln1@lexi2.athghost7038suus.net...
#> Of course this is the essence of science: propose a theory, then
test it.
Right Ghost, and here's my theory:
"ANY DISCREPANCY BETWEEN PREVIOUSLY SYNCRONISED CLOCKS,
WHICH CAN BE FULLY ACCOUNTED FOR BY THE FINITE VELOCITY OF
THE SIGNAL CONNECTING THE CLOCKS, MUST DISAPPEAR WHENEVER
THE CLOCKS ARE BROUGHT TO ANY COMMON LOCATION"
It has already been proven that your theory is wrong because:
UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS THERE *IS* A DISCREPANCY
BETWEEN SEPARATE PREVIOUSLY SYNCHRONIZED CLOCKS
WHICH CAN *NOT* BE FULLY ACCOUNTED FOR BY THE FINITE
VELOCITY OF THE SIGNAL CONNECTING THE CLOCKS.
As anyone with education in physics knows. They teach it in grade
school. It is not complicated.
I want to see this theory tested by the very simple proceedure
of taking a couple of clocks up to the International Space Station on
separate flights. This is a good experimental technique because this
way both clocks have been subjected to virtually idendical accelerations,
yet,according to relativity theory, they will differ by an unmistakable
25 microseconds per day.
For the right price the Russians might be willing to do some vanity
science.
And you need some new material. You should be embarassed
to just keep reposting the same thing.
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
