Clarification of My Proof That Einstein's RoS is Pure Nonsense. - Henry thinks clock sync has nothing to do with the readings on the clocks.

[Henry Wilson DSc.]

They always show the same time IN THEIR OWN MUTUAL FRAME (i.e. their rest
frame) whilst they remain in uniform motion. That says nothing about how
their times compare in other frames. Nor does it say anything about what
happens to their sync when they accelerate.

I see you have nothing to say to counter that.

Hey dopey, the question does not relate to their readings at all. It is
purely to do with their synchronization.

And what is it you think is synchronised, moron? You synchronise the
readings on the clocks. Gees.

I was refering to their readings compared to other clocks, not each other.

They must remain in synch in ALL frames.

Assertion is not proof. You need a PROOF that they show the same time in
all frames .. not just assert it !! BAHAHA

Hey dopey, the time reading has nothing to do with this....and anyway, SR
FOLLOWED the RoS so cannot be used to defend it.

RoS comes from SR, you moron.

You obviously have not read Einstein's 1905 paper. The RoS precedes SR.
Without the principle used in the RoS, SR cannot and does not exist.

Therefore,

There is no therefore as you have not proved anything. Try again.

You on the other hand have certainly proved you are a moron.
You don't even know what 'in synch' means.

BAHAHAHAHA .. you think clocks being in sync has nothing to do with the
readings on the clocks. BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
And you still haven't proved RoS is nonsense .. you just asserted it was
wrong.

Henry Wilson DSc

Einstein's relativity: World's greatest hoax since Mary's virginity.

[p***@gmail.com]

|
| > |
| >
| > tau = t.sqrt(1-v^2/c^2). Moving clocks run slow, tau < t.
| > tau = (t+xv/c2)/sqrt(1-v2/c2). Moving clocks run fast, tau > t.
| >
| > It is the Andersen transformation that is the more disinteresting but
| > of interest to imbeciles, the faster you go the longer it takes to get
| > there and the further you have to travel.
| > I note with disinterest that Tusseladd, like "Inertial", is a complete
moron
| > and equivalent to an imbecile. :-)
| >
|
| Here is Dumbdrocles again
Fuck off, papacretin. I've just proved moron Andersen doesn't know SR
and neither do you, dumbfuck.
 Loading Image...
If you don't like it take it up with Einstein, you stupid fucking imbecile.

We do not need to wake Einstein for that, you Dumbdrocles! Einstein
knew quite well his subject!

Suppose we have a clock at rest in the K' system. We consider TWO
events occurring at one and the same point x', y', z' in space in the
K' system. The time lapse between those two events in the K' system is
given by dt'=t2'-t1'. The time which elapses between those two events
in the K system is calculated as follows:

t1=(t1'+vx'/c^2)/(sqrt(1-v^2/c^2))

t2=(t2'+vx'/c^2)/(sqrt(1-v^2/c^2))

It is then obvious that

dt=t2-t1=(t2'-t1')/(sqrt(1-v^2/c^2))

or dt=dt'/(sqrt(1-v^2/c^2))