Spaceman wrote:

doug wrote:

Spaceman wrote:


doug wrote:


Pentcho Valev wrote:



On Sep 10, 4:23 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel"
wrote:



Pentcho Valev wrote in message










On Sep 10, 3:50 pm, PD wrote:



On Sep 10, 8:28 am, Pentcho Valev wrote:

On Sep 10, 2:55 am, PD wrote:

On Sep 9, 2:46 pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:

On Sep 9, 6:40 pm, PD wrote:

On Sep 9, 9:07 am, Pentcho Valev wrote:

On Sep 9, 2:27 pm, PD wrote in
sci.physics.relativity:

On Sep 9, 1:01 am, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:

On Mon, 8 Sep 2008 17:59:44 -0700 (PDT), PD
wrote:



On Sep 8, 7:56 pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:

If anyone tries to measure the properties of a moving
object or clock and finds them to be different from
those measured at rest then the experimental method is
obviously flawed.

In other words, if an experiment shows evidence of
something that is contrary to your expectations, then
something is wrong with the experiment. This coming from
someone "born with a scientific mind".

Even your own colleagues....the less ignorant
ones....agree that nothing actually happens to a clock or
rod as a result of a speed change.

Actually, what's agreed upon is that the physical property
does in fact change, but that no physical process occurs
to the object to change the property. You find it
difficult to imagine how one can happen without the other.

But, Clever Draper, that is a very specific zombie
imagination acquired after years of singing ("Divine
Einstein", "Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity,
relativity" etc.) accompanied by energetic convulsions. How
can you expect a person who has never taken part in all
those worships to imagine "that the physical property does
in fact change, but that no physical process occurs to the
object to change the property"? Be condescending, Clever
Draper!

Pentcho Valev


Oh, come, come, Pentcho, you know better! Momentum,
velocity, kinetic energy, electric field, magnetic field --
all these are physical properties that in fact change with
change in reference frame, and there is no physical process
acting on the object to effect that change. For most of
those, Galileo and Newton knew that, and that was 300 years
prior to anyone even knowing who Einstein was, let alone
singing songs about him.

PD

Clever Draper what are you talking about. The travelling
clock returns PHYSICALLY different from the clock at rest
(according to Divine Albert's Divine Idiocy),

No, it doesn't. When it returns and is compared with the clock
at rest, the rates of the clocks are identical.

Don't lie, Clever Draper. When the travelling clock is compared
with the clock at rest, they are PHYSICALLY different
(according to Divine Albert's Divine Idiocy).

No, they show different rates when viewed from different
reference frames, but the clocks are physically identical. This
is no different than a car having a different kinetic energy
when viewed from a different reference frame, but it still
being a physically unchanged car.

It would help if you understood what Divine Albert actually
said, Pentcho.

Divine Albert said that, when the travelling clock returns, its
hands occupy different positions (compared with the hands of the
clock at rest).

Now that's what I call a PHYSICALLY different clock.

Paul said: "the rates of the clocks are identical".
He did not say: "the hands of the clock at are identical".
So, indeed, as I said, you don't understand the difference
between rates and values.

NO WAY OUT, PONCHO


But, Clever Moortel, you are going to confuse even Clever Draper -
I almost see his frustration. Just let him answer:

Valev: "The travelling clock returns PHYSICALLY different from the
clock at rest (according to Divine Albert's Divine Idiocy)."

Clever Draper: "No, it doesn't."

Clever Draper, if the hands of the travelling clock occupy
different positions (compared with the hands of the clock at rest)
when it returns, does this mean that the travelling clock returns
PHYSICALLY different from the clock at rest?

Pentcho Valev


No. Why would you think so?


Are you kiddin'?
The clocks are physically different.
The parts are still the same parts but the orientation changed.
When an orientation of parts changes, the parts of
the whole have changed position physically.
That is a physical change.


They may read different times but that does not make them changed
physically. Why would you think that? Particularly in an electronic
clock where there is no orientation of anything.


They physically counted less "ticks" as you could call the periods that
create a second.
So? They saw less time. This has been experimentally verified every
day.

Physically less ticks is a physical difference.
No, it means they saw less time.

So with clocks that use decay rates it would be less physical decay
for slower running clocks.
Yes because they saw less time.

That is "physical" difference.
No, it means they saw less time.

and that physical difference is caused by physical problems known
about clocks ever since clocks were moved.
No, there is no problem with the gps clocks, for example. They are
working fine and repeatably. There are no moving parts in them
either which you would know if you looked up what they do.

And those problems are 100% newtonian.
There are no problems with the clocks so they are not at all
Newtonian issues. You hope that something is happening but it is not.