Michelson and Morley experiment

On Sep 10, 8:16*am, PD wrote:
On Sep 9, 9:17*pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:





On Tue, 9 Sep 2008 17:53:06 -0700 (PDT), PD wrote:
On Sep 9, 5:56*pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Tue, 9 Sep 2008 09:40:57 -0700 (PDT), 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:
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.

Poor confused Diaper has done it again.
He still cannot understand that any physical quantity that has dimension which
include L/T must be frame dependent.

Thus sayeth Henri Wilson, the Soothsayer.
And why are electric and magnetic fields frame dependent?

The fields themselves are NOT.

Of course they are. It's been measured.

The effects they have ARE.

Fields are DEFINED in terms of the effects they have. Please refer to
a freshman textbook.

Have you ever used iron filing to show 'lines of force' around a bar magnet? Do
you really think the pattern changes every time a differently moving observer
looks at them?

Why, yes, the "lines of force" do change. This is documented.



I'm sick of trying to teach you basic physics, Diaper. Why don't you do a
course?

You mean, other than the ones I've taught?

Which reference would you suggest I use for this course, Henri?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Folks: It was said: "Physician, heal thyself!" I wish that PD would
"teach" himself. When a naive government bestows the name "teacher",
they are giving that person license to become an ego maniac. PD is
just that. Sad... very sad. — NoEinstein —

On Sep 10, 9:50*am, 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.



It is only when looked at
from different reference frames that the rate changes -- much like
kinetic energy changes.

the 80m long pole is safely trapped inside
the 40m long barn,

Not safely, no. If you close the doors, the pole is quite stressed at
being trapped inside. We've already discussed this.

Clever Draper what are you talking about. I should stop replying to
your messages.

If you wish. If it is painful to dispel you of your misconceptions
about relativity, then avoid pain at all costs.

PD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Folks: Clocks, even those without moving parts, are slowed PHYSICALLY
by being impacted by flowing ether. That is like sitting in a chair
and having a fat person sit on your lap. You tend to move more
slowly. Every part of every atom has an extra amount of flowing ether
sitting in its lap when "the clock" goes very fast, or very far. The
slowing is quite real, but is UNRELATED to Einstein's moronic ideas
about "space-time". — NoEinstein —

On Sep 10, 10:23*am, "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 :-)

Dirk Vdm- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Dear Dirk: If the "test" clock returns to the same place as the
"control" clock, the rates for both will again be the same. But the
hands or LEDs will show different TIMES. The latter is a PHYSICAL
difference in the TIMES. Agreed? — NoEinstein —

NoEinstein wrote in message


[snip]

Folks: Clocks, even those without moving parts, are slowed
PHYSICALLY by being impacted by flowing ether.

So this flowing ether impacts your heart beat, the quartz
in your wris****ch, the gears and cogs in your grandfather's
clock, the transitions in the cesium atoms, the decay of
free neutrons etc, all in exactly the same mysterious way.
Fun stuff.

That is like sitting in a chair
and having a fat person sit on your lap. You tend to move more
slowly. Every part of every atom has an extra amount of flowing ether
sitting in its lap when "the clock" goes very fast, or very far. The
slowing is quite real, but is UNRELATED to Einstein's moronic ideas
about "space-time". — NoEinstein —

If you would have read and understood anything, you would know
that these moronic ideas are based on 2 simple facts:
1) the way we measure distances and times
2) the experimental fact that we always measure the same value
for light speed

Perhaps morons measure distances and times with their nose
and ears and thus find different values for light speed, but that
is your problem, right?

Dirk Vdm

On Sep 10, 12:02*pm, PD wrote:
On Sep 10, 9:19*am, Pentcho Valev wrote:





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.

I think it would be rather foolish to call it that.
Two cars travel from Sofia to Varna, Bulgaria.
One car's odometer reads 468 km, and the other car's odometer reads
497 km, when they meet again in Varna. They of course did not travel
side-by-side.
Now, do you conclude from the fact that they have different readings
that the odometers are now (or ever were) physically different from
each other?





Look for the analogous phrase "Now that's what I call a dead parrot"
in the sketch below:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vuW6tQ0218

Pentcho Valev
- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Folks: Would painting a mustache on PD's face make him physically
different? A physical variance in the odometer reading is such a
difference, too! — NoEinstein —

Spaceman wrote:

doug wrote:

Spaceman wrote:


doug wrote:


Many people have tried to help you by showing you your mistakes
but you certainly are not interested in the truth. You would be
embarrassed if you actually took the time to see how a cesium
clock worked.


Many people have not learned how clocks work,
so they are in no position to help me since I am trying to help
them, apparently you wish to remain clueless about how clocks
work.



Well then, teach us how a cesium clock works and how it is
different from a pendulum clock.


I can see you are just a troll with that response.
I don't need to bother with you since anyone can simply
learn how any clocks work by looking them up.
I have given the most basic facts about how clocks work,
They need to count a mass in motion or they can not work
at all.
If you wish a clock can work without counting a mass in motion
you can remain a moron for all "time" for all I care.
so...screw off troll.


It is clear you do not know what is going on in a cesium
clock. What mass is moving?

NoEinstein wrote in message

On Sep 10, 10:23 am, "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 :-)

Dirk Vdm

Dear Dirk: If the "test" clock returns to the same place as the
"control" clock, the rates for both will again be the same. But the
hands or LEDs will show different TIMES. The latter is a PHYSICAL
difference in the TIMES.

No PHYSICAL difference in the CLOCKS.

Agreed?

Go die on someone else's shoulder.

Dirk Vdm

harry wrote:


"Uncle Ben" wrote in message
...
On Sep 11, 8:33 am, PD wrote:

On Sep 11, 1:08 am, "harry"
wrote:

"PD" wrote in message

...

On Sep 10, 12:24 pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:

On Sep 10, 6:48 pm, PD wrote:

On Sep 10, 11:22 am, Pentcho Valev wrote:

On Sep 10, 6:02 pm, PD wrote:

On Sep 10, 9:19 am, Pentcho Valev wrote:

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

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

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.

[...]

: So is the odometer, Pentcho. It reads a different number. Nothing
: physical happened to the odometer to alter how it records the passage
: of path length. The two odometers can be tested, taken apart, and
: there will be nothing that can be identified in either odometer that
: says, "Well, this one is clearly different now."

Thus you suggest that both odometers and both cars are physically
the same.
You would make a good car sales man...

Nothing physically happened to the odometer to change the rate at
which it records the passage of pathlength.


It is true that at the moment that the clocks are together, their rates
are the same. However, in all valid SRT frames one measures that on the
average, the one clock has slowed down on the other one. And we tend to
call that a "physical" change.

[...]

It's a demonstrated FACT that clocks DO record different times
depending on the path. It's the Newtonian assumption that something
must have happened to the clock to affect its rate that is now not
necessary.


See above: SRT uses Newtonian frames, and - as cited below - the fact
that acording to any valid measurement the average rate has changed is
called a "physical" effect.

: Same thing with the twin. Nothing physical happened to either twin to
: alter how it records the passage of path length. The fact that the
: twin records (not with a number but with gray hair) a different path
: length does not imply that anything physical has happened differently
: to that twin.

It's often just a matter of sound bites. However, if the mileage of
one car
is considerably more I would not pay as much for it since it has
physically
aged more. Similarly, if you had a twin brother who suddenly gets white
hair - and you not - I would definitely ask him what on earth
happened to
him (physically). Consequently, I agree with the following remark:

"4. Physical Meaning [...] the clock moved from A to B lags behind
the other
which has remained at B".
-http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/


: What? You mean that the clocks (mechanical, digital, atomic,
: biological, etc.) do not necessarily "malfunction"? What a relief!

What's the theory of "malfunctioning" ? I never heard of that one. ;-)

Cheers,
Harald
Uncle Ben

He says relativity can be explained because all clocks just malfunction
in the exact amount to agree with relativity. This is true of all types
of clocks whatever their mechanism. He obviously has no clue but he is
fun to play with and watch him rant.

On 11 sep, 20:44, NoEinstein wrote:
(...)

http://groups.google.es/group/fr.sci...c7e29c05f1587d

Les calculs de Lorentz (1886) par l'expérience de M.M. de 1887 sont
incorrectes.

Lisez H.A. Munera, R.T. Cahill, ....

Calculations Lorentz (1886) by the experience of M.M. 1887 are
incorrect.

Read H.A. Munera, R.T. Cahill, ...

Au revoir

"doug" wrote in message
et...


harry wrote:


"Uncle Ben" wrote in message
...
On Sep 11, 8:33 am, PD wrote:

On Sep 11, 1:08 am, "harry"
wrote:

"PD" wrote in message

...

On Sep 10, 12:24 pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:

On Sep 10, 6:48 pm, PD wrote:

On Sep 10, 11:22 am, Pentcho Valev wrote:

On Sep 10, 6:02 pm, PD wrote:

On Sep 10, 9:19 am, Pentcho Valev wrote:

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

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

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.

[...]

: So is the odometer, Pentcho. It reads a different number. Nothing
: physical happened to the odometer to alter how it records the
passage
: of path length. The two odometers can be tested, taken apart, and
: there will be nothing that can be identified in either odometer that
: says, "Well, this one is clearly different now."

Thus you suggest that both odometers and both cars are physically
the same.
You would make a good car sales man...

Nothing physically happened to the odometer to change the rate at
which it records the passage of pathlength.


It is true that at the moment that the clocks are together, their rates
are the same. However, in all valid SRT frames one measures that on the
average, the one clock has slowed down on the other one. And we tend to
call that a "physical" change.

[...]

It's a demonstrated FACT that clocks DO record different times
depending on the path. It's the Newtonian assumption that something
must have happened to the clock to affect its rate that is now not
necessary.


See above: SRT uses Newtonian frames, and - as cited below - the fact
that acording to any valid measurement the average rate has changed is
called a "physical" effect.

: Same thing with the twin. Nothing physical happened to either twin
to
: alter how it records the passage of path length. The fact that the
: twin records (not with a number but with gray hair) a different path
: length does not imply that anything physical has happened
differently
: to that twin.

It's often just a matter of sound bites. However, if the mileage of
one car
is considerably more I would not pay as much for it since it has
physically
aged more. Similarly, if you had a twin brother who suddenly gets
white
hair - and you not - I would definitely ask him what on earth
happened to
him (physically). Consequently, I agree with the following remark:

"4. Physical Meaning [...] the clock moved from A to B lags behind
the other
which has remained at B".
-http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/


: What? You mean that the clocks (mechanical, digital, atomic,
: biological, etc.) do not necessarily "malfunction"? What a relief!

What's the theory of "malfunctioning" ? I never heard of that one. ;-)

Cheers,
Harald
Uncle Ben

He says relativity can be explained because all clocks just malfunction
in the exact amount to agree with relativity. This is true of all types
of clocks whatever their mechanism. He obviously has no clue but he is
fun to play with and watch him rant.

Ah you probably mean Spaceman. That sounds like the Special Theory of
Malfunctioning! :-)
Note: if it makes the exact same predictions as SRT, then it is for all
practical purpose indistinguishable from it and what remains is just an
argument about choice of words.

Cheers,
Harald