Michelson and Morley experiment

PD wrote:
On Sep 12, 8:50 am, NoEinstein wrote:
On Sep 11, 5:10 pm, PD wrote:

On Sep 11, 1:20 pm, NoEinstein wrote:

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 —

Which reference do YOU suggest, NoEinstein?

Dear PD: Another GREAT question! I recommend COMMON SENSE as your
reference of choice. — NoEinstein —

Ah. And if *your* common sense and *my* common sense disagree, then
how would science resolve that?
How good is your common sense, and more importantly, HOW DO YOU KNOW?

Hmm?
PD's common sense says the shortest physical distance between two points
is a curved line.
LOL
Looks like you lost the "common sense" war.
LOL

NoEinstein wrote:

On Sep 11, 5:03 pm, doug wrote:

Xaustein wrote:

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

http://groups.google.es/group/fr.sci...se_thread/thre...

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, ...

Cahill is a crank who publishes junk which has no relation to
the truth. He says a gas interferometer gives different
answers than a vacuum interferometer or a solid interferometer.
So is relativity only good for a vacuum or a solid but not in
a gas? The alternate explanation is that he does not know what
he is doing. That is the opinion of educated people.






Au revoir- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


Folks: Doug is a persona non grate; and that's the truth! —
NoEinstein —

Truth bothers you I see. Or maybe you are trying to be as well
known a crank as Cahill. You still have a ways to go before you
get there. At least he writes stuff that sounds plausible before
you go into detail. Your stuff is dead at first sight.

NoEinstein wrote:

On Sep 11, 10:56 pm, "Spaceman"
wrote:

doug wrote:

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.

First of all it is not true of all clock dingleberry.
Pendulum clocks in certain orientations do not come close
to the same freakin "relativity" predictions.
But for some great "physical reason, they do follow
newtons thoughts about them perfectally.
You still have not learned how clock work huh?


Dear Spaceman: Just declare Doug a persona non grata, and be done
with it. He isn't worth getting all hot and bothered over. :-) —
NoEinstein —

He does not like his mistakes pointed out either.

Spaceman wrote:

NoEinstein wrote:

On Sep 11, 10:56 pm, "Spaceman"
wrote:

doug wrote:

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.

First of all it is not true of all clock dingleberry.
Pendulum clocks in certain orientations do not come close
to the same freakin "relativity" predictions.
But for some great "physical reason, they do follow
newtons thoughts about them perfectally.
You still have not learned how clock work huh?

Dear Spaceman: Just declare Doug a persona non grata, and be done
with it. He isn't worth getting all hot and bothered over. :-) —
NoEinstein —


True,
Thanks for the kick to wake me up.



That is what I like. Stick your fingers in your ears and pretend
that you cannot hear the truth. It saves you a lot of time that would
otherwise be required to actually learn something.

Have you learned how cesium clocks work yet?

doug wrote:
Spaceman wrote:

doug wrote:

NoEinstein wrote:


On Sep 11, 10:56 pm, "Spaceman"
wrote:


doug wrote:


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.

First of all it is not true of all clock dingleberry.
Pendulum clocks in certain orientations do not come close
to the same freakin "relativity" predictions.
But for some great "physical reason, they do follow
newtons thoughts about them perfectally.
You still have not learned how clock work huh?


Dear Spaceman: Just declare Doug a persona non grata, and be done
with it. He isn't worth getting all hot and bothered over. :-)
— NoEinstein —

He does not like his mistakes pointed out either.


You have not pointed out anything except the fact you are
clueless about how clocks work.
Still waiting for you answer..
What is being counted in the cesium clock to measure time?
You say there is no motion occuring being counted.
What is not moving, yet being counted?


No, the assignment was for you to explain how cesium clocks
work. Do you want a lesson in how to use Google?

Why don't you use Google to tell me what is "not moving"
that is being counted to measure time in the cesium clock?

doug wrote:
Spaceman wrote:

doug wrote:

Spaceman wrote:


doug wrote:


NoEinstein wrote:



On Sep 11, 10:56 pm, "Spaceman"
wrote:



doug wrote:



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.

First of all it is not true of all clock dingleberry.
Pendulum clocks in certain orientations do not come close
to the same freakin "relativity" predictions.
But for some great "physical reason, they do follow
newtons thoughts about them perfectally.
You still have not learned how clock work huh?


Dear Spaceman: Just declare Doug a persona non grata, and be
done with it. He isn't worth getting all hot and bothered over.
:-) — NoEinstein —

He does not like his mistakes pointed out either.


You have not pointed out anything except the fact you are
clueless about how clocks work.
Still waiting for you answer..
What is being counted in the cesium clock to measure time?
You say there is no motion occuring being counted.
What is not moving, yet being counted?



No, the assignment was for you to explain how cesium clocks
work. Do you want a lesson in how to use Google?


Why don't you use Google to tell me what is "not moving"
that is being counted to measure time in the cesium clock?



Don't worry, if you go to Google, they have instructions on
how to use it. Let us know what you find.

So you refuse to look up that the electron motion is what
is being counted.
Thanks for proof you are either just a troll, or clueless,
oh ya.. or both.

On 11 sep, 20:26, NoEinstein wrote:
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 —-

Spanish:

Prefiero el retardo en la propagación de la luz al atravesar un medio
transparente (propuesta por Fizeau en su experimento de 1851? y
recientemente comprobada por matemáticos italianos) que no el arrastre
del éter, propuesta que no presentó Fizeau pero que recordó que
Fresnel había propuesto,al analizar su experimento.

Los matemáticos italianos han demostrado que el retardo en la
propagación de la luz de Fizeau y el arrastre del éter del Fresnel son
más acordes uno con el otro que ambos con la propuesta de la suma de
velocidades de Lorentz.

Saludos

Inglish:

I prefer the delay in the propagation of light through a transparent
(proposed by Fizeau in its experiment in 1851? and recently verified
by mathematical Italian) that does not drag the of the ether, proposal
that no fizeau but recalled that Fresnel had proposed, to analyze your
experiment.

The mathematical Italians have shown that the delay in the propagation
of the light of Fizeau and drag the eter of Fresnel are more in line
with each other both with the proposal of the sum of speeds of
Lorentz.

Greetings

Spaceman wrote:

doug wrote:

NoEinstein wrote:


On Sep 11, 10:56 pm, "Spaceman"
wrote:


doug wrote:


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.

First of all it is not true of all clock dingleberry.
Pendulum clocks in certain orientations do not come close
to the same freakin "relativity" predictions.
But for some great "physical reason, they do follow
newtons thoughts about them perfectally.
You still have not learned how clock work huh?


Dear Spaceman: Just declare Doug a persona non grata, and be done
with it. He isn't worth getting all hot and bothered over. :-) —
NoEinstein —

He does not like his mistakes pointed out either.


You have not pointed out anything except the fact you are
clueless about how clocks work.
Still waiting for you answer..
What is being counted in the cesium clock to measure time?
You say there is no motion occuring being counted.
What is not moving, yet being counted?


No, the assignment was for you to explain how cesium clocks
work. Do you want a lesson in how to use Google?

Spaceman wrote:

PD wrote:

On Sep 12, 8:50 am, NoEinstein wrote:

On Sep 11, 5:10 pm, PD wrote:


On Sep 11, 1:20 pm, NoEinstein wrote:

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 —

Which reference do YOU suggest, NoEinstein?

Dear PD: Another GREAT question! I recommend COMMON SENSE as your
reference of choice. — NoEinstein —

Ah. And if *your* common sense and *my* common sense disagree, then
how would science resolve that?
How good is your common sense, and more importantly, HOW DO YOU KNOW?


Hmm?
PD's common sense says the shortest physical distance between two points
is a curved line.
LOL
Looks like you lost the "common sense" war.
LOL


My common sense agrees with PD. You are outvoted. Sorry.

On Sep 12, 11:28*am, "Spaceman"
wrote:
PD wrote:
On Sep 12, 8:50 am, NoEinstein wrote:
On Sep 11, 5:10 pm, PD wrote:

On Sep 11, 1:20 pm, NoEinstein wrote:

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 —

Which reference do YOU suggest, NoEinstein?

Dear PD: Another GREAT question! I recommend COMMON SENSE as your
reference of choice. — NoEinstein —

Ah. And if *your* common sense and *my* common sense disagree, then
how would science resolve that?
How good is your common sense, and more importantly, HOW DO YOU KNOW?

Hmm?
PD's common sense says the shortest physical distance between two points
is a curved line.
LOL
Looks like you lost the "common sense" war.
LOL

Really? How do you know yours is right? I agree your common sense
tells you otherwise, but we all know your common sense is an idiot. So
how do you propose science should resolve that?