|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Michelson and Morley experiment
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). 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. Pentcho Valev |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Michelson and Morley experiment
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 |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Michelson and Morley experiment
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. 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 |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Michelson and Morley experiment
|
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Michelson and Morley experiment
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 |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Michelson and Morley experiment
|
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Michelson and Morley experiment
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 |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Michelson and Morley experiment
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: 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? http://fr.youtube.com/watch?v=4vuW6tQ0218 "I'm not prepared to pursue my line of inquiry any longer as I think this is getting too silly!" Pentcho Valev |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Michelson and Morley experiment
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. 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? http://fr.youtube.com/watch?v=4vuW6tQ0218 "I'm not prepared to pursue my line of inquiry any longer as I think this is getting too silly!" Pentcho Valev I agree. It got quite silly when you said that two clocks that show a different reading when they meet again is an indicator that one of the clocks was now physically different. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Michelson and Morley experiment
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. 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? http://fr.youtube.com/watch?v=4vuW6tQ0218 "I'm not prepared to pursue my line of inquiry any longer as I think this is getting too silly!" Pentcho Valev I agree. It got quite silly when you said that two clocks that show a different reading when they meet again is an indicator that one of the clocks was now physically different. But, Clever Draper, if instead of clocks we discussed the famous twins, one would be younger than the other when they meet again (according to Divine Albert's Divine Idiocy). Would you claim again that "younger" does not imply "physically different"? The travelling clock is also "younger", Clever Draper (according to Divine Albert's Divine Idiocy). Pentcho Valev |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Michelson and Morley experiment | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 6 | September 12th 08 02:56 PM |
Michelson and Morley experiment | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 0 | September 9th 08 02:32 AM |
Who lied about the Michelson-Morley experiment? | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 10 | July 30th 08 02:26 AM |
MICHELSON-MORLEY AND SAGNAC EXPERIMENTS | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 71 | October 22nd 07 11:50 PM |
MICHELSON-MORLEY NULL RESULT AND EINSTEIN CRIMINAL CULT | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 9 | May 30th 07 08:15 PM |