A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Astronomy Misc
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Michelson and Morley experiment



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old September 10th 08, 06:28 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,fr.sci.physique,sci.astro
Dirk Van de moortel[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 95
Default Michelson and Morley experiment

PD wrote in message

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.


Also thanks to our friend Henri Wilson for the trigger:
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/di...Different.html

Dirk Vdm
  #22  
Old September 10th 08, 07:15 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,fr.sci.physique,fr.sci.astrophysique,sci.astro
PD
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,572
Default Michelson and Morley experiment

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.


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).


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."

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.


Pentcho Valev


  #23  
Old September 10th 08, 07:37 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,fr.sci.physique,fr.sci.astrophysique,sci.astro
PD
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,572
Default Michelson and Morley experiment

On Sep 10, 1:15*pm, PD wrote:
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.


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).


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."

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.


Let me give you another example, Pentcho, something that Galileo would
understand and hopefully you will too.

A car is traveling, the front of the car pointed eastward to Belgrade,
and it applies its brakes, changing its velocity by 50 km/hr.

Now, in one reference frame, where a fire hydrant happens to be at
rest, this small sequence of events is recorded as follows: The car is
initially traveling at 80 km/hr to the east, applies its brakes, and
ends up at 30 km/hr toward the east. The acceleration is in the
direction opposite the initial velocity, obviously, and the kinetic
energy has been reduced as a result of the application of the brakes.

Now, in another reference frame, where a police cruiser happens to be
at rest, this VERY SAME sequence of events is recorded as follows: The
car is initially traveling at 10 km/hr to the west, applies its
brakes, and ends up at 60 km/hr toward the west. The acceleration is
in the *same* direction as the initial velocity, obviously, and the
kinetic energy has been increased as a result of the application of
the brakes.

(It shouldn't surprise you that the police cruiser is traveling 90 km/
hr relative to the fire hydrant.)

Now, if you think that something happened to the car from one or the
other reference frame to change the relative orientation of the
acceleration and initial velocity, or to change whether the kinetic
energy increases or decreases, perhaps you can identify what that
physical process was.

Also keep in mind that what I just laid out for you is a completely
Newtonian example, not a damn bit of Einsteinia in it.

PD
  #24  
Old September 11th 08, 12:37 AM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,fr.sci.physique,fr.sci.astrophysique,sci.astro
Dr. Henri Wilson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 707
Default Michelson and Morley experiment

On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 05:16:30 -0700 (PDT), 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.


Fields exist whether or not they produce effects.

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.


Diaper, get a bar magnet, some iron filings and a sheet of paper. Create some
magnetic lines of force in the usual manner. Now run past the paper as quickly
as you can and tell me whether or not the pattern changes as you run.

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?


Study psychology. You might find out why you love making such a fool of
yourself.


Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

There is no food shortage, just an excess of people. Send abortion pills not food aid.
  #25  
Old September 11th 08, 03:29 AM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,fr.sci.physique,sci.astro,fr.sci.astrophysique
Spaceman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 584
Default Michelson and Morley experiment

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.






  #26  
Old September 11th 08, 03:59 AM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,fr.sci.physique,sci.astro,fr.sci.astrophysique
Spaceman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 584
Default Michelson and Morley experiment

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.
Physically less ticks is a physical difference.
So with clocks that use decay rates it would be less physical decay
for slower running clocks.
That is "physical" difference.
and that physical difference is caused by physical problems known
about clocks ever since clocks were moved.
And those problems are 100% newtonian.


--
James M Driscoll Jr
Creator of the Clock Malfunction Theory
Spaceman






  #27  
Old September 11th 08, 04:17 AM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,fr.sci.physique,sci.astro,fr.sci.astrophysique
doug
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,129
Default Michelson and Morley experiment



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?
  #28  
Old September 11th 08, 04:50 AM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,fr.sci.physique,sci.astro,fr.sci.astrophysique
doug
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,129
Default Michelson and Morley experiment



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.






  #29  
Old September 11th 08, 06:15 AM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,fr.sci.physique,sci.astro,fr.sci.astrophysique
doug
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,129
Default Michelson and Morley experiment



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.



  #30  
Old September 11th 08, 06:43 AM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,fr.sci.physique,sci.astro,fr.sci.astrophysique
Spaceman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 584
Default Michelson and Morley experiment

doug wrote:
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.


It has been verified that the clocks show different rates but...
They did not "see" less time, the clocks simply malfunctioned.
You really don't know how clocks work huh?


Physically less ticks is a physical difference.

No, it means they saw less time.


No it means they malfunctioned in thier proper operation parameters.
Again, you love to scream to the world that you are clueless about
how clocks work.


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.


No they physically malfunctioned.
This time you also proved you have no clue about physics
nor clocks.



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.


You are a total moron.
The problems with the clocks are proven each and everyday in
GPS, the GPS system has to remove the physical malfunctions
of the clocks in order to work correctly at all.
You have been brainwashed beyond help Doug.
I suggest you learn how clocks work some year.
Right now you are only proving your ignorance and your
brainwashing.

--
James M Driscoll Jr
Creator of the Clock Malfunction Theory
Spaceman


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:59 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.