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
  #11  
Old September 10th 08, 02:28 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,fr.sci.physique,fr.sci.astrophysique,sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default 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  
Old September 10th 08, 02:50 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, 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  
Old September 10th 08, 03:19 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,fr.sci.physique,fr.sci.astrophysique,sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default 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  
Old September 10th 08, 03:23 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

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
  #15  
Old September 10th 08, 04:01 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,fr.sci.physique,sci.astro,fr.sci.astrophysique
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default 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  
Old September 10th 08, 04:06 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

Pentcho Valev wrote in message

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?


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

NO WAY OUT, PONCHO :-)

Dirk Vdm
  #17  
Old September 10th 08, 05:02 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, 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  
Old September 10th 08, 05:22 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,fr.sci.physique,fr.sci.astrophysique,sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default 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  
Old September 10th 08, 05:48 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, 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  
Old September 10th 08, 06:24 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,fr.sci.physique,fr.sci.astrophysique,sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default 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

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 05:51 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.