Michelson and Morley experiment

Xaustein wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Au revoir

On Sep 11, 1:26*pm, NoEinstein wrote:
On Sep 10, 9:50*am, PD wrote:



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

On Sep 10, 2:55 am, PD wrote:

On Sep 9, 2:46 pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:

On Sep 9, 6:40 pm, PD wrote:

On Sep 9, 9:07 am, Pentcho Valev wrote:

On Sep 9, 2:27 pm, PD wrote in
sci.physics.relativity:

On Sep 9, 1:01 am, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:

On Mon, 8 Sep 2008 17:59:44 -0700 (PDT), PD wrote:
On Sep 8, 7:56 pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:

If anyone tries to measure the properties of a moving object or clock and finds
them to be different from those measured at rest then the experimental method
is obviously flawed.

In other words, if an experiment shows evidence of something that is
contrary to your expectations, then something is wrong with the
experiment. This coming from someone "born with a scientific mind".

Even your own colleagues....the less ignorant ones....agree that nothing
actually happens to a clock or rod as a result of a speed change.

Actually, what's agreed upon is that the physical property does in
fact change, but that no physical process occurs to the object to
change the property. You find it difficult to imagine how one can
happen without the other.

But, Clever Draper, that is a very specific zombie imagination
acquired after years of singing ("Divine Einstein", "Yes we all
believe in relativity, relativity, relativity" etc.) accompanied by
energetic convulsions. How can you expect a person who has never taken
part in all those worships to imagine "that the physical property does
in fact change, but that no physical process occurs to the object to
change the property"? Be condescending, Clever Draper!

Pentcho Valev


Oh, come, come, Pentcho, you know better! Momentum, velocity, kinetic
energy, electric field, magnetic field -- all these are physical
properties that in fact change with change in reference frame, and
there is no physical process acting on the object to effect that
change. For most of those, Galileo and Newton knew that, and that was
300 years prior to anyone even knowing who Einstein was, let alone
singing songs about him.

PD

Clever Draper what are you talking about. The travelling clock returns
PHYSICALLY different from the clock at rest (according to Divine
Albert's Divine Idiocy),

No, it doesn't. When it returns and is compared with the clock at
rest, the rates of the clocks are identical.

Don't lie, Clever Draper. When the travelling clock is compared with
the clock at rest, they are PHYSICALLY different (according to Divine
Albert's Divine Idiocy).

No, they show different rates when viewed from different reference
frames, but the clocks are physically identical. This is no different
than a car having a different kinetic energy when viewed from a
different reference frame, but it still being a physically unchanged
car.

It would help if you understood what Divine Albert actually said,
Pentcho.

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

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

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

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

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

PD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

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

How interesting. So you say you have one of them there Alternate
Explanation thingies.

Now, relativity can *calculate* how much clocks are going to be slowed
by, even before the measurements are made.
Can you *calculate* how much ether slows things by?

Oh, and show that the ether affects all clocks, all chemical
processes, all biological processes, all radioactive decays, by
exactly the same by the flowing ether.

PD

On Sep 10, 6:37 pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
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.

The iron filings are not the lines of force. They lie along lines of
force.

Now run past the paper as quickly
as you can and tell me whether or not the pattern changes as you run.

Let's deal with something you probably understand.
You know that a wire that has electric charge distributed on it has a
radially pointing electric field that falls off like 1/r (away from
the string if the charge is positive), and no magnetic field.
You also know that a long wire with electric current has a magnetic
field that is oriented in circles around the wire that falls off like
1/r.
Now take the statically charged wire, Henri, and run along it as fast
as you can, and what do you have? Why yes, a wire with a current in
it!


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.

I meant a physics reference. Which one do you recommend, Henri?

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


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

- Show quoted text -

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

Which reference do YOU suggest, NoEinstein?

On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 11:13:39 -0700 (PDT), NoEinstein
wrote:

On Sep 9, 6:56*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.

PD

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

All religion involves selling a nonexistant concept to gullible fools. Einstein cleverly exploited this principle with his second postulate.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Dear Henri: No "dimension" includes TIME.

Time is a fundamental dimension.

Forget about relativity!
I've disproved Einstein up, down and sideways! — NoEinstein —

So have I. ...but my proofs are believable.



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.

On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 14:08:07 -0700 (PDT), PD wrote:

On Sep 10, 6:37 pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 05:16:30 -0700 (PDT), PD wrote:

Diaper, get a bar magnet, some iron filings and a sheet of paper. Create some
magnetic lines of force in the usual manner.

The iron filings are not the lines of force. They lie along lines of
force.

Now run past the paper as quickly
as you can and tell me whether or not the pattern changes as you run.

Let's deal with something you probably understand.
You know that a wire that has electric charge distributed on it has a
radially pointing electric field that falls off like 1/r (away from
the string if the charge is positive), and no magnetic field.
You also know that a long wire with electric current has a magnetic
field that is oriented in circles around the wire that falls off like
1/r.
Now take the statically charged wire, Henri, and run along it as fast
as you can, and what do you have? Why yes, a wire with a current in
it!

This is the kind of question appeals to people like you.

Do you agree that the electric field is frame independent? That is, the
movement of an observer DOES NOT and CANNOT alter the field (whatever that is).

Do you agree that the act of moving through an electric field can produce a
magnetic force?
Do you agree that a 'moving electron and a moving observer' is the same as
'stationary electron and a moving observer'?

My point Diaper, is that the traditional idea of defining a field in terms of
the forces it exerts on introduced objects does not tell us anything about the
true nature of that field.

Fields don't exists because of the forces they exert. The opposite is true.
Forces are exerted because fields exist.

So the problem remains to discover what makes a 'field'?

Physics is still in its infancy in spite of the fact that some idiots, mainly
relativists, seem to think they already have all the answers.






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.

On Sep 11, 6:44*pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 14:08:07 -0700 (PDT), PD wrote:
On Sep 10, 6:37 pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 05:16:30 -0700 (PDT), PD wrote:
Diaper, get a bar magnet, some iron filings and a sheet of paper. Create some
magnetic lines of force in the usual manner.

The iron filings are not the lines of force. They lie along lines of
force.

Now run past the paper as quickly
as you can and tell me whether or not the pattern changes as you run.

Let's deal with something you probably understand.
You know that a wire that has electric charge distributed on it has a
radially pointing electric field that falls off like 1/r (away from
the string if the charge is positive), and no magnetic field.
You also know that a long wire with electric current has a magnetic
field that is oriented in circles around the wire that falls off like
1/r.
Now take the statically charged wire, Henri, and run along it as fast
as you can, and what do you have? Why yes, a wire with a current in
it!

This is the kind of question appeals to people like you.

Do you agree that the electric field is frame independent? That is, the
movement of an observer DOES NOT and CANNOT alter the field (whatever that is).

No, I do not agree with that. Of course it is frame dependent. That
part is experimentally confirmed. Would you like a reference where you
can look it up?


Do you agree that the act of moving through an electric field can produce a
magnetic force?

No. A magnetic field produces a magnetic force. An electric field is
related to the electric force. Do you need a primer on this?

Do you agree that a 'moving electron and a moving observer' is the same as
'stationary electron and a moving observer'?

I don't know what you mean by 'moving electron and moving observer'.
Moving with respect to what? Is the electron moving relative to the
observer or not. If the observer is moving, is that with respect to
*another* observer?


My point Diaper, is that the traditional idea of defining a field in terms of
the forces it exerts on introduced objects does not tell us anything about the
true nature of that field.

Interesting. So now you have a problem with electrostatics as well as
relativity.
Pray tell, what is this "true field" that you don't detect by its
effects, Henri? And what did Faraday and Maxwell miss out on?


Fields don't exists because of the forces they exert. The opposite is true.
Forces are exerted because fields exist.

So the problem remains to discover what makes a 'field'?

Yes, indeed, especially since the notion of a field has been around
for long time before Einstein. But please... reinvent classical
physics for us.


Physics is still in its infancy in spite of the fact that some idiots, mainly
relativists, seem to think they already have all the answers.

Certainly not! I don't think I have all the answers at all.
I'm certainly curious what answers you think you have about classical
electrostatics.

PD

doug wrote:
Spaceman wrote:

doug wrote:

Spaceman wrote:


doug wrote:


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


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



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


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


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

Let me make you think about it...
Answer this question and you may wake up.
What is being counted to supposedly measure time dickweed?

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

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

harry wrote:
"doug" wrote in message
et...


harry wrote:


"Uncle Ben" wrote in message

...
On Sep 11, 8:33 am, PD wrote:

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

"PD" wrote in message


...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Clever Draper what are you talking about. The
travelling clock returns
PHYSICALLY different from the clock at rest
(according to
Divine Albert's Divine Idiocy),

No, it doesn't. When it returns and is compared with the
clock at rest, the rates of the clocks are identical.

[...]

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

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

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


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

[...]

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

Cheers,
Harald
Uncle Ben

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

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

At least you get that Harry!
Bravo and I am glad yet another person that can think for himself
show up around here.
I should say Welcome to the group..
and...
Actually, the clock malfunction theory matches all clocks and
relativity fails on large tickers in orientations that the malfunction
can not be explained by relativty alone without actually falling
back on newton.
But.. the clock malfunction theory only needs Newtonian laws to prove
the malfunctions in every single clock.


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