Michelson and Morley experiment

doug wrote:
Spaceman wrote:

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?

Not a mass moving. What do you think it is?

I asked you what is being counted, not what you think it is not
being counted.
Answer it asshole, or prove you are clueless with no chance
of recovery.

doug wrote:
Spaceman wrote:

doug wrote:

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


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


Since you refuse to tell how you think cesium clocks
work, we know the answer to how much you understand clocks.

Since you refuse to tell all what is being counted in the cesium
clock to be able to "measure" time at all, we can take for a fact
you are either a troll, or a clueless brainwashed moron.

Spaceman wrote:

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?

Not a mass moving. What do you think it is?

Spaceman wrote:

doug wrote:

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


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


Since you refuse to tell how you think cesium clocks
work, we know the answer to how much you understand clocks.

Spaceman wrote:

harry wrote:

"doug" wrote in message
knet...


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.

In other words, you divide the real results by some random number which
spaceman magically chooses to give his answer then, amazingly enough,
you get his answer. That is not the way science is done.

On 11 sep, 21:37, Xaustein wrote:
On 11 sep, 20:44, NoEinstein wrote:
(...)

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

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

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

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

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

Au revoir

Les calculs correctes sont:

Supongamos un interferómetro con un único brazo (1881), se llega a
las
mismas conclusiones y me parece más sencillo de entender:

Impondré la condición de que el brazo únicamente puede estar
orientado
según dos situaciones (a) y (b), todas las demás quedan descartadas:

(a) el brazo está orientado según la misma dirección que la
velocidad
"v" a la que se mueve la Tierra respecto del éter.

T_1 = L_o * (1/ (c^2 - v^2)) = (L_o / c) * (1 / (1 -(v/c)^2))
(L_o /c ) * (1 + (v/c)^2)

"L_o" es la longitud del interferómetro que la luz recorre en
sentidos opuestos.
"c" es la velocidad de la luz en el caso de que "v" fuese cero.

(b) el brazo está orientado según la perpendicular a la velocidad "v"
a la que se mueve la Tierra respecto del éter.

T_2 = L_o * [sqrt](1/ (c^2 - v^2)) = (L_o / c) * [sqrt](1 / (1 -(v/
c)^2)) (L_o /c ) * (1 + 1/2 * (v/c)^2)

Hasta aquí todos de acuerdo, el tiempo que se tarda en recorrer el
brazo del interferómetro en el caso T_1 es mayor que el tiempo
tardado en el caso T_2 en un valor proporcional a "(1/2) * (v/c)^2".

Y esto último es lo que nos permitirá observar un desplazamiento de
las franjas de interferencia.

Supongamos que calibramos en aparato coincidiendo con T_1 y giramos
el interferómetro 90 grados hacia la izquierda hasta llevarlo a T_2,
mediremos un deplazamiento de franjas correspondiente a:

d_1 = - (1/2) * (v/c)^2.

Luego siguiendo el protocolo de procedimiento de los experimentos del
tipo M.M. 1887, calibramos el aparato en T_2 y giramos el
interferómetro 90 grados hacia la derecha hasta llevarlo a T_1,
mediremos un desplazamiento de franjas correspondiente a:

d_2 = + (1/2) * (v/c)^2.

Luego siguiendo el protocolo de procedimiento de los experimentos del
tipo M.M. 1887, promediamos los desplazamientos obtenidos con sus
signos correspondientes:

d = (1/2) * (d_1 + d_2) = )1/2) * [- (1/2) * (v/c)^2 + (1/2) * (v/
c)^2] = 0

Colocando el valor "d" obtenido en la fórmula correspondiente, a
desplazamientos de franjas cero le corresponde velocidad cero, o sea
velocidad nula.

Hicks en 1902 dijo que deberían de tomarse los desplazamientos de
franjas en sus valores absolutos para evitar el FALSO RESULTADO d=
0.

On Sep 11, 3:37*pm, Xaustein wrote:
On 11 sep, 20:44, NoEinstein wrote:
(...)

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

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

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

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

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

Au revoir

:-) — NoEinstein —

On Sep 11, 5:03*pm, doug wrote:
Xaustein wrote:
On 11 sep, 20:44, NoEinstein wrote:
(...)

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

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

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

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

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

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





Au revoir- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

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

On Sep 11, 5:07*pm, PD wrote:
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- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Dear PD: That's a good question. In fact, I answer it (to you) just
about every day. GR assumes that gravity increases like Newton said:
according to the inverse square law. The ether density and flow near
massive objects varies by the inverse square law, too. So, all of the
light/radio wave, Mercury precession, etc. "predictions" of Einstein
are more correctly predicted by varying ether flow and density. The
latter are the CAUSES of gravity. Albert Einstein was clueless what
gravity is. — NoEinstein —

On Sep 11, 5:10*pm, PD wrote:
On Sep 11, 1:20 pm, NoEinstein wrote:



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

- Show quoted text -

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

Which reference do YOU suggest, NoEinstein?

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