Michelson and Morley experiment

On Sep 11, 7:28*pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
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.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Dear Henri: You live in your own bubble. If you are so happy there,
why are you so defensive of your ideas? — NoEinstein —

On Sep 11, 7:44*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).

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.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Dear Henri: Most group members who "like" the word "field", are out-
in-the-left-one. — NoEinstein —

On Sep 12, 8:48*am, NoEinstein wrote:
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.

I didn't ask you about the radial dependence. I asked you about the
*size* of the effect -- that is the *number* for the *amount* of time
slowing that you expect for a clock at a given elevation and speed.
Relativity can provide a *number*. Can you?

Moreover, explain why ether dragging will be the *same* for an atomic
clock as it is for a chemical clock reaction, the *same* for a spring
watch as it is for the growth rate of a bacterial colony. Why is it
the *same* for these?

*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, 7:56*pm, PD wrote:
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- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Dear PD: For you... "A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous
thing." — NoEinstein —

On Sep 11, 10:56*pm, "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?

Dear Spaceman: Just declare Doug a persona non grata, and be done
with it. He isn't worth getting all hot and bothered over. :-) —
NoEinstein —

NoEinstein wrote:
On Sep 11, 10:56 pm, "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?

Dear Spaceman: Just declare Doug a persona non grata, and be done
with it. He isn't worth getting all hot and bothered over. :-) —
NoEinstein —

True,
Thanks for the kick to wake me up.

doug wrote:
NoEinstein wrote:

On Sep 11, 10:56 pm, "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?


Dear Spaceman: Just declare Doug a persona non grata, and be done
with it. He isn't worth getting all hot and bothered over. :-) —
NoEinstein —

He does not like his mistakes pointed out either.

You have not pointed out anything except the fact you are
clueless about how clocks work.
Still waiting for you answer..
What is being counted in the cesium clock to measure time?
You say there is no motion occuring being counted.
What is not moving, yet being counted?

doug wrote:
That is what I like. Stick your fingers in your ears and pretend
that you cannot hear the truth. It saves you a lot of time that would
otherwise be required to actually learn something.

Have you learned how cesium clocks work yet?

I am still waiting for you to tell me what is being counted
in the cesium clock that is not moving, yet still being counted?

C,mon!
What is not moving, yet being counted Doug?

On Sep 12, 9:01*am, NoEinstein wrote:


Dear Spaceman: *Just declare Doug a persona non grata, and be done
with it. *He isn't worth getting all hot and bothered over. *:-) * *—
NoEinstein —

OR.... (Here's a novel idea)
you can choose to simply not reply at all, since he's not wroth
getting all hot and bothered over. :-)

("No. Must. Have. Last. Word. .... Must..... Must.....")

On Sep 12, 8:50*am, NoEinstein wrote:
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 —

Ah. And if *your* common sense and *my* common sense disagree, then
how would science resolve that?
How good is your common sense, and more importantly, HOW DO YOU KNOW?

PD