Takin Out the Trash

On 26 Mar 2007 06:32:06 -0700, "PD" wrote:

On Mar 24, 12:46 pm, Lester Zick wrote:


In the first place I never said "things occur" in one reference frame
as you suggest.
What I said was Michelson-Morley occurs in one reference frame.

Let's reread the two sentences above and see what we can conclude
about Lester's wit.

Would it help if we pointed out that *everything* occurs in more than
one reference frame?

It does? My specific claim was that Michelson-Morley occurred in one
reference frame.Your specific claim was that Michelson-Morley occurred
in TWO reference frames which you don't seem able to document.

So either the Michelson-Morley experiment is conducted entirely in one
frame of reference or it's conducted in more than one reference frame.
So which multiple frames of reference did you have in mind exactly?
Draper seems to be of the rather curious opinion that there are TWO
frames of reference involved, the problem being that he seems unable
to specify exactly which two he has in mind.

I've answered this at least twice, and if you have some difficulty
reading items on a newsgroup, then I would say that this also limits
your ability to be coherent in using one.

One what? Reference frame?

Shall we try once more?

Lorentz accounted for the null result of the Michelson-Morley
experiment in any given data run by positing a transformation between
the rest frame of a material ether and a frame of reference in which
the surface of the Earth where the Michelson apparatus was attached.
Those are the two reference frames used in the transformation. Note
that Michelson did NOT use this transformation anywhere in his paper
describing the experiment or the results.

Undoubtedy why his calculations for anticipated fringe shifts don't
depend on any kind of transformation much less any kind using TWO
frames of reference. In his paper on the experiment I expect Michelson
just gussied up some fringe shifts without any kind of transformation
whatsoever. Why did he do this? So Draper would have something to
argue about over a century later.

Lorentz also accounted for the *persistence* of the null result
between data runs separated by hours and separated by months,

So Michelson performed the same experiment more than once. The
experiment itself didn't depend on any kind of transformation. Yet
Michelson anticipated positive results for his experiment on each
occasion because he didn't apply any kind of transformations. Come
again? You're doing ****ant philology here instead of physics. When
you get back to physics do let us know.

considered pairwise, by applying the same transformation between the
two frames corresponding to the two data runs. In each case, each
frame is the one in which the apparatus is at rest during the data
run.

Well it seems according to you that no one used transformations to
calculate fringe shifts anticipated by Michelson for his experiment
until well after the experiment yielded null results.Certainly curious
for an experimenter of Michelson's stature but I'm sure you must be
right because you say you are and you're a member of the physics
community in good standing.

You on the other hand seem to suggest that Einstein "specifically
rejected" the idea that "things occur" in "one reference frame". So
exactly which reference frames does Michelson-Morley occur in?

So who calculated anticipated fringe shifts for Michelson and how did
he do it? Or in the vernacular what did Michelson know and when did he
know it? You seem to be of the opinion Michelson was too lazy or
stupid to calculate fringe shifts for himself before he conducted his
fringe shift experiments thus Lorentz had to do it for him after the
fact. But I'm more inclined to the idea that despite being a member of
the physics community in good standing you're too lazy or stupid to
read what Michelson wrote and don't know what the **** you're talking
about but insist on talking about anyway.

~v~~

On 26 Mar 2007 16:05:37 -0700, "PD" wrote:

Your specific claim was that Michelson-Morley occurred
in TWO reference frames which you don't seem able to document.

...as well as your inability to read. How many times do I have to
explain this to you, especially when it is quoted below? Are you being
a moron?

Explanations are a dime a dozen as you noted. Documentation a little
dearer, dearie. You seem a little long on the first and a little short
on the second.

~v~~

On 26 Mar 2007 16:05:37 -0700, "PD" wrote:

One what? Reference frame?

Newsgroup. Inability to comprehend noted.

Inability to state clearly noted, princess.

~v~~

On 26 Mar 2007 16:05:37 -0700, "PD" wrote:

Undoubtedy why his calculations for anticipated fringe shifts don't
depend on any kind of transformation much less any kind using TWO
frames of reference. In his paper on the experiment I expect Michelson
just gussied up some fringe shifts without any kind of transformation
whatsoever.

I expect that you cannot point to the place where he did what you
claim he did.
Can you?

Of course not. I expect Michelson just decided to wing it.

~v~~

On 26 Mar 2007 16:05:37 -0700, "PD" wrote:

So Michelson performed the same experiment more than once. The
experiment itself didn't depend on any kind of transformation. Yet
Michelson anticipated positive results for his experiment on each
occasion because he didn't apply any kind of transformations. Come
again? You're doing ****ant philology here instead of physics. When
you get back to physics do let us know.

If you can point to the place where those transforms are used to
anticipate a fringe shift, Lester, have at it. As it is, you're just
spouting rhetorical babble.

Thanks so much, sport. You're the one spouting psychobabble that would
make a whore blush if not an empiric and you expect me to establish my
claim first?

~v~~

On 26 Mar 2007 16:05:37 -0700, "PD" wrote:

Well it seems according to you that no one used transformations to
calculate fringe shifts anticipated by Michelson for his experiment
until well after the experiment yielded null results.

As I said, Lester, if you can point to the place in Michelson's work
where he used the transforms to anticipate fringe shifts...

And which transforms precisely did you have in mind, princess? No
sense explaining the obvious to you just to have you claim "oooh no
goodness gracious me, those weren't the transforms I had in mind."
Read Michelson's experimental explanation for yourself instead of
demanding others do your work for you. Say goodnight, Gracie.

~v~~

On 26 Mar 2007 16:05:37 -0700, "PD" wrote:

So who calculated anticipated fringe shifts for Michelson and how did
he do it?

Ah, now THERE'S a real question. And fortunately, the answer is to be
had easily, since it is a simple matter to go to the library, look up
the paper(s) and read. Unless you want to take the Zick approach:
guess blindly and ridicule those who don't buy into the guess. I take
it, Lester, that you've lost a fair amount at poker on bad bluffs.

Funny I thought it was you who guesses blindly and ridicules those who
don't buy into the guess. Looks like more bad psychobabble in a
looking glass.

~v~~

On 26 Mar 2007 16:05:37 -0700, "PD" wrote:

Or in the vernacular what did Michelson know and when did he
know it? You seem

What "seems" to be true for you, Lester, is an interesting concoction
of loose-cannon assertions, foul balls to the third-base bleachers,
and snapping-dog lunges. That you think you can steer a conversation
with them is even sillier.

Of course it is. That's why I talk to you. You can't tell the
difference anyway.

~v~~

On 26 Mar 2007 16:05:37 -0700, "PD" wrote:

to be of the opinion Michelson was too lazy or
stupid to calculate fringe shifts for himself before he conducted his
fringe shift experiments thus Lorentz had to do it for him after the
fact. But I'm more inclined to the idea that despite being a member of
the physics community in good standing you're too lazy or stupid to
read what Michelson wrote and don't know what the **** you're talking
about but insist on talking about anyway.


Oh, I've read it, Lester. You've made claims about what he did and
said. So back 'em up.

Or you could back up your claims for a change. The Draper family
doesn't seem to have experiments to back up it's claims and prefers to
indulge in mindless philology ad infinitum. No wonder you're an
academic. The Brady Bunch in spades.

~v~~