|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#501
|
|||
|
|||
Michelson and Morley experiment
Spaceman skrev:
Paul B. Andersen wrote: Spaceman wrote: Paul B. Andersen wrote: I am asking you to use Newtonian laws and forces to predict the clock fault of a Cs beam clock when it is launched into GPS orbit. Paul, prediction of the clock fault is not the important factor, The fact it is malfunctioning is the important factor. So when you wrote: "And when one uses Newtonian laws and forces every single clock fault can be predicted." You were bluffing, right? I never said I would do such so there was never a bluff Yet, I have seen it done and the real point is finding the clock problem. So where have you seen that Newtonian laws and forces are used to predict the clock fault of a Cs beam clock when it is launched into GPS orbit? You are bluffing again, right? -- Paul http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/ |
#502
|
|||
|
|||
Michelson and Morley experiment
Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Spaceman skrev: Paul B. Andersen wrote: Spaceman wrote: Paul B. Andersen wrote: I am asking you to use Newtonian laws and forces to predict the clock fault of a Cs beam clock when it is launched into GPS orbit. Paul, prediction of the clock fault is not the important factor, The fact it is malfunctioning is the important factor. So when you wrote: "And when one uses Newtonian laws and forces every single clock fault can be predicted." You were bluffing, right? I never said I would do such so there was never a bluff Yet, I have seen it done and the real point is finding the clock problem. So where have you seen that Newtonian laws and forces are used to predict the clock fault of a Cs beam clock when it is launched into GPS orbit? It was actually here in sci.physics but I admit I do not rememember who posted it. The main fact is still that the clock has malfunctioned and the malfunction can not be caused by the "time" itself since time is an abstract function of the clock. If a thermometer changes temperature is it the temperature that actually changed the temperature? If ruler changed physical length, is it the ruler that changed it's own length and nothing else phsyical caused it? The problem you don't see for some brainwashed reason is that a "time changing rate" is caused by time changing rate is a sad ass cause to begin with. And of course it is simple proof you have no clue about the proper function of a clock. |
#503
|
|||
|
|||
Michelson and Morley experiment
On Sun, 28 Sep 2008 21:02:54 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote: Dr. Henri Wilson skrev: On Fri, 26 Sep 2008 12:03:42 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" wrote: Dr. Henri Wilson wrote: On Fri, 26 Sep 2008 11:08:06 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" wrote: Spaceman wrote: Paul B. Andersen wrote: I am asking you to use Newtonian laws and forces to predict the clock fault of a Cs beam clock when it is launched into GPS orbit. Paul, prediction of the clock fault is not the important factor, The fact it is malfunctioning is the important factor. So when you wrote: "And when one uses Newtonian laws and forces every single clock fault can be predicted." You were bluffing, right? WHAT IS THE ACCURACY OF THE MICROWAVE OSCILLATOR? How might it change in free fall? THE MICROWAVE OSCILLATOR is a VCO. How might a VCO change in free fall? :-) The question is ridiculous and reveals your ignorance. Hint: feedback loop, phase locked loop Are you aware of what a minute phase shift in a positive feedback loop can do to its resonating frequency? The question is ridiculous and reveals your ignorance. I didn't think you would know anything about this. Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T) www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm. Einstein: the greatest hoaxer since 'virgin' mary |
#504
|
|||
|
|||
Michelson and Morley experiment
On Sun, 28 Sep 2008 21:16:59 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote: Spaceman skrev: Paul B. Andersen wrote: Spaceman wrote: Paul B. Andersen wrote: I am asking you to use Newtonian laws and forces to predict the clock fault of a Cs beam clock when it is launched into GPS orbit. Paul, prediction of the clock fault is not the important factor, The fact it is malfunctioning is the important factor. So when you wrote: "And when one uses Newtonian laws and forces every single clock fault can be predicted." You were bluffing, right? I never said I would do such so there was never a bluff Yet, I have seen it done and the real point is finding the clock problem. So where have you seen that Newtonian laws and forces are used to predict the clock fault of a Cs beam clock when it is launched into GPS orbit? You are bluffing again, right? Dr. Fred Bloggs sits on the launch pad watching the ISS through his telescope. His cesium clock is ticking away next to him, emitting N ticks per orbit of the ISS. Fred now sticks his clock in a rocket, lights the fuse and ....whooosh! up she goes to join the ISS. Fred continues to receive ticks from his clock by radio. He notices that it now emits N+n ticks per ISS orbit. "That's funny", thinks Fred. "For some reason, sending the clock into free fall must have caused it to change its rate. My counter certainly hasn't changed and neither has the ISS orbit." "Damn! The clock must be malfunctioning." Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T) www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm. Einstein: the greatest hoaxer since 'virgin' mary |
#505
|
|||
|
|||
Michelson and Morley experiment
Dr. Henri Wilson wrote:
On Sun, 28 Sep 2008 21:16:59 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" wrote: Spaceman skrev: Paul B. Andersen wrote: Spaceman wrote: Paul B. Andersen wrote: I am asking you to use Newtonian laws and forces to predict the clock fault of a Cs beam clock when it is launched into GPS orbit. Paul, prediction of the clock fault is not the important factor, The fact it is malfunctioning is the important factor. So when you wrote: "And when one uses Newtonian laws and forces every single clock fault can be predicted." You were bluffing, right? I never said I would do such so there was never a bluff Yet, I have seen it done and the real point is finding the clock problem. So where have you seen that Newtonian laws and forces are used to predict the clock fault of a Cs beam clock when it is launched into GPS orbit? You are bluffing again, right? Dr. Fred Bloggs sits on the launch pad watching the ISS through his telescope. His cesium clock is ticking away next to him, emitting N ticks per orbit of the ISS. Fred now sticks his clock in a rocket, lights the fuse and ....whooosh! up she goes to join the ISS. Fred continues to receive ticks from his clock by radio. He notices that it now emits N+n ticks per ISS orbit. "That's funny", thinks Fred. "For some reason, sending the clock into free fall must have caused it to change its rate. My counter certainly hasn't changed and neither has the ISS orbit." "Damn! The clock must be malfunctioning." Dr Fred Bloggs then thinks, I wonder what caused that clock to "change the physical rate of it's ticker". I know clocks can not change thier own rates when the only method they have to do such is a human adjustable method that would change that rate physically by lowering the force or energy fed to the clock. AHA he screams! Gravity has less force up there and more force down here, so it must simply take less energy or force to run the clock up there, but because I have not given it less energy, it "ticks" faster. Then he says, Dang that Newton guy was smart.. his stuff can make sense of anything when you actually think about it. Then Dr Fred Bloggs takes the Einstein books he had and uses them for fuel to heat his house in winter and save a bit on the oil bill and buys more books about Newton. |
#506
|
|||
|
|||
Michelson and Morley experiment
On Sep 28, 4:56*am, NoEinstein wrote:
On Sep 25, 5:56*pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote: On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 21:35:52 -0700 (PDT), NoEinstein wrote: On Sep 22, 7:24*pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote: On Mon, 22 Sep 2008 08:16:36 -0700 (PDT), NoEinstein wrote: On Sep 22, 4:25*am, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote: On Sun, 21 Sep 2008 18:36:26 -0700 (PDT), NoEinstein wrote: On Sep 20, 9:13*pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote: On Sat, 20 Sep 2008 15:11:31 -0700 (PDT), NoEinstein wrote: Dear Henri: *You are vainly trying to expand a simple experiment to make it be absurd. *Just accept that most dropped object experiments are below 500 feet, not out to 50 miles. * NoEinstein I realise that you have no scientific or mathematical ability but it is a plain fact that in the braoad sense falling objects usually come from virtual infinity. If you want me to do the simple math I will...but in the meantime I will watch you squirm. Dear Henri: *You keep trying to escape by expanding the experiment to the absurd. *Get some objectivity, or quite wasting everyone's time. NoEinstein Nibrain, you obviously have no idea what I'm talking about. Earth to Henri; Earth to Henri... *Come back down! * NoEinstein I guess you have never even heard of calculus. Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T) www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm. Einstein: the greatest hoaxer since 'virgin' mary- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Dear Henri: *Without referring to any texts, I invented calculus in the 9th grade to figure the area of a circle circumscribed by a square. Really? Please show me the development of calculus from this idea. *But since the invention of the calculator, values can be obtained from trial and error to within the accuracy needed in most engineering. *And the latter process removes the chance of errors caused by simply getting that calculus equation wrong. * NoEinstein |
#507
|
|||
|
|||
Michelson and Morley experiment
On Sep 28, 4:34*am, NoEinstein wrote:
On Sep 25, 12:47*am, PD wrote: On Sep 24, 11:31*pm, NoEinstein wrote: On Sep 22, 2:40*pm, PD wrote: On Sep 22, 9:54*am, NoEinstein wrote: On Sep 21, 11:07*pm, PD wrote: On Sep 21, 9:06*pm, NoEinstein wrote: On Sep 21, 4:17*pm, PD wrote: On Sep 20, 5:14*pm, NoEinstein wrote: On Sep 18, 11:39*pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote: On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 15:39:26 -0700 (PDT), NoEinstein wrote: On Sep 18, 12:10*am, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote: On Wed, 17 Sep 2008 20:37:15 -0700 (PDT), NoEinstein wrote: On Sep 17, 2:15*am, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote: On Tue, 16 Sep 2008 18:05:37 -0700 (PDT), NoEinstein wrote: Dear Henri: The entire chapter on mechanics in physics texts is wrong except for defining work as force times distance. *I won't try to convince you, because your approval isn't necessary.. * I doubt if you will ever convince me or anyone else of anything. All in all, I'd say your ideas concerning the Universe are 10% right, 90% wrong. *Who would invite you to a "tea party"? * NoEinstein I'm rarely wrong, Nilbrain. 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. Dear Henri: *Please edify the many readers with the following: List ten simple statements about what you believe the correct laws of physic are which govern the universe. * NoEinstein Most readers here are incapable of being edified. 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: *OK. *So, you really don't have a position on how the Universe works. *Can you write even THREE things that you believe to be true about physics which aren't status quo? * NoEinstein And this is a measure of what? What does this accomplish, saying three things you believe are true and aren't status quo? What do you demonstrate by having those three things? PD- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Dear PD: Most research papers have Abstracts. *Writing three sentences of the gist of a paper isn't too much to ask. *And I don't even require that there be a paper to follow. * NoEinstein Research that is just abstract isn't published. And very little research is stating anything that people just "believe are true" but are also carefully and explicitly demonstrated in gory detail. What you've asked for, and what you do, is "pretend physics", just doing a little costume-jewelry and improvised impersonations of what you think physics is. I have no idea why you would attempt such a charade among people who know better. What do you get out of it?- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Dear PD: *OK, then. *Please write three sentences stating positions of yours in science which differ from the status quo garbage. *And provide links to the more detailed proofs... BEYOND the Abstract. Note: The latter is your own requirement; so meet it! * NoEinstein And this is a measure of what? What does this accomplish, saying three things you believe are true and aren't status quo? What do you demonstrate by having those three things? PD- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Dear PD: *If you don't disagree with the status quo, somewhere, you simply aren't thinking for yourself. I don't attempt to disagree with the status quo when the status quo is amply backed up by experimental observations. That appears to be a pointless exercises in contrariness with disregard for the truth. I see no better value in being original and wrong, over unoriginal and right. Fortunately, there is ample ground where there is active investigation where there IS NO status quo, and where the experimental evidence is sketchy or is begging to be obtained. However, knowing where that ground is does require some knowledge about what ground has been covered. Now, NoEinstein, if you spent a little more time learning what ground has been covered and where being counter to the status quo would simply be foolish, then you would also learn where there is fertile new ground to explore. *If you can figure out how to form that ceiling, you should be making a contribution in other areas, too. * NoEinstein - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Dear PD: *Spending any more time on what ground has been covered, when the results of those "experiments" is counterintuitive, is the process by which gullible people become favored in science. This is *precisely* where you run aground. Scientists do not filter experimental results by whether they are reconcilable with intuition, rejecting those that are counterintuitive. That is unmitigated scientific fraud, and selection of data to support a preconceived conclusion. It is the WORST practice possible in science. *Science should be new and vital, not "locked-in" because those who "profess" to know were too lazy, or too dumb to question the counterintuitive. If one's badge of intellect is just how complex one's specialty is, the counterintuitive tends to become the "religion" of choice. *I've embraced the Scientific Method and disproved the "logic" behind the majority of mechanics. *And in so doing, I have disproved Einstein's theories of relativity. *If I had been a "complexity rules" person, those things would never have happened. * NoEinstein |
#508
|
|||
|
|||
Michelson and Morley experiment
On Sep 28, 4:47*am, NoEinstein wrote:
On Sep 25, 8:34*am, PD wrote: On Sep 24, 11:31*pm, NoEinstein wrote: On Sep 22, 2:40*pm, PD wrote: On Sep 22, 9:54*am, NoEinstein wrote: On Sep 21, 11:07*pm, PD wrote: On Sep 21, 9:06*pm, NoEinstein wrote: On Sep 21, 4:17*pm, PD wrote: On Sep 20, 5:14*pm, NoEinstein wrote: On Sep 18, 11:39*pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote: On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 15:39:26 -0700 (PDT), NoEinstein wrote: On Sep 18, 12:10*am, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote: On Wed, 17 Sep 2008 20:37:15 -0700 (PDT), NoEinstein wrote: On Sep 17, 2:15*am, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote: On Tue, 16 Sep 2008 18:05:37 -0700 (PDT), NoEinstein wrote: Dear Henri: The entire chapter on mechanics in physics texts is wrong except for defining work as force times distance. *I won't try to convince you, because your approval isn't necessary.. * I doubt if you will ever convince me or anyone else of anything. All in all, I'd say your ideas concerning the Universe are 10% right, 90% wrong. *Who would invite you to a "tea party"? * NoEinstein I'm rarely wrong, Nilbrain. 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. Dear Henri: *Please edify the many readers with the following: List ten simple statements about what you believe the correct laws of physic are which govern the universe. * NoEinstein Most readers here are incapable of being edified. 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: *OK. *So, you really don't have a position on how the Universe works. *Can you write even THREE things that you believe to be true about physics which aren't status quo? * NoEinstein And this is a measure of what? What does this accomplish, saying three things you believe are true and aren't status quo? What do you demonstrate by having those three things? PD- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Dear PD: Most research papers have Abstracts. *Writing three sentences of the gist of a paper isn't too much to ask. *And I don't even require that there be a paper to follow. * NoEinstein Research that is just abstract isn't published. And very little research is stating anything that people just "believe are true" but are also carefully and explicitly demonstrated in gory detail. What you've asked for, and what you do, is "pretend physics", just doing a little costume-jewelry and improvised impersonations of what you think physics is. I have no idea why you would attempt such a charade among people who know better. What do you get out of it?- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Dear PD: *OK, then. *Please write three sentences stating positions of yours in science which differ from the status quo garbage. *And provide links to the more detailed proofs... BEYOND the Abstract. Note: The latter is your own requirement; so meet it! * NoEinstein And this is a measure of what? What does this accomplish, saying three things you believe are true and aren't status quo? What do you demonstrate by having those three things? PD- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Dear PD: *If you don't disagree with the status quo, somewhere, you simply aren't thinking for yourself. *If you can figure out how to form that ceiling, you should be making a contribution in other areas, too. * NoEinstein A second comment on this. IF (and it's a big IF) it were claimed that everything were figured out by science, then the only place to be original would be to re- question something already established. But this isn't claimed at all. There are LOTS of places where science knows very little, if anything, and so there is plenty of opportunity to dig new ground. If you were a gold prospector, and IF it were claimed that all the gold in the world had already been dug up, then the place to dig might be where someone else had already dug. But since there are lots of places where gold hasn't been mined for, choosing to dig in a mine that has already been spent is a foolish way to look for gold. But to be a decent prospector, you'd need to learn where the *unexplored* places are, and which of these places is most likely to yield gold. You are looking for gold by poking your shovel in places where the gold has already been mined out. And in fact, a good number of places where there are no mine shafts may have already been considered and dismissed because of their knowledge about where gold is likely not to be found. But there are much better places that are still untapped where there is ample gold to be found. PD- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Dear PD: *Most science publications favor those "new" areas of science whereof so little is known that nothing in the status quo will get shaken up. Where little is known is where the interesting action is, and this is where people of *all* backgrounds are welcome to contribute with new ideas, especially testable ideas. And in fact, this is the area where there is the *most* cross-disciplinary activity, not limited to physicists at all. *In effect, such publications become clearing houses for what can be shown to be science truths. *Anytime old things are shown to be wrong, the years of past articles by those publications make then look truly dumb. * What's your objective? To find new truth or to make scientists look dumb. You have the opportunity to choose to work in an exciting area, but you choose only to work in a more established area, with the hope of making scientists look truly dumb. Why??? The problem with science is: The egos of those who supported the status quo keep preventing those people from acknowledging any new science truths. *22 of our nation's universities don't think it is "important" to teach students that Einstein was wrong. Well, he certainly was wrong about a number of things -- we know this already. Why is it so important to you to focus in on Einstein and show that he was wrong? What is it about him that concentrates your effort on him? (Keep in mind that you say it's Einstein, but you've been trying to critique all the physics that was done 200 years BEFORE Einstein published anything. So it's not clear that you're trying to show it important that *Einstein* was wrong so much as showing that *everyone* in physics has been wrong about *everything*. And for that end, I would ask you why it's so important to you to try to discredit a whole field? *Theres just too much infrastructure in place that must be protected. *Higher education, from such universities, isn't worth the cost of the paper and gold seals on the diplomas. * NoEinstein What precisely is to be gained from the wholescale elimination of higher education, NoEinstein, other than easing your sensitivity about your lack of having one? PD |
#509
|
|||
|
|||
Michelson and Morley experiment
On Sun, 28 Sep 2008 17:24:56 -0400, "Spaceman"
wrote: Dr. Henri Wilson wrote: On Sun, 28 Sep 2008 21:16:59 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" wrote: Spaceman skrev: Paul B. Andersen wrote: Spaceman wrote: Paul B. Andersen wrote: I am asking you to use Newtonian laws and forces to predict the clock fault of a Cs beam clock when it is launched into GPS orbit. Paul, prediction of the clock fault is not the important factor, The fact it is malfunctioning is the important factor. So when you wrote: "And when one uses Newtonian laws and forces every single clock fault can be predicted." You were bluffing, right? I never said I would do such so there was never a bluff Yet, I have seen it done and the real point is finding the clock problem. So where have you seen that Newtonian laws and forces are used to predict the clock fault of a Cs beam clock when it is launched into GPS orbit? You are bluffing again, right? Dr. Fred Bloggs sits on the launch pad watching the ISS through his telescope. His cesium clock is ticking away next to him, emitting N ticks per orbit of the ISS. Fred now sticks his clock in a rocket, lights the fuse and ....whooosh! up she goes to join the ISS. Fred continues to receive ticks from his clock by radio. He notices that it now emits N+n ticks per ISS orbit. "That's funny", thinks Fred. "For some reason, sending the clock into free fall must have caused it to change its rate. My counter certainly hasn't changed and neither has the ISS orbit." "Damn! The clock must be malfunctioning." Dr Fred Bloggs then thinks, I wonder what caused that clock to "change the physical rate of it's ticker". I know clocks can not change thier own rates when the only method they have to do such is a human adjustable method that would change that rate physically by lowering the force or energy fed to the clock. AHA he screams! Gravity has less force up there and more force down here, so it must simply take less energy or force to run the clock up there, but because I have not given it less energy, it "ticks" faster. Then he says, Dang that Newton guy was smart.. his stuff can make sense of anything when you actually think about it. Then Dr Fred Bloggs takes the Einstein books he had and uses them for fuel to heat his house in winter and save a bit on the oil bill and buys more books about Newton. The EPG seems to think that a 'tuned' microwave oscillator that energises the thing that is supposed to tune it...ie., a cesium spectral line...cannot alter the actual energy levels involved in producing that spectral line. It is very possible that the line itself DOES vary very slightly due to both the excitation process and gravity/magnetic field changes. Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T) www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm. Einstein: the greatest hoaxer since 'virgin' mary |
#510
|
|||
|
|||
Michelson and Morley experiment
On Sep 28, 9:38 am, "James Space****"
wrote: Dono wrote: James, You mean that you have been an inmate at the Andover Mass Hospital for the Mentally Insane for the last 3 years? Must be much longer than that, Space****. You were BORN inside the ward! Dear Dono, It is amazing how you even need to make up non existant hospitals now. So, Space**** What is the exact name of the lunatic asylum you reside? :-) |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
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 |