|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#71
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#72
|
|||
|
|||
Michelson and Morley experiment
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 |
#73
|
|||
|
|||
Michelson and Morley experiment
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 |
#74
|
|||
|
|||
Michelson and Morley experiment
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 |
#75
|
|||
|
|||
Michelson and Morley experiment
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 |
#76
|
|||
|
|||
Michelson and Morley experiment
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. |
#77
|
|||
|
|||
Michelson and Morley experiment
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? |
#78
|
|||
|
|||
Michelson and Morley experiment
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? |
#79
|
|||
|
|||
Michelson and Morley experiment
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.....") |
#80
|
|||
|
|||
Michelson and Morley experiment
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 |
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 |