|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Michelson and Morley experiment
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. 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. Divine Albert said that, when the travelling clock returns, its hands occupy different positions (compared with the hands of the clock at rest). Now that's what I call a PHYSICALLY different clock. I think it would be rather foolish to call it that. Two cars travel from Sofia to Varna, Bulgaria. One car's odometer reads 468 km, and the other car's odometer reads 497 km, when they meet again in Varna. They of course did not travel side-by-side. Now, do you conclude from the fact that they have different readings that the odometers are now (or ever were) physically different from each other? http://fr.youtube.com/watch?v=4vuW6tQ0218 "I'm not prepared to pursue my line of inquiry any longer as I think this is getting too silly!" Pentcho Valev I agree. It got quite silly when you said that two clocks that show a different reading when they meet again is an indicator that one of the clocks was now physically different. But, Clever Draper, if instead of clocks we discussed the famous twins, one would be younger than the other when they meet again (according to Divine Albert's Divine Idiocy). Would you claim again that "younger" does not imply "physically different"? The travelling clock is also "younger", Clever Draper (according to Divine Albert's Divine Idiocy). 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." 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. Pentcho Valev |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Michelson and Morley experiment
On Sep 10, 1:15*pm, PD wrote:
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. 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. Divine Albert said that, when the travelling clock returns, its hands occupy different positions (compared with the hands of the clock at rest). Now that's what I call a PHYSICALLY different clock. I think it would be rather foolish to call it that. Two cars travel from Sofia to Varna, Bulgaria. One car's odometer reads 468 km, and the other car's odometer reads 497 km, when they meet again in Varna. They of course did not travel side-by-side. Now, do you conclude from the fact that they have different readings that the odometers are now (or ever were) physically different from each other? http://fr.youtube.com/watch?v=4vuW6tQ0218 "I'm not prepared to pursue my line of inquiry any longer as I think this is getting too silly!" Pentcho Valev I agree. It got quite silly when you said that two clocks that show a different reading when they meet again is an indicator that one of the clocks was now physically different. But, Clever Draper, if instead of clocks we discussed the famous twins, one would be younger than the other when they meet again (according to Divine Albert's Divine Idiocy). Would you claim again that "younger" does not imply "physically different"? The travelling clock is also "younger", Clever Draper (according to Divine Albert's Divine Idiocy). 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." 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. Let me give you another example, Pentcho, something that Galileo would understand and hopefully you will too. A car is traveling, the front of the car pointed eastward to Belgrade, and it applies its brakes, changing its velocity by 50 km/hr. Now, in one reference frame, where a fire hydrant happens to be at rest, this small sequence of events is recorded as follows: The car is initially traveling at 80 km/hr to the east, applies its brakes, and ends up at 30 km/hr toward the east. The acceleration is in the direction opposite the initial velocity, obviously, and the kinetic energy has been reduced as a result of the application of the brakes. Now, in another reference frame, where a police cruiser happens to be at rest, this VERY SAME sequence of events is recorded as follows: The car is initially traveling at 10 km/hr to the west, applies its brakes, and ends up at 60 km/hr toward the west. The acceleration is in the *same* direction as the initial velocity, obviously, and the kinetic energy has been increased as a result of the application of the brakes. (It shouldn't surprise you that the police cruiser is traveling 90 km/ hr relative to the fire hydrant.) Now, if you think that something happened to the car from one or the other reference frame to change the relative orientation of the acceleration and initial velocity, or to change whether the kinetic energy increases or decreases, perhaps you can identify what that physical process was. Also keep in mind that what I just laid out for you is a completely Newtonian example, not a damn bit of Einsteinia in it. PD |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Michelson and Morley experiment
On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 05:16:30 -0700 (PDT), PD wrote:
On Sep 9, 9:17*pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote: On Tue, 9 Sep 2008 17:53:06 -0700 (PDT), PD wrote: On Sep 9, 5:56*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. Thus sayeth Henri Wilson, the Soothsayer. And why are electric and magnetic fields frame dependent? The fields themselves are NOT. Of course they are. It's been measured. The effects they have ARE. Fields are DEFINED in terms of the effects they have. Please refer to a freshman textbook. Fields exist whether or not they produce effects. Have you ever used iron filing to show 'lines of force' around a bar magnet? Do you really think the pattern changes every time a differently moving observer looks at them? Why, yes, the "lines of force" do change. This is documented. Diaper, get a bar magnet, some iron filings and a sheet of paper. Create some magnetic lines of force in the usual manner. Now run past the paper as quickly as you can and tell me whether or not the pattern changes as you run. I'm sick of trying to teach you basic physics, Diaper. Why don't you do a course? You mean, other than the ones I've taught? Which reference would you suggest I use for this course, Henri? Study psychology. You might find out why you love making such a fool of yourself. 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. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Michelson and Morley experiment
doug wrote:
Pentcho Valev wrote: On Sep 10, 4:23 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel" wrote: Pentcho Valev wrote in message On Sep 10, 3:50 pm, 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. Divine Albert said that, when the travelling clock returns, its hands occupy different positions (compared with the hands of the clock at rest). Now that's what I call a PHYSICALLY different clock. Paul said: "the rates of the clocks are identical". He did not say: "the hands of the clock at are identical". So, indeed, as I said, you don't understand the difference between rates and values. NO WAY OUT, PONCHO But, Clever Moortel, you are going to confuse even Clever Draper - I almost see his frustration. Just let him answer: Valev: "The travelling clock returns PHYSICALLY different from the clock at rest (according to Divine Albert's Divine Idiocy)." Clever Draper: "No, it doesn't." Clever Draper, if the hands of the travelling clock occupy different positions (compared with the hands of the clock at rest) when it returns, does this mean that the travelling clock returns PHYSICALLY different from the clock at rest? Pentcho Valev No. Why would you think so? Are you kiddin'? The clocks are physically different. The parts are still the same parts but the orientation changed. When an orientation of parts changes, the parts of the whole have changed position physically. That is a physical change. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Michelson and Morley experiment
doug wrote:
Spaceman wrote: doug wrote: Pentcho Valev wrote: On Sep 10, 4:23 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel" wrote: Pentcho Valev wrote in message On Sep 10, 3:50 pm, 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. Divine Albert said that, when the travelling clock returns, its hands occupy different positions (compared with the hands of the clock at rest). Now that's what I call a PHYSICALLY different clock. Paul said: "the rates of the clocks are identical". He did not say: "the hands of the clock at are identical". So, indeed, as I said, you don't understand the difference between rates and values. NO WAY OUT, PONCHO But, Clever Moortel, you are going to confuse even Clever Draper - I almost see his frustration. Just let him answer: Valev: "The travelling clock returns PHYSICALLY different from the clock at rest (according to Divine Albert's Divine Idiocy)." Clever Draper: "No, it doesn't." Clever Draper, if the hands of the travelling clock occupy different positions (compared with the hands of the clock at rest) when it returns, does this mean that the travelling clock returns PHYSICALLY different from the clock at rest? Pentcho Valev No. Why would you think so? Are you kiddin'? The clocks are physically different. The parts are still the same parts but the orientation changed. When an orientation of parts changes, the parts of the whole have changed position physically. That is a physical change. They may read different times but that does not make them changed physically. Why would you think that? Particularly in an electronic clock where there is no orientation of anything. They physically counted less "ticks" as you could call the periods that create a second. Physically less ticks is a physical difference. So with clocks that use decay rates it would be less physical decay for slower running clocks. That is "physical" difference. and that physical difference is caused by physical problems known about clocks ever since clocks were moved. And those problems are 100% newtonian. -- James M Driscoll Jr Creator of the Clock Malfunction Theory Spaceman |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Michelson and Morley experiment
Pentcho Valev wrote: On Sep 10, 4:23 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel" wrote: Pentcho Valev wrote in message On Sep 10, 3:50 pm, 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. Divine Albert said that, when the travelling clock returns, its hands occupy different positions (compared with the hands of the clock at rest). Now that's what I call a PHYSICALLY different clock. Paul said: "the rates of the clocks are identical". He did not say: "the hands of the clock at are identical". So, indeed, as I said, you don't understand the difference between rates and values. NO WAY OUT, PONCHO But, Clever Moortel, you are going to confuse even Clever Draper - I almost see his frustration. Just let him answer: Valev: "The travelling clock returns PHYSICALLY different from the clock at rest (according to Divine Albert's Divine Idiocy)." Clever Draper: "No, it doesn't." Clever Draper, if the hands of the travelling clock occupy different positions (compared with the hands of the clock at rest) when it returns, does this mean that the travelling clock returns PHYSICALLY different from the clock at rest? Pentcho Valev No. Why would you think so? |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Michelson and Morley experiment
Spaceman wrote: doug wrote: Pentcho Valev wrote: On Sep 10, 4:23 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel" wrote: Pentcho Valev wrote in message On Sep 10, 3:50 pm, 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. Divine Albert said that, when the travelling clock returns, its hands occupy different positions (compared with the hands of the clock at rest). Now that's what I call a PHYSICALLY different clock. Paul said: "the rates of the clocks are identical". He did not say: "the hands of the clock at are identical". So, indeed, as I said, you don't understand the difference between rates and values. NO WAY OUT, PONCHO But, Clever Moortel, you are going to confuse even Clever Draper - I almost see his frustration. Just let him answer: Valev: "The travelling clock returns PHYSICALLY different from the clock at rest (according to Divine Albert's Divine Idiocy)." Clever Draper: "No, it doesn't." Clever Draper, if the hands of the travelling clock occupy different positions (compared with the hands of the clock at rest) when it returns, does this mean that the travelling clock returns PHYSICALLY different from the clock at rest? Pentcho Valev No. Why would you think so? Are you kiddin'? The clocks are physically different. The parts are still the same parts but the orientation changed. When an orientation of parts changes, the parts of the whole have changed position physically. That is a physical change. They may read different times but that does not make them changed physically. Why would you think that? Particularly in an electronic clock where there is no orientation of anything. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Michelson and Morley experiment
Spaceman wrote: doug wrote: Spaceman wrote: doug wrote: Pentcho Valev wrote: On Sep 10, 4:23 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel" wrote: Pentcho Valev wrote in message On Sep 10, 3:50 pm, 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. Divine Albert said that, when the travelling clock returns, its hands occupy different positions (compared with the hands of the clock at rest). Now that's what I call a PHYSICALLY different clock. Paul said: "the rates of the clocks are identical". He did not say: "the hands of the clock at are identical". So, indeed, as I said, you don't understand the difference between rates and values. NO WAY OUT, PONCHO But, Clever Moortel, you are going to confuse even Clever Draper - I almost see his frustration. Just let him answer: Valev: "The travelling clock returns PHYSICALLY different from the clock at rest (according to Divine Albert's Divine Idiocy)." Clever Draper: "No, it doesn't." Clever Draper, if the hands of the travelling clock occupy different positions (compared with the hands of the clock at rest) when it returns, does this mean that the travelling clock returns PHYSICALLY different from the clock at rest? Pentcho Valev No. Why would you think so? Are you kiddin'? The clocks are physically different. The parts are still the same parts but the orientation changed. When an orientation of parts changes, the parts of the whole have changed position physically. That is a physical change. They may read different times but that does not make them changed physically. Why would you think that? Particularly in an electronic clock where there is no orientation of anything. They physically counted less "ticks" as you could call the periods that create a second. So? They saw less time. This has been experimentally verified every day. Physically less ticks is a physical difference. No, it means they saw less time. So with clocks that use decay rates it would be less physical decay for slower running clocks. Yes because they saw less time. That is "physical" difference. No, it means they saw less time. and that physical difference is caused by physical problems known about clocks ever since clocks were moved. No, there is no problem with the gps clocks, for example. They are working fine and repeatably. There are no moving parts in them either which you would know if you looked up what they do. And those problems are 100% newtonian. There are no problems with the clocks so they are not at all Newtonian issues. You hope that something is happening but it is not. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Michelson and Morley experiment
doug wrote:
Spaceman wrote: doug wrote: Spaceman wrote: doug wrote: Pentcho Valev wrote: On Sep 10, 4:23 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel" wrote: Pentcho Valev wrote in message On Sep 10, 3:50 pm, 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. Divine Albert said that, when the travelling clock returns, its hands occupy different positions (compared with the hands of the clock at rest). Now that's what I call a PHYSICALLY different clock. Paul said: "the rates of the clocks are identical". He did not say: "the hands of the clock at are identical". So, indeed, as I said, you don't understand the difference between rates and values. NO WAY OUT, PONCHO But, Clever Moortel, you are going to confuse even Clever Draper - I almost see his frustration. Just let him answer: Valev: "The travelling clock returns PHYSICALLY different from the clock at rest (according to Divine Albert's Divine Idiocy)." Clever Draper: "No, it doesn't." Clever Draper, if the hands of the travelling clock occupy different positions (compared with the hands of the clock at rest) when it returns, does this mean that the travelling clock returns PHYSICALLY different from the clock at rest? Pentcho Valev No. Why would you think so? Are you kiddin'? The clocks are physically different. The parts are still the same parts but the orientation changed. When an orientation of parts changes, the parts of the whole have changed position physically. That is a physical change. They may read different times but that does not make them changed physically. Why would you think that? Particularly in an electronic clock where there is no orientation of anything. They physically counted less "ticks" as you could call the periods that create a second. So? They saw less time. This has been experimentally verified every day. It has been verified that the clocks show different rates but... They did not "see" less time, the clocks simply malfunctioned. You really don't know how clocks work huh? Physically less ticks is a physical difference. No, it means they saw less time. No it means they malfunctioned in thier proper operation parameters. Again, you love to scream to the world that you are clueless about how clocks work. So with clocks that use decay rates it would be less physical decay for slower running clocks. Yes because they saw less time. That is "physical" difference. No, it means they saw less time. No they physically malfunctioned. This time you also proved you have no clue about physics nor clocks. and that physical difference is caused by physical problems known about clocks ever since clocks were moved. No, there is no problem with the gps clocks, for example. They are working fine and repeatably. There are no moving parts in them either which you would know if you looked up what they do. And those problems are 100% newtonian. There are no problems with the clocks so they are not at all Newtonian issues. You hope that something is happening but it is not. You are a total moron. The problems with the clocks are proven each and everyday in GPS, the GPS system has to remove the physical malfunctions of the clocks in order to work correctly at all. You have been brainwashed beyond help Doug. I suggest you learn how clocks work some year. Right now you are only proving your ignorance and your brainwashing. -- James M Driscoll Jr Creator of the Clock Malfunction Theory Spaceman |
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 |