Michelson and Morley experiment

On Sep 12, 2:14*pm, doug wrote:
Spaceman wrote:
PD wrote:

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?

Hmm?
PD's common sense says the shortest physical distance between two points
is a curved line.
LOL
Looks like you lost the "common sense" war.
LOL

My common sense agrees with PD. You are outvoted. *Sorry.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Folks: If Doug agrees with PD, he is agreeing to take the antithesis
of any argument or proofs. That's how illiterates get to think that
they are superior. — NoEinstein —

On Sep 12, 1:51*pm, Xaustein wrote:
On 11 sep, 20:26, 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 —-

Spanish:

Prefiero el retardo en la propagación de la luz al atravesar un medio
transparente (propuesta por Fizeau en su experimento de 1851? y
recientemente comprobada por matemáticos italianos) que no el arrastre
del éter, propuesta que no presentó Fizeau pero que recordó que
Fresnel había propuesto,al analizar su experimento.

Los matemáticos italianos han demostrado que el retardo en la
propagación de la luz de Fizeau y el arrastre del éter del Fresnel son
más acordes uno con el otro que ambos con la propuesta de la suma de
velocidades de Lorentz.

Saludos

Inglish:

I prefer the delay in the propagation of light through a transparent
(proposed by Fizeau in its experiment in 1851? and recently verified
by mathematical Italian) that does not drag the of the ether, proposal
that no fizeau but recalled that Fresnel had proposed, to analyze your
experiment.

The mathematical Italians have shown that the delay in the propagation
of the light of Fizeau and drag the eter of Fresnel are more in line
with each other both with the proposal of the sum of speeds of
Lorentz.

Greetings- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Dear Xaustein: The simplest way to explain Fizeau is this: Both light
courses have equal distances of travel WITH and AGAINST the flow of
the fluid. Therefore, the effect of the fluid flow on the light
velocity cancels out. — NoEinstein —

On Sep 12, 2:46*pm, "harry"
wrote:
"doug" wrote in message

et...







Spaceman wrote:

harry wrote:

"doug" wrote in message
cknet...

harry wrote:

"Uncle Ben" wrote in message

....

On Sep 11, 8:33 am, PD wrote:

On Sep 11, 1:08 am, "harry"
wrote:

"PD" wrote in message

....

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.

[...]

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."

Thus you suggest that both odometers and both cars are physically

the same.

You would make a good car sales man...

Nothing physically happened to the odometer to change the rate at
which it records the passage of pathlength.

It is true that at the moment that the clocks are together, their
rates are the same. However, in all valid SRT frames one measures
that on the average, the one clock has slowed down on the other
one. And we tend to call that a "physical" change.

[...]

It's a demonstrated FACT that clocks DO record different times
depending on the path. It's the Newtonian assumption that something
must have happened to the clock to affect its rate that is now not
necessary.

See above: SRT uses Newtonian frames, and - as cited below - the
fact that acording to any valid measurement the average rate has
changed is called a "physical" effect.

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.

It's often just a matter of sound bites. However, if the mileage
of one car is considerably more I would not pay as much for it
since it has physically aged more. Similarly, if you had a twin
brother who suddenly gets white
hair - and you not - I would definitely ask him what on earth
happened to him (physically). Consequently, I agree with the
following remark:

"4. Physical Meaning [...] the clock moved from A to B lags
behind the other which has remained at B".
-http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

What? You mean that the clocks (mechanical, digital, atomic,
biological, etc.) do not necessarily "malfunction"? *What a relief!

What's the theory of "malfunctioning" ? I never heard of that one.
;-)

Cheers,
Harald
Uncle Ben

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.

Ah you probably mean Spaceman. That sounds like the Special Theory of
Malfunctioning! :-)
Note: if it makes the exact same predictions as SRT, then it is for
all practical purpose indistinguishable from it and what remains is
just an argument about choice of words.

At least you get that Harry!
Bravo and I am glad yet another person that can think for himself
show up around here.
I should say Welcome to the group..
and...
Actually, the clock malfunction theory matches all clocks and
relativity fails on large tickers in orientations that the malfunction
can not be explained by relativty alone without actually falling
back on newton.
But.. the clock malfunction theory only needs Newtonian laws to prove
the malfunctions in every single clock.

In other words, you divide the real results by some random number which
spaceman magically chooses to give his answer then, amazingly enough,
you get his answer. *That is not the way science is done.

Indeed: if that's what he means, then it's simply No Good. He should be able
to correctly predict results, as SRT does.

Harald- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Dear Harry: Which result is correctly predicted by SR? Has any
Earthling ever traveled at velocities approaching 'c' to "see" if 'c'
is the maximum? — NoEinstein —

On Sep 12, 3:56*pm, Xaustein wrote:
On 11 sep, 23:07, 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

En Español:

Para demostrar la existencia del éter y sus efectos sobre la materia
solamente basta un péndulo de 50 metros de longitud que permita medir
la aceleración de la gravedad en un punto de la superficie terrestre
con una precisión de una parte entre 10.000.

Saludos.

Inglish:

To demonstrate the existence of the ether and its effects on the
matter just a pendulum 50 metres in length that supports the
acceleration of gravity in a point of the Earth's surface with an
accuracy of a party between 10,000.

Greetings- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Dear Xaustein: My disproving SR, by determining that M-M simply lacks
a CONTROL, didn't prove that there IS an ether. What it did was to
reinstate ether as a possible aspect of nature. From there, I have
REASONED that ether exists. That's because such a medium——having
varying density and flow——can account for every single observation in
science. Ether is the STUFF that matter is made of, and the STUFF
that accounts for all of the forces observed in nature! — NoEinstein —

On Sep 12, 5:33*pm, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:
NoEinstein wrote:
Dear PD: *For you... "A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous
thing." *— NoEinstein —

So that's why you won't risk to acquire some?

--
Paul

http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/

Dear Paul: My secret is that I didn't just accept the status quo
explanations. I have questioned everything. But I was also open to
everything, possibly, being right. In reasoning, locking-in any one
thing can bias the understanding of other things. As the result of my
invalidating M-M (no CONTROL), I was able to test the idea that ether
is the building block of the Universe. And that idea fits! —
NoEinstein —

NoEinstein wrote:
On Sep 12, 11:52 am, "Spaceman"
wrote:
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?

Dear Spaceman: Cesium clocks are like "atomic" versions of Bulova
Accutron watches. Those had tuning forks that hummed so many times
per second. The cesium atoms are vibrating, too. The frequency is so
high, and so consistent, that under steady state conditions those make
wonderfully accurate clocks. But moving those cesium atoms into the
ether that flows to the Earth as gravity, puts a pressure on the
cesium atoms and SLOWS their speed of vibration. Since the solid
state devices for changing the clocks’ seconds has the vibrations it
counts being slowed, then the INDICATED time slows, but NOT time
itself. Cesium clocks are DEVICES. Time itself keeps going,
uniformly, because there is no device involved! — NoEinstein —

I have no argument about that and it also supports my
clock malfunction theory.
I think it is a much more "physical" cause than anything relativity
has to offer.


--
James M Driscoll Jr
Creator of the Clock Malfunction Theory
Spaceman

On Sep 12, 7:46*pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Fri, 12 Sep 2008 06:53:11 -0700 (PDT), NoEinstein
wrote:





On Sep 11, 7:28*pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
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 —

I don't want to be accused of bull****ting....

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: The safest way to do that would be to stop arguing, and
to start agreeing more! — NoEinstein —

NoEinstein wrote:

On Sep 12, 12:44 pm, doug wrote:

Spaceman 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 —

True,
Thanks for the kick to wake me up.


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?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


Folks: Doug is a persona non grata. — NoEinstein —

So you are answering for spaceman now?

NoEinstein wrote:

On Sep 12, 11:52 am, "Spaceman"
wrote:

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?


Dear Spaceman: Cesium clocks are like "atomic" versions of Bulova
Accutron watches. Those had tuning forks that hummed so many times
per second. The cesium atoms are vibrating, too. The frequency is so
high, and so consistent, that under steady state conditions those make
wonderfully accurate clocks. But moving those cesium atoms into the
ether that flows to the Earth as gravity, puts a pressure on the
cesium atoms and SLOWS their speed of vibration. Since the solid
state devices for changing the clocks’ seconds has the vibrations it
counts being slowed, then the INDICATED time slows, but NOT time
itself. Cesium clocks are DEVICES. Time itself keeps going,
uniformly, because there is no device involved! — NoEinstein —

Add to the list one more thing that you do not understand. There
is this nice web site which lets you look things up--it is called
google. Try it, you might like it.

NoEinstein wrote:

On Sep 12, 12:21 pm, PD wrote:

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.....")


Dear PD: CORRECTION: The reason I must 'say' Doug is a person non
grata is so that new readers of this group will know that I have
responded, but at the level that's apt for Doug's questionable
mentality and psychic condition. — NoEinstein —

You really hate it when we point our your elementary mistakes.
You need to work on that mental issue.