|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Michelson and Morley experiment
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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Michelson and Morley experiment
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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Michelson and Morley experiment
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), the 80m long pole is safely trapped inside the 40m long barn, and yet you teach that "there is no physical process acting on the object to effect that change". This could be called "Zombie mythology in Einstein criminal cult". Your Masters have a totally different mythology, Clever Draper: http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...6223442453e80d Pentcho Valev |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Michelson and Morley experiment
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. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Michelson and Morley experiment
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? 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. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Michelson and Morley experiment
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. 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. and yet you teach that "there is no physical process acting on the object to effect that change". This could be called "Zombie mythology in Einstein criminal cult". Your Masters have a totally different mythology, Clever Draper: http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...sg/c5622344245... Pentcho Valev |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Michelson and Morley experiment
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. The effects they have ARE. 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? I'm sick of trying to teach you basic physics, Diaper. Why don't you do a course? 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. 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. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Michelson and Morley experiment
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. 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. 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? |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Michelson and Morley experiment
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 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. and yet you teach that "there is no physical process acting on the object to effect that change". This could be called "Zombie mythology in Einstein criminal cult". Your Masters have a totally different mythology, Clever Draper: http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...sg/c5622344245... Pentcho Valev - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Michelson and Morley experiment
|
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 |