Michelson and Morley experiment

Spaceman wrote:

doug wrote:

Spaceman wrote:


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?



No, the assignment was for you to explain how cesium clocks
work. Do you want a lesson in how to use Google?


Why don't you use Google to tell me what is "not moving"
that is being counted to measure time in the cesium clock?



Don't worry, if you go to Google, they have instructions on
how to use it. Let us know what you find.

On Sep 12, 1:19*pm, doug wrote:
Spaceman wrote:
doug wrote:

Spaceman wrote:

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?

No, the assignment was for you to explain how cesium clocks
work. *Do you want a lesson in how to use Google?

Why don't you use Google to tell me what is "not moving"
that is being counted to measure time in the cesium clock?


Don't worry, if you go to Google, they have instructions on
how to use it. *Let us know what you find.

The instructions are printed on the bottom of the heel.
Oh never mind, the last time he was asked to pour water out of a boot,
that hint didn't help then, either.

PD

"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

harry wrote:
"doug" wrote in message
et...


Spaceman wrote:

harry wrote:

"doug" wrote in message
et...


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.

That is not what I mean.
There is no magical choice at all nor random numbers of such
magical choice.
And The results match SRT and that is why I have so many
relativity church "fans" following me around here now
screaming heratic!

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

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/

On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 16:56:13 -0700 (PDT), 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:


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?

Well, unfortunately we have been taught that fields acan only be defined in
terms of the forces they exert.
Raise your mind a little Diaper and you will realize that fields must exist as
distinct entities about which we know virtually nothing.

Do you agree that a 'moving electron and a moving observer' is the same as
'stationary electron and a moving observer'?

Sorry, obvious typo. Should be:
Do you agree that a 'moving electron and a stationary 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?

The fact that 'empty space carrying a field' is not the same as 'empty space
devoid of fields'.


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.

Classical physics was doing well till Einstein reared his ugly head.


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.

You give the impression you think you know everything, Diaper.

I'm certainly curious what answers you think you have about classical
electrostatics.

I don't have the answers but I can at least identify the questions.

I have previously speculated about fields being somehow related to 'mass of a
second dimension' which is invisible to us.

PD



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.

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.

PD wrote:

On Sep 12, 1:19 pm, doug wrote:

Spaceman wrote:

doug wrote:

Spaceman wrote:

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?

No, the assignment was for you to explain how cesium clocks
work. Do you want a lesson in how to use Google?

Why don't you use Google to tell me what is "not moving"
that is being counted to measure time in the cesium clock?


Don't worry, if you go to Google, they have instructions on
how to use it. Let us know what you find.


The instructions are printed on the bottom of the heel.
Oh never mind, the last time he was asked to pour water out of a boot,
that hint didn't help then, either.

PD

You should probably explain it in more detail for him. He looked
and did not find them. But he did think of an experiment to
determine that they would not be where relativity said they were.

On Sep 12, 6:45*pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 16:56:13 -0700 (PDT), 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:

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?

Well, unfortunately we have been taught that fields acan only be defined in
terms of the forces they exert.

Well, unfortunately you make stuff up as you go along, as though that
is a good idea.

Raise your mind a little Diaper and you will realize that fields must exist as
distinct entities about which we know virtually nothing.

Well, YOU certainly know virtually nothing about them. Don't know who
you think "we" are.


Do you agree that a 'moving electron and a moving observer' is the same as
'stationary electron and a moving observer'?

Sorry, obvious typo. Should be:
Do you agree that a 'moving electron and a stationary observer' is the same as
'stationary electron and a moving observer'?

No, because I don't know what "moving observer" means. Moving relative
to what? Another observer? Who's observing the observer to be moving?




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?

The fact that 'empty space carrying a field' is not the same as 'empty space
devoid of fields'.

And where does a field stop, Henri? What marks the boundary between a
region with a field and region with no field?

And what is this "true field" that you don't detect by its effects,
Henri?

And I see that you have a problem with electrostatics as well as
relativity. Do you have a problem with the conservation of angular
momentum too?


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.

Classical physics was doing well till Einstein reared his ugly head.

Was it? What about this field notion that was around for
electrostatics for quite a while before Einstein that you think wasn't
going well at all?




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.

You give the impression you think you know everything, Diaper.

Certainly not intended. There's lots I don't know a thing about.
Botany, for instance.
Relativity, I know a little more about.


I'm certainly curious what answers you think you have about classical
electrostatics.

I don't have the answers but I can at least identify the questions.

You certainly think you have a fix on "true fields" that are distinct
from measured fields.


I have previously speculated about fields being somehow related to 'mass of a
second dimension' which is invisible to us.

Speculation is easy. It's like writing science fiction for a 5th grade
creative writing class.


PD

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.