Michelson and Morley experiment

NoEinstein wrote:

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 —

No, sorry, we outvoted you. That is the end of that.

Spaceman wrote:

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.


Thank you for demonstrating that you have no clue how cesium clocks
work.

On Sep 14, 8:42*pm, 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.

Um, no. That is not how a cesium clock works. Try again.
You could consider looking it up rather than just making things up.

*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 —

On Sep 14, 8:46*pm, 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,

Why do readers of the group have to know that you have responded?
Why do you feel you have to respond?
Don't you voice you're opinion that he's not worth responding to by
NOT responding?

("No... Must... Have... Last... Word.... Must.... Have....")

but at the level that's apt for Doug's questionable
mentality and psychic condition. *— NoEinstein —

On Sep 14, 8:51*pm, NoEinstein wrote:
On Sep 12, 12:23*pm, 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?

PD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Dear PD: All common sense should be in agreement!

But it's demonstrably not. This is why people do not agree on
politics, on morals, on art, or in how to raise children. All people
would claim they use clear thinking to arrive at vastly different
positions. In politics, there is no way to determine which of these
vastly different positions is in fact the truth, and so we devise
(here) a rule based on majority vote to decide.

Science uses a different rule where common sense does not lead to
agreement. Do you know what that rule is?

Common sense isn't
sides of issues to be argued, but the realization that simple. clear
thinking trumps the counterintuitive and "difficult to be understood"
things in physics. — NoEinstein —

On Sep 14, 8:55*pm, NoEinstein wrote:
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 —

No one is claiming to be superior to you, NoEinstein. Lack of
expertise in a particular area does not make you inferior. It makes
you inexpert in that area. That is not something to be ashamed of.

*Pretending* to be expert in an area where you are inexpert, however
--- that is something that just about everyone would be ashamed of.

PD

On Sep 14, 9:25*pm, NoEinstein wrote:
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 —

In other words, it's not about being right, it's about taking sides?

PD

On Sep 14, 9:24*pm, "Spaceman"
wrote:
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.

It's a pity you have no argument about something that is flatly wrong.

I think it is a much more "physical" cause than anything relativity
has to offer.

Yes, I understand your position. Anything that *sounds* "physical" HAS
to be more right than relativity. Whether it's right or not.



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

PD wrote:
On Sep 14, 9:24 pm, "Spaceman"
wrote:
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.

It's a pity you have no argument about something that is flatly wrong.

It is only wrong to people like you that have memorized a bunch of
math and terms but never really understood them nor why parts of the
stuff you memorized is wrong.

On Sep 15, 10:45*am, "Spaceman"
wrote:
PD wrote:
On Sep 14, 9:24 pm, "Spaceman"
wrote:
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.

It's a pity you have no argument about something that is flatly wrong.

It is only wrong to people like you that have memorized a bunch of
math and terms but never really understood them nor why parts of the
stuff you memorized is wrong.

Inventing how a cesium clock works in your mind (because it sounds
plausible to you) is no substitute for knowing how it really works. If
you think that looking at schematics and papers describing the
operation of a cesium clock is "memorizing a bunch of math and terms"
and that the only way to understand how things work is to make up how
you think it must be, then this explains a whole lot, Spaceman.

You are using what Henry Hill called the "Think Method".

The character Henry Hill is a con man, Spaceman.

PD