Michelson and Morley experiment

Spaceman skrev:
Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Spaceman wrote:
Paul B. Andersen wrote:
I am asking you to use Newtonian laws and forces to predict
the clock fault of a Cs beam clock when it is launched
into GPS orbit.
Paul,
prediction of the clock fault is not the important factor,
The fact it is malfunctioning is the important factor.
So when you wrote:
"And when one uses Newtonian laws and forces every
single clock fault can be predicted."

You were bluffing, right?

I never said I would do such so there was never a bluff
Yet, I have seen it done and the real point is finding the clock
problem.

So where have you seen that Newtonian laws and forces are used
to predict the clock fault of a Cs beam clock when it is launched
into GPS orbit?

You are bluffing again, right?

--
Paul

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

Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Spaceman skrev:
Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Spaceman wrote:
Paul B. Andersen wrote:
I am asking you to use Newtonian laws and forces to predict
the clock fault of a Cs beam clock when it is launched
into GPS orbit.
Paul,
prediction of the clock fault is not the important factor,
The fact it is malfunctioning is the important factor.
So when you wrote:
"And when one uses Newtonian laws and forces every
single clock fault can be predicted."

You were bluffing, right?

I never said I would do such so there was never a bluff
Yet, I have seen it done and the real point is finding the clock
problem.

So where have you seen that Newtonian laws and forces are used
to predict the clock fault of a Cs beam clock when it is launched
into GPS orbit?

It was actually here in sci.physics but I admit I do not rememember who
posted it.

The main fact is still that the clock has malfunctioned and the malfunction
can not be caused by the "time" itself since time is an abstract function
of the clock.

If a thermometer changes temperature is it the temperature that
actually changed the temperature?
If ruler changed physical length, is it the ruler that changed it's own
length
and nothing else phsyical caused it?

The problem you don't see for some brainwashed reason is that a
"time changing rate" is caused by time changing rate is a sad ass cause to
begin
with.

And of course it is simple proof you have no clue about the proper function
of a clock.

On Sun, 28 Sep 2008 21:02:54 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:

Dr. Henri Wilson skrev:
On Fri, 26 Sep 2008 12:03:42 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:

Dr. Henri Wilson wrote:
On Fri, 26 Sep 2008 11:08:06 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:

Spaceman wrote:
Paul B. Andersen wrote:
I am asking you to use Newtonian laws and forces to predict
the clock fault of a Cs beam clock when it is launched
into GPS orbit.
Paul,
prediction of the clock fault is not the important factor,
The fact it is malfunctioning is the important factor.
So when you wrote:
"And when one uses Newtonian laws and forces every
single clock fault can be predicted."

You were bluffing, right?
WHAT IS THE ACCURACY OF THE MICROWAVE OSCILLATOR?

How might it change in free fall?

THE MICROWAVE OSCILLATOR is a VCO.
How might a VCO change in free fall? :-)

The question is ridiculous and reveals your ignorance.

Hint: feedback loop, phase locked loop

Are you aware of what a minute phase shift in a positive feedback loop can do
to its resonating frequency?

The question is ridiculous and reveals your ignorance.

I didn't think you would know anything about this.



Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)

www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm.

Einstein: the greatest hoaxer since 'virgin' mary

On Sun, 28 Sep 2008 21:16:59 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:

Spaceman skrev:
Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Spaceman wrote:
Paul B. Andersen wrote:
I am asking you to use Newtonian laws and forces to predict
the clock fault of a Cs beam clock when it is launched
into GPS orbit.
Paul,
prediction of the clock fault is not the important factor,
The fact it is malfunctioning is the important factor.
So when you wrote:
"And when one uses Newtonian laws and forces every
single clock fault can be predicted."

You were bluffing, right?

I never said I would do such so there was never a bluff
Yet, I have seen it done and the real point is finding the clock
problem.

So where have you seen that Newtonian laws and forces are used
to predict the clock fault of a Cs beam clock when it is launched
into GPS orbit?

You are bluffing again, right?

Dr. Fred Bloggs sits on the launch pad watching the ISS through his telescope.
His cesium clock is ticking away next to him, emitting N ticks per orbit of the
ISS.
Fred now sticks his clock in a rocket, lights the fuse and ....whooosh! up she
goes to join the ISS.

Fred continues to receive ticks from his clock by radio. He notices that it now
emits N+n ticks per ISS orbit.

"That's funny", thinks Fred. "For some reason, sending the clock into free
fall must have caused it to change its rate. My counter certainly hasn't
changed and neither has the ISS orbit."

"Damn! The clock must be malfunctioning."


Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)

www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm.

Einstein: the greatest hoaxer since 'virgin' mary

Dr. Henri Wilson wrote:
On Sun, 28 Sep 2008 21:16:59 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:

Spaceman skrev:
Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Spaceman wrote:
Paul B. Andersen wrote:
I am asking you to use Newtonian laws and forces to predict
the clock fault of a Cs beam clock when it is launched
into GPS orbit.
Paul,
prediction of the clock fault is not the important factor,
The fact it is malfunctioning is the important factor.
So when you wrote:
"And when one uses Newtonian laws and forces every
single clock fault can be predicted."

You were bluffing, right?

I never said I would do such so there was never a bluff
Yet, I have seen it done and the real point is finding the clock
problem.

So where have you seen that Newtonian laws and forces are used
to predict the clock fault of a Cs beam clock when it is launched
into GPS orbit?

You are bluffing again, right?

Dr. Fred Bloggs sits on the launch pad watching the ISS through his
telescope. His cesium clock is ticking away next to him, emitting N
ticks per orbit of the ISS.
Fred now sticks his clock in a rocket, lights the fuse and
....whooosh! up she goes to join the ISS.

Fred continues to receive ticks from his clock by radio. He notices
that it now emits N+n ticks per ISS orbit.

"That's funny", thinks Fred. "For some reason, sending the clock
into free fall must have caused it to change its rate. My counter
certainly hasn't changed and neither has the ISS orbit."

"Damn! The clock must be malfunctioning."



Dr Fred Bloggs then thinks, I wonder what caused that clock
to "change the physical rate of it's ticker".
I know clocks can not change thier own rates when the
only method they have to do such is a human adjustable
method that would change that rate physically by lowering the
force or energy fed to the clock.
AHA he screams!
Gravity has less force up there and more force down here,
so it must simply take less energy or force to run the clock up
there, but because I have not given it less energy, it "ticks" faster.

Then he says,
Dang that Newton guy was smart.. his stuff can make sense
of anything when you actually think about it.
Then Dr Fred Bloggs takes the Einstein books he had and
uses them for fuel to heat his house in winter and save a bit
on the oil bill and buys more books about Newton.

On Sep 28, 4:56*am, NoEinstein wrote:
On Sep 25, 5:56*pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:



On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 21:35:52 -0700 (PDT), NoEinstein
wrote:

On Sep 22, 7:24*pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Mon, 22 Sep 2008 08:16:36 -0700 (PDT), NoEinstein
wrote:

On Sep 22, 4:25*am, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Sun, 21 Sep 2008 18:36:26 -0700 (PDT), NoEinstein
wrote:

On Sep 20, 9:13*pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Sat, 20 Sep 2008 15:11:31 -0700 (PDT), NoEinstein
wrote:

Dear Henri: *You are vainly trying to expand a simple experiment to
make it be absurd. *Just accept that most dropped object experiments
are below 500 feet, not out to 50 miles. *—— NoEinstein ——

I realise that you have no scientific or mathematical ability but it is a plain
fact that in the braoad sense falling objects usually come from virtual
infinity.

If you want me to do the simple math I will...but in the meantime I will watch
you squirm.
Dear Henri: *You keep trying to escape by expanding the experiment to
the absurd. *Get some objectivity, or quite wasting everyone's time.
—— NoEinstein ——

Nibrain, you obviously have no idea what I'm talking about.

Earth to Henri; Earth to Henri... *Come back down! *— NoEinstein —

I guess you have never even heard of calculus.

Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)

www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm.

Einstein: the greatest hoaxer since 'virgin' mary- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Dear Henri: *Without referring to any texts, I invented calculus in
the 9th grade to figure the area of a circle circumscribed by a
square.

Really? Please show me the development of calculus from this idea.

*But since the invention of the calculator, values can be
obtained from trial and error to within the accuracy needed in most
engineering. *And the latter process removes the chance of errors
caused by simply getting that calculus equation wrong. *— NoEinstein —

On Sep 28, 4:34*am, NoEinstein wrote:
On Sep 25, 12:47*am, PD wrote:



On Sep 24, 11:31*pm, NoEinstein wrote:

On Sep 22, 2:40*pm, PD wrote:

On Sep 22, 9:54*am, NoEinstein wrote:

On Sep 21, 11:07*pm, PD wrote:

On Sep 21, 9:06*pm, NoEinstein wrote:

On Sep 21, 4:17*pm, PD wrote:

On Sep 20, 5:14*pm, NoEinstein wrote:

On Sep 18, 11:39*pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:

On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 15:39:26 -0700 (PDT), NoEinstein
wrote:

On Sep 18, 12:10*am, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Wed, 17 Sep 2008 20:37:15 -0700 (PDT), NoEinstein
wrote:

On Sep 17, 2:15*am, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Tue, 16 Sep 2008 18:05:37 -0700 (PDT), NoEinstein
wrote:

Dear Henri: The entire chapter on mechanics in physics texts is wrong
except for defining work as force times distance. *I won't try to
convince you, because your approval isn't necessary.. *

I doubt if you will ever convince me or anyone else of anything.

All in all, I'd
say your ideas concerning the Universe are 10% right, 90% wrong. *Who
would invite you to a "tea party"? *—— NoEinstein ——

I'm rarely wrong, Nilbrain.

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.

Dear Henri: *Please edify the many readers with the following: List
ten simple statements about what you believe the correct laws of
physic are which govern the universe. *—— NoEinstein ——

Most readers here are incapable of being edified.

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: *OK. *So, you really don't have a position on how the
Universe works. *Can you write even THREE things that you believe to
be true about physics which aren't status quo? *—— NoEinstein ——

And this is a measure of what? What does this accomplish, saying three
things you believe are true and aren't status quo? What do you
demonstrate by having those three things?

PD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Dear PD: Most research papers have Abstracts. *Writing three sentences
of the gist of a paper isn't too much to ask. *And I don't even
require that there be a paper to follow. *—— NoEinstein ——

Research that is just abstract isn't published. And very little
research is stating anything that people just "believe are true" but
are also carefully and explicitly demonstrated in gory detail. What
you've asked for, and what you do, is "pretend physics", just doing a
little costume-jewelry and improvised impersonations of what you think
physics is. I have no idea why you would attempt such a charade among
people who know better. What do you get out of it?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Dear PD: *OK, then. *Please write three sentences stating positions of
yours in science which differ from the status quo garbage. *And
provide links to the more detailed proofs... BEYOND the Abstract.
Note: The latter is your own requirement; so meet it! *—— NoEinstein
——

And this is a measure of what? What does this accomplish, saying three
things you believe are true and aren't status quo? What do you
demonstrate by having those three things?

PD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Dear PD: *If you don't disagree with the status quo, somewhere, you
simply aren't thinking for yourself.

I don't attempt to disagree with the status quo when the status quo is
amply backed up by experimental observations. That appears to be a
pointless exercises in contrariness with disregard for the truth. I
see no better value in being original and wrong, over unoriginal and
right.

Fortunately, there is ample ground where there is active investigation
where there IS NO status quo, and where the experimental evidence is
sketchy or is begging to be obtained. However, knowing where that
ground is does require some knowledge about what ground has been
covered.

Now, NoEinstein, if you spent a little more time learning what ground
has been covered and where being counter to the status quo would
simply be foolish, then you would also learn where there is fertile
new ground to explore.

*If you can figure out how to
form that ceiling, you should be making a contribution in other areas,
too. *— NoEinstein —- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Dear PD: *Spending any more time on “what ground has been covered”,
when the results of those "experiments" is counterintuitive, is the
process by which gullible people become favored in science.

This is *precisely* where you run aground. Scientists do not filter
experimental results by whether they are reconcilable with intuition,
rejecting those that are counterintuitive. That is unmitigated
scientific fraud, and selection of data to support a preconceived
conclusion. It is the WORST practice possible in science.

*Science
should be new and vital, not "locked-in" because those who "profess"
to know were too lazy, or too dumb to question the counterintuitive.
If one's badge of intellect is just how complex one's specialty is,
the counterintuitive tends to become the "religion" of choice. *I've
embraced the Scientific Method and disproved the "logic" behind the
majority of mechanics. *And in so doing, I have disproved Einstein's
theories of relativity. *If I had been a "complexity rules" person,
those things would never have happened. *—— NoEinstein ——

On Sep 28, 4:47*am, NoEinstein wrote:
On Sep 25, 8:34*am, PD wrote:



On Sep 24, 11:31*pm, NoEinstein wrote:

On Sep 22, 2:40*pm, PD wrote:

On Sep 22, 9:54*am, NoEinstein wrote:

On Sep 21, 11:07*pm, PD wrote:

On Sep 21, 9:06*pm, NoEinstein wrote:

On Sep 21, 4:17*pm, PD wrote:

On Sep 20, 5:14*pm, NoEinstein wrote:

On Sep 18, 11:39*pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:

On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 15:39:26 -0700 (PDT), NoEinstein
wrote:

On Sep 18, 12:10*am, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Wed, 17 Sep 2008 20:37:15 -0700 (PDT), NoEinstein
wrote:

On Sep 17, 2:15*am, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Tue, 16 Sep 2008 18:05:37 -0700 (PDT), NoEinstein
wrote:

Dear Henri: The entire chapter on mechanics in physics texts is wrong
except for defining work as force times distance. *I won't try to
convince you, because your approval isn't necessary.. *

I doubt if you will ever convince me or anyone else of anything.

All in all, I'd
say your ideas concerning the Universe are 10% right, 90% wrong. *Who
would invite you to a "tea party"? *—— NoEinstein ——

I'm rarely wrong, Nilbrain.

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.

Dear Henri: *Please edify the many readers with the following: List
ten simple statements about what you believe the correct laws of
physic are which govern the universe. *—— NoEinstein ——

Most readers here are incapable of being edified.

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: *OK. *So, you really don't have a position on how the
Universe works. *Can you write even THREE things that you believe to
be true about physics which aren't status quo? *—— NoEinstein ——

And this is a measure of what? What does this accomplish, saying three
things you believe are true and aren't status quo? What do you
demonstrate by having those three things?

PD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Dear PD: Most research papers have Abstracts. *Writing three sentences
of the gist of a paper isn't too much to ask. *And I don't even
require that there be a paper to follow. *—— NoEinstein ——

Research that is just abstract isn't published. And very little
research is stating anything that people just "believe are true" but
are also carefully and explicitly demonstrated in gory detail. What
you've asked for, and what you do, is "pretend physics", just doing a
little costume-jewelry and improvised impersonations of what you think
physics is. I have no idea why you would attempt such a charade among
people who know better. What do you get out of it?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Dear PD: *OK, then. *Please write three sentences stating positions of
yours in science which differ from the status quo garbage. *And
provide links to the more detailed proofs... BEYOND the Abstract.
Note: The latter is your own requirement; so meet it! *—— NoEinstein
——

And this is a measure of what? What does this accomplish, saying three
things you believe are true and aren't status quo? What do you
demonstrate by having those three things?

PD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Dear PD: *If you don't disagree with the status quo, somewhere, you
simply aren't thinking for yourself. *If you can figure out how to
form that ceiling, you should be making a contribution in other areas,
too. *— NoEinstein —

A second comment on this.
IF (and it's a big IF) it were claimed that everything were figured
out by science, then the only place to be original would be to re-
question something already established. But this isn't claimed at all.
There are LOTS of places where science knows very little, if anything,
and so there is plenty of opportunity to dig new ground.

If you were a gold prospector, and IF it were claimed that all the
gold in the world had already been dug up, then the place to dig might
be where someone else had already dug. But since there are lots of
places where gold hasn't been mined for, choosing to dig in a mine
that has already been spent is a foolish way to look for gold. But to
be a decent prospector, you'd need to learn where the *unexplored*
places are, and which of these places is most likely to yield gold.

You are looking for gold by poking your shovel in places where the
gold has already been mined out. And in fact, a good number of places
where there are no mine shafts may have already been considered and
dismissed because of their knowledge about where gold is likely not to
be found. But there are much better places that are still untapped
where there is ample gold to be found.

PD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Dear PD: *Most science publications favor those "new" areas of science
whereof so little is known that nothing in the status quo will get
shaken up.

Where little is known is where the interesting action is, and this is
where people of *all* backgrounds are welcome to contribute with new
ideas, especially testable ideas. And in fact, this is the area where
there is the *most* cross-disciplinary activity, not limited to
physicists at all.

*In effect, such publications become clearing houses for
what can be shown to be science truths. *Anytime old things are shown
to be wrong, the years of past articles by those publications make
then look truly dumb. *

What's your objective? To find new truth or to make scientists look
dumb. You have the opportunity to choose to work in an exciting area,
but you choose only to work in a more established area, with the hope
of making scientists look truly dumb. Why???

The problem with science is: The egos of those
who supported the status quo keep preventing those people from
acknowledging any new science truths.
*22 of our nation's universities
don't think it is "important" to teach students that Einstein was
wrong.

Well, he certainly was wrong about a number of things -- we know this
already. Why is it so important to you to focus in on Einstein and
show that he was wrong? What is it about him that concentrates your
effort on him? (Keep in mind that you say it's Einstein, but you've
been trying to critique all the physics that was done 200 years BEFORE
Einstein published anything. So it's not clear that you're trying to
show it important that *Einstein* was wrong so much as showing that
*everyone* in physics has been wrong about *everything*. And for that
end, I would ask you why it's so important to you to try to discredit
a whole field?

*There’s just too much infrastructure in place that must be…
protected. *Higher education, from such universities, isn't worth the
cost of the paper and gold seals on the diplomas. *—— NoEinstein ——

What precisely is to be gained from the wholescale elimination of
higher education, NoEinstein, other than easing your sensitivity about
your lack of having one?

PD

On Sun, 28 Sep 2008 17:24:56 -0400, "Spaceman"
wrote:

Dr. Henri Wilson wrote:
On Sun, 28 Sep 2008 21:16:59 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:

Spaceman skrev:
Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Spaceman wrote:
Paul B. Andersen wrote:
I am asking you to use Newtonian laws and forces to predict
the clock fault of a Cs beam clock when it is launched
into GPS orbit.
Paul,
prediction of the clock fault is not the important factor,
The fact it is malfunctioning is the important factor.
So when you wrote:
"And when one uses Newtonian laws and forces every
single clock fault can be predicted."

You were bluffing, right?

I never said I would do such so there was never a bluff
Yet, I have seen it done and the real point is finding the clock
problem.

So where have you seen that Newtonian laws and forces are used
to predict the clock fault of a Cs beam clock when it is launched
into GPS orbit?

You are bluffing again, right?

Dr. Fred Bloggs sits on the launch pad watching the ISS through his
telescope. His cesium clock is ticking away next to him, emitting N
ticks per orbit of the ISS.
Fred now sticks his clock in a rocket, lights the fuse and
....whooosh! up she goes to join the ISS.

Fred continues to receive ticks from his clock by radio. He notices
that it now emits N+n ticks per ISS orbit.

"That's funny", thinks Fred. "For some reason, sending the clock
into free fall must have caused it to change its rate. My counter
certainly hasn't changed and neither has the ISS orbit."

"Damn! The clock must be malfunctioning."



Dr Fred Bloggs then thinks, I wonder what caused that clock
to "change the physical rate of it's ticker".
I know clocks can not change thier own rates when the
only method they have to do such is a human adjustable
method that would change that rate physically by lowering the
force or energy fed to the clock.
AHA he screams!
Gravity has less force up there and more force down here,
so it must simply take less energy or force to run the clock up
there, but because I have not given it less energy, it "ticks" faster.

Then he says,
Dang that Newton guy was smart.. his stuff can make sense
of anything when you actually think about it.
Then Dr Fred Bloggs takes the Einstein books he had and
uses them for fuel to heat his house in winter and save a bit
on the oil bill and buys more books about Newton.




The EPG seems to think that a 'tuned' microwave oscillator that energises the
thing that is supposed to tune it...ie., a cesium spectral line...cannot alter
the actual energy levels involved in producing that spectral line.

It is very possible that the line itself DOES vary very slightly due to both
the excitation process and gravity/magnetic field changes.


Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)

www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm.

Einstein: the greatest hoaxer since 'virgin' mary

On Sep 28, 9:38 am, "James Space****"
wrote:
Dono wrote:
James,

You mean that you have been an inmate at the Andover Mass Hospital for
the Mentally Insane for the last 3 years? Must be much longer than
that, Space****. You were BORN inside the ward!

Dear Dono,

It is amazing how you even need to make up non existant hospitals now.

So, Space****

What is the exact name of the lunatic asylum you reside? :-)