Michelson and Morley experiment
mich
Has the Michelson and Morley experiment performed having the
observer ( light sensor)
placed on a different frame of reference that the light source and
mirrors?
mich
Androcles
"mich" <mi...@efni.com> wrote in message
news:460d4346-d3e0-4d2a...@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/Sagnac.htm
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
"mich" <mi...@efni.com> wrote in message
news:460d4346-d3e0-4d2a...@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
No information would result. Maxima is maxima no matter how fast
you are moving. You'd change is color.
Light from a moving source has been used, and the mirrors and
observer were in the same frame. No anisotropy.
David A. Smith
mich
mich
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:
> Dear mich:
>
> "mich" <mi...@efni.com> wrote in message
> news:460d4346-d3e0-4d2a...@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Has the Michelson and Morley experiment
> > performed having the observer ( light sensor)
> > placed on a different frame of reference that
> > the light source and mirrors?
>
> No information would result. Maxima is maxima no matter how fast
My problem here would be that the true source, in my opinion, would
be the half
silvered mirror , not the sun nor a star. I know that the result ought
to be nul in the case of a moving observer, but I am curious if the
experiment has been done.
mich
mich
Thank you for the link Androcles. I will read it through when time
permits
doug
mich wrote:
You are wasting your time if you do. Androcles does not understand
anything to do with relativity so he rants and swears a lot.
mich
Actually, Doug, I am only a layman myself. I understand that there
will be many
different thoughts in this newsgroups, many of which will be
erronious. But I'm only doing this for entertainement purposes. I have
read about Relativity, but have not studied the science at all.
mich
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
"mich" <mi...@efni.com> wrote in message
news:6df0ec9f-393b-492c...@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
...
> Actually, Doug, I am only a layman myself. I
> understand that there will be many different
> thoughts in this newsgroups, many of which
> will be erronious. But I'm only doing this for
> entertainement purposes. I have read about
> Relativity, but have not studied the science at
> all.
Consider your question. The light source is stationary wrt the
mirrors, and MMX places the light from the two arms in
constructive interference. It is constructive at the eyepiece,
is it constructive any number of wavelengths out from the
eyepiece, so any motion towards / away from the eyepiece shows a
maxima.
David A. Smith
YBM
Entertainment (and quite a lot of science) :
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/ImmortalFumbles.html
Science (and quite a lot of entertainment) :
http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/
Enjoy !
mich
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:
I do understand David that no fringe shift should exist. However, if
there were indeed a fringe shift involved, what would you think would
be it's implication?
Andre
mich
YBM wrote:
> mich a ?crit :
Thanks alot,YBM, I will enjoy.
mich
Dr. Henri Wilson
>
>
>N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:
>> Dear mich:
>>
>> "mich" <mi...@efni.com> wrote in message
>> news:460d4346-d3e0-4d2a...@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> > Has the Michelson and Morley experiment
>> > performed having the observer ( light sensor)
>> > placed on a different frame of reference that
>> > the light source and mirrors?
>>
>> No information would result. Maxima is maxima no matter how fast
>
>
> My problem here would be that the true source, in my opinion, would
>be the half
>silvered mirror , not the sun nor a star. I know that the result ought
>to be nul in the case of a moving observer, but I am curious if the
>experiment has been done.
It hasn't been done because there is no way it can be.
The problem is, as soon as the light from the moving source passes through the
first optical device or bounces off the first mirror, its speed will change.
At present there is no information as to what that speed might be.
For instance, if light impinges on a glass plate at c+v, we don't know if it
emerges at c+v or at c wrt the plate's frame.
......Likewise when light is reflected from a moving mirror.
This type of expriment would require four synched clocks nd would be almost
impossible to perform in the lab.
OWLS has never been and probably never will be measured with SUFFICIENTLY
ACCURATELY to test this kind of thing.
Anyway, the MMX null result was to be expected. There is NO aether and light
moves at c wrt everything at rest in the source frame. In other words, it just
bounces around the apparatus at c wrt everything in it.
Why would anyone but an idiot expect a fringe shift?
>mich
>> you are moving. You'd change is color.
>>
>> Light from a moving source has been used, and the mirrors and
>> observer were in the same frame. No anisotropy.
>>
>> David A. Smith
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.
YBM
> Anyway, the MMX null result was to be expected. There is NO aether and light
> moves at c wrt everything at rest in the source frame. In other words, it just
> bounces around the apparatus at c wrt everything in it.
> Why would anyone but an idiot expect a fringe shift?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aberration_of_light
There is only one idiot here: Henri Wilson, aka Ralph Rabbidge.
mich
Thanks for replying, Henry:
Let me introduce myself, first. I enjoy science fiction and have only
a layman understanding of Relativity; so what I'm about to throw here
will certainly be a crackpot idea, but I'm interested in reading where
my understanding of this is way out to lunch.
What would be the consequence, then, if the experiment was done and,
to everyone's amazement, the event was observed as being non-
simultaneous by the observer on the moving frame, relative to the
experiment?
While it would disagree with Einstein's first postulate, it would not
disagree with Relativity as such. For one thing, no form of classical
physics could predict such an outcome. But what about Relativity?
If we assume that the measuring rods within a moving frame, as
measured from an observer on a different frame, is contracted not only
in the direction of travel, but everywhere within the frame itself,
then, it would explain the hypothetical outcome.The whole frame
becomes contracted or smaller instead of just in the direction of
motion only. The length of the vertical leg, being also contracted,
would leave the hypotenuse also to be shorter, being the path of light
observered by the observer on the moving frame.
The implication of this hypothetical outcome could imply that certain
events, such as a collision between two particles could exist on one
frame while a nearmiss would be observed by another different moving
frame. Observers on different frames would constitute an observation
of, not only different time or length measurements, but also of
different realities.
Androcles
"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <dl...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:fjZwk.50870$4s1....@newsfe06.iad...
Androcles
This only takes a minute:
http://ww2010.atmos.uiuc.edu/(Gh)/guides/mtr/fw/gifs/coriolis.mov
Androcles
>
>
> N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:
>> Dear mich:
>>
>> "mich" <mi...@efni.com> wrote in message
>> news:460d4346-d3e0-4d2a...@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> > Has the Michelson and Morley experiment
>> > performed having the observer ( light sensor)
>> > placed on a different frame of reference that
>> > the light source and mirrors?
>>
>> No information would result. Maxima is maxima no matter how fast
>
>
> My problem here would be that the true source, in my opinion, would
> be the half
> silvered mirror , not the sun nor a star. I know that the result ought
> to be nul in the case of a moving observer, but I am curious if the
> experiment has been done.
It has, in 1913, by Georges Sagnac. Today we make use of it in
optical gyroscopes. Smiffy is a lying cretin.
It works like this:
http://ww2010.atmos.uiuc.edu/(Gh)/guides/mtr/fw/gifs/coriolis.mov
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/Sagnac.htm
doug
mich wrote:
Since Androcles hates relativity and does not understand it, you are
wasting your time looking at anything he says. Look at a book or
article from someone who actually understands relativity. Or look
at the GPS as something to follow in our daily lives that actually
depends on relativity for its proper operation.
doug
mich wrote:
You should be aware that "Dr. Henri Wilson" is neither a Dr or a Henri
or a Wilson. That tells you how much of the rest of this he got
correct. He is another crank who thinks he understands relativity but
has shown for years that he has no clue. He likes to bluster but
he is always wrong.
>
doug
Androcles wrote:
Androcles is showing his wide repetoire. He does not understand MM
and he does not understand Sagnac. His bias is such that he is
unable to see the truth and unwilling to learn.
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
"mich" <mi...@efni.com> wrote in message
news:3610ed5d-ef03-4ab6...@d45g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>
> N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:
>> Dear mich:
>>
>> "mich" <mi...@efni.com> wrote in message
>> news:6df0ec9f-393b-492c...@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>> ...
>> > Actually, Doug, I am only a layman myself. I
>> > understand that there will be many different
>> > thoughts in this newsgroups, many of which
>> > will be erronious. But I'm only doing this for
>> > entertainement purposes. I have read about
>> > Relativity, but have not studied the science at
>> > all.
>>
>> Consider your question. The light source is
>> stationary wrt the mirrors, and MMX places
>> the light from the two arms in constructive
>> interference. It is constructive at the
>> eyepiece, is it constructive any number of
>> wavelengths out from the eyepiece, so any
>> motion towards / away from the eyepiece
>> shows a maxima.
>
> I do understand David that no fringe shift
> should exist. However, if there were indeed a
> fringe shift involved, what would you think
> would be it's implication?
No implications whatsoever. You are moving through a series of
constructive and destructive interferences, that are a function
of the wavelength. And you are moving into a beam of light from
a single source, and all light is finally moving directly towards
you, from "both arms".
David A. Smith
mich
Thank you for the info, Dave
Dr. Henri Wilson
What one 'sees' is not what is actually happening. Simultaneity is absolute and
universal. There are no real contractions. Einstein's whole theory is nonsense
from start to finish.
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.
PD
>
> 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".
Pentcho Valev
sci.physics.relativity:
> Dr. Henri Wilson a écrit :
>
> > Anyway, the MMX null result was to be expected. There is NO aether and light
> > moves at c wrt everything at rest in the source frame. In other words, it just
> > bounces around the apparatus at c wrt everything in it.
> > Why would anyone but an idiot expect a fringe shift?
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aberration_of_light
Silly YBM can only give an irrelevant reference. Still silly YBM may
wish to elaborate on a statement from his irrelevant reference:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aberration_of_light
"In contrast, stellar aberration is independent of the distance of a
celestial object from the observer, and depends only on the observer's
instantaneous transverse velocity with respect to the incoming light
beam, at the moment of observation."
Would the observer measure a slightly greater speed of light, due to
his/her non-zero transverse velocity? Be careful, silly YBM!
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
Dr. Henri Wilson
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.
The proof, which I have provided many times, is quite trivial.
Where exactly do YOU stand, Diaper? Do you belong to the more or the less
ignorant relativist camp?
PD
> On Mon, 8 Sep 2008 17:59:44 -0700 (PDT), PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> 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. And you make all sorts of lovely excuses for
why it plainly happens without the other in the case of momentum,
kinetic energy, velocity, electric field, magnetic field and so on.
But fundamentally, your inability to imagine how one can happen
without the other is due solely to the fact that your wit is powered
by a 12W bulb.
PD
Dirk Van de moortel
p44cc41ujooen3u81...@4ax.com
> On Mon, 8 Sep 2008 17:59:44 -0700 (PDT), PD <TheDrap...@gmail.com> 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.
When anyone measures the pitch of an approaching train's whistle,
he finds a value different from what he finds when the trains is
standing still. In Wilson world something is wrong with the experiment.
When anyone measures the kinetic energy of a moving body, we
he finds a positive value. When he measures the kinetic energy of
the same body at rest, he finds zero. In Wilson world something
is wrong with the experiment.
>>
>> 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".
We have never been able to explain to Henry (or many others)
that special relativity is a theory that, in the context of what he is
alluding to here, merely describes What We Measure On Moving
Objects And How Exactly These Measurements Quantitatively
Differ From What We Measure When These Objects Are At Rest.
>
> 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.
> The proof, which I have provided many times, is quite trivial.
>
> Where exactly do YOU stand, Diaper? Do you belong to the more
> or the less ignorant relativist camp?
You don't know that, since you never actually try to understand
what people tell you.
>
>
> 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.
Anyone who ever measured light speed found the same value.
In Wilson World this is a forbidden and therefore nonexistent
concept, so therefore anyone who ever measured the speed of
light, is a gullible fool - by definition.
Dirk Vdm
Pentcho Valev
<dirkvandemoor...@nospAm.hotmail.com> wrote in sci.physics.relativity:
> Dr. Henri Wilson <HW@....> wrote in message
>
> > On Mon, 8 Sep 2008 17:59:44 -0700 (PDT), PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> 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.
>
> When anyone measures the pitch of an approaching train's whistle,
> he finds a value different from what he finds when the trains is
> standing still. In Wilson world something is wrong with the experiment.
> When anyone measures the kinetic energy of a moving body, we
> he finds a positive value. When he measures the kinetic energy of
> the same body at rest, he finds zero. In Wilson world something
> is wrong with the experiment.
>
>
>
> >> 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".
>
> We have never been able to explain to Henry (or many others)
> that special relativity is a theory that, in the context of what he is
> alluding to here, merely describes What We Measure On Moving
> Objects And How Exactly These Measurements Quantitatively
> Differ From What We Measure When These Objects Are At Rest.
Still you never forget to reopen the doors of the barn "pretty
quickly", do you Clever Moortel:
http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/barn_pole.html
"These are the props. You own a barn, 40m long, with automatic doors
at either end, that can be opened and closed simultaneously by a
switch. You also have a pole, 80m long, which of course won't fit in
the barn....So, as the pole passes through the barn, there is an
instant when it is completely within the barn. At that instant, you
close both doors simultaneously, with your switch. Of course, you open
them again pretty quickly, but at least momentarily you had the
contracted pole shut up in your barn."
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
Dirk Van de moortel
55a3b813-7970-498a...@z66g2000hsc.googlegroups.com
http://www.aces.edu/counties/Tallapoosa/newspaper-articles/04-11-07.htm
"Most first frosts occur from a strong cold spell that followed
many days of warm weather. Our long growing season and
mild fall temperatures allows many plants to continue to
grow until true cold weather arrives. When this occurs, many
of our tender plants, especially houseplants and bedding
plants, are caught off guard by the changes in temperature
and may get damaged or killed. Woody plants that are
adapted for our area typically survive without problems."
Dirk Vdm
Pentcho Valev
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 <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> 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
pva...@yahoo.com
Raghar
> mich wrote:
>
> > doug wrote:
>
> >>mich wrote:
>
> >>>Androcles wrote:
>
Is GPS relevant? As long as GPS could be done via algorithm that is
independent on Relativity, aka purely computation like algorithm,
these are not a proof of anything.
Dirk Van de moortel
b5979aed-31c6-409d...@x41g2000hsb.googlegroups.com
Of course there is no proof of anything.
The fact that it precisely obeys the equations of relativity
could be just a fantastic coincidence.
In your friend Spaceman's view, the clocks malfunction
precisely according to the equations of relativity.
Just a fantastic coincidence.
Is Newtonian mechanics relevant?
As long as GPS could NOT be done via an algorithm that is
DEPENDENT on Newtonian mechanics, this is proof of
SOMETHING.
That is how science works.
Dirk Vdm
PD
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
Pentcho Valev
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.physics.relativity/msg/c56223442453e80d
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
Dr. Henri Wilson
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
Dr. Henri Wilson
wrote:
Hahahaha!
I think his barn has been smashed into little pieces.
>Pentcho Valev
>pva...@yahoo.com
PD
> On Tue, 9 Sep 2008 09:40:57 -0700 (PDT), PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Sep 9, 9:07 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> On Sep 9, 2:27 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> 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
> >> pva...@yahoo.com
>
> >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
PD
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.physics.relativity/msg/c5622344245...
>
> Pentcho Valev
> pva...@yahoo.com
Dr. Henri Wilson
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)
PD
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?
Pentcho Valev
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.physics.relativity/msg/c5622344245...
>
> > Pentcho Valev
> > pva...@yahoo.com- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Dirk Van de moortel
Pentcho Valev does not understand the difference between
rates and values.
Updated list of differences ignored by Pentcho Valev:
- rates and values,
- a personal humorous musing and a common dogma,
- children's books and inspired essays,
- physicists and philosophers,
- coordinate time and proper time,
- invariance and constancy,
- special relativity and general relativity,
- teachers and hypnotists,
- laymen and zombies,
- a person being right and a theory being right,
- students and imbeciles,
- bad science and bad engineering,
- bad engineering and bad cost management,
- honing the foundations of a theory and fighting it,
- physics and linguistics,
- an article written in 1905 and a theory created in 1915,
- understanding a book and turning its pages,
- speed and relative (aka closing) speed,
- doing algebra and randomly writing down symbols,
- real life and a Usenet hobby group,
- receiving a detailed reply and being ignored,
- everyday concepts and scientific concepts in physics,
- the three things that smell like fish,
- inertial and non-inertial,
- speed and velocity,
- an article and a book,
- relativity and disguised ether addiction,
- algebra and analytic geometry,
- kneeling down and bending over,
- local and global,
- a sycophant in English and in French,
- a relation and an equation,
- massive and massless particles,
- a Mexican poncho and a Sears poncho,
- implication and equivalence,
- group velocity and phase velocity,
- science and religion
Dirk Vdm
Pentcho Valev
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).
> 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.
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
PD
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
Pentcho Valev
Divine Albert said that, when the travelling clock returns, its hands
occupy different positions (compared with the hands of the clock at
rest).
Now that's what I call a PHYSICALLY different clock.
Look for the analogous phrase "Now that's what I call a dead parrot"
in the sketch below:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vuW6tQ0218
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
Dirk Van de moortel
Paul said: "the rates of the clocks are identical".
He did not say: "the hands of the clock at are identical".
So, indeed, as I said, you don't understand the difference
between rates and values.
NO WAY OUT, PONCHO :-)
Dirk Vdm
Pentcho Valev
But, Clever Moortel, you are going to confuse even Clever Draper - I
almost see his frustration. Just let him answer:
Valev: "The travelling clock returns PHYSICALLY different from the
clock at rest (according to Divine Albert's Divine Idiocy)."
Clever Draper: "No, it doesn't."
Clever Draper, if the hands of the travelling clock occupy different
positions (compared with the hands of the clock at rest) when it
returns, does this mean that the travelling clock returns PHYSICALLY
different from the clock at rest?
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
Dirk Van de moortel
He did not say: "the hands of the clock are identical".
So, indeed, as I said, you don't understand the difference
between rates and values.
NO WAY OUT, PONCHO :-)
Dirk Vdm
Pentcho Valev
CLEVER EINSTEINIANS:
http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00001743/02/Norton.pdf
John Norton: "Einstein regarded the Michelson-Morley experiment as
evidence for the principle of relativity, whereas later writers almost
universally use it as support for the light postulate of special
relativity......THE MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE
WITH AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT
POSTULATE."
http://books.google.com/books?id=JokgnS1JtmMC
"Relativity and Its Roots" By Banesh Hoffmann
p.92: "There are various remarks to be made about this second
principle. For instance, if it is so obvious, how could it turn out to
be part of a revolution - especially when the first principle is also
a natural one? Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein
had suggested in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this
one, the second principle seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding
train can do far more damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the
speed of the particle is not independent of the motion of the object
emitting it. And if we take light to consist of particles and assume
that these particles obey Newton's laws, they will conform to
Newtonian relativity and thus automatically account for the null
result of the Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to
contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations. Yet, as
we have seen, Einstein resisted the temptation to account for the null
result in terms of particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian
ideas, and introduced as his second postulate something that was more
or less obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether. If it
was so obvious, though, why did he need to state it as a principle?
Because, having taken from the idea of light waves in the ether the
one aspect that he needed, he declared early in his paper, to quote
his own words, that "the introduction of a 'luminiferous ether' will
prove to be superfluous."
SILLY EINSTEINIANS:
http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/dice.html
Stephen Hawking: "Interestingly enough, Laplace himself wrote a paper
in 1799 on how some stars could have a gravitational field so strong
that light could not escape, but would be dragged back onto the star.
He even calculated that a star of the same density as the Sun, but two
hundred and fifty times the size, would have this property. But
although Laplace may not have realised it, the same idea had been put
forward 16 years earlier by a Cambridge man, John Mitchell, in a paper
in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society. Both Mitchell
and Laplace thought of light as consisting of particles, rather like
cannon balls, that could be slowed down by gravity, and made to fall
back on the star. But a famous experiment, carried out by two
Americans, Michelson and Morley in 1887, showed that light always
travelled at a speed of one hundred and eighty six thousand miles a
second, no matter where it came from. How then could gravity slow down
light, and make it fall back."
http://www.time.com/time/time100/poc/magazine/a_brief_history_of_rela6a.html
Stephen Hawking: "So if you were traveling in the same direction as
the light, you would expect that its speed would appear to be lower,
and if you were traveling in the opposite direction to the light, that
its speed would appear to be higher. Yet a series of experiments
failed to find any evidence for differences in speed due to motion
through the ether. The most careful and accurate of these experiments
was carried out by Albert Michelson and Edward Morley at the Case
Institute in Cleveland, Ohio, in 1887......It was as if light always
traveled at the same speed relative to you, no matter how you were
moving."
http://us.penguingroup.com/nf/Book/BookDisplay/0,,9780142003619,00.html?sym=EXC
Faster Than the Speed of Light
The Story of a Scientific Speculation
Joao Magueijo
Chapter 1: "VERY SILLY"
"In 1887, in one of the most important scientific experiments ever
undertaken, the American scientists Albert Michelson and Edward Morley
showed that the apparent speed of light was not affected by the motion
of the Earth. This experiment was very puzzling for everyone at the
time. It contradicted the commonsense notion that speeds always add
up. A missile fired from a plane moves faster than one fired from the
ground because the plane's speed adds to the missile's speed. If I
throw something forward on a moving train, its speed with respect to
the platform is the speed of that object plus that of the train. You
might think that the same should happen to light: Light flashed from a
train should travel faster. However, what the Michelson-Morley
experiments showed was that this was not the case: Light always moves
stubbornly at the same speed. This means that if I take a light ray
and ask several observers moving with respect to each other to measure
the speed of this light ray, they will all agree on the same apparent
speed!"
EXTREMELY DISHONEST EINSTEINIANS:
http://www.edu-observatory.org/physics-faq/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
Tom Roberts: "The Michelson-Morley experiment (MMX) was intended to
measure the velocity of the Earth relative to the “lumeniferous æther”
which was at the time presumed to carry electromagnetic phenomena. The
failure of it and the other early experiments to actually observe the
Earth's motion through the æther became significant in promoting the
acceptance of Einstein's theory of Special Relativity, as it was
appreciated from early on that Einstein's approach (via symmetry) was
more elegant and parsimonious of assumptions than were other
approaches (e.g. those of Maxwell, Hertz, Stokes, Fresnel, Lorentz,
Ritz, and Abraham)."
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
PD
I think it would be rather foolish to call it that.
Two cars travel from Sofia to Varna, Bulgaria.
One car's odometer reads 468 km, and the other car's odometer reads
497 km, when they meet again in Varna. They of course did not travel
side-by-side.
Now, do you conclude from the fact that they have different readings
that the odometers are now (or ever were) physically different from
each other?
Pentcho Valev
http://fr.youtube.com/watch?v=4vuW6tQ0218
"I'm not prepared to pursue my line of inquiry any longer as I think
this is getting too silly!"
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
PD
I agree. It got quite silly when you said that two clocks that show a
different reading when they meet again is an indicator that one of the
clocks was now physically different.
Pentcho Valev
But, Clever Draper, if instead of clocks we discussed the famous
twins, one would be younger than the other when they meet again
(according to Divine Albert's Divine Idiocy). Would you claim again
that "younger" does not imply "physically different"? The travelling
clock is also "younger", Clever Draper (according to Divine Albert's
Divine Idiocy).
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
Dirk Van de moortel
cb95f134-03f4-4a33...@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com
Also thanks to our friend Henri Wilson for the trigger:
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/PhysicallyDifferent.html
Dirk Vdm
Dirk Van de moortel
> On Sep 9, 1:01 am, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
>> On Mon, 8 Sep 2008 17:59:44 -0700 (PDT), PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> 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
> why it plainly happens without the other in the case of momentum,
> kinetic energy, velocity, electric field, magnetic field and so on.
> But fundamentally, your inability to imagine how one can happen
> without the other is due solely to the fact that your wit is powered
> by a 12W bulb.
>
> PD
For obvious reasons Wilson did not have the guts to reply to this,
But his contrubution has not gone unnoticed:
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/PhysicallyDifferent.html
:-)
Dirk Vdm
PD
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."
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.
>
> Pentcho Valev
> pva...@yahoo.com
PD
Let me give you another example, Pentcho, something that Galileo would
understand and hopefully you will too.
A car is traveling, the front of the car pointed eastward to Belgrade,
and it applies its brakes, changing its velocity by 50 km/hr.
Now, in one reference frame, where a fire hydrant happens to be at
rest, this small sequence of events is recorded as follows: The car is
initially traveling at 80 km/hr to the east, applies its brakes, and
ends up at 30 km/hr toward the east. The acceleration is in the
direction opposite the initial velocity, obviously, and the kinetic
energy has been reduced as a result of the application of the brakes.
Now, in another reference frame, where a police cruiser happens to be
at rest, this VERY SAME sequence of events is recorded as follows: The
car is initially traveling at 10 km/hr to the west, applies its
brakes, and ends up at 60 km/hr toward the west. The acceleration is
in the *same* direction as the initial velocity, obviously, and the
kinetic energy has been increased as a result of the application of
the brakes.
(It shouldn't surprise you that the police cruiser is traveling 90 km/
hr relative to the fire hydrant.)
Now, if you think that something happened to the car from one or the
other reference frame to change the relative orientation of the
acceleration and initial velocity, or to change whether the kinetic
energy increases or decreases, perhaps you can identify what that
physical process was.
Also keep in mind that what I just laid out for you is a completely
Newtonian example, not a damn bit of Einsteinia in it.
PD
Dr. Henri Wilson
Fields exist whether or not they produce effects.
>> 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.
Diaper, get a bar magnet, some iron filings and a sheet of paper. Create some
magnetic lines of force in the usual manner. Now run past the paper as quickly
as you can and tell me whether or not the pattern changes as you run.
>> 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?
Study psychology. You might find out why you love making such a fool of
yourself.
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.
doug
Pentcho Valev wrote:
No. Why would you think so?
Spaceman
Are you kiddin'?
The clocks are physically different.
The parts are still the same parts but the orientation changed.
When an orientation of parts changes, the parts of
the whole have changed position physically.
That is a physical change.
doug
Spaceman wrote:
They may read different times but that does not make them changed
physically. Why would you think that? Particularly in an electronic
clock where there is no orientation of anything.
>
>
>
>
>
Spaceman
They physically counted less "ticks" as you could call the periods that
create a second.
Physically less ticks is a physical difference.
So with clocks that use decay rates it would be less physical decay
for slower running clocks.
That is "physical" difference.
and that physical difference is caused by physical problems known
about clocks ever since clocks were moved.
And those problems are 100% newtonian.
--
James M Driscoll Jr
Creator of the Clock Malfunction Theory
Spaceman
doug
Spaceman wrote:
So? They saw less time. This has been experimentally verified every
day.
> Physically less ticks is a physical difference.
No, it means they saw less time.
> So with clocks that use decay rates it would be less physical decay
> for slower running clocks.
Yes because they saw less time.
> That is "physical" difference.
No, it means they saw less time.
> and that physical difference is caused by physical problems known
> about clocks ever since clocks were moved.
No, there is no problem with the gps clocks, for example. They are
working fine and repeatably. There are no moving parts in them
either which you would know if you looked up what they do.
> And those problems are 100% newtonian.
There are no problems with the clocks so they are not at all
Newtonian issues. You hope that something is happening but it is not.
>
>
Spaceman
It has been verified that the clocks show different rates but...
They did not "see" less time, the clocks simply malfunctioned.
You really don't know how clocks work huh?
>> Physically less ticks is a physical difference.
> No, it means they saw less time.
No it means they malfunctioned in thier proper operation parameters.
Again, you love to scream to the world that you are clueless about
how clocks work.
>> So with clocks that use decay rates it would be less physical decay
>> for slower running clocks.
> Yes because they saw less time.
>
>> That is "physical" difference.
> No, it means they saw less time.
No they physically malfunctioned.
This time you also proved you have no clue about physics
nor clocks.
>> and that physical difference is caused by physical problems known
>> about clocks ever since clocks were moved.
> No, there is no problem with the gps clocks, for example. They are
> working fine and repeatably. There are no moving parts in them
> either which you would know if you looked up what they do.
>
>> And those problems are 100% newtonian.
> There are no problems with the clocks so they are not at all
> Newtonian issues. You hope that something is happening but it is not.
You are a total moron.
The problems with the clocks are proven each and everyday in
GPS, the GPS system has to remove the physical malfunctions
of the clocks in order to work correctly at all.
You have been brainwashed beyond help Doug.
I suggest you learn how clocks work some year.
Right now you are only proving your ignorance and your
brainwashing.
harry
Thus you suggest that both odometers and both cars are physically the same.
You would make a good car sales man...
: 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/
Harald
PD
wrote:
> "PD" <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Nothing physically happened to the odometer to change the rate at
which it records the passage of pathlength.
A different pathlength is recorded, yes, because it traveled a
different path.
This is exactly also what happens to clocks and the twins in the twin
puzzle. They take different paths and so they record different
(temporal) pathlengths. Nothing happens to the clock or to the twin to
change the rate at which it records the passage of (temporal)
pathlength.
The Newtonian assumption is that *regardless* of spatial path, all
objects track through the same temporal pathlength together, and so if
nothing happens to them physically to alter the rate at which they
record time, then there is no way that they can end up with different
times recorded. It is thus the Newtonian assumption that if they DO in
fact end up with different times recorded, then they MUST have had
something physical happen to them. Of course, the Newtonian assumption
makes no such claim about *odometers* recording the same distance
regardless of path --- just things that record time. In the Newtonian
assumption, time is special and different than space in this regard.
Relativity acknowledges that in this regard, time recorders and space
recorders are no different, and that in this regard, time is not
special and is not different than space. If two objects travel
different paths through space and time, then they will of course
record different path lengths in both space and in time. Relativity
rejects the Newtonian assumption that time is special.
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.
PD
doug
Spaceman wrote:
Many people have tried to help you by showing you your mistakes
but you certainly are not interested in the truth. You would be
embarrassed if you actually took the time to see how a cesium
clock worked.
>
Uncle Ben
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
What? You mean that the clocks (mechanical, digital, atomic,
biological, etc.) do not necessarily "malfunction"? What a relief!
Uncle Ben
Spaceman
What a bunch of crock.
The clocks have physically changed.
The "tick" count is a different amount.
That is a physical change and the cause is a simple physical
malfunction.
It is really sad any of you think you understand physics when
you can not even figure out "how clocks work".
Spaceman
> Many people have tried to help you by showing you your mistakes
> but you certainly are not interested in the truth. You would be
> embarrassed if you actually took the time to see how a cesium
> clock worked.
Many people have not learned how clocks work,
so they are in no position to help me since I am trying to help
them, apparently you wish to remain clueless about how clocks
work.
doug
Spaceman wrote:
Well then, teach us how a cesium clock works and how it is
different from a pendulum clock.
Spaceman
I can see you are just a troll with that response.
I don't need to bother with you since anyone can simply
learn how any clocks work by looking them up.
I have given the most basic facts about how clocks work,
They need to count a mass in motion or they can not work
at all.
If you wish a clock can work without counting a mass in motion
you can remain a moron for all "time" for all I care.
so...screw off troll.
harry
"Uncle Ben" <b...@greenba.com> wrote in message
news:1a52e8c1-a490-4df6...@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 11, 8:33 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sep 11, 1:08 am, "harry" <harald.vanlintelButNotT...@epfl.ch>
> wrote:
>
> > "PD" <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:46995776-42f1-46a9...@y38g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...
> > On Sep 10, 12:24 pm, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Sep 10, 6:48 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Sep 10, 11:22 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Sep 10, 6:02 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Sep 10, 9:19 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Sep 10, 3:50 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On Sep 10, 8:28 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> 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
doug
Spaceman wrote:
It is clear you do not know what is going on in a cesium
clock. What mass is moving?
>
>
doug
harry 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.
NoEinstein
> On Tue, 9 Sep 2008 09:40:57 -0700 (PDT), PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Sep 9, 9:07 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> On Sep 9, 2:27 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> 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
> >> pva...@yahoo.com
>
> >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.
>
> He still cannot understand that any physical quantity that has dimension which
> include L/T must be frame dependent.
>
>
> 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.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Dear Henri: No "dimension" includes TIME. Forget about relativity!
I've disproved Einstein up, down and sideways! — NoEinstein —
NoEinstein
> On Sep 9, 9:17 pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
> > >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.
>
> > 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.
>
>
>
> > course?
>
> You mean, other than the ones I've taught?
>
>
> - 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 —
NoEinstein
> On Sep 10, 8:28 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 10, 2:55 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Sep 9, 2:46 pm, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Sep 9, 6:40 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Sep 9, 9:07 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Sep 9, 2:27 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote in
> > > > > > sci.physics.relativity:
>
> > > > > > > On Sep 9, 1:01 am, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) 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.
>
> > > > > > > fact change, but that no physical process occurs to the object to
> > > > > > > happen without the other.
>
> > > > > > 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
> > > > > > pva...@yahoo.com
>
> > > > > 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.
>
>
> > > > 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.
>
> > 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.
>
>
>
> > > 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 —
NoEinstein
<dirkvandemoor...@nospAm.hotmail.com> wrote:
> Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> 5bafb58e-2ffc-45f9-a9c6-f4234ac71...@l42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com
>
>
>
>
>
> > occupy different positions (compared with the hands of the clock at
> > rest).
>
> > Now that's what I call a PHYSICALLY different clock.
>
> He did not say: "the hands of the clock at are identical".
> So, indeed, as I said, you don't understand the difference
> between rates and values.
>
>
> Dirk Vdm- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Dear Dirk: If the "test" clock returns to the same place as the
"control" clock, the rates for both will again be the same. But the
hands or LEDs will show different TIMES. The latter is a PHYSICAL
difference in the TIMES. Agreed? — NoEinstein —
NoEinstein
> Explanations of the Michelson-Morley experiment within Einsteiniana:
>
> CLEVER EINSTEINIANS:
>
> http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00001743/02/Norton.pdf
> John Norton: "Einstein regarded the Michelson-Morley experiment as
> evidence for the principle of relativity, whereas later writers almost
> universally use it as support for the light postulate of special
> relativity......THE MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE
> WITH AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT
> POSTULATE."
>
> http://books.google.com/books?id=JokgnS1JtmMC
> "Relativity and Its Roots" By Banesh Hoffmann
> p.92: "There are various remarks to be made about this second
> principle. For instance, if it is so obvious, how could it turn out to
> be part of a revolution - especially when the first principle is also
> a natural one? Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein
> had suggested in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this
> one, the second principle seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding
> train can do far more damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the
> speed of the particle is not independent of the motion of the object
> emitting it. And if we take light to consist of particles and assume
> that these particles obey Newton's laws, they will conform to
> Newtonian relativity and thus automatically account for the null
> result of the Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to
> contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations. Yet, as
> we have seen, Einstein resisted the temptation to account for the null
> result in terms of particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian
> ideas, and introduced as his second postulate something that was more
> or less obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether. If it
> was so obvious, though, why did he need to state it as a principle?
> Because, having taken from the idea of light waves in the ether the
> one aspect that he needed, he declared early in his paper, to quote
> his own words, that "the introduction of a 'luminiferous ether' will
> prove to be superfluous."
>
> SILLY EINSTEINIANS:
>
> http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/dice.html
> Stephen Hawking: "Interestingly enough, Laplace himself wrote a paper
> in 1799 on how some stars could have a gravitational field so strong
> that light could not escape, but would be dragged back onto the star.
> He even calculated that a star of the same density as the Sun, but two
> hundred and fifty times the size, would have this property. But
> although Laplace may not have realised it, the same idea had been put
> forward 16 years earlier by a Cambridge man, John Mitchell, in a paper
> in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society. Both Mitchell
> and Laplace thought of light as consisting of particles, rather like
> cannon balls, that could be slowed down by gravity, and made to fall
> back on the star. But a famous experiment, carried out by two
> Americans, Michelson and Morley in 1887, showed that light always
> travelled at a speed of one hundred and eighty six thousand miles a
> second, no matter where it came from. How then could gravity slow down
> light, and make it fall back."
>
> http://www.time.com/time/time100/poc/magazine/a_brief_history_of_rela...
> Stephen Hawking: "So if you were traveling in the same direction as
> the light, you would expect that its speed would appear to be lower,
> and if you were traveling in the opposite direction to the light, that
> its speed would appear to be higher. Yet a series of experiments
> failed to find any evidence for differences in speed due to motion
> through the ether. The most careful and accurate of these experiments
> was carried out by Albert Michelson and Edward Morley at the Case
> Institute in Cleveland, Ohio, in 1887......It was as if light always
> traveled at the same speed relative to you, no matter how you were
> moving."
>
> http://us.penguingroup.com/nf/Book/BookDisplay/0,,9780142003619,00.ht...
> Faster Than the Speed of Light
> The Story of a Scientific Speculation
> Joao Magueijo
> Chapter 1: "VERY SILLY"
> "In 1887, in one of the most important scientific experiments ever
> undertaken, the American scientists Albert Michelson and Edward Morley
> showed that the apparent speed of light was not affected by the motion
> of the Earth. This experiment was very puzzling for everyone at the
> time. It contradicted the commonsense notion that speeds always add
> up. A missile fired from a plane moves faster than one fired from the
> ground because the plane's speed adds to the missile's speed. If I
> throw something forward on a moving train, its speed with respect to
> the platform is the speed of that object plus that of the train. You
> might think that the same should happen to light: Light flashed from a
> train should travel faster. However, what the Michelson-Morley
> experiments showed was that this was not the case: Light always moves
> stubbornly at the same speed. This means that if I take a light ray
> and ask several observers moving with respect to each other to measure
> the speed of this light ray, they will all agree on the same apparent
> speed!"
>
> EXTREMELY DISHONEST EINSTEINIANS:
>
> http://www.edu-observatory.org/physics-faq/Relativity/SR/experiments....
> Tom Roberts: "The Michelson-Morley experiment (MMX) was intended to
> measure the velocity of the Earth relative to the “lumeniferous æther”
> which was at the time presumed to carry electromagnetic phenomena. The
> failure of it and the other early experiments to actually observe the
> Earth's motion through the æther became significant in promoting the
> acceptance of Einstein's theory of Special Relativity, as it was
> appreciated from early on that Einstein's approach (via symmetry) was
> more elegant and parsimonious of assumptions than were other
> approaches (e.g. those of Maxwell, Hertz, Stokes, Fresnel, Lorentz,
> Ritz, and Abraham)."
>
> Pentcho Valev
> pva...@yahoo.com
Dear Pentcho: M-M never passed the Scientific Method. If simple
algebraic analysis had been done by anyone before yours truly, there
would be no space-time and no relativity junk. The "apparent" lack of
an ether medium to speed or slow the light in M-M was because no one
before me realized that having a 45 degree mirror (beam splitter) in
both light courses allowed such to AUTOMATICALLY CORRECT for the speed-
up or slow-down of the light. My successful X, Y & Z interferometer
experiment easily detects Earth's movement in the Cosmos; proves that
'c' isn't the maximum; and disproves space-time and Einstein's
relativity ideas. CASE closed! — NoEinstein —
Replicating NoEinstein’s Invalidation of M-M
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/t/ac6fcd9b4e8112ed?hl=en
Dirk Van de moortel
163d3bb4-0d72-47d6...@59g2000hsb.googlegroups.com
[snip]
> Folks: Clocks, even those without moving parts, are slowed
> PHYSICALLY by being impacted by flowing ether.
So this flowing ether impacts your heart beat, the quartz
in your wristwatch, the gears and cogs in your grandfather's
clock, the transitions in the cesium atoms, the decay of
free neutrons etc, all in exactly the same mysterious way.
Fun stuff.
> 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 —
If you would have read and understood anything, you would know
that these moronic ideas are based on 2 simple facts:
1) the way we measure distances and times
2) the experimental fact that we always measure the same value
for light speed
Perhaps morons measure distances and times with their nose
and ears and thus find different values for light speed, but that
is your problem, right?
Dirk Vdm
NoEinstein
> Two cars travel from Sofia to Varna, Bulgaria.
> One car's odometer reads 468 km, and the other car's odometer reads
> 497 km, when they meet again in Varna. They of course did not travel
> side-by-side.
> Now, do you conclude from the fact that they have different readings
> that the odometers are now (or ever were) physically different from
> each other?
>
>
>
>
>
> > in the sketch below:
>
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vuW6tQ0218
>
> > Pentcho Valev
> > pva...@yahoo.com- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Folks: Would painting a mustache on PD's face make him physically
different? A physical variance in the odometer reading is such a
difference, too! — NoEinstein —
Dirk Van de moortel
96e5c259-3af6-47fd...@i76g2000hsf.googlegroups.com
> "control" clock, the rates for both will again be the same. But the
> hands or LEDs will show different TIMES. The latter is a PHYSICAL
> difference in the TIMES.
No PHYSICAL difference in the CLOCKS.
> Agreed?
Go die on someone else's shoulder.
Dirk Vdm
Xaustein
(...)
Les calculs de Lorentz (1886) par l'expérience de M.M. de 1887 sont
incorrectes.
Lisez H.A. Munera, R.T. Cahill, ....
Calculations Lorentz (1886) by the experience of M.M. 1887 are
incorrect.
Read H.A. Munera, R.T. Cahill, ...
Au revoir
doug
Xaustein wrote:
Cahill is a crank who publishes junk which has no relation to
the truth. He says a gas interferometer gives different
answers than a vacuum interferometer or a solid interferometer.
So is relativity only good for a vacuum or a solid but not in
a gas? The alternate explanation is that he does not know what
he is doing. That is the opinion of educated people.
>
> Au revoir
harry
<dirkvandemoor...@nospAm.hotmail.com> wrote:
[...]
> >>>>>>> The travelling clock returns
> >>>>>>> PHYSICALLY different from the clock at rest
[...]
> > Dear Dirk: If the "test" clock returns to the same place as the
> > "control" clock, the rates for both will again be the same. But the
> > hands or LEDs will show different TIMES. The latter is a PHYSICAL
> > difference in the TIMES.
>
> No PHYSICAL difference in the CLOCKS.
>> Dear Dirk: If the "test" clock returns to the same place as the
>> "control" clock, the rates for both will again be the same. But the
>> hands or LEDs will show different TIMES. The latter is a PHYSICAL
>> difference in the TIMES.
>
> No PHYSICAL difference in the CLOCKS.
[...]
Evidently you insist: "No PHYSICAL difference in the CLOCKS". Thus
I'll be glad to sell you my dad's old clock for the price of a new
one! :-)))
Cheers,
Harald
harry
"doug" <x...@xx.com> wrote in message
news:ToudncIS1YMLxFTV...@posted.docknet...
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.
Cheers,
Harald
PD
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
PD
> On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 05:16:30 -0700 (PDT), PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Sep 9, 9:17 pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
> >> On Tue, 9 Sep 2008 17:53:06 -0700 (PDT), PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >On Sep 9, 5:56 pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
> >> >> On Tue, 9 Sep 2008 09:40:57 -0700 (PDT), PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >On Sep 9, 9:07 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> On Sep 9, 2:27 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> 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
> >> >> >> pva...@yahoo.com
>
> >> >> >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.
>
> >> >> 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.
>
> magnetic lines of force in the usual manner.
The iron filings are not the lines of force. They lie along lines of
force.
> Now run past the paper as quickly
> as you can and tell me whether or not the pattern changes as you run.
Let's deal with something you probably understand.
You know that a wire that has electric charge distributed on it has a
radially pointing electric field that falls off like 1/r (away from
the string if the charge is positive), and no magnetic field.
You also know that a long wire with electric current has a magnetic
field that is oriented in circles around the wire that falls off like
1/r.
Now take the statically charged wire, Henri, and run along it as fast
as you can, and what do you have? Why yes, a wire with a current in
it!
>
> >> 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?
>
> Study psychology. You might find out why you love making such a fool of
> yourself.
I meant a physics reference. Which one do you recommend, Henri?
PD
>
> > 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?
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.
Dr. Henri Wilson
This is the kind of question appeals to people like you.
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).
Do you agree that the act of moving through an electric field can produce a
magnetic force?
Do you agree that a 'moving electron and a moving observer' is the same as
'stationary electron and a moving 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.
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'?
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.
Dr. Henri Wilson
wrote:
>On Sep 10, 11:57 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Forget the MMX, NoEinstein. The explanation is trivial. Light is ballistic.
PD
> On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 14:08:07 -0700 (PDT), PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Sep 10, 6:37 pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
> >> On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 05:16:30 -0700 (PDT), PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Diaper, get a bar magnet, some iron filings and a sheet of paper. Create some
> >> magnetic lines of force in the usual manner.
>
> >The iron filings are not the lines of force. They lie along lines of
> >force.
>
> >> Now run past the paper as quickly
> >> as you can and tell me whether or not the pattern changes as you run.
>
> >Let's deal with something you probably understand.
> >You know that a wire that has electric charge distributed on it has a
> >radially pointing electric field that falls off like 1/r (away from
> >the string if the charge is positive), and no magnetic field.
> >You also know that a long wire with electric current has a magnetic
> >field that is oriented in circles around the wire that falls off like
> >1/r.
> >Now take the statically charged wire, Henri, and run along it as fast
> >as you can, and what do you have? Why yes, a wire with a current in
> >it!
>
> This is the kind of question appeals to people like you.
>
> 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?
> Do you agree that a 'moving electron and a moving 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?
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
I'm certainly curious what answers you think you have about classical
electrostatics.
PD
Spaceman
Let me make you think about it...
Answer this question and you may wake up.
What is being counted to supposedly measure time dickweed?
Spaceman
> 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?
Spaceman
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.
:)
--
James M Driscoll Jr
Creator of the Clock Malfunction Theory
Spaceman
doug
Spaceman wrote:
Not a mass moving. What do you think it is?
>