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: > >>>> 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 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 > >>>>>>> Oh, come, come, Pentcho, you know better! Momentum, velocity, kinetic >>>>>>> energy, electric field, magnetic field -- all these are physical >>>>>>> properties that in fact change with change in reference frame, and >>>>>>> there is no physical process acting on the object to effect that >>>>>>> change. For most of those, Galileo and Newton knew that, and that was >>>>>>> 300 years prior to anyone even knowing who Einstein was, let alone >>>>>>> singing songs about him. > >>>>>>> PD > >>>>>> Clever Draper what are you talking about. The travelling clock returns >>>>>> PHYSICALLY different from the clock at rest (according to Divine >>>>>> Albert's Divine Idiocy), > >>>>> No, it doesn't. When it returns and is compared with the clock at >>>>> rest, the rates of the clocks are identical. > >>>> Don't lie, Clever Draper. When the travelling clock is compared with >>>> the clock at rest, they are PHYSICALLY different (according to Divine >>>> Albert's Divine Idiocy). > >>> No, they show different rates when viewed from different reference >>> frames, but the clocks are physically identical. This is no different >>> than a car having a different kinetic energy when viewed from a >>> different reference frame, but it still being a physically unchanged >>> car. > >>> It would help if you understood what Divine Albert actually said, >>> Pentcho. > >> 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. > > 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? 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 pvalev@yahoo.com |
|
Fumble Index | Original post & context: 467958b5-c428-4510-a9db-42bc3fc7dead@c65g2000hsa.googlegroups.com |