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