🚀 go-pugleaf

On Sep 10, 10:23 am, "Dirk Van de moortel"
<dirkvandemoor...@nospAm.hotmail.com> wrote:
> Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
>   5bafb58e-2ffc-45f9-a9c6-f4234ac71...@l42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com
>
>
>
>
>
> > 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.
>
> 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- 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 —