🚀 go-pugleaf

Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> wrote in message
  575bf53a-0924-4939-902f-f7b55a438a3f@k7g2000hsd.googlegroups.com
> On Sep 10, 4:23 pm, "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
> 
> 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?

Paul said: "the rates of the clocks are identical".
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