On Friday, November 19, 2021 at 12:30:03 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 11/18/2021 11:56 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
> > On Wednesday, November 17, 2021 at 3:53:32 PM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >> On 11/17/2021 4:41 PM, Ed Lake wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, November 17, 2021 at 3:32:09 PM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >>>> I wrote elsewhere:
> >>>>
> >>>>>> I need to think about it.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Do I detect a crack in the hardheadedness of Ed's stubborn beliefs? Sounds like it, right?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> But no, the idée fixe almost always wins in the end. Ed's idée fixe rules him. It pwns him. It controls what he believes. Almost as if it's alive.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I predict tomorrow, he will be roaring forth, posting like mad how the truck isn't an inertial frame but the earth is, how you can measure the speed of a box truck from inside the metal box, a radar measures a moving car's speed when pointed at a stationary road sign because of c+v, oscillating photons, etc. etc.

Okay. After doing a lot of research into inertial and non-inertial systems, I've
realized I was wrong about my proposed radar gun experiment. I'll revise
that paper and any other paper where I suggest that a radar gun can measure
the movement of a truck from inside the truck. That won't work.

I got onto a wrong track because I thought that time dilation wasn't great
enough for radar guns to measure. So, they also had to be measuring speeds
relative to the "inertial system" that is the earth. Therefore, a moving truck
couldn't be an "inertial system." But after studying some of Einstein's thought
experiments I see that they are ONLY about time dilation, not about inertial
versus non-inertial systems, and that means that radar guns measure time
at the gun and at the target and convert the difference into a speed difference.

When light from an emitter hits an approaching target at c+v, v is the speed of
the target AND v is obtained by developing that speed from the difference in
the rate of time at the gun versus the rate of time at the target.

I don't want to explain this any further here. I need to think it over and revise
my paper on "Relativity and Radar Guns" to eliminate that truck experiment
and to explain more about how radar guns measure rate of time differences.

I'll be back to start a new thread when that paper has been revised. Then you
can all just argue against Einstein, the speed of light and time dilation without
getting into inertial and non-inertial systems.

Ed

Ed Lake wrote:
....
> Okay. After doing a lot of research into inertial and non-inertial systems, I've
> realized I was wrong about my proposed radar gun experiment. I'll revise
> that paper and any other paper where I suggest that a radar gun can measure
> the movement of a truck from inside the truck. That won't work.

Good! Better late than never.

Op 19-nov.-2021 om 16:48 schreef Ed Lake:
> On Friday, November 19, 2021 at 12:30:03 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> On 11/18/2021 11:56 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, November 17, 2021 at 3:53:32 PM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>> On 11/17/2021 4:41 PM, Ed Lake wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, November 17, 2021 at 3:32:09 PM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>>>> I wrote elsewhere:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I need to think about it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Do I detect a crack in the hardheadedness of Ed's stubborn beliefs? Sounds like it, right?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But no, the idée fixe almost always wins in the end. Ed's idée fixe rules him. It pwns him. It controls what he believes. Almost as if it's alive.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I predict tomorrow, he will be roaring forth, posting like mad how the truck isn't an inertial frame but the earth is, how you can measure the speed of a box truck from inside the metal box, a radar measures a moving car's speed when pointed at a stationary road sign because of c+v, oscillating photons, etc. etc.
>
> Okay. After doing a lot of research into inertial and non-inertial systems, I've
> realized I was wrong about my proposed radar gun experiment. I'll revise
> that paper and any other paper where I suggest that a radar gun can measure
> the movement of a truck from inside the truck. That won't work.
>
> I got onto a wrong track because I thought that time dilation wasn't great
> enough for radar guns to measure. So, they also had to be measuring speeds
> relative to the "inertial system" that is the earth. Therefore, a moving truck
> couldn't be an "inertial system." But after studying some of Einstein's thought
> experiments I see that they are ONLY about time dilation, not about inertial
> versus non-inertial systems, and that means that radar guns measure time
> at the gun and at the target and convert the difference into a speed difference.
>
> When light from an emitter hits an approaching target at c+v, v is the speed of
> the target AND v is obtained by developing that speed from the difference in
> the rate of time at the gun versus the rate of time at the target.
>
> I don't want to explain this any further here. I need to think it over and revise
> my paper on "Relativity and Radar Guns" to eliminate that truck experiment
> and to explain more about how radar guns measure rate of time differences.
>
> I'll be back to start a new thread when that paper has been revised. Then you
> can all just argue against Einstein, the speed of light and time dilation without
> getting into inertial and non-inertial systems.
>
> Ed
>

Yes, you'll be back to squeeze a new dump out your bowels.
Then we can all just argue about the stench, the speed of farts,
and brain degeneration.

Dirk Vdm

On Friday, November 19, 2021 at 7:48:29 AM UTC-8, det...@outlook.com wrote:

> I'll be back to start a new thread when that paper has been revised. Then you
> can all just argue against Einstein, the speed of light and time dilation without
> getting into inertial and non-inertial systems.
>
Just when I thought that you saw the light, you demonstrate that you are still a cretin. Hint: there will not be any argument against Einstein, only against cranks like you.

On Friday, 19 November 2021 at 16:46:14 UTC+1, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Friday, 19 November 2021 at 14:24:21 UTC+1, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > [-]
> > > > In the meantime in the real world, however, forbidden
> > > > by your insane religion GPS clocks keep measuring
> > > > t'=t, just like all serious clocks always did.
> > > The fact that t /= t' has been known for a long time.
> >
> > So was the fact that Earth is flat. And many others.
> >
> > > Atomic clocks made direct demonstrations possible,
> > > first by flying them around the world on a 747,
> > > nowadays universally by comparing GPS clocks
> > > with atomic clocks in their base stations.
> >
> > Sure. They indicate t';=t, with the precision of
> > an acceptable error.
> Nowadays even table-top experiments show that they don't.

Then - put your nowadays experiments straight into your dumb,
fanatic ass, where they belong. The clocks of GPS indicate/measure
t'=t, with the precision of an acceptable error, and anyone
can check it.

> > > But clocks are getting more 'serious' all the time.
> > > Nowadays the best ones, for example strontium lattice clocks,
> >
> > Your opinion doesn't matter, GPS has demonstrated
> > your dilating junk to be worthless when it came to real,
> > serious measurements. Common sense was warning
> > your insane guru. It was warning all of you.
> >
> > > Build two identical clocks
> >
> > Since when, and why such an idiotic requirement?
> > No, I will build some non-identical clocks instead.
> If you ignore real experimental data

In the meantime in the real world, forbidden by your
moronic religion non-identical GPS clocks keep
measuring t'=t, just like all serious (and non-identical)
clocks always did. But, of course, as you ignore
real experimental data that prove you are wrong
there is no point in continuing an argument.

On Friday, November 19, 2021 at 10:48:29 AM UTC-5, det...@outlook.com wrote:

We still would like to know if you know the definition of inertial frame.
So, can you state it here?

> When light from an emitter hits an approaching target at c+v, v is the speed of
> the target AND v is obtained by developing that speed from the difference in
> the rate of time at the gun versus the rate of time at the target.

Why not analyze a much simpler setup?
Like, just pinging the wall(s) ? That is the simplified basic way a Radar Gun Works.
Send a brief pulse out then you receive a signal back. Send another brief pulse out then you receive another signal back. Knowing the time interval you sent out your two pulses and the time interval you received the two pulses, we can infer the speed.
This way, you don't need any interfering frequencies and wavelengths considerations.

On Friday, 19 November 2021 at 16:46:15 UTC+1, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Odd Bodkin <bodk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > J. J. Lodder <nos...@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:
> > > Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > [-]
> > >> In the meantime in the real world, however, forbidden
> > >> by your insane religion GPS clocks keep measuring
> > >> t'=t, just like all serious clocks always did.
> > >
> > > The fact that t /= t' has been known for a long time.
> > > Atomic clocks made direct demonstrations possible,
> > > first by flying them around the world on a 747,
> > > nowadays universally by comparing GPS clocks
> > > with atomic clocks in their base stations.
> > >
> > > But clocks are getting more 'serious' all the time.
> > > Nowadays the best ones, for example strontium lattice clocks,
> > > are reaching stabilities near 10^-18,
> > > or about one second error over the age of the universe.
> > >
> > > In terms of gravitational shift this stability
> > > corresponds to the gravitational shift caused by height difference
> > > of about about 2 centimeter being measurable. [1]
> > > So t /= t' can now be demonstrated directly in the lab.
> > >
> > > Build two identical clocks, put one on a higher table,
> > > and you can see the difference in their rates.
> > > Exchange the high and the low clock,
> > > and again the highest one will tick faster.
> > > Whatever your ideas were about t = t',
> > > they have by now been directly falsified by lab experiments.
> > >
> > > This precision is by now also having practical applications,
> > > in the form of 'chronometric levelling', aka 'relativistic geodesy'.
> > > Comparing the rate of clocks in different labs by fibre-optical link
> > > the differences in Newtonian potential between those labs can be
> > > measured directly. (hence their height difference wrt the geoid)
> > > This is a far better method than sprit level geodesy.
> > >
> > > As a practical consequence the definition of the second
> > > had to be adapted by stating that the clocks defining the second
> > > must be referred to a given value of the Newtonian potential.
> > >
> > > Jan
> > >
> > > [1] By a tour de force the gravitational shift
> > > has recently been measured to one millimeter height accuracy
> > > inside a single strontium lattice clock.
> > >
> >
> > Woz's chief complaint seems mostly against anyone dictating to him natural
> > laws of any kind.
> Obviously. However, this is not about dictating laws,
> it is observed experimental reality,

In the meantime in the real world, forbidden by your
moronic religion non-identical GPs clocks keep measuring
t'=t, just like all serious (and non-identical) clocks
always did.

> The laws of physics don't care about agreeing or not.
> They also apply to people who disagree with them,

So were Lenin's laws of society evolving.

On Friday, November 19, 2021 at 10:06:17 AM UTC-6, rotchm wrote:
> On Friday, November 19, 2021 at 10:48:29 AM UTC-5, wrote:
>
> We still would like to know if you know the definition of inertial frame.
> So, can you state it here?

I really need to work on revising my papers, but okay.

My definition is the same as Wikipedia's: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertial_frame_of_reference
"In classical physics and special relativity, an inertial frame of reference is a frame of reference that is not undergoing acceleration. In an inertial frame of reference, a physical object with zero net force acting on it moves with a constant velocity (which might be zero)—or, equivalently, it is a frame of reference in which Newton's first law of motion holds.[1][2] An inertial frame of reference can be defined in analytical terms as a frame of reference that describes time and space homogeneously, isotropically, and in a time-independent manner.[3] Conceptually, the physics of a system in an inertial frame have no causes external to the system.[4] An inertial frame of reference may also be called an inertial reference frame, inertial frame, Galilean reference frame, or inertial space."

I would add that a true "inertial system" is one moving through space
IN A STRAIGHT LINE AND at a constant speed that will continue forever.

A "quasi-inertial system" is one moving at a constant speed that
simulates aspects of an "inertial system" for as long as that constant
speed is maintained. That includes the surface of the earth and the
interior (and exterior) of a vehicle moving at a constant speed.

> > When light from an emitter hits an approaching target at c+v, v is the speed of
> > the target AND v is obtained by developing that speed from the difference in
> > the rate of time at the gun versus the rate of time at the target.
> Why not analyze a much simpler setup?
> Like, just pinging the wall(s) ? That is the simplified basic way a Radar Gun Works.
> Send a brief pulse out then you receive a signal back. Send another brief pulse out then you receive another signal back. Knowing the time interval you sent out your two pulses and the time interval you received the two pulses, we can infer the speed.
> This way, you don't need any interfering frequencies and wavelengths considerations.

Because that is the way LIDAR guns work, not RADAR guns. Radar guns measure
oscillation frequency differences, NOT time intervals.

Ed

On Friday, November 19, 2021 at 9:48:29 AM UTC-6, det...@outlook.com wrote:

> Okay. After doing a lot of research into inertial and non-inertial systems, I've
> realized I was wrong about my proposed radar gun experiment. I'll revise
> that paper and any other paper where I suggest that a radar gun can measure
> the movement of a truck from inside the truck. That won't work.

It is not possible to revise your papers sufficiently.
You need to withdraw them completely.

> I got onto a wrong track because I thought that time dilation wasn't great
> enough for radar guns to measure.

It isn't.

> So, they also had to be measuring speeds
> relative to the "inertial system" that is the earth. Therefore, a moving truck
> couldn't be an "inertial system." But after studying some of Einstein's thought
> experiments I see that they are ONLY about time dilation, not about inertial
> versus non-inertial systems,

I have no idea to what thought experiments you are referring.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein%27s_thought_experiments

> and that means that radar guns measure time
> at the gun and at the target and convert the difference into a speed difference.

That's not how radar guns work.

> When light from an emitter hits an approaching target at c+v,

It doesn't.

> v is the speed of
> the target AND v is obtained by developing that speed from the difference in
> the rate of time at the gun versus the rate of time at the target.

Huh??? Those words don't parse.

> I don't want to explain this any further here. I need to think it over and revise
> my paper on "Relativity and Radar Guns" to eliminate that truck experiment
> and to explain more about how radar guns measure rate of time differences.
>
> I'll be back to start a new thread when that paper has been revised. Then you
> can all just argue against Einstein, the speed of light and time dilation without
> getting into inertial and non-inertial systems.

You are that rare breed of crackpot who THINKS that you are
a supporter of Einstein, when in reality you only support your
personal misconceptions.

Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> wrote:
> On Friday, November 19, 2021 at 12:30:03 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> On 11/18/2021 11:56 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, November 17, 2021 at 3:53:32 PM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>> On 11/17/2021 4:41 PM, Ed Lake wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, November 17, 2021 at 3:32:09 PM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>>>> I wrote elsewhere:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I need to think about it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Do I detect a crack in the hardheadedness of Ed's stubborn beliefs?
>>>>>>> Sounds like it, right?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But no, the idée fixe almost always wins in the end. Ed's idée fixe
>>>>>>> rules him. It pwns him. It controls what he believes. Almost as if it's alive.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I predict tomorrow, he will be roaring forth, posting like mad how
>>>>>>> the truck isn't an inertial frame but the earth is, how you can
>>>>>>> measure the speed of a box truck from inside the metal box, a radar
>>>>>>> measures a moving car's speed when pointed at a stationary road
>>>>>>> sign because of c+v, oscillating photons, etc. etc.
>
> Okay. After doing a lot of research into inertial and non-inertial systems, I've
> realized I was wrong about my proposed radar gun experiment. I'll revise
> that paper and any other paper where I suggest that a radar gun can measure
> the movement of a truck from inside the truck. That won't work.
>
> I got onto a wrong track because I thought that time dilation wasn't great
> enough for radar guns to measure. So, they also had to be measuring speeds
> relative to the "inertial system" that is the earth. Therefore, a moving truck
> couldn't be an "inertial system." But after studying some of Einstein's thought
> experiments I see that they are ONLY about time dilation, not about inertial
> versus non-inertial systems, and that means that radar guns measure time
> at the gun and at the target and convert the difference into a speed difference.
>
> When light from an emitter hits an approaching target at c+v, v is the speed of
> the target AND v is obtained by developing that speed from the difference in
> the rate of time at the gun versus the rate of time at the target.
>
> I don't want to explain this any further here. I need to think it over and revise
> my paper on "Relativity and Radar Guns" to eliminate that truck experiment
> and to explain more about how radar guns measure rate of time differences.
>
> I'll be back to start a new thread when that paper has been revised. Then you
> can all just argue against Einstein, the speed of light and time dilation without
> getting into inertial and non-inertial systems.
>
> Ed
>

Ed, this is not going to make you happy, but revising your paper over and
over again as you discover your mistakes is not the right way to go. You
may want to reconsider the approach. As a suggestion, you could elect
instead to spend less time writing publicly and more time with reading
physics instructional materials and writing private notes. As you write
private notes, you will then learn your mistakes in them and be able to
revise your notes. It will be a while before you stop making basic mistakes
and before something you write publicly is not riddled with silly
misconceptions. I hope this approach doesn’t seem stupid to you. It’s what
most people do.

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

J. J. Lodder <nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:
> Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> J. J. Lodder <nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:
>>> Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> [-]
>>>> In the meantime in the real world, however, forbidden
>>>> by your insane religion GPS clocks keep measuring
>>>> t'=t, just like all serious clocks always did.
>>>
>>> The fact that t /= t' has been known for a long time.
>>> Atomic clocks made direct demonstrations possible,
>>> first by flying them around the world on a 747,
>>> nowadays universally by comparing GPS clocks
>>> with atomic clocks in their base stations.
>>>
>>> But clocks are getting more 'serious' all the time.
>>> Nowadays the best ones, for example strontium lattice clocks,
>>> are reaching stabilities near 10^-18,
>>> or about one second error over the age of the universe.
>>>
>>> In terms of gravitational shift this stability
>>> corresponds to the gravitational shift caused by height difference
>>> of about about 2 centimeter being measurable. [1]
>>> So t /= t' can now be demonstrated directly in the lab.
>>>
>>> Build two identical clocks, put one on a higher table,
>>> and you can see the difference in their rates.
>>> Exchange the high and the low clock,
>>> and again the highest one will tick faster.
>>> Whatever your ideas were about t = t',
>>> they have by now been directly falsified by lab experiments.
>>>
>>> This precision is by now also having practical applications,
>>> in the form of 'chronometric levelling', aka 'relativistic geodesy'.
>>> Comparing the rate of clocks in different labs by fibre-optical link
>>> the differences in Newtonian potential between those labs can be
>>> measured directly. (hence their height difference wrt the geoid)
>>> This is a far better method than sprit level geodesy.
>>>
>>> As a practical consequence the definition of the second
>>> had to be adapted by stating that the clocks defining the second
>>> must be referred to a given value of the Newtonian potential.
>>>
>>> Jan
>>>
>>> [1] By a tour de force the gravitational shift
>>> has recently been measured to one millimeter height accuracy
>>> inside a single strontium lattice clock.
>>>
>>
>> Woz's chief complaint seems mostly against anyone dictating to him natural
>> laws of any kind.
>
> Obviously. However, this is not about dictating laws,
> it is observed experimental reality,
> with practical applications coming into general use.
>
>> He reserves the right to rebel against anyone about
>> anything. To him, it's about making what he wants to make, using whatever
>> principles seem to make sense to him, and to tinker to make it work if
>> those principles don't give the desired behavior.
>>
>> So telling him what scientific experiments show is literally irrelevant to
>> him. He has elected to exercise his freedom against anything any physicist
>> says is true, purely for the sake of taking a contrary stance.
>
> The laws of physics don't care about agreeing or not.
> They also apply to people who disagree with them,
>
> Jan
>

Well, yes, you and I know that. The nice thing about nature is that it
doesn’t care whether you agree with it or not.

But people like Wozniak just feel it’s important to thumb noses at people
telling him about nature. It’s that basic “fuck you” that Wozniak prizes
above all things.

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> wrote:
> On Friday, November 19, 2021 at 10:06:17 AM UTC-6, rotchm wrote:
>> On Friday, November 19, 2021 at 10:48:29 AM UTC-5, wrote:
>>
>> We still would like to know if you know the definition of inertial frame.
>> So, can you state it here?
>
> I really need to work on revising my papers, but okay.
>
> My definition is the same as Wikipedia's:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertial_frame_of_reference
> "In classical physics and special relativity, an inertial frame of
> reference is a frame of reference

And what do you think “frame of reference” means? Here’s a case where you
are citing a description where it’s not clear you know what all the terms
in that description mean.

> that is not undergoing acceleration. In an inertial frame of reference,
> a physical object with zero net force acting on it moves with a constant
> velocity (which might be zero)—or, equivalently, it is a frame of
> reference in which Newton's first law of motion holds.[1][2] An inertial
> frame of reference can be defined in analytical terms as a frame of
> reference that describes time and space homogeneously, isotropically, and
> in a time-independent manner.[3] Conceptually, the physics of a system in
> an inertial frame have no causes external to the system.[4] An inertial
> frame of reference may also be called an inertial reference frame,
> inertial frame, Galilean reference frame, or inertial space."
>
> I would add that a true "inertial system" is one moving through space
> IN A STRAIGHT LINE AND at a constant speed that will continue forever.
>
> A "quasi-inertial system" is one moving at a constant speed that
> simulates aspects of an "inertial system" for as long as that constant
> speed is maintained. That includes the surface of the earth and the
> interior (and exterior) of a vehicle moving at a constant speed.
>
>>> When light from an emitter hits an approaching target at c+v, v is the speed of
>>> the target AND v is obtained by developing that speed from the difference in
>>> the rate of time at the gun versus the rate of time at the target.
>> Why not analyze a much simpler setup?
>> Like, just pinging the wall(s) ? That is the simplified basic way a Radar Gun Works.
>> Send a brief pulse out then you receive a signal back. Send another
>> brief pulse out then you receive another signal back. Knowing the time
>> interval you sent out your two pulses and the time interval you received
>> the two pulses, we can infer the speed.
>> This way, you don't need any interfering frequencies and wavelengths considerations.
>
> Because that is the way LIDAR guns work, not RADAR guns. Radar guns measure
> oscillation frequency differences, NOT time intervals.
>
> Ed
>

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On Friday, 19 November 2021 at 18:19:44 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> J. J. Lodder <nos...@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:
> > Odd Bodkin <bodk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> J. J. Lodder <nos...@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:
> >>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> [-]
> >>>> In the meantime in the real world, however, forbidden
> >>>> by your insane religion GPS clocks keep measuring
> >>>> t'=t, just like all serious clocks always did.
> >>>
> >>> The fact that t /= t' has been known for a long time.
> >>> Atomic clocks made direct demonstrations possible,
> >>> first by flying them around the world on a 747,
> >>> nowadays universally by comparing GPS clocks
> >>> with atomic clocks in their base stations.
> >>>
> >>> But clocks are getting more 'serious' all the time.
> >>> Nowadays the best ones, for example strontium lattice clocks,
> >>> are reaching stabilities near 10^-18,
> >>> or about one second error over the age of the universe.
> >>>
> >>> In terms of gravitational shift this stability
> >>> corresponds to the gravitational shift caused by height difference
> >>> of about about 2 centimeter being measurable. [1]
> >>> So t /= t' can now be demonstrated directly in the lab.
> >>>
> >>> Build two identical clocks, put one on a higher table,
> >>> and you can see the difference in their rates.
> >>> Exchange the high and the low clock,
> >>> and again the highest one will tick faster.
> >>> Whatever your ideas were about t = t',
> >>> they have by now been directly falsified by lab experiments.
> >>>
> >>> This precision is by now also having practical applications,
> >>> in the form of 'chronometric levelling', aka 'relativistic geodesy'.
> >>> Comparing the rate of clocks in different labs by fibre-optical link
> >>> the differences in Newtonian potential between those labs can be
> >>> measured directly. (hence their height difference wrt the geoid)
> >>> This is a far better method than sprit level geodesy.
> >>>
> >>> As a practical consequence the definition of the second
> >>> had to be adapted by stating that the clocks defining the second
> >>> must be referred to a given value of the Newtonian potential.
> >>>
> >>> Jan
> >>>
> >>> [1] By a tour de force the gravitational shift
> >>> has recently been measured to one millimeter height accuracy
> >>> inside a single strontium lattice clock.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Woz's chief complaint seems mostly against anyone dictating to him natural
> >> laws of any kind.
> >
> > Obviously. However, this is not about dictating laws,
> > it is observed experimental reality,
> > with practical applications coming into general use.
> >
> >> He reserves the right to rebel against anyone about
> >> anything. To him, it's about making what he wants to make, using whatever
> >> principles seem to make sense to him, and to tinker to make it work if
> >> those principles don't give the desired behavior.
> >>
> >> So telling him what scientific experiments show is literally irrelevant to
> >> him. He has elected to exercise his freedom against anything any physicist
> >> says is true, purely for the sake of taking a contrary stance.
> >
> > The laws of physics don't care about agreeing or not.
> > They also apply to people who disagree with them,
> >
> > Jan
> >
> Well, yes, you and I know that. The nice thing about nature is that it
> doesn’t care whether you agree with it or not.
> But people like Wozniak just feel it’s important to thumb noses at people
> telling him about nature. It’s that basic “fuck you” that Wozniak prizes
> above all things.

Neither it does care about these moronic "laws" invented
and announced in its name by your insane bunch. But people
like Bodkin feel it's important to persuade everyone that
these mad delusions of his insane gurus are the nature
somehow.

Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote:

> J. J. Lodder <nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:
> > Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> J. J. Lodder <nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:
> >>> Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> [-]
> >>>> In the meantime in the real world, however, forbidden
> >>>> by your insane religion GPS clocks keep measuring
> >>>> t'=t, just like all serious clocks always did.
> >>>
> >>> The fact that t /= t' has been known for a long time.
> >>> Atomic clocks made direct demonstrations possible,
> >>> first by flying them around the world on a 747,
> >>> nowadays universally by comparing GPS clocks
> >>> with atomic clocks in their base stations.
> >>>
> >>> But clocks are getting more 'serious' all the time.
> >>> Nowadays the best ones, for example strontium lattice clocks,
> >>> are reaching stabilities near 10^-18,
> >>> or about one second error over the age of the universe.
> >>>
> >>> In terms of gravitational shift this stability
> >>> corresponds to the gravitational shift caused by height difference
> >>> of about about 2 centimeter being measurable. [1]
> >>> So t /= t' can now be demonstrated directly in the lab.
> >>>
> >>> Build two identical clocks, put one on a higher table,
> >>> and you can see the difference in their rates.
> >>> Exchange the high and the low clock,
> >>> and again the highest one will tick faster.
> >>> Whatever your ideas were about t = t',
> >>> they have by now been directly falsified by lab experiments.
> >>>
> >>> This precision is by now also having practical applications,
> >>> in the form of 'chronometric levelling', aka 'relativistic geodesy'.
> >>> Comparing the rate of clocks in different labs by fibre-optical link
> >>> the differences in Newtonian potential between those labs can be
> >>> measured directly. (hence their height difference wrt the geoid)
> >>> This is a far better method than sprit level geodesy.
> >>>
> >>> As a practical consequence the definition of the second
> >>> had to be adapted by stating that the clocks defining the second
> >>> must be referred to a given value of the Newtonian potential.
> >>>
> >>> Jan
> >>>
> >>> [1] By a tour de force the gravitational shift
> >>> has recently been measured to one millimeter height accuracy
> >>> inside a single strontium lattice clock.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Woz's chief complaint seems mostly against anyone dictating to him natural
> >> laws of any kind.
> >
> > Obviously. However, this is not about dictating laws,
> > it is observed experimental reality,
> > with practical applications coming into general use.
> >
> >> He reserves the right to rebel against anyone about
> >> anything. To him, it's about making what he wants to make, using whatever
> >> principles seem to make sense to him, and to tinker to make it work if
> >> those principles don't give the desired behavior.
> >>
> >> So telling him what scientific experiments show is literally irrelevant to
> >> him. He has elected to exercise his freedom against anything any physicist
> >> says is true, purely for the sake of taking a contrary stance.
> >
> > The laws of physics don't care about agreeing or not.
> > They also apply to people who disagree with them,
> >
> > Jan
> >
>
> Well, yes, you and I know that. The nice thing about nature is that it
> doesn't care whether you agree with it or not.

Nature can be less than nice about it.
It can kill wannabee dissidents who do really stupid things.

> But people like Wozniak just feel it's important to thumb noses at people
> telling him about nature. It's that basic "fuck you" that Wozniak prizes
> above all things.

Developments go quite rapidly.
Europe is set to build a continent-wide clock synchronisation network.
Very practical matters like synchronising computer and power networks
are going to depend on it for the next increase in precision.

Jan

On Friday, November 19, 2021 at 11:42:30 AM UTC-5, det...@outlook.com wrote:
> On Friday, November 19, 2021 at 10:06:17 AM UTC-6, rotchm wrote:
> > On Friday, November 19, 2021 at 10:48:29 AM UTC-5, wrote:
> >
> > We still would like to know if you know the definition of inertial frame.
> > So, can you state it here?

> I really need to work on revising my papers, but okay.

Irrelevant to the discussion. Stay on topic, the topic being the definition if inertial frame/system.

> My definition is the same as Wikipedia's: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertial_frame_of_reference
> "... an inertial frame of reference is a frame of reference that is not undergoing acceleration. "

<SNIP, you don't need to include the rest. Learn to write concisely, leaving out all the 'junk'>

So, a truck coasting at constant speed, is not accelerating, right?
So by definition, its an inertial frame (system), right?

> I would add that a true "inertial system" is one moving through space
> IN A STRAIGHT LINE AND at a constant speed that will continue forever.

You cannot add your stuff to an already well-established definition. If we are to understand ourselves, we need to agree on the meanings of the words we use. The meaning of inertial frame is the one stated in the wiki reference for example. Perhaps you wanted to find a new system, like the word T_inertial_frame, and defined as you defined it just above. But that becomes irrelevant to the discussion and of special relativity. Special relativity is about inertial frames, not Ed's T_inertial_frames.

> A "quasi-inertial system" is one moving at a constant speed that
> simulates aspects of an "inertial system" for as long as that constant
> speed is maintained.

The above is the definition of inertial frame. No need to call it something else. Recall that in physics we have operational definitions. The operational definition of inertial frame, is one where no accelerations are detected. So there may be accelerations, but if they are below the desired accuracies, then there is "no acceleration", and hence, its an inertial frame for the purposes at hand.

> That includes the surface of the earth and the
> interior (and exterior) of a vehicle moving at a constant speed.

Yes, for the purposes of the discussions here, they are inertial frames. However, if we need to consider the rotation of the earth, the little bumps on the road, then they are not inertial frames. But in our discussions this is not what we are talking about. We are talking about the ideal case of a truck riding on a road without any bumps and without considering the rotation of the Earth, where these effects are well below our desired needs.

> > Why not analyze a much simpler setup?
> > Like, just pinging the wall(s) ? That is the simplified basic way a Radar Gun Works.

> Because that is the way LIDAR guns work, not RADAR guns.

It's a much simpler experiment to perform. And is equivalent to radar guns.
Are you saying, or, were saying, that a lidar inside a truck will indicate 0, whereas a radar would indicate V?

>Radar guns measure
> oscillation frequency differences, NOT time intervals.

They are fundamentally equivalent. To establish a frequency, we need to establish or Define its time interval beforehand. Even distance, like the meter, is fundamentally a Time measurement (look up how the "metre" is defined).. But all this is off topic. We are discussing the concept of inertial frame.

On Friday, 19 November 2021 at 21:12:37 UTC+1, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Odd Bodkin <bodk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > J. J. Lodder <nos...@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:
> > > Odd Bodkin <bodk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> J. J. Lodder <nos...@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:
> > >>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>> [-]
> > >>>> In the meantime in the real world, however, forbidden
> > >>>> by your insane religion GPS clocks keep measuring
> > >>>> t'=t, just like all serious clocks always did.
> > >>>
> > >>> The fact that t /= t' has been known for a long time.
> > >>> Atomic clocks made direct demonstrations possible,
> > >>> first by flying them around the world on a 747,
> > >>> nowadays universally by comparing GPS clocks
> > >>> with atomic clocks in their base stations.
> > >>>
> > >>> But clocks are getting more 'serious' all the time.
> > >>> Nowadays the best ones, for example strontium lattice clocks,
> > >>> are reaching stabilities near 10^-18,
> > >>> or about one second error over the age of the universe.
> > >>>
> > >>> In terms of gravitational shift this stability
> > >>> corresponds to the gravitational shift caused by height difference
> > >>> of about about 2 centimeter being measurable. [1]
> > >>> So t /= t' can now be demonstrated directly in the lab.
> > >>>
> > >>> Build two identical clocks, put one on a higher table,
> > >>> and you can see the difference in their rates.
> > >>> Exchange the high and the low clock,
> > >>> and again the highest one will tick faster.
> > >>> Whatever your ideas were about t = t',
> > >>> they have by now been directly falsified by lab experiments.
> > >>>
> > >>> This precision is by now also having practical applications,
> > >>> in the form of 'chronometric levelling', aka 'relativistic geodesy'.
> > >>> Comparing the rate of clocks in different labs by fibre-optical link
> > >>> the differences in Newtonian potential between those labs can be
> > >>> measured directly. (hence their height difference wrt the geoid)
> > >>> This is a far better method than sprit level geodesy.
> > >>>
> > >>> As a practical consequence the definition of the second
> > >>> had to be adapted by stating that the clocks defining the second
> > >>> must be referred to a given value of the Newtonian potential.
> > >>>
> > >>> Jan
> > >>>
> > >>> [1] By a tour de force the gravitational shift
> > >>> has recently been measured to one millimeter height accuracy
> > >>> inside a single strontium lattice clock.
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> Woz's chief complaint seems mostly against anyone dictating to him natural
> > >> laws of any kind.
> > >
> > > Obviously. However, this is not about dictating laws,
> > > it is observed experimental reality,
> > > with practical applications coming into general use.
> > >
> > >> He reserves the right to rebel against anyone about
> > >> anything. To him, it's about making what he wants to make, using whatever
> > >> principles seem to make sense to him, and to tinker to make it work if
> > >> those principles don't give the desired behavior.
> > >>
> > >> So telling him what scientific experiments show is literally irrelevant to
> > >> him. He has elected to exercise his freedom against anything any physicist
> > >> says is true, purely for the sake of taking a contrary stance.
> > >
> > > The laws of physics don't care about agreeing or not.
> > > They also apply to people who disagree with them,
> > >
> > > Jan
> > >
> >
> > Well, yes, you and I know that. The nice thing about nature is that it
> > doesn't care whether you agree with it or not.
> Nature can be less than nice about it.
> It can kill wannabee dissidents who do really stupid things.

Don't worry, poor idiot, it won't kill you just for praising the junk
clocks of your insane guru. If you were also stupid enough to
really use them - well, it could end bad.

> > But people like Wozniak just feel it's important to thumb noses at people
> > telling him about nature. It's that basic "fuck you" that Wozniak prizes
> > above all things.
> Developments go quite rapidly.
> Europe is set to build a continent-wide clock synchronisation network.

Against your moronic religion and its wannabe standards,
demanding clocks to desynchronize, for the glory of your idiot
guru and fulfilling his moronic prophecies.

On Friday, November 19, 2021 at 11:19:44 AM UTC-6, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Ed Lake wrote:
> > On Friday, November 19, 2021 at 12:30:03 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >> On 11/18/2021 11:56 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, November 17, 2021 at 3:53:32 PM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >>>> On 11/17/2021 4:41 PM, Ed Lake wrote:
> >>>>> On Wednesday, November 17, 2021 at 3:32:09 PM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >>>>>> I wrote elsewhere:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I need to think about it.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Do I detect a crack in the hardheadedness of Ed's stubborn beliefs?
> >>>>>>> Sounds like it, right?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> But no, the idée fixe almost always wins in the end. Ed's idée fixe
> >>>>>>> rules him. It pwns him. It controls what he believes. Almost as if it's alive.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I predict tomorrow, he will be roaring forth, posting like mad how
> >>>>>>> the truck isn't an inertial frame but the earth is, how you can
> >>>>>>> measure the speed of a box truck from inside the metal box, a radar
> >>>>>>> measures a moving car's speed when pointed at a stationary road
> >>>>>>> sign because of c+v, oscillating photons, etc. etc.
> >
> > Okay. After doing a lot of research into inertial and non-inertial systems, I've
> > realized I was wrong about my proposed radar gun experiment. I'll revise
> > that paper and any other paper where I suggest that a radar gun can measure
> > the movement of a truck from inside the truck. That won't work.
> >
> > I got onto a wrong track because I thought that time dilation wasn't great
> > enough for radar guns to measure. So, they also had to be measuring speeds
> > relative to the "inertial system" that is the earth. Therefore, a moving truck
> > couldn't be an "inertial system." But after studying some of Einstein's thought
> > experiments I see that they are ONLY about time dilation, not about inertial
> > versus non-inertial systems, and that means that radar guns measure time
> > at the gun and at the target and convert the difference into a speed difference.
> >
> > When light from an emitter hits an approaching target at c+v, v is the speed of
> > the target AND v is obtained by developing that speed from the difference in
> > the rate of time at the gun versus the rate of time at the target.
> >
> > I don't want to explain this any further here. I need to think it over and revise
> > my paper on "Relativity and Radar Guns" to eliminate that truck experiment
> > and to explain more about how radar guns measure rate of time differences.
> >
> > I'll be back to start a new thread when that paper has been revised. Then you
> > can all just argue against Einstein, the speed of light and time dilation without
> > getting into inertial and non-inertial systems.
> >
> > Ed
> >
> Ed, this is not going to make you happy, but revising your paper over and
> over again as you discover your mistakes is not the right way to go. You
> may want to reconsider the approach. As a suggestion, you could elect
> instead to spend less time writing publicly and more time with reading
> physics instructional materials and writing private notes. As you write
> private notes, you will then learn your mistakes in them and be able to
> revise your notes. It will be a while before you stop making basic mistakes
> and before something you write publicly is not riddled with silly
> misconceptions. I hope this approach doesn’t seem stupid to you. It’s what
> most people do.

On my Kindle, I'm currently reading "How to Astronaut" by astronaut Terry Virts.
I'm almost done. Meanwhile, while driving around doing chores, I've just started
LISTENING TO another science related AUDIO book. It's a TERRIFIC book titled
"The Life-Changing Science of Detecting Bullshit" by John V. Petrocelli.
Here are some passages:

"The scientific method isn’t employed to support what one desires to believe. The scientific method is a systematic way of collecting and recording objective observations in the hopes of making objective conclusions about our world. Scientists use the method because they desire to know the truth."

"To keep from fooling themselves into assuming their theories are correct, scientists don’t stop at what they think and hope to be true. Rather, they make predictions based on their hypotheses and test them with fair experiments that are designed to put their hypotheses to the most stringent tests possible."

"When scientists later publicize their experiment-based conclusions, you can be sure that they will be scrutinized. Dozens, if not hundreds, of qualified experts will ask: Are the premises true? Are the conclusions supported by all of the data? Are the arguments and conclusions logically strong? Were all relevant factors considered? It is this often-forgotten stage of critical scrutiny that fortifies the strength of the scientific process."

"Of course, scientists are human beings and the process of science is a social enterprise not immune to error—there are times when it’s wrong. After all, it took thousands of years for people to begin to accept that the Earth was spherical. Despite all the clever demonstrations since the time of Eratosthenes—and there were many—it wasn’t until after confirmed reports that Magellan and Elcano completed a circumnavigation of the globe from 1519 to 1522 that the true shape of the Earth was commonly accepted. "

When I finish "How to Astronaut" I'll probably start reading another
science related book on my Kindle, most likely "Science Fictions:
How FRAUD, BIAS, NEGLIGENCE and HYPE undermine the search for truth"
by Stuart Ritchie.

BTW, I got into writing science papers when I found that MOST college
physics textbooks have a WRONG version of Einstein's Second Postulate.
So, if I were to take a course in physics, I'd want to find where they use
a textbook with the CORRECT version of Einstein's Second Postulate.
Then what would people on this forum say?

Ed

On Friday, November 19, 2021 at 2:59:33 PM UTC-6, det...@outlook.com wrote:

> BTW, I got into writing science papers when I found that MOST college
> physics textbooks have a WRONG version of Einstein's Second Postulate.
> So, if I were to take a course in physics, I'd want to find where they use
> a textbook with the CORRECT version of Einstein's Second Postulate.
> Then what would people on this forum say?

Most physics textbooks present a "strong" version of the second
postulate which is a straightforward lemma resulting from applying
the first postulate to Einstein's original "weak" formulation of the
second postulate. The proof of the lemma entails, at most, one
paragraph of straightforward explanation.

On Friday, 19 November 2021 at 22:39:53 UTC+1, prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, November 19, 2021 at 2:59:33 PM UTC-6, det...@outlook.com wrote:
>
> > BTW, I got into writing science papers when I found that MOST college
> > physics textbooks have a WRONG version of Einstein's Second Postulate.
> > So, if I were to take a course in physics, I'd want to find where they use
> > a textbook with the CORRECT version of Einstein's Second Postulate.
> > Then what would people on this forum say?
> Most physics textbooks present a "strong" version of the second
> postulate which is a straightforward lemma resulting from applying
> the first postulate to Einstein's original "weak" formulation of the
> second postulate. The proof of the lemma entails, at most, one
> paragraph of straightforward explanation.

But in the meantime in the real world - forbidden by your moronic
religion GPS clocks keep measuring t'==t, just like all serious
clocks always did.

Ed Lake wrote:

> On my Kindle, I'm currently reading "How to Astronaut" by astronaut
> Terry Virts.
> I'm almost done. Meanwhile, while driving around doing chores, I've
> just started LISTENING TO another science related AUDIO book. It's a
> TERRIFIC book titled
> "The Life-Changing Science of Detecting Bullshit" by John V.
> Petrocelli. Here are some passages:

Biden When Asked About the State of His Health: ‘Good…I Feel Great, I’m
Looking Forward to Celebrating my 58th Birthday'
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/11/biden-asked-state-health-good-
feel-great-looking-forward-celebrating-58th-birthday-video/

J. J. Lodder <nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:
> Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> J. J. Lodder <nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:
>>> Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> J. J. Lodder <nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:
>>>>> Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> [-]
>>>>>> In the meantime in the real world, however, forbidden
>>>>>> by your insane religion GPS clocks keep measuring
>>>>>> t'=t, just like all serious clocks always did.
>>>>>
>>>>> The fact that t /= t' has been known for a long time.
>>>>> Atomic clocks made direct demonstrations possible,
>>>>> first by flying them around the world on a 747,
>>>>> nowadays universally by comparing GPS clocks
>>>>> with atomic clocks in their base stations.
>>>>>
>>>>> But clocks are getting more 'serious' all the time.
>>>>> Nowadays the best ones, for example strontium lattice clocks,
>>>>> are reaching stabilities near 10^-18,
>>>>> or about one second error over the age of the universe.
>>>>>
>>>>> In terms of gravitational shift this stability
>>>>> corresponds to the gravitational shift caused by height difference
>>>>> of about about 2 centimeter being measurable. [1]
>>>>> So t /= t' can now be demonstrated directly in the lab.
>>>>>
>>>>> Build two identical clocks, put one on a higher table,
>>>>> and you can see the difference in their rates.
>>>>> Exchange the high and the low clock,
>>>>> and again the highest one will tick faster.
>>>>> Whatever your ideas were about t = t',
>>>>> they have by now been directly falsified by lab experiments.
>>>>>
>>>>> This precision is by now also having practical applications,
>>>>> in the form of 'chronometric levelling', aka 'relativistic geodesy'.
>>>>> Comparing the rate of clocks in different labs by fibre-optical link
>>>>> the differences in Newtonian potential between those labs can be
>>>>> measured directly. (hence their height difference wrt the geoid)
>>>>> This is a far better method than sprit level geodesy.
>>>>>
>>>>> As a practical consequence the definition of the second
>>>>> had to be adapted by stating that the clocks defining the second
>>>>> must be referred to a given value of the Newtonian potential.
>>>>>
>>>>> Jan
>>>>>
>>>>> [1] By a tour de force the gravitational shift
>>>>> has recently been measured to one millimeter height accuracy
>>>>> inside a single strontium lattice clock.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Woz's chief complaint seems mostly against anyone dictating to him natural
>>>> laws of any kind.
>>>
>>> Obviously. However, this is not about dictating laws,
>>> it is observed experimental reality,
>>> with practical applications coming into general use.
>>>
>>>> He reserves the right to rebel against anyone about
>>>> anything. To him, it's about making what he wants to make, using whatever
>>>> principles seem to make sense to him, and to tinker to make it work if
>>>> those principles don't give the desired behavior.
>>>>
>>>> So telling him what scientific experiments show is literally irrelevant to
>>>> him. He has elected to exercise his freedom against anything any physicist
>>>> says is true, purely for the sake of taking a contrary stance.
>>>
>>> The laws of physics don't care about agreeing or not.
>>> They also apply to people who disagree with them,
>>>
>>> Jan
>>>
>>
>> Well, yes, you and I know that. The nice thing about nature is that it
>> doesn't care whether you agree with it or not.
>
> Nature can be less than nice about it.
> It can kill wannabee dissidents who do really stupid things.
>
>> But people like Wozniak just feel it's important to thumb noses at people
>> telling him about nature. It's that basic "fuck you" that Wozniak prizes
>> above all things.
>
> Developments go quite rapidly.
> Europe is set to build a continent-wide clock synchronisation network.
> Very practical matters like synchronising computer and power networks
> are going to depend on it for the next increase in precision.
>
> Jan
>

The majestic thing about Wozniak is that he will likely claim that if this
clock synchronization network does not respect the common sense notion that
the second is 1/86400 of a day, then it has abandoned common sense and that
it will be ignored.

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> wrote:
> On Friday, November 19, 2021 at 11:19:44 AM UTC-6, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Ed Lake wrote:
>>> On Friday, November 19, 2021 at 12:30:03 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>> On 11/18/2021 11:56 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, November 17, 2021 at 3:53:32 PM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>>>> On 11/17/2021 4:41 PM, Ed Lake wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wednesday, November 17, 2021 at 3:32:09 PM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>>>>>> I wrote elsewhere:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I need to think about it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Do I detect a crack in the hardheadedness of Ed's stubborn beliefs?
>>>>>>>>> Sounds like it, right?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> But no, the idée fixe almost always wins in the end. Ed's idée fixe
>>>>>>>>> rules him. It pwns him. It controls what he believes. Almost as if it's alive.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I predict tomorrow, he will be roaring forth, posting like mad how
>>>>>>>>> the truck isn't an inertial frame but the earth is, how you can
>>>>>>>>> measure the speed of a box truck from inside the metal box, a radar
>>>>>>>>> measures a moving car's speed when pointed at a stationary road
>>>>>>>>> sign because of c+v, oscillating photons, etc. etc.
>>>
>>> Okay. After doing a lot of research into inertial and non-inertial systems, I've
>>> realized I was wrong about my proposed radar gun experiment. I'll revise
>>> that paper and any other paper where I suggest that a radar gun can measure
>>> the movement of a truck from inside the truck. That won't work.
>>>
>>> I got onto a wrong track because I thought that time dilation wasn't great
>>> enough for radar guns to measure. So, they also had to be measuring speeds
>>> relative to the "inertial system" that is the earth. Therefore, a moving truck
>>> couldn't be an "inertial system." But after studying some of Einstein's thought
>>> experiments I see that they are ONLY about time dilation, not about inertial
>>> versus non-inertial systems, and that means that radar guns measure time
>>> at the gun and at the target and convert the difference into a speed difference.
>>>
>>> When light from an emitter hits an approaching target at c+v, v is the speed of
>>> the target AND v is obtained by developing that speed from the difference in
>>> the rate of time at the gun versus the rate of time at the target.
>>>
>>> I don't want to explain this any further here. I need to think it over and revise
>>> my paper on "Relativity and Radar Guns" to eliminate that truck experiment
>>> and to explain more about how radar guns measure rate of time differences.
>>>
>>> I'll be back to start a new thread when that paper has been revised. Then you
>>> can all just argue against Einstein, the speed of light and time dilation without
>>> getting into inertial and non-inertial systems.
>>>
>>> Ed
>>>
>> Ed, this is not going to make you happy, but revising your paper over and
>> over again as you discover your mistakes is not the right way to go. You
>> may want to reconsider the approach. As a suggestion, you could elect
>> instead to spend less time writing publicly and more time with reading
>> physics instructional materials and writing private notes. As you write
>> private notes, you will then learn your mistakes in them and be able to
>> revise your notes. It will be a while before you stop making basic mistakes
>> and before something you write publicly is not riddled with silly
>> misconceptions. I hope this approach doesn’t seem stupid to you. It’s what
>> most people do.
>
> On my Kindle, I'm currently reading "How to Astronaut" by astronaut Terry Virts.
> I'm almost done. Meanwhile, while driving around doing chores, I've just started
> LISTENING TO another science related AUDIO book. It's a TERRIFIC book titled
> "The Life-Changing Science of Detecting Bullshit" by John V. Petrocelli.

While interesting, these are not books aimed for physics instruction.

You’ll notice the big difference between reading first-year physics
textbooks (which you did recently), and reading “science related” books.

> Here are some passages:
>
> "The scientific method isn’t employed to support what one desires to
> believe. The scientific method is a systematic way of collecting and
> recording objective observations in the hopes of making objective
> conclusions about our world. Scientists use the method because they
> desire to know the truth."
>
> "To keep from fooling themselves into assuming their theories are
> correct, scientists don’t stop at what they think and hope to be true.
> Rather, they make predictions based on their hypotheses and test them
> with fair experiments that are designed to put their hypotheses to the
> most stringent tests possible."
>
> "When scientists later publicize their experiment-based conclusions, you
> can be sure that they will be scrutinized. Dozens, if not hundreds, of
> qualified experts will ask: Are the premises true? Are the conclusions
> supported by all of the data? Are the arguments and conclusions logically
> strong? Were all relevant factors considered? It is this often-forgotten
> stage of critical scrutiny that fortifies the strength of the scientific process."

Yes, all of the above is true. And all of this went into how physicists
developed and tested relativity.

>
> "Of course, scientists are human beings and the process of science is a
> social enterprise not immune to error—there are times when it’s wrong.
> After all, it took thousands of years for people to begin to accept that
> the Earth was spherical. Despite all the clever demonstrations since the
> time of Eratosthenes—and there were many—it wasn’t until after confirmed
> reports that Magellan and Elcano completed a circumnavigation of the
> globe from 1519 to 1522 that the true shape of the Earth was commonly accepted. "

Yes, as a result of the scientific method. Remember that the period from
1500-1700 is when the scientific method as it is known today was actually
developed. The silly things that people believed before then (like the
Aristotelian idea that the natural state of motion of bodies is at rest
relative to the earth) are an artifact of not having the scientific method
as a tool.

>
> When I finish "How to Astronaut" I'll probably start reading another
> science related book on my Kindle, most likely "Science Fictions:
> How FRAUD, BIAS, NEGLIGENCE and HYPE undermine the search for truth"
> by Stuart Ritchie.
>
> BTW, I got into writing science papers when I found that MOST college
> physics textbooks have a WRONG version of Einstein's Second Postulate.

Well, we’ve discussed this before. If you have a belief that is counter to
what physics textbooks all say — no matter how firmly you believe it — your
belief is wrong and the textbooks are right. That judgment will be correct
99.99% of the time. This is why reading physics textbooks is the first
thing you should do, to dispel the incorrect ideas you have in your head.

> So, if I were to take a course in physics, I'd want to find where they use
> a textbook with the CORRECT version of Einstein's Second Postulate.
> Then what would people on this forum say?
>
> Ed
>

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Ed Lake wrote:

> When I finish "How to Astronaut" I'll probably start reading another
> science related book on my Kindle, most likely "Science Fictions: How
> FRAUD, BIAS, NEGLIGENCE and HYPE undermine the search for truth"
> by Stuart Ritchie.

the bioweapon injections, miscalled "vaccines", are most likely
genetically targeted. So does if the "virus" do exists. The code given
from the chinese wuhan (for making vaccines), January 2020, was Caucasian
targeted. Do you feel lucky, punk?

On Friday, 19 November 2021 at 22:47:54 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> J. J. Lodder <nos...@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:
> > Odd Bodkin <bodk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> J. J. Lodder <nos...@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:
> >>> Odd Bodkin <bodk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> J. J. Lodder <nos...@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:
> >>>>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> [-]
> >>>>>> In the meantime in the real world, however, forbidden
> >>>>>> by your insane religion GPS clocks keep measuring
> >>>>>> t'=t, just like all serious clocks always did.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The fact that t /= t' has been known for a long time.
> >>>>> Atomic clocks made direct demonstrations possible,
> >>>>> first by flying them around the world on a 747,
> >>>>> nowadays universally by comparing GPS clocks
> >>>>> with atomic clocks in their base stations.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> But clocks are getting more 'serious' all the time.
> >>>>> Nowadays the best ones, for example strontium lattice clocks,
> >>>>> are reaching stabilities near 10^-18,
> >>>>> or about one second error over the age of the universe.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> In terms of gravitational shift this stability
> >>>>> corresponds to the gravitational shift caused by height difference
> >>>>> of about about 2 centimeter being measurable. [1]
> >>>>> So t /= t' can now be demonstrated directly in the lab.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Build two identical clocks, put one on a higher table,
> >>>>> and you can see the difference in their rates.
> >>>>> Exchange the high and the low clock,
> >>>>> and again the highest one will tick faster.
> >>>>> Whatever your ideas were about t = t',
> >>>>> they have by now been directly falsified by lab experiments.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> This precision is by now also having practical applications,
> >>>>> in the form of 'chronometric levelling', aka 'relativistic geodesy'.
> >>>>> Comparing the rate of clocks in different labs by fibre-optical link
> >>>>> the differences in Newtonian potential between those labs can be
> >>>>> measured directly. (hence their height difference wrt the geoid)
> >>>>> This is a far better method than sprit level geodesy.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> As a practical consequence the definition of the second
> >>>>> had to be adapted by stating that the clocks defining the second
> >>>>> must be referred to a given value of the Newtonian potential.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Jan
> >>>>>
> >>>>> [1] By a tour de force the gravitational shift
> >>>>> has recently been measured to one millimeter height accuracy
> >>>>> inside a single strontium lattice clock.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Woz's chief complaint seems mostly against anyone dictating to him natural
> >>>> laws of any kind.
> >>>
> >>> Obviously. However, this is not about dictating laws,
> >>> it is observed experimental reality,
> >>> with practical applications coming into general use.
> >>>
> >>>> He reserves the right to rebel against anyone about
> >>>> anything. To him, it's about making what he wants to make, using whatever
> >>>> principles seem to make sense to him, and to tinker to make it work if
> >>>> those principles don't give the desired behavior.
> >>>>
> >>>> So telling him what scientific experiments show is literally irrelevant to
> >>>> him. He has elected to exercise his freedom against anything any physicist
> >>>> says is true, purely for the sake of taking a contrary stance.
> >>>
> >>> The laws of physics don't care about agreeing or not.
> >>> They also apply to people who disagree with them,
> >>>
> >>> Jan
> >>>
> >>
> >> Well, yes, you and I know that. The nice thing about nature is that it
> >> doesn't care whether you agree with it or not.
> >
> > Nature can be less than nice about it.
> > It can kill wannabee dissidents who do really stupid things.
> >
> >> But people like Wozniak just feel it's important to thumb noses at people
> >> telling him about nature. It's that basic "fuck you" that Wozniak prizes
> >> above all things.
> >
> > Developments go quite rapidly.
> > Europe is set to build a continent-wide clock synchronisation network.
> > Very practical matters like synchronising computer and power networks
> > are going to depend on it for the next increase in precision.
> >
> > Jan
> >
> The majestic thing about Wozniak is that he will likely claim that if this
> clock synchronization network does not respect the common sense notion that
> the second is 1/86400 of a day

The majestic thing about Bodkin is that he will claim that it doesn't.

On Friday, 19 November 2021 at 22:47:54 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Ed Lake <det...@outlook.com> wrote:
> > On Friday, November 19, 2021 at 11:19:44 AM UTC-6, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Ed Lake wrote:
> >>> On Friday, November 19, 2021 at 12:30:03 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >>>> On 11/18/2021 11:56 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
> >>>>> On Wednesday, November 17, 2021 at 3:53:32 PM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >>>>>> On 11/17/2021 4:41 PM, Ed Lake wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Wednesday, November 17, 2021 at 3:32:09 PM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >>>>>>>> I wrote elsewhere:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> I need to think about it.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Do I detect a crack in the hardheadedness of Ed's stubborn beliefs?
> >>>>>>>>> Sounds like it, right?
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> But no, the idée fixe almost always wins in the end. Ed's idée fixe
> >>>>>>>>> rules him. It pwns him. It controls what he believes. Almost as if it's alive.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> I predict tomorrow, he will be roaring forth, posting like mad how
> >>>>>>>>> the truck isn't an inertial frame but the earth is, how you can
> >>>>>>>>> measure the speed of a box truck from inside the metal box, a radar
> >>>>>>>>> measures a moving car's speed when pointed at a stationary road
> >>>>>>>>> sign because of c+v, oscillating photons, etc. etc.
> >>>
> >>> Okay. After doing a lot of research into inertial and non-inertial systems, I've
> >>> realized I was wrong about my proposed radar gun experiment. I'll revise
> >>> that paper and any other paper where I suggest that a radar gun can measure
> >>> the movement of a truck from inside the truck. That won't work.
> >>>
> >>> I got onto a wrong track because I thought that time dilation wasn't great
> >>> enough for radar guns to measure. So, they also had to be measuring speeds
> >>> relative to the "inertial system" that is the earth. Therefore, a moving truck
> >>> couldn't be an "inertial system." But after studying some of Einstein's thought
> >>> experiments I see that they are ONLY about time dilation, not about inertial
> >>> versus non-inertial systems, and that means that radar guns measure time
> >>> at the gun and at the target and convert the difference into a speed difference.
> >>>
> >>> When light from an emitter hits an approaching target at c+v, v is the speed of
> >>> the target AND v is obtained by developing that speed from the difference in
> >>> the rate of time at the gun versus the rate of time at the target.
> >>>
> >>> I don't want to explain this any further here. I need to think it over and revise
> >>> my paper on "Relativity and Radar Guns" to eliminate that truck experiment
> >>> and to explain more about how radar guns measure rate of time differences.
> >>>
> >>> I'll be back to start a new thread when that paper has been revised. Then you
> >>> can all just argue against Einstein, the speed of light and time dilation without
> >>> getting into inertial and non-inertial systems.
> >>>
> >>> Ed
> >>>
> >> Ed, this is not going to make you happy, but revising your paper over and
> >> over again as you discover your mistakes is not the right way to go. You
> >> may want to reconsider the approach. As a suggestion, you could elect
> >> instead to spend less time writing publicly and more time with reading
> >> physics instructional materials and writing private notes. As you write
> >> private notes, you will then learn your mistakes in them and be able to
> >> revise your notes. It will be a while before you stop making basic mistakes
> >> and before something you write publicly is not riddled with silly
> >> misconceptions. I hope this approach doesn’t seem stupid to you. It’s what
> >> most people do.
> >
> > On my Kindle, I'm currently reading "How to Astronaut" by astronaut Terry Virts.
> > I'm almost done. Meanwhile, while driving around doing chores, I've just started
> > LISTENING TO another science related AUDIO book. It's a TERRIFIC book titled
> > "The Life-Changing Science of Detecting Bullshit" by John V. Petrocelli..
> While interesting, these are not books aimed for physics instruction.
>
> You’ll notice the big difference between reading first-year physics
> textbooks (which you did recently), and reading “science related” books.
> > Here are some passages:
> >
> > "The scientific method isn’t employed to support what one desires to
> > believe. The scientific method is a systematic way of collecting and
> > recording objective observations in the hopes of making objective
> > conclusions about our world. Scientists use the method because they
> > desire to know the truth."
> >
> > "To keep from fooling themselves into assuming their theories are
> > correct, scientists don’t stop at what they think and hope to be true.
> > Rather, they make predictions based on their hypotheses and test them
> > with fair experiments that are designed to put their hypotheses to the
> > most stringent tests possible."
> >
> > "When scientists later publicize their experiment-based conclusions, you
> > can be sure that they will be scrutinized. Dozens, if not hundreds, of
> > qualified experts will ask: Are the premises true? Are the conclusions
> > supported by all of the data? Are the arguments and conclusions logically
> > strong? Were all relevant factors considered? It is this often-forgotten
> > stage of critical scrutiny that fortifies the strength of the scientific process."
> Yes, all of the above is true. And all of this went into how physicists
> developed and tested relativity.

Or, at least, poor fanatic idiot Bodkin is asserting that.

> Yes, as a result of the scientific method. Remember that the period from
> 1500-1700 is when the scientific method as it is known today was actually
> developed.

Bullshit, it was developed in 1905-1930 especially to excuse
the madness of Giant Guru and his minions.