On Monday, April 26, 2021 at 3:41:45 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Monday, April 26, 2021 at 1:21:07 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Monday, April 26, 2021 at 10:53:38 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> On Sunday, April 25, 2021 at 11:10:58 AM UTC-4, Rob Acraman wrote:
> >>>>>> On Saturday, April 24, 2021 at 1:08:02 AM UTC+10, seto...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>> Einstein’s SR postulates are the natural properties of a stationary
> >>>>>>> aether as follows:
> >>>>>>> 1. The laws of physics are the same in any location (inertial frame) in
> >>>>>>> the stationary aether.
> >>>>>>> 2. The speed of transmission of light pulses by the stationary aether
> >>>>>>> is isotropic in all directions....independent of the motion of the
> >>>>>>> emitter in the aether.
> >>>>>> That’s not what “inertial frame" means.
> >>>> No, Ken, it’s really not. You just making empty claims about your invented
> >>>> meanings for physics jargon terms is just silly and psychopathic.
> >>>>> Yes, it is what inertial frame means. The only inertial frame exists is a
> >>>>> frame in a state of absolute rest in the ether. That’s why SR and LET
> >>>>> have the same math.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> SR is markedly different from "the natural properties of a stationary aether".
> >>>>>> On the contrary, the "stationary aether" was the prevailing belief
> >>>>>> before 1905 ... before Einstein's SR replaced it.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> SR’s inertial frame is a hypothetical concept. It doesn’t exist on
> >>>>> earth.Why? Because an inertial frame of an object exists only if the
> >>>>> object is in a state of absolute rest
> >>>> That is DEFINITELY not what “inertial frame” means to anyone but you.
> >>>
> >>> Why don’t you give us an example of a real physical inertial frame on earth?
> >> Sure. The beam line at SLAC is at rest in an inertial frame. The electrons
> >> in the beam line are moving in that inertial frame. Why do you think it’s
> >> not an inertial reference frame?
> >
> > The earth is rotating so it is not in an inertial frame.
> Doesn’t make a measurable difference for the electrons in the beam line.
> Therefore it is inertial.

We were talking about objects that are in inertial frames.
Beam lines are not objects.
In any case how does it become inertial frame? So your assertion is not valid.
> >>
> >> The top of an air hockey table is at rest in an inertial reference frame.
> >> The air hockey pucks behave as they would be expected to in an inertial
> >> frame. Why do you think it’s not inertial?
> >
> > No it’s not.....
> Sure it is.
>
> Though I fully get that Ken Seto’s strategy is to deny anything and
> everything he doesn’t understand. It’s also Ken Seto’s strategy when
> there’s a term he doesn’t know the meaning of, to invent a meaning, and
> declare any other meaning obsolete.

No it is my strategy to lead physicists out of the sea of math abstractions

Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, April 26, 2021 at 3:41:45 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Monday, April 26, 2021 at 1:21:07 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, April 26, 2021 at 10:53:38 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 25, 2021 at 11:10:58 AM UTC-4, Rob Acraman wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Saturday, April 24, 2021 at 1:08:02 AM UTC+10, seto...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Einstein’s SR postulates are the natural properties of a stationary
>>>>>>>>> aether as follows:
>>>>>>>>> 1. The laws of physics are the same in any location (inertial frame) in
>>>>>>>>> the stationary aether.
>>>>>>>>> 2. The speed of transmission of light pulses by the stationary aether
>>>>>>>>> is isotropic in all directions....independent of the motion of the
>>>>>>>>> emitter in the aether.
>>>>>>>> That’s not what “inertial frame" means.
>>>>>> No, Ken, it’s really not. You just making empty claims about your invented
>>>>>> meanings for physics jargon terms is just silly and psychopathic.
>>>>>>> Yes, it is what inertial frame means. The only inertial frame exists is a
>>>>>>> frame in a state of absolute rest in the ether. That’s why SR and LET
>>>>>>> have the same math.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> SR is markedly different from "the natural properties of a stationary aether".
>>>>>>>> On the contrary, the "stationary aether" was the prevailing belief
>>>>>>>> before 1905 ... before Einstein's SR replaced it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> SR’s inertial frame is a hypothetical concept. It doesn’t exist on
>>>>>>> earth.Why? Because an inertial frame of an object exists only if the
>>>>>>> object is in a state of absolute rest
>>>>>> That is DEFINITELY not what “inertial frame” means to anyone but you.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why don’t you give us an example of a real physical inertial frame on earth?
>>>> Sure. The beam line at SLAC is at rest in an inertial frame. The electrons
>>>> in the beam line are moving in that inertial frame. Why do you think it’s
>>>> not an inertial reference frame?
>>>
>>> The earth is rotating so it is not in an inertial frame.
>> Doesn’t make a measurable difference for the electrons in the beam line.
>> Therefore it is inertial.
>
> We were talking about objects that are in inertial frames.
> Beam lines are not objects.

Yes they are. People make them. They are objects. The beam line that people
made is at rest in an inertial frame.

> In any case how does it become inertial frame?

Inertial frames have a definition. They are reference frames in which the
laws of mechanics and electrodynamics hold good. That’s true for the frame
in which the beam line is at rest.

> So your assertion is not valid.
>>>>
>>>> The top of an air hockey table is at rest in an inertial reference frame.
>>>> The air hockey pucks behave as they would be expected to in an inertial
>>>> frame. Why do you think it’s not inertial?
>>>
>>> No it’s not.....
>> Sure it is.
>>
>> Though I fully get that Ken Seto’s strategy is to deny anything and
>> everything he doesn’t understand. It’s also Ken Seto’s strategy when
>> there’s a term he doesn’t know the meaning of, to invent a meaning, and
>> declare any other meaning obsolete.
>
> No it is my strategy to lead physicists out of the sea of math abstractions
>
>

Just because you are uncomfortable with grade school math doesn’t mean that
other people are the same way, and they may not need to be led away from
it.

--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On Tuesday, 27 April 2021 at 15:58:25 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Monday, April 26, 2021 at 3:41:45 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Monday, April 26, 2021 at 1:21:07 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> On Monday, April 26, 2021 at 10:53:38 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Sunday, April 25, 2021 at 11:10:58 AM UTC-4, Rob Acraman wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Saturday, April 24, 2021 at 1:08:02 AM UTC+10, seto...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> Einstein’s SR postulates are the natural properties of a stationary
> >>>>>>>>> aether as follows:
> >>>>>>>>> 1. The laws of physics are the same in any location (inertial frame) in
> >>>>>>>>> the stationary aether.
> >>>>>>>>> 2. The speed of transmission of light pulses by the stationary aether
> >>>>>>>>> is isotropic in all directions....independent of the motion of the
> >>>>>>>>> emitter in the aether.
> >>>>>>>> That’s not what “inertial frame" means.
> >>>>>> No, Ken, it’s really not. You just making empty claims about your invented
> >>>>>> meanings for physics jargon terms is just silly and psychopathic.
> >>>>>>> Yes, it is what inertial frame means. The only inertial frame exists is a
> >>>>>>> frame in a state of absolute rest in the ether. That’s why SR and LET
> >>>>>>> have the same math.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> SR is markedly different from "the natural properties of a stationary aether".
> >>>>>>>> On the contrary, the "stationary aether" was the prevailing belief
> >>>>>>>> before 1905 ... before Einstein's SR replaced it.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> SR’s inertial frame is a hypothetical concept. It doesn’t exist on
> >>>>>>> earth.Why? Because an inertial frame of an object exists only if the
> >>>>>>> object is in a state of absolute rest
> >>>>>> That is DEFINITELY not what “inertial frame” means to anyone but you.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Why don’t you give us an example of a real physical inertial frame on earth?
> >>>> Sure. The beam line at SLAC is at rest in an inertial frame. The electrons
> >>>> in the beam line are moving in that inertial frame. Why do you think it’s
> >>>> not an inertial reference frame?
> >>>
> >>> The earth is rotating so it is not in an inertial frame.
> >> Doesn’t make a measurable difference for the electrons in the beam line.
> >> Therefore it is inertial.
> >
> > We were talking about objects that are in inertial frames.
> > Beam lines are not objects.
> Yes they are. People make them. They are objects. The beam line that people
> made is at rest in an inertial frame.
> > In any case how does it become inertial frame?
> Inertial frames have a definition. They are reference frames in which the
> laws of mechanics and electrodynamics hold good. That’s true for the frame
> in which the beam line is at rest.
> > So your assertion is not valid.
> >>>>
> >>>> The top of an air hockey table is at rest in an inertial reference frame.
> >>>> The air hockey pucks behave as they would be expected to in an inertial
> >>>> frame. Why do you think it’s not inertial?
> >>>
> >>> No it’s not.....
> >> Sure it is.
> >>
> >> Though I fully get that Ken Seto’s strategy is to deny anything and
> >> everything he doesn’t understand. It’s also Ken Seto’s strategy when
> >> there’s a term he doesn’t know the meaning of, to invent a meaning, and
> >> declare any other meaning obsolete.
> >
> > No it is my strategy to lead physicists out of the sea of math abstractions
> >
> >
> Just because you are uncomfortable with grade school math

Speaking of math, it's always good to remind that because
your bunch of idiots was uncomfortable with basic school
math - you've announced it false.

Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, 27 April 2021 at 15:58:25 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Monday, April 26, 2021 at 3:41:45 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, April 26, 2021 at 1:21:07 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Monday, April 26, 2021 at 10:53:38 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 25, 2021 at 11:10:58 AM UTC-4, Rob Acraman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, April 24, 2021 at 1:08:02 AM UTC+10, seto...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Einstein’s SR postulates are the natural properties of a stationary
>>>>>>>>>>> aether as follows:
>>>>>>>>>>> 1. The laws of physics are the same in any location (inertial frame) in
>>>>>>>>>>> the stationary aether.
>>>>>>>>>>> 2. The speed of transmission of light pulses by the stationary aether
>>>>>>>>>>> is isotropic in all directions....independent of the motion of the
>>>>>>>>>>> emitter in the aether.
>>>>>>>>>> That’s not what “inertial frame" means.
>>>>>>>> No, Ken, it’s really not. You just making empty claims about your invented
>>>>>>>> meanings for physics jargon terms is just silly and psychopathic.
>>>>>>>>> Yes, it is what inertial frame means. The only inertial frame exists is a
>>>>>>>>> frame in a state of absolute rest in the ether. That’s why SR and LET
>>>>>>>>> have the same math.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> SR is markedly different from "the natural properties of a stationary aether".
>>>>>>>>>> On the contrary, the "stationary aether" was the prevailing belief
>>>>>>>>>> before 1905 ... before Einstein's SR replaced it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> SR’s inertial frame is a hypothetical concept. It doesn’t exist on
>>>>>>>>> earth.Why? Because an inertial frame of an object exists only if the
>>>>>>>>> object is in a state of absolute rest
>>>>>>>> That is DEFINITELY not what “inertial frame” means to anyone but you.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why don’t you give us an example of a real physical inertial frame on earth?
>>>>>> Sure. The beam line at SLAC is at rest in an inertial frame. The electrons
>>>>>> in the beam line are moving in that inertial frame. Why do you think it’s
>>>>>> not an inertial reference frame?
>>>>>
>>>>> The earth is rotating so it is not in an inertial frame.
>>>> Doesn’t make a measurable difference for the electrons in the beam line.
>>>> Therefore it is inertial.
>>>
>>> We were talking about objects that are in inertial frames.
>>> Beam lines are not objects.
>> Yes they are. People make them. They are objects. The beam line that people
>> made is at rest in an inertial frame.
>>> In any case how does it become inertial frame?
>> Inertial frames have a definition. They are reference frames in which the
>> laws of mechanics and electrodynamics hold good. That’s true for the frame
>> in which the beam line is at rest.
>>> So your assertion is not valid.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The top of an air hockey table is at rest in an inertial reference frame.
>>>>>> The air hockey pucks behave as they would be expected to in an inertial
>>>>>> frame. Why do you think it’s not inertial?
>>>>>
>>>>> No it’s not.....
>>>> Sure it is.
>>>>
>>>> Though I fully get that Ken Seto’s strategy is to deny anything and
>>>> everything he doesn’t understand. It’s also Ken Seto’s strategy when
>>>> there’s a term he doesn’t know the meaning of, to invent a meaning, and
>>>> declare any other meaning obsolete.
>>>
>>> No it is my strategy to lead physicists out of the sea of math abstractions
>>>
>>>
>> Just because you are uncomfortable with grade school math
>
> Speaking of math, it's always good to remind that because
> your bunch of idiots was uncomfortable with basic school
> math - you've announced it false.
>

Speaking of small minds with small and tired repertoires of catcalls and
hooting noises...

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

Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Tuesday, 27 April 2021 at 15:58:25 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
....
>> Just because you are uncomfortable with grade school math
>
> Speaking of math, it's always good to remind that because
> your bunch of idiots was uncomfortable with basic school
> math - you've announced it false.

Speaking of math, it's always good to remind that in
elementary school students are dealing with stuff
where a*b = b*a while a whole part of 'information
science' deals with stuff where a*b =/= a*b. And
this is definitely NOT "annoucing" that elementary
math is false.

This is a reminder too that Maciej is a demented,
uneducated idiot, an ass and a kook.

Python <python@python.invalid> wrote:
> Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>> On Tuesday, 27 April 2021 at 15:58:25 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> ...
>>> Just because you are uncomfortable with grade school math
>>
>> Speaking of math, it's always good to remind that because
>> your bunch of idiots was uncomfortable with basic school
>> math - you've announced it false.
>
> Speaking of math, it's always good to remind that in
> elementary school students are dealing with stuff
> where a*b = b*a while a whole part of 'information
> science' deals with stuff where a*b =/= a*b. And
> this is definitely NOT "annoucing" that elementary
> math is false.
>
> This is a reminder too that Maciej is a demented,
> uneducated idiot, an ass and a kook.
>
A bitter, obsessed, demented, uneducated, idiot, ass, and kook with a
pretty severe inferiority complex, a small and unimaginative retort
library, and an overt attachment to the state of knowledge as of the Dark
Ages.

Let’s watch as he scrounges around for one of the five or six standard
retorts he has room for in his head

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

On Tuesday, 27 April 2021 at 16:56:55 UTC+2, Python wrote:
> Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > On Tuesday, 27 April 2021 at 15:58:25 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> ...
> >> Just because you are uncomfortable with grade school math
> >
> > Speaking of math, it's always good to remind that because
> > your bunch of idiots was uncomfortable with basic school
> > math - you've announced it false.
> Speaking of math, it's always good to remind that in
> elementary school students are dealing with stuff
> where a*b = b*a while a whole part of 'information
> science' deals with stuff where a*b =/= a*b.

:)) Haven't you mistaken something here, poor
geocentrist?

> And
> this is definitely NOT "annoucing" that elementary
> math is false.

Well, information science is sane. Physics is not.

> This is a reminder too that Maciej is a demented,
> uneducated idiot, an ass and a kook.

Rave and spit, poor geocentric halfbrain. That's what
your cult has trained you for, after all.
BTW, how are things with those geostationary satellites?
Are they or aren't they in relative motion?

On Tuesday, 27 April 2021 at 17:45:23 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Python <pyt...@python.invalid> wrote:
> > Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >> On Tuesday, 27 April 2021 at 15:58:25 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> > ...
> >>> Just because you are uncomfortable with grade school math
> >>
> >> Speaking of math, it's always good to remind that because
> >> your bunch of idiots was uncomfortable with basic school
> >> math - you've announced it false.
> >
> > Speaking of math, it's always good to remind that in
> > elementary school students are dealing with stuff
> > where a*b = b*a while a whole part of 'information
> > science' deals with stuff where a*b =/= a*b. And
> > this is definitely NOT "annoucing" that elementary
> > math is false.
> >
> > This is a reminder too that Maciej is a demented,
> > uneducated idiot, an ass and a kook.
> >
> A bitter, obsessed, demented, uneducated, idiot, ass, and kook with a
> pretty severe inferiority complex, a small and unimaginative retort
> library, and an overt attachment to the state of knowledge as of the Dark
> Ages.

Rave and spit, poor halfbrain, but It's actually your fellow
idiot insisting that Warsaw-Gdansk road could never move.

Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, 27 April 2021 at 17:45:23 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Python <pyt...@python.invalid> wrote:
>>> Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>>> On Tuesday, 27 April 2021 at 15:58:25 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> ...
>>>>> Just because you are uncomfortable with grade school math
>>>>
>>>> Speaking of math, it's always good to remind that because
>>>> your bunch of idiots was uncomfortable with basic school
>>>> math - you've announced it false.
>>>
>>> Speaking of math, it's always good to remind that in
>>> elementary school students are dealing with stuff
>>> where a*b = b*a while a whole part of 'information
>>> science' deals with stuff where a*b =/= a*b. And
>>> this is definitely NOT "annoucing" that elementary
>>> math is false.
>>>
>>> This is a reminder too that Maciej is a demented,
>>> uneducated idiot, an ass and a kook.
>>>
>> A bitter, obsessed, demented, uneducated, idiot, ass, and kook with a
>> pretty severe inferiority complex, a small and unimaginative retort
>> library, and an overt attachment to the state of knowledge as of the Dark
>> Ages.
>
> Rave and spit, poor halfbrain,

Son of a gun, there it is!

> but It's actually your fellow
> idiot insisting that Warsaw-Gdansk road could never move.
>

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

On Tuesday, April 27, 2021 at 9:58:25 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Monday, April 26, 2021 at 3:41:45 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Monday, April 26, 2021 at 1:21:07 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> On Monday, April 26, 2021 at 10:53:38 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Sunday, April 25, 2021 at 11:10:58 AM UTC-4, Rob Acraman wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Saturday, April 24, 2021 at 1:08:02 AM UTC+10, seto...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> Einstein’s SR postulates are the natural properties of a stationary
> >>>>>>>>> aether as follows:
> >>>>>>>>> 1. The laws of physics are the same in any location (inertial frame) in
> >>>>>>>>> the stationary aether.
> >>>>>>>>> 2. The speed of transmission of light pulses by the stationary aether
> >>>>>>>>> is isotropic in all directions....independent of the motion of the
> >>>>>>>>> emitter in the aether.
> >>>>>>>> That’s not what “inertial frame" means.
> >>>>>> No, Ken, it’s really not. You just making empty claims about your invented
> >>>>>> meanings for physics jargon terms is just silly and psychopathic.
> >>>>>>> Yes, it is what inertial frame means. The only inertial frame exists is a
> >>>>>>> frame in a state of absolute rest in the ether. That’s why SR and LET
> >>>>>>> have the same math.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> SR is markedly different from "the natural properties of a stationary aether".
> >>>>>>>> On the contrary, the "stationary aether" was the prevailing belief
> >>>>>>>> before 1905 ... before Einstein's SR replaced it.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> SR’s inertial frame is a hypothetical concept. It doesn’t exist on
> >>>>>>> earth.Why? Because an inertial frame of an object exists only if the
> >>>>>>> object is in a state of absolute rest
> >>>>>> That is DEFINITELY not what “inertial frame” means to anyone but you.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Why don’t you give us an example of a real physical inertial frame on earth?
> >>>> Sure. The beam line at SLAC is at rest in an inertial frame. The electrons
> >>>> in the beam line are moving in that inertial frame. Why do you think it’s
> >>>> not an inertial reference frame?
> >>>
> >>> The earth is rotating so it is not in an inertial frame.
> >> Doesn’t make a measurable difference for the electrons in the beam line.
> >> Therefore it is inertial.
> >
> > We were talking about objects that are in inertial frames.
> > Beam lines are not objects.
> Yes they are. People make them. They are objects. The beam line that people
> made is at rest in an inertial frame.

At rest in what inertial frame?
Do they have GPS synched clocks at the ends of the beam line? If they do why don’t they use such pair of GPS synched the clocks to measure OWLS in the opposite directions?
> > In any case how does it become inertial frame?
> Inertial frames have a definition. They are reference frames in which the
> laws of mechanics and electrodynamics hold good. That’s true for the frame
> in which the beam line is at rest.

These are assertions.

Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 27, 2021 at 9:58:25 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Monday, April 26, 2021 at 3:41:45 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, April 26, 2021 at 1:21:07 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Monday, April 26, 2021 at 10:53:38 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 25, 2021 at 11:10:58 AM UTC-4, Rob Acraman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, April 24, 2021 at 1:08:02 AM UTC+10, seto...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Einstein’s SR postulates are the natural properties of a stationary
>>>>>>>>>>> aether as follows:
>>>>>>>>>>> 1. The laws of physics are the same in any location (inertial frame) in
>>>>>>>>>>> the stationary aether.
>>>>>>>>>>> 2. The speed of transmission of light pulses by the stationary aether
>>>>>>>>>>> is isotropic in all directions....independent of the motion of the
>>>>>>>>>>> emitter in the aether.
>>>>>>>>>> That’s not what “inertial frame" means.
>>>>>>>> No, Ken, it’s really not. You just making empty claims about your invented
>>>>>>>> meanings for physics jargon terms is just silly and psychopathic.
>>>>>>>>> Yes, it is what inertial frame means. The only inertial frame exists is a
>>>>>>>>> frame in a state of absolute rest in the ether. That’s why SR and LET
>>>>>>>>> have the same math.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> SR is markedly different from "the natural properties of a stationary aether".
>>>>>>>>>> On the contrary, the "stationary aether" was the prevailing belief
>>>>>>>>>> before 1905 ... before Einstein's SR replaced it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> SR’s inertial frame is a hypothetical concept. It doesn’t exist on
>>>>>>>>> earth.Why? Because an inertial frame of an object exists only if the
>>>>>>>>> object is in a state of absolute rest
>>>>>>>> That is DEFINITELY not what “inertial frame” means to anyone but you.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why don’t you give us an example of a real physical inertial frame on earth?
>>>>>> Sure. The beam line at SLAC is at rest in an inertial frame. The electrons
>>>>>> in the beam line are moving in that inertial frame. Why do you think it’s
>>>>>> not an inertial reference frame?
>>>>>
>>>>> The earth is rotating so it is not in an inertial frame.
>>>> Doesn’t make a measurable difference for the electrons in the beam line.
>>>> Therefore it is inertial.
>>>
>>> We were talking about objects that are in inertial frames.
>>> Beam lines are not objects.
>> Yes they are. People make them. They are objects. The beam line that people
>> made is at rest in an inertial frame.
>
> At rest in what inertial frame?

The one comoving with the beam line components for the interval of time
that the electrons fly from one end to the other.

> Do they have GPS synched clocks at the ends of the beam line?

No. They don’t need them.

> If they do why don’t they use such pair of GPS synched the clocks to
> measure OWLS in the opposite directions?
>>> In any case how does it become inertial frame?
>> Inertial frames have a definition. They are reference frames in which the
>> laws of mechanics and electrodynamics hold good. That’s true for the frame
>> in which the beam line is at rest.
>
> These are assertions.

Definitions are not assertions. Dictionary definitions are not assertions
either. For example, the dictionary definition of obvious is “easily
perceived or understood; clear, self-evident, or apparent.” That definition
of the word “obvious” is not an assertion.

You use the word “assertion” to mean anything that you didn’t know. That’s
not what that word means either.

>
>
>
>

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

On Tuesday, April 27, 2021 at 3:58:02 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Tuesday, April 27, 2021 at 9:58:25 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Monday, April 26, 2021 at 3:41:45 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> On Monday, April 26, 2021 at 1:21:07 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Monday, April 26, 2021 at 10:53:38 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 25, 2021 at 11:10:58 AM UTC-4, Rob Acraman wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, April 24, 2021 at 1:08:02 AM UTC+10, seto...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> Einstein’s SR postulates are the natural properties of a stationary
> >>>>>>>>>>> aether as follows:
> >>>>>>>>>>> 1. The laws of physics are the same in any location (inertial frame) in
> >>>>>>>>>>> the stationary aether.
> >>>>>>>>>>> 2. The speed of transmission of light pulses by the stationary aether
> >>>>>>>>>>> is isotropic in all directions....independent of the motion of the
> >>>>>>>>>>> emitter in the aether.
> >>>>>>>>>> That’s not what “inertial frame" means.
> >>>>>>>> No, Ken, it’s really not. You just making empty claims about your invented
> >>>>>>>> meanings for physics jargon terms is just silly and psychopathic..
> >>>>>>>>> Yes, it is what inertial frame means. The only inertial frame exists is a
> >>>>>>>>> frame in a state of absolute rest in the ether. That’s why SR and LET
> >>>>>>>>> have the same math.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> SR is markedly different from "the natural properties of a stationary aether".
> >>>>>>>>>> On the contrary, the "stationary aether" was the prevailing belief
> >>>>>>>>>> before 1905 ... before Einstein's SR replaced it.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> SR’s inertial frame is a hypothetical concept. It doesn’t exist on
> >>>>>>>>> earth.Why? Because an inertial frame of an object exists only if the
> >>>>>>>>> object is in a state of absolute rest
> >>>>>>>> That is DEFINITELY not what “inertial frame” means to anyone but you.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Why don’t you give us an example of a real physical inertial frame on earth?
> >>>>>> Sure. The beam line at SLAC is at rest in an inertial frame. The electrons
> >>>>>> in the beam line are moving in that inertial frame. Why do you think it’s
> >>>>>> not an inertial reference frame?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The earth is rotating so it is not in an inertial frame.
> >>>> Doesn’t make a measurable difference for the electrons in the beam line.
> >>>> Therefore it is inertial.
> >>>
> >>> We were talking about objects that are in inertial frames.
> >>> Beam lines are not objects.
> >> Yes they are. People make them. They are objects. The beam line that people
> >> made is at rest in an inertial frame.
> >
> > At rest in what inertial frame?
> The one comoving with the beam line components for the interval of time
> that the electrons fly from one end to the other.

ROTFLOL....you think that two clocks at the end of the beam line are inertial because they are not moving wrt each other? I don’t think so.......they are still rotating with the earth.
In any case, if you think that why don’t you do the owls experiment with them?

> > Do they have GPS synched clocks at the ends of the beam line?
> No. They don’t need them.
> > If they do why don’t they use such pair of GPS synched the clocks to
> > measure OWLS in the opposite directions?
> >>> In any case how does it become inertial frame?
> >> Inertial frames have a definition. They are reference frames in which the
> >> laws of mechanics and electrodynamics hold good. That’s true for the frame
> >> in which the beam line is at rest.
> >
> > These are assertions.
> Definitions are not assertions. Dictionary definitions are not assertions
> either. For example, the dictionary definition of obvious is “easily
> perceived or understood; clear, self-evident, or apparent.” That definition
> of the word “obvious” is not an assertion.
>
> You use the word “assertion” to mean anything that you didn’t know. That’s
> not what that word means either.
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 27, 2021 at 3:58:02 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, April 27, 2021 at 9:58:25 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, April 26, 2021 at 3:41:45 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Monday, April 26, 2021 at 1:21:07 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Monday, April 26, 2021 at 10:53:38 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 25, 2021 at 11:10:58 AM UTC-4, Rob Acraman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, April 24, 2021 at 1:08:02 AM UTC+10, seto...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Einstein’s SR postulates are the natural properties of a stationary
>>>>>>>>>>>>> aether as follows:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. The laws of physics are the same in any location (inertial frame) in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the stationary aether.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. The speed of transmission of light pulses by the stationary aether
>>>>>>>>>>>>> is isotropic in all directions....independent of the motion of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> emitter in the aether.
>>>>>>>>>>>> That’s not what “inertial frame" means.
>>>>>>>>>> No, Ken, it’s really not. You just making empty claims about your invented
>>>>>>>>>> meanings for physics jargon terms is just silly and psychopathic.
>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, it is what inertial frame means. The only inertial frame exists is a
>>>>>>>>>>> frame in a state of absolute rest in the ether. That’s why SR and LET
>>>>>>>>>>> have the same math.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> SR is markedly different from "the natural properties of a stationary aether".
>>>>>>>>>>>> On the contrary, the "stationary aether" was the prevailing belief
>>>>>>>>>>>> before 1905 ... before Einstein's SR replaced it.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> SR’s inertial frame is a hypothetical concept. It doesn’t exist on
>>>>>>>>>>> earth.Why? Because an inertial frame of an object exists only if the
>>>>>>>>>>> object is in a state of absolute rest
>>>>>>>>>> That is DEFINITELY not what “inertial frame” means to anyone but you.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Why don’t you give us an example of a real physical inertial frame on earth?
>>>>>>>> Sure. The beam line at SLAC is at rest in an inertial frame. The electrons
>>>>>>>> in the beam line are moving in that inertial frame. Why do you think it’s
>>>>>>>> not an inertial reference frame?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The earth is rotating so it is not in an inertial frame.
>>>>>> Doesn’t make a measurable difference for the electrons in the beam line.
>>>>>> Therefore it is inertial.
>>>>>
>>>>> We were talking about objects that are in inertial frames.
>>>>> Beam lines are not objects.
>>>> Yes they are. People make them. They are objects. The beam line that people
>>>> made is at rest in an inertial frame.
>>>
>>> At rest in what inertial frame?
>> The one comoving with the beam line components for the interval of time
>> that the electrons fly from one end to the other.
>
> ROTFLOL....you think that two clocks at the end of the beam line are inertial

No, you’re getting tow conversations confused. There are not two synched
clocks at the end of a beam line. That wasn’t this conversation. This
conversation was about whether inertial frames exist, and they do, and the
beam line is an example of something as being treatable as being at rest in
an inertial frame. Synched clocks have nothing to do with that.

You’re too old to maintain two conversations on different subjects and not
get them jumbled up in your head.

Why should I have a conversation with a senile man who can no longer
sustain a conversation?

> because they are not moving wrt each other? I don’t think so......they
> are still rotating with the earth.
> In any case, if you think that why don’t you do the owls experiment with them?
>
>>> Do they have GPS synched clocks at the ends of the beam line?
>> No. They don’t need them.
>>> If they do why don’t they use such pair of GPS synched the clocks to
>>> measure OWLS in the opposite directions?
>>>>> In any case how does it become inertial frame?
>>>> Inertial frames have a definition. They are reference frames in which the
>>>> laws of mechanics and electrodynamics hold good. That’s true for the frame
>>>> in which the beam line is at rest.
>>>
>>> These are assertions.
>> Definitions are not assertions. Dictionary definitions are not assertions
>> either. For example, the dictionary definition of obvious is “easily
>> perceived or understood; clear, self-evident, or apparent.” That definition
>> of the word “obvious” is not an assertion.
>>
>> You use the word “assertion” to mean anything that you didn’t know. That’s
>> not what that word means either.
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>

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

On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 8:19:34 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Tuesday, April 27, 2021 at 3:58:02 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, April 27, 2021 at 9:58:25 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> On Monday, April 26, 2021 at 3:41:45 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Monday, April 26, 2021 at 1:21:07 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Monday, April 26, 2021 at 10:53:38 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 25, 2021 at 11:10:58 AM UTC-4, Rob Acraman wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, April 24, 2021 at 1:08:02 AM UTC+10, seto...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Einstein’s SR postulates are the natural properties of a stationary
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> aether as follows:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. The laws of physics are the same in any location (inertial frame) in
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> the stationary aether.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. The speed of transmission of light pulses by the stationary aether
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> is isotropic in all directions....independent of the motion of the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> emitter in the aether.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> That’s not what “inertial frame" means.
> >>>>>>>>>> No, Ken, it’s really not. You just making empty claims about your invented
> >>>>>>>>>> meanings for physics jargon terms is just silly and psychopathic.
> >>>>>>>>>>> Yes, it is what inertial frame means. The only inertial frame exists is a
> >>>>>>>>>>> frame in a state of absolute rest in the ether. That’s why SR and LET
> >>>>>>>>>>> have the same math.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> SR is markedly different from "the natural properties of a stationary aether".
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On the contrary, the "stationary aether" was the prevailing belief
> >>>>>>>>>>>> before 1905 ... before Einstein's SR replaced it.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> SR’s inertial frame is a hypothetical concept. It doesn’t exist on
> >>>>>>>>>>> earth.Why? Because an inertial frame of an object exists only if the
> >>>>>>>>>>> object is in a state of absolute rest
> >>>>>>>>>> That is DEFINITELY not what “inertial frame” means to anyone but you.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Why don’t you give us an example of a real physical inertial frame on earth?
> >>>>>>>> Sure. The beam line at SLAC is at rest in an inertial frame. The electrons
> >>>>>>>> in the beam line are moving in that inertial frame. Why do you think it’s
> >>>>>>>> not an inertial reference frame?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> The earth is rotating so it is not in an inertial frame.
> >>>>>> Doesn’t make a measurable difference for the electrons in the beam line.
> >>>>>> Therefore it is inertial.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> We were talking about objects that are in inertial frames.
> >>>>> Beam lines are not objects.
> >>>> Yes they are. People make them. They are objects. The beam line that people
> >>>> made is at rest in an inertial frame.
> >>>
> >>> At rest in what inertial frame?
> >> The one comoving with the beam line components for the interval of time
> >> that the electrons fly from one end to the other.
> >
> > ROTFLOL....you think that two clocks at the end of the beam line are inertial
> No, you’re getting tow conversations confused. There are not two synched
> clocks at the end of a beam line. That wasn’t this conversation. This
> conversation was about whether inertial frames exist, and they do, and the
> beam line is an example of something as being treatable as being at rest in
> an inertial frame. Synched clocks have nothing to do with that.

The beam line is not an inertial frame. Why? Because it changes direction continuously.
>
> You’re too old to maintain two conversations on different subjects and not
> get them jumbled up in your head.

You don’t understand what you read.
>
> Why should I have a conversation with a senile man who can no longer
> sustain a conversation?

Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 8:19:34 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, April 27, 2021 at 3:58:02 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, April 27, 2021 at 9:58:25 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Monday, April 26, 2021 at 3:41:45 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Monday, April 26, 2021 at 1:21:07 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, April 26, 2021 at 10:53:38 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 25, 2021 at 11:10:58 AM UTC-4, Rob Acraman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, April 24, 2021 at 1:08:02 AM UTC+10, seto...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Einstein’s SR postulates are the natural properties of a stationary
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aether as follows:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. The laws of physics are the same in any location (inertial frame) in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the stationary aether.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. The speed of transmission of light pulses by the stationary aether
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is isotropic in all directions....independent of the motion of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> emitter in the aether.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That’s not what “inertial frame" means.
>>>>>>>>>>>> No, Ken, it’s really not. You just making empty claims about your invented
>>>>>>>>>>>> meanings for physics jargon terms is just silly and psychopathic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, it is what inertial frame means. The only inertial frame exists is a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> frame in a state of absolute rest in the ether. That’s why SR and LET
>>>>>>>>>>>>> have the same math.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SR is markedly different from "the natural properties of a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stationary aether".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On the contrary, the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "stationary aether" was the prevailing belief
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> before 1905 ... before Einstein's SR replaced it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> SR’s inertial frame is a hypothetical concept. It doesn’t exist on
>>>>>>>>>>>>> earth.Why? Because an inertial frame of an object exists only if the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> object is in a state of absolute rest
>>>>>>>>>>>> That is DEFINITELY not what “inertial frame” means to anyone but you.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Why don’t you give us an example of a real physical inertial frame on earth?
>>>>>>>>>> Sure. The beam line at SLAC is at rest in an inertial frame. The electrons
>>>>>>>>>> in the beam line are moving in that inertial frame. Why do you think it’s
>>>>>>>>>> not an inertial reference frame?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The earth is rotating so it is not in an inertial frame.
>>>>>>>> Doesn’t make a measurable difference for the electrons in the beam line.
>>>>>>>> Therefore it is inertial.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We were talking about objects that are in inertial frames.
>>>>>>> Beam lines are not objects.
>>>>>> Yes they are. People make them. They are objects. The beam line that people
>>>>>> made is at rest in an inertial frame.
>>>>>
>>>>> At rest in what inertial frame?
>>>> The one comoving with the beam line components for the interval of time
>>>> that the electrons fly from one end to the other.
>>>
>>> ROTFLOL....you think that two clocks at the end of the beam line are inertial
>> No, you’re getting tow conversations confused. There are not two synched
>> clocks at the end of a beam line. That wasn’t this conversation. This
>> conversation was about whether inertial frames exist, and they do, and the
>> beam line is an example of something as being treatable as being at rest in
>> an inertial frame. Synched clocks have nothing to do with that.
>
> The beam line is not an inertial frame. Why? Because it changes direction continuously.

No, it doesn’t, Ken. This is a STRAIGHT beam line.

I fully get that you had no idea such things exist.

>>
>> You’re too old to maintain two conversations on different subjects and not
>> get them jumbled up in your head.
>
> You don’t understand what you read.
>>
>> Why should I have a conversation with a senile man who can no longer
>> sustain a conversation?
>

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

On Friday, April 30, 2021 at 9:49:27 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 8:19:34 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, April 27, 2021 at 3:58:02 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> On Tuesday, April 27, 2021 at 9:58:25 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Monday, April 26, 2021 at 3:41:45 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Monday, April 26, 2021 at 1:21:07 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, April 26, 2021 at 10:53:38 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail..com wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 25, 2021 at 11:10:58 AM UTC-4, Rob Acraman wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, April 24, 2021 at 1:08:02 AM UTC+10, seto...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Einstein’s SR postulates are the natural properties of a stationary
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aether as follows:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. The laws of physics are the same in any location (inertial frame) in
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the stationary aether.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. The speed of transmission of light pulses by the stationary aether
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is isotropic in all directions....independent of the motion of the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> emitter in the aether.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> That’s not what “inertial frame" means.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> No, Ken, it’s really not. You just making empty claims about your invented
> >>>>>>>>>>>> meanings for physics jargon terms is just silly and psychopathic.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, it is what inertial frame means. The only inertial frame exists is a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> frame in a state of absolute rest in the ether. That’s why SR and LET
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> have the same math.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> SR is markedly different from "the natural properties of a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> stationary aether".
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On the contrary, the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> "stationary aether" was the prevailing belief
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> before 1905 ... before Einstein's SR replaced it.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> SR’s inertial frame is a hypothetical concept. It doesn’t exist on
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> earth.Why? Because an inertial frame of an object exists only if the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> object is in a state of absolute rest
> >>>>>>>>>>>> That is DEFINITELY not what “inertial frame” means to anyone but you.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Why don’t you give us an example of a real physical inertial frame on earth?
> >>>>>>>>>> Sure. The beam line at SLAC is at rest in an inertial frame. The electrons
> >>>>>>>>>> in the beam line are moving in that inertial frame. Why do you think it’s
> >>>>>>>>>> not an inertial reference frame?
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> The earth is rotating so it is not in an inertial frame.
> >>>>>>>> Doesn’t make a measurable difference for the electrons in the beam line.
> >>>>>>>> Therefore it is inertial.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> We were talking about objects that are in inertial frames.
> >>>>>>> Beam lines are not objects.
> >>>>>> Yes they are. People make them. They are objects. The beam line that people
> >>>>>> made is at rest in an inertial frame.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> At rest in what inertial frame?
> >>>> The one comoving with the beam line components for the interval of time
> >>>> that the electrons fly from one end to the other.
> >>>
> >>> ROTFLOL....you think that two clocks at the end of the beam line are inertial
> >> No, you’re getting tow conversations confused. There are not two synched
> >> clocks at the end of a beam line. That wasn’t this conversation. This
> >> conversation was about whether inertial frames exist, and they do, and the
> >> beam line is an example of something as being treatable as being at rest in
> >> an inertial frame. Synched clocks have nothing to do with that.
> >
> > The beam line is not an inertial frame. Why? Because it changes direction continuously.
> No, it doesn’t, Ken. This is a STRAIGHT beam line.

Hey stupid, the ends of the beam line changes directions continuously as the earth rotates.
>
> I fully get that you had no idea such things exist.
> >>
> >> You’re too old to maintain two conversations on different subjects and not
> >> get them jumbled up in your head.
> >
> > You don’t understand what you read.
> >>
> >> Why should I have a conversation with a senile man who can no longer
> >> sustain a conversation?
> >
> --
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Friday, April 30, 2021 at 9:49:27 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 8:19:34 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, April 27, 2021 at 3:58:02 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 27, 2021 at 9:58:25 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Monday, April 26, 2021 at 3:41:45 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, April 26, 2021 at 1:21:07 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, April 26, 2021 at 10:53:38 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 25, 2021 at 11:10:58 AM UTC-4, Rob Acraman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, April 24, 2021 at 1:08:02 AM UTC+10, seto...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Einstein’s SR postulates are the natural properties of a stationary
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aether as follows:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. The laws of physics are the same in any location (inertial frame) in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the stationary aether.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. The speed of transmission of light pulses by the stationary aether
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is isotropic in all directions....independent of the motion of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> emitter in the aether.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That’s not what “inertial frame" means.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, Ken, it’s really not. You just making empty claims about your invented
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meanings for physics jargon terms is just silly and psychopathic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, it is what inertial frame means. The only inertial frame exists is a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> frame in a state of absolute rest in the ether. That’s why SR and LET
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have the same math.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SR is markedly different from "the natural properties of a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stationary aether".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On the contrary, the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "stationary aether" was the prevailing belief
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> before 1905 ... before Einstein's SR replaced it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SR’s inertial frame is a hypothetical concept. It doesn’t exist on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> earth.Why? Because an inertial frame of an object exists only if the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> object is in a state of absolute rest
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is DEFINITELY not what “inertial frame” means to anyone but you.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why don’t you give us an example of a real physical inertial frame on earth?
>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure. The beam line at SLAC is at rest in an inertial frame. The electrons
>>>>>>>>>>>> in the beam line are moving in that inertial frame. Why do you think it’s
>>>>>>>>>>>> not an inertial reference frame?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The earth is rotating so it is not in an inertial frame.
>>>>>>>>>> Doesn’t make a measurable difference for the electrons in the beam line.
>>>>>>>>>> Therefore it is inertial.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> We were talking about objects that are in inertial frames.
>>>>>>>>> Beam lines are not objects.
>>>>>>>> Yes they are. People make them. They are objects. The beam line that people
>>>>>>>> made is at rest in an inertial frame.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> At rest in what inertial frame?
>>>>>> The one comoving with the beam line components for the interval of time
>>>>>> that the electrons fly from one end to the other.
>>>>>
>>>>> ROTFLOL....you think that two clocks at the end of the beam line are inertial
>>>> No, you’re getting tow conversations confused. There are not two synched
>>>> clocks at the end of a beam line. That wasn’t this conversation. This
>>>> conversation was about whether inertial frames exist, and they do, and the
>>>> beam line is an example of something as being treatable as being at rest in
>>>> an inertial frame. Synched clocks have nothing to do with that.
>>>
>>> The beam line is not an inertial frame. Why? Because it changes direction continuously.
>> No, it doesn’t, Ken. This is a STRAIGHT beam line.
>
> Hey stupid, the ends of the beam line changes directions continuously as the earth rotates.

How much does the end of the mile-long beam line move, Ken, during the time
the electron moves from one end to the other? Is this above or below the
experimental resolution of the set-up? Do you understand why this is
important to determination whether the frame is inertial or not?

>>
>> I fully get that you had no idea such things exist.
>>>>
>>>> You’re too old to maintain two conversations on different subjects and not
>>>> get them jumbled up in your head.
>>>
>>> You don’t understand what you read.
>>>>
>>>> Why should I have a conversation with a senile man who can no longer
>>>> sustain a conversation?
>>>
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>

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

On Friday, 30 April 2021 at 16:39:33 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Friday, April 30, 2021 at 9:49:27 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 8:19:34 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> On Tuesday, April 27, 2021 at 3:58:02 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 27, 2021 at 9:58:25 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Monday, April 26, 2021 at 3:41:45 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, April 26, 2021 at 1:21:07 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, April 26, 2021 at 10:53:38 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 25, 2021 at 11:10:58 AM UTC-4, Rob Acraman wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, April 24, 2021 at 1:08:02 AM UTC+10, seto....@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Einstein’s SR postulates are the natural properties of a stationary
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aether as follows:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. The laws of physics are the same in any location (inertial frame) in
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the stationary aether.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. The speed of transmission of light pulses by the stationary aether
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is isotropic in all directions....independent of the motion of the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> emitter in the aether.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That’s not what “inertial frame" means.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, Ken, it’s really not. You just making empty claims about your invented
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> meanings for physics jargon terms is just silly and psychopathic.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, it is what inertial frame means. The only inertial frame exists is a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> frame in a state of absolute rest in the ether. That’s why SR and LET
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have the same math.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SR is markedly different from "the natural properties of a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stationary aether".
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On the contrary, the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "stationary aether" was the prevailing belief
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> before 1905 ... before Einstein's SR replaced it.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SR’s inertial frame is a hypothetical concept. It doesn’t exist on
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> earth.Why? Because an inertial frame of an object exists only if the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> object is in a state of absolute rest
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is DEFINITELY not what “inertial frame” means to anyone but you.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Why don’t you give us an example of a real physical inertial frame on earth?
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Sure. The beam line at SLAC is at rest in an inertial frame. The electrons
> >>>>>>>>>>>> in the beam line are moving in that inertial frame. Why do you think it’s
> >>>>>>>>>>>> not an inertial reference frame?
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> The earth is rotating so it is not in an inertial frame.
> >>>>>>>>>> Doesn’t make a measurable difference for the electrons in the beam line.
> >>>>>>>>>> Therefore it is inertial.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> We were talking about objects that are in inertial frames.
> >>>>>>>>> Beam lines are not objects.
> >>>>>>>> Yes they are. People make them. They are objects. The beam line that people
> >>>>>>>> made is at rest in an inertial frame.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> At rest in what inertial frame?
> >>>>>> The one comoving with the beam line components for the interval of time
> >>>>>> that the electrons fly from one end to the other.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> ROTFLOL....you think that two clocks at the end of the beam line are inertial
> >>>> No, you’re getting tow conversations confused. There are not two synched
> >>>> clocks at the end of a beam line. That wasn’t this conversation. This
> >>>> conversation was about whether inertial frames exist, and they do, and the
> >>>> beam line is an example of something as being treatable as being at rest in
> >>>> an inertial frame. Synched clocks have nothing to do with that.
> >>>
> >>> The beam line is not an inertial frame. Why? Because it changes direction continuously.
> >> No, it doesn’t, Ken. This is a STRAIGHT beam line.
> >
> > Hey stupid, the ends of the beam line changes directions continuously as the earth rotates.
> How much does the end of the mile-long beam line move, Ken, during the time
> the electron moves from one end to the other? Is this above or below the
> experimental resolution of the set-up? Do you understand why this is
> important to determination whether the frame is inertial or not?

Because an idiot woodworker is asserting it is important?

Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Friday, 30 April 2021 at 16:39:33 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Friday, April 30, 2021 at 9:49:27 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 8:19:34 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 27, 2021 at 3:58:02 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 27, 2021 at 9:58:25 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, April 26, 2021 at 3:41:45 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, April 26, 2021 at 1:21:07 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, April 26, 2021 at 10:53:38 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 25, 2021 at 11:10:58 AM UTC-4, Rob Acraman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, April 24, 2021 at 1:08:02 AM UTC+10, seto...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Einstein’s SR postulates are the natural properties
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of a stationary
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aether as follows:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. The laws of physics are the same in any location (inertial frame) in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the stationary aether.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. The speed of transmission of light pulses by the stationary aether
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is isotropic in all directions....independent of the motion of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> emitter in the aether.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That’s not what “inertial frame" means.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, Ken, it’s really not. You just making empty claims about your invented
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meanings for physics jargon terms is just silly and psychopathic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, it is what inertial frame means. The only inertial frame exists is a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> frame in a state of absolute rest in the ether. That’s why SR and LET
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have the same math.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SR is markedly different from "the natural properties of a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stationary aether".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On the contrary, the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "stationary aether" was the prevailing belief
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> before 1905 ... before Einstein's SR replaced it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SR’s inertial frame is a hypothetical concept. It doesn’t exist on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> earth.Why? Because an inertial frame of an object exists only if the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> object is in a state of absolute rest
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is DEFINITELY not what “inertial frame” means to anyone but you.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why don’t you give us an example of a real physical inertial frame on earth?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure. The beam line at SLAC is at rest in an inertial frame. The electrons
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the beam line are moving in that inertial frame. Why do you think it’s
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not an inertial reference frame?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The earth is rotating so it is not in an inertial frame.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Doesn’t make a measurable difference for the electrons in the beam line.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Therefore it is inertial.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> We were talking about objects that are in inertial frames.
>>>>>>>>>>> Beam lines are not objects.
>>>>>>>>>> Yes they are. People make them. They are objects. The beam line that people
>>>>>>>>>> made is at rest in an inertial frame.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> At rest in what inertial frame?
>>>>>>>> The one comoving with the beam line components for the interval of time
>>>>>>>> that the electrons fly from one end to the other.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ROTFLOL....you think that two clocks at the end of the beam line are inertial
>>>>>> No, you’re getting tow conversations confused. There are not two synched
>>>>>> clocks at the end of a beam line. That wasn’t this conversation. This
>>>>>> conversation was about whether inertial frames exist, and they do, and the
>>>>>> beam line is an example of something as being treatable as being at rest in
>>>>>> an inertial frame. Synched clocks have nothing to do with that.
>>>>>
>>>>> The beam line is not an inertial frame. Why? Because it changes
>>>>> direction continuously.
>>>> No, it doesn’t, Ken. This is a STRAIGHT beam line.
>>>
>>> Hey stupid, the ends of the beam line changes directions continuously
>>> as the earth rotates.
>> How much does the end of the mile-long beam line move, Ken, during the time
>> the electron moves from one end to the other? Is this above or below the
>> experimental resolution of the set-up? Do you understand why this is
>> important to determination whether the frame is inertial or not?
>
> Because an idiot woodworker is asserting it is important?
>

https://media.giphy.com/media/3o6nUVbQnlHPeKS5SE/source.mp4

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

On Friday, April 30, 2021 at 10:39:33 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Friday, April 30, 2021 at 9:49:27 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 8:19:34 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> On Tuesday, April 27, 2021 at 3:58:02 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 27, 2021 at 9:58:25 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Monday, April 26, 2021 at 3:41:45 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, April 26, 2021 at 1:21:07 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, April 26, 2021 at 10:53:38 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 25, 2021 at 11:10:58 AM UTC-4, Rob Acraman wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, April 24, 2021 at 1:08:02 AM UTC+10, seto....@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Einstein’s SR postulates are the natural properties of a stationary
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aether as follows:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. The laws of physics are the same in any location (inertial frame) in
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the stationary aether.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. The speed of transmission of light pulses by the stationary aether
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is isotropic in all directions....independent of the motion of the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> emitter in the aether.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That’s not what “inertial frame" means.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, Ken, it’s really not. You just making empty claims about your invented
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> meanings for physics jargon terms is just silly and psychopathic.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, it is what inertial frame means. The only inertial frame exists is a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> frame in a state of absolute rest in the ether. That’s why SR and LET
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have the same math.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SR is markedly different from "the natural properties of a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stationary aether".
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On the contrary, the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "stationary aether" was the prevailing belief
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> before 1905 ... before Einstein's SR replaced it.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SR’s inertial frame is a hypothetical concept. It doesn’t exist on
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> earth.Why? Because an inertial frame of an object exists only if the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> object is in a state of absolute rest
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is DEFINITELY not what “inertial frame” means to anyone but you.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Why don’t you give us an example of a real physical inertial frame on earth?
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Sure. The beam line at SLAC is at rest in an inertial frame. The electrons
> >>>>>>>>>>>> in the beam line are moving in that inertial frame. Why do you think it’s
> >>>>>>>>>>>> not an inertial reference frame?
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> The earth is rotating so it is not in an inertial frame.
> >>>>>>>>>> Doesn’t make a measurable difference for the electrons in the beam line.
> >>>>>>>>>> Therefore it is inertial.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> We were talking about objects that are in inertial frames.
> >>>>>>>>> Beam lines are not objects.
> >>>>>>>> Yes they are. People make them. They are objects. The beam line that people
> >>>>>>>> made is at rest in an inertial frame.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> At rest in what inertial frame?
> >>>>>> The one comoving with the beam line components for the interval of time
> >>>>>> that the electrons fly from one end to the other.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> ROTFLOL....you think that two clocks at the end of the beam line are inertial
> >>>> No, you’re getting tow conversations confused. There are not two synched
> >>>> clocks at the end of a beam line. That wasn’t this conversation. This
> >>>> conversation was about whether inertial frames exist, and they do, and the
> >>>> beam line is an example of something as being treatable as being at rest in
> >>>> an inertial frame. Synched clocks have nothing to do with that.
> >>>
> >>> The beam line is not an inertial frame. Why? Because it changes direction continuously.
> >> No, it doesn’t, Ken. This is a STRAIGHT beam line.
> >
> > Hey stupid, the ends of the beam line changes directions continuously as the earth rotates.
> How much does the end of the mile-long beam line move, Ken, during the time
> the electron moves from one end to the other?
I don’t know and I don’t care. The end result is that they are not inertial.

>Is this above or below the
> experimental resolution of the set-up? Do you understand why this is
> important to determination whether the frame is inertial or not?

Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Friday, April 30, 2021 at 10:39:33 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Friday, April 30, 2021 at 9:49:27 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 8:19:34 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 27, 2021 at 3:58:02 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 27, 2021 at 9:58:25 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, April 26, 2021 at 3:41:45 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, April 26, 2021 at 1:21:07 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, April 26, 2021 at 10:53:38 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 25, 2021 at 11:10:58 AM UTC-4, Rob Acraman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, April 24, 2021 at 1:08:02 AM UTC+10, seto...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Einstein’s SR postulates are the natural properties
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of a stationary
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aether as follows:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. The laws of physics are the same in any location (inertial frame) in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the stationary aether.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. The speed of transmission of light pulses by the stationary aether
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is isotropic in all directions....independent of the motion of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> emitter in the aether.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That’s not what “inertial frame" means.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, Ken, it’s really not. You just making empty claims about your invented
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meanings for physics jargon terms is just silly and psychopathic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, it is what inertial frame means. The only inertial frame exists is a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> frame in a state of absolute rest in the ether. That’s why SR and LET
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have the same math.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SR is markedly different from "the natural properties of a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stationary aether".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On the contrary, the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "stationary aether" was the prevailing belief
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> before 1905 ... before Einstein's SR replaced it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SR’s inertial frame is a hypothetical concept. It doesn’t exist on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> earth.Why? Because an inertial frame of an object exists only if the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> object is in a state of absolute rest
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is DEFINITELY not what “inertial frame” means to anyone but you.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why don’t you give us an example of a real physical inertial frame on earth?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure. The beam line at SLAC is at rest in an inertial frame. The electrons
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the beam line are moving in that inertial frame. Why do you think it’s
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not an inertial reference frame?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The earth is rotating so it is not in an inertial frame.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Doesn’t make a measurable difference for the electrons in the beam line.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Therefore it is inertial.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> We were talking about objects that are in inertial frames.
>>>>>>>>>>> Beam lines are not objects.
>>>>>>>>>> Yes they are. People make them. They are objects. The beam line that people
>>>>>>>>>> made is at rest in an inertial frame.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> At rest in what inertial frame?
>>>>>>>> The one comoving with the beam line components for the interval of time
>>>>>>>> that the electrons fly from one end to the other.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ROTFLOL....you think that two clocks at the end of the beam line are inertial
>>>>>> No, you’re getting tow conversations confused. There are not two synched
>>>>>> clocks at the end of a beam line. That wasn’t this conversation. This
>>>>>> conversation was about whether inertial frames exist, and they do, and the
>>>>>> beam line is an example of something as being treatable as being at rest in
>>>>>> an inertial frame. Synched clocks have nothing to do with that.
>>>>>
>>>>> The beam line is not an inertial frame. Why? Because it changes
>>>>> direction continuously.
>>>> No, it doesn’t, Ken. This is a STRAIGHT beam line.
>>>
>>> Hey stupid, the ends of the beam line changes directions continuously
>>> as the earth rotates.
>> How much does the end of the mile-long beam line move, Ken, during the time
>> the electron moves from one end to the other?
> I don’t know and I don’t care. The end result is that they are not inertial.

Nope. It DOES matter. This is science. How something gets modeled depends
on the precision needed. Any scientist knows this. A trained engineer
SHOULD know this. You don’t. You’ve lost your marbles. You’re not equipped
between the ears to think scientifically.

>
>> Is this above or below the
>> experimental resolution of the set-up? Do you understand why this is
>> important to determination whether the frame is inertial or not?
>
>

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

On 4/30/2021 4:13 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Friday, April 30, 2021 at 10:39:33 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Friday, April 30, 2021 at 9:49:27 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 8:19:34 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 27, 2021 at 3:58:02 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 27, 2021 at 9:58:25 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, April 26, 2021 at 3:41:45 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, April 26, 2021 at 1:21:07 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, April 26, 2021 at 10:53:38 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 25, 2021 at 11:10:58 AM UTC-4, Rob Acraman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, April 24, 2021 at 1:08:02 AM UTC+10, seto...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Einstein’s SR postulates are the natural properties
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of a stationary
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aether as follows:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. The laws of physics are the same in any location (inertial frame) in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the stationary aether.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. The speed of transmission of light pulses by the stationary aether
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is isotropic in all directions....independent of the motion of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> emitter in the aether.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That’s not what “inertial frame" means.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, Ken, it’s really not. You just making empty claims about your invented
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meanings for physics jargon terms is just silly and psychopathic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, it is what inertial frame means. The only inertial frame exists is a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> frame in a state of absolute rest in the ether. That’s why SR and LET
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have the same math.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SR is markedly different from "the natural properties of a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stationary aether".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On the contrary, the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "stationary aether" was the prevailing belief
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> before 1905 ... before Einstein's SR replaced it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SR’s inertial frame is a hypothetical concept. It doesn’t exist on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> earth.Why? Because an inertial frame of an object exists only if the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> object is in a state of absolute rest
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is DEFINITELY not what “inertial frame” means to anyone but you.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why don’t you give us an example of a real physical inertial frame on earth?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure. The beam line at SLAC is at rest in an inertial frame. The electrons
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the beam line are moving in that inertial frame. Why do you think it’s
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not an inertial reference frame?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The earth is rotating so it is not in an inertial frame.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Doesn’t make a measurable difference for the electrons in the beam line.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Therefore it is inertial.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> We were talking about objects that are in inertial frames.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Beam lines are not objects.
>>>>>>>>>>> Yes they are. People make them. They are objects. The beam line that people
>>>>>>>>>>> made is at rest in an inertial frame.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> At rest in what inertial frame?
>>>>>>>>> The one comoving with the beam line components for the interval of time
>>>>>>>>> that the electrons fly from one end to the other.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ROTFLOL....you think that two clocks at the end of the beam line are inertial
>>>>>>> No, you’re getting tow conversations confused. There are not two synched
>>>>>>> clocks at the end of a beam line. That wasn’t this conversation. This
>>>>>>> conversation was about whether inertial frames exist, and they do, and the
>>>>>>> beam line is an example of something as being treatable as being at rest in
>>>>>>> an inertial frame. Synched clocks have nothing to do with that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The beam line is not an inertial frame. Why? Because it changes
>>>>>> direction continuously.
>>>>> No, it doesn’t, Ken. This is a STRAIGHT beam line.
>>>>
>>>> Hey stupid, the ends of the beam line changes directions continuously
>>>> as the earth rotates.
>>> How much does the end of the mile-long beam line move, Ken, during the time
>>> the electron moves from one end to the other?
>> I don’t know and I don’t care. The end result is that they are not inertial.
>
> Nope. It DOES matter. This is science. How something gets modeled depends
> on the precision needed. Any scientist knows this. A trained engineer
> SHOULD know this. You don’t. You’ve lost your marbles. You’re not equipped
> between the ears to think scientifically.

Yes, what happened, Stupid Ken? You used to be a chemical engineer with
two patents. Now you can't understand Newtonian laws of motion or even
calculate (-6)/(-2), and you don't understand any engineering or
scientific concepts. You even think making an assertion results in a fact.

What happened? Stroke? Car accident where you smashed your head?
Dementia? Alzheimer's? Huffing some chemicals which you engineered?

Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote:
> On 4/30/2021 4:13 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Friday, April 30, 2021 at 10:39:33 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Friday, April 30, 2021 at 9:49:27 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 8:19:34 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 27, 2021 at 3:58:02 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 27, 2021 at 9:58:25 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, April 26, 2021 at 3:41:45 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, April 26, 2021 at 1:21:07 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, April 26, 2021 at 10:53:38 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 25, 2021 at 11:10:58 AM UTC-4, Rob Acraman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, April 24, 2021 at 1:08:02 AM UTC+10, seto...@gmail.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Einstein’s SR postulates are the natural properties
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of a stationary
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aether as follows:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. The laws of physics are the same in any location (inertial frame) in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the stationary aether.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. The speed of transmission of light pulses by the stationary aether
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is isotropic in all directions....independent of the motion of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> emitter in the aether.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That’s not what “inertial frame" means.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, Ken, it’s really not. You just making empty claims about your invented
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meanings for physics jargon terms is just silly and psychopathic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, it is what inertial frame means. The only inertial frame exists is a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> frame in a state of absolute rest in the ether. That’s why SR and LET
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have the same math.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SR is markedly different from "the natural properties of a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stationary aether".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On the contrary, the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "stationary aether" was the prevailing belief
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> before 1905 ... before Einstein's SR replaced it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SR’s inertial frame is a hypothetical concept. It doesn’t exist on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> earth.Why? Because an inertial frame of an object exists only if the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> object is in a state of absolute rest
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is DEFINITELY not what “inertial frame” means to anyone but you.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why don’t you give us an example of a real physical inertial frame on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> earth?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure. The beam line at SLAC is at rest in an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inertial frame. The electrons
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the beam line are moving in that inertial frame. Why do you think it’s
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not an inertial reference frame?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The earth is rotating so it is not in an inertial frame.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Doesn’t make a measurable difference for the electrons in the beam line.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Therefore it is inertial.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> We were talking about objects that are in inertial frames.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Beam lines are not objects.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes they are. People make them. They are objects. The beam line that people
>>>>>>>>>>>> made is at rest in an inertial frame.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> At rest in what inertial frame?
>>>>>>>>>> The one comoving with the beam line components for the interval of time
>>>>>>>>>> that the electrons fly from one end to the other.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ROTFLOL....you think that two clocks at the end of the beam line are inertial
>>>>>>>> No, you’re getting tow conversations confused. There are not two synched
>>>>>>>> clocks at the end of a beam line. That wasn’t this conversation. This
>>>>>>>> conversation was about whether inertial frames exist, and they do, and the
>>>>>>>> beam line is an example of something as being treatable as being at rest in
>>>>>>>> an inertial frame. Synched clocks have nothing to do with that.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The beam line is not an inertial frame. Why? Because it changes
>>>>>>> direction continuously.
>>>>>> No, it doesn’t, Ken. This is a STRAIGHT beam line.
>>>>>
>>>>> Hey stupid, the ends of the beam line changes directions continuously
>>>>> as the earth rotates.
>>>> How much does the end of the mile-long beam line move, Ken, during the time
>>>> the electron moves from one end to the other?
>>> I don’t know and I don’t care. The end result is that they are not inertial.
>>
>> Nope. It DOES matter. This is science. How something gets modeled depends
>> on the precision needed. Any scientist knows this. A trained engineer
>> SHOULD know this. You don’t. You’ve lost your marbles. You’re not equipped
>> between the ears to think scientifically.
>
> Yes, what happened, Stupid Ken? You used to be a chemical engineer with
> two patents. Now you can't understand Newtonian laws of motion or even
> calculate (-6)/(-2), and you don't understand any engineering or
> scientific concepts.

I would bet that it’s worse than that now. I imagine I could ask him a
chemistry question about chelation or the enthalpy change of long-chain
hydrogenation and he’d be stuck. It’s one thing to be incompetent in
something he never learned (physics), another thing to lose competence in
his area of training.

On Friday, April 30, 2021 at 4:13:39 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Friday, April 30, 2021 at 10:39:33 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Friday, April 30, 2021 at 9:49:27 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 8:19:34 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 27, 2021 at 3:58:02 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 27, 2021 at 9:58:25 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, April 26, 2021 at 3:41:45 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, April 26, 2021 at 1:21:07 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, April 26, 2021 at 10:53:38 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 25, 2021 at 11:10:58 AM UTC-4, Rob Acraman wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, April 24, 2021 at 1:08:02 AM UTC+10, seto....@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Einstein’s SR postulates are the natural properties
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of a stationary
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aether as follows:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. The laws of physics are the same in any location (inertial frame) in
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the stationary aether.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. The speed of transmission of light pulses by the stationary aether
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is isotropic in all directions....independent of the motion of the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> emitter in the aether.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That’s not what “inertial frame" means..
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, Ken, it’s really not. You just making empty claims about your invented
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meanings for physics jargon terms is just silly and psychopathic.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, it is what inertial frame means. The only inertial frame exists is a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> frame in a state of absolute rest in the ether. That’s why SR and LET
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have the same math.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SR is markedly different from "the natural properties of a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stationary aether".
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On the contrary, the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "stationary aether" was the prevailing belief
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> before 1905 ... before Einstein's SR replaced it.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SR’s inertial frame is a hypothetical concept. It doesn’t exist on
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> earth.Why? Because an inertial frame of an object exists only if the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> object is in a state of absolute rest
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is DEFINITELY not what “inertial frame” means to anyone but you.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why don’t you give us an example of a real physical inertial frame on earth?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure. The beam line at SLAC is at rest in an inertial frame. The electrons
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the beam line are moving in that inertial frame. Why do you think it’s
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> not an inertial reference frame?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> The earth is rotating so it is not in an inertial frame.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Doesn’t make a measurable difference for the electrons in the beam line.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Therefore it is inertial.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> We were talking about objects that are in inertial frames.
> >>>>>>>>>>> Beam lines are not objects.
> >>>>>>>>>> Yes they are. People make them. They are objects. The beam line that people
> >>>>>>>>>> made is at rest in an inertial frame.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> At rest in what inertial frame?
> >>>>>>>> The one comoving with the beam line components for the interval of time
> >>>>>>>> that the electrons fly from one end to the other.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> ROTFLOL....you think that two clocks at the end of the beam line are inertial
> >>>>>> No, you’re getting tow conversations confused. There are not two synched
> >>>>>> clocks at the end of a beam line. That wasn’t this conversation. This
> >>>>>> conversation was about whether inertial frames exist, and they do, and the
> >>>>>> beam line is an example of something as being treatable as being at rest in
> >>>>>> an inertial frame. Synched clocks have nothing to do with that.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The beam line is not an inertial frame. Why? Because it changes
> >>>>> direction continuously.
> >>>> No, it doesn’t, Ken. This is a STRAIGHT beam line.
> >>>
> >>> Hey stupid, the ends of the beam line changes directions continuously
> >>> as the earth rotates.
> >> How much does the end of the mile-long beam line move, Ken, during the time
> >> the electron moves from one end to the other?
> > I don’t know and I don’t care. The end result is that they are not inertial.
> Nope. It DOES matter. This is science. How something gets modeled depends
> on the precision needed. Any scientist knows this.

Current physics based on abstract math. That’s why it failed to come up with a valid TOE.
Time to based physics on physical model.

> A trained engineer
> SHOULD know this. You don’t. You’ve lost your marbles. You’re not equipped
> between the ears to think scientifically.
> >
> >> Is this above or below the
> >> experimental resolution of the set-up? Do you understand why this is
> >> important to determination whether the frame is inertial or not?
> >
> >
> --
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Friday, April 30, 2021 at 4:13:39 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Friday, April 30, 2021 at 10:39:33 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Friday, April 30, 2021 at 9:49:27 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 8:19:34 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 27, 2021 at 3:58:02 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 27, 2021 at 9:58:25 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, April 26, 2021 at 3:41:45 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, April 26, 2021 at 1:21:07 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, April 26, 2021 at 10:53:38 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 25, 2021 at 11:10:58 AM UTC-4, Rob Acraman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, April 24, 2021 at 1:08:02 AM UTC+10, seto...@gmail.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Einstein’s SR postulates are the natural properties
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of a stationary
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aether as follows:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. The laws of physics are the same in any location (inertial frame) in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the stationary aether.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. The speed of transmission of light pulses by the stationary aether
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is isotropic in all directions....independent of the motion of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> emitter in the aether.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That’s not what “inertial frame" means.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, Ken, it’s really not. You just making empty claims about your invented
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meanings for physics jargon terms is just silly and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> psychopathic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, it is what inertial frame means. The only inertial frame exists is a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> frame in a state of absolute rest in the ether.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That’s why SR and LET
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have the same math.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SR is markedly different from "the natural properties of a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stationary aether".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On the contrary, the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "stationary aether" was the prevailing belief
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> before 1905 ... before Einstein's SR replaced it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SR’s inertial frame is a hypothetical concept. It doesn’t exist on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> earth.Why? Because an inertial frame of an object exists only if the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> object is in a state of absolute rest
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is DEFINITELY not what “inertial frame” means to anyone but you.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why don’t you give us an example of a real physical inertial frame on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> earth?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure. The beam line at SLAC is at rest in an inertial frame. The electrons
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the beam line are moving in that inertial frame. Why do you think it’s
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not an inertial reference frame?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The earth is rotating so it is not in an inertial frame.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Doesn’t make a measurable difference for the electrons in the beam line.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Therefore it is inertial.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> We were talking about objects that are in inertial frames.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Beam lines are not objects.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes they are. People make them. They are objects. The beam line that people
>>>>>>>>>>>> made is at rest in an inertial frame.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> At rest in what inertial frame?
>>>>>>>>>> The one comoving with the beam line components for the interval of time
>>>>>>>>>> that the electrons fly from one end to the other.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ROTFLOL....you think that two clocks at the end of the beam line are inertial
>>>>>>>> No, you’re getting tow conversations confused. There are not two synched
>>>>>>>> clocks at the end of a beam line. That wasn’t this conversation. This
>>>>>>>> conversation was about whether inertial frames exist, and they do, and the
>>>>>>>> beam line is an example of something as being treatable as being at rest in
>>>>>>>> an inertial frame. Synched clocks have nothing to do with that.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The beam line is not an inertial frame. Why? Because it changes
>>>>>>> direction continuously.
>>>>>> No, it doesn’t, Ken. This is a STRAIGHT beam line.
>>>>>
>>>>> Hey stupid, the ends of the beam line changes directions continuously
>>>>> as the earth rotates.
>>>> How much does the end of the mile-long beam line move, Ken, during the time
>>>> the electron moves from one end to the other?
>>> I don’t know and I don’t care. The end result is that they are not inertial.
>> Nope. It DOES matter. This is science. How something gets modeled depends
>> on the precision needed. Any scientist knows this.
>
> Current physics based on abstract math.

Precision of measurement and how that affects modeling is not abstract
math.

> That’s why it failed to come up with a valid TOE.
> Time to based physics on physical model.
>
>> A trained engineer
>> SHOULD know this. You don’t. You’ve lost your marbles. You’re not equipped
>> between the ears to think scientifically.
>>>
>>>> Is this above or below the
>>>> experimental resolution of the set-up? Do you understand why this is
>>>> important to determination whether the frame is inertial or not?
>>>
>>>
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>