Il giorno lunedì 26 aprile 2021 alle 22:03:29 UTC+2 Cliff Hallston ha scritto:
> On Monday, April 26, 2021 at 12:11:36 PM UTC-7, beda-p...@libero.it wrote:
> > The sole Lorentz conjecture gives fully account to SR...
>
> Relativistic length contraction (which you mistakenly refer to as Lorentz conjecture, despite having been corrected countless times) is not sufficient to imply Lorentz invariance from your other tacit premises. For example, consider a mass inside a moving car, oscillating on a spring perpendicular to the car's motion. Explain how length contraction causes the oscillation rate (in terms of the ground reference frame) to slow down. [Prediction: You will never answer this.]
beda
the particles constituent a macroscopic body act as standing waves, that undergo to the same laws that light obeys.
therefore if a light beam going back and forth between two mirror posited on at end of a rod pointing in the direction of the movement, because of the contraction of the rod, the rate of the back and forth pulse of light is lower than to rod is at rest of the correct amount
note: the contraction lower the rate less than it would be if the contraction would not take place:
rod at rest: rate 1
rod moving not contracted : rate 1-v^2)
rod moving and contracted : rate sqrt(1-v^2)
he same apply to the spring (with the reserve on the different material)

>
> > A ether embedded theory where the ether is made superfluous in the procedure
> > but essential in its setting.
> That doesn't parse in English. Even if you ever successfully formulated a coherent sentence, it would still be false, because the old 19th century material ether is superfluous both operationally and conceptually to the theory of special relativity. Your empty allegations are completely unfounded.
beda
it is essential to your Esynchro setting, without the ether properties that sets the light speed and the speed of your frame and their strict relation, the Esyncro with light would go astray. it is thanks to the ether that your SR "works"
>
> > [length contraction] is not applicable and extended... as many times I have been telling you.
>
> Your claim has been thoroughly debunked. I've asked you many times to point out even one physical phenomenon that requires non-Lorentz invariant laws, and you cannot name one. So your beliefs have no rational basis.
beda
living matter is not invariant, and that is a very important and complex physical phenomenon that is not invariant
cheers
beda

On Monday, April 26, 2021 at 2:20:55 PM UTC-7, beda-p...@libero.it wrote:
> > Consider a mass inside a moving car, oscillating on a spring perpendicular to the
> > car's motion. Explain how length contraction causes the oscillation rate (in terms
> > of the ground reference frame) to slow down. [Prediction: You will not answer this question.]
>
> The particles constituent a macroscopic body act as standing waves...

Nope, you have not presented any description of the mass as a standing wave..

> that undergo to the same laws that light obeys.

Nope, a mass is not the same as massless electromagnetic energy.

> therefore if a light beam going back and forth...

Nope, the question is about a mass oscillating on a spring, not about a massless wave. So, I ask again: Consider a mass inside a moving car, oscillating on a spring perpendicular to the car's motion. Explain how length contraction causes the oscillation rate (in terms of the ground reference frame) to slow down. [Prediction: You will not answer this question.]

> > Your claim has been thoroughly debunked. I've asked you many times to point out even
> > one physical phenomenon that requires non-Lorentz invariant laws, and you cannot name
> > one. So your beliefs have no rational basis.
>
> Living matter is not invariant...

There is no evidence for vitalism. The belief that living matter cannot be reduced to the laws of physics for inanimate matter has no empirical basis.. Moreover, it has nothing in particular to do with special relativity. People argue about vitalism for organisms sitting stationary in your room. So you are twice removed from any rational basis for disputing Lorentz invariance. First, you would need to prove vitalism with its rejection of scientific reductionism (even for stationary objects), and second, you would need to prove that the non-reductionist aspects of living organisms are not relativistic. You will never accomplish the first, let alone the second. The first is being narrowed every day by the physics of biology, and the second would require you to falsify an abundance of experimental evidence against any ether wind on humans, even to the second order in v/c.

There is simply no rational basis for your juvenile nihilism.

On Monday, April 26, 2021 at 2:20:55 PM UTC-7, beda-p...@libero.it wrote:
> > Consider a mass inside a moving car, oscillating on a spring perpendicular to the
> > car's motion. Explain how length contraction causes the oscillation rate (in terms
> > of the ground reference frame) to slow down. [Prediction: You will not answer this question.]
>
> The particles constituent a macroscopic body act as standing waves...

Nope, you've not presented any description of the mass as a standing wave.

> that undergo to the same laws that light obeys.

Nope, a mass isn't the same as massless electromagnetic energy.

> therefore if a light beam going back and forth...

Nope, the question is about a mass oscillating at low speed on a spring, not about a massless wave propagating at c.

> in the direction of the motion

Nope, the question was for oscillation *perpendicular* to the motion. You see, you can't even answer for a perpendicular light pulse, let alone for an oscillating mass.

So, I ask again: Consider a mass inside a moving car, oscillating on a spring perpendicular to the car's motion. Explain how length contraction causes the oscillation rate (in terms of the ground reference frame) to slow down.. If you want to try a warm-up exercise, go ahead and answer for the perpendicular light pulse first. [Prediction: You will never answer this question.]

> > Your claim has been thoroughly debunked. I've asked you many times to point out even
> > one physical phenomenon that requires non-Lorentz invariant laws, and you cannot name
> > one. So your beliefs have no rational basis.
>
> Living matter is not invariant...

There is no evidence for vitalism. The belief that living matter cannot be reduced to the laws of physics for inanimate matter has no empirical basis. Moreover, it has nothing in particular to do with special relativity. People argue about vitalism for organisms sitting stationary in your room. So you are twice removed from any rational basis for disputing Lorentz invariance. First, you would need to prove vitalism with its rejection of scientific reductionism (even for stationary objects), and second, you would need to prove that the non-reductionist aspects of living organisms are not relativistic. You will never accomplish the first, let alone the second. The first is being narrowed every day by the physics of biology, and the second would require you to falsify an abundance of experimental evidence against any ether wind on humans, even to the second order in v/c.

There is simply no rational basis for your juvenile nihilism. And you're completely incapable of answering even the simple question above. Honestly, you simply must learn the basics of special relativity before trying to criticize it.

Il giorno martedì 27 aprile 2021 alle 10:28:27 UTC+2 Cliff Hallston ha scritto:
> On Monday, April 26, 2021 at 2:20:55 PM UTC-7, beda-p...@libero.it wrote:
> > > Consider a mass inside a moving car, oscillating on a spring perpendicular to the
> > > car's motion. Explain how length contraction causes the oscillation rate (in terms
> > > of the ground reference frame) to slow down. [Prediction: You will not answer this question.]
> >
> > The particles constituent a macroscopic body act as standing waves...
>
> Nope, you've not presented any description of the mass as a standing wave..
> > that undergo to the same laws that light obeys.
> Nope, a mass isn't the same as massless electromagnetic energy.
>
> > therefore if a light beam going back and forth...
>
> Nope, the question is about a mass oscillating at low speed on a spring, not about a massless wave propagating at c.
>
> > in the direction of the motion
>
> Nope, the question was for oscillation *perpendicular* to the motion. You see, you can't even answer for a perpendicular light pulse, let alone for an oscillating mass.
>
> So, I ask again: Consider a mass inside a moving car, oscillating on a spring perpendicular to the car's motion. Explain how length contraction causes the oscillation rate (in terms of the ground reference frame) to slow down. If you want to try a warm-up exercise, go ahead and answer for the perpendicular light pulse first. [Prediction: You will never answer this question.]
> > > Your claim has been thoroughly debunked. I've asked you many times to point out even
> > > one physical phenomenon that requires non-Lorentz invariant laws, and you cannot name
> > > one. So your beliefs have no rational basis.
> >
> > Living matter is not invariant...
>
> There is no evidence for vitalism. The belief that living matter cannot be reduced to the laws of physics for inanimate matter has no empirical basis. Moreover, it has nothing in particular to do with special relativity. People argue about vitalism for organisms sitting stationary in your room. So you are twice removed from any rational basis for disputing Lorentz invariance. First, you would need to prove vitalism with its rejection of scientific reductionism (even for stationary objects)
beda
no way, you are asking for the improvable, there are not arguments for such obviousness, (any argument is less convincing that the evidence itself), so dear cliff, I just take it for granted that a living being is unpredictable under the effects of all laws of physics even sitting stationary,
and remain unpredictable, adding and including the possibility of its destruction or modification, while any whatsoever change takes place on the environment and/or the change of its inertial movement
for the change of movement we already know that the dimension, the form, and ithe timing of an object changes because of inertial movement.
your invariance in a pun, like
all men are equal, what that mean? likely and correctly, it may mean that all the man are equal in the possibility of manifesting their absolute unpredictability under the same circumstances,
exactly what is the complex behavior of matter, especially complex matter, under the effects of all physical laws:
completely unpredictable, even when stationary.
Cliff:
, and second, you would need to prove that the non-reductionist aspects of living organisms are not relativistic. You will never accomplish the first, let alone the second. The first is being narrowed every day by the physics of biology, and the second would require you to falsify an abundance of experimental evidence against any ether wind on humans, even to the second order in v/c.
>
> There is simply no rational basis for your juvenile nihilism. And you're completely incapable of answering even the simple question above. Honestly, you simply must learn the basics of special relativity before trying to criticize it.
beda
the question above is answered as I have done, but as a physicist you know more, so you asked the question you gave the correct answer, if you want, for my interests in it is not relevant,

anyways, now that you stated it more clearly( a mass on a spring oscillating transversely of the movement of the lab), intuitively, I say that its oscillation rate would be reduced for the increased inertia, **see later
we may agree in this very generic answer.
but surely, we will disagree on the fact, that the reduction of the spring oscillating rate is absolute and related to the absolute speed of the lab, no other object involved

*** (precisely) and if it happens that the change of the inertial speed (after an momentarily acceleration) is that the lab results in a reduced absolute speed, then the spring will oscillate at an higher rate.

regardless of anything else, and regardless of your crooked SR frame with crooked clocks

cheers
beda

On Tuesday, April 27, 2021 at 3:52:55 AM UTC-7, beda-p...@libero.it wrote:
> > So, I ask again: Consider a mass inside a moving car, oscillating on a spring perpendicular to the car's motion. Explain how length contraction causes the oscillation rate (in terms of the ground reference frame) to slow down. If you want to try a warm-up exercise, go ahead and answer for the perpendicular light pulse first. [Prediction: You will never answer this question.]

You forgot (again) to answer the question. Are you admitting that you cannot answer either of those questions? In other words, you can't even explain why a pulse of light bouncing inside a box perpendicularly to the direction of motion of the box, runs slow in terms of the frame in which the box is moving? And you can't explain why the mass oscillating on a spring perpendicular to the direction of motion oscillates slow in terms of the frame in which the box is moving?

> the question above is answered as I have done...

No it is not. Your answer was completely fallacious, switching subjects, and even in the switched subject getting it wrong, because you failed to see it was perpendicular. Remember, you claimed to be able to explain time dilation purely from length contraction. But when I ask you to show this for a light pulse perpendicular to motion, you are completely unable to answer, just as you are unable to answer for the oscillating mass. So your claim was a lie. Right? All your beliefs are based on misinformation and misunderstanding.

> now that you stated it more clearly ( a mass on a spring oscillating transversely of the movement of the lab),

No, I stated it exactly the same way as the first time (and the second time, and now the third time). It was clearly stated to be perpendicular. Don't allow yourself to tell lies so easily. Science requires intellectual integrity.

> intuitively, I say that its oscillation rate would be reduced for the increased inertia...

Now you are groping toward admission of special relativity, and admitting that your claim to be able to explain time dilation purely from length contraction was false. Right? And you can't even explain the transverse light clock, let alone the oscillating mass. So your claims have been exposed as a complete sham. Right?

Il giorno martedì 27 aprile 2021 alle 20:25:22 UTC+2 Cliff Hallston ha scritto:
> On Tuesday, April 27, 2021 at 3:52:55 AM UTC-7, beda-p...@libero.it wrote:
> > > So, I ask again: Consider a mass inside a moving car, oscillating on a spring perpendicular to the car's motion. Explain how length contraction causes the oscillation rate (in terms of the ground reference frame) to slow down. If you want to try a warm-up exercise, go ahead and answer for the perpendicular light pulse first. [Prediction: You will never answer this question.]
> You forgot (again) to answer the question. Are you admitting that you cannot answer either of those questions? In other words, you can't even explain why a pulse of light bouncing inside a box perpendicularly to the direction of motion of the box, runs slow in terms of the frame in which the box is moving? And you can't explain why the mass oscillating on a spring perpendicular to the direction of motion oscillates slow in terms of the frame in which the box is moving?
>
> > the question above is answered as I have done...
>
> No it is not. Your answer was completely fallacious, switching subjects, and even in the switched subject getting it wrong, because you failed to see it was perpendicular. Remember, you claimed to be able to explain time dilation purely from length contraction. But when I ask you to show this for a light pulse perpendicular to motion, you are completely unable to answer, just as you are unable to answer for the oscillating mass. So your claim was a lie. Right? All your beliefs are based on misinformation and misunderstanding.
>
> > now that you stated it more clearly ( a mass on a spring oscillating transversely of the movement of the lab),
>
> No, I stated it exactly the same way as the first time (and the second time, and now the third time). It was clearly stated to be perpendicular. Don't allow yourself to tell lies so easily. Science requires intellectual integrity.
>
> > intuitively, I say that its oscillation rate would be reduced for the increased inertia...
>
> Now you are groping toward admission of special relativity, and admitting that your claim to be able to explain time dilation purely from length contraction was false. Right? And you can't even explain the transverse light clock, let alone the oscillating mass. So your claims have been exposed as a complete sham. Right?
beda

Il giorno martedì 27 aprile 2021 alle 20:25:22 UTC+2 Cliff Hallston ha scritto:
> On Tuesday, April 27, 2021 at 3:52:55 AM UTC-7, beda-p...@libero.it wrote:
> > > So, I ask again: Consider a mass inside a moving car, oscillating on a spring perpendicular to the car's motion. Explain how length contraction causes the oscillation rate (in terms of the ground reference frame) to slow down. If you want to try a warm-up exercise, go ahead and answer for the perpendicular light pulse first. [Prediction: You will never answer this question.]
> You forgot (again) to answer the question. Are you admitting that you cannot answer either of those questions? In other words, you can't even explain why a pulse of light bouncing inside a box perpendicularly to the direction of motion of the box, runs slow in terms of the frame in which the box is moving? And you can't explain why the mass oscillating on a spring perpendicular to the direction of motion oscillates slow in terms of the frame in which the box is moving?
>
> > the question above is answered as I have done...
>
> No it is not. Your answer was completely fallacious, switching subjects, and even in the switched subject getting it wrong, because you failed to see it was perpendicular. Remember, you claimed to be able to explain time dilation purely from length contraction. But when I ask you to show this for a light pulse perpendicular to motion, you are completely unable to answer, just as you are unable to answer for the oscillating mass. So your claim was a lie. Right? All your beliefs are based on misinformation and misunderstanding.
>
> > now that you stated it more clearly ( a mass on a spring oscillating transversely of the movement of the lab),
>
> No, I stated it exactly the same way as the first time (and the second time, and now the third time). It was clearly stated to be perpendicular. Don't allow yourself to tell lies so easily. Science requires intellectual integrity.
>
> > intuitively, I say that its oscillation rate would be reduced for the increased inertia...
>
> Now you are groping toward admission of special relativity, and admitting that your claim to be able to explain time dilation purely from length contraction was false. Right? And you can't even explain the transverse light clock, let alone the oscillating mass. So your claims have been exposed as a complete sham. Right?
beda
I come across the same questions so, for lack of time I repost my other reply to you
for the mass on the spring I said that it would oscillate at a lower rate if the absolute speed is faster, it would oscillate faster if the speed is lower (vs any a stable reference), either way transversely or in the direction of movement, (with asymmetry in the direction of movement, respect of the mid point of the oscillation)

my post, you see a copy of this in another thread,

you clearly don't have any idea how the very complex systems are stabilised, not with precise part(most of the time precise part means fatal instability) but mostly relying on automatic feedback and continuous adjustments.
like two people continuously interacting with a language, that they think each other inadequate, but trough a continue iteration, the targeted result may be achieved ( the proof: I am learning a lot trough our interaction)

about the pulse of light going transversely up and down, doing the the math the light two ways transverse time travel is 2*sqrt(1+(v/sqrt(1-v^2)^2)) given v=absolute speed of the box for me; v=relative speed of the your moving frame for you; 1=c and v= fraction of c
now what is important is, that given the two ways traverse travel time, in order to match with the two ways travel time on the direction of the movement. the ruler/box must contract with a factor sqrt(1-v^2) in the direction of movement, really and absolutely, otherwise the two beams of light would be out of synchro on the returning time
cheers
beda

On Tuesday, April 27, 2021 at 4:52:33 PM UTC-7, beda-p...@libero.it wrote:
> I come across the same questions so, for lack of time I repost my other reply to you

As noted in the other thread, you still haven't succeeded in answering even the simple light question, but you are groping toward the admission that you treat the speed of light as c in terms of any system of inertial coordinates.

> for the mass on the spring I said that it would oscillate at a lower rate if the absolute
> speed is faster...

But that's just repeating the question. I'm asking how you explain this slowing. Before you began to hint that the inertia of an object increases with speed... i.e., energy has inertia. So you are gradually, slowing, groping toward special relativity. None of this works differently for frames other than the CMBR frame. Understand?

Il giorno mercoledì 28 aprile 2021 alle 02:17:17 UTC+2 Cliff Hallston ha scritto:
> On Tuesday, April 27, 2021 at 4:52:33 PM UTC-7, beda-p...@libero.it wrote:
> > I come across the same questions so, for lack of time I repost my other reply to you
> As noted in the other thread, you still haven't succeeded in answering even the simple light question, but you are groping toward the admission that you treat the speed of light as c in terms of any system of inertial coordinates.
> > for the mass on the spring I said that it would oscillate at a lower rate if the absolute
> > speed is faster...
>
> But that's just repeating the question. I'm asking how you explain this slowing. Before you began to hint that the inertia of an object increases with speed... i.e., energy has inertia.
beda
well, since the inertial moving bodies experience more and more inertial effects, you can either say that it is its increased energy that have more inertia, or you just say that inertia increases with speed

cliff:
So you are gradually, slowing, groping toward special relativity. None of this works differently for frames other than the CMBR frame. Understand?
beda
no grouping towards SR, thing are as they are, and if you transfers all your figured values from the SR frames to an absolute representation nothing at all changes factually.
only the constance SOL and the invariance disappears, going at very high speeds travel for macro bodies remain impossible
you can recover from the SR false conceptual construction, just reckoning that a ruler contracts really and absolutely when moving, all the rest comes along, also, mistakenly, you deranged conceptual SR
cheers
beda

On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 5:07:12 AM UTC-7, beda-p...@libero.it wrote:
> well, since the inertial moving bodies experience more and more inertial effects, you can either say that it is its increased energy that have more inertia, or you just say that inertia increases with speed
>
> So you are gradually, slowing, groping toward special relativity. None of this works differently for frames other than the CMBR frame. Understand?
>
> no grouping towards SR...

Yes you are. Once you've conceded that the inertia of the body is a measure of its energy content you have conceded that inertia-based coordinate systems are related by Lorentz transformations, which is the entire content of special relativity.

> Only the constance SOL and the invariance disappears...

Your brain malfunctioned again. Special relativity does *not* say that the speed of light is invariant in terms of arbitrary coordinate systems, it says it is invariant in terms of inertia-based coordinate systems, which you have just conceded in your groping attempt to explain time dilation.

On Wednesday, 28 April 2021 at 18:09:06 UTC+2, Cliff Hallston wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 5:07:12 AM UTC-7, beda-p...@libero.it wrote:
> > well, since the inertial moving bodies experience more and more inertial effects, you can either say that it is its increased energy that have more inertia, or you just say that inertia increases with speed
> >
> > So you are gradually, slowing, groping toward special relativity. None of this works differently for frames other than the CMBR frame. Understand?
> >
> > no grouping towards SR...
>
> Yes you are. Once you've conceded that the inertia of the body is a measure of its energy content you have conceded that inertia-based coordinate systems are related by Lorentz transformations, which is the entire content of special relativity.
>
> > Only the constance SOL and the invariance disappears...
>
> Your brain malfunctioned again. Special relativity does *not* say that the speed of light is invariant in terms of arbitrary coordinate systems, it says it is invariant in terms of inertia-based coordinate systems, which you have just conceded in your groping attempt to explain time dilation.

Your brain malfunctioned again. No, your shit doesn't say SOL is
invariant in terms of inertia-based coordinate systems, it says it
is invariant where it is invariant.

Il giorno mercoledì 28 aprile 2021 alle 18:09:06 UTC+2 Cliff Hallston ha scritto:
> On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 5:07:12 AM UTC-7, beda-p...@libero.it wrote:
> > well, since the inertial moving bodies experience more and more inertial effects, you can either say that it is its increased energy that have more inertia, or you just say that inertia increases with speed
> >
> > So you are gradually, slowing, groping toward special relativity. None of this works differently for frames other than the CMBR frame. Understand?
> >
> > no grouping towards SR...
>
> Yes you are. Once you've conceded that the inertia of the body is a measure of its energy content you have conceded that inertia-based coordinate systems are related by Lorentz transformations, which is the entire content of special relativity.
>
> > Only the constance SOL and the invariance disappears...
>
> Your brain malfunctioned again. Special relativity does *not* say that the speed of light is invariant in terms of arbitrary coordinate systems, it says it is invariant in terms of inertia-based coordinate systems, which you have just conceded in your groping attempt to explain time dilation.
beda
and what is the difference between SR frames and reality as it happens in the real world?
are your clocks arranged to make that appear invariant, what in nature is fixed and unique
so your frame misrepresent reality,
you use a law of physics (the law of inertia) to model your representation of the reality making an assumption
that is false: the regularity of the inertia along all the range of speeds, ignoring that reality is made of matter which has not such a regularity to that extent.
cheerrs
beda

On Thursday, April 29, 2021 at 3:02:43 AM UTC-7, beda-p...@libero.it wrote:
> What is the difference between SR frames and reality as it happens in the real world?

Extensive experimental evidence has so far not revealed any violations of local Lorentz invariance, despite strenuous efforts to find any such violation.

> Your clocks are arranged to make that appear invariant, what in nature is fixed and unique

You're confused. Local Lorentz invariance consists of the fact that all the fundamental laws of physics are locally Lorentz invariant, which has a definite objective physical meaning, as has been explained to you repeatedly. The time coordinates of inertial coordinate systems are established such that the mechanical inertia of bodies at rest in a frame is homogeneous and isotropic.

> you use a law of physics (the law of inertia) to model your representation of the
> reality making an assumption

Nope, there is no "assumption" (if you think there is, tell me what "assumption" you think is made), and no, we do not "model a representation" (meaningless phrase), we establish a coordinate system.

> The regularity of the inertia along all the range of speeds, ignoring that reality
> is made of matter which has not such a regularity to that extent.

That's crazy. In all human experience, no one has ever detected even a hint of difference, to one part in 10^12, of the inertia of mass m, depending on what the mass m consists of, or how "complex" the mass m is. You have simply fantasized that. Inertia depends on the mass(energy), essentially by definition. And please note that if you are challenging that the inertia of a resting body depends only on its rest mass, then you are not just denying special relativity, you are denying all of physics, and indeed you are denying rationality itself. And you have provided zero justification for your self-indulgent anti-scientific beliefs.

Il giorno giovedì 29 aprile 2021 alle 16:35:53 UTC+2 Cliff Hallston ha scritto:
> On Thursday, April 29, 2021 at 3:02:43 AM UTC-7, beda-p...@libero.it wrote:
> > What is the difference between SR frames and reality as it happens in the real world?
>
> Extensive experimental evidence has so far not revealed any violations of local Lorentz invariance, despite strenuous efforts to find any such violation.
>
> > Your clocks are arranged to make that appear invariant, what in nature is fixed and unique
>
> You're confused. Local Lorentz invariance consists of the fact that all the fundamental laws of physics are locally Lorentz invariant, which has a definite objective physical meaning, as has been explained to you repeatedly.. The time coordinates of inertial coordinate systems are established such that the mechanical inertia of bodies at rest in a frame is homogeneous and isotropic.
beda
but it is patently false: in any of your SR frame the inertia acting on bodies is different and different is the anisotropy of inertia: you ,all the way along the all possible absolute speeds of the SR frames, have the two ways SOL and two way movement of object locally constant, but inertia remains asymmetric, and is more and more asymmetric as the absolute speeds of the frames increases, the fact that you have cancelled the absolute speed from your model doesn't mean that the absolute speed and the related anysotropy (or asymmetry of inerrtia) as cheased to operate.

for an object at rest in a SR frame at Earth speeds the inertial is almost symmetric one way and one way back
while for an object inertial moving at ,5c there is a huge asymmetry in the f/b ones ways
even though the two ways are locally equivalent,
it is like the light :
at terrestrial speeds the one way forth is almost identical to one way back
but at .5c the one ways light is still c-v and c+v, very different
is illusory, against any logic, to consider the one ways invariant locally
because the local two ways is locally invariant (which is true as measured by the dilated local clock, one clock, no Esynch trick possible)
> > you use a law of physics (the law of inertia) to model your representation of the
> > reality making an assumption
> Nope, there is no "assumption" (if you think there is, tell me what "assumption" you think is made), and no, we do not "model a representation" (meaningless phrase), we establish a coordinate system.
>
> > The regularity of the inertia along all the range of speeds, ignoring that reality
> > is made of matter which has not such a regularity to that extent.
> That's crazy. In all human experience, no one has ever detected even a hint of difference, to one part in 10^12, of the inertia of mass m, depending on what the mass m consists of, or how "complex" the mass m is. You have simply fantasized that. Inertia depends on the mass(energy), essentially by definition. And please note that if you are challenging that the inertia of a resting body depends only on its rest mass, then you are not just denying special relativity, you are denying all of physics, and indeed you are denying rationality itself. And you have provided zero justification for your self-indulgent anti-scientific beliefs.
beda
I invite you to posit all your representation of the objects and of all the objects characteristic in a neutral 3D space plus time,
so we can have a simple neutral common ground of comparison of our different ways of seeing things, it may happen that express on a common ground we might agree on what objects are or become
I really don't see what is the reality of the objects represented in your model, so please transfer your reasoning in a 3D
space plus time : it that contest what are the values of your ruler, clock rate, two ways time travel along the ruler, just as you imagine them, say at the speed of .5c versus the CMBR rest frame.
cheers
beda

On Friday, April 30, 2021 at 5:20:57 AM UTC-7, beda-p...@libero.it wrote:
> In any of your SR frame the inertia acting on bodies is different...

The velocity of a body depends on the frame of reference, obviously, and the kinetic energy of a body depends on its velocity, obviously, and any amount of energy E has inertia E/c^2. If this is what you are trying to say, then yes. Otherwise no.

> and different is the anisotropy of inertia...

The law of inertia is isoptropic in terms of any system of inertial coordinates. This was explained to you before. The inertia depends on the difference between the directions of an object's velocity vector and its acceleration vector, but not on those directions themselves. Remember?

> All the way along the all possible absolute speeds of the SR frames have the two ways SOL

Your brain malfunctioned again. The laws of physics -- including the one-way speed of light -- take the same form in terms of any system of inertial coordinates, regardless of the speed of that system in terms of the CMBR frame. Remember?

> at terrestrial speeds the one way forth is almost identical to one way back

No, experiments like Michelson are sensitive enough to detect the difference of c+-v even for the orbital speed of the earth. No such variation exists in terms of the local system of inertial coordinates. Remember?

> I invite you to posit all your representation of the objects and of all the objects
> characteristic in a neutral 3D space plus time,

That isn't neutral, it is the arbitrary, hypocritical, and pointless Lorentzian interpretation of special relativity. It simply consists of special relativity combined with an arbitrary metaphysical semantic choice to select one particular system of inertial coordinates and label it the "true", but the proponents of Lorentzian interpretation never actually use the coordinate system they claim is essential to use. And it does not change the fact of local Lorentz invariance as a fundamental symmetry of nature. Lorentzian interpretation simply is the choice to claim to ignore the symmetry, while hypocritically relying on it every day. Science is not about ignoring the patterns and symmetries of nature, it is about discovering and exploiting them.

> I invite you to posit in 3D space plus time...

Your crackpot echoalia fails, because my invitation to you is to cite any empirical evidence or logical argument to support your claims, whereas your invitation to me is to adopt your insane gibberish. Those invitations are not symmetrical. Understand?

> I really don't see what is the reality of the objects represented in your model...

The subject is not "representations by models" (interpretations), the subject is the objective verifiable facts. You told me you understand special relativity. Now you admit that you do not understand the first thing about it.

> please transfer your reasoning in a 3D space plus time

All of the inertial coordinate systems consist of three space coordinates and one time coordinate. Remember?