Message-ID:

<Tazman> damn my office is cold. <Tazman> need a hot secretary to warm it up. -- Seen on #Linux

tech / sci.physics.relativity / Re: Einstein’s SR postulates are the natural prope rties of a stationary aether

Re: Einstein’s SR postulates are the natural prope rties of a stationary aether

<b81112fb-1059-434c-974b-cc24f832704dn@googlegroups.com>

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=59084&group=sci.physics.relativity#59084

copy link Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity

X-Received: by 2002:a05:622a:507:: with SMTP id l7mr14427997qtx.362.1619988357137;
Sun, 02 May 2021 13:45:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:389:: with SMTP id q9mr7035124qkm.16.1619988356988;
Sun, 02 May 2021 13:45:56 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!209.85.160.216.MISMATCH!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Date: Sun, 2 May 2021 13:45:56 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <s6mt51$8im$1@gioia.aioe.org>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=2603:6010:210d:ee8c:e198:e095:7e9:d1dc;
posting-account=W7gfVQoAAACRq_zh4C6vXoE20aUFnnXp
NNTP-Posting-Host: 2603:6010:210d:ee8c:e198:e095:7e9:d1dc
References: <01554174-f3ca-407a-b83c-d6411ec8143an@googlegroups.com>
<2be237a6-9a86-4f6e-91a5-eb8771781b8cn@googlegroups.com> <s66k5e$jpn$3@gioia.aioe.org>
<c8ea7019-2cfa-43b3-8b92-0fd2c5df9f11n@googlegroups.com> <s66spv$133a$2@gioia.aioe.org>
<495ebdc9-37ff-4ba8-a92f-aae4446cbc20n@googlegroups.com> <s6751l$19k8$2@gioia.aioe.org>
<1f463b11-ce0d-4955-9f5d-03a4f0808207n@googlegroups.com> <s6959s$dek$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<553ff7ed-035c-4059-8e08-9fba6d516356n@googlegroups.com> <s69qc5$18rq$3@gioia.aioe.org>
<15767547-2299-4341-9db7-62df3ac0e068n@googlegroups.com> <s6bjsi$l1i$2@gioia.aioe.org>
<cce4d00e-2627-475e-b873-0794a35e93e5n@googlegroups.com> <s6h1t3$l8q$2@gioia.aioe.org>
<55f889ef-ead6-41d9-91f2-42dcc72fedfbn@googlegroups.com> <s6h4r1$7ks$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<5305ed32-5619-4b1a-8982-0ab209361a65n@googlegroups.com> <s6hodf$1nr2$2@gioia.aioe.org>
<742518d7-93df-4230-89e8-470a88cdc902n@googlegroups.com> <s6mt51$8im$1@gioia.aioe.org>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <b81112fb-1059-434c-974b-cc24f832704dn@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re:_Einstein’s_SR_postulates_are_the_natural_prope
_rties_of_a_stationary_aether
From: setoke...@gmail.com (Ken Seto)
Injection-Date: Sun, 02 May 2021 20:45:57 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

by: Ken Seto - Sun, 2 May 2021 20:45 UTC

On Sunday, May 2, 2021 at 3:05:10 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Ken Seto <seto...@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.

Click here to read the complete article

Re: Einstein’s SR postulates are the natural prope rties of a stationary aether

<s6n4dp$1j1q$1@gioia.aioe.org>

copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=59085&group=sci.physics.relativity#59085

copy link Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity

Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!88SGfxti26kXnMcNSTt5pQ.user.gioia.aioe.org.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: bodkin...@gmail.com (Odd Bodkin)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Subject: Re: Einstein’s SR postulates
are the natural prope rties of a stationary
aether
Date: Sun, 2 May 2021 21:09:14 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
Lines: 145
Message-ID: <s6n4dp$1j1q$1@gioia.aioe.org>
References: <s66k5e$jpn$3@gioia.aioe.org>
<c8ea7019-2cfa-43b3-8b92-0fd2c5df9f11n@googlegroups.com>
<s66spv$133a$2@gioia.aioe.org>
<495ebdc9-37ff-4ba8-a92f-aae4446cbc20n@googlegroups.com>
<s6751l$19k8$2@gioia.aioe.org>
<1f463b11-ce0d-4955-9f5d-03a4f0808207n@googlegroups.com>
<s6959s$dek$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<553ff7ed-035c-4059-8e08-9fba6d516356n@googlegroups.com>
<s69qc5$18rq$3@gioia.aioe.org>
<15767547-2299-4341-9db7-62df3ac0e068n@googlegroups.com>
<s6bjsi$l1i$2@gioia.aioe.org>
<cce4d00e-2627-475e-b873-0794a35e93e5n@googlegroups.com>
<s6h1t3$l8q$2@gioia.aioe.org>
<55f889ef-ead6-41d9-91f2-42dcc72fedfbn@googlegroups.com>
<s6h4r1$7ks$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<5305ed32-5619-4b1a-8982-0ab209361a65n@googlegroups.com>
<s6hodf$1nr2$2@gioia.aioe.org>
<742518d7-93df-4230-89e8-470a88cdc902n@googlegroups.com>
<s6mt51$8im$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<b81112fb-1059-434c-974b-cc24f832704dn@googlegroups.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 88SGfxti26kXnMcNSTt5pQ.user.gioia.aioe.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org
User-Agent: NewsTap/5.5 (iPhone/iPod Touch)
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.9.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:T35YoyIiiRDKg8NQsr1z1hHq3zY=

by: Odd Bodkin - Sun, 2 May 2021 21:09 UTC

Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, May 2, 2021 at 3:05:10 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Ken Seto <seto...@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.
>
> You said that the length of a moving meter stick can be
> measured......that certainly is not precision of measurement.

Click here to read the complete article

Re: Einstein’s SR postulates are the natural prope rties of a stationary aether

<df618180-4241-4724-ae85-ae659df80303n@googlegroups.com>

copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=59093&group=sci.physics.relativity#59093

copy link Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity

X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:13e2:: with SMTP id h2mr16877734qkl.235.1620018488888;
Sun, 02 May 2021 22:08:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a0c:fa8e:: with SMTP id o14mr17986552qvn.45.1620018488714;
Sun, 02 May 2021 22:08:08 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!209.85.160.216.MISMATCH!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Date: Sun, 2 May 2021 22:08:08 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <s6n4dp$1j1q$1@gioia.aioe.org>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=89.206.14.16; posting-account=I3DWzAoAAACOmZUdDcZ-C0PqAZGVsbW0
NNTP-Posting-Host: 89.206.14.16
References: <s66k5e$jpn$3@gioia.aioe.org> <c8ea7019-2cfa-43b3-8b92-0fd2c5df9f11n@googlegroups.com>
<s66spv$133a$2@gioia.aioe.org> <495ebdc9-37ff-4ba8-a92f-aae4446cbc20n@googlegroups.com>
<s6751l$19k8$2@gioia.aioe.org> <1f463b11-ce0d-4955-9f5d-03a4f0808207n@googlegroups.com>
<s6959s$dek$1@gioia.aioe.org> <553ff7ed-035c-4059-8e08-9fba6d516356n@googlegroups.com>
<s69qc5$18rq$3@gioia.aioe.org> <15767547-2299-4341-9db7-62df3ac0e068n@googlegroups.com>
<s6bjsi$l1i$2@gioia.aioe.org> <cce4d00e-2627-475e-b873-0794a35e93e5n@googlegroups.com>
<s6h1t3$l8q$2@gioia.aioe.org> <55f889ef-ead6-41d9-91f2-42dcc72fedfbn@googlegroups.com>
<s6h4r1$7ks$1@gioia.aioe.org> <5305ed32-5619-4b1a-8982-0ab209361a65n@googlegroups.com>
<s6hodf$1nr2$2@gioia.aioe.org> <742518d7-93df-4230-89e8-470a88cdc902n@googlegroups.com>
<s6mt51$8im$1@gioia.aioe.org> <b81112fb-1059-434c-974b-cc24f832704dn@googlegroups.com>
<s6n4dp$1j1q$1@gioia.aioe.org>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <df618180-4241-4724-ae85-ae659df80303n@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re:_Einstein’s_SR_postulates_are_the_natural_prope
_rties_of_a_stationary_aether
From: maluwozn...@gmail.com (Maciej Wozniak)
Injection-Date: Mon, 03 May 2021 05:08:08 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

by: Maciej Wozniak - Mon, 3 May 2021 05:08 UTC

On Sunday, 2 May 2021 at 23:09:19 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Sunday, May 2, 2021 at 3:05:10 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Ken Seto <seto...@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.
> >
> > You said that the length of a moving meter stick can be
> > measured......that certainly is not precision of measurement.
> Precision of measurement is a number in percent or in length amount. Using
> a certain method I can measure the length of a moving meter stick with a
> beta of 1E-6 to a precision of 0.1%.

Click here to read the complete article

Re: Einstein’s SR postulates are the natural prope rties of a stationary aether

<bf03133f-609c-49ae-ab2f-87ee2d84760an@googlegroups.com>

copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=59109&group=sci.physics.relativity#59109

copy link Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity

X-Received: by 2002:ac8:4d43:: with SMTP id x3mr17994043qtv.326.1620052234465;
Mon, 03 May 2021 07:30:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:389:: with SMTP id q9mr10453995qkm.16.1620052234302;
Mon, 03 May 2021 07:30:34 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.snarked.org!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Date: Mon, 3 May 2021 07:30:34 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <s6n4dp$1j1q$1@gioia.aioe.org>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=24.166.217.68; posting-account=W7gfVQoAAACRq_zh4C6vXoE20aUFnnXp
NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.166.217.68
References: <s66k5e$jpn$3@gioia.aioe.org> <c8ea7019-2cfa-43b3-8b92-0fd2c5df9f11n@googlegroups.com>
<s66spv$133a$2@gioia.aioe.org> <495ebdc9-37ff-4ba8-a92f-aae4446cbc20n@googlegroups.com>
<s6751l$19k8$2@gioia.aioe.org> <1f463b11-ce0d-4955-9f5d-03a4f0808207n@googlegroups.com>
<s6959s$dek$1@gioia.aioe.org> <553ff7ed-035c-4059-8e08-9fba6d516356n@googlegroups.com>
<s69qc5$18rq$3@gioia.aioe.org> <15767547-2299-4341-9db7-62df3ac0e068n@googlegroups.com>
<s6bjsi$l1i$2@gioia.aioe.org> <cce4d00e-2627-475e-b873-0794a35e93e5n@googlegroups.com>
<s6h1t3$l8q$2@gioia.aioe.org> <55f889ef-ead6-41d9-91f2-42dcc72fedfbn@googlegroups.com>
<s6h4r1$7ks$1@gioia.aioe.org> <5305ed32-5619-4b1a-8982-0ab209361a65n@googlegroups.com>
<s6hodf$1nr2$2@gioia.aioe.org> <742518d7-93df-4230-89e8-470a88cdc902n@googlegroups.com>
<s6mt51$8im$1@gioia.aioe.org> <b81112fb-1059-434c-974b-cc24f832704dn@googlegroups.com>
<s6n4dp$1j1q$1@gioia.aioe.org>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <bf03133f-609c-49ae-ab2f-87ee2d84760an@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re:_Einstein’s_SR_postulates_are_the_natural_prope
_rties_of_a_stationary_aether
From: setoke...@gmail.com (Ken Seto)
Injection-Date: Mon, 03 May 2021 14:30:34 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Lines: 195

by: Ken Seto - Mon, 3 May 2021 14:30 UTC

On Sunday, May 2, 2021 at 5:09:19 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Sunday, May 2, 2021 at 3:05:10 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Ken Seto <seto...@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.
> >
> > You said that the length of a moving meter stick can be
> > measured......that certainly is not precision of measurement.
> Precision of measurement is a number in percent or in length amount. Using
> a certain method I can measure the length of a moving meter stick with a
> beta of 1E-6 to a precision of 0.1%. Using a different method, I can
> measure the length of a moving meter stick with a beta of 1E-4 to a
> precision of 0.001%. In the case of the beamline, the angle of the beamline
> swings by pi/86,000 radians per second, but the electron is through there
> in 1/200000th of a second. Can you calculate the precision of the beamline
> from that yet?

Click here to read the complete article

Re: Einstein’s SR postulates are the natural prope rties of a stationary aether

<s6p4ml$jgh$1@gioia.aioe.org>

copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=59115&group=sci.physics.relativity#59115

copy link Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity

Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!ATjkZ4E4VwqOlUKKO+kkuA.user.gioia.aioe.org.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: moro...@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Subject: Re:_Einstein’s_SR_postulates_are_the_natural_pr
ope_rties_of_a_stationary_aether
Date: Mon, 3 May 2021 11:26:14 -0400
Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
Lines: 5
Message-ID: <s6p4ml$jgh$1@gioia.aioe.org>
References: <s66k5e$jpn$3@gioia.aioe.org>
<c8ea7019-2cfa-43b3-8b92-0fd2c5df9f11n@googlegroups.com>
<s66spv$133a$2@gioia.aioe.org>
<495ebdc9-37ff-4ba8-a92f-aae4446cbc20n@googlegroups.com>
<s6751l$19k8$2@gioia.aioe.org>
<1f463b11-ce0d-4955-9f5d-03a4f0808207n@googlegroups.com>
<s6959s$dek$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<553ff7ed-035c-4059-8e08-9fba6d516356n@googlegroups.com>
<s69qc5$18rq$3@gioia.aioe.org>
<15767547-2299-4341-9db7-62df3ac0e068n@googlegroups.com>
<s6bjsi$l1i$2@gioia.aioe.org>
<cce4d00e-2627-475e-b873-0794a35e93e5n@googlegroups.com>
<s6h1t3$l8q$2@gioia.aioe.org>
<55f889ef-ead6-41d9-91f2-42dcc72fedfbn@googlegroups.com>
<s6h4r1$7ks$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<5305ed32-5619-4b1a-8982-0ab209361a65n@googlegroups.com>
<s6hodf$1nr2$2@gioia.aioe.org>
<742518d7-93df-4230-89e8-470a88cdc902n@googlegroups.com>
<s6mt51$8im$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<b81112fb-1059-434c-974b-cc24f832704dn@googlegroups.com>
<s6n4dp$1j1q$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<bf03133f-609c-49ae-ab2f-87ee2d84760an@googlegroups.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ATjkZ4E4VwqOlUKKO+kkuA.user.gioia.aioe.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/78.9.0
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.9.2
Content-Language: en-US

by: Michael Moroney - Mon, 3 May 2021 15:26 UTC

On 5/3/2021 10:30 AM, Ken Seto wrote:

> Assertion is not a valid argument.

Stupid Ken, so why do you keep making all those assertions??

Re: Einstein’s SR postulates are the natural prope rties of a stationary aether

<s6p50j$svh$2@gioia.aioe.org>

copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=59117&group=sci.physics.relativity#59117

copy link Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity

Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!6U92FDcxvDfbwGlDrwgnNA.user.gioia.aioe.org.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: sch...@nnacwe2ts.net (Jim Schreck)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Subject: Re: Einstein’s SR postulates are the natural
prope rties of a stationary aether
Date: Mon, 3 May 2021 15:31:32 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
Lines: 12
Message-ID: <s6p50j$svh$2@gioia.aioe.org>
References: <s66k5e$jpn$3@gioia.aioe.org> <s66spv$133a$2@gioia.aioe.org>
<495ebdc9-37ff-4ba8-a92f-aae4446cbc20n@googlegroups.com>
<s6751l$19k8$2@gioia.aioe.org>
<1f463b11-ce0d-4955-9f5d-03a4f0808207n@googlegroups.com>
<s6959s$dek$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<553ff7ed-035c-4059-8e08-9fba6d516356n@googlegroups.com>
<s69qc5$18rq$3@gioia.aioe.org>
<15767547-2299-4341-9db7-62df3ac0e068n@googlegroups.com>
<s6bjsi$l1i$2@gioia.aioe.org>
<cce4d00e-2627-475e-b873-0794a35e93e5n@googlegroups.com>
<s6h1t3$l8q$2@gioia.aioe.org>
<55f889ef-ead6-41d9-91f2-42dcc72fedfbn@googlegroups.com>
<s6h4r1$7ks$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<5305ed32-5619-4b1a-8982-0ab209361a65n@googlegroups.com>
<s6hodf$1nr2$2@gioia.aioe.org>
<742518d7-93df-4230-89e8-470a88cdc902n@googlegroups.com>
<s6mt51$8im$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<b81112fb-1059-434c-974b-cc24f832704dn@googlegroups.com>
<s6n4dp$1j1q$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<bf03133f-609c-49ae-ab2f-87ee2d84760an@googlegroups.com>
<s6p4ml$jgh$1@gioia.aioe.org>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 6U92FDcxvDfbwGlDrwgnNA.user.gioia.aioe.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org
User-Agent: tin/1.9.2
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.9.2

by: Jim Schreck - Mon, 3 May 2021 15:31 UTC

Michael Moroney wrote:

> On 5/3/2021 10:30 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
>
>> Assertion is not a valid argument.
>
> Stupid Ken, so why do you keep making all those assertions??

because you fake bombed hos hirosima and nagasaki, and there is no
radiation present those places present days. Where is the adherent
radiation, supposed to last thousands of years, if you bombed those
cities for real? Where?

Re: Einstein’s SR postulates are the natural prope rties of a stationary aether

<s6p5ot$15du$4@gioia.aioe.org>

copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=59123&group=sci.physics.relativity#59123

copy link Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity

Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!UcDPRw5yqwIoJ7uCaiDIyg.user.gioia.aioe.org.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: bodkin...@gmail.com (Odd Bodkin)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Subject: Re: Einstein’s SR postulates
are the natural prope rties of a stationary
aether
Date: Mon, 3 May 2021 15:44:29 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
Lines: 164
Message-ID: <s6p5ot$15du$4@gioia.aioe.org>
References: <s66spv$133a$2@gioia.aioe.org>
<495ebdc9-37ff-4ba8-a92f-aae4446cbc20n@googlegroups.com>
<s6751l$19k8$2@gioia.aioe.org>
<1f463b11-ce0d-4955-9f5d-03a4f0808207n@googlegroups.com>
<s6959s$dek$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<553ff7ed-035c-4059-8e08-9fba6d516356n@googlegroups.com>
<s69qc5$18rq$3@gioia.aioe.org>
<15767547-2299-4341-9db7-62df3ac0e068n@googlegroups.com>
<s6bjsi$l1i$2@gioia.aioe.org>
<cce4d00e-2627-475e-b873-0794a35e93e5n@googlegroups.com>
<s6h1t3$l8q$2@gioia.aioe.org>
<55f889ef-ead6-41d9-91f2-42dcc72fedfbn@googlegroups.com>
<s6h4r1$7ks$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<5305ed32-5619-4b1a-8982-0ab209361a65n@googlegroups.com>
<s6hodf$1nr2$2@gioia.aioe.org>
<742518d7-93df-4230-89e8-470a88cdc902n@googlegroups.com>
<s6mt51$8im$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<b81112fb-1059-434c-974b-cc24f832704dn@googlegroups.com>
<s6n4dp$1j1q$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<bf03133f-609c-49ae-ab2f-87ee2d84760an@googlegroups.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: UcDPRw5yqwIoJ7uCaiDIyg.user.gioia.aioe.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org
User-Agent: NewsTap/5.5 (iPhone/iPod Touch)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:wLt0g/ibNPRzcgDY6WrFjzbATbM=
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.9.2

by: Odd Bodkin - Mon, 3 May 2021 15:44 UTC

Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, May 2, 2021 at 5:09:19 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Sunday, May 2, 2021 at 3:05:10 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@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.
>>>
>>> You said that the length of a moving meter stick can be
>>> measured......that certainly is not precision of measurement.
>> Precision of measurement is a number in percent or in length amount. Using
>> a certain method I can measure the length of a moving meter stick with a
>> beta of 1E-6 to a precision of 0.1%. Using a different method, I can
>> measure the length of a moving meter stick with a beta of 1E-4 to a
>> precision of 0.001%. In the case of the beamline, the angle of the beamline
>> swings by pi/86,000 radians per second, but the electron is through there
>> in 1/200000th of a second. Can you calculate the precision of the beamline
>> from that yet?
>
> Assertion is not a valid argument. Show us how you measure without prediction.

Click here to read the complete article

Re: Einstein’s SR postulates are the natural prope rties of a stationary aether

<c83f16c8-ddbe-4c4b-948f-a81062ba1fa9n@googlegroups.com>

copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=59163&group=sci.physics.relativity#59163

copy link Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity

X-Received: by 2002:ad4:420c:: with SMTP id k12mr26158306qvp.14.1620134972091; Tue, 04 May 2021 06:29:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a05:622a:1746:: with SMTP id l6mr22176494qtk.318.1620134971909; Tue, 04 May 2021 06:29:31 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!feeder1.feed.usenet.farm!feed.usenet.farm!tr2.eu1.usenetexpress.com!feeder.usenetexpress.com!tr1.iad1.usenetexpress.com!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Date: Tue, 4 May 2021 06:29:31 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <s6p5ot$15du$4@gioia.aioe.org>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=2603:6010:210d:ee8c:e198:e095:7e9:d1dc; posting-account=W7gfVQoAAACRq_zh4C6vXoE20aUFnnXp
NNTP-Posting-Host: 2603:6010:210d:ee8c:e198:e095:7e9:d1dc
References: <s66spv$133a$2@gioia.aioe.org> <495ebdc9-37ff-4ba8-a92f-aae4446cbc20n@googlegroups.com> <s6751l$19k8$2@gioia.aioe.org> <1f463b11-ce0d-4955-9f5d-03a4f0808207n@googlegroups.com> <s6959s$dek$1@gioia.aioe.org> <553ff7ed-035c-4059-8e08-9fba6d516356n@googlegroups.com> <s69qc5$18rq$3@gioia.aioe.org> <15767547-2299-4341-9db7-62df3ac0e068n@googlegroups.com> <s6bjsi$l1i$2@gioia.aioe.org> <cce4d00e-2627-475e-b873-0794a35e93e5n@googlegroups.com> <s6h1t3$l8q$2@gioia.aioe.org> <55f889ef-ead6-41d9-91f2-42dcc72fedfbn@googlegroups.com> <s6h4r1$7ks$1@gioia.aioe.org> <5305ed32-5619-4b1a-8982-0ab209361a65n@googlegroups.com> <s6hodf$1nr2$2@gioia.aioe.org> <742518d7-93df-4230-89e8-470a88cdc902n@googlegroups.com> <s6mt51$8im$1@gioia.aioe.org> <b81112fb-1059-434c-974b-cc24f832704dn@googlegroups.com> <s6n4dp$1j1q$1@gioia.aioe.org> <bf03133f-609c-49ae-ab2f-87ee2d84760an@googlegroups.com> <s6p5ot$15du$4@gioia.aioe.org>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <c83f16c8-ddbe-4c4b-948f-a81062ba1fa9n@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re:_Einstein’s_SR_postulates_are_the_natural_prope_rties_of_a_stationary_aether
From: setoke...@gmail.com (Ken Seto)
Injection-Date: Tue, 04 May 2021 13:29:32 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Lines: 223

by: Ken Seto - Tue, 4 May 2021 13:29 UTC

On Monday, May 3, 2021 at 11:44:33 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Sunday, May 2, 2021 at 5:09:19 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Sunday, May 2, 2021 at 3:05:10 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> Ken Seto <seto...@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.
> >>>
> >>> You said that the length of a moving meter stick can be
> >>> measured......that certainly is not precision of measurement.
> >> Precision of measurement is a number in percent or in length amount. Using
> >> a certain method I can measure the length of a moving meter stick with a
> >> beta of 1E-6 to a precision of 0.1%. Using a different method, I can
> >> measure the length of a moving meter stick with a beta of 1E-4 to a
> >> precision of 0.001%. In the case of the beamline, the angle of the beamline
> >> swings by pi/86,000 radians per second, but the electron is through there
> >> in 1/200000th of a second. Can you calculate the precision of the beamline
> >> from that yet?
> >
> > Assertion is not a valid argument. Show us how you measure without prediction.
> Show YOU you mean.
>
> You don’t even know what the words mean. And anytime someone points out
> something that you didn’t know was true, you call it an assertion.. And
> there is too much that you don’t know.

Click here to read the complete article

Re: Einstein’s SR postulates are the natural prope rties of a stationary aether

<s6rjmj$5s3$3@gioia.aioe.org>

copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=59168&group=sci.physics.relativity#59168

copy link Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity

Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!UcDPRw5yqwIoJ7uCaiDIyg.user.gioia.aioe.org.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: bodkin...@gmail.com (Odd Bodkin)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Subject: Re: Einstein’s SR postulates
are the natural prope rties of a stationary
aether
Date: Tue, 4 May 2021 13:54:27 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
Lines: 186
Message-ID: <s6rjmj$5s3$3@gioia.aioe.org>
References: <s6751l$19k8$2@gioia.aioe.org>
<1f463b11-ce0d-4955-9f5d-03a4f0808207n@googlegroups.com>
<s6959s$dek$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<553ff7ed-035c-4059-8e08-9fba6d516356n@googlegroups.com>
<s69qc5$18rq$3@gioia.aioe.org>
<15767547-2299-4341-9db7-62df3ac0e068n@googlegroups.com>
<s6bjsi$l1i$2@gioia.aioe.org>
<cce4d00e-2627-475e-b873-0794a35e93e5n@googlegroups.com>
<s6h1t3$l8q$2@gioia.aioe.org>
<55f889ef-ead6-41d9-91f2-42dcc72fedfbn@googlegroups.com>
<s6h4r1$7ks$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<5305ed32-5619-4b1a-8982-0ab209361a65n@googlegroups.com>
<s6hodf$1nr2$2@gioia.aioe.org>
<742518d7-93df-4230-89e8-470a88cdc902n@googlegroups.com>
<s6mt51$8im$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<b81112fb-1059-434c-974b-cc24f832704dn@googlegroups.com>
<s6n4dp$1j1q$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<bf03133f-609c-49ae-ab2f-87ee2d84760an@googlegroups.com>
<s6p5ot$15du$4@gioia.aioe.org>
<c83f16c8-ddbe-4c4b-948f-a81062ba1fa9n@googlegroups.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: UcDPRw5yqwIoJ7uCaiDIyg.user.gioia.aioe.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org
User-Agent: NewsTap/5.5 (iPad)
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.9.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:tyeouspLQCFmZIxH7NsMnvK+Ywk=

by: Odd Bodkin - Tue, 4 May 2021 13:54 UTC

Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, May 3, 2021 at 11:44:33 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Sunday, May 2, 2021 at 5:09:19 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Sunday, May 2, 2021 at 3:05:10 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@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.
>>>>>
>>>>> You said that the length of a moving meter stick can be
>>>>> measured......that certainly is not precision of measurement.
>>>> Precision of measurement is a number in percent or in length amount. Using
>>>> a certain method I can measure the length of a moving meter stick with a
>>>> beta of 1E-6 to a precision of 0.1%. Using a different method, I can
>>>> measure the length of a moving meter stick with a beta of 1E-4 to a
>>>> precision of 0.001%. In the case of the beamline, the angle of the beamline
>>>> swings by pi/86,000 radians per second, but the electron is through there
>>>> in 1/200000th of a second. Can you calculate the precision of the beamline
>>>> from that yet?
>>>
>>> Assertion is not a valid argument. Show us how you measure without prediction.
>> Show YOU you mean.
>>
>> You don’t even know what the words mean. And anytime someone points out
>> something that you didn’t know was true, you call it an assertion. And
>> there is too much that you don’t know.
>
> ROTFLOL.....the moron has no comeback so the bullshit keep on coming.

Click here to read the complete article

Subject	Author
Re: Einstein’s SR postulates are the natural prope	Ken Seto
Re: Einstein’s SR postulates	Odd Bodkin
Re: Einstein’s SR postulates are the natural prope rties of a stationary aether	Maciej Wozniak
Re: Einstein’s SR postulates	Odd Bodkin
Re: Einstein’s SR postulates are the natural pr	Python
Re: Einstein’s SR postulates	Odd Bodkin
Re: Einstein’s SR postulates are the natural prope	Maciej Wozniak
Re: Einstein’s SR postulates	Odd Bodkin
Re: Einstein’s SR postulates are the natural prope rties of a stationary aether	Maciej Wozniak
Re: Einstein’s SR postulates are the natural prope	Ken Seto
Re: Einstein’s SR postulates	Odd Bodkin
Re: Einstein’s SR postulates are the natural prope rties of a stationary aether	Ken Seto
Re: Einstein’s SR postulates	Odd Bodkin
Re: Einstein’s SR postulates are the natural prope	Ken Seto
Re: Einstein’s SR postulates	Odd Bodkin
Re: Einstein’s SR postulates are the natural prope	Ken Seto
Re: Einstein’s SR postulates	Odd Bodkin
Re: Einstein’s SR postulates are the natural prope	Maciej Wozniak
Re: Einstein’s SR postulates	Odd Bodkin
Re: Einstein’s SR postulates are the natural prope rties of a stationary aether	Ken Seto
Re: Einstein’s SR postulates	Odd Bodkin
Re: Einstein’s SR postulates are the natural pr	Michael Moroney
Re: Einstein’s SR postulates	Odd Bodkin
Re: Einstein’s SR postulates are the natural prope rties of a stationary aether	Ken Seto
Re: Einstein’s SR postulates	Odd Bodkin
Re: Einstein’s SR postulates are the natural prope	Ken Seto
Re: Einstein’s SR postulates	Odd Bodkin
Re: Einstein’s SR postulates are the natural prope	Maciej Wozniak
Re: Einstein’s SR postulates are the natural prope	Ken Seto
Re: Einstein’s SR postulates are the natural pr	Michael Moroney
Re: Einstein’s SR postulates are the natural	Jim Schreck
Re: Einstein’s SR postulates	Odd Bodkin
Re: Einstein’s SR postulates are the natural prope rties of a stationary aether	Ken Seto
Re: Einstein’s SR postulates	Odd Bodkin