a clock C0, a clock C1 circling around C0 at a given angular velocity,
not taking into account their reciprocal gravitational effects,
not taking into account their reciprocal Doppler effect
as far as their time rate goes, they are completely independent,
they have not any influence whatsoever one versus the other.

we can put C0 at center, or on the rim of the circling path, or anywhere out of it,
their time rate are independent of each other, and each of them is determined only by their absolute movements:
C0 by its absolute inertial speed
C1 by its absolute inertial (common with C0) plus the angular velocity
time rate of C0>C1 (C0=1; C1<1)
C0 and C1 assume their time rate at a constant value for all the time that they conserve stable their own absolute condition of movement.

these absolute condition are physical raw facts no one can change, the
measuring arrangements that uses frames are human made and give results different depending on the type of the frame arrangement.

their absolute movement condition and their associated absolute time rate are referred to the local absolute rest (versus the CMBR), or versus them self, as they would be if at absolute rest.

the intuition of these raw physical facts are the premises of any correct approach to the eventual human measurement procedure

cheers
beda

On Wednesday, June 2, 2021 at 2:00:59 AM UTC-7, beda-p...@libero.it wrote:
> ... each of them is determined only by their absolute movements...

You use the phrase "absolute movement", but each time you are asked to define it, you either say it is the speed relative to some other physical entity (such as the earth or your breakfast bagel or the sun or the galaxies or the CMBR isotropic frame, etc.) or else you lapse into claiming it is relative to space, which is meaningless (and you know it is meaningless, because usually you define absolute speed relative to some actual physical entities). So all your beliefs rest on this fundamental misunderstanding and dishonesty.

beda pietanza wrote:

> a clock C0, a clock C1 circling around C0 at a given angular velocity,
> not taking into account their reciprocal gravitational effects,
> not taking into account their reciprocal Doppler effect as far as their
> time rate goes, they are completely independent,
> they have not any influence whatsoever one versus the other.

common error. You can't rotate clocks. Clocks in this aspect are
considered point particles. It makes no sense to rotate a point.

Il giorno mercoledì 2 giugno 2021 alle 18:27:51 UTC+2 Cliff Hallston ha scritto:
> On Wednesday, June 2, 2021 at 2:00:59 AM UTC-7, beda-p...@libero.it wrote:
> > ... each of them is determined only by their absolute movements...
>
> You use the phrase "absolute movement", but each time you are asked to define it, you either say it is the speed relative to some other physical entity (such as the earth or your breakfast bagel or the sun or the galaxies or the CMBR isotropic frame, etc.) or else you lapse into claiming it is relative to space, which is meaningless (and you know it is meaningless, because usually you define absolute speed relative to some actual physical entities). So all your beliefs rest on this fundamental misunderstanding and dishonesty.
beda
I say again to you that any object in any instantaneous condition assume instantaneous absolute characteristics
now, if an object is stable we can use it as a reference,
in this universe each object in each point in space is influenced by the totality of the universal masses,
an inertial object in space, if experiences that light is arriving and is emitted isotropically, that object is at absolute rest in that local space.
the absolute motion of an object is its motion versus a preferred reference constituted by an object in absolute rest
in space.
any relative motion is between two objects in absolute motion.
cheers
beda

On Wednesday, June 2, 2021 at 2:46:39 PM UTC-7, beda-p...@libero.it wrote:
> I say again to you that any object in any instantaneous condition assume instantaneous
> absolute characteristics

It doesn't matter how many times you say it, it's still a meaningless collection of words. If I tell you that every object at every instant has blamange, what does that mean? Simply asserting that every object at every instant has blamange does not explain what blamange means. Whenever I ask you to explain what absolute means, you do nothing but spout meaningless drivel..

> If an object is stable we can use it as a reference,

This is not absoluteness, that is relationism, the opposite of absolutism.

> In this universe each object in each point in space is influenced by the
> totality of the universal masses,

That is Mach's Principle as formulated by your hero, Albert Einstein, during the years when he was developing general relativity... which of course is locally Lorentz invariant.

> an inertial object in space, if experiences that light is arriving and is emitted isotropically,
> that object is at absolute rest in that local space.

But in any local region of space, the incident light arrives with isotropic speed in terms of any local system of inertial coordinates. Indeed, exactly the same equations of physics apply to any system of inertial coordinates, so you must be talking about light arriving from some specific sources, such as surrounding objects like the Sun or flashlights or the particles that emitted light many years ago (CMBR), and you are talking about the isotropy of frequency, not of speed, because the incident speeds are isotropic in terms of every local system of inertial coordinates, and even for the frequencies you are simply identifying your relative motion to the sources of the light. That is not absolutism, it is relationism, the opposite of absolutism. Your statements are completely incoherent.

> the absolute motion of an object is its motion versus a preferred reference
> constituted by an object in absolute rest in space.

But you have not identified absolute rest. Every example you give represents rest relative to some other object(s). That is relationism, not absolutism. It is idiotic to define that an object is at absolute rest if it is at rest relative to an object that is at absolute rest. Duh.

> In the case of inertial coordinate systems we must be aware that they are build,
> intentionally, using the hidden absolute speeds...

You still have not given any coherent definition of absolute speed. Every example you give is a relative speed.

Furthermore, every single system of inertial coordinates can equally well serve to describe events with the same homogeneous and isotropic laws of physics. This applies to inertial coordinate systems S1, S2, S3, ..., S347, S348, ... You point out that it applies to S128, and you claim that scientists do not realize that the phenomena can be described in terms of S128, or they are ignoring it. That is a lie. Scientists were the ones who discovered that the phenomena can be described in terms of S128, but they also discovered that it can be equally well described in terms of S1, S2, S3, ... and so on. It is you (beda) who is ignoring these facts, and pretending that S128 is the only blamange system, and refusing to define blamange in any meaningful way that distinguishes it from all the other systems.

> As far as I am concerned, being I not a physicist, I am basically interested in the
> conceptual confusion that the bigot usage of the SR has brought about and spread
> among lay people...

But the only conceptual confusions in your threads are yours. I keep trying to help you formulate your thoughts clearly, so you can understand special relativity, but you keep falling back on your incoherent slogans.

Il giorno giovedì 3 giugno 2021 alle 01:57:15 UTC+2 Cliff Hallston ha scritto:
> On Wednesday, June 2, 2021 at 2:46:39 PM UTC-7, beda-p...@libero.it wrote:
> > I say again to you that any object in any instantaneous condition assume instantaneous
> > absolute characteristics
> It doesn't matter how many times you say it, it's still a meaningless collection of words. If I tell you that every object at every instant has blamange, what does that mean? Simply asserting that every object at every instant has blamange does not explain what blamange means. Whenever I ask you to explain what absolute means, you do nothing but spout meaningless drivel.
>
> > If an object is stable we can use it as a reference,
>
> This is not absoluteness, that is relationism, the opposite of absolutism..
>
> > In this universe each object in each point in space is influenced by the
> > totality of the universal masses,
> That is Mach's Principle as formulated by your hero, Albert Einstein, during the years when he was developing general relativity... which of course is locally Lorentz invariant.
> > an inertial object in space, if experiences that light is arriving and is emitted isotropically,
> > that object is at absolute rest in that local space.
> But in any local region of space, the incident light arrives with isotropic speed in terms of any local system of inertial coordinates. Indeed, exactly the same equations of physics apply to any system of inertial coordinates, so you must be talking about light arriving from some specific sources, such as surrounding objects like the Sun or flashlights or the particles that emitted light many years ago (CMBR), and you are talking about the isotropy of frequency, not of speed, because the incident speeds are isotropic in terms of every local system of inertial coordinates, and even for the frequencies you are simply identifying your relative motion to the sources of the light. That is not absolutism, it is relationism, the opposite of absolutism. Your statements are completely incoherent.
> > the absolute motion of an object is its motion versus a preferred reference
> > constituted by an object in absolute rest in space.
> But you have not identified absolute rest. Every example you give represents rest relative to some other object(s). That is relationism, not absolutism. It is idiotic to define that an object is at absolute rest if it is at rest relative to an object that is at absolute rest. Duh.
>
> > In the case of inertial coordinate systems we must be aware that they are build,
> > intentionally, using the hidden absolute speeds...
>
> You still have not given any coherent definition of absolute speed. Every example you give is a relative speed.
>
> Furthermore, every single system of inertial coordinates can equally well serve to describe events with the same homogeneous and isotropic laws of physics. This applies to inertial coordinate systems S1, S2, S3, ..., S347, S348, ... You point out that it applies to S128, and you claim that scientists do not realize that the phenomena can be described in terms of S128, or they are ignoring it. That is a lie. Scientists were the ones who discovered that the phenomena can be described in terms of S128, but they also discovered that it can be equally well described in terms of S1, S2, S3, ... and so on. It is you (beda) who is ignoring these facts, and pretending that S128 is the only blamange system, and refusing to define blamange in any meaningful way that distinguishes it from all the other systems.
>
> > As far as I am concerned, being I not a physicist, I am basically interested in the
> > conceptual confusion that the bigot usage of the SR has brought about and spread
> > among lay people...
>
> But the only conceptual confusions in your threads are yours. I keep trying to help you formulate your thoughts clearly, so you can understand special relativity, but you keep falling back on your incoherent slogans.
beda
there are unlimited number of your SR frames, but them can be associated to objects whose speed range between the zero and c, and each of them have one and only one speed that is different from all the others.
and if a speed is different from all the others that is a way to assign it a absolute meaning

it is not relevant if we are able to detect the absolute speed of one SR frame,
what is relevant is that each frame is differentiated by nature it self at moment the Esynchronization is made:
and each SR frame is marched unequivocally by the span of the retard the Esynchronizzation assign to successive clocks along the x axis in the direction of the movement of the SR frame.

you are childishly confused by the wonder of your trickery, and not realize that the one who wittingly propose the trickery knew better, he find in the SR math scheme the key to do without the hidden absolutes using the absoluteness of nature itself.

so, dear cliff, you lost along the way the insight and the intuition to see clearly what is under your nose,
it is not up to me to force you to see, you are logically blinded already.

though, I give you an hint, try using calculus (in this I cannot help you), or as I do, graphically to visualize the entity
of the retard between successive clocks after they have been Esynchronized, you will clearly see that each clock is retarded of the value of the absolute speed of the SR frame (along x axis in the direction of the movement, it is the easiest direction to see it, but it is valid in any direction, of course in the opposite direction the clocks are anticipating).
this is the case of a SR frame moving at .5c
one way SOL in the direction of the movement = sqrt(1-v^2)/(1-v) = sqrt(1-.5^2)/(1-.5) = 1.73..(local time 1.5)
the clock at x=1 should be set to 1.5; it is set (by the Esynchronization) instead at 1;
therefore, the x=1 clock is retarded of v (the absolute speed of the SR frame)
this is valid for any absolute speed of the SR frame.
you wanted me to define what the absolute speed of a SR frame is? well, it has, in speed, the value of the time span between two successive clocks sat along the x axis of your SR frames (at a unit of distance)

I don't know if you are still able to grasp my hint, but surely I can't do no more than what I have been telling you till now, in mean time, I am grateful for your patience, and for your contributes during our confrontation, you have been of a great help.
cheers
beda

On Wednesday, June 2, 2021 at 7:12:13 PM UTC-7, beda-p...@libero.it wrote:
> If a speed is different from all the others that is a way to assign it a absolute meaning

Huh? If we have five objects, and we specify the speeds of those five objects in terms of a given system S of inertial coordinates, what are the absolute speeds of those objects? (Remember, you need to define those absolute speeds without referring to any physical entity, because if you refer to a physical entity, they are the speeds relative to that physical entity, which are not absolute speeds.)

And, of course, none of this contradicts local Lorentz invariance, regardless of which system of inertial coordinates you choose to label as the "absolute" one. All you are doing (at best) is groping toward the old Lorentzian interpretation of special relativity.

> ... you will clearly see that each clock is retarded of the value of the absolute speed
> of the SR frame....

No, the very same analysis applies if you take *any* system of inertial coordinates as the "absolute" one. That's why it makes no sense to label one of them as the "absolute" one. Every system of inertial coordinates can equally well serve as the "absolute" one, since the laws of physics take exactly the same form in terms of each of them.

Your mental block seems to be that you think special relativity just applies to two objects in terms of the rest frame of one of those objects. Then you get all excited when you realize that you can describe those two (or any number) of objects in terms of some other inertial coordinate system. You think you have made a discovery. But you have not.

Try this exercise: Work out your example in terms of an inertial coordinate system S_U that is moving at some speed U relative to the CMBR isotropic frame. You will find that it works out the same, so does this mean S_U is the absolute rest frame? Of course not.

Il giorno giovedì 3 giugno 2021 alle 06:35:09 UTC+2 Cliff Hallston ha scritto:
> On Wednesday, June 2, 2021 at 7:12:13 PM UTC-7, beda-p...@libero.it wrote:
> > If a speed is different from all the others that is a way to assign it a absolute meaning
>
> Huh? If we have five objects, and we specify the speeds of those five objects in terms of a given system S of inertial coordinates, what are the absolute speeds of those objects? (Remember, you need to define those absolute speeds without referring to any physical entity, because if you refer to a physical entity, they are the speeds relative to that physical entity, which are not absolute speeds.)
beda
you are just not using the correct conceptual priority: you cannot use the SR arrangement to explain and justify SR itself: the facts described in such a way have been already manipulated by the SR trickery.

So, I can't follow you in this conceptual mistake.

let us concentrate on a single object traveling inertially in space, if we decide to use it as a reference and build a SR frame having that object at the origin of the frame 0,0: there is only one possible frame arrangement associated to it and only one possible Esynchronizzation retarded span between two successive clocks along the x axis,

this absolute characteristic of this object and its associated SR frame rend that object unique and distinct from all the others possible objects (and associated SR frames) passing by at that point in space having the same direction of movement, but having different speed.
this rend that object and the associated SR frame unique and absolute (versus that local space from one hand, and at same time unique and absolute, versus all the other possible SR frames)
>
> And, of course, none of this contradicts local Lorentz invariance, regardless of which system of inertial coordinates you choose to label as the "absolute" one. All you are doing (at best) is groping toward the old Lorentzian interpretation of special relativity.
beda
you jump several indispensable conceptual passages: first: the raw facts; second: a conventional procedure to approach, describe and measure them, third: final deductions of emergent properties
the absolutness of the raw fact of nature are prior of any of our further theoretical deduction
>
> > ... you will clearly see that each clock is retarded of the value of the absolute speed
> > of the SR frame....
>
> No, the very same analysis applies if you take *any* system of inertial coordinates as the "absolute" one. That's why it makes no sense to label one of them as the "absolute" one. Every system of inertial coordinates can equally well serve as the "absolute" one, since the laws of physics take exactly the same form in terms of each of them.
>
> Your mental block seems to be that you think special relativity just applies to two objects in terms of the rest frame of one of those objects. Then you get all excited when you realize that you can describe those two (or any number) of objects in terms of some other inertial coordinate system. You think you have made a discovery. But you have not.
>
> Try this exercise: Work out your example in terms of an inertial coordinate system S_U that is moving at some speed U relative to the CMBR isotropic frame. You will find that it works out the same, so does this mean S_U is the absolute rest frame? Of course not.
beda
SR as any other theoretical approach, if correct, they must be based on the absoluteness of the physical facts of nature, if you try to deny this using SR logic, either SR is wrong or you got SR wrongly
IMO SR has very limitate applicability at low speeds ( for K reference frame), and you have an hard core bigot biased attitude in interpreting your own SR procedure.

cheers
beda

an addendum
your quote:
***Try this exercise: Work out your example in terms of an inertial coordinate system S_U that is moving at some speed U relative to the CMBR isotropic frame. You will find that it works out the same, so does this mean S_U is the absolute rest frame? Of course not.***
beda
to be an absolute rest frame it is required to be at rest versus the CMBR in flat space away from near masses,
it requires that light is received and emitted isotropycally, and that the visual appearance of the surrounding universe
be uniform, plus the Esynchrinization results in an absolute synchrony.
none of the above are characteristics of a SR frame build on an object moving at the speed U versus the CMBR, except the trick of the Esyncro that surreptitiously rend light apparently isotropic, which is only an artifact of the SR arrangement, not a raw fact of physics
cheers
beda

On Thursday, June 3, 2021 at 5:28:43 AM UTC-7, beda-p...@libero.it wrote:
> You cannot use the SR arrangement to explain and justify SR itself: the facts
> described in such a way have been already manipulated by the SR trickery.

No, the facts are objectively verifiable statements concerning well-define physical operations. I have explained to you how we construct a grid of standard rulers with standard clocks all at rest and inertially synchronized in a given frame, and we can then make statements of fact about physical phenomena described in terms of inertia-based coordinates. This is incontrovertible. We find that that laws of physics take the same homogeneous and isotropic form in terms of every such system of coordinates, and those systems are related by Lorentz transformations. These are all statements of indisputable fact.

The assertion to which you have devoted your life is: "The above facts cannot be understood unless we attach the label "absolute rest" to one particular system of inertia-based coordinates". Well, that is simply false. The "reasoning" thaty you provide in support of your claim is completely specious. You just make an assertion, with no rational basis.

> Let us concentrate on a single object traveling inertially in space, if we decide to use it
> as a reference and build a SR frame having that object at the origin of the frame 0,0:
> there is only one possible frame arrangement associated to it...

Right, every material object is at rest in terms of an essentially unique system of inertia-based coordinates, but of course it is also at rest in terms of infinitely many non-inertia-based coordinates.

> This absolute characteristic of this object and its associated SR frame....

Huh? What you just described is not an absolute rest frame, it is the rest frame of the individual object. This is pure relativity. You see, this always happens: Whenever you try to explain the basis of your beliefs, you always end up just describing special relativity, which you then promptly deny.

> To be an absolute rest frame it is required to be at rest versus the CMBR

There you go flip-flopping again. A system of inertial coordinates in terms of which the frequency of the CMBR is maximally isotropic, or in which the distributions of galaxies is spatially isotropic, is defined relative to those other things (the radiation from those past distant particles, and the distant galaxies). That is not absolute, it is relative, and the point is that the equations of physics take exactly the same form in terms of every system of inertial coordinates, regardless of how that system is moving relative to the CMBR isotropic frame. That is local Lorentz invariance, a crucial symmetry of nature. No one disputes that there are cosmologically distinguished frames, based on the distribution of mass-energy in the universe, but that does not in any way contradict local Lorentz invariance. To the contrary, our best understanding of cosmology is based on general relativity, which is founded on local Lorentz invariance.

> > Try this exercise: Work out your example in terms of an inertial coordinate system S_U that is moving at some speed U relative to the CMBR isotropic frame. You will find that it works out the same, so does this mean S_U is the absolute rest frame? Of course not.

> SR as any other theoretical approach, if correct, they must be based on the absoluteness
> of the physical facts of nature...

It is, as I've explained to you many times. The absolutes of special relativity are of a different character than you imagine. The point of the exercise above (which you predictably evaded) was to show you that your own reasoning is specious. You are the one who keeps posting about how the relative equations of special relativity are just masking the underlying variables in terms of the absolute coordinates. The exercise shows that your reasoning is nonsense, because you can make the same calculations in terms of S_U as you can in terms of S_0.

Den 03.06.2021 14:48, skrev beda pietanza:
> beda
> to be an absolute rest frame it is required to be at rest versus the CMBR in flat space away from near masses,
> it requires that light is received and emitted isotropycally,

Since the CMBR is em-radiation the speed of
the CMBR is isotropic in all inertial frames.

There is no inertial frame where the temperature of
the CMBR is the same in all directions (is isotropic).

A bit loosely:
There is a frame of reference where the average
temperature of the CMBR is isotropic (no dipole anisotropy).
This frame is moving at ~368 km/s relative to the Sun.

You seem to confuse the isotropy of the speed of light,
and the isotropy of the temperature of the CMBR.

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

Il giorno giovedì 3 giugno 2021 alle 18:33:27 UTC+2 Cliff Hallston ha scritto:
> On Thursday, June 3, 2021 at 5:28:43 AM UTC-7, beda-p...@libero.it wrote:
> > You cannot use the SR arrangement to explain and justify SR itself: the facts
> > described in such a way have been already manipulated by the SR trickery.
> No, the facts are objectively verifiable statements concerning well-define physical operations. I have explained to you how we construct a grid of standard rulers with standard clocks all at rest and inertially synchronized in a given frame, and we can then make statements of fact about physical phenomena described in terms of inertia-based coordinates. This is incontrovertible. We find that that laws of physics take the same homogeneous and isotropic form in terms of every such system of coordinates, and those systems are related by Lorentz transformations. These are all statements of indisputable fact.
beda
S_0 and S_U are distinguishable because the comoving observer in each of them can tell their absolute movement
just observing the appearance of the surrounding universe.

in a local space away from masses each differently moving observer has his proper speeds and can tell what is his speed.

S_O has its clocks synchronized absolutely ( no retard or anticipation) while S_U clocks are retarded /anticipated of a spanned time of the value of the absolute speed of S_U

the Lorentz transform relation among SR frames is a artifact, and don't apply to all possible speeds because high speeds are forbitten fot macroscopic bodies

the funny part is that your SR would be only made more physical plausible if based (as it really is) on the hidden absolutes

>
> The assertion to which you have devoted your life is: "The above facts cannot be understood unless we attach the label "absolute rest" to one particular system of inertia-based coordinates". Well, that is simply false. The "reasoning" thaty you provide in support of your claim is completely specious. You just make an assertion, with no rational basis.
beda
there is a SR frame that surely have their clocks absolutely synchronized, just using the SR normal procedure, that is a peculiar frame, where the speed of light is truly c and isotropic
>
> > Let us concentrate on a single object traveling inertially in space, if we decide to use it
> > as a reference and build a SR frame having that object at the origin of the frame 0,0:
> > there is only one possible frame arrangement associated to it...
>
> Right, every material object is at rest in terms of an essentially unique system of inertia-based coordinates, but of course it is also at rest in terms of infinitely many non-inertia-based coordinates.
beda
and so what? any system of coordinate is based on the absoluteness of nature if well conceived,
like SR its symmetric math gives the you the illusion of getting rid of the absolute, because you take into account
the final results obtained by the procedure, recklessly ignoring how that results are obtained.
>
> > This absolute characteristic of this object and its associated SR frame....
>
> Huh? What you just described is not an absolute rest frame, it is the rest frame of the individual object. This is pure relativity. You see, this always happens: Whenever you try to explain the basis of your beliefs, you always end up just describing special relativity, which you then promptly deny.
beda
any object moves at an absolute speed, and a SR frame associated to it moves at same speed, you pretend that it is "stationary", but you have transferred the hidden speed in the "asynchrony" of the "Esynchronized clocks", pun intended.
>
> > To be an absolute rest frame it is required to be at rest versus the CMBR
>
> There you go flip-flopping again. A system of inertial coordinates in terms of which the frequency of the CMBR is maximally isotropic, or in which the distributions of galaxies is spatially isotropic, is defined relative to those other things (the radiation from those past distant particles, and the distant galaxies). That is not absolute, it is relative,
beda
of course is relative, but relative to all masses of the universe is one possible definition of absolute movement,

cliff continue:
and the point is that the equations of physics take exactly the same form in terms of every system of inertial coordinates, regardless of how that system is moving relative to the CMBR isotropic frame. That is local Lorentz invariance, a crucial symmetry of nature.
beda
a crucial symmetry that is just in math, nature is full of surprises, not even a single law of physics on the real ground behave as math describes it.

cliff continue:
No one disputes that there are cosmologically distinguished frames, based on the distribution of mass-energy in the universe, but that does not in any way contradict local Lorentz invariance. To the contrary, our best understanding of cosmology is based on general relativity, which is founded on local Lorentz invariance.
beda
distinguished frames if distinguishable they are absolute, the invariance are is the human mind, in nature things are a little more complicated

> > > Try this exercise: Work out your example in terms of an inertial coordinate system S_U that is moving at some speed U relative to the CMBR isotropic frame. You will find that it works out the same, so does this mean S_U is the absolute rest frame? Of course not.
> > SR as any other theoretical approach, if correct, they must be based on the absoluteness
> > of the physical facts of nature...
>
> It is, as I've explained to you many times. The absolutes of special relativity are of a different character than you imagine. The point of the exercise above (which you predictably evaded) was to show you that your own reasoning is specious. You are the one who keeps posting about how the relative equations of special relativity are just masking the underlying variables in terms of the absolute coordinates. The exercise shows that your reasoning is nonsense, because you can make the same calculations in terms of S_U as you can in terms of S_0.
beda
S_O AND S_U are distinguishable, so they are absolute, and when you make the Esynchro on them, the clocks are set according the absolute hidden speed of S_O and S_U: respectevely zero for S_O (that leads to absolute synchro) and speed U for S_U (the hidden speed of S_U is transferred in the span of the synchronized clocks)

not convinced yet?, come on it is a free meal! it only add to your SR more sense.

cheers
beda

On Thursday, June 3, 2021 at 1:02:44 PM UTC-7, beda-p...@libero.it wrote:
> S_0 and S_U are distinguishable because the comoving observer in each of them
> can tell their absolute movement just observing the appearance of the surrounding universe.

Of course they are distinguishable, and so are other frames, such as the frame in which the Sun is at rest, and the frame in which the center of the galaxy is at rest, and the frame in which your breakfast bagel is at rest. We covered this before, remember? Distinguishable does not mean absolute. Each of these things is a relative frame, i.e., relative to one or more physical entities.

> there is a SR frame that surely have their clocks absolutely synchronized....

Again, you don't mean "absolute", you mean at rest relative to the inertial coordinates in terms of which the distribution of matter at the time of the decoupling between matter and energy in the early universe was spatially homogeneous and isotropic. Like all frames referenced to physical entities, it is a relationally defined frame, not absolute, and the important point is that all the laws of physics are locally invariance, meaning they take exactly the same form in terms of any local inertial coordinate system, regardless of its state of motion relative to any other inertial coordinate system, including whatever one beda's troubled brain compels him to label "absolute".

> > Right, every material object is at rest in terms of an essentially unique system of inertia-based
> > coordinates, but of course it is also at rest in terms of infinitely many non-inertia-based coordinates.
>
> and so what?

It refutes your claim, which was that every object is associated with a *unique* system of coordinates.

> Of course is relative, but relative to all masses of the universe is one possible definition
> of absolute movement...

Wonderful! Yes, you can apply the word "absolute" to any system of coordinates you like, just as you can name your dog Lucky, but that doesn't mean your dog is lucky. Assigning names to things and thinking this has some meaningful significance is just dumb. If you want to refer to inertial coordinates in which the distribution of galaxies in the visible universe is maximally isotropic, then go ahead. And if someone else wants to refer to inertial coordinates in which the center of mass of the solar system is at rest, they are free to do that. And if someone else wants to refer to inertial coordinates in which their lab is at rest, they are free to do that. And all those coordinate systems are related by Lorentz transformations, and the laws of physics take the same form in each of them.

> A crucial symmetry that is just in math...

No, the principle of relativity is a physical principle, as is the principle of local Lorentz invariance. These principles have palpable objective consequences, and the behavior of phenomena are different than would be the case if they did not apply. Remember the kinetic energy of a moving mass?

Il giorno giovedì 3 giugno 2021 alle 20:50:00 UTC+2 Paul B. Andersen ha scritto:
> Den 03.06.2021 14:48, skrev beda pietanza:
> > beda
> > to be an absolute rest frame it is required to be at rest versus the CMBR in flat space away from near masses,
> > it requires that light is received and emitted isotropycally,
> Since the CMBR is em-radiation the speed of
> the CMBR is isotropic in all inertial frames.
>
> There is no inertial frame where the temperature of
> the CMBR is the same in all directions (is isotropic).
>
> A bit loosely:
> There is a frame of reference where the average
> temperature of the CMBR is isotropic (no dipole anisotropy).
> This frame is moving at ~368 km/s relative to the Sun.
>
> You seem to confuse the isotropy of the speed of light,
> and the isotropy of the temperature of the CMBR.
beda
paul, you mention: dipole anisotropy, temperature of CMBR,
speed vs the sun, speed of light, isotropy of CMBR temperature:
too much for my simpleton mind, but I will give them a thought.

till now, I took for granted ( for an observer at rest vs the CMBR ) the
isotropy of the intensity of the arriving signal, and at same time, the the isotropy of
the arriving star light intensity wise and speed wise

cheers
beda

>
> --
> Paul
>
> https://paulba.no/

Il giorno giovedì 3 giugno 2021 alle 22:38:39 UTC+2 Cliff Hallston ha scritto:
> On Thursday, June 3, 2021 at 1:02:44 PM UTC-7, beda-p...@libero.it wrote:
> > S_0 and S_U are distinguishable because the comoving observer in each of them
> > can tell their absolute movement just observing the appearance of the surrounding universe.
> Of course they are distinguishable, and so are other frames, such as the frame in which the Sun is at rest, and the frame in which the center of the galaxy is at rest, and the frame in which your breakfast bagel is at rest. We covered this before, remember? Distinguishable does not mean absolute. Each of these things is a relative frame, i.e., relative to one or more physical entities.
beda
relative to all means absolute,
if anything is distinguishable versus a stable reference it is distinguishable versus all stable references.
but you don't grasp that the absolute is a necessity in order to have any relative comparison, this obvious fact cannot be forced on you, you are vaccinate against it by SR conceptual mess
>
> > there is a SR frame that surely have their clocks absolutely synchronized...
>
> Again, you don't mean "absolute", you mean at rest relative to the inertial coordinates in terms of which the distribution of matter at the time of the decoupling between matter and energy in the early universe was spatially homogeneous and isotropic.
hay, hay, cliff, since then the CMBR has been remodeled continously and arrives to us just sat on our local space,
not only the CMBR is arriving isotropically (to an observer at rest in space) but any kind of light would arrive isotropically to him, and a comoving source would emit light isotropically as well,

cliff wrote:
Like all frames referenced to physical entities, it is a relationally defined frame, not absolute, and the important point is that all the laws of physics are locally invariance, meaning they take exactly the same form in terms of any local inertial coordinate system, regardless of its state of motion relative to any other inertial coordinate system, including whatever one beda's troubled brain compels him to label "absolute".
beda
I keep asking you not to bring in your SR inertial coordinate systems, I don't agree on the fact that you use them to deny the very basis upon those SR frames are based, so please you should not mention them in your arguments
because you will get endlessly the same my replay

> > > Right, every material object is at rest in terms of an essentially unique system of inertia-based
> > > coordinates, but of course it is also at rest in terms of infinitely many non-inertia-based coordinates.
> >
> > and so what?
>
> It refutes your claim, which was that every object is associated with a *unique* system of coordinates.
beda
you either are cheating or you don't understand:
given a class of system of coordinates, in that class an object has a unique system of coordinate associated
I guess you are a bit needless fussy

>
> > Of course is relative, but relative to all masses of the universe is one possible definition
> > of absolute movement...
>
> Wonderful! Yes, you can apply the word "absolute" to any system of coordinates you like, just as you can name your dog Lucky, but that doesn't mean your dog is lucky. Assigning names to things and thinking this has some meaningful significance is just dumb. If you want to refer to inertial coordinates in which the distribution of galaxies in the visible universe is maximally isotropic, then go ahead. And if someone else wants to refer to inertial coordinates in which the center of mass of the solar system is at rest, they are free to do that. And if someone else wants to refer to inertial coordinates in which their lab is at rest, they are free to do that. And all those coordinate systems are related by Lorentz transformations, and the laws of physics take the same form in each of them.
beda
you are twisting yourself in needless sophistry, blinded by you deceitful tools
better go in your own field, you use a given thrust to synchro clocks, right?
any time you use that given thrust you are using an absolute amount of energy , right?
when you use that absolute amount of energy, you expect to obtain a precise accelleration on a unitary mass, right?
this results in an increse of the final speed of an object, and this final speed depend on the entity of the given thrust
and on the previous speed of the object.
do you realize that all these passages involves only absolute values or not ???? it is not necessary to quantify the absolute values to understand what happens,
to quantify the absolute values involved we would need to arrange some kind of frame, and frames are obviously intended to make relative comparison (of course, as I am keeping telling you, I would use only a preferred frame at rest versus the CMBR to be in the safest condition to obtain directly absolute resulting values)
>
> > A crucial symmetry that is just in math...
>
> No, the principle of relativity is a physical principle, as is the principle of local Lorentz invariance. These principles have palpable objective consequences, and the behavior of phenomena are different than would be the case if they did not apply. Remember the kinetic energy of a moving mass?
beda
your procedure (as many others) is reproducible and gives predictable results, this for the possible experimentable conditions can be and is true, but nevertheless your theoretical explanation of this results is false, and being false it is extremely deceitful conceptually, so you are not only wrong but deceitfully wrong:
you wrongly explain your results, you have upsetted needlessly fundamental conceptual basis of rationality, space and time and absoluteness of natural facts are shrewd, even you relativism, devoid of the proper absolute concept, is meaningless and logically crippled.
that is a very good job of yours, devilishly confirmed experimentally.

the herd go unawarely towards the deadly cliff

cheers
beda

On Saturday, June 5, 2021 at 9:31:28 AM UTC-7, beda-p...@libero.it wrote:
> relative to all means absolute,

There is no frame in which all is at rest, so there is no such thing as "relative to all".

> You don't grasp that the absolute is a necessity in order to have any relative comparison

Right, because it is not. In fact, you can't even define what absolute means, since every time you try, you end of saying it is relative to something..

> Not only the CMBR is arriving isotropically (to an observer at rest in space)

Well, there is a frame in which the frequency of the arriving CMBR is maximally isotropic, but the speed of the arriving CMBR is isotropic in terms of every local system of inertial coordinates. Also, the CMBR isotropic frequency frame is a relative frame, not an absolute frame. Again, anything you can sense is relative, so to support your belief you need to thing of something you can sense that cannot be sensed.

> please you should not mention [facts or rationality] in your arguments

But facts and rationality are the only appropriate things to mention in a discussion. Your belief in invisible flying emergent pink elephants and non-absolute absoluteness is what should not be mentioned. Sane humans will never accede to your demand to stop being rational and follow you into your delusional world of juvenile denialism.

> Any time you use that given thrust you are using an absolute amount of energy , right?

Nope, energy is relative. The kinetic energy of a mass m is zero in terms of inertial coordinates in which it is moving at speed v=0, but in general in terms of any system of inertial coordinates in which that object is moving at speed v it has kinetic energy mc^2[1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) - 1].

> Do you realize that all these passages involves only absolute values or not ????

There is no such thing as "absolute values", and no such thing as invisible pink elephants. These are fantasies within the brain of beda, nothing more. Look, your claim is that every ontologically existing quantity represented by the function Q(t) has a unique and ontologically existing integral Q1(t), but that is obviously not true, because if the derivative of Q1 is Q, then the derivative of Q1+C is also Q for any constant C. (For example, infinitely many different velocity profiles have the same acceleration profile.) Thus Q does not have a unique integral, because there is an arbitrary constant of integration.

Furthermore, if your idiocy about the ontological existence of a unique Q1(t) was true, the very same reasoning would imply that Q1(t) also has a unique and ontologically existing integral Q2(t), which must (according to your idiotic reasoning) imply that Q2(t) has a unique and ontologically existing integral Q3(t), and so on, proliferating an infinity of ontologically existing invisible pink elephants.

> [special relativity] is reproducible and gives predictable results, this for the possible
> experimentable conditions can be and is true...

Right, and this is all that science claims.

> nevertheless your theoretical explanation of this results is false...

Nope, you are hopelessly confused. Special relativity is an absolutist theory in the same sense that Newtonian mechanics was, which is to say, it is founded on the premise of the apriori existence of an absolutely preferred class of coordinate systems, called inertial coordinates, in terms of which all the equations of physics take their homogeneous and isotropic form. This class of coordinates is absolute, it is not based on any relationism. You (beda), on the other hand, espouse a relationist theory, ala Mach's principle, which denies any reality to non-relational concepts like the absolute class of inertial coordinate systems. You insist that everything can only be defined in relation to something else, so you deny the absolute foundation of special relativity. Unfortunately for you (and all the relationist hopefuls who preceded you), no fully successful relationist account of the phenomena has ever been found. And if your relationist dreams were ever realized, it would be the triumph of relationism, and the defeat of absolutism. You see? You have everything backwards.

Il giorno sabato 5 giugno 2021 alle 19:29:40 UTC+2 Cliff Hallston ha scritto:
> On Saturday, June 5, 2021 at 9:31:28 AM UTC-7, beda-p...@libero.it wrote:
> > relative to all means absolute,
> There is no frame in which all is at rest, so there is no such thing as "relative to all".
beda
all universal matter effects are condensed in the physical characteristic of the local inertia associated to local space
>
> > You don't grasp that the absolute is a necessity in order to have any relative comparison
>
> Right, because it is not. In fact, you can't even define what absolute means, since every time you try, you end of saying it is relative to something.
beda
of course, the absolute is absolute in this universe so it is related to it
>
> > Not only the CMBR is arriving isotropically (to an observer at rest in space)
>
> Well, there is a frame in which the frequency of the arriving CMBR is maximally isotropic, but the speed of the arriving CMBR is isotropic in terms of every local system of inertial coordinates. Also, the CMBR isotropic frequency frame is a relative frame,
beda
no sir, the frame at rest in vs the CMBR is unique: light is isotropic only in this frame, all the other SR frame have their clocks manipulated and light speed=c is an artifact of the Esynchro

>
> not an absolute frame. Again, anything you can sense is relative, so to support your belief you need to thing of >something you can sense that cannot be sensed.
>
> > please you should not mention [facts or rationality] in your arguments
>
> But facts and rationality are the only appropriate things to mention in a discussion. Your belief in invisible flying emergent pink elephants and non-absolute absoluteness is what should not be mentioned. Sane humans will never accede to your demand to stop being rational and follow you into your delusional world of juvenile denialism.
>
> > Any time you use that given thrust you are using an absolute amount of energy , right?
>
> Nope, energy is relative. The kinetic energy of a mass m is zero in terms of inertial coordinates in which it is moving at speed v=0, but in general in terms of any system of inertial coordinates in which that object is moving at speed v it has kinetic energy mc^2[1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) - 1].
>
> > Do you realize that all these passages involves only absolute values or not ????
>
> There is no such thing as "absolute values", and no such thing as invisible pink elephants. These are fantasies within the brain of beda, nothing more. Look, your claim is that every ontologically existing quantity represented by the function Q(t) has a unique and ontologically existing integral Q1(t), but that is obviously not true, because if the derivative of Q1 is Q, then the derivative of Q1+C is also Q for any constant C. (For example, infinitely many different velocity profiles have the same acceleration profile.) Thus Q does not have a unique integral, because there is an arbitrary constant of integration.
>
> Furthermore, if your idiocy about the ontological existence of a unique Q1(t) was true, the very same reasoning would imply that Q1(t) also has a unique and ontologically existing integral Q2(t), which must (according to your idiotic reasoning) imply that Q2(t) has a unique and ontologically existing integral Q3(t), and so on, proliferating an infinity of ontologically existing invisible pink elephants.
beda
cannot follow you on this:
my height is absolute, my weight is absolute and so on, referred to a any stable object
again if anything is absolute relative to a stable object we scale up to any level, up to the entire universe
so any object at any instant assumes its absoluteness vs the entire universe as a whole,
e.i. its mass is, its inertia is unique, and both are fixed by the entire universal effects on them, immediately mediated
by the local characteristic of the local space where they happen instantly to be positioned or passing by.

you keep bringing in your SR frames and their requirements and implications on which i fully disagree,
you must step back on a common ground
we can discuss the SR arrangement and procedure, if and only, after we agree on the raw physical facts

>
> > [special relativity] is reproducible and gives predictable results, this for the possible
> > experimentable conditions can be and is true...
>
> Right, and this is all that science claims.
>
> > nevertheless your theoretical explanation of this results is false...
>
> Nope, you are hopelessly confused. Special relativity is an absolutist theory in the same sense that Newtonian mechanics was, which is to say, it is founded on the premise of the apriori existence of an absolutely preferred class of coordinate systems, called inertial coordinates, in terms of which all the equations of physics take their homogeneous and isotropic form. This class of coordinates is absolute, it is not based on any relationism. You (beda), on the other hand, espouse a relationist theory, ala Mach's principle, which denies any reality to non-relational concepts like the absolute class of inertial coordinate systems. You insist that everything can only be defined in relation to something else, so you deny the absolute foundation of special relativity. Unfortunately for you (and all the relationist hopefuls who preceded you), no fully successful relationist account of the phenomena has ever been found. And if your relationist dreams were ever realized, it would be the triumph of relationism, and the defeat of absolutism. You see? You have everything backwards.
beda
no, you skip the point where I proved to you that the absolute speed of the SR frame is tranferred to the SR frame Esynchro, this makes your claim false: the class of your inertial coordinates systems is not based on the absolutness of the alleged apriori existence of invariance, but they are tout court based on the absolute inertial movement, whose absolute movement implies, consequently, the absolutness of all speed related quantities, lenght, time rate, kinetique energy, momentum ect.
so you must concentrate on this point: if the absolute speed of the SR frame (vs the CMBR preferred frame) is truly
tranferred to the SR Esynchro, then all your theoretical pretenses is a needless garbled construction, easily reducible to a much coherent absolute approach.

all what is in this universe is related and shaped by this universe!!,
the effects of all masses of the universe are present in each point of the space and
affects every single objects, contributing on giving them their absolute characteristics,
objects are also affected by the eventual presence of near masses and by internal binding forces
at atomic level, all combined with absolute speed and local gravity, all this affections shape the
absoluteness of each single object.

your groundless approach devoid of the absolute relation with the inertia generated by all universal masses is ridiculously empty, is based not on absolute, nor on relationism, it is based on nothingness
even your invariance need an absolute ground to be based upon, being it an emergent property, it emerges from what?
you childishly make it emerge from itself, that is obviously ridiculous.
cheers
beda

On Saturday, June 5, 2021 at 3:55:51 PM UTC-7, beda-p...@libero.it wrote:
> > You can't even define what absolute means, since every time you try, you end of saying
> > it is relative to something.
>
> of course...

Right. [The rest of what your brain caused you to type was blatant gibberish... e.g., "absolute is absolute"]

> The frame at rest in vs the CMBR is unique: light is isotropic only in this frame...

Nope, the speed of light is isotropic only in the frame F_ABS that is moving at 0.143c in the direction of Virgo relative to the CMBR isotropic frequency frame, and the speed of light only *appears* to be isotropic in the inertial coordinates in which the CMBR frequency is isotropic because you employ trickery and inertially synchronize clocks in that frame. If you synchronize clocks absolutely, the speed of light is not isotropic in the CMBR frame. All objects have their absolute lengths and durations and speeds, etc.., in terms F_ABS. Understand?

> > There is no such thing as "absolute values", and no such thing as invisible pink elephants. These are fantasies within the brain of beda, nothing more. Look, your claim is that every ontologically existing quantity represented by the function Q(t) has a unique and ontologically existing integral Q1(t), but that is obviously not true, because if the derivative of Q1 is Q, then the derivative of Q1+C is also Q for any constant C. (For example, infinitely many different velocity profiles have the same acceleration profile.) Thus Q does not have a unique integral, because there is an arbitrary constant of integration.
> >
> > Furthermore, if your idiocy about the ontological existence of a unique Q1(t) was true, the very same reasoning would imply that Q1(t) also has a unique and ontologically existing integral Q2(t), which must (according to your idiotic reasoning) imply that Q2(t) has a unique and ontologically existing integral Q3(t), and so on, proliferating an infinity of ontologically existing invisible pink elephants.
>
> cannot follow you on this

I know, that's the problem. Try reading it again, slowly.

Il giorno domenica 6 giugno 2021 alle 01:24:14 UTC+2 Cliff Hallston ha scritto:
> On Saturday, June 5, 2021 at 3:55:51 PM UTC-7, beda-p...@libero.it wrote:
> > > You can't even define what absolute means, since every time you try, you end of saying
> > > it is relative to something.
> >
> > of course...
>
> Right. [The rest of what your brain caused you to type was blatant gibberish... e.g., "absolute is absolute"]
>
> > The frame at rest in vs the CMBR is unique: light is isotropic only in this frame...
>
> Nope, the speed of light is isotropic only in the frame F_ABS that is moving at 0.143c in the direction of Virgo relative to the CMBR isotropic frequency frame, and the speed of light only *appears* to be isotropic in the inertial coordinates in which the CMBR frequency is isotropic because you employ trickery and inertially synchronize clocks in that frame. If you synchronize clocks absolutely, the speed of light is not isotropic in the CMBR frame. All objects have their absolute lengths and durations and speeds, etc.., in terms F_ABS. Understand?
beda
you are completely wrong, absolutness is not based on your whims, but it is a factual condition in many ways verifiable, and only if those many ways are coincident in confirming the absolute condition, only then the absoluteness is confirmed!!
e.i. frame F_ABS that is moving at 0.143c in the direction of Virgo relative to the CMBR isotropic frequency frame,
the observer comoving in that frame will see the universe appear to him differently(visually deformed) respect to an observer at rest vs the preferred frame. so the two observers can tell which one is moving absolutely versus the universe, versus the local space inertia and versus the local speed of light,
further more the absolute two way time travel is absolutely different and verifiable by all observers directly: each observer can see that the timing of the real preferred frame is faster, no framing needed, just direct clock rate comparisons single clock vs single clock, doppler don't cancel absolute differences
cheers
beda

your logic is severely crippled by your bigot misunderstandings

cheers
beda

> > > There is no such thing as "absolute values", and no such thing as invisible pink elephants. These are fantasies within the brain of beda, nothing more. Look, your claim is that every ontologically existing quantity represented by the function Q(t) has a unique and ontologically existing integral Q1(t), but that is obviously not true, because if the derivative of Q1 is Q, then the derivative of Q1+C is also Q for any constant C. (For example, infinitely many different velocity profiles have the same acceleration profile.) Thus Q does not have a unique integral, because there is an arbitrary constant of integration.
> > >
> > > Furthermore, if your idiocy about the ontological existence of a unique Q1(t) was true, the very same reasoning would imply that Q1(t) also has a unique and ontologically existing integral Q2(t), which must (according to your idiotic reasoning) imply that Q2(t) has a unique and ontologically existing integral Q3(t), and so on, proliferating an infinity of ontologically existing invisible pink elephants.
> >
> > cannot follow you on this
> I know, that's the problem. Try reading it again, slowly.
Beda
I will,

On Sunday, June 6, 2021 at 2:54:11 AM UTC-7, beda-p...@libero.it wrote:
> > Every object has a certain speed and characteristics in terms of the inertial coordinates
> > in which the CMBR frequency is isotropic, but that statement is equally true if you replace
> the CMBR isotropic coordinates with any other system of inertial coordinates. Understand?
>
> yes that is true, but why that is true?

It is true because the laws of physics are locally Lorentz invariant, meaning that they take the same form when the space and time coordinates are subjected to any Lorentz transformations. If you are asking why the laws of physics are Lorentz invariant rather than, say, Galilean invariant, well it corresponds to the fact that energy is a conserved quantity, which has inertia, and the Lorentz invariance of all physical laws follows unavoidably from this. If you then ask why energy has inertia, well, you can read in the foundational literature about this, and why a universe in which mass has inertia but energy doesn't just wouldn't make sense, but I suspect that this level of thinking is beyond your powers. A child can ask endless "why" questions, even though that child is not equipped to understand the answers.

> The reason is that your peculiar class of frames have been constructed in such a
> way to rend them equivalent to the real preferred frame anchored to an object an
> rest vs the CMBR

An inertial coordinate system at rest in F1 and an inertial coordinate system at rest in F2 are each constructed so that the laws of physics take their simple homogeneous and isotropic form. In fact, we can (locally) construct such coordinate systems at rest in any frame (principle of relativity). This does not imply that F2 is the "absolute" frame, nor does it imply that F1 is the "absolute" frame. There may be objects at rest in F1, and other objects at rest in F2, making each frame circumstantially distinguished in some ways, but this again does not imply that one or the other of them is "absolute". Of course, if we are demented idiots, we could choose one and insist that it be called "absolute" and "preferred", but that would be without rational foundation.

> We can extract the same alleged invariance just processing the data accordingly,
> referring all object and values to the preferred frame,

We can extract all the information purely in terms of *any* system of inertial coordinates, so there's nothing unique about the inertial coordinates in which your breakfast bagel or the CMBR frequencies are isotropic. Do you deny this?
> Any relative relation between objects is a relative relation between absolute objects.
That's meaningless, because every time you try to define "absolute", you describe a relative measure. Furthermore, you are not talking about physics, you are talking about (bad) metaphysics. You admit that there are no physical manifestations of any of your assertions, since you admit that the same analysis applies in terms of any system of inertial coordinates, not just the one in which Andromeda is at rest. This remarkable symmetry of nature -- the principle of relativity, on which both Newtonian and modern physics were based -- is somehow offensive to beda's brain, but this is just a problem for beda, not for science.

> > Nope, the speed of light is isotropic only in the frame F_ABS that is moving at 0.143c in the direction of Virgo relative to the CMBR isotropic frequency frame, and the speed of light only *appears* to be isotropic in the inertial coordinates in which the CMBR frequency is isotropic because you employ trickery and inertially synchronize clocks in that frame. If you synchronize clocks absolutely, the speed of light is not isotropic in the CMBR frame. All objects have their absolute lengths and durations and speeds, etc., in terms F_ABS. Understand?
>
> ...absolutness is not based on your whims...

Right, it's based on beda's whims.

> It is a factual condition in many ways verifiable...

Again, every verification involves some relation to some physical entities, so it is relational, not absolute. I can verify F_ABS by direct measurements of the CMBR frequencies. F_ABS is the absolute frame, with absolute synhronization. You are just engaging in trickery by modifying your clocks with inertial synchronization to make light speed appear to be isotropic in your preferred frame, but it is not really isotropic, because your clocks are not absolutely synchronized. The absolute frame is F_ABS, and in terms of this absolute frame your claimed frame is moving at 0.143c in the direction away from Virgo.

> The observer comoving in F_ABS will see the universe appear to him differently (visually
> deformed) respect to an observer at rest vs the preferred frame.

No, in terms of F_ABS the universe is correctly described. The descriptions of everything are distorted in terms of your Esynchro frames in other states of motion. The galaxies are not distributed isotropically, you just pretend they are by applying your evil Esynchro trickery. Remember, there is a star at rest in F_ABS and it is spherically symmetrical in terms of F_ABS, but it is contracted into an ellipsoid in terms of your chosen coordinates, so yours are wrong. QED.

> The absolute two way time travel is absolutely different and verifiable by all
> observers directly...

Every result of this kind works exactly the same referred to F_ABS as it does referred to any other inertial coordinate system. Do you really not realize this? If so, you have some studying to do.

Look, there is no such thing as "absolute values", and no such thing as invisible pink elephants. These are fantasies within the brain of beda, nothing more. Your claim is that every ontologically existing quantity represented by the function Q(t) has a unique and ontologically existing integral Q1(t), but that is obviously not true, because if the derivative of Q1 is Q, then the derivative of Q1+C is also Q for any constant C. (For example, infinitely many different velocity profiles have the same acceleration profile..) Thus Q does not have a unique integral, because there is an arbitrary constant of integration.

Furthermore, if your idiocy about the ontological existence of a unique Q1(t) was true, the very same reasoning would imply that Q1(t) also has a unique and ontologically existing integral Q2(t), which must (according to your fallacious reasoning) imply that Q2(t) has a unique and ontologically existing integral Q3(t), and so on, proliferating an infinity of ontologically existing invisible pink elephants.

Il giorno domenica 6 giugno 2021 alle 18:49:16 UTC+2 Cliff Hallston ha scritto:
> On Sunday, June 6, 2021 at 2:54:11 AM UTC-7, beda-p...@libero.it wrote:
> > > Every object has a certain speed and characteristics in terms of the inertial coordinates
> > > in which the CMBR frequency is isotropic, but that statement is equally true if you replace
> > the CMBR isotropic coordinates with any other system of inertial coordinates. Understand?
> >
> > yes that is true, but why that is true?
>
> It is true because the laws of physics are locally Lorentz invariant, meaning that they take the same form when the space and time coordinates are subjected to any Lorentz transformations. If you are asking why the laws of physics are Lorentz invariant rather than, say, Galilean invariant, well it corresponds to the fact that energy is a conserved quantity, which has inertia, and the Lorentz invariance of all physical laws follows unavoidably from this. If you then ask why energy has inertia, well, you can read in the foundational literature about this, and why a universe in which mass has inertia but energy doesn't just wouldn't make sense, but I suspect that this level of thinking is beyond your powers. A child can ask endless "why" questions, even though that child is not equipped to understand the answers.
beda
the inertia is a characteristic of the local space in which light or objects are instantly moving,
"moving" is just our perception, really nothing moves in space but energy carried by waves.
though we are bound to stick to the way we perceive the reality for a comprehensible communication
amongst people.
in this context, there is a meaning for words and concepts like absolute, relative and, your new entry, relational
any word or concepts can be by the listener be over interpreted, misinterpreted, or correctly understood, you are obsessively refuting any significance to the absolute crucial role in the SR frame arrangement.
you are in a safe condition because the absolute has already done its job in your SR arrangement and it is well hidden in the heuristic form of the LT and in the Doppler SR formula.
so, you can with pedantry deny the role of the absolute, you have safe in your pocket, unawarely, a limit of yours

back to inertia, we can consider it to origin of the absolutness of the local speed of light and of
the assumed local speed of objects after a given thrust, and inertia, also, takes part in the shape of objects.

> > The reason is that your peculiar class of frames have been constructed in such a
> > way to rend them equivalent to the real preferred frame anchored to an object an
> > rest vs the CMBR
>
> An inertial coordinate system at rest in F1 and an inertial coordinate system at rest in F2 are each constructed so that the laws of physics take their simple homogeneous and isotropic form. In fact, we can (locally) construct such coordinate systems at rest in any frame (principle of relativity). This does not imply that F2 is the "absolute" frame, nor does it imply that F1 is the "absolute" frame. There may be objects at rest in F1, and other objects at rest in F2, making each frame circumstantially distinguished in some ways, but this again does not imply that one or the other of them is "absolute". Of course, if we are demented idiots, we could choose one and insist that it be called "absolute" and "preferred", but that would be without rational foundation.
beda
that is your false mantra, the inertial moving objects can be distinguished by their absolute speed, by their absolute lenght and timings, they are factually by nature itself related to the local space they instantaneous are traveling, no need of frames, you are completely devoid of intuition: your cage is windowless
> > We can extract the same alleged invariance just processing the data accordingly,
> > referring all object and values to the preferred frame,
>
> We can extract all the information purely in terms of *any* system of inertial coordinates, so there's nothing unique about the inertial coordinates in which your breakfast bagel or the CMBR frequencies are isotropic. Do you deny this?
beda
of course I do: the data you extracts are artifact of you procedure, to get what you have already established is an invariant behavior of nature, which instead, is purely a human expectancy presetted in the frame arrangement
>
> > Any relative relation between objects is a relative relation between absolute objects.
>
> That's meaningless, because every time you try to define "absolute", you describe a relative measure. Furthermore, you are not talking about physics, you are talking about (bad) metaphysics. You admit that there are no physical manifestations of any of your assertions, since you admit that the same analysis applies in terms of any system of inertial coordinates, not just the one in which Andromeda is at rest. This remarkable symmetry of nature -- the principle of relativity, on which both Newtonian and modern physics were based -- is somehow offensive to beda's brain, but this is just a problem for beda, not for science.
beda
you are not commendable here, you jump to Andromeda while we must stay local
> > > Nope, the speed of light is isotropic only in the frame F_ABS that is moving at 0.143c in the direction of Virgo relative to the CMBR isotropic frequency frame, and the speed of light only *appears* to be isotropic in the inertial coordinates in which the CMBR frequency is isotropic because you employ trickery and inertially synchronize clocks in that frame. If you synchronize clocks absolutely, the speed of light is not isotropic in the CMBR frame. All objects have their absolute lengths and durations and speeds, etc., in terms F_ABS. Understand?
beda
great error of your, you must stay local here, the local space of Andromeda we cannot experience
we can hava a local preferred frame here,
and they have their local preferred frame there,
or if you really want to be of a large view, you can have a preferred frame that is inclusive of both Andromeda and our galaxy, finding a common best point in space for a common preferred frame

> >
> > ...absolutness is not based on your whims...
>
> Right, it's based on beda's whims.
>
> > It is a factual condition in many ways verifiable...
>
> Again, every verification involves some relation to some physical entities, so it is relational, not absolute. I can verify F_ABS by direct measurements of the CMBR frequencies. F_ABS is the absolute frame, with absolute synhronization. You are just engaging in trickery by modifying your clocks with inertial synchronization to make light speed appear to be isotropic in your preferred frame, but it is not really isotropic, because your clocks are not absolutely synchronized. The absolute frame is F_ABS, and in terms of this absolute frame your claimed frame is moving at 0.143c in the direction away from Virgo.
>
> > The observer comoving in F_ABS will see the universe appear to him differently (visually
> > deformed) respect to an observer at rest vs the preferred frame.
> No, in terms of F_ABS the universe is correctly described. The descriptions of everything are distorted in terms of your Esynchro frames in other states of motion. The galaxies are not distributed isotropically, you just pretend they are by applying your evil Esynchro trickery. Remember, there is a star at rest in F_ABS and it is spherically symmetrical in terms of F_ABS, but it is contracted into an ellipsoid in terms of your chosen coordinates, so yours are wrong. QED.
>
> > The absolute two way time travel is absolutely different and verifiable by all
> > observers directly...
>
> Every result of this kind works exactly the same referred to F_ABS as it does referred to any other inertial coordinate system. Do you really not realize this? If so, you have some studying to do.
beda
lacking of the absolute concept of can recklessly wander in space not even the inertia drags you to be logical.
must stay local, or define the scale of our interest.
if we stay local here, we are here at center of the universe and light is arriving isotropically only to an object at rest versus the CMBR, the same happens all over in the universe in their local space
here, light speed and the speed of object assume their absolute value referred to the preferred frame at rest vs the CMBR,
you can build you SR frames and your preconstructed invariance like an unaware conjurer apprentice

cheers
beda

>
> Look, there is no such thing as "absolute values", and no such thing as invisible pink elephants. These are fantasies within the brain of beda, nothing more. Your claim is that every ontologically existing quantity represented by the function Q(t) has a unique and ontologically existing integral Q1(t), but that is obviously not true, because if the derivative of Q1 is Q, then the derivative of Q1+C is also Q for any constant C. (For example, infinitely many different velocity profiles have the same acceleration profile.) Thus Q does not have a unique integral, because there is an arbitrary constant of integration.
>
> Furthermore, if your idiocy about the ontological existence of a unique Q1(t) was true, the very same reasoning would imply that Q1(t) also has a unique and ontologically existing integral Q2(t), which must (according to your fallacious reasoning) imply that Q2(t) has a unique and ontologically existing integral Q3(t), and so on, proliferating an infinity of ontologically existing invisible pink elephants.

On Sunday, June 6, 2021 at 2:56:01 PM UTC-7, beda-p...@libero.it wrote:
> You are obsessively refuting any significance to the absolute crucial role in the
> SR frame arrangement.

You misunderstand. I am pointing out to you that (1) the things you describe are not absolute, they are relational, and (2) they are perfectly consistent with local Lorentz invariance, which is the entire content of special relativity. The old Lorentzian interpretation of special relativity that you espouse consists of special relativity plus the metaphysical assertion that one particular inertial coordinate system is the blamange one, but that is just a metaphysical appendage with no physical significance. We can just as well select *any* system of inertial coordinates as the blamange one.

> The inertial moving objects can be distinguished by their absolute speed, by
> their absolute lenght and timings...

Their absolute speeds are relative to the absolute rest frame coordinates F_ABS, so your absolute speed right now is about 0.143c in the direction opposite Virgo, and the earth is actually slightly flattened ellipsoid, which you just pretend is spherical because of your trickery with inertially synchronized clocks. The absolute frame F_ABS, the true absolute rest frame of Nature, does not care about your erroneously synchronized clocks. Inertia is truly isotropic in terms of F_ABS, and it an anisotropic in terms of every other frame, but you pretend it is isotropic by fiddling with your clocks with inertial Esynchro trickery.

> > We can extract all the information purely in terms of *any* system of inertial coordinates, so there's nothing unique about the inertial coordinates in which your breakfast bagel or the CMBR frequencies are isotropic. Do you deny this?
>
> of course I do

Well then you have some studying to do. We can extract all the information purely in terms of *any* system of inertial coordinates, so there's nothing unique about the inertial coordinates in which your breakfast bagel or the CMBR frequencies are isotropic. This is Relativity 101.

Look, every time you try to define "absolute", you describe a relative measure. Furthermore, you are not talking about physics, you are talking about (bad) metaphysics. You admit that there are no physical manifestations of any of your assertions, since you admit that the same analysis applies in terms of any system of inertial coordinates, not just the one in which Andromeda is at rest. This remarkable symmetry of nature -- the principle of relativity, on which both Newtonian and modern physics were based -- is somehow offensive to beda's brain, but this is just a problem for beda, not for science.

> ...absolutness is not based on your whims...

Right, it's based on beda's whims... but not any more: You need to realize that F_ABS is the true absolute rest frame. Again, every verification involves some relation to some physical entities, so it's relational, not absolute. I can verify F_ABS by direct measurements of the CMBR frequencies. F_ABS is the absolute frame, with absolute synchronization. You are just engaging in trickery by modifying your clocks with inertial synchronization to make light speed appear to be isotropic in your preferred frame, but it is not really isotropic, because your clocks are not absolutely synchronized.

In terms of F_ABS the universe is correctly described. Every object has absolute length, speed, duration, inertia, etc. The descriptions of everything are distorted in terms of your Esynchro frames in other states of motion. The galaxies are not distributed isotropically, you just pretend they are by applying your evil Esynchro trickery.

Look, there's no such thing as "absolute values", and no such thing as invisible pink elephants. These are fantasies within the brain of beda, nothing more. Your claim is that every ontologically existing quantity represented by the function Q(t) has a unique and ontologically existing integral Q1(t), but that is obviously not true, because if the derivative of Q1 is Q, then the derivative of Q1+C is also Q for any constant C. (For example, infinitely many different velocity profiles have the same acceleration profile.) Thus Q does not have a unique integral, because there is an arbitrary constant of integration.

Furthermore, if your idiocy about the ontological existence of a unique Q1(t) were true, the very same reasoning would imply that Q1(t) also has a unique and ontologically existing integral Q2(t), which must (according to your fallacious reasoning) imply that Q2(t) has a unique and ontologically existing integral Q3(t), and so on, proliferating an infinity of ontologically existing invisible pink elephants, all the way down.

On Monday, 7 June 2021 at 01:34:59 UTC+2, Cliff Hallston wrote:

> Their absolute speeds are relative to the absolute rest frame coordinates F_ABS, so your absolute speed right now is about 0.143c in the direction opposite Virgo, and the earth is actually slightly flattened ellipsoid, which you just pretend is spherical because of your trickery with inertially synchronized clocks. The absolute frame F_ABS, the true absolute rest frame of Nature, does not care about your erroneously synchronized clocks. I

Hear the voice of poor idiot Cliff Halston, because Nature
itself is speaking through his mouth.

Il giorno lunedì 7 giugno 2021 alle 01:34:59 UTC+2 Cliff Hallston ha scritto:
> On Sunday, June 6, 2021 at 2:56:01 PM UTC-7, beda-p...@libero.it wrote:
> > You are obsessively refuting any significance to the absolute crucial role in the
> > SR frame arrangement.
>
> You misunderstand. I am pointing out to you that (1) the things you describe are not absolute, they are relational, and (2) they are perfectly consistent with local Lorentz invariance, which is the entire content of special relativity. The old Lorentzian interpretation of special relativity that you espouse consists of special relativity plus the metaphysical assertion that one particular inertial coordinate system is the blamange one, but that is just a metaphysical appendage with no physical significance. We can just as well select *any* system of inertial coordinates as the blamange one.
beda
you have messed up conceptually the perception of the reality, by substituting the correct common sense of the meaning of the absolute, transferring that concept to a fictitious invariant proper time or invariant interval that has its significance only in your SR artifacted and manipulated construction.
by disassembling that SR construction, you find the absoluteness of the local speeds of light and objects,at its fundamental basis
or, it is the same, the local inertia that combined with energy thrusts generate the absolute movements.
you instead want to stay floating to the level of the mindless usage of your heuristic procedure and the heuristic camouflaged SR formulas devoided of physical direct significance, and when I point out that behind the mechanism of your procedure there are the "hidden" work the of the absolute local speed of light and the absolute local speed of objects, you mindlessly bring in the invariance contained in the heuristic LT formulae, that circularly justify its self.

at this point, made clear what said above, it is only matter of conceptual adjustments, the substance of the facts are
hopefully clear to both of us.
>
> > The inertial moving objects can be distinguished by their absolute speed, by
> > their absolute lenght and timings...
>
> Their absolute speeds are relative to the absolute rest frame coordinates F_ABS, so your absolute speed right now is about 0.143c in the direction opposite Virgo, and the earth is actually slightly flattened ellipsoid, which you just pretend is spherical because of your trickery with inertially synchronized clocks. The absolute frame F_ABS, the true absolute rest frame of Nature, does not care about your erroneously synchronized clocks. Inertia is truly isotropic in terms of F_ABS, and it an anisotropic in terms of every other frame, but you pretend it is isotropic by fiddling with your clocks with inertial Esynchro trickery.
> > > We can extract all the information purely in terms of *any* system of inertial coordinates, so there's nothing unique about the inertial coordinates in which your breakfast bagel or the CMBR frequencies are isotropic. Do you deny this?
> >
> > of course I do
>
> Well then you have some studying to do. We can extract all the information purely in terms of *any* system of inertial coordinates, so there's nothing unique about the inertial coordinates in which your breakfast bagel or the CMBR frequencies are isotropic. This is Relativity 101.
>
> Look, every time you try to define "absolute", you describe a relative measure. Furthermore, you are not talking about physics, you are talking about (bad) metaphysics. You admit that there are no physical manifestations of any of your assertions, since you admit that the same analysis applies in terms of any system of inertial coordinates, not just the one in which Andromeda is at rest. This remarkable symmetry of nature -- the principle of relativity, on which both Newtonian and modern physics were based -- is somehow offensive to beda's brain, but this is just a problem for beda, not for science.
> > ...absolutness is not based on your whims...
> Right, it's based on beda's whims... but not any more: You need to realize that F_ABS is the true absolute rest frame. Again, every verification involves some relation to some physical entities, so it's relational, not absolute. I can verify F_ABS by direct measurements of the CMBR frequencies. F_ABS is the absolute frame, with absolute synchronization. You are just engaging in trickery by modifying your clocks with inertial synchronization to make light speed appear to be isotropic in your preferred frame, but it is not really isotropic, because your clocks are not absolutely synchronized.
>
> In terms of F_ABS the universe is correctly described. Every object has absolute length, speed, duration, inertia, etc. The descriptions of everything are distorted in terms of your Esynchro frames in other states of motion.. The galaxies are not distributed isotropically, you just pretend they are by applying your evil Esynchro trickery.
beda
look, I have already replied in detail to your error, I will repeat my self succinctly:
we must stay local and stick to our local CMBR, (locality is the same everywhere else in the universe)
locally here, we have the CMBR to determine at the best a preferred frame of reference (that incidentally belongs to the SR set of your SR frames).
this preferred frame suffice for all the needs, included the possibility for you to assemble all your SR frames into it,

the two representation the one based only on the preferred frame based on the immediate absolute reconnaissance, and your SR based on the inertial setting of frames, where the role of the absolute is hidden and is camouflaged and condensed into the heuristic procedural formulae of LT and SR Doppler

this two coexistent possible approach leaves aside and don't solve, at least for me, the groundless pretense, of the alleged invariance:
I don't think that a single law of physics, that assumed a fixed given formulation, can as such, be applied to reality without adjustments, some of them unpredictable in extreme speed wise conditions.
very far less, are all the laws of physics, and their mutual interactions, appliable to all speeds,
anyway, you accept that (absurd IMO) at risk of your own logic sanity.

cheers
beda

On Monday, June 7, 2021 at 4:46:01 AM UTC-7, beda-p...@libero.it wrote:
> you have messed up conceptually the perception of the reality, by substituting the
> correct common sense of the meaning of the absolute, transferring that concept
> to a fictitious invariant proper time or invariant interval...

Nope, in any local frame we can construct a grid of standard rulers and standard clocks at rest and inertially synchronized in that frame, and the equations of physics take the same homogeneous and isotropic form in terms of those coordinates. It is an empirical fact that such coordinate systems are related by Lorentz transformations. This is the entire content of special relativity, and it is incontrovertible.

You are espousing the old 19th century Lorentzian interpretation of special relativity, which consists of special relativity combined with a hypocritical pretense that you will refer to one particular frame as the blamange one, but no use is ever made of this in the application of the theory, and in fact you invariably use some other frame, and only pay occasional lip service to the so-called blamange frame.

Your belief is based on the fallacious idea that every ontologically existing quantity represented by the function Q(t) has a unique and ontologically existing integral Q1(t), but that is obviously not true, because if the derivative of Q1 is Q, then the derivative of Q1+C is also Q for any constant C. (For example, infinitely many different velocity profiles have the same acceleration profile.) Thus Q does not have a unique integral, because there is an arbitrary constant of integration.

Furthermore, if the claim about the ontological existence of a unique Q1(t) for any given Q(t) were true, the very same reasoning would imply that Q1(t) also has a unique and ontologically existing integral Q2(t), which must (according to your fallacious reasoning) imply that Q2(t) has a unique and ontologically existing integral Q3(t), and so on, proliferating an infinity of ontologically existing invisible pink elephants, all the way down.

> the local inertia that combined with energy thrusts generate the absolute movements.

Again, you conflate acceleration with velocity. The physical palpability of acceleration (the principle of inertia) implies the existence of a preferred class of coordinate systems, all mutually unaccelerated, but this does not constrain the velocities. Remember F=ma involves only acceleration, not velocity v (the integral of acceleration) nor position x (the integral of velocity). The latter two have constants of integration that make them non-unique.

> I point out that behind the mechanism of your procedure there are the "hidden"
> work the of the absolute ...

No, this is the kernel of your crackpotism. You think you discovered that two objects can be described in terms of a coordinate system in which neither of them is at rest, and the Lorentz transformation compensates everything to make this work, and you shout "Eureka! I have discovered the absolute frame!" But you have not. What you have noticed is self-evident and trivial, and it does not uniquely apply to one specific frame. The same compensation applies to descriptions in terms of any frame. Then you shift to purely relational preferences, like frames in which the center of mass of some collection of physical entities is at rest. Naturally it is sometimes convenient to use a frame in which the center of mass of the entities of interest is at rest, but this is entirely contingent. If you are working mechanics on earth, you use the earth frame, and if you are doing solar system studies you use the CoM of the solar systen, and same for galaxy or galaxy clusters, and if you are doing cosmology you many use a cosmological frame. All of this is perfectly consistent with local Lorentz invariance, which is the foundation of our understanding of all these things.

> > [Irony mode ON:] In terms of F_ABS the universe is correctly described.. Every object has absolute length, speed, duration, inertia, etc. The descriptions of everything are distorted in terms of your Esynchro frames in other states of motion. The galaxies are not distributed isotropically, you just pretend they are by applying your evil Esynchro trickery.
>
> We must stay local and stick to our local CMBR...

No [irony mode ON:], the CMBR frequency is not really isotropic, you just pretend it is because of your tickery with Esyncro clocks. If you set clocks with the correct absolute synchronization in the local absolute rest frame F_ABS you will see that the CMBR frequency is not isotropic. [irony mode OFF]. Of course, this is all irrelevant, because none of this contradicts local Lorentz invariance.