On Friday, June 4, 2021 at 8:15:12 AM UTC-4, beda-p...@libero.it wrote:
> Il giorno giovedì 3 giugno 2021 alle 16:01:01 UTC+2 seto...@gmail.com ha scritto:
> > On Sunday, May 30, 2021 at 6:25:28 AM UTC-4, beda-p...@libero.it wrote:
> > > starting from the two twin side by side, they of course age at same rate.
> > > when one twin moves away at a new different speed, and for all the time that he travels at same new speed,
> > > there are three possibility:
> > >
> > > a)the new absolute speed is higher then he ages slower
> > >
> > > b)the new absolute speed is lower then he ages faster
> > >
> > > c)the new absolute speed is equal and opposite to the one it had before, then he ages at same rate of the twin left behind
> > >
> > > this is our starting point to understand what comes next into the SR garbled arrangement, SR solved the ageing of the traveling twin only when it comes back (after the forth and back trip, for sure, the twin ages less), but SR doesn't tell how he ages while it is traveling one way forth, nor how he ages while he is traveling one way back.
> > >
> > > if you carefully go one step at a time into the SR mist, you come finally to
> > > understand that the SR procedure is conceived to use the "hidden" absolutes behind it, to make the knowledge of the absolute superfluous and SR is successful in doing so,
> > >
> > > it only takes us to know the full story from the very origin of it: SR is fully embedded into the absolute behavior of the nature.
> > >
> > > SRists can live with their relativistic illusions, the trick is served free of charge.
> > Here ’s the full story:
> > The only time exists is absolute time. The rate of passage of absolute time is insensitive to motion or gravity.potentials. This means that in terms of absolute time both twin aged at the same rate. However, there is no clock time unit (including a clock second) that represents the same amount of absolute time in different frames. This means that in terms of clock time, the twin are aged at different rates.
> beda
> you got it reversed: the differently moving twins are ageing (and their local clocks run) at the different rate, in >accord to their inertial speeds,

Their clocks are accumulating clock seconds at different rates. But both clocks are experienced the same amount of absolute time. For example:
According to the LT when clock A accumulated 1 second and clock B accumulated gamma seconds when they are compared directly....this means that according to clock time clock B is running at a faster rate. But a clock second is not a universal interval of absolute time. It represents a different amount of absolute time in different frames. That’s the reasons clock time and absolute time are running at different rates.
>
>while the absolute time is unique and same for both of them.
> e reason cheers
> > The designers of the GPS knew this: in terms of clock time the GPS ages at a faster rate. To correct this, they redefine the GPS second to have 4,4647 more periods of Cs 133 radiation than the ground clock second. This correction is made before the launch.of the GPS. At the GPS location the passage of a redefined GPS second is corresponded to the passage of a standard ground clock second and this makes the GPS in synch with the ground clock in terms of absolute time.

On Saturday, June 5, 2021 at 8:15:11 AM UTC-7, beda-p...@libero.it wrote:
> > I've given operational definitions of every term, using standard rulers and clocks, and referring to the established equations of physics. You, on the other hand, do nothing but repeat the word "absolute" with no coherent definition at all. You've given a dozen different vague attempts at definitions, and each one has been a relational one, not absolute at all.
>
> that is right, it is impossible to define what is obvious,

With that, you admit that you admit that I've provided full justification for the scientific acount, and that your beliefs cannot be defended.

> absolutness can be met in many different ways.

Then it is not absolute.

> absolute is obvious, and I won't spend a word in the attempt of prove it, because I would fail

Again, you admit that your beliefs are indefensible and have no rational basis.

> your manipulated SR frame are constructed to show isotropic speed of light

You are a liar. How many times has it been explained to you how inertial coordinate systems are constructed?

> > Well, you can live your life denying the objective facts, but that just leads you to solipism. The objective fact is that the equations of physics take their simple homogeneous and isotropic form in terms of every local system of inertial coordinates (standard rulers and clocks at rest an inertially synchronized in the given frame).
>
> that is surely true...

Correct.

> I invite you to limit our analysis using the preferred frame at rest versus the CMBR.

You do not. Each time you start to describe a scenario with various speeds, I ask you to tell me what system of coordinates you are using, and you refuse. Then later you talk about a preferred frame and I explain that distinguished does not mean preferred, and that no one (including beda) uses the CMBR isotropic frequency frame, so it clearly is not "preferred", and yet you insanely continue to use the word, and then even more insanely continue to refuse to define your coordinates when I ask. Now suddenly you are willing to define your relational (not absolute) coordinates. Your behavior is totally incoherent.

The point is that, once you have stopped lying and admitted that you are working in terms of a relationally distinguished inertial coordinate system, you must face the fact that whatever analysis you produce can be exactly replicated in terms of any other system of inertial coordinates, and so your beliefs are refuted and indefensible, as you yourself have admitted.

On Saturday, June 5, 2021 at 8:15:11 AM UTC-7, beda-p...@libero.it wrote:
> > I've given operational definitions of every term, using standard rulers and clocks, and referring to the established equations of physics. You, on the other hand, do nothing but repeat the word "absolute" with no coherent definition at all. You've given a dozen different vague attempts at definitions, and each one has been a relational one, not absolute at all.
>
> that is right, it is impossible to define what is obvious,

With that, you admit that I've provided full justification for the scientific acount, and that your beliefs cannot be defended.

> absolutness can be met in many different ways.

Then it's not absolute.

> absolute is obvious, and I won't spend a word in the attempt of prove it, because I would fail

Again, you admit your beliefs are indefensible and have no rational basis.

> your manipulated SR frame are constructed to show isotropic speed of light

You're a liar. How many times has it been explained to you how inertial coordinate systems are constructed?

> > Well, you can live your life denying the objective facts, but that just leads you to solipism. The objective fact is that the equations of physics take their simple homogeneous and isotropic form in terms of every local system of inertial coordinates (standard rulers and clocks at rest an inertially synchronized in the given frame).
>
> that is surely true...

That's correct.

> I invite you to limit our analysis using the preferred frame at rest versus the CMBR.

You don't. Each time you start to describe a scenario with various speeds, I ask you to tell me what system of coordinates you are using, and you refuse. Then later you talk about a preferred frame and I explain that distinguished does not mean preferred, and that no one (including beda) uses the CMBR isotropic frequency frame, so it clearly is not "preferred", and yet you insanely continue to use the word, and then even more insanely continue to refuse to define your coordinates when I ask. Now suddenly you are willing to define your relational (not absolute) coordinates. Your behavior is totally incoherent.

The point is, once you have stopped lying and admitted that you are working in terms of a relationally distinguished inertial coordinate system, you must face the fact that whatever analysis you produce can be exactly replicated in terms of any other system of inertial coordinates, and so your beliefs are refuted and indefensible, as you yourself have admitted.

Ken Seto wrote:

>> beda you got it reversed: the differently moving twins are ageing (and
>> their local clocks run) at the different rate, in >accord to their
>> inertial speeds,
>
> Their clocks are accumulating clock seconds at different rates. But both
> clocks are experienced the same amount of absolute time. For example:

clocks are not "accumulating" anything, thief, but periodically output
changes of a given state. The changes may, or may not, be registered
forming a historic.

Il giorno sabato 5 giugno 2021 alle 19:34:43 UTC+2 seto...@gmail.com ha scritto:
> On Friday, June 4, 2021 at 8:15:12 AM UTC-4, beda-p...@libero.it wrote:
> > Il giorno giovedì 3 giugno 2021 alle 16:01:01 UTC+2 seto...@gmail.com ha scritto:
> > > On Sunday, May 30, 2021 at 6:25:28 AM UTC-4, beda-p...@libero.it wrote:
> > > > starting from the two twin side by side, they of course age at same rate.
> > > > when one twin moves away at a new different speed, and for all the time that he travels at same new speed,
> > > > there are three possibility:
> > > >
> > > > a)the new absolute speed is higher then he ages slower
> > > >
> > > > b)the new absolute speed is lower then he ages faster
> > > >
> > > > c)the new absolute speed is equal and opposite to the one it had before, then he ages at same rate of the twin left behind
> > > >
> > > > this is our starting point to understand what comes next into the SR garbled arrangement, SR solved the ageing of the traveling twin only when it comes back (after the forth and back trip, for sure, the twin ages less), but SR doesn't tell how he ages while it is traveling one way forth, nor how he ages while he is traveling one way back.
> > > >
> > > > if you carefully go one step at a time into the SR mist, you come finally to
> > > > understand that the SR procedure is conceived to use the "hidden" absolutes behind it, to make the knowledge of the absolute superfluous and SR is successful in doing so,
> > > >
> > > > it only takes us to know the full story from the very origin of it: SR is fully embedded into the absolute behavior of the nature.
> > > >
> > > > SRists can live with their relativistic illusions, the trick is served free of charge.
> > > Here ’s the full story:
> > > The only time exists is absolute time. The rate of passage of absolute time is insensitive to motion or gravity.potentials. This means that in terms of absolute time both twin aged at the same rate. However, there is no clock time unit (including a clock second) that represents the same amount of absolute time in different frames. This means that in terms of clock time, the twin are aged at different rates.
> > beda
> > you got it reversed: the differently moving twins are ageing (and their local clocks run) at the different rate, in >accord to their inertial speeds,
> Their clocks are accumulating clock seconds at different rates. But both clocks are experienced the same amount of absolute time. For example:
> According to the LT when clock A accumulated 1 second and clock B accumulated gamma seconds when they are compared directly....this means that according to clock time clock B is running at a faster rate. But a clock second is not a universal interval of absolute time. It represents a different amount of absolute time in different frames. That’s the reasons clock time and absolute time are running at different rates.
> >
> >while the absolute time is unique and same for both of them.
> > e reason cheers
> > > The designers of the GPS knew this: in terms of clock time the GPS ages at a faster rate. To correct this, they redefine the GPS second to have 4,4647 more periods of Cs 133 radiation than the ground clock second. This correction is made before the launch.of the GPS. At the GPS location the passage of a redefined GPS second is corresponded to the passage of a standard ground clock second and this makes the GPS in synch with the ground clock in terms of absolute time.
beda
faster moving clock runs slower, absolute time is an abstract concept, we can associate it to any ciclical stable phenomenon
cheers

Il giorno sabato 5 giugno 2021 alle 19:48:50 UTC+2 Cliff Hallston ha scritto:
> On Saturday, June 5, 2021 at 8:15:11 AM UTC-7, beda-p...@libero.it wrote:
> > > I've given operational definitions of every term, using standard rulers and clocks, and referring to the established equations of physics. You, on the other hand, do nothing but repeat the word "absolute" with no coherent definition at all. You've given a dozen different vague attempts at definitions, and each one has been a relational one, not absolute at all.
> >
> > that is right, it is impossible to define what is obvious,
> With that, you admit that I've provided full justification for the scientific acount, and that your beliefs cannot be defended.
> > absolutness can be met in many different ways.
> Then it's not absolute.
>
> > absolute is obvious, and I won't spend a word in the attempt of prove it, because I would fail
>
> Again, you admit your beliefs are indefensible and have no rational basis..
beda
you are cheating, cuttimg sentences out of their context
>
> > your manipulated SR frame are constructed to show isotropic speed of light
>
> You're a liar. How many times has it been explained to you how inertial coordinate systems are constructed?
> > > Well, you can live your life denying the objective facts, but that just leads you to solipism. The objective fact is that the equations of physics take their simple homogeneous and isotropic form in terms of every local system of inertial coordinates (standard rulers and clocks at rest an inertially synchronized in the given frame).
> >
> > that is surely true...
>
> That's correct.
beda
cutting context
>
> > I invite you to limit our analysis using the preferred frame at rest versus the CMBR.
>
> You don't. Each time you start to describe a scenario with various speeds, I ask you to tell me what system of coordinates you are using, and you refuse. Then later you talk about a preferred frame and I explain that distinguished does not mean preferred, and that no one (including beda) uses the CMBR isotropic frequency frame, so it clearly is not "preferred", and yet you insanely continue to use the word, and then even more insanely continue to refuse to define your coordinates when I ask. Now suddenly you are willing to define your relational (not absolute) coordinates. Your behavior is totally incoherent.
beda
after the introduction of the Lorentz contraction no frames are possible out of the preferred frame at rest vs the CMBR, or any approx to it of which we accept its approximation, (this frame has an absolute synchro)

this preferred frame is unique, all the possible objects movement and other object characteristics are referred to it.

your the entire set of SR inertial coordinates systems are living within that preferred frame, each SR frame has its absolute speed.

and as I repeatedly told you, each of those SR frames are Esynched in such a way that automatically the absolute speed of the SR frame is tranferred to the retarded span of two successive clocks.

you keep ignoring this crucial passage, which relate, strictly, your SR Esynchro to the value of the absolute speed of your SR frame, this proves my claim that the SR arrangement is a procedure to rend the absolute "superflous", but uses it to set the SR frame synchro. *****I asked you repeatedly to adress this crucial point!!!!****

So your SR is embedded into the absolutness of the speed of each SR frame.

I may add that, if the speed of the SR frame are absolute, then absolute are all the values of the each single ruler lenght and the each single clock rate in those frames.

the speed of the SR frames, the length of the single ruler, the rate of the single clock are absolute, the rest results of the measurements done with your SR frames are artifacts generated, intentionally, through a man made setting, to extract what you wanted, meaningful for you, needless for me for the following reason:

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

of course all the doubts about the validity of the "invariance" are still there

>
> The point is, once you have stopped lying and admitted that you are working in terms of a relationally distinguished inertial coordinate system, you must face the fact that whatever analysis you produce can be exactly replicated in terms of any other system of inertial coordinates, and so your beliefs are refuted and indefensible, as you yourself have admitted.
beda
you are childishly trivial: any relative relation between objects is a relative relation between absolute objects.
you are so self brainwashed not to grasp this triviality.
cheers
beda

On Saturday, June 5, 2021 at 1:40:05 PM UTC-7, beda-p...@libero.it wrote:
> you are cheating, cuttimg sentences out of their context

I'm extracting the admittedly small amount of cognitive content of your posts, and responding to it. The omitted parts are just willful gibberish.

> after the introduction of the Lorentz contraction...

There is no such thing as "Lorentz contraction". There is length contraction. It's pointless for you to make up pet terms for things.

> no frames are possible...

False. We can and do routinely establish inertial coordinate systems in every state of motion, and you know this full well, so you are intentionally lying.

> this preferred frame is unique

Nope, every relationally defined frame is just a relationally defined frame.. There are infinitely many different relationally defined frames, including the frame of your breakfast bagel, the frame of isotropic CMBR frequency, the frame of your car, the frame of Saturn, the frame of Andromeda, and so on.

> and as I repeatedly told you... *****I asked you repeatedly to adress this crucial point!!!!****

As I've repeatedly explained, the same analysis applies to *any* of those relationally defined frames, so your idiocy signifies nothing. Try it for yourself: Take the frame in which the CMBR frequency is non-isotropic by a certain amount in a certain direction, and declare this to be the absolute frame. Then repeat your entire analysis. You get exactly the same thing, and by your reasoning this proves that *this* frame is the absolute frame. Do you see the problem with your mental functioning?

> the speed of the SR frames, the length of the single ruler, the rate of the single clock are absolute

Invisible pink elephants. Your verbiage is meaningless. What you should have said is that every object has a certain speed and characteristics in terms of the inertial coordinates in which the CMBR frequency is isotropic. That is a true statement, but it is an equally true statement if you replace the CMBR isotropic coordinates with any other system of inertial coordinates. Understand?

> 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 is 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 is 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.

Il giorno domenica 6 giugno 2021 alle 01:10:54 UTC+2 Cliff Hallston ha scritto:
> On Saturday, June 5, 2021 at 1:40:05 PM UTC-7, beda-p...@libero.it wrote:
> > you are cheating, cuttimg sentences out of their context
> I'm extracting the admittedly small amount of cognitive content of your posts, and responding to it. The omitted parts are just willful gibberish.
>
> > after the introduction of the Lorentz contraction...
>
> There is no such thing as "Lorentz contraction". There is length contraction. It's pointless for you to make up pet terms for things.
>
> > no frames are possible...
>
> False. We can and do routinely establish inertial coordinate systems in every state of motion, and you know this full well, so you are intentionally lying.
>
> > this preferred frame is unique
>
> Nope, every relationally defined frame is just a relationally defined frame. There are infinitely many different relationally defined frames, including the frame of your breakfast bagel, the frame of isotropic CMBR frequency, the frame of your car, the frame of Saturn, the frame of Andromeda, and so on.
>
> > and as I repeatedly told you... *****I asked you repeatedly to adress this crucial point!!!!****
>
> As I've repeatedly explained, the same analysis applies to *any* of those relationally defined frames, so your idiocy signifies nothing. Try it for yourself: Take the frame in which the CMBR frequency is non-isotropic by a certain amount in a certain direction, and declare this to be the absolute frame. Then repeat your entire analysis. You get exactly the same thing, and by your reasoning this proves that *this* frame is the absolute frame. Do you see the problem with your mental functioning?
> > the speed of the SR frames, the length of the single ruler, the rate of the single clock are absolute
> Invisible pink elephants. Your verbiage is meaningless. What you should have said is that every object has a certain speed and characteristics in terms of the inertial coordinates in which the CMBR frequency is isotropic. That is a true statement, but it is an equally true statement if you replace the CMBR isotropic coordinates with any other system of inertial coordinates. Understand?
beda
yes that is true, but why that is true?
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
using such class of coordinate systems as an heuristic approach, to solve measurement procedures, is OK,
the problem rises on theoretical conceptual level: behind all that well tuned construction there are: the absolute speed of the light, the absolute speed of the frames, the absolute speed of the rulers, the absolute lenght of the rulers, the absolute speed of the clocks, the absolute time rate of the clocks,
while all the your construction is the result of a human made procedure to extract from physical raw facts, only some of the meaningful possible data, the total picture is incomplete
the tital picture is reachable only using the preferred frame prospective.

you are under a heuristic successful dizziness, there is something more behind it, I will not tell you no more about it, ignoring may be a self saving strategy of a job tenure.
cheers
beda

>
> > 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 is 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 is 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.

On Saturday, June 5, 2021 at 3:51:37 PM UTC-4, beda-p...@libero.it wrote:
> Il giorno sabato 5 giugno 2021 alle 19:34:43 UTC+2 seto...@gmail.com ha scritto:
> > On Friday, June 4, 2021 at 8:15:12 AM UTC-4, beda-p...@libero.it wrote:
> > > Il giorno giovedì 3 giugno 2021 alle 16:01:01 UTC+2 seto...@gmail.com ha scritto:
> > > > On Sunday, May 30, 2021 at 6:25:28 AM UTC-4, beda-p...@libero.it wrote:
> > > > > starting from the two twin side by side, they of course age at same rate.
> > > > > when one twin moves away at a new different speed, and for all the time that he travels at same new speed,
> > > > > there are three possibility:
> > > > >
> > > > > a)the new absolute speed is higher then he ages slower
> > > > >
> > > > > b)the new absolute speed is lower then he ages faster
> > > > >
> > > > > c)the new absolute speed is equal and opposite to the one it had before, then he ages at same rate of the twin left behind
> > > > >
> > > > > this is our starting point to understand what comes next into the SR garbled arrangement, SR solved the ageing of the traveling twin only when it comes back (after the forth and back trip, for sure, the twin ages less), but SR doesn't tell how he ages while it is traveling one way forth, nor how he ages while he is traveling one way back.
> > > > >
> > > > > if you carefully go one step at a time into the SR mist, you come finally to
> > > > > understand that the SR procedure is conceived to use the "hidden" absolutes behind it, to make the knowledge of the absolute superfluous and SR is successful in doing so,
> > > > >
> > > > > it only takes us to know the full story from the very origin of it: SR is fully embedded into the absolute behavior of the nature.
> > > > >
> > > > > SRists can live with their relativistic illusions, the trick is served free of charge.
> > > > Here ’s the full story:
> > > > The only time exists is absolute time. The rate of passage of absolute time is insensitive to motion or gravity.potentials. This means that in terms of absolute time both twin aged at the same rate. However, there is no clock time unit (including a clock second) that represents the same amount of absolute time in different frames. This means that in terms of clock time, the twin are aged at different rates.
> > > beda
> > > you got it reversed: the differently moving twins are ageing (and their local clocks run) at the different rate, in >accord to their inertial speeds,
> > Their clocks are accumulating clock seconds at different rates. But both clocks are experienced the same amount of absolute time. For example:
> > According to the LT when clock A accumulated 1 second and clock B accumulated gamma seconds when they are compared directly....this means that according to clock time clock B is running at a faster rate. But a clock second is not a universal interval of absolute time. It represents a different amount of absolute time in different frames. That’s the reasons clock time and absolute time are running at different rates.
> > >
> > >while the absolute time is unique and same for both of them.
> > > e reason cheers
> > > > The designers of the GPS knew this: in terms of clock time the GPS ages at a faster rate. To correct this, they redefine the GPS second to have 4,4647 more periods of Cs 133 radiation than the ground clock second. This correction is made before the launch.of the GPS. At the GPS location the passage of a redefined GPS second is corresponded to the passage of a standard ground clock second and this makes the GPS in synch with the ground clock in terms of absolute time.
> beda
> faster moving clock runs slower, absolute time is an abstract concept,
Between two clocks which is the faster clock? The GPS uses absolute time to synch the GPS with the ground clock.

>we can associate it to any ciclical stable phenomenon
> cheers

On Sunday, June 6, 2021 at 2:27:56 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. That is a true statement, but it is an equally
> > true statement 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 a fundamental symmetry of nature. The laws of physics have the mathematical property that they take the same form when expressed in terms of any system of inertia-based coordinates. This was explicitly recognized to be true by Galileo and Newton, and implicitly for all of human history. For most of history it was thought that those special coordinate systems are related by Galilean transformations, but it was discovered about 100 years ago that they are actually related by Lorentz transformations.

> the reason is that your peculiar class of frames have been constructed...

Again, inertia-based coordinate systems are, by definition, systems in terms of which the simple equations of Newtonian mechanics hold good in the low speed limit. Hence these are the coordinates that match the readings on a grid of standard rulers and ideal clocks at rest and inertially synchronized in any given frame. Calling these coordinates "peculiar" is just one symptom of your crackpotism.

> there is something more behind it...

That depends on what "it" you are talking about. The principle of relativity goes back to Galileo and Newton, and it is more or less equivalent to the principle of inertia and conservation of momentum. Your rejection of that principle, based on your belief in ether drag, is simply absurd denial of the facts. The principle of relativity is recognized to be a local principle about a symmetry of the local laws of physics, not making any cosmological claims about the distribution of mass-energy in the universe. In view of constants of integration, there is nothing "behind it" at your level of thinking. (There is at higher levels, but that isn't relevant for discussions with you.) The other "it" you deny is Lorentz invariance, and there is indeed something behind it, namely, the inertia of energy, which you don't grasp at all.

> 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 is nothing unique about the inertial coordinates in which your breakfast bagel or the CMBR frequencies are isotropic. We covered this before.

> Any relative relation between objects is a relative relation between absolute objects.

Nope, you need to learn about constants of integration, and the difference between velocity and acceleration.

Il giorno lunedì 7 giugno 2021 alle 18:50:14 UTC+2 Cliff Hallston ha scritto:
> On Sunday, June 6, 2021 at 2:27:56 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. That is a true statement, but it is an equally
> > > true statement 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 a fundamental symmetry of nature. The laws of physics have the mathematical property that they take the same form when expressed in terms of any system of inertia-based coordinates. This was explicitly recognized to be true by Galileo and Newton, and implicitly for all of human history. For most of history it was thought that those special coordinate systems are related by Galilean transformations, but it was discovered about 100 years ago that they are actually related by Lorentz transformations.
>
> > the reason is that your peculiar class of frames have been constructed....
>
> Again, inertia-based coordinate systems are, by definition, systems in terms of which the simple equations of Newtonian mechanics hold good in the low speed limit. Hence these are the coordinates that match the readings on a grid of standard rulers and ideal clocks at rest and inertially synchronized in any given frame. Calling these coordinates "peculiar" is just one symptom of your crackpotism.
>
> > there is something more behind it...
>
> That depends on what "it" you are talking about. The principle of relativity goes back to Galileo and Newton, and it is more or less equivalent to the principle of inertia and conservation of momentum. Your rejection of that principle, based on your belief in ether drag, is simply absurd denial of the facts. The principle of relativity is recognized to be a local principle about a symmetry of the local laws of physics, not making any cosmological claims about the distribution of mass-energy in the universe. In view of constants of integration, there is nothing "behind it" at your level of thinking. (There is at higher levels, but that isn't relevant for discussions with you.) The other "it" you deny is Lorentz invariance, and there is indeed something behind it, namely, the inertia of energy, which you don't grasp at all.
> > 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 is nothing unique about the inertial coordinates in which your breakfast bagel or the CMBR frequencies are isotropic. We covered this before.
> > Any relative relation between objects is a relative relation between absolute objects.
> Nope, you need to learn about constants of integration, and the difference between velocity and acceleration.
beda
I didn't count the number of time you have repeated the same mantra.
my objections are the same:
the LT invariance is an emergent property of nature, we arrive at it after we observe the behavior of many phenomenon,
a single law of nature is deducted by observing a single phenomenon and transferred in a math formula
at basis there is a physical phenomenon: the raw fact
now, reverse:
we barely grasp the raw facts,
we write approx laws
we very hazardously extend an invariance to all laws and for all speed,

we, instead, with much less risks, can use a unique preferred frame, and stay safe, at least conceptually.
in this prospective, I concede you, the possibility to use your heuristic procedure, with an advice: take into account my objections.

so we are both happy.
cheers
beda

On Monday, June 7, 2021 at 2:45:43 PM UTC-7, beda-p...@libero.it wrote:
> My objections are the same: The LT invariance is an emergent property...

No, you play a mental shell game on yourself, alternately claiming that special relativity is illogical and claiming that special relativity is empirically false. When I explain to you that your objections to the logic of special relativity are unfounded, you say, well, okay, but it is empirically false, and when I explain to you that your objections to the empirical basis of special relativity are unfounded, you say, well, okay, but it is illogical. And so it goes.

> we, instead, with much less risks, can use a unique preferred frame, and stay safe, at least conceptually.

But "we" (including you) never do, we use whatever inertial coordinate system is most convenient in any situation, and the reason this works is that the very same laws of physics hold good in terms of every one of these systems, but only because special relativity has taught us the exact form of those laws, which your beliefs would never have revealed and can't explain.

What happens going away fast in space is
the same for returning fast in space.
Clock's parts are slow.

Mitchell Raemsch

mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:

> What happens going away fast in space is the same for returning fast in
> space. Clock's parts are slow.

the parts of the clock are not parts of the clock.

Il giorno martedì 8 giugno 2021 alle 02:57:38 UTC+2 Cliff Hallston ha scritto:
> On Monday, June 7, 2021 at 2:45:43 PM UTC-7, beda-p...@libero.it wrote:
> > My objections are the same: The LT invariance is an emergent property....
>
> No, you play a mental shell game on yourself, alternately claiming that special relativity is illogical and claiming that special relativity is empirically false. When I explain to you that your objections to the logic of special relativity are unfounded, you say, well, okay, but it is empirically false, and when I explain to you that your objections to the empirical basis of special relativity are unfounded, you say, well, okay, but it is illogical. And so it goes.
beda
there are always good reasons to a false model to survive through time, there are model completely false that are unfalsifiable, yet they have reason to persist because they give empirical good solution to practical problems.
your SR is a heuristic approach that works perfectly in its math content, that is the reason of its deceitfulness that has got, also, you.
that SR model partially applicable to reality through heuristic formulae (SR doppler and LT) that have been formulated to mask the physical reality upon which they are based, a reality that has, a last, a different and unpredictable, behavior in the far too large extended domain of applicability in which the SR pretends to be valid.

> > we, instead, with much less risks, can use a unique preferred frame, and stay safe, at least conceptually.
> But "we" (including you) never do, we use whatever inertial coordinate system is most convenient in any situation, and the reason this works is that the very same laws of physics hold good in terms of every one of these systems, but only because special relativity has taught us the exact form of those laws, which your beliefs would never have revealed and can't explain.
beda
you should first untangle the SR doppler formula and the LT and make evident the absolute movement behind them, or if the absolute is not of your taste, them analyse just the behavior of a single moving object through its kinetic energy, you will find that, as soon you get rid of your man made and artifacted SR frame, kinetique energy (aka movement) is absolute just as well.

the frames that are meant to help you in your practical work, have became your conceptual measliding trap,
just think of a single object or a single clock or a single object with associated clock, what is their raw behavior when moving or changing movement in space, (out of the your wrongly and misleading conceptual use of frames),
wishing you the best intuition,
cheers
beda

On Tuesday, June 8, 2021 at 5:35:00 AM UTC-7, Iyoley Mutters wrote:
> mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > What happens going away fast in space is the same for returning fast in
> > space. Clock's parts are slow.
> the parts of the clock are not parts of the clock.

That is a losing argument moron...
Fast in space is slow in clock parts.

Mitchell Raemsch

On Wednesday, June 9, 2021 at 5:05:06 AM UTC-7, beda-p...@libero.it wrote:
> [special relativity] works perfectly ... that is the reason of its deceitfulness...

You should carefully consider the absurdity of your statement.

> You should first untangle the SR doppler formula and the LT and make evident
> the absolute movement behind them...

We already explained the utter fallacy of your reasoning. Phenomena can equally well be described in terms of S1, S2, S3, ..., S347, S348, ... and so on, but this does not imply that S124 is the absolute rest frame. You just got excited when you noticed what every school boy has always known, namely, that inertial coordinate systems are all related by Lorentz transformations, and so a witless person can imagine that the frame of his breakfast bagel is the absolute frame. The drawings and algebra of which you are so proud are completely trivial, and so not reveal anything that is not already self-evident.

The problem is that amateurs like you tend to approach science backwards. Rather than starting at the beginning, learning Newtonian physics, etc., and then classical electrodynamics, and then progressing to the point where the ether based "absolute" heuristic fails, and then recognizing the value of the relativistic approach and the meaning of Lorentz invariance, you start by buying a popular account of relativity -- never having learned anything about basic physics, because that's boring -- and you imagine that things would be much more clear if we just did what people had done 300 years ago.... and you think you have discovered something new. That's the problem. You think you are going forward, but you are really going backwards to the old Lorentzian interpretation, and you are blissfully unaware of all the reasons that the old concepts failed.

> As soon you get rid of your man made and artifacted SR frame, kinetique energy (aka movement)
> is absolute just as well.

Nope. Learn some basic physics.

mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Tuesday, June 8, 2021 at 5:35:00 AM UTC-7, Iyoley Mutters wrote:
>> mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> > What happens going away fast in space is the same for returning fast
>> > in space. Clock's parts are slow.
>> the parts of the clock are not parts of the clock.
>
> That is a losing argument moron... Fast in space is slow in clock parts.

different parts different time, you can't have that. Just think and stop
kissing your own ass.