Why?
1. The laws of physics are not the same in different frames. Why? Because the clock second use to define the laws of physics is not a universal interval of time. Also if the laws of physics are the same in all frames then there is no need for the transformation equations.

2. The speed of light cannot be a universal constant. Why? Because the speed of anything (including light) is observer dependent. Also, because the clock second use to define the light speed is not a universal interval of time.

Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote:
> Why?
> 1. The laws of physics are not the same in different frames. Why? Because
> the clock second use to define the laws of physics is not a universal
> interval of time. Also if the laws of physics are the same in all frames
> then there is no need for the transformation equations.
>
> 2. The speed of light cannot be a universal constant. Why? Because the
> speed of anything (including light) is observer dependent. Also, because
> the clock second use to define the light speed is not a universal interval of time.
>

You don’t know what a law of physics is.
You don’t know what a transformation equation does.
You don’t know that quantities do not define laws of physics.
You don’t know basics of physics.

You don’t know what you’re talking about, and it’s obvious.

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

On Thursday, June 10, 2021 at 10:10:44 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Why?
> > 1. The laws of physics are not the same in different frames. Why? Because
> > the clock second use to define the laws of physics is not a universal
> > interval of time. Also if the laws of physics are the same in all frames
> > then there is no need for the transformation equations.
> >
> > 2. The speed of light cannot be a universal constant. Why? Because the
> > speed of anything (including light) is observer dependent. Also, because
> > the clock second use to define the light speed is not a universal interval of time.
> >
> You don’t know what a law of physics is.
> You don’t know what a transformation equation does.
> You don’t know that quantities do not define laws of physics.
> You don’t know basics of physics.

Moron, assertions are not valid argument. Gee you are so stupid.

On Thursday, June 10, 2021 at 9:35:39 AM UTC-4, seto...@gmail.com wrote:

> 1. The laws of physics are not the same in different frames.

This sentence on its own is a contradiction. You obviously do not know what a law of physics means.

Idiot ken, can you state here what is the *definition* of a law of physics?

Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, June 10, 2021 at 10:10:44 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Why?
>>> 1. The laws of physics are not the same in different frames. Why? Because
>>> the clock second use to define the laws of physics is not a universal
>>> interval of time. Also if the laws of physics are the same in all frames
>>> then there is no need for the transformation equations.
>>>
>>> 2. The speed of light cannot be a universal constant. Why? Because the
>>> speed of anything (including light) is observer dependent. Also, because
>>> the clock second use to define the light speed is not a universal interval of time.
>>>
>> You don’t know what a law of physics is.
>> You don’t know what a transformation equation does.
>> You don’t know that quantities do not define laws of physics.
>> You don’t know basics of physics.
>
> Moron, assertions are not valid argument. Gee you are so stupid.
>
>

It seems to be your MO to just say things that seem to make sense to you,
but it’s always up to someone else to present arguments to you that what
you just said is wrong.

And you don’t see the irony in that.

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

rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, June 10, 2021 at 9:35:39 AM UTC-4, seto...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> 1. The laws of physics are not the same in different frames.
>
> This sentence on its own is a contradiction. You obviously do not know
> what a law of physics means.
>
> Idiot ken, can you state here what is the *definition* of a law of physics?
>

He can’t even give you five examples.

He doesn’t know what terms like “law of physics” mean.

He will just say, “Why don’t you tell us what a law of physics is then?”
Sometimes alternated with, “How will I know that you’ve understood what
you’ve read?”

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

On 6/10/2021 10:46 AM, Ken Seto wrote:

> Moron, assertions are not valid argument. Gee you are so stupid.
>
So why did you assert the SR postulates are wrong, without any evidence
of that?

Why did you assert the laws of physics are not the same in different
frames, with no evidence of that?

Why did you assert the speed of light is not be a universal constant,
with no evidence of that?

Why do you tell others assertions are not valid arguments right after
you make assertions as arguments? Are only you allowed to use
assertions as valid arguments? Why?

On Thursday, June 10, 2021 at 6:35:39 AM UTC-7, seto...@gmail.com wrote:
> snip cretinisms<

Ken Shito,

Your pampers are full.

Michael Moroney wrote:

> On 6/10/2021 10:46 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
>
>> Moron, assertions are not valid argument. Gee you are so stupid.
>>
> So why did you assert the SR postulates are wrong, without any evidence
> of that?

No, Gary Harnagel is doing it right now. You are not paying attention, or
you don't understand what a tachyon is, landing same place on moon
surface and no earth, 66 degrees above the horizon, anywhere to see.

On Thursday, June 10, 2021 at 11:01:34 AM UTC-4, rotchm wrote:
> On Thursday, June 10, 2021 at 9:35:39 AM UTC-4, seto...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > 1. The laws of physics are not the same in different frames.
> This sentence on its own is a contradiction. You obviously do not know what a law of physics means.

Moron, there is only local laws of physics. Different location in space (the aether) has different laws of physics. This is true because there is no universal interval of time to define the laws of physics in different frames.
>
> Idiot ken, can you state here what is the *definition* of a law of physics?

On Thursday, June 10, 2021 at 12:10:05 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 6/10/2021 10:46 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
>
> > Moron, assertions are not valid no same laws of physics and constant speed of light in different frames argument. Gee you are so stupid.
> >
> So why did you assert the SR postulates are wrong, without any evidence
> of that?

Because there is no universal interval of clock time (including a clock second) to define the laws of physics or measure to speed of light in different frames. Thus the SR postulates are wrong..
>
> Why did you assert the laws of physics are not the same in different
> frames, with no evidence of that?

Because a universal interval of clock time does not exist in different frames and thus no same laws of physics and no constant light speed in all frames.
>
> Why did you assert the speed of light is not be a universal constant,
> with no evidence of that?

The evidence is that a universal interval of clock time does exist.
>
> Why do you tell others assertions are not valid arguments right after
> you make assertions as arguments? Are only you allowed to use
> assertions as valid arguments? Why?

Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, June 10, 2021 at 11:01:34 AM UTC-4, rotchm wrote:
>> On Thursday, June 10, 2021 at 9:35:39 AM UTC-4, seto...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> 1. The laws of physics are not the same in different frames.
>> This sentence on its own is a contradiction. You obviously do not know
>> what a law of physics means.
>
> Moron, there is only local laws of physics.

Really? At what location specifically does the conservation of momentum
hold? And how is the law different at a location 15 yards to the right of
that place?

> Different location in space (the aether) has different laws of physics.
> This is true because there is no universal interval of time to define the
> laws of physics in different frames.
>>
>> Idiot ken, can you state here what is the *definition* of a law of physics?
>

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

On 6/11/2021 11:31 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
> On Thursday, June 10, 2021 at 12:10:05 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> On 6/10/2021 10:46 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>
>>> Moron, assertions are not valid no same laws of physics and constant speed of light in different frames argument. Gee you are so stupid.
>>>
>> So why did you assert the SR postulates are wrong, without any evidence
>> of that?
>
> Because there is no universal interval of clock time (including a clock second) to define the laws of physics or measure to speed of light in different frames. Thus the SR postulates are wrong..

No, that is your assertion. I asked for evidence.
>>
>> Why did you assert the laws of physics are not the same in different
>> frames, with no evidence of that?
>
> Because a universal interval of clock time does not exist in different frames and thus no same laws of physics and no constant light speed in all frames.

No, that is again an assertion. I asked for evidence, such as in
Inertial Frame A gravitational force is inversely proportional to the
square of the distance, but in Inertial Frame B gravitational force is
inversely proportional to the cube of the distance. Something like that.
>>
>> Why did you assert the speed of light is not be a universal constant,
>> with no evidence of that?
>
> The evidence is that a universal interval of clock time does exist.

Again assertion. I asked for evidence, such as in Inertial Frame A the
speed of light was measured as 299,792,458 m/s but in Inertial Frame B
the speed of light was measured as 333,333,333 m/s. Give citations.
>>
>> Why do you tell others assertions are not valid arguments right after
>> you make assertions as arguments? Are only you allowed to use
>> assertions as valid arguments? Why?

No answer?

Ken Seto wrote:

> On Thursday, June 10, 2021 at 12:10:05 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> On 6/10/2021 10:46 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>
>> > Moron, assertions are not valid no same laws of physics and constant
>> > speed of light in different frames argument. Gee you are so stupid.
>> >
>> So why did you assert the SR postulates are wrong, without any evidence
>> of that?
>
> Because there is no universal interval of clock time (including a clock
> second) to define the laws of physics or measure to speed of light in
> different frames. Thus the SR postulates are wrong..

A theory of unification of everything is incomplete without the faster
than light tachyon, and no causality violation. Can your aether support
faster than light speed tachyon, no. Good bye.

On Friday, June 11, 2021 at 11:46:36 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Thursday, June 10, 2021 at 11:01:34 AM UTC-4, rotchm wrote:
> >> On Thursday, June 10, 2021 at 9:35:39 AM UTC-4, seto...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>
> >>> 1. The laws of physics are not the same in different frames.
> >> This sentence on its own is a contradiction. You obviously do not know
> >> what a law of physics means.
> >
> > Moron, there is only local laws of physics.
> Really? At what location specifically does the conservation of momentum
> hold? And how is the law different at a location 15 yards to the right of
> that place?

In your location, Why? because.you specified that momentum is conserved. But is your law of conservation momentum the same as my law of conservation of momentum? The answer is no. Why? Because your clock second to determine momentum is different than my clock second.

> > Different location in space (the aether) has different laws of physics.
> > This is true because there is no universal interval of time to define the
> > laws of physics in different frames.
> >>
> >> Idiot ken, can you state here what is the *definition* of a law of physics?
> >
> --
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Friday, June 11, 2021 at 11:46:36 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Thursday, June 10, 2021 at 11:01:34 AM UTC-4, rotchm wrote:
>>>> On Thursday, June 10, 2021 at 9:35:39 AM UTC-4, seto...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> 1. The laws of physics are not the same in different frames.
>>>> This sentence on its own is a contradiction. You obviously do not know
>>>> what a law of physics means.
>>>
>>> Moron, there is only local laws of physics.
>> Really? At what location specifically does the conservation of momentum
>> hold? And how is the law different at a location 15 yards to the right of
>> that place?
>
> In your location, Why? because.you specified that momentum is conserved.
> But is your law of conservation momentum the same as my law of conservation of momentum?

It should be. That’s what it means to be a law. Same for you as it is for
me. Don’t know what “law of physics” means?

> The answer is no. Why? Because your clock second to determine momentum is
> different than my clock second.
>
>>> Different location in space (the aether) has different laws of physics.
>>> This is true because there is no universal interval of time to define the
>>> laws of physics in different frames.
>>>>
>>>> Idiot ken, can you state here what is the *definition* of a law of physics?
>>>
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>

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

On 12-Jun-21 8:57 am, Ken Seto wrote:
> On Friday, June 11, 2021 at 11:46:36 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Thursday, June 10, 2021 at 11:01:34 AM UTC-4, rotchm wrote:
>>>> On Thursday, June 10, 2021 at 9:35:39 AM UTC-4, seto...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> 1. The laws of physics are not the same in different frames.
>>>> This sentence on its own is a contradiction. You obviously do not know
>>>> what a law of physics means.
>>>
>>> Moron, there is only local laws of physics.
>> Really? At what location specifically does the conservation of momentum
>> hold? And how is the law different at a location 15 yards to the right of
>> that place?
>
> In your location, Why? because.you specified that momentum is conserved. But is your law of conservation momentum the same as my law of conservation of momentum? The answer is no. Why? Because your clock second to determine momentum is different than my clock second.
>
>>> Different location in space (the aether) has different laws of physics.
>>> This is true because there is no universal interval of time to define the
>>> laws of physics in different frames.
>>>>
>>>> Idiot ken, can you state here what is the *definition* of a law of physics?
>>>
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

You persist in thinking that the laws of physics are some kind of
abstraction, unconnected to the real world. They are not.

The laws of physics allow me to determine what my clock will show, how
far down my metre rule something will be positioned, and so on. It is in
this sense that we say that they are the same in all frames, because as
far as we can tell, they are. And that is what the corresponding SR
postulate means.

Sylvia.

On Friday, June 11, 2021 at 3:57:18 PM UTC-7, seto...@gmail.com wrote:
> But is your law of conservation momentum the same as my law of conservation of momentum? >The answer is no. Why? Because your clock second to determine momentum is different than my >clock second.
You have been repeating this idiocy for many years, Shito.

On Thursday, June 10, 2021 at 6:35:39 AM UTC-7, seto...@gmail.com wrote:
> Why?
> 1. The laws of physics are not the same in different frames. Why? Because the clock second use to define the laws of physics is not a universal interval of time. Also if the laws of physics are the same in all frames then there is no need for the transformation equations.
>
> 2. The speed of light cannot be a universal constant. Why? Because the speed of anything (including light) is observer dependent. Also, because the clock second use to define the light speed is not a universal interval of time.

Complete nonsense. No content.

--
Jan

On Friday, 11 June 2021 at 21:13:32 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:

> Again assertion. I asked for evidence, such as in Inertial Frame A the
> speed of light was measured as 299,792,458 m/s but in Inertial Frame B
> the speed of light was measured as 333,333,333 m/s. Give citations.

See, stupid Mike: anyone can check GPS, the Cs radiation period
is 1/9 192 631 770 on Earth, but 1/9 192 631 774 on a satellite.
Good bye, the Holiest Postulate. Good bye, The Shit.

On Friday, June 11, 2021 at 11:05:25 PM UTC-4, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 12-Jun-21 8:57 am, Ken Seto wrote:
> > On Friday, June 11, 2021 at 11:46:36 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, June 10, 2021 at 11:01:34 AM UTC-4, rotchm wrote:
> >>>> On Thursday, June 10, 2021 at 9:35:39 AM UTC-4, seto...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> 1. The laws of physics are not the same in different frames.
> >>>> This sentence on its own is a contradiction. You obviously do not know
> >>>> what a law of physics means.
> >>>
> >>> Moron, there is only local laws of physics.
> >> Really? At what location specifically does the conservation of momentum
> >> hold? And how is the law different at a location 15 yards to the right of
> >> that place?
> >
> > In your location, Why? because.you specified that momentum is conserved.. But is your law of conservation momentum the same as my law of conservation of momentum? The answer is no. Why? Because your clock second to determine momentum is different than my clock second.
> >
> >>> Different location in space (the aether) has different laws of physics.
> >>> This is true because there is no universal interval of time to define the
> >>> laws of physics in different frames.
> >>>>
> >>>> Idiot ken, can you state here what is the *definition* of a law of physics?
> >>>
> >> --
> >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> You persist in thinking that the laws of physics are some kind of
> abstraction, unconnected to the real world. They are not.
>
No, I am thinking that the laws of physics are locally defined and they are not universal as implied by physicists. IOW your laws of physics are not the same as my laws of physics....for the simple reason that your clock second is not the same as my clock second..
> The laws of physics allow me to determine what my clock will show, how
> far down my metre rule something will be positioned, and so on.
>It is in
> this sense that we say that they are the same in all frames, because as
> far as we can tell, they are. And that is what the corresponding SR
> postulate means.

Yes, allow you to do so locally. But that doesn’t mean that that’s what I determine what your clock will show according to my laws of physic.

Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Friday, June 11, 2021 at 11:05:25 PM UTC-4, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> On 12-Jun-21 8:57 am, Ken Seto wrote:
>>> On Friday, June 11, 2021 at 11:46:36 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Thursday, June 10, 2021 at 11:01:34 AM UTC-4, rotchm wrote:
>>>>>> On Thursday, June 10, 2021 at 9:35:39 AM UTC-4, seto...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1. The laws of physics are not the same in different frames.
>>>>>> This sentence on its own is a contradiction. You obviously do not know
>>>>>> what a law of physics means.
>>>>>
>>>>> Moron, there is only local laws of physics.
>>>> Really? At what location specifically does the conservation of momentum
>>>> hold? And how is the law different at a location 15 yards to the right of
>>>> that place?
>>>
>>> In your location, Why? because.you specified that momentum is
>>> conserved. But is your law of conservation momentum the same as my law
>>> of conservation of momentum? The answer is no. Why? Because your clock
>>> second to determine momentum is different than my clock second.
>>>
>>>>> Different location in space (the aether) has different laws of physics.
>>>>> This is true because there is no universal interval of time to define the
>>>>> laws of physics in different frames.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Idiot ken, can you state here what is the *definition* of a law of physics?
>>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>> You persist in thinking that the laws of physics are some kind of
>> abstraction, unconnected to the real world. They are not.
>>
> No, I am thinking that the laws of physics are locally defined and they
> are not universal as implied by physicists.

Well if they weren’t universal why would they be called laws?

The highway speed limit is a law. Do you think it’s a different law for me
than for you?

> IOW your laws of physics are not the same as my laws of physics....for
> the simple reason that your clock second is not the same as my clock second..
>
>> The laws of physics allow me to determine what my clock will show, how
>> far down my metre rule something will be positioned, and so on.
>> It is in
>> this sense that we say that they are the same in all frames, because as
>> far as we can tell, they are. And that is what the corresponding SR
>> postulate means.
>
> Yes, allow you to do so locally. But that doesn’t mean that that’s what I
> determine what your clock will show according to my laws of physic.
>

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

On Saturday, June 12, 2021 at 9:47:29 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Friday, June 11, 2021 at 11:05:25 PM UTC-4, Sylvia Else wrote:
> >> On 12-Jun-21 8:57 am, Ken Seto wrote:
> >>> On Friday, June 11, 2021 at 11:46:36 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> On Thursday, June 10, 2021 at 11:01:34 AM UTC-4, rotchm wrote:
> >>>>>> On Thursday, June 10, 2021 at 9:35:39 AM UTC-4, seto...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> 1. The laws of physics are not the same in different frames.
> >>>>>> This sentence on its own is a contradiction. You obviously do not know
> >>>>>> what a law of physics means.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Moron, there is only local laws of physics.
> >>>> Really? At what location specifically does the conservation of momentum
> >>>> hold? And how is the law different at a location 15 yards to the right of
> >>>> that place?
> >>>
> >>> In your location, Why? because.you specified that momentum is
> >>> conserved. But is your law of conservation momentum the same as my law
> >>> of conservation of momentum? The answer is no. Why? Because your clock
> >>> second to determine momentum is different than my clock second.
> >>>
> >>>>> Different location in space (the aether) has different laws of physics.
> >>>>> This is true because there is no universal interval of time to define the
> >>>>> laws of physics in different frames.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Idiot ken, can you state here what is the *definition* of a law of physics?
> >>>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >> You persist in thinking that the laws of physics are some kind of
> >> abstraction, unconnected to the real world. They are not.
> >>
> > No, I am thinking that the laws of physics are locally defined and they
> > are not universal as implied by physicists.
> Well if they weren’t universal why would they be called laws?

They are local laws. Like different states have different speed limits.
>
> The highway speed limit is a law. Do you think it’s a different law for me
> than for you?
> > IOW your laws of physics are not the same as my laws of physics....for
> > the simple reason that your clock second is not the same as my clock second..
> >
> >> The laws of physics allow me to determine what my clock will show, how
> >> far down my metre rule something will be positioned, and so on.
> >> It is in
> >> this sense that we say that they are the same in all frames, because as
> >> far as we can tell, they are. And that is what the corresponding SR
> >> postulate means.
> >
> > Yes, allow you to do so locally. But that doesn’t mean that that’s what I
> > determine what your clock will show according to my laws of physic.
> >
> --
> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, June 12, 2021 at 9:47:29 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Friday, June 11, 2021 at 11:05:25 PM UTC-4, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>> On 12-Jun-21 8:57 am, Ken Seto wrote:
>>>>> On Friday, June 11, 2021 at 11:46:36 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thursday, June 10, 2021 at 11:01:34 AM UTC-4, rotchm wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Thursday, June 10, 2021 at 9:35:39 AM UTC-4, seto...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 1. The laws of physics are not the same in different frames.
>>>>>>>> This sentence on its own is a contradiction. You obviously do not know
>>>>>>>> what a law of physics means.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Moron, there is only local laws of physics.
>>>>>> Really? At what location specifically does the conservation of momentum
>>>>>> hold? And how is the law different at a location 15 yards to the right of
>>>>>> that place?
>>>>>
>>>>> In your location, Why? because.you specified that momentum is
>>>>> conserved. But is your law of conservation momentum the same as my law
>>>>> of conservation of momentum? The answer is no. Why? Because your clock
>>>>> second to determine momentum is different than my clock second.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Different location in space (the aether) has different laws of physics.
>>>>>>> This is true because there is no universal interval of time to define the
>>>>>>> laws of physics in different frames.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Idiot ken, can you state here what is the *definition* of a law of physics?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>>> You persist in thinking that the laws of physics are some kind of
>>>> abstraction, unconnected to the real world. They are not.
>>>>
>>> No, I am thinking that the laws of physics are locally defined and they
>>> are not universal as implied by physicists.
>> Well if they weren’t universal why would they be called laws?
>
> They are local laws. Like different states have different speed limits.

Ah, so the laws of physics change at state lines? How far do you have to go
before the law of conservation of momentum changes?

>>
>> The highway speed limit is a law. Do you think it’s a different law for me
>> than for you?
>>> IOW your laws of physics are not the same as my laws of physics....for
>>> the simple reason that your clock second is not the same as my clock second..
>>>
>>>> The laws of physics allow me to determine what my clock will show, how
>>>> far down my metre rule something will be positioned, and so on.
>>>> It is in
>>>> this sense that we say that they are the same in all frames, because as
>>>> far as we can tell, they are. And that is what the corresponding SR
>>>> postulate means.
>>>
>>> Yes, allow you to do so locally. But that doesn’t mean that that’s what I
>>> determine what your clock will show according to my laws of physic.
>>>
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>

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

On 6/12/2021 9:43 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
> On Friday, June 11, 2021 at 11:05:25 PM UTC-4, Sylvia Else wrote:

>> The laws of physics allow me to determine what my clock will show, how
>> far down my metre rule something will be positioned, and so on.
>> It is in
>> this sense that we say that they are the same in all frames, because as
>> far as we can tell, they are. And that is what the corresponding SR
>> postulate means.
>
> Yes, allow you to do so locally. But that doesn’t mean that that’s what I determine what your clock will show according to my laws of physic.
>

Oh really, Stupid Ken? Which states don't have a law of conservation of
momentum? Which states don't have an Inverse Square Law of Gravity?