light and objects travel in local space, their speed is determined by the intensity of the thrust that make them move and by the local inertia that antagonize the movement.

the local inertia is determined by the gravitational effect of all the masses, near and far, of the entire universe

the intensity of the thrust applied to an object, against the inertia, determine the final inertial speed of the object.

the characteristics of local space, the energy of the thrust, the final inertial speed the object acquires are absolute

cheers
beda

On Sunday, June 13, 2021 at 2:12:33 PM UTC-7, beda-p...@libero.it wrote:
> Simply two identical light [sic] clocks at different speed, visually observed,
> transversely from far away, the faster clock [in terms of CMBR frame] will look redder

No it will *not*. What is wrong with your brain? Again, for receiver and one transmitter co-moving in terms of the CMBR frame, and another transmitter at rest in the CMBR frame (in transverse configuration), the signal from the transmitter at rest in the CMBR frame is received redder than the signal from the transmitter that is moving in the CMBR frame. Do you deny this?

Il giorno domenica 13 giugno 2021 alle 23:44:13 UTC+2 Cliff Hallston ha scritto:
> On Sunday, June 13, 2021 at 2:12:33 PM UTC-7, beda-p...@libero.it wrote:
> > Simply two identical light [sic] clocks at different speed, visually observed,
> > transversely from far away, the faster clock [in terms of CMBR frame] will look redder
>
> No it will *not*. What is wrong with your brain? Again, for receiver and one transmitter co-moving in terms of the CMBR frame, and another transmitter at rest in the CMBR frame (in transverse configuration), the signal from the transmitter at rest in the CMBR frame is received redder than the signal from the transmitter that is moving in the CMBR frame. Do you deny this?
beda
obviously you are cheating if you are aware of what you say,
or you are not knowing what you mean
here we are not talking about the doppler between a tranmitter and a receiver
but we are talking about two light sources that move at different inertial speeds
(versus the CMBR if you want): they emit in space different frequencies
the faster emits the redder or lower frequency

after the emission, all the possible and accidental aberration and doppler effects, don't change the simple raw fact
that a source reduces its frequency accordingly to its absolute speed

and any observer, at net of the aberration and doppler effects, just looking at them, is able to tell the difference:
the faster source is always the redder

cheers
beda

beda pietanza <beda-pietanza@libero.it> wrote:
> light and objects travel in local space, their speed is determined by the
> intensity of the thrust that make them move and by the local inertia that
> antagonize the movement.

So there’s a rocket out in space and it fires its engines. Tell me if this
rocket is now speeding up or slowing down, and how you could possibly sort
out which.

>
> the local inertia is determined by the gravitational effect of all the
> masses, near and far, of the entire universe
>
> the intensity of the thrust applied to an object, against the inertia,
> determine the final inertial speed of the object.
>
> the characteristics of local space, the energy of the thrust, the final
> inertial speed the object acquires are absolute
>
> cheers
> beda
>

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

On Sun, 13 Jun 2021 14:26:39 -0700 (PDT), beda pietanza
<beda-pietanza@libero.it> wrote:

>light and objects travel in local space, their speed is determined by the intensity of the thrust that make them move and by the local inertia that antagonize the movement.
>
So you are out there with your umbrella collecting objects,
feeling "thrust" in your hand.

What's wrong with you, not seeing the relativity in this.

w.

On Monday, 14 June 2021 at 16:02:54 UTC+2, Helmut Wabnig wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Jun 2021 14:26:39 -0700 (PDT), beda pietanza
> <beda-p...@libero.it> wrote:
>
> >light and objects travel in local space, their speed is determined by the intensity of the thrust that make them move and by the local inertia that antagonize the movement.
> >
> So you are out there with your umbrella collecting objects,
> feeling "thrust" in your hand.
>
> What's wrong with you, not seeing the relativity in this.

After all, we're FORCED to see The Shit everywhere!!!
This is THE BEST WAY to see The Shit everywhere!!!
That's what Wise Gurus, like poor idiot Tom, say.

Il giorno lunedì 14 giugno 2021 alle 13:01:31 UTC+2 bodk...@gmail.com ha scritto:
> beda pietanza <beda-p...@libero.it> wrote:
> > light and objects travel in local space, their speed is determined by the
> > intensity of the thrust that make them move and by the local inertia that
> > antagonize the movement.
> So there’s a rocket out in space and it fires its engines. Tell me if this
> rocket is now speeding up or slowing down, and how you could possibly sort
> out which.
beda
a)all what happens to anything in this universe it is shaped and determined by this universe
so you have the universe as a background of all possible absolute movements..
b)from far away, looking transversely, a photocamera with a given exposure
time, the traces the rocket leaves before and after the thrust will tell (two exposure or a cinecamera)
c)standing inertially along the direction of the movement of the rocket, looking at it, before and after the
thrust, the difference in speed is deducible by the change of the apparent visual length of the rocket, due
to the different transit time the light takes to traverse the rocket(by stereoscopic vision), or with a stereoscopic camera
there are illimitate other ways, the absolute shows up anyways, if you ""know"" it is there you find the way to see it.
just as you conviction that all is relative, you see all as relative.
the truth is that the relative is always between absolutes
cheers
beda

> >
> > the local inertia is determined by the gravitational effect of all the
> > masses, near and far, of the entire universe
> >
> > the intensity of the thrust applied to an object, against the inertia,
> > determine the final inertial speed of the object.
> >
> > the characteristics of local space, the energy of the thrust, the final
> > inertial speed the object acquires are absolute
> >
> > cheers
> > beda
> >
> --
> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Il giorno lunedì 14 giugno 2021 alle 16:02:54 UTC+2 Helmut Wabnig ha scritto:
> On Sun, 13 Jun 2021 14:26:39 -0700 (PDT), beda pietanza
> <beda-p...@libero.it> wrote:
>
> >light and objects travel in local space, their speed is determined by the intensity of the thrust that make them move and by the local inertia that antagonize the movement.
> >
> So you are out there with your umbrella collecting objects,
> feeling "thrust" in your hand.
>
> What's wrong with you, not seeing the relativity in this.
>
> w.
beda
you are very smart, so I am sure you will also see that your absolute moving umbrella
is collecting objects moving at their absolute speeds, and the quantity of objects
collected and the single thrust you feel in your hand depends on the absolute difference
between the absolute speed of the umbrella and the absolute speed of the single object
if the umbrella and the objects are at close absolute speed you collect less and feel less thrust
if the umbrella and the object differ a lot in absolute speed you collect many object and feel a stronger thrust.

relative is the difference in absolutness,
all objects in this universe are absolute versus the universe itself
cheers
beda

On Monday, June 14, 2021 at 2:53:47 AM UTC-7, beda-p...@libero.it wrote:
> > > > > Again, for receiver and transmitter co-moving in terms of the CMBR frame, and another transmitter at rest in the CMBR frame (in transverse configuration), the signal from the transmitter at rest in the CMBR frame is received redder than the signal from the transmitter that is moving in the CMBR frame. Do you deny this?
> > > >
> > > > [snip delusional gibberish]
> > >
> > > Again, you claimed that the photograph taken by the receiver (moving in the CMBR frame) would show the image from the transmitter (also moving in the CMBR frame) redder than the image from the transmitter that is at rest in the CMBR frame, in a transverse scenario, but you've now been informed that just the opposite is true in the described scenario. The received frequency depends only on the relative speed and angle between the transmitter and receiver, not on their speeds relative to the CMBR frame. Do you deny this?
> > >
> > > Prediction: You will never answer this question.
> >
> sorry, I missed the photocamera,
> the camera will act exactly as the visual appearance to the observer,
> transversely from far away, the image of the two sources will be stamped
> in the photo, as two trances one longer and redder and one shorter and bluer,
> respectively associated to the faster and to the slower light source

No, that's just repeating your original claim, which you've been informed is false. You should not repeat false statements, knowing that they are false. This is intentional lying. Again, in the situation that you described, the redder image in the photograph will be from the transmitter that is stationary in the CMBR frame, and the bluer image will be from the transmitter that is moving in the CMBR frame. This is because the receiver is moving in tandem with the latter, and the received frequency depends only on the relative velocity between transmitter and receiver, not on their speeds in terms of the CMBR frame. Do you deny this?

Prediction: You will never answer this question.

beda pietanza <beda-pietanza@libero.it> wrote:
> Il giorno lunedì 14 giugno 2021 alle 13:01:31 UTC+2 bodk...@gmail.com ha scritto:
>> beda pietanza <beda-p...@libero.it> wrote:
>>> light and objects travel in local space, their speed is determined by the
>>> intensity of the thrust that make them move and by the local inertia that
>>> antagonize the movement.
>> So there’s a rocket out in space and it fires its engines. Tell me if this
>> rocket is now speeding up or slowing down, and how you could possibly sort
>> out which.
> beda
> a)all what happens to anything in this universe it is shaped and
> determined by this universe
> so you have the universe as a background of
> all possible absolute movements.

So you are saying that this “backdrop universe” is a way of telling whether
this rocket before the engines fire is moving, and after the rockets fire
whether it is moving faster or slower.

> b)from far away, looking transversely, a photocamera with a given exposure
> time, the traces the rocket leaves before and after the thrust will tell
> (two exposure or a cinecamera)

And you are saying the same thing again here. This “backdrop universe” is a
way of telling whether this rocket is moving before the engines fire, and
whether the rocket is moving faster or slower after the rockets fire. The
only difference now is that you are saying this can be sensed if you put
your camera far enough away. I would quibble with that. You of course have
to arrange that the camera is NOT MOVING relative to the “backdrop
universe”. I have no idea how you intend to be sure of that.

> c)standing inertially along the direction of the movement of the rocket,
> looking at it, before and after the
> thrust, the difference in speed is deducible by the change of the
> apparent visual length of the rocket, due
> to the different transit time the light takes to traverse the rocket(by
> stereoscopic vision), or with a stereoscopic camera
> there are illimitate other ways, the absolute shows up anyways, if you
> ""know"" it is there you find the way to see it.
> just as you conviction that all is relative, you see all as relative.
> the truth is that the relative is always between absolutes
> cheers
> beda
>
>>>
>>> the local inertia is determined by the gravitational effect of all the
>>> masses, near and far, of the entire universe
>>>
>>> the intensity of the thrust applied to an object, against the inertia,
>>> determine the final inertial speed of the object.
>>>
>>> the characteristics of local space, the energy of the thrust, the final
>>> inertial speed the object acquires are absolute
>>>
>>> cheers
>>> beda
>>>
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>

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

On Monday, June 14, 2021 at 9:53:01 AM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> You of course have to arrange that the camera is NOT MOVING relative to
> the “backdrop universe”.

In one of his parallel threads he has insisted that the motion of the receiver/camera does not matter, asserting unequivocally that the redder image in the photograph will be from the transmitter that is moving in terms of the CMBR frame, and the bluer image will be from the transmitter that is stationary, even if the receiver/camera is moving in tandem with the "moving" transmitter. Needless to say, his assertion is false, but he can't admit this, because it means the ratio of transmitted to received frequencies depends only on the relative velocity between transmitter and receiver (i.e.,rate of change of optical path length), not on their speeds relative to the CMBR frame. Eventually he will refine his argument, converging on the Lake Fallacy, which relies on neglect of aberration on the condition of transverseness, but he hasn't gotten that far yet.

Il giorno lunedì 14 giugno 2021 alle 18:53:01 UTC+2 bodk...@gmail.com ha scritto:
> beda pietanza <beda-p...@libero.it> wrote:
> > Il giorno lunedì 14 giugno 2021 alle 13:01:31 UTC+2 bodk...@gmail.com ha scritto:
> >> beda pietanza <beda-p...@libero.it> wrote:
> >>> light and objects travel in local space, their speed is determined by the
> >>> intensity of the thrust that make them move and by the local inertia that
> >>> antagonize the movement.
> >> So there’s a rocket out in space and it fires its engines. Tell me if this
> >> rocket is now speeding up or slowing down, and how you could possibly sort
> >> out which.
> > beda
> > a)all what happens to anything in this universe it is shaped and
> > determined by this universe
> > so you have the universe as a background of
> > all possible absolute movements.
> So you are saying that this “backdrop universe” is a way of telling whether
> this rocket before the engines fire is moving, and after the rockets fire
> whether it is moving faster or slower.
beda
the universe as a background is the perfect scene against which an object move,
and if the objects are two you can easily tell which is moving faster,
you odd, are so logically crippled by your relativistic bias to miss such a trivial fact
> > b)from far away, looking transversely, a photocamera with a given exposure
> > time, the traces the rocket leaves before and after the thrust will tell
> > (two exposure or a cinecamera)
> And you are saying the same thing again here. This “backdrop universe” is a
> way of telling whether this rocket is moving before the engines fire, and
> whether the rocket is moving faster or slower after the rockets fire. The
> only difference now is that you are saying this can be sensed if you put
> your camera far enough away. I would quibble with that. You of course have
> to arrange that the camera is NOT MOVING relative to the “backdrop
> universe”. I have no idea how you intend to be sure of that.
beda
not need of that, the inertial absolute movement, of the eyes or of the camera, have not any effects
on the difference perceived of the different movement of the far away rocket, before and after the thrust
hard to explain the visual appearance of moving objects, it takes
a clear view of the absolutness of the speed of light and of the
absolutness of the speed of objects, and the static uniform background furnished by
the very far away stars
continue below:
> > c)standing inertially along the direction of the movement of the rocket,
> > looking at it, before and after the
> > thrust, the difference in speed is deducible by the change of the
> > apparent visual length of the rocket, due
> > to the different transit time the light takes to traverse the rocket(by
> > stereoscopic vision), or with a stereoscopic camera
> > there are illimitate other ways, the absolute shows up anyways, if you
> > ""know"" it is there you find the way to see it.
> > just as you conviction that all is relative, you see all as relative.
> > the truth is that the relative is always between absolutes
beda
you missed to replay to this part, which is the more difficult to grasp,
but it is the most instructive part: observing, visually, a moving object,
while you or a stereoscopic camera, are positioned along its line of movement,
the light starting from the far end of the object, traversing the object and
arriving to you, carries with it the stereoscopic information of the transit time
that the light took to traverse the object, hence this information tells you the visual
lenght of the object, the duration of light traversing it, and if this information changes
you can easily tell: the transit time is Lo*sqrt(1.v^2)/(1(+-)v), you will perceive stereocopically
the difference of the lenght apperance of the object/rocket, before and after the thrust
you must spend a little of you time on this.
cheers
beda

> > cheers
> > beda
> >
> >>>
> >>> the local inertia is determined by the gravitational effect of all the
> >>> masses, near and far, of the entire universe
> >>>
> >>> the intensity of the thrust applied to an object, against the inertia,
> >>> determine the final inertial speed of the object.
> >>>
> >>> the characteristics of local space, the energy of the thrust, the final
> >>> inertial speed the object acquires are absolute
> >>>
> >>> cheers
> >>> beda
> >>>
> >> --
> >> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >
> --
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

beda pietanza wrote:

> light and objects travel in local space, their speed is determined by
> the intensity of the thrust that make them move and by the local inertia
> that antagonize the movement.

there is no such thing as *local_space*. Local regards rather a point. In
this aspect nothing is really *local*, but *remote* closest to *local*.
Ie, assume your eye is local, hence a cat 10 cm near your nose must be
*remote* already.

beda pietanza <beda-pietanza@libero.it> wrote:
> Il giorno lunedì 14 giugno 2021 alle 18:53:01 UTC+2 bodk...@gmail.com ha scritto:
>> beda pietanza <beda-p...@libero.it> wrote:
>>> Il giorno lunedì 14 giugno 2021 alle 13:01:31 UTC+2 bodk...@gmail.com ha scritto:
>>>> beda pietanza <beda-p...@libero.it> wrote:
>>>>> light and objects travel in local space, their speed is determined by the
>>>>> intensity of the thrust that make them move and by the local inertia that
>>>>> antagonize the movement.
>>>> So there’s a rocket out in space and it fires its engines. Tell me if this
>>>> rocket is now speeding up or slowing down, and how you could possibly sort
>>>> out which.
>>> beda
>>> a)all what happens to anything in this universe it is shaped and
>>> determined by this universe
>>> so you have the universe as a background of
>>> all possible absolute movements.
>> So you are saying that this “backdrop universe” is a way of telling whether
>> this rocket before the engines fire is moving, and after the rockets fire
>> whether it is moving faster or slower.
> beda
> the universe as a background is the perfect scene against which an object move,
> and if the objects are two you can easily tell which is moving faster,
> you odd, are so logically crippled by your relativistic bias to miss such a trivial fact
>>> b)from far away, looking transversely, a photocamera with a given exposure
>>> time, the traces the rocket leaves before and after the thrust will tell
>>> (two exposure or a cinecamera)
>> And you are saying the same thing again here. This “backdrop universe” is a
>> way of telling whether this rocket is moving before the engines fire, and
>> whether the rocket is moving faster or slower after the rockets fire. The
>> only difference now is that you are saying this can be sensed if you put
>> your camera far enough away. I would quibble with that. You of course have
>> to arrange that the camera is NOT MOVING relative to the “backdrop
>> universe”. I have no idea how you intend to be sure of that.
> beda
> not need of that, the inertial absolute movement, of the eyes or of the
> camera, have not any effects
> on the difference perceived of the different movement of the far away
> rocket, before and after the thrust
> hard to explain the visual appearance of moving objects, it takes
> a clear view of the absolutness of the speed of light and of the
> absolutness of the speed of objects, and the static uniform background furnished by
> the very far away stars
> continue below:
>>> c)standing inertially along the direction of the movement of the rocket,
>>> looking at it, before and after the
>>> thrust, the difference in speed is deducible by the change of the
>>> apparent visual length of the rocket, due
>>> to the different transit time the light takes to traverse the rocket(by
>>> stereoscopic vision), or with a stereoscopic camera
>>> there are illimitate other ways, the absolute shows up anyways, if you
>>> ""know"" it is there you find the way to see it.
>>> just as you conviction that all is relative, you see all as relative.
>>> the truth is that the relative is always between absolutes
> beda
> you missed to replay to this part, which is the more difficult to grasp,
> but it is the most instructive part: observing, visually, a moving object,
> while you or a stereoscopic camera, are positioned along its line of movement,
> the light starting from the far end of the object, traversing the object and
> arriving to you, carries with it the stereoscopic information of the transit time
> that the light took to traverse the object, hence this information tells you the visual
> lenght of the object, the duration of light traversing it, and if this information changes
> you can easily tell: the transit time is Lo*sqrt(1.v^2)/(1(+-)v), you
> will perceive stereocopically
> the difference of the lenght apperance of the object/rocket, before and after the thrust
> you must spend a little of you time on this.

I think you are a little nuts to believe this is true. A simple example
from common experience will show this. Let’s suppose you have a camera in a
car, pointed out the side window, and the car is traveling at a speed of
120 kph on a slightly curved road, but you don’t know that. There are mesas
and mountains that are 50 miles away, and from your camera the mountains do
not appear to move because your camera is always pointed at the same
distant point. There is also a train on a bridge 25 miles away, with
engines on both ends. It happens to be traveling at 60 kph, but you don’t
know that. Through your camera, the train appears stationary against the
backdrop of the mountains. Since you have no sense of how fast you are
going (you only have a local relative speed compared to the road), you also
have no idea how fast the train is moving, only that it appears to be NOT
moving at all, against that distant backdrop.

Now the train does something to change its speed. From your car’s camera,
the train is now moving against the backdrop of the mountains. Has it sped
up? Or has it slowed down? You don’t know from the information given or
available to you which it is.

> cheers
> beda
>
>>> cheers
>>> beda
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> the local inertia is determined by the gravitational effect of all the
>>>>> masses, near and far, of the entire universe
>>>>>
>>>>> the intensity of the thrust applied to an object, against the inertia,
>>>>> determine the final inertial speed of the object.
>>>>>
>>>>> the characteristics of local space, the energy of the thrust, the final
>>>>> inertial speed the object acquires are absolute
>>>>>
>>>>> cheers
>>>>> beda
>>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>>
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>

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

Il giorno lunedì 14 giugno 2021 alle 19:29:49 UTC+2 Cliff Hallston ha scritto:
> On Monday, June 14, 2021 at 9:53:01 AM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> > You of course have to arrange that the camera is NOT MOVING relative to
> > the “backdrop universe”.
> In one of his parallel threads he has insisted that the motion of the receiver/camera does not matter, asserting unequivocally that the redder image in the photograph will be from the transmitter that is moving in terms of the CMBR frame, and the bluer image will be from the transmitter that is stationary, even if the receiver/camera is moving in tandem with the "moving" transmitter. Needless to say, his assertion is false, but he can't admit this, because it means the ratio of transmitted to received frequencies depends only on the relative velocity between transmitter and receiver (i.e.,rate of change of optical path length), not on their speeds relative to the CMBR frame. Eventually he will refine his argument, converging on the Lake Fallacy, which relies on neglect of aberration on the condition of transverseness, but he hasn't gotten that far yet.
beda
you two, cliff and odd, just cannot grasp that being all movement absolute, (light, object, and universal background)
in case of two inertial moving objects, or in case of a single object changing its absolute speed,
those visually observed or photographed from far away they are immediately perceived in their absolute state of motion, the inertial movement of the observer or of the camera don't make any difference (in the difference perceived of the different absolute speeds of the observed objects)

again the aberration and the doppler have not effect on the differences perceived
being the two objects observed far away and positioned transversely in a restricted field of view, this minimize the difference in the small doppler longitudinal effect on the two sources.
to understand this, you must abandon your frames, they are of not help, if not an handicap,
these are one shot picture of the incoming light carrying all the information needed,
here the SR trickery don't help, just make you blind!!!

cheers
beda

Il giorno lunedì 14 giugno 2021 alle 22:57:54 UTC+2 bodk...@gmail.com ha scritto:
> beda pietanza <beda-p...@libero.it> wrote:
> > Il giorno lunedì 14 giugno 2021 alle 18:53:01 UTC+2 bodk...@gmail.com ha scritto:
> >> beda pietanza <beda-p...@libero.it> wrote:
> >>> Il giorno lunedì 14 giugno 2021 alle 13:01:31 UTC+2 bodk...@gmail.com ha scritto:
> >>>> beda pietanza <beda-p...@libero.it> wrote:
> >>>>> light and objects travel in local space, their speed is determined by the
> >>>>> intensity of the thrust that make them move and by the local inertia that
> >>>>> antagonize the movement.
> >>>> So there’s a rocket out in space and it fires its engines. Tell me if this
> >>>> rocket is now speeding up or slowing down, and how you could possibly sort
> >>>> out which.
> >>> beda
> >>> a)all what happens to anything in this universe it is shaped and
> >>> determined by this universe
> >>> so you have the universe as a background of
> >>> all possible absolute movements.
> >> So you are saying that this “backdrop universe” is a way of telling whether
> >> this rocket before the engines fire is moving, and after the rockets fire
> >> whether it is moving faster or slower.
> > beda
> > the universe as a background is the perfect scene against which an object move,
> > and if the objects are two you can easily tell which is moving faster,
> > you odd, are so logically crippled by your relativistic bias to miss such a trivial fact
> >>> b)from far away, looking transversely, a photocamera with a given exposure
> >>> time, the traces the rocket leaves before and after the thrust will tell
> >>> (two exposure or a cinecamera)
> >> And you are saying the same thing again here. This “backdrop universe” is a
> >> way of telling whether this rocket is moving before the engines fire, and
> >> whether the rocket is moving faster or slower after the rockets fire. The
> >> only difference now is that you are saying this can be sensed if you put
> >> your camera far enough away. I would quibble with that. You of course have
> >> to arrange that the camera is NOT MOVING relative to the “backdrop
> >> universe”. I have no idea how you intend to be sure of that.
> > beda
> > not need of that, the inertial absolute movement, of the eyes or of the
> > camera, have not any effects
> > on the difference perceived of the different movement of the far away
> > rocket, before and after the thrust
> > hard to explain the visual appearance of moving objects, it takes
> > a clear view of the absolutness of the speed of light and of the
> > absolutness of the speed of objects, and the static uniform background furnished by
> > the very far away stars
> > continue below:
> >>> c)standing inertially along the direction of the movement of the rocket,
> >>> looking at it, before and after the
> >>> thrust, the difference in speed is deducible by the change of the
> >>> apparent visual length of the rocket, due
> >>> to the different transit time the light takes to traverse the rocket(by
> >>> stereoscopic vision), or with a stereoscopic camera
> >>> there are illimitate other ways, the absolute shows up anyways, if you
> >>> ""know"" it is there you find the way to see it.
> >>> just as you conviction that all is relative, you see all as relative.
> >>> the truth is that the relative is always between absolutes
> > beda
> > you missed to replay to this part, which is the more difficult to grasp,
> > but it is the most instructive part: observing, visually, a moving object,
> > while you or a stereoscopic camera, are positioned along its line of movement,
> > the light starting from the far end of the object, traversing the object and
> > arriving to you, carries with it the stereoscopic information of the transit time
> > that the light took to traverse the object, hence this information tells you the visual
> > lenght of the object, the duration of light traversing it, and if this information changes
> > you can easily tell: the transit time is Lo*sqrt(1.v^2)/(1(+-)v), you
> > will perceive stereocopically
> > the difference of the lenght apperance of the object/rocket, before and after the thrust
> > you must spend a little of you time on this.
> I think you are a little nuts to believe this is true. A simple example
> from common experience will show this. Let’s suppose you have a camera in a
> car, pointed out the side window, and the car is traveling at a speed of
> 120 kph on a slightly curved road, but you don’t know that. There are mesas
> and mountains that are 50 miles away, and from your camera the mountains do
> not appear to move because your camera is always pointed at the same
> distant point. There is also a train on a bridge 25 miles away, with
> engines on both ends. It happens to be traveling at 60 kph, but you don’t
> know that. Through your camera, the train appears stationary against the
> backdrop of the mountains. Since you have no sense of how fast you are
> going (you only have a local relative speed compared to the road), you also
> have no idea how fast the train is moving, only that it appears to be NOT
> moving at all, against that distant backdrop.
>
> Now the train does something to change its speed. From your car’s camera,
> the train is now moving against the backdrop of the mountains. Has it sped
> up? Or has it slowed down? You don’t know from the information given or
> available to you which it is.
beda
well you arranged the scenario to reproduce your prejudices,
the far away two sources whose absolute movement is to be compared are to be
projected versus a very very great distant stars, so that you !!!know!!! their "fixed"
position is a good reference for your actual purpose,
the same about your absolute inertial movement, being the distance between you and the very, very
distant "fixed" stars the change of their angular position is negligible for our practical purpose.
set the proper distances and minimizeted the errors, the difference in absolute movements of two sources, in a transverse restrict field of view, is easily observable, either by the changing of their position(vs the "still" background), either by the different color of their arriving light.
just to anticipate your objections, longitudinal doppler and aberration are in our case, with the proper distance opportunely chosen, negligible and won't change the differences we are looking for,

all different situations can visually be observed, and from the visual observation, the absoluteness of
the raw physical facts related to movement can be made evident easily, these observation are completely unaffected by frames, because they relay on the absolutness of the local speed of the light and the absolutness of the speed of the objects, nothing can interfere with that.
there is a easy and immediate visual evidence of the absolute movement of an inertial observer, deducible by the changes of the appearance of the surrounding universe, that can be taken into account, for the proper relative visual
comparison between an observer and anything differently moving around him.
note and ponder: in the visual observation (or with a camera) there are not any manipulation possible but only raw absolute facts as they appear, yet visually modified but not manipulated, by the absolute speed of light combined
with the absolute movement of objects, it is up to us to deduce and intuit correctly the information contained in those visual appearances or photos

cheers
beda

> > cheers
> > beda
> >
> >>> cheers
> >>> beda
> >>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> the local inertia is determined by the gravitational effect of all the
> >>>>> masses, near and far, of the entire universe
> >>>>>
> >>>>> the intensity of the thrust applied to an object, against the inertia,
> >>>>> determine the final inertial speed of the object.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> the characteristics of local space, the energy of the thrust, the final
> >>>>> inertial speed the object acquires are absolute
> >>>>>
> >>>>> cheers
> >>>>> beda
> >>>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >>>
> >> --
> >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On Monday, June 14, 2021 at 2:04:16 PM UTC-7, beda-p...@libero.it wrote:
> In case of two inertial moving objects... those visually observed or photographed
> from far away they are immediately perceived in their absolute state of motion,
> the inertial movement of the observer or of the camera don't make any difference
> (in the difference perceived of the different absolute speeds of the observed objects)

That is simply not true. You need to learn basic physics. For any inertially moving transmitter and receiver, the ratio between transmitted and received frequencies depends only on the relative velocity between them, not on the distance between them, and not on their speeds relative to the CMBR frame. That's why the motion of the camera relative to the sources affect the frequency/color of the received signals. For two sources A and B, depending on the relative motion of the camera, it is possible for the picture to show A redder than B, or B redder than A. It depends on how the camera is moving relative to A and B. This is true regardless of how far away the camera is, and the common speed relative to the CMBR frame is irrelevant.

> The aberration and the doppler have not effect on the differences perceived
> being the two objects observed far away and positioned transversely...

No, you are just groping toward the Ed Lake Fallacy. The incident frequencies depend only on the relative velocities between the transmitters and receiver(s), not on their distance and not on their common speed relative to the CMBR frame. What you are failing to take into account is that the condition of transverseness depends on the reference. If there are two cameras co-located at the taking of the photos, showing the two sources co-located, then the relative motion of one source is not transverse relative to one camera, so it mixes longitudinal Doppler with transverse Doppler. On the other hand, if you create a completely symmetrical situation, the photo-taking events of the source-passing event do not coincide. Again, the motions of all the entities relative to the CMBR frame are completely irrelevant. Until you understand this, you are just spinning your wheels.

On 6/14/2021 4:39 PM, beep wrote:
> beda pietanza wrote:
>
>> light and objects travel in local space, their speed is determined by
>> the intensity of the thrust that make them move and by the local inertia
>> that antagonize the movement.
>
> there is no such thing as *local_space*. Local regards rather a point. In
> this aspect nothing is really *local*, but *remote* closest to *local*.
> Ie, assume your eye is local, hence a cat 10 cm near your nose must be
> *remote* already.
>

Shaddup, nymshifter. This discussion is way over your head.

El lunes, 14 de junio de 2021 a las 17:04:16 UTC-4, beda-p...@libero.it escribió:

> beda
> you two, cliff and odd, just cannot grasp that being all movement absolute, (light, object, and universal background)
> in case of two inertial moving objects, or in case of a single object changing its absolute speed,
> those visually observed or photographed from far away they are immediately perceived in their absolute state of motion, the inertial movement of the observer or of the camera don't make any difference (in the difference perceived of the different absolute speeds of the observed objects)
>

You are completely ignoring hundreds of years of physical knowledge about how Nature works.

One of those physical knowledge is what Einstein wrote as his two principles of relativity:

1. The laws by which the states of physical systems undergo change are not affected, whether these changes of state be referred to the one or the other of two systems of co-ordinates in uniform translatory motion.

2. Any ray of light moves in the “stationary” system of co-ordinates with the determined velocity c, whether the ray be emitted by a stationary or by a
moving body.

Principle 1 reflects the knowledge that the laws of physics should not depend on the system of coordinates from where an event is observed. If the falling of objects (like Galileo 400 hundred years ago stated) follows a straight path for, a sailor watching the falling object from the moving boat, while a guy at the beach sees the object falling following a parabolic path, the physical laws describing both views should have the same equations.

Principle 2 reflects the knowledge that the speed of propagation of the information of a given event, has a maximun value which is the speed of light.

All of Special Relativity is based in only those two principles.

You should stop writing nonsense and study some basic physics, instead of filling this group with complete nonsensical posts.

On Monday, 14 June 2021 at 22:57:54 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> beda pietanza <beda-p...@libero.it> wrote:
> > Il giorno lunedì 14 giugno 2021 alle 18:53:01 UTC+2 bodk...@gmail.com ha scritto:
> >> beda pietanza <beda-p...@libero.it> wrote:
> >>> Il giorno lunedì 14 giugno 2021 alle 13:01:31 UTC+2 bodk...@gmail.com ha scritto:
> >>>> beda pietanza <beda-p...@libero.it> wrote:
> >>>>> light and objects travel in local space, their speed is determined by the
> >>>>> intensity of the thrust that make them move and by the local inertia that
> >>>>> antagonize the movement.
> >>>> So there’s a rocket out in space and it fires its engines. Tell me if this
> >>>> rocket is now speeding up or slowing down, and how you could possibly sort
> >>>> out which.
> >>> beda
> >>> a)all what happens to anything in this universe it is shaped and
> >>> determined by this universe
> >>> so you have the universe as a background of
> >>> all possible absolute movements.
> >> So you are saying that this “backdrop universe” is a way of telling whether
> >> this rocket before the engines fire is moving, and after the rockets fire
> >> whether it is moving faster or slower.
> > beda
> > the universe as a background is the perfect scene against which an object move,
> > and if the objects are two you can easily tell which is moving faster,
> > you odd, are so logically crippled by your relativistic bias to miss such a trivial fact
> >>> b)from far away, looking transversely, a photocamera with a given exposure
> >>> time, the traces the rocket leaves before and after the thrust will tell
> >>> (two exposure or a cinecamera)
> >> And you are saying the same thing again here. This “backdrop universe” is a
> >> way of telling whether this rocket is moving before the engines fire, and
> >> whether the rocket is moving faster or slower after the rockets fire. The
> >> only difference now is that you are saying this can be sensed if you put
> >> your camera far enough away. I would quibble with that. You of course have
> >> to arrange that the camera is NOT MOVING relative to the “backdrop
> >> universe”. I have no idea how you intend to be sure of that.
> > beda
> > not need of that, the inertial absolute movement, of the eyes or of the
> > camera, have not any effects
> > on the difference perceived of the different movement of the far away
> > rocket, before and after the thrust
> > hard to explain the visual appearance of moving objects, it takes
> > a clear view of the absolutness of the speed of light and of the
> > absolutness of the speed of objects, and the static uniform background furnished by
> > the very far away stars
> > continue below:
> >>> c)standing inertially along the direction of the movement of the rocket,
> >>> looking at it, before and after the
> >>> thrust, the difference in speed is deducible by the change of the
> >>> apparent visual length of the rocket, due
> >>> to the different transit time the light takes to traverse the rocket(by
> >>> stereoscopic vision), or with a stereoscopic camera
> >>> there are illimitate other ways, the absolute shows up anyways, if you
> >>> ""know"" it is there you find the way to see it.
> >>> just as you conviction that all is relative, you see all as relative.
> >>> the truth is that the relative is always between absolutes
> > beda
> > you missed to replay to this part, which is the more difficult to grasp,
> > but it is the most instructive part: observing, visually, a moving object,
> > while you or a stereoscopic camera, are positioned along its line of movement,
> > the light starting from the far end of the object, traversing the object and
> > arriving to you, carries with it the stereoscopic information of the transit time
> > that the light took to traverse the object, hence this information tells you the visual
> > lenght of the object, the duration of light traversing it, and if this information changes
> > you can easily tell: the transit time is Lo*sqrt(1.v^2)/(1(+-)v), you
> > will perceive stereocopically
> > the difference of the lenght apperance of the object/rocket, before and after the thrust
> > you must spend a little of you time on this.
> I think you are a little nuts to believe this is true. A simple example
> from common experience will show this.

Let’s suppose you have a camera in a
> car, pointed out the side window, and the car is traveling at a speed of
> 120 kph on a slightly curved road, but you don’t know that. There are mesas
> and mountains that are 50 miles away, and from your camera the mountains do
> not appear to move because your camera is always pointed at the same
> distant point. There is also a train on a bridge 25 miles away, with
> engines on both ends. It happens to be traveling at 60 kph, but you don’t
> know that. Through your camera, the train appears stationary against the
> backdrop of the mountains. Since you have no sense of how fast you are
> going (you only have a local relative speed compared to the road), you also
> have no idea how fast the train is moving, only that it appears to be NOT
> moving at all, against that distant backdrop.
>
> Now the train does something to change its speed. From your car’s camera,
> the train is now moving against the backdrop of the mountains. Has it sped
> up? Or has it slowed down? You don’t know from the information given or
> available to you which it is.

Bod, poor idiot, that you don't know doesn't mean others people
are samely insane. Of course, you would know too, it's just that
you pretend you don't for the sake of your moronic religion.

On Tuesday, 15 June 2021 at 02:12:50 UTC+2, Paparios wrote:
> El lunes, 14 de junio de 2021 a las 17:04:16 UTC-4, beda-p...@libero.it escribió:
>
> > beda
> > you two, cliff and odd, just cannot grasp that being all movement absolute, (light, object, and universal background)
> > in case of two inertial moving objects, or in case of a single object changing its absolute speed,
> > those visually observed or photographed from far away they are immediately perceived in their absolute state of motion, the inertial movement of the observer or of the camera don't make any difference (in the difference perceived of the different absolute speeds of the observed objects)
> >
> You are completely ignoring hundreds of years of physical knowledge about how Nature works.

Even your fellow idiot Tom could explain you physics
has no knowledge about how Nature works; and if
dictionaries weren't too complicated for you you
would know it doesn't work at all.

> One of those physical knowledge is what Einstein wrote as his two principles of relativity:
>
> 1. The laws by which the states of physical systems undergo change are not affected, whether these changes of state be referred to the one or the other of two systems of co-ordinates in uniform translatory motion.

Anyone can check in GPS, it's bullshit. Of course, how GPS
works doesn't have much in common with how Nature
works.

beda pietanza <beda-pietanza@libero.it> wrote:
> Il giorno lunedì 14 giugno 2021 alle 22:57:54 UTC+2 bodk...@gmail.com ha scritto:
>> beda pietanza <beda-p...@libero.it> wrote:
>>> Il giorno lunedì 14 giugno 2021 alle 18:53:01 UTC+2 bodk...@gmail.com ha scritto:
>>>> beda pietanza <beda-p...@libero.it> wrote:
>>>>> Il giorno lunedì 14 giugno 2021 alle 13:01:31 UTC+2 bodk...@gmail.com ha scritto:
>>>>>> beda pietanza <beda-p...@libero.it> wrote:
>>>>>>> light and objects travel in local space, their speed is determined by the
>>>>>>> intensity of the thrust that make them move and by the local inertia that
>>>>>>> antagonize the movement.
>>>>>> So there’s a rocket out in space and it fires its engines. Tell me if this
>>>>>> rocket is now speeding up or slowing down, and how you could possibly sort
>>>>>> out which.
>>>>> beda
>>>>> a)all what happens to anything in this universe it is shaped and
>>>>> determined by this universe
>>>>> so you have the universe as a background of
>>>>> all possible absolute movements.
>>>> So you are saying that this “backdrop universe” is a way of telling whether
>>>> this rocket before the engines fire is moving, and after the rockets fire
>>>> whether it is moving faster or slower.
>>> beda
>>> the universe as a background is the perfect scene against which an object move,
>>> and if the objects are two you can easily tell which is moving faster,
>>> you odd, are so logically crippled by your relativistic bias to miss such a trivial fact
>>>>> b)from far away, looking transversely, a photocamera with a given exposure
>>>>> time, the traces the rocket leaves before and after the thrust will tell
>>>>> (two exposure or a cinecamera)
>>>> And you are saying the same thing again here. This “backdrop universe” is a
>>>> way of telling whether this rocket is moving before the engines fire, and
>>>> whether the rocket is moving faster or slower after the rockets fire. The
>>>> only difference now is that you are saying this can be sensed if you put
>>>> your camera far enough away. I would quibble with that. You of course have
>>>> to arrange that the camera is NOT MOVING relative to the “backdrop
>>>> universe”. I have no idea how you intend to be sure of that.
>>> beda
>>> not need of that, the inertial absolute movement, of the eyes or of the
>>> camera, have not any effects
>>> on the difference perceived of the different movement of the far away
>>> rocket, before and after the thrust
>>> hard to explain the visual appearance of moving objects, it takes
>>> a clear view of the absolutness of the speed of light and of the
>>> absolutness of the speed of objects, and the static uniform background furnished by
>>> the very far away stars
>>> continue below:
>>>>> c)standing inertially along the direction of the movement of the rocket,
>>>>> looking at it, before and after the
>>>>> thrust, the difference in speed is deducible by the change of the
>>>>> apparent visual length of the rocket, due
>>>>> to the different transit time the light takes to traverse the rocket(by
>>>>> stereoscopic vision), or with a stereoscopic camera
>>>>> there are illimitate other ways, the absolute shows up anyways, if you
>>>>> ""know"" it is there you find the way to see it.
>>>>> just as you conviction that all is relative, you see all as relative.
>>>>> the truth is that the relative is always between absolutes
>>> beda
>>> you missed to replay to this part, which is the more difficult to grasp,
>>> but it is the most instructive part: observing, visually, a moving object,
>>> while you or a stereoscopic camera, are positioned along its line of movement,
>>> the light starting from the far end of the object, traversing the object and
>>> arriving to you, carries with it the stereoscopic information of the transit time
>>> that the light took to traverse the object, hence this information tells you the visual
>>> lenght of the object, the duration of light traversing it, and if this
>>> information changes
>>> you can easily tell: the transit time is Lo*sqrt(1.v^2)/(1(+-)v), you
>>> will perceive stereocopically
>>> the difference of the lenght apperance of the object/rocket, before and after the thrust
>>> you must spend a little of you time on this.
>> I think you are a little nuts to believe this is true. A simple example
>> from common experience will show this. Let’s suppose you have a camera in a
>> car, pointed out the side window, and the car is traveling at a speed of
>> 120 kph on a slightly curved road, but you don’t know that. There are mesas
>> and mountains that are 50 miles away, and from your camera the mountains do
>> not appear to move because your camera is always pointed at the same
>> distant point. There is also a train on a bridge 25 miles away, with
>> engines on both ends. It happens to be traveling at 60 kph, but you don’t
>> know that. Through your camera, the train appears stationary against the
>> backdrop of the mountains. Since you have no sense of how fast you are
>> going (you only have a local relative speed compared to the road), you also
>> have no idea how fast the train is moving, only that it appears to be NOT
>> moving at all, against that distant backdrop.
>>
>> Now the train does something to change its speed. From your car’s camera,
>> the train is now moving against the backdrop of the mountains. Has it sped
>> up? Or has it slowed down? You don’t know from the information given or
>> available to you which it is.
> beda
> well you arranged the scenario to reproduce your prejudices,
> the far away two sources whose absolute movement is to be compared are to be
> projected versus a very very great distant stars, so that you !!!know!!! their "fixed"
> position is a good reference for your actual purpose,

It seems you have a Star Trek concept of tracking your own motion by
watching the stars go by. Which, by the way, has nothing to do with
reality.

Perhaps you’re aware that if you’re in a sports car traveling at 80 kph,
you sense your motion much more relative to the road than you do if you’re
in the cab of a semi-truck traveling at 80 kph. And even less do you sense
your motion relative to the road if you’re traveling by hot air balloon at
80 kph. And even less if you are at an elevation of 35,000 feet traveling
at 80 kph. The further away you are from your reference, the less you can
detect your own motion relative to that reference. With a backdrop of
millions of light years away, you would not be able to sense your own
motion relative to that backdrop at all.

I think you’ve not thought about this much at all.

> the same about your absolute inertial movement, being the distance
> between you and the very, very
> distant "fixed" stars the change of their angular position is negligible
> for our practical purpose.
> set the proper distances and minimizeted the errors, the difference in
> absolute movements of two sources, in a transverse restrict field of
> view, is easily observable, either by the changing of their position(vs
> the "still" background), either by the different color of their arriving light.
> just to anticipate your objections, longitudinal doppler and aberration
> are in our case, with the proper distance opportunely chosen, negligible
> and won't change the differences we are looking for,
>
> all different situations can visually be observed, and from the visual
> observation, the absoluteness of
> the raw physical facts related to movement can be made evident easily,
> these observation are completely unaffected by frames, because they relay
> on the absolutness of the local speed of the light and the absolutness of
> the speed of the objects, nothing can interfere with that.
> there is a easy and immediate visual evidence of the absolute movement of
> an inertial observer, deducible by the changes of the appearance of the
> surrounding universe, that can be taken into account, for the proper relative visual
> comparison between an observer and anything differently moving around him.
> note and ponder: in the visual observation (or with a camera) there are
> not any manipulation possible but only raw absolute facts as they appear,
> yet visually modified but not manipulated, by the absolute speed of light combined
> with the absolute movement of objects, it is up to us to deduce and
> intuit correctly the information contained in those visual appearances or photos
>
> cheers
> beda
>
>>> cheers
>>> beda
>>>
>>>>> cheers
>>>>> beda
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> the local inertia is determined by the gravitational effect of all the
>>>>>>> masses, near and far, of the entire universe
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> the intensity of the thrust applied to an object, against the inertia,
>>>>>>> determine the final inertial speed of the object.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> the characteristics of local space, the energy of the thrust, the final
>>>>>>> inertial speed the object acquires are absolute
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> cheers
>>>>>>> beda
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>

Il giorno martedì 15 giugno 2021 alle 14:49:32 UTC+2 bodk...@gmail.com ha scritto:
> beda pietanza <beda-p...@libero.it> wrote:
> > Il giorno lunedì 14 giugno 2021 alle 22:57:54 UTC+2 bodk...@gmail.com ha scritto:
> >> beda pietanza <beda-p...@libero.it> wrote:
> >>> Il giorno lunedì 14 giugno 2021 alle 18:53:01 UTC+2 bodk...@gmail.com ha scritto:
> >>>> beda pietanza <beda-p...@libero.it> wrote:
> >>>>> Il giorno lunedì 14 giugno 2021 alle 13:01:31 UTC+2 bodk...@gmail.com ha scritto:
> >>>>>> beda pietanza <beda-p...@libero.it> wrote:
> >>>>>>> light and objects travel in local space, their speed is determined by the
> >>>>>>> intensity of the thrust that make them move and by the local inertia that
> >>>>>>> antagonize the movement.
> >>>>>> So there’s a rocket out in space and it fires its engines. Tell me if this
> >>>>>> rocket is now speeding up or slowing down, and how you could possibly sort
> >>>>>> out which.
> >>>>> beda
> >>>>> a)all what happens to anything in this universe it is shaped and
> >>>>> determined by this universe
> >>>>> so you have the universe as a background of
> >>>>> all possible absolute movements.
> >>>> So you are saying that this “backdrop universe” is a way of telling whether
> >>>> this rocket before the engines fire is moving, and after the rockets fire
> >>>> whether it is moving faster or slower.
> >>> beda
> >>> the universe as a background is the perfect scene against which an object move,
> >>> and if the objects are two you can easily tell which is moving faster,
> >>> you odd, are so logically crippled by your relativistic bias to miss such a trivial fact
> >>>>> b)from far away, looking transversely, a photocamera with a given exposure
> >>>>> time, the traces the rocket leaves before and after the thrust will tell
> >>>>> (two exposure or a cinecamera)
> >>>> And you are saying the same thing again here. This “backdrop universe” is a
> >>>> way of telling whether this rocket is moving before the engines fire, and
> >>>> whether the rocket is moving faster or slower after the rockets fire.. The
> >>>> only difference now is that you are saying this can be sensed if you put
> >>>> your camera far enough away. I would quibble with that. You of course have
> >>>> to arrange that the camera is NOT MOVING relative to the “backdrop
> >>>> universe”. I have no idea how you intend to be sure of that.
> >>> beda
> >>> not need of that, the inertial absolute movement, of the eyes or of the
> >>> camera, have not any effects
> >>> on the difference perceived of the different movement of the far away
> >>> rocket, before and after the thrust
> >>> hard to explain the visual appearance of moving objects, it takes
> >>> a clear view of the absolutness of the speed of light and of the
> >>> absolutness of the speed of objects, and the static uniform background furnished by
> >>> the very far away stars
> >>> continue below:
> >>>>> c)standing inertially along the direction of the movement of the rocket,
> >>>>> looking at it, before and after the
> >>>>> thrust, the difference in speed is deducible by the change of the
> >>>>> apparent visual length of the rocket, due
> >>>>> to the different transit time the light takes to traverse the rocket(by
> >>>>> stereoscopic vision), or with a stereoscopic camera
> >>>>> there are illimitate other ways, the absolute shows up anyways, if you
> >>>>> ""know"" it is there you find the way to see it.
> >>>>> just as you conviction that all is relative, you see all as relative.
> >>>>> the truth is that the relative is always between absolutes
> >>> beda
> >>> you missed to replay to this part, which is the more difficult to grasp,
> >>> but it is the most instructive part: observing, visually, a moving object,
> >>> while you or a stereoscopic camera, are positioned along its line of movement,
> >>> the light starting from the far end of the object, traversing the object and
> >>> arriving to you, carries with it the stereoscopic information of the transit time
> >>> that the light took to traverse the object, hence this information tells you the visual
> >>> lenght of the object, the duration of light traversing it, and if this
> >>> information changes
> >>> you can easily tell: the transit time is Lo*sqrt(1.v^2)/(1(+-)v), you
> >>> will perceive stereocopically
> >>> the difference of the lenght apperance of the object/rocket, before and after the thrust
> >>> you must spend a little of you time on this.
> >> I think you are a little nuts to believe this is true. A simple example
> >> from common experience will show this. Let’s suppose you have a camera in a
> >> car, pointed out the side window, and the car is traveling at a speed of
> >> 120 kph on a slightly curved road, but you don’t know that. There are mesas
> >> and mountains that are 50 miles away, and from your camera the mountains do
> >> not appear to move because your camera is always pointed at the same
> >> distant point. There is also a train on a bridge 25 miles away, with
> >> engines on both ends. It happens to be traveling at 60 kph, but you don’t
> >> know that. Through your camera, the train appears stationary against the
> >> backdrop of the mountains. Since you have no sense of how fast you are
> >> going (you only have a local relative speed compared to the road), you also
> >> have no idea how fast the train is moving, only that it appears to be NOT
> >> moving at all, against that distant backdrop.
> >>
> >> Now the train does something to change its speed. From your car’s camera,
> >> the train is now moving against the backdrop of the mountains. Has it sped
> >> up? Or has it slowed down? You don’t know from the information given or
> >> available to you which it is.
> > beda
> > well you arranged the scenario to reproduce your prejudices,
> > the far away two sources whose absolute movement is to be compared are to be
> > projected versus a very very great distant stars, so that you !!!know!!! their "fixed"
> > position is a good reference for your actual purpose,
> It seems you have a Star Trek concept of tracking your own motion by
> watching the stars go by. Which, by the way, has nothing to do with
> reality.
>
> Perhaps you’re aware that if you’re in a sports car traveling at 80 kph,
> you sense your motion much more relative to the road than you do if you’re
> in the cab of a semi-truck traveling at 80 kph. And even less do you sense
> your motion relative to the road if you’re traveling by hot air balloon at
> 80 kph. And even less if you are at an elevation of 35,000 feet traveling
> at 80 kph. The further away you are from your reference, the less you can
> detect your own motion relative to that reference. With a backdrop of
> millions of light years away, you would not be able to sense your own
> motion relative to that backdrop at all.
> I think you’ve not thought about this much at all.
beda
visually, your motion against the very far "fixed" star is as nonexistent,
two sources, differently moving, looked from far away, transversely, against
the background of the "fixed" star, can visually correctly tell the difference
of their absolute speeds:
going back to the original issue;(two different light clocks differently inertial moving
do run at same rate ?)
the above scenario tell a) the faster clock moves against the background faster
b) the faster clock light is redder
so the claim of SRists that a single clock runs in different SR frames at the same rate is false:
clocks rate is determined only by the absolute movement of the clocks
that is it!!!
cheers
beda

> > the same about your absolute inertial movement, being the distance
> > between you and the very, very
> > distant "fixed" stars the change of their angular position is negligible
> > for our practical purpose.
> > set the proper distances and minimizeted the errors, the difference in
> > absolute movements of two sources, in a transverse restrict field of
> > view, is easily observable, either by the changing of their position(vs
> > the "still" background), either by the different color of their arriving light.
> > just to anticipate your objections, longitudinal doppler and aberration
> > are in our case, with the proper distance opportunely chosen, negligible
> > and won't change the differences we are looking for,
> >
> > all different situations can visually be observed, and from the visual
> > observation, the absoluteness of
> > the raw physical facts related to movement can be made evident easily,
> > these observation are completely unaffected by frames, because they relay
> > on the absolutness of the local speed of the light and the absolutness of
> > the speed of the objects, nothing can interfere with that.
> > there is a easy and immediate visual evidence of the absolute movement of
> > an inertial observer, deducible by the changes of the appearance of the
> > surrounding universe, that can be taken into account, for the proper relative visual
> > comparison between an observer and anything differently moving around him.
> > note and ponder: in the visual observation (or with a camera) there are
> > not any manipulation possible but only raw absolute facts as they appear,
> > yet visually modified but not manipulated, by the absolute speed of light combined
> > with the absolute movement of objects, it is up to us to deduce and
> > intuit correctly the information contained in those visual appearances or photos
> >
> > cheers
> > beda
> >
> >>> cheers
> >>> beda
> >>>
> >>>>> cheers
> >>>>> beda
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> the local inertia is determined by the gravitational effect of all the
> >>>>>>> masses, near and far, of the entire universe
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> the intensity of the thrust applied to an object, against the inertia,
> >>>>>>> determine the final inertial speed of the object.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> the characteristics of local space, the energy of the thrust, the final
> >>>>>>> inertial speed the object acquires are absolute
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> cheers
> >>>>>>> beda
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >>>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Il giorno lunedì 14 giugno 2021 alle 22:40:04 UTC+2 beep ha scritto:
> beda pietanza wrote:
>
> > light and objects travel in local space, their speed is determined by
> > the intensity of the thrust that make them move and by the local inertia
> > that antagonize the movement.
> there is no such thing as *local_space*. Local regards rather a point. In
> this aspect nothing is really *local*, but *remote* closest to *local*.
> Ie, assume your eye is local, hence a cat 10 cm near your nose must be
> *remote* already.
beda
you are right, the concept of locality is not well definable,
it turns around on what kind of phenomenon you are observing,
tough not definable, it is meaningful, in some cases more than others
depend...
cheers
beda

Il giorno martedì 15 giugno 2021 alle 02:12:50 UTC+2 Paparios ha scritto:
> El lunes, 14 de junio de 2021 a las 17:04:16 UTC-4, beda-p...@libero.it escribió:
>
> > beda
> > you two, cliff and odd, just cannot grasp that being all movement absolute, (light, object, and universal background)
> > in case of two inertial moving objects, or in case of a single object changing its absolute speed,
> > those visually observed or photographed from far away they are immediately perceived in their absolute state of motion, the inertial movement of the observer or of the camera don't make any difference (in the difference perceived of the different absolute speeds of the observed objects)
> >
> You are completely ignoring hundreds of years of physical knowledge about how Nature works.
>
> One of those physical knowledge is what Einstein wrote as his two principles of relativity:
>
> 1. The laws by which the states of physical systems undergo change are not affected, whether these changes of state be referred to the one or the other of two systems of co-ordinates in uniform translatory motion.
>
> 2. Any ray of light moves in the “stationary” system of co-ordinates with the determined velocity c, whether the ray be emitted by a stationary or by a
> moving body.
>
> Principle 1 reflects the knowledge that the laws of physics should not depend on the system of coordinates from where an event is observed. If the falling of objects (like Galileo 400 hundred years ago stated) follows a straight path for, a sailor watching the falling object from the moving boat, while a guy at the beach sees the object falling following a parabolic path, the physical laws describing both views should have the same equations.
>
> Principle 2 reflects the knowledge that the speed of propagation of the information of a given event, has a maximun value which is the speed of light.
>
> All of Special Relativity is based in only those two principles.
>
> You should stop writing nonsense and study some basic physics, instead of filling this group with complete nonsensical posts.
beda
paparios,
those that you call principle of Special Relativity are just a heuristic approach that lump together elementary raw facts of physics that need to be analized closely one by one.
unfortunately for your comprehensions ability the SR math simmetry, invariance and reciprocity is so powerful and physically so deceitful, that there are not any chances that you can recover from your conceptual intoxication.
sorry paparios,
but it takes that you disassemble the two principles into very simple raw facts, and analyze them closely one by one,
but I guess you don't even know where to start,
cheers
beda