On 6/12/2021 12:58 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
> On Saturday, June 12, 2021 at 9:47:29 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>> 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.

Oh really? So different states have different laws of conservation of
momentum? Different laws of gravity? Different laws of electromagnetism?

On Friday, June 11, 2021 at 7:43:40 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Ken Seto <seto...@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?

It is a local law. There is no Proof in another frame.

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

In Mars you have different speed laws because their clock second have different duration.

> > 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 2:13:31 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 6/12/2021 12:58 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
> > On Saturday, June 12, 2021 at 9:47:29 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> 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.
> Oh really? So different states have different laws of conservation of
> momentum? Different laws of gravity? Different laws of electromagnetism?

Moron, different states are inn your frame. To get different laws, you need to be in different frames.....you need to be on the moon.

On 6/13/2021 9:39 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
> On Saturday, June 12, 2021 at 2:13:31 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> On 6/12/2021 12:58 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>> On Saturday, June 12, 2021 at 9:47:29 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> 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.
>> Oh really? So different states have different laws of conservation of
>> momentum? Different laws of gravity? Different laws of electromagnetism?
>
> Moron, different states are inn your frame. To get different laws, you need to be in different frames.....you need to be on the moon.
>

You clearly don't understand the concept of frames. All frames contain
the entire universe, including the earth and moon.

On 6/13/2021 9:36 AM, Ken Seto 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:

>>>> 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?
>
> In Mars you have different speed laws because their clock second have different duration.

Unn, no, Stupid Ken. A second is 9,192,631,770 cycles of that Cs
frequency on a local clock on Mars, I'm sure there's Cs on Mars, Stupid Ken.

On Sunday, 13 June 2021 at 20:22:35 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:

> Unn, no, Stupid Ken. A second is 9,192,631,770 cycles of that Cs
> frequency on a local clock on Mars

For sure your idiocies prevail - everewhere where we're not.
In a GPS satellite, however, it is 9,192,631,774. Anyone can
check it.

Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Friday, June 11, 2021 at 7:43:40 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Ken Seto <seto...@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?
>
> It is a local law. There is no Proof in another frame.

Well, actually, freshman textbooks show how conservation of momentum holds
for the same physical system in two different reference frames.

A pity you never learned the basic Newtonian physics that has no dependency
on Einstein’s postulates.

>
>>> 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
>

--
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?
>>
>> The highway speed limit is a law. Do you think it’s a different law for me
>> than for you?
>
> In Mars you have different speed laws because their clock second have different duration.

Do they? What’s the speed limit on Mars?

>
>>> 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

Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, June 12, 2021 at 2:13:31 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> On 6/12/2021 12:58 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>> On Saturday, June 12, 2021 at 9:47:29 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> 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.
>> Oh really? So different states have different laws of conservation of
>> momentum? Different laws of gravity? Different laws of electromagnetism?
>
> Moron, different states are inn your frame. To get different laws, you
> need to be in different frames.....you need to be on the moon.
>

Oh that’s interesting. How far do you think you have to go to be in a
different reference frame?

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

On 12-Jun-21 11:43 pm, Ken Seto 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. 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.
>

If your laws of physics do not correctly predict what my clock will
show, then your laws are falsified.

Sylvia.

On Monday, 14 June 2021 at 01:43:02 UTC+2, Sylvia Else wrote:

> If your laws of physics do not correctly predict what my clock will
> show, then your laws are falsified.

But if YOUR laws of physics do not - then the clocks
are broken; like in GPS.

On Sunday, June 13, 2021 at 7:43:02 PM UTC-4, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 12-Jun-21 11:43 pm, Ken Seto 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. 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.
> >
> If your laws of physics do not correctly predict what my clock will
> show, then your laws are falsified.

My laws does predict that your clock ticks slower than my clock.

On Sunday, June 13, 2021 at 2:22:35 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 6/13/2021 9:36 AM, Ken Seto 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:
>
> >>>> 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? nt of time.
> >
> > In Mars you have different speed laws because their clock second have different duration.
> Unn, no, Stupid Ken. A second is 9,192,631,770 cycles of that Cs
> frequency on a local clock on Mars, I’m sure there's Cs on Mars, Stupid Ken.

Stupid moron Mike, a clock second on Mars contain less amount of TIME. Just as a clock second on the gPS contain less amount of TIME. To correct this, they added 4 more cycle of Cs 133 radiation to the GPS second.This makes the redefined GPS second contain the same amount of TIME as a standard second on the ground. Gee are you going to maintain your stupidity all your life?.

Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, June 13, 2021 at 7:43:02 PM UTC-4, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> On 12-Jun-21 11:43 pm, Ken Seto 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. 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.
>>>
>> If your laws of physics do not correctly predict what my clock will
>> show, then your laws are falsified.
>
> My laws does predict that your clock ticks slower than my clock.
>

That’s a qualitative statement. Physics is a quantitative science. Physics
requires a quantitative prediction, not just a qualitative one.

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

On 14-Jun-21 11:56 pm, Ken Seto wrote:
> On Sunday, June 13, 2021 at 7:43:02 PM UTC-4, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> On 12-Jun-21 11:43 pm, Ken Seto 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. 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.
>>>
>> If your laws of physics do not correctly predict what my clock will
>> show, then your laws are falsified.
>
> My laws does predict that your clock ticks slower than my clock.
>

As Odd Bodkin points out, your laws have to give quantitative results.

They have to predict what you'll see if you watch my clock through a
telescope.

They have to predict what you'll see if you watch the clock of someone
else going in the opposite direction relative to you.

If I attach a television camera to my telescope, point it at the other
person's clock, and then broadcast the television signal (at the speed
of light), your law has to predict what you'll see when you receive that
signal.

SR handles all these scenarios with ease. You're going to have
difficulty constructing different laws that still give the correct answers.

Sylvia.

On Tuesday, 15 June 2021 at 05:18:41 UTC+2, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 14-Jun-21 11:56 pm, Ken Seto wrote:
> > On Sunday, June 13, 2021 at 7:43:02 PM UTC-4, Sylvia Else wrote:
> >> On 12-Jun-21 11:43 pm, Ken Seto 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. 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.
> >>>
> >> If your laws of physics do not correctly predict what my clock will
> >> show, then your laws are falsified.
> >
> > My laws does predict that your clock ticks slower than my clock.
> >
> As Odd Bodkin points out, your laws have to give quantitative results.
>
> They have to predict what you'll see if you watch my clock through a
> telescope.
>
> They have to predict what you'll see if you watch the clock of someone
> else going in the opposite direction relative to you.
>
> If I attach a television camera to my telescope, point it at the other
> person's clock, and then broadcast the television signal (at the speed
> of light), your law has to predict what you'll see when you receive that
> signal.
>
> SR handles all these scenarios with ease.

Of course, its predictions are worthless; anyone can check
in GPS, the real clocks keep indicating t'=t, just like they
always did. But SR has made these predictions with ease,
indeed.

On 6/14/2021 10:08 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
> On Sunday, June 13, 2021 at 2:22:35 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> On 6/13/2021 9:36 AM, Ken Seto 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:
>>
>>>>>> 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? nt of time.
>>>
>>> In Mars you have different speed laws because their clock second have different duration.

>> Unn, no, Stupid Ken. A second is 9,192,631,770 cycles of that Cs
>> frequency on a local clock on Mars, I’m sure there's Cs on Mars, Stupid Ken.
>
> Stupid moron Mike, a clock second on Mars contain less amount of TIME.

Stupid Ken, the base unit of time is the second, and the second is
DEFINED as 9,192,631,770 cycles of that Cs frequency on a local clock.

Of course according to GR if you are comparing what is happening on Mars
vs. what is happening on Earth, each observer will have only one of the
clocks local to him. The other clock is read by a SIGNAL from it/the
other observer, and that signal is affected by the relative speed and
differing gravity effects. And don't reply with your stupid, false
assertion about absolute time. This is physics, not Seto's "Let's Pretend".

> Just as a clock second on the gPS contain less amount of TIME.

No, Stupid Ken. Still 9,192,631,770 Cs cycles, same as always. Now on
Earth we get a SIGNAL from the clock, and that SIGNAL is affected by GR
effects, both gravity and satellite speed, so it will be RECEIVED at a
slightly higher frequency than it was TRANSMITTED at. So the GPS
designers reduced the transmitted frequency slightly so it will be
RECEIVED at the correct frequency. To do that they used a slightly
different Cs timebase, 9,192,631,774.1 Cs cycles. This is not a second
at the satellite and no engineer or scientist ever claimed it was. And
again, don't reply with your worthless false assertions. Again, this is
not "Ken Seto's Make Believe".

On Tuesday, 15 June 2021 at 08:14:08 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 6/14/2021 10:08 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
> > On Sunday, June 13, 2021 at 2:22:35 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >> On 6/13/2021 9:36 AM, Ken Seto 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:
> >>
> >>>>>> 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? nt of time.
> >>>
> >>> In Mars you have different speed laws because their clock second have different duration.
>
> >> Unn, no, Stupid Ken. A second is 9,192,631,770 cycles of that Cs
> >> frequency on a local clock on Mars, I’m sure there's Cs on Mars, Stupid Ken.
> >
> > Stupid moron Mike, a clock second on Mars contain less amount of TIME.
> Stupid Ken, the base unit of time is the second, and the second is
> DEFINED as 9,192,631,770 cycles of that Cs frequency on a local clock.

Stupid Mike, the base unit of time is the second, and the second is
DEFINED as 1/24*60*60 of a day; though your bunch of idiots has
redefined it inside your moronic church (anyone can check
that sane GPS staff, for instance, hasn't bought it) - when your idiot
guru was l iving and mumbling this definition was valid, also for him.
So his moronic mumble should be considered with this definition.

On Monday, June 14, 2021 at 11:18:41 PM UTC-4, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 14-Jun-21 11:56 pm, Ken Seto wrote:
> > On Sunday, June 13, 2021 at 7:43:02 PM UTC-4, Sylvia Else wrote:
> >> On 12-Jun-21 11:43 pm, Ken Seto 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. 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.
> >>>
> >> If your laws of physics do not correctly predict what my clock will
> >> show, then your laws are falsified.
> >
> > My laws does predict that your clock ticks slower than my clock.
> >
> As Odd Bodkin points out, your laws have to give quantitative results.
>
> They have to predict what you'll see if you watch my clock through a
> telescope.
>
> They have to predict what you'll see if you watch the clock of someone
> else going in the opposite direction relative to you.
>
> If I attach a television camera to my telescope, point it at the other
> person's clock, and then broadcast the television signal (at the speed
> of light), your law has to predict what you'll see when you receive that
> signal.
>
> SR handles all these scenarios with ease. You're going to have
> difficulty constructing different laws that still give the correct answers.

IRT uses the modified LT to make predictions. SR uses the LET (LT) math to make predictions. So what is your point?.

On Tuesday, June 15, 2021 at 2:14:08 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 6/14/2021 10:08 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
> > On Sunday, June 13, 2021 at 2:22:35 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >> On 6/13/2021 9:36 AM, Ken Seto 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:
> >>
> >>>>>> 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? nt of time.
> >>>
> >>> In Mars you have different speed laws because their clock second have different duration.
>
> >> Unn, no, Stupid Ken. A second is 9,192,631,770 cycles of that Cs
> >> frequency on a local clock on Mars, I’m sure there's Cs on Mars, Stupid Ken.
> >
> > Stupid moron Mike, a clock second on Mars contain less amount of TIME.
> Stupid Ken, the base unit of time is the second, and the second is
> DEFINED as 9,192,631,770 cycles of that Cs frequency on a local clock.

Stupid moron Mike, A cycle of the Cs 133 atom on Mars takes a different TIME to complete. Why? Because Mars has a different speed of absolute motion than the earth. Gee you are so fucking stupid.
>
> Of course according to GR if you are comparing what is happening on Mars
> vs. what is happening on Earth, each observer will have only one of the
> clocks local to him. The other clock is read by a SIGNAL from it/the
> other observer, and that signal is affected by the relative speed and
> differing gravity effects. And don't reply with your stupid, false
> assertion about absolute time. This is physics, not Seto's "Let's Pretend".
> > Just as a clock second on the gPS contain less amount of TIME.
> No, Stupid Ken. Still 9,192,631,770 Cs cycles, same as always. Now on
> Earth we get a SIGNAL from the clock, and that SIGNAL is affected by GR
> effects, both gravity and satellite speed, so it will be RECEIVED at a
> slightly higher frequency than it was TRANSMITTED at. So the GPS
> designers reduced the transmitted frequency slightly so it will be
> RECEIVED at the correct frequency. To do that they used a slightly
> different Cs timebase, 9,192,631,774.1 Cs cycles. This is not a second
> at the satellite and no engineer or scientist ever claimed it was. And
> again, don't reply with your worthless false assertions. Again, this is
> not "Ken Seto's Make Believe".

On 6/15/2021 10:43 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 15, 2021 at 2:14:08 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> On 6/14/2021 10:08 AM, Ken Seto wrote:

>>> Stupid moron Mike, a clock second on Mars contain less amount of TIME.

>> Stupid Ken, the base unit of time is the second, and the second is
>> DEFINED as 9,192,631,770 cycles of that Cs frequency on a local clock.
>
> Stupid moron Mike, A cycle of the Cs 133 atom on Mars takes a different TIME to complete. Why? Because Mars has a different speed of absolute motion than the earth. Gee you are so fucking stupid.

Stupid Ken, I said 'And don't reply with your stupid, false assertion
about absolute time. This is physics, not Seto's "Let's Pretend". '

A cesium atom is the same everywhere, differences in apparent time
between Mars and Earth depend ONLY on the signals exchanging time
information and how the signals are affected by relative speed and
gravitation. Again, until you have actual scientific data to support it,
don't bother with your "absolute motion" garbage assertions.

On Tuesday, 15 June 2021 at 18:02:19 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:
> A cesium atom is the same everywhere,

But, as anyone can check in GPS, it's frequency is 9 192 631 770
on Earth and 9 192 631 774 on a satellite. And you're a poor
reality enchanting halfbrain, together with your idiot gurus.

On 16-Jun-21 12:35 am, Ken Seto wrote:
> On Monday, June 14, 2021 at 11:18:41 PM UTC-4, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> On 14-Jun-21 11:56 pm, Ken Seto wrote:
>>> On Sunday, June 13, 2021 at 7:43:02 PM UTC-4, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>> On 12-Jun-21 11:43 pm, Ken Seto 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. 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.
>>>>>
>>>> If your laws of physics do not correctly predict what my clock will
>>>> show, then your laws are falsified.
>>>
>>> My laws does predict that your clock ticks slower than my clock.
>>>
>> As Odd Bodkin points out, your laws have to give quantitative results.
>>
>> They have to predict what you'll see if you watch my clock through a
>> telescope.
>>
>> They have to predict what you'll see if you watch the clock of someone
>> else going in the opposite direction relative to you.
>>
>> If I attach a television camera to my telescope, point it at the other
>> person's clock, and then broadcast the television signal (at the speed
>> of light), your law has to predict what you'll see when you receive that
>> signal.
>>
>> SR handles all these scenarios with ease. You're going to have
>> difficulty constructing different laws that still give the correct answers.
>
> IRT uses the modified LT to make predictions. SR uses the LET (LT) math to make predictions. So what is your point?.
>

If your theory is mathematically equivalent to SR, then you have nothing
new.

Sylvia.

On Wednesday, 16 June 2021 at 01:11:56 UTC+2, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 16-Jun-21 12:35 am, Ken Seto wrote:
> > On Monday, June 14, 2021 at 11:18:41 PM UTC-4, Sylvia Else wrote:
> >> On 14-Jun-21 11:56 pm, Ken Seto wrote:
> >>> On Sunday, June 13, 2021 at 7:43:02 PM UTC-4, Sylvia Else wrote:
> >>>> On 12-Jun-21 11:43 pm, Ken Seto 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. 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.
> >>>>>
> >>>> If your laws of physics do not correctly predict what my clock will
> >>>> show, then your laws are falsified.
> >>>
> >>> My laws does predict that your clock ticks slower than my clock.
> >>>
> >> As Odd Bodkin points out, your laws have to give quantitative results.
> >>
> >> They have to predict what you'll see if you watch my clock through a
> >> telescope.
> >>
> >> They have to predict what you'll see if you watch the clock of someone
> >> else going in the opposite direction relative to you.
> >>
> >> If I attach a television camera to my telescope, point it at the other
> >> person's clock, and then broadcast the television signal (at the speed
> >> of light), your law has to predict what you'll see when you receive that
> >> signal.
> >>
> >> SR handles all these scenarios with ease. You're going to have
> >> difficulty constructing different laws that still give the correct answers.
> >
> > IRT uses the modified LT to make predictions. SR uses the LET (LT) math to make predictions. So what is your point?.
> >
> If your theory is mathematically equivalent to SR, then you have nothing
> new.

And vice-versa: as SR is mathematically equivalent to LET - it had
nothing new; would You agree, lady?