Einstein’s inertial frame (inertial coordinate system) has the following special properties):
:1. The laws of physics are the same in any inertial frame (any inertial coordinate system set up in any location).
2. The speed of light from any source (moving or not moving) in any inertial frame is isotropic c in any inertial coordinate system set up in any location.
stationary aether.
The aether frame (ether coordinate system) has the following properties:
1. The laws of physics are the same in any aether frame coordinate system set up in any location in the stationary aether.
2. The speed of light from any source (moving or not moving) in any aether ;location is isotropic c.

Since the aether frame is older than the SR inertial frame, it appears that the SR inertial frame is just a renamed of the aether frame. So sorry.

On 7/20/2021 10:21 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
>
> Since the aether frame is older than the SR inertial frame, it appears that the SR inertial frame is just a renamed of the aether frame. So sorry.
>

Stupid Ken, Galileo created the concept of the inertial frame long
before any aether theory was created. As usual, you're wrong.

On Tuesday, July 20, 2021 at 10:40:24 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 7/20/2021 10:21 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
> >
> > Since the aether frame is older than the SR inertial frame, it appears that the SR inertial frame is just a renamed of the aether frame. So sorry.
> >
> Stupid Ken, Galileo created the concept of the inertial frame long
> before any aether theory was created. As usual, you're wrong.

Stupid moron Mike, the Galileo’s inertial frame ia not the same as Einstein’s inertial frame. It does not have constant speed of light c frame any source.

On 7/20/2021 10:49 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 20, 2021 at 10:40:24 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> On 7/20/2021 10:21 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>>
>>> Since the aether frame is older than the SR inertial frame, it appears that the SR inertial frame is just a renamed of the aether frame. So sorry.
>>>
>> Stupid Ken, Galileo created the concept of the inertial frame long
>> before any aether theory was created. As usual, you're wrong.
>
> Stupid moron Mike, the Galileo’s inertial frame ia not the same as Einstein’s inertial frame.

It is, Stupid Ken.

> It does not have constant speed of light c frame any source.

That is a different postulate, and it came from observations.

Ken Seto wrote:

> stationary aether.
> The aether frame (ether coordinate system) has the following properties:
> 1. The laws of physics are the same in any aether frame coordinate
> system set up in any location in the stationary aether.
> 2. The speed of light from any source (moving or not moving) in any
> aether ;location is isotropic c.
>
> Since the aether frame is older than the SR inertial frame, it appears
> that the SR inertial frame is just a renamed of the aether frame. So
> sorry.

your lack of logic is perplexing. There are no old things in physics.
Physics is physics without precedence and priorities, my friend. Don't be
that dork person.

One more logic exercise for the reader:

if that dork person, retard boris johnson, had the covid-19, very ill,
had the vaccines and boosters, and now still need to isolate. Explain
this, You can't.

Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote:
> Einstein’s inertial frame (inertial coordinate system) has the following
> special properties):
> :1. The laws of physics are the same in any inertial frame (any inertial
> coordinate system set up in any location).
> 2. The speed of light from any source (moving or not moving) in any
> inertial frame is isotropic c in any inertial coordinate system set up in any location.
> stationary aether.
> The aether frame (ether coordinate system) has the following properties:
> 1. The laws of physics are the same in any aether frame coordinate system
> set up in any location in the stationary aether.
> 2. The speed of light from any source (moving or not moving) in any
> aether ;location is isotropic c.
>
> Since the aether frame is older than the SR inertial frame, it appears
> that the SR inertial frame is just a renamed of the aether frame. So sorry.
>
>

You don’t understand the meaning of the words you use.

Inertial reference frames move relative to each other.
Different ether frames (differing only in choice of origin or orientation
of axes) do not move relative to each other.

Thus the statements (1) and (2) have completely different meaning in these
two contexts.

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

Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 20, 2021 at 10:40:24 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> On 7/20/2021 10:21 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>>
>>> Since the aether frame is older than the SR inertial frame, it appears
>>> that the SR inertial frame is just a renamed of the aether frame. So sorry.
>>>
>> Stupid Ken, Galileo created the concept of the inertial frame long
>> before any aether theory was created. As usual, you're wrong.
>
> Stupid moron Mike, the Galileo’s inertial frame ia not the same as
> Einstein’s inertial frame. It does not have constant speed of light c frame any source.
>

Yes, they are the same. They have the same definitions.
The only question was which transformation (Galilean or Lorentz) apply to
those identically defined inertial frames. Galileo thought the answer was
one, and Einstein had enough additional information about electrodynamics
(which Galileo did not) to show that it was the other.

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

On Tuesday, 20 July 2021 at 17:50:51 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:

> > Einstein’s inertial frame. It does not have constant speed of light c frame any source.
> >
> Yes, they are the same. They have the same definitions.

What an impudent lie. Well, as expected from relativistic scum.

On Tuesday, July 20, 2021 at 11:50:51 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Einstein’s inertial frame (inertial coordinate system) has the following
> > special properties):
> > :1. The laws of physics are the same in any inertial frame (any inertial
> > coordinate system set up in any location).
> > 2. The speed of light from any source (moving or not moving) in any
> > inertial frame is isotropic c in any inertial coordinate system set up in any location.
> > stationary aether.
> > The aether frame (ether coordinate system) has the following properties:
> > 1. The laws of physics are the same in any aether frame coordinate system
> > set up in any location in the stationary aether.
> > 2. The speed of light from any source (moving or not moving) in any
> > aether ;location is isotropic c.
> >
> > Since the aether frame is older than the SR inertial frame, it appears
> > that the SR inertial frame is just a renamed of the aether frame. So sorry.
> >
> >
> You don’t understand the meaning of the words you use.
>
> Inertial reference frames move relative to each other.

That’s why P2 is not possible. An SR inertial observer must consider that he is ar rest to get P2.

> Different ether frames (differing only in choice of origin or orientation
> of axes) do not move relative to each other.

Yes all ether frame observers are at rest and that’s why P2 is natural for him.
>
> Thus the statements (1) and (2) have completely different meaning in these
> two contexts.
>
> --
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On Tuesday, July 20, 2021 at 11:50:51 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Tuesday, July 20, 2021 at 10:40:24 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >> On 7/20/2021 10:21 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Since the aether frame is older than the SR inertial frame, it appears
> >>> that the SR inertial frame is just a renamed of the aether frame. So sorry.
> >>>
> >> Stupid Ken, Galileo created the concept of the inertial frame long
> >> before any aether theory was created. As usual, you're wrong.
> >
> > Stupid moron Mike, the Galileo’s inertial frame ia not the same as
> > Einstein’s inertial frame. It does not have constant speed of light c frame any source.
> >
> Yes, they are the same. They have the same definitions.
> The only question was which transformation (Galilean or Lorentz) apply to
> those identically defined inertial frames. Galileo thought the answer was
> one, and Einstein had enough additional information about electrodynamics
> (which Galileo did not) to show that it was the other.

>If the inertial observer does not consider himself at rest.......then he can’t claim P2.
>
An aether observer is defined as at rest and thus he get P2 naturally> --

On Tuesday, July 20, 2021 at 7:21:23 AM UTC-7, seto...@gmail.com wrote:
> Einstein’s inertial frame (inertial coordinate system) has the following special properties):
> :1. The laws of physics are the same in any inertial frame (any inertial coordinate system set up in any location).
> 2. The speed of light from any source (moving or not moving) in any inertial frame is isotropic c in any inertial coordinate system set up in any location.
> stationary aether.
> The aether frame (ether coordinate system) has the following properties:
> 1. The laws of physics are the same in any aether frame coordinate system set up in any location in the stationary aether.
> 2. The speed of light from any source (moving or not moving) in any aether ;location is isotropic c.
>
> Since the aether frame is older than the SR inertial frame, it appears that the SR inertial frame is just a renamed of the aether frame. So sorry.

Einstein's steady inertial frame speed is subject to gravity change
everywhere even where there is no comparison frame.

Mitchell Raemsch

Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 20, 2021 at 11:50:51 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Einstein’s inertial frame (inertial coordinate system) has the following
>>> special properties):
>>> :1. The laws of physics are the same in any inertial frame (any inertial
>>> coordinate system set up in any location).
>>> 2. The speed of light from any source (moving or not moving) in any
>>> inertial frame is isotropic c in any inertial coordinate system set up in any location.
>>> stationary aether.
>>> The aether frame (ether coordinate system) has the following properties:
>>> 1. The laws of physics are the same in any aether frame coordinate system
>>> set up in any location in the stationary aether.
>>> 2. The speed of light from any source (moving or not moving) in any
>>> aether ;location is isotropic c.
>>>
>>> Since the aether frame is older than the SR inertial frame, it appears
>>> that the SR inertial frame is just a renamed of the aether frame. So sorry.
>>>
>>>
>> You don’t understand the meaning of the words you use.
>>
>> Inertial reference frames move relative to each other.
>
> That’s why P2 is not possible.

No, that’s not a correct statement. What’s true is that you cannot
understand HOW it is possible. But it IS possible, and in fact the
implications of that postulate agree marvelously with experiment. So the
thing you cannot see how it’s possible is nevertheless true, whether you
believe it or not, whether you understand it or not.

A fact is a fact is a fact, and you not understanding how it’s possible
doesn’t change the fact into an assertion.

> An SR inertial observer must consider that he is ar rest to get P2.
>
>> Different ether frames (differing only in choice of origin or orientation
>> of axes) do not move relative to each other.
>
> Yes all ether frame observers are at rest and that’s why P2 is natural for him.
>>
>> Thus the statements (1) and (2) have completely different meaning in these
>> two contexts.
>>
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>

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

Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 20, 2021 at 11:50:51 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, July 20, 2021 at 10:40:24 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>> On 7/20/2021 10:21 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Since the aether frame is older than the SR inertial frame, it appears
>>>>> that the SR inertial frame is just a renamed of the aether frame. So sorry.
>>>>>
>>>> Stupid Ken, Galileo created the concept of the inertial frame long
>>>> before any aether theory was created. As usual, you're wrong.
>>>
>>> Stupid moron Mike, the Galileo’s inertial frame ia not the same as
>>> Einstein’s inertial frame. It does not have constant speed of light c frame any source.
>>>
>> Yes, they are the same. They have the same definitions.
>> The only question was which transformation (Galilean or Lorentz) apply to
>> those identically defined inertial frames. Galileo thought the answer was
>> one, and Einstein had enough additional information about electrodynamics
>> (which Galileo did not) to show that it was the other.
>
>> If the inertial observer does not consider himself at rest.......then he can’t claim P2.
>>
> An aether observer is defined as at rest and thus he get P2 naturally> --

And you understand how it’s possible to be true for the observer at rest in
the ether and so you accept that. And you personally do not understand how
it is possible to be true for observers at rest in inertial reference
frames that are MOVING relative to the supposed ether, and so you don’t
accept it and call it an assertion. But that’s not what makes an assertion
an assertion — whether you accept it or not.

It is nevertheless true, whether you understand how it’s possible or not,
that P2 holds in ALL inertial reference frames, not just those at rest
relative to the aether. That’s what made Einstein’s paper so interesting.
It’s also what follow-up experiments showed to be correct.

Whether you buy the experimental results or not is irrelevant. Whether you
understand how it’s possible or not is irrelevant. Whether it’s easy or
natural for you to understand or not is irrelevant.

>
>

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

The atom has an upper and lower speed limit.
Under no condition can it accelerate to light speed
or decelerate to rest change of position in dimension...

Mitchell Raemsch

On 7/21/2021 1:31 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 20, 2021 at 11:50:51 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Einstein’s inertial frame (inertial coordinate system) has the following
>>> special properties):
>>> :1. The laws of physics are the same in any inertial frame (any inertial
>>> coordinate system set up in any location).
>>> 2. The speed of light from any source (moving or not moving) in any
>>> inertial frame is isotropic c in any inertial coordinate system set up in any location.
>>> stationary aether.
>>> The aether frame (ether coordinate system) has the following properties:
>>> 1. The laws of physics are the same in any aether frame coordinate system
>>> set up in any location in the stationary aether.
>>> 2. The speed of light from any source (moving or not moving) in any
>>> aether ;location is isotropic c.
>>>
>>> Since the aether frame is older than the SR inertial frame, it appears
>>> that the SR inertial frame is just a renamed of the aether frame. So sorry.
>>>
>>>
>> You don’t understand the meaning of the words you use.
>>
>> Inertial reference frames move relative to each other.
>
> That’s why P2 is not possible. An SR inertial observer must consider that he is ar rest to get P2.

Stupid Ken, an inertial observer can always define a frame where he is
at rest, so P2 is always valid for him. This has nothing to do with SR,
it's from Galileo, hundreds of years ago. Ever hear of him?

The standard for motion is not a steady speed...
Show any steady motion...

Mitchell Raemsch

On Thursday, 22 July 2021 at 01:00:33 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 7/21/2021 1:31 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
> > On Tuesday, July 20, 2021 at 11:50:51 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> Einstein’s inertial frame (inertial coordinate system) has the following
> >>> special properties):
> >>> :1. The laws of physics are the same in any inertial frame (any inertial
> >>> coordinate system set up in any location).
> >>> 2. The speed of light from any source (moving or not moving) in any
> >>> inertial frame is isotropic c in any inertial coordinate system set up in any location.
> >>> stationary aether.
> >>> The aether frame (ether coordinate system) has the following properties:
> >>> 1. The laws of physics are the same in any aether frame coordinate system
> >>> set up in any location in the stationary aether.
> >>> 2. The speed of light from any source (moving or not moving) in any
> >>> aether ;location is isotropic c.
> >>>
> >>> Since the aether frame is older than the SR inertial frame, it appears
> >>> that the SR inertial frame is just a renamed of the aether frame. So sorry.
> >>>
> >>>
> >> You don’t understand the meaning of the words you use.
> >>
> >> Inertial reference frames move relative to each other.
> >
> > That’s why P2 is not possible. An SR inertial observer must consider that he is ar rest to get P2.
> Stupid Ken, an inertial observer can always define a frame where he is
> at rest

Stupid Mike, your idiot guru has "proven" there are no inertial
observers.

On Wednesday, July 21, 2021 at 9:09:11 PM UTC-7, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, 22 July 2021 at 01:00:33 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > On 7/21/2021 1:31 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, July 20, 2021 at 11:50:51 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>> Einstein’s inertial frame (inertial coordinate system) has the following
> > >>> special properties):
> > >>> :1. The laws of physics are the same in any inertial frame (any inertial
> > >>> coordinate system set up in any location).
> > >>> 2. The speed of light from any source (moving or not moving) in any
> > >>> inertial frame is isotropic c in any inertial coordinate system set up in any location.
> > >>> stationary aether.
> > >>> The aether frame (ether coordinate system) has the following properties:
> > >>> 1. The laws of physics are the same in any aether frame coordinate system
> > >>> set up in any location in the stationary aether.
> > >>> 2. The speed of light from any source (moving or not moving) in any
> > >>> aether ;location is isotropic c.
> > >>>
> > >>> Since the aether frame is older than the SR inertial frame, it appears
> > >>> that the SR inertial frame is just a renamed of the aether frame. So sorry.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >> You don’t understand the meaning of the words you use.
> > >>
> > >> Inertial reference frames move relative to each other.
> > >
> > > That’s why P2 is not possible. An SR inertial observer must consider that he is ar rest to get P2.
> > Stupid Ken, an inertial observer can always define a frame where he is
> > at rest
> Stupid Mike, your idiot guru has "proven" there are no inertial
> observers.

Who is your guru you moron?

On Wednesday, July 21, 2021 at 7:00:33 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 7/21/2021 1:31 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
> > On Tuesday, July 20, 2021 at 11:50:51 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> Einstein’s inertial frame (inertial coordinate system) has the following
> >>> special properties):
> >>> :1. The laws of physics are the same in any inertial frame (any inertial
> >>> coordinate system set up in any location).
> >>> 2. The speed of light from any source (moving or not moving) in any
> >>> inertial frame is isotropic c in any inertial coordinate system set up in any location.
> >>> stationary aether.
> >>> The aether frame (ether coordinate system) has the following properties:
> >>> 1. The laws of physics are the same in any aether frame coordinate system
> >>> set up in any location in the stationary aether.
> >>> 2. The speed of light from any source (moving or not moving) in any
> >>> aether ;location is isotropic c.
> >>>
> >>> Since the aether frame is older than the SR inertial frame, it appears
> >>> that the SR inertial frame is just a renamed of the aether frame. So sorry.
> >>>
> >>>
> >> You don’t understand the meaning of the words you use.
> >>
> >> Inertial reference frames move relative to each other.
> >
> > That’s why P2 is not possible. An SR inertial observer must consider that he is ar rest to get P2.
> Stupid Ken, an inertial observer can always define a frame where he is
> at rest, so P2 is always valid for him. This has nothing to do with SR,
> it's from Galileo, hundreds of years ago. Ever hear of him?

Stupid moron Mike, At rest wrt what? How does he measure constant c when he is moving toward or away from a light source?

On Wednesday, July 21, 2021 at 2:00:03 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Tuesday, July 20, 2021 at 11:50:51 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, July 20, 2021 at 10:40:24 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >>>> On 7/20/2021 10:21 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Since the aether frame is older than the SR inertial frame, it appears
> >>>>> that the SR inertial frame is just a renamed of the aether frame. So sorry.
> >>>>>
> >>>> Stupid Ken, Galileo created the concept of the inertial frame long
> >>>> before any aether theory was created. As usual, you're wrong.
> >>>
> >>> Stupid moron Mike, the Galileo’s inertial frame ia not the same as
> >>> Einstein’s inertial frame. It does not have constant speed of light c frame any source.
> >>>
> >> Yes, they are the same. They have the same definitions.
> >> The only question was which transformation (Galilean or Lorentz) apply to
> >> those identically defined inertial frames. Galileo thought the answer was
> >> one, and Einstein had enough additional information about electrodynamics
> >> (which Galileo did not) to show that it was the other.
> >
> >> If the inertial observer does not consider himself at rest.......then he can’t claim P2.
> >>
> > An aether observer is defined as at rest and thus he get P2 naturally> --
> And you understand how it’s possible to be true for the observer at rest in
> the ether and so you accept that. And you personally do not understand how
> it is possible to be true for observers at rest in inertial reference
> frames that are MOVING relative to the supposed ether, and so you don’t
> accept it and call it an assertion. But that’s not what makes an assertion
> an assertion — whether you accept it or not.
>
Yes I don’t understand your assertion. How does an inertial observer get P2 when he runs toward or away from a light source?
>
> It is nevertheless true, whether you understand how it’s possible or not,
> that P2 holds in ALL inertial reference frames, not just those at rest
> relative to the aether. That’s what made Einstein’s paper so interesting.
> It’s also what follow-up experiments showed to be correct.
>
This is true only if the meter is redefined as 1/299,792,458 light-seconds. Do you know that such argument is circular?
>
> Whether you buy the experimental results or not is irrelevant. Whether you
> understand how it’s possible or not is irrelevant. Whether it’s easy or
> natural for you to understand or not is irrelevant.
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On 7/23/2021 10:13 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 21, 2021 at 7:00:33 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> On 7/21/2021 1:31 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, July 20, 2021 at 11:50:51 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Einstein’s inertial frame (inertial coordinate system) has the following
>>>>> special properties):
>>>>> :1. The laws of physics are the same in any inertial frame (any inertial
>>>>> coordinate system set up in any location).
>>>>> 2. The speed of light from any source (moving or not moving) in any
>>>>> inertial frame is isotropic c in any inertial coordinate system set up in any location.
>>>>> stationary aether.
>>>>> The aether frame (ether coordinate system) has the following properties:
>>>>> 1. The laws of physics are the same in any aether frame coordinate system
>>>>> set up in any location in the stationary aether.
>>>>> 2. The speed of light from any source (moving or not moving) in any
>>>>> aether ;location is isotropic c.
>>>>>
>>>>> Since the aether frame is older than the SR inertial frame, it appears
>>>>> that the SR inertial frame is just a renamed of the aether frame. So sorry.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> You don’t understand the meaning of the words you use.
>>>>
>>>> Inertial reference frames move relative to each other.
>>>
>>> That’s why P2 is not possible. An SR inertial observer must consider that he is ar rest to get P2.

>> Stupid Ken, an inertial observer can always define a frame where he is
>> at rest, so P2 is always valid for him. This has nothing to do with SR,
>> it's from Galileo, hundreds of years ago. Ever hear of him?
>
> Stupid moron Mike, At rest wrt what?

At rest relative to the Galilean inertial frame, Stupid Ken. Remember,
Galileo's genius was that no more was necessary to define that frame, in
particular, no relation of that frame to any other was necessary.

> How does he measure constant c when he is moving toward or away from a light source?

First, in that frame, the observer is stationary. Second, the whole
point of Einstein's SR paper was the consistent set of SR relationships,
including the fact that if light is c to one inertial observer, it is c
relative to all inertial observers. I could tell you to read his SR
paper but you won't be able to understand it at all with third grade
level math skills.
>

Ken Seto wrote:

>> not what makes an assertion an assertion — whether you accept it or
>> not.
>>
> Yes I don’t understand your assertion. How does an inertial observer get
> P2 when he runs toward or away from a light source?

from source, not from light. But your theory of everything everything is
incomplete for FTL travel without causality violation.

Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 21, 2021 at 7:00:33 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> On 7/21/2021 1:31 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, July 20, 2021 at 11:50:51 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Einstein’s inertial frame (inertial coordinate system) has the following
>>>>> special properties):
>>>>> :1. The laws of physics are the same in any inertial frame (any inertial
>>>>> coordinate system set up in any location).
>>>>> 2. The speed of light from any source (moving or not moving) in any
>>>>> inertial frame is isotropic c in any inertial coordinate system set
>>>>> up in any location.
>>>>> stationary aether.
>>>>> The aether frame (ether coordinate system) has the following properties:
>>>>> 1. The laws of physics are the same in any aether frame coordinate system
>>>>> set up in any location in the stationary aether.
>>>>> 2. The speed of light from any source (moving or not moving) in any
>>>>> aether ;location is isotropic c.
>>>>>
>>>>> Since the aether frame is older than the SR inertial frame, it appears
>>>>> that the SR inertial frame is just a renamed of the aether frame. So sorry.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> You don’t understand the meaning of the words you use.
>>>>
>>>> Inertial reference frames move relative to each other.
>>>
>>> That’s why P2 is not possible. An SR inertial observer must consider
>>> that he is ar rest to get P2.
>> Stupid Ken, an inertial observer can always define a frame where he is
>> at rest, so P2 is always valid for him. This has nothing to do with SR,
>> it's from Galileo, hundreds of years ago. Ever hear of him?
>
> Stupid moron Mike, At rest wrt what? How does he measure constant c when
> he is moving toward or away from a light source?
>

There are lots of ways to measure the speed of light.
Light beams have their speed measured all the time at places like the
Advanced Photon Source. (And this is a one-way speed measurement, Ken,
despite your claim that it’s never been measured. And yes, the source of
that light is moving.)

Your ignorance of how to measure just about anything is your problem.

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

Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 21, 2021 at 2:00:03 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, July 20, 2021 at 11:50:51 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, July 20, 2021 at 10:40:24 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/20/2021 10:21 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Since the aether frame is older than the SR inertial frame, it appears
>>>>>>> that the SR inertial frame is just a renamed of the aether frame. So sorry.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Stupid Ken, Galileo created the concept of the inertial frame long
>>>>>> before any aether theory was created. As usual, you're wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>> Stupid moron Mike, the Galileo’s inertial frame ia not the same as
>>>>> Einstein’s inertial frame. It does not have constant speed of light c
>>>>> frame any source.
>>>>>
>>>> Yes, they are the same. They have the same definitions.
>>>> The only question was which transformation (Galilean or Lorentz) apply to
>>>> those identically defined inertial frames. Galileo thought the answer was
>>>> one, and Einstein had enough additional information about electrodynamics
>>>> (which Galileo did not) to show that it was the other.
>>>
>>>> If the inertial observer does not consider himself at rest.......then
>>>> he can’t claim P2.
>>>>
>>> An aether observer is defined as at rest and thus he get P2 naturally> --
>> And you understand how it’s possible to be true for the observer at rest in
>> the ether and so you accept that. And you personally do not understand how
>> it is possible to be true for observers at rest in inertial reference
>> frames that are MOVING relative to the supposed ether, and so you don’t
>> accept it and call it an assertion. But that’s not what makes an assertion
>> an assertion — whether you accept it or not.
>>
> Yes I don’t understand your assertion. How does an inertial observer get
> P2 when he runs toward or away from a light source?

Yes, I know you don’t understand it. That doesn’t make it an assertion. It
is an experimental fact, fully supported in the experimental literature.

This word “assertion” you use. It doesn’t mean a statement you’re not
convinced of. It means a statement that HAS NO supporting evidence or
compelling argument. There IS supporting evidence for P2 for an observer
moving relative to a light source, but you’ve never bothered to read it or
even look for it. Just because you choose not to look at it doesn’t make
the evidence non-existent. It only makes you ignorant of it.

It’s not an assertion. It’s just a true statement that you don’t understand
and haven’t looked up any of the evidence for.

>>
>> It is nevertheless true, whether you understand how it’s possible or not,
>> that P2 holds in ALL inertial reference frames, not just those at rest
>> relative to the aether. That’s what made Einstein’s paper so interesting.
>> It’s also what follow-up experiments showed to be correct.
>>
> This is true only if the meter is redefined as 1/299,792,458 light-seconds.

No, it does not depend on that redefinition. The validity of P2 was
established experimentally half a century BEFORE the redefinition.

> Do you know that such argument is circular?
>>
>> Whether you buy the experimental results or not is irrelevant. Whether you
>> understand how it’s possible or not is irrelevant. Whether it’s easy or
>> natural for you to understand or not is irrelevant.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>

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

Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wednesday, July 21, 2021 at 2:00:03 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Tuesday, July 20, 2021 at 11:50:51 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Tuesday, July 20, 2021 at 10:40:24 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>>>>> On 7/20/2021 10:21 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Since the aether frame is older than the SR inertial frame, it appears
>>>>>>>> that the SR inertial frame is just a renamed of the aether frame. So sorry.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Stupid Ken, Galileo created the concept of the inertial frame long
>>>>>>> before any aether theory was created. As usual, you're wrong.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Stupid moron Mike, the Galileo’s inertial frame ia not the same as
>>>>>> Einstein’s inertial frame. It does not have constant speed of light c
>>>>>> frame any source.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, they are the same. They have the same definitions.
>>>>> The only question was which transformation (Galilean or Lorentz) apply to
>>>>> those identically defined inertial frames. Galileo thought the answer was
>>>>> one, and Einstein had enough additional information about electrodynamics
>>>>> (which Galileo did not) to show that it was the other.
>>>>
>>>>> If the inertial observer does not consider himself at rest.......then
>>>>> he can’t claim P2.
>>>>>
>>>> An aether observer is defined as at rest and thus he get P2 naturally> --
>>> And you understand how it’s possible to be true for the observer at rest in
>>> the ether and so you accept that. And you personally do not understand how
>>> it is possible to be true for observers at rest in inertial reference
>>> frames that are MOVING relative to the supposed ether, and so you don’t
>>> accept it and call it an assertion. But that’s not what makes an assertion
>>> an assertion — whether you accept it or not.
>>>
>> Yes I don’t understand your assertion. How does an inertial observer get
>> P2 when he runs toward or away from a light source?
>
> Yes, I know you don’t understand it. That doesn’t make it an assertion. It
> is an experimental fact, fully supported in the experimental literature.
>
> This word “assertion” you use. It doesn’t mean a statement you’re not
> convinced of. It means a statement that HAS NO supporting evidence or
> compelling argument. There IS supporting evidence for P2 for an observer
> moving relative to a light source, but you’ve never bothered to read it or
> even look for it. Just because you choose not to look at it doesn’t make
> the evidence non-existent. It only makes you ignorant of it.
>
> It’s not an assertion. It’s just a true statement that you don’t understand
> and haven’t looked up any of the evidence for.

You have this idiotic idea that something is only true if you believe it or
understand it, and if you don’t believe it or understand it then it’s an
assertion.

That’s just insanity, Ken.

>
>>>
>>> It is nevertheless true, whether you understand how it’s possible or not,
>>> that P2 holds in ALL inertial reference frames, not just those at rest
>>> relative to the aether. That’s what made Einstein’s paper so interesting.
>>> It’s also what follow-up experiments showed to be correct.
>>>
>> This is true only if the meter is redefined as 1/299,792,458 light-seconds.
>
> No, it does not depend on that redefinition. The validity of P2 was
> established experimentally half a century BEFORE the redefinition.
>
>> Do you know that such argument is circular?
>>>
>>> Whether you buy the experimental results or not is irrelevant. Whether you
>>> understand how it’s possible or not is irrelevant. Whether it’s easy or
>>> natural for you to understand or not is irrelevant.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>
>
>
>

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