Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> wrote:
>> Hmm. I just checked a physics text book, "Fundamentals of Physics"
>> (Tenth Edition) by Jearl Walker,
>> and it must use the term "rotational inertia" two hundred times.
>>
>> "College Physics" (9th edition) by Raymond A. Serway & Chris Vuille has this
>> on page 89: "The tendency of an object to continue in its original state of motion is
>> called inertia."
>>
>> It also mentions "rotational inertia."
>>
>> Ed
>>
>
> Yes. That is what “inertia” means. Now, what does “inertial motion” mean?
> Look that up.
> What does “inertial reference frame” mean? Look that up.
>
> Don’t just stitch it together in your own head. You’ll make mistakes.
>

I think one of the important things to observe here, Ed, is that you’ve
been using terms “inertial motion” or “inertial reference frame” for quite
some time, and you’ve never bothered to look up what those terms actually
mean in physics. It’s actually taken some time for you to even look up
“inertia” in a physics textbook, and you only did that after several people
pointed out to you that “inertial motion” doesn’t mean what you think it
means.

Now, I’m sure that you had SOME methodology to try to sort out what
“inertial motion” means. Maybe you looked up “inertia” in the dictionary
and then extrapolated to come up with a guess as to what “inertial motion”
or “inertial frame” mean. Maybe you just relied on your command of
colloquial English to sort that out.

But you will quickly find out that this is not a fruitful method. The only
way to learn what jargon terms in physics mean is to read physics
textbooks. Not just treating them like dictionaries, either, by reading the
paragraph cited in the index.

I know this fills you with unease and distaste, and you don’t really like
reading physics textbooks (for lots of excuses you are able to find), but
there is no suitable alternative. Every alternative method you have tried
so far has produced nothing but mistakes and silly misconceptions.

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

On Wednesday, November 10, 2021 at 3:58:35 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote:
> El miércoles, 10 de noviembre de 2021 a las 14:45:14 UTC-3, det...@outlook.com escribió:
> > I just uploaded a new version of my paper "An Analysis of Einstein’s Second Postulate to his Theory of Special Relativity." It is at this link: https://vixra.org/pdf/1704.0256v5.pdf
> >
> > We've been arguing about this paper since May of 2017, but the arguments always get way off track. The key conflict is whether or not the speed of light is the same from ALL OBSERVERS. Obviously it is NOT. Radar guns demonstrate that FACT every day.
> >
> > A radar gun emits photons that travel at the speed of light, c. Those photons oscillate at a specific frequency. They hit an oncoming vehicle at c+v. That gives the photons an APPARENT higher oscillation frequency. Atoms in the vehicle send photons with that higher oscillation frequency back to the radar gun. Those photons also travel at c. The radar gun compares the oscillation frequency of the photons it emitted to the oscillation frequency of the photons it got back and is thus able to compute the speed of the oncoming vehicle.
> >
> > The only way this is possible is if the photons hit the target at c+v, which is something the mathematicians in this forum usually claim is impossible.
> >
> > Discussion?
> You have the references which clearly explain how the radar guns work (Principles of modern Radar Vol3. Radar Applications, chapter 16 Police Radar).. Since over 70 years, engineers know how a police radar works. "Police radars are required to measure only the speed of an approaching or receding
> target vehicle. The police radar must only measure the difference between the transmitted frequency and the received frequency. This difference is the Doppler frequency shift, which is proportional to the radial component of the velocity of the ‘‘target’’ vehicle.
>
> Fd = 2 (v_r Ft)/c, where Fd is the Doppler shift, v_r is the target radial velocity, Ft is the transmitted frequency and c is the speed of light.
>
> Once measured, the Doppler shift is scaled to speed in units of miles per hour (MPH). To meet this requirement, one of the simplest designs, called the homodyne radar, has been used for all police radar designs since the late 1940 time period. Figure 16-2 is a block diagram showing the homodyne concept".
>
> The use of photons for describing the “light" is irrelevant, since the only relevant factors are the frequency transmitted and the frequency received by the radar gun.

The transmitted velocity = (ft*Lambda_t) = c
The received velocity = (fr*Lambda_t) = c’
Velocity of the moving car =c-c’= (ft*Lambda_t) - (fr*Lambda_t)

On Monday, November 15, 2021 at 8:23:30 AM UTC-8, det...@outlook.com wrote:
> The problem is that the statement is misleading. It implies that
> a photon emitted from a moving atom will move at the speed of
> the atom PLUS the speed of light. It won't.

The true statement that the pulse of light moves at c relative to the inertial reference system of the emitter (which is moving at speed v on the road) does not imply that the pulse propagates at the speed c+v in the inertial reference system of the road. As noted above, the pulse of light propagates at c in terms of every inertial reference system, due to the fact that these systems use different measures of time and distance.

> It will just move at the LOCAL speed of light.

Now you're reverting to the equivalent of a dragged ether theory, which was thoroughly debunked in previous threads.

You advocated focusing on just one thing, and coming to agreement on who is right, rather than arguing about ten things at once... but that works well only for people who agree about the basics of the subject, and just disagree about one particular point. They can focus on that point and sort it out. But with you, every word of every sentence of every paragraph you type is blatantly, wildly, wrong (even absurd), so it is very difficult to avoid pointing out more than one conceptual mistake per message, especially when *you* insist on pouring many of them into each message. For example, I see you've gone back to talking about forces applied to objects, failing to distinguish between component and net forces. Your ideas about that were very thoroughly debunked in previous threads. Why are you reverting to those debunked ideas?

> Another problem is that a moving atom experiences time dilation. ..

Again, you've agreed that relativistic time dilation is much too small to affect the speeds under discussion here.

> > A pulse of light propagates at c in terms of every inertial reference system,
> > including the target's inertial reference system. This has been explained to you
> > in detail many times...
>
> If I "run away" it is because I get tired of explaining the same things to you
> over and over...

But every pulse of light propagates (in vacuum) at c in terms of every inertial system of reference. This is not a controversial statement. It is due to the fact that inertial systems of reference are related to each other in a very special way, and it only takes simple grade school logical reasoning to see that the speed of light has the same value in terms of each of these systems. If you disagree with this, then we could focus on that, and come to agreement.

> > A central point is this: Your concept of an "oscillating photon" is inconsistent with the observed changes in frequency in terms of relatively moving systems of reference. To understand why, consider a classical machine gun that shoots 10 bullets/sec, with a rifled barrel such that each bullet spins at 800 rev/sec. The stream of bullets is characterized by two different frequencies, 10 Hz and 800 Hz. Now, suppose you are approaching the gun at high speed. The frequency of bullets striking you will be (say) 13 Hz because of the Doppler effect, but the spin rate of the bullets striking you will still be 800 Hz.
>
> True for bullets, but not true for photons.

It is a generic characteristic of extrinsic versus intrinsic frequencies, and it illustrates, by simple logic, that your concept of intrinsically "oscillating photons" cannot exhibit the Doppler effect. This is because the Doppler effect applies to extrinsic frequencies of cyclic entities that are spatially and temporally distributed (like sequences of particles or wave crests, etc), but it does not apply to intrinsic frequencies of individual entities such as spin or oscillation. With electromagnetic radiation we find that the frequencies in terms of relatively moving reference systems are related precisely in accord with the Doppler formula, so those frequencies are clearly of the extrinsic type, not intrinsic oscillations. This debunks your beliefs about "oscillating photons". If you disagree, please explain how any intrinsic oscillation is subject to the Doppler effect.

On Monday, November 15, 2021 at 11:43:39 AM UTC-8, seto...@gmail.com wrote:

> The transmitted velocity = (ft*Lambda_t) = c
> The received velocity = (fr*Lambda_t) = c’
> Velocity of the moving car =c-c’= (ft*Lambda_t) - (fr*Lambda_t)

The other cretin is back

Ed Lake wrote:
> On Monday, November 15, 2021 at 7:56:03 AM UTC-6, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Ed Lake wrote:
>>> On Sunday, November 14, 2021 at 12:48:36 PM UTC-6, Townes Olson wrote:
>>>> On Saturday, November 13, 2021 at 9:54:45 AM UTC-8, wrote:
>>>>> Photons travel at the speed c, which is relative to the atom that
>>>>> emitted the photon.... regardless any motion of the emitter...
>>>>
>>>> If the emitter is moving at speed v on the road, and emits a photon
>>>> straight ahead, what is the speed of the photon relative to the road?
>>>
>>> The photon moves at c relative to the road.
>> Well, that’s true. It’s also c relative to the emitter, which is moving at
>> v relative to the road.
>
> No, if a photon is moving at c relative to the road, it cannot also be moving
> at c relative to some moving object on the road. That is just plain silly.

It seems silly to you, but it is not. Moreover it is explicitely stated
as a consequence of SR postulates in Einstein's 1905 paper:

“It furthermore follows, that the velocity of light V cannot be
altered by adding to it a "subliminal velocity". For this case, we
obtain:

U = (c + W)/(1 + W/c) = c
“

This is a direct quote from "On the electrodynamics of moving bodies"
I only changed V into c to match modern conventions.

Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 10, 2021 at 3:58:35 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote:
>> El miércoles, 10 de noviembre de 2021 a las 14:45:14 UTC-3, det...@outlook.com escribió:
>>> I just uploaded a new version of my paper "An Analysis of Einstein’s
>>> Second Postulate to his Theory of Special Relativity." It is at this link:
>>> https://vixra.org/pdf/1704.0256v5.pdf
>>>
>>> We've been arguing about this paper since May of 2017, but the
>>> arguments always get way off track. The key conflict is whether or not
>>> the speed of light is the same from ALL OBSERVERS. Obviously it is NOT.
>>> Radar guns demonstrate that FACT every day.
>>>
>>> A radar gun emits photons that travel at the speed of light, c. Those
>>> photons oscillate at a specific frequency. They hit an oncoming vehicle
>>> at c+v. That gives the photons an APPARENT higher oscillation
>>> frequency. Atoms in the vehicle send photons with that higher
>>> oscillation frequency back to the radar gun. Those photons also travel
>>> at c. The radar gun compares the oscillation frequency of the photons
>>> it emitted to the oscillation frequency of the photons it got back and
>>> is thus able to compute the speed of the oncoming vehicle.
>>>
>>> The only way this is possible is if the photons hit the target at c+v,
>>> which is something the mathematicians in this forum usually claim is impossible.
>>>
>>> Discussion?
>> You have the references which clearly explain how the radar guns work
>> (Principles of modern Radar Vol3. Radar Applications, chapter 16 Police
>> Radar). Since over 70 years, engineers know how a police radar works.
>> "Police radars are required to measure only the speed of an approaching or receding
>> target vehicle. The police radar must only measure the difference
>> between the transmitted frequency and the received frequency. This
>> difference is the Doppler frequency shift, which is proportional to the
>> radial component of the velocity of the ‘‘target’’ vehicle.
>>
>> Fd = 2 (v_r Ft)/c, where Fd is the Doppler shift, v_r is the target
>> radial velocity, Ft is the transmitted frequency and c is the speed of light.
>>
>> Once measured, the Doppler shift is scaled to speed in units of miles
>> per hour (MPH). To meet this requirement, one of the simplest designs,
>> called the homodyne radar, has been used for all police radar designs
>> since the late 1940 time period. Figure 16-2 is a block diagram showing
>> the homodyne concept".
>>
>> The use of photons for describing the “light" is irrelevant, since the
>> only relevant factors are the frequency transmitted and the frequency
>> received by the radar gun.
>
> The transmitted velocity = (ft*Lambda_t) = c
> The received velocity = (fr*Lambda_t) = c’
> Velocity of the moving car =c-c’= (ft*Lambda_t) - (fr*Lambda_t)
>

Oh dear, Ken.

Here I thought you had come to your senses and reconciled yourself to how
much time you’ve wasted on your pointless boondoggle here, and so you
stopped posting here for a month or so. But it turns out you’ve gotten
lonely again and hunger for the attention, even the attention of ridicule,
that you get here. You don’t seem to remember or to care that you’ve gotten
nothing but laughter and derision from anything you’ve posted here.

But to the point you’ve tried to make above (badly), you seem to be making
the claim that light speed can ONLY be measured by multiplying an assumed
wavelength and a measured frequency. But light speed can be measured in a
bunch of ways, and they don’t agree with the results of your method, and
they all agree with each other. So why would you then say your method is
the correct ones and all the other methods are faulty? It’s much more
likely that it’s your method (the outlier) that’s wrong, since it gets a
different answer than every other method. Don’t you agree?

I mean, if the distance from Xenia OH to Springfield OH were measured to be
20 miles by twelve different methods (survey, GPS, a car odometer, pacing
it off, counting railroad rails, satellite imagery, radar, telephone wire
terminator echoes, etc.) and you came up with a method that gave the
distance as 37 miles, don’t you think your method would immediately be
viewed skeptically?

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

Ed Lake wrote:
> On Sunday, November 14, 2021 at 4:55:40 PM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
....
>>> According to Einstein's Second Postulate,
>>> "light is always propagated in empty space with a definite
>>> velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the
>>> emitting body."
>> And the motion of the observer.
>
> NO!!!!!!!!!!! That is NONSENSE added by mathematicians who
> disagree with Einstein.

It is explicitely stated as a consequence of SR postulates in
Einstein's 1905 paper:

“It furthermore follows, that the velocity of light V cannot be
altered by adding to it a "subliminal velocity". For this case, we
obtain:

U = (c + W)/(1 + W/c) = c
“

This is a direct quote from "On the electrodynamics of moving bodies"
I only changed V into c to match modern conventions.

....
>> Also c+v is a violation of the second postulate. Remember, Einstein said
>> all observers observe light moving at c.
>
> ABSOLUTE IDIOTIC NONSENSE!!!!! Einstein never said any such thing!

He did. It is explicitely stated as a consequence of SR postulates in
Einstein's 1905 paper:

“It furthermore follows, that the velocity of light V cannot be
altered by adding to it a "subliminal velocity". For this case, we
obtain:

U = (c + W)/(1 + W/c) = c
“

This is a direct quote from "On the electrodynamics of moving bodies"
I only changed V into c to match modern conventions.

Okay, now we're getting somewhere. You have all made it abundantly clear
that you have ABSOLUTELY NO COMPREHENSION of how reality relates
to mathematics. All you know is mathematics.

Let's discuss reality.

We have a truck traveling at 50 miles per hour on Interstate 94 between
Chicago, Illinois, and Kenosha, Wisconsin.

The truck runs out of gas, and the truck slows to a stop at the side of the road.

According to the mathematicians on this forum, the truck will just as likely
end up on Mars or Alpha Centauri or some spot in the Andromeda Galaxy.
You cannot comprehend that friction will bring it to a stop on Interstate 94.

And you cannot comprehend that the truck was a propelled system when
it was moving at 50 mph. You believe that because it was moving at a steady
speed it somehow magically became an inertial system.

I'm saying that Interstate 94 is part of the rotational inertial system known as
"earth." When the truck runs of of gas, friction will bring it to a stop on that
rotational inertial system. It then effectively becomes part of that rotational
inertial system.

In addition, while it was a "propelled system" moving at 50 mph, the
experiment described in my paper would allow a special radar gun inside the
truck to measure the speed of the truck BECAUSE it is a propelled system
and not an inertial system.

Does that sum things up? I'll be back tomorrow for your answers.

Ed

Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> wrote:
> Okay, now we're getting somewhere. You have all made it abundantly clear
> that you have ABSOLUTELY NO COMPREHENSION of how reality relates
> to mathematics. All you know is mathematics.
>
> Let's discuss reality.
>
> We have a truck traveling at 50 miles per hour on Interstate 94 between
> Chicago, Illinois, and Kenosha, Wisconsin.
>
> The truck runs out of gas, and the truck slows to a stop at the side of the road.
>
> According to the mathematicians on this forum, the truck will just as likely
> end up on Mars or Alpha Centauri or some spot in the Andromeda Galaxy.
> You cannot comprehend that friction will bring it to a stop on Interstate 94.

No, that’s not the statement at all.
Here is the statement.

While the car engine and is engaged, and the car is traveling a constant 80
mph on a straight and flat road, it is in inertial motion. It is in
inertial motion because there is NO NET force acting on the car. There are
indeed at least four forces acting on the car (air resistance pushing
backwards, the friction between the tires and the road surface pushing the
car forward — that’s where the engine comes in, the force of gravity
downwards, and the force of the road pushing upward), but these forces all
sum to zero and there is no net force. This net force being zero also means
there is no acceleration (that’s Newton’s 2nd law), and since the
acceleration is zero, the velocity is constant. That is inertial motion: no
NET force, no acceleration, constant velocity.

Now you put the car in neutral and turn the engine off. Now there is a net
force on the car because the air resistance is still there pushing
backwards but there is no force pushing forwards. Because there is a net
force, there is also an acceleration, and the car slows down. While it is
slowing down, it is no longer in inertial motion. (Notice that there is no
propulsion anymore, but there is a net force, so it is not inertial
motion.)

Now the car comes to a STOP on the road, and of course the air resistance
goes away. So, once again, there is no NET force on the car, and so there
is no acceleration, and so the velocity with respect to the road is
constant. Of course it’s constant; it’s zero. It is once again in inertial
motion.

So in the exercise we just talked about, there are TWO instances of
inertial motion, one where the car is traveling at a constant 80 mph on a
straight and flat road (and so you see it being propelled doesn’t change
that), and one where it is at rest at a constant 0 mph on a straight and
flat road (and so the lack of propulsion has nothing to do with that).

Everything that I just described to you is taught in freshman level
physics, in plain language, so that students will understand what inertial
motion is.

You, however, have decided in your infinite wisdom that inertial motion
must mean something like “at rest relative to the nearest unpropelled
massive body, such as the earth’s surface”. It doesn’t mean anything like
that at all. It means what I said it means above, which you can actually
check for yourself by READING a freshman physics text, rather than just
trying to sort this all out in your own head.

>
> And you cannot comprehend that the truck was a propelled system when
> it was moving at 50 mph. You believe that because it was moving at a steady
> speed it somehow magically became an inertial system.
>
> I'm saying that Interstate 94 is part of the rotational inertial system known as
> "earth." When the truck runs of of gas, friction will bring it to a stop on that
> rotational inertial system. It then effectively becomes part of that rotational
> inertial system.
>
> In addition, while it was a "propelled system" moving at 50 mph, the
> experiment described in my paper would allow a special radar gun inside the
> truck to measure the speed of the truck BECAUSE it is a propelled system
> and not an inertial system.
>
> Does that sum things up? I'll be back tomorrow for your answers.
>
> Ed
>
>

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

On Monday, November 15, 2021 at 3:59:42 PM UTC-5, det...@outlook.com wrote:
> Okay, now we're getting somewhere.

May I suggest that we then discuss one point, one topic at a time, as you suggested. Like, I suggest we discuss the definitions, the meanings of the words used. One needs to understand what he reads before going further.

So I suggest first that we clear up the meaning of "inertial system" and try to agree on its definition.
From:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertial_frame_of_reference
"...an inertial frame of reference is a frame of reference that is not undergoing acceleration. ".

A truck coasting at constant speed of 50 miles per hour is not accelerating hence it is inertial (by this definition), agreed?

And if you read on the definition from the wiki site (or any other reference), nowhere does it invoke the need to be a "propelled system".
Comment?

rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, November 15, 2021 at 3:59:42 PM UTC-5, det...@outlook.com wrote:
>> Okay, now we're getting somewhere.
>
> May I suggest that we then discuss one point, one topic at a time, as you
> suggested. Like, I suggest we discuss the definitions, the meanings of
> the words used. One needs to understand what he reads before going further.
>
> So I suggest first that we clear up the meaning of "inertial system" and
> try to agree on its definition.
> From:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertial_frame_of_reference
> "...an inertial frame of reference is a frame of reference that is not
> undergoing acceleration. ".
>
> A truck coasting at constant speed of 50 miles per hour is not
> accelerating hence it is inertial (by this definition), agreed?
>
> And if you read on the definition from the wiki site (or any other
> reference), nowhere does it invoke the need to be a "propelled system".
> Comment?
>

And just to make sure this point is received, Ed, it is CRITICAL to use
physics terms with a meaning that physicists actually use. This does not
translate to a meaning that you inferred YOURSELF just by “thinking about
things”. It does not translate into those that use the same meaning you do
are physicists, and those that don’t are disreputable mathematicians.

If a term is defined in a physics textbook in a way that is different than
what you thought it meant, then you are the one that’s wrong. It’s not that
you are right and physics as a whole has gone off the tracks for several
generations into nonsense mathematics. It’s that you are wrong and you
haven’t learned the right definition.

Once you can learn a little humility about your instincts with physics,
then you’ll be starting on a better foot.

As a little exercise in this, here’s a little question about that car going
at 50 mph on the highway. What is the force pushing the car forward on the
highway?

There’s a reason I’m asking you this. Most new students who rely on their
own mental instincts will almost universally give the wrong answer. They’ll
say “the engine provides the force forward.” That is the wrong answer. The
engine makes the wheels go around, but that doesn’t provide the force on
the car to make it go forward. To see this, put the same car with the same
engine on a hockey rink. The engine will still make the wheels go around,
but the car will not go forward. So what IS the force that makes the car go
forward? If you answer correctly, you will surprise yourself that this is
the answer because it’s the opposite of what you’d normally think.

DO NOT TRUST YOUR OWN INSTINCTS.

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

On 11/15/2021 3:59 PM, Ed Lake wrote:
> Okay, now we're getting somewhere. You have all made it abundantly clear
> that you have ABSOLUTELY NO COMPREHENSION of how reality relates
> to mathematics. All you know is mathematics.
>
> Let's discuss reality.

I wish you would, someday.
>
> We have a truck traveling at 50 miles per hour on Interstate 94 between
> Chicago, Illinois, and Kenosha, Wisconsin.
>
> The truck runs out of gas, and the truck slows to a stop at the side of the road.
>
> According to the mathematicians on this forum,

What mathematicians? Do you see your mathematician boogeymen hiding
behind every post?

> the truck will just as likely
> end up on Mars or Alpha Centauri or some spot in the Andromeda Galaxy.

Where the HELL did that come from? Not from anyone here, and your
mathematician boogeymen don't exist.

Proper PHYSICS predicts that with air resistance and rolling friction,
yes the truck will stop. And not on Mars.

> You cannot comprehend that friction will bring it to a stop on Interstate 94.

Nobody here has claimed friction doesn't exist. More of your delusions?
>
> And you cannot comprehend that the truck was a propelled system when
> it was moving at 50 mph.

Yet it was INERTIAL. "Propelled" simply because the truck must
constantly balance out the forces of air resistance and friction if it
is to maintain a steady speed (and remain inertial).

> You believe that because it was moving at a steady
> speed it somehow magically became an inertial system.

No "magic". If it is moving at a steady speed, dv/dt = 0, meaning
acceleration is 0. Since force=mass*acceleration (Newton), and the mass
of the truck is constant, that means the total force on the truck is 0.
Since the total force is 0, the truck is inertial BY DEFINITION.

> the rotational inertial system

Contradiction in terms, if it's rotational, it cannot be inertial.
That's OK, it appears that you cannot comprehend the ground being "close
enough" to being inertial so the difference doesn't matter. But do keep
in mind that different points on earth's surface are moving relative to
the center at different speeds, and each of them can be considered
inertial for our purpose.

> "earth." When the truck runs of of gas, friction will bring it to a stop on that
> rotational inertial system. It then effectively becomes part of that rotational
> inertial system.

Other than the fact there's no such thing as a "rotational inertial
system" that's fine.

> In addition, while it was a "propelled system" moving at 50 mph, the
> experiment described in my paper would allow a special radar gun inside the
> truck to measure the speed of the truck BECAUSE it is a propelled system
> and not an inertial system.

The only problem with that is that it IS an inertial system, by definition.
>
> Does that sum things up? I'll be back tomorrow for your answers.

I can sum up apparent delusions of yours:

1) There are boogeymen called "mathematicians" here. They probably hide
under your bed and come out at night.
2) Trucks somehow wind up on Alpha Centauri or Mars when they run out of
gas. Or at least people believe that. Or just the boogeymen do.
3) Some invisible boogeyman claimed friction doesn't exist. (was it a
mathematician?)
4) Friction must not be a force. So "propelled" systems have unbalanced
forces and aren't inertial.
5) Inertial systems must be magical.
6) Rotating systems are inertial.
7) Writing a manifesto (or "paper") changes the laws of physics,
because... it says so right in the "paper" what the laws of physics
really are. Apparently.

On Monday, November 15, 2021 at 6:43:53 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:

<snip all the shit>

> Once you can learn a little humility about your instincts with physics, then you’ll be starting on a better foot.

Bodkin, the amateur theoretical physicist, giving lessons about humility? In this fucking planet only. Not even at Mars
statements were made 400 million years ago.

...................

> DO NOT TRUST YOUR OWN INSTINCTS.

Just obey. You are not allowed to think differently or, worse, against establishment's credos.

100 years invested indoctrinating mankind. Obey or will be terminated.

On Monday, November 15, 2021 at 8:29:55 PM UTC-3, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 11/15/2021 3:59 PM, Ed Lake wrote:
> > Okay, now we're getting somewhere. You have all made it abundantly clear
> > that you have ABSOLUTELY NO COMPREHENSION of how reality relates
> > to mathematics. All you know is mathematics.
> >
> > Let's discuss reality.
> I wish you would, someday.
> >
> > We have a truck traveling at 50 miles per hour on Interstate 94 between
> > Chicago, Illinois, and Kenosha, Wisconsin.
> >
> > The truck runs out of gas, and the truck slows to a stop at the side of the road.
> >
> > According to the mathematicians on this forum,
> What mathematicians? Do you see your mathematician boogeymen hiding
> behind every post?
> > the truck will just as likely
> > end up on Mars or Alpha Centauri or some spot in the Andromeda Galaxy.
> Where the HELL did that come from? Not from anyone here, and your
> mathematician boogeymen don't exist.
>
> Proper PHYSICS predicts that with air resistance and rolling friction,
> yes the truck will stop. And not on Mars.
> > You cannot comprehend that friction will bring it to a stop on Interstate 94.
> Nobody here has claimed friction doesn't exist. More of your delusions?
> >
> > And you cannot comprehend that the truck was a propelled system when
> > it was moving at 50 mph.
> Yet it was INERTIAL. "Propelled" simply because the truck must
> constantly balance out the forces of air resistance and friction if it
> is to maintain a steady speed (and remain inertial).
> > You believe that because it was moving at a steady
> > speed it somehow magically became an inertial system.
> No "magic". If it is moving at a steady speed, dv/dt = 0, meaning
> acceleration is 0. Since force=mass*acceleration (Newton), and the mass
> of the truck is constant, that means the total force on the truck is 0.
> Since the total force is 0, the truck is inertial BY DEFINITION.
>
> > the rotational inertial system
>
> Contradiction in terms, if it's rotational, it cannot be inertial.
> That's OK, it appears that you cannot comprehend the ground being "close
> enough" to being inertial so the difference doesn't matter. But do keep
> in mind that different points on earth's surface are moving relative to
> the center at different speeds, and each of them can be considered
> inertial for our purpose.
> > "earth." When the truck runs of of gas, friction will bring it to a stop on that
> > rotational inertial system. It then effectively becomes part of that rotational
> > inertial system.
> Other than the fact there's no such thing as a "rotational inertial
> system" that's fine.
> > In addition, while it was a "propelled system" moving at 50 mph, the
> > experiment described in my paper would allow a special radar gun inside the
> > truck to measure the speed of the truck BECAUSE it is a propelled system
> > and not an inertial system.
> The only problem with that is that it IS an inertial system, by definition.
> >
> > Does that sum things up? I'll be back tomorrow for your answers.
> I can sum up apparent delusions of yours:
>
> 1) There are boogeymen called "mathematicians" here. They probably hide
> under your bed and come out at night.
> 2) Trucks somehow wind up on Alpha Centauri or Mars when they run out of
> gas. Or at least people believe that. Or just the boogeymen do.
> 3) Some invisible boogeyman claimed friction doesn't exist. (was it a
> mathematician?)
> 4) Friction must not be a force. So "propelled" systems have unbalanced
> forces and aren't inertial.
> 5) Inertial systems must be magical.
> 6) Rotating systems are inertial.
> 7) Writing a manifesto (or "paper") changes the laws of physics,
> because... it says so right in the "paper" what the laws of physics
> really are. Apparently.

If Newton was alive, and had the chance, he would erase your mind so you become a babbling idiot.
Then you could make a contribution to science, by no talking and not writing.

Even if friction is zero, it works that F = m.a = d/dt("vis viva") plus action-reaction.

Matter can be moving inertially (zero friction) or being at rest. I don't see any friction component
in such monumental formula, proven even in vacuum with almost zero gravity.

Go back to kinder garden.

On Monday, November 15, 2021 at 12:59:42 PM UTC-8, det...@outlook.com wrote:
> You cannot comprehend that the truck was a propelled system when
> it was moving at 50 mph. You believe that because it was moving at a
> steady speed it somehow magically became an inertial system.

It isn't magic, it is the *definition* of inertial motion, which is unaccelerated motion. To determine whether something is accelerated you can use an accelerometer. I urge you to go on Amazon and order an accelerometer for $47 and try some experiments in your car. Of course, an accelerometer reads the acceleration of gravity in the vertical direction, but if you focus on the horizontal direction in a vehicle moving at constant speed, you will find that the horizontal acceleration is zero, meaning it is moving inertially in the horizontal direction.

> I'm saying that Interstate 94 is part of the rotational inertial system known as
> "earth." When the truck runs of of gas, friction will bring it to a stop on that
> rotational inertial system. It then effectively becomes part of that rotational
> inertial system.

Your use of the word "rotational" is messing you up a bit. Stated correctly, the road is in very nearly inertial motion at any given moment, composed of the circumferential motion around the earth's axis and the orbital motion around the sun, and noting that both of those circular paths are large enough that the motion is virtually linear for a short period of time, hence the road is very nearly in inertial motion (although a sufficiently sensitive accelerometer will show the slight Coriolis and centrifugal acceleration). Likewise the vehicle moving at 50 mph along a straight segment is also in virtually inertial motion as long at it maintains that speed and direction. There is a net (horizontal) force of zero applied to the vehicle in this condition. When the truck runs out of gas, it is subjected to a net rearward force (because the compensating forward force has been removed) that decelerates the vehicle (check on your accelerometer!), and then it comes to rest in the inertial system in which the road is at rest, with a constant speed of 0, and a net force of zero. This is high school physics.

> While it was ... moving at 50 mph, the experiment described in my paper
> would allow a special radar gun inside the truck to measure the speed of
> the truck BECAUSE it is ... not an inertial system.

But it is in inertial (unaccelerated) motion, by definition. You can check this when Amazon delivers your accelerometer. Also, even if you accelerate the vehicle, the frequency shift from one end of the truck to the other would not correlate with the truck's velocity (relative to anything), but to it's acceleration. Similarly if you point a light from the floor to the ceiling of the truck you will get a red shift as in the Rebka-Pound experiment. Doing this in the horizontal direction reveals the acceleration of the truck, not the velocity. Indeed there are navigational instruments that work exactly this way. I'm sure you can order one of those on Amazon too.

> The problem is that the statement is misleading. It implies that
> a photon emitted from a moving atom will move at the speed of
> the atom PLUS the speed of light. It won't.

The true statement that the pulse of light moves at c relative to the inertial reference system of the emitter (which is moving at speed v on the road) does not imply that the pulse propagates at the speed c+v in the inertial reference system of the road. As noted above, the pulse of light propagates at c in terms of every inertial reference system, due to the fact that these systems use different measures of time and distance.

> It will just move at the LOCAL speed of light.

Now you're reverting to the equivalent of a dragged ether theory, which was thoroughly debunked in previous threads.

You advocated focusing on just one thing, and coming to agreement on who is right, rather than arguing about ten things at once... but that works well only for people who agree about the basics of the subject, and just disagree about one particular point. They can focus on that point and sort it out.. But with you, every word of every sentence of every paragraph you type is blatantly, wildly, wrong (even absurd), so it is very difficult to avoid pointing out more than one conceptual mistake per message, especially when *you* insist on pouring many of them into each message. For example, I see you've gone back to talking about forces applied to objects, failing to distinguish between component and net forces. Your ideas about that were very thoroughly debunked in previous threads. Why are you reverting to those debunked ideas?

> Another problem is that a moving atom experiences time dilation. ..

Again, you've agreed that relativistic time dilation is much too small to affect the speeds under discussion here.

> > A pulse of light propagates at c in terms of every inertial reference system,
> > including the target's inertial reference system. This has been explained to you
> > in detail many times...
>
> If I "run away" it is because I get tired of explaining the same things to you
> over and over...

But every pulse of light propagates (in vacuum) at c in terms of every inertial system of reference. This is not a controversial statement. It is due to the fact that inertial systems of reference are related to each other in a very special way, and it only takes simple grade school logical reasoning to see that the speed of light has the same value in terms of each of these systems. If you disagree with this, then we could focus on that, and come to agreement.

> > A central point is this: Your concept of an "oscillating photon" is inconsistent with the observed changes in frequency in terms of relatively moving systems of reference. To understand why, consider a classical machine gun that shoots 10 bullets/sec, with a rifled barrel such that each bullet spins at 800 rev/sec. The stream of bullets is characterized by two different frequencies, 10 Hz and 800 Hz. Now, suppose you are approaching the gun at high speed. The frequency of bullets striking you will be (say) 13 Hz because of the Doppler effect, but the spin rate of the bullets striking you will still be 800 Hz.
>
> True for bullets, but not true for photons.

It is a generic characteristic of extrinsic versus intrinsic frequencies, and it illustrates, by simple logic, that your concept of intrinsically "oscillating photons" cannot exhibit the Doppler effect. This is because the Doppler effect applies to extrinsic frequencies of cyclic entities that are spatially and temporally distributed (like sequences of particles or wave crests, etc), but it does not apply to intrinsic frequencies of individual entities such as spin or oscillation. With electromagnetic radiation we find that the frequencies in terms of relatively moving reference systems are related precisely in accord with the Doppler formula, so those frequencies are clearly of the extrinsic type, not intrinsic oscillations. This debunks your beliefs about "oscillating photons". If you disagree, please explain how any intrinsic oscillation is subject to the Doppler effect.

On Monday, November 15, 2021 at 12:59:42 PM UTC-8, det...@outlook.com wrote:
> You cannot comprehend that the truck was a propelled system when
> it was moving at 50 mph. You believe that because it was moving at a
> steady speed it somehow magically became an inertial system.

It isn't magic, it's the *definition* of inertial motion, which is unaccelerated motion. To determine whether something is accelerated you can use an accelerometer. I urge you to go on Amazon and order an accelerometer for $47 and try some experiments in your car. Of course, an accelerometer reads the acceleration of gravity in the vertical direction, but if you focus on the horizontal direction in a vehicle moving at constant speed, you will find that the horizontal acceleration is zero, meaning it is moving inertially in the horizontal direction.

> I'm saying that Interstate 94 is part of the rotational inertial system known as
> "earth." When the truck runs of of gas, friction will bring it to a stop on that
> rotational inertial system. It then effectively becomes part of that rotational
> inertial system.

Your use of the word "rotational" is off. Stated correctly, the road is in very nearly inertial motion at any given moment, composed of the circumferential motion around the earth's axis and the orbital motion around the sun, and noting that both of those circular paths are large enough that the motion is virtually linear for a short period of time, hence the road is very nearly in inertial motion (although a sufficiently sensitive accelerometer will show the slight Coriolis and centrifugal acceleration). Likewise the vehicle moving at 50 mph along a straight segment is also in virtually inertial motion as long at it maintains that speed and direction. There is a net (horizontal) force of zero applied to the vehicle in this condition. When the truck runs out of gas, it is subjected to a net rearward force (because the compensating forward force has been removed) that decelerates the vehicle (check on your accelerometer!), and then it comes to rest in the inertial system in which the road is at rest, with a constant speed of 0, and a net force of zero. This is high school physics.

> While it was ... moving at 50 mph, the experiment described in my paper
> would allow a special radar gun inside the truck to measure the speed of
> the truck BECAUSE it is ... not an inertial system.

But it's in inertial (unaccelerated) motion, by definition. You can check this when Amazon delivers your accelerometer. Also, even if you accelerate the vehicle, the frequency shift from one end of the truck to the other would not correlate with the truck's velocity (relative to anything), but to it's acceleration. Similarly if you point a light from the floor to the ceiling of the truck you will get a red shift as in the Rebka-Pound experiment. Doing this in the horizontal direction reveals the acceleration of the truck, not the velocity. Indeed there are navigational instruments that work exactly this way. I'm sure you can order one of those on Amazon too.

> The problem is that the statement is misleading. It implies that
> a photon emitted from a moving atom will move at the speed of
> the atom PLUS the speed of light. It won't.

The (true) statement that the pulse of light moves at c relative to the inertial reference system of the emitter (which is moving at speed v on the road) doesn't imply that the pulse propagates at the speed c+v in the inertial reference system of the road. As noted above, the pulse of light propagates at c in terms of every inertial reference system, due to the fact that these systems use different measures of time and distance.

> It will just move at the LOCAL speed of light.

Now you are reverting to the equivalent of a dragged ether theory, which was thoroughly debunked in previous threads.

You advocated focusing on just one thing, and coming to agreement on who is right, rather than arguing about ten things at once... but that works well only for people who agree about the basics of the subject, and just disagree about one particular point. They can focus on that point and sort it out.. But every word of every sentence of every paragraph you type is blatantly, wildly, wrong (even absurd), so it's very difficult to avoid pointing out more than one conceptual mistake per message, especially when *you* pour many of them into each message. For example, I see you've gone back to talking about forces applied to objects, failing to distinguish between component and net forces. Your ideas about that were very thoroughly debunked in previous threads. Why are you reverting to those debunked ideas?

> Another problem is that a moving atom experiences time dilation. ..

Again, you have agreed that relativistic time dilation is much too small to affect the speeds under discussion here, and yet you keep bringing this up, and then denying you said it, and then saying it again, and then...

> > A pulse of light propagates at c in terms of every inertial reference system,
> > including the target's inertial reference system. This has been explained to you
> > in detail many times...
>
> If I "run away" it is because I get tired of explaining the same things to you
> over and over...

But every pulse of light propagates (in vacuum) at c in terms of every inertial system of reference. This isn't a controversial statement. It's due to the fact that inertial systems of reference are related to each other in a very special way, and it only takes simple grade school logical reasoning to see that the speed of light has the same value in terms of each of these systems. If you disagree with this, then we could focus on that, and come to agreement.

> > A central point is this: Your concept of an "oscillating photon" is inconsistent with the observed changes in frequency in terms of relatively moving systems of reference. To understand why, consider a classical machine gun that shoots 10 bullets/sec, with a rifled barrel such that each bullet spins at 800 rev/sec. The stream of bullets is characterized by two different frequencies, 10 Hz and 800 Hz. Now, suppose you are approaching the gun at high speed. The frequency of bullets striking you will be (say) 13 Hz because of the Doppler effect, but the spin rate of the bullets striking you will still be 800 Hz.
>
> True for bullets, but not true for photons.

No, it's a generic characteristic of extrinsic versus intrinsic frequencies, and it illustrates, by simple logic, that your concept of intrinsically "oscillating photons" cannot exhibit the Doppler effect. This is because the Doppler effect applies to extrinsic frequencies of cyclic entities that are spatially and temporally distributed (like sequences of particles or wave crests, etc), but it does not apply to intrinsic frequencies of individual entities such as spin or oscillation. With electromagnetic radiation we find that the frequencies in terms of relatively moving reference systems are related precisely in accord with the Doppler formula, so those frequencies are clearly of the extrinsic type, not intrinsic oscillations. This debunks your beliefs about "oscillating photons". If you disagree, please explain how any intrinsic oscillation can exhibit any Doppler effect.

On 11/15/2021 6:51 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Monday, November 15, 2021 at 8:29:55 PM UTC-3, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> On 11/15/2021 3:59 PM, Ed Lake wrote:
>>> Okay, now we're getting somewhere. You have all made it abundantly clear
>>> that you have ABSOLUTELY NO COMPREHENSION of how reality relates
>>> to mathematics. All you know is mathematics.
>>>
>>> Let's discuss reality.
>> I wish you would, someday.
>>>
>>> We have a truck traveling at 50 miles per hour on Interstate 94 between
>>> Chicago, Illinois, and Kenosha, Wisconsin.
>>>
>>> The truck runs out of gas, and the truck slows to a stop at the side of the road.
>>>
>>> According to the mathematicians on this forum,
>> What mathematicians? Do you see your mathematician boogeymen hiding
>> behind every post?
>>> the truck will just as likely
>>> end up on Mars or Alpha Centauri or some spot in the Andromeda Galaxy.
>> Where the HELL did that come from? Not from anyone here, and your
>> mathematician boogeymen don't exist.
>>
>> Proper PHYSICS predicts that with air resistance and rolling friction,
>> yes the truck will stop. And not on Mars.
>>> You cannot comprehend that friction will bring it to a stop on Interstate 94.
>> Nobody here has claimed friction doesn't exist. More of your delusions?
>>>
>>> And you cannot comprehend that the truck was a propelled system when
>>> it was moving at 50 mph.
>> Yet it was INERTIAL. "Propelled" simply because the truck must
>> constantly balance out the forces of air resistance and friction if it
>> is to maintain a steady speed (and remain inertial).
>>> You believe that because it was moving at a steady
>>> speed it somehow magically became an inertial system.
>> No "magic". If it is moving at a steady speed, dv/dt = 0, meaning
>> acceleration is 0. Since force=mass*acceleration (Newton), and the mass
>> of the truck is constant, that means the total force on the truck is 0.
>> Since the total force is 0, the truck is inertial BY DEFINITION.
>>
>>> the rotational inertial system
>>
>> Contradiction in terms, if it's rotational, it cannot be inertial.
>> That's OK, it appears that you cannot comprehend the ground being "close
>> enough" to being inertial so the difference doesn't matter. But do keep
>> in mind that different points on earth's surface are moving relative to
>> the center at different speeds, and each of them can be considered
>> inertial for our purpose.
>>> "earth." When the truck runs of of gas, friction will bring it to a stop on that
>>> rotational inertial system. It then effectively becomes part of that rotational
>>> inertial system.
>> Other than the fact there's no such thing as a "rotational inertial
>> system" that's fine.
>>> In addition, while it was a "propelled system" moving at 50 mph, the
>>> experiment described in my paper would allow a special radar gun inside the
>>> truck to measure the speed of the truck BECAUSE it is a propelled system
>>> and not an inertial system.
>> The only problem with that is that it IS an inertial system, by definition.
>>>
>>> Does that sum things up? I'll be back tomorrow for your answers.
>> I can sum up apparent delusions of yours:
>>
>> 1) There are boogeymen called "mathematicians" here. They probably hide
>> under your bed and come out at night.
>> 2) Trucks somehow wind up on Alpha Centauri or Mars when they run out of
>> gas. Or at least people believe that. Or just the boogeymen do.
>> 3) Some invisible boogeyman claimed friction doesn't exist. (was it a
>> mathematician?)
>> 4) Friction must not be a force. So "propelled" systems have unbalanced
>> forces and aren't inertial.
>> 5) Inertial systems must be magical.
>> 6) Rotating systems are inertial.
>> 7) Writing a manifesto (or "paper") changes the laws of physics,
>> because... it says so right in the "paper" what the laws of physics
>> really are. Apparently.
>
> If Newton was alive, and had the chance, he would erase your mind so you become a babbling idiot.

Why would you think Newton would want to make me into a clone of you?

> Even if friction is zero, it works that F = m.a = d/dt("vis viva")

The truck is in orbit now?

> plus action-reaction.

Of what?

If friction were zero, there would be no need for the engine to
counteract friction in order to keep the truck at a constant speed.
The truck wouldn't run out of gas, and even if it did it would continue
to coast at a constant speed.
>
> Matter can be moving inertially (zero friction) or being at rest.

Or moving inertially with nonzero friction exactly countered by the
forward force.

> I don't see any friction component
> in such monumental formula,

What monumental formula? Where I stated all the forces add to zero in
an inertial system? Friction is one of those forces. High school physics.

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, November 15, 2021 at 6:43:53 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> <snip all the shit>
>
>> Once you can learn a little humility about your instincts with physics,
>> then you’ll be starting on a better foot.
>
> Bodkin, the amateur theoretical physicist, giving lessons about humility?
> In this fucking planet only. Not even at Mars
> statements were made 400 million years ago.
>
> ..................
>
>> DO NOT TRUST YOUR OWN INSTINCTS.
>
> Just obey. You are not allowed to think differently or, worse, against
> establishment's credos.

Well, I suppose an engineer could rebel against the “credos” tested in the
licensure exams. Of course, then they wouldn’t be engineers if they did
that.

Honestly, if you’re going to shoot at the slightest breeze, be sure the
gun’s not still in the holster so you don’t shoot your own foot every time.

>
> 100 years invested indoctrinating mankind. Obey or will be terminated.
>
>

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

On Monday, November 15, 2021 at 6:56:08 PM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Monday, November 15, 2021 at 6:43:53 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > <snip all the shit>
> >
> >> Once you can learn a little humility about your instincts with physics,
> >> then you’ll be starting on a better foot.
> >
> > Bodkin, the amateur theoretical physicist, giving lessons about humility?
> > In this fucking planet only. Not even at Mars
> > statements were made 400 million years ago.
> >
> > ..................
> >
> >> DO NOT TRUST YOUR OWN INSTINCTS.
> >
> > Just obey. You are not allowed to think differently or, worse, against
> > establishment's credos.
> Well, I suppose an engineer could rebel against the “credos” tested in the
> licensure exams. Of course, then they wouldn’t be engineers if they did
> that.
>
> Honestly, if you’re going to shoot at the slightest breeze, be sure the
> gun’s not still in the holster so you don’t shoot your own foot every time.
> >
> > 100 years invested indoctrinating mankind. Obey or will be terminated.
> >
> >
> --
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

:>)

On Monday, 15 November 2021 at 19:03:29 UTC+1, Paparios wrote:
> El lunes, 15 de noviembre de 2021 a las 14:42:09 UTC-3, det...@outlook.com escribió:
> > On Monday, November 15, 2021 at 10:50:20 AM UTC-6, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > This doesn’t follow at all. Even if the atom were “slowed down” as you seem
> > > to think it is, why would that have ANYTHING to do with the speed of the
> > > photon.
>
> > The atom doesn't slow down. TIME slows down for the atom because of
> > its speed (velocity time dilation). When time slows down for the atom, and
> > it emits a photon at 299,792,458 meter PER SECOND, a second is longer,
> > which means the photon's speed is different.
> >
> > Ed
> You have it all wrong, as usual. Velocity time dilation is the difference in the elapsed time as measured by two clocks which are at rest relative to the moving object. The measurement is not done by the atom, which experiences no time dilation at all.

In the meantime in the real world, forbidden by your Shit
GPS clocks keep measuring t'=t, just like all serious
clocks always did.

On Monday, 15 November 2021 at 22:43:53 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:

> DO NOT TRUST YOUR OWN INSTINCTS.

Only trust our beloved Giant Guru and his obedient minions.

On Monday, November 15, 2021 at 3:24:59 PM UTC-6, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Ed Lake wrote:
> > Okay, now we're getting somewhere. You have all made it abundantly clear
> > that you have ABSOLUTELY NO COMPREHENSION of how reality relates
> > to mathematics. All you know is mathematics.
> >
> > Let's discuss reality.
> >
> > We have a truck traveling at 50 miles per hour on Interstate 94 between
> > Chicago, Illinois, and Kenosha, Wisconsin.
> >
> > The truck runs out of gas, and the truck slows to a stop at the side of the road.
> >
> > According to the mathematicians on this forum, the truck will just as likely
> > end up on Mars or Alpha Centauri or some spot in the Andromeda Galaxy.
> > You cannot comprehend that friction will bring it to a stop on Interstate 94.
> No, that’s not the statement at all.
> Here is the statement.
>
> While the car engine and is engaged, and the car is traveling a constant 80
> mph on a straight and flat road, it is in inertial motion. It is in
> inertial motion because there is NO NET force acting on the car. There are
> indeed at least four forces acting on the car (air resistance pushing
> backwards, the friction between the tires and the road surface pushing the
> car forward — that’s where the engine comes in, the force of gravity
> downwards, and the force of the road pushing upward), but these forces all
> sum to zero and there is no net force. This net force being zero also means
> there is no acceleration (that’s Newton’s 2nd law), and since the
> acceleration is zero, the velocity is constant. That is inertial motion: no
> NET force, no acceleration, constant velocity.
>
> Now you put the car in neutral and turn the engine off. Now there is a net
> force on the car because the air resistance is still there pushing
> backwards but there is no force pushing forwards. Because there is a net
> force, there is also an acceleration, and the car slows down. While it is
> slowing down, it is no longer in inertial motion. (Notice that there is no
> propulsion anymore, but there is a net force, so it is not inertial
> motion.)
>
> Now the car comes to a STOP on the road, and of course the air resistance
> goes away. So, once again, there is no NET force on the car, and so there
> is no acceleration, and so the velocity with respect to the road is
> constant. Of course it’s constant; it’s zero. It is once again in inertial
> motion.
>
> So in the exercise we just talked about, there are TWO instances of
> inertial motion, one where the car is traveling at a constant 80 mph on a
> straight and flat road (and so you see it being propelled doesn’t change
> that), and one where it is at rest at a constant 0 mph on a straight and
> flat road (and so the lack of propulsion has nothing to do with that).
>
> Everything that I just described to you is taught in freshman level
> physics, in plain language, so that students will understand what inertial
> motion is.
>
> You, however, have decided in your infinite wisdom that inertial motion
> must mean something like “at rest relative to the nearest unpropelled
> massive body, such as the earth’s surface”. It doesn’t mean anything like
> that at all. It means what I said it means above, which you can actually
> check for yourself by READING a freshman physics text, rather than just
> trying to sort this all out in your own head.

Okay. Very interesting. So, when a truck is being propelled at a constant
80 mph down I-94, it is an inertial system. You realize, of course, that the
truck is bumping over cracks in the pavement, it is being pushed by winds, the
truck driver's foot on the gas pedal is not perfectly steady, so the speed
actually varies a bit up and down. And yet you believe it is an inertial
system.

And a police officer, who is standing on A DIFFERENT inertial system,
the earth, can point a radar gun at the truck and measure the truck's speed..

I'd say that your BELIEF as to what constitutes an "inertial system" is
just that, your BELIEF. It doesn't have anything to do with reality.

Ed

On Monday, November 15, 2021 at 3:26:04 PM UTC-6, rotchm wrote:
> On Monday, November 15, 2021 at 3:59:42 PM UTC-5, wrote:
> > Okay, now we're getting somewhere.
> May I suggest that we then discuss one point, one topic at a time, as you suggested. Like, I suggest we discuss the definitions, the meanings of the words used. One needs to understand what he reads before going further.
>
> So I suggest first that we clear up the meaning of "inertial system" and try to agree on its definition.
> From:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertial_frame_of_reference
> "...an inertial frame of reference is a frame of reference that is not undergoing acceleration. ".
>
> A truck coasting at constant speed of 50 miles per hour is not accelerating hence it is inertial (by this definition), agreed?
>
> And if you read on the definition from the wiki site (or any other reference), nowhere does it invoke the need to be a "propelled system".
> Comment?

Okay. Good point. I can see where you get your screwball beliefs.
But a truck cannot COAST at a constant speed of 50 mph. If the
driver's foot needs to be on the gas pedal to make that happen, then
the truck is NOT "coasting."

That wiki page also says, "Conceptually, the physics of a system in an
inertial frame have no causes external to the system."

But a truck has many causes external to the system. According to Odds
Bodkin in the previous message, "There are
indeed at least four forces acting on the car (air resistance pushing
backwards, the friction between the tires and the road surface pushing the
car forward — that’s where the engine comes in, the force of gravity
downwards, and the force of the road pushing upward),"

It seems to me that you can recite memorized words you learned in
school, but you do not understand what they mean in our real world.

Ed

El martes, 16 de noviembre de 2021 a las 12:41:12 UTC-3, det...@outlook.com escribió:
> On Monday, November 15, 2021 at 3:24:59 PM UTC-6, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:

> > You, however, have decided in your infinite wisdom that inertial motion
> > must mean something like “at rest relative to the nearest unpropelled
> > massive body, such as the earth’s surface”. It doesn’t mean anything like
> > that at all. It means what I said it means above, which you can actually
> > check for yourself by READING a freshman physics text, rather than just
> > trying to sort this all out in your own head.

> Okay. Very interesting. So, when a truck is being propelled at a constant
> 80 mph down I-94, it is an inertial system. You realize, of course, that the
> truck is bumping over cracks in the pavement, it is being pushed by winds, the
> truck driver's foot on the gas pedal is not perfectly steady, so the speed
> actually varies a bit up and down. And yet you believe it is an inertial
> system.
>
> And a police officer, who is standing on A DIFFERENT inertial system,
> the earth, can point a radar gun at the truck and measure the truck's speed.
>
> I'd say that your BELIEF as to what constitutes an "inertial system" is
> just that, your BELIEF. It doesn't have anything to do with reality.
>
> Ed

It is not a belief. It is what physicists have defined as inertial systems:

"In classical physics and special relativity, an inertial frame of reference is a frame of reference that is not undergoing acceleration. In an inertial frame of reference, a physical object with zero net force acting on it moves with a constant velocity (which might be zero)—or, equivalently, it is a frame of reference in which Newton's first law of motion holds. An inertial frame of reference can be defined in analytical terms as a frame of reference that describes time and space homogeneously, isotropically, and in a time-independent manner. Conceptually, the physics of a system in an inertial frame have no causes external to the system. An inertial frame of reference may also be called an inertial reference frame, inertial frame, Galilean reference frame, or inertial space.

All inertial frames are in a state of constant, rectilinear motion with respect to one another; an accelerometer moving with any of them would detect zero acceleration. Measurements in one inertial frame can be converted to measurements in another by a simple transformation (the Galilean transformation in Newtonian physics and the Lorentz transformation in special relativity). In general relativity, in any region small enough for the curvature of spacetime and tidal forces to be negligible, one can find a set of inertial frames that approximately describe that region".

You need to study a lot more!!!!

On 11/16/2021 10:41 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
> On Monday, November 15, 2021 at 3:24:59 PM UTC-6, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Ed Lake wrote:
>>> Okay, now we're getting somewhere. You have all made it abundantly clear
>>> that you have ABSOLUTELY NO COMPREHENSION of how reality relates
>>> to mathematics. All you know is mathematics.
>>>
>>> Let's discuss reality.
>>>
>>> We have a truck traveling at 50 miles per hour on Interstate 94 between
>>> Chicago, Illinois, and Kenosha, Wisconsin.
>>>
>>> The truck runs out of gas, and the truck slows to a stop at the side of the road.
>>>
>>> According to the mathematicians on this forum, the truck will just as likely
>>> end up on Mars or Alpha Centauri or some spot in the Andromeda Galaxy.
>>> You cannot comprehend that friction will bring it to a stop on Interstate 94.
>> No, that’s not the statement at all.
>> Here is the statement.
>>
>> While the car engine and is engaged, and the car is traveling a constant 80
>> mph on a straight and flat road, it is in inertial motion. It is in
>> inertial motion because there is NO NET force acting on the car. There are
>> indeed at least four forces acting on the car (air resistance pushing
>> backwards, the friction between the tires and the road surface pushing the
>> car forward — that’s where the engine comes in, the force of gravity
>> downwards, and the force of the road pushing upward), but these forces all
>> sum to zero and there is no net force. This net force being zero also means
>> there is no acceleration (that’s Newton’s 2nd law), and since the
>> acceleration is zero, the velocity is constant. That is inertial motion: no
>> NET force, no acceleration, constant velocity.
>>
>> Now you put the car in neutral and turn the engine off. Now there is a net
>> force on the car because the air resistance is still there pushing
>> backwards but there is no force pushing forwards. Because there is a net
>> force, there is also an acceleration, and the car slows down. While it is
>> slowing down, it is no longer in inertial motion. (Notice that there is no
>> propulsion anymore, but there is a net force, so it is not inertial
>> motion.)
>>
>> Now the car comes to a STOP on the road, and of course the air resistance
>> goes away. So, once again, there is no NET force on the car, and so there
>> is no acceleration, and so the velocity with respect to the road is
>> constant. Of course it’s constant; it’s zero. It is once again in inertial
>> motion.
>>
>> So in the exercise we just talked about, there are TWO instances of
>> inertial motion, one where the car is traveling at a constant 80 mph on a
>> straight and flat road (and so you see it being propelled doesn’t change
>> that), and one where it is at rest at a constant 0 mph on a straight and
>> flat road (and so the lack of propulsion has nothing to do with that).
>>
>> Everything that I just described to you is taught in freshman level
>> physics, in plain language, so that students will understand what inertial
>> motion is.
>>
>> You, however, have decided in your infinite wisdom that inertial motion
>> must mean something like “at rest relative to the nearest unpropelled
>> massive body, such as the earth’s surface”. It doesn’t mean anything like
>> that at all. It means what I said it means above, which you can actually
>> check for yourself by READING a freshman physics text, rather than just
>> trying to sort this all out in your own head.
>
> Okay. Very interesting. So, when a truck is being propelled at a constant
> 80 mph down I-94, it is an inertial system. You realize, of course, that the
> truck is bumping over cracks in the pavement, it is being pushed by winds, the
> truck driver's foot on the gas pedal is not perfectly steady, so the speed
> actually varies a bit up and down. And yet you believe it is an inertial
> system.

So now you are backtracking to the truck not being a perfect inertial
system? Guess what, there are no perfect inertial systems. The whole
idea is that it's inertial enough for our purposes.
>
> And a police officer, who is standing on A DIFFERENT inertial system,
> the earth, can point a radar gun at the truck and measure the truck's speed.

His inertial system isn't perfectly inertial either. The earth is
rotating (not inertial), revolving around the sun (not inertial), wind
is still blowing, he's moving around somewhat (whether in the cruiser or
standing with a handheld unit), vibrations from passing vehicles etc.

The whole point is that both systems are inertial enough for the science
to work, to within the precision of measurements.
>
> I'd say that your BELIEF as to what constitutes an "inertial system" is
> just that, your BELIEF.

No, it is what science defines an inertial system is, all the way back
to Galileo. What is a belief is your belief that a "propelled" system
cannot be inertial, even though "not propelled" is not part of any
definition of "inertial system".

> It doesn't have anything to do with reality.

Galileo showed it does.

> Ed
>