On Sunday, May 2, 2021 at 3:05:10 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Friday, April 30, 2021 at 4:13:39 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Friday, April 30, 2021 at 10:39:33 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> On Friday, April 30, 2021 at 9:49:27 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 8:19:34 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 27, 2021 at 3:58:02 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 27, 2021 at 9:58:25 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail..com wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, April 26, 2021 at 3:41:45 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, April 26, 2021 at 1:21:07 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, April 26, 2021 at 10:53:38 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 25, 2021 at 11:10:58 AM UTC-4, Rob Acraman wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, April 24, 2021 at 1:08:02 AM UTC+10, seto...@gmail.com
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Einstein’s SR postulates are the natural properties
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of a stationary
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aether as follows:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. The laws of physics are the same in any location (inertial frame) in
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the stationary aether.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. The speed of transmission of light pulses by the stationary aether
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is isotropic in all directions....independent of the motion of the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> emitter in the aether.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That’s not what “inertial frame" means.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, Ken, it’s really not. You just making empty claims about your invented
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meanings for physics jargon terms is just silly and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> psychopathic.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, it is what inertial frame means. The only inertial frame exists is a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> frame in a state of absolute rest in the ether.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That’s why SR and LET
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have the same math.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SR is markedly different from "the natural properties of a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stationary aether".
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On the contrary, the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "stationary aether" was the prevailing belief
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> before 1905 ... before Einstein's SR replaced it.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SR’s inertial frame is a hypothetical concept.. It doesn’t exist on
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> earth.Why? Because an inertial frame of an object exists only if the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> object is in a state of absolute rest
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is DEFINITELY not what “inertial frame” means to anyone but you.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why don’t you give us an example of a real physical inertial frame on
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> earth?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure. The beam line at SLAC is at rest in an inertial frame. The electrons
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the beam line are moving in that inertial frame. Why do you think it’s
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not an inertial reference frame?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The earth is rotating so it is not in an inertial frame.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Doesn’t make a measurable difference for the electrons in the beam line.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Therefore it is inertial.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> We were talking about objects that are in inertial frames.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Beam lines are not objects.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Yes they are. People make them. They are objects. The beam line that people
> >>>>>>>>>>>> made is at rest in an inertial frame.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> At rest in what inertial frame?
> >>>>>>>>>> The one comoving with the beam line components for the interval of time
> >>>>>>>>>> that the electrons fly from one end to the other.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> ROTFLOL....you think that two clocks at the end of the beam line are inertial
> >>>>>>>> No, you’re getting tow conversations confused. There are not two synched
> >>>>>>>> clocks at the end of a beam line. That wasn’t this conversation. This
> >>>>>>>> conversation was about whether inertial frames exist, and they do, and the
> >>>>>>>> beam line is an example of something as being treatable as being at rest in
> >>>>>>>> an inertial frame. Synched clocks have nothing to do with that.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> The beam line is not an inertial frame. Why? Because it changes
> >>>>>>> direction continuously.
> >>>>>> No, it doesn’t, Ken. This is a STRAIGHT beam line.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Hey stupid, the ends of the beam line changes directions continuously
> >>>>> as the earth rotates.
> >>>> How much does the end of the mile-long beam line move, Ken, during the time
> >>>> the electron moves from one end to the other?
> >>> I don’t know and I don’t care. The end result is that they are not inertial.
> >> Nope. It DOES matter. This is science. How something gets modeled depends
> >> on the precision needed. Any scientist knows this.
> >
> > Current physics based on abstract math.
> Precision of measurement and how that affects modeling is not abstract
> math.

You said that the length of a moving meter stick can be measured......that certainly is not precision of measurement.
>
> > That’s why it failed to come up with a valid TOE.
> > Time to based physics on physical model.
> >
> >> A trained engineer
> >> SHOULD know this. You don’t. You’ve lost your marbles. You’re not equipped
> >> between the ears to think scientifically.
> >>>
> >>>> Is this above or below the
> >>>> experimental resolution of the set-up? Do you understand why this is
> >>>> important to determination whether the frame is inertial or not?
> >>>
> >>>
> >> --
> >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >
> --
> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables