Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.

Precision of measurement is a number in percent or in length amount. Using
a certain method I can measure the length of a moving meter stick with a
beta of 1E-6 to a precision of 0.1%. Using a different method, I can
measure the length of a moving meter stick with a beta of 1E-4 to a
precision of 0.001%. In the case of the beamline, the angle of the beamline
swings by pi/86,000 radians per second, but the electron is through there
in 1/200000th of a second. Can you calculate the precision of the beamline
from that yet?

Of course I know you have no idea what these words mean. Numbers mean
nothing to you anymore. Might as well be Swahili.

>>
>>> 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
>

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