On Sunday, 2 May 2021 at 23:09:19 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Ken Seto <seto...@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 certain method of measurement you can also
measure your time dilation idiocy; serious clocks used
for serious measurement with serious methods, however,
keep indicating t'=t, just like they always did.