Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #476145 > unrolled thread
| Started by | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-11-03 08:45 -0700 |
| Last post | 2018-11-21 17:15 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 187 — 19 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-11-03 08:45 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-03 16:41 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-11-03 12:54 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-11-03 13:03 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-11-03 21:40 +0100
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-03 20:55 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-11-03 14:16 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-11-03 14:53 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-11-03 15:33 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-11-04 08:43 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-11-04 18:17 +0100
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-11-05 10:21 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-11-05 16:03 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-11-06 00:43 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-11-06 05:14 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-06 13:52 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-11-06 06:13 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-11-06 06:15 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-11-06 16:20 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-11-06 17:40 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-11-07 04:29 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-11-07 06:48 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-11-07 22:15 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-11-08 13:26 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-11-08 14:59 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-11-11 07:39 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-11-11 07:56 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-11 21:19 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-11-12 21:15 -0500
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-11-11 05:13 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-11-10 23:37 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-11-06 05:43 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-04 17:36 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-11-05 06:26 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-11-05 06:31 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-05 14:55 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-11-06 00:41 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Buck Dehner <uktoa@yswdoez.cb> - 2018-11-05 20:46 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-11-04 10:18 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-11-05 07:01 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-05 15:26 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-11-05 09:13 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-03 20:55 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-11-04 05:33 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-04 17:36 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-11-05 06:58 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-05 15:26 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-11-05 15:53 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-11-05 10:15 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-11-05 10:21 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-11-06 16:09 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-11-07 06:36 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-11-07 08:01 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-11-07 21:59 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-11-08 12:09 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-11-05 09:15 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-11-03 09:44 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Buck Dehner <uktoa@yswdoez.cb> - 2018-11-03 19:13 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-11-04 05:46 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-11-04 06:30 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Buck Dehner <uktea@yswdoiz.cp> - 2018-11-05 22:57 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-11-03 16:58 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-11-03 10:30 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-11-04 08:33 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-04 17:36 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-11-04 23:18 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-05 12:59 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-11-06 00:39 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-04 17:36 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-11-04 23:17 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-11-05 06:53 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-05 15:26 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-11-04 17:51 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-11-04 23:20 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-11-05 16:01 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-11-05 08:42 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-11-06 08:45 +0100
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-11-06 00:51 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-11-06 15:47 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-11-06 23:33 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-11-07 06:27 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-11-07 21:44 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-11-08 05:53 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Gaston Castaneda <ucpp@j2adosw.nv> - 2018-11-09 19:39 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-11-10 22:53 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Gaston Castaneda <uucp@jav4ow.nq> - 2018-11-13 20:35 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-11-08 11:57 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-11-08 15:08 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-11-09 00:06 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-11-11 07:43 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-11-11 07:59 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-11-11 08:06 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-11-11 14:20 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-11-11 14:26 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-11-11 15:56 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-11-09 00:37 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-11-09 00:08 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-11-10 22:05 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-11-10 15:04 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Gaston Castaneda <ucpp@java2osw.np> - 2018-11-10 23:30 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-11-11 05:01 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-11-10 23:34 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-11-05 08:26 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-11-05 17:30 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-05 17:42 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-11-03 17:02 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-11-04 08:36 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-11-04 18:15 +0100
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-11-03 11:18 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Buck Dehner <uktoa@yswdoez.cb> - 2018-11-03 18:59 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-11-05 11:29 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Ntowicz Usarczyk <iswso@wioioksi.io> - 2018-11-06 20:23 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-11-14 11:28 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-11-14 05:14 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-11-14 06:59 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-11-14 15:39 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-11-14 19:21 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-11-14 19:24 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-11-15 06:31 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-11-14 23:23 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-11-15 13:55 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-11-15 07:03 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-11-15 07:51 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-11-15 18:50 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-11-15 19:15 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-11-15 19:45 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-11-16 16:43 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-11-16 09:15 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-11-16 20:45 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-11-16 21:27 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-11-17 04:08 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-11-19 13:33 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-17 00:02 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-11-17 04:19 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-17 12:30 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-11-17 06:35 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-18 00:15 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-11-18 09:01 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-18 19:45 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-11-18 20:54 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-11-19 06:47 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-11-19 13:55 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-11-19 10:12 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-11-19 17:45 -0600
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Lochù Umská <lare@cpi2alwa.cc> - 2018-11-19 23:56 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-11-22 12:32 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-22 22:57 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-11-22 15:08 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-19 13:14 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-11-19 10:18 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-19 21:33 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-11-19 13:55 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-11-19 09:56 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-11-19 18:43 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-11-19 06:58 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-11-19 10:28 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-11-19 13:54 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-11-18 23:37 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-11-19 13:57 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-11-19 06:49 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-11-19 10:10 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-11-19 18:45 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-11-19 13:45 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-11-19 09:39 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-11-19 18:30 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-11-20 06:48 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-20 15:34 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-11-20 18:56 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-21 14:22 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-11-21 08:32 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-21 17:30 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-11-21 10:46 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-11-22 07:31 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-11-22 16:07 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-22 18:43 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-11-22 05:10 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-11-20 18:11 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-11-20 07:44 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-11-20 08:15 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-11-20 17:54 +0100
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-11-20 10:43 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-11-20 18:26 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-11-21 06:58 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-11-21 08:08 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-11-21 16:15 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-11-21 16:31 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-21 17:15 +0000
Page 9 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 Next page →
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-19 10:10 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <020c2bc2-4f64-45a3-a5d0-3961f0387233@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #477489 |
On Monday, November 19, 2018 at 8:57:23 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: > mlwozniak@wp.pl writes: > > >On Sunday, 18 November 2018 20:45:51 UTC+1, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > >> Inertial frames can have speed relative to each other. The ether frame > >> cannot. > > >Tell me, poor halfbrain, will you cite many > >experiments confirming that it can't? Will > >you cite one, at least? > > Since the aether doesn't exist, no experiment can confirm anything about > it, other than it doesn't exist. Assertion is not a valid argument.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-19 18:45 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <psv0c2$c3b$3@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #477509 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >Assertion is not a valid argument. So why do you keep asserting absolute motion and the aether exist??
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-19 13:45 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <psuepm$fcu$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #477319 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >> >>> The inertial frame of SR is just another name for the aether frame. If >> >>> you don't agree then name a property of the inertial frame that is >> >>> exclusive to the inertial frame that the aether frame doesn't have. >> >> That's easy. The uniqueness of the ether frame. There's only one. >> > No idiot, you can set up an infinite number of ether frames at different >> > locations in the stationary ether..... >> No you can't. Frames have infinite extent. No boundary. Any point is in all >> frames. >Yes you can......any observer can set up a coordinate system at his location >in the ether. Any point is in his coordinate system. Partial credit, Stupid Ken. Technically any frame with a different origin is a different frame. However, Odd's point is that all such frames MUST be stationary relative to each other since all such frames have the purported aether stationary in it. But inertial frames in relative motion wrt each other are, well, in relative motion wrt each other.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-19 09:39 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <7f0d3959-ac43-4c2e-89d7-178a497de2f5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #477485 |
On Monday, November 19, 2018 at 8:45:28 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: > > >> >>> The inertial frame of SR is just another name for the aether frame. If > >> >>> you don't agree then name a property of the inertial frame that is > >> >>> exclusive to the inertial frame that the aether frame doesn't have. > > >> >> That's easy. The uniqueness of the ether frame. There's only one. > > >> > No idiot, you can set up an infinite number of ether frames at different > >> > locations in the stationary ether..... > > >> No you can't. Frames have infinite extent. No boundary. Any point is in all > >> frames. > > >Yes you can......any observer can set up a coordinate system at his location > >in the ether. Any point is in his coordinate system. > > Partial credit, Stupid Ken. Technically any frame with a different origin > is a different frame. Right, coordinate systems set up in different locations in the aether are different inertial frame. >However, Odd's point is that all such frames MUST be > stationary relative to each other since all such frames have the purported > aether stationary in it. No, the aether is stationary and all objects (including all observers) are moving within it. >But inertial frames in relative motion wrt each > other are, well, in relative motion wrt each other. According to SR, the coordinate systems (including the origins) are not moving....the observer and the observed object are moving wrt each other. Gee you guys are so stupid.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-19 18:30 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <psuvfe$c3b$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #477506 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes:
>On Monday, November 19, 2018 at 8:45:28 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes:
>>
>> >> >>> The inertial frame of SR is just another name for the aether frame. If
>> >> >>> you don't agree then name a property of the inertial frame that is
>> >> >>> exclusive to the inertial frame that the aether frame doesn't have.
>>
>> >> >> That's easy. The uniqueness of the ether frame. There's only one.
>>
>> >> > No idiot, you can set up an infinite number of ether frames at different
>> >> > locations in the stationary ether.....
>>
>> >> No you can't. Frames have infinite extent. No boundary. Any point is in all
>> >> frames.
>>
>> >Yes you can......any observer can set up a coordinate system at his location
>> >in the ether. Any point is in his coordinate system.
>>
>> Partial credit, Stupid Ken. Technically any frame with a different origin
>> is a different frame.
>Right, coordinate systems set up in different locations in the aether
>are different inertial frame.
They will all be the same except for what is defined as the origin.
>>However, Odd's point is that all such frames MUST be
>>stationary relative to each other since all such frames have the
>>purported aether stationary in it.
>No, the aether is stationary and all objects (including all observers)
>are moving within it.
You didn't understand what I said. All of those "aether" frames have the
aether stationary in them but may have different origins. Motion of
anything else in those frames is irrelevant.
Because the aether is stationary in all those frames, they are all must
be stationary wrt each other.
>>But inertial frames in relative motion wrt each
>> other are, well, in relative motion wrt each other.
>According to SR, the coordinate systems (including the origins) are not
>moving....the observer and the observed object are moving wrt each other.
The observer is stationary in his own inertial frame. The observed may
be moving in this first frame.
The second observer ("the observed", above) has his OWN DIFFERENT inertial
frame. She is stationary in this frame. She will see the FIRST observer
moving in her frame.
This is Odd's point. In this case, SR has 2 different inertial frames.
Each is moving relative to the other.
If there was a such thing as aether frames in which the purported aether
is stationary, these frames MUST be stationary relative to each other, but
they may have different origins.
SR has inertial frames in motion with respect to each other. And Odd's
point was that this is a difference, SR's inertial frames can all have
relative motion wrt each other, while your purported stationary aether
frames CANNOT have motion wrt each other. So they are different, and SR
cannot declare inertial frames to be renamed aether frames (even if aether
existed in SR, which it doesn't). SR frames can be moving at any constant
velocity (less than c) relative to each other. Aether frames cannot.
>Gee you guys are so stupid.
You should talk, Stupid Ken. We have good reasons to call you Stupid Ken.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-20 06:48 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <e747c6f5-40de-4333-ad0b-1c53344e7499@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #477521 |
On Monday, November 19, 2018 at 1:30:08 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes:
>
> >On Monday, November 19, 2018 at 8:45:28 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes:
> >>
> >> >> >>> The inertial frame of SR is just another name for the aether frame. If
> >> >> >>> you don't agree then name a property of the inertial frame that is
> >> >> >>> exclusive to the inertial frame that the aether frame doesn't have.
> >>
> >> >> >> That's easy. The uniqueness of the ether frame. There's only one.
> >>
> >> >> > No idiot, you can set up an infinite number of ether frames at different
> >> >> > locations in the stationary ether.....
> >>
> >> >> No you can't. Frames have infinite extent. No boundary. Any point is in all
> >> >> frames.
> >>
> >> >Yes you can......any observer can set up a coordinate system at his location
> >> >in the ether. Any point is in his coordinate system.
> >>
> >> Partial credit, Stupid Ken. Technically any frame with a different origin
> >> is a different frame.
>
> >Right, coordinate systems set up in different locations in the aether
> >are different inertial frame.
>
> They will all be the same except for what is defined as the origin.
>
> >>However, Odd's point is that all such frames MUST be
> >>stationary relative to each other since all such frames have the
> >>purported aether stationary in it.
>
> >No, the aether is stationary and all objects (including all observers)
> >are moving within it.
>
> You didn't understand what I said. All of those "aether" frames have the
> aether stationary in them but may have different origins. Motion of
> anything else in those frames is irrelevant.
There is only one aether frame.....so what is your point?
>
> Because the aether is stationary in all those frames, they are all must
> be stationary wrt each other.
Except all the observers are moving within the aether.
>
> >>But inertial frames in relative motion wrt each
> >> other are, well, in relative motion wrt each other.
>
> >According to SR, the coordinate systems (including the origins) are not
> >moving....the observer and the observed object are moving wrt each other.
>
> The observer is stationary in his own inertial frame. The observed may
> be moving in this first frame.
No, the observer is not stationary wrt the aether. He is in a state of absolute motion in the aether. He is in a state of relative motion wrt any other objects moving within the aether. For example: the relative motion between two observers is the vector difference of their absolute motions.
Your assertion that the observer is stationary in own inertial frame is simply means that you are claiming the aether frame for the observer. And that’s why the SR math is the same as the LET math.
>
> The second observer ("the observed", above) has his OWN DIFFERENT inertial
> frame. She is stationary in this frame. She will see the FIRST observer
> moving in her frame.
Right the second observer also claims the aether frame and that’s why she also have the same math as LET.
>
> This is Odd's point. In this case, SR has 2 different inertial frames.
> Each is moving relative to the other.
>
> If there was a such thing as aether frames in which the purported aether
> is stationary, these frames MUST be stationary relative to each other, but
> they may have different origins.
>
> SR has inertial frames in motion with respect to each other. And Odd's
> point was that this is a difference, SR's inertial frames can all have
> relative motion wrt each other, while your purported stationary aether
> frames CANNOT have motion wrt each other. So they are different, and SR
> cannot declare inertial frames to be renamed aether frames (even if aether
> existed in SR, which it doesn't). SR frames can be moving at any constant
> velocity (less than c) relative to each other. Aether frames cannot.
>
> >Gee you guys are so stupid.
>
> You should talk, Stupid Ken. We have good reasons to call you Stupid Ken.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-20 15:34 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pt19ip$11de$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #477590 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote:
> On Monday, November 19, 2018 at 1:30:08 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes:
>>
>>> On Monday, November 19, 2018 at 8:45:28 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes:
>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The inertial frame of SR is just another name for the aether frame. If
>>>>>>>>> you don't agree then name a property of the inertial frame that is
>>>>>>>>> exclusive to the inertial frame that the aether frame doesn't have.
>>>>
>>>>>>>> That's easy. The uniqueness of the ether frame. There's only one.
>>>>
>>>>>>> No idiot, you can set up an infinite number of ether frames at different
>>>>>>> locations in the stationary ether.....
>>>>
>>>>>> No you can't. Frames have infinite extent. No boundary. Any point is in all
>>>>>> frames.
>>>>
>>>>> Yes you can......any observer can set up a coordinate system at his location
>>>>> in the ether. Any point is in his coordinate system.
>>>>
>>>> Partial credit, Stupid Ken. Technically any frame with a different origin
>>>> is a different frame.
>>
>>> Right, coordinate systems set up in different locations in the aether
>>> are different inertial frame.
>>
>> They will all be the same except for what is defined as the origin.
>>
>>>> However, Odd's point is that all such frames MUST be
>>>> stationary relative to each other since all such frames have the
>>>> purported aether stationary in it.
>>
>>> No, the aether is stationary and all objects (including all observers)
>>> are moving within it.
>>
>> You didn't understand what I said. All of those "aether" frames have the
>> aether stationary in them but may have different origins. Motion of
>> anything else in those frames is irrelevant.
>
> There is only one aether frame.....so what is your point?
Exactly. And there are an infinite number of inertial frames moving
relative to each other. That’s the point. Do you get it now? The ether
frame is different than inertial frames.
>
>>
>> Because the aether is stationary in all those frames, they are all must
>> be stationary wrt each other.
>
> Except all the observers are moving within the aether.
And so the rest frames of those observers cannot be the ether frame. Get it
now?
>>
>>>> But inertial frames in relative motion wrt each
>>>> other are, well, in relative motion wrt each other.
>>
>>> According to SR, the coordinate systems (including the origins) are not
>>> moving....the observer and the observed object are moving wrt each other.
>>
>> The observer is stationary in his own inertial frame. The observed may
>> be moving in this first frame.
>
> No, the observer is not stationary wrt the aether. He is in a state of
> absolute motion in the aether. He is in a state of relative motion wrt
> any other objects moving within the aether. For example: the relative
> motion between two observers is the vector difference of their absolute motions.
> Your assertion that the observer is stationary in own inertial frame is
> simply means that you are claiming the aether frame for the observer. And
> that’s why the SR math is the same as the LET math.
>>
>> The second observer ("the observed", above) has his OWN DIFFERENT inertial
>> frame. She is stationary in this frame. She will see the FIRST observer
>> moving in her frame.
>
> Right the second observer also claims the aether frame and that’s why she
> also have the same math as LET.
>
>
>
>>
>> This is Odd's point. In this case, SR has 2 different inertial frames.
>> Each is moving relative to the other.
>>
>> If there was a such thing as aether frames in which the purported aether
>> is stationary, these frames MUST be stationary relative to each other, but
>> they may have different origins.
>>
>> SR has inertial frames in motion with respect to each other. And Odd's
>> point was that this is a difference, SR's inertial frames can all have
>> relative motion wrt each other, while your purported stationary aether
>> frames CANNOT have motion wrt each other. So they are different, and SR
>> cannot declare inertial frames to be renamed aether frames (even if aether
>> existed in SR, which it doesn't). SR frames can be moving at any constant
>> velocity (less than c) relative to each other. Aether frames cannot.
>>
>>> Gee you guys are so stupid.
>>
>> You should talk, Stupid Ken. We have good reasons to call you Stupid Ken.
>
--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-20 18:56 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <ef11ca7a-847e-48f0-9ceb-6f26f2ec5cc8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #477595 |
On Tuesday, November 20, 2018 at 10:34:53 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote:
> > On Monday, November 19, 2018 at 1:30:08 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes:
> >>
> >>> On Monday, November 19, 2018 at 8:45:28 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes:
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>>> The inertial frame of SR is just another name for the aether frame. If
> >>>>>>>>> you don't agree then name a property of the inertial frame that is
> >>>>>>>>> exclusive to the inertial frame that the aether frame doesn't have.
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>> That's easy. The uniqueness of the ether frame. There's only one.
> >>>>
> >>>>>>> No idiot, you can set up an infinite number of ether frames at different
> >>>>>>> locations in the stationary ether.....
> >>>>
> >>>>>> No you can't. Frames have infinite extent. No boundary. Any point is in all
> >>>>>> frames.
> >>>>
> >>>>> Yes you can......any observer can set up a coordinate system at his location
> >>>>> in the ether. Any point is in his coordinate system.
> >>>>
> >>>> Partial credit, Stupid Ken. Technically any frame with a different origin
> >>>> is a different frame.
> >>
> >>> Right, coordinate systems set up in different locations in the aether
> >>> are different inertial frame.
> >>
> >> They will all be the same except for what is defined as the origin.
> >>
> >>>> However, Odd's point is that all such frames MUST be
> >>>> stationary relative to each other since all such frames have the
> >>>> purported aether stationary in it.
> >>
> >>> No, the aether is stationary and all objects (including all observers)
> >>> are moving within it.
> >>
> >> You didn't understand what I said. All of those "aether" frames have the
> >> aether stationary in them but may have different origins. Motion of
> >> anything else in those frames is irrelevant.
> >
> > There is only one aether frame.....so what is your point?
>
> Exactly. And there are an infinite number of inertial frames moving
> relative to each other. That’s the point. Do you get it now? The ether
> frame is different than inertial frames.
Idiot, the points are:
1. No observer is at rest in the ether and thus no ether frame (no ether coordinate system) can be set up for comparison.
2 An SR observer claims to be at rest in an inertial frame and that inertial frame is moving....so how can the SR observer is at rest in his own inertial frame and at the same time his inertial frame is moving?
3.The SR inertial frame claims all the exclusive properties of the ether frame: isotropic light speed and the LT (the LET math). So that means that an internal frame is just another name for the ether frame.
>
> >
> >>
> >> Because the aether is stationary in all those frames, they are all must
> >> be stationary wrt each other.
> >
> > Except all the observers are moving within the aether.
>
> And so the rest frames of those observers cannot be the ether frame. Get it
> now?
>
> >>
> >>>> But inertial frames in relative motion wrt each
> >>>> other are, well, in relative motion wrt each other.
> >>
> >>> According to SR, the coordinate systems (including the origins) are not
> >>> moving....the observer and the observed object are moving wrt each other.
> >>
> >> The observer is stationary in his own inertial frame. The observed may
> >> be moving in this first frame.
> >
> > No, the observer is not stationary wrt the aether. He is in a state of
> > absolute motion in the aether. He is in a state of relative motion wrt
> > any other objects moving within the aether. For example: the relative
> > motion between two observers is the vector difference of their absolute motions.
> > Your assertion that the observer is stationary in own inertial frame is
> > simply means that you are claiming the aether frame for the observer. And
> > that’s why the SR math is the same as the LET math.
> >>
> >> The second observer ("the observed", above) has his OWN DIFFERENT inertial
> >> frame. She is stationary in this frame. She will see the FIRST observer
> >> moving in her frame.
> >
> > Right the second observer also claims the aether frame and that’s why she
> > also have the same math as LET.
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >> This is Odd's point. In this case, SR has 2 different inertial frames.
> >> Each is moving relative to the other.
> >>
> >> If there was a such thing as aether frames in which the purported aether
> >> is stationary, these frames MUST be stationary relative to each other, but
> >> they may have different origins.
> >>
> >> SR has inertial frames in motion with respect to each other. And Odd's
> >> point was that this is a difference, SR's inertial frames can all have
> >> relative motion wrt each other, while your purported stationary aether
> >> frames CANNOT have motion wrt each other. So they are different, and SR
> >> cannot declare inertial frames to be renamed aether frames (even if aether
> >> existed in SR, which it doesn't). SR frames can be moving at any constant
> >> velocity (less than c) relative to each other. Aether frames cannot.
> >>
> >>> Gee you guys are so stupid.
> >>
> >> You should talk, Stupid Ken. We have good reasons to call you Stupid Ken.
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-21 14:22 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pt3pnm$17nn$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #477688 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 20, 2018 at 10:34:53 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote:
>>> On Monday, November 19, 2018 at 1:30:08 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> On Monday, November 19, 2018 at 8:45:28 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The inertial frame of SR is just another name for the aether frame. If
>>>>>>>>>>> you don't agree then name a property of the inertial frame that is
>>>>>>>>>>> exclusive to the inertial frame that the aether frame doesn't have.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> That's easy. The uniqueness of the ether frame. There's only one.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No idiot, you can set up an infinite number of ether frames at different
>>>>>>>>> locations in the stationary ether.....
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No you can't. Frames have infinite extent. No boundary. Any point is in all
>>>>>>>> frames.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes you can......any observer can set up a coordinate system at his location
>>>>>>> in the ether. Any point is in his coordinate system.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Partial credit, Stupid Ken. Technically any frame with a different origin
>>>>>> is a different frame.
>>>>
>>>>> Right, coordinate systems set up in different locations in the aether
>>>>> are different inertial frame.
>>>>
>>>> They will all be the same except for what is defined as the origin.
>>>>
>>>>>> However, Odd's point is that all such frames MUST be
>>>>>> stationary relative to each other since all such frames have the
>>>>>> purported aether stationary in it.
>>>>
>>>>> No, the aether is stationary and all objects (including all observers)
>>>>> are moving within it.
>>>>
>>>> You didn't understand what I said. All of those "aether" frames have the
>>>> aether stationary in them but may have different origins. Motion of
>>>> anything else in those frames is irrelevant.
>>>
>>> There is only one aether frame.....so what is your point?
>>
>> Exactly. And there are an infinite number of inertial frames moving
>> relative to each other. That’s the point. Do you get it now? The ether
>> frame is different than inertial frames.
>
> Idiot, the points are:
> 1. No observer is at rest in the ether and thus no ether frame (no ether
> coordinate system) can be set up for comparison.
Ok so you claim there is no ether frame? If there is no ether frame, there
is no ether.
>
> 2 An SR observer claims to be at rest in an inertial frame and that
> inertial frame is moving....so how can the SR observer is at rest in his
> own inertial frame and at the same time his inertial frame is moving?
If the observer and the origin of an inertial frame move TOGETHER, then the
observer is at rest relative to that frame.
You have essentially zero basic understanding of reference frames and what
motion relative to that frame means. Zero. You haven’t gotten off the
ground. This is high school physics, chapter TWO, and you don’t get it.
>
> 3.The SR inertial frame claims all the exclusive properties of the ether
> frame: isotropic light speed and the LT (the LET math). So that means
> that an internal frame is just another name for the ether frame.
Nope. There is only one ether frame. You said so yourself. There are an
infinite number of inertial frames moving relative to each other. They are
not the same thing. Period.
>
>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Because the aether is stationary in all those frames, they are all must
>>>> be stationary wrt each other.
>>>
>>> Except all the observers are moving within the aether.
>>
>> And so the rest frames of those observers cannot be the ether frame. Get it
>> now?
>>
>>>>
>>>>>> But inertial frames in relative motion wrt each
>>>>>> other are, well, in relative motion wrt each other.
>>>>
>>>>> According to SR, the coordinate systems (including the origins) are not
>>>>> moving....the observer and the observed object are moving wrt each other.
>>>>
>>>> The observer is stationary in his own inertial frame. The observed may
>>>> be moving in this first frame.
>>>
>>> No, the observer is not stationary wrt the aether. He is in a state of
>>> absolute motion in the aether. He is in a state of relative motion wrt
>>> any other objects moving within the aether. For example: the relative
>>> motion between two observers is the vector difference of their absolute motions.
>>> Your assertion that the observer is stationary in own inertial frame is
>>> simply means that you are claiming the aether frame for the observer. And
>>> that’s why the SR math is the same as the LET math.
>>>>
>>>> The second observer ("the observed", above) has his OWN DIFFERENT inertial
>>>> frame. She is stationary in this frame. She will see the FIRST observer
>>>> moving in her frame.
>>>
>>> Right the second observer also claims the aether frame and that’s why she
>>> also have the same math as LET.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> This is Odd's point. In this case, SR has 2 different inertial frames.
>>>> Each is moving relative to the other.
>>>>
>>>> If there was a such thing as aether frames in which the purported aether
>>>> is stationary, these frames MUST be stationary relative to each other, but
>>>> they may have different origins.
>>>>
>>>> SR has inertial frames in motion with respect to each other. And Odd's
>>>> point was that this is a difference, SR's inertial frames can all have
>>>> relative motion wrt each other, while your purported stationary aether
>>>> frames CANNOT have motion wrt each other. So they are different, and SR
>>>> cannot declare inertial frames to be renamed aether frames (even if aether
>>>> existed in SR, which it doesn't). SR frames can be moving at any constant
>>>> velocity (less than c) relative to each other. Aether frames cannot.
>>>>
>>>>> Gee you guys are so stupid.
>>>>
>>>> You should talk, Stupid Ken. We have good reasons to call you Stupid Ken.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-21 08:32 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <84712a96-df7f-4f15-ab02-e1e7e4b1f322@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #477722 |
On Wednesday, November 21, 2018 at 9:22:49 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > > On Tuesday, November 20, 2018 at 10:34:53 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>> On Monday, November 19, 2018 at 1:30:08 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: > >>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: > >>>> > >>>>> On Monday, November 19, 2018 at 8:45:28 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: > >>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> The inertial frame of SR is just another name for the aether frame. If > >>>>>>>>>>> you don't agree then name a property of the inertial frame that is > >>>>>>>>>>> exclusive to the inertial frame that the aether frame doesn't have. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> That's easy. The uniqueness of the ether frame. There's only one. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> No idiot, you can set up an infinite number of ether frames at different > >>>>>>>>> locations in the stationary ether..... > >>>>>> > >>>>>>>> No you can't. Frames have infinite extent. No boundary. Any point is in all > >>>>>>>> frames. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> Yes you can......any observer can set up a coordinate system at his location > >>>>>>> in the ether. Any point is in his coordinate system. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Partial credit, Stupid Ken. Technically any frame with a different origin > >>>>>> is a different frame. > >>>> > >>>>> Right, coordinate systems set up in different locations in the aether > >>>>> are different inertial frame. > >>>> > >>>> They will all be the same except for what is defined as the origin. > >>>> > >>>>>> However, Odd's point is that all such frames MUST be > >>>>>> stationary relative to each other since all such frames have the > >>>>>> purported aether stationary in it. > >>>> > >>>>> No, the aether is stationary and all objects (including all observers) > >>>>> are moving within it. > >>>> > >>>> You didn't understand what I said. All of those "aether" frames have the > >>>> aether stationary in them but may have different origins. Motion of > >>>> anything else in those frames is irrelevant. > >>> > >>> There is only one aether frame.....so what is your point? > >> > >> Exactly. And there are an infinite number of inertial frames moving > >> relative to each other. That’s the point. Do you get it now? The ether > >> frame is different than inertial frames. > > > > Idiot, the points are: > > 1. No observer is at rest in the ether and thus no ether frame (no ether > > coordinate system) can be set up for comparison. > > Ok so you claim there is no ether frame? If there is no ether frame, there > is no ether. Moron I said that no observer is at rest in the ether and thus no ether frame (ether coordinate system) can be set up. > > > > 2 An SR observer claims to be at rest in an inertial frame and that > > inertial frame is moving....so how can the SR observer is at rest in his > > own inertial frame and at the same time his inertial frame is moving? > > If the observer and the origin of an inertial frame move TOGETHER, then the > observer is at rest relative to that frame. Move wrt what? > > You have essentially zero basic understanding of reference frames and what > motion relative to that frame means. Zero. You haven’t gotten off the > ground. This is high school physics, chapter TWO, and you don’t get it. Pot kettle black. > > > > > 3.The SR inertial frame claims all the exclusive properties of the ether > > frame: isotropic light speed and the LT (the LET math). So that means > > that an internal frame is just another name for the ether frame. > > Nope. There is only one ether frame. You said so yourself. No moron, there is the ether but no ether frame because no observer is at rest in the ether to set up the ether frame. >There are an > infinite number of inertial frames moving relative to each other. They are > not the same thing. Period. Sure there are an infinite number of observers moving in the ether and set up an infinite number of “inertial” frames” (infinite number of coordinate systems). SR claims: Each of these infinite inertial observers claim to be in an ether frame and thus they all claim the exclusive properties of the ether frame including the ether frame math.....that’s why SR have the same math as LET.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-21 17:30 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pt44nt$1sqr$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #477733 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > On Wednesday, November 21, 2018 at 9:22:49 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>> On Tuesday, November 20, 2018 at 10:34:53 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>> On Monday, November 19, 2018 at 1:30:08 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: >>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Monday, November 19, 2018 at 8:45:28 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: >>>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> The inertial frame of SR is just another name for the aether frame. If >>>>>>>>>>>>> you don't agree then name a property of the inertial frame that is >>>>>>>>>>>>> exclusive to the inertial frame that the aether frame doesn't have. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> That's easy. The uniqueness of the ether frame. There's only one. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> No idiot, you can set up an infinite number of ether frames at different >>>>>>>>>>> locations in the stationary ether..... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> No you can't. Frames have infinite extent. No boundary. Any point is in all >>>>>>>>>> frames. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Yes you can......any observer can set up a coordinate system at his location >>>>>>>>> in the ether. Any point is in his coordinate system. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Partial credit, Stupid Ken. Technically any frame with a different origin >>>>>>>> is a different frame. >>>>>> >>>>>>> Right, coordinate systems set up in different locations in the aether >>>>>>> are different inertial frame. >>>>>> >>>>>> They will all be the same except for what is defined as the origin. >>>>>> >>>>>>>> However, Odd's point is that all such frames MUST be >>>>>>>> stationary relative to each other since all such frames have the >>>>>>>> purported aether stationary in it. >>>>>> >>>>>>> No, the aether is stationary and all objects (including all observers) >>>>>>> are moving within it. >>>>>> >>>>>> You didn't understand what I said. All of those "aether" frames have the >>>>>> aether stationary in them but may have different origins. Motion of >>>>>> anything else in those frames is irrelevant. >>>>> >>>>> There is only one aether frame.....so what is your point? >>>> >>>> Exactly. And there are an infinite number of inertial frames moving >>>> relative to each other. That’s the point. Do you get it now? The ether >>>> frame is different than inertial frames. >>> >>> Idiot, the points are: >>> 1. No observer is at rest in the ether and thus no ether frame (no ether >>> coordinate system) can be set up for comparison. >> >> Ok so you claim there is no ether frame? If there is no ether frame, there >> is no ether. > > Moron I said that no observer is at rest in the ether and thus no ether > frame (ether coordinate system) can be set up. > >>> >>> 2 An SR observer claims to be at rest in an inertial frame and that >>> inertial frame is moving....so how can the SR observer is at rest in his >>> own inertial frame and at the same time his inertial frame is moving? >> >> If the observer and the origin of an inertial frame move TOGETHER, then the >> observer is at rest relative to that frame. > > Move wrt what? With respect to a passing dragonfly. It is STILL true that if the observer and the origin move TOGETHER, then the observer is at rest relative to the frame. Do you understand this? >> >> You have essentially zero basic understanding of reference frames and what >> motion relative to that frame means. Zero. You haven’t gotten off the >> ground. This is high school physics, chapter TWO, and you don’t get it. > > Pot kettle black. Ken, I’ve read this stuff and you haven’t. >> >>> >>> 3.The SR inertial frame claims all the exclusive properties of the ether >>> frame: isotropic light speed and the LT (the LET math). So that means >>> that an internal frame is just another name for the ether frame. >> >> Nope. There is only one ether frame. You said so yourself. > > No moron, there is the ether but no ether frame because no observer is at > rest in the ether to set up the ether frame. A human observer is not needed for a reference frame, Ken. There is a reference frame tied to the moon Phobos though there is no human observer on Phobos to “set one up”. Again you have no idea what a reference frame is. > >> There are an >> infinite number of inertial frames moving relative to each other. They are >> not the same thing. Period. > > Sure there are an infinite number of observers moving in the ether and > set up an infinite number of “inertial” frames” (infinite number of coordinate systems). And there is only one ether frame. One. You say so yourself. > SR claims: Each of these infinite inertial observers claim to be in an ether frame Nope. They claim to be in an inertial frame not an ether frame. The infinite inertial observers can all be moving relative to each other. Each inertial observer is at rest relative to his own inertial frame. This is possible because there are an infinite number of inertial frames moving relative to each other. This is much different than the ONE ether frame. > and thus they all claim the exclusive properties of the ether frame > including the ether frame math.....that’s why SR have the same math as LET. > -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-21 10:46 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <8dca7b43-2219-4b6c-b49d-4aa2129ee397@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #477735 |
On Wednesday, 21 November 2018 18:30:41 UTC+1, Odd Bodkin wrote: > A human observer is not needed for a reference frame, Ken. There is a > reference frame tied to the moon Phobos though there is no human observer > on Phobos to “set one up”. But there is a human observer on Earth to "set one up", poor halfbrain.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-22 07:31 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <921fa26c-bae1-4f36-b278-70f742b5ec38@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #477735 |
On Wednesday, November 21, 2018 at 12:30:41 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > > On Wednesday, November 21, 2018 at 9:22:49 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>> On Tuesday, November 20, 2018 at 10:34:53 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>>>> On Monday, November 19, 2018 at 1:30:08 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: > >>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> On Monday, November 19, 2018 at 8:45:28 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: > >>>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> The inertial frame of SR is just another name for the aether frame. If > >>>>>>>>>>>>> you don't agree then name a property of the inertial frame that is > >>>>>>>>>>>>> exclusive to the inertial frame that the aether frame doesn't have. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> That's easy. The uniqueness of the ether frame. There's only one. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> No idiot, you can set up an infinite number of ether frames at different > >>>>>>>>>>> locations in the stationary ether..... > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> No you can't. Frames have infinite extent. No boundary. Any point is in all > >>>>>>>>>> frames. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Yes you can......any observer can set up a coordinate system at his location > >>>>>>>>> in the ether. Any point is in his coordinate system. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Partial credit, Stupid Ken. Technically any frame with a different origin > >>>>>>>> is a different frame. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> Right, coordinate systems set up in different locations in the aether > >>>>>>> are different inertial frame. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> They will all be the same except for what is defined as the origin. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>>> However, Odd's point is that all such frames MUST be > >>>>>>>> stationary relative to each other since all such frames have the > >>>>>>>> purported aether stationary in it. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> No, the aether is stationary and all objects (including all observers) > >>>>>>> are moving within it. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> You didn't understand what I said. All of those "aether" frames have the > >>>>>> aether stationary in them but may have different origins. Motion of > >>>>>> anything else in those frames is irrelevant. > >>>>> > >>>>> There is only one aether frame.....so what is your point? > >>>> > >>>> Exactly. And there are an infinite number of inertial frames moving > >>>> relative to each other. That’s the point. Do you get it now? The ether > >>>> frame is different than inertial frames. > >>> > >>> Idiot, the points are: > >>> 1. No observer is at rest in the ether and thus no ether frame (no ether > >>> coordinate system) can be set up for comparison. > >> > >> Ok so you claim there is no ether frame? If there is no ether frame, there > >> is no ether. > > > > Moron I said that no observer is at rest in the ether and thus no ether > > frame (ether coordinate system) can be set up. > > > >>> > >>> 2 An SR observer claims to be at rest in an inertial frame and that > >>> inertial frame is moving....so how can the SR observer is at rest in his > >>> own inertial frame and at the same time his inertial frame is moving? > >> > >> If the observer and the origin of an inertial frame move TOGETHER, then the > >> observer is at rest relative to that frame. > > > > Move wrt what? > > With respect to a passing dragonfly. It is STILL true that if the observer > and the origin move TOGETHER, then the observer is at rest relative to the > frame. Do you understand this? Fine....then you can’t claim the exclusive properties of the aether frame by asserting that time and physical length are flexible which they are not. The exclusive properties of the ether frame belong to a frame that is in a state of absolute rest. When the SR observer insists on claiming the ether frame math then he will get the deficiency of the ether frame math which does not include the real possibility that a clock moving wrt the observer can run faster and that the light path length of a moving meter stick can be longer than the light path length of the observer’s meter stick. That’s why I invented IRT which includes all possibilities. IRT math predicts that a moving clock can accumulate clock seconds at a faster or slower rate than the observer’s clock and that the light path length (LPL) of a moving meter stick can be longer or shorter than the LPL of the observer’s meter stick. That’s why IRT is a superior theory and it includes LET and SRT as subsets. > > >> > >> You have essentially zero basic understanding of reference frames andhat > >> motion relative to that frame means. Zero. You haven’t gotten off the > >> ground. This is high school physics, chapter TWO, and you don’t get it. > > > > Pot kettle black. > > Ken, I’ve read this stuff and you haven’t. And you boxed yourself in this stuff and that’s why you failed to do any creative thinking. > > >> > >>> > >>> 3.The SR inertial frame claims all the exclusive properties of the ether > >>> frame: isotropic light speed and the LT (the LET math). So that means > >>> that an internal frame is just another name for the ether frame. > >> > >> Nope. There is only one ether frame. You said so yourself. > > > > No moron, there is the ether but no ether frame because no observer is at > > rest in the ether to set up the ether frame. > > A human observer is not needed for a reference frame, Ken. There is a > reference frame tied to the moon Phobos though there is no human observer > on Phobos to “set one up”. Again you have no idea what a reference frame > is. > > > > >> There are an > >> infinite number of inertial frames moving relative to each other. They are > >> not the same thing. Period. > > > > Sure there are an infinite number of observers moving in the ether and > > set up an infinite number of “inertial” frames” (infinite number of coordinate systems). > > And there is only one ether frame. One. You say so yourself. > > > SR claims: Each of these infinite inertial observers claim to be in an ether frame > > Nope. They claim to be in an inertial frame not an ether frame. The > infinite inertial observers can all be moving relative to each other. Each > inertial observer is at rest relative to his own inertial frame. This is > possible because there are an infinite number of inertial frames moving > relative to each other. This is much different than the ONE ether frame. > > > and thus they all claim the exclusive properties of the ether frame > > including the ether frame math.....that’s why SR have the same math as LET. > > > > > > -- > Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-22 16:07 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pt6k80$d8v$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #477802 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >On Wednesday, November 21, 2018 at 12:30:41 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >> > On Wednesday, November 21, 2018 at 9:22:49 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >> >>> 2 An SR observer claims to be at rest in an inertial frame and that >> >>> inertial frame is moving....so how can the SR observer is at rest in his >> >>> own inertial frame and at the same time his inertial frame is moving? >> >> If the observer and the origin of an inertial frame move TOGETHER, then the >> >> observer is at rest relative to that frame. >> > Move wrt what? >> With respect to a passing dragonfly. It is STILL true that if the observer >> and the origin move TOGETHER, then the observer is at rest relative to the >> frame. Do you understand this? >Fine....then you can't claim the exclusive properties of the aether frame >by asserting that time and physical length are flexible which they are not. Why would he? There is no such thing as an aether frame in SR, so there is no way to claim exclusive properties of something which doesn't exist. Even you apparently claim the aether frame doesn't exist. > The exclusive properties of the ether frame belong to a frame that is >in a state of absolute rest. You can say whatever you want about imaginary things like fairies and aether and absolute rest and elves. >When the SR observer insists on claiming the ether frame math Why would he ever do that, and therefore not use SR? You did state it was an SR observer. > then he will >get the deficiency of the ether frame math which does not include the real >possibility that a clock moving wrt the observer can run faster and that That's what happens when you stop using an established theory and start using k00k math. So give the fake "SR observer" an F in physics! >That's why I invented IRT which includes all possibilities. Except for my three rocket gedanken, of course. >> Ken, I=E2=80=99ve read this stuff and you haven't. >And you boxed yourself in this stuff and that's why you failed to do any creative thinking. Creative thinking can make for great (or awful) art, but unrestrained creative thinking in physics usually just leads to pure k00kery. Correct "thinking outside the box" while following the scientific method can lead to great physics. That's what happened with Einstein in 1905. He thought outside the "aether box" of the time and came up with great science. "Creative thinkers" who don't follow science will be quickly forgotten.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-22 18:43 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pt6tc0$i8j$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #477802 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > On Wednesday, November 21, 2018 at 12:30:41 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>> On Wednesday, November 21, 2018 at 9:22:49 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>> On Tuesday, November 20, 2018 at 10:34:53 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>> On Monday, November 19, 2018 at 1:30:08 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: >>>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Monday, November 19, 2018 at 8:45:28 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: >>>>>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The inertial frame of SR is just another name for the aether frame. If >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you don't agree then name a property of the inertial frame that is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exclusive to the inertial frame that the aether frame doesn't have. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's easy. The uniqueness of the ether frame. There's only one. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> No idiot, you can set up an infinite number of ether frames at different >>>>>>>>>>>>> locations in the stationary ether..... >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> No you can't. Frames have infinite extent. No boundary. Any point is in all >>>>>>>>>>>> frames. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Yes you can......any observer can set up a coordinate system at his location >>>>>>>>>>> in the ether. Any point is in his coordinate system. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Partial credit, Stupid Ken. Technically any frame with a different origin >>>>>>>>>> is a different frame. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Right, coordinate systems set up in different locations in the aether >>>>>>>>> are different inertial frame. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> They will all be the same except for what is defined as the origin. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> However, Odd's point is that all such frames MUST be >>>>>>>>>> stationary relative to each other since all such frames have the >>>>>>>>>> purported aether stationary in it. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> No, the aether is stationary and all objects (including all observers) >>>>>>>>> are moving within it. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You didn't understand what I said. All of those "aether" frames have the >>>>>>>> aether stationary in them but may have different origins. Motion of >>>>>>>> anything else in those frames is irrelevant. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> There is only one aether frame.....so what is your point? >>>>>> >>>>>> Exactly. And there are an infinite number of inertial frames moving >>>>>> relative to each other. That’s the point. Do you get it now? The ether >>>>>> frame is different than inertial frames. >>>>> >>>>> Idiot, the points are: >>>>> 1. No observer is at rest in the ether and thus no ether frame (no ether >>>>> coordinate system) can be set up for comparison. >>>> >>>> Ok so you claim there is no ether frame? If there is no ether frame, there >>>> is no ether. >>> >>> Moron I said that no observer is at rest in the ether and thus no ether >>> frame (ether coordinate system) can be set up. >>> >>>>> >>>>> 2 An SR observer claims to be at rest in an inertial frame and that >>>>> inertial frame is moving....so how can the SR observer is at rest in his >>>>> own inertial frame and at the same time his inertial frame is moving? >>>> >>>> If the observer and the origin of an inertial frame move TOGETHER, then the >>>> observer is at rest relative to that frame. >>> >>> Move wrt what? >> >> With respect to a passing dragonfly. It is STILL true that if the observer >> and the origin move TOGETHER, then the observer is at rest relative to the >> frame. Do you understand this? > > Fine....then you can’t claim the exclusive properties of the aether frame The properties of inertial frames are not exclusive to any fictitious ether frame. You’ve said yourself there is no ether frame. Your claim that those properties are exclusive to an ether frame is a spurious assertion that no one believes. > by asserting that time and physical length are flexible which they are > not. The exclusive properties of the ether frame belong to a frame that > is in a state of absolute rest. > When the SR observer insists on claiming the ether frame math then he > will get the deficiency of the ether frame math which does not include > the real possibility that a clock moving wrt the observer can run faster > and that the light path length of a moving meter stick can be longer than > the light path length of the observer’s meter stick. > That’s why I invented IRT which includes all possibilities. IRT math > predicts that a moving clock can accumulate clock seconds at a faster or > slower rate than the observer’s clock and that the light path length > (LPL) of a moving meter stick can be longer or shorter than the LPL of > the observer’s meter stick. That’s why IRT is a superior theory and it > includes LET and SRT as subsets. >> >>>> >>>> You have essentially zero basic understanding of reference frames andhat >>>> motion relative to that frame means. Zero. You haven’t gotten off the >>>> ground. This is high school physics, chapter TWO, and you don’t get it. >>> >>> Pot kettle black. >> >> Ken, I’ve read this stuff and you haven’t. > > And you boxed yourself in this stuff and that’s why you failed to do any creative thinking. You seem to think that being educated in the basics is being boxed in, and that the only way to be creative is to be uneducated in the subject. No one has ever succeeded in that strategy. It is a hopeless rationalization of the lazy. > >> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> 3.The SR inertial frame claims all the exclusive properties of the ether >>>>> frame: isotropic light speed and the LT (the LET math). So that means >>>>> that an internal frame is just another name for the ether frame. >>>> >>>> Nope. There is only one ether frame. You said so yourself. >>> >>> No moron, there is the ether but no ether frame because no observer is at >>> rest in the ether to set up the ether frame. >> >> A human observer is not needed for a reference frame, Ken. There is a >> reference frame tied to the moon Phobos though there is no human observer >> on Phobos to “set one up”. Again you have no idea what a reference frame >> is. > > >> >>> >>>> There are an >>>> infinite number of inertial frames moving relative to each other. They are >>>> not the same thing. Period. >>> >>> Sure there are an infinite number of observers moving in the ether and >>> set up an infinite number of “inertial” frames” (infinite number of coordinate systems). >> >> And there is only one ether frame. One. You say so yourself. >> >>> SR claims: Each of these infinite inertial observers claim to be in an ether frame >> >> Nope. They claim to be in an inertial frame not an ether frame. The >> infinite inertial observers can all be moving relative to each other. Each >> inertial observer is at rest relative to his own inertial frame. This is >> possible because there are an infinite number of inertial frames moving >> relative to each other. This is much different than the ONE ether frame. >> >>> and thus they all claim the exclusive properties of the ether frame >>> including the ether frame math.....that’s why SR have the same math as LET. >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables > -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-22 05:10 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pt5doo$m0u$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #477733 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >Moron I said that no observer is at rest in the ether and thus no ether >frame (ether coordinate system) can be set up. Why not? I declare a frame is stationary wrt. the aether and there it is. Done. (except for the small problem that there is no aether, of course) >No moron, there is the ether but no ether frame because no observer is at >rest in the ether to set up the ether frame. Why not? I declare the frame to exist, and it exists. >SR claims: Each of these infinite inertial observers claim to be in an >ether frame and thus they all claim the exclusive properties of the ether >frame SR most certainly does not claim that! SR declares the aether is superfluous and won't be used, so of course no SR observer will claim to be in a nonexistent aether frame. Instead, the infinite inertial observers claim to be in an _inertial_ frame, not an aether frame.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-20 18:11 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pt1ioi$6dj$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #477590 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes:
>On Monday, November 19, 2018 at 1:30:08 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes:
>> >On Monday, November 19, 2018 at 8:45:28 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> >> Partial credit, Stupid Ken. Technically any frame with a different origin
>> >> is a different frame.
>> >Right, coordinate systems set up in different locations in the aether
>> >are different inertial frame.
>> They will all be the same except for what is defined as the origin.
>> >>However, Odd's point is that all such frames MUST be
>> >>stationary relative to each other since all such frames have the
>> >>purported aether stationary in it.
>> >No, the aether is stationary and all objects (including all observers)
>> >are moving within it.
>> You didn't understand what I said. All of those "aether" frames have the
>> aether stationary in them but may have different origins. Motion of
>> anything else in those frames is irrelevant.
>There is only one aether frame.....so what is your point?
There are infinitely many inertial frames, all different. They cannot all
be an aether frame, even if it existed. That is my point.
BTW you just contradicted yourself. You said earlier there could be
multiple aether frames with different origins.
>> Because the aether is stationary in all those frames, they are all must
>> be stationary wrt each other.
>Except all the observers are moving within the aether.
This has nothing to do with your assertion that observers move in your
aether. I said the aether must be stationary in all the aether frames
so all the aether frames must be stationary relative to each other.
Meanwhile, inertial frames can be moving relative to each other.
Therefore, they cannot be an aether frame.
>> >>But inertial frames in relative motion wrt each
>> >> other are, well, in relative motion wrt each other.
>> >According to SR, the coordinate systems (including the origins) are not
>> >moving....the observer and the observed object are moving wrt each other.
>> The observer is stationary in his own inertial frame. The observed may
>> be moving in this first frame.
>No, the observer is not stationary wrt the aether.
I said the observer is stationary in his own inertial frame, not in any
aether frame.
>Your assertion that the observer is stationary in own inertial frame is
>simply means that you are claiming the aether frame for the observer.
No, I said the observer defines an inertial frame that is stationary
relative to himself. As long as the observer is inertial, he can do that.
>> The second observer ("the observed", above) has his OWN DIFFERENT inertial
>> frame. She is stationary in this frame. She will see the FIRST observer
>> moving in her frame.
>Right the second observer also claims the aether frame
No, again this observer also defines an inertial frame that is stationary
relative to herself. Since the two frames are moving relative to each
other, both CANNOT be the aether frame. Since you claim everything moves
in your aether, NO inertial frame can be your aether frame! You contradict
yourself.
Apparently, you simply don't understand the concept of "inertial frame"
or even "frame".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-20 07:44 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <d49f98cd-5f85-4cab-8b8f-98bf057ce302@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #477521 |
On Monday, November 19, 2018 at 1:30:08 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes:
>
> >On Monday, November 19, 2018 at 8:45:28 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes:
> >>
> >> >> >>> The inertial frame of SR is just another name for the aether frame. If
> >> >> >>> you don't agree then name a property of the inertial frame that is
> >> >> >>> exclusive to the inertial frame that the aether frame doesn't have.
> >>
> >> >> >> That's easy. The uniqueness of the ether frame. There's only one.
> >>
> >> >> > No idiot, you can set up an infinite number of ether frames at different
> >> >> > locations in the stationary ether.....
> >>
> >> >> No you can't. Frames have infinite extent. No boundary. Any point is in all
> >> >> frames.
> >>
> >> >Yes you can......any observer can set up a coordinate system at his location
> >> >in the ether. Any point is in his coordinate system.
> >>
> >> Partial credit, Stupid Ken. Technically any frame with a different origin
> >> is a different frame.
>
> >Right, coordinate systems set up in different locations in the aether
> >are different inertial frame.
>
> They will all be the same except for what is defined as the origin.
>
> >>However, Odd's point is that all such frames MUST be
> >>stationary relative to each other since all such frames have the
> >>purported aether stationary in it.
>
> >No, the aether is stationary and all objects (including all observers)
> >are moving within it.
>
> You didn't understand what I said. All of those "aether" frames have the
> aether stationary in them but may have different origins. Motion of
> anything else in those frames is irrelevant.
>
> Because the aether is stationary in all those frames, they are all must
> be stationary wrt each other.
>
> >>But inertial frames in relative motion wrt each
> >> other are, well, in relative motion wrt each other.
>
> >According to SR, the coordinate systems (including the origins) are not
> >moving....the observer and the observed object are moving wrt each other.
>
> The observer is stationary in his own inertial frame. The observed may
> be moving in this first frame.
The observer is stationary in his own frame is an oxymoron statement. Stationary wrt what?
>
> The second observer ("the observed", above) has his OWN DIFFERENT inertial
> frame. She is stationary in this frame. She will see the FIRST observer
> moving in her frame.
All observers are in a state of absolute motion within the aether.....when an observer declares that he is stationary means that he is claiming the aether frame.
>
> This is Odd's point. In this case, SR has 2 different inertial frames.
> Each is moving relative to the other.
>
> If there was a such thing as aether frames in which the purported aether
> is stationary, these frames MUST be stationary relative to each other, but
> they may have different origins.
The aether is stationary but the observers are not stationary in the aether.
>
> SR has inertial frames in motion with respect to each other.
Observers are moving wrt each other. When an observer claiming that he is stationary, he is claiming that he is in state of absolute rest in the aether.
>And Odd's
> point was that this is a difference, SR's inertial frames can all have
> relative motion wrt each other, while your purported stationary aether
> frames CANNOT have motion wrt each other.
Here’s the problem:
1. Every SR observer claims that he is stationary but at the same time he is in relative motion wrt all the objects in the universe.
2. When an observer claiming that he is stationary means that he is at rest in the aether and thus claiming all the exclusive properties of the aether frame and that’s why SR math is identical to the LET math.
3. The aether does not move.....the objects within it move.
4. There is no aether coordinate system because no observer is in a state of absolute rest in the aether to set up such coordinate system.
5. Relative motion between any two objects moving within the aether is the vector difference of their absolute motions.
6. Past experiments and proposed experiments are detecting absolute motions in the following link:
http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015experiment.pdf
>So they are different, and SR
> cannot declare inertial frames to be renamed aether frames (even if aether
> existed in SR, which it doesn't). SR frames can be moving at any constant
> velocity (less than c) relative to each other. Aether frames cannot.
The observers are moving within the aether. There is no aether frame because no observer is at rest in the aether to set it up. Sr’s inertial frame claims all the exclusive properties of the aether frame and that’s why SR have the same math as LET (an aether theory).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-20 08:15 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <2df4d172-029e-4ea6-ba51-f663cef2b7e5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #477597 |
On Tuesday, November 20, 2018 at 10:44:57 AM UTC-5, kenseto wrote: > The observer is stationary in his own frame is an oxymoron statement. Yes, its an obvious and a tautology. But you dont understand that! > Stationary wrt what? To himself, to his frame. As he moves, his nose remains on his face; his nose is not moving wrt his face; his nose is stationary wrt his face (his frame), but his nose muves wrt the ground as he is moving. > when an observer declares that he is stationary means > that he is claiming the aether frame. No idiot ken. When an observer declares that he is stationary, he/we mean that he is stationary wrt his onm frame. Dont you understand common english? > The aether is stationary but the observers are not stationary > in the aether. True. And that shows that the ether frame and the person (he is a frame) are different. Each person is different, but the ether frame is unique. There is only ONE ether frame, but there are countless persons (observers, frames). This is a difference between the ether frame and an arbitrary frame (inertial frame as you call it). > Here’s the problem: > 1. Every SR observer claims that he is stationary but He is stationary wrt HIMSELF (his frame; he means that his nose remains on his face). That is what he/WE mean. > at the same time he is in relative motion wrt all the objects > in the universe. Yes usually. he is moving wrt the ground, to other people etc. > 2. When an observer claiming that he is stationary means that > he is at rest in the aether No. It means that he means that he is stationary wrt himself. Learn the meaning of the words used for once! > 3. The aether does not move.....the objects within it move. Yes (for the sake of this conversation). > 4. There is no aether coordinate system because no observer > is in a state of absolute rest in the aether to set up such > coordinate system. If there is no aether coordinate system then there is no ether (in the positivism/empiricism sense) because things exist ONLY when they are coordinated. But this is well over your head. > The observers are moving within the aether. Ok. > There is no aether frame because no observer is at rest in the > aether to set it up. You (finally) kinda got that right! > Sr’s inertial frame claims all the exclusive properties of the > aether frame No, SR does NOT claim all the exclusive properties of the EF. Stop making things up.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-20 17:54 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <b59c2d3b-52d4-63a7-a51c-3e22c1a2d53e@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #477597 |
kenseto wrote: > On Monday, November 19, 2018 at 1:30:08 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: >> If there was a such thing as aether frames in which the purported aether >> is stationary, these frames MUST be stationary relative to each other, but >> they may have different origins. > > The aether is stationary but the observers are not stationary in the aether.. The assumption of a stationary aether as conceived by Maxwell was falsified by the MMX in 1887 already. It required the Lorentz transformation, and an aether endowed with special properties that make it undetectable, to make any sense of the aether concept. Einstein showed that the Lorentz transformation follows even when one does not assume an aether. So the aether is a superfluous concept. >> SR has inertial frames in motion with respect to each other. > > Observers are moving wrt each other. They are moving relative to each other. > When an observer claiming that he is stationary, he is claiming that he is in > state of absolute rest in the aether. No, that is what *you* *alone* are claiming. >> And Odd's >> point was that this is a difference, SR's inertial frames can all have >> relative motion wrt each other, while your purported stationary aether >> frames CANNOT have motion wrt each other. > > Here’s the problem: > 1. Every SR observer claims that he is stationary but at the same time he is in relative motion wrt all the objects in the universe. That is correct, and not a problem at all. > 2. When an observer claiming that he is stationary means that he is at rest in the aether No, it does not. That is only *your* claim. (The concept of the aether was obsolete already 100 years ago.) > and thus […] Ex falso quodlibet. > The observers are moving within the aether. The correction of Lorentz’ transformation as corrected by Poincaré (which is identical to the one that Einstein found independently without assuming an aether) shows that this claim cannot be falsified. So this is not a theory, and the assumption is superfluous. You are a bit like stubborn old Poincaré who would not accept to his deathbed that the luminiferous aether is superfluous, and believed in it even though from Poincarés own deliberations followed that it was impossible to detect. Different from Poincaré, though, you have no clue what you are talking about; most importantly, you are unable to do the math. -- PointedEars Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 9 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web