Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion

Path	csiph.com!feeder.erje.net!2.us.feeder.erje.net!nntp.club.cc.cmu.edu!micro-heart-of-gold.mit.edu!newsswitch.lcs.mit.edu!nntp.TheWorld.com!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From	moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
Newsgroups	sci.physics
Subject	Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion
Date	Tue, 5 Apr 2016 14:22:11 +0000 (UTC)
Organization	The World : www.TheWorld.com : Since 1989
Lines	86
Message-ID	<ne0hmj$oft$2@pcls7.std.com> (permalink)
References	<ef6af78b-337b-447d-9fc8-35c712881d0b@googlegroups.com> <zbGdnRVLqKYax2XLnZ2dnUU7-aGdnZ2d@giganews.com> <5778fdf7-4797-47f0-a538-8506f4d35651@googlegroups.com> <ndkc8i$s0q$2@pcls7.std.com> <3ccde0d0-8b1c-4715-9cc6-09e5c809a724@googlegroups.com> <ndmeq3$pfl$1@pcls7.std.com> <4e90545a-530b-409e-a54f-970ae9ec0b6a@googlegroups.com> <ndn0a8$6jb$2@pcls7.std.com> <ecafcad0-e0c8-44cf-8aeb-a70b9a84b20c@googlegroups.com> <ndp4d7$12e$2@pcls7.std.com> <15ca9458-075d-4ca4-bbb2-2a14387472c7@googlegroups.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host	shell01.theworld.com
X-Trace	pcls7.std.com 1459866131 25085 192.74.137.71 (5 Apr 2016 14:22:11 GMT)
X-Complaints-To	abuse@TheWorld.com
NNTP-Posting-Date	Tue, 5 Apr 2016 14:22:11 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent	nn/6.6.5
Xref	csiph.com sci.physics:568038

Show key headers only | View raw

kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes:

>On Saturday, April 2, 2016 at 2:52:49 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes:

>> >> So it's true, you don't understand inertial frames at all.
>> >> 
>> >> If I drop a box (in a vacuum), the inside of the box can be considered an
>> >> inertial frame, as it is in freefall.  
>> 
>> >No idiot.....inside the box is accelerating at g toward the center of 
>> >the earth.
>> 
>> I already answered that, but you didn't comment on my answer.  I must
>> assume you immediately reached for the "reply" button once you read this
>> far, and never read beyond this point.
>> 
>> Anyway, an inertial frame LOOKS non-inertial, when viewed from a 
>> non-inertial frame.  

>Idiot....an inertial frame is not relative. It is a defined absolute term.

Did you even look at the second word of the name of the theory?
Special RELATIVITY? It is all about how inertial frames are all relative
to each other and how there is no special absolute references.

Now I remember that you like to give your own made-up definitions to
existing terms in physics and then argue with people using the standard
definition because the standard definition conflicts with your made-up
definition.  Perhaps this is what you did here, you made up your own
definition of "inertial frame", one that no scientist would ever use.
It appears to me that you don't know the definition of "inertial frame",
but that may be because you are using your own definition of "inertial 
frame".

Anyway, an inertial frame (standard definition) LOOKS non-inertial, when 
viewed from a non-inertial frame (standard definition).

What Ken's definition of "inertial frame" is, nobody other than Ken
knows. And I doubt he really does know.

>>Someone standing on the ground is in a non-inertial
>> frame (due to gravity) sees the inertial frame of the falling box
>> as non-inertial.  Someone else in another inertial frame will see the
>> first inertial frame as inertial,.

>Idiot....circular argument. There is no inertial frame exists on earth 

Nope. I just created another inertial frame! Right here on earth!! Whoops, 
there it goes!!!

Wait, Ken Seto is talking about Ken Seto's definition of "inertial frame".
Who knows what that is, other than apparently it's something that can't
exist on earth. Meanwhile, I can sit here and create inertial frames
(science's definition not Ken's definition) all day long.

>> >>An accelerometer inside it will
>> >> read 0.  No acceleration inside, and Newton's First Law holds.  This is
>> >> Einstein's elevator gedanken.
>> >> 
>> >> Now I know you are about to whine "No, the box is accelerating! It is
>> >> falling down!!!!"  But that is how it is viewed from a NON-INERTIAL frame,
>> >> someone standing on Earth.  It is non-inertial because of gravity.  An
>> >> inertial frame will appear inertial only to a reference of another
>> >> inertial frame.
>> 
>> No comment, obviously you didn't even read this.

Still no comment.

>> >> Think of it: If you are in a car accelerating away from a stationary
>> >> object such as a lamp pole, you will measure it as accelerating away
>> >> from you.  But you (in the car) are accelerating, the pole is stationary.
>> >> 
>> >> The box, as viewed from another INERTIAL frame (say, another falling box,
>> >> with or without initial velocity in some direction) will see the first box
>> >> in constant rectilinear motion relative to it, meeting the definition that
>> >> all inertial frames will see each other in constant rectilinear motion.
>> >> 
>> >> You really need to learn about inertial frames and SR before critizing 
>> >> either.
>> 
>> Or this.

And still no comment.

Thread

Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-03-27 06:23 -0700
  Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2016-03-27 13:51 -0700
    Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-03-27 23:07 +0200
    Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-27 17:13 -0500
    Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-03-31 14:51 -0700
      Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2016-04-04 12:23 -0700
        Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-04 14:33 -0500
          Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2016-04-04 13:40 -0700
            Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-04-04 13:45 -0700
            Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-04 15:52 -0500
          Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-04-04 13:43 -0700
            Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-04 15:47 -0500
            Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-04 15:53 -0500
            Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-05 20:16 -0500
              Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-04-06 14:10 -0700
        Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-04-04 13:32 -0700
  Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-27 17:11 -0500
    Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-03-31 15:00 -0700
      Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-03-31 23:35 +0000
        Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-04-01 06:13 -0700
          Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-01 08:48 -0500
            Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-04-01 14:44 -0700
              Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-01 18:03 -0500
              Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-01 18:08 -0500
              Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-01 18:14 -0500
                Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-04-02 06:23 -0700
                Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-02 08:34 -0500
                Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-04-04 05:39 -0700
                Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-04 07:50 -0500
                Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-02 18:56 +0000
                Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-04-04 05:56 -0700
                Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-04 08:22 -0500
                Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-05 14:30 +0000
                Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-04 09:07 -0500
                Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-04-04 07:16 -0700
                Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-04 11:12 -0500
                Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-04-04 13:38 -0700
                Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-04 15:45 -0500
                Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-04 14:35 -0500
                Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-04-04 13:35 -0700
                Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-04 15:55 -0500
              Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-01 18:17 -0500
          Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-01 18:31 +0000
            Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-04-01 14:46 -0700
              Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-01 23:30 +0000
                Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-04-02 06:13 -0700
                Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-02 08:38 -0500
                Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-04-02 07:56 -0700
                Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-04-04 05:44 -0700
                Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-04 08:26 -0500
                Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-04-04 07:13 -0700
                Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-05 14:02 +0000
                Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-04-06 13:55 -0700
                Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-04-06 15:19 -0600
                Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-04-06 17:39 -0700
                Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-09 13:45 +0000
                Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-04-02 07:47 -0700
                Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-02 18:52 +0000
                Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-04-04 05:53 -0700
                Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-04 08:28 -0500
                Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-05 14:22 +0000
                Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-04-06 14:06 -0700
                Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-09 13:48 +0000
                Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-04 09:05 -0500

csiph-web