From: detect@newsguy.com   
      
   On Friday, June 29, 2018 at 2:28:03 AM UTC-5, Tom Roberts wrote:   
      
   < snip >   
      
   > These thought experiments describe and illuminate Special Relativity. In   
   order   
   > to improve the quality and accuracy of your paper about them, first you must   
   > learn what Special Relativity ACTUALLY predicts. At present, your paper is   
   > completely useless because it describes YOUR mistakes and confusions, not   
   > Einstein's thought experiments and theory.   
   >   
   >      [A major error is thinking that some observations are "correct"   
   >       and others are "incorrect" (in your unusual sense that they are   
   >       consistent with the laws of physics). So for a stone dropped from   
   >       a moving train, on page 5 you claim the embankment observation is   
   >       "correct" while the on-train observation is "incorrect". You have   
   >       failed to grasp the first postulate, and the FACT that the relevant   
   >       laws of physics are INDEPENDENT of frame -- BOTH descriptions are   
   >       "correct" (in your unusual sense of consistent with the known laws;   
   >       it's just that you did not apply the ACTUAL laws as they are known).   
   >       How can an observation possibly be "incorrect"?? -- after all,   
   >       observers observe what they observe. Even with your unusual   
   >       meaning of "correct", how can an observer possibly violate the   
   >       laws of physics???]   
      
   If a moving observer notices no difference in the passing of time in his   
   reference frame, but then COMPARES his time to the time of a non-moving   
   observer, there will be a difference.  The moving observer's time passed   
   at a slower rate.   
      
   So, his view that there was "no difference" in the passing of time while   
   he was moving was INCORRECT.  There WAS a difference.  Time passed at a   
   slower rate while he was moving.   
      
   If the moving observer drops a stone and sees it fall straight down,   
   while a stationary observer sees that stone fall in a parabolic curve,   
   their conflicting views cannot both be "correct."   
      
   The view that the stone falls straight down is INCORRECT because that   
   view fails to notice the effects of inertia.   
      
   If the two observers sit down and discuss what they saw, they will agree   
   that the stone did not and could not fall straight down from a moving   
   train.  So, that view was "incorrect."  It was an "illusion."   
      
   It is also an "illusion" that you age at your "normal" rate when moving   
   fast.  That "illusion" is understood when the moving and stationary   
   observers sit down together and compare what happened.  The faster you   
   move, the slower time passes for you - even though you notice nothing   
   different happening.   
      
   Einstein made that very clear in his 1905 paper: "Thence we conclude   
   that a balance-clock at the equator must go more slowly, by a very small   
   amount, than a precisely similar clock situated at one of the poles   
   under otherwise identical conditions."   
      
   You move faster at the equator due to the spin of the earth.  You can   
   argue that the slightly flattened shape of the earth actually offsets   
   that effect, but Einstein was using a "thought experiment" which   
   involved a perfectly spherical Earth.   
      
   Ed   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)