From: tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net   
      
   On 6/29/18 5:32 PM, Ed Lake wrote:   
   > 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.   
      
   Yes.   
      
   > The moving observer's time passed at a slower rate.   
      
   No. All known laws of physics are valid in the "moving observer's"   
   frame, with their standard constants, so time passes at its usual rate   
   for him -- one second is still 9,192,631,770 oscillations of CS-133.   
      
   A major part of your problem is saying "moving observer" without saying   
   what he is moving with respect to. You are implicitly attempting to use   
   some "absolute" or "God's eye" view of the world. That's invalid, as   
   there is no such thing in modern physics.   
      
   	Do you seriously think a train embankment is at rest   
   	in some "absolute" sense????   
      
   > 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."   
      
   This is simply not true. Both observers observe what they observe. Both   
   MUST be correct.   
      
   But in your paper you attempt to redefine "correct" to mean "consistent   
   with the laws of physics", and seem to be using that here. Leaving aside   
   the absurdity of such unusual redefinitions, it is not possible for   
   either observer to violate the laws of physics, so again, BOTH   
   OBSERVATIONS MUST BE CORRECT.   
      
   > The view that the stone falls straight down is INCORRECT because   
   > that view fails to notice the effects of inertia.   
      
   There's your problem -- you do not understand the laws of physics. Here,   
   in the context of Newtonian physics, there is no "law of inertia", there   
   are just:   
      * conservation of energy   
      * conservation of momentum   
      * Newton's three laws   
      * Newton's law of universal gravitation   
   BOTH observations are fully consistent with all of these.   
      
   	All of these laws are valid in EVERY inertial frame. So they   
   	are valid in the frame of the embankment, and they are ALSO   
   	valid in the frame of the train. (The initial conditions of   
   	the stone are different in these frames, fully accounting   
   	for the difference in observations.)   
      
   > [... further incorrect claims based on the same error]   
      
   > 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."   
      
   This is one of his (minor) errors in that paper. In 1905 nobody knew   
   that the earth is an oblate spheroid, and the effect of that exactly   
   cancels the effect of the motion due to rotation, when comparing clocks   
   to the Earth Centered Inertial frame. He also did not specify how   
   the comparison is made -- in 1905 it was not understood that this is   
   essential; today it is.   
      
   > [... further incorrect claims based on the same error]   
      
   You MUST learn to avoid implicitly using "God's eye", as there is no   
   such thing in modern physics. Practically everything you write does   
   that, making it wrong. You cannot understand relativity, or   
   intelligently discuss Einstein's thought experiments, without abandoning   
   "God's eye" and learning what SR actually says. Your paper discusses   
   YOUR OWN MISTAKES, not Einstein's thought experiments or theory.   
      
   	Redefining a basic word like "correct" OUGHT to be   
   	a big red flag that you are doing something wrong.   
      
   Tom Roberts   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)