From: detect@newsguy.com   
      
   On Sunday, July 1, 2018 at 10:29:01 AM UTC-5, Tom Roberts wrote:   
   > 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.   
      
   It's clearly stated.  The moving observer was moving relative to the   
   "non-moving observer."   
      
   >   
   > 	Do you seriously think a train embankment is at rest   
   > 	in some "absolute" sense????   
      
   No one suggested that.  You are creating baseless arguments.  It   
   simplifies things to refer to an embankment as being "stationary" even   
   though in the grander scheme of things it is traveling around the Milky   
   Way galaxy at 486,000 miles per hour.  The "grander scheme of things"   
   isn't part of the discussion.   
      
   > > 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.   
      
   Another baseless argument.  Observers observe what they observe, but   
   that doesn't automatically make anything "correct."  A man a block away   
   may appear smaller than someone a foot away, but that doesn't mean it is   
   "correct" to say that the person a block away is actually smaller than   
   the man next to you.   
      
   > 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.   
      
   Obviously not.  It violates the "conservation of momentum" for a stone   
   dropped from a moving vehicle traveling parallel to the earth's surface   
   to fall straight down.  So, the observation that the stone traveled in a   
   parabolic arc is the "correct" observation.   
      
   > > 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]   
      
   Within two closed inertial frames of reference *experiments* work   
   identically. HOWEVER, when one frame of reference is observed from   
   another frame of reference, the experiments may not work identically.   
   The same laws are valid in EVERY inertial frame, but they can produce   
   different results if one frame is moving relative to the other. The laws   
   involve variables, such as the length of a second.   
      
   < snip > pointless argument   
      
   > You MUST learn to avoid implicitly using "God's eye", as there is no   
   > such thing in modern physics. < snip > more of the same.   
      
   No one but you is saying anything about "God's eye."  Einstein's theory   
   says that if B is moving faster than A, then time will move slower for   
   B.  And if C is moving faster than B, then time will move slower for C   
   than for B. And if D is moving faster than C, then D time will move   
   slower for D than for A, B and C. Etc., etc., etc.   
      
   There is no "God's eye" involved.  Einstein just said that a   
   "luminiferous ether" is "superfluous" if the faster an object travels,   
   the slower time passes for that object.  Time comparisons can be used to   
   determine who is moving faster than whom.  That works until the speed of   
   light is reached, at which point time stops for the object moving at   
   that speed.   
      
   Ed   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)