From: detect@newsguy.com   
      
   On Monday, July 2, 2018 at 11:49:29 PM UTC-5, Edward Prochak wrote:   
   > On Sunday, July 1, 2018 at 3:52:39 PM UTC-4, Ed Lake wrote:   
   >> On Sunday, July 1, 2018 at 10:29:01 AM UTC-5, Tom Roberts wrote:   
   >   
   >>   
   >> 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   
   >   
   > For the Gedanken experiment, time comparisons cannot be used   
   > to determine who is moving, period. You are almost there   
   > with your descriptions that used letters instead of train and   
   > embankment.   
   >   
   > So, I like to pose the experiment as 2  trains with windows   
   > only on the side facing the other train. Nothing else to   
   > reference. Tracks and embankments are out of sight.   
   > Of course also extremely smooth ride, not vibrations to   
   > indicate movement.   
   >   
   > We can even imagine both trains are infinitely long,   
   > or at least long enough to conduct our thought experiments.   
   >   
   > Each car of both trains contains an observer, watching   
   > the other train and and an experimenter conducting an   
   > experiment to watch.   
   >   
   > The trains move at speed V relative to the other.   
   >   
   > Experiment 1   
   > In one of the cars of train A, the experimenter drops   
   > a ball. The observer in train B also records the   
   > experiment.   
   >   
   > Experiment 2   
   > In one of the cars of train A, the experimenter shoots   
   > a ball at speed V in the same direction as train B.   
   > The observer in train B also records the experiment.   
   >   
   > Experiment 3   
   > In one of the cars of train B, the experimenter drops   
   > a ball. The observer in train A also records the   
   > experiment.   
   >   
   > Experiment 2   
   > In one of the cars of train B, the experimenter shoots   
   > a ball at speed V in the same direction as train A.   
   > The observer in train A also records the experiment.   
   >   
   >   
   > SO what do they conclude?   
   > Both conclude that a ball falls at a given rate   
   > (the acceleration of gravity).   
   >   
   > Both agree that when they drop a ball in their   
   > own train, it falls straight down. and the both   
   > agree that combined motions work the same within   
   > their own train.   
   >   
   > The same goes for light and time.   
   >   
   > Particular observations may be different,   
   > but are symetrical.   
   >   
   > IOW, they agree that the laws of physics are the same   
   > in both trains. If they published ballistics tables,   
   > both trains would come up with the same results.   
   >   
   > They do disagree on who is moving, and   
   > no experiment can tell them the "correct" answer.   
   > There is no "illusion" to dispel.   
   >   
   > Ed   
      
   You create experiments where no one can detect any differences in the   
   results of the experiments, and then you claim that means that no one   
   can detect any differences in the results of the experiments.   
      
   What is the point of such self-proving experiments?  If you remove all   
   means of telling who is moving and who is not, obviously you will not be   
   able to tell who is moving and who is not.  It's an absurd experiment.   
      
   Einstein's theories say that if you perform your experiments inside an   
   inertial reference frame, you will get the same results as someone else   
   inside a different inertial reference frame moving at a different speed.   
   So, you created a complicated set of experiments to prove what everyone   
   already knows.   
      
   The point of Relativity, however, is that, if you have a situation where   
   you CAN tell who is moving and who is not, or who is moving faster than   
   whom, then the laws of physics will still be the same, the tests will   
   still produce the same results, but you can see that while the results   
   APPEAR identical, they are actually different because they used a   
   variable: the length of a second.  Thus, the test results are actually   
   different and definitely NOT symmetrical.  The comparison between frames   
   will show that one is moving faster than the other and therefore one   
   used longer seconds than the other.   
      
   In Einstein's thought experiments he specifically says that you can open   
   the window and SEE who is moving and who is not, even though you cannot   
   tell that when the windows are closed.   
      
   Ed   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)