From: detect@newsguy.com   
      
   On Tuesday, July 3, 2018 at 2:29:49 AM UTC-5, Tom Roberts wrote:   
   > On 7/1/18 2:52 PM, Ed Lake wrote:   
   >> 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 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.   
   >   
   > No, it is not "baseless" at all -- that is what those words mean.   
   >   
   > Have you never been on a train and dropped something while it is en route?   
   -- if   
   > not, go find a train and do it (or use a car).   
   >   
   > It is QUITE CLEAR that a dropped object on a train falls straight down   
   RELATIVE   
   > TO THE TRAIN [#]. And it is also QUITE CLEAR that the same object falls in a   
   > parabolic arc RELATIVE TO THE EMBANKMENT. BOTH observations are correct,   
   because   
   > that is what those observers actually observe.   
   >   
   > NOTE: I reject and ignore your outrageous attempt to redefine the word   
   > "correct". Instead, I will write out your meaning, "consistent with the laws   
   > of physics". Such egregious redefinitions only serve to obscure the argument   
   and   
   > confuse the participants.   
   >   
   > 	[#] Here the context is Newtonian physics, and I ignore   
   > 	the distance the train travels during the fall compared   
   > 	to the radius of the earth. That is, here gravity points   
   > 	straight down, even though on earth it actually changes   
   > 	direction slightly as the train moves. I do this to   
   > 	avoid getting bogged down in irrelevant minutiae. Note   
   > 	that a more careful analysis that includes this does NOT   
   > 	change the basic conclusion.   
   >   
   >> Observers observe what they observe, but that doesn't automatically make   
   >> anything "correct."   
   >   
   > Sure it does, because that is what those words mean. Both observer's   
   > observations are also consistent with the laws of physics. After all, no   
   > observer or physical phenomenon can possibly violate those laws.   
   >   
   > You claim that the train observer's observation is not consistent with the   
   laws   
   > of physics -- how do you suppose that the train observer or the stone can   
   > violate those laws?????   
   >   
   > 	Hint: If it is possible to violate them, then they aren't   
   > 	really "laws of physics".   
   >   
   >> So, the observation that the stone traveled in a parabolic arc is the   
   >> "correct" observation.   
   >   
   > Sure, RELATIVE TO THE EMBANKMENT. But it is not the only correct observation   
   --   
   > the observation of the train observer is also correct. Both are also   
   consistent   
   > with the laws of physics.   
   >   
   >> 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.   
   >   
   > This is nonsense. You do not understand what frames of reference actually   
   are.   
   >   
   > A frame of reference is a set of coordinates relative to which an experiment   
   can   
   > be DESCRIBED. The frame is PURELY IN THE MIND OF THE ANALYST, and used FOR   
   > DESCRIPTION ONLY; nature does not use frames in any way. So whichever frame   
   is   
   > used by the analyst/observer, that choice cannot possibly affect the results   
   of   
   > the experiment (here the trajectory of the falling stone).   
   >   
   > The trajectory of the stone before it is dropped is important to how the   
   laws of   
   > physics determine its trajectory after it is dropped. But the fact that it is   
   > initially at rest in the train frame is IRRELEVANT to those laws [@], and to   
   the   
   > its subsequent trajectory. But being initially at rest in the train frame is   
   > important to the DESCRIPTION of the stone's trajectory relative to the train   
   > frame. Similarly, the initial forward motion of the stone relative to the   
   > embankment frame is IRRELEVANT to those laws [@], and to its subsequent   
   > trajectory, but is important to the DESCRIPTION of the stone's trajectory   
   > relative to the embankment frame.   
   >   
   > 	[@] Because the laws of physics are INDEPENDENT of frame;   
   > 	nature does not use frames in any way.   
   >   
   > IOW: the dropped stone moves in a fashion determined by the laws of physics.   
   > Those laws can be described in ANY frame of reference, and necessarily must   
   give   
   > THE SAME trajectory of the stone -- after all there is only one stone and it   
   is   
   > dropped only once, so it can have only one trajectory. If the laws are   
   accurate,   
   > they MUST predict this one trajectory, and must do so using ANY frame of   
   reference.   
   >   
   > The train observer describes the stone as falling straight down, and the   
   > embankment observer describes it as falling in a parabolic arc. BOTH   
   > descriptions are correct (in that they accurately describe what is observed   
   by   
   > each observer), BOTH descriptions describe the ONE trajectory of the stone   
   (from   
   > different perspectives using different frames), and BOTH descriptions are   
   > consistent with the laws of physics.   
   >   
   >> The same laws are valid in EVERY inertial frame, but they can produce   
   >> different results if one frame is moving relative to the other.   
   >   
   > Hmmmm. The laws of physics are INDEPENDENT of frame, and they yield a result   
   > that is INDEPENDENT of frame (I use the normal meaning of "result"). But the   
   > DESCRIPTIONS of the result using different frames can certainly be different.   
   >   
   > If by "result" you mean the normal "what actually happened", then your   
   statement   
   > here is just plain wrong; if by "result" you intend the unusual meaning   
   > "DESCRIPTION of what actually happened", then of course different frames can   
   > yield different descriptions.   
   >   
   > 	[Do not expect me to continue. You clearly do not understand   
   > 	 very basic concepts of physics, or even basic English usage.   
   > 	 It is useless to try to continue until you learn the basics.]   
   >   
   > Tom Roberts   
      
   If you set down a rule that you cannot tell what is correct and what is   
   incorrect, what is the point?  Science and physics is about determining   
   what is correct and what is incorrect.   
      
   You argue, "Because the laws of physics are INDEPENDENT of frame; nature   
   does not use frames in any way."   
      
   Correct.  But HUMANS use frames.  And they can APPEAR to get the same   
   results in different "frames" while actually getting very different   
   results.  That is what Relativity is all about.   
      
   If they can compare the length of a second as used in their different   
   frames, they will find that they used different lengths for seconds.   
   The length of a second is a variable in the laws of physics. It is a   
   COUNT of "periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition   
   between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the cesium 133   
   atom."   
      
   If within your lab you count 9,192,631,770 such periods, you consider it   
   to be one second.  I do the same in my lab.  But if we can compare   
   clocks, we can find that you reached a total of 9,192,631,770 periods   
   long before did.  Thus our seconds are actually of different lengths,   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)