From: tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net   
      
   On 7/3/18 1:34 PM, Ed Lake wrote:   
   > 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.   
      
   To see the absurdity of your claims, just unwind your VERY UNUSUAL AND   
   OUTRAGEOUS meaning of "correct":   
      
        Ed Lake said: If you set down a rule that you cannot tell what   
        is consistent with the laws of physics and what is inconsistent   
        with the laws of physics, what is the point?   
      
   It OUGHT to be clear that NOTHING we observe can be inconsistent with   
   the laws of physics -- we and any physical process we observe are   
   necessarily constrained by those laws. I did not "set down a rule" that   
   is not already contained in the phrase "laws of physics".   
      
        Ed Lake said: Science and physics is [sic] about determining   
        what is consistent with the laws of physics and what is   
        inconsistent with the laws of physics.   
      
   The absurdity of this is manifest -- EVERYTHING we observe is consistent   
   with the laws of physics, there is no possibility of "determining".   
      
   	[Note also that everything we observe is correct (standard   
   	 meaning) -- it simply is not possible to make incorrect   
   	 observations. It is possible to interpret observations   
   	 incorrectly, and when that happens competent scientists   
   	 fix the error.]   
      
   In fact, science and physics are about modeling the world we inhabit. We   
   have learned that the phrase "the laws of physics" is a chimera, and   
   today we formulate MODELS, not "laws". For the simple reason that we now   
   know that humans can never know the actual Laws used by Nature, the best   
   we can possibly do is to approximate them, and that is not at all the same.   
      
   Also note that when you attempt to redefine common words, you confuse   
   yourself and your readers. DON'T DO THAT.   
      
   > 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.   
      
   No, that is NOT "what relativity is all about", because your previous   
   sentence is blatantly false.   
      
   When we use different frames to DESCRIBE an experiment, the RESULT is   
   unchanged -- for the example being discussed there is ONE stone, it is   
   dropped ONCE, and it has ONE trajectory -- THAT TRAJECTORY IS THE RESULT   
   OF THE EXPERIMENT. But of course the train and embankment observers   
   describe this trajectory differently, using their different= perspectives.   
      
   > [... further nonsense that ignores the lessons above.]   
      
   Tom Roberts   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)