From: detect@newsguy.com   
      
   On Wednesday, July 4, 2018 at 7:21:52 PM UTC-5, Edward Prochak wrote:   
   > On Tuesday, July 3, 2018 at 2:34:12 PM UTC-4, Ed Lake wrote:   
   > > On Monday, July 2, 2018 at 11:49:29 PM UTC-5, Edward Prochak wrote:   
   > > > 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(4)   
   > > > 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=20   
   > > > no experiment can tell them the "correct" answer.   
   > > > There is no "illusion" to dispel.   
   > > >   
   > > > Ed   
   > >=20   
   > > 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.   
   >=20   
   > I created a gedanken experiment that mirrors reality, such as   
   > two planet earths passing each other in remote space.   
   > >=20   
   > > 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 b=   
   e   
   > > able to tell who is moving and who is not.  It's an absurd experiment.   
   >=20   
   > No it is what we actually face in astronomical studies.   
   > We can use earth as our reference frame, but that does not   
   > mean we represent the embankment  of the experiment.   
   >=20   
   > >=20   
   > > 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.   
   >=20   
   > Good. It is not more complicated, just clearer as to the real situation   
   > we face.   
   > >=20   
   > > The point of Relativity, however, is that, if you have a situation wher=   
   e   
   > > 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 frame=   
   s   
   > > will show that one is moving faster than the other and therefore one   
   > > used longer seconds than the other.   
   >=20   
   > Not symmetrical as to the details. But the results that both   
   > derive are the same, namely: the laws of gravity and inertia   
   > and E&M are the same.   
   >=20   
   > >=20   
   > > In Einstein's thought experiments he specifically says that you can ope=   
   n   
   > > the window and SEE who is moving and who is not, even though you cannot   
   > > tell that when the windows are closed.   
   > >=20   
   > > Ed   
   >=20   
   > But the conclusion derived from the experiment is that there   
   > is NO preferred frame. Your comments about "correct" path of   
   > an object is the mistaken impression that I hoped this   
   > example would demonstrate. If you think there is a "correct"   
   > path for a dropped ball to fall, then using the results of   
   > the four experiments tell us which train is not moving   
   > and which train is moving.   
   >=20   
   > Then consider a real example, the relative motions of   
   > the Milky Way galaxy and the Whirlpool galaxy.   
   > Which galaxy is not moving and which one is moving?   
   > Please kindly share how you reach your conclusion.   
   > Oh one caveat: no fair using a third reference frame,   
   > such as the CMBR or Galactic clusters or God's eye view.   
   >=20   
   > Enjoy,   
   >   Ed   
      
   You seem to have fundamental misunderstandings of Relativity.   
   Everything in our observable universe is moving.  So, the question   
   "Which galaxy is not moving and which is moving?" is absurd and   
   meaningless.  The question should be: Which galaxy is moving FASTER   
   than the other?  The same with the moving trains: Which is moving   
   FASTER than the other?   
      
   You ask absurd, meaningless questions.  According to Einstein's   
   Special Theory of Relativity, there is no need for a "lunimiferous   
   ether" to use as a "preferred reference frame" to measure all   
   movement against.  Instead, you can measure all movement by how   
   slow clocks tick.  The faster an object moves, the slower a clock   
   on that object will tick.   
      
   So, clocks aboard an object will tick slower and slower as the   
   object moves faster and faster, until the speed of light is reached.   
   At the speed of light, time stops.  You cannot go faster than the   
   speed of light.  That is one key to understanding Einstein's Special   
   Theory of Relativity.   
      
   If you have two trains moving at different speeds, experiments   
   aboard those trains will produce identical results even though time   
   moves at different rates aboard the two trains.  And you cannot   
   tell that time is moving at different rates unless you compare clock   
   rates.  Then you will see that, while both clocks tick 9,192,631,770   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)