From: edprochak@gmail.com   
      
   On Saturday, July 7, 2018 at 9:33:55 PM UTC-4, Ed Lake wrote:   
   > 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:   
      
   > > > 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?   
      
   IOW, you can only measure speeds relative to some other frame.   
   You cannot, in the real universe, open the train window   
   to see some at rest embankment, because both the window   
   and the embankment are not there.   
      
   >   
   > You ask absurd, meaningless questions.   
      
   Your comments about "correct" motion of the ball prompted   
   my question. So it seems reasonable to ask you: which   
   observer in which train observers the "corect" path   
   of motion according to you?   
      
   >  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.   
      
   I did not mention nor do I see a need for "lunimiferous ether".   
   I totally agree that in SR, moving clocks run slower.   
   Why would you suggest I accept any other conclusion?   
   >   
   > 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.   
      
   Yes, no object there. I hope you have a point.   
   >   
   > 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   
   > times per second, the clock aboard the slower moving train will   
   > reach that count long before the clock aboard the faster moving   
   > train.  The faster a train moves, the slower clocks will tick aboard   
   > that train.   
      
   Still nothing new. Still also avoiding my question.   
      
   >   
   > That is the other key to understanding Einstein's Special Theory   
   > of Relativity.   
   >   
   > Ed   
   >   
   > [[Mod. note -- Many of your statements need to be qualified with   
   > who (which observer or frame-of-reference) is making the observation:   
   >   
   > Notably, your question "Which galaxy is moving FASTER than the other?"   
   > has different answers depending on the observer or frame-of-reference.   
   >   
   > Also notably, "clocks aboard an object" will be observed *by a   
   > "co-moving" observer who is also aboard the same object* to tick at   
   > precisely their normal rate.   
   >   
   > -- jt]]   
      
   Yes the entire point of the two train gedanken experiment   
   is to emphasize that there is no preferred frame of reference.   
   this is something that the wording Ed prefers to use about   
   "correct" results is meaningless in SR. So I am basically   
   Asking Ed Lake which frame of reference will produce his   
   "correct" results.   
      
   Ed P.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)