From: detect@newsguy.com   
      
   On Tuesday, July 10, 2018 at 12:56:33 PM UTC-5, Edward Prochak wrote:   
   > On Tuesday, July 10, 2018 at 3:33:02 AM UTC-4, Ed Lake wrote:   
   > > On Monday, July 9, 2018 at 2:13:03 PM UTC-5, Edward Prochak wrote:   
   > > > On Saturday, July 7, 2018 at 9:35:41 PM UTC-4, Ed Lake wrote:   
      
   > > > You still persist in this "correct'/"incorrect" paradigm   
   > > > that begs for a god-like reference frame.   
   > >   
   > > No, it just requires being able to tell the difference between what is   
   > > "real" and what is an "illusion."  You may think that the train you are   
   > > on is stationary and the railroad station and embankment outside are   
   > > moving, but that is just an "illusion."  If you understand that energy   
   > > was required to make the train move, and the amount of energy used by   
   > > the engine could not possibly make the planet move while the train   
   > > stands still, then you can understand how to tell the difference between   
   > > an "illusion" and reality.   
   >   
   > You fail to keep in mind that the train is a star or planet   
   > and the embankment is another star or planet. IOW, you are   
   > making reference to an absolute frame, the planet Earth,   
   > in the above comment.   
      
   Planet Earth is NOT an "absolute frame" in any statement I have made. I   
   have repeatedly stated that the Earth is moving at 486,000 miles per   
   hour around the center of the Milky Way galaxy.   
      
   When talking about objects ON Earth, such as trains, you can use the   
   Earth as a reference frame.  You can also consider it to be "stationary"   
   WHEN you  are measuring speeds RELATIVE to the "stationary" Earth.  But   
   it is NOT an "absolute" reference frame.   
      
   > The point Tom and I are both trying to make is:   
   > there is no illusion!   
      
   The point I am trying to make is that there ARE illusions.  The primary   
   task for science to determine what is an illusion and what is not.   
      
   > > Of course, it can be argued that it is also an "illusion" that the   
   > > embankment and station are standing still, since both are moving as the   
   > > earth spins on its axis and travels around the center of the galaxy at   
   > > 486,000 miles per hour, but the energy produced by the train's engine   
   > > has nothing to do with that movement.  So, it all depends upon what you   
   > > are arguing.   
   >   
   > I am arguing that both observations are real.   
   > Both observations are consistent with SR.   
      
   Virtually everything is moving.  That is consistent with SR.  The idea   
   that  motion is reciprocal is NOT consistent with SR.  SR says that   
   everything is moving at different speeds - except those objects which   
   are "stationary" relative to one another.  They move at the same speed.   
      
   > > The point is: If you CAN tell who is moving (by opening the window, for   
   > > example) then you can ALSO determine who is moving faster than whom.   
   >   
   > There is the point:   
   > you can NOT tell who is moving in any absolute manner.   
   > There is no window in this universe to open.   
   >   
   > > You can do it by comparing clock tick rates (if you have identical   
   > > clocks).  The person whose clock ticks slowest is the person who is   
   > > moving fastest.   
      
   > This last point is not clear. You seem to be taking a vote   
   > with multiple observers. So Alice, Bob, and Dan all   
   > agree that Charles has the slowest clock and therefore   
   > is moving fastest of relative to the other three.   
   > That is a valid observation.   
   >   
   > But the complimentary conclusion that Charles, Bob,   
   > and Dan all agree that Alice has the fastest clock   
   > does not lead to the conclusion that Alice is not moving.   
   > Alice is still at best only an agreed-to reference frame.   
      
   To argue a "complimentary conclusion" is to argue that motion is   
   reciprocal, which is nonsense.  There is NO "complimentary conclusion."   
      
   > And one more point:   
   > It may be that the others are moving as a group away   
   > from Charles. The observations of the clocks will   
   > be the same. You really cannot know the absolute motion.   
   > And it isn't an illusion.   
      
   Okay, once again:  Comparing clock tick rates will show the following:   
   Alice is moving slower than Bob.  Bob is moving slower than Dan.  Dan is   
   moving  slower than Chuck. Chuck is moving slower than Fred.  Fred is   
   moving slower than Albert.  Albert is moving slower than Henry.  Etc.,   
   etc., etc, until  you get to Louie.  Nobody seems to have a clock that   
   ticks faster than than Louie's.  Is Louie "stationary"?  Until you can   
   find someone whose clock ticks faster than Louie's, you can measure all   
   velocities as relative to Louie. And, if you know Louie's location, you   
   can measure all movement as being relative to Louie.   
      
   That is what SR says.   
      
   Ed   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)