From: detect@newsguy.com   
      
   On Tuesday, July 10, 2018 at 12:56:03 PM UTC-5, Edward Prochak wrote:   
   > On Monday, July 9, 2018 at 3:11:05 PM UTC-4, Ed Lake wrote:   
   > > [Moderator's note:  Huge amount of quoted text deleted.  Please quote   
   > > only enough to provide sufficient context.  -P.H.]   
      
   > > The speed of light can be used as a "preferred" reference frame.   
   >   
   > That will be hard to do because   
   > the clock on the light beam always reads 0.   
      
   And every other clock in the universe ticks at a faster rate relative   
   to that zero.   
      
   > >   
   > > When you talk about "frames of reference" where observers are imagined   
   > > to be "stationary," you create a FICTION where each observer sees the   
   > > other observer as moving.   
   >   
   > The only way to remove that "FICTION" isd to find an absolute   
   > reference frame. But wait Einstein said there is NO absolute   
   > frame of reference.   
      
   Einstein said NO SUCH THING.  He said that the ether was "superfluous,"   
   which means it is "not necessary."  If you use clock tick rates to   
   measure motion, and clocks stop at the speed of light which is also   
   the speed limit in the universe, then you do not need the ether.   
   All motion is relative to the point where time stops.   
      
   Personally, I would use the other end of the scale.  Instead of   
   using a moving spot that travels at the speed of light as zero, I   
   would use a place where clocks tick at their FASTEST rate because   
   a clock is stationary at that point. All speeds in the universe   
   would be relative to that point.  Where is it?  I could tell you,   
   but it would just generate a new argument.  Scientists used Einstein's   
   equations to determine its existence.   
      
   > >   
   > > Instead, you should do as Einstein recommended and have the observers   
   > > COMPARE the tick rates of their clocks.  The clock that is moving the   
   > > fastest will tick at the slowest rate.  Thus, instead of fantasizing   
   > > that you are stationary and the other observer is moving, you can   
   > > determine who is ACTUALLY moving faster than whom.   
   >   
   > That is the problem, You cannot tell who is "ACTUALLY"   
   > moving. Einstein never made such a statement that it would   
   > tell you who is "ACTUALLY" moving.   
      
   That is because, in Einstein's universe, EVERYTHING IS MOVING.  So,   
   the question is not who is actually moving, the only question is:   
   Who is moving FASTER or SLOWER than whom?   
      
   >   
   > Do you agree that some of your statements, especially   
   > with the CAPITALIZATION, are describing an absolute   
   > reference frame. Or at the least seem to imply it?   
      
   I have no problem with using a time of zero at the speed of light   
   and/or an imagined stationary point in space where time ticks at   
   its fastest rate as an "absolute reference frame."  For hundreds   
   of years mathematicians used an IMAGINARY ETHER as a "preferred   
   reference frame."  Until they find something better, why can't they   
   use an assumed stationary point in the universe where time ticks   
   at its fastest rate as a "preferred reference frame"?  We KNOW there   
   is no ether.  We do NOT know that there is no stationary point in   
   the universe.  Supposedly the universe sprang from such a point.   
      
   Ed   
      
   [[Mod. note -- As Tom Roberts (& others) have pointed out, in order   
   to directly compare clocks A and B, A and B must be colocated for   
   the duration of the comparison, i.e., they must be at the same   
   position and (be observed by *all* observers to be) moving at the   
   same velocity.   
      
   If these conditions don't hold, then we can't directly compare A   
   and B.  We may be able to compare (say) A to signals broadcast by   
   B, but that's a rather different sort of (indirect) comparison.   
   -- jt]]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)