From: edprochak@gmail.com   
      
   On Wednesday, July 11, 2018 at 9:31:48 PM UTC-4, Ed Lake wrote:   
   > 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.   
      
   yes, but this statement:   
   > All motion is relative to the point where time stops.   
      
   is nonsense. You cannot calculate relative to that clock   
   because you end up calculating 0/0. NAN   
      
   >   
   > 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.   
      
   But there is no such clock (reference frame).   
   If you have some mystical revelation providing this,   
   please share.   
      
   >   
   > > >   
   > > > 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?   
   >   
   You are still grasping for an absolute frame. Einstein did not   
   say everything is moving. (If you have a quote, you can correct me)   
   He said motion is measured relative to a frame of reference.   
      
   > >   
   > > 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."   
      
   We can imagine such a point, but I honestly see no way   
   to locate it except as the place where I sit right now   
      
   >  For hundreds   
   > of years mathematicians used an IMAGINARY ETHER as a "preferred   
   > reference frame."   
      
   Well philosophers, not mathematicians, discussed   
   the idea and it started about 2  millenia ago.   
      
   >  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   
      
   Even if the universe began as a point-like location,   
   it now has no definable/observable center point.   
      
   >   
   > [[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]]   
      
   Thank you, jt.   
      
     Ed P.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)