Message from discussion SR Reciprocity Debunked
Received: by 10.180.84.234 with SMTP id c10mr1226334wiz.4.1349540374192;
Sat, 06 Oct 2012 09:19:34 -0700 (PDT)
From: Big Dog <big.fing....@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: SR Reciprocity Debunked
Date: Sat, 06 Oct 2012 11:19:39 -0500
Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
References: <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:15.0) Gecko/20120907 Thunderbird/15.0.1
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
On 10/6/2012 10:47 AM, kenseto wrote:
> On Saturday, October 6, 2012 11:33:32 AM UTC-4, Big Dog wrote:
>> At rest with respect to the reference frame. Do you know what this
>> means? Suppose there is a car driving down the road at 60 mph relative
>> to trees and stop signs. Can you visualize the reference frame in which
>> this car is at rest?
> No there is no such thing as rest frame for any object. The car,
> the trees and the stop signs are all in a state of motion in space
> Similtarly there is frame at which the cosmic muon is at rest.
> By definition the cosmic muon was born at high speed.
OK, so you don't know what a reference frame is. You cannot visualize
the reference frame in which the car is at rest, and you cannot
visualize the reference frame in which the cosmic muon is at rest. And
since you don't know what a rest frame is (a reference frame in which a
car is at rest or a muon is at rest), you declare that they don't exist.
I've known for quite a while that you've never understood what a
reference frame is, but you've never been able to admit it. Instead, you
just say that whatever you don't understand, doesn't exist.