Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics

[kenseto]

RoS is a bogus concept for the following reasons:
1. Simultaneity of two events can only be measured by an observer in the frame of the two events and at equal distance from the two events. An outside observer cannot determine the simultaneity of two events in different frames.

2. SR says that the speed of light is a universal constant in all frames. This gives rise to all sorts of paradoxes such as the twin paradox; the barn/pole paradox; the bug/rivet paradox....etc. Einstein invented RoS to eliminate these paradoxes by introducing the bogus concept of RoS. How? RoS says that the closing speed of light (the same as the speed of light) in the frame of the events is variable....this assertion cancels out the constant light speed postulate in all frames and in turn cancels out all the paradoxes derived from it.

3. In real life RoS has no effect on the passage of time, length of the events, or any other physical properties of the events. IOW, RoS has no physical effect on any properties of the system. It is invented purely to make SR viable by eliminating the paradoxes derived from the constant light speed postulate.

[Tom Roberts]

On 7/12/16 7/12/16 9:20 AM, kenseto wrote:
> Simultaneity of two
> events can only be measured by an observer in the frame of the two events and
> at equal distance from the two events. An outside observer cannot determine
> the simultaneity of two events in different frames.

This is just plain not true.

Events do not determine a frame, every event can be observed, and related to,
EVERY inertial frame (and all locally-valid non-inertial coordinates, too).

My context is the flat manifolds of SR. In some manifolds of GR
this is not true.

An observer at rest in any inertial frame can OBSERVE whether a given pair of
events is simultaneous in that frame. In general this requires a clock
pre-positioned at the location in the frame where the event will occur, and of
course the clocks must be synchronized in the frame. Then it is simply a matter
of recording the time on the co-located clock when each event happens, and then
comparing the two time values for equality.

That is what we mean by "simultaneous" in an inertial frame. This
can be done for ANY pair of events and ANY inertial frame.


> [... further nonsense ignored]

You are incredibly confused about very basic concepts of physics. The "bogus
concept" is YOURS, AND YOURS ALONE. You have been struggling with this for more
than a decade, and have NOTHING to show for your wasted time. It seems that you
are too stupid to figure out how to LEARN anything -- how sad.


Tom Roberts

[Maciej Woźniak]

Użytkownik "Tom Roberts" napisał w wiadomości grup
dyskusyjnych:vIednRmiaPvrmxjK...@giganews.com...

|An observer at rest in any inertial frame can OBSERVE whether a given pair
of

Samely, as an observer going through a street can OBSERVE trees,
buildings and trees running around him.
Your bunch of idiots never knew, what an observation is. Well,
a complicated process.

[paparios]

Well moron, let us see how you answer this. A guy who takes a flight at Sydney Australia at 9am lands at Santiago, Chile at 9am. Who did the move?

[Maciej Woźniak]

Użytkownik "paparios" napisał w wiadomości grup
dyskusyjnych:78a80d3e-dfcd-4beb...@googlegroups.com...

Well, moron, taking a flight he did a move.

[paparios]

Wrong moron try again...

[Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato]

El martes, 12 de julio de 2016, 11:02:20 (UTC-4), tjrob137 escribió:
> On 7/12/16 7/12/16 9:20 AM, kenseto wrote:
> > Simultaneity of two
> > events can only be measured by an observer in the frame of the two events and
> > at equal distance from the two events. An outside observer cannot determine
> > the simultaneity of two events in different frames.
>
> This is just plain not true.
>
> Events do not determine a frame, every event can be observed, and related to,
> EVERY inertial frame (and all locally-valid non-inertial coordinates, too).
>
> My context is the flat manifolds of SR. In some manifolds of GR
> this is not true.
>
> An observer at rest in any inertial frame can OBSERVE whether a given pair of
> events is simultaneous in that frame. In general this requires a clock
> pre-positioned at the location in the frame where the event will occur, and of
> course the clocks must be synchronized in the frame. Then it is simply a matter
> of recording the time on the co-located clock when each event happens, and then
> comparing the two time values for equality.
>
> That is what we mean by "simultaneous" in an inertial frame. This
> can be done for ANY pair of events and ANY inertial frame.
>

You are using here the 1905 Einstein definition of *time* relative to what he
denotes as a “stationary system” of Cartesian coordinates (with Euclidean
geometry), in which the equations of Newtonian mechanics hold good.

Unfortunately, you are taking for granted that the *stationary system* concept
of 1905 Einstein's Relativity (what I denote as 1905R) is exactly the same of
the today SR *inertial frame* one. Your behavior is a total contradictory one,
using the 1905R *time* in a context very different from the original one based
on the following two postulates (literal 1905 text):

Postulate 1. [ the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for
all frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good ]

Postulate 2. [ Any ray of light moves in the "stationary" system of coordinates
with the determined velocity c, whether the ray be emitted by a stationary or
by a moving body. Hence velocity=light path/time interval , where time interval
is to be taken in the sense of the definition in Sec. 1 ]

BOTH postulates find today a HUGE experimental support with the very successful
GPS operation since already almost four decades. With Cartesian coordinates and
Euclidean geometry, all GPS receptors are resolving every instant the following
Newtonian system of equations:

(x-x_i)^2+ (y-y_i)^2+ (z-z_i)^2= (ct-ct_i)^2

where (x, y, z) is the position of the receptor at the same reception instant t
of signals transmitted from i different satellites (at least 4 ones) with
position (x_i, y_i, z_i) at time t_i.

The signals have then always the same uniform velocity c, totally independent
on the satellite (or receptor) velocities in the GPS ECI stationary system. The
light velocity c is derived from 1864 Maxwell's equations holding good in the
same frame of reference where the equations of mechanics do the same (Postulate
1), being also independent on the source velocity (Postulate 2), i.e. holding
good both 1905R Postulates.

The objective (experimental) existence of the relative space and time defined
by 1905R, finds then with the GPS a direct and extraordinary huge support,
having nothing to do with the *space-time* of today SR and its symmetrical
assumed properties in flagrant contradiction with 1905R postulates.

RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)

[kenseto]

On Tuesday, July 12, 2016 at 11:02:20 AM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 7/12/16 7/12/16 9:20 AM, kenseto wrote:
> > Simultaneity of two
> > events can only be measured by an observer in the frame of the two events and
> > at equal distance from the two events. An outside observer cannot determine
> > the simultaneity of two events in different frames.
>
> This is just plain not true.

This is true because an outside observer moving wrt a pair of simultaneous events will never be able to detect their true simultaneity.....why? Because according to him (the outside observer) no two co-moving events in the universe can happened simultaneously. For example: observer A measures two events e1 and e2 in his frame happened simultaneously .....no other observer in the universe will be able to measure the TRUE simultaneity of these two events (e1 and e2). They will all conclude erroneously that e1 and e2 did not happened simultaneously. OTOH, observer A can use the LT to inform other outside observers that e1 and e2 did happened simultaneously.

>
> Events do not determine a frame, every event can be observed, and related to,
> EVERY inertial frame (and all locally-valid non-inertial coordinates, too).

But only the observer in the rest frame of the events can determine the true simultaneity of a pair of events.

>
> My context is the flat manifolds of SR. In some manifolds of GR
> this is not true.
>
> An observer at rest in any inertial frame can OBSERVE whether a given pair of
> events is simultaneous in that frame.

Right....

In general this requires a clock
> pre-positioned at the location in the frame where the event will occur, and of
> course the clocks must be synchronized in the frame.

There is no need for such clocks. The observer measures the distance of the events to be equal and the signals from the events arrive at him simultaneously.....he correctly concludes that the events did happened simultaneously.
In any case the concept of RoS have no function in relativity. It has no effect on any properties of any inertial frame. Einstein invoked RoS to cancel out the paradoxes derived fro the SR postulate of constant light speed in all frames.

[mlwo...@wp.pl]

Wrong moron and I won't.
You probably think the guy travelled directly east
with the speed of Earth rotation, eh? You're surely
stupid enough to think so. And even if he travelled
exactly like that, he would still be travelling.

[paparios]

Of course you are stupid enough to not understand anything physical, as playing with computer toys do not provide you with the experience.

In the example there are three players: 1) the guy who was seated all the trip; 2) the plane, following a great circle path through Antartica at about 800km/hr with respect to the ground, and 3) Earth rotating at about 1400km/hr with respect to the stars.

So again, who is doing the move, moronic troll?

[Odd Bodkin]

On 7/12/2016 9:20 AM, kenseto wrote:
> RoS is a bogus concept for the following reasons:
> 1. Simultaneity of two events can only be measured by an observer in the frame of
> the two events and at equal distance from the two events.

Bullshit. And assertion is not an argument.

> An outside observer cannot determine the simultaneity of two events in different frames.
>
> 2. SR says that the speed of light is a universal constant in all frames. This gives rise
> to all sorts of paradoxes such as the twin paradox; the barn/pole paradox; the bug/rivet
> paradox....etc. Einstein invented RoS to eliminate these paradoxes by introducing the
> bogus concept of RoS. How? RoS says that the closing speed of light (the same as the
> speed of light) in the frame of the events is variable....this assertion cancels out the
> constant light speed postulate in all frames and in turn cancels out all the paradoxes
> derived from it.

Fabricated history. First of all, relativity of simultaneity was
published in 1905, years BEFORE the first "paradox" was invented. So it
would be a neat trick for Einstein to read the future, learn about
"paradoxes" that would be invented years later, and then invent
relativity of simultaneity BEFOREHAND to explain them away when they
appeared later.

Secondly, closing speed is NOT the same as speed of light. Your
assertion is not an argument.

>
> 3. In real life RoS has no effect on the passage of time, length of the events, or any other
> physical properties of the events.

Data says otherwise. Your assertion is not an argument.

> IOW, RoS has no physical effect on any properties of the system. It is invented purely to make
> SR viable by eliminating the paradoxes derived from the constant light speed postulate.
>

--
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[mlwo...@wp.pl]

I understand very well your naive, primitive
concepts; I'm just not accepting them.

>
> In the example there are three players: 1) the guy who was seated all the trip; 2) the plane, following a great circle path through Antartica at about 800km/hr with respect to the ground, and 3) Earth rotating at about 1400km/hr with respect to the stars.
>
> So again, who is doing the move, moronic troll?

Neither Earth, nor a plane ever qualifies as an answer to
a "who" question, poor idiot. So again - the guy who was
seated all the trip is the answer to your "who did the move"
question. Not the only one, of course. There were other
passengers, and the pilot too.
BTW. Suppose we have two imagined twins. One of them
is sitting in Gdansk (like me), while the other is taking
a trip like you described. What should the twins from
Gdansk say about his brother according to your Shit?
moving or not?

[kenseto]

On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 10:06:09 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 7/12/2016 9:20 AM, kenseto wrote:
> > RoS is a bogus concept for the following reasons:
> > 1. Simultaneity of two events can only be measured by an observer in the frame of
> > the two events and at equal distance from the two events.
>
> Bullshit. And assertion is not an argument.

No bullshit.....no two spatially separated events can claim to be truly simultaneous unless it is measured by an observer at the mid point between the two events.
There is no way for an outside observer to measure the simultaneity of two events moving wrt him. The observer at the frame of the event can use the LT to transform the time of simultaneity between two events in his frame to an outside observer.
In any case RoS has no effect on any properties of any frame....it is used to cancel out all the paradoxes derived from the P2.

>
> > An outside observer cannot determine the simultaneity of two events in different frames.
> >
> > 2. SR says that the speed of light is a universal constant in all frames. This gives rise
> > to all sorts of paradoxes such as the twin paradox; the barn/pole paradox; the bug/rivet
> > paradox....etc. Einstein invented RoS to eliminate these paradoxes by introducing the
> > bogus concept of RoS. How? RoS says that the closing speed of light (the same as the
> > speed of light) in the frame of the events is variable....this assertion cancels out the
> > constant light speed postulate in all frames and in turn cancels out all the paradoxes
> > derived from it.
>
> Fabricated history. First of all, relativity of simultaneity was
> published in 1905, years BEFORE the first "paradox" was invented. So it
> would be a neat trick for Einstein to read the future, learn about
> "paradoxes" that would be invented years later, and then invent
> relativity of simultaneity BEFOREHAND to explain them away when they
> appeared later.

That's irrelevant....Einstein realized that his P2 have problems so he introduced the RoS to eliminate these problems.

>
> Secondly, closing speed is NOT the same as speed of light. Your
> assertion is not an argument.

There is no such thing as closing speed between light and any object. That's why closing speed is not measurable....it is an invention to counter the P2.

>
> >
> > 3. In real life RoS has no effect on the passage of time, length of the events, or any other
> > physical properties of the events.
>
> Data says otherwise. Your assertion is not an argument.

No data says otherwise.....assertion is not an argument.

[Odd Bodkin]

On 7/13/2016 10:13 AM, kenseto wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 10:06:09 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> On 7/12/2016 9:20 AM, kenseto wrote:
>>> RoS is a bogus concept for the following reasons:
>>> 1. Simultaneity of two events can only be measured by an observer in the frame of
>>> the two events and at equal distance from the two events.
>>
>> Bullshit. And assertion is not an argument.
>
> No bullshit.....no two spatially separated events can claim to be truly simultaneous unless
> it is measured by an observer at the mid point between the two events.

Repeating the assertion doesn't make it any better an argument.

> There is no way for an outside observer to measure the simultaneity of two events moving wrt him.

Bullshit.
You know, you are fond of saying there is no way to do lots of things,
just because YOU DON'T KNOW HOW. But other people are not as slow as you.

> The observer at the frame of the event can use the LT to transform the time of simultaneity
> between two events in his frame to an outside observer.

And do the LT as I showed you to show how that changes.

> In any case RoS has no effect on any properties of any frame....it is used to cancel out all
> the paradoxes derived from the P2.
>
>>
>>> An outside observer cannot determine the simultaneity of two events in different frames.
>>>
>>> 2. SR says that the speed of light is a universal constant in all frames. This gives rise
>>> to all sorts of paradoxes such as the twin paradox; the barn/pole paradox; the bug/rivet
>>> paradox....etc. Einstein invented RoS to eliminate these paradoxes by introducing the
>>> bogus concept of RoS. How? RoS says that the closing speed of light (the same as the
>>> speed of light) in the frame of the events is variable....this assertion cancels out the
>>> constant light speed postulate in all frames and in turn cancels out all the paradoxes
>>> derived from it.
>>
>> Fabricated history. First of all, relativity of simultaneity was
>> published in 1905, years BEFORE the first "paradox" was invented. So it
>> would be a neat trick for Einstein to read the future, learn about
>> "paradoxes" that would be invented years later, and then invent
>> relativity of simultaneity BEFOREHAND to explain them away when they
>> appeared later.
>
> That's irrelevant....Einstein realized that his P2 have problems so he introduced the RoS to
> eliminate these problems.

INVENTING HISTORY now includes reading the mind of a dead man. Well
done, Ken.

>
>>
>> Secondly, closing speed is NOT the same as speed of light. Your
>> assertion is not an argument.
>
> There is no such thing as closing speed between light and any object.

Bullshit. Assertion is not an argument.

> That's why closing speed
> is not measurable....it is an invention to counter the P2.

Bullshit. Closing speed was a concept BEFORE relativity.
Inventing history again.

>>
>>>
>>> 3. In real life RoS has no effect on the passage of time, length of the events, or any other
>>> physical properties of the events.
>>
>> Data says otherwise. Your assertion is not an argument.
>
> No data says otherwise.....assertion is not an argument.

Bullshit. Denial of existing data in literature is not a valid argument.

[rotchm]

On Tuesday, July 12, 2016 at 6:04:13 PM UTC-4, kenseto wrote:


> This is true because an outside observer moving wrt a pair of
> simultaneous events will never be able to detect their
> true simultaneity.....

But SR never makes claims about "true simultaneity". It talks about *simultaneity. Since *you* invoked the expressions "simultaneity" and "true simultaneity", then what do you mean by these? Are they different concepts?


>... no two co-moving events in the universe can happened simultaneously.

Wtf ? In english plz...?
Seems that you are confused about the concept of an *event*. Events dont "move".

> For example: observer A measures two events e1 and e2 in his frame
> happened simultaneously .....no other observer in the universe will
> be able to measure the TRUE simultaneity of these two events

Which is why SR is used here; since "TRUE simultaneity" cant be measured, SR removes the "TRUE simultaneity" from any considerations, and just uses "simultaneity".

IOW, " simultaneity" just means that we cant measure ""TRUE simultaneity"".
I'm glad that you finally start to agree with SR.


<rest of confusions snipped>

[rotchm]

On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 11:13:06 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote:
> ...no two spatially separated events can claim to be truly simultaneous

No one said otherwise. What we say is that events can be simul. We dont say that they can be "truly simul".

> There is no such thing as closing speed between light and any object.

Ah yes... idiot ken once more does not believe in subtracting two numbers.
Idiot ken "closing speed" is a simple highschool concept. Just Google "closing speed"

> That's why closing speed is not measurable....it is an invention to
> counter the P2.

"closing speed" existed way before 1905. It even existed in 400 BC. So it was not invented to counter SR...

> > Data says otherwise. Your assertion is not an argument.
>
> No data says otherwise.....assertion is not an argument.

Ah yes...we recognise idiot ken again... he doesnt believe in empirics.

[paparios]

Wrong poor qualified moron. You before wrote:

"Samely, as an observer going through a street can OBSERVE trees,
buildings and trees running around him."

You see idiot, that the observer is the only qualified to measure who is moving. The guy in the plane is not moving with respect to the plane and from his point of view the ground is moving towards his back at 800km/hr. By observing the stars he would also measure he is moving at a different speed with respect to the stars (the composition of the plane speed plus Earth rotation speed at the plane latitude). So for sure he is observing "trees and buildings and lakes running towards his back".

[larry harson]

On Tuesday, July 12, 2016 at 3:20:41 PM UTC+1, kenseto wrote:
> RoS is a bogus concept for the following reasons:
> 1. Simultaneity of two events can only be measured by an observer in the frame of the two events and at equal distance from the two events. An outside observer cannot determine the simultaneity of two events in different frames.

Sure you can. Every frame has a clock at the location where an event takes place, and the reading is recorded. Observers in every frame can then compare readings between different events later on to see if they were simultaneous with one another.

> 2. SR says that the speed of light is a universal constant in all frames. This gives rise to all sorts of paradoxes such as the twin paradox; the barn/pole paradox; the bug/rivet paradox....etc.

And entirely consistent within SR, but inconsistent for those who don't know how to use the Lorentz transformation equations to resolve these "paradoxes".

>Einstein invented RoS to eliminate these paradoxes by introducing the bogus concept of RoS.

ROS logically follows within the axioms of SR and isn't an add on to the theory.

>How? RoS says that the closing speed of light (the same as the speed of light) in the frame of the events is variable....this assertion cancels out the constant light speed postulate in all frames and in turn cancels out all the paradoxes derived from it.

The composition of relativistic velocities formula shows that you're wrong.

> 3. In real life RoS has no effect on the passage of time, length of the events, or any other physical properties of the events. IOW, RoS has no physical effect on any properties of the system. It is invented purely to make SR viable by eliminating the paradoxes derived from the constant light speed postulate.

Learn how to use the Lorentz transformations, and you'll discover the ROS follows logically. Einstein letting go of absolute simultaneity to achieve the constancy of c in his transformations is another example of why he's considered one of the greatest geniuses of the 20th century.

Look around you, and you'll see the ROS is true in everyday life when looking at distance measurements: two events at the same location but different times don't occur at the same location in other frames. Why therefore, should it be such a big deal for you to accept the same idea applies to the measurement of time between two events at the same time but different locations?


Regards,

Larry Harson.

[pcard...@volcanomail.com]

On Tuesday, July 12, 2016 at 3:04:13 PM UTC-7, kenseto wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 12, 2016 at 11:02:20 AM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote:
> > On 7/12/16 7/12/16 9:20 AM, kenseto wrote:
> > > Simultaneity of two
> > > events can only be measured by an observer in the frame of the two events and

Notice here that the kenseto is completely clueless about what a frame of reference is, also clueless about what an event is. Note also that it would be impossible to teach him what they are.


<snip>

>
> This is true because an outside observer moving wrt a pair of simultaneous events

And another demonstration that he has no concept of what an event is.

[Maciej Woźniak]

Użytkownik "paparios" napisał w wiadomości grup

dyskusyjnych:258cdbae-e289-4f27...@googlegroups.com...

> Neither Earth, nor a plane ever qualifies as an answer to
> a "who" question, poor idiot. So again - the guy who was
> seated all the trip is the answer to your "who did the move"
> question. Not the only one, of course. There were other
> passengers, and the pilot too.

|Wrong poor qualified moron. You before wrote:
|"Samely, as an observer going through a street can OBSERVE trees,
|buildings and trees running around him."

|You see idiot, that the observer is the only qualified to measure who is
moving.

Yes, idiot. Unfortunately, he is not doing it your moronic
relativistic way. You only imagine he is.

[pcard...@volcanomail.com]

On Tuesday, July 12, 2016 at 8:02:20 AM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 7/12/16 7/12/16 9:20 AM, kenseto wrote:
> > Simultaneity of two
> > events can only be measured by an observer in the frame of the two events and
> > at equal distance from the two events. An outside observer cannot determine
> > the simultaneity of two events in different frames.
>
> This is just plain not true.
>
> Events do not determine a frame, every event can be observed, and related to,
> EVERY inertial frame (and all locally-valid non-inertial coordinates, too).

What would be an example of non-inertial coordinates that are not locally-valid?

[paparios]

Wrong uttermost moronic troll. You see relativity is also a classic galilean concept (see for the canon ball dropping from a ship mast).

For instance, you are driving a car at 100 km/hr (with respect to the ground) on a highway and there you see a car approaching (which is also moving at 100 km/hr with respect to the ground). It is well known that the closing speed is 200 km/hr. Do you know the difference between the crash between these two cars and a crash of your car with a solid concrete wall?

Hurry up and register for a physics course for morons.

[Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato]

My congratulations! You put an excellent example to clear the meaning of what
1905 Einstein denotes *stationary system* and his definition of the
*time*relative to it; the scenario is in essence the same introduced by him at
the end of Section 4 of his June 30 paper, the Newtonian center of mass (CM)
system corresponding to the body set of all interacting Earth's parts, the same
today denoted GPS ECI.

We have here involved a SINGLE system where the Earth is rotating around its
axis at some constant angular velocity in the corresponding stationary space
where that axis is at the relative rest of the system, including the CM and the
poles as tree points of it. In every point of that space we can consider an
ideal clock at rest synchronized according to the *time* definition, showing
simultaneously at any instant the same ECI *time*.

About your guy taking the flight at Sydney, he (and the whole plane including
all other passengers) remains at rest in the ECI system all the flight time,
until the moving Santiago (from West to East) arrives to the rest plane.

Since 1686 Newtonian Mechanics, the movement of two entities is NOT a
reciprocal one considering the other entity at rest.

RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)

[Maciej Woźniak]

Użytkownik "paparios" napisał w wiadomości grup

dyskusyjnych:c02e687d-0c73-4c41...@googlegroups.com...

> |Wrong poor qualified moron. You before wrote:
> |"Samely, as an observer going through a street can OBSERVE trees,
> |buildings and trees running around him."
>
> |You see idiot, that the observer is the only qualified to measure who is
> moving.
>
> Yes, idiot. Unfortunately, he is not doing it your moronic
> relativistic way. You only imagine he is.

|Wrong uttermost moronic troll. You see relativity is also a classic
galilean concept (see for the canon ball dropping from a ship mast).

It's now even stupider, than 400 years ago, but 400
years ago no real observer was observing building
and trees running around him - too.
And you're only imagining this canon ball and this mast,
poor idiot.
Real observers are complicated devices. They don't realize
your primitive schemas. They never did. You're imagining.
Look at yourself, for instance. If you were following your
idiocies yoursellf, you wouldn't have any doubts the guy
in the plane is moving - unless you were sitting in this plane
with him.

|Hurry up and register for a physics course for morons.

I've already took some. They're really good for morons,
moron.

[paparios]

Nah moron, you are dead wrong of course. In a plane I can play with a ball and can do several physical experiments the same as I do them in my university laboratory. In the plane local frame, current laws of physics are valid.

Of course I know I departed Sydney and landed at Santiago, but besides the usual turbulence, I was standing still for 14 hours.

[Odd Bodkin]

Moreover, for the whole 14 hours, you were stationary relative to the
SUN. Now is it more sensible to say that the sun is stationary and that
Chile moved underneath you, or is it more sensible to believe the
engineers who would look up in the sky and tell you that the sun is
circling the earth?

[HGW]

On 13/07/16 00:20, kenseto wrote:
> RoS is a bogus concept for the following reasons: 1. Simultaneity of

> two events can only be measured by an observer in the frame of the
> two events and at equal distance from the two events. An outside
> observer cannot determine the simultaneity of two events in different
> frames.
>

> 2. SR says that the speed of light is a universal constant in all
> frames. This gives rise to all sorts of paradoxes such as the twin
> paradox; the barn/pole paradox; the bug/rivet paradox....etc.

> Einstein invented RoS to eliminate these paradoxes by introducing the

> bogus concept of RoS. How? RoS says that the closing speed of light

> (the same as the speed of light) in the frame of the events is
> variable....this assertion cancels out the constant light speed
> postulate in all frames and in turn cancels out all the paradoxes
> derived from it.
>

> 3. In real life RoS has no effect on the passage of time, length of
> the events, or any other physical properties of the events. IOW, RoS
> has no physical effect on any properties of the system. It is
> invented purely to make SR viable by eliminating the paradoxes
> derived from the constant light speed postulate.
>

Neither simultaneity not time itself are dependent on human
communication or the finite speed of light. A pair of clocks that are
synchronized mechanically will remain in perfect synch no matter how
their speed changes.

TIME (T) cannot be a function of (L/T), for obvious reasons....obvious
to all but dimwitted relativists, that is...
--

[HGW]

Poor fool! The transforms FOLLOWED the RoS and are dependent on it being
correct.

The fact that light takes time to reach an observer's eyes has nothing
whatsoever to do with the absolute order of events. An 'instantaneous
communication system' can be simulated with a grid of synchronized
clocks. If they are used to perform time measurements, the RoS disappears.


--

[rotchm]

On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 6:30:37 PM UTC-4, HGW wrote:
> A pair of clocks that are
> synchronized mechanically will remain in perfect synch no matter how
> their speed changes.

That is experimentally untrue.

But my question is, dont you know that "mechanically" is simply EM's ?
So how does that bode with your mechanical syncs?

[mlwo...@wp.pl]

And still you know the plane is moving from Sydney
to Santiago, moron.
Observation is a complicated process. You mentioned
the Earth rotation, didn't you? A book written by
a guy that died 500 years ago is clearly involved
somehow in your observations... Really, really
complicated process.

[mlwo...@wp.pl]

W dniu czwartek, 14 lipca 2016 00:05:41 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:

>
> Moreover, for the whole 14 hours, you were stationary relative to the
> SUN.

No, poor idiot, you weren't.
Time difference between Sydney and Santiago
is 10 hours (10+14=24). And the shortest route
is above the Antarctic.

> Now is it more sensible to say that the sun is stationary and that
> Chile moved underneath you, or is it more sensible to believe the
> engineers who would look up in the sky and tell you that the sun is
> circling the earth?

We have contexts, poor idiot. A brillinat invention,
but too complicated for your tiny brain.

[kenseto]

On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 11:20:49 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 7/13/2016 10:13 AM, kenseto wrote:
> > On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 10:06:09 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >> On 7/12/2016 9:20 AM, kenseto wrote:
> >>> RoS is a bogus concept for the following reasons:
> >>> 1. Simultaneity of two events can only be measured by an observer in the frame of
> >>> the two events and at equal distance from the two events.
> >>
> >> Bullshit. And assertion is not an argument.
> >
> > No bullshit.....no two spatially separated events can claim to be truly simultaneous unless
> > it is measured by an observer at the mid point between the two events.
>
> Repeating the assertion doesn't make it any better an argument.

That's no assertion.....that's the only way to measure the simultaneity of two events.

> > There is no way for an outside observer to measure the simultaneity of two events moving wrt him.
>
> Bullshit.
> You know, you are fond of saying there is no way to do lots of things,
> just because YOU DON'T KNOW HOW. But other people are not as slow as you.

Idiot.....how does an outside observer measure the simultaneity of two events happened in different frame?

Idiot....closing speed between light and any object is isotropic.....closing speed between two material objects is variable.

>
> >>
> >>>
> >>> 3. In real life RoS has no effect on the passage of time, length of the events, or any other
> >>> physical properties of the events.
> >>
> >> Data says otherwise. Your assertion is not an argument.
> >
> > No data says otherwise.....assertion is not an argument.
>
> Bullshit. Denial of existing data in literature is not a valid argument.

I can be convinced if you show me data that shows different closing speeds between light and any object. If not then you are full of shit.

[paparios]

God bless your ignorance!!!

Inside the plane, you can perform the same experiments that you can do in a ground based laboratory. The physics in that local frame is the same physics inside the ground laboratory (since Nature does not make the difference). That is what relativity tries to achieve. Those are models which should be independent of coordinates or frames of reference, since Nature for sure does not use coordinates nor frames of reference.

I repeat go to a moron school and learn

[mlwo...@wp.pl]

Nature doesn't have to make a difference.
The observer can make it himself, poor
idiot, and it happens he does.

|Those are models which should be independent of coordinates or frames of |reference, since Nature for sure does not use coordinates nor frames of |reference.

Nor models, idiot. Nature doesn't use them, but WE
do. As they are for US, they have to fulfill OUR
needs, and your imagined Nature has no business
here. Clear?

[kenseto]

On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 11:59:10 AM UTC-4, rotchm wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 12, 2016 at 6:04:13 PM UTC-4, kenseto wrote:
>
>
> > This is true because an outside observer moving wrt a pair of
> > simultaneous events will never be able to detect their
> > true simultaneity.....
>
> But SR never makes claims about "true simultaneity". It talks about *simultaneity. Since *you* invoked the expressions "simultaneity" and "true simultaneity", then what do you mean by these? Are they different concepts?
>
>
> >... no two co-moving events in the universe can happened simultaneously.
>
> Wtf ? In english plz...?
> Seems that you are confused about the concept of an *event*. Events dont "move".

I'll clarify.....all pairs of events in different frames are non-simultaneous.

[paparios]

On Thursday, July 14, 2016 at 8:07:23 AM UTC-4, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote:
> W dniu czwartek, 14 lipca 2016 13:47:22 UTC+2 użytkownik paparios napisał:

> >
> > God bless your ignorance!!!
> >
> > Inside the plane, you can perform the same experiments that you can do in a ground based laboratory. The physics in that local frame is the same physics inside the ground laboratory (since Nature does not make the difference).
>
> Nature doesn't have to make a difference.
> The observer can make it himself, poor
> idiot, and it happens he does.
>

For example?

> |Those are models which should be independent of coordinates or frames of |reference, since Nature for sure does not use coordinates nor frames of |reference.
>
> Nor models, idiot. Nature doesn't use them, but WE
> do. As they are for US, they have to fulfill OUR
> needs, and your imagined Nature has no business
> here. Clear?

For example?

[kenseto]

On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 1:19:36 PM UTC-4, larry harson wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 12, 2016 at 3:20:41 PM UTC+1, kenseto wrote:
> > RoS is a bogus concept for the following reasons:
> > 1. Simultaneity of two events can only be measured by an observer in the frame of the two events and at equal distance from the two events. An outside observer cannot determine the simultaneity of two events in different frames.
>
> Sure you can. Every frame has a clock at the location where an event takes place, and the reading is recorded. Observers in every frame can then compare readings between different events later on to see if they were simultaneous with one another.

How does an observer place clocks at events in different frames?

>
> > 2. SR says that the speed of light is a universal constant in all frames. This gives rise to all sorts of paradoxes such as the twin paradox; the barn/pole paradox; the bug/rivet paradox....etc.
>
> And entirely consistent within SR, but inconsistent for those who don't know how to use the Lorentz transformation equations to resolve these "paradoxes".

SR had to invoke the contradictory concept of RoS to explain these paradoxes.

>
> >Einstein invented RoS to eliminate these paradoxes by introducing the bogus concept of RoS.
>
> ROS logically follows within the axioms of SR and isn't an add on to the theory.
>
> >How? RoS says that the closing speed of light (the same as the speed of light) in the frame of the events is variable....this assertion cancels out the constant light speed postulate in all frames and in turn cancels out all the paradoxes derived from it.
>
> The composition of relativistic velocities formula shows that you're wrong.
>
> > 3. In real life RoS has no effect on the passage of time, length of the events, or any other physical properties of the events. IOW, RoS has no physical effect on any properties of the system. It is invented purely to make SR viable by eliminating the paradoxes derived from the constant light speed postulate.
>
> Learn how to use the Lorentz transformations, and you'll discover the ROS follows logically. Einstein letting go of absolute simultaneity to achieve the constancy of c in his transformations is another example of why he's considered one of the greatest geniuses of the 20th century.

The LT is valid for use only from the frame of the events. So how does an observer in different frames uses the LT to predict the simultaneity of these events?

>
> Look around you, and you'll see the ROS is true in everyday life when looking at distance measurements: two events at the same location but different times don't occur at the same location in other frames. Why therefore, should it be such a big deal for you to accept the same idea applies to the measurement of time between two events at the same time but different locations?

I don't get your point. Two events at the same location but occur at different times are not simultaneous. An observer in different frame will also see these two events to be not simultaneous.

[rotchm]

On Thursday, July 14, 2016 at 7:45:43 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote:

> .how does an outside observer measure the simultaneity of two
> events happened in different frame?

Do you realize that your question doesn't make any sense!?
*events* dont happen in different frames. All events occur in all frames.
Perhaps you meant to ask, how does an observer measure the simultaneity of two events?

Well that's simple. The observer may have two clocks, each of which just happen to be at an event. If the values of his clocks indicate the same value, then the events are simul by definition. For example, suppose I bough a new clock but have not set it up; it remains at "noon". I go out for a walk...sometime thereafter my working watch indicates noon as I sneeze (event 1) and then I loose my watch into a pond. When I get back home 1 hour or so, I look at by clock (which indicates noon) and I sneeze (event 2). At both events, the time was noon, so both events are simultaneous by definition.

> Idiot....closing speed between light and any object is isotropic.....

??? No it is not.

> closing speed between two material objects is variable.

Yeah... Be it two material bodies or one body & light, "closing speed" is 'variable". You seem confused about the notion of closing speed.

> I can be convinced if you show me data that shows different
> closing speeds between light and any object.

Simple. In my frame I have a light source fixed to the ground. I'm seated and a friend of mine is running towards the source with speed v>0.

In my frame, the closing speed of the lightfront & my friend is |c - (-v)| = c+v.

In *his* frame, the closing speed between the lightfront & him is |c - 0| = c.

See, they are different; c+v <> c. Understood?

[rotchm]

On Thursday, July 14, 2016 at 9:53:45 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote:


> How does an observer place clocks at events in different frames?

How did your kitchen clock get on the wall? How did your wristwatch get onto your arm? *Someone* put it there!! Gawd, didnt you know that?

And again "events in different frames" doesnt make any sense. You do not seem to understand the concept of an event.

> SR had to invoke the contradictory concept of RoS to explain these paradoxes.

RoS existed way before SR. Even Newton discussed many times the RoS. Even Galileo discussed it!

> The LT is valid for use only from the frame of the events.

Events dont have frames!!

> So how does an observer in different frames

An observer is never in different frames; he is always in his own frame.
Perhaps you meant to say "How do observers in different frames..."

> uses the LT to predict the simultaneity of these events?

If the observer's closks located at the events indicate the same value (or calculated to be as such with the LT's) then the events are simul (wrt that observer).

[Michael Moroney]

kenseto <set...@att.net> writes:

>On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 1:19:36 PM UTC-4, larry harson wrote:

>> Sure you can. Every frame has a clock at the location where an event takes
>> place, and the reading is recorded. Observers in every frame can then
>> compare readings between different events later on to see if they were
>> simultaneous with one another.

>How does an observer place clocks at events in different frames?

Ken, Ken, Ken. How can you claim to have come up with a new
improved theory of relativity if you don't even understand the concept
of a reference frame? (and it is OBVIOUS that you don't, if you did,
you never would have written that question!)

[Odd Bodkin]

On 7/14/2016 6:45 AM, kenseto wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 11:20:49 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> On 7/13/2016 10:13 AM, kenseto wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 10:06:09 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>> On 7/12/2016 9:20 AM, kenseto wrote:
>>>>> RoS is a bogus concept for the following reasons:
>>>>> 1. Simultaneity of two events can only be measured by an observer in the frame of
>>>>> the two events and at equal distance from the two events.
>>>>
>>>> Bullshit. And assertion is not an argument.
>>>
>>> No bullshit.....no two spatially separated events can claim to be truly simultaneous unless
>>> it is measured by an observer at the mid point between the two events.
>>
>> Repeating the assertion doesn't make it any better an argument.
>
> That's no assertion.....that's the only way to measure the simultaneity of two events.

No, Ken, it's not. There are DOCUMENTED means for measuring simultaneity
that you seem to be unaware of.

>
>>> There is no way for an outside observer to measure the simultaneity of two events moving wrt him.
>>
>> Bullshit.
>> You know, you are fond of saying there is no way to do lots of things,
>> just because YOU DON'T KNOW HOW. But other people are not as slow as you.
>
> Idiot.....how does an outside observer measure the simultaneity of two events happened
> in different frame?

Any event is in ALL frames. You know this, right?
Or do you not know what a reference frame is?
Do you seriously think that only the observer that is stationary in a
reference frame can see the events in that frame and that no one in any
other reference frame can see the events?

This past Fourth of July, I was sitting on the grass watching fireworks.
A train went by in the middle of the show. The conductor in the train
was at rest in a different reference frame than mine. Do you really
think he could not see the events of each firework exploding that I
could see, just because we were in different frames?

Bullshit, Ken. Simply not true.

>....closing speed between two material objects is variable.
>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 3. In real life RoS has no effect on the passage of time, length of the events, or any other
>>>>> physical properties of the events.
>>>>
>>>> Data says otherwise. Your assertion is not an argument.
>>>
>>> No data says otherwise.....assertion is not an argument.
>>
>> Bullshit. Denial of existing data in literature is not a valid argument.
>
> I can be convinced if you show me data that shows different closing speeds between light
> and any object. If not then you are full of shit.

Ken, you always assume you're right until someone spoonfeeds you
information. And even then you don't believe it.

[Maciej Woźniak]

Użytkownik "paparios" napisał w wiadomości grup

dyskusyjnych:ff65130a-cc8c-4bd5...@googlegroups.com...

On Thursday, July 14, 2016 at 8:07:23 AM UTC-4, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote:
> W dniu czwartek, 14 lipca 2016 13:47:22 UTC+2 użytkownik paparios napisał:

> >
> > God bless your ignorance!!!
> >
> > Inside the plane, you can perform the same experiments that you can do
> > in a ground based laboratory. The physics in that local frame is the
> > same physics inside the ground laboratory (since Nature does not make
> > the difference).
>
> Nature doesn't have to make a difference.
> The observer can make it himself, poor
> idiot, and it happens he does.
>

|For example?

For example, an observer on a street doesn't observe building
and lanterns running around. An observer in a plane to Santiago
knows he is going to Santiago. And clocks on GPS indicate
t'=t.

> |Those are models which should be independent of coordinates or frames of
> |reference, since Nature for sure does not use coordinates nor frames of
> |reference.
>
> Nor models, idiot. Nature doesn't use them, but WE
> do. As they are for US, they have to fulfill OUR
> needs, and your imagined Nature has no business
> here. Clear?

|For example?

For example, your Nature has no business in model
building.

[paparios]

On Thursday, July 14, 2016 at 10:30:58 AM UTC-4, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
> Użytkownik "paparios" napisał w wiadomości grup
> dyskusyjnych:ff65130a-cc8c-4bd5...@googlegroups.com...
>
> On Thursday, July 14, 2016 at 8:07:23 AM UTC-4, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote:
> > W dniu czwartek, 14 lipca 2016 13:47:22 UTC+2 użytkownik paparios napisał:
>
> > >
> > > God bless your ignorance!!!
> > >
> > > Inside the plane, you can perform the same experiments that you can do
> > > in a ground based laboratory. The physics in that local frame is the
> > > same physics inside the ground laboratory (since Nature does not make
> > > the difference).
> >
> > Nature doesn't have to make a difference.
> > The observer can make it himself, poor
> > idiot, and it happens he does.
> >
>
> |For example?
>
> For example, an observer on a street doesn't observe building
> and lanterns running around. An observer in a plane to Santiago
> knows he is going to Santiago. And clocks on GPS indicate
> t'=t.
>
>

Very poor examples, all coming from an uneducated moron. Let us see every one of your "examples".

1) "an observer on a street doesn't observe building and lanterns running around".

Well, if the observer is seated in a rotating platform, that is precisely what he will observe!!!!

If the observer is seated inside a bus, going at 50 km/hr from left to right, he for sure will observe "buildings and lanterns" going at exactly 50 km/hr from right to left. Did you not know that fact? Has you ever taken a bus in your miserable life?

2) An observer in a plane "observes" he is standing still on his comfortable first class seat, while drinking his Scotch whisky. If he observes through his window, he will observe the ground moving towards his back at 800 km/hr. Did you not know that fact? Has you ever taken an airplane in your miserable life?

3) Relating your moronic third "example", "clocks on GPS indicate
t'=t", I have a GPS clock in my car, which indicates a certain time, say t. How in the world could you verify that the clock aboard the satellite indicates t'? How in the world could you verify that the clock in the GPS master clock indicates t'? Is it necessary that my car GPS has an atomic clock inside? Are you nuts?

> > |Those are models which should be independent of coordinates or frames of
> > |reference, since Nature for sure does not use coordinates nor frames of
> > |reference.
> >
> > Nor models, idiot. Nature doesn't use them, but WE
> > do. As they are for US, they have to fulfill OUR
> > needs, and your imagined Nature has no business
> > here. Clear?
>
> |For example?
>
> For example, your Nature has no business in model
> building.

Ok, I see, so you do not trust in models that help human to survive in your Nature, which is also the Nature of all beings on Earth?

[Maciej Woźniak]

Użytkownik "paparios" napisał w wiadomości grup

dyskusyjnych:39211c31-c7c8-4f62...@googlegroups.com...

[Maciej Woźniak]

Użytkownik "paparios" napisał w wiadomości grup

dyskusyjnych:39211c31-c7c8-4f62...@googlegroups.com...

> > Nature doesn't have to make a difference.
> > The observer can make it himself, poor
> > idiot, and it happens he does.
> >
>
> |For example?
>
> For example, an observer on a street doesn't observe building
> and lanterns running around. An observer in a plane to Santiago
> knows he is going to Santiago. And clocks on GPS indicate
> t'=t.
>
>

|Very poor examples, all coming from an uneducated moron. Let us see every
one of your "examples".
|1) "an observer on a street doesn't observe building and lanterns running
around".
|Well, if the observer is seated in a rotating platform, that is precisely
what he will observe!!!!

No, poor idiot. You're only imagining, imagining, imagining and
imagining. As expected from a brainwashed idiot. Real observers
have very little in common with your moronic tales.

|2) An observer in a plane "observes" he is standing still on his
comfortable first class seat, while drinking his Scotch whisky. If he
observes through his window, he will observe the ground moving towards his
back at 800 km/hr.

No, poor idiot. You're only imagining, imagining, imagining and
imagining. As expected from a brainwashed idiot. Real observers
have very little in common with your moronic tales.

|3) Relating your moronic third "example", "clocks on GPS indicate
|t'=t", I have a GPS clock in my car, which indicates a certain time, say t.
How in the world could you verify that the clock aboard the satellite
indicates t'?

I could look at a web page, showing me
"atomic time scale implemented by the atomic clocks in the GPS ground
control stations and the GPS satellites themselves".
http://www.leapsecond.com/java/gpsclock.htm

>
> For example, your Nature has no business in model
> building.

|Ok, I see, so you do not trust in models that help human to survive in your
Nature, which is also the Nature of all beings on Earth?

I do trust them, if they are built by competent, reasonable people, like
myself.
Because, you know, building such models is a part of my profession. During
last 30 years it became an industry. I'm an engineer in this industry.
You're an incompetent, moronic layman.

[paparios]

On Thursday, July 14, 2016 at 1:03:37 PM UTC-4, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
> Użytkownik "paparios" napisał w wiadomości grup
> dyskusyjnych:39211c31-c7c8-4f62...@googlegroups.com...
>
> > > Nature doesn't have to make a difference.
> > > The observer can make it himself, poor
> > > idiot, and it happens he does.
> > >
> >
> > |For example?
> >
> > For example, an observer on a street doesn't observe building
> > and lanterns running around. An observer in a plane to Santiago
> > knows he is going to Santiago. And clocks on GPS indicate
> > t'=t.
> >
> >
>
> |Very poor examples, all coming from an uneducated moron. Let us see every
> one of your "examples".
> |1) "an observer on a street doesn't observe building and lanterns running
> around".
> |Well, if the observer is seated in a rotating platform, that is precisely
> what he will observe!!!!
>
> No, poor idiot. You're only imagining, imagining, imagining and
> imagining. As expected from a brainwashed idiot. Real observers
> have very little in common with your moronic tales.
>

Have you tried to seat in a rotating platform? Even poor schools have physics laboratories where children can verify by themselves how building and lanterns revolve around them. Take a good advice and visit a technical museum for morons like you and verify this.

>
> |2) An observer in a plane "observes" he is standing still on his
> comfortable first class seat, while drinking his Scotch whisky. If he
> observes through his window, he will observe the ground moving towards his
> back at 800 km/hr.
>
> No, poor idiot. You're only imagining, imagining, imagining and
> imagining. As expected from a brainwashed idiot. Real observers
> have very little in common with your moronic tales.
>

Again it is clear you have never done any real physics experiment, so your opinion is worth shit...

> |3) Relating your moronic third "example", "clocks on GPS indicate
> |t'=t", I have a GPS clock in my car, which indicates a certain time, say t.
> How in the world could you verify that the clock aboard the satellite
> indicates t'?
>
> I could look at a web page, showing me
> "atomic time scale implemented by the atomic clocks in the GPS ground
> control stations and the GPS satellites themselves".
> http://www.leapsecond.com/java/gpsclock.htm
>

So now the atomic clock time t' is the time read in the internet... Are you really that crazy nut...

> >
> > For example, your Nature has no business in model
> > building.
>
> |Ok, I see, so you do not trust in models that help human to survive in your
> Nature, which is also the Nature of all beings on Earth?
>
> I do trust them, if they are built by competent, reasonable people, like
> myself.
> Because, you know, building such models is a part of my profession. During
> last 30 years it became an industry. I'm an engineer in this industry.
> You're an incompetent, moronic layman.

Ok, now it is clear your are the owner of the truth. So Model God, illustrate us of some of the models you have done. Were them published or are them being used in real life?

[Maciej Woźniak]

Użytkownik "paparios" napisał w wiadomości grup

dyskusyjnych:b5b49d42-9af7-4870...@googlegroups.com...

On Thursday, July 14, 2016 at 1:03:37 PM UTC-4, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
> Użytkownik "paparios" napisał w wiadomości grup
> dyskusyjnych:39211c31-c7c8-4f62...@googlegroups.com...
>
> > > Nature doesn't have to make a difference.
> > > The observer can make it himself, poor
> > > idiot, and it happens he does.
> > >
> >
> > |For example?
> >
> > For example, an observer on a street doesn't observe building
> > and lanterns running around. An observer in a plane to Santiago
> > knows he is going to Santiago. And clocks on GPS indicate
> > t'=t.
> >
> >
>
> |Very poor examples, all coming from an uneducated moron. Let us see every
> one of your "examples".
> |1) "an observer on a street doesn't observe building and lanterns running
> around".
> |Well, if the observer is seated in a rotating platform, that is precisely
> what he will observe!!!!
>
> No, poor idiot. You're only imagining, imagining, imagining and
> imagining. As expected from a brainwashed idiot. Real observers
> have very little in common with your moronic tales.
>

|Have you tried to seat in a rotating platform?

Yes, poor idiot. We have some merry-go-rounds here, in Poland, too.
And real observers have very little in common with your moronic tales.
They're simply not following your primitive schemas.

> |3) Relating your moronic third "example", "clocks on GPS indicate
> |t'=t", I have a GPS clock in my car, which indicates a certain time, say
> t.
> How in the world could you verify that the clock aboard the satellite
> indicates t'?
>
> I could look at a web page, showing me
> "atomic time scale implemented by the atomic clocks in the GPS ground
> control stations and the GPS satellites themselves".
> http://www.leapsecond.com/java/gpsclock.htm
>

|So now the atomic clock time t' is the time read in the internet...

Yes, poor idiot, it is. Once again, as I'm talking to a really poor idiot.
http://www.leapsecond.com/java/gpsclock.htm

> |Ok, I see, so you do not trust in models that help human to survive in
> your
> Nature, which is also the Nature of all beings on Earth?
>
> I do trust them, if they are built by competent, reasonable people, like
> myself.
> Because, you know, building such models is a part of my profession. During
> last 30 years it became an industry. I'm an engineer in this industry.
> You're an incompetent, moronic layman.

|Ok, now it is clear your are the owner of the truth. So Model God,
illustrate us of some of the models you have done. Were them published or
are them being used in real life?

They're a part of what I'm paid for for 20 years.
No, they're not published. They're implemented and working.

[kenseto]

On Thursday, July 14, 2016 at 10:30:23 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 7/14/2016 6:45 AM, kenseto wrote:
> > On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 11:20:49 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >> On 7/13/2016 10:13 AM, kenseto wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 10:06:09 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >>>> On 7/12/2016 9:20 AM, kenseto wrote:
> >>>>> RoS is a bogus concept for the following reasons:
> >>>>> 1. Simultaneity of two events can only be measured by an observer in the frame of
> >>>>> the two events and at equal distance from the two events.
> >>>>
> >>>> Bullshit. And assertion is not an argument.
> >>>
> >>> No bullshit.....no two spatially separated events can claim to be truly simultaneous unless
> >>> it is measured by an observer at the mid point between the two events.
> >>
> >> Repeating the assertion doesn't make it any better an argument.
> >
> > That's no assertion.....that's the only way to measure the simultaneity of two events.
>
> No, Ken, it's not. There are DOCUMENTED means for measuring simultaneity
> that you seem to be unaware of.

The only way to measure simultaneity correctly: the observer is in the rest frame of the two events and mid-way between the two events.

>
> >
> >>> There is no way for an outside observer to measure the simultaneity of two events moving wrt him.
> >>
> >> Bullshit.
> >> You know, you are fond of saying there is no way to do lots of things,
> >> just because YOU DON'T KNOW HOW. But other people are not as slow as you.
> >
> > Idiot.....how does an outside observer measure the simultaneity of two events happened
> > in different frame?
>
> Any event is in ALL frames. You know this, right?

An event is an object.....it is at rest in its own frame.

> Or do you not know what a reference frame is?

> Do you seriously think that only the observer that is stationary in a
> reference frame can see the events in that frame and that no one in any
> other reference frame can see the events?

I am in a spaceship and two events happened simultaneously inside the ship. You are on earth .....do you know that two events happened simultaneously in the ship without me telling you? Guess not.

>
> This past Fourth of July, I was sitting on the grass watching fireworks.
> A train went by in the middle of the show. The conductor in the train
> was at rest in a different reference frame than mine. Do you really
> think he could not see the events of each firework exploding that I
> could see, just because we were in different frames?

The train is moving between New York and Boston and certainly the conductor can't see the firework in Ohio. You can use the LT to inform him that two fire work go off simultaneously in your frame.

So I guess that you admit that you were full of shit.....no data available showing different closing velocity between light and any object.....BTW that why we measure light speed to be isotropic.

[Odd Bodkin]

On 7/14/2016 3:38 PM, kenseto wrote:
> On Thursday, July 14, 2016 at 10:30:23 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> On 7/14/2016 6:45 AM, kenseto wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 11:20:49 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>> On 7/13/2016 10:13 AM, kenseto wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 10:06:09 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/12/2016 9:20 AM, kenseto wrote:
>>>>>>> RoS is a bogus concept for the following reasons:
>>>>>>> 1. Simultaneity of two events can only be measured by an observer in the frame of
>>>>>>> the two events and at equal distance from the two events.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bullshit. And assertion is not an argument.
>>>>>
>>>>> No bullshit.....no two spatially separated events can claim to be truly simultaneous unless
>>>>> it is measured by an observer at the mid point between the two events.
>>>>
>>>> Repeating the assertion doesn't make it any better an argument.
>>>
>>> That's no assertion.....that's the only way to measure the simultaneity of two events.
>>
>> No, Ken, it's not. There are DOCUMENTED means for measuring simultaneity
>> that you seem to be unaware of.
>
> The only way to measure simultaneity correctly: the observer is in the rest frame of the two
> events and mid-way between the two events.

Still wrong. You're going to have to get it through your head that there
are correct ways to measure simultaneity other than the one way you know.

>>
>>>
>>>>> There is no way for an outside observer to measure the simultaneity of two events moving wrt him.
>>>>
>>>> Bullshit.
>>>> You know, you are fond of saying there is no way to do lots of things,
>>>> just because YOU DON'T KNOW HOW. But other people are not as slow as you.
>>>
>>> Idiot.....how does an outside observer measure the simultaneity of two events happened
>>> in different frame?
>>
>> Any event is in ALL frames. You know this, right?
>
> An event is an object.....it is at rest in its own frame.

No. An event is not an object. Nor is it at rest in ANY frame. An event
has no time duration. For something to be at rest, it has to have a time
duration.

>
>> Or do you not know what a reference frame is?
>
>> Do you seriously think that only the observer that is stationary in a
>> reference frame can see the events in that frame and that no one in any
>> other reference frame can see the events?
>
> I am in a spaceship and two events happened simultaneously inside the ship.
> You are on earth .....do you know that two events happened simultaneously
> in the ship without me telling you? Guess not.

Two different frames are NOT SEPARATED BY A LARGE DISTANCE.

>>
>> This past Fourth of July, I was sitting on the grass watching fireworks.
>> A train went by in the middle of the show. The conductor in the train
>> was at rest in a different reference frame than mine. Do you really
>> think he could not see the events of each firework exploding that I
>> could see, just because we were in different frames?
>
> The train is moving between New York and Boston and certainly the conductor
> can't see the firework in Ohio. You can use the LT to inform him that two fire
> work go off simultaneously in your frame.

Again, two frames are not separated by large distances. Frames OVERLAP.
There is no spatial separation between frames.

The train I mentioned was not in another state. It was right nearby the
fireworks. It was at rest in different frame than my own rest frame. But
we BOTH still saw the fireworks.

I don't know where you ever got the STUUUUUUPID idea that reference
frames are separated by large distances.

No, I don't admit any such thing. I refuse to spoonfeed you. Your
response to not being spoonfed is ALWAYS to call the other person wrong.

[kenseto]

On Thursday, July 14, 2016 at 10:19:50 AM UTC-4, rotchm wrote:
> On Thursday, July 14, 2016 at 9:53:45 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote:
>
>
> > How does an observer place clocks at events in different frames?
>
> How did your kitchen clock get on the wall? How did your wristwatch get onto your arm? *Someone* put it there!! Gawd, didnt you know that?

The events happened at the Moon....so how do you place a clock there?

>
> And again "events in different frames" doesnt make any sense. You do not seem to understand the concept of an event.
>
>
> > SR had to invoke the contradictory concept of RoS to explain these paradoxes.
>
> RoS existed way before SR. Even Newton discussed many times the RoS. Even Galileo discussed it!

But Newton and Galiileo didn't assume that different closing speeds between light and other material objects. Einstein assumed that to cancel out the paradoxes derived from the P2.

[HGW.]

Idiot! The simplest mechanical synching technique is to connect two
clocks with a long rigid rod that rotates. Both clocks tick with every
turn.
The synchronization can be initially set and regularly checked with
light signals from sources at rest with the clocks.
The system can be taken anywhere, anyhow and, after settling down,
checked with similar light signals. The clocks cannot and will not go
out of synch as Einstein claimed. How could they?

>


--

[JanPB]

On Thursday, July 14, 2016 at 8:50:16 AM UTC-7, paparios wrote:
> On Thursday, July 14, 2016 at 10:30:58 AM UTC-4, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
> > Użytkownik "paparios" napisał w wiadomości grup
> > dyskusyjnych:ff65130a-cc8c-4bd5...@googlegroups.com...
> >
> > On Thursday, July 14, 2016 at 8:07:23 AM UTC-4, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote:
> > > W dniu czwartek, 14 lipca 2016 13:47:22 UTC+2 użytkownik paparios napisał:
> >
> > > >
> > > > God bless your ignorance!!!
> > > >
> > > > Inside the plane, you can perform the same experiments that you can do
> > > > in a ground based laboratory. The physics in that local frame is the
> > > > same physics inside the ground laboratory (since Nature does not make
> > > > the difference).
> > >
> > > Nature doesn't have to make a difference.
> > > The observer can make it himself, poor
> > > idiot, and it happens he does.
> > >
> >
> > |For example?
> >
> > For example, an observer on a street doesn't observe building
> > and lanterns running around. An observer in a plane to Santiago
> > knows he is going to Santiago. And clocks on GPS indicate
> > t'=t.
> >
> >
>
> Very poor examples, all coming from an uneducated moron. Let us see every one of your "examples".
>
> 1) "an observer on a street doesn't observe building and lanterns running around".
>
> Well, if the observer is seated in a rotating platform, that is precisely what he will observe!!!!

Maciej uses a different definition of "observe" than physics uses. He never
stated precisely what his definition was. In physics the definition uses
a specific assignment of certain labels called "coordinates". This definition
necessarily means that the "buildings and lanterns(*)" do run around the
observer in the sense the same pattern of changing coordinates would be
produced by some objects mounted on a, say, rotatable ring situated around
the observer.

It's trivial but trivia is all Maciej ever discusses on this newsgroup
(besides obvious falsehoods).

(*)wrong word again, "lantern" means "lampion" in Polish.

> If the observer is seated inside a bus, going at 50 km/hr from left to right, he for sure will observe "buildings and lanterns" going at exactly 50 km/hr from right to left. Did you not know that fact? Has you ever taken a bus in your miserable life?

He has his private, secret, definitions for everything.

--
Jan

[rotchm]

On Thursday, July 14, 2016 at 4:38:30 PM UTC-4, kenseto wrote:

> The only way to measure simultaneity correctly: the observer is in
> the rest frame of the two events and mid-way between the two events.

An event does not have a frame and even less a rest frame.
Take for instance two flintrocks colliding and making a spark (which rock is moving?) The event is the spark. What is the "rest fame" of the spark?


> An event is an object.....

No. An event is a selection of a pair (x,t), like (0,0) or (-2,5) etc. those are events. Physically, its an occurrence, a "flash", a brief explosion.

> it is at rest in its own frame.

You throw a flintrock onto the ground and it makes a spark. What is the rest frame of the spark? Its the ground? Or the frame of the rock? Oe some other frame?

> I am in a spaceship and two events happened simultaneously inside the
> ship. You are on earth .....do you know that two events happened
> simultaneously in the ship without me telling you? Guess not.

Yes we can know, by measuring the position and time of the events in my frame, then applying the LT's. These will tell me if the events are simul in your frame. We then can verify by asking you. (such exps have been done btw).

[rotchm]

On Thursday, July 14, 2016 at 4:54:11 PM UTC-4, kenseto wrote:
>
> > How did your kitchen clock get on the wall?... *Someone* put it there!!

> > Gawd, didnt you know that?
>
> The events happened at the Moon....so how do you place a clock there?

Say, an explosion on the moon. Ok. In the earth frame (my frame) the event 'explosion on the moon' occurred too. If I dont have a clock there, then I wait to get the "light" from the explosion. From the speed of light & distance of moon, I can calculate at what time the explosion occurred in my frame. thats how I know at what time it occurred in my frame w/o actually having a clock there.

[HGW.]

And if you do the same for two event that happen simultaneously on the
moon, you will find they also happen simultaneously on Earth.
Simultaneity is not determined by light and human vision.

[mlwo...@wp.pl]

W dniu czwartek, 14 lipca 2016 16:30:23 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:
> This past Fourth of July, I was sitting on the grass watching fireworks.
> A train went by in the middle of the show. The conductor in the train
> was at rest in a different reference frame than mine. Do you really
> think he could not see the events of each firework exploding that I
> could see, just because we were in different frames?

And do you really think that an event that happened
12.07.2016 08:30:21 for you happened 12.07.2016 08:34:12
for him?

[mlwo...@wp.pl]

W dniu czwartek, 14 lipca 2016 22:45:28 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:

> Still wrong. You're going to have to get it through your head that there
> are correct ways to measure simultaneity other than the one way you know.

They're obviously correct, as Great Guru said
they are. Could the path of such a great guru
be incorrect?

[Odd Bodkin]

On 7/14/2016 6:12 PM, HGW. wrote:
>
> Idiot! The simplest mechanical synching technique is to connect two
> clocks with a long rigid rod that rotates.

You mention rigidity of this long rod. What is it that makes the rod
rigid? In fact, what is the interaction that holds the atoms of the rod
together in the first place? Ah yes, that would be the electromagnetic
interaction.

So since the electromagnetic interaction can, at its fastest, travel at
c, how fast can one end of the rod learn to turn when the other end is
tweaked? Ah yes, that would be L/c.

[rotchm]

On Friday, July 15, 2016 at 12:05:28 AM UTC-4, HGW. wrote:

> And if you do the same for two event that happen simultaneously on the
> moon, you will find they also happen simultaneously on Earth.

Nope.

> Simultaneity is not determined by light and human vision.

You seem confused on the meanings and concepts of the words used. The word "simultaneity" has been defined by us humans, not by nature. *We* decide on what that words means. As per its definition, simultaneity does depend on "light and human vision" (well, not really vision, but on the synch procedure).

[mlwo...@wp.pl]

No, poor idiot, you don't decide. *We* decide.
And thus, simultaneity is not relative.

[kenseto]

On Thursday, July 14, 2016 at 10:08:45 AM UTC-4, rotchm wrote:
> On Thursday, July 14, 2016 at 7:45:43 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote:
>
> > .how does an outside observer measure the simultaneity of two
> > events happened in different frame?
>
> Do you realize that your question doesn't make any sense!?
> *events* dont happen in different frames. All events occur in all frames.
> Perhaps you meant to ask, how does an observer measure the simultaneity of two events?

How does an observer on earth measures the simultaneity of two events happened on the Moon?

>
> Well that's simple. The observer may have two clocks, each of which just happen to be at an event.

You are talking nonsense....The observer on earth may have two clocks at the events on the moon???

>If the values of his clocks indicate the same value, then the events are simul by definition.

Idiot there is no clock on the moon even if there were no observer at the moon to read them.

>For example, suppose I bough a new clock but have not set it up; it remains at "noon". I go out for a walk...sometime thereafter my working watch indicates noon as I sneeze (event 1) and then I loose my watch into a pond. When I get back home 1 hour or so, I look at by clock (which indicates noon) and I sneeze (event 2). At both events, the time was noon, so both >events are simultaneous by definition.

This is completely nonsense......You claimed that you can measure simultaneity with one working clock and one not working clock???

>
>
> > Idiot....closing speed between light and any object is isotropic.....
>
> ??? No it is not.
>
> > closing speed between two material objects is variable.
>
> Yeah... Be it two material bodies or one body & light, "closing speed" is 'variable". You seem confused about the notion of closing speed.

There is no confusion....we can measure the different closing speeds between two material objects but Einstein said that we cannot measure different clock speed between light and any material object.

>
>
> > I can be convinced if you show me data that shows different
> > closing speeds between light and any object.
>
> Simple. In my frame I have a light source fixed to the ground. I'm seated and a friend of mine is running towards the source with speed v>0.
>
> In my frame, the closing speed of the lightfront & my friend is |c - (-v)| = c+v.

This is assumed.....not a measurement. Einstein said that your friend measures the closing speed for any light front coming toward him is c.

>
> In *his* frame, the closing speed between the lightfront & him is |c - 0| = c.

This is a measurement.

>
> See, they are different; c+v <> c. Understood?

Assumptions are not valid argument.

[kenseto]

idiot how does an observer on earth place two clocks at two events happened on the moon?

[kenseto]

On Thursday, July 14, 2016 at 10:30:23 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 7/14/2016 6:45 AM, kenseto wrote:
> > On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 11:20:49 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >> On 7/13/2016 10:13 AM, kenseto wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 10:06:09 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >>>> On 7/12/2016 9:20 AM, kenseto wrote:
> >>>>> RoS is a bogus concept for the following reasons:
> >>>>> 1. Simultaneity of two events can only be measured by an observer in the frame of
> >>>>> the two events and at equal distance from the two events.
> >>>>
> >>>> Bullshit. And assertion is not an argument.
> >>>
> >>> No bullshit.....no two spatially separated events can claim to be truly simultaneous unless
> >>> it is measured by an observer at the mid point between the two events.
> >>
> >> Repeating the assertion doesn't make it any better an argument.
> >
> > That's no assertion.....that's the only way to measure the simultaneity of two events.
>
> No, Ken, it's not. There are DOCUMENTED means for measuring simultaneity
> that you seem to be unaware of.

So how do you measure the simultaneity of two events happened on the moon?

> >>> There is no way for an outside observer to measure the simultaneity of two events moving wrt him.
> >>
> >> Bullshit.
> >> You know, you are fond of saying there is no way to do lots of things,
> >> just because YOU DON'T KNOW HOW. But other people are not as slow as you.
> >
> > Idiot.....how does an outside observer measure the simultaneity of two events happened
> > in different frame?
>
> Any event is in ALL frames. You know this, right?

Yes.....so what?

> Or do you not know what a reference frame is?
> Do you seriously think that only the observer that is stationary in a
> reference frame can see the events in that frame and that no one in any
> other reference frame can see the events?

You can't see two events happened at the moon.....even if you saw them you cannot measure if they were simultaneous. Simultaneity can only be measured at the mid point between the two events and in the frame of the events.

ROTFLOL....you can't show me any data so you tried to bullshit your way out.

[Michael Moroney]

Ken, your previous question was how to place clocks in different frames.
If you have to ask that, you simply don't understand the concept of
reference frames and thus are not qualified to criticize SR to the point
where you supposedly come up with a relativity theory to replace it.

As to placing clocks on the moon, there are these things called rockets,
you know. We have placed clocks on the moon in the past.

[Odd Bodkin]

On 7/15/2016 8:39 AM, kenseto wrote:
> On Thursday, July 14, 2016 at 10:08:45 AM UTC-4, rotchm wrote:
>> On Thursday, July 14, 2016 at 7:45:43 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote:
>>
>>> .how does an outside observer measure the simultaneity of two
>>> events happened in different frame?
>>
>> Do you realize that your question doesn't make any sense!?
>> *events* dont happen in different frames. All events occur in all frames.
>> Perhaps you meant to ask, how does an observer measure the simultaneity of two events?
>
> How does an observer on earth measures the simultaneity of two events happened on the Moon?

Ken, two different frames are not miles apart. They OVERLAP.

The observers in both frames are RIGHT NEXT TO the same events. They
just happen to be moving next to each other.

You might as well ask, "How does the observer measure the length of a
rod with his eyes closed?" He doesn't. He opens his eyes.

[Odd Bodkin]

On 7/15/2016 9:07 AM, kenseto wrote:
> On Thursday, July 14, 2016 at 10:30:23 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> On 7/14/2016 6:45 AM, kenseto wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 11:20:49 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>> On 7/13/2016 10:13 AM, kenseto wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 10:06:09 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/12/2016 9:20 AM, kenseto wrote:
>>>>>>> RoS is a bogus concept for the following reasons:
>>>>>>> 1. Simultaneity of two events can only be measured by an observer in the frame of
>>>>>>> the two events and at equal distance from the two events.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bullshit. And assertion is not an argument.
>>>>>
>>>>> No bullshit.....no two spatially separated events can claim to be truly simultaneous unless
>>>>> it is measured by an observer at the mid point between the two events.
>>>>
>>>> Repeating the assertion doesn't make it any better an argument.
>>>
>>> That's no assertion.....that's the only way to measure the simultaneity of two events.
>>
>> No, Ken, it's not. There are DOCUMENTED means for measuring simultaneity
>> that you seem to be unaware of.
>
> So how do you measure the simultaneity of two events happened on the moon?

I go to the moon.

But I don't have to check with events on the moon.

>
>>>>> There is no way for an outside observer to measure the simultaneity of two events moving wrt him.
>>>>
>>>> Bullshit.
>>>> You know, you are fond of saying there is no way to do lots of things,
>>>> just because YOU DON'T KNOW HOW. But other people are not as slow as you.
>>>
>>> Idiot.....how does an outside observer measure the simultaneity of two events happened
>>> in different frame?
>>
>> Any event is in ALL frames. You know this, right?
>
> Yes.....so what?

So any observers in any two different frames can observe the same
events, as long as both observers are close.

>
>> Or do you not know what a reference frame is?
>> Do you seriously think that only the observer that is stationary in a
>> reference frame can see the events in that frame and that no one in any
>> other reference frame can see the events?
>
> You can't see two events happened at the moon.....even if you saw them
> you cannot measure if they were simultaneous.

That's not true.

> Simultaneity can only be measured at the mid point between the two events and
> in the frame of the events.

Bullshit. It's the only way YOU can think of to do it, but it sure isn't
the only way.

Ken, I'm happy to tell you a book to find the data in, but you're too
fucking lazy to get out of the house.

[Tom Roberts]

On 7/12/16 7/12/16 - 3:11 PM, Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato wrote:
> El martes, 12 de julio de 2016, 11:02:20 (UTC-4), tjrob137 escribió:
>> Events do not determine a frame, every event can be observed, and related to,
>> EVERY inertial frame (and all locally-valid non-inertial coordinates, too).
>>
>> My context is the flat manifolds of SR. In some manifolds of GR
>> this is not true.
>>
>> An observer at rest in any inertial frame can OBSERVE whether a given pair of
>> events is simultaneous in that frame. In general this requires a clock
>> pre-positioned at the location in the frame where the event will occur, and of
>> course the clocks must be synchronized in the frame. Then it is simply a matter
>> of recording the time on the co-located clock when each event happens, and then
>> comparing the two time values for equality.
>>
>> That is what we mean by "simultaneous" in an inertial frame. This
>> can be done for ANY pair of events and ANY inertial frame.
>>
> You are using here the 1905 Einstein definition of *time* relative to what he
> denotes as a “stationary system” of Cartesian coordinates (with Euclidean
> geometry), in which the equations of Newtonian mechanics hold good.

NONSENSE. You put YOUR notions into what I wrote -- that's invalid.

I am, of course, using the meaning of "time" from SR, AS I SAID: "My
context is the flat manifolds of SR."


> [... further nonsense based on that error]

> BOTH postulates find today a HUGE experimental support with the very successfu
> GPS operation since already almost four decades.

Not true. The ECI used by the GPS is CLEARLY AND TRIVIALLY not 'a “stationary
system” of Cartesian coordinates (with Euclidean geometry), in which the
equations of Newtonian mechanics hold good.' All you have to do is observe the
sun for a few days.'

The GPS necessarily uses GR, not SR. While its ECI coordinates are constructed
specifically so that the vacuum speed of light is isotropically c in them, they
are not of unlimited validity. They are a LOCALLY INERTIAL FRAME, with validity
limited to the vicinity of earth up to GPS satellite altitude.

So knowledgeable people know that the ECI is not valid for
observing the sun. You, however, seem to not understand this.
In 1905 this was not understood, and by freezing your mind
back then you prevent yourself from learning much of anything.


> [... further ranting about nonsense unrelated to TODAY's world]


Tom Roberts

[Maciej Woźniak]

Użytkownik "Tom Roberts" napisał w wiadomości grup
dyskusyjnych:ttKdnduS2rqdlRTK...@giganews.com...

|The GPS necessarily uses GR, not SR. While its ECI coordinates are
constructed

A lie, as expected from relativistic trash. If it used the
moronic standards of your Shit, it wouldn't work.

[rotchm]

On Friday, July 15, 2016 at 9:39:40 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote:

> How does an observer on earth measures the simultaneity of two events
> happened on the Moon?

I explained it to you. Cant you read? Or is your short term memory limited to 3 hours?

> > Well that's simple. The observer may have two clocks,
> > each of which just happen to be at an event.
>
> You are talking nonsense....The observer on earth may have two clocks
> at the events on the moon???

Yes. Or instead of the moon, take a lab on a train. Same idea.
But if he doesnt have any clocks available, he uses a different method, that I also explained to you and that you snipped out.

> >If the values of his clocks indicate the same value,
> > then the events are simul by definition.
>
> Idiot there is no clock on the moon even if there were no
> observer at the moon to read them.

You are confused on the notion of 'event' & 'observer'.

> This is completely nonsense......You claimed that you can measure
> simultaneity with one working clock and one not working clock???

Yes, since its a matter of *definition*. If I defined it that way, then its that way! You seem to be confused about the notion of 'conventions' & 'definitions'.

> > In my frame, the closing speed of the lightfront & my friend
> > is |c - (-v)| = c+v.
>
> This is assumed.....not a measurement.

Its part of the initial conditions that YOU set up. If you say that x=5 & y = 2, then x+y = 7. The '7' is NOT assumed; it is deduced from the initial conditions.
No measurements required. If I measure the SoL I get c. I can measure the speed of a car; say, its 10. Then the closing speed (meaning, the difference) of those two values is c-10 (or c+10 if its the other way).

> Einstein said that your friend measures the closing speed for any
> light front coming toward him is c.

So? That is NOT what we are talking about. We are talking about closing speed measured in MY frame.

> > In *his* frame, the closing speed between the lightfront & him
> is |c - 0| = c.
>
> This is a measurement.

So ?

> > See, they are different; c+v <> c. Understood?
>
> Assumptions are not valid argument.

Its not an assumption; its basic math: if v <> 0 then c+v <> c. You deny that???

[Tom Roberts]

On 7/13/16 7/13/16 - 1:27 PM, pcard...@volcanomail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 12, 2016 at 8:02:20 AM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote:

>> On 7/12/16 7/12/16 9:20 AM, kenseto wrote:
>>> Simultaneity of two
>>> events can only be measured by an observer in the frame of the two events and

>>> at equal distance from the two events. An outside observer cannot determine
>>> the simultaneity of two events in different frames.
>>
>> This is just plain not true.

>>
>> Events do not determine a frame, every event can be observed, and related to,
>> EVERY inertial frame (and all locally-valid non-inertial coordinates, too).
>

> What would be an example of non-inertial coordinates that are not locally-valid?

Rindler coordinates of an accelerating observer at positions behind their horizon.

Tom Roberts

[kenseto]

ROTFLOL.....so you are sending two clocks to the moon to measure the simultaneity of two events. No wonder your name is moron.

[kenseto]

On Friday, July 15, 2016 at 11:07:39 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 7/15/2016 8:39 AM, kenseto wrote:
> > On Thursday, July 14, 2016 at 10:08:45 AM UTC-4, rotchm wrote:
> >> On Thursday, July 14, 2016 at 7:45:43 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote:
> >>
> >>> .how does an outside observer measure the simultaneity of two
> >>> events happened in different frame?
> >>
> >> Do you realize that your question doesn't make any sense!?
> >> *events* dont happen in different frames. All events occur in all frames.
> >> Perhaps you meant to ask, how does an observer measure the simultaneity of two events?
> >
> > How does an observer on earth measures the simultaneity of two events happened on the Moon?
>
> Ken, two different frames are not miles apart. They OVERLAP.

Still how do you measure the simultaneity of two events on the moon?

>
> The observers in both frames are RIGHT NEXT TO the same events. They
> just happen to be moving next to each other.

ROTFLOL....So are you saying that you are next to the guy on the moon??????

>
> You might as well ask, "How does the observer measure the length of a
> rod with his eyes closed?" He doesn't. He opens his eyes.

How does that related to what we were discussing?????

[kenseto]

On Friday, July 15, 2016 at 11:13:07 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 7/15/2016 9:07 AM, kenseto wrote:
> > On Thursday, July 14, 2016 at 10:30:23 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >> On 7/14/2016 6:45 AM, kenseto wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 11:20:49 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >>>> On 7/13/2016 10:13 AM, kenseto wrote:
> >>>>> On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 10:06:09 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >>>>>> On 7/12/2016 9:20 AM, kenseto wrote:
> >>>>>>> RoS is a bogus concept for the following reasons:
> >>>>>>> 1. Simultaneity of two events can only be measured by an observer in the frame of
> >>>>>>> the two events and at equal distance from the two events.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Bullshit. And assertion is not an argument.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> No bullshit.....no two spatially separated events can claim to be truly simultaneous unless
> >>>>> it is measured by an observer at the mid point between the two events.
> >>>>
> >>>> Repeating the assertion doesn't make it any better an argument.
> >>>
> >>> That's no assertion.....that's the only way to measure the simultaneity of two events.
> >>
> >> No, Ken, it's not. There are DOCUMENTED means for measuring simultaneity
> >> that you seem to be unaware of.
> >
> > So how do you measure the simultaneity of two events happened on the moon?
>
> I go to the moon.

Great...you go to the moon......but I doubt that you are physically fit.

>
> But I don't have to check with events on the moon.

So how else do you do the measurement?

>
> >
> >>>>> There is no way for an outside observer to measure the simultaneity of two events moving wrt him.
> >>>>
> >>>> Bullshit.
> >>>> You know, you are fond of saying there is no way to do lots of things,
> >>>> just because YOU DON'T KNOW HOW. But other people are not as slow as you.
> >>>
> >>> Idiot.....how does an outside observer measure the simultaneity of two events happened
> >>> in different frame?
> >>
> >> Any event is in ALL frames. You know this, right?
> >
> > Yes.....so what?
>
> So any observers in any two different frames can observe the same
> events, as long as both observers are close.

But you and the guy on the moon are 1/4 million miles apart.....is that close?

>
> >
> >> Or do you not know what a reference frame is?
> >> Do you seriously think that only the observer that is stationary in a
> >> reference frame can see the events in that frame and that no one in any
> >> other reference frame can see the events?
> >
> > You can't see two events happened at the moon.....even if you saw them
> > you cannot measure if they were simultaneous.
>
> That's not true.
>
> > Simultaneity can only be measured at the mid point between the two events and
> > in the frame of the events.
>
> Bullshit. It's the only way YOU can think of to do it, but it sure isn't
> the only way.

Thats' the only way to measure the true simultaneity of two events.

[Odd Bodkin]

On 7/15/2016 3:13 PM, kenseto wrote:
> On Friday, July 15, 2016 at 11:07:39 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> On 7/15/2016 8:39 AM, kenseto wrote:
>>> On Thursday, July 14, 2016 at 10:08:45 AM UTC-4, rotchm wrote:
>>>> On Thursday, July 14, 2016 at 7:45:43 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> .how does an outside observer measure the simultaneity of two
>>>>> events happened in different frame?
>>>>
>>>> Do you realize that your question doesn't make any sense!?
>>>> *events* dont happen in different frames. All events occur in all frames.
>>>> Perhaps you meant to ask, how does an observer measure the simultaneity of two events?
>>>
>>> How does an observer on earth measures the simultaneity of two events happened on the Moon?
>>
>> Ken, two different frames are not miles apart. They OVERLAP.
>
> Still how do you measure the simultaneity of two events on the moon?

If you have to, you go to the moon.

But why would anybody do that to show this principle works? Scientists
do experiments where it is feasible to show the principle works, not
where it's really difficult to show the principle works.

If you wanted to show that the pressure of water at depth h is given by
(density)(g)(h), a scientist would do this in a swimming pool. Would you
ask him how to show that it's true at the bottom of the Marianas Trench
in the Pacific Ocean?

>
>>
>> The observers in both frames are RIGHT NEXT TO the same events. They
>> just happen to be moving next to each other.
>
> ROTFLOL....So are you saying that you are next to the guy on the moon??????
>>
>> You might as well ask, "How does the observer measure the length of a
>> rod with his eyes closed?" He doesn't. He opens his eyes.
>
> How does that related to what we were discussing?????
>

You are the one asking all the questions about the moon. Nobody needs to
measure the simultaneity of events on the moon. It is sufficient to show
this principle works on earth. And that's where they do it.

[Odd Bodkin]

On 7/15/2016 3:27 PM, kenseto wrote:
>> So any observers in any two different frames can observe the same
>> > events, as long as both observers are close.
> But you and the guy on the moon are 1/4 million miles apart.....is that close?
>> >

Ken, no experimenter in his right mind would test the simultaneity of
events by using observers that are 1/4 million miles apart. Why would
anybody do that? Why would anybody NEED to do that?

You show it right here on earth. Two observers in different frames, but
CLOSE to each other, looking at the same pair of events. THAT'S how you
do the measurement.

[kenseto]

You guys claimed that you can measure the simultaneity of two events anywhere by putting two synchronized clock at the locations of the events. That's why I asked you how you are going to do that if the events were on the moon.
I disagreed with your assertions. I said that the simultaneity of two events can only be measured if the observer is at equal distance from the events. Or you can place two synched clocks at the locations of the events.....however, this approach requires two absolutely synched clocks and if you have such pair of clock why don't you use them to measure the one-way speed of light directly?

[kenseto]

On Friday, July 15, 2016 at 4:45:38 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 7/15/2016 3:27 PM, kenseto wrote:
> >> So any observers in any two different frames can observe the same
> >> > events, as long as both observers are close.
> > But you and the guy on the moon are 1/4 million miles apart.....is that close?
> >> >
>
> Ken, no experimenter in his right mind would test the simultaneity of
> events by using observers that are 1/4 million miles apart. Why would
> anybody do that? Why would anybody NEED to do that?

So how do you test the simultaneity of two events on the moon without going there?????

>
> You show it right here on earth. Two observers in different frames, but
> CLOSE to each other, looking at the same pair of events. THAT'S how you
> do the measurement.
>

Helloooo.....there is no same pair of events on earth.

[HGW.]

Bodkin, you don't seem to be able to make up your mind as to whether you
are an Einsteinian or an aetherist. You argument above is pure LET.
Maybe you have finally accepted the revelation that SR is just a
plagiarized and cleverly disguised version of that theory.



--

[Michael Moroney]

Ken, this is a thought experiment. If you need a clock somewhere put one
there. It doesn't matter if it's impractical or impossible, just as
there is no train moving at a significant percentage of the speed of
light with lightning striking both ends.

Besides, this is about your obvious lack of understanding of what a
reference frame even is, not about clocks on the moon. Your lack of
understanding of what a reference frame is pretty much disqualifies
you from any serious discussion about SR, much less some "replacement"
of SR.

[Michael Moroney]

Ralph, Odd made a simple statement 100% consistent with SR, nothing can
move faster than c. This fact explains the bug-rivet "paradox", the tip
of the rivet cannot stop instantly when the rivet head hits the wall.
It takes time for the "STOP" signal to reach the tip.

[rotchm]

On Friday, July 15, 2016 at 5:21:42 PM UTC-4, kenseto wrote:
> On Friday, July 15, 2016 at 4:45:38 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:

> > Ken, no experimenter in his right mind would test the simultaneity of
> > events by using observers that are 1/4 million miles apart. Why would
> > anybody do that? Why would anybody NEED to do that?
>
> So how do you test the simultaneity of two events on the moon
> without going there?????

Yeah Odd... why dont you answer him the question?
Cant you see that since we havent tested the simultaneity of two events on the moon, then RoS is not verified, hence SR is wrong... All really dumb idiots know that! Similarly, since no clocks can exist on the Sun, that proves that clocks dont measure time, so SR is wrong again...

> Helloooo.....there is no same pair of events on earth.

Yeah, Odd, didnt you know that!? Really really Really dumb idiots know that!

ken, you are one of a kind...

[Maciej Woźniak]

Użytkownik "Michael Moroney" napisał w wiadomości grup
dyskusyjnych:nmbti2$ap7$1...@pcls7.std.com...

|Ken, this is a thought experiment. If you need a clock somewhere put one
|there.

And an imagined clock can confirm any shit you can imagine.

[kenseto]

Hey Idiot Moron-y the tip of the rivet crushed the bug before the head of the rivet hits the wall of the hole.

[kenseto]

On Friday, July 15, 2016 at 8:03:01 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> kenseto <set...@att.net> writes:
>
> >On Friday, July 15, 2016 at 10:57:26 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >> kenseto <set...@att.net> writes:
> >>
> >> >> Ken, Ken, Ken. How can you claim to have come up with a new
> >> >> improved theory of relativity if you don't even understand the concept
> >> >> of a reference frame? (and it is OBVIOUS that you don't, if you did,
> >> >> you never would have written that question!)
> >>
> >> >idiot how does an observer on earth place two clocks at two events happened
> >> >on the moon?
> >>
> >> Ken, your previous question was how to place clocks in different frames.
> >> If you have to ask that, you simply don't understand the concept of
> >> reference frames and thus are not qualified to criticize SR to the point
> >> where you supposedly come up with a relativity theory to replace it.
> >>
> >> As to placing clocks on the moon, there are these things called rockets,
> >> you know. We have placed clocks on the moon in the past.
>
> >ROTFLOL.....so you are sending two clocks to the moon to measure the
> >simultaneity of two events. No wonder your name is moron.
>
> Ken, this is a thought experiment. If you need a clock somewhere put one
> there. It doesn't matter if it's impractical or impossible, just as
> there is no train moving at a significant percentage of the speed of
> light with lightning striking both ends.

So your assertion that you can measure the simultaneity of two events is a bunch of bullshit.....right?

[rotchm]

On Saturday, July 16, 2016 at 9:42:06 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote:

> So your assertion that you can measure the simultaneity of two events
> is a bunch of bullshit.....right?

ken, cant you step on a rock?
I if you say you can, then prove it... step on a rock thats on the moon. If you cant do that, then you are a liar and you cant step on rocks.

[Odd Bodkin]

On 7/15/2016 5:31 PM, HGW. wrote:
> On 15/07/16 22:30, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> On 7/14/2016 6:12 PM, HGW. wrote:
>>>
>>> Idiot! The simplest mechanical synching technique is to connect two
>>> clocks with a long rigid rod that rotates.
>>
>> You mention rigidity of this long rod. What is it that makes the rod
>> rigid? In fact, what is the interaction that holds the atoms of the rod
>> together in the first place? Ah yes, that would be the electromagnetic
>> interaction.
>>
>> So since the electromagnetic interaction can, at its fastest, travel at
>> c, how fast can one end of the rod learn to turn when the other end is
>> tweaked? Ah yes, that would be L/c.
>
> Bodkin, you don't seem to be able to make up your mind as to whether you
> are an Einsteinian or an aetherist. You argument above is pure LET.

Look again. No aether implied.

> Maybe you have finally accepted the revelation that SR is just a
> plagiarized and cleverly disguised version of that theory.
>
>
>


--

[Odd Bodkin]

On 7/15/2016 4:21 PM, kenseto wrote:
> On Friday, July 15, 2016 at 4:45:38 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> On 7/15/2016 3:27 PM, kenseto wrote:
>>>> So any observers in any two different frames can observe the same
>>>>> events, as long as both observers are close.
>>> But you and the guy on the moon are 1/4 million miles apart.....is that close?
>>>>>
>>
>> Ken, no experimenter in his right mind would test the simultaneity of
>> events by using observers that are 1/4 million miles apart. Why would
>> anybody do that? Why would anybody NEED to do that?
>
> So how do you test the simultaneity of two events on the moon without going there?????

You don't. Why would you need to?

>>
>> You show it right here on earth. Two observers in different frames, but
>> CLOSE to each other, looking at the same pair of events. THAT'S how you
>> do the measurement.
>>
>
> Helloooo.....there is no same pair of events on earth.

WHAAAAT? Two fireworks going off on the Fourth of July. Two events,
right there.
One observer: Me, sitting on the grass.
Second observer: Conductor of train going by.
The two observers are in different frames.

[HGW.]

On 17/07/16 03:46, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 7/15/2016 5:31 PM, HGW. wrote:

>>>> Idiot! The simplest mechanical synching technique is to connect
>>>> two clocks with a long rigid rod that rotates.
>>>
>>> You mention rigidity of this long rod. What is it that makes the
>>> rod rigid? In fact, what is the interaction that holds the atoms
>>> of the rod together in the first place? Ah yes, that would be the
>>> electromagnetic interaction.
>>>
>>> So since the electromagnetic interaction can, at its fastest,
>>> travel at c, how fast can one end of the rod learn to turn when
>>> the other end is tweaked? Ah yes, that would be L/c.
>>
>> Bodkin, you don't seem to be able to make up your mind as to
>> whether you are an Einsteinian or an aetherist. You argument above
>> is pure LET.
>
> Look again. No aether implied.

'at its fastest, travel at c.'

c, relative to what?

The rod caused to spin from its mid point....not that this matters.
When any transients have settled down, the rod is exactly as it was
originally. Of course a perfectly rigid rod would not have any such
transients.



--

[HGW.]

That is an interesting claim. Even then, it has to be assumed that
information about the events is sent to the observer at the same speed.
An aetherist would have a very different view from a Newtonian as to how
that can be done and how it would affect the very definition of
simultaneity.

>Or you can place two
> synched clocks at the locations of the events.....however, this
> approach requires two absolutely synched clocks and if you have such
> pair of clock why don't you use them to measure the one-way speed of
> light directly?

Good point, Ken. These fellows are morons who rarely know what they are
arguing about.


>


--

[Michael Moroney]

That depends on your frame of reference, Ken. In some reference frames
(where the hole depth is length contracted) that is true. In other frames
(where the rivet shaft is length contracted) that is not true.
That was the whole point of that gedanken, to teach ROS.

I keep telling you to read a book on SR so that you actually understand it
some day. But you won't.

[Michael Moroney]

"HGW." <hw@....> writes:

>On 17/07/16 03:46, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> On 7/15/2016 5:31 PM, HGW. wrote:

>>>> So since the electromagnetic interaction can, at its fastest,
>>>> travel at c, how fast can one end of the rod learn to turn when
>>>> the other end is tweaked? Ah yes, that would be L/c.
>>>
>>> Bodkin, you don't seem to be able to make up your mind as to
>>> whether you are an Einsteinian or an aetherist. You argument above
>>> is pure LET.
>>
>> Look again. No aether implied.

>'at its fastest, travel at c.'

>c, relative to what?

Relative to anything you want, Ralph. That's the whole point of the
invariance of c.

>The rod caused to spin from its mid point....not that this matters.
>When any transients have settled down,

Transients, Ralph? Without "transients" no information can be communicated
by the spinning of the rod, so it is unnecessary.

> Of course a perfectly rigid rod would not have any such
>transients.

No such thing as a "perfectly rigid rod" as that would require infinite
communication speed. Consider a rigid rod 1 light second in length,
perfectly stationary and not rotating. At T=0 I start rotating one end.
When does an observer at the far end notice the rod is rotating?

[HGW.]

On 17/07/16 12:54, Michael Moroney wrote:
>
>> 'at its fastest, travel at c.'
>
>> c, relative to what?
>
> Relative to anything you want, Ralph. That's the whole point of the
> invariance of c.
>
>> The rod caused to spin from its mid point....not that this matters.
>> When any transients have settled down,
>
> Transients, Ralph? Without "transients" no information can be communicated
> by the spinning of the rod, so it is unnecessary.
>
>> Of course a perfectly rigid rod would not have any such
>> transients.
>
> No such thing as a "perfectly rigid rod" as that would require infinite
> communication speed. Consider a rigid rod 1 light second in length,
> perfectly stationary and not rotating. At T=0 I start rotating one end.
> When does an observer at the far end notice the rod is rotating?

Hey Moron-y, forget your religion and learn some basic physics will yu....



--

[HGW.]

\

RoS is sheer baloney. Simultaneity is not determined by the finite speed
of light or anything else. Try it with sound in water and see what a
dolphin would think of Einstein's crap.

[rotchm]

Well, idiot wilson, why dont you answer his question? Cornered once more?

[Gary Harnagel]

This response means that Ralphie-boy doesn't want to answer the question
that destroys his fake physics :-)

[kenseto]

Idiot....here you are talking about material length contraction.....in SR there is no such material contraction.....there is abstract contraction expressed as geometric projection shortening of the moving rivet shaft. which is not material contraction. Gee you are stupid....no wonder your name is Moron-y.

[Odd Bodkin]

On 7/16/2016 11:45 PM, HGW. wrote:
>> No such thing as a "perfectly rigid rod" as that would require infinite
>> communication speed. Consider a rigid rod 1 light second in length,
>> perfectly stationary and not rotating. At T=0 I start rotating one end.
>> When does an observer at the far end notice the rod is rotating?
>
> Hey Moron-y, forget your religion and learn some basic physics will yu....

That WAS basic physics.
Basic physics: No such thing as a perfectly rigid rod as that would
violate laws of physics.
Basic physics: No such thing as infinite communication speed.

[HGW.]

You people are so dumb I almost feel sorry for you. You don't seem to
know whether you are just classical aetherists or deluded dingleberries.

Nobody would rotate the rod from one end but even if they did, transient
oscillations would soon settle down after the acceleration period had
ceased. The clocks at each end would then clearly have the same synch
relationship as they did before....which can be checked at any time with
a light source located at the rod's mid poimt.

That is plain simple elementary physics, something you lot know nothing
about. No wonder you have been so easily fooled by the Einstein
conspirators.



--

[rotchm]

On Sunday, July 17, 2016 at 6:30:12 PM UTC-4, HGW. wrote:

> Nobody would rotate the rod from one end but even if they did, transient
> oscillations would soon settle down after the acceleration period had
> ceased.

True, but that means that the far end will be 'out of synch' with the accelerated (turning) end. IOW, the far end starts rotating like a few milli or micro seconds afterwards. And how would you gauge (measure) this 'out of synch' w/o a synch procedure?

> The clocks at each end would then clearly have the same synch
> relationship as they did before....

Not at all. You are very confused, even in basic physics.
The far end starts rotating (with the same acceleration scheme, say) milliseconds later. Hence they are, and remain, out of synch. The far end will not magically start accelerating faster to catch up on the rotation.

> which can be checked at any time with
> a light source located at the rod's mid poimt.

Well, isnt that redundant? Your goal was it not tho show 'absolute synch' ? But now you say that to do so, you need e-synch (middle light source) !?

You are very confused

[RichD]

On July 15, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> The simplest mechanical synching technique is to connect two
>> clocks with a long rigid rod that rotates.
>
> You mention rigidity of this long rod.

> In fact, what is the interaction that holds the atoms of the rod

> together in the first place? Ah yes, that would be the electromagnetic
> interaction.

> So since the electromagnetic interaction can, at its fastest, travel at
> c, how fast can one end of the rod learn to turn when the other end is
> tweaked?

It's interesting to contemplate the constraints placed on
solid state physics, by relativity.

Suppose we had only vague clues about solids, forced to
re-create the debates of 150 years ago. The fact that
no perfect rigid rod exists, would lead to the notion that
internal forces must be mediated by electromagnetism, a
stepping stone to atomic physics.

--
Rich