absolute and relative motion

[beda pietanza]

all movements are relative, this is a correct sentence,
it tells us how two objects relatively moving would
affected each other in case of mutual interaction.

absolute movement tells us the attitude of a moving
object to give back the kinetic energy it has accumulate
when it has been accelerated to his actual speed, this
accumulated is potentially ready to be given back in any
possible way, through any possible interaction with any
possible object (or radiation) of the rest of the universe.

the absolute movement of a moving object and the
absolute potential kinetic energy it carries, is referred
to the local space, to what all local objects absolutely
moving refer to.

nothing prevents us to refer, all local objects, to any other
reference point in space or to any physical object, then
all the absolute movement convert to a relative movement
to that conventionally chosen point,
still they conserve intact their absolute potentiality versus the local
space.

when and if two of these objects come to interact then
we correctly can and must use their relative motion
to make prevision on their eventual reciprocal interaction.

there are physical object traveling in space for millennials
carrying their absolute original kinetic energy, waiting for
interactions to give it back.

happy new year to the reader

beda

[Keith Stein]

Post by beda pietanza
all movements are relative,

No Beda. Inertial (constant velocity) movement is relative,
but rotation, and other accelated movement is absolute eh!

keith stein

this is a correct sentence,

Post by beda pietanza
it tells us how two objects relatively moving would
affected each other in case of mutual interaction.
absolute movement tells us the attitude of a moving
object to give back the kinetic energy it has accumulate
when it has been accelerated to his actual speed, this
accumulated is potentially ready to be given back in any
possible way, through any possible interaction with any
possible object (or radiation) of the rest of the universe.
the absolute movement of a moving object and the
absolute potential kinetic energy it carries, is referred
to the local space, to what all local objects absolutely
moving refer to.
nothing prevents us to refer, all local objects, to any other
reference point in space or to any physical object, then
all the absolute movement convert to a relative movement
to that conventionally chosen point,
still they conserve intact their absolute potentiality versus the local
space.
when and if two of these objects come to interact then
we correctly can and must use their relative motion
to make prevision on their eventual reciprocal interaction.
there are physical object traveling in space for millennials
carrying their absolute original kinetic energy, waiting for
interactions to give it back.
happy new year to the reader
beda

[Emr Tupanes]

Post by Keith Stein

Post by beda pietanza
all movements are relative,

No Beda. Inertial (constant velocity) movement is relative,
but rotation, and other accelated movement is absolute eh!

The devil, diavolos, means the one who divides, the one who separates and
distorts.

[beda pietanza]

Post by Keith Stein

Post by beda pietanza
all movements are relative,

No Beda. Inertial (constant velocity) movement is relative,

beda
two absolute inertail moving objects at different speed are also,
moving relatively to each other
any movement it is absolute in its own

Post by Keith Stein
but rotation, and other accelated movement is absolute eh!

beda:
rotation, and other accelerated movements are absolute in themselves
but versus other movement differently accelerate they also, are relative
to each other
keith, you'll find many other points in my post that may give rise
to different opinion, read please also, my last thread, let me know
cheers
beda

Post by Keith Stein
keith stein
this is a correct sentence,

Post by beda pietanza
it tells us how two objects relatively moving would
affected each other in case of mutual interaction.
absolute movement tells us the attitude of a moving
object to give back the kinetic energy it has accumulate
when it has been accelerated to his actual speed, this
accumulated is potentially ready to be given back in any
possible way, through any possible interaction with any
possible object (or radiation) of the rest of the universe.
the absolute movement of a moving object and the
absolute potential kinetic energy it carries, is referred
to the local space, to what all local objects absolutely
moving refer to.
nothing prevents us to refer, all local objects, to any other
reference point in space or to any physical object, then
all the absolute movement convert to a relative movement
to that conventionally chosen point,
still they conserve intact their absolute potentiality versus the local
space.
when and if two of these objects come to interact then
we correctly can and must use their relative motion
to make prevision on their eventual reciprocal interaction.
there are physical object traveling in space for millennials
carrying their absolute original kinetic energy, waiting for
interactions to give it back.
happy new year to the reader
beda

[[e-mail]]

It occured to me that you could measure absolute motion against fixed stars. At several light years away, their angular velocity across the sky will be limited to a few arc seconds a second. For example, a star that is 10 light years away, moving at the speed of light, will be moving at tan-1 (0.10) = 5.7 degrees per year. This is 5.7/31,557,600 degrees each second. Could this be used as a frame of reference to establish ranges for absolute velocity?

[Odd Bodkin]

Post by ***@gmail.com
It occured to me that you could measure absolute motion against fixed
stars. At several light years away, their angular velocity across the
sky will be limited to a few arc seconds a second. For example, a star
that is 10 light years away, moving at the speed of light, will be moving
at tan-1 (0.10) = 5.7 degrees per year. This is 5.7/31,557,600 degrees
each second. Could this be used as a frame of reference to establish
ranges for absolute velocity?

What fixed stars? Are you under the impression the stars are fixed in
space?

[beda pietanza]

Post by Odd Bodkin

Post by ***@gmail.com
It occured to me that you could measure absolute motion against fixed
stars. At several light years away, their angular velocity across the
sky will be limited to a few arc seconds a second. For example, a star
that is 10 light years away, moving at the speed of light, will be moving
at tan-1 (0.10) = 5.7 degrees per year. This is 5.7/31,557,600 degrees
each second. Could this be used as a frame of reference to establish
ranges for absolute velocity?

What fixed stars? Are you under the impression the stars are fixed in
space?

dear odd.
you take the issues always from the wrong direction,
stars are fixed one versus another, their relative position changes
slowly through very long time, check the polaris position how long has taken
to move a little in the sky :
https://earthsky.org/astronomy-essentials/north-star-movement#:~:text=By%20the%20way%20Polaris%2C%20the%20current%20north%20star%2C,plane%20%28the%20plane%20of%20earth%27s%20orbit%20around%20sun%29.

""""""A motion of Earth called precession causes our axis to trace out an imaginary circle on the celestial sphere every 26,000 years. Thousands of years ago, when the pyramids were rising from the sands of ancient Egypt, the North Star was an inconspicuous star called Thuban in the constellation Draco the Dragon. Twelve thousand years from now, the blue-white star Vega in the constellation Lyra will be a much brighter North Star than our current Polaris.""""""
we have a name for someone that pretend not to know, so force people to loose
time in vain: "fare lo gnorry" , I didn't find the equivalent in english
cheers
beda

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

[beda pietanza]

It occured to me that you could measure absolute motion against fixed stars. At several light years away, their angular velocity across the sky will be limited to a few arc seconds a second. For example, a star that is 10 light years away, moving at the speed of light, will be moving at tan-1 (0.10) = 5.7 degrees per year. This is 5.7/31,557,600 degrees each second. Could this be used as a frame of reference to establish ranges for absolute velocity?

dear ge...
let us put it straight,
1) stars don't travel versus their local space at a velocity much different from the one of our sun versus the center of our galaxy
(hundreds km/s)
2) for fixed stars, fixed means very far away stars whose angular movement is so small, that the change of their position is imperceptible for millennia
3) the front wave of the light incoming from a fixed star is flat orthogonality to the direction of its movement
4) then if you want to check the "change" of your absolute speed you can surely resort to such a incoming light: you have just to see the changing angle of the incoming light due to your relative movement (orthogonal) versus the light that instead stays fixed (the apparent position of the star tilts in proportion of the change of your absolute movement, !! you get the change of your absolute movement!! ). to know you starting absolute speed you can resort to terrestrial reference point, they are good enough for any feasible realistic condition.
5) if you want to use the use the star as reference using the doppler effect, it is even easier: as you change you absolute speed versus the incoming light( in this case you choose a light in front of you, a near one brighter) you will see the star light changing color as you change your absolute speed, again you the measure of the changing of your absolute speed versus the incoming light (not versus the star, we never know its speed at moment when the light was emitted, the star maybe not there any more)
6) a very good starting point to check the state of absolute motion is to look at all the possible direction, being the universe uniform in all direction, if you get the background waves coming to you with the same intensity then you are at rest versus your local space, the local space is very flat for low speed, any terrestrial speed in never more than 1/10^4 c, so, in any practical real condition the old Galilean relativity holds good.

in all practical possible case SR is useless at best, conceptually wrong always
for the economy of time I won't go though for correction
mistakes due to oversights to be corrected
cheers
beda

[Tom Roberts]

Post by ***@gmail.com
It occured to me that you could measure absolute motion against fixed
stars.

1. There are no "fixed stars".
2. Stars visible from earth are part of the Milky Way galaxy,
WHICH IS ROTATING. There's nothing "fixed" about that.
3. Distant galaxies are MUCH less "fixed" than stars in the
Milky Way. They have relative velocities ranging up to a
substantial fraction of c.

Ancient astronomers thought some stars were "fixed", merely because
their VISIBLE motion is so small. We now know they are not "fixed" at all.

Proponents of "absolute motion" have NEVER presented a method to measure
it. No measurement relative to some object, or average of a set of
objects, can possibly be considered "absolute".

Tom Roberts

[[e-mail]]

Post by Tom Roberts

Post by ***@gmail.com
It occured to me that you could measure absolute motion against fixed
stars.

1. There are no "fixed stars".
2. Stars visible from earth are part of the Milky Way galaxy,
WHICH IS ROTATING. There's nothing "fixed" about that.
3. Distant galaxies are MUCH less "fixed" than stars in the
Milky Way. They have relative velocities ranging up to a
substantial fraction of c.
Ancient astronomers thought some stars were "fixed", merely because
their VISIBLE motion is so small. We now know they are not "fixed" at all.
Proponents of "absolute motion" have NEVER presented a method to measure
it. No measurement relative to some object, or average of a set of
objects, can possibly be considered "absolute".
Tom Roberts

Real motion has absolute order... the moving atom has slow time and kinetic energy
but real motion creates an opposite appearance that has no motion order...
Begin to move yourself and you observe the opposite appearance order.

[beda pietanza]

Post by Tom Roberts

Post by ***@gmail.com
It occured to me that you could measure absolute motion against fixed
stars.

1. There are no "fixed stars".
2. Stars visible from earth are part of the Milky Way galaxy,
WHICH IS ROTATING. There's nothing "fixed" about that.
3. Distant galaxies are MUCH less "fixed" than stars in the
Milky Way. They have relative velocities ranging up to a
substantial fraction of c.
Ancient astronomers thought some stars were "fixed", merely because
their VISIBLE motion is so small. We now know they are not "fixed" at all.
Proponents of "absolute motion" have NEVER presented a method to measure

dear roberts
you as usual throw smoke in the eye of the reader,
the polaris is changing its position so slow that it will take millennia to be substituted
in its funtion as a North pole reference, so for our purpose that is not a problem.
I don't know anyone that claims to use the distant star to measure the absolute speed
directly, you need to make careful premises.

far away star can be used to check if I am changing my absolute motion:
light coming from a star like polaris, it is traveling at a constant speed, with a constant
spectrum so if I change my movement in the direction of the Polaris I get a
changing doppler shift that tells me that my absolute movement is changing, of course this doesn't
gives me any knowledge of the absolute value of it but only, again the changing of its value
versus the stable reference constituted by the incoming Polaris light traveling at c.
this proves that my absolute hidden movement exists.

now, to measure the absolute movement is possible in principle and in practice, depend on what
approximation you want to obtain, since for large range of low speeds we would detect very little change
in the flatness of the local space, the task gives approximate result.

one among many way to detect the absolute speed of a object in space (away from near masses)
is to measure the intensity of the incoming light from all the directions, when this is uniform we are at
rest vs that point in space, anything passing by us have an absolute speed vs us and the local space.
CMBR, the average uniformity of it from every direction of the universe, is a good reference in this.

Post by Tom Roberts
it. No measurement relative to some object, or average of a set of
objects, can possibly be considered "absolute".

beda:it is matter of conventional agreement, to my opinion, and I am sure to many,
absolute movement is the one versus the entire universe taken as whole,
condensed in the physical properties of the local space that makes, in that point, light speed
isotropically travel at c.
cheers,
beda

Post by Tom Roberts
Tom Roberts

[Tom Roberts]

Post by beda pietanza

Post by Tom Roberts
1. There are no "fixed stars".
2. Stars visible from earth are part of the Milky Way galaxy,
WHICH IS ROTATING. There's nothing "fixed" about that.
3. Distant galaxies are MUCH less "fixed" than stars in the
Milky Way. They have relative velocities ranging up to a
substantial fraction of c.
Ancient astronomers thought some stars were "fixed", merely because
their VISIBLE motion is so small. We now know they are not "fixed" at all.
Proponents of "absolute motion" have NEVER presented a method to measure

you as usual throw smoke in the eye of the reader,

No. I merely tell it like it is.

Post by beda pietanza
the polaris is changing its position so slow that it will take millennia to be substituted
in its funtion as a North pole reference,

So it is not "fixed".

Post by beda pietanza
so for our purpose that is not a problem.

Sure it is! -- it is NOT "fixed".
Nope. Such a "check" can only determine your motion RELATIVE TO THAT
PARTICULAR STAR.

Post by beda pietanza
light coming from a star like polaris, [...]
this proves that my absolute hidden movement exists.

Nope. It only shows your motion RELATIVE TO POLARIS.

Post by beda pietanza
one among many way to detect the absolute speed of a object in space (away from near masses)
is to measure the intensity of the incoming light from all the directions, when this is uniform we are at
rest vs that point in space, anything passing by us have an absolute speed vs us and the local space.

Nope. You are only measuring LIGHT INTENSITIES. This is incredibly
stupid as you take no account of the varying magnitudes of stars.

Post by beda pietanza
CMBR, the average uniformity of it from every direction of the universe, is a good reference in this.

Sure, you can measure your speed relative to the local CMBR dipole=0
frame. There is NOTHING "absolute" about that, you are just measuring
your speed relative to SOME OTHER LOCALLY INERTIAL FRAME.

Post by beda pietanza
it is matter of conventional agreement,

"Conventional" is not at all the same as "absolute". Just like "fantasy"
is not at all the same as "physics".

Post by beda pietanza
to my opinion, and I am sure to many,
absolute movement is the one versus the entire universe taken as whole,

But how do you MEASURE that?

You assume "the entire universe" has some sort of definite speed or
motion to be used as a reference -- astronomical observations show this
is simply not the case in the world we inhabit -- just about everything
is moving relative to just about everything else.

For "absolute speed" to make sense, it must be possible to determine its
value at any location in the cosmos, and all objects with an "absolute
speed" of zero must be at rest relative to each other. Astronomical
observations show this simply does not happen in the world we inhabit.

Post by beda pietanza
condensed in the physical properties of the local space that makes, in that point, light speed
isotropically travel at c.

But light speed (in vacuum) is isotropically c relative to ANY locally
inertial frame. There's NOTHING "absolute" about that.

As usual, you are just repeating your personal fantasies and pretending
they are true. Don't expect me to respond further.

Tom Roberts

[Wyatt Hambaugh]

Post by Tom Roberts

Post by beda pietanza
to my opinion, and I am sure to many,
absolute movement is the one versus the entire universe taken as whole,

But how do you MEASURE that?
You assume "the entire universe" has some sort of definite speed or
motion to be used as a reference -- astronomical observations show this
is simply not the case in the world we inhabit -- just about everything
is moving relative to just about everything else.
For "absolute speed" to make sense, it must be possible to determine its
value at any location in the cosmos, and all objects with an "absolute
speed" of zero must be at rest relative to each other. Astronomical
observations show this simply does not happen in the world we inhabit.

Yes, true, but I don't one really needs a stable reference. Me thinks a
well-defined boundary to this universe would suffice. Even a changeable
boundary, ie Dirichlet, Neumann, Robin, Mixed, and Cauchy.

[beda pietanza]

Post by Tom Roberts

Post by beda pietanza

Post by Tom Roberts
1. There are no "fixed stars".
2. Stars visible from earth are part of the Milky Way galaxy,
WHICH IS ROTATING. There's nothing "fixed" about that.
3. Distant galaxies are MUCH less "fixed" than stars in the
Milky Way. They have relative velocities ranging up to a
substantial fraction of c.
Ancient astronomers thought some stars were "fixed", merely because
their VISIBLE motion is so small. We now know they are not "fixed" at all.
Proponents of "absolute motion" have NEVER presented a method to measure

you as usual throw smoke in the eye of the reader,

No. I merely tell it like it is.

Post by beda pietanza
the polaris is changing its position so slow that it will take millennia to be substituted
in its funtion as a North pole reference,

So it is not "fixed".

dear roberts,
you have been my best teacher, it may be time to pay you back,
even tough, you may not respond to this replay of mine, I will
answer you on every point, for my own sake
yes, polaris not fixed
nevertheless of stars has been used by sailor to determine their
position on the see, where no other reference was there, so their
apparent position is stable enough

Post by Tom Roberts

Post by beda pietanza
so for our purpose that is not a problem.

Sure it is! -- it is NOT "fixed".

beda:
stable enough for our purpose, a couple of measurement in a short time von't see
any apparent change of the star position nor of its color

Post by Tom Roberts
Nope. Such a "check" can only determine your motion RELATIVE TO THAT
PARTICULAR STAR.

beda:
Hai,hai!, capital letters for a capital error, you taught me that physics is about
interaction that take place only locally, have changed your mind?
how can I interact locally with polaris 447 ly distant?
I am interacting only with the polaris incoming light that was emitted 447 years ago.
is light arriving now, at my local place, stable enough that I can use it as a reference?
yes, I think its speed is constant, its spectrum is constant, the direction it is coming from
is constant, therefore it is a good absolute reference moving at c versus me.
I am moving at an unknown absolute speed, versus a light coming whose speed is absolute c
two stable absolute speeds, make a fixed result in the shift of the spectrum of the
polaris light that I perceive,
if I change my absolute speed the change of the light spectrum I would perceive is only due
to the change of my absolute movement,
I still not know the value of my absolute movement, nor the entity of its absolute change, the only think I am sure of
is, that the change of the spectrum is due to my changing of my absolute speed.

Post by Tom Roberts

Post by beda pietanza
light coming from a star like polaris, [...]
this proves that my absolute hidden movement exists.

Nope. It only shows your motion RELATIVE TO POLARIS.

Post by beda pietanza
one among many way to detect the absolute speed of a object in space (away from near masses)
is to measure the intensity of the incoming light from all the directions, when this is uniform we are at
rest vs that point in space, anything passing by us have an absolute speed vs us and the local space.

Nope. You are only measuring LIGHT INTENSITIES. This is incredibly
stupid as you take no account of the varying magnitudes of stars.

Post by beda pietanza
CMBR, the average uniformity of it from every direction of the universe, is a good reference in this.

Sure, you can measure your speed relative to the local CMBR dipole=0
frame. There is NOTHING "absolute" about that, you are just measuring
your speed relative to SOME OTHER LOCALLY INERTIAL FRAME.

beda:
you should not brink in some concepts that belong only to your theory, there are
not any frame there nor nature need them to do what it does, the only model valid
is the nature itself, we are talking here about how nature works at best we know

Post by Tom Roberts

Post by beda pietanza
it is matter of conventional agreement,

"Conventional" is not at all the same as "absolute". Just like "fantasy"
is not at all the same as "physics".

Post by beda pietanza
to my opinion, and I am sure to many,
absolute movement is the one versus the entire universe taken as whole,

But how do you MEASURE that?

beda:
dear tom, we are such a small part of the universe, you told me that physics is
only about local interactions, you forgot that a proper use of our knowledge
has to include a picture of how the universal greatness works at a larger and larger scale
is there in the dept of space we may find that a object left there finds its way
pulled by forces coming from the surrounding masses, the unbalance of that forces
make the object move in some direction or another.
there may not be any place in the universe at perfect equilibrium, a residual unbalance
will be left and generate the rotational moving of the object to join to the totality
movement of the local large scale distributions of masses,
light speed isotropically moving at c may be impossible to find practically
but for sure the presence of matter close or far determine locally at small and/or
at large scale the light speed variation in space.
how we measure the absolute movement?
there are three local references, the local space (with its properties and unisotropies),
the local speed of light (locally) the entire universe as a whole (contrary to your opinion
it is apparently stable enough for our needs), before we go further into this issue you may need
to leave (at least for the time we debate ) apart your deceiving theoretical tools.
the best model in physics is the reality itself, wrong model send you into a dead end route

Post by Tom Roberts
You assume "the entire universe" has some sort of definite speed or
motion to be used as a reference -- astronomical observations show this
is simply not the case in the world we inhabit -- just about everything
is moving relative to just about everything else.

beda
of course, locally the ""so called ether"" participate to its movement,
even in a vortex you can be locally at rest with your near masses,
nevertheless it is the reference point for nature to set locally light and objects speeds

Post by Tom Roberts
For "absolute speed" to make sense, it must be possible to determine its
value at any location in the cosmos, and all objects with an "absolute
speed" of zero must be at rest relative to each other.

beda:
absolutely not true, I can be "at rest" versus the local space in my galaxy
at smaller scale versus any cluster of near masses and at same time participate
unaffected, with my galaxy to the larger scale rotating movement

Post by Tom Roberts
Astronomical
observations show this simply does not happen in the world we inhabit.

Post by beda pietanza
condensed in the physical properties of the local space that makes, in that point, light speed
isotropically travel at c.

But light speed (in vacuum) is isotropically c relative to ANY locally
inertial frame. There's NOTHING "absolute" about that.

beda:
you should not use your theory to justify your theory, but facts and logic interpretation of facts
using common concepts , again frames prevents you to see the reality,
your frames are an anaformism of the reality and now you travel in a multidimensional
non existent space

Post by Tom Roberts
As usual, you are just repeating your personal fantasies and pretending
they are true. Don't expect me to respond further.

beda,
that is a pity, you helped me in the past, I could pay back, I instead will keep reading your posts
and if it is worth answer them
all the best
beda

Post by Tom Roberts
Tom Roberts

[Keith Stein]

Post by beda pietanza

Post by Tom Roberts
1. There are no "fixed stars".
2. Stars visible from earth are part of the Milky Way galaxy,
WHICH IS ROTATING. There's nothing "fixed" about that.
3. Distant galaxies are MUCH less "fixed" than stars in the
Milky Way. They have relative velocities ranging up to a
substantial fraction of c.
Ancient astronomers thought some stars were "fixed", merely because
their VISIBLE motion is so small. We now know they are not "fixed" at all.
Proponents of "absolute motion" have NEVER presented a method to measure

dear roberts
you as usual throw smoke in the eye of the reader,

dear beda,
Although our Mr Roberts is not averse to throwing a bit of smoke,
or sometimes sand eh!, on this occasion most of what he says is correct,
so i advise you read again what he says carefully.

Post by beda pietanza
the polaris is changing its position so slow that it will take millennia to be substituted
in its funtion as a North pole reference, so for our purpose that is not a problem.
I don't know anyone that claims to use the distant star to measure the absolute speed

and that is because it can't be done beda.
It is easy to check if your velocity is changing beda. Use an
accelerometer eh!

keith stein

[Jim Buggs]

Post by Keith Stein
It is easy to check if your velocity is changing beda. Use an
accelerometer eh!

You must be thinking *forcemeter*, since true accelerometers doesn't
really exists. You physicists are amazingly unprepared for the ongoing
*Agenda21*. You will eat less meat, own nothing and be happy. You already
own nothing, but you are most probably deep in debt beyond your neck. A
terrible confusion in capitalist countries. They made you believe *debt*
is ownership, lol. So yes, *Agenda21* is a step forward embetterment, but
still not good enough.

[beda pietanza]

Post by Keith Stein

Post by beda pietanza

Post by Tom Roberts
1. There are no "fixed stars".
2. Stars visible from earth are part of the Milky Way galaxy,
WHICH IS ROTATING. There's nothing "fixed" about that.
3. Distant galaxies are MUCH less "fixed" than stars in the
Milky Way. They have relative velocities ranging up to a
substantial fraction of c.
Ancient astronomers thought some stars were "fixed", merely because
their VISIBLE motion is so small. We now know they are not "fixed" at all.
Proponents of "absolute motion" have NEVER presented a method to measure

dear roberts
you as usual throw smoke in the eye of the reader,

dear beda,
Although our Mr Roberts is not averse to throwing a bit of smoke,
or sometimes sand eh!, on this occasion most of what he says is correct,
so i advise you read again what he says carefully.

Post by beda pietanza
the polaris is changing its position so slow that it will take millennia to be substituted
in its funtion as a North pole reference, so for our purpose that is not a problem.
I don't know anyone that claims to use the distant star to measure the absolute speed

and that is because it can't be done beda.

dear old good keith,
SR does a very good job in doing without the absolute speed that make the rate of
the clock change, and wrongly claims that absolute doesn't exists or cannot be detect.
this is done at a terrible and disastrous conceptual confusion, anyways while at low speed
is correct just as Gal. Relativity, at high speed is useless (we will have a chance to talk about this)
please Keith read my replay to tom, you may change your opinion about the possibility to measure the
absolute speed of a inertial body.
by the way, accelerating a body step by step and between steps go inertial don't you think that will end up
knowing the final speed if you start with a low absolute terrestrial speed, ( according to you acceleration
is absolute therefore knowledgeable ??
friendly, keith
beda

Post by Keith Stein
It is easy to check if your velocity is changing beda. Use an
accelerometer eh!
keith stein

[[e-mail]]

What I am asking can me simpler. Assume 4 stars A, B, C, D. These stars have all got a non-zero velocity with respect to a hypothetical absolute frame of reference (HAFR).

Can we choose a set of stars that has a minimum velocity with respect to the HAFR. Can we use this set of reference stars to define a frame of reference that will be close to an absolute frame of reference, which will have a minimum velocity angular or otherwise relative to the HAFR and hence obtain a frame of reference that is close to absolute within some quantifiable limits?

* A *B


*C *D

[beda pietanza]

What I am asking can me simpler. Assume 4 stars A, B, C, D. These stars have all got a non-zero velocity with respect to a hypothetical absolute frame of reference (HAFR).
Can we choose a set of stars that has a minimum velocity with respect to the HAFR. Can we use this set of reference stars to define a frame of reference that will be close to an absolute frame of reference, which will have a minimum velocity angular or otherwise relative to the HAFR and hence obtain a frame of reference that is close to absolute within some quantifiable limits?
* A *B
*C *D

dear ge......,
premise before the answer:
a (frame?) of reference cannot be but local, by local I mean that it has to refer to the scale of the environment you are
analyzing .
if you are here close to the hearth your absolute local system will participate to the local cluster of close masses (solar system)
if you are away of the the solar system but into the Milk Way you absolute reference will partecipate to the movement of it
if you are in between the the Milk way and the Canis Major (25,000 light years from us) your reference will be affected by meanly
by the milky way, and canis major and less by some other close galaxy( further away ).
so, each local absolute reference point has its proper speed different from all the others (if you visualize in an abstract 3D space) all the different local absolute reference point in local space have all in common that the local speed of light in vacuum is c (not necessarily isotropic)
you will have the isotropic speed in a point in space only, if you are away from the effects of near masses or at least these effect is
negligible, in this special case, that point of space is meanly under the effect of all masses of the universe, in the other cases the local masses can have a relevant effect that combined with the effect of the entire universal masses determine the local properties of that absolute reference point in space, versus which the local speed of light is bound to travel at c (not isotropical), there also, and inertia of masses will be not isotropic

answer:
no, there is not a unique (frame?) that can be refered to 4 distant star or any star we can use the light from " fixed stars" using some procedures to determine the local absolute reference point, you better don't call it a frame, because we are here talking about how nature works not how various theory represent it (never confuse reality with one model of it)
any disagreement is welcome mostily, thanks for your punctual question,
cheers
beda
oversight to be corrected

[Odd Bodkin]

Post by ***@gmail.com
What I am asking can me simpler. Assume 4 stars A, B, C, D. These
stars have all got a non-zero velocity with respect to a hypothetical
absolute frame of reference (HAFR).

Since you can’t detect observationally this HAFR, the best you would be
able to do is try to find four stars A,B,C,D that are not moving relative
to each other. (Good luck with that.) You might then SUPPOSE some HAFR that
happens to be at rest relative to these stars.

But since you found those four (presuming success there), then it might be
possible to find four more stars E,F,G,H that are also at rest relative to
each other. But it’s also very likely that the set E,F,G,H is moving (as a
set) relative to the set A,B,C,D. So then you’d be faced with a choice.
Which set should the HAFR be locked to? And what on earth would make one
more favorable than the other?

Post by ***@gmail.com
Can we choose a set of stars that has a minimum velocity with respect to
the HAFR. Can we use this set of reference stars to define a frame of
reference that will be close to an absolute frame of reference, which
will have a minimum velocity angular or otherwise relative to the HAFR
and hence obtain a frame of reference that is close to absolute within
some quantifiable limits?
* A *B
*C *D

[[e-mail]]

Post by Odd Bodkin

What I am asking can me simpler. Assume 4 stars A, B, C, D. These
stars have all got a non-zero velocity with respect to a hypothetical
absolute frame of reference (HAFR).

Since you can’t detect observationally this HAFR, the best you would be
able to do is try to find four stars A,B,C,D that are not moving relative
to each other. (Good luck with that.) You might then SUPPOSE some HAFR that
happens to be at rest relative to these stars.

Ok, so let's do away with the HAFR for the moment. If the 4 star reference frame is far enough away from the earth, we could use that as a frame of reference for motion distant from those stars since the angular velocity will be very small: ie any movement measured against those far away stars cannot be very different in magnitude from an absolute zero motion, can we say this?

[[e-mail]]

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-fast-is-the-earth-mov/

Have they solved it?

[beda pietanza]

Post by Odd Bodkin

What I am asking can me simpler. Assume 4 stars A, B, C, D. These
stars have all got a non-zero velocity with respect to a hypothetical
absolute frame of reference (HAFR).

Since you can’t detect observationally this HAFR, the best you would be
able to do is try to find four stars A,B,C,D that are not moving relative
to each other. (Good luck with that.) You might then SUPPOSE some HAFR that
happens to be at rest relative to these stars.

Ok, so let's do away with the HAFR for the moment. If the 4 star reference frame is far enough away from the earth, we could use that as a frame of reference for motion distant from those stars since the angular velocity will be very small: ie any movement measured against those far away stars cannot be very different in magnitude from an absolute zero motion, can we say this?

beda:
i have already answered your question, any absolute reference frame is local,
locality is scale related depend on how large is the area and the masses involved.
for us the relevant mass is the hearth, away in the solar system is the sun, away from
the sun is the galaxy and so on at each step, the local absolute reference frame is participating
to the general motion of its surroundings, an absolute reference frame, at any scale, is never at rest in
a abstract absolute 3D space.
the 3D space is useful to us, to have a global picture of the entire universe along with a universal
unique abstract time.
your link talk just about this, good link, thanks
let me know if you reach a personal conclusion on this question
cheers
beda

[Vaughn Ignatti]

in a abstract absolute 3D space.
the 3D space is useful to us, to have a global picture of the entire
universe along with a universal unique abstract time.
your link talk just about this, good link, thanks let me know if you
reach a personal conclusion on this question cheers beda

good post. But crazy as it sounds, it might be true. That's why I always
pay maximal attention at crazy things.

The messenger is a former FBI. They are about to release that kraken. It
appears that the UK want it's colony, corporate america, back. The
america, still not a country, but mostly a lying, own interest fascist
corporate corporation, now turned into bio-terrorists. They want it back.
To UK.

President of Italy Arrested? US Counterattacks Against NATO? Ten Days of
Darkness Begin Today
https://www.bitchute.com/video/XPb25u9Sqtze/

Spoken Like a True Bioterrorist
https://153news.net/watch_video.php?v=3WUDUR72AHG9

[Odd Bodkin]

Post by ***@gmail.com

Post by Odd Bodkin

What I am asking can me simpler. Assume 4 stars A, B, C, D. These
stars have all got a non-zero velocity with respect to a hypothetical
absolute frame of reference (HAFR).

Since you can’t detect observationally this HAFR, the best you would be
able to do is try to find four stars A,B,C,D that are not moving relative
to each other. (Good luck with that.) You might then SUPPOSE some HAFR that
happens to be at rest relative to these stars.

Ok, so let's do away with the HAFR for the moment. If the 4 star
reference frame is far enough away from the earth, we could use that as a
frame of reference for motion distant from those stars since the angular
velocity will be very small: ie any movement measured against those far
away stars cannot be very different in magnitude from an absolute zero
motion, can we say this?

Since the choice of stars was arbitrary, the most you could say is that the
motion is relative to these stars. There is nothing special about these
stars other than human choice and therefore nothing special about the frame
tied to them and nothing special about the motion relative to them.

[Maciej Wozniak]

Post by Odd Bodkin
Since the choice of stars was arbitrary, the most you could say is that the
motion is relative to these stars. There is nothing special about these
stars other than human choice

Odd, poor idiot, there would be no physics if humans didn't
choose to create it. A poor choice, of course.

[[e-mail]]

Post by Odd Bodkin
Since the choice of stars was arbitrary, the most you could say is that the
motion is relative to these stars. There is nothing special about these
stars other than human choice and therefore nothing special about the frame
tied to them and nothing special about the motion relative to them.
--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Since the stars are so far away, using these as a reference since movement will be close to absolute motion against this frame. Can we say this?

[Odd Bodkin]

Post by ***@gmail.com

Post by Odd Bodkin
Since the choice of stars was arbitrary, the most you could say is that the
motion is relative to these stars. There is nothing special about these
stars other than human choice and therefore nothing special about the frame
tied to them and nothing special about the motion relative to them.
--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Since the stars are so far away, using these as a reference since
movement will be close to absolute motion against this frame. Can we say this?

That depends. For angular motions, the further away things are, significant
translational speeds get diluted down. But keep in mind the speed of stars
around the center of the rotating galaxy is about 150 km per second! (The
speed of sound at the surface of the earth is about 0.3 km per second, so
stars are traveling at Mach 450!)

Moreover, angular motion is insensitive to radial motion. Here the story is
flipped. For stars outside our galaxy, on the whole, the further the star
is from us, the FASTER it is moving radially with respect to us. Those
stars aren’t visible without a telescope, so make no difference to ship
navigators or casual observers.

The other thing to note is that if you look up in the sky at, say, Saturn,
you’ll be able to see it with the unaided eye. But you won’t be able to see
it moving with respect to the stars, no longer how late you stay up that
night staring at it. But the motion of the planets against the starry
background has been tracked for 5000 years at least. So you can’t just rely
on your habitual, everyday instincts about “if I can’t SEE it moving, then
I should be able to treat it as fixed.”

[Tom Roberts]

Post by ***@gmail.com
Since the stars are so far away, using these as a reference since
movement will be close to absolute motion against this frame. Can we
say this?

Only after you define what "absolute motion" means, and provide an
appropriate measurement procedure. To date, NOBODY has ever done so.
Around here, all people have given is examples of motion relative to
some set of objects, such as the stars you mention above.

Tom Roberts

[Maciej Wozniak]

Post by Tom Roberts

Post by ***@gmail.com
Since the stars are so far away, using these as a reference since
movement will be close to absolute motion against this frame. Can we
say this?

Only after you define what "absolute motion" means, and provide an
appropriate measurement procedure.

Your idiot guru didn't need it at all for his interval idiocy.

Post by Tom Roberts
To date, NOBODY has ever done so.
Around here, all people have given is examples of motion relative to
some set of objects, such as the stars you mention above.

And why do you think it can't be a definition of
abosolute motion?
BTW, observations prove all US citizens are supporting
Trump!!
But you don't? That only means you're not standard.

[Odd Bodkin]

Post by Tom Roberts

Post by ***@gmail.com
Since the stars are so far away, using these as a reference since
movement will be close to absolute motion against this frame. Can we
say this?

Only after you define what "absolute motion" means, and provide an
appropriate measurement procedure. To date, NOBODY has ever done so.
Around here, all people have given is examples of motion relative to
some set of objects, such as the stars you mention above.
Tom Roberts

Exactly. What you are doing Gehan is taking examples of motion RELATIVE TO
some reference objects, and then trying to characterize those objects as
being fixed in some sense (when they’re really not), just so that you can
then call the relative motion absolute motion.

[beda pietanza]

Post by Tom Roberts

Post by ***@gmail.com
Since the stars are so far away, using these as a reference since
movement will be close to absolute motion against this frame. Can we
say this?

Only after you define what "absolute motion" means, and provide an
appropriate measurement procedure. To date, NOBODY has ever done so.
Around here, all people have given is examples of motion relative to
some set of objects, such as the stars you mention above.
Tom Roberts

beda

absolute motion is versus the local space, the local space properties are determined by near masses
combined with the effect of all masses of the universe, the speed of light an the inertia (that influence
the speed of object (after being accelerate against local inertia))have by nature itself a reference on the local space

where and if, there are not near masses, then only the far masses count, and since the universe is averagely uniform
in all the direction, that point, is the place where the speed of light and inertia are really isotropic.

such a local place can be not at rest with another similar far away place, absolute ether reference point in local space
is not referred to the entire universe but to local scale of the masses involved.

said the above we can detect the local reference ether point with many empirical good enough approximate procedures

the light of far away star arriving to us, can be used locally, by triangulation, to give us an approximate measure of our absolute movement
versus our local reference point.

cheers
beda

[Tom Roberts]

absolute motion is versus the local space, [...]

So "absolute motion" is LOCAL. Don't you even THINK about what you write????

As usual, you give no hint of how to measure any sort of "motion versus
the local space", you only give vague notions about measuring relative
to local OBJECTS, or distant OBJECTS.

Tom Roberts

[beda pietanza]

Post by Tom Roberts

absolute motion is versus the local space, [...]

beda
sure I mean and repeat that the absolute motion of the light and the objects
is refered to the local point they are instantaneously traversing, the local point in space
have its characteristic set by the effect of local masses plus the effect of distant masses
when these combined effect are uniform from all the direction a observer at rest in that point
is at absolute rest.
different observers at rest in their local space, in distant point in space can be not at rest one vs the other,
you can have two objects swirling in a tornado, the two objects being at rest with their immediate surroundings
and yet, being fast moving vs each other.
so if the local space have a gravity gradient an object may follow that slope and be at rest locally
it is at rest vs its local space but not vs the privileged point where the gravity of local masses in null
this abstractly speaking, there may be not any point in space where the space is perfectly "flat", this does't
mean that the space where light and objects travel looses its influence on their behavior.
nevertheless I may in the past have written that the absolute movement is vs the rest of the universe, adding
that the universal masses determine the characteristic of the local "ether",
this can be imprecise, because to be more precise this effect take place from the largest scale of the totality of the universal masses
down to the smallest cluster of local masses, or vice versa from down up involving larger and larger masses,
the remaining fact is, that the local moving object and local moving light are affected by local gravity and local inertia
that, is the result of the action the "entire universe" scaling down its effects locally

Post by Tom Roberts
So "absolute motion" is LOCAL. Don't you even THINK about what you write????
As usual, you give no hint of how to measure any sort of "motion versus
the local space", you only give vague notions about measuring relative
to local OBJECTS, or distant OBJECTS.

tom.
sure there is a jargon problem, before any understanding we must have a common language
we have first to agree that in nature each object stand on its own vs the local space and vs the rest of the universe
that would be a good starting point.
another good starting point is the speed of light, we can use it as an absolute reference
an object vs another object as SR approach, is the physics of crashing cars, can never give us a full picture of all
simultaneously happenings of natural events in their mutual interaction complexity.
dear, tom I am not a physicist, so don't be so fussy about my wordings, be substantial
I am trying just to understand what is going on around us, you remember my starting point: it was a gut rebuttal
of the mixture of time and space that SR does, I made some progress, I feel that I have good arguments against
such a conceptual error now, I expect you to use as I do the common language so we can communicate better.
cheers
beda

Post by Tom Roberts
Tom Roberts

[Tom Roberts]

there is a jargon problem, before any understanding we must have common language

Yes. You keep making up new meanings for old words. I have no interest
in attempting to understand what you mean when you make stuff up. YOU
must learn basic physics, including its nomenclature. Until you sit down
and STUDY, you have NO HOPE WHATSOEVER of understanding this. Wasting
your time posting nonsense to the 'net is USELESS.

Tom Roberts

[Maciej Wozniak]

Post by Tom Roberts

there is a jargon problem, before any understanding we must have common language

Yes. You keep making up new meanings for old words.

Said a fanatic idiot redefining "second", "distance"
"confirmation" and many other words for the sake of
his moronic religion.

[Tom Roberts]

[...] You keep making up new meanings for old words.

Said a fanatic idiot redefining "second", "distance" "confirmation"
and many other words for the sake of his moronic religion.

1. This is not any religion, this is physics. It's sad that you do not
know the difference. I am not a "fanatic", and don't think I am the
idiot here.

2. It is not I who re-defined these words, it is the physics community
as a whole, metrologists, engineers, and science in general.

3. Changes in nomenclature (meanings of words) are inevitable in a field
that is constantly discovering and absorbing new information. This is
especially true when it is learned that old definitions involved
significant mistakes, even though they were not apparent for decades or
even centuries.

[For instance, it is quite clear that the rotation of the
earth is slowing down. So it is completely inappropriate
to define a unit of time by that rotation.]

Tom Roberts

[Maciej Wozniak]

Post by Tom Roberts

[...] You keep making up new meanings for old words.

Said a fanatic idiot redefining "second", "distance" "confirmation"
and many other words for the sake of his moronic religion.

1. This is not any religion, this is physics.

Whatever you're imagining, it's not excluding each other
It's sad that you do not

Post by Tom Roberts
know the difference. I am not a "fanatic", and don't think I am the
idiot here.

No idiot thinks he's an idiot. And no fanaic thinks he's a fanatic.

Post by Tom Roberts
2. It is not I who re-defined these words, it is the physics community
as a whole

Yes, it was a whole bunch of fanatic idiots like you.
Metrologist and engineers, however, clearly prefer
TAI/GPS second, that is non local and matches the
old definition within its tolerance margin (but outside
your definition's tolerance margin).

Post by Tom Roberts
3. Changes in nomenclature (meanings of words) are inevitable in a field
that is constantly discovering and absorbing new information.

It's just that they're not always successful.

Post by Tom Roberts
[For instance, it is quite clear that the rotation of the
earth is slowing down. So it is completely inappropriate
to define a unit of time by that rotation.]

It's also quite clear that Cs clocks run differently on the
ground and on an orbit, so your idiocy is inapropriate
as well. Well, for some reasons it's inapropriate much
more, but these reasons are outside of your tale.

[Ken Seto]

Post by Tom Roberts

Post by ***@gmail.com
Since the stars are so far away, using these as a reference since
movement will be close to absolute motion against this frame. Can we
say this?

Only after you define what "absolute motion" means, and provide an
appropriate measurement procedure. To date, NOBODY has ever done so.
Around here, all people have given is examples of motion relative to
some set of objects, such as the stars you mention above.

Absolute motion is that motion of an object in a stationary ether called the E-Matrix.
The results of the following past experiments are due to absolute motions:
1. The double slit experiment.
2. The Compton shift experiment.
3. The photoelectric experiment.

New proposed experiments to measure the absolute motion of the earth are proposed in
Chapter 5 of my book in the following link:
http://www.modelmechanics.org/2016ibook.pdf

[Tom Roberts]

[...] any movement measured against those far away stars cannot be
very different in magnitude from an absolute zero motion, can we say
this?

Not until you define what "absolute zero motion" means. To date, NOBODY
has been able to do so in such a way that it can be MEASURED. Without
being measurable it is USELESS in physics.

Tom Roberts

[Maciej Wozniak]

Post by Tom Roberts

[...] any movement measured against those far away stars cannot be
very different in magnitude from an absolute zero motion, can we say
this?

Not until you define what "absolute zero motion" means. To date, NOBODY
has been able to do so in such a way that it can be MEASURED. Without
being measurable it is USELESS in physics.

Sure! Like your interval idiocy.

[[e-mail]]

If you move yourself for your absolute world line order
what would be its relative. How many frames will you
use. Relativity does not work all of the way by having
more than one relative quantity result by going with
more frames....

Mitchell Raemsch

[Stone B Fusco]

If you move yourself for your absolute world line order what would be
its relative. How many frames will you use. Relativity does not work all
of the way by having more than one relative quantity result by going
with more frames....

Frames carrying might feel heavy, dropped on your toes.

[Keith Stein]

Post by beda pietanza

Post by Keith Stein

Post by beda pietanza

Post by Tom Roberts
1. There are no "fixed stars".
2. Stars visible from earth are part of the Milky Way galaxy,
WHICH IS ROTATING. There's nothing "fixed" about that.
3. Distant galaxies are MUCH less "fixed" than stars in the
Milky Way. They have relative velocities ranging up to a
substantial fraction of c.
Ancient astronomers thought some stars were "fixed", merely because
their VISIBLE motion is so small. We now know they are not "fixed" at all.
Proponents of "absolute motion" have NEVER presented a method to measure

dear roberts
you as usual throw smoke in the eye of the reader,

dear beda,
Although our Mr Roberts is not averse to throwing a bit of smoke,
or sometimes sand eh!, on this occasion most of what he says is correct,
so i advise you read again what he says carefully.

Post by beda pietanza
the polaris is changing its position so slow that it will take millennia to be substituted
in its funtion as a North pole reference, so for our purpose that is not a problem.
I don't know anyone that claims to use the distant star to measure the absolute speed

and that is because it can't be done beda.

dear old good keith,
SR does a very good job in doing without the absolute speed that make the rate of
the clock change, and wrongly claims that absolute doesn't exists or cannot be detect.
this is done at a terrible and disastrous conceptual confusion, anyways while at low speed
is correct just as Gal. Relativity, at high speed is useless (we will have a chance to talk about this)
please Keith read my replay to tom, you may change your opinion about the possibility to measure the
absolute speed of a inertial body.
by the way, accelerating a body step by step and between steps go inertial don't you think that will end up
knowing the final speed if you start with a low absolute terrestrial speed, ( according to you acceleration
is absolute therefore knowledgeable ??
friendly, keith
beda

My dear young beda,
SR did not do any sort of a good job, beda. It is a damn fool theory.
The velocity of light is NOT constant relative to all inertial frames
of reference, it couldn't be, and there are no SR time dilations.t'= t
The velocity of light waves, just like the velocity of all waves, is
relative to the medium/matter/stuff they are traveling though. I don't
expect you to believe any of this beda, but that is what i believe eh!
SR did not do away with absolute speed. There was no absolute speed in
classical physics either, and i beda am a classical physicist, maybe the
very last one eh! :)
keith stein

Post by beda pietanza

Post by Keith Stein
It is easy to check if your velocity is changing beda. Use an
accelerometer eh!
keith stein

[beda pietanza]

Post by Keith Stein

Post by beda pietanza

Post by Keith Stein

Post by beda pietanza

Post by Tom Roberts
1. There are no "fixed stars".
2. Stars visible from earth are part of the Milky Way galaxy,
WHICH IS ROTATING. There's nothing "fixed" about that.
3. Distant galaxies are MUCH less "fixed" than stars in the
Milky Way. They have relative velocities ranging up to a
substantial fraction of c.
Ancient astronomers thought some stars were "fixed", merely because
their VISIBLE motion is so small. We now know they are not "fixed" at all.
Proponents of "absolute motion" have NEVER presented a method to measure

dear roberts
you as usual throw smoke in the eye of the reader,

dear beda,
Although our Mr Roberts is not averse to throwing a bit of smoke,
or sometimes sand eh!, on this occasion most of what he says is correct,
so i advise you read again what he says carefully.

Post by beda pietanza
the polaris is changing its position so slow that it will take millennia to be substituted
in its funtion as a North pole reference, so for our purpose that is not a problem.
I don't know anyone that claims to use the distant star to measure the absolute speed

and that is because it can't be done beda.

dear old good keith,
SR does a very good job in doing without the absolute speed that make the rate of
the clock change, and wrongly claims that absolute doesn't exists or cannot be detect.
this is done at a terrible and disastrous conceptual confusion, anyways while at low speed
is correct just as Gal. Relativity, at high speed is useless (we will have a chance to talk about this)
please Keith read my replay to tom, you may change your opinion about the possibility to measure the
absolute speed of a inertial body.
by the way, accelerating a body step by step and between steps go inertial don't you think that will end up
knowing the final speed if you start with a low absolute terrestrial speed, ( according to you acceleration
is absolute therefore knowledgeable ??
friendly, keith
beda

My dear young beda,
SR did not do any sort of a good job, beda. It is a damn fool theory.
The velocity of light is NOT constant relative to all inertial frames

beda:
frames belong to SR, for me there is only one reference to which to local speed of light
is moving, that is the local space, and if the local space is situated near masses
light is travelling not isotropical, it is different for each possible direction

Post by Keith Stein
of reference, it couldn't be, and there are no SR time dilations.t'= t

beda:
if we accept the lorentz contraction (I don't believe it happens as Lorentz thought)
a light clock would change its rate
affected by its absolute movement versus the local space,
we have to make some some assumptions upon which we build our reasoning.

Post by Keith Stein
The velocity of light waves, just like the velocity of all waves, is
relative to the medium/matter/stuff they are traveling though. I don't
expect you to believe any of this beda, but that is what i believe eh!

beda:
you close to be correct, I would rephrase as: the speed of light is affected by
the local gravity of local masses, and obviously by the matter is traversing

Post by Keith Stein
SR did not do away with absolute speed. There was no absolute speed in
classical physics either, and i beda am a classical physicist, maybe the
very last one eh! :)

beda:
keep on as you wish, I say my opinion, we have evidence of the two way
speed of light (measureble with one clock) that gives a constant result
with a local clock, this is explained perfectly with c-v one way forth and c+v the
one way back, this is a experimental confirmed point to start to understand the whole
issue about light speed,
keith, I am kind of a old man as I suppose you are, we enjoy talking about these issues,
what a bore it would be if we agreed to often, the joy comes following a worked out
agreement
cheers
beda

Post by Keith Stein
keith stein

Post by beda pietanza

Post by Keith Stein
It is easy to check if your velocity is changing beda. Use an
accelerometer eh!
keith stein

[Michael Moroney]

Post by beda pietanza
keep on as you wish, I say my opinion, we have evidence of the two way
speed of light (measureble with one clock) that gives a constant result
with a local clock, this is explained perfectly with c-v one way forth
and c+v the one way back, this is a experimental confirmed point to start
to understand the whole issue about light speed,

I hope you realize that if light takes the speed c-v one way and c+v on
the return trip, the average round trip time is NOT c, but instead will
be related to sqrt(c²-v²) and will ALWAYS be less than c. (unless v=0)
Consider the river/swimmer example in this thread and what happens when
the swimmer swims both with and against the current. His average speed
will NOT be his still water swimming speed!

This is, indirectly, what the M-M experiment was looking for, and why it
failed.

[Wess Bay]

Post by Michael Moroney
Consider the river/swimmer example in this thread and what happens when
the swimmer swims both with and against the current. His average speed
will NOT be his still water swimming speed!

why not, in theory? what he looses one way is won the way back home. Are
you stupid?

[beda pietanza]

Post by Michael Moroney

Post by beda pietanza
keep on as you wish, I say my opinion, we have evidence of the two way
speed of light (measureble with one clock) that gives a constant result
with a local clock, this is explained perfectly with c-v one way forth
and c+v the one way back, this is a experimental confirmed point to start
to understand the whole issue about light speed,

I hope you realize that if light takes the speed c-v one way and c+v on
the return trip, the average round trip time is NOT c, but instead will
be related to sqrt(c²-v²) and will ALWAYS be less than c. (unless v=0)

beda:
perfect,you got half of the point correctly, for a unity of distance B/F speed of light
is sqrt(c²-v²), the other half comes from using the local clock that because of
its speed (v) is slowed down just so, to match the reduced speed of the two ways of the light
travel time, here the figures:
a ruler 1ls rest if is going at speed .5 c reduceses its lenght to .866ls
travel forth .866/(1-.5)=1.73s
travel back .866/(1+.5)=.5773...s
b/f total travel time =1.73+.5773...=2.307....s
the local clock will read as: b/f time time rate at rest =1; its time rate at .5c is reduced to .866
therefore it will read an elapsed time 2.307*.866=2s
apparently the b/f two ways is constant c at all possible (v) that is just a local illusion of
the local observer, the absolute two ways travel time is 2*sqrt(1-v^2)/sqrt(c²-v²), and the absolute b/f time of the clock is
2*sqrt(1-v^2)/sqrt(c²-v²)*sqrt(1-v^2)= 2.307.... for v= .5 c; local clock =2
2*sqrt(1-v^2)/sqrt(c²-v²)*sqrt(1-v^2)= 2.5... .for v= ,6c ; local clock =2
2*sqrt(1-v^2)/sqrt(c²-v²)*sqrt(1-v^2)= 3.3333.. for v=.8 ; local clock =2
this is valid for all possible speed of the ruler
in a SR frame local clock is reading 2 for any speed
the preferred observer sees an absolute time of 2*sqrt(1-v^2)/sqrt(c²-v²)*sqrt(1-v^2) = 2/sqrt(1-v^2)
many SRist don't realize this, they falsely claim one way local speed is c for all (v)

Post by Michael Moroney
Consider the river/swimmer example in this thread and what happens when
the swimmer swims both with and against the current. His average speed
will NOT be his still water swimming speed!

beda
the river doesn't contract, the b/f travel time for a swimmer at c would 2.307....(whatever unit)

Post by Michael Moroney
This is, indirectly, what the M-M experiment was looking for, and why it
failed.

beda:
that is a jumping conclusion of your, what you are saying fits perfectly with what we have described above
but I'am not perfectly sure if can be applied to MM exp as so.
cheers
beda

[Keith Stein]

Post by Michael Moroney

Post by beda pietanza
keep on as you wish, I say my opinion, we have evidence of the two way
speed of light (measureble with one clock) that gives a constant result
with a local clock, this is explained perfectly with c-v one way forth
and c+v the one way back, this is a experimental confirmed point to start
to understand the whole issue about light speed,

I hope you realize that if light takes the speed c-v one way and c+v on
the return trip, the average round trip time is NOT c, but instead will
be related to sqrt(c²-v²) and will ALWAYS be less than c. (unless v=0)
Consider the river/swimmer example in this thread and what happens when
the swimmer swims both with and against the current. His average speed
will NOT be his still water swimming speed!
This is, indirectly, what the M-M experiment was looking for, and why it
failed.

A better analogy would be to a swimmer in a swimming pool on a ship
which is traveling at v towards you standing on the pier. Your analogy
of a swimmer in a river is NOT anything like what happens in the M-M
experiment, or indeed to what happens in a two way determination of the
speed of light. There is of course no aether/medium flowing though the
laboratory where the experiment is carried out. The equipment and the
medium are all moving at the same velocity v, and the speed of light is
indeed c-v one way, c+v the other, and the average speed IS c, as Beda
suggests, Michael.

keith stein

[Michael Moroney]

Post by Keith Stein

Post by Michael Moroney

Post by beda pietanza
keep on as you wish, I say my opinion, we have evidence of the two way
speed of light (measureble with one clock) that gives a constant result
with a local clock, this is explained perfectly with c-v one way forth
and c+v the one way back, this is a experimental confirmed point to start
to understand the whole issue about light speed,

I hope you realize that if light takes the speed c-v one way and c+v on
the return trip, the average round trip time is NOT c, but instead will
be related to sqrt(c²-v²) and will ALWAYS be less than c. (unless v=0)
Consider the river/swimmer example in this thread and what happens when
the swimmer swims both with and against the current. His average speed
will NOT be his still water swimming speed!
This is, indirectly, what the M-M experiment was looking for, and why it
failed.

A better analogy would be to a swimmer in a swimming pool on a ship
which is traveling at v towards you standing on the pier.

You never mention HOW the ship with the pool could be relevant, but let's
go with it. Most importantly is not to frame jump.

There are multiple inertial frames here, the shore, the ship, the water in
the pool (if moving) and the swimmer. Assuming the water in the pool is
stationary wrt the ship and the ship moves faster than the swimmer can
swim, consider what happens as the ship passes a stationary (relative to
the shore) buoy. If the swimmer is swimming against the direction of the
ship as it passes the buoy, the swimmer can NEVER swim fast enough to pass
the buoy even if the pool was long enough! If the ship was moving slower
than the swimmer, it will take the swimmer less time to swim between two
closely spaced buoys in the direction of the ship's motion than to swim
the same distance against the ship's motion. Remember we're using the
ground frame here and NOT the ship's frame (such as ends of the pool)
otherwise one could consider the ship stationary and the buoys and shore
observer can be ignored. NO FRAME JUMPING!!!

Post by Keith Stein
Your analogy
of a swimmer in a river is NOT anything like what happens in the M-M
experiment, or indeed to what happens in a two way determination of the
speed of light.

It most certainly is! They were looking for a fringe shift caused by
interference between one beam of light moving at c at right angles to
the aether and moving at sqrt(c²-v²) in the direction of the aether
(c+v "downwind" and c-v "upwind", total speed sqrt(c²-v²)).
There was no fringe shift, because light happened to move at c in all
directions.

Post by Keith Stein
There is of course no aether/medium flowing though the
laboratory where the experiment is carried out.

Which was eventually the conclusion of real scientists.

Post by Keith Stein
The equipment and the
medium are all moving at the same velocity v, and the speed of light is
indeed c-v one way, c+v the other, and the average speed IS c, as Beda
suggests, Michael.

Nope. Do the math (if you can, probably not). If it moves at c+v one
way and c-v the reverse direction, you'll get sqrt(c²-v²).

Beda is confused as he assumes part of SR is true to (try to) disprove
SR.

[Maciej Wozniak]

Nope. Do the math (if you can, probably not). If it moves at c+v one
way and c-v the reverse direction, you'll get sqrt(c²-v²).

Unless some inflation takes place, stupid Mike.

[Keith Stein]

Post by Michael Moroney

Post by Keith Stein

Post by Michael Moroney
I hope you realize that if light takes the speed c-v one way and c+v on
the return trip, the average round trip time is NOT c, but instead will
be related to sqrt(c²-v²) and will ALWAYS be less than c. (unless v=0)
Consider the river/swimmer example in this thread and what happens when
the swimmer swims both with and against the current. His average speed
will NOT be his still water swimming speed!
This is, indirectly, what the M-M experiment was looking for, and why it
failed.

A better analogy would be to a swimmer in a swimming pool on a ship
which is traveling at v towards you standing on the pier.

You never mention HOW the ship with the pool could be relevant, but let's
go with it. Most importantly is not to frame jump.
There are multiple inertial frames here, the shore, the ship, the water in
the pool (if moving) and the swimmer. Assuming the water in the pool is
stationary wrt the ship and the ship moves faster than the swimmer can
swim, consider what happens as the ship passes a stationary (relative to
the shore) buoy. If the swimmer is swimming against the direction of the
ship as it passes the buoy, the swimmer can NEVER swim fast enough to pass
the buoy even if the pool was long enough! If the ship was moving slower
than the swimmer, it will take the swimmer less time to swim between two
closely spaced buoys in the direction of the ship's motion than to swim
the same distance against the ship's motion. Remember we're using the
ground frame here and NOT the ship's frame (such as ends of the pool)
otherwise one could consider the ship stationary and the buoys and shore
observer can be ignored. NO FRAME JUMPING!!!

Post by Keith Stein
Your analogy
of a swimmer in a river is NOT anything like what happens in the M-M
experiment, or indeed to what happens in a two way determination of the
speed of light.

It most certainly is! They were looking for a fringe shift caused by
interference between one beam of light moving at c at right angles to
the aether and moving at sqrt(c²-v²) in the direction of the aether
(c+v "downwind" and c-v "upwind", total speed sqrt(c²-v²)).
There was no fringe shift, because light happened to move at c in all
directions.

Post by Keith Stein
There is of course no aether/medium flowing though the
laboratory where the experiment is carried out.

Which was eventually the conclusion of real scientists.

Post by Keith Stein
The equipment and the
medium are all moving at the same velocity v, and the speed of light is
indeed c-v one way, c+v the other, and the average speed IS c, as Beda
suggests, Michael.

Nope. Do the math (if you can, probably not). If it moves at c+v one
way and c-v the reverse direction, you'll get sqrt(c²-v²).

What i said previously was correct Mr.Moroney. The mirrors in the MMX
are analogous to the ends of the swimming pool. The mirrors and the
medium travel at a common velocity, just as the water in the pool
and the ends of the swimming bath travel at a common velocity.

The time to swim the length of the pool is independent of the speed
of the ship, just as the time for light to travel between the mirrors
is independent of the speed of the Earth.

keith stein


.

[beda pietanza]

Post by Michael Moroney

Post by Keith Stein

Post by Michael Moroney

Post by beda pietanza
keep on as you wish, I say my opinion, we have evidence of the two way
speed of light (measureble with one clock) that gives a constant result
with a local clock, this is explained perfectly with c-v one way forth
and c+v the one way back, this is a experimental confirmed point to start
to understand the whole issue about light speed,

I hope you realize that if light takes the speed c-v one way and c+v on
the return trip, the average round trip time is NOT c, but instead will
be related to sqrt(c²-v²) and will ALWAYS be less than c. (unless v=0)
Consider the river/swimmer example in this thread and what happens when
the swimmer swims both with and against the current. His average speed
will NOT be his still water swimming speed!
This is, indirectly, what the M-M experiment was looking for, and why it
failed.

A better analogy would be to a swimmer in a swimming pool on a ship
which is traveling at v towards you standing on the pier.

You never mention HOW the ship with the pool could be relevant, but let's
go with it. Most importantly is not to frame jump.
There are multiple inertial frames here, the shore, the ship, the water in
the pool (if moving) and the swimmer. Assuming the water in the pool is
stationary wrt the ship and the ship moves faster than the swimmer can
swim, consider what happens as the ship passes a stationary (relative to
the shore) buoy. If the swimmer is swimming against the direction of the
ship as it passes the buoy, the swimmer can NEVER swim fast enough to pass
the buoy even if the pool was long enough! If the ship was moving slower
than the swimmer, it will take the swimmer less time to swim between two
closely spaced buoys in the direction of the ship's motion than to swim
the same distance against the ship's motion. Remember we're using the
ground frame here and NOT the ship's frame (such as ends of the pool)
otherwise one could consider the ship stationary and the buoys and shore
observer can be ignored. NO FRAME JUMPING!!!

Post by Keith Stein
Your analogy
of a swimmer in a river is NOT anything like what happens in the M-M
experiment, or indeed to what happens in a two way determination of the
speed of light.

It most certainly is! They were looking for a fringe shift caused by
interference between one beam of light moving at c at right angles to
the aether and moving at sqrt(c²-v²) in the direction of the aether
(c+v "downwind" and c-v "upwind", total speed sqrt(c²-v²)).
There was no fringe shift, because light happened to move at c in all
directions.

Post by Keith Stein
There is of course no aether/medium flowing though the
laboratory where the experiment is carried out.

Which was eventually the conclusion of real scientists.

Post by Keith Stein
The equipment and the
medium are all moving at the same velocity v, and the speed of light is
indeed c-v one way, c+v the other, and the average speed IS c, as Beda
suggests, Michael.

Nope. Do the math (if you can, probably not). If it moves at c+v one
way and c-v the reverse direction, you'll get sqrt(c²-v²).

beda:
right on. the back and forth is sqrt(c²-v²)
in the case of .5c (speed of the SR frame), the ruler is shortened, to sqrt(1-v^2)
light travel goes as:
; the two ways is 2 sqrt(1-v^2)/sqrt(c²-v²)= 2*.866/.75=2.309....
1/sqrt(1-v2)= 1.1546...the so call the Lorentz factor (the factor of the dilatation time of the local clock)
2.309/1.1546=2 read on the local clock, this gives rise to the local observer the illusion that the speed of light
in his frame is c, the esynchro gives him the illusion that one way light travel is c forth and c back.
the outside observer at rest in local space , instead, sees c+v and c-v, two ways 2.309 ..unit of time

Post by Michael Moroney
Beda is confused as he assumes part of SR is true to (try to) disprove
SR.

beda:
SR and its math is coherent on the paper, but nature operate with absolute objects
with absolute attributes, SR by deny this, produce a terrible conceptual confusion because SR is , of course, as anything that
applies to nature embedded in the absoluteness of nature, beside this very important point, SR math when applied at reality
as good as galilean relativity at low speeds, at high speed the applicable physical laws are, yet, to be defined, for that the
accelerators are for.
cheers
beda

[rotchm]

SR and its math is coherent on the paper, but nature operate with absolute objects

No matter how nature operates, SR correctly predicts what we observe.
No matter the "causes" or "reality", SR correctly predicts what we observe.
Fairies, god, absolute, ethers... won't change SR's predictions. Won't change the math.

with absolute attributes, SR by deny this,

No, SR does not deny it. SR makes no use of it [absolute], and we don't need it [absolute].
We don't need 'absolutes' to make the correct predictions.

Why invoke things that we do not need, nor can observe/measure?
It [absolute] is not necessary and overkill.

SR predicts what is actually observable, and that is what is important; not fairies.

[Maciej Wozniak]

SR and its math is coherent on the paper, but nature operate with absolute objects

No matter how nature operates, SR correctly predicts what we observe.
No matter the "causes" or "reality", SR correctly predicts what we observe.

A lie, as expected from a fanatic idiot. We can observe
(GPS) that real time (as defined by your idiot guru himself)
is galilean, with the precision of an acceptable error.

Fairies, god, absolute, ethers... won't change SR's predictions. Won't change the math.

Only gurus (like Riemann and others) can change math.
Fairies? Amusing.

[rotchm]

Post by Maciej Wozniak

No matter how nature operates, SR correctly predicts what we observe.
No matter the "causes" or "reality", SR correctly predicts what we observe.

A lie, as expected from a fanatic idiot.

A lie from The Fanatic trash called Wozniak.
The Wozniak trash fears reality. He denies reality, denies the results of experiments.
Then, wozniak becomes jealous of all the success of others.

[Maciej Wozniak]

Post by rotchm

Post by Maciej Wozniak

No matter how nature operates, SR correctly predicts what we observe.
No matter the "causes" or "reality", SR correctly predicts what we observe.

A lie, as expected from a fanatic idiot.

A lie from The Fanatic trash called Wozniak.
The Wozniak trash fears reality. He denies reality, denies the results of experiments.
Then, wozniak becomes jealous of all the success of others.

Rave and spit, poor halfbrain; in the meantime, in the real world,
the clocks of GPS keep indicating t'=t, just like serious clocks
always did, completely ignoring your countless porsches
(and a BMW motorbike).

[rotchm]

Post by Maciej Wozniak

Post by rotchm
A lie from The Fanatic trash called Wozniak.
The Wozniak trash fears reality. He denies reality, denies the results of experiments.
Then, wozniak becomes jealous of all the success of others.

; in the meantime, in the real world,
the clocks of GPS keep indicating t'=t,

Nope, you are a reality denier.

Post by Maciej Wozniak
just like serious clocks always did, completely ignoring your
countless porsches (and a BMW motorbike).

You're just jealous. (and btw, I bought a top class electric motor bike this year, just to try out/ for fun).
If you would start to believe in reality and act consequently then you two can make a lot of easy money and then buy yourself a few things. But you are not smart enough so you are stuck where you are.

[Maciej Wozniak]

Post by rotchm

Post by Maciej Wozniak

Post by rotchm
A lie from The Fanatic trash called Wozniak.
The Wozniak trash fears reality. He denies reality, denies the results of experiments.
Then, wozniak becomes jealous of all the success of others.

; in the meantime, in the real world,
the clocks of GPS keep indicating t'=t,

Nope, you are a reality denier.

Yes and it's you being a reality denier.

Post by rotchm
You're just jealous. (and btw, I bought a top class electric motor bike this year, just to try out/ for fun).
If you would start to believe in reality and act consequently then you two can make a lot of easy money and then buy yourself a few things. But you are not smart enough so you are stuck where you are.

But your president Trump was obviously much, much
smarter than you are, wasn't he?

[Keith Stein]

Post by beda pietanza

Post by Keith Stein

Post by beda pietanza
dear old good keith,
SR does a very good job in doing without the absolute speed that make the rate of
the clock change, and wrongly claims that absolute doesn't exists or cannot be detect.
this is done at a terrible and disastrous conceptual confusion, anyways while at low speed
is correct just as Gal. Relativity, at high speed is useless (we will have a chance to talk about this)
please Keith read my replay to tom, you may change your opinion about the possibility to measure the
absolute speed of a inertial body.
by the way, accelerating a body step by step and between steps go inertial don't you think that will end up
knowing the final speed if you start with a low absolute terrestrial speed, ( according to you acceleration
is absolute therefore knowledgeable ??
friendly, keith
beda

My dear young beda,
SR did not do any sort of a good job, beda. It is a damn fool theory.
The velocity of light is NOT constant relative to all inertial frames

frames belong to SR, for me there is only one reference to which to local speed of light
is moving, that is the local space, and if the local space is situated near masses
light is travelling not isotropical, it is different for each possible direction

I don't agree beda. The speed of light is relative to the stuff it
travels through. Air, water, glass, hydrogen, whatever, and i would
not expect it's velocity to be affected by near masses, except in so
far as they effect the density of the medium.

Post by beda pietanza

Post by Keith Stein
of reference, it couldn't be, and there are no SR time dilations.t'= t

if we accept the lorentz contraction

Well i don't of course.

(I don't believe it happens as Lorentz thought)

Post by beda pietanza
a light clock would change its rate
affected by its absolute movement versus the local space,
we have to make some some assumptions upon which we build our reasoning.

Indeed and i take the simple, and traditional, view, that clocks
and lengths are totally unaffected by the velocity of the observer eh!

Post by beda pietanza

Post by Keith Stein
The velocity of light waves, just like the velocity of all waves, is
relative to the medium/matter/stuff they are traveling though. I don't
expect you to believe any of this beda, but that is what i believe eh!

you close to be correct, I would rephrase as: the speed of light is affected by
the local gravity of local masses, and obviously by the matter is traversing

Post by Keith Stein
SR did not do away with absolute speed. There was no absolute speed in
classical physics either, and i beda am a classical physicist, maybe the
very last one eh! :)

keep on as you wish, I say my opinion, we have evidence of the two way
speed of light (measureble with one clock) that gives a constant result
with a local clock, this is explained perfectly with c-v one way forth and c+v the
one way back, this is a experimental confirmed point to start to understand the whole
issue about light speed,
keith, I am kind of a old man as I suppose you are, we enjoy talking about these issues,
what a bore it would be if we agreed to often, the joy comes following a worked out
agreement
cheers
beda

Right you are old man.

keith stein

Post by beda pietanza

Post by Keith Stein

Post by beda pietanza

Post by Keith Stein
It is easy to check if your velocity is changing beda. Use an
accelerometer eh!
keith stein

[RichD]

Post by Tom Roberts

Post by ***@gmail.com
It occured to me that you could measure absolute motion against fixed
stars.

1. There are no "fixed stars".
2. Stars visible from earth are part of the Milky Way galaxy,
WHICH IS ROTATING. There's nothing "fixed" about that.
3. Distant galaxies are MUCH less "fixed" than stars in the
Milky Way.

This raises a question regarding rotation.

We now have a very good map of the observable universe. We see
larger and larger rotating structures; the sun revolves around the Milky Way,
which is part of a rotating cluster, etc. A hierarchy of such structures.
Have astronomers determined the largest rotating structures, below the
level of the entire universe? Is there a theoretical upper limit?

—
Rich

[Jim Buggs]

Post by RichD

Post by Tom Roberts
1. There are no "fixed stars".
2. Stars visible from earth are part of the Milky Way galaxy,
WHICH IS ROTATING. There's nothing "fixed" about that.
3. Distant galaxies are MUCH less "fixed" than stars in the Milky Way.

This raises a question regarding rotation.
We now have a very good map of the observable universe. We see larger
and larger rotating structures; the sun revolves around the Milky Way,
which is part of a rotating cluster, etc. A hierarchy of such
structures.
Have astronomers determined the largest rotating structures, below the
level of the entire universe? Is there a theoretical upper limit?

Loads of words saying nothen. Try making your questions shorter. Upper
limits not applies to *rotation*. How could it.

[Ken Seto]

Post by beda pietanza
all movements are relative, this is a correct sentence,
it tells us how two objects relatively moving would
affected each other in case of mutual interaction.
absolute movement tells us the attitude of a moving
object to give back the kinetic energy it has accumulate
when it has been accelerated to his actual speed, this
accumulated is potentially ready to be given back in any
possible way, through any possible interaction with any
possible object (or radiation) of the rest of the universe.
the absolute movement of a moving object and the
absolute potential kinetic energy it carries, is referred
to the local space, to what all local objects absolutely
moving refer to.
nothing prevents us to refer, all local objects, to any other
reference point in space or to any physical object, then
all the absolute movement convert to a relative movement
to that conventionally chosen point,
still they conserve intact their absolute potentiality versus the local
space.
when and if two of these objects come to interact then
we correctly can and must use their relative motion
to make prevision on their eventual reciprocal interaction.
there are physical object traveling in space for millennials
carrying their absolute original kinetic energy, waiting for
interactions to give it back.

No, every object in our universe is in a state of absolute motion in a stationary aether called the E-Matrix occupying all of space.
Relative motion between two objects A and B is the vector difference of their absolute motions along the line joining them.
BTW, all the forces of nature and all the interactions of nature are the result of absolute motions of objects in the E-Matrix.

[Emr Tupanes]

Post by Ken Seto

there are physical object traveling in space for millennials carrying
their absolute original kinetic energy, waiting for interactions to
give it back.

No, every object in our universe is in a state of absolute motion in a
stationary aether called the E-Matrix occupying all of space.
Relative motion between two objects A and B is the vector difference of
their absolute motions along the line joining them.
BTW, all the forces of nature and all the interactions of nature are the
result of absolute motions of objects in the E-Matrix.

Purely hypothetical, or not even.

[beda pietanza]

Post by Emr Tupanes

Post by Ken Seto

there are physical object traveling in space for millennials carrying
their absolute original kinetic energy, waiting for interactions to
give it back.

No, every object in our universe is in a state of absolute motion in a
stationary aether called the E-Matrix occupying all of space.
Relative motion between two objects A and B is the vector difference of
their absolute motions along the line joining them.
BTW, all the forces of nature and all the interactions of nature are the
result of absolute motions of objects in the E-Matrix.

beda:
absolute motion implies absolute kinetic energy accumulate versus the reference
structure whatever it is
dear ken,
to me your e-matrix looks like the common ether
if not, what is , in short, the difference?
cheers
beda

Post by Emr Tupanes
Purely hypothetical, or not even.

[Ken Seto]

Post by beda pietanza

Post by Ken Seto

there are physical object traveling in space for millennials carrying
their absolute original kinetic energy, waiting for interactions to
give it back.

No, every object in our universe is in a state of absolute motion in a
stationary aether called the E-Matrix occupying all of space.
Relative motion between two objects A and B is the vector difference of
their absolute motions along the line joining them.
BTW, all the forces of nature and all the interactions of nature are the
result of absolute motions of objects in the E-Matrix.

absolute motion implies absolute kinetic energy accumulate versus the reference
structure whatever it is
dear ken,
to me your e-matrix looks like the common ether
if not, what is , in short, the difference?

The E=Matrix is indeed a structured and elastic aether. The unique structure of the E-Matrix enabled me to unify all the forces of nature and at the rest frame of the E-Matrix the speed of light is isotopic. Please read the paper in the following link:

[Ken Seto]

Post by beda pietanza

Post by Ken Seto

there are physical object traveling in space for millennials carrying
their absolute original kinetic energy, waiting for interactions to
give it back.

No, every object in our universe is in a state of absolute motion in a
stationary aether called the E-Matrix occupying all of space.
Relative motion between two objects A and B is the vector difference of
their absolute motions along the line joining them.
BTW, all the forces of nature and all the interactions of nature are the
result of absolute motions of objects in the E-Matrix.

absolute motion implies absolute kinetic energy accumulate versus the reference
structure whatever it is
dear ken,
to me your e-matrix looks like the common ether
if not, what is , in short, the difference?

http://www.modelmechanics.org/2019unification.pdf

[Jim Buths]

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Ken Seto

Post by beda pietanza
absolute motion implies absolute kinetic energy accumulate versus the
reference structure whatever it is dear ken,
to me your e-matrix looks like the common ether if not, what is , in
short, the difference?

The E=Matrix is indeed a structured and elastic aether. The unique
structure of the E-Matrix enabled me to unify all the forces of nature
and at the rest frame of the E-Matrix the speed of light >is isotropic.

http://www.modelmechanics.org/2019unification.pdf

Been there, done that. Come back when you have a tachyon oriented viable
theory, and stop asking questions till then. No, math algebra is not
mandatory, but you have to have something making plausible neural
connections into your brain. Ludicrous neural connections not good.

[Ken Seto]

Post by Jim Buths

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Ken Seto

Post by beda pietanza
absolute motion implies absolute kinetic energy accumulate versus the
reference structure whatever it is dear ken,
to me your e-matrix looks like the common ether if not, what is , in
short, the difference?

The E=Matrix is indeed a structured and elastic aether. The unique
structure of the E-Matrix enabled me to unify all the forces of nature
and at the rest frame of the E-Matrix the speed of light >is isotropic.

http://www.modelmechanics.org/2019unification.pdf

Been there, done that. Come back when you have a tachyon oriented viable
theory, and stop asking questions till then. No, math algebra is not
mandatory, but you have to have something making plausible neural
connections into your brain. Ludicrous neural connections not good.

You have done nothing.
Tachyon doesn’t exist in my theory.
I developed experiments how to measure absolute motion in Chapter 5 of my book
in the following link:
http://www.modelmechanics.org/2016ibook.pdf

[Michael Moroney]

Post by Ken Seto
The E=Matrix is indeed a structured and elastic aether. The unique
structure of the E-Matrix enabled me to unify all the forces of nature
and at the rest frame of the E-Matrix the speed of light is isotropic.

Repeating assertions doesn't make your assertions not assertions, Stupid
Ken. No matter how often.

[Ken Seto]

Post by Michael Moroney

Post by Ken Seto
The E=Matrix is indeed a structured and elastic aether. The unique
structure of the E-Matrix enabled me to unify all the forces of nature
and at the rest frame of the E-Matrix the speed of light is isotropic.

Repeating assertions doesn't make your assertions not assertions, Stupid
Ken. No matter how often.

Moron, Chapter 5 of my book is devoted to experiments to measure the
absolute motion of the earth.Gee you are so fucking stupid no wonder your name is
Moron_y
http://www.modelmechanics.org/2016ibook.

[Michael Moroney]

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Michael Moroney

Post by Ken Seto
The E=Matrix is indeed a structured and elastic aether. The unique
structure of the E-Matrix enabled me to unify all the forces of nature
and at the rest frame of the E-Matrix the speed of light is isotropic.

Repeating assertions doesn't make your assertions not assertions, Stupid
Ken. No matter how often.

Moron, Chapter 5 of my book is devoted to experiments to measure the
absolute motion of the earth.

If those experiments are merely proposed, then your assertions remain as
assertions. It's not until any such experiments are performed and the
results are compared to predictions of both SR and your Muddle Mechanics
that we can say anything about absolute motion.

Oh wait! Your Muddle Mechanics makes no predictions! No examples, no
math, no way for a scientist to take a Muddle Mechanics math formula,
plug some numbers in corresponding to an experiment he wishes to try
to see what your Muddle Mechanics would predict as an outcome!! That's
because your failed Muddle Mechanics has no examples, no formulas, no
math!!! No wonder your failed Muddle Mechanics is such a total disaster!!

[Ken Seto]

Post by Michael Moroney

Post by Ken Seto
The E=Matrix is indeed a structured and elastic aether. The unique
structure of the E-Matrix enabled me to unify all the forces of nature
and at the rest frame of the E-Matrix the speed of light is isotropic.

Repeating assertions doesn't make your assertions not assertions, Stupid
Ken. No matter how often.

Moron......

[Irv Cogan]

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Michael Moroney

Post by Ken Seto
The E=Matrix is indeed a structured and elastic aether. The unique
structure of the E-Matrix enabled me to unify all the forces of
nature and at the rest frame of the E-Matrix the speed of light is
isotropic.

Repeating assertions doesn't make your assertions not assertions,
Stupid Ken. No matter how often.

Moron......

No, morony is consistent. You can't have both elastic and rigid anything,
let alone the aether. Your *structured* implies *rigid*, without which
you have no structure. You relativists eugenicists are stupid to a vast
extent.

Geoengineering Plus Experimental Biological Vaccines, Depopulation Is
Real & We Are The Experiment!
https://153news.net/watch_video.php?v=D8NDBWX5XG2B

[Ken Seto]

Post by Irv Cogan

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Michael Moroney

Post by Ken Seto
The E=Matrix is indeed a structured and elastic aether. The unique
structure of the E-Matrix enabled me to unify all the forces of
nature and at the rest frame of the E-Matrix the speed of light is
isotropic.

Repeating assertions doesn't make your assertions not assertions,
Stupid Ken. No matter how often.

Moron......

No, morony is consistent. You can't have both elastic and rigid anything,
let alone the aether. Your *structured* implies *rigid*, without which
you have no structure. You relativists eugenicists are stupid to a vast
extent.

Sigh.....idiot, I didn’t claim elastic and rigid. You can have flexible structure.

Post by Irv Cogan
Geoengineering Plus Experimental Biological Vaccines, Depopulation Is
Real & We Are The Experiment!
https://153news.net/watch_video.php?v=D8NDBWX5XG2B

[Odd Bodkin]

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Irv Cogan

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Michael Moroney

Post by Ken Seto
The E=Matrix is indeed a structured and elastic aether. The unique
structure of the E-Matrix enabled me to unify all the forces of
nature and at the rest frame of the E-Matrix the speed of light is
isotropic.

Repeating assertions doesn't make your assertions not assertions,
Stupid Ken. No matter how often.

Moron......

No, morony is consistent. You can't have both elastic and rigid anything,
let alone the aether. Your *structured* implies *rigid*, without which
you have no structure. You relativists eugenicists are stupid to a vast
extent.

Sigh.....idiot, I didn’t claim elastic and rigid. You can have flexible structure.

The speed of a signal transmission in a structure is related to the square
root of its stiffness. Or, if you like, the stiffness goes like the square
of the speed.

Now, notice that the speed of light is about a million times the speed of
sound in air. This means the rigidity of the ether supporting light would
need to be a million million times that of air. A trillion times stiffer
than air!

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Irv Cogan
Geoengineering Plus Experimental Biological Vaccines, Depopulation Is
Real & We Are The Experiment!
https://153news.net/watch_video.php?v=D8NDBWX5XG2B

[Keith Stein]

Post by Odd Bodkin

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Irv Cogan

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Michael Moroney

Post by Ken Seto
The E=Matrix is indeed a structured and elastic aether. The unique
structure of the E-Matrix enabled me to unify all the forces of
nature and at the rest frame of the E-Matrix the speed of light is
isotropic.

Repeating assertions doesn't make your assertions not assertions,
Stupid Ken. No matter how often.

Moron......

No, morony is consistent. You can't have both elastic and rigid anything,
let alone the aether. Your *structured* implies *rigid*, without which
you have no structure. You relativists eugenicists are stupid to a vast
extent.

Sigh.....idiot, I didn’t claim elastic and rigid. You can have flexible structure.

The speed of a signal transmission in a structure is related to the square
root of its stiffness. Or, if you like, the stiffness goes like the square
of the speed.
Now, notice that the speed of light is about a million times the speed of
sound in air. This means the rigidity of the ether supporting light would
need to be a million million times that of air. A trillion times stiffer
than air!

Surely no one believes that "light" IS "sound",, so your impressive
calculations for stiffness are not in the least relevant, Mr Bodkin,
not relevant to the transmission of light waves i think.
Certainly not on Maxwell's e-m theory,it is not relevant, and not even
on Mr.Seto's E-matrix nonsense, i wouldn't have thought...

keith stein

[Odd Bodkin]

Post by Keith Stein

Post by Odd Bodkin

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Irv Cogan

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Michael Moroney

Post by Ken Seto
The E=Matrix is indeed a structured and elastic aether. The unique
structure of the E-Matrix enabled me to unify all the forces of
nature and at the rest frame of the E-Matrix the speed of light is
isotropic.

Repeating assertions doesn't make your assertions not assertions,
Stupid Ken. No matter how often.

Moron......

No, morony is consistent. You can't have both elastic and rigid anything,
let alone the aether. Your *structured* implies *rigid*, without which
you have no structure. You relativists eugenicists are stupid to a vast
extent.

Sigh.....idiot, I didn’t claim elastic and rigid. You can have flexible structure.

The speed of a signal transmission in a structure is related to the square
root of its stiffness. Or, if you like, the stiffness goes like the square
of the speed.
Now, notice that the speed of light is about a million times the speed of
sound in air. This means the rigidity of the ether supporting light would
need to be a million million times that of air. A trillion times stiffer
than air!

Surely no one believes that "light" IS "sound",, so your impressive
calculations for stiffness are not in the least relevant, Mr Bodkin,

Well, the problem is that this stiffness-velocity relation applies to ANY
waves supported by ANY material medium, whether that is a ripple on a rope
or sound in a steel bar or a surface wave on a liquid. You maintain that
light is a wave of this type.

Saying that light is not sound does not offer the miraculous “out” you are
hoping for.

Post by Keith Stein
not relevant to the transmission of light waves i think.
Certainly not on Maxwell's e-m theory,it is not relevant, and not even
on Mr.Seto's E-matrix nonsense, i wouldn't have thought...
keith stein

[Keith Stein]

Post by Odd Bodkin

Post by Keith Stein
Surely no one believes that "light" IS "sound",, so your impressive
calculations for stiffness are not in the least relevant, Mr Bodkin,

Well, the problem is that this stiffness-velocity relation applies to ANY
waves supported by ANY material medium, whether that is a ripple on a rope
or sound in a steel bar or a surface wave on a liquid. You maintain that
light is a wave of this type.

Certainly NOT Mr.Bodkin. There is a BIG DIFFERENCE with LIGHT WAVES,
when light waves pass through a medium the nuclei of the atoms which
make up that medium DO NOT MOVE... light waves pass so quickly that
the heavy nuclei have essentially no time to respond, although the
electrons of the atoms which make up the medium no doubt would respond..

What you should note however Mr.Bodkin is that unlike in all your waves,
the nuclei of the atoms making up the medium for light waves are
unaffected by light waves, very unlike all your waves Mr.Bodkin.

Post by Odd Bodkin
Saying that light is not sound does not offer the miraculous “out” you are
hoping for.

You can be very naive at times,Mr. Bodkin, maybe you are indeed a
"chippy" eh! for it is surely obvious to any physicist that Maxwell's
electromagnetic waves are not sound type waves.. Silly arguement you
makes Mr.Bodkin.

keith stein

[Michael Moroney]

Post by Keith Stein

Post by Odd Bodkin

Post by Keith Stein
Surely no one believes that "light" IS "sound",, so your impressive
calculations for stiffness are not in the least relevant, Mr Bodkin,

Well, the problem is that this stiffness-velocity relation applies to ANY
waves supported by ANY material medium, whether that is a ripple on a rope
or sound in a steel bar or a surface wave on a liquid. You maintain that
light is a wave  of this type.

Certainly NOT Mr.Bodkin. There is a BIG DIFFERENCE with LIGHT WAVES,
when light waves pass through a medium the nuclei of the atoms which
make up that medium DO NOT MOVE...

So you are claiming a thin gas is extremely stiff. Umm, OK.

Post by Keith Stein
light waves pass so quickly that
the heavy nuclei have essentially no time to respond, although the
electrons of the atoms which make up the medium no doubt would respond..

Now it's not so stiff, so the light would be slowed substantially.

Post by Keith Stein
What you should note however Mr.Bodkin is that unlike in all your waves,
the nuclei of the atoms making up the medium for light waves are
unaffected by light waves, very unlike all your waves Mr.Bodkin.

The nuclei don't have charge so they are unaffected? Wouldn't they be
affected according to their charge and inversely to their mass compared
to the electron?

Post by Keith Stein

Post by Odd Bodkin
Saying that light is not sound does not offer the miraculous  “out”
you are
hoping for.

You can be very naive at times,Mr. Bodkin, maybe you are indeed a
"chippy" eh! for it is surely obvious to any physicist that Maxwell's
electromagnetic waves are not sound type waves..  Silly arguement you
makes Mr.Bodkin.

Odd explicitly stated the stiffness requirement applies to ALL waves,
not just sound waves. That's just one reason why real physicists state
light has many wavelike properties but it's not actually a wave.

[Odd Bodkin]

Post by Keith Stein

Post by Odd Bodkin

Post by Keith Stein
Surely no one believes that "light" IS "sound",, so your impressive
calculations for stiffness are not in the least relevant, Mr Bodkin,

Well, the problem is that this stiffness-velocity relation applies to ANY
waves supported by ANY material medium, whether that is a ripple on a rope
or sound in a steel bar or a surface wave on a liquid. You maintain that
light is a wave of this type.

Certainly NOT Mr.Bodkin. There is a BIG DIFFERENCE with LIGHT WAVES,
when light waves pass through a medium the nuclei of the atoms which
make up that medium DO NOT MOVE... light waves pass so quickly that
the heavy nuclei have essentially no time to respond, although the
electrons of the atoms which make up the medium no doubt would respond..

In which case, Mr Stein, those atoms cannot serve as the constituents of a
material medium that supports the wave.

Certainly the medium that Maxwell envisaged DID move back and forth with
the oscillations of the wave. Now you are saying that the matter that the
light passes through does NOT move back and forth with the wave. And so you
are disavowing your own claim that Maxwell’s oscillating medium was the
matter the light passed through.

Now, I did notice the rather sloppy evasion about whether it is the
electrons or the nuclei that move. If it is electrons that do in fact move,
there is still that stiffness/velocity relation that applies.

Have you looked by any chance at Feynman’s classical treatment of EM waves?

Post by Keith Stein
What you should note however Mr.Bodkin is that unlike in all your waves,
the nuclei of the atoms making up the medium for light waves are
unaffected by light waves, very unlike all your waves Mr.Bodkin.

Post by Odd Bodkin
Saying that light is not sound does not offer the miraculous “out” you are
hoping for.

You can be very naive at times,Mr. Bodkin, maybe you are indeed a
"chippy" eh! for it is surely obvious to any physicist that Maxwell's
electromagnetic waves are not sound type waves.. Silly arguement you
makes Mr.Bodkin.
keith stein

[Keith Stein]

Post by Odd Bodkin

Post by Keith Stein

Post by Odd Bodkin

Post by Keith Stein
Surely no one believes that "light" IS "sound",, so your impressive
calculations for stiffness are not in the least relevant, Mr Bodkin,

Well, the problem is that this stiffness-velocity relation applies to ANY
waves supported by ANY material medium, whether that is a ripple on a rope
or sound in a steel bar or a surface wave on a liquid. You maintain that
light is a wave of this type.

Certainly NOT Mr.Bodkin. There is a BIG DIFFERENCE with LIGHT WAVES,
when light waves pass through a medium the nuclei of the atoms which
make up that medium DO NOT MOVE... light waves pass so quickly that
the heavy nuclei have essentially no time to respond, although the
electrons of the atoms which make up the medium no doubt would respond..

In which case, Mr Stein, those atoms cannot serve as the constituents of a
material medium that supports the wave.

I have never claimed, or believed, that the atoms of the medium
oscillate at the frequency of the light passing through the
medium, Mr Bodkin. All i claim is that the medium determines
the speed of light in the medium, and that speed is relative
to the medium.

Post by Odd Bodkin
Certainly the medium that Maxwell envisaged DID move back and forth with
the oscillations of the wave.

I don't believe for a moment that Maxwell envisaged
atoms in the medium oscillating, and he certainly
does not say that in any of the four volumes of his
"Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism", where his
only specific examples of media where "air" and
"paraffin wax".

Post by Odd Bodkin
Now you are saying that the matter that the
light passes through does NOT move back and forth with the wave. And so you
are disavowing your own claim that Maxwell’s oscillating medium was the
matter the light passed through.

Maxwell does not say the air or paraffin wax acting
as medium "moves back and forth with the wave" and
i doubt not that was because he didn't believe it
did, any more than i do.

Post by Odd Bodkin
Now, I did notice the rather sloppy evasion about whether it is the
electrons or the nuclei that move. If it is electrons that do in fact move,
there is still that stiffness/velocity relation that applies.

No Mr.Bodkin, there is no mechanical oscillation
with light waves, and for sure they have different
rules to sound, other matter waves.

Post by Odd Bodkin
Have you looked by any chance at Feynman’s classical treatment of EM waves?

Not recently.

Post by Odd Bodkin

Post by Keith Stein
What you should note however Mr.Bodkin is that unlike in all your waves,
the nuclei of the atoms making up the medium for light waves are
unaffected by light waves, very unlike all your waves Mr.Bodkin.

Post by Odd Bodkin
Saying that light is not sound does not offer the miraculous “out” you are
hoping for.

You can be very naive at times,Mr. Bodkin, maybe you are indeed a
"chippy" eh! for it is surely obvious to any physicist that Maxwell's
electromagnetic waves are not sound type waves.. Silly arguement you
makes Mr.Bodkin.
keith stein

[Ken Seto]

Post by Odd Bodkin

Post by Keith Stein

Post by Odd Bodkin

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Irv Cogan

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Michael Moroney

Post by Ken Seto
The E=Matrix is indeed a structured and elastic aether. The unique
structure of the E-Matrix enabled me to unify all the forces of
nature and at the rest frame of the E-Matrix the speed of light is
isotropic.

Repeating assertions doesn't make your assertions not assertions,
Stupid Ken. No matter how often.

Moron......

No, morony is consistent. You can't have both elastic and rigid anything,
let alone the aether. Your *structured* implies *rigid*, without which
you have no structure. You relativists eugenicists are stupid to a vast
extent.

Sigh.....idiot, I didn’t claim elastic and rigid. You can have flexible structure.

The speed of a signal transmission in a structure is related to the square
root of its stiffness. Or, if you like, the stiffness goes like the square
of the speed.
Now, notice that the speed of light is about a million times the speed of
sound in air. This means the rigidity of the ether supporting light would
need to be a million million times that of air. A trillion times stiffer
than air!

Surely no one believes that "light" IS "sound",, so your impressive
calculations for stiffness are not in the least relevant, Mr Bodkin,

Well, the problem is that this stiffness-velocity relation applies to ANY
waves supported by ANY material medium, whether that is a ripple on a rope
or sound in a steel bar or a surface wave on a liquid. You maintain that
light is a wave of this type.

The speed of light is observer dependent.....so how do you get the speed of light to be not observer dependent?

Post by Odd Bodkin
Saying that light is not sound does not offer the miraculous “out” you are
hoping for.

Post by Keith Stein
not relevant to the transmission of light waves i think.
Certainly not on Maxwell's e-m theory,it is not relevant, and not even
on Mr.Seto's E-matrix nonsense, i wouldn't have thought...
keith stein

--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[Michael Moroney]

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Odd Bodkin

Post by Keith Stein

Post by Odd Bodkin

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Irv Cogan

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Michael Moroney

Post by Ken Seto
The E=Matrix is indeed a structured and elastic aether. The unique
structure of the E-Matrix enabled me to unify all the forces of
nature and at the rest frame of the E-Matrix the speed of light is
isotropic.

Repeating assertions doesn't make your assertions not assertions,
Stupid Ken. No matter how often.

Moron......

No, morony is consistent. You can't have both elastic and rigid anything,
let alone the aether. Your *structured* implies *rigid*, without which
you have no structure. You relativists eugenicists are stupid to a vast
extent.

Sigh.....idiot, I didn’t claim elastic and rigid. You can have flexible structure.

The speed of a signal transmission in a structure is related to the square
root of its stiffness. Or, if you like, the stiffness goes like the square
of the speed.
Now, notice that the speed of light is about a million times the speed of
sound in air. This means the rigidity of the ether supporting light would
need to be a million million times that of air. A trillion times stiffer
than air!

Surely no one believes that "light" IS "sound",, so your impressive
calculations for stiffness are not in the least relevant, Mr Bodkin,

Well, the problem is that this stiffness-velocity relation applies to ANY
waves supported by ANY material medium, whether that is a ripple on a rope
or sound in a steel bar or a surface wave on a liquid. You maintain that
light is a wave of this type.

The speed of light is observer dependent.....so how do you get the speed of
light to be not observer dependent?

It is MEASURED to be not observer dependent, Stupid Ken! Measurements
that it is NOT observer dependent ALWAYS trump assertions, theory etc.
that it IS observer dependent.

[Maciej Wozniak]

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Odd Bodkin

Post by Keith Stein

Post by Odd Bodkin

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Irv Cogan

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Michael Moroney

Post by Ken Seto
The E=Matrix is indeed a structured and elastic aether. The unique
structure of the E-Matrix enabled me to unify all the forces of
nature and at the rest frame of the E-Matrix the speed of light is
isotropic.

Repeating assertions doesn't make your assertions not assertions,
Stupid Ken. No matter how often.

Moron......

No, morony is consistent. You can't have both elastic and rigid anything,
let alone the aether. Your *structured* implies *rigid*, without which
you have no structure. You relativists eugenicists are stupid to a vast
extent.

Sigh.....idiot, I didn’t claim elastic and rigid. You can have flexible structure.

The speed of a signal transmission in a structure is related to the square
root of its stiffness. Or, if you like, the stiffness goes like the square
of the speed.
Now, notice that the speed of light is about a million times the speed of
sound in air. This means the rigidity of the ether supporting light would
need to be a million million times that of air. A trillion times stiffer
than air!

Surely no one believes that "light" IS "sound",, so your impressive
calculations for stiffness are not in the least relevant, Mr Bodkin,

Well, the problem is that this stiffness-velocity relation applies to ANY
waves supported by ANY material medium, whether that is a ripple on a rope
or sound in a steel bar or a surface wave on a liquid. You maintain that
light is a wave of this type.

The speed of light is observer dependent.....so how do you get the speed of
light to be not observer dependent?

It is MEASURED to be not observer dependent, Stupid Ken! Measurements
that it is NOT observer dependent ALWAYS trump assertions, theory etc.
that it IS observer dependent.

Stupid Mike, have you ever heard of erros in measurement?

[Odd Bodkin]

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Odd Bodkin

Post by Keith Stein

Post by Odd Bodkin

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Irv Cogan

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Michael Moroney

Post by Ken Seto
The E=Matrix is indeed a structured and elastic aether. The unique
structure of the E-Matrix enabled me to unify all the forces of
nature and at the rest frame of the E-Matrix the speed of light is
isotropic.

Repeating assertions doesn't make your assertions not assertions,
Stupid Ken. No matter how often.

Moron......

No, morony is consistent. You can't have both elastic and rigid anything,
let alone the aether. Your *structured* implies *rigid*, without which
you have no structure. You relativists eugenicists are stupid to a vast
extent.

Sigh.....idiot, I didn’t claim elastic and rigid. You can have flexible structure.

The speed of a signal transmission in a structure is related to the square
root of its stiffness. Or, if you like, the stiffness goes like the square
of the speed.
Now, notice that the speed of light is about a million times the speed of
sound in air. This means the rigidity of the ether supporting light would
need to be a million million times that of air. A trillion times stiffer
than air!

Surely no one believes that "light" IS "sound",, so your impressive
calculations for stiffness are not in the least relevant, Mr Bodkin,

Well, the problem is that this stiffness-velocity relation applies to ANY
waves supported by ANY material medium, whether that is a ripple on a rope
or sound in a steel bar or a surface wave on a liquid. You maintain that
light is a wave of this type.

The speed of light is observer dependent...

1. No observational evidence supports that claim. It has NEVER been
observed to be observer dependent.

2. The comment has nothing at all to do with the relation between wave
speed and material stiffness.

Post by Ken Seto
so how do you get the speed of light to be not observer dependent?

Post by Odd Bodkin
Saying that light is not sound does not offer the miraculous “out” you are
hoping for.

Post by Keith Stein
not relevant to the transmission of light waves i think.
Certainly not on Maxwell's e-m theory,it is not relevant, and not even
on Mr.Seto's E-matrix nonsense, i wouldn't have thought...
keith stein

--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[Ken Seto]

Post by Odd Bodkin

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Odd Bodkin

Post by Keith Stein

Post by Odd Bodkin

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Irv Cogan

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Michael Moroney

Post by Ken Seto
The E=Matrix is indeed a structured and elastic aether. The unique
structure of the E-Matrix enabled me to unify all the forces of
nature and at the rest frame of the E-Matrix the speed of light is
isotropic.

Repeating assertions doesn't make your assertions not assertions,
Stupid Ken. No matter how often.

Moron......

No, morony is consistent. You can't have both elastic and rigid anything,
let alone the aether. Your *structured* implies *rigid*, without which
you have no structure. You relativists eugenicists are stupid to a vast
extent.

Sigh.....idiot, I didn’t claim elastic and rigid. You can have flexible structure.

The speed of a signal transmission in a structure is related to the square
root of its stiffness. Or, if you like, the stiffness goes like the square
of the speed.
Now, notice that the speed of light is about a million times the speed of
sound in air. This means the rigidity of the ether supporting light would
need to be a million million times that of air. A trillion times stiffer
than air!

Surely no one believes that "light" IS "sound",, so your impressive
calculations for stiffness are not in the least relevant, Mr Bodkin,

Well, the problem is that this stiffness-velocity relation applies to ANY
waves supported by ANY material medium, whether that is a ripple on a rope
or sound in a steel bar or a surface wave on a liquid. You maintain that
light is a wave of this type.

The speed of light is observer dependent...

1. No observational evidence supports that claim. It has NEVER been
observed to be observer dependent.

Sigh.....speed is distance/second.
Since a second is not a universal interval of time, that means that you can’t have universal speed for any object (including light)..

Post by Odd Bodkin
2. The comment has nothing at all to do with the relation between wave
speed and material stiffness.

Post by Ken Seto
so how do you get the speed of light to be not observer dependent?

Post by Odd Bodkin
Saying that light is not sound does not offer the miraculous “out” you are
hoping for.

Post by Keith Stein
not relevant to the transmission of light waves i think.
Certainly not on Maxwell's e-m theory,it is not relevant, and not even
on Mr.Seto's E-matrix nonsense, i wouldn't have thought...
keith stein

--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[Odd Bodkin]

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Odd Bodkin

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Odd Bodkin

Post by Keith Stein

Post by Odd Bodkin

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Irv Cogan

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Michael Moroney

Post by Ken Seto
The E=Matrix is indeed a structured and elastic aether. The unique
structure of the E-Matrix enabled me to unify all the forces of
nature and at the rest frame of the E-Matrix the speed of light is
isotropic.

Repeating assertions doesn't make your assertions not assertions,
Stupid Ken. No matter how often.

Moron......

No, morony is consistent. You can't have both elastic and rigid anything,
let alone the aether. Your *structured* implies *rigid*, without which
you have no structure. You relativists eugenicists are stupid to a vast
extent.

Sigh.....idiot, I didn’t claim elastic and rigid. You can have flexible structure.

The speed of a signal transmission in a structure is related to the square
root of its stiffness. Or, if you like, the stiffness goes like the square
of the speed.
Now, notice that the speed of light is about a million times the speed of
sound in air. This means the rigidity of the ether supporting light would
need to be a million million times that of air. A trillion times stiffer
than air!

Surely no one believes that "light" IS "sound",, so your impressive
calculations for stiffness are not in the least relevant, Mr Bodkin,

Well, the problem is that this stiffness-velocity relation applies to ANY
waves supported by ANY material medium, whether that is a ripple on a rope
or sound in a steel bar or a surface wave on a liquid. You maintain that
light is a wave of this type.

The speed of light is observer dependent...

1. No observational evidence supports that claim. It has NEVER been
observed to be observer dependent.

Sigh.....speed is distance/second.
Since a second is not a universal interval of time, that means that you
can’t have universal speed for any object (including light)..

Sorry, but I look at observational evidence, not “arguments” from people
who know no physics. Ishtar speed has never been observed to be observer
dependent.

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Odd Bodkin
2. The comment has nothing at all to do with the relation between wave
speed and material stiffness.

Post by Ken Seto
so how do you get the speed of light to be not observer dependent?

Post by Odd Bodkin
Saying that light is not sound does not offer the miraculous “out” you are
hoping for.

Post by Keith Stein
not relevant to the transmission of light waves i think.
Certainly not on Maxwell's e-m theory,it is not relevant, and not even
on Mr.Seto's E-matrix nonsense, i wouldn't have thought...
keith stein

--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[Ken Seto]

Post by Odd Bodkin

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Odd Bodkin

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Odd Bodkin

Post by Keith Stein

Post by Odd Bodkin

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Irv Cogan

On Thursday, January 7, 2021 at 11:45:54 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney

Post by Michael Moroney

Post by Ken Seto
The E=Matrix is indeed a structured and elastic aether. The unique
structure of the E-Matrix enabled me to unify all the forces of
nature and at the rest frame of the E-Matrix the speed of light is
isotropic.

Repeating assertions doesn't make your assertions not assertions,
Stupid Ken. No matter how often.

Moron......

No, morony is consistent. You can't have both elastic and rigid anything,
let alone the aether. Your *structured* implies *rigid*, without which
you have no structure. You relativists eugenicists are stupid to a vast
extent.

Sigh.....idiot, I didn’t claim elastic and rigid. You can have flexible structure.

The speed of a signal transmission in a structure is related to the square
root of its stiffness. Or, if you like, the stiffness goes like the square
of the speed.
Now, notice that the speed of light is about a million times the speed of
sound in air. This means the rigidity of the ether supporting light would
need to be a million million times that of air. A trillion times stiffer
than air!

Surely no one believes that "light" IS "sound",, so your impressive
calculations for stiffness are not in the least relevant, Mr Bodkin,

Well, the problem is that this stiffness-velocity relation applies to ANY
waves supported by ANY material medium, whether that is a ripple on a rope
or sound in a steel bar or a surface wave on a liquid. You maintain that
light is a wave of this type.

The speed of light is observer dependent...

1. No observational evidence supports that claim. It has NEVER been
observed to be observer dependent.

Sigh.....speed is distance/second.
Since a second is not a universal interval of time, that means that you
can’t have universal speed for any object (including light)..

Sorry, but I look at observational evidence, not “arguments” from people
who know no physics. Ishtar speed has never been observed to be observer
dependent.

No such observational evidence.....it was an assumption.

Post by Odd Bodkin

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Odd Bodkin
2. The comment has nothing at all to do with the relation between wave
speed and material stiffness.

Post by Ken Seto
so how do you get the speed of light to be not observer dependent?

Post by Odd Bodkin
Saying that light is not sound does not offer the miraculous “out” you are
hoping for.

Post by Keith Stein
not relevant to the transmission of light waves i think.
Certainly not on Maxwell's e-m theory,it is not relevant, and not even
on Mr.Seto's E-matrix nonsense, i wouldn't have thought...
keith stein

--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

[Odd Bodkin]

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Odd Bodkin

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Odd Bodkin

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Odd Bodkin

Post by Keith Stein

Post by Odd Bodkin

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Irv Cogan

On Thursday, January 7, 2021 at 11:45:54 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney

Post by Michael Moroney

Post by Ken Seto
The E=Matrix is indeed a structured and elastic aether. The unique
structure of the E-Matrix enabled me to unify all the forces of
nature and at the rest frame of the E-Matrix the speed of light is
isotropic.

Repeating assertions doesn't make your assertions not assertions,
Stupid Ken. No matter how often.

Moron......

No, morony is consistent. You can't have both elastic and rigid anything,
let alone the aether. Your *structured* implies *rigid*, without which
you have no structure. You relativists eugenicists are stupid to a vast
extent.

Sigh.....idiot, I didn’t claim elastic and rigid. You can have flexible structure.

The speed of a signal transmission in a structure is related to the square
root of its stiffness. Or, if you like, the stiffness goes like the square
of the speed.
Now, notice that the speed of light is about a million times the speed of
sound in air. This means the rigidity of the ether supporting light would
need to be a million million times that of air. A trillion times stiffer
than air!

Surely no one believes that "light" IS "sound",, so your impressive
calculations for stiffness are not in the least relevant, Mr Bodkin,

Well, the problem is that this stiffness-velocity relation applies to ANY
waves supported by ANY material medium, whether that is a ripple on a rope
or sound in a steel bar or a surface wave on a liquid. You maintain that
light is a wave of this type.

The speed of light is observer dependent...

1. No observational evidence supports that claim. It has NEVER been
observed to be observer dependent.

Sigh.....speed is distance/second.
Since a second is not a universal interval of time, that means that you
can’t have universal speed for any object (including light)..

Sorry, but I look at observational evidence, not “arguments” from people
who know no physics. Ishtar speed has never been observed to be observer
dependent.

No such observational evidence.....

That’s what I said. There is NO observation of light speed being observer
dependent. “Arguments” that light speed is observer dependent, especially
from soggy noddles who know no physics, are not useful.

Post by Ken Seto
it was an assumption.

Post by Odd Bodkin

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Odd Bodkin
2. The comment has nothing at all to do with the relation between wave
speed and material stiffness.

Post by Ken Seto
so how do you get the speed of light to be not observer dependent?

Post by Odd Bodkin
Saying that light is not sound does not offer the miraculous “out” you are
hoping for.

Post by Keith Stein
not relevant to the transmission of light waves i think.
Certainly not on Maxwell's e-m theory,it is not relevant, and not even
on Mr.Seto's E-matrix nonsense, i wouldn't have thought...
keith stein

--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

[Maciej Wozniak]

Post by Odd Bodkin
That’s what I said. There is NO observation of light speed being observer
dependent.

Odd, you're a true idiot, no doubt. But still:
let's consider 2 twins A nand B and a supernova. At t=0 twins
are sitting together and supernova explodes in the distance
of 10ly from them. Light has to travel 10ly to reach them.
And if the light speed is observer independent, light should
reach A after 10 years elapsed on A's proper clocks and
B after 10 years elapsed on B's proper clocks. Do you
agree, Odd?

[Fedrico Balducci]

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Irv Cogan

Post by Ken Seto
Moron......

No, morony is consistent. You can't have both elastic and rigid anything,
let alone the aether. Your *structured* implies *rigid*, without which
you have no structure. You relativists eugenicists are stupid to a vast
extent.

Sigh.....idiot, I didn’t claim elastic and rigid. You can have flexible structure.

flexible structures are not structures, once you changed that internals
structure, under the microscope, it's an entire other structure. And you
can never go back to the initial structure. That's why structures has to
be rigid. A building, a bridge etc, all rigid. Actually there is a class
named "mechanic structures and elements". Also, _elements_ understood
rigid. Structures are made up by elements.

[Ken Seto]

Post by Fedrico Balducci

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Irv Cogan

Post by Ken Seto
Moron......

No, morony is consistent. You can't have both elastic and rigid anything,
let alone the aether. Your *structured* implies *rigid*, without which
you have no structure. You relativists eugenicists are stupid to a vast
extent.

Sigh.....idiot, I didn’t claim elastic and rigid. You can have flexible structure.

flexible structures are not structures, once you changed that internals
structure, under the microscope, it's an entire other structure. And you
can never go back to the initial structure. That's why structures has to
be rigid. A building, a bridge etc, all rigid. Actually there is a class
named “mechanic structured in all directions.es and elements”. Also, _elements_ understood
rigid. Structures are made up by elements.gs

The E-Matrix is composed of elastic E-Strings and the structure of the E-Stings are oriented in all directions. The geometries of the E-String are affected by the motion of material objects within it. I don’t see what is your problem.

[Ken Seto]

Post by Fedrico Balducci

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Irv Cogan

Post by Ken Seto
Moron......

No, morony is consistent. You can't have both elastic and rigid anything,
let alone the aether. Your *structured* implies *rigid*, without which
you have no structure. You relativists eugenicists are stupid to a vast
extent.

Sigh.....idiot, I didn’t claim elastic and rigid. You can have flexible structure.

flexible structures are not structures,

Assertions are not a valid argument.

Post by Fedrico Balducci
once you changed that internals
structure, under the microscope, it’s an entire other structure.

The structure is recovered because the E-Strings are elastic. You need to read my theory carefully
before making unsupported arguments.

Post by Fedrico Balducci
And you
can never go back to the initial structure.

You can get back to the initial structure because the E-Strings are elastic.

Post by Fedrico Balducci
That's why structures has to
be rigid.

assertion is not a valid argument.

Post by Fedrico Balducci
A building, a bridge etc, all rigid. Actually there is a class
named "mechanic structures and elements". Also, _elements_ understood
rigid. Structures are made up by elements.

Sigh....we are not talking about buildings and bridges.

[Michael Moroney]

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Fedrico Balducci

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Irv Cogan

Post by Ken Seto
Moron......

No, morony is consistent. You can't have both elastic and rigid anything,
let alone the aether. Your *structured* implies *rigid*, without which
you have no structure. You relativists eugenicists are stupid to a vast
extent.

Sigh.....idiot, I didn’t claim elastic and rigid. You can have flexible structure.

flexible structures are not structures,

Assertions are not a valid argument.

So why do you keep making assertions, Stupid Ken?

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Fedrico Balducci
once you changed that internals
structure, under the microscope, it’s an entire other structure.

The structure is recovered because the E-Strings are elastic. You need to read my theory carefully
before making unsupported arguments.

Why do YOU keep making unsupported arguments, Stupid Ken?

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Fedrico Balducci
And you
can never go back to the initial structure.

You can get back to the initial structure because the E-Strings are elastic.

Post by Fedrico Balducci
That's why structures has to
be rigid.

assertion is not a valid argument.

So why do you keep making assertions, Stupid Ken?

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Fedrico Balducci
A building, a bridge etc, all rigid. Actually there is a class
named "mechanic structures and elements". Also, _elements_ understood
rigid. Structures are made up by elements.

Sigh....we are not talking about buildings and bridges.

[Ken Seto]

Post by Michael Moroney

Post by Ken Seto
The E=Matrix is indeed a structured and elastic aether. The unique
structure of the E-Matrix enabled me to unify all the forces of nature
and at the rest frame of the E-Matrix the speed of light is isotropic.

Repeating assertions doesn't make your assertions not assertions, Stupid
Ken. No matter how often.

Hey moron you don’t know the meaning of the word assertion. Go back to you moronic
daughter and figure to the solution of (-6/-2).

[Michael Moroney]

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Michael Moroney

Post by Ken Seto
The E=Matrix is indeed a structured and elastic aether. The unique
structure of the E-Matrix enabled me to unify all the forces of nature
and at the rest frame of the E-Matrix the speed of light is isotropic.

Repeating assertions doesn't make your assertions not assertions, Stupid
Ken. No matter how often.

Hey moron you don’t know the meaning of the word assertion.

"The E=Matrix is indeed a structured and elastic aether."

Since this EMatrix was never actually discovered nor detected, much less
shown to be "a structured and elastic aether", it is indeed an assertion.

"The unique structure of the E-Matrix enabled me to unify all the forces
of nature and at the rest frame of the E-Matrix the speed of light is
isotropic."

Ignoring the fact the Ematrix is itself an assertion, your claim to have
unified the forces of nature is also an assertion as you provide no
evidence. Since the Ematrix was never discovered nor detected, its
purported rest frame was never discovered nor detected either, so is
also an assertion.

Shall I go on? I think you are delusional, you cannot detect the
difference between reality and your own assertions.

Go back to you moronic

Post by Ken Seto
daughter and figure to the solution of (-6/-2).

My daughter will be going to college next year, already accepted into a
few colleges. Meanwhile, you *still* are unable to answer (-6/-2), and
you *still* try to project your failure onto us.

[Ken Seto]

Post by beda pietanza

Post by Ken Seto

there are physical object traveling in space for millennials carrying
their absolute original kinetic energy, waiting for interactions to
give it back.

No, every object in our universe is in a state of absolute motion in a
stationary aether called the E-Matrix occupying all of space.
Relative motion between two objects A and B is the vector difference of
their absolute motions along the line joining them.
BTW, all the forces of nature and all the interactions of nature are the
result of absolute motions of objects in the E-Matrix.

absolute motion implies absolute kinetic energy accumulate versus the reference
structure whatever it is
dear ken,
to me your e-matrix looks like the common ether
if not, what is , in short, the difference?
cheers
beda

[[e-mail]]

Real motion is absolute creating an opposite of appearance.
Begin to move in any way and you will observe that reality...


Infinity is in your way.

[Wyatt Hambaugh]

Real motion is absolute creating an opposite of appearance. Begin to
move in any way and you will observe that reality... Infinity is in
your way.

You wanna talk about vaccines, be my guest. I don't. There are no
vaccines. You are wasting your time.

Calling it a vaccine?
https://www.bitchute.com/video/a1bbR5lrsfbj/