From: Michael Moroney on
PD <thedraperfamily(a)gmail.com> writes:

>> Then why don't you give us an experiment that compares two clocks A
>> and B....where A is accumulating more clock seconds than B and at the
>> same time where B is accumulating more clock seconds than A.

>I've given you this experiment before, and I just mentioned it again.
>The lifetimes of decaying subatomic particles have been compared in
>just this fashion, and that is just one example.

Could you give a simplified explanation how that worked so that (maybe)
Ken could understand it? I am not familiar with this and I don't see
offhand how, for example, you could have a clock co-moving with a muon
beam measuring the lifetimes of stationary muons or something.
From: PD on
On Apr 26, 7:17 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
wrote:
> PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> writes:
> >> Then why don't you give us an experiment that compares two clocks A
> >> and B....where A is accumulating more clock seconds than B and at the
> >> same time where B is accumulating more clock seconds than A.
> >I've given you this experiment before, and I just mentioned it again.
> >The lifetimes of decaying subatomic particles have been compared in
> >just this fashion, and that is just one example.
>
> Could you give a simplified explanation how that worked so that (maybe)
> Ken could understand it? I am not familiar with this and I don't see
> offhand how, for example, you could have a clock co-moving with a muon
> beam measuring the lifetimes of stationary muons or something.

Did my recent post on this help?
From: kenseto on
On Apr 26, 1:38 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
wrote:
> kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> writes:
> >On Apr 22, 1:20 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
> >wrote:
> >> kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> writes:
> >> >> No, Ken, what YOU think are the properties of an absolute reference
> >> >> frame, are NOT the properties of the absolute reference frame.
> >> >assertion is not a valid arguement.
>
> >> So why do you keep asserting that inertial frames take on the property of
> >> some absolute frame which exists only in your mind, and which SR disavows?
> >Motion without an absolute rest has no meaning.
>
> OK, it is here that you simply don't understand SR at all.

OK it is you whodon't understand SR,

>
> > All observed relative
> >motions are born from individual motions as follows:
> >Relative motion betwen two objects A and B are the vector difference
> >of their absolute motion along the line joining A and B.
>
> I can pick any other inertial frame C so that the relative motion betwen
> two objects A and B are the vector difference of A's motion relative to C
> and B's motion relative to C.  Nothing special whatsoever about C, as long
> as it's an inertial frame.  I can even pick C to be the same as either A
> or B without changing anything, other than adding a simplification such
> as A's motion relative to C is identically zero if C=A.

All relative motions are born from individual motions.

Ken Seto
From: kenseto on
On Apr 26, 1:24 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
wrote:
> kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> writes:
> >On Apr 25, 11:58 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
> >wrote:
> >> kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> writes:
> >> >On Apr 23, 10:04 am, "Peter Webb"
> >> ><webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> >> >> Well, perhaps you would like to provide a quote from any book on Special
> >> >> Relativity which says every inertial reference frame takes on the property
> >> >> of the absolute frame which doesn't exist.
> >> >Hey idiot can't you think for yourself? When an inertial observer
> >> >claims the properties of the absolute frame he is using the absolute
> >> >frame to do physics.
>
> >> Why not answer the guy's question rather than insult him?  Show a quote
> >> from any book on SR which says every inertial reference frame takes on the
> >> property of the absolute frame.
> >ROTFLOL....so the guy is you eh?
>
> No, the guy is Peter Webb.  At least that's the name he posts under.
> My name is Michael Moroney.
>
> > The anwers are in every text book as
> >follows:
>
> [no snipping of any list of books that state every inertial reference
> frame takes on the property of some absolute frame]
>
> >What this mean is that every SR observer calims the preferred
> >properties of an absolute frame.
>
> You didn't answer the question.  You didn't list one single book that
> states every inertial reference frame takes on the property of an
> absolute frame.  All you did was repeat your incorrect assertation.

Hey idiot the properties claimsed by every inertial observer are the
exclusive properties of the preferred frame. Whe a clock is the
fastest running clock in the universe it is a preferred clock or a
clock is in a state of absolute rest.

Ken Seto.



>
> >> Heck, just show a quote from any book on SR that simply states an absolute
> >> frame does exist.
>
> You didn't answer this one, either.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

From: Michael Moroney on
kenseto <kenseto(a)erinet.com> writes:

>On Apr 26, 1:24 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
>wrote:
>> kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> writes:

>> > The anwers are in every text book as
>> >follows:
>>
>> [no snipping of any list of books that state every inertial reference
>> frame takes on the property of some absolute frame]
>>
>> >What this mean is that every SR observer calims the preferred
>> >properties of an absolute frame.
>>
>> You didn't answer the question. You didn't list one single book that
>> states every inertial reference frame takes on the property of an
>> absolute frame. All you did was repeat your incorrect assertation.

>Hey idiot the properties claimsed by every inertial observer are the
>exclusive properties of the preferred frame. Whe a clock is the
>fastest running clock in the universe it is a preferred clock or a
>clock is in a state of absolute rest.

So why not give a list of books that state every inertial reference
frame takes on the property of some preferred/absolute frame? It's
because you can't. That's because there are no such books. And
that's because the whole bit about taking on the properties of some
mythical preferred frame exists only in your own mind and nowhere
else. In fact, as we all know, Einstein said he had no use for any
absolute frame and would disregard it.

Also, how could any frame be preferred by claiming to be the fastest
clock (ignoring GR effects) when *every* inertial frame makes the same
claim (every inertial frame sees the clock in every other inertial frame
as running slower) ?