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

>On Apr 15, 12:05 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
>wrote:

>> >> It's "special" because it has its own special laws of physics.
>> >So why can't you describe the differences in the laws of physics
>> >between an inertial frame and an absolute frame?
>>
>> That's kind of like describing the difference between a rabbit and the
>> Easter Bunny. While the properties of a rabbit are well known, what is
>> the Easter Bunny like? Well, every little kid has their own vision of it,
>> with many ideas similar to other kids' ideas. It could be anything,
>> because it doesn't exist, although rabbits do.

>LET describes the absolute frame perfectly....so why can't you?

No it doesn't. Where did you come up with that?

>There is only one absolute frame.

No, there aren't any, according to SR.

>An observer at rest in this absolute
>frame will see (predict) all the clocks moving wrt him are running
>slow and all the rulers moving wrt him are contracted. Also the speed
>of light in the absolute frame is isotropic.

That applies to _all_ inertial reference frame, not just one "absolute"
frame.

> A LET observer assumes
>these properties of the absolute frame and that's why SR and LET have
>identical math.

False.

>LET says that the speed of light is isotropic only in the absolute
>frame and he use the exclusive properties of the absolute frame to
>derive its math.

No, it doesn't.

> SR says that says that the speed of light is
>isotropic in every inertial frame including the absolute frame.

No, SR states there is no absolute frame. Period.

>> No, you are using whatever you defined "absolute frame" to be, not how
>> theoretical physics defines it. What is the frame you call the Absolute
>> Frame? Perhaps it's the frame where a cosmic ray proton, moving at 0.9 c
>> parallel to the north-south axis of Pluto, is stationary. Since that
>> frame is an inertial frame, it can be used as a reference for physics. But
>> to avoid confusion, how about if we call that frame (or whichever frame
>> you call the "absolute frame") Seto's Frame or something, so people don't
>> think we're discussing the absolute frame of aether theory or some other
>> old theory.

>No the absolute frame has the following exclusive properties:
>1. The speed of light in the absolute frame is isotropic.

All inertial frames have that property.

>2. All the clocks moving wrt the absolute frame are running slower.

All inertial frames have that property.

>3. All the rulers moving wrt the absolute frame are contracted.

All inertial frames have that property.
From: Michael Moroney on
> Why do I need to rebut what SR says?

You keep saying there is an absolute frame. SR states there is no
absolute frame. If you're going to stick to your claim, you're going to
have to rebut SR.
From: BURT on
On Apr 16, 12:23 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Apr 16, 12:18 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 16, 11:27 am, "Peter Webb"
>
> > <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> > > <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote in message
>
> > >news:93290e3f-991e-487e-8334-64a2bde49f23(a)b23g2000yqn.googlegroups.com....
> > > On Apr 15, 11:02 am, "Peter Webb"
>
> > > <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> > > > Every inertial observer adopted the laws of physics of the absolute
> > > > frame and that's why every inertial frame has the same laws of
> > > > physics.
>
> > > > _________________________________
>
> > > > If the laws of physics are the same in every inertial frame, what makes
> > > > one
> > > > of them the absolute frame?
>
> > > The point is: no inertial frame is the absolute frame....but every
> > > inertial frame adopts the laws of physics of the absolute frame and
> > > that's why every inertial frames has the same laws of phyiscs.
>
> > > Ken seto
>
> > > ________________________________
> > > OK, "no inertial frame is the absolute frame". So the absolute frame is not
> > > an inertial frame. If its not an inertial frame, what is it?
>
> > No...no inertial frame is in a sate of absolute rest. However, every
> > inertial frame adopt the laws of physcs of the absolute frame.
>
> > > And, are you actually going to provide a "point by point rebuttal" of the
> > > explanation of SR that I provided as you boasted you would, or do you fully
> > > accept the explanation of SR which I provided?
>
> > Why do I need to rebut what SR says? What an SR observer says is what
> > an absolute rest observer says....after all, every Sr observer adopted
> > the laws of physics of the absolute rest frame.
>
> > Ken Seto
>
> > > Here it is again:
>
> > >  http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/specrel.pdf
>
> > > You going to do what you boasted you would, or are you just a blowhard?- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> There is absolute motion because of the motion of light in space. The
> lesser motions of matter are also absolutes in the space frame.
>
> Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

There are two time form frames within an absolute flowing space with
aether frame.
From: Peter Webb on

"kenseto" <kenseto(a)erinet.com> wrote in message
news:96088237-0520-4342-a0e3-a6ebae78cb60(a)d34g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 16, 11:27 am, "Peter Webb"
<webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote in message
>
> news:93290e3f-991e-487e-8334-64a2bde49f23(a)b23g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 15, 11:02 am, "Peter Webb"
>
> <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> > Every inertial observer adopted the laws of physics of the absolute
> > frame and that's why every inertial frame has the same laws of
> > physics.
>
> > _________________________________
>
> > If the laws of physics are the same in every inertial frame, what makes
> > one
> > of them the absolute frame?
>
> The point is: no inertial frame is the absolute frame....but every
> inertial frame adopts the laws of physics of the absolute frame and
> that's why every inertial frames has the same laws of phyiscs.
>
> Ken seto
>
> ________________________________
> OK, "no inertial frame is the absolute frame". So the absolute frame is
> not
> an inertial frame. If its not an inertial frame, what is it?

No...no inertial frame is in a sate of absolute rest. However, every
inertial frame adopt the laws of physcs of the absolute frame.

______________________________
But you said above (and I quote) that "no inertial frame is the absolute
frame". Therefore the absolute frame is *not* an inertial frame. If the
absolute frame isn't an inertial frame, then what is it, according to you?



From: Sam Wormley on
On 4/16/10 2:18 PM, kenseto wrote:
> Why do I need to rebut what SR says? What an SR observer says is what
> an absolute rest observer says....after all, every Sr observer adopted
> the laws of physics of the absolute rest frame.
>
> Ken Seto


Relativity uses no absolute frames, Seto. An Observer is
at rest with respect to herself.

Speed of light appears isotropic TO ALL observer, including
the observer's frame.

All clocks moving WRT the OBSERVER'S frame show time dilation
as predicted by special and general relativity.

All rods moving with respect to the OBSERVER's frame would
be foreshortened in the direction of radial motion as predicted
by special and general relativity.

Relativity makes NO use of special frames, as all frames are relative.
Ever wonder why it's call "relativity"?

Seto--You really need to sit down and learn special relativity.
There has never been an observation that contracts a prediction
of special relativity. It remains a very fruitful theory and
you should take the time to learn it, Seto.

What is the experimental basis of special relativity?
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html

How do you add velocities in special relativity?
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/velocity.html

Can special relativity handle acceleration?
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/acceleration.html