tomgee wrote:

No, Ghost, I replied to Bob Cain's post, in particular to his state-
ment that absolute motion should be measurable if it exists. It
happened that Seto's reply was in there too so I showed where
he is in error thinking SR rejected or refuted absolute motion.

What's the reference for absolute motion?

It is not possible for us to measure absolute motion
because there is no reference point from which to
start.

Do the experiments in the following link:
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/2005Experiment.pdf
It will give you a number for absolute motion.:-)

kenseto wrote:

"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1149006146.623841.293080@j55g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

kenseto wrote:

"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1148656973.606282.34500@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

kenseto wrote:

"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1148593125.222562.170580@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

Yes all galaxies rotate in super clusters.

Whatever gave you the idea superclusters rotate?

No....the galaxies in the super cluster rotate.

That's not true, either. Ever heard of a globular cluster?

Hey idiot so you think that the globular cluster is in a state of
absolute
rest? <shrug.>

No, but there's no evidence that it is rotating either and no evidence
that it has absolute motion of any kind. Evidence of *relative* motion,
yes, but absolute motion, no.

Beside gravity between
objects in the universe will cause the object move individually.

No... gravity causes *relative motion*. It's an attraction between two
objects.

So the attraction only makes one of the object moves? You are an idiot.

The attraction causes both objects to *change* their motion --
accelerate.
Note that gravitational acceleration causes a ball thrown upwards to
slow to a *stop* relative to the Earth.
Regardless, it is *relative* motion, not absolute motion that occurs.

Also all
observers see frequency shift of the incoming light means that all

observers

are in a state of individual motion.

No... Frequency shift is a measure of *relative motion* between source
and receiver. It tells you nothing about whether it's the source that's
moving or the receiver that's moving.

Relative motion is the vector difference of the vector components between
the two objects in relative motion. No individual motion then there is no
relative motion. Besides why are you keep on trying to justify that some
objects are in a state of absolute rest?

I'm not trying to justify that some objects are in a state of absolute
rest. I'm telling you that knowing something about relative motion
tells you *nothing* about the absolute motion of the two objects. You
*certainly* can't conclude that both have nonzero absolute motion.

Also all matters are in a state
of expanding motion from each other

Expanding FROM EACH OTHER. That's relative motion. That doesn't
mean
that all matter has absolute motion. Remember Bob and Tom who had
relative motion 2.58 mph, but you can't deduce from that that Bob
and
Tom both have nonzero absoute motion?

But relative motion is the result of individual motion. It is the
vector
difference of the vector components of the individual motions.

As I've pointed out to you repeatedly, you cannot determine from a
relative motion of 2.58 mph between A and B whether A and B both have
absolute motion, or whether A has no absolute motion and B has absolute
motion, or whether A has absolute motion and B has no absolute motion.
You seem to be a little slow in catching on to this point.

It is pointless arguing with you.

Well, especially if you can't see such an elementary point as that.

So doesn't that mean that the observer's clock is the fastest running

clock

in the universe??

No.

Doesn't this mean that Bob's or Tom's clcok
is the fastest clcok in the universe?

No, not at all. I don't know where you got that idea. That's
something
you made up.

I got it from SR: It says that Bob or Tom sees all the clocks in the
universe are running at a slower rate than his clock.

That doesn't mean that the observer's clock is the fastest clock in the
universe. You made that up.

So what does it means then?????

It means that clock rate is an observer-dependent measurement.
If Bob sees Tom's clock running slower than Bob's clock, this doesn't
mean that Tom's clock IS running slower than Bob's clock in any
absolute sense. Indeed, if Bob and Tom are in constant relative motion,
it's *also* true that Tom sees Bob's clock is running slower than Tom's
clock. Obviously, both cannot be true in an absolute sense, but they
ARE both true in the sense that clock rate is an observer-dependent
measurement.

So now you are denying that an SR observer doesn't see all the clocks

moving

wrt him are running slow??

No, I'm not denying that. The error is in concluding from this
observation that the observer's clock is the fastest clock in the
universe. That's the part you made up.

So the observer sees all the clcoks in the universe are running slow
doesn't
mean that his clock is the fastest clock in the universe??

No, it doesn't. This might sound crazy to you, but it's correct
nonetheless.

To learn this and to help it seem less crazy, it actually is easier to
understand why length contraction doesn't mean that the observer's rod
is the longest rod in the universe. If you start with understanding
THAT, then understanding what goes on with clocks becomes easier to
come to grips with.

PD

Ken, you're an idiot.
If you told me that you know that all values of x and y are nonzero and
you can tell this because the difference between x and y is always 2, I
would question it as well.
|x-y| = 2 does not imply that both x and y are nonzero.
x = 16 and y = 14 is a solution to |x-y| = 2.
x = 395,792 and y = 395,794 is also a solution to |x-y| = 2.
x = 2 and y = 0 is also a solution to |x-y| = 2.
x = 0 and y = 2 is also a solution to |x-y| = 2.
You DO know, don't you, that an equation can have *multiple* solutions?
You do not know that all objects are in absolute motion (nonzero

"kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote in message
news:cZEcg.44655$P2.29840@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com...

"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1148392513.707039.251830@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

Alright, I'll rephrase:

"Bob and Tom have a relative velocity of 2.58 mph.
It *could* be that Bob has an absolute velocity component along the
line joining Bob and Tom of 3.45 mph and Tom has
an absolute velocity component along the line joining Bob and Tom
of
0.87 mph.
Or it *could* be that Bob has an absolute velocity component along
the
line joining Bob and Tom of 158,239.89 mph
and Tom has an absolute velocity component along the line joining
Bob
and Tom of 158,237.31 mph.
Or it *could* be that Bob has an absolute velocity component along
the
line joining Bob and Tom of 0 mph and Tom has
an absolute velocity component along the line joining Bob and Tom
of
2.58 mph.
Or it *could* be that Bob has an absolute velocity component along
the
line joining Bob and Tom of 2.58 mph and Tom
has an absolute velocity component along the line joining Bob and
Tom
of 0 mph."

All of these produc the same relative velocity.
Now, how can you tell which one is correct?
How can you be sure that nothing has zero absolute motion?

Hey idiot....Bob can only have one value for vector component of his
absolute motion along the line joining him and Tom and Tom can only
have one
value for vector component of his absolute motion along the line
joining him
and Bob. When you said that Tom's vector component is 3.45 mph then
this
rules out all the other possibilities.

Why do you engage in such smoke and mirrors instead of answering his
question? Is it that you know he's got you trapped?

He never said that Tom's vector component *is* 3.45 mph. What he said
is that it *could* be that Bob has an absolute velocity component
along the line joining Bob and Tom of 3.45 mph and Tom has an absolute
velocity component along the line joining Bob and Tom of 0.87 mph. As
such, there's nothing in what he said that excludes any other possible
values for Tom's velocity component along the line joining Bob and Tom
as long as Bob's absolute velocity component along the line joining
Bob and Tom is 2.58 mph less than Tom's absolute velocity component
along the line joining Bob and Tom.

If A + B =10.665, then A can be anything as long as B = 10.665 - A.

I never understood what's to be gained by guys like you and tomgee
when you engage in such nonsense. Do you think you're convincing
anyone? Do you actually believe what you post? Do you think you'll
defeat the argument of your antagonist this way? Do you think as long
as you can keep your antagonist jumping through semantical hoops that
you've won the debate? What is there to be gained?

"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1147874647.371540.147160@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

It *could* be that Bob has an absolute velocity of 3.45 mph and Tom has
an absolute velocity of 0.87 mph.
Or it *could* be that Bob has an absolute velocity of 158,239.89 mph
and Tom has an absolute velocity of 158,237.31 mph.
Or it *could* be that Bob has an absolute velocity of 0 mph and Tom has
an absolute velocity of 2.58 mph.
Or it *could* be that Bob has an absolute velocity of 2.58 mph and Tom
has an absolute velocity of 0 mph.

All four of these satisfy even Ken Setos's definition of relative
velocity in terms of absolute velocity. Yet he seems to just *know*
that the last two cases cannot be. Yet he's given no reason why the
last two cases cannot be.

No non of these satisfy with what I said. I said: "relative velocity between
two objects A and B is the vector difference of the vector components of
their absolute motions along the line joining A and B.

It *could* be that Bob has an absolute velocity of 3.45 mph and Tom has
an absolute velocity of 0.87 mph.

kenseto wrote:

No idiot runt you didn't have this right. No object is in a state of
stationary (absolute rest).

Really? How do you know this?

Bob and Tom have a relative velocity of 2.58 mph.
It *could* be...
Or it *could* be...
Or it *could* be...
Or it *could* be...
All four of these satisfy even Ken Setos's definition of relative
velocity in terms of absolute velocity. Yet he seems to just *know*
that the last two cases cannot be. Yet he's given no reason why the
last two cases cannot be.

All objects are in a state of absolute motion

and relative velocity between two objects A and B is the vector difference
of the vector components of their absolute motions along the line joining A
and B.

light source.