Sorry but I could not handle the thread

Bill:
Why is it not a resonable sync?

Beda:
It is just one out of many:
t=t(b/f)/2; OWSL= C
t=0 ; OWLS = infinite
or anything you want.

bill:
The isotropy of an inertial frame quarantees OWLS is the same as TWLS. But
then again you have said you do not believe that an inertial frame is
isotropic when by definition it is.

beda:
but a way to
substitute to a unknown speed of the frame an unknown setting of the
clocks and pretend to have solved the problem.
Bill:
The POR gurantees you can not detemrine the speed of an inerital
frame.

Beda:
the point is that I don't think POR is valid


bill:
And the experimental evidence for that belief is? Not some philosophical
mumbo jumbo but a real experiment that violates it.

No experimental evidence is needed: it only takes to change the clock
synchronizzation and you will have that OWSL is not = to TWSL and POR
is not valid in that frame.

The local TWSL is the same in all frames, this is due to the
contracting of the ruler and the dilation of the clock, these are real
phenomenon that gives fully acount of the TWSL being identical when
measured locally.

For these very reason the OWSL must be different from the TWSL except
for the local preferred frame.

Try to imagine all the possible frames synchronized absolutely (they
show regardless of the point of the space you chooce the same elapsed
time)

Imagine a absolute space and all the clocks positioned in it showing
the same elapsed absolute time.

The frames clocks are absolutely synchronized when the single clock
frame show the same time of stationnary clock in each point of the
absolute space.

Once you imagine that you know that all measurements made in such a
"natural" arrangemnt is the correct one: some phenomen will show a
relativistic dependancy some other will depend on the absolute speed.

If you are not capable to imagine a scenario with all possible moving
clocks be
showing the same elapsed time as the stationnary clocks of the
absolute space, I regret to say our imaginations are not meant to
meet.

Best regards

beda pietanza


Thanks
Bill

"beda pietanza" wrote in message
m...
Sorry but I could not handle the thread

Bill:
Why is it not a resonable sync?

Beda:
It is just one out of many:
t=t(b/f)/2; OWSL= C
t=0 ; OWLS = infinite
or anything you want.

bill:
The isotropy of an inertial frame quarantees OWLS is the same as TWLS.
But
then again you have said you do not believe that an inertial frame is
isotropic when by definition it is.

beda:
but a way to
substitute to a unknown speed of the frame an unknown setting of the
clocks and pretend to have solved the problem.
Bill:
The POR gurantees you can not detemrine the speed of an inerital
frame.

Beda:
the point is that I don't think POR is valid


bill:
And the experimental evidence for that belief is? Not some
philosophical
mumbo jumbo but a real experiment that violates it.

No experimental evidence is needed: it only takes to change the clock
synchronizzation and you will have that OWSL is not = to TWSL and POR
is not valid in that frame.

Sure a bad sync will turn an inertial frame into a non inertial one.
However that is not the point. The point is isotropy and homogeneity in
such a frame means it is easy to sync clocks - simply place a light signal
in the center of two clocks and when they strike each clock they are
synced - isotropy guarantees it. No problems with TWLS to worry about.


The local TWSL is the same in all frames, this is due to the
contracting of the ruler and the dilation of the clock, these are real
phenomenon that gives fully acount of the TWSL being identical when
measured locally.

Ruler contraction relative to what - an aether that has never been detected?


For these very reason the OWSL must be different from the TWSL except
for the local preferred frame.


As explained above isotropy makes it is easy to sync clocks.


Try to imagine all the possible frames synchronized absolutely (they
show regardless of the point of the space you chooce the same elapsed
time)

Imagine a absolute space and all the clocks positioned in it showing
the same elapsed absolute time.


So reality depends on imagining an absolute space no one ever been able to
detect rather than principles we have experimental evidence for?


The frames clocks are absolutely synchronized when the single clock
frame show the same time of stationnary clock in each point of the
absolute space.


And the experiment that has detected this absolute space was performed where
and when and written up in which journal?

Once you imagine that you know that all measurements made in such a
"natural" arrangemnt is the correct one: some phenomen will show a
relativistic dependancy some other will depend on the absolute speed.

No experiment has ever been able to detect an absolute speed.


If you are not capable to imagine a scenario with all possible moving
clocks be
showing the same elapsed time as the stationnary clocks of the
absolute space, I regret to say our imaginations are not meant to
meet.

As I said above - reality does not depend on imagination - it depends on
what experiments tell us.

Thanks
Bill

"Bill Hobba" wrote in message ...
"beda pietanza" wrote in message
m...
Sorry but I could not handle the thread

Bill:
Why is it not a resonable sync?

Beda:
It is just one out of many:
t=t(b/f)/2; OWSL= C
t=0 ; OWLS = infinite
or anything you want.

bill:
The isotropy of an inertial frame quarantees OWLS is the same as TWLS.
But
then again you have said you do not believe that an inertial frame is
isotropic when by definition it is.

beda:
but a way to
substitute to a unknown speed of the frame an unknown setting of the
clocks and pretend to have solved the problem.
Bill:
The POR gurantees you can not detemrine the speed of an inerital
frame.

Beda:
the point is that I don't think POR is valid


bill:
And the experimental evidence for that belief is? Not some
philosophical
mumbo jumbo but a real experiment that violates it.

No experimental evidence is needed: it only takes to change the clock
synchronizzation and you will have that OWSL is not = to TWSL and POR
is not valid in that frame.

Sure a bad sync will turn an inertial frame into a non inertial one.
However that is not the point. The point is isotropy and homogeneity in
such a frame means it is easy to sync clocks - simply place a light signal
in the center of two clocks and when they strike each clock they are
synced - isotropy guarantees it. No problems with TWLS to worry about.


The local TWSL is the same in all frames, this is due to the
contracting of the ruler and the dilation of the clock, these are real
phenomenon that gives fully acount of the TWSL being identical when
measured locally.

Ruler contraction relative to what - an aether that has never been detected?


For these very reason the OWSL must be different from the TWSL except
for the local preferred frame.


As explained above isotropy makes it is easy to sync clocks.


Try to imagine all the possible frames synchronized absolutely (they
show regardless of the point of the space you chooce the same elapsed
time)

Imagine a absolute space and all the clocks positioned in it showing
the same elapsed absolute time.


So reality depends on imagining an absolute space no one ever been able to
detect rather than principles we have experimental evidence for?


The frames clocks are absolutely synchronized when the single clock
frame show the same time of stationnary clock in each point of the
absolute space.


And the experiment that has detected this absolute space was performed where
and when and written up in which journal?

Once you imagine that you know that all measurements made in such a
"natural" arrangemnt is the correct one: some phenomen will show a
relativistic dependancy some other will depend on the absolute speed.

No experiment has ever been able to detect an absolute speed.


If you are not capable to imagine a scenario with all possible moving
clocks be
showing the same elapsed time as the stationnary clocks of the
absolute space, I regret to say our imaginations are not meant to
meet.

As I said above - reality does not depend on imagination - it depends on
what experiments tell us.

To interpreted experiments you need imagination: there is wrong imagination
(e.i. imagining inertial frames made of abstract rulers) that leads to wrong
conclusion; and there is correct imagination (e.i. imagining the inertial
frames made of physical material rulers) that leads to a correct interpretation
of the same experimental results.

A good observer know his absolute speed just looking at the sky above him.

Best regards

Beda pietanza





Thanks
Bill

"beda pietanza" wrote in message
om...
"Bill Hobba" wrote in message
...
"beda pietanza" wrote in message
m...
Sorry but I could not handle the thread

Bill:
Why is it not a resonable sync?

Beda:
It is just one out of many:
t=t(b/f)/2; OWSL= C
t=0 ; OWLS = infinite
or anything you want.

bill:
The isotropy of an inertial frame quarantees OWLS is the same as
TWLS.
But
then again you have said you do not believe that an inertial frame
is
isotropic when by definition it is.

beda:
but a way to
substitute to a unknown speed of the frame an unknown setting of
the
clocks and pretend to have solved the problem.
Bill:
The POR gurantees you can not detemrine the speed of an inerital
frame.

Beda:
the point is that I don't think POR is valid


bill:
And the experimental evidence for that belief is? Not some
philosophical
mumbo jumbo but a real experiment that violates it.

No experimental evidence is needed: it only takes to change the clock
synchronizzation and you will have that OWSL is not = to TWSL and POR
is not valid in that frame.

Sure a bad sync will turn an inertial frame into a non inertial one.
However that is not the point. The point is isotropy and homogeneity in
such a frame means it is easy to sync clocks - simply place a light
signal
in the center of two clocks and when they strike each clock they are
synced - isotropy guarantees it. No problems with TWLS to worry about.


The local TWSL is the same in all frames, this is due to the
contracting of the ruler and the dilation of the clock, these are real
phenomenon that gives fully acount of the TWSL being identical when
measured locally.

Ruler contraction relative to what - an aether that has never been
detected?


For these very reason the OWSL must be different from the TWSL except
for the local preferred frame.


As explained above isotropy makes it is easy to sync clocks.


Try to imagine all the possible frames synchronized absolutely (they
show regardless of the point of the space you chooce the same elapsed
time)

Imagine a absolute space and all the clocks positioned in it showing
the same elapsed absolute time.


So reality depends on imagining an absolute space no one ever been able
to
detect rather than principles we have experimental evidence for?


The frames clocks are absolutely synchronized when the single clock
frame show the same time of stationnary clock in each point of the
absolute space.


And the experiment that has detected this absolute space was performed
where
and when and written up in which journal?

Once you imagine that you know that all measurements made in such a
"natural" arrangemnt is the correct one: some phenomen will show a
relativistic dependancy some other will depend on the absolute speed.

No experiment has ever been able to detect an absolute speed.


If you are not capable to imagine a scenario with all possible moving
clocks be
showing the same elapsed time as the stationnary clocks of the
absolute space, I regret to say our imaginations are not meant to
meet.

As I said above - reality does not depend on imagination - it depends on
what experiments tell us.

To interpreted experiments you need imagination: there is wrong
imagination
(e.i. imagining inertial frames made of abstract rulers) that leads to
wrong
conclusion; and there is correct imagination (e.i. imagining the inertial
frames made of physical material rulers) that leads to a correct
interpretation
of the same experimental results.

A good observer know his absolute speed just looking at the sky above
him.

Since absolute speed has never been detected using even highly accurate
instruments your statement above is obviously silly.

Bill

"Bill Hobba" wrote in message ...
"beda pietanza" wrote in message
om...
"Bill Hobba" wrote in message
...
"beda pietanza" wrote in message
m...
Sorry but I could not handle the thread

Bill:
Why is it not a resonable sync?

Beda:
It is just one out of many:
t=t(b/f)/2; OWSL= C
t=0 ; OWLS = infinite
or anything you want.

bill:
The isotropy of an inertial frame quarantees OWLS is the same as
TWLS.
But
then again you have said you do not believe that an inertial frame
is
isotropic when by definition it is.

beda:
but a way to
substitute to a unknown speed of the frame an unknown setting of
the
clocks and pretend to have solved the problem.
Bill:
The POR gurantees you can not detemrine the speed of an inerital
frame.

Beda:
the point is that I don't think POR is valid


bill:
And the experimental evidence for that belief is? Not some
philosophical
mumbo jumbo but a real experiment that violates it.

No experimental evidence is needed: it only takes to change the clock
synchronizzation and you will have that OWSL is not = to TWSL and POR
is not valid in that frame.

Sure a bad sync will turn an inertial frame into a non inertial one.
However that is not the point. The point is isotropy and homogeneity in
such a frame means it is easy to sync clocks - simply place a light
signal
in the center of two clocks and when they strike each clock they are
synced - isotropy guarantees it. No problems with TWLS to worry about.


The local TWSL is the same in all frames, this is due to the
contracting of the ruler and the dilation of the clock, these are real
phenomenon that gives fully acount of the TWSL being identical when
measured locally.

Ruler contraction relative to what - an aether that has never been
detected?


For these very reason the OWSL must be different from the TWSL except
for the local preferred frame.


As explained above isotropy makes it is easy to sync clocks.


Try to imagine all the possible frames synchronized absolutely (they
show regardless of the point of the space you chooce the same elapsed
time)

Imagine a absolute space and all the clocks positioned in it showing
the same elapsed absolute time.


So reality depends on imagining an absolute space no one ever been able
to
detect rather than principles we have experimental evidence for?


The frames clocks are absolutely synchronized when the single clock
frame show the same time of stationnary clock in each point of the
absolute space.


And the experiment that has detected this absolute space was performed
where
and when and written up in which journal?

Once you imagine that you know that all measurements made in such a
"natural" arrangemnt is the correct one: some phenomen will show a
relativistic dependancy some other will depend on the absolute speed.

No experiment has ever been able to detect an absolute speed.


If you are not capable to imagine a scenario with all possible moving
clocks be
showing the same elapsed time as the stationnary clocks of the
absolute space, I regret to say our imaginations are not meant to
meet.

As I said above - reality does not depend on imagination - it depends on
what experiments tell us.

To interpreted experiments you need imagination: there is wrong
imagination
(e.i. imagining inertial frames made of abstract rulers) that leads to
wrong
conclusion; and there is correct imagination (e.i. imagining the inertial
frames made of physical material rulers) that leads to a correct
interpretation
of the same experimental results.

A good observer know his absolute speed just looking at the sky above
him.

Since absolute speed has never been detected using even highly accurate
instruments your statement above is obviously silly.

You should be very careful not to repeat old catchphrases.

The sky to a macroscopic observer appear isomorphic in the distribution of the
visible matter, to a very high speed moving observer the sky would appear all
squeezed behind him and this modification of the sky appearance is related only
to his absolute speed.

Come out of the SR false rhetoric and start to see thing with your own eyes.

Best regards

Beda pietanza









Bill

"Bill Hobba" wrote in message ...
"beda pietanza" wrote in message
om...
"Bill Hobba" wrote in message
...
"beda pietanza" wrote in message
m...
Sorry but I could not handle the thread

Bill:
Why is it not a resonable sync?

Beda:
It is just one out of many:
t=t(b/f)/2; OWSL= C
t=0 ; OWLS = infinite
or anything you want.

bill:
The isotropy of an inertial frame quarantees OWLS is the same as
TWLS.
But
then again you have said you do not believe that an inertial frame
is
isotropic when by definition it is.

beda:
but a way to
substitute to a unknown speed of the frame an unknown setting of
the
clocks and pretend to have solved the problem.
Bill:
The POR gurantees you can not detemrine the speed of an inerital
frame.

Beda:
the point is that I don't think POR is valid


bill:
And the experimental evidence for that belief is? Not some
philosophical
mumbo jumbo but a real experiment that violates it.

No experimental evidence is needed: it only takes to change the clock
synchronizzation and you will have that OWSL is not = to TWSL and POR
is not valid in that frame.

Sure a bad sync will turn an inertial frame into a non inertial one.
However that is not the point. The point is isotropy and homogeneity in
such a frame means it is easy to sync clocks - simply place a light
signal
in the center of two clocks and when they strike each clock they are
synced - isotropy guarantees it. No problems with TWLS to worry about.


The local TWSL is the same in all frames, this is due to the
contracting of the ruler and the dilation of the clock, these are real
phenomenon that gives fully acount of the TWSL being identical when
measured locally.

Ruler contraction relative to what - an aether that has never been
detected?


For these very reason the OWSL must be different from the TWSL except
for the local preferred frame.


As explained above isotropy makes it is easy to sync clocks.


Try to imagine all the possible frames synchronized absolutely (they
show regardless of the point of the space you chooce the same elapsed
time)

Imagine a absolute space and all the clocks positioned in it showing
the same elapsed absolute time.


So reality depends on imagining an absolute space no one ever been able
to
detect rather than principles we have experimental evidence for?


The frames clocks are absolutely synchronized when the single clock
frame show the same time of stationnary clock in each point of the
absolute space.


And the experiment that has detected this absolute space was performed
where
and when and written up in which journal?

Once you imagine that you know that all measurements made in such a
"natural" arrangemnt is the correct one: some phenomen will show a
relativistic dependancy some other will depend on the absolute speed.

No experiment has ever been able to detect an absolute speed.


If you are not capable to imagine a scenario with all possible moving
clocks be
showing the same elapsed time as the stationnary clocks of the
absolute space, I regret to say our imaginations are not meant to
meet.

As I said above - reality does not depend on imagination - it depends on
what experiments tell us.

To interpreted experiments you need imagination: there is wrong
imagination
(e.i. imagining inertial frames made of abstract rulers) that leads to
wrong
conclusion; and there is correct imagination (e.i. imagining the inertial
frames made of physical material rulers) that leads to a correct
interpretation
of the same experimental results.

A good observer know his absolute speed just looking at the sky above
him.

Since absolute speed has never been detected using even highly accurate
instruments your statement above is obviously silly.

Bill

Errata corrige:
In my previous post I said that a very high speed moving observer
would see
the above sky all squeezed behind him, I must correct this assertion,
it is the contrary:
A very fast moving observer would see the sky rotate in front of him
and the apparent distances between stars enlarged while in the back
happen the opposite: distances shortened and stars are all rotate
versus the center and the front.

Sorry,

Best regards

Beda pietanza

"beda pietanza" wrote in message
om...
"Bill Hobba" wrote in message
...
"beda pietanza" wrote in message
om...
"Bill Hobba" wrote in message
...
"beda pietanza" wrote in message
m...
Sorry but I could not handle the thread

Bill:
Why is it not a resonable sync?

Beda:
It is just one out of many:
t=t(b/f)/2; OWSL= C
t=0 ; OWLS = infinite
or anything you want.

bill:
The isotropy of an inertial frame quarantees OWLS is the same as
TWLS.
But
then again you have said you do not believe that an inertial
frame
is
isotropic when by definition it is.

beda:
but a way to
substitute to a unknown speed of the frame an unknown
setting of
the
clocks and pretend to have solved the problem.
Bill:
The POR gurantees you can not detemrine the speed of an
inerital
frame.

Beda:
the point is that I don't think POR is valid


bill:
And the experimental evidence for that belief is? Not some
philosophical
mumbo jumbo but a real experiment that violates it.

No experimental evidence is needed: it only takes to change the
clock
synchronizzation and you will have that OWSL is not = to TWSL and
POR
is not valid in that frame.

Sure a bad sync will turn an inertial frame into a non inertial one.
However that is not the point. The point is isotropy and
homogeneity in
such a frame means it is easy to sync clocks - simply place a light
signal
in the center of two clocks and when they strike each clock they are
synced - isotropy guarantees it. No problems with TWLS to worry
about.


The local TWSL is the same in all frames, this is due to the
contracting of the ruler and the dilation of the clock, these are
real
phenomenon that gives fully acount of the TWSL being identical
when
measured locally.

Ruler contraction relative to what - an aether that has never been
detected?


For these very reason the OWSL must be different from the TWSL
except
for the local preferred frame.


As explained above isotropy makes it is easy to sync clocks.


Try to imagine all the possible frames synchronized absolutely
(they
show regardless of the point of the space you chooce the same
elapsed
time)

Imagine a absolute space and all the clocks positioned in it
showing
the same elapsed absolute time.


So reality depends on imagining an absolute space no one ever been
able
to
detect rather than principles we have experimental evidence for?


The frames clocks are absolutely synchronized when the single
clock
frame show the same time of stationnary clock in each point of
the
absolute space.


And the experiment that has detected this absolute space was
performed
where
and when and written up in which journal?

Once you imagine that you know that all measurements made in such
a
"natural" arrangemnt is the correct one: some phenomen will show a
relativistic dependancy some other will depend on the absolute
speed.

No experiment has ever been able to detect an absolute speed.


If you are not capable to imagine a scenario with all possible
moving
clocks be
showing the same elapsed time as the stationnary clocks of the
absolute space, I regret to say our imaginations are not meant to
meet.

As I said above - reality does not depend on imagination - it
depends on
what experiments tell us.

To interpreted experiments you need imagination: there is wrong
imagination
(e.i. imagining inertial frames made of abstract rulers) that leads to
wrong
conclusion; and there is correct imagination (e.i. imagining the
inertial
frames made of physical material rulers) that leads to a correct
interpretation
of the same experimental results.

A good observer know his absolute speed just looking at the sky above
him.

Since absolute speed has never been detected using even highly accurate
instruments your statement above is obviously silly.

You should be very careful not to repeat old catchphrases.

The sky to a macroscopic observer appear isomorphic in the distribution
of the
visible matter, to a very high speed moving observer the sky would appear
all
squeezed behind him and this modification of the sky appearance is related
only
to his absolute speed.

Speed relative to what - as it appears on earth? And exactly what makes the
Earth so special that it is the reference from which your supposed absolute
motion is to be judged? A frame containing a sky breaks the symmetry
properties of an inertial frame so it not inertial and SR does not apply.


Come out of the SR false rhetoric and start to see thing with your own
eyes.


Learn what SR is actually saying then you may be able to make meaningful
comments.

Bill

"Bill Hobba" ha scritto nel messaggio
...

"beda pietanza" wrote in message
om...
"Bill Hobba" wrote in message
...
"beda pietanza" wrote in message
om...
"Bill Hobba" wrote in message
...
"beda pietanza" wrote in message
m...
Sorry but I could not handle the thread

Bill:
Why is it not a resonable sync?

Beda:
It is just one out of many:
t=t(b/f)/2; OWSL= C
t=0 ; OWLS = infinite
or anything you want.

bill:
The isotropy of an inertial frame quarantees OWLS is the same
as
TWLS.
But
then again you have said you do not believe that an inertial
frame
is
isotropic when by definition it is.

beda:
but a way to
substitute to a unknown speed of the frame an unknown
setting of
the
clocks and pretend to have solved the problem.
Bill:
The POR gurantees you can not detemrine the speed of an
inerital
frame.

Beda:
the point is that I don't think POR is valid


bill:
And the experimental evidence for that belief is? Not some
philosophical
mumbo jumbo but a real experiment that violates it.

No experimental evidence is needed: it only takes to change the
clock
synchronizzation and you will have that OWSL is not = to TWSL
and
POR
is not valid in that frame.

Sure a bad sync will turn an inertial frame into a non inertial
one.
However that is not the point. The point is isotropy and
homogeneity in
such a frame means it is easy to sync clocks - simply place a
light
signal
in the center of two clocks and when they strike each clock they
are
synced - isotropy guarantees it. No problems with TWLS to worry
about.


The local TWSL is the same in all frames, this is due to the
contracting of the ruler and the dilation of the clock, these
are
real
phenomenon that gives fully acount of the TWSL being identical
when
measured locally.

Ruler contraction relative to what - an aether that has never been
detected?


For these very reason the OWSL must be different from the TWSL
except
for the local preferred frame.


As explained above isotropy makes it is easy to sync clocks.


Try to imagine all the possible frames synchronized absolutely
(they
show regardless of the point of the space you chooce the same
elapsed
time)

Imagine a absolute space and all the clocks positioned in it
showing
the same elapsed absolute time.


So reality depends on imagining an absolute space no one ever been
able
to
detect rather than principles we have experimental evidence for?


The frames clocks are absolutely synchronized when the single
clock
frame show the same time of stationnary clock in each point of
the
absolute space.


And the experiment that has detected this absolute space was
performed
where
and when and written up in which journal?

Once you imagine that you know that all measurements made in
such
a
"natural" arrangemnt is the correct one: some phenomen will show
a
relativistic dependancy some other will depend on the absolute
speed.

No experiment has ever been able to detect an absolute speed.


If you are not capable to imagine a scenario with all possible
moving
clocks be
showing the same elapsed time as the stationnary clocks of the
absolute space, I regret to say our imaginations are not meant
to
meet.

As I said above - reality does not depend on imagination - it
depends on
what experiments tell us.

To interpreted experiments you need imagination: there is wrong
imagination
(e.i. imagining inertial frames made of abstract rulers) that leads
to
wrong
conclusion; and there is correct imagination (e.i. imagining the
inertial
frames made of physical material rulers) that leads to a correct
interpretation
of the same experimental results.

A good observer know his absolute speed just looking at the sky
above
him.

Since absolute speed has never been detected using even highly
accurate
instruments your statement above is obviously silly.

You should be very careful not to repeat old catchphrases.

The sky to a macroscopic observer appear isomorphic in the distribution
of the
visible matter, to a very high speed moving observer the sky would
appear
all
squeezed behind him and this modification of the sky appearance is
related
only
to his absolute speed.

Speed relative to what - as it appears on earth? And exactly what makes
the
Earth so special that it is the reference from which your supposed
absolute
motion is to be judged?........

Actually to determine the absolute speed of massive bodies like the Earth
(being very low) is a practical problem.

If we suppose to move at very high speed the Earth can be considered at
rest, we won't make a great mistake.

For a observer at very high speed (.1 C or more) the deformation of the
appearance of the sky is so evident that there are no difficulties on
calculating the absolute speed of the observer.

(I must say that I consider those speed forbidden for macroscopic bodies,
this doesn't changes our theoretical considerations).

.......... A frame containing a sky breaks the symmetry
properties of an inertial frame so it not inertial and SR does not apply.

Ho, poor you!!!

What I want to prove is that a moving observer knows of his absolute speed
though the visual and measurable modifications of the appearance of the sky.

Once this observer has taken knowledge of his inertial speed he can forget
about the sky and build his local inertial frame, he can now synchronize
his clocks absolutely correct and obtain the correct OWSL forth and the
correct OWSL back, those speed would be (locally) C-V and C+V.

And moreover the transit time of a pulse of light along a the two ways path
would be absolutely dilated compared to the same arrangement at rest.

And the observer is able to see that directly by comparing his two ways
transit time to the two ways transit time of the observer at rest.

Very difficult to prove all the above, those speed are not reachable, so you
can stick to your SR fairy tale with no worries.

Some evidences of the two ways transit time differences (no reciprocal)
among relatively moving observers at terrestrial speed has been obtained
I'll search for them and let you know.

best regards

beda pietanza




Come out of the SR false rhetoric and start to see thing with your own
eyes.


Learn what SR is actually saying then you may be able to make meaningful
comments.

Bill