"Lester Zick" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 13 Jan 2007 13:49:17 -0000, "George Dishman"
wrote:
"Lester Zick" wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 23:31:41 -0000, "George Dishman"
wrote:
"Lester Zick" wrote in message
m...
On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 23:58:32 -0000, "George Dishman"
wrote:
"Lester Zick" wrote in message
news:gvaaq2poi7eaunusvn9p3sesq41pj91f9q@4ax. com...
On 10 Jan 2007 04:05:49 -0800, "Jeff Root"
wrote:


.. I'm still waiting to read what the attachment is of a frame of
reference to an observer.

The observer is at rest in the frame (and typically
taken to define the origin of the coordinate system)
therefore the motion of the observer defines the
motion of the frame.

Which of course is not what I asked Jeff about. I asked about the
attachment involved.

Then let me make it even clearer: the origin of
the reference frame is _attached_ to the observer.

So repeating Jeff's claim explains the form of attachment of an
observer to his frame of reference?

No, telling you that the observer is at rest in
tht frame (and typically taken as the origin of
the coordinate system) 'explained the form of
attachment',

It did? So the "form of attachment" is "the observer is at rest in the
frame"?

There you are Lester, now you know.

snip Lester's failed attempts at sarcasm

George

George wrote:

"Retcon" is a recent neologism (or strictly a portmanteau),
not one of mine but one I discovered a few months back.

I discovered the term in April 2003. This thread has
just five posts-- My questions and four replies, with
some great insights, if you have any interest in this
kind of thing. You'll need to reassemble the link.

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.comics.superman/
browse_thread/thread/6a1f553f165c3697/1bf81ad4db594
32d?hl=en#1bf81ad4db59432d

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

On Sat, 13 Jan 2007 21:57:17 -0000, "George Dishman"
wrote:


"Lester Zick" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 13 Jan 2007 13:49:17 -0000, "George Dishman"
wrote:
"Lester Zick" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 23:31:41 -0000, "George Dishman"
wrote:
"Lester Zick" wrote in message
om...
On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 23:58:32 -0000, "George Dishman"
wrote:
"Lester Zick" wrote in message
news:gvaaq2poi7eaunusvn9p3sesq41pj91f9q@4ax .com...
On 10 Jan 2007 04:05:49 -0800, "Jeff Root"
wrote:


.. I'm still waiting to read what the attachment is of a frame of
reference to an observer.

The observer is at rest in the frame (and typically
taken to define the origin of the coordinate system)
therefore the motion of the observer defines the
motion of the frame.

Which of course is not what I asked Jeff about. I asked about the
attachment involved.

Then let me make it even clearer: the origin of
the reference frame is _attached_ to the observer.

So repeating Jeff's claim explains the form of attachment of an
observer to his frame of reference?

No, telling you that the observer is at rest in
tht frame (and typically taken as the origin of
the coordinate system) 'explained the form of
attachment',

It did? So the "form of attachment" is "the observer is at rest in the
frame"?

There you are Lester, now you know.

Congratulations, George. You've just conclusively said that every
observer is in his frame of reference. That wasn't the question of
course but then you're pretty much unable to answer questions.

snip Lester's failed attempts at sarcasm

Don't get snippy with me, George. Hyperbolic irony is a perfectly
acceptable forensic modality. Which if you hadn't snipped might have
informed you that the question I asked which you were either too lazy
or stupid to answer concerned the nature of the attachment involved
between the observer and his frame of reference since Jeff's comment
was that the frame of reference was "attached" to the observer and I
just wanted to know how.

All you've done so far is reiterate Jeff's claim which was pretty much
salient to begin with that there is some form of attachment between an
observer and his frame of reference. And all we're left with in your
reply to my question at this point is your contention that the form of
attachment between an observer and his frame of reference is that the
latter is attached to the former. Now I don't expect you to be able to
address or clarify the nature of the attachment. However your attempts
to explain the form of attachment in that it is attached is ludicrous.

~v~~

Lester Zick wrote:
On Sat, 13 Jan 2007 21:57:17 -0000, "George Dishman"
wrote:
"Lester Zick" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 13 Jan 2007 13:49:17 -0000, "George Dishman"
wrote:
"Lester Zick" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 23:31:41 -0000, "George Dishman"
wrote:
"Lester Zick" wrote in message
om...
On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 23:58:32 -0000, "George Dishman"
wrote:
"Lester Zick" wrote in message
news:gvaaq2poi7eaunusvn9p3sesq41pj91f9q@4ax .com...

.. I'm still waiting to read what the attachment is of a frame of
reference to an observer.

The observer is at rest in the frame (and typically
taken to define the origin of the coordinate system)
therefore the motion of the observer defines the
motion of the frame.

Which of course is not what I asked Jeff about. I asked about the
attachment involved.

Then let me make it even clearer: the origin of
the reference frame is _attached_ to the observer.

So repeating Jeff's claim explains the form of attachment of an
observer to his frame of reference?

No, telling you that the observer is at rest in
tht frame (and typically taken as the origin of
the coordinate system) 'explained the form of
attachment',

It did? So the "form of attachment" is "the observer is at rest in the
frame"?

There you are Lester, now you know.

Congratulations, George. You've just conclusively said that every
observer is in his frame of reference.

No, what I have said is that each observer is at rest in his
frame. If you consider two observers A and B such that B is
moving relative to A then obviously B's _frame_ is in motion
relative to A's frame which is not what you said previously.

If you still don't get it, I suggest you consider A and B both
measuring an object C which is moving relative to both and
see if you can derive the Galilean Transforms.

That wasn't the question of
course but then you're pretty much unable to answer questions.

Perhaps if you had applied more thought to what I wrote and
less to the pointless sarcasm, you would have realised the
post gave you the answer.

snip Lester's failed attempts at sarcasm

Don't get snippy with me, George.

We have a simple choice Lester, I can respond to your insults
in like manner in which case the thread becomes a flame war
like the previous ones, or I can snip it and respond only to
serious comments. I prefer the latter as that way you might
eventually learn by example how to conduct a conversation
in an adult manner.

George

On 13 Jan 2007 21:07:00 -0800, "Jeff Root" wrote:


Lester Zick replied to Jeff Root:

We can agree on a third party who has no vested interest
in conventional attitudes towards SR.

Well for one thing we already have one such observer in
Gurcharn unless you would accuse him of bias.

I don't accuse him of anything, but since he has an
interest in the subject and has participated in this
discussion, and I know nothing about him, I can't
assume that he is neutral.

Well to the best of my recollection Gurcharn's only
participation in the discussion has been to agree that
there is no contraction. Beyond that I'm not sure what
if anything I've said he agrees or disagrees with in
terms of my overall analysis.

He has posted a number of long, involved missives.
I didn't read them closely to learn all that he had to
say, but he definitely had quite a lot to say.

So Gurcharn's opinions don't qualify him as an independent
observer because you haven't read them? Are you quite
certain you aren't still in the third grade, Jeff?

According to what you said two posts back, I read and
recall the content of Gurcharn's posts better than you.

Do you often comment on the significance of posts you don't read?

The fact that Gurcharn has expressed opinions about the
question to be decided disqualifies him as a neutral judge.

So as soon as a neutral judge expresses opinions about issues that
disqualifies the neutral judge as a neutral judge?

The essence of a neutral third party is someone who has
no opinion on the question at hand. You are saying that
Gurcharn has already expressed an opinion about it.

And I'm satisfied that he understands the issues involved.

We can find another person with whom we will both be
satisfied.

Or you can find another person to do your thinking for you. Perhaps
your shrink can help.

I would prefer someone who we can both feel confident
is neutral. Perhaps currently unknown to either of us.

It would have to be someone with considerably more serious
standing in the field than I've seen so far.

I had been thinking that it would have to be someone with
no standing in the field, to satisfy you. Anyone with any
standing in the field of theoretical physics would hold an
opinion antithetical to yours. I was going to suggest
that we find someone in another field entirely.

Ah I see. Someone with no opinions or knowledge regarding SR.

Correct. But if you want to nominate someone with serious
standing in the field, do so.

Certainly not you or George.

Were you planning to get the janitor from your dorm or
someone else still in the third grade?

No.

Then it's unclear who you might have in mind.

Besides what would it prove?

That you can do what you say you will do.

Hell we don't need a third part for that. You don't even
need me for that. All anyone has to do is do it.

Only you can prove whether you can do what you say you
will do.

Oh horse****, Jeff. You don't need me to prove anything
about what I say.

This is what you said in the thread "Aether or whatever"
on Sun, Dec 10 2006 2:56 pm (my time):

LZ I can show a contradiction in contraction factors
LZ which preclude the geometric contraction posited by
LZ Einstein's SR.

That is what I offered the challenge in response to. The
challenge is for you to show that there is a contradiction
in contraction factors which preclude the geometric
contraction posited by Einstein's SR.

Hell that's easy enough. I pointed it out in the first
several posts.

You say. Let's see if you can convince a neutral judge.

You know, George, it's really unclear whom you can have in mind.

What I didn't claim was to be able to demonstrate the
contradiction to people with no critical capacity and
no reading comprehension skills.

That isn't relevant.

Critical capacity and reading comprehension skills aren't relevant. Oh
well. There go my arguments.

That is what you claimed you can do. That is the claim I
am asking you to uphold. You claimed that you can do it,
not that someone else can do it.

And that claim can only be upheld by successfully
repeating MM

Just two sentences up you said you had already done it.

Well I have for those with any critical capacity and comprehension
skills. Successfully repeating MM would adduce evidence even for those
lacking such skills. It really depends on which class you fall into.
You argue observation and measurement however you produce neither.
Obviously you fall into the latter category which doesn't require
either critical capacity or reading comprehension. So experimental
observation and measurement are necessary.

and not just by talking about observers and measurements
and psychology like you and George do because when I spell
out the contradiction and point out why it is a contradiction
and further justify the claim you and George just cover your
ears and say it ain't so without producing any observations
and measurements which say it ain't so.

You have produced nothing to show that it is so. All you
have done is assert that there is a contradiction.

Whereas you have done nothing to show there isn't.

Produce something which shows that there is a contradiction.

I have but I realize that experimental confirmation is required for
those with no critical capacity or reading comprehension skills.

Present it to a neutral judge.

Which takes us back to your dorm janitor or someone else in the third
grade.

All you need is someone to do the experiment with the
E vector of the light polarized normal to the plane of
platform rotation for MM. It's simple. Either it works
or it doesn't. If it works and a positive result is
realized the issue is resolved and we're right back to
where we started in 1887 and we can just begin over again
from there. If it doesn't work then we're left with
whatever alternatives there may be. But either way I'm
not personally required either to do the experiment or
participate as any functional part of the analysis beyond
what I've done so far. Of course I can show the calculations
and explain the reasoning involved but it's not like me,
myself, personally is needed.

If you don't do it, almost certainly no one will.
It is your idea, and you are its only champion.

How can it possibly be my idea and I its only champion if
as you claim the idea is trivial and unoriginal? I mean do
you actually read for comprehension what you say in your
various ramblings?

You claimed that you can show a contradiction in
contraction factors which preclude the geometric
contraction posited by Einstein's SR. The perception
of such a contradiction is common, and trivially without
foundation.

Then it should present you no problem whatsoever. What's puzzling in
all this is that you seem to consider that my claims are subject to
proof whereas your claims are privileged and above considerations of
demonstration and proof.

Only you are claiming to champion it.

You claim I champion it not me. But then no one attaches much
significance to what you claim.

If you can show a contradiction in contraction factors
which preclude the geometric contraction posited by
Einstein's SR, then show it.

I already have. Admittedly you need someone to do your thinking for
you.

You really have two or three different issues here.
Assuming you're serious and actually manage to find
someone capable of entertaining the problem in terms
satisfactory to us both then even assuming the individual
agreed with me and my analysis, the MM experiment itself
would still have to be performed over again to confirm
resolution of the analysis. That would be no small problem
because it would entail the expenditure of probably anywhere
from $50,000 to $500,000 for the apparatus and time.

But then even assuming the experiment itself yielded
positive results, years of arguments with relativists
would ensue as to exactly what the analysis and successful
MM experiment necessarily imply with respect to SR and
relativity. I can certainly envision waves of "explanations"
as to how the positive results for MM actually manage to
confirm Einstein's SR etc. etc. I certainly don't mind the
effort required for such an undertaking but it wouldn't be
trivial and would be greeted very skeptically by the
scientific community I'm certain because it has so much
intellectual capital already invested in relativity. So if
you really want to pursue the subject of an independent
observer and possible experiment just realize what you
are letting yourself in for.

Does that mean you were wrong when you said that you can
show a contradiction in contraction factors which preclude
the geometric contraction posited by Einstein's SR?

Of course not.

Then demonstrate it.

I have. The problem at the moment seems to be that you make various
claims which you don't demonstrate. Your previous claim was that
frames of reference are "attached" to observers. But you offer nothing
to demonstrate that claim. You can't even be bothered to show the form
of attachment and prefer to let someone else argue your ridiculous
claim. Now you claim there is no contradiction between overlapping
contraction factors for interstitial bodies traveling at different
velocities. Once again without any kind of demonstration.

It's means that you're wrong when you claim that no one
besides me can demonstrate my claim because my claim is
trivial and unoriginal yet nonetheless experimentally
demonstrable in definitive terms.

You claimed that you can do it. Do it.

I have already done so whereas you've claimed that I didn't do it
without demonstrating any basis for your claim. You see in science,
George, you're required to demonstrate the basis for your claims.
Normally you can expect to get away without any demonstrations by
appealing to extraneous authorities. In this case though you really
need to demonstrate what it is you claim. Quite possibly you're used
to getting others to do your thinking for you.However in this instance
you really need to buckle down a bit to demonstrate your own claims.

~v~~

On 15 Jan 2007 03:50:53 -0800, "George Dishman"
wrote:


Lester Zick wrote:
On Sat, 13 Jan 2007 21:57:17 -0000, "George Dishman"
wrote:
"Lester Zick" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 13 Jan 2007 13:49:17 -0000, "George Dishman"
wrote:
"Lester Zick" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 23:31:41 -0000, "George Dishman"
wrote:
"Lester Zick" wrote in message
om...
On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 23:58:32 -0000, "George Dishman"
wrote:
"Lester Zick" wrote in message
news:gvaaq2poi7eaunusvn9p3sesq41pj91f9q@4ax .com...

.. I'm still waiting to read what the attachment is of a frame of
reference to an observer.

The observer is at rest in the frame (and typically
taken to define the origin of the coordinate system)
therefore the motion of the observer defines the
motion of the frame.

Which of course is not what I asked Jeff about. I asked about the
attachment involved.

Then let me make it even clearer: the origin of
the reference frame is _attached_ to the observer.

So repeating Jeff's claim explains the form of attachment of an
observer to his frame of reference?

No, telling you that the observer is at rest in
tht frame (and typically taken as the origin of
the coordinate system) 'explained the form of
attachment',

It did? So the "form of attachment" is "the observer is at rest in the
frame"?

There you are Lester, now you know.

Congratulations, George. You've just conclusively said that every
observer is in his frame of reference.

No, what I have said is that each observer is at rest in his
frame. If you consider two observers A and B such that B is
moving relative to A then obviously B's _frame_ is in motion
relative to A's frame which is not what you said previously.

If you still don't get it, I suggest you consider A and B both
measuring an object C which is moving relative to both and
see if you can derive the Galilean Transforms.

That wasn't the question of
course but then you're pretty much unable to answer questions.

Perhaps if you had applied more thought to what I wrote and
less to the pointless sarcasm, you would have realised the
post gave you the answer.

What I realized, Jeff, was that you can't answer the question I asked.

snip Lester's failed attempts at sarcasm

Don't get snippy with me, George.

We have a simple choice Lester, I can respond to your insults
in like manner in which case the thread becomes a flame war
like the previous ones, or I can snip it and respond only to
serious comments. I prefer the latter as that way you might
eventually learn by example how to conduct a conversation
in an adult manner.

LOL. Or you might consider answering the question I asked instead of
your childish sniveling and sneering. The reason you snip the material
is not that it's insulting which I don't doubt it is but you should be
pretty much used to that by now but that I reiterate exactly what I
asked and explain why what you say doesn't answer what I asked or even
address it.

Of course you should be pretty much inured to insults by now however
as long as you claim what you say is significant just because you say
it and not because it's true you'll remain as pretentious at
comparative philology as you are a pretentious cognoscente at SR.

~v~~

Lester Zick wrote:
On Sat, 13 Jan 2007 21:57:17 -0000, "George Dishman"
wrote:
"Lester Zick" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 13 Jan 2007 13:49:17 -0000, "George Dishman"
wrote:
"Lester Zick" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 23:31:41 -0000, "George Dishman"
wrote:
"Lester Zick" wrote in message
om...
On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 23:58:32 -0000, "George Dishman"
wrote:
"Lester Zick" wrote in message
news:gvaaq2poi7eaunusvn9p3sesq41pj91f9q@4ax .com...

.. I'm still waiting to read what the attachment is of a frame of
reference to an observer.

The observer is at rest in the frame (and typically
taken to define the origin of the coordinate system)
therefore the motion of the observer defines the
motion of the frame.

Which of course is not what I asked Jeff about. I asked about the
attachment involved.

Then let me make it even clearer: the origin of
the reference frame is _attached_ to the observer.

So repeating Jeff's claim explains the form of attachment of an
observer to his frame of reference?

No, telling you that the observer is at rest in
tht frame (and typically taken as the origin of
the coordinate system) 'explained the form of
attachment',

It did? So the "form of attachment" is "the observer is at rest in the
frame"?

There you are Lester, now you know.

Congratulations, George. You've just conclusively said that every
observer is in his frame of reference.

No, what I have said is that each observer is at rest in his
frame. If you consider two observers A and B such that B is
moving relative to A then obviously B's _frame_ is in motion
relative to A's frame which is not what you said previously.

If you still don't get it, I suggest you consider A and B both
measuring an object C which is moving relative to both and
see if you can derive the Galilean Transforms.

That wasn't the question of
course but then you're pretty much unable to answer questions.

Perhaps if you had applied more thought to what I wrote and
less to the pointless sarcasm, you would have realised the
post gave you the answer.

snip Lester's failed attempts at sarcasm

Don't get snippy with me, George.

We have a simple choice Lester, I can respond to your insults
in like manner in which case the thread becomes a flame war
like the previous ones, or I can snip it and respond only to
serious comments. I prefer the latter as that way you might
eventually learn by example how to conduct a conversation
in an adult manner.

George

~v~~

On Tue, 16 Jan 2007 10:07:37 -0700, Lester Zick
wrote:


Lester Zick wrote:
On Sat, 13 Jan 2007 21:57:17 -0000, "George Dishman"
wrote:
"Lester Zick" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 13 Jan 2007 13:49:17 -0000, "George Dishman"
wrote:
"Lester Zick" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 23:31:41 -0000, "George Dishman"
wrote:
"Lester Zick" wrote in message
om...
On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 23:58:32 -0000, "George Dishman"
wrote:
"Lester Zick" wrote in message
news:gvaaq2poi7eaunusvn9p3sesq41pj91f9q@4ax .com...

.. I'm still waiting to read what the attachment is of a frame of
reference to an observer.

The observer is at rest in the frame (and typically
taken to define the origin of the coordinate system)
therefore the motion of the observer defines the
motion of the frame.

Which of course is not what I asked Jeff about. I asked about the
attachment involved.

Then let me make it even clearer: the origin of
the reference frame is _attached_ to the observer.

So repeating Jeff's claim explains the form of attachment of an
observer to his frame of reference?

No, telling you that the observer is at rest in
tht frame (and typically taken as the origin of
the coordinate system) 'explained the form of
attachment',

It did? So the "form of attachment" is "the observer is at rest in the
frame"?

There you are Lester, now you know.

Congratulations, George. You've just conclusively said that every
observer is in his frame of reference.

No, what I have said is that each observer is at rest in his
frame.

Exactly what I said. It wouldn't be "his" frame of reference if he
weren't at rest in it.

If you consider two observers A and B such that B is
moving relative to A then obviously B's _frame_ is in motion
relative to A's frame which is not what you said previously.

Of course it isn't since I don't mention observers at all.

If you still don't get it, I suggest you consider A and B both
measuring an object C which is moving relative to both and
see if you can derive the Galilean Transforms.

You just insist on discussing observers and measurement don't you,
George, and refuse to discuss the problem I posed which has nothing to
do with observers and measurement.

That wasn't the question of
course but then you're pretty much unable to answer questions.

Perhaps if you had applied more thought to what I wrote and
less to the pointless sarcasm, you would have realised the
post gave you the answer.

Not to the question I most recently asked:

J: (claim) The observer is attached to his frame of reference

Z: (question) What is the form of attachment of an observer to his
frame of reference?

G: (supposedly in answer to my question) An observer is attached to
his frame of reference which you continued to repeat in various forms.

See the problem here, George, is that when a claim is made and I ask a
question regarding the claim you're supposed to reply in one form or
another: "The form of attachment of an observer to his frame of
reference is . . ." because that is responsive to the question I asked
and that is how you're taught to answer questions in grade school
instead of merely repeating the original assertion which was being
questioned.

You didn't do that. Instead you chose to pretend you had answered the
question I asked which you didn't do at all. Then you launched into a
reverie regarding A and B which is totally unresponsive to anything I
or anyone else has asked. But now I think I'm beginning to understand
why. Totally apart from any issue of subliminal denial you have an
agenda implied by Jeff's comment unrelated to the question I asked.

When Jeff claims "the observer is attached to his frame of reference"
the purpose of that claim is to "attach" the "observer" to whatever is
used to define and measure whatever else may be defined by the frame
such that the "observer" becomes an essential part of the frame of
reference. Hence you can revert right back to your original contention
that the problem I posed has to be analyzed in terms of observers and
measurement instead of the way I posed the question in terms of
interstitial bodies and frames of reference.

However clever this strategem may appear though it ultimately fails
because it can't demonstrate why MM fails where anisometric
contraction using frames of reference was designed to explain exactly
that failure. Observers are irrlevant to the underlying failure of MM
because at best they don't observe and measure anything except null
fringe shifts. So the subterfuge you and Jeff propose of an observer
somehow "attached" to his frame of reference is absurd on the face of
it. But you insist on this subterfuge because you can't demonstrate
any other way to shoehorn observers into analysis of the problem.

You, Jeff, and everyone else talk about SR and the failure of MM as if
it were a problem in observation and measurement. Yet none of you
produce any observations and measurements except the failure of MM and
related relative motion experiments which was "observed" long before
SR with its rods and cones ever came along. The only measuring
involved is done by the experiment itself and apart from that not one
wit has measured anything.

snip Lester's failed attempts at sarcasm

Apparently they didn't fail at all.

Don't get snippy with me, George.

We have a simple choice Lester, I can respond to your insults
in like manner in which case the thread becomes a flame war
like the previous ones, or I can snip it and respond only to
serious comments. I prefer the latter as that way you might
eventually learn by example how to conduct a conversation
in an adult manner.

So these are mutually exclusive alternatives are they, George? You can
either respond or you can snip and clip commentary which reitierates
material to which you're being unresponsive? It seems to me you could
just as well leave the material in place without responding so others
can see how ridiculous and ineffective my editorial hyperbole actually
is. Instead your choosing to snip and clip leaves the impression it's
very effective indeed at highlighting what you're very much afraid of.

~v~~

Lester Zick wrote:
On Tue, 16 Jan 2007 10:07:37 -0700, Lester Zick
wrote:
Lester Zick wrote:
On Sat, 13 Jan 2007 21:57:17 -0000, "George Dishman"
wrote:
"Lester Zick" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 13 Jan 2007 13:49:17 -0000, "George Dishman"
wrote:
"Lester Zick" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 23:31:41 -0000, "George Dishman"
wrote:
"Lester Zick" wrote in message
om...
On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 23:58:32 -0000, "George Dishman"
wrote:
"Lester Zick" wrote in message
news:gvaaq2poi7eaunusvn9p3sesq41pj91f9q@4ax .com...

.. I'm still waiting to read what the attachment is of a frame of
reference to an observer.

The observer is at rest in the frame (and typically
taken to define the origin of the coordinate system)
therefore the motion of the observer defines the
motion of the frame.

Which of course is not what I asked Jeff about. I asked about the
attachment involved.

Then let me make it even clearer: the origin of
the reference frame is _attached_ to the observer.

So repeating Jeff's claim explains the form of attachment of an
observer to his frame of reference?

No, telling you that the observer is at rest in
tht frame (and typically taken as the origin of
the coordinate system) 'explained the form of
attachment',

It did? So the "form of attachment" is "the observer is at rest in the
frame"?

There you are Lester, now you know.

Congratulations, George. You've just conclusively said that every
observer is in his frame of reference.

No, what I have said is that each observer is at rest in his
frame.

Exactly what I said. It wouldn't be "his" frame of reference if he
weren't at rest in it.

Good. Contrast that with your previous statements some time
ago when you said that one frames was not moving relative to a
frame attached to a different observer.

If you consider two observers A and B such that B is
moving relative to A then obviously B's _frame_ is in motion
relative to A's frame which is not what you said previously.

Of course it isn't since I don't mention observers at all.

Let me remind you of the question to which I am responding:

.. I'm still waiting to read what the attachment is of a frame of
reference to an observer.


If you still don't get it, I suggest you consider A and B both
measuring an object C which is moving relative to both and
see if you can derive the Galilean Transforms.

You just insist on discussing observers and measurement don't you,

It's what you asked about, what is the form of attachment
of a frame to the observer.

George, and refuse to discuss the problem I posed which has nothing to
do with observers and measurement.

That wasn't the question of
course but then you're pretty much unable to answer questions.

Perhaps if you had applied more thought to what I wrote and
less to the pointless sarcasm, you would have realised the
post gave you the answer.

Not to the question I most recently asked:

J: (claim) The observer is attached to his frame of reference

Z: (question) What is the form of attachment of an observer to his
frame of reference?

G: (supposedly in answer to my question) snip ficticious "quote"

My reply which you have now agreed is correct was:

"The observer is at rest in the frame (and typically
taken to define the origin of the coordinate system)
therefore the motion of the observer defines the
motion of the frame."


See the problem here, George, is that when a claim is made and I ask a
question regarding the claim you're supposed to reply in one form or
another: "The form of attachment of an observer to his frame of
reference is . . ." because that is responsive to the question I asked
and that is how you're taught to answer questions in grade school

I had assumed you were beyond that level bu if you like:

"The form of attachment of an observer to his frame of
reference is .. that the observer is at rest in the frame
(and typically taken to define the origin of the coordinate
system) therefore the motion of the observer defines the
motion of the frame."

instead of merely repeating the original assertion which was being
questioned.

You didn't do that. Instead you chose to pretend you had answered the
question I asked which you didn't do at all. Then you launched into a
reverie regarding A and B which is totally unresponsive to anything I
or anyone else has asked. But now I think I'm beginning to understand
why. Totally apart from any issue of subliminal denial you have an
agenda implied by Jeff's comment unrelated to the question I asked.

When Jeff claims "the observer is attached to his frame of reference"
the purpose of that claim is to "attach" the "observer" to whatever is
used to define and measure whatever else may be defined by the frame

You are starting to understand but you aren't quite there yet. The
word "observer" in science is often used as an anthropomorphism
for the actual instrument that is used to make the measurements,
it does not refer to the person running the experiment as would be
the case in conversational language. (That's the mistake Gurcharn
was making.)

such that the "observer" becomes an essential part of the frame of
reference. Hence you can revert right back to your original contention
that the problem I posed has to be analyzed in terms of observers and
measurement instead of the way I posed the question in terms of
interstitial bodies and frames of reference.

Your original question related to "length contraction" and as I said
while you can ask whatever question you like, you cannot then
dictate the answer. The answer given by SR involves measurements.

However clever this strategem may appear though it ultimately fails
because it can't demonstrate why MM fails where anisometric
contraction using frames of reference was designed to explain exactly
that failure. Observers are irrlevant to the underlying failure of MM
because at best they don't observe and measure anything except null
fringe shifts. So the subterfuge you and Jeff propose of an observer
somehow "attached" to his frame of reference is absurd on the face of
it. But you insist on this subterfuge because you can't demonstrate
any other way to shoehorn observers into analysis of the problem.

You, Jeff, and everyone else talk about SR and the failure of MM as if
it were a problem in observation and measurement. Yet none of you
produce any observations and measurements except the failure of MM and
related relative motion experiments which was "observed" long before
SR with its rods and cones ever came along. The only measuring
involved is done by the experiment itself and apart from that not one
wit has measured anything.

What you fail to grasp is that the MMx is an instrument itself,
one for measuring the anisotropy in the speed of light. The
experiment didn't fail, it succeeded in correctly measuring a
value of zero for that anisotropy since the speed is isotropic
in the inertial frame of the instrument.

snip Lester's failed attempts at sarcasm

Apparently they didn't fail at all.

The phrase that you need is "Water off a duck's back."

Don't get snippy with me, George.

We have a simple choice Lester, I can respond to your insults
in like manner in which case the thread becomes a flame war
like the previous ones, or I can snip it and respond only to
serious comments. I prefer the latter as that way you might
eventually learn by example how to conduct a conversation
in an adult manner.

So these are mutually exclusive alternatives are they, George?

Yes they are. I choose what posts I reply to and I generally don't
waste my time responding to childish nonsense such as your
changing the subject line to "George's Daydreams ...".

.. It seems to me you could
just as well leave the material in place without responding so others
can see how ridiculous and ineffective my editorial hyperbole actually
is.

Sometimes you make the case far more eloquently than I
could. With possibly a few exceptions, it isn't hyperbole
Lester, it is sarcasm. Your use of words such as "interstitial",
"neologism", "hyperbolic irony" and "anisometry" is well
described by this study:

http://tinyurl.com/ryauz

You incorrect use of the terms adds the icing on the cake and
your subsequent attempts to defend your errors as "neologisms"
says more about your character and standard of liteacy than
any insult ever could.

George