"Spirit of Truth" <juneharton@prodigy.net> wrote in message news:egX5m.17207$Dx2.5792@flpi146.ffdc.sbc.com... > > "Peter Webb" <webbfamily@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message > news:4a4c8701$0$3321$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au... >> >> "Aetherist" <TheAetherist@best.net> wrote in message >> news:5q3o451r9tf42nq7r3u753p83jamfq6sr2@4ax.com... >>> On Wed, 1 Jul 2009 18:23:50 -0700, "Spirit of Truth" >>> <juneharton@prodigy.net> wrote: >>> >>> {snip...} >>> >>>>> Whatever "it" is. >>>> >>>>:) >>>> >>>>OK, I mean that disagreeing with the apparent "illogical" >>>>ideas in SR, at least in my case, is not to do with >>>>my "human" intuition disageeing with it. This real universe >>>>of ours does not support lack of simultaneity. >>>> >>>>Spirit >>> >>> You got to understand, for diehard relativists perception IS >>> reality. >> >> Well, if by perception you mean what we see experimentally, yes. >> >> You are quite free to impose your concept of simultaneity and absolute >> time and space on the Universe; you can define a privileged frame of >> reference and measure simultaneity etc from within that frame. You can >> even call it the ether, if you want. >> >> But what you also have to accept is that the frame you have chosen is >> completely arbitrary, and anybody else can pick a different inertial >> frame to treat as absolute. The details of which frame or reference you >> choose has absolutely no bearing on the outcome of physical experiments, >> and your absolute time and space plays no role in any physical >> experiment. >> >> If absolute time and space, and simultaneity do not play any role >> whatsoever in the equations, why would you think they exist? Aren't these >> just like the ancient belief in invisible giant spokes that keep the >> stars revolving around the earth? > > ....................................................................................................................... > > In fact, Master Web, you have answered for those that disagree with SR > You stated: "The frame or reference you choose has > absolutely no bearing on the outcome of physical experiments, and your > absolute time and space plays no role in any physical experiment". > > The fact that all frames where the experiments are done has NO > SR changes in it, makes the opposite of what you are trying to claim. > All local frames are at rest per Relativity.
What changes do you think SR says exist in a frame of reference?
