1 a little reflection about causes and effects

Let'us turn to real-world, an object moving in space if there is an effect this effect has to be generated by a cause that operates upon the object itself, the cause is the movement, so, the time rate slowing can be generated only by the movement of the object the same as the contraction only the proper movement can generate a contraction on the moving object If the movement of the object undergoes to change because of the movement, then this movement as to be absolute, or be relative to the local space.

The true relative interaction between two inertial moving objects are when they collide, then the only cause is the collision and the effects are due to the sum of the two kinetic energies, for the rest, two independent moving objects don't' have anything to do with each other.

cheers beda

2 a little reflection about causes and effects

Which specif effect do you have in mind? Do you mean the moon around the earth? Why do you call that a relativistic effect?

>	If the observer on the stationary SR frame measures the passing by ruler in the frame relatively moving, how does this make the measured ruler contracted without any whatsoever action upon that passing by frame???

I don't fully understand what you mean. IMO it is always tricky when different frames are involved. IMO generally speaking, when you measure something, does not involve any physical change. Of course, that is not always exactly true. When you measure the temperature of water with a thermometer the water temperature changes slightly. For a long time in this newsgroup, I tried to find a good answer on the question: What is the simplest experiment to demonstrate physical length contraction.

>	In SR this doesn't happen etc.

What do you mean by that? In the physical world, you can make observations or perform experiments. The purpose of science is to try to explain what is observed. In the case of an experiment, there is always one action (pressing a start button) and one or a range of effects. The purpose of science is to identify the range of intermediate actions and reactions that caused the final results.

>	Let'us turn to real-world, an object moving in space if there is an effect this effect has to be generated by a cause that operates upon the object itself, the cause is the movement, so, the time rate slowing can be generated only by the movement of the object

It is not exactly clear what you mean. What do you mean by time rate? Related to time the only thing that is physical are the clock counts or ticks by a clock.

>	the same as the contraction only the proper movement can generate a contraction on the moving object

Also, this is not very clear what you mean.

>	If the movement of the object undergoes to change because of the movement, then this movement has to be absolute, or be relative to the local space.

The problem in science is when you use concepts like absolute or relative you have to define what you mean.

Nicolaas Vroom

3 a little reflection about causes and effects

You are UTTERLY INCOMPETENT to attempt to summarize what I say. Please stop.

Yes, it is not possible to count INDIVIDUAL photons. But from measurements of a monochromatic light beam's intensity and frequency we can get an approximate count; in practice that count can be quite accurate (i.e. small errorbars), just not exact.

You might be tempted to think that by reducing the intensity of the beam, ultimately one would be counting individual photons. Nope -- look up Poisson statistics.

Similarly, one cannot ascribe any frequency to an INDIVIDUAL photon, but one can most definitely measure the frequency of a monochromatic light beam containing many, many photons (again, small errorbars).

Note that by discussing individual photons I am speaking loosely.

As I keep saying: you REALLY need to learn basic physics. Your GUESSES are wrong. This is more complicated and subtle than you think; indeed, given your colossal ignorance, it is more complicated and subtle than it is possible for you to think.

Tom Roberts

4 a little reflection about causes and effects

They do not accurately count photons. It's just that they are sensitive enough to respond to a single photon. Look up Poisson statistics.

In that phrase, "counter" does not really mean it is able to count photons. It comes from common experimental physics usage in which a counter detects something (here photons). This usage is far older than I am. Such counters can indeed count THE ONES THEY DETECT, but they do not, and can not, count the others they don't detect.

BTW I have participated in an experiment that used VLPCs (visible light photon counters). They must be kept at cryogenic temperatures to not be overwhelmed by thermal noise. I am not expert and only know the basics.

Tom Roberts

5 a little reflection about causes and effects

Certainly. Where do you think physicists learned about that linear relationship?

[Other experiments and measurements are much better for determining that relationship.]

>>	Note that by discussing individual photons I am speaking loosely.

>	Try to get it into your pointy little head that ranting about your theory's postulates as if they were fact is *not* conducive to prductive debate.

I am neither "ranting" nor discussing "postulates", and I am not treating any of this as fact. But I am describing how modern physics models this, and those models have survived MANY, MANY experimental tests.

Your comprehensive ignorance and colossal arrogance prevent you from learning about modern physics. How sad -- it is a marvelous and interesting subject.

Tom Roberts

6 a little reflection about causes and effects

>	On 5/12/20 12:44 PM, Ned Latham wrote:

> >	Mr Roberts says that we can't count photons. That means, in case you don't get it, that we can't determine photon frequencies.

There are clearly two issues: To count photons and to determine the frequency of a photon.

>	You are UTTERLY INCOMPETENT to attempt to summarize what I say. Please stop. Yes, it is not possible to count INDIVIDUAL photons.