Preferred Frame Theory indistinguishable from SR
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Centre of mass inertial framesy are the unique ones in 1905 Relativity
Next: Fraternal Twins going equally fast at all times?
From: Inertial on 28 Jun 2010 10:24 "kenseto" <kenseto(a)erinet.com> wrote in message news:5069b9ca-99fc-4c82-877b-cfb105a4c351(a)z10g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... > On Jun 27, 8:02 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "kenseto" <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote in message >> >> news:b30a9489-48ab-49ba-b946-6c6e96609d4c(a)e5g2000yqn.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> >> >> > On Jun 26, 8:33 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> >> "colp" <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote in message >> >> >>news:14fb1df4-8642-4e86-94bf-6336a570eed4(a)g1g2000prg.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> > The following illustrates the issue of arbitrary points of >> >> > contention: >> >> >> There's no cnotention , just lack of understanding on your part >> >> regarding >> >> SR. You have a naive view of what it entails >> >> >> > From the "colp, why did AE use the word "relativity" thread, Daryl >> >> > writes: >> >> >> > <quote> >> >> >>> Let's consider once again three frames: >> >> >> >>> F1 = the frame of the Earth >> >> >>> F2 = the rest frame of a rocket traveling at velocity v >> >> >>> in the +x direction relative to F1. >> >> >>> F3 = the rest frame of a rocket traveling at velocity v >> >> >>> in the -x direction relative to F1. >> >> >> >>> Now, let's introduce a 4th frame: >> >> >>> F4 = the rest frame of a rocket traveling at velocity >> >> >>> v in the +x direction relative to frame F2. >> >> >> >>> Now, we can do a symmetric twin paradox See .. symmetric twin 'paradox' >> >> There is no paradox .. all frames agree the twins are the same age >> >> upon >> >> reuniting >> >> > ROTFLOL....you are an idiot.!!!!!!!! >> >> Nope >> >> > Here you don't even agree with >> > SR. >> >> I do agree with what SR says about symmetric twins. You are in no >> position >> to comment as you fail to understand even the most basic physics, let >> alone >> to have the audacity to think you have any idea what SR says. > > Hey idiot....Here's what you said: There is no paradox .. all frames > agree the twins are the same age upon reuniting. That's right. In the symmetric twins scenario (ie what was being discussed). Having trouble keeping up Ken?
From: Inertial on 28 Jun 2010 10:27 "kenseto" <kenseto(a)erinet.com> wrote in message news:07fd47a7-230a-4706-957a-cc7e62a7a01e(a)q12g2000yqj.googlegroups.com... > On Jun 27, 9:12 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: [snip for brevity] >> LET has only one preferred frame where things have their correct lengths >> and >> ticking rates .. in all others they are compressed and slowed. It is >> only >> the result of measuring with distorted rulers and clocks that gives the >> result that appear to be locally correct. > > Yes but every LET observer uses the one preferred frame to derive it > math Yes > and that's why LET and SR have the same math. No .. SR doesn't use a preferred frame for its math. Any frame can be used >> SR says length and clock rates are correct in all inertial frames for >> things >> at rest in those frames. Motion of that frame compared to other frames >> does >> not change this. > > The PoR of SR says all frames are equivalent, Yes > including the preferred > frame... There is no preferred frame .. so you cannot include or exclude it. > this allows every SR observer to choose the preferred frame There is no preferred frame .. so the SR observer cannot chose it > to > derive its math The SR observer can do the SR math from any frame they choose .. a sensible one will choose the one in which the maths is simplest (eg the rest frame of the observer) > and that's why SR and LET have the same math. Nope
From: kenseto on 28 Jun 2010 13:29 On Jun 28, 10:24 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "kenseto" <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote in message > > news:5069b9ca-99fc-4c82-877b-cfb105a4c351(a)z10g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > On Jun 27, 8:02 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> "kenseto" <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote in message > > >>news:b30a9489-48ab-49ba-b946-6c6e96609d4c(a)e5g2000yqn.googlegroups.com.... > > >> > On Jun 26, 8:33 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> >> "colp" <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote in message > > >> >>news:14fb1df4-8642-4e86-94bf-6336a570eed4(a)g1g2000prg.googlegroups.com... > > >> >> > The following illustrates the issue of arbitrary points of > >> >> > contention: > > >> >> There's no cnotention , just lack of understanding on your part > >> >> regarding > >> >> SR. You have a naive view of what it entails > > >> >> > From the "colp, why did AE use the word "relativity" thread, Daryl > >> >> > writes: > > >> >> > <quote> > >> >> >>> Let's consider once again three frames: > > >> >> >>> F1 = the frame of the Earth > >> >> >>> F2 = the rest frame of a rocket traveling at velocity v > >> >> >>> in the +x direction relative to F1. > >> >> >>> F3 = the rest frame of a rocket traveling at velocity v > >> >> >>> in the -x direction relative to F1. > > >> >> >>> Now, let's introduce a 4th frame: > >> >> >>> F4 = the rest frame of a rocket traveling at velocity > >> >> >>> v in the +x direction relative to frame F2. > > >> >> >>> Now, we can do a symmetric twin paradox > > See .. symmetric twin 'paradox' > > > > > > >> >> There is no paradox .. all frames agree the twins are the same age > >> >> upon > >> >> reuniting > > >> > ROTFLOL....you are an idiot.!!!!!!!! > > >> Nope > > >> > Here you don't even agree with > >> > SR. > > >> I do agree with what SR says about symmetric twins. You are in no > >> position > >> to comment as you fail to understand even the most basic physics, let > >> alone > >> to have the audacity to think you have any idea what SR says. > > > Hey idiot....Here's what you said: There is no paradox .. all frames > > agree the twins are the same age upon reuniting. > > That's right. In the symmetric twins scenario (ie what was being > discussed). Having trouble keeping up Ken? Hey idiot there is no such thing as the symmetric twin scenario....a pair of twin travel away from each other and reunite later will age differently in terms of clock time. - Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: PD on 28 Jun 2010 14:40 On Jun 28, 12:29 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > On Jun 28, 10:24 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > > > > > > "kenseto" <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote in message > > >news:5069b9ca-99fc-4c82-877b-cfb105a4c351(a)z10g2000yqb.googlegroups.com.... > > > > On Jun 27, 8:02 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > >> "kenseto" <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote in message > > > >>news:b30a9489-48ab-49ba-b946-6c6e96609d4c(a)e5g2000yqn.googlegroups.com.... > > > >> > On Jun 26, 8:33 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > >> >> "colp" <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote in message > > > >> >>news:14fb1df4-8642-4e86-94bf-6336a570eed4(a)g1g2000prg.googlegroups.com... > > > >> >> > The following illustrates the issue of arbitrary points of > > >> >> > contention: > > > >> >> There's no cnotention , just lack of understanding on your part > > >> >> regarding > > >> >> SR. You have a naive view of what it entails > > > >> >> > From the "colp, why did AE use the word "relativity" thread, Daryl > > >> >> > writes: > > > >> >> > <quote> > > >> >> >>> Let's consider once again three frames: > > > >> >> >>> F1 = the frame of the Earth > > >> >> >>> F2 = the rest frame of a rocket traveling at velocity v > > >> >> >>> in the +x direction relative to F1. > > >> >> >>> F3 = the rest frame of a rocket traveling at velocity v > > >> >> >>> in the -x direction relative to F1. > > > >> >> >>> Now, let's introduce a 4th frame: > > >> >> >>> F4 = the rest frame of a rocket traveling at velocity > > >> >> >>> v in the +x direction relative to frame F2. > > > >> >> >>> Now, we can do a symmetric twin paradox > > > See .. symmetric twin 'paradox' > > > >> >> There is no paradox .. all frames agree the twins are the same age > > >> >> upon > > >> >> reuniting > > > >> > ROTFLOL....you are an idiot.!!!!!!!! > > > >> Nope > > > >> > Here you don't even agree with > > >> > SR. > > > >> I do agree with what SR says about symmetric twins. You are in no > > >> position > > >> to comment as you fail to understand even the most basic physics, let > > >> alone > > >> to have the audacity to think you have any idea what SR says. > > > > Hey idiot....Here's what you said: There is no paradox .. all frames > > > agree the twins are the same age upon reuniting. > > > That's right. In the symmetric twins scenario (ie what was being > > discussed). Having trouble keeping up Ken? > > Hey idiot there is no such thing as the symmetric twin scenario.... Don't be an idiot, Seto. The symmetric twin scenario has been posted here many times. Are you of the opinion that unless you've heard of it, it doesn't exist? > a > pair of twin travel away from each other and reunite later will age > differently in terms of clock time. > > - Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: PD on 28 Jun 2010 14:41
On Jun 26, 4:18 pm, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > On Jun 27, 2:45 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jun 26, 2:47 am, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > > > > You claimed that you need a physics, but you didn't identify the > > > nature of the threat implied by that statement when I questioned you > > > on it. Until that threat is eliminated it is reasonable for me to > > > think that you may employ deception in order to maintain your own > > > sense of security. If this is the case it is pointless for me to > > > continue to argue with you, since it is reasonable to think that you > > > will introduce any point of contention necessary to maintain your > > > position and sense of security. > > > I'd like for you to look at the above paragraph again and reconsider > > your participation in a discussion group. > > What POSSIBLE value would you place on spending any time whatsoever in > > a discussion with someone that you inherently do not trust? > > Showing the truth by identifying the fallacies or assumptions inherent > in their argument. But you haven't done that. At best, all you've done is show the fallacies or assumptions inherent in COLP's Oversimplified Relativity. You haven't shown anything of the kind for relativity. > > > Why would you attempt to wean out consensus or clarification or > > improve your understanding of anything by conversing with someone > > whose words do not mean anything to you at all? > > The words have meaning. Interpretation of that meaning may vary.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - |