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: colp on 28 Jun 2010 18:33 On Jun 29, 6:41 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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. Actually I have: Daryl: Colp-SR is incoherent and inconsistent. colp: I haven't said what my version of SR is. --- colp: Your process of computation involves restricting calculations which could produce a paradox to a single frame of reference, Daryl: Right. The point is that doing anything else is mathematically and physically nonsense. colp: Yes. And that nonsense is a direct result of the premises of SR, nothing else. > At best, all you've done is show the > fallacies or assumptions inherent in COLP's Oversimplified Relativity. What specific fallacies or assumptions? Quotes, please.
From: PD on 28 Jun 2010 18:40 On Jun 28, 5:33 pm, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > On Jun 29, 6:41 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > 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. > > Actually I have: > > Daryl: Colp-SR is incoherent and inconsistent. > > colp: I haven't said what my version of SR is. > > --- > > colp: > Your process of computation involves restricting calculations > which could produce a paradox to a single frame of reference, > > Daryl: > Right. The point is that doing anything else is mathematically > and physically nonsense. > > colp: > Yes. And that nonsense is a direct result of the premises of SR, > nothing else. > > > At best, all you've done is show the > > fallacies or assumptions inherent in COLP's Oversimplified Relativity. > > What specific fallacies or assumptions? Quotes, please. Sure. You've used the statement from COLP's Oversimplified Relativity that moving clocks run slow (which you've said is true even for blue- shifted clocks), and you've used the statement that COLP's Oversimplified Relativity makes no provision whatsoever for a compression of time for a clock turning around. This immediately leads to several paradoxes, and this is ample reason to chuck Colp's Oversimplified Relativity. PD
From: Inertial on 28 Jun 2010 20:24 "colp" <colp(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote in message news:1b47832a-bd9d-480d-9812-24accc2f4eae(a)h2g2000prg.googlegroups.com... > On Jun 29, 6:41 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> 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. > > Actually I have: Nope > Daryl: Colp-SR is incoherent and inconsistent. > > colp: I haven't said what my version of SR is. You have posted what you think SR says. THAT is what we are callign 'Colp-SR' .. and that is wrong > colp: > Your process of computation involves restricting calculations > which could produce a paradox to a single frame of reference, Wrong > Daryl: > Right. The point is that doing anything else is mathematically > and physically nonsense. Daryl is not correct there .. you can happily work with multiple frames in Sr .. that's what Lorentz transforms are for .. how to change coordinates from one frame to another > colp: > Yes. And that nonsense is a direct result of the premises of SR, > nothing else. The only nonsense is your claims. >> At best, all you've done is show the >> fallacies or assumptions inherent in COLP's Oversimplified Relativity. > > What specific fallacies or assumptions? Quotes, please. Your assumption that the turnaround in the symmetric twin scenario does not affect the aging. WRONG Your fallacy that one twin will not see the other aging more quickly. WRONG
From: eric gisse on 28 Jun 2010 21:05 Tom Roberts wrote: > Paul Stowe wrote: >> On Jun 27, 5:14 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> Paul Stowe wrote: >>>> There is SOMETHING in SR that gives rise to the second postulate. >>> Axiomatic systems do not need to justify their axioms. >> >> Yeah, 'taken for granted systems' do not need to justify their >> 'statements which are taken for granted'. > > SR is not really an "axiomatic system". Nor a 'taken for granted system'. > > SR is a physical theory with testable predictions and a well-defined > domain of applicability. Why can't it be both? [...]
From: Daryl McCullough on 28 Jun 2010 21:07
Inertial says... >> colp: >> Your process of computation involves restricting calculations >> which could produce a paradox to a single frame of reference, > >Wrong > >> Daryl: >> Right. The point is that doing anything else is mathematically >> and physically nonsense. > >Daryl is not correct there .. you can happily work with multiple frames in >Sr .. that's what Lorentz transforms are for .. how to change coordinates >from one frame to another What I said you cannot do, consistently, is to take the rules for what is true in any inertial coordinate system and apply them in a noninertial coordinate system. It is true that for any inertial coordinate system, the time T shown on any moving clock satisfies: dT/dt = square-root(1-(v/c)^2) where t is coordinate time, and v is the velocity of the clock. That formula does *not* work in a noninertial coordinate system, which is how Colp has tried to apply it. >> What specific fallacies or assumptions? Quotes, please. > >Your assumption that the turnaround in the symmetric twin scenario does not >affect the aging. WRONG > >Your fallacy that one twin will not see the other aging more quickly. WRONG There are two different meanings to the phrase "how fast does one twin see the other twin aging". The first meaning is in terms of images of the one twin as received by the other twin. With this notion of aging, the other twin appears to age slower during the first part of the journey, and appears to age faster during the last part of the journey. The other notion of "how fast does one twin see the other twin aging" is in terms of inertial coordinate systems. At each moment, a twin is momentarily at rest in some inertial coordinate system. Relative to that inertial coordinate system, one can ask: "How old is the other twin right now", where "right now" is relative to the coordinate system. With the latter notion of "how fast is the other twin aging", the other twin ages slower during both legs of the journey, but ages *much* faster during turnaround (in the limit of an instantaneous turn-around, the distant twin ages infinitely fast). This is *not* a physical effect, it is an artifact of changing coordinate systems. If you are following the location of a moving vehicle on a map, and the vehicle goes off the right edge of the map, then you have to change to another map. In the second map, the vehicle is on the left edge of the map. In terms of maps, the vehicle seems to have jumped from the right edge to the left edge instantaneously. But that is just an artifact of changing maps. -- Daryl McCullough Ithaca, NY |