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: PD on 30 Jun 2010 12:26 On Jun 30, 10:24 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > On Jun 29, 11:55 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jun 29, 10:27 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > On Jun 28, 4:07 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jun 26, 2:55 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Jun 26, 10:40 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jun 26, 8:40 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > This is not true....the PoR says that all frames are equivalent, > > > > > > > including the preferred frame. > > > > > > > Classic Setoism. > > > > > > > Ken, the *meaning* of "preferred" in "preferred frame" is "not > > > > > > equivalent to other frames". > > > > > > Thus you are claiming that some theory says that "all frames are > > > > > > equivalent, including the one that is not equivalent to other frames". > > > > > > Then give us the differences in properties between a preferred frame > > > > > and an inertial frame. > > > > > I've already given you this answer before. > > > > An inertial reference frame is recognized by the dynamical laws of > > > > physics in their known forms holding in them, in particular Newton's > > > > laws of motion, the laws of electrodynamics, and the laws of the > > > > strong and weak interactions. Given one inertial reference frame, all > > > > other inertial reference frames relate to that one by a constant > > > > relative velocity, and so they all relate to each other by a constant > > > > relative velocity. > > > > > A preferred reference frame, a frame that would have a constant > > > > relative velocity with respect to an inertial reference frame, would > > > > be recognized by having the laws of physics take a form that is > > > > *different* than all other inertial reference frames. This uniqueness > > > > -- this DIFFERENTNESS -- is what would make this frame preferred, by > > > > definition. > > > > No... a preferred frame is in a state of absolute rest > > > (stationary)....all inertial frames are moving wrt it. > > > Ken, you do not have the right understanding of what the "preferred > > frame" means. > > Sure I have the right understanding what a preferred frame is. A > preferred clock is the fastest running clock in the universe. No, Ken, that is NOT the meaning of "preferred" in physics. That is YOUR meaning. The meanings that YOU have made up are not shared by physicists. If you want to discuss physics with physicists, then you will need to learn the meaning of terms as used in physics. > Every SR > and every LET observer assumes that he is in a preferred frame and > thus claims the exclusive properties of the preferred frame. That's > why SR and LET have the same math. > > Ken Seto > > > > > You've MADE UP a definition of this term, and you want everyone to > > respect your definition. However, your meaning is wrong, not shared by > > physicists. > > > If you will stop making up definitions of terms and instead ask a > > physicist what a term means, and then start using the terms as they > > are used in physics, then you'll be a whole lot better off. > > > I know that you hate to have to ask anyone for anything, and so the > > idea of asking a physicist for anything just makes you gag. But that's > > a personality problem. As long as you cannot get over that, you will > > get nowhere. > > > > Ken Seto > > > > > No inertial reference frame has ever been found that exhibits laws of > > > > physics that are different than in any other inertial reference frame. > > > > Therefore, there is no evidence for any preferred reference frame. > > > > There is furthermore no indication of what the DIFFERENT form of > > > > physical laws would be in this frame. > > > > > > Ken Seto > > > > > > > You are a champion at inventing meanings for words you do not > > > > > > understand and immediately generating an oxymoron with your made-up > > > > > > meaning. > > > > > > It does not occur to you that if you stopped making up the meaning of > > > > > > words, you would not immediately run into contradictions. > > > > > > But it just rankles the heck out of you to even ask what words mean. > > > > > > You HATE the idea of having to ask somebody a question about something > > > > > > you do not understand. > > > > > > > PD- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- 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 30 Jun 2010 12:30 On Jun 30, 8:01 am, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > On Jun 30, 10:26 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jun 29, 4:53 pm, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > > > > On Jun 30, 1:17 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jun 29, 1:57 am, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Jun 28, 3:33 pm, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > Congratulations, colp. You have just checkmated these Einstein > > > > > Dingleberries with these precise and concise summary. > > > > > :>) > > > > I see you either share COLP's Oversimplified Relativity or you have > > > > your own KW variant. > > > > What don't you tell us what part of Einstein's theory I have > > > oversimplified? > > > I've already told you the answer to that in a different post, as > > pertains to the twin puzzle. > > Can you quote it, or give a reference to it? If you can't then it > looks like you are lying. Don't be an idiot, colp, it's right here in this thread from TWO DAYS AGO. Is your attention span that short? http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/d40d129af46cfba8 This business of your being so lazy that you cannot go back and check things yourself, and daring others to spoonfeed every bit of information to you over and over and over again, lest you do something so foolish as to call them liars -- is tiresome and earns you derision. Please work on cleaning up that behavior if you want to engage in conversation. PD
From: kenseto on 30 Jun 2010 13:28 On Jun 30, 12:26 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 30, 10:24 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jun 29, 11:55 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jun 29, 10:27 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jun 28, 4:07 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Jun 26, 2:55 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jun 26, 10:40 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Jun 26, 8:40 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > This is not true....the PoR says that all frames are equivalent, > > > > > > > > including the preferred frame. > > > > > > > > Classic Setoism. > > > > > > > > Ken, the *meaning* of "preferred" in "preferred frame" is "not > > > > > > > equivalent to other frames". > > > > > > > Thus you are claiming that some theory says that "all frames are > > > > > > > equivalent, including the one that is not equivalent to other frames". > > > > > > > Then give us the differences in properties between a preferred frame > > > > > > and an inertial frame. > > > > > > I've already given you this answer before. > > > > > An inertial reference frame is recognized by the dynamical laws of > > > > > physics in their known forms holding in them, in particular Newton's > > > > > laws of motion, the laws of electrodynamics, and the laws of the > > > > > strong and weak interactions. Given one inertial reference frame, all > > > > > other inertial reference frames relate to that one by a constant > > > > > relative velocity, and so they all relate to each other by a constant > > > > > relative velocity. > > > > > > A preferred reference frame, a frame that would have a constant > > > > > relative velocity with respect to an inertial reference frame, would > > > > > be recognized by having the laws of physics take a form that is > > > > > *different* than all other inertial reference frames. This uniqueness > > > > > -- this DIFFERENTNESS -- is what would make this frame preferred, by > > > > > definition. > > > > > No... a preferred frame is in a state of absolute rest > > > > (stationary)....all inertial frames are moving wrt it. > > > > Ken, you do not have the right understanding of what the "preferred > > > frame" means. > > > Sure I have the right understanding what a preferred frame is. A > > preferred clock is the fastest running clock in the universe. > > No, Ken, that is NOT the meaning of "preferred" in physics. That is > YOUR meaning. So are you saying that the fastest running clock in the universe is not a preferred clock??? Ken Seto > The meanings that YOU have made up are not shared by physicists. If > you want to discuss physics with physicists, then you will need to > learn the meaning of terms as used in physics. > > > > > Every SR > > and every LET observer assumes that he is in a preferred frame and > > thus claims the exclusive properties of the preferred frame. That's > > why SR and LET have the same math. > > > Ken Seto > > > > You've MADE UP a definition of this term, and you want everyone to > > > respect your definition. However, your meaning is wrong, not shared by > > > physicists. > > > > If you will stop making up definitions of terms and instead ask a > > > physicist what a term means, and then start using the terms as they > > > are used in physics, then you'll be a whole lot better off. > > > > I know that you hate to have to ask anyone for anything, and so the > > > idea of asking a physicist for anything just makes you gag. But that's > > > a personality problem. As long as you cannot get over that, you will > > > get nowhere. > > > > > Ken Seto > > > > > > No inertial reference frame has ever been found that exhibits laws of > > > > > physics that are different than in any other inertial reference frame. > > > > > Therefore, there is no evidence for any preferred reference frame.. > > > > > There is furthermore no indication of what the DIFFERENT form of > > > > > physical laws would be in this frame. > > > > > > > Ken Seto > > > > > > > > You are a champion at inventing meanings for words you do not > > > > > > > understand and immediately generating an oxymoron with your made-up > > > > > > > meaning. > > > > > > > It does not occur to you that if you stopped making up the meaning of > > > > > > > words, you would not immediately run into contradictions. > > > > > > > But it just rankles the heck out of you to even ask what words mean. > > > > > > > You HATE the idea of having to ask somebody a question about something > > > > > > > you do not understand. > > > > > > > > PD- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- 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 30 Jun 2010 14:53 On Jun 30, 12:28 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > On Jun 30, 12:26 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jun 30, 10:24 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > On Jun 29, 11:55 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jun 29, 10:27 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Jun 28, 4:07 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jun 26, 2:55 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Jun 26, 10:40 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Jun 26, 8:40 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > This is not true....the PoR says that all frames are equivalent, > > > > > > > > > including the preferred frame. > > > > > > > > > Classic Setoism. > > > > > > > > > Ken, the *meaning* of "preferred" in "preferred frame" is "not > > > > > > > > equivalent to other frames". > > > > > > > > Thus you are claiming that some theory says that "all frames are > > > > > > > > equivalent, including the one that is not equivalent to other frames". > > > > > > > > Then give us the differences in properties between a preferred frame > > > > > > > and an inertial frame. > > > > > > > I've already given you this answer before. > > > > > > An inertial reference frame is recognized by the dynamical laws of > > > > > > physics in their known forms holding in them, in particular Newton's > > > > > > laws of motion, the laws of electrodynamics, and the laws of the > > > > > > strong and weak interactions. Given one inertial reference frame, all > > > > > > other inertial reference frames relate to that one by a constant > > > > > > relative velocity, and so they all relate to each other by a constant > > > > > > relative velocity. > > > > > > > A preferred reference frame, a frame that would have a constant > > > > > > relative velocity with respect to an inertial reference frame, would > > > > > > be recognized by having the laws of physics take a form that is > > > > > > *different* than all other inertial reference frames. This uniqueness > > > > > > -- this DIFFERENTNESS -- is what would make this frame preferred, by > > > > > > definition. > > > > > > No... a preferred frame is in a state of absolute rest > > > > > (stationary)....all inertial frames are moving wrt it. > > > > > Ken, you do not have the right understanding of what the "preferred > > > > frame" means. > > > > Sure I have the right understanding what a preferred frame is. A > > > preferred clock is the fastest running clock in the universe. > > > No, Ken, that is NOT the meaning of "preferred" in physics. That is > > YOUR meaning. > > So are you saying that the fastest running clock in the universe is > not a preferred clock??? There is no fastest running clock in the universe, Seto. Geez, you are slower than garden slug steeplechases. Tim sees Rob standing 20 yards away, and he measures his height by holding up his finger and thumb on his right hand. "Rob is as tall as the space between my finger and my thumb," says Tim. Tim tries to measure himself this way and concludes that he is taller than Rob. Rob sees Tim standing 20 yards away, and he measures his height by holding up his finger and thumb on his right hand. "Tim is as tall as the space between my finger and my thumb," says Rob. Rob tries to measure himself this way and concludes that he is taller than Tim. According to Seto, Tim is preferred because he is the tallest of the two AND Rob is preferred because he is the tallest of the two. Seto thinks this is a perfectly acceptable meaning of the word "preferred" and in fact thinks this is what physicists must mean when they use words like "preferred". Seto is a bonehead. But of course, Seto will not be able to read the first paragraph in the above from beginning to end and understand it, so he will get confused by what is said there. > > Ken Seto >
From: eric gisse on 30 Jun 2010 15:16
Tom Roberts wrote: > eric gisse wrote: >> Tom Roberts wrote: >>> 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? > > A physical theory like SR consists of: > A) a set of mathematical theorems > B) the meanings of the symbols that appear in (A) > C) an experimental record of comparisons between theorems of (A) > related to experimental measurements via (B) and the choice of the > appropriate theorem representing the conditions of the measurement. > > Only part (A) can be an axiomatic system (and for SR it is). All parts are > needed for a successful physical theory. I just don't see them as mutually exclusive conditions, that's all. > > > Tom Roberts |