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: whoever on 30 Jun 2010 20:08 "kenseto" wrote in message news:df74fbc0-5371-4ea5-b0fa-b707d00918d6(a)g19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com... > Hey idiot....why don't you give us a symmetric situation?? Derr .. two objects travelling with the same speed for the same time (and so also the same total distance), but in opposite directions, at all times relative to an inertial frame of reference. eg. two objects at both at rest at a given point in an inertial frame of reference with their clocks in syn. They then move with velocities +v and -v (so in opposite directions with same speed) as measured in that inertial frame. Then at some time later, at the same time in that frame, they reverse the velocities to -v and +v and return to the initial point. The elapsed time for each will be the same. --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news(a)netfront.net ---
From: kenseto on 30 Jun 2010 20:27 On Jun 30, 8:08 pm, "whoever" <whoe...(a)whereever.com> wrote: > "kenseto" wrote in message > > news:df74fbc0-5371-4ea5-b0fa-b707d00918d6(a)g19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com... > > > Hey idiot....why don't you give us a symmetric situation?? > > Derr .. two objects travelling with the same speed for the same time (and so > also the same total distance), but in opposite directions, at all times > relative to an inertial frame of reference. eg. two objects at both at rest > at a given point in an inertial frame of reference with their clocks in syn. > They then move with velocities +v and -v (so in opposite directions with > same speed) as measured in that inertial frame. Then at some time later, at > the same time in that frame, they reverse the velocities to -v and +v and > return to the initial point. The elapsed time for each will be the same. Then why is one clock flying east and the other flying west show different elapsed time when they were reunited???? > > --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: n...(a)netfront.net ---
From: eric gisse on 30 Jun 2010 21:09 colp wrote: [...] Riddle me this: Why have you not actually performed a computation using SR? {sci.chem,sci.math snipped - crosspost elsewhere, fuckwit}
From: Daryl McCullough on 30 Jun 2010 22:11 artful says... >> You think I'm an diot for showing that you are unable quote anything >> that I said that supports your claim of oversimplification? Or are you >> just trying to draw attention away from your apparent attempt to >> mislead the readers? > >On MANY occasions you discount what happens at the turnaround because >you only look at time dilation and not relativity of simultaneity. >The ONLY equations you use are those of time dilation. THAT is an >oversimplification. Actually, with the correct statement of time dilation, time dilation is all you need to solve most of the problems involving clocks, twins, etc. The correct statement is this: As measured in any standard INERTIAL coordinate system, the elapsed time T on a moving clock satisfies dT/dt = square-root(1-(v/c)^2) Colp's mistake, which has been explained to him over and over, is that this formula relates *elapsed time* on one clock to *coordinate* time in a standard inertial coordinate system. It does *not* relate elapsed times on two different clocks. I don't think it's correct that colp is oversimplifying; he's just not applying SR. He's applying some other theory of his own invention (of course, it is *derived* from SR, as filtered through his incompetence, but the end result is not SR, but a new, provably inconsistent theory As for calling it an oversimplification to use just the time dilation formula, I don't completely agree, because time dilation *implies* the other relativistic effects, such as the relativity of simultaneity. If you try to set up a coordinate system using time-dilated clocks then you will end up with clocks that are out of synch, as viewed from a coordinate system in which those clocks are moving. Colp is not oversimplifying, he's just being an incompetent. Exactly like Koobee Wublee and Androcles. They are incompetents who project their own incompetence onto others---any nonsense that comes from their incompetence they blame on Einstein. -- Daryl McCullough Ithaca, NY
From: artful on 30 Jun 2010 23:36
On Jul 1, 12:11 pm, stevendaryl3...(a)yahoo.com (Daryl McCullough) wrote: > artful says... > > >> You think I'm an diot for showing that you are unable quote anything > >> that I said that supports your claim of oversimplification? Or are you > >> just trying to draw attention away from your apparent attempt to > >> mislead the readers? > > >On MANY occasions you discount what happens at the turnaround because > >you only look at time dilation and not relativity of simultaneity. > >The ONLY equations you use are those of time dilation. THAT is an > >oversimplification. > > Actually, with the correct statement of time dilation, time > dilation is all you need to solve most of the problems involving > clocks, twins, etc. > > The correct statement is this: As measured in any standard INERTIAL > coordinate system, the elapsed time T on a moving clock satisfies > > dT/dt = square-root(1-(v/c)^2) > > Colp's mistake, which has been explained to him over and over, > is that this formula relates *elapsed time* on one clock to > *coordinate* time in a standard inertial coordinate system. > It does *not* relate elapsed times on two different clocks. > > I don't think it's correct that colp is oversimplifying; he's > just not applying SR. He's applying some other theory of his > own invention (of course, it is *derived* from SR, as filtered > through his incompetence, but the end result is not SR, but > a new, provably inconsistent theory > As for calling it an oversimplification to use just the > time dilation formula, I don't completely agree, because > time dilation *implies* the other relativistic effects, such > as the relativity of simultaneity. If you try to set up a > coordinate system using time-dilated clocks then you will > end up with clocks that are out of synch, as viewed from > a coordinate system in which those clocks are moving. > > Colp is not oversimplifying, he's just being an incompetent. > Exactly like Koobee Wublee and Androcles. They are incompetents > who project their own incompetence onto others---any nonsense > that comes from their incompetence they blame on Einstein. > > -- > Daryl McCullough > Ithaca, NY Yes indeed .. time dilation can give you RoS and Length contraction. However Colp is using time dilation and ignoring completely RoS .. so what he is putting forward is no longer SR and no longer a self- consistent theory. That means what he sees as complete SR is missing large chunks .. the very chunks that explain what he incorrectly claims is a paradox. And yes .. that is incompetency. |