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 1 Jul 2010 10:21 On Jun 30, 5:47 pm, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > On Jul 1, 4:30 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > 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, > > You think I'm an idiot 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? > > > 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/d40d129af46... > > I'll quote it here. > > <quote> > > > > 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. > </quote> > > The statement that "moving clocks run slow" isn't an > oversimplification, it is directly inferred from Einstein's > "Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies". It IS an oversimplification. If you've inferred this from his 1905 paper, then you've oversimplified. The statement in SR is actually quite a bit more precise. > > Also, Einstein's paper makes no provision whatsoever for the > compression of time for a clock turning around. That's correct, but the Lorentz transforms are there, and though the *application* of those to the twin puzzle is not addressed in the 1905 paper, this does NOT mean that SR contains no provision for it. The 1905 paper is not a complete reference for SR in any way, shape, or form, nor should you construe it to be. The twin puzzle was not even formulated until 1911, where it was provided as a useful exercise in fleshing out something that was not addressed in the 1905 paper. Your statement that SR makes no provision for the compression of time for a clock turning around is an oversimplification on your part. > > The paradoxes which arise from this are ample reason to chuck > Einstein's theory. There ARE NO paradoxes. There are puzzles, which SR provides a complete and consistent resolution for, provided that you sweep away some oversimplifications. > > It remains that you are unable to show any fallacies or assumptions of > mine that you claimed to exist, which was the original point of > contention. I just told you a couple. > > It was this point that prompted me to repost my prior exchange with > Daryl, which shows quite clearly the irrationality of supporting > Einstein's theory. Here it is again: > > 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.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: G. L. Bradford on 1 Jul 2010 11:28 "kenseto" <kenseto(a)erinet.com> wrote in message news:c8b481ec-a598-48d9-8ace-252d17928603(a)x27g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... 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. In SR every inertial observer adopts the preferred frame to do physics because it is the simplest frame. The result of this is that every SR observer assumes that his clcok is the fastest running clock in the universe and his meter stick is the longest meter stick in the universe. Unfortunately this is the reason why SR is incomplete....it failed to include the possibility that a clock moving wrt an SR observer can run faster. IRT includes this possibility and that's why IRT is a cocmplete theory of relativity. IRT is described in the following link: http://www.modelmechanics.org/2008irt.dtg.pdf 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 ============================ By [[astronomical observation]] time passed, or maybe passes, at its fastest at the most distant horizons of the observable universe from us (the far end of the universe from us as observed from locale being observably representative of "the stay at home twin" in the 'twin paradox'), time itself looking to have been, and to be, progressively and inexorably slowing down toward us in the observable universe, which means that our local universe right here and now and closest around us is the blazing fast inertialess space traveler (traveling at an awesomely blazing velocity seemingly going nowhere faster and ever faster) in the observable universe (we in our local frame being observably representative of "the traveling twin" in the 'twin paradox'). GLB ============================
From: G. L. Bradford on 1 Jul 2010 12:46 "G. L. Bradford" <glbrad01(a)insightbb.com> wrote in message news:g8adnQ8iTeLWKbHRnZ2dnUVZ_tadnZ2d(a)insightbb.com... > > "kenseto" <kenseto(a)erinet.com> wrote in message > news:c8b481ec-a598-48d9-8ace-252d17928603(a)x27g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... > 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. In SR every > inertial observer adopts the preferred frame to do physics because it > is the simplest frame. The result of this is that every SR observer > assumes that his clcok is the fastest running clock in the universe > and his meter stick is the longest meter stick in the universe. > Unfortunately this is the reason why SR is incomplete....it failed to > include the possibility that a clock moving wrt an SR observer can run > faster. IRT includes this possibility and that's why IRT is a > cocmplete theory of relativity. IRT is described in the following > link: > http://www.modelmechanics.org/2008irt.dtg.pdf > > 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 > > ============================ > > By [[astronomical observation]] time passed, or maybe passes, at its > fastest at the most distant horizons of the observable universe from us > (the far end of the universe from us as observed from locale being > observably representative of "the stay at home twin" in the 'twin > paradox'), time itself looking to have been, and to be, progressively and > inexorably slowing down toward us in the observable universe, which means > that our local universe right here and now and closest around us is the > blazing fast inertialess space traveler (traveling at an awesomely blazing > velocity seemingly going nowhere faster and ever faster) in the observable > universe (we in our local frame being observably representative of "the > traveling twin" in the 'twin paradox'). > > GLB > > ============================ I'm no believer in physicists' religion of Creationism. The above is astronomical observation and interpretation of observation. Astronomers were surprised at the clarity of their local observations of the most distant reaches of the [observable universe] from us. Who says that there can't be SOME FORM OF CLARITY to ever increasing 'chaos' in a picture? To be precise, clarity concerning relativity and concerning infinities of reaches, spaces, times, infinities and eternities of motion and curvature (including a collapse and unification of all motion and curvature in the most distant of all horizons STRICTLY observed within the 1-dimensional string universe within a 2-dimensional single-sided only photo-e). To be even more precise or exact, Planck Chaos! Even some astronomers are finally coming around to realize they just might be looking at something like fracticality or holes, a mess of points that rather a blur at such distances form a clear picture. A clear picture that hasn't anything to do with what was on the spot at the distance at any particular time at all. A clear picture formed of and by chaos that is a permanent art work of the observable universe. A formed art work of real regions, base-constant regions, nearer to the Planck Horizon of the Universe, nearer to the Planck universe, than they are to us. GLB =============================
From: Surfer on 1 Jul 2010 17:03 On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 22:14:59 -0700 (PDT), Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee(a)gmail.com> wrote: >On Jun 29, 6:28 pm, Tom Roberts wrote: > >> 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. > >However, part (A) is wrong. It does not satisfy the null results of >the MMX in general. <shrug> > >Thus, part (A) should read: > > A) a set of mathemaGical conjectures > >On Jun 29, 8:54 pm, Tom Roberts < wrote: > >> LET (LR) starts out with an implicit postulate: there is a unique inertial frame >> in which the ether is at rest. So the (also implicit) law of ether motion is >> DIFFERENT in different inertial frames, violating the PoR. > >I don't know what mathematical model of LET you understand it as, but >clearly, the Lorentz transform is a subset of Larmor's transform. The >Lorentz transform satisfies the principle of relative, but Larmor's >transform in general does not. <shrug> > >For your review, the following is Larmor's transform involving the 2 >observers (1 and 2), the observed (3), and the absolute frame of >reference (0). > >** dt1 = (dt0 � B01 dx03 / c) / sqrt(1 - B01^2) >** dx13 = (dx03 � B01 c dt0) / sqrt(1 - B01^2) >** dy13 = dy03 >** dz13 = dz03 > >** dt2 = (dt0 � B02 dx03 / c) / sqrt(1 - B02^2) >** dx23 = (dx03 � B02 c dt0) / sqrt(1 - B02^2) >** dy23 = dy03 >** dz23 = dz03 > >Where > >** dtI = Time flow at I >** dqIJ = Parameter dq (dx, dy, dz) at J as observed by I >** B0I c = Absolute speed of I > >Written in this way implies that 1 and 2 are moving in parallel >relative to 0. With that, the above equations do become the following >which is the Lorentz transform. > >** dt1 = (dt2 � B21 dx23 / c) / sqrt(1 - B21^2) >** dx13 = (dx23 � B21 c dt2) / sqrt(1 - B21^2) >** dy13 = dy23 >** dz13 = dz23 > >** dt2 = (dt1 � B12 dx13 / c) / sqrt(1 - B12^2) >** dx23 = (dx13 � B12 c dt1) / sqrt(1 - B12^2) >** dy23 = dy13 >** dz23 = dz13 > >Notice > >** B12 = - B21 > >> LET (LR) has an amazing and unexpected cancellation that makes the ether frame >> completely unobservable FOR PHYSICAL MEASUREMENTS. But its transform equations >> were all derived starting from that unique inertial frame. > >Don't rejoice about this cancellation of 0 from Larmor's transform. >In a more general case where 1 and 2 are not necessarily moving in >parallel relative to 0, this 0 does not cancel out. Yours truly has >explained that below. > >http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/c5a0a3c587fd4df4?hl=en > >On Jun 29, 9:00 pm, Tom Roberts wrote: > >> One part of it (A) is axiomatic, but the entirety is a physical theory, in >> that it models physical phenomena (within its domain). > >For example, in Larmor's transform, when 1 and 2 are not necessarily >moving in parallel to each other relative to 0, the temporal equations >can be written as follows. > >** dt1 = (dt0 � [B01] * [ds03] / c) / sqrt(1 - B01^2) > >Very trivially, when 3 is observing 1 back, the following equations >holds. > >** dt3 = (dt0 � [B03] * [ds01] / c) / sqrt(1 - B03^2) > >Where > >** [dsI] = Change of spatial vector at I >** [A] * [B] = Dot product of the two vectors [A] and [B] > >One can easily and very trivially combine the above two equations into >the following. > >dt1 sqrt(1 - B01^2) + [B01] * [ds03] / c = dt3 sqrt(1 - B03^2) + [B03] >* [ds01] / c > >Notice the frame of reference called 0 also known as the absolute >frame of reference does not go away. This follows closely how high >speed particles are observed to exhibit time dilation relative to an >observer moving more slowly relative to the absolute frame of >reference. All your observations can be explained with Larmor's >transform based on the absolute frame of reference thus breaking the >precious symmetry while the Lorentz transform is a complete >mathematical bogus. > >> The theorems derived from the postulates form an axiomatic system. But the >> meanings of the symbols and the experimental record do not. > >Try not to be sloppy with the symbols just like Einstein the nitwit, >the plagiarist, and the liar did in his infamous 1905 paper on >relativity. <shrug> > >Have you finally figured out the nitwit's mathemagical tricks of >deriving (E = m c^2 / sqrt(1 - v^2 / c^2)) through a serious of >mistakes namely being very sloppy on the symbols? > >> No physical theory can be purely axiomatic -- Aristotle essentially tried that >> and it failed even him. I don't know what "purely physical" means in this >> context, but any mathematical model will not be "physical" (it will be a MODEL). >> Today, only theories based on mathematical models are acceptable to the community. > >Have you finally realized that SR fails any mathematical integrity >right off the bat? SR manifests the twins' paradox which is >absolutely nonsense. SR should never be accepted as a valid model of >the real world. All real life observations are based on Larmor's >transform with all observations eventually have to reference back to >the absolute frame of reference. Without the so-called symmetry, >there is no paradox, and the GPS functions like a charm. <shrug> > >Just in case if you have finally realized your very basic mistakes, >try not to jump off the tallest building in the Chicago area. There >are still a lot of mysticism beyond SR to be exorcised. <shrug>
From: J. Clarke on 1 Jul 2010 18:41
On 7/1/2010 5:03 PM, Surfer wrote: > On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 22:14:59 -0700 (PDT), Koobee Wublee <remainder snipped> Was it really necessary for you to repost that entire pile of drivel? |