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 1 Jul 2010 19:25 On Jul 2, 2:26 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 1, 12:53 am, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > > > On Jul 1, 11:37 am, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jun 30, 4:20 pm, artful wrote: > > > > > On Jul 1, 8:47 am, colp wrote: > > > > > 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 over simplification. There is more to SR than just clocks > > > > running slow. > > > > Nonsense and mysticism. <shrug> > > > A postulate is just an assumption with better table manners. > > Yes, indeed. By DEFINITION, a postulate is something that is ASSUMED. > > In science, the test of a postulate is based on experimental check of > the *consequences* of postulates. A direct test of the postulate is > not required. One such test is the test for paradoxes arising from one or more postulates. For example, the following two postulates lead to a paradox, meaning that not all the postulates are correct: 1. Statement 2 is true. 2. Statement 1 is false. The paradox that arises from the postulates of Einstein's "Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" can be described as follows: "Examples of this sort, together with the unsuccessful attempts to discover any motion of the earth relatively to the light medium, suggest that the phenomena of electrodynamics as well as of mechanics possess no properties corresponding to the idea of absolute rest. They suggest rather that, as has already been shown to the first order of small quantities, the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good.1 We will raise this conjecture (the purport of which will hereafter be called the Principle of Relativity) to the status of a postulate, and also introduce another postulate, which is only apparently irreconcilable with the former, namely, that light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body." Einstien, Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies (Introduction) This text describes Einstein's postulate that there is no preferred inertial frame of reference. "If at the points A and B of K there are stationary clocks which, viewed in the stationary system, are synchronous; and if the clock at A is moved with the velocity v along the line AB to B, then on its arrival at B the two clocks no longer synchronize, but the clock moved from A to B lags behind the other which has remained at B ..." Einstien, Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies (Section 4) The text describes the time dilation of a clock that moves from point A to point B. If there is no preferred frame of reference then it is just as true to say that the clock is viewed as part of a stationary system and the points A and B are in a moving system which moves at velocity -v. The conclusion that time for both systems can be dilated with respect to the other system is paradoxical.
From: Koobee Wublee on 1 Jul 2010 20:16 On Jul 1, 11:02 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 1, 12:42 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote: > > It is no error. Langevin was the first to notice this twins > > paradox. However, he cranked himself by proposing nonsense to resolve > > this paradox. > > ? What is nonsensical about the resolution. Oh, that's right, it's > nonsensical if you say it makes no sense to you, and if it makes sense > to someone else, then they're simply unable to see that it in fact > makes no sense. Because it makes no sense to you. Well, you are unable to see the fallacy in the mathematics of the Lorentz transform. <shrug> > > Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar was > > the first to propose a turn-around counts as acceleration [useless, and babbling nonsense snipped] > > thus falls > > into the domain of GR. Using the principle of equivalence, the > > nincompoop was able to hand-wave it as a resolution to the twins > > paradox. <shrug> > > Where is your reference that Einstein proposed GR as a resolution to > the twin paradox? PD is really fvcked. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox [quote] Einstein, Born, and Moller invoked gravitational time dilation to explain aging based on the effect of acceleration. [unquote] [The rest of personal attack snipped]
From: artful on 1 Jul 2010 20:18 On Jul 2, 9:25 am, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > On Jul 2, 2:26 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: [snip for brevity] > > Yes, indeed. By DEFINITION, a postulate is something that is ASSUMED. > > > In science, the test of a postulate is based on experimental check of > > the *consequences* of postulates. A direct test of the postulate is > > not required. > > One such test is the test for paradoxes arising from one or more > postulates. Which SR passes > For example, the following two postulates lead to a > paradox, meaning that not all the postulates are correct: > > 1. Statement 2 is true. > 2. Statement 1 is false. > > The paradox that arises from the postulates of Einstein's > "Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" can be described as follows: > > "Examples of this sort, together with the unsuccessful attempts to > discover > any motion of the earth relatively to the light medium, suggest that > the > phenomena of electrodynamics as well as of mechanics possess no > properties > corresponding to the idea of absolute rest. They suggest rather that, > as has > already been shown to the first order of small quantities, the same > laws of > electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of reference > for which the > equations of mechanics hold good.1 We will raise this conjecture (the > purport > of which will hereafter be called the Principle of Relativity) to > the status > of a postulate, and also introduce another postulate, which is only > apparently > irreconcilable with the former, namely, that light is always > propagated in empty > space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of > motion of the > emitting body." > > Einstien, Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies (Introduction) No paradox there. Try again > This text describes Einstein's postulate that there is no preferred > inertial frame of reference. That's correct. No paradox there. Try again. > "If at the points A and B of K there are stationary clocks which, > viewed in the stationary system, are synchronous; and if the clock at > A is moved with the velocity v along the line AB to B, then on its > arrival at B the two clocks no longer synchronize, but the clock moved > from A to B lags behind the other which has remained at B ..." > > Einstien, Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies (Section 4) > > The text describes the time dilation of a clock that moves from point > A to point B. If there is no preferred frame of reference then it is > just as true to say that > the clock is viewed as part of a stationary system and the points A > and B are in a moving system which moves at velocity -v. It there is no change of frame of reference, then yes. If there IS a change in frame of reference (eg If the clock was at rest in some frame and then moves to another location), then its frame of reference is not inertial. You seem to ignore this. > The > conclusion that time for both systems can be dilated with respect to > the other system is paradoxical. Nope. I've shown elsewhere that relativity of synchronicity (part of SR's Lorentz transforms), means that clock sync is frame dependent. That allows for mutual time dilation. Do I need to repost the example that shows how this can work for you again?
From: artful on 1 Jul 2010 20:22 On Jul 2, 10:18 am, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 2, 9:25 am, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > > > On Jul 2, 2:26 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > [snip for brevity] > > > Yes, indeed. By DEFINITION, a postulate is something that is ASSUMED. > > > > In science, the test of a postulate is based on experimental check of > > > the *consequences* of postulates. A direct test of the postulate is > > > not required. > > > One such test is the test for paradoxes arising from one or more > > postulates. > > Which SR passes > > > > > > > For example, the following two postulates lead to a > > paradox, meaning that not all the postulates are correct: > > > 1. Statement 2 is true. > > 2. Statement 1 is false. > > > The paradox that arises from the postulates of Einstein's > > "Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" can be described as follows: > > > "Examples of this sort, together with the unsuccessful attempts to > > discover > > any motion of the earth relatively to the light medium, suggest that > > the > > phenomena of electrodynamics as well as of mechanics possess no > > properties > > corresponding to the idea of absolute rest. They suggest rather that, > > as has > > already been shown to the first order of small quantities, the same > > laws of > > electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of reference > > for which the > > equations of mechanics hold good.1 We will raise this conjecture (the > > purport > > of which will hereafter be called the Principle of Relativity) to > > the status > > of a postulate, and also introduce another postulate, which is only > > apparently > > irreconcilable with the former, namely, that light is always > > propagated in empty > > space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of > > motion of the > > emitting body." > > > Einstien, Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies (Introduction) > > No paradox there. Try again > > > This text describes Einstein's postulate that there is no preferred > > inertial frame of reference. > > That's correct. No paradox there. Try again. > > > "If at the points A and B of K there are stationary clocks which, > > viewed in the stationary system, are synchronous; and if the clock at > > A is moved with the velocity v along the line AB to B, then on its > > arrival at B the two clocks no longer synchronize, but the clock moved > > from A to B lags behind the other which has remained at B ..." > > > Einstien, Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies (Section 4) > > > The text describes the time dilation of a clock that moves from point > > A to point B. If there is no preferred frame of reference then it is > > just as true to say that > > the clock is viewed as part of a stationary system and the points A > > and B are in a moving system which moves at velocity -v. > > It there is no change of frame of reference, then yes. > > If there IS a change in frame of reference (eg If the clock was at > rest in some frame and then moves to another location), then its frame > of reference is not inertial. > > You seem to ignore this. > > > The > > conclusion that time for both systems can be dilated with respect to > > the other system is paradoxical. > > Nope. > > I've shown elsewhere that relativity of synchronicity (part of SR's > Lorentz transforms), means that clock sync is frame dependent. > > That allows for mutual time dilation. Do I need to repost the example > that shows how this can work for you again? Before you start your usual diversion of accusing me of being a liar (instead of addressing the physics) ... Here is a link to my previous post in a related thread that shows how differences in clock sync give you mutual time dilation: http://groups.google.com.au/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/e2699c1302bb06dd
From: artful on 1 Jul 2010 20:24
On Jul 2, 10:16 am, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 1, 11:02 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Jul 1, 12:42 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote: > > > It is no error. Langevin was the first to notice this twins > > > paradox. However, he cranked himself by proposing nonsense to resolve > > > this paradox. > > > ? What is nonsensical about the resolution. Oh, that's right, it's > > nonsensical if you say it makes no sense to you, and if it makes sense > > to someone else, then they're simply unable to see that it in fact > > makes no sense. Because it makes no sense to you. > > Well, you are unable to see the fallacy in the mathematics of the > Lorentz transform. <shrug> You mean the one you've been asked to show and of which you have failed to produce evidence ? |