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 26 Jun 2010 04:49 The following is an example of avoiding the question and misdirection From the "colp, why did AE use the word "relativity" thread, Daryl writes: <quote> >> ><quote> >> >2. An ideal clock traveling at speed v for time period t will show an >> >elapsed time of T =3D t square-root(1-(v/c)^2). >> ></quote> >> You left out the premise: AS MEASURED in any inertial coordinate >> system. This rule is not talking about what a twin sees, it's >> talking about what is computed to be true, as expressed in an >> inertial coordinate system. >What is the difference between what the twin sees and what is computed >to be true? Look at what I said: I didn't say *ANYTHING* about what a twin sees. I said something what is true IN AN INERTIAL COORDINATE SYSTEM. </quote> The misdirection here is that you initially said that the rule is talking about what is computed to be true, but in your response to my question you removed the element of computation. The significance of this is that it is your process of computation which makes the paradox no longer apparent. Your process of computation involves restricting calculations which could produce a paradox to a single frame of reference, but no such restriction is imposed by the premises of SR.
From: Inertial on 26 Jun 2010 08:33 "colp" <colp(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote in message news:14fb1df4-8642-4e86-94bf-6336a570eed4(a)g1g2000prg.googlegroups.com... > The following illustrates the issue of arbitrary points of contention: There's no cnotention , just lack of understanding on your part regarding SR. You have a naive view of what it entails > From the "colp, why did AE use the word "relativity" thread, Daryl > writes: > > <quote> >>> Let's consider once again three frames: > >>> F1 = the frame of the Earth >>> F2 = the rest frame of a rocket traveling at velocity v >>> in the +x direction relative to F1. >>> F3 = the rest frame of a rocket traveling at velocity v >>> in the -x direction relative to F1. > >>> Now, let's introduce a 4th frame: >>> F4 = the rest frame of a rocket traveling at velocity >>> v in the +x direction relative to frame F2. > >>> Now, we can do a symmetric twin paradox There is no paradox .. all frames agree the twins are the same age upon reuniting >>> from the point >>> of view of frame F1 *and* F2. Introduce 3 twins: >>> Twin A travels 100 seconds (according to his clock) >>> at rest in frame F2, turns around, and travels 100 >>> seconds (according to his clock) at rest in frame F3. > >>> Twin B travels 100 seconds in frame F3, and then >>> 100 seconds in frame F4 > >>> Twin C travels 100 seconds in frame F4, then 100 >>> seconds in frame F1. > >>> Twin D travels 100 seconds in frame F1, then 100 >>> seconds in frame F4. > >>> So A&B are symmetric twins from the point of >>> view of frame F1, while C&D are symmetric >>> twins from the point of view of frame F2. > >>> So which frame is preferred? None >>F1, or very close to F1. > > On what *EXPERIMENTAL* basis are you saying that? > </quote> > > My complete previous response was: > > <quote> > F1, or very close to F1. The Earth is by far the most massive object > in the experiment. > </quote> > > This is my theoretical reason for picking F1. It is reasonable to > think that you rejected my reason simply because it was a threat to > your sense of security. There is no preferred frames .. just ones that are easy to do the math in.
From: Inertial on 26 Jun 2010 08:38 "colp" <colp(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote in message news:6013960c-6c90-4191-a4bc-84c32ecfc4f6(a)11g2000prp.googlegroups.com... > The following is an example of avoiding the question and misdirection Is this something you do often? > From the "colp, why did AE use the word "relativity" thread, Daryl > writes: > > <quote> >>> ><quote> >>> >2. An ideal clock traveling at speed v for time period t will show an >>> >elapsed time of T =3D t square-root(1-(v/c)^2). >>> ></quote> > >>> You left out the premise: AS MEASURED in any inertial coordinate >>> system. This rule is not talking about what a twin sees, it's >>> talking about what is computed to be true, as expressed in an >>> inertial coordinate system. That is perfectly correct. >>What is the difference between what the twin sees and what is computed >>to be true? I answered that. Each twin sees the other age more slowly than on the outbound leg, and see the other age more quickly on the inbound leg, and upon meeting they see each other as the same age Each twin measures/calculates the other ages more slowly on the outbound leg, then before the other twin reaches the turn-around point, it jumps ahead in time to part way back on the and again ageing slower. The net results is the twins are the same age when they reunite. > Look at what I said: I didn't say *ANYTHING* about what a twin > sees. I said something what is true IN AN INERTIAL COORDINATE SYSTEM. And that is not enough to explain the entire scenario .. only the outbound and inbound legs. > </quote> > > The misdirection here is that you initially said that the rule is > talking about what is computed to be true, but in your response to my > question you removed the element of computation. > > The significance of this is that it is your process of computation > which makes the paradox no longer apparent. There IS no paradox > Your process of > computation involves restricting calculations which could produce a > paradox to a single frame of reference, but no such restriction is > imposed by the premises of SR. You have to use SR math .. whenever you change inertial frame of reference you need to do a lorentz transform to find out where and when you are in the other frame.
From: Daryl McCullough on 26 Jun 2010 09:18 colp says... >The misdirection here is that you initially said that the rule is >talking about what is computed to be true, but in your response to my >question you removed the element of computation. > >The significance of this is that it is your process of computation >which makes the paradox no longer apparent. Colp, you are making no sense. There *IS* no paradox. Computation *PROVES* that there is no paradox. >Your process of computation involves restricting calculations >which could produce a paradox to a single frame of reference, Right. The point is that doing anything else is mathematically and physically nonsense. >but no such restriction is imposed by the premises of SR. The premises of SR are that all *INERTIAL* reference frames are equivalent, for the purposes of the laws of physics. The Lorentz transformations are *derived* from this principle in Einstein's paper. Anyway, you seem to be in agreement that the restrictions that I have described for SR make the resulting system consistent. It is not possible to derive a contradiction. So basically we have the situation that there are two different theories: let's call them Daryl-SR and Colp-SR. Since Einstein isn't around any more, we can't get him to say which one is closer to his view of SR, so let's name the theories after the people who are advocating for them. Daryl-SR is consistent, allows you to come up with coherent answers to all known questions involving twins, clocks, measuring rods, rockets, light signals, etc. Colp-SR is incoherent and inconsistent. I think we both agree on these points. You have abandoned trying to show that *my* rules for SR lead to a paradox, and instead are insisting, over and over again, that your version of SR is paradoxical. So let's just agree: you have a version of SR that is nonsensical, and I have a version that is consistent. Nobody actually uses your version (and why should they, since everyone agrees it is nonsensical). So what exactly, are you trying to argue? Are you arguing just historically, that what Einstein really *MEANT* was something nonsensical, not the sensible theory that I've been describing? That seems incredibly unlikely. And ultimately, it's irrelevant. Scientific theories belong to the scientific community as a whole. The theory that is important is the theory that is practiced by the current scientists. They call it "relativity" under the impression that they are following Einstein, but if they are not, so what? This is science, not history. Do you have an argument that the SR as practiced by modern physicists, or the summary that I have given for the limited purposes of discussing the various kinematic thought experiments, is wrong? If you still think that *MY* version of SR is wrong, then argue in terms of *MY* version. If you claim instead to have been able to read Einstein's mind (or his ghost's mind) and that you see that what he really meant was wrong, then frankly, I couldn't care less. -- Daryl McCullough Ithaca, NY
From: Daryl McCullough on 26 Jun 2010 09:28
colp says... > >The following illustrates the issue of arbitrary points of contention: > >From the "colp, why did AE use the word "relativity" thread, Daryl >writes: >>> So which frame is preferred? > >>F1, or very close to F1. > >On what *EXPERIMENTAL* basis are you saying that? ></quote> > >My complete previous response was: > ><quote> >F1, or very close to F1. The Earth is by far the most massive object >in the experiment. ></quote> > >This is my theoretical reason for picking F1. I was asking about *experimental* basis, not theoretical. >It is reasonable to think that you rejected my reason simply >because it was a threat to your sense of security. Why is it reasonable? It sounds delusional to me. Look, I have given you *INCREDIBLY* detailed explanations for why SR does not lead to a paradox. I've given you the calculations from every point of view: from the point of view of various inertial frames, from the point of view of each twin, etc. You have had no response other than to repeat, over and over, that there's a paradox, even though I've shown that there is no such paradox. Now you bring up massive objects. That is certainly relevant to General Relativity, but it has no relevance to the question of whether SR is paradoxical, and it has no relevance to the question of whether it is possible to perform an experiment that detects absolute motion relative to the preferred frame. It's clear that you have nothing to say, other than taunts. Goodbye. -- Daryl McCullough Ithaca, NY |