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: artful on 1 Jul 2010 21:22 On Jul 2, 10:56 am, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > On Jul 2, 2:21 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jun 30, 5:47 pm, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > > > > <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. > > No, inferring something from a paper does not constitute an > oversimplification. > > > The statement in SR is actually > > quite a bit more precise. > > Are you referring to Einstein's 1920 statement about rotating bodies? > > > > 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. > > No, it isn't. You could make your point by simply quoting Einstein if > he had actually made such a provision. Its part of the Lorentz transforms .. relativity of synchronicity (ie changes in clock sync when inertial frame changes) accounts for that. See the many example of the regular twin paradox from the point of view of the travelling twin for examples of how this works (the travelling twins measures the stay-at-home twin as aging faster during the turnaround). This is all well-documented stuff.
From: Koobee Wublee on 2 Jul 2010 01:10 On Jul 1, 6:06 pm, eric gisse wrote: > whoever wrote: > > It called the Lorentz Transforms. You apply them when changing from one > > frame of reference to another .. which is what happens to the travelling > > twins when they change their direction of motion. > > I had previously shown him the math, and his near-exact response was "it is > stupid". The math Gisse the college dropout showed then resemble nothing in applications to the Lorentz transform. If one really understand the issue of relative simultaneity and thus the Lorentz transform, he would give it up long ago. <shrug> Why did you filter out other newsgroups in the reply? Why are you so scared of posting to other newsgroups?
From: Koobee Wublee on 2 Jul 2010 01:12 On Jul 1, 5:24 pm, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 2, 10:16 am, Koobee Wublee wrote: > > 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 ? Wrong again. Read my lips. I said "You are unable to see the fallacy in the mathematics of the Lorentz transform." <shrug> Try again.
From: Koobee Wublee on 2 Jul 2010 01:14 On Jul 1, 2:01 pm, harald <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote: > On Jul 1, 7:42 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 nonsense, do you think? ;-) The nonsense of erroneously applying the Lorentz transform. What else?
From: artful on 2 Jul 2010 01:15
On Jul 2, 3:12 pm, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 1, 5:24 pm, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > On Jul 2, 10:16 am, Koobee Wublee wrote: > > > 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 ? > > Wrong again. Yes you are > Read my lips. I said > > "You are unable to see the fallacy in the mathematics of the Lorentz > transform." Of course I cannot see what isn't there. There is no fallacy .. You have never shown one. Try again |