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: Surfer on 2 Jul 2010 03:09 On Thu, 01 Jul 2010 18:41:06 -0400, "J. Clarke" <jclarke.usenet(a)cox.net> wrote: >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? > Sorry for the unnecessary post. As my news reader didn't correctly display some of characters I fixed them in an edit window in order to read it, but accidently clicked on "send" instead of "save".
From: artful on 2 Jul 2010 03:16 On Jul 2, 5:09 pm, Surfer <n...(a)spam.net> wrote: > On Thu, 01 Jul 2010 18:41:06 -0400, "J. Clarke" > > <jclarke.use...(a)cox.net> wrote: > >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? > > Sorry for the unnecessary post. > > As my news reader didn't correctly display some of characters I fixed > them in an edit window in order to read it, but accidently clicked on > "send" instead of "save". I've had odd things like that happen before .. certainly understandable
From: harald on 2 Jul 2010 04:31 On Jul 2, 1:25 am, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > 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. I agree that there is a paradox in his introduction: 1. Natural phenomena (incl. mechanical phenomena) suggested to him that these do not have "properties corresponding to the idea of absolute rest" 2. Based on that, he accepted for all natural phenomena the classical PoR, which is defined relative to the *special* group of reference systems "for which the equations of mechanics hold good". Now, that special group of reference systems of statement 2 suggested to Newton the idea of of absolute rest - which is in disaccord with Einstein's suggestion in statement 1! As we know, Einstein wasn't satisfied with this himself, and he did a last attempt with GRT. But there is no conflict of postulates, only a poor match between a *suggestion* and a postulate. > "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. That is based on his suggestion 1. here above, which he did not follow up for the 1905 theory: it was directly nullified by the restriction (statement 2) to the special class of inertial coordinate systems. Therefore the theory of Einstein and Lorentz was seen as a single theory and called "special" or "restricted" relativity. However, Einstein did acknowledge that issue as a paradox (apparent contradiction) of GRT. Harald
From: harald on 2 Jul 2010 04:33 On Jul 2, 2:16 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> > > > > 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] Wikipedia is messed up: at best it can (even it is only *allowed* to) accurately reproduce the confusions and errors of the existing literature. Harald
From: harald on 2 Jul 2010 04:45
On Jul 2, 2:49 am, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > On Jul 1, 9:33 pm, harald <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote: > > > > > On Jul 1, 12:47 am, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > > > > On Jul 1, 4:30 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> 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". > > > > Also, Einstein's paper makes no provision whatsoever for the > > > compression of time for a clock turning around. > > > Einstein's paper explains that clock rate (as measured with an > > inertial coordinate system) must be the same at the same speed, > > independent of the direction of motion of the clock. Is that what > > you mean? > > Yes, in part. According to SR a moving clock will appear to run slower > both when it is moving away and when it is approaching, since velocity > is squared in the transform. That is only a 1-D mathematical argument. Einstein used perhaps more mathematical shortcuts than Lorentz, but just as Lorentz his arguments were foremost *physical*. As Einstein put it: "The laws by which the *states of physical systems undergo change* are not affected, whether these changes of state be referred to the one or the other of two systems of co-ordinates in uniform translatory motion." (emphasis mine). He concluded that, according to measurements with an inertial reference system, a relative to that system moving clock will run slow by the Lorentz factor. Obviously that conclusion cannot depend on direction. > > > The paradoxes which arise from this are ample reason to chuck > > > Einstein's theory. > > > What paradoxes? > > The paradox inherent in Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies, and the > paradoxes arising from it, namely the twin paradox and the triplet > paradox. > > http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_thread/t... [link was truncated] Those are paradoxes of GRT, see my parallel comment. > > Different people perceive different paradoxes, but > > they are all easy to explain; and probably the thinking error that you > > fell for was already explained to you, but you either overlooked or > > misunderstood it. > > No, that is not the case. How do you know what you can not know?! Harald |