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 2 Jul 2010 11:03 On Jul 1, 7:56 pm, 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. It does if it's an oversimplification of what's presented in the paper! > > > The statement in SR is actually > > quite a bit more precise. > > Are you referring to Einstein's 1920 statement about rotating bodies? No. > > > > 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. I don't see why you feel that the whole development of special relativity is entirely due to, and can be found in the writings of, Einstein. Special relativity has been worked on and developed by hundreds of physicists, many of which have found aspects of special relativity that Einstein never dreamed of. The same thing goes for "Newtonian mechanics", which involves a great deal more than what Newton wrote, or "quantum mechanics" which involves a great deal more than what Heisenberg, Pauli, or Bohr wrote.
From: Koobee Wublee on 2 Jul 2010 13:17 On Jul 2, 1:33 am, harald <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote: > On Jul 2, 2:16 am, Koobee Wublee wrote: > >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] > > Wikipedia is messed up: at best it can (even it is only *allowed* to) > accurately reproduce the confusions and errors of the existing > literature. Although no information is deemed reliable in some degree, you are the one who is messed up here. It is a common knowledge that Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar had proposed GR to resolve the twins paradox. You can also do a google search on that. <shrug> There are many different ways to do so. Langevins resolution is drastically different from that of Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar. The self-styled physicists cannot even unanimously agree on one resolution. Each one believes in his own resolution, but all these contradict with each other. What a fvcked up bunch. That is a trait of Einstein Dingleberrism. <shrug>
From: Koobee Wublee on 2 Jul 2010 13:23 On Jul 2, 5:23 am, Esa Riihonen wrote: > Androcles kirjoitti: > > Go ahead, the most of the cranks, quit babbling and start using > > mathematics. > > Why should I? I was not doing physics here - and natural language seems > to be much superior for this kind of meta discussion. > > And regarding the specific problems Colp is having with the "symmetric > twin paradox", the mathematical walk through has already been given by > someone (McCullogh, PD - don't remember) in a much clearer form than I > believe I can do myself. As far as I have seen Colp didn't respond to > that at all. So, you dont know what math is involved with the problem. You dont know what the issues are with relative simultaneity. You dont know anything about the Lorentz transform. You are easily bedazzled by the mathemagic shows where all these mathemagic shows contradict each other. That is a fine trait of Einstein Dingleberrism. <shrug>
From: PD on 2 Jul 2010 13:36 On Jul 2, 12:17 pm, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > There are many different ways to do so. Langevins resolution is > drastically different from that of Einstein the nitwit, the > plagiarist, and the liar. The self-styled physicists cannot even > unanimously agree on one resolution. Each one believes in his own > resolution, but all these contradict with each other. What a fvcked > up bunch. That is a trait of Einstein Dingleberrism. <shrug> Why do you think they all contradict each other? There is a simple machine that is taught in 9th grade science called the Atwood machine. You can look that up. In freshman physics classes, one learns that you can find the final velocity of the hanging masses by using: * Newton's 2nd law * Conservation of momentum, including external impulse * Conservation of energy Later, one finds that you can do the same thing using * Lagrangian mechanics * Hamiltonian mechanics Now, let's see. I suppose you will now say that classical Newtonian physics cannot agree on one way to solve this problem, and that all the ways available to skin the cat all contradict each other. KW, you are an idiot.
From: Koobee Wublee on 2 Jul 2010 14:15
On Jul 2, 10:36 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 2, 12:17 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote: > > There are many different ways to do so. Langevins resolution is > > drastically different from that of Einstein the nitwit, the > > plagiarist, and the liar. The self-styled physicists cannot even > > unanimously agree on one resolution. Each one believes in his own > > resolution, but all these contradict with each other. What a fvcked > > up bunch. That is a trait of Einstein Dingleberrism. <shrug> > > Why do you think they all contradict each other? > There is a simple machine that is taught in 9th grade science called > the Atwood machine. You can look that up. > In freshman physics classes, one learns that you can find the final > velocity of the hanging masses by using: > * Newton's 2nd law > * Conservation of momentum, including external impulse > * Conservation of energy > Later, one finds that you can do the same thing using > * Lagrangian mechanics > * Hamiltonian mechanics To go from Los Angeles to Chicago, I can choose to: ** Walk ** Drive a car ** Fly an airplane ** Ride a train <shrug> > Now, let's see. I suppose you will now say that classical Newtonian > physics cannot agree on one way to solve this problem, and that all > the ways available to skin the cat all contradict each other. In the meantime, we are talking about the twins paradox. The mechanics of the following two proposed resolutions are drastically different and contradict each other: ** Lagevins mathemagic of using Larmors transform instead of the Lorentz transform ** GR as suggested by Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar <shrug> > KW, you are an idiot. <shrug> PD, after losing your proud professorship, please dont take it out on anyone. <shrug> |