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 16:31 On Jun 27, 1:18 am, stevendaryl3...(a)yahoo.com (Daryl McCullough) wrote: > 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. The paradox is inherent in Einstien's description of SR, as shown by the OP at this link: http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_thread/thread/791b8a2087067d89# Your posts on this matter indicate that your reasoning is security driven (i.e. based on need). Such an approach in inappropriate for a scientific newsgroup. > Computation > *PROVES* that there is no paradox. Paradoxes are only apparent when computation isn't restricted to a single inertial frame. However SR doesn't say that computation must be restricted like that. > > >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. Yes. And that nonsense is a direct result of the premises of SR, nothing else. > > >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. This doesn't restrict computation to single inertial frames. > > 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. Yes, but the fact that you've got to patch up SR with these restrictions show that SR is flawed. > > 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. Einstein doesn't have to be around. His paper "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" is the authoritative source of his views on SR. > > 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. Daryl-SR is not the same as Einstein's SR. > > Colp-SR is incoherent and inconsistent. I haven't said what my version of SR is.
From: colp on 26 Jun 2010 17:00 On Jun 27, 1:28 am, stevendaryl3...(a)yahoo.com (Daryl McCullough) wrote: > 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. No, you did not specify an experimental basis. What you said was: <quote> 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? </quote> > > >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? Because you said that you needed a physics, need implies a threat, and one's sense of security is affected by threats. > It sounds delusional to me. > > Look, I have given you *INCREDIBLY* detailed explanations for > why SR does not lead to a paradox. No, you've given explanations of why your version of SR does not lead to a paradox. If your version was the same as Einstein's then why did you call yours Daryl-SR? > 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. The calculations that you gave from the point of view of each twin included the unnecessary complication of signal transit time, which made it look like the twins were seeing time compression which could resolve the paradox. > 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. No, my response has included showing the paradox that is inherent in Einsteins paper. http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_thread/thread/791b8a2087067d89# > > 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, The issue of massive objects arose from my reasoning of where the preferred frame should be, not from the issue of the SR paradox. > 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. I have previously described such an experiment, namely one like the the symmetric twin experiment, where at the and of the experiment the older twin's frames are closer to the preferred frame than the younger one's. > > It's clear that you have nothing to say, other than taunts. You interpret the reasoned argument that you are not objective regarding physics as a taunt?
From: colp on 26 Jun 2010 17:06 On Jun 27, 1:30 am, stevendaryl3...(a)yahoo.com (Daryl McCullough) wrote: > colp says... > > >Before I respond directly to the issue of the preferred frame, I again > >raise the issue of need. The reason that the issue of need is pivotal > >here is that necessity may be a reason for people to lie and deceive. > > I have no idea what you are talking about, and at this point I really > don't care. I'm only discuss physics, not psychology. Restricting discussion to a single discipline makes it very difficult to see the big picture. If you don't understand what motivates people, then you can only have a superficial understanding of their actions and they can play you for a fool.
From: Daryl McCullough on 26 Jun 2010 17:08 colp says [whatever] I'm done talking with you. -- Daryl McCullough Ithaca, NY
From: colp on 26 Jun 2010 17:14
On Jun 27, 1:40 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > It turns out that using the preferred frame to derive the math is the > reason why SR is incomplete. I'd call it broken rather than incomplete. The premise that there is no preferred frame seems to me to be based on egotism rather than science. This is because the premise assumes that man has sufficient wisdom to determine that he has explored all possible avenues regarding the detection of a preferred frame. |