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 17:18 On Jun 27, 2:45 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 26, 2:47 am, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > > > > > You claimed that you need a physics, but you didn't identify the > > nature of the threat implied by that statement when I questioned you > > on it. Until that threat is eliminated it is reasonable for me to > > think that you may employ deception in order to maintain your own > > sense of security. If this is the case it is pointless for me to > > continue to argue with you, since it is reasonable to think that you > > will introduce any point of contention necessary to maintain your > > position and sense of security. > > I'd like for you to look at the above paragraph again and reconsider > your participation in a discussion group. > What POSSIBLE value would you place on spending any time whatsoever in > a discussion with someone that you inherently do not trust? Showing the truth by identifying the fallacies or assumptions inherent in their argument. > Why would you attempt to wean out consensus or clarification or > improve your understanding of anything by conversing with someone > whose words do not mean anything to you at all? The words have meaning. Interpretation of that meaning may vary.
From: Inertial on 26 Jun 2010 19:06 "colp" <colp(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote in message news:d7a98d76-5757-4df4-8cbc-3f80449d9db3(a)n8g2000prh.googlegroups.com... > 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# There is no paradox. Your error has been explained to you by a number of people now > 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. Nonsense >> 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. However, you need to use the Lorentz transforms of SR when moving between frames. When you do, 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. > > Yes. And that nonsense is a direct result of the premises of SR, > nothing else. And those premises lead to SR which does not contain any paradoxes. >> >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. And when you don't restrict it to a single frame, and you apply Lorentz transforms, there is NO paradox. >> 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. There is no 'pathing up' and no flaw. You simply do not understand SR, and have your own naive incomplete version of it in your head .. when you are told how it does work, yhou think that is 'patching it up' .. it is not .. it is you LEARNING how SR actually works and is applied. >> 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. That is one of 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. > > Daryl-SR is not the same as Einstein's SR. Neither is the colp-SR that you are refuting. >> Colp-SR is incoherent and inconsistent. > > I haven't said what my version of SR is. What you CLAIM to be SR is NOT SR. It is YOUR misinterpretation of it.
From: Inertial on 26 Jun 2010 19:06 "colp" <colp(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote in message news:fb84de9d-58e8-4b3f-98a8-de5c9b7393b2(a)l25g2000prn.googlegroups.com... > 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. But you ARE a fool
From: Inertial on 26 Jun 2010 19:07 "colp" <colp(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote in message news:2ecd2066-52a5-4694-94a9-807169e0468e(a)11g2000prp.googlegroups.com... > 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. And you'd be wrong > The premise that there is > no preferred frame seems to me to be based on egotism rather than > science. Nope. > 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. Nope
From: Inertial on 26 Jun 2010 19:09
"colp" <colp(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote in message news:7995cac3-4b49-4b41-b0c9-0ab53b8d6133(a)y19g2000pro.googlegroups.com... > On Jun 27, 2:45 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> On Jun 26, 2:47 am, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: >> >> >> >> > You claimed that you need a physics, but you didn't identify the >> > nature of the threat implied by that statement when I questioned you >> > on it. Until that threat is eliminated it is reasonable for me to >> > think that you may employ deception in order to maintain your own >> > sense of security. If this is the case it is pointless for me to >> > continue to argue with you, since it is reasonable to think that you >> > will introduce any point of contention necessary to maintain your >> > position and sense of security. >> >> I'd like for you to look at the above paragraph again and reconsider >> your participation in a discussion group. >> What POSSIBLE value would you place on spending any time whatsoever in >> a discussion with someone that you inherently do not trust? > > Showing the truth by identifying the fallacies or assumptions inherent > in their argument. There are fallacies and incorrect assumptions in your 'argument'. They have been pointed out. Your lack of honesty means you ignore them. You are clearly the one with an agenda here >> Why would you attempt to wean out consensus or clarification or >> improve your understanding of anything by conversing with someone >> whose words do not mean anything to you at all? > > The words have meaning. Interpretation of that meaning may vary. Not in physics. Maybe you should learn it first. . and learn what SR actually DOES say and see how to apply it. |