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: eric gisse on 26 Jun 2010 22:11 colp wrote: > 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# The "paradox" is that you do not understand even classical mechanics. [...]
From: eric gisse on 26 Jun 2010 23:32 kenseto wrote: > On Jun 26, 11:54 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> kenseto wrote: >> > On Jun 26, 12:41 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> >> This is just one of the theories that are equivalent to SR (i.e. they >> >> are experimentally indistinguishable from SR). [...] >> >> In all of these theories other than SR (which is the only member of >> >> this class without a preferred frame), >> >> > This is not true....the PoR says that all frames are equivalent, >> > including the preferred frame. >> >> But in SR there is no "preferred frame". Indeed, that is a direct >> consequence of the PoR. > > You are playing word game here... [...] Well Ken, I guess you would know after 15 years of doing the same yourself...
From: kenseto on 27 Jun 2010 08:50 On Jun 26, 5:14 pm, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > 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. No....the SR math is the preferred frame math. The preferred frame math is correct when the observer is in a lower state of absolute motion than the observed clock. That's why the SR math is useful in accelerator design applications. If the observed clcok is in a lower state of absolute motion than the observer then the SR math is not applicable and that's why SR math is incomplete. Ken Seto
From: Inertial on 27 Jun 2010 19:39 "Paul Stowe" <theaetherist(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:70a893de-09a3-47bd-ab7a-55a3da87f495(a)y2g2000pra.googlegroups.com... > On Jun 26, 6:50 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> > This is not true....the PoR says that all frames are equivalent, >> >> Yes it does > > it 'assumes' all inertial frames are, from physical process behavior > standpoint, 'equivalent'... Yeup. Same laws of physics in all frames. In SR, Clocks at rest in any inertial frame shows the time in that frame, and lengths of rulers at rest in that frame show lengths in that frame. LR does not have that feature. >> > including the preferred frame. >> >> There is no preferred frame in SR > > Nor is there for physical behacior, in Lorentzian Relativity (LR) There is a preferred frame in LR. But the distortions of rulers and clocks in LR mean that we cannot determine the preferred frame. >> > This allows every SR observer to use >> > the preferred frame to derive the math. >> >> There is no preferred frame in SR > > There is SOMETHING in SR that gives rise to the second postulate. Something perhaps, but not some thing. > In > LR this is the aether medium. When there is no direction Doppler > shift in the CMB you'd have reached its rest frame... Why do you think that must be the preferred frame? >> > That's why every SR observer >> > claimed the exclusive properties of the preferred frame >> >> There is no preferred frame in SR > > SR is simply the process of 'renormalizing' to one's current location > & situation. Lorentz correctly called this the 'local' frame... A quite different notion
From: kenseto on 27 Jun 2010 19:50
On Jun 26, 8:33 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "colp" <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote in message > > news:14fb1df4-8642-4e86-94bf-6336a570eed4(a)g1g2000prg.googlegroups.com... > > > The following illustrates the issue of arbitrary points of contention: > > There's no cnotention , just lack of understanding on your part regarding > SR. You have a naive view of what it entails > > > > > > > From the "colp, why did AE use the word "relativity" thread, Daryl > > writes: > > > <quote> > >>> Let's consider once again three frames: > > >>> F1 = the frame of the Earth > >>> F2 = the rest frame of a rocket traveling at velocity v > >>> in the +x direction relative to F1. > >>> F3 = the rest frame of a rocket traveling at velocity v > >>> in the -x direction relative to F1. > > >>> Now, let's introduce a 4th frame: > >>> F4 = the rest frame of a rocket traveling at velocity > >>> v in the +x direction relative to frame F2. > > >>> Now, we can do a symmetric twin paradox > > There is no paradox .. all frames agree the twins are the same age upon > reuniting ROTFLOL....you are an idiot.!!!!!!!! Here you don't even agree with SR. > > > > > > >>> from the point > >>> of view of frame F1 *and* F2. Introduce 3 twins: > >>> Twin A travels 100 seconds (according to his clock) > >>> at rest in frame F2, turns around, and travels 100 > >>> seconds (according to his clock) at rest in frame F3. > > >>> Twin B travels 100 seconds in frame F3, and then > >>> 100 seconds in frame F4 > > >>> Twin C travels 100 seconds in frame F4, then 100 > >>> seconds in frame F1. > > >>> Twin D travels 100 seconds in frame F1, then 100 > >>> seconds in frame F4. > > >>> 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? > > None > > >>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. It is reasonable to > > think that you rejected my reason simply because it was a threat to > > your sense of security. > > There is no preferred frames .. just ones that are easy to do the math in..- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - |