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: Inertial on 27 Jun 2010 20:02 "kenseto" <kenseto(a)erinet.com> wrote in message news:b30a9489-48ab-49ba-b946-6c6e96609d4c(a)e5g2000yqn.googlegroups.com... > 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.!!!!!!!! Nope > Here you don't even agree with > SR. I do agree with what SR says about symmetric twins. You are in no position to comment as you fail to understand even the most basic physics, let alone to have the audacity to think you have any idea what SR says.
From: eric gisse on 27 Jun 2010 20:14 Paul Stowe wrote: [...] > There is SOMETHING in SR that gives rise to the second postulate. [...] Axiomatic systems do not need to justify their axioms.
From: Paul Stowe on 27 Jun 2010 20:24 On Jun 27, 5:14 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Paul Stowe wrote: > > [...] > > > There is SOMETHING in SR that gives rise to the second postulate. > > [...] > > Axiomatic systems do not need to justify their axioms. Yeah, 'taken for granted systems' do not need to justify their 'statements which are taken for granted'. How circular and shallow of you...
From: Paul Stowe on 27 Jun 2010 20:39 On Jun 27, 4:39 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Paul Stowe" <theaether...(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. Same in LR, if that were not so SR & LR would be observationally different. > 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. Really? You're wrong. In LR clocks and rulers have local values which are the same when measured as they would be when measured in the aether rest frame. IOW, measureably invariant in any local frame, when at local rest wrt to that system. It simply goes further and recognises that there are real physical differences that, for those local observers, will not be directly measureable. It allows for SR's practice of renormalization. > >> > 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. Preferred? In what physical way? Defined what 'you' mean by preferred. > >> > 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. Ah, you something is non-physical then? God perhaps? > > 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? Because it matches the rest frame conditions known of all other phyical mediums... > >> > 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 And the physical observable & measurable difference is then, what??? Paul Stowe
From: Dono. on 27 Jun 2010 21:10
On Jun 25, 12:05 pm, Surfer <n...(a)spam.net> wrote: > > In the radar system frame of reference, let the transmitted signal > have frequency Ft, then the corresponding outgoing wavelength is, > Lt = (c - vi)/Ft > You are copying Cahill's idiocies again. This is not the relativistic Doppler formula, imbecile > This signal will impinge on the target with period > T = Lt/(c - vi + V) > or frequency > F = (c - vi +V )/Lt. > In Newtonian mechanics, yes. In SR, no. You are copying Cahill's idiocies. > The reflected signal has the same frequency, and so has wavelength > Lr = (c + vi - V)/F, > You are still copying Cahill's idiocies. > and is received by the radar system with frequency > Fr = (c + vi)/Lr. > > Then overall we obtain, > > (c + vi) (c - vi + V) > Fr = --------------- ---------------- Ft . (2) > (c + vi - V) ( c - vi) > No, idiot. The correct derivation is: F_hitting_object=F_emitted*sqrt((c+v)/(c-v)) F_reflected_at _radar_gun=F_hitting_object*sqrt((c+v)/(c-v)) So: F_reflected_at_radar_gun=F_emitted*(c+v)/(c-v) |