Preferred Frame Theory indistinguishable from SR
in [Relativity]
|
From: Esa Riihonen on 3 Jul 2010 11:04 Follow ups to: sci.physics.relativity Koobee Wublee kirjoitti: > 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 don't know what math is involved with the problem. You don't > know what the issues are with relative simultaneity. You don't 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> The math involved is the math of SR - specifically regarding the twin "paradoxes" (symmetric or not) it is more or less just Lorentz Transforming the coordinates of the events between different inertial frames. But perhaps I really don't know anything about this stuff - however I hope you won't reveal this to my current employer or former teachers that let me pass the exams. But perhaps you could now show how the solution of the symmetric twin paradox provided earlier was flawed? Esa(R) -- Space is what is needed to keep everything from being in one place. Time is what is needed to keep everything from happening at once. And for everything else, there's duct tape.
From: Androcles on 3 Jul 2010 11:19 "Esa Riihonen" <esa(a)riihonen.net.not.invalid> wrote in message news:pan.2010.07.03.15.04.38(a)riihonen.net.not.invalid... | Follow ups to: sci.physics.relativity | | Koobee Wublee kirjoitti: | | > 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 don't know what math is involved with the problem. You don't | > know what the issues are with relative simultaneity. You don't 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> | | The math involved is the math of SR - specifically regarding the twin | "paradoxes" (symmetric or not) it is more or less just Lorentz | Transforming the coordinates of the events between different inertial | frames. But perhaps I really don't know anything about this stuff - | however I hope you won't reveal this to my current employer or former | teachers that let me pass the exams. Neither you, your teachers or your employers will ever make any use of your garbage. | | But perhaps you could now show how the solution of the symmetric twin | paradox provided earlier was flawed? Easy: The Einstein malformations use two frames, not three. In the coordinate system of the car the road moves. Moving roads have slow clocks. Any so-called "symmetric twin paradox" requires a third coordinate system. A moves relatively to C and B moves relatively to C in the opposite direction. Without the third coordinate system we are left with A moving relatively to B.
From: harald on 3 Jul 2010 11:22 On Jul 3, 4:10 pm, stevendaryl3...(a)yahoo.com (Daryl McCullough) wrote: > harald says... > > > > >On Jul 3, 1:02=A0pm, stevendaryl3...(a)yahoo.com (Daryl McCullough) > >> wrote: harald says... > > >> >If you google search, you will find me explaining that Einstein > >> >claimed to have solved GRT's clock paradox. ;-) > > >> The use of GR to explain the results of the twin paradox is a little > >perverse, > > >Sorry but no, you missed the point (how is that possible after all > >these years?). The original clock or twin paradox is NOT the SRT > >exercise of textbooks at all, despite the fact that most confused > >commentators parrot that error. Instead, it is a challenge to GRT's > >postulate that an accelerated reference system may be considered to be > >"in rest". > > I'm not sure what paradox you are referring to, then. I did some digging to understand the main cause of confusion. What I found, is the clock paradox started out as the one that Einstein was confronted with, as criticism of his GRT. At least, concerning SRT, before the development of GRT, I found no trace of such a paradox in the old literature. Did you? > GR doesn't really *have* a notion of "rest". Einstein's GRT holds that reference systems in any form of motion may be used as physical reference system, relative to which objects are "in rest" - that's the basis of the "clock" or "twin" paradox, and how it started. > For a particular coordinate system, > you can use the term "at rest" to mean that the time derivative of the spacial > coordinates are all zero, but that doesn't have any particular physical > meaning, except in the cases where the metric is time-independent. > > >> because GR is a generalization of SR. In the case of empty space far > >> from any large gravitating bodies, GR reduces to SR, so any GR solution > >> to the twin paradox would have to have already been a solution in SR. > > >Irrelevant. > > It's not irrelevant to *MY* point. It is my point. And this is my > thread, so my point counts. Irrelevant for Einstein's clock paradox, which KW brought up in your thread. ;-) Harald
From: Edward Green on 3 Jul 2010 12:23 On Jun 30, 10:11 pm, stevendaryl3...(a)yahoo.com (Daryl McCullough) wrote: <...> > Actually, with the correct statement of time dilation, time > dilation is all you need to solve most of the problems involving > clocks, twins, etc. > > The correct statement is this: As measured in any standard INERTIAL > coordinate system, the elapsed time T on a moving clock satisfies > > dT/dt = square-root(1-(v/c)^2) <...> From which may be deduced an amusing fact. Say that v is grows quickly enough towards c to force the r.h.s. to decay quickly enough to make the integral of dT bounded. Then we have a material particle which travels to infinity in bounded proper time. <sci.physics, sci.chem, sci.math snipped>
From: Edward Green on 3 Jul 2010 12:44
On Jul 1, 10:26 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 1, 12:53 am, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: <...> > > A postulate is just an assumption with better table manners. > > Yes, indeed. By DEFINITION, a postulate is something that is ASSUMED. > > In science, the test of a postulate is based on experimental check of > the *consequences* of postulates. A direct test of the postulate is > not required. Would you extend that courtesy to Lorentz's postulate of an aether? You may object that is has correct consequences but is unnecessary, but to that objection may be countered that it has greater explanatory power than the postulate of the constant speed of light with respect to all inertial observers, which miracle I believe it explains, along with the constancy of the speed of light independent of the motion of the source. <snipped sci.physics, sci.chem, sci.math> |