Preferred Frame Theory indistinguishable from SR
in [Relativity]
|
From: Androcles on 4 Jul 2010 20:16 "Cosmik de Bris" <cosmik.debris(a)elec.canterbury.ac.nz> wrote in message news:T89Yn.3403$Zp1.2701(a)newsfe15.iad... | On 4/07/10 11:07 , colp wrote: | > On Jul 4, 2:10 am, PD<thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: | >> On Jul 3, 1:04 am, colp<c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: | >> | >> | >> | >>> On Jul 3, 2:57 am, PD<thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: | >> | >>>> On Jul 1, 6:25 pm, colp<c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: | >> | >>>>> On Jul 2, 2:26 am, PD<thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: | >> | >>>>>> On Jul 1, 12:53 am, colp<c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: | >> | >>>>>>> On Jul 1, 11:37 am, Koobee Wublee<koobee.wub...(a)gmail.com> wrote: | >> | >>>>>>>> On Jun 30, 4:20 pm, artful wrote: | >> | >>>>>>>>> On Jul 1, 8:47 am, colp wrote: | >>>>>>>>>> The statement that "moving clocks run slow" isn't an | >>>>>>>>>> oversimplification, it is directly inferred from Einstein's | >>>>>>>>>> "Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies". | >> | >>>>>>>>> It IS an over simplification. There is more to SR than just clocks | >>>>>>>>> running slow. | >> | >>>>>>>> Nonsense and mysticism.<shrug> | >> | >>>>>>> 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. | >> | >>>>> One such test is the test for paradoxes arising from one or more | >>>>> postulates. For example, the following two postulates lead to a | >>>>> paradox, meaning that not all the postulates are correct: | >> | >>>>> 1. Statement 2 is true. | >>>>> 2. Statement 1 is false. | >> | >>>>> The paradox that arises from the postulates of Einstein's | >>>>> "Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" can be described as follows: | >> | >>>>> "Examples of this sort, together with the unsuccessful attempts to | >>>>> discover | >>>>> any motion of the earth relatively to the �light medium,� suggest that | >>>>> the | >>>>> phenomena of electrodynamics as well as of mechanics possess no | >>>>> properties | >>>>> corresponding to the idea of absolute rest. They suggest rather that, | >>>>> as has | >>>>> already been shown to the first order of small quantities, the same | >>>>> laws of | >>>>> electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of reference | >>>>> for which the | >>>>> equations of mechanics hold good.1 We will raise this conjecture (the | >>>>> purport | >>>>> of which will hereafter be called the �Principle of Relativity�) to | >>>>> the status | >>>>> of a postulate, and also introduce another postulate, which is only | >>>>> apparently | >>>>> irreconcilable with the former, namely, that light is always | >>>>> propagated in empty | >>>>> space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of | >>>>> motion of the | >>>>> emitting body." | >> | >>>>> Einstien, Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies (Introduction) | >> | >>>>> This text describes Einstein's postulate that there is no preferred | >>>>> inertial frame of reference. | >> | >>>>> "If at the points A and B of K there are stationary clocks which, | >>>>> viewed in the stationary system, are synchronous; and if the clock at | >>>>> A is moved with the velocity v along the line AB to B, then on its | >>>>> arrival at B the two clocks no longer synchronize, but the clock moved | >>>>> from A to B lags behind the other which has remained at B ..." | >> | >>>>> Einstien, Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies (Section 4) | >> | >>>>> The text describes the time dilation of a clock that moves from point | >>>>> A to point B. If there is no preferred frame of reference then it is | >>>>> just as true to say that | >>>>> the clock is viewed as part of a stationary system and the points A | >>>>> and B are in a moving system which moves at velocity -v. The | >>>>> conclusion that time for both systems can be dilated with respect to | >>>>> the other system is paradoxical. | >> | >>>> No, it's not paradoxical at all. | >> | >>> It is paradoxical because time for both systems cannot be dilated with | >>> respect to each other. | >> | >> This is your assumption about what can and cannot be. | > | > No, it is a logical inference derived from Einstein's description of | > time dilation and his postulate that there is not preferred frame of | > reference. | | Now you are contradicting yourself. You started this whole thread with a | reference to a paper claiming that it was possible to find an absolute | frame. This paper you touted as showing SR to be wrong. and you are not | using Einstein's description of time dilation you are using a mish-mash | of stuff of your own making. | Now you are weaselling. "light is always propagated in the absolutely at rest inertial frame of reference coordinate system with a definite velocity c." -- Albert Fuckwit Einstein. ("empty space" is a weasel word for the absolutely at rest inertial frame of reference system of coordinates)
From: Daryl McCullough on 4 Jul 2010 21:00 harald says... >On Jul 4, 2:02=A0pm, stevendaryl3...(a)yahoo.com (Daryl McCullough) wrote: >> It's hard for me to see how the "twin paradox" is a paradox in any >> sense other than being a surprising result. > >Just study Einstein's solution and see if you agree - or if you smell >a dead cat. ;-) I'm not sure what "Einstein's solution" is, but for any problem involving traveling clocks, the prediction of GR or SR is this: elapsed time on clock = Integral along the path of square-root(|g_uv dx^u dx^v|) In SR, we can always choose coordinates so that g_uv is constant and diagonal, with g_00 = 1, g_11 = g_22 = g_33 = -1. Then the above expression reduces to: Integral along the path of square-root(1 - v^2/c^2) dt In General Relativity, or in SR with noninertial coordinates, g_uv may in general vary from point to point, so there is an apparent position-dependence to the rates of clocks. I really don't understand how the twin paradox is a consistency challenge for GR. The fact that Einstein himself may have worried about it doesn't mean anything to me. We're not dealing with holy scripture, and Einstein is not a prophet. GR is a theory that stands or falls independently of its creator. Einstein is not the last word on GR. What do you consider to be the *real* twin paradox? -- Daryl McCullough Ithaca, NY
From: Daryl McCullough on 4 Jul 2010 21:14 Edward Green says... > >On Jun 30, 10:11=A0pm, 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 =3D 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. Yes, that is interesting. But it's kind of like the fact that in Newtonian physics, it's possible for a material object to travel infinite distance in finite coordinate time. There is actually even an arrangement of point-masses that realizes this, using no forces other than gravity. -- Daryl McCullough Ithaca, NY
From: Daryl McCullough on 4 Jul 2010 21:51 In article <eb646c13-59be-4c89-8bbb-c7a5de09bec7(a)d37g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, harald says... > >On Jul 4, 2:12=A0pm, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> harald says... >> >> >On Jul 3, 4:10=3DA0pm, stevendaryl3...(a)yahoo.com (Daryl McCullough) wrot= >e: >> >> 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? >> >> 1905 paper has the first exposition of the twins paradox (though not >> in the currently frames words) .. of a pair of clocks at rest, then >> one moves away and returns and shows a shorter elapsed time >> >> No GR involved there. > >No paradox there either. > >> Or are you talking now of some other paradox? > >Einstein explained how a paradox arose with the inception of GRT: > >http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Dialog_about_Objections_against_the_Theory_of= >_Relativity > >Harald
From: G. L. Bradford on 4 Jul 2010 22:13
"eric gisse" <jowr.pi.nospam(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:i0r22e$bio$2(a)news.eternal-september.org... > G. L. Bradford wrote: > [skipped to the end] > >> Of course few of them are first tier thinkers and seers, nor even >> second >> tier, nor even third tier, nor even fourth tier.... >> >> GLB >> >> ========================== > > So what's your training in the sciences and why does it put you so many > cuts > above those who have put a decade of study into the subject? > > You've been posting here for years but you don't seem to show much > knowledge > about science... =================== Physicist Marc Davis at a seminar on string theory a couple of decades ago was heard to excitedly exclaim, "We know next to nothing about the universe!" Gisse, I'm only interested in the many faces, the many views, of the Universe, among many, many, other things I'm interested in and follow. I'm interested but I'm no physicist, I've stated that again and again, and again, over the last two decades of my participation in these two open forums, but even I know, from experience with your type if nothing else, that you know far less than you puff yourself up to claim, or imply, you know. You make it only too obvious that you are just as superficial, just as lacking in breadth and depth, as I pointed out, a light weight rote priest and fool with not the slightest capacity for vision and imagination and perception to you. Davis isn't even close to the only one who has said or written the same thing. And the numbers of physicists and others, even as the total numbers of professional physicists are fast imploding here in Western Civilization, who say it and write it ("We know next to nothing about the universe") seem only to be growing these days. You didn't go after what I said about the dimensionally three cornered picture, the deeper layered picture, versus the two pointed line only picture in my post. You didn't say that what I detailed about what is observed and what is unobserved is wrong, pointing out what you see to be wrong with what I describe about relative and real. You didn't because you couldn't get past the fact of the "observable universe" versus the "unobserved, and unobservable, universe." You didn't because you couldn't get past the two universe picture and realizations I present in my own way, or better yet the dual universe picture and realizations. The certain deductions to be made -- that I make -- regarding it. Being what you are, following in the footsteps of all the other 1-dimensional types just like you throughout history, it left you only one thing you could do if you were going to respond at all, didn't it? GLB =================== |