Preferred Frame Theory indistinguishable from SR
in [Relativity]
|
From: whoever on 5 Jul 2010 01:08 "colp" wrote in message news:d62631a8-33e5-4427-be29-525c76268b8e(a)t5g2000prd.googlegroups.com... >On Jul 5, 11:52 am, Cosmik de Bris ><cosmik.deb...(a)elec.canterbury.ac.nz> wrote: >> 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: [snip for brevity] >> >>>>> 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. Note your assumption and assertion "cannot be dilated with respect to each other" That is incorrect. It is most certainly possible, and I've shown you previously how differences in clock sync result in mutual time dilation being measured. >> >> 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. > >Wrong. In this case the inference of a paradox means that Einstein's >assumption is wrong. There is no paradox .. only your assertion that it 'cannot' be. It is that assertion that is wrong >> You started this whole thread > >I didn't start this thread, Daryl did. > >> with a >> reference to a paper claiming that it was possible to find an absolute >> frame. > >You mean the paper I quoted from the "Symmetric Twin Paradox" thread? That's probably the one .. it is equally wrong in its conclusion, as there is no symmetric twin paradox. SR predicts that the twins have the same age (no matter which frmae of reference you use). >> This paper you touted as showing SR to be wrong. > >What do you mean by 'touted'? Lookup a dictionary >> and you are not >> using Einstein's description of time dilation you are using a mish-mash >> of stuff of your own making. > >Wrong. I quoted Einstein's description of time dilation from >"Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies". The text is even present in the >post that you replied to. If you think that my description is >materially different, then quote what I said that shows that. You are using time dilation, but ignoring the rest of SR. That is why YOU get a paradox, but SR does not. --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news(a)netfront.net ---
From: colp on 5 Jul 2010 01:12 On Jul 5, 7:27 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 3, 6:07 pm, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> 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. > > No, I'm sorry, but that is not a good inference. Why can't you identify what is wrong with it then? > I don't have any idea > how you conclude from his postulate about no preferred frame that time > for both systems cannot be dilated with respect to each other. That isn't what I am saying. I'm saying that for time for both systems to be dilated with respect to each other constitutes a paradox, and this situation arises when the idea that no preferred frame of reference exists is applied to the example. Since we know from experiment that time dilation is real, the only remaining assumption is that of the non-existence of a preferred frame of reference; i.e that assumption is false because it results in a paradox.
From: whoever on 5 Jul 2010 01:10 "colp" wrote in message news:7533051f-9152-4897-a18c-0bbf6bc4cd42(a)m17g2000prl.googlegroups.com... > What you find believable is of no importance. Since you can't point > out any error in my reasoning, the only logical conclusions are that > either you don't know what you are talking about, or there is no error > to find. No .. you simply ignore those who point out the errors, and then claim that noone has done so. That is intellectual dishonesty on your part. Do you want me to point out your errors again? --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news(a)netfront.net ---
From: whoever on 5 Jul 2010 01:14 "colp" wrote in message news:e4453dde-4824-43d7-a1c2-27fce5bf8d76(a)x24g2000pro.googlegroups.com... > Wrong. The burden of proof is yours. You can't support them because no > such support exists. Wrong .. YOU are the one making claims that SR contains paradoxes. The burden of proof is on YOU to support those claims. You haven't. You make the ASSERTION that the turnaround in the twins paradox has no effect on the measurement of the clocks, and so you ignore it. That is wrong. A full SR analysis of the scenario results in a self-consistent result regardless of frame of reference. Your partial analysis, leaving out the key factor, does not. Do you want to see that math? I've offered many times, and you keep ignoring it. Or are you just a troll who isn't interested in learning the physics? --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news(a)netfront.net ---
From: artful on 5 Jul 2010 01:20
On Jul 5, 3:02 pm, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > What you find believable is of no importance. Since you can't point > out any error in my reasoning, the only logical conclusions are that > either you don't know what you are talking about, or there is no error > to find. No .. you simply ignore those who point out the errors, and then claim that noone has done so. That is intellectual dishonesty on your part. Do you want me to point out your errors again? |