Preferred Frame Theory indistinguishable from SR
in [Relativity]
|
From: artful on 5 Jul 2010 01:24 On Jul 5, 3:12 pm, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > 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. It is what you said > I'm saying that for time for both systems > to be dilated with respect to each other constitutes a paradox, And that assertion is wrong. I've shown you how differences in clock sync result in mutual time dilation > and > this situation arises when the idea that no preferred frame of > reference exists is applied to the example. It doesn't matter what frame you use. You get the same results in SR. That is, that each of the symmetric twins is the same age upon return. So there is no paradox there. That YOU do not get that result is due to errors in your analysis. > 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. Incorrect conclusion. The correct conclusions are 1) your analysis is incomplete and so incorrect and 2) that your claim that mutual time dilation cannot happen is wrong
From: Koobee Wublee on 5 Jul 2010 01:37 So, it looks like Mr. McCullough has run out of his mathemagical tricks on the subjects he does not understand very well. So, just like Professor Roberts now, he is resorting to word salad in these posts. Is Mr. McCullough trying to be a priest or something? <shrug>
From: eric gisse on 5 Jul 2010 02:33 colp wrote: > On Jul 5, 7:31 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> On Jul 3, 6:06 pm, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: >> >> >> >> > On Jul 4, 2:14 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > > On Jul 3, 1:06 am, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: >> >> > > > On Jul 3, 3:03 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > > > > On Jul 1, 7:56 pm, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: >> >> > > > > > On Jul 2, 2:21 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > > > > > > On Jun 30, 5:47 pm, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: >> >> > > > > > > > <quote> >> >> > > > > > > > > > At best, all you've done is show the >> > > > > > > > > > fallacies or assumptions inherent in COLP's >> > > > > > > > > > Oversimplified Relativity. >> > > > > > > > > What specific fallacies or assumptions? Quotes, please. >> >> > > > > > > > Sure. You've used the statement from COLP's Oversimplified >> > > > > > > > Relativity that moving clocks run slow (which you've said >> > > > > > > > is true even for blue- shifted clocks), and you've used the >> > > > > > > > statement that COLP's Oversimplified Relativity makes no >> > > > > > > > provision whatsoever for a compression of time for a clock >> > > > > > > > turning around. This immediately leads to several >> > > > > > > > paradoxes, and this is ample reason to chuck Colp's >> > > > > > > > Oversimplified Relativity. </quote> >> >> > > > > > > > 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 oversimplification. If you've inferred this from his >> > > > > > > 1905 paper, then you've oversimplified. >> >> > > > > > No, inferring something from a paper does not constitute an >> > > > > > oversimplification. >> >> > > > > It does if it's an oversimplification of what's presented in the >> > > > > paper! >> >> > > > It isn't. Claiming that it is without showing why is of no value. >> >> > > You aren't owed an education on a newsgroup, despite your taunts to >> > > the contrary. >> >> > I'm not asking for an education, I'm pointing out that all you have to >> > defend you beliefs are hollow claims. >> >> No, they are fully supportable claims. > > Wrong. The burden of proof is yours. You can't support them because no > such support exists. Doubling down on the "I dare you to make me understand" gambit, I see.
From: G. L. Bradford on 5 Jul 2010 05:15 "eric gisse" <jowr.pi.nospam(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:i0rlup$94u$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... > G. L. Bradford wrote: > >> >> "eric gisse" <jowr.pi.nospam(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >> news:i0r22e$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!" > > He's wrong. > >> >> 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 > > So when was the last time you went to a research library to see what has > been recently discovered? Or read a preprint on arXiv? Bet you don't even > know. > >> 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. > > Gosh, I don't know about that. I have literature references and an actual > college education... > > I guess this long winded response is your way of saying "No Eric, I have > no > formal training in science." > >> 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. > > You sound rather certain of that. I support my claims with literature > references and actual reasoning that stands up to scrutiny. How's bout > 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. > > What a nice emotional appeal. Are your claims supported by reality? > > Are the numbers of awarded PhD's and college degrees in physics and > physics- > related fields decreasing? No. Not since the last time I looked. Perhaps > you > have different numbers? > > As for the 'we know nothing' crowd, much lies in your wording. It might > _seem_ that way to you but I bet there is one hell of a feedback loop > going > on in your head. > >> >> 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? > > I have no real interest in dissecting the excess verbiage that constitutes > your opinion about something only you care about. > >> >> GLB >> >> =================== > Exactly as I thought. I should pity you but I long ago quit pitying the likes of you. Of course the unobservable real-time traveler doesn't exist as far as SR is concerned. Only one traveler -- only the "observed traveler" -- exists as far as SR is concerned. It provides for no other traveler other than an "observable traveler." THAT'S ITS VERY PARTICULAR, VERY SPECIAL, DOMAIN OF PROMINENCE, THE "OBSERVABLE UNIVERSE"! The universe "observed." It deals in no other universe, especially not one that if perceived in a certain way could be considered to [simply exist] faster than the speed of light....regardless of the fact that it doesn't, not really. GLB ====================
From: Esa Riihonen on 5 Jul 2010 05:35
Androcles kirjoitti: > "Esa Riihonen" <esa(a)riihonen.net.not.invalid> wrote in message > news:pan.2010.07.03.18.18.28(a)riihonen.net.not.invalid... | Androcles > kirjoitti: > | > | > "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. > | > | How sad then - well what can one do. | > | > | > | > | 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. > | > | Strange - the standard twin paradox uses at least three inertial > frames: > > | > | 1: The stay home frame 0 > > That's one. > > > | 2: Outward frame 1, speed v_01 relative to the home frame > > > Speed is neither a coordinate system nor a frame of reference. Indeed - why state the obvious. What above means is that inertial systems are moving with constant mutual velocities. This is basic stuff from classical mechanics - so it is hard to believe you were really confused by my wording. > | 3: Inward frame 2, speed v_02 (usually v_02 = -v_01) relative to the > | home frame > > Speed is neither a coordinate system nor a frame of reference. Ditto. > 1: The stay home frame 0, speed v wrt frame 2 2: The other twin frame > 1, at rest by the PoR. Now I was talking about _inertial_ frames. At least one of the twin's frames above can't be inertial if they are to separate and the come back together again. This is obviously true in both of SR as well as in classical mechanics - PoR has nothing to do with it here. > Let f be a transformation from frame 0 to frame 1, f(x) = x-vt > Translatory coordinate transformation done, stupid. > > I conclude your mother never taught you to count to two. I honestly can't remember - I was so small then. Maybe it was my farther or some of the aunts instead. Does it matter? > Answer a question, fuckwit: > Why did Einstein say > the speed of light from A to B is c-v, the speed of light from B to A is > c+v, the "time" each way is the same? I really don't know - why should I? Why should I even care? Perhaps he was discussing some type of closing speeds - can't really tell without proper context. I guess it is now your turn. Answer a question, [insert proper descriptive]: What is the air-speed velocity of an unladen swallow? Esa(R) -- Math and Alcohol don't mix, so... PLEASE DON'T DRINK AND DERIVE. |