Preferred Frame Theory indistinguishable from SR
in [Relativity]
|
From: Paul Stowe on 3 Jul 2010 17:24 On Jul 3, 1:32 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 3, 11:44 am, Edward Green <spamspamsp...(a)netzero.com> wrote: > > > 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? > > Yes. > > > You may object that is has correct consequences but is unnecessary, > > No, that's really not the deciding figure of merit. The figure of > merit is that relativity explains the Lorentz covariance of all the > fundamental forces, where the Lorentz ether does not. Therefore the > theory that has the broader explanatory reach wins. To Ed, Mr. Draper talks nonsense. Lorentz's paper of 1904 covered exactly the same phenomena as Einstein's of 1905. It extends to the other 'fundamental' forces just as naturally Einstein's since, by definition, they must also be physical properties of the same medium adhering to the very same limitation (unless someone can propose why they shouldn't). These types will not do as you ask, plain & simple. As you are aware, Einstein said this in his Leyden address. > > 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. > > I don't see how it has any greater explanatory power than the > structure of spacetime, which accounts for the miracle quite > straightforwardly. > > > > > > > <snipped sci.physics, sci.chem, sci.math> Paul Stowe
From: colp on 3 Jul 2010 19:06 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.
From: colp on 3 Jul 2010 19:07 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.
From: eric gisse on 3 Jul 2010 21:13 colp 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. Ah, the "I dare you to make me understand" gambit.
From: eric gisse on 3 Jul 2010 21:16
Paul Stowe wrote: [....] > Mr. Draper talks nonsense. Lorentz's paper of 1904 covered exactly > the same phenomena as Einstein's of 1905. [...] I just don't get what you are expecting to accomplish when every time you are asked to point out what LET predicts differently from SR you shrug your shoulders and say 'nothing'. All your sound and fury signifies literally *nothing*. |