Preferred Frame Theory indistinguishable from SR
in [Relativity]
|
From: PD on 7 Jul 2010 18:39 On Jul 7, 5:10 pm, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > On Jul 7, 8:56 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 5, 12:04 am, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> 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. > > > I'm sorry, but both sentences are wrong. > > Wrong again. > > Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat. The burden of the proof > lies upon him who affirms, not he who denies. Dig. 22, 3, 2; Tait on > Ev. 1; 1 Phil. Ev. 194; 1 Greenl. Ev. 74; 3 Louis. R. 83; 2 Dan. Pr. > 408; 4 Bouv Inst. n. 4411. Sorry, but debate-club arm-wrestling stances do not elicit engagement just because you want it to be so. > > Is the fact that you can't show proof due to anything other than a > refusal to admit that Einstein's first postulate of relativity is > wrong? You are asserting it is wrong. Prove it. Burden is on you.
From: colp on 7 Jul 2010 18:43 On Jul 7, 8:52 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 6, 3:03 pm, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > > > On Jul 7, 3:07 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > The problem, you see, is that the comic-book statement you are using > > > as your launching point belongs in COLP's Oversimplified Relativity. > > > It's not a comic book statement any more than Einstein's statement > > that a moving clock lags behind a stationary clock is a comic book > > statement. > > Not so. Einstein's statement included things that you have discounted. I haven't discounted them. > For example, he makes note of specific events, rather than just making > the general statement that "moving clocks" run slow. The description of the specific events only serves to illustrate that it is the moving clock that runs slow compared to the stationary clock. > Furthermore, he > makes EXPLICIT mention of the statement that the clocks at points A > and B are initially synchronized IN THE K FRAME. Assuming that they weren't synchonized in my general description of "the moving clock runs slow" would be arbitrary and illogical. Remember I was talking about _the_ clock, in reference to the moving clock described in "Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies", not to a clock in an arbitrary system. > A contradiction would > arise by making the clock at B the moving clock only if the clocks are > claimed to be intially synchronized also in the K' frame -- but they > are NOT, and this is the essential detail that you have missed. No, it isn't a missing detail, it is an implication of Einstein's first postulate of relativity. Here is Einstein's description of the clocks: "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 ..." Let us call the moving system K', in which the moving clocks at A' and B' are synchronized for an observer in K'. The stationary system K also has two clocks, but these two clocks are synchronized for an observer in K. Frames K and K' move at a constant velocity with respect to each other. If there is no preferred frame of reference then there is no reason why the clocks at A' and B' cannot also be synchronized for an observer in K', just as the clocks at A and B are for an observer in K, due to the symmetry of the two frames and their respective clocks.
From: hanson on 7 Jul 2010 18:47 "Koobee Wublee" <koobee.wublee(a)gmail.com> wrote: >- On Jul 4, 1:02 am, "hanson" <han...(a)quick.net> wrote: > >> Addressing Paul Draper, poster colp wrote: >> I'm not asking for an education, I'm pointing out that >> all you have to defend you beliefs are hollow claims. >> >> enter the fray, KW wrote: >> That is an admirable crusade on Mr. colp's part. <applaud> >> >> Eric, addressing colp wrote: >> Ah, the "I dare you to make me understand" gambit. >> >> enter the fray, KW wrote: >> Who gives a fvck about Eric Gisse, a college dropout from >> Fairbanks, Alaska (where?) who [1] is very grotesque in >> physical statue, shallow in aptitude, and virulent in >> engagement? <shrug> >> >> hanson wrote: >> ahahaha... AHAHAHA.. you do take no prisoners, KW, >> don't you.... ahahahaha... But listen KW, not everybody >> is as fortunate like you are, to be a 6'2" Schwarzenegger >> look-alike. So beating like you do in [1] on shortchanged, >> obese Gisse is unnecessary overkill... But thanks for the >> laughs... ahahahaha.... AHAHAHAHA... ahahahahanson > KW wrote: > Have you bumped into me walking my dog before? [2] > Working for Broadcom or Blizzard? [3] > hanson wrote: [2] in a way, yes. The HRDept. of the Headhunter Div of my org collects all kinds of info... ahahaha.... I though reside, for ~ 20 years now, at our 2 main corporate vacation properties in Rarotonga/Cook Isl. & Princeville, HI. [3] ahahaha... yes, maybe them as being clients of my organization. Our org's com center, thru which all cyber traffic, incl. all non-biz stuff is routed, is at the West coast, in their vicinity. -- Thanks for asking. hanson --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news(a)netfront.net ---
From: colp on 7 Jul 2010 18:53 On Jul 8, 10:39 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 7, 5:10 pm, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > > > > > On Jul 7, 8:56 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jul 5, 12:04 am, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> 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. > > > > I'm sorry, but both sentences are wrong. > > > Wrong again. > > > Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat. The burden of the proof > > lies upon him who affirms, not he who denies. Dig. 22, 3, 2; Tait on > > Ev. 1; 1 Phil. Ev. 194; 1 Greenl. Ev. 74; 3 Louis. R. 83; 2 Dan. Pr. > > 408; 4 Bouv Inst. n. 4411. > > Sorry, but debate-club arm-wrestling stances do not elicit engagement > just because you want it to be so. "debate-club arm-wrestling stance" is about as meaningful as "comic- book description". You disregard the common law just as Einstein's first postulate disregards the laws of nature.
From: whoever on 7 Jul 2010 19:57
"colp" wrote in message news:4cc5dee3-e514-4753-99ff-ecd121f50b20(a)l25g2000prn.googlegroups.com... >On Jul 8, 8:05 am, stevendaryl3...(a)yahoo.com (Daryl McCullough) wrote: >> >I rarely saw a more aggressive criticism against Einstein's >> >theory. :-) >> >> The generalized principle of relativity is not a theory. > >Right. It is an assumption, and the application of that assumption >leads to contradictions. No .. it doesn't. You've never shown one. All you've shown is you do not understand the theories derived from the principle > This is a case of doctrinal annihilation; >i.e. a set of postulates that are collectively inconsistent. They are no. You just don't understand it, and so you therefore declace it to be impossible .. even though you have no evidence to support that calim ..>The relevant postulates are: > >1. There is not preferred frame of reference. >2. Moving clocks run slow. (Paraphrased from Einsteins >"Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies") Try again .. they are NOT the postulates of SR >Since we know that moving clocks _do_ run slow, the only logical >conclusion is that a preferred frame of reference exists. Your logic does not apply to SR, because they are NOT the postulates of SR and there is no contradiction in SR. >The assertion that a preferred frame of reference exists is a >philisophical one, and points towards the epistemological schism of >natural philosophy which led to the development of science (i.e. >knowledge of the physical realm) and religion (i.e. beliefs about the >theological realm) as separate disciplines. I notice you STILL ignore my offers to show you the math .. You just do not want to learn .. you simply want to post your lies and convince others of your incorrect position that SR is self-contradictory. You're a fraud. --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news(a)netfront.net --- |