Preferred Frame Theory indistinguishable from SR
in [Relativity]
|
From: Paul Stowe on 7 Jul 2010 21:16 On Jul 7, 5:48 pm, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 8, 10:31 am, PaulStowe<theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 7, 12:20 am, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > PaulStowewrote: > > > > [...] > > > > > I've said all along that SR is only the renormalized version of LR > > > > just like PSIG is a renormalized version of absolute PSIA... That > > > > does not mean that the model do not predict different scopes of > > > > behavior. The physical consequences of actual field changes with > > > > speed is one such difference... > > > > > PaulStowe > > > > 1) You made up the word 'renormalized'. You are trying to make the principle > > > of relativity, one of SR's postulates, seem inconsequential. > > > 2) You can not produce a measurable difference between LET and SR. I said > > > 'measurable', not 'philosophical'. > > > 3) Who the f*ck cares? Physics left behind LET for a reason, and you > > > seriously need to learn what happened after 1905. > > > I made up the term renormalization??? ahahahahahahahah... > > You didn't make up the word, obviously. In physics "renormalization" > has a specific meaning in quantum theory .. your use of it in > describing LR is your own use of the word, and what on earth it means > to you is anyone's guess. It appears you simply wanted to (mis)use a > big word that is a valid term elsewhere in physics to make your posts > appear knowledgeable .. it didn't work. http://www.freedictionary.org/?Query=renormalize I use the term in it regular, common, meaning, "Example: "normalize the temperature"" I also gave such an equivalent example, 0 PSIG... Paul Stowe
From: colp on 7 Jul 2010 21:33 On Jul 8, 1:04 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > colp wrote: > > [...] > > > You disregard the common law just as Einstein's first postulate > > disregards the laws of nature. > > The principle of relativity is a cornerstone of classical mechanics, > chuckles. Galilean relativity doesn't account for time dilation or other relativistic effects. These effects are an essential element of the current argument. The point is that PD, like Daryl and Einstein, have adopted positions contrary to common law while arguing for relativity. In PD's case it was denying the burden of proof of his own claims, and using another meaningless term (i.e. debate-club arm-wrestling stance) in an attempt to defend his position. 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.
From: artful on 7 Jul 2010 21:40 On Jul 8, 10:57 am, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > On Jul 8, 11:58 am, Edward Green <spamspamsp...(a)netzero.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jun 26, 7:06 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > > > "colp" <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote in message > > > >news:fb84de9d-58e8-4b3f-98a8-de5c9b7393b2(a)l25g2000prn.googlegroups.com.... > > > > > On Jun 27, 1:30 am, stevendaryl3...(a)yahoo.com (Daryl McCullough) > > > > wrote: > > > >> colp says... > > > > >> >Before I respond directly to the issue of the preferred frame, I again > > > >> >raise the issue of need. The reason that the issue of need is pivotal > > > >> >here is that necessity may be a reason for people to lie and deceive. > > > > >> I have no idea what you are talking about, and at this point I really > > > >> don't care. I'm only discuss physics, not psychology. > > > > > Restricting discussion to a single discipline makes it very difficult > > > > to see the big picture. > > > > > If you don't understand what motivates people, then you can only have > > > > a superficial understanding of their actions and they can play you for > > > > a fool. > > > > But you ARE a fool > > > What did Mati Meron say? When you argue with a fool, he is doing just > > the same? > > Intertial/artful/whoever is a liar. > > http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/603be32d66b... Nope. I made a mistake that I admitted and apologized for. THAT is called honesty .. something with which you are obviously not familiar. I offered to show you the math over and over and you did not want to see it. That's cowardice on your part. You said you'd continue discussion with me if I apologised (which i'd already done) but you lied. You also lie about physics ALL THE TIME. You are in no position to make false claims about me, or physics.
From: artful on 7 Jul 2010 21:40 On Jul 8, 11:06 am, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > On Jul 8, 12:01 pm, "J. Clarke" <jclarke.use...(a)cox.net> wrote: > > > > > > > On 7/7/2010 5:49 PM, colp wrote: > > > > On Jul 8, 8:05 am, stevendaryl3...(a)yahoo.com (Daryl McCullough) wrote: > > >> harald says... > > > >>> On Jul 7, 6:02=A0pm, stevendaryl3...(a)yahoo.com (Daryl McCullough) wrote: > > > >>>> If you are asking, not about General Relativity, but the General > > >>>> Principle of Relativity: that isn't a theory of physics, it is > > >>>> a heuristic, or a philosophical position, or metaphysics. It has > > >>>> no physical meaning, except to the extent that it guides us in > > >>>> coming up with better theories of physics. > > > >>> 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. This is a case of doctrinal annihilation; > > > i.e. a set of postulates that are collectively inconsistent. > > > > The relevant postulates are: > > > > 1. There is not preferred frame of reference. > > > 2. Moving clocks run slow. (Paraphrased from Einsteins > > > "Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies") > > > > Since we know that moving clocks _do_ run slow, the only logical > > > conclusion is that a preferred frame of reference exists. > > > How is that a logical conclusion? > > It's a form of reducto ad absurdum that relies on the established fact > that in some cases moving clocks run slow. > > Reductio ad absurdum is a mode of argumentation that seeks to > establish a contention by deriving an absurdity from its denial, thus > arguing that a thesis must be accepted because its rejection would be > untenable.http://www.iep.utm.edu/reductio/ > > The contention that is established is that a preferred frame of > reference exists. The denial of that contention is Einstien's first > postulate of relativity, and the absurdity that results from it is the > twin paradox in its various forms. > > > > > > 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. > > > In other words you don't like it that science doesn't let you get away > > with making up truths to suit your biases. > > Wrong. Nobody can make up truth for any reason. That is why you LIE instead
From: artful on 7 Jul 2010 21:43
On Jul 8, 11:06 am, Paul Stowe <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 7, 3:46 am, harald <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote: > I think Tom knows full well why there is no measurable difference. So you admit you were wrong. Good |