Preferred Frame Theory indistinguishable from SR
in [Relativity]
|
From: artful on 7 Jul 2010 21:43 On Jul 8, 11:16 am, Paul Stowe <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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"" So what is being made 'normal'? What is 'normal'?
From: Paul Stowe on 7 Jul 2010 21:56 On Jul 7, 6:43 pm, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 8, 11:16 am, PaulStowe<theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > 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"" > > So what is being made 'normal'? What is 'normal'? Why, the 'local' frame, of course... Normalizing to a baseline. I do it all the time with my automobile digital altimeter. Every time I get in the car and turn it on the barometric pressure has changed, thus, so to, the altitude. I push the select button to reset (renormalize) the altitude to 'relative' zero for my house. SR is doing the exact same thing... Everyone can renormalize the reference to their local frame. This is no mystery, or exotic, we renormalize to baselines all the time, it's a convenient means of simplifying things. Paul Stowe Paul Stowe
From: J. Clarke on 7 Jul 2010 21:51 On 7/7/2010 9:06 PM, colp 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. Instead of "reducto ad absurdum" you might want to familiarize yourself with something called "mathematics". > > 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. And if that "absurdity" is in fact real then what? >>> 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. And yet you are trying to.
From: artful on 7 Jul 2010 22:03 On Jul 8, 11:56 am, Paul Stowe <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 7, 6:43 pm, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 8, 11:16 am, PaulStowe<theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > 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"" > > > So what is being made 'normal'? What is 'normal'? > > Why, the 'local' frame, of course... Normalizing to a baseline. Doesn't happen in SR > I do > it all the time with my automobile digital altimeter. Every time I > get in the car and turn it on the barometric pressure has changed, > thus, so to, the altitude. I push the select button to reset > (renormalize) the altitude to 'relative' zero for my house. I really don't care what you do with an altimeter. > SR is > doing the exact same thing... Everyone can renormalize the reference > to their local frame. There is no need to 'normalise' or 'renomalise' anything in SR, because everything is already 'normal'. > This is no mystery, or exotic, we renormalize > to baselines all the time, it's a convenient means of simplifying > things. Except it doesn't apply to SR. SR is already simple. A metre rule at rest in any given inertial frame is intrinsically, and measured to be, a metre long. Nothing needs adjusting. In LET (that for some silly reason yiou call LR .. maybe you;'re embarrased by the 'E' part), a metre rule at rest in any given inertial frame is NOT intrinsically a metre long (unless that inertial frame happens to coincide with the unobservable absolute frame of LET) .. so there IS some normalising going on there.
From: colp on 7 Jul 2010 23:06
On Jul 8, 1:40 pm, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > 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. If you had made an honest mistake, then why didn't you admit it at the time instead of trying to make it look like I was wrong? Let's not forget that that core issue was about your production of a non-existent mathematical proof (namely the maths of the symmetric twin's turnaround) which somehow compensated for the time dilation predicted by SR. You lied about posting the proof, then denied that you claimed that you posted it, and then said that you attempted to post it but it never made it to usenet. |