Preferred Frame Theory indistinguishable from SR
in [Relativity]
|
From: colp on 7 Jul 2010 23:09 On Jul 8, 1:51 pm, "J. Clarke" <jclarke.use...(a)cox.net> wrote: > 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". Do you have a point to make? > > > > > 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? Paradoxes do not exist in nature, hence the absurdity is not real. > > >>> 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. No, I am not trying to.
From: artful on 7 Jul 2010 23:13 On Jul 8, 1:06 pm, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > 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? I did .. as soon as it was pointed out to me that my post wasn't there. Do you want me to post the analysis? > Let's not forget that that core issue was about your production of a > non-existent mathematical proof No .. a RRAL EXISTENT proof Do you want me to post the analysis? > (namely the maths of the symmetric > twin's turnaround) which somehow compensated for the time dilation > predicted by SR. SR correctly predicts that the twins will be the same age upon meeting, regardless of the frame of reference. Do you want me to post the analysis? > You lied about posting the proof, No .. I made a MISTAKE because I thought I had posted it. I admitted to that an apologized for the misunderstanding. There is a difference between lying, and making a mistake. Do you want me to post the analysis? > 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. I made a MISTAKE because I thought I had posted it. I admitted to that an apolopgised for the misunderstanding. Do you want me to post the analysis?
From: artful on 7 Jul 2010 23:14 On Jul 8, 1:06 pm, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > On Jul 8, 1:40 pm, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > 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? Also note that whether or not I posted it .. you are still wrong, because your analysis is incomplete and not what SR predicts. The basis for your arguments that SR must have a preferred frame is groundless. Do you want me to post an SR analysis?
From: Tom Roberts on 8 Jul 2010 01:06 Paul Stowe wrote: > On Jul 6, 6:36 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> for LET the ether frame is completely unobservable. One >> cannot measure an unobservable quantity, such as one's velocity wrt the ether >> frame of LET. > > Thus, logically, LR has the very same 'local Lorentz invariance'. No. You obviously do not know what local Lorentz invariance means. It means that ALL the locally-valid equations of a theory referenced to a given inertial frame are unchanged in form by a Lorentz transform to another inertial frame. In LET, the speed of light referenced to the ether frame is c, and when referenced to some moving frame is not c (it is c+-v, speaking loosely). But the Lorentz transform will leave any speed of c unchanged. So the equations of LET describing the propagation of light are not Lorentz invariant. The MEASUREMENTS in a moving frame yield the value c, but that is not the true speed of light in LET. > The rest frame > does not violate this and is quite observable... [In context, your "rest frame" means the ether frame of LET.] You are wrong. In LET the ether frame is completely unobservable. Yes, I know you claim the CMBR dipole=0 frame is the ether frame. But that is not LET. Lorentz obviously had no knowledge of the CMBR, and could not possibly have put it into his theory. Moreover, while there might be some merit to your claim if relative to that frame the CMBR was isotropic, it isn't. Tom Roberts
From: artful on 8 Jul 2010 01:31
On Jul 8, 1:06 pm, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > Let's not forget that that core issue was about [snip] .... SR being self-contradictory (ie predicting contradictory results). It was NOT about whether or not I made a mistake about having successfully posted an analysis. You are simply trying to divert from your burden of proof for your claims against the established position of physics regarding SR. You have posted some analysis that your claim shows a contradiction, but the errors in that analysis have been pointed out to you by myself and others. So the burden of proof remains with you to correct your analysis taking the mistakes you made into account (ie ignoring the change of changes in clock sync due to relativity of synchronicity at the turnaround) and show that there is still a paradox as you claim. So far you just keep on with your incorrect claim that there is contradiction and then make inferences and deductions from that claim. Unless you can prove your claim, what you infer and deduce from it is meaningless. |