Preferred Frame Theory indistinguishable from SR
in [Relativity]
|
From: PD on 8 Jul 2010 17:17 On Jul 7, 8:33 pm, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > 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. What the heck do you mean by "common law"? Do you mean Galilean/ Newtonian physics? > In PD's case it > was denying the burden of proof of his own claims, These are not MY claims. YOU are claiming that relativity says something that it does not. Your claim is unsupported, other than by your own interpretation and opinion. What relativity DOES in fact say is well documented in literature that does not need to be reproduced here for any reason, despite your battle-cry that if you challenge it on this dueling ground then the challenge must be met on this dueling ground. This is not a debate. We are not scoring anything. I've pointed you to resources that document what relativity does in fact say, and I'd be happy to provide you more. If you decline to pick up those resources, that's your business. > 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: harald on 8 Jul 2010 17:21 On Jul 8, 11:06 pm, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > On Jul 8, 5:01 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > colp wrote: > > > 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. > > > Doesn't change what I said. > > Yes, what you said was a straw man argument. Not this time at least: the PoR of SRT is the same as that of classical mechanics. Harald
From: PD on 8 Jul 2010 18:09 On Jul 7, 5:43 pm, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > 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. Then you have misunderstood what he said. The EVENTS do more than that. > > > 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. They are synchronized in the K frame. They are not synchronized in the K' frame. This is essential and cannot be dismissed. > 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. I understand that completely. There are two clocks involved here: One that moves from A to B and one that remains at B. There is a frame K in which points A and B are at rest, and there is a frame K' in which points A and B are moving and the first clock above is at rest. > > > 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. WHAT is an implication of the first postulate? That they are also synchronized in K'? No. > > 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. Yes, that is true but the clock that is synchronized with B in K will not initially show the same time as the clock that is synchronized with B in K'. Now YOU are the one that is adding things beyond what Einstein actually said. There are only TWO clocks in Einstein's paragraph. One that moves from A to B and one that remains at B. In the frame K, the clocks are synchronized when the clocks are at A and B. In the frame K' that you propose, those same two clocks are not synchronized when the clocks are at A and B. In BOTH frames, when the clocks are next to each other at B, the two clocks will show different times. To give you a numerical example, A and B and the velocity of one clock from A to B can be arranged such that the following is true: In the frame K, where A and B are stationary: Clock at A and clock at B both read 1:23:05 at the same moment (simultaneously). They are synchronized. When clock from A arrives at B, it reads 1:23:11. The clock that remained at B reads 1:23:14. Now, in the frame K', where A and B are moving: Clock at rest reads 1:23:05 when A sweeps over it. The clock that is at B reads 1:23:10 at this instant (simultaneously). They are not synchronized. When point B sweeps over the clock at rest, it reads 1:23:11. The clock that moved along with B reads 1:23:14. You can see plainly that in the K frame, the moving clock runs slower than the stationary clock, because 6 seconds have elapsed on clock crossing A and B, and 9 seconds have elapsed on clock staying at B. And when the two clocks are adjacent, clock crossing A and B is behind clock staying at B by 3 seconds. You can also see that in the K' frame, the moving clock runs slower than the stationary clock, because 4 seconds have elapsed on clock staying at B and 6 seconds have elapsed on the clock that A and B sweep over. And when the two clocks are adjacent, clock crossing A and B is behind clock staying at B by 3 seconds. So, you see, there is nothing contradictory in SR about this situation. In either K or K', the moving clock runs more slowly than the stationary clock. In either frame, the difference between the two clocks is identical when the two clocks are together. PD
From: Paul Stowe on 8 Jul 2010 20:43 On Jul 8, 9:34 am, Edward Green <spamspamsp...(a)netzero.com> wrote: > > On Jul 7, 10:06 pm, Tom Roberts wrote: > > > 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. > > Really? That's very interesting. Would you care to elaborate? The last time he elaborated he was pointing to the slight and I mean s- l-i-g-h-t (~1 part in 100,000) variations showing up in the background as 'multipoles'. He does not seem to understand that these have NOTHING to do with isotropy except in his imagined perfectly smooth universe. All compressible mediums have these, Earth's ocean and atmosphere for example. For an actual physical medium it would unnatural if these we not present... Paul Stowe
From: colp on 8 Jul 2010 21:15
On Jul 9, 9:17 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 7, 8:33 pm, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > > > > > 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. > > What the heck do you mean by "common law"? Do you mean Galilean/ > Newtonian physics? Common law is a set of principles concerning the morality of various behaviours of man. These principles are are typically described by a set of maxims; i.e the maxims of the common law. > > > In PD's case it > > was denying the burden of proof of his own claims, > > These are not MY claims. You claimed that my argument was an oversimplification of Einstein's SR, yet you have been unable to show that your claim is true. > YOU are claiming that relativity says > something that it does not. No, I am using Einstein's "Electrodynaics of Moving Bodies" as my source text. > Your claim is unsupported, other than by > your own interpretation and opinion. No, it is supported by the source text. > What relativity DOES in fact say > is well documented in literature that does not need to be reproduced > here for any reason, It does need to be reproduced in order that it's validity as an authoritative commentary on SR can be tested. > despite your battle-cry that if you challenge it > on this dueling ground then the challenge must be met on this dueling > ground. You don't have to meet the challenge. > > This is not a debate. It is, any you are losing because you are unable to substantiate your claim that I oversimplified SR. |