Preferred Frame Theory indistinguishable from SR
in [Relativity]
|
From: colp on 8 Jul 2010 21:20 On Jul 9, 9:21 am, harald <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote: > 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. What do you mean by PoR?
From: eric gisse on 8 Jul 2010 21:23 Paul Stowe wrote: > 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'. Ah, the sarcastic dismissing of evidence that doesn't fit your fantasy. > 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: eric gisse on 8 Jul 2010 21:25 colp 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. Don't use terminology you do not understand. The principle of relativity works the same in SR as it does in classical mechanics. Which textbooks have you studied classical mechanics from? I studied from Goldstein, and Symon. You?
From: whoever on 8 Jul 2010 21:23 "colp" wrote in message news:e967873a-49c5-4167-ac11-ddb24dd6c90d(a)z15g2000prn.googlegroups.com... >On Jul 9, 9:17 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> 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. You mean like YOU having the burden of proof as it is YOU who are making claims against SR. So far you've not come up with the goods .. what you HAVE come up with has been shown to be faulty. If you're so keen on 'common law' maybe you'd care to stop the ad-hom's against me (and others) and concentrate on the physics arguments that you need ot make in order to prove your claims >> > 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. LIAR .. we have >> 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. LIAR. No .. you are MIS-using it and ignoring that parts of the lorentz transforms that show you are wrong >> Your claim is unsupported, other than by >> your own interpretation and opinion. > >No, it is supported by the source text. LIAR .. your position is NOT AT ALL supported by the 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. And it has been tested .. for at leat a century now >> 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. YOU have failed to meet the challenge of proving SR wrong so far .. you just bluster and ad-hom and divert. The signs of a loser. >> This is not a debate. > >.It is, any you are losing because you are unable to substantiate your >claim that I oversimplified SR. LIAR. Come on .. stopp pissign around and actauly PROVIDE THE PROOF THAT SR IS CONTRADICTORY. Of course. . you KNOW that you can't do so, and that's why you're wasting everyone's time --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news(a)netfront.net ---
From: whoever on 8 Jul 2010 21:29
"colp" wrote in message news:10aa6810-9cee-4a05-90e9-1157f1f0ae34(a)y32g2000prc.googlegroups.com... > On Jul 9, 9:21 am, harald <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote: >> 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: >> > > >> 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. > >What do you mean by PoR? Don't tell me you don't even understand the terminology used .. you really should familiarise yourself with the subject matter. Maybe have an educated guess seeing what you were replying to above.. ie: === >> > > > On Jul 8, 1:04 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> > > >> The principle of relativity is a cornerstone of classical >> > > >> mechanics, >> > > >> chuckles. === Now .. can you guess what PoR means ? Seems to me you are just using more tricks to divert attention away from your failure to prove SR is wrong. --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news(a)netfront.net --- |