Preferred Frame Theory indistinguishable from SR
in [Relativity]
|
From: Koobee Wublee on 4 Jul 2010 00:59 On Jul 3, 8:04 am, Esa Riihonen wrote: > Koobee Wublee kirjoitti (Suomi?): > > So, you dont know what math is involved with the problem. You dont > > know what the issues are with relative simultaneity. You dont know > > anything about the Lorentz transform. You are easily bedazzled by the > > mathemagic shows where all these mathemagic shows contradict each other.. > > That is a fine trait of Einstein Dingleberrism. <shrug> > > The math involved is the math of SR - specifically regarding the twin > "paradoxes" (symmetric or not) it is more or less just Lorentz > Transforming the coordinates of the events between different inertial > frames. SR is merely an interpretation to the Lorentz transform. So, it is a really a moot point to go further with SR. However, the math involved is the Lorentz transform where it specifies WITHOUT EXCEPTION that any moving frame regardless in acceleration or not will be observed to be time dilated by anyone, anywhen, and anywhere. <shrug> > But perhaps I really don't know anything about this stuff - > however I hope you won't reveal this to my current employer or former > teachers that let me pass the exams. Oh, playing with my psych a little bit, eh? > But perhaps you could now show how the solution of the symmetric twin > paradox provided earlier was flawed? The flaw is in jumping frame and allowed the mathemagic tricks to be played while doing that and thus violating the Lorentz transform. Furthermore, the confusion lends itself through two different transforms that are similar but behave drastically differently in principle. From history, the first transform satisfying electromagnetism (other than the Galilean in which light is modeled as pure classical particles) to explain the null results was the Voigt transform in 1887. The second one was Larmor's transform right around the time when Teddy Roosevelt charged up the San Juan Hills in Cuba sparking the building of the American Empire. Both the Voigt and Larmor's transforms do not satisfy the principle of relativity, and thus there is no twins' paradox to speak of. Lorentz finally realized there are indeed an infinite such transforms that will explain the null results of the MMX and electromagnetism. All these transform cannot satisfy the principle of relativity. Poincare was the one who saw the way how Larmor's transform is written where any two observers are moving in parallel relative to the stationary background of the Aether can be rewritten to show a complete elimination of the absolute frame of reference, and Larmor's transform becomes the Lorentz transform in this case. However, that is indeed very misleading. In general, the Lorentz transform is not valid. For a better mathematical understanding, see the link below. http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/ea6a75a64a752c95?hl=en
From: hanson on 4 Jul 2010 04:02 ..... ahahahaha... AHAHAHAHA... ahahaha.... "Koobee Wublee" <koobee.wublee(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> Addressing Paul Draper, poster colp wrote: I'm not asking for an education, I'm pointing out that all you have to defend you beliefs are hollow claims. > enter the fray, KW wrote: That is an admirable crusade on Mr. colp's part. <applaud> > Eric, addressing colp wrote: Ah, the "I dare you to make me understand" gambit. > enter the fray, KW wrote: Who gives a fvck about Eric Gisse, a college dropout from Fairbanks, Alaska (where?) who [1] is very grotesque in physical statue, shallow in aptitude, and virulent in engagement? <shrug> > hanson wrote: ahahaha... AHAHAHA.. you do take no prisoners, KW, don't you.... ahahahaha... But listen KW, not everybody is as fortunate like you are, to be a 6'2" Schwarzenegger look-alike. So beating like you do [1] on shortchanged, obese Gisse is unnecessary overkill... But thanks for the laughs... ahahahaha.... AHAHAHAHA... ahahahahanson --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news(a)netfront.net ---
From: whoever on 4 Jul 2010 07:40 "colp" wrote in message news:1079223a-1732-4e54-940a-49139a2dd297(a)n8g2000prh.googlegroups.com... >On Jul 4, 2:10 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> On Jul 3, 1:04 am, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: >> > It is paradoxical because time for both systems cannot be dilated with >> > respect to each other. >> >> This is your assumption about what can and cannot be. > No, Yes it is > it is a logical inference derived from Einstein's description of > time dilation > and his postulate that there is not preferred frame of >reference. NO . it is not. You cannot derive from that that "time for both systems cannot be dilated with respect to each other" THAT is you assumption. I have shown it to be false. You really are not very good at logical reasoning. --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news(a)netfront.net ---
From: Daryl McCullough on 4 Jul 2010 08:02 harald says... > >On Jul 3, 4:10=A0pm, stevendaryl3...(a)yahoo.com (Daryl McCullough) wrote: >> I'm not sure what paradox you are referring to, then. > >I did some digging to understand the main cause of confusion. What I >found, is the clock paradox started out as the one that Einstein was >confronted with, as criticism of his GRT. At least, concerning SRT, >before the development of GRT, I found no trace of such a paradox in >the old literature. Did you? No, but I haven't really looked. But I guess it makes sense. From the point of view of SR, it is clear that the traveling twin is different from the stay-at-home twin, since he is in a noninertial coordinate system. But if you generalize to allow *any* coordinate system (inertial or not) then you have to explain what's wrong with viewing the traveling twin at rest. But it's not really a paradox with GR, either, since GR doesn't use the Lorentz transforms to relate noninertial coordinate systems. It's hard for me to see how the "twin paradox" is a paradox in any sense other than being a surprising result. >> GR doesn't really *have* a notion of "rest". > >Einstein's GRT holds that reference systems in any form of motion may >be used as physical reference system, relative to which objects are >"in rest" - that's the basis of the "clock" or "twin" paradox, and how >it started. >> For a particular coordinate system, >> you can use the term "at rest" to mean that the time derivative of the >>spacial coordinates are all zero, but that doesn't have any particular >> physical meaning, except in the cases where the metric is time-independent. >> >> >> because GR is a generalization of SR. In the case of empty space far >> >> from any large gravitating bodies, GR reduces to SR, so any GR solution >> >> to the twin paradox would have to have already been a solution in SR. >> >> >Irrelevant. >> >> It's not irrelevant to *MY* point. It is my point. And this is my >> thread, so my point counts. > >Irrelevant for Einstein's clock paradox, which KW brought up in your >thread. ;-) I thought KW was suggesting that Einstein used GR as a *solution* to the paradox. I was responding to the idea that GR was a solution (whether or not Einstein viewed it as such). -- Daryl McCullough Ithaca, NY
From: artful on 4 Jul 2010 08:12
harald says... >On Jul 3, 4:10=A0pm, stevendaryl3...(a)yahoo.com (Daryl McCullough) wrote: >> I'm not sure what paradox you are referring to, then. >I did some digging to understand the main cause of confusion. What I >found, is the clock paradox started out as the one that Einstein was >confronted with, as criticism of his GRT. At least, concerning SRT, >before the development of GRT, I found no trace of such a paradox in >the old literature. Did you? 1905 paper has the first exposition of the twins paradox (though not in the currently frames words) .. of a pair of clocks at rest, then one moves away and returns and shows a shorter elapsed time No GR involved there. Or are you talking now of some other paradox? |