Preferred Frame Theory indistinguishable from SR
in [Relativity]
|
From: kenseto on 4 Jul 2010 08:33 On Jul 3, 12:44 pm, Edward Green <spamspamsp...(a)netzero.com> wrote: > On Jul 1, 10:26 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Jul 1, 12:53 am, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > > <...> > > > > A postulate is just an assumption with better table manners. > > > Yes, indeed. By DEFINITION, a postulate is something that is ASSUMED. > > > In science, the test of a postulate is based on experimental check of > > the *consequences* of postulates. A direct test of the postulate is > > not required. > > Would you extend that courtesy to Lorentz's postulate of an aether? > You may object that is has correct consequences but is unnecessary, > but to that objection may be countered that it has greater explanatory > power than the postulate of the constant speed of light with respect > to all inertial observers, which miracle I believe it explains, along > with the constancy of the speed of light independent of the motion of > the source. The speed of light is a defined constant ratio in all frames as follows: c=1 light-second/1 second=1 Ken Seto > > <snipped sci.physics, sci.chem, sci.math>
From: Daryl McCullough on 4 Jul 2010 08:40 whoever says... > >"Koobee Wublee" wrote >> 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> > >Totally wrong. The transform says the exact opposite. This is what is completely weird about anti-relativity cranks (and it is a characteristic that is shared by mathematical cranks, as well): If you give them a completely explicit list of rules for deriving results in some theory such as SR, the cranks are of course unable to derive a contradiction. But rather than taking that as evidence that the theory is correct, they take it that your presentation of the theory is *incorrect*. Basically, there are two different theories: SR_crank: the version of SR that is used by cranks to derive a contradiction SR_noncrank: the version of SR that is used by noncranks. The cranks don't come right out and say it, but by their silence they seem to agree that SR_noncrank is consistent---they don't even attempt to derive a contradiction from it. Instead, they criticize it on other grounds: (1) It's not what Einstein *REALLY* meant, or (2) You're cheating by carefully crafting the rules to hide the paradox. They are so used to dealing with nonsense, that they feel like anything that is consistent is somehow cheating. But I can't get a crank to explain what could possibly be WRONG with using the consistent SR_noncrank. The only explanation I can come up with for why they reject a completely consistent theory is that there are certain ways of reasoning that the crank knows MUST be correct. Let's call this "crank reasoning". When you add this reasoning to SR_noncrank, you get SR_crank, which really is inconsistent. So we have the equation: SR_noncrank + crank reasoning == SR_crank Since SR_crank is inconsistent, the crank must either reject SR_noncrank or reject their beloved crank reasoning. They can't do the latter, so they reject SR_noncrank. -- Daryl McCullough Ithaca, NY
From: kenseto on 4 Jul 2010 09:00 On Jul 4, 8:12 am, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > 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 That's not caused by time dilation...but rather a traveling clock second contain a larger amount of absolute time than a stay at home clock second. > > No GR involved there. > > Or are you talking now of some other paradox?
From: harald on 4 Jul 2010 10:25 On Jul 4, 2:12 pm, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > 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. No paradox there either. > Or are you talking now of some other paradox? Einstein explained how a paradox arose with the inception of GRT: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Dialog_about_Objections_against_the_Theory_of_Relativity Harald
From: harald on 4 Jul 2010 10:36
On Jul 4, 2:40 pm, stevendaryl3...(a)yahoo.com (Daryl McCullough) wrote: [..] > The only explanation I can come up with for why they reject a > completely consistent theory is that there are certain ways of > reasoning that the crank knows MUST be correct. Let's call this > "crank reasoning". When you add this reasoning to SR_noncrank, > you get SR_crank, which really is inconsistent. > > So we have the equation: > > SR_noncrank + crank reasoning == SR_crank > > Since SR_crank is inconsistent, the crank must either reject > SR_noncrank or reject their beloved crank reasoning. They > can't do the latter, so they reject SR_noncrank. Yes, that sounds plausible! Regretfully that kind of thinking error isn't limited to cranks (indeed, why would it). Only when cranks do so, it is very obvious. Harald |