Preferred Frame Theory indistinguishable from SR
in [Relativity]
|
From: eric gisse on 12 Jul 2010 15:48 colp wrote: > On Jul 13, 10:59 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> On Jul 12, 5:09 pm, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: >> >> >> >> > On Jul 13, 2:24 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > > On Jul 11, 3:51 pm, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: >> >> > > > On Jul 12, 8:31 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > > > > On Jul 10, 9:15 pm, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: >> >> > > > > > On Jul 11, 1:05 pm, Paul Stowe <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > > > > > > On Jul 10, 5:47 pm, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: >> >> > > > > > > > On Jul 11, 10:49 am, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> >> > > > > > > > wrote: >> >> > > > > > > > > colp wrote: >> >> > > > > > > > > [...] >> >> > > > > > > > > Discussion with you is pointless. Go away. >> >> > > > > > > > The point of discussion is to show the error in the >> > > > > > > > contention that Einstein's first postulate of SR is true. >> >> > > > > > > > The first postulate isn't true because of the paradoxes >> > > > > > > > which arise when it is applied within the context of real >> > > > > > > > relativistic effects like time dilation. >> >> > > > > > > What, very specifically is your beef with the 'principle of >> > > > > > > relativity'? >> >> > > > > > The fact that it purports that there are no absolutes in >> > > > > > nature. >> >> > > > > It says nothing of the kind. There is absolute zero in >> > > > > temperature, for example. >> >> > > > If a group of atoms are not moving relative to each other, but are >> > > > moving relative to the preferred frame, then they have an effective >> > > > temperature greater than absolute zero due to their kinetic energy. >> > > > If there is no preferred frame then a gas is at absolute zero only >> > > > for a local observer. >> >> > > And that is absolutely NOT correct. Temperature is associated with >> > > *stochastic* motion, not linear motion. >> >> > No, stochastic motion is not an essential element of temperature. >> >> OK, now you've just demonstrated two things: >> - You don't know the first thing about freshman level physics >> - You are willing to attempt to JUSTIFY your misconceptions about >> freshman level physics by citing an online wiki aimed at casual >> readers, and you will no doubt DEMAND that someone prove you wrong by >> teaching you online in a newsgroup. >> > > Again you misdirect by claiming that I am asking for an education when > you are unable to > support your claims, just like you did when you falsely claimed that I > was oversimplifying Einstien's description of time dilation. http://www.dilbert.com/dyn/str_strip/000000000/00000000/0000000/000000/90000/4000/400/94408/94408.strip.print.gif
From: eric gisse on 12 Jul 2010 15:51 colp wrote: > On Jul 12, 3:59 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> colp wrote: >> > On Jul 12, 12:42 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> colp wrote: >> >> >> [...] >> >> >> > Historically that hasn't been the case. Relativity was adopted >> >> > because it filled a philosophical niche, not because of it's value >> >> > as a predictive tool. >> >> >> I admire your kind of lying, because it takes balls to say with >> >> absolute certainty the factual equivalent of saying 'the sky is >> >> green'. >> >> > I'm not lying. >> >> Then you are so abundantly stupid that you should never speak on a >> technical subject ever again. >> >> > The early experiments didn't verify Einstein's >> > theories, but were made to look at though they did. >> >> Lying again. Or stupid, as mentioned above. >> >> Gravitational lensing is well established observational fact. >> >> >> >> > Re: Mercury's perihelion advance: >> >> I see no particular point into launching into a long discussion with you >> about yet another subject you do not understand. > > I understand that you have no answer to the evidence of academic fraud > which is the theory of relativity. Post under your real name and then we can discuss what you think constitutes 'evidence'. [snip rest]
From: colp on 13 Jul 2010 02:52 On Jul 13, 7:51 am, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > colp wrote: > > On Jul 12, 3:59 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> colp wrote: > >> > On Jul 12, 12:42 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> colp wrote: > > >> >> [...] > > >> >> > Historically that hasn't been the case. Relativity was adopted > >> >> > because it filled a philosophical niche, not because of it's value > >> >> > as a predictive tool. > > >> >> I admire your kind of lying, because it takes balls to say with > >> >> absolute certainty the factual equivalent of saying 'the sky is > >> >> green'. > > >> > I'm not lying. > > >> Then you are so abundantly stupid that you should never speak on a > >> technical subject ever again. > > >> > The early experiments didn't verify Einstein's > >> > theories, but were made to look at though they did. > > >> Lying again. Or stupid, as mentioned above. > > >> Gravitational lensing is well established observational fact. > > >> > Re: Mercury's perihelion advance: > > >> I see no particular point into launching into a long discussion with you > >> about yet another subject you do not understand. > > > I understand that you have no answer to the evidence of academic fraud > > which is the theory of relativity. > > Post under your real name and then we can discuss what you think constitutes > 'evidence'. Evidence consists of relevant observations or logical arguments in support of a particular claim. Briefly, the evidence is the lack of early experimental support for GR, the lack of experimental support for the reciprocal time dilation predicted by SR, and the existence of experimental data which suggests the existence of a preferred frame of reference in opposition to Einstein's conjecture regarding the Principle of Relativity.
From: harald on 13 Jul 2010 06:36 On Jul 13, 12:21 am, Edward Green <spamspamsp...(a)netzero.com> wrote: > On Jul 11, 2:54 pm, Paul Stowe <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: [..] > > You and I both know that when Einstein said in the Leyden talk that > "GR without a medium was unthinkable", or words to that effect, he was > speaking of something very like the classical aether, and not > spacetime, as some would have it: for otherwise, what would be the > point of the qualification that "it has no sense of movement", or > words to _that_ effect. Spacetime certainly has no sense of movement > or rest, any fool can see that, and Einstein would not have found it > necessary to spell that out. Now there is the rub, however: he said > that the medium has no sense of movement or rest, unlike a classical > medium. If you interpret his words that way, then you create a contradiction with his precise description of the ether of GRT: it is the ether of Lorentz plus influences by nearby matter. In his own words: "as opposed to the ether of Lorentz, [...its] state [...] is at every place determined by connections with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places. [...] The ether of the general theory of relativity is transmuted conceptually into the ether of Lorentz if we substitute constants for the functions of space which describe the former". > Now of course, as Daryl tells us, Einstein was not a prophet, > and we don't have to treat his words like divine prophecy... but we do > attach some weight to them, else why bother quoting him at all. > Anyway, I at least entertain the possibility that space acts very much > like a medium, but one without a definable local rest state. That is obviously what Einstein meant. Cheers, Harald
From: harald on 13 Jul 2010 06:38
On Jul 13, 3:55 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > Edward Green says... > > >You and I both know that when Einstein said in the Leyden talk that > >"GR without a medium was unthinkable", or words to that effect, he was > >speaking of something very like the classical aether, and not > >spacetime > > Wrong. It was very clear that it was NOTHING like the old aether of > classical physics. All the properties that made it in any sense a material > / substance were removed. I did not catch that; indeed the ethers of Lorentz and Einstein aren't anything like the classical ether concepts. Harald |