Preferred Frame Theory indistinguishable from SR
in [Relativity]
|
From: Paul Stowe on 4 Jul 2010 11:26 On Jul 4, 6:00 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > 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? If it is 'larger amounts' of time shouldn't the traveling twin have aged a 'larger amount'??? Should it not instead be age = rate * duration. So, if the traveling twin ages less either the rate or duration is less. Lorentz would say the rate was less... Paul Stowe
From: Y.Porat on 4 Jul 2010 11:40 On Jul 4, 2:02 pm, stevendaryl3...(a)yahoo.com (Daryl McCullough) 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? > > 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 ------------------ fucken mathematicians thik that they can solve with it all the problems ofthis universe !!: including changes in material and biological world !! the biological entity of a living crweature is billion of times more complicate than that fuckn relativity problem !! t he biological process is not meaningfully and certainly not governed by movement or those formula it shows to what extent of vanity and impertinence those mathematicians got to !! 2 a piece of metal will not as well change or become older or younger !!! Y.Porat -----------------------
From: Edward Green on 4 Jul 2010 13:24 On Jul 4, 10:25 am, harald <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote: > 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_The... There's a canard floating about here somewhere, which I see has very early origins. It runs as follows: "In SR, all inertial coordinate systems are shown to be equivalent, in GR _all_ coordinate systems are equivalent". It may not be false, but the two equivalences are not equivalent. One contains a strong physical insight, the other, more a tour of mathematical force, that all coordinate systems may be forced to be equivalent. I lack the skill to state this precisely, but there is something there. <snip the usual cross-postings>
From: Edward Green on 4 Jul 2010 13:27 On Jul 4, 8:40 am, stevendaryl3...(a)yahoo.com (Daryl McCullough) wrote: > 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. A rational tour-de-force. Bravo.
From: Paul Stowe on 4 Jul 2010 14:52
On Jul 3, 6:16 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > PaulStowewrote: > > [....] > > > Mr. Draper talks nonsense. Lorentz's paper of 1904 covered exactly > > the same phenomena as Einstein's of 1905. > > [...] > > I just don't get what you are expecting to accomplish when every time you > are asked to point out what LET predicts differently from SR you shrug your > shoulders and say 'nothing'. > > All your sound and fury signifies literally *nothing*. What's ironic (but typical of you, since you ignore what you don't like) is just above in this very thread I pointed out a significant physical difference between what LR predicts and S/GR does, and cannot. Where LR predicts the length contraction is a real, physical process and its total amount is based on speed relative to the aether frame, SR 'predicts' its a observational issue only, an apparent 'rotation', and not actually real at all. While observationally equivalent from LR verse SR perspective of 'relativity', an actual change of the electric potential profile of charges with speed will result in a EMF, which will create a 'force' in opposition to any departure from any current equilibrium condition. THAT! is a significant difference. By any reasonable definition is certainly not 'nothing'... Paul Stowe |