Preferred Frame Theory indistinguishable from SR
in [Relativity]
|
From: harald on 4 Jul 2010 16:57 On Jul 4, 7:24 pm, Edward Green <spamspamsp...(a)netzero.com> wrote: > 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> There sure *is* something there! The accusation that it is false is at he heart of the twin paradox. While Langevin gave the twin scenario as argument that SRT implies a stationary ether because acceleration is truly "absolute", Einstein prepared GRT according to which acceleration is purely "relative". The conflict (paradox) was unavoidable. Some time ago I discussed that here: http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.foundations/msg/68cd1c181f8191d2 Harald
From: harald on 4 Jul 2010 17:07 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. Just study Einstein's solution and see if you agree - or if you smell a dead cat. ;-) > >> 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. That is a fact. > I was responding to the idea that GR was a solution (whether or not > Einstein viewed it as such). SRT cannot possibly answer a consistency challenge of GRT; only GRT can that. Harald
From: eric gisse on 4 Jul 2010 18:30 G. L. Bradford wrote: [skipped to the end] > Of course few of them are first tier thinkers and seers, nor even second > tier, nor even third tier, nor even fourth tier.... > > GLB > > ========================== So what's your training in the sciences and why does it put you so many cuts above those who have put a decade of study into the subject? You've been posting here for years but you don't seem to show much knowledge about science...
From: Cosmik de Bris on 4 Jul 2010 19:52 On 4/07/10 11:07 , colp wrote: > 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: >> >> >> >>> On Jul 3, 2:57 am, PD<thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >>>> On Jul 1, 6:25 pm, colp<c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: >> >>>>> On Jul 2, 2:26 am, PD<thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >>>>>> On Jul 1, 12:53 am, colp<c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: >> >>>>>>> On Jul 1, 11:37 am, Koobee Wublee<koobee.wub...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >>>>>>>> On Jun 30, 4:20 pm, artful wrote: >> >>>>>>>>> On Jul 1, 8:47 am, colp wrote: >>>>>>>>>> The statement that "moving clocks run slow" isn't an >>>>>>>>>> oversimplification, it is directly inferred from Einstein's >>>>>>>>>> "Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies". >> >>>>>>>>> It IS an over simplification. There is more to SR than just clocks >>>>>>>>> running slow. >> >>>>>>>> Nonsense and mysticism.<shrug> >> >>>>>>> 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. >> >>>>> One such test is the test for paradoxes arising from one or more >>>>> postulates. For example, the following two postulates lead to a >>>>> paradox, meaning that not all the postulates are correct: >> >>>>> 1. Statement 2 is true. >>>>> 2. Statement 1 is false. >> >>>>> The paradox that arises from the postulates of Einstein's >>>>> "Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" can be described as follows: >> >>>>> "Examples of this sort, together with the unsuccessful attempts to >>>>> discover >>>>> any motion of the earth relatively to the �light medium,� suggest that >>>>> the >>>>> phenomena of electrodynamics as well as of mechanics possess no >>>>> properties >>>>> corresponding to the idea of absolute rest. They suggest rather that, >>>>> as has >>>>> already been shown to the first order of small quantities, the same >>>>> laws of >>>>> electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of reference >>>>> for which the >>>>> equations of mechanics hold good.1 We will raise this conjecture (the >>>>> purport >>>>> of which will hereafter be called the �Principle of Relativity�) to >>>>> the status >>>>> of a postulate, and also introduce another postulate, which is only >>>>> apparently >>>>> irreconcilable with the former, namely, that light is always >>>>> propagated in empty >>>>> space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of >>>>> motion of the >>>>> emitting body." >> >>>>> Einstien, Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies (Introduction) >> >>>>> This text describes Einstein's postulate that there is no preferred >>>>> inertial frame of reference. >> >>>>> "If at the points A and B of K there are stationary clocks which, >>>>> viewed in the stationary system, are synchronous; and if the clock at >>>>> A is moved with the velocity v along the line AB to B, then on its >>>>> arrival at B the two clocks no longer synchronize, but the clock moved >>>>> from A to B lags behind the other which has remained at B ..." >> >>>>> Einstien, Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies (Section 4) >> >>>>> The text describes the time dilation of a clock that moves from point >>>>> A to point B. If there is no preferred frame of reference then it is >>>>> just as true to say that >>>>> the clock is viewed as part of a stationary system and the points A >>>>> and B are in a moving system which moves at velocity -v. The >>>>> conclusion that time for both systems can be dilated with respect to >>>>> the other system is paradoxical. >> >>>> No, it's not paradoxical at all. >> >>> 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, it is a logical inference derived from Einstein's description of > time dilation and his postulate that there is not preferred frame of > reference. Now you are contradicting yourself. You started this whole thread with a reference to a paper claiming that it was possible to find an absolute frame. This paper you touted as showing SR to be wrong. and you are not using Einstein's description of time dilation you are using a mish-mash of stuff of your own making.
From: Cosmik de Bris on 4 Jul 2010 19:55
On 5/07/10 00:40 , Daryl McCullough wrote: > 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 > Ain't that the truth. |