Preferred Frame Theory indistinguishable from SR
in [Physics]
|
Prev: l'ns t'grs n brs was Re: Furry Zul problems was Re: Furry was Re:Smellavision was Re: Social Norms was Re: CHIPS was Re: Baby Gazoo
Next: Pentcho Valev INVOLUNTARILY MOVES BOWELS
From: colp on 3 Jul 2010 19:06 On Jul 4, 2:14 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 3, 1:06 am, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > > > > > On Jul 3, 3:03 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jul 1, 7:56 pm, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > > > > > On Jul 2, 2:21 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Jun 30, 5:47 pm, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > > > > > > > <quote> > > > > > > > > > At best, all you've done is show the > > > > > > > > fallacies or assumptions inherent in COLP's Oversimplified Relativity. > > > > > > > What specific fallacies or assumptions? Quotes, please. > > > > > > > Sure. You've used the statement from COLP's Oversimplified Relativity > > > > > > that moving clocks run slow (which you've said is true even for blue- > > > > > > shifted clocks), and you've used the statement that COLP's > > > > > > Oversimplified Relativity makes no provision whatsoever for a > > > > > > compression of time for a clock turning around. This immediately leads > > > > > > to several paradoxes, and this is ample reason to chuck Colp's > > > > > > Oversimplified Relativity. > > > > > > </quote> > > > > > > > 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 oversimplification. If you've inferred this from his 1905 > > > > > paper, then you've oversimplified. > > > > > No, inferring something from a paper does not constitute an > > > > oversimplification. > > > > It does if it's an oversimplification of what's presented in the > > > paper! > > > It isn't. Claiming that it is without showing why is of no value. > > You aren't owed an education on a newsgroup, despite your taunts to > the contrary. I'm not asking for an education, I'm pointing out that all you have to defend you beliefs are hollow claims.
From: colp on 3 Jul 2010 19:07 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.
From: eric gisse on 3 Jul 2010 21:13 colp wrote: > On Jul 4, 2:14 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> On Jul 3, 1:06 am, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: >> >> >> >> > On Jul 3, 3:03 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > > On Jul 1, 7:56 pm, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: >> >> > > > On Jul 2, 2:21 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > > > > On Jun 30, 5:47 pm, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: >> >> > > > > > <quote> >> >> > > > > > > > At best, all you've done is show the >> > > > > > > > fallacies or assumptions inherent in COLP's Oversimplified >> > > > > > > > Relativity. >> > > > > > > What specific fallacies or assumptions? Quotes, please. >> >> > > > > > Sure. You've used the statement from COLP's Oversimplified >> > > > > > Relativity that moving clocks run slow (which you've said is >> > > > > > true even for blue- shifted clocks), and you've used the >> > > > > > statement that COLP's Oversimplified Relativity makes no >> > > > > > provision whatsoever for a compression of time for a clock >> > > > > > turning around. This immediately leads to several paradoxes, >> > > > > > and this is ample reason to chuck Colp's Oversimplified >> > > > > > Relativity. </quote> >> >> > > > > > 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 oversimplification. If you've inferred this from his >> > > > > 1905 paper, then you've oversimplified. >> >> > > > No, inferring something from a paper does not constitute an >> > > > oversimplification. >> >> > > It does if it's an oversimplification of what's presented in the >> > > paper! >> >> > It isn't. Claiming that it is without showing why is of no value. >> >> You aren't owed an education on a newsgroup, despite your taunts to >> the contrary. > > I'm not asking for an education, I'm pointing out that all you have to > defend you beliefs are hollow claims. Ah, the "I dare you to make me understand" gambit.
From: Koobee Wublee on 3 Jul 2010 23:42 On Jul 3, 6:13 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > colp wrote: > > I'm not asking for an education, I'm pointing out that all you have to > > defend you beliefs are hollow claims. That is an admirable crusade on Mr. colp's part. <applaud> > Ah, the "I dare you to make me understand" gambit. Who gives a fvck about some college dropout from Fairbanks, Alaska (where?) who is very grotesque in physical statue, shallow in aptitude, and virulent in engagement? <shrug>
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 |