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: hanson on 4 Jul 2010 04:02 ..... ahahahaha... AHAHAHAHA... ahahaha.... "Koobee Wublee" <koobee.wublee(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> Addressing Paul Draper, poster colp wrote: I'm not asking for an education, I'm pointing out that all you have to defend you beliefs are hollow claims. > enter the fray, KW wrote: That is an admirable crusade on Mr. colp's part. <applaud> > Eric, addressing colp wrote: Ah, the "I dare you to make me understand" gambit. > enter the fray, KW wrote: Who gives a fvck about Eric Gisse, a college dropout from Fairbanks, Alaska (where?) who [1] is very grotesque in physical statue, shallow in aptitude, and virulent in engagement? <shrug> > hanson wrote: ahahaha... AHAHAHA.. you do take no prisoners, KW, don't you.... ahahahaha... But listen KW, not everybody is as fortunate like you are, to be a 6'2" Schwarzenegger look-alike. So beating like you do [1] on shortchanged, obese Gisse is unnecessary overkill... But thanks for the laughs... ahahahaha.... AHAHAHAHA... ahahahahanson --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news(a)netfront.net ---
From: whoever on 4 Jul 2010 07:40 "colp" wrote in message news:1079223a-1732-4e54-940a-49139a2dd297(a)n8g2000prh.googlegroups.com... >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: >> > 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, Yes it is > it is a logical inference derived from Einstein's description of > time dilation > and his postulate that there is not preferred frame of >reference. NO . it is not. You cannot derive from that that "time for both systems cannot be dilated with respect to each other" THAT is you assumption. I have shown it to be false. You really are not very good at logical reasoning. --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news(a)netfront.net ---
From: Daryl McCullough on 4 Jul 2010 08:02 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
From: artful on 4 Jul 2010 08:12 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. Or are you talking now of some other paradox?
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 |