Preferred Frame Theory indistinguishable from SR [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 1 Jul 2010 20:56

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.

> The statement in SR is actually
> quite a bit more precise.

Are you referring to Einstein's 1920 statement about rotating bodies?

> > Also, Einstein's paper makes no provision whatsoever for the
> > compression of time for a clock turning around.
>
> That's correct, but the Lorentz transforms are there, and though the
> *application* of those to the twin puzzle is not addressed in the 1905
> paper, this does NOT mean that SR contains no provision for it. The
> 1905 paper is not a complete reference for SR in any way, shape, or
> form, nor should you construe it to be. The twin puzzle was not even
> formulated until 1911, where it was provided as a useful exercise in
> fleshing out something that was not addressed in the 1905 paper.
>
> Your statement that SR makes no provision for the compression of time
> for a clock turning around is an oversimplification on your part.

No, it isn't. You could make your point by simply quoting Einstein if
he had actually made such a provision.

From: eric gisse on 1 Jul 2010 21:06

whoever wrote:
[...]

>>Where is the math that shows this turn around thing?
>
> It called the Lorentz Transforms. You apply them when changing from one
> frame of reference to another .. which is what happens to the travelling
> twins when they change their direction of motion.

I had previously shown him the math, and his near-exact response was "it is
stupid".

[...]

From: eric gisse on 1 Jul 2010 21:08

PD wrote:

> On Jul 1, 12:42 pm, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jul 1, 7:25 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Jun 30, 11:55 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
>>
>> So, Inertial, whoever, and artful are the same idiot. Gee! Why do
>> Einstein Dingleberries have so many different handles? Once one
>> handle gets embarrassed, they would come back with a different one.
>
> ? Why are you replying to me with this stunning non-discovery?

Because he thought you would be amused at him complaining about one person
using multiple handles when he himself has done the same thing.

[...]

From: artful on 1 Jul 2010 21:19

On Jul 2, 10:49 am, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote:
> On Jul 1, 9:33 pm, harald <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote:
[snip for brevity]
> > Einstein's paper explains that clock rate (as measured with an
> > inertial coordinate system) must be the same at the same speed,
> > independent of the direction of motion of the clock. Is that what you
> > mean?
>
> Yes, in part. According to SR a moving clock will appear to run slower
> both when it is moving away and when it is approaching, since velocity
> is squared in the transform.

If you mean what one measures/calcultes .. yes. If you mean what is
seen (ie when information sent to an observer from clock about what
the clock reading is) then it is slower when moving away and fast when
moving toward.

> > > The paradoxes which arise from this are ample reason to chuck
> > > Einstein's theory.
>
> > What paradoxes?
>
> The paradox inherent in Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies, and the
> paradoxes arising from it, namely the twin paradox and the triplet
> paradox.

There are no actual paradoxes (ie self-contradictions) in SR. The
term 'paradox' in their titles simply means an unexpected or
unintuitive result (such as twins ageing my different amounts when one
remains at rest and the other moves away and returns .. no
contradiction there, just an initially surprising result, and verified
experimentally)

> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_thread/t...
>
> > Different people perceive different paradoxes, but
> > they are all easy to explain; and probably the thinking error that you
> > fell for was already explained to you, but you either overlooked or
> > misunderstood it.
>
> No, that is not the case.

Wrong .. it most certainly IS the case, several people here, including
me, have pointed out your errors. You don't seem interested in
finding out what they are of learning from them.

From: artful on 1 Jul 2010 21:22

On Jul 2, 10:56 am, 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.
>
> > The statement in SR is actually
> > quite a bit more precise.
>
> Are you referring to Einstein's 1920 statement about rotating bodies?
>
> > > Also, Einstein's paper makes no provision whatsoever for the
> > > compression of time for a clock turning around.
>
> > That's correct, but the Lorentz transforms are there, and though the
> > *application* of those to the twin puzzle is not addressed in the 1905
> > paper, this does NOT mean that SR contains no provision for it. The
> > 1905 paper is not a complete reference for SR in any way, shape, or
> > form, nor should you construe it to be. The twin puzzle was not even
> > formulated until 1911, where it was provided as a useful exercise in
> > fleshing out something that was not addressed in the 1905 paper.
>
> > Your statement that SR makes no provision for the compression of time
> > for a clock turning around is an oversimplification on your part.
>
> No, it isn't. You could make your point by simply quoting Einstein if
> he had actually made such a provision.

Its part of the Lorentz transforms .. relativity of synchronicity (ie
changes in clock sync when inertial frame changes) accounts for that.
See the many example of the regular twin paradox from the point of
view of the travelling twin for examples of how this works (the
travelling twins measures the stay-at-home twin as aging faster during
the turnaround). This is all well-documented stuff.