Preferred Frame Theory indistinguishable from SR
in [Math]
|
From: colp on 29 Jun 2010 17:53 On Jun 30, 1:17 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 29, 1:57 am, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jun 28, 3:33 pm, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > > > > colp: > > > Your process of computation involves restricting calculations > > > which could produce a paradox to a single frame of reference, > > > > Daryl: > > > Right. The point is that doing anything else is mathematically > > > and physically nonsense. > > > > colp: > > > Yes. And that nonsense is a direct result of the premises of SR, > > > nothing else. > > > Congratulations, colp. You have just checkmated these Einstein > > Dingleberries with these precise and concise summary. > > :>) > I see you either share COLP's Oversimplified Relativity or you have > your own KW variant. What don't you tell us what part of Einstein's theory I have oversimplified?
From: PD on 29 Jun 2010 18:26 On Jun 29, 4:53 pm, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > On Jun 30, 1:17 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jun 29, 1:57 am, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jun 28, 3:33 pm, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > > > > > colp: > > > > Your process of computation involves restricting calculations > > > > which could produce a paradox to a single frame of reference, > > > > > Daryl: > > > > Right. The point is that doing anything else is mathematically > > > > and physically nonsense. > > > > > colp: > > > > Yes. And that nonsense is a direct result of the premises of SR, > > > > nothing else. > > > > Congratulations, colp. You have just checkmated these Einstein > > > Dingleberries with these precise and concise summary. > > > :>) > > I see you either share COLP's Oversimplified Relativity or you have > > your own KW variant. > > What don't you tell us what part of Einstein's theory I have > oversimplified? I've already told you the answer to that in a different post, as pertains to the twin puzzle. Others have as well, in their responses to you. I've also directed you to a fairly complete and free analysis of the twin puzzle on the web, and I've asked you to read that thoroughly and then come back with your questions about that presentation in particular. You ignored that as well. Please go back and look these things up, do a little homework, and get back to me. PD
From: Androcles on 29 Jun 2010 18:38 "colp" <colp(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote in message news:028f91a6-87a0-4023-ab05-434fa8b8537b(a)m39g2000vbm.googlegroups.com... On Jun 30, 1:17 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 29, 1:57 am, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jun 28, 3:33 pm, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > > > > colp: > > > Your process of computation involves restricting calculations > > > which could produce a paradox to a single frame of reference, > > > > Daryl: > > > Right. The point is that doing anything else is mathematically > > > and physically nonsense. > > > > colp: > > > Yes. And that nonsense is a direct result of the premises of SR, > > > nothing else. > > > Congratulations, colp. You have just checkmated these Einstein > > Dingleberries with these precise and concise summary. > > :>) > I see you either share COLP's Oversimplified Relativity or you have > your own KW variant. What don't you tell us what part of Einstein's theory I have oversimplified? ============================================ Everything should be as simple as possible, if not simpler. II. Absolute space, in its own nature, without regard to anything external, remains always similar and immovable. Relative space is some movable dimension or measure of the absolute spaces; which our senses determine by its position to bodies; and which is vulgarly taken for immovable space; such is the dimension of a subterraneaneous, an �real, or celestial space, determined by its position in respect of the earth. Absolute and relative space, are the same in figure and magnitude; but they do not remain always numerically the same. For if the earth, for instance, moves, a space of our air, which relatively and in respect of the earth remains always the same, will at one time be one part of the absolute space into which the air passes; at another time it will be another part of the same, and so, absolutely understood, it will be perpetually mutable. -- Newton. But the ray moves relatively to the initial point of k, when measured in the stationary system, with the velocity c-v - -Einstein. It is essential to have time defined by means of stationary clocks in the stationary system, and the time now defined being appropriate to the stationary system we call it ``the time of the stationary system.'' -- Einstein. "light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body" Ergo Newton's absolute space is the system of coordinates aka frame of reference aka inertial frame in which Einstein's light rays move at c. Newton does not make such a stupid assertion. "It seems that Light is propagated in time, spending in its passage from the sun to us about seven Minutes of time:" -- DEFIN. II of Opticks Or, A Treatise of the Reflections, Refractions, Inflections and Colours of Light - Sir Isaac Newton. "the velocity of light in our theory plays the part, physically, of an infinitely great velocity" --� 4. Physical Meaning of the Equations Obtained in Respect to Moving Rigid Bodies and Moving Clocks -- ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES By A. Einstein
From: Koobee Wublee on 30 Jun 2010 01:14 On Jun 29, 6:28 pm, Tom Roberts wrote: > A physical theory like SR consists of: > A) a set of mathematical theorems > B) the meanings of the symbols that appear in (A) > C) an experimental record of comparisons between theorems of (A) > related to experimental measurements via (B) and the choice of the > appropriate theorem representing the conditions of the measurement. > > Only part (A) can be an axiomatic system (and for SR it is). All parts are > needed for a successful physical theory. However, part (A) is wrong. It does not satisfy the null results of the MMX in general. <shrug> Thus, part (A) should read: A) a set of mathemaGical conjectures On Jun 29, 8:54 pm, Tom Roberts < wrote: > LET (LR) starts out with an implicit postulate: there is a unique inertial frame > in which the ether is at rest. So the (also implicit) law of ether motion is > DIFFERENT in different inertial frames, violating the PoR. I don't know what mathematical model of LET you understand it as, but clearly, the Lorentz transform is a subset of Larmor's transform. The Lorentz transform satisfies the principle of relative, but Larmor's transform in general does not. <shrug> For your review, the following is Larmor's transform involving the 2 observers (1 and 2), the observed (3), and the absolute frame of reference (0). ** dt1 = (dt0 B01 dx03 / c) / sqrt(1 - B01^2) ** dx13 = (dx03 B01 c dt0) / sqrt(1 - B01^2) ** dy13 = dy03 ** dz13 = dz03 ** dt2 = (dt0 B02 dx03 / c) / sqrt(1 - B02^2) ** dx23 = (dx03 B02 c dt0) / sqrt(1 - B02^2) ** dy23 = dy03 ** dz23 = dz03 Where ** dtI = Time flow at I ** dqIJ = Parameter dq (dx, dy, dz) at J as observed by I ** B0I c = Absolute speed of I Written in this way implies that 1 and 2 are moving in parallel relative to 0. With that, the above equations do become the following which is the Lorentz transform. ** dt1 = (dt2 B21 dx23 / c) / sqrt(1 - B21^2) ** dx13 = (dx23 B21 c dt2) / sqrt(1 - B21^2) ** dy13 = dy23 ** dz13 = dz23 ** dt2 = (dt1 B12 dx13 / c) / sqrt(1 - B12^2) ** dx23 = (dx13 B12 c dt1) / sqrt(1 - B12^2) ** dy23 = dy13 ** dz23 = dz13 Notice ** B12 = - B21 > LET (LR) has an amazing and unexpected cancellation that makes the ether frame > completely unobservable FOR PHYSICAL MEASUREMENTS. But its transform equations > were all derived starting from that unique inertial frame. Don't rejoice about this cancellation of 0 from Larmor's transform. In a more general case where 1 and 2 are not necessarily moving in parallel relative to 0, this 0 does not cancel out. Yours truly has explained that below. http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/c5a0a3c587fd4df4?hl=en On Jun 29, 9:00 pm, Tom Roberts wrote: > One part of it (A) is axiomatic, but the entirety is a physical theory, in > that it models physical phenomena (within its domain). For example, in Larmor's transform, when 1 and 2 are not necessarily moving in parallel to each other relative to 0, the temporal equations can be written as follows. ** dt1 = (dt0 [B01] * [ds03] / c) / sqrt(1 - B01^2) Very trivially, when 3 is observing 1 back, the following equations holds. ** dt3 = (dt0 [B03] * [ds01] / c) / sqrt(1 - B03^2) Where ** [dsI] = Change of spatial vector at I ** [A] * [B] = Dot product of the two vectors [A] and [B] One can easily and very trivially combine the above two equations into the following. dt1 sqrt(1 - B01^2) + [B01] * [ds03] / c = dt3 sqrt(1 - B03^2) + [B03] * [ds01] / c Notice the frame of reference called 0 also known as the absolute frame of reference does not go away. This follows closely how high speed particles are observed to exhibit time dilation relative to an observer moving more slowly relative to the absolute frame of reference. All your observations can be explained with Larmor's transform based on the absolute frame of reference thus breaking the precious symmetry while the Lorentz transform is a complete mathematical bogus. > The theorems derived from the postulates form an axiomatic system. But the > meanings of the symbols and the experimental record do not. Try not to be sloppy with the symbols just like Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar did in his infamous 1905 paper on relativity. <shrug> Have you finally figured out the nitwit's mathemagical tricks of deriving (E = m c^2 / sqrt(1 - v^2 / c^2)) through a serious of mistakes namely being very sloppy on the symbols? > No physical theory can be purely axiomatic -- Aristotle essentially tried that > and it failed even him. I don't know what "purely physical" means in this > context, but any mathematical model will not be "physical" (it will be a MODEL). > Today, only theories based on mathematical models are acceptable to the community. Have you finally realized that SR fails any mathematical integrity right off the bat? SR manifests the twins' paradox which is absolutely nonsense. SR should never be accepted as a valid model of the real world. All real life observations are based on Larmor's transform with all observations eventually have to reference back to the absolute frame of reference. Without the so-called symmetry, there is no paradox, and the GPS functions like a charm. <shrug> Just in case if you have finally realized your very basic mistakes, try not to jump off the tallest building in the Chicago area. There are still a lot of mysticism beyond SR to be exorcised. <shrug>
From: colp on 30 Jun 2010 09:01
On Jun 30, 10:26 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 29, 4:53 pm, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > > > > > On Jun 30, 1:17 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jun 29, 1:57 am, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jun 28, 3:33 pm, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > > > > > > colp: > > > > > Your process of computation involves restricting calculations > > > > > which could produce a paradox to a single frame of reference, > > > > > > Daryl: > > > > > Right. The point is that doing anything else is mathematically > > > > > and physically nonsense. > > > > > > colp: > > > > > Yes. And that nonsense is a direct result of the premises of SR, > > > > > nothing else. > > > > > Congratulations, colp. You have just checkmated these Einstein > > > > Dingleberries with these precise and concise summary. > > > > :>) > > > I see you either share COLP's Oversimplified Relativity or you have > > > your own KW variant. > > > What don't you tell us what part of Einstein's theory I have > > oversimplified? > > I've already told you the answer to that in a different post, as > pertains to the twin puzzle. Can you quote it, or give a reference to it? If you can't then it looks like you are lying. |