Preferred Frame Theory indistinguishable from SR
in [Math]
|
From: harald on 4 Jul 2010 10:25 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_Theory_of_Relativity Harald
From: harald on 4 Jul 2010 10:36 On Jul 4, 2:40 pm, stevendaryl3...(a)yahoo.com (Daryl McCullough) wrote: [..] > 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. Yes, that sounds plausible! Regretfully that kind of thinking error isn't limited to cranks (indeed, why would it). Only when cranks do so, it is very obvious. Harald
From: Paul Stowe on 4 Jul 2010 11:26 On Jul 4, 6:00 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > On Jul 4, 8:12 am, 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 > > That's not caused by time dilation...but rather a traveling clock > second contain a larger amount of absolute time than a stay at home > clock second. > > > > > > > No GR involved there. > > > Or are you talking now of some other paradox? If it is 'larger amounts' of time shouldn't the traveling twin have aged a 'larger amount'??? Should it not instead be age = rate * duration. So, if the traveling twin ages less either the rate or duration is less. Lorentz would say the rate was less... Paul Stowe
From: Y.Porat on 4 Jul 2010 11:40 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. > > > > >> 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 ------------------ fucken mathematicians thik that they can solve with it all the problems ofthis universe !!: including changes in material and biological world !! the biological entity of a living crweature is billion of times more complicate than that fuckn relativity problem !! t he biological process is not meaningfully and certainly not governed by movement or those formula it shows to what extent of vanity and impertinence those mathematicians got to !! 2 a piece of metal will not as well change or become older or younger !!! Y.Porat -----------------------
From: PD on 4 Jul 2010 15:27
On Jul 3, 6:07 pm, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> 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. No, I'm sorry, but that is not a good inference. I don't have any idea how you conclude from his postulate about no preferred frame that time for both systems cannot be dilated with respect to each other. PD |