Preferred Frame Theory indistinguishable from SR
in [Math]
|
From: Cosmik de Bris on 4 Jul 2010 19:52 On 4/07/10 11:07 , colp 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. Now you are contradicting yourself. You started this whole thread with a reference to a paper claiming that it was possible to find an absolute frame. This paper you touted as showing SR to be wrong. and you are not using Einstein's description of time dilation you are using a mish-mash of stuff of your own making.
From: Cosmik de Bris on 4 Jul 2010 19:55 On 5/07/10 00:40 , Daryl McCullough wrote: > 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 > Ain't that the truth.
From: Androcles on 4 Jul 2010 20:16 "Cosmik de Bris" <cosmik.debris(a)elec.canterbury.ac.nz> wrote in message news:T89Yn.3403$Zp1.2701(a)newsfe15.iad... | On 4/07/10 11:07 , colp 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. | | Now you are contradicting yourself. You started this whole thread with a | reference to a paper claiming that it was possible to find an absolute | frame. This paper you touted as showing SR to be wrong. and you are not | using Einstein's description of time dilation you are using a mish-mash | of stuff of your own making. | Now you are weaselling. "light is always propagated in the absolutely at rest inertial frame of reference coordinate system with a definite velocity c." -- Albert Fuckwit Einstein. ("empty space" is a weasel word for the absolutely at rest inertial frame of reference system of coordinates)
From: Daryl McCullough on 4 Jul 2010 21:00 harald says... >On Jul 4, 2:02=A0pm, stevendaryl3...(a)yahoo.com (Daryl McCullough) wrote: >> It's hard for me to see how the "twin paradox" is a paradox in any >> sense other than being a surprising result. > >Just study Einstein's solution and see if you agree - or if you smell >a dead cat. ;-) I'm not sure what "Einstein's solution" is, but for any problem involving traveling clocks, the prediction of GR or SR is this: elapsed time on clock = Integral along the path of square-root(|g_uv dx^u dx^v|) In SR, we can always choose coordinates so that g_uv is constant and diagonal, with g_00 = 1, g_11 = g_22 = g_33 = -1. Then the above expression reduces to: Integral along the path of square-root(1 - v^2/c^2) dt In General Relativity, or in SR with noninertial coordinates, g_uv may in general vary from point to point, so there is an apparent position-dependence to the rates of clocks. I really don't understand how the twin paradox is a consistency challenge for GR. The fact that Einstein himself may have worried about it doesn't mean anything to me. We're not dealing with holy scripture, and Einstein is not a prophet. GR is a theory that stands or falls independently of its creator. Einstein is not the last word on GR. What do you consider to be the *real* twin paradox? -- Daryl McCullough Ithaca, NY
From: Daryl McCullough on 4 Jul 2010 21:51
In article <eb646c13-59be-4c89-8bbb-c7a5de09bec7(a)d37g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, harald says... > >On Jul 4, 2:12=A0pm, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> harald says... >> >> >On Jul 3, 4:10=3DA0pm, stevendaryl3...(a)yahoo.com (Daryl McCullough) wrot= >e: >> >> 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 |