Preferred Frame Theory indistinguishable from SR
in [Math]
|
From: whoever on 5 Jul 2010 01:14 "colp" wrote in message news:e4453dde-4824-43d7-a1c2-27fce5bf8d76(a)x24g2000pro.googlegroups.com... > Wrong. The burden of proof is yours. You can't support them because no > such support exists. Wrong .. YOU are the one making claims that SR contains paradoxes. The burden of proof is on YOU to support those claims. You haven't. You make the ASSERTION that the turnaround in the twins paradox has no effect on the measurement of the clocks, and so you ignore it. That is wrong. A full SR analysis of the scenario results in a self-consistent result regardless of frame of reference. Your partial analysis, leaving out the key factor, does not. Do you want to see that math? I've offered many times, and you keep ignoring it. Or are you just a troll who isn't interested in learning the physics? --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news(a)netfront.net ---
From: artful on 5 Jul 2010 01:24 On Jul 5, 3:12 pm, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > On Jul 5, 7:27 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > 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. > > Why can't you identify what is wrong with it then? > > > 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. > > That isn't what I am saying. It is what you said > I'm saying that for time for both systems > to be dilated with respect to each other constitutes a paradox, And that assertion is wrong. I've shown you how differences in clock sync result in mutual time dilation > and > this situation arises when the idea that no preferred frame of > reference exists is applied to the example. It doesn't matter what frame you use. You get the same results in SR. That is, that each of the symmetric twins is the same age upon return. So there is no paradox there. That YOU do not get that result is due to errors in your analysis. > Since we know from > experiment that time dilation is real, the only remaining assumption > is that of the non-existence of a preferred frame of reference; i.e > that assumption is false because it results in a paradox. Incorrect conclusion. The correct conclusions are 1) your analysis is incomplete and so incorrect and 2) that your claim that mutual time dilation cannot happen is wrong
From: Koobee Wublee on 5 Jul 2010 01:37 So, it looks like Mr. McCullough has run out of his mathemagical tricks on the subjects he does not understand very well. So, just like Professor Roberts now, he is resorting to word salad in these posts. Is Mr. McCullough trying to be a priest or something? <shrug>
From: eric gisse on 5 Jul 2010 02:33 colp wrote: > On Jul 5, 7:31 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> On Jul 3, 6:06 pm, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: >> >> >> >> > On Jul 4, 2:14 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > > On Jul 3, 1:06 am, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: >> >> > > > On Jul 3, 3:03 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > > > > On Jul 1, 7:56 pm, 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. >> >> > > > > It does if it's an oversimplification of what's presented in the >> > > > > paper! >> >> > > > It isn't. Claiming that it is without showing why is of no value. >> >> > > You aren't owed an education on a newsgroup, despite your taunts to >> > > the contrary. >> >> > I'm not asking for an education, I'm pointing out that all you have to >> > defend you beliefs are hollow claims. >> >> No, they are fully supportable claims. > > Wrong. The burden of proof is yours. You can't support them because no > such support exists. Doubling down on the "I dare you to make me understand" gambit, I see.
From: harald on 5 Jul 2010 05:53
On Jul 2, 4:25 pm, stevendaryl3...(a)yahoo.com (Daryl McCullough) wrote: > harald says... > > [quoting Newton] > > >"It is indeed a matter of great difficulty to discover, and > >effectually to distinguish, the true motion of particular bodies from > >the apparent; because the parts of that immovable space, in which > >those motions are performed, do by no means come under the observation > >of our senses. [...] > >But how we are to collect the true motions from their causes, effects, > >and apparent differences; and, vice versa, how from the motions, > >either true or apparent, we may come to the knowledge of their causes > >and effects, shall be explained more at large in the following tract. > >For to this end it was that I composed it." > > It's not completely clear what he means by "true motions" and "apparent > motions", but if he meant that there was an absolute standard of rest, then > he was just mistaken---there is no evidence of such a thing. Evidently the education system withheld this information from you, just as it also happened to me. But he does present evidence there. And it's not just a detail, but the postulate to which Newton's equations of motions relate. Are you sure that you studied that section?? Regards, Harald |