Preferred Frame Theory indistinguishable from SR
in [Math]
|
From: whoever on 30 Jun 2010 09:11 "colp" wrote in message news:4f784822-4384-4123-af07-8838952b9af7(a)s24g2000prs.googlegroups.com... > >On Jun 30, 10:26 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> 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. There you going with your accusations again, Shame you can't read what others have posted first. It has been explained by me and others, you ignored the change in clock sync at the turnaround. A beginners mistake. Unfortunately, as you don't listen to anyone who explains it to you and then call them liars and ignore them, you are doomed to remain ignorant --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news(a)netfront.net ---
From: PD on 30 Jun 2010 12:30 On Jun 30, 8:01 am, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > 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. Don't be an idiot, colp, it's right here in this thread from TWO DAYS AGO. Is your attention span that short? http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/d40d129af46cfba8 This business of your being so lazy that you cannot go back and check things yourself, and daring others to spoonfeed every bit of information to you over and over and over again, lest you do something so foolish as to call them liars -- is tiresome and earns you derision. Please work on cleaning up that behavior if you want to engage in conversation. PD
From: colp on 30 Jun 2010 18:47 On Jul 1, 4:30 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 30, 8:01 am, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > > > > > 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. > > Don't be an idiot, colp, You think I'm an idiot for showing that you are unable quote anything that I said that supports your claim of oversimplification? Or are you just trying to draw attention away from your apparent attempt to mislead the readers? > it's right here in this thread from TWO DAYS > AGO. Is your attention span that short?http://groups.google.com/group/sci..physics.relativity/msg/d40d129af46... I'll quote it here. <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". Also, Einstein's paper makes no provision whatsoever for the compression of time for a clock turning around. The paradoxes which arise from this are ample reason to chuck Einstein's theory. It remains that you are unable to show any fallacies or assumptions of mine that you claimed to exist, which was the original point of contention. It was this point that prompted me to repost my prior exchange with Daryl, which shows quite clearly the irrationality of supporting Einstein's theory. Here it is again: 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.
From: artful on 30 Jun 2010 19:20 On Jul 1, 8:47 am, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > On Jul 1, 4:30 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jun 30, 8:01 am, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > > > > 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. > > > Don't be an idiot, colp, > > You think I'm an idiot for showing that you are unable quote anything > that I said that supports your claim of oversimplification? Or are you > just trying to draw attention away from your apparent attempt to > mislead the readers? On MANY occasions you discount what happens at the turnaround because you only look at time dilation and not relativity of simultaneity. The ONLY equations you use are those of time dilation. THAT is an oversimplification. > > it's right here in this thread from TWO DAYS > > AGO. Is your attention span that short?http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/d40d129af46... > > I'll quote it here. > > <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 over simplification. There is more to SR than just clocks running slow. > Also, Einstein's paper makes no provision whatsoever for the > compression of time for a clock turning around. WRONG > The paradoxes which arise from this are ample reason to chuck > Einstein's theory. There is NO paradox > It remains that you are unable to show any fallacies or assumptions of > mine that you claimed to exist, which was the original point of > contention. WRONG .. your assumption that the turnaround does not affect the clocks is WRONG > It was this point that prompted me to repost my prior exchange with > Daryl, which shows quite clearly the irrationality of supporting > Einstein's theory. Here it is again: The only irrational one is YOU .. who claim to argue about what SR says.. but refuse to actually use what SR says in full. Just a non- working subset. > 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. There is no nonsense involved. I have offered to show you the math over and over .. and you ignore the offer. You are NOT here to learn. You are here to post your own ridiculous position that contradicts the well understood and mathematically-proven-consistent SR Of course.. as usual you will simply accuse me of being a liar and then ignore my posting as you are afraid to be shown wrong.
From: Daryl McCullough on 30 Jun 2010 22:11
artful says... >> You think I'm an diot for showing that you are unable quote anything >> that I said that supports your claim of oversimplification? Or are you >> just trying to draw attention away from your apparent attempt to >> mislead the readers? > >On MANY occasions you discount what happens at the turnaround because >you only look at time dilation and not relativity of simultaneity. >The ONLY equations you use are those of time dilation. THAT is an >oversimplification. Actually, with the correct statement of time dilation, time dilation is all you need to solve most of the problems involving clocks, twins, etc. The correct statement is this: As measured in any standard INERTIAL coordinate system, the elapsed time T on a moving clock satisfies dT/dt = square-root(1-(v/c)^2) Colp's mistake, which has been explained to him over and over, is that this formula relates *elapsed time* on one clock to *coordinate* time in a standard inertial coordinate system. It does *not* relate elapsed times on two different clocks. I don't think it's correct that colp is oversimplifying; he's just not applying SR. He's applying some other theory of his own invention (of course, it is *derived* from SR, as filtered through his incompetence, but the end result is not SR, but a new, provably inconsistent theory As for calling it an oversimplification to use just the time dilation formula, I don't completely agree, because time dilation *implies* the other relativistic effects, such as the relativity of simultaneity. If you try to set up a coordinate system using time-dilated clocks then you will end up with clocks that are out of synch, as viewed from a coordinate system in which those clocks are moving. Colp is not oversimplifying, he's just being an incompetent. Exactly like Koobee Wublee and Androcles. They are incompetents who project their own incompetence onto others---any nonsense that comes from their incompetence they blame on Einstein. -- Daryl McCullough Ithaca, NY |