Preferred Frame Theory indistinguishable from SR
in [Math]
|
From: artful on 30 Jun 2010 23:36 On Jul 1, 12:11 pm, stevendaryl3...(a)yahoo.com (Daryl McCullough) wrote: > 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 Yes indeed .. time dilation can give you RoS and Length contraction. However Colp is using time dilation and ignoring completely RoS .. so what he is putting forward is no longer SR and no longer a self- consistent theory. That means what he sees as complete SR is missing large chunks .. the very chunks that explain what he incorrectly claims is a paradox. And yes .. that is incompetency.
From: Koobee Wublee on 1 Jul 2010 01:13 On Jun 30, 8:36 pm, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > Yes indeed .. time dilation can give you RoS and Length contraction. What the hell is RoS? If you guys want to pass some coded secret love letters, please have some decency in doing so. <shrug> > However Colp is using time dilation and ignoring completely RoS .. so > what he is putting forward is no longer SR and no longer a self- > consistent theory. That means what he sees as complete SR is missing > large chunks .. the very chunks that explain what he incorrectly > claims is a paradox. And yes .. that is incompetency. So, you have discover this RoS as a "get out of jail free" card from the Lorentz transform and are bragging about it. Is your secret love, Mr. McCullough, the only one who understand the pheromone in that? So, this RoS thing is the key to resolve the twins' paradox under the Lorentz transform. Should one hold his breath for you and Mr. McCullough's publications? In the meantime, as a lousy poker player, I am calling your bluff all the way. <shrug>
From: whoever on 1 Jul 2010 01:19 "Koobee Wublee" wrote in message news:99b5c8a6-7594-44dd-8250-c80a39fa2c67(a)g19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com... > I am calling your bluff all the way. <shrug> I've called yours first .. show the paradox in SR that you claim is there. We all know you can't do it .. but its so funny to watch you squirm --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news(a)netfront.net ---
From: harald on 1 Jul 2010 05:33 On Jul 1, 12:47 am, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > On Jul 1, 4:30 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> 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". > > Also, Einstein's paper makes no provision whatsoever for the > compression of time for a clock turning around. Einstein's paper explains that clock rate (as measured with an inertial coordinate system) must be the same at the same speed, independent of the direction of motion of the clock. Is that what you mean? > The paradoxes which arise from this are ample reason to chuck > Einstein's theory. What paradoxes? Different people perceive different paradoxes, but they are all easy to explain; and probably the thinking error that you fell for was already explained to you, but you either overlooked or misunderstood it. Harald
From: artful on 1 Jul 2010 09:15
On Jul 1, 3:53 pm, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: >>> Please show the math on the turn around. If not, get lost. > >He (Inertial/whoever/artful) can't do it. Wrong. > He lied when he previously > told me that he did, I apologised for the mistake about what I thought I'd posted. > and then denied claiming that he did after I > called him on it. I apologised for the mistake about what I thought I'd posted. You aren't interested in physics, colp, just in make ad-him attacks on other posters when it is obvious that you're in a losing position I asked you over and over if you want me to post the analysis .. you ignored it. |