Preferred Frame Theory indistinguishable from SR
in [Math]
|
From: PD on 1 Jul 2010 10:21 On Jun 30, 5:47 pm, 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? > > > 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 oversimplification. If you've inferred this from his 1905 paper, then you've oversimplified. The statement in SR is actually quite a bit more precise. > > Also, Einstein's paper makes no provision whatsoever for the > compression of time for a clock turning around. That's correct, but the Lorentz transforms are there, and though the *application* of those to the twin puzzle is not addressed in the 1905 paper, this does NOT mean that SR contains no provision for it. The 1905 paper is not a complete reference for SR in any way, shape, or form, nor should you construe it to be. The twin puzzle was not even formulated until 1911, where it was provided as a useful exercise in fleshing out something that was not addressed in the 1905 paper. Your statement that SR makes no provision for the compression of time for a clock turning around is an oversimplification on your part. > > The paradoxes which arise from this are ample reason to chuck > Einstein's theory. There ARE NO paradoxes. There are puzzles, which SR provides a complete and consistent resolution for, provided that you sweep away some oversimplifications. > > 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. I just told you a couple. > > 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.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: Surfer on 1 Jul 2010 17:03 On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 22:14:59 -0700 (PDT), Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee(a)gmail.com> wrote: >On Jun 29, 6:28 pm, Tom Roberts wrote: > >> A physical theory like SR consists of: >> A) a set of mathematical theorems >> B) the meanings of the symbols that appear in (A) >> C) an experimental record of comparisons between theorems of (A) >> related to experimental measurements via (B) and the choice of the >> appropriate theorem representing the conditions of the measurement. >> >> Only part (A) can be an axiomatic system (and for SR it is). All parts are >> needed for a successful physical theory. > >However, part (A) is wrong. It does not satisfy the null results of >the MMX in general. <shrug> > >Thus, part (A) should read: > > A) a set of mathemaGical conjectures > >On Jun 29, 8:54 pm, Tom Roberts < wrote: > >> LET (LR) starts out with an implicit postulate: there is a unique inertial frame >> in which the ether is at rest. So the (also implicit) law of ether motion is >> DIFFERENT in different inertial frames, violating the PoR. > >I don't know what mathematical model of LET you understand it as, but >clearly, the Lorentz transform is a subset of Larmor's transform. The >Lorentz transform satisfies the principle of relative, but Larmor's >transform in general does not. <shrug> > >For your review, the following is Larmor's transform involving the 2 >observers (1 and 2), the observed (3), and the absolute frame of >reference (0). > >** dt1 = (dt0 � B01 dx03 / c) / sqrt(1 - B01^2) >** dx13 = (dx03 � B01 c dt0) / sqrt(1 - B01^2) >** dy13 = dy03 >** dz13 = dz03 > >** dt2 = (dt0 � B02 dx03 / c) / sqrt(1 - B02^2) >** dx23 = (dx03 � B02 c dt0) / sqrt(1 - B02^2) >** dy23 = dy03 >** dz23 = dz03 > >Where > >** dtI = Time flow at I >** dqIJ = Parameter dq (dx, dy, dz) at J as observed by I >** B0I c = Absolute speed of I > >Written in this way implies that 1 and 2 are moving in parallel >relative to 0. With that, the above equations do become the following >which is the Lorentz transform. > >** dt1 = (dt2 � B21 dx23 / c) / sqrt(1 - B21^2) >** dx13 = (dx23 � B21 c dt2) / sqrt(1 - B21^2) >** dy13 = dy23 >** dz13 = dz23 > >** dt2 = (dt1 � B12 dx13 / c) / sqrt(1 - B12^2) >** dx23 = (dx13 � B12 c dt1) / sqrt(1 - B12^2) >** dy23 = dy13 >** dz23 = dz13 > >Notice > >** B12 = - B21 > >> LET (LR) has an amazing and unexpected cancellation that makes the ether frame >> completely unobservable FOR PHYSICAL MEASUREMENTS. But its transform equations >> were all derived starting from that unique inertial frame. > >Don't rejoice about this cancellation of 0 from Larmor's transform. >In a more general case where 1 and 2 are not necessarily moving in >parallel relative to 0, this 0 does not cancel out. Yours truly has >explained that below. > >http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/c5a0a3c587fd4df4?hl=en > >On Jun 29, 9:00 pm, Tom Roberts wrote: > >> One part of it (A) is axiomatic, but the entirety is a physical theory, in >> that it models physical phenomena (within its domain). > >For example, in Larmor's transform, when 1 and 2 are not necessarily >moving in parallel to each other relative to 0, the temporal equations >can be written as follows. > >** dt1 = (dt0 � [B01] * [ds03] / c) / sqrt(1 - B01^2) > >Very trivially, when 3 is observing 1 back, the following equations >holds. > >** dt3 = (dt0 � [B03] * [ds01] / c) / sqrt(1 - B03^2) > >Where > >** [dsI] = Change of spatial vector at I >** [A] * [B] = Dot product of the two vectors [A] and [B] > >One can easily and very trivially combine the above two equations into >the following. > >dt1 sqrt(1 - B01^2) + [B01] * [ds03] / c = dt3 sqrt(1 - B03^2) + [B03] >* [ds01] / c > >Notice the frame of reference called 0 also known as the absolute >frame of reference does not go away. This follows closely how high >speed particles are observed to exhibit time dilation relative to an >observer moving more slowly relative to the absolute frame of >reference. All your observations can be explained with Larmor's >transform based on the absolute frame of reference thus breaking the >precious symmetry while the Lorentz transform is a complete >mathematical bogus. > >> The theorems derived from the postulates form an axiomatic system. But the >> meanings of the symbols and the experimental record do not. > >Try not to be sloppy with the symbols just like Einstein the nitwit, >the plagiarist, and the liar did in his infamous 1905 paper on >relativity. <shrug> > >Have you finally figured out the nitwit's mathemagical tricks of >deriving (E = m c^2 / sqrt(1 - v^2 / c^2)) through a serious of >mistakes namely being very sloppy on the symbols? > >> No physical theory can be purely axiomatic -- Aristotle essentially tried that >> and it failed even him. I don't know what "purely physical" means in this >> context, but any mathematical model will not be "physical" (it will be a MODEL). >> Today, only theories based on mathematical models are acceptable to the community. > >Have you finally realized that SR fails any mathematical integrity >right off the bat? SR manifests the twins' paradox which is >absolutely nonsense. SR should never be accepted as a valid model of >the real world. All real life observations are based on Larmor's >transform with all observations eventually have to reference back to >the absolute frame of reference. Without the so-called symmetry, >there is no paradox, and the GPS functions like a charm. <shrug> > >Just in case if you have finally realized your very basic mistakes, >try not to jump off the tallest building in the Chicago area. There >are still a lot of mysticism beyond SR to be exorcised. <shrug>
From: J. Clarke on 1 Jul 2010 18:41 On 7/1/2010 5:03 PM, Surfer wrote: > On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 22:14:59 -0700 (PDT), Koobee Wublee <remainder snipped> Was it really necessary for you to repost that entire pile of drivel?
From: colp on 1 Jul 2010 19:25 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.
From: Koobee Wublee on 1 Jul 2010 20:16
On Jul 1, 11:02 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 1, 12:42 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote: > > It is no error. Langevin was the first to notice this twins > > paradox. However, he cranked himself by proposing nonsense to resolve > > this paradox. > > ? What is nonsensical about the resolution. Oh, that's right, it's > nonsensical if you say it makes no sense to you, and if it makes sense > to someone else, then they're simply unable to see that it in fact > makes no sense. Because it makes no sense to you. Well, you are unable to see the fallacy in the mathematics of the Lorentz transform. <shrug> > > Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar was > > the first to propose a turn-around counts as acceleration [useless, and babbling nonsense snipped] > > thus falls > > into the domain of GR. Using the principle of equivalence, the > > nincompoop was able to hand-wave it as a resolution to the twins > > paradox. <shrug> > > Where is your reference that Einstein proposed GR as a resolution to > the twin paradox? PD is really fvcked. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox [quote] Einstein, Born, and Moller invoked gravitational time dilation to explain aging based on the effect of acceleration. [unquote] [The rest of personal attack snipped] |