Preferred Frame Theory indistinguishable from SR
in [Math]
|
From: artful on 1 Jul 2010 20:18 On Jul 2, 9:25 am, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > On Jul 2, 2:26 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: [snip for brevity] > > 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. Which SR passes > 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) No paradox there. Try again > This text describes Einstein's postulate that there is no preferred > inertial frame of reference. That's correct. No paradox there. Try again. > "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. It there is no change of frame of reference, then yes. If there IS a change in frame of reference (eg If the clock was at rest in some frame and then moves to another location), then its frame of reference is not inertial. You seem to ignore this. > The > conclusion that time for both systems can be dilated with respect to > the other system is paradoxical. Nope. I've shown elsewhere that relativity of synchronicity (part of SR's Lorentz transforms), means that clock sync is frame dependent. That allows for mutual time dilation. Do I need to repost the example that shows how this can work for you again?
From: artful on 1 Jul 2010 20:22 On Jul 2, 10:18 am, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 2, 9:25 am, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > > > On Jul 2, 2:26 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > [snip for brevity] > > > 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. > > Which SR passes > > > > > > > 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) > > No paradox there. Try again > > > This text describes Einstein's postulate that there is no preferred > > inertial frame of reference. > > That's correct. No paradox there. Try again. > > > "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. > > It there is no change of frame of reference, then yes. > > If there IS a change in frame of reference (eg If the clock was at > rest in some frame and then moves to another location), then its frame > of reference is not inertial. > > You seem to ignore this. > > > The > > conclusion that time for both systems can be dilated with respect to > > the other system is paradoxical. > > Nope. > > I've shown elsewhere that relativity of synchronicity (part of SR's > Lorentz transforms), means that clock sync is frame dependent. > > That allows for mutual time dilation. Do I need to repost the example > that shows how this can work for you again? Before you start your usual diversion of accusing me of being a liar (instead of addressing the physics) ... Here is a link to my previous post in a related thread that shows how differences in clock sync give you mutual time dilation: http://groups.google.com.au/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/e2699c1302bb06dd
From: artful on 1 Jul 2010 20:24 On Jul 2, 10:16 am, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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> You mean the one you've been asked to show and of which you have failed to produce evidence ?
From: colp on 1 Jul 2010 20:49 On Jul 1, 9:33 pm, harald <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote: > 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? Yes, in part. According to SR a moving clock will appear to run slower both when it is moving away and when it is approaching, since velocity is squared in the transform. > > > The paradoxes which arise from this are ample reason to chuck > > Einstein's theory. > > What paradoxes? The paradox inherent in Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies, and the paradoxes arising from it, namely the twin paradox and the triplet paradox. http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_thread/thread/791b8a2087067d89/2758b0b50717218b?q=relativity+error&lnk=ol& > 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. No, that is not the case.
From: colp on 1 Jul 2010 20:56
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. > The statement in SR is actually > quite a bit more precise. Are you referring to Einstein's 1920 statement about rotating bodies? > > 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. No, it isn't. You could make your point by simply quoting Einstein if he had actually made such a provision. |