Preferred Frame Theory indistinguishable from SR
in [Math]
|
From: Daryl McCullough on 2 Jul 2010 10:25 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. -- Daryl McCullough Ithaca, NY
From: PD on 2 Jul 2010 10:57 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. In the moving frame, the clocks at A and B were never synchronous. Thus the fact that the clock that remains at B (and therefore moves with respect to your clock which sits while points A and B wash by) is ahead of the other clock makes perfect sense, physically. There is no paradox. There is only your superficial and oversimplified understanding of what relativity says. PD
From: PD on 2 Jul 2010 10:58 On Jul 2, 3:31 am, harald <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote: > On Jul 2, 1:25 am, 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. > > I agree that there is a paradox in his introduction: > > 1. Natural phenomena (incl. mechanical phenomena) suggested to him > that these do not have "properties corresponding to the idea of > absolute rest" > 2. Based on that, he accepted for all natural phenomena the classical > PoR, which is defined relative to the *special* group of reference > systems "for which the equations of mechanics hold good". > > Now, that special group of reference systems of statement 2 suggested > to Newton the idea of of absolute rest - which is in disaccord with > Einstein's suggestion in statement 1! No, it doesn't. The special group of reference systems are the inertial reference systems, which implies NOTHING about absolute rest. > > As we know, Einstein wasn't satisfied with this himself, and he did a > last attempt with GRT. But there is no conflict of postulates, only a > poor match between a *suggestion* and a postulate. > > > "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. > > That is based on his suggestion 1. here above, which he did not follow > up for the 1905 theory: it was directly nullified by the restriction > (statement 2) to the special class of inertial coordinate systems. > Therefore the theory of Einstein and Lorentz was seen as a single > theory and called "special" or "restricted" relativity. > > However, Einstein did acknowledge that issue as a paradox (apparent > contradiction) of GRT. > > Harald- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: PD on 2 Jul 2010 11:03 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! > > > The statement in SR is actually > > quite a bit more precise. > > Are you referring to Einstein's 1920 statement about rotating bodies? No. > > > > 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. I don't see why you feel that the whole development of special relativity is entirely due to, and can be found in the writings of, Einstein. Special relativity has been worked on and developed by hundreds of physicists, many of which have found aspects of special relativity that Einstein never dreamed of. The same thing goes for "Newtonian mechanics", which involves a great deal more than what Newton wrote, or "quantum mechanics" which involves a great deal more than what Heisenberg, Pauli, or Bohr wrote.
From: Koobee Wublee on 2 Jul 2010 13:17
On Jul 2, 1:33 am, harald <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote: > On Jul 2, 2:16 am, Koobee Wublee wrote: > >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] > > Wikipedia is messed up: at best it can (even it is only *allowed* to) > accurately reproduce the confusions and errors of the existing > literature. Although no information is deemed reliable in some degree, you are the one who is messed up here. It is a common knowledge that Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar had proposed GR to resolve the twins paradox. You can also do a google search on that. <shrug> There are many different ways to do so. Langevins resolution is drastically different from that of Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar. The self-styled physicists cannot even unanimously agree on one resolution. Each one believes in his own resolution, but all these contradict with each other. What a fvcked up bunch. That is a trait of Einstein Dingleberrism. <shrug> |