Preferred Frame Theory supported by Hafele-Keating experiment
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Properties of a preferred frame, an inertial frame in SR and
Next: Absolute motion in kinetic theory
From: artful on 19 Jul 2010 00:21 On Jul 19, 10:01 am, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > On Jul 19, 10:58 am, "whoever" <whoe...(a)whereever.com> wrote: > > > "colp" wrote in message > > >news:adf76654-bc48-4c0d-83ed-cf8399415565(a)w35g2000prd.googlegroups.com.... > > > >So in your world refusing to accept the argument that I am wrong > > > I totally accept that you are wrong .. it is well proven already. > >Just like Inertial proved that time compensation occurred during the >turnaround, in order to resolve the symmetric twin paradox, right? I had it here .. ready to post for you . I've asked you over and over do you want to see it .. and you ignore it. Do you want me to post it? > The thing is, he never posted his math as proof - he just lied about > it instead. Wrong .. I made a mistake about what I thought had been posted. You seem to dwell on this as an excuse to avoid discussing the physics involved. That is nothing but cowardice and intellectual dishonesty on your part. >So, if you are Inertial, then it would be reasonable to think that you >are simply repeating your old behaviour. What .. of understanding the physics and able to show you are wrong (as other have done already)? Yeup .. repeating that behaviour. >Anyway, the point is that you can't show proof of your claim, LIE .. Of course I can. . do you want to see it? > but I > can prove that the Hafele-Keating experiment only works for a > preferred frame of reference. LIE. That you can analyse it easier in a given frame does NOT mean it only works for one frame >Eric Gisse knew the implicatons of the Hafele-Keating experiment, and >his response was to deny that it tested SR, even though the paper >specifically mentions the clock paradox - a problem which is specific >to SR. > >Daryll McCollough knows that the premises of SR lead to nonsense, LIE .. it doesn't, and he doesn't believe it does > and >because of that extra steps must be taken to avoid getting >contradictory results. LIE > Both he and Eric have currently abandoned the >debate. Nope .. thought they may have had enough of your trolling and lies. So .. are you willing to debate it? Every time I offer you run away like the coward you are. Are you STILL claiming that the symmetric twins scenario results in a paradox? Do you want to see a correct analysis that shows it doesn't? Or are you just going to run away again and avoid discussing the physics?
From: colp on 19 Jul 2010 00:40 On Jul 19, 3:35 pm, Cosmik de Bris <cosmik.deb...(a)elec.canterbury.ac.nz> wrote: > On 19/07/10 14:55 , colp wrote: > > > > > On Jul 19, 2:00 pm, Cosmik de Bris > > <cosmik.deb...(a)elec.canterbury.ac.nz> wrote: > >> On 19/07/10 12:01 , colp wrote: > > >>> On Jul 19, 10:58 am, "whoever"<whoe...(a)whereever.com> wrote: > >>>> "colp" wrote in message > > >>>>news:adf76654-bc48-4c0d-83ed-cf8399415565(a)w35g2000prd.googlegroups.com... > > >>>>> So in your world refusing to accept the argument that I am wrong > > >>>> I totally accept that you are wrong .. it is well proven already. > > >>> Just like Inertial proved that time compensation occurred during the > >>> turnaround, in order to resolve the symmetric twin paradox, right? > > >>> The thing is, he never posted his math as proof - he just lied about > >>> it instead. > > >> Have you ever posted any maths? > > > Yes, I have. > > 2+2 = 5 doesn't count. Is that the best you've got?
From: colp on 19 Jul 2010 00:54 On Jul 19, 4:21 pm, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 19, 10:01 am, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > > > On Jul 19, 10:58 am, "whoever" <whoe...(a)whereever.com> wrote: > > > > "colp" wrote in message > > > >news:adf76654-bc48-4c0d-83ed-cf8399415565(a)w35g2000prd.googlegroups.com.... > > > > >So in your world refusing to accept the argument that I am wrong > > > > I totally accept that you are wrong .. it is well proven already. > > >Just like Inertial proved that time compensation occurred during the > >turnaround, in order to resolve the symmetric twin paradox, right? > > I had it here .. ready to post for you . I've asked you over and over > do you > want to see it .. and you ignore it. Do you want me to post it? Not until you apologise for your lies. [snip more lies from Inertial] > > >Eric Gisse knew the implicatons of the Hafele-Keating experiment, and > >his response was to deny that it tested SR, even though the paper > >specifically mentions the clock paradox - a problem which is specific > >to SR. > > >Daryll McCollough knows that the premises of SR lead to nonsense, > > LIE .. it doesn't, and he doesn't believe it does So how do you account for the following conversation? 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 19 Jul 2010 01:09 On Jul 19, 2:54 pm, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > On Jul 19, 4:21 pm, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 19, 10:01 am, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > > > > On Jul 19, 10:58 am, "whoever" <whoe...(a)whereever.com> wrote: > > > > > "colp" wrote in message > > > > >news:adf76654-bc48-4c0d-83ed-cf8399415565(a)w35g2000prd.googlegroups.com... > > > > > >So in your world refusing to accept the argument that I am wrong > > > > > I totally accept that you are wrong .. it is well proven already. > > > >Just like Inertial proved that time compensation occurred during the > > >turnaround, in order to resolve the symmetric twin paradox, right? > > > I had it here .. ready to post for you . I've asked you over and over > > do you > > want to see it .. and you ignore it. Do you want me to post it? > > Not until you apologise for your lies. I already apologised for my mistake .. multiple times. > [snip more lies from Inertial] Unlike you, I don't lie > > >Eric Gisse knew the implicatons of the Hafele-Keating experiment, and > > >his response was to deny that it tested SR, even though the paper > > >specifically mentions the clock paradox - a problem which is specific > > >to SR. > > > >Daryll McCollough knows that the premises of SR lead to nonsense, > > > LIE .. it doesn't, and he doesn't believe it does > > So how do you account for the following conversation? Easily > 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. If you do not apply the correct transforms between frames of reference (ie use SR correctly), you end up with contradictions. If you don't use appropriate transforms to the change frame of reference, then you have to use a single frame of reference for your analysis Otherwise, if you don't do the physics correctly (which is what you are doing) you get nonsense > colp: > Yes. And that nonsense is a direct result of the premises of SR, > nothing else. Wrong .. it is a direct result of you not being able to do the physics required.
From: artful on 19 Jul 2010 01:10
On Jul 19, 2:40 pm, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > On Jul 19, 3:35 pm, Cosmik de Bris > > > > > > <cosmik.deb...(a)elec.canterbury.ac.nz> wrote: > > On 19/07/10 14:55 , colp wrote: > > > > On Jul 19, 2:00 pm, Cosmik de Bris > > > <cosmik.deb...(a)elec.canterbury.ac.nz> wrote: > > >> On 19/07/10 12:01 , colp wrote: > > > >>> On Jul 19, 10:58 am, "whoever"<whoe...(a)whereever.com> wrote: > > >>>> "colp" wrote in message > > > >>>>news:adf76654-bc48-4c0d-83ed-cf8399415565(a)w35g2000prd.googlegroups.com... > > > >>>>> So in your world refusing to accept the argument that I am wrong > > > >>>> I totally accept that you are wrong .. it is well proven already. > > > >>> Just like Inertial proved that time compensation occurred during the > > >>> turnaround, in order to resolve the symmetric twin paradox, right? > > > >>> The thing is, he never posted his math as proof - he just lied about > > >>> it instead. > > > >> Have you ever posted any maths? > > > > Yes, I have. > > > 2+2 = 5 doesn't count. > > Is that the best you've got? Its very appropriate analogy .. the 'math' you posted previously is just as wrong as 2+2 = 5 |