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: colp on 19 Jul 2010 01:20 On Jul 19, 5:10 pm, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > 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 How could you know what maths I was referring to, liar?
From: eric gisse on 19 Jul 2010 01:41 colp wrote: [...] Why are you posting to sci.physics.* newsgroups? You should know you understand little about science. So why are you spending all this effort?
From: artful on 19 Jul 2010 02:10 On Jul 19, 3:20 pm, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > On Jul 19, 5:10 pm, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > 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 > > How could you know what maths I was referring to, liar? I don't lie. I have seen the small amount of maths you posted regarding the symmetric twins 'paradox'. That was just as wrong as 2+2=5 Again .. you spend your time accusing others of lying and none posting anything of value.. you're a troll Now .. do you want me to post a symmetric twins analysis or not ?
From: colp on 19 Jul 2010 03:42 On Jul 19, 5:41 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > colp wrote: > > [...] > > Why are you posting to sci.physics.* newsgroups? One of the reasons is to identify people such as yourself who make false accusations while arguing for Einstein's theory of relativity. You said: "You've already been caught once fabricating quotes about what papers say," I've already asked you twice why you didn't quote what I said. It should be obvious why you can't. But back to the real issue. Hafele's description of the Hafele-Keating experiment is evidence that Einstein's principle of relativity is fundamentally flawed. A reason for this is that Hafele doesn't address the crux of the problem that the experiment is supposed to address: After the abstract, Hafele starts by saying: "One of the most enduring scientific debates of this century is the relativistic clock "paradox" (1) or problem (2), when stemmed originally from an alleged logical inconsistency in predicted time differences between traveling and reference clocks after a round trip". The clock paradox, aka the twin paradox, is a thought experiment in special relativity. Of two twin brothers one undertakes a long space journey with a very high-speed rocket at almost the speed of light, while the other remains on Earth. When the traveler finally returns to Earth, it is observed that he is younger than the twin who stayed put. The paradox arises if one takes the position of the traveling twin: from his perspective, his brother on Earth is moving away quickly, and eventually comes close again. So the traveler can regard his brother on Earth to be a "moving clock" which should experience time dilation. Special relativity says that there is no preferred frame of reference, so the traveling twin, upon return to Earth, would expect to find his brother to be younger than himself, contrary to that brother's expectations. In the HK experiment there are two planes, and eastbound one and a westbound one, which can correspond to the two twins. Or alternatively, the stay-at-home twin can correspond to one of the clocks that remained on the ground during the course of the experiment. For the paradox to be tested, Hafele should have explored what relativity predicts for each plane regarding the the time dilation of the other plane, since this is the crux of the paradox. But Hafele doesn't do this. Instead he bases his calculations on an absolute frame of reference in which the Earth rotates. However, such an approach isn't supported by Einstein's principle of relativity. Einstein says: "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." .... and continues... "We will raise this conjecture (the purport of which will hereafter be called the "Principle of Relativity") to the status of a postulate" .... so Einstein's principle of relativity is not upheld by Hafele's analysis. An alternate way of describing the paradox is this: special relativity only describes observed time dilation, but it must also describe observed time compression in order for paradoxes to be avoided. Einsteins description of observed time dilation is as follows: "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 ..." In the context of the Hafele-Keating experiment, relativity predicts that each plane should observe the time dilation of the other due to the relative motion of the two planes. The is of course paradoxical, and no real experiment could ever confirm these predictions. The Hafele-Keating experiment did show that time dilation occurred due to relative motion, but that time dilation only made sense from a single frame of reference - one that remained stationary with respect to the rotating Earth. The upshot of all this is that Einstein's principle of relativity is fundamentally flawed: there is a preferred frame of reference, despite Einstein's assertion to the contrary.
From: harald on 19 Jul 2010 04:23
On Jul 19, 2:01 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? That's very misleading! Distant "time" changes whenever you make a Lorentz transformation, just as time flip-flops when you adjust from one country time to that of another. You can do so whenever you like. And just as it is common to set your watches when you enter another time zone, it may look natural to do so when you change speed for a very long time. That's why it's also called "local" time. It's essential to understand that according to SRT nothing physical "occurs" to distant time when you do something like turning around (that would really be magic!), but that YOUR time definition changes whenever (and ONLY when) you CHOOSE to select another one. > The thing is, he never posted his math as proof - he just > lied about it instead. A. Are you NOT able to do a Lorentz transformation? Then it's useless to discuss with you, for it is simple math that you must master in order to really know what you are talking about. B. Can you do a Lorentz transformation? Then you should be able to give that proof to yourself, with a correct understanding of what it "does". Success! Harald [..] |