Preferred Frame Theory supported by Hafele-Keating experiment
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Definitely Demolition
Next: The weight of a singularity
From: colp on 18 Jul 2010 20:01 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. So, if you are Inertial, then it would be reasonable to think that you are simply repeating your old behaviour. Anyway, the point is that you can't show proof of your claim, but I can prove that the Hafele-Keating experiment only works for a preferred frame of reference. 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, and because of that extra steps must be taken to avoid getting contradictory results. Both he and Eric have currently abandoned the debate.
From: Cosmik de Bris on 18 Jul 2010 22:00 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? > So, if you are Inertial, then it would be reasonable to think that you > are simply repeating your old behaviour. > > Anyway, the point is that you can't show proof of your claim, but I > can prove that the Hafele-Keating experiment only works for a > preferred frame of reference. This is going to be good. Post your proof. > > 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. It was a test of GR, SR is a weak field approximation. IF GR is verified then so is SR. > > Daryll McCollough knows that the premises of SR lead to nonsense, and > because of that extra steps must be taken to avoid getting > contradictory results. That is a lie, you are stating what Daryl knows and you don't. This is your mistaken idea of the situation. > Both he and Eric have currently abandoned the > debate. And you think it is because your arguments are so rigorous they were defeated? You flaming idiot Colp, they gave up because you are a complete fool. Can't you see that?
From: colp on 18 Jul 2010 22:55 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. > > > So, if you are Inertial, then it would be reasonable to think that you > > are simply repeating your old behaviour. > > > Anyway, the point is that you can't show proof of your claim, but I > > can prove that the Hafele-Keating experiment only works for a > > preferred frame of reference. > > This is going to be good. Post your proof. All that is involved is to consider the problem that the Hafele- Keating experiment was supposed to address - i.e. the twin paradox (also called the clock paradox). Hafale & Keating couldn't address the paradox on it's own terms (i.e. what each twin is predicted to observe regarding the _other_ twin because it would show that SR fails to predict the actual observation. Instead, they based their calculations on a single frame of reference, which I will call the preferred frame of reference for the experiment. Hafele describes this as a view of the (rotating) Earth as it would be perceived by an inertial observer looking down of the North Pole from a great distance. If we address the paradox on it's own terms, then we must ask the question of what the eastgoing plane will observe the time of the westgoing plane to be, and vice versa. SR predicts that the eastgoing plane will see the time of the westgoing plane to be dilated due to kinematic effects, and vice versa. Once the gravitational effects are removed we are left with the original paradox: the 2 planes cannot have clocks which are both dilated with respect to each other. > > > > > 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. > > It was a test of GR, SR is a weak field approximation. IF GR is verified > then so is SR. If GR theory is a superset of SR theory then GR includes the first postulate of SR, namely Einsteins "Principle of Relativity". "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." Part of Einsteins conjecture is that "the phenomena of electrodynamics as well as of mechanics possess no properties corresponding to the idea of absolute rest", yet this conjecture is falsified by the Hafele- Keating experiment because the predictions of SR only hold true from a frame of reference which is at absolute rest with respect to the rotating Earth. > > > > > Daryll McCollough knows that the premises of SR lead to nonsense, and > > because of that extra steps must be taken to avoid getting > > contradictory results. > > That is a lie, you are stating what Daryl knows and you don't. This is > your mistaken idea of the situation. It's no lie. Here is the relevant argument: 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. > > > Both he and Eric have currently abandoned the > > debate. > > And you think it is because your arguments are so rigorous they were > defeated? You flaming idiot Colp, they gave up because you are a > complete fool. Can't you see that? What I can see are people who will lie, mislead, insult, and divert when they think that their position is threatened. People like you, for example.... colp: > > The paradox of the symmetric twins is that according to special > > relativity (SR) each twin observes the other twin to age more slowly > > both on the outgoing leg > > and the return leg, so SR paradoxically predicts that each twin will > > be younger than > > the other when they return to Earth. cosmic de bris: > It is true that both observers see the others clock running slow (this > is not the same as the cumulative time dilation that is responsible for > the difference in ages in the asymmetric case). This is merely a > difference in perspective. In the same way if we stand 1kM apart you > will look short to me, and I will look short to you. That doesn't mean > that there will be an infinite regression and we both disappear. And your point is?
From: Cosmik de Bris on 18 Jul 2010 23:35 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. You don't know any maths, if you have posted any (I doubt it) you must've copied it from someone else. >> >>> So, if you are Inertial, then it would be reasonable to think that you >>> are simply repeating your old behaviour. >> >>> Anyway, the point is that you can't show proof of your claim, but I >>> can prove that the Hafele-Keating experiment only works for a >>> preferred frame of reference. >> >> This is going to be good. Post your proof. > > All that is involved is to consider the problem that the Hafele- > Keating experiment was supposed to address - i.e. the twin paradox > (also called the clock paradox). > Bad start, this isn't what they set out to do, they set out to test the theory of relativity, not your version of what relativity is about. > Hafale& Keating couldn't address the paradox on it's own terms (i.e. > what each twin is predicted to observe regarding the _other_ twin > because it would show that SR fails to predict the actual observation. This is incorrect, this is not mentioned in their paper, you made this up. > Instead, they based their calculations on a single frame of reference, > which I will call the preferred frame of reference for the experiment. Calling it a preferred frame doesn't make it one. They used Earth bound clocks to compare the moving clocks with, is that what you meant? > Hafele describes this as a view of the (rotating) Earth as it would be > perceived by an inertial observer looking down of the North Pole from > a great distance. > > If we address the paradox on it's own terms, then we must ask the > question of what the eastgoing plane will observe the time of the > westgoing plane to be, and vice versa. SR predicts that the eastgoing > plane will see the time of the westgoing plane to be dilated due to > kinematic effects, and vice versa. Once the gravitational effects are > removed we are left with the original paradox: the 2 planes cannot > have clocks which are both dilated with respect to each other. > Once again, you keep repeating the same incorrect mantra. STR does not say what you are saying. You have incorrectly interpreted it, yet again. Oh and that isn't a proof by the way. Post a proof or go away. >> >> >> >>> 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. >> >> It was a test of GR, SR is a weak field approximation. IF GR is verified >> then so is SR. > > If GR theory is a superset of SR theory then GR includes the first > postulate of SR, namely Einsteins "Principle of Relativity". > No, it is the other way around you idiot. SR is a subset (if you like). It is not actually a subset it is the weak field limit. GR has as a principle "General Co-variance". The principle of relativity is contained within this. General Co-variance is a much more general principle which basically says that: The form of physical laws is invariant under arbitrary differentiable co-ordinate transforms. You won't understand that of course. > "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." > > Part of Einsteins conjecture is that "the phenomena of electrodynamics > as well as of mechanics possess no properties corresponding to the > idea of absolute rest", yet this conjecture is falsified by the Hafele- > Keating experiment because the predictions of SR only hold true from a > frame of reference which is at absolute rest with respect to the > rotating Earth. > >> >> >> >>> Daryll McCollough knows that the premises of SR lead to nonsense, and >>> because of that extra steps must be taken to avoid getting >>> contradictory results. >> >> That is a lie, you are stating what Daryl knows and you don't. This is >> your mistaken idea of the situation. > > It's no lie. Here is the relevant argument: > > 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. > Daryl doesn't say that the premises of SR lead to nonsense. You said that he did, a blatant lie. You are incredible. >> >>> Both he and Eric have currently abandoned the >>> debate. >> >> And you think it is because your arguments are so rigorous they were >> defeated? You flaming idiot Colp, they gave up because you are a >> complete fool. Can't you see that? > > What I can see are people who will lie, mislead, insult, and divert > when they think that > their position is threatened. > > People like you, for example.... > You twit Colp. You are the only person that can see this are you? People with decades of study lie and cheat and mislead, only you, a person with no education, no idea what science is about, no clue about logic, is right. Can you see how absurd this is? Oh yes you have Miller and de Witte to back you up. Anyway school is back now so you'll be too busy repeating year ten to bother us much more. Unbelievable.
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? |