Prev: NYT - 7/13/10 - "Gravity Does Not Exist"
Next: 0' notation
From: kenseto on 18 Jul 2010 08:21
On Jul 17, 11:08 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
> "kenseto"  wrote in message
>
> news:cb8f1988-70ef-4aee-98d6-050b183d8fd4(a)d8g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
>
> > So what are those special properties for the preferred frame??
>
> According to which theory?  Whether or not there is some preferred frame
> depends on the theory.  In SR and GR there is no such thing as a preferred
> frame.

If the preferred frame doesn't exit...then how come you and PD claimed
that the preferred frame have different laws of physics????
From: kenseto on 18 Jul 2010 08:23
On Jul 17, 11:47 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On 7/17/10 9:51 AM, kenseto wrote:
>
> > On Jul 16, 12:21 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com>  wrote:
> >> On 7/16/10 9:34 AM, kenseto wrote:
>
> >>> Properties of a preferred frame:
>
> >> In theories that apply the principle of relativity to inertial motion,
> >> physics is the same in all inertial frames, and is even the same in all
> >> frames under the general principle of relativity.
>
> >> In theoretical physics, a preferred or privileged frame is usually a
> >> special hypothetical frame of reference in which the laws of physics
> >> might appear to be identifiably different from those in other frames.
>
> > So what are those special properties for the preferred frame??
>
>    Essentially there are no preferred reference frames, Ken.

If the preferred frame doesn't exit...then how come you and PD claimed
that the preferred frame have different laws of physics????

Ken Seto

> There
>    might be al locus of points that some frame could be along that
>    could show two events separated in time and space that appear
>    to be simultaneous, but there are no special properties.
>
>
>
>
>
> >     In John W Patterson's letter to the Tribune of July 7, he
> >     comments on the book, "The Privileged Planet", by
> >     Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay W. Richards. John's letter was
> >     well crafted illuminating the bigger issue of the
> >     creationist movement, provided references and "keywords"
> >     that allow interested people to find out more, and he
> >     tied the story to Iowa! Very well done!
> >     I too, have read the book. I gave my copy to an emeritus
> >     professor of chemistry friend of mine, cautioning that he
> >     should not read it if he didn't want to raise his blood
> >     pressure. Some weeks later he wrote a scathing "book
> >     report" to me by email. He was disgusted!
> >     For example, concerning the chapter on the Copernican
> >     Principle, he wrote, "The authors set up a straw man
> >     imbuing the Copernican Principle with a number of
> >     ridiculous attributes that they then disparage and in so
> >     doing imply that they are destroying a scientific theory.
> >     Irritating rubbish!"
> >     The Copernican Principle is the philosophical statement
> >     that no "special" observers should be proposed. The term
> >     originated in the paradigm shift from the Aristotelian
> >     model of the heavens, which placed Earth at the center
> >     of the Solar system because it appears that everything
> >     revolved around Earth.
> >     The dictionary defines "principle" as
> >      1. A basic truth, law, or assumption: the principles of
> >         democracy.
> >      2. a. A rule or standard, especially of good behavior: a
> >         man of principle. b. The collectivity of moral or
> >         ethical standards or judgments: a decision based on
> >         principle rather than expediency.
> >      3. A rule or law concerning the functioning of natural
> >         phenomena or mechanical processes: the principle of
> >         jet propulsion.
> >      To be clear, principles in physics, are ideas having the
> >      ring of truth. But they are not mathematical theories or
> >      laws that can be tested empirically such as Einstein's
> >      Theory of Relativity. However, they do offer guidance in
> >      sniffing out the Laws of nature.
> >      The Copernican Principle is one of the most successful
> >      scientific hypotheses in the history of science. No
> >      serious scientific theories are even proposed that
> >      violate the Copernican Principle.
>
>    No special frames!- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

From: kenseto on 18 Jul 2010 08:50
On Jul 17, 11:13 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
> "kenseto"  wrote in message
>
> news:305c986a-0096-4cdd-b8c6-5c2722776b27(a)e5g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> >On Jul 17, 8:42 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
> >> "kenseto"  wrote in message
>
> >>news:9b9c3717-4960-49c7-a0b1-27efec9f8d01(a)s9g2000yqd.googlegroups.com....
>
> >> >Properties of a preferred frame:
> >> >1. The speed of light is isotropic.
>
> >> nope .. that's the same in all inertial frames
>
> >So all inertial frames claims the exclusive properties of the
> >preferred frame....that's all.
>
> Its not an exclusive property of one frame if all frames have it.  So your
> statements is self-contradictory.
>
> >> >2. The speed one-way or two way speed of light is constant and it is
> >>, > not distance dependent....even if it is measured using physical meter
> >> > stick.
>
> >> nope .. that's the same in all inertial frames
>
> >No idiot in SR the speed of light is a defined constant.
>
> that's the same in all inertial frames.
>
> > In the
> >preferred frame the speed of light is a measured constant using
> >physical ruler and preferred clock second.
>
> that's the same in all inertial frames.
>
> >> > 3. A clock at rest in the preferred frame is the fastest running
> >> > clock
> >> > in the universe....in other words, all the clocks moving with the
> >> > preferred clock are running slower.
>
> >> if we're talking inertial frames, no correct clock is running fast.  But
> >> observers at rest in one inerital frame will measure another moving clock
> >> as
> >> ticking slower
>
> >Hey idiot....no measurement of a moving clock ever been made.
>
> Wrong
>
> >The SR
> >observer predicts that all clocks  moving wrt him are running slow.
>
> No .. he doesn't  Observers at rest in some inertial frame will MEASURE the
> moving clock as slow.  

Hey idiot how does he do that?? He doesn't measure....he predicts
using the SR equation.

>But they know that each clock is running at the same
> rate .. differences in clock sync make the measurement of a given moving
> clock slower

Hey idiot...Clocks in relative motion are running at different rates.
Clocks in relative motion cannot be in sync without redefining the
definition for a clock second in one of the relative frame. The GPS
clock is made to be in sync with the ground clock by having its clock
second redefined to have 4.446 more periods of Cs 133 radiation than
the ground clcok second.

>
> >> >4. The material length of a meter stick at rest in the preferred
> >> >frame
> >> > is 1 meter long materially.
>
> >> nope .. That's the same in all inertial frames
>
> >So there is no material/physical length contraction in all inertial
> >frame as well as in the preferred frame.
>
> I didn't say that

Your brother PD said that.
>
> > That means that all inertial
> >framesclaims the exclusive properties of the preferred frame.
>
> Its not an exclusive property of one frame if all frames have it.  So your
> statements is self-contradictory.

It is an exclusive property.....SR hijacked it and claimed it to be
the property of all inertial frame.

From: kenseto on 18 Jul 2010 08:56
On Jul 17, 12:03 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On 7/16/10 9:34 AM, kenseto wrote:
>
> > Properties of a preferred frame:
>
>    Ken neither special relativity, nor general relativity proposes
>    or uses any special (or preferred frames).

Sure....SR adopts the exclusive properties of the preferred frame to
derive its math. LET also uses the preferred frame to derive its math.
That's why SR and LET have the same math.

Ken Seto

>For some reason you
>    have created in your mind a need for preferred frames, because
>    you do not understand the concept of relativity of simultaneity.
>
>               ________________
>
>    Student understanding of time in special relativity: simultaneity
>    and reference frames
>
>    Rachel E. Scherr, Peter S. Shaffer, and Stamatis Vokos
>    Department of Physics, University of Washington, Seattle, WA
>
>    This article reports on an investigation of student understanding
>    of the concept of time in special relativity. A series of research
>    tasks are discussed that illustrate, step-by-step, how student
>    reasoning of fundamental concepts of relativity was probed. The
>    results indicate that after standard instruction students at all
>    academic levels have serious difficulties with the relativity of
>    simultaneity and with the role of observers in inertial reference
>    frames. Evidence is presented that suggests many students construct
>    a conceptual framework in which the ideas of absolute simultaneity
>    and the relativity of simultaneity harmoniously co-exist.
>
>    See:http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0207109
>
>    VII. CONCLUSION
>
>   "This investigation has identified widespread difficulties that
>    students have with the definition of the time of an event and the
>    role of intelligent observers. After instruction, more than 2/3 of
>    physics undergraduates and 1/3 of graduate students in physics are
>    unable to apply the construct of a reference frame in determining
>    whether or not two events are simultaneous. Many students interpret
>    the phrase “relativity of simultaneity” as implying that the
>    simultaneity of events is determined by an observer on the basis of
>    the reception of light signals. They often attribute the relativity
>    of simultaneity to the difference in signal travel time for different
>    observers. In this way, they reconcile statements of the relativity
>    of simultaneity with a belief in absolute simultaneity and fail to
>    confront the startling ideas of special relativity".

From: JT on 18 Jul 2010 09:03
On 18 Juli, 14:23, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote:
> On Jul 17, 11:47 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 7/17/10 9:51 AM, kenseto wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 16, 12:21 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com>  wrote:
> > >> On 7/16/10 9:34 AM, kenseto wrote:
>
> > >>> Properties of a preferred frame:
>
> > >> In theories that apply the principle of relativity to inertial motion,
> > >> physics is the same in all inertial frames, and is even the same in all
> > >> frames under the general principle of relativity.
>
> > >> In theoretical physics, a preferred or privileged frame is usually a
> > >> special hypothetical frame of reference in which the laws of physics
> > >> might appear to be identifiably different from those in other frames..
>
> > > So what are those special properties for the preferred frame??
>
> >    Essentially there are no preferred reference frames, Ken.
>
> If the preferred frame doesn't exit...then how come you and PD claimed
> that the preferred frame have different laws of physics????
>
> Ken Seto
>
>
>
> > There
> >    might be al locus of points that some frame could be along that
> >    could show two events separated in time and space that appear
> >    to be simultaneous, but there are no special properties.
>
> > >     In John W Patterson's letter to the Tribune of July 7, he
> > >     comments on the book, "The Privileged Planet", by
> > >     Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay W. Richards. John's letter was
> > >     well crafted illuminating the bigger issue of the
> > >     creationist movement, provided references and "keywords"
> > >     that allow interested people to find out more, and he
> > >     tied the story to Iowa! Very well done!
> > >     I too, have read the book. I gave my copy to an emeritus
> > >     professor of chemistry friend of mine, cautioning that he
> > >     should not read it if he didn't want to raise his blood
> > >     pressure. Some weeks later he wrote a scathing "book
> > >     report" to me by email. He was disgusted!
> > >     For example, concerning the chapter on the Copernican
> > >     Principle, he wrote, "The authors set up a straw man
> > >     imbuing the Copernican Principle with a number of
> > >     ridiculous attributes that they then disparage and in so
> > >     doing imply that they are destroying a scientific theory.
> > >     Irritating rubbish!"
> > >     The Copernican Principle is the philosophical statement
> > >     that no "special" observers should be proposed. The term
> > >     originated in the paradigm shift from the Aristotelian
> > >     model of the heavens, which placed Earth at the center
> > >     of the Solar system because it appears that everything
> > >     revolved around Earth.
> > >     The dictionary defines "principle" as
> > >      1. A basic truth, law, or assumption: the principles of
> > >         democracy.
> > >      2. a. A rule or standard, especially of good behavior: a
> > >         man of principle. b. The collectivity of moral or
> > >         ethical standards or judgments: a decision based on
> > >         principle rather than expediency.
> > >      3. A rule or law concerning the functioning of natural
> > >         phenomena or mechanical processes: the principle of
> > >         jet propulsion.
> > >      To be clear, principles in physics, are ideas having the
> > >      ring of truth. But they are not mathematical theories or
> > >      laws that can be tested empirically such as Einstein's
> > >      Theory of Relativity. However, they do offer guidance in
> > >      sniffing out the Laws of nature.
> > >      The Copernican Principle is one of the most successful
> > >      scientific hypotheses in the history of science. No
> > >      serious scientific theories are even proposed that
> > >      violate the Copernican Principle.
>
> >    No special frames!- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Dölj citerad text -
>
> - Visa citerad text -- Dölj citerad text -
>
> - Visa citerad text -

To be honest Ken i do not understand why you even use frames to
communicate with them it is their definition their hogwash they treat
it just as they like, show me where Newton ever used frames i bet he
never did he used objects observers events and relative motion.

The rest is all dreamwork upon SR you try to play dice with guys who
change the dice as the play go on. There is no such creature like
inertial frames. there is only objects with properties within space.

They think that time is what clocks measures, you know better time is
the absolute invariant rate that goes by during an event. When every
observer ***calculate/get*** the same length of passed period during
event, you do deal with time,

Otherwise you treat time in the same way the early relativists tried
to treat mass as relative bullshit, relative mass was not even a unit.
Now adays we do have a proper mass unit, unfortunatly we have bullshit
dimensional meter and time units (they are none quantifiable) no
proper reference exist.

This will of course affect the definition of measured velocity see the
hogwash definition of lightspeed as isotropic invariant c.


But i do like your attempts to define a proper time, it is the only
way to go.
Maybe i do read about IRT one day.

JT
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Prev: NYT - 7/13/10 - "Gravity Does Not Exist"
Next: 0' notation