Prev: NYT - 7/13/10 - "Gravity Does Not Exist"
Next: If Economics is one of the "Soft Sciences" how can it be trusted
From: kenseto on 17 Jul 2010 10:51
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??
From: Inertial on 17 Jul 2010 11:07
"kenseto" wrote in message
news:5076cb36-d7a8-4c66-9874-218e4d1122b0(a)w12g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
>
>On Jul 17, 10:16 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
>> "kenseto" wrote in message
>>
>> news:bc9793f9-d2e3-4cef-a841-ef8888bb8191(a)q22g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>> >So why don't you be specific and give us the specific properties of a
>> >preferred frame in physics????
>>
>> There is no preferred frame in SR or GR, so it makes no sense to talk
>> about
>> specific properties of something that doesn't exist.
>
>Hey idiot...PD claimed that the properties I described are not the
>properties of the preferred frame that's why I asked him for the
>specific properties of the preferred frame.

How can a frame that doesn't exist have properties?

There is no preferred frame in SR or GR, so it makes no sense to talk about
specific properties of something that doesn't exist.

>> If there WAS a preferred frame, it would have at least SOME property that
>> is
>> different and 'special' compared to every other frame which would make it
>> preferred.
>
>So what are those special properties?

There is no preferred frame in SR or GR, so it makes no sense to talk about
specific properties of something that doesn't exist.

>The preferred observer's clock is the fastest running clock in the
>universe is not a preferred clock??

All clocks run at the same rate .. other frames measure them as running
slower. There is no frame where clocks run at a fastest rate in SR

>> As there is no preferred frame, we cannot say what particular properties
>> it
>> has that is different to other frames.
>
>So assertion is your arguement?

No .. logic. Something you don't understand.

>>
>> If you want to talk about what other theories says about preferred
>> frames,
>> then please specify what theories you are referring to.

I guess you aren't really interested in preferred frames. Fair enough, as
there is no preferred frame in SR or GR, and not really any other theories
worth considering.

From: Inertial on 17 Jul 2010 11:08
"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.

From: Inertial on 17 Jul 2010 11:13
"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. 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

>> >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

> 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.

From: kenseto on 18 Jul 2010 08:21
On Jul 17, 11:07 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
> "kenseto"  wrote in message
>
> news:5076cb36-d7a8-4c66-9874-218e4d1122b0(a)w12g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Jul 17, 10:16 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
> >> "kenseto"  wrote in message
>
> >>news:bc9793f9-d2e3-4cef-a841-ef8888bb8191(a)q22g2000yqm.googlegroups.com....
>
> >> >So why don't you be specific and give us the specific properties of a
> >> >preferred frame in physics????
>
> >> There is no preferred frame in SR or GR, so it makes no sense to talk
> >> about
> >> specific properties of something that doesn't exist.
>
> >Hey idiot...PD claimed that the properties I described are not the
> >properties of the preferred frame that's why I asked him for the
> >specific properties of the preferred frame.
>
> How can a frame that doesn't exist have properties?
> There is no preferred frame in SR or GR, so it makes no sense to talk about
> specific properties of something that doesn't exist.

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

>
>
> >> If there WAS a preferred frame, it would have at least SOME property that
> >> is
> >> different and 'special' compared to every other frame which would make it
> >> preferred.
>
> >So what are those special properties?
>
> There is no preferred frame in SR or GR, so it makes no sense to talk about
> specific properties of something that doesn't exist.

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

>
> >The preferred observer's clock is the fastest running clock in the
> >universe is not a preferred clock??
>
> All clocks run at the same rate .. other frames measure them as running
> slower.  There is no frame where clocks run at a fastest rate in SR

Yes there is. From the GPS clock point of view the SR effect on the
ground clock is ~7us/day running fast.

>
> >> As there is no preferred frame, we cannot say what particular properties
> >> it
> >> has that is different to other frames.
>
> >So assertion is your arguement?
>
> No .. logic.  Something you don't understand.
>
>
>
> >> If you want to talk about what other theories says about preferred
> >> frames,
> >> then please specify what theories you are referring to.
>
> I guess you aren't really interested in preferred frames.  

Sure I am interested in the preferred frame....IRT is based on the
existence of the preferred frame. IRT includes SRT as a subset.

>Fair enough, as
> there is no preferred frame in SR or GR, and not really any other theories
> worth considering.

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



- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Prev: NYT - 7/13/10 - "Gravity Does Not Exist"
Next: If Economics is one of the "Soft Sciences" how can it be trusted