SR is an incomplete aether theory.
in [Relativity]
|
From: Michael Moroney on 20 Jul 2010 12:52 kenseto <kenseto(a)erinet.com> writes: >On Jul 20, 12:14 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) >wrote: >> kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> writes: >> >On Jul 19, 3:08 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> Assertion is not an argument. >> >No it is not an assertion. It is a definition for a preferred frame. >> >> And "a black and white flightless bird that lives in Antarctica" is a >> definition for "zebra". But if you want to have a meaningful discussion >> with a biologist about something involving African grazing wildlife, >> you'd better be using the biologist's definition of "zebra". >> >> Same with "preferred frame", if you ever expect any meaningful >> discussions with physicists here, you'd better be using their >> definition of "preferred frames". >The point is:Physicists have no definition for a preferred frame. If >you have one then give it to us. It has been given to you many, many times. Here it is again: A preferred frame is a special frame of reference in which the laws of physics are identifiably and uniquely different from the laws of physics in other frames. > Tell us how a preferred clock runs >compared to an inertial clcok. (asssuming you mean a clock in a preferred and inertial frames) That would depend on how or why the preferred frame is preferred, in other words, which laws of physics are different and why.
From: PD on 20 Jul 2010 13:27 On Jul 20, 11:23 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > On Jul 20, 12:14 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) > wrote: > > > > > > > kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> writes: > > >On Jul 19, 3:08 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >> On Jul 19, 1:55 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > >> > On Jul 19, 12:30 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> > > Those are properties you made up. These are not what physicists mean > > >> > > by "preferred frame". > > > >> > Those are the properties of the preferred frame. > > > >> Assertion is not an argument. > > >No it is not an assertion. It is a definition for a preferred frame. > > > And "a black and white flightless bird that lives in Antarctica" is a > > definition for "zebra". But if you want to have a meaningful discussion > > with a biologist about something involving African grazing wildlife, > > you'd better be using the biologist's definition of "zebra". > > > Same with "preferred frame", if you ever expect any meaningful > > discussions with physicists here, you'd better be using their > > definition of "preferred frames". > > The point is:Physicists have no definition for a preferred frame. Yes, physicists do. I gave it to you. > If > you have one then give it to us. Tell us how a preferred clock runs > compared to an inertial clcok. A definition does not entail "what happens in this case? what happens in that case?" You don't define a mammal by how many legs it has. How many legs does a mammal have? You don't define a cube by what happens when you pour water into it. Define a cube by explaining how water behaves when you pour it into one. I prefer chocolate ice cream. This doesn't mean the preferred frame is the one with chocolate ice cream in it, just because chocolate ice cream is preferred. Idiot. > > Ken Seto > > > > > > > If you want to give the thing you've been calling a "preferred frame" > > a different, unused name, perhaps "Ken Seto's Special Frame", go > > right ahead.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: kenseto on 21 Jul 2010 14:49 On Jul 20, 1:27 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 20, 11:23 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 20, 12:14 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) > > wrote: > > > > kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> writes: > > > >On Jul 19, 3:08 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> On Jul 19, 1:55 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > >> > On Jul 19, 12:30 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > >> > > Those are properties you made up. These are not what physicists mean > > > >> > > by "preferred frame". > > > > >> > Those are the properties of the preferred frame. > > > > >> Assertion is not an argument. > > > >No it is not an assertion. It is a definition for a preferred frame. > > > > And "a black and white flightless bird that lives in Antarctica" is a > > > definition for "zebra". But if you want to have a meaningful discussion > > > with a biologist about something involving African grazing wildlife, > > > you'd better be using the biologist's definition of "zebra". > > > > Same with "preferred frame", if you ever expect any meaningful > > > discussions with physicists here, you'd better be using their > > > definition of "preferred frames". > > > The point is:Physicists have no definition for a preferred frame. > > Yes, physicists do. I gave it to you. > > > If > > you have one then give it to us. Tell us how a preferred clock runs > > compared to an inertial clcok. > > A definition does not entail "what happens in this case? what happens > in that case?" Sure it does.....if a clock is the fastest running clock in the universe then it is a preferred clock. A clock at rest in the stationary aether would fit this definition. An SR observer assumes this special property of the preferred frame and that's why he claims that all the clocks moving wrt him are running slow. Unfortunately this is the reason why SR is incomplete....Why? Because this special property of the preferred frame is valid only if the observed clcok is in a higher state of absolute motion than the SR observer. > You don't define a mammal by how many legs it has. How many legs does > a mammal have? > You don't define a cube by what happens when you pour water into it. > Define a cube by explaining how water behaves when you pour it into > one. > > I prefer chocolate ice cream. This doesn't mean the preferred frame is > the one with chocolate ice cream in it, just because chocolate ice > cream is preferred. > > Idiot. > > > > > > > Ken Seto > > > > If you want to give the thing you've been calling a "preferred frame" > > > a different, unused name, perhaps "Ken Seto's Special Frame", go > > > right ahead.- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: PD on 21 Jul 2010 15:21 On Jul 21, 1:49 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > On Jul 20, 1:27 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 20, 11:23 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > On Jul 20, 12:14 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) > > > wrote: > > > > > kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> writes: > > > > >On Jul 19, 3:08 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > >> On Jul 19, 1:55 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > >> > On Jul 19, 12:30 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > >> > > Those are properties you made up. These are not what physicists mean > > > > >> > > by "preferred frame". > > > > > >> > Those are the properties of the preferred frame. > > > > > >> Assertion is not an argument. > > > > >No it is not an assertion. It is a definition for a preferred frame. > > > > > And "a black and white flightless bird that lives in Antarctica" is a > > > > definition for "zebra". But if you want to have a meaningful discussion > > > > with a biologist about something involving African grazing wildlife, > > > > you'd better be using the biologist's definition of "zebra". > > > > > Same with "preferred frame", if you ever expect any meaningful > > > > discussions with physicists here, you'd better be using their > > > > definition of "preferred frames". > > > > The point is:Physicists have no definition for a preferred frame. > > > Yes, physicists do. I gave it to you. > > > > If > > > you have one then give it to us. Tell us how a preferred clock runs > > > compared to an inertial clcok. > > > A definition does not entail "what happens in this case? what happens > > in that case?" > > Sure it does.....if a clock is the fastest running clock in the > universe then it is a preferred clock. According to YOU. Not according to physicists, because this is true for EVERY clock, and hence cannot be preferred. If a frame contains chocolate ice cream, then that is a preferred. But that doesn't make frames containing chocolate ice cream are preferred frames. Again, it does not matter what YOU think "preferred" means. You need to ask a physicist what he means by "preferred frame." Come to think of it, you've asked that, and you've been given the answer. Now you need to start using the term that way. > A clock at rest in the > stationary aether would fit this definition. An SR observer assumes > this special property of the preferred frame and that's why he claims > that all the clocks moving wrt him are running slow. Unfortunately > this is the reason why SR is incomplete....Why? Because this special > property of the preferred frame is valid only if the observed clcok is > in a higher state of absolute motion than the SR observer. > > > > > You don't define a mammal by how many legs it has. How many legs does > > a mammal have? Answer this. > > You don't define a cube by what happens when you pour water into it. > > Define a cube by explaining how water behaves when you pour it into > > one. Answer this. > > > I prefer chocolate ice cream. This doesn't mean the preferred frame is > > the one with chocolate ice cream in it, just because chocolate ice > > cream is preferred. > > > Idiot. > > > > Ken Seto > > > > > If you want to give the thing you've been calling a "preferred frame" > > > > a different, unused name, perhaps "Ken Seto's Special Frame", go > > > > right ahead.- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: Inertial on 21 Jul 2010 20:09
"colp" wrote in message news:6f597c9f-81fd-461b-8072-5d08400120ea(a)i19g2000pro.googlegroups.com... >I'm not speaking for Ken, but it is reasonable to think that there are >no logical discontinuities in natural laws. If you have a theory that >is incompatible with other natural laws, then your theory probably >contains a fallacy. There is no such incompatibility between SR and so-called 'natural laws'. Relativity predictions are verified by experiment .. nature seems to work that way .. as much as you dislike it, and fail to understand it, and would like to enforce your will on the universe so that you don't look so foolish. |