SR is an incomplete aether theory.
in [Relativity]
|
From: kenseto on 22 Jul 2010 09:06 On Jul 21, 3:21 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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. No it is not true for an GPS observer....from the GPS point of view the SR effect on the ground clock is ~7us/day running FAST. > > 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 -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: PD on 22 Jul 2010 10:44 On Jul 22, 8:06 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > On Jul 21, 3:21 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > 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. > > No it is not true for an GPS observer. Sorry. It is true for EVERY clock IN INERTIAL MOTION, and hence cannot be preferred. This statement doesn't apply to GPS, because the GPS is so far out of inertial motion, it can't be approximated as one. >...from the GPS point of view > the SR effect on the ground clock is ~7us/day running FAST. > > > > > > > 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 -- 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: colp on 22 Jul 2010 16:41 On Jul 23, 2:44 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 22, 8:06 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jul 21, 3:21 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > 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. > > > No it is not true for an GPS observer. > > Sorry. It is true for EVERY clock IN INERTIAL MOTION, and hence cannot > be preferred. > > This statement doesn't apply to GPS, because the GPS is so far out of > inertial motion, it can't be approximated as one. Wrong. Hafale used the SR formula for time dilation in the Hafele- Keating experiment, and the planes in the experiment were in the Earth's atmosphere, unlike the satellites.
From: PD on 22 Jul 2010 16:55 On Jul 22, 3:41 pm, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > On Jul 23, 2:44 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 22, 8:06 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > On Jul 21, 3:21 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > 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. > > > > No it is not true for an GPS observer. > > > Sorry. It is true for EVERY clock IN INERTIAL MOTION, and hence cannot > > be preferred. > > > This statement doesn't apply to GPS, because the GPS is so far out of > > inertial motion, it can't be approximated as one. > > Wrong. Hafale used the SR formula for time dilation in the Hafele- > Keating experiment, and the planes in the experiment were in the > Earth's atmosphere, unlike the satellites. Let's get some things straight. 1. SR makes certain statements that are true under certain circumstances and other statements that are true in other circumstances. 2. It is a mistake to think that if SR makes certain statements about two *inertial* reference frames, that the same statement will apply when there one of the frames is not inertial. 3. Likewise, it is also a mistake to think that if SR makes certain statements that apply to two *inertial* reference frames, then it ONLY makes statements about cases where there are only inertial reference frames. It just won't be the same statements. 4. Any attempt to misapply a statement that SR makes but outside the circumstances intended, is purely pilot error and evidence of user incompetence. 5. Just because you see an equation in it with (1-v^2/c^2), doesn't mean that it an SR treatment. Recall that SR is a *special case* of GR, and that SR is therefore embedded in GR, so that when you are using a GR treatment, you will see some things that are reminiscent of SR, even though you are outside the special case where SR applies. 6. The presence of the atmosphere has absolutely nothing to do with time dilation. Time dilation is also observed routinely in labs on the Earth's surface, as well as IN the material of the earth!
From: colp on 22 Jul 2010 17:22
On Jul 23, 8:55 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 22, 3:41 pm, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > > > > > On Jul 23, 2:44 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jul 22, 8:06 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jul 21, 3:21 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > 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. > > > > > No it is not true for an GPS observer. > > > > Sorry. It is true for EVERY clock IN INERTIAL MOTION, and hence cannot > > > be preferred. > > > > This statement doesn't apply to GPS, because the GPS is so far out of > > > inertial motion, it can't be approximated as one. > > > Wrong. Hafale used the SR formula for time dilation in the Hafele- > > Keating experiment, and the planes in the experiment were in the > > Earth's atmosphere, unlike the satellites. > > Let's get some things straight. > 1. SR makes certain statements that are true under certain > circumstances and other statements that are true in other > circumstances. > 2. It is a mistake to think that if SR makes certain statements about > two *inertial* reference frames, that the same statement will apply > when there one of the frames is not inertial. O.K. I think the issue is what corrections or adjustments a necessary for a real case than involves a gravitational field so that it treated as if it is conformant with the requirements of SR. For example, the original twin paradox involved the earth, but there were no adjustments made for the Earth's gravitational field. > 3. Likewise, it is also a mistake to think that if SR makes certain > statements that apply to two *inertial* reference frames, then it ONLY > makes statements about cases where there are only inertial reference > frames. It just won't be the same statements. I don't understand what point you are try to make here. > 4. Any attempt to misapply a statement that SR makes but outside the > circumstances intended, is purely pilot error and evidence of user > incompetence. The circumstances intended are derived from Einstein's papers, not from the practical application of the theory of relativity. > 5. Just because you see an equation in it with (1-v^2/c^2), doesn't > mean that it an SR treatment. If a treatment has all the essential qualities of a SR treatment, then it is effectively a SR treatment. > Recall that SR is a *special case* of > GR, and that SR is therefore embedded in GR, so that when you are > using a GR treatment, you will see some things that are reminiscent of > SR, even though you are outside the special case where SR applies. So at what point can you no longer correct for GR effects, and treat a system as being conformant to the requirements of SR? > 6. The presence of the atmosphere has absolutely nothing to do with > time dilation. Time dilation is also observed routinely in labs on the > Earth's surface, as well as IN the material of the earth! My point was that Hafele's treatment of time dilation for a plane can also be applied to a GPS satellite, as a plane is closer to the Earth than a satellite. |