
Re: Preferred Frame Theory indistinguishable from SR
Posted:
Jun 26, 2010 12:18 AM


On Jun 25, 6:14 am, Daryl McCullough wrote:
> There is a variety of antirelativity dissident that consists of > people who accept length contraction and time dilation, but don't > accept the relativity principle. They assume something along the > lines of: > > There is a preferred frame, F, and there is an associated > coordinate system such that
The absolute frame of reference is predicted by electromagnetism known as the stationary background of the Aether. It was discovered through a Doppler shift in the CMBR. <shrug>
> 1. Light travels in straight lines at speed c, as measured in F's > coordinate system.
Actually the twoway speed of light (in a round trip) has been measured and interpreted to be c. <shrug>
> 2. An ideal clocks in motion relative to F has an elapsed time > given by dT/dt = squareroot(1(v/c)^2), where t is the time > coordinate of F's coordinate system, and v is the velocity of > the clock, as measured in F's coordinate system, and T is the > elapsed time on the clock.
You are sloppy with variables. (t, x, y, z) should be the coordinate system of the stationary background of the Aether. <shrug>
> 3. An ideal meterstick in motion, with the stick aligned in the > direction of its motion, will have a length given by > L = squareroot(1(v/c)^2).
Not all the infinite numbers of transforms that satisfy the null results of the MMX exhibit this trait. <shrug>
> I would think that anybody could see that rules 13 are consistent. > You cannot deduce a contradiction from these rules.
One should not pull these rules out of his ass. <shrug>
> Note that the > contradiction that so many antirelativists think that they have > found in SR, namely, mutual time dilation, is not present in these > rules, because these rules only mention time dilation with respect > to a specific, preferred frame. So there is no possibility of deriving > a "twin paradox" that is a logical contradiction. Right?
Yes, that is very corrupt. It should be ever so obviously so. What took you so long? <shrug>
> Well, all the weirdness of SR, including mutual time dilation and > the relativity of simultaneity *follows* logically from principles > 13!
It would so if you throw also in the following.
4. The principle of relativity hold everywhere and everywhen.
> You can prove that if 13 are true in the preferred coordinate > system, then they are *also* true as measured in any coordinate system > that is related to the preferred coordinate system through the > Lorentz transforms.
That is the problem. You are assuming the Lorentz transform is valid. The Lorentz transform is only a special case to Larmor's transform. See:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/9886f187e761954c?hl=en
And
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/c5a0a3c587fd4df4?hl=en
> There are two ways to go about seeing this. The first way is > to start with 13, perform a Lorentz transform to get a new > coordinate system, and then show that 13 still hold in this > new coordinate system.
Get real! The Lorentz transform includes 4 that is 14 but Larmor's transform only includes 13. The rest of crap snipped due to ignorance in the difference between Larmor's and the Lorentz transforms. <shrug>
This is a typical stupid, bloated, and convoluted logic of Einstein Dingleberries after drinking load of fermented diarrhea of Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar. <shrug>

