PD
Posts:
2,970
Registered:
5/25/05
|
|
Re: Preferred Frame Theory indistinguishable from SR
Posted:
Jul 1, 2010 10:21 AM
|
|
On Jun 30, 5:47 pm, colp <c...@solder.ath.cx> wrote:
> On Jul 1, 4:30 am, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 30, 8:01 am, colp <c...@solder.ath.cx> wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 30, 10:26 am, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jun 29, 4:53 pm, colp <c...@solder.ath.cx> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Jun 30, 1:17 am, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Jun 29, 1:57 am, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Jun 28, 3:33 pm, colp <c...@solder.ath.cx> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > colp:
> > > > > > > > Your process of computation involves restricting calculations
> > > > > > > > which could produce a paradox to a single frame of reference,
>
> > > > > > > > Daryl:
> > > > > > > > Right. The point is that doing anything else is mathematically
> > > > > > > > and physically nonsense.
>
> > > > > > > > colp:
> > > > > > > > Yes. And that nonsense is a direct result of the premises of SR,
> > > > > > > > nothing else.
>
> > > > > > > Congratulations, colp. You have just checkmated these Einstein
> > > > > > > Dingleberries with these precise and concise summary.
>
> > > > > > :>)
> > > > > > I see you either share COLP's Oversimplified Relativity or you have
> > > > > > your own KW variant.
>
> > > > > What don't you tell us what part of Einstein's theory I have
> > > > > oversimplified?
>
> > > > I've already told you the answer to that in a different post, as
> > > > pertains to the twin puzzle.
>
> > > Can you quote it, or give a reference to it? If you can't then it
> > > looks like you are lying.
>
> > Don't be an idiot, colp,
>
> You think I'm an idiot for showing that you are unable quote anything
> that I said that supports your claim of oversimplification? Or are you
> just trying to draw attention away from your apparent attempt to
> mislead the readers?
>
> > it's right here in this thread from TWO DAYS
> > AGO. Is your attention span that short?http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/d40d129af46...
>
> I'll quote it here.
>
> <quote>
>
> > > At best, all you've done is show the
> > > fallacies or assumptions inherent in COLP's Oversimplified Relativity.
> > What specific fallacies or assumptions? Quotes, please.
>
> Sure. You've used the statement from COLP's Oversimplified Relativity
> that moving clocks run slow (which you've said is true even for blue-
> shifted clocks), and you've used the statement that COLP's
> Oversimplified Relativity makes no provision whatsoever for a
> compression of time for a clock turning around. This immediately leads
> to several paradoxes, and this is ample reason to chuck Colp's
> Oversimplified Relativity.
> </quote>
>
> The statement that "moving clocks run slow" isn't an
> oversimplification, it is directly inferred from Einstein's
> "Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies".
It IS an oversimplification. If you've inferred this from his 1905
paper, then you've oversimplified. The statement in SR is actually
quite a bit more precise.
>
> Also, Einstein's paper makes no provision whatsoever for the
> compression of time for a clock turning around.
That's correct, but the Lorentz transforms are there, and though the
*application* of those to the twin puzzle is not addressed in the 1905
paper, this does NOT mean that SR contains no provision for it. The
1905 paper is not a complete reference for SR in any way, shape, or
form, nor should you construe it to be. The twin puzzle was not even
formulated until 1911, where it was provided as a useful exercise in
fleshing out something that was not addressed in the 1905 paper.
Your statement that SR makes no provision for the compression of time
for a clock turning around is an oversimplification on your part.
>
> The paradoxes which arise from this are ample reason to chuck
> Einstein's theory.
There ARE NO paradoxes. There are puzzles, which SR provides a
complete and consistent resolution for, provided that you sweep away
some oversimplifications.
>
> It remains that you are unable to show any fallacies or assumptions of
> mine that you claimed to exist, which was the original point of
> contention.
I just told you a couple.
>
> It was this point that prompted me to repost my prior exchange with
> Daryl, which shows quite clearly the irrationality of supporting
> Einstein's theory. Here it is again:
>
> colp:
> Your process of computation involves restricting calculations
> which could produce a paradox to a single frame of reference,
>
> Daryl:
> Right. The point is that doing anything else is mathematically
> and physically nonsense.
>
> colp:
> Yes. And that nonsense is a direct result of the premises of SR,
> nothing else.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
|
|
