artful
Posts:
82
Registered:
2/8/10


Re: Preferred Frame Theory indistinguishable from SR
Posted:
Jul 1, 2010 8:18 PM


On Jul 2, 9:25 am, colp <c...@solder.ath.cx> wrote: > On Jul 2, 2:26 am, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote: [snip for brevity] > > Yes, indeed. By DEFINITION, a postulate is something that is ASSUMED. > > > In science, the test of a postulate is based on experimental check of > > the *consequences* of postulates. A direct test of the postulate is > > not required. > > One such test is the test for paradoxes arising from one or more > postulates.
Which SR passes
> For example, the following two postulates lead to a > paradox, meaning that not all the postulates are correct: > > 1. Statement 2 is true. > 2. Statement 1 is false. > > The paradox that arises from the postulates of Einstein's > "Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" can be described as follows: > > "Examples of this sort, together with the unsuccessful attempts to > discover > any motion of the earth relatively to the ?light medium,? suggest that > the > phenomena of electrodynamics as well as of mechanics possess no > properties > corresponding to the idea of absolute rest. They suggest rather that, > as has > already been shown to the first order of small quantities, the same > laws of > electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of reference > for which the > equations of mechanics hold good.1 We will raise this conjecture (the > purport > of which will hereafter be called the ?Principle of Relativity?) to > the status > of a postulate, and also introduce another postulate, which is only > apparently > irreconcilable with the former, namely, that light is always > propagated in empty > space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of > motion of the > emitting body." > > Einstien, Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies (Introduction)
No paradox there. Try again
> This text describes Einstein's postulate that there is no preferred > inertial frame of reference.
That's correct. No paradox there. Try again.
> "If at the points A and B of K there are stationary clocks which, > viewed in the stationary system, are synchronous; and if the clock at > A is moved with the velocity v along the line AB to B, then on its > arrival at B the two clocks no longer synchronize, but the clock moved > from A to B lags behind the other which has remained at B ..." > > Einstien, Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies (Section 4) > > The text describes the time dilation of a clock that moves from point > A to point B. If there is no preferred frame of reference then it is > just as true to say that > the clock is viewed as part of a stationary system and the points A > and B are in a moving system which moves at velocity v.
It there is no change of frame of reference, then yes.
If there IS a change in frame of reference (eg If the clock was at rest in some frame and then moves to another location), then its frame of reference is not inertial.
You seem to ignore this.
> The > conclusion that time for both systems can be dilated with respect to > the other system is paradoxical.
Nope.
I've shown elsewhere that relativity of synchronicity (part of SR's Lorentz transforms), means that clock sync is frame dependent.
That allows for mutual time dilation. Do I need to repost the example that shows how this can work for you again?

