colp
Posts:
31
Registered:
6/16/10


Re: Preferred Frame Theory indistinguishable from SR
Posted:
Jul 5, 2010 12:59 AM


On Jul 5, 11:52 am, Cosmik de Bris <cosmik.deb...@elec.canterbury.ac.nz> wrote: > On 4/07/10 11:07 , colp wrote: > > > > > On Jul 4, 2:10 am, PD<thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Jul 3, 1:04 am, colp<c...@solder.ath.cx> wrote: > > >>> On Jul 3, 2:57 am, PD<thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >>>> On Jul 1, 6:25 pm, colp<c...@solder.ath.cx> wrote: > > >>>>> On Jul 2, 2:26 am, PD<thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >>>>>> On Jul 1, 12:53 am, colp<c...@solder.ath.cx> wrote: > > >>>>>>> On Jul 1, 11:37 am, Koobee Wublee<koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >>>>>>>> On Jun 30, 4:20 pm, artful wrote: > > >>>>>>>>> On Jul 1, 8:47 am, colp wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> 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 over simplification. There is more to SR than just clocks > >>>>>>>>> running slow. > > >>>>>>>> Nonsense and mysticism.<shrug> > > >>>>>>> A postulate is just an assumption with better table manners. > > >>>>>> 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. 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) > > >>>>> This text describes Einstein's postulate that there is no preferred > >>>>> inertial frame of reference. > > >>>>> "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. The > >>>>> conclusion that time for both systems can be dilated with respect to > >>>>> the other system is paradoxical. > > >>>> No, it's not paradoxical at all. > > >>> It is paradoxical because time for both systems cannot be dilated with > >>> respect to each other. > > >> This is your assumption about what can and cannot be. > > > No, it is a logical inference derived from Einstein's description of > > time dilation and his postulate that there is not preferred frame of > > reference. > > Now you are contradicting yourself.
Wrong. In this case the inference of a paradox means that Einstein's assumption is wrong.
> You started this whole thread
I didn't start this thread, Daryl did.
> with a > reference to a paper claiming that it was possible to find an absolute > frame.
You mean the paper I quoted from the "Symmetric Twin Paradox" thread?
> This paper you touted as showing SR to be wrong.
What do you mean by 'touted'?
> and you are not > using Einstein's description of time dilation you are using a mishmash > of stuff of your own making.
Wrong. I quoted Einstein's description of time dilation from "Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies". The text is even present in the post that you replied to. If you think that my description is materially different, then quote what I said that shows that.

