/home/bill/Projects/NPA - physics/140301 NPA Glenn Albert Baxter - Identifying Scientific Assumptions.txt www.k1man.com www.k1man.com/c29.pdf -> neo-classical physics At the core of any scientific theory or scientist is his or her assumptions. To write down your own major scientific assumptions is a very interesting exercise. Our Physics Monday Morning Conference Call discussion group has done just that, and some of the results are discussed and/or compared here. Baxter's verbal comment : Ivor Catt's work fits with Bill Hohenberger (Catt has been doing this for along time). Al McDow - proposed "neo-classical physics", need to write down assumptions. Nick Percival did a lot of work on mainstream assumptions. Harry Richer did a list - Baxter doesn't agree that it was conventional, more Richter's assumptions. Earth centrists : Dr Sangenous Dr Bennett SR supporters - didn't actually debate Dr. Meden Brian Green of ColumbiaU - -> giving online SR course ************* Kawasega - SR just needs tweaking ***************************** Howell's comments : ...none.... (?) **************************** Others comments that caught my eye Franklin Hu to Everyone: I have the Feynmann quote in my video http://youtu.be/sF8xrPAa5bg Phil Bouchard2 to Everyone: I agree with Dr Baxter and all explanations can be found here: www.finitetheory.com ?who? - GPS sysems use GR, not SR. Confusion is caused by computer code that "allocates" between SR&GR (GR says 10, SR 3, so they express SR,GR = 3,7) ?Roger Anderton? - GR,SR has a lot of deetail, often misinterpreted (agrees with Nick Percival's comments below) Wang expt to replicate Sagnac in linear rather than rotational excuse of "non inertial frame" etc is often misapplied Nick Percival - GPS must use ECI frame - otherwise accuracy is lost clock slow down - all data GPS, accelerator say independent that independent of inertial or non-inertial, i.e must oscillate between theories **************************** Full chat stream baunes to Everyone: LOL Bruce Macfee to Everyone: irksome could mean that I don't personally understand it! Greg Volk to Everyone: The truth is out. Bruce Macfee to Everyone: A PhD in Relativity from Where? baunes to Everyone: STR is correct. All the claims thats its 'wrong' were all flawed in a major way. Jerry Hynecek to Everyone: Thanks Baunes it is encouraging to find a sain person among this lunes Phil Bouchard2 to Everyone: I agree with Dr Baxter and all explanations can be found here: www.finitetheory.com baunes to Everyone: jerry. Most here are dingbats, but not all. Phil Bouchard2 to Everyone: I need to talk to Dr. Baxter Bruce Macfee to Everyone: In what physical or mathematical area is SRT wrong? Jerry Hynecek to Everyone: Bauness, perhaps so. Franklin Hu to Everyone: I would think Twin Paradox shows relativity must be wrong. Bruce Macfee to Everyone: Based on what? Franklin Hu to Everyone: Mathematically, both twins cannot be older that eachother. Jerry Hynecek to Everyone: Franklin, the parblem is that you change the coordinate reference. Stay only in one. Bruce Macfee to Everyone: in SRT twins age differently because as high speeds time, distance, and mass changes. baunes to Everyone: Hu. STR doesnt say that both twins are older than the other. Franklin Hu to Everyone: The contradiction is that both tiwns must end up older than each other with is a logical impossibility baunes to Everyone: Hu. Do the math *correctly*. Only one twin is older. Bruce Macfee to Everyone: Einstein and others have proved that physics in general is illogical! Franklin Hu to Everyone: Relativity asserts that all reference frames are valid, this is where the paradox arises. If the math worked out, it wouldn't be a paradox H Ricker to Everyone: Baunes you are still confused. Please wake up. Joe Bova to Everyone: Empirical evidence is the only thing that illistrates reality. Theorizing, does not make truth, only speculation. If experimental result do not invalidate a theory, it does not mean the theory is correct. baunes to Everyone: Hu. Its not a paradox as in a "contradiction". Its a paradox as in its unintuitive. Jerry Hynecek to Everyone: Hu, but you cannot switch from one to the other in the middel of the experiment. Bruce Macfee to Everyone: If you are basing your ideas of SRT being wrong based on personal logic is not strong enough for opposition. You could say that there is not Moon. Yet we see it every 30 days. baunes to Everyone: Joe exactly. SRT models well the experiments. H Ricker to Everyone: Baunes you dont know what you are talking about. baunes to Everyone: ricker, I guess thats why I am one of the op mathematicians and relativist in the world. baunes to Everyone: Top Franklin Hu to Everyone: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox Bruce Macfee to Everyone: Can anyone here prove SRT incorrect mathematically? Other than just their personal logic? H Ricker to Everyone: No you are not. You are just misinformed. Phil Bouchard2 to Everyone: Both postulates of SR are wrong baunes to Everyone: rocker I could say the s ame of you: you dont know what you are talking about. baunes to Everyone: Hu but a traveling twin that doesnt turn around cant come back to earth! Bruce Macfee to Everyone: That is silly, and a misunderstanding of SRT. Where is that stated by Einstein. I would love to see the quote? Franklin Hu to Everyone: So what? The question is who gets older than who? baunes to Everyone: Hu, no thats not the question. Bruce Macfee to Everyone: The traveling twin: Forget the turning around. Let's just deal with the high speed of motion of the traveling twin! baunes to Everyone: Hu the question is if *one* twin turns around, who gets older. baunes to Everyone: Lets take this up later in a google vid. baunes to Everyone: lets comment this presentation baunes to Everyone: Btw, SRT is NOT used in GPS systems Franklin Hu to Everyone: Yes, that is the question that both twins must be older than the other one due to symetttry enforced by relativity. The paradox does not need the oher twin to turn around, the paradox still occurs even if he doesn't return. baunes to Everyone: Hu. no symmetry in the setup of the TP. Bruce Macfee to Everyone: I would love to hear an argument where SRT is wrong. That is why I am here. I have heard no clear argument, other that it is not logical. H Ricker to Everyone: Baunes that is a waste of time. You are closed minded know it all and you dont konw what you think you know. Franklin Hu to Everyone: Well lets consider a new non-turnaround twin paradox then, still a big problem for relativity. baunes to Everyone: Hu. No its not a problem. It has already been addressed in the litrature. same conclusions. Joe Bova to Everyone: Actually SR, GR, corrolis, and other stuff are used to calculate for GPS, but the answer is still wrong Franklin Hu to Everyone: I bet you can't find any literature to support your assertion., Bruce Macfee to Everyone: Hu: So now you are changing SRT, because you can't prove where it is wrong! This is NUTS! Franklin Hu to Everyone: This is another tired and invalid argument of - go do your homework baunes to Everyone: lets do the math in a google vid later. Franklin Hu to Everyone: Nope, do it now. There isn't anything compleciated about this. baunes to Everyone: STR is not used in GPS systems. baunes to Everyone: Hu. it would be impolite. We are here for this talk, not ours. Franklin Hu to Everyone: Relativiity is wrong because it mathematically prdicts that two clocks moving relativei to each other will both be older than each other. A logical impossibility. baunes to Everyone: Hu. No str math doesnt say/conclude that. It concludes that only one twin is old in t he end. Franklin Hu to Everyone: We debating relativity which is on topic. Bruce Macfee to Everyone: Hu: SRT predicts that a moving clock changes and stationary clock ticks normally! Len Danczyk to Everyone: Hello - last week's presentation explains GPS time discrepancy Bruce Macfee to Everyone: Hu: Stick to Einstein's SRT. I am not sure what you are arguing? John Wsol to Everyone: The clocks slow down because the universe is expanding -- yes, even effects the satellites orbiting the earth. (And much more...) Franklin Hu to Everyone: But the concept of "stationary" is what is wrong. According to relativity, there is no basis for saying which clock is staionary. Bruce Macfee to Everyone: What does your current watch or clock read? This is stationary time. Now get into your high speed DeLorean and you will see clocks tick differently than the stationary clock! Michael Anteski to Everyone: Time isaster near Earth because it's more magnetically energized. Slowing time rate reflects hiher etheric level which increases resonance with a different macrocosm, etheric outer space. Franklin Hu to Everyone: They do, but this infers the existence of a preferred reference frame where the laws of physics are measured to be different. Bruce Macfee to Everyone: Hu: according to SRT there is no Preferred Frame. Don't you know SRT? Franklin Hu to Everyone: Yup, SRT makes that assertion, your example contradicts that, so SRT is wrong. Bruce Macfee to Everyone: Hu: what example is wrong? This is funny, it is called Diversion! Franklin Hu to Everyone: The example of the delorean Bruce Macfee to Everyone: Hu: You mean that high speed causes time, distance and mass to change, this is SRT! Bruce Macfee to Everyone: The exmple of the DeLorean is that it takes traveling at speed close to the speed of light in order for time, distance, and mass to chagne. baunes to Everyone: its the classical Lorentzian explanation of clocks in a gravitational field. Franklin Hu to Everyone: SRT does say that clocks change etc, but the other part says there is no preferred reference frame. But without preferring one reference frame, you get the paradox that the clock which is stationary should also read older than the one in the delorian. That is the paradox Franklin Hu to Everyone: The so called stationary clock could be said to be moving instead of the delorean. Nick Percival to Everyone: Regarding Dr. Lucas' comments: If one is trying to determine the constancy of the speed of light or lack thereof, then introducing clocks does add an extra element and an extra potential source of error. However, GPS is all about clock rates (proper time accumulation) and in that domain, GPS is extremely precise. baunes to Everyone: Hu, we are discussing gps now. Franklin Hu to Everyone: Still on topic since GPS assumes a preferred reference frame centered on the sun, which is also in contradition to relativity. baunes to Everyone: hu, doesnt contradic srt Bruce Macfee to Everyone: Jerry: This is true, time is the same everywhere on the Earth's surface. baunes to Everyone: srt says that you can take *any* inertial frame. Franklin Hu to Everyone: To be clear, the part of relativity that is "wrong" is the part that says that all intertial frames are equivalent and that there is not preferred frame. baunes to Everyone: Hu, srt doesnt say that there is no prefered frame. Bruce Macfee to Everyone: I am not sure how you would prove a preferred frame? Franklin Hu to Everyone: Really, that is the first postulate - or least it is interpreted that way. baunes to Everyone: srt says that you can take any iniertial frame. You are free to take one a s prffered. Bruce Macfee to Everyone: Time ticks differently on the surface of the Earth, than it does at the Mars surface. Franklin Hu to Everyone: Where does it say that - care to provide a reference? baunes to Everyone: hu, unfortunately, mny interpret it that way. Even Eninstein tried to correct people in that "remmber that we have not proven that thre is no prefered frame, we have merrely shown that we dont need it" Franklin Hu to Everyone: When Einstein was reviewing the work of Dayton Miller who did a better version of MMX said that everthing he developed would be wrong if Dayton Milleers experiment establishing an aehter frame is correct. baunes to Everyone: Greg is correct on that. Bruce Macfee to Everyone: Volk: What is your body, is it not an inertial system. What is your body relative to the Earth's Surface? H Ricker to Everyone: Conclusion from this special relativity is a theory about things that dont exist. So it is just a pointless waste of time to say that SR is correct. baunes to Everyone: Bruce, no our bodies, here on earth, are not inertial frames. Bruce Macfee to Everyone: Baunes: You are not correct. Any mass body is an inertial frame! baunes to Everyone: An inertial frame is one that can be considered as such (below the desired accuracies). Bruce Macfee to Everyone: Hence inertial system! baunes to Everyone: Bruce no. Franklin Hu to Everyone: SR is correct in that we can use it make predictions which are correct, but saying there is no preferred frame is wrong since any practical calculation requires a preferred frame. Lou LaFollette to Everyone: Bruce - Greg's body and that of all of us is a system far from equilibrium. We cannot be inertial. baunes to Everyone: The defintion of an i-frame is one that no non-inertial effects are *detected* to within *desired* accurcies. John Wsol to Everyone: Answer: Yes, there is a prefered frame. (This idea relates to Mach's Principle) Bruce Macfee to Everyone: all mass bodies are inertial frames, this is classical physics according to Newton! Lou LaFollette to Everyone: Bruce - Is an inertial frame a frame unaffected by other forces? Bruce Macfee to Everyone: Baunes: mass at rest or moving uniformily without acceleration is an inertial frame. A non-inertial frame is a mass body that is accelerating (non-inertial) Franklin Hu to Everyone: Baunes, did you have any explanation of the non-travelling twin paradox? Still a paradox to me and ultimately disproves the first postualte of relativity which is there are not preferred frames. Franklin Hu to Everyone: If you say there is a preferred frame or that you can pick one, this violates the first postulate. baunes to Everyone: Hu Yes I have the math. Which version exactly you are refering to? H Ricker to Everyone: Baunes, inertial frames are idealized fictions. They are physically non existent. So this argument is about a theory of physical objects that don't exist in the real physical world. Franklin Hu to Everyone: I am referrring to my new version where the twins never return back to earth. Bruce Macfee to Everyone: Ricker: That is silly! baunes to Everyone: Hu, no it doesnt violate it. You are mixing up the various concepts of the word 'prefered". H Ricker to Everyone: No what you say is silly. Franklin Hu to Everyone: How am I mixing up the concepts? Bruce Macfee to Everyone: You have said nothing but, "You are wrong" that is silly! baunes to Everyone: Hu, such versions have alrdy ben adressed in the literature for ~ 100 yrs. Yours is probably a rehash of them. But I am willing to look at it. baunes to Everyone: Hu. "prefered" has many different interpretations. Franklin Hu to Everyone: I bet you won't find it - another invalid argument of "Other people said its true" although you are just parotting that. Franklin Hu to Everyone: Look it up yourself. Jim Marsen to Everyone: it's the 2nd postulate that is wrong baunes to Everyone: I cant parot that since I nevr heard them say it. Jim Marsen to Everyone: but requires entrained ether baunes to Everyone: hu: where is your verion? H Ricker to Everyone: We just had Jerry assert that Sr doesnt apply to the earth, so therefore there is no experiment that can confirm that SR is valid. So it is simply a theory about things that can not be empirically demonstrated as valid, and so it is simply not science. Franklin Hu to Everyone: Sure, you can interpret preferred as you wish, but relativity clearly states there is not such thing. baunes to Everyone: hu: sr says that such an inertial frame can not be distinguished by local experiments. Thats what prefered means in sr. Bruce Macfee to Everyone: I would love to see an experiment where the Speed of Light in a vacuum is anything other than (c~3x10^8 m/s). Jerry Hynecek to Everyone: Harry, the SRT experiments can be made at the poles not where the centrifugal force is Franklin Hu to Everyone: So here is the crux of the problem. People think the first postulate says there is no preferred frame. However, I don't think it actually says that. It only says what you said which is that the frame is in which experiments don't differ. Jim Marsen to Everyone: if ether is entrained with earth, need to repeat mmx in interplanetary space Michael Anteski to Everyone: Ether is entrained by being fist causal from elemental space and operates vibrationally. Quantization causes spin, vectors, and false theories of grav, time, etc. Bruce Macfee to Everyone: Finally someone said something correct. SRT applies Inertial frames only. And non-inertial frames is described by a different theory. H Ricker to Everyone: Franklin , you need to stop saying that. It is wrong. Lou LaFollette to Everyone: If SR only applies to inertial frames and inertial frames do not exist where are we? Franklin Hu to Everyone: I would continue to say that the concept that relativity says that there are no preferred frames is "wrong". H Ricker to Everyone: Lou, It is a theory that can not be applied to any physical problem. Bruce Macfee to Everyone: Whoever said that inertial frames don't exist is incorrect WRONG! Jim Marsen to Everyone: and GPS requires Sagnac correction to work H Ricker to Everyone: Baunes H Ricker to Everyone: Baunes you said SR is correct now you say there is no SR theory at all. Bruce Macfee to Everyone: Baunes is boring Glen to sleep! Bruce Macfee to Everyone: Wake up Glen, you have to finish your talk :) baunes to Everyone: ricker, sr is correct in i-frames. Franklin Hu to Everyone: I think the correct solution to the twin paradox is to say that this situation has nothing to do with the postulates of relativity since it doesn't assert that all inertial frames are the same and doesn't directly apply to comparing the experimental results between different inertial frames. Bruce Macfee to Everyone: All inertial frame are different and independent, this is Galilean Relativity. It is Einstein the add the constancy of the speed of light to inertial frames. baunes to Everyone: hu, where is your version? link? Bruce Macfee to Everyone: Each twin is an inertial frame. Richard Jesch to Everyone: Without new experiments oh ones own one could benefit from getting hold of data from others experiments. Can't we do that? Glenn Baxter to Everyone: I am awake. Don't worry! Bruce Macfee to Everyone: Belief is what Religion is! Physics is an exacting science! Bruce Macfee to Everyone: Einstein, might also have called you an idiot, is what my research shows! Bruce Macfee to Everyone: STR is applied to GPS because of the high orbital velocity of the Satellite relative to the earth. However, STR effects are miniscule, and therefore some conclude that SRT is not needed in GPS. baunes to Everyone: Bruce, No. GR already incorporates the velocity aspect. It is thsi that we often miscall it SR. Bruce Macfee to Everyone: This is because of the high orbital velocity of the satellite that SRT is applied to GPS. But the mathematics show very small effects. Bruce Macfee to Everyone: I agree that GR also takes into account this orbital velocity, and is another reason why SRT is not really needed in GPS. So Baunes you are correct! baunes to Everyone: Bruce we apply GR to the speed. GR predits teh same velocoty formula as SR. We donr reapply Sr to GR! baunes to Everyone: Yes, I am lways correct when one thinks of it! Bruce Macfee to Everyone: Baunes: I have done the mathematics, and the SRT effects are there. It is the tangential velocity of the satellite that applies to SRT. Frankiln Hu to Everyone: The inertial frame argument iis bogus, it is inertial enough for practical purposes. Bruce Macfee to Everyone: inertial enough is not physics it is philisophy Frankiln Hu to Everyone: The SRT effects happen and are real. Where people get twisted around their axel are results of ignoring a preferred frame. baunes to Everyone: Bruce, but Gr already takes this into account. GR predicts a sped dependency tha hppens to be the same as SR's formula. Jim Marsen to Everyone: and Sagnac correction is required for GPS to work baunes to Everyone: Hu, thas what "inertial" means: inertial for practical purposes. But where it is no longer practical, its no longer inertial! Frankiln Hu to Everyone: Baunes, does SRT really say there are no preferred frames or not? Bruce Macfee to Everyone: There is no such thing as a preferred frame. If there is how do we measure it? baunes to Everyone: Hu, no SR doesnt say that there are no PF's. Sr says that we cant detect any via local inertial exp's. Bruce Macfee to Everyone: God does not prefer you over me, and no frame of reference is preferred! Frankiln Hu to Everyone: Baunes, I would agree with that, in which case when people say that SRT is :"wrong", it is their wrong assumption that there are no preferred frames that is wrong. Bruce Macfee to Everyone: irksome means that you don'ty understand the theory! Frankiln Hu to Everyone: FYI, one experimentally verifed preferred frame is the CMBR background radiation. That forms a preferred frame in which we can measure an absolute velocity for the Earth and everything else inthe universe. Bruce Macfee to Everyone: CMBR is preferred over what? Frankiln Hu to Everyone: Itis preferred in that you can put up a satellite anywhere in the universe and measure the patterns of the CMBR and measure your velocity to it. That it works anywhere in the universe makes it "preferred". Bruce Macfee to Everyone: It makes it a measuement relative to a CMBR frame, and nothing else! Frankiln Hu to Everyone: Yup, that is what makes it "preferred" baunes to Everyone: Hu Youa re using a differnet meaning to "preffred" as I said. the CMBR is not LOCAL. Its an exterior oberveation! Bruce Macfee to Everyone: I can make measurements relative to the electric field, the magnetic field, the gravitational field, the CMBR field; which one is preferred? Frankiln Hu to Everyone: Yes, it is an external observation that can be taken from any intertial frame and it would come up with the same thing. baunes to Everyone: hu, NO Frankiln Hu to Everyone: The CMBR is the only thing we can experimentally measure which fixes a particular reference frame. Bruce Macfee to Everyone: I did not say that they were all inertial frames. if the earth is accelerating relative to the CMBR then this is a non-inertial frame! baunes to Everyone: the source of the cmbr is not contained in an i-frame ( the universe is not inertial). And the source is OUTSIDE our local i-frame. Nick Percival to Everyone: Preferred Frame: GPS data says that, in the vicinity of earth, the ECI frame is the frame where, other things being equal (e.g., grav. pot.), is the frame where clocks accumulate proper time the fastest. There probaly are other frame where othe rphysics properties a re at a maximum or minimum. baunes to Everyone: Local means that th whole exp, the sources and detectors are INSIE the iframe. Bruce Macfee to Everyone: ECI is one frame. What about the Mars (MCI)? Frankiln Hu to Everyone: Yes, the problem is that people are trying to "compare" the results of differnt intertial frames and relativty does not apply. Bruce Macfee to Everyone: The physics works when you know when and where to apply the physics and mathematics. baunes to Everyone: Hu, you can compare any results from any iframe is the exp is FULLY within the iframes. baunes to Everyone: hu, where is your version of t he TP? link? Bruce Macfee to Everyone: It is the doppler effects in which STR is mathematically framed. Jim Marsen to Everyone: and SR is wrong about Bradley Abberation Bruce Macfee to Everyone: It is because of Doppler that we even accept SRT. Jim Marsen to Everyone: as proven by tightly orbiting binary stars Frankiln Hu to Everyone: If you are allowing mutliple "iframes", then you are allowing the twin paradox. Does SRT say there are no preferred frame or doesn't it? baunes to Everyone: bruce yes, the doppler exp's (Ives-Stillwell) were the exp's that vindicated SR baunes to Everyone: Hu, no SRT doesnt say that there are no PF's. baunes to Everyone: Hu, some *people* say tht SRT doesnt permit PF's. Frankiln Hu to Everyone: If SRT allows preferred frames, then the twin paradox goes away and everytthing is fine. Frankiln Hu to Everyone: Yes, this is my point that the people who say SRT is wrong are assuming SRT doesn't permit PF's. Frankiln Hu to Everyone: The way to address SRT wrong arguments is to point out that preferred frames are allowed. Paulina to Everyone: Thank you! baunes to Everyone: inertial PF's are perfectly compatible with SR. SR just says tha you cant detect such frames 9via local exps) baunes to Everyone: Hu but a traveling twin that doesnt turn around cant come back to earth! Bruce Macfee to Everyone: That is silly, and a misunderstanding of SRT. Where is that stated by Einstein. I would love to see the quote? Franklin Hu to Everyone: So what? The question is who gets older than who? baunes to Everyone: Hu, no thats not the question. Bruce Macfee to Everyone: The traveling twin: Forget the turning around. Let's just deal with the high speed of motion of the traveling twin! baunes to Everyone: Hu the question is if *one* twin turns around, who gets older. baunes to Everyone: Lets take this up later in a google vid. baunes to Everyone: lets comment this presentation baunes to Everyone: Btw, SRT is NOT used in GPS systems Franklin Hu to Everyone: Yes, that is the question that both twins must be older than the other one due to symetttry enforced by relativity. The paradox does not need the oher twin to turn around, the paradox still occurs even if he doesn't return. baunes to Everyone: Hu. no symmetry in the setup of the TP. Bruce Macfee to Everyone: I would love to hear an argument where SRT is wrong. That is why I am here. I have heard no clear argument, other that it is not logical. H Ricker to Everyone: Baunes that is a waste of time. You are closed minded know it all and you dont konw what you think you know. Franklin Hu to Everyone: Well lets consider a new non-turnaround twin paradox then, still a big problem for relativity. baunes to Everyone: Hu. No its not a problem. It has already been addressed in the litrature. same conclusions. Joe Bova to Everyone: Actually SR, GR, corrolis, and other stuff are used to calculate for GPS, but the answer is still wrong Franklin Hu to Everyone: I bet you can't find any literature to support your assertion., Bruce Macfee to Everyone: Hu: So now you are changing SRT, because you can't prove where it is wrong! This is NUTS! Franklin Hu to Everyone: This is another tired and invalid argument of - go do your homework baunes to Everyone: lets do the math in a google vid later. Franklin Hu to Everyone: Nope, do it now. There isn't anything compleciated about this. baunes to Everyone: STR is not used in GPS systems. baunes to Everyone: Hu. it would be impolite. We are here for this talk, not ours. Franklin Hu to Everyone: Relativiity is wrong because it mathematically prdicts that two clocks moving relativei to each other will both be older than each other. A logical impossibility. baunes to Everyone: Hu. No str math doesnt say/conclude that. It concludes that only one twin is old in t he end. Franklin Hu to Everyone: We debating relativity which is on topic. Bruce Macfee to Everyone: Hu: SRT predicts that a moving clock changes and stationary clock ticks normally! Len Danczyk to Everyone: Hello - last week's presentation explains GPS time discrepancy Bruce Macfee to Everyone: Hu: Stick to Einstein's SRT. I am not sure what you are arguing? John Wsol to Everyone: The clocks slow down because the universe is expanding -- yes, even effects the satellites orbiting the earth. (And much more...) Franklin Hu to Everyone: But the concept of "stationary" is what is wrong. According to relativity, there is no basis for saying which clock is staionary. Bruce Macfee to Everyone: What does your current watch or clock read? This is stationary time. Now get into your high speed DeLorean and you will see clocks tick differently than the stationary clock! Michael Anteski to Everyone: Time isaster near Earth because it's more magnetically energized. Slowing time rate reflects hiher etheric level which increases resonance with a different macrocosm, etheric outer space. Franklin Hu to Everyone: They do, but this infers the existence of a preferred reference frame where the laws of physics are measured to be different. Bruce Macfee to Everyone: Hu: according to SRT there is no Preferred Frame. Don't you know SRT? Franklin Hu to Everyone: Yup, SRT makes that assertion, your example contradicts that, so SRT is wrong. Bruce Macfee to Everyone: Hu: what example is wrong? This is funny, it is called Diversion! Franklin Hu to Everyone: The example of the delorean Bruce Macfee to Everyone: Hu: You mean that high speed causes time, distance and mass to change, this is SRT! Bruce Macfee to Everyone: The exmple of the DeLorean is that it takes traveling at speed close to the speed of light in order for time, distance, and mass to chagne. baunes to Everyone: its the classical Lorentzian explanation of clocks in a gravitational field. Franklin Hu to Everyone: SRT does say that clocks change etc, but the other part says there is no preferred reference frame. But without preferring one reference frame, you get the paradox that the clock which is stationary should also read older than the one in the delorian. That is the paradox Franklin Hu to Everyone: The so called stationary clock could be said to be moving instead of the delorean. Nick Percival to Everyone: Regarding Dr. Lucas' comments: If one is trying to determine the constancy of the speed of light or lack thereof, then introducing clocks does add an extra element and an extra potential source of error. However, GPS is all about clock rates (proper time accumulation) and in that domain, GPS is extremely precise. baunes to Everyone: Hu, we are discussing gps now. Franklin Hu to Everyone: Still on topic since GPS assumes a preferred reference frame centered on the sun, which is also in contradition to relativity. baunes to Everyone: hu, doesnt contradic srt Bruce Macfee to Everyone: Jerry: This is true, time is the same everywhere on the Earth's surface. baunes to Everyone: srt says that you can take *any* inertial frame. Franklin Hu to Everyone: To be clear, the part of relativity that is "wrong" is the part that says that all intertial frames are equivalent and that there is not preferred frame. baunes to Everyone: Hu, srt doesnt say that there is no prefered frame. Bruce Macfee to Everyone: I am not sure how you would prove a preferred frame? Franklin Hu to Everyone: Really, that is the first postulate - or least it is interpreted that way. baunes to Everyone: srt says that you can take any iniertial frame. You are free to take one a s prffered. Bruce Macfee to Everyone: Time ticks differently on the surface of the Earth, than it does at the Mars surface. Franklin Hu to Everyone: Where does it say that - care to provide a reference? baunes to Everyone: hu, unfortunately, mny interpret it that way. Even Eninstein tried to correct people in that "remmber that we have not proven that thre is no prefered frame, we have merrely shown that we dont need it" Franklin Hu to Everyone: When Einstein was reviewing the work of Dayton Miller who did a better version of MMX said that everthing he developed would be wrong if Dayton Milleers experiment establishing an aehter frame is correct. baunes to Everyone: Greg is correct on that. Bruce Macfee to Everyone: Volk: What is your body, is it not an inertial system. What is your body relative to the Earth's Surface? H Ricker to Everyone: Conclusion from this special relativity is a theory about things that dont exist. So it is just a pointless waste of time to say that SR is correct. baunes to Everyone: Bruce, no our bodies, here on earth, are not inertial frames. Bruce Macfee to Everyone: Baunes: You are not correct. Any mass body is an inertial frame! baunes to Everyone: An inertial frame is one that can be considered as such (below the desired accuracies). Bruce Macfee to Everyone: Hence inertial system! baunes to Everyone: Bruce no. Franklin Hu to Everyone: SR is correct in that we can use it make predictions which are correct, but saying there is no preferred frame is wrong since any practical calculation requires a preferred frame. Lou LaFollette to Everyone: Bruce - Greg's body and that of all of us is a system far from equilibrium. We cannot be inertial. baunes to Everyone: The defintion of an i-frame is one that no non-inertial effects are *detected* to within *desired* accurcies. John Wsol to Everyone: Answer: Yes, there is a prefered frame. (This idea relates to Mach's Principle) Bruce Macfee to Everyone: all mass bodies are inertial frames, this is classical physics according to Newton! Lou LaFollette to Everyone: Bruce - Is an inertial frame a frame unaffected by other forces? Bruce Macfee to Everyone: Baunes: mass at rest or moving uniformily without acceleration is an inertial frame. A non-inertial frame is a mass body that is accelerating (non-inertial) Franklin Hu to Everyone: Baunes, did you have any explanation of the non-travelling twin paradox? Still a paradox to me and ultimately disproves the first postualte of relativity which is there are not preferred frames. Franklin Hu to Everyone: If you say there is a preferred frame or that you can pick one, this violates the first postulate. baunes to Everyone: Hu Yes I have the math. Which version exactly you are refering to? H Ricker to Everyone: Baunes, inertial frames are idealized fictions. They are physically non existent. So this argument is about a theory of physical objects that don't exist in the real physical world. Franklin Hu to Everyone: I am referrring to my new version where the twins never return back to earth. Bruce Macfee to Everyone: Ricker: That is silly! baunes to Everyone: Hu, no it doesnt violate it. You are mixing up the various concepts of the word 'prefered". H Ricker to Everyone: No what you say is silly. Franklin Hu to Everyone: How am I mixing up the concepts? Bruce Macfee to Everyone: You have said nothing but, "You are wrong" that is silly! baunes to Everyone: Hu, such versions have alrdy ben adressed in the literature for ~ 100 yrs. Yours is probably a rehash of them. But I am willing to look at it. baunes to Everyone: Hu. "prefered" has many different interpretations. Franklin Hu to Everyone: I bet you won't find it - another invalid argument of "Other people said its true" although you are just parotting that. Franklin Hu to Everyone: Look it up yourself. Jim Marsen to Everyone: it's the 2nd postulate that is wrong baunes to Everyone: I cant parot that since I nevr heard them say it. Jim Marsen to Everyone: but requires entrained ether baunes to Everyone: hu: where is your verion? H Ricker to Everyone: We just had Jerry assert that Sr doesnt apply to the earth, so therefore there is no experiment that can confirm that SR is valid. So it is simply a theory about things that can not be empirically demonstrated as valid, and so it is simply not science. Franklin Hu to Everyone: Sure, you can interpret preferred as you wish, but relativity clearly states there is not such thing. baunes to Everyone: hu: sr says that such an inertial frame can not be distinguished by local experiments. Thats what prefered means in sr. Bruce Macfee to Everyone: I would love to see an experiment where the Speed of Light in a vacuum is anything other than (c~3x10^8 m/s). Jerry Hynecek to Everyone: Harry, the SRT experiments can be made at the poles not where the centrifugal force is Franklin Hu to Everyone: So here is the crux of the problem. People think the first postulate says there is no preferred frame. However, I don't think it actually says that. It only says what you said which is that the frame is in which experiments don't differ. Jim Marsen to Everyone: if ether is entrained with earth, need to repeat mmx in interplanetary space Michael Anteski to Everyone: Ether is entrained by being fist causal from elemental space and operates vibrationally. Quantization causes spin, vectors, and false theories of grav, time, etc. Bruce Macfee to Everyone: Finally someone said something correct. SRT applies Inertial frames only. And non-inertial frames is described by a different theory. H Ricker to Everyone: Franklin , you need to stop saying that. It is wrong. Lou LaFollette to Everyone: If SR only applies to inertial frames and inertial frames do not exist where are we? Franklin Hu to Everyone: I would continue to say that the concept that relativity says that there are no preferred frames is "wrong". H Ricker to Everyone: Lou, It is a theory that can not be applied to any physical problem. Bruce Macfee to Everyone: Whoever said that inertial frames don't exist is incorrect WRONG! Jim Marsen to Everyone: and GPS requires Sagnac correction to work H Ricker to Everyone: Baunes H Ricker to Everyone: Baunes you said SR is correct now you say there is no SR theory at all. Bruce Macfee to Everyone: Baunes is boring Glen to sleep! Bruce Macfee to Everyone: Wake up Glen, you have to finish your talk :) baunes to Everyone: ricker, sr is correct in i-frames. Franklin Hu to Everyone: I think the correct solution to the twin paradox is to say that this situation has nothing to do with the postulates of relativity since it doesn't assert that all inertial frames are the same and doesn't directly apply to comparing the experimental results between different inertial frames. Bruce Macfee to Everyone: All inertial frame are different and independent, this is Galilean Relativity. It is Einstein the add the constancy of the speed of light to inertial frames. baunes to Everyone: hu, where is your version? link? Bruce Macfee to Everyone: Each twin is an inertial frame. Richard Jesch to Everyone: Without new experiments oh ones own one could benefit from getting hold of data from others experiments. Can't we do that? Glenn Baxter to Everyone: I am awake. Don't worry! Bruce Macfee to Everyone: Belief is what Religion is! Physics is an exacting science! Bruce Macfee to Everyone: Einstein, might also have called you an idiot, is what my research shows! Bruce Macfee to Everyone: STR is applied to GPS because of the high orbital velocity of the Satellite relative to the earth. However, STR effects are miniscule, and therefore some conclude that SRT is not needed in GPS. baunes to Everyone: Bruce, No. GR already incorporates the velocity aspect. It is thsi that we often miscall it SR. Bruce Macfee to Everyone: This is because of the high orbital velocity of the satellite that SRT is applied to GPS. But the mathematics show very small effects. Bruce Macfee to Everyone: I agree that GR also takes into account this orbital velocity, and is another reason why SRT is not really needed in GPS. So Baunes you are correct! baunes to Everyone: Bruce we apply GR to the speed. GR predits teh same velocoty formula as SR. We donr reapply Sr to GR! baunes to Everyone: Yes, I am lways correct when one thinks of it! Bruce Macfee to Everyone: Baunes: I have done the mathematics, and the SRT effects are there. It is the tangential velocity of the satellite that applies to SRT. Frankiln Hu to Everyone: The inertial frame argument iis bogus, it is inertial enough for practical purposes. Bruce Macfee to Everyone: inertial enough is not physics it is philisophy Frankiln Hu to Everyone: The SRT effects happen and are real. Where people get twisted around their axel are results of ignoring a preferred frame. baunes to Everyone: Bruce, but Gr already takes this into account. GR predicts a sped dependency tha hppens to be the same as SR's formula. Jim Marsen to Everyone: and Sagnac correction is required for GPS to work baunes to Everyone: Hu, thas what "inertial" means: inertial for practical purposes. But where it is no longer practical, its no longer inertial! Frankiln Hu to Everyone: Baunes, does SRT really say there are no preferred frames or not? Bruce Macfee to Everyone: There is no such thing as a preferred frame. If there is how do we measure it? baunes to Everyone: Hu, no SR doesnt say that there are no PF's. Sr says that we cant detect any via local inertial exp's. Bruce Macfee to Everyone: God does not prefer you over me, and no frame of reference is preferred! Frankiln Hu to Everyone: Baunes, I would agree with that, in which case when people say that SRT is :"wrong", it is their wrong assumption that there are no preferred frames that is wrong. Bruce Macfee to Everyone: irksome means that you don'ty understand the theory! Frankiln Hu to Everyone: FYI, one experimentally verifed preferred frame is the CMBR background radiation. That forms a preferred frame in which we can measure an absolute velocity for the Earth and everything else inthe universe. Bruce Macfee to Everyone: CMBR is preferred over what? Frankiln Hu to Everyone: Itis preferred in that you can put up a satellite anywhere in the universe and measure the patterns of the CMBR and measure your velocity to it. That it works anywhere in the universe makes it "preferred". Bruce Macfee to Everyone: It makes it a measuement relative to a CMBR frame, and nothing else! Frankiln Hu to Everyone: Yup, that is what makes it "preferred" baunes to Everyone: Hu Youa re using a differnet meaning to "preffred" as I said. the CMBR is not LOCAL. Its an exterior oberveation! Bruce Macfee to Everyone: I can make measurements relative to the electric field, the magnetic field, the gravitational field, the CMBR field; which one is preferred? Frankiln Hu to Everyone: Yes, it is an external observation that can be taken from any intertial frame and it would come up with the same thing. baunes to Everyone: hu, NO Frankiln Hu to Everyone: The CMBR is the only thing we can experimentally measure which fixes a particular reference frame. Bruce Macfee to Everyone: I did not say that they were all inertial frames. if the earth is accelerating relative to the CMBR then this is a non-inertial frame! baunes to Everyone: the source of the cmbr is not contained in an i-frame ( the universe is not inertial). And the source is OUTSIDE our local i-frame. Nick Percival to Everyone: Preferred Frame: GPS data says that, in the vicinity of earth, the ECI frame is the frame where, other things being equal (e.g., grav. pot.), is the frame where clocks accumulate proper time the fastest. There probaly are other frame where othe rphysics properties a re at a maximum or minimum. baunes to Everyone: Local means that th whole exp, the sources and detectors are INSIE the iframe. Bruce Macfee to Everyone: ECI is one frame. What about the Mars (MCI)? Frankiln Hu to Everyone: Yes, the problem is that people are trying to "compare" the results of differnt intertial frames and relativty does not apply. Bruce Macfee to Everyone: The physics works when you know when and where to apply the physics and mathematics. baunes to Everyone: Hu, you can compare any results from any iframe is the exp is FULLY within the iframes. baunes to Everyone: hu, where is your version of t he TP? link? Bruce Macfee to Everyone: It is the doppler effects in which STR is mathematically framed. Jim Marsen to Everyone: and SR is wrong about Bradley Abberation Bruce Macfee to Everyone: It is because of Doppler that we even accept SRT. Jim Marsen to Everyone: as proven by tightly orbiting binary stars Frankiln Hu to Everyone: If you are allowing mutliple "iframes", then you are allowing the twin paradox. Does SRT say there are no preferred frame or doesn't it? baunes to Everyone: bruce yes, the doppler exp's (Ives-Stillwell) were the exp's that vindicated SR baunes to Everyone: Hu, no SRT doesnt say that there are no PF's. baunes to Everyone: Hu, some *people* say tht SRT doesnt permit PF's. Frankiln Hu to Everyone: If SRT allows preferred frames, then the twin paradox goes away and everytthing is fine. Frankiln Hu to Everyone: Yes, this is my point that the people who say SRT is wrong are assuming SRT doesn't permit PF's. Frankiln Hu to Everyone: The way to address SRT wrong arguments is to point out that preferred frames are allowed. Paulina to Everyone: Thank you! baunes to Everyone: inertial PF's are perfectly compatible with SR. SR just says tha you cant detect such frames 9via local exps) H Ricker to Everyone: More nonsense Baunes. Please stop talking nonsense. baunes to Everyone: Ricker, then dont read! Bruce Macfee to Everyone: Ricker: Say something that is scientific! Richard Jesch to Everyone: I DO want to be here for the conclusion (continuation) of this presentation. Thank you Glenn :-) H Ricker to Everyone: Baunes you are the dumbest smart person who thinks he knows it all , and ddoesnt know anything, that I have ever heard tlk. Frankiln Hu to Everyone: Baunes, I don't have a link to my non-returning twin paradox as I just created that, but it isn't complicated. Just take out the returning twin, and do the normal time dialation conclusions and both come out older than each other. Glenn Baxter to Everyone: Thanks Greg! Lou LaFollette to Everyone: Thanks Glenn and Greg. H Ricker to Everyone: Baunes, every time you talk out comes nonsense. baunes to Everyone: Hu, no, you are mixing up the notion of time with th notion of moving clocks. A rokie mistake. Richard Jesch to Everyone: I'd like to see Hu's presentation of the non returning twin paradox too Paulina to Everyone: Applause for the presentation. Frankiln Hu to Everyone: No mistake, where is the mistake? Bruce Macfee to Everyone: Hu: That is not the SRT twin experiment. That is a different experment. If you are going to say you version of SRT is different, that should be specifically stated! baunes to Everyone: Hu, show your version. explain your contentions. Richard Jesch to Everyone: Next Week ohh ohh don't miss it Frankiln Hu to Everyone: I just explained my version and conclusions in the previous sentence, not that complicated. Frankiln Hu to Everyone: I would solve the paradox by establishing the Earth twin as the preferred frame and therefore only the traveling twin would be older. baunes to Everyone: Hu, do you know of the symmetric twin paradox? In there both twins reunite with the same age as predicted by SR. Its a different TP. baunes to Everyone: Hu, but you can chose any inertial observer (not the raveling twin) and conclude that the arh twin will be older. Paulina to Everyone: I actually voted for Lou. She was elected (: Bruce Macfee to Everyone: Hu: In your experiment, the twins would be the same age! It is only when one of the twins returns to one of the twins that is stationary that SRT works. I am not sure what your theory is? Paulina to Everyone: Only 4 people voted though. Nick Percival to Everyone: What vote? Frankiln Hu to Everyone: If you believe the results of Dayton Miller or simply choose the CMBR as the preferred frame, this will establish aboslute velocities which establish the velocity of the traveling twin as being absolutely greather than the Earth twin. Paulina to Everyone: For board members... Richard Jesch to Everyone: Please point us to the Bylaws Greg Richard Jesch to Everyone: bye enddoc