Example of 3 clocks shows SR does not accord with physical reality

On Jun 13, 7:32 pm, Tom Roberts wrote:
Surfer wrote:

What this example shows is that to get consistent results from
comparision of clock rates, all the rates must be calculated in the
same frame.

Of course. One must compare apples to apples, and not oranges. Clock-rate
measurements performed in different frames inherently use different measurement
procedures, and so are not directly comparable.

This is the difference between physicists and engineers. Physicists
see the issue and throw their arms in the air saying these each event
taking place in one frame as observed by its own frame has no
correlation with others. Engineers can get a few steps beyond that by
noticing a correlation among all atomic clocks in various frames of
references. Through these correlations, good engineers are able to
point out the gross blunders by the self-styled physicists.
shrug

Which is equivalent to letting one frame play an analogous role to a
preferred frame.

This depends on what you mean. In my lab, the lab frame is OF COURSE my
"preferred frame", because all my instruments are at rest in that frame, and I
PREFER to make the computations easier by using their rest frame.

So, what are your less-preferred frames? shrug

But that is
most definitely NOT the historical meaning of "preferred frame", which is a
frame preferred BY NATURE, and thus a frame that enters directly into the laws
of physics.

Historically it was also called "absolute rest" or "the aether
frame".

So, it is politically incorrect to find the absolute frame of
reference. shrug

The "preferred frame" of a given experiment using SR is not at all this latter
meaning -- the preference is not from nature, but is merely a HUMAN choice for
computational simplicity. The laws of physics cannot possibly depend on such
arbitrary human choices.

When you use such a phrase as "preferred frame" like that, you
open yourself to gross misinterpretation due to the pun. The
fact that you don't know this shows that you have A LOT of
learning to do.

The twins’ paradox of SR has no resolution. It is a serious and fatal
paradox. The manifestations that lead to this paradox can only be
resolved either if there is no time dilation, or there exists an
absolute frame of reference. In either case, it proves SR wrong.
shrug

Since SR manifests time dilation, to resolve this paradox (there can
be no resolution), self-styled physicists have to turn to this
absolute frame of reference, but since the absolute frame of reference
is thoroughly forbidden by the scriptures of SR (namely the principle
of relativity), they have to bull**** their way out of this one.

It is assumed in SR that any inertial frame can be used for this
purpose. While that is usually true in practice, it is only true when
preferred frame effects are small enough to neglect.

To date, nobody has found any significant "preferred frame effects", in the
sense of a preferred frame entering into the dynamics of the theory. So all
inertial frames meet your criterion, and you have no indictment of SR.

When the Doppler shift in CMBR identified this absolute frame, it is
not “recognized” in the same content as Peter did not recognize
Christ. shrug

But GPS uses earth centred inertial coordinates, which for the purpose
of GPS is as good as a preferred frame.

Only in the sense of computational simplicity, not in the sense of nature
"preferring" it.

One must of course use GR, and the equations of GR are
inherently independent of coordinates. For the GPS the
physical situation makes the ECI coordinates computationally
"preferred", but the dynamics of the theory do not do so.

Your ECI frame is the only one that would yield the answer you are
looking. Using any other frame, you will not get the same answer.
Want to prove Him wrong?

On Jun 14, 4:36*pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
On Jun 13, 7:32 pm, Tom Roberts wrote:

Surfer wrote:
What this example shows is that to get consistent results from
comparision of clock rates, all the rates must be calculated in the
same frame.

Of course. One must compare apples to apples, and not oranges. Clock-rate
measurements performed in different frames inherently use different measurement
procedures, and so are not directly comparable.

This is the difference between physicists and engineers. *Physicists
see the issue and throw their arms in the air saying these each event
taking place in one frame as observed by its own frame has no
correlation with others. *Engineers can get a few steps beyond that by
noticing a correlation among all atomic clocks in various frames of
references. *Through these correlations, good engineers are able to
point out the gross blunders by the self-styled physicists.
shrug

Physicists notice the corelations too.. they are the same as predicted
by SR shrug

On 6/14/11 1:36 AM, Koobee Wublee wrote:
The twins’ paradox of SR has no resolution. It is a serious and fatal
paradox. The manifestations that lead to this paradox can only be
resolved either if there is no time dilation, or there exists an
absolute frame of reference. In either case, it proves SR wrong.
shrug


The Twin Paradox for Koobee, the confused
http://www.phys.vt.edu/~takeuchi/rel...section15.html
http://www.phys.vt.edu/~takeuchi/rel...notes/twin.gif

On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 12:56:11 -0500, Sam Wormley
wrote:

On 6/14/11 1:36 AM, Koobee Wublee wrote:
The twins’ paradox of SR has no resolution. It is a serious and fatal
paradox. The manifestations that lead to this paradox can only be
resolved either if there is no time dilation, or there exists an
absolute frame of reference. In either case, it proves SR wrong.
shrug


The Twin Paradox for Koobee, the confused
http://www.phys.vt.edu/~takeuchi/rel...section15.html
http://www.phys.vt.edu/~takeuchi/rel...notes/twin.gif


Well, the space time diagram does prove that SR doesn't allow the
travelling twin to objectively observe time on Earth.

Since time on earth passes at a constant rate, the travelling twin
should calculate time dilation of the space craft clock relative to
earth and then reverse that calculation to estimate time on earth.

















The travelling twin could do so however, if s/he hypothesized that the
Earth approximates a preferred frame, calculated time dilation
relative to Earth and then use

On Jun 18, 2:47*pm, Surfer wrote:

Well, the space time diagram does prove that SR doesn't allow the
travelling twin to objectively observe time on Earth.

This is , as usual, false. See he
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_pa..._from_the_ship

I'm sure, it has been said, before, but
the best gdanken might be
to have each observer, observing the other's clockrate
(which'd be somewhat simpler for that astroclone,
looking back at a rotating Eaaarth .-)

I mean, for the whole roundtrip,
especially paying attention for accelerations and
decelerations.