Preferred Frame Theory indistinguishable from SR
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Centre of mass inertial framesy are the unique ones in 1905 Relativity
Next: Fraternal Twins going equally fast at all times?
From: eric gisse on 25 Jun 2010 21:02 Daryl McCullough wrote: > There is a variety of anti-relativity dissident that consists of > people who accept length contraction and time dilation, but don't > accept the relativity principle. They assume something along the > lines of: > > There is a preferred frame, F, and there is an associated > coordinate system such that > > 1. Light travels in straight lines at speed c, as measured in F's > coordinate system. > 2. An ideal clocks in motion relative to F has an elapsed time > given by dT/dt = square-root(1-(v/c)^2), where t is the time > coordinate of F's coordinate system, and v is the velocity of > the clock, as measured in F's coordinate system, and T is the > elapsed time on the clock. > 3. An ideal meterstick in motion, with the stick aligned in the > direction of its motion, will have a length given by > L = square-root(1-(v/c)^2). Because that's all they know about relativity. Ask them how energy and momentum transform and the eyes...glaze over. [...]
From: Dono. on 25 Jun 2010 22:13 On Jun 25, 12:05 pm, Surfer <n...(a)spam.net> wrote: > On 25 Jun 2010 06:14:55 -0700, stevendaryl3...(a)yahoo.com (Daryl > > The SR formula with c as the speed of light, V as the target velocity > and Ft as the transmitted frequency, gives the shifted frequency Fr > as: > > Fr = Ft (c+V)/(c-V) (1) > > No, it doesn't. Only for you and for your ignorant idol, shitty Cahill. The correct formula is: Fr = Ft SQRT((c+V)/(c-V)) Even beginners know this , dumbshit. Go tell your "daddy" that he fucked up another basic formula.
From: Tom Roberts on 26 Jun 2010 00:41 Daryl McCullough wrote: > There is a preferred frame, F, and there is an associated > coordinate system such that > > 1. Light travels in straight lines at speed c, as measured in F's > coordinate system. > 2. An ideal clocks in motion relative to F has an elapsed time > given by dT/dt = square-root(1-(v/c)^2), where t is the time > coordinate of F's coordinate system, and v is the velocity of > the clock, as measured in F's coordinate system, and T is the > elapsed time on the clock. > 3. An ideal meterstick in motion, with the stick aligned in the > direction of its motion, will have a length given by > L = square-root(1-(v/c)^2). > > I would think that anybody could see that rules 1-3 are consistent. > You cannot deduce a contradiction from these rules. Note that the > contradiction that so many anti-relativists think that they have > found in SR, namely, mutual time dilation, is not present in these > rules, because these rules only mention time dilation with respect > to a specific, preferred frame. So there is no possibility of deriving > a "twin paradox" that is a logical contradiction. Right? > > Well, all the weirdness of SR, including mutual time dilation and > the relativity of simultaneity *follows* logically from principles > 1-3! You can prove that if 1-3 are true in the preferred coordinate > system, then they are *also* true as measured in any coordinate system > that is related to the preferred coordinate system through the > Lorentz transforms. Yes. This is just one of the theories that are equivalent to SR (i.e. they are experimentally indistinguishable from SR). This is one way of deriving the equations of LET (Lorentz Ether Theory). Lorentz used a completely different method in his 1904 paper. There is a much larger class of theories equivalent to SR, consisting of all theories in which these two criteria apply: a) the round-trip speed of light is isotropically c in any inertial frame and b) the one-way speed of light is isotropically c in one frame Note that (a) is solidly established experimentally, and (b) is basically what it means to have an aether frame, or any sort of "preferred" frame. If you work out the details, you find that all of these theories have transforms between inertial frames that differ from the Lorentz transform only in the way coordinate clocks are synchronized in inertial frames. Note that except for SR and LET, the synchronization method is ad hoc and artificial. In all of these theories except SR and LET, slow clock transport relative to a moving inertial frame CANNOT be used to synchronize the coordinate clocks of the frame. And the difference is PRECISELY what it takes to make experiments and observations be identical to those of SR and LET. In all of these theories other than SR (which is the only member of this class without a preferred frame), there is no possible experiment that can determine which frame is the preferred frame. That is, no matter which frame you arbitrarily select to be the "ether frame", the predictions for any experiments or observations are unchanged. IOW: (b) can be applied to any inertial frame. Only in SR does (b) apply to all inertial frames simultaneously. NOTE: the modern interpretation of this is that it is all irrelevant. That's because these different "theories" merely apply different coordinates to the underlying space-time manifold, and use different transforms among them. Yes, except for SR and LET those coordinates are pretty unusual.... The uniqueness of SR is precisely that (b) applies to all frames. SR is also the only theory that includes the PoR. I posted a much longer series of three articles on this 'way back in 1999 -- http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/15ceaad17bef0b6b Tom Roberts
From: Tom Roberts on 26 Jun 2010 00:59 Surfer wrote: > a preferred frame theory > allows derivation of a different formula for radar Doppler shift. > [...] [As others have pointed out, you got the SR formula wrong.] Your result is completely uninteresting, because it is experimentally refuted. In particular, using that theory the round-trip speed of light is not isotropically c in every inertial frame occupied by laboratories here on earth. But many labs on earth measured the round-trip speed of light to be equal to c within <1 m/s for all such frames. This is using the pre-1983 definition of the meter (this frame independence is a necessary requirement for the re-definition of 1983). I do not know if measurements of the Doppler effect are accurate enough to directly refute your formula. I suspect these are: Kaivola et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 54 no. 4 (1985), pg 255. McGowan et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 70 no. 3 (1993), pg 251. They compared the frequency of two lasers, one locked to fast-beam neon and one locked to the same transition in thermal neon. Kaivola found agreement with SR's Doppler formula is to within 4.0E-5; McGowan within 2.3E-6. Tom Roberts
From: Koobee Wublee on 26 Jun 2010 01:11
On Jun 25, 9:41 pm, Tom Roberts wrote: > Yes. This is just one of the theories that are equivalent to SR (i.e. they are > experimentally indistinguishable from SR). Don't hide behind interpretations of mathematical models. There are Larmor's and the Lorentz transforms. See: http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/9886f187e761954c?hl=en And http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/c5a0a3c587fd4df4?hl=en Larmor's transform does not satisfy the principle of relativity while the Lorentz transform does, but only Larmor's transform satisfies the null results of the MMX while the Lorentz transform is a special case to Larmor's transform. <shrgu> > This is one way of deriving the > equations of LET (Lorentz Ether Theory). Lorentz used a completely different > method in his 1904 paper. Nonsense! You cannot derive anything with convoluted logics. <shrug> > There is a much larger class of theories equivalent to SR, consisting of all > theories in which these two criteria apply: > a) the round-trip speed of light is isotropically c in any inertial > frame This requires Voigt's postulate. <shrug> > and > b) the one-way speed of light is isotropically c in one frame This has never shown so by any experimentations. <shrug> > Note that (a) is solidly established experimentally, Not quite! Through interpretations to experimental results. <shrug> > and (b) is basically what > it means to have an aether frame, or any sort of "preferred" frame. > > If you work out the details, you find that all of these theories > have transforms between inertial frames that differ from the > Lorentz transform only in the way coordinate clocks are > synchronized in inertial frames. Note that except for SR and > LET, the synchronization method is ad hoc and artificial. Mysticism is making you ever so confused. <shrug> > I posted a much longer series of three articles on this 'way back in 1999 -- > http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/15ceaad17be... You have not learnt anything in the past 9 years. There is a difference between Larmor's and the Lorentz transforms. <shrug> |