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: Inertial on 27 Jun 2010 21:12 "Paul Stowe" <theaetherist(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:0612656f-5f63-45d8-9a1e-0668fe0224c2(a)k1g2000prl.googlegroups.com... > On Jun 27, 4:39 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "Paul Stowe" <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >> >> news:70a893de-09a3-47bd-ab7a-55a3da87f495(a)y2g2000pra.googlegroups.com... >> >> > On Jun 26, 6:50 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> >> > This is not true....the PoR says that all frames are equivalent, >> >> >> Yes it does >> >> > it 'assumes' all inertial frames are, from physical process behavior >> > standpoint, 'equivalent'... >> >> Yeup. Same laws of physics in all frames. > > Same in LR, if that were not so SR & LR would be observationally > different. I didn't claim otherwise. Note that LR still has the reality (when you ignore distortions of clocks and rulers due to motion) does NOT satisfy that principle. According to such thoeries, there is only the 'appearance' of the PoR holding. >> In SR, Clocks at rest in any inertial frame shows the time in that frame, >> and lengths of rulers at rest in that frame show lengths in that frame. >> LR >> does not have that feature. > > Really? You're wrong. Nope > In LR clocks and rulers have local values > which are the same when measured as they would be when measured in the > aether rest frame. They are the distorted measured lengths and clock ticking rates due to absolute motion. So that aren't measuring what is 'real'. > IOW, measureably invariant in any local frame, What is measured isn't what is real .. according to LET etc. The reality is the clocks are slowed (so do not show the true time) and rulers are compressed (so do not show the true length) > when at local rest wrt to that system. It simply goes further and > recognises that there are real physical differences that, for those > local observers, will not be directly measureable. It allows for SR's > practice of renormalization. > >> >> > including the preferred frame. >> >> >> There is no preferred frame in SR >> >> > Nor is there for physical behacior, in Lorentzian Relativity (LR) >> >> There is a preferred frame in LR. But the distortions of rulers and >> clocks >> in LR mean that we cannot determine the preferred frame. > > Preferred? In what physical way? Defined what 'you' mean by > preferred. The frame of the aether which is the only one where an at rest object's measured length is its actual length and a clocks ticking rate is its actaul ticking rate. In all other frames, the rates of clocks at rest in that frame are slowed and the length shortened. Are you unfamiliar with LET? >> >> > This allows every SR observer to use >> >> > the preferred frame to derive the math. >> >> >> There is no preferred frame in SR >> >> > There is SOMETHING in SR that gives rise to the second postulate. >> >> Something perhaps, but not some thing. > > Ah, you something is non-physical then? God perhaps? Nope >> > In LR this is the aether medium. When there is no direction >> > Doppler shift in the CMB you'd have reached its rest frame... >> >> Why do you think that must be the preferred frame? > > Because it matches the rest frame conditions known of all other > phyical mediums... > >> >> > That's why every SR observer >> >> > claimed the exclusive properties of the preferred frame >> >> >> There is no preferred frame in SR >> >> > SR is simply the process of 'renormalizing' to one's current location >> > & situation. Lorentz correctly called this the 'local' frame... >> >> A quite different notion > > And the physical observable & measurable difference is then, what??? Really .. are you that naive or ignorant? LET has only one preferred frame where things have their correct lengths and ticking rates .. in all others they are compressed and slowed. It is only the result of measuring with distorted rulers and clocks that gives the result that appear to be locally correct. SR says length and clock rates are correct in all inertial frames for things at rest in those frames. Motion of that frame compared to other frames does not change this. You keep pretending LET is something other than what it is, to the extent of making it simply SR with a fixed aether.
From: colp on 27 Jun 2010 23:00 On Jun 28, 12:50 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > On Jun 26, 5:14 pm, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > > > On Jun 27, 1:40 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > It turns out that using the preferred frame to derive the math is the > > > reason why SR is incomplete. > > > I'd call it broken rather than incomplete. The premise that there is > > no preferred frame seems to me to be based on egotism rather than > > science. This is because the premise assumes that man has sufficient > > wisdom to determine that he has explored all possible avenues > > regarding the detection of a preferred frame. > > No....the SR math is the preferred frame math. The preferred frame > math is correct when the observer is in a lower state of absolute > motion than the observed clock. That's why the SR math is useful in > accelerator design applications. If the observed clcok is in a lower > state of absolute motion than the observer then the SR math is not > applicable and that's why SR math is incomplete. The reason I say broken rather than incomplete is that the 1905 paper contradicts its own first premise. SR can be useful in certain situations as you point out, but it is of no help in understanding the phenomena, which is what a good theory ought to do, IMO. A stopped clock still tells the correct time twice a day - but you don't think of it as being incomplete.
From: Inertial on 27 Jun 2010 23:03 "colp" <colp(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote in message news:49da3c17-8140-4d34-83a8-a5a120e3ff5f(a)s24g2000pri.googlegroups.com... > On Jun 28, 12:50 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: >> On Jun 26, 5:14 pm, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: >> >> > On Jun 27, 1:40 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: >> >> > > It turns out that using the preferred frame to derive the math is the >> > > reason why SR is incomplete. >> >> > I'd call it broken rather than incomplete. The premise that there is >> > no preferred frame seems to me to be based on egotism rather than >> > science. This is because the premise assumes that man has sufficient >> > wisdom to determine that he has explored all possible avenues >> > regarding the detection of a preferred frame. >> >> No....the SR math is the preferred frame math. The preferred frame >> math is correct when the observer is in a lower state of absolute >> motion than the observed clock. That's why the SR math is useful in >> accelerator design applications. If the observed clcok is in a lower >> state of absolute motion than the observer then the SR math is not >> applicable and that's why SR math is incomplete. > > The reason I say broken rather than incomplete is that the 1905 paper > contradicts its own first premise. No .. it doesn't. Do you have some problem understanding physics? > SR can be useful in certain > situations as you point out, but it is of no help in understanding the > phenomena, which is what a good theory ought to do, IMO. > > A stopped clock still tells the correct time twice a day - but you > don't think of it as being incomplete.
From: eric gisse on 28 Jun 2010 00:06 Paul Stowe wrote: > On Jun 27, 5:14 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> Paul Stowe wrote: >> >> [...] >> >> > There is SOMETHING in SR that gives rise to the second postulate. >> >> [...] >> >> Axiomatic systems do not need to justify their axioms. > > Yeah, 'taken for granted systems' do not need to justify their > 'statements which are taken for granted'. > > How circular and shallow of you... Oh, Paul... Why is this so hard for you to understand? The confirmation of the predictions by observation is the only thing that matters in physics. That's how you tell competing theories apart. Why does this need to be explained to you?
From: eric gisse on 28 Jun 2010 00:08
Paul Stowe wrote: [...] >> >> There is no preferred frame in SR >> >> > SR is simply the process of 'renormalizing' to one's current location >> > & situation. Lorentz correctly called this the 'local' frame... >> >> A quite different notion > > And the physical observable & measurable difference is then, what??? > > Paul Stowe That's a very good question Paul. What IS the difference? Oh, I know. Please predict the way LET describes how energy and momentum transform between reference frames. |