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: Tom Roberts on 28 Jun 2010 01:03 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'. SR is not really an "axiomatic system". Nor a 'taken for granted system'. SR is a physical theory with testable predictions and a well-defined domain of applicability. Within that domain, literally hundreds of experiments have confirmed the predictions of SR, and NONE have been significantly different from the corresponding prediction of SR. Actually, zillions more experiments have confirmed SR, in the portion of its domain shared with Newtonian mechanics. THAT is what makes SR a valid and viable theory. And why it is one of the foundations of modern physics. Tom Roberts
From: Surfer on 28 Jun 2010 08:09 On Sun, 27 Jun 2010 18:10:00 -0700 (PDT), "Dono." <sa_ge(a)comcast.net> wrote: >On Jun 25, 12:05�pm, Surfer <n...(a)spam.net> wrote: >> > In the radar system frame of reference, let the transmitted signal >> have frequency Ft, then the corresponding outgoing wavelength is, >> Lt = (c - vi)/Ft >> > >You are copying Cahill's idiocies again. This is not the relativistic >Doppler formula, imbecile > Of course not. This and what follows is using a preferred frame theory. > >> This signal will impinge on the target with period >> T = Lt/(c - vi + V) >> or frequency >> F = (c - vi +V )/Lt. >> > >In Newtonian mechanics, yes. In SR, no. You are copying Cahill's >idiocies. > > >> The reflected signal has the same frequency, and so has wavelength >> Lr = (c + vi - V)/F, >> > >You are still copying Cahill's idiocies. > > >> and is received by the radar system with frequency >> Fr = (c + vi)/Lr. >> >> Then overall we obtain, >> >> (c + vi) (c - vi + V) >> Fr = --------------- ---------------- Ft . (2) >> (c + vi - V) ( c - vi) >> > > >No, idiot. > > >The correct derivation is: > >F_hitting_object=F_emitted*sqrt((c+v)/(c-v)) >F_reflected_at _radar_gun=F_hitting_object*sqrt((c+v)/(c-v)) > >So: > >F_reflected_at_radar_gun=F_emitted*(c+v)/(c-v)
From: kenseto on 28 Jun 2010 08:22 On Jun 27, 8:02 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "kenseto" <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote in message > > news:b30a9489-48ab-49ba-b946-6c6e96609d4c(a)e5g2000yqn.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > On Jun 26, 8:33 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> "colp" <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote in message > > >>news:14fb1df4-8642-4e86-94bf-6336a570eed4(a)g1g2000prg.googlegroups.com.... > > >> > The following illustrates the issue of arbitrary points of contention: > > >> There's no cnotention , just lack of understanding on your part regarding > >> SR. You have a naive view of what it entails > > >> > From the "colp, why did AE use the word "relativity" thread, Daryl > >> > writes: > > >> > <quote> > >> >>> Let's consider once again three frames: > > >> >>> F1 = the frame of the Earth > >> >>> F2 = the rest frame of a rocket traveling at velocity v > >> >>> in the +x direction relative to F1. > >> >>> F3 = the rest frame of a rocket traveling at velocity v > >> >>> in the -x direction relative to F1. > > >> >>> Now, let's introduce a 4th frame: > >> >>> F4 = the rest frame of a rocket traveling at velocity > >> >>> v in the +x direction relative to frame F2. > > >> >>> Now, we can do a symmetric twin paradox > > >> There is no paradox .. all frames agree the twins are the same age upon > >> reuniting > > > ROTFLOL....you are an idiot.!!!!!!!! > > Nope > > > Here you don't even agree with > > SR. > > I do agree with what SR says about symmetric twins. You are in no position > to comment as you fail to understand even the most basic physics, let alone > to have the audacity to think you have any idea what SR says. Hey idiot....Here's what you said: There is no paradox .. all frames agree the twins are the same age upon reuniting. - Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: kenseto on 28 Jun 2010 08:45 On Jun 27, 9:12 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Paul Stowe" <theaether...(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. Yes but every LET observer uses the one preferred frame to derive it math and that's why LET and SR have the same math. > > 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. The PoR of SR says all frames are equivalent, including the preferred frame...this allows every SR observer to choose the preferred frame to derive its math and that's why SR and LET have the same math. Ken Seto > > You keep pretending LET is something other than what it is, to the extent of > making it simply SR with a fixed aether.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: Surfer on 28 Jun 2010 09:15
On 26 Jun 2010 12:48:52 -0700, stevendaryl3016(a)yahoo.com (Daryl McCullough) wrote: > >Your derivation doesn't have anything to do with preferred frames. >You can pick any frame whatsoever, and *CALL* that the preferred >frame, and things work out the same way. > That was allowed for in the derivation by essentially letting the preferred frame be an unknown, that is, it was any frame with component of velocity "-vi" relative to the radar system. The interesting thing though is that vi then appears in the final formula, which was, (c + vi) (c - vi + V) Fr = --------------- ---------------- Ft . (2) (c + vi - V) ( c - vi) Hence if the target velocity V relative to the radar system can be independently calculated, eg via Newtonian mechanics in the case of spacecraft, and if Doppler radar frequencies Ft and Fr can also be known then (2) can be solved to obtain vi. Determination of vi for three suitable directions, would then in principle, determine one frame alone that would qualify as being preferred. Surfer |