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: Daryl McCullough on 28 Jun 2010 14:45 Surfer says... >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. The contrary point is that V CANNOT be independently calculated. It would be helpful to express everything in terms of coordinate-independent quantities. That way, you can readily distinguish between physical differences between theories, and differences that are only due to the use of a different coordinate system. If it is possible to determine the preferred rest frame experimentally, then that means that SR is wrong, which means that there is some coordinate-free prediction made by SR which does not agree with experiment. -- Daryl McCullough Ithaca, NY
From: Daryl McCullough on 28 Jun 2010 14:52 PD says... > >On Jun 26, 4:18=A0pm, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: >> Showing the truth by identifying the fallacies or assumptions inherent >> in their argument. > >But you haven't done that. At best, all you've done is show the >fallacies or assumptions inherent in COLP's Oversimplified Relativity. >You haven't shown anything of the kind for relativity. That's basically what I said to Colp. He has invented his own theory of relativity, and showed that his own theory is inconsistent. Everyone agrees on this point: Colp's theory of relativity is nonsense. The disagreement is that Colp seems to think that his theory of relativity is the *true* theory of relativity, and that whatever consistent theory anyone else is using is a pale substitute. So he must simultaneously argue that his theory is nonsense, and also that it is the *true* theory of relativity. To me, those seem like incompatible goals: we'd all prefer to use a consistent theory, whether it is colp's conception of the theory of relativity, or not. Interestingly, this is also the same problem that Androcles has always had. He has for years been caught up in what he believes is an error in a particular paper of Einstein's. If you point out that the modern formulation of relativity has no such flaw, he will say then he doesn't care, because the flawed version is the *TRUE* relativity of Einstein. -- Daryl McCullough Ithaca, NY
From: PD on 28 Jun 2010 16:07 On Jun 26, 2:55 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > On Jun 26, 10:40 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Jun 26, 8:40 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > This is not true....the PoR says that all frames are equivalent, > > > including the preferred frame. > > > Classic Setoism. > > > Ken, the *meaning* of "preferred" in "preferred frame" is "not > > equivalent to other frames". > > Thus you are claiming that some theory says that "all frames are > > equivalent, including the one that is not equivalent to other frames". > > Then give us the differences in properties between a preferred frame > and an inertial frame. I've already given you this answer before. An inertial reference frame is recognized by the dynamical laws of physics in their known forms holding in them, in particular Newton's laws of motion, the laws of electrodynamics, and the laws of the strong and weak interactions. Given one inertial reference frame, all other inertial reference frames relate to that one by a constant relative velocity, and so they all relate to each other by a constant relative velocity. A preferred reference frame, a frame that would have a constant relative velocity with respect to an inertial reference frame, would be recognized by having the laws of physics take a form that is *different* than all other inertial reference frames. This uniqueness -- this DIFFERENTNESS -- is what would make this frame preferred, by definition. No inertial reference frame has ever been found that exhibits laws of physics that are different than in any other inertial reference frame. Therefore, there is no evidence for any preferred reference frame. There is furthermore no indication of what the DIFFERENT form of physical laws would be in this frame. > > Ken Seto > > > > > > > You are a champion at inventing meanings for words you do not > > understand and immediately generating an oxymoron with your made-up > > meaning. > > It does not occur to you that if you stopped making up the meaning of > > words, you would not immediately run into contradictions. > > But it just rankles the heck out of you to even ask what words mean. > > You HATE the idea of having to ask somebody a question about something > > you do not understand. > > > PD- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: PD on 28 Jun 2010 16:08 On Jun 27, 10:00 pm, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > 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. Whatever gave you that idea? > 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.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: PD on 28 Jun 2010 16:13
On Jun 26, 4:14 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. OK, wait a second here. Special relativity makes no claim to be the definitively correct answer to the exclusion of all possible theories, including ones yet to be discovered. What we DO say is that, among the theories that have been proposed to date, relativity is more successful than any of the others, based on the data that we have collected to date. This does not rule out the possibility of a theory that supercedes relativity in the future. It also does not rule out the possiblity of experimental evidence laying in wait somewhere that we have not yet discovered that would falsify relativity. But it does no good to make a conjecture about the UNKNOWN and to posit from FAITH that relativity is wrong because of evidence not yet seen. There is absolutely no difference between that kind of conjecture and the conjecture that there is life everlasting in heaven. PD |