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 28 Jun 2010 21:40 "Daryl McCullough" <stevendaryl3016(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:i0bh0q016fb(a)drn.newsguy.com... > Inertial says... > >>> colp: >>> Your process of computation involves restricting calculations >>> which could produce a paradox to a single frame of reference, >> >>Wrong >> >>> Daryl: >>> Right. The point is that doing anything else is mathematically >>> and physically nonsense. >> >>Daryl is not correct there .. you can happily work with multiple frames in >>Sr .. that's what Lorentz transforms are for .. how to change coordinates >>from one frame to another > > What I said you cannot do, consistently, is to take the rules > for what is true in any inertial coordinate system and apply > them in a noninertial coordinate system. That's not as it appears in colp's quote .. so what he thinks you said is wrong > It is true that for any inertial coordinate system, the time T > shown on any moving clock satisfies: > > dT/dt = square-root(1-(v/c)^2) > > where t is coordinate time, and v is the velocity of the clock. > > That formula does *not* work in a noninertial coordinate system, > which is how Colp has tried to apply it. He was actually applying it once in one inertial frame, and one in another inertial frame. Both valid. The problem was he was ignoring what happens to clock sync when you change the inertial frame. >>> What specific fallacies or assumptions? Quotes, please. >> >>Your assumption that the turnaround in the symmetric twin scenario does >>not >>affect the aging. WRONG >> >>Your fallacy that one twin will not see the other aging more quickly. >>WRONG > > There are two different meanings to the phrase "how fast does one twin > see the other twin aging". The first meaning is in terms of images of > the one twin as received by the other twin. With this notion of aging, > the other twin appears to age slower during the first part of the journey, > and appears to age faster during the last part of the journey. > > The other notion of "how fast does one twin see the other twin aging" > is in terms of inertial coordinate systems. At each moment, a twin > is momentarily at rest in some inertial coordinate system. Relative > to that inertial coordinate system, one can ask: "How old is the other > twin right now", where "right now" is relative to the coordinate system. Yeup .. I've posted that distinction ,with what each twin would 'see' vs 'observe/calculate'. Colp ignores it. > With the latter notion of "how fast is the other twin aging", the > other twin ages slower during both legs of the journey, but ages > *much* faster during turnaround (in the limit of an instantaneous > turn-around, the distant twin ages infinitely fast). Yeup .. the first twin will observe (rather than 'see') the second age more slowly, but he will reach the turnaround before he observes the other twin reaching it. At turnaround where he observes the other twin will 'jump' ahead to the when the other twin is partway back from the turnaround, and again is observed as aging slower. Note that it is not the other twin that is jumping through time .. it is where (or rather when) he is observed to be by the first twin that jumps. > This is *not* a physical effect, it is an artifact of changing > coordinate systems. If you are following the location of a moving > vehicle on a map, and the vehicle goes off the right edge of the > map, then you have to change to another map. In the second map, > the vehicle is on the left edge of the map. In terms of maps, > the vehicle seems to have jumped from the right edge to the left > edge instantaneously. But that is just an artifact of changing > maps. Nice analogy :) Though in the case of the non-symmetric twins (the usual 'paradox' where you DO geta surprising results) there is a physical effect in that the twins are NOT the same age when they return. Of course, every observer will agree that the ages are different in that case. Just as all observers will agree that the twins are the same age in the symmetric case.
From: Inertial on 28 Jun 2010 21:43 "eric gisse" <jowr.pi.nospam(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:i0bgs3$9bs$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... > Tom Roberts wrote: > >> 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. > > Why can't it be both? Indeed .. the axioms can describe something 'physical'. Whether or not one can directly test the truth of those axioms experimentally depends on what they are, but one can test the predictions that are made from theories that are derived from those axioms.
From: PD on 28 Jun 2010 22:11 On Jun 28, 8:43 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "eric gisse" <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:i0bgs3$9bs$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... > > > > > > > Tom Roberts wrote: > > >> 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. > > > Why can't it be both? > > Indeed .. the axioms can describe something 'physical'. Whether or not one > can directly test the truth of those axioms experimentally depends on what > they are, but one can test the predictions that are made from theories that > are derived from those axioms. What happens is usually a multi-step process. For a theory to gain acceptance, it is NOT required that the axioms be directly tested or validated or derived. They are provisionally assumed, and that's what it MEANS for them to be axioms. All that is required is that the testable *consequences* of those axioms match up against experiment in a variety of circumstances, the more circumstances the better. Once a theory is accepted, there is room to go ahead and see if any of the axioms can be directly tested. Sometimes it can (like the constancy of the speed of light) and sometimes it can't (the principle of relativity). Finally, sometimes you can find a *deeper* or more comprehensive theory that explains WHY the axioms are true. Here, "more fundamental" can be in the eye of the beholder. For example, the hyperbolic structure of spacetime CAN be considered to be more fundamental than the light postulate, but some people don't like the notion of geometric structure being any kind of a fundamental explanation. In many cases, though, it's obvious that the new theory is more fundamental. QED is more fundamental than Maxwellian electrodynamics. PD
From: Paul Stowe on 28 Jun 2010 22:40 On Jun 27, 10:03 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > PaulStowewrote: > > On Jun 27, 5:14 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> PaulStowewrote: > >>> 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'. Look up the definition of axiomatic... > 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. Millions Tom? Come on, get real! There is N-O-T-H-I-N-G! special in SR and Lorentz and Poincare pointed out... > THAT is what makes SR a valid and viable theory. And why it is one of the > foundations of modern physics. Since SR has no uniqueness one can say the very same thing about LR. You beliefs and fawning for that variant not withstanding... Paul Stowe > Tom Roberts
From: Paul Stowe on 28 Jun 2010 23:00
On Jun 27, 6:12 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "PaulStowe" <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: > >> "PaulStowe" <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. That the most ridiculous statement I've seen in awhile. Since LR basis IS! the fact that your so-called 'distortions' ARE! physically real. Thus how does on ignore them? Oh, Oh, I know like SR does the nature of c... > >> 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'. Yes, they are... > > 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) What not 'real' about it. For any 'local' element and/or observer it is quite real. THAT's! why it works the way it does. > > 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. Why do you (or anyone) prefer that frame? There is nothing physically 'special' or unique about it. Yes, time progresses fastest, lengths are longest but, like all other 'locals' they'll perceive no difference. > 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 Well, I don't see any other proposal forthcoming... > > > > >> > 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. Correct??? For locals time and length is invariant... > 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. Paul Stowe |