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 29 Jun 2010 01:14 "PD" <thedraperfamily(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:699f5bc7-4ae2-4f91-a4d6-4c38698f8138(a)37g2000vbj.googlegroups.com... > 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. Yep. Though obviously axioms that are already known experimentally to be false would not make it :) > They are provisionally > assumed, and that's what it MEANS for them to be axioms. Yes indeed > 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. Generally, of course, one would look at how well the theory explained existing experimental results. Especially those not well explained by other theories. > 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). Of course, the axioms themselves are predictions of the theory, so if they are testable directly, they would be as part of testing other consequences. > Finally, sometimes you can find a *deeper* or more comprehensive > theory that explains WHY the axioms are true. Always good .. and there's almost always the possibility of something 'deeper'. Even if its not deeper, but just a different perspective or formulation, the more we know and can understand, the better. > 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. Yeup :):)
From: Inertial on 29 Jun 2010 01:19 "Paul Stowe" <theaetherist(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:dda84d6d-8105-4f8a-80be-10e4980c5909(a)z10g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... > 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. Then you don't understand LET > Since LR > basis IS! the fact that your so-called 'distortions' ARE! physically > real. Thus how does on ignore them? I didn't say to. But LET says there is an undistorted reality (the abolsute aether frame) as well as what we measure (the distortion). > Oh, Oh, I know like SR does the > nature of c... Nope. Now you're being silly >> >> 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... Nope. Not according to LET. What is 'real' is that the clocks are physically slower and the rulers physically contracted. That you don't understand that shows your own ignorance. I'm not responsible for that, but hopefully can help alleviate it. >> > 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. it is what is observed/measured. LET goes beyond that and says that the reason WHY we observe/measure things as we do is due to a physical slowing and contraction due to motion through the aether. >> > 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? I don't. LET does. > There is nothing physically > 'special' or unique about it. There is in LET > Yes, time progresses fastest, lengths > are longest but, like all other 'locals' they'll perceive no > difference. That's just perception .. appearance. >> 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... Why do you need one? >> >> > 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... Measured time and length using already slowed and contracted clocks and rulers >> 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
From: Koobee Wublee on 29 Jun 2010 02:57 On Jun 28, 3:33 pm, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > colp: > Your process of computation involves restricting calculations > which could produce a paradox to a single frame of reference, > > Daryl: > Right. The point is that doing anything else is mathematically > and physically nonsense. > > colp: > Yes. And that nonsense is a direct result of the premises of SR, > nothing else. Congratulations, colp. You have just checkmated these Einstein Dingleberries with these precise and concise summary. Good job. <high five and regards>
From: colp on 29 Jun 2010 04:41 On Jun 29, 6:57 pm, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 28, 3:33 pm, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > > > colp: > > Your process of computation involves restricting calculations > > which could produce a paradox to a single frame of reference, > > > Daryl: > > Right. The point is that doing anything else is mathematically > > and physically nonsense. > > > colp: > > Yes. And that nonsense is a direct result of the premises of SR, > > nothing else. > > Congratulations, colp. You have just checkmated these Einstein > Dingleberries with these precise and concise summary. Good job. > <high five and regards> TY
From: blackhead on 29 Jun 2010 06:09
On 26 June, 05:41, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > 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/15ceaad17be... It says message can't be found when i click on the link > Tom Roberts- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - |