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: Androcles on 29 Jun 2010 07:27 "blackhead" <larryharson(a)softhome.net> wrote in message news:d2de312b-58ed-40e5-b6fc-d4f6c5921cd7(a)w31g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... 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. 2: dT/dt = square-root(1-(v/c)^2) 3: L = square-root(1-(v/c)^2) Hence dT/dt = L. Anyone can see that is totally deranged and psychotic, the raving of a lunatic. > Yes. This is just one of the theories that are equivalent to SR (i.e. they > are > experimentally indistinguishable from SR). Anyone can see that by agreeing with McCullough, Roberts is also insane.
From: harald on 29 Jun 2010 07:52 On Jun 25, 3:14 pm, stevendaryl3...(a)yahoo.com (Daryl McCullough) wrote: > There is a variety of anti-relativity dissident that consists of > people who accept length contraction and time dilation, but don't > accept the relativity principle. They assume something along the > lines of: > > 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? Why on earth would anyone call that a "preferred" frame? Such an expression relates to the time that it was thought that there is a "preferred frame" for light phenomena. > 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 indeed. > There are two ways to go about seeing this. The first way is > to start with 1-3, perform a Lorentz transform to get a new > coordinate system, and then show that 1-3 still hold in this > new coordinate system. The other way is to assume 1-3 and > then show that for observers moving relative to the > preferred frame, the natural way to go about setting up > a coordinate system in their frame will result in a system > related to the first through the Lorentz transforms, or > rotations, or translations (or some combination of the three). Right. > Full SR (well, the part that is relevant for thought experiments > involving trains, light signals, pole vaulters, twins in rockets, > moving clocks, etc.) is *derivable* from 1-3. If 1-3 is consistent, > then so is SR. If the theory of the preferred frame is consistent, > then so is SR, since they are empirically indistinguishable theories. > If you don't see any paradox from the theory of the preferred frame > (which you don't, since there is none), then there is no paradox from > Special Relativity. Except, of course, that it is not really "preferred"; much less confusing to call it "absolute". > Note: 1-3 only captures the aspects of relativity that involve > length, time and motion. Those things are called "kinematics". > That's not all of relativity, because it doesn't have > any *dynamics*. It doesn't say anything about forces, or about > how electromagnetism affects charged particles, or vice-verse. > However, for most thought experiments exploring SR, 1-3 is > completely adequate. Right again! Regards, Harald > -- > Daryl McCullough > Ithaca, NY
From: harald on 29 Jun 2010 07:59 On Jun 29, 4:11 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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 Here is how Einstein summarized it in 1907: "We [...] assume that the clocks can be adjusted in such a way that the propagation velocity of every light ray in vacuum - measured by means of these clocks - becomes everywhere equal to a universal constant c, provided that the coordinate system is not accelerated. [..] "the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light," is at least for a coordinate system in a certain state of motion [..] made plausible by the confirmation of the Lorentz theory [1895], which is based on the assumption of an ether that is absolutely at rest, through experiment" Regards, Harald
From: PD on 29 Jun 2010 09:17 On Jun 29, 1:57 am, 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. :>) I see you either share COLP's Oversimplified Relativity or you have your own KW variant. > Good job. > <high five and regards>
From: kenseto on 29 Jun 2010 11:07
On Jun 28, 10:27 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "kenseto" <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote in message > > news:07fd47a7-230a-4706-957a-cc7e62a7a01e(a)q12g2000yqj.googlegroups.com... > > > On Jun 27, 9:12 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > [snip for brevity] > > >> 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 > > Yes > > > and that's why LET and SR have the same math. > > No .. SR doesn't use a preferred frame for its math. Any frame can be used Yes every SR observer also use the preferred frame to derive its math...SR calls the preferred frame as an ineritla frame, that's all. Why do you think that SR and LET 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, > > Yes > > > including the preferred > > frame... > > There is no preferred frame .. so you cannot include or exclude it. Assertion is not a valid arguement. SR calls the inertial frame as a preferred frame. > > > this allows every SR observer to choose the preferred frame > > There is no preferred frame .. so the SR observer cannot chose it > > > to > > derive its math > > The SR observer can do the SR math from any frame they choose .. a sensible > one will choose the one in which the maths is simplest (eg the rest frame >of the observer) So does every LET observer uses the preferred frame to derive its math....so what is your point??? Ken Seto > > > and that's why SR and LET have the same math. > > Nope |