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: kenseto on 29 Jun 2010 11:27 On Jun 28, 4:07 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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... a preferred frame is in a state of absolute rest (stationary)....all inertial frames are moving wrt it. In SR every inertial observer adopts the preferred frame to do physics because it is the simplest frame. The result of this is that every SR observer assumes that his clcok is the fastest running clock in the universe and his meter stick is the longest meter stick in the universe. Unfortunately this is the reason why SR is incomplete....it failed to include the possibility that a clock moving wrt an SR observer can run faster. IRT includes this possibility and that's why IRT is a cocmplete theory of relativity. IRT is described in the following link: http://www.modelmechanics.org/2008irt.dtg.pdf Ken Seto > > 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 -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: PD on 29 Jun 2010 11:55 On Jun 29, 10:27 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > On Jun 28, 4:07 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > 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... a preferred frame is in a state of absolute rest > (stationary)....all inertial frames are moving wrt it. Ken, you do not have the right understanding of what the "preferred frame" means. You've MADE UP a definition of this term, and you want everyone to respect your definition. However, your meaning is wrong, not shared by physicists. If you will stop making up definitions of terms and instead ask a physicist what a term means, and then start using the terms as they are used in physics, then you'll be a whole lot better off. I know that you hate to have to ask anyone for anything, and so the idea of asking a physicist for anything just makes you gag. But that's a personality problem. As long as you cannot get over that, you will get nowhere. > > Ken Seto > > > > > > > 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 -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: Surfer on 29 Jun 2010 12:32 On 28 Jun 2010 11:45:59 -0700, stevendaryl3016(a)yahoo.com (Daryl McCullough) wrote: >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. > That would be true in some cases. But for spacecraft earth flybys viewed from an earth centered frame, Newtonian mechanics requires the asymptotic speed of the departure to be equal to that of the approach. This provides a very accurate way to test the radar Doppler formula, because if all known perturbations are allowed for and the speed data gained using the formula does not result in approach and departure speeds that are sufficiently similar, then something is wrong. Interestingly, this is often the case. Eg Although the following refers to "anomalous orbital-energy changes" these are equivalent to anomalous changes of speed. Anomalous Orbital-Energy Changes Observed during Spaceraft Flybys of Earth, Phys. Rev. Lett., 100, 091102, 2008. http://virgo.lal.in2p3.fr/NPAC/relativite_fichiers/anderson_2.pdf > >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. > It has been shown that the spacecraft earth flyby anomalies can be substantially resolved when the radar Doppler formula (2) above, is used in place of the standard SR derived formula. A paper which shows that is here: Resolving Spacecraft Earth-Flyby Anomalies with Measured Light Speed Anisotropy Progress in Physics, 4, 9-15, 2008. http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/2008/PP-14-02.PDF In one sense this paper implies determination of a preferred rest frame, but in sense another it doesn't, because the frame is that of a "dynamical 3-space", which is in motion relative to itself. But if correct, this picture would also imply that SR is wrong. Surfer
From: colp on 29 Jun 2010 17:53 On Jun 30, 1:17 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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. What don't you tell us what part of Einstein's theory I have oversimplified?
From: PD on 29 Jun 2010 18:26
On Jun 29, 4:53 pm, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > On Jun 30, 1:17 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > 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. > > What don't you tell us what part of Einstein's theory I have > oversimplified? I've already told you the answer to that in a different post, as pertains to the twin puzzle. Others have as well, in their responses to you. I've also directed you to a fairly complete and free analysis of the twin puzzle on the web, and I've asked you to read that thoroughly and then come back with your questions about that presentation in particular. You ignored that as well. Please go back and look these things up, do a little homework, and get back to me. PD |