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 18:38 "colp" <colp(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote in message news:028f91a6-87a0-4023-ab05-434fa8b8537b(a)m39g2000vbm.googlegroups.com... 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? ============================================ Everything should be as simple as possible, if not simpler. II. Absolute space, in its own nature, without regard to anything external, remains always similar and immovable. Relative space is some movable dimension or measure of the absolute spaces; which our senses determine by its position to bodies; and which is vulgarly taken for immovable space; such is the dimension of a subterraneaneous, an �real, or celestial space, determined by its position in respect of the earth. Absolute and relative space, are the same in figure and magnitude; but they do not remain always numerically the same. For if the earth, for instance, moves, a space of our air, which relatively and in respect of the earth remains always the same, will at one time be one part of the absolute space into which the air passes; at another time it will be another part of the same, and so, absolutely understood, it will be perpetually mutable. -- Newton. But the ray moves relatively to the initial point of k, when measured in the stationary system, with the velocity c-v - -Einstein. It is essential to have time defined by means of stationary clocks in the stationary system, and the time now defined being appropriate to the stationary system we call it ``the time of the stationary system.'' -- Einstein. "light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body" Ergo Newton's absolute space is the system of coordinates aka frame of reference aka inertial frame in which Einstein's light rays move at c. Newton does not make such a stupid assertion. "It seems that Light is propagated in time, spending in its passage from the sun to us about seven Minutes of time:" -- DEFIN. II of Opticks Or, A Treatise of the Reflections, Refractions, Inflections and Colours of Light - Sir Isaac Newton. "the velocity of light in our theory plays the part, physically, of an infinitely great velocity" --� 4. Physical Meaning of the Equations Obtained in Respect to Moving Rigid Bodies and Moving Clocks -- ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES By A. Einstein
From: Paul Stowe on 29 Jun 2010 21:17 On Jun 28, 10:19 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "PaulStowe" <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:dda84d6d-8105-4f8a-80be-10e4980c5909(a)z10g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... > > >> 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 No, you clearly don't understand... Tell us where LR fails to comply with the PoR. The length contraction is real, the dilation is real, these combine to make all 'local' systems renormalizable since those local observers all measure the same thing, the physical laws remain consistent, thus WHERE? is the PoR not holding? Your whole argument is ascine, silly, and demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding the basis of LR... > > Since LR basis IS! the fact that your so-called 'distortions' ARE! physically > > real. Thus how does one 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). No, LET says that, in the rest frame things have no velocity related effects. The 'reality' is, all moving fields in the medium are affected by said motion. That results in the aspects described by Lorentzian Relativity and its close cousin, SR/GR. > > Oh, Oh, I know, like SR does on the nature of c... > > Nope. Now you're being silly You're right, SR's basis is silly as evidenced above... > >> 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. Relative to what??? All local readings are invariant, and the same as you would measure in the aether rest frame. I do understand that, wrt to the aether rest frame ALL moving systems have their systemic properties altered but, what R-E-A-L is, what they, physically experience. There is no contradiction or, a separate reality. > >> > 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. So what?! > >> 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 > >> actual 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. How? Be specific, and tell us what LET demands that requires us to prefer or use the aether rest frame in any measurable, or physically unique sense. In fact, it argues just the opposite. > > There is nothing physically 'special' or unique about it. > > There is in LET Your claim is empty of any evidence to support it. Use Lorenhtz's paper and point out the declared physically measurable uniqueness of the rest frame. > > Yes, time progresses fastest, lengths are longest but, like all other > > 'locals' they'll perceive no difference. > > That's just perception .. appearance. No, LR, like its cousin SR, says all physical aspects behave that way. it's 'our' physical 'reality' > >> 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? I don't since I find LR sufficient. But, you OTOH have no physical basis except declariation by Fiat', thus the comment above. There will be no other explanation forthcoming. > >> 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 Yeah, so what? It's physically real, resulting in so-called 'special' relativity. Which ain't so special after all... Paul Stowe
From: Tom Roberts on 29 Jun 2010 21:28 eric gisse wrote: > Tom Roberts wrote: >> 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? A physical theory like SR consists of: A) a set of mathematical theorems B) the meanings of the symbols that appear in (A) C) an experimental record of comparisons between theorems of (A) related to experimental measurements via (B) and the choice of the appropriate theorem representing the conditions of the measurement. Only part (A) can be an axiomatic system (and for SR it is). All parts are needed for a successful physical theory. Tom Roberts
From: Inertial on 29 Jun 2010 22:03 "Paul Stowe" wrote in message news:7a352f5c-f9f8-4919-a942-c8f38a830369(a)m35g2000prn.googlegroups.com... > >On Jun 28, 10:19 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "PaulStowe" <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >> >> news:dda84d6d-8105-4f8a-80be-10e4980c5909(a)z10g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> 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 > > No, you clearly don't understand... Wrong > Tell us where LR fails to comply > with the PoR. It gives the appearance (by our measurements made with distorted clocks and rulers) that it does. > The length contraction is real, the dilation is real, No .. the shrinking of objects and the slowing of clocks is 'real' in LET They result in the appearance of length contraction and time dilation in what we measure using shrunk objects and slowed clocks > these combine to make all 'local' systems renormalizable since those > local observers all measure the same thing, the physical laws remain > consistent, thus WHERE? is the PoR not holding? In reality it doesn't .. in terms of the speed of light being constant as one of the laws that should hold in all frames. BUT the distorted clocks and rulers that we measure with means that our measurements will shwo it as c. > Your whole argument is ascine, silly, and demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding > the basis of LR... Exactly what I think of yours. You are confusing what LET predicts we will measure with its distorted clocks and rulers with what it says is really going on in that hidden 'reality' SR is more of a WYSIWYG physics. There is NO intrinsic shrinking of objects and slowing of clocks in SR, as there is in LET. There is no distortion of measurement from some underlying reality as there is in LET. >> > Since LR basis IS! the fact that your so-called 'distortions' ARE! >> > physically >> > real. Thus how does one 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). > > No, Sorry .. it is Yes. > LET says that, in the rest frame things have no velocity related > effects. In the absolute aether frame. That's right. > The 'reality' is, all moving fields in the medium are > affected by said motion. According to LET. Not in SR > That results in the aspects described by > Lorentzian Relativity and its close cousin, SR/GR. Yes .. what we measure with the distorted rulers and clocks (that intrinsically change) of LET gives the same results as SR does .. but where there are no distorted clocks and rulers with intrinsic shrinking. >> > Oh, Oh, I know, like SR does on the nature of c... >> >> Nope. Now you're being silly > > You're right, SR's basis is silly as evidenced above... You're being silly again. You didn't say anything about SR basis above and gave no evidence >> >> 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. > >Relative to what??? What relative to what? > All local readings are invariant, and the same as > you would measure in the aether rest frame. Because (in LET) you measure length and times with shrunk rulers and slowed clocks. So you get the appearance of invariance, but in REALITY there is an intrinsic shrinking of rulers and and intrinsic slowing of clocks due to motion wrt the aether. In SR you don't have that > I do understand that, wrt > the aether rest frame ALL moving systems have their systemic > properties altered but, what R-E-A-L is, what they, physically > experience. So LET is based on things that are not real. Enough said > There is no contradiction or, a separate reality. I didn't say there was contradiction. There is a 'hidden' reality .. one that we cannot measure because the toosl we use to measure things are affected by motion through the aether. I did not claim it was separate .. its exactly the same 'reality', but as measured with non-distorted rulers and clocks. >> >> > 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. > >So what?! So what? That is the very thing that sets LET apart from SR. If you knew as much as you claim to about the physics, you'd know that >> >> 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 >> >> actual 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. > >How? Becaue THAT is the only frame in which rulers and clocks at rest are not distored by motion throught the aether. THAT is the only frame in which the speed of light is truly isotropic c (and not just given the appearance of being so due to ruler and clock distortyion > Be specific, and tell us what LET demands that requires us to > prefer or use the aether rest frame in any measurable, or physically > unique sense. In fact, it argues just the opposite. You seem to not understand the notion of what a preferred frame is. Perhaps go back and do some more learning and you might. >> > There is nothing physically 'special' or unique about it. >> >> There is in LET > > Your claim is empty of any evidence to support it. Other than the physics of LET, but you seem not to really understand it, so perhaps thats why you don't see the evidence > Use Lorenhtz's > paper and point out the declared physically measurable uniqueness of > the rest frame. You mean measurable with distorted clocks and rulers? You can't properly measure 'reality' with 'broken' tools. >> > Yes, time progresses fastest, lengths are longest but, like all other >> > 'locals' they'll perceive no difference. >> >> That's just perception .. appearance. > > No, Wrong > LR, like its cousin SR, says all physical aspects behave that > way. it's 'our' physical 'reality' It is what we measure due to real intrinsic shrinking of objects and real intrinsic slowing of clocks when they are in motion in the aether None of that happens in SR. >> >> 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? > >I don't since I find LR sufficient. But with a mystical aether tha has magical properties > But, you OTOH have no physical > basis except declariation by Fiat', thus the comment above. There > will be no other explanation forthcoming. Why do you need to invent an aether and a ;hidden; reality (such as LET has) to explain how reality works? >> >> 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 > > Yeah, so what? So that shows your claim to be wrong and mine correct. > It's physically real, resulting in so-called 'special' > relativity. Nope > Which ain't so special after all... I'm sure that you went to a special school, so you'd know all about that
From: Inertial on 29 Jun 2010 22:07
"Tom Roberts" wrote in message news:9LqdnXCTW9pdALfRRVn_vwA(a)giganews.com... > >eric gisse wrote: >> Tom Roberts wrote: >>> 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? > >A physical theory like SR consists of: > A) a set of mathematical theorems > B) the meanings of the symbols that appear in (A) > C) an experimental record of comparisons between theorems of (A) > related to experimental measurements via (B) and the choice of the > appropriate theorem representing the conditions of the measurement. > >Only part (A) can be an axiomatic system (and for SR it is). All parts are >needed for a successful physical theory. So it is both axiomatic and physical? It is (or originally was at least) based on postulates, and from those it models physical reality (which then allows one to experimentally verify the predictions) If not .. what sort of physics theory would you describe as purely axiomatic ... and which purely physical? |