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: Surfer on 26 Jun 2010 01:33 On Fri, 25 Jun 2010 19:13:00 -0700 (PDT), "Dono." <sa_ge(a)comcast.net> wrote: >On Jun 25, 12:05�pm, Surfer <n...(a)spam.net> wrote: >> On 25 Jun 2010 06:14:55 -0700, stevendaryl3...(a)yahoo.com (Daryl >> >> The SR formula with c as the speed of light, V as the target velocity >> and Ft as the transmitted frequency, gives the shifted frequency Fr >> as: >> >> Fr = Ft (c+V)/(c-V) (1) >> >> > >No, it doesn't. Only for you and for your ignorant idol, shitty >Cahill. >The correct formula is: > >Fr = Ft SQRT((c+V)/(c-V)) > I agree thats the SR formula for Doppler shift. However to get the formula for radar Doppler shift you have to apply it twice, which gives formula (1) above.
From: Surfer on 26 Jun 2010 01:42 On Fri, 25 Jun 2010 23:59:19 -0500, Tom Roberts <tjroberts137(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >Surfer wrote: >> a preferred frame theory >> allows derivation of a different formula for radar Doppler shift. >> [...] > > [As others have pointed out, you got the SR formula wrong.] > No, because the formula I gave was for radar Doppler shift not Doppler shift. Dono mistakenly assumed I was referring to the latter which is Fr = Ft SQRT((c+V)/(c-V)) However, to get the two way radar Doppler shift it must be applied twice, which then gives my formula (1). Fr = Ft ((c+V)/(c-V))
From: Peter Webb on 26 Jun 2010 02:13 "Koobee Wublee" <koobee.wublee(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:dbb516ea-11aa-4a0b-a20b-73f772448fee(a)i28g2000yqa.googlegroups.com... > On Jun 25, 9:41 pm, Tom Roberts wrote: > >> Yes. This is just one of the theories that are equivalent to SR (i.e. >> they are >> experimentally indistinguishable from SR). > > Don't hide behind interpretations of mathematical models. There are > Larmor's and the Lorentz transforms. See: > > http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/9886f187e761954c?hl=en > > And > > http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/c5a0a3c587fd4df4?hl=en > > Larmor's transform does not satisfy the principle of relativity while > the Lorentz transform does, but only Larmor's transform satisfies the > null results of the MMX while the Lorentz transform is a special case > to Larmor's transform. <shrgu> Are there any experimental predictions of SR with which you disagree? Or do you believe that every experimental prediction of SR is absolutely correct?
From: colp on 26 Jun 2010 03:47 On Jun 26, 1:14 am, 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). Before I respond directly to the issue of the preferred frame, I again raise the issue of need. The reason that the issue of need is pivotal here is that necessity may be a reason for people to lie and deceive. Illud quod alias licitum non est necessitas facit licitum, et necessitas inducit privilegium quod jure privatur. That which is not otherwise permitted, necessity allows, and necessity makes a privilege which supersedes the law. 10 Co. 61. The third maxim of commercial law is also relevant: 3. In Commerce truth is sovereign Commerce. "The exchange of goods, productions, or property of any kind; the buying, selling, and exchanging of articles . Intercourse by way of trade and traffic between different peoples or states including not only the purchase, sale, and exchange of commodities, but also the instrumentalities and agencies by which it is promoted and the means and appliances by which it is carried on, and transportation of persons as well as of goods, both by land and sea . Also interchange of ideas, sentiments, etc., as between man and man." Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition Regarding need, you previously said: <quote> One can state the principle of relativity in the following way: There is no experiment that can allow us to determine which coordinate systems is preferred, and which coordinate system is bogus. Unless you have such an experiment, we must always consider the possibility that whatever coordinate system we are using happens to be the bogus one. So, for practical purposes, we need a physics that tells how things look from the point of view of a bogus coordinate system, without knowing what the preferred coordinate system is. </quote> You claimed that you need a physics, but you didn't identify the nature of the threat implied by that statement when I questioned you on it. Until that threat is eliminated it is reasonable for me to think that you may employ deception in order to maintain your own sense of security. If this is the case it is pointless for me to continue to argue with you, since it is reasonable to think that you will introduce any point of contention necessary to maintain your position and sense of security. Additionally, your statement implies that a preferred coordinate system exists. If you thought that the existence of that system was in question, your statement would be something like: "So, for practical purposes, we need a physics that tells how things look from the point of view of any coordinate system, without knowing what the preferred coordinate system is, should it exist. Further points are that experiments do not *allow* things to happen, they *enable* them to happen, and a frame of reference that is not the preferred one isn't bogus, it's simply not the preferred frame.
From: colp on 26 Jun 2010 04:23
The following illustrates the issue of arbitrary points of contention: From the "colp, why did AE use the word "relativity" thread, Daryl writes: <quote> >> Let's consider once again three frames: >> F1 = the frame of the Earth >> F2 = the rest frame of a rocket traveling at velocity v >> in the +x direction relative to F1. >> F3 = the rest frame of a rocket traveling at velocity v >> in the -x direction relative to F1. >> Now, let's introduce a 4th frame: >> F4 = the rest frame of a rocket traveling at velocity >> v in the +x direction relative to frame F2. >> Now, we can do a symmetric twin paradox from the point >> of view of frame F1 *and* F2. Introduce 3 twins: >> Twin A travels 100 seconds (according to his clock) >> at rest in frame F2, turns around, and travels 100 >> seconds (according to his clock) at rest in frame F3. >> Twin B travels 100 seconds in frame F3, and then >> 100 seconds in frame F4 >> Twin C travels 100 seconds in frame F4, then 100 >> seconds in frame F1. >> Twin D travels 100 seconds in frame F1, then 100 >> seconds in frame F4. >> So A&B are symmetric twins from the point of >> view of frame F1, while C&D are symmetric >> twins from the point of view of frame F2. >> So which frame is preferred? >F1, or very close to F1. On what *EXPERIMENTAL* basis are you saying that? </quote> My complete previous response was: <quote> F1, or very close to F1. The Earth is by far the most massive object in the experiment. </quote> This is my theoretical reason for picking F1. It is reasonable to think that you rejected my reason simply because it was a threat to your sense of security. |