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: whoever on 30 Jun 2010 09:11 "colp" wrote in message news:4f784822-4384-4123-af07-8838952b9af7(a)s24g2000prs.googlegroups.com... > >On Jun 30, 10:26 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> I've already told you the answer to that in a different post, as >> pertains to the twin puzzle. >Can you quote it, or give a reference to it? If you can't then it >looks like you are lying. There you going with your accusations again, Shame you can't read what others have posted first. It has been explained by me and others, you ignored the change in clock sync at the turnaround. A beginners mistake. Unfortunately, as you don't listen to anyone who explains it to you and then call them liars and ignore them, you are doomed to remain ignorant --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news(a)netfront.net ---
From: Tom Roberts on 30 Jun 2010 09:58 blackhead wrote: > But experiments have ruled out LET, correct? No. Because LET and SR are experimentally indistinguishable within their common domain, every electromagnetic experiment that confirms SR also confirms LET; as SR is unrefuted within its domain, so is LET (within its smaller domain). Tom Roberts
From: Androcles on 30 Jun 2010 10:25 "Tom Roberts" <tjroberts137(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:ps2dnQOIwpkD0LbRRVn_vwA(a)giganews.com... | blackhead wrote: | > But experiments have ruled out LET, correct? | | No. Because LET and SR are experimentally indistinguishable within their common | domain, every electromagnetic experiment that confirms SR also confirms LET; as | SR is unrefuted within its domain, so is LET (within its smaller domain). | | | Tom Roberts Roberts lies again! Handwaving as usual, he will not say what the domain is.
From: kenseto on 30 Jun 2010 11:04 On Jun 29, 11:54 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > Paul Stowe wrote: > > Tell us where LR fails to comply > > with the PoR. > > LET (LR) starts out with an implicit postulate: there is a unique inertial frame > in which the ether is at rest. So the (also implicit) law of ether motion is > DIFFERENT in different inertial frames, violating the PoR. No the preferred frame is the ether frame and the ether is in a state of absolute rest and all the LET observers are moving in this stationary ether. Every LET observer assumes that he is at rest in the ether frame and thus assumes the exclusive properties of the ether frame which are: all the clocks moving in the ether are running slow and all the meter sticks moving in the ether are contracted. This means that LET agrees with the PoR. In SR....the PoR allows every SR observer to choose any frame to do phyisics and the natural choice is the ether frame because it is the simplest frame. This allows every SR observer to claim the exclusive properties of the ether frame which are: all the clocks moving wrt an SR observer are running slow and all the meter sticks moving wrt an SR observer are contracted. That's why SR and LET have the same math. Ken Seto > > LET (LR) has an amazing and unexpected cancellation that makes the ether frame > completely unobservable FOR PHYSICAL MEASUREMENTS. But its transform equations > were all derived starting from that unique inertial frame. > > Tom Roberts
From: kenseto on 30 Jun 2010 11:24
On Jun 29, 11:55 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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. Sure I have the right understanding what a preferred frame is. A preferred clock is the fastest running clock in the universe. Every SR and every LET observer assumes that he is in a preferred frame and thus claims the exclusive properties of the preferred frame. That's why SR and LET have the same math. Ken Seto > 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 -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - |