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 30 Jun 2010 16:12 On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 20:30:41 -0700, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nospam(a)gmail.com> wrote: >Surfer wrote: >[...] > >> This provides a very accurate way to test the radar Doppler formula, > >Atomic measurements are more precise. > Well, I found this example. New methods of testing Lorentz violation in electrodynamics Phys.Rev. D71 (2005) 025004; Erratum-ibid. D75 (2007) 049902 http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0408006v3 <Start extract (variables edited for clarity)> In the original Ives Stillwell experiment hydrogen atoms were moving at v_at/c approximately equal to 0.005 (c = 299 792 458 m/s) with respect to the laboratory. The Doppler shifted frequencies of the H_beta line were measured in parallel (p) and anti-parallel (a) to the direction of motion of the atom (see fig. 1). The results are then used to determine whether the combination F_p F_a /F_0^2 = 1 as required in special relativity (where F_0 is the frequency for v_at=0). <End extract> However: 1) This doesn't tell us how accurate the SR Doppler shift formula would be for determining velocity. 2) For vi and V both << c, the Doppler shift that I used in my original post also gives the combination F_p F_a /F_0^2 = 1. This is shown here. I earlier wrote: > To ensure consistent representation of distance and time, > let time in the radar system frame be synchronized with time > in the isotropic frame and let distance measurements be > derived from the spatial coordinates of the isotropic frame. <snip> > > In the radar system frame of reference, let the transmitted signal > have frequency Ft, then the corresponding outgoing wavelength is, > > Lt = (c - vi)/Ft > > This signal will impinge on the target with period > T = Lt/(c - vi + V) > or frequency > F = (c - vi +V )/Lt. > This would give c - vi +V F = Ft --------------------- (3) c-vi where F and Ft are expressed using the units of time of the isotropic frame and the velocities use the units of velocity of that frame. Suppose we replace the radar transmitter with atoms moving with speed vi relative to the isotropic frame and with speed V towards a receiver which serves as the target. Suppose the atoms emit a signal in their own frame of frequency F_0 and the reciever recieves the signal in its own frame with frequency F_r. Then owing to time dilation effects we will have, Ft = F_0 / gamma(vi) and with vi and V both << c, F = F_r / gamma(vi-V) Substituting in (3) above gives (c - vi +V) gamma(vi-V) F_r = F_0 -------------------------------- (4) (c-vi) gamma(vi) Appling this to an Ives Stillwell type set up we will then have, (c - vi +V) gamma(vi-V) F_p = F_0 -------------------------------- (c-vi) gamma(vi) then for F_a, the velocities are reversed giving, (c + vi -V) gamma(-vi+V) F_a = F_0 ------------------------------------ (c+vi) gamma(-vi) and it then turns out that, F_p F_a = F_0^2 So within the domain of applicability claimed above, the preferred frame Doppler shift formula will also pass Ives Stillwell type tests. >> >> because if all known perturbations are allowed for [...] > >Why would you think they are, when the 'accounting' for the perturbations >are order-of-magnitude guesses? > According to, Anomalous Orbital-Energy Changes Observed during Spaceraft Flybys of Earth Anderson et al. Phys. Rev. Lett., 100, 091102, 2008. http://virgo.lal.in2p3.fr/NPAC/relativite_fichiers/anderson_2.pdf ".........Lammerzahl et al. studied and dismissed a number of possible explanations for the Earth flyby anomalies, including Earth atmosphere, ocean tides, solid Earth tides, spacecraft charging, magnetic moments, Earth albedo, solar wind, coupling of the Earth's spin with rotation of the radio wave, Earth gravity, and relativistic effects predicted by Einstein's theory. All these potential sources of systematic error, and more, are modeled in the ODP. None can account for the observed anomalies......" That sounds exhaustive. Also, the accuracy of the ODP (Orbit Determination Program) has been well established through long term observation of spacecraft in regular earth orbits. By now any unmodeled perturbations should have shown up as cumulative effects.
From: kenseto on 30 Jun 2010 16:21 On Jun 30, 2:53 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 30, 12:28 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jun 30, 12:26 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jun 30, 10:24 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > 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. > > > > No, Ken, that is NOT the meaning of "preferred" in physics. That is > > > YOUR meaning. > > > So are you saying that the fastest running clock in the universe is > > not a preferred clock??? > > There is no fastest running clock in the universe, Seto. Hey idiot....every SR observer claims that his clock is the fastest running clock in the universe. It turns out that this claim is physically valid if the observer is in a state of absolute rest (in a preferred frame). Since no observer is in a state of absolute rest then the only time this SR claim is correct is when an observed clock is in a higher state of absolute motion than the observer. That's why SR has a limited domain of applicability....and that's why SR is valid for use in accelerator design applications where the accelerated particles are in a higher state of absolute motion than the lab observer. You are so stupid. > > Geez, you are slower than garden slug steeplechases. > > Tim sees Rob standing 20 yards away, and he measures his height by > holding up his finger and thumb on his right hand. "Rob is as tall as > the space between my finger and my thumb," says Tim. Tim tries to > measure himself this way and concludes that he is taller than Rob. Rob > sees Tim standing 20 yards away, and he measures his height by holding > up his finger and thumb on his right hand. "Tim is as tall as the > space between my finger and my thumb," says Rob. Rob tries to measure > himself this way and concludes that he is taller than Tim. What you describe here is apparent an effect....or a geometric projection effect. It is not a physical or material effect. That's why I disagree with you when you claim that length contraction in SR is physically real. Also if length contraction is physically or materially real it gives rises to the paradoxes of SR such as the barn and the pole paradox and the bug and the rivet paradox. > > According to Seto, Tim is preferred because he is the tallest of the > two AND Rob is preferred because he is the tallest of the two. Seto > thinks this is a perfectly acceptable meaning of the word "preferred" > and in fact thinks this is what physicists must mean when they use > words like "preferred". No idiot....according to Seto there is no physical or material length contraction and no object in the universe is in the preferred frame. However, The light-path length of a meter stick moving wrt an observer is predicted to be longer or shorter than the light path length of the observer's meter stick and the standard for the light path length of the observer's meter stick is assumed to be its physical length or material length. You are to stupidest runt of the SRians in these NGs. Ken seto > > Seto is a bonehead. > > But of course, Seto will not be able to read the first paragraph in > the above from beginning to end and understand it, so he will get > confused by what is said there. > > > > > > > Ken Seto- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: PD on 30 Jun 2010 16:57 On Jun 30, 3:21 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > On Jun 30, 2:53 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jun 30, 12:28 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > On Jun 30, 12:26 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jun 30, 10:24 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > 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. > > > > > No, Ken, that is NOT the meaning of "preferred" in physics. That is > > > > YOUR meaning. > > > > So are you saying that the fastest running clock in the universe is > > > not a preferred clock??? > > > There is no fastest running clock in the universe, Seto. > > Hey idiot....every SR observer claims that his clock is the fastest > running clock in the universe. No, he does not. This is YOUR bonehead notion of what SR says. SR says nothing of the kind. Stop making stuff up about what words mean. Stop making stuff up about what SR says. When a LOT of people tell you that you do not know what certain words mean, and when a LOT of people tell you that you do not understand what SR says, then you should suck it up and ASK what those words mean and ASK what SR actually says. I know this is tremendously difficult for you, but you will get nowhere until you start doing that. > It turns out that this claim is > physically valid if the observer is in a state of absolute rest (in a > preferred frame). Since no observer is in a state of absolute rest > then the only time this SR claim is correct is when an observed clock > is in a higher state of absolute motion than the observer. That's why > SR has a limited domain of applicability....and that's why SR is valid > for use in accelerator design applications where the accelerated > particles are in a higher state of absolute motion than the lab > observer. You are so stupid. > > > > > Geez, you are slower than garden slug steeplechases. > > > Tim sees Rob standing 20 yards away, and he measures his height by > > holding up his finger and thumb on his right hand. "Rob is as tall as > > the space between my finger and my thumb," says Tim. Tim tries to > > measure himself this way and concludes that he is taller than Rob. Rob > > sees Tim standing 20 yards away, and he measures his height by holding > > up his finger and thumb on his right hand. "Tim is as tall as the > > space between my finger and my thumb," says Rob. Rob tries to measure > > himself this way and concludes that he is taller than Tim. > > What you describe here is apparent an effect....or a geometric > projection effect. It is not a physical or material effect. It is a *physical* effect because the measurement approach is specified as is applied the same way. Geometry plays a role in that procedure, yes. A physical effect does NOT mean that it is a purely material effect. This is only YOUR understanding of the word "physical" and does not correspond to what a physicist understands by the word "physical". If you're going to spend the rest of your life arguing what words mean and insisting that physicists should use the words as YOU understand them, them I'm afraid you will go the rest of your life accomplishing nothing. You have gotten yourself into a hole now always saying "physical or material" or "physical/material". This is simply stubbornness on your part, refusing to modify your thinking, refusing to alter your understanding of a physics term, refusing to accept something that someone else has corrected you on. Every time you do this, you perpetuate an error. Has it ever crossed your mind why you have not corrected a single mistake you've made in 15 years? > That's why > I disagree with you when you claim that length contraction in SR is > physically real. Also if length contraction is physically or > materially real it gives rises to the paradoxes of SR such as the barn > and the pole paradox and the bug and the rivet paradox. > > > > > According to Seto, Tim is preferred because he is the tallest of the > > two AND Rob is preferred because he is the tallest of the two. Seto > > thinks this is a perfectly acceptable meaning of the word "preferred" > > and in fact thinks this is what physicists must mean when they use > > words like "preferred". > > No idiot....according to Seto there is no physical or material length > contraction and no object in the universe is in the preferred frame. > However, The light-path length of a meter stick moving wrt an observer > is predicted to be longer or shorter than the light path length of the > observer's meter stick and the standard for the light path length of > the observer's meter stick is assumed to be its physical length or > material length. > You are to stupidest runt of the SRians in these NGs. > > Ken seto > > > > > > > Seto is a bonehead. > > > But of course, Seto will not be able to read the first paragraph in > > the above from beginning to end and understand it, so he will get > > confused by what is said there. > > > > Ken Seto- 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: colp on 30 Jun 2010 18:47 On Jul 1, 4:30 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 30, 8:01 am, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > > > > > On Jun 30, 10:26 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > 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. > > > Can you quote it, or give a reference to it? If you can't then it > > looks like you are lying. > > Don't be an idiot, colp, You think I'm an idiot for showing that you are unable quote anything that I said that supports your claim of oversimplification? Or are you just trying to draw attention away from your apparent attempt to mislead the readers? > it's right here in this thread from TWO DAYS > AGO. Is your attention span that short?http://groups.google.com/group/sci..physics.relativity/msg/d40d129af46... I'll quote it here. <quote> > > At best, all you've done is show the > > fallacies or assumptions inherent in COLP's Oversimplified Relativity. > What specific fallacies or assumptions? Quotes, please. Sure. You've used the statement from COLP's Oversimplified Relativity that moving clocks run slow (which you've said is true even for blue- shifted clocks), and you've used the statement that COLP's Oversimplified Relativity makes no provision whatsoever for a compression of time for a clock turning around. This immediately leads to several paradoxes, and this is ample reason to chuck Colp's Oversimplified Relativity. </quote> The statement that "moving clocks run slow" isn't an oversimplification, it is directly inferred from Einstein's "Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies". Also, Einstein's paper makes no provision whatsoever for the compression of time for a clock turning around. The paradoxes which arise from this are ample reason to chuck Einstein's theory. It remains that you are unable to show any fallacies or assumptions of mine that you claimed to exist, which was the original point of contention. It was this point that prompted me to repost my prior exchange with Daryl, which shows quite clearly the irrationality of supporting Einstein's theory. Here it is again: 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.
From: artful on 30 Jun 2010 19:20
On Jul 1, 8:47 am, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > On Jul 1, 4:30 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jun 30, 8:01 am, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > > > > On Jun 30, 10:26 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > 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. > > > > Can you quote it, or give a reference to it? If you can't then it > > > looks like you are lying. > > > Don't be an idiot, colp, > > You think I'm an idiot for showing that you are unable quote anything > that I said that supports your claim of oversimplification? Or are you > just trying to draw attention away from your apparent attempt to > mislead the readers? On MANY occasions you discount what happens at the turnaround because you only look at time dilation and not relativity of simultaneity. The ONLY equations you use are those of time dilation. THAT is an oversimplification. > > it's right here in this thread from TWO DAYS > > AGO. Is your attention span that short?http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/d40d129af46... > > I'll quote it here. > > <quote> > > > > At best, all you've done is show the > > > fallacies or assumptions inherent in COLP's Oversimplified Relativity.. > > What specific fallacies or assumptions? Quotes, please. > > Sure. You've used the statement from COLP's Oversimplified Relativity > that moving clocks run slow (which you've said is true even for blue- > shifted clocks), and you've used the statement that COLP's > Oversimplified Relativity makes no provision whatsoever for a > compression of time for a clock turning around. This immediately leads > to several paradoxes, and this is ample reason to chuck Colp's > Oversimplified Relativity. > </quote> > > The statement that "moving clocks run slow" isn't an > oversimplification, it is directly inferred from Einstein's > "Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies". It IS an over simplification. There is more to SR than just clocks running slow. > Also, Einstein's paper makes no provision whatsoever for the > compression of time for a clock turning around. WRONG > The paradoxes which arise from this are ample reason to chuck > Einstein's theory. There is NO paradox > It remains that you are unable to show any fallacies or assumptions of > mine that you claimed to exist, which was the original point of > contention. WRONG .. your assumption that the turnaround does not affect the clocks is WRONG > It was this point that prompted me to repost my prior exchange with > Daryl, which shows quite clearly the irrationality of supporting > Einstein's theory. Here it is again: The only irrational one is YOU .. who claim to argue about what SR says.. but refuse to actually use what SR says in full. Just a non- working subset. > 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. There is no nonsense involved. I have offered to show you the math over and over .. and you ignore the offer. You are NOT here to learn. You are here to post your own ridiculous position that contradicts the well understood and mathematically-proven-consistent SR Of course.. as usual you will simply accuse me of being a liar and then ignore my posting as you are afraid to be shown wrong. |