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: Paul Stowe on 30 Jun 2010 23:38 On Jun 29, 4:59 am, harald <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote: > On Jun 29, 4:11 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jun 28, 8:43 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > > > "eric gisse" <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > > >news:i0bgs3$9bs$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... > > > > > Tom Roberts wrote: > > > > >> PaulStowewrote: > > > >>> On Jun 27, 5:14 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > >>>> PaulStowewrote: > > > >>>>> There is SOMETHING in SR that gives rise to the second postulate. > > > >>>> Axiomatic systems do not need to justify their axioms. > > > > >>> Yeah, 'taken for granted systems' do not need to justify their > > > >>> 'statements which are taken for granted'. > > > > >> 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? > > > > Indeed .. the axioms can describe something 'physical'. Whether or not one > > > can directly test the truth of those axioms experimentally depends on what > > > they are, but one can test the predictions that are made from theories that > > > are derived from those axioms. > > > What happens is usually a multi-step process. > > > For a theory to gain acceptance, it is NOT required that the axioms be > > directly tested or validated or derived. They are provisionally > > assumed, and that's what it MEANS for them to be axioms. All that is > > required is that the testable *consequences* of those axioms match up > > against experiment in a variety of circumstances, the more > > circumstances the better. > > > Once a theory is accepted, there is room to go ahead and see if any of > > the axioms can be directly tested. Sometimes it can (like the > > constancy of the speed of light) and sometimes it can't (the principle > > of relativity). > > > Finally, sometimes you can find a *deeper* or more comprehensive > > theory that explains WHY the axioms are true. Here, "more fundamental" > > can be in the eye of the beholder. For example, the hyperbolic > > structure of spacetime CAN be considered to be more fundamental than > > the light postulate, but some people don't like the notion of > > geometric structure being any kind of a fundamental explanation. In > > many cases, though, it's obvious that the new theory is more > > fundamental. QED is more fundamental than Maxwellian electrodynamics. > > > PD > > Here is how Einstein summarized it in 1907: > > "We [...] assume that the clocks can be adjusted in such a way that > the > propagation velocity of every light ray in vacuum - measured by means > of these clocks - becomes everywhere equal to a universal constant c, > provided that the coordinate system is not accelerated. > [..] > "the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light," is at > least > for a coordinate system in a certain state of motion [..] made > plausible by the confirmation of the Lorentz theory [1895], which is > based on the assumption of an ether that is absolutely at rest, > through experiment" > > Regards, > Harald Sound like Einstein agreed with Lorentz... Paul Stowe
From: Paul Stowe on 30 Jun 2010 23:59 On Jun 29, 8:54 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > PaulStowewrote: > > 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. Lorentz assume an aether (a physical medium), yes... Each such medium has only one state or 'frame' which is 'at rest' as indicated by isotropy which, in turn, results is no distinctive detectable directional Doppler. Ask an submariner sonar tech. From the medium physical aspects the is nothing unique other that inherent isotropy. > So the (also implicit) law of ether motion is > DIFFERENT in different inertial frames, violating the PoR. What law is that? What distinctive physical aspect does this have that demonstrate a measurable violation of the PoR? I say you're grasping at pink fairies... > 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. Yeah and you can't realize that whether one uses 1 - (v/c)^2 or just 1 - (dv/c)^2 between any two moving system the results are identical??? There IS NOTHING! amazing about it. What was unexpected AT THE TIME! was the flexibility of material objects... Sheez... Paul Stowe > Tom Roberts
From: Paul Stowe on 1 Jul 2010 00:02 On Jun 30, 5:08 am, blackhead <larryhar...(a)softhome.net> wrote: > On 30 June, 04:54, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > > > PaulStowewrote: > > > 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. > > 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. > > Right. But experiments have ruled out LET, correct? Nope, in fact LR have a much better physical basis that the abstract 'axioms' of SR/GR. With LR one can explain the nature, basis of, and reason for the behavior of SR and GR. Paul Stowe
From: Koobee Wublee on 1 Jul 2010 01:13 On Jun 30, 8:36 pm, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > Yes indeed .. time dilation can give you RoS and Length contraction. What the hell is RoS? If you guys want to pass some coded secret love letters, please have some decency in doing so. <shrug> > However Colp is using time dilation and ignoring completely RoS .. so > what he is putting forward is no longer SR and no longer a self- > consistent theory. That means what he sees as complete SR is missing > large chunks .. the very chunks that explain what he incorrectly > claims is a paradox. And yes .. that is incompetency. So, you have discover this RoS as a "get out of jail free" card from the Lorentz transform and are bragging about it. Is your secret love, Mr. McCullough, the only one who understand the pheromone in that? So, this RoS thing is the key to resolve the twins' paradox under the Lorentz transform. Should one hold his breath for you and Mr. McCullough's publications? In the meantime, as a lousy poker player, I am calling your bluff all the way. <shrug>
From: whoever on 1 Jul 2010 01:19
"Koobee Wublee" wrote in message news:99b5c8a6-7594-44dd-8250-c80a39fa2c67(a)g19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com... > I am calling your bluff all the way. <shrug> I've called yours first .. show the paradox in SR that you claim is there. We all know you can't do it .. but its so funny to watch you squirm --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news(a)netfront.net --- |