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: colp on 1 Jul 2010 01:39 On Jul 1, 1:09 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > colp wrote: > > [...] > > Riddle me this: Why have you not actually performed a computation using SR? > > {sci.chem,sci.math snipped - crosspost elsewhere, fuckwit} I didn't crosspost to sci.chem or to sci.math
From: harald on 1 Jul 2010 04:16 On Jul 1, 5:38 am, Paul Stowe <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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 Yes they largely agreed, which is why they presented it as the same theory; they mostly disagreed about presentation. In particular Einstein did not see the usefulness of introducing a physical concept that doesn't show up in the resulting equations. Regards, Harald
From: harald on 1 Jul 2010 05:10 On Jul 1, 5:59 am, Paul Stowe <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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... It definitely is a pink fairy! And after all these years, Tom should know better. Poincare first presented the modern PoR and recognized that Lorentz's 1904 theory fulfilled the PoR; and in 1907* Einstein presented his 1905 theory and Lorentz's 1904 theory as the same theory of physics, which was "made plausible" by Lorentz's 1895 theory. Note that Lorentz's 1895 theory "is based on the assumption of an ether that is absolutely at rest", as Einstein put it. Labels as "LR" and "LET" are later inventions. *Einstein, "The relativity principle", translated from "Uber das Relativitatsprinzip und die aus demselben gezogenen Folgerungen", p. 411, Jahrbuch der Radioaktivität und Elektronik 4, 1907 > > 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. [..] > Sheez... "Sheez" indeed! Harald
From: harald on 1 Jul 2010 05:33 On Jul 1, 12:47 am, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > On Jul 1, 4:30 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: [..] > <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. Einstein's paper explains that clock rate (as measured with an inertial coordinate system) must be the same at the same speed, independent of the direction of motion of the clock. Is that what you mean? > The paradoxes which arise from this are ample reason to chuck > Einstein's theory. What paradoxes? Different people perceive different paradoxes, but they are all easy to explain; and probably the thinking error that you fell for was already explained to you, but you either overlooked or misunderstood it. Harald
From: artful on 1 Jul 2010 09:15
On Jul 1, 3:53 pm, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: >>> Please show the math on the turn around. If not, get lost. > >He (Inertial/whoever/artful) can't do it. Wrong. > He lied when he previously > told me that he did, I apologised for the mistake about what I thought I'd posted. > and then denied claiming that he did after I > called him on it. I apologised for the mistake about what I thought I'd posted. You aren't interested in physics, colp, just in make ad-him attacks on other posters when it is obvious that you're in a losing position I asked you over and over if you want me to post the analysis .. you ignored it. |