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: Androcles on 2 Jul 2010 05:10 "harald" <hvan(a)swissonline.ch> wrote in message news:1d60deb6-6b2c-490f-9444-82baa9479ca2(a)d16g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... On Jul 2, 1:25 am, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > On Jul 2, 2:26 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jul 1, 12:53 am, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > > > > On Jul 1, 11:37 am, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jun 30, 4:20 pm, artful wrote: > > > > > > On Jul 1, 8:47 am, colp wrote: > > > > > > 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. > > > > > Nonsense and mysticism. <shrug> > > > > A postulate is just an assumption with better table manners. > > > Yes, indeed. By DEFINITION, a postulate is something that is ASSUMED. > > > In science, the test of a postulate is based on experimental check of > > the *consequences* of postulates. A direct test of the postulate is > > not required. > > One such test is the test for paradoxes arising from one or more > postulates. For example, the following two postulates lead to a > paradox, meaning that not all the postulates are correct: > > 1. Statement 2 is true. > 2. Statement 1 is false. > > The paradox that arises from the postulates of Einstein's > "Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" can be described as follows: > > "Examples of this sort, together with the unsuccessful attempts to > discover > any motion of the earth relatively to the �light medium,� suggest that > the > phenomena of electrodynamics as well as of mechanics possess no > properties > corresponding to the idea of absolute rest. They suggest rather that, > as has > already been shown to the first order of small quantities, the same > laws of > electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of reference > for which the > equations of mechanics hold good.1 We will raise this conjecture (the > purport > of which will hereafter be called the �Principle of Relativity�) to > the status > of a postulate, and also introduce another postulate, which is only > apparently > irreconcilable with the former, namely, that light is always > propagated in empty > space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of > motion of the > emitting body." > > Einstien, Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies (Introduction) > > This text describes Einstein's postulate that there is no preferred > inertial frame of reference. I agree that there is a paradox in his introduction: 1. Natural phenomena (incl. mechanical phenomena) suggested to him that these do not have "properties corresponding to the idea of absolute rest" 2. Based on that, he accepted for all natural phenomena the classical PoR, which is defined relative to the *special* group of reference systems "for which the equations of mechanics hold good". Now, that special group of reference systems of statement 2 suggested to Newton the idea of of absolute rest - which is in disaccord with Einstein's suggestion in statement 1! ================================================ So this statement is wrong: It is essential to have time defined by means of stationary clocks in the stationary system, and the time now defined being appropriate to the stationary system we call it ``the time of the stationary system'', because there is no stationary system. As we know, Einstein wasn't satisfied with this himself, and he did a last attempt with GRT. But there is no conflict of postulates, ================================================== Assertion carries no weight. "also introduce another postulate, which is only apparently irreconcilable with the former" Einstein was still struggling with it 15 years later: http://www.bartleby.com/173/7.html VII. The Apparent Incompatibility of the Law of Propagation of Light with the Principle of Relativity "THERE is hardly a simpler law in physics than that according to which light is propagated in empty space. Every child at school knows, or believes he knows, that this propagation takes place in straight lines with a velocity c = 300,000 km./sec", RELATIVE TO THE SOURCE, NOT RELATIVE TO THE "EMPTY SPACE" aka "STATIONARY SYSTEM OF COORDINATES" aka "INERTIAL FRAME OF REFERENCE" aka ABSOLUTE STATIONARY FRAME" aka "REST FRAME" aka "OBFUSCATING BULLSHIT". As we know, Einstein wasn't satisfied with this himself, and he did a last attempt AFTER GRT. But there is still a conflict of postulates, as every child at school knows. ======================================
From: Daryl McCullough on 2 Jul 2010 07:37 harald says... >Now, that special group of reference systems of statement 2 suggested >to Newton the idea of of absolute rest - which is in disaccord with >Einstein's suggestion in statement 1! It's hard for me to believe that Newton thought that. Do you have a quote saying that? Newtonian physics is well-known to be invariant under Galilean transformations, which has no absolute notion of rest. It's possible that Newton didn't understand that, but it doesn't seem likely, his being a genius and all. -- Daryl McCullough Ithaca, NY
From: Daryl McCullough on 2 Jul 2010 10:25 harald says... [quoting Newton] >"It is indeed a matter of great difficulty to discover, and >effectually to distinguish, the true motion of particular bodies from >the apparent; because the parts of that immovable space, in which >those motions are performed, do by no means come under the observation >of our senses. [...] >But how we are to collect the true motions from their causes, effects, >and apparent differences; and, vice versa, how from the motions, >either true or apparent, we may come to the knowledge of their causes >and effects, shall be explained more at large in the following tract. >For to this end it was that I composed it." It's not completely clear what he means by "true motions" and "apparent motions", but if he meant that there was an absolute standard of rest, then he was just mistaken---there is no evidence of such a thing. -- Daryl McCullough Ithaca, NY
From: PD on 2 Jul 2010 10:57 On Jul 1, 6:25 pm, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > On Jul 2, 2:26 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 1, 12:53 am, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > > > > On Jul 1, 11:37 am, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jun 30, 4:20 pm, artful wrote: > > > > > > On Jul 1, 8:47 am, colp wrote: > > > > > > 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. > > > > > Nonsense and mysticism. <shrug> > > > > A postulate is just an assumption with better table manners. > > > Yes, indeed. By DEFINITION, a postulate is something that is ASSUMED. > > > In science, the test of a postulate is based on experimental check of > > the *consequences* of postulates. A direct test of the postulate is > > not required. > > One such test is the test for paradoxes arising from one or more > postulates. For example, the following two postulates lead to a > paradox, meaning that not all the postulates are correct: > > 1. Statement 2 is true. > 2. Statement 1 is false. > > The paradox that arises from the postulates of Einstein's > "Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" can be described as follows: > > "Examples of this sort, together with the unsuccessful attempts to > discover > any motion of the earth relatively to the light medium, suggest that > the > phenomena of electrodynamics as well as of mechanics possess no > properties > corresponding to the idea of absolute rest. They suggest rather that, > as has > already been shown to the first order of small quantities, the same > laws of > electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of reference > for which the > equations of mechanics hold good.1 We will raise this conjecture (the > purport > of which will hereafter be called the Principle of Relativity) to > the status > of a postulate, and also introduce another postulate, which is only > apparently > irreconcilable with the former, namely, that light is always > propagated in empty > space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of > motion of the > emitting body." > > Einstien, Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies (Introduction) > > This text describes Einstein's postulate that there is no preferred > inertial frame of reference. > > "If at the points A and B of K there are stationary clocks which, > viewed in the stationary system, are synchronous; and if the clock at > A is moved with the velocity v along the line AB to B, then on its > arrival at B the two clocks no longer synchronize, but the clock moved > from A to B lags behind the other which has remained at B ..." > > Einstien, Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies (Section 4) > > The text describes the time dilation of a clock that moves from point > A to point B. If there is no preferred frame of reference then it is > just as true to say that > the clock is viewed as part of a stationary system and the points A > and B are in a moving system which moves at velocity -v. The > conclusion that time for both systems can be dilated with respect to > the other system is paradoxical. No, it's not paradoxical at all. In the moving frame, the clocks at A and B were never synchronous. Thus the fact that the clock that remains at B (and therefore moves with respect to your clock which sits while points A and B wash by) is ahead of the other clock makes perfect sense, physically. There is no paradox. There is only your superficial and oversimplified understanding of what relativity says. PD
From: PD on 2 Jul 2010 10:58
On Jul 2, 3:31 am, harald <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote: > On Jul 2, 1:25 am, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 2, 2:26 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jul 1, 12:53 am, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > > > > > On Jul 1, 11:37 am, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Jun 30, 4:20 pm, artful wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 1, 8:47 am, colp wrote: > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > Nonsense and mysticism. <shrug> > > > > > A postulate is just an assumption with better table manners. > > > > Yes, indeed. By DEFINITION, a postulate is something that is ASSUMED. > > > > In science, the test of a postulate is based on experimental check of > > > the *consequences* of postulates. A direct test of the postulate is > > > not required. > > > One such test is the test for paradoxes arising from one or more > > postulates. For example, the following two postulates lead to a > > paradox, meaning that not all the postulates are correct: > > > 1. Statement 2 is true. > > 2. Statement 1 is false. > > > The paradox that arises from the postulates of Einstein's > > "Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" can be described as follows: > > > "Examples of this sort, together with the unsuccessful attempts to > > discover > > any motion of the earth relatively to the light medium, suggest that > > the > > phenomena of electrodynamics as well as of mechanics possess no > > properties > > corresponding to the idea of absolute rest. They suggest rather that, > > as has > > already been shown to the first order of small quantities, the same > > laws of > > electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of reference > > for which the > > equations of mechanics hold good.1 We will raise this conjecture (the > > purport > > of which will hereafter be called the Principle of Relativity) to > > the status > > of a postulate, and also introduce another postulate, which is only > > apparently > > irreconcilable with the former, namely, that light is always > > propagated in empty > > space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of > > motion of the > > emitting body." > > > Einstien, Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies (Introduction) > > > This text describes Einstein's postulate that there is no preferred > > inertial frame of reference. > > I agree that there is a paradox in his introduction: > > 1. Natural phenomena (incl. mechanical phenomena) suggested to him > that these do not have "properties corresponding to the idea of > absolute rest" > 2. Based on that, he accepted for all natural phenomena the classical > PoR, which is defined relative to the *special* group of reference > systems "for which the equations of mechanics hold good". > > Now, that special group of reference systems of statement 2 suggested > to Newton the idea of of absolute rest - which is in disaccord with > Einstein's suggestion in statement 1! No, it doesn't. The special group of reference systems are the inertial reference systems, which implies NOTHING about absolute rest. > > As we know, Einstein wasn't satisfied with this himself, and he did a > last attempt with GRT. But there is no conflict of postulates, only a > poor match between a *suggestion* and a postulate. > > > "If at the points A and B of K there are stationary clocks which, > > viewed in the stationary system, are synchronous; and if the clock at > > A is moved with the velocity v along the line AB to B, then on its > > arrival at B the two clocks no longer synchronize, but the clock moved > > from A to B lags behind the other which has remained at B ..." > > > Einstien, Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies (Section 4) > > > The text describes the time dilation of a clock that moves from point > > A to point B. If there is no preferred frame of reference then it is > > just as true to say that > > the clock is viewed as part of a stationary system and the points A > > and B are in a moving system which moves at velocity -v. The > > conclusion that time for both systems can be dilated with respect to > > the other system is paradoxical. > > That is based on his suggestion 1. here above, which he did not follow > up for the 1905 theory: it was directly nullified by the restriction > (statement 2) to the special class of inertial coordinate systems. > Therefore the theory of Einstein and Lorentz was seen as a single > theory and called "special" or "restricted" relativity. > > However, Einstein did acknowledge that issue as a paradox (apparent > contradiction) of GRT. > > Harald- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - |