Preferred Frame Theory indistinguishable from SR
in [Relativity]
|
From: Edward Green on 5 Jul 2010 18:07 Exploring backwards to the beginning of this thread, I find that on Jun 25, 9:14 am, stevendaryl3...(a)yahoo.com (Daryl McCullough) wrote: > There is a variety of anti-relativity dissident that consists of > people who accept length contraction and time dilation, but don't > accept the relativity principle. They assume something along the > lines of: > > There is a preferred frame, F, and there is an associated > coordinate system such that > > 1. Light travels in straight lines at speed c, as measured in F's > coordinate system. > 2. An ideal clocks in motion relative to F has an elapsed time > given by dT/dt = square-root(1-(v/c)^2), where t is the time > coordinate of F's coordinate system, and v is the velocity of > the clock, as measured in F's coordinate system, and T is the > elapsed time on the clock. > 3. An ideal meterstick in motion, with the stick aligned in the > direction of its motion, will have a length given by > L = square-root(1-(v/c)^2). I am that crank ;^} ! Actually, I'm not sure there is a preferred absolute frame, but I think there may be something very much like one lurking about. You go on to assert that the acceptance of rules 1-3 is tantamount to acceptance of SR. I do not deny it. So now where are we? <reluctant snip> > Note: 1-3 only captures the aspects of relativity that involve > length, time and motion. Those things are called "kinematics". > That's not all of relativity, because it doesn't have > any *dynamics*. It doesn't say anything about forces, or about > how electromagnetism affects charged particles, or vice-verse. > However, for most thought experiments exploring SR, 1-3 is > completely adequate. Is the assumption of a hidden rest frame somehow inconsistent with relativistic dynamics?
From: Edward Green on 5 Jul 2010 18:09 On Jun 25, 10:36 am, rotchm <rot...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > <SNIP> > > > I would think that anybody could see that rules 1-3 are consistent. > > You cannot deduce a contradiction from these rules. Note that the > > contradiction that so many anti-relativists think that they have > > found in SR, namely, mutual time dilation, is not present in these > > rules, <SNIP> > > All that is well know; LET, as a preferred frame and SR have the same > predictions for standard experiments. > Most relativist, etherist and dissidents are oblivious to that fact. Well, I'm an aetherist (with and "a", thank you), and I'm not. Now what?
From: Daryl McCullough on 5 Jul 2010 18:37 Edward Green says... >Is the assumption of a hidden rest frame somehow inconsistent with >relativistic dynamics? I would think that you would have to have a violation of Special Relativity in order to meaningfully talk about a rest frame. It is certainly possible that SR could be *approximately* correct, for certain experiments, but it might be found to be violated for sufficiently precise experiments. For example, spacetime could be a discrete lattice at small enough scales, and SR could still be correct for macroscopic experiments. -- Daryl McCullough Ithaca, NY
From: Paul Stowe on 5 Jul 2010 18:55 On Jul 5, 3:37 pm, stevendaryl3...(a)yahoo.com (Daryl McCullough) wrote: > Edward Green says... > > >Is the assumption of a hidden rest frame somehow inconsistent with > >relativistic dynamics? > > I would think that you would have to have a violation of Special Relativity > in order to meaningfully talk about a rest frame. What do you mean by 'meaningful'? For example, the ONLY difference between Lorentz's take and Einstein's on relativity is Lorentz starts with the rest frame and Einstein the local frame. Given the mathematical form it is easy to prove (and Lorentz concurred) that one can always renormalized their baseline to their local frame. If one uses the renormalized method it results in simpler mathematics and does not change any results since only dv has any effect. This is WHY both versions are identical. Thus, I don't see how having a rest frame would, or even could, result in a violation of SR. > It is certainly possible > that SR could be *approximately* correct, for certain experiments, but it > might be found to be violated for sufficiently precise experiments. For > example, spacetime could be a discrete lattice at small enough scales, > and SR could still be correct for macroscopic experiments. SR is macroscopic behavior, just like all such bulk behaviors of kinetic theory leading to continuum mechanics... > -- > Daryl McCullough > Ithaca, NY Paul Stowe
From: Esa Riihonen on 5 Jul 2010 19:24
Androcles kirjoitti: > "Esa Riihonen" <esa(a)riihonen.net.not.invalid> wrote in message > news:pan.2010.07.05.21.17.07(a)riihonen.net.not.invalid... | Androcles > kirjoitti: > | > | > "Esa Riihonen" <esa(a)riihonen.net.not.invalid> wrote in message | > > news:pan.2010.07.05.13.36.28(a)riihonen.net.not.invalid... | Androcles | > > kirjoitti: > | > | > | > | > "Esa Riihonen" <esa(a)riihonen.net.not.invalid> wrote in message | > > | > news:pan.2010.07.05.09.35.48(a)riihonen.net.not.invalid... | > | > Strange - | > | > the standard twin paradox uses at least three inertial > | > frames: | | > > | > > | > | > | > | > | > | > | > | 1: The stay home frame 0 | > | > | > > | > | > | > That's one. > | > | > | > > | > | > | > > | > | > | > | 2: Outward frame 1, speed v_01 relative to the home frame > | > | > | > | > > | > | > | > Speed is neither a coordinate system nor a frame of > reference. | | > | > | Indeed - why state the obvious. | > | > | > > Because it is necessary when *you* blunder. | > | > | > > | > | > What above means is that inertial systems | are moving with > constant | > | > mutual velocities. This is basic stuff from | classical > mechanics - | > so | > it is hard to believe you were really confused | > by my wording. | | > > > | > | > There are only two systems of coordinates in Einstein's SR, > namely | > the | > "stationary frame", the "moving frame" and the "empty > space" | > that light | > moves at speed c in. (Three always equals > two.) | | > | Only two systems of coordinates - sheesh. Actually one can > set as many | > | systems of coordinates in SR (inertial or not) as > anyone care to | > consider. > | > > | > Hmmm... > | > > | > Well, there is the stationary frame K where the speed of light is c. > | > That has coordinates (x,y,z) to which Einstein wrongfully adds t to > give | > (x,y,z,t). > | > > | > Then there is the moving frame k where the speed of light is c-v one > way | > and c+v back again. That has coordinates (xi,eta, zeta, tau) | > > | > And then there is the kappa frame that Einstein didn't name, | > | As I have said many times again - I am not at all interested how E | > presented his theory over a century ago. > > Then this discussion is over, I have no interest in Esa Riihonen's > theory of inertial frames. OK - fine. But as I said - I claim no originality, it certainly is not my theory - just the modern textbook treatment. I'm a bit sad for the old Luke though - would have liked to see how you brought him back to Han. Esa(R) -- All proofs can be reduced to one line, assuming we start sufficiently far to the left. |