Preferred Frame Theory indistinguishable from SR
in [Relativity]
|
From: eric gisse on 5 Jul 2010 19:27 Paul Stowe wrote: > 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. Unholy hell. For a theory that can't make any testable predictions that differ from SR, you sure do shill for LET a lot don'tcha? > 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... Bzzzt. Try again. SR has documented microscopic effects. > >> -- >> Daryl McCullough >> Ithaca, NY > > Paul Stowe
From: Cosmik de Bris on 5 Jul 2010 19:48 On 5/07/10 16:59 , colp wrote: > On Jul 5, 11:52 am, Cosmik de Bris > <cosmik.deb...(a)elec.canterbury.ac.nz> wrote: >> On 4/07/10 11:07 , colp wrote: >> >> >> >>> On Jul 4, 2:10 am, PD<thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On Jul 3, 1:04 am, colp<c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: >> >>>>> On Jul 3, 2:57 am, PD<thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >>>>>> 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. >> >>>>> It is paradoxical because time for both systems cannot be dilated with >>>>> respect to each other. >> >>>> This is your assumption about what can and cannot be. >> >>> No, it is a logical inference derived from Einstein's description of >>> time dilation and his postulate that there is not preferred frame of >>> reference. >> >> Now you are contradicting yourself. > > Wrong. In this case the inference of a paradox means that Einstein's > assumption is wrong. > There is no paradox you idiot. Many people have tried to explain it to you and still you cannot understand. All you keep saying is "prove I'm wrong". It has been done many times but you don't know what constitutes proof, you cannot do any of the maths and you don't understand the theories, the assumptions, or the conclusions. You just keep saying "show me I'm wrong". >> You started this whole thread > > I didn't start this thread, Daryl did. > Yes, this is a different thread but you are blathering the same nonsense except now you changed your stance. >> with a >> reference to a paper claiming that it was possible to find an absolute >> frame. > > You mean the paper I quoted from the "Symmetric Twin Paradox" thread? Yes. > >> This paper you touted as showing SR to be wrong. > > What do you mean by 'touted'? You can't do research, you can't understand physics and now you can't use a dictionary. "To promote or praise energetically; publicize". You're going to say it doesn't mean that now aren't you? > >> and you are not >> using Einstein's description of time dilation you are using a mish-mash >> of stuff of your own making. > > Wrong. I quoted Einstein's description of time dilation from > "Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies". The text is even present in the > post that you replied to. If you think that my description is > materially different, then quote what I said that shows that. You quote the words but you don't get the meaning. There is a vast difference. You don't understand co-ordinates, elapsed time or anything to do with SR. Einstein was assuming his audience had some knowledge about physics and maths. He wasn't writing for a dunderhead like you. As others have pointed out he wasn't always 100% correct but it makes no difference, there are lots of ways of formulating the same theory and they get the same answers. You really are a fool.
From: Paul Stowe on 5 Jul 2010 21:25 On Jul 5, 4:27 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > PaulStowewrote: > > 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. > > Unholy hell. For a theory that can't make any testable predictions that > differ from SR, you sure do shill for LET a lot don'tcha? Yes, and since Lorentz's version came first one can legitimately argue it is SR, not Lorentz's theory that does not make any testable predictions different for LR... But, in fact, it is not true that Lorentz's version has no testable differences. First his version say there is an aether and that it will have one, and only one, state where c is, truly, isotropic. In that frame, and ONLY that frame, a distributed uniform EM radiation field will be observed and measured to have no directional doppler shift. If you are moving you WILL! have a distinct and discernible directional Doppler. Second, since for Lorentz's model the electric field contraction is a real, physical artifact of motion relative to the aether rest frame any attempt to change the state of said fields will be resisted by a counter EMF, requiring a force proportional to the sum of the charges to 'force' the change in speed. IOW, a body in motion will remain so unless acted upon by 'a force'... Those both I would say are significant, testable, different predictions of the two theories. > > 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... > > Bzzzt. Try again. SR has documented microscopic effects. It's a matter of scale... Paul Stowe
From: artful on 5 Jul 2010 21:50 On Jul 6, 11:25 am, Paul Stowe <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 5, 4:27 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > PaulStowewrote: > > > 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. > > > Unholy hell. For a theory that can't make any testable predictions that > > differ from SR, you sure do shill for LET a lot don'tcha? > > Yes, and since Lorentz's version came first one can legitimately argue > it is SR, not Lorentz's theory that does not make any testable > predictions different for LR... Difference without distinction there. Say A makes no predictions different to B is IDENTICAL to saying B makes no predictions different to A. Unless A says things about scenarios B does not handle (or vice versa). > But, in fact, it is not true that > Lorentz's version has no testable differences. Wrong > First his version say > there is an aether and that it will have one, and only one, state > where c is, truly, isotropic. But we can't determine which, because our rulers and clocks are distorted so that c is isotropic in EVERY frame > In that frame, and ONLY that frame, a > distributed uniform EM radiation field will be observed and measured > to have no directional doppler shift. If you are moving you WILL! > have a distinct and discernible directional Doppler. But we can't measure that, because our rulers and clocks are distorted so that c is isotropic in EVERY frame So you bomb out on that one > Second, since for Lorentz's model the electric field contraction is a > real, physical artifact of motion relative to the aether rest frame > any attempt to change the state of said fields will be resisted by a > counter EMF, requiring a force proportional to the sum of the charges > to 'force' the change in speed. IOW, a body in motion will remain so > unless acted upon by 'a force'... Again .. no difference from SR. Before LR became the LET we know and love today, when there was just L/ F contractions, that sort of thing was tested for, it was found not to occur. When you include the affects on clock time, ie LET, you end up explaining that. > Those both I would say are significant, testable, different > predictions of the two theories. Except that you're wrong .. they aren't.
From: Paul Stowe on 5 Jul 2010 22:05
On Jul 5, 6:50 pm, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 6, 11:25 am, Paul Stowe <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Jul 5, 4:27 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > PaulStowewrote: > > > > 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. > > > > Unholy hell. For a theory that can't make any testable predictions that > > > differ from SR, you sure do shill for LET a lot don'tcha? > > > Yes, and since Lorentz's version came first one can legitimately argue > > it is SR, not Lorentz's theory that does not make any testable > > predictions different for LR... > > Difference without distinction there. Say A makes no predictions > different to B is IDENTICAL to saying B makes no predictions different > to A. Unless A says things about scenarios B does not handle (or vice > versa). Except for 'traditional' priority of publication in science... > > But, in fact, it is not true that > > Lorentz's version has no testable differences. > > Wrong Really, does Lorentz not use aether as his basis? > > First his version say > > there is an aether and that it will have one, and only one, state > > where c is, truly, isotropic. > > But we can't determine which, because our rulers and clocks are > distorted so that c is isotropic in EVERY frame No, we declare c isotropic because the asymmetries wash out in round trip scenarios. We have, basically 'defined' the anisotropy away. > > In that frame, and ONLY that frame, a > > distributed uniform EM radiation field will be observed and measured > > to have no directional doppler shift. If you are moving you WILL! > > have a distinct and discernible directional Doppler. > > But we can't measure that, because our rulers and clocks are distorted > so that c is isotropic in EVERY frame Ah, but we can... and do! Just look around at the CMBR, it meets every element of said criteria. As you well know, LR said that while for round trip processes c can be declared as assumed isotropic it really isn't. > So you bomb out on that one Nope, the observed CMBR Doppler (dipole) says you are the one who's wrong... > > Second, since for Lorentz's model the electric field contraction is a > > real, physical artifact of motion relative to the aether rest frame > > any attempt to change the state of said fields will be resisted by a > > counter EMF, requiring a force proportional to the sum of the charges > > to 'force' the change in speed. IOW, a body in motion will remain so > > unless acted upon by 'a force'... > > Again .. no difference from SR. Really? Show me where SR says the Lorentz contraction is real, and not simply an observational artifact. I'd love to see that. > Before LR became the LET we know and love today, when there was just L/ > F contractions, that sort of thing was tested for, it was found not to > occur. When you include the affects on clock time, ie LET, you end up > explaining that. When was that? I know of no experiment of that type predates Lorentz's 1904 publication. > > Those both I would say are significant, testable, different > > predictions of the two theories. > > Except that you're wrong .. they aren't. I guess we disagree here, I told you why above. Paul Stowe |