Preferred Frame Theory indistinguishable from SR
in [Relativity]
|
From: artful on 5 Jul 2010 23:07 On Jul 6, 12:05 pm, Paul Stowe <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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: > > > 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... Irrelevant to the argument > > > But, in fact, it is not true that > > > Lorentz's version has no testable differences. > > > Wrong > > Really, yes > does Lorentz not use aether as his basis? Irrelevant.. The inclusion of an undetectable aether does not make for testable differences. Try a new argument. > > > 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, Wrong > we declare c isotropic because the asymmetries wash out in round > trip scenarios. We have, basically 'defined' the anisotropy away. And so we get isotropy. There goes your argument down the drain again > > > 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! Wrong > Just look around at the CMBR, it meets > every element of said criteria. So .. you can prvoe there is CMBR. That does NOT prove LET > As you well know, LR said that while > for round trip processes c can be declared as assumed isotropic it > really isn't. What is 'really' is that we cannot measure makes no difference to what we measure. Try again. > > So you bomb out on that one > > Nope, Yes you did > the observed CMBR Doppler (dipole) says you are the one who's > wrong... No .. it just says there is CMBR. Nothing about SR says that is not the case. That does NOT mean there is an aether. Try again > > > 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? Yes > Show me where SR says the Lorentz contraction is real, That is what SR says .. try studying it. And study LET while you're at it, you seem confused about it. > and > not simply an observational artifact. I'd love to see that. So are you now claiming the SR is actually LET? > > 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? Look up the Lorentz/Fitzgerald contraction. > I know of no experiment of that type predates > Lorentz's 1904 publication. I'm not responsible for your ignorance. > > > 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. And I told you why .. because you are wrong. Please .. learn the theories before you defend or attack them.
From: eric gisse on 5 Jul 2010 23:17 Paul Stowe 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... I find myself re-reminding you that your knowledge of relativity does not extend past 1905. SR's group theoretic foundation has no analog in LET, nor is there that much discussion about how to handle energy and momentum in LET. > 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. Since we've measured c to be isotropic in every measured way, this tells you what? Since we have also seen zero violations of Lorentz invariance, this tells you what? Probably something other than 'LET is wrong', of course. > 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'... Whatever. > > 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: Tom Roberts on 6 Jul 2010 00:34 Edward Green wrote: > Is the assumption of a hidden rest frame somehow inconsistent with > relativistic dynamics? In modern physics the essence of SR is summarized thus: all theories of physics must be locally Lorentz invariant. Relativity itself has no dynamics, and it kinematic content is contained in the above aphorism. The use of any special or unique inertial frame that is referenced in the dynamic equations of a theory is inconsistent with local Lorentz invariance. So, for instance, LET violates the above requirement, as does the theory derived from the preferred-frame postulates Daryl gave. This is so even though both of those theories are experimentally indistinguishable from SR, and both of them have an unobservable preferred frame. Tom Roberts
From: Surfer on 6 Jul 2010 00:40 On Mon, 5 Jul 2010 18:50:50 -0700 (PDT), artful <artful_me(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> �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 > That would be true if isotropy could only be determined by using such distorted rulers and clocks. However, if light objectively propagates through a medium at speed c, as opposed to propagating relative to any arbitrarily chosen inertial frame of reference at speed c, then a different formula holds for radar Doppler shift. In the former case, with, c as the speed of light, vi as the absolute velocity of the radar system V as a collinear target velocity relative and towards the radar system Ft as the transmitted radar frequency, and, Fr as the frequency of the echo received back at the radar system, the formula is, (c + vi) (c - vi + V) Fr = --------------- ---------------- Ft . (c + vi - V) ( c - vi) However, in the latter case, the situation in any inertial frame, is the same as having an absolute velocity vi = zero. In that case, the formula simplifies to: (c + V) Fr = ------------ Ft . (c - V) So there is a testable difference between the two cases. There is also evidence in the following paper, that it is the first formula above that holds, rather than the second. Resolving Spacecraft Earth-Flyby Anomalies with Measured Light Speed Anisotropy Prog.Phys.3:9-15,2008 http://arxiv.org/abs/0804.0039 ".....Doppler shift observations of spacecraft, such as Galileo, NEAR, Cassini, Rosetta and MESSENGER in earth flybys, have all revealed unexplained speed `anomalies' - that the doppler-shift determined speeds are inconsistent with expected speeds. Here it is shown that these speed anomalies are not real and are actually the result of using an incorrect relationship between the observed doppler shift and the speed of the spacecraft - a relationship based on the assumption that the speed of light is isotropic in all frames, i.e. invariant. Taking account of the repeatedly measured light-speed anisotropy the anomalies are resolved. The Pioneer 10/11 anomalies are discussed, but not resolved. The spacecraft observations demonstrate again that the speed of light is not invariant, and is isotropic only with respect to a dynamical 3-space. The existing doppler shift data also offers a resource to characterise a new form of gravitational waves, the dynamical 3-space turbulence, that has also been detected by other techniques....." <End extract>
From: Paul Stowe on 6 Jul 2010 00:56
On Jul 5, 9:34 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > Edward Green wrote: > > Is the assumption of a hidden rest frame somehow inconsistent with > > relativistic dynamics? > > In modern physics the essence of SR is summarized thus: all theories of physics > must be locally Lorentz invariant. > > Relativity itself has no dynamics, and it kinematic content is contained in the > above aphorism. The use of any special or unique inertial frame that is > referenced in the dynamic equations of a theory is inconsistent with local > Lorentz invariance. > > So, for instance, LET violates the above requirement, as does the theory derived > from the preferred-frame postulates Daryl gave. This is so even though both of > those theories are experimentally indistinguishable from SR, and both of them > have an unobservable preferred frame. > > Tom Roberts So, how does that cause a violation of local Lorentz invariance??? If it does, shouldn't that BE a means of distinguishing a difference? Your statements seem oxymoronic... Paul Stowe |