Preferred Frame Theory indistinguishable from SR
in [Relativity]
|
From: Peter Webb on 6 Jul 2010 01:36 Are their any experimental predictions of SR that you disagree with, or do you agree with all the predictions of SR?
From: harald on 6 Jul 2010 03:25 On Jul 5, 8:26 pm, Paul Stowe <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 5, 10:00 am, harald <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote: > > > > > On Jul 5, 2:46 pm, stevendaryl3...(a)yahoo.com (Daryl McCullough) wrote: > > > > harald says... > > > > >Acceleration effects are not identified as gravitational fields in > > > >Newtonian physics (which, as you now know, you didn't know); and > > > >neither is that the case in SRT. In those theories acceleration is > > > >"absolute", and no gravitational fields are caused by acceleration. > > > > This is a topic for another discussion, but I'm talking about > > > "pseudo-gravitational" fields, which crop up in both SR and Newtonian > > > physics if you use accelerated coordinates. > > > We agree on "pseudo", while Einstein rejected that. > > > > >> I think it is because you have not made it very well. I still > > > >> have no idea what your point is. > > > > >Just study Einstein's paper carefully, > > > > I want to know what *YOUR* point is. State it in your own words. > > > I did, also in the part of my sentence that you exactly here snipped: > > > *you'll know what theory the paradox challenges*. > > > THAT (and only that) was my point: the clock paradox challenges the > > General PoR. > > > You certainly are aware that, despite Einstein's *suggestion* to that > > effect in the introduction of his 1905 paper, SRT is *not* based on > > the General PoR. > > Strictly speaking the 'domain' of the 'special' theory of relativity > is limited to inertial states. The original principle of relativity > as expressed in Einstein's 1905 work covered only that domain. So > Harald is correct, the paradox is confined to the situation where, you > have identical twins one remain in the original inertial frame, the > other accelerated rapidly (nearly instantaneously) to speed ~c travels > for x time wrt the original FOR, reverses comes to an equally rapid > stop (wrt the original FOR) then returns the same way. Since SRT is > based upon v^2 effects (second order quantities) the directionality of > any asymmetry is lost in the expressions that quantify changes. > However, there is NO! paradox, either in nature, or SRT, once one > understands that limitation. The traveling twin, not the stay at home > twin will be physically younger. On a one-way trip however, we can't > say which one would be for an equal physical duration. That would > depend upon the speeds of both FOR relative to the CMBR... > Directionality does matter. I don't follow your last sentence. Perhaps you mean, as Langevin put it, that a change of direction of speed does matter for the asymmetry. Regards, Harald
From: harald on 6 Jul 2010 03:42 On Jul 5, 8:26 pm, Paul Stowe <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 5, 10:00 am, harald <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote: > > > > > On Jul 5, 2:46 pm, stevendaryl3...(a)yahoo.com (Daryl McCullough) wrote: > > > > harald says... > > > > >Acceleration effects are not identified as gravitational fields in > > > >Newtonian physics (which, as you now know, you didn't know); and > > > >neither is that the case in SRT. In those theories acceleration is > > > >"absolute", and no gravitational fields are caused by acceleration. > > > > This is a topic for another discussion, but I'm talking about > > > "pseudo-gravitational" fields, which crop up in both SR and Newtonian > > > physics if you use accelerated coordinates. > > > We agree on "pseudo", while Einstein rejected that. > > > > >> I think it is because you have not made it very well. I still > > > >> have no idea what your point is. > > > > >Just study Einstein's paper carefully, > > > > I want to know what *YOUR* point is. State it in your own words. > > > I did, also in the part of my sentence that you exactly here snipped: > > > *you'll know what theory the paradox challenges*. > > > THAT (and only that) was my point: the clock paradox challenges the > > General PoR. > > > You certainly are aware that, despite Einstein's *suggestion* to that > > effect in the introduction of his 1905 paper, SRT is *not* based on > > the General PoR. > > Strictly speaking the 'domain' of the 'special' theory of relativity > is limited to inertial states. The original principle of relativity > as expressed in Einstein's 1905 work covered only that domain. PS I overlooked the error you made here - a confusion that is often seen. As Eric points out, SRT is *not* (never was!) limited to inertial states. It's the same as for Newtonian mechanics. SRT uses Poincare's PoR, which refers to Newtonian reference systems; and we can switch reference system whenever we like, using the LT. Thus the twin problem is a trivial exercise in SRT. The twin paradox however was aiming Einstein's *General* PoR. Harald
From: colp on 6 Jul 2010 06:27 On Jul 6, 10:07 am, Edward Green <spamspamsp...(a)netzero.com> wrote: > 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. If you don't use a preferred frame then the Hafele-Keating experiment doesn't give the correct results. > > 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? The first postulate of Einstein's first paper on SR says that there is no preferred frame. Unless that postulate is seriously revised your get bogus answers from SR. > > <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? Why assume it when you can prove experimentally that it exists?
From: whoever on 6 Jul 2010 06:32
"colp" wrote in message news:d020c08a-d98c-437a-bd53-2865b2720cef(a)x20g2000pro.googlegroups.com... >On Jul 6, 10:07 am, Edward Green <spamspamsp...(a)netzero.com> wrote: >> Actually, I'm not sure there is a preferred absolute frame, but I >> think there may be something very much like one lurking about. > >If you don't use a preferred frame then the Hafele-Keating experiment >doesn't give the correct results. More lies from hypocrite Colp >> 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? > >The first postulate of Einstein's first paper on SR says that there is >no preferred frame. Unless that postulate is seriously revised your >get bogus answers from SR. More lies from hypocrite Colp >> > 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? > >Why assume it when you can prove experimentally that it exists? You can't Gees Colp .. your idiocy ignorance or dishonesty is astounding .. not sure which you are .. probably both. --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news(a)netfront.net --- |