Preferred Frame Theory indistinguishable from SR
in [Relativity]
|
From: harald on 6 Jul 2010 06:34 On Jul 6, 5:17 am, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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 "LET" is whatever strawman you wish it to be. However, SR does have as you put it, a "group theoretic foundation", as Poincare explained here: http://searcher88.wikispaces.com/Poincare1905 [..] Harald
From: harald on 6 Jul 2010 06:37 On Jul 6, 6:56 am, Paul Stowe <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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... You can safely scrap "seem"! ;-) Harald
From: harald on 6 Jul 2010 06:47 On Jul 6, 12:27 pm, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > 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? What some people accept as conclusive proof, other people reason away. For example, for Creationists the existence of dinosaur skeletons isn't conclusive proof for the old age of the earth. And only one century ago, Mach held that atoms don't really exist. Harald
From: Surfer on 6 Jul 2010 07:37 On Mon, 05 Jul 2010 20:17:44 -0700, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nospam(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >Since we've measured c to be isotropic in every measured way, this tells you >what? > That the Einstein clock synchronization protocol doesn't allow the one way speed of light to be objectively measured. > >Since we have also seen zero violations of Lorentz invariance, this tells >you what? > That Lorentz invariance is consistent with one way light speed anisotropy. Eg Vacuum MM experiments in inertial frames tell us that the two way speed of light is isotropic, but tell us nothing about the one way speeds.
From: Daryl McCullough on 6 Jul 2010 08:11
Surfer says... > >On Mon, 05 Jul 2010 20:17:44 -0700, eric gisse ><jowr.pi.nospam(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> >>Since we've measured c to be isotropic in every measured way, this tells you >>what? >> >That the Einstein clock synchronization protocol doesn't allow the one >way speed of light to be objectively measured. It's not just the Einstein clock synchronization protocol. *Every* approach for synchronizing clocks that doesn't rely on specialized initial conditions yields the same results. For example: You might synchronize distant clocks by taking two clocks at the same location, set them to the same time, and then slowly move one of the clocks to a distant location. This yields the same result as using light signal synchronization. Alternatively, you might get a long straight stick that exactly fits between the two clocks, and then slowly move the stick so that one end touches one clock at the same time that the other end touches the other clock. Then you can synchronize the distant clocks by setting each clock to t=0 when the end reaches the clock. That gives the same result. How do you propose to synchronize clocks in order to determine the absolute rest frame? -- Daryl McCullough Ithaca, NY |