Preferred Frame Theory indistinguishable from SR
in [Relativity]
|
From: PD on 6 Jul 2010 16:56 On Jul 5, 12:04 am, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > On Jul 5, 7:31 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 3, 6:06 pm, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > > > > On Jul 4, 2:14 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jul 3, 1:06 am, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > > > > > > On Jul 3, 3:03 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 1, 7:56 pm, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Jul 2, 2:21 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Jun 30, 5:47 pm, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > <quote> > > > > > > > > > > > > At best, all you've done is show the > > > > > > > > > > > fallacies or assumptions inherent in COLP's Oversimplified Relativity. > > > > > > > > > > What specific fallacies or assumptions? Quotes, please. > > > > > > > > > > Sure. You've used the statement from COLP's Oversimplified Relativity > > > > > > > > > that moving clocks run slow (which you've said is true even for blue- > > > > > > > > > shifted clocks), and you've used the statement that COLP's > > > > > > > > > Oversimplified Relativity makes no provision whatsoever for a > > > > > > > > > compression of time for a clock turning around. This immediately leads > > > > > > > > > to several paradoxes, and this is ample reason to chuck Colp's > > > > > > > > > Oversimplified Relativity. > > > > > > > > > </quote> > > > > > > > > > > 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 oversimplification. If you've inferred this from his 1905 > > > > > > > > paper, then you've oversimplified. > > > > > > > > No, inferring something from a paper does not constitute an > > > > > > > oversimplification. > > > > > > > It does if it's an oversimplification of what's presented in the > > > > > > paper! > > > > > > It isn't. Claiming that it is without showing why is of no value. > > > > > You aren't owed an education on a newsgroup, despite your taunts to > > > > the contrary. > > > > I'm not asking for an education, I'm pointing out that all you have to > > > defend you beliefs are hollow claims. > > > No, they are fully supportable claims. > > Wrong. The burden of proof is yours. You can't support them because no > such support exists. I'm sorry, but both sentences are wrong. Since it's been pointed out to you that your understanding of relativity is shallow and oversimplified, and since resources to correct that have been explicitly pointed at for you, then the burden is on YOU to correct that. If you have an erroneous understanding of something, you do NOT have the right to insist, "My presentation of it is correct, unless someone steps in and proves that it's wrong." No one owes you a convincing. The facts are not hidden. They are at your disposal. You either CHOOSE to correct your erroneous understanding or you CHOOSE not to. PD
From: PD on 6 Jul 2010 17:05 On Jul 6, 7:26 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > On Jul 6, 12:34 am, 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. > > The problem with this staement is that it ignores the fact that each > locality has its own standards for a unit of time and distance. In > other words, locally Lorentz invariant cannot be applied globally. And why is this a problem? > > Ken Sedto > > > > > > > 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 invariant. > > > 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- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: Cosmik de Bris on 6 Jul 2010 19:32 On 6/07/10 22:27 , colp 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. > Whaaat? What is the preferred frame in this experiment and what are the the wrong 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. > Well done, you are starting to get it. >> >> <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? Now you've lost it again, you'll have a hard time proving that. Not that you'll be able to of course.
From: Paul Stowe on 6 Jul 2010 20:47 On Jul 6, 12:25 am, harald <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote: > On Jul 5, 8:26 pm, PaulStowe<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 According to LR the rate at which time passes is related to the absolute speed wrt to the aether frame. For any round trip direction is irrelevant, the total travel necessary to complete the circuit will guarantee the total time will be relative to the delta velocity between the systems. However!, if, for example you are traveling at 600,000 Kps in some direction as measured by the CMBR Doppler and accelerate in a direction as to bring your speed to zero wrt to the CMBR, LR predicts that your rate of time passage is now proceeding faster than your stay at home twin. That twin is now receding from you at 600,000 Kps and to EVER! hope to get back to him you must catch up to him. Doing so requires you to go faster, longer, than ANY outbound track, making the total elapsed time still less when you get back than his. However, if you don't go back, LR say your time passes faster. Note however that for the outbound one-way trip your clock rate depends upon whether you're increasing or decreasing your speed relative to the CMBR. Definitely direction dependent. Paul Stowe
From: Paul Stowe on 6 Jul 2010 20:56
On Jul 6, 12:42 am, harald <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote: > On Jul 5, 8:26 pm, PaulStowe<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 'I' never said Lorentzian Relativity (LR) or it renormalized cousin (SR) is 'limited' to inertial frames. I said that, traditionally, the concept commonly called 'special' relativity is such (special) because it is considered the subset of general relativity limited to unaccelerated frames of reference. Nature places no barrier or boundary on relativity, human concepts do! This is why I refused to call LR 'LET'. LR is no more limited to such artificial boundaries than SR... Paul Stowe |