Preferred Frame Theory indistinguishable from SR
in [Relativity]
|
From: artful on 6 Jul 2010 21:50 On Jul 7, 11:38 am, Paul Stowe <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 6, 6:18 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > > > PaulStowewrote: > > > While observationally > > > equivalent from LR verse SR perspective of 'relativity', an actual > > > change of the electric potential profile of charges with speed will > > > result in a EMF, which will create a 'force' in opposition to any > > > departure from any current equilibrium condition. THAT! is a > > > significant difference. By any reasonable definition is certainly not > > > 'nothing'... > > > A reasonable meaning of "significant difference" between the predictions of two > > theories is that it be measurable. With that meaning, what you describe is not a > > significant difference. > > > Tom Roberts > > What is not measurable about a resistance to changes in speed of > material systems? > > Paul Stowe Newtons laws already give that, without the need for an aether. You don't need a REASON why something at rest in some inertial frame of reference will stay at rest, and you certainly don't need an ether to predict it. Now .. come on .. come up with some prediction of LET that is DIFFERENCE to SR that we can MEASURE to be different. Or admit that the two theories are equivalent as to what they predict we would measure in their overlapping domains of applicability.
From: artful on 6 Jul 2010 21:54 On Jul 7, 11:42 am, Paul Stowe <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 6, 6:36 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > > > > > > > PaulStowewrote: > > > 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 > > >> 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. > > > > So, how does that cause a violation of local Lorentz invariance??? > > > By having a unique frame distinguished by reference in the equations. Local > > Lorentz invariance applies to the equations of the theory. > > > > If > > > it does, shouldn't that BE a means of distinguishing a difference? > > > It would be, except that for LET the ether frame is completely unobservable. One > > cannot measure an unobservable quantity, such as one's velocity wrt the ether > > frame of LET. > > > Tom Roberts > > Thus, logically, LR has the very same 'local Lorentz invariance'. > Note it's NOT! called local Einstein invariance... The rest frame > does not violate this and is quite observable... > > Paul Stowe LET (which for some unknown reason you call LR) only has Lorentz Invariance for what we measure. But unlike SR, it says there is a unique absolute frame and that movement in that frame will slow all processes and shrink all objects etc so that what we measure with those distorted tools APPEARS to be lorentz invariant. But the unobservable 'reality' is not. Of course, having this silly notion of an unobservable reality and an unobservable aether and an undetectable rest frame is (part of) why SR is considered superior .. it is not based on such notions.
From: Tom Roberts on 6 Jul 2010 21:55 Surfer wrote: > 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. So don't use Einstein's synchronization. Use slow clock transport instead. By golly, one still finds isotropy in every inertial frame. This is directly implied in any theory in which the round-trip speed of light is isotropically c in any inertial frame. Any theory that does not have that property with an accuracy of at least O((v/c)^6) is refuted by experiment. >> 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. Not true. Any theory that has both: a) an inertial frame in which the one-way speed of light is isotropic and b) an inertial frame in which the one-way speed of light is not isotropic cannot possibly have Lorentz invariance. Whenever a light speed anisotropy has been measured, it has been found to be consistent with zero. But as I have said many times before, there are theories that do not have Lorentz invariance, and yet are experimentally indistinguishable from SR. Basically all such theories have some equations that are not Lorentz invariant, but when one computes an OBSERVABLE quantity the resulting equations have a cancellation that makes them be the same as the corresponding SR equations. As an example, the Tangherlini transform is experimentally indistinguishable from SR, but looks rather different (in the equation for t'): x' = g (x - v t) y' = y z' = z t' = t / g g = 1/sqrt(1 - (v/c)^2) > 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. True, but irrelevant. The basic problem is that measuring any one-way speed requires the synchronization of two clocks, and clock synchronization is ARBITRARY -- what you put in is what you get out. Tom Roberts
From: Surfer on 6 Jul 2010 22:11 On 6 Jul 2010 05:11:05 -0700, stevendaryl3016(a)yahoo.com (Daryl McCullough) wrote: >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? > How about the following method, which avoids such problems. If light objectively propagates through a medium at speed c, as opposed to propagating relative to any 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 every inertial frame is equivalent to having 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. Moreover, the NASA data in the following paper suggests that it is the first formula 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.... " <End extract>
From: eric gisse on 6 Jul 2010 22:20
kenseto 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. Yes Ken, that's right. Lorentz invariance is a local concept. Hold onto that thought, you are stunningly close to learning something. > > Ken Sedto I guess you never figured out how to use the signature function of your news reader, Ken Sedto. [...] |