Preferred Frame Theory indistinguishable from SR
in [Relativity]
|
From: eric gisse on 6 Jul 2010 22:23 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. Could you re-state that in the form of something not wildly stupid? > >> >>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. One way anisotropy experiments and two way light speed experiments together show that c is isotropic. No matter how much you wish otherwise. > > 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. There are other experiments for that. Please do a cursory literature search.
From: mpc755 on 6 Jul 2010 22:29 On Jul 6, 10:23 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Surfer wrote: > > On Mon, 05 Jul 2010 20:17:44 -0700, eric gisse > > <jowr.pi.nos...(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. > > Could you re-state that in the form of something not wildly stupid? > > > > >>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. > > One way anisotropy experiments and two way light speed experiments together > show that c is isotropic. No matter how much you wish otherwise. > Everything is with respect to the aether, including the clocks used to measure the speed of light. Three observer at at M' on the train. The clock walked to B' is walked against the 'flow' of aether and ticks slower than the clock at M'. The clock walked to A' is walked with the 'flow' of aether and ticks faster than the clock at M'. The reason experiments show that 'c' is isotropic is because everything is with respect to the aether. The state of which is determined by its connections with the matter and the state of the aether in neighboring places. Which is the aether's state of displacement. How do you know a vacuum does not consist of dark matter? You don't. > > > > 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. > > There are other experiments for that. Please do a cursory literature search.
From: Paul Stowe on 6 Jul 2010 23:45 On Jul 6, 6:50 pm, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 7, 11:38 am, PaulStowe<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? > > > PaulStowe > > Newtons laws already give that, ... Newton's laws are quantification based upon observation. However, no- one has yet shown what IS! the actually underlying cause, or source, of this observed behavior. > ... without the need for an aether. And you know this how? Perhaps you can enlighten the world with your profound knowledge of the root cause of inertia. > 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. Perhaps a shallow person might not need a reason, but and good scientist would like one. > Now .. come on .. come up with some prediction of LET that is > DIFFERENCE to SR that we can MEASURE to be different. THAT! is one... I'm sorry that you seem mentally incapable of understanding that simple deductive logic. > Or admit that the two theories are equivalent as to what they predict we would > measure in their overlapping domains of applicability. I've said all along that SR is only the renormalized version of LR just like PSIG is a renormalized version of absolute PSIA... That does not mean that the model do not predict different scopes of behavior. The physical consequences of actual field changes with speed is one such difference... Paul Stowe
From: artful on 7 Jul 2010 00:35 On Jul 7, 1:45 pm, Paul Stowe <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 6, 6:50 pm, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > On Jul 7, 11:38 am, PaulStowe<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? > > > > PaulStowe > > > Newtons laws already give that, ... > > Newton's laws are quantification based upon observation. However, no- > one has yet shown what IS! the actually underlying cause, or source, > of this observed behavior. So you think an object needs something to cause it to stay at rest in its inertial frame? > > ... without the need for an aether. > > And you know this how? Perhaps you can enlighten the world with your > profound knowledge of the root cause of inertia. Perhaps you can enlighten the world as to what would make an object at rest in its inertial frame spontaneously move? > > 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. > > Perhaps a shallow person might not need a reason, but and good > scientist would like one. Why don't you just say "god does it" .. that's just as "scientific" as an aether > > Now .. come on .. come up with some prediction of LET that is > > DIFFERENCE to SR that we can MEASURE to be different. > > THAT! is one... No .. its not. SR and LET predict the same thing > I'm sorry that you seem mentally incapable of > understanding that simple deductive logic. You haven't presented any. Showing observatinos that are the same for LET and SR does NOT distinguis SR from LET > > Or admit that the two theories are equivalent as to what they predict we would > > measure in their overlapping domains of applicability. > > I've said all along that SR is only the renormalized version of LR > just like PSIG is a renormalized version of absolute PSIA... That > does not mean that the model do not predict different scopes of > behavior. SR's scope is broader. > The physical consequences of actual field changes with > speed is one such difference... Not anything that is not observable. Try again .. so far you'r failing badly.
From: mpc755 on 7 Jul 2010 00:51
On Jul 7, 12:35 am, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 7, 1:45 pm, Paul Stowe <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jul 6, 6:50 pm, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > On Jul 7, 11:38 am, PaulStowe<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? > > > > > PaulStowe > > > > Newtons laws already give that, ... > > > Newton's laws are quantification based upon observation. However, no- > > one has yet shown what IS! the actually underlying cause, or source, > > of this observed behavior. > > So you think an object needs something to cause it to stay at rest in > its inertial frame? > > > > ... without the need for an aether. > > > And you know this how? Perhaps you can enlighten the world with your > > profound knowledge of the root cause of inertia. > > Perhaps you can enlighten the world as to what would make an object at > rest in its inertial frame spontaneously move? > > > > 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. > > > Perhaps a shallow person might not need a reason, but and good > > scientist would like one. > > Why don't you just say "god does it" .. that's just as "scientific" as > an aether > A moving C-60 molecule has an associated dark matter displacement wave. The C-60 molecule travels a single path and enters and exits a single slit. The associated dark matter displacement wave enters and exits multiple slits. The associated dark matter displacement wave exits multiple slits and creates interference which alters the direction the C-60 molecule travels. Detecting the C-60 molecule causes decoherence of the associated dark matter displacement wave (i.e. turns the wave into chop) and there is no interference. Or do you insist 'god does it' is as 'scientific' as dark matter? How do you know a vacuum does not consist of dark matter? You don't. > > > Now .. come on .. come up with some prediction of LET that is > > > DIFFERENCE to SR that we can MEASURE to be different. > > > THAT! is one... > > No .. its not. SR and LET predict the same thing > > > I'm sorry that you seem mentally incapable of > > understanding that simple deductive logic. > > You haven't presented any. Showing observatinos that are the same for > LET and SR does NOT distinguis SR from LET > > > > Or admit that the two theories are equivalent as to what they predict we would > > > measure in their overlapping domains of applicability. > > > I've said all along that SR is only the renormalized version of LR > > just like PSIG is a renormalized version of absolute PSIA... That > > does not mean that the model do not predict different scopes of > > behavior. > > SR's scope is broader. > > > The physical consequences of actual field changes with > > speed is one such difference... > > Not anything that is not observable. Try again .. so far you'r > failing badly. |