Preferred Frame Theory indistinguishable from SR
in [Relativity]
|
From: Tom Roberts on 7 Jul 2010 00:52 Edward Green wrote: > From which may be deduced an amusing fact. Say that v is grows quickly > enough towards c to force the r.h.s. to decay quickly enough to make > the integral of dT bounded. Then we have a material particle which > travels to infinity in bounded proper time. Sure. To do that, the object must have a proper acceleration that is increasing over time and not varying in direction. And this increasing acceleration must last FOREVER to any inertial observer. The object's proper time is then limited by a value related to the rate of proper-acceleration increase, larger rate of increase means a lower bound on the object's proper time. Note that the increasing acceleration must never cease increasing; if it stops increasing then there is no upper bound on the object's proper time (just as for an object with constant proper acceleration lasting forever). The upper bound on the object's proper time is "when it leaves the manifold", or when it "reaches infinity". But neither of those last two phrases can be well defined, while having a finite upper bound on proper time can be well defined. Note that this is completely unphysical. Tom Roberts
From: Tom Roberts on 7 Jul 2010 01:04 Paul Stowe wrote: > Lorentz's paper of 1904 covered exactly > the same phenomena as Einstein's of 1905. It extends to the other > 'fundamental' forces just as naturally Einstein's since, by > definition, they must also be physical properties of the same medium It's INCREDIBLY remarkable then, that gravity and the strong interaction, both of which obey local Lorentz invariance in our best models, are instances of "the same medium". After all, they differ in strength by a factor on the order of 10^44. And it's even more remarkable that proton-proton interactions are so much stronger than proton-electron interactions, when this is "the same medium", and those interactions are QUALITATIVELY different, not merely "stronger". You are invoking MAGIC, without even knowing enough about the subject to realize it. Local Lorentz invariance, on the other hand, extends to all fundamental forces quite naturally. Indeed the assumption that it applies was ESSENTIAL to discovering EVERY ONE of our current best theories of fundamental interactions. No medium-based theory would suggest that local Lorentz invariance applies at all, much less that it seems to be FUNDAMENTAL. Tom Roberts
From: Tom Roberts on 7 Jul 2010 01:32 Paul Stowe 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. > > What is not measurable about a resistance to changes in speed of > material systems? PLEASE READ WHAT I WROTE. AND WHAT YOU WROTE. It's all quoted right up there. YOU were discussing a difference between LR and SR, and claimed to have described "a significant difference ... by any reasonable definition". I gave a reasonable definition for which your claim is not a "significant difference". What is not measurable is ANY difference between a prediction of LR and the corresponding prediction of SR. Because they are experimentally indistinguishable. You can dress LR up in all sorts of verbiage, but when you use the theory to actually COMPUTE an observable quantity in a given physical situation, you'll find the result is necessarily identical to the prediction of SR for the same quantity in the same situation. Tom Roberts
From: Surfer on 7 Jul 2010 02:39 On Tue, 06 Jul 2010 19:23:40 -0700, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nospam(a)gmail.com> wrote: >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? > Well, you can't measure the one way speed without synchronizing two clocks in different locations, and if you synchronize the clocks with light signals the measured speed will be the speed of light assumed for the synchronization. So the result will be what you assume. In other words, not objective. Slow clock transport does no better. >> >>> >>>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. > I doubt direct measurment of one way speeds can avoid the above mentioned problem. To quote Tom Roberts: "......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...." However, the various experiments that have detected absolute motion have allowed indirect estimates of one way light speed anisotropy. These estimates don't contradict the direct measurements, because with the direct measurements, to quote Tom again, "what you put in is what you get out".
From: eric gisse on 7 Jul 2010 03:20
Paul Stowe wrote: [...] > 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 1) You made up the word 'renormalized'. You are trying to make the principle of relativity, one of SR's postulates, seem inconsequential. 2) You can not produce a measurable difference between LET and SR. I said 'measurable', not 'philosophical'. 3) Who the f*ck cares? Physics left behind LET for a reason, and you seriously need to learn what happened after 1905. |