Preferred Frame Theory indistinguishable from SR
in [Relativity]
|
From: G. L. Bradford on 7 Jul 2010 03:47 "Tom Roberts" <tjroberts137(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:ZoednXgkXa-KlanR4p2dnAA(a)giganews.com... > 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 ================== You must be half asleep or in some other way out of it. There is such a thing as infinity (infinite and infinitesimal) but there is no such thing as leaving finite. Thus the traveler will deal in many universes horizon of relativity to horizon of relativity, never even beginning to approach c or infinity. Or, seen another way, he will travel finite plane to finite plane, to finite plane, of a multiverse Universe, only to finally realize in time that though he keeps on climbing up onto expanded new planes of position and velocity, space and time, every expanded new plane he reaches is a straight cancellation of his own expansions, thus though he observes himself to be going places fast [in depth], he observes himself NOT to be going anywhere at all c-wise or infinity-wise. And as to the "inertial observer" you mention, come on Roberts get with it. The traveler, especially this traveler, is a traveler in a vacuum, an independent traveler in a void. There can be no single observer. Even if you reduce all the observers, in depth, on all the planes, in depth, to just one composite observer, just as all the planes will reduce, that one composite observer will only observe a finite event that probably wouldn't even raise an eyebrow. At the very most he will probably put what he observes down to being an anomaly among so many other similar anomalies being regularly observed in the universe. Infinity, the infinite / infinitesimal Universe, is always non-local entity and constant. It is a closed up, collapsed, horizon-constant (most glaring example of all, light and the constant of the speed of light) as far as any finite local world / universe is concerned. Green, and I sometimes think you, is unaware of the fact that the speed of light constant is not only the absolute fastest local speed in all the Universe (c = (+)300,000kps, the universal -local- absolute horizon of positive velocity, (+) to (0)), but is also, at one and the same time, the absolute slowest non-local speed in all the Universe (c = (-)300,000kps, the universal -non-local- horizon absolute of negative velocity, (-) to (0)). I'm just beginning to realize that negative of c (that I've been bringing up again and again) would have to be the non-local of it, it could never be local. I should have seen it years ago since that is how long I've been pushing the 'unobservable universe' to always be the one -in its entirety- slightly (near) to titannically (far) forward of the 'observable universe' in both space and time. It can only be that if the speed of light, meaning c of course, is universally the slowest [non-local] speed there is. And I repeat something else to go with the immediate above: Infinity, the infinite / infinitesimal Universe, is always [non-local] entity and constant. GLB ==================
From: harald on 7 Jul 2010 05:29 On Jul 7, 2:47 am, Paul Stowe <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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. OK > 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 OK, let's assume that the CMBR is at rest in the ether > 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. Yes, as measured with a truly stationary reference system (which thus records "absolute time"), the stay-at-home clock is slowed down by its motion at 600 Mm/s while your clock is in rest. > 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. Right. > 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. Yes indeed, your "absolute" speed depends of course on the direction of your speed relative to a moving system. All clear now. ;-) Regards, Harald
From: harald on 7 Jul 2010 06:10 On Jul 7, 2:56 am, Paul Stowe <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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 Hi Paul, Eric pointed at "the 'domain' of the 'special' theory of relativity is limited to inertial states", while its domain includes every kind of motion. Although he may be nitpicking, it's important to be sure that you didn't mean what you wrote - completely erroneous concepts have been built on subtle misunderstandings. Regards, Harald
From: harald on 7 Jul 2010 06:46 On Jul 7, 3:38 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 Probably you two are talking besides each other. The difference is in the understanding of "why"; there is no measurable difference in prediction. Harald
From: harald on 7 Jul 2010 06:58
On Jul 7, 3:50 am, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > 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. Newtons laws are not magical words without cause; instead they are based on Newton's absolute space concept. > 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. I can't wait to hear your explanation why a ball that you roll on a merry-go-round moves in a trajectory relative to the platform that is not straight. What causes it? The earth perhaps, or the stars? And how can they act on the ball, with nothing between them? Or perhaps you meant: it's *just because*? Harald |