Preferred Frame Theory indistinguishable from SR
in [Relativity]
|
From: Edward Green on 7 Jul 2010 19:58 On Jun 26, 7:06 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "colp" <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote in message > > news:fb84de9d-58e8-4b3f-98a8-de5c9b7393b2(a)l25g2000prn.googlegroups.com... > > > > > On Jun 27, 1:30 am, stevendaryl3...(a)yahoo.com (Daryl McCullough) > > wrote: > >> colp says... > > >> >Before I respond directly to the issue of the preferred frame, I again > >> >raise the issue of need. The reason that the issue of need is pivotal > >> >here is that necessity may be a reason for people to lie and deceive. > > >> I have no idea what you are talking about, and at this point I really > >> don't care. I'm only discuss physics, not psychology. > > > Restricting discussion to a single discipline makes it very difficult > > to see the big picture. > > > If you don't understand what motivates people, then you can only have > > a superficial understanding of their actions and they can play you for > > a fool. > > But you ARE a fool What did Mati Meron say? When you argue with a fool, he is doing just the same?
From: Paul Stowe on 7 Jul 2010 20:30 On Jul 6, 10:32 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > PaulStowewrote: > > 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 Tom, a couple of simple questions, 1. Does the LR model declare that all the fields constituting material system physically contract along the axis of motion proportional to absolute speed v by 1/g of not? 2. Does it not also claim that processes (time related) slow by 1/g also? Simple yes or no please... Paul Stowe
From: J. Clarke on 7 Jul 2010 20:01 On 7/7/2010 5:49 PM, colp wrote: > On Jul 8, 8:05 am, stevendaryl3...(a)yahoo.com (Daryl McCullough) wrote: >> harald says... >> >>> On Jul 7, 6:02=A0pm, stevendaryl3...(a)yahoo.com (Daryl McCullough) wrote: > >>>> If you are asking, not about General Relativity, but the General >>>> Principle of Relativity: that isn't a theory of physics, it is >>>> a heuristic, or a philosophical position, or metaphysics. It has >>>> no physical meaning, except to the extent that it guides us in >>>> coming up with better theories of physics. >> >>> I rarely saw a more aggressive criticism against Einstein's >>> theory. :-) >> >> The generalized principle of relativity is not a theory. > > Right. It is an assumption, and the application of that assumption > leads to contradictions. This is a case of doctrinal annihilation; > i.e. a set of postulates that are collectively inconsistent. > > The relevant postulates are: > > 1. There is not preferred frame of reference. > 2. Moving clocks run slow. (Paraphrased from Einsteins > "Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies") > > Since we know that moving clocks _do_ run slow, the only logical > conclusion is that a preferred frame of reference exists. How is that a logical conclusion? > The assertion that a preferred frame of reference exists is a > philisophical one, and points towards the epistemological schism of > natural philosophy which led to the development of science (i.e. > knowledge of the physical realm) and religion (i.e. beliefs about the > theological realm) as separate disciplines. In other words you don't like it that science doesn't let you get away with making up truths to suit your biases.
From: Paul Stowe on 7 Jul 2010 20:31 On Jul 7, 12:20 am, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > PaulStowewrote: > > [...] > > > 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... > > > PaulStowe > > 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. I made up the term renormalization??? ahahahahahahahah... Paul Stowe
From: artful on 7 Jul 2010 20:48
On Jul 8, 10:31 am, Paul Stowe <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 7, 12:20 am, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > PaulStowewrote: > > > [...] > > > > 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... > > > > PaulStowe > > > 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. > > I made up the term renormalization??? ahahahahahahahah... You didn't make up the word, obviously. In physics "renormalization" has a specific meaning in quantum theory .. your use of it in describing LR is your own use of the word, and what on earth it means to you is anyone's guess. It appears you simply wanted to (mis)use a big word that is a valid term elsewhere in physics to make your posts appear knowledgeable .. it didn't work. |