Preferred Frame Theory indistinguishable from SR
in [Relativity]
|
From: colp on 7 Jul 2010 20:57 On Jul 8, 11:58 am, Edward Green <spamspamsp...(a)netzero.com> wrote: > 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? Intertial/artful/whoever is a liar. http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/603be32d66b5dcc7
From: eric gisse on 7 Jul 2010 21:04 colp wrote: [...] > You disregard the common law just as Einstein's first postulate > disregards the laws of nature. The principle of relativity is a cornerstone of classical mechanics, chuckles.
From: eric gisse on 7 Jul 2010 21:05 Paul Stowe 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... > > Paul Stowe Yep. Learn the vocabulary of physics instead of substituting in other words that already have established meanings.
From: colp on 7 Jul 2010 21:06 On Jul 8, 12:01 pm, "J. Clarke" <jclarke.use...(a)cox.net> wrote: > 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? It's a form of reducto ad absurdum that relies on the established fact that in some cases moving clocks run slow. Reductio ad absurdum is a mode of argumentation that seeks to establish a contention by deriving an absurdity from its denial, thus arguing that a thesis must be accepted because its rejection would be untenable. http://www.iep.utm.edu/reductio/ The contention that is established is that a preferred frame of reference exists. The denial of that contention is Einstien's first postulate of relativity, and the absurdity that results from it is the twin paradox in its various forms. > > > 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. Wrong. Nobody can make up truth for any reason.
From: Paul Stowe on 7 Jul 2010 21:06
On Jul 7, 3:46 am, harald <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote: > On Jul 7, 3:38 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 > > Probably you two are talking besides each other. The difference is in > the understanding of "why"; there is no measurable difference in > prediction. > > Harald I think Tom knows full well why there is no measurable difference. I find many of his arguments absurd, like, while acknowledging that LR has local 'Lorentz' invariance, he claims it isn't. Basically he demands an abstract non-physical sub space (a concept which is solely a figment of his imagination). The aether field behavior is naturally Lorentzian, that said, such systems are not 'distorted' anymore than is the platinum-iridium meter rod is 'distorted' when it 'shrinks' or 'expands' with temperature. It is only 'distorted' if one INSISTS! that it should not change length at all based upon an arbitrary made up standard. Regards, Paul Stowe |