Preferred Frame Theory indistinguishable from SR
in [Relativity]
|
From: Tom Roberts on 8 Jul 2010 01:52 Daryl McCullough wrote: > Tom Roberts says... >> [abpoout Cartesian coordinate systems on a Euclidean plane] >> But they don't form a group, they form a set or a class. >> "Group" is a technical word with a different meaning than >> you intended. The transforms between pairs of such coordinates >> form a group. > > I was not meaning "group" in the technical sense, I was just meaning it in the > sense of a collection. But actually, don't they form a group? The various > Cartesian coordinate systems are related by operations such as (1) translations, > (2) rotations, (3) scale transformations. Couldn't they form a group? Groups in physics generally represent operations, not "things". In math they are considerably more general. A group consists of a set of elements and a binary composition operation; one of the elements is the identity element, and together with composition it defines an inverse of each element. Moreover, the composition is closed -- for all elements A and B of a group with composition '*', A*B is also an element of the group. For A, B, and C representing elements of the group, with E being the identify element, these are written: A = E*A = A*E (identity) C = A*B (closure) A*(B*C) = (A*B)*C (associativity) E = A*A^-1 = A^-1*A (inverse) Now apply this to what you asked: A Cartesian coordinate system is not a translation, rotation, or scale transform. So the combination of those cannot be a group. The set of all translations does form a group. The set of all rotations does form a group. The set of all translations and rotations does form a group. But there's no sense in which the coordinate systems themselves form a group -- what would "composition" of two coordinate systems mean? But here's a case rather close to that: A coordinate system can be considered a continuous map from the manifold to a region of R^N. If the original manifold is R^N itself and each map has a common region as both domain and range, then these maps form a group (the diffeomorphism group on this region of R^N). This is a property of maps with a common domain and range, not coordinate systems on a general manifold. Note that the domain and range must be equal and common to all maps, so they can be freely composed with each other -- the group composition operation is clearly successive application of the maps, the identity map takes each point to itself, etc. (I've ignored issues of differentiability...) Note that maps can be quite general, much more so than discussed here.... Ditto for groups.... Tom Roberts
From: Koobee Wublee on 8 Jul 2010 03:42 On Jul 7, 10:06 pm, Tom Roberts wrote: > No. You obviously do not know what local Lorentz invariance means. The mathematics of the Lorentz transform is so simple. In order to justify the proliferation of mysticism, the self-styled physicists have to resort to creating new vocabularies. So, it started out as simple 'spacetime' in circa 1907. We saw 'proper time' a couple years later and 'inertial frame'. Finally, we have 'proper space', 'proper speed', 'proper velocity', and 'proper acceleration'. Gee! There ought to be a 'proper force', 'proper electric field', etc. <shrug> Or better yet, 'proper nonsense'. > It means that ALL the locally-valid equations of a theory referenced to a given > inertial frame are unchanged in form by a Lorentz transform to another inertial > frame. Yeah, it is wonderful that you have found a mathematical transformation that preserve the invariance. Well, that same mathematical axiom also haunts you by creating paradoxes. In real life, the Lorentz transform does not model anything realistic. It is a subset of the more general Larmor's transform in which everything has to be referenced back to an absolute frame of reference as the null results of the MMX demand. Written in the familiar form where both frames move in parallel relative to the absolute frame of reference really has played havoc on self-styled physicists in the past 100 years. It mistakenly giving birth to this Lorentz transform. Well, in time the self-styled physicists will realize their mistakes. <shrug> See the link below. http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/c5a0a3c587fd4df4?hl=en > In LET, the speed of light referenced to the ether frame is c, and when > referenced to some moving frame is not c (it is c+-v, speaking loosely). But the > Lorentz transform will leave any speed of c unchanged. So the equations of LET > describing the propagation of light are not Lorentz invariant. The MEASUREMENTS > in a moving frame yield the value c, but that is not the true speed of light in LET. This is totally nonsense. In any transforms except the Galilean (ballistic theory of light), light speed is isotropicly invariant. The first person to realize that was Voigt in which the Voigt transform was created --- not some Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar. <shrug> > Yes, I know you claim the CMBR dipole=0 frame is the > ether frame. But that is not LET. Lorentz obviously had > no knowledge of the CMBR, and could not possibly have > put it into his theory. Moreover, while there might be > some merit to your claim if relative to that frame the > CMBR was isotropic, it isn't. The self-styled physicists just need to get the special laws expected from this absolute frame of reference out of their heads. <shrug> It is elusive, yes, but not so completely invisible. The first glimpse is the Doppler shift in CMBR. Now, we know where and how to look. <shrug> Galileo was wrong. However, the principle of relative still works at low speeds. Newtonian laws of physics is totally based on Galileo's works. Thus, at high speed, we should also expect to see a breakdown in Newtonian law of gravity. <shrug>
From: artful on 8 Jul 2010 05:29 On Jul 8, 5:42 pm, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 7, 10:06 pm, Tom Roberts wrote: > > > No. You obviously do not know what local Lorentz invariance means. > > The mathematics of the Lorentz transform is so simple. Then why are you so confused by it? [snip koobee whining because physics uses simple well-defiend terms he deson't understand] > > It means that ALL the locally-valid equations of a theory referenced to a given > > inertial frame are unchanged in form by a Lorentz transform to another inertial > > frame. > > Yeah, it is wonderful that you have found a mathematical > transformation that preserve the invariance. Well, that same > mathematical axiom also haunts you by creating paradoxes. No paradoxes. You keep lying and saying they exist .. but you never come up with the goods in actually presenting one. > In real > life, the Lorentz transform does not model anything realistic. More lies .. every experiment for testing SR shows SR (using lorentz transforms) predicts the results. > It is > a subset of the more general Larmor's transform in which everything > has to be referenced back to an absolute frame of reference as the > null results of the MMX demand. More lies .. They demand no such thing > Written in the familiar form where > both frames move in parallel relative to the absolute frame of > reference really has played havoc on self-styled physicists in the > past 100 years. It mistakenly giving birth to this Lorentz > transform. Well, in time the self-styled physicists will realize > their mistakes. <shrug> The only one making mistakes is you. You're a liar and a nitwit. Just waiting for you to be a plagiarist > See the link below. > > http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/c5a0a3c587f... > > > In LET, the speed of light referenced to the ether frame is c, and when > > referenced to some moving frame is not c (it is c+-v, speaking loosely).. But the > > Lorentz transform will leave any speed of c unchanged. So the equations of LET > > describing the propagation of light are not Lorentz invariant. The MEASUREMENTS > > in a moving frame yield the value c, but that is not the true speed of light in LET. > > This is totally nonsense. Koobee speak for it is perfectly correct. It just doesn't agree with his lies > In any transforms except the Galilean > (ballistic theory of light), light speed is isotropicly invariant. Totally wrong > The first person to realize that was Voigt in which the Voigt > transform was created So what? > --- not some Einstein the nitwit, the > plagiarist, and the liar. <shrug> Noone claims Einstein invented the Voigt transforsm, nor the lorentz transforms. It is for how they are derived and interpretted that he is famed. > > Yes, I know you claim the CMBR dipole=0 frame is the > > ether frame. But that is not LET. Lorentz obviously had > > no knowledge of the CMBR, and could not possibly have > > put it into his theory. Moreover, while there might be > > some merit to your claim if relative to that frame the > > CMBR was isotropic, it isn't. > > The self-styled physicists just need to get the special laws expected > from this absolute frame of reference out of their heads. <shrug> No absolute frame > It is elusive, yes, but not so completely invisible. The first > glimpse is the Doppler shift in CMBR. Now, we know where and how to > look. <shrug> That there is a CMBR does not mean there is an absolute frame, or that any special laws of physics apply to it > Galileo was wrong. However, the principle of relative still works at > low speeds. Newtonian laws of physics is totally based on Galileo's > works. Thus, at high speed, we should also expect to see a breakdown > in Newtonian law of gravity. <shrug> Not under GR
From: harald on 8 Jul 2010 05:45 On Jul 7, 10:05 pm, stevendaryl3...(a)yahoo.com (Daryl McCullough) wrote: > harald says... [..] Still one more clarification: > >> 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. Einstein's theory was based on that postulate and so the objection to that postulate was, as he described, an "objection against the Theory of Relativity". Cheers, Harald
From: harald on 8 Jul 2010 05:47
On Jul 7, 11:49 pm, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> 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. Do you know the intended meaning of those words? Do you how the PoR was originally formulated, so that you can understand those words correctly? Harald > 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. > > 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. |