Preferred Frame Theory indistinguishable from SR
in [Relativity]
|
From: harald on 3 Jul 2010 21:55 On Jul 3, 10:32 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 3, 11:44 am, Edward Green <spamspamsp...(a)netzero.com> wrote: > > > On Jul 1, 10:26 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jul 1, 12:53 am, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > > > <...> > > > > > A postulate is just an assumption with better table manners. > > > > Yes, indeed. By DEFINITION, a postulate is something that is ASSUMED. > > > > In science, the test of a postulate is based on experimental check of > > > the *consequences* of postulates. A direct test of the postulate is > > > not required. > > > Would you extend that courtesy to Lorentz's postulate of an aether? > > Yes. > > > You may object that is has correct consequences but is unnecessary, > > No, that's really not the deciding figure of merit. The figure of > merit is that relativity explains the Lorentz covariance of all the > fundamental forces, where the Lorentz ether does not. Therefore the > theory that has the broader explanatory reach wins. Lorentz's theory has both the PoR with the Lorentz covariance of all the fundamental forces, and the Lorentz ether that provides physical insight in how this works. For me it is undeniable which theory has has the broader explanatory reach, and I have greatly benefited from it. > > but to that objection may be countered that it has greater explanatory > > power than the postulate of the constant speed of light with respect > > to all inertial observers, which miracle I believe it explains, along > > with the constancy of the speed of light independent of the motion of > > the source. > > I don't see how it has any greater explanatory power than the > structure of spacetime, which accounts for the miracle quite > straightforwardly. Einstein admitted that the light postulate was made plausible by Lorentz's 1895 theory, as it is based on a stationary ether model. Moreover, spacetime is a mathematical tool for describing events. Thus, what "structure" do you mean? As a matter of fact, space-time has been around from the start of physics for just that purpose; but it never had a physical "structure". Regards, Harald
From: Edward Green on 3 Jul 2010 22:25 On Jul 3, 4:32 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 3, 11:44 am, Edward Green <spamspamsp...(a)netzero.com> wrote: > > > On Jul 1, 10:26 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jul 1, 12:53 am, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > > > <...> > > > > > A postulate is just an assumption with better table manners. > > > > Yes, indeed. By DEFINITION, a postulate is something that is ASSUMED. > > > > In science, the test of a postulate is based on experimental check of > > > the *consequences* of postulates. A direct test of the postulate is > > > not required. > > > Would you extend that courtesy to Lorentz's postulate of an aether? > > Yes. > > > You may object that is has correct consequences but is unnecessary, > > No, that's really not the deciding figure of merit. The figure of > merit is that relativity explains the Lorentz covariance of all the > fundamental forces, where the Lorentz ether does not. Therefore the > theory that has the broader explanatory reach wins. Lorentz worked with what he had. I'm not sure if similar calculations are possible today for the strong and the weak force. I do believe that Lorentz's work has been updated for QED at least. > > but to that objection may be countered that it has greater explanatory > > power than the postulate of the constant speed of light with respect > > to all inertial observers, which miracle I believe it explains, along > > with the constancy of the speed of light independent of the motion of > > the source. > > I don't see how it has any greater explanatory power than the > structure of spacetime, which accounts for the miracle quite > straightforwardly. Maybe I'm wrong, but I thought the constancy of the speed of light was a postulate of special relativity. There is nothing wrong with that, but in that case we can hardly say it is something special relativity explains. Actually, as postulates of SR go, I prefer to use the following: The laws of physics are Lorentz invariant. Done. I would now like to understand why the laws of physics have this structure. I think Lorentz took a step in that direction.
From: Edward Green on 3 Jul 2010 22:31 On Jul 3, 5:24 pm, Paul Stowe <theaether...(a)gmail.com> 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 > adhering to the very same limitation (unless someone can propose why > they shouldn't). These types will not do as you ask, plain & simple. > As you are aware, Einstein said this in his Leyden address. Hmm... actually, I'm not (aware). Do you have a reference to this?
From: Edward Green on 3 Jul 2010 22:54 On Jul 3, 10:31 pm, Edward Green <spamspamsp...(a)netzero.com> wrote: > On Jul 3, 5:24 pm, Paul Stowe <theaether...(a)gmail.com> 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 > > adhering to the very same limitation (unless someone can propose why > > they shouldn't). These types will not do as you ask, plain & simple. > > As you are aware, Einstein said this in his Leyden address. > > Hmm... actually, I'm not (aware). Do you have a reference to this? Never mind. I found it quite easily with Google. Thanks.
From: Koobee Wublee on 3 Jul 2010 23:42
On Jul 3, 6:13 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > colp wrote: > > I'm not asking for an education, I'm pointing out that all you have to > > defend you beliefs are hollow claims. That is an admirable crusade on Mr. colp's part. <applaud> > Ah, the "I dare you to make me understand" gambit. Who gives a fvck about some college dropout from Fairbanks, Alaska (where?) who is very grotesque in physical statue, shallow in aptitude, and virulent in engagement? <shrug> |