Preferred Frame Theory indistinguishable from SR
in [Relativity]
|
From: Daryl McCullough on 8 Jul 2010 06:28 harald says... >On Jul 7, 10:05=A0pm, stevendaryl3...(a)yahoo.com (Daryl McCullough) >wrote: >> 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". That sounds overly dramatic. Certainly the discover of an aether frame would undermine the basis for his Special and General Relativity (although they could still survive as approximate theories, good for macroscopic phenomena. This latter possibility is kind of weird, because SR is known to be accurate for describing the very tiny world of subatomic particles. Presumably the discovery of an aether frame would be relevant at the super-microscopic level in which quarks seem macroscopic.) But rejection of the generalized principle of relativity on philosophical or other basis would not have much impact on the physical theory of relativity. Physicists *DO* reject the generalized principle of relativity expressed as the requirement of general covariance because it is physically vacuous. -- Daryl McCullough Ithaca, NY
From: Edward Green on 8 Jul 2010 12:34 > On Jul 7, 10:06 pm, Tom Roberts wrote: > > 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. Really? That's very interesting. Would you care to elaborate?
From: Edward Green on 8 Jul 2010 12:41 On Jul 8, 6:28 am, stevendaryl3...(a)yahoo.com (Daryl McCullough) wrote: <...> > Physicists *DO* reject the generalized principle of relativity expressed > as the requirement of general covariance because it is physically vacuous.. Aha. That's exactly what I was trying to express when you asked me to elaborate. Just how long have "physicists" felt this way, and when did they start reading my Usenet posts? :-) :-) :-) (I had an argument along these lines with John Baez years ago. I noticed another argument that I had with him -- to the effect that force is momentum flux -- later surfaced as an outstanding revalation in his home pages).
From: Daryl McCullough on 8 Jul 2010 13:06 Edward Green says... > >On Jul 8, 6:28=A0am, stevendaryl3...(a)yahoo.com (Daryl McCullough) wrote: > ><...> > >> Physicists *DO* reject the generalized principle of relativity expressed >> as the requirement of general covariance because it is physically vacuous > >Aha. That's exactly what I was trying to express when you asked me to >elaborate. Just how long have "physicists" felt this way, and when did >they start reading my Usenet posts? :-) :-) :-) The position I'm quoting was in Misner, Thorne and Wheeler's "Gravitation", which is at least 30 years old. >(I had an argument along these lines with John Baez years ago. I think it must have been subtly different, because John certainly knows that every theory can be made generally covariant. There is a related property that *isn't* vacuous, that I mentioned, which is the lack of non-dynamic scalar, vector, or tensor fields. In GR, all fields are dynamic. Roughly speaking, the way to make an arbitrary theory generally covariant is to stick in extra fields to correct for whatever changes in the theory occur when you do a coordinate transformation. But in general, those extra fields are non-dynamic. So I would like to know exactly what the argument was with John. >I noticed another argument that I had with him -- to the effect >that force is momentum flux -- later surfaced as an outstanding >revalation in his home pages). I'm not sure about that one. -- Daryl McCullough Ithaca, NY
From: colp on 8 Jul 2010 17:06
On Jul 8, 5:01 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > colp wrote: > > On Jul 8, 1:04 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> 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. > > > Galilean relativity doesn't account for time dilation or other > > relativistic effects. These effects are an essential element of the > > current argument. > > Doesn't change what I said. Yes, what you said was a straw man argument. |