Preferred Frame Theory indistinguishable from SR
in [Relativity]
|
From: eric gisse on 9 Jul 2010 02:13 colp wrote: > On Jul 9, 9:21 am, harald <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote: >> On Jul 8, 11:06 pm, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: >> >> >> >> > 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. >> >> Not this time at least: the PoR of SRT is the same as that of >> classical mechanics. > > What do you mean by PoR? Ok, so let's review. colp, who does not understand that the principle of relativity in classical mechanics is the same as in special relativity, argues that SR is wrong. When this basic fact is pointed out to colp, he refers to it as a 'straw man argument'. When I make this basic fact more explicit, colp asks 'What do you mean by PoR'? From this I can conclude at least two things: 1) colp has no education in physics 2) colp can not read for comprehension
From: whoever on 9 Jul 2010 02:14 >"eric gisse" wrote in message >news:i16ej2$6s7$5(a)news.eternal-september.org... > >whoever wrote: > >[..] > >I see wooby has came back from his nice long dignity recovery break to go >back to his hobby of arguing from a position of ignorance as if he were an >authority as opposed to a retired engineer with no training in the subject. But he *IS* an authority on ignorance :) Hence his continued argument from there. --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news(a)netfront.net ---
From: harald on 9 Jul 2010 04:26 On Jul 9, 7:04 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > Edward Green wrote: > >> 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? > > Wilson and Penzias discovered the CMBR in the 1960s; Lorentz died in 1928.. > > The CMBR has a rich and varied multipole structure, as any good reference on it > will show. There are maps of CMBR temperature in all directions, and they have > LOTS of structure; ironically, they are invariably displayed in the dipole=0 > frame (because otherwise the dipole would obscure the structure because the > dipole is by far the largest multipole present). I had overlooked that those deviations are relatively minor. How minor, do you have a reference about the variations? Harald > Selecting the frame in which > its dipole moment is zero cannot cancel all the other multipoles, and thus it is > not isotropic in that frame. > > Tom Roberts
From: Tom Roberts on 9 Jul 2010 10:03 Paul Stowe wrote: > I think Tom knows full well why there is no measurable difference. Yes, I do. You happened to get this right, but in general it's clear to me that you have NO IDEA WHATSOEVER what I do or don't know or understand. > I > find many of his arguments absurd, The absurdity is your own. > 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). While LR (LET) does not have local Lorentz invariance, your second sentence here is totally your own fabrication. I "demand" that for a theory to be said to have local Lorentz invariance, that it actually have that property. The meaning of LLI is well known, and has been given in this thread; LR (LET) does not possess it. Tom Roberts
From: PD on 9 Jul 2010 15:02
On Jul 8, 8:59 pm, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > On Jul 9, 10:09 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 7, 5:43 pm, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > > > > On Jul 7, 8:52 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jul 6, 3:03 pm, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > > > > > > On Jul 7, 3:07 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > The problem, you see, is that the comic-book statement you are using > > > > > > as your launching point belongs in COLP's Oversimplified Relativity. > > > > > > It's not a comic book statement any more than Einstein's statement > > > > > that a moving clock lags behind a stationary clock is a comic book > > > > > statement. > > > > > Not so. Einstein's statement included things that you have discounted. > > > > I haven't discounted them. > > > > > For example, he makes note of specific events, rather than just making > > > > the general statement that "moving clocks" run slow. > > > > The description of the specific events only serves to illustrate that > > > it is the moving clock that runs slow compared to the stationary > > > clock. > > > Then you have misunderstood what he said. The EVENTS do more than > > that. > > How, exactly? > > > > > > > Furthermore, he > > > > makes EXPLICIT mention of the statement that the clocks at points A > > > > and B are initially synchronized IN THE K FRAME. > > > > Assuming that they weren't synchonized in my general description of > > > "the moving clock runs slow" would be arbitrary and illogical. > > > They are synchronized in the K frame. They are not synchronized in the > > K' frame. This is essential and cannot be dismissed. > > If they are not synchronized in the K' frame, then the K frame becomes > the preferred frame of reference, which contradicts Einstein's first > postulate. Why? Two clocks being synchronized or not synchronized do not determine a preferred frame. A preferred frame is one in which the LAWS OF PHYSICS are different than in other frames. Perhaps the difficulty is in your understanding of what a preferred frame means. > > > > > > Remember I was talking about _the_ clock, in reference to the moving > > > clock described in "Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies", not to a clock > > > in an arbitrary system. > > > I understand that completely. There are two clocks involved here: One > > that moves from A to B and one that remains at B. There is a frame K > > in which points A and B are at rest, and there is a frame K' in which > > points A and B are moving and the first clock above is at rest. > > Yes, I agree. > > > > > > > A contradiction would > > > > arise by making the clock at B the moving clock only if the clocks are > > > > claimed to be intially synchronized also in the K' frame -- but they > > > > are NOT, and this is the essential detail that you have missed. > > > > No, it isn't a missing detail, it is an implication of Einstein's > > > first postulate of relativity. > > > WHAT is an implication of the first postulate? That they are also > > synchronized in K'? No. > > The implication is that if there is no preferred frame of reference > then predictions made in one inertial frame will be just as valid as > predictions made in any other inertial frame, and if it is possible to > synchronize clocks in one inertial frame them it is possible to > synchronize clocks in any other inertial frame. It is of course possible to resynchronize the clocks in K'. However, this will mean that they are no longer synchronized in K. What is true is that there is no way to have them be synchronized in BOTH K and K' at once. Now, again, if you are reading the principle of relativity to say that "Clocks that are synchronized in one inertial frame are also synchronized in other inertial frames," then you do not understand what the principle of relativity says. The principle of relativity does NOT say that an observation in one inertial frame will be identical to an observation in any other inertial frame. For example, an object that is stationary in one inertial frame would not be expected to be stationary in other inertial frames. Nor does it mean that the values of physical quantities are the same in all inertial frames. For example, the momentum of an object or even a closed system in one inertial frame is not the same as that same quantity in other inertial frames. The principle of relativity explicitly makes a statement about the form of the LAWS OF PHYSICS in different inertial frames being identical. So, it appears that so far, we've had to explain to you what a preferred frame means, and what the principle of relativity means. > > > > Here is Einstein's description of the clocks: > > > > "If at the points A and B of K there are stationary clocks which, > > > viewed in the stationary system, are synchronous; and if the clock at > > > A is moved with the velocity v along the line AB to B, then on its > > > arrival at B the two clocks no longer synchronize, but the clock moved > > > from A to B lags behind the other which has remained at B ..." > > > > Let us call the moving system K', in which the moving clocks at A' and > > > B' are synchronized for an observer in K'. The stationary system K > > > also has two clocks, but these two clocks are synchronized for an > > > observer in K. Frames K and K' move at a constant velocity with > > > respect to each other. > > > > If there is no preferred frame of reference then there is no reason > > > why the clocks at A' and B' cannot also be synchronized for an > > > observer in K', just as the clocks at A and B are for an observer in > > > K, due to the symmetry of the two frames and their respective clocks. > > > Yes, that is true but the clock that is synchronized with B in K will > > not initially show the same time as the clock that is synchronized > > with B in K'. > > Are you saying that the clock at A in K (that is synchronized with the > clock at B in K) will not initially show the same time as the clock at > A' in K' (that is synchronized with the clock at B' in K'? That's right, if B is synchronized with B'. Note that you do not need these two extra clocks. Let's stick with the two clocks in Einstein's statement, so I can explain exactly what he is saying. > > > Now YOU are the one that is adding things beyond what Einstein > > actually said. > > What I am adding (two more clocks in K') does not change Einstein's > postulates. Neither does making predictions from the point of view of > an observer in each frame affect the postulates. > > > > > There are only TWO clocks in Einstein's paragraph. One that moves from > > A to B and one that remains at B. In the frame K, the clocks are > > synchronized when the clocks are at A and B. > > Right. > > > In the frame K' that you > > propose, those same two clocks are not synchronized when the clocks > > are at A and B. > > I'm not talking about the same two clocks. I'm talking about two > frames which are the same in all respects except for their relative > motion (in order to establish symmetry). Thus in the K frame the clock > at A' moves from A to B. When point A = point A', the clocks at these > points are synchronized, just as Einstein's clock at A was > synchronized with B before it moved towards B. > > Looking at the situation from the point of view of an observer in K', > the clock at B moves from B' to A'. |