Preferred Frame Theory indistinguishable from SR
in [Relativity]
|
From: Paul Stowe on 9 Jul 2010 21:06 On Jul 9, 7:03 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > PaulStowewrote: > > 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. No, not really. See below... > > 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. Well, since all 'local' time and distance relate by behavior explained by 'Lorentz' AND alway have the very same measured values as that which would be measured in the rest frame I'd say that WAS! local Lorentz invariance'... Since the results are exactly the same as SR and for such behavior of time and distances your claim IS! patently absurd! In LR the IS! no differences in ANY! behaviors OR properties in any inertial frame, including the CMBR dipole = 0 one. To be otherwise would also require the physical universe to be internally inconsistent. Now, if, somehow one can 'step out' of our physical universe and become independent and unaffected of its processes LR says that with properly 'rigid' instruments you could actually measure length changes, thus, light speed anisotropy. But, in OUR universe it Dirac's dilemma..ALL physical processes behave like all fluidic mediums and for system consisting solely of structures made of said fluidic media results in LLI. > 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. So, produce a property of observation that will result in a LLI violation for LR. If you cannot then you are blowing smoke. OTOH, if you can, the the two theories are not indistigushable now are they? Paul Stowe
From: Paul Stowe on 9 Jul 2010 21:53 On Jul 8, 11:10 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > PaulStowewrote: > > On Jul 8, 6:23 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> PaulStowewrote: > >> > On Jul 8, 9:34 am, Edward Green <spamspamsp...(a)netzero.com> 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? > > >> > The last time he elaborated he was pointing to the slight and I mean s- > >> > l-i-g-h-t (~1 part in 100,000) variations showing up in the background > >> > as 'multipoles'. > > >> Ah, the sarcastic dismissing of evidence that doesn't fit your fantasy.. > > >> > He does not seem to understand that these have > >> > NOTHING to do with isotropy except in his imagined perfectly smooth > >> > universe. All compressible mediums have these, Earth's ocean and > >> > atmosphere for example. For an actual physical medium it would > >> > unnatural if these we not present... > > > I see you totally ignored the rest of the post, typical, anti- > > scientific behavior. > > I ignored it because it is stupid. But thankfully you refined the stupidity > to a nice dull edge for beating with. > > > Hmmm, let's see, the ocean is a medium. The > > ocean has a rest frame (localized). But the map of sonic doppler > > (speed variations) is certain NOT! smoothly isotropic. See: > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acoustic_tomography > > As I have stated before, your understanding of physics has not progressed > past 1905. Given the fact you are not 120 years old, I can only conclude > that is because you only read material that fit in with what made sense to > you as opposed to what explains observation. > > Your implication that the cosmic microwave background is a medium is > rather...idiotic. Let see if you can understand the simpleton approach. The CMB is to the spacial aether as background noise is to the ocean. It silly to think the CMB IS! a medium, the CMB is propagating radiation IN! the medium. It would help your case if you had some actual depth to your replies instead of shallow insults... > But you've been posting idiotic things for years now, so I hardly expect that to > be a barrier to further repetitions of the claim. And certainly don't expect anything of substance from you. Paul Stowe
From: mpc755 on 9 Jul 2010 22:08 On Jul 9, 7:37 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > PD wrote: > > [...] > > > Nobody cares, Michael P. Cavedon. > > Quit whoring for attention. > > He is stupid *and* boring, thus killfiled. 'An Astronomer Puts the COSMOS Survey In Perspective' http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/found_most_of_the_universe/ "Dark matter, the ubiquitous yet ethereal stuff filling the cosmos, has been mapped three-dimensionally for the first time by a team of astronomers using a fleet of orbiting and ground-based telescopes." "As time went on, more and more data suggested that the bulk of the Universe is invisible." "The result is nothing less than profound: a three-dimensional map millions of light years across and billions deep, showing the location of trillions of solar masses of invisible ethereal stuff that only decades ago was a complete mystery." The theory described in the article is not quite accurate: "COSMOS verifies theorys next prediction, too: Once dark matter condensed into smaller blobs, its gravity would increase, drawing in more dark matter and normal matter. Eventually, the normal matter would gather near clumps of dark matter, so wherever we see large amounts of dark matter today, we should also see normal matter. The survey confirms this; the visible matter detected lies roughly along the same positions as the dark matter." Dark matter and matter are different states of the same material. Where the pressure in the universe is great enough, dark matter is compressed into matter. This process continues until the pressure between the dark matter and matter equalizes because there is less dark matter. Nuclei which is the matter which is the Earth displaces dark matter. Dark matter is not at rest when displaced and displaces back. Displaced dark matter exerts pressure towards the Earth. Pressure exerted by displaced dark matter towards Earth is gravity.
From: mpc755 on 9 Jul 2010 22:12 On Jul 9, 7:37 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > PD wrote: > > [...] > > > Nobody cares, Michael P. Cavedon. > > Quit whoring for attention. > > He is stupid *and* boring, thus killfiled. 'An Astronomer Puts the COSMOS Survey In Perspective' http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/found_most_of_the_universe/ "Dark matter, the ubiquitous yet ethereal stuff filling the cosmos, has been mapped three-dimensionally for the first time by a team of astronomers using a fleet of orbiting and ground-based telescopes." "As time went on, more and more data suggested that the bulk of the Universe is invisible." "The result is nothing less than profound: a three-dimensional map millions of light years across and billions deep, showing the location of trillions of solar masses of invisible ethereal stuff that only decades ago was a complete mystery." The theory described in the article is not quite accurate: "COSMOS verifies theorys next prediction, too: Once dark matter condensed into smaller blobs, its gravity would increase, drawing in more dark matter and normal matter. Eventually, the normal matter would gather near clumps of dark matter, so wherever we see large amounts of dark matter today, we should also see normal matter. The survey confirms this; the visible matter detected lies roughly along the same positions as the dark matter." Dark matter and matter are different states of the same material. Where the pressure in the universe is great enough, dark matter is compressed into matter. This process continues until the pressure between the dark matter and matter equalizes because there is less dark matter. Nuclei which is the matter which is the Earth displaces dark matter. Dark matter is not at rest when displaced and displaces back. Displaced dark matter exerts pressure towards the Earth. Pressure exerted by displaced dark matter towards Earth is gravity.
From: Tom Roberts on 9 Jul 2010 22:58
Paul Stowe wrote: > Well, since all 'local' time and distance relate by behavior explained > by 'Lorentz' AND alway have the very same measured values as that > which would be measured in the rest frame I'd say that WAS! local > Lorentz invariance'... Say that all you want, it means nothing, because that is not what "local Lorentz invariance" actually means. > So, produce a property of observation that will result in a LLI > violation for LR. That is not how one establishes LLI. For LET (LR) the equations for observable quantities agree with those of SR, which has LLI. But there are other equations of LET (LR) that don't obey LLI, such as velocity wrt the ether frame. The mere existence of a special frame violates LLI. Tom Roberts |