Preferred Frame Theory indistinguishable from SR
in [Relativity]
|
From: eric gisse on 9 Jul 2010 23:02 Paul Stowe wrote: [...] > 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... Electromagnetic radiation does not require a medium. Nor has any medium ever been observed. This was settled a very, very long time ago and has been explained to you many, many times. > >> 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: Paul Stowe on 10 Jul 2010 00:51 On Jul 9, 7:58 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > PaulStowewrote: > > 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 One does not 'establish' LLI, it either physically exists, or does not... If it does not, then, there's your distinguishing difference between LR & SR. Paul Stowe
From: eric gisse on 10 Jul 2010 01:49 Paul Stowe wrote: > On Jul 9, 7:58 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> PaulStowewrote: >> > 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 > > One does not 'establish' LLI, it either physically exists, or does > not... If it does not, then, there's your distinguishing difference > between LR & SR. > > Paul Stowe Since there hasn't been a single test that has shown a violation of Lorentz invariance, I guess SR is right and LR is wrong.
From: colp on 10 Jul 2010 02:56 On Jul 10, 7:02 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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? So your claim regarding the events is baseless, right? > > > > > > 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. Yes they do. By choosing a frame in your theoretical example which corresponds to the actual preferred frame, your example gives results which conform to reality. If you choose an alternate frame, paradoxes become apparent. In Einstein's original example the stationary frame is the preferred frame, as is the case for SR measurements made near the Earth. > A preferred frame is one in which the LAWS OF PHYSICS are different > than in other frames. No, there is more to it that that. Einstien's first postulate assumes that: "the phenomena of electrodynamics as well as of mechanics possess no properties corresponding to the idea of absolute rest" If this postulate is true then you have no basis for making your observations from the stationary frame; i.e it would make no difference whether you made your observations from frame K or from frame K'.
From: harald on 10 Jul 2010 06:50
On Jul 9, 11:30 pm, Edward Green <spamspamsp...(a)netzero.com> wrote: > On Jul 9, 1:04 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). 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. > > Well, that puts you at direct odds with Paul Stowe, who says the > multipoles are "s-l-i-g-h-t", i.e., on the level of 1 part in 100,000 > -- however exactly that is quantified. Actually that is in perfect agreement; and thanks for the clarification of the smallness of the deviations. Harald |