Preferred Frame Theory indistinguishable from SR
in [Relativity]
|
From: colp on 10 Jul 2010 18:19 On Jul 11, 4:18 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 10, 1:56 am, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > > > > > 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? > The bottom line is that in Einstein's example it is not an oversimplification to say that the moving clock runs slow. Calling that description a "comic-book statement" is like an ad hominem where the attack is against the form of the statement rather than the writer. > > > > > > > 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. > > What? No. Actually paradoxes do become apparent. In my four-clock extension of Einstein's two-clock example, SR predicts the same two clocks are slower than each other depending on whether the observation is make from frame K or from frame K'. > Do you know what "preferred frame" means? If so, tell me what you > think it means. What I think it means is irrelevant in the context of showing a paradox. What is relevant is what SR says that it means, specifically that a preferred frame has properties which correspond to the idea of absolute rest, or is a frame in which the laws of mechanics hold good but laws of electrodynamics and optics no longer hold good. 1. "the phenomena of electrodynamics as well as of mechanics possess no properties corresponding to the idea of absolute rest". 2. "the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good." From "Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies". > > > In Einstein's original example the stationary frame > > is the preferred frame, as is the case for SR measurements made near > > the Earth. > > What ever gave you the impression that Einstein took the Earth frame > to be preferred? He used the word stationary. In common language stationary means at rest relative to Earth's surface, as typically observers are at rest relative to that frame. > > > > > > 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" > > Sorry, but that is a conclusion FROM the postulate. No, there is no indication in the source text that either part of the first postulate is a derivation of the other part. > The meaning of > "preferred frame" as used by physicists is what I described. Irrelevant. What is important is what Einstein described, not the qualifications and ammendments made by physicists in order to render the theory useful. > > > > > 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'. > > Nor does it make any difference. The laws of physics take the same > form from either frame. The fact that the laws take the same form does not mean that there is no preferred frame. > > This does NOT entail that if clocks are synchronized in K, then they > are also synchronized in K'. That is not what the principle of > relativity means. Straw man. The point is that if Einstein's first postulate is true, then it is possible for the clocks to be synchronized in either frame. For you to argue that they can be synchronized in K but not in K' implies that you do not hold Einstein's first postulate to be true.
From: colp on 10 Jul 2010 18:28 On Jul 11, 9:50 am, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > kenseto wrote: > > He made the bogus claim that > > the preferred frame has different laws of physics than an inertial > > frame. > > That'd be why it is 'preferred', Ken. That isn't exactly why, according to Einstein's description: It is known that Maxwells electrodynamicsas usually understood at the present timewhen applied to moving bodies, leads to asymmetries which do not appear to be inherent in the phenomena. Take, for example, the reciprocal electrodynamic action of a magnet and a conductor. The observable phenomenon here depends only on the relative motion of the conductor and the magnet, whereas the customary view draws a sharp distinction between the two cases in which either the one or the other of these bodies is in motion. For if the magnet is in motion and the conductor at rest, there arises in the neighbourhood of the magnet an electric field with a certain definite energy, producing a current at the places where parts of the conductor are situated. But if the magnet is stationary and the conductor in motion, no electric field arises in the neighbourhood of the magnet. In the conductor, however, we find an electromotive force, to which in itself there is no corresponding energy, but which gives riseassuming equality of relative motion in the two cases discussed to electric currents of the same path and intensity as those produced by the electric forces in the former case. Examples of this sort, together with the unsuccessful attempts to discover any motion of the earth relatively to the light medium, suggest that the phenomena of electrodynamics as well as of mechanics possess no properties corresponding to the idea of absolute rest. They suggest rather that, as has already been shown to the first order of small quantities, the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good.1 We will raise this conjecture (the purport of which will hereafter be called the Principle of Relativity) to the status of a postulate, and also introduce another postulate, which is only apparently irreconcilable with the former, namely, that light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body. Einstein, "Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" The relevant descriptions are: 1. "the phenomena of electrodynamics as well as of mechanics possess no properties corresponding to the idea of absolute rest". 2. "the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good."
From: eric gisse on 10 Jul 2010 18:49 colp wrote: [...] Discussion with you is pointless. Go away.
From: Paul Stowe on 10 Jul 2010 20:32 On Jul 9, 10:49 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > PaulStowewrote: > > 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. > > > PaulStowe > > 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. There is a reason it's not called Einstein Invariance ;)..., and, as you 'should' know, the very same is true for LR. But, if it's true that after six years you still haven't be able to graduate college the reason may also be obvious... Paul Stowe
From: colp on 10 Jul 2010 20:47
On Jul 11, 10:49 am, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > colp wrote: > > [...] > > Discussion with you is pointless. Go away. The point of discussion is to show the error in the contention that Einstein's first postulate of SR is true. The first postulate isn't true because of the paradoxes which arise when it is applied within the context of real relativistic effects like time dilation. |