Preferred Frame Theory indistinguishable from SR
in [Relativity]
|
From: Paul Stowe on 10 Jul 2010 23:17 On Jul 10, 7:15 pm, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > On Jul 11, 1:05 pm, PaulStowe<theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 10, 5:47 pm, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > > > > 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. > > > What, very specifically is your beef with the 'principle of > > relativity'? > > The fact that it purports that there are no absolutes in nature. But AFAIKT it does not really purports that. It purports that physical processes will behave in the same manner regardless of one's linear velocity. By extension, this means light's speed also appears to measure the same speed. It actually says nothing about absolutes. What it is really saying is, the universe is internally self consistent. The real issue 'at the time' of both LET and SR development was the very basic structure, and nature, of material systems since these are necessary to make any such measurements. Even in aether theory there really isn't any actual 'absolutes', just a universal framework. As for time dilation, there never is, nor can there ever be, an actual paradox. Only limitations on understanding and modeling actual physical behavior. In the case of inertial motion one should alway evaluate the problem from the sum v = 0 frame of reference. In the case of twins one or both must, by definition, undergo accelerations to change their speeds. This make the problem, also, by definition, a basic non-inertial system problem. SR 'traditionally' and originally was conceived to deal with the inertial state only. When you take your symmetrical twins problem and evaluate it from the point of origin frame you'll find that the elapsed times are, also, symmetrical. That's the proper solution. Regards, Paul Stowe
From: colp on 10 Jul 2010 23:54 On Jul 11, 3:17 pm, Paul Stowe <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 10, 7:15 pm, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > > > > > On Jul 11, 1:05 pm, PaulStowe<theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jul 10, 5:47 pm, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > > > > > 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. > > > > What, very specifically is your beef with the 'principle of > > > relativity'? > > > The fact that it purports that there are no absolutes in nature. > > But AFAIKT it does not really purports that. So how would you interpret the following? "the phenomena of electrodynamics as well as of mechanics possess no properties corresponding to the idea of absolute rest" Einstein, "Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" Also, can you show anything from Einstein's description of the principle of relativity which supports the idea of the existence of absolutes?
From: Paul Stowe on 11 Jul 2010 00:25 On Jul 10, 8:54 pm, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > On Jul 11, 3:17 pm, PaulStowe<theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 10, 7:15 pm, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > > > > On Jul 11, 1:05 pm, PaulStowe<theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jul 10, 5:47 pm, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > > > > > > 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. > > > > > What, very specifically is your beef with the 'principle of > > > > relativity'? > > > > The fact that it purports that there are no absolutes in nature. > > > But AFAIKT it does not really purports that. > > So how would you interpret the following? > > "the phenomena of electrodynamics as well as of mechanics possess > no properties corresponding to the idea of absolute rest" > > Einstein, "Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" > > Also, can you show anything from Einstein's description of the > principle of relativity which supports the idea of the existence of > absolutes? Is this throughout all of Einstein's writings or are you asking within the 1905 paper? Paul Stowe
From: eric gisse on 11 Jul 2010 01:08 Paul Stowe wrote: > On Jul 10, 7:11 pm, Edward Green <spamspamsp...(a)netzero.com> wrote: >> On Jul 10, 6:50 am, harald <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote: >> >> > On Jul 10, 2:12 am, PaulStowe<theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> <...> >> > >http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/ast123/lectures/lec23.html >> >> > > Quote, >> >> > > "The CMB is highly isotropy, uniform to better than 1 >> > > part in 100,000. Any deviations from uniformity are >> > > measuring the fluctuations that grew by gravitational >> > > instability into galaxies and clusters of galaxies." >> >> I appreciated that reference also. I can only wish the original author >> had said "highly isotropic" rather than "highly isotropy" <sic>, but >> maybe English wasn't his or her first language. That grammar-o makes >> the site look cranky, but I don't think it is. >> >> [I'm piggybacking on your post, since I lost Paul's original]. > > Hi, another reference is, > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_Background_Explorer > > Quote, > > "The cosmic microwave background fluctuations are extremely > faint, only one part in 100,000 compared to the 2.73 kelvin > average temperature of the radiation field." > > and, IIRC the COBE instruments were designed to be sensitive to 10E-4 > fluctuation causing quite a consternation when data was first > received. It to quite a lot of data analysis to get the results. It > was originally expected that those fluctuations would be on the order > of 10E-3. > > Now 10E-5 is a variance in temperature of 0.000027 K or, conversely, a > variance in c of 3,000 m/sec (if one assumes standard tomography > protocol). c is isotropic, stupid. This has been explained to you. > > It is silly on its face to claim that the CMBR does not illuminate the > rest frame of our universe. > > Paul Stowe Light does not require a medium, stupid. This has been explained to you.
From: colp on 11 Jul 2010 01:56
On Jul 11, 4:25 pm, Paul Stowe <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 10, 8:54 pm, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > > > > > On Jul 11, 3:17 pm, PaulStowe<theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jul 10, 7:15 pm, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > > > > > On Jul 11, 1:05 pm, PaulStowe<theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Jul 10, 5:47 pm, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > What, very specifically is your beef with the 'principle of > > > > > relativity'? > > > > > The fact that it purports that there are no absolutes in nature. > > > > But AFAIKT it does not really purports that. > > > So how would you interpret the following? > > > "the phenomena of electrodynamics as well as of mechanics possess > > no properties corresponding to the idea of absolute rest" > > > Einstein, "Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" > > > Also, can you show anything from Einstein's description of the > > principle of relativity which supports the idea of the existence of > > absolutes? > > Is this throughout all of Einstein's writings or are you asking within > the 1905 paper? From the 1905 paper, as that is where the first postulate of SR originated. |