Preferred Frame Theory indistinguishable from SR
in [Relativity]
|
From: harald on 11 Jul 2010 05:00 On Jul 11, 4:15 am, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > On Jul 11, 1:05 pm, Paul Stowe <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. It's really Poincare's postulate, according to which *one* "absolute" cannot be *observed*. No beef here. Harald
From: harald on 11 Jul 2010 06:43 On Jul 10, 7:49 am, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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. What kind of Lorentzian relativity predicts a violation of its own invariance?? That doesn't make any sense. Anyway, if the "mere existence" of an "ether frame" violates LLT, then the realistic interpretation of QM violates LLT. - http://hep.princeton.edu/~mcdonald/examples/QM/hardy_prl_68_2981_92.pdf Harald
From: Paul Stowe on 11 Jul 2010 10:49 On Jul 10, 10:08 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > PaulStowewrote: > > 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. > > > PaulStowe > > Light does not require a medium, stupid. This has been explained to you. Where in the statement above is any medium mentioned??? It is now 'generally accepted' that the CMBR is the preferred 'rest frame' of our universe. This has really nothing directly to do with the question of a medium. However, it logically follows from the evidence. If you doubt the veracity of my claim here are but a few examples of this, http://www.tapir.caltech.edu/~kamion/CFP/Byer_Space_Time_Asymmetry_Research_CFP.pdf http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1006/1006.2697v2.pdf http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0502/0502237v2.pdf http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?pid=S0103-97332006000700014&script=sci_arttext&tlng=en There are, of course, many, many, more. Paul Stowe
From: Paul Stowe on 11 Jul 2010 10:58 On Jul 10, 10:56 pm, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > On Jul 11, 4:25 pm, Paul Stowe <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > 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. I could show you in later works but not in that one. BTW, what does term absolute mean to you?
From: Tom Roberts on 11 Jul 2010 13:18
Paul Stowe wrote: > It is silly on its face to claim that the CMBR does not illuminate the > rest frame of our universe. In cosmological models based on the FRW manifolds of GR, the CMBR dipole=0 frame is also the cosmological frame in which the dust particles (galaxies) are at rest, due to the way the CMBR was generated. This is merely a symmetry of the manifold, and no "aether" is present, and the cosmological frame does not participate in the dynamics. In an expanding universe, it's not clear what "rest frame of our universe" means -- NOTHING is "at rest", and it is not possible to compute any sort of "average" [#]. But at each point in the FRW models there is a cosmological frame reflecting the symmetry of the manifold, and it can be determined via local measurements. [#] One might be able to compute an average over the visible universe, but that's not at all the entire universe. Tom Roberts |