Preferred Frame Theory indistinguishable from SR
in [Relativity]
|
From: PD on 11 Jul 2010 16:30 On Jul 10, 5:28 pm, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > 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." The second is what is meant, and it leads directly to the first as a consequence. Perhaps you are having difficulty reading.
From: PD on 11 Jul 2010 16:31 On Jul 10, 9:15 pm, 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 says nothing of the kind. There is absolute zero in temperature, for example. Curvature is not relative. Please do not overconstrue what sentences say.
From: colp on 11 Jul 2010 16:51 On Jul 12, 8:31 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 10, 9:15 pm, 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 says nothing of the kind. There is absolute zero in temperature, > for example. If a group of atoms are not moving relative to each other, but are moving relative to the preferred frame, then they have an effective temperature greater than absolute zero due to their kinetic energy. If there is no preferred frame then a gas is at absolute zero only for a local observer. > Curvature is not relative. Geometry is not physics.
From: colp on 11 Jul 2010 16:53 On Jul 12, 8:30 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 10, 5:28 pm, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > > > > > 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." > > The second is what is meant, and it leads directly to the first as a > consequence. Why do you say that? > Perhaps you are having difficulty reading. Perhaps you are inventing meaning in an attempt to reconcile the text with your beliefs.
From: colp on 11 Jul 2010 17:04
On Jul 12, 2:58 am, Paul Stowe <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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? A state in which the qualities of a system are unique, and all other states of that system are derivations of that unique state. For example, the absolutes of a Cartesian coordinate system are the origin and the axes, and the absolute counting number is one. Getting back to Einstein's first postulate, in what way do Einstein's later writings affect his first postulate of relativity? If they don't affect it, then isn't my point supported by Einstein's writings? |