Preferred Frame Theory indistinguishable from SR
in [Relativity]
|
From: Tom Roberts on 11 Jul 2010 18:44 Paul Stowe wrote: > Just FYI, LET is to what I call Lorentzian Relativity (LR) as SR is to > GR. Lorentz never published anything on that, AFAIK. Reference please. Tom Roberts
From: Paul Stowe on 11 Jul 2010 18:59 On Jul 11, 2:04 pm, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > On Jul 12, 2:58 am, PaulStowe<theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 10, 10:56 pm, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > > > > On Jul 11, 4:25 pm, PaulStowe<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. OK, by logical extension, if there existed a 'state' which is somehow 'physically' unique from all other states such that the physics of that state would simplest and different, all other states would, by definition, also have to be unique AND uniquely different from all others. That would, in turn, require that any physical system composed of such be internally inconsistent wrt to itself. Such a situation could not, and cannot possible exist. > For example, the absolutes of a Cartesian coordinate system are the origin > and the axes, and the absolute counting number is one. Can you not understand that both of those are human concepts? For example, one can impose a Cartesian coordinate grid of any scale they want, and place the origin anywhere they want. Something that is independent of human concepts must exist to step an absolute standard. > 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? Well, this is where knowing what 'you' mean by absolute is important. If we don't understand and can agree upon a common definition I don't have a chance of zeroing in on such passages. I can think of several in his Leyden address that suggests an 'absolute' background BUT, for linear motion there really does not exist any uniquely physically different frame. So, in that case, trying to provide any would be pointless. Paul Stowe
From: Daryl McCullough on 11 Jul 2010 19:06 harald says... >> > I agree that there is a paradox in his introduction: >> >> > 1. Natural phenomena (incl. mechanical phenomena) suggested to him >> > that these do not have "properties corresponding to the idea of >> > absolute rest" >> > 2. Based on that, he accepted for all natural phenomena the classical >> > PoR, which is defined relative to the *special* group of reference >> > systems "for which the equations of mechanics hold good". >> >> > Now, that special group of reference systems of statement 2 suggested >> > to Newton the idea of of absolute rest - which is in disaccord with >> > Einstein's suggestion in statement 1! >> >> No, it doesn't. > >It did - Newton can't hear you anymore, he is dead; but we can still >"hear" him through his writings. > >> The special group of reference systems are the >> inertial reference systems, which implies NOTHING about absolute rest. > >I now compare one page of arguments by Newton (+ one page by Langevin) >with ZERO arguments by you. So far I find them more convincing than >you. Why would that be? ;-) Okay, well I've looked at the references you have provided for what Newton said, and they just do not seem to be correct. He writes, for example: -----------------------Begin Newton quote--------------------------------- The effects which distinguish absolute from relative motion are, the forces of receding from the axis of circular motion. For there are no such forces in a circular motion purely relative, but in a true and absolute circular motion, they are greater or less, according to the quantity of the motion. If a vessel, hung by a long cord, is so often turned about that the cord is strongly twisted, then filled with water, and held at rest together with the water; after, by the sudden action of another force, it is whirled about the contrary way, and while the cord is untwisting itself, the vessel continues, for some time in this motion; the surface of the water will at first be plain, as before the vessel began to move: but the vessel, by gradually communicating its motion to the water, will make it begin sensibly to evolve, and recede by little and little from the middle, and ascend to the sides of the vessel, forming itself into a concave figure (as I have experienced), and the swifter the motion becomes, the higher will the water rise, till at last, performing its revolutions in the same times with the vessel, it becomes relatively at rest in it. This ascent of the water shows its endeavour to recede from the axis of its motion; and the true and absolute circular motion of the water, which is here directly contrary to the relative, discovers itself, and may be measured by this endeavour. At first, when the relative motion of the water in the vessel was greatest, it produced no endeavour to recede from the axis; the water showed no tendency to the circumference, nor any ascent towards the sides of the vessel, but remained of a plain surface, and therefore its true circular motion had not yet begun. But afterwards, when the relative motion of the water had decreased, the ascent thereof towards the sides of the vessel proved its endeavour to recede from the axis; and this endeavour showed the real circular motion of the water perpetually increasing, till it had acquired its greatest quantity, when the water rested relatively in the vessel. And therefore this endeavour, does not depend upon any translation of the water in respect of the ambient bodies, nor can true circular motion be defined by such translation. There is only one real circular motion of any one revolving body, corresponding to only one power of endeavouring to recede from its axis of motion, as its proper and adequate effect; but relative motions, in one and the same body, are innumerable, according to the various relations it bears to external bodies, and like other relations, are altogether destitute of any real effect, any otherwise than they may partake of that one only true motion. And therefore in their system who suppose that our heavens, revolving below the sphere of the fixed stars, carry the planets along with them; the several parts of those heavens and the planets, which are indeed relatively at rest in their heavens, do yet really move. For they change their position one to another (which never happens to bodies truly at rest), and being carried together with their heavens, partake of their motions, and as parts of revolving wholes, endeavour to recede from the axis of their motions. ------------------End Newton quote----------------------------------------- This argument is completely wrong, if it is understood as an argument in favor of an absolute standard for rest. All the phenomena that he describes for absolute motion (you spin a bucket of water, and the surface of the water becomes concave) works exactly the same way in *any* inertial frame. It doesn't single out a rest frame. What these experiments *do* single out are the inertial frames. If you havce a system of coordinates, you can by performing various experiments determine whether your coordinates are inertial, Cartesian coordinates, as opposed to curvilinear, accelerated coordinates. How much does an incorrect argument count towards a conclusion? I would say nothing at all. Newton's arguments, to the extent that they are arguing for the existence of an absolute standard of rest, are incorrect. Now, it's always possible that I've misinterpreted Newton. He's not around to say one way or the other. -- Daryl McCullough Ithaca, NY
From: Paul Stowe on 11 Jul 2010 19:21 On Jul 11, 3:44 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > PaulStowewrote: > > Just FYI, LET is to what I call Lorentzian Relativity (LR) as SR is to > > GR. > > Lorentz never published anything on that, AFAIK. Reference please. > > Tom Roberts http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pdf/0307/0307003v1.pdf http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0011/0011050v1.pdf http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0101/0101082v2.pdf http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=4921020 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6TVM-3VX92WP-1&_user=10&_coverDate=12%2F21%2F1998&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1397075134&_rerunOrigin=scholar.google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=c35330d12fecfcb93ada65bc1f103f71 These are examples of use of the term in the context that I also apply it... Paul Stowe
From: Inertial on 11 Jul 2010 19:57
"Paul Stowe" wrote in message news:787ceddb-beff-469f-91f2-2996b1acaf94(a)m17g2000prl.googlegroups.com... >On Jul 11, 3:44 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: ?> PaulStowewrote: >> > Just FYI, LET is to what I call Lorentzian Relativity (LR) as SR is to >> > GR. >> >> Lorentz never published anything on that, AFAIK. Reference please. [snip] So, Paul. If LET is a subset of LR .. please provide a reference to what LR is .. what additional formulas and relationships and explanations it contains above those of LET. Finding papers that use that term without explaining what is meant by it are not helpful .. they could simply be using it as a synonym for what we tend to call LET. |