Preferred Frame Theory indistinguishable from SR
in [Relativity]
|
From: Inertial on 11 Jul 2010 19:58 "colp" wrote in message news:605a42ab-9ae0-4c35-8e99-21af39d40788(a)k8g2000prh.googlegroups.com... >Perhaps you are inventing meaning in an attempt to reconcile the text >with your beliefs. Funny how cranks like you attribute your own failings directly to others.
From: colp on 11 Jul 2010 20:13 On Jul 12, 10:36 am, stevendaryl3...(a)yahoo.com (Daryl McCullough) wrote: > harald says... > > >Why is correct information relevant? Why are you trying to explain to > >Colp the correct postulates of SRT, if such things are completely > >irrelevant? Why not just dish up stories that you like, as others have > >done to you? > > I think that the phrase "correct information" means something different > to you than it does to me. The theories of classical mechanics, > elecromagnetism, and relativity have developed since the times of > Newton, Maxwell and Einstein. I believe that those subjects are better > understood by physicists today than they were by the people that created > the subjects. You might think that by definition that's impossible; > if people understand something different than Newton did, then what > they are doing is not Newtonian mechanics, it's something different. > Fine. It's something different, that's *derived* from Newton's physics, > and is still generally called "Newtonian physics" in his honor. It doesn't honor someone to apply his name to a theory that he never believed in. > > In my view, an argument made by Newton in the 1600s may or may not > be relevant today. Physicists are not prophets, their words are not > holy scripture. We don't need to believe something because Newton > or Einstein believed it. > > It's funny, the various anti-relativity "dissidents" have exactly > the wrong impression. They think that physicists today believe > relativity out of some kind of Einstein worship. Speaking only for myself, it's not all physicists, and it is the philosophical idea of relativism rather than Einstein & his work. > Nothing could > be farther from the truth. People believe relativity today because > they've been studying it (and refining our understanding of it) for > 100 years. Historically that hasn't been the case. Relativity was adopted because it filled a philosophical niche, not because of it's value as a predictive tool. > Newton's physics has been studied for much longer. We > understand these theories pretty well today, and we understand their > power for describing the universe. > > If there were other beliefs or writings of Newton or Einstein that > get much less attention today, then the chances are great that it's > because they aren't that important, or they are wrong, or they've > been replaced by clearer foundations. As if attention was solely a function of the scientific merit of a theory. The politicization of science should be manifestly evident in the AGW/ACC debate and the related funding of science by governmental agencies. > > What I've tried to explain to Colp is the mathematical structure of > Special Relativity as it is understood today. Not necessarily as > it was understood by Einstein. The latter is not particularly interesting > to me. Whether Newton believed in an absolute standard for rest is > not particularly interesting to me. I'm interested in any arguments > by people who *still* believe that there is evidence for the existence > of an absolute standard for rest. Well, there is the Hafele-Keating experiment, for a start. The HK experiment only validates relativity from a single frame of reference, and thus is better undedtood as confirmation of the preferred frame theory.
From: colp on 11 Jul 2010 20:28 On Jul 12, 10:59 am, Paul Stowe <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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. You haven't considered the idea of derivation. While the states which are derivations of the unique state can be described themselves as being unique, they are not unique in the same way that the absolute state is. This idea can be illustrated by introducing a mapping function which maps any state of the system to any other state of that system. The mapping function will have its simplest form when it maps the absolute state to any other state.
From: eric gisse on 11 Jul 2010 20:41 Tom Roberts wrote: [...] >> Anyway, if the "mere existence" of an "ether frame" violates LLT, then >> the realistic interpretation of QM violates LLT. > > I assume LLT => LLI. Yes, QM violates LLI -- it's a non-relativistic > theory. QED does not violate LLI, nor does the standard model. Indeed, the > notion that LLI applies to every theory was essential to their discovery > and development. That notion, of course, was motivated by SR, and came > well after LR (LET) was presented. I personally think the fact that Lorentz invariance is the single unifying feature of all of modern physics is some sort of clue as to the direction unification must take. What that direction is, I have no serious idea. Anything I've thought of has already been investigated, which is both cool (I have a good idea...) and super annoying (...but it was handled 20 years ago!). > > > Tom Roberts
From: eric gisse on 11 Jul 2010 20:42
colp wrote: [...] > Historically that hasn't been the case. Relativity was adopted because > it filled a philosophical niche, not because of it's value as a > predictive tool. I admire your kind of lying, because it takes balls to say with absolute certainty the factual equivalent of saying 'the sky is green'. [...] |