Preferred Frame Theory indistinguishable from SR
in [Relativity]
|
From: colp on 11 Jul 2010 22:27 On Jul 12, 12:42 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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'. I'm not lying. The early experiments didn't verify Einstein's theories, but were made to look at though they did. Re: Mercury's perihelion advance: The issue of Perihelion Rotation is this: In 1859 French mathematician and astronomer Urbain Jean Joseph Le Verrier reported that the advance in the perihelion of Mercury (arriving at its closest point to the sun) was greater than could be accounted for by adding the gravitational effects of the known planets. In 1895 Simon Newcomb, a U.S. Navy Admiral, leading astronomer and superintendent of the American Nautical Almanac published "The elements of the four inner planets and the fundamental constants of astronomy" and confirmed the discordance discovered by Le Verrier. In 1915 Einstein derived an equation in which he purported to account for the variation for the longitude of perihelion of a planets orbit using the field equation of General Relativity and claimed that his new theory of gravitation explained the anomalous motion of the perihelion of Mercury. Pari takes issue with Einstein's claim noting that "Here again Einstein has combined two contradictory concepts: * (a) the classic absolute time, absolute space, and Newton's idea of a centripetal force, with * (b) general relativity's hypothesis of a curved four dimensional spacetime continuum; and has come upon an equation that gave the expected advance in the perihelion of Mercury; but that accounted for only 1/6 of the advance in the perihelion of Mars, and could not explain the anomalous motion of the nodes of Venus. Pari notes these comments by Einstein's friends and contemporaries regarding the perihelion equation: Max von Laue (close friend of Einstein): "The agreement between two individual numbers (the perihelion prediction of Einstein and Newcomb anomaly) achieved under conditions which cannot be arbitrarily altered, so that it seems uncertain whether the suppositions (specifically the assumption of two mass points) are fulfilled with sufficient accuracy, does not seem to be sufficient reason, even though it is note-worthy, to change the whole physical conception of the world to the full extent as Einstein did with this theory." Jean Francois Chazy (noted French mathematician); (Translation) "In all fairness, at the present status of science, the value of the advance of Mercury's perihelion as an argument for the theory of Relativity does not, could not have the definitive character that some people believe it to have." http://www.thelivingmoon.com/47john_lear/02files/Einstein_the_Hoaxer_Rev_10..htm Re: 1919 measurement of deflection of starlight. Eminent British physicist Arthur Eddington declared general relativity a success, catapulting Einstein into fame and onto coffee mugs. In retrospect, it seems that Eddington fudged the results, throwing out photos that showed the "wrong" outcome. http://discovermagazine.com/2008/mar/20-things-you-didn.t-know-about-relativity Enter another piece of luck for Einstein. We now know that the light- bending effect was actually too small for Eddington to have discerned at that time. Had Eddington not been so receptive to Einstein's theory, he might not have reached such strong conclusions so soon, and the world would have had to wait for more accurate eclipse measurements to confirm general relativity. Then there is the sheer unlikeliness of total eclipses themselves. Requiring the Sun and Moon to appear the same size in the sky-despite the fact that the Sun is 400 times bigger than the Moon-total eclipses have only been visible for 3 per cent of Earth's history. Without this piece of celestial luck, scientists would have had to wait years to test general relativity by searching by other means. And let's be clear about the importance of Eddington's total eclipse measurements. More than anything, it was the swiftness of the test of his theory that turned Einstein not just into a well-known scientist, or even a celebrity, but one of the century's cultural icons. By the 1920s, Einstein was better known than Charlie Chaplin: politicians and film stars were queuing up to be photographed with him. And all thanks to a total eclipse. Ode to Albert, 03 July 1999, New Scientist Re: 1925 Measurement of Sirius B gravitational redshift Open Questions Regarding the 1925 Measurement of the Gravitational Redshift of Sirius B Jay B. Holberg Univ. of Arizona. In January 1924 Arthur Eddington wrote to Walter S. Adams at the Mt. Wilson Observatory suggesting a measurement of the Einstein shift in Sirius B and providing an estimate of its magnitude. Adams 1925 published results agreed remarkably well with Eddingtons estimate. Initially this achievement was hailed as the third empirical test of General Relativity (after Mercurys anomalous perihelion advance and the 1919 measurement of the deflection of starlight). It has been known for some time that both Eddingtons estimate and Adams measurement underestimated the true Sirius B gravitational redshift by a factor of four. http://www.upd.aas.org/had/meetings/2010Abstracts.html
From: eric gisse on 11 Jul 2010 23:59 colp wrote: > On Jul 12, 12:42 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> 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'. > > I'm not lying. Then you are so abundantly stupid that you should never speak on a technical subject ever again. > The early experiments didn't verify Einstein's > theories, but were made to look at though they did. Lying again. Or stupid, as mentioned above. Gravitational lensing is well established observational fact. > > Re: Mercury's perihelion advance: I see no particular point into launching into a long discussion with you about yet another subject you do not understand. Mercury's perihelion advance is observational fact, and has been as such for more than 150 years. Deal with it. [snip rest, unread]
From: Tom Roberts on 12 Jul 2010 00:10 eric gisse wrote: > Tom Roberts wrote: >> 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. Yes. That's an aspect of why I am studying doubly special relativity. Tom Roberts
From: harald on 12 Jul 2010 04:29 On Jul 12, 12:36 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. That's fine, if it really were presented like that. Which textbooks are that honest? Students are being fooled into thinking that there are presented with what essentially are the theories of Newton, Maxwell and Einstein; but in fact they are dished up a mix of their ideas with the ideas of anonymous others. The confidence that one puts in the presented ideas are based on the judgment of the mental capacities of those scientists that the anons piggybacked on, together with trust in the pretension of it all being "hard science". At least, I was fooled that way, and it is evident that *a lot* of people are thus being cheated. > 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. You still didn't get it - see above. > 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. Nothing could > be farther from the truth. Yes, exactly - and you *still* don't understand where they got that wrong idea from? > People believe relativity today because > they've been studying it (and refining our understanding of it) for > 100 years. 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. You greatly underestimate the role that indoctrination plays in human teaching. The same human factors play in scientific teaching as in religious teaching, to the detriment of the pupils. > 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. The old arguments (Newton, Lorentz-Langevin) haven't changed, as they are based on scientific observation that remains valid. New, additional arguments are provided by quantum mechanics - I already provided a link. To my regret, if QM is correct, it appears that I must give up my realist idea of "locality" - which I find hard to swallow. Harald
From: harald on 12 Jul 2010 04:46
On Jul 12, 1:06 am, stevendaryl3...(a)yahoo.com (Daryl McCullough) wrote: > 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. Indeed it doesn't, nor did I see him pretend that it does... As you know, the PoR is included in Newtonian mechanics (just in other words). > What these experiments *do* single out are the inertial frames. Exactly, that's the point. > 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. Einstein understood (AFTER 1905) that Newton tried to model a physical cause; and that only Mach proposed an alternative explanation (instead of "Space", "the stars"). However, neither Mach nor himself could create a fully "Machian" theory - and, if I'm not mistaken, nobody else so far. > 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. Yes you surely did misinterpret him - but there isn't much room for such misunderstandings. Regards, Harald |