Preferred Frame Theory indistinguishable from SR
in [Relativity]
|
From: harald on 12 Jul 2010 04:54 On Jul 12, 1:21 am, Paul Stowe <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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.pdfhttp://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0011/0011050v1.pdfhttp://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0101/0101082v2.pdfhttp://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&...http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6TVM-3VX92W... > > These are examples of use of the term in the context that I also apply > it... > > Paul Stowe Tom v.F's "Lorentzian Relativity" is in disagreement with Lorentz's ideas; that name is misleading. Harald
From: Daryl McCullough on 12 Jul 2010 06:33 In article <e0a2bba6-09bf-4a96-9ba9-7104d30ba7de(a)d37g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, harald says... >> ...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). I thought you were saying that Newton was arguing for an absolute rest frame. >> What these experiments *do* single out are the inertial frames. > >Exactly, that's the point. I don't understand, then. As I said, I thought you were saying that Newton was making arguments in favor of an absolute standard of rest. If he was only making an argument in favor of an absolute standard for acceleration, then that's not news. Yes, inertial frames are special. -- Daryl McCullough Ithaca, NY
From: Daryl McCullough on 12 Jul 2010 07:04 harald says... > >On Jul 12, 12:36=A0am, stevendaryl3...(a)yahoo.com (Daryl McCullough) >wrote: >> 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? The textbooks that I used, for instance, were *physics* textbooks, not *history* textbooks. There was no claim made that what was being presented was verbatim what Newton or Einstein wrote. >Students are being fooled into thinking that there >are presented with what essentially are the theories of Newton, >Maxwell and Einstein; No, they're not. It's not even an issue. >but in fact they are dished up a mix of their >ideas with the ideas of anonymous others. That's what science is about. It's a cumulative, ongoing effort to understand the world. Many people make contributions towards that understanding. The scientist who invents something completely new out of whole cloth is the exception. >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. I think you have a mistaken view of science. The important thing about science is *not* the words of great scientists. It is the structure of the scientific theories and the experimental support for those theories. My confidence in Newtonian physics or relativity had nothing to do with belief in any scientist's "capacities". It was from understanding the material, and seeing how it "fit together", how it answered questions about how the world works, how it is supported by evidence. If you are basing your confidence in science on worship of particular *scientists*, then you are cheating yourself. >> 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? I don't know, but you seem to have a similar wrong view that science is about indoctrination. >> 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. It's a substitute for understanding. >> 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. This is getting tedious. If you have an argument in favor of an absolute standard of rest, then *you* present it. Don't send me on wild goose chases through history. You misled me with your references on Newton. You claimed that Newton argued in favor of an absolute standard of rest, and then when I actually looked at what Newton wrote, I saw that he made no such argument. >New, additional arguments are provided by quantum mechanics The case of quantum mechanics is puzzling, and I don't think the final word has been written on that subject, but as it is currently understood, quantum mechanics does not single out a preferred rest frame. All the predictions of quantum mechanics work just as well in any rest frame. There's a mismatch of argument styles here. You make claims, and you decline to argue in favor of them. I find that frustrating. You justify your style by saying that others have already made the arguments much better than you. But I can't have a discussion with people who are dead. I can't ask them what they meant. I can't propose counter-arguments to see how they respond. So I'm not going to argue with people long dead. -- Daryl McCullough Ithaca, NY
From: PD on 12 Jul 2010 10:20 On Jul 11, 3:53 pm, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > 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? Because it was the latter sentence that he called his postulate. This should be obvious. > > > Perhaps you are having difficulty reading. > > Perhaps you are inventing meaning in an attempt to reconcile the text > with your beliefs. Well, let me put it to you this way. If thousands of physicists, including Einstein's contemporaries, understand the principle of relativity to be the latter sentence and you are the one that takes it to be the opposite, don't you think there's the possibility you may be misreading something? PD
From: PD on 12 Jul 2010 10:24
On Jul 11, 3:51 pm, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > 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. And that is absolutely NOT correct. Temperature is associated with *stochastic* motion, not linear motion. Throwing a rock at 10,000 miles/hour through space does not increase its temperature one whit. It would help if you learned a little basic physics before launching yourself into rationales against relativity. > > > Curvature is not relative. > > Geometry is not physics. I beg to differ. The geometric structure of a lot of things IS physics. Physics involves more than cranks and cogs of material things bonking on material things. |