Preferred Frame Theory indistinguishable from SR
in [Relativity]
|
From: Edward Green on 12 Jul 2010 18:21 On Jul 11, 2:54 pm, Paul Stowe <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 11, 11:04 am, Edward Green <spamspamsp...(a)netzero.com> wrote: <...> > > I am sympathetic and intrigued by so called LET, but I wonder if there > > isn't a third way. SR essentially asserts a symmetry (LLI, as it is > > now styled -- the acronyms seems to grow in this group at military > > rates of accretion), whereas LET explains that symmetry. But LET > > leaves the ghost of an undetectable absolute frame. I wonder is there > > isn't a more mechanistic way of understanding LLI which eliminates the > > need for an absolute frame of reference. > > Just FYI, LET is to what I call Lorentzian Relativity (LR) as SR is to > GR. IOW Lorentzian Relativity encompasses both SR/GR with Lorentz's > take on what underlies the mathematics of GR hydrodynamical equation. Thanks for the clarification. > Thus while LR includes LET it scope is much broader... > > Now, to your question, as the excerpt below demonstrates, > > ======== The Handbook of Physics, Section 3, Chap 8 "Acoustics > ======== > (Condon & Odishaw, McGraw-Hill Publishing) > > 9. Radiation from a Simple Source in a Moving Medium > > An important question concerns the effect of steady motion of the > medium on the field distribution from a stationary simple source of > sound located in free space. In the absence of motion of the medium > the > sound field will be spherically symmetrical, and the surfaces of > constant phase will coincide with the surfaces of constant amplitude. > Motion of the medium will split this coincidence. > > - - - - \ > - ^ - - - - \ > / | \ - - - \ > | | | - - - \ > | R* | - - - \ > | | | - - - \ > | | | - - - \ > | | | - - - \ > |<--R---o---------> v ---------------------------o-> v > | Source | - - - /Source > | | - - -/ > | | - - -/ > | | - - - / > | | - - - / > \ / - - - / > - - - - - / > - - - - / > Figure 8.2 > Subsonic Velocity Supersonic Velocity > B = v/c < 1 B = v/c > 1 > > FIG. 8.2.Equal sound pressure contours from sound source in motion or > for a stationary source in a moving medium. The contours are in both > cases measured in a coordinate system attached to the source. > > The field distribution of a stationary source in a moving medium > measured in the stationary coordinate system IS THE SAME as that of a > moving source in a stationary medium measured in the frame connected > with the source. The field from a point source located at the origin > of > the stationary coordinate system xyz in which the medium moves with a > constant velocity v in the direction of the x axis is: > > Q(t - R/c) > P(x,y,z,t) = -------------------- > 4pi[R*]Sqrt(1 - B^2) > > Where > > B[x*] + > R* > > R = ------------- > Sqrt(1 - B^2) > > and > x > R*^2 = x*^2 + y^2 + z^2, x* = ------------- > Sqrt(1 - B^2) > > which can readily be seen to satisfy Eqs. (8.7). > > The surfaces of constant phase, given by R = constant, are spheres of > radius RSqrt(1 + +B^2) with the origin at x = RB. This can be easily > seen in an elementary way by calculating the time it takes for a pulse > of sound to reach x, y, z. The surfaces of constant sound pressure, on > the other hand, are given by R* = constant, which corresponds to the > ellipsoid x^2/(l - B^2) + y^2 + z^2 = constant = R*^2, as pictured in > Fig. 8.2. It is interesting to notice that the field is the same up > and > down wind and that the intensity is larger in a direction at right > angles to the flow. Physically the decrease of sound pressure in the > directions with and against the wind can be explained as follows. Down > wind the space occupied by a pulse of energy of certain length is > "stretched" out, and the energy density is correspondingly decreased. > Up wind the wave has effectively to travel further to reach the point > of observation, and the effect of spherical divergence will be > comparatively larger. > > ==================================================================== > > Moving acoustical sources create field profile who's form is > consistent to Lorentz's proposal and are LLI. If one were > 'restricted' to using ONLY instrumentation which consisted of > agglomerations of such fields the results of any measurements would > be, also, LLI. This is also explained in this paper, > > http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0705/0705.4652v2.pdf > > and, > > http://www.wbabin.net/physics/rothenstein19.pdf > > These combined should provide ample evidence to demonstrate that LLI > is the native behavior of basic acoustical fields. There is no > mystery here or anything special about an aetherial medium behaving > the same way. That's a meaty post, with some meaty references, and calls on my printing post and references for further study. Thanks for the ascii art! You've certainly done your homework... quite a bit of homework since I first remember seeing your name in this group. You and I both know that when Einstein said in the Leyden talk that "GR without a medium was unthinkable", or words to that effect, he was speaking of something very like the classical aether, and not spacetime, as some would have it: for otherwise, what would be the point of the qualification that "it has no sense of movement", or words to _that_ effect. Spacetime certainly has no sense of movement or rest, any fool can see that, and Einstein would not have found it necessary to spell that out. Now there is the rub, however: he said that the medium has no sense of movement or rest, unlike a classical medium. Now of course, as Daryl tells us, Einstein was not a prophet, and we don't have to treat his words like divine prophecy... but we do attach some weight to them, else why bother quoting him at all. Anyway, I at least entertain the possibility that space acts very much like a medium, but one without a definable local rest state. Of course I could be wrong, or you could be wrong, and so forth. But following some recent references I find that it has suddenly become quite fashionable to expect that LLI will eventually be broken, on the theory that most symmetries eventually are, which would put the ball more in your court, if it proves true. So far, I think, the quest has proved elusive. Well, I am only replying to you obliquely, for which I apologize, but as I said, you put a lot of meat in that post and it both requires and is worthy of close study.
From: colp on 12 Jul 2010 20:45 On Jul 13, 10:48 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 12, 4:54 pm, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > > > > > On Jul 13, 2:20 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > 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. > > > No, It's not obvious. The second sentence is a logical continuation of > > the first. The fact that his initial idea is that there is no "at > > rest" frame of reference suggests that the second sentence is a > > proposed experimental proof of the first. > > Colp, don't be an idiot. Pointing out the error in your argument doesn't make me an idiot, > The second sentence is a POSTULATE. No, is it part of a conjecture which Einstein raises to the status of a postulate. The conjecture beings with the suggestion that there is no absolute frame of reference w.r.t. electrodynamics and mechanics, which supports my point that Einstein's Principle of Relativity is based on the assumption that there are no absolutes (in physics). "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...." Further Einstein's conjecture is based on there being no evidence of the aether, when such evidence is readily available In 1991 Roland De Witte carried out an experiment in Brussels in which variations in the one-way speed of RF waves through a coaxial cable were recorded over 178 days. The data from this experiment shows that De Witte had detected absolute motion of the earth through space, as had six earlier experiments, beginning with the Michelson- Morley experiment of 1887. His results are in excellent agreement with the extensive data from the Miller 1925/26 detection of absolute motion using a gas- mode Michelson interferometer atop Mt.Wilson, California. The De Witte data reveals turbulence in the flow which amounted to the detection of gravitational waves. Similar effects were also seen by Miller, and by Torr and Kolen in their coaxial cable experiment. Here we bring together what is known about the De Witte experiment. PP-06-11.pdf
From: colp on 12 Jul 2010 20:51 On Jul 13, 10:59 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 12, 5:09 pm, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > > > > > On Jul 13, 2:24 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > 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. > > > No, stochastic motion is not an essential element of temperature. > > OK, now you've just demonstrated two things: > - You don't know the first thing about freshman level physics > - You are willing to attempt to JUSTIFY your misconceptions about > freshman level physics by citing an online wiki aimed at casual > readers, and you will no doubt DEMAND that someone prove you wrong by > teaching you online in a newsgroup. > Again you misdirect by claiming that I am asking for an education when you are unable to support your claims, just like you did when you falsely claimed that I was oversimplifying Einstien's description of time dilation.
From: Daryl McCullough on 12 Jul 2010 21:12 Edward Green says... >You and I both know that when Einstein said in the Leyden talk that >"GR without a medium was unthinkable", or words to that effect, he was >speaking of something very like the classical aether, and not >spacetime, as some would have it: for otherwise, what would be the >point of the qualification that "it has no sense of movement", or >words to _that_ effect. Spacetime certainly has no sense of movement >or rest, any fool can see that, and Einstein would not have found it >necessary to spell that out. He could just be saying that spacetime is like a medium, except that it has no sense of movement. To conclude that he must have been talking about spacetime, because everything he said is true of spacetime, is kind of a weird leap. "Any fool" can see is a bit of an exaggeration. Spacetime was an unfamiliar concept prior to Einstein, and it really wasn't fully developed until after Einstein's Special Relativity. >Now there is the rub, however: he said >that the medium has no sense of movement or rest, unlike a classical >medium. Now of course, as Daryl tells us, Einstein was not a prophet, >and we don't have to treat his words like divine prophecy... but we do >attach some weight to them, else why bother quoting him at all. I don't usually quote anybody except to give them credit for an idea. >Anyway, I at least entertain the possibility that space acts very much >like a medium, but one without a definable local rest state. Of course >I could be wrong, or you could be wrong, and so forth. But following >some recent references I find that it has suddenly become quite >fashionable to expect that LLI will eventually be broken, on the >theory that most symmetries eventually are, which would put the ball >more in your court, if it proves true. So far, I think, the quest has >proved elusive. I think that it's likely that a quantum version of gravity will no longer have a manifold, except in an approximate, macroscopic sense, and without a manifold, you can't really make sense of Lorentz invariance. -- Daryl McCullough Ithaca, NY
From: Daryl McCullough on 12 Jul 2010 21:36
Edward Green says... >You and I both know that when Einstein said in the Leyden talk that >"GR without a medium was unthinkable", or words to that effect, he was >speaking of something very like the classical aether, and not >spacetime, as some would have it: for otherwise, what would be the >point of the qualification that "it has no sense of movement", or >words to _that_ effect. Spacetime certainly has no sense of movement >or rest, any fool can see that, and Einstein would not have found it >necessary to spell that out. Now there is the rub, however: he said >that the medium has no sense of movement or rest, unlike a classical >medium. I found a paper where this is discussed. The author quite explicitly identifies Einstein's aether with spacetime. You can see if you disagree: http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V08NO3PDF/V08N3GRF.PDF This paper also discusses the exact quotes from Newton in favor of "absolute space". He says that the important consideration is to avoid action-at-a-distance by introducing a medium. The spacetime of General Relativity serves as such a medium for the propagation of gravity. Rather than having distant objects affect each other gravitationally through instantaneous action at a distance, GR has matter influencing the metric tensor locally, and then the disturbances in this tensor field propagate out to distant matter at a finite speed. So the spacetime metric serves as a "medium" for the propagation of gravitational effects. -- Daryl McCullough Ithaca, NY |