Preferred Frame Theory indistinguishable from SR
in [Relativity]
|
From: Inertial on 12 Jul 2010 21:48 "colp" wrote in message news:1abd6953-5151-47a0-8072-4c736d5d104c(a)t5g2000prd.googlegroups.com... > > Pointing out the error in your argument doesn't make me an idiot, Do you actually have any support for your claims that SR has self-contradictions / paradoxes ? Do you have any reproducible evidence that SR is wrong (ie that it predicts things that are not consistent with what we find experimentally) ? Or is your whole approach to divert away from addressing that argue over semantics and philosophy. And are you going to continue to ignore my posts because you know I have you cornered?
From: Inertial on 12 Jul 2010 21:53 "colp" wrote in message news:aa278597-15a3-4199-b543-1cbfed87bd2a(a)w37g2000prc.googlegroups.com... >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. You were. Your continual diversions and logical fallacies, AND your hypocritical claims that OTHERS are using YOUR trick of misdirection, just show that you're nothing but a pathetic troll who has no real understanding of the physics he is posting onr and so is unable to support his ridiculous claims. And your lack of response to my posts, especially those offering to show you analysis and those showing how RoS gives mutual time dilation also shows you are a coward.
From: Inertial on 12 Jul 2010 21:55 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 Wrong. It was very clear that it was NOTHING like the old aether of classical physics. All the properties that made it in any sense a material / substance were removed.
From: Paul Stowe on 12 Jul 2010 22:12 On Jul 12, 3:21 pm, Edward Green <spamspamsp...(a)netzero.com> wrote: > On Jul 11, 2:54 pm, PaulStowe<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. It always stuck in my craw that people claimed that Fitzgerald's (and Lorentz's) proposal of contraction was totally ad hoc yet, OTOH, Einstein's proposal of measured light speed consistency somehow was not. They both had/have the exactly the same foundation, no other basis than it is what is needed to produce results that match observation. I KNEW! that, for Lorentz to be right the behavior had be consistent in all fluidic media. Therefore that begs the question, a simple one really, do acoustic fields under the Lorentz contraction for moving sources. The answer is/was, yes they do. Couple this natural behavior to the obvious, that any system solely consisting of such fields would all behave a Lorentz described, and the result is LLI. Want to know what's hilarious, Mr. Gisse, after actually looking up the "Handbook of Physics" reference, actually claimed that it MUST! be wrong, and Dr. Ingard and the editors Condon, Odishaw and all others that had a hand in publishing that book had to be incompetent. > 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. I shall never comprehend the mentality of denial of rather obvious indications. Einstein realized that GR was purely a hydrodynamical expression, as such, the connection to a medium should be blatantly obvious to the most dense of individuals, it was to Einstein. Thus his Leyden comments. He also understood Dirac's dilemma. > 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. Take all the time you need. But, as you do, think about the physical consequences that actual changes in electric fields with speed incur... Paul Stowe
From: eric gisse on 12 Jul 2010 15:42
Esa Riihonen wrote: > > NOTE. I had to make heavy pruning in order to fit in my server limit of 32 > kB. step 1) snip step 2) stop talking to androcles [snip all, unread] |