Preferred Frame Theory indistinguishable from SR
in [Relativity]
|
From: harald on 13 Jul 2010 07:26 On Jul 12, 11:54 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. > I just discovered that your confusion may be partly caused by an imprecise translation. Here is my improved translation: "Examples of this sort, together with the unsuccessful attempts to discover any motion of the earth relatively to the ``light medium,'' lead to the presumption that the the concepts of absolute rest not only in mechanics, but also in electrodynamics not correspond to properties of the phenomena. They suggest rather that for all coordinate systems for which the equations of mechanics hold good, also the same laws of electrodynamics and optics hold good, as has already been shown to the first order." Thus he just considered inertial systems; it was already established that the laws of mechanics relative to such systems do not correspond to the concept of absolute rest, as the same laws of mechanics are equally valid in any of them. This appeared also to be the case for electromagnetic phenomena. Is it finally clear now? ;-) [..] > The former sentence doesn't have a meaning opposite to the second > sentence. Indeed he expressed with his second sentence the thought of his first sentence with more precision. BTW, that is ancient Jewish tradition, as you will know if you ever read the bible. > In the real world, there exists no such state of absolute rest. That's > the content of the so-called principle of relativity, which is one of > the basic postulates of the special theory of relativity. No, that's again a (typical) distortion of facts. SRT is purely concerned with phenomena - on purpose it only relates to observables. Harald
From: harald on 13 Jul 2010 11:11 On Jul 12, 8:22 pm, stevendaryl3...(a)yahoo.com (Daryl McCullough) wrote: > harald says... > [reinsert this subtopic: Daryl says... > harald says... > >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! > > It's hard for me to believe that Newton thought that. Do you > have a quote saying that? Newtonian physics is well-known to > be invariant under Galilean transformations, which has no absolute > notion of rest. It's possible that Newton didn't understand that, > but it doesn't seem likely, his being a genius and all. ] As I now (re)-discovered (see my earlier post to Colp), the German original of that phrase of Einstein isn't necessarily in disaccord with Newton. > >On Jul 12, 1:04=A0pm, stevendaryl3...(a)yahoo.com (Daryl McCullough) > >wrote: > >> 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. > > >Exactly. How many of them warn the students that some of the presented > >theory is significantly different from the original theories? > > If people were coming to class to find out what Newton believed, then > such a warning would be appropriate. But they were going to class to > find out about classical mechanics. Newton was only one source of that > subject. How could you get the idea that Newton had no notion of absolute rest, if nobody suggested that fallacy to you? > >> >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. > > >Sure it's an issue - there wouldn't be as many cranks around if they > >had not received misleading information to start with. > > I think that's completely wrong. Cranks did not become that way from > taking physics classes. Their problem typically is that they don't > actually learn the mathematical structure of the theory, and instead > try to conduct arguments based solely on verbal reasoning, and that's > just much too fuzzy to base an understanding of physics on. The majority of the cranks don't stumble over math, they stumble over physics concepts. Take for example Colp, his main issues are apparently not the math - at least, he did not object to that part of your presentation. Instead he insists that the imprecise and misleading information that he received must be true. [..] > >Regretfully, this is rather typical and (although he noticed this one) > >Pentcho doesn't manage to "repair" the information in his head. How > >many people find their way through the mixture of correct information, > >misleading information, sneaky omissions and outright lies? > > The competent ones figure it out, the incompetent ones either give > up physics and pursue less mathematically taxing subjects, or become > cranks. Yes indeed, the competent one figure it out -> but the incompetent ones risk becoming cranks. [..] > Maybe you think that there are beliefs of Newton's that are > important that are being left out, but that's a matter of opinion. No, I told you that it is a postulate of his theory; his laws of motion are even based on it. I could similarly leave out the first paragraph of your presentation of this thread. Then we get: According to Daryl McCullough: There is a preferred frame, F, and there is an associated coordinate system such that 1. Light travels in straight lines at speed c, as measured in F's coordinate system. 2. An ideal clocks in motion relative to F has an elapsed time given by dT/dt = square-root(1-(v/c)^2), where t is the time coordinate of F's coordinate system, and v is the velocity of the clock, as measured in F's coordinate system, and T is the elapsed time on the clock. 3. An ideal meterstick in motion, with the stick aligned in the direction of its motion, will have a length given by L = square-root(1-(v/c)^2). [...] > >> I think you have a mistaken view of science. The important thing > >> about science is *not* the words of great scientists. > > >We agree on that; reporting the ideas of the inventors of theories in > >order to allow the students to fairly compare those with the ideas of > >others, DOES matter. > > It depends on what your goal is. When a student is taught a subject > such as calculus or classical physics, there are certain concepts, > tools, techniques, etc. that need to be understood and mastered in > order to solve problems in the field. This sort of information is > not adequate to allow the student to competently explore the > foundations of these subjects and to develop alternative foundations. > The assumption is that there are very, very few people who will ever > be in a position to do that kind of shaking up of the establishment. Yes, true enough. Still, I suspect a lack of empathy and consideration for the students. If giving misleading information were punishable by law as is the case with commercial publications, I dare to think that quite some textbooks would be more accurate - without necessarily being more complex or difficult. > Kuhn described how, in his opinion, science progresses. Most of the > time, the progress in science is incremental, rather than revolutionary. > Certain foundations are assumed to be correct, and scientists work on > the edges, trying to bring incrementally more phenomena into the category > of "well understood". But very occasionally, mainstream science gets > itself into a dead end. The incremental approach seems to be making > no progress at all, or else the progress is at the cost of making > the theory ever more convoluted. At that point, somebody comes along > with a brand new idea that calls for tossing out huge chunks of existing > science and replacing it by something new. > > But revolutions are rare, and it's good that they are, because otherwise > there would be no notion of scientific knowledge at all. I disagree - there would not be a *false* notion of scientific knowledge, based on mere dogma. > The revolutions > since Newton have all been of the form that the new theory reduces to the > previous theory in some limit, so the old knowledge does not become useless, > but instead is understood to have just a limited, approximate applicability. Right. > Anyway, I suppose that you could say that we are negligent in training > our revolutionaries, but I really don't think that the detailed arguments > of past scientists are likely to be all that useful in preparing one for > the next great revolution. It's certainly possible, but it seems to me > more likely that the new ideas will be ones that would not likely to have > occurred to earlier scientists. I didn't intend to make that argument. > >And later they can't say that they have been f*cked with. > > I doubt whether most cranks could ever have been coaxed into > being productive scientists by the right pedagogy. You may be right about that; but I wasn't caring about society, I was caring about them! Why else do you think would I sometimes try the impossible, trying to make something clear to them? Isn't it the same for you? [..] > >> 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. > > >That's a false confidence: in fact you *reject* Newtonian physics at > >its basis, although it partly answers how the world works and it is > >supported by his bucket experiment. How many textbooks discuss it? > > How does the bucket experiment contradict what's currently taught > as "classical mechanics"? It doesn't. It doesn't - just as SRT isn't contradicted by it. However, you spoke about your confidence in *Newtonian mechanics*. > I think you are mixing up science and philosophy. The science as it > is currently taught is perfectly adequate to figure out what happens > when you rotate a bucket of water. If you want to know, at some deep, > satisfying level, *why* the bucket behaves that way, science doesn't > actually answer "why" questions, except to explain phenomena in terms > of more basic phenomena. Not really: physical models should not be confused with philosophy. What do you think, was the Bohr model of the atom "philosophy"? It definitely was at the time not a phenomenon. [..] > >> >You greatly underestimate the role that indoctrination plays in human > >> >teaching. > > >> It's a substitute for understanding. > > >Exactly. Do you find indoctrination acceptable in scientific > >education? > > I don't think indoctrination is a good description of what is > going on. I hope that it's indeed only a small part. But you are avoiding the question... > >> This is getting tedious. If you have an argument in favor of > >> an absolute standard of rest, then *you* present it. > > >I have few other arguments than the ones that you can read from > >Newton, > > Newton doesn't give such an argument. His argument is perfectly > consistent with the nonexistence of an absolute frame of rest. Thus you do not understand his argument - but it's anyone's guess why. Do you claim that Mach was obviously right, and that instead the stars are the cause of inertia? But if so, doesn't the average distribution of mass constitute a physical reference as well? And doesn't their supposed influence need a way to interact with other masses? So that the difference between Mach and Newton isn't as big as it may appear at first? This is the problem that Newton, Mach and Einstein faced. > His arguments show that one can perform an experiment to determine > whether one is moving inertially, but not to determine whether one > is moving at all. Yes. Those were his arguments that Descartes' claim that all motion is simply "relative" between objects is erroneous; the cause for inertia - or part of it - had to be other than the objects. Now what is your physical *explanation* - that is, what is the *physical model* that you hold to be the *cause* of inertia, if you completely disagree with both Newton AND Mach? > >Langevin (SRT), Hardy (QM), etc. What's the use to add my own > >ones, if you can't understand their examples which are not very > >different from mine? > > Newton's argument doesn't actually work. Actually, you haven't even grasped it! And did Colp grasp anything that we told him? I'm pessimistic that this kind of discussions is useful - see below. > I've read many discussions > about QM and locality, and there is no compelling reason to think > that QM demands an absolute standard of rest. I find causality a compelling reason; clearly we have to agree to disagree! > I haven't read the > argument given by Langevin, but I already know that the twin paradox > doesn't imply a standard of rest, because there is a model in which > there is no standard of rest, which nevertheless correctly predicts > the results of the twin experiment. Apparently you confuse mathematical models with physical models... > There could certainly be some > other evidence for the existence of a preferred rest frame, but > the twin paradox *PROVABLY* does not imply such a thing. As far as we know it isn't preferred; and capitals don't make a claim true. > >> 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. > > >He called it "absolute space" and argued for it from the bucket > >experiment, in the "Scholium" that I referred you to; > > He gives no basis for saying that there is an absolute standard > of rest. > > >there is no real substitute for pondering over his arguments yourself. > > I have looked at what he said, and I see nothing there that suggests > that there is an absolute standard of rest. If you think that his > arguments *do* imply the existence of an absolute standard of rest, > then tell me why. I have no other arguments or ways of explaining it, but I did notice that every time that I referred you to the same issue as discussed in more recent times, you didn't comment on it but deleted it instead. >> There's a mismatch of argument styles here. You make claims, >> and you decline to argue in favor of them. I find that frustrating. >I prefer to give factual statements and if asked, provide quality >references for information; arguing about such things is mostly just a >waste of time and effort. > Well, it seems to me that you spend an enormous amount of time > and effort arguing about things, anyway, but in a way that never > The kind of roundabout discussions that you seem to prefer can take > literally years without ever seeming to progress past the fuzzy stage. Yes indeed! I make the mistake to continue to reply after giving a link to the information, even after I told myself that I shouldn't. From now on, for side topics like this I'll try to do more like "Uncle All" did (or thought he did): just provide appropriate references. Either the information "clicks", or it doesn't. > What I would prefer is to lay things out in a logical form: > Assuming A, B, and C, we can conclude D. Then that gives focus > to any followup discussion: Someone can ask for more details about > why D follows from A, B, and C. Or someone can ask what reason there > is for assuming A, B, or C. I'm certainly willing to do so when it is not a side issue but the main topic of a thread that I started in an optimistic mood. >>> 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. >>Reading their arguments and comparing them with those of others is >>good enough for me; and how much do you argue with your textbooks? >I don't. I don't care about textbooks. I have a current understanding >of certain subjects: classical physics, electromagnetism, etc., and >I try to be open to criticisms pointing out that my understanding is >weak. Whatever textbooks I may have read in the past are just as "dead" >to me as Newton or Maxwell. Then how on earth did you obtain your understanding, if not - for at least the basics - with the help of textbooks? You may not care about them, but I can still spot their influence on your way of thinking (their "school" of thinking) in many places. Regards, Harald
From: PD on 13 Jul 2010 13:34 On Jul 12, 7:45 pm, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > 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. Thus it is a POSTULATE in the paper. Don't be an idiot. > 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). Sorry, but the suggestion that there are no six-legged reptiles does not support any assertion that it's assumed there are no six-legged animals. The suggestion that there is no absolute frame of reference (which would stem directly from the POSTULATED principle of relativity) does not support any assertion that it's assumed there are no absolutes in physics at all. Do not be braindead, please. > > "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. I've already commmented on your experimental "evidence". > > PP-06-11.pdf- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: PD on 13 Jul 2010 13:39 On Jul 12, 7:51 pm, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > 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. Supporting my claim that you do not understand relativity would entail educating you about relativity, since there is no other way to convince you that you misunderstand relativity. This education is something you should pursue yourself. If numerous people convey to you that you misunderstand relativity, then you should perhaps consider that to be a claim that has some merit. The followup to that realization should not be that you demand PROOF that you misunderstand relativity, or getting you to cry "uncle" in some pitched battle of wills about the claim. The follow-up should be that you avail yourself of additional information that might be illuminating to you about relativity to see if you really understand it or not. PD
From: PD on 13 Jul 2010 13:55
On Jul 13, 1:52 am, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > On Jul 13, 7:51 am, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > colp wrote: > > > On Jul 12, 3:59 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >> 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. > > > > I understand that you have no answer to the evidence of academic fraud > > > which is the theory of relativity. > > > Post under your real name and then we can discuss what you think constitutes > > 'evidence'. > > Evidence consists of relevant observations or logical arguments in > support of a particular claim. > > Briefly, the evidence is the lack of early experimental support for > GR, I'm curious why you think that "early" experimental support is important? There was no early experimental support for Bose-Einstein condensates, for stimulated emission of radiation, for all sorts of things that have nevertheless turned out to be quite true. > the lack of experimental support for the reciprocal time dilation > predicted by SR, Two comments here: In general, an untested claim does not constitute evidence COUNTER to a theory. An experiment that DOES test a claim and finds that the claim does not hold is another story. Likewise, the failure to yet find the Higgs boson does not constitute evidence that the Higgs boson does not exist. Secondly, you are flat wrong here. Nucleus-nucleus collisions at heavy ion colliders have provided tests of mutual time dilation, as the center-of-mass of the colliding particles is in motion differently in each collision, so that the dynamics as measured against different longitudinal momenta are excellent probes of time dilation in multiple reference frames. It HAS been tested. > and the existence of experimental data which suggests > the existence of a preferred frame of reference in opposition to > Einstein's conjecture regarding the Principle of Relativity. I've already commmented on this, and you ignored it. An experimental paper taken in solo does not constitute experimental evidence. It must be corroborated independently, and in fact the other papers that cite the original work must be included in the assessment of the experimental result. This is common and obligatory practice. |