Preferred Frame Theory indistinguishable from SR
in [Relativity]
|
From: Edward Green on 13 Jul 2010 18:24 On Jul 12, 9:36 pm, stevendaryl3...(a)yahoo.com (Daryl McCullough) wrote: > 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. You are extending the meaning of "spacetime" to something dynamic. As an old troll was fond of repeating over and over again, "nothing moves in spacetime". When you, quite rightly, refer to disturbances which ... propagate out to distant matter at a finite speed, you are referring to a dynamic medium. Here's how Einstein's 1920 talk at Leyden ends: "Recapitulating, we may say that according to the General Theory of Relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an Aether. According to the General Theory of Relativity space without Aether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring- rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense. But this Aether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it". That certainly may be applied to spacetime, but, as I said already, the idea that spacetime is not in motion seems to obvious to bear mentioning. Spacetime is a record of event which were, are and ever shall be. It is the classical Aether he speaks of above, though, as I believe he says elsewhere and implies in this passage, removed of its last mechanical attribute, that of location (hence of relative motion). I read your other reference above but didn't get that much out of it on a first reading, except a yen to order a copy of Whittaker's "History of the Theories of Aether and Electricity" (2 Volumes) (Hardcover) at a fancy price... which I succumbed to.
From: Edward Green on 13 Jul 2010 18:30 On Jul 12, 9:55 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > 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. For a person who pretends to be on God's side of all arguments, I find myself remarkably little interested in what you have to say in any of your boring and conventional avatars. Go away. I don't have dialogues with anonymous dweebs.
From: Edward Green on 13 Jul 2010 18:55 On Jul 13, 6:38 am, harald <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote: > On Jul 13, 3:55 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > > 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. > > I did not catch that; indeed the ethers of Lorentz and Einstein aren't > anything like the classical ether concepts. The distinction I was trying to make, Harald, was that Einstein seemed to be speaking of something dynamic, more like a three dimensional gellium, than the ossified history of spacetime. In that sense he was speaking of something more like that classical aether than he was speaking of spacetime. I've already mentioned the qualifier that the "gellium" had no sense of location, and in that sense was unlike the classical concept... several times. That's not "NOTHING" like the old aether, however, or at least it shares more characteristics with the old aether than it does with spacetime, which is a static way of recording events. Something is going on in space, and spacetime is its record. It's like the distinction between the graph drawn by a plotting machine, and the paper strip. The strip is the "medium", the graph is not. See Daryl McCullough's last reference for me for an opinion that in 1920 Einstein had simply readopted Poincare's ether of circa 1905... the author's opinion, not mine, if you have a beef with it.
From: Paul Stowe on 13 Jul 2010 20:20 On Jul 11, 5:28 pm, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > On Jul 12, 10:59 am, Paul Stowe <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Also, can you show anything from Einstein's description of the > > > > > > > principle of relativity which supports the idea of the existence of > > > > > > > absolutes? > > > > > > > Is this throughout all of Einstein's writings or are you asking within > > > > > > the 1905 paper? > > > > > > From the 1905 paper, as that is where the first postulate of SR > > > > > originated. > > > > > I could show you in later works but not in that one. BTW, what does > > > > term absolute mean to you? > > > > A state in which the qualities of a system are unique, and all other > > > states of that system are derivations of that unique state. > > > OK, by logical extension, if there existed a 'state' which is somehow > > 'physically' unique from all other states such that the physics of > > that state would simplest and different, all other states would, by > > definition, also have to be unique AND uniquely different from all > > others. > > You haven't considered the idea of derivation. > > While the states which are derivations of the unique state can be > described themselves as being unique, they are not unique in the same > way that the absolute state is. This idea can be illustrated by > introducing a mapping function which maps any state of the system to > any other state of that system. The mapping function will have its > simplest form when it maps the absolute state to any other state. OK, let's take a rather mundane example of what is classically considered a system which has a definite rest frame, Earth's ocean. Consider a fish resting motionless in that medium. Is it a 'absolute' rest? Does that concept even apply to a fluidic medium? What do you think?
From: harald on 14 Jul 2010 03:47
On Jul 14, 12:55 am, Edward Green <spamspamsp...(a)netzero.com> wrote: > On Jul 13, 6:38 am, harald <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote: > > > On Jul 13, 3:55 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > > > 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. > > > I did not catch that; indeed the ethers of Lorentz and Einstein aren't > > anything like the classical ether concepts. > > The distinction I was trying to make, Harald, was that Einstein seemed > to be speaking of something dynamic, more like a three dimensional > gellium, than the ossified history of spacetime. In that sense he was > speaking of something more like that classical aether than > he was speaking of spacetime. I don't know gellium, but it's certainly right that he didn't mean a "4D spacetime". That is also how I first understood you. However, in order to be able to correctly make sense of Einstein's whole speech, which few people understand, it's also essential to understand that the "classical ether" is a material ether of the kind that was rejected by Newton and Lorentz. Thus, calling the ether of Lorentz and Einstein a "classical" ether in a discussion about Einstein's inauguration speech undermines a correct understanding of that speech. > I've already mentioned the qualifier that the > "gellium" had no sense of location, and in that sense was unlike the > classical concept... several times. That's not "NOTHING" like the old > aether, however, or at least it shares more characteristics with the > old aether than it does with spacetime, which is a static way of > recording events. Something is going on in space, and > spacetime is its record. Exactly. > It's like the distinction between the graph drawn by a plotting > machine, and the paper strip. The strip is the "medium", > the graph is not. > > See Daryl McCullough's last reference for me for an opinion that in > 1920 Einstein had simply readopted Poincare's ether of circa 1905... > the author's opinion, not mine, if you have a beef with it. I already knew that paper which has useful references. It is counterproductive to read confused opinions of others since Einstein stated unambiguously that it corresponds to *Lorentz's* ether with added properties. Regards, Harald |