Preferred Frame Theory indistinguishable from SR
in [Relativity]
|
From: oriel36 on 14 Jul 2010 05:56 On Jul 14, 8:47 am, harald <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote: > 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. > Oh this is funny,I did look at Albert's comments on both aether and absolute space as he,representing his era,thought Newton meant and I assure you that Isaac had completely different ideas for absolute/ relative space and motion even if you get caught up in the wheels and cogs of his mechanical solar system.So,what has Albert to say - "In order to be able to look upon the rotation of the system, at least formally, as something real, Newton objectivises space. Since he classes his absolute space together with real things, for him rotation relative to an absolute space is also something real. Newton might no less well have called his absolute space ``Ether''; what is essential is merely that besides observable objects, another thing, which is not perceptible, inust be looked upon as real, to enable acceleration or rotation to be looked upon as something real." http://www.mountainman.com.au/aether_0.html C'mon guys !,that is not what Issac was doing and why his absolute/ relative statement on the issue is clear as far as I am concerned unless you really want Isaac to be a prop instead of taking him seriously - "It is indeed a matter of great difficulty to discover, and effectually to distinguish, the true motion of particular bodies from the apparent; because the parts of that absolute space, in which those motions are performed, do by no means come under the observation of our senses. Yet the thing is not altogether desperate; for we have some arguments to guide us, partly from the apparent motions, which are the differences of the true motions; partly from the forces, which are the causes and effects of the true motion. For instance, if two globes, kept at a given distance one from the other by means of a cord that connects them, were revolved about their common centre of gravity, we might, from the tension of the cord, discover the endeavour of the globes to recede from the axis of their motion.."Isaac Newton The leap from interpreting celestial relative motions and their translation into actual motions to an experimental analogy of a bucket of water is pretty drastic yet I can understand where you are getting this rotation to absolute space type thing,the problem is not whether Isaac considered aether as absolute space because clearly he didn't,it is the basic assumption which actually created the idea of absolute/ relative space in the first place.Newton believed,at least for his own agenda,that you need a hypothetical 'absolute space' to resolve apparent retrogrades which modern imaging shows that you don't,you pick up on retrogrades as an illusion,interpret it correctly as the orbital motion of the Earth and the other planets around the Sun and then go on to model things from there. I insist,unless everyone wants to play non-entities on account of the guys 100 years ago,we can actually do what they did not. > > 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
From: kenseto on 14 Jul 2010 09:16 On Jul 13, 8:20 pm, Paul Stowe <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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? No....both the fish and the water are in a state of absolute motion in the stationary aether. Ken Seto > > What do you think?- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: Paul Stowe on 14 Jul 2010 20:53 On Jul 14, 6:16 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > On Jul 13, 8:20 pm, Paul Stowe <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > 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? > > No....both the fish and the water are in a state of absolute motion in > the stationary aether. > > Ken Seto The whole point is, unless you have a means of uniquely determining that background your choice of rest might as well be you... Nature and its medium does not, in any way, change its physical nature. Fields in motion DO! change their shape & volume with speed and that has real physical consequences which are quite dramatic AND observable. These are known as Newton's laws of motion. Moreover the CMB does provide you with the means of mapping the universal background, illuminating the rest frame of our universe. Paul Stowe
From: Edward Green on 14 Jul 2010 20:56 On Jul 14, 3:47 am, harald <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote: > 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. Oh, very well: did I say "classical"? Strike that, if you like. Classical is a slippery word anyway, and I slipped on it. <...> > > 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 The author would be flattered. > since Einstein > stated unambiguously that it corresponds to *Lorentz's* ether with > added properties. You know what I'm hung up on now, of all things? Some elementary theorems in topology. Seems they are prerequisites to tensor analysis on manifolds, and I do get tired of vaporing on about the aether from time to time, and actually try to understand geometrodynamics.
From: colp on 15 Jul 2010 02:26
On Jul 14, 5:55 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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? Because Einstein's rise to fame wasn't due to the scientific value of his theory of relativity. This implies that there was another motive for his theory being lauded as the next big thing in scientific endeavour. > 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. And no ticker tape parade either, if I'm not mistaken. > > > 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. The Hafele-Keating experiment is a test of the claims of SR & GR. The experiment does not support Einstein's conjecture that no preferred frame of reference exists. His conjecture is based on an argument from ignorance; specifically ignorance of the several experiments which refute it. > 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. Cite? > > > 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. How were you comments relevant? > An experimental > paper taken in solo does not constitute experimental evidence. Actually it does, so long as it is factual and relevant. > It must > be corroborated independently, No, some experiments are not repeatable. > 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. What gives rise to this alleged oblication? |