Preferred Frame Theory indistinguishable from SR
in [Relativity]
|
From: colp on 15 Jul 2010 02:31 On Jul 14, 12:20 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? Yes, it is absolute in terms of the water and the fish. If we were talking about molecules and intermolecular forces then wouldn't be as simple.
From: harald on 15 Jul 2010 03:50 On Jul 15, 2:56 am, Edward Green <spamspamsp...(a)netzero.com> wrote: > On Jul 14, 3:47 am, harald <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote: > <...> > > > > 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. It can be difficult to be crystal clear and tactful at the same time... the most tactful way to put it is that I appreciated that paper for its references. > > 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. Similar for me: I'm still trying to get a good grip on quantum mechanics. Harald
From: colp on 15 Jul 2010 04:12 On Jul 15, 7:27 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > colp 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. > > Accusations of 'academic fraud' by an anonymous person with no education in > the subject mean absolutely nothing and are treated as such. This isn't such an accusation. > Post under you > real name if you are going to be making those kinds of accusations. > > > > > Briefly, the evidence is the lack of early experimental support for > > GR, > > It was nothing but perihelion advance of the planets and gravitational > lensing for about a half century. GR wasn't especially useful until the > 60's. This didn't seem to affect Einstein's rise to fame. > > > the lack of experimental support for the reciprocal time dilation > > predicted by SR, > > Time dilation is well verified by experiment. Do a literature search. Not _reciprocal_ dilation. The Hafele-Keating experiment showed that _reciprocal_ dilation simply doesn't occur. This is rather unsuprising, since reciprocal dilation as implied by Einstien's conjecture leads to paradoxes regarding time dilation. > > > 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. > > No such data exists. The enforced ignorance of Einstein's conjecture. "No data exists because you can't have a principle that is based on a false premise!" The Hafele-Keating experiment is one such example.
From: eric gisse on 15 Jul 2010 04:40 colp wrote: [...] > > 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. Einstein did other things that were important, you just don't know about them. [...] >> 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 No, just GR. Learn the subject before you lecture others. > experiment does not support Einstein's conjecture that no preferred > frame of reference exists. It validates GR, thus you are wrong. > His conjecture is based on an argument from > ignorance; specifically ignorance of the several experiments which > refute it. Which experiments might those be? > >> 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? Would you read it, much less understand it, even if you were given the cite that you could find yourself with a minimal amount of effort? You don't even have a firm grasp of classical mechanics. Don't kid yourself. > >> >> > 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. Then they are not experiments. Any experiment can be repeated. > >> 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? Because if your analysis disagrees with the body of work surrounding the experiment, you need to explain why. Let me guess, you are discussing Miller, aren't you?
From: colp on 15 Jul 2010 12:56
On Jul 15, 8:40 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> 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 > > No, just GR. Learn the subject before you lecture others. It tests SR because the experiment had to take account of the velocity of the planes in order to predict what the clocks would read at the end of the experiment. The velocity of the planes relative to the rotation of the Earth was a factor in the time difference. Also, the SR predictions had to be made from a preferred frame; i.e. Einstien's conjecture fails for this aspect of the experiment. |