Preferred Frame Theory indistinguishable from SR
in [Relativity]
|
From: PD on 15 Jul 2010 13:36 On Jul 15, 1:26 am, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > 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. Einstein's rise to fame was not based on GR. GR was generally ignored from 1915 until 1949, except by Einstein and a few collaborators. Einstein worked a large number of things, and the fact that he made large contributions to so many disparate areas of physics is one of the reasons why he became respected. > > > 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. Nor was it intended to be. No single experiment tests ALL of the predictions of a theory. Moreover, POSTULATES of a theory need never be directly tested. This is a crucial point. It is the *consequences* of the postulates that are tested, and thereby the confidence in the postulates are obtained. The consequences are of the form, "IF circumstances C prevail, then you will observe phenomenon P in quantity Q," and "If circumstances C' prevail, then you will observer other phenomenon P' in quantity Q'." And a given experiment will set up circumstances C to see if P is really observed in quantity Q; this same experiment will say nothing about whether P' is observed in quantity Q' under circumstances C'. Do you not know how science works? > 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? Sure. Do a scholar.google.com search for Bjorken scaling. > > > > > > 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. I'm sorry, but no. > > > It must > > be corroborated independently, > > No, some experiments are not repeatable. WHAT? What kind of cheesy evasion is that? "The experiments have been done, and no, you can't repeat them, and yes, you have to accept their results as written." WHAAAAT? > > > 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? The fact that experimenters make mistakes. They miss things in analysis. They underestimate or overestimate backgrounds. If you want to see how this works, go to pdg.lbl.gov and look at some of the historical plots of experimental values for some particle properties. You will see error bars attached to each of successive measurements. You will see cases where two different experiments disagree on a measured value (and it's especially interesting when one experiment agrees with a theory and the other one doesn't), and then a THIRD experiment has to be done to see which of these was right. It is standard practice. PD
From: John Park on 15 Jul 2010 14:57 colp (colp(a)solder.ath.cx) writes: > On Jul 15, 8:40=A0pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> > 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. Oh dear. --John Park
From: Daryl McCullough on 15 Jul 2010 18:07 harald says... > >On Jul 14, 12:55=A0am, Edward Green <spamspamsp...(a)netzero.com> wrote: >> 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". No, that's not certainly right. -- Daryl McCullough Ithaca, NY
From: Daryl McCullough on 15 Jul 2010 18:11 Edward Green says... >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 General Relativity, spacetime *is* dynamic. >In that sense he was speaking of something more like that classical >aether than he was speaking of spacetime. How does that follow? Actually, what does it even mean? >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. That seems like spacetime, to me. -- Daryl McCullough Ithaca, NY
From: Daryl McCullough on 15 Jul 2010 18:41
Edward Green says... > >On Jul 12, 9:36 pm, stevendaryl3...(a)yahoo.com (Daryl McCullough) >wrote: >You are extending the meaning of "spacetime" to something dynamic. It *is* dynamic! The metric tensor is a dynamic field in exactly the same sense that the electromagnetic field is. >As an old troll was fond of repeating over and over again, "nothing moves >in spacetime". He was a deeply stupid person. Okay, if you like, you can always recast GR into a theory for how 3-space evolves instead of a theory of 4-space. Then you can call the 3-space your "aether". I don't really care. The real question is what do you want to *conclude* from the existence or non-existence of an aether? A material aether opens up the possibility of new microscopic structure at fine-grained enough scale; perhaps the aether is made up of tiny particles, and only seems isotropic, homogeneous, and invariant under Lorentz transformations at a macroscopic scale. (Of course, the word "macroscopic" here is kind of bizarre; Lorentz invariance seems to hold way down at the level of quarks. So a material aether would be something so fine-grained that quarks look macroscopic in comparison.) -- Daryl McCullough Ithaca, NY |