Preferred Frame Theory indistinguishable from SR
in [Relativity]
|
From: colp on 15 Jul 2010 19:22 On Jul 16, 6:57 am, af...(a)FreeNet.Carleton.CA (John Park) wrote: > colp (c...(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. This isn't the only time Gisse has got his facts wrong when responding to my posts. "Trolling for Einstein" might be an apt description. "you are so abundantly stupid that you should never speak on a technical subject ever again." ~ Eric Gisse My original comment was: "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." The experiments that I am referring to are: Miller 1925/1926 http://allais.maurice.free.fr/English/media12-1.htm Hafele-Keating 1971 http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/HBASE/relativ/airtim.html De Witte 1991 www.ptep-online.com/index_files/2006/PP-06-11.PDF
From: Paul Stowe on 15 Jul 2010 20:30 On Jul 14, 11:31 pm, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > On Jul 14, 12:20 pm, PaulStowe<theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 11, 5:28 pm, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > > > > On Jul 12, 10:59 am, PaulStowe<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. At 'local' rest, not absolute rest even wrt the ocean. For you see, that fish is in the Gulf Stream, and is moving north at about 2 knot wrt the ocean floor, and, more importantly, a molecule of water atop the mid-atlantic ridge. That is the point of this exercise, there is no 'real' at rest state in any fluidic medium. Gradients exist and you'd need a form of GR's hydrodynamical expression to descibe the behavior. I'd say give up the notion of absolutes... Paul Stowe
From: colp on 15 Jul 2010 21:50 On Jul 16, 12:30 pm, Paul Stowe <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 14, 11:31 pm, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > > > > > On Jul 14, 12:20 pm, PaulStowe<theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jul 11, 5:28 pm, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > > > > > On Jul 12, 10:59 am, PaulStowe<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. > > At 'local' rest, not absolute rest even wrt the ocean. For you see, > that fish is in the Gulf Stream, and is moving north at about 2 knot > wrt the ocean floor, and, more importantly, a molecule of water atop > the mid-atlantic ridge. Context bait & switch. > That is the point of this exercise, there is > no 'real' at rest state in any fluidic medium. Just because the existence of something isn't obvious doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. Your argument is comparable with Einstein getting from an fallacy (in his case an argument from ignorance) to a principle (i.e. the "Principle or Relativity") in three easy steps. 1. Start with a fallacy and call it a conjecture. 2. Raise the status of your conjecture to that of a postulate. 3. Call your new postulate a principle.
From: eric gisse on 15 Jul 2010 22:24 colp wrote: > 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. Oh look colp has a mistaken view of a theory and thinks the theory is wrong because of that. There's absolutely no precedence for THAT! Look stupid, just because the velocity of an object is in GR, it does not mean SR is being used. I say 'stupid' because you won't get it, but I'm telling you so you can't say I didn't. Find a new hobby, you suck at this one.
From: eric gisse on 15 Jul 2010 22:32
PD wrote: [...] > 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 Dollars to doughnuts that is what's going to happen with the recent proton radius kerfuffle, unless the systematic in one of the experiments is found prior. |