Preferred Frame Theory indistinguishable from SR
in [Relativity]
|
From: paparios on 16 Jul 2010 06:55 On 16 jul, 06:18, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > On Jul 16, 5:21 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/papers/hafelekeating.pdf > > > That's the actual Science article. > > That article uses a SR time dilation formula: 1 - u^2/(2.c^2) for u^2 > << c^2 > > If, as you say, the Hafele-Keating experiment doesn't test SR, then > how do you explain the fact that the article uses a SR formula to > calculate the predicted time differences? If you knew how to read, which you don`t, you will see that there are two effects to be considered: a) Gravity (related to General Relativity) which predicted effects of 144 +/- 14 and 179 +/- 18 nanoseconds would be observed. b) Speed (related to Special Relativity) which predicted effects of -184 +/- 18 and 96 +/- 10 nanoseconds would be observed. Adding those numbers the experiment predicted -40 +/- 23 and 275 +/- 21 nanoseconds would be observed. At the end of the experiment -59 +/- 10 and 273 +/- 7 nanoseconds were measured, results which, considering the errors of the measurements, are in agreement with the predictions and so result in a confirmation test for both theories. Miguel Rios
From: harald on 16 Jul 2010 09:53 On Jul 16, 12:41 am, stevendaryl3...(a)yahoo.com (Daryl McCullough) wrote: > Edward Green says... [..] > 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. The classical ether was really material, like atomic matter - a true kind of "ether" matter. Already Newton inferred that such a concept just can't work. But a "non-material" ether (what you call "material") made up of sub-atomic "particles" through which matter can freely flow is certainly imaginable; Dirac for example played with such an idea. > (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.) Right. Harald
From: Vern on 16 Jul 2010 13:49 On Jul 7, 1:04 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > PaulStowewrote: > > Lorentz's paper of 1904 covered exactly > > the same phenomena as Einstein's of 1905. It extends to the other > > 'fundamental' forces just as naturally Einstein's since, by > > definition, they must also be physical properties of the same medium > > It's INCREDIBLY remarkable then, that gravity and the strong interaction, both > of which obey local Lorentz invariance in our best models, are instances of "the > same medium". After all, they differ in strength by a factor on the order of > 10^44. And it's even more remarkable that proton-proton interactions are so much > stronger than proton-electron interactions, when this is "the same medium", and > those interactions are QUALITATIVELY different, not merely "stronger". > > You are invoking MAGIC, without even knowing enough about the subject to realize it. > > Local Lorentz invariance, on the other hand, extends to all fundamental forces > quite naturally. Indeed the assumption that it applies was ESSENTIAL to > discovering EVERY ONE of our current best theories of fundamental interactions. > No medium-based theory would suggest that local Lorentz invariance applies at > all, much less that it seems to be FUNDAMENTAL. > > Tom Roberts Gravity and EM forces in an ether model involve only ether sinks as the casual mechanisms, therefore the forces are only inverse square. Nuclear forces in an ether model involve more complex coupled dipole vortices (toruses) which create the stronger forces. Ilja has modeled both, IIUC. Vern
From: PD on 16 Jul 2010 13:59 On Jul 16, 12:49 pm, Vern <vthod...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 7, 1:04 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > > > > > > > PaulStowewrote: > > > Lorentz's paper of 1904 covered exactly > > > the same phenomena as Einstein's of 1905. It extends to the other > > > 'fundamental' forces just as naturally Einstein's since, by > > > definition, they must also be physical properties of the same medium > > > It's INCREDIBLY remarkable then, that gravity and the strong interaction, both > > of which obey local Lorentz invariance in our best models, are instances of "the > > same medium". After all, they differ in strength by a factor on the order of > > 10^44. And it's even more remarkable that proton-proton interactions are so much > > stronger than proton-electron interactions, when this is "the same medium", and > > those interactions are QUALITATIVELY different, not merely "stronger". > > > You are invoking MAGIC, without even knowing enough about the subject to realize it. > > > Local Lorentz invariance, on the other hand, extends to all fundamental forces > > quite naturally. Indeed the assumption that it applies was ESSENTIAL to > > discovering EVERY ONE of our current best theories of fundamental interactions. > > No medium-based theory would suggest that local Lorentz invariance applies at > > all, much less that it seems to be FUNDAMENTAL. > > > Tom Roberts > > Gravity and EM forces in an ether model involve only ether sinks as > the casual mechanisms, therefore the forces are only inverse square. I'm a little surprised to hear you say that EM forces are modeled as ether sinks. This works fine for the electrostatic central-force component, but I'm hard pressed to see how that would parlay into the magnetic part of the interaction. > Nuclear forces in an ether model involve more complex coupled dipole > vortices (toruses) which create the stronger forces. Ilja has modeled > both, IIUC. Modeling a Yukawa potential with complicated vortices is not the same as modeling the observed symmetries and behaviors of the strong and weak interactions. As an example, the weak interaction violates parity and the strong interaction does not. As another, the strong interaction exhibits antiscreening and the weak interaction does not. As another, the weak and electromagnetic interactions show every evidence of being broken-symmetry representations of the SAME interaction. > > Vern- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: Vern on 16 Jul 2010 16:18
On Jul 16, 1:59 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 16, 12:49 pm, Vern <vthod...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > On Jul 7, 1:04 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: <snip> > > > It's INCREDIBLY remarkable then, that gravity and the strong interaction, both > > > of which obey local Lorentz invariance in our best models, are instances of "the > > > same medium". After all, they differ in strength by a factor on the order of > > > 10^44. And it's even more remarkable that proton-proton interactions are so much > > > stronger than proton-electron interactions, when this is "the same medium", and > > > those interactions are QUALITATIVELY different, not merely "stronger".. > > > > You are invoking MAGIC, without even knowing enough about the subject to realize it. > > > > Local Lorentz invariance, on the other hand, extends to all fundamental forces > > > quite naturally. Indeed the assumption that it applies was ESSENTIAL to > > > discovering EVERY ONE of our current best theories of fundamental interactions. > > > No medium-based theory would suggest that local Lorentz invariance applies at > > > all, much less that it seems to be FUNDAMENTAL. > > > > Tom Roberts > > > Gravity and EM forces in an ether model involve only ether sinks as > > the casual mechanisms, therefore the forces are only inverse square. > > I'm a little surprised to hear you say that EM forces are modeled as > ether sinks. This works fine for the electrostatic central-force > component, but I'm hard pressed to see how that would parlay into the > magnetic part of the interaction. The fluid-dynamic analogy for EM is well established; however, the issues raised by Tom for any ether model to have to account for all four fundamental forces is valid. The stong nuclear interaction is only the assumed force for holding nuclei together. In an ether model of an atom modeling protons and neutrons as complex dipole toruses the circulatory flows are the binding force. > > Nuclear forces in an ether model involve more complex coupled dipole > > vortices (toruses) which create the stronger forces. Ilja has modeled > > both, IIUC. > > Modeling a Yukawa potential with complicated vortices is not the same > as modeling the observed symmetries and behaviors of the strong and > weak interactions. As an example, the weak interaction violates parity > and the strong interaction does not. As another, the strong > interaction exhibits antiscreening and the weak interaction does not. > As another, the weak and electromagnetic interactions show every > evidence of being broken-symmetry representations of the SAME > interaction. Either Ilja has or has not successfully accounted for the standard model with his cellular ether theory. If he has, then your issues are resolved. I admit to not having a full enough grasp of either the standard model or Ilja's model at this point to debate the issues you raise, however, my point was that it is not inconceivable to model all forces with one medium. Vern |