Preferred Frame Theory indistinguishable from SR
in [Relativity]
|
From: Paul Stowe on 16 Jul 2010 23:09 On Jul 16, 7:46 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > PaulStowewrote: > > On Jul 16, 3:18 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Jul 16, 3:18 pm, Vern <vthod...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >> > 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. > > >> Of course it's not inconceivable. However, to date it has not come to > >> pass. > > >> So recapping where we ARE, we presently have: > >> - a theory of relativity that accounts for the manifest covariance of > >> any interaction, plus a pretty solid theory of how all those known > >> interactions work up to the scale of about a TeV or so. > >> - a conjecture that an undetected ether is responsible for the > >> measurable effects of the Lorentz transformations and that a model of > >> this one medium might conceivably account for the known behavior of > >> interactions up to some energy scale not yet established. > > > If the aether were 'undetected' the concept would never had dominated > > physical theory for nearly three hundred years. Just because the > > nature of matter was not known lead 'humans' to guess wrong about the > > nature of measuring devices did not and does not make it less > > detectable. Regardless of how one tries desperately to redefine those > > perviously observed properties. > > > PaulStowe > > A century of searching has come up with exactly bupkis. Searching, HOW? Is that simple or single minded of you Eric? Denial is just a river eh? > There is no aether. Give it up, Paul.
From: colp on 17 Jul 2010 02:11 On Jul 16, 10:55 pm, "papar...(a)gmail.com" <papar...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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 think that because I am identifying Eric's error I don't know how to read? > 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. O.K. > > 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. Wrong. The results do not confirm the Einstein's principle of relativity, rather they refute it. The Hafele-Keating experiment refutes the idea that no preferred frame of reference exists because if Hafele & Keating had used any other frame of reference to base their calculations on then they would have ended up with the wrong answer.
From: colp on 17 Jul 2010 02:15 On Jul 17, 2:05 am, harald <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote: > Yes, Eric completely messed up on this one. > Hafele and Keating simply based themselves on the SRT speed effect + > the GRT gravitational potential effect; they also explained that in > their articles. So yes they certainly used SRT, and this is common > practice. Thanks to the different trajectories they could even > differentiate the two effects. That's all true, but the point is that Hafele and Keating had to base their SR calculations on a preferred frame of reference. If they had used a point on the Earth or either plane then SR would not have returned the correct result.
From: colp on 17 Jul 2010 02:39 On Jul 17, 2:07 pm, Paul Stowe <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Just look at the aspects of kinetic theory which underpins ALL! fluid > theory. There is no concept of absolutes there. Nope. For example, take two molecules, each with mass m, and separated by distance d. Give the molecules velocities such that they will approach each others center of mass and collide at time t. The calculated energy of the collision will depend on how you measure your velocities. For either molecule, the relative velocity of the other molecule will be d/t or -d/t. The calculated energy of collision is 1/2 mv^2 = 1/2 m.d^2/t^2, since one molecule is deemed to be stationary. If, instead, we say that each molecule is moving toward a stationary collision point, then v = d/2t or -d/2t The calculated energy of collision is now 2 * 1/2 mv^2 = m.d^2/4t^2 = 1/2 m.d^2/2t^2 The two calculations disagree by a factor of two.
From: paparios on 17 Jul 2010 04:01
On 17 jul, 02:11, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > > Wrong. The results do not confirm the Einstein's principle of > relativity, rather they refute it. The Hafele-Keating experiment > refutes the idea that no preferred frame of reference exists because > if Hafele & Keating had used any other frame of reference to base > their calculations on then they would have ended up with the wrong > answer. You are so unable to discuss these subjects, because of your already shown ignorance. Einstein's postulates, by themselves, complete determine the Special Relativity theory, including things such as time dilation, length contraction, aberration, etc. The Hafele-Keating experiment objective was just to test if some of the predictive results from the equations of the theory are indeed observed in Nature. The results from the experiments do show excelent agreement with the predictions of the theory and, therefore, they do not falsify the theory (the same with respect to General Relativity). If you knew a bit about Science, you would know a theory is just a model, created by humans, which tries to explain what Nature does. It just take one single experiment to falsify a theory and, up to this date, there is not a single experiment which, within the domain of applicability of the theory, has falsified Special Relativity. Miguel Rios |