Preferred Frame Theory indistinguishable from SR
in [Relativity]
|
From: colp on 17 Jul 2010 04:15 On Jul 17, 8:01 pm, "papar...(a)gmail.com" <papar...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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. What ignorance, specifically? > Einstein's postulates, by themselves, complete determine the Special > Relativity theory, including things such as time dilation, length > contraction, aberration, etc. O.K. > 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 intended purpose of the experiment does not limit the inferences which may be derived from it. > The results from the > experiments do show excelent agreement with the predictions of the > theory Only from the preferred frame of reference. > and, therefore, they do not falsify the theory The falsification of Einstein's principle of relativity is due to the fact that any attempt to verify the predictions of SR must be made from the preferred frame of reference for the experiment, otherwise the verification will fail.
From: oriel36 on 17 Jul 2010 04:52 On Jul 17, 3:16 am, Paul Stowe <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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. > > Paul Stowe Most seem certain,whether they adhere to or oppose relativity,that Newton's absolute space represents 'aether' whereas the original definition,at least as he attempted to propose it,was purely a distinction between observations and modelling.Even a century ago they retained enough honesty to admit that they were uncertain as to how Isaac Newton had arrived at his conclusions that to all intents and purposes seemed to work - "The demonstrations throughout the book [Principia] are geometrical, but to readers of ordinary ability are rendered unnecessarily difficult by the absence of illustrations and explanations, and by the fact that no clue is given to the method by which Newton arrived at his results. The reason why it was presented in a geometrical form appears to have been that the infinitesimal calculus was then unknown, and, had Newton used it to demonstrate results which were in themselves opposed to the prevalent philosophy of the time, the controversy as to the truth of his results would have been hampered by a dispute concerning the validity of the methods used in proving them. He therefore cast the whole reasoning into a geometrical shape which, if somewhat longer, can at any rate be made intelligible to all mathematical students. So closely did he follow the lines of Greek geometry that he constantly used graphical methods, and represented forces, velocities, and other magnitudes in the Euclidean way by straight lines (ex. gr. book I, lemma 10), and not by a certain number of units. The latter and modern method had been introduced by Wallis, and must have been familiar to Newton. The effect of his confining himself rigorously to classical geometry is that the Principia is written in a lnaguage which is archaic, even if not unfamiliar." W.W.Rouse Ball 1908 The language of astronomy being geometry,it is possible to isolate the reasoning which Isaac used in attempting to remove the boundaries which separate interpretative astronomical reasoning from experimental sciences insofar as the latter approach concern itself with processes and should not have been allowed to impose itself on celestial observation without restrictions,again,this is what Isaac attempted to do.
From: paparios on 17 Jul 2010 04:58 On 17 jul, 04:15, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > On Jul 17, 8:01 pm, "papar...(a)gmail.com" <papar...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > 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 intended purpose of the experiment does not limit the inferences > which may be derived from it. > > > The results from the > > experiments do show excelent agreement with the predictions of the > > theory > > Only from the preferred frame of reference. > > > and, therefore, they do not falsify the theory > > The falsification of Einstein's principle of relativity is due to the > fact that any attempt to verify the predictions of SR must be made > from the preferred frame of reference for the experiment, otherwise > the verification will fail. For sure that final conclusion of yours is totally wrong and unsuported. Lorentz Transformation equations (which also derivable starting from the two Einstein's postulates) make sure the results of the physical experiments are the same, independently of the frame of reference selected to do the measurements. So...yes, if you choose a different frame of reference, for calculate the predictions of the Hafele-Keating experiment, the observed results as measured on that same frame of reference would agree with the predictions. Of course, the numerical values both of the prediction and the measurements would be different, but the conclusion would be that, again, the theory is not falsified. Miguel Rios
From: eric gisse on 17 Jul 2010 05:35 Paul Stowe wrote: > 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? If you can't answer that question yourself either off the top of your head or through a brief google search you are unqualified to discuss the subject. > Is that simple or single minded of you Eric? Denial > is just a river eh? > >> There is no aether. Give it up, Paul.
From: eric gisse on 17 Jul 2010 05:37
colp wrote: [...] > The falsification of Einstein's principle of relativity is due to the > fact that any attempt to verify the predictions of SR must be made > from the preferred frame of reference for the experiment, otherwise > the verification will fail. Wrong and stupid. I'm done with this thread. |