Preferred Frame Theory indistinguishable from SR
in [Relativity]
|
From: Paul Stowe on 17 Jul 2010 12:29 On Jul 16, 11:39 pm, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > On Jul 17, 2:07 pm, PaulStowe<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. So? What's your point. Instead of two molecules use you and the Earth... From your perspective it's the Earth is hurling towards you with a momentum of Mv and you're motionless. OTOH, from the Earth perspective it is motionless and you are hurling towards it at mv... There is a BIG!!! difference. But, somehow, not for nature. Let's assume an absolute coordinate system. Then, the Earth is moving at Mv and you are moving at mv' wrt it. The difference, v - v' is the delta, say v''... Then for the inevitable inelastic collision of you and the Earth it is Mv + (-mv'). This is the same answer as dP = mv'' because, certainly, the Earth 'could' be 'at rest' and thus v = 0. If v = 0 then v'' simply equals -v'... As you should be able to see, any absolute frame won't change your naive perceptive dichotomy. The solution lies elsewhere, not in your fixated absolute velocities. Thus, this entire side trip is meaningless to the issue at hand... Paul Stowe
From: Paul Stowe on 17 Jul 2010 13:15 On Jul 17, 1:52 am, oriel36 <kelleher.ger...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 17, 3:16 am, PaulStowe<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. > > > PaulStowe > > 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. While I'm not exactly sure what your point is I'll guess. There exists a distinct difference between an idealized 'absolute spatial void' and a physical aetherial medium. The later gives physical properties and structure to a void (as Einstein clearly point out in his Leyden lecture) but is pliable (containing density/pressure differentials) and thus not uniform enough to be any conceptual absolute background. I think Newton smart enough to also recognize this distinction. It;s the difference between a universal backdrop and the idealized absolute backdrop. Most 'reasonable' scientist acknowledge this necessary physicality calling it several things, zero point energy, quantum spin foam, spacetime structure, fields, ... etc. They seem to work very hard at redefining any new wrinkle (Dark Flow, fluid, ... etc.) as to just avoid calling it the traditional obvious, aetherial medium. Paul Stowe
From: colp on 17 Jul 2010 20:40 On Jul 17, 8:58 pm, "papar...(a)gmail.com" <papar...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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. Why, exactly? > Lorentz Transformation equations (which also derivable > starting from the two Einstein's postulates) No, the Lorentz transformations preceeded Einstein's work. Lorentz never endorsed Einsteins fallacy that no preferred frame of reference exists.
From: colp on 17 Jul 2010 20:54 On Jul 18, 4:29 am, Paul Stowe <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 16, 11:39 pm, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > > > > > On Jul 17, 2:07 pm, PaulStowe<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. > > So? What's your point. That the concept of absolute motion is inherent to kinetic theory. > Instead of two molecules use you and the > Earth... From your perspective it's the Earth is hurling towards you > with a momentum of Mv and you're motionless. OTOH, from the Earth > perspective it is motionless and you are hurling towards it at mv... You have addressed the issue of momentum, not kinetic energy.
From: Paul Stowe on 17 Jul 2010 23:53
On Jul 17, 5:54 pm, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > On Jul 18, 4:29 am, PaulStowe<theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 16, 11:39 pm, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > > > > On Jul 17, 2:07 pm, PaulStowe<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. > > > So? What's your point. > > That the concept of absolute motion is inherent to kinetic theory. > > > Instead of two molecules use you and the > > Earth... From your perspective it's the Earth is hurling towards you > > with a momentum of Mv and you're motionless. OTOH, from the Earth > > perspective it is motionless and you are hurling towards it at mv... > > You have addressed the issue of momentum, not kinetic energy. You have GOT to be kidding? |