Preferred Frame Theory indistinguishable from SR
in [Relativity]
|
From: colp on 18 Jul 2010 01:49 On Jul 18, 3:53 pm, Paul Stowe <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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? Not at all. You said: "Just look at the aspects of kinetic theory which underpins ALL! fluid theory. There is no concept of absolutes there." The gas laws are part of fluid theory, and one of the gas laws describes pressure in terms of average kinetic energy. The calculation of kinetic energy depends on how you measure velocity; i.e. the velocity relative to a co-ordinate system which is deemed to be absolute. If your coordinate system doesn't agree with the actual absolute coordinate system, then your calculations don't work, just the same as for the relativistic case of the H-K experiment.
From: paparios on 18 Jul 2010 04:43 On 17 jul, 20:40, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > 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? > Because in SR there is not a preferred frame. Every one of the infinity number of possible inertial frames of reference are equally valid, and mathematically consistent, to calculate predictions and observe the experimental results. > > 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. The Lorentz transformation was originally the result of attempts by Lorentz and others to explain how the speed of light was observed to be independent of the reference frame, and to understand the symmetries of the laws of electromagnetism. Albert Einstein later re- derived the transformation from his postulates of special relativity (this is done in section 3 of his 1905 paper). The main contribution here is that Einstein just used his two postulates. Later Landau and Lifshitz (second volume of the Course of Theoretical Physics) derived them from the locality of interactions. In a 1964 paper, Erik Christopher Zeeman showed that the causality preserving property, a condition that is weaker in a mathematical sense than the invariance of the speed of light, is enough to assure that the coordinate transformations are the Lorentz transformations. Miguel Rios
From: oriel36 on 18 Jul 2010 07:32 On Jul 18, 9:43 am, "papar...(a)gmail.com" <papar...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 17 jul, 20:40, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > > > > > > > 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? > > Because in SR there is not a preferred frame. Every one of the > infinity number of possible inertial frames of reference are equally > valid, and mathematically consistent, to calculate predictions and > observe the experimental results. > > > > 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. > > The Lorentz transformation was originally the result of attempts by > Lorentz and others to explain how the speed of light was observed to > be independent of the reference frame, and to understand the > symmetries of the laws of electromagnetism. Albert Einstein later re- > derived the transformation from his postulates of special relativity > (this is done in section 3 of his 1905 paper). The main contribution > here is that Einstein just used his two postulates. Later Landau and > Lifshitz (second volume of the Course of Theoretical Physics) derived > them from the locality of interactions. > In a 1964 paper, Erik Christopher Zeeman showed that the causality > preserving property, a condition that is weaker in a mathematical > sense than the invariance of the speed of light, is enough to assure > that the coordinate transformations are the Lorentz transformations. > > Miguel Rios Bottom left and top right column of this 1843 article - http://www.bodley.ox.ac.uk/cgi-bin/ilej/image1.pl?item=page&seq=9&size=1&id=bm.1843.10.x.54.336.x.425 Galileo remarked that once people get an idea into their heads they are unlikely to get it out no matter what arguments are brought to bear on a topic and those who traffic in relativity and its origins in aether or lack of it certainly represent this type of individual.In the mid 19th century they were half complaining of their inability to consider a medium between the Earth and the Sun so as not to offend Newton's rejection of a medium whereas 50 years later they had dumped aether back on Newton as 'absolute space'. This is like the worst parts of the fictional '1984' novel where fact and fiction are incidental,not just the support of relativity itself but the actual process which led to relativity - "...to forget, whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again, and above all, to apply the same process to the process itself -- that was the ultimate subtlety; consciously to induce unconsciousness, and then, once again, to become unconscious of the act of hypnosis you had just performed. Even to understand the word 'doublethink' involved the use of doublethink." Orwell 'Nineteen Eighty Four' It is like people are not only lost inside Isaac's imagination but content to be that way,it may be disconcerting to participate in a forum like this but that it is considered a supreme human achievement makes this a genuine nightmare existence for everyone.
From: Edward Green on 18 Jul 2010 11:19 On Jul 15, 6:11 pm, stevendaryl3...(a)yahoo.com (Daryl McCullough) wrote: > Edward Green says... > > >The distinction I was trying to make, Harald, was that Einstein seemed > >to be speaking of something dynamic, more like a three dimensional > >gellium, than the ossified history of spacetime. > > In General Relativity, spacetime *is* dynamic. > > >In that sense he was speaking of something more like that classical > >aether than he was speaking of spacetime. > > How does that follow? Actually, what does it even mean? > > >It's like the distinction between the graph drawn by a plotting > >machine, and the paper strip. The strip is the "medium", the graph is > >not. > > That seems like spacetime, to me. Spacetime is like the completed graph -- it is incapable of moving or evolving; it is a record of things which have moved and evolved. Anyway, I actually read the complete address. Einstein very clearly says that his "ether" of GR is the same as Lorentz's ether with its one remaining mechanical attribute removed -- a sense of location. Lorentz's ether was not a spacetime, and 4d spacetime does not lack a sense of location -- an event is a quite definite location in spacetime. Einstein makes the comparison between water which ripples, and also has floats on the surface which enable us to measure its local rest state. Then he says their are no floats, so all we are left with are the ripples. Here is the reference: http://www.tu-harburg.de/rzt/rzt/it/Ether.html "More careful reflection teaches us, however, that the special theory of relativity does not compel us to deny ether. We may assume the existence of an ether,; only we must give up ascribing a definite state of motion to it, i.e. we must by abstraction take from it the last mechanical characteristic which Lorentz had still left it. We shall see later that this point of view, the conceivability of which shall at once endeavour to make more intelligible by a somewhat halting comparison, is justified by the results of the general theory of relativity." "Think of waves on the surface of water. Here we can describe two entirely different things. Either we may observe how the undulatory surface forming the boundary between water and air alters in the course of time; or else with the help of small floats, for instance we can observe how the position of the separate particles of water alters in the course of time. If the existence of such floats for tracking the motion of the particles of a fluid were a fundamental impossibility in physics if, in fact, nothing else whatever were observable than the shape of the space occupied by the water as it varies in time, we should have no ground for the assumption that water consists of inovable particles. But all the same we could characterise it as a medium." I don't know what the translator intended by "inovable". I know you are not overly fond of quoting Einstein, but since we here as discussing what his words meant, we don't seem to have much choice. I suppose you could take the point of view: "who cares what his words meant and who cares what he said", but their meaning seems clear enough, anyway.
From: Paul Stowe on 18 Jul 2010 11:42
On Jul 17, 10:49 pm, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > On Jul 18, 3:53 pm, PaulStowe<theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > 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? > > Not at all. You said: > > "Just look at the aspects of kinetic theory which underpins ALL! fluid > theory. There is no concept of absolutes there." > > The gas laws are part of fluid theory, and one of the gas laws > describes pressure in terms of average kinetic energy. The calculation > of kinetic energy depends on how you measure velocity; i.e. the > velocity relative to a co-ordinate system which is deemed to be > absolute. If your coordinate system doesn't agree with the actual > absolute coordinate system, then your calculations don't work, just > the same as for the relativistic case of the H-K experiment. Momentum and Energy have a directly proportional relationship. In kinetic theory one determines the system's total energy by the 'Action' of its constitutes where the only action are the collisions between themselves. Thus the rate of collisions (i) is c/L where c is the Root Mean Speed of the particle population and L the mean travel length between collisions. Therefore, formally, the Action parameter of any medium (h) is, L / h = 2mc | dL => h = 2mcL, or 2PL / 0 Where 2 comes from the fact that two particles are involved in any collision event. Likewise, the internal energy of a single event is simply, E = hi Likewise, the energy in term of speed c for such an event is, c / E = 2m | c dc => E = mc^2 / 0 Thus for any population of n particles we simply have, E = nhi = nmc^2 Given nm = M then, E = Mc^2 Paul Stowe |