Preferred Frame Theory indistinguishable from SR
in [Relativity]
|
From: Daryl McCullough on 18 Jul 2010 13:08 Edward Green says... >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. It's hard to know what to make of such a claim. If it has no mechanical aspects, then in what sense is it an aether? >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. Okay, I misunderstood your objection to spacetime. You can always factor spacetime into space + time, and then view spacetime as the temporal evolution of the geometry of space. In which case, it is space that is acting like the aether. But I prefer to talk about spacetime because the factoring into space + time is not unique, and is not motivated by anything physical. >"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." I really don't understand the content of this statement. How is it different, except in the choice of words to use, from the view that holds that spacetime is a manifold whose geometry is determined dynamically (by matter)? Manifold versus aether doesn't seem to make any difference. The main distinction is whether geometry is a fixed background (as it was for Newton) or whether it participates in phyiscs, is acted upon and acts upon matter. >"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 think that must be a typo. But I don't see how that passage is inconsistent with the geometric view of gravity. We observe gravity through the bends in the paths of particles, like we observe waves in water through the bobbing of floaters. But there is an entity that exists whether there are particles (or floaters), and it is waves in this entity that we are observing. Whether you call that entity the "spacetime manifold" or "aether" doesn't seem to make much difference. EXCEPT thinking of it as a material aether leaves open the possibility of further structure at more microscopic level. Maybe at fine enough scales, it isn't homogeneous, isotropic, etc. But then the aether would be described as matter moving in *something*---some prior geometry, or prior space. >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. I don't see that his words are incompatible with the view that spacetime (or space, if you prefer) is his aether. -- Daryl McCullough Ithaca, NY
From: colp on 18 Jul 2010 13:52 On Jul 18, 8:43 pm, "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. I have never claimed otherwise. However SR does not describe reality in this respect, as evidenced by the Hafele-Keating experiment and others.
From: colp on 18 Jul 2010 13:58 On Jul 19, 3:42 am, Paul Stowe <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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. Not it terms of velocity they don't, and velocity is dependent upon the coordinate system that is chosen to represent, i.e. the nominally 'absolute' reference system.
From: paparios on 18 Jul 2010 15:15 On 18 jul, 13:52, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > On Jul 18, 8:43 pm, "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. > > I have never claimed otherwise. However SR does not describe reality > in this respect, as evidenced by the Hafele-Keating experiment and > others. Back to your typical trolling behavior again. No point in wasting more time with you. Miguel Rios
From: colp on 18 Jul 2010 16:33
On Jul 19, 7:15 am, "papar...(a)gmail.com" <papar...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 18 jul, 13:52, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > > > > > On Jul 18, 8:43 pm, "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. > > > I have never claimed otherwise. However SR does not describe reality > > in this respect, as evidenced by the Hafele-Keating experiment and > > others. > > Back to your typical trolling behavior again. No point in wasting more > time with you. So in your world refusing to accept the argument that I am wrong because SR says that there is no preferred frame (when I said that the HK experiment uses a preferred frame) constitutes trolling? It seems to me that you simply refuse to accept that SR is fundamentally flawed, so you simply label any argument which shows such as being trolling. |