Preferred Frame Theory indistinguishable from SR
in [Relativity]
|
From: oriel36 on 18 Jul 2010 17:17 On Jul 18, 6:08 pm, stevendaryl3...(a)yahoo.com (Daryl McCullough) wrote: > 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. > Daryl McCullough > Ithaca, NY Newton's attempt to use the equatorial coordinate system as a common feature between observations (relative space/motion) and modelling (absolute space/motion) results in following a stellar circumpolar framework - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QwSlkJG8gTU I would safely say that it not that people don't know,for this is only partly true but that they don't actually want to know exactly what Isaac was doing with these absolute/relative definitions and it is nothing like the cobbled together story that give rise to relativity and the 'no center/no circumference' ideologies which follow sidereal time reasoning.
From: whoever on 18 Jul 2010 18:58 "colp" wrote in message news:adf76654-bc48-4c0d-83ed-cf8399415565(a)w35g2000prd.googlegroups.com... >So in your world refusing to accept the argument that I am wrong I totally accept that you are wrong .. it is well proven already. You're just a troll. --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news(a)netfront.net ---
From: Paul Stowe on 18 Jul 2010 19:47 On Jul 18, 10:58 am, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > 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, 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, 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, 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. > > > > > > > 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. I'm sorry but, in our universe, momentum and energy is, by definition, are alway directly proportional by the speed relative TO the measuring system. You have more than adequately demonstrated your irrationality, waste all the time you want, I shall waste no more on you...
From: PD on 19 Jul 2010 12:40 On Jul 18, 12:49 am, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > 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. Nonsense. It is velocity relative to the center of mass of the fluid. Or put another way, it is velocity such that all three components contribute equally to the thermal kinetic energy. > 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.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: colp on 19 Jul 2010 18:34
On Jul 20, 4:40 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 18, 12:49 am, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > > > > > 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. > > Nonsense. It is velocity relative to the center of mass of the fluid. You are contracting Paul, who said: "Just look at the aspects of kinetic theory which underpins ALL! fluid theory. There is no concept of absolutes there." |