Preferred Frame Theory indistinguishable from SR
in [Relativity]
|
From: colp on 21 Jul 2010 17:45 On Jul 21, 2:37 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 19, 5:34 pm, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > > > > > 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." > > Read what I just said. "Just look at the aspects of kinetic theory which underpins ALL! fluid theory. There is no concept of absolutes there." The center of mass of the fluid is in no way an absolute frame. What is your point?
From: PD on 21 Jul 2010 18:12 On Jul 21, 4:45 pm, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > On Jul 21, 2:37 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 19, 5:34 pm, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > > > > 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." > > > Read what I just said. > > "Just look at the aspects of kinetic theory which underpins ALL! fluid > theory. There is no concept of absolutes there." > > The center of mass of the fluid is in no way an absolute frame. > > What is your point? That there is nothing in kinetic theory that points to or relies on an absolute frame.
From: mpc755 on 21 Jul 2010 18:32 On Jul 20, 10:38 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 19, 11:07 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jul 19, 6:34 pm, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > > > > 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." > > > If everything were truly relative two synchronized clocks would always > > be synchronized when in the same state. > > What? What on earth makes you say that? If everything were truly relative whenever and where ever the two previously synchronized clocks were placed together they would be synchronized. Everything is with respect to the dark matter. Atomic clocks tick based on the dark matter pressure in which they exist. If the twin in the space ship is moving fast enough the pressure exerted by the displaced dark matter towards and throughout the spaceship, including throughout the atomic clock, will cause the atomic clock on the spaceship to tick slower than the clock on the Earth. If on the return journey the twin in the space ship once again moves fast enough through the dark matter as to have greater dark matter pressure exerted on the atomic clock in the spaceship than on the clock on the Earth the twin in the space ship's clock will have ticked slower than the clock which remained on the Earth. If the twin travels away from the Earth at such a great speed as to have their clock tick slower than the clock on the Earth but on the return trip slow down enough that the pressure exerted by the displaced dark matter on the clock on the spaceship is less than the pressure exerted on the clock on the Earth the atomic clock on the spaceship will tick faster than the clock on the Earth. The rate at which the atomic clocks tick is determined by the dark matter pressure in which they exist.
From: PD on 21 Jul 2010 18:49 On Jul 21, 5:32 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 20, 10:38 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 19, 11:07 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jul 19, 6:34 pm, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > > > > > 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." > > > > If everything were truly relative two synchronized clocks would always > > > be synchronized when in the same state. > > > What? What on earth makes you say that? > > If everything were truly relative whenever and where ever the two > previously synchronized clocks were placed together they would be > synchronized. I've already asked you what on earth makes you say that. I didn't ask you to repeat it, as though the statement is its own reason. > > Everything is with respect to the dark matter. Atomic clocks tick > based on the dark matter pressure in which they exist. If the twin in > the space ship is moving fast enough the pressure exerted by the > displaced dark matter towards and throughout the spaceship, including > throughout the atomic clock, will cause the atomic clock on the > spaceship to tick slower than the clock on the Earth. If on the return > journey the twin in the space ship once again moves fast enough > through the dark matter as to have greater dark matter pressure > exerted on the atomic clock in the spaceship than on the clock on the > Earth the twin in the space ship's clock will have ticked slower than > the clock which remained on the Earth. > > If the twin travels away from the Earth at such a great speed as to > have their clock tick slower than the clock on the Earth but on the > return trip slow down enough that the pressure exerted by the > displaced dark matter on the clock on the spaceship is less than the > pressure exerted on the clock on the Earth the atomic clock on the > spaceship will tick faster than the clock on the Earth. > > The rate at which the atomic clocks tick is determined by the dark > matter pressure in which they exist. The motion with respect to the aether has nothing to do with the desynchronization of the clocks. You may want to look at the experimental tests that have been done, which would rule that out completely. Nice babble, though.
From: colp on 21 Jul 2010 19:13
On Jul 22, 10:49 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 21, 5:32 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > If everything were truly relative whenever and where ever the two > > previously synchronized clocks were placed together they would be > > synchronized. > > I've already asked you what on earth makes you say that. I didn't ask > you to repeat it, as though the statement is its own reason. If there is no preferred frame then the behaviour of a pair of clocks in one frame will be exactly the same as the behaviour of a pair of clocks in another frame. This should be self-evident. If you argue that the behaviour will be different, then you are effectively arguing for the existence of a preferred frame. |